Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God's Saving Promises 9780300155624

Table of contents :
Contents
Foreword
Preface
1 Introduction
Part One. Covenant in the Old Testament
2 The Kinship Covenant in the Old Testament
3 The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament
4 The Grant-Type Covenant in the Old Testament
5 The Abrahamic Grant-Type Covenant
6 The Levitical Grant-Type Covenant
7 The Davidic Grant-Type Covenant
Part Two. Covenant in the New Testament
8 Davidic Covenant Fulfillment in Luke–Acts
9 Covenant, Oath, and Divine Sonship in Galatians 3–4
10 Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture
11 Concluding Theological Reflections
Notes
Bibliography
General Index
Index of Modern Authors
Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Texts

Citation preview

kinship by covenant

The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library is a project of international and interfaith scope in which Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish scholars from many countries contribute individual volumes. The project is not sponsored by any ecclesiastical organization and is not intended to reflect any particular theological doctrine. The series is committed to producing volumes in the tradition established half a century ago by the founders of the Anchor Bible, William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman. It aims to present the best contemporary scholarship in a way that is accessible not only to scholars but also to the educated nonspecialist. It is committed to work of sound philological and historical scholarship, supplemented by insight from modern methods, such as sociological and literary criticism. John J. Collins general editor

the anchor yale bible reference library

KINSH I P B Y COVE N A N T A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises

Scott W. Hahn

yale universit y press New Haven & London

Published with assistance from the Mary Cady Tew Memorial Fund. Copyright © 2009 by Scott W. Hahn. All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, including illustrations, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers. Designed by Leslie Phillips. Set in Fairfield type by dix. Printed in the United States of America. Library of Congress Control Number: 2008940687 ISBN 978-0-300-14097-2 (cloth: alk. paper) A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. The paper in this book meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper). It contains 30 percent postconsumer waste (PCW) and is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

1  3  5  7  9  10  8  6  4  2

To Fr. James Swetnam, S.J., friend and scholar

This page intentionally left blank

contents Foreword by David Noel Freedman   xi Preface   xiii

1.  Introduction

1

Covenant Research in Modern Biblical Scholarship   1 Recent Covenant Research: The Status Quaestionis   2 Goal and Methodology   22 The Definition and Typology of Covenant   28 The Plan for This Study   31

Part One. Covenant in the Old Testament 2.  The Kinship Covenant in the Old Testament

37

The Kinship Covenant   37 Three Examples of Secular Kinship Covenants in the Book of Genesis   43 Covenant Ritual at Sinai: Divine Kinship Covenant in Exodus 24   44 Conclusions   48

3.  The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament The Treaty-Type Covenant   49 Covenant and Oath in the Old Testament   50 Familial Terms and Relations   59 Examples of Secular Treaty-Type Covenants   60 The Divine Treaty-Type Covenant of Deuteronomy   62 Distinctive Aspects of the Deuteronomic Covenant   67 Periodic Renewals of the Deuteronomic Covenant   83 Theological Observations and Conclusions  ​90

49

viii  |  Contents

4.  The Grant-Type Covenant in the Old Testament

93

The Noahic Covenant (Gen 6–9)   95 Excursus: Shem in the Genesis Narrative   97 Conclusions   100

5.  The Abrahamic Grant-Type Covenant

101

The Abrahamic Covenant Exhibits Grant-Type Features   101 The Promissory Elements in Genesis 12 and the Covenants in Genesis 15, 17, and 22   103 The Covenant History of Abraham as the Covenant History of Israel   112 The Cumulative Nature of the Divine Covenants   120 The Aqedah and the Divine Oath in Genesis 22   123 Abram, Melchizedek, and Salem in Genesis 14   130 Conclusions   134

6.  The Levitical Grant-Type Covenant

136

Priesthood and Primogeniture in the Book of Genesis   136 Priesthood and Primogeniture in the Book of Exodus   139 Apostasy and Covenant Renewal Following the Golden Calf   142 Leviticus as a Grant-Type Covenant   155 The Literary-Historical Development of the Levitical Covenant   158 Conclusions   172

7.  The Davidic Grant-Type Covenant The Davidic Covenant: A Grant-Type Covenant   176 The Purposes of the Davidic Covenant   179 The Content of the Divine Oath to David   184 The Divine Sonship of the Davidic King   194 The Relationship of the Davidic Covenant to Other Biblical Covenants   196 The Davidic Covenant Constellation   200 The New Exodus and the Restoration of the Davidic Covenant in the Prophets   202 Davidic Covenant Restoration in the Second Temple Literature   206 Conclusions   212

176

Contents   |  ix

Part Two. Covenant in the New Testament 8.  Davidic Covenant Fulfillment in Luke–Acts

217

Davidic Kingdom Restoration in Luke   218 The Institution Narrative (Luke 22:14–30)   221 The Ecclesiological Significance of the Institution Narrative for Acts   230 Davidic Kingdom but Not Covenant?   234 Conclusion   237

9. Covenant, Oath, and Divine Sonship    in Galatians 3–4

238

Preliminaries   239 Galatians 3:6–9: God’s Promissory Oath to Abraham as “The Gospel”   245 Galatians 3:10–14: The Deuteronomic Covenant Curses Borne by Christ   248 Galatians 3:15–18: The Priority of the Abrahamic Covenant Oath   256 Galatians 3:16: The One “Seed” as Christ   263 Galatians 3:19–22: Mosaic Covenant Law Added for Transgressions   264 Galatians 3:23–29: From a Servile Pedagogy to the Spirit of Sonship   267 Galatians 4:1–7: From Servants to Sons in the Fullness of Time   269 Galatians 4:21–31: God Disinherits the Circumcised Seed of Abraham   272 The “Works of the Law” in Light of Galatians 3–4   274 Conclusions   276

10. Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly    Primogeniture Hebrews 1: Jesus, Firstborn Son and Priest-King, Is Superior to Angels   281 Hebrews 2: Jesus Restores Humanity’s Lost Glory and Dominion for Abraham’s Seed   284

278

  |  Contents

Hebrews 3:1–6: Jesus, the Royal Davidic Priest, Is Superior to Moses, Old Covenant Mediator   288 Hebrews 3:7–4:13: Christ Offers the “Rest” Lost by Israel and Humanity   290 Hebrews 4:14–5:10: Christ Our Sympathetic High Priest like Melchizedek   292 Hebrews 5:11–6:20: Exhortation to Persevere, Trusting in God’s Oath to Abraham   294 Hebrews 7: Jesus, a Royal Priestly Firstborn like Melchizedek   300 Hebrews 8–9: Jesus Mediates a Better Covenant than the Levitical Highpriest   305 Hebrews 9:15–22 and the Meaning of Diathēkē   307 Diathēkē as “Covenant” in Hebrews 9:16–17   314 Exegesis of Hebrews 9:15–18   317 Hebrews 9:15 and the Old and New Covenants   319 Summary   321 Conclusions   325 Appendix: Jesus’ Death as Liturgical Sacrifice in Hebrews   327

11. ​Concluding Theological Reflections Notes   339 Bibliography   483 General Index   545 Index of Modern Authors   559 Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Texts   571

332

foreword David Noel Freedman It is my pleasure to introduce the reader to a work that traces Christian ideas about the divine covenants in the Old and New Testaments. Both well written and exhaustive, this impressive work will fascinate readers with New Testament truths about God’s unyielding covenant with his chosen, fallible people. In Kinship by Covenant, Scott Hahn adapts the Dual Covenant Hypothesis: namely, the apparent contradiction between God’s covenant with Abraham and the covenant with Moses on Sinai. The first depends on grace—the divinely sworn commitment that cannot be reversed, that requires nothing from the human party. As such, God’s people could not lose. Centuries later, human works enter into the Mosaic covenant with the commandments. Now, the Israelites could—and would—lose . . . ­ everything. Christians inheriting the covenant face the same dilemma today: how to integrate both grace and works in a walk with God. Surely God’s covenants cannot be revoked or revised, and Paul does present grace, but while laboring as Christ’s bondservant. The prophet Ezekiel brings us the answer. In his vision of the Valley of Dry Bones (ch. 37), the lifeless bodies are a direct contradiction of God’s promise to Abraham. So to honor the everlasting covenant, God’s answer is resurrection for the devastated people. The term “resurrection” was originally political, denoting the hopeful future of a nation that was destroyed and taken into captivity. Of all the nations in the Near East, only the Israelites survived captivity and returned home to the land promised to ­Abraham’s many descendants. The story of divine commitment truly ends “happily ever after” because it cannot be broken, even after the people fail once and their Temple is destroyed as punishment, and after a second failure along with the destrucxi

xii  |  Foreword

tion of their second Temple. Covenant now connotes this never-failing commitment of God against seemingly impossible odds. His justice is not of this world. Instead, hope and newness of life are given to a resurrected people. My own selected writings on covenant comprise the two-volume Divine Commitment and Human Obligation (Eerdmans, 1997), and while I focus on the Hebrew Bible, I have edited dozens of books treating the subject in both the Old and New Testaments. Certainly, Christian scholars and students alike will reap the benefits of Scott Hahn’s exhaustive work, for which I highly commend him.

preface ‘The Child is father to the man.’ How can he be? The words are wild. Suck any sense from that who can: ‘The child is father to the man.’ Gerard Manley Hopkins

Like so many labors in the vineyard of biblical theology, this book—Kinship by Covenant—began as a doctoral dissertation. In 1995, under the direction of Father Earl Muller, s.j., I completed my dissertation—several hundred pages longer and several years later than Father Muller had wished. It was his imminent departure for Rome’s Pontifical Gregorian University that motivated me to finish quickly a job that threatened to stretch over decades. But that dissertation—though large and misshapen—was only the child, and it is perhaps difficult to recognize the “grown-up” it has become. Since 1995 the book has been rewritten twice—not revised, but rewritten. I have incorporated the findings of more recent scholarship, including my own, which appeared initially in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly and Currents in Biblical Research. I thank the editors of those journals for permitting me to use excerpts from my articles in this book: “A Broken Covenant and the Curse of Death: A Study of Hebrews 9:15–22,” CBQ 66 (2004): 416–36; “Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah: Διαθήκη Galatians 3:15–18,” CBQ 67 (2005): 79–100; “Covenant in the Old and New Testaments: Some Current Research (1994–2004),” CBR 3 (2005): 263–92. I also thank E.J. Brill for permission to use excerpts from “Covenant, Cult, and the Curse-of-Death: Διαθήκη in Heb 9:15–22,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods—New Insights (ed. G. Gelardini; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 65–88. Thus, the child is recognizable in the man, but barely. Its heart remains constant: the primacy of grace in God’s providential plan for the redemption of his people. In my dissertation, however, which was nearly 800 pages, I dealt much more with related controversies and positions contrary xiii

xiv  |  Preface

to my own. Because this project is constructive, and because I dreaded the prospect of taxing readers’ patience beyond a thousand pages, I have made extensive cuts, chief among them the defensive sections that are necessary in a dissertation. Those who wish to understand the development of my arguments may still obtain my dissertation in its child form from UMI. I owe a great debt of gratitude to many colleagues, but especially to William Bales of Mount St. Mary Seminary and to John Bergsma of Franciscan University. They have counseled and cajoled, critiqued and disciplined my wayward drafts. Many debts of gratitude remain outstanding from the book’s formative years—and so those debts will remain all the years of my life, for they cannot be repaid. I owe so much of my formation as a scholar to three Jesuit Fathers of Marquette University, Earl Muller, Donald Keefe, and William Kurz. I conceived many of my foundational ideas on the covenant from them, and from my teachers at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, especially Gordon Hugenberger and Meredith Kline. I am grateful to one more Jesuit, Father James Swetnam, for his generous guidance through many years and for inviting me to present a portion of this work in a public lecture at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. Another generous soul is Frank Moore Cross of Harvard University, whose conversation has been invaluable to me—and who generously shared his own work on kinship and covenant, before its publication. Finally, I would like to acknowledge, thank, and pay homage to David Noel Freedman, editor of the Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. It has been a privilege for me to work with such a giant in the field of biblical studies. This book is a thousand times the beneficiary of his erudition, insight, and keen editorial sense. If Kinship by Covenant has managed to grow successfully to maturity from its childhood in 1995, it is not due to its own merits or mine. “The child is father to the man”—well, yes, but we owe our progenitors much for their guidance through many changes. And, of course (to quote Hopkins once again): He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change: Praise him. Scott W. Hahn September 30, 2008 Feast of St. Jerome

kinship by covenant

This page intentionally left blank

1 Introduction

Covenant Research in Modern Biblical Scholarship As in so many areas of Old Testament scholarship, the work of Julius Wellhausen is usually taken as the starting point for modern research on the biblical concept of bĕrît, “covenant.” Wellhausen viewed the idea of covenant as a late Deuteronomic development that reconfigured Israel’s religion along ethical lines, thereby “denaturalizing” the more primitive conception of a natural kinship bond (i.e., father-son) between Yahweh and Israel.1 This fit Wellhausen’s larger view of the development of Israel’s religion and scriptures as essentially one of degeneration from the familial religion of the Hebrews to the legalism of postexilic Judaism. Wellhausen’s biases in this regard have become widely recognized and well documented.2 Wellhausen’s conclusions did not arise so much out of the biblical and ancient Near Eastern data as from his reconstruction of Israel’s religious development. Subsequent researchers, who had no vested interest in defending this reconstruction, frequently saw the covenant institution in quite a different light. Sigmund Mowinckel, for example, anticipated more recent advances in covenant research when he described covenant as a ritual means of establishing relationship.3 Above all, in contrast to ­Wellhausen’s ethical understanding of covenant, Mowinckel emphasized the cultic dimension. Mowinckel was followed by Max Weber, whose treatnote: This work follows the abbreviations set out in Patrick H. Alexander et al., ed., The SBL Handbook of Style (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999).



  |  Introduction

ment of Israel’s tribal confederation emphasized the social dimension of the covenant. “In antiquity every political alliance . . . was normally confirmed by an oath. . . . Israel itself as a political community was conceived as an oathbound confederation. An Israelite, including a member of another tribe, who stood only in the relation of a ger [sojourner] to one spoken to . . . ­addressed him as ‘brother.’ ” 4 George E. Mendenhall’s form-­critical studies comparing the Old Testament covenants, particularly the Sinai covenant (Exod 19–24), with Hittite suzerainty treaties inaugurated a new period of intense research into covenant texts and concepts from the late 1950s through the mid-1970s.5 Understandably, Mendenhall’s ­methodology—comparison of biblical covenant narratives with ancient Near Eastern legal texts—led him to emphasize the juridical aspect of covenants, in contrast to Weber, Mowinckel, and Wellhausen.6 Only a few years later, ­Mendenhall’s studies were followed by the publication of Walther Eichrodt’s covenant-based Theology of the Old Testament in English.7 The combined influence of Mendenhall and Eichrodt initiated a flurry of English-language research challenging Wellhausen’s by-now-traditional view that Israel’s covenant with God was a legalistic concept of the “Deuteronomist.” This, in turn, provoked a reaction from the German academy. Lothar Perlitt and Ernst Kutsch strenuously defended the late, deuteronomic nature of the Hebrew concept of bĕrît (“covenant”) as applied to the relationship between God and Israel. For these scholars, the term bĕrît did not denote a relationship, but a unilateral obligation either imposed or accepted by one party.8 D. J. McCarthy and his student Paul Kalluveettil critically assessed the contributions of both Mendenhall’s followers and the German reaction (Perlitt, Kutsch), avoiding the excesses of both and achieving greater clarity in the definition of “covenant” and its significance for Israel’s history and Old Testament theology.9 E. W. Nicholson, however, resisted this shift away from the position of Wellhausen, rallying some support for Perlitt and Kutsch within British scholarship.10 But even as ­Nicholson’s major work on the subject was being published in the early 1980s, interest in covenant studies had begun to wane, although some excellent work continued to be done.

Recent Covenant Research: The Status Quaestionis It is to that more recent, excellent work that we now turn. Although most covenant scholarship in the past ten to twenty years is not groundbreaking, some significant advances have been made, especially in overcoming

Introduction  |  

certain reductionistic tendencies of older research (e.g., Nicholson, Perlitt, Kutsch), in acquiring greater precision in the definition and taxonomy of covenant, and in grasping the canonical function of the covenant concept in Scripture. Several of these recent publications provide crucial foundations on which the present study is built. The following review is divided into three parts: 1. general studies of major significance to the field of covenant research; 2. studies on particular divine covenants (e.g., the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic); 3. studies of covenant themes in particular texts (e.g., covenant in ­Sirach). General Studies The significance of Frank Moore Cross’s essay “Kinship and Covenant in Ancient Israel” (1998) to contemporary covenant scholarship is out of proportion to the study’s modest length.11 Cross grounds the concept and institution of bĕrît in the kinship-based social organization of West Semitic tribal groups, in which the bĕrît functioned as a legal means to integrate foreign individuals or groups within the familial structure of society.12 W. Robertson Smith, Mowinckel, Pedersen, Weber, and others had made this observation long before, but, as Cross points out, their work has been neglected. Cross goes on to remark, “often it has been asserted that the language of ‘brotherhood’ and ‘fatherhood,’ ‘love,’ and ‘loyalty’ is ‘covenant terminology,’ ” but this is “to turn things upside down. The language of covenant, kinship-in-law, is taken from the language of kinship, kinship-inflesh.” 13 The relationship of covenant to kinship seems almost self-evident once Cross has stated it, and the implications are profound.14 It provides a paradigm for the integration of legitimate insights on the nature of covenant in earlier scholarship which tended to focus on a single aspect of the covenant institution: the legal/ethical (Wellhausen), cultic (Mowinckel), or juridical (Mendenhall). The covenant bears all these aspects because it is an extension of familial relationship, and the extended family, the bêt ʾāb, was the central framework for the legal, religious, and political activities of ancient Semitic society.15 (This is discussed at greater length in the treatment of kinship-type covenant in Chapter 2.) Contrary to Wellhausen, Cross insists that the covenant institution finds its original Sitz-im-Leben in the natural, kinship-based organization of the

  |  Introduction

Semitic tribes; in fact, at times it sat uncomfortably with, if not in outright opposition to, the development of the monarchical nation-state and its proponents, the “Deuteronomists.” Thus, the literary-historical construct of Wellhausen and his modern defenders—at least with respect to ­covenant—is, according to Cross, a “gross distortion” of Israelite religious history.16 In this respect, Cross argues similarly to the Egyptologist Kenneth A. Kitchen.17 Kitchen, however, is even more direct, presenting an impressive form-critical argument for an early date of Israel’s covenant traditions, based on the close structural similarities between Old Testament covenant texts and late second-millennium bce Hittite treaty documents. The last decade has also seen an important study on covenant by Cross’s dissertation partner and longtime collaborator, David Noel Freedman.18 Freedman, together with David Miano, undertakes updating Freedman’s seminal essay “Divine Commitment and Human Obligation” (1964).19 Freedman had pointed to the fact that ancient Near Eastern covenants between unequal parties, that is, a suzerain and vassal, could take one of two forms: the suzerain could impose obligations on the vassal, or take them on himself for the vassal’s benefit. Applied to the biblical covenants between God and human beings, Freedman described the two types as covenants of “human obligation” and “divine commitment” respectively. In his 2003 essay, Freedman seeks to renew and reinvigorate his twofold covenant typology, especially in view of attacks on it in the past forty years, in particular by Gary Knoppers.20 Knoppers disputed Moshe Weinfeld’s treatment of the Davidic covenant as a “covenant of grant,” in light of the similarities between the covenant’s terms (2 Sam 7) and those of ancient Near Eastern “royal grants,” in which a suzerain granted a faithful vassal benefices in perpetuity as a reward for loyal service. Knoppers points out various difficulties with Weinfeld’s argument: for example, the various biblical texts seem to differ as to whether the Davidic covenant is conditional or unconditional; furthermore, there is no real common pattern or structure for “grants” in the ancient Near Eastern sources. (Knoppers might have noted, however, that such grants do have at least one significant element in common: the suzerain’s oath, which serves as a guarantee of the reward for loyalty.) Nonetheless, Freedman points out that the issues Knoppers raises only impinge on Weinfeld’s use of the term “grant covenant” to refer to this institution, and his identification of the Davidic covenant as the “grant” type. In contrast, Freedman’s basic twofold covenant typology of “human obligation” and “divine commitment” (“vassal treaty” and “royal grant” in Weinfeld’s terminology) remains valid despite Knoppers’ arguments.

Introduction  |  

Having defended the original twofold covenant typology, Freedman and Miano engage in an analysis of three particular biblical covenants: the Davidic, the Sinaitic, and the “New” covenant of Jeremiah. Their treatment of the Davidic covenant is perhaps the most unexpected and intriguing. Reversing the standard position established by Weinfeld,21 Freedman and Miano argue that the Davidic covenant was, in fact, a conditional covenant of human obligation (a “vassal treaty”), at least as it was understood in later biblical literature.22 This present study concurs with Freedman and Miano that Freedman’s original twofold covenant typology is immune from Knoppers’ criticisms of Weinfeld. However, their treatment of the Davidic covenant as a “covenant of obligation” will not be followed here. While many of Freedman and Miano’s insights into Davidic covenant texts are quite valuable—for example, their interpretation of the Davidic covenant as the referent of Zechariah’s “covenant with the nations” (Zech 11:4–17)—the analogy between the Davidic covenant and the vassal treaties is difficult to see. The obligations and attendant curses placed on the inferior party of an ancient Near Eastern vassal treaty were numerous and specific, whereas the blessings were often brief and vague, or even omitted altogether, as in the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon. By contrast, the Davidic covenant texts (2 Sam 7; Pss 2, 72, 89, 132) are predominantly occupied with describing the blessings that YHWH had undertaken to bestow on David and his house in view of David’s fealty. (This is discussed at length in Chapter 7.) Although Cross notes that marriage in the ancient Near East was a form of covenant,23 neither Cross nor Freedman devote much study to the relationship of marriage and covenant in Old Testament texts. This topic is pursued definitively by Gordon Paul Hugenberger in his monograph, Marriage as Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi.24 While the title may suggest a narrow study of Malachi 2:14, what Hugenberger has, in fact, written is a major contribution to the analysis, definition, and taxonomy of “covenant” as a term and as an institution in all of biblical literature. Hugenberger systematically demonstrates that marriage is understood as a covenant not only in his subject passage (Mal 2:14) but consistently throughout the Bible. Although the marriage ceremony appears to lack the oath that usually establishes a covenant, Hugenberger shows that an explicit self-maledictory verbal oath could, at times, be replaced by nonimprecatory speech-acts and nonverbal rituals (“oath-signs”) during the covenant ratification ceremony.25 In the marriage ceremony, solemn declarations (verba solemnia) and sexual union (an “oath-sign”) sufficed for this purpose.

  |  Introduction

All students and scholars of Biblical covenant should consult ­ ugenberger’s sixth chapter, “ ‘Covenant’ [‫ ]ברית‬and ‘Oath’ Defined.” 26 AfH ter painstaking and methodologically self-conscious argumentation, Hugenberger defines bĕrît as “an elected, as opposed to natural, relationship of obligation established under divine sanction.” 27 In this definition Hugenberger avoids the extremes of those who would either reduce “covenant” to mere “relationship,” or, on the other hand, to mere “obligation.” It is of particular significance for the present study that Hugenberger, building on the work of P. J. Naylor,28 demonstrates incontrovertibly the close conceptual and semantic relationship between “oath” (ʾālâ or šĕbûʿâ) and “covenant” (bĕrît). In general, an oath ratified a covenant relationship, although, as mentioned, ritually-enacted oath-signs, or verba solemnia, could also perform this function. Hugeneberger’s research in this regard serves as an important resource for the discussion in Chapter 3 of the role of the oath in covenant ratification. In a very different sort of study from Hugenberger’s, Rolf Rendtorff (1998) nonetheless joins with Hugenberger in recognizing the essentially relational character of biblical covenants. Rendtorff’s monograph, Die Bundesformel, takes an extensive look at the so-called “covenant formula”—the recurring biblical declaration: “I will be your God and you will be my people.” 29 Rendtorff’s title is a reference to Rudolf Smend’s seminal article, “Die Bundesformel” (1963)30 (not to Klaus Baltzer’s better-known monograph, Das Bundesformular [1964]) 31 although, in method and results, Rendtorff parts company with Smend. Rendtorff executes a canonical reading of the texts that use one of the three forms of the covenant formula: (a) “I will be your God” alone, (b) “You will be my people” alone, or (c) the combined statement. By examining this statement and exploring its relationship to the idea of “covenant” (bĕrît) and the concept of “election” (Heb., bāḥar, “to choose”), Rendtorff demonstrates the richness of biblical covenant thought: its presence extends far beyond the confines of those passages that explicitly use the term bĕrît. While, as John Barton (2003) points out,32 Rendtorff’s “canonical” approach to covenant is theoretically possible even if one accepts the historical views of Perlitt and Kutsch on the lateness of covenant terminology in Israel’s development, Rendtorff does take issue with those who try to exclude from bĕrît all connotations of mutuality and relationship (e.g., Wellhausen, Kutsch, Perlitt).33 Rendtorff’s “canonical” approach, not only in this monograph but in his early work,34 serves as a methodological model for this present study. However, Rendtorff himself does not always seem consistent in his application of the canonical method. For example, when analyzing biblical covenant

Introduction  |  

texts, he groups them according to historical-critical constructs (e.g., the Priestly Pentateuch) rather than by canonical categories (e.g., the Torah). Furthermore, it seems remarkable, in light of Rendtorff’s generally holistic approach, that he nowhere discusses the significance for biblical covenant theology of the first Abrahamic covenant (Gen 15), the covenant with Noah (Gen 9), or the covenant with David (2 Sam 7; Ps 89). This is largely due to his exclusive focus on texts where the so-called “covenant formula” occurs. Yet his conclusions about covenant in Scripture are sweeping: there is but “one, continually ‘new’ covenant” in the whole Hebrew Bible.35 This present study surveys a broader selection of biblical covenant materials to arrive at more nuanced conclusions. In contrast to Rendtorff, Menahem Haran (1997) self-consciously employs a traditional diachronic reading strategy. Nonetheless, his essay on the cultic context of covenants breaks new ground in a different direction.36 Haran stresses, like Cross and Hugenberger, the relational aspect of covenant, inasmuch as it “always includes two parties” and “in general each of the two sides makes a commitment to the other.” 37 But his substantive contribution is in explicating the ritual or ceremonial aspect of ­covenantmaking. Whereas most previous scholarship has, understandably, been focused on the written form of covenant texts, Haran emphasizes that the text by itself did not and could not establish the covenant relationship. A ceremony had to take place, consisting of at least three elements: (1) a spoken declaration, by the sovereign or his representative, of the terms of the covenant; (2) an expression of consent, tantamount to an oath, by the vassal party or parties; and (3) the presentation of “a witness that will serve to remind the two parties . . . of their commitment, and the witness has to relate to God.” 38 With respect to this last aspect of the covenant ceremony, Haran makes the salutary observation that there are, in one sense, no truly secular covenants, because “sanctity . . . must have been ascribed to any covenant, even when both of the partners were human beings. If there was no divine presence in so-called ‘secular’ covenants, it is incomprehensible what would compel the parties to obey the terms of the agreement.” 39 This is an important insight with implications for the meaning of “covenant” in many parts of the canon, including, as we will see, in Paul and Hebrews. While Haran himself prefers to speak of ritual and ceremony rather than liturgy, he does demonstrate that covenants were generally made in the presence of divinity at a cultic site, following a ritualized pattern, with explicit appeals to the divinity as witness: thus, they were liturgical acts. Toward the end of this present study we will have opportunity to observe how, for the ancient author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, it was this liturgical as-

  |  Introduction

pect of the covenant relationship that functioned most prominently within his theological worldview. No one has demonstrated this more masterfully than John Dunnill in his monograph, Covenant and Sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews (1992).40 Dunnill argues that in Hebrews, cultic categories carry the theological argument of the book, which is, in fact, a “liturgy for the Day of Salvation.” 41 “Covenant” is such a central concept to the book because covenant structures the cult.42 The work of both Haran and Dunnill demonstrates the inappropriateness of designating bĕrît as a contract. While a covenant certainly has an important legal aspect,43 the English term “contract” conveys only the legal aspect to the exclusion of its social, familial, liturgical, and other dimensions. No review of recent covenant research could be complete without reference to P. R. Williamson’s succinct and valuable monograph, Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose (2007).44 Williamson performs a canonical analysis of the covenant theme in Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. He begins with the creation accounts, discussing their relationship to subsequent divine covenants in salvation history, although denying that there is sufficient exegetical evidence to posit a “creation” or “Adamic” covenant per se. He then traces salvation history through the Noahic, patriarchal (i.e., Abrahamic), national (i.e., Mosaic or Sinaitic), Davidic covenants, the New Covenant anticipated by the prophets, and finally the New Covenant inaugurated by Christ. Williamson’s entire monograph is of relevance to the present study, but it is possible here to sketch only a little of his general approach and some of his more unusual or noteworthy positions. While not denying the relevance of kinship concepts to covenant, Williamson de-emphasizes them, defining covenant more generically as “the solemn ratification of an existing elective relationship involving promises or obligations that are sealed with an oath.” 45 One can recognize in this definition the influence of Hugenberger, with whose work Williamson is quite familiar. Williamson’s denial of a creation, or Adamic, covenant is pointed—to acknowledge one would pose, for Williamson, the danger of subordinating “creation” to “covenant.” Nonetheless, he recognizes strong ties between the creation accounts and subsequent biblical covenant texts (e.g., the Noahic covenant and the “national” covenant at Sinai). A particular value of Williamson’s work is his careful distinguishing of covenants conflated in other scholarship: the covenants of Genesis 15 and 17; the covenants of Sinai and the Plains of Moab (of Deuteronomy). These distinctions facilitate his reading of the discussions of covenant in the New

Introduction  |  

Testament—particularly in Paul’s letters and in Hebrews—where he adopts positions similar to those advanced here. The common element of all these general studies is their move beyond reductionistic categories to explore the richness of the covenant concept reflected in the biblical text. Cross, Hugenberger, and Sohn, each in his own way, have shown the significance of covenant as sacred (fictive) kinship, with legal, social, and liturgical dimensions. Haran focusses attention on the little-noticed ritual/ceremonial aspects of covenant. Rendtorff’s canonical analysis shows that the concept of covenant is frequently operative where the term is absent, and covenant phraseology occurs at key points in the canonical text. His interests finally tend to be explicitly theological, as do those of Cross and Miano, who, after defending their twofold covenant typology, admit that the final hope of the Hebrew prophets was for a form of covenant relationship with God which transcended human typologies and could not be realized in this present historical-temporal framework (i.e., the New Covenant, Jer 31:31). Studies on Particular Covenants

the noahic covenant Although the first explicit scriptural covenant is with Noah (Gen 9), the Noahic covenant has seldom received much scholarly attention.46 Katherine J. Dell (2003) seeks to address this lacuna in a recent essay.47 Dell begins with the Noahic covenant itself, observes that the relevant passages (Gen 6–9) are redolent with creation imagery, notes that other biblical texts combine creation and covenant themes (e.g., Hos 2:18; Isa 11:6–9; 24:3–5; 33:8–9; Jer 5:22–5; 14:20–22; 33:20–22; Ezek 34:25–30; 37:26), and finally asks whether this may not indicate that, at some point in Israel’s religious development, creation itself came to be understood as a covenant act. From the Noahic covenant, then, Dell backs into the question of the existence of an Adamic, or creation, covenant—a question that has occupied Christian theologians over the centuries and was usually answered in the affirmative. A biblical case for a creation covenant could be assembled from Dell’s insights combined with the work of Jacob Milgrom (2004), who points out that the hipʿil of qûm, that is, hēqîm, does not mean “establish” so much as “uphold,” “maintain,” “confirm.” 48 Since hēqîm is used with respect to the bĕrît between God and Noah in Genesis 9, it suggests that God is not establishing a new covenant with Noah but confirming or renewing with him one that is already in existence. When one asks when this covenant was inaugurated,

10  |  Introduction

the extensive reuse of language from Genesis 1 in the context of Genesis 9 invites us to look back to the creation narative for the answer. In any event, Dell’s work informs the discussion of the Noahic covenant in Chapter 4.

the abrahamic covenant Unlike the Noahic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant has always been a focus of scholarly attention. Perhaps the most important recent contribution is Paul R. Williamson’s monograph, Abraham, Israel and the Nations (2000).49 Williamson, a synchronic and narrative analyst, recognizes that at least two covenants between God and Abraham are recorded in Scripture: Genesis 15 and 17. Williamson demonstrates that the treatment of “the” Abrahamic covenant is one of the rare instances in which diachronic analysts are more guilty of conflation and harmonization than their sychronic counterparts. Specifically, since most source-critical exegetes believe Israel only remembered one Abrahamic covenant preserved in two versions (Gen 15 [JE] and Gen 17 [P]), the two accounts are often theologically conflated and harmonized, usually to the detriment of an accurate reading of Genesis 17.50 On the contrary, Williamson argues that the Genesis narrative presents these two incidents as referring to two distinct covenants with Abraham. Each takes up an aspect of the promises given in Genesis 12:1–3: Genesis 15 relates to the promise of nationhood, Genesis 17 to the promise of a “great name” and international blessing to all peoples. Following T. D. Alexander (1997), Williamson sees in Genesis 17 a conditional covenant promised, but not ratified until after the binding of Isaac.51 There on the mountain, after the testing of Abraham’s commitment to “walk blamelessly before me” (Gen 17:1), God gives Abraham a self-sworn oath to fulfill his promises to him, particularly the promise of blessing to all the nations (Gen 22:16–18). While not all will be convinced by his treatment of Genesis 17 vis-à-vis Genesis 22, Williamson has performed a service by highlighting and questioning the commonly-held assumption that the differences between Genesis 15 and 17 are without significance from the perspective of the final redaction of the text, and by pointing out the climactic nature of Genesis 22:16–18 in the canonical narrative. The present study builds on Williamson’s insights to flesh out a fuller picture of the relationship among the covenants of Genesis 15, 17, and 22 with each other and with the divine promise of Genesis 12 (see Chapter 5). Williamson’s work stands in contrast to an analysis of the covenant theme in the Pentateuch by Graham Davies (2003).52 Davies devotes most of the

Introduction  |  11

first half of his essay to the question why, in the course of the Pentateuch, there is a transition from language about “covenant” to language about the “oath to the fathers.” Davies reviews several different explanations and arrives at mixed conclusions. Williamson’s analysis of the Abraham cycle, which points to the climactic nature of the oath to Abraham in Genesis 22:15–18 (the only divine oath to any patriarch) as the confirmation of all previous Abrahamic covenant promises (i.e., Gen 12:1–3; 15:1–21; 17:1–22) may have provided Davies with the solution to his investigation. The rest of Davies’ essay analyzes covenant in the Holiness Code, specifically Leviticus 26. Davies’ work is similar in method and conclusions to a more detailed study by Jacob Milgrom (2004), who undertakes analysis of both the Abrahamic (better: “Patriarchal”) and Sinaitic covenants from the perspective of the Holiness Code.53 Milgrom believes the Holiness school was aware of the covenant traditions of J, E, and P, and Leviticus 26 presupposes knowledge of each of them. All the occurrences of bĕrît in Leviticus 26 (the conclusion of the Holiness Code) refer to the Sinaitic covenant, with the exception of v. 42. In Milgrom’s view, the Holiness school understood both the patriarchal and the Sinaitic covenants as conditional—in our terminology, treaty- rather than grant-type covenants. But Milgrom’s ultimate concern is not with covenant theology but with dating literary strata, especially the Holiness Code. He wishes to prove that the bulk of Leviticus 26, contrary to consensus, did not arise in the postexilic period when the supposed “unconditional” covenant with the patriarchs was understood to be the basis for the return from the Exile. In his view, the Holiness School viewed the covenant with the patriarchs and the Sinai covenant as essentially the same, both requiring Israel’s obedience. Milgrom’s analysis is full of brilliant exegetical insights on particular passages (e.g., his treatment of hēqîm mentioned above), yet the broader usefulness of his contribution is hampered by the ubiquity of his meticulous, but idiosyncratic, source criticism and his narrow focus on “H”—a school and tradition whose very existence is denied by some (notably Rendtorff). Surprisingly, his discussion of the “Abrahamic” covenant takes almost no notice of Genesis 12:1–3, 15:12–21, or 22:15–18, all of which are more or less unconditional in their formulation, despite the fact that he believes the Holiness redactor was well aware of these traditions. Nonetheless, ­Milgrom’s work mounts a plausible and well-argued challenge to traditional assumptions concerning the source-critical analysis of the Priestly and Holiness materials related to covenant.

12  |  Introduction

the sinai covenant In the same Weinfeld festschrift as Milgrom’s essay, Frank H. Polak (2004) uses newly-found covenant texts from Mari to shed light on the account of the Sinai covenant (Exod 19–24).54 The logic of the Sinai covenant-making narrative has long puzzled scholars. Polak argues that the text follows a coherent pattern typical of ancient Near Eastern covenant ratifications: 1. Terms given by the superior covenant partner are announced, often by a mediator; 2. The consent of the other party is expressed; and 3. A bilocal ratification ensues, first in one party’s territory, then in the other’s. This would correspond to the twofold covenant ratification at Sinai, first in the human sphere (Exod 24:4–8) and then in the divine (24:9–11) (see further in Chapter 2). Like Haran, Polak’s work stresses the fact that, although biblical scholarship tends to focus excessively on covenant texts, covenants were not established by texts but by cultic rituals. Furthermore, we must take care to distinguish the actual covenant texts—which usually relate the stipulations, blessings, and curses—from accounts of covenant-making. Both genres are found in biblical literature, but they follow different stereotyped patterns.

the davidic covenant The Davidic covenant has received an unusual amount of attention in recent covenant scholarship because of the debate between Knoppers and Weinfeld over whether the covenant is conditional or unconditional.55 Griphus Gakuru (2000) has devoted an entire monograph to the subject, a revision of his dissertation under Graham Davies.56 Gakuru’s conclusion is complex: to summarize briefly, the “Davidic covenant” is not a historical event per se but a cluster of interpretations of a “dynastic oracle of salvation” that lies behind 2 Samuel 7 and can be traced to the time of David. David himself may have interpreted the oracle as a covenant; in any event, contra the Wellhausen school, its interpretation as a covenant is pre-­Deuteronomic.57 In response to the changing fortunes of Israel and the House of David through history, the Davidic covenant was variously interpreted as conditional or unconditional, and this historical vacillation is reflected in the biblical texts, sometimes in the same biblical text (e.g., Ps 89).

Introduction  |  13

Although the Chronicler did not seem to anticipate a restoration of the Davidic monarchy, the prophets (for the most part) did, although they differed as to the form it would take. For example, Deutero-Isaiah imagined the democratization of the Davidic covenant and promises. Addressing the entire people of Israel, the prophet announces on behalf of God, “Incline your ear, and come to me; hear, that your soul may live; and I will make with you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast, sure love for David” (Isa 55:3). While Gakuru examines Davidic covenant texts themselves, R. E. Clements (2003) seeks to demonstrate the pervasiveness of the Davidic covenant in the Book of Isaiah, in all its historical stages of development.58 Clements shows that Isaiah of Jerusalem based his oracles to Ahaz and Hezekiah on the assumption of a divine commitment to the endurance of the House of David. Later, Isaiah’s successors expressed the hope generated by the accession of Hezekiah or Josiah in exuberant royal hymns (Isa 9). After the fall of Josiah and the Exile, hope in the Davidic covenant did not wane, even though the following texts are often cited as evidence that it did: Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and ungird the loins of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed: “I will go before you and level the mountains, I will break in pieces the doors of bronze and cut asunder the bars of iron, I will give you the treasures of darkness and the hoards in secret places, that you may know that it is I, the Lord, the God of Israel, who call you by your name. For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I call you by your name, I surname you, though you do not know me. (Isa 45:1–4)

Ho, every one who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy? Hearken diligently to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in fatness. Incline your ear, and come to me; hear, that your soul may live; and I will make with you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast, sure love for David. (Isa 55:1–3) Clements believes texts such as these are not abandonments of Davidic covenant ideology. In Isaiah 45, for example, Cyrus’ role is not to assume

14  |  Introduction

for himself the promises given to David, but rather to fulfill the Davidic covenant promises that the kings of earth would serve David and Israel. Furthermore, in Isaiah 55:3, the promises of the Davidic covenant are not being “democratized.” Scholars fail to notice that the people always were a party to the Davidic covenant, inasmuch as the king embodied the people and his fortunes were necessarily tied to their own. Themes from royal Davidic ideology pervade Deutero-Isaiah, and in Trito-Isaiah the “homage of many nations to the king who reigns in Jerusalem . . . returns to occupy a central place.” 59 Thus “all through the Book of Isaiah the belief in a unique relationship between the house of David and Israel provides a continuing basis of reference.” 60 Clements’ conclusions are remarkably similar to those of Daniel I. Block (2003), who approaches the prophetic literature from the perspective of Israelite messianism.61 Block argues that the “servant” of Isaiah’s “servant songs,” even the “suffering servant” of Isaiah 53, is a royal figure and specifically a Davidide. While Block is investigating Davidic messianism rather than the Davidic covenant per se, the significance of his study for research on the Davidic covenant in Isaiah is obvious. Although in the present study I will not have the opportunity to investigate the text of Isaiah in dialogue with Clements and Block, I find their arguments persuasive. The covenantal reading of salvation history that underlies the thought of Galatians and Hebrews becomes more plausible when Paul and the author of Hebrews are seen in continuity with Isaiah and the other prophets regarding their concern for the eschatological fulfillment of the covenants with Israel, especially the Abrahamic and Davidic. Covenant in Particular Biblical and Parabiblical Texts

covenant in the prophets Like Clements and Block, Norbert Lohfink (2000) undertakes a study of the covenant in Isaiah, but without any specific focus on the Davidic covenant.62 Lohfink does see a transferal of the Davidic covenant to Israel in Isaiah 55:3 (i.e., “democratization”), whereby Israel assumes a royal role over the nations, even as David ruled over Gentile peoples. Lohfink also notices the continuing presence of the theme of the pilgrimage of the nations to Zion throughout the Isaianic materials. This pilgrimage is associated with a Zion-torah for the nations which is not simply identical with or reducible to the Sinai-torah of Moses. Both pilgrimage and torah are also associated in some way with the renewal of Israel’s covenant. It remains

Introduction  |  15

unclear for Lohfink, however, what exactly the torah of the nations is, and how the nations participate in Israel’s covenant. It seems that Lohfink’s work could be combined profitably with Clement’s observations on the pervasive influence of Davidic covenant thought in Isaiah and Freedman/­ Miano’s insights on the nature of the Davidic covenant. The Davidic covenant had implications primarily for Israel but secondarily for “the nations” as well, whose kings were to be vassals of the Davidic king (Pss 2, 72, 89).63 As we will see in Chapter 7, it is remarkable that in 2 Samuel 7:19 David refers to his covenant as “this torah for humanity” (zōʾt tôrat hāʾādām; cf. LXX).64 The Davidic covenant, centered at Zion, the City of David, may provide the background Lohfink seeks for the international aspect of torah and covenant in Isaiah.

covenant in the deuterocanonicals In scholarship on the deuterocanonical books, one study of covenant in Sirach is noteworthy. Otto Kaiser (2003) shows that Sirach (chs. 44–45) engages in an early form of covenant theology when reviewing salvation history in Israel’s Scriptures.65 Moreover, in other parts of his book Ben Sirah ties his covenant themes to those of creation and wisdom. Thus, a theological reading of scriptural narrative according to covenant categories (e.g., Walther Eichrodt) has Second Temple Jewish precedent; indeed, for Catholic and Orthodox scholars, canonical precedent. The covenant structure of biblical history was already clearly seen in Judaism prior to the dawn of the Christian era; I argue in Chapters 9 and 10 that Paul and the author of Hebrews saw it, even if it is only implicit in their texts. In many ways this present study stands in the tradition of the canonical, covenantal reading of Israel’s Scripture to which Ben Sirah gives witness.

noncanonical second temple and qumran literature Although the primary sources for the present study are the biblical covenant texts, the Second Temple and Qumran literature is invaluable as a resource for reconstructing the theological worldview of Paul, the author of Hebrews, and their readership. Two recent studies of covenant themes in Second Temple literature are of particular importance to the issues of the present study.66 In Rewriting the Bible (1994), Betsy Halpern-Amaru examines the related themes of covenant and land in four Second Temple works: Jubilees, Testament of Moses, Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities, and Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities. Her general conclusion is that all four documents, in different ways, “reconstruct the [biblical] narrative such that the Land no

16  |  Introduction

longer functions as the key signature of covenantal history.” 67 Her most significant individual study is on Testament of Moses. Halpern-Amaru identifies the phrase “covenant and oath”—recurring five times in the book—as its key theological motif. The “covenant and oath” is to be identified with the oath to Abraham subsequent to the Aqedah (Gen 22:15–18). HalpernAmaru also argues that the heroic obedience of Abraham and Isaac at the Aqedah was understood to serve as a source of merit or grace for subsequent generations of Israelites. Jacqueline de Roo (2003) finds this same perspective on the Aqedah present in other Second Temple writings.68 In general, the patriarchs “played an important role in [Second Temple] Jewish soteriology” because “God graciously allowed the good deeds of some [e.g., the patriarchs] to be salvific for others due to their membership in the same covenant.” 69 The concept of the merit of the patriarchs, and particularly the role of the Aqedah in Testament of Moses, sheds light on the treatment of similar themes in the New Testament, for example, the Aqedah background of John 3:16, Romans 8:32, and Galatians 3:8–14.70 The work of Halpern-Amaru and de Roo provides important support from Second Temple literature for two key points argued below: (1) the close or even inextricable relationship of “oath” and “covenant,” and (2) the pervasive soteriological significance of the Aqedah not only in the canonical narrative but even more so in Second Temple Judaism. Both points are crucial, it will be shown, for grasping the arguments of Galatians 3–4 and Hebrews 1–9. The concept of covenant was central to the theology and self-identity of the Qumran community. In surveys of the uses of covenant in the various literary genres present in the Qumran library, Bilhah Nitzan (2001) and Craig Evans (2003) reach similar conclusions: the New Covenant of the Qumran community was in essence the same covenant established with Israel at Sinai.71 The Qumran covenanters saw themselves as an elect within the elect, who alone followed the one covenant properly. Salvation was only to be found within their ranks—the rest of Israel was lost. The similarities with the self-understanding of the early Church, particularly the writings of Paul, are evident. Nitzan in particular points out that the tension between free will and predestination is evident in the covenant theology of the sectarian scrolls, as it is in Paul. Among the many other studies on Qumran and covenant,72 M. O. Wise (2003) has put forward perhaps the most provocative thesis.73 Wise argues that the shadowy founder of the community, the “Teacher of Righteousness,” was the author of the so-called “Teacher Hymns” of the Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns). When these hymns are read as the compositions of

Introduction  |  17

the Teacher of Righteousness, striking parallels appear to the self-understanding of Jesus as presented in the Gospels: both the Teacher of Righteousness and Jesus understood themselves to be: 1. commissioned by God to establish the New Covenant, 2. the messianic subject of texts such as Zechariah 11:4–17 and Psalm 41:9, and 3. a source of dissension and apostasy among their own followers. While speculative, Wise’s hypotheses are worth consideration by New Testament scholars and Qumran specialists alike.

covenant in the gospels There has been little research on the relationship of covenant categories to the historical Jesus and the Gospels. This dearth of scholarship is an indication that Gospel research, especially on the historical Jesus, has remained largely insulated from—on the one hand—covenant research in the Old Testament, such as that surveyed above, and—on the other hand— the sudden growth in covenant research in Pauline studies instigated by E. P. Sanders’ work on “covenantal nomism.” The few recent works related to Jesus and covenant give evidence that currents in Pauline studies are beginning to be felt in Jesus research. In a monograph clearly influenced by E. P. Sanders, Tom Holmén (2001) investigates whether the historical Jesus engaged in what Holmén calls “path searching,” defined as “the way or means of contemplating, discussing and expounding individual issues and topics, the various practices and beliefs of the Jewish faith, in order to determine how to keep faithful to them and, together with that, faithful to the covenant itself.” 74 After a systematic review of various “path markers” (for example, Sabbath observance, purity laws) used by first-century Jews to indicate covenant fidelity, Holmén concludes that Jesus did not engage in “path searching” and therefore did not give evidence of a concern for fidelity to the (Mosaic) covenant in a form recognizable to his contemporaries. N. T. Wright is one of the few scholars who works both in Pauline and historical Jesus research. His work, too, shows the influence of the new awareness of covenantal consciousness in first-century Judaism. Thus, in The New Testament and the People of God (1992), his programmatic introduction to a five-volume study of Christian origins, Wright stresses that the “story” of first-century Judaism was a covenantal story: in the past, God established a covenant with his people Israel; in the present, Israel is in

18  |  Introduction

“exile” because she has broken the covenant with her God; in the future, there will be an end to this exile, when the Messiah comes to fulfill and renew the covenant.75 It is this “story,” Wright asserts, in which the New Testament, including the ministry of Jesus, must be understood.76 Wright’s paradigm offers a special insight into the relationship between Jesus and the covenantal categories of Israel’s history, where as yet the promise remains unfulfilled. In a subsequent volume, Jesus and the Victory of God (1996), covenant categories recede into the background, despite occasional, undeveloped statements such as: “For Jesus, I suggest, the context of behaviour [i.e., ethics] was the renewal of the covenant.” 77 The ­covenant-shaped ministry of Jesus seems to fade with Wright’s concentrated engagement with contemporary movements in historical (“third quest”) Jesus scholarship. In Wright’s work, the significance of covenant to Jesus’ ministry and the Gospels has yet to be developed. In that of Scot McKnight, it is denied. In a larger work arguing that the historical Jesus saw his death as an atoning sacrifice to save his followers from the judgment of God, ­McKnight (2005) supplies one of the most explicit treatments of Jesus and covenant aside from Holmén.78 McKnight argues that for Jesus, “kingdom” and “covenant” were alternative categories.79 Jesus chose to characterize himself and his mission as “kingdom” and not as “covenant,” because the concept of “covenant” was associated too much with the Moses, Sinai, and torah­observant movements.80 Defending his position, McKnight points out that Jesus never connects the concepts of “kingdom” and “covenant” in his own teaching.81 In the instance in which he does, namely the last supper discourse, the references to covenant (i.e., “This is my blood of the covenant,” Mark 14:24) were, according to McKnight, not spoken by the historical Jesus, but attributed to him by the early church.82 McKnight does acknowledge, however, that “the connection of kingdom and covenant is palpably Jewish and belongs to the sort of movement Jesus inaugurates.” 83 Moreover, the association of Jesus’ ministry and kingdom—and specifically the last ­supper—with covenant renewal was quite early (pre-Pauline) in the Christian movement.84 So, for McKnight, it was Jesus alone among his contemporaries, both Jews and early Christians, who neither (1) connected kingdom with covenant nor (2) associated his ministry with covenant renewal or fulfillment. An alternative reading of Jesus’ intentional use of “kingdom” and “covenant,” particularly in Luke, is advanced in Chapter 8 of the present study, with special attention given to the Lukan use of Davidic kingdom/covenant typology.

Introduction  |  19

covenant in paul As mentioned above, Pauline scholarship is the one branch of New Testament studies in which covenant concepts have been prominent, owing to the considerable debate concerning E. P. Sanders’ notion of “covenantal nomism.” 85 However, the “covenantal nomism” literature is too vast to treat here and, surprisingly, less relevant to the concerns of the present study than it might seem initially. The present study is concerned with what diathēkē, “covenant,” means for Paul, and on that question there have been only a few contributions. Two of note are those by Stanley Porter (2003) and James Dunn (2003).86 Both take up the question of whether Paul had a covenant theology. However, the two adopt opposing methodologies and thus come to quite different conclusions. Like McKnight did in the Gospels, Dunn examines only the uses of the word diathēkē in the Pauline corpus and concludes that “Paul’s use of the term ‘covenant’ is surprisingly casual,” 87 and Paul’s limited covenant thought is at best “an in-house contribution to Israel’s understanding of itself as God’s covenant people.” 88 Porter, on the other hand, argues similarly to Rendtorff that one cannot link a concept such as “covenant” to just one lexical item (diathēkē). Instead, one needs to examine an entire semantic domain associated with the concept. For example, it may be that Paul uses dik- words (dikaioō, dikaiōsis, dikaiosunē) “in the context of the covenant relation rather than in the context of legal procedures.” 89 Thus, Porter concludes that the concept of covenant may be a great deal more significant for Pauline thought than generally has been recognized, and urges further research employing semantic-domain methodology. Although the present study does not employ this methodology, it is hoped that the treatment of Paul’s thought presented here (Chapter 9) will validate Porter’s intuition concerning the significance of “covenant” to Paul’s thought. One recent study that takes seriously the significance of covenant to Paul is Mary Nwachukwu’s (2002) on the creation-covenant scheme and justification by faith in Romans.90 In her view, Paul develops in Romans a “new creation” theology grounded in a typological reading of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant traditions of the Old Testament. The larger part of her monograph traces the ways Paul uses these Abrahamic and Mosaic traditions to construct his theology of the new creation in Christ. Nwachukwu’s work represents a synthetic and synchronic reading of Paul within the entire Christian canon, following the methodology of the canonical-critical movement, as developed by Childs and Rendtorff. Any discussion of what Paul means by diathēkē must gravitate to Ga-

20  |  Introduction

latians, where the term is used more than in any other Pauline Epistle, especially to chapter 3, the only locus in any Epistle where Paul discusses the mechanics of the operation of a covenant. Kari Kuula (1991)—whose larger goal is to argue that Paul’s view of law and covenant is incoherent, a mere epiphenomenon of his foundational rejection of the soteriology of Judaism in favor of a Christological soteriology—takes up the issue of Paul’s use of diathēkē in Galatians 3 and concludes that: (1) diathēkē means “covenant” in v. 15 and “testament” in v. 17; and (2) the diathēkē as “covenant” consists of the promises given Abraham (Gen 12:1–3) rather than a particular ­covenant-making incident (Gen 15 or 17).91 Porter and Dunn come to similar conclusions.92 Incidentally, none of these scholars engages the secondary literature on the Old Testament and ancient Near Eastern covenant texts. Perhaps there is an assumption that there is no continuity and therefore no relevance between the operation of covenants in ancient Israel and the theology of Paul and his contemporaries. Ellen Christensen’s 1995 study of covenant in Judaism and Paul is a much larger project than Kuula’s, including an excellent survey of the meaning of covenant in Old Testament and Second Temple literature.93 Unlike Kuula, Christensen is in tune with the developments in OT covenant scholarship reflected in the general studies discussed above. Ultimately, she argues not for the incoherence of Paul’s covenant thought, but that for Paul “covenant” is no longer a primary category, certainly not in an ecclesiological sense. “Covenant” may at best speak about the believer’s individual relationship with God, but it does not define the church, and to enter the New Covenant is not to enter the church. While Christensen’s broader project and conclusions are quite distinct from Kuula’s, her analysis of the key passage, Galatians 3–4, is remarkably similar. Christensen, too, thinks Paul vacillates with respect to the meaning of diathēkē in vv. 15–17, and that Paul has redefined “covenant” to refer to the promises of Abraham. Whereas Kuula represents Heikki Räisänen’s “incoherence” view of Paul and the law, and Christensen follows the “new perspective” of E. P. Sanders and James D. G. Dunn, the work of Andrew Das (2001), despite claims of being a “newer perspective,” revives the arguments of more traditional Pauline interpreters who have never been convinced by “new perspective” advocates.94 Das argues that Second Temple Judaism was more legalistic than E. P. Sander’s “covenantal nomism” would have us believe, and that, regardless, Paul would have rejected “covenantal nomism.” But on the question of what Paul actually means by diathēkē, Das offers no new insight. Although he critiques Sanders for not defining what he means by “covenant,”

Introduction  |  21

Das himself does not define the term, either for himself or for Paul. With respect to the key text, Galatians 3:15–18, Das reiterates the common view that Paul equivocates between “testament” and “covenant” in the use of diathēkē. Paul divorces covenant from law by defining “the covenant” as the covenant with Abraham, which, unlike the Mosaic covenant, did not have a law attached to it. To the contrary, the present writer, in a 2005 article for Catholic Biblical Quarterly, has argued that in Galatians 3:15–18, Paul means the same by diathēkē as he does in every other use of the word in his Epistles:95 the bĕrît of Israel’s Scriptures, “an elected . . . relationship of obligation under divine sanction [i.e., oath].” 96 Since much of the substance of this article is present in Chapter 9, here the argument is summarized briefly. In Galatians 3:15 Paul gives a “human” example (not “an example from everyday life,” a mistranslation) of a covenant, not a testament. Covenants were legal instruments just as testaments were. However, covenants, unlike testaments, could not be altered or augmented once ratified by oath. In Galatians 3:15–18, Paul argues that what is true of human covenants (their inviolability) must a fortiori be true of divine covenants as well (vv. 15, 17). He pushes his opponent’s logic to its reductio ad absurdum: if the Abrahamic covenant promises are dependent on obedience to the (later) Mosaic law, then God would have been guilty of adding conditions to an unalterable covenant made four hundred years earlier (v. 17). This is not tolerated among human beings and is unthinkable with respect to God. Several allusions to Genesis 22 in Galatians 3:8–18 suggest that the background for v. 17 is God’s oath at the Aqedah (Gen 22:15–18), which “ratified” or “established” a divine covenant of grant to Abraham97 concerning the blessing of all nations through his seed (cf. v. 8). Paul and his fellow Jews differed over which covenant was primary and thus constituted the people of God. Paul gave historical priority and theological primacy to the Abrahamic covenant as ratified in Genesis 22:16–18—a “covenant of divine commitment.” His opponents gave primacy to the Mosaic covenant at Sinai—a “covenant of human obligation.”

covenant in hebrews Although the Epistle to the Hebrews uses the term diathēkē more than all other undisputed Pauline Epistles combined, research on the concept of covenant in Hebrews in the past decade has been limited to two articles. The first, by S. R. Murray (2002), gives a competent review of the scholarship on the subject, especially the key disputed passage, Hebrews 9:15–18,

22  |  Introduction

where the author is usually understood to vacillate between the meanings “testament” and “covenant” in a way similar (supposedly) to Paul in Galatians 3:15–18.98 Murray favors a consistent rendering of the term throughout vv. 15–18, either as “covenant” or “testament,” but he does not provide a definite solution to the problem. The second article, by the present writer (2004), offers a new reading of Hebrews 9:15–18.99 The author of Hebrews, like Paul, uses diathēkē for the Hebrew concept bĕrît and does so consistently. The biblical and ancient Near Eastern notion of death as the penalty for breaking a solemnly sworn covenant is the key for unlocking the controversial passage (vv. 16–17). Here, the “covenant” being discussed is the transgressed Sinai covenant (v. 15). The sense of the verses 16–17 is: “For since there is a [transgressed] covenant, the death of the covenant-maker must be borne. For a [transgressed] covenant is confirmed upon dead bodies, since it certainly is not in force while the [offending] covenant-maker is [still] alive.” The point of these verses, stated succinctly, is that a broken covenant can only be enforced by applying the covenant curse of death to the covenant breaker. These arguments will be presented at greater length in Chapter 10.

Goal and Methodology The direct goal of this study is to construct a covenantal interpretation of the Christ event as it is presented in Luke 22, Galatians 3–4 and Hebrews 1–9, the three loci of the New Testament that correlate the terminology of kinship with that of covenant.100 Since these texts execute a complex reading of salvation history organized around the major divine covenants, it will be necessary for us to study the character, typology, sequence, and distinctions among the various covenants of the Old Testament. This constitutes Part One. In Part Two, the findings from Part One will be used to interpret Luke–Acts, Galatians 3–4 and Hebrews 1–9. The pursuit of this goal will indirectly address a larger, perennial theological question: How legitimate is the New Testament authors’ reading of the Old Testament? Can their methods be justified in modern context? Do their interpretations find a basis in, and arise out of, the older Scriptures? Or are they imposed on them, due to a devaluation of their intrinsic worth or the urge to polemicize against those who continued to live by the biblical texts but saw Jesus as neither the interpreter nor fulfillment of them? Certain issues cannot be resolved in this study (e.g., anti-Semitism in the NT), but conclusions will be drawn that may shed light on this discussion.

Introduction  |  23

At the outset, it is important to recognize that the style of this study will be more inductive than deductive; more exploratory than demonstrative; more synthetic than analytic. Some studies move from general hypotheses to some particular conclusion. This study proceeds from an investigation of particular covenant texts and types in the Old Testament to the formulation of a general interpretive framework for the New Testament. In this way, the heuristic value of the larger project will become apparent, especially when the explanatory power of the findings of Part One are shown in Part Two. This study of God’s covenants in history will consist largely of a series of thematic connections and conceptual links, all of which are related to kinship and covenant. Indeed, the entire work can be described aptly as one vast exercise in biblical-theological correlation.101 Two primary methodologies will be employed in this study: narrative analysis and canonical criticism.102 These two methods entail a synchronic approach—that is, reading the texts while at the same time speaking to the same reality—with a canonical focus, and remaining alert to the relevant historical-critical issues.103 Narrative analysis treats biblical narratives in their final form.104 As such, narrative analysis treats Scripture as an integrated whole, engages in a holistic literary study of its constituent parts (individual books and literary units), and maintains a critical respect for what H. Frei calls the “history-like” quality of biblical narrative.105 Thus, narrative analysis represents an altogether different perspective from historical criticism. There is, however, no reason why both cannot be used, as long they are distinguished one from the other both in theory and practice. One should not confuse them or vacillate between them. For example, McCarthy utilizes historical criticism in most of his research and writing. Nevertheless, he also urges the analysis of biblical narratives in their final form: But the primary object of literary study is the text, its primary tools a knowledge of words and phrases and a feel for their use. A first call then: let us read the text for what it is with all the wit and skill we can bring to it. This sounds very simple, but it is not. Normally, the Biblist does not read the text. He breaks it up and reads parts. He tears out its sources. He does not explain the significance of the so-called “plague stories” in Exodus. He merely explains what the Yahwist writer or the Priestly writers thought about plagues. But it is the narrative as it stands which interests

24  |  Introduction

the Church or the men of culture concerned with the world’s classics. This also should be the Biblist’s interest in so far as he is concerned with explaining the Bible.106 Narrative analysis will be most apparent in the chapters of Part One where the differences between the Abrahamic covenant-making accounts (Gen 15, 17, 22) and the Mosaic legal corpora (Exod 20–24; Exod 34– Lev 27; all of Deut) are analyzed. Many scholars are content simply with describing these apparently parallel texts as competing versions of the same events or laws, composed by different authors (J, E, P, H, or D). We will look within the narrative itself for explanations of the differences in these accounts. In addition to narrative analysis, this study will employ canonical criticism. The Pontifical Biblical Commission explains the nature, purpose, and value of canonical criticism in “Interpreting the Bible in the Church”: “The ‘canonical’ approach . . . proceeds from the perception that the ­historical-critical method experiences at times considerable difficulty in arriving, in its conclusions, at a truly theological level. It [canonical criticism] aims to carry out the theological task of interpretation more successfully by beginning from within an explicit framework of faith: the Bible as a whole. To achieve this, it interprets each biblical text in the light of the Canon of Scriptures, that is to say, of the Bible as received as the norm of faith by a community of believers. It seeks to situate each text within the single plan of God.” 107 Canonical criticism enables one to grasp Scripture in its entirety (i.e., the whole and not just each part—or the sum of them). This approach offers exegete and theologian alike a broader interpretive perspective than any single text can provide, one that reflects the historical continuity and theological unity of God’s saving plan.108 McCarthy also recognizes the need for this sort of holistic approach to Scripture in its canonical integrity. “The Bible is a whole, a single book with a unity. This is not simply a theological claim. It is a fact of history. The Bible was composed by a refinement of traditional elements and their collection and collocation by choice by the organs of that tradition. . . . Therefore, its parts, though they can be read intelligently as individual chapters, have full meaning when read as integral parts of a meaningful whole.” 109 That McCarthy recommends a canonical approach to Scripture confirms the potential complementarity of narrative analysis and canonical criticism with historical criticism. Recently, R. E. Friedman has shown this complementary relation in practice. Friedman provides a holistic interpretation of the diversity of bib-

Introduction  |  25

lical covenant traditions from a canonical perspective, with illuminating results. The mechanism through which the sequence of relations between Yahweh and Israel was pictured was covenant. The E text pictured a covenant between God and Israel at Sinai, the J account added an Abrahamic covenant, the Josianic Deuteronomistic Historian developed the Davidic covenant, and the Priestly narrative added a covenant with Noah. These four primary covenants, the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic, provided a narrative framework in which legal, historical, legendary, poetic, and so on, materials could meet. The four-covenant structure has sufficient conceptual breadth and versatility to be able to encompass a wide range of genres and multicenturied chronology of stories and personalities while at the same time having sufficient consistency and integrity as a system to be a meaningful housing for those texts. It provides interpretative foci through which one can relate various accounts to the thread of the unfolding narrative of Yahweh’s relations with humans in general and Israel in particular.110 Friedman continues: “With the Noahic covenant promising the stability of the cosmic structure, the Abrahamic covenant promising people and land, the Davidic covenant promising sovereignty, and the Israelite [Mosaic] covenant promising life, security, and prosperity, the biblical authors and editors possessed a platform from which they could portray and reconcile nearly every historical, legendary, didactic, folk, and the like, account in their tradition. If we could delete all references to covenant—which we cannot do, precisely because it is regularly integral to its contexts—we would have an anthology of stories. As it is we have a structure that can house a plot.” 111 In this masterful stroke, Friedman cuts through the methodological tangle and demonstrates the singular unity of the canonical plot of Scripture, namely, God’s covenantal saving plan. Friedman thus shows how canonical interpretation may be integrated with historical criticism. The historical critic may be likened to a tailor who turns the (literary) garment inside out in order to work on the seams. The canonical critic turns the garment right side out and examines those seams in the light of its overall design and fit. One’s critical appreciation of the garment is thus enhanced by a greater understanding of the seam work from both perspectives. Friedman is the rare scholar able to work on the garment from both sides. In many ways,

26  |  Introduction

his explanation of the “four-covenant structure” which “houses the plot” of Scripture within a “narrative framework” anticipates many of the findings of this study. The above discussion has shown how the heuristic potential of canonical criticism is enhanced when it remains aware of (and open to) historical-critical positions.112 It must be emphasized, however, that this study is concerned with canonical interpretation rather than attaining a hybrid of canonical criticism and historical criticism. It is important for readers to keep this distinction in mind when working through Part One. For example, the identification of Salem and Moriah with the site of the Temple Mount,113 as well as the royal priestly aspiration of David to reign as the “new Melchizedek,” 114 are validated only on canonical-critical grounds. If this is not understood, readers of this study might confuse a canonical interpretation with a critical quest for the historical David, when all that is envisaged is the “canonical David” (or Shem etc.). The use of canonical criticism leads to the recognition of two methodological corollaries. The first corollary is the importance of recourse to ancient interpretive traditions arising from the canonical message of Scripture.115 These interpretive traditions bear witness to the function and authority of tradition in the believing community. The interpretive role of tradition in Scripture is noted by many scholars who themselves represent varied traditions—­Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic. For instance, M. Fishbane’s study, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, highlights the importance of listening to “inner biblical exegesis” and “exegetical tradition history,” both of which reflect the interpretive guidance afforded by tradition within Scripture.116 Along these lines, D. A. Knight states: “Tradition delivers the framework—­intellectual, historical, religious, hermeneutical—needed for a new event or word to be meaningful.” 117 Likewise, D. J. McCarthy observes: “The Bible is the community’s book, and the community’s use of it is an element in its total meaning. . . . It is simply the recognition that the Bible has acquired even more meaning through an ongoing interpretation which can be found in the Bible itself and continued in the postbiblical Church. No one today has the training nor methodology for such total interpretation. But the ideal remains over against the fragmentation at present and it must be kept alive as a hope.” 118 Thus, it is proper to consult the interpretive traditions and processes that Scripture itself reflects and depends on. It is therefore proper to consult Jewish interpretive traditions, both ancient (Targum, Midrash) and medieval (Rashi, Maimonides).119 It is also proper to consult Christian traditions, again, both

Introduction  |  27

patristic (Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Didascalia Apostolorum) and medieval (Thomas Aquinas, Nicholas of Lyra). Such traditions regularly corroborate the canonical interpretations suggested by this study, especially in Part One. Recourse to ancient traditions will take a subordinate role to narrative analysis and canonical criticism. It will, however, serve an invaluable purpose by validating certain interpretations of Old Testament passages proposed in this study. In turn, these interpretations will prove useful in confirming the use of these traditions in Luke–Acts, Galatians, and Hebrews in Part Two. This whole discussion leads to a second methodological corollary that will be important for this study, namely, the presence and use of theological exegesis in Scripture, and in our exposition of it. This corollary also arises from the scriptural witness, especially the use of the Old Testament in the New. The term “theological exegesis” pertains to specific concerns that inform the hermeneutical use of texts. New Testament writers do not merely echo their own traditions in citing scriptural texts. They go far beyond those traditions in using them to interpret the Christ event. Their strategic deployment of Old Testament texts discloses their own theological understanding of the divine covenants in salvation history. That understanding forms the hermeneutical framework in which the theological significance of Christ’s life and death is interpreted. This study’s exposition of the New Testament authors’ theological exegesis of Old Testament texts will endeavor to retrieve their Christological-soteriological outlook. This interpretive effort is itself a new form of reflexive theological exegesis, thus facilitating the “continuity between exegesis and further theological reflection.” 120 In other words, this study will seek to theologize systematically with “rational induction.” “Rational induction” requires a strategy for retrieving the covenant theologies of Scripture, that is, from the New Testament ­w riters’ use of the Old. Theologians and exegetes alike may be tempted to overlook the fact that the New Testament authors were inspired theologians and exegetes themselves. Instead of leading to fundamentalism,121 however, their inspiration points to a sense of Scripture’s sacramentality.122 Inspiration undergirds Scripture’s vital role in illuminating the mysteries of faith in normative terms. This role is what the Pontifical Biblical Commission calls “the ‘referential language’ of the inspired author, especially that of the New Testament with its mode of expression rooted in the Older Testament.” 123

28  |  Introduction

Such an approach may present a challenge to theologians who prefer to organize their theological systems primarily in terms drawn from philosophy (whether medieval or modern).124 In any case, Part Two of this study will concentrate on the theological exegesis of the Old Testament in Luke– Acts, Galatians, and Hebrews—for interpretive and imitative purposes. To that end, this synthesis and heuristic correlation of the theological elements of the covenant drawn from Scripture are presented.

The Definition and Typology of Covenant It should be apparent from the discussion of the history of covenant research above that the very definition of “covenant” (bĕrît or diathēkē) in the Old and New Testaments is a matter of controversy. As we have seen, biblical scholars divide roughly into two camps on this issue. On the one hand, there are those who view covenant in a unilateral perspective, as synonymous with “obligation” in the legalistic sense (e.g., Wellhausen, Kutsch, Perlitt, Nicholson). On the other hand, there are those who recognize that a covenant is always bilateral in some sense, and serves to establish or renew a (kinship) relationship between two parties (McCarthy, Freedman, Kalluveettil, Cross, etc.). It is not the purpose here to rehearse this debate and argue step-by-step for a certain definition of covenant. This has been done at length and competently by others, most notably Frank Moore Cross and Gordon Hugenberger.125 It must suffice here to indicate that we are firmly in the camp of those who understand covenant in bilateral, relational categories. As for a definition of covenant, Cross offers one of the best: “Oath and covenant is . . . a widespread legal means by which the duties and privileges of kinship may be extended to another individual or group, including aliens.” 126 Here Cross, like many other scholars (e.g., N. Glueck, M. S. Smith, T. Frymer­-Kensky, etc.), recognizes the kinship nature of covenant,127 as well as the close association of covenant and oath. As will be seen, at the heart of a covenant is always an oath, whether explicit or implicit. Since a covenant establishes kinship, it always involves at least two parties, and usually only two parties (although one or both of these parties may be a collective, e.g., a nation or family). At times the covenant partners were of equal status and the obligations of the covenant were distributed equally between them; more frequently, the covenant parties consisted of a superior and inferior, and the covenant obligations were unequally distributed.

Introduction  |  29

The manner of distribution of covenant obligations between the covenanting parties is the key to the typology of covenants. M. D. Guinan expresses it succinctly: In a covenant, “an obligation can be [1] taken upon oneself; or it can be [2] imposed on another; or [3] mutual obligations may be assumed.” 128 Thus, although there are variations in the distribution of covenant obligations, it has become customary to identify the following three basic covenant forms: 1. The Kinship Covenant. The obligations of the covenant are more or less equally distributed between the two parties. In such a covenant the parties are usually—but not always—themselves of equal status. Thus this type of relationship is frequently called a “parity” covenant. 2. The Treaty Covenant. The obligations of the covenant are imposed on the inferior party by the superior. Scholars have often termed this arrangement a “vassal treaty,” “vassal covenant,” or “treaty-type” covenant because the vassal treaties of the seventh-century Assyrian emperor Esarhaddon have been considered the paradigmatic examples of the form. In this study, a vassal-treaty covenant will be referred to simply as a “treaty” or “treatytype” covenant. 3. The Grant Covenant. The obligations of the covenant rest predominantly with the superior party, who freely accepts responsibilities toward the inferior, usually in response to the inferior’s faithfulness or other meritorious qualities. The initiative in establishing a covenant of this form also rests with the superior; it is generally granted as a reward to a faithful vassal or servant—thus the name. Scholars have employed the terms “royal grant” or “grant-type” to this covenant form, largely because of Moshe Weinfeld’s work identifying various ancient Near Eastern royal land grants as the quintessential examples of this covenant type.129 This threefold covenant typology is widely recognized in scholarship, although the terminology used to describe the three types varies (see summary in Table 1.1). In this study, the terms “kinship,” “treaty,” and “grant” will be used for the three covenant types. However, it is readily admitted that neither this nor any other system of terminology is completely satisfactory.130 For example, with respect to the first covenant type, the term “kinship” is not strictly adequate, because all three covenant types involve kinship bonds, even if these bonds are more prominent in the “kinship” covenant.131 On the other hand, the term “parity covenant”—prefered by most other scholars—suggests that the covenant parties are sociopolitical equals. This is often the case; however, at times an inferior and superior party will enter into a mutual relationship (“parity” or “kinship” covenant) despite their disparity of status.

30  |  Introduction Table 1.1. Threefold covenant typology.     Terminology for a covenant whose oath(s) is taken by both parties the inferior alone the superior alone Scholar, work* (mutual obligations) (imposed obligations) (bestowed benefices)

Freedman, “Divine — human   Commitment” obligation Mendenhall, parity suzerainty   “Covenant” McCarthy, Treaty parity vassal   and Covenant, 142 Weinfeld, — obligatory   “Berith,” 270 Kline, By Oath parity law covenant   Consigned, 16, 41 Lane, “Meaning and parity treaty vassal treaty   Use of Berith,” 172 Harless, How Firm a parity suzerainty   Foundation, 13

divine commitment patron/ promissory — royal grant or promissory covenant of promise grant or promissory grant

*Full information for works cited can be found in the bibliography.

With respect to the second form of covenant (in which obligations are imposed on the inferior party), the term “treaty” is potentially ­misleading— ancient Near Eastern and biblical treaties could also be of the kinship or parity type. The alternate terms “vassal” or “suzerainty” that are used to describe the covenant do not distinguish this form from the so-called “grant” covenant, which also involved a suzerain-vassal relationship. Freedman’s term “covenant of human obligation” contrasts well with his corresponding “covenant of divine commitment,” but this pair of terms is only appropriate when analyzing biblical covenants to which God is a partner. For the present study it is necessary to use terms applicable even when both parties are human. Finally, the popularity of the term “grant” for the third form of covenant has its origins in the research of Moshe Weinfeld, who sought to demonstrate that certain biblical covenants followed the form of ancient Near Eastern royal land grants. However, Weinfeld’s work has been challenged, rendering terminology based on it vulnerable to criticism.132 On the other hand, the term “promissory” covenant is also somewhat inadequate, since all covenants involve promises being made by the covenant parties. Thus, there are no completely satisfactory terms. Nonetheless, the ter-

Introduction  |  31

minology used here is within the mainstream of covenant scholarship and reflects the differences in emphasis among the three categories of covenant. The objective key to distinguish between the kinship, treaty, and granttype covenant forms is to observe carefully by whom the covenant oath is sworn. As Kline remarks: “It is this swearing of the ratificatory oath that provides an identification mark by which we can readily distinguish . . . ­ between a law covenant [treaty-type] and one of promise [grant-type]. For it is evident that if God swears the oath of the ratification ceremony, that particular covenantal transaction is one of promise, whereas if man is summoned to swear the oath, the particular covenant thus ratified is one of law.133 . . . In parity covenants the raificatory oath was taken by both parties, but in other covenants the sworn commitment was ordinarily unilateral.” 134 Thus, when both parties take oaths towards one another, the kinship covenant is present. In the treaty-type covenant, only the inferior party swears the oath; in the grant-type, only the superior. It must be emphasized that this threefold covenant typology is a heuristic device, not an absolute categorization. In practice, the obligations of any given covenant could be distributed in a wide variety of ways along a spectrum from almost one-sidedly on the superior (pure grant-type) to almost one-sidedly on the inferior (pure treaty-type). The data do not always fit neatly into a scheme; thus, this classification of covenants must not be misconstrued either to suppress differences among covenants of a single type, or to suppress similarities between covenants of different types.135 Instead, these types simply reflect various aspects of a vital and dynamic relationship that undergoes change and adaptation according to historical circumstances and literary forms.

The Plan for This Study This study will be based on the covenant research of D. J. McCarthy and P. Kalluveettil136 and their familial understanding of covenant relations and obligations.137 It is this familial or relational dimension that integrates and binds together the other dimensions of the covenant that scholars over the past century have identified (i.e., the ethical, cultic, social, juridical, and theological dimensions). This study will attempt not to isolate but to integrate these dimensions under the rubric of “family.” Within the matrix of the family, the covenants between God and his peo-

32  |  Introduction

ple will be analyzed in terms of the father-son relationship as a basic category for interpreting the three distinct covenant types: kinship (Chapter 2), treaty (Chapter 3), and grant (Chapters 4–7). The closely related ideas of oath-swearing and curse-bearing will also be discussed. Oath-swearing and curse-bearing represent the legal/cultic means for enacting kinshipby-covenant. By correlating the covenant types with these three principles (family, covenant, and oath), theologically significant changes in the divine covenants emerge. These changes pertain to the formative development of the father-son relationship between God and his people, especially with the passage from the Old Covenant to the New.138 Specifically, in Chapter 2 it will be observed that God’s initial relationship with Israel at Sinai was a kinship-type covenant, with an emphasis on mutuality and familial relationship. However, in Chapter 3 it will be seen that Deuteronomy reconfigures the covenant as a treaty type. Israel’s father-son relationship with God remains intact, but it takes on the character of a master-servant relationship, like that between a suzerain and rebellious vassal. In Chapters 4 through 7, it will become apparent that a basic covenant of grant undergirds God’s relationship with mankind (the Noahic covenant, Chapter 4) as well as the descendants of Abraham (the Abrahamic covenant, Chapter 5). The covenant relationship between God and Abraham itself undergoes successive reconfigurations (Gen 15, 17, and 22) culminating in a covenant of grant (Gen 22:15–18), which foreshadows the successive reconfigurations of the the covenant with Israel culminating in the New Covenant (Jer 31:31; Luke 22:20). Grant-type covenants are also bestowed on the descendants of Levi (Chapter 6) and David (Chapter 7), but not to the people of Israel as a whole, who still abide under the covenant of Deuteronomy. The results of this study of Old Testament covenants will then be applied to a theological exposition of three key passages of the New Testament in which covenant and kinship terminology appear together: Luke 22, Galatians 3–4 and Hebrews 1–9. In Chapter 8, it will be shown how Luke, in his Gospel, describes Jesus as the Son of David, the one who restores and transforms the Davidic covenant and its kingdom, and by doing so fulfills the Abrahamic covenant. Luke links the Davidic kingdom-covenant complex of the Old Testament to the ministry of Jesus, and Jesus’ ministry to that of the apostles in Acts, by recording these words of Jesus to the apostles in the so-called Institution narrative of Luke 22:7–38. You are those who have continued with me in my trials; and I covenant (διατίθεμαι) to you, as my Father covenanted (διέθετό)

Introduction  |  33

to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (vv. 28–30) 139 Here, the Father-Son relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ is the context in which the “kingdom” is bestowed or “covenanted” to Jesus, and a quasi-fatherly relationship of Jesus to the Apostles is implied by Jesus’ bestowing or “covenanting” the kingdom on to them. In Acts, this Davidic kingdom, the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises, is manifested in the early Church under the authority of the Apostles. Chapter 9 will explore Paul’s reading of covenant history, in which he sees Christ’s curse-bearing death expiating the curses of the Deuteronomic (treaty-type) covenant, thus opening access for all mankind to the blessings of the covenant with Abraham. The author of Hebrews has a similar, if more complex, reading of covenant history. As will be shown in Chapter 10, the author of Hebrews sees Christ’s death as bearing the curses of the Old Covenant and releasing the blessings of the New, much as Paul argues in Galatians. However, unlike Galatians, Hebrews seems to associate the Old Covenant not so much with the Deuteronomic covenant per se as with the Levitical covenant (i.e., the broken Sinai covenant). The New Covenant, on the other hand, was present in nuce already in the covenants with Abraham and David. Christ fulfills these covenants and releases their blessings, and establishes a new priesthood of the royal firstborn (i.e., Melchizedek), which replaces the Levitical priesthood necessitated by the breaking of the Sinai covenant (Exod 32:25–29). Yet the perspectives of Galatians and Hebrews are neither contradictory nor irreconcilable: both Paul and the author of Hebrews explain how the curse-bearing death of Christ fulfills the Old Covenant and ratifies the New Covenant grant of divine sonship. Our research in Old Testament covenant forms and history will enable us to grasp their hermeneutical logic.

This page intentionally left blank

pa r t o n e

COVENANT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

This page intentionally left blank

2 The Kinship Covenant in the Old Testament The Kinship Covenant In a kinship covenant,1 kinship bonds are extended to bind two parties in a mutual relationship based upon a joint commitment under divine sanctions.2 The purpose of this type of covenant is to draw others who are potentially at enmity into a family circle where amity might prevail.3 It may also serve to reinforce already existing familial relations.4 The element of mutuality is prominent. This mutuality is often signified by a shared meal,5 an exchange of oaths,6 and/or select terms denoting reciprocal affiliation (e.g., “peace,” “love,” and “loyalty”).7 The Overarching Importance of Kinship and Covenant for Old Testament Hebrews F. M. Cross notes how “the relationship between the language of kinship in West Semitic tribal societies and the language of covenant in such groups has been little studied in recent years and is poorly understood.” 8 As a result, there is a diminished sense of the important link between kinship and covenant in the social order of Israel as presented in the Old Testament.9 Cross comments: “Kinship relations defined the rights and obligations, the duties, status, and privileges of tribal members, and kinship terminology provided the only language for expressing legal, political, and religious institutions.” 10 Similar phenomena are evident in patriarchal, premonarchical, and monarchical traditions in the Old Testament.11 In these Old 37

38  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

Testament traditions, family solidarity is conveyed in the language of unity of flesh, blood, and bone (Gen 29:14; 37:27; Judg 9:1–4; 2 Sam 5:1). Family solidarity can also be expressed by a group name drawn from a great an­cestor.12 Walter Brueggemann has shown how “in the world of Biblical faith, the family is the primary unit of meaning which shapes and defines reality.” 13 He then describes how the family is closely linked to the covenant: “Biblical faith is essentially covenantal in its perception of all reality. . . . The family is first of all a community of covenant-making, covenant-keeping, covenant-breaking, and covenant-renewing. That is its principal mark, for being human is primarily concerned with effective covenanting.” 14 This family worldview is often associated with common discourse surrounding human relations. Cross observes: “We have noted that the language of love (ʿahábāh) is kinship language, the bond that holds together those in intimate relationships, the relationships of family and kindred. Hesed (‘loyalty’) too, I should argue, originally was a term designating that loyal and loving behavior appropriate to a kinship relationship.” 15 A concern with kinship relations is also reflected in various laws in the Pentateuch, where grave punishments are meted out for antifamily offenses. Such offenses include: cursing/striking parents (Exod 21:15–17), rape (Deut 22:25), and adultery (Lev 20:10).16 J. Pedersen sees the pervasive influence of the family reflected in the use of some important terms, especially in Genesis (e.g., “blessing,” “name,” and “righteousness”). He comments: “The father, the main pillar of the house, carries the whole of the family. On his blessing rests its prosperity. . . . But he is only a single link in the long chain of fathers who have carried the blessing of the families. From the fathers he has received it, and to the sons he passes it on by saying it into (sic) them before his death.” 17 Pedersen cites some well-known examples (Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, and Ephraim). He then describes how, normally, “The first-born has claims on the blessing of the father; it is his birthright. The father speaks it into (sic) him before his death. From that point on, the firstborn is responsible for maintaining the blessing. In turn, the blessing maintains the family.” 18 Pedersen gives a number of examples (Gen 24:35; 27:27–28; Lev 25:21; Deut 28:15; Job 29:13). Since the blessing “finds expression in the name, shēm,” 19 the firstborn is name bearer par excellence (Gen 37:22; 49:3; Deut 21:17): “It is not every son who has an equal share of the name and soul of the father. The firstborn has received the first strength of the father, and it raises him above his brothers.” 20 Pedersen explains that the covenant is the underlying principle of fam-

The Kinship Covenant in the Old Testament  |  39

ily solidarity: “One is born of a covenant and into a covenant, and wherever one moves in life, one makes a covenant or acts on the basis of an already existing covenant.” Thus, the covenant “is the presupposition of all life . . . the creator of rights and duties.” 21 Moreover, Pedersen demonstrates how righteousness is based on living in accord with one’s own (and others’) covenant position or standing within the family. Sin is essentially a violation of the covenant—a breach of family order and life. Thus, covenant law is concerned with the communion which exists among members of the (extended) family. It follows, then, that “to justify a man means to obtain for him the place due to him within the covenant.” 22 Pedersen then states that “faith, ʾĕmūnā, is the mutual acknowledgment conditioning the covenant,” that is, “a manifestation of a covenant-relation.” 23 The Role and Authority of the Father By maintaining covenant relations in the family, the father fulfilled a royalpriestly function that entailed cultic duties.24 The father possessed considerable power in his family/clan both in Israel and throughout the ancient Near East. Kalluveettil describes the relationship between fathers and sons in the ANE: The ANE family, essentially patriarchal, was one in which the father played an undisputed role. . . . He was the master, head, leader, guide, counselor, protector, and supporter of his children who held him in great respect and trust. Thus, the word “father” implied the idea of power and authority more than affection and benignity. . . . The difference in the relations of a son and a servant to the head of family was not very great in the Ancient Orient. A son often addressed his father, “my lord” and served him in much the same offices as the domestic slave. . . . This does not mean that the concepts of servant and son are identical. . . . In the formula, “I am your servant and your son,” the two words are used together to give more emphasis to one’s total belonging to the other; one was affirming that subordination and subservience which was characterized by his servile position as well as a filial or rather friendly devotion.25 Kalluveettil concludes: “In brief, the word son stands for one who is intimately related to the other by means of submission, service, loyalty, trust, and reverential fear. His position in the family did not differ much

40  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

from that of the domestic servant who was given the status of a family member. . . . Of course there did exist the aspect of love in the relationship of son to his father, but it was a love ‘seen in reverential fear, in loyalty and in obedience—a love which, therefore, can be commanded.’ Although the concept of son, like that of servant, implies a relationship of dependence and service, these are not to be identified; we have here two different realities.” 26 Kalluveettil here suggests that the Hebrews correlated the concepts of “sonship” and “servanthood” in the social matrix of the patriarchal family. There were, therefore, similarities in areas such as status, duty, subordination, etc., between a minor son and a domestic slave. How Covenant-Making and Oath-Swearing Represent Underlying Principles of Family Solidarity The patriarchal family was constituted on the basis of an extended kinship network consisting of several levels.27 This can be observed in Joshua 7:16–18: The next morning Joshua had Israel come forward by tribes, and the tribe of Judah was taken. The clans of Judah came forward, and the clan of the Zerahites was taken. He had the clan of the Zerahites come forward by families, and Zimri was taken. Joshua had his family come forward man by man and Zabdi was taken. He brought near his household man by man and Achan the son of Carmi, son of Zabdi, son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah was taken. [my emphasis] R. R. Wilson describes this sort of extended family order: “The Biblical sources are unanimous in portraying premonarchical Israel as one large extended family. Relationships between individuals, families, and tribes are expressed by using kinship terms, and statements of the social structure are often given the form of a segmented genealogy. . . .” 28 This extendedfamily structure encompassed the whole nation of Israel, by which they were established as Yahweh’s family and kin. Cross comments: “The league in ideal form was . . . related at once by covenant and kinship. . . . The league was called the ʿam Yahweh which we generally translate the ‘people of Yahweh.’ However . . . ʿam(m) is a kinship term, and for our purposes here is better translated the ‘kindred’ of Yahweh.” 29 In addition, family solidarity was reinforced by the covenant: “The Israelite league was a religious

The Kinship Covenant in the Old Testament  |  41

organization. . . . Religious unity is undergirded by the institution of the pilgrimage feasts, where . . . covenant renewal ceremonies reconstitute the league anew.” 30 According to this outlook, the family served manifold purposes. Wright explains: “First, the family was the basic unit of Israelite kinship and social structure . . . with important military and judicial functions. Second, it was the basic economic unit of Israel’s land tenure. . . . Third, it was of central importance in the experience and preservation of the covenant relationship with Yahweh.” 31 Through the covenant, the family becomes the source of religious unity and social cohesion in ancient Israel.32 Cross explains how kinship bonds were extended by covenant to outsiders: “In tribal societies there were legal mechanisms or devices—we might even say legal fictions—by which outsiders, non-kin, might be incorporated into the kinship group. Those incorporated, an individual or a group, gained fictive kinship, and shared the mutual obligations and privileges of real kinsmen.” 33 Quell confirms the extension of kinship bonds by covenant: “Where the fact of blood relationship is indubitable and incontestable, the covenant is already present. . . . On the other hand, where this natural connexion is either obscure or completely absent, an analogous legal relationship can be established only by means of a fictional blood relationship. This fiction is the legal covenant which extends the natural.” 34 Kinship bonds formed by covenant were ordinarily sealed by an act of oath swearing entailing divine sanctions. The oath swearing represented the formal means by which the family circle was divinely established or enlarged. Cross notes: “Oath and covenant, in which the deity is witness, guarantor, or participant, is also a legal means by which the duties and privileges of kinship may be extended to another individual or group, including aliens.” 35 Thus, oath and covenant were closely tied to the legal enactment of kinship. The Theological Function of Family and Covenant in the Old Testament Kinship and covenant clearly perform a vital heuristic function in the study of the Old Testament. A. F. Segal describes how “covenant” forms the root metaphor which integrates the legal, social, and historical traditions within Israel: “When the ultimate assumptions of a society are articulated in allusive or analogical language, they are designated by a variety of nearly synonymous technical terms—root metaphor, conceptual archetype, or

42  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

more simply myth. . . . The root metaphor underlying Hebrew society is expressed in the word covenant.” 36 Segal then shows how the root metaphor of covenant was interpreted in terms of family relations: “So after the time of David and Solomon, when Israel had separated into two Kingdoms, the stories of Abraham and Jacob functioned to unify all those who claimed common descent from these patriarchs. . . . The root metaphor of family descent set the Israelites apart from the Canaanites.” 37 At the theological level, the root metaphors of family and covenant are applied to the fatherson relationship between God and Israel. C. J. H. Wright notes: Although the idea of the fatherhood of Yahweh is overshadowed by the covenant concept in the Hebrew Bible, there is a close link between the two. When you analyze the texts where father-son language is used for God and Israel, they show up an interesting dual aspect which is quite similar to the dual nature of the covenant itself, namely that the relationship between Israel and God was both a fact which God achieved, and also a demand which Israel must fulfill. The covenant was both a statement and a claim; in technical terms, an indicative and an imperative. . . . So what we find then, is that both poles of the covenant (God’s initiative and Israel’s obedience) are held together within the same relational metaphor of father and son.38 As this study progresses, it will become clear that the root metaphors of covenant and kinship underwrite the father-son relationship between Yahweh and Israel throughout the various Old Testament traditions and periods of salvation history. In sum, covenant relations are often associated very closely with kinship bonds. Cross says: “Often it has been asserted that the language of brotherhood and fatherhood, love and loyalty, is covenant terminology. This is to turn things upside down. The language of covenant, kinship-in-law, is taken from the language of kinship-in-flesh.” 39 He concludes: “The failure to recognize the rootage of the institution of covenant and covenant obligations in the structures of kinship societies has led to confusion and even gross distortion in the scholarly discussion of the term berit, ‘covenant,’ and in the description of early Israelite religion.” 40

The Kinship Covenant in the Old Testament  |  43

Three Examples of Secular Kinship Covenants in the Book of Genesis Only texts that explicitly mention bĕrît will be considered in this section. This does not imply that the term must appear for there to be a covenant. Scholars generally accept the persence of covenants in texts that do not employ the term bĕrît. This has been amply demonstrated by Kalluveettil, Hugenberger, and others. Genesis 21:22–34 In this passage a covenant (bĕrît, vv. 27, 32) is made between Abraham and Abimelech for the purpose of averting hostilities.41 After both parties swear an oath (vv. 23–24), Abraham offers a sacrifice (vv. 27–30). Abimelech then draws from him a pledge of “loyalty” (ḥesed, v. 23). The Hebrew word ḥesed is a term that denotes “the mutual relationship of rights and duties between the members of a family or tribe.” 42 The covenant serves to legitimize Abraham’s personal presence and place in Abimelech’s extended family circle and tribal territory.43 Genesis 26:26–33 A kinship covenant was made between Isaac and Abimelech when Isaac sojourned in Gerar (vv. 1–3). Having acquired great wealth, Isaac incurs the envy and hostility of the Philistines, who then evict him (vv. 12–16). Abimelech approaches Isaac to make a covenant, requesting that there be an “oath” (ʾālâ, v. 28), and that they “cut a covenant” (kārat bĕrît, v. 28). After reminding Isaac of their past dealings in “peace” (v. 29),44 Abimlelech insists he has shown Isaac “only good” (v. 29).45 The covenant-making ceremony consists of a shared “meal” (v. 30), and an oath that is sworn by both parties.46 This episode thus exhibits features common to a kinship covenant.47 Genesis 31:43–54 This covenant between Jacob and Laban shows how both parties may already be related to each other (i.e., by marriage) prior to covenant-making. It is clear that their strained familial ties could use some reinforcement; a kinship covenant serves this purpose. After Jacob flees with his wives and

44  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

children from Laban, he is overtaken by the latter and entreated to “cut a covenant” (v. 44). Jacob responds by directing his kinsmen to erect a heap of stones as “a witness” (vv. 48, 52). After the heap of stones is erected, Jacob, Laban, and their kinsmen share a meal.48 Laban then pronounces a conditional curse upon Jacob, which is confirmed by Jacob’s animal sacrifice and oath (vv. 53–54).49 Once again, traces of the kinship covenant are evident.50

Covenant Ritual at Sinai: Divine Kinship Covenant in Exodus 2451 Scholars have proposed many theories about the symbolism and meaning of animal sacrifice in the Old Testament and in the ancient Near East.52 Most likely, animal sacrifice simultaneously conveyed a variety of meanings, including homage, renunciation, thanksgiving, repentance, family solidarity, consecration, gift giving, expiation, propitiation, substitution, transference, and interchange.53 In Exodus 24:1–11 several of these elements may be present. At the heart of the episode, however, is a distinctively covenantal meaning.54 This distinctively covenantal meaning emerges when the Exodus 24:1–11 narrative is given a canonical reading in light of its Pentateuchal setting and in light of later interpretive traditions. An earlier passage in Exodus provides a valuable clue for discovering the purpose behind God’s command to Israel that they sacrifice certain animals at Sinai: Then Pharaoh called Moses and Aaron, and said, “Go, sacrifice to your God within the land.” But Moses said, “It would not be right to do so; for we shall sacrifice to the Lord our God offerings abominable to the Egyptians. If we sacrifice offerings abominable to the Egyptians before their eyes, will they not stone us? We must go three days’ journey into the wilderness and sacrifice to the Lord our God as he will command us.” (Exod 8:25–27) Moses recognizes that Yahweh commands Israel to do something offensive to Egyptian religious sensitivities. The underlying rationale for Moses’ concern is nowhere explicitly stated.55 Yet, Exodus 8:25–27 implies that offering certain animals would have a shocking effect upon the Egyptians. Two questions arise. First, what was it about the sacrifice Israel was to offer that made it so offensive to the Egyptians? Second, why was it necessary for Israel to offer sacrifice in the first place?

The Kinship Covenant in the Old Testament  |  45

B. S. Childs wrestles with the first question: “Moses’ retort to this [­Pharaoh’s] offer [to sacrifice within the land] is somewhat surprising. The more obvious answer would have been to designate the land of Egypt as unclean for Hebrew sacrifice. Rather, Moses argues that their method of sacrifice would be offensive to the Egyptians and would call forth reprisals against his people. . . . It is not fully clear wherein the offense lay (Gen 46:34). Was it that the Hebrews sacrificed cattle which were considered sacred by the Egyptians (cf. Targ. Onkelos)? Was it the offering of sheep (cf. Jer. Targ.), or did the offense lie in the manner of whole offering?” 56 J. Davis also probes this question: “A number of suggested interpretations have been offered for this expression. These have included the idea that abomination refers to the sacrifice of sheep which were presumably held more or less in detestation by the Egyptians, or it may have had reference to the sacrifice of heifers, the cow being the animal sacred to goddess Hathor. Josephus states that the Egyptians were greatly scandalized when sacred animals were sacrificed or eaten.” 57 Davis continues: “The best ­explanation . . . seems to be that the abomination somehow related to the use of sheep for sacrifice.” 58 U. Cassuto understands Moses’ response as saying, “The animals that we offer are deemed sacred by the Egyptians— symbols of their gods . . . [so] we sacrifice the Egyptian idols.” 59 So also Rashi, who comments: “We may explain these words . . . [abominable to the Egyptians]—the act of sacrifice which we practice is a hateful thing to the Egyptians seeing that we sacrifice their god (sheep which were reverenced as gods in Egypt).” 60 The Targums also exhibit this sort of perspective. For example, Targum Neofiti reads: “And Moses said: ‘It is not right to do so, because the idols of the Egyptians are an abomination, from which we must take to sacrifice before the Lord, our God.’ ” 61 In a similar vein, Targum Onqelos reads: “And Moses said, ‘It is not proper to do so, because we are taking the cattle which the Egyptians worship to sacrifice before the Lord our God; here we will be sacrificing the cattle which the Egyptians worship and they would be seeing it; would they not intend to stone us?!’ ” 62 In fact, the Targums simply reflect an ancient and widespread tradition that the animals that Moses and the Israelites were commanded to sacrifice both symbolized and were to be identified with Egypt’s gods. Other witnesses to this interpretation include Manetho, Tacitus, Josephus, the Exodus Rabbah, Eusebius, Aphrahat, Aquinas, and Nicholas of Lyra. Assuming that the sacrificial animals represented Egyptian gods, a second question arises: Why was it necessary for Israel to sacrifice these

46  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

a­ nimal/symbols in the first place? A narrative reading suggests that by offering these sacrifices, Israel was being induced by God to forswear the Egyptian idols to which they had previously been yoked. This act of renunciation and repudiation was intended to restore Israel’s covenant with Yahweh. The act was intended to make Israel definitively dissociate themselves from Egypt’s idolatrous religion. This sort of interpretive approach can be observed in many ancient Jewish and Christian sources. For example, in Lev. Rab. 22.5, Amora R. Levi states: “Because Israel was devoted to idolatry in Egypt and offered their sacrifices to the satyrs . . . the Holy One . . . said, ‘Let them at all times offer their sacrifices . . . and thus they will keep aloof from idolatrous worship.’ ” 63 Eusebius of Caesarea says: “It was in this intermediate period, while the ideal of the new covenant was hidden from men, and as it were asleep, that the law of Moses was interposed in the interval. . . . It was like a doctor to heal the whole Jewish race, worn away by the terrible disease of Egypt. . . . For through their long sojourn in Egypt, after the death of their godly forefathers, they adopted Egyptian customs, and, as I said, fell into idolatrous superstition. They aimed no higher than the Egyptians; they became in all respects like them, both in worshipping idols, and in other matters.” 64 Aphrahat comments similarly: “On account of their evil impulse, God commanded that they even bring as an offering before him that thing which they had worshipped. They should eat the flesh of sheep and oxen, which they had not wanted to eat because they were sacrifices. And note that when he distinguished many animals of purity for them, only from the sheep and oxen did he mandate sacrifice from them.” 65 The interpretive approach of Maimonides also reflects this sort of canonical reading: “In order to eradicate these false principles, the Law commands us to offer sacrifice. . . . Thus the very act which is considered by the heathen as the greatest crime is the means of approaching God, and obtaining His pardon for our sins. . . . This is also the reason why we were commanded to kill a lamb on Passover, and to sprinkle the blood thereof outside on the gates. We had to free ourselves of evil doctrines and proclaim the opposite, viz., that the very act which was then considered as being the cause of death would be the cause of deliverance from death [my emphasis].” 66 According to R. J. Thompson, a narrative reading of this sort echoes the “classical interpretation” (of Spencer) which traces the origin of Israelite sacrifice to the “contempt of heathen gods.” 67 This classical interpretation is reflected in Manetho, Josephus, Tacitus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Eusebius, the Didascalia Apostolorum, and Thomas Aquinas.

The Kinship Covenant in the Old Testament  |  47

This sort of narrative approach to the Book of Exodus has canonical resonances in the Book of Ezekiel. The prophetic oracle in Ezekiel 20:7–8, 16 presents the Exodus as part of God’s strategic effort to compel Israel to cast off the “idols of Egypt.” 68 Scholars discern a similar pattern elsewhere in the cultic traditions of ancient Israel. For example, A. Weiser describes how “the renunciation of the gods was a constituent part of the ritual of the covenant cult,” and how “the dissociation from the deities and their worshippers . . . is in keeping with that repudiation of foreign gods. They are the prerequisite, and, as it were, the negative aspect of the affirmation of faithfulness to Yahweh that is made in the covenant act of worship [my emphasis].” 69 Weiser had stated earlier: “The marking off of Israel as a people opposed to the worship of strange gods was . . . from the beginning intimately bound up with the nature of the Covenant, its ideology, and its cultic practice and was continually impressed upon the people of Israel (cf. Ex. 18.11; 20.3, 23; 23.24; 34.14ff.; Josh. 24. 14ff., 20ff.). . . . The various renunciations of strange gods and of their worshippers . . . [serve] as counterparts of the professions of loyalty to Yahweh. These have significance, as they help us to establish the cult of the Covenant.” 70 From a narrative perspective, it is noteworthy that the covenant ritual in Exodus 24:1–11 immediately follows a warning against Canaanite idolatry (Exod 23:32): “You shall make no covenant with them or with their gods.” Thus, Israel’s response is ritually enacted with sacrifices to Yahweh that signify their renunciation of the idols of Egypt (Exod 24:4b–5). This renunciation displays a basic purpose for the sacrifices and blood-sprinkling rite: it is an act of covenant oath-swearing.71 Kinship solidarity of Israel with Yahweh is sealed by covenant sacrifice and oath-swearing.72 The oath conveys both sides of Israel’s covenant: consecration to Yahweh and renunciation of Egypt’s gods.73 Sacrifice and blood-sprinkling constitute the preparatory means for establishing covenant kinship and fellowship between Israel and Yahweh. It is striking and noteworthy that the blood is sprinkled both on the altar—symbolizing the presence of God—and on the people. The sprinkling of blood is a ritualized oath-curse—in technical terminology, a Drohritus. The sprinkled blood of the slain animals represents the curse of death that both parties invoke upon themselves should they prove unfaithful to their covenant obligations. The mutual sprinkling of blood may also convey the idea that both parties now share one blood—that is, they have become kin. The mutuality of the Sinai covenant is also highlighted by the bilocal ratification ceremonies. First, the covenant is ratified by sacrifice at the foot of the mountain, which is in the human realm. Second, the represen-

48  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

tatives of Israel (Moses and the elders) ascend the mountain into the divine realm to share a meal with God. As F. H. Polak has shown, this pattern of a twofold ratification ceremony with a ritual performed in the territories of both covenanting partners is attested in other ancient Near Eastern covenants of reciprocity.74 The covenant ritual at Sinai represents an act of national initiation. Israel publicly witnesses to a solemn acceptance of God’s vocation to serve as “a kingdom of priests” (Exod 19:6).75 The climactic scene in which Israel’s elders draw near and eat a meal with “the God of Israel” (24:9–11) vividly conveys the newly-formed covenant communion and family fellowship.76

Conclusions First and foremost, the preceding analysis of certain covenants in Genesis and Exodus has detected both a relational core as well as familial properties.77 Second, ritual and cultic acts like sacrifice, meal-sharing, and especially oath-swearing extend kinship-by-covenant.78 Third, divine covenants are unique. God is not merely invoked, he actually enters into kinship bonds by covenant oath.79 Fourth, Sinai is rightly viewed as a kinship covenant, since both Israel and Yahweh accept the oath-sign (the sprinkled blood).80 Sinai formally initiates Israel as the family of Yahweh; mutual obligations now unite Israel with Yahweh.81 Fifth, the newly forged kinship is cast in terms of a father-son relationship (Exod 4:22); “God is patron and father, Israel servant and son.” 82 ­McCarthy comments: “We have argued that the concept of Israel’s divine sonship in the Old Testament is often very like the concept of Israel, the covenant partner of Yahweh. Indeed, the two ideas are inseparable. . . . ­ Covenant necessarily expressed itself in actions carried out according to the partner’s direction. So also sonship: it was an affair of action according to the wishes of the father’s heart. The one idea necessarily and naturally completes the other.” 83 The Sinai covenant represents a crucial theological adaptation of the kinship covenant, whereby a familial bond between God and Israel is established on the basis of a father-son relationship. In sum, J. L. ­McKenzie is correct to conclude: “It is against the background of the covenant that the divine sonship of Israel is to be understood.” 84

3 The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament The last half of the twentieth century witnessed an explosion of research in the formal parallels between biblical covenants and ancient Near Eastern treaties.1 As a result, the so-called “treaty pattern”2 has been applied to select covenants, notably the Mosaic covenants at Mount Sinai (Exod 19–24) 3 and on the plains of Moab4 (Deuteronomy), and subsequently to the Davidic covenant5 and portions of the prophets (e.g., the covenant lawsuit).6

The Treaty-Type Covenant The treaty-type covenant is typically understood on the basis of G. E. Mendenhall’s study of Hittite suzerain-vassal treaties. The basic form is not overly rigid. Six constitutive elements may be outlined safely: (1) the suzerain is identified in a preamble by his titles and ancestry; (2) previous relations between the suzerain and vassal are recorded in the historical prologue, where prior favors are recounted; (3) the vassal is bound by stipulations drawn up by the suzerain; (4) a deposit for the treaty is arranged in the documentary clause, along with provisions for periodic readings; (5) witnesses are invoked by oath; (6) dual sanctions, that is, blessings and curses, are set forth based on the performance of the vassal. Since certain elements and alleged parallels of this schema are discounted by some scholars,7 there is no clear consensus. Nevertheless, a common recognition of the nature and purpose of the treaty-type covenant has emerged and remains widely accepted. 49

50  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

Other significant parallels also emerge which indicate that a common body of technical covenant terminology was in widespread use across the centuries in ancient Near East literature (e.g., Hittite, neo-Babylonian, neoAssyrian, Hellenic).8 Besides this common vocabulary found in these ANE sources, there was a pervasive concern with oath-swearing—in close conjunction with sacrifice—at the start and/or finish of covenant ceremonies.9 McCarthy sees the “loyalty oath” as the distinguishing feature of treatytype covenants: “All ancient treaties are a kind of loyalty oath. This is their distinctive formal characteristic: the obligation is presented as depending on an oath, not on an authoritative decree or an agreement certified by witnesses. . . . The sovereign imposed his will on them and bound them by oath and the threat of divine vengeance. And this, I submit, is, since Sumer, the very definition of the ancient ‘vassal’ treaty: the sovereign’s will imposed under oath (hence a political obligation with a religious character) on someone not his immediate subject (hence a treaty and not a mere loyalty oath).” 10 The profound connection between oath-swearing and ­covenant-making spoken of by McCarthy calls for closer study.

Covenant and Oath in the Old Testament The link between covenant and oath is crucial for the argument of the present study. McCarthy notes: “Covenant in its most fundamental meaning is probably an especially strong oath binding one to something because he has tied himself to it under God.” 11 Milgrom echoes this idea, declaring that “a covenant, by definition, is a promissory oath.” 12 Robertson observes how “in several passages of Scripture the integral relation of oath to covenant is brought out most clearly by a parallelism of construction (Deut 29:12; 2 Kgs 11:4; 1 Chr 16:16; Ps 89:3, 4; 105:9; Ezek 17:19). In these cases, the oath interchanges with the covenant, and the covenant with the oath.” 13 That oath and covenant are sometimes used as near equivalents is a critically important point for the treatment of diathēkē in Galatians 3:15 and Hebrews 9:16–17 in Part Two of this study, where it is argued that diathēkē denotes a “covenant-oath” (not simply “covenant,” much less “testament”). First, it will be shown how oath-swearing ratifies a covenant on the basis of a conditional self-maledictory pledge. Second, two main constitutive elements of the covenant oath will be examined: verba solemnia and ritual enactment. Third, the use of God’s name in oath-swearing will be treated. It will be shown that using God’s name engages God as witness, judge, and guarantor. Fourth, the self-maledictory symbolism in covenant oaths that

The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  51

are sworn by sacrifice will be considered. Fifth, the correlation of covenant oaths and sacrament in later Jewish and Roman settings leading up to the New Testament period will be treated. Sixth, the unique and momentous importance of God’s sworn oaths in the Old Testament, select intertestamental sources (Enoch and Jubilees), and the Targums will be considered in order to illumine an essential, but much neglected, aspect of covenant theology at the time Galatians and Hebrews were written. Oath-Swearing Ratifies a Covenant by a Conditional Self-Maledictory Pledge14 In its essence, an oath is a form of a self-pledge similar to but distinguishable from promises and vows.15 T. Cartledge explains the meaning of each term: Biblical vows and oaths are actually composites of smaller units. The basic building block of both vows and oaths is the promise: a person’s statement of intention that he or she will or will not do something. . . . Old Testament oaths basically consist of a promise that is strengthened by the addition of a curse, usually . . . with an appeal to the deity . . . who could carry out the curse. . . . With vows, the process characteristically moves in the opposite direction to oaths. While an oath begins with human action . . . and moves from there to God’s potential response, a vow begins with a plea for divine action, followed by a conditional promise of the worshipper’s response.16 In sum, a vow is a conditional promise made to God. An oath consists of a promise joined to the invocation of the name of God for help, whereby the oath swearer places himself under divine judgment signified by a conditional self-curse. Hugenberger’s definition balances these elements: “We understand by ‘oath’ any solemn declaration or enactment which invokes the deity to act against the one who is false to an attendant commitment or affirmation.” 17 There are two Hebrew words to denote “oath.” 18 The first, šĕbûʿâ, derives from the triconsonantal root šbʿ, from which is formed the noun “seven” (šebaʿ). This root, in the reflexive verbal formation (the nipʿal), means “to swear” (literally, “to seven oneself”).19 The second, ʾālâ, literally means “to curse,” but is often used to denote a covenant oath. C. L. and E. M. Meyers comment:

52  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

ʾAlâ is a “curse” only in terms of its covenant grounding. That is, it is a “sanction/curse,” the sworn statement of the covenant participants. . . . The linkage of curse with covenant is perhaps most clear in the language of Deuteronomy 29, where Moses addresses the Israelites in the land of Moab. The Israelites are reminded that they are entering into a “sworn covenant,” and that while one who hears the words of the “sworn covenant” may feel automatically blessed, a transgressor will be punished according to all the covenant curse/oaths. . . . “Curse” thus represents the covenant in its breach, when those who violate its stipulations are brought to justice. Covenant (berît) and ʾalâ as sanction can clearly be used synonymously or similarly as complementary parts of a hendiadys as in Deuteronomy 29.20 Wegner comments further: “In its basic form, the oath is a conditional self-curse calling upon God . . . to judge in the case of a breached promise or to stand as witness to a person’s veracity. Therefore the effectiveness of an oath is dependent upon the oathmaker’s view of the sovereign and his ability to enact the prescribed judgment upon one who disregards the oath.” 21 The Two Constitutive Elements of the Covenant Oath: Verba Solemnia and Ritual Enactment While the distinguishing mark of oaths is conditional self-malediction, it should be recalled that swearing is primarily motivated by a desire for divine benediction.22 Both elements are frequently conveyed by means of the two constitutive parts of a covenant oath: a formal declaration (verba solemnia) and a ritual enactment (“oath-sign”).23 The verba solemnia are the actual words sworn by the oath taker(s). The oath-sign is a symbolic gesture of some sort. The symbolism of the oath-sign is not always easy to interpret.24 Oath-signs often conceal a selfmaledictory element, as Hugenberger notes: “An uplifted hand, though not overtly self-maledictory, may function as an oath-sign since it expresses an appeal to the deity to act as a witness.” 25 He further explains: “It should be possible, at least in principle, for the same occasion of eating and drinking to function as an oath-sign by offering simultaneously both a positive symbol of covenant commitment and a negative symbol of the covenant sanction. For this kind of symbolic multivalence, one may recall the example of circumcision . . . with both its self-maledictory symbolism and

The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  53

its more positive consecratory symbolism, neither of which excludes the other.” 26 In the case of a treaty-type covenant, however, self-maledictory symbolism typically stands out more prominently.27 Even though blessing and curse may be conveyed in the same ritual act, one sense is usually more evident and intentional. For instance, sharing a meal more plainly signifies fellowship (Exod 24:9–11), while dividing slaughtered animals primarily signifies self-malediction (Gen 15:9–21; Jer 34:8–22). In some cases, when the blessing aspect is explicitly verbalized, the curse aspect is explicitly ritualized (or vice versa). Thus, while the blessing is verbalized in Genesis 15:13–16, 18–20, the cursing is ritualized in 15:9–10, 17. Similarly, covenant blessings are verbalized in Genesis 17:4–8, 15–16, while the curse is primarily signified in the oath-sign of circumcision in 17:11–14. This is also the case regarding God’s oath in Genesis 22. Since blessings are explicitly verbalized in 22:16–18, the curse is ritually signified in Abraham’s sacrificial act in 22:14–19: the father offers his beloved only son as a holocaust. These examples show how covenant oaths can have elements of both blessing and curse, even if they are closely intertwined in words and ritual, and hence difficult to differentiate and interpret. While an oath cannot guarantee fidelity, it does serve to assure both parties of the necessary elements of divine assistance and judgment.28 In the Old Testament, oaths were often sworn by people in situations of war involving duty and risk. In the aftermath of the battle in war-torn Canaan, Abraham swears his loyalty to the Lord (Gen 14:22). Similar oaths sworn in ordeal situations include: 1. Rahab and the two spies (Josh 2:12–14 [esp. v. 14: “Our life for yours!”]); 2. the men of Israel against the tribe of Benjamin (Judg 21:1–7); and 3. Saul’s oath which brought guilt upon his son Jonathan (1 Sam 14:24–28). The binding force of covenant oaths is divine power that immutably abides. God’s faithfulness ensures not only the availability of the requisite power to perform a sworn duty but also the blessing for a faithful performance. Conversely, when a sworn duty remains unfulfilled, the oath ensures divine retribution, that is, covenant curses. The violation or nonfulfillment of a sworn duty does not terminate a covenant, it simply triggers the curses of the original covenant-ratifying oath. When a party swears an oath to

54  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

perform some future (or ongoing) duty, the curse abides, like a sword hanging over one’s head. The abiding threat of the curse is absolutely necessary for the covenant to be preserved, lest the covenant be jeopardized by a future violation of the oath. Revoking a sworn oath-pledge or changing its conditional terms was regarded as an especially dangerous form of sacrilege. The curses would come down not only on the violators but on their families as well.29 Clearly, people who fear God and love their families will tend to regard oaths with great awe and reverence. J. A. Wilson observes: “An age which took its gods seriously would not be likely to treat the oath lightly.” 30 For ­McCarthy: “The oath and the attached curse was something very real to the ancients.” 31 Fensham notes how: “An oath once taken cannot be recalled or changed; it can only be broken.” 32 Eichrodt states that oaths “remain dangerous for a long time, like a long-forgotten mine in the sea, or a grenade buried in a ploughed field.” 33 In sum, the abiding force of the oath keeps the covenant from ever becoming ineffectual. The notion that covenant oaths have abiding force is a point that will prove invaluable in Part Two of this study where the word diathēkē in Galatians 3:15–16 and Hebrews 9:16–17 is examined. The Use of God’s Name in Oath-Swearing: God Is Witness, Judge, and Guarantor When God imparts covenant blessings or curses, he is said to act “for the sake of his name” since the invocation of his name represents the means by which a covenant is ratified by oath.34 An awareness of this aspect of covenant and oath helps explain an important dimension of the prohibition against taking God’s name in vain. Commenting on Exodus 20:7 (Deut 5:11 [see Lev 19:12]), Lehmann notes: The usual translation is “You must not invoke the name of the Lord your God in evil intent (or: in vain).” This translation infers that the prohibition is directed against every profane or unnecessary use of the divine name. Actually the verb ‫[ אלה‬ʾālâ] is a synonym for ‫[ נשבע‬nišbaʿ], to swear (Ps 24:4). Since we have observed the role of God as the executioner of the curses inherent in an oath, the Biblical prohibition is actually a warning that God will not free . . . the one swearing falsely from the consequences of the curse which he takes upon himself. The correct translation should be “You must not swear in God’s name falsely for the Lord

The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  55

will not free (from curses) him who swears falsely in his name, and breaks against the oath he has taken upon himself.” 35 The sacred and holy character of God’s name further explains why sworn oaths taken in his name were regarded as absolutely irrevocable and inviolable. The Self-Maledictory Symbolism in Covenant Oaths Sworn by Sacrifice Another important element of covenant oath-swearing was the “oath sacrifice.” McCarthy describes this aspect of covenant-making in terms of a “conditional self-curse in which the curse is reinforced by a symbolic action.” 36 When this action involved the sacrifice of animals, the symbolic purpose was clear: “the oath taker identified himself with the slain animal if he were to violate his oath.” 37 In such cases, “the oath was also sacred because it was an act of cult or worship.” 38 Similar ideas seem to be reflected in various Old Testament reports of covenant-making (or renewal) involving animal sacrifice, from the Sinai covenant (Exod 24) to later materials in Chronicles–Nehemiah.39 In such instances, the cultic nature of oath-swearing visibly emerges, although this dimension is often overlooked by scholars. Pope is right in concluding that “the oath was an important part of the cult life of the Hebrew community.” 40 This sacrificial dimension of covenant-making can be observed in a number of Old Testament passages. For example, Psalm 50:5 reads: “Gather to me my faithful ones, who made a covenant with me by sacrifice.” Another instance is found in Jeremiah 34:15–19, where Jeremiah pronounces curses upon Zedekiah and certain people in Jerusalem for violating their covenant oath to free Hebrew slaves.41 This covenant had been sworn in a public ceremony involving a sacrificial offering along with the dividing of animals. Jeremiah interprets this ceremony as a self-maledictory oathsign: “The men who violated my covenant and did not observe the terms of the agreement which they made before me, I will make like the calf which they cut in two, between whose two parts they passed” (Jer 34:18). This text shows how self-maledictory symbolism is linked to covenant, oath, and sacrifice. A third example is found in 2 Chronicles 15:10–15. This passage tells of Asa’s reform: They were gathered at Jerusalem in the third month of the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa. They sacrificed to the Lord on

56  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

that day, from the spoil which they had brought, seven hundred oxen and seven thousand sheep. They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord . . . and that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman. They took an oath to the Lord with a loud voice, and with shouting, and with trumpets, and with horns. All Judah rejoiced over the oath; for they had sworn with all their heart . . . and he was found by them and the Lord gave them rest round about. Once again, covenant, oath, and sacrifice converge in a cultic setting where they are closely linked. The convergence of covenant, oath, and sacrifice is frequent and natural, but not always explicit or necessarily invariable. Unfortunately, this aspect of covenant research has not received much scholarly attention. It seems reasonable, however, to suggest that the convergence of these three elements is of profound theological significance.42 The Correlation of Covenant Oaths and Sacrament in Later Jewish and Roman Settings The “oath sacrifice” appears in contexts of covenant-making (and renewal) ranging all the way from the second-millennium Hittite treaties into Hellenistic43 and Roman periods.44 Weinfeld sees nearly identical forms of ­sacrificial oaths sworn “in the Israelite confession of faith . . . crystallized in later Jewish liturgy.” 45 This phenomenon may provide a valuable clue for explaining the origin and Christian understanding of the sacramental praxis of the early church. There is a well-known statement made by Pliny in a letter to the Emperor Trajan in which he describes a practice of first-century Christians. Pliny explains how Christians gathered before sunrise to sing hymns to Christ, after which they would “bind themselves by an oath” (se sacramento obstringere).46 Many scholars interpret this statement against the twofold backdrop of Roman oath-swearing and the Eucharist. Herion and Mendenhall comment: “The reference is almost certainly to the Eucharist ritual, which perhaps as early as the first century was already being identified as a sacramentum, ‘sacrament.’ ” 47 They add: “Thus, a vast number of early Christians seem to have understood the Eucharist in some context associated with oath taking, specifically oath taking with respect to ‘Christ’ . . . whose interests were understood to transcend those of the Roman empire (hence

The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  57

Trajan’s concern).” 48 Kline interprets the early Christian understanding of baptism along similar lines: “As an oath-sign of allegiance to Christ the Lord, baptism is a sacrament in the original sense of sacramentum in its etymological relation to the idea of consecration, and more particularly in its employment for the military oath of allegiance.” 49 The Importance of God’s Sworn Oaths in the Biblical, Second Temple, and Targumic Literature In certain cases, God himself swears a conditional self-curse. D. N. Freedman says that these types of covenant oaths are absolutely unique to ancient Israel: “[T]here are no convincing parallels in the pagan world, whether in the more typical case of God as suzerain binding Israel to serve him or in the more unusual position of God binding himself by oath to the service of his own servants.” 50 Wegner concurs: “Several texts record that the gods do swear oaths, but only to other deities. . . . Outside of the biblical record, there does not seem to be any occurrence of a deity swearing an oath to men.” 51 Wegner cites several scriptural examples of divine covenant oaths (Num 14:28–35; Deut 32:40–42; Ps 110:4; Ezek 20:5–44). He emphasizes, however, the overarching importance of the very first occasion in Scripture when God explicitly swore an oath. This occurred on the momentous occasion of the Aqedah (Gen 22:16–18).52 Divine oath-swearing assumes great importance in later Jewish sources. A striking example is found the “Song of the Cosmic Oath” in 1 Enoch 69:15–27, where the divine oath represents the very power of creation: He then revealed . . . the power of this oath, for it is power and strength itself. . . . By that oath, the sea was created. . . . By that oath the depths are made firm. . . . By the same oath the sun and the moon complete their courses of travel. . . . And by the same oath the stars complete their courses of travel. . . . This oath has become dominant over them.53 Another example is in Jubilees 36:7: “I will make you swear by that great oath—because there is not an oath which is greater . . . [than] the glorious and honored . . . and mighty Name which created heaven and earth and everything together—that you will fear and worship him.” 54 Not until the Targums, however, does God’s covenant oath emerge as an overarching principle in Jewish theology. This came about as a result of

58  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

God’s oath being identified with his Memra (name). C. Hayward and others have demonstrated that God’s Memra is a theological centerpiece of the Targums (especially Neofiti).55 After showing how God’s Memra represents the divine power behind creation, Hayward considers other uses of the term found in the Targums. He then concludes that Memra is best understood as the definitive revelation “of God’s Name for Himself, expressing his merciful presence . . . in covenant oath, and his presence in answer to the invocation of his name in worship [my emphasis].” 56 Hayward devotes an entire chapter to Memra and the covenant oath.57 There he demonstrates three major principles. First, divine covenants are based wholly on the Memra, understood as God’s covenant oath. Second, the Memra represents God’s own “Name” (i.e., the divine “Word”) which he invokes in order to bind himself—by covenant oath—to creation and especially to Israel. Third, the precise location of God’s Memra is the Jerusalem Temple. It was at that location (i.e., at Moriah—see Gen 22:16–18; 2 Chr 3:1), at the place of the Aqedah, that God had earlier sworn a covenant oath “by himself” (“by his Memra” in Neofiti) to bless all the nations in Abraham’s seed.58 Hayward argues that the targumic Memra theology of God’s covenant oath represents a natural and consistent development from the Pentateuchal narrative: “An understanding of the covenant as an oath which is sworn would seem to derive from the Torah itself, in which the oath of God can be found in parallelism with the covenant; and God, when He swears an oath, swears by Himself, that is, by His Name.” 59 Conclusions First, a covenant is ratified by oath-swearing through the invocation of God’s name. Second, once a covenant oath is sworn, it is absolutely immutable and inviolable. Third, covenant oaths entail self-curses and blessings which God administers as witness, judge, and guarantor. Fourth, the dual sanctions of blessing and curse coalesce in the two constitutive elements of a covenant oath: verbal declaration and ritual enactment. Fifth, the holiness of God’s name and its reverent use in oath-swearing represent a powerful force of social cohesion for ancient Israel, where family relations and obligations are extended by covenant. Sixth, covenant oaths are linked to sacrifice, notably in their self-maledictory symbolism. Seventh, covenant oaths were enjoined by suzerains throughout the ANE in order to impose treaty-type covenants on their vassals. Eighth, covenant oathswearing persisted into New Testament times, and may be related to the

The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  59

ancient sacramental praxis of early Christians. Ninth, the occurrence of divine oath-swearing assumes considerable importance, especially in later Jewish sources where God’s oaths represent a key theological principle for grasping the purpose of the divine covenants in salvation history.

Familial Terms and Relations In addition to oath-swearing, another major feature of treaty-type covenants is the continual and pervasive use of familial terminology. The covenantal duties of vassals to their suzerains were typically formulated in terms of the relationship between a father and his minor child (i.e., “I am your servant and your son”). This feature was only noticed after the initial (and very gradual) discovery of the controlling influence and official function of kinship language in the international treaty diplomacy of the ancient Near East. E. Gerstenberger was the first to note the presence and importance of “kinship terms” in biblical and ancient Near Eastern treaty-covenants in 1965.60 Within a year, P. J. Calderone noted how familial vocabulary— specifically father-son language—was applied to vassal treaty-covenants: “First, ancient kings often ensured the loyalty of a city or people by installing a son or close relative as vassal ruler, or by marrying off daughters to other vassals in order to make them sons-in-law and to guarantee a successor of their own blood. The Hittite king exhorted such vassals to recognize his sons as their brothers and to treat them accordingly. The purpose of all this was to unite the Great King and the son-in-law vassal as closely as possible, in a familial way and in a father-son relationship, in the hope of strengthening that relationship and their loyalty [my emphasis].” 61 ­Calderone’s observations were confirmed by G. Buccellati in a critical study on authority and kingship in tribal groups and city-states.62 Perhaps more than anyone else, M. Weinfeld recognized the relevant kinship data from Hittite and neo-Assyrian treaties: “The use of familial metaphors in order to express relationships belonging to the royal-national sphere should not surprise us, since the whole diplomatic vocabulary of the second millennium is rooted in the familial sphere.” 63 Weinfeld’s outlook was definitively explained by F. C. Fensham: To summarize, first, these designations [i.e., father-son terminology] are used in a definite family setting in the case of the correspondence between Samsi-Addu [sic] and his sons. It is,

60  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

however, noticeable that the family ties of the correspondents incidentally incorporate the meaning of the treaty relationship. Second, these designations are used between a higher and lower official. Third, they indicate a relationship between a king and his official. Evidence from the Hittite texts shows that a kind of treaty or agreement was made between the king and his officials or even his soldiers. It is not farfetched to suppose that the same practice was also known in Mari and the vicinity. In the fourth place, the Father-Son relationship is also employed in an international treaty background. The Mari letters show that this kind of relationship was popular when special friendship was cultivated between overlord and vassal, but apparently these designations refer to vassalage and not to a parity treaty.64 On the basis of biblical and Hittite materials, along with the Mari and Amarna letters, Fensham demonstrated how the father-son relationship is a constant and critical part of suzerain-vassal treaty covenants. By the early 1970’s, McCarthy treated the familial nature of treaty­covenant relations as a commonplace: “It becomes increasingly clear that treaty relationships were felt to be somehow familial. A treaty created ‘brotherhood’ and made ‘fathers’ and ‘sons.’ Semitic societies and their satellites seem to have seen all relationships as some kind of extension of their basic group, the family, and as in that relationship, they lasted over the generations (thus treaties did not automatically need renewal at the death of one party but could continue in force for the successor).” 65 McCarthy also notes how oath-swearing served as the means by which covenant kinship could be extended by a suzerain to his vassal. The “oath makes the prince the ‘son’ of the Assyrian king . . . [for] the use of oath and son . . . is, of course, regular treaty language.” 66 McCarthy’s viewpoint is shared by many Old Testament scholars.67

Examples of Secular Treaty-Type Covenants68 2 Kings 16:5–18 This passage in 2 Kings describes the defensive strategy of King Ahaz of Judah as he responds to an attack against Jerusalem by a Syrian-Israelite coalition (c. 735 bc). Ahaz counters the attack by making a treaty covenant with Tiglath-Pileser III, king of Assyria (745–727 bc).

The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  61

While no covenant is explicitly mentioned, Kalluveettil’s analysis of the text demonstrates that “the structure of the narrative as a whole shows striking similarity with biblical as well as Ancient Orient covenant texts.” 69 For example, when Ahaz’s messengers declare their king’s intention to enter into covenant vassalage under Tiglath-Pileser III, they do so by announcing on behalf of Ahaz: “I am your servant and your son” (v. 7).70 Kalluveettil comments: By using the double title, servant and son, Ahaz was stating his total belonging to the Assyrian king. He was proclaiming his submission and subservience, which was not simply that of an ordinary vassal (a formal servile relationship), but also that of the son (based on the loyalty of one who is intimately related to the overlord). The besieged king was putting his trust in Tiglath-­pileser as his master and father—the one who is obliged to defend his cause, under whom he is safe from the enemies. At the same time Ahaz was placing himself at the disposal of Assyria like a faithful slave and a loyal son; he was committing himself to a life of subordination and obedience as befitting this new status.71 The declaration by Ahaz initiates a treaty-type covenant between the suzerain and vassal on the basis of a father-son relationship. 1 Kings 20:30b–37 The next example occurred over a century earlier in the northern kingdom of Israel. It serves to illustrate how the use of kinship terms may convey subtle and nuanced messages that reflect the strategic diplomacy of the covenant parties. The story in the passage centers around a “covenant” (bĕrît, v. 34) made between Israel’s king Ahab and Syria’s king Benhadad. After being defeated by Ahab, Syria’s king Benhadad sent an envoy to Ahab. The Syrians had some hope of leniency, for they had heard of the “mercy” (ḥesed, v. 31) that Israel’s kings had shown to their enemies in the past.72 They declare to Ahab their king’s desire to be spared, using the designation “your servant” (v. 32) in referring to Benhadad. Such terminology implies that Benhadad was seeking a treaty relation of covenant vassalage. Kalluveettil comments: “The Aramaeans approached Ahab with a definite purpose. Like the Gibeonites, Benhadad was presenting himself as the vassal of Israel, so that he can save his life. Benhadad addresses himself as ʿebed of Ahab and

62  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

asks for his life. . . . The most they could hope for was a pact that would guarantee Benhadad’s survival as a vassal of Israel.” 73 Ahab, however, does not accept or reject the proffered terms. Instead, he seeks to revise them by means of the strategic use of kinship terminology. Ahab’s response is terse: “He is my brother” (v. 32). The response is sufficient to clarify his proposed revision. For Ahab, the only acceptable arrangement is a parity alliance, not a vassal treaty.74 The envoy responds with similar brevity: “Your brother Benhadad” (v. 33). This response indicates that the envoy has formally accepted Ahab’s proposed revision. Consent to the covenantal arrangement is conveyed by means of the language of kinship denoting familial relations.75

The Divine Treaty-Type Covenant of Deuteronomy Deuteronomy presents a covenant between Yahweh and Israel with several close formal ties to the ancient treaty form. W. L. Moran notes: “­Deuteronomy . . . is the biblical document par excellence of the covenant. No book of the Old Testament is so penetrated in every stage of its formation by the literary form which we now know goes back as far as the vassal treaties of the second millennium.” 76 Like Moran, many other scholars detect the treaty pattern in Deuteronomy, either in the entire book,77 or in larger sections.78 The first scholar to argue that Deuteronomy (in its entirety) reflects the treaty-type covenant was M. G. Kline in 1960. Kline states: “Deuteronomy is a covenant renewal document which in its total structure exhibits the classic legal form of the suzerainty treaties.” 79 Over the next three decades, the presence of covenant-treaty parallels in Deuteronomy was recognized by an impressive array of scholars, starting with D. J. McCarthy in his 1963 thesis, Treaty and Covenant.80 A decade later, McCarthy reaffirmed his view: “There can be no doubt that Deuteronomy does show some kind of relationship to the literary form of these treaties.” 81 After decades of study, Weinfeld concurs: “It is no wonder . . . the pattern of the vassal treaty found a permanent place in the Israelite religion; nor is it a coincidence that this treaty pattern was adopted in its entirety precisely by the book of Deuteronomy.” 82 Besides the formal parallels, scholars have noticed a considerable degree of lexical overlap between Deuteronomy and ancient Near Eastern treaties. Mayes notes: “The command to ‘love’ God (6:5) finds a treaty parallel in the command that the vassal should love his suzerain; similarly, the commands

The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  63

‘walk after,’ ‘fear,’ ‘obey his voice,’ ‘serve,’ ‘cleave’ (13:4) should be understood from the same context. The formal similarity between Deuteronomy and the treaties consists especially in the general parallel in structure, with the succession of history, law, blessing, and curse. . . . Not only is the form that of a formal declaration in a covenant relationship context, but the vocabulary used also presupposes such a context.” 83 Mayes concludes: “Deuteronomy contains many echoes of the treaty traditions. . . . There are detailed points of contact both in vocabulary and forms.” 84 McCarthy shows how the conceptual overlap extends to the common use of the father-son relationship as a model for the suzerain-vassal bond between Yahweh and Israel in Deuteronomy. He can then dispel the false notion “that the imagery of father and son is irrelevant to or even incompatible with the Deuteronomic conception”: The very ancient Israelite concept of Israel as Yahweh’s son is very close to or even identical with the Deuteronomic conception articulated in terms of the treaty or covenant and should not be separated entirely from it. In fact, the father-son relationship of Israel to Yahweh was conceived in terms which correspond to the definition of covenantal love as found in Deuteronomy. The point is that the love demanded from Israel in Deuteronomy has a very particular character. It is love which is seen in reverential fear, in loyalty, and in obedience—a love which, therefore, can be commanded. As the ancient treaties inform us, this is indeed the love demanded from the covenanted subject by his overlord. But it is also exactly the attitude which the Old Testament demands of Israel when it speaks of the people as Yahweh’s son.85 McCarthy goes on to elaborate on how the “love” of father and son functions as a normative idea in key covenant texts throughout Deuteronomy (e.g., 1:31; 8:5; 14:1; 32:5, 19), and how such usage is similar to that found in other ANE treaties: More can be adduced for the argument than the fact that the picture of the father-son relationship as applied to Yahweh and Israel corresponds to the Deuteronomic definition of covenant love. There is the fact that the father-son image appears in connections which are relevant to covenant and treaty. . . . It is not without significance that Deuteronomy sees nothing incongruous about basing a law safeguarding the essential relationship to Yahweh

64  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

on an appeal to the father-son relationship. And for Deuteronomy the law is specifically covenant law. . . . This corresponds exactly to the central element in the treaty relationship, the lord’s claim to an exclusive fidelity from the vassal which forbade all serious dealing with outsiders.86 The net effect of understanding “love” in this covenantal light is that a clearer picture of Israel’s covenant role as Yahweh’s servant and son emerges. However, the lesson to be drawn from Deuteronomy’s use of “love” in the context of a father-son relation is actually the marked contrast between Yahweh’s fatherly concern and provisions, on the one hand, and Israel’s lack of filial response on the other.87 For McCarthy, Deuteronomy stands in sharp contrast to the Sinai covenant in Exodus 19–24. The covenant-making ritual in Exodus 24 points more toward forging the familial bonds of communion, that is, “not the terms of a treaty, but the conditions covering continued action in the family.” 88 Nevertheless, based on his recognition and integration of the fatherson terminology in ancient suzerain-vassal treaties, McCarthy resists the temptation to drive too large of a wedge between the contrasting forms of the covenants at Sinai and on the plains of Moab, as though they were mutually exclusive models. The suzerain-vassal treaty background explains the distinctive combination of both father-son language and the commanded nature of love in Deuteronomy: The influence of the treaties solves the vexing problem here: how can love be commanded? In fact the particular relation involved is that which obtained between lord and vassal which, as a duty, could be commanded, and yet retained a definite affective element. We have seen some evidence for this odd—to us—­combination of attitudes in Barrakab of Sam’al . . . also the Assyrian exhortations to love one’s lord with the whole heart. . . . For the Hittites note similar ideas and expressions . . . one must even be ready to die for his lord and no man has greater love than this. The language which equates the treaty relationship with the familial (father, son, brother) is also relevant here: ancient society knew the family relationship as one involving love, no doubt, but emphatically including obedience without making much of the distinction between the two aspects so that love was a duty open to command.89

The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  65

Thus, the two accounts of the Mosaic covenant (Exodus and Deuteronomy) are actually complementary records of two different covenants distinguishable in time and space. Exodus describes a covenant made at Sinai forty years before the covenant on the plains of Moab reported in Deuteronomy. There is no reason, therefore, why both covenants would not contain familial elements, since kinship terminology is common to various types of covenants. Nevertheless, McCarthy shows how, on the one hand, the Exodus narrative of the Sinai covenant accentuates the familial bond which was formed by the covenant ritual (Exod 24:1–11); whereas, on the other, the Deuteronomic covenant—ratified by oaths replete with curse-threats (see Deut 27)—reconfigures that relationship in terms of ­suzerain-father and vassal-son.90 Parenthetically, McCarthy also shows how the covenantal usage of the father-son relationship between God and Israel is echoed later in Deuteronomic traditions, such as Jeremiah’s prophecies: “With weeping they shall come, and with consolations I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble; for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first-born” (Jer 31:9; cf. 3:19). In particular, the announcement of a new covenant fits naturally into the distinctively Deuteronomic covenant perspective of the father-son relationship. McCarthy observes: “[T]he restoration of Israel is restoration of the father-son relationship. This is in the context governed by 31,1, that is, by the proclamation of a new and better union between Yahweh and Israel based on a new covenant. Thus, in the mind of Jeremiah the covenant relationship and the father-son relationship were not incompatible, they were essentially the same thing.” 91 Jeremiah uses the Deuteronomic image of the strained father-son relationship between Yahweh and Israel (i.e., “Ephraim my firstborn” [Jer 31:9]), in order to highlight the need for (and the basis of) a divine renewal of the covenant. In a similar way, Hosea employs kinship terminology to describe ­Yahweh’s covenant with Israel.92 Their past estrangement and future reconciliation is presented in terms of a father-son relationship (Hos 11:1–4). Smith observes: “In 11.1, Hosea uses the language of adoption to describe YHWH’s election and deliverance of Israel from its bondage in Egypt: YHWH named Israel ‘my son’ . . . adopting him and creating a kinship relationship.” 93 The next few verses allude to Israel’s rebellion and how it threatened to rupture the filial covenant.94 Smith analyzes this sin and its subsequent consequences as described in Hosea 11:2–4:

66  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

In 11.2, the first signs of Israel’s disobedience appear. Although YHWH’s calling in 11.1 established a loving relationship . . . the people nevertheless proved faithless to YHWH: they began to sacrifice to the beʿalim. . . . Even though YHWH continued to call Israel his son, Israel nevertheless departed from his ­presence . . . 11.3 develops the adoption imagery further. The description of YHWH picking Israel up on his arms and teaching him to walk develops the metaphor of YHWH’s care for his adopted son. . . . Up to this point in Hosea 11, the picture is that of YHWH loving, adopting, and guiding the Israelites, in spite of their dalliances with the beʿalim. . . . [I]n 11.3b,4a the people are accused of doing the most grievous damage to their covenant relationship. . . . Israel does not recognize the covenantal/kinship obligations which they have to the god [sic] who heals and cares for them. . . . Hosea accuses Israel of breaking covenant . . . thus creating a major change in this relationship. . . . In 11.4, we do not find images of gentle nurturing depicted. Further, what we have is the language of binding and oath—that is, the language of kinship.95 In particular, Smith explains Hosea’s use of the image of cords and ropes (v. 4): “Although the precise meaning of this phrase is uncertain, it likely refers to kinship obligations. It may involve the invocation of covenant oaths and curses (symbolized by the cords and ropes).” 96 Hosea’s dependence on Deuteronomic covenant traditions for his description of the covenant between Yahweh and Israel is well argued and explicated by A. Reichert, in “Israel the Firstborn of God: A Topic of Early Deuteronomic Theology.” 97 These observations have prepared for a consideration of certain distinctive features of the Deuteronomic covenant, particularly the ways in which Deuteronomy serves to reconfigure the familial bond between Yahweh and Israel in terms of vassalage (i.e., a treaty-type covenant between a suzerainfather and his rebellious vassal-son). The following section demonstrates that Deuteronomy implicitly recasts the filial status of Israel into a more servile form, by means of a suzerain-vassal bond forged by a treaty-type covenant. It will become apparent that Deuteronomy served to establish a glorious hope for Israel, but in its far distant future. Deuteronomy 29–33 reveals that the inevitable imposition of the Deuteronomic covenant curses (especially exile) would be followed by divine deliverance, covenant renewal, and national restoration. Israel’s restoration, however, would come

The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  67

about only after a terrible and protracted period of exile. Only then would God empower Israel and enable it to realize its own filial destiny. This empowering was to be brought about by means of a new and different type of covenant (i.e., a grant-type). It will become clear that the book of Deuteronomy constitutes a covenant plan in which Israel’s divine suzerain strives to transform his rebellious vassal-servant into a loving and obedient son.98

Distinctive Aspects of the Deuteronomic Covenant This section will focus on distinctive aspects of the Deuteronomic covenant vis-à-vis other Mosaic covenant traditions, especially the Sinai covenant in Exodus 19–24. Following a brief look at some basic critical concerns, Deuteronomy will be given a canonical interpretation in its final narrative form. Sources Historical-critical study of Deuteronomy has led some scholars to see a single source underlying the book. Others view Deuteronomy in terms of ­ tradition-historical development. Both of these approaches contrast sharply with the standard source-critical approaches to the other Pentateuchal books, which are seen as a composite of Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly, and possibly Deuteronomic sources or traditions.99 Many scholars follow M. Noth’s tradition-historical approach to Deuteronomy. Noth posits a redactional connection with the Former Prophets, constituting the so-called Deuteronomistic History.100 For Noth, Deuteronomy is a programmatic introduction to a historical work which offers a theological interpretation of Israel’s covenant breaking and God’s ­judgment—with the Exile marking the endpoint (abgeschlossen) of the Israelite kingdom. For Noth, the ruin of Jerusalem and of the Temple at the time of the Exile in 587 bc combine to sound one final gloomy note of divine retribution in response to Israel’s incorrigible infidelity.101 Some scholars may dispute Noth’s unremitting pessimism, but there is no denying the ambivalent outlook for Israel’s future at the close of the Deuteronomistic history (2 Kgs 25:27–30).102

68  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

Time, Place, Location of Document Storage, Purpose A canonical interpretation of the Deuteronomic narrative should begin by distinguishing the Deuteronomic covenant made on the plains of Moab from the covenant which had been made at Sinai (in Exod 19–24) and which had subsequently been renewed following the golden calf incident (Exod 34–40; Lev 1–26). This distinction is made in Deuteronomy 29:1: “These are the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the people of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which he made with them at Horeb.” 103 By making a distinction between the time and place of the Sinaitic and Deuteronomic covenants, the covenants themselves are clearly distinguished.104 Deuteronomy 29:1 refers to the covenant made on the plains of Moab with the second generation forty years after the first generation ratified and broke the covenant made at Horeb (Sinai).105 Another distinction between these two covenants may be seen by observing where each document was stored. The Sinai covenant law, written on tablets of stone, was to be kept—inaccessibly—inside the ark of the covenant within the Holy of Holies (Deut 10:1–5). “The book of the law” (i.e., the Deuteronomic covenant) was supposed to be kept—more accessibly— by the Levites (Deut 17:18), “by the side of the ark” (Deut 31:25–26).106 But why was another covenant necessary? Certain narrative clues indicate that Israel’s entry into the Deuteronomic covenant on the plains of Moab came about as a direct result of their idolatrous apostasy at Bethpeor—the great sin of the second generation (Num 25).107 This prodigious sin was the practical equivalent of the first generation’s sins at Sinai with the golden calf and at Kadesh Barnea with the twelve spies (see Exod 32 and Num 13–14, respectively). The link between the sin at Beth-peor and the Deuteronomic covenant is alluded to in Deuteronomy 4:3–4: “Your eyes have seen what the Lord did at Baal-peor; for the Lord your God destroyed from among you all the men who followed Baal of Peor; but you who held fast to the Lord your God are all alive this day.” 108 The link between the great sin at Beth-peor and the Deuteronomic covenant receives scant and passing notice (in 3:29) during the first discourse (1:1–4:3). During this discourse, Moses recites the rise and fall of the first generation as a moral lesson for the second generation. Only in 3:29 does the narrative indicate that Israel had not moved from Beth-peor prior to the promulgation of the Deuteronomic covenant on the plains of Moab.109 These chronological and geographical references serve as clues pointing to the underlying reason why the Deuteronomic covenant

The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  69

was needed: it was given for the purpose of restoring (and rehabilitating) the twelve tribes of Israel following their apostasy at Baal-peor.110 An Increased Level of Mediation in the Covenant Relationship In Exodus Yahweh makes a covenant directly with Israel while Moses acts as mediator. Moses receives the law on Israel’s behalf. In Deuteronomy, Moses becomes the lawgiver and makes the covenant with Israel: “These are the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the people of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which he had made with them at Horeb” (Deut 29:1). At Sinai, God had appeared to the people of Israel in a theophany of fire and smoke with a voice like thunder; on the plains of Moab he is silent and absent. Moses is now elevated to the point where he alone stands before Israel to deliver the law, apart from a theophany or divine voice. To be sure, in Deuteronomy Moses follows divine orders as God’s spokesman. Yet his role as mediator is different from that described in Exodus 19–24.111 Polzin describes Moses in Deuteronomy as “the preeminent interpreter of God’s words,” especially since “the story describes only one instance of divine speech that was heard by the people . . . the decalogue of 5:6–21. All the other words of God . . . are not heard by the people.” 112 Not since Sinai had Israel heard the voice of God. The gradual assumption of ever-increasing authority by Moses serves the narrative purpose of pointing to the ever-increasing remoteness of Yahweh from Israel.113 In addition, Moses’ direct representation of Yahweh to Israel is mediated by his fellow Levitical tribesmen. They receive a share of the priestly ministry as a reward for their avenging action at the golden calf incident (Exod 32:29; see also Num 3:11–51; 8:5–26; Deut 33:8–11).114 In a similar way, Phinehas merits the (high) priesthood because of his response at Baal-peor (Num 25:6–13). The development is this: Yahweh becomes more remote as a mediating bureaucracy is inserted between Him and His people. Thus, the Deuteronomic covenant stipulates that the Levites (and Phinehas as their Aaronic head [see Num 31:6; Josh 22:13, 20; Judg 20:28]) are now to serve in an administrative capacity overseeing the twelve lay tribes of Israel. Not only are the Levitical priests now in charge of the Law (Deut 17:18), but the twelve tribes must “take heed . . . to do all that the Levitical priests shall direct” (24:8). Indeed, both of these points are only found in Deuteronomy.

70  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

Covenant Ratification: The Prominence of the Levites The elevated mediatory status of Moses and the Levites explains two other distinctive features of the Deuteronomic covenant: (1) its unique ratification; and (2) the prominence and function of the Levites in the life of Israel. The ratification of the Deuteronomic covenant is described in Deuteronomy 27:9–14: “And Moses and the Levitical priests said to all Israel, ‘Keep silence and hear O Israel . . . [and] the Levites shall declare to the men of Israel with a loud voice” (the various curses of the Deuteronomic covenant follow). Lenchak comments: “Priests and levites may be part of the assembly listening to Moses, but they are deliberately excluded by name from the audience. One might get the impression that the priests and levites . . . were excluded from ‫[ כל ישראל‬kol yiśrāʾēl, “all Israel”]! In Dt 27,9 the levitical priests share with Moses the role of sender. . . . They also are charged with the obligations to speak by Moses in Dt 27,14; 31,9–13. . . . The audience is an assembly of lay people. . . . In no part of Dt 28,69–30,20 are levitical priests . . . part of the audience toward which this discourse is directed.” 115 Von Rad states that one can thus “understand Deuteronomy along the lines of an interpretation of the Law for the laity.” 116 As such, it was to be administered by the Levites who performed a mediatory role between the two covenant parties (i.e., Moses and the twelve tribes). The unique role belonging to the Levites would remain an essential part of Israel’s ideal covenant structure throughout the canonical record of their history, to the Exile and beyond. It represents one of the great accomplishments of the canonical Moses, and is thus rightly seen as an essential part of the Deuteronomic covenant.117 Deuteronomy as the “Law for the Laity” Not without reason does Weinfeld say that Deuteronomy represents the “turning point in Israelite religion.” 118 He summarizes the transformation wrought by the Deuteronomic covenant in two words: secularization and demythologization.119 From a canonical perspective, the laws of Deuteronomy may be said to reflect a “lay perspective” on religion and life: Moses gives the laws, the Levites administer them.120 The primary concern of the Deuteronomic laws, however, are with the twelve desacralized, that is, “secularized,” tribes and their life in the promised land.121 Hence, Deuteronomy gives virtually no attention to detailed instructions about cultic matters such as sacrifice and purification. Such matters are the distinctive duties of the clerical caste

The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  71

(priests and Levites). They are adequately dealt with by the Priestly laws found outside Deuteronomy (e.g., the Priestly Code in Lev 1–16).122 Function of the Deuteronomic Covenant as Israel’s National Constitution In his Antiquities of the Jews (4.176–331), Josephus explains for his enlightened first-century Gentile readers how the Book of Deuteronomy represents the politeia of the Jewish people. In a recent study, S. D. McBride discusses how Josephus viewed Deuteronomy.123 McBride shows how Josephus understood Deuteronomy as a “divinely authorized and comprehensive ‘polity’ or national ‘constitution.’ . . . Most noteworthy here is Josephus’ choice of the Greek term politeia, rather than nomos or the like, to describe the juridical substance of Deuteronomy; there is no reason to doubt that he understood politeia to represent tôrâ in its characteristically Deuteronomic usage.” 124 McBride defines Deuteronomy as the “covenantal law” which represents “the divinely authorized social order that Israel must implement to secure its collective political existence as the people of God.” 125 He explains how “the written Torah and the institutional order it defines have become a surrogate for Moses himself.” 126 He describes the Deuteronomic covenant as “the charter for a constitutional theocracy,” which permits a monarch only as a subordinate to “the judicial council of levitical priests” (17:9–12) who serve as “the designated bureaucracy of the covenant ­people . . . who are assured support through sacral taxes . . . contributed by those who do have holdings of land.” 127 The notion that Deuteronomy is a kind of constitutional charter for ­Israel’s national polity is of considerable importance for this study. In Part Two, it will be argued that Paul understands the “curses of”/“book of”/“works of” the law in Galatians 3:10–14 in terms of how Christ’s curse-bearing death fulfills the Old Covenant and ratifies the New. Jewish and Gentile believers may thereby be released from “the law”—understood as the nationalistic, exclusivistic, and Temple-centered Deuteronomic covenant. In sum, Deuteronomy represents the covenant constitution (or charter) for Israel by which the twelve tribes were established in the land as a secular nation under the priestly bureaucracy of the Levites, administered from a central sanctuary (i.e., the Jerusalem Temple).128

72  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

Deuteronomy, the Source of Oral Law in Later Jewish Tradition Another distinctive aspect of Deuteronomy is how it was viewed in later Jewish and Pharasaic tradition as the source of the oral law. Deuteronomy was viewed this way because of the authoritative role it assigned to the Levites as the official interpreters of the law—under Moses, and under his successors (e.g., Joshua; see Matt 23:1–2). Weingreen comments: “The book of Deuteronomy was originally designed . . . to serve as an oral Tora or proto-Mishna, presenting the authoritative exposition of selected items of law and history which are now found in . . . Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers.” 129 Deuteronomy as Moses’ Farewell Discourse and Final Testament In its narrative form, Deuteronomy represents Moses’ farewell discourse. The discourse climaxes with his testamentary disposition that provides for political continuity through the appointment of Joshua as successor.130 Weinfeld notes: “A change of leadership in the ancient Near East was accompanied by a pledge of loyalty on behalf of the people. The so-called vassal treaties of Esarhaddon (VTE), which have so much in common with Deuteronomy . . . are simply fealty oaths imposed by the retiring king on his vassals with respect to his successor (Ashurbanipal). The covenant in the land of Moab which is concluded at the time that Moses nominates Joshua as his successor (Deut 3:23–29; 31:1–8), resembles then formally the situation found in the VTE.” 131 Deuteronomy 27: Promulgation and Ratification of the Deuteronomic Covenant Two things are important to notice in the administration of the Deuteronomic covenant. First, Deuteronomy stipulates that after Israel entered and partially conquered the promised land there was to be a ratification ceremony at Shechem (Deut 27:2–12; see also Josh 8:30–35).132 The Deuteronomic covenant was promulgated by Moses on the plains of Moab but actually ratified by Joshua in the promised land, as stipulated in Deuteronomy 27. This stipulation with respect to the time and place of covenant ratification shows the important connection between Deuteronomy and the promised

The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  73

land: many laws could not have been kept outside Canaan.133 Indeed, the connection between law and land is what constituted the essential crisis of the Exile, as addressed by the prophets and later by Paul (Gal 3:10–14).134 Second, the covenant ratification ritual at Shechem (Deut 27:2–12) results in all twelve tribes placing themselves under divine curses. The Levites had been commanded by Moses to lead the twelve tribes at Gerezim and Ebal in an oath-swearing ceremony whereby the Deuteronomic covenant curses are imposed by a collective pledge of self-malediction, quite apart from any blessings.135 The Deuteronomic covenant is thus ratified in a somber “curse-ceremony.” 136 After listing briefly (by comparison) the blessings (Deut 28:1–14), the curses are spelled out in an interminable list (28:15–68). While many of the same curses are described in Leviticus 26, only Deuteronomy uses the actual language of “cursing” (e.g., the term ʾālâ, “to curse”). What is much worse is that certain curses (e.g., pestilence, famine, and exile), which are only threatened in Leviticus 26, are reformulated, expanded, and declared as certain and inevitable in Deuteronomy 28.137 The inevitability is on account of the people’s persistent sinfulness and foreseen future apostasy. Laws Unique to Deuteronomy Certain laws are unique to Deuteronomy: (1) the central sanctuary (Deut 12:5–18);138 (2) the “Deuteronomic dispensation which allows for profane slaughter” (Deut 12:15–24; contrast Lev 17:1–4);139 (3) the regulations about the king (Deut 17:14–20); (4) ḥērem warfare (Deut 20:16–17);140 (5) the permission/regulation of divorce and remarriage (Deut 24:1–4);141 and (6) the allowance to take usury from non-Israelites (Deut 15:3; 23:20).142 Goldingay explains how these laws shape the distinctive “theological and ethical perspective” of Deuteronomy into a peculiar form that is “nationalistic, discriminatory, and legalistic.” 143 He then explains some of these laws in the light of what he calls Deuteronomy’s “Pastoral Strategy”: “Yet in the light of Israel’s sinfulness, simply to ban them [i.e., certain morally questionable practices] would be unrealistic. Deuteronomy’s policy is to circumscribe them by, and to harness them to, the values and the theology it propounds. Thus, slavery has a time limit set to it, a slave is to be regarded as a brother and allowed to worship as a member of the people of God. . . . [T]hese were practices assimilated by OT laws rather than ones devised by them.” 144 In addition, Deuteronomy’s ethnic and nationalistic bent was reinforced by its own distinctive cultic rituals. For instance,

74  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

­ cConville shows how the law requiring firstlings to be offered (Deut M 15:1–23) conveys essentially the same symbolic message as the larger lesson communicated throughout the entire narrative of Deuteronomy, namely, Israel’s need to be strictly segregated from Gentiles: “The contrast that exists between Israelites and foreigners in vv. 1–18 is parallel to the contrast between perfect and blemished animals in vv. 19–23.” 145 Differences among the Sinai, Levitical, and Deuteronomic Covenants When compared to the covenant and legislation given earlier at Sinai, the Deuteronomic covenant is marked by less intimacy, greater severity, and a degraded level of cultic purity. At Sinai, covenant communion was expressed in terms of an intimate familial relationship (i.e., father-son). God revealed his glory to Israel and spoke directly to them. God called Israel to serve him as a “firstborn son” (Exod 4:22) and as a “kingdom of priests” (Exod 19:6). These features are conspicuously missing from the covenant made on the plains of Moab. Further, the Sinai covenant was ratified by mutual oath-swearing, apart from any curses being threatened, much less guaranteed. The ratification of Deuteronomic covenant stands in stark contrast to this (see Deut 27–32). Nonetheless, in Deuteronomy Israel did not forfeit its status and vocation to serve as God’s firstborn son. The distinctive features of the Deuteronomic covenant are not the result of switching from a kinship-type covenant at Sinai to a treaty-type covenant on the plains of Moab (though this shift is clearly evident and theologically significant). It is, rather, the relational consequences of Israel’s sin and rebellion that should not be missed. The father-son relationship is adversely affected. While Israel’s vocation to divine sonship and royal priesthood was primary at Sinai, the terms of their probationary vassalage constitute the gist of the message announced by Moses on the plains of Moab. While their sonship is emphasized in the former, their vassalage is emphasized in the latter. The two are not incompatible; nor is the latter necessarily permanent.146 The covenant configuration of Deuteronomy was not only less intimate and more severe than Sinai, but the unique laws of Deuteronomy established practices that were deficient vis-à-vis the cultic sensibilities outlined in the renewed Sinaitic (i.e. Levitical) covenant (Exod 34–Lev 27).147 This was especially the case with the laws introduced to restructure Israelite cult and culture around the Deuteronomic central sanctuary. Since Deuteronomy anticipated Israelites in outlying regions having to travel consid-

The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  75

erable distances to offer sacrifice at the one legitimate sanctuary, it was not practicable to require—as the Levitical covenant did (Lev 17:1–7)—that all clean animals be slaughtered only at the sanctuary. Moreover, making this journey with a large number of sacrificial animals was inconvenient. Thus, a number of laws had to be introduced to restructure the Israelite cult in order to cope with the logistics of centralization: 1. Now only the firstlings were required to be sacrificed, during an annual pilgrimage (Deut 15:19–23).148 2. Profane (non-sacrificial) slaughter of non-firstlings was now permitted (Deut 12:15). 3. The redemption of firstlings and the purchase of substitutes at the sanctuary was sanctioned (Deut 14:22–27). As a result of centralization and these necessary changes in cultic law, the annual sanctuary pilgrimage to offer tithes and sacrifice firstlings (Deut 14:22–23) became the distinctive practice of the Deuteronomic legislation when it was instituted, replacing the more frequent visitation of the sanctuary (or sanctuaries) 149 mandated beforehand. H. Gese, reading Deuteronomy through the lense of Ezekiel 20, observes: Mit der deuteronomischen Kult-zentralisation und der not­wendigen Freigabe der Profanschlachtung veränderte sich nun auch die Möglichkeit, die Erstgeburtsopfer vor anderen aus­zuzeichnen, grundlegend.150 Dem ursprünglichen Text in [Ezek 20:26] aber ist ohne Zweifel zu entnehmen, daß das Gebot des tierischen Erstgeburtsopfers für die nicht zum Leben führende Zweitoffenbarung so typisch ist wie das Sabbatgebot für die wahre Sinaioffenbarung. (The deuteronomistic cult centralization and its corollary—the permission of profane slaughter—­created the possibility of distinguishing the firstborn offering from others. . . . The key source-text in [Ezek 20:26] is, without doubt, to be understood in this way: the command to offer the firstborn of animals is as typical of the second revelation (which does not lead to life) as the sabbath injunction is of the true Sinai revelation.) 151 Since, under the Deuteronomic code, sanctuary visitation was limited to the sacrifice of firstlings and voluntary offerings, it became necessary to allow the profane slaughter of non-firstlings (Deut 12:15–28). The offensive-

76  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

ness of this practice to Levitical standards of cultic purity is summarized by Weinfeld: Whereas before the reform all slaughter—except that of game ­animals—was deemed to be a sacral act and was prohibited even for non-sacrificial purposes unless the blood was sprinkled upon the altar (Lev 17:1–7; cf. I Sam 14:32–5), it was now permissible to perform non-sacrificial slaughter without being obliged to sprinkle the blood upon an altar (Deut 12:15, 16, 20–4). It need hardly be said that the sanctioning of profane slaughter freed a significant aspect of Israelite daily life from its ties to the cultus. The more crucial import of the law, however, is that by sanctioning non-sacrificial slaughter it repudiates the hallowed Israelite dogma which ascribed a sacral quality to the blood and prohibited one from pouring it upon the ground. According to the Priestly document or, to be more precise, the Holiness Code, the blood of slaughtered animals potentially valid for sacrifice must be sprinkled upon the altar . . . (Lev 17:13): for all spilt blood, even of fowl and beasts of prey, cries out for vengeance and satisfaction. . . . The author of Deuteronomy, on the other hand, declares that the blood of all animals slaughtered for non­sacrificial purposes may be poured upon the ground like water (12:16 and 24), thereby asserting that blood has no more a sacral value than water has.152 The third legal innovation to cope with cult centralization allowed for the substitution of animals. The relevant texts of the Levitical Code seem to rule out the substitution or redemption of dedicated clean animals (Lev 27:9– 10, 28). While the text is not absolutely explicit, the most logical reading of Leviticus 27 would be that the laws forbidding substitution and redemption of dedicated animals apply a fortiori in the case of firstlings, who are innately dedicated to the Lord apart from human action (Lev 27:26), and this reading of Leviticus 27 seems confirmed explicitly in Numbers 18:17. The Deuteronomic Code, however, seems clearly to permit the redemption of firstlings and other offerings for money, which can be used to purchase substitute sacrificial animals at the site of the central sanctuary (Deut 14:22–26). From the perspective of Leviticus 27 and Numbers 18, however, such transactions are just not possible. The firstborn belongs innately to the Lord, and one cannot simply transfer the animal’s status to a different animal via an economic transaction.153 Thus, when the Israelites who

The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  77

lived at a distance from Jerusalem gathered at the central sanctuary annually to offer the animal substitutes they had purchased in place of their firstlings, from a strict Levitical covenant perspective the whole offering would be notably deficient: the animals, as improper substitutes, did not fulfill the worshippers’ obligation, since the original consecrated animals (i.e., the firstlings)—still owed to the Lord—remained unsacrificed back at the worshippers’ homes. Furthermore, substitution and redemption applied only to unclean animals (Lev 27:11–27). It follows that to exchange the firstlings for cash and purchase substitutes at the central sanctuary was to treat the clean as an unclean thing.154 Therefore, Israelites who followed the prescriptions of Deuteronomy 14:22–26 that allowed the purchase of substitutionary sacrificial animals at the central sanctuary would, from the perspective of the earlier Levitical legislation, not only fail to fulfill their original obligation, but also would indirectly be treating their innately-holy firstlings with contempt. As we shall see below, the priest-prophet Ezekiel, whose cultic sensibilities were strongly shaped by the Levitical covenant (i.e., the “Priestly” and “Holiness” codes), recognized the lower cultic standards of the Deuteronomic covenant and reacted negatively to them. The Deuteronomic Covenant Curses as Inevitable The curses are announced in the final chapters of Deuteronomy (27–33) and are particularly prominent in Moses’ closing address. In this address, Moses alludes to Israel’s prideful incapacity (29:4) to keep the law of the Deuteronomic covenant, despite their sworn covenant oath to do so (27:15–26). Ironically, their oath ensures the curses. The catalogue of curses (28:15–68) makes it clear that the calamities described therein are certain to befall Israel at some point in the future.155 The inevitability of cursing is explicitly stated in Deuteronomy 30:1–10, where Moses repeats his earlier point about Israel’s persistent obduracy (4:25–31; 8:11–20). Now, in Deuteronomy 30:1–10, Moses states that the curses are inevitable. McConville observes: “Moses’ third address puts a new angle on the call to obedience. . . . It takes for granted that the people will indeed fail . . . and that this will result in the full force of the curses of ch. 28 falling on them. Deuteronomy 30:1 makes this clear, for it thinks of the blessing and the curse no longer as alternative possibilities, but as successive realities in Israel’s life. That is, Israel will first know the blessing of God in their possession of the land, then the curse of God in its loss.” 156 Thus, the future apostasy and punishment of Israel are foreseen and pre-

78  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

dicted as certain and unavoidable. As a consequence, Israel will be exiled from the land.157 The Promise of Postexilic Restoration Despite the dire predictions in Deuteronomy 28:15–68, a note of divine mercy and hope is sounded: And when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God has driven you, and return to the Lord your God, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you this day, with all your heart and with all your soul; then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes, and have compassion upon you, and he will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you. . . . The Lord your God will circumcise your heart. . . so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. (Deut 30:1–6) Here is a solemn pledge by Yahweh to “circumcise the heart” of the repentant Israelites at some unknown point in the future. This future restoration implies that God himself will assume ultimate responsibility to ensure that the covenant is kept. McConville describes this hope-filled eventuality as follows: The crucial point . . . is in 30:6, the significance of which emerges by comparing it with 10:16. In both places the author uses the metaphor of the circumcision of the heart to convey the idea of true, inward devotion to the way of Yahweh. In 10:16 we read a simple exhortation to Israel: “Circumcise your hearts.” However, in 30:6 a shift occurs, so that now Yahweh himself declares that he will take an initiative in this respect: “The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants,” resulting in Israel’s ability to obey the exhortation to love him with all their heart and soul. . . . The particular terms of 30:6 can hardly be accidental. They propose an answer to the problem of Israel’s infidelity to the covenant that finds echoes elsewhere in the OT, notably in Hosea (Hos 14:4) and especially in the new covenant theology of Jeremiah (Jer 31:33; 32:39–40). These places

The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  79

affirm that the answer to Israel’s infidelity lies in God himself. He will somehow enable his people ultimately to do what they cannot do in their strength, namely, to obey him out of the conviction and devotion of their own hearts.158 It is significant that circumcision is closely linked to Israel’s covenant with Yahweh through Abraham (circumcision being the “sign” of the Abrahamic covenant—Gen 17:11). From the description in Deuteronomy 30:6 (of a divinely wrought interior act of circumcision) it follows that what is envisioned is nothing less than a covenant renewal. This covenant renewal will be closely related to the older, external rite of circumcising the foreskin, and yet distinctively different, since it will involve God’s work at the deeper level of the heart (Jer 31:31–34; Ezek 36:26–28).159 From a canonical-critical perspective, the Deuteronomic covenant is programmed for future renewal. Through a decisive act of God, a future renewal will transcend the initial promulgation, effecting a radical internalization of the law. Deuteronomy 30:6–10 conveys a profound eschatological promise: a new covenant is to be established in order to fulfill the (violated) Deuteronomic covenant.160 This future restoration is strongly affirmed by Olson, who also explains its covenantal implications for God’s plan of salvation: “Through daring discourse and powerful poetry, these chapters [Deut 29–30] proclaim a new covenant. It is a new relationship based not as much on human abilities and faithfulness as on the promise of God’s faithfulness and God’s active transformation of people and communities. . . . The command has become a promise. . . . Commanded human action has now become a promised divine gift.” 161 Apostasy and Renewal in the Song of Moses The twofold message of apostasy and renewal is recapitulated in the Song of Moses (Deut 32:1–43).162 The message, however, of apostasy and subsequent judgment receives the primary emphasis. Sailhamer notes: “The central theme of the poem is Israel’s apostasy and God’s threatening judgment. . . . Following the description of Israel’s apostasy, Moses gives a dramatic portrayal of God’s future outpouring of wrath on his people (vv. 21b–27) and Israel’s continuing blindness in the face of it (vv. 28– 33). . . . In the end . . . God’s judgment of Israel and the nations leads to a broader understanding of the concept of the people of God—not just Israel but the nations as well are called to praise God as ‘his people’ (v. 43).” 163

80  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

Three aspects of Moses’ song are especially important. First, the song contains many references to Israel’s divine sonship.164 This phenomenon is ironic, given the much greater-than-average attention that is given to ­Israel’s total incorrigibility. Second, at the end of the song there is an explicit reference to a divine oath (indeed, the only one in Deuteronomy). The oath is sworn with respect to God avenging his people against their enemies (vv. 40–42).165 Third, at the climax of the divine oath (v. 43), God declares that in the end he will bless Israel and the nations.166 Ezekiel 20 and the Deuteronomic Covenant While we have employed many of the results of contemporary biblical research to assist in distinguishing the unique features of the Deuteronomic covenant vis-à-vis the Sinaitic, the recognition of a distinction between the two covenants is by no means a modern development.167 Rather, the distinctive nature of the Deuteronomic covenant as compared to the Sinaitic covenant is already clearly recognized and emphasized within the OT canon itself, in the oracle of Ezekiel 20. Both covenants are clearly distinguished within the oracle.168 Ezekiel refers to the Sinai covenant in 20:10–14. The passage begins by describing God as delivering “the house of Israel” from Egypt (20:10), and giving them his law, that is, “my ordinances by whose observance man shall live” (20:11, a plain allusion to Lev 18:5). Ezekiel then speaks of the golden calf episode (20:13), and how Israel was spared because of God’s oath to the patriarchs (20:14; see Exod 32:13). The incident at Kadesh-barnea with the twelve spies is then mentioned, followed by God’s wrathful oath of disinheritance (20:15–17). The transition comes in 20:18, where Ezekiel describes how God gave the second generation another chance—provided they broke with their parents by keeping the Sinai covenant laws (20:19–20). Yet the second generation also rebelled (20:21), so God imposed a series of punishments on them (20:23–26): (1) God’s oath to scatter Israel among the nations (20:23–24); (2) the giving of “statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life” (20:25); and (3) the ritual obligation about offering “all their firstborn” (20:26). Ezekiel is referring here to the Deuteronomic covenant. All three of these punishments have a basis within the text of Deuteronomy. First, the oath to scatter the people among the nations, draws on Deuteronomy 32:40.169 This climactic verse of Deuteronomy comes after the closing section of the book (chs. 27–31). The covenant curses in Deuteronomy

The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  81

27–28 state that when Israel breaks the covenant, they will be scattered (28:64). God then gave to Moses not only a guarantee of Israel’s eventual disobedience and dispersion among the nations (27:15–26; 28:15–68; 29:1–4, 22–28; 30:1–3; 31:16–22), but also this command: “Therefore, write down this poem and teach it to the people of Israel; put it into their mouths, in order that his poem may be My witness against the people of Israel” (Deut 31:16–19). God’s oath comes at the climax of this song: “For I lift up my hand to heaven, and swear . . . I will take vengeance” (32:40–41 RSV).170 Thus, the mighty oath of Deuteronomy 32:40 confirms the Lord’s intention to enact all the preceding promises, including the inevitable scattering of Israel. It is in this sense, we would argue, that Ezekiel 20:23 alludes to Deuteronomy 32:40.171 Second, “statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life” makes good sense as a “Priestly” or Levitical-covenant assessment of the Deuteronomic legislation, which is characterized—as we have seen—by fearsome, inevitable curses and a degraded level of cultic purity and observance. Third, even the prophet’s puzzling statement of Ezekiel 20:26 (“When they set aside every first issue of the womb, I defiled them by their very gifts—that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am the Lord”) now becomes comprehensible.172 Having referred to the Deuteronomic Code as “not good laws” and “rules by which they could not live,” in the sense that, on the one hand, they degraded the pristine Priestly standards,173 and, on the other, they were interwoven with predictions of human disobedience and inevitable divine judgement, Ezekiel mentions the defective Deuteronomic sacrificial system (“I defiled them by their very gifts”), singling out for special censure the distinctively Deuteronomic practice of the annual pilgrimage to present tithes and firstlings (“when they offer [only] all the firstlings”),174 since the Deuteronomic regulations governing firstlings were so wholly deficient, as we observed previously. All this was “so that I might render them desolate,” a sentiment which seems quite in keeping with (at least the canonical form of) Deuteronomy, which, despite its protestations of making a well-meant offer of life to Israel (e.g., Deut 30:11–20), is filled with threats and outright promises of the inevitable actualization of the covenant curses.175 To summarize, from Ezekiel’s Levitical covenant perspective the laws of Deuteronomy were defiling in their effects; that is, though not intrinsically “evil” (Heb., raʿ) they were most certainly “not good” (Heb., lōʾ ṭôb) 176 Just as the previous verses repeatedly single out the Sabbath as a characteristic and representative law of the revelation from Sinai, so v. 26 mentions the

82  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

changed provisions concerning the offering of the firstlings as characteristic and representative of the “not good” laws given on the plains of Moab (Deut 4:44–49; 29:1).177 Yet for Ezekiel, the defective laws of Deuteronomy and its fearsome curses are not the end for Israel; he anticipates the regathering of Israel from the nations and a restoration of their relationship with God (Ezek 20:33–44). The “New Exodus” (Ezek 20:33–38) and restoration (Ezek 20:40–44) Ezekiel foresees are nothing less than a fulfillment of Deuteronomy 30:3–10. Thus, Ezekiel recognized not only the defective aspects of the Deuteronomic covenant, but also its prophecies of eventual self-retirement, divine intervention, and renewal. Ezekiel 20:18–26 provides canonical evidence and justification for distinguishing the Sinaitic and Deuteronomic covenants in theologically significant ways. The oracle also provides important background material for Part Two of this study. It will be argued that Paul’s use of Leviticus 18:5 and his view of “works of the law” in Galatians 3:10–14 draws upon an interpretive tradition that is remarkably similar to Ezekiel’s, that is, that the Sinaitic and Deuteronomic covenants are to be distinguished in theologically significant ways.178 Paul uses the distinctions between the two covenants to explain not only why “curses” came upon Israel and Christ, but also why Gentile believers are dispensed from “the works of the law” (i.e., the Deuteronomic covenant). Summary of the Treaty-Type Covenant in Deuteronomy First, Deuteronomy exhibits enough formal and verbal treaty parallels for a majority of scholars to conclude that it represents a treaty-type covenant. Second, the shift from a kinship-type covenant in Exodus to a treatytype in Deuteronomy suggests a theologically significant change in the covenant relationship between Yahweh and Israel. Third, Deuteronomy reconfigures the father-son relationship between Yahweh and Israel. Israel becomes (temporarily) subjected to filial vassalage under its divine suzerain-father. Fourth, the filial identity of Israel is not dissolved by this reconfiguration. It is explicitly and emphatically reasserted within Deuteronomy. Yet the emphasis is on its new condition of servitude. Fifth, the change to a treaty-type covenant provides a useful interpretive framework for studying the covenantal development of God’s family plan for Israel (and the nations) in salvation history. Sixth, other unique features of Deuteronomy seem to reflect negatively

The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  83

on Israel’s present state and near-future prospects, notably the emphatic repetition—and divinely foreseen certainty—of the covenant curses. Seventh, there are theologically significant differences between the Deuteronomic covenant and the so-called Priestly version of the Sinai covenant (Exod 35–40; Lev 1–26). The Deuteronomic laws are primarily designed for the twelve lay tribes who are under Levitical supervision. Eighth, the book of Deuteronomy gives a very unflattering portrait of Israel: they are as hard-hearted as the surrounding nations—nations which they were originally called on at Sinai to serve as a “kingdom of priests.” This hardheartedness likely provides the underlying rationale for the legal concessions God gives to the people as well as the guaranteed curse of ­exile—two features that are found only in this treaty-type covenant. Ninth, the Deuteronomic covenant is programmed for a renewal that is foreseen to be necessary and inevitable: necessary because of Israel’s sin; inevitable because of Yahweh’s faithful mercy.

Periodic Renewals of the Deuteronomic Covenant The treaty-type covenant offers a luminous paradigm for understanding the distinctive nature and divine purpose of the Deuteronomic covenant in the canonical history of Israel. The nature and purpose unfold in several renewals at decisive stages that are recorded in the Deuteronomistic history. The renewals reflect many features similar to Deuteronomy (e.g., testamentary disposition, provisions for succession, and national confession). Following is a brief treatment of two important examples of Deuteronomic covenant renewal. Joshua 22–24 Joshua 22–24 records how Joshua renewed the Deuteronomic covenant with Yahweh on behalf of Israel, thereby fulfilling his appointed role as a “second Moses.” 179 As Moses’ successor and the only surviving member of the “second generation” (except Caleb), Joshua is responsible for overseeing the Levitical administration of the Deuteronomic covenant. Like Moses, Joshua must take the necessary steps to ensure the maintenance of the covenant for future generations—especially as his own death draws near. Joshua 22 serves as the contextual backdrop for interpreting the covenant renewal and farewell address in Joshua 23–24. In addition to the

84  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

crisis of Joshua’s imminent demise (23:14), a graver and more immediate problem is posed by the (apparent) rebellion of the three Transjordanian tribes (Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh) who build an altar by the Jordan River (22:10–12). The erection of a functioning altar in the Transjordan would have represented a breach of Deuteronomy’s law of the central sanctuary. This act moves Phineas and leaders of the other ten tribes to confront the three tribes with their (apparent) sin—something Phineas specifically links to the Baal-peor incident: Then the people of Israel sent to the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh, in the land of Gibeah, Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, and with him ten chiefs . . . and they said to them . . . “What is this treachery which you have committed against the God of Israel in turning away this day from following the Lord. . . . Have we not had enough of the sin at Peor from which even yet we have not cleansed ourselves, and for which there came a plague upon the congregation of the Lord, that you must turn away this day from following the Lord? And if you rebel against the Lord today he will be angry with the whole congregation of Israel tomorrow.” (Josh 22:13–18) 180 Moses instituted the Deuteronomic covenant with the second generation as a result of the Baal-peor incident. Now Joshua renews the Deuteronomic covenant with the third generation in connection with an incident that recalls the “treachery” (22:16) of that second generation at Baal-peor. Thus, the need for the third generation to renew the Deuteronomic covenant (in Josh 24) is linked by the narrative to the suspicion that rebellion comparable to Israel’s “sin at Peor” still remains in the hearts of the people (22:17). Joshua’s farewell speech in Joshua 23–24 is strikingly reminiscent of the farewell speech given by Moses after he had promulgated the Deuteronomic covenant on the plains of Moab (Deut 30–33). In both speeches Moses and Joshua refer to their old age (Deut 31:2; Josh 23:2). Both promise future victory over the peoples of the promised land (Deut 31:3–5; Josh 23:4–5). Both call for obedience to the “Book of the Torah,” that is, the Deuteronomic covenant (Deut 31:12–13; Josh 23:6). Both set forth the option of serving the true God or false gods, with attendant blessings and curses (Deut 30:15–20; Josh 23:6–16). Finally, both are immediately followed by brief burial accounts (Deut 34:1–12; Josh 24:29–31). Joshua is depicted as fulfilling his prophetic role as Moses’ successor in renewing the Deuteronomic covenant with the twelve tribes of Israel (Sir 46:1).

The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  85

That it is the Deuteronomic covenant which Joshua renews is seen in the notice given about the location of the dramatic closing ceremony of Joshua’s covenant renewal, namely, Shechem (Josh 24:1). The Deuteronomic covenant was first ratified at Shechem (see Deut 27:12–13; Josh 8:30–35).181 From a canonical perspective, Joshua’s choice of Shechem in ch. 24 serves to underscore the notion that his primary concern is to renew the Deuteronomic covenant.182 Joshua begins his closing statement by stressing the stock Deuteronomic theme of Israel’s idolatry: “Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness; put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River, and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. And if you be unwilling to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” (Josh 24:14–15). Israel’s idolatry is traced back to their beginnings as a people (e.g., Mesopotamia and Egypt). Apparently they still held on to these foreign gods, even after their divine deliverance (see Ezek 20:5–26). In Joshua 24:19 all twelve tribes, and not just the three Transjordanian ones, come under indictment from Joshua, much like they had come under the indictment of Moses. Joshua’s response to Israel’s pledge (24:16–18) is blunt: “You cannot serve the Lord; for he is a holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions” (Josh 24:19 RSV).183 Joshua’s response echoes Moses’ pronouncement against Israel in Deuteronomy: “To this day the Lord has not given you a mind to understand, or eyes to see, or ears to hear” (Deut 29:4). The same hard-hearted condition that made the Deuteronomic covenant necessary in the first place is the reason it must now be renewed under Joshua. There may also be some significance in the fact that Joshua’s farewell discourse is incorporated in ch. 24 like the Song of Moses and his farewell address occur at the end of Deuteronomy (Deut 29–32). Baltzer notes: “In Joshua 24, the covenant formula has the character of a liturgy; in Joshua 23, it has been completely incorporated into a sermon by Joshua. With its specific reference to the death of Joshua, however, this sermon takes on the character of a farewell discourse, Joshua’s testament. Now Joshua 23 is not the only instance of such a farewell discourse. Deuteronomy as a whole, whose intimate association with the “covenant” we have observed, is turned by its framework into the farewell discourse of Moses.” 184 The Deuteronomic covenant is renewed by Joshua in much the same spirit as Moses who instituted it, after Joshua discovered at the end of his life that he—like

86  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

­ oses—had failed in his lifelong work to sanctify Israel in obedience to the M point where they would have been freed from Deuteronomic vassalage. As a result, the period of the Judges ensues, in which Israel repeatedly lapses into idolatry.185 A literary-historical pattern emerges, that is, the Deuteronomistic cycle of Sin, Exile, and Restoration (SER). According to O. H. Steck, this pattern is the driving force that shapes the narrative perspective and canonical framework of the Deuteronomistic History (along with select oracles of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel).186 In ever-widening cycles, Israel’s worsening sin brings about more and more ruinous exiles followed by ever-increasing divine deliverances from their enemies (e.g., Egypt, Canaan, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Seleucia). In particular, Steck identifies six primary elements that constantly recur throughout the Deuteronomistic History: 1. Israel persists in a stiff-necked and rebellious state; 2. God sends prophets to warn Israel, and to call it to repentance and obedience; 3. The prophets are rejected and persecuted; 4. Divine judgment comes down on Israel in the form of the Deuteronomic covenant curses (foreign occupation and exile); 5. The ministry of the prophets brings Israel to partial repentance; 6. God delivers Israel from its enemies, restores them to the land, and then renews his (Deuteronomic) covenant with them through a prophetic figure who acts as mediator.187 1 Samuel 12 Like Joshua before him, events in the life of Samuel recall a number of events from the life of Moses.188 Both Moses and Samuel are given up by their parents at birth (Exod 2; 1 Sam 1:21–28). Both hear and respond to God’s call (“Here I am,” Exod 3:4; 1 Sam 3:4). Both emerge as prophets who are called by God to lead Israel away from idolatry, only to intercede for them after they succumb (Exod 32; 1 Sam 7:3–4). Further, both men lead Israel in battle (Deut 2:33–36; 1 Sam 7:7–14), anoint others (Lev 8:1– 13; 1 Sam 10:1; 16:13), renew the covenant (Deut 31:9–13; 1 Sam 7:3–6; 12:6–18), and set before the people the two ways of obedience and disobedience in the context of farewell addresses (Deut 28–30; 1 Sam 12). Other examples could be cited (see, e.g., Jer 15:1; Ps 99:6),189 but these suffice to show that the canonical portrait of Samuel clearly fits into the larger ­literary-historical tradition of the Deuteronomic covenant.

The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  87

Besides the “new Moses” features of Samuel, elements of Steck’s Deuteronomic pattern can be traced throughout the narrative. The rebellious state of Israel is noted (1 Sam 8:7–8). God sends prophets to call Israel to repentance. Instead of repenting, the people reject the prophet (1 Sam 8:7–19; 12:11). Divine judgment is then meted out to Israel in the form of defeat and servitude (1 Sam 12:9–11). The people then partially repent, prompting God to deliver them and to renew his (Deuteronomic) covenant through Samuel, who acts as the prophetic mediator (1 Sam 12:18–22). First Samuel 12 fits the treaty form of covenant renewal.190 While a treaty form is barely traceable, there are certain linguistic parallels. P. K. ­McCarter suggests that the passage follows a rough outline of the treaty pattern of covenant renewal: introduction (12:7); antecedent history (12:8–12); transition to the present (12:13); requirements (12:20b-21); and blessings and curses (12:14–15, 24–25).191 The passage, however, does not exhibit a formal treaty structure, at least in its present canonical form. Thus, while one may safely speak of 1 Samuel 12 as a treaty-type covenant, it is more precise to say that the text simply narrates a covenant renewal event. From a canonical perspective, this episode represents a dramatic climax and turning point in Israel’s history.192 Samuel invokes Yahweh as “witness” (12:5–6) against the ongoing sin of Israel, especially the “great sin” of asking for a king “to be like the nations”—an act tantamount to rejecting Yahweh as king (12:12–17).193 Clear echoes of the Deuteronomic “law of the king” are evident.194 Samuel, the last of the judges, inaugurates the monarchy—the next phase of the Deuteronomic covenant. He does this in three stages. First, he consents to the people’s demand (ch. 8). Second, he discerns God’s choice of Saul (ch. 9). Third, he anoints Saul in a private ceremony, and then selects him by lot in a public convocation (ch. 10). His decision is then confirmed by Saul’s display of divine power in battle (1 Sam 11:6–11), after which Samuel can declare to the people: “Come, let us go to Gilgal and there renew the kingdom.” 195 By renewing the Deuteronomic covenant at Gilgal between God and Israel (with Saul as the new royal representative), Samuel seals and renders permanent the very kingship he reluctantly concedes. An important feature of the covenant renewal at Gilgal is the penitential dimension of the ceremony.196 Israel must repent before the Deuteronomic covenant can be renewed with Yahweh. McCarthy notes: The problem of kingship is a problem in itself, the problem, that is, of integrating it within the framework of Yahwism has been

88  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

solved, but the willfulness of the people remains a problem. They are still sinners who have sought to impose on the Lord. According to the doctrine proclaimed in Dt 4 and 29–30, repentance is necessary before they can return. And there is an earlier parallel. In Ex 32–33 the people break the covenant and then are made to repent. Then in 34 the covenant is restored simply by Yahwe’s speaking to Moses and Moses announcing what he has heard to the people. Apparently the act of repentance is sufficient response, affirmation of openness to the demands of the Lord. It ratifies the sovereign’s decree even when this decree, this renewed acceptance from on high, follows as in Exodus or, by implication, in Dt, or when the decree immediately precedes the manifestation of repentance as in 1 Sam 12.197 Following the theophany and the people’s repentance (12:18–19), Samuel announces the Lord’s decision to renew the covenant with his people.198 Samuel’s role as covenant mediator stands out through the entire renewal ceremony.199 One very important aspect of Samuel’s mediatory work is the transfer of office, the provision for testamentary succession.200 A similar transfer occurs in Deuteronomy with the testamentary succession of Joshua (Deut 31:1–23). At Gilgal, however, this form undergoes a substantial revision as it is adapted for the inauguration of the monarchy. Vannoy comments: “It is our thesis that when 1 Samuel 11:14–12:25 is recognized as the description of a covenant renewal ceremony on the occasion of the inauguration of the monarchy, then the problem concerning the propriety of kingship in the preceding chapters is placed in its proper frame of reference. The issue in these pericopes is not that of the legitimacy of kingship itself, but rather that of the kind of kingship which the people envisioned, and their reasons for requesting it. The central question is whether or not the desired kingship would be compatible with Israel’s covenant with Yahweh or would be of a type which would in effect nullify that covenant.” 201 Something much more significant than a transfer of office takes place at Gilgal. Rather, the monarchy is formally incorporated into the Deuteronomic covenant. Vannoy observes: “In Israel, the king’s role was to be strictly compatible with the continued sovereignty of Yahweh over the nation, and also with all the prescriptions and obligations enunciated in the covenantal law received at Sinai and renewed and updated by Moses in the plains of Moab.” 202 In the new form of the Deuteronomic treaty, God, the “Great King,” renews the covenant with his vassal, Israel,

The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  89

through the mediation of their king. The king stands as vassal to the divine suzerain, and yet suzerain to the human vassal.203 Baltzer compares this notion of “transfer of office” to the formal testamentary transfers that were common in second millennium Hittite and first millennium neo-Assyrian covenant treaties. He explains its manner and significance: The critical point of any treaty relationship . . . remains therefore the death of one of the parties. Both the Great King and the vassal are concerned for what will happen to the treaty after their death. For this reason they take a series of precautions, a number of which can be determined from the texts. The Great King appoints his successor while still alive. He obligates his vassal by treaty to recognize the successor. He can likewise guarantee the recognition of the successor appointed by the vassal. The same purpose is served by the “oath to the presumptive successor taken . . . during the life of the reigning vassal,” which the Great King initiates.204 Once again, the importance of oath-swearing for the administration of treaty covenants is seen. In this case, however, oath-swearing pertains to the practice of testamentary succession. Baltzer goes on to clarify the meaning of “testamentary succession,” by showing how it entails something quite different from any modern testamentary practices (e.g., a modern will/testament): “Our concept of a ‘testament,’ which means ‘final disposition of one’s estate,’ is certainly out of place in this context. . . . It is not a piece of property that can come into another person’s possession. The covenant relationship is the basis of life for the next generation, for which ‫שלם‬ [‘peace’ or ‘wholeness’] shall be preserved. To put it more neatly, one might say that what matters is not death (of one generation) but life (of the next generation).” 205 While both ancient and modern “testaments” deal with the inheritance of property, the ancient treaty covenant and oath should be interpreted according to larger family categories that deal with intergenerational succession and dynastic authority. Not surprisingly, father-son terminology is pervasive in such testamentary contexts, which cover a wide legal and literary range among ancient cultures.206 Perhaps the best known examples are the pseudepigraphical testaments/covenants (diathēkai) that come from the intertestamental period.207

90  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

Summary on Deuteronomic Covenant Renewals First, the Deuteronomic covenant includes provisions for renewal. Second, such renewals involve the transfer of authority to a successor (e.g., Moses to Joshua, Samuel to Saul). Third, these occasions contain penitential ceremonies whereby Israel expresses corporate repentance for its violations of the Deuteronomic covenant. Fourth, these renewals adjust the means of administering the Deuteronomic covenant (e.g., from the judge to the king). Fifth, the covenant renewals in Joshua 24 and 1 Samuel 12 are similar in many ways. They both portray covenant renewals at key places (Shechem and Gilgal) and on important occasions (in Joshua at the transition from conquest to settlement; in 1 Samuel at the transition from the era of the judges to the era of kingship).208 In the canonical narratives, both events are marked by the imminent death of the mediator figures (Joshua and Samuel). Moreover, both events are marked by a deep crisis of faith, where Joshua and Samuel bear witness against the sin of Israel.209 Both events involve the renewal of the Deuteronomic covenant that God had established with Israel through Moses.

Theological Observations and Conclusions The treaty-type covenant is based on the vassal’s oath-swearing, which has the effect of placing the vassal under a curse. The Deuteronomic covenant that Moses makes with Israel on the plains of Moab is a theological adaptation of this covenant type. The Deuteronomic covenant is subsequently renewed by Joshua and Samuel under similar circumstances. The treaty elements in the Deuteronomic covenant indicate that Israel’s relationship to Yahweh (vis-à-vis that established at Sinai) has been reconfigured. This reconfiguration came about as a result God’s paternal discipline of sinful Israel. This punitive discipline, though severe, is remedial and pedagogical. Thus, Israel’s vassalage must be understood in probationary terms. Even in the midst of experiencing the covenant curses, Israel retains its filial identity. Covenant grace underwrites the Deuteronomic covenant. This also holds true for those occasions when the Deuteronomic covenant is renewed by Joshua and Samuel (Josh 22–24; 1 Sam 12). The covenant is renewed on each occasion by an act of divine condescension and accommodation to Israel’s level, much like a parent who stoops to

The Treaty-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  91

the level of a child. At the same time, the covenant retains its normative character and divine authority. Israel’s relationship with Yahweh is meant to be strengthened and deepened. Such are the primary purposes behind the efforts of Moses, Joshua, and Samuel in making/renewing the Deuteronomic covenant. As a result of the Deuteronomic covenant Israel discovers the divine purpose for its existence as a nation. Israel’s identity and mission can be defined in terms of divine sonship. McCarthy observes: “First, Israel recognizes that it is not a people ex natura rerum [from the nature of things] but by the will and work of the God Yahwe [sic]. Second, the relationship with this God that makes them a people depends to some extent on them. Yahwe makes a people, but the people can un-make itself. They must accept Yahwe’s work consciously and react, by faithful service of the maker indeed, but more by responding simpliciter [in simplicity].” 210 Although the covenant relationship between Yahweh and Israel is divinely commanded and unilaterally determined in an unconditional way, it must still be freely accepted and faithfully maintained by Israel—in a bilateral sense according to its conditional terms. This is the covenant pattern of a father-son relationship. The episodes with Moses, Joshua, and Samuel analyzed in this chapter do not explicitly identify the covenant as a father-son relationship. Still, the predominance of father-son terminology in Deuteronomy, coupled with its prominence in ancient suzerain-vassal treaties (which the Deuteronomic covenant so closely resembles), strongly suggests that the suzerain-vassal arrangement between Yahweh and Israel in the Deuteronomic covenant tradition is equivalent in substance and practice to the relationship between a father and his minor son. This relational dynamic reappears at another critical point in the Deuteronomistic History: God’s covenant with David and with David’s dynastic heir as divine son (2 Sam 7; Pss 2; 89; 110). The principle of divine sonship, however, does not suddenly appear with David de novo. It is an extension and fulfillment of what God had revealed in the Deuteronomic covenant (Deut 1:31; 8:5; 32:6, 18–20).211 The motif of divine sonship—so prominent in the Davidic covenant traditions—should not be interpreted apart from the Deuteronomic covenant. It follows that the Deuteronomic covenant should be interpreted as being included and in some sense concluded by the Davidic covenant. The Davidic covenant serves as a canonical link between the Deuteronomic covenant and the New Covenant, especially in the later prophets (Jer 33:19–26; Ezek 34:23–31; 37:24–25).212 The ongoing involvement of God in the life and history of Israel is based on a treaty-type covenant in which the father-son relationship is main-

92  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

tained in terms of suzerainty, probationary vassalage, and mediation. In this light, Moses, Joshua, and Samuel had been divinely called to act as mediators in the strained covenant relationship between the rebellious son and his estranged father. In all three cases, however, it is clear that no matter how strained the relationship becomes, its oath-bound character keeps it from being abrogated.213 It is theologically significant that Israel alone swears the oath to ratify the Deuteronomic covenant. Indeed, they do so within the context of a curseceremony (Deut 27:15–26). The effect of the oath is to place Israel under the inevitable curse of captivity and exile. Moreover, Deuteronomy reveals that Israel will remain in this state of “exile” until God fulfills the oath of blessing he had previously sworn to Abraham. The net effect of God’s decisive future intervention after the exile is described by H. M. Wolf as “a reversal of covenant curses.” 214 This future reversal constitutes the heart of the prophetic hope for postexilic Israel (Ezek 20:5–44; 36:1–37:28). Israel must be cursed in order to become the blessing to all the nations—the blessing that God had sworn to make of the “seed” of Abraham. The Deuteronomic covenant prepares Israel and humanity for a greater covenant that will ultimately depend on something more than any human party can offer. For that reason, it will be an altogether different kind of covenant, that is, it will be a grant-type covenant. Instead of being conditioned by human sin and characterized by divine curses, this covenant will bring about the reversal of both.

4 The Grant-Type Covenant in the Old Testament This chapter examines the nature and distinctions of the grant-type covenant and compares it with the treaty-type covenant. Then the Noahic (grant-type) covenant is explored, giving special consideration to its nature and extent, as well as the place of Noah’s son Shem in the Noahic covenant. Drawing from a wide range of Assyrian and Hittite sources, M. Weinfeld has shown how the grant-type covenant differs from the treaty-type covenant.1 With the grant-type covenant, a vassal is rewarded by the suzerain for loyal service with a sworn grant of a privilege such as land, priesthood, or dynasty. The covenant grant is not only a reward for the vassal, but also inducement for his future loyalty.2 Other distinctions of the grant-type covenant have been observed. First, the grant-type is initiated by the suzerain who swears an oath binding himself to some obligation on behalf of the vassal. Second, the suzerain swears only blessings for a vassal in a grant-type covenant, though he may threaten curses against his vassal’s enemies.3 Third, the suzerain is bound unconditionally to fulfill his “grant.” Fourth, the suzerain’s grant extends to the ­vassal’s descendants into the indefinite future. Other vassals will be expected to formally acknowledge the existing covenant arrangement.4 As the grant is transmitted to the grantee’s descendants, it is typically associated with a “name” that had been conferred by the suzerain on their illustrious ancestor.5 In connection with a grantee’s “name” and “house,” the intergenerational character of the grant-type covenant is often brought out by using “eternal” language (e.g., šēm ʿôlām, “everlasting name” [Isa 56:5] or 93

94  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

ʿad-ʿôlām, “unto eternity” [Gen 9:16; 2 Sam 7:16—with a threefold reference to David’s “throne,” “house,” and “kingdom”]). Levenson shows another feature of grant-type covenants: “In most of these instances, if not all, there is a contrast between the vassal and some faithless contemporaries. In other words, it is not, as Weinfeld states, simply the loyalty of the donee which wins him his covenant, but rather a loyalty unique in his time, a fidelity unparalleled in his context.” 6 This feature is brought out by the distinctive vocabulary used to depict the vassal’s heroic virtue.7 Levenson further explains how the administration of a granttype covenant must be adjusted if a descendant of the grantee spurns the grant (or the suzerain-grantor). In such a case another descendant must be selected as an alternate heir to insure the continuance of the covenant. Levenson explains: “To use a modern analogy, we may say that the insurance policy has not been cancelled; only the beneficiary has been changed, and even now the old beneficiary has a secondary claim.” 8 Treaty- and grant-type covenants share two features in common. Both share the diplomatic environment of the ancient Near East. As a result, both reflect the usual dynastic and diplomatic concerns related to the maintenance of alliances divinely sanctioned by oath. Further, both types exhibit very similar political forms and contents.9 Of special interest is the common usage of kinship language (particularly the father-son relationship) to formulate the terms of the actual grant-type covenant between the suzerain and his vassal. Weinfeld comments: “The notion of sonship within the promise of dynasty comes then to legitimize the grant of dynasty. It has nothing to do with mythology. . . . The metaphor is taken from the familial sphere. . . . The intention is clear: the son given into adoption has the duties of a son (= respecting his parents) but has also the privileges of a son: he has to be treated like the son of a free citizen and not like a slave.” 10 A. Gileadi makes a similar observation: “The establishment of a ‘fatherson’ relationship between the suzerain and the vassal (by means of a declarative adoption formula) creates a legal basis for the gift of an enduring dynasty; alongside the vassal’s covenantal designation as ‘son’ of the suzerain, he is also known as his ‘servant.’ ” 11 The covenantal significance of the father-son relationship thus retains its abiding force in grant-type covenants. This elevated role of the suzerain-as-father in covenant grants between God and his extended family can be observed in the Old Testament. S. Porúbcan explains: Generally speaking, a father lives and works not only for himself and his family but also his offspring, who inherit his glory

The Grant-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  95

and riches or his failure. If he is exceptionally “righteous” before God, deserving special blessing from God, this may remain with his posterity “for ever,” being formally confirmed by a covenant (Noah, Abraham, David). . . . His moral conduct, especially insofar as it is connected with his position as a leader, affects, to a certain extent, the whole social body or group he leads and represents. When he is punished by God for some crime, the whole family or house or kingdom depending on his rule . . . share his punishment. . . . The same applies when a chief or leader is rewarded by God for some important worthy action or behaviour (see Noah, Abraham, Pinhas [sic], David).12 It remains to examine how the covenants associated with Noah, Abraham, and David reveal features of the grant-type covenant.13

The Noahic Covenant (Gen 6–9) A Grant-Type Covenant The status of the Noahic covenant14 as a grant-type covenant has been shown by both M. Weinfeld15 and M. G. Kline.16 In Genesis 6, the “covenant” (bĕrît, v. 18) is promised to Noah because he was “righteous” (ṣaddîq, v. 9; see 7:1). Because of his righteousness, Noah had “found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (v. 8). Genesis 6:8–9 uses idioms common to grant-type covenants to describe the heroic virtues that merit the covenant grant.17 Kline comments: “What is said in Genesis 6:8 . . . refers to a covenantal grant bestowed on Noah as one whose loyal service received God’s approbation. The terms used to describe Noah’s loyalty and obedience in Genesis 6:8 and the following biblical narrative are the Hebrew equivalents of the standard terms applied to the loyal recipients of rewards in the extra-biblical royal grants.” 18 This divine approbation serves as the basis for the covenant that God promises to confirm (Heb. hēqîm, 6:18) at some point in the future. The verb “confirm” (i.e., qûm in the hipʿil) used in association with “covenant” (bĕrît) suggests that God’s covenant with Noah in 6:18 is undergoing renewal rather than initiation.19 The covenant that undergoes renewal can be traced back to creation.20 Strictly speaking, the “covenant” God speaks of to Noah in 6:18 is a “promise” to make a covenant with him at some point in the future. What is promised in 6:18 is actually granted in 9:8–17. A promise to make a cov-

96  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

enant, however, is as engagement is to marriage: something significantly stronger than a simple promise. The criteria for a grant-type covenant are clearly met by the narrative details within Genesis 6–9. First, the covenant is based on God’s promise, signified by the rainbow. S. Porúbcan and others interpret the rainbow as an implicit oath-sign.21 Porúbcan comments: “Yet, after the flood God’s just wrath was satisfied and as a reply to Noah’s sacrifice felt moved to pity and restored, at least partially, His original blessing made at the Creation to the survivors, confirming His favour for ever by a solemn covenant-oath.” 22 Second, God pledges blessings unconditionally.23 Third, the divinely sworn blessing represents an unconditional obligation on God’s part (Gen 9:11, 15). Fourth, the descendants of Noah are specifically included in the sworn pledge (Gen 9:9). Fifth, the covenant grant is based on Noah’s exceptional loyalty in the face of a violent and corrupt generation of wicked men (Gen 6:1–5). Based on these criteria, it is reasonable to conclude that the covenant between God and Noah is accurately classified as a grant-type. The Nature and Extent of Noah’s Covenant Grant From a literary perspective, the narrative of the Noahic covenant (Gen 6–9) contains five distinct elements.24 The first element is God’s promise for a future confirmation of the covenant (6:18). The second element corresponds to the obligation of Noah to build and fill the ark (6:14–16, 19–21; 7:1–3). The third element is Noah’s fulfillment of these obligations (6:22; 7:5). The fourth element consists of Noah’s sacrificial “offerings” (8:20). The fifth element is the consummation of the Noahic covenant in Genesis 9:8–17. From a critical perspective, Genesis 6–9 is replete with terms characteristic of Priestly covenant theology (e.g., “everlasting” [ʿôlām—9:16]; “sign” [ʾôt—9:12, 13, 17]; “remember” [zākar—9:15, 16]), and creation motifs (see 7:1–2 [1:28]).25 On the one hand, the presence of non-Priestly (i.e., Yahwist) elements in the narrative may be demonstrable.26 On the other hand, these traditions may have been reworked by a final (i.e., Priestly) redactor who deliberately presented the confirmation of the covenant as a theological paradigm for covenant renewal—one that is applied elsewhere in Israel’s history.27 From a canonical-critical perspective, however, it is important to grasp

The Grant-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  97

the nature and extent of Noah’s covenant grant. This can be observed by noticing the context in which the covenant is fulfilled in Genesis 9:8–17. The fulfillment of God’s promise to “confirm” (9:9) the covenant with Noah is announced, as well as the nature and extent of the covenant grant. The covenant grant pertains to “every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth” (9:16). In other words, the covenant involves a grant of land (9:16, 17), and dynastic authority over “all flesh” (9:16, 17).28 The covenant in Genesis 9 is therefore “an integral part of the Primeval history, indeed, the key to understanding the Primeval history as a whole.” 29 Against the backdrop of the brutal fact of humanity’s ongoing sin, God makes a covenant that serves as an unconditional hedge against future annihilation. Because of divine grace—and despite humanity’s ­condition— the world will continue. This is the covenant’s basic purpose.30 The covenant grant of world dominion to Noah may be understood as God’s merciful renewal of an already existing covenant—albeit one that needed to be reconstituted in order to ensure God’s abiding presence and grace in the fallen human family. This renewal is made possible by one man’s meritorious fidelity. Moreover, the Genesis narrative portrays Noah—after the grant-type covenant is confirmed—as a divine oracle and channel of blessings and curses to the rest of God’s human family. These blessings and curses are then mediated to the nations through their eponymous ancestors (Gen 9:25–27). Significantly, the Noahic grant-type covenant serves as a paradigm of covenant renewal which illumines other covenants that will be examined in this study.31 Other scholars recognize the parallels between the ­Noahic covenant and key moments in the canonical history of ancient Israel. These key moments include the erection of the Tabernacle,32 the building of ­Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem,33 and the return of the Jews from the Exile in Babylon.34

Excursus: Shem in the Genesis Narrative What follows is a canonical interpretation of Shem in the Genesis narrative. Such an approach provides the key to understanding Shem’s significance in ancient Jewish and Christian interpretive traditions, where he is typically identified as Melchizedek.35 Shem’s identification as Melchizedek will provide the basis for interpreting the Melchizedek argument in Hebrews 7:1–28 in Part Two of this study. The covenant grant given to Noah is explicitly passed down to the next

98  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

generation through his primary heir, Shem, who may be said (quite literally) to bear the “name” (šēm).36 The importance of Shem in the Genesis narrative is frequently overlooked.37 Besides Abraham, Shem is the only righteous firstborn son in all of Genesis.38 As a righteous firstborn son Shem obtains the much-coveted covenant “blessing” from his father. According to the genealogical data (see Gen 11:11), he then lives on into the lifetimes of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.39 Shem’s status as firstborn son foreshadows Israel’s vocation and mission among the nations, contrasting sharply and ironically with the scattered builders of Babel in Genesis 11.40 This foreshadowing is brought out within the narrative with special effect by the description of Noah’s blessing of Shem in Genesis 9:26. The importance of the blessing theme runs throughout Genesis.41 In the Primeval cycle, blessings are not given indiscriminately. They often assume a programmatic importance for tracing the course of God’s covenant dealings with humanity in general and Israel in particular. The blessing/cursing oracle of Noah consists of seven lines that are divided into three parts: And he said, Cursed be Canaan;    a servant of servants will he be to his brothers; Blessed be the Lord God of Shem;    let Canaan be a slave to him; God will enlarge Japhet,    but He will dwell in the tents of Shem;    let Canaan be a slave to him.42 Line two of the “blessing” to Japhet (“but He will dwell43 in the tents of Shem”) poses a problem. To whom does the subject “he” in the phrase “and he will dwell” refer? Kaiser comments: “We concur with the judgment of the Targum of Onkelos, Philo, Maimonides, Rashi, Aben [sic] Ezra, Theodoret, Baumgarten, and Delitzsch that the subject is ‘God.’ ” 44 After listing many arguments for his interpretive choice, Kaiser states: “On balance, then, the best option is to regard God as promising to Shem a special blessing. . . . The word for ‘dwell’ is related to the later concept of Mosaic theology of the Shekinah glory of God wherein the presence of God over the tabernacle was evidenced by the pillar of cloud by day and pillar of fire by night.” 45 The blessing of Shem by Noah points forward to the figurative use and

The Grant-Type Covenant in the Old Testament  |  99

theological significance of Shem for interpreting the divine plan of the covenants throughout the canonical record of salvation history. Shem becomes a figure who bridges the primeval and patriarchal narratives. This can be seen from the genealogical data in Genesis 10–11. R. B. Robinson comments: The genealogy now begins, contrary to custom, with the youngest son, Japheth . . . until it concludes with the offspring of Shem, Noah’s first son. The unusual sequence spotlights Shem and arranges to place his genealogy directly before the tower story. The sorry events at Babel are recounted, then the genealogy of Shem is taken up and leads . . . to Terah, father of Abraham. Genealogies of Shem effectively bracket the account of the building of the tower. To what end? A subtle wordplay may provide an indication. . . . The play on the word shem reveals a profound irony. The whole earth marshals its energy to make a shem for itself. But, even before the people came together to their task, God had already provided a Shem through the orderly process of procreation. The reader is treated to the ironic and even slightly ludicrous spectacle of humanity attempting to create by its own exertions a counterfeit of what God already provided. God responds to the foolishness of the people by coolly scattering them, then order returns in the form God intended, once again through genealogical succession from Shem.46 R. H. Moye comments on the “historicizing function” of the genealogies in Genesis: “The genealogies of Genesis are historicizing in form and intent in that they link the . . . narrative into a forward-moving continuum that provides . . . a realistic or history-like (as distinct from factually accurate) element that is central to much of biblical narrative.” 47 Similarly, N. Steinberg notes that “by including the genealogy of Shem within the boundaries of the so-called patriarchal history, a structural and thematic unity in the life histories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob emerges. . . . The separation of Gen 11:10–26 and vv. 27–32 is an arbitrary division. . . . The special history of Israel must begin at least as early as Gen 11:10. . . . The separation between primeval and the so-called patriarchal history is one we superimpose upon the text.” 48 Moye concludes: “The line of Shem/Name leads directly to Abraham, who, like Noah, is set apart from universal humanity to be the father of the people chosen by God” 49 In this light, Pedersen’s comment on the connotative use of “shem” is notable: “The Israelites say

100  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

with pride that they themselves and the peoples allied to them are bene shem, ‘sons of name.’ The name, the renown, is their ancestor.” 50 It is clear that Shem plays an important role in the canonical narrative of Genesis 6–11 and beyond. Not only is he a righteous and blessed firstborn son but also is the ancestral archetype of Israel. Further discussion of how Shem is identified as Melchizedek is taken up in Chapter 5.

Conclusions The narrative occasion of the Noahic covenant grant is the depraved state and radical need of God’s human family. The Noahic covenant exhibits a distinct familial shape. The covenant is made with Noah’s entire household: “Then the Lord said to Noah, ‘Go into the ark, you and all your household’ ” (Gen 7:1). Moreover, the covenant is made with Noah’s descendants: “Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your descendants after you” (Gen 9:9). That the covenant is extended to Noah’s descendants reveals more than just a domestic design for this covenant. It also indicates that the redemptive plan of God for humanity throughout salvation history will take a familial shape. In other words, God’s redemptive plan is permanently established by the Noahic covenant in terms of the familia Dei. Vogels comments: This covenant is not concluded with one individual person or with one particular nation, but with all mankind, and as such is universal. God speaks to Noah after the flood as if to the father of the new mankind. . . . The notion of universality also includes the idea of the brotherhood of man. Man should respect his fellowman because they are brothers: “For your life-blood I will surely require a reckoning . . . of every man’s brother I will require the life of man” [Gen 9:5]. All men belong to the same family, since they are all made by God “in his own image” (v. 6). This is confirmed by the priestly tradition in its table of the nations (Gen 10), where all the nations of the earth are related to the three sons of Noah. The Noah covenant is a universal fraternal covenant, or a covenant of brotherhood.51 In sum, the grant-type covenant with Noah represents God’s unconditional promise to one righteous man that He (God) would establish a gracious order for all peoples to live as the worldwide family of God.

5 The Abrahamic Grant-Type Covenant The Abraham narrative in Genesis 12–22 is a literary tapestry. The critical issues are complex,1 and the secondary literature is vast.2 The goal here will be to offer a canonical interpretation of the narrative in its final form. In particular, the promissory elements of Abraham’s call in Genesis 12:1–3 will be correlated with the three covenant-making episodes narrated in Genesis 15, 17, and 22.

The Abrahamic Covenant Exhibits Grant-Type Features The Abrahamic covenant undergoes considerable development within the narrative of Genesis 12–22. The three promises given by God to Abraham in Genesis 12 unfold correspondingly in chs. 15, 17, and 22. The narrative climaxes in Genesis 22, where the relationship with Abraham seems to be reconfigured into a grant-type covenant. The grant-type nature of the Abrahamic covenant represents a virtual consensus among interpreters.3 The criteria that Weinfeld and Levenson established for discerning grant-type covenants seem to be present in Genesis 12–22. The first criterion, the suzerain’s oath, is present at the climax of the Abraham narrative (Gen 22:16–18). A divine oath is awarded to the patriarch for his faithful obedience in the face of testing (i.e., the Aqedah).4 God declares, “By myself I swear” (v. 16).5 101

102  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

The second criterion for the grant-type covenant is that the suzerain blesses the vassal and curses his enemies. This criterion can be seen at several points in the Abraham narrative, beginning with God’s call to Abram: “I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and him who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen 12:2–3; see also 22:16–18). The centrality of “blessing” is clear from the fivefold repetition.6 The third criterion is met when God unconditionally binds himself to the various elements of his promissory oath (progeny, land, name, etc.). The fourth criterion is met when the covenant stipulates that Abraham’s progeny or “seed” (Heb., zeraʿ) are both party to the bĕrît (15:18) as well as beneficiaries of the grant (17:7–13; 22:16–18). The grant entails the element of God magnifying Abram’s “name” (Heb., šēm, 12:2; see 17:5), thereby meeting the fifth criterion. Finally, the sixth criterion is met by the frequent references to Abraham’s exceptional virtue (15:6, 18:19, 22–32; 20:7; 22:16; 26:5). While ultimately we are in agreement with the consensus view that the Abrahamic covenant—at least in its final form—is a grant-type covenant, the scholarship on which this consensus has been built suffers from a certain lack of precision. For example, scholars frequently speak of the Abrahamic covenant, as if there were just one. However, the final form of the book of Genesis records multiple covenant-making incidents between Abraham and God. God’s commitments to Abraham are enunciated at the beginning of the Abraham cycle (Gen 12:1–3), but in the form of promises, not as a covenant. Later in the narrative we find at least two distinct ­covenant-making episodes (Gen 15 and 17), which differ in many respects, both in form and content. In addition, since “oath” and “covenant” are often functionally synonymous in biblical and ancient Near Eastern literature, several interpreters, both ancient and modern, have considered the divine oath-swearing to Abraham at the end of the Aqedah (Gen 22:15–18) to constitute a “covenant” with Abraham as well. Why are three different covenant-making episodes recorded for us in Genesis? How do they relate to one another? Are they three distinct covenants or successive modifications of the one covenant? These questions are seldom asked, and when they are, the answers are provided in sourcecritical terms: thus, Genesis 15 is “J,” Genesis 17 “P,” and Genesis 22 a J-E conglomerate.7 As useful as source criticism may be, however, it does not illuminate the logic of the text as we now have it. In this chapter it is argued that, while there is essentially one covenant

The Abrahamic Grant-Type Covenant  |  103

relationship with Abraham, this covenantal relationship undergoes development. The basic covenant in Genesis 15 is expanded and reconfigured in Genesis 17, and then again in Genesis 22. These three covenants are successive and cumulative, each building on the previous one(s). The succession of these three covenants is foreshadowed in Genesis 12:1–3, God’s initial blessing of Abraham. Each of the three main elements of this blessing are taken up and given covenantal solemnity in Genesis 15, 17, and 22 respectively.

The Promissory Elements in Genesis 12 and the Covenants in Genesis 15, 17, and 22 The Abraham cycle opens with a command from God to “go from your country . . . to a land I will show you,” followed by a rather elaborate blessing. The structure of this blessing can be analyzed—and its elements enumerated—in many different ways.8 I propose the following literary structure for the blessing: A Aʹ Aʹʹ

I will make of you a great nation B And I will bless you; I will make your name great Bʹ And you will be a blessing; Bʹʹ I will bless your “blessers” and curse your “cursers,” And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.9

The blessing has three stanzas, each of which alternates a specific promise (A) with a statement of blessing (B). The third stanza is climactic, marked by greater elaboration and a reversal of the A-B order. According to this analysis, the general promise of blessing to Abraham is expressed in three specific promises: (1) great nationhood, (2) great name, and (3) blessing to all peoples. The advantage of dividing Genesis 12:2–3 in this manner is that it clarifies the relationship between these verses and the covenants recorded in Genesis 15, 17, and 22. These covenants take up and solemnize the three promises of great nationhood, great name, and blessing to the nations, in that order.

104  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

The Covenant of Genesis 15 and Great Nationhood The covenant of Genesis 15, traditionally called “the covenant between the pieces,” takes up and “covenantizes,” so to speak, the first promise to Abraham, namely, that he would become a “great nation” (Heb., gôy gādôl, Gen 12:2a). Although the precise phrase gôy gādôl does not occur in Genesis 15, the following arguments support the claim that great nationhood is the theme of this covenant. (1) The next occurrence of the word “nation” (gôy) after the promise in Genesis 12:2a is in Genesis 15 (v. 14). (2) More substantially, however, Williamson points out that the covenant in Genesis 15 concerns the two necessary conditions for nationhood: numerous descendants and land. Therefore, “the emphasis of Genesis 15 . . . is indisputably on the divine promise of nationhood.” 10 (3) Williamson’s claim is confirmed by the following observation: a large part of the theophany in Genesis 15 is devoted to the Lord’s prediction of the sojourn and enslavement in Egypt, and the Exodus from there (vv. 12– 16). This is precisely the time period during which other pentateuchal texts insist Israel became a “great nation”: Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt, for I will make of you a great nation (gôy gādôl) there. (Gen 46:3 NJPS) A wandering Aramean was my ancestor; he went down into Egypt . . . and there he became a great nation (gôy gādôl). (Deut 26:6 NRSV) In fact, aside from Deuteronomy 4:6–8, which relates to the giving of the law, these are the only passages in the entire Old Testament which describe Israel as a “great nation.” From a canonical perspective, then, one has to conclude that the promise to Abraham that his descendants would become a “great nation” was at least partially fulfilled during the Egyptian sojourn and exodus, the very events revealed to Abraham during the course of the covenant ritual in Genesis 15. (4) There is a further, if subtle, narrative clue that Genesis 15 concerns great nationhood. First, one must recognize that Abraham had no children yet in Genesis 15, and thus the promises of the Genesis 15 covenant encompass all of his descendants, not just those through Isaac. This, in part, is why the land boundaries promised (from the “River of Egypt” to the Euphrates) are so expansive: they include territory not just for Israel but for

The Abrahamic Grant-Type Covenant  |  105

Ishmael (i.e., Arabia), Edom, Midian, Moab and Ammon (quasi-­Abrahamic through Abraham’s foster son Lot) and Abraham’s other descendants.11 Second, one must note that Genesis 15 is the only covenant under which Ishmael falls. He is explicitly excluded from the covenants of Genesis 17 (see vv. 18–21) and Genesis 22 (see vv. 2, 12, 16). Third, the following promises to Ishmael should be observed: As for Ishmael, I have heard you . . . I will make him a great nation. (Gen 17:20) Come, lift up the boy . . . for I will make a great nation of him. (Gen 21:18) It is consistently promised to Ishmael that he will become a “great nation,” because—even if he does not fall under the promises of Genesis 17—he is heir to the covenant of Genesis 15, which concerns great nationhood. Before leaving Genesis 15, we should also mark what it does not concern: no mention is made in the covenant or its preliminaries of a “name” or of “blessing to the nations.” In fact, the word “bless” (Heb. root, b-r-k) and its derivatives do not occur in the passage. Thus, Genesis 15 does not address all the elements of promise given in Genesis 12:2–3. The rest will be taken up in later covenants. The Covenant of Genesis 17 and the Great Name Several factors indicate that the covenant of Genesis 17, while confirming the promise of nationhood (including land and descendants; see vv. 6–8) given in Genesis 15, takes up the promise of a “great name” given in Genesis 12:2c. (1) In the Abrahamic narrative, the next occurrence of the term “your name” (Heb., šĕmekā) after 12:2c is in Genesis 17 (v. 5). (2) The changing of names, for both Abram and Sarai, is a major theme in Genesis 17. Note that in the Abraham cycle the names “Abram” and “Sarai” are used consistently by all the hypothetical sources before Genesis 17, and likewise “Abraham” and “Sarah” afterward. The name changing in Genesis 17 has been thoroughly integrated into the final form of the text.12 (3) The new name Abram receives is literally greater (longer) than his previous one: Abraham includes an additional syllable. Thus, in a literary or poetic sense he receives in Genesis 17 a “great,” or at least “greater,” name.

106  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

(4) The promise of kings from the line of Abraham (Gen 17:6, 16) is an aspect of the promise of a “great name.” A “great name” is a concept associated almost exclusively with royalty in the Bible and the ancient Near East.13 For example, the term “great name” (Heb., šēm gādôl) in biblical literature is only applied to God as a royal attribute (see Mal 1:11, 14) and to King David in 2 Samuel 7:9 (“I will make for you a great name, like the great ones of the earth”), in the midst of the covenant promising David a perpetual royal dynasty.14 In the ANE, a “great name” is a commonplace attribute of kings in royal inscriptions.15 This has led a number of scholars to see the connection between the promise of a “great name” in 12:2c and kingship,16 which is mentioned in Genesis 17:6, 16. The promise of a “great name” for Abraham is, in essence, a promise that he would give rise to royalty. (5) The promise of multinational fatherhood (vv. 4–5) relates to kingship and therefore is also an aspect of the promise of a “great name.” When in Genesis 17:4 God says to Abraham: “You shall be the father of a multitude of nations,” one is tempted, at first glance, to interpret this “multitude” of nations as all the physical descendants of Abraham, including those from Hagar (Ishmaelites) and Keturah (Midianites and other Arabian peoples). Taken together with the descendants of Sarah (Israelites, Judahites, Edomites) the whole lot might be considered a “multitude” of nations. But on further reflection, it becomes apparent that a purely biological interpretation of this promise is unsatisfactory.17 It is clear that the promises of Genesis 17 do not include Ishmael, but only descendants of Abraham through Sarah (vv. 19, 21), that is, Isaac alone. So von Rad comments, “One does not grasp the meaning of this promise [of a multitude of nations] if one thinks primarily of the Ishmaelites . . . and sons of Keturah . . . for the descendants about whom these words speak are not to be sought among those who are outside God’s covenant.” 18 Yet from Isaac alone come only two nations, Israel and Edom. Two nations do not constitute a “multitude” (Heb., hămôn). What then is the meaning that Abraham will be father of a “multitude” of nations? The answer is sought in the use of “father” as a term for “suzerain” in international treaties. Numerous studies have demonstrated that international political alliances were described in kinship terms in the ANE.19 Specifically, vassals were “sons” and suzerains “fathers.” 20 David and Solomon are portrayed in 2 Samuel 8 and 1 Kings 4:21 as suzerains over all the nations from Egypt to the Euphrates. Thus, it is through Abraham’s “son,” the Davidic monarch, I would suggest, that Abraham was the “father (suzerain) of a multitude of nations” (cf. Ps 2:7–12; 72:8–11; 89:25–27).

The Abrahamic Grant-Type Covenant  |  107

The term “father” is being used metaphorically. When the text speaks in unmistakably biological terms, it speaks only of “nations” (i.e., Israel and Edom) coming from Abraham and Sarah (Gen 17:6, 16), not a “multitude” of nations, which is only associated with the term “father (=suzerain).” The “great name” corresponds to kingship, and not just to kingship but to international suzerainty (fatherhood). For this reason, the Abrahamic promise of a “great name” is reiterated to David in the granting of the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7:9).21 It is through David and his heirs that Abraham will become the “father of many nations.” Thus, during the height of the Israelite empire under David and Solomon, the psalmist could reckon the promise to Abraham as being fulfilled: For God is the king of all the earth;    sing praises with a psalm! God reigns over the nations;    God sits on his holy throne. The princes of the peoples gather    As the people of the God of Abraham. (Ps 47:7–9) (6) Also relevant to kingship, and therefore to the “great name,” is the much smaller extent of the land promised in Genesis 17 vis-à-vis Genesis 15. The covenant of Genesis 17 and its promise of kingship is only for Isaac and his descendants (primarily Israel) and so the land promised is limited to Canaan, the Israelite homeland (v. 8).22 By contrast, Ishmael, ancestor of the Arabs and heir of most of the land promised in Genesis 15:17 (i.e., the Arabian peninsula, see Jub. 20:12–13), is promised only princes (17:20), not kings (17:6). In view here is the situation promised by Deuteronomy 15:6 and realized under David and Solomon, whereby the king of Israel, whose royal domain proper is only Canaan, will depose or subjugate all the kings of Abraham’s descendants, from the “River of Egypt to the Great River” (2 Sam 8:1–14; 10:1–19; 12:26–31; 1 Kgs 4:21; 8:65; 10:15). The covenant of Genesis 17 provides divine legitimation only for the kings descended from Abraham through Isaac and possessing Canaan, that is, the kings of Israel. To summarize, most of the unique promissory elements of the covenant of Genesis 17 vis-à-vis those of Genesis 15—the giving of new names and the promises of kingship and multinational fatherhood—correspond to the promise of Genesis 12:2c that Abram’s “name” would be made “great.”

108  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

The Covenant of Genesis 22:15–18 and the Blessing for All Nations Scholarship on Genesis 22 has focused almost exclusively on the narrative of the near-sacrifice or “binding” (Aqedah) of Isaac in vv. 1–14, with the solemn divine oath of vv. 15–18 being marginalized as an insertion by a secondary hand.23 As a result, Genesis 22:15–18 has been virtually neglected in studies and commentaries on Genesis in general and on the Abraham cycle in particular.24 However, the secondary nature of vv. 15–18 is debatable, and a number of scholars have recently defended the passage as original to the narrative.25 Regardless of whether vv. 15–18 are secondary or not, in the present form of the text, they are integral to the narrative and clearly perform an important function not only within Genesis 22, but also within the Abrahamic narrative and even the Pentateuch as a whole. Within Genesis 22, vv. 15–18 form the climax of the story, showing how the testing of Abraham’s faith results in God’s grant of an unconditional covenant oath to bless Abraham and through him all the nations of the earth; without the verses, the test of the Aqedah serves no obvious purpose and achieves no benefit for Abraham.26 Within the Abrahamic narrative, vv. 15–18 form a clear inclusio with Genesis 12:1–3, providing climactic literary closure to the account of Abraham’s life.27 Within the Pentateuch as a whole, Genesis 22:15–18 is the first and only account of God swearing an oath to any of the patriarchs, and thus becomes—in the present form of the text—the clearest textual referent for the recurring allusions to the oath to the patriarchs, or the covenant sworn to the patriarchs, in the rest of the Old Testament.28 The crucial role of the covenant oath of the Aqedah (Gen 22:15–18) in the Pentateuch is demonstrated by the fact that Moses appeals specifically to this oath (Exod 32:13) 29 in order to avert God’s wrath upon Israel after the apostasy of the golden calf, and the appeal is effective (Exod 32:14). Genesis 22:15–18 is not usually recognized as a covenant-making episode comparable to 17:1–27 or 15:17–21, because the word “covenant” (bĕrît) does not occur in these verses. However, the actual word bĕrît does not always occur in covenant-making accounts. For example, in the primary account of the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7) the word bĕrît is absent, yet it is universally recognized that a covenant is described in the passage.30 Despite the absence of the word bĕrît, Genesis 22:15–18 should be recognized as a covenant-making episode for the following reasons. (1) Genesis 22:15–18 is the account of a solemn divine oath (v. 16), and in the Bible the terms for “oath” (Heb., ʾālâ, šĕbūʿâ, or the verb nišbaʿ, “to

The Abrahamic Grant-Type Covenant  |  109

swear”) and “covenant” (bĕrît) are often functionally synonymous. There are several examples of this functional synonymity within Genesis itself: Therefore that place was called Beer-sheba; because there both of them swore an oath. When they had made a covenant at Beersheba. (Gen 21:31–32 RSV) We see plainly that the Lord has been with you; so we say, let there be an oath between you and us, and let us make a covenant with you. (Gen 26:28 RSV) Let us make a covenant, you and I; and let it be a witness between you and me. . . . So Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac. (Gen 31:44, 53 RSV) The functional equivalence of “oath” and “covenant” is very clear elsewhere in the Bible as well.31 The reason for the equivalence is that the oath is the sine qua non of the covenant-making ritual. This has been pointed out by many authorities on the subject: • “A covenant was an agreement or promise between two parties . . . made binding by an oath expressed verbally or by some symbolic action.”32 • “The oath was the constitutive element that made the covenants ­binding.”33 • “There is no doubt that [the oath] was the formality which made the covenant valid.”34 The point is also made by Weinfeld, Barr, McCarthy, Hugenberger, and others.35 (2) There is canonical, intertextual support for interpreting the oath of the Aqedah (Gen 22:15–18) as a covenant. Of particular significance is the common refrain of Deuteronomy concerning the “covenant (bĕrît) with your fathers that he swore (nišbaʿ) to them” (Deut 4:31; 7:12; 8:18; cf. 31:20).36 This refers to the patriarchal covenant, yet again, the only time God ever explicitly swears (nišbaʿ) to any of the patriarchs is in Genesis 22:15–18. This encourages the interpretation of God’s swearing in Genesis 22:16 as the ratification of a covenant. D. L. Magnetti comments on this phenomenon: “From this evidence it is seen that the covenant between God and Abraham was considered as an oath by which God bound himself to Abraham and his descendants . . . The ancient Israelite looked upon the

110  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

Abrahamic covenant as a solemn agreement between God and Israel which was sealed by God’s oath to Abraham.” 37 In addition to Deuteronomy, the oath of the Aqedah seems identified with the Abrahamic covenant in Psalm 105:8–9: “He is mindful of his covenant for ever, / of the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations, / the covenant which he made with Abraham, / his sworn promise to Isaac.” Here the “sworn promise to Isaac” is equated with the “covenant with Abraham.” Yet nowhere in Genesis does God swear to Isaac or any of the patriarchs except at the Aqedah, for the oath of 22:15–18, while spoken to Abraham, grants all the promises to Abraham’s “seed,” which in context refers specifically to Isaac, the “only” (yāḥîd) seed of Abraham. (3) Indeed, Second Temple Jewish interpreters understood Genesis 22:15–18 as ratifying a covenant with Abraham. For example, T. Mos. 3:9 says: “God of Abraham . . . remember your covenant which you made with them, the oath which you swore to them by yourself,” an explicit reference to Genesis 22:15–18, my emphasis. The phrase “covenant and oath” occurs elsewhere in the book as a reference to the oath of the Aqedah.38 Similarly, the Fragmentary Targum to Leviticus 26:42 speaks of “the covenant oath which I swore with Isaac on Mount Moriah” (cf. Ps 105:9) in reference to Genesis 22:15–18.39 The same identification is found in Luke 1:72–73 (“his holy covenant, the oath which he swore to our father Abraham”) 40 and Acts 3:25 (“the covenant which God gave to your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed’ ”).41 (4) Some modern scholars have retraced the steps of this ancient interpretive tradition. For example, M. Weinfeld bases much of his understanding of the nature of “the Abrahamic covenant” on Genesis 26:3–5, which is a nearly verbatim reiteration of the oath of the Aqedah (Gen 22:15–18) to Isaac.42 Thus, Weinfeld recognizes the equivalence of “oath” and “covenant” and that both 22:15–18 and 26:3–5 pertain to the covenant relationship between God and Abraham. Similarly, J. Van Seters notes that the reiteration of the oath of the Aqedah in Genesis 26:3–5 echoes the phrasing of the covenant-making account in Genesis 17, thus linking the two: “The expression ‘I will establish . . . my covenant,’ (17:7) corresponds to . . . ‘I will establish . . . the oath’ (26:3), since oath and covenant are equivalent terms here.” 43 T. D. Alexander applies Van Seters’ observation to Genesis 22:16–18 and the relationship of these verses to earlier promises made to Abraham, concluding, “Following the successful outcome of his testing of Abraham, God confirms with an oath in 22,16–18 what he had earlier promised. It is this oath which ratifies or establishes the covenant.” 44

The Abrahamic Grant-Type Covenant  |  111

So then, although bĕrît does not occur in Genesis 22, interpreters both ancient and modern have correctly recognized that the solemn, divine oath of Genesis 22:15–18 ratifies a covenant with Abraham. The close relationship between the promises of Genesis 12:2–3 and the oath of Genesis 22:16–18 has often been noted.45 In 22:17–18 the promises of 12:2–3 are reiterated in a different form, this time not just as promises but as stipulations of covenant. For present purposes it is most important to note that the promise of 12:3c, “In you shall all the families of the earth be blessed,” which has not been mentioned in either of the previous covenantmaking episodes, is finally raised to the level of a covenant obligation, although in a slightly altered form: “In your seed shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves” (Gen 22:18).46 Yet there are further relationships between 12:2–3 and 22:17–18 that should be noted. Genesis 12:2a, for example, promises “blessing” for Abraham, but curiously neither Genesis 15 nor 17 ever speaks of “blessing” Abraham, even though both Sarah and Ishmael are “blessed” in ch. 17. Finally, however, Genesis 22:17 bestows an emphatic blessing on Abraham: “Surely I will bless you.” This indicates that 22:17 is taking up the theme of “blessing” in 12:2–3 and giving it its definitive expression. The promises in Genesis 22:17–18 take up elements of the covenants of Genesis 15 and 17. The promise to “multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and the sand which is on the seashore,” is a clear allusion to 15:5 and thus the promise of “great nationhood” in 12:2a, only now the promise is made more emphatic by the analogy of sand on the seashore, the grains of which are more numerous—from an ancient perspective—than even the stars. Furthermore, the promise that “your seed shall possess the gates of his enemies” should be read as anticipating the military domination of surrounding nations under David and Solomon as portrayed in 2 Samuel 8:1–14; 10:1–19; 12:26–31; and 1 Kings 4:21. It is thus related to the promise of kingship and multinational suzerainty given in Genesis 17. These relationships between Genesis 22:17–18 and chs. 12, 15, and 17 indicate that the covenant obligations God swears to Abraham after the Aqedah are cumulative, taking up the previous promises that have been made. In Genesis 22:15–18, the last and climactic promise of Genesis 12:2–3—blessing for all nations—is finally given covenant form, and the previous covenants of chs. 15 and 17 are ratified and confirmed.47

112  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

The Covenant History of Abraham as the Covenant History of Israel Scholars have long recognized that at least certain aspects of Abraham’s life can be understood as allegories of the experiences of his primary line of descendants, the people of Israel. The most obvious example is Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt (Gen 12:10–20), which closely parallels Israel’s own experience in that land, as several scholars have shown.48 Another is the narrative of Genesis 15, which J. Ha has argued is “a programmatic summary of the entire Pentateuchal narrative.” 49 On a broader level, several studies have argued for extensive correspondences between David and Abraham, such that Abraham is a proto-David or David a second Abraham.50 The idea that Abraham’s life has been recounted in such a way as to foreshadow later events in Israel’s history is, I believe, correct, and I wish to demonstrate that this is true also with respect to the covenant history of Abraham. I will seek to show that the Abrahamic covenant-making episodes in Genesis 15, 17, and 22 correspond to the three most important covenants in Israel’s history: the formative covenant at Sinai, the second covenant on the Plains of Moab (i.e., Deuteronomy), and the Davidic covenant associated with Zion. The Covenant Between the Pieces and the Sinai Covenant The covenant between the pieces (Gen 15) and the covenant at Sinai (primarily Exod 19–24) are the first and foundational covenants for Abraham and Israel respectively, and there are several correspondences between the two.51 (1) The divine declaration in Genesis 15:7, “I am the Lord who brought you from Ur of the Chaldeans,” bears an obvious textual relationship to Exodus 20:2, the introduction to the Sinaitic covenant: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.” So Freedman comments, “In language which clearly echoes the prologue to the Ten Commandments, God solemnly . . . reasserts his intention to give the land to Abraham’s descendants.” 52 (2) Both Genesis 15 and the Sinaitic covenant concern Israelite nationhood. As argued above, the covenant of Genesis 15 “covenantizes” the promise of nationhood in Genesis 12:2a. Likewise, the covenant at Sinai is the climactic event in the nation-forming process begun already in Egypt. So we read in Exodus 19:5–6: “If you truly heed my voice and keep my

The Abrahamic Grant-Type Covenant  |  113

­covenant . . . you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (gôy).” McComiskey comments, “This promise [Exod 19:5–6] that Israel would become a national entity . . . is not without historical precedent. . . . The Abrahamic promise envisioned a people who would become a great nation.” 53 (3) The anticipated Egyptian sojourn of four hundred years in Genesis 15:13 is picked up in Exodus 12:40–41, at the start of the exodus to Sinai. Although the figure in the latter passage is actually four hundred and thirty, there is little doubt that an allusion to the prediction in Genesis 15:13 is intended, establishing yet another link between Genesis 15 and the events culminating in the Sinai covenant. (4) The verses leading up to the covenant-making ritual in Genesis 15 narrate for Abraham the Egyptian bondage and Exodus (15:12–16). Similarly, the chapters leading up to the Sinai covenant-making ceremony recount those same events (Exod 1–18). (5) Many have noted that the theophanic phenomena described in Genesis 15:12–17 resemble the theophany on Sinai.54 Darkness (vv. 12, 17; cf. Exod 20:21), smoke (v. 17, cf. Exod 19:18; 20:18), torches (or “lightnings” [Hebrew lappîdîm]; see v. 17, cf. Exod 20:18) and fire (v. 17, cf. Exod 19:18; 24:17) all occur both at Sinai and in Genesis 15. These are the only two times in biblical narrative where God manifests himself in the presence of all four phenomena. (6) In addition, the animals that Abraham is told to gather for ­slaughter— a heifer, a she-goat, a ram, a turtledove, and a pigeon—are all clean sacrificial animals according to the Sinaitic legislation (cf. Lev 3:1, 6; 5:7; 9:3–4), and are listed in the order (from herd, flock, and fowl) in which offerings are usually categorized in the Priestly Code.55 Moreover, Abraham’s decision not to cut the birds seems clearly in line with Sinaitic regulations (see Lev 1:17; 5:8). (7) The extent of the land promised in Genesis 15:18 is virtually identical to the boundaries promised in Exodus 23:31, at the conclusion of the initial covenant at Sinai. In contrast, by the end of Deuteronomy, the promised land is merely Canaan (Deut 32:49), plus the already-conquered Gilead (Deut 34:1–2). Thus, Clements notes concerning Genesis 15: “The oath given to Abraham [i.e., Genesis 15] served as a kind of prophetic anticipation of the Horeb [i.e., Sinai] covenant, since it was through the latter that the promise of the land was brought to fulfillment.” 56 For all these reasons I would draw a line between the “covenant-betweenthe-pieces” and the Sinai covenant. The initial covenants with Abraham and Israel have been described in such a way as to reflect each other. Both

114  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

concern the nationhood of Israel, but notably absent from both Genesis 15 and Exodus 20–24 are references to an Israelite monarchy (“great name”) and the blessing to all nations. These elements of the Abrahamic promise will be taken up in later covenants with Israel. The Covenant of Circumcision and the Covenant on the Plains of Moab (Deuteronomy) The covenant on the Plains of Moab—that is, the Deuteronomic ­covenant— has not always been recognized as a separate covenant from that of Sinai, even though it is given in a different location (Deut 1:1; 4:45–46) by different means (no theophany, just Moses speaking), and the text describes itself as being a covenant “besides the covenant . . . made with them at Horeb [Sinai]” (Deut 29:1 ET; 28:69 MT). Nonetheless, much scholarship has ignored or dismissed these narrative markers and read Deuteronomy as if it were a different version or recension of the events at Sinai.57 More recently, the heightened awareness of the significance of the Pentateuchal narrative has led to wider recognition of Deuteronomy as a self-consciously distinct covenant and law code from that of Sinai.58 Once Deuteronomy is recognized as the second major covenant made between God and Israel, forty years after the first covenant at Sinai, several intriguing correspondences between the covenant of circumcision (Gen 17) and the Deuteronomic covenant may be observed: (1) The opening command of God to Abraham in Genesis 17:1, “walk before me,” recalls the constant refrain of Deuteronomy to “walk in His [the Lord’s] ways.” 59 Moreover, the precise phrase used, “walk before me,” does not occur in Priestly literature, but rather in the Deuteronomistic History (1 Kgs 2:4; 3:6; 8:23, 25; 9:4; 2 Kgs 20:3; 23:3).60 It is clear in these Deuteronomistic passages that the substance of “walking before me” is obedience to the Deuteronomic Torah (1 Kgs 9:4; 2 Kgs 23:3). (2) The second command to Abraham in Genesis 17:1, “and be blameless,” (Heb., tāmîm) does not occur at all in the Priestly or Holiness ­legislation— which describes sacrifices as tāmîm but never commands humans to be so—but rather echoes the command of Deuteronomy 18:13, “You shall be blameless (tāmîm) before the Lord your God,” the only command in Pentateuchal law for human beings to be tāmîm. (3) Genesis 17:6 introduces the idea that kings will descend from Abraham for the first time in the Pentateuchal narrative. Likewise, Deuteronomy 17:14–20 is the first instance in Pentateuchal law where provision is made for a king over Israel. The Covenant, Priestly, and Holiness codes

The Abrahamic Grant-Type Covenant  |  115

do not anticipate a royal government. But not only does Deuteronomy allow for a king, but also views the kingship as inevitable (see 28:36), and, in fact, presupposes it, inasmuch as certain laws given there, like the centralization of the sanctuary (Deut 12:1–26; 15 passim), would require a strong central—that is, royal—government for their implementation and enforcement.61 (4) Just as Genesis 17 introduces a multinational perspective to the covenant with Abraham (17:4–6, 16)—whereas previously the promise had only been expressed in terms of (single) nationhood (Gen 12:2a)—so Deuteronomy introduces a multinational aspect to the covenant with Israel. Deuteronomy envisions Israel ruling over other nations, that is, becoming an imperial power: “The Lord your God will bless you . . . you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow; and you shall rule over many nations, but they shall not rule over you” (Deut 15:6, cf. 26:19; 28:12–13).62 No such promise is given in (canonically) earlier legal material. Combining Deuteronomy’s anticipation of a king with its prediction of international hegemony demonstrates that the Deuteronomic covenant clearly anticipates the brief flowering of Israel’s Levantine empire under David and Solomon, just as Genesis 17 does. (5) Both Deuteronomy and Genesis 17 are of the same covenant type, that is, they resemble the so-called “vassal treaty.” 63 Covenants in the Bible and the ancient Near East were generally between two parties—only rarely more (e.g., 2 Kgs 11:17). But the obligations of a covenant could be distributed between the parties in different ways: “An obligation can be [1] taken upon oneself; or it can be [2] imposed on another; or [3] mutual obligations may be assumed.” 64 Scholars use different terms for the three categories, for example, “covenant of royal grant,” “covenant of grant,” or “grant-type” for the first; “vassal treaty,” “suzerainty treaty,” or simply “treaty-type” for the second; and “parity-” or “kinship-covenant” for the third.65 As we have seen, which of the two parties assumes the majority of the obligations—and thus into which general category the covenant falls—can be determined by observing which party swears the oath. When Genesis 17 and Deuteronomy are examined, it becomes apparent that in both only the inferior parties—Abraham and Israel—swear the oath. Thus, they follow the form of treaty-type covenants,66 in which “the obligations . . . are imposed on the vassal, who confirms his subscription by oath, and . . . rewards and penalties . . . are attached . . . as consequences of obedience and disobedience.” 67 In Genesis 17, Abraham performs a self-maledictory ritual or ­Drohritus— namely, circumcision—which serves as an enacted oath or “oath-sign” to

116  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

ratify the covenant.68 The cutting off of the foreskin symbolizes the “cutting off” from the covenant should its terms be violated. As Freedman notes, “no . . . reference is made to the confirmatory oath” by God, but rather “attention . . . is focused on the sign of the Covenant, circumcision, which is presented in the form of a demand or stipulation. [my emphasis]” 69 The promises God expresses in ch. 17 are not in the form of a “promissory” or “grant-type” covenant, but are blessings contingent upon the obedience of the vassal, Abraham. As for Deuteronomy, a ratificatory curse-ritual is prescribed in Deuteronomy 27:11–26 and carried out in Joshua 8:30–35. This is the oath that ratifies the covenant, since an oath essentially consists of a conditional self-malediction, that is, a statement to this effect: “May I be cursed if I do not fulfill my covenant obligations.” 70 In contrast to Exodus 24:6–8, where half the blood of the covenant is thrown against the altar (the symbol of God’s presence) and half on the people to signify a mutual entering into the covenant, God has no part in the oath or oath-ritual in Deuteronomy or in the ratification ceremony in Joshua 8. Thus, the covenants of Deuteronomy and Genesis 17, while including generous promises of blessing for covenant faithfulness, both have the form of “vassal treaties,” in which only the inferior party swears the covenant oath.71 (6) On a related note, the ratification of both covenants is associated with circumcision. Circumcision is the ratificatory ritual for the covenant in Genesis 17. Abraham and all the males of his household, young and old, undergo circumcision together (vv. 22–27). This is paralleled by the mass circumcision of the Israelites in Joshua 5:1–9, shortly before the Deuteronomic covenant is ratified (Josh 8:30–35). (In the MT, the conquests of Jericho and Ai [6:1–8, 29] interpose between the accounts of the circumcision and the covenant ratification, but in an ancient recension of the text witnessed by 4QJosha, Joshua 5 follows immediately after Joshua 8, thus more closely associating mass circumcision with the ratification of the Deuteronomic covenant.) Genesis 17 and Joshua 5 are the only two biblical accounts of all males of the covenant people undergoing simultaneous circumcision. Moreover, the only two commands for Israelites to circumcise themselves in the Pentateuch are found in Genesis 17:9–14 and Deuteronomy 10:16.72 The command in Genesis is literal, while that in the latter is metaphorical (“circumcise your hearts”). Yet there is still a strong correlation: even in Genesis 17 circumcision is not merely a physical mark, but an outward sign of Abraham’s commitment to “walk before [God] and be blameless” (17:1), which is what Deuteronomy means by “circumcision of the heart” (see Deut 10:12–13).73

The Abrahamic Grant-Type Covenant  |  117

(7) Finally, the covenants in both Deuteronomy and Genesis 17 are instigated in part by sexual indiscretion on the part of the covenant heir(s). Between the covenants of Genesis 15 and 17, Abraham engages in relations with Sarah’s Egyptian handmaid Hagar, a relationship that in hindsight was clearly misguided. Likewise, between the covenants at Sinai (Exod 19–24) and the Plains of Moab (Deuteronomy) the people of Israel engage in promiscuous relations not only during the golden calf apostasy (Exod 32:6), but also with the Moabites and Midianites at Beth-peor (Num 25). This later incident is closely related to Deuteronomy, since it takes place on the Plains of Moab opposite Jericho (Num 26:3). The people remain there through the proclamation of the Deuteronomic covenant (see 1:5; 3:29; 4:46; 29:1; 32:49; 34:1, 6), and Moses makes mention of the apostasy and calamity that recently took place in the vicinity during his introduction to the exposition of the law (Deut 4:3). So in both the Abraham cycle and Exodus–Deuteronomy we have this pattern: the covenant heir receives a foundational covenant (Gen 15, Exod 19–24) but promptly engages in illicit (or at least misguided, in the case of Abraham) sexual relations (Gen 16, Exod 32, Num 25) which complicate the covenant relationship and necessitate an additional covenant (Gen 17, Deuteronomy) which imposes new (disciplinary?) obligations on the covenant heir, and whose ratification is associated with group circumcision (Gen 17:22–27; Josh 5:1–9). Genesis 22 and the Davidic Covenant on Zion (2 Sam 7, 1 Chr 17, Pss 89, 132) Several connections may be drawn between the covenant oath at the Aqedah (Gen 22:15–18) and the Davidic Covenant (primarily 2 Sam 7): (1) Most significant is that both are given at the same place: Zion.74 The Aqedah takes place on a certain mountain in the land of Moriah, and 2 Chronicles 3:1 identifies Mt. Moriah with Zion, the site of the Temple. It has been argued that the identification of Moriah with Zion is late and is not intended in Genesis 22,75 but the evidence suggests otherwise.76 There does not seem to be direct dependence between Genesis 22:2 and 2 Chronicles 3:1, because one speaks of the “land of Moriah” and the other of “Mount Moriah.” If anything, the greater specificity of 2 Chronicles 3:1 suggests dependence on Genesis 22:2.77 Moreover, Genesis 22:14 makes clear that the sacrifice of Isaac takes place on the Temple mount: “So Abraham called that place “The Lord will provide”; as it is said to this day, “On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided.” Only two locations in Scripture are identified as “the mount of the Lord”: Sinai and Zion. Which

118  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

is it in Genesis 22? Two considerations come into play. First, it is notable that sacrifices were not offered on Sinai itself, but Zion was the place of sacrificial worship par excellence. Therefore it is antecedently more likely that Genesis 22 aims to link Abraham’s quintessential sacrifice to Zion rather than to Sinai. Second, we know from the narrative that the mount of the Aqedah is three days’ journey from Beersheba (Gen 21:33; 22:4), whereas Sinai is eleven days’ journey—presumably to the south—from Kadesh-barnea (Deut 1:2). This would seem to rule out Sinai as a possible site of the Aqedah. Therefore “the mount of the Lord” on which “it shall be provided” should be identified with Zion.78 This makes sense inasmuch as it provides patriarchal justification and precedent for the sacrificial cult at Zion. While Abraham visited other Israelite cult centers (Bethel, Shechem) it is at Zion that the definitive covenant sacrifice takes place. Moberly concludes, “Abraham is a type of Israel. His fear of God and sacrifice on Moriah is [sic] the pattern for Israel in Jerusalem.” 79 (2) In addition to being given at the same location (Zion), the covenant of the Aqedah and the Davidic covenant are both grant-type covenants (or “covenants of divine commitment”).80 In both cases the superior party— here God—swears an oath to grant some boon to the inferior party in view of his meritorious loyalty. No obligations are placed on the inferior, and the superior takes upon himself the entire responsibility of fulfilling the covenant in perpetuity. (3) Furthermore, the promises of the covenant of the Aqedah refer to, and are fulfilled by, the Davidic dynasty. This is clearest in 1 Kings 4:20–34, which may betray some intentional relationship with Genesis 22:15–18. Genesis 22:17 promises Abraham for the first time that his descendants will be “as the sand which is on the seashore,” and it is not until the Davidic monarchy that the population of Israel reaches this extent (2 Sam 17:11), especially under Solomon (1 Kgs 4:20). Likewise, the promise that “your seed shall possess the gate of his enemies” is fulfilled in dramatic fashion by David and Solomon (2 Sam 8; 10; 12:26–31; 1 Kgs 4:21, 24).81 Finally, the promise that “by your seed shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves” finds actualization in the reign of Solomon, according to Psalm 72:17b: “By him may all nations gain blessing for themselves.” 82 The twofold promise in Genesis 22 that, on the one hand, the “seed” will possess the gates of his enemies, and on the other, that all nations will find blessing in the “seed,” reflects the two sides of the relationship between the Davidic dynasty and the “nations”: the negative and the positive. The negative side, that of the “seed” possessing the gates of his enemies, is characterized by military domination and political subjugation, and is cel-

The Abrahamic Grant-Type Covenant  |  119

ebrated in texts like Psalms 2; 18:37–50; 68:21–23; 72:8–11; 110. The positive side, that of the nations finding blessing in the “seed,” is characterized by the Davidic monarch as dispenser of justice and wisdom to the international community and Zion as the focal point for international worship, celebrated in texts such as Psalms 2:11b; 65; 67; 68:29, 31–32; 72:12–14, 17b; 96–97. The positive aspect of the Davidic dynasty bringing “blessing” to the nations is also reflected in 2 Samuel 7:19, where David speaks of the covenant the Lord has made with him as a tôrat hāʾādām, a “law (or instruction) for mankind.” This “instruction for mankind” is manifested in Solomon, who sits on Zion instructing the nations in wisdom (1 Kgs 4:29–34; 10:1–25). Solomon is also understood as the fountainhead of the wisdom literature, which is international and ecumenical in perspective. The Solomonic Temple, likewise, is dedicated as a place of prayer not only for Israel but also for foreigners (1 Kgs 8:41–43). So Clements comments: “It is also by recognizing the political situation of the Davidic state as the background to the Yahwist’s work that we gain an insight into the significance of the third of the great tria of promises. Through the descendants of Abraham the nations of the earth would acquire blessing for themselves. This must certainly be a pointer to the political situation in which, under David, Israel exercised hegemony over a number of surrounding vassal states. Through his anointed king Yahweh exercised his dominion over the nations of the earth, communicating his blessing to them through his people Israel.” 83 Thus, from a canonical perspective the promises of the covenant of the Aqedah all find their fulfillment in the Davidic covenant, particularly as expressed during the reign of Solomon. (4) The relationship between the covenants in Genesis 17 and 22 is analogous to that between the Deuteronomic and Davidic covenants. For example, within the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH), there is an obvious correspondence between the Deuteronomic covenant and the Davidic monarchy.84 Deuteronomy prescribes that, when the people have settled in the land and the Lord has given “you rest from all you enemies round about, so that you live in safety” (Deut 12:10), a central sanctuary shall be established (Deut 12:5, 11). David gives Israel rest from her enemies “round about” (2 Sam 7:1) that is, from the surrounding nations (Aram , Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia [2 Sam 8:12]), thus fulfilling the condition for the establishment of the central sanctuary of Deut 12:10.85 Therefore David sets about constructing the sanctuary (2 Sam 7:2–3). In reward for his intention to fulfill the conditions of the Deuteronomic covenant, God grants David an irrevocable covenant of grant (2 Sam 7:4–17) which focuses on his descendant (2 Sam 7:12–15).86

120  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

Likewise, the covenant of Genesis 17 placed on Abraham the obligation to “walk before me,” be blameless (v. 1), and be circumcised (vv. 9–14). Abraham fulfills the obligation of circumcision immediately (17:23–27) and the test of the Aqedah provides him the opportunity literally to “walk” (Heb., hālāk, Gen 22:2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13) 87 before God and demonstrate that he is blameless in his fear of the Lord (cf. v. 14). In reward for his intention to sacrifice Isaac in fulfillment of the conditions of the covenant of ch. 17, the Lord bestows on Abraham an unconditional grant-covenant (22:15– 18) which focuses on his descendant (Heb., zeraʿ, vv. 17–18). Therefore, one can see not only a relationship between the covenant of the Aqedah and the Davidic covenant on the one hand, and the covenant of Genesis 17 and the Deuteronomic covenant on the other; but also the relationship of anticipation and fulfillment that exists between Deuteronomy and the Davidic covenant reproduced in the relationship of Genesis 17 with Genesis 22.

The Cumulative Nature of the Divine Covenants So far we have argued that the threefold covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15, 17, and 22 foreshadows—from a canonical perspective—the Sinaitic, Deuteronomic, and Davidic covenants in Israel’s history. This correlation is correct, but simplified. We must now refine it to reflect the complex interrelationships of these several covenants. For, in point of fact, each covenant in Israel’s history, in a sense, anticipates and finds fulfillment in the subsequent covenant. The covenant of Genesis 15 concerns nationhood, that is, land and descendants; we have seen the many ties that link it to Sinai. However, the original Sinai covenant was broken and then renewed in a reconfigured form. This renewed Sinaitic covenant was, in turn, reconfigured by Deuteronomy. In point of fact, it is not until the covenant of Deuteronomy is ratified in the land of Israel (Josh 8:30–35) that the Israelites have entered into the inheritance of land promised them in Genesis 15:18–21 and Exodus 24:31 Therefore, inasmuch as Genesis 15 concerns the land, and the land is not possessed until the ratification of the Deuteronomic covenant, it is more accurate to say that Genesis 15 anticipates Israel’s covenant history from Sinai to Deuteronomy. The Deuteronomic covenant, however, is a “Janus.” On the one hand, it looks back to Sinai and reformulates the Mosaic law in its final and definitive form; on the other hand, it clearly anticipates the Davidic covenant

The Abrahamic Grant-Type Covenant  |  121

and kingship, which fulfill certain aspects of Deuteronomy. For example, it is not until the rise of David and Solomon that: 1. a central sanctuary is established (Deut 12:14), 2. a Torah-observant king sits on the throne (Deut 17:14–20), and 3. Israel rules over other nations (Deut 15:6). Genesis 17, then, which foresees kings coming from the line of Abraham and Abraham becoming “father” of many nations, surely corresponds to Deuteronomy (15:6; 17:14–20) on the one hand; but on the other, finds fulfillment ultimately in the Davidic covenant, in which the definitive line of kings from Abraham’s seed is established, and through these kings, sons of Abraham, Abraham becomes “father” of all the nations (Gen 17:4–5) in Israel’s multinational empire. Thus the psalmist, when the power of the Davidic monarchy was at its peak, could say: “God reigns over the nations; / God sits on his holy throne. / The princes of the peoples gather / as the people of the God of Abraham” (Ps 47:8–9a, my emphasis). Genesis 17, then, corresponds not just to the covenant of Deuteronomy but to Irael’s covenant history from Deuteronomy to the Davidic covenant. And the Davidic covenant, like the Deuteronomic, is a covenantal “Janus” or hinge. On the one hand, it looks back to Deuteronomy, fulfilling certain anticipations within that covenant, as noted above. It also reconfigures the Deuteronomic covenant under the Davidic monarch. The demands of the Mosaic law remain valid, but are now focused particularly on the person of the Davidide, who functions as covenant mediator (see 1 Kgs 2:1–4). For this reason the biblical author, subsequent to the reign of David, evaluates the moral condition of Israel and Judah based primarily on the faithfulness of the monarch. On the other hand, the Davidic covenant looks forward to the New Covenant, which alone fulfills the glorious promises and statements made about David’s heir. It is true, Solomon fulfills the promises of the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7) by providing David a son to rule on his throne who builds the house of God. Moreover, by building the House of God on the very site of the Aqedah (Moriah) and then disseminating the wisdom and knowledge of the Lord to all the ends of the earth, Solomon temporarily becomes the “seed of Abraham” through whom “all the nations of the earth will be blessed “ (Gen 22:15–18). But Solomon’s glory is short-lived, and the Deuteronomic History culminates in the collapse of the monarchy and the Judean state. The enormous tension between the infallible promises of the Davidic covenant and the lack of fulfillment within the

122  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

subsequent history of Israel and Judah is expressed most poignantly in Psalm 89: “I will not violate my covenant,    or alter the word that went forth from my lips. Once and for all I have sworn by my holiness;    I will not lie to David. His line shall continue forever,    and his throne endure before me like the sun. It shall be established forever like the moon,    an enduring witness in the skies.” Selah But now you have spurned and rejected him;    you are full of wrath against your annointed. You have renounced the covenant with your servant;    you have defiled his crown in the dust. You have broken through all his walls;    you have laid his strongholds in ruins. (Ps 89:34–40 NRSV) From the perspective of the Christian canon, the definitive fulfillment of both the Davidic covenant (an eternal heir on David’s throne) and the Abrahamic covenant oath of the Aqedah (blessing to all the nations) must await the New Covenant established in Christ. The Gospel of Matthew introduces Jesus Christ specifically as the “Son of Abraham” and the “Son of David,” that is, the one who will fulfill the covenant oaths to both these patriarchs. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the only Son of the Father, on Calvary (not so distant from the Temple Mount) upon the wood of the cross, fulfilles the typology of the near sacrifice of Isaac on Moriah. After his death, resurrection, and ascension, Jesus Christ pours out the Spirit upon all nations (Acts 2 etc.) which Paul identifies as the promised blessing to all nations through the seed of Abraham (Gal 3:14). Therefore, the Aqedah and covenant oath of Genesis 22 correspond to the Davidic covenant. But the Davidic covenant anticipates the New Covenant of Jesus Christ and is fulfilled by it. Thus, Genesis 22 looks forward to a provisional fulfillment in the Davidic covenant and a definitive fulfillment in the New. In fact, it is only in the New Covenant that the typological nature of the near sacrifice of Isaac finds its antitype in the complete sacrifice of the only (yāḥîd) Son of the Father. Thus, the correlation of the covenants of Abraham with the covenants with Israel is not an exact one-for-one correspondence. The covenants with

The Abrahamic Grant-Type Covenant  |  123 Table 5.1. Abrahamic Covenant

Israelite Covenantal Epoch

Covenant of the Pieces   (Gen 15) Covenant of Circumcision   (Gen 17) Covenant Oath of the Aqedah   (Gen 22)

Sinaitic (Exod 19–24) to Deuteronomic (Josh 8) Deuteronomic (Josh 8 [cf. Josh 5]) to Davidic (2 Sam 7) Davidic (2 Sam 7) to the New (Luke 22)

Abraham correspond more to covenant epochs within the development of Israel’s salvation history, as Table 5.1 represents.

The Aqedah and the Divine Oath in Genesis 22 The binding of Isaac and God’s sworn covenant oath form the climax of the Abraham narrative in Genesis 12–22. They also represent a momentous turning point in salvation history, shaping all of God’s future dealings with Israel and the nations. The significance of this episode needs to be realized, therefore, in order to gain a proper understanding of the covenant relationship between God and his people.88 From a canonical perspective, Genesis 22 is the culmination of a long process of divine covenanting, in which an ultimate test is put to Abraham’s faith.89 The nature of this “test” (22:1) is described by B. Gerhardsson as “the classic temptation narrative of the Old Testament.” 90 Gerhardsson explains this temptation narrative in terms of a father-son covenant between God and Abraham: Philologists who seek to define the precise meaning of ‫[ נסה‬n-s-h, “to test”] ought never to forget the fact that the word is normally used within the covenant relationship—interpreted in the widest sense to cover all covenants between God and his worshippers whether the latter are a nation, tribe, family, or . . . individual (patriarch or king). In these contexts the words seems to imply primarily a testing of the partner in the covenant to see whether he is keeping his side of the agreement. . . . When the Old Testament speaks of JHWH testing his covenant son, ‘tempting’ him (‫נסה‬/ πειράζειν [peirazein]), it means that God arranges a test to find

124  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

out if his son is true to the covenant, is ‫[ אמן‬ʾ-m-n], πιστός [pistos]. It is almost a formula that God tests “that he might know” (‫לדעת‬ [lāda ʿat]) whether his chosen one is true or not [my emphasis].91 A resolution of Abraham’s covenant ordeal does not come until Abraham hears the verdict: “Now I know that you fear God” (22:12), referring to Abraham’s filial response which God confirms and rewards with a covenant oath.92 On hearing of the test from God, Abraham acts with obedient faith: “He arose and went to the place which God had told him” (22:3). G. Wenham observes: “This last comment shows that God has told Abraham more than is recorded here. This is confirmed by what follows: ‘On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance.’ Evidently he knew what to look out for . . . even though the divine instructions are not recorded.” 93 In Genesis 22:5, Abraham makes a cryptic remark to his servants: “Stay here with the ass; I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and [we will] come again to you.” Wenham comments: “In the light of the command to sacrifice Isaac, it is odd that he says, ‘We shall return.’ ” 94 Abraham and Isaac proceed together to the mountaintop, until the son asks the piercing question, “My father . . . where is the sheep for the burnt offering?” (22:7). Abraham answers simply, “God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son” (22:8). Wenham aptly notes that: “This remark . . . is a turning point in the narrative . . . so it seems meant to be understood as a statement of faith, as prophecy, or as prayer.” 95 The poignant terms, “my father” and “my son” echo four times in two verses (22:7–8). Dialogue and action are described directly in a staccato of four singular verbs in 22:9: “He built the altar. He arranged the wood. He bound his son. He laid him on the altar.” The tension mounts as does the reader’s wonder. What must Abraham be thinking? Wenham describes the dramatic scene: There an altar has to be built, and the wood must be laid on the altar. This was a real sacrifice according to proper ritual procedures, and there was plenty of time for Isaac to realize, if he had not before, what was going to happen and to run away. But he did not. In fact, he allowed himself to be bound before Abraham cut his throat. This action above anything else indicates his consent. The OT nowhere speaks of sacrificial animals having their legs bound before slaughter, and if Isaac had been reluctant to be

The Abrahamic Grant-Type Covenant  |  125

sacrificed, it would have been easier for Abraham to have cut his throat or stabbed him rather than tie him up first and then place him on the altar. But he was tied, indicating his own willing submission to God’s command revealed to his father.96 Wenham’s reading of the narrative logic behind Isaac’s “willing submission” is the consensus view among ancient Jewish and Christian interpretive traditions. Josephus rather matter-of-factly puts Isaac’s age at twenty-five, just as he links Moriah with the (future) Temple Mount (Ant. 1.226). Fourth Maccabees 13:12 states: “Isaac offered himself for the sake of righteousness” (see also 4 Macc 18:3). Similar citations could be multiplied from other sources (e.g., Pseudo-Philo; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan).97 Ancient interpreters not only recognized Isaac as an adult (and hence a willing victim) but also inferred a recurring note of hostility between him and Ishmael from the Genesis narrative.98 In any event, Genesis makes it clear that Isaac alone fits the description of God’s command for Abraham to offer his “only son” (Gen 22:1–2). Isaac is the one and only “seed” of Abraham to whom God’s oath refers. In both cases, the implication is clear: Ishmael is disqualified and excluded from both (son/seed), despite his acceptance of circumcision as a young adult.99 As will be seen in Part Two of this study, this is why Paul, in Galatians 3–4, can argue that circumcision is not sufficient to qualify an adult Gentile convert as an heir to the divinely sworn blessings given to Abraham and his “seed.” 100 The introductory phrase of God’s oath in Genesis 22:16–18, “By myself I swear” (22:16), is a technical formula for confirming a previous ­promise— God’s promise to bless all the nations through Abraham’s seed (Gen 12:3; 18:18).101 A new element, however, is added. Turner comments: “After the Mount Moriah episode Abraham is told: ‘by your descendants shall all the nations bless themselves’ (22:18). Previously such blessing has been predicted of Abraham alone.” 102 The explicit mention of God swearing an oath is a profound moment charged with theological significance for Israel and all nations.103 Certain rabbinic interpretive traditions assert that God’s oath to Abraham forges a relational bond stronger than an ordinary covenant: “Before the akedah, God’s commitment to Abraham had been . . . something that was dependent upon mutual fulfillment of both parties. . . . Now, however, it has become a ‫[ שבועה‬šĕbūʿâ] oath—completely unconditional.” 104 Wenham explains how events connected to the Aqedah serve as prefigurative signs relative to the future of Israel:

126  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

These promises look far to the future as they predict Abraham’s offspring becoming . . . a source of blessing to all nations. . . .  This story gives other hints that its horizon is not bounded by the career of Abraham. As elsewhere in Genesis his actions foreshadow the later history of Israel. They too were called to go a three-day journey to worship God upon a mountain. . . . Every father in Israel was expected to dedicate his firstborn son to the Lord and to redeem him by offering a sacrifice. In Exodus, this redemption of the firstborn recalls the passover in which the firstborn sons of Israel were spared judgment. It may be that Genesis itself is implicitly comparing Isaac’s rescue to that sparing of Israel’s first-born sons in the Exodus and the ram Abraham offered to the passover lamb. . . . Furthermore, this is the first detailed account of a patriarch offering sacrifice . . . and doubtless foreshadows later national practice, so it seems likely that Abraham’s sacrifice of the ram anticipates the burnt offering of a lamb every morning and evening in the temple. In this connection, identification of Moriah with the temple mount in 2 Chr 3:1 is particularly significant.105 Further, Wenham explains how the offering of Isaac by Abraham was understood by NT writers as prefiguring the sacrifice of Christ by God the Father: “The NT writers develop this imagery in a very striking way. For them Abraham and Isaac are types of God the Father and Jesus. But whereas Abraham did not quite sacrifice Isaac, Jesus did actually die. So his death is a perfect and fully effective atoning sacrifice, whereas Isaac’s near sacrifice merely prefigured our Lord’s and could not redeem mankind. This typology is very widespread in the NT and therefore must be extremely early and probably reflects Jesus’ own self-interpretation of his mission.” 106 As the recipient of God’s promise and oath to bless all the nations, Abraham’s role as divine instrument and mediator is elevated. Moberly explains: “A promise which previously was grounded solely in the will and purpose of Yahweh is transformed so that it is now grounded both in the will of Yahweh and in the obedience of Abraham. It is not that the divine promise has become contingent upon Abraham’s obedience, but that Abraham’s obedience has been incorporated into the divine promise.” 107 Abraham has become the paternal representative not only of Israel but of the entire human family, and the mediator of God’s blessings to all nations. With respect to the divine oath, further reflection points to something of great theological importance. It was stated in Chapter 2 that covenant

The Abrahamic Grant-Type Covenant  |  127

oaths always entail both a blessing and a curse element. The oath swearer necessarily calls a curse down upon himself in his pledge. This self-curse may be expressed in either the verbal declaration or the ritual enactment. If the self-curse is not verbalized, it is typically ritualized. Since both blessing and curse are usually conveyed either verbally or ritually, it is proper to inquire more specifically into the precise form by which the blessing and curse are expressed in the divine covenant oath sworn by God at the Aqedah. On the one hand, the specific nature of the blessing is clear from what God declares to Abraham. On the other hand, since there is no curse element within the verbal declaration, it is proper to suppose that it is symbolically contained in the ritual enactment. Since the only ritual act is Abraham’s sacrificial “offering” of Isaac, it emerges as the sign of self­malediction. It is the ritual enactment of the curse of God’s covenant oath. It symbolically displays God’s conditional self-malediction through the action of Abraham and Isaac.108 What does this mean as far as Abraham’s mediation is concerned? On the one hand, the “seed” of Abraham refers to Isaac at the individual level, and to Israel at the collective level. Isaac and Israel are both divinely called, as the “seed” of Abraham, to mediate to the nations that blessing which comes from Abraham’s faith, which earned God’s sworn promise of blessing in the first place. On the other hand, God now binds himself by oath to bless all the nations through Abraham’s seed. As shocking as it might seem, if God has truly sworn an oath, then he has placed himself under a curse. The net effect of God’s self-maledictory oath, then, is that God has now assumed sole and complete responsibility to bless the nations through Abraham’s seed, even if that means bearing the curse in order to remove whatever might impede its fulfillment.109 Does this imply that Israel can get away with sin and unbelief? Not according to the Deuteronomic covenant. Deuteronomy places Israel under a curse for disobedience. Israel is elevated by God as the “seed” of Abraham to serve as the covenant mediator between God and the nations, and as a redemptive representative of God to the world. As such, Israel must bear God’s covenant with Abraham to the nations—with all of its curses as well as its blessings. Since Israel shares in God’s covenant, it also stands before the world united to (and identified with) God’s covenant oath. By swearing the oath at the Aqedah, God identifies himself so closely with Abraham and his seed that he has to share in whatever curses their sins provoke, if that is necessary to fulfill his oath. This is the reason why Paul presents Christ as Abraham’s curse-bearing “seed” through whom

128  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

“the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles,” so that Israel’s disobedience would “not annul a covenant [oath] previously ratified by God so as to make the promise void” (see Gal 3:13–17). In sum, by attaching the sworn blessing to the sacrificial act of Abraham, God’s oath conveys at least three distinctive ideas. First, Abraham’s faith is the basis for God blessing all the nations. Second, the “seed” of Abraham is the channel of that blessing. Third, Abraham’s sacrificial offering of Isaac may be understood as a ritual preenactment of the self-maledictory part of God’s covenant oath.110 Additional interpretive insights may be drawn from the geographical clues in Scripture that link Moriah with the sacrifices offered on the Temple Mount,111 and that link Melchizedek with Salem.112 Moberly notes: “There can be little doubt that the Chronicler’s Moriah is the same as that of Genesis 22, and that a comparison of the passages means that the Temple is built on the site of Abraham’s offering of Isaac.” 113 Thus, the cultic ritual of the Jerusalem Temple may be interpreted in light of the Aqedah and God’s covenant oath to Abraham. J. Ha comments: “It may thus be said that the divine oath lay at the root of the two cultic practices talked about in Ex 13 [i.e., Unleavened Bread and Passover]. Yet in commemorating the events of Israel’s history, the cult at the same time perpetuated memory of the oath as well. The oath deserved this perpetual memory because the Israelites owed their survival and liberation to it. Such was its importance for the people that it was given a place in their cult—that important moment in which they entered into conscious contact with their God.” 114 This theological outlook reached its zenith in the targumic literature. Hayward explains: “The fundamental significance of the ʿAkedah in Targumic theology has been established beyond all reasonable doubt by the researches of Spiegel, Le Deaut, and Vermeš; indeed, the ʿAkedah in Targumic literature takes on the character of articulus stantis aut cadentis Israel.” 115 As was observed above, the divine oath is identified in the Targums with God’s Memra.116 Hayward comments: “It is the ʿAkedah which validates the sacrifices offered in the Temple to atone for sins; it is the ʿAkedah which merits the Passover; and it is through the ʿAkedah that God remembers Israel, hears and answers their prayers, forgives their sins, and rescues them from afflictions.” 117 The Aqedah is also the basis for the twice-daily offering of the Tamid: This sacrifice [the Tamid] was regarded as the anamnesis of the ʿAkedah, the ʿAkedah whose central theme was Isaac’s self-

The Abrahamic Grant-Type Covenant  |  129

­ ffering. But the narrative of the ʿAkedah [in Targum Neofiti] has, o as a supplementary theme, the notion of a covenant oath which was sworn to Abraham and to Isaac that the Memra of the Lord would be with them. Not only that, but the ʿAkedah was viewed as having taken place on the very spot where the sacrificial lambs were offered. Thus a twofold bond between the Memra on the one hand and the Temple and the covenant oath on the other is forged.118 In the Targums, the reason for the Temple and its sacrifices was the need for cultic commemoration of God’s sworn covenant oath to Abraham at the Aqedah.119 In these same interpretive traditions, the Temple liturgy was traced back to Shem-Melchizedek in Salem-Jerusalem.120 Hayward summarizes the Targumic perspective on the Aqedah as follows: The Targums to the Pentateuch, speaking of the Aqedah, convey the idea that Isaac, a grown man, in total agreement with Abraham, willingly consented to be bound in sacrifice upon an altar on the Temple mount. They present Isaac as a perfect victim, and strongly emphasize that he is an archetypal martyr. He is the lamb of sacrifice, who, although not killed, is fully and completely offered. He has a vision of heaven, and his action has expiatory value. All future lamb sacrifices recall his Aqedah, and they and the site of their offering are validated by it. Isaac’s sacrifice is regarded as integral to a covenant which God made with him, and is to issue in blessing for all peoples. God can be asked to remember the Aqedah, and thereby to bring redemption to Israel and answer her prayers. Finally, the Aqedah happened at Passover time, and the lamb of Isaac’s offering is placed on the same theological level as the Paschal lamb.121

Conclusions on the Aqedah First, the Aqedah represents the climax of the Abraham narrative. Second, the Aqedah is God’s covenant oath to bless the nations through Abraham’s seed. Third, in ancient Jewish interpretive traditions this divine oath is closely linked with the Jerusalem Temple on Moriah, the offering of the Tamid sacrifice, and the festival of Passover. An awareness of these Jew-

130  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

ish traditions is important because it is likely that traditions such as these are reflected in various New Testament passages (e.g., Gal 3–4 and Heb 1–9).122

Abram, Melchizedek, and Salem in Genesis 14 Sandwiched between Abram’s call and the covenant episodes of Genesis 15, 17, and 22 is the obscure account of the encounter between Abram and Melchizedek.123 There are several notable connections between Genesis 14 and the surrounding narrative. For instance, Steinmetz notes how the genealogies in Genesis 10–11 trace the development of certain thematic concerns from Genesis 9 to the Abraham cycle, especially to the events in Genesis 14: “From this perspective, when the genealogy gives way again to narrative after ten generations, the narrative is of the world’s new beginning. And the narrative to which the genealogy gives way is the history of Abraham and his family. . . . But while he is born in the tenth generation of the blessed line of Shem, it is only in the episode of the battle with the kings that Abraham actually comes into the blessing of Shem.” 124 Commenting on Genesis 14, Steinmetz states: “This episode has two parts, a long section before Abraham enters the action (14:1–12) and an equally long section with Abraham as a participant. While the whole chapter is puzzling in many ways, scholars have had an especially difficult time accounting for the first half, which seems in no way to be relevant to the Abraham narrative in which it is embedded. But the two parts together constitute a working-out of the blessing and curse of Noah’s sons, and I believe, the two halves parallel the two visions of the relationship between Noah’s descendants, one prior to Babel and one after it.” 125 Steinmetz then explains Abram’s part in the episode: “When Abraham enters the story, the relationship shifts to that described in chapter 11. Abraham, the descendant of the chosen line of Shem, conquers the rest of the descendants of Noah. He asserts his ascendancy over Canaan, of course, by conquering their conquerors.” 126 In short order, Abram rises above the nine kings warring for control of Canaan, the land which the reader recognizes as the object of the divine promise. The irony is compounded when Abram, instead of throwing around his recently acquired political weight, makes a gesture of loyal submission towards another figure, Melchizedek, king of Salem.127 This name and city are conspicuously missing from the preceding account of the warring kings. As a consequence, the reader is left to wonder about Melchizedek’s neutral-

The Abrahamic Grant-Type Covenant  |  131

ity, as well as his anomalous position of primacy over Abram (to whom the other Canaanite kings were now beholden). How does the text account for such apparent irregularities? Taking into account the larger narrative setting, Steinmetz comments: At this moment, Abraham manifests his significance as the endpoint of the genealogy of Shem in chapter 11. Abraham acts out the blessing of Shem. In him is focused the promise of creation, the promise which had to be narrowed from all of humankind to Seth, to Noah, to Shem, and finally to Shem’s chosen descendants. And, at this moment, when Abraham demonstrates himself to be the possessor of Shem’s blessing, Abraham in fact receives a blessing. . . . In the very next episode, Abraham will ask God to grant him a son who will inherit and pass on both God’s special blessing to Abraham and the universal blessing inherent in creation.128 In the context of blessing Abram, Melchizedek brings out “bread and wine” (v. 18a). The very next clause makes an assertion about his priestly identity: “He was priest of God Most High” (v. 18b). The proximity of Melchizedek’s bringing out bread and wine, on the one hand, and the mention of his priesthood on the other suggests a connection between what is brought out and his office as priest. P. F. Cremin states: “He offered the bread and wine both in sacrifice and in refreshment.” 129 J. F. X. Sheehan also defends a sacrificial shade of meaning for the bread and wine from “a convergence of probabilities.” 130 Westermann seems to leave open the possibility of a sacrificial meaning: “It is an event in which the secular and the sacred are still not separated. Melchizedek brings refreshment to the exhausted liberator and thus as royal host receives him into the peace, the šalom, of his royal domain; but the hands that bring the bread and wine are the hands of the priest, and the food and drink are not to be separated from the blessing which Melchizedek dispenses to Abraham in the name of his God.” 131 After the blessing, Abram gives tithes to Melchizedek (v. 20)—probably not for the first time.132 Abram then swears a solemn oath (vv. 22–23), which entails the renunciation of the benefaction of the King of Sodom.133 By means of these two acts (paying the tithe and swearing the oath), Abram pledges continued loyalty to El Elyon and to his priest-king, Melchizedek. The mutuality of covenant solidarity is formally acknowledged by Melchizedek through his priestly blessing and the shared meal of bread and wine. The blessing that links Abram to Shem and Noah suggests that the iden-

132  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

tity of Melchizedek can be inferred from the narrative itself. Indeed, many ancient Jewish and Christian interpretive traditions “naturally” (i.e., on the basis of the logical flow of the Genesis narrative) identify Melchizedek with Shem. Commenting on Genesis 14:19–20, Steinmetz observes: “The language of the following verse in which God himself is blessed, is similar to Noah’s blessing of Shem (14:20; 9:26). That Melchizedek blesses Abraham as Abraham manifests the blessing of Shem is crucial for an understanding of early biblical interpretations which identify Melchizedek with Shem.” 134 Horton likewise sees how the two blessings exhibit “some similarity from a form-critical standpoint,” leading him to observe: “It would be natural to see in the narrative of Gen ix the blessing of Shem which is passed on directly to Abraham by Shem in Gen xiv.” 135 He continues: “What may have been more important than the form of this passage is that Yahweh in Gen ix. 26 is called the ‘God of Shem,’ and in Gen xiv. 18 Melchizedek appears as priest of El Elyon, which deity the Rabbis as well as Philo and Josephus identified with the true God. Between Gen ix. 26 and Gen xiv. 18 there is no other passage in which Yahweh is said to be the God of anyone other than Shem.” 136 Horton concludes that this is why “from an early time Melchizedek was identified by the Rabbis with Shem, the son of Noah. . . . The Melchizedek-Shem identification was a commonplace from a very early time, being found even in the Targums.” 137 The interpretive tradition that identifies Melchizedek with Shem is based in part on the genealogical datum of Shem’s longevity. The genealogy in Genesis 11:10–26 places Shem in Abraham’s lifetime—and beyond it—since Genesis 25:7 implies that Shem outlived Abraham by 35 years (a point not lost to the Rabbis and other ancient Jewish interpreters like those who compiled the Targums). McNamara notes: “An analysis of the dates and life-spans of the post-diluvian patriarchs in Genesis 11 indicates that Shem lived into and well beyond the time of Abraham. What is more natural than to identify the mysterious Melchizedek of Abraham’s day with him, as, for instance, is done in Palestinian Targum (all texts), Genesis 14:18, and elsewhere?” 138 Fitzmyer comments similarly: “In the Targums (Neofiti I, PsJonathan, Fragmentary Targum) Melchizedek is further identified with Shem. . . . ‘and the upright king, the king of Jerusalem, that is the Great Shem, brought forth bread and wine; and he was a priest serving in the great priesthood before God Most High’ (Neofiti).” 139 Horton states: “By the time we meet this concept in the Talmud and Midrashim the identification is an assumption which requires no proof.” 140 Another notable aspect of the Abraham-Melchizedek episode and the ancient interpretive traditions which surround it is the assumption that Salem

The Abrahamic Grant-Type Covenant  |  133

is to be identified with Jerusalem.141 This identification is derived in part from Psalm 76:1–2, which explicitly links the two by way of synonymous parallelism: “In Judah God is made known, / His Name is great in Israel. / His abode has been established in Salem / His dwelling-place in Zion.” Vawter comments: “We cannot say for sure that the Salem of Genesis 14 was indeed Jerusalem in the original construction of these verses, but we can be quite certain that it was so for the ultimate author who found therein a means to bring Abraham and Jerusalem into association. . . . By this story Abraham, and in Abraham the seed of Israel, is brought into intimate contact with that which was destined to be the holy city of David, and accordingly Abraham receives the blessing of the Jerusalemite priesthood.” 142 S. Talmon concurs: “It may be considered as certain that also the nomen locus Shalem mentioned in Genesis 14, in the well-known tradition connected with the Patriarch Abraham indeed can be identified with what was destined to become the Holy City of Israel—Jerusalem. The equivalence of Shalem and Jerusalem-Zion obviously is already taken for granted in biblical literature itself, as may be deduced from the employment of Shalem and Zion as synonyms in Psalm 76:2.” 143 Weinfeld states similarly: The notion of a Jerusalem that symbolizes the cessation of war and the establishment of peace can be seen also in Genesis 14. In this chapter the father of the nation, Abram, appears at the city of Salem after a victory over the kings of the north, and it is not coincidence that the epithet ‘Salem (šlm)’ is applied to Jerusalem both here and in Psalm 76:3. In consequence of the victory, Abram earns the blessing of Melchizedek and donates a tithe of the spoil to the Lord (vv. 19–20)—this detail parallels the presentation of gifts to the God of Israel in Ps 76:12. It is worth observing that Abram acts as ruler over the whole area from north of Damascus to El Paran (Gen 14:6, 15; cf. the promise made to Abraham in Gen 15:18), and so foreshadows the Israelite king who will in the future rule the region.144 All of these considerations reinforce the convergent lines of narrative evidence which identify Melchizedek as Shem, and Salem as Jerusalem.145 Indeed, Shem’s priesthood has a twofold basis in these interpretive traditions. Not only his identification as Melchizedek but also his status as Noah’s firstborn son qualifies Shem for the priesthood. Ancient Jewish and Christian interpreters generally recognized that a pre-Levitical natural priesthood belonged to the firstborn son in the patriarchal narratives, be-

134  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

fore the Levites acquired the right at Sinai after the golden calf incident (Exod 32).146 A canonical interpretation of the Melchizedek narrative generates a series of important connections that will be invaluable for examining the reappearance of these traditions in the Davidic covenant (Ps 110:4), and also in the royal high priestly Christology of Hebrews. By linking Melchizedek with Shem, and Salem with Jerusalem, the canonical narrative underwrites the application of such traditions to David, and the divine covenant sworn to “the son of David.”

Conclusions First, there are solid grounds for classifying the Abrahamic covenant as a covenant of grant. Second, there are three distinct divine covenants in the Abraham narrative which may be correlated with the promissory elements of divine blessings in the original call of Abram. Third, the correlation of these three covenants reveals a process of formative development whereby the divine covenant grant is progressively attained by Abraham. The covenants in Genesis 15 and 17 serve as means to an end, which is finally manifest in the divine covenant oath sworn in Genesis 22. Genesis 15, 17, and 22 represent a succession of covenant episodes involving increasingly greater sacrifices from Abraham (i.e., animals, circumcision, Isaac), and at the same time increasingly greater blessings are divinely pledged by covenant (i.e., land, dynasty, worldwide blessing). The oath that God swears to Abraham in Genesis 22 represents the sum and substance of the covenant grant, particularly as it relates to the worldwide blessing and future triumph of Abraham’s “seed.” Fourth, the succession of covenant episodes (Gen 15, 17, 22) corresponds in significant ways to three major covenants for the people of Israel: the Sinaitic, Deuteronomic, and Davidic. Fifth, the grant is awarded to Abraham on the momentous occasion of the Aqedah, which may be interpreted as more than a mere test of his obedience. Its theological symbolism is profoundly typological, especially as it is treated in later interpretive traditions, both Jewish and Christian (e.g., Gal 3–4; Heb 1–9). Sixth, the Aqedah is inseparably linked to the divine oath, which assumes foundational importance for the life and history of Israel and for the nations as well. The divine oath in Genesis 22 represents the ultimate pur-

The Abrahamic Grant-Type Covenant  |  135

pose of God’s calling, promises, and covenants to Abraham: the mediation of divine blessing to all nations through Abraham’s seed. Seventh, the Abraham narrative and covenants are closely connected to the preceding narrative of the so-called Primeval history, which accounts for its universal outlook (e.g., the blessing of all nations), as well as for its particular frame of reference (i.e., the blessing and promised seed comes from God through Noah, Shem-Melchizedek, Abraham, and Isaac).

6 The Levitical Grant-Type Covenant A host of critical issues surrounds the discussion of the Levitical priesthood in the Old Testament.1 The focus of this chapter is on formulating a coherent canonical interpretation of the diverse covenant traditions associated with the Levitical priesthood within the Pentateuchal narrative.2 The grant-type nature of the Levitical covenant will be explored, as well as its canonical development from the patriarchal and Mosaic periods (e.g., Aaron and Phinehas) through the time of the monarchy (e.g., Eli and Zadok). Further, this chapter examines the nature and purpose of the Levitical covenant of priesthood within the history of Israel, especially as it relates to other divine covenants in salvation history (e.g., the Abrahamic, Deuteronomic, Davidic, and New covenants).

Priesthood and Primogeniture in the Book of Genesis Canonical evidence points to the existence of a pre-Levitical form of priestly activity before the Mosaic period. In particular, during the patriarchal age the firstborn son was accorded certain privileges and prerogatives which later would belong to the Levites.3 Genesis describes how the patriarchs performed certain quasi-priestly functions (e.g., erecting altars, offering sacrifice, paying tithes, imparting blessings), which were supposedly handed down, in turn, to the firstborn son, as part of his birthright.4 R. Sklba comments: 136

The Levitical Grant-Type Covenant  |  137

Sacrificial and cultic leadership was provided by the head of the family who represented his family in worship. . . . Besides this tradition of patriarchal predominance in the cultic life of the family, we find another later tradition which postulates the right of the priesthood in a special way for the firstborn son. The same tradition is seen in the Rabbinic comments on the role of Reuben in the tribal associations. Reuben was considered to have originally exercised both priesthood and domination as a result of his birthright, but to have lost both as a result of his crime. Nevertheless, the evidence of the patriarchal leadership in ritual, as found in Scripture, indicates that this priesthood of the firstborn was at least not a universal practice. Still, the very fact that such a tradition has remained bears witness to its authenticity.5 Along similar lines, Porter states: “The special authority of the first-born was always clearly recognized in Israel. . . . [T]he first-born was in a unique position, depending on the fact that he was ‘the beginning of the father’s strength,’ which seems to be almost a technical expression and which means that the son in question was endowed with the fullness of the father’s authority and power. The group of which this man was the head comprised four generations in the direct line living together, and this . . . formed the basic structure of the Hebrew extended family.” 6 After examining the data, H. C. Brichto concludes: “There is ample evidence that the role of priest in the Israelite family had at one time been filled by the firstborn.” 7 The cultic-familial nexus of primogeniture, priesthood, and paternal succession is generally recognized in many older Jewish and Christian interpretive traditions, where it is understood to be a natural institution.8 For example, observe Jacob’s blessing of Reuben (Gen 49:3) in the following Targums: Reuben, you are my first-born, my might, and the beginning of my strength. For you it would have been fitting to take three parts— the birthright, the priesthood, and royalty. (Gen 49:3, T. Onq.) 9 Reuben, you are my first-born . . . you would have been worthy of the birthright, the dignity of the priesthood and the kingship. But because you sinned, my son, the birthright was given to Joseph, the kingship to Judah, and the priesthood to Levi. (Gen 49:3, T. Ps.-Jon.) 10

138  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

Although Reuben disqualified himself, these texts bear witness that, among his siblings, the firstborn son stands as the senior member for the next generation. He is in the natural position not only for paternal succession but for mediation (social, legal, and cultic) between his father and siblings as well.11 Milgrom describes how in ancient Israel, the firstborn son was “the base of reference for the rest of the family.” 12 Van Groningen notes: “In the firstborn the dual capacity of king and priest is implicitly present.” 13 He further comments: Inseparable from this birthright, yet distinct from it, was the ­father’s blessing, that is, the actual pronouncement of possessing all that the birthright carried. Further, the pronouncing of God’s name and blessing upon that person meant that the possession granted was irrevocable and God’s benediction would prosper that inheritor. . . . In summary, bekôr refers to the son who came first from his mother’s womb, but the privileges and blessings inherent in the concept, that is, the father’s family representative, preferential treatment, respect as the leader, and recipient of the double portion, depended on the father’s pronouncement.14 In addition to his natural primacy, the firstborn son had a sacred status that could be understood in theological terms. This status and its theological meaning can be seen from the legal and cultic traditions regarding the consecration of firstlings. Wright explains: The texts relating to the [rite of the] human firstborn are Exod 13:2,12–15; 22:28; 34:1–20; Num 3:11–13; 8:16–18; and 18:15. The rite itself is important as a link between family life in Israel and the national relationship with Yahweh. It had a double significance. First, it seems to have been a symbolic declaration of Israel’s complete belonging to Yahweh. The firstborn of Israel had been spared when the firstborn of Egypt had been slain. Hence, those whom God had delivered from death belonged entirely to him (Num 3:13). And since the firstborn, like the first-fruits, represented the whole of which they were the part, this was the basis of the sanctification of the nation as a whole (cf. Jer 2:3). Secondly, it was a declaration of the continuity and permanence of Israel’s relationship with God. By claiming the firstborn in each family, God was claiming the whole succeeding generation as his

The Levitical Grant-Type Covenant  |  139

own. The birth of the first son was a very significant event in the life of any family, since it ensured the continuation of the family into the next generation. The consecration of that son to Yahweh symbolically ensured the continuation of the covenant relationship into that generation also.15 Primogeniture thus reflects a certain aspect or quality of holiness similar to the consecrated character of the first portions of the flocks and crops.16 At the same time, primogeniture often becomes a snare of pride and presumption. The Genesis record is replete with examples of unworthy firstborn sons who are displaced by their younger brothers (e.g., CainAbel, Ishmael-Isaac, Esau-Jacob, Reuben-Joseph, Perez-Zerah, ManassehEphraim).17

Priesthood and Primogeniture in the Book of Exodus In Exodus, the motif of the privileged (yet precarious) position of the firstborn links the patriarchal narratives of Israel’s ancestors with their own deliverance from Egypt. The motif surfaces in Exodus 4:22, as God reveals to Moses at the burning bush: “You shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son, and I say to you, Let my son go that he may serve me; if you refuse to let him go, behold I will slay your firstborn son.’ ” 18 The idea that Israel is God’s firstborn son is also seen in Sirach: “Have mercy, O Lord, upon the people called by thy name, upon Israel, whom thou hast likened to a firstborn son” (36:12). The firstborn motif provides an interpretive key for understanding the Exodus event. Van Groningen observes: Israel is called God’s firstborn (Exod 4:22). Moses was to inform Pharaoh, ruler of Egypt, that God, the Lord of the patriarchs, claims Israel as his representative people, his chosen servants among the nations, and the privileged people. Pharaoh claimed these prerogatives for himself and his people, and in so doing, assumed prerogatives which Yahweh God alone claimed. Pharaoh was to be informed that if he did not give up the Lord’s firstborn, he would lose his own firstborn son. . . . The Egyptians believed that the firstborn son was a direct link between generations of royal people. In fact, the firstborn son was considered a specific and direct representative of the gods to the Egyptian people.19

140  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

The firstborn motif is developed at the theophany in Exodus 19. God makes a (conditional) offer to Israel as his “firstborn son”: “Now therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession (sĕgullâ) among all peoples; for all the earth is mine, and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests (mamleket kōhănîm) and a holy nation” (Exod 19:5–6).20 This text indicates Israel’s divine vocation and unique identity among the nations.21 W. Harrelson explains Exodus 19:5–6 by linking “kingdom of priests” with Israel’s status as God’s “firstborn son”: Israel is singled out as God’s people from among all the peoples. . . . Israel is God’s segullah. . . . This word apparently means that Yahweh has set aside for Israel the portion belonging to the first-born son, and thus that Israel is to exercise the privileges and the responsibilities of the first-born of all God’s sons—the other nations and peoples of the world. The third statement underlines this thought . . . Israel is to be a kingdom of priests. . . . The most probable interpretation is this: Israel is to be the priest-nation for the nations of the world, exercising the responsibility of priestly instruction and intercession in behalf of all peoples before Yahweh. . . . The passage thus carries out the thought of the Yahwistic summons to Abraham in Genesis 12:3.22 Vogels offers a similar explanation: The statement that Israel is a priestly kingdom or a kingdom of priests says something about Israel. To conclude that Israel is a kingdom having priests, or the like, cannot be the right interpretation since all nations at that time had their priests. The meaning, therefore, is that Israel, as a kingdom, is priestly. To understand what this means, we must know what the function of a priest was in the days of the writer. The priest was an intermediary and, therefore, had a mission between God and men. If we apply this concept to Israel as a people, it then suggests that Israel is also an intermediary between God and the nations.23 Likewise, J. G. Williams comments: “The minimal meaning of this national priesthood is that Israel is to be consecrated and set apart for God. . . . The maximal meaning of a kingdom of priests and a holy nation would be that

The Levitical Grant-Type Covenant  |  141

Israel is God’s mediator among the peoples of the world. . . . This maximal meaning is not developed in the Exodus context, but it is in keeping with God’s promise to Abraham, ‘and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed’ (Gen 12:3).” 24 Mann agrees with this general outlook on Israel’s vocation: “Israel is set apart from all the peoples of the earth to render priestly service to Yahweh and, in the context of the Pentateuchal narrative, to act as priest to the world.” 25 As the bearer of divine blessing, Israel stands as the firstborn son within the family of nations, for the purpose of mediating the divine blessing of Abraham to all the nations. Israel’s vocation is at the very heart of God’s plan and purpose for the covenant at Sinai: “Israel is thus being called onto the world stage in Exodus 19 to be a light to the Gentiles.” 26 It is important to underscore the conditional nature of the covenant as it is offered to Israel in Exodus 19–24. The covenant is unmerited, since God’s oath to the patriarchs is the initial basis for it (see Gen 15:7–21; 17:19–21; 22:16–18; 26:2–4; 28:13–15; Exod 6:2–8; Deut 7:7–8). Moreover, it is something that Israel does not yet possess—at least not fully or definitively. Exodus depicts God as offering to restore a father-son relationship with Israel on the condition that they hear his voice and keep his covenant. Thus, in a manner that is comparable to the covenants with Noah and Abraham (Gen 9:8, 17:7–10), God offers his covenant to Israel at Sinai. Covenants were formally offered by God before the recipients (Noah and Abraham) actually fulfilled them and received the covenant grant.27 Israel is thus called to live out the faithfulness which is proper to its filial and royal priestly vocation, in order to be established within the covenant as “a holy nation.” Israel’s initial acceptance of the offer is signified by the covenant ritual of Exodus 24, where the sacrificial ritual signifies a mutual covenant oath.28 The sacrifices in Exodus 24 were offered by “young men of the people of Israel” (Exod 24:5). These young men are probably to be identified with “the priests” whom God called earlier (Exod 19:22, 24), that is, the firstborn sons from the twelve tribes of Israel. J. G. Williams comments: “ ‘Young men’ or ‘youths’ (naʿarim) of the people of Israel are chosen and delegated to offer the burnt offerings and peace offerings of oxen to the Lord. Martin Buber made the interesting conjecture that these youths were the firstborn sons who ‘were apparently devoted to YHVH for the term of their youth . . . and who were afterwards redeemed by the Levites (Num 3:12).’ Buber’s observation makes sense, given what we know about sacrifice and its logic, but of course there is no way to demonstrate it empirically from the text.” 29 According to the initial covenant at Sinai, Israel is called to royal priestly

142  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

service as the collective firstborn son within God’s family of nations. Likewise, each individual firstborn son was called to a subordinate share of this royal priestly ministry within all of the twelve tribes of the family of Israel.

Apostasy and Covenant Renewal Following the Golden Calf Exodus 32–34 recounts an episode of tragedy and hope, one that represents a watershed moment for Israel’s covenant relationship with God—and the nations. A proper understanding of the events connected with the golden calf incident is essential for tracing the rise and development of the Levitical priesthood, as well as the bicovenantal structure of mediation in Israel that emerged as a result (i.e., the Levitical grant-type covenant and the Deuteronomic treaty-type covenant). In addition, an understanding of the events in these chapters is critically important for interpreting the arguments in Galatians and Hebrews. Historical-Critical Matters The critical study of Exodus 32–34, particularly the golden calf episode (Exod 32), has recently become the focus of much study.30 One important critical issue is the nature and origin of the calf. Comparative analysis of the religio-cultural background to the calf tradition has yielded very divergent conclusions.31 M. Noth rejects the notion that the golden calf was a direct representation of Yahweh: “As the ancient Near East (in contrast to Egypt) knows no theriomorphic deities but only the association of beasts with deities pictured in human form whose companions and bearers they are, the ‘golden calves’ of the royal sanctuaries of Jeroboam are also surely meant merely as pedestals for the God who is imagined to be standing invisibly upon them.” 32 Noth’s critical judgment may be valid, but he has overlooked the literary-theological purpose behind the Jeroboam narrative. Its purpose is pointedly to cast events in terms of the illicit influence of Egypt’s idolatry, in keeping with the “return to Egypt” polemic reflected throughout the Pentateuchal narrative and later traditions.33 Following Weinfeld, then, it seems best to conclude that the golden calf is “a divine symbol of strength and fertility” traceable back to the “cult of the Apis bull in Egypt.” 34 Whatever the source, the narrative presents the golden calf as manifestly idolatrous. Moberly concludes that for the final redactor/narrator, “There is no essential difference between syncre-

The Levitical Grant-Type Covenant  |  143

tism and apostasy. There is either legitimate worship of the true God or there is illegitimate worship of a false god. The intermediate possibility, illegitimate worship of the true God (i.e., syncretism, the incorporation into Yahwism of non-Yahwistic rites and practices) is not possible. . . . The distinction between syncretism and fetishism or polytheism is alien to him.” 35 However innocuous the original iconographic use of bovine symbolism may be theorized to have been, in Exodus 32 it signifies Egypt’s idolatry and Israel’s apostasy.36 Complex critical issues connected with Exodus 32–34 must remain unresolved. W. Harrelson comments: “There is no doubt that chapters 19–24 and 32–34 present the most difficult problems to the analyst of pentateuchal sources.” 37 Exodus 32 is still widely regarded as containing various elements from JE38 that reflect an anti-Jeroboam polemic (1 Kings 12).39 Some advocates of this approach grant that other traditions (i.e., Deuteronomic) are found in redacted sections (e.g., 32:7–14, 25–39).40 Scholars discern various sources in Exodus 33 (J, E, and a JE redactor). In ch. 34, Wellhausen’s identification of the ritual Decalogue with J is now widely disputed, especially as an alleged antithesis to the ethical Decalogue of E.41 Recently, certain scholars have defended the idea that these entire sections (chs. 19–24 and 32–34) have undergone considerable Deuteronomistic redaction.42 There are many other complex source-critical issues involved in Exodus 32–34 that are not necessary (and perhaps not possible) to resolve. Noth concludes: “[T]he narrative of the Sinai event (Ex 19–24, 32–34), through expansions and insertions, had already become such a complicated compilation within the old Pentateuchal tradition that today an intelligible analysis can no longer be successfully undertaken.” 43 Several scholars have demonstrated the literary unity and narrative artistry of Exodus 32–34.44 G. C. Chirichigno recently applied compositional analysis with illuminating results.45 He sees the rhetorical principle of “resumptive repetition” used in the narration of events. Consequently, the narration of events is intentionally thematic rather than chronological. The repetition of certain features (e.g., priestly clothes and Tabernacle furniture in chs. 25–31 and 35–40) indicates a “dischronologized narrative,” that perhaps extends from ch. 15 all the way to ch. 40.46 This approach generates conclusions similar to certain ancient Jewish and Christian interpretive traditions: (1) Exodus 19–34 is narrated in non-chronological sequence;47 (2) the Book of the Covenant in Exodus 21–23 consists of “the statutes and commandments” given to Moses and Israel at Marah (Exod 15:25–26), and not simply the laws that God spoke at Sinai.48

144  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

In a similar manner, Childs shows how the golden calf incident and subsequent covenant renewal in Exodus 32–34 fit into the larger narrative of chs. 25–40, where all of the details regarding the Tabernacle are repeated (chs. 25–31 and 35–40). Childs comments: “The relation of the tabernacle chapters to the golden calf incident which is recorded in Ex 32–34 would seem to show more is involved than at first meets the eye. Both the verses which begin and which end the golden calf incident (31:18 and 34:29ff.) reveal an intentional joining together of the tabernacle chapters with the golden calf story by a Priestly redactor. The present position of chs. 32–34 cannot be seen as accidental.”49 The Covenant Relationship Between Yahweh and Israel Ruptured From a canonical-critical perspective, the effects of Israel’s apostasy at the golden calf are far-reaching. The relationship between Israel and Yahweh is seriously ruptured. This is evident from God’s command to Moses, “Go down, for your people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt have corrupted (śiḥēt) themselves” (Exod 32:7). Because they have “corrupted” themselves, Yahweh threatens to destroy them. The Hebrew word for “corrupted” (śiḥēt) in 32:7 is significant. The word is used in Leviticus 19:7 to describe a defect which disqualifies a man from priestly service in the sanctuary.50 Mośḥāt, derived from the same root (ś-ḥ-t), is used in Leviticus 22:25 to describe a defective animal unfit for sacrifice. A. M. Rodriguez comments on the use of śiḥēt in Exodus 32:7: “The point to notice here is that the people of Israel as a whole now have a moral defect that separates them from God. They cannot come to the sanctuary, for they have rejected God, and thus have become like a defective animal or a disqualified priest, unable to come into God’s presence.” 51 God had promised Israel at Sinai: “If you keep my covenant . . . then you will be a kingdom of priests” (Exod 19:5–6). Israel failed to fulfill its vocation; it failed to “keep the covenant.” Consequently, Israel loses the right to serve God as a “kingdom of priests.” The expression “kingdom of priests” is not applied to Old Testament Israel as a nation ever again (see 1 Pet 2:9). Smolar and Aberbach comment on how the Rabbis recognized this loss of royal priestly privileges: “Another punishment immediately imposed on the Israelites was the loss of their sacerdotal privileges. Referring to Exod 19:6—‘Now, you shall be unto me a kingdom of priests’—an early halachic Midrash maintains that the Israelites had been worthy of enjoying the right to eat consecrated food. Once they had made the golden

The Levitical Grant-Type Covenant  |  145

calf, however, they forfeited this privilege, which was henceforth reserved exclusively for the (Aaronide) priests.” 52 Israel was spared from destruction for no other reason than the divine oath that God had sworn to Abraham. God had sworn to bless all the nations through ­Abraham’s “seed” (Israel) as a covenant grant and reward for the Aqedah (Gen 22:16–18).53 According to the Exodus narrative, Israel would have perished at the hands of God if ­Moses had not reminded Yahweh of his oath to Abraham (see Exod 32:9– 14). J. Ha observes: “Israel’s worship of the golden calf (Ex 32:8) constituted a total breach of the Sinai covenant, as is apparent from YHWH’s disowning of her through the expression ­ʾammeka ʾašer heʿelêta me ʾereṣ miṣrayim (32:7b). From his repetition of Aaron’s words (v. 8ab) it would seem that as far as YHWH was concerned, the people had already disowned Him. They deserved to be completely destroyed (v. 10).” 54 Indeed, the only reason that they are spared is the intercession of Moses, which grounded itself on two basic tenets of Israel’s tradition: YHWH’s responsibility in the exodus (v. 11) and His oath to the patriarchs (v. 13). In fact, Moses’ insistence on YHWH’s responsibility and the status of the Israelites as His people, despite YHWH’s disowning of them through His reference to them as Moses’ people (32:7), could only be due to his certitude of the force of the divine oath to which he was going to appeal shortly. . . . Ultimately, however, the one and only reason that counted for YHWH was His oath to the patriarchs. . . . This seems to be clear from YHWH’s own words in 33:1–3 where, while still disowning Israel, He made it quite clear that it was to honour His oath . . . to the patriarchs that He would ensure their entry into the land.55 Ha draws a profound theological conclusion from these considerations: “The events recorded in Ex 32–34 are significant for the understanding of the vital role played by the patriarchal oath in Israel’s history. They unveil the most basic difference between the patriarchal oath and the Sinai covenant. The latter could be broken as it did happen; and if it had been the only foundation of Israel’s history, this history would have stopped with the worship of the golden calf. On the contrary, the divine oath to the patriarchs not only stayed the complete destruction Israel deserved but also provided the basis for a renewal of the Sinai covenant (Ex 34:10–28) thereby reviving history.” 56

146  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

The Firstborn Sons Lose Their Priestly Status Another effect of Israel’s apostasy at the golden calf was that the firstborn sons of Israel lost their special status.57 Given the fact of their consecrated priestly status (Exod 13:1–2; 19:22, 24; 24:5), they may have been guilty of nothing more than silent complicity in the face of idolatry and Moses’ rallying call—to which the Levites alone responded.58 As priests they would have been responsible for preventing (or punishing) such idolatrous worship. Their forfeiture of the priesthood, then, may be attributed to simple inaction. Whatever the case, after the golden calf incident the firstborn sons are explicitly likened to unclean donkeys which must be redeemed—instead of being consecrated to God like the other firstborn beasts—or else killed (see Exod 34:20; see 13:1; 22:29–31).59 The firstborn sons had already been redeemed once—by God himself—through the Passover lamb in Egypt. Now this second redemption was to be performed by their parents—and not Yahweh who “disowns” them. The complex process by which this second redemption is performed is described in Numbers 1–4. First, all twelve tribes are numbered, except Levi (1:47–54). Second, the Levites are counted (3:5–39). Third, the firstborn sons from all twelve tribes are finally numbered and then replaced by the Levites as their redemptive substitutes.60 The principle is clearly stated: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Behold, I have taken the Levites from among the people of Israel instead of every first-born that opens the womb” (Num 3:11–12). Milgrom comments on how this text preserves “the memory of the first-born bearing a sacred status,” and how “his replacement by the Levites (Num 3:11–13,40–51; 8:14–18)” signals “the establishment of a professional priestly class.” 61 The general results are summarized very well by A. Wildavsky: “As Israel is conceived to be the ‘first-born’ of God, with the penalties as well as the preferences this provides, it was expected that the first-born after the exodus would be Israel’s chief protectors. The Golden Calf episode showed Moses that this was not going to work. The first-born were perhaps too like the people to be able to restrain them(selves). By answering Moses’ call to stand on the Lord’s side to help enforce the covenantal injunction against idolatry, the Levites . . . took the place of the first-born.” 62 Milgrom concurs: “Thus the Levites are designated as Israel’s ‘sacrifice’—their representatives in the sanctuary. As the Levites replace the Israelite firstborn in performing duty at the sanctuary (see [Num] 3:11–13), so they now replace all of Israel in the responsibility of transporting the Tabernacle (v. 11).” 63

The Levitical Grant-Type Covenant  |  147

Smolar and Aberbach note how this view of things is echoed in early rabbinic sources: “Likewise, the first-born, who had previously been entrusted with sacerdotal duties, were deprived of their privileged position and replaced by the Levites who had refused to participate in the calf cult.” 64 The Necessity of a Complex Covenant Renewal Program The golden calf incident made it necessary for Moses to implement a complex program of covenant renewal before the first generation could leave Sinai one year later. This covenant renewal effected a complicated and comprehensive reconfiguration of Israel’s socioreligious lifestyle and legal structure.65 The renewal began as soon as Moses learned of Israel’s apostasy. Descending Mount Sinai, he saw that the people had broken loose (for Aaron had let them break loose, to their shame among their enemies), then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said “Who is on the Lord’s side? Come to me.” And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him. And he said to them, “Thus says the Lord God of Israel, ‘Put every man his sword on his side, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.’ ” And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses; and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. And Moses said, “Today you have ordained yourselves for the service of the Lord, each one at the cost of his son and of his brother, that he may bestow a blessing upon you this day.” (Exod 32:25–29) 66 After Moses announces the priestly substitution and ordination of the Levites (Exod 32:29), other measures are taken, including God’s promise of eventual judgment for the sin of the calf (32:33–34), followed by a plague (32:35). Another apparent punitive measure involves God placing Israel under the custodial supervision of an angel (Exod 33:2).67 One is left with the impression that these measures are described in order to alert readers to the yawning chasm that the calf has opened up between Israel and ­Yahweh—the bridging of which will necessarily be slow and hard in coming. It is precisely to bridge this chasm, however, that the instructions in Exodus 35–40 (about the Tabernacle and Aaron’s priestly garments) are given—at least in part.

148  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

Before the Tabernacle can be erected or Aaron anointed, God must first renew his covenant with Moses. On the surface, this might seem a bit extraneous, since Moses has not violated the covenant. Moses, however, is both God’s representative to Israel and an Israelite himself. As such, he is identified with them closely enough to need a renewal of his own covenantal relationship with God.68 On the other hand, Moses is close enough to God not only to make the renewal possible, but also to serve as the mediator through whom God can renew his covenant with the rest of Israel. God therefore starts by renewing the covenant with Moses alone (Exod 34:10). Childs notes: “Whereas in chs. 19–24 Moses acts as covenant mediator who seals the covenant between God and the people in a ritual of radification [sic], in ch. 34 God makes his covenant alone with Moses without any covenant ceremony.” 69 W. L. Moran observes: “The covenant is with Moses, and this would explain why the ‘history’ looks to the future and the people are proposed as witnesses of what God is accomplishing with Moses; the function of the divine activity is . . . to prove the fact of his divine choice and confirm him as leader in the eyes of the people. . . . If this is true, then we have a double covenant, one with Moses and another with the people (cf. v. 28) [my emphasis].” 70 Similarly, Mann observes: “In comparison with the previous covenant process (chs. 19–24), the renewal of the covenant occurs with a significant omission: Israel plays no role whatsoever (v. 27). . . . In a sense, Moses not only ‘represents’ Israel; he now is Israel, the faithful servant by whom alone Yahweh can reestablish his Kingdom.” 71 This renewal of the covenant with Israel is precisely what God sets about doing in Exodus 35–40 and in Leviticus 1–26. Both Israel’s defiled condition and its distance from Yahweh serve to illumine a cryptic element in the narrative, namely, the earlier reference to Moses’ tent having to be pitched “outside the camp” (Exod 33:7–11). Apparently, this is an interim situation that God and Moses are both intent on moving beyond. The erection of the Tabernacle and the priestly anointing of Aaron are meant to accomplish this (albeit symbolically). The Tabernacle construction is the next stage of the covenant renewal process. If Exodus 34 shows how the covenant renewal process must begin with Moses, then the construction of the Tabernacle and priestly anointing of Aaron in Exodus 35–40 are meant to show how this covenant renewal program can then be raised to the next level. Since God’s indwelling presence constitutes the heart of his covenant with Israel, it follows that the breaking of the covenant with the golden calf caused the withdrawal of that presence. The instructions for building and consecrating the Tabernacle show that this withdrawal is only temporary.

The Levitical Grant-Type Covenant  |  149

The Tabernacle becomes the sign of God’s indwelling presence par excellence—and hence of his renewed covenant with Israel.72 The program of covenant renewal is anything but a simple procedure. It is not completed until the Tabernacle is surrounded on all four sides by the four Levitical clans which serve as a cordon to prevent encroachment by any non-Levites (Num 4:14–38). For the twelve tribes of Israel, God’s presence must be mediated by the Levites.73 Thus, the covenant-renewal program begun in Exodus 34 represents only the start of a much larger program. In Exodus 34, God renews the Sinai covenant that had been ratified earlier (Exod 24). He then extends a new and distinct covenant first to Aaron (Exod 35–40) and then to the Levites (Lev 1–16). This new Levitical covenant will govern all of the congregation of Israel (Lev 17–26). In this bicovenantal system, the Priestly Code (Lev 1–16) was formulated to teach and prepare Aaron, his sons, and the Levites to assume priestly authority over the twelve tribes.74 The distinctive purpose of the Priestly Code relative to the Decalogue (Exod 20) and the Covenant Code (Exod 21–23) should be interpreted according to where these three legal corpora fit within the narrative (i.e., before/after the golden calf). Sailhamer observes: When viewed within the context of the differences between the laws of the Covenant Code and those of the Code of the Priests . . . the arrangement of this material appears to reflect a definite strategy. On the face of it, the association of the original Sinai covenant with the Covenant Code and the renewal of that covenant with the Code of the Priests suggests a differing assessment of the two codes. It is also clear that the incident of the golden calf . . . strategically positioned between these two codes of law [the Covenant Code and the Code of Priests], is the underlying cause of the changes in the law codes. In positioning the texts this way, the changes . . . between the laws in the two codes are now narratively presented as part of a larger change in the nature of the Sinai covenant itself . . . resulting from the episode of the golden calf. Rather than seeking to render the differences between the two law codes invisible . . . the author apparently uses these very differences as part of his larger strategy. In their present textual position, these very differences show that a change has come over Israel’s covenant with God. Israel’s initial relationship with God at Sinai, characterized by the patriarchal

150  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

simplicity of the Covenant Code, is now represented by the complex and restrictive laws of the Code of the Priests.75 Significantly, at the climax of the Priestly Code (the Day of Atonement), where it is stipulated that Aaron is to make offerings for the removal of ­ Israel’s sin, God demands a calf for Aaron and a goat for the people (Lev 16). There appears to be a twofold link with these sacrifices: to repeat the initial oath-sacrifice at Sinai (Exod 24), on the one hand, and to expiate the specific sins of Aaron and the people, on the other. The Yom Kippur sacrifices ritually reenact the ratification of the Sinai covenant. Israel is given another chance to renew the oath that they had broken with the calf worship. Moreover, the Yom Kippur sacrifices are directed against the particular sins of Aaron (Exod 32) and the people (Lev 17:7).76 Accordingly, on Yom Kippur Aaron must offer a bull calf for his own sin offering (as on his ordination day—Lev 9:1–16). Sailhamer comments: In the regulations governing the consecration of the priests . . . the sin offering required for a priest was precisely that of a ‘young bull’ (‫פּר ֶבּן־ׇבׇּקר‬, Ex 29:1–14; Lev 4:3). We should note that in the initial statement of the regulations, the Hebrew text does not use ‘calf’ (‫ )ֵעֶגל‬but rather ‘young bull’ (‫ ַפּר ֶבּן־ׇבׇּקר‬, Ex 29:1). When Aaron and the priests were consecrated in Leviticus 9:1–14, however, the sin offering was specifically called within the narrative a ‘calf’ (‫)ֵעֶגל ֶבּן־ׇבׇּקר‬, which recalls the vocabulary of the golden calf. For the writer of the Pentateuch, then, the incident of the golden calf (‫ )ֵעֶגל‬. . . provided a particularly apt lesson in the importance of guiding the priests in their leadership of Israel’s worship. The sin offering of the priests contained a reminder of the great sin of the priests.77 Besides the Priestly Code (Lev 1–16) another consequence of the golden calf incident is manifest in the laws comprising the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26). Sailhamer notes: “The Code of the Priests . . . is followed by the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26). The unique feature of the Holiness Code is the fact that in its introduction and throughout its laws, the audience it addresses is not the priests as such but the whole of the congregation. It calls the entire people of God to holiness.” 78 In the opening verses of the code (Lev 17:7), there appears to be an allusion to the specific form of idolatry (i.e., with “goat idols”) in which the people had become ensnared.79

The Levitical Grant-Type Covenant  |  151

Although no details are given, this happened perhaps during the period when the Levites were being instructed by Moses in the laws of the Priestly Code. The strategic placement of the data in 17:1–9 has important interpretive implications. Sailhamer comments: “As has long been observed, the Holiness Code is not attached directly to the Priestly Code. Between these two legal codes lies a striking account of Israel’s offering sacrifice to ‘goat idols’ (Lev 17:1–9). Though brief and somewhat enigmatic, this short fragment of narrative, usually taken to be the work of the final composer, portrays the Israelites . . . sacrificing ‘outside the camp.’ ” 80 Sailhamer goes on to explain why Aaron must offer a goat as the people’s sin-offering on Yom Kippur, as well as how that offering serves as a thematic bridge for linking the Priestly and Holiness Codes: In Leviticus 17 the threat of idolatry came solely from the Israelite people. The actual problem was that the people were sacrificing “in the open fields” and not with the priests at the Tent of Meeting (vv. 5, 7). Unlike the situation with the golden calf . . . the priest stood over against the people in the major line of defense against idolatry. Such a view of the role of the priesthood is appropriate to the structure and thematic development of the Pentateuch. By this time . . . the priests had been consecrated and were now being shown as following the regulations given in Exodus 35–Leviticus 16. This narrative (Lev 17:1–9) shows that those regulations have had their effect on the priests and consequently they now stood against the idolatry of the people. As far as the flow of narrative in the Pentateuch is concerned, the incident of the golden calf was behind the priests, but the problem of idolatry remained—not as a threat to the priesthood but now to the people at large.81 It seems reasonable to conclude that the Holiness Code is carefully fitted into the Pentateuchal narrative at this point in order to show how (and why) the Levites were needed to guide the other tribes of Israel to holiness and away from idolatry. Accordingly, the Holiness Code may be understood as an essential part of the program in which God renewed his covenant with Israel through the newly established bicovenantal system of sacerdotal mediation (via Aaron and the Levites). In sum, the golden calf episode plays a pivotal role in the development of the narrative plot for the rest of the Pentateuch. Indeed, it is practically the hinge on which the rest of the wilderness narratives turn. The apostasy and covenant renewal at Sinai effected a massive socioreligious reconfiguration

152  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

of Israel into a bicovenantally structured nation consisting of clergy (the Levites) and laity (the twelve tribes). A multilayered system of mediation emerged, starting with the elevation of Moses (Exod 34), followed by the erection of the Tabernacle (Exod 35–40), the instruction and installation of the Aaronic priests and Levites (Lev 1–16), and culminating with the moral reeducation of the twelve tribes of Israel (Lev 17–26). A clear contrast is evident between Israel “breaking loose” at the golden calf (Exod 32:25) and their orderly departure from Sinai one year later (Num 10:1–10). Sailhamer comments: “It should be noted that between the two ­narratives—one dealing with Israel’s initial stay at Mount Sinai and the other dealing with their departure—there lies in the text an enormous number of laws and regulations. The narrative seems to be saying that Israel’s orderly departure from Sinai was not an accident. Rather, it was the result of the countless ‘laws and regulations’ given them by God at Sinai.” 82 A Second Chance for the First Generation (Lev 18:5) The opening verses of Leviticus 18 reveal that the underlying divine purpose of the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26) was to keep Israel away from the idolatrous ways of Egypt and Canaan. The Lord said to Moses, ‘Say to the people of Israel, I am the Lord your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. You shall do my ordinances and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the Lord your God.” (Lev 18:1–4) A sharp contrast is then drawn between the nature and effect of Israel keeping Yahweh’s laws and those of Egypt and Canaan: “You shall therefore keep my statutes and my ordinances, by doing which a man shall live” (Lev 18:5). From a canonical perspective, Yahweh may be understood as giving another chance to Israel (and notably their firstborn sons).83 The Holiness Code laws are part of the remedial program of covenant renewal, given to train Israel (especially the fallen firstborn) to resist the immoral forms of idolatry in which they had been ensnared at Sinai with the golden calf. Leviticus 18:5 reveals the life-giving purpose of the law of the renewed covenant between God and Israel. The renewed covenant becomes much more complicated than it was before the golden calf incident, since many new and burdensome cultic regu-

The Levitical Grant-Type Covenant  |  153

lations have been added.84 Essentially the same conditional blessing of life is offered to the people in Leviticus 18:5 as was offered in Exodus 19:5–6. This time, however, the Israelites must wholeheartedly return and obey if they hope to regain the royal priestly status which they had forfeited. Indeed, the narrative almost invites the reader to see God extending a second chance to the first generation. Covenant Failure at Kadesh-barnea Unfortunately, the Holiness Code did not prove effective in preventing Israel from lapsing back into idolatry and rebellion. This becomes evident shortly after Israel left Sinai and responded to the “evil report” of the spies at Kadesh-barnea (Num 13). The people chose leaders (against Moses) to lead them back to Egypt instead of entering Canaan. By this one act of rebellion, the first generation brought down on itself not only the doom of forty years wandering in the wilderness, but even worse, disinheritance from the promised land. Their disinheritance was sealed by an act of divine oath-swearing: Truly as I live . . . none of the men who have seen my glory and my signs which I wrought in Egypt and in the wilderness . . . and have not hearkened to my voice, shall see the land which I swore to give to their fathers. . . . Say to them, “As I live,” says the Lord, “what you have said in my hearing I will do to you: your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness; and of all your number, numbered from twenty years old and upward, who have murmured against me, not one shall come into the land where I swore that I would make you dwell.” (Num 14:21–30)85 This divine oath contains an explicit allusion to the earlier oath that God had sworn to Abraham (see “the land which I swore to give,” Num 14:23, 30).86 Instead of giving to the first generation that which he had sworn to grant to Abraham’s “seed” (which they presumed themselves to be), God swears an oath of wrath—by which they will be displaced from the land and thus from their own Abrahamic family inheritance. This divine oath of wrathful disinheritance should be seen, then, as a negative counterpart to the divine oath of inheritance, whereby a distinction is made between the legitimate and illegitimate “seed” of Abraham.87 The greater horror of this sin and God’s punishment—greater even than that of the golden calf incident—is noted by Olson:

154  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

The only episode which approaches the severity of the people’s sin in the spy story is the making and worshiping of the golden calf in Exodus 32. Yet the people worshiped the golden calf as the god who led them out of Egypt and as an image of the Lord. . . . The golden calf episode does not involve so much a rejection of God and his power and faithfulness as an attempt by the people to shape God into their own image. Much more is at stake in the spy story where the people repudiate the power and faithfulness of God to fulfill his covenantal promises. In seeking another leader to return to Egypt, they have renounced God and his covenant with his people.88 Many new laws (mostly cultic) are added immediately after the Kadeshbarnea rebellion, as after the golden calf. The laws apparently functioned as penitential discipline in both cases. Sailhamer comments on the subtle penitential note sounded by the narrative placement of these new laws: Following the account of the people’s failure to believe in God in chapters 13 and 14, the writer has attached a further and rather large set of laws dealing with sacrifice and the priesthood (15:1–19:22). Thus, as has been the case throughout the earlier parts of the Pentateuch, after an account of Israel’s unbelief, more laws are added within the narrative. Just as after the account of the failure of the people in the incident of the golden calf (Ex 32), so now in the present narrative the laws are added as a response to the failure of the people to trust God. Thus the structure and strategy of the narrative support Paul’s assessment of the giving of the Law: “What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come” (Gal 3:19–23). In the same way we can see that in the narratives of the Pentateuch, after the account of Israel’s failure to believe God, more laws are added.89 Conclusions on Apostasy and Renewal Following the Golden Calf After the golden calf, Moses, Aaron, and the Levites are elevated to positions of mediation, at the expense of the other tribes and their firstborn sons. As a result, Israel’s firstborn status and royal priestly vocation to be

The Levitical Grant-Type Covenant  |  155

a “holy nation” before God and the nations was dramatically changed (at least temporarily). This reconfiguration included the addition of various cultic laws having a penitential purpose. Moreover, the momentous importance of the divine oath in Genesis 22 is manifest not only as God’s plan to bless all the nations (through Abraham’s seed) but also as the mechanism to bless and preserve Israel as Abraham’s seed. Whenever Israel’s sin gravely jeopardized the covenant relationship, ­Moses appealed to God’s patriarchal oath to preserve Israel from destruction and disinheritance (Exod 32:13; Num 14:20–35; see Ezek 20:13–14). In both cases, the Sinai kinship-type covenant was seriously imperiled. This covenant rupture came about not simply because of Israel’s idolatry, but because of the even graver evil of violating their own sworn covenant oath (Exod 24:1–11). Given the irrevocable nature of the terrible curses which undergird both covenant and oath, it remains something of a mystery that Israel is allowed to survive at all—for centuries no less—after drawing down upon themselves the divine curses signified by the sprinkled blood of those sacrificial victims at Sinai. Indeed, but for the previously sworn mercies of Yahweh (Gen 22:16–18), they would not have survived. It may, however, not be entirely accurate to attribute Israel’s survival after the golden calf to God’s patriarchal oath alone, for this was made possible by the Levitical covenant of priestly grant as well. While the Levitical grant effected a covenant renewal that was provisional (if not symbolic—see Heb 8–9), still it fits quite well with the canonical record of God’s covenant plan in salvation history to bless Israel and the nations. It is time to consider the grant-like character of the Levitical covenant.

Leviticus as a Grant-Type Covenant The Levitical covenant is not referred to as a “covenant” anywhere in the golden calf narrative or in the ceremony during which the Levites replace the firstborn sons (Num 3:5–51; 8:15–19). The absence of bĕrît terminology, however, is not decisive against understanding the Levitical arrangement as a covenant.90 The term bĕrît is employed elsewhere in the prophetic tradition to describe God’s relationship with the Levites. For instance, the divine oracle of Malachi 2 refers to “my covenant with Levi” (vv. 4, 5, 8; see Jer 33:17–26). Hugenberger explains the twofold meaning of Malachi’s oracle: “This covenant seemingly refers to the special privileges

156  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

accorded the Levites as a reward for their self-ordaining zeal in executing their idolatrous brethren in Exodus 32:26–29 (Deuteronomy 33:8–11). The later recognition of such a covenant may have been inferred by analogy from the . . . “covenant of peace” and “covenant of perpetual priesthood” with Phinehas and his descendants, which was grounded in a similar act of zeal recorded in Numbers 25:11–13 (cf. also Jeremiah 33:20–21).” 91 The initial point of origin for the “covenant with Levi” is at Sinai, following the golden calf incident. There Moses declared to the Levites: “Today you have ordained yourselves for the service of the Lord” (Exod 32:29). The Hebrew phrase translated: “Today you have ordained yourselves” literally means, “fill your hand today.” This phrase is used in covenant-making ceremonies in ancient Near Eastern sources and elsewhere in Scripture.92 The decree to ordain the Levites does not come directly from Yahweh but from Moses, who also anoints the Levites, Aaron, and his sons.93 Further, there is no trace of God swearing an oath to Aaron or the Levites—which poses a genuine problem for classifying the Levitical priesthood as a granttype covenant. A formal suzerain’s oath is usually regarded as necessary for the grant to be conferred in an absolute and irrevocable manner.94 Nevertheless, most scholars affirm without hesitation the grant-type nature of the Levitical covenant (to which Malachi refers); none deny it. On the basis of Malachi’s treatment, O’Brien affirms the grant-type status of the “covenant with Levi”: “Levi is treated as an individual who is referred to with third masculine singular pronouns. The relationship between this individual and the deity is described in terms of a covenant, more particularly in terms of a ‘grant’-type treaty. The deity grants to Levi life and peace as a reward for Levi’s faithfulness and obedience. As outlined by M. Weinfeld, while the grant is basically a promise to the recipient, it nonetheless presupposes the recipient’s loyalty. In the case of Malachi, although the parties involved do not share mutual obligations, this grant of priesthood presumes that Levi remain faithful.” 95 In light of scholarly consensus, there is no need for an extensive review of the evidence favoring a grant-type interpretation of the Levitical covenant. The criteria set forth by Weinfeld96 will be briefly surveyed. The first criterion (i.e., the suzerain’s oath), will be passed over for now. The second criterion, the pledging of blessing by God, is clearly evident. In Exodus 32:29, immediately after the Levites rally with their swords against their idolatrous brethren, Moses announces God’s intention “to bestow a blessing” on them. Subsequently, the Levites become the channel of divine blessing for the rest of Israel (see Lev 9:22–23; Num 6:23–24; Deut 33:8–11).

The Levitical Grant-Type Covenant  |  157

The third criterion (the unconditional obligation of the suzerain) may be seen by considering the significance of the Levitical portion of the tithe. Weinfeld identifies the Levitical tithe with the suzerain’s (= Yahweh’s) unconditional pledge: Priestly revenues in the Ancient Near East were also subject to grants and royal bestowals. This is indeed also reflected in Israel. The holy donations assigned to the Aaronide priesthood are formulated in the manner of royal grants: “All the sacred donations of the Israelites, I grant them to you and to your sons as a perquisite, a due for all time” . . . (Num XVIII, 8, cf. Lev VII, 34ff) and in a slightly different formulation: “All the sacred gifts that the Israelites set aside for the Lord I give to you, to your sons . . . as a due forever, it shall be an everlasting salt covenant . . . for you and your offspring as well (v. 19).” Similarly the tithe which, according to Num XVIII, 21f., belongs to the Levites, was also given to them as a grant for their service: “And to the children of Levi I grant all the tithe in Israel for an inheritance in return for the services that they perform.” 97 With respect to the fourth criterion (the indefinite extension of the grant to the grant recipient’s “seed”), a somewhat anomalous situation arises (similar to the issue raised by the lack of an oath). While the succession of Levitical priests is undeniable, nothing is said about “seed” or succession in any of the texts pertaining to the first forty years of the Levitical covenant.98 The situation changes dramatically forty years later when Moses announces that God has granted a “covenant of peace” with Phinehas, “and it shall be to him, and to his descendants (lit., “seed”) after him, the covenant of a perpetual priesthood” (Num 25:12–13). This hardly implies that priestly succession was not practiced before the priestly grant to Phinehas. It may, however, be significant that succession was not stipulated as part of the grant to the Levites until it was awarded to Phinehas. This lack of stipulation, coupled with the absence of a divine oath (even in the case of the covenant granted to Phinehas) could have raised questions in some minds (like the author of Hebrews—see 7:18–23) about the divine purpose and institutional permanence of the Levitical grant. It is important to stress that considerations such as these do not undermine the grant-type classification of the Levitical covenant; they simply qualify it as an anomalous case, especially during its initial phase in the wilderness.99 The fifth criterion (a reward for exceptional faithfulness on the part of

158  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

a vassal) is strikingly evident. The Levites are rewarded with the priestly privilege because they stood with Moses against the idolatry of the other Israelites (Exod 32:25–29). Other features of the grant-type nature of the Levitical covenant could be cited (e.g., distinctive grant-type language).100 Enough evidence, however, has been marshaled to demonstrate persuasively that the Levitical priesthood was instituted on the basis of a covenant of grant.

The Literary-Historical Development of the Levitical Covenant A better understanding of the Levitical grant-type covenant can be gained by examining its literary-historical development in the canonical record. Three closely related developmental phases are involved: first, the Phinehas episode; second, the emergence of Zadok; and third, Ezekiel’s oracular establishment of the Zadokites as the sole priestly line to officiate at the altar in the restored Temple of Jerusalem. Phase One: Phinehas The incident involving Phinehas in Numbers 25:6–13 is a decisive moment of transition for the second generation in the wilderness.101 In many ways, it bears close resemblance to the golden calf incident, as well as to the disastrous episode with the spies—two occasions when Israel’s very existence was in jeopardy because of the people’s horrendous covenant infidelity.102 The Baal-peor incident occurs at the close of Israel’s forty years of wilderness wandering.103 During this time the second generation was supposed to have become rehabilitated from their parents’ idolatrous ways by conforming themselves to the life-giving law of Moses (Lev 18:5), which is spelled out for them in the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26). The Book of Numbers recounts this long ordeal, starting with the numbering of the first generation. This act represents their subordination to the probationary tutelage of the Levites, who are exempted from the general census of the twelve tribes (Num 1–3). Along with Aaron and his sons, who stand as their priestly superiors, the Levites are to administer the covenant renewal program established at Sinai after the golden calf incident. By the end of this ordeal, the second generation should have been ready to adhere to the Lord in obedient trust—perhaps regaining for themselves the royal priesthood that their parents had forfeited at Sinai.

The Levitical Grant-Type Covenant  |  159

The climax of the long ordeal occurs on the plains of Moab (Num 22:1), when the Moabite king, Balak, hires Balaam to curse the second generation of Israel as they approach the border of the promised land (Num 22:3–6).104 Before Balaam departs, after four attempts at cursing Israel are reversed to blessings, he suggests an alternate strategy, advising the foreign women to cause Israel “to act treacherously against the Lord in the matter of Peor” (Num 31:16). Judging from the aftermath, Balaam’s second stratagem met with the desired success. As Weinfeld shows, a grant-type covenant is typically awarded in response to the exceptional loyalty displayed by one man in the face of widespread disloyalty. This is an apt description of the prevalent mood and circumstances described in Numbers 25:1–14.105 Israel “played the harlot,” 106 and through their sacrificial offerings became “yoked” 107 to Baal-peor. For punishment, God sends a pestilence and then commands Moses to “impale” all the “chiefs of the people” (25:4). For whatever reason, this order is never carried out. The situation suddenly escalates as Zimri, the Simeonite, takes Cozbi, the Midianite princess, and walks right past ­Moses and the chiefs gathered in front of the Tent of Meeting. The couple is then followed and caught in flagrante delicto by an outraged Phinehas, who spears them both.108 As a result, “the plague was stayed” (25:8) and Phinehas was rewarded.109 As an additional punitive measure, the second census is taken, pointing to the similar behavior and condition—and common fate—of the first and second generations. Phinehas receives a divine commendation for having “turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people in my jealousy” (Num 25:11 RSV). Then God tells Moses to make a most solemn pronouncement: “Behold, I [will] give to him my covenant of peace.” 110 The grant receives further specification as a “covenant of perpetual priesthood” for Phinehas and his descendants. While the precise nature of the “covenant of perpetual priesthood” is not certain, the grant seems to be intended to narrow the line of priestly succession from Aaron exclusively through Phinehas and his descendants. Phinehas’ high priestly grant is comparable to the Levitical grant in Exodus 32:29 (see Mal 2:4–8), though narrower in scope and loftier in dignity.111 At the same time, the grant to Phinehas serves to purify, preserve, and strengthen the Levitical covenant of priesthood. From the outset, the Levitical covenant lacked stability, as is evident from a consideration of the weakness of its representative founders (Aaron and his two oldest sons, Nadab and Abihu; see Lev 10:1–3). Aaron Wildavsky notes: “Phinehas’s

160  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

initiative helps us put the final element of the puzzle into place. . . . Aaron is kept alive, and the priesthood passes on to Phinehas. Thus the line is maintained, but its rationale rests on Phinehas’s action.” 112 The covenant with Phinehas thus represents a more elevated, yet narrower form of the Aaronic priesthood and Levitical covenant of grant. At the same time it further centralizes the priestly authority conferred by the original Levitical grant, as the first stage in the process of establishing “new forms of leadership,” which culminated with the Deuteronomic covenant.113 This process of narrowing and centralizing does not take place immediately. Several generations will pass before the structural changes initiated by the grant are realized and manifested, although Phinehas’ personal role remains prominent (see Num 31:6; Josh 22:13, 20; Judg 20:28). Phase Two: The Emergence of Zadok The time of realization for the Phinehas grant begins with the fall of the priestly house of Eli (1 Sam 2–4). Full manifestation of the grant is not realized for another generation, when Zadok (one of Phinehas’ descendants) is installed by King Solomon as the first (and only) high priest in the newly built Temple in Jerusalem.114 Zadok’s installation coincides with the banishment of his priestly rival, Abiathar, Eli’s great-grandson in the Aaronite clan of Aaron’s youngest son, Ithamar, the younger brother of Eleazar, Phinehas’ father.115 In 1 Samuel 2, a “man of God” is sent to Eli the priest at Shiloh in order to declare God’s judgment on his house for failing to honor God (2:27–36), and for allowing his sons to officiate as priests in a profane manner (2:12– 17).116 At first, judgment is simply promised; subsequently it is sworn in a solemn divine oath—in young Samuel’s hearing (1 Sam 3:14).117 An oath represents the most intense formal expression of judgment, all the more when God himself is the one who swears. What was it that provoked such an extreme divine response in 1 Samuel 3? Problems began with the notice that “the sons of Eli were worthless men” (1 Sam 2:12), who order their servants to threaten worshippers into giving them the fat portions which were supposed to be dedicated to the Lord by fire (1 Sam 2:13–16). Verse 17 gives a moral summation: “Thus the sin of the young men was very great in the sight of the Lord; for the men treated the offering of the Lord with contempt.” By adding contempt to sacrilege, these men mark themselves for judgment. To make matters worse, Eli “heard all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who served at the entrance to the

The Levitical Grant-Type Covenant  |  161

tent of meeting” (1 Sam 2:22). Eli issues a stern warning to his sons which ends with ominous words of portent: “If a man sins against a man, God will mediate for him; but if a man sins against the Lord, who can intercede for him?” (1 Sam 2:25). Although Eli has rebuked his sons, he does not remove them from the priestly ministry (see 2:29; 3:13). Since he will not punish, God will. In the next scene a “man of God” arrives with a menacing divine oracle for Eli: Thus the Lord has said, “I revealed myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt. . . . And I chose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to go up to my altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me; and I gave to the house of your father all my offerings by fire from the people of Israel. Why then look with greedy eye at my sacrifices and my offerings which I commanded, and honor your sons above me by fattening yourselves upon the choicest parts of every offering by my people Israel?” Therefore the Lord the God of Israel declares: “I promised that your house and the house of your father should go in and out before me for ever”; but now the Lord declares: “Far be it from me; for those who honor me I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed. Behold the days are coming, when I will cut off your strength and the strength of your father’s house. . . . The man of you whom I shall not cut off from my altar shall be spared to weep out his eyes and grieve his heart. . . . And this which shall befall your two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, shall be the sign to you: both of them shall die on the same day. And I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who shall do according to what is in my heart and in my mind; and I will build him a sure house, and he shall go in and out before my anointed for ever [my emphasis].” (1 Sam 2:27–35) Three important points may be drawn from this oracle. First, the oracle links Eli’s house to the original divine election of and priestly grant to the Aaronites and Levites. Second, it reveals that a transfer of that same priestly grant can be (or already has been) caused by another act of divine election (e.g., Phinehas), by which a narrowing specification reduces the number of available candidates from many to few (the descendants of Phinehas). Third, it shows that there will be another act of election in the future, with a corresponding relegation of position and disenfranchisement of privilege

162  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

for Eli’s priestly house. This is provisionally fulfilled by the death of Eli’s sons, and then ultimately by the banishment of his grandson Abiathar from Jerusalem (1 Kgs 2:27). Following this pronouncement, a divine oracle comes to Eli’s adopted stepson, Samuel. The oracle is a dreadful divine oath announcing the downfall of his stepfather’s house: Behold, I am about to do a thing in Israel, at which the two ears of every one that hears it will tingle. On that day I will fulfill against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. And I tell him that I am about to punish his house for ever, for the iniquity which he knew, because his sons were blaspheming God, and he did not restrain them. Therefore I swear to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be expiated by sacrifice for ever. (1 Sam 3:11–14) 118 The “iniquity” refers to the sins of Eli’s sons, whose cultic misdeeds permanently disqualify them not only from priestly service but even from the prospect of expiation (3:13–14). All the words of the oracular oath are fulfilled in one harrowing day. Israel’s apparent victory (1 Sam 4:2–8) turns into disastrous defeat at the hands of the “uncircumcised” Philistines. Eli’s sons perish in the battle and the ark is captured (4:11). On hearing the news, Eli falls backward off his seat, breaks his neck, and dies (4:18).119 The ark is temporarily put into the temple of Dagon, until God providentially orchestrates events to convince the Philistines to divest themselves of their sacred booty (see 1 Sam 5:1–6:16). These events contribute to the collective demoralization of Israel, prompting them to demand of Samuel “a king to govern us like all the nations” (1 Sam 8:5). A period of confusion ensues, with the rise and fall of the first monarchy of King Saul. Afterwards, a new era of glory and peace begins for Israel as the Davidic dynasty is established. The establishment of David’s empire brings in its wake the installation of Zadok as high priest. 120 Before considering the special case of Zadok’s rise to priestly power, it is important to pause and reflect on some points that pertain to the development of the Levitical priesthood. Certain elements embedded in the canonical narration of this process indicate that something more than the provocative misdeeds of Hophni and Phinehas underlie the divine oath assuring the downfall of the priestly house of Eli. In particular, the priestly

The Levitical Grant-Type Covenant  |  163

line of Eli traces its roots back to Aaron’s youngest son, Ithamar, rather than Eleazar or his son Phinehas (see 1 Chr 24:3, 6; 2 Esdr 1:2). This would suggest that there is something highly irregular about Eli’s priesthood.121 On a canonical reading, the covenant with Phinehas functions to legitimize the subsequent rise of Zadok as well as the consequent fall of other interim arrangements (i.e., Eli and his sons) that compete with the primacy of Phinehas’ line. This may well be the narrator’s primary objective in recounting the divine oath in 1 Samuel 3:14. For Yahweh to swear an oath against a man and his sons—as priests—hardly seems appropriate given the gravity of oath-swearing (and particularly divine oath-swearing) elsewhere in Scripture. However, that God would swear an oath in order to ensure the fulfillment of his own covenant with Phinehas—by exalting his priestly house over a rival line—accords well with God’s own covenant fidelity. The oath is probably directed against that which threatens to impede the fulfillment of God’s covenant with Phinehas. This is not to trivialize the damnable wickedness of Eli and his sons. The point here is that an opportune moment for divine judgment coalesces with an opportune moment for fulfilling the obligations of the covenant made with Phinehas in the Mosaic period.122 Even with the death of Eli’s two sons, the priesthood remained in the house of Eli for a brief time, being passed down to Ahitub and his son, Ahijah (1 Sam 14:3; see 22:9, 11 = Ahimelech?), and then finally to his son and companion of David, Abiathar (1 Sam 22:9–23). Youngblood summarizes the relevant details: “1 Sam 22:9–20 indicates that Eli’s descendants, through Ahimelech’s son Abiathar, continued to serve as priests at Nob, at least temporarily. When Doeg the Edomite slaughtered the priests at the command of Saul, Abiathar escaped (22:20) and shared the priesthood with Zadok under David (2 Sam 19:11). The prophecy concerning the demise of Eli’s line was further fulfilled when Solomon relieved Abiathar of his priestly duties (1 Kgs 2:26–27). The sole priesthood then reverted to the line of Eleazar under Zadok (cf. 1 Chr 6:4–8; Josephus, Ant. 5.361), to whose house Ezra traced his own priestly lineage (Ezra 7:1–5).” 123 At this point, a problem arises concerning the emergence of Zadok, since no reason is explicitly given to explain his rapid rise. Perhaps readers are expected to draw their own conclusions from the description of Zadok’s singular and unswerving support of King David and the choice of Solomon as heir apparent.124 From a canonical perspective, the high priesthood of Zadok has a twofold basis: a genealogical link with Phinehas, and his support of David and Solomon.125 In short, Zadok’s high priesthood rests upon the com-

164  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

bined foundation of two divine grant-type covenants (the Levitical and Davidic). Phase Three: Ezekiel Establishes the Zadokite Priesthood The last stage of development for the Levitical grant-type covenant pertains to a divine oracle in which Ezekiel establishes the Zadokite priests as the only Aaronites who can minister at the altar in the rebuilt Jerusalem Temple (Ezek 40–44). In his careful study, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48, Levenson argues that Ezekiel deliberately established the Zadokite priesthood on the basis of the Levitical covenant of grant. He also shows how Ezekiel called them to officiate in the new Temple and to govern the returning exiles in such a way that would allow God to restore Israel according to the ancient theocratic ideal as “a kingdom of priests and a holy people” (see Exod 19:6).126 What makes Ezekiel’s message so difficult to interpret is the sharp distinction that he draws between the Zadokites and other Levitical (and presumably Aaronite) priests: “He said to me, ‘This room which faces south is for the priests who have charge of the temple. The room which faces north is for the priests who have charge of the altar; these are the sons of Zadok, who alone among the Levites may come near to the Lord to minister to him’ ” (Ezek 40:45–46 RSV).127 Ezekiel does not just envision—he actually stipulates—a situation where only Zadokites can minister at the altar. All other Levitical/Aaronite priests must be content to serve as mere doorkeepers etc. The gist of his message is this: no one but Zadokites can sacrifice in the Jerusalem Temple. Nothing in the immediate context indicates that Ezekiel’s stipulation is new; he may be restating an older decree. Elements of Ezekiel’s Restoration Program Three other elements of Ezekiel’s program of restoration deserve mention.128 The first is the conspicuous absence of any reference to the high priest in Ezekiel’s oracle. Levenson comments: “The Zadokite party was aboriginally the party of the high-priest, and so it was to be in the postexilic period as well. The high-priesthood being a shadowy office for which we have little direct evidence, we search eagerly in Ezek 40–48 for materials to flesh out our conception of it and especially of its self-understanding. The office, however, does not appear.” 129 Levenson reviews various scholarly explanations for why Ezekiel fails to mention the high priest.130 He then concludes: “Still, the absence of any mention of the high-priest in the

The Levitical Grant-Type Covenant  |  165

document in which we should most reasonably predict its occurrence is troubling, and the laws of priestly marriage and the extension of the concept of the Holy of Holies, although ambiguous in intent, cannot be easily brushed aside. In this connection, note that the very architecture of the Temple of the coming era reflects a division of clerical personnel into only two categories (e.g., 40:45–46; 45:4–5; 46:19–24); there is no counterpart here to the ceremony of Yom Kippur in P, in which only Aaron may go behind the veil in the sanctuary (Lv 16:1–6).” 131 The second significant element of Ezekiel’s restoration program concerns the singular role that the prophet assigns to the Davidic prince messiah as both king and priest. The combination of the two important motifs of “prince” 132 and “sanctuary” occur in the final messianic prophecy in Ezekiel 37: Thus says the Lord God: “Behold, I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone and will gather them from all sides, and bring them to their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all. . . . My servant David shall be king over them. . . . David my servant shall be their prince for ever. I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will bless them and multiply them, and I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. My tabernacle shall be over them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Then the nations will know that I the Lord sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary is in the midst of them for evermore.” (Ezek 37:20–29) Throughout his final oracle (44:3; 45:7–9, 17–19, 22; 46:2–18; 48:21–22), Ezekiel presents the Davidic messiah in terms of the “prince” whose role is closely linked to the Temple.133 After correlating the pertinent material on “prince” and “sanctuary” from both oracles, Levenson concludes: “All this suggests that the School of Ezekiel hoped not for a diarchy of Davidid and Zadokite . . . but for a community so fundamentally liturgical and sacral in nature that the Davidid . . . could only be a liturgical figurehead like the high-priest. . . . Ezek 40–48 hoped not for a restoration of the monarchy, but for a restoration of the monarch, who is now redefined according to his deepest and truest function as the servant of God, one devoted to the divine service, to liturgy. . . . The retention of the high-priesthood in such a community would be redundant and perhaps a denial of the redemption

166  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

which was to yield such a community.” 134 For Ezekiel, the Davidic messiah is destined to embody the royal priestly ideal of Israel as “a kingdom of priests.” Ezekiel’s view may be anticipated already in the Lord’s oracle to “raise up for myself a faithful priest” in 1 Samuel 3:25, which some scholars see as a reference not only to Zadok but to the Davidic king himself, who was “a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4).135 The third significant element of Ezekiel’s restoration program is his unique order, calling for Israelites not only to treat non-Israelite “aliens” the same as “native-born sons of Israel,” but also to recognize their equal share in the “inheritance” of Israel (47:22). The new Jerusalem and Temple represent the inheritance of a new Israel, that is, one which will be made up of Jews and Gentiles alike, all under the royal priestly rule of the Davidic prince messiah. An idealized picture emerges for the Zadokites, who find themselves serving in the Jerusalem Temple under circumstances profoundly analogous to their eponymous ancestor, Zadok, the first priest to officiate at the Davidic liturgy in the Solomonic Temple. As the worthy descendants of Phinehas, they become the sole heirs and, hence, prime beneficiaries of his “covenant of perpetual priesthood.” Ezekiel gives a prophetic view of how the ultimate plan for the final renewal of the Levitical grant-type covenant will eventually unfold. The Problem of the Apparent Nonfulfillment of the Levitical Covenant It is important to recall how the Levitical covenant lasts until the destruction of the Second Temple, although the Zadokite priesthood may not have endured nearly as long. The Zadokites apparently managed to retain the high priesthood until the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. What became of the Zadokite priesthood thereafter remains a matter of debate.136 This raises the very difficult question of the apparent nonfulfillment of the Levitical grant-type covenant of perpetual priesthood, as well as Ezekiel’s prophetic oracle regarding the Zadokites. A comprehensive treatment of such questions is well beyond the scope of this study.137 Part of the difficulty lies in the fact that there are canonical considerations that argue both for and against the permanence of the Levitical covenant. In other words, there is a tension concerning the status of the Levitical covenant/­ priesthood in the Bible itself. To begin with the considerations against its permanence, these may be enumerated as follows. First, the Levitical priesthood arose as a result of

The Levitical Grant-Type Covenant  |  167

Israel’s sin (Exod 32:25–28). The second consideration is closely related: the original intent of God was a royal priestly primogeniture for all Israel (Exod 4:22;19:6). To recapitulate what we have seen above, a natural royal priesthood of the firstborn son seems implicit in the biblical narrative from Adam through the end of the patriarchal period, that is, throughout the Genesis narrative. In Exodus, this royal priestly primogeniture was offered to Israel in both a collective and individual sense: Israel was to be God’s firstborn son with a priestly role toward the nations (Exod 4:22; 19:6) and within Israel the firstborn sons (apparently) were to serve as ministerial priests (Exod 19:22, 24:5).138 This priestly firstborn role was forfeited by Israel to the Levites after the golden calf incident (Exod 32:25–28; Num 3:40–51). Thus the Levites were appointed to assume the covenant of priestly primogeniture in Israel, but they in turn forfeited the fullness of their covenant, first to Phinehas and his descendants (Num 25:12–13), and then further to the Zadokites (Ezek 44:9–15). This in itself suggests that the Levitical covenant economy was not God’s original intent for Israel, but a remedial response to their hardheartedness. It may be viewed primarily as a corrective arrangement that naturally retains something of a provisional character. Israel stood in need of some temporary Levitical remediation, during which time the Levites would instruct and guide Israel in the practice of holiness, while retaining a subordinate share and a mediatory role in the original covenant vocation that God issued to his “firstborn son” to serve as “a kingdom of priests” (Exod 4:22; 19:6). In fact, future generations of Israel’s twelve (lay) tribes are nowhere forbidden from aspiring to merit the royal priestly call their fathers forfeited at Sinai and in the wilderness. This may have been the overarching purpose behind God’s dual covenant plan with Israel. To use an architectural metaphor, the whole Levitical economy was a scaffolding erected around the House of Israel in order to repair it. The divine architect was free to use the Levitical priesthood for as long as it took to restore the House of Israel fully to the covenant. Thus, in the eschatological age when Israel’s idolatry (e.g., the sin of the calf) would be definitively overcome and the hard-hearted sinfulness of the people completely removed (Jer 31:31–34; Ezek 36:25–27), the Levitical economy would no longer be necessary, precisely because it had served its purpose. The scaffolding could be removed, since the house had been repaired: the people would be restored to their original royal priestly primogeniture promised them before they sinned with the calf (Exod 4:22; 19:6).139 The Levitical

168  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

covenant may be viewed primarily as a corrective arrangement, then, in which case it naturally retains something of a provisional character. Third, the Levitical grant-type covenant is anomalous in that it is nowhere founded on an oath. We have observed that in general an oath by the suzerain is a formal necessity for the establishment of a covenant of grant. Nonetheless, while having all the other features of a grant-type covenant, no divine oath for the Levitical covenant can be found in the Law, the Prophets, or the Psalms. This fact may be another indication of its apparent provisional character described above; in any event, we will see in Chapter 10 that the author of Hebrews sees in it evidence for the transience of the Levitical covenant. Fourth, certain prophetic texts more or less explicitly suggest an eschatological change of the Levitical covenant economy. We leave out of consideration for the moment certain texts that imply the inadequacy of the Levitical priesthood’s Temple (e.g., Isa 66:1–2), sacrifices (e.g., Isa 1:11; 66:3–4; Ps 50:7–15; 51:16–17), and covenant (Jer 31:31–34; Mal 2:1–9), since the interpretation of these texts is complex. A more obvious challenge to the perdurance of the Levitical priesthood is found in certain other texts of Isaiah which suggest an eschatological opening up of the priesthood to all of the Lord’s people and even foreigners: For I know their works and their thoughts, and I am coming to gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and shall see my glory, and I will set a sign among them. And from them I will send survivors to the nations . . . and they shall declare my glory among the nations. And they shall bring all your brethren from all the nations as an offering to the Lord, upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the Lord, just as the Israelites bring their cereal offering in a clean vessel to the house of the Lord. And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the Lord. (Isa 66:18–21 RSV) The antecedent of “them” in v. 21 is ambiguous: it could refer to “your brethren” (presumably Israelites) from v. 20 or it could be the same “them” as in v. 19, namely, “all nations and tongues.” In either case, it suggests an eschatological age in which “priests and Levites” will no longer be selected only from the descendants of Levi but either from all Israelites or from all nations.

The Levitical Grant-Type Covenant  |  169

A general priesthood of all Israelites seems suggested by Isaiah 61:5–6: Aliens shall stand and feed your flocks, foreigners shall be your plowmen and vinedressers; but you shall be called the priests of the Lord, men shall speak of you as the ministers of our God; you shall eat the wealth of the nations, and in their riches you shall glory. On the other hand, a priestly status even for foreigners seems suggested by Isaiah 56:6–7, which speaks of non-Israelites being able “to minister” (see Jer 33:21) to the Lord, “to be his servants” (see Num 4:28; 8:11, 15, 19, etc.), and (apparently) to offer acceptable sacrifices: And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, every one who keeps the sabbath, and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant—these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. (Isa 56:6–7 RSV) Thus, we have four canonical considerations that would argue for the provisional nature of the Levitical covenant and its eventual alteration or cessation in the future age. On the other hand, certain biblical texts affirm the unbreakable perpetuity of the Levitical covenant of priesthood. Besides Exodus 40:15 and Numbers 25:13, the most compelling prophetic texts in this regard are found (surprisingly) not in Ezekiel but Jeremiah: For thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn cereal offerings, and to make sacrifices for ever. . . .” Thus says the Lord: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the descendants of

170  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

­ avid my servant, and the Levitical priests who minister to me. D (Jer 33:17–18, 20–22 RSV) Here, in no uncertain terms, the Levitical covenant is made as permanent as the covenant with David and the covenant with all creation (cf. Sir 45:15, 24–25). The tensions between this text and the considerations we have raised above are palpable. Is it possible that there is a biblical-theological solution to this tension which recognizes the Levitical covenant as, in some sense, both perpetual and provisional? The status of the priesthood between the old and new covenants is addressed in the New Testament most directly by the Epistle to the Hebrews and the First Epistle of Peter. Between these two epistles it is possible to construct a new covenant theology of priesthood in which the Levitical covenant is in one sense replaced, and in another sense, maintained and fulfilled. Hebrews stresses the discontinuity between the priesthood of Christ and the Levitical priesthood. As we will see at greater length in Chapter 10, the author of Hebrews points out not only the lack of the requisite divine oath (Heb 7:20–21) but many other indications of the impermanence of the Levitical covenant economy as well. According to Hebrews, with the coming of Christ, the natural, royal priesthood of the firstborn son—lost to Israel since the golden calf—is restored (cf. Heb 1:2, 6; 7:1–28; etc). Since there is now adequate atonement, healing, and forgiveness for Israel’s sin (and that of all humanity), the Levitical economy that arose as a result of that sin is no longer necessary (Heb 10:11–18). To return to the architectural metaphor, the scaffolding of the Levitical covenant may be removed, because the purpose for which it had been constructed—the restoration of Israel’s royal priestly primogeniture—had been accomplished in Christ. But is there any participation of the Lord’s people in this royal priesthood of Christ? The author of Hebrews suggests there is. In Hebrews 1:6, the author applies to Christ the theologically charged term ho prōtotokos, the firstborn, a status that entitles him to royal and priestly privileges (cf. Heb 7:15–17). The term is used only once more near the end of the Epistle, this time in the plural, when the author refers to his readers as the ekklēsia prōtotokōn, “the assembly [or church] of the first-born” (Heb 12:23 RSV). The faithful participate in Christ’s status as firstborn. It follows that the privileges of the firstborn, namely kingship and priesthood, accrue also in some sense to the individual believer. This is made more explicit in 1 Peter 2:5, where the author speaks of his

The Levitical Grant-Type Covenant  |  171

readers being “built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” Those “who believe” (v. 7) become “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people” (v. 9). This brief verse clearly echoes Exod 19:5–6 as the author applies the concepts of sĕgullâ (“special possession”), mamleket kōhănîm (“royal priesthood”),140 and gôy qādôš (“holy nation”) to the Christian community. The theological message is clear: for those who believe in Christ, the corporate royal priestly primogeniture promised to Israel prior to the calf incident (Exod 19:5–6) is restored. Everyone “born anew” through Jesus Christ (see 1 Pet 1:3) partakes of this priesthood, including those who were priests and Levites under the old economy. The numbers of old covenant priests who came to faith in Christ were not negligible, according to Acts 6:7. These descendants of Levi who entered into the new covenant did not cease to be priests, but became priests of a different sort. In Christ, the royal priestly firstborn, they became royal priestly firstborns (Heb 12:22). Thus, the promise of the grant-type covenant to Levi is never broken. The promise of the Levitical covenant was not that every single descendant of Levi (or Phinehas or Zadok) would serve as a priest, nor that his descendants and only his descendants would be legitimate priests, but simply that he would never lack descendants who would be priests before the Lord (cf. Jer 33:18; Sir 45:7, 15, 24; Exod 40:15, Num 25:13). In the new covenant, all God’s people participate in Christ’s priesthood—thus, nothing is taken away from the Levites who enter the new covenant. However, the rest of God’s people gain what previously only the Levites enjoyed. In this way, the covenant with the Levites is not broken, even though the bicovenantal economy under which the Levitical priesthood operated is replaced. The canonical tension between the permanence and transience of the Levitical covenant is resolved. Finally, although no definitive treatment of the subject is possible here, we may note that Luke, in his account of the presentation (2:22–38), portrays Jesus as a holy firstborn Israelite with a natural priestly status.141 Most commentators note that this Lukan narrative is quite anamolous on careful reading. Luke describes Jesus as being dedicated or presented in the Temple in fulfillment of the Law. However, the Law did not require the presentation of each firstborn. Exodus 13:13 required all firstborn males to be redeemed, like an unclean donkey. Yet Luke’s quotation concerning the firstborn (2:23) is based not on Exodus 13:13 but on Exodus 13:1–2, which speaks not of the redemption of the firstborn but of their consecration to the Lord. Furthermore, Luke records no redemption ritual being performed for Jesus.142 C. H. Talbert describes the situation succinctly:

172  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

The prescription of Exod 13:2 concerning the first-born son was literally fulfilled in the case of Jesus, the firstborn (Luke 2:7), who was not ransomed (Exod 13:13; Num 3:47; 18:16). Contrary to normal custom, Jesus was dedicated to God and remained his property. . . . The closest parallel to this emphasis is found in 1 Samuel 1–2, where Hannah gives Samuel, at his birth, to the Lord for as long as the child lives. . . . If Jesus, in a similar manner, was dedicated to God and not redeemed, he belonged to God permanently. This would explain the reason Jesus would not understand why his parents did not know where to find him in Jerusalem (2:48–49): since he was God’s he could be expected to be in his Father’s house, as in the case of Samuel. At the plot level of the narrative, Jesus had made a personal identification with the decisions his parents had made about him at his birth.143 Talbert’s findings agree with those of B. Reicke: “Thus Lk 2:22 uses παραστ῝σαι τ` κυρίῳ [parastēsai tō kuriō, to present to the Lord] in connection with the presentation of Jesus in the temple, and we best understand this in terms of the presentation of a sacral minister to his master. The author would seem to mean that like Samuel or a Nazirite Jesus is basically set in and dedicated to the service of God. In this Messianic sense the law of the consecration of the firstborn (Ex 13:2, 12–15) is here fulfilled, v. 23. The narrator is not implying, then, that this kind of presentation is normal for all Israelites.” 144 Thus, Luke presents Jesus as a righteous firstborn who—unlike other Israelite males since the calf incident—is not redeemed from service to the Lord (Exod 13:13) since he is not unclean, but consecrated as a firstborn (Exod 13:1–2). As H. D. Park observes: “On the basis of the fact that Jesus is dedicated to the Lord not as a Levite or a priest but as a firstborn son in Lk 2.22–23, it seems justifiable to conclude that Jesus is consecrated to the Lord in the sense of a firstborn male and in the sense of a voluntary gift to the sanctuary.”145

Conclusions First, the working hypothesis of this study about the familial shape of the covenant—and especially the father-son relationship—has come into a much sharper theological focus. A familial shape is embodied in the firstborn son, with whom the original covenant grant of royal priesthood was established. The covenant undergoes a series of somewhat confusing re-

The Levitical Grant-Type Covenant  |  173

newals and transfers. Throughout this developmental process, the Levitical grant-type covenant manifests the same pattern as all the other covenants that have been studied thus far: interpersonal relations are set in a familial context which are theologically defined by oath-swearing for divinely sanctioned social commitments that find expression in various ethical norms, legal statutes, cultic rituals, and sacrifices. Second, the radical effects of sin on the family have been underscored. As a violation of the covenant, sin disrupts the order of the family. Covenants, however, are made to be renewed. The renewal of covenants involves mediation and other measures that are designed to restore the family relations disrupted by sin. Nevertheless, since every sin against the family is also a violation of—and a crime against—the covenant, they are dealt with decisively.146 Third, the covenant renewal program seeks to restore family relations not only at the human level but also at the higher level of divine-human relations. The father-son relationship between God and Israel is maintained and deepened by various means which are part of the covenant, including seemingly impersonal institutions like kingship and priesthood. Fourth, the priesthood is to be understood primarily as a covenantal institution. It embodies and expresses the reality of the father-son relationship, and, in a special way, the mediatory role and responsibility of the firstborn son between (and toward) parents and siblings. Practically, this points to the need for obedient trust and sacrificial service on the part of priests, without which authority and judgment become manipulative or tyrannical. Fifth, priestly authority is not meant to be unnaturally separated from royal power, unless it is necessitated by the exigencies of the covenant itself (and then only temporarily). At the risk of oversimplifying, when priesthood and kingship are viewed through the lens of the covenant, what is disclosed points to the interior reality of the father’s life, authority, and power—for which the covenant exists for the purpose of establishing communion among the family members. Sixth, the Levitical grant-type covenant discloses the inner logic of salvation history in terms of Israel’s primogeniture and royal priestly vocation from God—for the sake of the nations. The covenant is what directs Israel to its need for obedient trust in God, but also to its mission among the Gentiles. By the latter, Israel is called to facilitate the saving purpose to which God is bound by his own self-maledictory oath to accomplish, that is, to share the blessing of Abraham—through his seed—with all nations. Seventh, the critical importance and function of the divine oath sworn

174  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

to Abraham (Gen 22:16–18) has been underscored, not only for the mission of Israel as Abraham’s “seed,” but also for their survival at the moment of idolatry. As the basis for Moses’ intercessory mediation and his appeal for divine clemency after the golden calf incident, it serves as a divine warranty for Israel’s survival (like a life insurance policy, or a safety net in case of a fall). Lest Israel be tempted to presumption, the account of the twelve spies indicates that God’s oath is a two-edged sword that cuts both ways; that is, what evoked divine mercy at Sinai after idolatry provokes divine wrath in the face of apostasy at Kadesh-barnea (as expressed in God’s counteroath of disinheritance).147 Eighth, the golden calf episode and similar incidents like Beth-peor were disasters of epic proportions, especially in view of Israel’s lofty status and divine call. The program of covenant renewal brought about a massive reconfiguration in the socioreligious life and structure of Israel. Not only did it cause Israel’s firstborn sons to forfeit their royal priesthood, along with the nation itself, but it also brought in its wake a whole series of catastrophic rebellions. The consequences of the golden calf for Israel are staggering. Not without truth can it be said that what the tree was for Adam, the golden calf was for Israel.148 Ninth, as part of the transfiguration brought about by the covenant renewal, a bicovenantal structure emerges in Israel. The Levitical covenant establishes one tribe in clerical terms, while the Deuteronomic covenant applied a secular order to the other twelve tribes. The Levites, however, are to make sure that a “holy secularity” prevails among the Israelite laity. The Levitical covenant thus serves as the foundation for the Deuteronomic covenant. The bicovenantal principle also seems applicable within the Levitical priesthood, that is, between the Aaronites and the other tribal clans within Levi, but also, after Beth-peor, between Phinehas and other Aaronites—and then eventually with Zadok’s descendants as well.149 Tenth, the Levitical covenant of grant is accompanied by cultic legislation that seems to reflect a penitential as well as a restorative purpose. Not only are laws added with each of Israel’s prevarications,150 but they represent significant downward adjustments in the level of covenant amity between God and his people. This trend continues into the second generation, culminating in the apostasy at Beth-peor and the Deuteronomic concessions for Israel’s hardness of heart. Israel learns the hard way that in a covenant, what is less-than-ideal is sometimes morally necessary: Moses must regulate what God has not (yet) eradicated. Eleventh, the idea that God did not fulfill his covenant with Phine-

The Levitical Grant-Type Covenant  |  175

has and Zadok is exegetically and theologically unsound. From a historical perspective, it is illusory. With the inauguration of the New Covenant in Christ, all who enter the new covenant—including the descendants of Levi—are restored to the original royal priestly primogeniture promised to Israel at Sinai (Exod 19:5–6; 1 Pet 2:5, 9). Thus, the covenant promises to the descendants of Levi are not broken in the new covenant, although the Deuteronomic bicovenantal economy is replaced. Twelfth, the Levitical covenant points to the future hope that God will raise up the Davidic prince messiah to be his firstborn son and thereby reacquire the birthright of the royal priesthood which God will give him by covenant oath (see Pss 89:26–27; 110:4). In this way, the Levitical covenant renewed with Phinehas will be fulfilled by—and transferred to—the Son of David, yet in such a way that Phinehas’ descendants may still participate in the priesthood of the Davidic Son. According to the Epistle to the Hebrews, this is why God exalts Christ as his firstborn son (1:6), and as a high priest and king, “after the order of Melchizedek” (5:6; 6:20; 7:11, 17). The Levitical covenant is fulfilled in such a way as to be both concluded by and included in the Davidic covenant—precisely through the New Covenant which Christ forms in himself.151 This makes Christ the sole heir to the promise of priesthood which is traceable all the way back to the beginning, that is, to the original covenant of royal priestly primogeniture. However, while Christ’s fulfillment is certainly restorative, it is also transformative. Thus, while the original royal priestly primogeniture is once more available to humanity in Christ, humanity does not simply revert to the Adamic situation of earthly paradise but is converted upward—“to the church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven” (Heb 12:23).

7 The Davidic Grant-Type Covenant This chapter pursues a canonical reading of select Davidic narratives, directed by the need to coordinate the findings in earlier chapters with the upcoming treatment in Part Two. Of primary concern is the analysis of the various aspects of the Davidic covenant.1 Particular stress is placed on how the covenantal motifs of Israel’s divine sonship and royal priestly primogeniture are transferred to the Son of David by God’s covenant oath.

The Davidic Covenant: A Grant-Type Covenant The grant-type nature of the Davidic covenant has achieved something of a consensus status among Old Testament interpreters.2 The features of a grant-type covenant are not difficult to discern. First, several psalms speak of a divine oath sworn to David: “I have made a covenant with my chosen one, / I have sworn to David my servant” (Ps 89:3).3 Second, God pledges only blessings to David while curses are directed at his dynastic foes: I have found David, my servant,    With my holy oil I have anointed him. So that my hand shall ever abide with him,    my arm shall also strengthen him. The enemy shall not outwit him, 176

The Davidic Grant-Type Covenant  |  177

   the wicked shall not humble him. I will crush his foes before him    and strike down those who hate him. (Ps 89:20–23)4 Third, God binds himself unconditionally to David, taking upon himself the covenant obligations: I will make for you a great name . . . and I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover the Lord declares to you that the Lord will build you a house. . . . And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever. (2 Sam 7:9, 11–12, 16)5 Fourth, the obligations undertaken by God are extended to David’s descendants for future generations: “I will establish your descendants for ever, and build your throne for all generations” (Ps 89:4; see 2 Sam 7:12– 16; Ps 110:4). Fifth, David’s exceptional virtue and loyal devotion to God are the basis for the divine covenant grant: The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness; According to the cleanness of my hands he recompensed me. For I have kept the ways of the Lord, And have not wickedly departed from my God. For all his ordinances were before me, And from his statutes I did not turn aside. I was blameless before him, And I kept myself from guilt. Therefore the Lord has recompensed me According to my righteousness, According to my cleanness in his sight. With the loyal thou dost show thyself loyal; With the blameless man thou dost show thyself blameless.  (2 Sam 22:21–26)6 In sum, the Davidic covenant clearly exhibits the distinctive features of a grant-type covenant. Nonetheless, this consensus has recently been challenged by G. Knoppers, D. N. Freedman, and D. A. Miano. Knoppers critiques Weinfeld’s seminal essay comparing ancient Near Eastern land grants to the Abraha-

178  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

mic and Davidic covenants.7 The substance of Knoppers critique is largely form-critical: the accounts of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants in the Bible do not follow the form of the ancient land grant documents. Knoppers is quite correct: the biblical texts are reports or descriptions of a ­covenant-making event between God and Abraham or David, they are not themselves covenant documents. Moreover, there are formal discrepancies as well as parallels between royal land-grants and the biblical covenants, not the least of which is the fact that the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants concern much more than land. Nonetheless, it does not seem that Knoppers has demonstrated Weinfeld’s central insight to be false, namely: in the ancient Near East, there are many instances in which a suzerain would reward faithfulness from his vassal with the granting of some benefice (land, dynasty, or other), guaranteed by the suzerain’s oath. This act could be considered a form of bĕrît or covenant, and it is similar in substance to the biblical portrayal of the covenants with Abraham and David. The “land grants” cited by Weinfeld in his seminal article are not the only ancient Near Eastern exempla of this form of covenant; they also exist among the extant Hittite treaties, including at least one example of a grant-type covenant of dynasty quite similar in terminology to the Davidic covenant of 2 Samuel 7.8 Freedman and Miano present quite a different challenge to the conception of the Davidic covenant as a grant-type institution.9 Reversing the standard position, these two scholars argue that 2 Samuel 7 and other Davidic covenant texts actually present the Davidic covenant as a vassal treaty. While Freedman and Miano are quite correct to point out that a greater degree of conditionality exists in some formulations of the Davidic covenant than is usually recognized, it still seems hard to characterize the Davidic covenant as a vassal treaty.10 There is no oath required by David or his heirs as is the case in nearly all extant vassal treaties, but there is frequent reference to the divine oath to David (2 Sam 23:5; Pss 2:7; 89:3, 35; 110:4; 132:11). The primary covenant texts (2 Sam 7; Pss 89, 132) enumerate blessings at length and in detail, and unlike (esp. Assyrian) vassal treaties, curses are absent or minimal. What Freedman and Miano consider “curses” are very brief in the main texts (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 89:32; Ps 132:12) and are better characterized as “warnings.” 11 And despite the undeniable notes of conditionality in certain texts, there are, nonetheless, frequent affirmations of the unbreakable and eternal nature of the Lord’s commitment to David (2 Sam 7:13, 16; Ps 89:4, 28–29, 33–37). Finally, the covenant with David is received and perceived by the biblical narratives as a benefice rather than an imposition—this is especially

The Davidic Grant-Type Covenant  |  179

clear in David’s response to Nathan’s oracle (2 Sam 7:18–29) but also in Psalm 89:1–2, 5–18.

The Purposes of the Davidic Covenant Following the death of Saul (1 Sam 31) and David’s anointing as king of Judah (2 Sam 2), the civil war and dynastic strife between Judah and Israel (chs. 3–4) finally end. A covenant is made which establishes David’s reign over all twelve tribes: Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and said, “Behold, we are your bone and flesh.12 In times past, when Saul was king over us, it was you that led out and brought in Israel; and the Lord said to you, ‘You shall be shepherd of my people Israel, and you shall be prince over Israel.’ ” So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron; and King David made a covenant with them at Hebron before the Lord, and they anointed David king of Israel. David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years. At Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months; and at Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years. (2 Sam 5:1–5) David’s coronation serves to introduce Jerusalem as the new center of his pan-Israelite kingdom. Jerusalem emerges as a major thematic focus in the subsequent narrative. The text proceeds to describe David’s conquest of Jerusalem, the Jebusite fortress city, “the stronghold of Zion, that is, the city of David” (2 Sam 5:6–14). With the establishment of his royal residence in Jerusalem, David’s rising dynastic fortunes are highlighted and linked to divine munificence: And David built the city round about from the Millo inward. And David became greater and greater, for the Lord, the God of hosts, was with him. And Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, also carpenters and masons who built David a house. And David perceived that the Lord had established him king over Israel, and that he had exalted his kingdom for the sake of his people Israel. (2 Sam 5:9b–12) The focus on Jerusalem continues as a list is given of David’s sons who were born there during his reign (2 Sam 5:13–14). Though seemingly incidental,

180  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

this list stands out as the first in which Solomon, David’s son and heir, is mentioned by name.13 After a brief episodic account of his divinely assisted rout of the Philistines (2 Sam 5:17–25), the focus returns to Jerusalem for an extended coverage of David taking the ark of the covenant there. This act establishes the political capital of the kingdom as the cultic center of Israel.14 David’s first attempt to transfer the ark is described as a major military operation: “David again gathered all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. And David arose and went with all the people who were with him from Baalejudah, to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the name of the Lord of hosts who sits enthroned on the cherubim” (2 Sam 6:1–2).15 T. Kleven comments: “Verses 1–10 present the story of the initial attempt to bring the ark to Jerusalem. Verse 1 introduces the episode by noting the military preparations David makes for the task. David is prepared for a fierce war and gathers both the best and a goodly number of troops (30,000) so that his intent will not be thwarted. . . . David’s military preparations are nonetheless a continuation of his military actions in 2 Samuel 5.” 16 The initial attempt, punctuated by several serious infractions of the law, is aborted.17 The second attempt, however, proves successful: “David went and brought up the ark of God . . . to the city of David with rejoicing; and when those who bore the ark of the Lord had gone six paces, he sacrificed an ox and a fatling” (2 Sam 6:12–13).18 With the description of David’s sacrificial offerings, the narrative introduces a new cultic role for the king. This role is underscored in the very next verse (6:14), where David is described as being “girded with a linen ephod.” His cultic role is reinforced in 6:17–19: “And they brought in the ark of the Lord, and set it in its place,19 inside the tent which David had pitched for it; and David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord. And when David had finished offering the burnt offerings and the peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts, and distributed among all the people, the whole multitude of Israel, both men and women, to each a cake of bread, a measure of wine,20 and a cake of raisins.” This passage raises an important question: How does one explain David’s cultic activities on this occasion, especially in light of their priestlike characteristics? This question will be explored later in this chapter. For now, it is important to recognize that David aspires to act as a “royal priest.” Several details in 6:13–18 bear this out. To begin with, 2 Samuel 6:13–14 states that David offers animal sacri-

The Davidic Grant-Type Covenant  |  181

fices while wearing a linen ephod. Kleven explains the priestly significance of David’s garb: Verse 14 says that David wears a linen ephod. A. Phillips argues that it is not a priestly garment because in 1 Sam 2:18 the boy Samuel wears such a linen ephod and a priestly ephod would be out of place for a child. But the point of 1 Sam 2:18 is that Samuel is ministering before the Lord, and he may well be a young priest-in-training. There are also several instances in the Former Prophets in which the mention of an ephod is the principal indication of priestly function. Gideon makes an ephod in order to establish a priest in Ophrah (Judg 8:27). In 1 Sam 14:3 Ahiah, one of Eli’s descendants, is wearing the ephod and is consulted by Saul. Ahimelech possesses an ephod in 21:9 and when he flees to David in 23:9. The best example is in [1 Sam] 22:18 in which the phrase ‘to wear a linen ephod’ is synonymous with being a priest. The mention of a linen ephod in 2 Sam 6:14 is a bold affirmation that ­David is wearing priestly attire for the celebration [my emphasis].21 Further, 2 Samuel 6:17a states that the ark was placed “inside the tent which David pitched for it.” This language describes a duty that is normally reserved for Levites (Num 1:51; 4:1–33). David also is said to have “offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord” (6:17b). Again, this would have normally been considered a priestly task (Num 3:6–8, 14–38; 4:47; 6:16–17; 8:14–26). After sacrificing, David is said to have “blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts” (6:18), an act typically assigned to the priests (Num 6:22–27; Deut 10:8; 21:5). Clearly, the narrative portrays David as acting like a priest-king when he brought the ark of the covenant into Jerusalem.22 In this light, David’s request to build a temple in 2 Samuel 7:1–2 may be interpreted as the climactic expression of his royal priestly activities in the preceding chapter: “Now when the king dwelt in his house, and the Lord had given him rest23 from all his enemies round about, the king said to Nathan the prophet, ‘See now, I dwell in a house of cedar but the ark of God dwells in a tent.’ ” 24 After initially approving David’s request (v. 3), Nathan reversed his decision the next day on the basis of a nocturnal revelation from God (2 Sam 7:4–17).25 The opening verses underscore Yahweh’s attitude towards the ambitious king and aspiring priest, David. Yahweh refers to him as “my servant.”

182  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

In addition, the superfluous and nonessential character of any temple­building project is highlighted (7:5–7). Yahweh speaks of David’s lowly start as a shepherd and of how all of his apparent accomplishments—past and ­future—have been essentially unilateral and utterly gratuitous divine grants. These include David’s military exploits and royal privileges (7:9), as well as the divine favors that God has lavished on Israel (7:10). The oracle then reaches a crescendo, “And hereby the Lord declares to you . . .” (7:11b).26 The main message of dynastic promise is now ready for disclosure (7:11–16): The Lord will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men; but I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me, your throne shall be established for ever.27 The opening statement sets forth the center of the divine promise, “the Lord will make you a house” (7:11). The subsequent verses reveal—by means of a wordplay on “house”—the threefold meaning of the promise.28 The first sense of God’s promise to David about building a “house” carries the meaning of a dynasty to be established through one of his sons (7:12). The second sense refers to the Temple which the son would build (7:13). The third sense carries a family connotation that is linked to God’s momentous declaration of divine sonship: “I will be his father, and he shall be my son” (7:14).29 It is this third sense that constitutes the heart of the covenant relationship. It represents the foundation for the “house” which is to be built according to the other two senses, that is, the dynasty and the temple. The momentous declaration of sonship in 7:14 is unique and significant. Unlike previous instances where divine sonship is applied collectively (e.g., to Israel, Exod 4:22), it is applied here to an individual person (i.e., ­Solomon—although a corporate sense also fits, at least secondarily, since it relates to the Davidic line and dynastic office). On the one hand, this declaration does not denote divine sonship by nature, at least not pri-

The Davidic Grant-Type Covenant  |  183

marily. On the other hand, the “sonship” spoken of here must not be relegated to a purely legal sense, much less to a mere metaphor.30 Rather, the pledge designates divine sonship by covenant, and hence, by divine oath.31 After Nathan’s oracle manifests these various purposes for God building a “house” (i.e., the Davidic dynasty and Solomonic Temple), David’s subsequent response discloses God’s purpose for the Davidic covenant at yet another level (2 Sam 7:18–29). This purpose is revealed by David’s bold exclamation (rendered literally here): “O Lord God, thou hast spoken also of thy servant’s house for a great while to come; this is the law for man” (7:19).32 The blessings that will flow from God’s covenant with David extend not only to David and his sons, but to all humanity. W. C. Kaiser comments: “With the realization that he had just been granted an everlasting dynasty, dominion, and kingdom, David blurted out in uncontainable joy: ‘And this is the Charter for all mankind, O Lord God!’ So the ancient promise of blessing to all mankind would continue; only now it would involve David’s dynasty, throne, and kingdom. Indeed, it was a veritable ‘charter’ granted as God’s gift for the future of mankind.” 33 Likewise, Beecher states: “What is this ‘torah of mankind?’ . . . The most natural understanding is that ­David recognizes in the promise just made to him a renewal of the ancient promise of blessing for mankind. . . . There is no escaping the conclusion that . . . David recognized in the promise made to him a renewal of the promise made of old that all the nations should be blessed in Abraham and his seed.” 34 As the Mosaic covenant gave God’s torah to Israel, David envisions his covenant as imparting the gift of a divine torah to all humanity. Recalling the oath to Abraham regarding the divine blessing on all nations through his seed (Gen 22:16–18), we can agree with Kaiser: “The ‘blessing’ of Abraham is continued in this ‘blessing’ of David.” 35 In 7:18–29, David expresses joy over the twofold blessing which will ­accrue to his son: a divinely established worldwide dynasty and the privilege of building the Temple of Yahweh.36 David is denied his ultimate ambition—to build Yahweh’s Temple in Jerusalem—only to hear God promise that one of his sons will build it. David’s prayer shows that his priestly ambition is only surpassed by his fatherly joy at the prospect of one of his sons acquiring the object of his own holy desire.

184  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

The Content of the Divine Oath to David No oath is mentioned in Nathan’s oracle in 2 Samuel 7:5–16. This does not, however, present the same problem as with the Levitical covenant, because a divine oath to David is referred to elsewhere, namely, in several psalms (Pss 89:3–4, 35, 49; 110:4; 132:11). Taken individually, these psalms refer only to elements of the oath to David. A composite picture emerges through an analysis of each reference. Psalm 8937 refers to the most basic element of God’s oath to David: his pledge to establish David’s descendants on the throne for ever (see 89:3–4, 35–37, 49).38 The terms of God’s oath in these verses are remarkably similar to the pledge in 2 Samuel 7:11–19. After comparing the two versions, N. Sarna concludes that the elements of the divine oath in Psalm 89 “do not represent a different, independent recension of Nathan’s oracle to David, . . . [but] rather an exegetical adaptation of the oracle by the psalmist to fit a specific historic occasion.” 39 M. H. Floyd confirms this analysis and contrasts the original settings of Psalm 89 and Nathan’s oracle: “[T]he older version reflects a historical context in which the principle of dynastic succession remains to be established, and the construction of the temple is anticipated as a sacramental sign of the heir’s divine sonship.” 40 It is significant that Psalm 89 gives a more precise specification to the general idea of divine sonship than what is stated in 2 Samuel 7:14: “He shall cry to me, ‘Thou art my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’ And I will make him the first-born, the highest [ʿElyôn41] of the kings of the earth. My steadfast love I will keep for him for ever, and my covenant will stand firm for him” (Ps 89:26–27).42 The important notion of royal primogeniture reemerges here,43 a theme seen elsewhere in the Pentateuchal narratives (see Exod 4:22; Deut 32:43 [LXX]).44 In Psalm 89:26–27 it is applied to David—and by implication to all of his heirs in the dynastic line—on the basis of the divine covenant oath.45 For the purposes of investigating the divine oath given to David, Psalm 110 is more complex and more important than Psalm 89.46 Psalm 110 purports to be a Davidic psalm. However, Davidic authorship of Psalm 110 is much disputed, mainly because the psalm does not seem to fit the typical pattern of the “Davidic messianic psalm.” 47 The messianic psalms are generally drawn from David’s own experience (see Pss 16; 22; 69), whereas Psalm 110 depicts David as the one addressing the messianic figure as “my lord” (v. 1).48 The concern here, however, is not with the authorship of the Psalm.

The Davidic Grant-Type Covenant  |  185

The concern is to consider Psalm 110 from a canonical perspective. A canonical perspective allows for a respectful assimilation of the traditions reflected in the superscriptions. In Part Two of this study the Melchizedek argument in Hebrews calls for a heuristic approach in which one is willing to look through the interpretive lens of a first-century Jewish Christian (like the author of Hebrews and other New Testament writers) who almost certainly would have interpreted Psalm 110 as Davidic, and have built his argument accordingly.49 The approach taken here is geared to a critically sympathetic treatment of the Melchizedek argument in Hebrews 5–7, very much like earlier appropriations in this study of other interpretive traditions that reflect a canonical reading of the biblical narratives (e.g., Shem as Melchizedek; the original covenant of royal priestly primogeniture; the identification of Salem and Moriah with Jerusalem). The structure of Psalm 110 is neat and orderly. It can be divided into two stanzas (vv. 1–3 and vv. 4–7), both of which have 74 syllables. Its chiastic structure points to the centrality of the divine oath:50 A The Lord installs the king (v. 1) B The king is sent out to conquer (v. 2) C The day of power (v. 3) D The Lord swears a solemn oath (v. 4) 1 C The day of wrath (v. 5) B1 The king goes out to conquer (v. 6) A1 The Lord installs the king (v. 7) The original setting of Psalm 110 points to the royal cult in Jerusalem, where it was probably sung as an enthronement psalm.51 As a royal cult song of enthronement, Psalm 110 would have been sung whenever God’s covenant oath to David was fulfilled, at least provisionally, with the accession of every royal son of David’s line. In this manner, it would have drawn attention both to the divine purpose for David’s royal line and to the divine authority upholding it. The opening verse is the most problematic in the Psalm for trying to maintain a Davidic interpretation: “The Lord [YHWH] says to my Lord [laʾdōnî]. . . .” Who would David address as “my lord” (ʾădonî) in this oracle from Yahweh? After Samuel had anointed David as king (1 Sam 16:11–13), David used “my lord” to refer to King Saul (1 Sam 24:6–10; 26:17–19) as well as to Achish (the Philistine king—1 Sam 29:8). Although the phrase was used by David to address certain kings, neither Saul nor Achish qualify as likely candidates for the “Lord” (ʾādôn) in Psalm 110:1.

186  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

The only other royal candidate in David’s lifetime would have been Solomon. Importantly, the circumstances surrounding Solomon’s accession and co-regency with David offer a plausible background for interpreting Psalm 110. A turbulent period of royal transition ensued right before ­David died. As Adonijah jockeyed for power with Solomon (1 Kgs 1:5–2:25), ­David intervened, overseeing Solomon’s succession and coronation in a dramatic series of events.52 First, David renewed his oath to Bathsheba regarding their son’s crown rights: And the king swore, saying, “As the Lord lives, who has redeemed my soul out of every adversity, as I swore to you by the Lord, the God of Israel, saying ‘Solomon your son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne in my stead’ even so will I do this day.” Then Bathsheba bowed with her face to the ground, and did obeisance to the king, and said, “May my lord King David live for ever!” (1 Kgs 1:29–31) 53 David then spoke to Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada: And the king said to them, “Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride on my own mule, and bring him down to Gihon; and let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet there anoint him king over Israel; then blow the trumpet, and say, ‘Long live King Solomon!’ You shall then come up after him, and he shall come and sit upon my throne; for he shall be king in my stead; and I have appointed him to be ruler over Israel and over Judah.” And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada answered the king, “Amen! May the Lord, the God of my lord the king, say so. As the Lord has been with my lord the king, even so may he be with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my lord King David.” (1 Kgs 1:33–37) 54 Upon hearing the noise of the celebration of Solomon’s coronation, ­Abiathar’s son Jonathan announced the news of Solomon’s accession to Adonijah and his followers: Our lord King David has made Solomon king. . . . This is the noise that you have heard. Solomon sits upon the royal throne.

The Davidic Grant-Type Covenant  |  187

Moreover, the king’s servants came to congratulate our lord King David, saying, “Your God make the name of Solomon more famous than yours, and make his throne greater than your throne.” And the king bowed himself upon the bed. And the king also said, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, who has granted one of my offspring to sit on my throne this day, my own eyes seeing it.” (1 Kgs 1:43, 45–48) The description in 1 Kings 1 provides a plausible life setting for David to address Psalm 110 to Solomon on the day that Solomon became king and thus his father’s “lord.” It remains to examine Yahweh’s oath in 110:4: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.’ ” Two things about this oath are remarkable. First, apart from Genesis 14, this is the only other reference to the priest-king Melchizedek in the entire Old Testament; yet he serves as a model for the Davidic king in Jerusalem. Second, while it is practically certain that the oath in verse 4 refers to the same divine covenant as the one given in Nathan’s oracle, it is strikingly different from the divine pledge stated in 2 Samuel 7 or the oath echoed in Psalm 89. How, then, does one correlate the different versions of the divine pledge, especially given the unique content of the oath regarding Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4? This question will be answered in two stages of analysis. The first stage calls for a brief consideration of yet another version of God’s covenant oath to David found in Psalm 132.55 As a Royal Song of Ascent, this psalm is not attributed to David, although Dahood argues that it “appears to have been composed in the tenth century as part of the liturgy for the feast when the ark was carried in procession to Jerusalem.” 56 Perhaps it would be more precise to say, following K. Seybold and C. L. Seow, that Psalm 132 is built around an archaic core (vv. 3–9, 11–18), traceable to the Davidic period.57 In any case, scholars commonly read it against the backdrop of God’s covenant with David, along with the procession of the ark of the covenant into Jerusalem that David led in 2 Samuel 6.58 The bipartite structure of Psalm 132 reveals both poetic artistry and theological insight, as Seow explains: “As it stands, the poem may be divided into two halves of ten lines each (Part A: vv 1–10; Part B: vv 11–18). The first half concerns the fulfillment of David’s oath to YHWH; the second half concerns YHWH’s oath to David. In vocabulary and themes, the two halves mirror one another, indicating an intricate structure that must have been the work of a skillful composer.” 59 The structure of Psalm 132

188  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

reveals the importance of the sworn oaths of both David (vv. 1–2) and God (v. 11). God responds to David’s oath by swearing an oath of his own to establish David’s kingdom in Zion: A David’s sworn oath (vv. 1–2) B Zion: God’s habitation for rest and dwelling (vv. 3–8) C Priests clothed as the saints shout (v. 9) D David declared to be the Lord’s anointed (v. 10) 1 A Yahweh’s sworn oath (v. 11) B2 Zion: God’s habitation for rest and dwelling (vv. 12–15) C3 Priests clothed as the saints shout (v. 16) D4 David declared to be the Lord’s anointed  (vv. 17–18) The bipartite structure functions to highlight two key points. First, ­ avid’s oath-bound action was to find “the place” and then to bring the ark D there to rest. Second, Yahweh’s oath-bound reward was given to David because he brought the ark to “the place” of divine rest and habitation. Seow comments: The apologist thus composed a poem about two oaths, the one of David to YHWH (vv. 1–10) and the other of YHWH to ­David (vv. 11–18), emphasizing the bond between the deity and the anointed. That bond was established because David carried out his oath to YHWH to establish a place for the deity, which he did by inviting the deity to the (royal) “resting-place”—that is, by bringing the ark in procession to Jerusalem. That event resulted in the establishing of a place for David, namely, in the promise of an enduring dynasty for David and the election of Zion as ­Y HWH’s abode. “Here” (‫ֹפּה‬, v 14) the deity chose to be enthroned and “there” (‫ׇשׁם‬, v 17) the descendants of David would have their eternal reign.60 The divine pledge in 2 Samuel 7:11–16 thus serves as the likely source for God’s oath in Psalm 132: “One of the sons of your body I will set on your throne. If your sons keep my covenant and my testimonies which I shall teach them, their sons also for ever shall sit upon your throne” (vv. 11–12).61 It seems clear that the first half of Psalm 132 points to David’s role in the ark procession in 2 Samuel 6, while the second half refers to God’s re-

The Davidic Grant-Type Covenant  |  189

sponse to David with the covenant in 2 Samuel 7. The procession of the ark in the first half of the psalm represented a sworn act of public piety on David’s part, something not even alluded to in 2 Samuel 6. Thus, Psalm 132 suggests that David’s action in 2 Samuel 6 elicited from God the covenant sworn in 2 Samuel 7. This seems to confirm and explain two of the conclusions reached in the earlier analysis of 2 Samuel 6–7. The first conclusion showed how David’s priestlike behavior in 2 Samuel 6 was closely linked within the narrative to his priestly request to build the Temple in 2 Samuel 7 (a request denied by Yahweh). Once Psalm 132 is interpreted against the background of 2 Samuel 6–7, the significance of Yahweh’s refusal becomes clearer. Psalm 132 reveals that God refused David’s request in order to grant him something far greater: an everlasting dynasty established by a divine covenant oath with one of his sons, who was destined to build the “Temple-house” of Yahweh. According to Psalm 132, all of this was in response to David faithfully executing his oath to bring the ark into Jerusalem. The second conclusion showed how David’s royal priestly ambitions were closely linked in the narrative to Jerusalem—which he had just conquered. Once Psalm 132 is interpreted against the backdrop of 2 Samuel 6–7, the central importance of Jerusalem also becomes clearer, especially in light of its prior election by God (Ps 132:13–14). The fact that God had previously chosen “the place” for the ark may explain the seemingly disproportionate divine reward for David simply fulfilling his sworn duty to bring it into Jerusalem. At the same time, it may also explain why David desired and knew where to bring the ark and build the Temple in the first place. In other words, God’s prior choice of Zion may provide the underlying rationale for his extravagant covenant grant in response to King David’s priestlike actions, even as David’s royal priestly activities may be explained in terms of his own awareness of God’s previous election of Jerusalem. Still, it may be asked, how did David learn of God’s prior selection of Jerusalem? It is one thing to explain David’s decision to make Jerusalem his royal capital and build his palace there, on the basis of its strategic location and reputation as an invincible fortress.62 It is quite another to explain his royal priestly aspirations surrounding the ark and the Temple. Why did he bring the ark to Jerusalem? Why did he request to build the Temple there? 63 Why did King David begin performing priestlike actions only after he began to establish Jerusalem as the cultic center of Israel? Why did he not initiate such things in Hebron? Or Baale-judah (= Kiriath-jearim; see 2 Sam 6:2 and 1 Chr 13:6) when the ark was there? Or Gibeon, where the Tabernacle was located for many years (1 Chr 16:39; 21:29; 1 Kgs 3:4–5; 2 Chr 1:3–6)?

190  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

These questions introduce a second stage in attempting to correlate and understand the different versions of the divine oath to David. The preliminary findings concerning the three distinct but very similar versions of God’s covenant pledge to David in 2 Samuel 7, Psalm 89, and Psalm 132 will be applied to Psalm 110. Of particular interest is the anomaly (or clue?) in Psalm 110:4—the reference to Melchizedek. The purpose in this second stage is to establish a working hypothesis regarding King David’s purported understanding of Jerusalem as it relates to his priestly behavior and God’s covenant oath. This involves a two-step procedure. First, the connection between Melchizedek’s Salem and David’s Jerusalem needs to be underscored. Second, the parallels between the royal priestly actions of Melchizedek and David in Salem/Jerusalem need to be shown. A hypothesis will be drawn from the results of these two steps and then applied to Psalm 110:4 for the purpose of explaining why God’s oath addresses David’s son and dynastic heir as a priest like Melchizedek. The link between David’s Jerusalem and Melchizedek’s Salem is explicitly underscored in Psalm 76:1–2: “In Judah God is known, his name is great in Israel. His abode has been established in Salem, his dwelling place in Zion.” Salem and Zion are thus identified by the poetic device of synonymous parallelism. They represent Jerusalem, the city chosen by Yahweh for his abode and dwelling place (i.e., the Temple). God’s choice of Jerusalem is thus traced back to its ancient rootage in Abraham’s day. Salem was the place where Melchizedek ruled as a priest-king (Gen 14:17–21). Booij comments: “Behind Ps cx 4 the following question is to be suspected: why may an Israelite, a worshipper of YHWH, reign from Zion? (Cf. v. 2 and Ps ii 2–3.) The answer is: because in Melchizedek’s time already YHWH, the Most High, had his dwelling-place there (cf. Ps lxxvi 1–2). In the general conception of Ps cx the sovereign’s power is founded in the favour and will of YHWH. V. 4 adds a point of view: the sovereign rules as a priest of YHWH, and he does rightfully so because of Melchizedek, who in ancient times served God the Most High in Jerusalem.” 64 Another connection between Jerusalem and Salem is the Chronicler’s tacit identification of Jerusalem with another major incident in Abraham’s experience, the offering of Isaac on Mount Moriah: “Then Solomon began to build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the Lord had appeared to David his father, at the place that David had appointed, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite” (2 Chr 3:1). In this text, three identification markers converge, indicating the same location: (1) the site of God’s oath to Abraham (Moriah) following the Aqedah (Gen 22:1–19), (2) the site of

The Davidic Grant-Type Covenant  |  191

the future Temple, and (3) the site of an episode that occurred at some undisclosed point in David’s royal career, when he offered sacrifices in Jerusalem, apparently on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite (see 2 Sam 24:1–25 // 1 Chr 21:1–22:1).65 The narrative of 2 Samuel 24 describes this obscure incident when David took cultic measures to counteract a pestilence sent as divine retribution for his census taking. When the pestilence reached Jerusalem and threatened to destroy it, “the Lord repented of the evil, and said to the angel who was working destruction among the people, ‘It is enough; now stay your hand.’ And the angel of the Lord was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite” (2 Sam 24:16). The Chronicler further adds: “And David lifted his eyes and saw the angel of the Lord standing between earth and heaven, and in his hand a drawn sword stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces. And David said to God, ‘Was it not I who gave command to number the people? It is I who have sinned and done very wickedly. But these sheep, what have they done? Let thy hand, I pray thee, O Lord my God, be against me and against my father’s house; but let not the plague be upon thy people’ ” (1 Chr 21:16– 17). David was then instructed by the prophet Gad: “Go up, rear an altar to the Lord on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite” (2 Sam 24:18; see 1 Chr 21:18, Araunah = Ornan). After purchasing ­A raunah’s threshing floor, “David built there an altar to the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. So the Lord heeded supplications for the land, and the plague was averted from Israel” (2 Sam 24:25).66 To this the Chronicler adds: “Then David said, ‘Here shall be the house of the Lord God and here the altar of burnt offering for Israel” (1 Chr 22:1). R. B. Dillard comments: “The Chronicler not only adds the material designating Ornan’s threshing floor as the temple site, but he also makes an identification of this location with Mt. Moriah, an identification unique to 2 Chronicles 3:1. The imagery is pregnant: at the same site where Abraham once held a knife over his son (Gen 22:1–19), David sees the angel of the Lord with sword ready to plunge into Jerusalem. In both cases death is averted by sacrifice. The temple is established there as the place where Israel was perpetually reminded that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin (Heb 9:22).” 67 There are other notable parallels between this incident in David’s life and the Aqedah. Each man “lifted his eyes and saw”: Genesis 22:13 “And Abraham lifted his eyes and saw . . .” 1 Chronicles 21:16 “And David lifted his eyes and saw . . .”

192  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

Further, in both episodes the angel of the Lord plays a decisive role. With Abraham, the angel is instrumental in sparing Isaac; with David, the angel spares Jerusalem. Both accounts end with a holocaust and a subtle reference to the future Temple site (Gen 22:14; 1 Chr 22:1).68 While much about the episode mentioned in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21–22 remains enigmatic, two things are clear. First, it represents the only occasion in David’s royal career other than 2 Samuel 6 where the biblical narrative describes him as performing a priestly role (and in Jerusalem no less). Second, this incident represents both the cause for and the occasion of David coming to know that God had chosen Jerusalem. Moreover, the biblical narrative does not present this divine disclosure to David in a vacuum. It is explicitly linked to one of the most important events in the canonical record: Abraham’s offering of Isaac and God’s sworn oath to bless all nations through his seed. This older oath bears a striking resemblance to the substance of God’s covenant pledge to David regarding his seed. This was made especially clear from the king’s exuberant remark about the divine oracle representing “the Charter for humanity” (2 Sam 7:19b). The biblical narrative also links Jerusalem and the events of 2 Samuel 6 to the Melchizedek encounter (Gen 14:27–20). After Abram’s successful campaign against those who had been in control of the promised land (Gen 14:17–21), Melchizedek, the priest-king of Salem, brought out bread and wine, and then pronounced a blessing on Abram. In 2 Samuel 6, following his conquest of Jerusalem—the last great bastion city-state of Canaan to fall—David performs an analogous act with Israel and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Many scholars recognize a general correlation between the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants.69 There are, however, a number of significant parallels between Melchizedek and David—most notably on the occasion when the latter acted like a priest-king in 2 Samuel 6–7. O. Keel comments: As builder of the temple, the king is responsible for its maintenance and for the cultus which is carried on in it. In the enthronement psalm 110, the Israelite king is awarded the priestly office in an oath sworn by Yahweh (v. 4). The concentration of the kingly and priestly offices in a single person places the Israelite king in the succession of the ancient kings of Jerusalem. The prototype is Melchizedek, who was simultaneously king and priest of the highest god (Gen 14:18 [RSV: ‘God Most High’]). The priestly activity of David and his successors is the subject of 2 Sam 6:14, 18;

The Davidic Grant-Type Covenant  |  193

24:17; 1 Kgs 8:14, 56. The king wears priestly attire (2 Sam 6:14), blesses the people, intercedes for the cult community, and presides over the rites. Indeed, he even offers sacrifice (1 Sam 13:9; 2 Sam 6:13, 17) and approaches God like the high priest.70 In light of parallels such as these, the hypothesis can now be stated: King David’s priestlike behavior in 2 Samuel 6–7 may be interpreted in terms of his aspiration to be a “new Melchizedek.” 71 Benjamin Mazar comes close to this appraisal: “Obviously the figure of Melchizedek played a central part in ancient Jerusalemite tradition, and the subsequent rulers regarded themselves as his legitimate heirs and as bearing the twofold title of king and priest. Evidence of this may be found in Ps 110, attributed to David, which contains the strange passage: ‘The Lord has sworn and will not relent [sic], “Thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” ’ Thus the Davidic ruler of Jerusalem is presented as ‘priest forever.’ ” 72 He further states: “This is inferred by several experiences associated with David and Solomon, by priestly and prophetic literary allusions, by the role played by Solomon in building the Temple and consecrating it, but especially by Ps 110.” 73 Understood in this light, Psalm 110:4 (“The Lord has sworn . . . ‘You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek’ ”) takes on a fresh and deeper meaning. Here David restates the divine oath in a way not explicitly stated in the other versions (i.e., 2 Sam 7; Pss 89, 132). Indeed, the oath may never have been stated precisely in the words of Psalm 110:4, but its formulation captures a profundity of meaning that is true to the original.74 The content of the oath points to God’s dynastic establishment of David’s line through a son who is divinely adopted. The son is thereby authorized to build the Temple and rule as priest-king in Jerusalem.75 It may be inferred from David’s response to Nathan’s oracle (2 Sam 7:18– 29), that the king’s priestly ambition was surpassed only by his paternal joy at hearing that God pledged to give to the dynastic heir the deepest desires of his father’s heart (i.e., to build a temple for Yahweh). This sort of fatherly bliss seems to lie behind the language of lordship in Psalm 110:1. It also finds expression in David’s interpretive rendition of the divine oath regarding his son’s prerogatives as priest-king in Psalm 110:4. King David’s expression of delight in both texts appears to reflect his appreciation of the twofold importance of the father-son relationship: first, with respect to the natural bond between himself and Solomon; second, with respect to the covenantal bond between Yahweh and the royal seed of his line. Both aspects of the father-son relationship are theologically significant.

194  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

The great importance, however, of the covenantal bond between Yahweh and the royal seed, entailing, as it does, the notion of divine sonship, calls for further consideration.

The Divine Sonship of the Davidic King The Israelite conception of the king’s divine sonship involves a number of complex issues over which there is presently intense scholarly disagreement. In particular, there is disagreement over the background and source(s) of the Israelite king’s divine sonship. The debate, with all of its intricacies, cannot be rehearsed here—much less resolved. Instead, some brief observations are given that touch on the background and source(s) of royal divine sonship in Israel, particularly as they relate to the Davidic covenant. To begin, it is not necessary to interpret the language of divine sonship in purely metaphorical terms,76 although it is occasionally used that way in some texts.77 Conversely, it will not do simply to appeal to non-Israelite sources (e.g., Egyptian and Canaanite) where divine sonship is ascribed to a king in the literal sense of physical begetting, in order to conclude that Israelites conceived of the Davidic king as a deus incarnatus.78 Most interpreters reject these extremes—the metaphorical and the literal. Instead, they usually opt for one of two parallel approaches that are only slightly less extreme: the legal-adoptionist or the natural-mythical. The adoptionist approach views the language of royal divine sonship in legal (i.e., nonliteral) terms drawn from the ancient laws and practices concerning adoption in Israel.79 Scholars who take this approach often emphasize the covenant, but they usually understand it in a strictly (and somewhat one-sidedly) legal sense.80 The mythical approach interprets the language of royal divine sonship in terms of the striking parallels found in materials pertaining to kingship in Egypt and Israel.81 Along similar lines, others, like Cross, insist that Egyptian influences reached Israel through the mediation of Canaanite royal theology.82 Those who stress the Egyptian/Canaanite background, however, do not necessarily rule out the importance and influence of the covenant. Moreover, unlike many who take the adoptionist view, adherents of the mythical view generally recognize the cultic dimension as well as liturgical (and other nonlegal) elements of the covenant. Some scholars have suggested that a more balanced and integrated approach is needed for interpreting the royal divine sonship language—one

The Davidic Grant-Type Covenant  |  195

that recognizes the merits as well as the nonexclusive validity of the adoptionist and mythical approaches.83 Mettinger argues that the Israelite conception of royal divine sonship is essentially “adoptionist,” based on his understanding of God’s oath as a “performative utterance.” On the other hand, he recognizes that there is a genetic link with the Egyptian mythological conception, one that subsequently underwent what he calls an interpretatio israelitica.84 Thus, Mettinger’s view still allows mythical elements to be retained, but within the adoptionist framework supplied by the “perfomative utterance” of God, namely, his covenant oath. Mettinger’s understanding lends itself to the development of a more integrated approach, one that could be termed “covenantal-realist.” At the heart of this approach lies the divine oath, understood as a “performative utterance” of God. The oath does what it declares, i.e., whatever God swears is done ipso facto. In this case, the oath makes the king his own son. The net effect is a sacramental conception of the king’s divine sonship based on God’s covenant oath.85 The covenantal-realist interpretation draws on the strengths of the previous approaches, while avoiding certain weaknesses which appear to be based on misunderstandings of the adoptionist and mythical views. For instance, the adoptionist view is misunderstood by those who think it means that the king’s adoptive sonship is simply a legal fiction. Such a conclusion does not necessarily follow, since no law allows for adoption between parties who do not share the same nature, at least in some sense (i.e., masters may adopt slaves, but not dogs). Likewise, the mythical view is misunderstood by those who insist that mythological language used to describe the king as a real live son of god must have been interpreted in a strictly literal fashion—in both Egypt and Israel. Actually, the language of myth is part of a complex metaphor system that many cultures use to convey historical and political events in figurative terms to invest them with deeper religious significance. Once the adoptionist and mythical approaches are properly understood, their heuristic strengths may be seen to converge toward a covenantal conception of divine sonship between God and the king. Divine sonship is thus understood as a reality granted by divine oath. At the same time it remains a mystery exceeding the natural powers possessed by the king. Psalm 110 displays the sacramental quality of the divine sonship of the Davidic heir precisely on the occasion of his enthronement as priest-king in Jerusalem—when the divine oath is rehearsed and the royal covenant is renewed.

196  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

The Relationship of the Davidic Covenant to Other Biblical Covenants The preceding analysis of the king’s divine sonship invites a comparison between the Davidic grant-type covenant and other divine covenants (i.e., Abrahamic, Mosaic, and the New covenants). The link between the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants is clearly manifest, as many scholars have noted. In particular, there are four clear points of theological resemblance and thematic overlap between the two covenants. First and foremost, both are grant-type covenants involving a divine oath that is directed at blessing all nations through the promised seed. Second, the Abrahamic covenant involves three promissory elements (i.e., land, kingship, and world blessing). All three of these are fulfilled in the Davidic covenant, at least provisionally.86 Third, Abraham and David are both archetypal father figures whose faithful obedience caused their sons to receive a covenant grant of blessing by divine oath in connection with Jerusalem. Fourth, from a canonical reading of the Old Testament, Abraham and David are the sole witnesses to the royal priesthood of Melchizedek. With respect to the Davidic and Mosaic covenants, it is easier to draw contrasts than comparisons.87 For one thing, they appear to represent two distinct covenant types. For another, the canonical treatment of the Davidic and Mosaic covenants varies widely according to the different canonical traditions in which they occur (e.g., the Deuteronomistic History, the Psalms, and the Chronicler).88 They are characterized by two varying responses by Israel to God and his appointed mediator. As a consequence, the two covenants effect two distinct and dissimilar types of relationship between God and his people, which produce (in turn) two distinct understandings and experiences of divine sonship. The king’s divine sonship differs somewhat from Israel’s, because it is identified with an individual, the Davidic heir.89 The corporate sense is not lost, however, since it applies to the dynastic line. Thus, the individual sense of royal divine sonship does not necessarily conflict with the corporate sense. For one thing, they both are conferred by covenant. For another, the king’s divine sonship may be seen as the perfection of the nation’s.90 From a canonical reading of the biblical narrative, the king’s divine sonship is to be understood as closely united to the nation’s. Indeed, the royal priestly primogeniture granted to David’s seed (2 Sam 7:14; Pss 110:4; 89:26–27) is inseparably linked to the “royal priesthood” which Israel, as

The Davidic Grant-Type Covenant  |  197

Abraham’s seed and God’s firstborn son (Exod 3:6–17; 4:22), was offered at Sinai (Exod 19:5–6). Together, the king and the nation of Israel share a covenant call to divine sonship as well as a participation in the fraternal mission to their younger brother nations. In this light, the covenant grant of divine sonship to the Davidic king seems to respond to the apparent forfeiture of royal priestly primogeniture by Israel at Sinai and Beth-peor. As was previously discussed, this loss took place at two levels: at the corporate level for Israel as the “firstborn” nation, and at the individual level for Israel’s firstborn sons. By fulfilling certain key aspects of the Deuteronomic covenant, David is granted a covenant that restores divine sonship, in general, and royal priestly primogeniture, in particular.91 In other words, both levels are restored in the person of the royal heir and in the institution of the royal dynasty. At the same time, the Davidic covenant appears to retain at least a note of the conditional elements of the Mosaic covenant. This is evident from several texts, especially from 2 Samuel 7:14 and Psalm 89:26–36.92 A question arises: How can conditionality be reconciled with the unconditional aspect of the Davidic grant? The texts themselves suggest a principle that integrates the conditional and unconditional aspects. Conditionality is first introduced into the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7:14: “I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men.” However, immediately preceding the condition an affirmation of divine sonship had been given. Similarly, Psalm 89:26–36 reads: He shall cry to me, “Thou art my Father,    my God, and the Rock of my salvation.” And I will make him the first-born,    the highest of the kings of the earth. My steadfast love I will keep for him for ever,    and my covenant will stand firm for him. I will establish his line for ever    and his throne as the days of the heavens. If his children forsake my law    and do not walk according to my ordinances, if they violate my statutes    and do not keep my commandments, then I will punish their transgression with the rod    and their iniquity with scourges; but I will not remove my steadfast love,

198  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

   or be false to my faithfulness. I will not violate my covenant,    or alter the word that went forth from my lips. Once for all I have sworn by my holiness;    I will not lie to David. His line shall endure for ever,    his throne as long as the sun before me. Once again, the threat of conditional punishment is prefaced by an affirmation of divine sonship. In this case it specifies the Davidic king’s status as God’s firstborn son. In other words, the threat of punishment comes precisely because of divine sonship, not in spite of it. Rather than a contradiction to be resolved or removed, the conditional and unconditional elements of David’s grant reflect the paradox—or better, the drama—of the covenant relationship between a father and his son. The heirs of his throne know themselves to be—like David himself—both servants and sons of God (2 Sam 7:8; Ps 89:20, 26–27). They are obligated to obey the covenant, but always as faithful sons. In turn, God must mete out righteous judgements, but always as a faithful father. Thus, no absolute contrast should be drawn between the Davidic and Mosaic covenants as conditional versus unconditional. Instead, a relative contrast may be drawn, at most, and only then in terms of two distinct developmental stages of divine sonship in the historical process of Israel’s covenant with God. In short, ever since Sinai, Israel has grown and matured as God’s son. That real (albeit slow and painful) progress is personally exemplified in David, just as it is permanently sealed in the Davidic covenant. Thus, the Davidic and Mosaic covenants may be contrasted as contraries since the Davidic grant-type covenant and the Deuteronomic treaty-type covenant both rest on the prior foundation of the Mosaic kinship-type covenant (Exod 19–24). This means that the divine sonship of Israel, as a nation, is ultimately based on and derived from the original covenant at Sinai. Only after it was violated did covenant vassalage overshadow Israel, taking the form of the Deuteronomic covenant. This raises another question concerning the divine sonship of the king and Israel. How does the Davidic grant of royal priestly primogeniture compare to that which Israel was offered but subsequently lost at Sinai and Beth-peor? More to the point, was Solomon’s royal grant something that he could lose? At one level, the question can easily be answered in the negative, for the unconditional grant of Solomon’s divine sonship is irrevocable. The irrevo-

The Davidic Grant-Type Covenant  |  199

cable nature of the grant establishes the basis and the conditions for the king’s personal punishments as well as his royal priestly privileges. At another level, an unworthy descendant may trigger the temporary suspension (and personal forfeiture) of the privileges of a grant-type covenant. What about Solomon’s royal priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek? Was this something he could lose? The canonical narrative does not provide a clear picture or an unambiguous answer. On the one hand, the Deuteronomistic history presents Solomon as a son of God and an ideal king who possessed divine wisdom to build the Temple of God. And yet, as Kruse points out: “This view of Solomon is contradictory: as the builder of the Temple he deserves the divine sonship promised to the individual Davidic offspring, but as a well-known sexual libertine and protector of pagan gods (which the Dtr could not afford to ignore—1 Kgs xi 1–8) he had to be punished (posthumously—1 Kgs xi 9–13) by the division of the Kingdom.” 93 In this light, it is striking that following his public act of dedicating the Temple in 1 Kings 8–9,94 no further mention is made of Solomon acting as a priest-king. This fact may be linked to what is narrated in the next two chapters, in which Solomon flagrantly violates three of the main stipulations of the Deuteronomic law for the king (Deut 17:14–17).95 Solomon’s sin is similar in some respects to Israel’s sins at Sinai and Bethpeor. Perhaps for that very reason, the canonical record implies that Solomon should be regarded as having personally forfeited the right to exercise the fullness of royal priestly authority which he possessed as the anointed son of David. While one can only speculate, it is striking that no later Davidic king ever acted as a priest-king. The strange episode of King Uzziah, who contracts leprosy after performing the Levitical/priestly task of burning incense on the altar (Num 4:16; Deut 33:10), may be a case in point that illustrates the forfeiture of the active priesthood (see 2 Chr 26:16–21). The postexilic priesthood reverted back to an exclusively Zadokite monopoly (see Ezek 44:9–18).96 After the exile, the high priest wears the crown of royal power, at least according to Zechariah’s vision: And the word of the Lord came to me. . . . Take from them silver and gold, and make a crown and set it upon the head of Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, the high priest; and say to him, “Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall grow up in his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord. It is he who shall build the temple of the Lord, and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule upon his throne.’ ” (Zech 6:9–13) 97

200  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

Yet somehow, the divine oath to David regarding the covenant grant to establish his seed as a priest-king like Melchizedek still abides. What, then, became of the divinely sworn covenant privilege to David regarding the royal priesthood remaining in his line for ever? This remains an open question in the canonical narrative. As was seen above, however, a grant-type covenant typically has a provision for just this sort of problem. If future descendants of the grantee spurn the grant (i.e., violate the proper and necessary conditions for its maintenance), the resultant crisis could be resolved (at least ideally) by searching for—and raising up—a faithful descendant who is worthy of the grant.98 The need for a worthy heir to administer the Davidic royal priestly grant calls for a righteous Davidic descendant. Indeed, this seems to represent the gist of God’s promissory oath, and hence Israel’s long-awaited hope through the ages— from the corruption and collapse of the monarchy, all the way through the centuries of their exile.99

The Davidic Covenant Constellation All of this points towards the New Testament, especially Luke–Acts, which presents Jesus as the Christ, the Son of David/God, whose birthplace, ministry, resurrection, and enthronement are all depicted in terms drawn from the Davidic covenant.100 In order to facilitate recognition of the strongly Davidic characterization of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, however, it is helpful to summarize here the characteristic features of the Davidic covenant and kingdom. We have observed that when the various texts from the Psalms and the (Former and Latter) Prophets are read together, an entire constellation of concepts, locations, and institutions intimately related to David, his legacy, and one another appears.101 At the center of the constellation is David and/or the Son of David. Within the constellation, the following eight characteristics or elements have a claim to being the brightest stars: 1. The Davidic monarchy was founded on a divine covenant (bĕrît MT, diathēkē LXX), the only royal house of the OT to enjoy such a privilege.102 2. The Davidic monarch was the Son of God.103 The filial relationship of the Davidide to God is expressed already in the foundational text of the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7:14), but is also found in other Davidic texts.104 As noted above, Fensham has demonstrated that “father”

The Davidic Grant-Type Covenant  |  201

and “son” are covenant terms, denoting the suzerain and vassal in a covenant relationship respectively.105 3. The Davidic monarch was the “Christ,” that is, the “Messiah” or “Anointed One.” The anointed status of the Davidic king was so integral to his identity that he is frequently referred to simply as “the anointed one” or “the Lord’s anointed.” 106 4. The Davidic monarchy was inextricably bound to Jerusalem, particularly Mt. Zion, which was the personal possession of David and his heirs (2 Sam 5:9), and would have had no significant role in Israelite history had not David made it his capital (see Josh 15:63; Judg 1:21; 19:10–12; 2 Sam 5:6–12).107 5. The Davidic monarchy was inextricably bound to the Temple. The building of the Temple was integrated into the terms of the Davidic covenant from the very beginning, as can be seen from the wordplay on “house” (“temple” or “dynasty”) in 2 Samuel 7:11–13.108 Therefore Ishida remarks, “The Temple was the embodiment of the covenant of David, in which the triple relationship between Yahweh, the House of David, and the people of Israel was established.” 109 Even after its destruction, the prophets remained firm in their conviction that YHWH would restore his Temple to its former glory as an international place of worship.110 6. The Davidic monarch ruled over all twelve tribes. It was only under David and the son of David, Solomon, that both Judah and all the northern tribes were united as one kingdom and freed from foreign oppression (2 Sam 5:1–5; 1 Kgs 4:1–19).111 For this reason the prophets associate the reunification of the northern tribes of Israel (“Ephraim”) and the southern tribes of Judah with the restoration of the Davidic monarchy.112 7. The Davidic monarch ruled over an international empire. David and Solomon ruled not only over Israel but also the surrounding nations.113 The Psalms theologically justify and celebrate this state of affairs,114 and the Prophets envision its restoration.115 8. The Davidic monarchy was to be everlasting. One of the most prevalent emphases in the Psalms and Deuteronomic history is that the Davidic dynasty will be eternal (2 Sam 7:16; 23:5; Ps 89:35–36). Not only the dynasty but the life span of the reigning monarch himself was described as everlasting (Pss 21:4; 72:5, 110:4).116

202  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

The New Exodus and the Restoration of the Davidic Covenant in the Prophets The most serious challenge to the viability of the Davidic constellation as the theological center of Israelite-Jewish belief after 587 bc was the fact of the Exile. The Exile destroyed or damaged most of the fixtures of the Davidic kingdom: the king (and queen mother) were deposed and exiled, Jerusalem and its Temple destroyed, hope for reunification of Israel and Judah lost, and the Gentiles raised to rulership rather than vassalage with respect to God’s people. The anguish and confusion caused by the destruction of this complex founded on what was believed to be an eternal, divine covenant are perhaps best expressed in Psalm 89: But now thou hast cast off and rejected,    thou art full of wrath against thy anointed. Thou hast renounced the covenant with thy servant;    thou hast defiled his crown in the dust. Thou hast breached all his walls;    thou hast laid his strongholds in ruins. All that pass by despoil him;    he has become the scorn of his neighbors . . . Lord, where is thy steadfast love of old,    which by thy faithfulness thou didst swear to David? Remember, O Lord, how thy servant is scorned;    how I bear in my bosom the insults of the peoples, with which thy enemies taunt, O Lord,    with which they mock the footsteps of thy anointed.  (Ps 89:38–51 RSV) In the crisis of faith provoked by the exile, the prophets responded in several ways. They insisted that the exile was a judgment on Israel’s covenant infidelity, not lack of fidelity on God’s part. Moreover, the future held hope: the Lord would enact a New Exodus. Although the people of Israel were now in bondage, scattered among the nations, nonetheless the Lord would lead them back to their land, just as he had redeemed them through Moses from Egyptian bondage so many years before. A great deal of scholarly attention has been paid to this theme in Isaiah, where it recurs in several places throughout the book, for example, 11:11–16:

The Davidic Grant-Type Covenant  |  203

In that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant which is left of his people, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Ethiopia, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea. . . . And the Lord will utterly destroy the tongue of the sea of Egypt; and will wave his hand over the River with his scorching wind, and smite it into seven channels that men may cross dryshod. And there will be a highway from Assyria for the remnant which is left of his people, as there was for Israel when they came up from the land of Egypt. (RSV) Here the release of the people from Assyria is explicitly compared to the Exodus from Egypt. Just as he parted the Red Sea, so he will split the River (the Euphrates) for the Assyrian exiles to return. Later in the Book of Isaiah, the prophetic author refers to the defeat of Pharaoh’s army by the sea, and proclaims that God is doing a “new” thing which will cause the miracles of the original Exodus to be forgotten: Thus says the Lord,    who makes a way in the sea,    a path in the mighty waters, who brings forth chariot and horse,    army and warrior; they lie down, they cannot rise,    they are extinguished, quenched like a wick: “Remember not the former things,    nor consider the things of old. Behold, I am doing a new thing. . . . I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the      desert . . .  to give drink to my chosen people. (Isa 43:16–20 RSV) The same comparison of the original and the coming exodus occurs elsewhere: “Was it not thou that didst dry up the sea, the waters of the great deep; that didst make a way for the redeemed to pass over? And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with singing” (Isa 51:10– 11 RSV). While the New Exodus theme in Isaiah has received well-deserved attention in the secondary literature, it is sometimes overlooked that the same

204  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

theme is found in several other prophets. In fact, perhaps the most explicit description of the New Exodus is found in Jeremiah: “Therefore, behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when it shall no longer be said, ‘As the Lord lives who brought up the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt,’ but ‘As the Lord lives who brought up the people of Israel out of the north country and out of all the countries where he had driven them.’ For I will bring them back to their own land which I gave to their fathers” (Jer 16:14– 15 RSV). Ezekiel prophesies similarly: I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you are scattered, with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out; and I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I will enter into judgment with you face to face. As I entered into judgment with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will enter into judgment with you, says the Lord God. I will make you pass under the rod, and I will let you go in by number. (Ezek 20:34–37) Here the eschatological return of Israel to her land is described with language from Exodus (“bring you out,” “mighty hand,” “outstretched arm”). Unique to Ezekiel is the note of judgment: just as God tested Israel in the wilderness of Egypt, he will do so once again in the “wilderness” of the nations. The New Exodus concept is also found in the minor prophets: In that day they will come to you, from Assyria to Egypt, and from Egypt to the River, from sea to sea and from mountain to mountain. . . . As in the days when you came out of the land of Egypt I will show them marvelous things. (Mic 7:12, 15 RSV) I will signal for them and gather them in, for I have redeemed them, and they shall be as many as of old. Though I scattered them among the nations, yet in far countries they shall remember me, and with their children they shall live and return. . . . They shall pass through the sea of Egypt,

The Davidic Grant-Type Covenant  |  205

and the waves of the sea shall be smitten, and all the depths of the Nile dried up”.  (Zech 10:8–9, 11 RSV) It is important to recognize, however, that the prophetic New Exodus is not a simple repetition of the first. The goal of the New Exodus is not Sinai. Moses does not return, nor do the people become reconstituted as a twelvetribe confederacy around the Tabernacle. Instead, the New Exodus ends at Zion, “David” is restored, and the people are reconstituted as a kingdom centered around the Zion Temple, ruling over the nations. Textual demonstration for this is not hard to find. Consider, for example, Jeremiah 23:5–8: Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. . . . Therefore, behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when men shall no longer say, “As the Lord lives who brought up the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt,” but “As the Lord lives who brought up and led the descendants of the house of Israel out of the north country and out of all the countries where he had driven them.” (RSV) Here the promise of the restoration of the Davidic king is placed side by side with the New Exodus motif. This same juxtaposition of the New Exodus with the restoration of “Zion”—and all that that implies—occurs in several prophetic texts (Isa 35:8–10; 51:9–11; 52:8–12; cf. 63:10–18, esp. v. 18 [“Sanctuary,” i.e. the Temple]; Jer 23:5–8; Ezek 20:33–40 [note v. 40 “holy mountain,” i.e., Zion]; 34:23–28 [esp. v. 26 “my hill,” and v. 28 “break bars of the yoke,” Exodus imagery]; cf. Zech 9:9–13 with 10:8–12). But even when the two themes are not immediately juxtaposed, the synchronic reader of the prophetic texts is forced to conclude that the New Exodus terminates in the restoration of the Davidic kingdom complex, because the prophets insist both that (1) there will be a new exodus from the exilic dispersion and also that (2) in the last times the Davidic monarchy and its institutions will be restored (Isa 9; 11; 55:3; Jer 3:14–18; 23:5–6; Ezek 34:23–24; 37:24–25; Mic 5:2–4; Amos 9:10–11). By contrast, the prophets say nothing of the raising up of Moses, never mention Sinai, and explicitly contrast the coming New Covenant with the one under Moses (e.g., Jer 31:31).117

206  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

Davidic Covenant Restoration in the Second Temple Literature The hope of a new exodus culminating in the restoration of the Davidic kingdom complex persists into the Second Temple literature.118 Especially from the mid-second century bce to the late first century ce there is substantial witness to a general Jewish expectation of the restoration of the Davidic kingdom in the Pseudepigrapha and the Dead Sea Scrolls.119 In what follows, we will look closely at the eschatological Davidic kingdom complex in two pseudepigraphical documents (the Psalms of Solomon and 4 Ezra) and several fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q246, 4Q252, and 4Q504). The Psalms of Solomon present the most striking and complete picture of the restored and transformed Davidic kingdom in the eschatological age, as compared with any other Second Temple document. Several features are of note. The ascription of authorship to Solomon is in itself significant, because Solomon is the archetype of the messiah in both biblical and Second Temple texts. Moreover, throughout Psalms of Solomon, “Solomon” assumes the posture of the innocent royal sufferer, a role he does not play in canonical literature. He laments to God on behalf of himself and all Israel, seeking restoration of the glory of Zion, the Holy City of Jerusalem. The climax of the work comes in Psalms 17 and 18, which foresee the coming of the “Lord Messiah.” Psalm 17 begins by emphasizing the eternal kingship of God: “Lord, you are our King forevermore, / In you, O God, does our soul take pride . . . / And the Kingdom of God is forever over the nations in judgment.” But the eternal kingship and Kingdom of God is not seen to be in conflict with David and his sons having eternal royal dominion over the world, for “Solomon” immediately begins to eulogize David and his dynasty: “Lord, you chose David to be king over Israel, / And swore to him about his descendants forever, / That his kingdom should not fail before you” (Pss. Sol. 17:4). The oath of eternal kingship referred to here is the Davidic covenant, drawing on Psalm 89, Psalm 132, 2 Samuel 22, etc. The eternal nature of this covenant gives it eschatological implications. Thus, after fourteen lines recounting the demise and exile of Israel, “Solomon” pleads with the Lord to remember and renew the covenant with David: “See, Lord, and raise up for them their king / The son of David, to rule over your servant Israel / In the time known to you, O God” (Pss. Sol. 17:22). This son of David is “the Lord Messiah” (v. 32) whose task is “to purge Jerusalem (and make it) holy” (v. 30), judge the tribes of Israel and distribute

The Davidic Grant-Type Covenant  |  207

them on their land (v. 28), and reign over all the nations (v. 29) “in wisdom and righteousness” (vv. 23, 35, 37) for eternity (v. 35). The writer of the Psalms of Solomon provides us in chapter 17 with one of the clearest examples of a synthetic and synchronic reading of the major eschatological passages of the OT in order to produce a composite picture of the eschaton: See, Lord, and raise up for them their king,    the son of David, to rule over your servant Israel    in the time known to you, O God. Undergird him with the strength to destroy the unrighteous      rulers,    to purge Jerusalem from gentiles    who trample her to destruction;    in wisdom and in righteousness to drive out    the sinners from the inheritance;    to smash the arrogance of sinners like a potter’s jar; To shatter all their substance with an iron rod;    to destroy the unlawful nations with the word of his      mouth; At his warning the nations will flee from his presence;    and he will condemn sinners by the thoughts of their      hearts. He will gather a holy people    whom he will lead in righteousness; and he will judge the tribes of the people    that have been made holy by the Lord their God. . . .  He will distribute them upon the land according to their      tribes;    the alien and foreigner will no longer live near them. He will judge peoples and nations in the wisdom of      righteousness. ​ ​Selah. And he will have gentile nations serving him under his      yoke,    and he will glorify the Lord in (a place) prominent      (above) the whole earth. And he will purge Jerusalem    (and make it) holy as it was even from the beginning, (for) nations to come from the ends of the earth to see his      glory,

208  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

   to bring as gifts her children who had been driven out, and to see the glory of the Lord    with which God has glorified her. And he will be a righteous king over them, taught by God. There will be no unrighteousness among them in his days,    for all shall be holy,    and their king shall be the Lord Messiah. . . . The Lord himself is his king,    the hope of the one who has a strong hope in God. He shall be compassionate to all the nations    (who) reverently (stand) before him. He will strike the earth with the word of his mouth forever;    he will bless the Lord’s people with wisdom and      happiness. And he himself (will be) free from sin, (in order) to rule a      great people. He will expose officials and drive out sinners    by the strength of his word. And he will not weaken in his days, (relying) upon his God,    for God made him powerful in the holy spirit    and wise in the counsel of understanding,    with strength and righteousness. And the blessing of the Lord will be with him in strength,    and he will not weaken; His hope (will be) in the Lord. Then who will succeed against him,    mighty in his actions and strong in the fear of the God? Faithfully and righteously shepherding the Lord’s flock,    he will not let any of them stumble in their pasture. He will lead them all in holiness    and there will be no arrogance among them,    that any should be oppressed. This is the beauty of the king of Israel    which God knew,    to raise him over the house of Israel to disicipline it.  (Pss. Sol. 17:21–26, 28–32, 34–42) 120 The primary subtext of Psalms of Solomon 17:21–46 is the Davidic­ essianic vision of Isaiah 11. Twice the author reiterates the vivid image m of the messiah peculiar to Isaiah 11: “smiting the earth with the rod of his

The Davidic Grant-Type Covenant  |  209

mouth” (Pss. Sol. 17:24, 35). But many other prophetic passages are also incorporated: the image of the messiah smashing the nations like an iron rod upon clay jars (v. 25) is taken from Psalm 2:9; the distribution of the land among the tribes of Israel (v. 29) from Ezekiel 45:8 and 47:13, 21; the Gentiles bringing the children of Israel to Jerusalem as offerings (v. 33) from Isaiah 66:20 (cf. 49:22–23); the pilgrimage of the nations to see the “glorified” Jerusalem (vv. 33–34) from Isaiah 55:5; the messiah who does not weary because he hopes in the Lord (vv. 41–43) from Isaiah 40:28–30 and 42:4; the eradication of “horse, rider, and bow” (v. 36) from Zechariah 9:9; the perfect righteousness of the Davidic messiah (vv. 29, 32, 36, etc.) from Jeremiah 23:5–6. Thus, even though the eschatological visions of the pilgrimage of the nations in “Second” and “Third” Isaiah do not explicitly mention the restoration of the Davidic king, “Solomon” has no qualms about integrating these visions with the explicitly Davidic-messianic passages of “First” Isaiah (Isa 9, 11). The psalmists integrates passages from the Psalms, “First,” “Second,” and “Third” Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and elsewhere into a more or less unified vision of the restored Davidic kingdom complex in the eschaton. The author of 4 Ezra operates with a similar interpretive strategy. Basing his thought on many of these same passages of Scripture, he foresees at the end of time the coming of a son of David (12:32) who is the messiah (12:32) and the son of God (7:28–29).121 “And as for the lion whom thou didst see. . . . This is the Messiah whom the Most High hath kept until the end of days, who shall spring from the seed of David, and shall come and speak unto them; he shall reprove them for their ungodliness” (4 Ezra 12:30–31). He also restores Zion (13:36)—which, for the author, necessarily includes restoration of the Temple (see 12:48)—and regathers the twelve tribes of Israel (13:40–50). His reign endures to the end of time, the final judgment (7:28–44; 12:34). Like the author of the Psalms of Solomon, the pseudonymous “Ezra” integrates many different OT loci in his vision of the restoration. Again, Isaiah 11, with the image of destruction coming forth from the mouth of the messiah (cf. Isa 49:2) is central; but this image is combined with the concept of the “law going forth from Zion” (Isa 2) in 4 Ezra 13:38, where the “weapon” proceeding from the mouth of the Son of God becomes “the law.” Other non-Isaianic passages are also in play: Daniel 2 (the mountain carved out without hands); Daniel 7 (the beasts arising out of the sea); Daniel 9 (the messiah being cut off); and Micah 5:2 (where the preexistence of the Davidic messiah—his “origin is from ancient days”—is affirmed). The messiah is also foreseen as restoring the Davidic kingdom complex

210  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Although the Qumran community—like the writer of Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs—anticipated a priestly messiah from the house of Levi as well as a royal one from the house of David, the profile of the Davidic messiah at Qumran resembles in all essentials his description in 4 Ezra, Psalms of Solomon, and other Second Temple literature.122 The Qumran community was particularly attentive to scriptural covenants, and did not fail to recognize the eternal covenant of kingship given to David and its connection with the holy city Jerusalem: your res[si]dence [. . .] a place of rest in Jerusa[lem the city which] you [cho]se from the whole earth for [your Name] to be there for ever. . . . And you chose the tribe of Judah, and established your covenant with David so that he would be like a shepherd, a prince over your people, and would sit in front of you on the throne of Israel for ever. (4Q504 1–2 IV, 2–8) 123 This particular document, 4Q504, continues immediately with a reflection on the international significance of the Davidic reign. Note, too, how the author moves seamlessly from historical reflection (“you chose the tribe of Judah”) to eschatological anticipation (“to your great name they will carry their offerings”): And all the nations have seen your glory for you have made yourself holy in the midst of your people Israel. And to your great Name they will carry their offerings: silver, gold, precious stones, with all the treasures of their nation, to honour your people and Zion, your holy city and your wonderful house. (4Q504 1–2 III, 8–12 [cf. Isa 60:4–7]) Here the author combines Davidic covenantal theology from 2 Samuel 7, Psalm 89, Psalm 132, and elsewhere with the eschatological vision of Isaiah 60, even though Isaiah 60 does not explicitly indicate that a Davidide will reign in the eschaton. In other Qumran scrolls we find even more explicit eschatological interpretation of 2 Samuel 7: and YHWH [de]clares to you that 2 Sam 7:12–14 This (refers to the) , who will arise with the Interpreter of the law who [will rise up] in

The Davidic Grant-Type Covenant  |  211

Zi[on in] the [l]ast days, as it is written: Amos 9:11 . (4Q174 III, 10–12) Here the author combines the key Davidic covenant text with various Davidic eschatological passages (Amos 9:11 and the “branch” of David: Jer 23:5; 33:15; Zech 3:8) to highlight the implications of 2 Samuel 7 for the end-times. The same hermeneutical procedure is at work in the interpretation of Genesis 49:10: Gen 49:10 The scepter shall [no]t depart from the tribe of Judah. While Israel has the dominion, there [will not] be cut off someone who sits on the throne of David. For is the covenant of royalty. . . . Until the messiah of righteousness comes, the branch of David. For to him and to his descendants has been given the covenant of kingship of his people for everlasting generations. (4Q252 5 I, 1–4) Among none of these Qumran documents is there an indication that the community had given up hope on the Davidic covenant. For this reason, it seems most reasonable to understand the “Son of God” figure in the following text as a Davidide: He will be called son of God [2 Sam 7:14], and they will call him son of the Most High. . . . His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and all his paths in truth. He will jud[ge] the earth in truth and all will make peace. The sword will cease from the earth [Isa 2:4; 2 Sam 7:10], and all the provinces will pay him homage. The great God is his strength, [Ps 89:21] and he will wage war for him [2 Sam 7:9; Ps 89:13]; he will place the peoples in his hand [Ps 18:47; 89:25] and cast them all away before him. His rule will be an eternal rule [2 Sam 7:13, 16]. (4Q246 1 II, 1–9) Since the Qumran covenanters were well aware that the Son of David was the Son of God (4Q174) and the role of this “Son of God” in 4Q246 is the same as that attributed to the Davidic messiah of other Qumran texts, it seems clear the “Son of God” is the same figure identified as “the branch of David” elsewhere.124 As in Psalms of Solomon and 4 Ezra, the author of 4Q246 combines images, motifs, and phrases from several different biblical books to describe the coming Davidic messiah and his reign. Although there is not space here to examine them all in depth, other Second Temple documents share a similar messianic-eschatological outlook

212  |  Part One: Covenant in the Old Testament

with Psalms of Solomon, 4 Ezra, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Thus, several Second Temple texts foresee the coming of an eschatological figure who is the Son of David,125 and: 1. the recipient of the covenant of 2 Samuel 7 (T. Jud. 22:3; cf. Sir 45:25; 47:11),126 2. the Son of God (4Q369 1 II, 6; Sib. Or. 5:261),127 3. the “Messiah” or “Anointed One” (2 Bar. 70:10; 72:2; 1 En. 48:10; 52:4),128 4. who will reign in Zion (2 Bar. 39:8; 4Q504 1–2 IV, 3),129 5. restore the Temple (Sib. Or. 5:420–27; 1 En. 53:6),130 6. reunite the Twelve Tribes (T. Jud. 24:1–25:3; T. Benj. 9:2),131 7. and rule over all nations (T. Levi 18:2–9; T. Jud. 24:6; Sib. Or. 5:425– 28),132 8. for eternity (2 Bar. 73:1; 1 En. 49:1–2; cf. 1 Macc 2:57).133 Thus, even without the witness of the NT, it would be possible to establish that among Jews of the first century ad there was a general expectation of the future restoration of the Kingdom of David by a messianic figure.134 The anticipated restoration, however, was more of a transformation than a mere reimplementation. That is, the restored kingdom was expected to exceed what was actually realized under David and Solomon. Thus, descriptions of the coming kingdom often include supernatural elements. To cite just one example, the messianic king of the Psalms of Solomon is immortal (17:35), sinless (17:36), and capable of repelling enemies without the use of military force (17:33), but by his words alone (17:36). The transcendent and supernatural elements of the kingdom here and in the rest of the Second Temple and Qumran literature have their roots in the ideal descriptions of the kingdom in the canonical books themselves (e.g., Isa 2:1–4; 11:4–9; Ps 72:5–8).

Conclusions The Davidic covenant is clearly an example of the grant-type covenant. The familial properties of the covenant are evident, most notably in the emphasis on the divine sonship of David’s seed. The basis for the Davidic grant-type covenant is God’s oath. The precise content of that oath is not explicitly given within Nathan’s oracle, but it may be inferred from the various references and allusions to it in Psalms 89, 110, and 132. The combined message of these passages reveals the content of God’s oath to David to be

The Davidic Grant-Type Covenant  |  213

a covenant grant of an everlasting “house” and “throne” in Jerusalem/Zion, that is, a royal priestly dynasty by which divine truth and righteousness are established among the nations. The holy zeal of David to find a place for God’s “dwelling” and “rest” which serves as the basis for the covenant grant may be given a canonical interpretation in terms of David’s aspiration to reign as a “new Melchizedek.” The essential meaning of God’s oath and covenant grant is the divine sonship of the son of David—that is not simply “natural” or merely “legal-adoptive,” but rather “sacramental” (i.e., effected by divine covenant oath). The net effect of the Davidic grant-type covenant, therefore, is the everlasting royal priestly reign of the son of ­David as God’s “firstborn son” among all the nations. The Davidic covenant grant-by-oath should also be interpreted in the light of other parallel canonical traditions.135 A canonical interpretation of the grant of divine sonship and royal priestly primogeniture to the son of David may also be correlated with Israel’s covenant status as God’s firstborn son (Exod 4:22), along with their divine vocation to be a “kingdom of priests” among the nations (Exod 19:5–6). From a canonical perspective, the Davidic dynasty’s subsequent history raises some serious and difficult questions about the nature and meaning of God’s sworn covenant purposes, especially in view of the destruction of Jerusalem. The eventual accomplishment of God’s covenant oath, and future outlook of the Davidic dynasty are both shrouded in the mysteries wrapped within the figurative language of the prophets, which points to a future eschatological fulfillment (Isa 9:6–7; 37:35; 55:3; Jer 23:5; 33:15–26; Ezek 34:23–25, 37:24–27; Amos 9:11; Zech 3:1–10; 6:9–15; 12:1–13:1). The manner of fulfillment represents the basic message of the New Testament, especially Luke–Acts and the Epistle to the Hebrews. This may be the reason that the great twentieth-century Catholic exegete Raymond E. Brown stressed the theological significance of the kingdom of David and its relevance to Christian thought: The story of David brings out all the strengths and weaknesses of the beginnings of the religious institution of the kingdom for the people of God. . . . The kingdom established by David . . . is the closest Old Testament parallel to the New Testament church. . . . To help Christians make up their mind on how the Bible speaks [to church issues] it would help if they knew about David and his kingdom, which was also God’s kingdom and whose kings, with all their imperfections, God promised to treat as “sons” (2 Sm 6:14).136

This page intentionally left blank

pa r t t w o

Covenant in the New Testament

This page intentionally left blank

8 Davidic Covenant Fulfillment in Luke–Acts In the previous chapter we noted the characteristics of the Davidic covenant and the associated constellation of elements which arise from synchronic analysis of Old Testament documents and can be seen persisting in the Second Temple literature. The purpose of the present chapter is to show how Luke identifies the restoration of the Davidic constellation with the person and work of Jesus Christ, who, in turn, bestows it upon his Apostles in order that they may maintain and rule over it after his ascension. A key passage for Luke’s theology of Davidic covenant restoration in Christ is the so-called Institution narrative of Luke 22. In this narrative we have the convergence of two themes of primary importance to the present study: the father-son relationship, and the role of covenant. This is seen most clearly in Jesus’ words to the Apostles in Luke 22:28–30: “You are those who have continued with me in my trials; and I covenant to you, as my Father covenanted to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” By the end of this chapter it will be evident how this passage ties the ministry of Christ in Luke to the ministry of the Apostles in Acts, and shows both to be the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant and restoration of the Davidic “constellation.”

217

218  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

Davidic Kingdom Restoration in Luke In moving from the Second Temple literature to the Gospels, there is a shift from expectation to the actualization of Davidic covenant fulfillment. For Luke, Jesus’ kingdom is the kingdom of David, restored and transformed.1 This becomes abundantly clear when we examine Luke for evidence of the eight elements of the Davidic covenant-kingdom constellation:2 1. Jesus’ kingdom is founded on a covenant. Gabriel’s description of Jesus to Mary in Luke 1:32–33 is taken point-for-point from the key Davidic covenant text, 2 Samuel 7: He will be great

I will make for you a great name (2 Sam 7:9)

and will be called the Son of the Most High

I will raise up our [David’s] offspring after you. . . . I will be his father, and he shall be my son (2 Sam 7:12–14)

and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David

I will raise up your offspring after you . . .  and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. (2 Sam 7:12–13)

and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever

Your throne shall be established for ever. (2 Sam 7:16)

Later, Jesus associates his kingship with a new covenant (Luke 22:20) and says a kingdom has been “covenanted” to him by the Father (22:29).3 2. Jesus is the natural (not merely adopted) Son of God (Luke 1:35), and the title is used of him throughout the Gospel.4 3. Jesus is the Messiah (2:11, 4:41, etc.),5 indeed, the “Lord’s Christ” (2:26), a title only applied to kings in the OT (cf. 1 Sam 16:6; 24:6 LXX; etc.); and the “Christ of God” (9:20), a title only applied to David (2 Sam 23:1).6 4. Jesus’ royal mission is bound up with Jerusalem, a point Luke makes perhaps more strongly than any other Gospel writer.7 For Luke, it is theologically important that the Word of God go forth from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth (Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8, cf. Isa 2:3). The Gospel begins in Jerusalem (Luke 1:5–23), the only two narratives of Jesus’ childhood find him in Jerusalem (2:22–52), for most of the narrative he is traveling to Jerusalem (9:51–19:27), and the Gospel ends in Jerusalem (19:28–24:49), wherein the disciples are told to “remain” (24:49). 5. Jesus’ royal mission is bound up with the Temple. The Gospel begins

Davidic Covenant Fulfillment in Luke–Acts  |  219

there (1:5–23), Jesus’ childhood is set there (2:22–52),8 for most of the Gospel he is traveling there (9:51–19:27), and the climax is reached when Jesus is teaching from the Temple in Jerusalem (19:45–21:38). In Acts the Temple remains the focus of the early Christian community (Acts 2:46).9 6. Jesus intends to restore the unity of the twelve tribes of Israel. The appointing of twelve Apostles is the most prominent sign of this intention (6:12–16), and he explicitly promises that they will judge “the twelve tribes of Israel” (22:30).10 But there are many other more subtle signs of Jesus’ intent to reunify the kingdom, including the use of the terms “Israel” and “sons of Israel”—evoking the entire nation—rather than “Judea” or “Jews”;11 the words of the angel that the good news of Jesus’ birth is “for the entire people” (2:10) that is, the whole nation of Israel; and the presence of Anna, a representative descendant of the northern tribes (Asher), at the Presentation (2:36).12 7. Jesus’ kingship extends over all the nations. Already in the infancy narratives, Simeon speaks of Jesus as “a light of revelation to the nations” (2:32). Luke traces his genealogy back to Adam, the father of all mankind (3:38). As precedent for his ministry, Jesus cites the healings of Gentiles performed by Elijah and Elisha (4:25–27), and he himself heals a the servant of a Roman (7:1–10), while praising his faith above that of Israel (7:9). He predicts that “men will come from east and west, and from north and south” to sit at table in the Kingdom of God (13:29). And finally, and most explicitly, Jesus teaches the disciples that “forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (24:47). 8. Jesus’ reign is everlasting. The angel Gabriel promises to Mary that Jesus “will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 13 The everlasting reign of Christ is presumed in the rest of the Gospel, especially in passages where Jesus is the mediator of eternal life (18:18–30). Thus, it can be seen that in Luke, all eight major characteristics of the Davidic monarchy are manifested in Jesus and his ministry. There is a coherence to the titles and attributes—“King,” “Christ,” “Son of God,” eternal reign—that Luke predicates of Jesus and his ministry: the common factor in all these is their typological origin in the figure of David. Indeed, more of Jesus’ identity and role could be integrated into this Davidic typology. Jesus in Luke is clearly a prophet, for example, yet Luke considers David to have been a “prophet” (Acts 2:30a) through whom the Holy Spirit spoke (Acts 1:16). Luke’s Christology therefore is not so composite as is sometimes imagined: the unifying factor is royal Davidic typology.14 The following additional evidence bolsters this position:

220  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

• Luke emphasizes that Jesus’ legal father Joseph was “of the house of David” (Luke 1:27).15 • In the Benedictus, Zechariah begins by praising God for having “raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David” (Luke 1:69), a reference to a royal Davidic psalm (Ps 132:17).16 • Jesus birthplace is Bethlehem, called “the City of David” by both the narrator (Luke 2:4) and the angels (2:11). At the same time, Joseph’s Davidic lineage is repeated for emphasis (2:4). • Appropriately, the first witnesses to the birth of the Son of David, the great Shepherd King of Israel’s memory, are shepherds (Luke 2:8–20), possibly alluding to Micah 5:1–3.17 • At Jesus’ baptism, the divine voice utters over him, “You are my beloved Son,” an adaptation of words from Psalm 2, the royal coronation hymn of the Davidic kings (Ps 2:7).18 • In Luke 3:23–28, Luke traces Jesus’ genealogy through David.19 • In Luke 6:1–5, Jesus compares himself and his disciples to David and his band of men, and claims the same apparent freedom from cultic regulations that David enjoyed.20 • At the Transfiguration, the divine voice again reiterates the royal coronation hymn (Ps 2:7): “This is my Son, my Chosen.” 21 The title “chosen” or “chosen one” is also an epithet of David (Ps 89:3).22 • Jesus’ statement in Luke 10:22, “All things have been delivered to me by my Father . . .” seems to recall the covenantal father-son relationship of God to the Davidic monarch: see Psalms 2:7–8, 8:4–8; 72:8; 89:25–27. Moreover, Jesus’ career as presented in the Gospel may be interpreted as a systematic effort to restore the kingdom of David.23 The significance of the choice of twelve apostles has been mentioned above. It is also significant that, as Fitzmyer notes: “Once the ministry proper begins, the areas of ­Jesus’ activity are defined as Galilee (4:14–9:50), Samaria (9:51–17:11), and Judea/Jerusalem (17:11–21:38).” 24 Jesus’ ministry follows the geographical progression of the dissolution of the kingdom of Israel: the northern tribes in the region of Galilee were taken by Assyria in 733 bc, Samaria itself fell in 722 bc, and Judah and Jerusalem in 587 bc. During his roughly northto-south itinerary in Luke, Jesus gathers disciples from all of these territories until, by the triumphal entry, they have become a “multitude” (19:37) forming the reunited kingdom of David in nuce. Jesus’ activity in Samaria, which Luke alone among the Synoptics rec­ ords (see Luke 9:51–10:37; 17:11–19), is vital to Jesus’ mission of reunifi-

Davidic Covenant Fulfillment in Luke–Acts  |  221

cation. Luke describes Jesus ministering in Samaria (9:51–56; 17:11–19), and there is reason to believe that the Seventy were sent into this region (10:1–12) and that other parts of the Travel narrative took place there.25 Luke apparently accepted the Samaritans’ claim to be the remnant of the ten northern tribes, and their reunification with Judah was necessary to restore the Davidic kingdom:26 “Luke’s view of the Samaritans was . . . strongly influenced by Samaritan claims to be the true descendants of the northern tribes. . . . It was his concern for Israel’s restoration that made Samaritans vital to his thesis. This restoration did not just entail the conversion of Jews alone but something altogether more grand: nothing less than a return to the unity that had once existed under David. Nothing less could be expected of the one [who] would be given the throne of his father David and . . . reign over the house of Jacob forever.” 27 In sum, Jesus’ kingship in Luke has all the characteristics of the Davidic monarchy as portrayed in the canonical texts. Moreover, Jesus’ ministry can be interpreted as a mission to reunite the northern and southern tribes/kingdoms under the Davidic heir. In Luke, Jesus is the royal Son of David who journeys to the City of David to restore the kingdom of David in fulfillment of the covenant with David. This much is clear. It remains to be seen, however, what relationship exists between this Lukan Davidic Christology and the ecclesiology of Acts. The key figures in this relationship are the Apostles, who in their persons and ministry form the link between the person and ministry of Jesus and the age of the church.28 It is now necessary to examine key passages at the end of Luke’s Gospel and the beginning of Acts that show how the Davidic-messianic identity and mission of Luke’s Jesus flow into and shape the identity and mission of the Twelve and the community they establish, the ekklēsia.

The Institution Narrative (Luke 22:14–30) The Institution narrative (IN) is a key transitional text for linking the royal Davidic identity and mission of Christ with the early apostolic church as the restored Davidic kingdom. The IN serves to establish the Apostles as vice-regents of the Davidic kingdom (as we shall see below), empowering them to rule over the church in the opening chapters of Acts. The full significance of the IN will be better grasped if two initial observations are made: First, in Luke, the IN and the other climactic events of the Passion Week are introduced by four pericopes highlighting Jesus’ royal and specifically Davidic identity:

222  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

• While passing through Jericho, Jesus is twice hailed as the messianic “Son of David” by a blind beggar (Luke 19:35–39).29 • While still in Jericho, Jesus relates a parable of a “nobleman” who goes into a far country to receive a “kingdom” (19:11–27), a transparent allegory of Jesus’ own royal status and imminent reception of the kingdom at his ascension.30 • In the Triumphal Entry (19:28–40), Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a donkey in Solomon-like fashion (1 Kgs 1:32–40) and is hailed as “the King who comes in the name of the Lord!” (v. 38); allusions are made to Zechariah 9:9, 1 Kings 1:32–40 and Luke 1:14, all of which have a Davidic context.31 • The subsequent dispute between Jesus and the Jerusalem leaders (Luke 20:1–40) culminates in a question concerning how the Messiah can be both “David’s Son” and “David’s Lord” (20:41–44). These four pericopes serve to reassert the royal Davidic Christology, so clearly enunciated in the Infancy narratives, as an introduction to the dramatic events of the Passion Week. The royal Davidic themes will be taken up and advanced particularly in the IN, as will be seen below. Second, the IN is not the first or the last narrative in Luke which weds the imagery of kingdom with table fellowship. John Koenig observes: “It is a striking fact that a great number of images in Jesus’ talk abut the kingdom have to do with eating and drinking. No other group of metaphors comes close to this predominance.” 32 With respect to Luke–Acts, “accounts of eating and drinking take center stage and even become something of an organizing principle for Luke.” 33 Koenig draws on the work of E. LaVerdiere,34 who has identified a substructure to Luke’s Gospel consisting of ten meal narratives, seven preceding the passion and two following it, with the IN at the strategic juncture.35 The Last Supper is a literary Janus culminating the sequence of Jesus’ earthly meals but already strongly anticipating the table fellowship in his resurrected state (Luke 24:30, 43).36 All ten Lukan meals may be read as foretastes or proleptic experiences of the messianic kingdom banquet (cf. Isa 25:6–8; Zech 8:7–8, 19–23) since the Messiah is present at them.37 This is particularly evident in the meals that the Messiah himself hosts: the feeding of the five thousand (9:10–17), the Last Supper (22:7–38), and the meal at Emmaus (24:13–35). In only these three meals in Luke is bread (arton) said to be “broken” (klaō or kataklaō); the same expression will be used in Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7, 11; 27:35. Kingdom motifs distinguish these three meals:

Davidic Covenant Fulfillment in Luke–Acts  |  223

• all five thousand are “satisfied” and twelve basketfuls remain (9:17), bespeaking the fullness of the twelve tribes of Israel under the Son of David (cf. 1 Kgs 4:20; 8:65–66); • the Last Supper is characterized by the imminent coming of the kingdom; • and the Emmaus sequence is initiated with the disciples’ remark: “We had hoped he was the one to redeem Israel,” that is, to restore the Davidic kingdom, as the Infancy narratives make clear (esp. 1:68–69). Jesus’ practice of table fellowship was a Davidic trait. David extended ḥesed (covenant loyalty) through table fellowship to covenant partners (Mephibosheth, Jonathan’s son [2 Sam 9:1–13]; the sons of Barzillai [1 Kgs 2:7]). The generous meals for all Israel hosted by David and his royal sons (Solomon, Hezekiah, and Josiah) were treasured memories of Israelite tradition.38 The Davidic psalms employ images of eating and drinking to celebrate God’s provision and the joy of communion with him,39 and the prophets describe the restoration of David’s city (Zion; see Isa 23:6–8; Jer 31:12–14) and David’s covenant (Isa 55:1–5) with images of feasting. Strikingly, in Ezekiel the primary role of the eschatological Davidic “shepherd” is to “feed” Israel (Ezek 34:23). It is also important to note that table fellowship was a common means of covenant solemnization throughout the Old Testament (Gen 26:30; 31:46, 54; Exod 24:11; 2 Sam 3:12–13, 20–21). LaVerdiere sees the first seven meals in Luke as anticipations of the Eucharist.40 In favor of LaVerdiere’s approach is the fact that by the time Luke composed the Gospel, eucharistic practice would have been well established within his ecclesial community. Luke’s late-first-century Christian readership, conditioned by the regular celebration of the eucharistic liturgy, would have been inclined to see anticipations of their own liturgical experience in the descriptions of Jesus’ meals during his ministry. However, in many of the meal scenes recorded in Luke, it is difficult to discern any explicit links with eucharistic practice. It may be preferable, then, to understand the several Lukan narratives of Jesus’ table fellowship as generally related to the motif of the messianic banquet, and limit specifically eucharistic themes to the meals mentioned above—the feeding of the five thousand, Last Supper, and Emmaus—where Jesus “breaks bread.” The Last Supper is the most important in this regard. Luke’s account of the Last Supper includes several unique features vis-àvis Matthew and Mark,41 including the following:

224  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

1. Jesus’ statement that he shall not eat until the Kingdom of God comes is repeated and placed at the beginning of the pericope rather than in the body;42 2. the command “do this in remembrance of me” (v. 19); 3. the cup is specified as the new covenant;43 4. the discussion of precedence among the disciples is placed here rather than earlier in Jesus’ career;44 5. the promise of “thrones” for the Apostles includes unique features and is located at the end of the IN (22:28–29; cf. Matt 19:28). It is significant that kingdom motifs mark four of these five uniquely Lukan elements of the IN, and elements (3) and (5) have a strongly Davidic resonance. Luke, more than any other evangelist, wishes to stress the relationship between the Last Supper and the Kingdom of God. Each of these unique elements deserves consideration: 1. Whereas in Matthew and Mark Jesus makes the statement: “I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until I drink it new in the Kingdom of God” after the distribution of the eucharistic elements (Matt 19:29, Mark 14:25), Luke records this statement before the supper (Luke 22:18) and adds the similar statement: “I shall not eat it [the Passover] until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God” among Jesus’ introductory words before the meal (22:16). The placement of the prophecy at the beginning of the Supper account and its repetition: 1. emphasizes that the following meal is somehow related to the kingdom and its arrival, 2. implies that the arrival of the kingdom is imminent, and 3. links the kingdom with both “eating” and “drinking.” “Eating” and “drinking” in the kingdom will be mentioned again in v. 30, where the disciples are assured they will “eat and drink . . . in my kingdom.” Thus, the statements in vv. 16 and 18 form an inclusio with v. 30 around the narrative of the Last Supper. Eating and drinking are prominent manifestations of the kingdom’s presence. When later the risen Christ eats with the disciples, it indicates that the kingdom has indeed come.45 F. X. Durrwell remarks: “St. Luke puts this text . . . before the institution of the Eucharist. . . . Luke realized that the meal in the joy of the Kingdom was beginning in the Last Supper. That is why he modified the text from Mark . . . to make it a prophecy of an immediate reality. . . . His Kingdom of God ‘at once suggests the sphere in which the new paschal rite was to

Davidic Covenant Fulfillment in Luke–Acts  |  225

unfold, that is, the church’ [Benoit, “Recit,” 388]. In giving us to understand that our Lord would eat and drink again in the Kingdom, he must have had in mind the meals of the risen Christ which he, alone of the Evangelists, lays such stress upon.” 46 2. Luke’s account of Jesus’ words over the bread has both common and unique features. First, Luke shares the tradition of the radical identification of the messianic king with the eucharistic bread: “This is my body.” The same point is made over the cup: “This cup . . . is the new covenant in my blood,” that is, consisting of my blood. Second, Luke alone includes ­Jesus’ command to repeat this meal “in remembrance” of him. It is this command that makes the pericope an Institution narrative. Without it, nothing is being instituted: it is only the account of Jesus’ last meal before his death. But with the command to repeat the meal when Jesus is no longer visibly present, the pericope becomes the foundational story and theological explanation for the early church’s continuing practice of “breaking bread” as recorded in Acts.47 The meaning of Jesus’ radical self-identification with the bread and wine was and is a mystery that can only be accepted on the basis of faith in the veracity of the speaker.48 Various dogmatic formulations throughout church history have at times obscured as much as explicated this mystery. Nonetheless, certainly in Luke 22:19–20 Jesus is not using the bread and wine as illustrations which make clear his coming sacrifice—that is, as an object lesson or visual parable—since “far from helping of themselves to explain the death of the body and the shedding of blood, it is precisely the bread and wine which need explaining by means of the former.” 49 Jesus’ words are not so much an explanation or a teaching as a “speech act,” a declaration that brings about what it expresses. Long before the formal development of speech act theory, Benoit observed: “He [Christ] does not merely state that the bread is his body; he decrees that this must come to pass, and that it has come to pass. His speech does not come after the event, it brings the event to pass.” 50 What is implicit here at the Last Supper, Luke makes explicit in the Emmaus account, in which the visible presence of the Lord vanishes during the distribution of the pieces of bread (23:31), since, in light of 22:19, his presence is now identified with the bread. Thus the messianic king is “made known” to the disciples “in the breaking of bread” (24:35). Later, Luke links his and his reader’s liturgical experience to Jesus’ Last Supper by including himself among those who gather on the first day of the week to “break bread” (Acts 20:7). Through the IN and the Emmaus account, Luke’s readers are to understand that the risen Christ is truly present in the bread they break together. Thus, where the Eucha-

226  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

rist is, there is the king; and it follows—where the king is, there is the kingdom.51 3. Luke alone of the Synoptic Gospels specifies the cup as the “new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20), which alters the most immediate OT reference from Exodus 24:6–8 (the Sinaitic Covenant) to Jeremiah 31:31.52 The new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31 is explicitly said to be unlike the broken covenant of Sinai (Jer 31:32). In the wider context of Jeremiah 30–33, it is clear that this new covenant involves not only a new level of intimacy with God (31:33–34) and the reunification of the divided (Davidic) kingdom (31:31, cf. 30:4), but also the restoration of the Davidic monarchy (30:9; 33:14–26) and covenant (33:19–21). Thus, the declaration of the New Covenant in Luke 22:20 points to the restored Davidic kingdom-covenant constellation as promised in the prophets rather than merely the memory of Sinai.53 In fact, the new covenant is not a complete novum, it is the renewal of the Davidic covenant.54 Moreover, by identifying the cup with the new covenant, Jesus marks this meal—the eucharistic “breaking of bread” that is to be continued “in remembrance” of him—as a covenant renewal meal for the new covenant, just as the Passover was the covenant renewal meal par excellence of the Mosaic covenant. Luke’s readers should understand that when they participate in the eucharistic cup, they reaffirm their place within the promised new covenant, which is in essence the renewed and transformed Davidic covenant. 4. Luke places the discussion of precedence among the disciples in the context of the Last Supper rather than elsewhere in the Gospel narrative55 because the kingdom is about to be conferred upon them (22:28–29), and therefore they must understand the proper way to exercise its authority. In their parallels, Matthew and Mark speak of “rulers” (hoi archontes, hoi dokountes archein), but Luke highlights the kingdom motif by speaking of Gentile “kings” (hoi basileis) who “exercise lordship” (kurieuousin). ­Jesus is both King (basileus) and Lord (kurios)—more truly and with greater legitimacy than the Gentile kings—but his mode of exercising authority is radically different. The hierarchy of domination and pride characteristic of the kingdoms of this world will be replaced in the Kingdom of God by a hierarchy of service (22:26–27).56 Significantly, the word used here for service, diakonia, frequently connotes waiting at table,57 and v. 27 immediately confirms this sense. Jesus exercises his royal authority through table service, and the disciples will as well (v. 27). This reemphasizes the connection throughout this passage between the concepts of royal authority/­ kingdom and those of eating/drinking, and forms another link with v. 30a, in which the disciples “will eat and drink at my table.”

Davidic Covenant Fulfillment in Luke–Acts  |  227

5. After correcting the disciples’ misguided notions of the meaning of ­authority in his kingdom, Jesus assures them of their vice-regency in vv. 28–30. To the Apostles, who have shared with Jesus his trials, he says: I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (vv. 29b–30)

kagō diatithemai humin kathōs dietheto moi ho patēr mou basileian, hina esthēte kai pinēte epi tēs trapezēs mou en tē basileia mou, kai kathēsesthe epi thronōn tas dōdekaphulas krinontes tou Israēl

The usual English translations of the verb diatithēmi—“assign” RSV, “confer” NRSV—do not quite capture the sense of the word for Luke. Luke’s style, as all acknowledge, is heavily dependent on the LXX, in which the phrase diatithesthai diathēkēn is used almost 80 times as the equivalent of the Hebrew kārat bĕrît, “to make a covenant”—in fact, diatithēmi even ­w ithout the noun diathēkē can denote covenant-making in the LXX.58 The use of the corresponding noun diathēkē in the Jewish sense of “covenant” in v. 20, combined with the clear evocation of Davidic themes here, suggests that diatithēmi is employed in the sense: “to make a covenant.” 59 Thus, J. Priest comments: “The verb translated assign/assigned in the RSV . . . may evoke a covenantal frame of reference and imply that the messianic meal will be the seal of the New Covenant. A connection between meal and covenant is made in T. Isaac 8:5 and in some OT passages . . . I consider [this allusion] to be worthy of continued reflection.” 60 Nelson argues that diatithēmi cannot denote covenant-making here, since the object of the verb is basileia, and “to covenant involves the establishing of an oath or agreement, but for ‘kingship’ to be given we expect a different kind of action.” 61 Nelson’s objection is removed, however, when the text is read in light of the Davidic precedent of granting a kingdom by covenant oath.62 Thus, a more precise, if awkward, translation of v. 29b would be, “I covenant to you a kingdom, as my Father covenanted one to me.” The only kingdom established on the basis of a covenant in Scripture is the kingdom of David (see Ps 89:3–4, 28–37). Moreover, the use of ­fatherson terminology in v. 29b evokes the father-son relationship of the Lord with the Son of David as reflected in 2 Samuel 7:14, Psalms 2:7, and 89:26– 27. Significantly, in each of these three passages, father-son terminology is employed in the context of God granting a kingdom to the Davidide (cf. 2 Sam 7:13; Ps 2:6, 8; 89:25, 27). The meaning of Luke 22:29b becomes

228  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

clear: God has “covenanted” a kingdom to Jesus, since Jesus is the Son of David, the legal heir to David’s covenant and throne (see Luke 1:32–33). Now Jesus, through the “new covenant in [his] blood” (v. 20), is “covenanting” to the disciples that same kingdom of David.63 This is not the promise of a conferral (future tense), but the declaration of a conferral (present tense), as Bock points out: “The present tense in this context means that they are joining the task now, not later. Jesus’ authority, given by the Father, is extended to the Eleven. They will mediate for him. Jesus rules and so will the Eleven. This emphasis on present authority fits Luke’s emphasis on the kingdom’s present form. The Eleven’s leadership extends Jesus’ mission, something Acts will detail. Before giving this authority, ­ Jesus indicated that the form of leadership is service.” 64 This present conferral of the kingdom militates against those scholars who acknowledge a present kingdom in Luke–Acts, but limit it to the person and ministry of Christ. As Bock comments with respect to an earlier passage (Luke 11:20): “An appeal only to the presence of God’s kingly power in the person and message of Jesus misses the significance of this transfer of power to others and ignores the kingdom associations Jesus makes in explaining these activities.” 65 The purpose of the “covenanting” of the kingdom to the disciples is that they “may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom.” Here it is apparent that the kingdom has not been removed from Jesus to the Apostles, because the kingdom remains “my [Jesus’] kingdom.” 66 Rather, the exercise of authority in the kingdom is being shared.67 The significance of eating and drinking at Jesus’ table may be illuminated by 2 Samuel 9:1–13, in which David extended to Mephibosheth this covenantal and filial privilege of table fellowship as an expression of ḥesed. Also instructive is 1 Kings 2:7, where Solomon, having received the kingdom from his father, must show covenant loyalty, in turn, by extending table fellowship to the sons of Barzillai, who had stood by David in his trials.68 In Luke 22:30 Jesus does the same for the Apostles: having received the kingdom by covenant, he shows covenant loyalty to those who continued with him in his trials (v. 28) by extending to them the filial, covenantal, and royal privilege of table fellowship. Thus, the promise of eating and drinking at Jesus’ table confirms the previous statement of “covenanting” the kingdom to the disciples. Yet one cannot fail to note that the disciples are now—at the Last ­Supper—“eating and drinking at my [Jesus’] table.” The conclusion is inescapable that there exists some intentional correspondence between the eucharistic eating and drinking in the narrative present of Luke 22 and the eschatological eating and drinking promised in v. 30a.69 In the next section

Davidic Covenant Fulfillment in Luke–Acts  |  229

we shall see that in Acts the kingdom is portrayed as present already in the ministry of the Apostles and the growing ekklēsia. When the Apostles “break bread” in “remembrance” of Jesus in the post-Pentecost community (the church), it is an experience of the messianic banquet, with the messianic king present in body and blood. The Apostles’ eucharistic practice in the early church is, therefore, the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise that they will “eat and drink at my table in my kingdom.” As noted above, the celebration of the Eucharist manifests the kingdom. Kingdom and Eucharist are tightly bound: it is a eucharistic kingdom. That is why the promise of table fellowship at the messianic banquet (v. 30a) is sandwiched between two promises of the grant of (vice)-royal authority (vv. 29b, 30b). The link between the discussion of sitting/serving at table in v. 27 and the “eating and drinking” at table in v. 30a was noted above. In vv. 25–27, Jesus contrasted the manner of exercise of authority in his kingdom with that of Gentile kings. Unlike these kings, Jesus exercises his royal authority through table service (diakonia) and calls his disciples to do the same. In contrast to v. 27, no “sitting” at table is mentioned in v. 30a. Although the Apostles will “eat” and “drink” at Jesus’ table, they will not “sit” because they will be serving like their Lord. However, this table service is immediately juxtaposed with vice-royal authority: you will “sit on thrones” (v. 30b). This juxtaposition suggests a paradoxical equation of the two promises: it is precisely when the Apostles “eat” and “drink” at Jesus’ table in his kingdom, not sitting but serving, that they are in fact “sitting on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” It follows that whenever the Apostles serve at table (diakonia) to host the eucharistic meal—fulfilling the command to “do this in remembrance of me”—they exercise Davidic royal authority in imitation of the servant-king, judging (krinontes) the twelve tribes. The administration of the Eucharist would at first glance not appear to be an act of “judging,” but Paul’s discussion of “eating and drinking judgment on oneself” (1 Cor 11:31) reflects a very early tradition of the judicial aspect of eucharistic participation (cf. 1 Cor 11:27–32; cf. 1 Cor 5:1–13, esp. vv. 4, 7–8). We have seen the relationship between the juxtaposed promises of “eating and drinking in my kingdom” and “sitting on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (v. 30a,b). Searching for the scriptural background of this concept of “thrones over the twelve tribes,” we find an allusion to the Davidic imagery of Psalm 122:3–5: “Jerusalem, built as a city which is bound firmly together, / To which the tribes go up, the tribes of the Lord . . . / There thrones for judgment were set, / The thrones of the House of David.” The connection between the two texts is firm, in light of the collocation

230  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

in each of the three elements: “tribes,” “thrones,” and “judgment.” Psalm 122:5b makes explicit the Davidic context of the promise of Luke 22:30b. The disciples, then, are promised a share in the exercise of authority of the Davidic monarchy over all twelve tribes. The disciples’ “appointment is an anticipation of the restoration of Israel . . . and [they] are commissioned to govern the renewed people of God.” 70 L. T. Johnson comments on the significance of Luke’s version of this dominical saying vis-à-vis Matthew’s version: “Luke decisively alters the reference point for this prediction . . . In Luke the saying points forward to the role that the apostles will have within the restored Israel in the narrative of Acts. . . . These followers [will] exercise effective rule within the people gathered by the power of the resurrected prophet (see e.g., Acts 5:1–11).” 71 It is now possible to grasp the logical relationship between Luke 22:19–20 and 22:28–30. Jesus is the heir of the covenant with David, by virtue of which he is eternal king over Israel and the nations (Luke 1:32–33). In Luke 22:19–20 he enacts a new covenant between himself and the disciples, who share in the covenant meal. This new covenant is a renewal and extension of the covenant with David: in essence, the privileges of the Davidic covenant are being extended to the Apostles, as in Isaiah 55:3, “I will make with you an everlasting covenant; my steadfast, sure love for David.” By virtue of their sharing in the covenant established in vv. 19–20, the Apostles, like Christ, are now heirs of the kingdom of David (v. 29a). Because they are heirs, they have filial privileges: they may eat at the royal table (v. 30a) and sit on the thrones of the royal house, judging the twelve tribes (v. 30b). The Davidic traditions form the context for the logic of the entire transaction, and it is clear that the Apostles have become heirs of the kingdom and covenant of David. The ecclesiological ramifications are profound, since the twelve Apostles “are transitional figures who link the church with the ministry of Jesus (cf. [Acts] 1:1) . . . [and] provide an essential foundation for the church’s continuing faith and life.” 72 If the foundation is Davidic, the edifice will be Davidic as well.

The Ecclesiological Significance of the Institution Narrative for Acts In order to grasp the ecclesiological implications of the IN, it is necessary to venture a little way into Acts, where it can be seen that Jesus’ promise of inheritance and rulership of the Davidic kingdom is manifested in the apostle’s assumption of authority in the ekklēsia, and the promise of table

Davidic Covenant Fulfillment in Luke–Acts  |  231

fellowship is fulfilled in postresurrection meals with Jesus and the continuing eucharistic practice.73 Johnson remarks, “Luke must show how in fact the apostles carry on the prophetic power of Jesus in their deeds and words, and how they are to be leaders over this restored people, ‘judging the twelve tribes of Israel’ (Luke 22:30).” 74 The first three narratives of Acts—concerning Jesus’ last teaching prior to his ascension (Acts 1:1–11), the replacement of Judas (Acts 1:12–26), and the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2)—are crucial links in the chain binding Davidic Christology to kingdom ecclesiology. Significantly, in the opening verses of Acts (1:3, 6), Jesus’ topic of discussion with the Apostles over forty days is the Kingdom of God.75 “Kingdom” will remain a central theme throughout the book, which ends with Paul proclaiming the Kingdom of God in Rome (28:31).76 Acts 1:4 makes the connection between the kingdom and eating and drinking (cf. Luke 22:30a)—that is, the messianic banquet—when it states that Jesus taught them over this forty-day period, “while taking salt” (sunalizomenos) with them, an idiom for “eating together.” 77 When the disciples ask Jesus, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (1:6), their query may refer to Jesus’ promise in Luke 22:30b that: “you will sit on thrones.” The Apostles are asking, “When will we receive the authority promised to us?” In response, Jesus discourages speculation about timing (v. 7), but does in fact describe the means by which the kingdom will be restored, namely, through the Spirit-inspired witness of the Apostles throughout the earth (v. 8).78 Jesus’ geographical description of the spread of the gospel: “You shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth” is, on the one hand, a programmatic outline of the narrative of Acts, helping us to recognize that the whole book is about the spread of the kingdom (cf. Acts 28:31).79 On the other hand, it is a Davidic map that reflects the theological geography of God’s covenant pledge concerning the extent of the Davidic empire. Jerusalem was David’s city (cf. 2 Sam 5:6–10), Judea his tribal land (2 Sam 5:5; 1 Kgs 12:21); Samaria represents (northern) Israel, David’s nation (1 Kgs 12:16); and “the ends of the earth” are the Gentiles (cf. Isa 49:6), David’s vassals (Pss 2:7–8; 72:8–12; 89:25–27).80 The kingdom of David, encompassing Jerusalemites, Jews (i.e., Judeans), Israelites, and Gentiles, will be restored as the Apostles’ witness extends to “the ends of the earth” and the ekklēsia grows.81 But the Apostles in the narrative of Acts 1 do not yet realize the significance of Jesus’ words or understand his transformation of their expectation of a national, earthly kingdom to one that is international and, though

232  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

manifest on earth, essentially heavenly.82 The Spirit must still be poured out for the Apostles to perceive the transformed kingdom. Thus only after the disciples have received the power of the Holy Spirit will they become martyres, witnesses (Acts 1:8). Between the promise of the outpouring of the Spirit (Acts 1:8) and Pentecost (2:1–4) Luke records the restoration of the circle of the Twelve by the replacement of Judas with Matthias. Here again there is a relationship to the promise of Luke 22:30b: “The election of [Matthias] is crucial if Jesus’ promise to establish the twelve on thrones governing the twelve tribes of Israel is to survive.” 83 Thus Neyrey comments: “Luke has given us in Acts a vivid picture of apostolic governance and leadership . . . which gives immediate realization to the commission in [Lk] 22:29–30. For example . . . the first act of the apostles in Acts is to replace Judas, thus signaling that the group’s membership must be complete, a completeness that is irrelevant unless Luke sees it as a fulfillment of Jesus’ remark that there should be twelve judges of the twelve tribes of Israel.” 84 Moreover, it is clear that for Luke, this reconstitution of the twelve was a necessary condition for the outpouring of the Spirit: “Acts 1.15–26, the replacement of Judas, is a story which both reaffirms the authority granted to the apostles in Luke 22 and demonstrates that the restoration of the twelve has to happen before the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2, ‘upon the house of Israel.’ Subsequently, we find Peter literally serving in his capacity of ‘judge’ over Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5.1–11), thus ‘confirming’ Lk 22.30.” 85 After the reconstitution of the Twelve, the event of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–42) marks: (1) the restoration in principle of Israel as Kingdom under the Son of David, and (2) the beginning of the Apostles’ vice-regency over that kingdom. First, it is clear that Luke presents us in Acts 2 with the principal fulfillment of the promised restoration of Israel. Not only are all the Twelve (and presumably the 120) “all together in one place” (2:1)—thus representing the nucleus of the restored Israel—but they address their message to “Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven,” (v. 5) and Luke enumerates those nations (vv. 9–11). The Exile and Diaspora are reversed.86 In response to the apostolic message there is a mass conversion as three thousand of these dispersed Jews enter the messianic community. In this event, the eschatological prophecies of Joel and other prophets are fulfilled and Israel restored—not definitively, as much growth of the ekklēsia remains, but nonetheless “fundamentally,” as Johnson points out: “Three thousand Jews in the city are baptized and enter the messianic community (2:41). Although Luke will be careful to note further such increments, this one is fundamental, for in it we find the realization of the restored people

Davidic Covenant Fulfillment in Luke–Acts  |  233

of God within historic Judaism.” 87 However, we can be more precise than to say: “Israel is restored.” The restored Israel has a certain form and structure: not that of the confederated tribes at Sinai, but that of the twelve tribes within the kingdom of David.88 Peter’s sermon stresses the Davidic royalty of Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 2:36).89 He preaches to the assembled exiles of Israel that Jesus is the fulfillment of the covenant of David (v. 30) 90 and the fulfillment of David’s own prophecies (vv. 25–28; 34–35).91 He applies to Jesus the royal Davidic enthronement psalm (Ps 110), asserting that ­Jesus is now enthroned in heaven (“exalted at the right hand of God”) and has poured out the Spirit on the Apostles as the crowd has just witnessed (v. 33). Thus, Jesus is reigning now in heaven, and the results of his reign are being manifest now in events that the people may “see and hear” (v. 33).92 Peter and the Apostles, filled with the Spirit, have become “witnesses,” inasmuch as they now see the nature of Jesus’ kingdom and its present realization. When Peter’s hearers accept the fact that Jesus is the presently-enthroned Davidic king—and thus acknowledge his rightful reign over themselves—they are incorporated into the ekklēsia through baptism (2:41–42; cf. 4:32–5:11, esp. 5:11).93 Not just Israel, but David’s reign over Israel has been established in principle. It is important to note, however, that the Davidic kingdom is not only restored but transformed.94 The Son of David is not now enthroned in the earthly Jerusalem, but in the heavenly city, “exalted at the right hand of God.” The kingdom has been transposed from earth to heaven, even though it continues to manifest itself on earth as the ekklēsia.95 This ecclesial kingdom exists simultaneously on earth and in heaven. The king is enthroned in heaven, but the ministers (the Apostles) are active on earth. Meanwhile the heavenly king is united to his earthly officers and subjects by the Holy Spirit and, though it receives less emphasis, the eucharistic “breaking of bread.” Second, the promise of apostolic vice-regency over the Davidic kingdom (Luke 22:30, Ps 122:5) begins at Pentecost, when the Apostles receive the “power” (dynamis) of the Holy Spirit, call a worldwide audience of Jews to repentance, and incorporate the respondents into the messianic community. Just as the outpouring of the Spirit is the perceptible sign of Jesus’ royal enthronement (Acts 1:33), the dispensation of the Spirit thereafter through the Apostles’ hands is a sign of their own enthronement as viceregents.96 The vice-regents are sharing in the king’s power to dispense the Spirit. The kingdom and Spirit are coextensive; it is a pneumatic kingdom.97 One might also call it a sacramental kingdom: one must enter it through baptism, and the community of the baptized devotes itself “to the

234  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” The eucharistic significance of the “breaking of bread” in Luke 9:16, 22:19, and 24:30 has been noted. The “breaking of bread” here in Acts 2:42, as well as 20:11 and 27:35, is no simple eating but eucharistic celebration and proleptic participation in the messianic banquet. In the continuing practice of “the breaking of bread” the Apostles experience the fulfillment of the promise “to eat and drink at my table in my kingdom” (Luke 22:30) and the whole eschatological community shares in the fulfillment with them. In sum, Acts 1–2, the key introductory chapters of the book, have several links to the Institution narrative and describe the birth of the church as the restoration of the kingdom of David. The identification of the Davidic kingdom and the church is not limited to these two chapters, but occurs throughout Acts. For example, in James’ concluding statements at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), he confirms the decision to embrace Gentile converts by quoting Amos 9:11–12: “After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling (skēnē) of David . . . that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name” (Acts 15:13–18). The “dwelling” or “tent” of David referred to by Amos (Amos 9:11) is the Davidic kingdom, which at its peak incorporated Edom (see Amos 9:12a) and other Gentile nations (Ammon, Moab, Aram, etc.) who may be “the nations who are called by my name” (Amos 9:12b).98 James sees the fulfillment of Amos’ prophecy—that is, the restoration of the Davidic kingdom—in the incorporation of Gentiles into the church as related by Simeon before the whole council.99 No one has seen this more clearly than Pao: “The promise to rebuild and restore the Davidic kingdom is explicitly made at the point in the narrative of Acts that focuses on defining the people of God. The Amos quotation of Acts 15 shows that . . . the development of the early Christian community is also understood within the paradigm of the anticipation of the Davidic kingdom. The christological focus of the David tradition should be supplemented by an ecclesiological one [my emphasis].” 100

Davidic Kingdom but Not Covenant? Since in this chapter the term “kingdom” has been predominant over the term “covenant,” it may be helpful to review the reasons why Davidic kingdom fulfillment in Luke–Acts is relevant to our larger investigation of biblical covenant structures and relationships. This may be especially necessary

Davidic Covenant Fulfillment in Luke–Acts  |  235

in light of the claims of some scholars (e.g. Scot McKnight) who argue that the historical Jesus—if not the Gospel authors—characterized his mission as “kingdom” but not as “covenant.” 101 Let us review the fact, then, that the Davidic kingdom was theologically founded on a divine covenant, as emphasized numerous times above. Moreover, careful consideration of the Davidic covenant texts (2 Sam 7; Ps 89; 132; 2 Sam 23:2–7) confirms that the content of the Davidic covenant was a promise that David’s heir would reign over his kingdom forever. Therefore, when and if the Davidic heir reigns over his kingdom, it is de facto a fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. The Davidic kingdom by definition and essence cannot exist in some form that is separate from or irrelevant to the Davidic covenant, or for that matter, the other divine covenants of the Old Testament, since: (1) the Davidide was the “seed” of Abraham who as king both ruled and blessed the nations in fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 17:6); and (2) the Davidide was bound to uphold the torah of the Mosaic covenant (Deut 17:18–20; 1 Kgs 2:1–4). Luke is aware of the covenant significance of Jesus’ restoration of the Davidic kingdom. While there are many proofs of this, the following is the most direct. Note what Luke records at the climax of Peter’s sermon at Pentecost: “Brethren, I may say to you confidently of the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ” (Acts 2:29–31). Luke records ­Peter making a transparent reference to a key Davidic covenant psalm: “The Lord swore to David a sure oath from which he will not turn back: ‘One of the sons of your body I will set on your throne’ ” (Ps 132:11). Was Luke aware of the virtual equivalence of “oath” and “covenant” as we have demonstrated above? Observe his juxtaposition of the concepts in the Benedictus (Luke 1:68–79). to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant, the oath which he swore to our father Abraham (vv. 72–73a) Here “the holy covenant” is explicated as “the oath . . . to our father Abraham.” Therefore Luke understood the relationship between “oath” and “covenant.” He also understood the relationship between the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants as discussed in Chapter 7, namely, that the two

236  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

covenants are correlated, and that the latter is meant to fulfill the former.102 This is evident again from the Benedictus, where Zechariah first gives thanks that: “God has raised up for us a horn of salvation out of the house of David,” another reference to Psalm 132 (v. 17: “There [i.e., in Zion] I will make a horn to sprout for David; I have prepared a lamp for my anointed”). Zechariah is clearly making reference, then, to Davidic covenant fulfillment. But this is also Abrahamic fulfillment, as we see just a little later in the Benedictus: “To remember his holy covenant, the oath which he swore to our father Abraham” (Luke 1:72b–73a). We do not have space to develop it, but Abrahamic covenant fulfillment is also a important theme in Luke–Acts, and it is observable in the same places where Davidic covenant fulfillment is also stressed: the Infancy narratives and the apostolic preaching of Acts: Luke 1:54–55, 72–73; Acts 3:13, 25–26; 13:17, 26, 32–33.103 A careful reading of Paul’s inaugural sermon in Acts, for example (Acts 13:16–41), reveals the same covenantal theology evident in the Benedictus: Jesus Christ has fulfilled both the promises to David and to Abraham. Luke shows that the presence of the Davidic Kingdom in Christ’s person and the early Church was the fulfillment of the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants, but he did not need to stress the obvious on every page of his two-volume work. The connection between kingdom and covenant was a commonplace in Second Temple Judaism, with which Luke could assume his readership was familiar: A covenant was also established with David . . . the heritage of the king is from son to son only. (Sir 45:25) The Lord took away [David’s] sins, and exalted his power for ever; He gave him the covenant of kings and a throne of glory in Israel. (Sir 47:11) A ruler shall [no]t depart from the tribe of Judah when Israel has dominion. [And] the one who sits on the throne of David [shall never] be cut off, because the “ruler’s staff” is the covenant of the kingdom [and the thous]ands of Israel are “the standards,” until the Righteous Messiah, the Branch of David, has come (Genesis 49:10). For to him and to his seed the covenant of the kingdom of His people has been given for the eternal generations. (4Q252 V, 1–4) 104

Davidic Covenant Fulfillment in Luke–Acts  |  237

Surely You love Israel more than all the other peoples; more narrowly, You chose the tribe of Judah. You have established Your covenant with David, making him a princely shepherd over Your people, that he sit before You upon the throne of Israel eternally. (4Q504 1–2 IV, 4–8) 105 In Second Temple Judaism there could be no separation of the Davidic kingdom from the Davidic covenant. Again, this is strikingly reflected in Jesus’ words to the Apostles at the Last Supper: “I covenant to you, as my father covenanted to me, a kingdom” (Luke 22:29).

Conclusion If Jesus is the Davidic king, then his kingdom is the Davidic kingdom. That kingdom is present already, because it was conferred on the disciples at the Last Supper. Their rulership over Israel is manifested in their rulership over the ekklēsia. The ekklēsia is the incipient, growing kingdom of David, incorporating Jews, Israelites, and the nations, under the reign of Jesus the Davidic king, which is exercised through his Spirit-empowered apostolic vice-regents.106 Nonetheless, while the Davidic kingdom finds historic fulfillment in the church, it also undergoes a typological transposition from the earthly to the heavenly sphere. The earthly Jerusalem and its Temple, despite Luke’s genuine respect for them, cannot be the ultimate locus of eschatological fulfillment (cf. Acts 7:48–50; Luke 21:6). Peter makes clear that Christ’s present rule is not from the earthly Jerusalem but from the heavenly (Acts 2:33a). Nonetheless, his reign expresses itself in the earthly realm by what can be “seen and heard” (Acts 2:33b). The renewed kingdom of David, of which the church is the manifestation, exists simultaneously in heaven and on earth, as its citizens move from one sphere to the other. Nonetheless, the whole kingdom (and the whole church) is united by the indwelling Holy Spirit and the celebration of the Eucharist, in which the king becomes present, the kingdom manifest, and the earthly citizens of the kingdom participate in the perpetual messianic banquet of the heavenly king. This messianic banquet is described by Christ in Luke as a new covenant (Luke 22:20), which is in fact the restoration and transformation of the covenant with David.

9 Covenant, Oath, and Divine Sonship in Galatians 3–4 The explanatory power of a theory is one of the criteria of its scientific validity. In Part One we developed several hypotheses concerning the nature and relationship of the divine covenants in the Old Testament. In Part Two we are testing the explanatory power of these hypotheses by applying them to select documents of the New Testament canon in which covenant and divine sonship concepts figure prominently: Luke–Acts, Galatians, and Hebrews. It is difficult to exaggerate the influence Galatians has had on all subsequent Christian thought on the relationship between the Old and New Covenants, and the Gospel and the Mosaic law.1 The issues presented by this Epistle are numerous and complex.2 However, the discussion in this chapter is restricted to the heart of the Epistle’s argument (Gal 3–4) and to those issues most relevant to the present study: divine sonship, oathswearing, curse-bearing, and the meaning of “covenant” (diathēke). In particular, emphasis is on three points: First, in Paul’s view of salvation history, the Abrahamic covenant has chronological priority and ontological primacy over the Mosaic. Moreover, for Paul, the Abrahamic covenant does not receive its definitive shape in Genesis 17, but in Genesis 22, where it is ratified by God’s self-sworn oath after the Aqedah (Gen 22:15–18). This will become evident especially in our study of Galatians 3:15–18. The logical corollary of Paul’s view of the Abrahamic covenant is that the Mosaic covenant is secondary and subordinate. Moreover, its definitive shape is achieved, not in the earlier Sinai or Wilderness legislation (Exod 20–Num 36), but in the book of Deuteronomy (i.e., the Book of the Law), where it 238

Covenant, Oath, and Divine Sonship in Galatians 3–4  |  239

is ratified by curses invoked and pronounced by Moses and the Levites (Deut 27–30). The heavy emphasis on curses in Deuteronomy lies behind Paul’s thought in Galatians 3:10 and elsewhere. Second, Christ’s cursebearing death on the cross simultaneously bears and expiates the Deuteronomic covenant curses and releases the Abrahamic blessings promised to the nations at the Aqedah (Gen 22:18). Third, in the entire movement from the Abrahamic through the Mosaic to the New Covenant, Paul sees at work a paternal pedagogy whereby God as father works to restore his people to the fullness of divine sonship.

Preliminaries In the following discussion we will make three assumptions: (1) the covenant idea was central to Palestinian Judaism, (2) the scriptural contexts evoked by Paul’s OT citations are crucial to his arguments, and (3) the rhetorical probatio (“demonstration” or “proof”) of Galatians extends from 3:6 to 4:31 and is chiastically focused on 3:26–29. These assumptions require some comment and justification. The Covenant in Judaism. First, on the central place of the covenant concept in Palestinian Judaism, we simply point to E. P. Sanders’ seminal work, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, in which he demonstrated convincingly that the religious outlook of first-century Jews could be accurately described as “covenantal nomism.” Briefly put, covenantal nomism is the view that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires—as the proper response of each individual—obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression.3 Sanders is almost solely responsible for a “paradigm shift” in Pauline scholarship, which for the past two centuries has largely held first-­century Judaism to be a legalistic religion in which the covenant concept was of little or no consequence. As N. T. Wright comments, “Sanders has shown . . . so conclusively that one wonders how any other view could ever have been taken [that] covenantal ideas were totally common and regular” in Second Temple Judaism.4 We concur with Sanders’ basic insight that the covenant was the centerpiece of first-century Judaism and a controlling principle of Paul’s theology. However, Sanders’ portrayal of Jewish “covenantal nomism” is somewhat

240  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

one sided in its emphasis on continuity in the covenantal relationship between God and his people and the ready availability of atonement for sin by sacrifice and repentance. Sanders underestimates the degree to which the sins of Israel had introduced tensions and discontinuity into the covenantal relationship. We give two examples. First, Sanders’ dismisses offhandedly F. Weber’s proposal that the incident of the golden calf was to Israel what the fall was to Adam. According to Sanders, “Weber obviously attributes to the golden calf story a systematic place in the history [of] Israel which it never occupied in Jewish literature.” 5 Sanders cites as support a seminal article by L. Smolar and M. Aberbach on the golden calf episode in postbiblical Judaism.6 This citation is curious, because Smolar and Aberbach strongly support Weber’s proposal by demonstrating that in the midrashic and rabbinic sources, the calf incident “was a virtually unpardonable offense . . . the worst sin ever committed by Israel . . . [which] left a permanent mark in Jewish history . . . [the] evil consequences [of which] . . . were never exhausted.” 7 Within the rabbinic tradition, the permanent loss of the natural “sacerdotal privileges” of the firstborn to the Levites was attributed to the calf apostasy; it was “the nearest Jewish equivalent to the concept of original sin.” 8 This Jewish recognition of the consequences of the calf episode will shed light on our understanding of Paul’s view of the law in Galatians 3:19 and elsewhere. Second, Sanders overlooks a significant number of texts witnessing to a distinct tradition within Second Temple Judaism characterized by the so-called “Deuteronomic view” of Israel’s history. This “Deuteronomic view”—so called because of its roots in the canonical book of Deuteronomy and the “Deuteronomistic history” (Deuteronomy–2 Kings)—viewed Israel as in a state of apostasy for which the divine punishment was exile. This exile was still an ongoing, undeniable fact in the first century, inasmuch as Roman foreigners controlled the land of Israel, and large numbers of Jews as well as the remnants of the northern ten tribes were still scattered among the Gentiles.9 J. M. Scott summarizes this outlook on the accursed condition of Israel: Israel had not yet been restored, but rather remains until the eschatological restoration, under the wrath of God which came upon the people in 722 and 587 bc . . . From this perspective the Second Temple and its cult has no efficacy for atonement. In fact, the Second Temple is often either considered polluted or deficient (cf. Dan 3:38 LXX; Sir 36:14; I Enoch 89:73; 90:28– 33; Tob 14:5; T. Levi 16:1–5; 17:10–11; 2 Apoc. Bar. 65:5–7;

Covenant, Oath, and Divine Sonship in Galatians 3–4  |  241

T. Moses 4:8). . . . Many penitential prayers of the Second Temple period lament the present plight of Israel as a nation (e.g., Dan 9:4–19; Ezra 9:6–15; Neh 9:5–37; Bar 1:15–3:8; Pr Azar; Sir 36:1–17 . . .) . . . This condition of Exile would last until God intervenes in the eschatological future, which is now recognized as a time well beyond the seventy years which Jeremiah envisioned (cf. Dan 9:24: 70 × 7 years) . . . The earlier salvific deeds of God can now be only a pledge . . . that the expected restoration might come in order to bring an end to the present curse and remove the guilt of the people.10 Sanders paints a picture of first-century Judaism in which covenant is primary, but there is no internal tension or predicament for which Paul’s Gospel of Jesus Christ provided the solution. Thus his famous but hapless conclusion: “This is what Paul finds wrong with Judaism: it is not Christianity.” 11 However, as Smolar, Aberbach, and Scott have shown, a large portion of first-century Judaism embraced considerable internal tension: God’s people were under a curse (cf. Gal 3:10) because of past transgressions (the golden calf and subsequent infidelity) and in need of eschatological deliverance. Paul claims this deliverance has taken place in Christ. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Contrary to the widespread assumption that Paul resorts to arbitrary and atomistic exegesis, citing texts without regard for their original contextual meaning, our study will participate in the movement within Pauline ­scholarship—traceable to C. H. Dodd and represented more recently by R. Hays and C. A. Evans—which takes seriously the contextual meanings of Paul’s OT citations.12 In his extensive and thorough study of scribal methods of exegesis in first century Judaism, D. I. Brewer has contributed substantial, if indirect, support for a contextual approach to Paul’s use of the OT. In his thorough survey of over a hundred “exegeses preserved in rabbinic literature which are likely to have originated before 70 ce,” 13 Brewer affirms three underlying principles which govern scribal exegesis: First, Scripture is totally selfconsistent. Second, every detail in Scripture is significant. Third, Scripture is understood according to its context: “Every single scribal exegesis examined could be quoted as an example to show that Scripture was interpreted according to its context. . . . Although this rule is rarely specifically mentioned, it is frequently implied. Many exegeses cannot be understood at all

242  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

without reference to the context of the text which is quoted.” 14 Brewer’s last conclusion may be overstated; nonetheless, he does succeed in showing a widespread concern for contextual interpretation (to varying degrees) in a large number of diverse, early Jewish sources—a most remarkable phenomenon seldom recognized by scholars. In light of Brewer’s study, it should simply not be assumed that Paul, a first-century Jewish exegete, was unconcerned with the contexts of his scriptural citations. One scholar who has taken seriously the context of Paul’s quotations is C. Stockhausen. In her essay on Pauline exegesis in the Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians, she begins by explaining the narrative orientation of Paul’s citations: “Paul takes as the basis for his interpretative task the Torah; that is to say, narrative texts from the Pentateuch are usually (perhaps always) at the core of his arguments. In interpreting selected Pentateuchal narratives, he is usually (perhaps always) extremely concerned with the stories themselves—that is, with plot-line, character, narrative event, and especially the inexplicable, unusual, or unmotivated character or action.” 15 As an example, Stockhausen points to Paul’s treatment of the Abraham narrative in Galatians 3–4: “Paul displays a sustained interest in the Genesis Abraham narrative in his Epistle to the Galatians. . . . The citation of Genesis 12 and 15 early in Galatians is obvious and receives great emphasis as the locus of the definitive statement of, and scriptural proof for, his ‘doctrine of justification by faith,’ so called. His clear reference to Genesis 12, 15, and 22 in Galatians 3:16, when he introduces the important concept of the seed of Abraham, is undisputed and ties the beginning and ending of Abraham’s story to Paul’s argument.” 16 Stockhausen goes on to demonstrate that these Pentateuchal narrative texts supply Paul with the key theological terms controlling the argument of Galatians. The terms Paul uses favorably (faith, righteousness, inheritance) all come from Genesis 15; those used negatively (circumcision, flesh) occur only in Genesis 17. The term “seed” occurs in both passages and serves to link the two.17 Paul’s interest in the Genesis narrative extends to the end of the probatio of Galatains, that is, Galatians 4:21–31, where Paul makes clear references to the birth stories of Ishmael (Gen 16) and Isaac (Gen 21). Thus, Stockhausen points out, Paul’s references to the Abraham story run roughly in order from beginning to end. “He begins, we realize, as Abraham begins, with promises, and ends, we realize, as Abraham ends, with sons.”18 If Stockhausen’s analysis of Paul’s contextual scriptural argumentation is correct, the question naturally arises, why has this been widely overlooked in Pauline scholarship? Stockhausen answers that the Pauline Epistles show us exegetical results, not Paul’s exegetical process:

Covenant, Oath, and Divine Sonship in Galatians 3–4  |  243

I have argued that Pauline exegesis often structures the arguments of Pauline letters but is not on that account to be expected to be exhausted by them. Quite the contrary; Paul’s interpretations of Scripture are often only to be recovered from behind or beneath his text as it stands. Paul does not describe his exegetical process. We see only its results, as the shape of his arguments expresses his hermeneutic. His exegetical process will always remain a more or less hypothetical abstraction from and beneath his tantalizingly obscure “text as we have it,” which provides some visible brush strokes but does not yield a full portrait of the exegete.19 Though she has not articulated it in precisely this way, Stockhausen’s analysis of Paul’s exegesis reveals four principles that will guide our own investigation into Galatians 3–4. First, Paul’s strategic deployment of scriptural texts is profoundly contextual, taking into account both the near context and the larger narrative context from which he quotes. Second, Paul’s exegesis is salvation-historical in orientation, meaning that the location of his OT allusions and citations within the entire arc of the biblical story of God’s redemption of his people is significant. Third, Paul employs a typological methodology to correlate different texts, figures and events of salvation history in a theologically meaningful pattern. Thus Paul often cites in tandem thematically related texts from patriarchal and Israelite narratives (see Gal 3:6–9, 10–14; 4:21–31), inviting his readers to find significant elements of historical continuity in God’s dealings with his people. For example, by viewing the typological correlation of the Abrahamic and Israelite images in Galatians 4:21–31, it becomes clear that Paul (unlike many modern covenant theologians) does not explain the Old and New Covenants exclusively in temporal terms (i.e., before/after Christ). Instead, by linking the New Covenant with Abraham, and the Old Covenant with Moses, Paul shows how the new surpasses the old precisely because it preceded it,20 in view of the promise and oath that God pledged to Abraham.21 Fourth, Paul argues in a teleological style. In other words, he deploys OT citations and allusions earlier in his discourse with a view to a certain endpoint or telos, that is, a scriptural argument or conclusion introduced only later or at the end of his discourse. For example, the typological interpretation of Genesis 16–21 in Galatians 4:21–31 forms a certain climax of Paul’s argument in Galatians, shedding light on the scriptural citations

244  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

employed earlier. Thus, interpreters need to read Paul’s arguments in both directions, since later portions shed light on earlier ones, and vice versa. The Genre and Structure of Galatians. The perceived structure of Galatians cannot but influence the Epistle’s interpretation. H. D. Betz identifies the genre of the Epistle as a Hellenistic “apologetic letter,” whose component parts are arranged as follows: Prescript (1:1–5), Exordium (1:6–11), Narratio (1:12–2:14), Propositio (2:15–21), Probatio (3:1–4:31), Exhortatio (5:1–6:10), Conclusio (6:11–18).22 Thus, in this chapter we are concerned with what Betz calls the probatio, that is, the central section of the letter, which bears the weight of the author’s argument. Notably, according to Betz’s analysis, this section concludes with Galatians 4:21–31, confirming Stockhausen’s insight into the way Paul’s use of Genesis texts reaches a thematic convergence and climax at this point, thus disclosing his teleological style of argumentation. While recognizing the value of Betz’s analysis, some qualifications are in order. It is unlikely that Paul, with his decidedly Jewish perspective, felt any compulsion to adhere strictly to Greco-Roman literary patterns. Following E. C. Muller’s structural adaptations of Betz,23 it is better to extend the propositio in Galatians 2:15–21 (where Paul summarizes his thesis in a series of concise doctrinal formulas) to include the opening verses of the third chapter (vv. 1–5). This leads to a revised structural outline for Galatians 3–4 that follows a chiastic pattern: 3:6–9 sons of Abraham 3:10–13    curse of the law: under the law 3:14      summary 3:15–21a        one seed of Abraham, why the law 3:21b–25          “under” 3:26–29            sons of God            seed of Abraham 4:1–4a          “under” 4:4b–6        sons of God, why the law 4:7      summary 4:8–20    curse of the law: in bondage to elements 4:21–31 sons of Abraham This structural analysis strongly suggests that sonship is the centerpiece and unifying theme of Galatians 3–4.24 Yet as we will see, it is not sonship

Covenant, Oath, and Divine Sonship in Galatians 3–4  |  245

per se but sonship ordered to inheritance that concerns Paul.25 Sonship is significant not merely for its own sake but because it embodies the fulfillment of God’s promise and covenant oath regarding the inheritance of Abraham’s “seed.”

Galatians 3:6–9: God’s Promissory Oath to Abraham as “The Gospel” In Galatians 3:6–9, Paul deploys two citations from the Abraham narrative (Gen 15:6; 12:3/22:18). Having just declared his militant opposition to circumcision in the propositio (Gal 2:15–21; 3:1–5), Paul seeks to defend the priority of faith over circumcision, based on Scripture. In fact, he chooses to defend his position from the Abraham cycle, the very narrative that formed the main plank in his opponents’ pro-circumcision arguments. In all likelihood they appealed to the example of Abraham in Genesis 17: granted that Gentiles have been accepted as part of God’s people through faith in Jesus Christ (like Abraham in Gen 15), it is still necessary to be circumcised to enter into God’s covenant with Abraham (like Abraham in Gen 17), through which God’s blessings flow. How does Paul correct their misreading? Muller offers a plausible explanation of Paul’s exegetical strategy: “The Judaizers had powerful support in Genesis 17:11, which declares circumcision to be the sign of the covenant. They understood Genesis 17 as the explication of Genesis 15, the first account of the covenant with Abraham. Paul reversed the interpretive direction and gave Genesis 15—‘he believed the Lord; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness’—priority over the later version. . . . It is this covenant which is not abrogated by later legislation (Gal 3:15–17).” 26 There is an important insight here: the covenant of Genesis 17 cannot add conditions to the foundational covenant of Genesis 15, even if it reconfigures Abraham’s relationship with God. It is also relevant to Paul’s case that Abraham is reckoned justified at the time of the covenant of Genesis 15, long before he receives the sign of circumcision in Genesis 17 (cf. Rom 4:10–12). However, these insights do not exhaust Paul’s exegetical strategy in these verses or in those to follow. Instead of “reversing the interpretive direction,” as Muller suggests, by moving from ch. 17 back to ch. 15, Paul actually does just the opposite. It can be shown (see pp. 261) that the “covenant” referred to in Galatians 3:15–17 is the divinely sworn covenant in Genesis 22:16–18, where God placed himself under a covenant oath—with its attendant curses (see Gal 3:13; Deut 21:23)—to bless all the nations (Gentiles)

246  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

through the “seed” of Abraham. The substance of this covenant represents exactly what Paul is primarily concerned with throughout his argument in Galatians 3–4, especially 3:6–18. He responds to his opponents who would push the covenant forward from Genesis 15 to Genesis 17 by saying, in effect: Your problem is not that you are pushing it forward, but that you are not pushing it forward far enough. Paul’s entire argument is not yet present in vv. 6–9, although there are hints of what is to come. In vv. 6–7, Paul cites Genesis 15:6, demonstrating the foundational nature of faith in the Abrahamic covenantal economy, such that it is “men of faith” who are the “sons” of Abraham. The theme of sonship is introduced here. The immediate referent is Abrahamic sonship; divine sonship will be mentioned later (3:26). But the two are related: as a son of Abraham, one enters into the divine covenant with Abraham and thus into a filial relationship with God. But in v. 8, Paul makes a different point, speaking of the “Scripture” preaching the “Gospel” to Abraham in advance. In this remarkable statement we see how Paul associates the new covenant (i.e. “the gospel”) with Abraham, such that Abraham is “pre-evangelized” (proeuēngelisato) long before the coming of Christ. Thus, the old and new covenants are not distinguished so much by chronology as by faith or the lack thereof. Temporally, the two covenants (old and new) “interpenetrate.” (In the next chapter we will see that the author of Hebrews employs a similar model of the covenantal relationship.) Paul identifies the content of this gospel preached to Abraham as “In you all the nations of the earth will be blessed.” This is a conflate quotation of Genesis 12:3 and 22:18, the two loci in Scripture where similar statements are made to Abraham. A comparison of the Greek is helpful: Gen 12:3b

kai eneulogēthēsontai en soi pasai hai phylai tēs gēs “and in you will be blessed all the tribes of the earth”

Gen 22:18a  kai eneulogēthēsontai en tō spermati sou panta ta ethnē tēs gēs “and in your seed will be blessed all the nations of the earth” Gal 3:8b

eneulogēthēsontai en soi panta ta ethnē “in you will be blessed all the nations”

The phrase “in you will be blessed” (eneulogēthēsontai en soi) must be taken from 12:3, but “all the nations” (panta ta ethnē) as the object of the blessing comes from 22:18, the only place these words are spoken to Abraham.27 Both passages may well be in Paul’s mind, with theological justifica-

Covenant, Oath, and Divine Sonship in Galatians 3–4  |  247

tion: there is a close and significant relationship between 12:3 and 22:18. Genesis 12:1–3 records the initial blessing promise given to Abraham. The different elements of this promise are confirmed to Abraham through covenants in Genesis 15 and 17, but the climactic promise of Genesis 12:3b— blessing to all people through Abraham—is not repeated to Abraham nor confirmed by a covenant-oath until 22:18, where the promise of universal blessing climaxes the solemn self-sworn oath of God after the dramatic testing of Abraham’s faith at the Aqedah. Thus, Genesis 22:18a repeats Genesis 12:3b but advances and focuses the promise in significant ways: now universal blessing is no longer just a promise, but a divine oath; and the mediator of the blessing is no longer simply Abraham but Abraham’s “seed.” To summarize, in Galatians 3:8 echoes of both Genesis 12:3 and 22:18 are present and identified as the content of the gospel. Of the two passages, 22:18 is more significant in some respects, since in 22:15–18 God ratifies his covenant with Abraham and focuses it on Abraham’s seed. The background of Genesis 22 will become prominent a few verses later in Galatians 3 when Paul will develop both the concepts of “ratification” and “seed.” This is additional evidence of his teleological style. It is not immediately apparent how the promise of blessing to the nations through Abraham is relevant to the debate between Paul and the Judaizers concerning justification by faith (baptism) versus justification by “works of the law” (circumcision). It may be Paul’s point, however, that God swore to Abraham (Gen 12:3, 12:18) that the “Gentiles” would be blessed through him as Gentiles, not as Jews, that is, not by becoming Jews through circumcision. For Paul, compelling the Gentiles to be circumcised and follow the “works of the law” was tantamount to making them Judaize (ioudaizein, cf. Gal 2:14), typically translated “to live like a Jew” but possibly “to become a Jew.” 28 To be circumcised is to be born of Abraham “according to the flesh” (like Ishmael, cf. Gal 4:29) in a physical and ethnic sense. That Gentiles who are circumcised essentially become Jews may be the hidden premise of the argument in vv. 8–9: God promised Abraham: all the Gentiles will be blessed in you. (Gal 3:8) But circumcised Gentiles are no longer Gentiles but Jews. Therefore: It is uncircumcised Gentiles (“those of faith,” not circumcision) who are blessed with Abraham. (Gal 3:9) 29

248  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

Galatians 3:10–14: The Deuteronomic Covenant Curses Borne by Christ In these five verses Paul cites four Old Testament texts—Deuteronomy 27:26; Habakkuk 2:4; Leviticus 18:5; Deuteronomy 21:23—concerning Israel’s experience in the wilderness and exile before returning to the Abrahamic theme in v. 14, a verse clearly based on Genesis 22:18. The challenge is to follow Paul’s logic and purpose behind the deployment of these texts. Deuteronomy 27:26 At first, the switch between vv. 9 and 10, from meditation on the Abraham narrative to discussion of the Deuteronomic curses, seems capricious. However, it will become clear that Paul perceives a typological relationship between the experience of Israel under the law (Deuteronomy) and the life of Abraham. Specifically, being under the curse of the law (Gal 3:10, 13) is like enduring a kind of slavery (3:23–25; 4:1, 3, 7) in which the threat of disinheritance always looms (4:30, 5:4). This corresponds to Ishmael (Gal 4:21–31), Abraham’s son by natural or “fleshly” means, and especially to Genesis 17, the account of the covenant of circumcision, in which Ishmael is circumcised (17:23) but nonetheless is disinherited (17:18–21). However, the full typological relationship between Israel-under-thelaw and the “Ishmaelite” phase of Abraham’s life is not yet developed in Galatians 3:10. Having defended the way “of faith” in vv. 6–9 by appeal to the Abraham narrative, Paul condemns the way “of works” in vv. 10–13 by appeal to texts concerning Israel and her experience under the Mosaic law: “For however many are of the works of the law, are under a curse. For it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by everything written in the book of the law, to do them” (v. 10). Scholarly debates continue over Paul’s exact point here and whether he has cited Deuteronomy 27:26 appropriately. Paul’s strategic purpose in citing this text may be clarified by considering its original context. First, Deuteronomy 27:26 marks the climax of the curse ceremony which was to take place on Mount Ebal when the Israelites had entered the promised land.30 Paul would be hard pressed to cite a more suitable text to show the underlying cause of Israel’s dreadful experience in exile, stemming from their violations of the Deuteronomic covenant, that is, “the book of the law” (Deut 28:61; 29:21; 30:10; 31:26).

Covenant, Oath, and Divine Sonship in Galatians 3–4  |  249

Second, Paul’s phrasing of 27:26 does not follow the LXX or MT exactly, but includes echoes of Deuteronomy 29:19b (or even 28:15). J. M. Scott argues that this “shows that he reads Deuteronomy 27–32 as a unit and does not consider Deut 27.26 as one verse in isolation. In fact, the formulaic expression γεγραμμένας ἐν τῴ βιβλὶῳ τού νὸμου τοὺτου [“written in the book of this Law”] which Paul cites in Gal 3.10 runs through Deuteronomy 27–32 like a leitmotif (cf. Deut 28.58, 61; 29.19, 20, 26; 30.10).” The unit Deuteronomy 27–32 consists of blessings and curses that serve to ratify the Deuteronomic covenant, whose statutes and laws have been given in Deuteronomy 12–26. But while both blessings and curses are offered in chs. 27–32, there is in fact no real doubt about which of the two will be enacted: • The curses are four times as long as the blessings (Deut 28) • Only curses are pronounced in the ratification ceremony (Deut 27) • Both God (Deut 31:16–22) and Moses (31:27–29) explicitly declare that the people will unfailingly break the covenant and actualize the curses. In fact, the purpose of Deuteronomy 32 is to serve as a song of accusation against Israel when she apostatizes. Now it becomes clear why Paul says that all those “of law” are under a curse. Anyone who undertakes to be justified by works of the Mosaic law enters once again into the Mosaic covenant and its economy, whose final and definitive form was “the book of the law,” Deuteronomy. But the Deuteronomic covenant (distinct yet related to the Sinai covenant) declared emphatically that those who undertook to fulfill it would fail and thus invoke upon themselves its fearsome curses, which culminate in exile (i.e., disinheritance). Careful reading of the text of Deuteronomy reveals it to be, in a sense, a self-retiring covenant. Although life through the Deuteronomic covenant was a theoretical possibility (Deut 30:15–19), both God and Moses knew and declared that, in fact, death and exile would result (Deut 30:1). Then, there would be a new initiative on God’s part: a regathering of the exiles and a supernatural “circumcision” of their hearts (30:4–6). This new initiative of God involving the cleansing of the heart is what Jeremiah identifies as the new covenant (Jer 31:31). For Paul, those who commit themselves once again to follow the “book of law” are attempting to rehabilitate a covenant that has failed and was—in a sense—intended to fail and thus evoke a new initiative of mercy (the circumcision of the heart) from God, which Paul sees realized in Christ.

250  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

Thus they will inevitably fall once again under the curses of this failed covenant. Habakkuk 2:4: “The one righteous from faith shall live” According to Jewish interpretive tradition, Habakkuk was a prophet who lived in the period right before the Babylonian conquest of Judah and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. Therefore, he would have experienced the crisis of faith announced by his own prophetic message, that is, the onset of the exile. In 1:12–2:1, Habakkuk questions the divine rationale behind using those who are more evil (Babylon) to punish those who are less (Judah). God delivers his response in 2:2–20 in the form of a message that cuts to the heart of the spiritual crisis that was soon to be faced in the exile: How could Israel fulfill the covenant laws when dispersed among the Gentiles, far from Jerusalem, with the Temple lying in ruins? Further, what about all of the Mosaic laws codified in the national constitution, the Deuteronomic covenant, with its laws linked to the priesthood, the central sanctuary, sacrifice, and festivals (i.e., the “works of the law”)? The Lord’s oracular answer begins on a note of hope, with the short and simple declaration: “The righteous shall live by faith” (Hab 2:4).31 In other words, although the chaos of conquest and exile has made it impossible to seek life through observance of the law, there is still a way of life open for the righteous: the way of faith. Paul cites Habakkuk 2:4 because it offers the only correct solution (faith) to the crisis caused by human sin, in general; and Israel’s infidelity to the covenant of Deuteronomy, in particular. This infidelity brought the Deuteronomic covenant curses down on Judah from Babylon in Habakkuk’s time, and from Rome in Paul’s. The solution is covenant fidelity expressed as trust in God’s faithfulness to provide and deliver even in the midst of exile.32 Since Israel’s exile continued in Paul’s day, Paul viewed Habakkuk’s message as still valid. Paul interprets Habakkuk as promising something that surpasses the limitations and liabilities of a covenant like Deuteronomy, whereby God’s promise of life to Israel (Lev 18:5) may somehow be realized, perhaps by divine means. Leviticus 18:5: “The one who does them shall live by them” Perhaps more than any other Pauline citation, exegetes are vexed by the apostle’s allusion to Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:10–12 (and Rom 10:1–5).

Covenant, Oath, and Divine Sonship in Galatians 3–4  |  251

Our analysis, however, need not explore all the issues presented by this citation. It will suffice to summarize the function of 18:5 in Paul’s immediate argument (3:10–14). Having shown via Habakkuk 2:4 that the way of the righteous in Israel’s continuing exile is based on faith, Paul cites Leviticus 18:5 as demonstration that the promise of life through the law was based strictly on performance: “He who does them shall live by them.” In the concrete situation of Paul’s contemporaries, the realities of the diaspora and exile prevented any hope of total performance of the law.33 In fact, even Paul’s Judaizing opponents were only selective in their observation of the Mosaic law, a fact which Paul does not fail to point out (Gal 6:13; cf. 2:14; 5:3). The question arises whether or not Paul’s interpretation of the law is inconsistent. Earlier he spoke of the law as entailing a curse (3:10), yet here he speaks as if it offers life to those who perform it. But there is no real contradiction. Paul would admit that the law would grant life to those who fulfilled it completely; he would only deny that anyone had, in fact, done so—certainly not the nation of Israel as a whole. In fact, it seems likely that Paul’s use of Leviticus 18:5 reflects the interpretive reuse of this verse in Ezekiel 20 (vv. 11, 13, 21) and Nehemiah 9 (v. 29).34 In both of these canonical texts, Leviticus 18:5 is used in highly critical recitations of Israel’s history, highlighting the nation’s failure to abide by the Mosaic covenant. In these contexts, 18:5 “does not represent the positive purpose of the covenant . . . but now ironically . . . it comes to signify the unrealized purpose of the covenant within redemptive history.” 35 Especially in Ezekiel 20—the context and themes of which are very close to Paul’s in Galatians 3–436 —18:5 serves as a refrain reminding Israel of what should have been, but never was. Thus, when Paul deploys Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12, he not only contrasts faith versus performance as the basis of two different covenantal arrangements, but also calls to mind that the positive purpose of the law always remained unfulfilled in Israel’s historical experience under the Levitical and Deuteronomic covenants. Though the law offered life, it did not confer the power needed to obey it. The law was necessary, but clearly not sufficient, especially apropos God’s redemptive plan for Israel and the nations. This purpose cannot be realized until and unless Israel humbly acknowledges the need for a greater power.37 In adopting this attitude toward the law, Paul reflects the tensions within the book of Deuteronomy itself. For while Deuteronomy stresses the offer of life through the law (Deut 30:15–20; 32:47), it also makes clear that this offer of life will never be realized until God initiates an internal

252  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

transformation of his people, an eschatological “circumcision of the heart” (Deut 30:6). Deuteronomy 21:23: “Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree” As F. F. Bruce and others have shown, Paul cites Deuteronomy 21:23 in Galatians 3:13 in order to establish a link with Deuteronomy 27:26 (cited in Gal 3:10) via “the exegetical device of gezerah shawah (“equal category”) which depends on the presence of a common term in the two texts brought together.” Paul highlights the link between the two texts by rewording the LXX of Deuteronomy 21:23 to begin, like 27:26, with the phrase “cursed is every[one]” (epikataratos pas). Deuteronomy 27:26 sums up the Deuteronomic principle that the curse of God will rest on those who fail to keep all the laws of the “book of the law” (Deuteronomy). Deuteronomy 21:23 describes a manner of death in which an individual falls under divine curse; in fact, becomes a curse, if the Hebrew is taken literally. By suffering this kind of death, Paul argues, Christ has borne the Deuteronomic curse as redemptive representative of Israel. N. T. Wright explains: The clue to it all is Paul’s corporate christology [sic]. . . . Because the Messiah represents Israel, he is able to take on himself Israel’s curse and exhaust it. Jesus dies as the King of the Jews, at the hands of the Romans whose oppression of Israel is the present, and climactic, form of the curse of exile itself. The crucifixion of the Messiah is, one might say, the quintessence of the curse of exile, and its climactic act. . . . Christ, as the representative Messiah, has . . . [taken] on himself the curse which hung over Israel and which on the one hand prevented her from enjoying full membership in Abraham’s family and thereby on the other hand prevented the blessing of Abraham from flowing out to the Gentiles. . . . That which, in the scheme of Deuteronomy, Israel needed if she incurred the curse of the law, is provided in Christ . . . He is Israel, going down to death under the curse of the law, and going through that curse to the new covenant life beyond.38 Thus Christ serves as the corporate representative of Israel, bearing away the curse merited by their covenantal infidelities. But what of the Gentiles? Does Christ’s death bear a curse on their behalf, and if so, how? One must

Covenant, Oath, and Divine Sonship in Galatians 3–4  |  253

apply the concept of redemptive representative one step farther by recognizing that Israel herself was the redemptive representative of all mankind. This is expressed in the narrative of Genesis and Exodus, where the notion of redemptive representation is presented in terms of primogeniture: Israel is the firstborn son of God within the family of nations (Exod 4:22). Israel is to function as a corporate priest—that is, as one who makes atonement— within the international family (Exod 19:6). Wright argues that “the Torah has the effect of, as it were, piling up the sin of the world . . . in Israel.” 39 It is precisely because they share in the sin of the nations that they are divinely called to serve as the redemptive representative for the nations: “The Torah brings the curse for Israel, because Israel has not kept it. . . . Israel as a whole has failed in her task of being the light to the nations, of being the seed of Abraham through whom the varied families of the world would be blessed. . . . The consequence of the curse was that the blessing bequeathed to Abraham, to be enacted through his seed, looked as though it would never reach its destination.” 40 That is how Wright explains Paul’s strategic use of OT citations in Galatians 3:10–14 to explicate the covenant logic behind the Christ event. He describes Paul as “expounding covenantal theology, from Abraham through Deuteronomy and Leviticus, through Habakkuk, to Jesus the Messiah,” and thus concludes—not surprisingly, nor without warrant—that the “original assumption, that Galatians 3 should be treated as ‘covenant theology,’ has been fully vindicated.” 41 The Jewish exegetical tradition associated Deuteronomy 21:23 with two other OT passages, both of which may be pertinent to Paul’s discussion in Galatians 3. First, the Palestinian Targums associated 21:23 with Numbers 25:1–10, the account of the apostasy at Baal-peor, culminating in the hanging of the chiefs of the people “before the Lord” and Phinehas’ execution of an Israelite man and his Moabite consort. The Targums apparently made the connection between the texts because of the common reference to the hanging of persons, and highlighted the connection further by including the detail that the offenders were to be hanged “upon wood” and buried before sundown in accord with Deuteronomy 21:23: And the people of the house of Israel joined themselves to BaalPeor, just like the nail in the wood, which is not separated but by breaking up the wood. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel. And the Lord said to Moseh, Take all the chiefs of the people, and appoint for them judges, and let them give judgment to put to death the people who have gone astray after Peor, and hang them before the Lord upon the wood over against the

254  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

morning sun, and at the departure of the sun take them down and bury them, and turn away the strong anger of the Lord.42 Commenting on this text, A.T. Hanson remarks: “It is very tempting to think that Paul actually knew of this Targum, or the tradition that lay behind it, and this explains in part at least why he writes about Christ. . . . The act of redemption reversed the act of trespass at Baal Peor.” 43 Paul’s concern in Galatians 3 is Christ’s bearing of the curses of Deuteronomy. The apostasy at Baal-peor directly precipitated the giving of the Deuteronomic covenant, which was delivered to Israel by Moses at that very location. The hanging of the leaders of the people was to atone or propitiate for the people’s sin before God. Significantly, the text never records the carrying out of this sentence, leaving open the interpretive possibility that the sentence against the leaders was never carried out and thus the sin of Baal-peor was never atoned for. It is “tempting,” as Hanson says, to view Paul as suggesting that Christ as leader of the people now atones for the sins of Israel which provoked the Deuteronomic covenant and its attendant curses by “hanging on the wood” before God. However, the hypothesis is too speculative to be demonstrated conclusively. Secondly, Jewish tradition connected Deuteronomy 21:23 with Genesis 22:9 LXX, the near-sacrifice of Isaac “upon the wood”: kai ōkodomēsen ekei Abraam thysiastērion And Abraham built there an altar and laid out the wood; and having kei epethēken ta xyla kai sympodisas    bound Isaak ton huion autou epethēken auton Isaac his son, he laid him epi to thysiastērion epanō tōn xylōn on the altar, upon the wood.

Deuteronomy 21:23 may have been linked in Paul’s mind with Genesis 22:9 by the analogy of epanō tōn xylōn (“upon the wood”) with epi xylou (“on wood”). Max Wilcox argues that “behind the present context in Galatians 3 there is an earlier midrashic link between Gen 22:6–9 and Deut 21:22–23 by way of the common term ‫[ עץ‬xylon, “wood”],” citing Gen. Rab. 56:4 and (Ps.)-Tertullian, Adv. Iudaeos 10:6 as evidence.44 This possibility becomes stronger when one recognizes the reworking of Genesis 22:18—the climactic verse of the Aqedah narrative—in Galatians 3:14.

Covenant, Oath, and Divine Sonship in Galatians 3–4  |  255

Genesis 22:18 and Galatians 3:14. Several scholars, notably Max Wilcox, have pointed out that Galatians 3:14 represents a Christological reworking of Genesis 22:18. The phrase “that the blessing may be unto the nations” (eis ta ethnē hē eulogia . . . genētai) in Galatians 3:14a corresponds to “all the nations will be blessed in [you]” (eneulogēthēsonta . . . panta ta ethnē) in Genesis 22:18a, and “in Christ ­Jesus” (en Christō Iēsou) with “in your seed” (en tō spermati sou). Here Paul implicitly equates the “seed” of Abraham with Jesus Christ, as he will do explicitly in v. 16.45 The presence of Genesis 22:18 behind 3:14 should not surprise us, since 22:18 was evoked earlier in Galatians 3:8. The relationship between Galatians 3:13–14 and the Aqedah has not been missed by Jewish commentators on Paul. For example, G. Vermeš observes: “In the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul teaches that the blessing of Abraham promised to the Gentiles is available through Jesus, ‘the seed’ of Abraham. The Saviour is Christ, not Isaac. The source of salvation is not the Binding of Isaac, but the sacrifice of Christ. In Galatians 3:6–9, Paul uses Genesis 12, 18 and 22 indiscriminately, but in verses 13 and 14 he obviously has Genesis 22:18 in mind.” 46 Levenson, another Jewish interpreter of Paul, also sees how Aqedah typology controls much of the argument here: As Paul read this text through his own particular christological lenses, the key point would probably have been this: it is the ­father’s willingness to surrender his beloved and promised son unto death that extends the blessing of the Jews to “all the nations of the earth.” The equivalent for Jesus of the binding of Isaac is, once again, his crucifixion. It is undoubtedly this that underlies Paul’s citation of Deuteronomy 21:23 (Gal 3:13). . . . In positioning this clause before his mention of the blessing of Abraham (v. 14), Paul develops a polarity between the curse that, in his view, comes from biblical laws and the blessing that comes from biblical promises. This, too, befits one of his central objectives in composing the letter to the Galatians. . . . Though far from an antinomian, Paul rather consistently associated the laws of the Torah with sin, curse, condemnation, and death, all of which are antithetical to those things he associated with Jesus. In the juxtaposition of Gal 3:13 and 3:14, we can thus hear a recapitulation of the whole movement of Pauline salvation history: from curse to

256  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

blessing, from law to spirit and faith, from Israel to Church, from the crucifixion to the blessings contingent upon it.47 In sum, the Aqedah and divine oath represent an interpretive key to Paul’s argument in Galatians 3:13–14. In the crucifixion of Christ, as God’s “only beloved son” (Gen 22:2), Abraham is proven right. God did “provide himself the lamb for a holocaust” (Gen 22:8; see 22:14). By swearing a covenant oath, God subjected himself to the curse that rightly belonged to Israel and the Gentiles, in order to guarantee, at his own expense, the blessing of all nations. God’s faithfulness thus surpasses even that of Abraham. At the same time, Christ’s filial trust exceeds that which Isaac manifested. By voluntarily offering himself “upon the tree,” Christ ratified the New Covenant by fulfilling in himself—as the divine Son—the curses that were deserved by those who were called to divine sonship as the seed of Abraham. The Aqedah not only secured but signified the divine oath and its attendant curse. In other words, the Aqedah served as a ritual preenactment of the curse entailed by God’s covenant oath to bless the nations through Abraham’s seed (Gen 22:16–18). This covenant oath meant that God himself assumed ultimate responsibility to bless the nations, even if that required that he bear the immense burden of the curse for their sin.

Galatians 3:15–18: The Priority of the Abrahamic Covenant Oath Galatians 3:15–18 is a crux interpretum requiring somewhat more attention on our part than other pericopes in Galatians 3–4. At the heart of this crux is the meaning of the term diathēkē in Galatians 3:15: Should it be translated “last will” or “testament,” as in secular Greek; or “covenant,” in keeping with the LXX and Paul’s usage elsewhere? We argue first, that the sense of diathēkē in vv. 15 and 17 is “covenant”; second, that the diathēkē in view here is the Abrahamic covenant ratified in Genesis 22:15–18; and third, that understanding the covenant-oath of the Aqedah (Gen 22:15–18) as the subtext clarifies Paul’s theological argument in 3:15–18.48 Diathēkē as “Covenant” in Galatians 3:15. Although the most basic meaning of diathēkē seems to have been “a disposition,” from diatithēmi, “to dispose, determine, distribute, establish,”

Covenant, Oath, and Divine Sonship in Galatians 3–4  |  257

this meaning is rarely attested and only in older texts.49 Over time the term became particularized to one specific kind of disposition, namely, “a final testamentary disposition in view of death” 50 Within Hellenistic Judaism, however, the development of the term followed a different trajectory. The translators of the Septuagint, with almost complete consistency, chose diathēkē to render the Hebrew bĕrît, “covenant.” This translational choice has elicited some scholarly discussion, since the usual Greek term for “covenant” is synthēkē.51 Yet there is no reason to think the Septuagintal translators misunderstood bĕrît as “last will and testament”; rather, “it may be assumed that where LXX uses diathēkē the intention is to mediate the sense and usage of bĕrît.” 52 For the most part, later Second Temple literature also employed diathēkē in the sense “covenant.” 53 A testament is quite a different sort of legal institution than a covenant. A testament provided for the distribution of an individual’s estate shortly before or after his or her death, whereas a covenant was a legally binding relationship of obligation—which could take a wide variety of forms— ­ratified by an oath between one or more parties, which seldom concerned the distribution of goods after one’s death per se.54 Usually, which of the two senses diathēkē bears is clarified by the context, but Galatians 3:15 is a difficult case: Adelphoi, kata anthrōpon legō Brothers, I speak according to a human being: homōs anthrōpou kekyrōmenēn once a person’s will has been ratified,    diathēkēn oudeis athetei ē epidiatassetai no one adds to it or annuls it.

Most contemporary commentators agree that diathēkē here should be taken in the secular sense “will” or “testament.” Usually it is proposed that either (1) the presence of “technical legal terms” (kuroō, atheteō, epidiatassomai) 55 or (2) the introductory statement “I speak according to a human being” (kata anthrōpon legō) suggests that Paul is using diathēkē in its Hellenistic sense.56 However, neither of these arguments withstands scrutiny. First, the presence of supposed “technical legal terms” in 3:15 has been quite exaggerated.57 But more importantly, the argument from “legal terminology” presupposes a false dichotomy between the “legal” sense of diathēkē as “testament” and the “nonlegal” sense of diathēkē as “covenant.” 58 In fact, a “covenant” is just as much a legal instrument as a “testament,” only of a different kind. Legal terminology is equally applicable to both.59 Indeed, Paul uses “legal” terminology throughout Galatians 3, yet

258  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

always within the context of Israel’s religious law and covenantal history.60 For example, the terms prokyroō and akyroō are applied to diathēkē in 3:17, where it clearly bears the meaning “covenant.” Secondly, as C. H. Cosgrove has shown, the typical rendering of “I speak according to a human being” (kata anthrōpon legō) as “I cite an example from everyday life” cannot be substantiated by the use of the phrase in Greek literature.61 A better translation would be “I speak according to human standards.” The mistranslation has led scholars into thinking that Paul commits himself to using diathēkē as it was customarily used in secular Greco-Roman society, when, in fact, he merely indicates that he will argue from what is true in the human realm to what is true in the divine. Therefore, neither the presence of legal terminology nor the phrase kata anthrōpon legō support understanding diathēkē as “testament” rather than “covenant.” Moreover, there are three serious difficulties with diathēkē as “testament” in 3:15. First, Paul always employs diathēkē as “covenant” in his other writings.62 The same is true for the LXX translators, as well as the other NT writers and the apostolic fathers.63 Second, the reference to a Hellenistic “testament” in v. 15 would represent a lapse in the coherence of Paul’s argument. Both before and after v. 15 he proceeds strictly within the conceptual sphere of the Jewish (not Greco-Roman) law. It is difficult to see the relevance of an analogy drawn from the secular court. Third (and most seriously), if Paul intends diathēkē to be understood as “testament” in v. 15, his statement “no one adds to or annuls [a diathēkē]” it is quite erroneous.64 It is widely acknowledged that all known Greek, Roman, or Egyptian “testaments” could be annulled (atheteō) or supplemented (diatassomai) by the testator.65 Legal practice in the first century directly contradicts what commentators claim Paul is asserting. This has led to an exegetical impasse.66 In an attempt to get beyond this impasse, some scholars suggest that Paul’s statement oudeis athetei ē epidiatassetai means “no one [other than the testator] can annul or supplement [it].” It is then supposed that Paul holds God to be the “testator” of the Abrahamic “testament,” whereas angels give the Mosaic law (3:19).67 Since the angels are not the “testators,” their law cannot annul or supplement the original testament. This interpretation strains the sense of v. 19. Concerning the phrase dia angelōn (“through angels”), Burton remarks: “[It] does not describe the law as proceeding from the angels, but only as being given by their instrumentality, and the whole argument of vv. 19–22 implies that the law proceeded

Covenant, Oath, and Divine Sonship in Galatians 3–4  |  259

from God.” 68 It was a commonplace in Second Temple Judaism that the Sinaitic law came by means of angels, but nonetheless from God.69 Other attempts around the impasse have focused on finding some contemporary legal instrument that does fit Paul’s description of a diathēkē in v. 15. Greer Taylor suggests that Paul refers to the Roman fidei commissum.70 Ernst Bammel states that Paul has the Jewish ‫ מתנת בריא‬in view.71 However, there is no positive evidence that Paul’s Galatian audience would have been familiar with either of these legal institutions, and more importantly, neither was called a diathēkē.72 How could Paul expect his readers to understand that by diathēkē he meant neither “covenant” nor “testament” but a lesser-known legal instrument not called a diathēkē? 73 A better interpretation results if one understands diathēkē according to Paul’s normal use of the word, that is, as “covenant.” This has two advantages over the previously mentioned proposals: First, if we may assume that the Galatian congregation was familiar with Paul and his manner of speaking, it seems likely they would have understood Paul’s use of diathēkē according to his usual meaning.74 Second, since a covenant was irrevocable even by its maker (as we will show in the next section), Paul’s statement that “no one annuls or supplements it” rings true without nuancing.75 The Covenant as Inviolable Legal Institution The idea of “covenant” is so theologically charged in biblical scholarship, it is easy to overlook that the covenant institution had a life of its own in antiquity quite apart from its particular religious significance in Judaism and Christianity. F. M. Cross offers the following working definition: “Oath and covenant, in which the deity is witness, guarantor, or participant, is . . . a widespread legal means by which the duties and privileges of kinship may be extended to another individual or group.” 76 Covenants were widely used to regulate human relationships on the personal, tribal, and national levels throughout ancient Mesopotamian, Anatolian, Semitic, and classical (Greek and Latin) cultures.77 The Bible itself attests to the widespread use of covenants. At least twenty-five different covenants between two human parties—always rendered by diathēkē in the LXX—are mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures: for example, between Abraham and Abimelech (Gen 21:27–32), Laban and Jacob (Gen 31:14), David and Jonathan (1 Sam 18:2), David and Abner (2 Sam 3:12–13), and many others.78 Of particular relevance to Paul’s point in Galatians 3:15 is the narrative of the covenant between the Israelites and Gibeonites. Joshua cannot break his covenant with the Gibeonites despite the fact that it was based on de-

260  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

ception (Josh 9); the covenant remains valid for generations, such that Saul brings down a curse on his descendants when he violates it (2 Sam 21:1–14). Also of significance for Paul’s use of diathēkē is the fact that the author of 1 ­Maccabees—a Hellenistic Jew, writing not so very long before Paul—­understood diathēkē in the sense of bĕrît or “covenant” and applied the term in that sense to relatively recent human affairs (see 1 Macc 1:11; 11:9). As we have seen in previous chapters, those scholars who work with biblical and nonbiblical covenant texts point out that a covenant was always ratified by an oath.79 As G. P. Hugenberger states: “the sine qua non of ‘covenant’ in its normal sense appears to be its ratifying oath.” 80 For this reason, the terms “oath” (Heb., ʾālâ; Gk., horkos) and “covenant” (bĕrît; diathēkē) are frequently associated, and at times functionally equivalent, in the Bible (both Testaments), OT Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha, Qumran literature, Targums, ancient Near Eastern documents, and classical Greek literature.81 As we have seen, the oath which ratified a covenant generally took the form of an implicit or explicit self-curse in which the gods were called upon to inflict punishments upon the covenant maker should he violate his commitment.82 Because a covenant was ratified by oath before the gods (or God), the obligations to which the parties had sworn could not be annulled or supplemented by either party subsequently.83 Quell summarizes the legal status of an oath-sworn covenant as follows: “The legal covenant . . . makes the participants brothers of one bone and one flesh. . . . Their relationship as thus ordered is unalterable, permanent, . . . and inviolable, and thus makes supreme demands on the legal sense and responsibility of the participants. There is no firmer guarantee of legal security . . . than the covenant. Regard for the institution is made a religious duty by means of the oath taken at its establishment [my emphasis].” 84 In light of Quell’s summary, one can see (1) how baseless is the argument that diathēkē must mean “testament” because of the “legal terminology” in Galatians 3:15; and (2) when diathēkē is taken as “covenant” in 3:15, Paul’s statement “no one annuls or supplements even a human diathēkē once it is ratified” makes excellent sense.85 Paul, like the translators of the LXX and the author of 1 Maccabees, has employed diathēkē as the equivalent of bĕrît to describe covenants both human and divine. Thus, not only does the inviolable covenant fit the precise statements of Paul in v. 15, but Paul’s thinking throughout chapters 3 and 4 is deeply shaped by the covenant institution, such that one could describe it as “covenant logic.” 86

Covenant, Oath, and Divine Sonship in Galatians 3–4  |  261

The Diathēkē of Galatians 3:15, 17 as the Covenant-Oath of the Aqedah In previous chapters attention was drawn to the fact that Genesis records three distinct covenant-making episodes in the life of Abraham (Gen 15:17–21; 17:1–27; 22:15–18).87 Is it possible to determine which of these three, if any, Paul has specifically in mind in Galatians 3:15 and 17? A close reading of the context of Galatians 3:15–18 reveals three salient characteristics of the diathēkē of v. 17: 1. It is “ratified by God” (prokekyrōmenēn hupo tou theou, v. 17), not by a human (anthrōpos, v. 15). 2. It is made with Abraham and his “seed” (sperma, vv. 16, 18).88 3. It guarantees a divine blessing (eulogia) to the Gentiles (ta ethnē, v. 14).89 Since neither Genesis 15:17–21 nor 17:1–27 promise blessing to the Gentiles, Genesis 22:16–18 is the only potential source-text with all three characteristics.90 The passage reads:91 By myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son,92 I will indeed bless you (eulogōn eulogēsō se), and I will multiply your seed (sperma) as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your seed shall inherit the gate of his enemies93 and by your seed shall all the nations (panta ta ethnē) of the earth be blessed. Here all three elements occur—(1) ratification by God with a solemn oath of a covenant containing a promise (2) to Abraham and to his “seed” concerning (3) blessing of the Gentiles (eneulogēthēsontai . . . panta ta ethnē, v. 18a).94 Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the specific diathēkē Paul has in mind in Galatians 3:17 is the Abrahamic covenant in its final form, as ratified most solemnly by God’s oath after the Aqedah (Gen 22:15– 18). This final form of the covenant is based on what Abraham has done (Gen 22:15); it is not conditioned on the continued practice of circumcision or any other observance. It should not surprise us to find allusion to the Aqedah in Galatians 3:15–18, since we have seen that Paul has the Aqedah in mind in the verses directly preceding (vv. 13–14). Even the example of a human diathēkē in

262  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

v. 15 itself may have been inspired by Paul’s meditation on the near context of the Aqedah: strikingly, the Aqedah (Gen 22:1–19) is directly preceded by the first account of the making of a human covenant recorded in Scripture: that between Abraham and Abimelech (Gen 21:22–34). Since Paul engages the Aqedah pericope (Gen 22:1–19) in 3:15–18 and the expulsion of Ishmael pericope (Gen 21:8–21) in 4:21–31, he cannot have failed to notice the narrative of a human covenant (Gen 21:22–34) sandwiched between them.95 Once again, this seems to confirm Stockhausen’s view that Paul is concerned with the entire Abrahamic narrative. The Legal Form of Paul’s Argument in Galatians 3:15–17 Granted that Paul has the covenant-oath of the Aqedah in mind in his discussion of the “diathēkē ratified beforehand by God” in vv. 15 and 17, how does this insight illuminate Paul’s theological argument in 3:15–18? Paul’s argument in vv. 15–18 is a legal argument (thus the legal terminology) in the kal va-homer (a fortiori, or lesser-to-greater) form.96 Since even in the lesser sphere of human justice it is illegal to change the conditions of a covenant after one has sworn to it (v. 15), it is more so in the sphere of divine justice, when God unilaterally swears to bless all the Gentiles through Abraham’s seed (v. 17). Paul’s argument is also a reductio ad absurdum: he shows that his ­opponent’s position leads to an unacceptable conclusion. The Judaizers argue that obedience to the Mosaic law is necessary for the Abrahamic blessing to reach the Gentiles, that is, for them to become children of God and children of Abraham. In Paul’s view, this would be tantamount to placing the Mosaic law as a condition for the fulfillment of God’s covenant with Abraham to bless the nations through his “seed” (Gen 22:16–18). Since, at the Aqedah, God put himself under an unconditional, unilaterally binding oath to fulfill his covenant with Abraham, this would be nonsense. To suppose that God added conditions (the Mosaic law) to the Abrahamic covenant, long after it had been unilaterally sworn by God would imply that God acted illegally, reneging on a commitment in a way not tolerated even in human covenants. This would be an utterly unacceptable conclusion; therefore, the premise that obedience to the Mosaic law had become the condition for Gentile inclusion into the Abrahamic covenant blessings must be rejected.

Covenant, Oath, and Divine Sonship in Galatians 3–4  |  263

Galatians 3:16: The One “Seed” as Christ If indeed the Aqedah is the background for the discussion in vv. 15–17, light is shed on Paul’s puzzling argument based on the singular “seed” of Abraham in v. 16, a notorious crux interpretum.97 The narrative context of the Aqedah enables Paul to lay another subtle but significant plank in his argument against his Judaizing opponents. It is not coincidence that the narrative of Genesis 22 stresses three times that Isaac is the one or only son of Abraham (Heb., yāḥîd, vv. 2, 12, 16, cf. Gal 3:16, Gk., eph’ henos), pointedly excluding Ishmael (cf. Gen 17:18– 21) and any other progeny (cf. 25:1–5) from view. Moreover, the covenantal blessing in Genesis 22:18, unlike similar ones in 12:3 and 18:18, is only through Abraham’s “seed,” which in context is Isaac. Thus, Paul’s point about the promise not being to “seeds” but to the one “seed” has some justification from the narrative of Genesis itself.98 If Paul had simply made the point that the “seed” in the context of Genesis 12–22 is primarily one individual, Isaac, there would be no controversy. However, Paul identifies the one “seed” as Christ. Why Christ and not Isaac? The most satisfying explanation is that Paul is engaged in an Isaac-Christ typology.99 What Paul has in view is probably Isaac’s singular claim to Abrahamic sonship in Genesis 22, precisely as a result of the expulsion and disinheritance of Abraham’s other “seed” Ishmael in Genesis 21. This becomes explicit in Galatians 4:21–31, the climax of Paul’s argument.100 M. Pérez Fernández comments: “Throughout Paul’s entire argumentation and in the typological representation that he makes of Isaac, the term with which Isaac is denominated in Gen 22,2.12.16 in the chapter about the Akedah is fundamental . . . Paul . . . translate[s] the concept of yaḥid with the Greek numeral heis. The whole argumentation of chapter 3 of Galatians is based on the following equivalence: Isaac is heis, Jesus is heis, God is heis, believers are called to overcome their differences [cf. Gal 3:28] . . . by being heis in Christ.” 101 But more is involved in Paul’s IsaacChrist typology than the “only son” motif: he sees Christ’s passion as the fulfillment of Isaac’s binding. Isaac indeed carries the wood of his death up the mountain, and is affixed to it in sacrifice, the “only” beloved son of his father, offering himself in obedience to God’s command. But ultimately the sacrifice is abortive: it is, after all, the Aqedah and not the ʿolah of Isaac. The sacrifice is incomplete, and the divine promises (Gen 22:16–18) are not actualized in Isaac. When and through whom was Isaac’s abortive sacrifice completed and

264  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

the promises actualized? In Paul’s view, through Christ at Golgotha. There, the “only beloved son” (cf. Rom 8:32, John 3:16) bore the wood of his death up the mountain, was affixed to it, and died in obedience to the command of the Father. Now through him the promised blessing of the Gentiles (Gen 22:18)—that is, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Gal 3:2, 5, 14)—had come to pass. For Paul, Abraham’s binding of Isaac not only merited the blessing of the Gentiles through Abraham’s “seed” (Gen 22:18), but in fact prefigured and preenacted the sacrifice of the only beloved Son which would release that same blessing.102 Galatians 3:16 is not the only evidence that Paul reads the Abrahamic narratives typologically.103 An implicit Isaac-Christ typology of the Aqedah has been recognized by Vermeš, Levenson and others in vv. 13–14, as noted above. Moreover, as we will see, at the climax of the epistolary probatio in Galatians 4:21–31,104 Paul draws an explicit typological allegory based on Genesis 21, in which the exclusion of Ishmael from the Abrahamic covenant blessing and the exclusive identification of Isaac as Abraham’s heir figures prominently.

Galatians 3:19–22: Mosaic Covenant Law Added for Transgressions At this point in his discourse, Paul has argued for a radically different view of salvation history from that of his Judaizing opponents: the foundational covenant with God’s people was not at Sinai but at Moriah. Paul must now explain the purpose of the Mosaic legislation if it was not to establish the fundamental relationship between God and Israel. “Why then the Law?” says Paul, “It was added because of transgressions.” It seems that Paul, like Ezekiel before him (Ezek 20), has recognized an important literary-historical pattern woven into the fabric of the Pentateuch, with its continual oscillation between narrative and law. The pattern is consistently the same: Israel sins and laws are added. In previous chapters we observed this pattern running from Exodus through Deuteronomy. It is highlighted most prominently in two places in the narrative: after the apostasy of the first generation at the golden calf, the Tabernacle legislation and “priestly code” are delivered to the people; and after the apostasy of the second generation at Baal-peor, the Deuteronomic code (“book of the law”) is imposed on the people by Moses. These two incidents may be prominent in Paul’s mind; we have already seen that echoes of the

Covenant, Oath, and Divine Sonship in Galatians 3–4  |  265

Baal-peor episode may be present in the allusion to Deuteronomy 21:23 in Galatians 3:13. The question then arises, what does Paul mean here by “the Law”? Does he mean all divine law, including the Decalogue; or only the additional bodies of law “added” after the “transgressions” which began with the golden calf incident? The first option, that all divine law was given to Israel in response to transgressions, is not unthinkable nor without precedent. For example, in Ezekiel’s scathing recounting of Israel’s spiritual history (Ezek 20), even the first formal giving of the law (the Sinai event, Ezek 20:11) is preceded by the rebellion of Israel already in Egypt (Ezek 20:8). Indeed, Ezekiel’s perspective has a basis in the Pentateuchal narrative, which portrays the Israelites as grumbling and recalcitrant long before the revelation at Sinai (Exod 5:21; 6:9; 14:11–12; 15:24; 16:2–12; 17:2–3). Nonetheless, certain clues in Paul’s statement in v. 19 indicate that the “Law” is not the first Sinai revelation—the Decalogue—but the legislation given subsequent to the golden calf. He describes the “Law” as (1) “added,” (2) “because of trangressions,” (3) “through angels and by the hand of a mediator.” None of these three elements seems to describe the original revelation of the Decalogue. First, the Decalogue was not “added” to anything else, but appears to be God’s most direct revelation of himself to his people. J. Bligh remarks: “Strictly speaking the decalogue [sic] was not ‘added’ at all: it summed up the religion of the Patriarchs.” Rather, Paul’s use of the word “added,” (prostithēmi), may allude to Moses’ concluding words after the restatement of the Decalogue in Deuteronomy 5:1–21: “These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added (prosethēken) no more” (Deut 5:22). God did not add anything more directly. What was added came through Moses, especially after Beth-peor, as Deuteronomy explicitly and repeatedly affirms (Deut 4:1–3, 44–46; 29:1 [28:69 MT]). Second, the law “was added because of transgressions.” This statement does not seem to apply well to the narrative of the giving of the Decalogue or even the so-called “Covenant Code” (Exod 21–23) which consists mainly of case applications of the principles of the Decalogue anyway. The Pentateuchal narrative does not connect these laws in any immediate way with the transgressions of the people; in any event, from a Pauline perspective, “sin is not counted where there is no law” (cf. Rom 3:13) and the misdeeds of the people prior to Sinai do not have the weight of the calf

266  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

apostasy, which takes place after the people have knowledge of God’s law and have entered the covenant. Ancient Jewish tradition did, however, observe a close connection between the calf incident and the ritual legislation (Exod 25–Lev 27), all of which is revealed to the people after the apostasy, and much of which aims to atone for sin. Third, being “given through angels by the hand of a mediator” does not apply well to the Decalogue, which according to Deuteronomy 5:4; 22–27 and Exodus 20:1–21:1 was given by God speaking directly to the people. All subsequent laws, however, are given through the mediation of Moses. In particular, we have seen in previous chapters that when the covenant is renewed in the aftermath of the calf rebellion, the narrative emphasizes the heightened function of the angel(s) and Moses as mediator(s) between God and Israel. Moses’ role as mediator reaches its zenith in Deuteronomy, almost all of which is his direct speech. Concerning the angel(s), ancient rabbinic traditions attributed Israel’s subjection under an angel—like the Gentile nations—to a punishment for the golden calf idolatry.105 It is not surprising, then, that several scholars have identified the “law added because of transgressions” in Galatians 3:19 with the ritual, purity, and civil legislation given to Israel in the aftermath of the golden calf and subsequent rebellions. J. Bligh asserts: “The statement that ‘it was added on account of transgressions’ . . . means ‘it was added because Israel had fallen into idolatry (by worshipping the Golden Calf) and to prevent further sins of idolatry. St. Paul cannot be talking about the decalogue . . . but only about the further legislation added after Israel had sinned. . . . The decalogue was not ‘added’ . . . What was added was the positive ritual-­legislation concerning sacrifices, forbidden foods etc. [i.e., Exodus 25–­Leviticus 27].” T. Callan produces additional arguments that support Bligh’s interpretation, pointing out that Paul refers to the golden calf incident at least four times in his letters—even simply equating the events of Exodus 34 (the covenant renewal after the calf) with the giving of the Mosaic law in 2 Corinthians 3:7–18. If Bligh and Callan are correct, Paul’s understanding of the consequences of the golden calf is not so different from what we have found in ancient Jewish and early Christian sources. The Didascalia Apostolorum states: “For the law which the Lord spoke before the people had made the calf and served idols, which consists of the ten commandments and the judgments [Exod 20–23]. But after they had served idols, He justly laid upon them bonds . . . [But] our Saviour came . . . to set us loose from the bonds of the Second Legislation.” Likewise Irenaeus remarks: “God himself personally spoke the Decalogue . . . that is why they remain valid

Covenant, Oath, and Divine Sonship in Galatians 3–4  |  267

for us. . . . But the precepts of slavery he laid separately upon the people through Moses. . . . When they turned aside to make the Calf . . . they received . . . further servile obligations . . . as Ezekiel says [citing Ezek 20:25].” To summarize Paul’s evaluation of the law in Galatians 3:19–22, we may say that Paul regarded the great bulk of the Mosaic law as secondary (“added”), penitential (in response to transgressions), temporary (until the coming of the “seed” promised Abraham at the Aqedah [Gen 22:18]), and indirectly divine (given through mediators). In every aspect it must concede priority and primacy to the self-sworn divine oath given to Abraham to bless the nations.

Galatians 3:23–29: From a Servile Pedagogy to the Spirit of Sonship In Galatians 3:24 Paul describes the law as a “custodian” (paidagōgos).106 Scholars are unanimous in seeing this term as a metaphor based on a household slave. The slave was given temporary charge of a minor son by his father for the purpose of exercising strict disciplinary supervision of his behavior, which sometimes required using severe punitive measures. Scholars have not, however, reached any consensus on the source of Paul’s use of the metaphor. While a majority still favor a Greco-Roman background, a stronger case can be made for a Jewish setting. A Jewish background would certainly comport better with Paul’s customary use of the Old Testament, especially in Galatians.107 Whatever the case, Paul’s use of this domestic metaphor marks a definitive turning point in his argument, after which he turns his complete attention to the covenant in terms of a father-son relationship.108 Paul now brings to a climax the long buildup of images that have clustered around sonship—Abrahamic and divine. He does so in three parts. First, in Galatians 3:26–29 the divine sonship of Christians is discussed in terms of the covenant bond forged through baptism. Second, in 4:1–7 the divine sonship of Israel is treated in terms of its covenant-historical development, with God as father raising his son from childhood through adolescence to adulthood. Third, in 4:21–31 Isaac’s sonship is presented in stark contrast to that of Ishmael, the circumcised slave-son who was disinherited. In each of these three sections we will observe that sonship is ordered to inheritance; it is not just the son but the son-heir that concerns Paul. It has been noted that Paul presents various elements of his theological

268  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

argument in Galatians 3 (promise, blessing, faith, justification, spirit, etc.) with a critical eye toward what his opponents apparently attribute to the “works of the law,” especially circumcision.109 In Galatians 3:26–29 Paul sharpens the polemical edge of his rhetoric by insisting that all of these elements converge on baptism and are imparted through it.110 Clearly, he means to pit the two covenant rites—circumcision and ­baptism—against each other. He does so in a daring manner by announcing in 3:26–27: “For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith; for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Even more striking—at least from his opponents’ perspective—is his concluding assertion in 3:29: “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise.” Note that “heirs according to the promise” is in apposition to “Abraham’s seed,” which correlates with “sons of God.” “Heirs” specifies what is relevant about being a “son” or “seed.” Paul argues that baptism delivers to believers everything that was promised as an inheritance to Abraham. Paul’s opponents had been using the fact of Abraham’s reception of circumcision (Gen 17) after justification (Gen 15) to impose it upon Gentile converts in Galatia. Brinsmead comments: “There is an indication here of the opponents’ Christology. They have a place for Jesus in their system, but it is only a preliminary place. Baptism into Christ makes one a novice, as was Abraham when he had faith. One must then advance to the heart of the mystery through circumcision and the observance of the calendrical law.” 111 Paul, however, turns their argument around: “As Paul’s answer to the intruding theology is essentially a sacramental answer, sacrament can be assumed to be playing a central role in the debate. As well as making circumcision essential to salvation, the opponents apparently understand the rite in a unique way, judging by Paul’s unique attack upon it. . . . In one of the climaxes of the letter [3:25–27], Paul makes baptism its dialogical counterpart. What the opponents say is to be achieved by circumcision, Paul says is already achieved by baptism.” 112 Brinsmead concludes that for Paul, “justification is sacramentally defined,” especially since “it is by the sacrament [of baptism] that the believer is established ‘in Christ.’ ” 113 Paul has unleashed powerful rhetoric on the importance of baptism. In just one short passage (Gal 3:24–29) an avalanche of information about the effects of baptism descends: (1) it brings about one’s justification (v. 24); (2) it causes one to be freed from the pedagogy of the law (v. 25); (3) it establishes one as a son of God (v. 26); (4) it clothes a person with Christ (v. 27); (5) it causes those who were formerly divided to be one in Christ (v. 28); (6) it makes Jews and Gentiles to be Abraham’s offspring (v. 29).114

Covenant, Oath, and Divine Sonship in Galatians 3–4  |  269

Why all of this from the simple rite of baptism? 115 It is surprising that Paul never bothers to explain for his readers why he attributes so much to baptism. Most scholars agree, however, that it was probably part of the received tradition that his readers already shared—and which Paul can assume.116 Nonetheless, there may be something to be gained by speculating about the reasons behind the importance Paul gives to baptism. From what has been seen regarding the central importance and constitutive role of oath-swearing for making and renewing covenants, it seems natural to conclude that Paul understands baptism as the new covenant counterpart to circumcision. Baptism is, after all, what initiates people into a share of the Abrahamic family of God established in Christ. Moreover, it is a sign and seal “of the faith of Christ” (pisteōs Christou) and of the resultant justification, Spirit, life, blessing, inheritance, etc. Just as circumcision was a ritual oath-sign, Paul’s theological intuition leads him to think of baptism in terms of a covenant oath (in Latin, a sacramentum) 117 divinely instituted and designed for the purpose of initiating people into the new covenant family of God by causing them to share in the divine sonship of Christ. Thus, baptism may be thought of as a sacrament in the technical sense of “covenant oath,” faithfully established and administered by Christ, “the seed of Abraham” and redeeming representative of Israel and the nations.118 It is, therefore, the sacrament of faith and the fulfillment of God’s pledge to Abraham (Gen 22:16–18). It is by means of baptism, as the sacrament of faith, that Jews and Gentiles alike enter into the blessing of Abraham through the divine sonship of Christ and the Spirit of Sonship, that is, kinship by covenant, sonship by sacrament.119

Galatians 4:1–7: From Servants to Sons in the Fullness of Time Paul moves from his description of divine sonship through Christ, the Spirit, and baptism (Gal 3:25–29) to a brief sketch of God’s fatherly treatment of Israel in its historical development as a wayward son (Gal 4:1–7).120 He analyzes this relationship by dividing it into three periods, corresponding to the three phases through which a son passes on his way toward maturity (infant ➔ child/slave ➔ son/heir). Paul states the foundational reality of Israel’s covenant identity as God’s son in 4:1. Israel is God’s “heir” (klēronomos) and “child” (nēpios). These descriptions contain in nuce the vocation and mission that God gave to

270  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

Israel as his firstborn son (Exod 4:22) at the Exodus and the giving of the Sinai covenant. Exodus 19–24 reflects this in its account of the (shortlived) kinship-type covenant initially ratified between Israel and God. This covenant expressed a profound truth that Paul sees as abiding even after Israel’s sin and demotion to servility: “You shall be my own possession among all peoples; for all the earth is mine” (Exod 19:5). Consequently, even though Israel “is no better than a slave . . . he is the owner of all the estate” (Gal 4:1). As “the seed of Abraham,” Israel shares in God’s promise to the patriarchs with respect to the blessing of “all nations” (Gen 22:18) and the inheritance of “all these lands” (Gen 26:4). The divine oath makes Israel the covenant family of God. It binds them together as a father and a firstborn son. The kinship-type covenant ratified at Sinai (Exod 19–24) formally confirmed the filial relationship of Israel to God founded on the promise and oath to Abraham, which, like “the gifts and the call of God, are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). Paul reintroduces the hard lessons of Galatians 3:19–25 in 4:2 by describing how Israel’s sin increased the degree of Mosaic and angelic mediation: “But he is under guardians and trustees (hypo epitropous . . . kai oikonomous) until the date set by the father.” Israel’s great failures at the golden calf and Beth-peor relegated it to the status of an immature minor son—differing little from that of a slave (4:1). As an immature minor son, Israel was placed under the (temporary) Levitical and Deuteronomic covenants that effected a reconfiguration of its filial relation to God along the lines of a treaty-type covenant. The relationship between God and Israel became characterized as that of a master and his slave (i.e., a suzerain and his vassal). Nevertheless, the father recognizes that the son’s immaturity is not permanent. The state of servility, therefore, lasts only “until the date set by the father,” which corresponds to the time of maturity and inheritance. The Deuteronomic covenant envisioned a time after Israel’s experience of the curses of servility and exile (Deut 28:14–54), when God would renew his (broken) covenant with Israel by effecting a radical internalization of the law (a “circumcision of the heart”—Deut 30:1–10). This was realized in the New Covenant, which rendered the Deuteronomic covenant unnecessary and (hence) terminated.121 Nevertheless, the typological analogies that Paul sees between Ishmael and Israel-under-Deuteronomy are striking. Israel, like Ishmael, is the natural son of Abraham, yet lives in a situation in which disinheritance is inevitable due to the prophecies of God and

Covenant, Oath, and Divine Sonship in Galatians 3–4  |  271

Moses concerning the actualization of the covenant curses. The analogy is even closer for those who return to the old (Deuteronomic) covenant after the offer of salvation in Christ. At least ancient Israel could look forward to the promise of the new covenant after the curse of disinheritance had run its course; but for those who abandon the new covenant itself to return to the old, they like Ishmael can only anticipate permanent disinheritance. The correspondence between Paul’s description in Galatians 4:1–7 and Israel’s experience of being redeemed by Christ from the curses of the Deuteronomic covenant is striking. B. Byrne notes: “What Paul appears to be doing in using this ‘immature heir’ image is making allowance for a situation where an heir, though long since designated as such, endures for a time a period of suspension of all legal rights and only later receives the true legal capacity to inherit by having the status of sonship conferred; though always truly heir, he passes through two distinct epochs, the first involving a situation of quasi-slavery that stands in total contrast to his subsequent state.” 122 Finally, the characteristics of a grant-type covenant are reflected in Galatians 4:4–7. Here the primary recipient of the grant is the “Son” par excellence, who demonstrates exceptional virtue while living “under the law,” thereby securing a divinely sworn reward which effects the redemption of his own: “so that we might receive the ‘full (legal) rights of sons’ ” (4:4).123 Byrne clarifies Christ’s essential role here: “The transition from slavery to υἱοθεσὶα [huiothēsia, “sonship”] is no gradual growth, but presupposes the creative intervention of God, sending his Son. Christ, as Son, enters what is for him a totally inappropriate situation—our situation of slavery—in order to set us free from this condition, in order that we might receive (on an ‘interchange’ basis) that which pertains to him ‘by nature’: the status of son(s).” 124 As the New Covenant grant of divine sonship is conferred on Christ, believers come to share in it by means of the “Spirit of sonship” at baptism, enabling them to live as “sons in the Son” ( filii in Filio).125 With the grant of the divine sonship of Christ through the Spirit, Christians receive the attendant blessings of freedom and inheritance, that is: “For through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir” (4:7). Again, as in 3:29, the final clause of this sentence indicates the relevance of sonship: it confers inheritance. For this reason Y. Kwon calls “sonship” a “median motif”; it is not Paul’s final point but always leads to “heirship.” 126 T. L. Donaldson shows how the covenant-historical program for the salvation of Israel and the Gentiles is summarized in 4:1–7, as well as showing how 4:1–7 integrates it into Paul’s larger argument in Galatians 3–4:

272  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

The law, therefore, cannot accomplish the promise; but by creating a representative sample in which the human plight is clarified and concentrated, it sets the stage for redemption. Christ identifies not only with the human situation in general (γενὸμενον ἐκ γυναικὸς [“born of a woman”], 4.4), but also with Israel in particular (γενὸμενον ὑπό νὸμον [“born under law”]), thereby becoming the representative individual (ὑπὲρ ἡμών [“for us”], 3.13) of the representative people. Due to the very nature of Israel’s special role, the redemption of Israel is at the same time and on the same terms the redemption of the Gentiles. As Israel’s representative, Christ is the representative of all humankind; all can participate in him.127 In sum, Galatians 4:1–7 presents a synopsis of the historical development of the father-son covenant(s) which were made between God and his representative firstborn, Israel. The history of Israel may be likened to a wayward son-heir whose father does whatever is necessary to see him through his period of rebellion, until he achieves the maturity necessary for him to receive his inheritance. The process involves the son passing from infancy through adolescence to adulthood, that is, three stages that correspond loosely to the three ­covenant-types examined in Part One. Established as God’s son by covenant of kinship (the first Sinai covenant), Israel passes under a pedagogical vassalage (the renewed covenant after the calf incident, culminating in the Deuteronomic covenant) until the time of inheritance comes (the New Covenant in Christ). Abraham, too, passed through these pedagogical covenantal stages in Genesis 15 (kinship), Genesis 17 (vassalage), and Genesis 22 (grant). A typological relationship between Abraham’s and Israel’s salvation-historical experiences seems to underlie Paul’s thought in Galatians 3–4.

Galatians 4:21–31: God Disinherits the Circumcised Seed of Abraham Galatians 4:21–31 is the climax to the probatio which Paul lays out in Galatians 3–4. Paul begins this section by posing a rhetorical question with a sharp sarcastic edge: “Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise” (Gal 4:21–23).

Covenant, Oath, and Divine Sonship in Galatians 3–4  |  273

Paul employs negatively charged terms (“son of the slave,” “according to the flesh”) that allude to portions of the Genesis narrative where Ishmael and the circumcision covenant are featured (Gen 16–17, 21). On the one hand, Paul wants his readers to link the “Judaized” Gentiles with Ishmael and his sorry fate: • Both represent attempts to produce heirs for Abraham by human (natural or “fleshly”) means—Ishmael through concubinage, the Gentiles through circumcision. • Both accept circumcision as adults (Ishmael is thirteen in Gen 17). • Both are nonetheless disinherited. On the other hand, Gentile late-comers are meant to be associated with the late-in-coming Abrahamic son of promise: Isaac/Christ: • Both become heirs of Abraham by supernatural means—Isaac by supernatural birth to Sarah, the Gentiles by the supernatural birth of baptism. • Both receive the inheritance, the promise of blessing “to the Gentiles” (Gen 22:18). Paul’s point is clear: Circumcision is of no avail (see Gal 5:6). In light of the expulsion and disinheritance of Ishmael (Abraham’s firstborn son “after the flesh,” and his first son to be circumcised), it is an inescapable conclusion that circumcision is no guarantee of the Abrahamic inheritance of the promised blessing.128 Indeed, circumcision may have been necessary at one time, but even then it was not sufficient for what mattered most.129 Indeed, even Abrahamic sonship is no guarantee of the inheritance, because not all sons are heirs! Paul wishes the Galatians to be the right kind of Abrahamic sons: namely, son-heirs.130 In speaking of the apocalyptic images of the “two Jerusalems,” Paul once again draws his themes from the Old Testament.131 Paul’s statement about the “present Jerusalem” being “enslaved” reflects his prior assessment of the servile effects of the Deuteronomic covenant on the nation of Israel in history.132 The Judaizers, who think that covenant fidelity still requires nomistic service at the central sanctuary in earthly Jerusalem, are still bound to the curses pronounced and effected by the ancient covenant which first established the law of the central sanctuary, that is, the Deuteronomic covenant.133 Paul employs his “allegorical” argument here as another way to demonstrate from the Torah that Christians are no longer under the “works

274  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

of the law” (or its “curse”), since Christ’s death has effected the termination of the Deuteronomic covenant. Paul’s view of “the Jerusalem above” being “free” is based upon his earlier demonstration in Galatians 3:6–14 that Christ’s death has exhausted the curses of the Old Covenant and released the blessings of the New. As a result, Jews and Gentiles are offered a new way of sharing the Abrahamic blessing and inheritance of divine sonship: by faith in Christ. Paul’s allegory presents the essential shape of the new covenant in terms of the eschatological reality of divine sonship. Muller observes: When Paul returns to the theme of the sonship of Abraham at the end of this line of thought [i.e., Gal 4:21–31], he explicitly raises the issue of the kind of sonship of Abraham it is that gains one entrance into the covenant community. Sonship of Abraham, in one instance, is fleshy. In the other it is sonship of God and is covenantal. It is precisely this distinction that Paul exploits to disinherit, as it were, circumcision Jews who reject Christ. Abraham’s true offspring belong to the covenant made with Abraham and that covenant was constituted by faith in God, not by fleshy descent. If the Jews do not manifest faith then they are outside the community of Israel (see Gal 6:16). Ishmael, who can claim fleshy descent and who was circumcised (Gen 17:23), does not share in the covenant! 134 Paul’s argument has come full circle. The starting point of the probatio— Abrahamic sonship—is now definitively revealed in terms of its essential and abiding reality, that is, divine sonship according to the New Covenant.

The “Works of the Law” in Light of Galatians 3–4 The vantage point afforded here at the end of Paul’s argument in Galatians 3–4 enables us to achieve a better comprehension of Paul’s critical phrase, “the works of the law.” The primary reference of “the works of the law” is to the Levitical administration of ceremonial law (Exod 25–Lev 27) which was “added because of transgressions” (i.e., the calf; Gal 3:19) resulting in a more elaborate system of mediation (3:20) and thus greater distance between Israel and God.135 This Levitical law may have been intended as nothing more than a tem-

Covenant, Oath, and Divine Sonship in Galatians 3–4  |  275

porary remedial punishment for the first generation, but its bicovenantal system of mediation was rendered permanent with the institution of the Deuteronomic covenant. Thus, “works of the law” may be identified more specifically with the Deuteronomic covenant as the final and definitive socioreligious constitution of Israel as a nation-state.136 As such, a secondary sense of the phrase may be discerned. The recent work of J. Dunn is relevant here. Dunn interprets “the works of the law” in the light of the Antioch incident (Gal 2:11–16), which highlights the boundary-defining effects of the “works of the law.” As “boundary markers,” the works of the law preserve the separation between Israel and the Gentiles: By “works of law” Paul intended his readers to think of particular observances of the law like circumcision and the food laws. His Galatian readership might well think also of the one other area of law observance to which Paul refers disapprovingly later in the same letter—their observance of special days and feasts (Gal 4.10). But why these particular “works of the law”? [. . .] From the larger cultural context, provided for us by Greco-Roman literature of the period, we know that just these observances were widely regarded as characteristically and distinctively Jewish. Writers like Petronius, Plutarch, Tacitus, and Juvenal took it for granted that, in particular, circumcision, abstention from pork, and the sabbath were observances which marked out the practitioners as Jews. . . . It is clear, in other words, that these observances . . . served to identify their practitioners as Jewish in the eyes of the wider public [my emphasis].137 There is much to be said for Dunn’s approach. For one thing, he views “works of the law” primarily in terms of the covenant obligations assumed by Israel in response to God’s redemptive grace.138 For another, he sees the priority of the Abrahamic covenant—rather than the Mosaic—as the foundation for God’s saving plan for the nations fulfilled through Christ.139 With his covenantal, relational approach, Dunn offers a more accurate and balanced view of Paul’s understanding of divine righteousness and justification than Luther or Calvin.140 There are, however, some deficiencies with Dunn’s interpretation. He overlooks the penitential purpose of the boundary-defining laws. As has been shown above, they were added after (and because of) Israel’s rebellious acts. Consequently, he misses the self-retiring nature of the laws

276  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

peculiar to the Deuteronomic covenant, and overlooks the promises contained in Deuteronomy that point to a future act of divine renewal, eventually fulfilled in the new covenant grant of Christ’s spirit of divine sonship. Indeed, once the new covenant is established, the “works of the law” are no longer necessary or proper. Instead, there are more appropriate and suitable obligations that serve as New Covenant boundary markers, for example, baptism.141

Conclusions In Galatians 3–4, Paul argues for the priority and primacy of the Abrahamic covenant—rather than the Mosaic—as the foundational covenant with Israel and ultimately with all mankind. Paul sees the Abrahamic covenant as reaching its definitive form in Genesis 22:15–18, when it is ratified by God through a solemn oath promising blessing to the nations/Gentiles through Abraham’s seed. Unlike the covenant of Genesis 17, the covenantoath of 22:15–18 is not conditioned on Abraham’s circumcision or any other practice or observance of Abraham or his descendants—­certainly not the Mosaic law. In contrast to the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant—at least as renewed after the golden calf and other rebellions—is secondary and subordinate in Paul’s eyes. For Paul, the Mosaic system as finalized in the Deuteronomic covenant can not be the economy of salvation, because under it Israel did not receive—and is not receiving—the blessings promised to Abraham. Instead, curses have come. Therefore, the Mosaic covenant is a temporary, penitential, and highly mediated arrangement which is valid only until the coming of the definitive “seed” spoken of in the oath of the Aqedah (Gen 22:18). The Book of Deuteronomy—the final form of the Mosaic covenant—reflects its self-retiring nature, when it speaks of the inevitable failure of the people and the actualization of its severe curses, after which there will be a new exodus and a supernatural initiative on the part of God to “circumcise the hearts” of the people. Jesus Christ, the “only Son” of the Father who is sacrificed on the mountain “upon the wood,” takes on himself the Deuteronomic covenant curses at the cross, thus enabling the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant-oath to flow once again to the Gentiles. Thus Jesus fulfills the sacrifice of the Abrahamic covenant typified and prefigured at the Aqedah by Abraham’s one “seed,” Isaac. Paul sees at the center of this whole process the reality of divine sonship.

Covenant, Oath, and Divine Sonship in Galatians 3–4  |  277

God has acted as a father toward Israel, bringing him to life as a son (Exodus and Sinai covenant), subjecting him to the pedagogy of the Law (Levitical and Deuteronomic codes), and bringing him to maturity through the coming of the one Son (the New Covenant) while opening the way for the other nations of the human family also to enter into this filial relationship. Throughout our study, we have seen vindicated our original assumptions that Paul’s thought is strongly covenantal, his use of the Old Testament thoroughly contextual, and the structure of his argument chiastic and ­filial.

10 Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture The idea of “covenant” receives more attention in the Epistle to the Hebrews than in any other New Testament book.1 In fact, more than half of all occurrences of the word “covenant” (diathēkē) in the New Testament (17 of 33) occur in Hebrews. Modern biblical scholars have not reached consensus concerning what “covenant” means in Hebrews, and even debate whether the concept is central or peripheral to the author and his argument. For these reasons, Hebrews presents an ideal test case for us to apply our findings on the meaning and significance of covenant in the Old Testament and Paul, in order to see if they elucidate the argument of Hebrews. Most commentators readily observe that Hebrews concerns itself primarily with demonstrating the superiority of the New Covenant to the Old, in part because Jesus is a superior covenant mediator than the various mediators of the Old Covenant: angels (Heb 1–2), Moses (Heb 3), and Aaron and the Levites (Heb 4–10). In this chapter, however, we wish to demonstrate that the author’s understanding of the nature of the Old and New Covenants and their relationship to one another is far more nuanced, integrated, and profound than is often realized. In particular we wish to emphasize three points: First, for the author of Hebrews, Christ’s threefold role as firstborn son, king, and high priest (i.e., Christ’s royal priestly primogeniture) represents the restoration of an original and superior form of covenant mediation that had been lost since the institution of the Levitical priesthood in response to Israel’s covenant infidelity.2 Starting already in the introduction, or exordium, of the Epistle 278

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  279

(Heb 1:1–4), Hebrews repeatedly stresses the royal priestly primogeniture of Christ—that is, his threefold role as firstborn Son of God, King, and High Priest. This is truly one role, not three; although to the modern reader the inner unity of sonship, royalty, and priesthood is not readily apparent.3 Our research to this point, however, has prepared us to recognize the inner unity of the three roles as rooted in the unique role of the firstborn son in the ancient patriarchal family, who inherited the father’s temporal authority (kingship) and cultic responsibilities (priesthood). The Targums on Genesis 49:3 bear witness to this view: “Reuben, you are my first-born, my might, and the beginning of my strength. For you it would have been fitting to take three parts—the birthright, the priesthood, and royalty” (T. Onq.).4 In Hebrews, Christ, as firstborn Son of God, inherits universal dominion (kingship) and the role of principal celebrant (high priesthood) of the heavenly liturgy. The privilege of royal priestly primogeniture was God’s original intent for both Adam (i.e., mankind) and the people of Israel. Adam, the firstborn Son of God (cf. Luke 3:38), was given the royal role of universal dominion (Gen 1:28) and the priestly duty to guard and tend the primordial garden sanctuary of Eden (Gen 2:15).5 Likewise, God claimed Israel as his “firstborn son” (Exod 4:22–23) and promised the people: “You shall be to me a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (Exod 19:6).6 However, both Adam and Israel lost these privileges, through the eating of the fruit and the golden calf idolatry respectively. In our treatment of the Levitical covenant in Chapter 6, we observed that the biblical text contains suggestions of a primordial priesthood of the firstborn son in the patriarchal period, that is, prior to the Sinai covenant.7 The firstborn of Israel had a sacred status before God even as Israel, God’s firstborn, enjoyed such a status among all the nations.8 After the golden calf debacle, however, the tribe of Levi was chosen to perform the priestly functions in place of the all the Israelite firstborn, as Sauer recognizes: “After the worship of the golden calf in the wilderness . . . God transferred to the tribe of Levi this portion of dedication and priesthood which up to that time had been the obligation and privilege of every Israelite firstborn son. . . . In the background of this special election of Levi there stands the national position of Israel as God’s firstborn son, as well as the fundamental relationship between birthright and ordination to the priesthood.” 9 The very presence of the Levitical priesthood testified to the fact that Israel had lost her priestly status and had not been restored to it. To the author of Hebrews, the exaltation of Jesus as firstborn Son and royal high priest—prefigured by Melchizedek—represents the resto-

280  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

ration of a more perfect form of covenant mediation originally intended for Adam and Israel and practiced to some extent prior to the Sinai rebellion. Secondly, the author’s concept of the royal priestly primogeniture of Christ is closely related to his complex and subtle understanding of the relationship of the Old and New Covenants and the corresponding oaths of curse and blessing. The author of Hebrews has no simplistic understanding of the relationship of the Old and New Covenants, whereby the two are neatly divided by the arrival of Christ in history. Rather, on the one hand, figures of the old era participated proleptically in the New Covenant by faith (Heb 11); and on the other hand, persons in the new era may apostasize and fall back under the curses of the Old Covenant (Heb 6:1–5). The Old and New Covenants interpenetrate the old and new eras. The Old Covenant is associated with faithlessness and curse—in particular, Adam’s faithlessness and the divine curse after the Fall (Heb 2:8–9, 15; 6:8), and Israel’s faithlessness and the divine curse after the wilderness rebellion (Heb 3:15–4:7). By contrast, the New Covenant is associated with faithfulness and blessing, in particular, the faithfulness of Abraham who received divinely-sworn blessings after the Aqedah (Gen 22:15–18) and the faithfulness of David who received divinely-sworn blessings after conquering Jerusalem and attempting to build the Temple (2 Sam 7:8–16; 23:5; Pss 89:3–4; 110:4; 132:11–12). To summarize, in Hebrews the Old Covenant is associated with faithless Adam and Israel, and the New with faithful Abraham and David. Moreover, there are specific relationships among these four parties and the divine curses or blessings that follow from their actions: the blessing of obedient Abraham by divine oath established the means for reversing the divine curse affecting humanity because of Adam; and the blessing of David by divine oath opened the way for the curses of Israel-under-­Moses to be removed. The sworn blessings to Abraham and David are closely linked: the oath to David further specifies how the oath to Abraham will be fulfilled. In Christ, the promises given to and through Abraham and David are fulfilled, and the curses affecting Adam and Israel are borne and borne away, that is, experienced and expiated. The balanced and symmetrical relationship between Adam and Abraham, Israel and David, relates back to the theme of royal priestly primogeniture. It was the blessing of royal priestly primogeniture that was lost by both Adam and Israel. In the divinely sworn oaths to Abraham and David, the author of Hebrews sees present an implicit promise of the restoration of firstborn sonship for Israel and all humanity (Adam). This restoration has

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  281

been actualized in Christ and offered to all who express faith in him, and live in obedience to him. Third, Christ, the royal high priest, removes the curses of the Old (Mosaic) Covenant to release the blessings of the New (Abrahamic and Davidic) is explained most explicitly in Hebrews 8–9, the climax of the book’s argument. The covenantal logic of Hebrews reaches a certain high point in chs. 8–9, as even lexical statistics indicate: the majority of the book’s use of the term diathēkē occur in these two chapters (12 of 17). However, the very heart of the author’s argument (Heb 9:15–18) is a notorious crux interpretum. The author’s argument—up to this point quite profound, integrated, and biblical—suddenly seems trivial, incoherent, and secular, at least in the opinion of many commentators. The author appears suddenly to switch to the Greco-Roman sense of diathēkē as “testament,” resulting in a logically invalid argument. On the contrary, however, we will show that the author consistently uses diathēkē in the biblical sense of “covenant” to make a valid point about the necessity of executing the covenant curses on a covenant transgressor. The author’s larger assertion is that Christ has disarmed the Old Covenant by a vicarious death in which the covenant curses are both actualized and expiated; this removes the obstacle impeding the flow of the Abrahamic and Davidic blessings to Israel and mankind. One final caveat before we begin our analysis of the Epistle to the Hebrews: we are not arguing that the three points above are the main or central concern of the author of Hebrews. Indeed, the surface of the text is not concerned directly with these matters, but with more obvious proofs of the superiority of the New Covenant to the Old. However, the above points, especially points 1 and 2, represent the deep structure or framework of the author’s thought, which he does not argue but presumes. In what follows, then, we move through the text of Hebrews 1–9 by way of commentary, but limiting ourselves, for the most part, to the three points discussed above.

Hebrews 1: Jesus, Firstborn Son and Priest-King, Is Superior to Angels The exordium (1:1–4) introduces the Son as the definitive revelation of God over all previous modes, human or angelic, with a chain of seven Christological predicates (reminiscent of Pss 2 and 110), which are then developed in a catena of seven Old Testament quotations in synthetic parallel order (1:5–14).

282  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

The royal priestly primogeniture of Christ is quite apparent from the way he is described in the exordium: • He is a “Son . . . appointed heir of all things.” The firstborn son in Semitic culture was the primary heir of the father.10 The firstborn status of the Son will be declared explicitly a few verses later (v. 6). • He has “made purification for sins” (v. 3b), unmistakably a priestly activity reminiscent especially of the high priest’s role on the Day of Atonement (cf. 9:7).11 • “He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,” which is royal enthronement language bespeaking Christ’s status as king, and also Hebrews’ first allusion to Psalm 110, the Davidic royal-priestly enthronement hymn that functions so prominently throughout the ­epistle.12 Thus, all three components of the royal priestly primogeniture of Christ are foreshadowed in Hebrews 1:1–4, the author’s opening statement.13 The exordium concludes with a consideration of the name of Christ. He has become “as much superior to the angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.” This statement forms a link between the exordium (1:1–4) and the following catena of OT quotations (1:5–14). The concept of the “name,” particularly the “name” of God, is especially powerful in the biblical and Second Temple Jewish tradition: • Second Temple Judaism found profound significance in the fact that the name of Noah’s righteous firstborn, Shem, is literally “Name” in Hebrew, especially since Noah blessed him with the promise that God would dwell in his “tents” (Gen 9:27). He was identified as the Melchizedek of Genesis 14:18.14 • God promised Abraham, the tenth generation from Shem, to make his “name” great (Gen 12:2). • The initial revelation of the Lord to Moses concerned God’s “name” (Exod 3:13–15). In the Mosaic law, when Israel achieved “rest” from her enemies, she was to seek “the place which the Lord your God will choose, to make his name dwell there” (Deut 12:10–11), anticipating the Davidic covenant and Temple in Jerusalem (2 Sam 7:1–3). • David, like Abraham, received the promise of “a great name” (2 Sam 7:9), and his son Solomon built the Temple where God’s “name” would dwell (1 Kgs 8:20) in fulfillment of the Mosaic command (Deut 12:5, 10–11).

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  283

• In Ezekiel’s vision of a “second exodus,” God delivers Israel and the nations, thereby vindicating his own “name” by accomplishing the covenant oath he swore to Abraham (Ezek 20:9, 14, 22, 44; 36:21–23; cf. Deut 32:40–43). • The Targumim develop a complete “name theology,” in which the “name” of God is identified with God’s “word” or “Memra,” and is virtually an hypostasis of the divinity responsible for all God’s actions ad extra.15 Thus, by broaching the subject of the “name” of Christ, the author enters a theologically charged context. Many interpreters identify the “name” with the title “son.” 16 Yet the angels, too, are called “sons of God” in the Old Testament, particularly in the LXX.17 Since the “name” of Christ is said to be more excellent than that received by the angels, the mere title “son” will not suffice to denote Christ’s superiority. Verse 6 clarifies that the “name” of Christ is not just “Son” but “Firstborn [Son].” 18 Therefore, the author does not wish to deny that the “name” of the angels is excellent, but rather to affirm that the “name” of Christ is much “more excellent.” The primogeniture of Christ places the angels in a position of subordination (vv. 5–6) and inferiority (vv. 7–12). “The excellence, royalty, and priesthood of Christ are all implied in the epithet ‘firstborn.’ ” 19 The catena of quotations demonstrating Christ’s superior name (1:5– 13) closely follows the order of Christological titles used in the exordium (1:1–4), although the point need not detain us here. It is more to our purpose to observe the strongly Davidic character of the texts the author has chosen to cite. He deploys several texts central to the ideology of the Davidic covenant in ancient times and to Davidic messianism in the Second Temple period: • • • •

Psalm 2, the royal Davidic enthronement hymn 2 Samuel 7, the main text of the Davidic covenant Psalm 45, the wedding hymn of the son of David Psalm 110, the divine oath appointing David’s heir as priest in the order of Melchizedek

The author also alludes to Psalm 89, the celebration of the Davidic covenant, in verse 6 (cf. Ps 89:27: “I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth”).20 The author does not reveal to us his hermeneutic in applying the state-

284  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

ments of these texts to Jesus. But it is hardly speculative to assume that— like Matthew, Luke, and Paul—he understands Jesus as the descendant and heir of David (cf. Heb 7:14) and thus the ultimate referent of the Davidic psalms, the Davidic covenant, and the promises to David and his “seed.” 21 The author begins and ends his catena with two psalms of special significance. At the beginning, he quotes Psalm 2, which celebrates the enthronement of the son of David as Son of God and universal king; at the end, he cites Psalm 110, which records the oath to David’s “seed” granting him the priesthood of Melchizedek. Later in Hebrews (Heb 5:5–6), these two psalms—one emphasizing the royal and the other the priestly aspect of Christ’s person—will be cited in apposition to one another as proof of the appointment of Jesus by God as royal high priest like Melchizedek. Thus, the royal priestly primogeniture of Christ is strongly in evidence in this catena (as it was in the exordium), and the author is already foreshadowing and preparing the reader for the direction his argument will take in subsequent chapters. In sum, the catena of Hebrew 1:5–13 demonstrates the superiority of the Son of God to the lesser sons of God (angels) because he is heir to the promises and covenant given to David in the Davidic psalms and other Davidic covenant texts (e.g., 2 Sam 7). The promises of the Davidic covenant granted David’s heir the status of firstborn son of God (Ps 89:27), a status once applied to Israel (Exod 4:22), which entails a more intimate filial relationship than that enjoyed by the angels. Since the angels mediated the Old Covenant (see Heb 2:2; cf. Gal 3:19), Christ’s superiority to the angels implies that the covenant he mediates is also superior to the old one.

Hebrews 2: Jesus Restores Humanity’s Lost Glory and Dominion for Abraham’s Seed In Hebrews 2–4, the author briefly rehearses salvation history, beginning with God’s purpose for humanity at creation as reflected in Psalm 8 (Heb 2:5–9). Then comes the fall and mankind’s subsequent bondage to the devil, both of which are presented as resulting from mankind’s “fear of death” (2:14–15). The “seed of Abraham” is then mentioned, which evokes the oath of blessing that God swore after Abraham and Isaac overcame their “fear of death” with the Aqedah (Heb 2:15–18; Gen 22:16–18). He continues on to Moses (Heb 3:1–6) and the rebellious wilderness generation that failed to enter the promised land (3:7–9). Finally, he rehearses

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  285

the failure of Joshua to lead Israel into the perfect “rest” which God swore to give as a covenant grant to Abraham’s “seed” (4:6–10). In Hebrews 4, the author focuses on the theme of “rest” in order to assert that God’s original intention for humanity (i.e., to experience the “rest” of the Sabbath [Heb 4:3–4]) and for Israel (i.e., to enter the “rest” represented by the promised land [Heb 3:16–19]) is now attainable for those who have faith in Jesus, our high priest. Narrowing our focus to Hebrews 2, we observe that the chapter divides roughly in two, beginning with paraenetic material (2:1–4), after which the author discusses God’s original purpose for creating humanity, and how it is only fulfilled by Christ (2:5–18). The paraenetic section (2:1–4) may seem at first to be a digression, but in fact it is intimately related to the preceding argument (1:5–14). The purpose for proving Christ’s superiority to the angels in 1:5–14 was not to entertain the readership with metaphysical speculation, but to impress upon them the greater excellence of the covenant Christ mediates and therefore the urgency to embrace it. The paraenesis of 2:1–4 is the goal to which the argument of 1:5–14 has been building. In the following section (2:5–18), the author addresses a text that could have been cited as proof of the inferiority of the Christ to the angels, that is, Psalm 8:5, which says God made the “Son of Man”—commonly understood as the Messiah—“a little lower than the angels.” But the author has already proven the superiority of the Christ. He will now show that, far from being problematic, Psalm 8 serves to advance his argument in profound ways. Having quoted the relevant verses of the psalm, the author proceeds to interpret the psalm in its literal sense, as a statement about man (mankind), observing that when man was made, God “left nothing outside of his control,” including, it would seem, “the world to come,” which is the topic under consideration according to Hebrews 2:5. Thus, all things, including the coming age, should be under the control of man, according to God’s original intent in creation.22 But the author immediately observes that this universal dominion is not currently realized: “As it is, we do not yet see every­thing in subjection to him.” What the author has done to this point, by quoting Psalm 8, is to evoke the context of the creation of Adam/mankind and point out that God’s intent for Adam/mankind at creation was a universal dominion (i.e., kingship; cf. Gen 1:26, Ps 8:6) which has not been realized. The author does not need to explain why this sorry state of affairs—contrary to God’s ­intent— has come about, since his readers will immediately call to mind the Fall and mankind’s subsequent history of sin. Instead, he explains the way in

286  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

which universal dominion will be restored to “man”: “But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that . . . he might taste death for everyone” (Heb 2:9). This amounts to a Christological reading of Psalm 8. The author demonstrates that the Psalm cannot describe mankind in general—at least not yet—because we are not crowned with glory and honor, nor is all in subjection to us. But it does describe Jesus, who was made “for a little while” lower than the angels, that is, during his earthly sojourn. By taking the Greek phrase brachu ti in a temporal sense (“for a little while”) rather than an ontological sense (“a little lower”) the author shows that Psalm 8 is no disproof of the superior status of Jesus (the “Son of Man”) to the angels.23 He is also showing that Christ recapitulates in himself the experience of humanity. Humanity was made in a temporary, probationary state (“for a little while”) under the angels, yet with glory and honor and the promise of universal dominion (i.e., kingship), all of which were lost in Adam’s fall, due to the devil and the “fear of death” (2:14–15)—presumably a reference to the temptation in Eden. Jesus in his incarnation—like mankind as a whole—becomes “for a little while” lower than the angels; and yet, because he does not fear to suffer death, he regains the glory, honor, and universal dominion (kingship) lost by Adam. Clearly there is an Adamic Christology at work here in Hebrews 2:5–9, as James Dunn has ably demonstrated.24 The expression “taste death for every one” may indeed be an allusion to the Genesis 3 narrative, that is, the fact that it was through the “tasting” of the fruit that death came to everyone. Having shown that Christ recapitulates the experience of mankind and thus regains the glory and dominion intended for man since creation, the author proceeds to show how Christ shares that glory with his “brothers” (2:12) who are also “sons” (v. 10)—albeit younger ones—of God. The point is that Jesus does not regain the Adamic privileges for himself only, but to share them with the rest of humanity. In order to do this Christ enters into familial solidarity with his “brothers” by taking on their very nature (v. 14). The “brothers” of Christ are strikingly called his “children” twice in this passage (vv. 13–14). The two relationships seem at odds: how can Christ be both “father” and “brother”? This becomes explicable when we recall that in the ancient patriarchal family, the firstborn son inherited all the legal and cultic rights and responsibilities of the father, and thus became like a second father to his younger siblings.25 Christ takes on the nature of the “children” so that “he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  287

who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage” (Heb 2:14–15). This striking statement seems to imply that the fall of mankind was caused by the fear of death, and thus that Adam and Eve were in some way intimidated by the serpent’s (i.e., the devil’s) potentially lethal power over them.26 Be that as it may, the author does not elaborate on his view of the temptation narrative. Instead, he proceeds to assert: “It is not with angels that he [Jesus] is concerned but with the seed [sperma] of Abraham” (v. 16). “Seed” here, as always, can be either singular or plural (either “descendant” or “descendants”). In the Genesis narrative, the “seed” of Abraham was primarily Isaac, the only son of Abraham through whom the promises passed. In fact, in the divine oath following the Aqedah (Gen 22:15–18), in which all the promises given to Abraham previously are irrevocably confirmed, all the blessings are directed toward Abraham’s “seed” (i.e., Isaac), not Abraham himself. The reference to the “seed of Abraham” may be an oblique allusion to the Aqedah and the solemn divine oath following it (Gen 22:15–18).27 It may be relevant to the author’s larger argument that it was precisely at the Aqedah that Abraham and Isaac overcame their fear of death in the sacrifice of the firstborn son (Gen 22:2; 12; 16).28 A few chapters later the author will reflect more on this incident and its significance (6:13–20). Regardless of whether an allusion to the Aqedah is intended, the primary sense of “seed of Abraham” in v. 16 is the plural, “descendants,” a reference to those who previously have been called “brothers” and “children” of Christ. It is unlikely that by “seed of Abraham” the author is thinking in an ethnic sense. The previous verses indicate that Christ’s restoration of mankind is as broad as Adam’s corruption of mankind, encompassing all who “share in flesh and blood,” not just Israel. Rather, the author understands all those with faith in Christ to be Abraham’s “seed,” inasmuch as faith in Christ ushers one into the “promise” originally given to Abraham, as Hebrews 6:13–20 will demonstrate. Minear remarks, “The exegesis of Psalm 8 is tacitly as inclusive as the Psalm itself—the creation of Adam as progenitor of the race.” 29 Thus, Hebrews 2 presents us with an implicit contrast between “the seed of Abraham” and what we might call “the seed of Adam.” The seed of Adam, that is, mankind, has been the subject of discussion in vv. 5–15. Mankind was created for glory, honor and dominion (vv. 6–8), but has lost those privileges and become subject “to lifelong bondage” because of “the fear of death” (v. 15). Christ recapitulates the experience of Adam/mankind in order to restore those privileges to his “brothers” who thus become “the seed of Abraham” (v. 16). Although the author does not emphasize it, at

288  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

the root of his thought is a contrast between unfaithful Adam and faithful Abraham as progenitors of a race in bondage and a race in freedom respectively.30 It is worth noting the concentration of familial metaphors in vv. 10–18: “sons” (v. 10); “brethren” (thrice, vv. 11, 12, 17); “children” (twice, vv. 13, 14); and “descendants” (lit. “seed,” v. 16). The author wishes to stress the familial solidarity which Christ, the firstborn son, enters into with mankind, making us into the familia Dei. But these familial concepts are not distinct from the explicitly covenantal language that will come more to the fore in Hebrews 7–9, because covenant is ordered to kinship: a covenant serves to establish kinships bonds where they were previously lacking.31 This passage, so dense with familial imagery, concludes by reflecting once again on Christ’s priestly role. The author weaves these two seemingly disparate conceptual strands together: Christ is firstborn son and eldest brother in the familia Dei, and also “merciful and faithful high priest” for the “people.” 32 Yet the two are linked: Christ expresses his filial trust toward the Father, and his fraternal love toward us his “brethren,” by his self-offering as high priest. We see how this correlation reflects conclusions drawn from our examination of the familial nature of the covenant, notably the royal priestly role—more or less explicit—of the firstborn son in relation to the father and the rest of the family.

Hebrews 3:1–6: Jesus, the Royal Davidic Priest, Is Superior to Moses, Old Covenant Mediator At the forefront of Hebrew’s argument is the proof of Christ’s superiority to the various mediators of the Old Covenant: the angels in Hebrews 1–2, and now Moses in Hebrews 3:1–6. While the author’s argument in 3:1–6 is relatively intelligible even on a cursory reading, its full significance, as well as its relationship to the preceding and succeeding pericopes, is only clear when one recognizes Nathan’s oracle to David (2 Sam 7:1–17; 1 Chr 17:3–15) as the subtext for this passage. M. R. D’Angelo has demonstrated how in 3:1–6 the author employs the rabbinical principle of gezera šewa—in which Old Testament texts are cited and evoked through the use of certain “hook-words”—to construct “a very complex midrashic treatment of a number of texts,” most prominently the covenant oracle to David through Nathan (2 Sam 7; 1 Chron 17) but also Numbers 12:7 and 1 Samuel 2:35.33 For example, in Hebrews 2:17, the mention of Christ as a “faithful high

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  289

priest” evokes the oracle of 1 Samuel 2:35, where God announces “I will raise up for myself a faithful priest . . . and I will build him a sure house for ever”—just as the oracle of Nathan (1 Chr 17:10–13; 2 Sam 7:11–14) is evoked by the references in Hebrews 3:1–6 to the “son” who “builds” and rules over the “house” of God.34 The author uses this double allusion to indicate the manner in which the latter oracle fulfills the former: the sworn promise of a “faithful priest” who will have a “sure house” is fulfilled by the “seed” of David who is appointed God’s “son” and established in God’s “house.” 35 D’Angelo summarizes: I would assert that the text cited in He 3.2 is not Nu 12.7 (although the allusion is present and held in abeyance) but 1 Chr 17.14, most probably according to the Septuagint. The citation is a deliberate reference to the Nathan oracle, which is introduced in order to structure the comparison. Second, the Nathan oracle in the Targums, the midrashic tradition and especially in the LXX, is already deeply involved with an oracle given to Eli in 1 Sam 2.35 so that the two texts come to be regarded as twin testimonies for the Davidic messiah and the messianic priest. So extensive is the relating of the two texts that it becomes possible for the author of Hebrews to find in them an oracular testimony to the “royal priest,” the major model for the Christology of the letter.36 D’Angelo’s insights help us to see that there is a royal Davidic Christology at work in Hebrews 3:1–6, just as there was in 1:5–14. Indeed, the author assumes that his readers are familiar with this Christology: he does not explain, for example, how we know from Scripture that Jesus is the “builder of the house” (v. 3) and is over the house as a “son” (v. 6). He takes it for granted that his readers know that 1 Chronicles 17:12 (“He will build a house for me”) and 17:13–14 (“He will be my son . . . I will confirm him in my house”) speak of Jesus, the seed of David par excellence. Thus, there is an implicit contrast in this passage between the unsuccessful covenant situation under Moses, and the covenant promises given to David which are fulfilled in Christ.37 This contrast will continue in the next section, in which it will be seen that under Moses Israel experienced sworn curses “never to enter my rest,” whereas under David, God invited Israel to enter his rest once again through David’s oracular voice (Ps 95:7–8; cf. Heb 4:7). Recognizing Nathan’s oracle as the subtext of Hebrews 3:1–6 helps us gain two insights into this passage.

290  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

First, it helps unpack the meaning of “house” (vv. 2–6). “House” in 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17 was employed in a triple entendre, variously signifying “family,” “kingdom,” or “temple.” 38 All three of these meanings are present here as well, and correspond to Jesus’ threefold role as “son,” “king,” and “priest” respectively. Thus the concept of “house” is deeply involved with the theme of the royal priestly primogeniture of Christ. Second, it makes clear the logic of the author’s progression of thought from the end of Hebrews 2 to the end of Hebrews 4. The second chapter concludes with reflection on Jesus as “faithful high priest,” evoking, as we have seen, the oracle of the “faithful priest” with a “sure house” in 1 Samuel 2:35. The discussion then moves, in Hebrews 3:1–6, to Christ the “builder” and “son” over God’s “house” because the Nathan oracle—where all these aspects of Jesus’ role are promised—is considered the fulfillment of 1 Samuel 2:35. The next topic, that of “rest” in 3:7–4:13, follows naturally, because “rest,” too, is an important concept in the Nathan oracle: it is only when God gives David “rest from all his enemies” (2 Sam 7:1) that David resolves to build God’s house, setting in motion the chain of events leading to Nathan’s oracle, which—strikingly—includes a promise to give David and the people of Israel “rest” from their enemies (cf. 2 Sam 7:10–11).39 In fact, the author draws from the Nathan oracle three of the main elements of the Epistle’s argument: first, “I will make for you a great name” (2 Sam 7:9); second, “I will give you rest” (2 Sam 7:11a); and third, “The Lord will make you a house” (2 Sam 7:11b).

Hebrews 3:7–4:13: Christ Offers the “Rest” Lost by Israel and Humanity In this passage, the focus shifts to the “rest” that God offered in two forms: first, in the promised land, which the wilderness generation forfeited by provoking God’s oath of disinheritance; and second, in the Sabbath of creation, offered to humanity in the beginning, but lost through Adam who provoked divine punishment on himself. We have already noted how the theme of “rest” is so important to the Nathan oracle which forms the context and subtext of the previous paragraph. The Davidic context is maintained in this paragraph as well, since Psalm 95:7–11—the scriptural focus of the entire section—is attributed to David according to the LXX (Heb 4:7). In Psalm 95:7–11, David recalls the rebellion of the Israelites in the wilderness and God’s sworn oath denying them the divine “rest” represented by the land of Canaan. He exhorts his

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  291

contemporaries not to harden their hearts as they had done in the past, thus implying that it is still possible to enter God’s rest. The author of Hebrews may have viewed David, in Psalm 95, as offering to Israel the “rest” that God promised him (and Israel with him) in Nathan’s oracle (cf. 2 Sam 7:10–11). In that case, the “rest” that Israel never achieved under Moses (Heb 3:16) or Joshua (Heb 4:8) was offered once again to Israel through David. Be that as it may, the author’s main concern in 3:7–4:13 is not the psalm’s significance for Israel of David’s day, but its significance for contemporary believers. He urges them to manifest the faith that the rebellious wilderness generation did not, in order to obtain the “rest.” In this section we see with particular clarity the nuanced view of the Old and New Covenants that the author maintains. The Old and the New are not temporally separated. This is particularly apparent in 4:2: “For good news came to us just as to them; but the message which they heard did not benefit them, because it did not meet with faith in the hearers.” Thus, the Israelites under Moses were already “evangelized” (euēngelismenoi)! On the other hand, there is the very real possibility that the author’s contemporaries will fall into the same unbelief of the wilderness generation and share their fate: “Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience” (v. 11). So then, the Old and New, the curse and the blessing, are not differentiated so much by time as by faith or the lack thereof. While the emphasis in Hebrews 3:7–4:13 is on the “rest” lost by Israel in the wilderness, the author also indicates, though subtly, that this “rest” is the same as that lost by Adam in the Fall. This is the implication of 4:3–5: For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall never enter my rest,’ ” although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way, “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” And again in this place he said, “They shall never enter my rest.” Here the author points out the sad state of affairs that, although God’s “rest” had begun on the seventh day of creation, thousands of years later Israel (under Moses) was still being denied it. In this way he calls to mind the fact that God’s “rest” had been offered to Adam/mankind at the beginning of creation, and was lost; just as much later it would be offered to (and lost by) Israel. Indeed, theologically the “rest” offered to Israel was essentially

292  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

the creational Sabbath “rest” offered to Adam. The author makes this clear in Hebrews 4:9–10: “There remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God; for whoever enters God’s rest also ceases from his labors as God did from his,” that is, on the seventh day of the creation week. So then, the “rest” lost by Adam and Israel, God offered once again through the voice of David (Ps 95:7–8), but offers more perfectly now, through Jesus who has inaugurated the “today” (Heb 1:5; 3:13–15; 4:7) in which “rest” is available. The Old Covenant is associated with unfaithful Adam and Israel-under-Moses, the New with David, who spoke of it and received the promise of it. Building on this foundation, the author turns his attention to the Aaronic high priesthood and the Levitical priestly order in Hebrews 5–9, for the purpose of extending his argument regarding the relationship of the Old and New Covenants.

Hebrews 4:14–5:10: Christ Our Sympathetic High Priest like Melchizedek In 4:14–5:10 the author resumes his discussion of Jesus’ high priestly role, last mentioned explicitly in 3:1. In this we can observe a certain circular style of argument, in which the author leaves the central topic—Jesus’ royal priestly primogeniture—to explore important ancillary issues, but always returning to the central issue once again, each time stating it with greater precision and force. The theme of this paragraph is that Christ is a high priest well suited to our needs, because he is sympathetic to the weaknesses of our nature and condition, having successfully borne them himself. Jesus’ royal priestly primogeniture is evident in the way the author proves Jesus’ appointment by God as high priest. He does this through a double citation of Psalms 2:7 and 110:4: “So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, ‘Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee’; as he says also in another place, ‘Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek’ ” (Heb 5:5–6). This is the second time the author alludes to these Davidic psalms (Pss 2 and 110) in close proximity: earlier, they formed the beginning and end, respectively, of the opening catena concerning Christ’s superiority to the angels. Here, however, 110:4 rather than 110:1 is cited, with the result that Melchizedek is mentioned for the first time. Moreover, the two quoted verses are juxtaposed immediately, joined by the transitional phrase “as he says in another

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  293

place,” which suggests that the author intends for them to be mutually illuminating. Thus, in the author’s view, divine sonship, royal priesthood, and the order of Melchizedek represent different but complementary ways of stating the same essential truth of Christ’s Davidic identity and messianic mission. Rooke notes: “Both divine sonship and priesthood are elements of the ancient [Davidic] royal ideology. Indeed . . . a convergence of sonship and priesthood has already been presented at 5,5–6. . . . Here the pattern of sacral kingship is immediately recognizable, as the writer quotes Ps 2,7, where God declares his adoption of the monarch-to-be as his son, followed by Ps 110,4, where the new monarch’s priestly prerogatives are bestowed upon him by divine oath. . . . The result is . . . a presentation which despite its apparently overwhelmingly priestly character is consistent with the traditional messianic expectation of a Son of David.” 40 It is particularly striking, given the fact that the author wishes to prove that Jesus was appointed as high priest, that he cites first the psalm which speaks of the Christ as Son (Ps 2:7), bringing in the more explicit declaration of priesthood (Ps 110:4) secondarily, for confirmation. This suggests that for the author as well as his readers, the status of Jesus as the definitive “Son”—that is, firstborn— of God is sufficient to prove that he is also high priest.41 The connection between sonship and priesthood is illuminated by the model we have been developing of the natural priesthood of the firstborn son in the patriarchal family. For Hebrews and its readership, this model seems to have been obvious enough so as not to require demonstration. It is sufficiently clear how the order of “Melchizedek,” mentioned here for the first time, is related to royal priesthood, inasmuch as Melchizedek himself was both king and priest. What requires explanation is the relationship of Melchizedek to divine sonship, particularly primogeniture. This will have to await explication until our treatment of Hebrews 7 below, where more space may be devoted to the interpretation of Melchizedek in Second Temple Judaism. The end of this paragraph (Heb 5:7–10) recalls Hebrews 2:9, 14–15, combining the concepts of fear, death, and vicarious suffering. In language reminiscent of the Passion, especially the Garden of Gethsemane and the crucifixion, Christ is shown to undergo the agonizing experience of suffering and death, though his fear is not of death but of God—the reverential fear of a son. Because he feared God more than the suffering of death, he becomes the source of salvation for those previously described as being “subject to lifelong bondage” by the fear of death (2:15). Triumph over the fear of death is an important aspect of salvation in Hebrews, and may form part of the reason that the Aqedah—in which Abraham and Isaac over-

294  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

came their fear of death—figures prominently in the author’s thought, as we shall see at the end of Hebrews 6.

Hebrews 5:11–6:20: Exhortation to Persevere, Trusting in God’s Oath to Abraham At first, this next unit (5:11–6:20) seems merely to be a parenetic digression, but close analysis shows it is carefully planned to lead the reader by stages back to the central topic of Jesus’ royal priesthood. Thus, after an initial rebuke (5:11–6:3) the author leads his readers from fear (6:4–8) to hope (6:9–12) to confidence (6:13–20) concerning their salvation. This confidence, the author asserts, may be based on God’s self-sworn oath to bless Abraham after the Aqedah (Heb 6:13–14; cf. Gen 22:15–18). This oath has strong connections with the divine oath to David in Psalm 110:3–4, which is cited just prior to (Heb 5:6, 10) and at the end (6:20) of this parenesis. Thus the reader is led back to Jesus’ royal priesthood “after the order of Melchizedek.” The discussion of the impossibility of restoration of apostates in Hebrews 6:4–8 demonstrates the “interpenetration” of the Old and New Covenants we have discussed above. Many of the attributes of the apostates can also be applied to the Israelites of the wilderness wanderings (see Table 10.1).42 Having described these backsliders in language reminiscent of the rebellious Exodus generation, the author describes their fate in a blessing-andcurse statement (6:7–8). This declaration of blessings and curses draws inspiration from two sources: on the one hand, contrastive statements of blessing-and-curse are characteristic of the covenant law codes after the golden calf incident; for example, at the end of the Holiness Code (Lev 26) and the Deuteronomic Code (Deut 28:15–68).43 Blessing and curse statements are therefore characteristically covenantal, indicating that the argument in Hebrews is moving within a covenant framework, even though Table 10.1. Apostates of the New Covenant

Rebellious Israelites of the Old Covenant

Enlightened (Heb 6:4a) Lead by a pillar of fiery light (Exod 13:21–22) Tasted the heavenly gift (v. 4b) Ate the manna (Exod 16:35; Num 11:6–7) Partakers of the Holy Spirit (v. 4c) Spirit poured out on elders (Num 11:24–30) Tasted the goodness of the Word Heard the very word of God at the mountain    of God (v. 5a)    (Exod 20:18–20)

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  295

the precise word “covenant” (diathēkē) will not occur until 7:22. On the other hand, the description of cultivated land which receives rain bearing “thorns and thistles” and being cursed is an obvious allusion to the curses on creation following Adam’s disobedience in Genesis 3 (cf. Gen 2:5; 3:17–19). Thus, the curse language in Hebrews 6:4–8 draws on both the curses on Israel and the curses affecting Adam,44 because, in the author’s mind, the curses pertaining to these two covenant breakers are entwined and characteristic of the Old Covenant. Here again we see how the Old and New Covenants are not separated by time. Those who apostasize from the New essentially revert to the Old and fall under its curses. They become like the unfaithful wilderness generation (as discussed in Heb 3:7–4:13) and fall under the curses pertaining to Israel and Adam. However, the author wishes his readers not to be like Israel and Adam, but like “those who through faith and patience inherit the promises” (Heb 6:12), that is, like Abraham (vv. 13–15): “For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, saying, ‘Surely I will bless you and multiply you.’ And thus Abraham, having patiently endured, obtained the promise.” While promises and even covenants are given to Abraham at various times in the biblical narrative, God explicitly swears by himself to the patriarch only once: immediately following the Aqedah, when Abraham and Isaac overcame their fear of death out of obedience to God. The Aqedah and its covenant-oath (Gen 22:15–18) are thus the subtext of Hebrews 6:13–20, much like the Nathan oracle was for Hebrews 3:1–6.45 The author moves from describing apostasy in language reminiscent of Adam and Israel-in-the-wilderness, to describing faithfulness in terms of the covenant-oath of blessing to Abraham as the antidote for the curses provoked by Adam, and the “inoculation” which prevents the curses on Israel-in-the-wilderness from being ultimately “fatal.” (Moses, after all, pled the oath of the Aqedah on Israel’s behalf to mollify God after the calf incident [Exod 32:13–14]). Indeed, the oath of the Aqedah has enduring salvific significance, such that believers in Christ, contemporaries with the author, can still find “an anchor of the soul” in God’s oath to Abraham (Heb 6:19). This can be seen in the way the author moves seamlessly in one sentence from describing the encouraging effects of the oath to Abraham and Isaac to its effects on contemporary believers: And thus Abraham, having patiently endured, obtained the promise. . . . So when God desired to show more convincingly to

296  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he interposed with an oath, so that through two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible that God should prove false, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to seize the hope set before us. (Heb 6:15, 17–18) The reader, at least initially, is inclined to interpret the “heirs of the promise” in v. 17 as referring to Abraham—or better, because of the plural, Abraham and Isaac, who were the “heirs of the promise” at the time when God “interposed with an oath.” But by the end of the sentence it is clear that God ultimately intended the encouragement of the oath for us “who have fled for refuge,” the author and his readership. Again, the interpenetrated nature of the Old and New Covenants is shown: just as the apostates are linked to Adam and Israel, the faithful are linked to Abraham and even take hope in an oath given to him. This hope—that is, in the unchangeable nature of God’s oath to Abraham after the Aqedah—is an “anchor for the soul” that enters into the Holy of Holies where Christ goes, who is a high “priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (Heb 6:20). Here, in one sentence, the author links the Abrahamic oath of the Aqedah to the Davidic oath making David’s seed “a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4). The second oath focuses the manner of fulfillment of the first.46 In this regard, it seems more than coincidental that the figure of Melchizedek also links Abraham to David, since his only scriptural mentions are in Genesis 14, where he blesses Abraham, and in the royal Davidic Psalm 110. Thus we see that Abraham and David are linked by Melchizedek and aligned together as faithful recipients of divine oaths of blessing, in which Christian believers participate, over against Adam and Israel, representatives of the Old Covenant. The emphasis the author places on the oath of the Aqedah, and his elaboration on the absolutely binding nature of oaths in 6:17–18 give evidence of a point we should have already grasped, namely that “oaths and the finality they confer are deeply important in Hebrews, especially the unique status and revolutionary consequences of divine oaths.” 47 The three OT loci most crucial to the author are those in which God swears an oath: Genesis 22:15–18, the oath of the Aqedah (Heb 6:13–20); Psalm 95:11 (cf. Num 14:20–23), the oath disinheriting the wilderness generation (Heb 3:7– 4:13); and Psalm 110:4, the oath appointing the Christ as priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb 1:13; 5:6; 7:15–22).48

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  297

The Order of Melchizedek The author culminates his parenesis in 5:11–6:20 by returning to Psalm 110:4, thus preparing the reader for the exposition of Christ’s priesthood after the order of Melchizedek in the seventh chapter. Only four verses of the Old Testament mention the royal priest Melchizedek (Gen 14:18–20; Ps 11:4). Given his minimal role in the canonical rec­ ord, one would think that the Jewish tradition would have allowed such a figure to recede into the shadows of religious memory. On the contrary, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, as well as other Second Temple texts, the priesthood of Melchizedek figures prominently in the theological worldview. Some investigation into the background of Melchizedek in the canonical and non-canonical literature is necessary to understand and appreciate his role in the argument of Hebrews. Melchizedek, the First Priest Let us recall some of the relevant canonical data. (1) Melchizedek is the first person in the Pentateuch explicitly called a “priest” (Gen 14:18). Furthermore, he is the only figure in Genesis identified as a priest of “God Most High,” whom Abraham worships as “the Lord” who created “heaven and earth” (Gen 14:22). The others who bear the title “priest” in Genesis are the officials of the pagan Egyptian religion (Gen 41:45, 50; 46:20; 47:22, 26). (2) Melchizedek is the king of “Salem” (Gen 14:18), which Psalm 76:2 and subsequent Jewish tradition identifies with Zion, that is, Jerusalem, the City of God (Ps 46:4; 87:3) and City of David (2 Sam 5:7 etc.). (3) Melchizedek ministers to Abraham as a priest by “blessing” him (Gen 14:19) and bringing forth “bread and wine” (Gen 14:18).49 For his part, Abraham’s tithing of his spoils to Melchizedek seems to constitute an acknowledgement that a priestly service has been performed for himself and his associates (cf. Num 18:21). Thus, Melchizedek, despite the brevity of his canonical appearance, can claim the exalted roles of first king of Jerusalem (long before David), and first priest (long before Aaron), whose legitimacy is recognized by Abraham himself.

298  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

Melchizedek’s Priestly Order The Epistle to the Hebrews develops the theological significance of Melchizedek primarily with respect to his priestly order (Gk., taxis) and only secondarily with respect to his person. Thus, the phrase “the order of Melchizedek” appears five times in the span of three chapters (Heb 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 17). The expression is taken from Psalm 110, where the Lord swears an oath ordaining the Davidide—the king at his right hand (Ps 110:1)—as a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Ps 110:4). This statement is striking, since the Mosaic law—already in force, according to the canonical account, for centuries prior to David—acknowledged only the Levitical priesthood of Aaron and his sons (Exod 40:12–15). No other priesthood was even recognized, much less permitted to officiate on behalf of the covenant people (Num 17:1–13; 18:1–7). So what is this pre-Levitical “order” linked with Melchizedek and restored through the Davidic covenant? Since the text of Genesis 14 makes no direct mention of an “order” of Melchizedek, this question may only be approached indirectly, by examining the theology of priesthood in Genesis. We have noted above (Chapter 6) that Genesis portrays a patriarchal order of priesthood that functioned for centuries prior to the elevation and priestly ordination of the Levites following the covenant breaking at Sinai. Genesis paints the patriarchal period as an age of natural religion, an era when priestly authority was rooted in the authority structure of the patriarchal family: the father of the family conducted public rites of worship, and his sons became his successors in ministry. In particular, the firstborn son was the natural mediator and primary heir who stood to receive the full measure (“double portion”) of his father’s royal and priestly responsibility. Throughout Genesis, the Patriarchs—not a professional class of priests—perform the cultic duties of building altars (Gen 12:7–8; 13:18), calling on the Lord in prayer (Gen 21:33; 26:25), consecrating natural landmarks (Gen 28:18–22), pouring out libations (Gen 35:14), pronouncing blessings (Gen 27:23–29; 28:1; 47:7, 10; 48:15, 20, 28), and offering sacrifice on behalf of the family (Gen 8:20; 46:1; cf. Job 1:5). Genesis portrays a pre-Levitical form of priesthood rooted in the patriarchal family, particularly in the idealized relationship of the father and his firstborn son.

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  299

Melchizedek’s Identity Such is the canonical background in which Melchizedek practiced his priesthood. He exercised ruling authority as a “king” as well as religious authority as a “priest.” Is there sufficient cause to link his priesthood with the natural priesthood enjoyed by the patriarchs? The anonymous compilers of the Targums certainly thought so. All the Targums on Genesis 14 identify Melchizedek with the patriarch Shem, the firstborn son of Noah (Gen 6:10), whose genealogy in Genesis indicates that he lived in and beyond the lifetime of Abraham (Gen 11:10–11). How ancient were the Targums and the interpretation of Melchizedek they contain? C. T. R. Hayward shows that key points of targumic theology are found also in Jubilees, 1 Enoch, and other Second Temple texts, suggesting the origins of the Targums are in the second century bce if not earlier.50 After reviewing the evidence, Hayward concludes: “It seems reasonable to suggest that the identification of Melchizedek and Shem in the pentateuchal targumim arose simply and naturally from Jewish study of biblical texts about the two men, together with traditions about Shem which were demonstrably current in Second Temple times.” 51 This interpretive tradition also appears in the oldest rabbinic commentaries (Gen. Rab. 43:6; Lev. Rab. 25:6; Num. Rab. 4:8), in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Ned. 32b), and other rabbinic works (e.g., Pirqe R. El. 8:2).52 While it is not possible to prove that the author of Hebrews endorsed the view of Shem-as-Melchizedek, based on the available evidence of the Targums one can assert with confidence that the view was a commonly shared interpretive tradition in the Second Temple period and beyond, well into the common era, and fits well the emphasis in Hebrews on royal priesthood and the inheritance of the (firstborn) son. Royal Priesthood. In the theology of Hebrews, Jesus, like Melchizedek, is both king and high priest. For much of the Old Testament period, these two offices were entrusted to two different families, those of David and Aaron. However, in the ancient order of Melchizedek, the patriarch, and eventually his firstborn heir, shared the roles.53 Melchizedek-Shem, as firstborn of Noah, inherited his father’s authority (kingship) and his priestly role (Gen 8:20). Inheritance of the Son. The patriarchal form of the priesthood, based on the natural order of the family, is a model on earth of what is now established in the family of God. The Father has raised up Jesus as a Son—as the “firstborn” Son (Heb 1:6)—glorifying him above the angels (Heb 1–2) as well as over the mediators of the Mosaic covenant (Heb 5–10). Being the

300  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

Father’s eldest Son in the family of faith, he is the appointed heir who is given authority over all of creation (Heb 1:2–3). His relational identity is, therefore, much like a father figure, who ministers to believers both as his “brethren” (Heb 2:11) and as his “children” (Heb 2:13).

Hebrews 7: Jesus, a Royal Priestly Firstborn like Melchizedek All of Hebrews 7 concerns the royal priestly likeness between Jesus and Melchizedek, but it divides in two parts. First, in 7:1–10 the author argues from Genesis 14 that in Melchizedek, the Torah itself provides us with an example of a non-Levitical priest who is not only legitimate, but even superior to Abraham and thus to Levi himself. This provides a type, model, and precedent for Jesus’ priesthood. Second, in vv. 11–28, the author argues from Psalm 110 that Jesus’ Melchizedek priesthood is superior to the Levitical priesthood for the following reasons: 1. It is established after the Levitical priesthood—through the oracle to David in Psalm 110:4—thus indicating that the Levitical priesthood was inadequate and in need of augmentation if not replacement (vv. 11–14). 2. It is based on “the power of an indestructible life” (vv. 15–19). 3. It is founded on a divine oath (vv. 20–22). 4. It is permanent (vv. 23–28). This chapter raises many difficult issues, but we will consider only three: First, what does it mean that Melchizedek was “without father or mother or genealogy” (7:3)? Second, what is the meaning of the clause: “when there is a change in the priesthood, there is . . . a change in the law” (7:12)? Third, why is it significant that Jesus’ priesthood—as opposed the Levitical one— is established by oath? Without Father or Mother or Genealogy Hebrews 7:3 contains the following puzzling statement: He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever.

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  301

Most scholars believe the author is arguing here from the supposed rabbinical dictum that “Quod non in thora, non in mundo,” literally, “what is not in the Torah, is not in the world.” 54 What the Torah doesn’t mention, doesn’t exist. Therefore, since the Torah does not record Melchizedek’s birth, death, or lineage, he must be without ancestors and eternal, and therefore like Jesus. However, there are two major difficulties with this common view. First, “Quod non in thora, non in mundo” is not a genuine rabbinic interpretive principle—as one might gather from the fact that it is given in Latin, hardly the original language of the Rabbis. It is an unfortunate phrase, invented by Strack and Billerbeck,55 which actually misdescribes the hermeneutical principles at work in the rabbinic texts to which it is applied. Neither the rabbis nor the Jewish tradition in general ever argued from the absence of a thing in Scripture to its absence in reality.56 Second, “being without father or mother or genealogy” would not suffice to make Melchizedek similar to Jesus. Jesus had “father and mother and genealogy” (cf. Matt 1:1–17; Luke 3:23–28); in fact, a few verses later the author will mention Jesus’ Judahite lineage (7:14).57 Moreover, we have already seen how the author’s application of the royal Davidic psalms to ­Jesus presumes Jesus’ Davidic descent. Were the author here to suggest that ­Jesus’ human descent from David was somehow unreal, it would undermine his assumption that Jesus fulfills the promises to the Davidic heir.58 In Hebrews 7:3 the author is not making general statements but using technical terminology with respect to the requirements of the Levitical priesthood. J. Brown comments: The key to the true meaning of the passage is to be found in the peculiar view . . . of Melchisedec. He is speaking of him as a priest and as a priest he is said to have had no father, no mother, or genealogy. The last statement is explanatory of the two former. The genealogy of the Levitical priests was very carefully preserved. It was absolutely necessary that a priest should have for his father a lineal descendant of Aaron, and for his mother a person qualified to be a priest’s wife; and that his must be certified by a genealogical register. . . . Melchisedec belonged to an order or priesthood where natural descent was not at all regarded—an order of things free from those artificial restrictions which formed a leading feature of the legal economy. . . . “Having neither beginning of days nor end of life,” is a phrase to be explained on the same principle. If Melchisedec was a man, there is no doubt that

302  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

he began and ceased to live; but as a priest he did not belong to that order who had a fixed period for commencing, and a fixed period for concluding, their priestly existence. The Levitical priests were allowed at the age of twenty-five years to minister to their officiating brethren; at thirty they entered on the services peculiar to the priesthood; and at fifty there was an end of their priestly services. This was the beginning of their days and the end of their life as priests. But Melchisedec belonged . . . to a less artificial order of things.59 Any candidate wishing to serve in an active priestly ministry had to produce proof of his Levitical pedigree for both parents.60 Melchizedek had no “father and mother and genealogy” from the perspective of the Levitical priesthood.61 Verse 6 makes this clearer: Melchizedek is “a man who has not their genealogy.” Resembling the Son of God . . . In the second half of Hebrews 7:3, the author stresses the correlation between Jesus’s (and Melchizedek’s) sonship and priesthood: “but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.” This phrase is the culmination of a chain of statements linking sonship and priesthood going back at least to Hebrews 4:14. Let us observe: 4:14 Since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God . . . 5:5 So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, “Thou art my Son . . .” 5:8, 10 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience . . . being designated by God a high priest . . . 7:28 Indeed, the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect for ever . . . If the author of Hebrews is taking for granted the identification of Melchizedek as Shem, the firstborn son and inheritor the patriarchal priesthood, one can appreciate the ease and naturalness with which the author employs Melchizedek as a type and figure of the filial priesthood possessed in its fullness by Jesus Christ. The primary point of the comparison is the

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  303

filial identity of Melchizedek and Jesus. The secondary point is the duration of ministry: Melchizedek-Shem serves for centuries, Jesus for eternity. Indeed, here in this chapter (7:3–28) we see the final convergence and integration of the two main Christological strands of Hebrews: the Sonship Christology and the High Priestly Christology.62 He Continues a Priest Forever As Brown noted above, Israelite priests also had to fall within the narrow age limits specified for active ministry, that is, between thirty and fifty years old (Num 4:3–43; 8:25). Age thirty was their “beginning of days” as a priest, age fifty their “end of life” in the priestly service.63 Melchizedek was not bound by these requirements, but “continues a priest continually (eis to diēnekes)”—for his whole life.64 This last phrase, eis to diēnekes, is frequently translated “for ever” but, in fact, is weaker than the phrase eis ton aiōna (“unto eternity”) applied to Christ in v. 28. Accordingly, we suggest translating eis to diēnekes as “continually.” 65 Melchizedek was not immortal but remained a priest for the duration of his life.66 When understood as referring to the technical legal requirements of the Levitical priesthood, Hebrews 7:3 poses no obstacle to the common Jewish understanding of Melchizedek-as-Shem. In fact, the Melchizedek-as-Shem hypothesis helps us to see the points of resemblance between Melchizedek and Christ. As we saw above, Shem-Melchizedek bears the status of a firstborn son who was blessed by his father with the divine name and a pledge that God would “dwell” within his “tents” (Gen 9:26); he then lived on into the next age, since his life span overlaps and exceeds Abraham’s, during which time he presumably reigned in his father’s stead as king and high priest over the entire human family in “Salem” (Jerusalem). Indeed, Shem lived into the tenth generation of his descendants, ten being a number of completion. His impressively long life may explain why the author describes him as “continuing a priest uninterruptedly” (7:3) and as having “the power of an indestructible life” (7:16). In sum, we can see how Melchizedek serves as an earthly prototype of Christ, God’s firstborn Son who eternally reigns as priest-king in the heavenly Jerusalem, ministering divine blessings to Abraham’s “seed,” God’s new covenant family (Heb 12:22–24).67 A Change in the Priesthood, a Change in the Law Hebrews 7:12 states, “For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.” If the author read the Pentateuch

304  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

as reliable history, he probably observed, as we did above, that the natural priesthood of the firstborn son prevailed from patriarchal times up to Sinai, when it was replaced by the Levitical priesthood after the golden calf rebellion.68 This is the “change in the priesthood” the author of Hebrews mentions.69 The “change in the law” would refer to the large body of mostly cultic regulations (Exod 34–40; Lev 1–26) added to the original Sinai law (Exod 20–24) simultaneously with the appointment of the Levites as priests. Little wonder that the author regards this elaborate bicovenantal ritual system (Exod 34–Lev 26) as ineffective in restoring Israel to its original calling to be—like Shem-Melchizedek—firstborn son (Exod 4:22) and royal priest (Exod 19:6). In fact, Israel’s royal priestly primogeniture cannot be restored without removing the Levitical priesthood which has replaced it. Not Without An Oath In verses 20–22 the author affirms: And it was not without an oath. Those who formerly became priests took their office without an oath, but this one was addressed with an oath, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘Thou art a priest for ever.’ ” This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant. (Heb 7:20–22) This oath of Psalm 110:4, mentioned twice here and a third time in 7:28, is for the author nothing less than the ultimate basis for the New Covenant, since it is the reason why “Jesus has become the surety of a better covenant.” This marks the first use of the term “covenant” in the book, and significantly it is linked here with the concepts “oath” and “surety.” It should be clear by now that the author connects—perhaps even equates—“oath” with “covenant,” which—in light of our research on the interconnection between “oath” and “covenant” in the Old Testament—is unsurprising. The equation of “oath” and “covenant” is almost axiomatic among OT scholars, even if their NT counterparts frequently overlook the relationship.70 The other concept linked here with “covenant”—that is, “surety”—is no less significant. “Surety” (enguos) bears a different connotation than “mediator” (mesitēs). A “mediator” brings two parties together, but a “surety” guarantees the fulfillment of a covenant with his own self, his own life.71 Later, in the analysis of Hebrews 9, we will see that Christ’s role as “surety” causes him to bear the curses of the failed Old Covenant (both Adamic and Mosaic) in death, even as high priest he fulfills the oaths of God given to

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  305

Abraham and David. The connection between divine curses and oaths— both so important to the author—should be apparent in light of our earlier research finding oaths to be essentially conditional self-curses. In 7:20–28, the author stresses that the distinctive superiority of the New Covenant is found precisely and ultimately in its divine institution. The New Covenant (connected with Abraham and David) is based on divine oath, whereas the Old Covenant (connected with Adam-subjectedto-the-angels and Israel-subjected-to-Moses) is based principally upon human mediation, oath-swearing, and suretyship. In contrast to the oath of Christ’s Melchizedek priesthood in Psalm 110:4, one looks in vain from Exodus 32 to the end of Deuteronomy for any divine oath confirming the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood in its role. The only oath in the Sinai covenant configuration was the self-maledictory ritual of Exodus 24, in which the Israelites, by receiving the sprinkled blood, invoked on themselves the curse of death should they fail to fulfill their covenant obligations. The royal priesthood awarded to Christ corresponds specifically to that which Israel forfeited at Sinai; just as it corresponds to what David was granted by divine covenant oath. From Abraham and Isaac in the patriarchal age to the “son of David” in the monarchical period and beyond, the figure of Melchizedek served as a prototype of Christ, the firstborn son of God and royal priest in the heavenly Jerusalem, in whom the covenant vocation of Israel and humanity (Adam) is fulfilled.

Hebrews 8–9: Jesus Mediates a Better Covenant than the Levitical Highpriest A. Vanhoye argues that Hebrews 8–9 forms the climactic core at the center of the book (5:11–10:39).72 Indeed, the author seems to announce that a climax has been reached in the first verse of chapter 8: “Now the point of what we are saying is this: . . .” The two chapters are unified in their focus on the sanctuary and the sacrificial cult that was performed in it. Christ possesses a superior sanctuary in which he offers sacrifices superior to those performed by the Levitical high priest in the earthly “tent” (tabernacle). This is stated more or less explicitly in the opening and closing passages of the section (8:1–6 and 9:23–28). In the central section (8:7–9:22) the author deals with the relationship between sanctuary and cult on the one hand and covenant on the other. Of course, there is a very close relationship between these concepts, since the cult offered in the sanctuary mediates the covenant.73

306  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

In 8:1–6, the author, drawing on Exodus 25:40, stresses that the earthly sanctuary was merely an ineffectual copy of the heavenly sanctuary. His statements are strongly negative, speaking of the priests of the law as “offering worship to a rudimentary representation of heavenly things” (8:5), which has connotations of idolatry. The author’s pessimism concerning the OT cult is somewhat more comprehensible when we bear in mind that his disparaging remarks are directed against the “law” specifically in its Levitical form, in which the covenant was reconfigured after the disastrous golden calf incident. It is this reconfigured covenant—representing God’s condescension to his people but not his original intention—that must finally be replaced. As we will note further below, the author of Hebrews never considers the “first covenant” in its pristine (pre-calf, pre-­Levitical) state, but always in its broken and reconfigured (post-calf, Levitical) form. In the rest of chapter 8 (vv. 7–13), the author cites Jeremiah 31:31–34 as proof that the Old Covenant was defective: For he finds fault with them when he says: “The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord. This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach every one his fellow or every one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.” In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Heb 8:9–13 RSV) 74 His argument is very similar to arguments made earlier, as we may see by comparing them: • If Moses and Joshua had given the people rest, David would not later have invited Israel to enter God’s rest (Heb 4:1–10; cf. Ps 95:7–8). • If the Levitical priesthood had been perfect, God would not later have

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  307 Table 10.2. Symbolism of the Tabernacle. Category

Holy Place symbolizes

Holy of Holies symbolizes

Time Space Anthropology Divine Economy

Present Age Earthly Sanctuary Flesh (external person) Old Covenant

Age to Come Heavenly Sanctuary Heart (internal person) New Covenant

promised a new Melchizedek priesthood to David and his heirs (Heb 7:11–19; cf. Ps 110:4). • If the Old Covenant had been faultless, Jeremiah would not later have spoken of a new covenant unlike the old, broken one (Heb 8:7–13; cf. Jer 31:31–34). This last argument is the strongest of the three, because the text of Jeremiah discusses the Old Covenant explicitly and negatively. Having quoted Jeremiah’s strong critique of the Old Covenant in its broken state, the author proceeds to explain how the liturgy established and practiced under the Old is demonstrably inadequate compared to the liturgy of the New. In Hebrews 9:1–14, the author contrasts the details of the sanctuary and sacrifices of Christ with those of the Mosaic Tabernacle (see Table 10.2). He understands the twofold division of the Tabernacle sanctuary into the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies as a complex symbol of the division between the Old and the New Covenants, the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries, and the body/flesh versus the heart/conscience (9:6–10):75 From the fact that the ministry of even the High Priest was limited with one exception (the Day of Atonement) to the (outer) Holy Place, the author concludes that the Old Covenant in its renewed form (after the calf) was inadequate, since it could neither cleanse the inner person nor make God’s holy presence (i.e., the heavenly sanctuary) available for any but the High Priest, and for him only once a year under special conditions.

Hebrews 9:15–22 and the Meaning of Diathēkē At this point we have come to a certain climax within the climactic unit of Hebrews 8–9,76 namely, 9:15–22, especially vv. 15–18. Here the author states his theology of Christ’s mediatorship of the New Covenant in the most explicit terms, but unfortunately the passage has remained obscure and highly debated in the history of scholarship. The issues involved are

308  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

quite complex, requiring analysis of these verses in much greater detail than that required for the text of Hebrews to this point. The dispute in Hebrews 9:15–22 is whether to take the word diathēkē in vv. 16–17 according to its secular Hellenistic meaning “testament,” or its Septuagintal meaning “covenant” (bĕrît).77 Most modern translations and commentators take diathēkē in the sense of “will” or “testament” in vv. 16–17, and as “covenant” in vv. 15 and 1878. For example, the RSV reads: (9:15) Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant (diathēkē), so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant (diathēkē). (16) For where a will (diathēkē) is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. (17) For a will (diathēkē) takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. (18) Hence even the first covenant (diathēkē) was not ratified without blood. It is not difficult to see why this approach enjoys majority support.79 In v. 15, the context seems to demand the sense of “covenant,” since only covenants have mediators (mesitēs) and reference is made to the first diathēkē, which the author clearly regards as a covenant. However, in v. 16, the requirement for the “death of the one who made it” would seem to suggest the translation “will” for diathēkē, since covenants did not seem to require the death of their makers. Likewise, in v. 17, the statement that a diathēkē takes effect only at death and is not in force while the maker is alive seems to apply only to a will. However, in v. 18, the topic returns again to “the first diathēkē,” that is, the Sinai event, which can scarcely be anything but a covenant. While the basic case for the diathēkē as “will” or “testament” in Hebrews 9:16–17 can be seen readily, the reading labors under a number of difficulties which we have enumerated at length elsewhere.80 We may summarize these difficulties as follows: First, the use of the term diathēkē to mean “testament” is not in keeping with the author’s usual practice. Second, the actual diction and grammar of vv. 16–17 do not describe any known form of first-century testamentary practice. Third, the concept of a “testament” is incongruous within the author’s larger theological matrix. Fourth, the equivocation in meaning of the key word diathēkē renders the author’s argument logically invalid.

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  309

Diathēkē in Hebrews It is all but incontestable that aside from 9:16–17 the author of Hebrews uses diathēkē only in its Septuagintal sense of “covenant.” 81 Moreover, the word is clearly important to the author: the term diathēkē (and the concept of “covenant”) occurs more often and receives greater attention and emphasis in Hebrews than in any other New Testament book.82 Of the thirtythree occurrences of diathēkē in the NT, seventeen—just over half—are in Hebrews. Of these, fifteen are in the extended discussion of Christ-asHigh-Priest from ch. 7 through ch. 10. The word occurs seven times in ch. 9 alone, far more than in any other chapter of Hebrews or the NT. Thus, since the word is important and frequently used by the author, and in every instance except 9:16–17 has the meaning “covenant,” J. J. Hughes insists: “One should at least be exceedingly cautious in attributing a meaning to diathēkē in ix 15–22 that is so foreign to the author’s use of the word elsewhere.” 83 Diction, Grammar, and First-Century Testamentary Law Although it is generally assumed that 9:16–17 can only be understood in light of Greco-Roman legal practices, the actual words of the verses will not bear the meaning placed on them. For example, the testamentary interpretation tends to treat the Greek terms bebaios and ischyō in v. 17 as synonyms for “executed” (i.e., “a will is only executed at death”), but no such meaning or usage is attested for either term elsewhere in Greek literature.84 In legal contexts, the senses of ischyō and bebaios are “to be valid” and “valid, confirmed, ratified” respectively.85 Thus, v. 17 is speaking of the validation, not execution, of diathēkai. Hughes has pointed out, however, that the validation or ratification (bebaiōsis) of wills in Hellenistic, Egyptian, and Roman law was not “over the dead [bodies]” (epi nekrois, v. 17): “It is simply untrue and completely lacking in classical and papyrological support to maintain that . . . a will or testament was only legally valid when the testator died . . . it is impossible . . . that [vv. 16–17] refer to any known form of Hellenistic (or indeed any other) legal practice.” 86 To the contrary, a Hellenistic will was legally secure and valid (bebaios) not when the testator died, but when it was written down, witnessed, and deposited with a notary.87 Moreover, the inheritance was not wholly subsequent to the death of the testator, as v. 17 would imply: distribution of the estate while the testator(s) was still living (Lat., donatio inter vivos) was quite widespread in the Hellenistic world.88 While inheritance after the death of the testator

310  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

may have been more frequent in practice, only a few instances of donatio inter vivos known to the readers of Hebrews would have subverted the emphatic statement of v. 17b (epei mēpote ischyei hote zē ho diathemenos) and destroyed its rhetorical effectiveness.89 Under the assumption that diathēkē means “testament,” there are also grammatical irregularities in the use of pheresthai (16b) and epi nekrois (17a).90 If v. 16b referred to testamentary practice, one would expect: hopou gar diathēkē, where there is a testament, diathemenon anankē apothanein. it is necessary for the testator to die.

Why do we have instead the circumlocution: thanaton anankē pheresthai tou diathemenou (v. 16b)? The NRSV renders this clause: “The death of the one who made it must be established,” but there is no other example of such usage in the rest of the NT or the LXX. The verb pherō (“to bring, carry, bear”) is frequently used in legal contexts, both within and without the biblical corpus, but in the sense of: “to bring a report, claim, or charge,” not a death; one would expect the following phrase: pheresthai ton logon tou thanatou, “a report of the death to be brought.” The idiosyncrasy of the phrase is demonstrated by the way lexicographers treat it as a special case, being unable to produce analogous citations.91 In essence, pheresthai (infinitive of pherō) in v. 16b has typically been forced to bear a meaning it cannot carry. Literally, v. 16b asserts: “It is necessary for the death of the covenant-maker to be borne [i.e., endured or experienced].” Another grammatical strain occurs at v. 17a: diathēkē gar epi nekrois bebaia, which the NRSV renders: “A will takes effect only at death.” Literally, however, the phrase reads: “For a diathēkē is confirmed upon dead [bodies].” There is no justification for taking the phrase epi nekrois as “at death” (which would be epi nekrō or epi nekrōsei) although this is the sense demanded by a testamentary interpretation of diathēkē.92 The phrase is awkward, especially the use of the plural (nekroi, “dead [bodies]”), if indeed the author was intending to speak of the death of the testator.93 Incongruity Within the Author’s Theological Framework The incongruity of diathēkē-as-testament for the author of Hebrews is much deeper than grammar, diction, and syntax. Essentially, the model of the secular Hellenistic testament is incongruous with the literary-­theological context of the Epistle as a whole, particularly the soteriological paradigm that the author has been carefully developing in Hebrews 1–9 and contin-

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  311

ues to develop through the end of the discourse.94 While this incongruity has many aspects, the two explored here will be in relation to the author’s view of inheritance and emphasis on cult.

covenant and inheritance in hebrews Hebrews’ model of the process of inheritance is based on Semitic categories of covenant and familial solidarity, rather than Hellenistic testamentary practices. Christ is the firstborn son (prōtotokos, 1:6) in the familia Dei who, on entering his inheritance, shares it with his “brothers” (adelphoi; 2:11). The term prōtotokos, “firstborn,” is strategically deployed in inclusiolike fashion near the beginning (1:6) and end (12:23) of the Epistle, referring to Christ and the “church” (ekklēsia) respectively. The significance of primogeniture to the author and audience presupposes that both are thinking in terms of the Jewish-Israelite practice of intestate (non-testamentary) succession, in which the firstborn was granted primacy.95 In Greek and Roman testamentary succession, the firstborn enjoyed no such status; therefore, the full significance of the use of the term prōtotokos would have been lost on a non-Jewish audience. L. R. Helyer comments: The Jewish system of inheritance derived from the Pentateuchal laws . . . and were [sic] based upon the theory of intestate succession. In this system primogeniture played an important role. . . . Within the Graeco-Hellenistic sphere . . . the heir . . . did not succeed universally to the estate. . . . The Romans disliked intestate succession. . . . Only in Jewish law did the first-born hold a guaranteed position of honor. . . . The Old Testament concept of primogeniture [is] a feature not found in the ­Roman-Hellenistic systems. . . . Prōtotokos in its passive meaning of first-born “is rare outside the Bible and does not occur at all prior to the LXX.” 96 Thus, the Greco-Roman concept of “testament” is in strong tension with the way inheritance is consistently presented throughout Hebrews, and runs counter to the strategic deployment of the term “firstborn” in 1:6 and 12:23.

covenant and cultus in hebrews The concept of the Hellenistic testament is also at odds with the author’s deep concern for cult and liturgy.97 In Greco-Roman society, a “testament” was a purely secular and legal instrument. The author of Hebrews, however,

312  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

treats “covenant” not only in legal (6:13–21) but also cultic and liturgical terms.98 Nowhere is this more true than in Hebrews 8–9.99 In these chapters the author contrasts two covenant orders: the Old (8:3–9:10) and the New (9:11–28). The density of cultic language used to describe the two covenants is remarkable. Both covenants have a cultus which includes a High Priest (archiereus 8:1, 3; 9:7, 11, 25) or “celebrant” (leitourgos, 8:2, 8:6) who performs ministry (latreias, 8: 5; 9:1, 6) in a tent-sanctuary (skēnēs, 8:2, 5; 9:2–3, 6, 8, 11, 21), entering into a Holy Place (hagia, 8:2; 9:2–3, 12, 24) to offer (prospherein, 8:3; 9:7, 14, 28) the blood (haima, 9:7, 12, 14, 18–23, 25) of sacrifices (thysias, 8:3–4, 9:9, 23, 26) which effects purification (hagiazein, 9:13; katharizō, 9:14, 22–23) and redemption (lytrōsis, 9:12, 15) of worshippers (laos, 8:10, 9:7, 19; latreuontoi, 9:9, 14) who have transgressed cultic law (nomos, 8:4; 9:19).100 The mediation of both covenants is primarily cultic, the sacred realm of liturgy, not the secular realm of law. In other words, in both cases the cult mediates the covenant,101 and the covenant structures the cult.102 Vanhoye comments on this fact: “Our author rightly sees very close ties between cult and covenant. The value of a covenant depends directly on the act of worship which establishes it. A defective liturgy cannot bring about a valid covenant. . . . The reason for this is easily understood. The establishment of a covenant between two parties who are distant from each other can only be accomplished by an act of mediation and, when it is a question of mankind and God, the mediation has of necessity to be conducted through the cult.” 103 Christ as high priest is mediator of a new and better covenant (8:6, 9:15), founded on a perfect sacrifice (10:14), which expiates transgressions under the law of the former covenant (9:15, 19, 26) and provides entrance to the true and heavenly Tabernacle (8:2, 10:19), even to the heavenly Holy of Holies (6:19–20), the very presence of God. In contrast to this, a secular “testament” involves neither cult nor liturgy, mediator nor priesthood, sacrifice nor sanctuary, cultic law nor transgression thereof. It operates in an entirely different conceptual and social sphere: it is a strictly legal relationship of Gentile origin. One is at a loss to know how the author or his audience would have seen a relationship between a “testament” and the cultic contours of the covenant developed in Hebrews. The Logic of Hebrews 9:11–22 The logical flow of the syntax of 9:11–22 strongly militates against taking diathēkē in vv. 16–17 in a sense different from that which it bears in

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  313

the rest of the passage.104 Verse 15 opens with the phrase kai dia touto (“­Therefore . . .”), signaling “a strong inferential/causal relationship between vv. 15–22 and 11–14.” 105 It is because Christ has entered into the heavenly Holy Place by his own blood (vv. 11–14) that he has become the mediator of a new covenant (diathēkē, v. 15).106 Thus, the meaning of diathēkē in v. 15 is qualified by the covenantal concepts present in vv. 11–14. The second clause of v. 15, introduced by the word hopōs, is a final clause indicating the purpose or result of Christ’s mediatorship of the New Covenant, namely, that the “elect” may obtain the eternal inheritance.107 Within this final clause there is a genitive absolute construction: thanatou genomenou . . . parabaseōn (“a death having taken place”), explaining the circumstances attendant on the acquisition of this inheritance: a death has taken place. The hopou gar (“For since . . .”) of v. 16 introduces a parenthetical explanation of this genitive absolute phrase, explicating why it was that a death had to take place. Verse 17 provides further explication (gar, “for”) of v. 16. The first word of v. 18, hothen (“Hence,”) implies that the following unit (vv. 18–22) follows logically from the statements of the previous one, vv. 16–17. Therefore, vv. 18–22 are syntactically linked to vv. 16–17, which are in turn linked (as an explanation) to a clause of v. 15, “which itself is the climax of vv. 11–14.” 108 The subunits vv. 11–14, v. 15, vv. 16–17, and vv. 18–22 flow (at least syntactically) from one to another as stages in a logically progressing argument.109 It would be, a priori, unlikely for the author of Hebrews, in the midst of this tightly knit argument, to use diathēkē in vv. 16–17 in a sense entirely different from that used in the rest of the passage; and unlikely or not, it would seriously damage the logical coherence of the whole argument.110 If diathēkē means “testament” in vv. 16–17, one must endorse Kilpatrick’s assessment that “basically the idea of testament fits into the passage very clumsily,” and Behm’s that “[the author] jumps from the religious to the current legal sense of diathēkē . . . involving himself in contradictions which show that there is no real parallel.” 111 Granted that translating diathēkē as “testament” in vv. 16–17 renders the argument invalid, one must still ask if coherence of thought can be expected from the author of Hebrews. Prescinding from the particular case of 9:16–17, the impressive rhetorical and theological skill evident in the rest of the Epistle would lead one to think so. Attridge describes the Epistle as “the most elegant and sophisticated . . . text of first-­century Christianity. . . . Its argumentation is subtle; its language refined; its imagery rich and ­ evocative . . . a masterpiece of early Christian rhetorical homiletics.” 112 Vanhoye calls his readers to “pause for a moment to

314  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

admire the literary perfection of [this] priestly sermon. . . . One sees how the author is concerned about writing well . . . [his] talent is seen especially in the harmony of his composition.” 113 Even more strongly, Dunnill asserts that the interpreter must “capitalize on the strong impression of the unity of its imaginative world which any reading of Hebrews communicates. . . . It is generally agreed that Hebrews exhibits a marked theological coherence. . . . There is here no suspicion of provisional or ad hoc conclusions on even the least central topics; rather the theological viewpoint seems to spring forth . . . fully armed.” 114 Similar testimonies could be multiplied.115 Certainly we are not dealing with a document written in haste, or by an incompetent or uneducated author. Although tensions may still be present in the works of even the best of writers, in the case of Hebrews, there is at least enough evidence of the author’s literary, rhetorical, and theological expertise to justify proceeding on the presumption that in Hebrews 9:15–18: 1. the author’s statements made sense to himself, 2. he expected they would make sense to his audience, and 3. they cohere with the overall structure of his thought.

Diathēkē as “Covenant” in Hebrews 9:16–17 This leaves us with an apparently insoluble dilemma, since neither the meaning “will” nor “covenant” have been found to make sense of Hebrews 9:15–18. Fortunately, on the basis of our research in previous chapters on the relationship of oath-swearing, covenant-making, and curse-bearing in the Bible and the ancient Near East, it is possible to propose an interpretation of vv. 16–17 that renders the text more intelligible. We will see that in these verses, the author asserts that in the case of a broken covenant, the death of a covenant breaker must be experienced. Otherwise, the covenant has not been enforced. Covenant, Oath, and the Curse of Death in the Bible and the Ancient Near East To provide the background for the covenantal interpretation of Hebrews 9:16–17, it may be useful to cite some relevant examples to demonstrate the following: (1) biblical and ancient Near Eastern covenant-making invariably entailed the swearing of an oath, (2) this oath was a conditional

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  315

self-­malediction, that is, a curse, (3) the curse typically consisted of the covenant maker’s death, and (4) this curse of death was often ritually enacted. Covenant-Making and Oath-Swearing The swearing of an oath was so closely associated with biblical and ancient Near Eastern covenant-making that the two terms, oath (ʾālâ) and covenant (bĕrît), are sometimes used interchangeably, for example, in Ezekiel 17:13–19. And he took one of the seed royal and made a covenant (bĕrît) with him, putting him under oath (ʾālâ). . . . But he rebelled against him. . . . Will he succeed? Can a man escape who does such things? Can he break the covenant and yet escape? As I live, says the Lord God, surely in the place where the king dwells who made him king, whose oath he despised, and whose covenant with him he broke, in Babylon he shall die. . . . Because he despised the oath and broke the covenant . . . he shall not escape. Therefore thus says the Lord God: As I live, surely my oath which he despised, and my covenant which he broke, I will requite upon his head. (17:13, 15–16, 18–19) In light of Ezekiel 17:13–19 and similar texts, the close interrelationship between “covenant” and “oath” is a commonplace among HB/OT scholars.116 G. Hugenberger states: “It is now recognized that the sine qua non of ‘covenant’ in its normal sense appears to be its ratifying oath, whether this was verbal or symbolic (a so-called ‘oath sign’),” 117 and M. Weinfeld concludes: “Berith as a commitment has to be confirmed by an oath,” citing Genesis 21:22; 26:26; Deuteronomy 29:9 MT (ET 29:10); Joshua 9:15–20; 2 Kings 11:4; Ezekiel 16:8; 17:13.118 Covenant Oath as Conditional Self-Malediction The oath by which a covenant was ratified was almost invariably a conditional self-malediction (self-curse), an invocation of God or the gods to inflict judgment on the oath-swearer should he fail to fulfill the sworn stipulations of the covenant. For example, in Ezekiel 17:13–19, it is evident from the divine promises to enforce the oath that the making of the covenant involved a conditional curse of death (e.g. vv. 16, 19). Hugenberger com-

316  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

ments, “The fact that ‫[ ׇאׇלה‬ʾālâ] (originally meaning curse, cf. Gen 24:41; Deut 29:19 MT [ET 20]; 30:7; Isa 24:6; Jer 23:10; Ps 10:7; 59:13) is used [to mean covenant] serves to emphasize the hypothetical self-curse which underlies biblical oaths—that is, if the oath should be broken, a curse will come into effect.” 119 The self-curse is present, even in cases where the actual content of the curse is idiomatically elided.120 The Curse of Death That the curse for breaking a covenant oath was typically death can be seen quite clearly in the passage from Ezekiel cited above (17:16), in the covenant curses of Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28, and in other biblical passages which explicitly mention the violation of the covenant and associate it with death or mortal punishment.121 Likewise, among extant ancient Near Eastern covenant documents, death—often by excruciating or humiliating means, accompanied by various other calamities—is almost invariably the content of the oath-curse.122 Even in the Damascus Document and other Qumran texts, it is a commonplace that “the sword” avenges the covenant, resulting in death.123 Thus J. Dunnill asserts: “In both Greek and Hebrew, [oaths] often take the form of a conditional self-curse, the swearer invoking upon his or her own head penalties to follow any breach of the undertaking. . . . Even where the context is nonlegal and the vagueness of the penalty shows the formula on the way to becoming a figure of speech, in every case the invocation of death is the guarantee of sincerity, placing the whole person behind the promise made.” 124 Ritual Enactment of the Curse of Death (Drohritus) In many instances, the self-malediction of death was ritually enacted during the making of the covenant. One of the most celebrated examples is the eighth-century bce treaty of Ashurnirari V and Mati’ilu, the King of Arpad. The conclusion of the treaty includes an enacted curse-ritual or Drohritus: “This head is not the head of a ram; it is the head of Mati’ilu, the head of his sons, his nobles, the people of his land. If those named [sin] against this treaty, as the head of this ram is c[ut off,] his leg put in his mouth [. . .] so may the head of those named be cut off.” 125 The self-maledictory and representative nature of certain covenant-making rites in the Bible are relatively clear; for example, Abraham’s bisection of animals in the covenant of Genesis 15 represented a self-curse of death for the covenant-maker—in this case, God himself. The leaders of Jerusalem

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  317

and Judah engage in a similar rite in Jeremiah 34:18–20, where the prophet makes explicit the self-maledictory significance of the ceremony.126

Exegesis of Hebrews 9:15–18 We are now ready to apply these findings to the interpretation of Hebrews 9:15–22. The particular covenant occupying the author’s thought in 9:15– 22 is the first or Sinai covenant, seen as a broken covenant after the calf incident. In fact, it is imperative to note, as we have mentioned before, that throughout Hebrews the author always considers the first or Sinai covenant under its broken and reconfigured form after the calf incident.127 Thus, our understanding of the references to “covenant” in 9:15–18 as describing a “broken” covenant is entirely in keeping with the author’s own thought pattern. It is not covenants in general, but this broken, lethal Sinai covenant that forms the context within which the statements of vv. 16–17 should be understood.128 Assuming a context in which “transgressions have taken place” from v. 15, the author’s meaning can be clarified as follows: (16) Hopou gar diathēkē, Since there is a [broken] covenant, thanaton anankē pheresthai tou it is necessary for the death of the diathemenou covenant-maker to be borne, (17) Diathēkē gar epi nekrois bebaia, For a [broken] covenant is enforced    upon dead bodies; epei mēpote ischyei hote for it is certainly not in force while the zē ho diathemenos. [offending] covenant-maker lives. (18) Hothen oude hē prōtē Hence, not even the first [covenant] chōris haimatos enkekainistai. was ratified without blood.

In v. 16, hopou may be taken causally, that is, not as “where” but as “whereas” or “since.” 129 The context is the “transgressions” that have taken place under the first covenant (v. 15). Under different circumstances, the fact that there had been transgressions (parabaseis) may have been inconsequential or given rise to some lesser punishment, but “since there is a ­covenant”—at least one that has been ratified by a bloody sacrifice (vv. 18– 22, cf. Exod 24:5–8), which entails a curse of death for ­unfaithfulness— “the death of the covenant-maker must be borne.” The author does not say: “The ­ covenant-maker must die,” but uses the circumlocution: “The death of the covenant-maker must be borne,” in order to leave open the possibility that a suitable representative may bear the punishment of death

318  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

on behalf of the covenant-maker, as Jesus does for Israel and all mankind (Adam). The concept of someone “bearing” (pherō) the death of the covenantmaker in 9:16, like the “bearing (anapherō) the sins of many” in 9:28, may be shaped by the use of pherō in Isaiah 53 LXX, where (ana)pherō is consistently used in the sense “bear something for another.” 130 Besides (ana)pherō, Isaiah 53 and Hebrews 9 share a intriguing number of keywords.131 There are also profound theological parallels: for example, in both, the servant of the Lord undergoes death on behalf of the many and then receives his inheritance.132 A thorough examination of Isaiah 53 in relation to Hebrews is not possible here, but the clear reference to Isaiah 53:12 in Hebrews 9:28 makes it plausible that the use of pherō in the sense of “bear on another’s behalf” in Isaiah 53:3–4 lies behind the use of pherō in Hebrews 9:16. The sense of the following phrase (v. 17a), “a covenant is confirmed upon dead [bodies],” (diathēkē gar epi nekrois bebaia) is that, after a covenant has been broken (i.e., the situation under the first covenant), the only means of upholding the covenant is to actualize the covenant curses, which ­ultimately—if not immediately—result in the death of the covenantmaker-turned-covenant-breaker.133 The principle underlying the bold statement of v. 17b, “since it certainly is not in force while the covenant-maker lives” (epei mēpote ischyei hote zē ho diathemenos),134 is this: for the covenant-maker(s) to remain alive after breaking the covenant indicates that the covenant has no teeth, no binding force (mēpote ischyei). As a biblical illustration of this principle, it is useful to recall the rhetorical question of Ezekiel 17:15: “But he rebelled against him. . . . Will he succeed? Can a man escape who does such things? Can he break the covenant and yet escape?” For the author of Hebrews, as for Ezekiel, the answer is an emphatic, “No!” (cf. Heb 10:26–31; 12:25). Should the covenant-maker survive after violating his sworn commitment, it would demonstrate the impotence of the covenant and the powerlessness of the oath-curse. A covenant is not in force if it is not enforced. The following verses (9:18–22) explicitly concern the first Sinaitic covenant. The sense of v. 18, hothen oude hē prōtē chōris haimatos enkekainistai, may be “Hence, neither was the first covenant inaugurated without blood,” the emphasis being on the fact that, at its very inception, the first covenant already symbolized and predicted the necessity of the death of the ­covenantmaker in the case of transgressions.135 Therefore the reader should have no doubt that the Sinaitic covenant was one that entailed the curse of death. The net effect may be summarized in the following way: With the breaking of the (“first”) covenant, Israel’s death becomes legally necessary be-

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  319

cause of the curses signified by the sacrifice.136 Once Israel breaks the covenant, it is divinely renewed—but only symbolically—through Moses and the apparatus of the Levitical priesthood (the High Priest, Tabernacle, Day of Atonement, etc.). The sacrificial ritual performed by the priest on the Day of Atonement effected something less than a real renewal of the covenant (Heb 10:1–4). Indeed, the author describes it as though it was merely symbolic of what Christ effects through his sacrificial self-offering (Heb 9:23–24; 10:1, 11–13).137 Israel under the Levitical law appeared to receive a suspended sentence, but to adapt the legal metaphor, the divine court was temporarily adjourned so that the execution of the covenant curses could be delayed and deferred until someone could bear the curses—vicariously and redemptively—and so release the covenant blessings.138 Christ thus fulfills the Old Covenant by bearing the curse of death as a faithful firstborn son of God and royal high priest, thereby performing the vocation that Israel first accepted (Exod 19–24) and then spurned with the golden calf (Exod 32). The author thus presents the New Covenant as the only true and perfect renewal of the Old. God establishes one covenant, which is broken but mercifully renewed and faithfully fulfilled in Christ. In order to do so, however, Christ had to realize—as high priest of the New Covenant—what the high priest of the Old Covenant only acted out on the Day of Atonement: a curse-bearing sacrifice that truly renews and fulfills the covenant. The death of Christ becomes a soteriological “Janus”: it is simultaneously the experience and expiation of the curse of death of the Old Covenant, and the inaugural sacrifice that ratifies the New.

Hebrews 9:15 and the Old and New Covenants Hebrews 9:15 succinctly states the author’s foundational understanding of how Christ inaugurates a new covenant: 15a Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, 15b so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, 15c Since a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant. How does the fourfold covenant structure we have observed—based on Adam, Abraham, Israel, and David—fit into this summary statement of the relationship of Old (First) and New?

320  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

Abraham. Verse 15b describes those with faith in Christ in clearly Abrahamic terms. Abraham is the model of those “called” by God and “promised” an “inheritance.” Hebrews 6:13–20 has already made clear that Abraham “obtained the promise,” and the author’s Christian readers enter into the Abrahamic promises to such an extent that the divine oath to Abraham (Gen 22:15–18) may serve as a source of comfort and confidence for their own salvation as well. They are the “seed of Abraham” (Heb 2:16). Israel. Up to this point, the “transgressions under the first covenant” (v. 15c) have prevented the Abrahamic people from receiving the “promised eternal inheritance.” Thus, Abraham and the promises given to him are conceived as a font of blessing the flow of which has been blocked by the brokenness of the Sinai covenant established with Israel-under-Moses. This blockage can only be removed by enduring and expiating the curse of death for breaking the Sinai covenant, which Christ does vicariously. Removing this impediment allows the Abrahamic blessing to flow once more to his “seed.” David. Verse 15a speaks of Jesus as “mediator of a new covenant.” In the context of the chapter, we know that he is mediator because he is high priest, and he is high priest because he was appointed such by the divine oath given to David and through David’s mouth (Heb 7:28): “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4). Thus, because of the Davidic oath of Psalm 110:4, Jesus becomes a high priestly mediator able to offer himself on behalf of his people, thus removing the curse of Israel-under-Moses and releasing the blessing of Abraham to his “seed,” that is, all who have faith in Jesus. Adam. The predicament of Adam, that is, all mankind, is not mentioned explicitly in Hebrews 9:15. However, Jesus’ bearing of the curse of death on behalf of those under the first covenant in 9:15c is parallel to his “tasting death for every one” in order to “deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to bondage” in Hebrews 2:9, 14–15. The context of Hebrews 2 is the Adamic situation of the creation and fall affecting all mankind. When we read Hebrews 2 and 9 side-by-side, we see that in the author’s thought structure, what Jesus does for Israel is the portrait of what he does for mankind: suffer the curse of death for transgression, in order to restore blessing. In this sense the Old or First Covenant with its curse of death applies not only to Israel but to all mankind descended from Adam.

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  321

Summary The examination of Hebrews 1–9 sought to highlight the royal priestly primogeniture of Christ and the author’s complex view of the relationship of the Old and New Covenants, structured around the covenant mediator figures Adam, Israel, Abraham, and David. In Hebrews 1 we saw Christ’s royal priestly primogeniture indicated implicitly already in the exordium, where Jesus is the “Son” and “heir” (firstborn) who makes purification for sins (priesthood) and sits at the right hand of the majesty on high (kingship). The following catena of OT citations proving Jesus’ superiority to the angels relies on a Davidic-messianic hermeneutic that identifies Jesus as the seed of David and heir to the Davidic covenant promises. Jesus’ superiority to the angels implies that the covenant he mediates is superior to the Adamic and Sinaitic covenants, both of which were mediated by angels according to Second Temple Jewish tradition (Heb 2:1–4). In the next chapter (Heb 2) the author interprets Psalm 8 in order to show that God’s original intent for Adam/humanity was “glory” and universal dominion (kingship). Although mankind lost these benefits in the fall, Jesus has regained them by recapitulating in himself the experience of mankind, subjecting himself to probationary submission to the angels and successfully withstanding the ordeal of suffering and death. The benefits he regains are offered to “the seed of Abraham.” Having proved Jesus’ superiority to angels, the author next demonstrates his superiority to Moses (Heb 3:1–6). The subtext for this discussion is Nathan’s oracle by which David received the terms of the covenant granted him by God (1 Chr 17). Again there is an implicit Davidic-messianic hermeneutic: Jesus is the recipient of the Davidic covenant, which places him as the firstborn “Son” of God and ruler of God’s “house” in which ­Moses is a servant. Moreover, Moses’ servanthood, though faithful, was unsuccessful: the following section (Heb 3:7–4:13) points out Moses’ failure to give the people “rest.” The whole discussion of “rest” here follows from the promise of rest in the Nathan oracle. Our author shows that the divine rest was lost by Israel in the wilderness but also by Adam/mankind (in Eden). The promise of rest given through David in Psalm 95 is offered definitively in Jesus. Nonetheless, those without faith fall back under the curses of the Old Covenant, showing that the Old is present in the new era, just as the New was present in the old era when Israel-under-Moses was “evangelized.”

322  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

In Hebrews 4:14–5:10 the author returns to the theme of Jesus’ royal priestly primogeniture, introducing Melchizedek for the first time (Heb 5:6). His dual quotation of Psalms 2:7 and 110:4 to demonstrate Jesus’ priestly appointment demonstrates the close connection between “sonship” and “priesthood,” a connection illuminated by our research on the “natural” priesthood of the firstborn in the ancient patriarchal family. In the following exhortation against apostasy (Heb 5:11–6:12), unfaithful disciples of Christ are described in language equally applicable to Israelites of the wilderness generation, and the inevitable curses employ language reminiscent of both the Mosaic covenant curses (Lev 26 and Deut 28) and curses of the Adamic fall (esp. Gen 3:18). In this way the author again shows us the temporal interpenetration of the covenants—that is, the curses of the Old are still available for the unfaithful—and the link between the curses affecting Israel and Adam (humanity). The author maintains a “better hope” for his readers, however—the hope that they will be like Abraham rather than Adam and Israel (Heb 6:13–20). For those with Abraham’s faith, the solemn self-sworn oath to Abraham and his seed following the Aqedah (Gen 22:15–18) continues to be a source of comfort and confidence. The oath to Abraham is linked to, and focused by, the oath of Melchizedek priesthood to David (Ps 110:4), which specifies the manner in which the Abrahamic oath will be fulfilled. The Melchizedek priesthood of Jesus is the explicit focus of all of Hebrews 7. If the author of Hebrews shared the targumic Shem-as-Melchizedek tradition, which is probable, then it becomes apparent how well Melchizedek functions in the theological argument as a type of the Christ. Shem, the righteous firstborn of Noah, the “Name” who bears the patriarchal blessing, enjoys an exceptionally long reign over the human family from (Jeru-)salem as a non-Levitical priest-king. Thus he prefigures Jesus, the firstborn of God, who bears the exalted “Name” and blessing of the divine Father, reigning eternally from the heavenly Jerusalem as the royal high priest of the “true sanctuary.” Jesus’ Melchizedek priesthood is superior to the Levitical because, among other reasons, it is based on divine oath (Heb 7:11–28). It may also be relevant that the Levitical priesthood replaced the priesthood of the Israelite firstborn, and Jesus’ priesthood restores it (see Heb 12:23). In the climactic chapters 8–9, the author shows Jesus the high priest mediating a superior covenant through a superior cult. The author’s argument about the relationship of Jesus’ New Covenant to the First or Old comes to a head in Hebrews 9:15–18. The term diathēkē in these verses should be understood as “covenant” within the context of biblical and ancient Near

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  323

Eastern covenantal rituals and concepts, in which the covenant breaker faced the curse of death. Israel was placed under this curse of death of the Old Covenant by her rebellions, starting with the golden calf. But Christ’s death on the cross expiated the curses of the “first” covenant (at Sinai with Israel), enabling the divine promises to flow to those who, like Abraham, are called to an eternal inheritance. At this point we have surveyed enough of Hebrews to offer the following propositions about the relation of the Old and New Covenants in the author’s conceptual framework: 1. In Hebrews 1 the angels are “servants” (1:14) under whom Adam/­ humanity failed to obtain divine “glory” (2:7–10); in Hebrews 3, ­Moses is a “faithful servant” (3:5) under whom Israel failed to enter the promised “rest” (3:7–4:13). 2. By attaining the “glory” forfeited by Adam/humanity, Christ fulfills the divine covenant with Abraham and his “seed” (Heb 1–2); by gaining the “rest” that Israel lost, Christ fulfills the divine covenant with David and his “seed” (Heb 3–4). 3. The Old Covenant is associated with the inglorious covenant arrangements that God made with Adam and Moses, and their loss of “glory” and “rest”; while the New Covenant is linked with Christ’s fulfillment of the covenants with Abraham and David and their “seed.” 139 4. God’s covenant with Abraham and his “seed” reverses the divine curse affecting Adam/humanity; just as the divine covenant with ­David and his “seed” reverses the divinely sworn curse against Israel. 5. There are three comparisons: the angels and Moses as servants; Adam and Israel as disinherited rebels experiencing the consequences of divine curses; Abraham and David as recipients of divinely-sworn covenant grants. Christ surpasses the first, reverses the second, and fulfills the third. 6. Four distinct levels can be distinguished within these chapters: first, Christ as firstborn son and royal high priest; second, Abraham and David as recipients of divine covenant grants; third, the angels and Moses as faithful servants; fourth, Adam and Israel as unfaithful and rebellious. The first two are linked with the New Covenant; while the last two are connected to the Old Covenant. In sum, the author links the Old Covenant to the ineffectual ministry of the angels and Moses, along with the unfaithful figures of Adam and ­Israel—and their lost “glory” and “rest.” On the other hand, the New Cov-

324  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament Table 10.3. The Old and New Covenants in Hebrews.

God’s curse(s) affecting

God’s curse(s) affecting

is further The God’s ISRAEL ADAM focused by Old curse(s) (under angels (under angels) the curses Covenant affecting and Moses) on

is reversed by God’s sworn oath to

is reversed by God’s sworn oath to

is further The God’s focused by New blessing ABRAHAM DAVID his blessing Covenant to on

both of whom were natural firstborn sons (Luke 3:22; Gen 11:37) and held implicitly priestly and kingly roles.

both of whom are unfaithful covenant breakers.

both of whom are faithful covenant recipients.

both of whom were declared to be royalpriestly firstborn sons (Exod 4:22; 19:6; Ps 89:27; 110:4)

enant is based on Christ’s divine primogeniture (“name”) and his royal high priestly ministry in the “house” of God, by which he fulfills the divinely sworn covenant oaths with Abraham and David, the redemptive representatives of humanity and Israel respectively. Table 10.3 illustrates some of these relationships. In sum, Christ enters fully into solidarity with humanity in general, and ­Israel in particular, in order to fulfill the probationary terms of the Old Covenant—the terrible curses of which hover over humanity (through Adam) and Israel (since Sinai). Christ graciously bears these curses by voluntarily embracing the suffering of death on the cross. Having been raised and enthroned as the royal high priest, he offers himself as a “perfect” sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary. The Old Covenant curses are thereby exhausted and reversed, and ultimately transformed into the sacramental means by which the New Covenant is ratified. Thus, the divine blessing God had sworn to Abraham and David by covenant oath, that is, the life and glory of divine sonship, is released.140

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  325

Conclusions Our goal throughout this study has been to formulate a model for understanding the divine covenants of the Old Testament, and their interrelationships, which would elucidate the arguments of Paul and the author of Hebrews. In this chapter, our model has been applied to Hebrews 1–9 with fruitful results, which may be summarized in the following four points: First, kinship language, especially that of “father” and “son,” are at the center of the vocabulary of the author’s theological argument. Though present throughout the Epistle, the kinship language is particularly apparent in the first two chapters, where the foundations of the argument are established. This familial terminology is not random but exhibits a consistent structure: God is “father” (Heb 1:5; cf. 12:7–9); Jesus is the “son” (1:2, 5, 8; cf. 3:6) who is superior to the angels as “firstborn” (1:6; cf. 12:23), and is in solidarity with God’s “children” (2:13, 14) or “sons” (2:10, cf. 12:5–9) who are also his “brethren” (2:11, 12, 17), and thus the “seed” (descendants) of Abraham (2:16).141 This structure of kinship relationships is part of the creational order, rooted in God’s original plan for humanity (2:8–9; cf. Ps 8:4–6) 142 which unfolds in the patriarchal period, culminating in God’s sworn blessing to “Abraham and his descendants” (Heb 2:16; cf. Gen 22:16–18; Heb 6:13–17). The content of this blessing is, in its essence, the restoration of the original, creational familial (specifically, filial) relationship between God and his people, with all its privileges (e.g., priesthood and kingship). Thus, especially in Hebrews 1–2, we see that the origins and forms of the most important aspects of Christ’s work (covenant, oath, priesthood, kingship) can be traced back to the original pre-Levitical form of ancient Israel’s covenant traditions, which were embodied in patriarchal family relations and practices. Second, as the author progresses in his argument (i.e., into chs. 3–6), he demonstrates that this plan of God to draw man into familial relationship with himself—intended at creation and renewed by covenant oath to Abraham—is not advanced by the Mosaic covenant economy, which results in curse due to infidelity (Heb 3–4), but is advanced by the blessing gained by David and his heirs, which God grants to them by oath (Heb 5–6). Thus, the discussion of Moses and his generation in Hebrews 3:1–4:13 is dominated by the rebellion in the wilderness (Num 14, Ps 95:7–10) and the resultant divine curse (Num 14:20–23; Ps 95:11, Heb 3:7–11, 15, 4:3, 5–7). But Jesus’ more effective ministry (Heb 4:14–6:20) is characterized as the fulfillment of solemn blessings given to David and his sons by oath (Pss. 2:7;

326  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

110:4; Heb 5:5–7). This Davidic blessing, fulfilled in Christ, is traced to and grounded in the covenant oath of blessing to Abraham in Genesis 22:15–18, as can be seen by the explicit treatment of this Abrahamic oath at the end of Hebrews 6 (vv. 13–18) and its relationship to Christ’s high priesthood according to the Davidic psalms (Ps 110:4, Heb 6:19–20). Third, if our working hypothesis that the author of Hebrews shared the targumic identification of Melchizedek-as-Shem is accepted, then the logic of the author’s introduction of Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 appears with greater clarity. Melchizedek, as Shem the righteous firstborn of Noah, becomes integrated into the familial structure of the primeval creation narratives (Gen 1–11) and heir of the original blessing passed from father to son, from Adam to Noah, which included the privilege of (non-Levitical) priesthood. Melchizedek, in turn, grants a blessing to Abraham (Gen 14:19–20). Melchizedek, as firstborn son and priest-king of Salem, represents the blessedness of the original filial relationship with God that the latter wishes to restore through the covenant oath to David’s heirs (Pss 2:7; 110:4), the kings of [Jeru]salem. Melchizedek, then, is both the mediator of Abraham’s blessedness and the model for David’s. There is little wonder that the author of Hebrews sees the blessings of the covenant oath to David as intrinsically related to the covenant with Abraham (Heb 6:13–20), and that he introduces his treatment of Melchizedek immediately after discussing the relationship of the Davidic blessings (esp. Ps 110:4) to the Abrahamic covenant oath (Gen 22:18). Fourth, our research on oath swearing and covenant curses elucidates the argument of Hebrews 8–9. The author is a very attentive reader of Israel’s covenant traditions, with a clear grasp of the inner logic of the covenant. He understands that the covenant relationship itself is maintained by law, and takes seriously the consequences of the covenant being broken at Sinai, namely, that the covenant curse of death must be executed against the offender. The death has to take place, but the one to die cannot be all Israel per se because of God’s oath of blessing to Abraham’s “seed” (descendants) in Genesis 22:15–18 (cf. Heb 2:16). The author of Hebrews knows both sides of the covenant-oath structure. God swore an oath to bless ­Abraham’s descendants, yet Abraham’s descendants invoked upon themselves an oath-curse of death. The only solution to this situation of “covenant jeopardy” is the appearance of a son capable of representing Israel and yet having “the power of an indestructible life,” which enables him to perform “double duty”: to bear the curse of death, and yet release the blessing of the covenant, which consists in participation in his own divine sonship. This theology undergirds the entire argument of Hebrews 8–9, from

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  327

his extensive quote—the longest in the Epistle—of Jeremiah’s analysis of the failure of the broken first covenant and the need for a new one (Heb 8:8–12; cf. Jer 31:31–34), to his dense but powerful argument in Hebrews 9:15–17. Finally, if we may be permitted a more general observation, it seems that, due to the consistently negative analysis of the Sinai covenant throughout the Epistle to the Hebrews, many scholars express the view that the author leans toward anti-Semitism and advocates a Christian supersessionism. In light of our research, we would suggest that such a view is in need of revision. To be precise, the author is not anti-Semitic but post-­Levitical. The author grounds the salvation available in Christ in the pre-Levitical form of the (royal) priesthood which existed in the patriarchal period and was promised by covenant oath to David and his heirs. It is not the people of ­Israel, the Hebrew Scriptures, or covenants that stand in need of ­replacement—it is the Levitical priesthood and its liturgical economy that arose in response to Israel’s infidelity at Sinai. The author of Hebrews is attempting, through his Epistle, to explain theologically how God’s people may continue to live in fidelity to the Abrahamic covenant in the absence of the Levitical covenant, that is, the features of its economy: animal sacrifice, the earthly sanctuary and its liturgy, etc. In doing so, the author addresses questions that lie at the heart of the development of Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism. In the aftermath of 70 ce, both religious traditions had to redefine their faith and practice in such a way as to remain faithful to the promises of God to Abraham and David, while taking into account the absence of any Levitical ministry. Christianity is not in its essence anti-Mosaic, much less anti-Semitic, and Rabbinic Judaism certainly is neither. Nonetheless, both are, in a sense, post-Levitical; for certainly a literal return to the system of sacrifice and temple worship described in the broken-and-renewed form of the Sinai covenant is no more an option for modern Jews than for Christians. Recognition of this fact may provide the starting place for an advance in ecumenical dialogue.

Appendix: Jesus’ Death as Liturgical Sacrifice in Hebrews Throughout this chapter we have accepted the author’s identification of Jesus’ death as a form of priestly sacrifice, without addressing the question: From where would such an unusual concept arise? The long familiarity with the sacrificial theology of the cross blinds Christian scholars, at least,

328  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

from grasping the incongruity—for a first-century Jewish audience—of equating Jesus’ death with a liturgical rite. Vanhoye rightly observes: It must be acknowledged that the person and activity of Jesus in no way corresponded to what would have been expected of a priest at that time. . . . From the point of view of the Old Testament cult, the death of Jesus in no way appeared as a priestly offering; it was in fact the very opposite of a sacrifice. Indeed, sacrifices did not consist in the putting to death of a living person, still less in his sufferings, but in rites performed by the priest in the holy place. . . . Now Jesus’ death had taken place outside the Holy City. It had not been accompanied by liturgical rites. It was viewed as a legal penalty, the execution of a man condemned to death.143 The nature of Christ’s death as a priestly sacrifice could not have been originally derived from the ordinary Jewish cultic norms and sacrificial practices in the first century. What other grounds, then, did the first ­Jewish-Christians (like the author of Hebrews) have for reconceptualizing the death of Christ in terms of a covenant sacrifice? Vanhoye suggests the answer may be found by a careful analysis of the traditions of the institution of the Eucharist: Another Gospel tradition . . . suggests a connection between Jesus’ death and a sacrificial rite. It occurs in the account of the Last Supper, which has been transmitted both by St. Paul and by the three Synoptics. In themselves, Jesus’ actions—rendering thanks to God for the bread and the wine, breaking the bread and passing the cup—do not constitute a ritual sacrifice. . . . Among the words spoken by Jesus, however, there is an expression that possesses an undeniably sacrificial connotation, for it unites the word “blood” with the word “covenant.” These words have an obvious connection with the words pronounced by Moses at the sacrifice accomplished on Sinai as a way of sealing the covenant between the People of Israel and Yahweh. . . . It may also be noted that the date of this event facilitates the connection with the story of the Exodus: the Passion of Jesus took place at the time of the feast of Passover.144 Here we see a likely source for the theological convergence in Hebrews of certain themes that the author uses to argue his case, especially the closely

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  329

related notions of “blood” and “new covenant” (although other sacrificial ideas also seem to be evoked). Thus, the Eucharist, as the Synoptics describe Jesus’ institution of it in the Upper Room, appears to be the most likely source for the author’s understanding of Christ’s death as a priestly sacrifice.145 This is really not such a bold hypothesis, since many scholars have recognized that the Eucharist represents a significant background influence for Hebrews, despite any lack of explicit treatment.146 The allusions to the Eucharist in Hebrews 9 and throughout the Epistle are not obvious, but the subtlety of the references fits well with the author’s allusive style, especially if, as several scholars have argued, the author was practicing the disciplina arcana, the ancient Christian practice of avoiding explicit references to the Christian mysteries in public contexts.147 The eucharistic background is particularly important in Hebrews 9, where we find one of the most significant and frequently-cited examples of eucharistic allusion (vv. 19–20): Lalētheisēs gar pasēs entolēs kata ton For when every commandment of the    law had nomon hypo Mōuseōs panti tō laō, been declared by Moses to all the    people, he labōn to haima . . . legōn: took the blood . . . saying,    touto to haima    “This is the blood tēs diathēkēs hēs eneteilato pros of the covenant which God    hymas ho theos.    commanded you.

Strikingly, the OT verse the author quotes does not say: “This is the blood” (touto to haima) but does say: “Behold the blood” (idou to haima) (Exod 24:8 LXX). “This is the blood” (touto to haima) echoes the Synoptic tradition of Jesus’ words over the cup at the Last Supper (cf. Mark 14:24; Matt 26:28). Thus, in Hebrews 9:20, the words of eucharistic institution at the Last Supper have colored the author’s memory of the foundational sacrifice of the first covenant, indicating that he correlated the two events.148 The correlation is profound and has influenced not just wording but the development of the argument, for Hughes points out that Hebrews 9:15–28 develops the same four features found in the Synoptic accounts of the Last Supper and in 1 Corinthians 9:17–34: 1. Jesus’ death is referred to (in language reminiscent of Exod. xxiv 8) as a covenant sacrifice which consummates the old and ushers in the new covenant order by virtue of ratifying a new covenant.

330  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

2. Jesus’ death is seen as having vicarious, representative and substitutionary qualities. 3. He is seen as a servantlike figure. 4. The “new exodus” theme comes to expression in terms of the idea of receiving the promised eschatological inheritance. . . . The Old Covenant order with its attendant practices has been left behind and the New entered. The readers are called upon to make a new exodus: from the old, passé, covenantal cultic ways into the new . . . from the earthly to the heavenly cultus.149 Thus, it is likely that the early traditions of the Eucharist have not only provided the source of the author’s identification of the crucifixion as a liturgical sacrifice, but have also supplied some of the larger themes of the author’s theology.150 Nonetheless, there are many who refuse to see any eucharistic references in the Epistle. Typical of these scholars is R. Williamson, who expresses his general outlook in this comment on Hebrews 10:19–20: “To the Christian reader who comes to such a passage as this [Heb 10:19–20] from within a strong tradition of eucharistic faith and practice such an association of words and ideas is almost irrepressible. But there seems to be no good ground for thinking that such an association was present in the mind of the author of Hebrews.” 151 On the basis of such passages as 9:9–10 Williamson goes on to argue that, for the author of Hebrews, the sacrifice of Christ “rendered obsolete every . . . material means of communion between God and the worshipper.” 152 All “outward ordinances” have come to an end, for the Gospel “can never be anticipated materially in a sacramental cultus.” 153 In response to this, we would point out, first, that Williamson’s views seem closer to a Platonic devaluation of material reality than to the theology actually arising from the Epistle to the Hebrews. Second, ­Williamson’s conclusions are too sweeping to be reconciled with statements in the Epistle itself, for—prescinding from the question of eucharistic allusion for the moment—the author clearly does acknowledge the legitimacy of certain outward, material rites even in the new covenant order: at the very least, “the laying on of hands” (epitheseōs cheirōn) and “baptisms” or “ablutions” (baptismoi, Heb 6:2), which the author regards as foundational for the Christian faith (Heb 6:1). It is also difficult to avoid a baptismal reference in Hebrews 10:22: “Let us draw near with . . . our bodies washed with pure water.” Third, Williamson and other scholars may have missed an essential in-

Hebrews 1–9: Covenant, Oath, and Royal Priestly Primogeniture  |  331

terpretive key to the Epistle: Hebrews contrasts the Old and New Covenants not because the former has outward rites while the latter does not, but because the rites of the former cannot “perfect” or “cleanse the conscience” (Heb 9:10), implying that the New Covenant rites can and do. It is not a contrast between a ritual cultus and none, but between an ineffective ritual cultus (the Old Covenant) and an effective one (the New Covenant). In other words, the author’s typological use of Old Testament rites is incarnational (not Middle Platonism); so here it is a case of how the imperfections of the Old Covenant prefigure the perfections of the New.154 Thus, we side with those scholars from across the spectrum of Christian tradition155 who acknowledge the presence of numerous allusions to the Eucharist, as well as sacramental influences in Hebrews.156 More research in this area is warranted, for in pointing back to (and drawing from) eucharistic traditions in the early Church, Hebrews may show scholars a way to trace the emergence of ancient sacramental customs, to which the varied strata and sources of Christian antiquity bear witness, and at the same time, lead to greater insight into the cultic origins and theological reasons for the ancient Church’s appropriation and adaptation of the covenantal and sacrificial aspects and juridico-liturgical practices of Second Temple Judaism.157

11 Concluding Theological Reflections At the beginning of this study, it was described as a vast exercise in theological correlation, the goal of which was to construct a covenant interpretation of the Christ-event as it is presented in three key New Testament texts that correlate the kinship terminology of fatherhood and sonship with that of covenant: Luke 22, Galatians 3–4, and Hebrews 1–9. To construct such an interpretation required a survey of most of Old Testament salvation history, organized around an analysis of the major divine covenants presented by the biblical text. It is now possible to offer an assessment of the success of the project and its implications for larger theological questions. Throughout the course of the study, a canonical approach to the biblical text was consistently applied, supplemented by narrative analysis and confirmed at points by recourse to ancient interpretive traditions, both Jewish and Christian. This canonical approach applied to the Old Testament enabled a fruitful theological exegesis of the New. Canonical criticism enabled us to reconstruct, or even (in a sense) replicate, the New Testament author’s own reading of the Scriptures of Israel, revealing the inner coherence and compelling nature of these authors’ exegetical arguments. Luke, Paul, and the author of Hebrews followed the example of Israel’s prophets—notably Ezekiel (cf. Ezek 20:1–44)—by interpreting Israel’s scriptural history in light of the significance, sequence, and interrelationships of the divine covenants. They understood the meaning of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ primarily within this covenantal-historical matrix. This raises the perennial issue of the legitimacy of the New Testament authors’ use of the Old. This issue will be evaluated differently depend332

Concluding Theological Reflections  |  333

ing on which Old Testament hermeneutical methodologies are considered normative. If historical-critical methodologies—here we think specifically of source, form, and redaction criticism—are granted sole interpretive legitimacy, then it is difficult even to understand, much less to validate, the exegetical methods of the New Testament authors. The canonical-critical approach employed here, however, enables the modern reader at least to feel the force of the New Testament author’s interpretive arguments, and thus make a more adequate and nuanced assessment of their nature and validity. Indeed, the New Testament authors may be described as “canonical critics” themselves, although not the first—this honor may belong to Ezekiel. It is hoped that the present study will be part of a growing movement employing canonical criticism and narrative analysis to read the Old Testament and so to come to understand the New Testament on its own terms. This would counteract the overspecialization and atomization occurring in some areas of New Testament studies, in which the analysis of the New Testament text is pursued apart from the scriptural tradition of Israel (i.e., the Old Testament, and to a lesser degree, the non-canonical Second Temple literature) and the reception of that tradition in the first century ce. Any sensitive canonical reading of the Old Testament narrative should reveal the importance placed by the biblical authors on covenants, particularly the divine covenants with Israel. In our analysis of the divine covenants in the Old Testament, we tested the conclusions of McCarthy, Kalluveettil, Cross, Hugenberger and others concerning the nature of the covenant relationship—namely, that it was a kinship bond established by oath. Application of this emergent perspective in covenant scholarship enabled us to see the unity amid the diversity of covenant types. The diversity, in fact, does not threaten or diminish the unity but enhances and enriches it. The familial nature of covenants is their unifying factor. Just as familial relationships are dynamic rather than static, so covenants may take on different forms that reflect a familial dynamism. Specifically, a canonical reading enabled us to see that the father-son relationship and its attendant imagery and terminology were consistently present in the portrayal of the divine covenants between God in Israel, in all literary traditions and historical periods. God takes Israel into filial­covenantal relationship as his firstborn son. While this involves a privilege for Israel, it is always ordered to the restoration of the familial solidarity of the covenant bond between God and all humanity, whose tribes and nations are God’s other children and thus siblings of Israel. In working with firstborn Israel through history for the familial restoration of all mankind,

334  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

God finds it necessary, as a good father, periodically to reconfigure the covenant with Israel in a way reflective of, and analogous to, the developmental stages of a father-son relationship. Thus, in broad strokes, the filial relationship with Israel is successively reconfigured by kinship, vassal, and finally, grant-type covenants; which correspond to the stages of childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. God’s relationship with Israel is thus guided by a filial pedagogy culminating in Christ, the Firstborn Son, who makes possible the attainment of the full rights of sonship for all Israel that trusts in him, yet not only for Israel but also for the nations, the other children of God and siblings of Israel. When analyzing the different covenant types, the importance of oathswearing for the establishment of the covenant relationship became apparent. The manner of oath-swearing serves as the primary empirical mark by which to differentiate the covenant types: which party or parties swear the oath determines the type of covenant. If both swear, a kinship covenant is formed; if only the inferior, the vassal-type; if only the superior, the grant-type. One of the most distinctive features of the Israelite sacred tradition to emerge from this study is the unique emphasis placed on divine oathswearing, a phenomenon unknown in the religious and cultural traditions of other ancient Near Eastern peoples. Both the Old and New Testaments place great emphasis on those occasions when God bound himself by divine oath to bless his people and all nations (grant-type covenant): once to Abraham and once to David. The writers of the New Testament identified the promises of these covenants as fulfilled by the New Covenant; indeed, they considered the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants as precursors or models of the New Covenant. Since the nature of oath-swearing entails a self-curse, the self-sworn oaths of God to Abraham and David involve the mysterious phenomenon of divine curse-bearing. While the direct assertions of the New Testament authors on this subject are restrained, it seems that at least some of them understood Christ’s suffering and death as, in part, the bearing of the divine self-curse of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, which paradoxically released the blessings and fulfillment of those covenants through the New Covenant established by Christ. As lengthy as this study has been, it has only begun to work out the implications of the covenant structure of salvation history discovered through the canonical reading of the Old and New Testaments. Several areas call for further attention and study. First, with respect to Old Testament scholarship and specifically the controverted question of the theology of the Old Testament, I would not wish

Concluding Theological Reflections  |  335

to assert that this study validates older approaches to the covenant as the “center” (die Mitte) of Scripture, as argued, for example, by W. Eichrodt. Nevertheless, by approaching the diversity of divine covenant types and traditions in the light of the familial model, it is possible to move beyond the impasse of older debates about various covenantal theologoumena (e.g., bilateral or unilateral, conditional or unconditional). These debates were mired in false options and disjunctions precisely because of a methodology that began with an abstract analysis of covenant as a theological concept, the results of which invariably reflect competing doctrinal presuppositions and ecclesiastical traditions. Specifically, a familial approach to covenant may resolve, to a certain extent, the tension between divine grace and the requirements of divine law. The gift of life from father to son is unmerited, and thereafter a father will love his son unconditionally. Yet it is precisely because of his unconditional love that the father wishes his son to practice the virtues he himself possesses, and thus become like the father and so enjoy deeper communion with him. When this familial model is applied to the theological concepts of grace and law, we see that divine grace—the unconditional love of the father—is always primary, and the divine law— the virtue required of the son to be in the image of his father—flows naturally and necessarily from that grace. Once these covenant relations and obligations are reexamined in the light of the natural complexity of kinship relations and obligations, there is no need to posit any inherent tension between unconditional grace and the conditions of law, or between unilateral or bilateral covenant relations. Next, with respect to New Testament studies, the covenant paradigm established in Part One proved fruitful in illuminating the theology of LukeActs and portions of Galatians and Hebrews, but it remains to apply the paradigm to the other parts of the New Testament. Furthermore, the scholarly discussion of the relationship between the New and Old Testaments and the New Testament’s use of the Old would benefit by engaging and applying the canonical covenant-historical reading of the Old presented here. At least for the parts of the New Testament analyzed in this study, it was shown that the New Testament authors shared a theological perspective very close to that presented by a canonical reading of the Old Testament, and cited the older scriptures with sensitivity to their context and position in the overarching salvation-historical narrative. They certainly did not understand themselves to be advocates of a new religion that supplanted or imposed itself externally on the theological tradition of Israel. This finding, if verified by continued research, has implications for the theological dialogue between Christianity and Judaism.

336  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

Besides the implications for biblical research, the findings of this study could also produce new insights into several other theological subdisciplines. Atonement theology would do well to take into account the necessity of sacrifice and curse-bearing for the establishment of covenants. Christ’s atoning self-sacrifice, then, should not be understood simply in ancient or modern legal/judicial categories, but in light of its function to fulfill the terms of a familial bond established by covenant oath between God and his people, the ultimate goal of which was the restoration of the filial relationship with all humanity. Thus, the atonement is ordered to kinship by covenant. Understanding atonement within the kinship created by covenant may also open up a new perspective on the concepts of the mercy and justice of God. Frequently, divine mercy and justice are considered competing attributes within the metaphor of a divine court room. Understood as aspects of covenant fidelity, however, justice and mercy need not be opposed to one another. In the context of covenant, the justice of God does not consist merely in enforcing obedience to the law, but also in fidelity to his own sworn covenant commitments. Thus, it is a matter of justice for God to keep his covenant obligations; yet, ironically, those sworn covenant obligations consist in showing mercy to the seed of Abraham, and through that seed to the whole human family. Therefore, through the covenant relationship God establishes between himself and his people, he has devised a just way to dispense his mercy and a merciful way to dispense justice. The theology of the Trinity may be enriched by recognition of the prominence of the covenantal father-son relationship between God and Israel, and ultimately between God and Adam (humanity). How does one theologically describe the correspondence between this father-son relationship and the Father-Son relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity? Since the various filial relationships between God and humanity were established through covenants sealed by oath, one may also investigate whether oaths and covenants are merely conventions of human society, or if they reflect a deeper reality present within the Triune Godhead.1 In Latin the concept of an “oath” was rendered by the word sacramentum, which was later applied to denote the mysteries of the Christian faith. Thus, the close relationship between oath and covenant brought to light in this study may be brought into conversation with sacramental theology. The sacraments mediate and actualize the new covenant; to what extant may they be understood as having or incorporating the nature of an oath? Does the oath nature of a sacrament represent primarily an obligation on

Concluding Theological Reflections  |  337

the part of God, the believer, or both? If the relationship between the sacraments and covenant-oaths is real and not nominal, what are the implications for sacramental theory as well as pastoral practice? The implications of this study for ecclesiology are numerous but undeveloped. The strong Abrahamic and Davidic covenant themes seen in LukeActs, Galatians, and Hebrews imply that the Church is both the Family of Abraham (Luke 1:55, 71–73; Gal 3:6–18, 29; 4:21–31; Heb 2:16; 6:13–18; 11:8–19; cf. Rom 4:16) and also the Kingdom of David (Luke 1:32–33; 22:29–30; Acts 15:16; Heb 3:3–6; 12:22–28; Rom 15:12). Gentile incorporation into the Church was facilitated by these two models, because these two covenants, from their inception, were open to the Gentiles. For this reason the New Testament authors saw the Abrahamic and Davidic as earlier preparatory form(s) of the New Covenant. Contemporary ecclesiology would be enriched by pondering the Church not only under the more common images—people of God, Body of Christ, Bride of Christ—but also as Family of Abraham and Kingdom of David. The development of a Davidic kingdom ecclesiology would be theologically fruitful, but to do so in political terms would be a serious misreading of the New Testament. Already in the Old Testament, as we have seen, the Davidic kingdom covenant was embodied in a temple, not a palace (cf. 1 Kgs 8:1–66, esp. 15–16), in continuity with Israel’s divine vocation at Sinai to be a “kingdom of priests” (Exod 19:5–6). The theme of the Church-as-Davidic kingdom developed prominently in Luke–Acts is present also in Hebrews (Heb 12:22), where Christ’s kingship (Heb 2:9) is clearly ­subordinated—and oriented—to his high priesthood (Heb 5:8–10), the dominant subject of that epistle. The ecclesial implications are spelled out near the end of Hebrews, where the essential reality of the New Covenant is linked to the sacred liturgy, by which the pilgrim Church on earth is united with “the heavenly Jerusalem . . . in festal gathering,” to receive “a kingdom that cannot be shaken” (Heb 12:22–28). This study has demonstrated that a sustained canonical reading of the Old and New Testaments—employing the divine covenant(s) between Godas-Father and His people-as-Son as a center and organizing ­ principle— ­neither reduces the richness nor flattens the texture of the Scriptural witness. On the contrary, “covenant” is not a monolithic concept, and covenants are characterized by a diversity of examples and forms. The New Testament authors do not address all the covenant forms of God’s relationship to his people in the Scriptures of Israel with equal attention, but focus on one or more of the covenant forms, as their purposes dictate, in order to elucidate the significance of the New Covenant. So we have seen that Luke

338  |  Part Two: Covenant in the New Testament

employs the Davidic covenant—and the kingdom inseparable from it—as a primary model of the New Covenant inaugurated in Christ. In Galatians, however, Paul emphasizes the Abrahamic and Deuteronomic covenants: specifically, how the New Covenant realizes the Abrahamic and surmounts the limitations of the Deuteronomic. The author of Hebrews complements the argument of Galatians by focusing instead on the Levitical and Davidic covenants—namely, how the Davidic covenant, fulfilled by Christ in the New, overcomes the provisional elements of the Levitical. The diversity of covenant perspectives presented by the New Testament authors does not threaten the unity of the Scriptural witness, provided one recognizes that the various forms of divine covenants in the Biblical narrative are interrelated. Indeed, they fit into a pattern: a drama of the development of the covenant relationship between father and son, that is, between God and his people. When this dramatic pattern of God’s covenant is kept in view, the profound complementarity and overarching unity of the varied theologies of the New Testament are deepened, not diminished, precisely in the symphonic diversity of covenant forms and traditions drawn from the Old Testament—and fulfilled by Jesus Christ in the New Covenant.

notes Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1. See J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (New York: Meridian, 1957). “Nor did the theocracy exist from the time of Moses in the form of the covenant, though that was afterwards a favourite mode of regarding it. The relation of Jehovah to Israel was in its nature and origin a natural one” (417). He adds: “Jehovah and Israel came to be regarded as contracting parties of the covenant by . . . the Deuteronomic law” (418). Before then, “The relation between the people and God was a natural one as that of son to father; it did not rest upon observance of the conditions of a pact” (469). See also E. W. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986) 3–7. 2. E.g., M. Weinfeld, The Place of the Law in Israel’s Religion (VTSup 100; Leiden: Brill, 2004). 3. See S. Mowinckel, Tetrateuch-Pentateuch-Hexateuch (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964); idem, Religion and Cult (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1981): “Relationship, ‘common bone and blood,’ can be formed just as really through the ritual making of a covenant as through natural procreation and birth” (18). And: “Worship is . . . ­ fellowship with divinity. . . . The Israelites’ word for this religious fellowship is ‘covenant’ ” (60). 4. M. Weber, Ancient Judaism (New York: Free Press, 1952) 79. 5. See G. E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh: Biblical Colloquium, 1955). For surveys of twentieth-century covenant research, see R. A. Oden, “The Place of Covenant in the Religion of Israel,” in Ancient Israelite Religion (ed. P. D. Miller et al.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987) 429–47; F. O. Garcia-Treto, “Covenant in Recent Old Testament Studies,” ASB 96 (1981) 10– 19; W. Zimmerli, “The History of Israelite Religion,” in Tradition and Interpretation (ed. G. W. Anderson; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979) 372–80; D. J. McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions (Richmond: John Knox, 1972); J. B. Payne, “The B’RITH of Yahweh,” in New Perspectives on the Old Testament (ed. J. B. Payne; Waco, TX: Word, 1970) 240–64; D. R. Hillers, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969); R. Faley, “The Importance of the Covenant Conception in the Old Testament Religion,” in Rediscovery of Scripture: Biblical Theology Today (Burlington, WI: St. Francis College Press, 1967) 37–54. See also Mendenhall, “The Suzerainty Treaty Structure: Thirty Years Later,” in Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives (ed. E. B. Firmage et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 85–100.

339

340  |  Notes to Pages 2–3 6. Studies of the tradition-historical development of covenant in the Old Testament, discussing ethical, cultic, social, juridical, and theological aspects, include: M. L. Newman, “The Continuing Quest for the Historical Covenant,” in The Psalms and Other Studies on the Old Testament (ed. J. C. Knight and L. A. Sinclair; Nashotah, WI: Nashotah House, 1990) 158–71; R. Davidson, “Covenant Ideology in Ancient Israel,” in The World of Ancient Israel (ed. R. E. Clements; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) 323–47; J. D. Sperling, “Rethinking Covenant in Late Biblical Books,” Bib 70 (1989) 50–73; K. G. O’Connell, “Continuity and Change in Israel’s Covenant with God,” BR 1 (1985); J. Scharbert, “ ‘Berît’ im Pentateuch,” in De la Tôrah au Messie (ed. M. Carrez et al.; Paris: Desclee, 1981) 163–70; R. Murray, “The Pattern of History: The Covenant Theme in the Bible and Church,” CR 65 (1980) 196–203; D. J. McCarthy, “Berît in Old Testament History and Theology,” Bib 53 (1972) 110–21; C. Jathanna, “The Covenant and Covenant Making in the Pentateuch,” BTF 3 (1969– 71) 27–54; and Hillers, Covenant, 46–168. 7. W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster/ John Knox, 1961). 8. L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969); E. Kutsch, Verheissung und Gesetz (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1973). Contra Perlitt and Kutsch, see especially J. Barr, “Some Semantic Notes on Covenant,” in Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie (ed. H. Donner et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977) 23–38. 9. D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (AnBib 21: Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963; 2nd ed., 1978); idem, Old Testament Covenant; idem, Treaty and Covenant (2nd ed.; AnBib 21A; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978); P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant (AnBib 88; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982). 10. Nicholson, God and His People, 3–117; idem,“Israelite Religion in the Pre-­exilic Period: A Debate Renewed,” in A Word in Season (ed. J. D. Martin and P. R. Davies; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986) 3–34; idem, “Covenant in a Century of Study since Wellhausen,” OTS 24 (1985) 54–69. The view of Nicholson, Perlitt, and Kutsch has received both criticism and support: see Barr, “Some Semantic Notes”; J. J. M. Roberts, “The Ancient Near Eastern Environment,” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters (ed. D. A. Knight; Philadelphia: Fortress/Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985) 94; A. S. Kapelrud, “The Prophets and the Covenant,” in In the Shelter of Elyon (ed. W. B. Barrick and J. Spencer; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984) 175–83; H. Cazelles, “Les structures successives de la ‘berît’ dans l’Ancien Testament,” BCPE 3 (1984) 33–46; K. A. Kitchen, “Egypt, Ugarit, Qatna, and Covenant,” UF 11 (1979) 453–64; D. O’Connor, “Covenant at Sinai? Ernst Kutsch on BERITH, ” ITQ 42 (1975) 219–22; M. Weinfeld, “Berît—Covenant Versus Obligation,” Bib 56 (1975) 120–28; A. Phillips, “Prophecy and Law,” in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition (ed. R. Coggins et al.; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982) 217–32; J. Day, “Pre-Deuteronomic Allusions to the Covenant in Hosea and Psalm LXXVIII,” VT 36 (1986) 1–12; D. Smith, “Kinship and Covenant in Hosea,” HBT 16 (1994) 41–53. 11. F. M. Cross, “Kinship and Covenant in Ancient Israel,” in idem, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998) 3–21. 12. Cross, “Kinship and Covenant,” 8. 13. Cross, “Kinship and Covenant,” 11. Cross is referring to studies such as: F. C. Fensham, “Father and Son as Terminology for Treaty and Covenant,” in Near Eastern Stud-

Notes to Pages 3–5  |  341 ies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (ed. H. Goedicke; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971) 121–136; W. L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25: 77–87 (more recently, see S. Ackerman, “The Personal Is Political: Covenantal and Affectionate Love [ʾĀHĒB, ʾAHĂBÂ] in the Hebrew Bible,” VT 52 [2002] 437–58); N. Glueck, Hesed in the Bible (trans. A. Gottschalk; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1967); K. Doob-­Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hִesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry (HSM 17; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978). 14. Cross’s insight is anticipated by McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 175; and W. R. Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites: The Fundamental Institutions (3rd ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1927) 318. 15. See K. van der Toorn, Family Religion in Babylon, Syria, and Israel (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 7; ed. B. Halpern and M. H. E. Weippert; Leiden: Brill, 1996); and J. D. Schloen, The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East (Studies in the Archeology and History of the Levant 2; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001). 16. Cross, “Kinship and Covenant,” 14. 17. K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 283–94. 18. D. N. Freedman and D. Miano, “The People of the New Covenant,” in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period (ed. S. E. Porter and J. C. R. de Roo; JSJSup 71; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 7–26. 19. D. N. Freedman, “Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: The Covenant Theme,” Int 18 (1964) 419–31. 20. See G. N. Knoppers, “Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant,” JAOS 116 (1996) 670–97. 21. M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970) 184–203. 22. On conditional aspects of the Davidic covenant, see B. K. Waltke, “The Phenomenon of Conditionality Within Unconditional Covenants,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration (ed. A. Gileadi; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988) 123–39. 23. Cross, “Kinship and Covenant,” 8. 24. G. P. Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (VTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1994). 25. Hugenberger, Marriage, 167. If Hugenberger has demonstrated that marriage was a covenant, a short study by Seock-Tae Sohn advances the converse position that “covenant” was a form of marriage (see S.-T. Sohn, “ ‘I Will Be Your God and You Will Be My People’: The Origin of the Covenant Formula,” in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine [ed. R. Chazan et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999] 355–72). Sohn points out the formal similarities between the so-called “covenant formula” and the verbal declarations accompanying marriage and adoption in the ancient Near East, concluding that the origin of covenant terminology is the milieu of marriage and adoption. While much of Sohn’s data and many of his observations are illuminating, Cross’s approach explains Sohn’s data more plausibly and economically: marriage and adoption are specific manifestations of the concept of covenant, which, at root, is the establishment of kinship relations and obligations between non-kin.

342  |  Notes to Pages 6–9 26. Hugenberger, Marriage, 168–215. 27. Hugenberger, Marriage, 197. For further discussion of definition, see D. C. Lane, “The Meaning and Use of Berith in the Old Testament,” (Ph.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2000). 28. P. J. Naylor, “The Language of Covenant. A Structural Analysis of the Semantic Field of ‫ ברית‬in Biblical Hebrew, with Particular Reference to the Book of Genesis” (Ph.D. diss.; Oxford University, 1980). 29. R. Rendtorff, Die Bundesformel (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995); English: The Covenant Formla: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (trans. M. Kohl; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998). 30. R. Smend, “Die Bundesformel,” ThSt(B) 68 (1963) [pagination unknown], reprinted in Die Mitte des Alten Testaments: Gesammelte Studien 1 (BevTh 99; Munich, 1986) 11–39. 31. K. Baltzer, Das Bundesformular (WMANT 4; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964); English: The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings (trans. D. E. Green; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971). 32. J. Barton, “Covenant in Old Testament Theology,” in Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson (ed. A. D. H. Mayes and R. B. Salters; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) 23–38. 33. Cf. Rendtorff, Covenant Formula, 11 n. 4, 57 n. 1. 34. See Rendtorff’s seminal article, “Canonical Interpretation: A New Approach to Biblical Texts,” Pro Ecclesia 3 (1994) 141–51. 35. Rendtorff, Covenant Formula, 78. 36. M. Haran, “The Bĕrît ‘Covenant’: Its Nature and Ceremonial Background,” in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg (ed. M. Cogan et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997) 203–19. 37. Haran, “Covenant,” 205. 38. Haran, “Covenant,” 215. 39. Haran, “Covenant,” 208. 40. J. Dunnill, Covenant and Sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews (SNTS Monograph Series 75; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992). 41. Dunnill, Covenant and Sacrifice, 115–48. 42. Cf. Dunnill, Covenant and Sacrifice, 104; C. P. Anderson, “Who Are the Heirs of the New Age in the Epistle to the Hebrews?” in Apocalyptic and the New Testament (ed. J. Marcus and M. L. Soards; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) 255–77, esp. 272. 43. So G. W. Buchanan, “The Covenant in Legal Context,” in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period (ed. S. E. Porter, and J. C. R. de Roo; JSJSup 71; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 27–52. 44. P. R. Williamson, Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose (New Studies in Biblical Theology 23; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007). 45. Williamson, Sealed with an Oath, 43. 46. So J. Barr, “Reflections on the Covenant with Noah,” in Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E.W. Nicholson (ed. A. D. H. Mayes and R. B. Salters; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) 11–22. 47. K. J. Dell, “Covenant and Creation in Relationship,” in Covenant as Context, 111–34. 48. J. Milgrom, “Covenants: The Sinaitic and Patriarchal Covenants in the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–27),” in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume (ed. C. Cohen et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004) 91–101.

Notes to Pages 10–15  |  343 49. P. R. Williamson, Abraham, Israel, and the Nations: The Patriarchal Promise and Its Covenantal Development in Genesis (JSOTSup 315; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000). 50. For example, Van Seters and Lohfink flatly deny the existence of conditions on the covenant given Abraham in Gen 17, even though the conditional nature of the covenant in ch. 17—as opposed to ch. 15—is quite clear in vv. 1 and 9–14; see J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975) 288–89; N. Lohfink and E. Zenger, The God of Israel and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press) 27. Contrast Van Seters and Lohfink with Rendtorff, Covenant Formula, 84; and Milgrom, “Covenants,” 91–101. 51. See T. D. Alexander, Abraham in the Negev: A Source-Critical Investigation of Genesis 20:1–22:19 (Carlisle, U.K.: Paternoster, 1997). The view of Alexander and Williamson that the covenant of Gen 17 is not ratified until the oath of Gen 22:16–18 is based on the commonplace in covenant scholarship that an oath is necessary to establish a covenant. 52. G. Davies, “Covenant, Oath, and the Composition of the Pentateuch,” in Covenant as Context, 71–90. 53. Milgrom, “Covenants.” 54. F. H. Polak, “The Covenant at Mount Sinai in the Light of Texts from Mari,” in Sefer Moshe, 119–34. 55. For a review of the debate, see S. L. McKenzie, “The Typology of the Davidic Covenant,” in The Land That I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archeology of the Ancient Near East in Honor of J. Maxwell Miller (ed. J. A. Dearman and M. P. Graham; JSOTSup 343; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 152–78. 56. G. Gakuru, An Inner-Biblical Exegetical Study of the Davidic Covenant and the Dynastic Oracle (Mellen Biblical Press Series 58; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 2000). 57. Contra McKenzie, “Typology of the Davidic Covenant,” 178. 58. R. E. Clements, “The Davidic Covenant in the Isaiah Tradition,” in Covenant as Context, 39–70. 59. Clements, “Davidic Covenant,” 65. 60. Clements, “Davidic Covenant,” 65. 61. D. I. Block, “My Servant David: Ancient Israel’s Vision of the Messiah,” in Israel’s Messiah in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. R. S. Hess and M. D. Carroll R.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003) 17–56. 62. N. Lohfink, “Covenant and Torah in the Pilgrimage of the Nations (The Book of Isaiah and Psalm 25)” in The God of Israel and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms (ed. N. Lohfink and E. Zenger; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000) 33–84. 63. See Freedman and Miano, “People of the New Covenant,” 18. 64. See W. J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1984) 151; W. Kaiser, “The Blessing of David: The Charter for Humanity,” in The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis (ed. J.H. Skilton; [No Location]: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974) 298–318, esp. 315. 65. O. Kaiser, “Covenant and Law in Ben Sirah,” in Covenant as Context, 235–60. 66. J. C. R. de Roo, “God’s Covenant with the Forefathers,” in Concept of the Covenant, 191–202; B. Halpern-Amaru, Rewriting the Bible: Land and Covenant in Postbiblical Jewish Literature (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994).

344  |  Notes to Pages 16–19 67. Halpern-Amaru, Rewriting the Bible, 116. 68. See de Roo, “God’s Covenant.” 69. de Roo, “God’s Covenant,” 202. 70. See S. Hahn, “Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah: Διαθήκη in Galatians 3:15–18,” CBQ 67 (2005) 79–100. 71. B. Nitzan, “The Concept of the Covenant in Qumran Literature,” in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. D. Goodblatt et al.; Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 37; Leiden: Brill, 2001); C. A. Evans, “Covenant in the Qumran Literature,” in Concept of the Covenant, 55–80. 72. Other studies of covenant in Qumran literature include M. G. Abegg, “The Covenant of the Qumran Sectarians,” in Concept of the Covenant, 81–98; S. A. Reed, “The Role of Food as Related to Covenant in Qumran Literature,” in Concept of the Covenant, 129–64; E. J. Christensen, The Covenant in Judaism and Paul: A Study of Ritual Boundaries as Identity Markers (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 27; Leiden: Brill, 1995). 73. M. O. Wise, “The Concept of a New Covenant in the Teacher Hymns from Qumran (1QHa x–xvii),” in Concept of the Covenant, 99–128. 74. Tom Holmén, Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking (Biblical Interpretation Series 55; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 48–49. Note the acknowledgment of Sanders on p. ix. 75. See N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God; vol. 1; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) esp. 244–79. 76. Wright, New Testament, 278–79. 77. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God; vol. 2; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 280. 78. See S. McKnight, Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005), esp. 293–321. 79. McKnight, Jesus, 309, 311. 80. McKnight, Jesus, 311–12. 81. McKnight, Jesus, 309. 82. McKnight, Jesus, 308. 83. McKnight, Jesus, 309 n. 69. 84. McKnight, Jesus, 311. 85. For discussion and bibliography on this topic, see Chapter 9, pp. 239–41. 86. S. E. Porter, “The Concept of Covenant in Paul,” in Concept of the Covenant, 269–86; J. D. G. Dunn, “Did Paul Have a Covenant Theology? Reflections on Romans 9.4 and 11.27,” in Concept of the Covenant, 287–307. 87. Dunn, “Covenant Theology?” 306. 88. Dunn, “Covenant Theology?” 307. 89. Porter, “Concept of Covenant in Paul,” 282. 90. M. S. C. Nwachukwu, Creation-Covenant Scheme and Justification by Faith: A Canonical Study of the God-Human Drama in the Pentateuch and the Letter to the Romans (Tesi Gregoriana, Serie Teologia 89; Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2002). Nwachukwu draws on an earlier version of the present work: S. Hahn, “Kinship by Covenant: A Biblical Theological Study of Covenant Types and Texts in the Old and New Testaments,” (Ph.D. diss., Marquette University, 1995 [Ann Arbor: UMI Dissertation Services, 1995]). I would like to thank Ms. Nwachukwu for her thoughtful reflection on my earlier work.

Notes to Pages 20–23  |  345 91. K. Kuula, The Law, the Covenant, and God’s Plan, Vol. 1 of Paul’s Polemical Treatment of the Law in Galatians (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 72; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). 92. Porter, “Concept of Covenant,” 275–79; Dunn, “Covenant Theology?” 290–93. 93. E. J. Christensen, The Covenant in Judaism and Paul: A Study of Ritual Boundaries as Identity Markers (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 27; Leiden: Brill, 1995). 94. A. A. Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001). 95. See S. Hahn, “Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah: Διαθήκη in Galatians 3:15–18,” CBQ 67 (2005) 79–100. 96. Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant, 171. 97. Cf. Williamson, Abraham, Israel, and the Nations, 263. 98. S. R. Murray, “The Concept of διαθήκη in the Letter to the Hebrews,” ConcTheoQuart 66 (2002) 41–60. 99. S. Hahn, “A Broken Covenant and the Curse-of-Death: A Study of Hebrews 9:15– 22,” CBQ 66 (2004) 416–36. 100. For example, in Luke 22:20, Christ describes the eucharistic cup as “the new covenant in my blood,” and a few verses later (v. 29) declares that the “Father” had “covenanted” (diatithemi) to him the kingdom which he was now “covenanting” to the disciples. In Gal 3–4, the detailed discussion of the relationship between the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic law in Gal 3:15–18 is embedded within a larger discussion of “sonship” and “childhood” in relationship to the fatherhood of Abraham and the fatherhood of God (cf. Gal 3:7, 19, 26, 29; 4:1–7, 21–30). Finally, the sublime demonstration of Jesus’ preeminence as the unique “Son” of God, beginning in Heb 1:2 and extending to Heb 7:28, leads directly into the most concentrated discussion of divine covenants and covenantal logic in the entire New Testament: Hebrews 8–9. 101. The list of ideas that will be correlated is quite extensive: the Old and the New; father and son; promise and oath; blessing and curse; kinship, treaty, and grant; New Testament texts that advance typologies based on a series of theological correlations between Christ and Abraham, Isaac, Melchizedek, Moses, David, Solomon; various divine oaths in the Old Testament (Gen 22:16–18; Num 14:28–35; Deut 32:40; 1 Sam 3:14; Pss 89:3; 110:4; 132:11; Ezek 20:5–26; 44:12), and how they are used by Luke, Paul, and the author of Hebrews (Luke 1:31–33; 22:28–30; Gal 3:10–17; Heb 3:11; 4:3; 6:13–20; 7:20–28; 9:16–17). 102. Since it is impractical to utilize fully these methods for interpreting every relevant OT text, we will rely heavily on specialists. But which ones? And how does one decide between divergent interpretations? On the first question, see J. P. Meier, The Mission of Christ and His Church (Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1990): “Here we touch the ongoing problem of the sophisticated theologian taking over the work of a given exegete. Such borrowing is unavoidable in an age of functional specialization in theology. No one can be the Renaissance man in all fields” (45). Elsewhere Meier (“The Bible as a Source for Theology,” in Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Convention of the CTSA [Louisville: CTSA, 1988]) commends theologians for being “faithful to the complexity of the biblical witness and the Catholic tradition” (14). On the second question, for the appropriate criteria to judge between divergent exegeses, see J. Ratzinger, Behold the Pierced One (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1986). He comments: “From a purely scientific point of view, the legitimacy of an interpretation depends on its power to explain things. In other words, the less it needs to interfere with the sources, the more it

346  |  Notes to Pages 23–24 respects the corpus as given and is able to show it to be intelligible from within, by its own logic, the more apposite such an interpretation. Conversely, the more it interferes with the sources, the more it feels obliged to excise and throw doubt on things found there, the more alien to the subject it is. To that extent, its explanatory power is its ability to maintain the inner unity of the corpus in question. It involves the ability to unify, to achieve a synthesis, which is the reverse of superficial harmonization” (44). 103. The attentive reader will recognize a strong affinity between the hermeneutic at work here and the general spirit of the Scripture and Hermeneutics Project initiated by Craig Bartholomew (in which I have participated: see Canon and Biblical Interpretation [ed. C. Bartholomew et al.; SHS 7; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006]). I am engaged in a canonical analysis of the Bible’s “grand narrative,” within a confessional framework that is Catholic yet ecumenical, informed by speech-act theory as a means to grasp both God’s covenantal declarations to his people in the Old and New Testaments and the perpetuation of those declarations in the church’s eucharistic liturgy. On Catholic exegesis, observe the criteria set forth by Vatican II (Dei Verbum 12; CCC §§112–114): exegesis must be in accord with (1) the content and unity of Scripture, (2) the living tradition of the church (expressed primarily in the liturgy), and (3) the analogy of faith (for elaboration see Francis Martin, “Some Directions in Catholic Biblical Theology,” in Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation [ed. C. Bartholomew et al.; SHS 5; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004] 65–87). On speech-act theory, see K. J. Vanhoozer, “From Speech Acts to Scripture Acts: The Covenant of Discourse and the Discourse of the Covenant,” in After Pentecost: Language and Biblical Interpretation (ed. C. Bartholomew et al.; SHS 2; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001) 1–49. I find Vanhoozer’s treatment of “discourse of the covenant” useful in describing the speechacts by which God establishes relationships with mankind. 104. The Pontifical Biblical Commission comments on this methodology: “The usefulness of narrative analysis for the exegesis of the Bible is clear. It is well suited to the narrative character which so many biblical texts display. It can facilitate the transition, often difficult, from the meaning of the text in its historical context (the proper object of the historical-critical method) to its significance for the reader of today” (Pontifical Biblical Commission, “Interpreting the Bible in the Life of the Church,” Catholic International 5 [1994] 116–17). 105. H. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974). See also J. H. Sailhamer (The Pentateuch as Narrative [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992] 34), who prefers the phrase “compositional analysis” to “narrative analysis.” The phrase “narrative analysis” is used by scholars in two distinct senses, depending on whether the primary focus is on content or on form. The concern of compositional analysis (and of this study) is with content. For examples of content-oriented narrative analysis, see the works of R. Alter, J. L. Kugel, M. Sternberg, P. D. Miscall, R. M. Polzin, and H. C. Brichto. Form-oriented narrative analysis is associated with semiotics, reader-response criticism, and structuralism (see, e.g., F. de Saussure, A.-J. Greimas, and L. Marin). 106. D. J. McCarthy, “God as Prisoner of Our Own Choosing: Critical-Historical Study of the Bible,” in Historicism and Faith (ed. P. L. Williams; Scranton, PA: SCS, 1980) 40. For the application of this method in “narrative theology,” see M. Goldberg, Theology and Narrative: A Critical Introduction (Nashville: Abingdon, 1982); idem, Jews and Christians: Getting Our Stories Straight (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991). Goldberg shows how “narrative theologies” affect the reflexive shape of the New Testament interpretation of the Christ event (e.g., the New Exodus).

Notes to Pages 24–26  |  347 107. “Interpreting the Bible in the Life of the Church,” 118. The document also states: “The method does not claim to be a substitute for the historical-critical method; the hope is, rather, to complete it.” See also B. Childs, The Book of Exodus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974). Childs comments on the significance of the final or canonical form: “In my judgment, the historical dimension has significance for exegesis only to the extent that it can illuminate the final form of the text” (543). 108. Canonical criticism closely resembles narrative analysis in certain ways. What makes it unique is its recognition and acceptance of tradition and the twofold influence of its authority in the historical process, which entails not only the canonization of certain books, but also the “canonicity” of their interpretive traditions. In this way, other intratextual traditions push the exegesis of a text beyond the confines of its own immediate literary context even while exercising an internal control to impede interpretive excess. See “Interpreting the Bible in the Life of the Church,” 118–19, for a good treatment of the differences between Childs and Sanders. See also J. A. Sanders, From Sacred Story to Sacred Text (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987). 109. McCarthy, “God as Prisoner,” 40–41. 110. R. E. Friedman, “The Hiding of the Face: An Essay on the Literary Unity of Biblical Narrative,” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (ed. J. Neusner et al.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 214. 111. Friedman, “Hiding the Face,” 215. 112. This will be accomplished in various ways. In Chapter 5, the three Abrahamic covenants in Gen 15 (J), 17 (P), and 22 (E) will be correlated, much like Friedman has done with the Pentateuchal covenant traditions. In Chapters 3 and 6 the canonical significance of different laws will be explained, i.e., the laws of the Deuteronomic (D) and Levitical covenants (P/H—specifically the Priestly and Holiness Codes in Lev 1–16 and 17–26, respectively). 113. See Gen 14:18; 22:2, 14; Ps 76:1–2; 2 Chr 3:1. This identification has become commonplace among interpreters who consult ancient Jewish and Christian interpretive traditions (e.g., Fitzmyer, Steinmetz, Talmon, Vawter, Vermeš, and Weinfeld). 114. David’s royal priestly aspiration will be especially important when the Davidic covenant is analyzed in Chapter 6. In Chapter 6, many of the unique canonical interpretations developed in the previous chapters will converge. Again, scholars who consult ancient Jewish and Christians traditions discern canonical links of these kinds (e.g., Dillard, Ishida, and Mazar). 115. The Pontifical Biblical Commission devotes an entire section of “Interpreting the Bible in the Life of the Church,” to a treatment of the “Approach Through Recourse to Jewish Traditions of Interpretation.” The underlying rationale is stated: “The Targums and the Midrashic literature illustrate the homiletic tradition and mode of biblical interpretation practiced by wide sectors of Judaism in the first centuries. Many Christian exegetes of the Old Testament look besides to the Jewish ­commentators . . . of the mediaeval and more recent period as a resource for understanding difficult passages. . . . References to such Jewish works appear in current exegetical discussion much more than was formerly the case” (119–20). 116. See M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985); idem, “Revelation and Tradition: Aspects of Inner-Biblical Exegesis,” JBL 99 (1980) 343–61. See also B. Halpern, “Doctrine by Misadventure: Between the Israelite Source and the Biblical Historian,” in The Poet and the Historian: Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism (ed. R. E. Friedman; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983) 68–69: “It is interesting to note that scripturally-oriented religions—Judaism, Catholi-

348  |  Notes to Pages 26–27 cism, and Islam, in the West—have instead canonized tradition. This acknowledgment of the literal text’s inadequacy makes possible a more meaningful embrace of the text; it also preempts epileptic fundamentalism, which by absolutizing the literal succeeds only in absolutely relativizing it, and absolutizing the interpreter.” 117. See D. A. Knight, “Revelation Through Tradition,” in Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament (ed. D. A. Knight; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977): “In the first instance tradition constitutes the pre-understanding (Vorverständnis) and precondition for revelation [my emphasis]” (165). 118. McCarthy, “God as Prisoner,” 41. See also idem, “Exodus 3:14: History, Philology, and Theology,” CBQ 40 (1978) 319: “Historical criticism has become an end in itself. It is a constant search for hypothetic historical referents or for sources where the material at hand is simply insufficient to allow anything but highly speculative results. As a basis for theological (or other) developments it has become a foundation of sand. Contrary to what I have heard said, it is perfectly possible to understand a text without knowing whether it is E or whatever. If I insist on a documentary setting, or an historical setting in which the text was composed, I am often, even usually, tied to pure hypothesis: the connection with a source is dubious, the existence of the source (E) is in question. In any case the historical setting of a passage’s composition is largely a guess. And still the text itself in its most important setting, its actual place in scripture, lies before me to study as a grammatical and literary structure that I can analyze with some confidence without beginning with a chancey guess about origins.” 119. This interpretive approach will be used in countless instances throughout this study. In most cases targumic sources are cited (along with rabbinic midrash and patristic sources) because this material supports the possibility of influence in Gal 3–4 and Heb 1–9. 120. This phrase is taken from the summary description of the interpretive process offered by the Pontifical Biblical Commission: “The primary task of the exegete is to determine as accurately as possible the meaning of biblical texts in their own proper context . . . and then in the context of the wider canon of Scripture. In the course of carrying out this task, the exegete expounds the theological meaning of texts when such a meaning is present. This paves the way for a relationship of continuity between exegesis and further theological reflection (“Interpreting the Bible in the Life of the Church,” 141). 121. Fundamentalism not only rejects historical criticism, but also spiritual exegesis. See C. A. Blaising, “Dispensationalism: The Search for Definition,” in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church (ed. C. A. Blaising and D. L. Bock; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992) 20: “Supporting the distinction between Israel and the church is the second aspect of the sine qua non of dispensationalism: the consistent practice of literal hermeneutics. Literal is not opposed to figurative but rather to allegorical or spiritual.” See also “Interpreting the Bible in the Life of the Church,” 129: “The literal sense is not to be confused with the ‘literalist’ sense to which fundamentalists are attached.” R. Murray (The Cosmic Covenant [London: Sheed & Ward, 1992]), comments: “Fundamentalism, as we know it today, may seem to inherit the innocent literalism of our forebears, both Jewish and Christian, but in fact it is as heavily loaded with modern presuppositions as the critical scholarship which extreme fundamentalists attack. The basic error of fundamentalism is something from which neither rabbinic midrashists nor church fathers suffered: [I]t is a refusal to recognize the variety of styles and genres of statements in the Bible, and therefore to realize that divine Truth . . . comes to us in many modes, some of them essentially symbolic” (xviii).

Notes to Pages 27–28  |  349 122. On Scripture’s sacramentality, see F. X. Durrwell, “The Sacrament of Scripture,” in Theologians Today: F. X. Durrwell (ed. M. Redfern; New York: Sheed & Ward, 1972) 59–82; idem, In the Redeeming Christ (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1963) 37–53; L. Bopp, “The Salvific Power of the Word According to the Church Fathers,” in Toward a Theology of the Word (ed. K. Rahner et al.; New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1964) 147–67; S. Hahn, Letter and Spirit: From Written Text to Living Word in the Church’s Liturgy (New York: Doubleday, 2005); idem, “Worship in the Word: Toward a Liturgical Hermeneutic,” Letter and Spirit: A Journal of Catholic Biblical Theology 1 (2005) 101–36. 123. See Scripture and Christology: A Statement of the Biblical Commission with a Commentary (trans. and comm. J. A. Fitzmyer; New York: Paulist, 1986) 20. The Commission’s statement also says: “The ‘auxiliary’ languages employed in the Church in the course of centuries do not enjoy the same authority, as far as faith is concerned, as the ‘referential language of the inspired authors.’ ” (20). This document was first published in French under the title Bible et Christologie (Paris: Cerf, 1984). In his discussion of the scriptural cast of Bonaventure’s theology, Pope Benedict XVI makes essentially the same point: “The writers of Holy Scripture speak as themselves, as men, and yet, precisely in doing so, they are ‘theologoi,’ those through whom God as subject, as the word that speaks itself, enters history. What distinguishes Holy Scripture from all later theology is thus completely safeguarded, but, at the same time, the Bible becomes the model of all theology, and those who are the bearers of it become the norm of the theologian, who accomplishes his task properly only to the extent that he makes God himself his subject. . . . What we have said can now be formulated as the . . . final thesis of these remarks: theology is a spiritual science. The normative theologians are the authors of Holy Scripture. This statement is valid not only with reference to the objective written document they left behind but also with reference to their manner of speaking, in which it is God himself who speaks” (J. Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology [San Francisco: Ignatius, 1987] 321). For a treatment of the distinction between “auxiliary” and “referential” language see S. Hahn, “Prima Scriptura: Magisterial Perspectives on the Primacy of Scripture for Catholic Theology,” in The Church and the Universal Catechism (ed. A. Mastroeni; Steubenville, OH: Franciscan University Press, 1993) 83–116. 124. See “Scripture and Christology,” 19–21, for a treatment of the suitability of scriptural language vis-à-vis that of the Middle Ages (1.2.1.1), and those “modes of thinking and speaking that are proper to our age” (1.2.2.2). The document warns of “the risk” of ascribing “absolute value” to them, while affirming their capacity to convey truth with certainty and authority—both of which are derived, however, from the uniquely inspired word of “Sacred Scripture taken as a whole and from the various modes of speaking which it employs.” (1.2.2.2) On this point, see R. Kereszty, “The ‘Bible and Christology’ Document of the Biblical Commission,” Communio 13 (1986) 363: “If Scriptural formulas are the most accurate and the best suited for expressing christological doctrine, then why do we need magisterial statements and theological speculation? However, if you place this statement in the context of the whole document, it no longer appears to eliminate systematic christology, but rather profoundly transforms it. Systematic theologians, insists BC, will follow the direction given in the New Testament itself . . . and will find in every new age and culture new auxiliary languages ‘in order to make clear for their contemporaries the special and fundamental language of Sacred Scripture’ (2.2.2.2/d). Thus further explanations and clarifications are constantly necessary, but their goal is to make accessible to the people of a given age

350  |  Notes to Pages 28–31 and culture that fullness which is contained in the Scriptures.” Instead of discouraging systematic theology, the Biblical Commission calls theologians to assimilate these “living oracles” (Acts 7:38) more deeply, and to integrate them more (not less) critically in relation to human experience. This simply extends the program begun by Vatican II (Dei Verbum 24): “For the Sacred Scriptures contain the word of God and since they are inspired really are the word of God; and so the study of the sacred page is, as it were, the soul of sacred theology.” 125. See also D. C. Lane, “The Meaning and Use of Berith in the Old Testament,” (Ph.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2000). 126. Cross, “Kinship and Covenant,” 8. See more recently J. A. Davies, A Royal Priesthood? Literary and Intertextual Perspectives on an Image of Israel in Exodus 19.6 (JSOTSup 395; London: T. & T. Clark, 2004) 177: “It would appear that the fundamental image behind each of the applications of ‫ ברית‬is the use of familial categories for those who are not bound by ties of natural kinship. By legal or quasi-legal process, people become ‘father,’ ‘son’ or ‘brother’ to one another for a range of purposes.” 127. The understanding of covenant as a form of legal kinship is actually widespread, and can be found in scholarship both classic (N. Glueck) and recent (M. S. Smith), from perspectives as diverse as Jewish feminism (T. Frymer-Kenski) or evangelical Protestantism (S. J. Hafemann). In his classic study Hesed in the Bible (trans. A. Gottschalk; ed. E. Epstein; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1967), Glueck recognized that the first and most natural meaning for the concept of ḥesed was “as the mutual relationship of rights and duties between members of a family or tribe” (38, emphasis added) and also that “ḥesed constitutes the essence of a covenant” (55). More recently in a study of Ruth 1:16–17, M. S. Smith (“Your People Shall Be My People”: Family and Covenant in Ruth 1:16–17,” CBQ 69 [2007] 242–58) states plainly: “covenant is an extension of family relations across family lines” (252). Smith cites the work of T. Frymer-Kensky, who points out that in the prophetic literature, “Israel’s covenant with God creates a close personal relationship akin to the relationships known from family life: Israel is God’s son or God’s wife, and within these metaphorical understandings, the covenant and its formula have their place” (Studies in Bible and Feminist Criticism [Philadelphia: JPS, 2006] 147). S. J. Hafemann agrees: “the biblical covenant thus becomes . . . a familial experience of belonging” (Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping Unity in Diversity [ed. S. J. Hafemann and P. R. House; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007] 34, emphasis added). 128. M. D. Guinan, Covenant in the Old Testament (Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1975) 9, my enumeration. He goes on to review the “kinship,” “treaty,” and “grant” covenants in that order (9–11), although not under those precise terms. 129. M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970) 184–203. 130. See discussion in Lane, “Meaning and Use of Berith,” 170–72. 131. See Cross, “Kinship and Covenant.” Use of the term “kinship covenant” in the text is inspired by Cross’s argument in this essay. 132. See Knoppers, “Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants.” 133. Kline, By Oath Consigned, 16. 134. Kline, By Oath Consigned, 41. 135. See discussion in Lane, “Meaning and Use of Berith,” 171; and McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant, 4, 31–32. 136. The two primary sources are McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant; and P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant (AnBib 88; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1982). The

Notes to Pages 31–37  |  351 latter was originally a doctoral thesis supervised by McCarthy. See Kalluveettil’s bibliography for an exhaustive list of McCarthy’s works on covenant (ibid., 228–29). 137. See D. J. McCarthy, “Israel My Firstborn Son,” Way 5 (1965) 186: “The covenant between Israel and Yahweh did in fact make Israel the family of Yahweh in a very real sense. . . . [T]he result of . . . the covenant, was thought of as a kind of familial relationship”; idem, “Theology and Covenant in the Old Testament,” TBT 42 (1969) 162: “[C]ovenanted union is quasi-familial . . . This is implied in the technical vocabulary of Semitic covenant-making: the superior . . . was called ‘father,’ the subordinate ‘son’ . . .”; and Kalluveettil, Declaration, 205: “Thus a covenant implies an adoption into the household, an extension of kinship. . . . Terms ‘father’ and ‘son’ denote a covenant relationship.” See also C. Baker, Covenant and Liberation (New York: Peter Lang, 1991). “The human covenants made among the Hebrews indicate that the basic form was a mutual accepting of obligations under oath. This form underlies the divine covenants” (33). He adds: “The relationship expected as the fruit of biblical covenants is one of family or kinship. . . . We might take as our working description of covenant . . . a solemn and externally manifested commitment which strengthens kinship and family concern between both parties” (38). 138. A note on terminology (“Old Testament” versus “Hebrew Bible”) is in order. Admittedly, this is an ecumenically sensitive issue. These terms, however, do not necessarily denote (or connote) the same things. In light of the primary concern of this study (i.e., the relationship between the Old and New Covenants), the use of “Old” and “New” is more appropriate; hence it is retained here. 139. For discussion of the use of diatithēmi as “to covenant,” see Chapter 8. Chapter 2 THE KINSHIP COVENANT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 1. P. Kalluveettil calls this covenant type a “social covenant,” as distinct from a “political covenant” (Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant [AnBib 88; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982], 83). This study refers to a political covenant as a treaty-type covenant. 2. The kinship-type covenant has received much attention over the past century. Among the older and more influential studies, see W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885); idem, The Religion of the Semites (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1889); H. C. Trumbull, The Blood Covenant: A Primitive Rite and Its Bearings on Scripture (London: George Redway, 1887); idem, The Threshold Covenant (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1896). Many findings in these works are dated since they are based on anachronistic comparisons with the covenant practices of modern Arab tribes. This covenant type has been explained better in more recent research; most notably, D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (2nd ed.; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), 254–73; Kalluveettil, Declaration, 130–35, 203–10; and M. D. Guinan, Covenant in the Old Testament (Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1975). 3. Kalluveettil (Declaration, 15, n. 36) states: “In the Ancient Semitic world whoever was not a relative or friend was considered as an enemy. A non-relative was admitted into family or society circle by means of a pact, and this happened often.” 4. See, e.g., Jacob-Laban (Gen 31:43–50) and David-Jonathan (1 Sam 18:1–5). For extra-biblical examples, see J. Pedersen, Der Eid bei den Semiten (Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner, 1914) 28. See also G. P. Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (VTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 180–81.

352  |  Notes to Page 37 5. On covenant meals, see A. Viberg, Symbols of Law: A Contextual Analysis of Legal Symbolic Acts in the Old Testament (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1992) 76: “The historical explanation of the covenant meal is quite simple. It is based on the function of the meal to bring a stranger into the family circle through participating in the meal.” See also Pedersen, Der Eid, 24–51; and D. J. McCarthy, “Three Covenants in Genesis,” CBQ 26 (1964) 185: “This custom of forming a union by taking bread together is widespread; doubtless it is based on the idea that it is the family group which eats together so that admission to the meal implies admission to the family.” 6. Typically, both parties in a kinship-type covenant are involved in the ritual act of oath-swearing (though not necessarily in the same way). In brief, there is a mutuality that does not always entail equality. Kinship-type covenants usually engage both parties in a (more or less) bilateral set of obligations mutually sworn by oath. Treaty-type covenants, however, are characterized by the unilateral imposition of obligations by the suzerain upon the vassal, for which the latter usually swears an explicit oath of self-malediction. In contrast to these two covenant types, the grant-type covenant is established by the suzerain who accepts a unilateral obligation to bless the vassal—for which the suzerain alone typically swears the oath. 7. For general background in kinship studies, see M. Fortes, Kinship and the Social Order (Chicago: Aldine, 1969); R. Fox, Kinship and Marriage: An Anthropological Perspective (Baltimore: Penquin Books, 1962). For a helpful survey (with a thorough bibliography) of kinship studies in recent biblical scholarship, see K. C. Hanson, “BTB Readers’s Guide: Kinship,” BTB 24 (1994) 183–94. Other significant studies include: F. M. Cross, “Kinship and Covenant in Ancient Israel,” in idem, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998) 3–21; D. Steinmetz, From Father to Son: Kinship, Conflict, and Continuity in Genesis (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991); C. J. H. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990); J. W. Miller, Biblical Faith and Fathering (New York: Paulist, 1989); S. Rattray, “Marriage Rules, Kinship Terms, and Family Structure in the Bible,” SBL 1987 Seminar Papers (ed. K. H. Richards; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 537–44; L. E. Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel,” BASOR 260 (1985) 1–35; R. A. Oden, “Jacob as Father, Husband, and Nephew: Kinship Studies and the Patriarchal Narratives,” JBL 102 (1983) 189–205; M. E. Donaldson, “Kinship Theory in the Patriarchal Narratives,” JAAR 49 (1981) 77–87; T. Frymer-Kensky, “Patriarchal Family Relationships and Near Eastern Law,” BA 44 (1981) 209–14; T. J. Prewitt, “Kinship Structures and the Genesis Genealogies,” JNES 40 (1981) 87–98; S. F. Bigger, “The Family Laws of Leviticus 18 in Their Setting,” JBL 98 (1979) 187–203; H. C. Brichto, “Kin, Cult, Land, and Afterlife—A Biblical Complex,” HUCA 44 (1979) 1–54; J. Goldin, “The Youngest Son or Where Does Genesis 38 Belong?” JBL 96 (1977) 27–44; L. Perlitt, “Der Vater im Alten Testament,” in Das Vaterbild in Mythos und Geschichte (ed. H. Tellenbach; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1976) 50–101; P. A. H. de Boer, Fatherhood and Motherhood in Israelite and Judaean Piety (Leiden: Brill, 1974); F. I. Andersen, “Israelite Kinship Terminology and Social Structure,” Bib Trans 20 (1969) 29–39; J. R. Porter, The Extended Family in the Old Testament (London: Edutext, 1967); C. S. Rodd, “The Family in the Old Testament,” Bib Trans 18 (1967) 19–26. 8. Cross, “Kinship and Covenant,” 3. 9. See A. Van Seters, “God and Family: From Sociology to Covenant Theology,” Themelios 5 (1980) 4–7; W. Brueggemann, “Covenanting as Human Vocation,” Int 33 (1979) 115–29; idem, “The Covenanted Family,” JCSI 14 (1977) 18–23.

Notes to Pages 37–40  |  353 10. Cross, “Kinship and Covenant,” 3. 11. On the family during the period of monarchy, see M. Heyns, “Functional Meaning of Family and Religion in Israelite Society in the Eighth Century,” OTE 5 (1987) 65–89; in the wisdom tradition, see P. Nel, “The Concept of ‘Father’ in the Wisdom Literature of the Ancient Near East,” JNES 5 (1977) 53–67; in law, see H. J. Boecker, Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient East (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980) 27–52; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961) 19–90; J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture (London: Oxford, 1926). 12. See Cross, “Kinship and Covenant,” 7, 12. 13. Brueggemann, “The Covenanted Family,” 18, my emphasis. He adds: “Of course, the family in that context is not the nuclear family, for that is unknown and unthinkable in the ancient world. Rather ‘family’ consists in the network of interrelations of the extended family that should be thought of as clan or tribe” (18). 14. Brueggemann, “Covenanted Family,” 18. 15. Cross, “Kinship and Covenant,” 5. Similar conclusions are drawn by K. D. Sakenfeld, Faithfulness in Action: Loyalty in Biblical Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985). 16. See Wright, God’s People in God’s Land, 207. See also L. Epsztein, Social Justice in the Ancient Near East and the People of the Bible (trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM, 1986) 85–134; A. Phillips, “Some Aspects of Family Law in Pre-exilic Israel,” VT 23 (1973) 349–61; idem, “Another Example of Family Law,” VT 30 (1980) 240–45; E. Bellefontaine, “Deuteronomy 21:18–21: Reviewing the Case of the Rebellious Son,” JSOT 13 (1979) 13–31. 17. Pedersen, Israel, 1:199. 18. Pedersen, Israel, 1:193. 19. Pedersen, Israel, 1:245. 20. Pedersen, Israel, 1:258. He adds, “It is now generally agreed that the right of the firstborn is the only one of which there is any historical record in the OT. It is this right that lies behind the structure of the genealogical tables, where the firstborn is always listed as the link in the extension of the family through history, and it is this right that is legally recognized in the law of Deut 21:15–17, according to which the eldest son is to receive the privileged portion of the inheritance” (258). See also E. W. Davies, “The Inheritance of the Firstborn in Israel and the Ancient Near East,” JSS 38 (1993) 175–91. 21. Pedersen, Israel, 1:308–9. 22. Pedersen, Israel, 1:345. 23. Pedersen, Israel, 1:347. 24. Pedersen, Israel, 1:344, 268–79. 25. Kalluveettil, Declaration, 131–32. See also J. M. van der Ploeg, “Slavery in the Old Testament,” (VTSup 22; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 72–87; F. Willesen, “The Yalid in Hebrew Society,” Studia Theologica 12 (1958) 192–210. 26. Kalluveettil, Declaration, 132–33, citing D. J. McCarthy, “Notes on the Love of God in Deuteronomy and the Father-Son Relationship Between Yahweh and Israel,” CBQ 27 (1965) 145. 27. See Wright, God’s People in God’s Land, 48–55; N. P. Lemche, Early Israel: Anthropological and Historical Studies on the Israelite Society Before the Monarchy (Leiden: Brill, 1985) 245–90; R. R. Wilson, “The Mechanisms of Judicial Authority in Early Israel,” in The Quest for the Kingdom of God (ed. H. B. Huffmon et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 59–75; N. K. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh (Maryknoll,

354  |  Notes to Pages 40–43 NY: Maryknoll, 1979) 237–341; C. H. J. de Geus, The Tribes of Israel (Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1976) 133–50; G. E. Mendenhall, “Social Organization in Early Israel,” in Magnalia Dei (ed. F. M. Cross et al.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976) 132–51; H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) 214–17; J. H. Chamberlayne, Man in Society: The Old Testament Doctrine (London: Epworth, 1966). 28. R. R. Wilson, “Israel’s Judicial System in the Preexilic Period,” JQR 74 (1983) 232. 29. Cross, “Kinship and Covenant,” 12. 30. Cross, “Kinship and Covenant,” 12. 31. C. J. H. Wright, “Family,” AYBD, 2:765. 32. The familial nature of covenant relations is seen in Gen 29:14. Laban encounters Jacob and says, “Surely you are my bone and my flesh.” In Judg 9:2 Abimelech pressures his mother’s kinsmen to repudiate Jerubbaal as ruler in favor of himself saying, “Remember also that I am your bone and your flesh.” Following the covenant oath of friendship between David and Jonathan, David says—upon hearing of the death of his friend and covenant partner: “I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan” (2 Sam 1:26). Israelite tribesmen who meet to negotiate a covenant with David at Hebron open by saying, “Behold, we are your bone and flesh” (2 Sam 5:1). 33. Cross, “Kinship and Covenant,” 7. 34. G. Quell, “διαθήκη,” TDNT 2:114. 35. Cross, “Kinship and Covenant,” 8. 36. A. F. Segal, Rebecca’s Children (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986) 3. 37. Segal, Rebecca’s Children, 7–9. 38. C. J. H. Wright, Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament (London: Marshall Pickering/HarperCollins, 1992) 122–23. See also P. S. Minear, Eyes of Faith: A Study in the Biblical Point of View (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1946) 85: “To be a son of the covenant is more decisive than to be a son of the clan or a son of the land.” 39. Cross, “Kinship and Covenant,” 10. 40. Cross, “Kinship and Covenant,” 14. Here Cross evidently has in mind Wellhausen and his modern defenders, Kutsch, Perlitt, and Nicholson. See discussion on general studies in Chapter 1. 41. Kalluveettil (Declaration, 10) distinguishes between the ritual in J (vv. 25–26, 28–30, 32–34) and the oath and donation in E (vv. 22–31). See D. L. Magnetti, “The Oath in the Old Testament in the Light of Related Terms and in the Legal and Covenantal Context of the Ancient Near East,” (Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1969) 106 n. 59, for a demonstration of how ritual and oath were linked in ancient covenant-making. 42. N. Glueck, Hesed in the Bible (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1967) 38. Glueck later argues that ḥesed “constitutes the essence of a covenant” confirmed by oath (55). See also W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975) 1:232. 43. See F. O. Garcia-Treto, “Jacob’s ‘Oath-Covenant’ in Genesis 28,” TUSR 10 (1970) 8: “The foregoing study suggests that ‘oath-covenants’ binding in mutual loyalty nomadic and settled parties . . . [are] in effect the keys to sojourning rights in the land for the wanderers.” 44. On the covenant meaning of “peace” (shalom), see Pedersen, Israel, 1:283: “We see that the usus loquendi only distinguishes vaguely between the relation of kin and friendship. Both are called shalom or berith, peace or covenant. . . . The two words

Notes to Pages 43–44  |  355 are often used interchangeably (e.g., Gen 26,28f. 31; 1 Kings 5,26; Ps 55,21), and if it does not appear from the context, we cannot see whether mention is made of kinship or friendship.” 45. On the covenantal significance of this term, see I. Johag, “Tob. Terminus technicus in Vertrag- und Bündnisformularen des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments,” in Bausteine biblischer Theologie. Festgabe für G. J. Botterweck (ed. H. J. Fabry; ­CologneBonn: Bonner Biblische Beiträge, 1977) 3–23. 46. See Viberg, Symbols of Law, 72: “There is no explicit mention of how the covenant between Isaac and Abimelech was accomplished, in contrast to the oath which is explicitly taken in v. 31. This leaves the meal in v. 30 to fulfill this function.” 47. So Guinan, Covenant in the Old Testament, 9. 48. In addition to the heap of stones, vv. 51 and 52 speak of a stone pillar (maṣṣēbāh) or stela that apparently had also been set up as a witness. For an explanation of the covenantal significance of the stela in oath-swearing, see McCarthy, Treaty, 2nd ed., 196; and J. M. Lundquist, “Temple, Covenant, and Law in the Ancient Near East and in the Old Testament,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration (ed. A. Gileadi: Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988) 299–300. Lundquist states: “Numerous texts depict the sacrifice of animals and the sharing of a communal meal at these stones” (300). Also to be noted are the fraternal references in the act of witnessing (vv. 46, 54) which reflect the familial quality of their (renewed) covenant. 49. See Viberg, Symbols of Law, 74: “In v. 53b Jacob swears an oath and in v. 54 he offers a sacrifice, after which he invites his family to a meal. The most natural conclusion is that they eat of the sacrificial meat. . . . If v. 54 is viewed in the larger context of the covenant-making, the meal would seem to ratify the covenant between Laban and Jacob.” 50. So Guinan, Covenant in the Old Testament, 10. 51. For a discussion of source- and tradition-critical issues, see T. B. Dozeman, God on the Mountain: A Study of Redaction, Theology and Canon in Exodus 24 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 1–35; L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT 36; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969) 156–238; J. Van Seters, “ ‘Comparing Scripture with Scripture’: Some Observations on the Sinai Pericope of Exodus 19–24,” in Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation (ed. G. M. Tucker et al.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 111–30; P. Hanson, The People Called: The Growth of Community in the Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986) 38–41; T. C. Vriezen, “The Exegesis of Exodus XXIV 9–11,” OTS 17 (1972) 100–133; W. Zimmerli, “Erwägungen zum ‘Bund’: Die Aussagen über die Jahweh-berît in Ex 19–34,” in Wort-Gebot-Glaube: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments (ed. H. J. Stoebe et al.; Zürich: Zwingli, 1970) 171–91; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 2nd ed., 245–76. Also helpful are a series of studies by E. W. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), 164–78; idem, “The Origin of the Tradition in Exodus XXIV 9–11,” VT 26 (1976) 148–60; idem, “The Antiquity of the Tradition in Exodus XXIV 9–11,” VT 25 (1975) 69–79; idem, “The Interpretation of Exodus XXIV 9–11,” VT 24 (1974) 77–97; idem, Exodus and Sinai in History and Tradition (Atlanta: John Knox, 1973). See also H. H. Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976) 83–95; B. S. Childs, Exodus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974) 340–64, 499–502. 52. Proposals include: the meal theory (W. R. Smith, “Sacrifice,” in Encyclopedia Brittanica [1886] 21:132–38); the gift theory (E. B. Tylor, The Origins of Culture (Vol. 2; Religion in Primitive Culture; [Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1958]); the refreshment

356  |  Notes to Pages 44–45 theory (H. Spencer, Principles of Sociology [Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1897]); the commercial theory (G. van der Leeuw, “Die dout des Formel in der Opfertheorie,” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 20 [1920–21] 241–53); the homage theory (W. Schmidt, “Ethnologische Bemerkungen zu theologischen Opfertheorien,” Jahrbuch des Missionhauses St. Gabriel 1 [1922] 2–57); the totemism-exogamy theory (J. G. Frazer, Totemism and Exogamy [London: Macmillan, 1910]); the magic theory (R. H. Codrington, Melanesian Studies in Anthropology and Folklore [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1891]); the expiatory/reconciliation theory (R. J. Thompson, Penitence and Sacrifice in Early Israel Outside the Levitical Law [Leiden: Brill, 1963]); and most recently, the sacred violence/ scapegoat theory (R. Girard, Violence and the Sacred [trans. P. Gregory; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977]). 53. For recent studies attempting a theoretical integration of manifold meanings of sacrifice, see V. Turner, “Sacrifice as Quintessential Process,” History of Religions 16 (1976–1977) 189–215; J. van Baal, “Offering, Sacrifice, and Gift,” Numen 23 (1975) 161– 78; T. P. van Baaren, “Theoretical Speculations on Sacrifice,” Numen 11 (1964) 1–12. 54. G. A. Anderson (Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel: Studies in Their Social and Political Importance [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987] 50 n. 74) comments: “[Exodus 24 is] a text often cited by scholars who feel the šélāmîm rite was basically a covenantal one. . . . [O]ther nominal and verbal uses of the root šlm in Hebrew are explicitly covenantal. See Josh 9:15, 10:4, 11:19; Judg 4:17, 6:24 among others.” See also R. Schmid, Das Bundesopfer in Israel, Ursprung und Bedeutung der alttestamentlichen Schelamim (München: Kösel, 1964) 25. 55. See discussion in Myung Soo Sung, The Tabernacle in the Narrative History of Israel from the Exodus to the Conquest (Studies in Biblical Literature 50; New York: Peter Lang, 2003) 27–30. 56. Childs, Exodus, 157. 57. J. Davis, Moses and the Gods of Egypt (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986) 116– 17. Davis cites M. G. Kyle (“Plagues of Egypt,” ISBE, 4.2404) and Josephus (Apion, 1.26). 58. Davis, Moses and the Gods of Egypt, 117. 59. U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967) 108–9. 60. Rashi, The Pentateuch with Rashi’s Commentary on the Book of Exodus (London: Shapiro, Vallentine & Company, 1946) 38. 61. Targum Neofiti 1, Exodus (trans. with apparatus M. McNamara; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1994) 36. See also Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: “But Moses said, ‘It would not be right to do so, for we would take lambs that are idols of the Egyptians” (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Exodus [trans. M. Maher; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1994] 182). 62. The Targum Onqelos to Exodus: Translated, with Apparatus and Notes (trans. B. Grossfeld; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1988) 20–21. Grossfeld sees this same perspective “reflected in Exod. Rab. 11.3 . . . as well as in MHG. . . . Scripture informs us that the Egyptians worshipped the Constellation of Ram and neither slaughtered nor ate any cattle. . . . Therefore it says elsewhere: ‘for every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians’ (Gen 46:34)” (20–23). See also J. D. Hoffmeier, “Egypt, Plagues in,” AYBD, 2:376: “It has long been maintained that . . . a specific degrading of Egyptian deities is evident in the plague narratives. Exod 12:12 and Num 33:4 point out that plagues and exodus are God’s executing judgment on ‘the gods of Egypt.’ Furthermore, Jethro . . . said ‘Now I know that the Lord is greater than all the gods’ (Exod 18:11a,

Notes to Pages 46–47  |  357 RSV). Some have tried to see an Egyptian deity behind each plague; e.g., the Nile and the god Hapi; frogs and the goddess Heket; the cows and bulls as representing Hathor and Apis respectively; the Sun being obscured and the god Re; etc.” 63. Cited by M. Weinfeld in “Jeremiah and the Spiritual Metamorphosis of Israel,” ZAW 88 (1976) 55. 64. Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstration of the Gospel, 1.6 65. Aphrahat, Demonstrations, 15.4. 66. Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed (London: Butler and Tanner, 1928) 359[3.46]. Weinfeld (“Jeremiah and the Spiritual Metamorphosis of Israel,” 54) notices that in the teaching of Jeremiah on sacrifice, “there is a theological truth which in some measure corresponds with Maimonides’ view.” 67. R. J. Thompson, Penitence and Sacrifice in Early Israel Outside the Levitical Law (Leiden: Brill, 1963) 40 n. 5, citing J. Spencer, De Legibus Hebraeorum ritualibus (Cambridge, 1686). Childs (Exodus, 494) also highlights Spencer’s “brilliant work”: “Citing from a wide range of classical writers, he argued that Moses had taken over the basic material from the Egyptians which he then reworked with the expressed purpose of opposing their idolatry and instilling a religion of monotheism. . . . Spencer is rightly judged the father of modern comparative religion.” 68. Childs (Exodus, 494) notes the use of Ezekiel 20 by Spencer, along with W. Warburton (The Divine Legation of Moses Demonstrated [2 vols.; London: Thomas Tegg, 1837] 138–95). An approach to Exodus similar to that of Ezekiel may be found in Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Didascalia Apostolorum, Rashi, Maimonides, Nicholas of Lyra, and Thomas Aquinas. See S. D. Benin, The Footprints of God: Divine Accommodation in Jewish and Christian Thought (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1993) 2–185. 69. A. Weiser, The Psalms (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962) 61. 70. Weiser, Psalms, 51, my emphasis. 71. See E. Kutsch, Verheissung und Gesetz (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1973) 86. R. de Vaux (The Early History of Israel [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978] 446–47) comments: “The blood of . . . a sacrificial animal created a bond, strengthened an oath, or sealed a pledge between men.” 72. See A. Schenker, “Les Sacrifices D’Alliance, Ex XXIV, 3–8, Dans Leur Portée Narrative et Religieuse: Contribution à L’Étude de la BERÎT dans L’Ancien Testament,” RB 101 (1994) 481–94. 73. Since covenant oaths entail blessing and curse, Israel’s consecration corresponds to the blessing, while their renunciation corresponds to the curse. In other words, a conditional self-curse is symbolically enacted in the sprinkling of the victims’ blood. This is the kind of oath that the spies swear to Rahab: “Our life for yours! . . . If any one goes out of the doors of your house into the street, his blood will be upon his head, and we shall be guiltless; but if a hand is laid upon any one who is with you in the house, his blood will be on our head. But if you tell this business of ours, then we will be guiltless with respect to your oath that you have made us swear” (Josh 2:14–20). M. W. Smith (What the Bible Says About Covenant [Joplin, MO: College Press, 1981] 14) comments: “The Covenant Oath: This was the actual pledge made by the vassal to the lord. It involved the killing of an animal . . . each party touching blood. This affirmed the idea that they were one blood and had a shared life. It also indicated the type of punishment fitting for one who broke this oath and betrayed his covenant lord.” On the blood­sprinkling ritual as a self-maledictory oath, see Midr. Lev. 6.6. A comparable idea is found in the New Testament, as judgment and communion converge in baptism and Eucharist (Mark 10:38–39; 14:36; 1 Cor 10:1–4, 16–21; 1 Pet 3:20–21).

358  |  Notes to Page 48 74. F. H. Polak, “The Covenant at Mount Sinai in the Light of Texts from Mari,” in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume (ed. C. Cohen et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 119–34. 75. For discussion of the meaning of “a kingdom of priests,” see J. A. Davies, A Royal Priesthood? Literary and Intertextual Perspectives on an Image of Israel in Exodus 19.6 (JSOTSup 395; London: T. & T. Clark, 2004), and J. B. Wells, God’s Holy People: A Theme in Biblical Theology (JSOTSup 305; London: T. & T. Clark, 2000). 76. See R. Sklba, “The Redeemer of Israel,” CBQ 34 (1972) 11: “Yahweh had accepted them as His own relatives and kinsfolk. The election is sacramentalized in the meal of Ex 24:11.” See also McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 1st ed., 171–72: “Besides the sacrifice and blood rite there is the tradition of the covenant meal. . . . The rites mentioned . . . have in common the idea of creating kinship between the parties. The covenant meal means admission into the family circle of another. . . .” 77. See D. J. McCarthy, “Twenty-five Years of Pentateuchal Study,” in The Biblical Heritage in Modern Catholic Scholarship (ed. J. J. Collins and J. D. Crossan; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1986) 47: “Far from being separable, covenant and relationship are almost a tautology. In his graciousness God is ready to join with his creatures like a family.” See also Pedersen, Der Eid bei den Semiten, 33–34. Kalluveettil (Declaration, 212) comments: “The idea, ‘I am yours, you are mine’ underlies every covenant declaration. This implies a quasi-familial bond which makes sons and brothers. The act of accepting the other as one’s own reflects the basic idea of covenant: an attempt to extend the bond of blood beyond the kinship sphere, or, in other words, to make the partner one’s own flesh and blood. . . . Covenant is relational. Hence any attempt to reduce it to a one-way commitment is unwarranted.” Unfortunately, Nicholson rejects the family analogy without interacting with Kalluveettil’s research that undergirds it. This is inexplicable in the light of Nicholson’s awareness of this aspect of Kalluveettil’s work. See Nicholson, God and His People, 104–5, n. 33. 78. See B. S. Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 155–74. A. S. Kapelrud (“Tradition and Worship,” in Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament [ed. D. Knight; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977] 105) comments: “The laws and rules which regulated the whole life of Israel in her covenantal relationship . . . were connected with the cult, and this can be seen clearly from Exod 19 and the following chapters, where the rules for those living in the covenant are found.” Sacrifice along with a meal is always covenantal for Schmid (Bundesopfer, 77). See N. H. Ridderbos, De Psalmen (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1973) 2:155. Also see D. Davies, “An Interpretation of Sacrifice in Leviticus,” ZAW 89 (1977) 390; and L. A. Snijders, “Genesis XV,” OTS 12 (1958) 273. 79. On the close linkage between covenant and oath, see J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AYB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press) 300; H. Tadmor, “Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East,” in Humanizing America’s Iconic Book (ed. G. M. Tucker and D. A. Knight; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982) 127–52; H. S. Gehman, “The Oath in the Old Testament,” in Grace upon Grace (ed. J. I. Cook; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 51–63; N. Lohfink, Die Landesverheissung als Eid (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967) 101–13; idem, Lectures in Deuteronomy (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968) 89–91. See also R. E. Clements, Abraham and David (London: SCM, 1967): “Yahweh was not simply a witness to the covenant, but a party to it. This divine-human bond gave to Israel its most distinctive religious belief. . . . Outside the Old Testament we have no clear evidence of a treaty between a god and his people” (83).

Notes to Pages 48–49  |  359 80. To the contrary, see J. A. Davies, A Royal Priesthood? Literary and Intertextual Perspectives on an Image of Israel in Exodus 19.6 (JSOTSup 395; London: T. & T. Clark, 2004), 170–88. Davies argues that the Sinaitic covenant is a grant of royal priesthood. But he defines a “grant” covenant so loosely that nearly any covenant would meet his criteria. 81. See N. Lohfink, Great Themes from the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1982) 128: “ ‘Yahweh’s family’ is the title that provokes God’s salvific action in history.” See also T. N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1976) 172: “This interpretation . . . explains why later ʿam YHWH often occurs together with a statement describing the relation between YHWH and Israel as that of father and son.” 82. McCarthy, Treaty, 2nd ed., 266. See A. Wildavsky, The Nursing Father: Moses as a Political Leader (Birmingham: University of Alabama Press, 1984) 91: “Covenants are constituent elements. . . . They answer both the question of identity—the Israelites are the children of YHWH—and that of action—follow His Commandments.” 83. McCarthy, “Israel, My First-Born Son,” The Way 5 (1965) 183–191, esp. 191. 84. J. L. McKenzie, “Divine Sonship of Israel and the Covenant,” CBQ 7 (1946) 330–31. McKenzie states further: “By the communication which sonship implies Israel receives something divine; they are . . . sons in His image and likeness. They are a priestly nation” (331). Chapter 3 THE TREATY-TYPE COVENANT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 1. So J. J. M. Roberts, “The Ancient Near Eastern Environment,” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters (ed. D. A. Knight; Philadelphia: Fortress/Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985) 93: “No area of the Near Eastern background of the Hebrew Bible has been more discussed in recent years than the international treaty.” For extensive bibliographies of primary texts and secondary literature, see D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (2nd ed.; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), 309–42; P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant (AnBib 88; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982) 214–35. For a recent and rather complete listing of primary texts, see J. H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989) 100. 2. The Hittite treaties were first studied by V. Korošec, Hethitische Staatsverträge (Leipzig: Weicher, 1931). Korošec’s study was the basis for G. E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh: Biblical Colloquium, 1955). See also F. Vattioni, “Recenti studi nell’ alleanza nella Bibbia e nell, Antico Oriente,” AION 17 (1967) 181–232; K. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971); J. A. Thompson, The Ancient Near Eastern Treaties and the Old Testament (London: Tyndale House, 1964); D. R. Hillers, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969). 3. See, e.g., W. Beyerlin, Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965); M. L. Newman, The People of the Covenant (New York: Abingdon, 1962). 4. See, e.g., M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 (New York: Doubleday, 1991); idem, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972) 59–157; P. Buis, “Deutéronome XXVII 15–26: malédictions ou exigences de l’alliance?,” VT 17 (1967) 478–79; idem, “Les formulaires d’alliance,” VT 16 (1966) 396–411; Hillers, Covenant, 72–97; R. Frankena, “The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy,” OTS 14 (1965) 122–54; Baltzer, Covenant Formulary, 31–38;

360  |  Notes to Pages 49–50 M. G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963). 5. See, e.g., P. J. Calderone, Dynastic Oracle and Suzerainty Treaty (Manila: Loyola House of Studies, 1966); R. de Vaux, “The King of Israel, Vassal of Yahweh,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East (New York: Doubleday, 1971) 152–80. 6. See H. B. Huffmon, “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets,” JBL 68 (1959) 286– 95; J. Harvey, “Le ‘Rîb-Pattern,’ Réquisitoire prophétique sur la rupture de l’alliance,” Bib 43 (1962) 172–96; D. R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964); R. E. Clements, Prophecy and Covenant (London: SCM Press, 1965); J. Harvey, Le plaidoyer prophétique contre Israël après la rupture de l’alliance (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1967); J. S. Holladay, “Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel,” HTR 63 (1970) 29–52; M. O’Rourke Boyle, “The Covenant Lawsuit of the Prophet Amos: III 1–IV 13,” VT 21 (1971) 338–62; K. J. Cathcart, “Treaty Curses and the Book of Nahum,” CBQ 35 (1973) 179–87; G. W. Ramsey, “Speech-Forms in Hebrew Law and Prophetic Oracles,” JBL 96 (1977) 45–58. 7. See E. Kutsch, Verheissung und Gesetz (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1973) 153– 67; L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969) 167–81; E. W. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986) 56–82; E. Gerstenberger, Wesen und Herkunft des “Apodiktischen Rechts” (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965) 99–109; H. J. Kraus, Worship in Israel (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1966) 136– 40; C. F. Whitely, “Covenant and Commandment in Israel,” JNES 22 (1963) 37–43; F. Nötscher, “Bundesformular und ‘Amtsschimmel,’ ” BZ 9 (1965) 181–214. 8. See D. J. McCarthy, “Covenant ‘Good’ and an Egyptian Text,” BASOR 245 (1982) 63–64; Kalluveettil, Declaration, 17–57; D. C. T. Sheriffs, “The Phrases ina IGI DN and lipeney Yhweh in Treaty and Covenant Contexts,” JNSL 7 (1979) 55–68; R. Polzin, “HWQY’ and Covenantal Institutions in Early Israel,” HTR 62 (1969) 226–40; H. B. Huffmon, “Treaty Background of Hebrew yadaʿ, ” BASOR 181 (1966) 31–37; D. Hillers, “A Note on Some Treaty Terminology in the OT,” BASOR 176 (1964) 46–47; W. Moran, “Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 (1963) 77–87. McCarthy (Treaty and Covenant, 1st ed., 80) states: “There is a fundamental unity in the treaties. And this unity goes back beyond the Hittite examples into the third millennium.” See also P. Karavites, Promise-Giving and Treaty-Making: Homer and the Near East (Leiden: Brill, 1992). 9. See D. J. Wiseman, “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon,” Iraq 20 (1958) 28: “In all types of treaties the conclusion of the agreement is marked by oath-taking ceremonies and sacrifices.” See also M. Weinfeld, “The Loyalty Oath in the Ancient Near East,” UF 8 (1976) 379–414. 10. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 2nd ed., 118–19. While every vassal treaty required a loyalty oath, not every loyalty oath was meant to constitute a vassal treaty. 11. McCarthy, “Twenty-five Years of Pentateuchal Study,” 47. Idem, “Covenant­Relationships,” in Questions disputées d’Ancien Testament (ed. C. Brekelmans; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1974) 91–103. See N. Lohfink (Die Landesverheissung als Eid [Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967] 101–13) who closely identifies covenant with oath. See also McCarthy, “Covenant and Kingship: Stimuli for Hebrew Covenant Thinking,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon (ed. T. Ishida; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982) 83 n. 27: “[T]he ancient treaty/covenant was a genre unto itself externally like a ‘decree (grant)’ plus a ‘loyalty oath,’ but separate decrees or oaths are different genres from this, not to be called covenants.” Thus, while an oath

Notes to Page 50  |  361 may be sworn without a covenant being made, a covenant cannot be made apart from oath-swearing. 12. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AYB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press) 300. G. M. Tucker (“Covenant Forms and Contract Forms,” VT 15 [1965] 489) comments: “The parallel between covenant and oath is widespread throughout the OT, and is by no means confined to one type of covenant or one period in Israel’s history or one type of literature.” He adds: “The extra-biblical material and the biblical evidence for the name of the covenant form speak with one voice: ­Covenants—both those among human partners and those between God and man—are also called oaths” (490). Tucker concludes: “The fundamental differences between contracts and covenants now can be seen. The formal distinctions between these categories stem from the fact that the covenant formula was based on the oath pattern and the contract was not. . . . The difference is that the oath was essential to the covenant and the oath form was the heart of the covenant form” (500–501). 13. O. P. Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980) 7. See also G. P. Hugenberger (Marriage as Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi [VTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1994] 183) citing P. J. Naylor (“The Language of Covenant: A Structural Analysis of the Semantic Field of ‫ ְבִרית‬in Biblical Hebrew” [D.Phil. diss., Oxford University, 1980] 380–95), who demonstrates the “remarkable semantic proximity of ‫ׇאׇלה‬, ‘curse,’ to ‫ ְבִּרית‬in terms of collocation, idiomatic overlap, functional commutativity, and syntagmatic intersection.” Naylor also cites other passages where covenant and oath are used interchangeably (Deut 7:12; 8:18; Josh 9:15–20; 29:14; Judg 2:1; 1 Chr 15:12–15; Ezek 16:59; Hos 10:4; Wis 10:22; 12:21; 18:22; Sir 44:20–21; [see Luke 1:72–73]). On the distinction between sacred and profane oaths, see F. C. Fensham, “Oath,” ISBE, 2nd ed., 2:572–74. In any case, the generic definition given in Heb 6:16 fits: “Men indeed swear by a greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation.” 14. For a helpful discussion on this topic, see Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, 193–205. See also D. L. Magnetti, “The Oath in the Old Testament in the Light of Related Terms and in the Legal and Covenantal Context of the Ancient Near East,” (Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1969); A. Viberg, Symbols of Law: A Contextual Analysis of Legal Symbolic Acts in the Old Testament (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1992); M. G. Kline, By Oath Consigned (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968); M. R. Lehmann, “Biblical Oaths,” ZAW 81 (1969) 74–91; J. Pedersen, Der Eid bei den Semiten (Strass­ burg: Karl J. Trübner, 1914); Tucker, “Covenant Forms and Contract Forms,” 487–503; H. S. Gehman, “The Oath in the Old Testament,” in Grace upon Grace (ed. J. I. Cook; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 51–63; S. Blank, “The Curse, Blasphemy, the Spell, and the Oath,” HUCA 23 (1950–51) 73–95. On oaths in the ancient Near East, see H. Tadmor, “Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East,” in Humanizing America’s Iconic Book (ed. G. M. Tucker and D. A. Knight; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982) 127–52; I. M. Price, “The Oath in Court Procedure in Early Babylonia and the Old Testament,” JAOS 49 (1929) 22–29. On oaths in history, see H. C. Lea, The Duel and the Oath (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974 [reprint of 1866 ed.]); E. J. Moriarty, Oaths in Ecclesiastical Courts (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1937). For contemporary perspectives, see G. Hughes, Swearing: A Social History of Foul Language, Oaths, and Profanity in English (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1991); and “Report of the Catholic Theological Society of America Committee on the Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity,” (Washington, DC: CTSA, 1990) 7–45. On

362  |  Notes to Pages 51–52 divine oaths, see J. Ha, Genesis 15: A Theological Compendium of Pentateuchal History (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1989); P. Wegner, “The Nature of Divine Oaths in the Old Testament” (Th.M. thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1984). Given the importance of oaths to covenants, it is surprising that The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (6 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press) gives no entry for “oath,” “swear,” “vow,” “witness,” or “sacrament” (Latin sacramentum = oath). Moreover, those who do deal with the relationship between oaths and covenants tend to treat oaths as mere superstition. See, e.g., V. Eller, The Promise: Ethics in the Kingdom of God (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970) 184–85: “What sort of theology lies behind the use of oath? Medieval superstition, that’s what . . . Oathswearing represents man’s baldest sort of attempt to make God into a bottled genie used to serve his own petty purposes.” For L. Oppenheim (Ancient Mesopotamia [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964] 285), oaths are “primitive and ritualistic practices.” Blank (“Curse, Blasphemy, Spell, and Oath,” 87) speaks of oath-swearing and how its “fear-­evoking fantasy explains its efficacy.” See also Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel, 26: “At the present time, the oath is merely an ‘ancient ruin still standing.’ ” 15. For a careful treatment of oath elements, see H. Silving, “The Oath,” Yale Law Journal 68 (1959) 1329–90, 1527–77. For some key distinctions, see Wegner, “Nature of Divine Oaths,” 4 n. 13: “There is a distinction between a vow and an oath, in that a vow is a promise or pledge made by man to God, where man is held responsible to fulfill it (Gen 28:20–22; Judg 11:30–31). Whereas, an oath is a promise or pledge made to God in which God is asked to enter into and oversee the agreement (Gen. 14:22–23; 31:53).” Other distinctions differentiate an oath from a promise (i.e., promises do not invoke the deity), or a contract (i.e., contracts do not include oaths). There are also numerous distinctions among various forms of oath: promissory, asseverative, suppletory, purgative, probative, etc. For a summary description of key distinctions, see Z. P. Thundyil, Covenant in Anglo-Saxon Thought: The Influence of the Bible, Church Fathers, and Germanic Tradition on Anglo-Saxon Laws, History, and the Poems ‘The Battle of Maldon’ and ‘Guthlac’ (Calcutta: Macmillan of India, 1972) 12–15. See also the excursus on Oaths, Vows, and Dedications by J. Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990) 488–90. 16. T. Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992) 14–16. 17. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, 193. For an example in the Old Testament, see Gen 31:50: “If you ill-treat my daughters, or if you take wives besides my daughters, although no man is with us, remember, God is witness between you and me.” 18. See C. A. Keller, “‫ אלה‬ʾala Verfluchtung,” THAT, 1:149–52; idem, “‫ שבע‬schwören,” THAT, 2: 855–63. 19. From šebaʿ (“seven”), a sacred number among the Semites. See Lehmann, “Biblical Oaths,” 80; M. Greenberg, “Oath,” Enc Jud, 12:1246; Wegner, “Nature of Divine Oaths,” 112–14; J. Hehn, Siebenzahl und Sabbat bei den babyloniern und im alten Testament (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1907) 85–86; Pedersen, Der Eid bei den Semiten, 4–6. 20. C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987) 283. 21. Wegner, “Nature of Divine Oaths,” 84–85. See also Hughes, Swearing, 6: “Corroborating this point [i.e., that the oath is a conditional self-curse] are the great numbers of ‘self-immolating’ oaths and curses, such as ‘Strike me dead!’ ‘Blow me down!’ ” 22. See H. C. White, “The Divine Oath in Genesis,” JBL 92 (1973) 177: “The oath formula was uttered, usually accompanied by a symbolic gesture, in order to summon

Notes to Pages 52–53  |  363 the presence of the deity to witness and guarantee the oath and to empower the oath giver.” This is echoed in certain oath formulas (e.g., “So help me, God!”). 23. See Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, 196: “Oaths and oath-signs may invoke the deity to witness an attendant declaration or promise without employing an explicit self-malediction. . . . They may only implicitly invoke the deity by a solemn declaration or depiction of a commitment being undertaken.” 24. See Hugenberger (Marriage as a Covenant, 196) who notes, “The obscurity and variety of the various gestures and acts attested in the Old Testament in connection with oaths or covenant-making, including the lifting of the hand, placing hands under another’s thigh, the exchange of gifts, the exchange of clothes, shaking hands, eating common meals, the use of salt, oil, etc.” Viberg (Symbols of Law, 19–176) describes various oath-gestures: raising the hand, shaking the hand, putting the hand under the thigh, walking through divided animals, sharing a meal, piercing the ear of a slave, anointing the head with oil, grasping the horns of the altar, transferring the mantle, covering a woman with the mantle, removing the sandal, putting a child on the knees. 25. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, 203 (citing Gen 14:22; Dan 12:7; Exod 6:8; Num 14:30; Deut 32:40; Ezek 20:5, 6, 15, 23, 28, 42; 36:7; 44:12; 47:14; Neh 9:15; Ps 106:26). Certain symbolic acts such as sharing meals or drinking from cups may thus conceal a self-maledictory sense along with their benedictory meanings. Hugenberger notes: “Numerous texts within the Old Testament and elsewhere in the ancient Near East depict God’s judgment . . . in terms of having one’s flesh devoured or one’s blood drunk, etc.” (ibid., 209). See, e.g., Ezek 39:17–20; Jer 12:9; 19:7; 34:20. 26. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, 209. Other scriptural examples can be cited (Num 26:10; Deut 11:6; Ps 69:15; Mark 10:38; 1 Cor 11:27–30). K. van der Toorn (Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia: A Comparative Study [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985]) cites two common forms of covenant oath-ordeals in the ancient world, the “water/oil ordeal” and the asakku: “The oath taker was given some sacred substance to eat, which would prove fatal in case of perjury. . . . In case of hypocrisy the bread would turn into a dangerous asakku” (46). He continues: “Paul’s interpretation of the Lord’s Supper seems to be indebted to these conceptions, when he says that ‘any one who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment upon himself,’ a judgment consisting in weakness, illness, and possibly death” (51). See also idem, “Ordeal Procedures in the Psalms and the Passover Meal,” VT 38 (1988) 427–45; and W. McKane, “Poison, Trial by Ordeal, and the Cup of Wrath,” VT 30 (1980) 474–92. 27. Lehmann (“Biblical Oaths,” 75–76) comments: “The legally binding curse was . . . not a mere oral pronouncement. It was trapped in a symbolic act. . . . They were . . . chosen to emphasize more forcefully and dramatically the significance of the curses to which the party or parties involved were subjected. It reflects the symbolladen language used in manifold phases of life in the ancient Near East.” Weinfeld (“Loyalty Oath,” 400) shows how the curses were dramatized: “Thus, for example, in the oath of the Hittite soldiers wax is melted to illustrate the melting of an infringer of the treaty . . . barley is ground while threats are made that this is how the treatybreaker’s bones are to be ground . . . a blind and a deaf man are brought and threats are made that this will be the fate of the infringer, and so on.” After citing other examples, Weinfeld adds: “In the covenant ceremonies involving sacrifices, the blood has a special function in Israel, Greece, and Arabia. Thus we find in Ex 24 that in the course of the covenant ritual, sacrificial blood is sprinkled on the people entering the covenant and the blood is called dm hbryt ‘blood of the covenant’ (v. 8, Zech 9:11). A like phenomenon

364  |  Notes to Pages 53–55 is found in Aeschylus (Seven Against Thebes). Here, the warring princes obligate themselves by oath to destroy Thebes: they slaughter a bull and collect its blood and swear” (401). See also J. G. Gager, Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). 28. For this reason, oaths were especially appropriate for use in ordeal situations, where people faced what Walton calls “covenant jeopardy.” On this, see J. H. Walton, Covenant: God’s Purpose, God’s Plan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994) 94–107. For an example in the OT, see Num 5:11–31: “Then let the priest make her take the oath of the curse” (v. 21). For more on this important (but often neglected) subject, see K. van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985) 40–55. He defines an ordeal as “a sovereign test of the veracity of the person under oath.” See also M. G. Kline, “Trial By Ordeal,” in Through Christ’s Word (ed. W. R. Godfrey and J. L. Boyd; Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1985) 81–93; idem, “Oath and Ordeal Signs,” WTJ 27 (1965) 115–39; T. S. Frymer-Kensky, “The Judicial Ordeal in the Ancient Near East,” (Ph.D. diss.; Yale University, 1977); F. C. Fensham, “Ordeal by Battle in the Ancient Near East and in the Old Testament,” in Studi in onore di Eduardo Volterra (Milan: University of Rome Faculty of Jurisprudence, 1971) 127–35; idem, “The Battle Between the Men of Joab and Abner as a Possible Ordeal by Battle,” VT 20 (1970) 356–57; idem, “Belt-Wrestling in the Bible World,” HUCA 23 (1950–51) 131–36; R. Press, “Das Ordal im alten Israel,” ZAW 51 (1933) 121–40, 227–55. 29. Note the case of Achan (Josh 7:22–26) and Saul (2 Sam 21:1–12; cf. Josh 9:3–17). See also Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 368: “The penalty for swearing falsely is nowhere stipulated in biblical law. . . . Some tannaitic texts mandate that God will even execute the family of the oath violator, for example, ‘For the transgression of all of the other commandments in the Torah he alone will be punished, but for this (transgression, i.e., a false oath) he and his family,’ t. Sotah 7:2 (= b. Šebu. 38b [bar.]).” 30. J. A. Wilson, “The Oath in Ancient Egypt,” JNES 7 (1948) 155. 31. McCarthy, Treaty, 2nd ed., 139. 32. F. C. Fensham, “The Treaty Between Israel and the Gibeonites,” BA 27 [1964] 96–100, esp. 98–99. Wegner (“Nature of Divine Oaths,” 105 n. 49) notes: “While a curse could not be negated, one possible antidote was to state a blessing which could annul the effects of the curse (e.g., Num 22:17–19; 23:1; 24:25; Judg 17:2; see also ‘The Epic of Gilgamesh,’ ANET tablet vii, cols. 3–4, p. 86). This may be why Saul included a blessing capable of reversing the effects of the curse (v. 24) involving Jonathan in 1 Sam 14:44–45.” This principle of “curse-reversal by blessing” will prove useful for explaining how Christ’s death simultaneously fulfills the curses of the (violated) Old Covenant and the divinely sworn blessings of the New Covenant, as will be argued in Part Two of this study. 33. W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (Vol. 2; trans. J. A. Baker; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967) 69. 34. This is especially true in cases where God swears a covenant-ratifying oath to perform some duty, as in Gen 22:16–18. There he swears to bless the world through Abraham’s seed. 35. Lehmann, “Biblical Oaths,” 80. 36. D. J. McCarthy, “Further Notes on the Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice,” JBL 92 (1973) 207. 37. McCarthy, “Further Notes,” 208. 38. See Thundyil, Covenant in Anglo-Saxon Thought, 198.

Notes to Pages 55–56  |  365 39. See D. J. McCarthy, “Covenant and Law in Chronicles-Nehemiah,” CBQ 44 (1982) 37: “Finally, it is an oath which guarantees renewal of covenant . . . [where] the sacrifices associated with covenant-renewal are the basic element.” 40. M. H. Pope, “Oath,” IDB, 3:575–76. He adds: “The legal procedure . . . was closely associated with the shrines and the priesthood, because the oath as a holy act was properly pronounced in a sacred place or administered by a holy person in contact or connection with holy objects” (576). See also Thundyil, Covenant in Anglo-Saxon Thought, 199: “Oaths were often accompanied by sacrifices and holocausts which were covenant rituals.” 41. See F. C. N. Hicks, The Fullness of Sacrifice (London, SPCK, 1953) 79: “The meaning of [Jer] xxxiv. 13ff. is clear. . . . Zedekiah’s special covenant for the release of the Hebrew servants is a particular application, and renewal, of Deuteronomy. . . . And the heinousness . . . of the breach of Zedekiah’s covenant is aggravated by the fact that it was made in the usual way by the covenant sacrifice (xxxiv. 18).” 42. The importance of sacrifice in covenant-making will be seen in Part Two of this study. There it will be argued that diathēkē in Gal 3:15–17 and Heb 9:16–17 refers to the self-maledictory symbolism of a covenant oath: God’s oath to Abraham (Gen 22) in Gal 3; Israel’s to God (Exod 24) in Heb 9. 43. See Weinfeld, “The Loyalty Oath,” 389: “Similar provisions . . . are found in various decrees of the Athenian league and in the old amphyctionic oaths.” Weinfeld also cites a speech by the fourth-century Greek orator, Andocides, “On the Mysteries,” in which he speaks of how “all the Athenians shall take an oath . . . over a sacrifice without blemish” (389). 44. Weinfeld, “Loyalty Oath,” 385: “Most surprising is the similarity between the clauses of a loyalty oath from the Roman period in which the vassals pledge to revere the Caesar more than themselves and their sons, and the similar clauses in the Hittite documents.” He adds: “It is difficult to contend that such a full overlapping with the Near Eastern loyalty oaths is purely coincidental, and it is our opinion that the oath of loyalty to the Roman Emperor has its roots in an ancient Near Eastern tradition” (385). 45. Weinfeld, “Loyalty Oath,” 379. This outlook is evident outside of the Jewish liturgy, as Weinfeld notes: “This phenomenon elucidates well Philo’s conception of Israel’s entry into the covenant. The entrance into the covenant in Dt 29:11–14 is understood by Philo to be like an initiation into a mystery-sect” (406). Weinfeld then notes the common outlook on the sacramental significance of oath-swearing in various parts of the ancient Near East, including the mystery religions of the Hellenic-Roman period: “The new initiate’s oath was considered a sacramentum and was like a soldier’s oath of loyalty to his commanding officer, the members of the mystery sect being called militia” (406). 46. Pliny, Letter 10.96.7: “Affirmabant autem hanc fuisse summam vel culpae suae vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem seque sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere.” (They also affirmed that the sum total of their guilt or error was this: that they would meet together before dawn on a certain day of the week, and sing a hymn to Christ as a god, and bind themselves by an oath, not for any wicked purpose [my emphasis].) 47. G. E. Mendenhall and G. A. Herion, “Covenant,” AYBD, 1:1198. They add: “Latin sacramentum at the time of the early Church referred to a soldier’s oath of loyalty to the Roman emperor. . . . This brings us back to the late developments in ANE thought

366  |  Notes to Page 57 when covenants had come to be regarded primarily as ‘loyalty oaths.’ No doubt this formal similarity between Iron Age Near Eastern, Roman imperial, and early Christian concepts of ‘covenant’ facilitated the communication of early Christianity in the non-Palestinian environment of Mediterranean civilization. . . . Bread and wine appear in ancient Mari in connection with the resolution of enmity and the restoration of personal relationships, and they were associated with the internalization of a vassal’s obligations in the Assyrian loyalty oaths: ‘Just as bread and wine enter the intestines, so may the [gods] let this oath enter your intestines’ [ANET, 539]” (ibid.). They conclude: “[T]he identification of the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ (‘this is my body/blood’) in turn made possible the identification of the disciples . . . with the sacrificial victim (cf. Gal. 2:20)” (ibid.). See also G. Herion, “Sacrament as ‘Covenantal Remembrance,’ ” in Church Divinity 1982 (ed. J. H. Morgan; Bristol, IN: Graduate Theological Foundation, 1982) 107: “When one takes into account the fact that covenant oaths may be a symbolic gesture or actions instead of a spoken verbal formula, it becomes apparent that the oath is the actual non-discursive act of eating bread and drinking wine. . . . It is here suggested that the symbolic ingesting of the body and blood of Christ is a pledge to embody Christ, to let Christ’s body and blood commingle with that of the participant.” 48. Mendenhall and Herion, “Covenant,” 1198. 49. Kline, By Oath Consigned, 81. 50. D. N. Freedman, “Divine Commitment and Human Obligation,” Int 18 (1964) 420. 51. Wegner, “Nature of Divine Oaths,” 80. He also notes: “It is interesting that when deities swore oaths, they did so by gods greater than themselves (i.e., the highest god[s]). For example, Enki swears by Anu, the leading deity of the pantheon; Asushunamir urges Ereshkigal to swear by the ‘great gods’; and Marduk requests the other gods to swear by himself” (80). See also B. Weiss, “Covenant and Law in Islam,” in Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives (eds. E. B. Firmage, B. G. Weiss, and J. W. Welch; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 72–73, who rejects the possibility of divine oath-swearing (from an Islamic perspective): “However, the divine covenant cannot be described as swearing, for God by definition cannot swear to anything. Swearing is an act of binding one’s self to something, of placing one’s self under a limit; that is why one swears by something (someone) other than one’s self. But God cannot . . . be bound or limited by anything, and by the same token he cannot swear to anything. Thus divine covenanting may be distinguished from human covenanting by virtue of its not constituting or involving an oath.” This view, however, stands in marked contrast to the biblical testimony to God swearing covenant oaths on several occasions (e.g., Gen 22 and Num 14). 52. Wegner, “Nature of Divine Oaths,” 129. When Wegner refers to Gen 22:16–18 as the “first occurrence” of a divine oath, he means that it is the first passage in scripture where God is explicitly said “to swear” (nišbaʿ).There are earlier instances where divine oaths can be inferred (see Gen 9:9–17; 15:7–21). 53. APOT, 1:48–49. In the Enoch tradition, all of the historical covenants serve to renew the primary covenantal relationship. On this, see L. Hartmann, Asking for a Meaning: A Study of 1 Enoch 1–5 (Lund: Gleerup, 1979) 110. R. Murray (The Cosmic Covenant, xxii–xxiii, 2–13) tries to demonstrate that this divine oath refers to the “cosmic covenant” that God made at the end of the creation “week,” based on the lexical overlap between the Hebrew terms for “week” and “oath.” N-E. A. Andreasen (The Old Testament Sabbath: A Tradition-Historical Investigation [Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972] 9) views favorably the “classical etymology” of Lactantius and

Notes to Pages 57–59  |  367 Theophilus of Antioch, who derive “sabbath” (šabbat) from “seven” (šebaʿ). R. North (“The Derivation of Sabbath,” Bib 36 (1955) 182–201) defends the view from the Akkadian derivation of “sabbath.” See also R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961) 2:481: “Creation is the first action in the history of salvation; once it was over, God stopped work, and he was then able to make a covenant with his creature. . . . The ‘sign’ of the Covenant made at the dawn of creation is the observance of the sabbath by man (cf. Ez 20:12, 20).” This view is echoed in Sifre Deut. 330: “When the Holy One, blessed be He, created, He did not create except by a maʾamar, nor did He create except by an oath . . .” 54. APOT, 2:124. Jubilees 6:17ff. suggests that the Feast of Weeks (i.e., Shabuot) is related to the divine oaths sworn to Noah (in Gen 9) and Abraham (in Gen 15). On this, see also J. C. Endres, Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees (Washington, DC: CBA, 1987) 208: “The feast of Shabuot (Weeks/Oaths) takes pride of place as the major Jewish festival throughout this book; its connection with covenant-making and the renewal of the covenant suggests the importance of the covenant as model for the relationship between God and Israel.” See also S. Zeitlin, The Book of Jubilees: Its Character and Significance (Philadelphia: Dropsie College Press, 1939) 6: “I venture to say that even the name Shabuot in the Book of Jubilees has not the connotation of weeks but means ‘oaths.’ ” In his critical translation, O. S. Wintermute notes: “The MT vocalizes the absolute form of the word for ‘weeks’ as sabuʿot and the word for ‘oaths’ as sebuʿot, but ‘weeks’ also appears as sebuʿot in the construct. We have chosen the less precise spelling to reflect the ambiguity of an unpointed text.” (APOT, 2:67 n. f). 55. See C. T. R. Hayward (Divine Name and Presence: The Memra [Totowa, NJ: Allanheld Osmun, 1981] 94), who argues that Neofiti “is potentially as old as the second century B.C.” 56. Hayward, Divine Name, 107. He adds: “The divine Memra becomes the basis for God’s saving deeds on Israel’s behalf just as it serves as the foundation for Israel’s response in cultic worship” (107). 57. Hayward, Divine Name, 71–98. 58. The divine oath sworn at the Aqedah will be treated extensively in Chapter 5. 59. Hayward, Divine Name, 57. Hayward also shows how this Targumic perspective reflects a profound correlation of (divine) covenant, oath, and sacrifice. The correlation of covenant, oath, and sacrifice will constitute a major premise in Part Two of this study for interpreting diathēkē as a “covenant oath” in Gal 3:15–17 and Heb 9:16–17. 60. See E. Gerstenberger, “Covenant and Commandment,” JBL 84 (1965) 39–40: “What, then, was the nature of a treaty relationship? Although the vocabulary describing a master-slave affiliation is not absent from some documents, a total subjugation of one party to the other could hardly be the goal of any of these agreements sealed by mutual oaths. A sworn covenant rather expressed one of many possible shades and grades of mutual dependence and obligation between the partners. Little wonder that the treaty relationship frequently was couched in kinship terms.” J. Priest (“Covenant of Brothers,” JBL 84 [1965] 406) also highlighted the use of fraternal language in parity treaties: “Researches into the nature of covenants in the ancient Near East demonstrate conclusively that ‘brotherhood’ was an integral element in treaties between groups and nations which had no ties of kinship.” See also M. J. Buss, “The Covenant Theme in Historical Perspective,” VT 16 (1966) 503–4: “A covenant . . . is a basic sociological notion in a condition which no longer operates simply on the basis of kinship (Nature as it were), but which finds means to extend the relationship of ‘brotherhood’ to voluntarily contracted orders supported by oaths.”

368  |  Notes to Pages 59–61 61. Calderone, Dynastic Oracle, 55. He adds: “More instances of the father-son relationship between suzerain and vassal, along with demands for obedience, can be found in the Mari correspondence of several centuries earlier” (57). 62. See G. Buccellati, Cities and Nations of Ancient Syria: An Essay on Political Institutions with Special Reference to the Israelite Kingdoms (Rome: Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente, 1967) 99–100. 63. M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970) 194. Weinfeld further notes how kinship terms were used to denote different degrees of relations between states (suzerainty = fatherhood; vassalship = sonship; parity = brotherhood). Basic concerns of a treaty are thus illuminated once the function of certain kinship terms are recognized (e.g., “house” = dynasty; “firstborn” = heir-apparent; “brother” = ally; “son” = prince; “land” = realm). Outside biblical scholarship, a similar usage of kinship terms has been detected by J. MunnRankin, “Diplomacy in Western Asia in the Early Second Millennium B. C.,” Iraq 18 (1956) 68. 64. F. C. Fensham, “Father and Son as Terminology for Treaty and Covenant,” in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (ed. H. Goedicke; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971) 125. Fensham also notes the similar but distinct “family roles” of sons and servants in treaties: “We may suppose that the terms ‘son’ and ‘slave’ can be synonymous, but that in certain cases a ‘slave’ in vassalage of a more relentless type, would not have called himself the ‘son’ of the overlord” (125). See also Kalluveettil, Declaration, 99: “[T]he inferior party declared his vassalage in filial terms.” Similar usage in old Assyrian and Ugaritic sources is confirmed by H. Lewy, “Anatolia in the Old Assyrian Period,” in Cambridge Ancient History (3rd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971) 1:715–16; and Ugaritica (ed. J. Nougayrol; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1968) 5:78–89. 65. D. J. McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions (Richmond: John Knox, 1972) 66. 66. McCarthy, Treaty, 2nd ed., 35. See T. Frymer-Kensky, “Patriarchal Family Relationships and Near Eastern Law,” BA 44 (1981) 214, who explains: “[I]n the Near Eastern milieu the term ‘firstborn,’ like the terms ‘son,’ ‘father,’ ‘brother,’ and ‘sister,’ is essentially a description of a juridical relationship which may be entered into by contract as well as by birth.” 67. See J. L. McKenzie, A Theology of the Old Testament (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974) 84; to the contrary, see Nicholson, God and His People, 78–79. 68. Two points should be kept in mind in this section: (1) Biblical narratives of ­covenant-making episodes are not explicit or formal treaty texts; and (2) The formal treaty pattern is derived from extrabiblical treaty documents. Therefore, the identification and analysis of biblical treaty-type covenants in this study will often be inferential, building evidence cumulatively. 69. Kalluveettil, Declaration, 122. Kalluveettil cites major parallels with the message of Niqmadua and the treaty between Shuppiluliumash of Hatti and Tette of Nikhash: “See the following common elements: (a) situation: invasion of enemy; (b) method: approach a superior party for help; (1) declaration of political subservience; (2) request for military aid; (c) result: the enemy is repelled.” (ibid., 123 n. 39). 70. Compare this with David’s message to Nabal, where he addresses himself as Nabal’s “son” (1 Sam 25:8); and Ps 116:16: “O Lord, I am thy servant; I am thy servant, the son of thy handmaid.” Kalluveettil (Declaration, 130 nn. 63, 66) cites several treaty parallels.

Notes to Pages 61–62  |  369 71. Kalluveettil, Declaration, 134. 72. This “mercy” probably represents the recognition of a consistent strategy in ­Israel’s foreign policy. See S. J. DeVries, “A Reply to G. Gerlemann on Malkê Hesed in 1 Kings XX 31,” VT 29 (1979) 359–62, who translates malkê ḥesed to read “kings who honor treaties.” See also M. F. Unger, Israel and the Aramaeans of Damascus (London: James Clarke, 1957) 66–67: “Ahab’s lenient treatment of Benhadad shows that even in the hour of triumph over an inveterate enemy, and in the face of intense prophetic opposition, he did not abandon the essential principles of his consistent foreign policy. . . . He realized . . . that in prospect of the perilous Assyrian menace, merciful conduct toward a fellow monarch whose realm lay as a buffer state between himself and the rising danger, offered the possibility of a far-reaching coalition to stem a common threat.” 73. Kalluveettil, Declaration, 203. 74. See Kalluveettil, Declaration, 204: “A diplomatic approach is sagacious as well as expedient: to make an ally of an arch-foe by concluding a pact with him. . . . A vassal pact would not win him an effective aid to counteract the Assyrian menace. Aram will never be a loyal vassal and will utilize its first chance to shake off the nominal subjection to Israel. Rather, a parity pact, which will not hurt the pride of Aram, would serve the purpose of Ahab well. And the Israelite king did choose this path. He declared Benhadad as his brother and received him as his equal and friend. . . .” Ahab’s prudent response was dictated by Israel’s past dealings with Aram (see 1 Kgs 15:16–21), just as it was confirmed by Benhadad’s decisive leadership of an allied coalition that included Israel in an encounter with the Assyrian army at Qarqar in 853 bce. 75. See further, Kalluveettil, Declaration, 205 n. 35: “Brotherhood pact is intended to create a friendship. Amity and fraternity in parity covenants are interchangeable terms.” Note the comparable scene with Jacob and Esau (Gen 32:1–21; 33:1–9), where Jacob presents himself as “your servant” (ʿebed, 32:4, 18, 20; 33:5) but Esau receives him as “my brother” (ʾāḥî, 33:9). 76. W. L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 (1963) 82. For a similar conclusion in an earlier study, see J. Muilenburg, “The Form and Structure of the Covenantal Formulations,” VT 9 (1959) 350. See also M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11; idem, “The Emergence of the Deuteronomic Movement,” in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (ed. N. Lohfink; Louvain: Louvain University Press, 1985) 76–98; idem, “On ‘Demythologization and Secularization’ in Deuteronomy,” IEJ 23 (1973) 230–33; idem, Deuteronomy; idem, “Deuteronomy: The Present State of Inquiry,” JBL 86 (1969) 249–62; C. J. Labuschagne, “Divine Speech in Deuteronomy,” ibid., 111–26; D. L. Christensen, “Form and Structure in Deuteronomy 1–11,” ibid., 135–44; C. Brekelmans, “Deuteronomy 5: Its Place and Function,” ibid., 164–73; A. Rofé, “The Covenant in the Land of Moab (Dt 28,69–30,20): Historico-Literary, Comparative, and Form Critical Considerations,” ibid., 310–20; G. D. Collier, “The Problem of Deuteronomy: In Search of a Perspective,” RQ 26 (1983) 215–33; E. Nielsen, “Moses and the Law,” VT 32 (1982) 87–98; A. D. H. Mayes, “Deuteronomy: Law of Moses or Law of God?,” PIBA 5 (1981) 36–54; idem, “Deuteronomy 5 and the Decalogue,” PIBA 4 (1980) 68–83; R. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist (New York: Seabury, 1980); S. A. Kaufman, “The Structure of the Deuteronomic Law,” MAARAV 1 (1978–1979) 105–58; N. Lohfink, “Gott im Buch Deuteronomium,” in La Notion biblique de Dieu (ed. J. Coppens; Louvain: Louvain University Press, 1976) 101–26; S. J. de Vries, “Deuteronomy: Exemplar of a Non-Sacerdotal Appropriation of Sacred History,” in Grace upon Grace (ed. J. Cook;

370  |  Notes to Page 62 Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 95–105; idem, “The Development of the Deuteronomic Promulgation Formula,” Bib 55 (1974) 301–26; V. H. Kooy, “The Fear and Love of God in Deuteronomy,” ibid., 106–16; E. Bellefontaine, “The Curses of Deuteronomy 27,” in No Famine in the Land (ed. J. W. Flanagan and A. W. Robinson; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975) 49–61. 77. See, e.g., P. C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976) 18–24. Craigie’s outline is based on the treaty pattern: “1. Preamble (1:1–5); “These are the words which Moses addressed to all Israel . . .” 2. Historical Prologue (1:6–4:49). 3. General Stipulations (chs. 5–11). 4. Specific Stipulations (chs. 12–26). 5. Blessings and Curses (chs. 27–28). 6. Witnesses (see 30:19; 31:19; 32:1–43)” (24). 78. I.e., Deut 5–26, 28, or diverse subsections including 1:1–4:40 and 28:69–30:20. On this, see Baltzer, Covenant Formulary, 41–45). See also Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 4–9. 79. Kline, Treaty, 28. Kline (27–44) offers the following five-part outline for the book of Deuteronomy: (1) Preamble, 1:1–5; (2) Historical Prologue, 1:6–4:49; (3) Stipulations, chs. 5–26; (4) Curses and Blessings or Covenant Ratification, chs. 27–30; (5) Succession Arrangements or Covenant Continuity, in which are included the invocation of witnesses and directions for the disposition and public reading of the treaty, chs. 31–34. Kline had suggested this outline three years earlier in his article, “Dynastic Covenant,” WTJ 23 (1960) 1–15. He reached his conclusions independently of Baltzer’s 1960 dissertation. Kline’s application of the treaty pattern to the book of Deuteronomy is more comprehensive than that of Baltzer (Covenant Formulary, 31–38). 80. See McCarthy, Treaty, 1st ed., 157–87. McCarthy advocates a Syrian and neoAssyrian treaty background, following Weinfeld, rather than Kline who sees an earlier Hittite pattern. Curiously, Mendenhall himself never applied the treaty pattern to Deuteronomy, arguing instead for treaty parallels in the Exodus account of the Sinai covenant. (In fact, he pits the two against each other.) In contrast, McCarthy forcefully argues that Mendenhall’s case for similar parallels in the Sinai covenant of Exod 19–24 cannot be sustained. McCarthy contends that there are important differences and insufficient parallels between the Exodus account of the Sinai covenant and the ancient treaty pattern. On this count, McCarthy’s position now represents a virtual consensus among scholars. The two accounts of covenant-making in Exod 19–24 and Deuteronomy are seen as different; the Sinai covenant corresponds to the kinship-type pattern, while the Deuteronomic covenant fits the treaty-type pattern. 81. McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant, 28. He also states that: “It has long been my contention that the parallel with the treaties is clearest in Deuteronomy” (72). Fifteen years after publishing his thesis, McCarthy (Treaty, 2nd ed., 187 n. 61) observed in the revised edition: “Since the first edition of this book in 1963 the fact that Dt uses the genre of the treaty covenant has been widely accepted.” He cites Frankena, Weinfeld, Barucq, Buis, Hillers, and others. See also Mayes, “Deuteronomy,” 41–51; and Nicholson, God and His People, 70–82. 82. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 9; see idem, “Covenant,” Encyclopedia Judaica, 5:1015: “This book . . . follows the classical pattern of treaties in the Ancient Near East. Unlike the Sinai covenant in Exodus which has no list of blessings and curses, Deuteronomy . . . has an elaborate series of blessings and curses and likewise provides for witnesses to the covenant, ‘heaven and earth’ (4:26; 30:19), which are missing altogether in the first four books of the Pentateuch. . . . As in the Hittite treaties, Deuteronomy commends the periodical recital of the Law before the public (31:9–13) and prescribes that the treaty be read before the king or by him (17:18–19). The historical

Notes to Pages 63–65  |  371 prologue in Deuteronomy (1–11) recalls to a great extent the historical prologue in Hittite state treaties. In this section the Hittite suzerain recounts the development of the relationship between him and the vassal, specifying, for example, the commitments and the promises of the overlord to the vassal’s ancestors. This theme is echoed in Deuteronomy’s recurring references to the promise made to the Patriarchs (4:37–38; 7:8; 9:5). The prologue also dwells on the insubordination of the vassal’s ancestors and its consequences, a feature expressed in the historical introduction of Deuteronomy which deals fully with the rebelliousness of the generation of the desert. The Hittite historical prologue frequently refers to the land given to the vassal by the suzerain and its boundaries, a theme fully elaborated in Deuteronomy (3:8ff.).” 83. Mayes, “Deuteronomy,” 37. For a compendium of shared terms, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 320–65. 84. Mayes, “Deuteronomy,” 39. 85. D. J. McCarthy, “Notes on the Love of God in Deuteronomy and the Father-Son Relationship Between Yahweh and Israel,” CBQ 27 (1965) 145, citing Moran, “Ancient Near Eastern Background,” 77–87. 86. McCarthy, “Notes on Love,” 146–47. 87. For a recent study of the concept of divine fatherhood in the ancient Near East and the Bible, see D. R. Tasker, Ancient Near Eastern Literature and the Hebrew Scriptures about the Fatherhood of God (Studies in Biblical Literature 69; New York: Peter Lang, 2004). 88. McCarthy, Treaty, 2nd ed., 295. 89. McCarthy, Treaty, 2nd ed., 160–61 n. 6. 90. Another significant difference between the covenants in Exod 19–24 and Deuteronomy is the absence of blessings and curses in the former and their central place in the latter, which is a distinctive feature of the treaty-type (but not the kinship-type) covenant. To anticipate later conclusions in this study: the Sinai kinship-type covenant seals Israel’s vocation as God’s firstborn immediately after the divine father delivered Israel, whereas the Deuteronomic treaty-type covenant shows God placing Israel on probation as a rebellious vassal-son for its repeated offenses against the Sinai covenant, beginning with the first generation’s sin with the Golden Calf and climaxing with the second generation’s worship of Baal-peor forty years later. 91. McCarthy, “Notes on Love,” 147. 92. See D. A. Smith, “Kinship and Covenant in Hosea 11:1–4,” HBT 16 (1994) 41–53; J. Day, “Pre-Deuteronomic Allusions to the Covenant in Hosea and Psalm LXXVIII,” VT 36 (1986) 1–12; D. R. Daniels, Hosea and Salvation History (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1990) 33–110. 93. Smith, “Kinship and Covenant in Hosea,” 42. He also notes: “It is true that both biblical covenants and Ancient Near Eastern treaties used the language of kinship to describe newly created relationships between two parties. We must not suppose, however, that biblical covenants borrowed their kinship language from the social world of the treaties. Both the language of biblical covenant and treaty language developed in a social environment in which kinship was the primary model for understanding all human interaction. It was natural . . . that international treaties, national (league) covenants, and individual covenants used kinship language to describe their content. . . . [T]he primary language that tribal societies used to express legal, political, and religious institutions was the language of kinship” (42). 94. See F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980) 577: “The sentiment expressed here is echoed in the Book of Deuteronomy and

372  |  Notes to Pages 66–67 often in the prophets.” Andersen and Freedman draw a connection with v. 2 and the Baal-peor incident, which is the narrative occasion for Deuteronomy: “Yahweh’s call brought them into covenant relationship. This other call took them away from Yahweh, so that they sacrificed to Baal images (v. 2b). . . . If v. 1 describes the Exodus, something soon after would suit v. 2, for example, the Baal-peor incident” (577–78). 95. Smith, “Kinship and Covenant in Hosea,” 44–45. 96. Smith, “Kinship and Covenant in Hosea,” 48. 97. See A. Reichert, “Israel, the Firstborn of God: A Topic of Early Deuteronomic Theology,” in Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies (ed. A. Shinar; Jerusalem: Academic Press, 1977). “With the concept of the father-son relationship in a more adoptional sense, Hosea so interprets the covenant event as to express the intimate, personal belonging of Israel to God, which can be expressed in another . . . ­ proto-deuteronomic text, Ex 19,5.6. in quite other terms, taken from a completely different sphere” (347–48). This covenant theme of paternal discipline from God for his firstborn son is echoed and expanded in later books. See, e.g., Psalms of Solomon: “For he will admonish the righteous as a beloved son and his discipline is as for a firstborn” (13:9). A similar understanding is found in parts of Isaiah (1:2–4; 30:1–9). See, e.g., R. E. Clements, Isaiah 1–39 (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1980) 30; J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33 (Waco, TX: Word, 1985) 395–96. 98. See B. Gerhardsson (The Testing of God’s Son [Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1966]), who studies the peculiarly Deuteronomic theme of God’s testing of his son, Israel: “The theme of God’s paternal relationship to Israel receives vivid treatment in the passages dealing with the wandering in the wilderness. . . . Deut 1:31 speaks of JHWH bearing Israel through the desert ‘as a man bears his son’ and in Deut 8:2ff God lets the Israelites wander in the desert for forty years to humble and test them and to discipline them ‘as a man disciplines his son.’ . . . [M]any concrete and powerful expressions of the Son of God idea are to be found in the desert wandering texts, not least in Deuteronomy [my emphasis]” (22). Gerhardsson concludes: “The covenant relationship was seen in terms of the father-son relationship, and so it became natural to regard temptation as the paternal act of discipline and a part of the son’s upbringing” (32). See also P. Winter, “Der Begriff ‘Söhne Gottes’ im Moselied Dtn 32,1–43,” ZAW 67 (1955) 40–8. 99. The standard source-critical approach can be found in introductory works by O. Eissfeldt, O. Kaiser, R. H. Pfeiffer, B. W. Anderson, J. A. Soggin, and others. See also A. Ohler, Studying the Old Testament from Tradition to Canon (trans. D. Cairns; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1985) 265–85; R. Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 129–64. 100. See M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Vol. 1; Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1943); J. Mejia, “The Aim of the Deuteronomic Historian: A Reappraisal,” in Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies (ed. A. Shinan; Jerusalem: Academic Press, 1977) 1:291–98. 101. See J. G. McConville (Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993] 133) who states that “one of the pervading features of DtH” is its portrait “of Israel as profoundly incapable of covenant faithfulness.” 102. See G. von Rad, Theology of the Old Testament, 1:334–46. Here von Rad tries to soften Noth’s harsh interpretation by showing how the Deuteronomistic history’s perspective is really one of “salvific history” in which restoration is possible, depending on the proclamation of God’s Word and the messianic promise. On the other hand, H. W. Wolff (“Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes,” ZAW 73 [1961] 171–86) criticizes Noth and von Rad, insisting that the Dtr history neither pre-

Notes to Page 68  |  373 cludes nor promises restoration; its kerygma is a simple invitation to conversion. Wolff’s view receives the qualified approval of J. A. Soggin, N. Lohfink, and W. Brueggemann. A very different interpretive approach is offered by F. M. Cross (and his students, B. Halpern and R. E. Friedman), who posits a double redaction of the Deuteronomistic history. See F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997) 274–89, for the argument that the final redaction of the Dtr history reveals a dual message of punishment and hope. 103. J. Blenkinsopp (The Pentateuch [New York: Doubleday, 1992] 189) comments: “The D author accounts for the promulgation of a different law book (Deut 12–26) at a later point in time, one which supplements the ‘book of the covenant,’ with reference to the Golden Calf incident, which necessitated a new covenant and a new law.” See also T. V. Farris, Mighty to Save: A Study in Old Testament Soteriology (Nashville: Broadman, 1993) 103: “The covenant at Mount Sinai must also be distinguished from the transaction that is described in the Book of Deuteronomy. That confusion should cloud the distinction between these two covenants is strange in light of the explicit statement of the text. . . . Two visible surface features indicate the difference: (1) the covenants were negotiated at different places, and (2) they were instituted at different times. The two locales are clearly marked by the contrast between Moab and Horeb. . . . Accordingly, miles and years of desert wandering separated the two incidents as they are described in the Books of Exodus and Deuteronomy.” See also T. A. Lenchak, “Choose Life!” A Rhetorical-Critical Investigation of Deuteronomy 28.69–30.20 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1993) 241. For a helpful treatment of the distinctive nature of the Deuteronomic covenant, adapted from N. Lohfink’s approach to the “the Moab covenant,” see D. T. Olson, Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994). Significant literary differences between Exodus-Numbers and Deuteronomy are treated from a narrative viewpoint by T. W. Mann, The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988) 143–56. 104. For a superb analysis of Deuteronomy in its final narrative form, see J. G. ­McConville and J. G. Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy (Sheffield: JSOT, 1994). They comment: “The concentration on source, redaction, and literary-criticism in the study of Deuteronomy . . . has brought us to something of an impasse. It is not unfair to say also that the preoccupation with literary matters has resulted in the neglect of the content” (51). 105. Weinfeld (Deuteronomy 1–11, 1) comments: “Although the words mšnh htwrh hzʾt in Deut 17:18 may mean ‘a copy of this Torah,’ it is true that Deuteronomy constitutes a second covenant besides the Sinaitic one (cf. 28:69/29:1) and thus may have been rightly considered to be secondary.” The perspective “that Deuteronomy constitutes a second covenant” is important for interpreting Paul’s view of the law in Galatians 3–4. In Part Two, it will be argued that Deuteronomy embodies that “law” which Paul teaches is no longer binding in the New Covenant. 106. Weinfeld (“Covenant,” 1015) comments: “This book . . . represents the covenant of the plains of Moab.” Olson (Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses, 135) states: “Moses commands the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant to ‘take this book of the law and put it beside the ark of the covenant’ (31:26). In the present context of the passage, one must identify this book of the torah as the book of Deuteronomy itself.” Elsewhere (pp. 15–16) Olson notes: “Moses commands the Levites to place the written book of the torah (Deuteronomy) ‘beside’ the ark of the covenant. While the book of the torah is beside the ark, the stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments . . . are

374  |  Notes to Pages 68–69 inside the ark (10:5). The Decalogue’s placement inside the ark suggests its primal and authoritative character. Therefore, in relation to the Ten Commandments . . . the rest of Deuteronomy is visualized as extended and secondary commentary or exposition of the primal Decalogue.” Blenkinsopp (Pentateuch, 209–10) states: “The title ­Deuteronomy . . . comes to us from the Old Greek (LXX) translation of Deut 17:18 and Josh 8:32. These texts refer to the writing by the king and Joshua, respectively, of a copy (mišneh) of the law of Moses, and it is generally assumed that the Greek version mistakenly took this to mean a second law. But it is difficult to imagine how the translator could have made such a mistake with such a common and straightforward word as mišneh, and the use of deuteronomion rather than deuteron nomon (second law) suggests that this title was already in use at the time of writing. This in turn leads us to conclude that the character of the book, as a law and covenant additional and subsequent to those of Sinai/Horeb, was already recognized at that time—not surprisingly, since that is what the book itself says (Deut 28:69 [29:1]).” See also the “Dialogue Between Timothy and Aquila,” (trans. E. J. Goodspeed, JBL 24 [1905] 58–78) where Timothy states that Deuteronomy “was not dictated by the mouth of God but ‘deuteronomized’ by Moses. This is why it was not deposited in the ʿaron, that is to say, the ark of the covenant.” 107. See Rofé, “The Covenant in the Land of Moab,” 310–20. 108. McConville and Millar (Time and Place in Deuteronomy, 30) comment: “Yet again we have a seemingly irrelevant geographical note. In view of the recorded apostasy in Numbers, however, this surely is another use of ‘place’ to heighten the rhetorical effect of the book. As the memory of Kadesh Barnea and Horeb was effectively evoked in 1.2, so here another place of national disaster, this time in the experience of all who listened, is recalled.” They further state: “This time the reference is not to Beth-peor (3.29) but to Baal-peor. . . . It seems likely that this is a deliberate alteration by the Deuteronomist to invest Peor with paradigmatic significance as an archetypal place of apostasy. The location of the nation in 3.29 places the whole discourse under a shadow of recent rebellion. The renaming of the place in 4.3 drives home to the Israelites that even at Moab . . . they are in danger of rejecting Yahweh. Moab is the new Kadesh” (41). 109. Weinfeld (Deuteronomy 1–11, 192) comments: “This verse [Deut 3:29] refers back to ‘in Transjordan in the land of Moab did Moses expound his Torah’ (Deut 1:5), but with a more detailed description of the place (cf. 4:46 as well as 34:6). . . . BethPeor is Beth Baal-Peor (the house of Baal-Peor), the site of the Israelites’ first encounter with cultic prostitution, part of the Baal worship (cf. Num 25:1–9; Hos 9:10).” Milgrom (Numbers, 212) links “Shittim” (Deut 28:69) with the site of Phinehas’ avenging action at Baal-peor (Num 25:2): “As Israel’s last stop in its wilderness trek, it was from there that Joshua sent out spies . . . (Josh 2:1) and led Israel across the Jordan (Josh 3:1). It must also have been the site of Israel’s new (Deuteronomic) covenant (Deut 28:69).” 110. Mann (The Book of the Torah, 139–40) notes: “From the incident of the golden calf at the foot of Mt. Sinai, to the incident of Baal Peor at the door of the promised land, the story of Israel as the covenant people is the story of repeated breach of covenant, a wanton, reckless, and ultimately disastrous invocation of Yahweh’s curse. . . . It is for this reason that the rest of the Pentateuchal narrative—from Numbers 26 to the end of Deuteronomy—will portray the people as if frozen in space and time, encamped ‘in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho’ ([Num] 36:13). It is this Israel of the broken covenant who must now be reassessed.” 111. See R. M. Good, “Exodus 32:18,” in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East (eds. J. H. Marks and R. M. Good; Guilford, CN: Four Quarters, 1987) 141. On Deu-

Notes to Pages 69–70  |  375 teronomic parallels in Exod 32–34, see R. W. L. Moberly, At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983) 182–86; and Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 203–32. 112. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 9. See also Mayes, “Deuteronomy,” 36–54. 113. Mann (The Book of the Torah, 144–45) comments: “Chapter 5 [of Deuteronomy] describes the revelation of the Decalogue and . . . the legitimization of Moses’ office. At the height of the theophany, the people draw back and ask Moses to be their mediator. . . . The divine affirmation of the people’s election of Moses accentuates the authority he now bears, and thus authorizes the words of Moses that follow in the rest of the book [my emphasis].” See also Lenchak, “Choose Life, ” 90 n. 36: “The only place where God directly addresses Israel is in Exod 20,1. . . . Exod 20,18–19 recounts that the people heard thunder and trumpets and asked Moses to arrange that God not speak directly to them lest they die. One gets the impression that the audience neither understood the message nor wanted to hear it! Their request that Moses become their mediator and God’s spokesman (similar to that of Dt 5,24–27) was granted, for they never again hear God’s words directly.” 114. See Olson, Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses, 118: “The voice of the Levites grows louder as Moses’ own voice moves a step closer to dying out. Moses is with the Levites now, but he will soon die and leave the Levites to speak without him.” 115. Lenchak, “Choose Life, ” 95–96. On this, see also L. J. Hoppe, “The Levitical Origins of Deuteronomy Reconsidered,” BR 28 (1983) 27–36; G. von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy (London: SCM, 1953) 11–24; A. Bentzen, Die Josianische Reform und ihre Voraussetzung (Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gad, 1926). 116. Von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy, 14. 117. M. Barker (The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity [London: SPCK, 1987] 142) comments: “[Deuteronomy] shaped the final form of the histories which we read as the account of Israel’s history.” By New Testament times, the law of Moses in the Deuteronomic covenant tradition still shaped what E. P. Sanders (“Patterns of Religion in Paul and Rabbinic Judaism,” HTR 66 [1973] 455–78) termed the “pattern of religion” for all of Palestinian Judaism, i.e., “covenantal nomism.” 118. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 37. 119. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 191–243 for a good treatment of the transformation. Weinfeld views the effects of Deuteronomy from a historical-critical perspective. For Weinfeld, the distinctive laws of Deuteronomy reflect the disenfranchisement of the Levites in favor of the Jerusalem priesthood (and the closing of countryside shrines) during Josiah’s reform. See also J. Milgrom, “The Alleged ‘Demythologization and Secularization’ in Deuteronomy: A Review Article,” IEJ 23 (1973) 156–61. In the same issue Weinfeld gives further clarifications (“On ‘Demythologization and Secularization in Deuteronomy,’ ” IEJ 23 [1973] 230–33). See M. Barker, The Older Testament, 142–60, for a critical treatment of the profound and lasting effects of Deuteronomy’s program of demythologization, over and against the (allegedly older) cosmic mythology which she sees reflected and preserved in distinctly non-Deuteronomic traditions such as the Jerusalem royal cult and the Book of Enoch. 120. Goldingay (Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament, 137 n. 15) comments on how Deuteronomy shows “little concern with the Levites’ role,” and places instead “its stress on the whole people’s . . . involvement in the covenant (e.g., 29:10–13 [11–14ET]) rather than on the role of the clergy.”

376  |  Notes to Pages 70–72 121. Weinfeld (Deuteronomy 1–11, 57) comments: “In the desert, where the Israelites live in the Mosaic period, there is a lawless situation: ‘everyone doing what he pleases’ ([Deut] 12:8). This view is in opposition to the priestly author of the holiness code, who opens, like Deuteronomy’s author, with the law of sacrifice (Lev 17) but designates it for the people ‘in the camp’ of the desert (vv 2–7); contrast also Num 28:6, where the regular whole offering (ʾôlat tamid) is made at Mount Sinai (contrast Amos 5:25; Jer 7:22). The difference between the priestly author and the Deuteronomic one is also reflected in their view concerning the time and place of the delivery of the laws to the Israelites. According to Lev 26:46 (compare Lev 27:39), the laws were given to the Israelites at Mount Sinai, while according to Deuteronomy the laws were given to the people in the plains of Moab on the verge of crossing the Jordan (1:1; 4:45–46; 28:69).” From a canonical perspective, these “oppositions” illustrate the essential and unique purpose of the Deuteronomic covenant as a (secondary) law given later by Moses for the twelve lay tribes under the Levites. 122. See Lenchak, “Choose Life, ” 85: “It is generally acknowledged that Dt has been written for a lay audience rather than for priests. . . . In this it differs from the books of Leviticus and Numbers, whose laws are often meant for the instruction of the priests themselves.” 123. S. D. McBride, “Polity of the Covenant People: The Book of Deuteronomy,” Int 41 (1987) 229–44. 124. McBride, “Polity,” 229–30. For a similar view of Deuteronomy establishing the constitutional basis for the centralization of secular state power in Israel, see N. Steinberg, “The Deuteronomic Law Code and the Politics of State Centralization,” in The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis (ed. D. Jobling et al.; Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1991) 161–70. 125. McBride, “Polity,” 233. 126. McBride, “Polity,” 236. 127. McBride, “Polity,” 238, 241–42. McBride notes how this constitutional charter view of Deuteronomy “has received surprisingly little attention from biblical scholars in recent decades. Perhaps in our contemporary zeal to explore and affirm the fascinating literary, tradition-historical, and homiletical dimensions of the Deuteronomic work we have lost sight of its broader social and political import” (230–31). 128. A political constitution is an apt image that invites a comparison of the relationship of the Deuteronomic covenant to the Sinai covenants (see Exod 19–24; 32–40; Lev 1–26), with the U.S. Constitution, especially as the former superseded earlier documents (e.g., the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation). The initial kinship-type covenant at Sinai (Exod 19–24) may be compared to the Declaration of Independence (i.e., from Egypt); while the renewal of that covenant under Aaron and the Levites (Exod 32–40; Lev 1–26) was about as ineffectual at uniting the twelve tribes under Yahweh and Moses as the Articles of Confederation was at forming a union of thirteen loosely-knit states. Thus, a more or less centralized government is formed by the Deuteronomic covenant in a comparable way to the formation of the United States under the U.S. Constitution. The analogy is far from perfect, but it illustrates some critical and discernible differences among the varied covenant traditions based on a canonical reading of the Pentateuch in its final narrative form. 129. J. Weingreen, “Deuteronomy, a proto-Mishna,” in From Bible to Mishna (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1976) 143. Weingreen states: “The Alexandrian Jews referred to the rabbinic tradition as Deuterosis, which is the direct rendering of the Hebrew term Misna (that is, Mishna), or Misneh. It was only consistent, then,

Notes to Pages 72–73  |  377 that they should have designated the Doctors of the Mishna, that is the Tannaʾîm, as Deuterotai. . . . This involves the presupposition of the existence of an earlier basic Tora, of which Deuteronomy was a later exposition, often modifying or expanding the original Tora” (145–46). See also E. Rivkin, A Hidden Revolution: The Pharisees’ Search for the Kingdom Within (Nashville: Abingdon, 1978) 253–95. 130. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 4: “Deuteronomy is presented as a farewell speech delivered by Moses shortly before his death.” He further describes Deuteronomy’s literary form as a “testament,” which is “linked to a ceremony of succession bound by covenant” to provide “covenantal succession.” See also Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 40; Baltzer, Covenant Formulary, 81–83; A. Lacomara, “Deuteronomy and the Farewell Discourse (Jn 13:31–16:33),” CBQ 36 (1974) 65–84; J. R. Porter, “The Succession of Joshua,” in Proclamation and Presence (ed. J. Durham and J. R. Porter; Richmond: John Knox, 1970) 102–32. 131. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 6. See M. G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 148. 132. See B. Mazar, Biblical Israel: State and People (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992) 47: “The centre of the Shechem religion was the narrow valley situated between the two mountains which had long been revered as sacred: Mount Ebal to the north, and the lower Mount Gerizim to the South.” See also Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 10: “Deuteronomy 27 preserved a very old tradition about the establishment of the nation at Shechem, the capital of the house of Joseph.” See E. Otto, Jakob in Sichem (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1979) 158–69; G. H. Wright, “Shechem and League Shrines,” VT 21 (1971) 572–603. 133. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 57: “The land plays a most important role in the book of Deuteronomy. According to Deuteronomy the laws could be implemented only in the land of Israel, as may be learned from the opening sentence of the code, which states that the laws to be presented are designated for the people after they enter the land (12:1).” 134. See G. Braulik, Die Mittel deuteronomischer Rhetorik erhoben aus Deuteronomium 4.1–40 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978) 149: “Die häufigste Funktion des Numeruswechsels ist das Herausheben von Höhepunkten innerhalb einzelner Abschnitte, deren Struktur damit schärfer profiliert wird [my emphasis].” (“The primary function of the alternation in number [of the second-person verbs throughout Deuteronomy] is the accentuation of the key points within individual pericopes, whose structure is thereby more sharply clarified.”) Braulik shows how Deut 4:1–40 roughly divides into two parts, with the use of the plural in vv. 1–28 and the singular in vv. 29–40. From these observations he discerns a message for exilic generations: despite their inability to obey the letter of the Deuteronomic law outside the promised land, Israel’s covenant with God can still be kept through grace and obedience from the heart (i.e., faith). This theological idea corresponds to the essential message of Hab 2:4. Keeping this idea in mind will prove important in Part Two of this study, where Paul’s application of Hab 2:4 will be interpreted in Gal 3:10–14 in terms of the call (and sufficiency) of faith for maintaining righteousness during the Exile. Further, the fact that the Deuteronomic covenant was given outside the land serves as a harbinger that it would, one day, be renewed when Israel was outside the land in exile. 135. See I. Lewy, “The Puzzle of Dt XXVII: Blessings Announced, But Curses Noted,” VT 12 (1962) 207–11. 136. See E. Bellefontaine, “The Curses of Deuteronomy 27: Their Relationship to the Prohibitives,” in A Song of Power and the Power of Song (ed. D. L. Christensen;

378  |  Notes to Page 73 Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993) 57: “The curse ceremony as described in Deuteronomy 27 consists in the pronouncement of the curses by the Levites and the corresponding response of affirmation by the community.” Weinfeld (Deuteronomy 1–11, 11) refers to the Shechem ceremony as a “public anathema.” In many respects, this curse ceremony is a fitting climax to Moses’ second address (chs. 11–26) which Polzin (Moses and the Deuteronomist, 50) describes as “dominated by an ideological voice concerned above all with retributive justice and a covenant of law, rather than with mercy and a covenant of grace.” See also Blank, “Curse, Blasphemy, Spell, Oath,” 89 n. 53: “When the curse-­formula curses of Deut 27 are combined with the people’s response, they become an oath. Assenting with the response ‫[ אמן‬ʾāmēn] the people take on themselves conditionally what is implied by the word ‫[ ארור‬ʾārûr].” He adds: “The word ‫[ אמן‬ʾāmēn] is a concise poetic substitute for the longer oath formula.” 137. See Weinfeld, “Covenant of Grant,” 195–96: “The priestly Code . . . in spite of the curses in Lev XXVI and the threat of exile there, does not end with the breach of the covenant. . . . Deuteronomy however concludes ch. XXVIII with the threat that the people will be sent back to Egypt and no allusion to the grace of the covenant is made.” 138. Weinfeld (Deuteronomy, 210–32) treats the cultic changes brought about by the central sanctuary law. See also his summary in Deuteronomy 1–11, 37–44. G. von Rad (The Problem of the Hexateuch [New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966] 206) comments: “It is well known that throughout Deuteronomy the question of the purity of the cult of Yahweh in Jerusalem, as opposed to all continuing Canaanite cults at the high places, has become the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae [‘the article on which the church stands or falls’]. By this standard . . . Deuteronomy judges all past events.” 139. The phrase is used by H. C. Brichto, “On Slaughter and Sacrifice, Blood and Atonement,” HUCA 47 (1976) 19–55. See also J. Milgrom, “Profane Slaughter and a Formulaic Key to the Composition of Deuteronomy,” HUCA 47 (1976) 1–17. Milgrom explains how “the anomaly of Deut 12:15, 21” follows inevitably from “Deuteronomy’s demand for cult centralization [which] makes profane slaughter imperative” (2). 140. Milgrom (“Profane Slaughter,” 6) comments: “The ḥerem (‫ )חרם‬injunction (Deut 20:16–17) is unique to D. It is nowhere to be found in the other pentateuchal sources. Exod 23:20–33 (E) comes closest by demanding the total expulsion of the indigenous population. But expulsion is not extermination.” A. Phillips (“A Fresh Look at the Sinai Pericope,” 48–49) notes: “[E]xamination of the related material in Deut vii 1–3, 6 . . . indicates that the Deuteronomic author was introducing new ideas not found in the earlier material in the Sinai narrative in Exodus, whether in Ex xxiii 20–23 or in Ex xxxiv 11–16, but present in the Deuteronomic laws, Deut xii–xxvi. So in Deut vii 2 the emphasis falls not on the command not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, but on putting them to the ban, considered elsewhere in Deuteronomy as the appropriate fate for the Canaanites as opposed to other peoples (Deut xx 10–18), but nowhere applied to the Canaanite population in the Sinai narrative in Exodus.” See also A. Rofé, “The Laws of Warfare in the Book of Deuteronomy: Their Origins, Intent, and Positivity,” JSOT 32 (1985) 23–44. 141. See Lev 21:14, where the Aaronic priest cannot marry a divorced woman, a harlot, or a widow, but only a virgin. 142. See North, Sociology of the Biblical Jubilee, 177: “Lv 25,36 (like Ez 18, 13.17; 22, 12; Prov 28,8) uses two words to prohibit usury, one being inoffensive, tarbît ‘increase,’ which is generally taken to mean ‘(moderate) interest.’ The other, nesek . . . implies savagery.” He adds: “But this nesek is permitted in Dt 23,20.” B. Nelson (The Idea of Usury: From Tribal Brotherhood to Universal Otherhood [Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

Notes to Pages 73–77  |  379 1969] 3–28) believes that this reflects a pattern which he labels the “Deuteronomic Double Standard.” 143. Goldingay, Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 134–66. 144. Goldingay, Theological Diversity, 156–57. Goldingay comments on the provisions that allow—precisely in order to regulate—slavery, polygamy, war, the monarchy, divorce: “Each of these is open to the same statement that Jesus actually makes regarding the last of them (Mark 10:6)” (156). On the moral compromises and legal concessions of Deuteronomy, see D. Daube, “Concessions to Sinfulness in Jewish Law,” JJS 10 (1959) 1–13; G. Fohrer, Theologische Grundstrukturen des Alten Testament (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1972) 51–94. 145. J. G. McConville, Law and Theology in Deuteronomy (Sheffield: JSOT, 1985) 97. He adds: “The law of the first-fruits in chapter 26, which symbolizes Yahweh’s acceptance of Israel, is where “the essence of all the legislation of chs. 12–26 is added up” (121). 146. In Part Two of this study it will be argued that Paul understood the Deuteronomic covenant to have been “in force” down through the turbulent history of Israel and into his own lifetime. In Paul’s day, Israel’s experience of the covenant curses was yet an ongoing process as it suffered under Roman dominion. Paul interprets the New Covenant against the backdrop of Israel’s ongoing vassalage under the Deuteronomic covenant—and also in the light of the Deuteronomic promise of deliverance and salvation for Israel and the nations (see Gal 4:1–7). See Kline, Structure of Biblical Authority, 148: “Israel’s divine election was unto adoption as well as unto the giving of the law (Rom 9:4). The Israelites were, therefore, sons as well as servants (cf. Exod 4:22; Deut 14:1). . . . At the same time . . . Israel the heir was under governors until the time appointed of the Father (Gal 4:1,2). The emphasis remained on servanthood rather than sonship until new covenant times (cf. Gal 4:7; Rom 8:17).” What Kline describes from a NT perspective as “servanthood” this study understands as “Deuteronomic vassalage.” 147. “Levitical covenant” or “Levitical code” means what diachronic scholarship identifies as the “Priestly” (Lev 1–16) and “Holiness” Codes (Lev 17–26) taken together. The terminology reflects a canonical and synchronic persepective. 148. For the annual nature of this pilgrimage, see Deut 15:20. 149. On the possibility that the Holiness Code envisions multiple sanctuaries, see J. Milgrom, “Does H Advocate the Centralization of Worship?” JSOT 88 (2000) 59–76. 150. H. Gese, “Ezechiel 20,25f. und die Erstgeburtsopfer,” in Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. H. Donner et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977) 148. 151. Gese, “Ezechiel 20,25,” 147, my emphasis. 152. M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (New York: Oxford, 1972) 213–24. 153. Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 215. 154. Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 215; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27 (AYB 3C; New York: Doubleday, 2000; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press) 2388–91. 155. Olson (Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses, 122) recognizes the inevitability of the curses in “the key grammatical shift that takes place in the enumeration of the curses in 28:45–48. In the preceding list in 28:1–44, the curses and blessings remain open possibilities and entirely dependent on Israel’s apparently free decision to obey

380  |  Notes to Pages 77–79 or to disobey God. . . . But in 28:45–48, the text shifts abruptly from this conditional mode into a declarative and narrative mode. The syntactical structure changes dramatically from 28:15, which is an open-ended conditional clause . . . to a declared state of fact that will happen in the narrated future. The conditional clause (‘if you will not obey’) now becomes a causal or explanatory clause in 28:45—All these curses shall come upon you . . . because you did not obey. The curse shifts from a conditional possibility to a narrated future actuality. Deuteronomy has transformed the blessing and curse list from a list of possible consequences (blessing or curse) to a declaration of assured future events, events leading inevitably to curse, judgment, and exile (28:45–68) [my emphasis].” 156. McConville, Grace in the End, 135–36. 157. See Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 52: “The special relationship proposed by Moses is to be interpreted against a universal situation in which the ultimate motive for God’s giving of the land to Israel is retributive in nature, i.e., to punish for their sins the nations dispossessed by Israel. And what happened to those nations will happen, therefore, to the Israelites also when they disobey God. It seems, after all, that Israel is no different from the other nations who in the past also have enjoyed God’s blessings (for they do possess the land which Israel is to take). Israel is simply benefiting from their disobedience just as other nations will benefit from Israel’s disobedience [my emphasis].” 158. McConville, Grace in the End, 136–37. 159. See M. Weinfeld, “Jeremiah,” 26–35. See also T. Polk, The Prophetic Persona (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984) 42: “From the standpoint of a sequential reading of the OT in its final shape, this is not the first time the idea of the circumcised heart is encountered. It has already appeared in Deut 10.16 and 30.6.” 160. See McConville and Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy, 80–1: “This section also sees the emergence of ‘new covenant’ thought, usually associated with Jeremiah or Ezekiel, in Deut 30:6–10. Initially repentance issues in the expected return to the land for Israel (vv. 4–5). Then, echoing the command of Yahweh in 10.16 . . . we find a new element—the expectation of an eschatological circumcision, enabling the fulfillment of the kernel of the Deuteronomic prescriptions.” In this way, the Deuteronomic curses will be reversed into New Covenant blessings. 161. Olson, Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses, 127. Olson then explains how Deuteronomy adapts and transforms the treaty-type covenant: “This shift from commandment to promise signals an overturning of the normal pattern of national relationships and alliances in the world . . . of Deuteronomy’s origins. In the ancient Near Eastern treaty form that Deuteronomy both borrows and reshapes, the relationship begins on the basis of the good things that the more powerful ruler (the suzerain) has done for the less powerful ruler (the vassal). . . . But chapters 29–32 . . . fracture the old Near Eastern treaty form and fashion a new kind of covenant. In this ‘theologized’ covenant of Moab . . . ‘the vassals’ inevitably fail to keep the covenant, hence bringing the curses into effect. But the covenant relationship does not end there. God (‘the suzerain’) transforms the curse into blessing, the command into promise, and the stipulation into gift. God’s love transcends the quid pro quo of imperial powers and exchange. God forgives and loves even when the people do not love in return. More than that, God creates a love and empowers an obedience within the hearts of the people and community that humans on their own cannot attain” (127–28). 162. For a superb treatment of the Song’s message (and the history of its interpretation), see R. H. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994) 200–285. On

Notes to Pages 79–81  |  381 Deuteronomy 32 as a covenant lawsuit, see G. E. Wright, “The Lawsuit of God: A FormCritical Study of Deuteronomy 32,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage (ed. B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson; New York: Harper, 1962) 41–67. See also W. L. Moran, “Some Remarks on the Song of Moses,” Bib 43 (1962) 317–27; P. W. Skehan, “The Structure of the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 13 (1951) 153–63. 163. J. H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995) 475–76. “The idea expressed that ‘the nations’ are God’s people is a theme also found in other parts of Scripture (cf. Ps 47:9 and Isa 19:24–25)” (476 n. 25). 164. See Deut 32:5–6: “They are no longer his children because of their blemish. . . . Is he not your father who created you.” See also Deut 32:16–20: “You were unmindful of the Rock that begot you. . . . The Lord saw it, and spurned them, because of the provocation of his sons and his daughters . . . children in whom is no faithfulness.” On the significance of this filial imagery, see W. Schlisske, Gottessöhne und Gottessohn im Alten Testament (Berlin: Kohlhammer, 1973) 58–71. 165. See Deut 32:40–41: “For I lift my hand to heaven, / and swear, As I live ever . . . I will take vengeance on my adversaries.” See D. R. Seely, “The Raised Hand of God as an Oath Gesture,” in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman (ed. A. B. Beck et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 411–21; and Wegner (“Nature of Divine Oaths,” 145–46), who comments: “God then lifts his hand and confirms by oath that he will judge his enemies. This gesture had become commonly integrated into oath-making, so that God even uses it to signal the oath (Exod 6:8; Num 14:30; Ezek 20:5–6, 15, 23, 28, 42; 36:7).” The texts noted by Wegner in Ezek 20 are very significant, since Ezekiel refers in 20:23 to the oath in Deut 32:40–43. The link between Deuteronomy and Ezekiel is universally overlooked by scholars, making it impossible to untangle the notorious crux of Ezek 20:23–26, where the Deuteronomic covenant is specifically described. 166. Thus, God’s earlier covenant oath to bless the nations through Abraham’s seed is reaffirmed (see Gen 22:16–18). See Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 375–76. See also S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901), 379–81; C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Pentateuch (trans. James Martin; 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971) 3:491. Ultimately, it does not matter if “his people” is to be understood as an accusative or as being in apposition to the “nations.” They are destined to be divinely blessed in either case. In the latter instance, they are directly blessed by being identified with “his people.” In the former case (“over the nations”), they are still to be blessed (albeit indirectly), i.e., according to the covenantal logic of blessing: “I will bless those who bless you” (Gen 12:3). 167. For an extensive study of the matters discussed in this section, see S. Hahn and J. Bergsma, “What Laws Were ‘Not Good’? A Canonical Approach to the Theological Problem of Ezekiel 20:25–26,” JBL 123 (2004) 201–18. 168. For a demonstration that Ezekiel is subsequent to—and draws on—both Priestly and Deuteronomic materials, see R. L. Kohn, A New Heart and New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile, and the Torah (JSOTSup 358; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002). 169. Cf. D. I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 626 n. 63. 170. D. R. Seely, “The Raised Hand of God as an Oath Gesture,” in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman (ed. A. B. Beck et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 411–21, esp. 413. 171. Another possibility, suggested by Kohn (A New Heart, 100 n. 32), is that Ezek 25:23 is a direct reference to Deut 4:27. The context of 4:26–27 includes oath language

382  |  Notes to Pages 81–83 (“I call heaven and earth as my witness,” v. 26a). If the kî introducing v. 25 is taken temporally (“When . . . ,” cf. GKC §164d) the whole passage 4:25–31 may be read in the indicative as a sworn prediction of apostasy, exile, and restoration. Whether Ezek 20:23 is working from Deut 4:27, or Deut 32:40 as proposed above, or both, it is notable that Ps 106:26–27 also knows of an oath sworn in the desert to scatter the people of Israel. 172. Most see in Ezek 20:26 a reference to Molech worship because haʿăbîr, the hiphil of ʿābar, “to cause to pass over, to offer”) describes child sacrifice to Molech elsewhere (cf. v. 31). However, as Gese (“Ezechiel 20,25,” 146) remarks, haʿăbîr “ist also als kultischer Terminus gar nicht auf den Molochkult beschränkt” (“haʿăbîr as a cultic term is, therefore, by no means limited to the Molech-cult”); cf. Exod 13:12, Ezek 5:1; 14:15; 20:37; 37:2; 46:21; 47:3–4 (3 times); 48:14; see also George C. Heider, The Cult of Molek: A Reassessment (JSOTSup 43; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 256. Moreover, Molech did not demand the firstborn of man or beast. Gese (“Ezekiel 20,25,” 144–45) emphasizes, “In sämtlichen Texten des Alten Testaments, die vom Molochopfer sprechen, wird die Erstgeburt nie erwähnt!” (“In all the texts of the Old Testament that speak of sacrifice to Molech, the firstborn is never mentioned!”); cf. Lev 18:21; 20:2–5; Deut 12:31; 18:10; 2 Kgs 16:3; 17:17; 21:6; 23:10; Jer 3:24; 7:31; 32:35; Ezek 16:20, 20:31, 23:37–39; 2 Chr 28:2–3; 33:6; Ps 106:37–38; cf. Heider, “A Further Turn on Ezekiel’s Baroque Twist in Ezek 20:25–26,” JBL 107 (1988) 722, n. 10; idem, Cult of Molek, 254. Curiously, some English translations, e.g., the RSV, translate haʿăbîr in v. 26 as “offer by fire, ” although there is no “by fire” in the Hebrew text of v. 26, as there is in v. 31 and other biblical uses of haʿăbîr, e.g., 2 Kgs 23:10, Deut 18:12. 173. On the Priestly Code as “pristine” or “ideal,” see P. Pitkänen, Central Sanctuary and Centralization of Worship in Ancient Israel: From the Settlement to the Building of Solomon’s Temple (Gorgias Dissertations and Near Eastern Studies 4; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2004), 92: “The picture the Priestly material gives is of a setting which is ideal as an outward arrangement of a nation in perfect unity and order, with God dwelling in their midst, present on the throne of cherubim in the tent of meeting. . . . Thus we may think that the Priestly law in many ways envisages and concerns an ideal Israel [his emphasis]. . . . In this context, it is possible to control even the slaughtering by the people, so that all of the animals which can be slaughtered as shelamim are brought to the central altar and sacrificed as shelamim.” 174. My translation. 175. The root š-m-m, “to desolate” (and related noun forms), is heavily associated with covenantal curses (cf. the use the word[s] in Lev 26:22, 31–35, 43). I concur with Darr, Greenberg, Block, and Heider that ʾăšimmēm ought to be translated here “I might desolate” or “devastate” rather than “horrify.” The sense is not that the Lord intended to produce a subjective emotion in the Israelites (horror), but to render them utterly destitute in fulfillment of the covenant curses. 176. The distinction is made by Block, Ezekiel, 636. 177. See Gese, “Ezechiel 20,25,” 147, cited in n. 172. 178. See J. Willits, “Context Matters: Paul’s Use of Lev 18:5 in Gal 3:12,” TB (54) 105–22. 179. See D. C. Allison (The New Moses: A Matthean Typology [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993] 23–28) for a remarkable series of Moses-Joshua parallels: (1) both are commanded by the angel of the Lord to take off their sandals while standing on holy ground (Exod 3; Josh 5); (2) both lead Israel through water as on dry ground (Exod 14; Josh 2); (3) both stretch out their hands to bring victory to Israel (Exod 17; Josh 8); and (4) both send spies into the promised land (Num 13; Josh 2).

Notes to Pages 84–87  |  383 180. See discussion of this passage in Pitkänen, Central Sanctuary, 206–7. 181. See Mazar, Biblical Israel, 47. He notes how “the site of Shechem (Gen 12:6) had long been sanctified in Israelite memory. It was the precinct facing the non-­Israelite city of Shechem, which, according to accepted tradition, was identical with the ‘field’ which Jacob had acquired from the sons of Hamor for one hundred qesitahs (Gen 33:18–20; Josh 24:33; cf. Job 42:11)” (50). Later on, Shechem became the site of “the grave of ­Joseph . . . in accordance with the biblical account of how the Israelites carried Joseph’s bones up from Egypt and buried them in the field at Shechem . . . the same place Jacob had set up an altar (Gen 33:19–20), and which had become a heritage of the Josephites (Josh 24:32)” (51). 182. McCarthy (Treaty, 2nd ed., 241) describes the text in its present form as “a report of covenant making,” which clearly reflects traces of a treaty-type covenant. His analysis accepts the presence of key elements of the treaty form (see 234–41), following Mendenhall and Baltzer, while allowing for aspects of von Rad’s treatment of the text as a small historical creed used at Gilgal for the Festival of Weeks and as a covenant renewal form used at Shechem for the Feast of Booths. See D. J. McCarthy, “What Was Israel’s Historical Creed?,” LTQ 4 (1969) 51. 183. T. C. Butler (Joshua [Waco, TX: Word, 1983] 274) comments: “Joshua’s answer is perhaps the most shocking statement in the OT. He denies that the people can do that which he has spent the entire chapter trying to get them to do. Having won their statement of faith and allegiance, he rejects it.” 184. Baltzer, Covenant Formulary, 65. 185. See Allison (The New Moses, 28–30) for interesting parallels between Moses and the Judges (e.g., Gideon). 186. See O. H. Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967). 187. The limits of the present study prevent an attempt to apply this conceptual framework to all of the other covenantal periods in Israel’s history; but see Steck, Israel und das Geschick, 153–89. 188. See Allison, The New Moses, 31–35. 189. D. Daube (The Exodus Pattern in the Bible [London: Faber and Faber, 1963] 73–88) shows how the ark of the covenant undergoes a “second exodus”: (1) captivity for Israel— captivity for the ark; (2) plagues on Egypt—plagues on Philistia; (3) release of ­Israel— ­release of the ark; (4) despoiling gold from Egyptians—despoiling the Philistines. 190. See J. R. Vannoy, Covenant Renewal at Gilgal: A Study of 1 Samuel 11:14–12:25 (Cherry Hill, NJ: Mack, 1978). J. Muilenburg (“The Form and Structure of the Covenantal Formulations,” VT 9 [1959] 126) comments: “Our examination . . . suggests that we are dealing with an ancient literary form, that terminology and structure may be derived from royal compacts or treaties.” See also Baltzer, Covenant Formulary, 66–68; Kutsch, Verheissung, 171; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 243–56. 191. P. K. McCarter, 1 Samuel (AYB 8; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press) 220–21. See also Weinfeld (Deuteronomy, 332–34) who perceives treaty influences in 1 Sam 12, but only in the (later) Deuteronomistic redaction. See also McCarthy (Treaty, 2nd ed., 213–19) who argues for pre-Deuteronomic covenant elements in older J and E traditions in 1 Sam 12. 192. See D. J. McCarthy, “The Inauguration of Monarchy in Israel: A Form-Critical Study of I Samuel 8–12,” Int 27 (1973) 406–8, who shows how this narrative is “integrated into the intricate structure of the deuteronomistic history as a whole” (408).

384  |  Notes to Pages 87–89 193. See 1 Sam 8:7–9: “And the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. According to all the deeds which they have done to me, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods [my emphasis]. . . . Now then, hearken to their voice; only, you shall solemnly warn them, and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.’ ” On the notion of Yahweh’s kingship in Israel, see T. N. D. Mettinger, In Search of God: The Meaning and Message of the Everlasting Names (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 92–122; J. Gray, The Biblical Doctrine of the Reign of God (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979) 23–32; Cross, Canaanite Myth, 99. 194. The Deuteronomic “law of the king” (Deut 17:14–20) was given as a legal concession to prevent the abuse of royal power. 195. See Vannoy, Covenant Renewal at Gilgal, 229–32. 196. The penitential stress may, in fact, reveal the primary purpose for the covenant renewal, since Samuel acted earlier (1 Sam 10:25) to begin forming Israel’s covenant of kingship. See Z. Ben-Barak, “The Mizpah Covenant (I Sam 10:25)—The Source of the Israelite Monarchic Covenant,” ZAW 91 (1979) 30–43. 197. McCarthy, Treaty, 2nd ed., 216–17. 198. McCarthy, Treaty, 2nd ed., 217: “This covenant material is the backbone of the rhetoric which elicits repentance and affirms the renewed relationship with Yahwe so that the history of the people of God can go on.” 199. On covenant mediation in the Old Testament and ANE literature, see J. Scharbert, Heilsmittler im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient (Freiburg: Herder, 1964). 200. See Baltzer, Covenant Formulary, 68. 201. Vannoy, Covenant Renewal at Gilgal, 229. 202. Vannoy, Covenant Renewal at Gilgal, 231. 203. See Calderone, Dynastic Oracle, 41–71; de Vaux, “The King of Israel,” 152–66. McCarthy (Treaty, 2nd ed., 215 n. 11) comments: “The investiture of a Hittite vassal involved two acts; his oath to the Hittite king, and the oath of the people of the vassal state to him. It is also true that the Hittite king made treaties with vassal and nation together (e.g., the Huqqanas treaty) a thing very like what is being done between God and Israel in 1 Sam 12.” 204. Baltzer, Covenant Formulary, 81–82. 205. Baltzer, Covenant Formulary, 83. For a detailed analysis of the Bundesformular as “testament,” see pp. 137–63. 206. Baltzer (Covenant Formulary, 82–83) cites two examples: Esarhaddon’s appointment of Ashurbanipal as “son,” and Tabarna’s elevation of Mursilis as “son.” 207. Unfortunately, no serious attempt has been made to correlate the Old Testament testament-form of the farewell address with the later pseudepigraphical works (e.g. Jubilees, and notably the testaments of Adam, Shem, Job, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Moses, and Solomon). However, note the similar features shared by other incidents involving the deathbed blessings of patriarchal figures: Jacob (Gen 48–49); Joseph (Gen 50:22–26); Moses (Deut 33); David (2 Sam 23:1–77; 1 Kgs 2:1–9). While there seems to be no absolute form, still a loose genre emerges, as W. Kurz (Farewell Addresses in the New Testament [Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1990] 19–20) explains: “They typically feature a father or leader addressing his or her sons or successors. Other common elements . . . include notice of imminent death or final departure, instructions for the time after the speaker’s departure, predictions and warnings and ethical exhortations about future problems, transfer of authority, blessings,

Notes to Pages 90–93  |  385 final prayer, and farewell gestures like embraces.” These features are sometimes joined with apocalyptic and midrashic elements as well. The familial relationship between a father figure and his kindred represents the common denominator in virtually all cases. More extensive research of these scriptural examples in light of extrabiblical testaments may well establish another covenant type, namely a “testament-type.” However, such pseudepigraphical research extends beyond the limits of the present study; see A. B. Kolenkow, “The Genre Testament and Forecasts of the Future in the Hellenistic Jewish Milieu,” JSJ 6 (1975) 57–71. 208. See T. C. Butler, Joshua (WBC 7; Waco, TX: Word, 1983) 268: “It is precisely at Shechem where we find Israel having her first and fiercest contacts with political entities (see Gen 34; Judg 9). 209. See J. L’Hour, “L’Alliance de Sichem,” RBib 69 (1962) 25. 210. McCarthy, Treaty, 2nd ed., 220. 211. See P. A. H. de Boer, “The Son of God in the Old Testament,” OTS 18 (1973) 188–207. 212. On how the Davidic covenant serves as a canonical link between the Deuteronomic covenant and the New Covenant, see E. W. Davies, Prophecy and Ethics: Isaiah and the Ethical Tradition of Israel (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981) 114; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 129–55; Nicholson, God and His People, 78–82; W. Eichrodt, “Prophet and Covenant: Observations on the Exegesis of Isaiah,” in Proclamation and Presence (ed. J. I. Durham and J. R. Porter; Richmond: John Knox, 1970) 172–75; idem, Theology, 1:53–69. 213. See J. Faur, “Understanding the Covenant,” Tradition 9 (1968) 51: “As a matter of fact, the notion of ‘punishment’ implies the indissolubility of the pact. God punishes Israel’s transgressions of the pact because [my emphasis] the pact is valid.” 214. H. M. Wolf, “The Transcendent Nature of Covenant Curse Reversals,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration (ed. A. Gileadi; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988) 319–25. Wolf comments: “Although the prophets emphasize YHWH’s judgement on a sinful Israel, they also describe the restoration of the land to a paradise-like condition as the covenant curses are reversed. Such a reversal of curses is not documented outside of Israel and thus signifies an important variation from usual Near Eastern treaty patterns” (320). The motif is also observed by F. C. Fensham, “Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties and Kudurru Inscriptions Compared with Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah,” ZAW 75 (1965) 174. Chapter 4 THE GRANT-TYPE COVENANT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 1. See M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970) 184–203; idem, “Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on the West,” JAOS 93 (1973) 190–99; idem, “The Loyalty Oath in the Ancient Near East,” UF 8 (1976) 379–414; idem, “‫ְבִּרית‬,” TDOT 2:270–72; idem, “Davidic Covenant,” IDBSup, 188–92. 2. See Weinfeld, “Covenant of Grant,” 185. Elsewhere Weinfeld (“‫ְבִּרית‬,” 270) elaborates on the distinction between the treaty-type as “obligatory” and the grant-type as “promissory.” Weinfeld’s understanding of the grant-type covenant has been recognized by most scholars. See, e.g., S. E. Loewenstamm, “The Divine Grants of Land to the Patriarchs,” JAOS 91 (1971) 509; J. D. Levenson, Theology of the Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48 (Missoula, MN: Scholars Press, 1976) 145–51; idem, “On the Promise to the Rechabites,” CBQ 38 (1976) 508–14; E. T. Mullen, “The Divine Witness and the Davidic

386  |  Notes to Pages 93–94 Royal Grant: Ps 89:37–38,” JBL 102 (1983) 207–18; idem, “The Royal Dynastic Grant to Jehu and the Structure of the Book of Kings,” JBL 107 (1988) 193–206; A. E. Hill, “The Ebal Ceremony as Hebrew Land Grant?” JETS 31 (1988) 399–406. 3. It could be argued, however, that curses for a vassal’s disobedience are presupposed and carried over by a relationship previously established through a treaty-type covenant (on which the grant-type is based). Thus, as P. Kalluveettil (Declaration and Covenant [AnBib 88; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982] 180 n. 234) suggests: “Disloyalty brings punishment, but not the revocation of the ‘gift.’ ” Weinfeld (“Davidic Covenant,” 191) does not make this distinction, but it seems to follow from what he describes: “The idea of disciplining sons in these documents goes together with the provision about perpetual inheritance.” 4. An important aspect of vassal loyalty is respect for the rights conferred on other vassals. This may follow a pattern quite similar to the procedure for the king’s own successor. D. J. McCarthy (Treaty and Covenant [2nd ed., AnBib 21A; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978]) points to the common Assyrian practice of “binding local princes by oaths” which “makes the prince the ‘son’ of the Assyrian king. The use of ‘oath’ and ‘son’ like this is, of course, regular treaty language” (35). This practice had an important twofold effect: sonship-by-oath relative to the suzerain and a consequent brotherhood-by-oath relative to other vassals. An example of this exists in the court record of ­ Sennacherib’s use of the adê document before his own death to extract a loyalty oath from his sons, courtiers, and subjects to secure the succession of Esarhaddon, his younger son and heir apparent. On this, see ANET, 289; and H. Tadmor, “Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East,” in Humanizing America’s Iconic Book (ed. G. M. Tucker and D. A. Knight; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982) 127–52. 5. Weinfeld (“Covenant of Grant,” 200) comments: “The greatness of the name has political significance. ” So also H. C. Brichto, “Kin, Cult, Land, and Afterlife—A Biblical Complex,” HUCA 44 (1973) 1–54. “Our suggestion is that the word ‫ ֵשׁם‬has the metonymic force of ‘family-line’ comparable to the same force for ‫‘ בית‬house’ ” (22). T. D. Thompson (“Legal Problems in the Book of Ruth,” VT 18 [1968] 85) comments: “Shem, ‘name,’ apparently refers to the inheritance itself. It can signify property as well as name.” The term “name” conveys a meaning with clear dynastic associations (observe its use in 2 Chr 26:8, 15). 6. Levenson, “Promise to the Rechabites,” 512. 7. Weinfeld (“Covenant of Grant,” 185–92) gives a wide range of comparable Hittite, Assyrian, and Hebrew idioms that demonstrate this point (e.g., “he kept my charge,” “he walked before me,” “his heart was perfect,” “my faithful one,” “righteous among men”). 8. For example, an analogous crisis arises with the deposition of Eli in the face of an “eternal” covenant (ʿad-ʿôlām [1 Sam 2:30]). Levenson (“Promise to the Rechabites,” 513 n. 22) comments: “But note that the covenant continues; only the partner has been changed. In other words, the ‘faithful priest’ falls heir not to a new covenant, but to the old one with Eli, whose descendants, we must note, are still liturgical personnel capable of holding office if the ‘faithful priest’ appoints them (v. 36).” 9. Weinfeld (“Covenant of Grant,” 185) states: “The structure of both types of these documents is similar. Both preserve the same elements: historical introduction, border delineations, stipulations, witnesses, blessings, and curses.” 10. Weinfeld, “Covenant of Grant,” 192–93. Weinfeld also observes: “As is now known to us from Nuzi, Alalakh, Ugarit, and Palestine, the father had the right to select a ‘first born’ as well as making all his heirs share alike. . . .” (193).

Notes to Pages 94–95  |  387 11. A. Gileadi, “The Davidic Covenant: A Theological Basis for Corporate Protection,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration (ed. A. Gileadi; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988) 158. See Weinfeld’s treatment of father-son imagery in “Davidic Covenant,” 190–91. 12. S. Porúbcan, Sin in the Old Testament (Rome: Herder, 1963), 399–400. 13. There are many incidents in Scripture that represent grant-type covenants without explicitly using the term bĕrît. Probable examples include Jacob and Esau (Gen 33:1–20); Joseph and Pharaoh (Gen 41:14–45); Jacob and Judah (Gen 49:8–12); Jacob and Joseph (Gen 49:22–26); Joshua and Rahab (Josh 2:9–21; 6:22–25); Joshua and Caleb (Josh 14:6–14); Caleb and Othniel (Josh 15:16–19); Saul and ­David (1 Sam 17:12–58); Jonathan and David (1 Sam 18:1–5; 20:12–17); and Achish and ­David (1 Sam 27:5–7). See Levenson (“Promise to the Rechabites,” 508–11) for evidence of a grant-type covenant between Yahweh and Jonadab (Jer 35:19). 14. For a review and treatment of the major theological questions associated with the Noahic covenant, see W. J. Dumbrell, “The Covenant with Noah,” RTR 38 (1979) 1–7; L. Dequeker, “Noah and Israel: The Everlasting Divine Covenant with Mankind,” in Questions disputées d’Ancien Testament (ed. C. Brekelmans; Louvain: University of Louvain Press, 1974) 115–29; W. M. Clark, “The Righteousness of Noah,” VT 21 (1971) 261–80; and C. M Kaminski, From Noah to Israel: Realization of the Primaeval Blessing after the Flood (JSOTSup 413; London: T. & T. Clark, 2004). For a thorough treatment of the major critical issues, see C. Westermann, Genesis 1–11 (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984) 395–406. Westermann claims to hear the separate voices of J and E, as well as the redactor (R), all of whom share the same basic view of the flood. B. W. Anderson (“From Analysis to Synthesis: The Interpretation of Genesis 1–11,” JBL 97 [1978] 30– 31) confirms the “judicious proposal” of F. M. Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic [Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard University Press, 1973] 305) as follows: “The interweaving of the sources is not the work of a redactor juxtaposing blocks of materials, but of a tradent reworking and supplementing a traditional story.” This approximates the approach taken here. 15. Weinfeld, “Covenant of Grant,” 186; idem, “Gen 7:11; 8:1–2 Against the Background of Ancient Near Eastern Tradition,” WO 9 (1978) 242–48. 16. M. G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue (Vol. 2; South Hamilton, MA: Gordon-­Conwell Theological Seminary, 1985) 113. See also B. K. Waltke, “The Phenomenon of Conditionality Within Unconditional Covenants,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration (ed. A. Gileadi; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988) 124; Mullen, “Divine Witness,” 215. 17. Idioms such as “a righteous man,” “blameless in his generation,” and “Noah walked with God.” See J. Skinner, Genesis (2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930) 152; Clark, “Righteousness of Noah,” 280. Clark comments on the idiom in 6:8: “The subject of the verb is—or acts as if he were [sic]—in a positive but subordinate formal relationship to the grantor. . . . The idiom often expresses the recognition of this client relationship. The favor shown is normally manifested in concrete action” (262–63). 18. Kline, Kingdom Prologue, 2:114. 19. On this, see Dumbrell, “Covenant with Noah,” 4–5: “The use of heqim berit in Gen 6 and 9 (and somewhat analogously the use of Heb. nathan in Gen 17 as associated with heqim, cf. Gen 17.2, 7, 19, 21) seems not to refer to covenant initiation. Heb. heqim is the causative of the primary root qum, an intransitive verb meaning to ‘arise,’ ‘stand up,’ ‘stand.’ In the causative stem it thus means to ‘cause to stand’ and therefore to ‘erect’ or equally to ‘maintain,’ ‘establish,’ or to ‘confirm’. . . . It is likely that in the contexts in which heqim berit stands . . . a confirmation of what stands established is referred to.” See also idem, Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants [New

388  |  Notes to Pages 95–96 York: Thomas Nelson, 1984] 11–43; idem, “Creation, Covenant, and Work,” ERT 13 [1989] 137–56); and J. Milgrom, “Covenants: The Sinaitic and Patriarchal Covenants in the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–27),” in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume (ed. C. Cohen et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004) 91–101. 20. Admittedly, the notion of a covenant in creation remains a minority report since Barth introduced it into contemporary theology. Nonetheless, the idea still enjoys considerable support. For example, R. de Vaux (Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions [New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961]) comments: “Creation is the first action in the history of salvation; once it was over, God stopped work, and he was then able to make a covenant with his creature. . . . The ‘sign’ of the Covenant made at the dawn of creation is the observance of the sabbath by man (cf. Ez 20:12, 20)” (481). See also R. Murray, The Cosmic Covenant (London: Sheed & Ward, 1992) 1–13; C. Baker, Covenant and Liberation (New York: Peter Lang, 1991) 46–54; J. Moltmann, God in Creation (trans. M. Kohl; San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1991) 53–57; E. H. Merrill, “Covenant and Kingdom: Genesis 1–3 as Foundation for Biblical Theology,” TR 1 (1987) 295–308; T. ­McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985) 200; H. Blocher, In the Beginning (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984) 111–70; T. FrymerKensky, “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth (ed. C. Meyers and M. O’Connor; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 410; P. J. Kearney, “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Ex 25–40,” ZAW 89 (1977) 375–87; A. D. Galloway, “Creation and Covenant,” in Creation, Christ, and Culture (ed. R. McKinney; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1976) 108–18; P. F. Ellis, The Yahwist: The Bible’s First Theologian (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1968) 181–82; J. Jocz, The Covenant: A Theology of Human Destiny (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968) 83–101; P. Schoonenberg, Covenant and Creation (London: Sheed & Ward, 1968); B. W. Anderson, Creation Versus Chaos (NY: Association Press, 1967) 62–68; E. Isaac, “Circumcision as a Covenant Rite,” Anthropos 59 (1964) 451; L. Alonso-Schökel, “Motivos sapienciales y de alianza en Gn 2–3,” Bib 43 (1962) 295–315; A. Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament (Copenhagen: Gad, 1952) 2:35. 21. Since the Hebrew term for “rainbow” (qešet [9:13]) can also signify a war-bow, some scholars suggest that God hangs the bow in the sky to signify either the peace he is now bound by oath to uphold or the oath itself, as a self-imprecatory sign. Westermann (Genesis 1–11, 473) rejects this idea but notes that it represents a majority view since Wellhausen and Gunkel. For a discussion on how the word “bow” (9:13) serves as a chiastic centerpiece in Gen 9:8–17, see G. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987) 194. 22. Porúbcan, Sin in the Old Testament, 438. 23. The language of 9:2–3 is reminiscent of a grant-type covenant where a suzerain pledges to a vassal that he (the vassal) will be given dominion over his enemies. See, e.g., “the fear and dread of you” (9:2a) and “into your hands they are given” (9:2b). In addition, the presence of a curse as well as blessings in Noah’s oracle (9:25–27) indicates Noah’s elevated vice-regency. 24. See T. D. Alexander, “Genesis 22 and the Covenant of Circumcision,” JSOT 25 (1983) 20. 25. For a thorough textual study of the meaning of ʿôlām, see B. Long, “Notes of the Biblical Use of ‫ַעד־עוׇֹלם‬,” WTJ 41 (1978) 54–67. Long comments: “‫ ַעד־ע וׇֹלם‬is used to state the certainty and unchangeableness of a state or activity, within the period relevant to the context” (67). For the meaning, “unlimited continuance,” see E. Jenni, “Das Wort ʿolam im Alten Testament,” ZAW 64 (1952) 197–248 and ZAW 65 (1953) 1–35. For

Notes to Pages 96–97  |  389 a good explanation and overview of various treatments of ʿôt, see M. V. Fox, “The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of the Priestly ʿôt Etiologies,” RB 81 (1974) 557–96. For a treatment of zākar in relation to ʿôt in this passage, see ibid., p. 573: “The genitival construction of ʿôt berît does not indicate that the sign belongs to the covenant. The ʿôt is a sign recalling the covenant. . . . The ʿôt is not an end in itself. Its ultimate purpose is the maintenance of God’s covenant with mankind.” 26. See Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 395–98. 27. See Cross, Canaanite Myth, 306: “The Flood account well-known to P presumes the background of Adam’s rebellion and subsequent corruption of the creation. It cannot stand alone as a narrative in its present form. . . . Not only the Flood story must be seen against the background of the story of human sin and its universal spread, but also the entire schemata of Priestly covenants. Yahweh’s covenants were given, in the Priestly view, to provide the means of atonement and reconciliation of the sinful people with their god and to sanctify Israel through his law so that he could place his Tabernacle in their midst. . . .” L. Perlitt (Bundestheologie im Alten Testament [­NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969] 6) regards P’s distinct covenant theology as an inauthentic transformation of Deuteronomic tradition: “Die spätere Umgestaltung der dt Bundestheologie durch die Priesterschrift bleibt weitgehend außerhalb der Betrachtung” (The later reconfiguration of the deuteronomic covenant theology in the Priestly source lies far beyond [our] consideration). 28. The larger context of the Genesis narrative suggests at least three aspects of Noah’s privileged grant. These may be classified as priestly (8:20), kingly (9:1–3), and prophetic (9:25–27). 29. R. Rendtorff, “ ‘Covenant’ as Structuring Concept in Genesis and Exodus,” JBL 108 (1989) 388. See also idem, “Genesis 8:21 und die Urgeschichte des Yahwisten,” KD 7 (1961) 69–81. See further W. M. Clark, “The Flood and the Structure of the Prepatriarchal History,” ZAW 83 (1971) 205–10. 30. See Rendtorff, “ ‘Covenant’ as Structuring Concept,” 388: “The message is, first of all, that humanity does not live in a creation that God has called ‘very good.’ This creation does not exist any longer. It has nearly been destroyed because of human sin, in spite of which it still exists because of the grace of God. The guarantee for its continued existence is the covenant God has established with humanity and with the whole creation.” 31. Rendtorff (“ ‘Covenant’ as Structuring Concept,” 390) applies the pattern of covenant renewal in Gen 9 to Israel’s wilderness experience. In Exod 32:9 the nation is described as “a stiff-necked people” whose idolatry provokes God’s wrath. In Exod 34:9 Moses reminds Yahweh of Israel’s “stiff-necked” condition at the very moment he successfully secures for himself a grant-like covenant on their behalf. Likewise, the Priestly understanding of Noah’s ark and Moses’ tabernacle is linked to their respective roles in covenant renewals that serve to restore the relationship between God and his people. 32. See D. Damrosch, The Narrative Covenant (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987) 292–93: “Sinai, in turn, is a new Ararat. . . . In the Priestly revisions to the flood story, Noah ‘did all that God commanded him’ (Gen 6:22), in parallel to Moses in constructing the Tabernacle (Ex 39:42), and in the Priestly chronology of the Flood, in which specific dates become important, the new world emerges from the floodwaters on the first day of the new year, the same day on which Moses sets up the sanctuary in the wilderness (Gen 8:13, Ex 40:2).” See also Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 421: “The ark corresponds to this in the primeval event where the concern is for the preservation of

390  |  Notes to Pages 97–98 humanity. . . . The parallel between the ark and the tabernacle has a profound meaning. The people of Israel which alone has in its midst the place where God reveals his glory is part of the human race which exists now because it has been preserved by this same God.” 33. See Damrosch, The Narrative Covenant, 292: “The Priestly writers were deeply interested in the flood story, and altered the flood narrative in Genesis to foreshadow the building of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple is anticipated in greater detail by the building of the tabernacle in the wilderness, which thus serves as the switch-point between the ark and the Temple.” 34. See Frymer-Kensky, “Pollution in Biblical Israel,” 409: “As narrated in Genesis, the Flood is the grand cosmic paradigm of the Exile.” Arguing from key vocabulary parallels (e.g., “violence” [Gen 6:11; Ezek 7:23; 8:17] and “end” [Gen 6:13; Ezek 7:2–3]), she concludes: “The Flood and the Exile were necessary purgations; they were not ultimate, permanent destructions. Just as mankind was saved from permanent destruction by Noah’s survival, so too God will not exterminate the people, but will rescue a remnant to begin again” (411). See also J. Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977) 66: “For P, then, the deluge serves a double function. It is a parable of judgment and salvation for those who had come through the flood waters of exile (cf. Ps 124:4–5). It is also the celebration of the Israelite God’s victory resulting in the building of a sanctuary infinitely greater than that of Marduk in the Babylon that had been left behind.” 35. See L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Vol. 1; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968) 233–34: “When Abraham returned from the war, Shem, or, as he is sometimes called, Melchizedek, the king of righteousness, priest of God Most High, and king of Jerusalem, came forth to meet him with bread and wine. And this high priest instructed Abraham in the laws . . . and to prove his friendship for him he blessed him, and called him the partner with God in the possession of the world, seeing that through him the Name of God had first been made known among men.” This is echoed in Midrash Aggadah on Gen 12:6: “ ‘The Canaanites were then in the land,’ for the land of Israel was cast in the lot of Shem, as it is written, ‘and Malchizedek, the king of Shalem,’ etc. (Gen 14:18)”; cited by M. Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993) 210. 36. N. H. Sarna (“Shem,” EncJud, 14:1367) notes that “the Akkadian šumu̮ , which is the same word, means not only name but also ‘son.’ ” 37. See the treatment of “The Primaeval Blessing and the Shemite Genealogy” in Kaminski, From Noah to Israel, 60–79, esp. 74. 38. In contrast with Cain, Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, Er, Zerah, and Manasseh. See K. R. Andriolo, “A Structural Analysis of Genealogy and Worldview in the Old Testament,” American Anthropologist 75 (1973) 1665; T. D. Alexander, “From Adam to Judah: The Significance of the Family Tree in Genesis,” EvQ 61 (1989) 5–19. 39. See C. J. Labuschagne, “The Life Span of the Patriarchs,” VTSupp 25 (1989) 121–27; J. P. Fokkelman, “Time and the Structure of the Abraham Cycle,” VTSupp 25 (1989) 96–109. 40. See A. K. Jenkins, “A Great Name: Genesis 12:2 and the Editing of the Pentateuch,” JSOT 10 (1978) 45: “[Shem’s] preeminence over his brothers is brought out by a piece of poetry (9:26f.) in which Yahweh’s blessing is invoked on Shem. . . . Shem is intended to be identified with Israel. Such a designation for Israel is unique . . . and was probably intended to be allusive, providing a contrast to the illegitimate attempt by men

Notes to Pages 98–99  |  391 to achieve a name for themselves (11:4; cf. 6:4), and anticipating the great name to be accorded to Abraham and his descendants as a result of Yahweh’s blessing (12:1–3).” 41. See C. W. Mitchell, The Meaning of BRK “To Bless” in the Old Testament (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987); C. Westermann, Blessing in the Bible and the Life of the Church (trans. K. Crim; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978); A. Murtonen, “The Use and Meaning of the Words lebarek and berakhah in the OT,” VT 9 (1959) 158–77; J. Scharbert, Solidarität in Segen und Fluch im Alten Testament und in seiner Umwelt (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1958). 42. See W. C. Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978) 81. The translation is Kaiser’s. 43. The Hebrew could be translated as a future (Gen 9:26), or as a jussive: “and let Him dwell in the tents of Shem.” 44. Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology, 82. 45. Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology, 82. See C. A. Briggs, Messianic Prophecy (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1886) 80–81: “Shem, the first-born, the heir . . . receives the blessing. . . . The blessing of Shem is the presence and the indwelling of God.” Rashi notes: “According to the Midrashic exposition of the Sages (Joma 10a) it means . . . God enlarged Japheth inasmuch as that Cyrus who was a descendant of Japheth, built the second Temple, yet the Shechinah did not dwell in it. Where, then, did it dwell? In the first Temple which Solomon, a descendant of Shem, built (Gen R. 36)” (The Pentateuch with Rashi’s Commentary on the Book of Genesis [ed. M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silverman; London: Shapiro, Valentine & Co., 1946] 40–41). 46. R. B. Robinson, “Literary Function of the Genealogies of Genesis,” CBQ 48 (1986) 602–3. Along similar lines, M. Fishbane (Text and Texture: Close Readings of Biblical Texts [New York: Schocken, 1979] 38) comments: “The irony of mankind’s attempt to ‘make a name’ . . . is reinforced by the tightly coiled acoustical sound track of the text. . . . Mankind goes eastward to ‘there’ (sham) to build a tower to the ‘heavens’ (shamayim), and so make a ‘name’ (shem) for itself. It was ‘there’ (sham) that human language was confounded, and it was ‘from there’ (misham) that mankind was scattered.” See also R. R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977) 164: “The entire linear genealogy thus deals with the transmission of the divine image and the blessing through a series of firstborn sons. The genealogy thus had a theological function.” 47. Moye, “In the Beginning: Myth and History in Genesis and Exodus,” JBL 109 (1990) 581–82. He also states: “As form and source criticism have made abundantly clear, the Bible is a remarkable congeries of disparate, often contradictory, myths, etiological tales, fictional and historical prose narratives, dramas, genealogies, catalogues, legal codes and covenants, prophecies, doxologies and informal prayers, blessings and curses, poems, songs and miscellaneous pieces—in short, of all kinds of different genres written over an enormous span of time and gathered into a single text. . . . But at the same time, as redaction and literary criticism have shown, a significant part of the fascination with the biblical text is that it is a single text; what is most significant about the biblical text from a literary point of view is what Robert Alter, for example, calls the ‘composite artistry’ of the biblical redactors in making of these disparate pieces a single unified text. This is precisely my focus in reading Genesis: because it is possible to see exactly how those pieces are woven ‘artistically’ into a unified narrative that was seen for centuries not only as a theological text, but also as an accurate account of the past” (579). This last point is a helpful reminder of how natural it would have been for the author of Hebrews (like the Targums) to identify Melchizedek as Shem. There is no evi-

392  |  Notes to Pages 99–101 dence that first-century Jews or Jewish Christians would have even thought of doubting the historicity of the genealogies of Genesis. 48. N. Steinberg, “The Genealogical Framework of the Family Stories in Genesis,” Semeia 46 (1989) 47–48. G. W. Coats (Genesis [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983] 105) reached similar conclusions, leading him to pose the suggestive and provocative question: “Does the structure therefore not point to a closer bond between primeval sagas and the sagas about the patriarchs for P than is to be found in the transition from patriarchs to the exodus or from the wilderness to the conquest?” Like Coats, more and more scholars are realizing the appropriateness of a narrative and canonical approach in tracing the universalism of the biblical plan of salvation back to its deepest canonical roots in the Old Testament. This present study not only reveals those roots, but shows how interconnected they are with the trunk of divine particularism. From the outset God’s choice of Abraham was tied to the particular line of Shem, who stood as the righteous firstborn son in the household of Noah—which, at that stage in history, was the human family of God in its entirety. 49. Moye, “In the Beginning,” 589. B. Jacob (The First Book of the Bible, Genesis [New York: KTAV, 1974] 71–76) argues that the Table of Nations is a unity and that in the narrative it is intended to convey the religious idea that mankind was meant to be one family united to God. See also C. Westermann, “The Old Testament’s Understanding of History in Relation to That of the Enlightenment,” in Understanding the Word (ed. J. T. Butler et al.; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) 207–19. 50. J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture (London: Oxford University Press, 1926) 249. 51. W. Vogels, God’s Universal Covenant: A Biblical Study (2nd ed.; Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1986) 29. Chapter 5 THE ABRAHAMIC GRANT-TYPE COVENANT 1. Genesis 15 and 22 are generally identified as a composite of Yahwist (J) and Elohist (E) sources/traditions, while Genesis 17 is considered Priestly (P). See Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. P. R. Ackroyd; New York: Harper & Row, 1965) 188–208; O. Kaiser, Introduction to the Old Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975) 76–113. 2. See C. Westermann, Genesis 12–36 (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985) 120–32, 209–56; S. de Vries, “A Review of Recent Research in the Tradition History of the Pentateuch,” in Society of Biblical Literature: 1987 Seminar Papers (ed. K. H. Richards; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 471–85. 3. See M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970) 184–203, here 185–86, 196–203; idem, “Zion and Jerusalem as Religious and Political Capital: Ideology and Utopia,” in The Poet and the Historian (ed. R. E. Friedman; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983) 88; B. K. Waltke, “The Phenomenon of Conditionality Within Unconditional Covenants,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison (ed. A. Gileadi; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988) 127–30; G. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987) 333; T. E. McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985) 63; J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975) 259; S. E. Loewenstamm, “The Divine Grants of Land to the Patriarchs,” JAOS 91 (1971) 509–10. The identification of the Abrahamic covenant with royal grants was made by Hillers (Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

Notes to Pages 101–3  |  393 University Press, 1969] 105) one year before Weinfeld’s article established the covenant of grant as a separate type. 4. This word is taken from the Hebrew verb root, ʿ-q-d, the verb used in Gen 22:9 of Abraham’s action of “binding” his son Isaac before placing him on the altar. As used in this study (and in the scholarly literature), “Aqedah” is used as a synecdoche for the events associated with God’s covenant to Abraham in Gen 22. 5. See T. D. Alexander, “Genesis 22 and the Covenant of Circumcision,” JSOT 25 (1983) 17: “The way in which God introduces the promises in 22:16, ‘By myself I have sworn says the Lord,’ adds to these promises a quality which is lacking elsewhere.” Some scholars see a divine oath at the end of Abram’s ritual slaughter and division of the animals in Gen 15:7–21, when “the smoking fire pot and flaming torch pass between these pieces” and God pledges the land (vv. 17–21). See, e.g., Weinfeld, “Covenant of Grant,” 196; N. Lohfink, Die Landesverheissung als Eid (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967) 11–23; J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975) 100–103; F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997) 86. G. Hasel (“The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15,” JSOT 19 [1981] 61–78 [esp. 70 n. 1]) sees a “covenant ratification sacrifice,” but no oath. G. J. Wenham (“The Symbolism of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15: A Response to G. F. Hasel,” JSOT 22 [1989] 134–37) argues that the two are not mutually exclusive. R. J. Thompson (Penitence and Sacrifice in Early Israel Outside the Levitical Law [Leiden: Brill, 1963] 55) concurs with Wenham: “Older writers denied that any sacrifice was to be seen here, as no altar was mentioned. It is significant, however, that all the victims required by the Levitical Law were offered—heifer, goat, ram, pigeon and dove—and no others than these. . . . Three year old animals are favored as in I Sam 1:24. The Levitical requirement that the birds should not be divided (Lev 1:17) is observed.” See also S. Boorer, The Promise of the Land as Oath (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1992). Later in this chapter, this episode (in Gen 15) will be treated as a “covenant oath-sacrifice” akin to the mutual oath that Yahweh and Israel swore at Sinai (i.e., in the covenant ritual), involving both parties, unlike the suzerain’s oath in a grant-type covenant. 6. For an analysis of these three strophes and the corresponding threefold blessing of Abram, see J. Muilenburg, “Abraham and the Nations: Blessing and World History,” Int 19 (1965) 391–92. 7. E.g., J. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; New York: Scribner, 1910) ad loc.; R. Clements, Abraham and David: Genesis 15 and Its Meaning for Israelite Tradition (SBT 5; 2nd ed.; London: SCM Press, 1967) 15–22, 71–78 passim; G. von Rad, Genesis (OTL; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972) ad loc. C. Westermann, Genesis 12–36 (trans. J. J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985) holds somewhat more complex views. See fuller discussion in P. R. Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations: The Patriarchal Promise and Its Covenantal Development in Genesis (JSOTSup 315; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000) 47–64. 8. E.g., Clements (Abraham and David, 57) discerns three promises in the Abrahamic covenant: land, nationhood, and blessing to all the nations of the earth, although he is not working solely with Gen 12:1–3. J. Ha (Genesis 15: A Theological Compendium of Pentateuchal History [BZAW 181; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1989] 15, 109) enumerates the promises of Gen 12:2–3 as “blessings for self, blessings for others, descendants, and guidance.” Williamson (Abraham, 234) sees in vv. 1–2c the theme “national blessing,” and in vv. 2d–3 “international blessing.” Westermann (Genesis, 146) sees in v. 2 blessing to Abraham, in v. 3a blessing for those in contact with Abraham, and in

394  |  Notes to Pages 103–6 v. 3b, blessing to the whole world. T. W. Mann (“ ‘All the Families of the Earth’: The Theological Unity of Genesis,” Int 45 [1991] 341–57) gives them as land, nationhood, and blessing (344). Alexander analyzes the Abrahamic promises around the themes seed, land, and blessing (“Abraham Reassessed Theologically,” in He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes from Genesis 12–50 [ed. R.S. Hess et al.; Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1994] 7–28, esp. 10–11). 9. On whether to translate the nipʿal of bārak in Gen 12:3 and the hitpaʿel in 22:18 as passive (“shall be blessed”) or reflexive (“shall bless themselves”), see discussion in Westermann, Genesis, 151–52 and K. N. Grüneberg, Abraham, Blessing, and the Nations: A Philological and Exegetical Study of Genesis 12:3 in Its Narrative Context (BZAW 332; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003), 34–89, 191–221, 242–46. In Gen 12:3 I adopt the passive without dogmatism (cf. Grüneberg, Abraham, Blessing and the Nations, 243). Whatever the exact translation of the verbal forms, the sense remains that Abraham will become the mediator of blessing to the nations (Westermann, Genesis, 152). 10. Williamson, Abraham, 99, also 140. See also Alexander, “Abraham Reassessed,” 14–18. 11. On the meaning of the “River of Egypt,” see discussion in G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (WBC 1; Dallas: Word, 1991) 333. It is most likely the easternmost branch of the Nile. Most of the land described in Gen 15 and 17 (between the “River of Egypt” and the Euphrates) actually constitutes the Arabian peninsula, whose occupants were traditionally considered Ishmaelites (cf. Jub. 20:12–13). On the quasifilial relationship of Lot to Abraham see L. R. Helyer, “The Separation of Abram and Lot: Its Significance in the Patriarchal Narratives,” JSOT 26 (1983) 77–88. 12. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 18. 13. P. J. Calderone, Dynastic Oracle and Suzerainty Treaty (Logos 1; Manila: Manila University Press, 1966), 44–46; M. Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites (Taubman Lectures in Jewish Studies; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993) 261. 14. Cf. J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975) 274: “The rest of the motifs in Gen 12:2–3 properly belong to the royal court. It is the king whose name is made great (cf. 2 Sam 7:9).” 15. See E. Ruprecht, “Der traditionsgeschichtliche Hintergrund der einzelnen Elemente von Genesis 12:2–3,” VT 29 (1979) 444–64, here 452. 16. Williamson, Abraham, 231–32; H. W. Wolff, “Kerygma of the Yahwist,” Int 20 (1966) 131–58, esp. 121–43; Clements, Abraham and David, 57–58; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 150; A. K. Jenkins, “A Great Name: Genesis 12:2 and the Editing of the Pentateuch,” JSOT 10 (1978) 41–57, esp. 46. 17. Cf. B. K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001) 260; Williamson, Abraham, 158–59. 18. Von Rad, Genesis, 200. 19. See F. C. Fensham, “Father and Son as Terminology for Treaty and Covenant,” Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (ed. H. Goedicke; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971) 121–35; Calderone, Dynastic Oracle, 53–57; Weinfeld, Promise of the Land, 241–49; D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (1st ed.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963), 35; T. Frymer-Kensky, “Patriarchal Family Relationships in Near Eastern Law,” BA 44 (1981) 214. The suzerain-vassal relationship is described with the terms “father” and “son” in Pss 2:7–8, 12; 89:26–27; 2 Sam 7:8–16. 20. See Weinfeld, Promise of the Land, 248 and sources cited therein.

Notes to Pages 107–9  |  395 21. See J. A. Davies, A Royal Priesthood? Literary and Intertextual Perspectives on an Image of Israel in Exodus 19.6 (JSOTSup 395; London: T. & T. Clark, 2004) 184. 22. Esau (Edom) is also a descendant of Isaac and so kings come from him (Gen 36:31), although the subsequent narrative explains his exclusion from Canaan by: (1) his loss of birthright (Gen 25:29–34; cf. 27:27–29) and thus his legal claim to Canaan; and (2) his being satisfied with Seir/Edom, outside Canaan proper (Gen 32:3; 33:9, 16). 23. See von Rad, Genesis, 242; Westermann, Genesis, 363. 24. See discussion in R. W. L. Moberly, “Earliest Commentary on the Aqedah,” VT 38 (1988) 302–23, here 302–4. 25. See G. A. Rendsburg, Redaction of Genesis (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1986) 32–35, 102; Van Seters, Abraham, 230–31, 239; R. D. Bergen, “The Role of Genesis 22.1–19 in the Abraham Cycle: A Computer-Assisted Textual Interpretation,” CTR 4 (1990) 322–24; Alexander, Abraham, 83–88; and Williamson, Abraham, 242–45. As Williamson points out, without vv. 15–18, the testing of Abraham is devoid of any clear purpose. Thus, “it is a great mistake to take the second angelic message of Genesis 22 as anything other than an essential interpretive key to both the verses immediately preceding and the entire Abraham cycle” (245). 26. Williamson, Abraham, 244–46; Alexander, “Abraham Reassessed,” 18–22; G. J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (WBC 2; Dallas: Word, 1994) 102, 111. 27. See Bergen, “The Role of Genesis 22.1–19,” 322; Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 116. 28. See esp. Gen 26:3 and Exod 32:13, but also Gen 24:7; 50:24; Exod 13:11; 33:1; Num 14:23; 32:11; and throughout Deuteronomy, including Deut 1:8, 34; 6:10, 18, 23; 31:20–21; 34:4). Cf. K. A. Deurloo, “ ‘Because You Have Hearkened to My Voice’: Genesis 22,” in Voices from Amsterdam (ed. M. Kessler; SBL Semeia Studies; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994) 126: “In the present form of the Torah this oath is the basis for the oath to the fathers, drawing a line to the widely-used formula in Deuteronomy.” 29. In Exod 32:13 Moses asks God to remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, “to whom you swore by yourself,” which is an explicit reference to Gen 22:16, “By myself I swear, declares the Lord.” See, e.g., Deurloo, “Because You Have Hearkened,” 128–29. 30. M.D. Guinan, Covenant in the Old Testament (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1975) reflects scholarly consensus in referring to 2 Sam 7 as “the charter of the covenant with David” (28), despite the absence of the term bĕrît. See also H. Kruse, “David’s Covenant,” VT 35 (1985) 149. 31. Strikingly in Ezek 17:13–19; but also Deut 29:12, 14; Josh 9:15; Judg 2:1; 2 Kgs 11:4; Ezek 16:8, 59; Hos 10:4; Ps 89:3. See additional texts listed by G. P. Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (VTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 184. 32. Guinan, Covenant, 8. 33. D. L. Magnetti, “Oath in the Old Testament in the Light of Related Terms and in the Legal and Covenantal Context of the Ancient Near East” (Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1969) 122. 34. G. E. Mendenhall, “Covenant,” IDB, 1:720. 35. Cf. Weinfeld, “‫ ברית‬berîth,” TDOT, 2:256; J. Barr, “Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant,” in Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (ed. H. Donner et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977) 23–38; D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (2nd ed.; AnBib 21a; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981) 141; Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant, 182–85 and sources cited therein; D. N. Freedman, “Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: The Covenant Theme,” Int 18 (1964) 423; A. Rofé, “Promise

396  |  Notes to Pages 109–13 and Covenant: The Promise to the Patriarchs in Late Biblical Literature,” in Divine Promises to the Fathers in the Three Monotheistic Religions (ed. A. Niccacci; Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Analecta 40; Jerusalem: Franciscan Press, 1995) 55. 36. See Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 111. 37. Magnetti, “Oath,” 118. 38. B. Halpern-Amaru, Rewriting the Bible: Land and Covenant in Postbiblical Jewish Literature (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994) 56–58. 39. See C. T. R. Hayward, Divine Name and Presence: The Memra (Oxford Center for Postgraduate Studies; Totowa, NJ: Allanheld Osmun, 1981) 72–73, 80–81. 40. Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke 1–9 (AYB 28; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press) 384. 41. Since only in Gen 22:18 does God swear a covenant with Abraham that the blessing of the Gentiles shall be “in your seed” (LXX: en tō spermati sou), Acts 3:25b again identifies the “covenant” with the oath of the Aqedah. 42. See Weinfeld, Promise of the Land, 225, 230. “The oath in Gen 26:3–4 repeats that in 22:16–18 almost ‘verbatim’ ” (Ha, Genesis 15, 110 n. 10, citing Z. Weisman, “National Consciousness in the Patriarchal Promises,” JSOT 31 [1985] 62). 43. Van Seters, Abraham, 283. Cf. Magnetti, “Oath,” 116: “Here ‫ השבעה‬is used as a substitute for ‫ברית‬, as in 2 Chr 15:15 and in Ps 105:9, where ‫ שבעה‬and ‫ ברית‬are parallel words.” 44. Alexander, Abraham, 110, my emphasis. Cf. ibid., 84–89. 45. E.g., by Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 103, 111–12; and by Grüneberg, Abraham, Blessing, and the Nations, 222–35, 242. 46. On the sense of the nipʿal and hitpaʿel of b-r-k, see n. 9. 47. See Mary Sylvia C. Nwachukwu, Creation-Covenant Scheme and Justification by Faith: A Canonical Study of the God-Human Drama in the Pentateuch and the Letter to the Romans (Tesi Gregoriana, Serie Teologia 89; Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2002) 116: “The canonical implication of these covenant texts is that the promise in Gen 12,1–3 finds its climactic fulfillment in this divine oath in Gen 22, 16–18.” 48. See Ha, Genesis 15, 199; U. Cassuto, Genesis (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1978) 2:305; H. Gunkel, Genesis (trans. M.E. Biddle; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997) 173. 49. Ha, Genesis 15, 1. 50. See Clements, Abraham and David, esp. 47–60; Rendsburg, Genesis, 107–20. 51. For a discussion of the correspondences between Gen 15 and the Sinai covenant, see Ha, Genesis 15, 164–68. 52. Freedman, “Divine Commitment,” 422–23; cf. Van Seters, Abraham, 264. 53. T. E. McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985) 67–68. 54. See Ha, Genesis 15, 164; Weinfeld, Promise of the Land, 251 n. 125; Van Seters, Abraham, 258; T. L. Brodie, Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 230; von Rad, Genesis, 188; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 333. 55. See Ha, Genesis 15, 76: “The author . . . intended to make a loose reference to Israel’s entire sacrificial system.” See also Van Seters, Abraham, 258; and Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 331, 333. 56. Clements, Abraham and David, 66.

Notes to Pages 114–16  |  397 57. For example, Clements (Abraham and David, 65–66) completely dismisses all references to the Plains of Moab in Deuteronomy, and reads the book as an independent account of the law given at Sinai. 58. E.g., J. Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch (AYBRL; New York: Doubleday, 1992; ­reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press) 209–10; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 (AYB 5; New York: Doubleday, 1991; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press) 1, 6, 10. 59. Esp. Deut 13:4–5; but also 5:33; 6:7; 8:2, 6; 10:12; 11:22; 13:4, 5; 19:9; 26:17; 28:9; 30:16. 60. The Hebrew is hithallēk lĕpānay. Waltke (Genesis, 259) comments: “This significant command is later repeated to Israelite kings (Solomon, 1 Kings 9:4–5; Hezekiah, 2 Kings 20:3).” 61. Cf. Weinfeld, Promise of the Land, 180–81: “It seems the Deuteronomist was not able to explain the observance of commandments included in the ‘Book of the Torah’ without a king-like leader. . . . According to his perspective, the Torah was an ideal constitution for the royal rule (1 Kings 2:3). . . . The Deuteronomist cannot explain implementation of the Torah in a non-monarchic system. . . . Only the king is capable of enforcing the laws of the Book of Torah.” 62. The Covenant and Holiness Codes envision the blessing of Israel only as national independence and success against enemies (Exod 23:22–33; Lev 26:6–8). 63. The term “treaty” or “vassal treaty” is used by Weinfeld (Promise of the Land, 224) to describe what Freedman (“Divine Commitment,” 427) calls “a covenant of human obligation.” 64. Guinan, Covenant, 9, my enumeration. 65. See Weinfeld, Promise of the Land, 222–64. Magnetti (“Oath,” 72) uses “parity treaty” to describe a mutual covenant and “vassal treaty” to describe one imposed on an inferior party. “Suzerainty treaty” is a preferred term of G. E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh: Biblical Colloquium, 1955). 66. Contra Van Seters, who remarks: “The form of the covenant, berit, in ch. 17 follows J as a divine oath of promise rather than as the so-called treaty pattern of Deuteronomy. This oath is not conditioned by various stipulations [my emphasis], but is in the nature of a reward for Abraham’s righteous living” (Abraham, 288). Van Seters’ comments would appropriately describe Gen 22:15–18, but not Gen 17. There is no mention of a reward for Abraham’s righteousness in 17:2, but a command that he live righteously in order that a covenant may be made with him (Alexander, Abraham, 86; Williamson, Abraham, 100). Circumcision clearly is a stipulation conditioning this covenant. There is no divine oath in Gen 17 as there is in Gen 15 (an oath-ritual) and Gen 22:15–18. Van Seters has harmonized Gen 17 with Gen 15, the “J” account of “the” covenant with Abraham. 67. Freedman, “Divine Commitment,” 427. 68. See G. P. Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (VTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 196; E. Isaac, “Circumcision as Covenant Rite,” Anthropos 59 (1964) 444– 56; M. G. Kline, By Oath Consigned (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968) 39–49, esp. 43: “Circumcision was the sign of the oath-curse of the covenant ratification. In the cutting off of the foreskin the judgment of excision from the covenant relationship was symbolized.” Cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AYB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press) 747.

398  |  Notes to Pages 116–20 69. Freedman, “Divine Commitment,” 425. Nonetheless, in harmonizing Gen 17 with Gen 15 and the idea that P always presents unconditional covenants, Freedman does not see any conditions in Gen 17:1. 70. See discussion in Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant, 193–96. 71. On Deuteronomy as a vassal treaty, see McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 109; and Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 6–9. 72. Lev 12:3 is not properly a command but a parenthetical note inserted into the regulations governing the purity of a woman after childbirth. Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 746–47. 73. Cf. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 24.31. 74. See discussion in Moberly, The Bible, Theology, and Faith: A Study of Abraham and Jesus (Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) 110–17; cf. J. D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper, 1985) 95. 75. E.g., by von Rad, Genesis, 240. 76. See Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 95; I. Kalimi, “The Land of Moriah, Mount Moriah, and the Site of Solomon’s Temple in Biblical Historiography,” HTR 83 (1990) 345–62, esp. 349. 77. See Kalimi, “Land of Moriah,” 349–50. 78. So Waltke, Genesis, 305–6; Moberly, Bible, 112; Kalimi, “Land of Moriah,” 350. 79. Moberly, Bible, 112; cf. Brodie, Genesis, 272; Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 94–95. 80. Cf. Weinfeld, Promise of the Land, 225: “The covenant with Abraham and the covenant with David indeed belong to the grant type and not to the vassal type. . . . The covenants with Abraham and David were gifts bestowed on individuals who excelled in loyally serving their masters. Abraham is promised the land because he obeyed God and followed his mandate (Gen 26:5; cf. 22:16, 18).” Note that Weinfeld harmonizes all the covenants with Abraham into one. Note also that his point about the grant nature of the covenant with Abraham is buttressed by reference to the oath of the Aqedah (22:16, 18) and a later reference to that oath (Gen 26:5). Thus, Weinfeld implicitly supports my contention that Gen 22:15–18 describes a covenant. On the Davidic covenant as a covenant of grant, see Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 99–100. 81. Cf. Van Seters, Abraham, 274: “The theme about blessing those who bless Israel . . . has its origin in the concept of imperial monarchy. This is true of the related theme of Abraham’s offspring possessing ‘the gates of their [sic] enemies’ (22:18, 26:40).” 82. Cf. Van Seters, 274: “It is the king . . . through whose name and person blessings come on the whole realm (Ps 72). Such blessings also extend beyond the nation itself and have imperial dimensions (also 18:18; 22:18; 28:14) and this has its parallel in the coronation blessing, Ps 72:17.” 83. Clements, Abraham and David, 58–59; cf. also Van Seters, Abraham, 187; and Williamson, Abraham, 264–65. 84. See D. J. McCarthy, “II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History,” JBL 84 (1965) 131–38. 85. See discussion in Weinfeld, Promise of the Land, 180–81. 86. Although the covenant is irrevocable (2 Sam 7:13, 15–16) it is not without conditions (v. 14) and therefore ought not to be called “unconditional.” See Waltke, “The Phenomenon of Conditionality,” 130–32. 87. Since “walking” is a term used to designate covenant fidelity (see Weinfeld, Promise of the Land, 230–31), it may not be coincidental that Abraham is said to “walk” with

Notes to Page 123  |  399 God in Gen 22 (vv. 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 19, cf. v. 2) more frequently than in any other chapter of the Abraham cycle. 88. On the Aqedah in Genesis, see J. D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993); J. D. Pleins, “Son-­Slayers and Their Sons,” CBQ 54 (1992) 29–38; H. C. White, Narration and Discourse in the Book of Genesis (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991) 187–203; M. W. Wilfong, “Genesis 22:1–18, Int 45 (1991) 393–97; P. Trible, Genesis 22: The Sacrifice of Sarah (Valparaiso, IN: Valparaiso University Press, 1990); F. Landy, “Narrative Techniques and Symbolic Transactions in the Akedah,” in Signs and Wonders: Biblical Texts in Literary Focus (ed. C. Exum; Decatur, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1989) 1–40; J. P. Fokkelman, “On the Mount of the Lord There Is Vision: A Response to Francis Landy Concerning the Akedah,” in ibid., 41–56; R. W. L. Moberly, “The Earliest Commentary on the Akedah,” VT 38 (1988) 302–23; S. Breitbart, “The Akedah—A Test of God,” Dor le Dor 15 (1986–87) 19–28; H.-C. Schmitt, “Die Erzählung von der Versuchung Abrahams Gen 22, 1–19 und das Problem einer Theologie der elohistischen Pentateuchtexts,” BN 34 (1986) 82–109; H. Patcas, “Akedah, The Binding of Isaac,” Dor le Dor 14 (1985/86) 112–14; J. I. Lawlor, “The Test of Abraham,” GTJ 1 (1980) 19–35; H. C. White, “The Initiation of Isaac,” ZAW 91 (1979) 1–30; R. J. Daly, “The Soteriological Significance of the Sacrifice of Isaac,” CBQ 39 (1978) 45–75; G. Rouiller, “The Sacrifice of Isaac,” in Exegesis: Problems of Method and Exercises in Reading (ed. F. Bovon et al.; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1978) 13–42; idem, “The Interpretation of Genesis 22:1–19,” in ibid., 143–48; W. J. Peck, “Murder, Timing, and the Ram in the Sacrifice of Isaac,” AThR 58 (1976) 23–43; J. Crenshaw, “Journey into Oblivion: A Structural Analysis of Gen 22,1–19,” Soundings 58 (1975) 243–56; G. W. Coats, “Abraham’s Sacrifice of Faith: A Form-Critical Study of Genesis 22,” Int 27 (1973) 389–400. On Jewish and Christian interpretive traditions, see C. T. R. Hayward, “The Sacrifice of Isaac and Jewish Polemic Against Christianity,” CBQ 52 (1990) 292–306; A. Agus, The Binding of Isaac and Messiah (Albany: SUNY Press, 1988); J. Milgrom, The Akedah: The Binding of Isaac (Berkeley: BIBAL, 1988); A. F. Segal, “ ‘He Who Did Not Spare His Own Son . . .’ Jesus, Paul, and the Akedah,” in From Jesus to Paul (ed. P. Richardson and J. C. Hurd; Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984) 169–84; C. T. R. Hayward, “The Present State of Research into the Targumic Account of the Sacrifice of Isaac,” JJS 32 (1981) 127–50; J. Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Aqedah (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981); P. R. Davies and B. D. Chilton, “The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition History,” CBQ 40 (1978) 514–46; N. A. Dahl, “The Atonement: An Adequate Reward for the Akedah?” in Neotestamentica et Semitica (ed. E. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969) 15–29; S. Spiegel, The Last Trial (New York: Pantheon, 1967); G. Vermeš, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1961) 193–227; J. L. McKenzie, “The Sacrifice of Isaac,” Scripture 9 (1957) 79–84. See also the essays by T. D. Alexander, J. Goldingay, R. W. L. Moberly, and G. J. Wenham in He Swore an Oath (ed. R. S. Hess et al.; Cambridge: Tyndale House, 1993). 89. From a critical perspective, Gen 22:1–19 is often assigned to E, where it represents “the climax of the Elohistic source and the end of the Abraham narrative.” Most critical interpreters believe that 22:15–18 is an even later addition, since it does not comport with the Elohist’s style. See von Rad, Genesis, 246; Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, 239–40. 90. B. Gerhardsson, The Testing of God’s Son (Matthew 4:1–11 and Par): An Analysis of an Early Christian Midrash (Chapter 1–4) (ConBNT 2/1; Lund: Gleerup, 1966) 27.

400  |  Notes to Pages 124–25 91. Gerhardsson, Testing of God’s Son, 26–27. He adds: “The covenant relationship was seen in terms of the father-son relationship, and so it became natural to regard temptation as the paternal act of discipline and a part of the son’s upbringing. The development in this direction began early. . . . The verb ‫ נסה‬is sometimes placed in parallelism with ‫בחן‬, ‘to test by trial,’ or ‫צרף‬, ‘to test by fire,’ ‘purge,’ and found with verbs like ‫יסר‬, ‫חוכיח‬, and ‫ענה‬, ‘to mortify,’ ‘to discipline,’ ‘to bring up’. . . . Since the covenant relationship is defined in family terms these aspects are naturally taken up into the picture. In the Book of Proverbs there are many sayings from the ancient patriarchal pedagogic about the hard discipline which a man has to impose on his son” (32). See also J. A. Sanders, Suffering as Divine Discipline in the Old Testament and Post-Biblical Judaism (Rochester, NY: Colgate Rochester Press, 1955). 92. See J. Becker, Gottesfurcht im Alten Testament (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965) 85–90; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 363. 93. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 114. 94. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 114. 95. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 115. See T. L. Thompson, The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) 98: “When Isaac asks the most obvious and simple of questions: ‘Where is the lamb for the burnt offering?’ Abraham’s response, ‘God will provide!’ explodes as a legend of trust, in its profundity. It is not read as the statement of a fool or a liar, because the reader knows that it is true. The reader also knows that Abraham is unaware of the predictive accuracy of his own prophecy, and that he must still suffer the agony, even to the lifting of a sword against his own son [my emphasis].” 96. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 115. 97. G. Vermeš, “Redemption and Genesis XXII,” in Scripture and Tradition in Judaism. Haggadic Studies (Studia Post-Biblica 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961) 193–227. Vermeš notes that the consensus view among older Jewish sources indicates that Isaac had “an active and prominent role in the story of the Akedah” (195). He cites Targum PseudoJonathan: “When Isaac and Ishmael argue which of them is worthier to be Abraham’s heir, Ishmael remarks that while he acquired merit by voluntarily submitting himself to circumcision at the age of thirteen, the eight-day-old Isaac underwent the painful rite without either his knowledge or consent. Isaac replies: ‘Behold, I am now 37 years old, but were the Holy One . . . to ask for all my members, I would not deny them to Him.’ These words were immediately heard before the Lord of the world. Immediately also, the Word of the Lord tried Abraham” (197). 98. In addition to the preceding note, see Hayward, “Present State of Research,” 130–31: “Both men claim that physical descent from Abraham qualifies them as heirs of their father. Ishmael the first-born can claim the right of the double portion; but Isaac is no slave-girl’s son, being a son of Abraham’s wife Sarah. The claim on ­Abraham’s estate by right of descent proves indecisive. So the argument turns to the respective merit or righteousness of the two sons. By voluntary submission to circumcision, at the age of majority, Ishmael has fulfilled a miṣvah. But can the same be said of Isaac, involuntarily circumcised at eight days old? Challenged Isaac offers himself to God completely.” Hayward adds: “This haggadah is concerned also with the problems of Ishmael and his descendants, who are sons of Abraham and circumcised, yet do not belong in Israel. Latterly Ishmael’s sons are the Arabs. . . . Jubilees is of some help here, since it is concerned to prove that God did not choose Ishmael, even though he is circumcised and required to keep the commandments. . . . Perhaps to emphasize the choice of Isaac, Jubilees brings the story of the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael to the

Notes to Page 125  |  401 closest relationship with the Aqedah by omitting the biblical story of Abraham and Abimelech. Thus the event immediately preceding the Aqedah is Hagar’s expulsion in the light of which the ‘testing of Abraham’ takes on new meaning. Jubilees could have understood that the background to the Aqedah was the question whether (and on what basis) Ishmael or Isaac should inherit” (131). 99. See R. W. Neff, “The Birth and Election of Isaac in the Priestly Tradition,” BR 15 (1970) 17–18: “The annunciation in Gen 17:19 denies Abraham’s request that Ishmael become his heir and legitimizes Isaac as Abraham’s heir. . . . The annunciation is secondarily introduced into this narrative to show why Isaac and not Ishmael receives the inheritance of Abraham.” L. A. Turner (Announcement of Plot in Genesis [JSOTSup 96; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990] 87) comments: “By the time ch. 22 begins, with the exception of Isaac all other candidates for the position of ‘promised son’ have been explicitly eliminated by Yahweh. . . .” See also Lawlor, “The Test of Abraham,” 33. Moberly (“The Earliest Commentary on the Akedah,” 316–17) notes how “xxii 17 is the only instance where the formula is used for the official line of Abraham’s descendants through Isaac.” Thompson (The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel, 89) comments: “The fulfillment of Abraham’s childlessness in 16:15 . . . is only an apparent fulfillment. . . . Ishmael’s birth in Genesis 16 becomes the opening episode of a story of the displacement of Ishmael. . . . It is with Isaac and Isaac alone that God establishes his covenant (Gen 17:19, 21).” Thompson further states: “The key to the contradictions and conflicts of the traditions for the redactor was to recognize Ishmael as . . . a recipient of the promises to Abraham, however, not the specific promise which determines Isaac’s destiny” (96). 100. On Paul’s use of “seed” and its derivation from ancient Jewish interpretive traditions surrounding the Aqedah, see E. E. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1957) 71; Levenson, Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son, 210–19; Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac, 98–113. Paul makes at least two (possibly four) allusions to the disinherited status of Ishmael, referring either to the covenant of circumcision (in Gen 17) or to the divine oath after the Aqedah in Gen 22 (see Rom 4:9–19; 9:7–9; Gal 3:14–18; 4:21–31). In Gal 4:28–31 Paul cites the episode about Ishmael’s disinheritance (Gen 21) at the climax of the heated argument in Gal 3–4. On this, see M. McNamara, Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1983) 244–52; idem, “ ‘To de (Hagar) Sina oros estin en tê Arabia’ (Gal 4:25a),” Milltown Studies 2 (1978) 24–41; R. Le Déaut, “La présentation targumique du sacrifice d’Isaac et la sotériologie paulinienne,” in Studiorum Paulinorum Congressus Internationalis Catholicus (Vol. 2; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1963) 563–74. 101. See H. Seebass, “The Relationship of Torah and Promise in the Redactionary Composition of the Pentateuch,” HBT 7 (1985) 99–116. Seebass notes: “This very extensive pledge of Yahweh, after the Aqeda, refers back to that which was already pledged and established, above all to 12:1–3” (110). 102. Turner, Announcements of Plot in Genesis, 110. 103. Wenham (Genesis 16–50, 111) comments: “This is the first and only divine oath in the patriarchal stories, though it is frequently harked back to (24:7; 26:3; 50:24; Exod 13:5; often in Deuteronomy).” Moberly (“The Earliest Commentary on the Akedah,” 315) states: “In itself the formula is naturally one of unusual emphasis, as indeed noted and reflected upon by the writer to the Hebrews (Heb vi 13–18). . . . Given its combination with the unusual usage of the oath, such special emphasis would appear to be its intended meaning.”

402  |  Notes to Pages 125–28 104. Rabbi S. R. Hirsh, quoted in Bereshit-Genesis: A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic, and Rabbinic Sources (Vol. 2; trans. M. Zlotowitz; New York: Messorah, 1978) 809. See also Moberly (“The Earliest Commentary on the Akedah,” 316) who comments on how the sworn promise of blessing is in the emphatic form of the infinitive absolute: “This is notable, because while the theme of divine blessing is indeed common in the patriarchal narratives, nowhere else is this emphatic verbal form used.” 105. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 116–17. Here again, the view that the Temple sacrifices were memorial acts of God’s sworn blessing at the Aqedah is encountered. Ha (Genesis 15, 112–13) calls God’s oath to Abraham given at the Aqedah the “major turning point” in Israel’s history, since “the theme of the divine oath . . . stands out strikingly as not only the red thread but also the ‘mold’ of the patriarchal history.” He concludes: “It marked every subsequent intervention by YHWH in Israel’s favour as motivated by His fidelity to it. . . . This reminder would be served by their cult in the land which, again, the oath assured they would possess” (147). 106. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 117. He adds: “When Paul says, ‘If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us’ (Rom 8:31–32), the echoes of Gen 22:12, 16, ‘you have not withheld your son, your only child,’ are obvious. John 3:16, ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son,’ makes the same comparison. John the Baptist’s cry, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’ may well be making a similar connection, for whether the primary reference is to the lambs for the daily burnt offering or to the passover lamb, Gen 22 seems to associate both with the sacrifice of Isaac” (117). 107. Moberly, “The Earliest Commentary on the Akedah,” 320–21. 108. See Kline, By Oath Consigned, 46. 109. See the comments of the medieval Jewish commentator, Ramban: “God had already promised that he would increase Abraham’s children as the stars of the heavens (15:5) and the dust of the earth (13:6). Now God assured Abraham by oath in his name that his descendants would possess the gates of their enemies. Thus even should they sin grievously they would never be completely destroyed nor permanently fall into the hands of the enemy. Accordingly, this was a solemn assurance of ultimate redemption” (cited in Zlotowitz, Bereishis, 809). 110. In this light, the Aqedah illumines the meaning of the death of Christ as the curse-bearing sacrifice on Moriah by which God fulfills his covenant oath, as a faithful father, even at the cost of his “only beloved son.” Thus, he redeems Israel (as ­Abraham’s “seed”) from the curse of their covenant breaking. Likewise, as the new “seed” of Abraham, Christ is the one through whom the blessing of Abraham is inherited by the nations, through the righteousness that comes by “Abrahamic” faith (Gen 15:6; Gal 3:1–9). 111. See Gen 14:18; 22:2; Ps 76:2; 2 Chr 3:1. Moberly (“The Earliest Commentary on the Akedah,” 307) comments: “The link of Gen xxii with the Temple is not explicit, probably because of the context of the story within the overall history of Israel long before the Temple was built, which makes foreshadowing and subtle allusion the appropriate mode of reference.” Hayward (Divine Name and Presence, 80) states: “It is well known that Jewish exegesis saw in Mount Moriah the Temple mount, for the identification is already apparent in II Chron 3:1 and Jub. 18:13.” 112. The first explicit mention of oath-swearing is found in Gen 14:22, when Abram swears an oath to El Elyon in Salem before Melchizedek. From a canonical perspective, Salem/Jerusalem/Moriah represents the place of covenant oath-swearing, at least on these momentous occasions.

Notes to Pages 128–29  |  403 113. Moberly, Genesis 12–50 (Old Testament Guides 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992) 46. He adds: “Finally, with regard to location, one may note that the story has to do with sacrifice, which for Israel . . . should supremely take place within the Temple in Jerusalem. Abraham offers his sacrifice to God at a place which God selects for him (22:2, 3), which is similar to God’s requirement for Israel’s worship ‘at the place which YHWH will choose to put his name there’ (Deut 12.5 etc.), a place which is to be understood as Jerusalem (1 Kgs 14.21)” (47–48). For a vigorous defense of the preexilic dating for the tradition linking Moriah and Jerusalem, see I. Kalimi, “The Land of Moriah, Mount Moriah, and the Site of Solomon’s Temple in Biblical Historiography,” HTR 83 (1990) 345–62. 114. Ha, Genesis 15, 145–46. 115. Hayward, Divine Name and Presence, 80. He notes the Targumic interpretation of the covenant between the animals in Genesis 15 as a sacrificial rite performed by Abram in Salem-Jerusalem: “If we are to ask where this covenant sacrifice took place, the answer is that we are not told directly, but that its locale is most probably Jerusalem. This is so for a number of reasons. First, the Targumim in general represent the Fathers as practising the requirements of the Torah before it was actually given at Sinai, and since one of the most fundamental of all the commandments is the law of the one sanctuary, naturally presupposed by the Targumists, it follows that they would strive to relate as much of the cultic activity of the Fathers as they might to the Temple Mount. Second, the general locale is given by the preceding chapter of the biblical narrative, where Abram is said to be dwelling in the Vale of Shaveh, or the King’s Vale (Gen 14:17), whither it was easy for Melchizedek to go out to meet him. Abram apparently does not move from this neighborhood, and since Salem is identified with Jerusalem we may assume that the covenant sacrifice takes place within the region of that city” (80). 116. See Chapter 2. There it was seen that the targums use the word Memra to indicate the definitive revelation of God’s name for Himself, to express his merciful presence, and as a functional equivalent of His covenant oath. 117. Hayward, Divine Name and Presence, 96 n. 26. In Jubilees (49:1, 17), the Aqedah is explicitly associated with the Passover; the lamb substituted for Isaac prefigures the Paschal lamb. Vermeš (“Redemption and Genesis XXII,” 215) claims that “the bond between the two great events was, in fact, a doctrinal one. The saving virtue of the Passover lamb proceeded from the merits of that first lamb (this established well before the beginning of the Christian era), the son of Abraham who offered himself upon the altar.” Milgrom (The Akedah, 67) notes: “The most likely cause for the dissociation of the Akedah with Passover came with the termination of the sacrificial system and the destruction of the Temple in 70 ce. . . . Nevertheless, one speculates that because early Christianity acquired the Akedah theology, Judaism found it necessary to suppress the association of the Binding of Isaac with Passover.” 118. Hayward, Divine Name and Presence, 106. Milgrom (The Akedah, 66) suggests: “Perhaps the offering of all expiatory sacrifices were [sic] retroactively intended by the rabbis as a memorial of Isaac’s self-oblation, their main purpose being to remind God of the merit of him who bound himself upon the altar.” Vermeš (“Redemption and Genesis XXII,” 209–11) cites Lev. Rabbah 1.11 on Lev 1:5, 11: “When Abraham our father bound Isaac his son, the Holy One instituted (the sacrifice of) two lambs, one in the morning, and the other in the evening. What is the purpose of this? In order that when Israel offers the perpetual sacrifice upon the altar . . . the Holy One may remember the Binding of Isaac.” He also quotes from the Fragmentary Targum: “The lamb was chosen to recall the merit of the lamb of Abraham, who bound himself on the altar, and stretched out

404  |  Notes to Pages 129–30 his neck for Your Name’s sake. Heaven was let down and descended and Isaac saw its perfection. . . . For this reason he acquired merit and a lamb was provided there, in his stead, for the burnt offering” (211). 119. Hayward (Divine Name and Presence, 79–80) comments: “Nowhere in the Rabbinic literature is the covenant oath quite so closely attached to the Sanctuary, to such an extent as to be almost identical with it. Such a notion may be derived from Scripture, especially from the Deuteronomic description of the Temple as ‘the place which the Lord your God shall choose to cause His Name to dwell there’. . . . In the Temple God’s Name is invoked as it may be nowhere else. . . . [T]he Jerusalem Temple is the outward and visible proof of the fulfillment of that oath, since it is the point of contact between heaven and earth, the place where God’s presence in His Memra is most keenly apprehended.” 120. There is a growing awareness among biblical scholars of the influence of ancient Jewish interpretive traditions on New Testament writers, especially Paul and the author of Hebrews. On this, see McNamara, Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament, 159– 204; L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (7 vols, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968) 1:285. Along with the Targums, many midrashic and rabbinic sources link Salem with Jerusalem and Shem with Melchizedek. See, e.g., Genesis Rabbah, 56.10A: “Abraham called it ‘will choose.’ Shem called it Shalem based on ‘and malkizedek king of shalem’ (Gen 14.18). Said the Holy One, if I call it yirʾeh (will choose) as Abraham called it, then Shem, the just one, will be upset; if on the other hand, I call it Shalem as Shem called it, Abraham, also a just man, will be upset; then let me combine their names, Yerushalem: Yirʾeh-Shalem” (Midrash Rabbah [ed. H. Freemen and M. Simon; London: Soncino, 1951]). 121. Hayward, “Present State of Research,” 148–49. 122. See McNamara, Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament, esp. Chapter 4, “Rabbinic Tradition and the New Testament” (pp 159–204), and Chapter 5, “Aramaic Targums and the New Testament” (pp 205–52). 123. One hotly disputed issue is the story’s historicity, which cannot be settled here. The question of historicity arises in connection with etiological interpretations of the episode; see K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerd­ mans, 2003) 313–72, esp. 319–22; N-E. A. Andreasen, “Gen 14 in Its Near Eastern Context,” in Scripture in Context (ed. C. D. Evans et al.; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980) 59–77; J. A. Emerton, “Some Problems in Genesis XIV,” in Studies in the Pentateuch (VTSup 41; ed. J. A. Emerton; Leiden: Brill, 1990) 100; S. Olyan, “Zadok’s Origins and the Tribal Politics of David,” JBL 101 (1982) 177–93; J. R. Kirkland, “The Incident at Salem: A Reexamination of Gen 14:18–20,” SBT 7 (1977) 3–23; M. C. Astour, “Political and Cosmic Symbolism in Gen 14 and Its Babylonian Sources,” in Biblical Motifs (ed. A. Altmann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966) 65–112. Given the tangle of opinion, Wenham’s judgment (Genesis 1–15, 320) seems apt: “To sum up, the account of Abram’s battle with the Eastern kings has many archaic features which suggest that an old source underlies the present version. However, it is not yet possible to pin down the events described to a specific period, for correlation with non-biblical accounts remains elusive.” 124. D. Steinmetz, From Father to Son: Kinship, Conflict, and Continuity in Genesis (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991) 145. Wenham (Genesis 1–15, 306) notes: “The parenthetic comment about Abram, ‘he was dwelling near the oaks of Mamre the Amorite’ (14:13), explicitly connects this story back to 13:18 and forward to 18:1. The

Notes to Pages 130–31  |  405 remark of Melchizedek ‘who has delivered [‫ ]מגן‬your oppressors’ anticipates 15:1 ‘I am your shield [‫]מגן‬.’ ” 125. Steinmetz, From Father to Son, 146. She continues: “The relationship established by Noah defined Canaan specifically as a slave (ʿeved) to his brothers, and stated that Yapheth would ‘dwell in the tents of Shem’ (9:25–27). This is precisely the situation at the beginning of chapter 14. The five kings of Canaanite cities (14:2; 10:19) are enslaved (ʿavdu) to Kedarlaomer, the king of Elam, the nation which bears the name of Shem’s first son (14:1, 10:22). Kedarlaomer’s confederates include the king of Goyim and the king of Shinar, names associated with Yapheth and with Ham, respectively (14:1; 10:5, 10). And, so, at the beginning of this story we find the protagonists of the primeval narrative exactly where we expect them. As in the genealogy of chapter 10, all of the sons of Noah are represented, and they assume the hierarchical relationship that Noah described in chapter 9. The first half of this story tells of the subjugation of Canaan to his brothers and of the successful battle of Shem, Yapheth, and Ham against their accursed kinsman” (146). 126. Steinmetz, From Father to Son, 146. The narrative makes it clear that Abram’s stature in the land was that of a vassal under the Amorites. The Amorites had been subjugated by the four Eastern kings (14:7), who later defeated the five Canaanite kings (14:1–11). Abram’s lowly position is evident from the description of Mamre the Amorite and his brothers, Eshcol and Aner, literally as “lords of the covenant of Abram,” a phrase which may be rendered “Abram’s allies” (see RSV), except that it fails to capture the subordinate status implied by the unusual phrase (i.e., “Abram’s covenant lords/­ owners”). In spite of their vassalage, the Amorites were over Abram as his “covenant lords.” This highlights the ironic reversal of his meteoric rise among the Canaanite kings. 127. The material on Melchizedek is vast. See F. L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976) 12–53; J. G. Gammie, “Loci of the Melchizedek Tradition of Gen 14:18–20,” JBL 90 (1971) 385–96; R. H. Smith, “Abram and Melchizedek,” ZAW 77 (1965) 129–53; I. Hunt, “Recent Melchizedek Study,” in The Bible in Current Catholic Thought (ed. J. L. McKenzie; New York: Herder and Herder, 1962) 21–33; L. Fisher, “Abraham and His Priest-King,” JBL 81 (1962) 264–70. 128. Steinmetz, From Father to Son, 146–47. She adds: “So the story of Abraham’s battle with the kings is crucially linked to the forging of God’s covenant with Abraham immediately following. We read the terms of the covenant and come to see that the future of Abraham’s descendants will have the shape of Abraham’s own past. And, looking back at the battle with the kings, we realize that, at the precise moment that Abraham had enacted the primeval blessing, he had enacted the destiny of the future nation of ­Israel—indeed, that the destiny of the patriarchal family and of the nation is a fulfillment of the promise of creation. In the book of Genesis, national and world history, future and past are encapsulated in the patriarchs’ quest for the blessing and for a way to pass on that blessing to their sons” (199 n. 43). She continues: “That Abraham here manifests the blessing of Shem may account for the strange appearance of the term haʿivri (14:13), used in this episode but nowhere else in the Abraham narrative. If we are to understand this term as referring to Eber, we can see why this description of Abraham may be relevant here” (199 n. 43). 129. P. F. Cremin, “According to the Order of Melchizedek,” IER 51 (1938–1939) 478. After criticizing the Vulgate translation of hôsִîʾ as proferens (“presenting” or “bringing forward”) for being overly partial to a sacrificial interpretation, Cremin concludes: “But

406  |  Notes to Pages 131–33 the more one examines the passage in all its aspects, the more one is inclined to admit that the mention of the priesthood of Melchisedech precisely at this point in the text suggests that in some way his use of bread and wine was associated in the writer’s mind with his priestly office rather than his kingly state [my emphasis]” (475). See J. E. Coleran, “The Sacrifice of Melchisedech,” TS 1 (1940) 27–36. For a sympathetic treatment from a Jewish perspective, see Benno Jacob, Das Erste Buch der Tora—­Genesis (Berlin: Schocken, 1934) 379. Jacob sees the offering of bread and wine as a priestly act connected with a “festliches Mahl” as a kind of precursor to the Jewish Kiddush. For a defense of the link between the bread and wine and Melchizedek’s priesthood, see J. F. X. Sheehan, “Melchizedek in Christian Consciousness,” Science Ecclésiastiques 18 (1966) 127–38. 130. Sheehan, “Melchisedech in Christian Consciousness,” 128–29. He further notes: “The Hebrew expression [‫—ְוהוּא‬14:18], coupled with context and the only possible alternative, does lead one to the translation: Melchisedech brought out bread and wine since he was a priest of the most high God.” 131. Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 205. Elsewhere he comments: “With the episode in 14:18–20 we are again in another world. The language has a decidedly cultic sound. But this must at once be made more precise: what is presented here is the sedentary cult of which priests, cultic institutions, and tithes are a part” (203). 132. See B. W. Anderson, Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel: Studies in their Social and Political Importance (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 84: “The fact that Abraham offers a tithe is very significant. This term usually implies more than simply a token gift. It is used most often to designate a routinized system. Therefore, there is an implied regularity to the act.” 133. See M. G. Kline, “Genesis,” in The New Bible Commentary, Revised (ed. D. Guthrie et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970) 95: “His oath was probably sworn before Melchizedek. Vassals were customarily allowed to retain the spoil of battles fought for their suzerains, but it was the latter’s prerogative to stipulate this in their treaties. The king of Sodom apparently sought to assume that role but Abram rejected the relationship. Vassal treaties prohibited subordination to any other royal benefactors. Rejection of the king of Sodom’s proposal was the consistent negative counterpart to Abram’s positive oath of allegiance to Yahweh as his covenant Lord.” 134. Steinmetz, From Father to Son, 199 n. 44. 135. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition, 117. 136. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition, 117. 137. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition, 117. Although it is difficult to date the Targums precisely or with certainty, it is probably true to say that a majority of scholars (e.g., M. McNamara, C. Hayward, and others) are willing to accept an early date for some of them (e.g., Targum Neofiti possibly as early as the second century bce). For the purposes of this study, it is sufficient to say that the Shem-Melchizedek identification goes as far back as Jewish interpretive traditions can be traced—to which certain Targums (especially Neofiti) bear ancient witness. 138. McNamara, Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament, 210. 139. J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I: A Commentary (2nd ed.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1971) 176. 140. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition, 114–15 n. 1. 141. See Rashi, Pentateuch: Genesis, 58. Ginzberg (Legends of the Jews, 5:225–26) comments: “The identity of Melchizedek with Shem is presupposed in many Jewish and Christian sources. . . . The Church Fathers Jerome, Questiones, 14.18, Ephraim I,

Notes to Pages 133–34  |  407 61E and 79D as well as Epiphanius Haer., 55.6, speak of Shem-Melchizedek. . . . The identity of Salem, Melchizedek’s city, with Jerusalem, presupposed in the rabbinic sources . . . is known also to Josephus, Wars VI. 10; . . . Clement, Stromata, 1.5; Jerome, Epistola ad Evargium, 73.” Weinfeld (Promise of the Land, 19) notes how Josephus “in his account about the beginning of Jerusalem (Bellum 6.438 ff.) relates that Malkizedeq was the first to officiate as priest in Jerusalem (cf. Gen 14:18), to build the temple there, and to call the city Jerusalem. In other words, Malkizedeq was the founder of Jerusalem.” 142. B. Vawter, Genesis: A New Reading (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977) 198. 143. S. Talmon, “The Biblical Concept of Jerusalem,” JES 8 (1971) 305. See also J. A. Emerton’s article, “The Site of Salem, the City of Melchizedek (Genesis xiv 18),” in Studies in the Pentateuch (VTSup 41; ed. J. A. Emerton; Leiden: Brill, 1990) 45–71, esp. 52. 144. M. Weinfeld, “Zion and Jerusalem as Religious and Political Capital: Ideology and Utopia,” in The Poet and the Historian: Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983) 103. F. M. Cross (“The Epic Traditions of Early Israel,” in ibid., 29) notes: “His priest, Melchizedek . . . is pictured as king of Salem-Jerusalem. . . . We need not concern ourselves with the origins of the story concerning the war. . . . Rather we are interested in the legitimization of a cult in Jerusalem and its evident function in legitimizing the national cult of David and Solomon.” Anderson (Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel, 84) comments: “The patriarch is offering cultic service to ʾel ʿel-yon . . . via the mediation of the priest of Jerusalem (the subsequent capital of Israel) and thereby sets up the precedent for all Israel to recognize this city as a legitimate place of worship. . . . So the narrative has a legitimizing function. Abraham’s single act of patronage is a precedent for later Israel. Jerusalem is understood to be worthy of regular cultic attendance.” 145. M. D. Johnson (The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies [New York: Cambridge, 1969] 270–71) sees haggadic traditions which assume Melchizedek’s identity as Shem and then read it back to show how Shem was a priest: “And how is Shem a priest? A haggadic tradition dating from approximately the same time [mid-second century ce] . . . ­ supplies the answer: Shem is identified with Melchizedek: ‘It was taught at the school of R. Ishmael [c. 140–65 ce]: “The Holy One, blessed be He, sought to make Shem the progenitor of the priesthood; for it says, ‘And Melchizedek king of ­Salem . . . was a priest of God’ [Gen 14:18].” ’ It is significant that in this passage it is not the identification of Shem with Melchizedek that is being proved—this again is treated as common knowledge—but that Shem was intended to be the beginning of the priesthood.” Johnson (p 271 n. 2) adds: “Cf. an anonymous tradition in Num R. 4:8 (102): ‘There is proof that Shem offered sacrifices; since it says: “And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest of God the Most High.” ’. . . Here again the identification of the two figures is presumed.” 146. See H. C. Brichto, “Kin, Cult, Land, and Afterlife—A Biblical Complex,” HUCA 44 (1973) 1–54. Brichto (ibid., 46) states: “There is ample evidence that the role of priest in the Israelite family had at one time been filled by the firstborn. . . . That the Levites clearly supplant the firstborn is explicit in Num 3:11–15 and 18:6ff.” See also H. Hailperin, Rashi and the Christian Scholars (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1963) 201: “Now Lyra . . . looks upon the priesthood as having had an earlier ministry . . . in the pre-Mosaic period. He is anxious to show that the priesthood originated ‘in natural law,’ as it were. Lyra knew the Jewish (as well as Christian) tradition that, before the divine institution of the priesthood on Mount Sinai . . . the

408  |  Notes to Pages 134–36 firstborn males officiated as priests.” So, “to maintain the idea of the hoary antiquity of the priesthood, even before the Sinaitic revelation, Lyra accepts the tradition which identified Melchizedek with Shem—presupposed in many Jewish and Christian sources” (203). Chapter 6 THE LEVITICAL GRANT-TYPE COVENANT 1. These issues are treated in a number of valuable studies. For a critical history of Israel’s priesthood, see A. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969); A. H. J. Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester. Haupt-linien der Traditionsbildung und Geschichte des israelitisch-jüdischen Kultpersonals (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), D. W. Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel (Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), and J. C. Vanderkam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004). For a study of the priesthood in antiquity, see L. Sabourin, Priesthood: A Comparative Study (SHR 25; Leiden: Brill, 1973) esp. 267–76. On the earlier institution and functions of Israel’s priesthood, see J. Coppens, “Old Testament Priesthood,” in Priesthood and Celibacy (Milan: Ancora, 1972) 3–30; L. Leloir, “Permanent Values of the Levitical Priesthood,” in ibid., 31–65; R. Sklba, The Teaching Function of the Pre-exilic Israelite Priesthood (Rome: Pontifical University of St. Thomas of Urbe Press, 1965). On critical issues regarding the relations between priests and Levites in ancient Israel, see J. M. O’Brien, Priest and Levite in Malachi (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990); M. Haran, “The Priesthood and the Tribe of Levi,” in Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978) 58–83; idem, “The Aaronites and the Rest of the Levitical Tribe,” in ibid., 84–111; and R. Nurmela, The Levites: Their Emergence as a Second-Class Priesthood (University of South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 193; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998). On Second Temple perceptions of the Levitical priesthood, see Robert A. Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi (SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature 9; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). 2. For a recent canonical-critical approach to the diverse covenant traditions within the Pentateuch, see R. T. Beckwith, “The Unity and Diversity of God’s Covenants,” TB 38 (1987) 100. Beckwith observes (and attempts a synthesis of) the “two other covenants with Israel, besides that of Ex 24: the covenant of Ex 34, after the sin with the golden calf, and the covenant of Dt 29–30, after the recapitulation of the Law in the land of Moab, on the eve of entering the Promised Land” (100). See also D. Polish, “Covenant: Jewish Universalism and Particularism,” in The Life of Covenant (ed. J. A. Edelheit; Chicago: Spertus College of Judaica Press, 1986) 142: “God made three covenants when Israel went out of Egypt . . . the covenants at Moab, Horeb, and the second set of commandments.” 3. See J. Goldin, “The Youngest Son or Where Does Genesis 38 Belong?” JBL 96 (1977) 27–44, esp. 35 n. 48. To avoid the danger of anachronism, it should be stated that the patriarchs are called neither “priests” nor “kings” although such terms are applied to others, usually in older traditions attributed to the Yahwist (see Gen 14:18). The patterns of patriarchal religion, in contrast to the Mosaic institutions of Israel’s religion, are carefully treated by R. W. L. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1992) 94– 104. He notes: “The patriarchs have neither prophet nor priest to mediate between

Notes to Pages 136–37  |  409 themselves and God, nor do they themselves fulfill the role of either prophet or priest with regard to others. There is a quality of unmediatedness about the patriarchal religion, which contrasts with the central roles that prophet and priest hold in Mosaic Yahwism” (94). However, this does not annul the cultic nature of their actions. J. Ha (Genesis 15: A Theological Compendium of Pentateuchal History [New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1989]) comments: “On the ground of the natural association of cult with sanctuary, it is very likely that the patriarchs’ actions recorded in the texts [e.g., Gen 12:7–8; 13:4, 18; 21:33] were cultic acts” (117). 4. See R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964) 345. 5. Sklba, Pre-exilic Israelite Priesthood, 53–54. See W. Zimmerli, “Erstgeborene und Leviten: Ein Beitrag zur exilisch-nachexilischen Theologie,” in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (ed. H. Goedicke; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971) 459–69. 6. J. R. Porter, The Extended Family in the Old Testament (London: Edutext, 1967) 10. Porter shows how the laws of Leviticus 18, for instance, are addressed to the firstborn son as the (eventual) head of the household (9). See also B. J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981) 97; N. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979) 302; K. Elliger, “Das Gesetz Leviticus 18,” ZAW 67 (1955) 1–25. 7. H. C. Brichto, “Kin, Cult, Land, and Afterlife—A Biblical Complex,” HUCA 44 (1973) 1–54, here 46. R. de Vaux, Sarna, and others concur. See de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 41–42, 345–359; N. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991) 24, 65, 104, 108, 151–52, 208–9; J. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 373; P. Gadenz, “The Priest as Spiritual Father,” in Catholic for a Reason: Scripture and the Mystery of the Family of God (ed. S. Hahn and J. Suprenant; Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing, 1998) 218–29. 8. See H. Hailperin, Rashi and the Christian Scholars (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1963) 201: “Now Lyra, always sensitive to the historical, looks upon the priesthood as having had an earlier ministry in the . . . pre-Mosaic period. He seems anxious to show that the priesthood originated ‘in natural law,’ as it were. Lyra knew the Jewish (as well as Christian) tradition that, before the divine institution of the priesthood on Mount Sinai, a sort of ministry existed. He says in three places that in the days before the erection of the tabernacle the firstborn males officiated as priests.” Hailperin cites Jerome on Gen 27:15, MPL 23:980. Thomas Aquinas also sees this as “natural law” (ST II-II, Q.87, a 1), as does J. Eck (in 1525): “Note that in the law of nature, all firstborn enjoyed the privilege of priesthood, and in the written law, the whole tribe of Levi succeeded in place of the firstborn. . . . In the law of nature, primogeniture was great, because the firstborn received the blessing from the father (and this was in place of the consecration), he had the power of blessing . . . he had a double portion in inheritance and spoils. All these things ceased with the first priesthood of Aaron” (Enchiridion of Commonplaces [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979] 234). See also B. J. Beitzel, “The Right of the Firstborn (Pî šnayim) in the Old Testament,” in Essays on the Old Testament (ed. W. C. Kaiser and R. F. Youngblood; Chicago: Moody, 1986) 179–95: “The institution should be viewed as the cultural mechanism through which the patripotestal authoritarianism that so thoroughly characterized patriarchal/clanal politics would have been transmitted to the next generation, as it effectively guaranteed to the firstborn son the right of estate succession” (179). See I. Mendelsohn, “On the Preferential Status of the Eldest Son,” BASOR 156 (1959) 38–40; C. H. Gordon, “Fratriarchy

410  |  Notes to Pages 137–38 in the Old Testament,” JBL 54 (1935) 223–31; F. E. Greenspahn, When Brothers Dwell Together: The Preeminence of Younger Siblings in the Hebrew Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994) 21–22. 9. B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis (The Aramaic Bible 6; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1988) 158. 10. M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (The Aramaic Bible 1B; Collegeville, MN; The Liturgical Press, 1992), 157. The following passages from other Targums are also relevant. “Reuben, my first-born are you. . . . The birthright was yours; and the kingdom and the high priesthood were destined for you. Because you sinned . . . the birthright has been given to Joseph, my son, and the kingdom to Judah, and the high priesthood to the tribe of Levi” (Gen 49:3, M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis [The Aramaic Bible 1A; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992] 217). “And he sent the first-born of the Israelites and they offered burnt offerings, sacrificed sanctified offerings {in the form of bulls} before the Lord” (Exod 24:5, B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Exodus [The Aramaic Bible 7; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1988] 70–71). “The sons of Reuben, the first-born of Israel: he was indeed the first-born, but when he desecrated his sanctity by going up to his father’s bed, his birthright was taken away from him and given to the sons of Joseph. . . . Because Judah was the strongest of his brethren, the kingship was taken away from Reuben and given to Judah. . . . As for Levi, he was a godly man . . . so the high priesthood was taken away from the sons of Reuben and . . . given to Aaron and his sons . . . but the birthright was given to Joseph” (1 Chr 5:1–2; J. S. McIvor, The Targum of Chronicles [The Aramaic Bible 19; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1994] 64). 11. See Beitzel, “The Right of the Firstborn (Pîšnayim) in the Old Testament,” 180: “The purpose of primogeniture then was the systematic and orderly transference of social, legal, and religious authority within the family structure. . . . The preeminence of the firstborn, moreover, sometimes extended into the religious sphere, as he would function in the role of clanal priest.” Sklba (Pre-Exilic Israelite Priesthood, 43 n. 56) points out how the link between paternity, primogeniture, and priesthood was also common outside of Israel: “Paternity was associated with the priesthood among the Assyrians and Babylonians as well, for abâni (fathers) could also refer to priests.” See the story in Judg 17 where Micah appoints his son to be a priest (17:5), before replacing him with a Levite (17:13), both of whom are asked to serve as “a father and a priest” (17:10). Cody sees this reference to the priest as father as “clearly an epithet . . . of functional office, and perhaps even a title given regularly to priests” (History of Old Testament Priesthood, 53). See also B. Levine, “Firstborn,” EncJud, 6:1307: “The first-born of a levitical clan was normally placed in charge of his brothers.” 12. J. Milgrom, “First-Born,” IDBSupp, 5:337. He also notes: “The Bible may be preserving the memory of the firstborn bearing a sacred status, and his replacement by the Levites (Num 3:11–13, 40ff.; 8:14–18) may reflect the establishment of a professional priestly class” (338). 13. G. Van Groningen, Messianic Revelation in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990) 221. He also notes: “Scholars are generally agreed that the firstborn eldest son . . . had a certain prerogative. He took precedence over his younger brothers (Gen 43: 33); received a double share of the inheritance when his father died (Gen 48:5–20; Deut 21:15–17); and was to be respected as a leader. But his prerogatives could be lost: for the firstborn Reuben through his incestuous conduct (Gen 35:22; 49:3–4), and older Esau because of his indifference (25:29–34)” (219).

Notes to Pages 138–40  |  411 14. Van Groningen, Messianic Revelation, 219–20. R. J. Faley (The Kingdom of Priests [S.T.D. diss.; Rome: Pontificium Athenaeum Internationale (“Angelicum”), 1960] 88) shows how Philo describes royal priesthood being offered to the twelve tribes of Jacob with Noah’s blessing of Shem: “Once more Jacob is the source of the twelve tribes of whom the oracles say that they are ‘the palace and priesthood of God’—this following in due sequence the thought originated in Shem in whose houses it was prayed that God might dwell” (quoting from De Sobrietate, 66 in Colson-Whittaker, Philo 3 [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1954]). 15. C. Wright, “Family,” AYBD, 2:765. 16. See M. Tsevat, “bekôr, ” TDOT, 2:126: “It is not only the best that belongs to God, but also the first. It would be presumptuous for man to enjoy something without first giving God his portion. The firstborn of man and beast and the first-fruits of field and garden (see Lev 19:23–25) are given to God as his portion by sacral consecration.” See also J. G. Gammie (Holiness in Israel [Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989]), who shows how the notion of “holiness” does not emerge in the Pentateuch until the Exodus narrative. 17. In the Abraham cycle, Ishmael is expelled because of the threat he poses to the inheritance of his half-brother, Isaac (Gen 21:10). In the Jacob cycle, fraternal friction arises with Leah’s sons and their younger half-brother, Joseph, the firstborn son of Rachel, that reflects Laban’s treacherous application of primogeniture to the order in which Jacob marries his maternal cousin(s). This is the poetic justice that comes to Jacob for supplanting Esau’s birthright. See Goldin (“The Youngest Son”), who explains the seemingly anomalous placement of the Judah-Tamar story in light of this ongoing sub-plot of primogeniture and fraternal subversion. Judah is taught a hard lesson (after selling Rachels’ firstborn into slavery), by losing his own firstborn, Er, and then watching his twin son, Perez, strangely delivered at birth ahead of his “older” brother, Zerah. 18. The significance of 4:21–23 within the context of the Book of Exodus has been shown by E. Galbiati’s literary analysis, La struttural letteraria dell’Esodo (Roma: Edizioni Paoline, 1956) 234–49. He divides 1:1–7:7 into four sections, revealing a concentric structure with the center in 4:21–23. See C. J. H. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990) 87: “Exod 4:22 is the only occasion where Israel is described as Yahweh’s firstborn son (in the Pentateuch; cf. Jer 31:9). Nevertheless, this unique occurrence in Exodus is surely therefore all the more significant in the context of the theological impact of these chapters taken as a whole in their final shape.” 19. Van Groningen, Messianic Revelation, 220. 20. See P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant (AnBib 88; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982) 157 n. 149. On Israel as God’s “possession” (sĕgullâ) see W. J. Dumbrell, “The Prospect of Unconditionality in the Sinaitic Covenant,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration (ed. A. Gileadi; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988) 145: “In Eccl 2:8, a sĕgullâ is a special piece of crown property. But the reference at 1 Chr 29:3 is even more interesting. There, David declares his intention to devote himself to the building of the temple. He will use not merely the empire’s resources . . . but also his personal property, his sĕgullâ. All the empire is his, but amid that general ownership there is still the concept of a further special attainment.” He adds: “Israel is not a priestly nation elevated above the normal world; rather by her separation Israel will ‘come to be’ (hayâ, v 6) a priestly nation.”

412  |  Notes to Pages 140–41 On the meaning of mamleket kōhănîm, see E. Schüssler-Fiorenza, Priester für Gott: Studien zum Herrschafts und Priestmotiv in der Apokalypse (Munster: Aschendorff, 1972) 138–41. Schüssler-Fiorenza interprets kōhănîm as the modifier and attribute of mamleket. 21. Moberly (The Old Testament of the Old Testament, 99) comments: “The notion of holiness, which from Exodus onward is . . . a major requirement for Israel, is entirely lacking in the patriarchal traditions.” He notes, however: “When the people of Israel later arrive at Sinai, the first thing that is said to them is that they are to be a holy nation (goy qadôš, Exod 19:6). The concept of holiness pervades Mosaic Yahwism and is extensively developed in its religious and moral implications in the various pentateuchal laws, more of which are related to holiness than to any other religious concept” (100). For Moberly, “holiness” is the profound principle for differentiating the natural family religion of the patriarchs from Mosaic Yahwism. Indeed, he argues that the difference between the two is comparable to the distinction between Judaism of the Old Covenant and Christianity of the New. 22. W. Harrelson, Interpreting the Old Testament (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964) 92. See also Dumbrell, “Prospect of Unconditionality,” 144. Van Groningen (Messianic Revelation, 221) comments: “It must be concluded that the firstborn was a definite messianic concept, messianic in its wider as well as in its narrower senses. In the latter case, the idea of a son representing God to the people brings out the royal ­concept—the firstborn was a son of the royal family of God. . . . In addition the firstborn evidenced the strength of the father, represented the people before God and served in a mediatorial role in that capacity.” 23. W. Vogels, God’s Universal Covenant: A Biblical Study (2nd ed.; Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1986) 48. Vogel also shows how Israel’s vocation relates to ­Abraham’s covenant vocation: “Israel was taken from among the nations to be at the service of the nations. . . . This text (Ex 19:3–8) confirms what we have seen before in the promises to Abraham. He would become a people from whom all the nations would one day receive blessings of salvation. Israel is a mediator. She must bring mankind closer to God, pray to God for mankind, and intercede for mankind, as Abraham did. . . . Israel has also to bring God closer to men, by bringing them God’s revelation” (48–49). 24. J. G. Williams, The Bible, Violence, and the Sacred (San Francisco: Harper­ Collins, 1991) 106. See also Sarna, Exodus, 24, 104. 25. T. W. Mann, The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988) 99–100. 26. Dumbrell, “The Prospect of Unconditionality,” 147. 27. Three covenant-making episodes between God and Israel are distinguishable: the original covenant with Israel at Sinai (Exod 19–24), the covenant renewed with Moses and the Levites (Exod 32–34), and the covenant with the second generation made on the plains of Moab (Deut 27; Josh 8:30–35). This should not be considered odd or unseemly since a parallel phenomenon has already been noted with the Abrahamic and Noahic covenant traditions. Since the correlation of Exod 19–24 with the kinship-type and Deuteronomy with the treaty-type have already been made, it remains to be seen whether the covenant in Exod 32–34 may be that of a grant-type. 28. See in Chapter 1, “The Plan for This Study.” 29. Williams, Bible, Violence and the Sacred, 114, citing M. Buber, Moses: The Revelation and the Covenant (New York: Harper & Brothers Torchbook, 1958) 114. Actually, Buber draws his interpretation from ancient Jewish tradition (Targums, Midrashim, Rashi, Mainmonides, and others). See Hailperin, Rashi, 201; U. Cassuto, A Commen-

Notes to Pages 142–43  |  413 tary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967) 311 (where the interpretation is assumed). 30. This includes four doctoral dissertations; see C. Lambert, “Le Veau d’or: étude critique et historique du chapitre 32 du livre de l’Exode” (Ph.D. diss.; Sorbonne, 1982); J. Hahn “Das ‘Goldene Kalb.’ Die Jahwe-Verehrung bei Stierbildern in der Geschichte Israels” (Ph.D. diss.; Tübingen, 1980); A. J. Meenan, “An Interpretive Study of the Narrative of the Golden Calf,” (Ph.D. diss.; Edinburgh, 1980); and J. W. Davenport, “A Study of the Golden Calf Tradition in Exodus 32” (Ph.D. diss.; Princeton University, 1973). For a thorough treatment, see D. R. Davis, “Rebellion, Presence, and Covenant: A Study in Exodus 32–34,” WTJ 44 (1982) 71–87. 31. For Ugaritic parallels, see F. C. Fensham, “The Burning of the Golden Calf and Ugarit,” IEJ 16 (1966) 191–93; S. E. Loewenstamm, “The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf,” Bib 48 (1967) 481–90; L. G. Perdue, “The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf: A Reply,” Bib 54 (1973) 237–46. For parallels with the Canaanite bull cult of Baal-Zephon, see N. Habel, Yahweh Versus Baal (New York: Bookman, 1964), 34–35; J. Sasson, “Bovine Symbolism in the Exodus Narrative,” VT 18 (1968) 380–87; idem, “The Worship of the Golden Calf,” AOAT 22 (1973) 151–59; L. R. Bailey, “The Golden Calf,” HUCA 42 (1971) 107–15. Habel points out that the bull cult thrived in Egypt as well as in Canaan. For Egyptian background, see J. Oswalt, “The Golden Calves and the Egyptian Concept of Deity,” EvQ 45 (1973) 13–20. 32. M. Noth, Exodus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962) 247. 33. See Num 11:5–20; 14:2–22; Deut 17:16; 1 Kgs 11:40; 12:2; Isa 30:2–3; 31:1; Jer 42:14–19; Ezek 23:3–27. 34. M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 (AYB 5; New York: Doubleday, 1991; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press) 424. 35. R. W. L. Moberly, At The Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983) 166–67. 36. W. H. Gispen (Exodus [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982] 96) states that Amenhotep II [his choice for the Pharaoh of the Exodus] “surpassed all his predecessors in his fanatical devotion to the worship of animals, and especially the bull. In 1906 a statue made of sandstone was excavated representing a cow and Amenhotep II leaning his head under its head; he is also depicted kneeling under a cow, drinking its divine milk. He is thus seen as child and slave of the cow goddess.” 37. Harrelson, Interpreting the Old Testament, 91 n. 28. See also G. W. Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness (New York: Abingdon, 1968) 184–91; idem, “The King’s Loyal Opposition: Obedience and Authority in Exodus 32–34,” in Canon and Authority (ed. G. W. Coats; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 91–109. 38. Haran (“The Priesthood and the Tribe of Levi,” 64–70) sees a J fragment (32:25– 29) inserted in the E narrative (32:1–24, 30–35). See also J. Van Seters (“Law and the Wilderness Rebellion Tradition: Exodus 32,” SBL 1990 Seminar Papers [ed. D. J. Lull; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990] 583–91) for a revisionist approach to the (postexilic) Yahwist composition of Exodus 32. 39. M. Aberbach and L. Smolar (“Aaron, Jeroboam, and the Golden Calves,” JBL 86 [1967] 129–40) give a list of thirteen parallels with Aaron and Jeroboam. See M. L. Newman, The People of the Covenant (New York: Abingdon, 1962) 182; Moberly, At the Mountain of God, 161–71. 40. See M. White (“The Elohistic Depiction of Aaron: A Study in the Levite-Zadokite Controversy,” in Studies in the Pentateuch [VTSup 41; ed. J. A. Emerton; Leiden: Brill, 1990] 149–59) for a summary of more recent critical views and approaches.

414  |  Notes to Page 143 41. See Moberly, At the Mountain of God, 161–62. 42. See M. A. Sweeney, “The Wilderness Traditions of the Pentateuch: A Reassessment of Their Function and Intent in Relation to Exodus 32–34,” SBL 1989 Seminar Papers (ed. D. J. Lull; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 291–99; T. B. Dozeman, God on the Mountain: A Study of Redaction, Theology, and Canon in Exodus 24 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 37–86; L. Perlitt Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969) 203–10. 43. M. Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (trans. B. W. Anderson; Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972) 31 n. 115. 44. See, e.g., H. C. Brichto, “The Worship of the Golden Calf: A Literary Analysis of a Fable on Idolatry,” HUCA 54 (1983) 1–44; Moberly, At the Mountain of God, 44–115. 45. G. C. Chirichigno, “The Narrative Structure of Exod 19–24,” Bib 68 (1987) 457– 79. See also H. C. Brichto, Toward a Grammar of Biblical Poetics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992) 88–121; M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987) 245, 414–15, 439, 476–77; P. Ricoeur, “Narrative Time,” Critical Inquiry 7 (1980) 41–46. 46. See W. J. Martin, “ ‘Dischronologized’ Narrative in the Old Testament,” in Congress Volume: Rome 1968 (VTSup 17; Leiden: Brill, 1968) 179–86. B. S. Childs, Exodus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974) comments: “A topical scheme of contrasting scenes often dislocates the chronological sequence of the narrative” (559). 47. Hailperin (Rashi, 72) comments: “As Rashi read his Bible, and came to the section in Exodus known to us as chapter 24, he, of course, followed the rabbinic tradition which looked upon this section as having been spoken before the Ten Commandments were given. . . . Thus, for Rashi, the ‘words of the Lord’ and the ‘judgements’ mentioned in 24:3 were spoken before the time of the Revelation at Sinai, even though this section (ch 24) in the written Torah comes later.” See L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (5 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968) 3:87. S. R. Driver (Exodus [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911] 177) draws similar conclusions. See J. H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992) 55 n. 89: “According to literary critical theory, the narrative in its present state has been rearranged. . . . As the narrative now stands, the Decalogue (Ex 20:1–17) is presented not as the word which God spoke to the people but rather the word which Moses spoke to the people in 19:25.” 48. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 273, cites Rashi: “An early Jewish tradition held that God already gave Israel a few sections of the Torah at Marah—such commands as the keeping of the Sabbath and those necessary for the administration of justice.” If the Decalogue is what Moses heard/received from Yahweh at Sinai, before the golden calf episode, then the subsequent laws in Exodus 25–31and 35–40 may be interpreted as divinely given to Moses because of the golden calf, as provisions which God foresees as soon becoming necessary for Israel. Such a notion comports with the idea that the laws in the Covenant Code represent ad hoc legal stipulations, analogous to the laws of Deuteronomy, which were spoken by Moses acting as God’s ­representative—quite apart from any divine theophany like the one at Sinai. In this way, the critical results of a diachronic analysis of Exod 21–23 and Deuteronomy may be recast into a synchronic explanation based upon Moses’ narrative role as legal spokesman and interpreter for Israel. See F. C. Fensham, “The Role of the Lord,” VT 26 (1976) 262: “Some of these rules [in Exod 21–23] reflect so closely the general legal practices of those times that it’s not surprising that it is nowhere stated that the Lord

Notes to Pages 144–46  |  415 commands it. These rules were shared by the Israelites and the other nations of the ancient Near East.” 49. Childs, Exodus, 542. On the literary placement of Exod 32 generally, see M. Soo Suh, The Tabernacle in the Narrative History of Israel from the Exodus to the Conquest (Studies in Biblical Literature 50; New York: Peter Lang, 2003), 77–83. 50. The Hebrew in Lev 19:27 reads literally, “You shall not spoil (= ‘trim’) the corner of your beard.” 51. See A. M. Rodriguez, “Sanctuary Theology in Exodus,” AUSS 24 (1986) 139. 52. L. Smolar and M. Aberbach, “The Golden Calf Episode in Postbiblical Literature,” HUCA 39 (1968) 91–116, here 105. 53. The grant was subsequently renewed with both Isaac and Jacob/Israel (see Gen 26:3–5; 28:13–15). 54. J. Ha, Genesis 15: A Theological Compendium of Pentateuchal History (BZAW 181; New York 1989) 162. 55. Ha, Genesis 15, 162. Moses’ intercession with Yahweh echoes Ezek 20:13–14: “Then I thought I would pour out my wrath upon them in the wilderness, to make a full end of them. But I acted for the sake of my name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations, in whose sight I had brought them out.” The prophet shows God being faithful to his oath to uphold his own name, i.e., that which he invoked by swearing to Abraham in Genesis 22. Since that oath required God to bless all nations through the seed of Abraham, it follows that God did act for the sake of his name, in the sense that he did not allow the sin of Israel to keep him from completing the deliverance of Israel, through whom the nations would eventually be blessed (see Ezek 20:27–43). 56. Ha, Genesis 15, 163. In the rest of his work, Ha argues that this oath served as “the force behind Israel’s history.” 57. On this see Gadenz, “Priest as Spiritual Father,” 220–27; Sarna, Exodus, 66–67; Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 373; Milgrom, Numbers, 17–18. 58. Cassuto, Exodus, 311. 59. See F. Landy, “Narrative Techniques and the Symbolic Transactions in the Akedah,” in Signs and Wonders: Biblical Texts in Literary Focus (ed. C. Exum; Decatur, GA: SBL, 1989) 33: “An initial command, ‘All the firstborn of your sons you shall give to me’ (Exod 22:31) is retracted twelve chapters later (Exod 34:20).” A certain confusion may appear from the dual statement in Exod 13 when Israel is commanded to consecrate all firstlings to him in vv. 1–2 (where firstborn sons are explicitly included), as opposed to the command in vv. 12–13, where the firstborn sons are likened to unclean donkeys that must be redeemed or slain; i.e., the parents must redeem their own firstborn sons from God. The apparent contradiction is resolved by noting the future time reference in v. 11, where the uncleanness and redemption of the firstborn sons pertain to the time “when the Lord brings you into the land of the Canaanites.” The legal variation thus serves a narrative function as a proleptic omen of bad things to come (i.e., the effects of the golden calf incident), at the same time it offers assurance that legal provisions were made in advance on the basis of divine foreknowledge. See M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985) 182–87. 60. For a summary of the treatment of the firstborn in the different traditions and law codes, see Milgrom, Numbers, 431–32. Elsewhere he notes: “Since the first-born of pure animals automatically belonged to the Lord (they must anyway be sacrificed on the altar and may not be redeemed, Lev 27:26; Num 18:15, 17), the rabbis, in Bekhorot 4b, conclude that the redeemed Israelite animals must have been impure, ineligible for the altar, and therefore redeemable” (23).

416  |  Notes to Pages 146–48 61. Milgrom, Numbers, 432. Milgrom further states: “This also means the Levites were chosen for their role before the erection of the Tabernacle . . . as a result of the golden calf apostasy” (338). On the elaborate ritual transfer of the priestly privileges of the firstborn to the Levites in Numbers 3–8, see B. Levine, Numbers 1–20 (AYB 4; New York: Doubleday, 1993; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press) 177. 62. A. Wildavsky, The Nursing Father: Moses as a Political Leader (Birmingham: University of Alabama Press, 1984) 168–69. 63. Milgrom, Numbers, 62. See also the Mishnah (M. Zevahim 14:4): “Before the tabernacle was set up . . . the [Altar-]service was fulfilled by the firstborn. But after the tabernacle was set up . . . the [Altar-]service was fulfilled by the priests.” (The Mishnah [trans. H. Danby; London: Oxford University Press, 1954] 489). See also A. Guttmann, “The End of the Jewish Sacrificial Cult,” HUCA 38 (1967) 137. 64. L. Smolar and M. Aberbach, “The Golden Calf Episode in Postbiblical Literature,” HUCA 39 (1968) 91–116, here 105. They point to a Talmudic claim (T. B. Shabbath 88a), “where R. Simlai related that the two crowns awarded to each Israelite at Sinai were taken away after the golden calf incident. The crowns concerned were . . . kingship and priesthood” (107 n. 19). See further Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 3:211–16. 65. D. Barthélemy (God and His Image: An Outline of Biblical Theology [New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966] 142) describes it this way: “From the time of . . . the making of the golden calf, a law of substitutes was established which first became explicit in Israel’s whole system of cult. Later . . . it became explicit in extensive legalism. . . . ­ These . . . are types of holiness by substitution, stemming from the impossibility of realizing adequately . . . the original command, ‘Be you holy, because I am holy.’ ” 66. See Moses’ blessing of the Levites in Deut 33:8–10: “Of Levi he said, ‘Give to Levi thy Thummim and thy Urim to thy godly one . . . who said of his father and mother, “I regard them not”; he disowned his brothers and ignored his children. For they observed thy word, and kept thy covenant. They shall teach Jacob thy ordinances, and Israel thy law; they shall put incense before thee and whole burnt offering upon thy altar.’ ” 67. Paul seems to allude to this “angel” when addressing the question, “Why then the law?” (Gal 3:19–21; see Heb 2:2). Sweeney (“The Wilderness Traditions of the Pentateuch,” 298) discusses the striking difference between the angel’s positive role in Exod 23:20–33 and its negative purpose in Exod 33:2: “It plays an entirely different role in Exodus 32–34, however, where it has been removed from its context in relation to the festival law code and placed in Exod 33:1–6 at the beginning of the narrative concerning the reestablishment of the covenant following the golden calf episode. Instead of functioning as a symbol of security, it functions as a symbol of YHWH’s dissatisfaction with the people.” 68. In Exod 32:7 God speaks of “your people whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt.” 69. Childs, Exodus, 607. 70. W. L. Moran, review of K. Baltzer, Das Bundesformular, in Bib 43 (1962) 105–6. Moberly (At the Mountain of God, 93) comments: “There is some uncertainty over who is the addressee in v. 10. In v. 10a it is clearly Moses; the people are ‘your people’ (­ʿammeka). The LXX reads ego tithemi soi diatheken, thus making Moses the primary recipient of the covenant. This agrees with v. 27.” Elsewhere Moberly notes the contrast between “the privacy of the theophany to the faithful mediator, as opposed to the publicity of Ex 19” (160). See also J. P. Hyatt, Exodus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 323: “There is nothing in the language which suggests a covenant renewal. In the J narrative

Notes to Pages 148–50  |  417 here the emphasis is upon the fact that Yahweh made the covenant with Moses (verses 10, 27). It is only indirectly a covenant with Israel.” 71. Mann, The Book of the Torah, 110. Mann (111) further comments: “Chapter 34 represented a covenant renewal, but chapters 35–40 do not represent a renewal of the sacral community, for this community has not yet come into existence. Indeed, the text has never suggested that the people know of Yahweh’s plan for the tabernacle.” 72. For a useful treatment of the Tabernacle in Exodus and later traditions, see C. R. Koester, The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament (Washington, DC: CBA, 1989). See also Barthélemy, God and His Image, 145: “In the [Israelites’] place, the Levites will establish the bond with the Lord, will offer victims, and will purify the people. . . . In this manner they fulfil exactly the part of a caste acting as a screen in a presence that is dangerous and, as it were, ‘radio-active’.” 73. See Brichto, “The Worship of the Golden Calf,” 24 n. 16: “When the elaborate tabernacle (miškan) or Tent of Encounter is made it will be within the Israelite encampment in a positional sense, with three tribes encamped to the north, the south, the east, and the west. But in a constitutive sense, it will be ‘outside the encampment’ in a sacred sense as the areas beyond the tribes will be ‘outside the encampment’ in a profane sense. This allows for a play in the books of Leviticus and Numbers on the significance of YHWH’s presence in the midst in one sense and non-presence in its midst in another sense.” 74. Cf. Barthélemy, God and His Image, 144: “The Levites will thus realize in the midst of Israel the vocation which should be Israel’s among the nations.” 75. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 47–48. Sailhamer observes further: “Not only is there an ordo temporum between the covenants but . . . an ordo temporum within the covenants as well” (49 n. 67). 76. This interpretive approach echoes traditions found in ancient and medieval Jewish and Christian sources. G. Wenham (Leviticus [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979] 148) comments: “ ‘Take for yourself a perfect bull calf’ (v. 2). Jewish commentators have long noted the irony of this command to Aaron. The first sacrifice he has to offer is a calf, as if to atone for his sin in making the golden calf (Exod 32).” Hailperin (Rashi, 208) concurs: “Rashi says that the calf was selected as a sin offering to announce to Aaron that God granted him atonement by means of this calf for the incident of the golden calf which he had made. The idea was taken by Rashi from the older midrashim” (citing Sifra, 43b and Nicholas of Lyra). See also Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed (London: Butler and Tanner, 1928) 364: “It is the object of all these ceremonies to impress on the mind of every sinner . . . the necessity of continually remembering and mentioning his sins. . . . The same we notice in the case of Aaron. He had his share in the sin of the golden calf and therefore a bull . . . [was] brought by him and his successors as an offering.” See also Ginzberg (Legends of the Jews, 3:182–83), where Moses commands Aaron: “But to make sure that God has become reconciled to you, offer up a bull also, and thereby acknowledge that you are slaughtering before God your idol, the bull that you had erstwhile worshiped.” 77. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 344. A remarkably similar outlook is shared by the author of the Letter to the Hebrews. In Heb 10:1–4 he concludes his discussion of the sacrificial ritual of the Day of Atonement by declaring: “It can never, by the same sacrifices which are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered? If the worshipers had once been cleansed, they would no longer have any consciousness of sin. But

418  |  Notes to Pages 150–52 in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year. For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.” The emphasis is on how “these sacrifices” serve as a yearly “reminder” (anamnēsis, v. 3). Given the author’s choice of the technical cultic term anamnēsis, as well as the mention of “the blood of bulls and goats” which cannot “take away sins” (v. 4), he appears to be identifying the offerings of Yom Kippur as an appropriate penitential exercise intended to express renunciation of sin—by the priest via the bull and for the people via the goat. To renounce sin, however, does not necessarily remove it. The author, therefore, also emphasizes how the yearly repetition of these sacrifices points to their inefficacy. If the sins of the priest and the people had actually been removed, there would be no need for them to remember or renounce them on an annual basis. In sum, the author of Hebrews employs a wellthought-out polemic drawn from his own careful reading of the Day of Atonement in its Pentateuchal context. 78. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 49. 79. See Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 46 n. 63: “The Hebrew word ‫שׂעירם‬ usually means ‘goats,’ but it can also mean ‘goat idols.’ According to 2 Ch 11:15, these ‫ שׂעירם‬are said to have been ‘made’ by Jereboam along with his ‘calf idols’ (cf. L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon [Leiden: Brill, 1990]: 4:1250.” See also J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (Waco, TX: Word, 1992) 272: “A major motivation for this [Lev 17:1–9] legislation is to prevent the Israelites from sacrificing to demons. The demons are referred to by the term ‫שׂעירם‬, ‘he-goats,’ i.e., demons who were thought to appear in the form of goats. . . . In Isa 13:21 and 34:14 these satyrs inhabit open fields, ruins, and desolate places. . . . The practice of this kind of worship is also attested at the time of Josiah, for in his reform he had the high places to goat demons smashed (this position is based on reading ‫השׂעירם‬, ‘goats, demons,’ for MT ‫השׁערים‬, ‘gates’ [2 Kgs 23:8]).” 80. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 49. 81. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 344. Sailhamer comments further: “In the same way the golden calf incident served to introduce laws which governed the priests, the incident of the ‘goat idols’ (Lev 17:7) provided an apt introduction to the laws intended to govern the common people. It should further be noted that in the Levitical laws apart from the ‘young bull’ required for the priest, the sin offering required a ‘male goat’ for a leader of the people or a ‘female goat’ for an individual of the community (4:22–31). It is fitting therefore that the narrative in Leviticus 17:2–9 portrays the people as guilty of sacrificing and prostituting themselves to ‘goats’ (v 7). . . . The narrative in Leviticus 17: 1–9 also shows that more regulations were still needed, not so much for the priests as for the people. . . . Thus Leviticus 17 plays a strategic role as a prologue to the laws that follow (Lev 18–26); it shows the necessity for this set of laws dealing with the everyday life of the people of God” (344–45). See also Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, 364: “The sin connected with a kid of goats is atoned for by a kid of goats.” 82. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 312–13. The same outlook is echoed in the Targums, Midrashim, and Rashi. See also the comments on Jer 7:22–23 in Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, 325–26: “ ‘For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. . . .’ It is distinctly stated in Scripture, and handed down by tradition, that the first commandments communicated to us did not include any law at all about burnt offering and sacrifice.” S. D. Benin (The Footprints of God: Divine Accommodation in Jewish and Christian Thought [Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1993])

Notes to Pages 152–55  |  419 demonstrates how this view of animal sacrifice as a divine accommodation to Israel’s weakness and proneness to idolatry was shared by Jewish and Christian thinkers from patristic to medieval times (e.g., by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Athanasius, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Aphrahat, Augustine, Ephrem, Origen, Jerome, Nicholas of Lyra, Hugh of St. Victor, Thomas Aquinas). Benin shows how it was most clearly formulated in the Didascalia Apostolorum (ch. 26), which also cites numerous OT references (Ps 50:13–14; Jer 15:1–2; Ezek 20:25–26; Amos 5:25–26). 83. Porter (The Extended Family in the Old Testament, 9–10) shows how the incest prohibitions following Lev 18:5 (vv. 6–18) all have the firstborn son in mind. 84. See Chapter 3, “Distinctive Aspects of the Deuteronomic Covenant,” where it was shown that the failure of the cultic laws (which were continually added after certain rebellious acts) to rehabilitate Israel is manifest in the second generation’s idolatrous rebellion at Beth-peor in Num 25:1–10. The stage for that dire drama is carefully set by the redactor’s skillful placement of Balaam’s Oracles (Num 22–24) delivered in Moab (Num 22:1)—right where the Deuteronomic covenant was ratified following the second generation’s apostasy. 85. On the divine oath in Num 14 (“surely as I live”), see P. Wegner, “The Nature of Divine Oaths in the Old Testament,” (Th.M. thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1984) 115–16. 86. Moses had earlier appealed to the Abrahamic oath in Num 14:16, pleading for mercy on behalf of the people. He had appealed to this same oath (more successfully) at Sinai after the golden calf incident. 87. This point is important to highlight as it will impact the interpretation of Hebrews in Part Two of this study. In Hebrews, the “inheritance” (1:2) of the “firstborn” (1:6) is shared with his “brethren” (2:11), who are then identified as “Abraham’s descendants” (literally “seed,” σπέρματοϛ, 2:16). It is also noteworthy how the original context of the Hebrews citation about Moses being “faithful in all God’s house as a servant” (Heb 3:5; see Num 12:7) occurs immediately prior to Israel’s sin and God’s oath of disinheritance (Num 13–14), because these two subjects are what the author of Hebrews immediately turns to consider in the next few verses: “Today, when you hear his voice, harden not your hearts as in the rebellion. . . . As I swore in my wrath, They shall never enter my rest. . . . Who were they that heard and yet were rebellious? Was it not all those who left Egypt under the leadership of Moses? And with whom was he provoked forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? And to whom did he swear that they should never enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient” (Heb 3:7–8, 11, 4:16–18). The link between the promised land and “rest” then leads to his treatment of the Sabbath (4:1–11). 88. D. T. Olson, The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985) 145. 89. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 387. See also Olson, Death of the Old and the Birth of the New, 171; Milgrom Numbers, 403. J. L. Mays (Leviticus and Numbers [Richmond: John Knox, 1963] 98) notices the problem, but not the solution, for he sees no reason “why the collection [of cultic laws] appears just after Israel’s failure to enter Canaan in chs. 13–14.” The “reason” has been pointed out above: Israel’s covenant condition and status decline with every rebellious act; God responds to the rebellion with the stipulation of new “penitential” ritual laws. 90. See J. Barr, “Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant,” in Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (ed. H. Donner, et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977) 23–38, esp. 25–34; P. J. Naylor, “The Language of Covenant. A Structural Analy-

420  |  Notes to Pages 156–57 sis of the Semantic Field of ‫ ְב ִרית‬in Biblical Hebrew,” (D.Phil. diss., Oxford University, 1980) 380–95. Both warn against the error of denying the presence of a covenant simply because ‫ ְבִּרית‬is not explicitly stated. The modern linguistics label for this sort of error is “the word-thing fallacy.” 91. G. P. Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (VTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 157. See E. M. Meyers, “Priestly Language in the Book of Malachi,” HAR 10 (1987) 232; J. Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983) 242; P. A. Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 245. 92. A. Viberg devotes separate chapters to several hand rituals in Symbols of Law: A Contextual Analysis of Legal Symbolic Acts in the Old Testament (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1992) 19–51. He notes, e.g., raising the hand, shaking the hand, putting the hand under the thigh. Elsewhere (116) he describes how “the priests were installed in their office through an act of anointing as well as through the filling of their hand.” Kalluveettil (Declaration, 22 n. 25) suggests that such expressions were used “metonymically [f]or the covenant making itself.” On the connection between anointing and covenant making, see D. J. McCarthy, “Hosea XII 2: Covenant by Oil,” VT 14 (1964) 215–21. 93. Viberg (Symbols of Law, 117) points out the contrast between the language used in royal anointings and the language used in priestly anointings: “In the priestly tradition God is never said to anoint a priest, and the verb ‘anoint’ is always used with a human subject and never causatively, as in the royal anointings.” See, e.g., Ps 45:8; Heb 1:9. 94. See Heb 7:21: “Those who formerly became priests took their office without an oath, but this one was addressed with an oath, ‘The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind.’ ” 95. O’Brien, Priest and Levite in Malachi, 40. Like Hugenberger, O’Brien concludes that “the covenant of Levi in Mal 2:4–7 is linked with Num 25:11–13, in which Phinehas the grandson of Aaron is rewarded for his faithfulness with a covenant of perpetual priesthood” (105). 96. See in Chapter 1, “The Definition and Typology of Covenant.” 97. Weinfeld, “Covenant of Grant,” 201. See also M. Herman, Tithe as Gift: The Institution in the Pentateuch and in Light of Mauss’s Prestation Theory (San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press, 1991), 130: “Through tithe payment all Israel affirms for its part God’s promise of protection under the covenant. This theme is rendered specific through the role assigned the tithe payment in Num 18. Interpreted as a ‘covenant of grant’ by Weinfeld, the tithe is viewed as the Levites’ portion: by protecting the sanctuary against lay encroachment they repay the gift of tithe material given them by the Israelites.” 98. O’Brien (Priest and Levite in Malachi, 105) notes how “seed” (zeraʿ) is used in both Mal 2:3 and Num 25:13 with reference to the Levitical covenant: “An additional example of the possible influence of Num 25 on Mal 2 is that both assume that the priestly covenant extends to the ‘seed’ (zera‘) of the priests (Num 25:13 and Mal 2:3).” 99. It is possible that the Levitical covenant involved a grant of priesthood which, in its initial stage, was characterized in a threefold manner: (1) as provisional due to the lack of any divine oath to ensure its permanence; (2) as derivative vis-à-vis Moses and Aaron—as well as the antecedent order of royal priestly primogeniture, i.e., the firstborn son(s) of Israel for whom the Levites stand as redemptive substitutes (see Num 3:49); (3) as subordinate to the mediation of Moses, Aaron, and now Phinehas.

Notes to Pages 158–59  |  421 100. O’Brien (Priest and Levite in Malachi, 40–44, 104–106) notes how Malachi’s description of the “covenant with Levi” is replete with grant-type language (e.g., “life and peace,” v. 2; “he feared me,” v. 3; “in peace and uprightness he served [lit. “walked with”] me,” v. 5). 101. The greatness of Phinehas in ancient Jewish legend is the object of almost unlimited exaggeration. See Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 3:71–72 for a list of marvels attributed to him (e.g., he flew in the air, was designated an angel of God, dispelled clouds by magic, was nourished by eagles, and was identified as the prophet Elijah). See R. Boling, “Levitical History and the Role of Joshua,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth (eds. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 241– 61. See also Weinfeld, “Covenant of Grant,” 201; Milgrom, Numbers, 211–18, 476–80; B. F. Batto, “The Covenant of Peace: A Neglected Ancient Near Eastern Motif,” CBQ 49 (1987) 187–211; Olson, The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New, 153–61; F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997) 199–203; G. E. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973) 105–21; S. C. Reif, “What Enraged Phinehas? A Study of Numbers 25:8,” JBL 90 (1971) 200–206. Tradition-critical analysis typically characterizes this as combining a double story: the J tradition in Num 25:1–2 dealing with the Moabite women and the worship of the Moabite Baal (i.e., Chemosh), and the E tradition in Num 25:3–5 relating to Peor where the people worship a local Baal. See N. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1967) 301. 102. Milgrom (Numbers, 211) comments: “The apostasy of Baal-Peor and that of the golden calf resemble one another in their inner detail. Both involve worship of other gods (Num 25:2; Exod 32:8), the assuaging of God’s wrath by the slaughter of the guilty parties (Num 25:7–8; Exod 32:26–28), and the designation of the line of the Levites/ Phinehas for sacred service in the sanctuary (Num 25:11–13; Exod 32:39). . . . In a real sense, Baal-Peor is but an extension of the golden calf.” Elsewhere (p. xv) Milgrom states: “Both describe the fall of Israel after having previously attained the sublime heights of the Lord’s promise of future greatness (the Sinaitic covenant, Exod 19–20, 24; Balaam’s blessings, Num 23–24).” Olson (The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New, 160) comments: “The apostasy at Shittim in Numbers 25 and the spy story in Numbers 13–14 are mirror images of each other. In both cases, the people stand on the brink of entering the land of Canaan, a setting filled with hope. The immediate response in the two stories, however, is open rebellion against God. A plague kills the people involved (Num 14:37; Num 25:9). One or two faithful people separate themselves from the majority and act faithfully on behalf of God (Caleb and Joshua—Num 14:6–10; Phinehas—Num 25:6–7). A special promise is then given to the faithful few (the land—Num 14:24, 30; a perpetual priesthood—Num 25:10–13).” 103. From a form-critical or tradition-historical perspective, the Sitz im Leben for the narrative in Numbers 25 is the aftermath of the downfall of Eli’s priestly house and the struggle which ensued between Abiathar and Zadok—with the eventual banishment of the former, along with his family, from Jerusalem (1 Kgs 2:26–27; see 1 Sam 2:27–36). A canonical reading, however, reverses this causal sequence. The events surrounding the fall of Eli’s house are not the cause of the Num 25 narrative; Num 25 is what (finally and providentially) causes Eli’s house to fall. See G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1903) 380–86. 104. Olson (The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New, 159) comments: “In the face of the demonstration of the extreme fidelity of God to preserving the welfare of

422  |  Notes to Pages 159–60 his people in Numbers 22–24, the incident in Numbers 25 stresses the fickle and shallow faith of God’s people. . . . The Balaam oracles describe the glorious future which is theirs as they stand on the threshold of the promised land. . . . The Balaam narrative describes how even an ass can recognize an angel of God and how even a pagan seer can see God and do his will. The same cannot be said of this generation of God’s own people.” R. Alter (The Art of Biblical Narrative [New York: Basic Books, 1981] 103–7) shows how the Balaam narrative represents the literary climax to the development of the Abrahamic blessing, as Balak says: “I know that he whom you bless is blessed, and he whom you curse is cursed” (Num 22:6; see Gen 12:3). On the lexical/­ literary parallels with Balaam and Abraham which frame the response of Abraham at the Aqedah and Israel at Peor, see J. D. Safren, “Balaam and Abraham,” VT 38 (1988) 105–13. 105. For a defense of the literary unity of the present narrative, see Milgrom, Numbers, 476–78. 106. Milgrom, Numbers, 212: “This unusual usage [of the Hebrew root z-n-h, “to be sexually immoral”] probably connotes Israel’s religious defection as a result of cohabitation and intermarriage with Moabite women (see v. 6).” 107. This term “yoked” has strong sexual connotations, suggesting that Israel being “joined” to Baal meant more than joint sacrifices. See Milgrom, Numbers, 323 n. 11. 108. Based on the wordplay in Num 25:8 (“in the qubbāh she was pierced in her qēbah”), Reif (“What Enraged Phinehas,” 201, 205) interprets the Israelite as allowing the Midianite to erect a cultic shrine. Milgrom (Numbers, 215) understands the qubbāh as a marriage canopy. 109. Milgrom (Numbers, 214) comments: “In some respects, Phinehas’s act corresponds to the Levitical role in the apostasy of the golden calf, as told in Exodus 32:25–29. Both had to slay ‘each his brother,’ for which both received ordination to the priesthood.” He also notes: “This covenant is one of five issued by God: the promise to Noah, . . . the promise of seed and soil to Abraham, the Torah to Moses (and Israel), and dynasties to Phinehas and David. . . . It constitutes another royal gift bestowed upon the High Priest, who, like the king, wears special robes and a crown and is anointed (Lev 7:12; 2 Kgs 11:12). Now, by virtue of this covenant, he is granted a ruling dynasty” (217). 110. Wegner (“Nature of Divine Oaths,” 323 n. 6) notes: “Every passage which contains ‫ נתן‬in the imperfect tense used in reference to a covenant indicates a future or progressive action which has not yet been completed (Num 25:12; Isa 42:6; 49:8).” This is similar to the Abrahamic covenant, which passed through stages in its process of establishment and fulfillment (most notably in Genesis 17). There, as Wegner notes, the imperfect form of nātan in vv. 2, 7 indicates “that the covenant-making process was not yet finished.” This suggests that the “covenant of peace” with Phinehas remains to be established in the future, perhaps through Zadok (see p. 163). The expression “my covenant of peace” occurs in three other texts (Isa 54:10; Ezek 34:25; 37:26). See Batto, “The Covenant of Peace,” 187, for a treatment of the phrase in these OT texts. In Ezek 34:25; 37:26 the Davidic covenant is the special focus of the “covenant of peace” (see Ezek 34:23–24; 37:24–25). In Isa 54:10 the phrase refers to the covenant of Noah (see Isa 54:9). All three examples of the “covenant of peace” outside of Num 25:10–15 are explicitly linked with grant-type covenants. 111. See Milgrom, Numbers, 216–17. 112. Wildavsky, The Nursing Father, 112.

Notes to Pages 160–63  |  423 113. Sailhamer (The Pentateuch as Narrative, 410) comments: “Amid this time of apostasy, the writer points to a specific incident which shows not only the horrible conditions among the Israelites but also the need for new forms of leadership.” 114. Many scholars think that Zadok’s genealogical link to Phinehas is the ­Chronicler’s harmonizing artifice (1 Chr 6:50–53; 24:3; see 2 Sam 8:17). For a defense of the authenticity of Zadok’s Aaronic genealogy, see Cross, Canaanite Myth, 208–15. 115. Cross (Canaanite Myth, 202–3) comments: “It is quite impossible to separate this account from the story leading up to the rejection of the Elid (Mushite) priestly house in 1 Samuel 2:22–25. . . . In the sequel, 1 Samuel 2:27–36, we find the prophecy of ‘the faithful priest’ for whom Yahweh would build a secure dynasty to ‘walk before my anointed always,’ that is, the house of Zadok.” See also P. Zerafa, “Priestly Messianism in the Old Testament,” Angelicum 42 (1965) 318–41, esp. 333–37. 116. See R. Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989); P. D. Miscall, 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986) 16–25; P. K. McCarter, Jr., I Samuel (AYB 8; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press) 86–93; H. W. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel (trans. J. S. Bowden; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976) 32–44. 117. This is the fourth divine oath in the canonical record (see Gen 22:16–18; Num 14:21–35; Deut 32:40–42). See Wegner, “Nature of Divine Oaths,” 147–49. 118. See M. Newman, “The Prophetic Call of Samuel,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage (ed. B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson; New York: Harper, 1962) 86–97. 119. Because it is implied in 1 Sam 4:18 that part of the reason Eli died was because he was “heavy,” one is tempted to implicate Eli along with his sons for “fattening themselves” with the fat portions of Yahweh’s sacrifices (see 1 Sam 2:29). 120. Since he is not mentioned until after David’s capture of Jerusalem from the Jebusites, many wonder if Zadok might have originally been a priest of Jebus whom David subsequently elevated as a loyal sympathizer whose collaboration would have been of strategic value for one who had to govern in the midst of an indigenous Jebusite/ Canannite populace. This is all part of the so-called Jebusite hypothesis. See S. Olyan, “Zadok’s Origins and the Tribal Politics of David,” JBL 101 (1982) 177–93; Cody, History of Old Testament Priesthood, 88–93; J. R. Bartlett, “Zadok and His Successors at Jerusalem,” JTS 19 (1968) 1–18; C. E. Hauer, “Who Was Zadok?” JBL 82 (1963) 89–94; H. H. Rowley, “Zadok and Nehushtan,” JBL 58 (1939) 113–41. 121. See Wegner, “Nature of Divine Oaths,” 147 n. 23 [24]): “This passage seemingly contradicts Num 25:13, for Phinehas is promised that his descendants would be a perpetual priesthood. But when we come to Eli, who is from the line of Ithamar (cf. 1 Sam 14:3; 2 Sam 8:17; 1 Kgs 2:27; 1 Chr 24:3; Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 5.36) and not the line of Eleazar, no explanation is given for this change in lines.” Milgrom (Numbers, 217) also detects the problem: “This dynastic promise to Phinehas, however, encounters the historic difficulty that certain High Priests, the Elids, trace their descent to Phinehas’s uncle, Ithamar (1 Chron 24:3, 6).” 122. Parenthetically, it is important to note a distinction within the narrative between “Eli’s house” and “the house of your father,” to which God revealed himself “when they were in Egypt subject to the house of Pharaoh” (1 Sam 2:27). That this ancient revelation refers to the election of Aaron, whom God chose while Israel was still in Egyptian bondage (Exod 4:14–16, 27–28), is clear from the next verse (2:28): “And I chose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest.” The language of a plurality of “houses” within the tribe of Levi is explicit in the genealogy that follows the election

424  |  Notes to Pages 163–65 of Aaron (Exod 6:25). This confirms that for God to swear an oath of ruin upon Eli’s house is in no way precluded by his earlier election of Aaron’s house, especially since one of Aaron’s descendants is chosen in his stead. Indeed, such a transfer (i.e., from the line of Ithamar to Eleazar) is practically mandated because of God’s earlier “covenant of peace” with Phinehas. 123. R. Youngblood, “Eli,” AYBD, 2:456–57. He notes: “Eli’s ancestry is not clearly outlined in the OT text, and any reconstruction must remain speculative” (456). Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 208–15) theorizes about an alleged conflict between the Mushite priestly house (at Shiloh and Dan, along with allied Mushite-Kenite priests at Arad and Kadesh) and the Aaronite priests at Bethel and Jerusalem, with the eventual triumph of the latter through the Zadokite line. 124. After David’s death, Zadok sided with Solomon in the struggle for succession, while Abiathar supported Adonijah. Consequently, upon his accession, “Solomon expelled Abiathar from being priest to the Lord, thus fulfilling the word of the Lord which he had spoken concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh” (1 Kgs 2:27). After this, Solomon promptly elevated Zadok to be the sole priest to officiate in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 2:35; see 1 Kgs 4:1–4). Curiously, no explanation is ever given for the joint high priesthood that Zadok briefly shared with Abiathar before he replaced him (2 Sam 8:17; 15:24–29, 35; 19:11; 20:25; 1 Kgs 4:4). 125. See J. D. Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48 (Missoula, MN: Scholars Press, 1976) 133–34: “Alternatively, one could follow the majority of scholars in seeing Zadok as the priest lately given an Aaronite ancestrage. . . . The difficulty with this theory is that it makes Zadok a homo novus and David an aggressive syncretist in installing him, or at least a much more daring innovator than seems likely. We are on much sounder ground in assuming Zadok’s connection with some ancient priestly house in Israel, although the texts which give his genealogy are corrupt.” 126. Levenson, Theology of Ezekiel 40–48, 129. 127. Levenson (Theology of Ezekiel 40–48, 129–30) comments on the problem posed by Ezekiel’s words: “The differentiation of liturgical functions between two groups is already assumed in this passage, which shows no sign of polemical intent against any group, as it would if the division were still controversial. What is interesting here is that both categories are kohanîm. Though the offices of the Temple staff and of the altar clergy are strictly segrega[t]ed, the former group is not presented as Levitical as opposed to Aaronite or Zadokite.” 128. The purpose here is to sketch a composite picture of the new community envisioned by Ezekiel in chs. 40–48. 129. Levenson, Theology of Ezekiel 40–48, 140. 130. Levenson, Theology of Ezekiel 40–48, 140–43. Curiously, he omits an explanation drawn from his own proof of the Davidic prince’s royal priesthood, whose role is thus almost equivalent to the high priest. 131. Levenson, Theology of Ezekiel 40–48, 143. Levenson’s statement about Ezekiel’s high-priestless Jerusalem refers to three notable features attendant to the prophet’s envisioned program. First, Ezekiel describes a situation in which the holiness associated with the Most Holy Place is extended to cover the entire Temple area where the priests officiate. Second, the prophet envisions a time when there is no longer any need for the ritual sacrifices of the Day of Atonement. Needless to say, the theological implications of this point are considerable (see Heb 8–10). Third, the marriage laws that Leviticus “restricts to the high-priest are therein extended to all priests [see Ezek 44:22; Lev 21:7,14]” (141). These laws may be interpreted in connection with marriage

Notes to Pages 165–66  |  425 reforms made by Ezra and Nehemiah (and also Malachi) which applied stricter standards to exiles returning to Jerusalem (see Ezra 9; Neh 13:23–29; Mal 2:13–16). See W. J. Dumbrell, “Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms,” RTR 46 (1976) 42–52; D. Bossman, “Ezra’s Marriage Reform: Israel Redefined,” BTB 9 (1979) 32–38. Bossman states: “We see in this literature the beginnings of a technique of reinterpreting Mosaic legal traditions which notably transcended the Deuteronomic reforms preceding the Exile” (32). Elsewhere he comments: “The priestly ideal of cultic purity is brought to bear upon the community” (38). The restoration from exile, as a “new Exodus, would be a priestly one,” designed “to separate the people Israel for a cultic community” (38). 132. See Levenson, Theology of Ezekiel 40–48, 57–107, for a helpful summary of positions on the much-studied issue of Ezekiel’s view of the Davidic “prince” (nasîʾ), both here and elsewhere (see 34:24). 133. Levenson (Theology of Ezekiel 40–48, 66–67) comments: “The title nasîʾ, thus, does not conflict with a Davidic identification of its bearer. On the contrary, the lesser title makes sense within the framework of a theology of monarchy common to ­Ezekiel . . . as the designation of a messianic individual shorn of the structural temptations to commit abuses. . . . Thus the nasîʾ is messianic, as scholars such as Begrich, Caquot, and Baltzer argue.” 134. Levenson, Theology of Ezekiel 40–48, 143. 135. See Ishida, The Royal Dynasties of Ancient Israel, 107, who shows resemblances between the promises of a priest in 1 Sam 2:35 and of a royal Davidide in 2 Sam 7:11–16: “It is worth noting that Yahweh’s promise to establish a priestly dynasty in 1 Sam 2.35 is formulated in the same terminology, of course, except terms of the royal rule such as kisseʾ and mamlaka: ‘I will raise up (wa-haqîmotî) for myself a faithful priest who shall do according to what is in my heart and in my mind; and I will build him a sure house (ûbanîtî lô bayit naʾăman) and he shall go in and out before my anointed for ever.’ Compare this with part of Nathan’s prophecy: ‘I will raise up (wahaqîmotî) your seed after you . . . he shall build a house for my name . . . your house . . . shall be made sure (wĕnaʾĕman bêtka) for ever before me (MT ‘before you’)’ (2 Sam 7.12b. 13a. 16a).” The author of Hebrews may have made this connection. See M. R. D’Angelo, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979) 69. 136. Some scholars believe that the origin of the (Essene?) community at Qumran may stem from the Zadokites losing the high priestly office. See F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961) 127–69; idem, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 334–42. But to the contrary, see A. Schofield and J. C. Vanderkam, “Were the Hasmoneans Zadokites?” JBL 124 (2005) 73–87; and more generally, J. C. Vanderkam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004). 137. The apparent cessation of the Davidic and Levitical covenants gave rise to messianic hopes, but the subject of “messianism” in later Judaism is fraught with complexity. Variations of Davidic and Levitical forms of “priestly messianism” emerged, like those found in the Qumran scrolls. See J. Marcus, “The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark,” JBL 111 (1994) 441–62, who notes: “Even at Qumran, where two Messiahs are expected, a Davidic one (‘the Messiah of Israel’) and a priestly one (‘the Messiah of Aaron’), the term ‘the Messiah,’ used absolutely, refers to the Davidic figure” (457 n. 76). On the larger subject, see D. L. Olayiwola, “Messianic Metaphor in Levitical Covenant,” Bible Bhashyam 17 (1991) 221–32; Zerafa, “Priestly Messianism in the Old Testament,” 318–41; W. M. Schniedewind, “King and Priest in the Book of

426  |  Notes to Pages 167–72 Chronicles and the Duality of the Qumran Messiah,” JJS 45 (1994) 71–78; G. J. Brooke, “The Messiah of Aaron in the Damascus Document,” RQ 15 (1991) 215–30. 138. See N. H. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991) 107, who comments on the identity of “the priests” in Exod 19:22: “According to Exodus 28 and 29, the priesthood was not established in Israel until after the Sinaitic revelation, which would make the present reference to priests, like that in verse 24, an anachronism. Many modern scholars regard these verses as reflecting a different strand of tradition about the origins of the priestly institution. Jewish commentators understood ‘priests’ here as referring to first-born males, in that the latter functioned as priests until they were replaced by the Aaronids, as recounted in Numbers 3:11–13 and 8:16–18.” See also the comments of Wenham (Numbers, 97–98), on the dedication of the Levites at Sinai on the occasion of the “second passover” in Numbers 8–9: “Thus the dedication of the Levites to take the place of the first-born is very appropriate here [Num 8], for the next chapter describes the second passover.” Wenham also states: “The Levites are being substituted for the first-born Israelites, who as a result of the passover were given to the Lord” (98). 139. Briggs (Messianic Prophecy, 103) comments: “This is the way in which the seed of Abraham is to be a blessing to the world. . . . Thus Israel was called to a universal priesthood. This priesthood was prior to the establishment of any priestly office in Israel. . . . This universality in the calling of Israel as a nation is at the basis of all the Mosaic institutions, and was not abrogated by any subsequent legislation. The selection of an order of priesthood in Israel, at a subsequent time, did not do away with the universal priesthood of the nation. The establishment of a royal dynasty did not supersede the royalty of the nation. The promise maintained its validity in all the subsequent history of Israel. . . . In the priesthood of the nation there is the generic priesthood which advances through the Levitical, Aaronic, and Zadokite lines, until it culminates in the Messianic priest.” 140. On the translation, “royal priesthood,” rather than “kingdom of priests,” see John A. Davies, A Royal Priesthood: Literary and Intertextual Perspectives on an Image of Israel in Exodus 19.6 (JSOTSup 395; London: T. & T. Clark, 2004). 141. Note Luke’s description of Jesus as the firstborn of Mary in Luke 2:7, and commentary by J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke 1–9 (AYB 28; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press) 407. 142. R. Brown comments: “It has been argued that the reason why Luke does not mention the redemption of the child Jesus through the payment of the five shekels is that he wants the reader to think that Jesus stayed in the service of the Lord” as a priest (The Birth of the Messiah [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979] 449). See discussion in P. Gadenz, “The Priest as Spiritual Father,” in Catholic for a Reason: Scripture and the Mystery of the Family of God (ed. S. Hahn and L. Suprenant; Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing, 1998), 228–29. 143. C. H. Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1989) 36. See also B. Reicke, “Jesus, Simeon, and Ana (Luke 2:21–40),” in Saved by Hope: Essays in Honor of Richard C. Oudersluys (ed. J. I. Cook; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 100: “In the present case, the prescription concerning the firstborn in Exod 13:2 was fulfilled literally, so that Jesus was really given to the Lord and not ransomed like other males in accordance with the instruction about substitute offerings added in Exod 13:13. . . . Against normal custom the child Jesus was thus dedicated to God, and remained his property. This exceptional obedience to God’s will implied fulfilling the law on its messianic level, that is, the law un-

Notes to Pages 172–75  |  427 derstood as evidence of the Lord’s dispensations for the salvation of his people.” Jesus is much like Samuel, Hannah’s firstborn son, who was dedicated to the Lord’s service (1 Sam 1:28), served as priest (1 Sam 2:11, 18), and replaced Eli the high priest as judge of God’s people (cf. 1 Sam 2:22–33, 4:18, 6:15). This fits into a larger Samuel-Christ typology evident in the infancy narratives: one has only to compare the Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55) with Hannah’s song (1 Sam 2:1–10) or the accounts of the growth of Samuel and Jesus in stature and favor (1 Sam 2:26; 3:19–4:1; Luke 2:40, 52). The possibility that Luke, in his description of the relationship of John to Jesus, is showing the provisional Levitical priesthood giving way to its fulfillment in a righteous firstborn Israelite who will be raised up as a faithful priest (1 Sam 2:35) and so restore the true priesthood of Israel, poses an intriguing avenue for further research. 144. B. Reicke, “παρίστημι, παριστάνω,” TDNT 5:837–41, here 840–41. See also the following note. 145. H. D. Park, Finding Herem? A Study of Luke–Acts in the Light of Herem (LNTS 357; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2007), 160. 146. Admittedly, father-son imagery recedes in the long developmental process of the Levitical grant-type covenant, as human failings and divine interventions progressively reveal the need to supplement and supersede natural family relationships. As with the divine covenant(s) with Abraham, the Levitical covenant also accents the vulnerability of the natural family and the father-son relationship. Like Abraham at the Aqedah, the Levites are rewarded for sacrificing that which is ordinarily seen as essential to family life at the natural level; at the same time, it qualifies them to bear the promise and authority to serve God’s covenant family (see Deut 33:8–10). 147. See C. J. Roetzel, Judgment in the Community (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 172: “­Israel’s status as the sacramental family of God did not exempt her from the judgment of her Lord.” 148. See R. Scroggs, The Last Adam (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 53: “It is true that according to some traditions God at Sinai recreates Israel into that perfect humanity once given to Adam. But just as Adam sinned and lost this nature, so Israel sins (specifically in the worship of the golden calf) and again loses the nature. This means that Adam’s original nature or image is no more a possibility in this world for the Jew after Sinai than it is for the heathen.” See also Smolar and Aberbach, “The Golden Calf Episode,” 106–7. 149. If the familial analogy points to the Levites as representing the firstborn sons, it might also apply to the Aaronic priests as father figures. As firstborn son and elder brother to Moses, Aaron could also stand as such before his fellow Levites. The analogy thus functions within the tribal family of Levi as a microcosm of the nation family of Israel. The model can also be reversed: the Levitical priesthood is a macrocosm of the extended household. Accordingly, Aaron, Eleazar, and Phinehas would stand to the Levites as grandfather, father, and eldest brother respectively. Both the priestly hierarchy and succession of the Levites may also be explained along analogous lines of familial descent (i.e., within the tribe and through the generations). 150. See Heb 7:12: “For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.” 151. See Levenson, Theology of Ezekiel 40–48, 150: “The theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews presents Jesus as the heir to both eternal covenants, the Davidic and the Priestly.”

428  |  Notes to Pages 176–77

Chapter 7 THE DAVIDIC GRANT-TYPE COVENANT 1. For a survey of the main issues apropos the Davidic covenant, see J. D. Levenson, “The Davidic Covenant and Its Modern Interpreters,” CBQ 41 (1979) 205–19; A. Gileadi, “The Davidic Covenant: A Theological Basis for Corporate Protection,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration (ed. A. Gileadi; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988) 157–64; H. Kruse, “David’s Covenant,” VT 35 (1985) 139–64; W. J. Dumbrell, “The Davidic Covenant,” RTR 39 (1980) 40–47; P. J. Calderone, Dynastic Oracle and Suzerainty Treaty (Logos 1; Manila: Manila University Press, 1966). For narrative analysis, see J. Rosenberg, King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Hebrew Bible (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986) 99–199. T. N. D. Mettinger (King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimization of the Israelite King [Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1976] 275–76) comments: “During the last few decades the Davidic covenant has been the subject of a number of studies, but there is a depressing lack of consensus. A number of problems remain to be settled.” 2. See S. Eilander, David and His God (Jerusalem: Simor, 1991) 97–101; M. E. Polley, Amos and the Davidic Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989) 46–48; E. T. Mullen, “The Divine Witness and the Davidic Royal Grant: Ps 89:37–38,” JBL 102 (1983) 207–18; T. E. McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985) 62–63; Gileadi, “The Davidic Covenant,” 157–63; Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper, 1985) 97–101; C. L. Seow, Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David’s Dance (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 178–82; P. K. McCarter, II Samuel (AYB 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press) 207; R. P. Gordon, 1–2 Samuel (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984) 75; W. C. Kaiser, “The Blessing of David: The Charter for Humanity,” in The Law and the Prophets (ed. J. Skillen; Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974) 307–10. M. Weinfeld (“The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 [1970] 184–203, esp. 185– 86) notices linguistic parallels between the Davidic covenant and certain neo-Assyrian covenants of grant: “Thus, the terms: ‘who walked before you in truth, loyalty and uprightness of heart’ . . . (I Kings III, 6), ‘walked after me with all his heart’ . . . (XIV, 8), ‘a whole heart like the heart of David’ . . . (XV, 3), are the counterparts of the Assyrian terms . . . which come to describe the loyal service as a reward for which the gift was bestowed.” See also idem, “Davidic Covenant,” IDBSup, 188–92; idem, “Zion and Jerusalem as Religious and Political Capital: Ideology and Utopia,” in The Poet and the Historian: Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism (ed. R. E. Friedman; HSS 26; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983) 75–115; esp. 86–93; T. Ishida (The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel: A Study on the Formation and Development of Royal-Dynastic Ideology [New York: de Gruyter, 1977] 107–10) interprets the lord-servant relationship between God and David in terms of the tutelary deity and his dynasty, rather than as suzerain-vassal. 3. See also Pss 89:35, 49; 110:4; 132:11. 4. See also 2 Sam 22:18–19, 38–46; 23:5–7; Pss 2:7–9; 110:4–6; 132:18. 5. See Ps 89:24–29, 33–37. Because the Davidic covenant is not separate from, or opposed to, the Mosaic covenant, the conditions and curses of the latter still apply in some manner to the recipient of the former. As previously noted, the grant-type covenant is based on the treaty-type, so “disloyalty brings punishment, but not the revocation of the ‘gift’ ” (P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant [AnBib 88; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982] 180 n. 234). See Weinfeld’s similar comment: “The idea of disciplining

Notes to Pages 177–80  |  429 sons in these documents goes together with the provision about perpetual inheritance” (“Davidic Covenant,” 191). In sum, the vassal-son was rewarded for loyal and obedient service which is then presumed to remain in force as an abiding obligation for him and his “seed” as future beneficiaries. Kaiser (“The Blessing of David,” 307–8) notes: “The ‘breaking’ or conditionality can only refer to individual and personal invalidation of the benefits of the covenant, but it cannot affect the certainty of God’s oath. . . . The covenant is to be continued in force in each case even though the individual participation may be delayed or even forfeited. . . . This is precisely the situation of the Davidic blessing. Rascals there may be, but the blessing may never be revoked from the family.” 6. In a discussion of how David’s kingship comes to be “legitimized” in the narrative of 2 Samuel, J. W. Whedbee (“On Divine and Human Bonds: The Tragedy of the House of David,” in Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation [ed. G. M. Tucker et al.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988] 148–49) touches on concrete examples of David’s virtue and loyal devotion to God: “The Deuteronomistic editor welds together the disparate units of 2 Samuel 5–8 into an interlocking and comprehensive presentation in order to bring to a climax various themes at work in David’s tempestuous rise to kingship. . . . Taken as an aggregate, the units now provide seven modes of legitimization. . . . (1) Political bonding between David and Israel, thus legitimizing David’s rule over the Northern Tribes as well as Judah (2 Sam. 5:1–3); (2) Military ­conquest . . . of Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:6–10) . . . (3) Diplomatic recognition highlighted by Hiram’s gift of a royal residence for the new king . . . (2 Sam. 5:11–12); (4) Genealogical confirmation expressed by the list of sons born in Jerusalem . . . (2 Sam. 5:13–16); (5) Priestly ritual represented by the processional of the ark of Yahweh to Jerusalem . . . (2 Samuel 6); (6) Prophetic revelation disclosed by Nathan’s oracle . . .  (2 Samuel 7); (7) Administrative justice . . . (2 Sam. 8:15–18).” 7. See G. N. Knoppers, “Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant,” JAOS 116 (1996) 670–97; critiquing M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant.” 8. Namely, the treaty of Hattusili III of Hatti with Ulmi-Teshshup, cited by H. Harless, How Firm a Foundation: The Dispensations in the Light of the Divine Covenants (Studies in Biblical Literature 63; New York: Peter Lang, 2004) 9. See D. N. Freedman and D. Miano, “The People of the New Covenant,” in The ­ Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period (ed. S. E. Porter and J. C. R. de Roo; JSJSup 71; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 7–26 and the discussion in Chapter 1, pp. 4–5. 10. On the phenomenon of conditionality within the Davidic covenant, see p. 197. 11. 1 Kgs 9:3–9 contains rather extensive threats of punishment, but as a statement to Solomon, this text appears more as a warning prophecy to Solomon and his heirs than as a reformulation of the covenant with David. The DtrH has a dimmer view of Solomon than of David. 12. On this phrase, see W. Brueggemann, “Of the Same Flesh and Bone,” CBQ 32 (1970) 532–42. Brueggemann argues that the key phrase in 5:1 “clearly is a covenant formula, an oath of abiding loyalty, one that expresses communal solidarity through covenant more than blood kinship by birth” (535). After examining the covenant implications of this formula (and in other similar contexts), Brueggemann concludes: “Perhaps this is the most radical statement about human personhood made in Scripture, namely the capacity to make oaths and enter into covenants” (539). 13. J. W. Flanagan (“Chiefs in Israel,” JSOT 20 [1981] 54) explains David’s choice of a successor (Solomon) in light of the latter’s birth in Jerusalem after it became the center of his pan-Israelite kingdom.

430  |  Notes to Page 180 14. Although Jerusalem’s location and geography explain its strategic importance as a military site, the reasons for its political importance and even more its cultic preeminence are nowhere stated, rather, they are simply presupposed by the narrative’s thematic focus and then carried over into the description of David’s action regarding the ark of the covenant in 2 Sam 6. For an excellent treatment of Jerusalem’s political and religious importance, see B. C. Ollenburger, Zion the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987). 15. T. Kleven (“Hebrew Style in 2 Samuel 6,” JETS 35 [1992] 303) notices the problem in v. 2 where “the repetition of šm, which according to the MT is pointed in both cases as the noun meaning ‘name.’ ” He concludes that “it is possible to see in the repetition of the noun a point that the author is making in the story. The repetition of the word ‘name’ recalls the significance of the ark in a story in which the ark is taken more seriously than it was in the days of Saul but is still not adequately respected. God’s presence is manifest in the revelation of his name (Exod 3:14; 6:3), and this name dwells, as God does, between the cherubim on the ark (1 Sam 4:4). The first šm is the subject of the relative clause, ‘whose name is called,’ and the second introduces the full phrase, ‘the name of the Lord of hosts who dwells between the cherubim.’ The insistence of the fullness of God’s presence should not go unheeded. What is often thought to be careless repetition underlines the purpose of the ark” (303–4). See also J. W. Flanagan, “Social Transformation and Ritual in 2 Samuel 6,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth (ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 361–72. 16. Kleven, “Hebrew Style in 2 Samuel 6,” 302. 17. Kleven (ibid., 305) comments: “David and his men attempt to transport the ark in the same way that the Philistines had done [see 1 Sam 6:7]. . . . There are therefore four infractions of Pentateuchal laws in this story: (1) Uzzah is not a Kohathite, (2) the ark is to be carried on the shoulders of priests, (3) it is not to be carried on a cart pulled by oxen, and (4) Uzzah touches the ark, which is even forbidden to Kohathite priests” (see 1 Chr 13:1–5). 18. P. D. Miller and J. J. M. Roberts (The Hand of the Lord. A Reassessment of the ‘Ark Narrative’ of 1 Samuel [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977] 16–17) interpret the ceremonial ritual here in light of the significant parallels from ancient Near Eastern sources. When a divine image is restored to a sacred city it signifies “the return of a god” to his temple. The return is typically accompanied by music, rejoicing, and in the case of Marduk, returning to Babylon with multiple offerings of animal sacrifices every few steps. See J. R. Porter, “The Interpretation of 2 Samuel vi and Psalm cxxxii,” JTS 5 (1954) 161–73, esp. 172–73. The approach taken by Miller and Roberts allows for J. R. Porter’s interpretation of the ritual in light of parallels with the “Canaanite coronation rite” where the king’s installation “was inseparable from the victory and enthronement of the god.” Porter combines S. Mowinckel’s view of this passage as being shaped by the annual festival of Yahweh’s kingship, with H. J. Kraus’s view that the festival commemorates historical events, namely, the election of David and his choice of Zion. For more on the ark narrative and the rise of David see K. A. D. Smelik, “The Ark Narrative Reconsidered,” OTS 25 (1989) 128–44; A. F. Campbell, The Ark Narrative (1 Sam 4–6; Sam 6): A Form-Critical and Traditio-Historical Study (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975); idem, “Yahweh and the Ark: A Case Study in Narrative,” JBL 98 (1970) 31–43; L. Rost, The Succession to the Throne of David (Sheffield: Almond, 1982); B. Halpern, The Constitution of the Monarchy (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981); K. W. Whitelam, The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979); D. M. Gunn, The Story of King David (Sheffield: JSOT Press,

Notes to Pages 180–81  |  431 1978); R. A. Carlson, David the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel (Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksells, 1964). 19. There is some question about whether or not the “place” in the Hebrew phrase “in its place” refers to the Tabernacle. See R. E. Friedman, “The Tabernacle in the Temple,” BA 43 (1980) 241–48. He contends that the Tabernacle was later placed in the Holy of Holies. See V. Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writing (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992) 265 n. 1. 20. For a discussion of the problematic Hebrew word ʾešpār in 2 Sam 6:19, here translated “wine,” see W. R. Arnold, Ephod and Ark (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1917) 65–66: “This strange word can hardly be anything but the name of some fruit. . . . [T]he Septuagint of this passage has escharitēn, which is of course a makeshift based on (Heb.)ʾeškār. And this, if authentic [contra ʾešpār], would be a cup of wine (ʾeškār); not an improbable sense in Ez 27, 15 and Ps 72, 10 as well.” The translation “wine” is advocated by C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Books of Samuel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973) 337; and C. F. D. Erdmann, The Books of Samuel (New York: Scribner, Armstrong, 1877) 419. S. R. Driver (Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913] 270–71), after examining eight possible translations for ʾešpār, concludes: “[W]e do not know what the word means, and cannot propose for it a plausible etymology.” The RSV awkwardly renders it, “a portion of meat,” but appends a note indicating that the Hebrew is uncertain. 21. Kleven, “Hebrew Style in 2 Samuel 6,” 307, citing A. Phillips, “David’s Linen Ephod,” VT 19 (1969) 458–87. 22. For the royal-priestly status of David and Solomon, see J. A. Soggin, “The Davidic-Solomonic Kingdom,” in Israelite and Judaean History (ed. J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977) 369. It is not clear that David continued acting like a priest-king, except perhaps on one other occasion (2 Sam 24:18–25; // 1 Chr 21:18–22:1). Also noteworthy is 2 Sam 8:18 which states that “David’s sons were priests.” The trajectory of the priestly identity of David’s sons is traced by C. E. Armer­ ding, “Were David’s Sons Priests?” in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (ed. G. Hawthorne; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 83: “At the close of David’s life we see the same sacrificial role being undertaken by his son Adonijah (1 Kgs 1:9, 18), the latter activity with the assistance of Abiathar. The sacrificial act of Adonijah, moreover, is most significant, as it was conducted before all of the important men of Israel by the Serpent’s Stone by the spring Rogel (En-Rogel, 1 Kgs 1:9). It seems highly suggestive of the fact that Adonijah was proclaiming himself the new ‘priest-king’ in place of his father, or at least it was interpreted as such by Bathsheba, Nathan, and eventually David. . . . Solomon’s priestly activities parallel those of his father David. He prays at Gibeon (1 Kgs 3:15), after which a major effort is given to the construction of the Temple and the setting in motion of its ritual. In the actual dedication of the Temple the priests are involved (1 Kgs 8:3–4), but it is Solomon himself who leads the procession, sacrificing (1 Kgs 8:5; 62–64), blessing the assembly (1 Kgs 8:12–21, 55–61), interceding before God (1 Kgs 8:22–53), and making covenant with Yahweh (1 Kgs 9).” A. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969) 105, concludes: “David’s sons, then, were indeed priests.” 23. Carlson (David the Chosen King, 100–102) notes the link between “rest” and the Deuteronomic demand for a central sanctuary. See also D. J. McCarthy, “II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the Deuteronomic History” in Institution and Narrative (Rome:

432  |  Notes to Pages 181–82 Biblical Institute Press, 1985) 132: “The word is the hiphil ‫ ֵה ִניַח‬which, of course, is practically a technical term in the deuteronomic writings for Yahweh’s ultimate blessing on Israel: rest from the enemies in the promised land.” Within the larger framework of the Deuteronomistic History, David’s request represents the initial implementation of the Deuteronomic law of the central sanctuary (Deut 12:10–11). As such, it sets the stage for a significant advance in the covenant between God and Israel, through David, with the fulfillment of the divine land-oath to the patriarchs (Gen 15:7–20). David and Israel now stand at the threshold of a new covenant with Yahweh. 24. See Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House, 269–70. Hurowitz (270) argues that 2 Sam 6 is “representative of a common Near Eastern pattern” of a “temple dedication ceremony.” On the priestly nature of the temple-building king, see O. Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (New York: Seabury, 1978) 269–80. Keel shows how “the OT understanding . . . regarded the building of a temple primarily as the fulfillment of filial obligation” (277). See also A. S. Kapelrud, “Temple Building, a Task for Gods and Kings,” Orientalia 32 (1963) 56–62. The priest-king is not atypical in ancient Near Eastern sources. On this, see G. van Driel, The Cult of Aššur (Assen: von Gorcum, 1969); B. Menzel, Assyrische Tempel (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981). For instance, Esarhaddon tells of the temple-building projects of his royal predecessors: “The previous temple of Assur, which Ušpia, my forefather, priest of Assur, had built long ago, collapsed. . . . 126 years passed and it fell into ruin again, Šamši-Adad, son of Ilu-Kapkapi, my forefather, priest of Assur, rebuilt it. 434 years passed and this temple was destroyed by fire. Shalmaneser son of Adad-nerari my forefather, priest of Assur rebuilt it” (cited and translated by Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House, 132). Likewise, Tiglath-pileser: “Just as I planned a pure house, a lofty shrine for . . . the great gods. . . . Me and my priestly progeny may they bless with a good blessing and my priesthood before Assur . . . may they found firmly like a mountain” (ibid., 294–95). 25. See 1 Kgs 5:17–19. For a helpful study of Nathan’s oracle, see H. K. Ulshoefer, “Nathan’s Opposition to David’s Intention to Build a Temple in Light of Selected Ancient Near Eastern Texts,” (Ph.D. diss.; Boston University, 1977). Hurowitz (I Have Built You an Exalted House, 152) points out several examples in which the divine instruction to build a sacred dwelling for God comes through a third party (e.g., Moses, Nathan, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Haggai). 26. McCarter (II Samuel, 205) comments: “The verb is not to be read in sequence with those preceding it within the oracle proper—thus not ‘will disclose’—but as a perfect with the force of a solemn declaration. . . . [I]n the present form of the oracle it is to be read as a rubric intervening between major sections and introducing the dynastic promise in vv. 12ff.” Carlson (David and the Chosen King, 111–14) sees this phrase as marking the division between the two parts of God’s promise to David: the first part consists of promises to be realized in his lifetime (vv. 8–11a) and the second part (vv. 11b-16) concerns promises to be fulfilled after his death. Three things are promised in each part: in vv. 8–11b: (1) a great name (v. 9), (2) a place for the people (v. 10), and (3) rest (v. 11); in vv. 11b-16: (1) a dynasty (= house/kingdom/throne in vv. 11b, 12, 16), (2) a temple (v. 13a), and (3) divine sonship (v. 14). 27. On the correlation of certain common elements of God’s covenants with David and Abraham, see Gordon, 1–2 Samuel, 76–77: “Various aspects of 2 Samuel 7 point to the Davidic covenant as a reflex of the Abrahamic covenant. . . . That there should have been interaction between the two covenant traditions would follow as a natural corollary from the recognition of the Davidic kingdom as in some way fulfilling the promises

Notes to Pages 182–83  |  433 made to Abraham. . . . This relationship, as of promise and fulfillment, between the two covenants is signaled in the corresponding references to ‘name’ (2 Sam 7:9 // Gen 12:2) and ‘seed’ (2 Sam 7:12 // Gen 15:3f.).” 28. See H. A. Hoffner, “bayith, ” TDOT, 2:107–16. 29. See P. D. Miller, “Psalm 127—The House That Yahweh Builds,” JSOT 22 (1982) 119–32. “There are contexts which speak more specifically of Yahweh building (banah) a house. These regularly have to do with a family line or a dynasty. . . . Outside of dynastic references, banah bayit in reference to creating a family line . . . appears in Deut 25:9 and Ruth 4:11, and the verb banah alone can refer to getting children or building a family line (e.g. Gen 16:2; 30:3).” Miller continues: “More specifically, the ‘house’ can be and indeed is in key places a palace or temple. In II Sam 7:13 = I Chron 17:12, Yahweh’s building a house for David, i.e., a dynasty, is paired with David’s son building a house, i.e. a temple, for Yahweh’s name” (ibid., 123). 30. H.-J. Kraus (Theology of the Psalms [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986] 181) comments: “The categories of family law are drawn on in order to plumb the mysterious depths of the relationship between God and the king. The distinction between ‘being’ and ‘function’ is to be absorbed by this concept of a concrete relationship.” 31. See Mettinger, King and Messiah, 258. G. Cooke (“The Israelite King as Son of God,” ZAW 73 [1961] 22–47) discusses the covenantal basis for the king’s divine sonship: “It is significant that ‫ ברית‬and ‫ עדות‬are used under certain conditions as synonyms, and that ‫ ברית‬and ‫ חק‬appear in parallelism in Ps 105:10. The fact that all three terms may be used more or less synonymously suggests that in Ps 2:7b we have the content of the ‫ חק‬that is communicated in verse 7a: the essential content of what is for Ps 2 the equivalent of the Davidic covenant is divine sonship.” 32. The RSV text gives the unlikely rendering, “has shown me future generations.” The translation here is from the RSV marginal note which gives a more literal rendering. The LXX of 2 Sam 7:19 translates wezōʾt tôrat hāʿādām as above: houtos de ho nomos tou anthrōpou. The parallel story in 1 Chr 17:17 reads kĕtôr hāʿādām (LXX = horasis anthrōpou, “vision of man”). The reading kĕtôr likely represents a corruption of tôrat. 33. W. C. Kaiser, “The Blessing of David: The Charter for Humanity,” in The Law and the Prophets (ed. J. Skillen; Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974) 315. Kaiser comments further: “Since the ‘this’ of II Samuel 7:19 refers to the content of the promise, more specifically, the ‘seed’ of Abraham, Israel, and David, which is to live and reign forever and be the Lord’s channel of blessing to all the nations of the earth, the law in this context is a principle by which all mankind is to be blessed. The genitive, then, is an objective genitive and David’s response is one of pleasant astonishment as he grasps the fact that the promise just given to him is to be ‘the Charter for Humanity.’ We call this tôrah a ‘charter’ because it is the plan and prescription for God’s kingdom whereby the whole world shall be blessed.” (314). 34. W. J. Beecher, The Prophets and the Promise (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977) 238. See also H. Cazelles (“Shiloh, the Customary Laws, and the Return of the Ancient Kings,” in Proclamation and Presence [ed. J. I. Durham and J. R. Porter; Richmond: John Knox, 1970] 250) who translates the phrase tôrat hāʾādām (7:19b) as “the decree concerning humanity in general.” See also Gordon (1–2 Samuel, 77), who comments: “In this way the national covenant of Sinai is both fulfilled and superseded as Israel receives a means of grace in its ruling house and through that house participates in a covenant relationship which is not bounded by conditions. Some, moreover, discover broader horizons in the words ‘and this is the law of men’ in verse 19, the clause being interpreted to mean that the Davidic covenant has implications for all mankind.”

434  |  Notes to Pages 183–84 35. Kaiser, “The Blessing of David,” 31. 36. Hurowitz (I Have Built You an Exalted House, 267) comments: “The ­Deuteronomist . . . saw the Temple as a place where God’s name resided. . . . [I]t is a sign of the covenant relationship between him and his people.” See Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 89–184, for a thorough treatment of various aspects of the Jerusalem Temple: the “indissoluble triad” of creation, kingship, and Temple (109); the Temple as “microcosm of which the world itself is the macrocosm” or “the theology of creation rendered in architecture” (139). Other helpful sources include: idem, Creation and the Persistence of Evil (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988) 53–127; idem, “The Temple and the World,” JR 64 (1984) 275–98; M. Barker, The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem (London: SPCK, 1991); M. Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple, and the Enthronement of the Lord—The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1–2:3,” in Mélanges biblique et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981) 501–12; R. E. Clements, God and Temple: The Idea of the Divine Presence in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965); J. M. Lundquist, “Temple, Covenant, and Law in the Ancient Near East and in the Old Testament,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration (ed. A. Gileadi; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988) 293–305; idem, “The Common Temple Ideology of the Ancient Near East,” in The Temple in Antiquity (ed. T. G. Madsen; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1984) 53–76; idem, “What is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology,” in The Quest for the Kingdom of God (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 205–19; idem, “The Legitimizing Role of the Temple in the Origin of the State,” in SBLSP 1982 (ed. K. H. Richards; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982) 271–97. To summarize the findings of these scholars, especially Levenson and Lundquist: the Temple is to space what the Sabbath is to time—the covenant manifested in creation. 37. The literature on Ps 89 is vast. See, e.g., M. H. Floyd, “Psalm LXXXIX: A Prophetic Complaint about the Fulfillment of an Oracle,” VT 42 (1992) 442–57; T. Veijola, “The Witness in the Clouds: Ps 89:38,” JBL 107 (1988) 413–17; P. G. Mosca, “Once Again the Heavenly Witness of Psalm 89:38,” JBL 105 (1986) 27–37; D. Pardee, “The Semantic Parallelism of Psalm 89,” in In the Shelter of Elyon (ed. W. B. Barrick and J. R. Spencer; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984) 121–37; R. J. Clifford, “Psalm 89: A Lament over the Davidic Ruler’s Continued Failure,” HTR 73 (1980) 35–47; B. Vawter, “Postexilic Prayer and Hope,” CBQ 37 (1975) 460–70; J.-B. Dumortier, “Un rituel d’intronisation: Le Ps lxxxix 2–38,” VT 22 (1972) 176–96; N. Sarna, “Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis,” in Biblical and Other Essays (ed. A. Altmann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963) 29–46; J. M. Ward, “The Literary Form and Liturgical Background of Psalm lxxxix,” VT 11 (1961) 321–39; G. W. Ahlström, Psalm 89: Eine Liturgie aus dem Ritual des leidenden Königs (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1959). 38. J. Bright (Covenant and Promise [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976] 58–59) comments: “Of all the Royal Psalms [e.g., Psalms 2; 28; 20; 21; 45; 72; 89; 101; 110; 132; 144] the one most closely parallel to the oracle of Nathan . . . is Psalm 89. This psalm, which is a long one, falls into three well-defined parts. It opens with a hymn (vv. 1–18) extolling the might and faithfulness of Yahweh as creator and lord of the universe; then follows a lengthy section (vv. 19–37) recapitulating the promises he has made to David and his dynasty; and finally there is a bitter lament (vv. 38–51) occasioned by some disaster that has befallen the nation. The motif of the covenant with David appears in all three of these parts and is the thread that binds them together.” A. R. Johnson (Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel [Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1955] 22) notices that Psalm 89 is “where the covenant between Yahweh and David is referred to

Notes to Page 184  |  435 at such length that we are able to complete our picture of the intimate relationship which was held to exist between Yahweh and the successive kings of the Davidic dynasty.” 39. Sarna, “Psalm 89,” 39. The priority of Nathan’s oracle has long been disputed, but see Ishida, Royal Dynasties, 82: “It seems difficult to resist the priority of the text of II Sam 7.” For a form-critical designation, see Floyd, “Psalm LXXXIX,” 445: “[Ps 89 is] a prophetic adaptation of the complaint form, characterized by direct citation of a previously proclaimed prophecy, composed in order to reflect upon the continuing viability of that prophecy under changed historical conditions.” 40. Floyd, Psalm LXXXIX, 452. See also G. McConville, “Jerusalem in the Old Testament,” in Jerusalem Past and Present in the Purposes of God (ed. P. W. L. Walker; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) 21–51. He comments: “Psalm 89 stands in a crucial position in the Psalter, at the end of Book 3. Book 2 of the Psalms had ended with the editorial comment: ‘The Prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended’ (72:20). Davidic superscriptions do not exactly disappear from the Psalter at this point. . . . However, they do not appear anywhere in Book 3. Indeed, the contents of Book 3 (Pss 73–89) make it look like a kind of response to the role of David which had been implied in Books 1 and 2. . . . Book 3 opens with Psalm 73, that searching examination of Yahweh’s justice; it contains at least one, probably two, Psalms (other than 89) which reflect directly on the destruction of Jerusalem (74, 79); and it closes with the Psalm in question [89], with its sustained and terrible protest at the dismantling of a way of looking at the nature of covenantal faithfulness which had become axiomatic” (31–32). 41. Seow (Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David’s Dance, 181) literally translates this part of the verse: “Yea, I will appoint him first-born, ʿElyôn over the kings of the earth.” Mettinger (King and Messiah, 263) comments: “The first part of the cosmic hymn (vv. 6–9) describes God as the head of the heavenly assembly. . . . The Lord is not denoted ʿelyôn in Ps 89, but elsewhere this name describes Him as the head of the divine council (cf. Ps 82,6). Thus, when the divine sonship of the king is expounded as implying that he is ʿelyôn over the kings of the earth (vv. 27f.), the connection is unmistakable: the king does on earth what God does in heaven. One is almost tempted to speak of the king as ‘the image and likeness of God’ on earth.” 42. Mettinger (King and Messiah, 258) comments: “Both sonship and dynasty play a part in Ps 89. But the sonship is expressed here by means of the special term bekôr (v. 28), and there can be no doubt that the climax of the psalm is reached in the passage dealing with the unconditional covenant (vv. 29–38).” 43. See Ishida, The Royal Dynasties, 109: “It is likely that the custom of the father choosing a first-born stands behind the Davidic primogeniture.” 44. See C. A. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms (Vol. 2; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1907) 260: “The exact phr. ‘Rock of my salvation’ is elsw. only Dt 32:15, cf. Ps 95:1. . . . The term [first-born] is not used in the Davidic covenant, though implicitly involved, if other kings are also to be considered sons of God; but it was used in the more fundamental covenant with Israel, ‘Israel is my son, my first-born’ Ex. 4:22 (J), cf. the paraphrase Dt 32:6ff.” 45. Mettinger (King and Messiah, 262) comments: “The context makes it clear that here it is David himself who is spoken of as bekôr (contrast 2 S[am] 7 where Solomon is the ‘son’).” He adds: “The filial relationship in vv. 27f. means that David’s status as God’s ‘servant’ in v. 21 is raised [my emphasis]” (262–63). He then concludes: “From this study of vv. 20–28 it then appears that (a) the formulation referring to the king as bekôr is a

436  |  Notes to Pages 184–86 supreme expression of his divine election and (b) this implies God’s paternal protection of the king against his enemies” (263). 46. Among the studies of Psalm 110, see T. Booij, “Psalm CX: ‘Rule in the Midst of Your Foes,” VT 41 (1991) 396–406; S. Schreiner, “Psalm 110 und die Investitur des Hohenpriesters,” VT 27 (1977) 216–22; J. W. Bowker, “Psalm CX,” VT 17 (1967) 31–41. 47. See H. Cazelles, “Biblical Messianism,” in Studia Biblica 1978 (vol. 1; ed. E. A. Livingstone; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979) 49–58. Among the rare defenders of Davidic authorship, see E. König, Die messianischen Weissagungen des Alten Testament (Stuttgart: Belser, 1923) 149–50; R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel: With Special Reference to the Messianic Hope (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 228; and more recently, H. W. Bateman, “Psalm 110:1 and the New Testament,” BSac 149 (1992) 438–53. On the dating of the psalm, see H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 1–59 (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988) 64: “Today, there is no longer any doubt that Psalms 2; 20; 21; 45; 72; 89; 101; and 110 belong to the historical epoch of the time of the kings.” Elsewhere he argues from the “ancient Hebrew prosody” for an early Canaanite date and Sitz im Leben (idem, Psalms 60–150 [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989] 345–47). Dahood (Psalms III: 101–150 [AYB 17A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press] 112) also defends a preexilic tenth-century time frame. On the superscriptions, B. S. Childs (Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1979] 520) comments: “A wide consensus has been reached among critical scholars for over a hundred years that the titles are secondary additions which can afford no reliable information toward establishing the genuine historical setting of the psalms. Yet although the titles are a relatively late addition, they represent an important reflection of how the psalms as a collection of sacred literature were understood and how this secondary setting became authoritative for the canonical tradition.” See also, idem, “Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis,” JSS 16 (1971) 137–50; A. M. Cooper, “The Life and Times of King David According to the Book of Psalms,” in The Poet and the Historian (ed. R. E. Friedman; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983) 129–31. 48. Mettinger, King and Messiah, 264–65: “The closeness between God and king is also stressed in Ps 110. Both are denoted as ʾadôn (vv. 1.5). . . . The king is God’s co-­regent, exercising delegated divine power. Just as in Ps 2 and Ps 89 there is also in Ps 110 a contrast between the threat of the enemies and the divine sonship because of which the king enjoys divine protection (vv. 1b.2b.5.6).” 49. See Matt 22:41–45; Acts 2:34; 1 Cor 15:25; Heb 1:3, 13; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 15, 21. Psalm 110 is the most frequently quoted Old Testament passage in the New Testament. 50. See R. L. Alden, “Chiastic Psalms (III): A Study in the Mechanics of Semitic Poetry in Psalms 101–150,” JETS 21 (1978) 199–210. 51. Keel (The Symbolism of the Biblical World, 256) comments: “Modern exegesis indicates that the enthronement of the Davidic king may have been the original Sitz im Leben of Pss 2, 72, 101, and 110.” 52. W. T. Koopmans (“The Testament of David in 1 Kings II 1–10,” VT 41 [1991] 429–49) demonstrates the “poetic character” and “literary quality” of David’s testament in its final canonical form. For background analysis, see L. G. Perdue, “The Testament of David and Egyptian Royal Instructions,” in Scripture in Context II (ed. W. W. Hallo et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 79–96.

Notes to Pages 186–87  |  437 53. Mettinger (King and Messiah, 131–36) shows how the royal acclamation, “Long live the King” (and other similar forms here and elsewhere) represents an “elliptic oath” by which a royal covenant is made. Mettinger comments: “A fact that should not be disregarded is that the same elements which are found in the acclamation are also found in an oath, viz. in the swearing by the life of the king. . . . This oath comes close to swearing by the life of God. Moreover, there are cases when the life of God and the life of the king are juxtaposed in an oath as in 2 S[am] 15,21. . . . It is only persons of exceptional importance who are alluded to in oaths of this kind. In addition to the king we hear of priests, prophets, and of Pharaoh (e.g., 1 S[am] 1,26; 2 R[egn] 2,2.4.6; 4,30; Gn 42,15)” (133). He further explains: “He who utters the oath places himself under the jurisdiction of the one to whom he refers in his oath. . . . The acclamation is a formula by which it is recognized that the king has power over life and death; those who utter the acclamation thereby accept the king’s exercise of this authority” (134). Mettinger then applies this to Bathsheba: “When David had renewed an earlier oath to make Solomon king, Bathsheba bowed with her face to the ground and made obeisance to the king. . . . The words could well be interpreted as an oath, as an endorsement of David’s oath . . . with the added reference to the life of David himself” (135). 54. Ishida (Royal Dynasties, 105) comments: “Be it noted that the congratulations were addressed not to Solomon but to David. Unless Solomon’s name and throne, which the courtiers wished to become greater than those of David, are the dynastic symbols, we cannot understand the situation. Since an organic continuity of David’s dynasty was recognized in the transfer of the kingship from David to Solomon, they regarded the growth of the throne and name of Solomon as Yahweh’s blessing to David. Otherwise, their words would have offered an insult to David.” 55. Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 232) refers to Psalm 132 as “our earliest witness to the Davidic covenant.” This is reinforced in the work of one of his students, C. L. Seow in Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David’s Dance, 145–203, whose analysis is closely followed here. See also A. Laato, “Psalm 132 and the Development of the ­Jerusalemite/Israelite Royal Ideology,” CBQ 54 (1992) 49–66; P. Nel, “Psalm 132 and Covenant Theology,” in Text and Context (ed. W. T. Claassen; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988) 183–91; E. F. Huwiler, “Patterns and Problems in Psalm 132,” in The Listening Heart (ed. K. G. Hoglund et al.; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) 199–212; H. Kruse, “Psalm cxxxii and the Royal Zion Festival,” VT 33 (1983) 279–97; C. Brekelmans, “Psalm 132: Unity and Structure,” Bijdragen 44 (1983) 262–65; C. B. Houk, “Psalm 132: Literary Integrity and Syllable-word Structures,” JSOT 6 (1978) 41–48; R. E. Bee, “The Textual Analysis of Psalm 132: A Response to C. B. Houk,” JSOT 6 (1978) 49–53; C. B. Houk, “Psalm 132: Further Discussion,” JSOT 6 (1978) 54–57; A. Robinson, “Do Ephrathah and Jaar Really Appear in Psalm 132, 6?” ZAW 86 (1974) 220–22; D. Hillers, “Ritual Procession of the Ark and Psalm 132,” CBQ 30 (1968) 48–55; C. B. McCarthy, “Psalm 132: A Methodological Analysis,” (Ph.D. diss., Marquette University, 1968); T. E. Fretheim, “Psalm 132: A Form-Critical Study,” JBL 86 (1967) 293–300. 56. Dahood, Psalms III, 241. See Mettinger, King and Messiah, 256. 57. K. Seybold (“Der Redaktion der Wallfahrtspsalmen,” ZAW 71 [1979] 256) argues that vv. 3–9 and 14–18 are Davidic. Seow (Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David’s Dance, 149 n. 21) contends that vv. 3–9 and 11b–15 are “liturgical materials from the Davidic period.” 58. H. Gese (“Der Davidsbund und die Zionserwählung,” in Vom Sinai zum Zion [Munich: Kaiser, 1974] 121) interprets bĕrît in v. 12 as a direct reference to God’s covenant with David: “Ps 132 gibt in seiner einfachen Art die ursprüngliche Verbindung

438  |  Notes to Pages 187–89 der beiden Akte, Überführung der Lade auf den Zion und Bund mit David wieder.” (Ps 132 recounts, in its simple style, the aboriginal interrelationship between those two events: the transfer of the Ark to Zion and the covenant with David.) He argues that the conceptual framework of Nathan’s oracle is clearly Deuteronomistic, with its emphasis on temple building—as distinct from the viewpoint in Psalm 132 which stresses the cult of Zion. Gese sees the latter perspective drawing from the Chronicler’s account in 1 Chr 17 (see ibid., 122–29). G. H. Davies (“The Ark in the Psalms,” in Promise and Deliverance [ed. F. F. Bruce; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963] 151) notices that Ps 132:8 represents the “only one explicit reference to the ʾaron [“ark”] in the Psalter.” Seow (Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David’s Dance, 193) comments: “The provision of food in Ps 132:15 corresponds to the symbolic meal that David sponsored in conjunction with the induction of the ark into Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:29).” He adds: “In sum, the historical cultic referent of Psalm 132 is the procession of the ark into Jerusalem. As in comparable rituals from elsewhere in the ancient Near East, the procession was conducted in joy by priests and other cultic participants. It culminated in a feast celebrating the occasion and symbolizing the deity’s acceptance of the city as the new divine abode from which blessings would be dispensed to the multitude” (196). 59. Seow, Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David’s Dance, 148. Seow goes on to support a tenth-century date. 60. Seow, Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David’s Dance, 202–3. See also Kruse, “David’s Covenant,” 149: “A covenant in the original (profane) sense is a mutual sworn promise (e.g., Gen xxxi 44), but only in Ps cxxxii is the mutual character of David’s covenant emphasized. There David is said to have sworn or made a vow to build the Temple and to have practiced for this purpose ascetical austerities. The historical books know nothing of such a vow. . . . But vows seem to have been common in David’s time (cf. 2 Sam xv 7), and even austerities are reported of David (2 Sam xii 16–23).” This feature represents an important element of David’s covenant that serves to fill out the grant-type pattern, i.e., the already-righteous grantee performs some singular act of conspicuous loyalty for which he is awarded a covenant grant. 61. Seow (Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David’s Dance, 179), commenting on God’s vow in Ps 132:11 states: “YHWH’s vow is called a ‘surety’ (ʾemet) which, of course, recalls Nathan’s Oracle (2 Samuel 7) and, specifically, David’s response to it: ‘You are God, your words are ‫( אמת‬ʾemet)!’ (2 Sam 7:28). In 2 Samuel 6–7, that oath follows ­David’s procession of the ark into Jerusalem. YHWH promised David an enduring dynasty (bêt) when David offered to build YHWH a permanent ‘house’ (bêt): David’s kingdom will be ‘sure’ and his throne will last forever (2 Sam 7:16). So here, too, the promise of an eternal dynasty follows the allusion to the procession of the ark into the city and the establishment of YHWH’s ‘place.’ ” 62. On the importance of Jerusalem and the inviolability of Zion, see J. J. Schmitt, “Pre-Israelite Jerusalem,” in Scripture in Context (ed. C. D. Evans et al.; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980) 101–21; idem, “Psalm 87: Zion, the City of God’s Love,” in The Psalms and Other Studies on the Old Testament (ed. J. C. Knight and L. A. Sinclair; Nashotah, WI: Nashotah House Seminary, 1990) 34–44; idem, “The Origin of the Zion Tradition,” (unpublished paper, 1986); J. H. Hayes, “The Tradition of Zion’s Inviolability,” JBL 82 (1963) 419–26; A. R. Johnson, “The Role of the King in the Jerusalem Cultus,” in The Labyrinth (ed. S. H. Hooke; London: SPCK, 1953) 73–111; J. J. M. Roberts, “Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire,” in Studies in the Period of

Notes to Pages 189–92  |  439 David and Solomon (ed. T. Ishida; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982) 93–108; idem, “The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition,” JBL 92 (1976) 1–13. 63. Recent study of temple building in the ancient Near East confirms the relevance of this question. At the same time it justifies the present line of inquiry, for temples were not built arbitrarily in antiquity—anywhere by anybody. Temples in the ANE had a sacred and revelatory quality about them, which applied to both the persons who built them and the places where they were built. It was for this reason that temples were typically erected by a semidivine figure who was invested with royal-priestly authority following his (re)conquest of some ancient and hallowed site. It was there that he first received precise specifications for building it, usually according to a mysterious design divinely revealed in a theophanic vision. See Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House; C. Meyers, “David as Temple Builder,” in Ancient Israelite Religion (ed. P. D. Miller et al.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 357–76. 64. Booij, “Psalm CX,” 402–3. See also Ishida (Royal Dynasties, 121–22): “It is true that all the Yahwistic traditions of Jerusalem were created by David, who brought in the Ark of Yahweh, and by Solomon, builder of the Temple for Yahweh there. Pre-Davidic Jerusalem, it is plain, had nothing to do with Yahwism except in mysterious traditions of Abraham (Gen 14:18–20, 22:1–14). But it is hardly plausible that David and Solomon could change Jerusalem into the holiest city in Israel solely by their own initiative and actions. In the ancient Near East, the choice of holy places was not left to human arbitrariness but was determined by a manifestation of the god’s presence, generally at a certain site with special natural conditions, such as springs, sacred trees, mountains, and so forth. It is thus legitimate to suppose that David intended to utilize the ancient religious traditions of Jerusalem for the creation of the new Yahwistic traditions in the city.” 65. A good treatment of the incident is given by R. G. Dillard, “David’s Census: Perspectives on II Samuel 24 and I Chronicles 21,” in Through Christ’s Word (ed. W. R. Godfrey and J. L. Boyd, III; Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1985) 94–107. See also E. H. Merrill, “The ‘Accession Year’ and Davidic Chronology,” JANES(CU) 19 (1989) 101–21; S. Gelander, David and His God: Religious Ideas as Reflected in Biblical Historiography and Literature (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 5; Jerusalem: Simor, 1991) 55–69; A. Schenker, Der Mächtiger im Schmelzofen des Mitleids: Eine Interpretation von II Sam 24 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupert, 1982); E. Nicole, “Un Cas de Relecture: II Sam 24 et I Chronique 21,” Hokma 26 (1984) 47–55. 66. On the special (often cultic) significance of the threshing floor, see S. Smith, “The Threshing Floor at the City Gate,” PEQ (1946) 4–14; McCarter (II Samuel, 511– 12) notes that the threshing floor is often identified in ancient Near Eastern sources as a site of theophany (see Judg 6:37). G. W. Ahlström (“Der Prophet Nathan und der Tempelbau,” VT 11 [1961] 113–27) argues that Araunah’s threshing floor was previously used as a Jebusite shrine for offering cultic sacrifices before David conquered Jerusalem. 67. Dillard, “David’s Census,” 107. 68. Ishida (Royal Dynasties, 136–38) comments: “When the ancient patriarchal traditions were put together as a great epic at the Davidic-Solomonic court, Jerusalem was linked with them. It may be assumed, therefore, that some allusions to Jerusalem and Mount Zion were incorporated into the narrative of the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22:1–14) in this period. Although the name of the place disappears at the end of the narrative (v. 14), the ‘mount of Yahweh’ must be Mount Zion (cf. Is 2:2, 30:29; Mic 4:2; Ps 24:3),

440  |  Notes to Pages 192–94 and a word-play on ‫ ראה‬seemingly points to ‘jeru,’ the first component part of the name Jerusalem. We do not know for certain where ‘the land of Moriah’ (Gen 22:2) was. But it seems probable that the Chronicler’s identification of the mountain with ‘Mount Moriah where Yahweh appeared to David’ (II Chron 3:1), and on which the Temple stood, breathes an old tradition. The situation is clearer in the account of Abram and Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of El Elyon (Gen 14:18–20). . . . Melchizedek was a traditional figure important enough to be exploited by David. . . . By making Melchizedek the priest of Yahweh anachronistically, he sought to show the patriarch’s acceptance of Jerusalem as a sanctuary of Yahweh styled El Elyon (cf. 14:22).” 69. For useful treatments, see R. Clements, Abraham and David (London: SCM, 1967); Ishida, Royal Dynasties, 118–50. 70. Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World, 277–78. 71. Ishida (Royal Dynasties, 139–40) comments: “It is only against this background that we can understand correctly the implications of God’s promise of the priesthood to the Davidic kings ‘according to the order of Melchizedek’ (Ps 110:4). Of course, Melchizedek represents the prototype of the priest-king of Jerusalem in this psalm. But, at the same time, he no longer has any thing to do with the historical or traditional figure in pre-Davidic Jerusalem. By a twist of chronology, he is made an ancient priest of Yahweh who has dwelt on Mount Zion (v. 2). Accordingly, in the view of the psalmist, it was Yahweh who designated him as a priest-king of Jerusalem in the past, and now Yahweh will give the same position to the Davidic kings who are ruling in Jerusalem as successors to him. If our interpretation is correct, it is self-evident that this divine promise cannot be regarded as the legitimization of the Canaanite type of sacral kingship for the Davidids, let alone as the legitimization of the Zadokite priesthood. The purpose of the psalm is twofold. On the one hand, by mentioning ‘the order of Melchizedek’ as Yahweh’s designation, it shows that the kingship and the priesthood of Jerusalem have been associated with Yahweh since the days of Melchizedek, who was contemporaneous with Abraham. On the other, it serves to justify the priestly function of the Davidic kings. . . . It appears that David tried to defend his priestly authority by claiming succession to ‘the order of Melchizedek,’ a mysterious priest-king of Jerusalem in the past.” 72. Mazar, Biblical Israel, 81. 73. Mazar, Biblical Israel, 94. 74. Mettinger (King and Messiah, 254) refers to Ps 110:4 as a “lyrical echo” of the other Davidic oath references. 75. Mettinger also suggests that Ps 110:3 is “referring to the king as the son of God. Least alteration is needed, if v. 3b is read in the following manner: ‫מ רֶחם ִמ ְשׇׁחר‬ ֶ ֵ ‫בּ ַה ְדֵרי ׂ־קֶדשׁ‬.ְ ‫‘—ְלָך ַטל ַיְלֻ דֶתיָך‬In holy array, from the womb of the dawn go forth; as I have begotten you. . . .’ This interpretation is also supported by Job 38,28f. (cf. 38,8), where God’s production of natural phenomena is described in the figure of paternity: ‘Has the rain a father, or who has begotten the drops of dew? From whose womb did the ice come forth, and who has given birth to the hoarfrost of heaven?’ ” (264). 76. See, e.g., the standard work by H. Donner, “Adoption oder Legitimation? Erwägungen zur Adoption im Alten Testament auf dem Hintergrund der altorientalischen Rechte,” OrAnt 8 (1969) 87–119. He concludes that references to the divine sonship of the Davidic king, such as Ps 2:7, are purely metaphorical (114). At the heart of his thesis is the denial that legal adoption was practiced in ancient Israel. After examining every alleged case of adoption, he negatively concludes: “Die erörterten Stellen auf Adoption zu deuten, ist entweder in hohem Grade unwahrscheinlich oder überhaupt ausgeschlos-

Notes to Page 194  |  441 sen. Das entspricht dem auffallenden Zurücktreten der Adoption beim Übergang vom Zweistromland nach Syrien” (That the discussed passages refer to adoption is either unlikely in the extreme, or totally ruled out. It contradicts the conspicuous decrease in adoption when one moves from Mesopotamia to Syria) (112). He distinguishes between adoptio, “ ‘Annahme an Kindesstatt’ gewaltunterworfener Personen” (Assumption of child-status by subjugated persons), and arrogatio, “Annahme an Kindesstatt’ gewaltfreier Personen” (Assumption of child-status by free persons) (88). While adoption implies the right to inherit, arrogation does not. Donner’s thesis has not gone without strong criticism: see J. M. Scott, Adoption as Sons of God (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992) 62–117; E. W. Davies, “Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage,” VT 31 (1981) 138–44, 257–67; S. M. Paul, “Adoption Formulae: A Study of Cuneiform and Biblical Legal Clauses,” MAARAV 2 (1979–80) 173–85; H. Boecker, “Anmerkungen zur Adoption im Alten Testament,” ZAW 86 (1974) 86–89. 77. B. Byrne (‘Sons of God’—‘Seed of Abraham’ [Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979] 14) cites examples of texts that may be interpreted metaphorically (e.g., Prov 3:11–12; Deut 1:31, 8:5; Mal 1:6, 3:17). See also Kruse, “David’s Covenant,” 154 n. 35. 78. Mettinger (King and Messiah, 259) speaks of “a narrow sense,” in which “there is a sense of identity between the king and the god so that the king holds the position of deus incarnatus on earth. The king can then be thought of as being of divine descent (cf. hieros gamos). He may also be the object of a cult.” He adds: “The Israelite conception of the divine sonship of the king is such that it suggests that the conception of divine kingship was also found in ancient Israel. It is therefore important to decide in which sense the divine sonship of the king is to be interpreted: was divine sonship conceived in mythological categories, or was it understood in legal, adoptianic terms?” (259–60). 79. See H. J. Boecker, “Anmerkungen zur Adoption im Alten Testament,” ZAW 86 (1974) 86–89; G. Cooke, “The Israelite King as Son of God”; idem, “The Sons of (the) God(s),” ZAW 76 (1964) 22–47; M. W. Schoenberg, “HUIOTHESIA: The Adoptive Sonship of the Israelites,” AER 143 (1960) 261–73. 80. See, e.g., Johnson (Sacral Kingship, 25): “It is to be observed that in light of the covenant background the promise of ‘Sonship’ is simply one of adoption, which carries with it certain attendant conditions so far as David and his descendants are concerned.” See also Cooke, “The Israelite King as the Son of God,” 212. 81. Roberts (“In Defense of the Monarchy,” 391 n. 13) comments: “There are quite striking parallels between the Egyptian and the Israelite coronation rituals. Besides the giving of the royal names, note the similar divine acknowledgment of the human king as his offspring using the language of birth. Amon’s words to Moremhab, ‘You are my son and my heir who has come out of my members’ . . . and Yahweh’s words to the Davidic king, ‘You are my son, today I have begotten you’ (Ps 2:7), are similar, if not identical, and both were apparently spoken on the day of the king’s enthronement.” 82. Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 247) speaks of “the rapidly increasing evidence of the specifically Canaanite origin of Israelite ideas of the king as son of god.” He cites the Keret Epic where Keret is called the “lad of El.” Cross then argues for an adoptive sense, although it is not obvious from the text. See J. J. M. Roberts, “In Defense of the Monarchy: The Contribution of Israelite Kingship to Biblical Theology” in Ancient Israelite Religion (ed. P. D. Miller et al.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 340 n. 13: “In short, I think Egypt, with all its differences, still provides the best background for understanding this aspect of Israelite royal theology, and it is probably the dominant influence on Canaanite royal theology as well.”

442  |  Notes to Pages 195–96 83. See, e.g., Mettinger, King and Messiah, 254–93. 84. Mettinger, King and Messiah, 265: “I am inclined to agree with those scholars who maintain that the Israelite conception of the divine sonship of the king is due to Egyptian influence. The filial relationship between the Egyptian king and the god was conceived in mythological categories with the emphasis on the physical descent of the king from the god who begat him. It is important to note that it is not in this mythological form that we find the conception of divine sonship in the Israelite texts. Divine sonship has been subjected to an interpretatio israelitica. Indeed, it does not seem out of place to interpret this process as a case of demythologization.” 85. The term “sacramental” is used here in its generic sense, i.e., as an efficacious sign—not in the technical sense which is reserved for the seven sacraments of the New Covenant, i.e., those which are said to effect the grace they signify. In sum, “sacrament” has many other senses related to various forms of oath-swearing (see Chapter 3, “Covenant and Oath in the Old Testament,” where covenant oaths were seen to involve the mystery of God’s presence and judgment [blessing/curse] in a variety of ways). See E. O. James, Sacrifice and Sacrament (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1962) 232: “In Roman law . . . the word sacramentum was used to describe a legal religious sanction in which a man placed his life or property in the hands of the supernatural powers who upheld justice and honoured solemn engagements and contracts. It then became on oath of allegiance . . . (taken by soldiers to their imperator) sworn under a formula having a religious connotation. In the Early Church it was given a numinous and esoteric interpretation when the Latin sacer was brought into conjunction with the Greek mysterion. Thus, it became a convenient term for efficacious sacred signs or symbols which convey something ‘hidden’—a mysterious potency transmitted through material instruments as appointed channels of divine grace in a ritual observance.” 86. Clements, Abraham and David, 58–59: “It is also by recognizing the political situation of the Davidic state as the background to the Yahwist’s work that we gain an insight into the significance of the third of the great tria of promises. Through the descendants of Abraham the nations of the earth would acquire blessing for themselves. This must certainly be a pointer to the political situation in which, under David, Israel exercised hegemony over a number of surrounding vassal states. Through his anointed king, Yahweh exercised his dominion over the nations of the earth, communicating his blessing to them through his people Israel. . . . It is clear that the Davidic court contributed to the emergence of a more universalist outlook in Israel, with a claim to Israel’s unique status, and the belief that through it Yahweh exercised his rule over the nations. It is this belief that comes to expression in the third of the promises to Abraham.” 87. See H. Gese, Vom Sinai zum Zion: Alttestamentliche Beiträge zur biblischen Theologie (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1974). 88. McCarthy (“II Samuel 7,” 132) comments: “Note that this apparent equating of the promise to David with the promise to Israel through the patriarchs brings it into the complex of ideas relating to the covenant. As a matter of fact it has often been stated that the Davidic covenant tends to absorb the older one. If we are right in holding that a number of important ideas about Israel’s special relation to Yahweh—the ideas of ‘rest,’ of Moses as Yahweh’s special mediating servant, etc.—are taken up and applied to David, this does not seem strange. However, in view of this whole complex it seems inaccurate to think of the Davidic covenant as displacing the older covenant between Yahweh and Israel, as is often done. Rather, for the D writer, the Davidic covenant continues and specifies the older one. David’s covenant does not compete with the people’s covenant as an independent, parallel means to Yahweh’s grace; rather, through

Notes to Pages 196–99  |  443 David the whole people receives the divine favor. The continuity is brought out among other ways in the unembarrassed application of old covenant terminology to David.” Clements (Abraham and David, 61–78) gives a helpful survey of the variable elements apropos the two covenants. See also S. L. MacKenzie, The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1984). 89. See Kruse, “David’s Covenant,” 154, n. 35. 90. See Dumbrell, “The Davidic Covenant,” 46: “In the light of this fuller covenantal exposition of 2 Sam 7, more may be said about the role of Davidic kingship which it introduces. Here, the interpretative contribution of a Psalm, whose content is consistent with the era of David, Ps 110, can be brought into play. That Psalm asserts the priestly nature of David’s Jerusalem kingship. It will not be strictly cultic, as Melchizedek’s (with which it is compared for that reason, cf. Gen 14:18) was not. In its contemplation of a priestly kingship (Ps 110:4) what appears to be being entertained is that in the person of the king, the covenant demand contemplated for all Israel in Exod 19:3b-6, has been embodied. Only kingship of that character, the Psalm in its second half seems to imply, will guarantee the political extension of the Jerusalem kingdom which it envisages (Ps 110:5–7). Davidic kingship is thus to reflect in the person of the occupant of the throne of Israel and as representative of the nation as a whole, the values which the Sinai covenant had required of the nation.” 91. The Deuteronomistic history describes David as fulfilling certain important terms of the Deuteronomic covenant (see esp. Deut 12:1– 14), whereby he receives the divine covenant grant of a royal priestly dynasty in Jerusalem. David (1) completes the subjugation of the idolatrous inhabitants of the land; (2) establishes a measure of security and “rest” from enemies surrounding the land; (3) establishes a place for a central sanctuary to be built within the land. 92. See also 2 Sam 12:11; 1 Kgs 6:12–13; 9:4, 6–7. 93. Kruse, “David’s Covenant,” 159. Kruse highlights tensions evident in other Davidic traditions besides the Deuteronomistic history. E.g., he mentions the unconditional outlook of Psalms 110 and 132, the exilic viewpoint of Psalm 89, as well as the Chronicler’s postexilic perspective. 94. See N. Frye, The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982) 178: “It is obvious from the extended prayer ascribed to Solomon at the consecration of his temple that he was thought to have priestly functions as well.” 95. Solomon violates the law by multiplying for himself: (1) gold and silver (1 Kgs 10:14–23); (2) horses and chariots from Egypt (1 Kgs 10:26–29); and (3) foreign wives and concubines (1 Kgs 11:1–8). Likewise, Solomon’s son and successor, Rehoboam, is depicted in terms of his tyrannical greed (1 Kgs 12:1–11), apart from any royal priestly activities. 96. Even so, a non-Levitical (Davidic) prince is depicted/predicted as ruling in ­Ezekiel’s ideal dyarchy (Ezek 45:7–9). 97. C. Meyers and E. Meyers (Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987], 351) comment: “The usual terms for crown, as related to the royal office are nezer or ʿatarâ; neither presents a problem in the context in which it is found. The former, nezer, is used to refer to both Saul’s (2 Sam 1:10) and David’s (2 Kgs 11:12 = 2 Chr 23:11) crowns and hence represents the insignia of royal power (see also Ps 89:40 [RSV v 39]) and 132:18). . . . The latter, ʿtrh, is frequently used as a term for royal power (e.g., 2 Sam 12:30 = 1 Chr 20:12; Jer 13:18; Cant 3:11; Ezek 21:31 [RSV v 26] where crown, ʿatarâ, is used together with turban, misnepet; etc.) but, except for this verse in Zechariah (6:11), it is never used for priestly power or authority. For this reason many

444  |  Notes to Pages 200–201 critics have insisted that the subsequent crowning of Joshua as high priest could not have been original to this oracle. The term is innovative for priests; but precisely this kind of innovation is appropriate to the political situation of the restoration, which is not the same as the pre-exilic period.” Here is where the dual messianism so common in the intertestamental period may have originated, at least in part, which later becomes especially evident at Qumran and in such documents as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. 98. Something analogous may be seen in the covenant between David and Jonathan. Following their first (kinship-type) covenant, which involved a mutual pledge (via their exchange of clothing, 1 Sam 18:1–5), Jonathan put himself under the conditional selfcurse of his own oath for the purpose of ensuring the safety of David (1 Sam 20:12– 13)—in exchange for which “he made David swear” (vv. 14–17, 42). Then, long after Jonathan’s death, and simply because of his own covenant oath, David felt constrained to search out the only living descendant of Saul, a crippled lad named Mephibosheth, who thus afterwards “ate always at the king’s table” (2 Sam 9:1–13). 99. For a thorough treatment of the issues involved in this complex subject area, see K. E. Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). 100. See Kruse, “Davidic Covenant,”154–62 for an interesting case that supports the twofold meaning of “seed” in 2 Sam 7:12–16, i.e., one that leaves room for an ideal messianic figure who (as a political ruler) emerges from the Davidic line. Arguing from a number of texts that offer corroborative support (Isa 4:2; Jer 33:15; Amos 9:11–12; Mic 4:8; Zech 3:8, 6:12; Sir 45:31), but esp. the Shiloh and Balaam oracles (Gen 49:10; Num 24:17), Kruse concludes that the expectation of a “greater than Solomon” is actually intended and fostered by a canonical reading of the Old Testament. 101. It is here that our canonical methodology is quite evident. Traditional sourcecritical biblical scholarship would insist on seeing a variety of incompatible perspectives on the Davidic kingdom in the various biblical documents. To allow all these documents to speak with a common voice on a certain subject—i.e. the Davidic kingdom—is a quintessentially canonical move, presuming an underlying unity to the canon. 102. The key text outlining the conditions and promises of this covenant is 2 Sam 7:8–16 (see Gordon, 1–2 Samuel, 71; Laato, “Psalm 132,” 56), although the term ‘covenant’ only occurs elsewhere: e.g., 2 Sam 23:5; 1 Kgs 8:23–24; Ps 89:3; 2 Chr 13:5; 21:7; Sir 45:25; Isa 55:3; Ezek 34:25 LXX. 103. See J. J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (AYBRL; New York: Doubleday, 1995; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press) 163: “The individual most often designated as ‘the son of God’ in the Hebrew Bible is undoubtedly the Davidic king, or his eschatological counterpart.” 104. E.g., Ps 2:7; 89:26; 1 Chr 17:13; 28:6. 105. See Fensham “Father and Son.” The sonship language in Psalms 2 and 89 emphasizes the covenant between YHWH and the Davidic king. 106. See 1 Sam 16:13; 2 Sam 19:21, 22:51; 23:1; 1 Kgs 1:38–39; 2 Kgs 11:12; 23:30; 2 Chr 6:42; 23:11; Ps 2:2; 18:50; 20:6; 28:8; 84:9; 89:20, 38, 51; 132:10, 17. 107. See S. Japhet, “From the King’s Sanctuary to the Chosen City,” in Jerusalem, Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (ed. L.I. Levine; New York: Continuum, 1999) 3–15, esp. 6; and Ishida, Royal Dynasties, 118–19: “The royal­dynastic ideology of the House of David was crystallized in Jerusalem in the days of ­David and Solomon. In the formation of this ideology, Jerusalem figured centrally. It

Notes to Pages 201–6  |  445 was not merely the place where the dynasty was established but one of the basic elements of the Davidic ideology. The indivisible relation of the House of David to Jerusalem, which was created in this period, is one of the most characteristic features of the dynasty.” 108. Cf. Kruse, “Covenant,” 149. On the significance of Solomon’s temple-building efforts, see Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House; R. Mason, “The Messiah in the Postexilic Old Testament Literature,” in King and Messiah in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (ed. J. Day; JSOTSup 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998) 338–64, esp. 362; Ishida, Royal Dynasties, 145–147; and W. M. Swartley, Israel’s Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels: Story Shaping Story (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993) 154. 109. Ishida, Royal Dynasties, 145. He continues: “Reinforcing the covenant with ­David, which formulated Yahweh’s election of him, the temple now testified to ­Yahweh’s election of Mount Zion as his eternal dwelling-place” (147). This was evident even spatially: the House [palace] of the Davidic kings and the House [temple] of the Lord— both built by Solomon—were immediately adjacent to each other. See 1 Kings 6–7, 2 Chronicles 3–4, Ezek 43:7–9; Ishida, Royal Dynasties, 144. The House of David, in fact, owned the land on which the Temple was built (2 Chr 3:1), and the Davidic kings appointed the Temple’s priests, spent its revenues, and took responsibility for its maintenance (Ishida, Royal Dynasties, 144). B. W. Anderson summarizes: “(1) The king is a temple builder; (2) the temple and palace belong to a unified architectural complex, and (3) the king has jurisdiction over the temple cult and at times performs priestly functions” (cited in Swartley, Israel’s Scripture Traditions, 154). On the kings appointing priests, see 2 Sam 8:17–18; 20:25–26; 1 Kgs 2:26–27, 35; 4:2, 4–5; 2 Kgs 23:5; spending revenue, 1 Kgs 15:18, 2 Kgs 12:19; 18:15; executing repairs, 2 Kgs 12:5–17, 15:35; 16:10–18; 18:16; 21:4–5; 23:4–12. 110. Isa 2:1–4; 56:6–8; 60:3–16; 66:18–21; Jer 33:11; Ezek 40–44; Dan 9:24–27; Joel 3:18; Hag 2:1–9; Mic 4:1–4; Zech 6:12–14; 8:20–23; 14:16. 111. Abimelech’s reign in Shechem was certainly only local (Judg 9:1–57), and Saul never liberated Israel from Philistine vassalage (1 Sam 14:52; 31:1–7). 112. See, e.g., Isa 11:1–16; Jer 30:1–9; Ezek 37:15–28. 113. 2 Sam 8:11–12; 10:19; 12:30; 1 Kgs 3:1; 4:20–21, 10:15. See C. Meyers, “The Israelite Empire: In Defense of King Solomon,” in Backgrounds for the Bible (ed. P. O’Connor and D. N. Freedman; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987) 181–97. 114. Cf., e.g., Pss 2:8; 18:43, 47; 22:27; 47:1, 9; 72:8, 11; 66:8; 67:2–5; 86:9; 89:27; 96:7, 99:1. 115. Isa 2:3–4; 42:1–6; 49:1–7, 22–26; 51:4–6; 55:3–5; 56:3–8; 60:1–16; 66:18–19; Amos 9:11–12; Mic 4:2–3; Zech 14:16–19. 116. For a discussion of the tension between these texts and others which imply the Davidic covenant can be or has been broken, see Waltke, “The Phenomenon of Conditionality,” 123–40. 117. On the contrast between Sinai and Zion in the Old Testament, see K. Son, Zion Symbolism in Hebrews: Hebrews 12:18–24 as a Hermeneutical Key to the Epistle (Paternoster Biblical Monographs; Bletchely, UK: Paternoster Press, 2005) 29–74. 118. On this see esp. A. Laato, A Star Is Rising: The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of Jewish Messianic Expectations (University of South Florida International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 5; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 208–316; W. Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM Press, 1998) 36–63; idem, Messianism among Jews and

446  |  Notes to Pages 206–12 Christians: Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2003) 35–64. For the expectation of a Davidic Messiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see M. E. Fuller, The Restoration of Israel: Israel’s Re-gathering and the Fate of the Nations in Early Jewish Literature and Luke–Acts (BZNW 138; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006) 170–84. 119. See Collins, Scepter and Star, 12, 57, 67, 95, 209. The Dead Sea Scrolls cited in the text may be found in F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997–98). 120. Translation by R. B. Wright, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; 2 vols.; AYBRL; New York: Doubleday, 1985; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press), 2:667–68. 121. The identification of the messiah as the Son of God in 4 Ezra 7:28–29 allows us to identify the Davidic messiah in the vision of ch. 12 with the Son of God of the vision in ch. 13. Indeed, the identification would suggest itself anyway, since the descriptions of the activities of both figures largely correspond: both are preexistent (“kept for ages” [13:26] or “kept until the end of days” [12:32]) and are raised up at the end to “reprove” the nations (12:33; 13:37) and save the remnant of Israel (12:34; 13:39, 48–49). 122. For an excellent study of the concept of the Davidic Messiah in the Qumran documents, see M. E. Fuller, Restoration of Israel: Israel’s Regathering and the Fate of the Nations in Early Jewish Literature and Luke–Acts (BZNW 138; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006), 170–84. 123. Unless otherwise noted, all translations from the scrolls are from F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997–98). 124. It might be proposed that at least one Qumran document anticipates a messianic figure who is neither of David nor of Levi, namely, 11QMelchizedek, which foresees the coming of an eschatological “Melchizedek” to restore Israel and judge the nations. However, there is a canonical link between the House of David and Melchizedek: Ps 110, in which the Lord swears to David, “You are a priest forever, in the line of Melchizedek.” Since other biblical documents can speak of David’s successor as simply “David” (e.g., Ezek 37:24), it may be that “Melchizedek” in 11QMelch is a successor of Melchizedek, who could also be a descendant of David. 125. 4 Ezra 12:32, Pss. Sol. 17:4, 21; 4Q161 (4QpIsaa) 8 X, 17; 4Q252 (4QCommGen A) V, 1–3. Arguably, the “Son of God” in 4Q246 (4QapocrDan ar), the “Son of Man” in 1 Enoch, and the “Messiah” in 2 Baruch are Davidic, since Davidic prophecies and characteristics are attributed to them. On 4Q246 see Collins, Scepter and Star, 154– 65, esp. 163–65. On Davidic messianic interpretations of the Son of Man in 4Q246, 4 Ezra, and the NT, see Gese, Essays on Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981) 158. 126. Pss. Sol. 17:4; 4Q174 (4QFlor) 1 I, 7–13; 4Q252 V, 1–5; 4Q504 (4QDibHama) 1–2 IV, 6–8. 127. 4 Ezra 13:32, 52; 4Q246 (4QapocrDan ar) II, 1; 4Q174 1 I, 11. 128. 4 Ezra 7:28; 12:32; Pss. Sol. 17:32; 4Q252 V, 3. 129. 4 Ezra 13:35–36; Pss. Sol. 17:22, 30; 4Q174 1 I, 12. 130. 4 Ezra 12:48 [implied]; 4Q504 1–2 IV, 12. 131. 4 Ezra 13:39–48; Pss. Sol. 17:26–28; 31; 43–44; 4Q174 1 I, 13 (“save Israel”); cf. 1 QM V, 1; Sir 36:11. 132. 4 Ezra 13:33, 37–38; Pss. Sol. 17:29–34; 4Q161 8–10 III, 21–22; 4Q246 II, 5–7.

Notes to Pages 212–18  |  447 133. Pss. Sol. 17:35–38; 4Q174 1 I, 1–5, 11; 4Q246 II, 5–9; 4Q252 V, 4. 134. See Collins, Scepter and Star, 209. 135. For instance, I have bypassed most of the Chronicler’s distinct treatment of David as royal cult organizer, basing my treatment primarily on 1–2 Samuel. For a useful treatment of the Chronicler’s view of David and God’s covenant with him, see W. Johnstone, “Guilt and Atonement: The Theme of 1 and 2 Chronicles,” in A Word in Season (ed. J. D. Martin and P. R. Davies; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986) 113–38. He observes: “Using the materials of Israel’s past in a supra-historical way, the Chronicler expounds in narrative form the teaching of both law and prophets on the guilt of Israel and its destructive consequences. . . . As in the end of the day the ‘Deuteronomistic School’ found itself constrained to transcend its doctrine of covenant and await a final act of God himself . . . circumcising the heart of the people, . . . (Deut 30:6) . . . so the Chronicler . . . is forced to look beyond the limits of his theological category, not to the destruction of Israel . . . but to its restoration through an act of the free grace of God.” (125). Johnstone shows how the restoration fits into the Chronicler’s larger framework and program, which is based on his genealogical presentation in 1 Chr 1–9, of God’s plan for the whole family of mankind: “Out of the broad mass of humanity, a single family has now been chosen; Israel is to realize on behalf of mankind what mankind as a whole cannot. . . . The ideal relationship between Israel and the world of the nations is portrayed in 1 Chron 14, where the gathering of all Israel to David (1 Chron 11–13) is crowned by the recognition and pacification of the nations of the world (1 Chron 14.17, yet another of the Chronicler’s original statements)” (126–27). 136. Raymond E. Brown, “Communicating the Divine and Human in Scripture,” Origins 22.1 (1992) 5–6, my emphasis. Chapter 8 DAVIDIC COVENANT FULFILLMENT IN LUKE-ACTS 1. There has been increasing recognition of the importance of Davidic messianism in Luke. See M. L. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke–Acts: The Promise and Its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology (JSNTSup 110; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995); D. Juel, review of M. L. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke–Acts, Review of Biblical Literature [http://www.bookreviews.org] (2000); D. Ravens, Luke and the Restoration of Israel (JSNTSup 119; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 24–49, esp. 34: “The theme of Jesus’ kingship extends throughout the Gospel where it is always as the Davidic King of Israel.” See also D. L. Bock, “Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Luke’s Use of the Old Testament for Christology and Mission,” in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. C. A. Evans and W. R. Stegner; JSNTSup 104; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 280–307. “The fundamental category of Lukan Old Testament christology is a regal one. . . . Luke has kept the fundamental portrait of Jesus as the regal, Davidic hope in the forefront of almost every text” (ibid., 293–94). M. E. Fuller (The Restoration of Israel: Israel’s Regathering and the Fate of the Nations in Early Jewish Literature and Luke–Acts [BZNW 138; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006] esp. 197–269) makes an important contribution in linking the concept of the Davidic Messiah in Luke to the theme of the restoration of Israel. An earlier piece is F. F. Bruce, “The Davidic Messiah in Luke–Acts,” in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies (Festschrift W. S. Lasor; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 7–17. 2. See D. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994) 115; R. L. Brawley, Text to Text Pours Forth Speech:

448  |  Notes to Pages 218–19 Voices of Scripture in Luke–Acts (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995) 85–86; T. J. Lane, Luke and the Gentile Mission: Gospel Anticipates Acts (European University Studies, Series 23, Vol. 571; Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang, 1996) 157–63. 3. On the “covenanting” of the kingdom, see discussion of diatithēmi in Chapter 8, “The Institution Narrative (Luke 22:14–30).” 4. “The title Son of God is not only associated with the Davidic Messiah in Gabriel’s words to Mary but also in later passages of Luke–Acts, which serve as reminders of this special sense of Son of God. . . . The connection of divine sonship and kingship also appears in Jesus statement at the last supper that ‘my Father has conferred on me royal rule’ (Luke 22:29)” (R. C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke–Acts: A Literary Interpretation. Volume One: The Gospel According to Luke [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986], 25). 5. “The title Messiah, which appears here for the first time [2:11], should be interpreted in light of what has already been said to Mary and by Zechariah about salvation for the Jewish people through the reestablishment of the Davidic kingdom” (Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 38). 6. The title “Christ” is probably always intended in a Davidic sense in Luke. Cf. C. M. Tuckett “The Christology of Luke–Acts,” in The Unity of Luke–Acts (ed. J. Verheyden; BETL 142; Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 133–64: “In the Lukan writings, Luke seems to tie the Χριστόϛ terminology very closely to Davidic and royal ideas . . . it would be hard if not impossible to divorce ideas of messiahship from Davidic/royal ideas” (147–48); Brian M. Nolan, The Royal Son of God: The Christology of Matthew 1–2 in the Setting of the Gospel (OBO 23; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979) 173: “ ‘Christ’ for first century Palestine meant the Messiah of the house of David: Jesus ‘the King’!”; and Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 58: “There are a series of passages in LukeActs which suggest the close connection, or equivalence, of the titles ‘Son of God’ and ‘Messiah,’ or connect Jesus’ position as Son with kingship.” 7. J. A. Fitzmyer (The Gospel According to Luke 1–9 [AYB 28; Garden City: Doubleday, 1981; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press] 164–65) speaks of Luke’s “preoccupation with Jerusalem as the city of destiny for Jesus and the pivot of salvation for mankind. Luke establishes a special relationship between Jesus’ person and ministry and that city of David’s throne.” Similarly, D. P. Bechard, “The Theological Significance of Judea in Luke–Acts,” in The Unity of Luke–Acts (ed. J. Verheyden; BETL 142; Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 675–91: “Jerusalem . . . [is] the center-point around which the continuous story of this two-volume work revolves” (675). 8. On the importance of the Temple in Luke 1–2, see J. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 61–62: “The Jerusalem Temple features prominently in both volumes of this work . . . it is significant that mention should be made of the Temple so frequently, and that key episodes located elsewhere in Matthew and Mark should be located in the Temple in Luke.” Cf. N. H. Taylor, “Luke–Acts and the Temple,” in The Unity of Luke–Acts (ed. J. Verheyden; BETL 142; Leuven: Peeters, 1999) 709–21, esp. 709. 9. On the importance of the Temple in Luke–Acts, see J. B. Chance, Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age in Luke–Acts (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988); and A. C. Clark, “The Role of the Apostles,” in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (ed. I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 169–90, esp. 175–76. 10. On restoring unity see Fuller, Restoration of Israel, esp. 239–45.

Notes to Pages 219–20  |  449 11. See Ravens, Luke, 25: “Writers on Luke–Acts . . . use the word ‘Israel’ as if it were synonymous with ‘Jews’ . . . but . . . Luke, when using the term ‘Israel’, . . . leave[s] open the question of its membership.” 12. “[Luke’s] understanding of the restored Israel is rooted in the idea of one nation under a Davidic king, modeled on the nation before its division into two kingdoms. That these kingdoms should be reunited he would have found in the oracles of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Ezekiel, and Zechariah” (Ravens, Luke, 105). “Without the return of the Samaritans there could be no restored Israel and without an Israel in the process of restoration there would be nothing for the Gentiles to enter” (idem, 106). 13. See Bock, Luke, 116–17. 14. Cf. D. L. Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology (JSNTSup 12; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 262. Bock sees Luke’s Christology as unified around the concept of Davidic Messiah-Isaianic Servant. Further integration is possible in light of the contention of D. I. Block (“My Servant ­David: Ancient Israel’s Vision of the Messiah,” in Israel’s Messiah in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls [ed. R. S. Hess and M. D. Carroll R.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003] 17– 56, esp. 49–56) and Strauss (Davidic Messiah, 292–98) that the Isaianic servant was a royal figure and even a Davidide, at least as first-century Jews would have read Isaiah. Thus, Davidic Messiah and Isaianic Servant may be one and the same. 15. Cf. Green, Luke, 84–85. 16. An allusion to Ps 132:17, where a horn sprouts up from David, is probably intended (Green, Luke, 116). Bock (Luke, 20, cf. 180) remarks, “Zechariah links spiritual promises and national promises to Davidic hope.” On other, more subtle Davidic allusions in the Benedictus, see S. Farris, The Hymns of Luke’s Infancy Narratives: Their Origin, Meaning, and Significance (JSNTSup 9; JSOT Press, 1985), 95–96. 17. Cf. Green, Luke, 130; Ravens, Luke, 42–43. 18. Cf. Green, Luke, 186; Bock, Luke, 341–43. 19. Bock (Luke, 357): “The mention of David is significant; . . . this connection puts Jesus in the regal line. . . . Luke does not elaborate here on the name . . . [but] the name itself would draw great attention from anyone who knew Israel’s history.” (Luke, 357) The pericope regarding the temptations of Jesus features a Davidic allusion in its second scene: “The devil produces a panorama of all the kingdoms of the world for ­Jesus. This evokes memories of Gabriel’s prediction that God would give Jesus the throne of his ancestor David to rule over an endless kingdom (Luke 1:32–33)—­reverberations of the Davidic covenant” (Brawley, Text to Text, 20). 20. See Bock, Luke, 527; L. T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (SP 3; Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier/Liturgical Press, 1991) 101: “The comparison of Jesus and his disciples to David and his companions is provocative, and the first narrative echo of the angel’s promise to Mary that Jesus would inherit the ‘throne of his father David’ (1:32).” 21. Bock, Luke, 873–74. 22. Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 265–67. 23. Cf. Ravens, Luke, 20: “Luke firmly believed that God’s restoration was an ongoing process and one that will result in Israel having the unity it once possessed under David, prior to the separation into two kingdoms.” 24. Fitzmyer, Luke, 165. Fitzmyer believes Luke’s geographical progression is certainly deliberate and theologically charged (166); while T. J. Lane says Luke shows Jesus “crossing Samaria theologically” on his way to Jerusalem (Luke and the Gentile Mission, 98, cf. 99–103; cf. Johnson, Luke, 170, 175). D. Ravens goes further, arguing

450  |  Notes to Page 221 that the entire travel narrative presented by Luke takes place in Samaria, since the only two geographical references in it refer to Samaria (9:51, 17:11). It is too much to believe, however, that Luke meant for us to understand that Martha and Mary (10:38–41, cf. John 11:1, 12:1) lived in Samaria and Jesus frequently debated with Pharisees on Samaritan soil (Luke 11:37–54, 14:1–6). But Ravens is correct to point out that all references to the Samaritans occur in the Travel narrative, and the explicit geographical comments in the Gospel move from Galilee to Samaria to Jerusalem and environs, essentially the reverse of Acts 1:8. 25. Ravens and others point out that Jesus’ injunction in Luke 10:8 to “eat what they set before you” makes best sense as an effort to assuage the disciples’ scruples concerning the ritual cleanliness of food. But this would only be an issue if the disciples were traveling in non-Jewish territory, i.e., Samaria (Ravens, Luke, 82–83). Note that in the parallel in Matt 10:5–15, where the Twelve are sent into Jewish territory (Matt 10:5), this injunction does not occur. On the possible Samaritan provenance of other parts of the Travel narrative, see Ravens, Luke, 76–87. 26. “The inclusion of the Samaritans as the descendants of the northern tribes is, for Luke, an indispensable element in the restoration of Israel. . . . Luke himself hopes for the Davidic unity of Israel.” (Ravens, Luke, 47) Later, in Acts, the success of Philip’s Samaritan mission (Acts 8:4–8) “demonstrates that Jews and Samaritans are being brought together into the embryo of a reunited Israel, just as their forebears had been under King David nine centuries earlier” (idem, 70). For Jesus’ ministry in Samaria in the Travel narrative, see Ravens, Luke, 72–87. On the Samaritans as part of Israel in Luke–Acts, see J. Jervell, Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke–Acts (Minneopolis: Augsburg, 1972) 113–32; and D. W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (WUNT 2 130; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000) 127–129. 27. Ravens, Luke, 99. In addition to the Samaritan ministry, certain of Jesus’ miracles and teachings reinforce the view that his mission was, in part, an effort to heal the divisions of Israel. For example, in ch. 6, Jesus heals a man with a withered hand (6:6– 11)—immediately after a direct comparison of himself and his disciples with ­David and his entourage, and immediately before the choosing of the Twelve, a corporate symbol of restored Israel. Only Jeroboam I suffered a withered hand in the OT (1 Kgs 13:1–6): the very one responsible for permanently dividing the kingdom of David by establishing a rival heterodox cult (1 Kgs 12:25–33). Luke alone of the evangelists notes that it was the man’s right hand, perhaps evoking Ps 137:5: “If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither!” Jeroboam “forgot” Jerusalem (1 Kgs 12:25–33) and so experienced the withering (and healing) of his hand (1 Kgs 13:1–6). Jesus’ healing of the Jeroboamlike man in Luke 6:6–11 symbolizes his purpose to overcome the forces that divided David’s kingdom. Later in the Gospel (10:30–37), Jesus tells a parable in which a Jew and a Samaritan finally come to recognize each other as “neighbors,” which in the LXX often carries the connotation “kinsman” (e.g., Lev 19:18; cf. Exod 2:13, 32:27). The Jew/­Samaritan division represents a divided kingdom, which Jesus mentions explicitly in Luke 11:14–23, asserting “every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided house falls” (11:17), an oblique reference to the divided kingdom and house of David, which was not merely a political, but also a spiritual, issue (see 1 Kgs 12:25–33). The division of the kingdom of David—still painfully evident in Jesus’ day—is a division of the Kingdom of God, which Jesus aims to heal by a ministry of “gathering” (11:23). The parable of the “Prodigal Son” (Luke 15:11–32) also refers, at least secondarily, to the division of the kingdom of David (Ravens, Luke, 102–3). The older son represents Judah; the younger, Ephraim, Judah’s nephew—youngest of the tribal family and

Notes to Pages 221–25  |  451 head of the northern tribes. The younger son goes to a far-off country—i.e., exile—and wastes his inheritance on harlotry, the very sin the prophets accused Ephraim/Israel of committing (Jer 3:6; Hos 4:15; 5:3). The younger son’s repentance and the elder’s refusal of reconciliation may point to the success of the apostolic mission to Samaria (cf. Acts 8:4–25) in contrast to the hardened resistance of the Judean/Jerusalemite leadership (cf. Acts 8:1–3). Regardless, the father in the story is determined to reconcile both sons to himself and to each other. 28. See Clark, “Role of the Apostles,” 169. 29. See Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 306–7. 30. See Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 307–11. 31. Cf. Zech 12:7–13:1; Luke 1:4, 11. See Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 311–17. 32. J. Koenig, The Feast of the World’s Redemption: Eucharistic Origins and Christian Mission (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 2000) 15. See Luke 6:20; 9:10–17; 11:2; 13:28; 15:11–32; 22:18. 33. Koenig, Feast, 181. See also P. K. Nelson, Leadership and Discipleship: A Study of Luke 22:24–30 (SBLDS 138; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994) 62. For an excellent study of all the meal scenes in Luke–Acts and their relationship to one another, see J. P. Heil, The Meal Scenes in Luke–Acts: An Audience-Oriented Approach (SBLMS 52; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999). 34. See E. LaVerdiere, Dining in the Kingdom of God: The Origins of the Eucharist According to Luke (Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications, 1994); idem, The Eucharist in the New Testament and the Early Church (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996); idem, The Breaking of the Bread: The Development of the Eucharist According to Acts (Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications, 1998). 35. The ten meals in Luke are Levi’s banquet (5:27–39); the feast at Simon the ­Pharisee’s house (7:36–50); the feeding of the five thousand at Bethsaida (9:10–17); the meal at the home of Martha (10:38–42); dinner at the Pharisee’s house (11:37–54); Sabbath dinner at yet another Pharisee’s home (14:1–24); supper at the house of Zaccheus (19:1–10); the Last Supper (22:7–38); breaking of bread at Emmaus (24:13–35); and eating in the presence of the Apostles (24:41–43). See LaVerdiere, Dining, 12; and Eucharist, 82–83. 36. See discussion in Nelson, Leadership, 66–69, 73; and Heil, Meal Scenes,196–97. 37. See Heil, Meal Scenes, 196. 38. See 2 Sam 6:19 (David); 1 Kgs 8:65–66 (Solomon); 2 Chr 30:21–26 (Hezekiah); 35:7–19 (Josiah). 39. Pss 16:5; 22:26; 23:5; 34:8, 10; 36:8; 63:5; 65:4; 132:15. 40. See discussion LaVerdiere, Eucharist, 79–95; and the measured, sympathetic critique by Koenig, Feast, 184–85. 41. “This is the part of the passion story Luke has most thoroughly reworked, i.e., the discourse in 22:24–37. . . . In this discourse the future role of the Twelve is decisive since they will exercise ruling authority just as Jesus has. Above all, the Twelve are specially related to Israel (v. 30)” (Jervell, Luke, 79). 42. Luke 22:16, 18, cf. Matt 36:29, Mark 14:25. 43. Luke 22:20, cf. Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24. 44. Luke 22:24–30; cf. Matt 20:24–28; Mark 10:41–45. 45. Cf. Luke 24:30, 42–43; Acts 1:4, 10:41. 46. F. X. Durrwell, The Resurrection: A Biblical Study (trans. R. Sheed; New York: Sheed and Ward, 1960) 323. 47. Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7, 11; 27:35.

452  |  Notes to Pages 225–27 48. Cf. John 6:66–69. Thus P. Benoit (Jesus and the Gospels [New York: Seabury, 1973] 116) remarks, “How can bread and wine become the body and blood of the Lord? It is a mystery of faith; we believe it because we believe in the Word of the Lord.” ­Benoit’s entire discussion (112–17) is helpful. 49. Benoit, Jesus, 113. 50. Benoit, Jesus, 116. 51. Thus the writers of the Didascalia Apostolorum described the Eucharist as “the likeness of the body of the kingdom of Christ.” See The Didiscalia Apostolorum in Syriac, Vol. 2: Chapters XI–XXVI (trans. A. Vööbus; CSCO 408; Scriptores Syri 180; Louvain: Secretariat du CSCO, 1979) 243–44. 52. On the reference to the new covenant in Jeremiah, see D. L. Bock, “The Reign of the Lord Christ,” in Dispensationalism,Israel, and the Church: A Search for Definition (ed. C. A. Blaising and D. L. Bock; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992) 37–67, here 43. On the relationship of covenant and kingdom, cf. G. Ossom-Batsa: “Δίαθήκη [covenant] and βασιλεία το῞ θεο῞ [kingdom of God] are correlative terms: the δίαθήκη [covenant] of Jesus is linked to the eschatological prediction through Jesus’ death. The δίαθήκη [covenant] makes it possible for man to enter into the βασιλεία το῞ θεο῞ [kingdom of God]” (The Institution of the Eucharist in the Gospel of Mark: A Study of the Function of Mark 14,22–25 Within the Gospel Narrative [European University Studies, Series 23, Vol. 727; Bern: Peter Lang, 2001], 159). 53. Bock, “Reign of the Lord Christ,” 43: “In Luke 22:20, as Jesus distributes the elements, he notes that the cup represents the new covenant in his blood, shed on behalf of his disciples. . . . In the Old Testament the fulfillment of the new covenant is tied to the inauguration of the kingdom (Jer 31–33; Ezek 36–37),” which is specifically Davidic: Jer 30:9, 33:14–26; Ezek 37:24–25. 54. The Davidic context is immediately confirmed in the next verse (v. 21) when Jesus alludes to a Psalm of David (Ps 41:9). 55. Luke 22:24–27; cf. Matt 20:24–28; Mark 10:41–45. 56. In the command, “Let the greatest among you become as the youngest,” do we not hear a faint echo of David himself, the youngest of eight brothers (1 Sam 16:10–11), who was serving his father in the fields when the prophet Samuel came to anoint him (1 Sam 16:11–12), and yet attained a “great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth” (2 Sam 7:9)? 57. Cf. BAGD, 184a def. 2. 58. See 1 Chr 19:19; 2 Chr 5:10; 7:18; Ezek 16:30; and discussion in Nelson, Leadership, 204. Diatithēmi and diathēkē often bear the sense “to make a testament” and “testament/will” respectively in secular Greek literature (BAGD, 189b def. 3; 183a def. 1), but not here (contra Jervell, Luke, 105 n. 24; and Nelson, Leadership, 204), as J. Nolland points out: “Though the verb can bear such a sense [i.e., “bequeath”], its parallel use in connection with God here hardly encourages us to move in such a direction” (Luke 18:35–24:53 [WBC 35c; Dallas: Word, 1993] 1066). See the discussion in Louw & Nida, §34.43; I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970) 814–15; J. Priest, “A Note on the Messianic Banquet,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 222–38. 59. See Louw & Nida, §34.43, and cf. Marshall, Luke, 814–15: “The language is that of a covenant or testamentary disposition, so that the saying has a decisive significance in the establishment of the new covenant.” 60. Priest, “A Note on the Messianic Banquet,” 222–38.

Notes to Pages 227–31  |  453 61. Nelson, Leadership, 204. 62. Cf. 2 Sam 23:5; Ps 89:3–4, 28–29, 34–37, 39; 110:1–4; 132:11–12. 63. The background of this conferral of the kingdom first upon Jesus and then upon the Apostles may include Dan 7:1–28, wherein “everlasting dominion . . . and . . . [a] kingdom that shall not be destroyed” are given first to the Son of Man (7:14) and then to the Saints of the Most High (vv. 18, 22, 27). 64. Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 3B; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 1740. Cf. Pao, Acts, 124–25: “In Luke, however, the bestowal of authority takes place during the very speech of Jesus,” and idem, 126–27: “Israel is now to be defined restrictively in terms of a certain kind of relationship to Jesus . . . ancient Israelite tradition is claimed by the Lukan community . . . an implicit claim to the title ‘true Israel’ can be said to exist in the narrative of Acts.” 65. Bock, “Reign of the Lord Christ,” 41. 66. Therefore diatithēmi in this passage should not be taken in a testamentary sense. 67. See Green, Luke, 770. 68. See Nelson, Leadership, 59. 69. Ossom-Batsa, Institution, 146: “Some relationship is suggested between the gift of the body and the gift of the blood . . . and the eschatological banquet.” “Eucharist and the Kingdom of God are correlative terms and are inseparably united” (159). 70. Green, Luke, 770; Fitzmyer, Luke X–XXIV, 1419: “The apostles will thus become the rulers of reconstituted Israel, the reconstituted people of God.” 71. Johnson, Luke, 345–46, and 349: “First, Jesus bestows on them basileia: they are to ‘judge the twelve tribes of Israel,’ (22:30), an exercise of authority that Luke will show being fulfilled in the apostolic ministry of the Jerusalem Church (Acts 1–6).” 72. Clark, “Role of the Apostles,” 190. 73. On the important links between the end of Luke and beginning of Acts, the common Isaianic-restoration imagery behind Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:8 (e.g., Isa 43:10–12, 49:6), and the restoration of Israel around the twelve, see M. Turner, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke–Acts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996) 300–301. On the church as restored Israel in Acts, see ibid., 418–22. On the fulfillment of the promise of vice-regency to the Apostles, see Strauss, Messiah, 25; Jervell, Luke, 94; and J. Neyrey, The Passion According to Luke: A Redaction Study of Luke’s Soteriology (New York: Paulist, 1985) 26–28. 74. L. T. Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (SP 5; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992) 71. 75. On the close link between the “kingdom” in Luke 22 and here in Acts 1:1–11, see Jervell, Luke, 81–82. 76. “The concept of βασιλεία το῞ θεο῞ [kingdom of God] . . . seems to give unity to the whole narrative of the Lucan two-volume work. . . . The whole theological project of Luke . . . [is] a narrative unit with the central theme of the basileia [kingdom] as its starting point” (A. del Agua, “The Lucan Narrative of the ‘Evangelization of the Kingdom of God’: A Contribution to the Unity of Luke–Acts,” in The Unity of Luke–Acts [ed. J. Verheyden; BETL 142; Leuven: Peeters, 1999] 639–62, here 639). 77. See LaVerdiere, Eucharist, 99 and Louw & Nida §23.13. BAGD acknowledges the idiomatic force of synalizomenos as “eating together,” but argues that this meaning does not fit the context of Acts 1:4 (BAGD, 783b). Pace BAGD, the meaning fits the context extremely well. Acts 10:41 makes explicit the implicit significance of Luke 24:43 and Acts 1:4. Cf. BAGD, 783b: “Ac 10:41 appears to echo 1:4.”

454  |  Notes to Pages 231–33 78. As argued by J. M. Penney, The Missionary Emphasis of Lukan Pneumatology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 70; Pao, Acts, 95 n. 143, 144; and Bock, “Reign of the Lord Christ,” 45. 79. Penney, The Missionary Emphasis, 73: “The verse is programmatic in its significance for the narrative structure. . . . That the mission will begin in Jerusalem alludes to the restored Zion of Isaiah (Isa 2.3).” 80. Cf. Pao, Acts, 95. 81. Cf. Penney, The Missionary Emphasis, 21, 71. 82. Johnson, Acts, 29: “Jesus shifts the focus from ‘knowledge’ to mission . . . [this is] the real answer to the question concerning the ‘restoration’ of the kingdom to Israel. Jesus’ answer contains a redefinition of ‘kingdom’ and therefore of the Christian understanding of Jesus as Messiah. . . . The ‘kingdom for Israel’ will mean for Luke, therefore, the restoration of Israel as a people of God.” 83. Brawley, Text to Text, 73. 84. Neyrey, Passion, 27–28; cf. R. I. Denova, Things Accomplished Among Us: Prophetic Tradition in the Structural Pattern of Luke–Acts (JSNTSup 141; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 70; J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Role of the Spirit in Luke–Acts,” in The Unity of Luke–Acts (ed. J. Verheyden; BETL 142; Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 165–84, esp. 182; and Pao, Acts, 124. 85. Denova, Things Accomplished Among Us, 70. 86. Denova, Things Accomplished Among Us, 138, cf. 169–75. 87. Johnson, Acts, 61. 88. See R. F. O’Toole, “Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost,” JBL 102 (1983) 245–58; and Bock, “Reign of the Lord Christ,” 47: “Although the term kingdom never appears in the entire chapter, the imagery of rule and the features of God’s covenants are present. In fact, the chapter is saturated with such images and allusions.” 89. Cf. Tannehill, Narrative Unity, 38. 90. See Bock, “Reign of the Lord Christ,” 49. 91. On the Davidic background of Peter’s sermon, see Bock, “Reign of the Lord Christ,” 38–39. 92. On the relationship of Luke 1:32–33 and Acts 2:24–31, see Lane, Luke and the Gentile Mission, 160. 93. See Fitzmyer, “Role of the Spirit,” 175–76; and Denova, Things Accomplished Among Us, 138 and 169–75. 94. F. Martin compares way in which the NT transforms the expectations of the OT in the very process of fulfilling them to Bernard Lonergan’s concept of “sublation,” although Martin prefers the term “transposition” (see discussion in F. Martin, “Some Directions in Catholic Biblical Theology,” in Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation [ed. C. Bartholomew et al.; SHS 5; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004], 65–87, esp. 69–70). 95. So Penney, The Missionary Emphasis, 75. 96. Johnson, Acts, 29. Significantly, hereafter in Acts “it is made clear that the Spirit is given only when the Twelve are present, or a member of the Twelve, or one of their delegates is on the scene” (Fitzmyer, “Role of the Spirit,” 182). 97. Cf. Bock, “Reign of the Lord Christ,” 53: “Those who share the Spirit show the influence of God in the world and reflect his work on earth, both in his powerful transformation of them and in their love toward those around them. They are a kingdom alongside other kingdoms.”

Notes to Pages 234–38  |  455 98. J. Mauchline, “Implicit Signs of a Persistent Belief in the Davidic Empire,” VT 20 (1970), 287–303; and Polley, Amos and the Davidic Empire, 66–82. 99. See Strauss, Messiah, 190–92. 100. Pao, Acts, 138. Cf. Penney, The Missionary Emphasis, 74; D. Seccombe, “The New People of God,” in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (ed. I. H. Marshall and D. Peterson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 350–72; R. Bauckham, “James and the Jerusalem Church,” in The Book of Acts in Its First-Century Setting. Vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (ed. R. Bauckham; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 415–80, esp. 457; and Y. Miura, David in Luke–Acts: His Portrayal in the Light of Early Judaism (WUNT 2 232; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 140–98. 101. McKnight is only able to advance this thesis because he concerns himself with the “historical Jesus” rather than the Jesus presented in the Gospels. Specifically, he argues that Jesus’ references to “covenant” at the Last Supper were attributed to Jesus by the early Church, but were never spoken by him; see S. McKnight, Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005) 308–10. 102. On the Abrahamic covenant in Luke, see Brawley, Text to Text, and idem, “Abrahamic Covenant Traditions and the Characterization of God in Luke–Acts,” in The Unity of Luke–Acts (ed. J. Verheyden; BETL 142; Leuven: Peeters, 1999) 109–32. 103. On this see S. van den Eynde, “Children of the Promise: On the Δίαθήκη­Promise to Abraham in Lk 1,72 and Acts 3,25,” in The Unity of Luke–Acts (ed. J. Verheyden; BETL 142; Leuven: Peeters, 1999) 470–82. 104. Translation from F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997–98). 105. Translation from Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls. 106. Cf. the conclusion of del Agua (“Lucan Narrative,” 661) on the Christological and ecclesiological implications of the “Kingdom of God” in Luke–Acts: “[In Luke–Acts] the Church constitutes the eschatological people of God. This should end the reticence of properly relating Kingdom and Church. The Kingdom of God or the divine plan of eschatological salvation is realized, though perhaps not exclusively, in the Church.” Chapter 9 COVENANT, OATH, AND DIVINE SONSHIP IN GALATIANS 3–4 1. On the theological issues surrounding the relationship between the covenants, as well as various recent interpretive approaches (e.g. typology, promise and fulfillment, salvation history, continuity and discontinuity), see D. L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: A Study of the Theological Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments (2nd ed.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991); E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992); V. Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991); J. S. Feinberg, ed., Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988); L. Goppelt, TYPOS: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982); L. Sabourin, The Bible and Christ: The Unity of the Two Testaments (Staten Island: Alba House, 1980). 2. These issues are discussed in a number of recent commentaries, e.g., T. George, Galatians (Nashville: Broadman, 1994); J. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993); J. L. Martin, Galatains (AYB; New York: Doubleday,

456  |  Notes to Pages 239–41 1997; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press); F. J. Matera, Galatians (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992); R. N. Longenecker, Galatians (Waco, TX: Word, 1992); J. A. Fitzmyer, “Galatians,” NJBC, 780–90; R. Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988); U. Borse, Der Brief an die Galater (Regensburg: RNT, 1984); F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982); C. B. Cousar, Galatians (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982); H. D. Betz, Galatians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); H. Lietzmann, An die Galater (4th ed.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971); H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater (14th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971); J. Bligh, Galatians (London: St. Paul, 1969). The following older commentaries are also useful: E. D. Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920); J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians (London: Macmillan, 1865); Aquinas, Commentary on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (Petersham, MA: St. Bede’s, 1966). 3. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 75. See also, idem, “The Covenant as a Soteriological Category and the Nature of Salvation in Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism,” in Jews, Greeks, and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity (ed. E. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs; Leiden: Brill, 1976) 11–44; idem, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983). 4. N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 260. 5. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 38, referring to F. Weber, System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie aus Targum, Midrasch und Talmud (ed. F. Delitzsch and G. Schnedermann; Leipzig, 1880); republished in Jüdische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften (ed. Franz Delitzsch and Georg Schnedermann; 2nd ed.; Leipzig: Dörffling Franke, 1897) 262–77. 6. L. Smolar and M. Aberbach, “The Golden Calf Episode in Postbiblical Literature,” HUCA 39 (1968) 91–116 7. Smolar and Aberbach, “The Golden Calf Episode,” 106, my emphasis. 8. Smolar and Aberbach, “The Golden Calf Episode,” 105. See also P. C. Bori, The Golden Calf and the Origins of the Anti-Jewish Controversy (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) 9–25, esp. 13, who reaches the same conclusions. 9. See J. M. Scott, “Paul’s Use of the Deuteronomic Tradition,” JBL 112 (1993) 645–65, esp. 655; idem, “Restoration of Israel,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (ed. G. F. Hawthorne et al.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993) 796–805, esp. 805; idem, “ ‘For as Many Are of Works of the Law Are Under a Curse’ (Galatians 3.10),” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993) 187–221; and N. T. Wright, Climax of the Covenant: Christ and Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Augsburgh Fortress, 1992) 141. Scott draws heavily on O. H. Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten (WMANT 23; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967). 10. Scott, “Restoration of Israel,” 797. 11. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 552. For a helpful response, see F. Thielman, From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians and Romans (Leiden: Brill, 1989); idem, Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994). 12. The origin of the “contextual” approach to Pauline scriptural citation may be C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Sub-structure of New Testament Theology (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1953). More recent discussion (pro and con) may

Notes to Pages 241–44  |  457 be found in the following: G. K. Beale (ed.), Right Doctrine From Wrong Texts? (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994); idem, “Did Jesus and His Followers Preach the Right Doctrine From the Wrong Texts? An Examination of the Presuppositions of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ Exegetical Method,” Themelios 14 (1989) 89–96; M. D. Hooker, “Beyond the Things That Are Written? St. Paul’s Use of Scripture,” NTS 27 (1981–1982) 295–309; R. M. Davidson, Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical τυπος Structures (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981); S. L. Johnson, The Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980) 39–51; D. A. Carson and H. Williamson, eds., It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988); R. B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989). 13. D. I. Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 C.E. (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992) 2. 14. Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions, 165–69. 15. Carol Stockhausen, “2 Corinthians 3 and the Principles of Pauline Exegesis,” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993) 144. 16. Stockhausen, “Principles of Pauline Exegesis,” 149. 17. See Stockhausen, “Principles of Pauline Exegesis,” 160. 18. Stockhausen, “Principles of Pauline Exegesis,” 149. 19. Stockhausen, “Principles of Pauline Exegesis,” 144–45. She adds: “A third favorite occupation of Paul’s in relation to the Scripture, in particular, the Torah, is the location and solution of contradictions or uneasily reconciled passages . . . . [T]here is a strong element of discontinuity in . . . Galatians. It seems to me that this discontinuity is due . . . to his tendency to locate and exegetically reconcile passages in his traditional Scriptures which express this disjunction.” 20. Paul’s view ought not to be described as supercessionist. The New Covenant is, for him, the restoration and transformation of a form of covenant relationship with God (the Abrahamic) which is older and more stable than the Old (that is, Mosaic) Covenant. In a sense, covenant history moves backward to a better state. 21. At another level, however, Paul appears intent on showing how both the Old and New Covenants are discernible in God’s manifold dealings with Abraham regarding the blessing and the seed. Paul argues this from the three sections of the Abraham narrative: (1) Gen 12–15: justification—God promises and Abram believes (Gal 3:6, 8–9); (2) Gen 16–21: circumcision—Abram acts “according to the flesh” with Hagar, and Ishmael is disinherited (Gal 4:21–31); (3) Gen 22: God’s covenant oath—after the Aqedah, God changes the Abrahamic promise to bless the nations into a covenant oath (Gal 3:14–16) with his seed. 22. H. D. Betz, Galatians, 14–25. 23. E. C. Muller (Trinity and Marriage in Paul [New York: Peter Lang, 1990] 395 n. 103) comments: “Betz’s analysis, quite important in its own right, follows almost exclusively Hellenistic patterns. Paul’s style also owes much to Judaic patterns.” 24. Muller (Trinity and Marriage in Paul, 82) comments: “Paul sets up the framework of his central argument found in Gal 3:6–4:31 in terms of the sonship of ­Abraham—‘it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham’ (Gal 3:7) and ‘Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman’ (Gal 4:22). At the very center the focus abruptly shifts to sonship of God—‘for you are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus’ (Gal 3:26) and ‘God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying “Abba! Father!” ’ (Gal 4:6).” He then notes: “Appearing at the beginning, end,

458  |  Notes to Pages 245–51 and center, ὑιὸϛ [son] is . . . a crucially important structuring term for the letter.” (416 n. 199). 25. See Y.-G. Kwon, Eschatology in Galatians (WUNT 2 183; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 78–100). 26. Muller, Trinity and Marriage in Paul, 83. 27. Gen 18:18 is not the source for panta ta ethnē, since, unlike Gen 22:18, this verse is not spoken to Abraham, and Gal 3:8 says: “hē graphē . . . proeuēngelisato tō Abraam.” 28. The meaning “become a Jew” would seem best to fit the context of Esth 8:17 LXX, where ioudaizō translates the Hebrew verb hityahad (cf. Esth 8:17 ASV, RSV, NRSV). See also Josephus Wars 2.454 and 463. 29. Levenson observes this argument underlying Gal 3:15–18: “For [Paul’s] dominant purpose in this letter is to argue that Gentiles can inherit the status of descent from Abraham, and all the promises that go with it, without having to convert to Judaism (and become circumcised). The idea that the blessing of Abraham should entail that Jacob/Israel ‘become an assembly of peoples’ fits Paul’s polemical intentions beautifully. As he read Gen 28:1–4, it almost certainly implied precisely the possibility for which he was doing battle—that by becoming Christian, Gentiles could have the best of both worlds, retaining their non-Jewish identity and yet falling heir to the promises of Abraham.” 30. Scott, “ ‘For as Many as Are of Works . . .’ (Galatians 3.10),” “The twelfth and final curse [of Deut 27], which Paul cites in Gal 3.10, is the most comprehensive, especially in the Septuagintal wording which amplifies it with a twofold πάϛ [“all” or “every”] and thus makes the curse apply to ‘everyone’ who does not keep ‘all things’ that are written” (ibid., 195). See also Wright, Climax of the Covenant, 141–42, who argues that the words “blessing” and “curse,” “occurring together, would at once . . . evoke the great covenant document Deuteronomy, in particular chs. 27–30. . . . In case there is any doubt that Paul is thinking of this passage, he quotes in 10b the concluding verse of the list of curses. . . . This means that the connection with v. 9 is . . . ‘further proved by the fact that works of Torah, so far from providing blessing, hold out curse instead.’ ” 31. A literal translation reflecting the ambiguities of the text: “The way of righteousness will only be realized in the (foreseeable) future by faith(fulness)—divine first, but also human.” For an able defense, see R. B. Hays, “ ‘The Righteous One’ as Eschatological Deliverer,” in Apocalyptic and the New Testament (ed. J. Marcus and M. L. Soards; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988) 191–215; Campbell, “Romans 1:17,” 281; J. A. Sanders, “Habakkuk in Qumran, Paul, and the Old Testament,’’ in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders; JSNTSup 83; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 98–117; B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962) 230–32. 32. See especially the argument and conclusions of Hays, “ ‘The Righteous One’ as Eschatological Deliverer,”191–215. Thielman (From Plight to Solution, 70) comments: “In [Gal] 3:11 Paul refers to Hab 2:4, and if we examine the original context of this quotation we find that, like Paul, the prophet was concerned with God’s eschatological deliverance. . . . ‘The righteous shall live by faith’ . . . gives the correct means for attaining righteousness.” 33. See, e.g., the Didiscalia Apostolorum §50: “Whilst the Romans rule thou canst not perform aught that is written in the Second Legislation. . . . This is a thing impossible, to fulfil the Second Legislation while dispersed among the Gentiles” (238–40).

Notes to Pages 251–55  |  459 34. See J. Willitts, “Context Matters: Paul’s Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12,” Tyndale Bulletin 54 (2003) 105–22. 35. Willitts, “Context Matters,” 113. 36. Note that both Paul and Ezekiel allude to Lev 18:5 (1) in direct connection with a reference to the covenant curses of Deuteronomy (Gal 3:10, 13; Ezek 20:23–26); (2) against the backdrop of the oath to Abraham (Gal 3:8, 14, 16; Ezek 20:5, 6, 9, 14, 22); (3) in the context of YHWH’s relationship to the nations (Gal 3:8, 14, 28; Ezek 20:9, 14, 41); (4) while rehearsing the sin-exile-restoration (SER) pattern of Israel’s covenant history. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Paul shares a common interpretive tradition with Ezekiel. 37. Cf. Deut 8:11–20; 29:4. 38. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 151–52. There is a clear complementarity between the different approaches and conclusions of Hanson, Bruce, and Wright. They all show how Paul argues from the contextual meaning of Deut 21:23. While Hanson and Bruce relate the curse of hanging on a tree to the event at Beth-peor, i.e., the event which marks the beginning of the Deuteronomic covenant, Wright interprets the curse-bearing act of Christ as exhausting the Deuteronomic curse of the exile. For an even fuller explanation of Paul’s contextual interpretation, see Stockhausen, “Principles of Pauline Exegesis,” 162–63. She points out that the context of Deut 21:23 “discusses the proper behavior of a man with two sons born to two wives, one of whom is beloved and the other disliked. The text is concerned to confirm the right of the firstborn in spite of the father’s preference for a younger son. Deut 21.18–21 discusses the fate of the stubborn and rebellious son, whose parents must reject him and give him up to the punishment of all the people. There follows Paul’s cited text, concerning the curse of execution.” All of these themes are of concern to Paul in Galatians (cf. Gal 4.21–31), and “the Jew-Gentile question provides a reasonable Sitz im Leben.” She also notes how several other New Testament passages represent “variations on the same theme”: the parables of the prodigal son (Luke 15:32), the laborers in the vineyard (Matt 20:1–16 par.), the vineyard (Matt 21:33–44 par.); John’s account of Jesus’ confrontation with the Pharisees (John 8:31–59), where Jesus compares them to Abraham’s servant, Ishmael: “The slave does not continue in the house for ever; the son continues for ever” (v. 35). 39. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 152. 40. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 155. Wright’s last point about the apparent failure of the Abrahamic blessing has the effect of placing the God of Israel in the same predicament as Israel. Because of his solemn oath in Gen 22:15–18, God is also under a curse, since the nations have not yet been blessed through Abraham’s seed. The picture is striking but it corresponds perfectly to God’s plan to identify himself with humanity’s plight. Christ, as both God and Israel’s representative, bears the curses on both that have resulted from Israel’s failure to bring blessing to mankind. 41. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 150, 156. 42. A. T. Hanson, Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 6, citing The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch (ed. and trans. J. W. Ethridge [London, 1865] 433). 43. Hanson, Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology, 6. 44. M. Wilcox, “ ‘Upon the Tree’—Deut 21:22–23 in the New Testament,” JBL 96 (1977) 85–99, here 98. 45. See Wilcox, “Upon the Tree,” 97; and C. H. Cosgrove, “The Mosaic Law Preaches Faith: A Study of Galatians 3,” WTJ 41 (1977) 146–64, esp. 150–51.

460  |  Notes to Pages 255–58 46. G. Vermeš, “Redemption and Genesis XXII,” in Scripture and Tradition in Judaism. Haggadic Studies (SPB 4; Leiden 1961; repr. 1973) 193–227, here 221. He adds: “In developing his theological interpretation of the death of Christ, Paul, in short, followed a traditional Jewish pattern” (221). 47. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993) 212–13. See also 211–12: “Once Jesus has displaced Isaac, it follows that the promises and blessings that had been associated with the beloved son par excellence in Genesis must be available instead through the Christian messiah. This is, in fact, the implication of Paul’s first clause in Gal 3:14. . . . In the Hebrew Bible, the exact words, ‘blessing of Abraham,’ occur only in Gen 28:4, in a passage which Isaac, having directed Jacob to avoid intermarriage, pronounces upon him the Abrahamic blessing of progeny and land (vv 1–4). It is surely relevant to Paul’s purpose that this passage has to do with Isaac’s confirmation of Jacob as his—and Abraham’s—rightful heir.” 48. For discussion of covenant in Gal 3 and esp. in 3:15–18, see most recently P. R. Williamson, Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose (New Studies in Biblical Theology 23; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007) 194–201; and D. Garlington, An Exposition of Galatians: A Reading from the New Perspective (3rd ed.; Eugene, OR; Wipf & Stock, 2007), 212–18. 49. J. Behm and G. Quell, “διαθήκη,” TDNT 2:104–34, here 125. 50. Behm, TDNT 2:104–5. 51. Behm, TDNT 2:126. Aristophanes uses diathēkē as “covenant” once: “Not I . . .  unless they make a covenant with me.” (Av. 440). 52. Quell, TDNT 2:107. 53. Behm, TDNT 2:127. 54. On the definition of “covenant,” see Quell, TDNT 2:106–24, and Gordon P. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (VTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 168–215. 55. So Dunn, Galatians, 182; Betz, Galatians, 156; Martyn, Galatians, 338. 56. So Longenecker, Galatians, 128; and F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 169. 57. See S. W. Hahn, “Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah: Διαθήκη in Galatians 3:15– 18” CBQ 67 (2005) 79–100. 58. Behm, TDNT 2:129. 59. See Quell, TDNT 2:111–18. 60. E.g., dithēkē (v. 17), nomos (vv. 2, 5, 10–13, 17, 19, 21, 23–24), dikaioō (vv. 8, 11, 24), prokuroō (v. 17), akuroō (v. 17), klēronom- (vv. 18, 29), protithēmi (v. 19), diatassō (v. 19). 61. C. H. Cosgrove, “Arguing Like a Mere Human Being: Galatians 3. 15–18 in Rhetorical Perspective,” NTS 34 (1988) 536–49. Cf. Witherington, Grace, 241; Burton, Galatians, 504: “To take [this expression] as meaning ‘I am using terms in a Greek, not a Hebrew sense’ . . . is quite unjustified by the usage of that expression.” 62. Rom 9:4, 11:27; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6, 14; Gal 3:17, 4:24; cf. Eph 2:12. 63. For the LXX, see Quell, TDNT 2:106–7; for the NT, Behm, TDNT 2:131–134, esp. 134: “In both form and content the NT use of διαθήκη follows that of the OT.” See Matt 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 1:72; 22:20, Acts 3:25; 7:8, Heb 7:22; 8:6, 8–10; 9:4, 15–17, 20; 10:16, 29; 12:24; 13:20; Rev 11:19; 1 Clem. 15:4, 35:7; Let. Barn. 4:6–8; 6:19; 9:6, 9; 13:1, 6; 14:1–3, 5, 7. Only in Gal 3:15 and Heb 9:16–17 is “testament” a possibility. On these instances, see J. J. Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff. and Galatians III 15ff.:

Notes to Pages 258–59  |  461 A Study in Covenant Practice and Procedure,” NovT 21 (1976–77) 27–96, esp. 66–71, and two articles by the present author: S. W. Hahn, “A Broken Covenant and the Curse of Death: A Study of Hebrews 9:15–22,” CBQ 66 (2004) 416–36; and idem, “Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah. 64. Burton, Galatians, 502. 65. See Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff.,” 83–91, Longenecker, Galatians, 128–30, Betz, Galatians, 155. 66. See Longenecker, Galatians, 130. 67. Martyn, Galatians, 366–67; H. J. Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History (trans. Harold Knight; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961) 182–83. To the contrary, Longenecker, Galatians, 130. 68. Burton, Galatians, 503. Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Galatians (Orthodox Biblical Studies; Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994) 152; and D. Longenecker, The Triumph of Abraham’s God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998) 59. 69. See Josephus, Ant. 15.136: “through angels (di’ angelōn) sent by God”; Acts 7:38, 53; Heb 2:2. 70. G. M. Taylor, “The Function of ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ in Galatians,” JBL 85 (1966) 58–76. 71. E. Bammel, “Gottes ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ (Gal III 15–17) und das jüdische Rechtsdenken,” NTS 6 (1959–60) 313–19. For a critique of Bammel, see Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff.,” 72–76. 72. B. Witherington III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 242–43. 73. See Betz, Galatians, 155. The ‫( מתנת בריא‬m-t-n-t b-r-y-ʾ) is distinguished from a ‫( דייתיקי‬d-y-y-t-y-q-y, i.e. diathēkē) in Jewish law (cf. Longenecker, Galatians, 129–30; Betz, Galatians, 155). 74. As Martyn (Galatians, 344–45) admits. Cf. Burton, Galatians, 504: “Paul is replying to the arguments of his judaising opponents, and is in large part using their terms in the sense which their use of them had made familiar to the Galatians.” 75. On the covenant as irrevocable, see Quell, TDNT 2:114, Burton, Galatians, 505. 76. F. M. Cross, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998) 8. 77. See M. Weinfeld, “The Common Heritage of Covenantal Traditions in the Ancient World,” in I trattati nel mondo antico: forma, ideologia, funzione (ed. L. Canfora et al.; Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1990) 175–91. 78. See Gen 26:28 (covenant between Isaac and Abimelech); 1 Sam 11:1 (between Nahash the Ammonite and the men of Jabesh-gilead), 20:8 (between David and Jonathan), 23:18 (the same); 2 Sam 5:3 (between David and the elders of Israel); 1 Kgs 5:12 (between Solomon and Hiram), 15:19 (between Asa and Ben-hadad/Baasha and Ben-hadad), 20:34 (between Ahab and Ben-hadad); 2 Kgs 11:4 (between Jehoidada and the captains of the guards); Isa 33:8 (human covenants in general); Jer 34:8 (between Zedekiah and the people of Jerusalem); Ezek 17:13 (between Zedekiah and Nebuchadnezzar), 30:5 (an international treaty); Hos 12:1 (between Israel and Assyria); Amos 1:9 (between Edom and Tyre); Obad 1:7 (between Edom and surrounding nations); Mal 2:14 (between a husband and wife); Ps 55:20 (between a psalmist and his friend); Dan 9:27 (between the “prince” and “many”); 2 Chr 16:3 (between Asa and Ben-hadad/Baasha and Ben-hadad); 23:3 (between Joash and the “assembly”), 23:16 (among Jehoiada, people, and king). P. Kalluveettil has examined these human (or “secular”) covenants

462  |  Notes to Pages 260–61 in Declaration and Covenant: A Comprehensive Review of Covenant Formulae from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East (AnBib 88; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982). 79. Quell, TDNT 2:115; Weinfeld, “‫ ְבִרית‬berîth,” TDOT 2:256; Cross, Epic, 8. 80. Hugenberger, Marriage, 4 (cf. 182–84). 81. For the juxtaposition of “oath” (Heb. šĕbûʿâ, ʾālâ; Gk. horkos, horkismos) with “covenant” (Heb. bĕrît, Gk. diathēkē, synthēkē), see Gen 21:31–32; 26:28; Deut 4:31; 7:12; 8:18; 29:12, 14; 31:20; Josh 9:15; Judg 2:1; 2 Kgs 11:4; Ps 89:3; Ezek 16:8, 59; 17:13, 16, 18, 19; Hos 10:4; CD 9:12; 15:6, 8; 16:1; 1QS V, 8, 10; 4QDb (4Q267) 9 I, 7; 4QDf (4Q271) 4 I, 11; Wis 18:22, 12:21; Jub. 6:10–11; Pss. Sol. 8:10; Ass. Mos. 1:9, 2:7, 3:9, 11:17, 12:13; Josephus, Ant. 10.63; Luke 1:72–73; and Heb 7:21–22. For a fuller listing of Hebrew evidence see Hugenberger, Marriage, 183–84. For “covenant and oath” as hendiadys in Hittite, Akkadian, and Greek literature, see Weinfeld, “Common Heritage,” 176–77; in the Targums, see C. T. R. Hayward, Divine Name and Presence: The Memra (Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies; Totowa, NJ: Allanheld Osmun, 1981) 57–98. The Targumists “understand the covenant as an oath sworn by God to the Fathers” (ibid., 57). 82. Hugenberger, Marriage, 194. 83. So F. C. Fensham, “The Treaty Between Israel and the Gibeonites,” BA 27 [1964] 96–100, esp. 98–99, and W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, (2 vols.; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975) 2:69. 84. Quell, TDNT 2:114–15, my emphasis. 85. On the inviolability of human covenants, in addition to Josh 9:3–27 and 2 Sam 21:1–14 mentioned in the text, see Ezek 17:11–18; Mal 2:14–15; and Fensham, “Treaty,” 96–100. Paul may have had this biblical background in mind, and/or the fact that commitments ratified by oath are inviolable in human culture generally—certainly in first-century Hellenistic culture. Cf. J. Plescia, The Oath and Perjury in Ancient Greece (Tallahassee: Florida State University Press, 1970); P. Karavites and T. E. Wren, ­Promise-Giving and Treaty-Making: Homer and the Near East (Mnemosyne, Bibliotheca Classica Batava Supplementum 119; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 48–81, 116–200; and J. T. Fitzgerald, “The Problem of Perjury in a Greek Context: Prolegomena to an Exegesis of Matthew 5:33; 1 Timothy 1:10; and Didache 2.3,” in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks (ed. L. M. White and O. L. Yarbrough; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1995) 156–77. 86. Witherington, Grace, 243. 87. P. R. Williamson, Abraham, Israel, and the Nations: The Patriarchal Promise and Its Covenantal Development in Genesis (JSOTSup 315; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000) 1–25 passim. 88. Verses 16 and 18 speak of a “promise(s),” and v. 14 of a “blessing.” Some suggest Paul equates the “covenant” (vv. 15, 17) with the “promise(s)” in vv. 16, 18 (e.g., F. J. Matera, Galatians [ed. D. J. Harrington; Sacra Pagina 9; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992] 128; J. R. Wisdom, Blessing for the Nations and the Curse of the Law: Paul’s Citation of Genesis and Deuteronomy in Gal 3.8–10 [WUNT 2 133; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001] 147–48); and the “promise” with the “blessing” in v. 14 (Wisdom, Blessing, 143, 145; Martyn, Galatians, 323). But the proper relationship is this: Paul is describing a covenant containing a promise of blessing. 89. See previous note. Significantly, v. 14a is an interpretive reworking of Gen 22:18; see N. A. Dahl, Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977), 171; J. D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son

Notes to Pages 261–64  |  463 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993) 212–13; G. Vermeš, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (SPB 4; 2nd ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1973) 221. 90. Wisdom (Blessing, 23) and Martyn (Galatians, 339) point out that, of the three patriarchal promises of land, descendants, and blessing to the nations, only the promise of blessing to the nations concerns Paul in Gal 3. Gen 15:17–21 and 17:1–27 promise only land and descendants. Other points that count against Gen 15:17–21 or 17:1–27: (1) In Gen 17:1–27, God does not ratify the covenant (Alexander, “Genesis 22 and the Covenant of Circumcision,” JSOT 25 [1983] 17–22; Williamson, Abraham, 69–71). Abraham does, through circumcision (cf. Hugenberger, Marriage, 196). Note v. 17: prokekurōmenēn hypo tou theou. (2) Neither Gen 15:17–21 nor 17:1–27 describe Abraham as receiving “blessing” (eulogia). But cf. Gal 3:14a (hē eulogia tou Abraam) with Gen 22:17a (eulogōn eulogēsō se). 91. The translation is mine, highlighting what may have been important nuances to Paul. 92. The MT has yĕḥîdĕkā, “your one/only”; the LXX, agapētos, “beloved.” But Paul is aware of the MT, as will be shown later in the text. 93. MT has ʾōyĕbāyw, “his enemies,” with a singular (collective) suffix to agree with zeraʿ, “seed.” 94. On ratification by oath, see T. D. Alexander, Abraham in the Negev: A SourceCritical Investigation of Genesis 20:1–22:19 (Carlisle, U.K.: Paternoster, 1997) 85: “The divine oath of ch. 22 marks the ratification of the covenant.” The covenant in Gen 17:1–27 is not ratified by God; see n. 60. 95. Stockhausen remarks that “when the constitutive presence of Abraham’s story in Paul’s argument” is recognized, “then segments of Galatians not generally seen to relate to Paul’s scriptural argument . . . become less isolated and problematic” (“Principles of Pauline Exegesis,” 150). The relationship between Gen 21:22–34 and Gal 3:15 may be a case in point. 96. Matera (Galatians, 131) and Burton (Galatians, 141) recognize Paul’s kal va-homer argument in vv. 15, 17; but unless diathēkē is taken with the same meaning (“covenant”) in both verses, the argument’s logic fails, and apologies must be made for it (e.g., Dunn, Galatians, 181–82; Longenecker, Galatians, 127–30). 97. See discussion in Witherington, Grace, 244. Because v. 16 contains kai tō spermati sou, Gen 17:8 is usually considered the referent. But kai tō spermati sou also occurs in Gen 13:15, 24:7, 26:3, 28:4, 28:13, 35:12; and 40:4. Collins (“Galatians 3:16”) sees v. 16 as a reference to Gen 22:18a: “kai . . . en tō spermati sou.” 98. See Levenson, Beloved Son, 210–11; Witherington, Grace, 244–45; Dunn, Galatians, 184–85. 99. Levenson (Beloved Son, 211) denies an Isaac-Christ typology. But Wilcox (“Upon the Tree,” 96–99) interprets Gal 3:16 as a pesher on the Aqedah. 100. Betz (Galatians, 19–22, 238–40) argues that the epistolary probatio (main argument) extends from Gal 3:1–4:31. Thus 4:21–31 is not an afterthought but a climax. 101. M. Pérez Fernández, “The Aqedah in Paul,” in The Sacrifice of Isaac in the Three Monotheistic Religions: Proceedings of a Symposium on the Interpretation of the Scriptures Held in Jerusalem, March 16–17, 1995 (ed. F. Manns; Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Analecta 41; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1995), 81–98, here 90. Cf. Wilcox, “Upon the Tree,” 96–99. 102. G. Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (WBC 2; Dallas: Word, 1994) 117. 103. On Gal 3:16 as typology, see Perez Fernández, “Aqedah,” 88–89. 104. See above, n. 100.

464  |  Notes to Pages 266–69 105. See T. Callan, “Paul and the Golden Calf,” in Proceedings, Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Bible Societies 10 (1990) 12, citing Exod. Rab. 32:1–3, 7. 106. The vast literature on this term includes: T. D. Gordon, “A Note on ΠΑΙΔΑΓΩΓΟΣ in Galatians 3:24–25,” NTS 35 (1989) 150–54; A. T. Hanson, “The Origin of Paul’s Use of ΠΑΙΔΑΓΩΓΟΣ for the Law,” JSNT 34 (1988) 71–76; N. H. Young, “PAIDAGOGOS: The Social Setting of a Pauline Metaphor,” NT 29 (1987) 150–76; D. J. Lull, “ ‘The Law Was Our Pedagogue’: A Study in Galatians 3:19–25,” JBL 105 (1986) 481–98; R. N. Longenecker, “The Pedagogical Nature of the Law in Galatians 3:19–4:7,” JETS 25 (1982) 53–61; J. W. MacGorman, “The Law as Paidagogos: A Study in Pauline Analogy,” in New Testament Studies (ed. H. L. Drumwright and C. Vaughn; Waco, TX: Markham Press, 1975) 99–111. 107. Hanson (“The Origin,” 71–72) argues that Paul has in mind Num 11:11–12, pointing out that Tg. Neofiti renders the Hebrew ʾ-m-n (LXX tithēnos) as p-y-d-g-w-g-h, i.e. paidagōgos transliterated. See also L. Bellville, “ ‘Under Law’: Structural Analysis and the Pauline Concept of Law in Galatians 3.21–4.11,” JSNT 26 (1986) 53–78, especially her citation of Josephus (Ap. 2.174): “[A]ccordingly he made the Law the standard and rule that we might live under it as under a father and master.” 108. For a thorough discussion of Paul’s concept of “sonship” in Galatians (and elsewhere), see most recently T. J. Burke, Adopted into God’s Family: Exploring a Pauline Metaphor (New Studies in Biblical Theology 22; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006) esp. 111–20. 109. In Gal 5:3–4 Paul draws on the judgment-symbolism of the act of excision to declare that circumcised Gentiles are “severed from Christ.” On this, see J. T. San­ ders, “Circumcision of Gentile Converts,” BR 7 (1991) 21–25, 44; P. Borgen, “Paul Preaches Circumcision and Pleases Men,” in Paul and Paulinism (ed. M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson; London: S.P.C.K., 1982) 37–46; N. J. McEleney, “Conversion, Circumcision, and the Law,” NTS 20 (1974) 319–41. 110. See B. H. Brinsmead, Galatians—Dialogical Response to Opponents (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982) 80; R. Schnackenburg, Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul (New York: Herder and Herder, 1964) 62–67; and O. S. Brooks, The Drama of Decision: Baptism in the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987) 92–111 (who agrees that Paul has baptism in mind from 3:1–4:7 but argues that baptism is simply a dramatization of faith). 111. Brinsmead, Galatians, 160. 112. Brinsmead, Galatians, 194. 113. Brinsmead, Galatians, 201. See also Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 532–33 n. 39: “The Sitz im Leben of this creative act of justification is baptism, and the gift of the Spirit the means. For Paul, baptism, justification of the sinner, and creation are inseparable (II Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15).” 114. See Brinsmead, Galatians, 141; B. Byrne, ‘Sons of God’—‘Seed of Abraham’ (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979) 171: “ ‘All are sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus’ because faith, acted out in baptism, has brought about the being ‘in Christ.’ ” See also Schnackenburg, Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul, 124–25: “It is clear that for [Paul, baptism] possesses the same importance as faith. . . . This fellowship of Christ through baptism . . . brings us into the sonship of God.” 115. Brinsmead (Galatians, 159) argues that Paul’s opponents were from, or similar to, the Essenes, and thus placed much less emphasis on baptism. 116. See Brinsmead, Galatians, 73.

Notes to Pages 269–72  |  465 117. See 1 Pet 3:21, “Baptism . . . now saves you . . . as an appeal to God for a clear conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” E. G. Selwyn (The First Epistle of St. Peter [New York: Macmillan, 1977] 205) comments: “Baptism [as] a seal of contract given by a good conscience towards God is not far removed from . . . [the] application of the word sacramentum, ‘military oath,’ to Baptism and the Eucharist.” For the OT roots of sacramentum as “covenant oath” in Tertullian, see D. Michaélidès, Sacramentum Chez Tertullien (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1970) 73–194. 118. See M. G. Kline, By Oath Consigned (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968) 81: “As an oath-sign of allegiance to Christ the Lord, baptism is a sacrament in the original sense of sacramentum in its etymological relation to the idea of consecration. . . . For, as we have seen, covenant oath rituals were enactments of the sanctions invoked in the oath. Indeed, from these historic antecedents we may infer that baptism as an oath ritual symbolizes in particular the curse sanction, the death judgment threatened in the covenant.” See also C. F. D. Moule, “The Judgment Theme in the Sacraments,” in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology (ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964) 464–81; A. Mawhinney, “Baptism, Servanthood, and Sonship,” WTJ 49 (1987) 35–64; and P. D. Gardner, “ ‘Circumcised in Baptism—Raised Through Faith,’ ” WTJ 45 (1983) 172–77: “Christian baptism is a sign . . . of coming under the . . . covenantal dominion of the Lord. Christian baptism is thus the New Covenant sign of consecration.” 119. W. Bousset (Kyrios Christos [Nashville: Abingdon, 1970] 158) thinks Paul’s “mystical” view of baptism as “sonship through the miracle of the sacrament” in Gal 3:24–29 is in stark contrast with the “sober judicial rigor” characterizing Paul’s view of sonship and servanthood elsewhere in the Galatian Epistle. But Bousset assumes a false disjunction between the “sacramental” and the “judicial,” perhaps failing to see how oathswearing and covenant-making in the Old Testament—particularly the divinely sworn covenant oaths—shaped Paul’s sacramental outlook. 120. On the covenantal background for Paul’s notion of Israel’s sonship, see J. M. Scott, Adoption as Sons of God (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992) 121–86; Byrne, ‘Sons of God’—‘Seed of Abraham,’ 174–85. 121. R. M. Grant (The Letter and the Spirit [New York: Macmillan, 1957] 52–53) identifies the law that Paul regards as “invalidated” by Christ with Deuteronomy. Eusebius takes a nearly identical approach in Book One of his Demonstratio Evangelia (in The Proof of the Gospel [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981] 1–62), arguing that “the polity of Moses” (i.e. Deuteronomy) was too nationalistic to serve as a universal religion for mankind and thus had to be replaced. T. R. Schreiner (“The Abolition and Fulfillment of the Law in Paul,” JSNT 35 [1989]: 47–74) makes similar observations. 122. Byrne, ‘Sons of God’—‘Seed of Abraham,’ 176. 123. On huiothēsia as “full (legal) rights of sons” rather than the less precise “adoption of son” see Hughes (“Hebrews IX 15ff.,” 85 n. 217); Byrne, ‘Sons of God’—‘Seed of Abraham,’ 183; and Scott, Adoption as Sons of God, 174–77. 124. Byrne, ‘Sons of God’—‘Seed of Abraham,’ 184, citing M. D. Hooker, “Interchange in Christ,” JThStud ns 22 (1971) 349–61; here 352. 125. See F. Ocáriz, Hijos de Dios en Cristo: Introducción a una teología de la participación sobrenatural (Pamplona: Universidad de Navarra, 1972). 126. See Kwon, Eschatology in Galatians, 82–89. 127. T. L. Donaldson, “The ‘Curse of the Law’ and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians 3:13–14,” NTS 32 (1986) 94–112, here 106. Donaldson argues that Israel’s plight is

466  |  Notes to Pages 272–75 an intense form of the universal plight of mankind: “Being under νὸμοϛ [law] is a special way of being under τά στοιχεία τού κὸσμου [the elements of the cosmos], because only under the former can the true nature of the bondage to the latter be clearly seen” (204). 128. See also R. E. O. White, The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1960) 21: “Clearly, the circumcision of non-Israelite people did not qualify them for covenant privileges, nor did the circumcision of Ishmael bring even a son of Abraham into the covenant.” 129. Curiously, Paul nowhere explicitly states this simple but profound inference; rather, he lets his readers draw it themselves. 130. See Kwon, Eschatology in Galatians, 93–95. 131. See A. T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981) 9–32, for a useful summary of the background in the Old Testament and intertestamental/apocalyptic literature. See also R. L. Wilken, The Land Called Holy: Palestine in Christian History and Thought (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992) 65–81; R. J. McKevlvey, The New Temple (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969) 141–44. For the rabbinic view of the heavenly/earthly Jerusalem(s), see Z. Vilnay, Legends of Jerusalem (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1973) 128–32, 155–57. 132. For an explanation of the geographical link between Jerusalem and “Sinai in Arabia,” and their connection with Hagar and Ishmael, see M. McNamara, Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1983) 247–52. 133. The dramatic tension in Gal 4:29–30 about Ishmael’s disinheritance and expulsion indicates Paul’s sense of imminent fulfillment relative to the impending judgment on the earthly Jerusalem. See N. T. Wright (“Putting Paul Together Again,” in Pauline Theology [vol. 1; ed. J. M. Bassler; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991] 208–9), who argues that the anti-Jerusalem and anti-Temple sentiments found, for example, in Stephen’s speech and the apocalyptic discourses in the Gospels were widespread in early Christianity and also reflected in Paul’s Epistles, as in the passage in Galatians. 134. Muller, Trinity and Marriage in Paul, 83. 135. See F. Matera (Galatians [Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1992] 93), who observes that, since the reformation, “works of the law” have been equated with all law; recently, the view of Sanders and Dunn that “works of the law” are ritual “boundary markers” nearly represents a return to the Patristic and Medieval interpretation. See e.g., Aquinas, Commentary on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (Albany, NY: Magi, 1966) 54: “The ceremonial works are properly called the ‘works of the Law.’ ” For further discussion see T. R. Schreiner, “The Abolition and Fulfillment of the Law in Paul,” JSNT 35 (1989) 47–74, esp. 59; and R. H. Gundry, “Grace, Works, and Staying Saved in Paul,” Bib 66 (1985) 7–8. 136. M. Simon (Verus Israel [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986] 88) explains the patristic outlook apropos the “works of the law” (e.g., Didascalia Apostolorum, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus): “Here an interesting distinction is made between the two codifications of the covenant. In the former case the code consists of the law, i.e., the Decalogue, whose content is primarily moral, and of those precepts which were promulgated before the worship of the calf. This code is simple and easy to fulfil. Insofar as it takes any account of ritual observances, of oblations or sacrifices, these are presented as discretionary observances and as prefigurations of things to come. The second code, however, the deuterosis . . . is the primarily ritual code that Moses received during his second sojourn on the mountain. It is this code which the rest of the Old Testament,

Notes to Pages 275–78  |  467 and especially the Deuteronomic and Levitical codes, is concerned to develop and fill out, and which was imposed on the Jews because of their idolatry. It was meant for the Jews alone and was the instrument of divine punishment.” 137. J. Dunn, “New Perspective,” in Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 1990) 190–91. 138. J. Dunn (“The Justice of God,” JTS ns 43 [1992] 1–22, here 17–18) comments: “Any thought of using the law to gain access to that covenant relationship with God is wholly lacking and wholly antithetical to the spirit of the covenant theology classically set out in Deuteronomy.” 139. Dunn (“New Perspective,” 197) notes: “From the beginning, God’s eschatological purpose in making the covenant had been the blessing of the nations . . . (Gal 3.8; Gen 12.3; 18.18). So, now that the time of fulfillment had come, the covenant should no longer be conceived in nationalistic or racial terms. . . . The covenant is not thereby abandoned. Rather is it broadened out as God had originally intended. . . . This is roughly the argument of Galatians 3–4.” 140. Dunn (“The Justice of God,” 17) notes that appreciation for the OT and Jewish context of Paul’s thought “would have short-circuited the old Reformation disputes: . . . Is ‘the righteousness of God’ subjective genitive or objective genitive?  . . . And does the equivalent verb, ‘to justify,’ mean ‘to make righteous’ or ‘to count righteous’? . . . Once we recognize that righteousness and justification are the language of relationship it becomes evident that both disputes push unjustifiably for an either-or answer.” 141. Cf. Gal 3:27: “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” See A. F. Segal, Paul the Convert (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990) 138: “For Jews and gentiles to attain the same level of ritual purity so as to engage freely in these intimate social activities, there must have been a radical cultic boundary-crossing ritual. For Paul that ritual was baptism. By means of baptism the believers take off their old physical body and invalidate old identities. On re-clothing they put on Christ.” He adds: “The alternative to ceremonial Torah is not lack of Torah but a new apocalyptic form of it, which . . . has as its center the identification of Christ as the Glory of God and the consequent irrelevance of all special laws of Judaism” (143). Chapter 10 HEBREWS 1–9: COVENANT, OATH, AND ROYAL PRIESTLY PRIMOGENITURE 1. On the notion of “covenant” in Hebrews, see V. R. Gordon, “Studies in the Covenantal Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” (Ph.D. Diss.; Fuller Theological Seminary, 1979); S. Lehne, The New Covenant in Hebrews (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990); G. Vos, “Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke,” PTR 13 (1915) 587–632; idem, “Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke,” PTR 14 (1916) 1–61; idem, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation (ed. R. B. Gaffin; Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980) 161–233; and S. R. Murray, “The Concept of Διαθήκη in the Letter to the Hebrews,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 66 (Jan 2002) 41–60. The following commentators understand diathēkē as “testament” rather than “covenant”: G. Vos, The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956) 27–48; G. W. Buchanan, To the Hebrews (AYB 36; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press) 151; T. G. Long, Hebrews (IBC; Louisville: John Knox, 1997) 99; H. W. Attridge, Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989) 253–56; P. Ellingworth, Commentary on Hebrews (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 462–63; V. C. Pfitzner, Hebrews (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries; Nashville: Abing-

468  |  Notes to Pages 278–82 don, 1997) 131; C. R. Koester, Hebrews (AYB 36; New York: Doubleday, 2001; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press) 418, 424–26; P. R. Williamson, Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose (New Studies in Biblical Theology 23; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007) 201–7. 2. See B. A. Demarest, A History of Interpretation of Hebrews 7:1–10 from the Reformation to the Present (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1976) 117: “Both Hebrews and Paul regarded the age of the patriarchs as an era of more spiritual religion. Moses and the law represent a de-generation of the pristine patriarchal faith, of which Christianity constitutes the rediscovery.” Cf. R. W. L. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1992) 126: “The relationship of patriarchal religion . . . to Mosaic Yahwism . . . is analogous to the relationship of the Old Testament . . . to the New Testament.” 3. See D. W. Rooke, “Jesus as Royal Priest: Reflections on the Interpretation of the Melchizedek Tradition in Heb 7,” Bib 81 (2000) 81–94. He shows how the three roles were united in the Davidic “sacral king” of the OT. 4. B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis (The Aramaic Bible 6; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1988), 158. 5. On Eden as primordial sanctuary, see L. E. Stager, “Jerusalem and the Garden of Eden,” Eretz Israel 26 (1999) 183*–94*. See also idem, “Jerusalem as Eden,” BAR 26/3 (May/June 2000) 36–47, 66. 6. For a defense of the translation “royal priesthood” rather than “kingdom of priests,” see J. A. Davies, A Royal Priesthood: Literary and Intertextual Perspectives on an Image of Israel in Exodus 19.6 (JSOTSup 395; London: T. & T. Clark, 2004). 7. See Chapter 6, pp. 136–42. 8. See K. J. Connor, The Church of the Firstborn and the Birthright (Brandon, FL: Trumpet, 1984) 100: “Israel, as a nation, was God’s son, God’s firstborn [cf. Exod 4:22– 23]. . . . In Exodus 19:1–6 God states His original intention that Israel, as a nation, be unto Him a kingdom of priests: that is, a priesthood after the order of Melchisedec, which Abraham knew about.” 9. E. Sauer, In the Arena of Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 128–30. “This whole connexion reveals the immense importance of the Israelite privileges of the firstborn” (130); cf. Connor, Church of the Firstborn, 100. See also J. A. Fitzmyer, “ ‘Now This Melchizedek. . .’ (Heb 7:1),” CBQ 25 (1963) 305–21: “The haggadah identified Melchizedek with Shem . . . because from Adam to Levi the cult was supposed to have been cared for by the firstborn [my emphasis]” (ibid., 312, n. 32, citing C. Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux [2 vols., Paris: Gabalda, 1952–53] 2:205). Cf. H. W. Hertzberg, “Die Melkisedeq ‘Traditionen,’ ” JPOS 8 (1928) 170; J. J. Petuchowski, “The Controversial Figure of Melchizedek,” HUCA 28 (1957) 127–36. 10. See L. R. Helyer, “The PRŌTOTOKOS Title in Hebrews,” SBT 6 (1977) 3–28. 11. See W. L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8 (WBC 47a; Dallas: Word, 1991) 15. 12. Buchanan (To the Hebrews, xxii) characterizes Hebrews 1–12 “a homiletical midrash based on Ps 110.” Buchanan’s hyperbole communicates the central place of Psalm 110 in Hebrews. For further discussion of Hebrews and Psalm 110, see D. J. Harrington, The Letter to the Hebrews (New York: Paulist, 2005) 55–61. 13. For discussion of the relationship of royalty, priesthood, and sonship in the Christology of Hebrews—and especially its relationship to Davidic messianism—see Rooke, “Jesus as Royal Priest,” 81–94. 14. See M. McNamara, “Melchizedek: Gen 14,17–20 in the Targums, in Rabbinic and Early Christian Literature,” Bib 81 (2000): 1–31, esp. 10–16.

Notes to Pages 283–86  |  469 15. See C. T. R. Hayward, Divine Name and Presence: The Memra (Totowa, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun, 1981) 107. 16. E.g., J. P. Meier, “Structure and Theology in Hebrews 1, 1–14,” Bib 66 (1985) 168–89, here 189. For support, he cites Bruce, Bornkamm, Hofius, Hughes, and Käsemann (ibid., n. 62). 17. See S. Kistemaker, The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Amsterdam: Van Soest, 1961) 136–37; G. Milligan (The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews [London: T. & T. Clark, 1899] 90); and Pss 29:1, 89:6, Job [LXX] 1:6, 2:1, 38:7; and Dan [MT] 3:25, 92. 18. On the notion of the “firstborn,” see J. D. Charles, “The Angels, Sonship, and Birthright in the Letter to the Hebrews,” JETS 33 (1990) 171–78; Helyer, “PRŌTOTOKOS.” For the Old Testament background of the firstborn in Hebrews, see Sauer, Arena of Faith, 127: “According to the social order of the Old Testament . . . this blessing is threefold: position of authority, priestly service, [and] a double portion of the inheritance”; M. E. Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992) 168, who notes that prōtotokos (Heb 1:6a) is used of Israel (Exod 2:22; Jer 31:9) and David (Ps 88 [MT 89]: 29). Westcott (Hebrews, 23), notes: “The privileges and responsibilities of the firstborn son . . . form a most important element in the primitive [Israelite] conception of the family, the true unit of society,” citing Deut 21:15ff and 2 Chr 21:3. 19. F. Bonnefoy, Christ and the Cosmos (Patterson, NJ: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1965) 155. W. Barclay (Jesus as They Saw Him [London: SCM, 1962] 398) speaks of “an inscription [where] a man refers to himself as ‘a priest by the rites of the firstborn’ meaning that he belongs to a family in which the eldest son inherits the office of the priesthood.” See Charles, “The Angels, Sonship, and Birthright,” 178: “As ho prototokos the Son stands as the uncontested legal heir to all things.” L. C. Allen, “Psalm 45:7–8 (6–7) in Old and New Testament Settings,” in Christ the Lord (ed. H. H. Rowdon; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982) 220–42, ties the primacy of the firstborn son as heir to the “kleronom- word group” in Heb 1:2, 4, 14, noting that Christ’s primogeniture vis-à-vis angels is recapitulated in Heb 12:23, where believers share in his inheritance as the “church of the first-born.” 20. On the allusion to Ps 89:27, see Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 26; L. D. Hurst, “The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2,” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament (ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987) 151–64. See also Ps 97:7. 21. On the Davidic Christology of Hebrews, see Rooke, “Jesus as Royal Priest.” See also D. R. Anderson, The King-Priest of Psalm 110 in Hebrews (Studies in Biblical Literature 21; New York: Peter Lang, 2001) 173: “Jesus is the Son promised to David who has inaugurated the Davidic Kingdom signified by his exaltation to the right hand of his Father in heaven. . . . Since Psalm 110, Psalm 2, and 2 Samuel 7 are all connected directly to a kingdom emanating from Zion, this king can be none other than the one who is to fulfill the Davidic Covenant by establishing the Davidic Kingdom.” 22. See Hurst, “The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2,” 155: “The theme of Ps 8 in chapter two is God’s plan for mankind” (citing G. B. Caird, “The Exegetical Method of Hebrews,” CJT 5 [1959] 17). 23. See Hurst, “Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2,” 154. 24. See J. Dunn, Christology in the Making (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980) 109– 11. He notes the “Adam Christology” of Heb 2:8, where Jesus “fulfills God’s original intention for man,” being “crowned with the glory that Adam failed to reach by virtue of his sin” (109). “The divine programme for man which broke down with Adam has been

470  |  Notes to Pages 286–88 run through again [successfully] in Jesus” (110). Likewise Hurst (“Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2,” 153): “Jesus in 2:8 [is] proleptically fulfilling what is as yet unfulfilled for man . . . he represents man in the ideal state.” For the messianic interpretation of Ps 8 in early targums, see F. J. Moloney, “The Targum on Ps. 8 and the New Testament,” Salesianum 37 (1975) 326–36; R. North, “Psalm 8 as a Miniature of Psalm 104,” in The Psalms and Other Studies on the Old Testament (eds. J. C. Knight and L. A. Sinclair; Nashotah, WI: Nashotah House, 1990) 2–10; and P. Minear, “Early Christian Theopoetic?” Semeia 12 (1978) 201–14. 25. Bruce (Hebrews, 84) suggests, as background for the peculiar “children” image, Isa 8:18 and esp. Isa 53:10: “When he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring” (RSV). See also Hughes, Hebrews, 109 n. 100. J. Dunnill (Covenant and Sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews [SNTS Monograph Series 75; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992] 36) notes: “The church is conceived as a household. . . . The readers are ‘sons’ and ‘children’ (2:14), and Jesus is their ‘brother’ (2:17), the ‘firstborn’ (1:6)—though indeed they are all to be among the assembly of the firstborn (ekklēsia prōtotokōn 12:23) unless like Esau they sell their birthright (ta prōtotokia, 12:16).” 26. See M. Kline, “Trial by Ordeal,” in Through Christ’s Word (ed. W. Godfrey and J. Boyd III; Phillipsburg, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1985) 81–93. 27. J. Swetnam argues that the Aqedah is the background for Heb 2:5–18 (Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Aqedah [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981] 134). Dunnill notes that the Midrash on Psalms relates Ps 8:5(4) to the Aqedah (Covenant and Sacrifice, 220). 28. Dunnill (Covenant and Sacrifice, 207) comments: “We see that a ‘Son of Abraham’ martyrological scheme underlies the Christology and soteriology of Hebrews, meshing into its concepts of Jesus as ‘Son of God’ and ‘high priest.’ ” He continues: “Isaac and his ‘binding’ are present . . . as a mythic pattern, the ground of God’s ­covenant-relation by which ‘sons of men’ become in all possible senses ‘sons of Abraham’ and so finally ‘sons of God’ too; he who effects this last stage is the ideal Son, who is called ‘Son of Man’ (2:6), brother of the ‘seed of Abraham’ and ‘Son of God’ (1:2), whose role is compounded of those of Abraham and Isaac, as well as those of the messianic king (1:8) and the ideal priest” (212–13). 29. See Minear, “Early Christian Theopoetic?” 211. 30. See M. Pate, The Glory of Adam and the Afflictions of the Righteous (Lewiston, NY: Mellen Biblical Press, 1993) 260–61. He points to several intertestamental sources which show how “Adam’s lost dominion over the world now belongs to Abraham’s seed, whose homeland is the heavenly Jerusalem, the new Eden” (e.g., Jub. 2:23; 3:30; 15:27; 16:26; 19:23–31; 22:11–13; T. Lev. 18:10; 1 En. 90:19, 30, 37; Wis 2:23; 3:8; 4 Ezra 3:4–36; 6:53–59; 9:17; 2 Bar. 14:17–19; 1QLitPr 2 lines 3–6; 1QS 4 line 23; CD 3:20; 1QH 17 line 15). Pate cites voluminous evidence showing a link between “Abraham, the New Adam, and Righteous Suffering” (253–78), all of which may pertain to the argument in Heb 2:5–16, where Christ is shown to fulfill Adam’s mission precisely by suffering—for “Abraham’s seed.” 31. See discussion in Chapter 2, “The Kinship Covenant.” 32. On the relationship of sonship and priesthood in Davidic “sacral kingship,” see Rooke, “Jesus as Royal Priest.” 33. M. R. D’Angelo, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979) 69. For her treatment of the Old Testament citations, allusions, and hook words in Hebrews 3–4, see pp. 64–93.

Notes to Pages 289–95  |  471 34. Note, for example, 1 Chr 17:14 LXX, which says concerning David’s “seed”: “I will establish (pistōsō) him in my house and in his kingdom for ever and his throne shall be established for ever.” The verb for “establish” here is pistoō which can also mean “to be or make faithful” or “to believe firmly” and resonates with the whole discussion of being “faithful” (pistos) in Heb 2:17–3:6. 35. On the meaning of oikos in Hebrews 3, as well as its Old Testament Davidic background, see Dunnill, Covenant and Sacrifice, 225–26. See also Minear, “Early Christian Theopoetic,” 211: “God’s house is the temple where he had chosen to dwell. The brother who stands in their midst is also high priest, faithful mediator between God and his people.” J. H. Elliott (A Home for the Homeless [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981] 249–50 n. 91) shows how 1 En. 89:50–67 and T. Levi 10:5 both see the “house” (i.e., the dynasty, the [new] Jerusalem Temple, along with the heavenly sanctuary [Heb 10:21], and the eschatological community of the people of God) in Davidic covenantal terms. 36. D’Angelo, Moses in Hebrews, 69. E. Nardoni (“Partakers in Christ [Heb. 3.14],” NTS 37[1991] 461) concurs with the Davidic background: “The theme of the son both building the house of God and ruling over it is a probable reference to God’s promise to King David (2 Sam 7.4–17; 1 Chron 17.3–14).” 37. The contrast between the Mosaic and Davidic covenants in Hebrews may be seen in the contrast between “Sinai” and “Zion” in Heb 12:18–24. K. Son argues that the symbolic contrast between Sinai and Zion forms the hermeneutical key to the author’s argument. See K. Son, Zion Symbolism in Hebrews: Hebrews 12:18–24 as a Hermeutical Key to the Epistle (Paternoster Biblical Monographs; Bletchley, U.K.: Paternoster Press, 2005). 38. See Nardoni, “Partakers in Christ,” 462. 39. A. Vanhoye (Old Testament Priests and the New Priest According to the New Testament [trans. J. B. Orchard, O.S.B; Studies in Scripture; Petersham, MA: St. Bede’s, 1986] 105) comments: “There is a natural link between ‘rest’ and ‘house’ which the Bible applies several times to the ‘rest’ and the ‘house of God.’ In Psalm 132, God declares with regard to Zion, where his ‘house’ will be located: ‘Here is my rest for ever.’ ” 40. Rooke, “Jesus as Royal Priest,” 83. 41. See Lane, Hebrews, cxli: “A deliberate concern to associate the titles ‘Son’ and ‘Priest’ is apparent in the conjunction of the Psalm quotations in [Heb] 5:5–6.” Ellingworth (Hebrews, 70) comments: “These two major titles, ‘Son’ and ‘high priest,’ are explicitly related to one another in 5:5f.” Is it possible to define more precisely the relation between these two titles?” See O. Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer (7th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 164: “Sohn war er (1:3; 5:7f.) und Hoherpriester wird er (2:17; 5:10)” (“Son” he was, and he becomes “high priest”). See also Bruce, Hebrews, 123–24. E. Käsemann (The Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984] 98) notes that, “according to 5:5f., installation to the office of high priest clearly corresponds to bestowal of the title ‘Son’ . . . [and thus] coincide in the same action that in 5:9 is linked to Jesus’ τελείωσιϛ [perfection].” 42. For more discussion see N. Weeks, “Admonition and Error in Hebrews,” WTJ 29 (1976) 72–80. 43. See Attridge, Hebrews, 173 n. 90. 44. A careful reading of the narrative of Genesis 3 will show that Adam and Eve are not directly cursed, as are the serpent and the land. Nonetheless, the curses and punishments pronounced and effected in Gen 3:14–24 have profound, negative consequnces for Adam and Eve’s relationships with God, each other, and the rest of creation.

472  |  Notes to Pages 295–99 Thus, out of deference to the precise wording of Scripture, we will speak here of curses “affecting” Adam (and humanity) rather than curses “on” Adam. 45. So Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac, 184; Isaacs, Sacred Space, 128. 46. D. Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982) 113: “The promise to Abraham with an oath and the promise of the Melchizedek priesthood with an oath apparently hang together in our writer’s thinking.” 47. Dunnill, Covenant and Sacrifice, 249. 48. See C. P. Anderson, “Who Are the Heirs of the New Age in the Epistle to the Hebrews?” in Apocalyptic and the New Testament (ed. J. Marcus and M. L. Soards; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) 255–77. 49. These are, plausibly, the elements of a thank-offering made to God Most High in gratitude for a successful mission, and as such would constitute a communion sacrifice to be consumed by priests and participants alike (cf. Lev 7:12–15). See notes 129–31 to Chapter 5. 50. See Hayward, Divine Name and Presence, 131. The targumic view of Melchizedek compares favorably, for example, with the exaltation of the ancient king-priest found in the second-century bce Qumran document 11QMelchizedek (11Q13). See A. Steudel, “Melchizedek,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols.; ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) 1:535–37. 51. C. T. R. Hayward, “Shem, Melchizedek, and Concern with Christianity in the Pentateuchal Targumim,” in Targumic and Cognate Studies (ed. K. J. Cathcart and M. Maher; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 79 (see also pp. 130–34). 52. See F. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition (New York: Cambridge University Press) 114: “From an early time Melchizedek was identified by the Rabbis with Shem the son of Noah. . . . [S]o far as the Rabbis themselves were concerned there was little necessity for proving this proposition. The Melchizedek-Shem identification was a commonplace from a very early time, being found even in the Targums.” He cites Fitzmyer (Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I, 31–32) who provides a “tabular survey of the Targumic evidence from which we discover that the identification of Melchizedek with Shem is to be found in Neofiti I and Pseudo-Jonathan. . . . He does not mention the Fragment Targum (Jerusalem II), but in that document . . . the identification is also made” (n. 1). See also McNamara, Palestinian Judaism, 208: “An analysis of the dates and lifespans of the post-diluvian patriarchs in Genesis 11 indicates that Shem lived into, and well beyond, the time of Abraham. What is more natural than to identify the mysterious Melchizedek of Abraham’s day with him, as for instance is done in Palestinian Targum (all texts) Genesis 14:18 and elsewhere.” On the Melchizedek-as-Shem interpretation in the history of exegesis, see Hughes (Hebrews, 244–45), who shows how early the ancient Jewish interpretive tradition “gained a considerable acceptance in Christian circles. . . . Jerome, while recognizing it as a common Jewish opinion sees no chronological problem and in fact is attracted by the theory.” He continues: “Many Christians regarded the supposed identity of Shem and Melchizedek with approval without diminishing their belief in Melchizedek’s typological significance.” Against increasing polemical usage of Melchizedek by Christians, he points to the “strangely hostile attitude to Melchizedek” that arose in later rabbinic sources (e.g., child of a prostitute). T. Jansma (“Investigations into the Early Syrian Fathers on Genesis,” OTS 12 [1958] 69–181) discusses St. Ephraem’s appropriation of the tradition: “Ephraem refers in his comment upon Gen xxv 22 (Tonneau Commentarii, Sancti Ephraemi Syri in Genesim et Exodum Commentarii [ed. R.-M. Tonneau; 2 vols.; Louvain, 1955] 86:10–14) to his treatment of the story of Melchizedek. In the latter place we read: ‘This Melchizedek is

Notes to Pages 299–301  |  473 Shem who became king because of his greatness. . . . Further he was priest because he had received priesthood from his father Noah. Now he did not only live until the days of Abraham . . . but also to those of Jacob and Esau.” (176). Spicq (Hébreux 2:206) notes how this was also accepted by medieval commentators (e.g., Alcuin, Sedulius, Scot, Aimon d’Auxerre, P. Lombard, and Nicholas of Lyra). On Lyra, see Hailperin, Rashi and the Christian Scholars, 203: “Lyra accepts the tradition which identified Melchizedek with Shem presupposed in many Jewish and Christian sources.” The Glossa Ordinaria is representative of the medieval view: “Hunc Melchisedech, aiunt Hebraei fuisse Sem filium Noe, et vixisse usque ad Isaac. Et omnes primogenitos, a Noe ad Aaron, sacerdote fuisse” (“The Hebrews claim that this Melchizedek was Shem, Son of Noah, that he lived until Isaac, and that every primogenitor, from Noah to Aaron, was a priest,” PL 198:1094–95). Luther concurs: “On the basis of the general conviction of the Hebrews it is assumed that this Melchizedek is Noah’s son Shem. . . . I gladly agree with their opinion” (Luther’s Works 2:381). See also the Puritan commentator, W. Gouge, Commentary on Hebrews (repr. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1980), 468: “The most common received opinion is that Shem the son of Noah was this Melchisedec. Our countryman, Mr. Broughton, produceth two and twenty rabbis of the Jews to be of this opinion, and inferreth that it was the common opinion of the Jews. . . . On these grounds I dare not gainsay this opinion.” This commentary, first published in 1655 and reprinted last century in the Nichol’s commentary series (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1866), is accorded highest praise by C. Spicq, “Le Commentaire de l’Épitre aux Hébreux par W. Gouge,” MScRel 31 (1974) 3–24. For various reasons, there is little critical sympathy among modern commentators for this view, none of whom even attempt to apply the ­Melchizedek-as-Shem hypothesis in a heuristic manner to the argument in Heb 7, although they would certainly acknowledge that the hypothesis fits with the ancient (precritical) interpretive outlook on Genesis (as it is reflected, for instance, in the Targums). 53. The targums recognized the natural royal priesthood of the firstborn, passed from father to son among the patriarchs, as can be seen, for example, in T. Neofiti on Gen 49:3: “Reuben, my first-born are you . . . the birthright was yours, and the kingdom and the high priesthood. . . . Because you sinned . . . the kingdom [has been given] to Judah, and the high priesthood to the tribe of Levi.” See M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis (The Aramaic Bible 1A; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 217. See also the Targum on 1 Chr 5:1–2: “The sons of Reuben, the first-born of Israel: he was indeed the first-born, but when he desecrated his sanctity by going up to his father’s bed, his birthright was taken away from him and given to the sons of Joseph. . . . Because Judah was the strongest of his brethren, the kingship was taken away from Reuben and given to Judah. . . . As for Levi, he was a godly man . . . so the high priesthood was taken away from the sons of Reuben and . . . given to Aaron and his sons . . . but the birthright was given to Joseph.” (J. S. McIvor, The Targum of Chronicles [The Aramaic Bible 19; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1994] 64.) 54. See Attridge, Hebrews, 190; and Bruce, Hebrews, 156–60; Montefiore, Hebrews, 119; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 357–58. 55. H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (4 vols.; München: Beck, 1922–28) 3:694. 56. M. J. Paul (“The Order of Melchizedek” [Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 7:3] WTJ 49 [1997] 205) argues that the examples from rabbinic texts that are cited by Strack and Billerbeck are all applied in a restrained manner: “These four examples may be enough to illustrate they always study a person or a matter and look for earlier or later mention,

474  |  Notes to Pages 301–3 but they never conclude to a non-existence on account of the fact that the person or matter is not mentioned at all in the Scripture” (206). See also Horton (The Melchizedek Tradition, 153–54). 57. For discussion of Jesus’ Judahite lineage, see Rooke, “Jesus as Royal Priest,” 89– 90: “Sacral monarchs of the Davidic line . . . represented their people before God in the capacity of high priests, yet . . . were not descended from the traditional priestly tribe.” Rooke notes that Jesus is said to have “arisen” (anatetalken) from Judah (Heb 7:14), a word (from anatellō) with messianic overtones. 58. See discussion in Dunnill, Covenant and Sacrifice, 166; and Paul, “The Order of Melchizedek,” 205. 59. Brown, Hebrews (London: Banner of Truth, 1976) 327–28. See also Demarest, History of Interpretation: “Since the priestly law required that the Levites be thirty years of age before undertaking the service of the tabernacle and that their duties be relinquished at fifty years, the Levites were governed by a fixed schedule of accession and succession to office. Melchizedek, on the other hand, was not bound by any rule of succession based on descent, but exercised an uninterrupted priestly ministry. In the same manner, since the Son of God neither derived his office from a law of tribal succession nor did he succumb to death as a priest, he also administers a perpetual priesthood.” 60. See also E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (vol. 2: rev. ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979) 240, citing Ezra 2:61–63; Neh 7:63–65, Josephus, and the Mishnah (m. Qidd. 4:4): “he must trace her family back through four mothers (on each side).” The relevant data from Jewish sources is summarized in H. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (4 vols.; Munich: Beck, 1922–28) 3:692. 61. See Bruce, Hebrews, 160 n. 21; Demarest, History of Interpretation, 101; A. Büchler, “Family Purity and Family Impurity in Jerusalem Before the Year 70 C.E.,” in Studies in Jewish History (eds. I. Brodie and J. Rabbinowitz; London: Oxford, 1956) 64–98; W. Leonard, Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews: Critical Problem and Use of the Old Testament (Rome: Vatican Polyglot Press, 1939) 377; and Brown, Hebrews, 327. 62. See S. D. Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews (WUNT 2 223; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007) 213–30. 63. Demarest, History of Interpretation, 53; Brown, Hebrews, 133: “They have beginning of days and end of life. They are not priests till thirty; they cease to be priests at fifty—that is the termination of their priestly life.” 64. See Brown, Hebrews, 328. 65. See discussion in G. T. Kennedy, St. Paul’s Conception of the Priesthood of Melchisedech (Washington, DC: CUA Press, 1951) 85; Buchanan, Hebrews, 120; Bruce, Hebrews, 160; Vanhoye, Old Testament Priests, 153. 66. Significantly, even the stronger phrase eis ton aiōna can be found used in a nonliteral sense, referring to the lifelong priesthood of another non-Levitical priest in 1 Macc 14:41: “The Jews and their high priests resolved that Simon [Maccabeus] should be their leader and high priest forever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise [my emphasis].” See McNamara, “Melchizedek,” 17, for a brief discussion. 67. The view of Shem, Melchizedek, Levi, and other OT figures in Hebrews finds parallels in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. For example, T. Sim. 6:5–7:2: “Then Shem shall be glorified; because God the Lord, the Great One in Israel, will be manifest upon the earth [as a man]. By himself will he save Adam. Then all the spirits of error shall be given over to being trampled underfoot. And men will have mastery over the

Notes to Page 304  |  475 evil spirits. Then shall I arise in gladness and I shall bless the Most High for his marvels [because God has taken a body, eats with human beings, and saves human beings]. And now, my children, be obedient to Levi and to Judah. Do not exalt yourselves above these two tribes, [because from them will arise the Savior come from God]. For the Lord will raise up from Levi someone as high priest and from Judah someone as king [God and man]. He will save all the gentiles and the tribes of Israel.” Here the glorification of Shem and the restoration of Adam are linked to the coming of the royal messiah from Judah as savior of both Israel and the Gentiles. Likewise, T. Levi 2:10–11; 4:2–5:2; 8:2– 15 reads: “You shall announce the one who is about to redeem Israel. Through you and Judah the Lord will be seen by men, [by himself saving the entire human race]. . . . The Most High has given heed to your prayer that you be delivered from wrongdoing, that you should become a son to him, as minister and priest in his presence. . . . Blessing shall be given to you and to all your posterity until through his son’s compassion the Lord shall visit all the nations forever, [although your sons will lay hands on him in order to impale him]. . . . Levi, to you I have given the blessing of the priesthood until I shall come and dwell in the midst of Israel. . . . And I saw seven men in white clothing, who were saying to me, ‘Arise, put on the vestments of the priesthood. . . .’ The first anointed me with holy oil and gave me a staff. The second washed me with pure water, fed me by hand with bread and holy wine. . . . And they said to me, ‘Levi, your posterity shall be divided into three offices as a sign of the glory of the Lord who is coming. The first lot shall be great; no other shall be greater than it. The second shall be in the priestly role. But the third shall be granted a new Name, because from Judah a king will arise and shall found a new priesthood in accord with the gentile model and for all nations. His presence is beloved, as a prophet of the Most High, a descendant of Abraham, our father. To you and your posterity . . . will share among themselves the Lord’s table.” It is significant that canonical figures like Adam, Shem, Melchizedek, and Abraham (along with his “seed”) all figure in the messianic hope and speculations of these intertestamental sources, as they share a similar place in Hebrews. Likewise, the grant of the “new name” and the “new priesthood” is linked to the divine sonship and royal priesthood of the messiah from Judah. The texts are cited from J. H. Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (New York: Doubleday, 1983) vol. 1. Brackets refer to suspected Christian interpolations. See Bruce, Hebrews, 126 n. 39. If any or all of these are interpolations, their significance as parallels would not be weakened, but in fact strengthened, for in that case their proximity to Hebrews would be confirmed. 68. See above, n. 53. 69. W. C. Ketcherside, Royal Priesthood (St. Louis: Mission, 1956) 36–37: “The priesthood being changed, there was made of necessity a change in the law (Heb 7:12). No longer could an Israelite offer sacrifice as in the previous dispensation. The tribe of Levi was consecrated to God on behalf of the entire congregation . . . he adopted the tribe of Levi instead of the firstborn of all the tribes, thus guaranteeing the separation of the tribes until the Messiah came.” Likewise see Vanhoye, Old Testament Priests, 164; T. F. Torrance, The Royal Priesthood (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1955) 79. 70. See G. P. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (VTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 4; citing J. Barr, “Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant,” in Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. H. Donner et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977) 23–28; and M. Weinfeld, “‫ ְבִּרית‬berîth,” TDOT 2:256. Cf. Hos 10:4, Deut 29:11; 13 MT (ET 29:12, 14); Ezek 16;

476  |  Notes to Pages 304–9 and Gen 26:28. Cf. also Gen 24:1–67 in light of Deut 4:31; 7:12; 8:18; 31:20; Josh 9:15; 2 Kgs 11:4; Ezek 16:8; Ps 89:3. 71. See discussion in Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 188; Bruce, Hebrews, 171 n. 70; Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 113. 72. See A. Vanhoye, Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Subsidia Biblica 12; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989) 40a–b; idem, Old Testament Priests, 150, 173–77; J. Swetnam “The Structure of Hebrews: A Fresh Look,” Melita Theologica 41 (1990) 25–46, esp. 39. 73. See Vanhoye, Old Testament Priests, 181–82. 74. The LXX rendering of Jer 31:32 says the Israelites “did not remain” (ouk enemeinan) in the covenant, whereas the MT asserts the Israelites “broke” the covenant. Hebrews quotes the milder LXX. 75. On the dualistic elements here and throughout Hebrews, see J. Smith, A Priest For Ever: A Study of Typology and Eschatology in Hebrews (London: Sheed and Ward, 1969); Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in Hebrews, 143; Attridge, Hebrews, 222– 24; Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 206–11; and idem, Hebrews 9–13, 218–26. For discussion of the use of “first” (prōtē) and “second” (deutera) in Hebrews 9, see C. R. Koester, The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament (Washington, DC: CBA, 1989) 167–73. 76. On the centrality of Heb 8:1–9:28 in the epistle see Vanhoye, Structure and Message, 40a–b; idem, Old Testament Priests, 150, 173–77; Swetnam “The Structure of Hebrews,” 39. 77. A testament is “an act by which a person determines the disposition of his or her property after death” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary [11th ed.; Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 2003]), 1291. For diathēkē as “testament” in secular Greek, see J. Behm and G. Quell, “διαθήκη,” TDNT 2:106–34, esp. 124–26. Hugenberger (Marriage, 11) defines “covenant” (bĕrith) as a “relationship of obligation under oath.” For diathēkē as the LXX equivalent of bĕrith, see Behm, “διαθήκη,” TDNT 2:126–27. 78. Cf. NEB, JB, TEV, NIV, NAB (only the NASB translates “covenant” in vv. 16–17). Commentators endorsing “testament” in vv. 16–17 include Vos, Buchanan, Long, Attridge, Ellingworth, Pfitzner, and Koester. See n. 1 above. 79. See J. Swetnam, “A Suggested Interpretation of Hebrews 9,15–18,” CBQ 27 (1965) 373–90, esp. 374–75, for a succinct summary of the case. 80. See S. W. Hahn, “A Broken Covenant and the Curse-of-Death: A Study of Hebrews 9:15–22,” CBQ 66 (2004) 416–36. These difficulties have previously been pointed out, to a greater or lesser degree, by B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews (2nd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1892) 298–302; G. Milligan, The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (London: T. & T. Clarke, 1899) 166–70; Brown, Hebrews, 407–19; Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff.,” 28–66; W. J. Lane, Hebrews 9–13 (WBC 47b; Dallas: Word, 1991) 226–52; and D. J. Pursiful, The Cultic Motif in the Spirituality of the Book of Hebrews (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1993) 77–79. 81. Cf. Behm, TDNT 2:132; Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 230. 82. Cf. Vos, Hebrews, 27. 83. Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff.,” 32–33. 84. The idea of “execution” would be expressed with a different term, perhaps poieō, teleioō, or (syn)teleō. For a full discussion of the terminological issues, see Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff.,” esp. 60–62. 85. For ischuō, see BAGD 383b–284a, LSJ 844a; for bebaios, BAGD 138a, LSJ 312a. 86. Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff.,” 61.

Notes to Pages 309–12  |  477 87. Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff.,” 60. 88. Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff.,” 62, citing H. J. Wolff, “Hellenistic Private Law,” in The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions (2 vols.; ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern; CRINT, section 1, v. 1; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) 1:534–60, here 543; and R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in Light of the Papyri 322 BC– 640 AD (2nd ed.; Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1955) 207–8. 89. On mēpote as a strong negative, see Ellingworth, Hebrews, 464. Responses to Hughes’ critique of the testamentary interpretation have been weak. Curiously, Attridge, (Hebrews, 255–56 n. 25, 419) published almost thirteen years after Hughes’ article (“Hebrews IX 15ff”), makes no reference to Hughes or his arguments. Ellingworth (Hebrews, 464) does little to rebut him. Koester (Hebrews, 418, 425) does nuance and mitigate the sense of Heb 9:17 to accommodate Hughes’ point that the language is not legally accurate, and cites a papyrus death notice as proof of his assertion that “legally people had to present evidence that the testator had died for a will to take effect.” But the papyrus cited does not actually mention a will or inheritance as being at issue. 90. Cf. G. D. Kilpatrick, “Διαθήκη in Hebrews,” ZNW 68 (1977) 263–65, esp. 265; Westcott, Hebrews, 301. 91. Cf. LSJ (def. A.IV.4, “announce,” 1923a), BAGD (def. 4.a.β, “establish,” 855b), J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (2 vols.; 2nd ed.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1988) 1:667b–68a (“show,” §70.5). Note Ellingworth’s (Hebrews, 464) honesty: “Exact parallels to this statement have not been found”; and Attridge’s (Hebrews, 256) polite understatement: “The sense of ϕέρεσθαι is somewhat uncertain.” 92. Lane, Hebrews, 232; Milligan, Hebrews, 169. 93. Attridge (Hebrews, 256) admits, “The phrase referring to the testator’s death, ‘for the dead’ (epi nekrois), is somewhat odd.” 94. “Such an illustration [i.e., of a testament] would not have been in keeping with the writer’s own usual train of thought [my emphasis]” (Milligan, Hebrews, 169). 95. See Anoymous, “A Lawyer Looks at Hebrews 9:15–17,” EvQ 40 (1968) 151–56, esp. 152–53; and Westcott, Hebrews, 299. 96. Helyer, “PRŌTOTOKOS,” 17. 97. Cf. the comments of Pursiful (Cultic Motif, 4): “The depiction of spirituality in Hebrews is cultic through and through and . . . the author’s usage of cultic imagery is in fact central to his pastoral goals”; Vos (Hebrews, 43): “The Epistle considers the Christian state as in the main a cultus. . . . All through the ninth chapter the worshipper is represented as one who serves. . . . We have here specifically ritual language”; and Attridge (Hebrews, 253): “Hebrews, however, presumes that priesthood and cult constitute the conerstone of a people’s relationship to God (7:11–12).” For a definition of “cult” and “ritual,” see Pursiful, Cultic Motif, 11–12. 98. Cf. Pursiful (Cultic Motif, 158): “A covenant implies a cultic order”; Behm, TDNT 2:132: “The author finds the essence of the two διαθ῝και in the cultic aspect.” 99. On the cultic background of ch. 9, see Swetnam, “Suggested Interpretation,” 375; Behm, TDNT 2:131–32; C. Spicq, L’Épître aux Hébreux (2 vols.; Paris: Gabalda, 1952) 2:246–47; Vanhoye, Old Testament Priests, 176–77. 100. Cf. Lane (Hebrews, 235): “The essence of the two covenants is found in their cultic aspects; the total argument is developed in terms of cultus. . . . The interpreter must remain open to the internal logic of the argument from the cultus.” 101. Cf. Anderson, “Who Are the Heirs?” 255–77, esp. 271.

478  |  Notes to Pages 312–16 102. Cf. Dunnill, Covenant and Sacrifice, 104; Anderson, “Who Are the Heirs?” 272. 103. Vanhoye, Old Testament Priests, 181–82. 104. The syntactical arguments in the text here have also been proposed by Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff.,” 35–59, and Lane, Hebrews, 231, 234–35. 105. Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff.,” 33. 106. Cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 460. 107. Cf. Lane, Hebrews, 231. 108. Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff.,” 34. 109. Cf. Ellingworth’s (Hebrews, 459–62) syntactical analysis of 9:15–22. 110. “Such a sudden transition, from one sense to another of the same word is, from a logical point of view, unsatisfactory.” (Bruce, Hebrews, 361); “The author . . . was obviously a person of too clear a mind to argue in this way” (Brown, Hebrews, 408). 111. Behm, TDNT 2:131. Many other advocates of diathēkē-as-testament also feel the tension caused by the abrupt switch in meaning, e.g., Bruce, Hebrews, 461, Pfitzner, Hebrews, 131; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 462; Swetnam, “Suggested Interpretation,” 373. Currently it seems popular to defuse this tension somewhat by describing the author as engaged in “playful” rhetorical argument which—while not logically valid—would amuse the audience or readership with its clever wordplay (Attridge, Hebrews, 253–54; similarly Long, Hebrews, 98–99). Unfortunately, in order to be rhetorically effective an argument must at least appear to be valid. A blatantly false example cited as proof, or a syllogism whose errors are apparent to all, tends to discredit the speaker and his argument. It is doubtful whether the argument of 9:16–17 would have had even apparent validity under a testamentary interpretation. 112. Attridge, Hebrews, 1. 113. Vanhoye, Structure and Message, 32–33. 114. Dunnill, Covenant and Sacrifice, 8. 115. E.g., Swetnam, “Suggested Interpretation,” 375; and Westcott, Hebrews, xlvi– xlvii. 116. See Hugenberger, Marriage, 183–84. Cf. Hos 10:4, Deut 29:11; 13 MT (ET 29:12, 14); Ezek 16; and Gen 26:28. Cf. also Gen 24:1–67 in light of Deut 4:31; 7:12; 8:18; 31:20; Josh 9:15; 2 Kgs 11:4; Ezek 16:8; Ps 89:3. 117. Hugenberger, Marriage, 4. 118. Moshe Weinfeld, “‫ ְבִרית‬berîth, ” TDOT 2:256. See also Hugenberger, Marriage, 182–84. 119. Hugenberger, Marriage, 194. 120. Hugenberger, Marriage, 200–201. Cf. 1 Sam 3:17; 14:44; 20:13; 25:22; 2 Sam 3:9, 3:35; 19:14 MT; 1 Kgs 2:23; 2 Kgs 6:31; Ruth 1:17; Jer 42:5, in all of which the curse-of-death is elided. 121. Cf. the covenant curses: Lev 26:14–39, esp. v. 30, but also vv. 16, 22, 25, 38; Deut 28:15–68, esp. vv. 20, 22, 24, 26, 48, 51, 61; other curses of death: Deut 4:23, 26; 17:2–7; Josh 7:11, 15; 23:16; Jer 22:8–12 (both death and death-in-exile); Jer 34:18–21; Hos 8:11; and curses of mortal punishment: to be “devoured,” Deut 31:16; “consumed” and “burned,” Isa 33:8–12, Jer 11:10, 16; “destroyed,” Hos 7:13 (cf. 6:7). 122. Cf. ANET 179–180, 201, 205, 532, 534, 538–541. While not all the curses are death per se, usually they are means of death: plague, famine, siege, military defeat, etc. 123. CD 1:3, 17–18; 3:10–11; 15:4–5; 1QDM (1Q22) I, 10–11; 4QDa (4Q266) 2 I, 21; 4QDd (4Q269) 2 line 6; 4Q388a 1 II, 5; 4Q390 1 lines 9–10; 4Q390 2 I, 4. Cf. Lev 26:25.

Notes to Pages 316–18  |  479 124. Dunnill, Covenant and Sacrifice, 249. Cf. also O. P. Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980) 11–12. 125. D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (AnBib 21; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963) 195; Hugenberger, Marriage, 195; Quell, TDNT 2:108. 126. On Gen 15 as a Drohritus in light of Jer 34, see Quell, TDNT 2:116; Hugenberger, Marriage, 195 n. 109. 127. The first oblique reference to the Sinai covenant is found in Heb 2:2, which speaks of the “message declared by angels” (i.e., the Sinai revelation) under which “­every transgression . . . received a just retribution,” evidently referring first to the calf incident and the resulting plague and slaughter (Exod 32:25–35) and the continuing pattern of rebellion and punishment thereafter through Leviticus and Numbers. In Heb 3:7–11 the author cites verses from Ps 95 highlighting the complete recalcitrance of the generation that received the Sinai covenant (e.g., “They always go astray in their hearts,” v. 10) and emphasizes in vv. 16–19 their rebellion, sins, disobedience, and unbelief. Continuing in ch. 4, the author repeats Ps 95:11 in vv. 3 and 5 to highlight the impossibility of reconciliation for the generation that received the first covenant. In Heb 6:4–6, new covenant apostates are compared to that rebellious generation by allusion. The reference to the “change in the priesthood” in Heb 7:12 alludes to the institution of the Levitical priesthood in Exod 32 and the resulting legal reconfiguration (Exod 34–Lev 27). In Heb 8, the extensive quote from Jer 31 notes the brokenness of the first covenant: “For they did not continue in my covenant, so I paid no heed to them” (v. 9). Under the New Covenant, “I will remember their sins no more” (v. 12), which implies that under the first covenant, their sins were remembered, for the sacrifices were “reminders of sin” (10:3) since “it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins” (v. 4). Thus, the consistent view of the first covenant throughout Hebrews is not in its ideal form but in its concrete historical reality—namely, that it was broken immediately, and thereafter remained broken since its sacrifices were ineffectual in removing the sin and guilt of the people. 128. Here we differ from Hughes, who argues that the author speaks of covenants generally, and that ho diathemenos (“the covenant-maker”) in vv. 16–17 refers to the sacrificial animals slain to ratify the covenant. But it is difficult to identify the sacrificial victim as the “covenant-maker”; moreover, it is not true, as Hughes claims, that all covenants were ratified by sacrifice. Often an oath sufficed. 129. Cf. BAGD (def. 2b, 576a); Louw and Nida (§89.35, 1.782a); LSJ (def. II.2, 1242a). Hopou is clearly causal in 1 Cor 3:3, 4 Macc 14:11, 14, 19; possibly also in 4 Macc 2:14 and 6:34. Hopou occurs in Heb 6:20, 9:16 and 10:18. In both 9:16 and 10:18 the causal meaning (“whereas, since”) seems to provide a better reading than the usual translation “where.” 130. Cf. Isa 53:3, 4, 11, 12. 131. E.g., pherō (Heb 9:16, Isa 53:3, 4); anapherō (Heb 9:28; Isa 53:11, 12); thanatos (Heb 9:15, 16; Isa 53:8, 9, 12); harmartias (Heb 9:26, 28; Isa 53:4–6, 10–12); klēronom(Heb 9:15; Isa 53:12); katharizō (Heb 9:22–23; Isa 53:10); laos (Heb 9:19, Isa 53:8). 132. Cf. Heb 9:15, 28 with Isa 53:11–12; Heb 9:12, 15 with Isa 53:12. 133. Cf. Lev 26:14–39, esp. v. 30, but also vv. 16, 22, 25, 38; Deut 28:15–68, esp. vv. 20, 22, 24, 26, 48, 51, 61. Though not all the curses of Lev 26 and Deut 28 are immediate death, virtually all the curses are means of death: plague, disease, enemy attack, wild animals, siege, famine, etc.

480  |  Notes to Pages 318–29 134. For mēpote as a strong negative (“certainly not”) see Ellingworth, Hebrews, 464. 135. Cf. Vanhoye, Old Testament Priests, 203. 136. Robertson, Christ of the Covenants, 11–12: “The death of the covenant-maker appears in two distinct stages. First it appears in the form of a symbolic representation of the curse, anticipating possible covenantal violation. Later the party who violates the covenant actually experiences death as a consequence of his earlier commitment.” 137. See Swetnam, “Suggested Interpretation of Heb 9:25–28,” who takes another interpretive approach but reaches the same essential conclusion: “Christ, by taking on himself the curse stipulations which in the first diathêkê were connected with transgressions, was able to draw up and effect a diathêkê which makes efficacious provision only for blessings” (281, my emphasis). Finally: “Essential to the line of argumentation being pursued here in regard to Heb 9,15–18 is that in NT times Christ’s sacrificial death resulted in blessings by the removal of the curse provisions of the Sinai diathêkê” (284). 138. S. W. Hahn, “Covenant, Cult, and the Curse-of-Death: Διαθήκη in Hebrews 9:15–22,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods—New Insights (ed. Gabriella Gelardini; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 65–88. 139. Son’s monograph, Zion Symbolism in Hebrews, is particularly relevant to the contrast between the Mosaic/Old Covenant represented by Sinai, and the Davidic/New Covenant represented by Zion. Although the Sinai-Zion contrast is only drawn explicitly in Heb 12:18–24, Son shows that it is implicit throughout the epistle. 140. For a luminous discussion of all this, see F. C. Fensham, “The Curse of the Cross and the Renewal of the Covenant,” in Biblical Essays (Stellenbosch, S. Africa: University of Stellenbosch Press, 1966) 219–26. 141. There are also implicit, yet significant, kinship references and allusions. For example, in Heb 2:11 the statement ho te gar hagiazōn kai hoi hagiazomenoi ex henos pantes, “the sanctifier and the sanctified are from one,” probably should be taken in the sense, “are from one family” (cf. NIV). They are one family because they “share flesh and blood” and partake “in the same nature” (2:14). 142. The author’s quotation of Ps 8:4–6 (Heb 2:6–8) and his subsequent comments (vv. 8–9) draw a comparison and contrast, as we have seen, between Adam (mankind) and Jesus as referents of the “man” of Ps 8:4. Adam (mankind) was intended to be the (firstborn) Son with “everything in subjection to him,” but, because of the Fall, it has not happened (Heb 2:8). But Christ now fulfills that role and makes it available to all (Heb 2:9). 143. Vanhoye, Old Testament Priests, 50. See A. N. Chester, “The Final Sacrifice,” in Sacrifice and Redemption (ed. S. W. Sykes; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991) 57–72. 144. Vanhoye, Old Testament Priests, 53–54; he adds: “It is possible that the immolation of the lamb was in mind as well as the covenant sacrifice.” See A. Nairne, The Epistle of Priesthood (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1915) 18, who sees diathēkē in Heb 9:16–17 in connection with the Last Supper where the new covenant was ratified by “a sacramental representation of death on the part of him who transacts the covenant.” 145. Hughes (“Hebrews IX 15ff.,” 51) asks: “What was the source of the author’s concept of Christ’s death as both consummating the old and ratifying the new covenant? . . . Those who heard the Lord would have told their hearers about . . . the Last Supper and the meaning and significance of Christ’s death. . . . If it may be assumed that the recipients were Jews . . . then those who heard the Lord would surely

Notes to Pages 329–31  |  481 have correlated . . . Jesus’ covenantal interpretation of his forthcoming death (the words of the Last Supper) with that event itself.” 146. E. L. Mascall (Corpus Christi [London: Longmans, 1955] 109) notes that: “If from one point of view we are bound to say there is nothing about the Eucharist in the Epistle to the Hebrews, from another point of view we might almost say that the Epistle is about nothing else.” See J. Swetnam, “Christology and the Eucharist in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Bib 70 (1989) 74–95, esp. 74: “The hypothesis of the importance of the eucharist gives a coherence, relevance, and depth to the letter which is otherwise lacking.” J. E. Field (The Apostolic Liturgy and the Epistle to the Hebrews [London: Rivingtons, 1882]), provides a 600–page demonstration that there is “an unbroken thread of allusion” to the Eucharist “woven into the whole fabric of the apostle’s argument” (9). Cf. Nairne, Epistle of Priesthood, 359: “References [to the Eucharist] . . . are hardly ambiguous, and here too it would seem that this sacramental system of the Church was taken for granted.” 147. See Field, Apostolic Liturgy and Hebrews, 8–9: “His allusions to [the Eucharist] are rarely evident upon the surface of his words. . . . It cannot be without design that they are thus veiled over. We must infer that the system of concealing the Eucharistic mystery from unbelievers was already practised in the Apostolic age. . . . He alludes to it in such a way that only the fully instructed Christian can recognise it.” On the arcana disciplina among Jews in the first century, see J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1966): “The whole environment of primitive Christianity knows the element of the esoteric. . . . Although it has been generally recognized that this is true of the hellenistic world . . . we also find an arcane discipline in Palestine. . . . The newly discovered Essene texts have disposed of the last doubt concerning this” (125–26). Likewise, he notes: “The intention is that non-Christians should not understand the references,” thus the “conspicuous absence of any reference to the Eucharist” in Hebrews (134). 148. See Dunnill, Covenant and Sacrifice, 246–47; and J. Coppens, “The Church: The New Covenant of God with His People,” in The Birth of the Church: A Biblical Study (Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1968), 13–25: “[The] eucharistic setting is bound up so intimately with the notion of covenant that in Hebrews 9:20 the terms of the Old Covenant’s conclusion (Ex 24:8) are conveyed in words that seem to have been influenced by the eucharistic words the Church” (19). 149. Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff.,” 55–57. 150. For a more concentrated treatment of the presence and function of eucharistic allusions in the theological argument of Hebrews, see Daniel J. Brege, “Eucharistic Overtones Created by Sacrificial Concepts in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 66 (Jan 2002) 61–82; and J. Swetnam, “Christology and the Eucharist in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Bib 70 (1989) 75–78. 151. R. Williamson, “The Eucharist and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” NTS 21 (1975) 307. 152. Williamson, “Eucharist,” 310 153. Williamson, “Eucharist,” 312. 154. See J. H. Davies, A Letter to the Hebrews (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1967) 86. 155. See especially, from a Baptist perspective, D. J. Pursiful, The Cultic Motif in the Spirituality of the Book of Hebrews (Lewiston, NY: Mellen Biblical Press, 1993). Likewise, from a Reformed/Calvinist tradition, Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff.,” 51–57. Swetnam argues that “the greater and more perfect tent” refers to the Eucharist (“ ‘The

482  |  Notes to Pages 331–36 Greater and More Perfect Tent’: A Contribution to the Discussion of Hebrews 9,11,” Bib 47 [1966] 91–106). He builds upon A. Vanhoye (“ ‘Par la tente plus grande et plus ­parfaite . . .’ (Hé 9, 11),” Bib 46 (1965) 1–28) who argues that the tent refers to the resurrected, glorified, and enthroned body of Christ. See also P. Andriessen, “L’Eucharistie dans l’Épître aux Hébreux,” NRT 94 (1972) 269–77; S. Aalen, “Das Abendmahl als Opfermahl im Neuen Testament,” NovT 6 (1963) 128–52; O. Moe, “Das Abendmahl im Hebräerbrief,” StTh 4 (1951) 102–8. 156. B. Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981) 140–41: “Hebrews has constantly influenced the liturgical texts of the eucharist,” even “in some of the earliest liturgies. . . . It has even been suggested that the liturgies came first, and that Hebrews is quoting from them.” J. J. Gunther (Paul’s Opponents and Their Background: A Study of Apocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian Teachings [Leiden: Brill, 1973] 149) takes Heb 10:25 as a reference to the eucharistic assembly of the early Christians, absence from which was a grave offense (Heb 10:29). He also concurs with J. Betz that there is “a liturgical import in all these passages”: Heb 10:19–35, 12:22–25, 12:28; 13:12–13 (citing Betz, Die Eucharistie in der Zeit der griechischen Väter, Bd. II/I: Die Realpräsenz des Leibes und Blutes Jesu im Abendmahl nach dem Neuen Testament [Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1961] 154–66). 157. See K. Hein, Eucharist and Excommunication: A Study in Early Christian Doctrine and Discipline (New York: Peter Lang, 1973) 133–53, who recognizes the sacramental nature of covenant oaths and sacrifices in the ancient Jewish cultus, which he considers as a possible background to Hebrews. Chapter 11 CONCLUDING THEOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS 1. See Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), Many Religions—One Covenant (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999) 77.

bibliography Abbreviations follow the SBL Handbook of Style (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999) 68–152. Abegg, M. G. “The Covenant of the Qumran Sectarians,” in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Edited by S. E. Porter and J. C. R. de Roo. Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 81–98. Aberbach, M., and L. Smolar. “Aaron, Jeroboam, and the Golden Calves.” JBL 86 (1967): 129–40.     . “The Golden Calf Episode in Post-Biblical Judaism.” HUCA 39 (1968): 91–116. Ackerman, S. “The Personal Is Political: Covenantal and Affectionate Love (ʾĀHĒB, ʾAHĂBÂ) in the Hebrew Bible.” VT 52 (2002): 437–58. Agua, A. del. “The Lucan Narrative of the ‘Evangelization of the Kingdom of God’: A Contribution to the Unity of Luke–Acts,” in The Unity of Luke–Acts. Edited by J. Verheyden. Leuven: Peeters, 1999, pp. 639–62. Ahlström, G. W. “Der Prophet Nathan und der Tempelbau.” VT 11 (1961): 113–27.     . Psalm 89. Eine Liturgie aus dem Ritual des leidenden Königs. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1959. Albright, W. F. “Samuel and the Beginnings of the Prophetic Movement,” in Interpreting the Prophetic Tradition: The Goldenson Lectures, 1955–1966. Edited by H. M. Orlinsky. New York: KTAV, 1969, pp. 149–76. Alexander, P. S. “The Targumim and Early Exegesis of ‘Sons of God’ in Gen 6.” JJS 23 (1972): 60–71. Alexander, T. D. Abraham in the Negev: A Source-Critical Investigation of Genesis 20:1–22:19. Carlisle, U.K.: Paternoster 1997.     . “Abraham Reassessed Theologically,” in He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes from Genesis 12–50. Edited by R. S. Hess, G. J. Wenham, and P. E. Satterthwaite. Carlisle, U.K.: Paternoster, 1994, pp. 7–28.     . “From Adam to Judah: The Significance of the Family Tree in Genesis.” EvQ 61 (1989): 5–19.     . “Genesis 22 and the Covenant of Circumcision.” JSOT 25 (1983): 17–22.     . “A Literary Analysis of the Abraham Narrative in Genesis.” Ph.D. diss., The Queen’s University of Belfast, 1982. 483

484  |  Bibliography Allen, D. M. Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews. WUNT 2 238. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Allen, L. C. “Psalm 45:7–8 (6–7) in Old and New Testament Settings,” in Christ the Lord: Essays in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie. Edited by H. H. Rowdon. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982, pp. 220–42.     . “The Structuring of Ezekiel’s Revisionist History Lesson (Ezekiel 20:3– 31).” CBQ 54 (1992): 448–62. Allis, O. T. “The Blessing of Abraham.” Princeton Theological Review 25 (1927): 263–98. Allmen, D. von. La famille de Dieu: la symbolique familiale dans le paulinisme. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Alonso-Schökel, L. “Motivos sapienciales y de alianza en Gn 2–3.” Bib 43 (1962): 295–315. Alter, R. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. Andersen, F. I. “Israelite Kinship Terminology and Social Structure.” Bible Translator 20 (1969): 29–39. Andersen, F. I., and D. N. Freedman. Hosea. AYB 24. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press. Anderson, B. W. Creation Versus Chaos: The Reinterpretation of Mythical Symbolism in the Bible. New York: Association Press, 1967.     . “From Analysis to Synthesis: The Interpretation of Genesis 1–11.” JBL 97 (1978): 30–31.     . Understanding the Old Testament. 4th rev. ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: ­Prentice-Hall, 1986. Anderson, C. P. “Who Are the Heirs of the New Age in the Epistle to the Hebrews?,” in Apocalyptic and the New Testament. Edited by J. Marcus and M. L. Soards. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989, pp. 255–77. Anderson, G. A. Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel: Studies in Their Social and Political Importance. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Andreasen, N-E. A. “Genesis 14 in Its Near Eastern Context,” in Scripture in Context: Essays on the Comparative Method. Edited by C. D. Evans, W. W. Hallo, and J. B. White. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980, pp. 59–77. Andriolo, K. R. “A Structural Analysis of Genealogy and Worldview in the Old Testament.” American Anthropologist 75 (1973): 1657–69. Aquinas, T. Commentary on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. Albany, NY: Magi, 1966. Armerding, C. E. “Were David’s Sons Priests?” in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation. Edited by G. Hawthorne. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975, pp. 75–86. Arnold, W. R. Ephod and Ark: A Study in the Records and Religion of the Ancient Hebrews. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1917. Asensio, F. Misericordia et Veritas, el Hesed y ʾEmet divinos, su influjo religioso­social en la historia de Israel. Rome: Apus Aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1949.

Bibliography  |  485 Astour, M. C. “Political and Cosmic Symbolism in Gen 14 and Its Babylonian Sources,” in Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations. Edited by A. Altmann. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966, pp. 65–112. Attridge, H. W. Hebrews. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989. Baal, J. van. “Offering, Sacrifice, and Gift.” Numen 23 (1975): 161–78. Baaren, T. P. van. “Theoretical Speculations on Sacrifice.” Numen 11 (1964): 1–12. Bailey, K. E. Jacob and the Prodigal: How Jesus Retold Israel’s Story. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003. Bailey, L. R. “The Golden Calf.” HUCA 42 (1971): 97–15. Baker, C. J. Covenant and Liberation: Giving New Heart to God’s Endangered Family. New York: Peter Lang, 1991. Baker, D. L. Two Testaments, One Bible: A Study of the Theological Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments. Rev. ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991. Baltzer, K. The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.     . Das Bundesformular. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964. Bammel, E. “Gottes ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ (Gal. iii 15–17) und das jüdische Rechtsdenken.” NTS 6 (1959–60): 313–19. Bandstra, J. J. The Law and the Elements of the World: An Exegetical Study in Aspects of Paul’s Teaching. Kampen: Kok, 1964. Barclay, W. Jesus as They Saw Him: New Testament Interpretations of Jesus. London: SCM, 1962. Barker, M. The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem. London: SPCK, 1991.     . The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity. London: SPCK, 1987. Barr, J. “Reflections on the Covenant with Noah,” in Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson. Edited by A. D. H. Mayes and R. B. Salters. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 11–22.     . “Some Semantic Notes on Covenant,” in Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift Für Walther Zimmerli Zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by H. Donner, R. Hanhart, and R. Smend. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & ­Ruprecht, 1977, pp. 23–38. Barth, L. M. “Introducing the Akedah: A Comparison of Two Midrashic Presentations,” in A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature. Edited by P. R. Davies and R. T. White. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990, pp. 125–38. Barth, M. “The Old Testament in Hebrews,” in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Otto A. Piper. Edited by W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder. New York: Harper, 1962, pp. 53–78.     . Was Christ’s Death a Sacrifice? London: Oliver and Boyd, 1961. Barthélemy, D. God and His Image: An Outline of Biblical Theology. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966.

486  |  Bibliography Bartholomew, C., and M. W. Goheen. “Story and Biblical Theology,” in Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation. Edited by C. Bartholomew et al. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004, pp. 144–171. Bartlett, J. R. “Zadok and His Successors at Jerusalem.” JTS 19 (1968): 1–18. Barton, J. “Covenant in Old Testament Theology,” in Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson. Edited by A. D. H. Mayes and R. B. Salters. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 23–38. Barton, S. C. “The Unity of Humankind as a Theme in Biblical Theology,” in Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation. Edited by C. Bartholomew et al. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004, pp. 233–58. Bassett, F. W. “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan: A Case of Incest.” VT 21 (1971): 232–37. Bateman, H. W. “Psalm 110:1 and the New Testament.” BibSac 149 (1992): 438–53. Batto, B. F. “The Covenant of Peace: A Neglected Ancient Near Eastern Motif.” CBQ 49 (1987): 187–211. Bauckham, R. “Anna of the Tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36–38).” RB 104 (1997): 161–91.     . “James and the Jerusalem Church,” in The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Vol 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Edited by R. Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995, pp. 415–80. Beale, G. K. “Did Jesus and His Followers Preach the Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? An Examination of the Presuppositions of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ Exegetical Method.” Themelios 14 (1989): 89–96. Beasley-Murray, G. R. “The Kingdom of God and Christology in the Gospels,” in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ. Edited by J. B. Green and M. Turner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994, pp. 22–36. Beauchamp, P. “Propositions sur l’Alliance de l’Ancien Testament comme structure Centrale.” RSR 28 (1970): 161–93. Bechard, D. P. “The Theological Significance of Judea in Luke–Acts,” in The Unity of Luke–Acts. Edited by J. Verheyden. Leuven: Peeters, 1999, pp. 675–91. Becker, J. Gottesfurcht im Alten Testament. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965. Becker, O. “Covenant.” NIDNTT 1:365–76. Beckwith, R. T. “The Unity and Diversity of God’s Covenants.” TB 38 (1987): 93–118. Bee, R. E. “The Textual Analysis of Psalm 132: A Response to C. B. Houk.” JSOT 6 (1978): 49–53. Beeston, A. F. L. “One Flesh.” VT 36 (1986): 15–17. Begg, C. T. “The Destruction of the Calf (Exod 32,20/Deut 9,21),” in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft. Edited by N. Lohfink. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985, pp. 208–51. Behm, J. “Διαθήκη.” TDNT 2:131–32. Beitzel, B. J. “The Right of the Firstborn (Pî Šnayim) in the Old Testament,” in Essays on the Old Testament: A Tribute to Gleason Archer. Edited by W. C. Kaiser­ and R. F. Youngblood. Chicago: Moody, 1986, pp. 179–90.

Bibliography  |  487 Beker, J. C. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Bellefontaine, E. “The Curses of Detueronomy 27,” in No Famine in the Land: Studies in Honor of John L. McKenzie. Edited by J. W. Flanigan and A. W. Robinson.­ Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975, pp. 49–61.     . “Deuteronomy 21:18–21: Reviewing the Case of the Rebellious Son.” JSOT 13 (1979): 13–31. Ben-Barak, Z. “The Mizpah Covenant (I Sam 10:25): The Source of the Israelite Monarchic Covenant.” ZAW 91 (1979): 30–43. Benin, S. D. “Commandments, Covenants and the Jews in Aphrahat, Ephrem, and Jacob of Sarug,” in Approaches to Judaism in Medieval Times. Vol. 1. Edited by D. R. Blumenthal. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984, pp. 135–56.     . “The ‘Cunning of God’ and Divine Accommodation.” Journal of the History of Ideas 45 (1984): 179–91.     . Footprints of God: Divine Accommodation in Jewish and Christian Thought. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1993.     . “Sacrifice as Education in Augustine and Chrysostom,” CH 52 (1983): 7–20. Benno, J. Das Erste Buch der Tora—Genesis. Berlin: Schocken, 1934. Benoit, P. “Le Recít de la cène dans Luc xxii, 15–20.” RB 48 (1939): 357–93. Bentzen, A. Die Josianische Reform und ihre Voraussetzung. Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gad, 1926. Bergen, R. D. “The Role of Genesis 22.1–19 in the Abraham Cycle: A ComputerAssisted Textual Interpretation.” CTR 4 (1990): 322–24. Berkovits, E. “Jewish Universalism,” in History and the Idea of Mankind. Edited by W. Wagar. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1971, pp. 47–71. Bernard, J. “Deification and Alienation: Non-Biblical Terms in the Light of Biblical Revelation,” in Studia Biblica 1978. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979, pp. 27–39. Betz, H. D. Galatians. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Beyerlin, W. Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions. Translated by S. Rudman. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965. Bigger, S. F. “The Family Laws of Leviticus 18 in Their Setting.” JBL 98 (1979): 187–203. Black, M. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967. Blank, S. “The Curse, Blasphemy, the Spell and the Oath.” HUCA 23 (1950–51): 73–95. Blenkinsopp, J. A History of Prophecy in Israel: From the Settlement in the Land to the Hellenistic Period. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983.     . The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1992.     . Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977. Blocher, H. In the Beginning. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984.

488  |  Bibliography Block, D. I. “Israel’s House: Reflections on the Use of BYT YSRʾL in the Old Testament in the Light of its Ancient Near Eastern Environment.” JETS 28 (1985): 257–75.     . “My Servant David: Ancient Israel’s Vision of the Messiah,” in Israel’s Messiah in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by R. S. Hess and M. D. Carroll R. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003, pp. 17–56. Bock, D. L. Luke 1:1–9:50. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.     . Luke 9:51–24:53. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.     . Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.     . “Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Luke’s Use of the Old Testament for Christology and Mission,” in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by C. A. Evans and W. R. Stegner. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999, pp. 293–94. Boecker, H. “Anmerkungen zur Adoption im Alten Testament.” ZAW 86 (1974): 86–89.     . Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient East. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980. Boers, H. The Justification of the Gentiles: Paul’s Letter to the Galatians and Romans. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Boling, R. “Levitical History and the Role of Joshua,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983, pp. 241–61. Bonnefoy, J.-F. Christ and the Cosmos. Patterson, NJ: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1965. Bonora, A. “La promessa-impegno di Dio con il mondo (Gen. 9,8–17). Proposta distruttura letteraria.” TIS 7 (1982): 37–45. Booij, T. “Psalm CX: ‘Rule in the Midst of Your Foes.’ ” VT 41 (1991): 396–406. Boorer, S. The Promise of the Land as Oath: A Key to the Formation of the Pentateuch. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1992. Bori, P. C. The Golden Calf and the Origins of the Anti-Jewish Controversy. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Bossman, D. “Ezra’s Marriage Reform: Israel Redefined.” BTB 9 (1979): 32–38. Bousset, W. Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus. Nashville: Abingdon, 1970. Bouyer, L. The Spirituality of the New Testament. New York: Desclee, 1960.     . “The Two Economies of Divine Government: Satan and Christ,” in God and His Creation. Edited by A. M. Henry. Chicago: Fides, 1955, pp. 465–97. Bowker, J. W. “Psalm CX.” VT 17 (1967): 31–41. Boyarin, D. A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Braswell, J. P. “ ‘The Blessing of Abraham’ Versus ‘The Curse of the Law’: Another Look at Gal 3:10–13.” WTJ 53 (1991): 73–91.

Bibliography  |  489 Brawley, R. L. “Abrahamic Covenant Traditions and the Characterization of God in Luke–Acts,” in The Unity of Luke–Acts. Edited by J. Verheyden. Leuven: Peeters, 1999, pp. 109–32.     . “Discoursive Structure and the Unseen in Hebrews 2:8 and 11:1: A Neglected Aspect of the Context.” CBQ 55 (1993): 81–98.     . Text to Text Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke–Acts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995. Breitbart, S. “The Akedah—A Test of God.” Dor le Dor 15 (1986–87): 19–28. Brekelmans, C. “Deuteronomy 5: Its Place and Function,” in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft. Edited by N. Lohfink. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985, pp. 164–73.     . “Psalm 132: Unity and Structure.” Bijdragen 44 (1983): 262–65. Bretscher, P. G. “The Covenant of Blood,” CTM 25 (1954): 1–27, 109–25, 199–209. Brewer, D. I. Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis Before 70 C.E. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992. Brichto, H. C. “Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife—A Biblical Complex.” HUCA 44 (1979): 1–54.     . The Names of God: Poetic Readings in Biblical Beginnings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.     . Toward a Grammar of Biblical Poetics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.     . “The Worship of the Golden Calf: A Literary Analysis of a Fable on Idolatry.” HUCA 54 (1983): 1–44. Briggs, C. A. Messianic Prophecy: The Predicition of the Fulfillment of Redemption Through the Messiah. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1886. Bright, J. Covenant and Promise: The Prophetic Understanding of the Future in PreExilic Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976.     . “An Exercise in Hermeneutics: Jeremiah 31:31–34.” Int 20 (1966): 88–210. Bring, R. Commentary on Galatians. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1961. Brinsmead, R. B. H. Galatians—A Dialogical Response to Opponents. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982. Brock, S. The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem the Syrian. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1992. Brodie, T. L. Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Brooks, O. S. The Drama of Decision: Baptism in the New Testament. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1987. Brooks, W. E. “The Perpetuity of Christ’s Sacrifice in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” JBL 89 (1970): 205–14. Brown, J. Hebrews. London: Banner of Truth, 1976. Brown, J. P. “The Role of Women and the Treaty in the Ancient World.” BZ 25 (1981): 1–28. Brown, R. “Communicating the Divine and Human in Scripture.” Origins 22.1 (1992): 5–6.

490  |  Bibliography Bruce, F. F. “The Curse of the Law,” in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett. Edited by M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson. London: SPCK, 1982, pp. 27–36.     . “The Davidic Messiah in Luke–Acts,” in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor. Edited by G. A. Tuttle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978, pp. 7–17.     . The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.     . The Epistle to the Hebrews. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Bruggemann, W. “The Covenanted Family: A Zone for Humanness.” Journal of Current Social Issues 14 (1977): 18–23.     . The Covenanted Self: Explorations in Law and Covenant. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999.     . “Covenanting as Human Vocation.” Int 33 (1979): 115–29.     . “Israel’s Social Criticism and Yahweh’s Sexuality.” JAAR 45 (1977): 739–72.     . “Of the Same Flesh and Bone.” CBQ 32 (1970): 532–42. Buber, M., and Rowley, H. H. “Priests and Levites in Deuteronomy.” VT 12 (1962): 129–38. Buccellati, G. Cities and Nations of Ancient Syria: An Essay on Political Institutions with Special Reference to the Israelite Kingdoms. Rome: Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente, 1967. Buchanan, G. W. “The Covenant in Legal Context,” in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Edited by S. E. Porter and J. C. R. de Roo. Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 27–52.     . To the Hebrews. AYB 36. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press. Büchler, A. “Family Purity and Family Impurity in Jerusalem Before the Year 70 C.E.,” in Studies in Jewish History: The Buchler Memorial Volume. Edited by I. Brodie and J. Rabbinowitz. London: Oxford University Press, 1956, pp. 64–98. Buis, P. “Deutéronome XXVII 15–26: malédictions ou exigences de l’alliance?” VT 17 (1967): 478–79.     . “Les formulaires d’alliance.” VT 16 (1966): 396–411.     . “La Nouvelle Alliance.” VT 18 (1968): 1–15. Burch, V. The Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Williams & Norgate, 1936. Burke, T. J. Adopted into God’s Family: Exploring a Pauline Metaphor. NSBT 22. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006. Burnaby, J. “The Divine Sonship,” JTS 45 (1944): 129–35. Burrow, J. A. The Ages of Man: A Study in Medieval Writing and Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. Burton, E. D. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921. Buss, M. J. “The Covenant Theme in Historical Perspective.” VT 16 (1966): 503–4. Butler, T. C. Joshua. Waco, TX: Word, 1983.

Bibliography  |  491 Byrne, B. ‘Sons of God’—‘Seed of Abraham’: A Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of All Christians in Paul Against the Jewish Background. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979. Caird, G. B. “The Exegetical Method of Hebrews.” CJT 5 (1959): 44–510.     . “Just Men Made Perfect.” London Quarterly and Holborn Review 35 (1966): 89–98.     . “Son by Appointment,” in The New Testament Age. Vol. 1. Edited by W. C. Weinrich. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1984, pp. 73–81. Calder, W. M. “Adoption and Inheritance in Galatia.” JTS 31 (1930): 372–74. Calderone, P. J. Dynastic Oracle and Suzerainty Treaty. Logos 1. Manila: Loyola House of Studies, 1966. Callan, T. “Paul and the Golden Calf.” Proceedings of the Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies 10 (1990): 1–17.     . “Pauline Midrash: The Exegetical Background of Gal 3:19b.” JBL 99 (1980): 549–67. Campbell, A. F. The Ark Narrative (1 Sam 4–6; 2 Sam 6): A Form-Critical and ­Traditio-Historical Study. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975.     . “Yahweh and the Ark: A Case Study in Narrative.” JBL 98 (1970): 31–43. Campbell, K. M. “Covenant or Testament? Heb. ix 16, 17 Reconsidered.” EvQ 44 (1972): 107–11. Carlson, R. A. David the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksells, 1964. Carmichael, C. M. Law and Narrative in the Bible: The Evidence of the Deuteronomic Laws and the Decalogue. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985.     . The Laws of Deuteronomy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974. Carmona, A. R. “La figura de Melquisedec en la literatura targúmica.” EstBib 37 (1978): 79–102. Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Translated by I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967.     . A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. 2 vols. Translated by I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1978. Cathcart, K. J. “Treaty Curses and the Book of Nahum.” CBQ 35 (1973): 179–87. Cavallin, H. C. C. “The Righteous Shall Live by Faith.” ST 32 (1978): 33–48. Cazelles, H. “Biblical Messianism,” in Studia Biblica I. Edited by E. A. Livingstone. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979, pp. 49–58.     . “Shiloh, the Customary Laws and the Return of the Ancient Kings,” in Proclamation and Presence. Edited by J. I. Durham and J. R. Porter. Richmond: John Knox, 1970, pp. 239–51.     . “Les structures successives de la ‘berît’ dans l’Ancien Testament.” Bulletin du Centre Protestant d’Etudes 3 (1984): 33–46. Cessario, R. Christian Satisfaction in Aquinas: Towards a Personalistic Understanding. Washington, DC: UPA, 1982.     . The Godly Image: Christ and Salvation in Catholic Thought from Anselm to Aquinas. Petersham, MA: St. Bede’s, 1990.

492  |  Bibliography Chance, J. B. Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age in Luke–Acts. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988. Charles, J. D. “The Angels, Sonship and Birthright in the Letter to the Hebrews.” JETS 33 (1990): 171–78. Chazan, R., W. W. Hallo, and L. H. Schiffman, eds. Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Chenderlin, F. “Do This as My Memorial.” Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1982. Chertok, H. “The Life and Death of Abram the Doubter.” Judaism 33 (1984): 458–64. Chester, A. Messiah and Exaltation. WUNT 207. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Chester, A. N. “The Final Sacrifice,” in Sacrifice and Redemption. Edited by S. W. Sykes. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 57–72. Childs, B. S. Biblical Theology in Crisis. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970.     . Exodus: A Critical, Exegetical Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974.     . Memory and Tradition in Israel. Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1962.     . Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.     . “Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis.” JSS 16 (1971): 137–50. Chirichigno, G. C. “The Narrative Structure of Exod 19–24.” Bib 68 (1987): 457–79. Christensen, D. L. “Form and Structure in Deuteronomy 1–11,” in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft. Edited by N. Lohfink. Leuven: University Press, 1985, pp. 135–44. Christensen, E. J. The Covenant in Judaism and Paul: A Study of Ritual Boundaries as Identity Markers. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Clark, A. C. “The Role of the Apostles,” in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts. Edited by I. H. Marshall and D. Peterson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998, pp. 169–90. Clark, W. M. “The Flood and the Structure of the Prepatriarchal History.” ZAW 83 (1971): 205–10.     . “The Righteousness of Noah.” VT 21 (1971): 261–80. Clements, R. E. Abraham and David: Genesis 15 and Its Meaning for Israelite Tradition. Studies in Biblical Theology (second series) 5. London: SCM, 1967.     . “Baal-Berith of Shechem.” JSS 13 (1968): 21–32.     . “The Davidic Covenant in the Isaiah Tradition,” in Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson. Edited by A. D. H. Mayes and R. B. Salters. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 39–70.     . God and Temple: The Idea of the Divine Presence in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965.     . Isaiah 1–39. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1980.     . Prophecy and Covenant. London: SCM, 1965. Clifford, R. J. “Psalm 89: A Lament over the Davidic Ruler’s Continued Failure.” HTR 73 (1980): 35–47.

Bibliography  |  493 Coats, G. W. “Abraham’s Sacrifice of Faith: A Form-Critical Study of Genesis 22.” Int 27 (1973): 389–400.     . “The King’s Loyal Opposition: Obedience and Authority in Exodus 32– 34,” in Canon and Authority. Edited by G. W. Coats and B. O. Long. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977, pp. 91–109.     . Rebellion in the Wilderness. New York: Abingdon, 1968. Cockerill, G. L. “The Melchizedek Christology of Heb 7:1–28.” Th.D. diss, Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, 1976. Cody, A. “Exodus 18, 12: Jethro Accepts a Covenant with the Israelites.” Biblica 49 (1968): 153–66.     . Heavenly Sanctuary in the Epistle to the Hebrews. St. Meinrad, IN: Grail, 1960.     . A History of Old Testament Priesthood. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969. Cogan, C. Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah, and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974. Cogan, M., B. L. Eichler, and J. H. Tigay, eds. Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Cohen, C., A. Hurvitz, and S. M. Paul, eds. Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Coleran, J. E. “The Sacrifice of Melchisedech.” TS 1 (1940): 27–36. Collier, G. D. “The Problem of Deuteronomy: In Search of a Perspective.” RQ 26 (1983): 215–33. Collins, C. J. “Galatians 3:16: What Kind of Exegete Was Paul?” TynBul 54 (2003): 75–86. Collins, J. J. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Congar, Y. The Revelation of God. New York: Herder and Herder, 1968. Cook, J. I. “The Concept of Adoption in the Theology of Paul,” in Saved by Hope. Edited by J. I. Cook. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978, pp. 133–44. Cooke, G. “The Israelite King as Son of God.” ZAW 73 (1961): 202–25.     . “The Sons of (the) God(s).” ZAW 76 (1964): 22–47. Cooper, A. M. “The Life and Times of King David According to the Book of Psalms,” in The Poet and the Historian. Edited by R. E. Friedman. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983, pp. 117–31. Copeland, E. C. “The Covenant: The Key to Understanding the Bible,” in The Book of Books: Essays on the Scripture in Honor of Johannes G. Vos. Edited by J. H. White. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978, pp. 29–37. Coppens, J. “The Church, the New Covenant of God with His People,” in The Birth of the Church: A Biblical Study. Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1968, pp. 13–25.     . “La Nouvelle Alliance en Jér 31.” CBQ 25 (1963): 12–21.     . “Old Testament Priesthood,” in Priesthood and Celibacy. Rome: Ancora, 1972, pp. 3–30.

494  |  Bibliography Cosgrove, C. H. “Arguing Like a Mere Human Being: Galatians 3:15–18 in Rhetorical Perspective.” NTS 34 (1988): 536–49.     . “The Mosaic Law Preaches Faith: A Study in Galatians 3.” WTJ 39 (1977): 146–64. Craigie, P. C. The Book of Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. Cranfield, C. E. B. “ ‘The Works of the Law’ in the Epistle to the Romans.” JSNT 43 (1991): 89–101. Crenshaw, J. “Journey into Oblivion: A Structural Analysis of Gen 22, 1–19.” Soundings 58 (1975): 243–56. Cross, F. M. The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961.     . Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.     . “Kinship and Covenant in Ancient Israel,” in From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Crow, P. A. “The Covenant as an Ecumenical Paradigm,” Austin Seminary Bulletin 96 (1981): 60–72. Cruz, F. C. da. “God’s Covenant with Man: Basis of Biblical Spirituality,” Indian Theological Studies 16 (1979): 298–325. Dahl, N. “The Atonement—An Adequate Reward for the Akedah?” in Neotestamentica et Semitica. Edited by E. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969, pp. 15–29.     . Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977. Dahms, J. V. “The First Readers of Hebrews.” JETS 20 (1977): 365–75. Dahood, M. Psalms I. AYB 16. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press. Daly, R. J. “The Soteriological Significance of the Sacrifice of Isaac.” CBQ 39 (1978): 45–75. Damrosch, D. The Narrative Covenant. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. D’Angelo, M. R. Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979. Danielou, J. The Angels and Their Mission. Westminster, MD: Newman, 1957.     . From Shadows to Reality: Studies in the Typology of the Fathers. London: Burns and Oates, 1960. Daniels, D. R. Hosea and Salvation History. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1990. Das, A. A. Paul, the Law, and the Covenant. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001. Daube, D. “Concessions to Sinfulness in Jewish Law.” JJS 10 (1959): 1–13.     . Studies in Biblical Law. New York: KTAV, 1969. Davenport, J. W. “A Study of the Golden Calf Tradition in Exodus 32.” Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1973. Davidson, R. “Covenant Ideology in Ancient Israel,” in The World of Ancient Israel. Edited by R. E. Clements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, pp. 323–47.

Bibliography  |  495 Davidson, R. M. Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical Tupos Structures. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981. Davies, D. “An Interpretation of Sacrifice in Leviticus.” ZAW 89 (1977): 387–99. Davies, E. W. “Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage.” VT 31 (1981): 138–44, 257–67.     . Prophecy and Ethics: Isaiah and the Ethical Tradition of Israel. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. Davies, G. “Covenant, Oath, and the Composition of the Pentateuch,” in Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson. Edited by A. D. H. Mayes and R. B. Salters. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 71–90. Davies, G. H. “The Ark in the Psalms,” in Promise and Fulfilment. Edited by F. F. Bruce. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963, pp. 51–61. Davies, J. H. A Letter to the Hebrews. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Davies, P. R., and B. D. Chilton, “The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition History.” CBQ 40 (1978): 514–46. Davies, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.     . Torah in the Messianic Age. Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1952. Day, J. “Pre-Deuteronomic Allusions to the Covenant in Hosea and Psalm LXXVIII.” VT 36 (1986): 1–12. De Boer, P. A. H. Fatherhood and Motherhood in Israelite and Judaean Piety. Leiden: Brill, 1974.     . “The Son of God in the Old Testament.” OTS 18 (1973): 188–207. De Fraine, J. Adam and the Family of Man. Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1965. De Geus, C. H. J. The Tribes of Israel. Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1976. De Jonge, M., and A. S. van der Woude. “11Q Melchizedek and the New Testament.” NTS 12 (1965–66): 301–26. Dell, K. J. “Covenant and Creation in Relationship,” in Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson. Edited by A. D. H. Mayes and R. B. Salters. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 111–34. Demarest, B. History of Interpretation of Hebrews 7, 1–10 from the Reformation to the Present. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1976. Dennison, C. G. “Thoughts on the Covenant,” in Pressing Toward the Mark. Edited by C. G. Dennison and R. C. Gamble. Philadelphia: Committee for the Historian of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1986, pp. 7–21. Denova, R. I. Things Accomplished among Us: Prophetic Tradition in the Structural Pattern of Luke–Acts. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. De Quekker, L. “Noah and Israel: The Everlasting Divine Covenant with Mankind,” in Questions disputées d’Ancien Testament. Edited by C. Brekelmans. Louvain: University of Louvain Press, 1974, pp. 115–29. DeSilva, D. A. Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.     . Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “To the Hebrews.” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

496  |  Bibliography Deurloo, K. A. “ ‘Because You Have Hearkened to My Voice’: Genesis 22,” in Voices from Amsterdam: A Modern Tradition of Reading Biblical Narrative. Edited by M. Kessler. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994, pp. 113–30. De Vries, S. “Deuteronomy: Exemplar of a Non-Sacerdotal Appropriation of Sacred History,” in Grace upon Grace. Edited by J. Cook. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975, pp. 95–105.     . “The Development of the Deuteronomic Promulgation Formula.” Bib 55 (1974): 301–26.     . “A Reply to G. Gerlemann on Malkê Hesed in 1 Kings XX 31.” VT 29 (1979): 359–62.     . “A Review of Recent Research in the Tradition History of the Pentateuch,” in Society of Biblical Literature: 1987 Seminar Papers. Edited by K. H. Richards. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987, pp. 459–502. Dey, L. K. The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974. Dillard, R. G. “David’s Census: Perspectives on II Samuel 24 and I Chronicles 21,” in Through Christ’s Word. Edited by W. R. Godfrey, and J. L. Boyd. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1985, pp. 94–107. Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1953. Donaldson, M. E. “Kinship Theory in the Patriarchal Narratives.” JAAR 49 (1981): 77–87. Donaldson, T. L. “The ‘Curse of the Law’ and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians 3.13–14.” NTS 32 (1986): 94–112. Donner, H. “Adoption oder Legitimation? Erwäungen zur Adoption im Alten Testament auf dem Hintergrund der altorientalischen Rechte.” Oriens Antiquus 8 (1969): 87–119. Douglas, M. L. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. 2nd ed. New York/ London: Routledge, 1996.     . Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. New York/London: Routledge, 1966. Driver, S. R. Exodus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911.     . Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913. Duke, R. K. “The Portion of the Levite: Another Reading of Deuteronomy 18:6–8.” JBL 106 (1987): 193–201. Duling, D. C. “Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of Man.” HTR 68 (1975): 235–52. Dumbrell, W. J. Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1984.     . “The Covenant with Noah.” Reformed Theological Review 38 (1979): 1–7, 8.     . “Creation, Covenant and Work.” Evangelical Review of Theology 13 (1989): 137–56.     . “The Davidic Covenant.” Reformed Theological Review 39 (1980): 40–47.

Bibliography  |  497     . “Malachi and the Ezra-Nehemiah Reforms.” Reformed Theological Review 35 (1976): 42–52.     . “Midian: A Land or a League?” VT 25 (1975): 325–37.     . “The Midianites and Their Transjordanian Successors.” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1970.     . “The Prospect of Unconditionality in the Sinaitic Covenant,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison. Edited by A. Gileadi. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988, pp. 141–55. Dumortier, J.-B. “Un rituel d’intronisation: Le Ps. lxxxix 2–38.” VT 22 (1972): 176–96. Dunn, J. D. G. Christology in the Making. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980.     . “Did Paul Have a Covenant Theology? Reflections on Romans 9.4 and 11.27,” in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Edited by S. E. Porter and J. C. R. de Roo. Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 287–307.     . The Epistle to the Galatians (London: A. & C. Black, 1993)     . “The Incident at Antioch (Gal. 2:11–18).” JSNT 18 (1983): 3–57.     . Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. Louisville: ­Westminster/John Knox, 1990.     . “The Justice of God.” JTS 43 (1992): 1–22.     . “The New Perspective on Paul.” BJRL 65 (1983): 95–122.     . The Parting of the Ways. Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1991.     . “ ‘Righteouness from the Law’ and ‘Righteousness from Faith’: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture in Romans 10:1–10,” in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament. Edited by G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987, pp. 216–28.     . Romans 1–8. 2 vols. Waco, TX: Word, 1988.     . “The Theology of Galatians: The Issue of Covenantal Nomism,” in Pauline Theology. Vol. 1. Edited by J. M. Bassler. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991, pp. 125–46.     . “Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law.” NTS 31 (1985): 523–42.     . “Yet Once More—‘The Works of the Law’: A Response.” JSNT 46 (1992): 99–117. Dunnill, J. Covenant and Sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Durrwell, F. X. The Resurrection: A Biblical Study. Translated by R. Sheed. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1960. Eck, J. Enchiridion of Commonplaces. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. Edgar, S. L. “Respect for Context in Quotations from the Old Testament.” NTS 9 (1962–63): 56–59. Eichrodt, W. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970.     . “Prophet and Covenant: Observations on the Exegesis of Isaiah,” in Proclamation and Presence. Edited by J. I. Durham and J. R. Porter. Richmond: John Knox, 1970, pp. 167–88.     . Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975.

498  |  Bibliography Eilander, S. David and His God. Jerusalem: Simor, 1991. Eissfeldt, O. The Old Testament: An Introduction. New York: Harper & Row, 1965.     . “Protektorat der Midianiter über ihre Nachbaren in letzten Viertel des 2. Jahrtausends v. chr.” JBL 87 (1968): 383–93. Eller, V. The Promise: Ethics in the Kingdom of God. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970. Ellingworth, P. Commentary on Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Ellis, E. E. The Old Testament in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992. Ellis, P. F. The Yahwist: The Bible’s First Theologian. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1968. Ellis, R. R. “An Examination of the Covenant Promises of Exodus 19:5–6 and Their Theological Significance for Israel.” Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1988. Emeghara, N. L. “A Critical Examination of the Circumcision Account of Genesis 17,” Bible Bhashyam 20 (1994): 280–89. Emerton, J. A. “Priests and Levites in Deuteronomy. An Examination of G. E. Wright’s Theory.” VT 12 (1962): 129–38.     . “The Riddle of Genesis XIV.” VT 21 (1971): 403–39.     . “The Site of Salem, the City of Melchizedek (Gen XIV 18).” VTSup 41 (1990): 45–71.     . “Some False Clues in the Study of Genesis XIV.” VT 21 (1971): 24–47.     . “Some Problems in Genesis XIV.” VTSup 41 (1990): 73–102. Endres, J. C. Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1987. Engnell, I. Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1943. Epsztein, L. Social Justice in the Ancient Near East and the People of the Bible. London: SCM, 1986. Erdmann, C. F. D. The Books of Samuel. New York: Scribner, Armstrong, 1877. Esler, P. F., ed. Modelling Early Christianity: Social-Scientific Study of the New Testament in Its Context. London: Routledge, 1995. Evans, C. A. “Covenant in the Qumran Literature,” in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Edited by S. E. Porter and J. C. R. de Roo. Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 55–80.     . “The Twelve Thrones of Israel: Scripture and Politics in Luke 22:24–30,” in Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke–Acts. Edited by C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993, pp. 154–70. Evans, C. A., and J. A. Sanders, eds. Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke–Acts. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Evans, C. A., and W. R. Stegner, eds. The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Eynde, S. van den. “Children of the Promise: On the Διαθήκη-Promise to Abraham in Lk 1,72 and Acts 3,25,” in The Unity of Luke–Acts. Edited by J. Verheyden. Leuven: Peeters, 1999, pp. 470–82.

Bibliography  |  499 Faley, R. J. Bonding with God: A Reflective Study of Biblical Covenant. New York: Paulist, 1997.     . “The Importance of the Covenant Conception in the Old Testament Religion,” in Rediscovery of Scripture: Biblical Theology Today. Burlington, WI: St. Francis College Press, 1967, pp. 37–54. Farmer, W. F. “The Patriarch Phinehas.” ATR 34 (1952): 26–30. Farris, S. The Hymns of Luke’s Infancy Narratives: Their Origin, Meaning, and Significance. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Farris, T. V. Mighty to Save: A Study in Old Testament Soteriology. Nashville: Broadman, 1993. Fee, G. D. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Feinberg, J., ed. Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments. Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988. Fensham, F. C. “The Battle Between the Men of Joab and Abner as a Possible Ordeal by Battle.” VT 20 (1970): 356–57.     . “Belt-Wrestling in the Bible World.” HUCA 23 (1950–51): 131–36.     . “The Burning of the Golden Calf and Ugarit.” IEJ 16 (1966): 191–93.     . “Clauses of Protection in Hittite Vassal-Treaties and the Old Testament.” VT 13 (1963): 133–43.     . “Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties and Kudurru Inscriptions Compared with Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah.” ZAW 75 (1965): 155–75.     . “The Covenant as Giving Expression to the Relationship Between the Old and New Testament,” TynBul 22 (1971): 82–94.     . “Covenant, Promise, and Expectation in the Bible,” TZ 23 (1967): 305–22.     . “The Curse of the Cross and the Renewal of the Coveant.” Biblical Essays: Proceedings of the Ninth Meeting of Die Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika. Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch Press, 1966, pp. 219–26.     . “Did a Treaty Between the Israelites and the Kenites Exist?” BASOR 175 (1964): 51–54.     . “Father and Son as Terminology for Treaty and Covenant,” in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Edited by H. Goedicke. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971, pp. 121–35.     . “Malediction and Benediction in Ancient Near Eastern Vassal-Treaties and the Old Testament.” ZAW 74 (1962): 1–9.     . “Oath,” ISBE2 3:572–74.     . “Ordeal by Battle in the Ancient Near East and in the Old Testament,” in Studi in onore di Eduardo Volterra. Milan: University of Rome Faculty of Jurisprudence, 1971, pp. 127–35.     . “The Treaty Between Israel and the Gibeonites.” BA 27 (1964): 96–100. Ferguson, E. F. “The Covenant Idea in the Second Century,” in Texts and Testaments: Critical Essays on the Bible and Early Church Fathers. Edited by W. E. March. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1980, pp. 135–62.

500  |  Bibliography Feuillet, A. “Les points de vue nouveaux dans l’eschatologie de l’Epître aux Hébreux,” in Studia Evangelica 2 (1964): 369–87. Field, J. E. The Apostolic Liturgy and the Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Rivingtons, 1882. Finnegan, J. Myth and Mystery: An Introduction to the Pagan Religions of the Biblical World. Grand Rapids, Baker, 1989. Fisch, H. “The Analogy of Nature: A Note on the Structure of Old Testament Imagery.” JTS 6 (1955): 161–73. Fishbane, M. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.     . “Revelation and Tradition: Aspects of Inner-Biblical Exegesis.” JBL 99 (1980): 343–61.     . Text and Texture: Close Readings of Biblical Texts. New York: Schocken, 1979. Fisher, L. “Abraham and His Priest-King.” JBL 81 (1962): 264–70. Fitzgerald, J. T. “The Problem of Perjury in a Greek Context: Prolegomena to an Exegesis of Matthew 5:33, 1 Timothy 1:10, and Didache 2.3,” in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks. Edited by L. M. White and O. L. Yarbrough. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1995, pp. 156–77. Fitzmyer, J. A. The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I: A Commentary. Rev. ed. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971.     . The Gospel According to Luke 1–9. AYB 28. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press.     . The Gospel According to Luke 10–24. AYB 28A. New York: Doubleday, 1985; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press.     . “ ‘Now This Melchizedek . . .’ (Heb 7:10).” CBQ 25 (1963): 305–21.     . “The Role of the Spirit in Luke–Acts,” in The Unity of Luke–Acts. Edited by J. Verheyden. Leuven: Peeters, 1999, pp. 165–84. Flanagan, J. W. “Chiefs in Israel.” JSOT 20 (1981): 47–73.     . “Social Transformation and Ritual in 2 Samuel 6,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth. Edited by C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983, pp. 361–72. Flanagan, N. M. “The Covenant and How It Grew,” AER 143 (1960): 145–56. Florovsky, G. Creation and Redemption. Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1976. Floyd, M. H. “Psalm LXXXIX: A Prophetic Complaint about the Fulfillment of an Oracle.” VT 42 (1992): 442–57. Fohrer, G. Theologische Grundstrukturen des Alten Testaments. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1972. Fokkelman, J. P. “On the Mount of the Lord There Is Vision,” in Signs and Wonders: Biblical Texts in Literary Focus. Edited by C. Exum. Decatur, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1989, pp. 41–57.     . “Time and the Structure of the Abraham Cycle.” VTSup 25 (1989): 96–109. Fonseca, L. G. da. “Διαθηκη: Foedus an Testamentum?” Bib 8 (1927): 31–50, 161– 81, 290–319, 418–41; Bib 9 (1928): 26–40, 143–60.

Bibliography  |  501 Forestell, J. T. Targumic Traditions and the New Testament. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1979. Forte, B. The Church: Icon of the Trinity. Boston: DSP, 1991. Fortes, M. Kinship and the Social Order. Chicago: Aldine, 1969. Fossum, J. E. The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1985. Fox, M. V. “The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of the Priestly ʾôt Etiologies.” RB 81 (1974): 557–96. Fox, R. Kinship and Marriage: An Anthropological Perspective. Baltimore: Penquin Books, 1962. Frankena, R. “The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy.” OTS 14 (1965): 122–54. Freedman, D. N. “Divine Commitment and Human Obligation.” Int 18 (1964): 419–31. Freedman, D. N., and D. Miano, “The People of the New Covenant,” in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Edited by S. E. Porter and J. C. R. de Roo. Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 7–26. Frei, H. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. Fretheim, T. E. “Psalm 132: A Form-Critical Study.” JBL 86 (1967): 293–300. Friedman, R. E. “From Egypt to Egypt,” in Traditions in Transformation. Edited by B. Halpern and J. D. Levenson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981, pp. 167–92.     . “The Hiding of the Face: An Essay on the Literary Unity of Biblical Narrative,” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel. Edited by J. Neusner et al. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987, pp. 207–22.     . “The Tabernacle in the Temple.” BA 43 (1980): 241–48.     . Who Wrote the Bible? Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1987. Frymer-Kensky, T. “The Judicial Ordeal in the Ancient Near East.” Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1977.     . “Patriarchal Family Relationships and Near Eastern Law.” BA 44 (1981): 21, 209–14.     . “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth. Edited by C Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983, pp. 399–414. Fuller, D. P. “Paul and ‘The Works of the Law.’ ” WTJ 38 (1975): 28–42. Fung, R. Y. K. Galatians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Gager, J. G. Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Gakuru, G. An Inner-Biblical Exegetical Study of the Davidic Covenant and the Dynastic Oracle. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 2000. Galbiati, E. La struttural letteraria dell’Esodo. Roma: Edizioni Paoline, 1956. Galloway, A. D. “Creation and Covenant,” in Creation, Christ, and Culture. Edited by R. McKinney. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1976, pp. 108–18. Gammie, J. G. Holiness in Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.

502  |  Bibliography     . “Loci of the Melchizedek Tradition of Gen 14:18–20.” JBL 90 (1971): 385–96. García Martínez, F., and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997–98. Garcia-Treto, F. O. “Covenant in Recent Old Testament Studies.” Austin Seminary Bulletin 96 (1981): 10–19.     . “Jacob’s ‘Oath-Covenant’ in Genesis 28.” Trinity University Studies in Religion 10 (1970): 1–10. Garlington, D. S. “The Obedience of Faith”—A Pauline Phrase in Historical Context. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991. Gärtner, B. The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Gaston, L. “Abraham and the Righteousness of God.” HBT 2 (1980): 40.     . Paul and the Torah. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987.     . “Works of Law as a Subjective Genitive.” SR 13 (1984): 39–46. Gavin, F. The Jewish Antecedents of the Christian Sacraments. New York: KTAV, 1969. Gehman, H. S. “The Covenant: The Old Testament Foundation of the Church.” Theology Today 7 (1950–51): 26–41.     . “The Oath in the Old Testament: Its Vocabulary, Idiom, and Syntax; Its Semantics and Theology in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint,” in Grace upon Grace. Edited by J. I. Cook. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975, pp. 51–65. George, A. “La venue du Fils nous fait libres, et fils (Ga 4).” AS 11 (1971): 60–65. Gerbrandt, G. E. Kingship According to the Deuteronomistic History. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Gerhardsson, B. The Testing of God’s Son. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1966. Gerstenberger, E. Wesen und Herkunft des “Apodiktischen Rechts.” NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965. Gese, H. “Der Davidsbund und die Zionserwählung,” in Vom Sinai zum Zion. Munich: Kaiser, 1974, pp. 113–29.     . Essays in Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981.     . “Ezechiel 20,25f. und die Erstgeburtsopfer,” in Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie. Edited by H. Donner, R. Hanhart, and R. Smend. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977, pp. 140–51. Gheorghita, R. The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews. WUNT 2 160. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Gileadi, A. “The Davidic Covenant: A Theological Basis for Corporate Protection,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison. Edited by A. Gileadi. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988, pp. 157–63. Ginzberg, L. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968. Girard, R. Violence and the Sacred. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977. Gispen, W. H. Exodus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982. Glueck, N. Hesed in the Bible. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1967.

Bibliography  |  503 Goldin, J. “The Youngest Son or Where Does Genesis 38 Belong.” JBL 96 (1977): 27–44. Goldingay, J. Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Good, R. M. “Exodus 32:18,” in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East. Edited by J. H. Marks and R. M. Good. Guilford, CT: Four Quarters, 1987, pp. 137–42. Goppelt, L. TYPOS: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Gordon, C. H. “Fratriarchy in the Old Testament.” JBL 54 (1935): 223–31. Gordon, R. P. “Better Promises: Two Passages in Hebrews Against the Background of the Old Testament Cultus,” in Templum Amicitiae. Edited by W. Horbury. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991, pp. 434–49.     . 1–2 Samuel. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Gordon, T. D. “A Note on ΠΑΙΔΑΓΩΓΟΣ in Galatians 3:24–25.” NTS 35 (1989): 150–54.     . “The Problem at Galatia.” Int 41 (1987): 32–43. Gordon, V. R. “Studies in the Covenantal Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 1979. Goshen-Gottstein, A. “The Promise to the Patriarchs in Rabbinic Literature,” in Divine Promises to the Fathers in the Three Monotheistic Religions: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Jerusalem, March 24–25th, 1993. Edited by A. Niccacci. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1995, pp. 60–97. Gottwald, N. K. The Tribes of Yahweh. Marynoll, NY: Marynoll, 1979. Gouge, W. Commentary on Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Kregel’s, 1980. Grant, J. A., and A. I. Wilson, eds. The God of Covenant: Biblical, Theological, and Contemporary Perspectives. Leicester: Apollos, 2005. Grant, R. M. The Letter and the Spirit. New York: Macmillan, 1957. Gray, G. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1903. Gray, J. The Biblical Doctrine of the Reign of God. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979. Grayston, K. Dying We Live: A New Enquiry into the Death of Christ in the New Testament. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1990. Green, J. B. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Greenberg, M. “Mankind, Israel, and the Nations in the Hebraic Heritage,” in No Man Is Alien: Essays on the Unity of Mankind. Edited by J. R. Nelson. Leiden: Brill, 1971, pp. 15–40. Greenstone, J. H. Numbers. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1939. Gressmann, H. Der Ursprung der israelitisch-judischen Eschatologie. Götingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1905. Grintz, J. M. “The Treaty of Joshua with the Gibeonites.” JAOS 86 (1966): 113–26. Gros Louis, K. R. R. “Abraham: II,” in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives. Vol. 2. Edited by K. R. R. Gros Louis. Nashville: Abingdon, 1982, pp. 71–84. Grossfeld, B., ed. The Targum Onqelos to Exodus. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1988.

504  |  Bibliography Grüneberg, K. N. Abraham, Blessing, and the Nations: A Philological and Exegetical Study of Genesis 12:3 and Its Narrative Context. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003. Guest, T. H. “The Word ‘Testament’ in Hebrews 9.” ExpTim 25 (1913–14): 379. Guinan, M. D. Covenant in the Old Testament. Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1975. Gundry, R. H. The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel: With Special Reference to the Messianic Hope. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Gunkel, H. Genesis. Translated by M. E. Biddle. Macon, GA, 1997. Gunn, D. M. The Story of King David. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978. Gunneweg, A. H. J. Leviten und Priester. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Gunther, J. J. St. Paul’s Opponents and Their Background: A Study of Apocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian Teachings. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Gunton, C. E. The Promise of Trinitarian Theology. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991. Gutierrez, P. La Paternité Spirituelle selon Saint Paul. Paris: Gabalda, 1968. Ha, J. Genesis 15: A Theological Compendium of Pentateuchal History. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1989. Habel, N. C. Yahweh Versus Baal. New York: Bookman, 1964. Hahn, F. “Das Gesetzesverständnis im Römer und Galaterbrief.” ZNW 67 (1976): 36–44. Hahn, J. “Das ‘Goldene Kalb.’ Die Jahwe-Verehrung bei Stierbildern in der Geschichte Israels.” Ph.D. diss., Tübingen, 1980. Hahn, S. W. “A Broken Covenant and the Curse of Death: A Study of Hebrews 9:15–22.” CBQ 66 (2004): 416–36.     . “Canon, Cult, and Covenant: The Promise of Liturgical Hermeneutics,” in Canon and Biblical Interpretation. Edited by C. G. Bartholomew et al. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006, pp. 207–35.     . “Christ, Kingdom, and Creation: Davidic Christology and Ecclesiology in Luke–Acts.” Letter & Spirit 3 (2007): 113–38.     . “Covenant, Cult, and the Curse-of-Death: Διαθήκη in Heb 9:15–22,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods—New Insights. Edited by G. Gelardini. Leiden: Brill, 2005, pp. 65–88.     . “Covenant in the Old and New Testaments: Some Current Research (1994–2004).” CBR 3 (2005): 263–92.     . “Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah: Διαθήκη Galatians 3:15–18.” CBQ 67 (2005): 79–100.     . “Kingdom and Church in Luke–Acts: From Davidic Christology to Kingdom Ecclesiology,” in Reading Luke: Interpretation, Reflection, Formation. Edited by C. Bartholomew. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005, pp. 294–325.     . “Kinship by Covenant: A Biblical Theological Study of Covenant Types and Texts in the Old and New Testaments.” Ph.D. diss., Marquette University, 1995.     . “Prima Scriptura: Magisterial Perspectives on the Primacy of Scripture for Catholic Theology and Catechesis,” in The Church and the Universal Cat-

Bibliography  |  505 echism. Edited by A. J. Mastroeni. Steubenville, OH: Franciscan University of Steubenville Press, 1993, pp. 83–116.     , and J. Bergsma. “What Laws Were Not Good? A Canonical Approach to the Theological Problem of Ezekiel 20:25–26.” JBL 123 (2004): 201–18. Hailperin, H. Rashi and the Christian Scholars. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1963. Hallo, W. H. “The Origins of the Sacrificial Cult: New Evidence from Mesopotamia and Israel,” in Ancient Israelite Religion. Edited by P. D. Miller et al. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987, pp. 3–14. Halpern, B. The Constitution of the Monarchy. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981.     . “Doctrine by Misadventure: Between the Israelite Source and the Biblical Historian,” in The Poet and the Historian. Edited by R. E. Friedman. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983, pp. 41–73. Halpern-Amaru, B. Rewriting the Bible: Land and Covenant in Postbiblical Jewish Literature. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994. Hals, R. M. “Some Aspects of the Exegesis of Jeremiah 31:31–34,” in When Jews and Christians Meet. Edited by J. J. Petuchowski. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1988, pp. 87–97. Hamerton-Kelly, R. G. “Sacred and ‘Works of Law.’ ” CBQ 52 (1990): 55–75.     . Sacred Violence: Paul’s Hermeneutic of the Cross. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Hansen, G. W. Abraham in Galatians. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Hanson, A. T. “Christ in the Old Testament According to Hebrews.” Studia Evangelica 2 (1964): 397–407.     . “Hebrews,” in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Edited by D. A. Carson and H. Williamson. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp. 292–302.     . Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. London: SPCK, 1965.     . “The Origin of Paul’s Use of ΠΑΙΔΑΓΩΓΟΣ for the Law.” JSNT 34 (1988): 71–76.     . Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Hanson, P. D. The People Called: The Growth of Community in the Bible. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986. Hanson, R. P.C. Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture. Richmond: John Knox, 1959. Haran, M. “The Bĕrît ‘Covenant’: Its Nature and Ceremonial Background,” in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg. Edited by M. Cogan, B. L. Eichler, and J. H. Tigay. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997, pp. 203–19.     . Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978. Harless, H. How Firm a Foundation: The Dispensations in the Light of Divine Covenants. New York: Peter Lang, 2004. Harrelson, W. Interpreting the Old Testament. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964.

506  |  Bibliography Hartmann, L. Asking for a Meaning: A Study of 1 Enoch 1–5. Lund: Gleerup, 1979. Harvey, J. Le plaidoyer prophétique contre Israël après la rupture de l’alliance. Paris: Desclé de Brouwer, 1967.     . “Le ‘Rîb-Pattern,’ Réquisitoire prophétique sur la rupture de l’alliance.” Bib 43 (1962): 172–96. Hasel, G. F. “The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15.” JSOT 19 (1981): 61–78. Hauer, C. E. “Who Was Zadok?” JBL 82 (1963): 89–94. Hayes, J. H. “The Tradition of Zion’s Inviolability.” JBL 82 (1963): 419–26. Hays, R. B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.     . The Faith of Jesus Christ. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. Hayward, C. T. R. Divine Name and Presence: The Memra. Totowa, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun, 1981.     . “The Holy Name of the God of Moses and the Prologue of St. John’s Gospel.” NTS 25 (1978): 16–32.     . “The Present State of Research into the Targumic Account of the Sacrifice of Isaac.” JJS 32 (1981): 127–50.     . “The Sacrifice of Isaac and Jewish Polemic Against Christianity.” CBQ 52 (1990): 292–306. Heider, G. C. “A Further Turn on Ezekiel’s Baroque Twist in Ezek 20:25–26.” JBL 107 (1988): 721–28. Heiligenthal, R. “Soziologische Implikationen der paulinischen Rechtfertigungslehre im Galaterbrief am Beispiel der ‘Werke des Gesetzes.’ ” Kairos 26 (1984): 38–53. Hein, K. Eucharist and Excommunication: A Study in Early Christian Doctrine and Discipline. New York: Peter Lang, 1973. Helyer, L. R. “The PRŌTOTOKOS Title in Hebrews.” SBT 6 (1977): 3–28.     . “The Separation of Abram and Lot: Its Significance in the Patriarchal Narratives.” JSOT 26 (1983): 77–88. Hennessy, T. E. D. “The Fatherhood of the Priest.” Thomist 10 (1947): 271–306. Herion, G. “Sacrament as ‘Covenantal Remembrance,’ ” in Church Divinity 1982. Edited by J. H. Morgan. Bristol, Ind.: Graduate Theological Foundation, 1982, pp. 97–117. Hertzberg, H. W. I and II Samuel. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976. Hess, R. S., and M. D. Carroll R., eds. Israel’s Messiah in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003. Heyns, M. “Functional Meaning of Family and Religion in Israelite Society in the Eighth Century.” OTE 5 (1987): 65–89. Hill, A. E. “The Ebal Ceremony as Hebrew Land Grant?” JETS 31 (1988): 399–406. Hillers, D. Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969.     . “Delocutive Verbs in Biblical Hebrew.” JBL 86 (1967): 320–24.

Bibliography  |  507     . “A Note on Some Treaty Terminology in the OT.” BASOR 176 (1964): 46–47.     . “Rite: Ceremonies of Law and Treaty in the Ancient Near East,” in Religion and Law. Edited by E. B. Firmage et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990, pp. 351–64.     . “Ritual Procession of the Ark and Psalm 132.” CBQ 30 (1968): 48–55.     . Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964. Hittinger, R. “Theology and Nature Law Theory.” Communio 17 (1990): 402–8. Hodge, C. J. If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Hoffmann, N. “Atonement and the Ontological Coherence Between the Trinity and the Cross,” in Towards a Civilization of Love. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1985, pp. 213–66.     . “Atonement and the Spirituality of the Sacred Heart: An Attempt at an Elucidation by Means of the Principle of ‘Representation,’ ” in Faith in Christ and the Worship of Christ. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1986, pp. 141–206.     . “The Crucified Christ and the World’s Evil: Reflections on the Theodicy in the Light of the Atonement,” Communio 17 (1990): 50–67. Holladay, J. S. “Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel.” HTR 63 (1970): 29–52.     . Jeremiah 2. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Holmberg, B. Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. Holmén, T. Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Hong, I. G. “Does Paul Misrepresent the Jewish Law? Law and Covenant in Gal 3:10–14,” NovT 36 (1994): 164–82.     . The Law in Galatians. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Hooker, M. D. “Beyond the Things That Are Written? St. Paul’s Use of Scripture.” NTS 27 (1981–1982): 295–309.     . From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Hoppe, L. J. “The Levitical Origins of Deuteronomy Reconsidered.” BR 28 (1983): 27–36. Horbury, W. “The Aaronic Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” JSNT 19 (1983): 43–71.     . Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ. London: SCM, 1998.     . Messianism among Jews and Christians: Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2003.     . “Moses and the Covenant in The Assumption of Moses and the Pentateuch,” in Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson. Edited by A. D. H. Mayes and R. B. Salters. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 191–208. Horrell, D. G. Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999.

508  |  Bibliography Horst, P. W. van der. “I Gave Them Laws That Were Not Good: Ezekiel 20:25 in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity,” in Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism. Edited by J. N. Bremmer and F. G. Martinez. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992, pp. 94–118. Horton, F. L. The Melchizedek Tradition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Houk, C. B. “Psalm 132: Futher Discussion.” JSOT 6 (1978): 54–57.     . “Psalm 132: Literary Integrity and Syllable-Word Structures.” JSOT 6 (1978): 41–48. Houtman, C. “Het Verboden Huwelijk. Gen 6:1–4 in haar Context.” GerTT 76 (1976): 65–75. Hübner, H. Law in Paul’s Thought. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1984. Huffmon, H. B. “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets.” JBL 68 (1959): 286–95.     . “The Treaty Background of Hebrew yadaʿ.” BASOR 181 (1966): 31–37. Hugenberger, G. P. Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Hughes, J. J. “Hebrews IX 15ff. and Galatians III 15ff.: A Study in Covenant Practice and Procedure.” NovT 21 (1976–77): 27–96. Hughes, P. E. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. Hummel, H. D. The Word Becoming Flesh. St. Louis: Concordia, 1979. Hunt, I. “Recent Melchizedek Study,” in The Bible in Current Catholic Thought. Edited by J. L. McKenzie. New York: Herder and Herder, 1962, pp. 21–33. Huntress, E. “ ‘Son of God’ in Jewish Writings Prior to the Christian Era,” JBL 54 (1935): 117–23. Hurowitz, V. I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Hurst, L. D. “The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2,” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament. Edited by L. D. Hurst, and N. T. Wright. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987, pp. 151–64. Huwiler, E. F. “Patterns and Problems in Psalm 132,” in The Listening Heart. Edited by K. G. Hoglund et al. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987, pp. 199–212. Hyatt, J. P. Exodus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Isaac, E. “Circumcision as Covenant Rite.” Anthropos 59 (1964): 444–56. Isaacs, M. E. Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Ishida, T. The Royal Dynasties of Ancient Israel: A Study on the Formation and Development of Royal-Dynastic Ideology. New York: de Gruyter, 1977. Jackson, B. S. “The Ceremonial and the Judicial: Biblical Law as Sign and Symbol,” JSOT 30 (1984): 25–50.     . “Legalism and Spirituality,” in Religion and Law. Edited by E. B. Firmage et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990, pp. 243–61.

Bibliography  |  509     . “On the Tyranny of Law,” Israel Law Review 18 (1983): 327–47. Jacob, B. The First Book of the Bible, Genesis. New York: KTAV, 1974. James, E. O. Sacrifice and Sacrament. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1962. Jansen, J. F. “Appropriating New Testament Covenant Vocabulary in Ecumenical Commitment,” Austin Seminary Bulletin 96 (1981): 27–37. Jansma, T. “Investigations into the Early Syrian Fathers on Genesis.” OTS 12 (1958): 69–181. Japhet, S. “From the King’s Sanctuary to the Chosen City,” in Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Edited by Lee I. Levine. New York: Continuum, 1999, pp. 3–15. Jathanna, C. “The Covenant and Covenant Making in the Pentateuch.” BTF 3 (1969–71): 27–54. Jeanrond, W. G. “Biblical Interpretation as Appropriation of Texts: The Need for a Closer Cooperation Between Biblical Exegetes and Systematic Theologians.” Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 6 (1982): 1–18. Jenkins, A. K. “A Great Name: Genesis 12:2 and the Editing of the Pentateuch.” JSOT 10 (1978): 41–57. Jeremias, J. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1966. Jervell, J. Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke–Acts. Minneopolis: Augsburg, 1972. Jocz, J. The Covenant: A Theology of Human Destiny. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968. Johag, I. “TOB. Terminus technicus in Vertragund Bündnisformularen des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments,” in Bausteine biblischer Theologie. Edited by H.-J. Fabry. Cologne-Bonn: Bonner Biblische Beiträge, 1977, pp. 3–23. Johnson, A. R. Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1955.     . The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1949. Johnson, L. T. The Acts of the Apostles. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992.     . The Gospel of Luke. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991. Johnson, M. D. The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Johnson, S. L. The Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980. Jones, G. H. “The Decree of Yahweh (Ps. II 7).” VT 15 (1965): 336–44.     . The Nathan Narratives. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Juel, D. Review of Mark L. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke–Acts: The Promise and Its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology, in Review of Biblical Literature [http://www. bookreviews. org] 2000. Kaiser, O. “Covenant and Law in Ben Sirah,” in Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson. Edited by A. D. H. Mayes and R. B. Salters. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 235–60.     . Introduction to the Old Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975.

510  |  Bibliography Kaiser, W. C. “The Blessing of David: The Charter for Humanity,” in The Law and the Prophets. Edited by J. H. Skillen. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974, pp. 298–318.     . “The Old Promise and the New Covenant: Jeremiah 31:31–34.” JETS 15 (1972): 11–23.     . Toward an Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.     . The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody, 1985. Kalimi, I. “The Land of Moriah, Mount Moriah, and the Site of Solomon’s Temple in Biblical Historiography,” HTR 83 (1990): 345–62. Kalluveettil, P. “Covenant and Community: Insights into the Relational Aspect of Covenant,” Jeevadhara 11 (1981): 94–104.     . Declaration and Covenant. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1982. Kapelrud, A. S. “The Prophets and the Covenant,” in In the Shelter Of Elyon. Edited by W. B. Barrick and J. R. Spencer. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, pp. 175–83.     . “Temple Building, a Task for Gods and Kings.” Orientalia 32 (1963): 56–62.     . “Tradition and Worship: The Role of the Cult in Tradition Formation and Transmission,” in Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament. Edited by D. A. Knight. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977, pp. 101–24. Karavites, P., and T. E. Wren. Promise-Giving and Treaty-Making: Homer and the Near East. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Karris, R. J., ed. The Works of St. Bonaventure. Vol. 8, Part 3: Commentary on the Gospel of Luke Chapters 17–24. St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, 2004. Käsemann, E. The Wandering People of God. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984. Kaufman, S. A. “The Structure of the Deuteronomic Law.” Maarva 1 (1978– 1979):105–58. Kaufmann, Y. The Religion of Israel. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969. Kearney, P. J. “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Ex 25–40.” ZAW 89 (1977): 375–87. Keel, O. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms. New York: Seabury, 1978. Keil, C. F., and F. Delitzsch. Biblical Commentary on the Books of Samuel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973. Keller, C. A. “Über einige alttestamentliche Heiligtumslegenden I.” ZAW 68 (1955): 166–67. Kelly, H. A. The Devil at Baptism: Ritual, Theology, and Drama. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985. Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrine. New York: Harper & Row, 1978. Kennedy, G. T. St. Paul’s Conception of the Priesthood of Melchisedech. Washington, D.C.: CUA Press, 1951. Ketcherside, W. C. Royal Priesthood. St. Louis: Mission, 1956. Kilpatrick, G. D. “Διαθήκη in Hebrews.” ZNW 68 (1977): 263–65.

Bibliography  |  511 Kimball, C. A. Jesus’ Exposition of the Old Testament in Luke’s Gospel. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Kincaid, J. Working Bibliography on Covenant and Politics. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Center for the Study of Federalism, 1980. Kirkland, J. R. “The Incident at Salem: A Reexamination of Gen 14: 18–20.” SBT 7 (1977): 3–23. Kistemaker, S. Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.     . The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Amsterdam: Van Soest, 1961. Kistler, D., ed. Justification by Faith Alone. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1995. Kitchen, K. A. “Egypt, Ugarit, Qatna, and Covenant.” UF 11 (1979): 453–64.     . On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Kiuchi, N. The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Klein, R. W. Ezekiel: The Prophet and His Message. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1988. Kleven, T. “Hebrew Style in 2 Samuel 6,” JETS 35 (1992): 299–314. Kline, M. G. “Abram’s Amen.” WTJ 31 (1968): 1–11.     . By Oath Consigned. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.     . “Divine Kingship and Gen 6:1–4.” WTJ 24 (1963): 187–204.     . “Dynastic Covenant.” WTJ 23 (1960): 1–15.     . “Gospel until the Law: Rom 5:13–14 and the Old Covenant.” JETS 34 (1991): 433–46.     . Kingdom Prologue. 2 vols. South Hamilton, Mass.: Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 1993.     . “Oath and Ordeal Signs.” WTJ 27 (1965): 115–39.     . “Of Works and Grace.” Presbyterion 9 (1983): 85–92.     . Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.     . “Trial By Ordeal,” in Through Christ’s Word. Edited by W. R. Godfrey and J. L. Boyd. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1985, pp. 81–93. Knibb, M. A. “Exile in the Damascus Document.” JSOT 25 (1983): 99–117.     . “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period.” HeyJ 17 (1976): 253–72. Knight, D. A. Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975.     . “Revelation Through Tradition,” in Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament. Edited by D. A. Knight. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977, pp. 143–80. Knoppers, G. N. “Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant.” JAOS 116 (1996): 670–97. Koch, D.-A. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1986.

512  |  Bibliography Koenig, J. The Feast of the World’s Redemption: Eucharistic Origins and Christian Mission. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2000. Koester, C. R. The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament. Washington, DC: CBA, 1989.     . Hebrews. AYB 36. New York: Doubleday, 2001; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press. Kolenkow, A. B. “The Genre Testament and Forecasts of the Future in the Hellenistic Jewish Milieu.” JSJ 6 (1975): 57–71. König, E. Die messianischen Weissagungen des Alten Testament. Stuttgart: Belser, 1923. Koopmans, W. T. “The Testament of David in 1 Kings II 1–10.” VT 41 (1991): 429–49. Kooy, V. H. “The Fear and Love of God in Deuteronomy,” in Grace upon Grace. Edited by J. Cook. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975, pp. 106–16. Koroçec, V. Hethitische Staatsverträge. Leipzig: Weicher, 1931. Kosmala, H. Hebräer, Essener, Christen. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Kraus, H. J. “David’s Covenant.” VT 35 (1985): 139–64.     . “God’s Covenant: Old and New Testaments,” in A Covenant Challenge to Our Broken World. Edited by A. O. Miller. Atlanta: World Alliance of Reformed Churches, 1982, pp. 79–83.     . Psalms 1–59. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988.     . “Psalm cxxxii and the Royal Zion Festival.” VT 33 (1983): 279–97.     . Psalms 60–150. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989.     . Theology of the Psalms. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986.     . Worship in Israel. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1966. Kruse, H. “David’s Covenant.” VT 35 (1985): 139–64. Kurz, W. Farewell Addresses in the New Testament. Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1990. Kutsch, E. Verheissung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten Bund im Alten Testament. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1973. Kuula, K. The Law, the Covenant and God’s Plan. Vol. 1: Paul’s Polemical Treatment of the Law in Galatians. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Laato, A. “Psalm 132 and the Development of the Jerusalemite/ Israelite Royal Ideology.” CBQ 54 (1992): 49–66.     . A Star Is Rising: The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of Jewish Messianic Expectations. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Labuschagne, C. J. “Divine Speech in Deuteronomy,” in in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft. Edited by N. Lohfink. Leuven: University Press, 1985, pp. 111–26.     . “The Life Span of the Patriarchs.” VTSup 25 (1989): 121–27.     . “The Song of Moses: Its Framework and Structure,” in De Fructu Oris Sui. Leiden: Brill, 1971.     . “The Tribes in the Blessings of Moses.” OTS 19 (1974): 97–112.

Bibliography  |  513 Lacocque, A. “The Liturgical Prayer in Daniel 9.” HUCA 47 (1976): 119–42. Lacomara, A. “Deuteronomy and the Farewell Discourse (Jn 13:31–16:33).” CBQ 36 (1974): 65–84. Lafont, G. God, Time, and Being. Petersham, MA: St. Bede’s, 1992. Lagrange, M.-J, “La Paternité de Dieu dans l’Ancien Testament.” RB 5 (1908): 482–83. Lambdin, T. O. Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1973. Landy, F. “Narrative Techniques and Symbolic Transactions in the Akedah,” in Signs and Wonders: Biblical Texts in Literary Focus. Edited by C. Exum. Decatur, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1989, pp. 1–40. Lane, D. C. “The Meaning and Use of Berith in the Old Testament.” Ph.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2000. Lane, T. J. Luke and the Gentile Mission: Gospel Anticipates Acts. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang, 1996. Lane, W. L. “Covenant: The Key to Paul’s Conflict with Corinth.” TynBul 33 (1982): 3–29.     . Hebrews 1–8. Waco, TX: Word, 1991.     . Hebrews 9–13. Waco, TX: Word, 1991. Laurance, J. D. ‘Priest’ as Type of Christ. New York: Peter Lang, 1984. Laurentin, A. “Weʿattah-kai nun. Formule caractéristique des textes juridiques et liturgiques.” Bib 45 (1964): 168–95. LaVerdiere, E. The Breaking of the Bread: The Development of the Eucharist According to Acts. Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications, 1998.     . Dining in the Kingdom of God: The Origins of the Eucharist According to Luke. Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications, 1994.     . The Eucharist in the New Testament and the Early Church. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996. Lawlor, J. I. “The Test of Abraham.” GTJ 1 (1980): 19–35. Lea, H. C. The Duel and the Oath. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974. Leeuw, G. van der. “Die dout des Formel in der Opfertheorie.” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 20 (1920–21): 241–53. Lehmann, M. R. “Biblical Oaths.” ZAW 81 (1969): 74–92. Lehne, S. The New Covenant in Hebrews. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Lemche, N. P. Early Israel: Anthropological and Historical Studies on the Israelite Society before the Monarchy. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Lemke, W. E. “Jeremiah 31:31–34.” Int 37 (1983): 183–87. Leonard, J. I Will Be Their God: Understanding the Covenant. Chicago: Laudemont, 1992. Leonard, W. The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Rome: Vatican Polyglot Press, 1939. Leschert, D. F. Hermeneutical Foundations of Hebrews: A Study in the Validity of the Epistle’s Interpretation of Some for Citations from the Psalms. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1994.

514  |  Bibliography Levenson, J. D. Creation and the Persistence of Evil. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.     . “The Davidic Covenant and Its Modern Interpreters.” CBQ 41 (1979): 205–19.     . The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.     . “On the Promise to the Rechabites.” CBQ 38 (1976): 508–14.     . Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985.     . “The Temple and the World.” JR 64 (1984): 275–98.     . Theology of the Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48. Missoula, MN: Scholars Press, 1976. Levin, C. Die Verheissung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. Levine, B. A. In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel. Leiden: Brill, 1974.     . Numbers 1–20. AYB 4. New York: Doubleday, 1993; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press. Lewy, I. “The Puzzle of Dt XXVII: Blessings Announced, but Curses Noted.” VT 12 (1962): 207–11.     . “The Story of the Golden Calf Reanalyzed.” VT 9 (1959): 318–22. L’Hour, J. “L’Alliance à Sichem.” RB 69 (1962): 25–26.     . La morale de l’Alliance. Paris: Gabalda, 1966. Lidgett, J. S. Sonship and Salvation: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Epworth, 1921. Lightfoot, J. B. The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians. London: Macmillan, 1866. Lincoln, A. T. Paradise Now and Not Yet. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Lindars, B. The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Lindsay, W. Lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1867. Lints, R. The Fabric of Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Loader, W. R. G. “Christ at the Right Hand: Ps. CX. 1 in the New Testament.” NTS 24 (1977–1978): 199–217. Loewenstamm, S. E. “The Divine Grants of Land to the Patriarchs.” JAOS 91 (1971): 509–10.     . “The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf.” Bib 48 (1967): 481–90. Lohfink, N. “The Concept of ‘Covenant’ in Biblical Theology,” in The God of Israel and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms. Edited by N. Lohfink and E. Zenger. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000, pp. 11–31.     . “Covenant and Torah in the Pilgrimage of the Nations (The Book of Isaiah and Psalm 25)” in The God of Israel and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms. Edited by N. Lohfink and E. Zenger. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000, pp. 33–84.

Bibliography  |  515     . The Covenant Never Revoked. New York: Paulist, 1991.     . Die Landesverheissung als Eid. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967.     . Great Themes from the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1982.     . Lectures in Deuteronomy. Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968. Lohfink, N., and E. Zenger. The God of Israel and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000. Lonergan, B. De Verbo Incarnato. Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University Press, 1964. Long, B. M. “Notes on the Biblical Use of ‫עד־עולם‬,” WTJ 41 (1978): 54–67. Long, T. G. Hebrews. Louisville: John Knox, 1997. Longenecker, R. N. Galatians. Waco, TX: Word, 1990.     . “The Pedagogical Nature of the Law in Galatians 3:19–4:7.” JETS 25 (1982): 53–61.     . The Triumph of Abraham’s God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998. Louw, J. P., and E. A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2nd ed. 2 vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988. Lubac, H. de. The Mystery of the Supernatural. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1967. Lull, D. J. “ ‘The Law Was Our Pedagogue’: A Study in Galatians 3:19–25.” JBL 105 (1986): 481–98. Lundquist, J. M. “The Common Temple Ideology of the Ancient Near East,” in The Temple in Antiquity. Edited by T. G. Madsen. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1984, pp. 53–76.     . “The Legitimizing Role of the Temple in the Origin of the State,” in SBL 1982 Seminar Papers. Edited by K. H. Richards. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982.     . “Temple, Covenant, and Law in the Ancient Near East and in the Old Testament,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison. Edited by A. Gileadi. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988, pp. 293–305.     . “What Is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology,” in The Quest for the Kingdom of God. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983, pp. 205–219. Lyall, F. “Roman Law in the Writings of Paul—Adoption.” JBL 88 (1969): 458–66. Lyonnet. S., and L. Sabourin. Sin, Redemption, and Sacrifice. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970. Mackie, S. D. Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Magnetti, D. L. “The Oath in the Old Testament in the Light of Related Terms and in the Legal and Covenantal Context of the Ancient Near East.” Ph.D. diss. Johns Hopkins University, 1969. Maimonides, M. The Guide for the Perplexed. London: Butler and Tanner, 1928. Malina, B. J. Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology: Practical Models for Biblical Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox, 1986.     . The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta: John Knox, 1981.

516  |  Bibliography     . Windows on the World of Jesus: Time Travel to Ancient Judea. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993. Mann, T. W. “ ‘All the Families of the Earth’—The Theological Unity of Genesis.” Int 45 (1991): 341–53.     . The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch. Atlanta: John Knox, 1988. Manson, W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1951. Margerie, B. de. The Christian Trinity in History. Still River, MA: St. Bede’s, 1982. Margulies, M., ed. Midrash Haggadol on Exodus. Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kook, 1956. Marshall, I. H. Luke: Historian and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970. Martelet, G. “The Mystery of the Covenant and Its Connection with the Nature of the Ministerial Priesthood,” in The Order of Priesthood. Huntington, IN: OSV, 1978, pp. 99–110. Martin, F. “Some Directions in Catholic Biblical Theology,” in Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation. Edited by C. Bartholomew et al. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004, pp. 65–87. Martin, W. J. “ ‘Dischronologized’ Narrative in the Old Testament.” VTSup 17 (1968): 179–86. Martyn, J. L. “Covenant, Christ, and Church in Galatians,” in The Future of Christology. Edited by A. J. Malherbe and W. A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993, pp. 137–51.     . “Events in Galatia: Modified Covenantal Nomism Versus God’s Invasion of the Cosmos in the Singular Gospel: A Response to J. D. G. Dunn and B. R. Gaventa,” in Pauline Theology. Vol. 1: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon. Edited by J. M. Bassler. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991, pp. 160–79.     . Galatians. AYB 33A. New York: Doubleday, 1997; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press.     . “Listening to John and Paul on the Subject of Gospel and Scripture.” Word and World 12 (1992): 68–81. Mascall, E. L. Corpus Christi. London: Longmans, 1955. Mason, R. “The Messiah in the Postexilic Old Testament Literature,” in King and Messiah in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by J. Day. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998, pp. 338–64. Mason, S. D. “Eternal Covenant” in the Pentateuch: The Contours of an Elusive Phrase. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2008. Maston, T. B. The Bible and Family Relations. Nashville: Broadman, 1983. Matera, F. Galatians. Edited by D. J. Harrington. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press/Michael Glazier, 1992. Mauchline, J. “Implicit Signs of a Persistent Belief in the Davidic Empire.” VT 20 (1970): 287–303. Mawhinney, A. “Baptism, Servanthood, and Sonship,” WTJ 49 (1987): 35–64.

Bibliography  |  517     . “God as Father: Two Popular Theories Reconsidered,” JETS 31 (1988): 181–90. Mayes, A. D. H. “Deuteronomy: Law of Moses or Law of God?” Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 5 (1981): 36–54. Mayes, A. D. H., and R. B. Salters, eds. Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Mays, J. L. Leviticus and Numbers. Richmond: John Knox, 1963. Mazar, B. “The Historical Background of the Book of Genesis,” in The Early Biblical Period: Historical Studies. Edited by S. Ahituv and B. A. Levine. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986, pp. 49–62. McCarter, P. K. I Samuel. AYB 8. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press.     . “The Ritual Dedication of the City of David in 2 Samuel 6,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth. Edited by C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983, pp. 273–78.     . II Samuel. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press. McCarthy, C. B. “Psalm 132: A Methodological Analysis.” Ph.D. diss., Marquette University 1968. McCarthy, D. J. “Berît and Covenant in the Deuteronomistic History,” VTSup 23 (1972): 65–85.     . “Berît in Old Testament History and Theology.” Bib 53 (1972): 110–21.     . “Compact and Kingship: Stimuli for Hebrew Covenant Thinking,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon. Edited by T. Ishida. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982, pp. 75–92.     . “Covenant and Law in Chronicles-Nehemiah.” CBQ 44 (1982): 25–44.     . “Covenant ‘Good’ and an Egyptian Text.” BASOR 245 (1982): 63–64.     . “Covenant in Narratives from Late OT Times,” in The Quest for the Kingdom of God. Edited by H. B. Huffmon et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983, pp. 77–94.     . “Covenant in the Old Testament: The Present State of Inquiry,” CBQ 27 (1965): 217–40.     . “Covenant-Relationships,” in Questions disputes d’Ancien Testament. Edited by C. Brekelmans. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1974, pp. 91–103.     . “Ebla, ὁρκία, τεμνειν, tb, lm: Addenda to Treaty and Covenant,” 2nd ed. Bib 60 (1979): 247–53.     . “Exodus 3:14: History, Philology and Theology.” CBQ 40 (1978): 311–22.     . “Further Notes on the Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice.” JBL 92 (1973): 205–10.     . “God as Prisoner of Our Own Choosing: Critical-Historical Study of the Bible, Why and Whither,” in Historicism and Faith. Edited by P. L. Williams. Scranton, PA: Scranton Cultural Society, 1980, pp. 17–47.     . “Hosea XII 2: Covenant by Oil.” VT 14 (1964): 215–21.     . “The Inauguration of Monarchy in Israel: A Form-Critical Study of I Samuel 8–12.” Int 27 (1973): 401–12.

518  |  Bibliography     . “Israel, My First-Born Son.” The Way 5 (1965): 183–91.     . “Notes on the Love of God in Deuteronomy and the Father-Son Relationship Between Yahweh and Israel.” CBQ 27 (1965): 144–48.     . Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions. Richmond: John Knox, 1972.     . “II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the Deuteronomic History,” JBL 84 (1965): 131–38.     . “The Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice,” JBL 88 (1969): 166–76.     . “Theology and Covenant in the Old Testament,” TBT 42 (1969): 2904–8.     . “Three Covenants in Genesis.” CBQ 26 (1964): 179–89.     . Treaty and Covenant. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963.     . Treaty and Covenant. 2nd ed. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978.     . “Twenty-five Years of Pentateuchal Study,” The Biblical Heritage in Modern Catholic Scholarship. Edited by J. J. Collins and J. D. Crossan. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1986, pp. 34–57. McComiskey, T. E. The Covenants of Promise: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985. McConville, J. G. “Abraham and Melchizedek: Horizons in Genesis 14,” in He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes from Genesis 12–50. Rev. ed. Edited by R. S. Hess et al. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994, pp. 93–118. McConville, J. G. “‫ ”ְבּ ִרית‬in The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by W. A. Van Gemeren. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997, pp. 747–55.     . Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.     . Law and Theology in Deuteronomy. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. McConville, J. G., and J. G. Millar. Time and Place in Deuteronomy. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. McCree, W. T. “The Covenant Meal in the Old Testament,” JBL 45 (1926): 120–28. McCullough, J. C. “Melchizedek’s Varied Role in Early Exegetical Tradition.” Theological Reveiew 1 (1978): 52–66.     . “Some Recent Developments in Research on the Epistle to the Hebrews.” IBS 3 (1980): 28–45. McEleney, N. J. “Conversion, Circumcision, and the Law.” NTS 20 (1974): 319–41. McEvenue, S. The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971. McKane, W. “Poison, Trial by Ordeal and the Cup of Wrath.” VT 30 (1980): 474–92. McKay, J. Religion in Judah under the Assyrians. London: SCM, 1973. McKelvey, R. J. The New Temple. New York: Oxford University Press, 1969. McKenzie, J. L. “Divine Sonship and Individual Religion,” CBQ 5 (1945): 32–47.     . “The Divine Sonship of Israel and the Covenant,” CBQ 7 (1946): 320–31.     . “The Divine Sonship of Men in the Old Testament,” CBQ 6 (1945): 326–39.

Bibliography  |  519     . “The Sacrifice of Isaac.” Scripture 9 (1957): 79–84.     . A Theology of the Old Testament. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974. McKenzie, S. L. Covenant. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2000.     . “The Typology of the Davidic Covenant,” in The Land That I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archeology of the Ancient Near East in Honor of J. Maxwell Miller. Edited by J. A. Dearman and M. P. Graham. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. McKenzie, S. L., and H. N. Wallace. “Covenant Themes in Malachi,” CBQ 45 (1983): 549–63. McNamara, M. Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament. Wilmington, DE: ­Michael Glazier, 1983. McKnight, S. A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. McPartlan, P. The Eucharist Makes the Church. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993. Meenan, A. J. “An Interpretive Study of the Narrative of the Golden Calf (Exodus 32).” Ph.D. diss., Edinburgh, 1980. Meier, J. P. The Mission of Christ and the Church: Studies in Christology and Ecclesiology. Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1990.     . “Structure and Theology in Hebrews 1:1–14.” Bib 66 (1985): 168–89. Mendelsohn, I. “On the Preferential Status of the Eldest Son.” BASOR 56 (1959): 38–40. Mendenhall, G. E. “The Conflict Between Value Systems and Social Control,” in Unity and Diversity: Essays on the History, Literature and Religion of the Ancient Near East. Edited by H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975, pp. 169–80.     . “Covenant,” IDB 1:714–23.     . “The Monarchy.” Int 29 (1975): 155–70.     . “The Nature and Purpose of the Abraham Narrative,” in Ancient Israelite Religion. Edited by P. D. Miller et al. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987, pp. 337–56.     . “The Relation of the Individual to Political Society in Ancient Israel,” in Biblical Studies in Memory of H. C. Alleman. Edited by J. M. Myers et al. Locust Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin, 1960, pp. 89–108.     . “Social Organization in Early Israel,” in Magnalia Dei. Edited by F. M. Cross et al. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976, pp. 132–51.     . “The Suzerainty Treaty Structure: Thirty Years Later,” in Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives. Edited by E. B. Firmage, B. Weiss, and J. Welch. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990, pp. 85–100.     . The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973.     . “The Worship of Baal and Asherah,” in Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry. Edited by A. Kort and S. Morschauser. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985, pp. 147–58. Mendenhall, G. E., and G. A. Herion. “Covenant,” AYBD. Edited by D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1:1179–1202.

520  |  Bibliography Menzel, B. Assyrische Tempel. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981. Merklein, H. “Die Bedeutung des Kreuzestodes Christi für die paulinische ­Gerechtigkeits- und Gesetzesthematik,” in Studien zu Jesus und Paulus. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987, pp. 1–106. Merkley, P. The Greek and Hebrew Origins of Our Idea of History. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1987. Merrill, E. H. “The ‘Accession Year’ and Davidic Chronology.” JANES 19 (1989): 101–21.     . “Covenant and Kingdom: Genesis 1–3 as Foundation for Biblical Theology.” TR 1 (1987): 295–308. Mettinger, T. N. D. The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1982.     . In Search of God: The Meaning and Message of the Everlasting Names. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.     . King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1976. Meyer, B. F. The Early Christians: Their World Mission and Self Discovery. Wil­ mington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1986. Meyers, C. “David as Temple Builder,” in Ancient Israelite Religion. Edited by P. D. Miller et al. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987, pp. 357–76.     . “The Israelite Empire: In Defense of King Solomon,” in Backgrounds for the Bible. Edited by P. O’Connor and D. N. Freedman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987, pp. 181–97. Meyers, C. L., and E. M. Meyers. Haggai, Zechariah 1–8. AYB 25B. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press. Meyers, E. M. “Priestly Language in the Book of Malachi.” HAR 10 (1987): 225–37. Michaélidès, D. Sacramentum Chez Tertullien. Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1970. Michel, O. Der Brief an die Hebräer. 6th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. Milgrom, J. “The Alleged ‘Demythologization and Secularization’ in Deuteronomy: A Review Article.” IEJ 23 (1973): 156–61.     . “Covenants: The Sinaitic and Patriarchal Covenants in the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–27),” in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume. Edited by C. Cohen, A. Hurvitz, and S. M. Paul. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004, pp. 91–101.     . “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly ‘Picture of Dorian Gray.’ ” RB 83 (1976): 390–99.     . The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990.     . Leviticus 1–16. AYB 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press.     . “The Priestly Doctrine of Repentance.” RB 82 (1975): 186–205.     . “A Sin-Offering or Purification-Offering.” VT 21 (1971): 237–39.

Bibliography  |  521     . “Two Kinds of hattat.” VT 26 (1976): 70–74.     . “The Two Pericopes on the Purification Offering,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth. Edited by C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983, pp. 211–15. Milgrom, J. B. The Akedah: The Binding of Isaac. Berkeley: BIBAL, 1988. Miller, J. W. Biblical Faith and Fathering. New York: Paulist, 1989. Miller, P. D. “Psalm 127—The House That Yahweh Builds.” JSOT 22 (1982): 119–32. Miller, P. D., and J. J. M. Roberts. The Hand of the Lord. A Reassessment of the ‘Ark Narrative’ of 1 Samuel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977. Milligan, G. The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. London: T. & T. Clark, 1899. Minear, P. “An Early Christian Theopoetic?” Semeia 12 (1978): 201–24.     . Eyes of Faith: A Study in the Biblical Point of View. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1946.     . New Testament Apocalyptic. Nashville: Abingdon, 1981. Miscall, P. D. 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1986. Mitchell, A. C. “The Use of πρέπειν and Rhetorical Propriety in Hebrews 2:10.” CBQ 54 (1992): 681–701. Mitchell, C. W. The Meaning of BRK “To Bless” in the Old Testament. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Mitchell, J. J. “Abram’s Understanding of the Lord’s Covenant.” WTJ 32 (1969): 24–48. Miura, Y. David in Luke–Acts: His Portrayal in the Light of Early Judaism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Moberly, R. W. L. “Abraham’s Righteousness (Genesis XV 6).” VTSup 41 (1990): 103–30.     . At The Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983.     . The Bible, Theology, and Faith: A Study of Abraham and Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 110–17.     . “Christ the Key to Scripture: Genesis 22 Reconsidered,” in He Swore an Oath Rev. ed. Edited by R. S. Hess et al. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994, pp. 143–73.     . “The Earliest Commentary on the Akedah.” VT 38 (1988): 302–23.     . From Eden to Golgotha: Essays in Biblical Theology. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.     . Genesis 12–50. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992.     . The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1992. Moessner, D. P. Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.     . “Jesus and the ‘Wilderness Generation’: The Death of the Prophet Like Moses According to Luke,” in Good News in History. Edited by E. L. Miller. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993, pp. 1–34.

522  |  Bibliography Moffatt, J. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1924. Moloney, F. J. “The Targum on Ps 8 and the New Testament.” Salesianum 37 (1975): 326–36. Moltmann, J. God in Creation. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991. Montefiore, H. W. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. New York: Harper & Row, 1964. Moo, D. J. “ ‘Law,’ ‘Works of the Law,’ and Legalism in Paul.” WTJ 45 (1983): 91–99. Moore-Crispin, R. “Galatians 4:1–9.” EvQ 60 (1989): 203–23. Moran, W. L. “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy.” CBQ 25 (1963): 77–87.     . “Some Remarks on the Song of Moses.” Bib 43 (1962): 317–27. Moriarty, E. J. Oaths in Ecclesiastical Courts. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1937. Morland, K. A. The Rhetoric of Curse in Galatians: Paul Confronts Another Gospel. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Morrison, M. D. Who Needs a New Covenant? Princeton Theological Monograph Series 85. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2008. Mosca, P. G. “Once Again the Heavenly Witness of Psalm 89:38.” JBL 105 (1986): 27–37. Most, W. G. “A Biblical Theology of Redemption in a Covenant Framework,” CBQ 29 (1967): 1–19. Mowinckel, S. Psalmenstudien III. Kultprophetie und prophetische Psalmen. Oslo: J. Dybwad, 1923.     . Religion and Cult. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1981.     . Tetrateuch-Pentateuch-Hexateuch. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1964. Moye, R. H., “In the Beginning: Myth and History in Genesis and Exodus,” JBL 109 (1990): 577–98. Muffs, Y. “Abraham the Noble Warrior: Patriarchal Politics and the Laws of War in Ancient Israel.” JJS 33 (1982): 81–107. Muilenburg, J. “Abraham and the Nations: Blessing and World History.” Int 19 (1965): 391–92.     . “The Form and Structure of the Covenantal Formulations.” VT 9 (1959): 347–65.     . Hearing and Speaking the Word. Edited by T. F. Best. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984. Mullen, E. T. “The Divine Witness and the Davidic Royal Grant: Ps. 89:37–38.” JBL 102 (1983): 207–18.     . “The Royal Dynastic Grant to Jehu and the Structure of the Book of Kings.” JBL 107 (1988): 193–206. Muller, E. C. Trinity and Marriage in Paul. New York: Peter Lang, 1990. Munox, D. Dios-Palabra: Memra en los Targummim del Pentateuco. Granada: Institución San Jerónimo, 1974. Murray, R. The Cosmic Covenant. London: Sheed & Ward, 1992.

Bibliography  |  523     . “The Pattern of History: The Covenant Theme in Bible and Church.” CR 65 (1980): 196–203. Murray, S. R. “The Concept of διαθήκη in the Letter to the Hebrews.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 66 (2002): 41–60. Murtonen, A. “The Use and Meaning of the Words lebarek and berakhah in the OT.” VT 9 (1959): 158–77. Nairne, A. The Epistle of Priesthood. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1915. Nardoni, E. “Partakers in Christ (Hebrews 3.14).” NTS 37 (1991): 456–72. Naylor, P. J. “The Language of Covenant. A Structural Analysis of the Semantic Field of ‫ ברית‬in Biblical Hebrew, with Particular Reference to the Book of Genesis” D.Phil. diss., Oxford University, 1980. Neff, R. W. “The Birth and Election of Isaac in the Priestly Tradition.” BR 15 (1970): 17–18. Nel, P. “The Concept of ‘Father’ in the Wisdom Literature of the Ancient Near East.” JNES 5 (1977): 53–67.     . “Psalm 132 and Covenant Theology,” in Text and Context. Edited by W. T. Claassen. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988, pp. 183–91. Nellas, P. Deification in Christ: The Nature of the Human Person. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary, 1987. Nelson, B. The Idea of Usury: From Tribal Brotherhood to Universal Otherhood. Rev. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969. Nelson, P. K. Leadership and Discipleship: A Study of Luke 22:24–30. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Neusner, J. Aphrahat and Judaism: The Christian-Jewish Argument in Fourth­Century Iran. Leiden: Brill, 1971.     . Judaism and Its Social Metaphors. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Newman, M. “The Prophetic Call of Samuel,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage. Edited by B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson. New York: Harper, 1962, pp. 86–97. Newman, M. L. “The Continuing Quest for the Historical Covenant,” in The Psalms and Other Studies on the Old Testament. Edited by J. C. Knight and L. A. Sinclair. Nashotah, WI: Nashotah House Seminary, 1990, pp. 158–71.     . The People of the Covenant. New York: Abingdon, 1962. Neyrey, J. H. The Passion According to Luke: A Redaction Study of Luke’s Soteriology. New York: Paulist, 1985.     . Paul, In Other Words. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990. Niccacci, A., ed. Divine Promises to the Fathers in the Three Monotheistic Religions: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Jerusalem March 24–25, 1993. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1995. Nicholson, E. W. “The Antiquity of the Tradition in Exodus XXIV 9–11.” VT 25 (1975): 69–79.     . “Covenant in a Century of Study since Wellhausen.” OTS 24 (1985): 54–69.     . Exodus and Sinai in History and Tradition. Atlanta: John Knox, 1973.

524  |  Bibliography     . God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.     . “The Interpretation of Exodus XXIV 9–11.” VT 24 (1974): 77–97.     . “Israelite Religion in the Pre-Exilic Period: A Debate Renewed,” in A Word in Season. Edited by J. D. Martin and P. R. Davies. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986, pp. 3–34.     . “The Origin of the Tradition in Exodus XXIV 9–11.” VT 26 (1976): 148–60. Nicole, E. “Un Cas de Relecture: II Sam. 24 et I Chronique 21.” Hokma 26 (1984): 47–55. Nielsen, E. “Moses and the Law.” VT 32 (1982): 87–98. Nitzan, B. “The Concept of the Covenant in Qumran Literature,” in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by D. Goodblatt, A. Pinnick, and D. R. Schwartz. Leiden: Brill, 2001, pp. 85–104. Nolan, B. M. The Royal Son of God: The Christology of Matthew 1–2 in the Setting of the Gospel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. Nolland, J. “Grace as Power.” NovT 28 (1986): 26–31. Nolland, J. Luke 18:35–24:53. Dallas: Word, 1993. Nordheim, E. von. Die Lehre der Alten: Das Testament als Literaturgattung im Judentum der Hellenistisch-Römischen Zeit. Vol 1. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Norris, R. A. “Irenaeus’ Use of Paul in His Polemic Against the Gnostics,” in Paul and the Legacies of Paul. Edited by W. S. Babcock. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1990, pp. 79–98. North, R. “The Biblical Jubilee and Social Reform.” Scripture 4 (1951): 323–35.     . Psalm 8 as a Miniature of Psalm 104,” in The Psalms and Other Studies on the Old Testament. Edited by J. C. Knight and L. A. Sinclair. Nashotah, WI: Nashotah House, 1990, pp. 2–10.     . Sociology of the Biblical Jubilee. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1954. Norton, F. O. A Lexicographical and Historical Study of ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ from the Earliest Times to the End of the Classical Period. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1908. Nöscher, F. “Bundesformular und ‘Amtsschimmel.’ ” BZ 9 (1965): 181–214. Noth, M. Exodus. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962.     . “ ‘For All Who Rely On Works of the Law Are Under a Curse,’ ” in The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966, pp. 118–31.     . A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972.     . Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien I. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1943. Novak, M. “Man and Woman: He Made Them.” Communio 8 (1981): 229–49. Nwachukwu, M. S. C. Creation-Covenant Scheme and Justification by Faith: A Canonical Study of the God-Human Drama in the Pentateuch and the Letter to the Romans. Rome: Editrice Pontifica Universita Gregoriana, 2002.

Bibliography  |  525 O’Brien, J. M. Priest and Levite in Malachi. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Ocáriz, F. Hijos de Dios en Cristo: Introducción a una teología de la participación sobrenatural. Pamplona: Universidad de Navarra, 1972. O’Connell, K. G. “Continuity and Change in Israel’s Covenant with God.” BR 1 (1985): 46–55. O’Connor, D. “Covenant at Sinai? Ernst Kutsch on BERITH.” ITQ 42 (1975): 219–22. Oden, R. A. “Jacob as Father, Husband, and Nephew: Kinship Studies and the Patriarchal Narratives.” JBL 102 (1983): 189–205.     . “The Place of Covenant in the Religion of Israel,” in Ancient Israelite Religion. Edited by P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987, pp. 429–47. Ohler, A. Studying the Old Testament from Tradition to Canon. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1985. Ollenburger, B. C. Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Olson, D. T. The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch. Chico CA: Scholars Press, 1985.     . Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Olyan, S. “Zadok’s Origins and the Tribal Politics of David.” JBL 101 (1982): 177–93. Oppenheim, L. Ancient Mesopotamia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Orelli, C. von. The Old Testament Prophecy of the Consummation of God’s Kingdom Traced in Its Historical Development. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1889. O’Rourke Boyle, M. “The Covenant Lawsuit of the Prophet Amos: III 1–IV 13.” VT 21 (1971): 338–62. Ossom-Batsa, G. The Institution of the Eucharist in the Gospel of Mark: A Study of the Function of Mark 14,22–25 Within the Gospel Narrative. Bern: Peter Lang, 2001. O’Toole, R. F. “Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost.” JBL 102 (1983): 245–58. Otto, E. Jakob in Sichem. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1979. Palmer, E. H. Scheeben’s Doctrine of Divine Adoption. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1954. Pao, D. W. Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Pardee, D. “The Semantic Parallelism of Psalm 89,” in In the Shelter of Elyon. Edited by W. B. Barrick and J. R. Spencer. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, pp. 121–37. Park, H. D. Finding Herem? A Study of Luke–Acts in the Light of Herem. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2007. Parrella, F. J. “Towards a Spirituality of the Family.” Communio 9 (1982): 127–41. Patai, R. Family, Love, and the Bible. London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1960. Patcas, H. “Akedah, The Binding of Isaac.” Dor le Dor 14 (1985/86): 112–14. Pate, M. The Glory of Adam and the Afflictions of the Righteous. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1993.

526  |  Bibliography Paul, M. J. “The Order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 7:3).” WTJ 49 (1987): 195–211. Paul, S. M. “Adoption Formulae: A Study of Cuneiform and Biblical Legal Clauses.” Maarav 2 (1979–80): 173–85. Payne, J. B. “The B’RITH of Yahweh,” in New Perspectives on the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Payne. Waco, TX: Word, 1970, pp. 240–64.     . Theology of the Older Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962. Peale, J. S. Biblical History as the Quest for Maturity. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1985. Peck, W. J. “Murder, Timing, and the Ram in the Sacrifice of Isaac.” ATR 58 (1976): 23–43. Pedersen, J. Der Eid bei den Semiten. Strassburg: Karl J. Trüner, 1914.     . Israel: Its Life and Culture. 4 vols. London: Oxford University Press, 1926. Penney, J. M. The Missionary Emphasis of Lukan Pneumatology. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Perdue, L. G. “The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf: A Reply.” Bib 54 (1973): 237–46.     . “The Testament of David and Egyptian Royal Instructions,” in Scripture in Context II. Edited by W. W. Hallo, J. C. Moyer, and L. G. Perdue. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983, pp. 79–96. Pérez Fernández, M. “The Aqedah in Paul,” in The Sacrifice of Isaac in the Three Monotheistic Religions: Proceedings of a Symposium on the Interpretation of the Scriptures Held in Jerusalem, March 16–17, 1995. Edited by F. Manns. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1995, pp. 81–98. Perlitt, L. Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969.     . “Der Vater im Alten Testament,” in Das Vaterbild in Mythos und Geschichte. Edited by H. Tellenbach. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1976, pp. 50–101. Peter, M. “Die historische Wahrheit in Genesis 14,” in De la Tôrah au Messie. Edited by M. Carrez, J. Dorée, and P. Grelot. Paris: Desclée, 1981. Petersen, D. L. “Covenant Ritual: A Traditio-Historical Perspective,” BR 22 (1977): 7–18. Petersen, N. R. Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Paul’s Narrative World. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Peterson, D. Hebrews and Perfection. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Petuchowski, J. J. “The Controversial Figure of Melchizedek.” HUCA 28 (1957): 127–36. Pfitzner, V. C. Hebrews. Nashville: Abingdon, 1997. Phillips, A. “Another Example of Family Law.” VT 30 (1980): 240–45.     . “A Covenant to the People,” New Blackfriars 67 (1986): 252–55.     . “David’s Linen Ephod.” VT 19 (1969): 458–87.     . “A Fresh Look at the Sinai Pericope.” VT 34 (1984): 39–52, 282–94.     . “Prophecy and Law,” in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition. Edited by R. Coggins, A. Phillips, and M. Knibb. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982, pp. 217–32.

Bibliography  |  527     . “Some Aspects of Family Law in Pre-Exilic Israel.” VT 23 (1973): 349–61. Pilch, J. J. Introducing the Cultural Context of the New Testament. New York: Paulist, 1991. Pilch, J. J., and B. J. Malina. Handbook of Biblical Social Values. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998. Plantinga, A. “Two (or More) Kinds of Scripture Scholarship,” in “Behind” the Text: History and Biblical Interpretation. Edited by C. Bartholomew et al. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003, pp. 19–57. Pleins, J. D. “Son-Slayers and Their Sons.” CBQ 54 (1992): 29–38. Plescia, J. The Oath and Perjury in Ancient Greece. Tallahassee: Florida State University Press, 1970. Ploeg, J. P. M. van der. “Slavery in the Old Testament.” VTSup 22 (1972): 72–87. Polak, F. H. “The Covenant at Mount Sinai in the Light of Texts from Mari,” in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume. Edited by C. Cohen, A. Hurvitz, and S. M. Paul. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004, pp. 119–34. Polish, D. “Covenant: Jewish Universalism and Particularism,” in The Life of Covenant. Edited by J. A. Edelheit. Chicago: Spertus College of Judaica Press, 1986. Polk, T. The Prophetic Persona: Jeremiah and the Language of Self. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Polley, M. E. Amos and the Davidic Empire: A Socio-Historical Approach. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. Polzin, R. “HWQY’ and Covenantal Institutions in Early Israel.” HTR 62 (1969): 226–40.     . Samuel and the Deuteronomist. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989. Pomykala, K. E. The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Pope, M. H. “Oath,” in IDB 3: 575–76. Porter, J. R. The Extended Family in the Old Testament. London: Edutext, 1967.     . “The Interpretation of 2 Samuel vi and Psalm cxxxii.” JTS 5 (1954): 161–73.     . “The Succession of Joshua,” in Proclamation and Presence. Edited by J. I. Durham and J. R. Porter. Richmond: John Knox, 1970. Porter, S. E. “The Concept of Covenant in Paul,” in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Edited by S. E. Porter and J. C. R. de Roo. Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 269–86. Porter, S. E., and J. C. R. de Roo, eds. The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Porúbcan, S. Sin in the Old Testament. Rome: Herder, 1963. Potter, H. D. “The New Covenant in Jeremiah xxxi 31–34.” VT 33 (1983): 347–57. Poythress, V. The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses. Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991. Prentiss, J. J. “The Sacrifice of Isaac: A Comparative View,” in The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature: Scripture in Context III. Edited by W. W. Hallow et al. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1990, pp. 203–30.

528  |  Bibliography Press, R. “Das Ordal im alten Israel.” ZAW 51 (1933): 121–40, 227–55. Prestige, G. L. God in Patristic Thought. London: SPCK, 1952. Prewitt, T. J. “Kinship Structures and the Genesis Genealogies.” JNES 40 (1981): 87–98. Price, I. M. “The Oath in Court Procedure in Early Babylonia and the Old Testament.” JAOS 49 (1929): 22–29. Priest, J. “The Covenant of Brothers.” JBL 84 (1965): 400–406.     . “A Note on the Messianic Banquet,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992, pp. 222–38. Pritchard, J. B. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Rev. ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955. Pursiful, D. J. The Cultic Motif in the Spirituality of the Book of Hebrews. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1993. Quell, G., and J. Behm, “διατίθημι, διαθήκη.” TDNT 2:104–34. Quinn, J. M. “Triune Self-Giving.” Thomist 44 (1980): 173–218. Rad, G. von. Genesis: A Commentary. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Westminster/John Knox, 1972.     . Old Testament Theology. 2 vols. New York: Harper & Row, 1965.     . The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.     . Studies in Deuteronomy. London: SCM, 1953. Radday, Y. T., and Y. Levi. An Analytical Linguistic Key-Word-In-Context Concordance to the Book of Exodus. Wooster, OH: Biblical Research Associates, 1985. Radday, Y. T., H. Shore, et al. Genesis: An Authorship Study in Computer-Assisted Linguistics. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1985. Ramsey, G. W. “Speech-Forms in Hebrew Law and Prophetic Oracles.” JBL 96 (1977): 45–58. Rattray, S. “Marriage Rules, Kinship Terms and Family Structure in the Bible.” SBL 1987 Seminar Papers. Edited by K. H. Richards. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Ratzinger, J. Behold the Pierced One. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1986.     . Introduction to Christianity. New York: Seabury, 1969.     . The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993.     . Principles of Catholic Theology. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1987. Ravens, D. Luke and the Restoration of Israel. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Reichert, A. Israel, the Firstborn of God: A Topic of Early Deuteronomic Theology. Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Edited by Ted. A. Shinar. Jerusalem: Academic Press, 1977, pp. 341–49. Reif, S. C. “What Enraged Phinehas? A Study of Numbers 25:8.” JBL 90 (1971): 200–206. Rendsburg, G. A. The Redaction of Genesis. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1986. Rendtorff, R. Die Bundesformel. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995.

Bibliography  |  529     . Canon and Theology: Overtures to an Old Testament Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.     . “Canonical Interpretation: A New Approach to Biblical Texts,” Pro Ecclesia 3 (1994): 141–51.     . “ ‘Covenant’ as Structuring Concept in Genesis and Exodus.” JBL 108 (1989): 385–93.     . The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation. Translated by M. Kohl. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998.     . “Genesis 8:21 und die Urgeschichte des Yahwisten.” KD 7 (1961): 69–81.     . The Old Testament: An Introduction. Translated by J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Renwick, D. A. Paul, the Temple, and the Presence of God. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. Reumann, J. “OIKONOMIA = ‘Covenant’; Terms for Heilsgeschichte in Early Christianity,” NovT 3 (1959): 282–92. Richardson, N. H. “Psalm 106: Yahweh’s Succoring Love Saves from the Death of a Broken Covenant,” in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East. Edited by J. H. Marks and R. M. Good. Guilford, CN: Four Quarters, 1987, pp. 191–203. Ricoeur, P. “Narrative Time.” Critical Inquiry 7 (1980): 41–46. Ridderbos, H. N. The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953. Ridderbos, N. H. De Psalmen. Vol. 2. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1973. Roberts, J. J. “The Ancient Near Eastern Environment,” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters. Edited by D. A. Knight. Philadelphia: Fortress; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985, pp. 75–121.     . “The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition.” JBL 92 (1976): 1–13.     . “Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon. Edited by T. Ishida. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1982, pp. 93–108. Robertson, O. P. The Christ of the Covenants. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980. Robinson, A. “Do Ephrathah and Jaar Really Appear in Psalm 132, 6?” ZAW 86 (1974): 220–22. Robinson, H. W. “Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel.” ZAW 66 (1936): 49–61. Robinson, R. B. “Literary Function of the Genealogies of Genesis.” CBQ 48 (1986): 595–608. Rodd, C. W. “The Family in the Old Testament.” Bib Trans 18 (1967): 19–26. Rodriguez, A. M. “Sanctuary Theology in Exodus.” AUSS 24 (1986): 127–45. Roetzel, D. J. Judgement in the Community: A Study of the Relationship Between Eschatology and Ecclesiology in Paul. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Rofé, A. “The Covenant in the Land of Moab (Dt 28,69–30,20): Historico-­Literary, Comparative, and Form Critical Considerations,” in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft. Edited by N. Lohfink. Leuven: University Press, 1985, pp. 310–20.

530  |  Bibliography     . “The Laws of Warfare in the Book of Deuteronomy: Their Origins, Intent, and Positivity.” JSOT 32 (1985): 23–44.     . “Promise and Covenant: The Promise to the Patriarchs in Late Biblical Literature,” in Divine Promises to the Fathers in the Three Monotheistic Religions: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Jerusalem March 24–25, 1993. Edited by A. Niccacci. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1995, pp. 52–59. Rogerson, J. W. Anthropology and the Old Testament. Atlanta: John Knox, 1979.     . “The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality: A Reconsideration.” JTS 21 (1970): 1–16. Rohrbaugh, R., ed. The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. Romaniuk, K. L’amour du Père et du Fils dans la sotériologie de saint Paul. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1961. Roo, J. C. R. de. “God’s Covenant with the Forefathers,” in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Edited by S. E. Porter and J. C. R. de Roo. Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 191–202. Rosenberg, J. King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Hebrew Bible. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1986. Ross, A. P. “The Table of Nations in Genesis 10—Its Content.” Bib Sac 138 (1981): 22–34. Rost, L. The Succession to the Throne of David. Sheffield: Almond, 1982. Rottenberg, I. “Comparative Theology Versus Reactive Theology.” Pro Ecclesia 3 (1994): 411–18. Rouiller, G. “The Interpretation of Genesis 22:1–19,” in Exegesis: Problems of Method and Exercises in Reading. Edited by R. Bovon and G. Rouiller. Translated by D. G. Miller. Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1978, pp. 143–48.     . “The Sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis 22:1–19),” in Exegesis: Problems of Method and Exercises in Reading. Edited by R. Bovon and G. Rouiller. Translated by D. G. Miller. Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1978, pp. 13–42. Rowley, H. H. “Zadok and Nehushtan.” JBL 58 (1939): 113–41. Ruprecht, E. “Der traditionsgeschichtliche Hintergrund der einzelnen Elemente von Genesis 12:2–3.” VT 29 (1979): 444–64. Sabourin, L. The Bible and Christ: The Unity of the Two Testaments. Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1980.     . “The MEMRA of God in the Targums.” BTB 6 (1976): 79–85.     . Priesthood: A Comparative Study. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Safren, J. D. “Balaam and Abraham.” VT 38 (1988): 105–13. Sailhamer, J. H. “The Mosaic Law and the Theology of the Pentateuch,” WTJ 53 (1991): 241–61.     . The Pentateuch as Narrative. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. Sakenfeld, K. D. Faithfulness in Action: Loyalty in Biblical Perspective. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.     . The Meaning of Hiesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978.

Bibliography  |  531 Sanders, E. P. “The Covenant as a Soteriological Category and the Nature of Salvation in Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism,” in Jews, Greeks, and Christians. Vol. 1. Edited by R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs. Leiden: Brill, 1976, pp. 11–44.     . “Patterns of Religion in Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: A Holistic Method of Comparison.” HTR 66 (1973): 455–78.     . Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.     . Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Sanders, J. A. “Habakkuk in Qumran, Paul and the Old Testament,” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993, pp. 989–1117.     . Suffering as Divine Discipline in the Old Testament and Post Biblical Judaism. Rochester, NY: Colgate Rochester Divinity School Press, 1955. Sanders, J. T. “Circumcision of Gentile Converts.” BR 7 (1991): 21–25, 44. Sarna, N. “Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis,” in Biblical and Other Essays. Edited by A. Altmann. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963, pp. 29–46. Sasson, J. “Bovine Symbolism in the Exodus Narrative.” VT 18 (1968): 380–87.     . “The Worship of the Golden Calf.” AOAT 22 (1973): 151–59. Sauer, E. In the Arena of Faith. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956. Scharbert, J. “ ‘Berît’ im Pentateuch,” in De la Tôrah au Messie. Edited by M. Carrez, J. Doré, and P. Grelot. Paris: Desclee, 1981, pp. 163–70.     . Heilsmittler im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient. Freiburg: Herder, 1964.     . Solidarität in Segen und Fluch im Alten Testament und in seiner Umwelt. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1958.     . “Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte von Gen 6:1–4.” BZ 11 (1967): 66–78. Scheeben, M. J. The Mysteries of Christianity. St. Louis: Herder, 1946. Schenck, K. L. Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews: The Settings of the Sacrifice. SNTSMS 143. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Schenker, A. Der Mächtiger im Schmelzofen des Mitleids: Eine Interpretation von II Sam 24. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982.     . “Les Sacrifices d’Alliance, Ex XXIV, 3–8, dans leur Portée Narrative et Religieuse.” RB 101 (1994): 481–94. Schiffman, L., E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Schlisske, W. Gottessöhne und Gottessohn im Alten Testament. Berlin: Kohlhammer, 1973. Schloen, J. D. The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001. Schmid, H. H. Der sogenannte Jahwist. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976. Schmid, R. Das Bundesopfer in Israel, Ursprung und Bedeutung der alttestamentlichen Schelamim. München: Kösel, 1964.

532  |  Bibliography Schmidt, W. “Ethnologische Bemerkungen zu theologischen Opfertheorien,” Jahrbuch des Missionhauses St. Gabriel 1 (1922): 2–57. Schmitt, H.-C. “Die Erzählung von der Versuchung Abrahams Gen 22, 1–19 und das Problem einer Theologie der elohistischen Pentateuchtexts.” BN 34 (1986): 82–109. Schmitt, J. J. “Pre-Israelite Jerusalem,” in Scripture in Context. Edited by C. D. Evans, W. W. Hallo, and J. B. White. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980, pp. 101–21.     . “Psalm 87: Zion, The City of God’s Love,” in The Psalms and Other Studies on the Old Testament. Edited by J. C. Knight and L. A. Sinclair. Nashotah, WI: Nashotah House Seminary, 1990, pp. 34–44. Schnackenburg, R. Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul. New York: Herder and Herder, 1964. Schoenberg, M. W. “HUIOTHESIA: The Adoptive Sonship of the Israelites.” AER 143 (1960): 261–73.     . “St. Paul’s Notion on the Adoptive Sonship of Christians,” Thomist 28 (1964): 51–75. Schoeps, H.-J. Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History. Translated by H. Knight. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961.     . “The Sacrifice of Isaac in Paul’s Theology.” JBL 65 (1946): 385–92. Schoonenberg, P. Covenant and Creation. London: Sheed & Ward, 1968. Schreiner, S. “Psalm 110 und die Investitur des Hohenpriesters.” VT 27 (1977): 216–22. Schreiner, T. R. “The Abolition and Fulfillment of the Law in Paul.” JSNT 35 (1989): 47–74.     . The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.     . “ ‘Works of Law’ in Paul.” NovT 33 (1991): 217–44. Schurer, E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. 4 vols. Edited by G. Vermes. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979. Schüssler-Fiorenza, E. Priester für Gott: Studien zum Herrschafts- und Priestmotiv in der Apokalypse. Munster: Aschendorff, 1972. Schweizer, E. “Slaves of the Elements and Worshipers of Angels: Gal 4:3, 9 and Col 2:8, 18, 20.” JBL 107 (1988): 455–68. Scott, E. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1923. Scott, J. M. Adoption as Sons of God. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992. Scroggs, R. The Last Adam. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966. Seccombe, D. “The New People of God,” in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts. Edited by I. H. Marshall and D. Peterson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998, pp. 350–72. Seckler, M. Das Heil in der Geschichte. München: Kösel, 1964. Seebass, H. “The Relationship of Torah and Promise in the Redactionary Composition of the Pentateuch.” HBT 7 (1985): 99–116. Segal, A. F. “ ‘He Who Did Not Spare His Own Son . . .’ Jesus, Paul, and the Akedah,” in From Jesus to Paul. Edited by P. Richardson and J. C. Hurd. Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984, pp. 169–84.

Bibliography  |  533     . Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990.     . Rebecca’s Children. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986. Selwyn, E. G. The First Epistle of St. Peter. New York: Macmillan, 1977. Seow, C. L. Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David’s Dance. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Seybold, K. “Der Redaktion der Wallfahrtspsalmen.” ZAW 71 (1979): 247–68. Sheehan, J. F. X. “Melchisedech in Christian Consciousness.” Science Ecclésiastiques 18 (1966): 127–38. Sheriffs, D. C. T. “The Phrases ina IGI DN and lipeney Yhwh in Treaty and Covenant Contexts.” JNSL 7 (1979): 55–68. Siker, J. S. Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy. Lousi­ ville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1991. Silving, H. “The Oath.” Yale Law Journal 68 (1959): 1329–90, 1527–77. Simon, M. “The Ancient Church and Rabbinical Tradition,” in Holy Book and Holy Tradition. Edited by F. F. Bruce and E. G. Rupp. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968, pp. 94–112.     . Verus Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. Skausaune, O. The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text Tradition. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Skehan, P. W. “The Structure of the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy.” CBQ 13 (1951): 153–63. Skinner, J. Genesis: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. New York: T. & T. Clark, 1910. Skinner, J. Genesis: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. Rev. ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930. Sklba, R. “The Redeemer of Israel.” CBQ 34 (1972): 1–18.     . The Teaching Function of the Pre-Exilic Israelite Priesthood. Rome: Pontifical University of St. Thomas of Urbe Press, 1965. Smelik, K. A. D. “The Ark Narrative Reconsidered.” OTS 25 (1989): 128–44. Smith, J. A Priest For Ever: A Study of Typology and Eschatology in Hebrews. London: Sheed and Ward, 1969. Smith, M. H. “The Church and Covenant Theology.” JETS 21 (1978): 47–65. Smith, R. H. “Abram and Melchizedek.” ZAW 77 (1965): 129–53. Smith, R. L. “Covenant and Law in Exodus.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 20 (1977): 33–41. Smith, S. “The Threshing Floor at the City Gate.” PEQ (1946): 4–14. Smith, W. R. Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1885.     . The Religion of the Semites. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1889.     . “Sacrifice,” in Encylopedia Brittanica. 1886 edition, 21:132–38. Snaith, N. Leviticus and Numbers. London: Thomas Nelson and Son, 1967. Snijders, L. A. “Genesis XV. The Covenant with Abraham,” OTS 12 (1958): 261–79. Soggin, J. A. Introduction to the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980.

534  |  Bibliography Sohn, S.-T. “ ‘I Will Be Your God and You Will Be My People’: The Origin and Background of the Covenant Formula,” in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine. Edited by R. Chazan, W. W. Hallo, and L. H. Schiffman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999, pp. 355–72. Sperling, J. D. “Rethinking Covenant in Late Biblical Books.” Bib 70 (1989): 50–73. Spicq, C. “Le Commentaire de l’Épitre aux Hébreux par W. Gouge.” Mel Sci Rel 31 (1974): 3–24.     . L’Épître aux Hébreux. 2 vols. Paris: Galbalda, 1952–1953.     . “L’Épître aux Hébreux, Apollos, Jean-Baptiste, les Hellénistes, et Qumrân.” RevQ 1 (1958–1959): 365–90. Spidlik, T. The Spirituality of the Christian East. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1986. Spiegel, S. The Last Trial. On the Legends and Lord of the Command to Abraham to Offer Isaac as a Sacrifice: The Akedah. New York: Pantheon, 1967. Spriggs, D. S. Two Old Testament Theologies. London: SCM, 1974. Stager, L. E. “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel.” BASOR 260 (1985): 1–35. Steinberg, N. “The Genealogical Framework of the Family Stories in Genesis.” Semeia 46 (1989): 41–50. Steinmetz, D. From Father to Son: Kinship, Conflict, and Continuity in Genesis. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991. Stendahl, K. Paul among Jews and Gentiles. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Sternberg, M. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1985. Steward, G. The Argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872. Stockhausen, C. K. “2 Corinthians 3 and the Principles of Pauline Exegesis,” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993, pp. 143–64.     . Moses’ Veil and the Glory of the New Covenant. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989. Strauss, M. L. The Davidic Messiah in Luke–Acts: The Promise and Its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Strehle, S. Calvinism, Federalism, and Scholasticism. New York: Peter Lang, 1988. Stylianopoulos, T. Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Sutton, R. That You May Prosper: Dominion by Covenant. Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1987. Sweeney, M. A. “The Wilderness Traditions of the Pentateuch: A Reassessment of Their Function and Intent in Relation to Exodus 32–34.” SBL 1989 Seminar Papers. Edited by D. J. Lull. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989, pp. 291–99. Swetnam, J. “Christology and the Eucharist in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Bib 70 (1989): 74–95.

Bibliography  |  535     . “Diathēkē in the Septuagint Account of Sinai: A Suggestion.” Bib 47 (1966): 438–44.     . “Form and Content in Hebrews 1–6.” Bib 53 (1972): 368–85.     . “Form and Content in Hebrews 7–13.” Bib 55 (1974): 333–48.     . “ ‘The Greater and More Perfect Tent’: A Contribution to the Discussion of Hebrews 9, 11.” Bib 47 (1966): 91–106.     . “Hebrews 9:2 and the Uses of Consistency.” CBQ 32 (1970): 205–21.     . “Hebrews 11: An Interpretation.” Melita Theologica 41 (1990): 97–114.     . Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in Light of the Aqedah. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981.     . “Jesus as Λόγος in Hebrews 4,12–13.” Bib 62 (1981): 214–24.     . “On the Imagery and Significance of Hebrews 9:9–10.” CBQ 28 (1966): 155–73.     . “On the Literary Genre of the ‘Epistle’ to the Hebrews.” NT 11 (1969): 261–69.     . “Sacrifice and Revelation in the Epistle to the Hebrews: Observations and Surmises on Hebrews 9:26.” CBQ 30 (1968): 227–34.     . “A Suggested Interpretation of Hebrews 9,15–18.” CBQ 27 (1965): 373–90.     . “Why Was Jeremiah’s New Covenant New?” VTSup 26 (1974): 111–15. Tadmor, H. “Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East,” in Humanizing America’s Iconic Book. Edited by G. M. Tucker and D. A. Knight. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982, pp. 127–52. Talmon, S. “Amen as an Introductory Oath Formula.” Text 7 (1969): 124–29.     . “The Biblical Concept of Jerusalem.” JES 8 (1971): 300–16.     . “The Presentation of Synchroneity and Simultaneity in Biblical Narratives.” Scripta Hierosolymitana 27 (1978): 9–26. Tannehill, R. C. The Narrative Unity of Luke–Acts: A Literary Interpretation. Vol. 1: The Gospel According to Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Tarazi, P. N. Galatians. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994. Taubenschlag, R. The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in Light of the Papyri 322 B.C.– 640 A.D. Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1955. Taylor, G. M. “The Function of PISTIS XRISTOU in Galatians.” JBL 85 (1966) 58–76. Taylor, N. H. “Luke–Acts and the Temple,” in The Unity of Luke–Acts. Edited by J. Verheyden. Leuven: Peeters, 1999, pp. 709–21. Taylor, T. M. “ ‘Abba, Father,’ and Baptism,” SJT 11 (1958): 62–71. Terrien, S. The Elusive Presence. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.     . Till the Heart Sings: A Biblical Theology of Manhood and Womanhood. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Thielman, F. From Plight to Solution. Leiden: Brill, 1989.     . Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994. Thompson, J. A. The Ancient Near Eastern Treaties and the Old Testament. London: Tyndale House, 1964.

536  |  Bibliography     . “Israel’s ‘Haters.’ ” VT 29 (1979): 200–205.     . “Israel’s ‘Lovers.’ ” VT 27 (1977): 475–81.     . “Non-Biblical Covenants in the Ancient Near East.” Australian Biblical Review 8 (1960): 38–45.     . “The Signficance of the Verb Love in the David-Jonathan Narratives in I Samuel.” VT 24 (1974): 334–38. Thompson, J. W. The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1981. Thompson, R. J. Penitence and Sacrifice in Early Israel Outside the Levitical Law. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Thompson, T. L. The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel. Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1987. Thundyil, P. Covenant in Anglo-Saxon Thought. Calcutta: Macmillan of India, 1972. Thurian, M. The Eucharistic Memorial. 2 vols. Richmond: John Knox, 1963. Toorn, K. van der. “Ordeal Procedures in the Psalms and the Passover Meal.” VT 38 (1988): 427–45.     . Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia: A Comparative Study. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985. Travis, S. H. Christ and the Judgment of God. Basingstoke: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1986.     . “Christ as Bearer of Divine Judgment in Paul’s Thought about the Atonement,” in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ. Edited J. B. Green and M. Turner. Grand Rapids: 1994, pp. 332–45. Trible, P. Genesis 22: The Sacrifice of Sarah. Valparaiso, IN: Valparaiso University, 1990. Trinité, P. de la. “God of Wrath or God of Love?” in Love and Violence. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1954, pp. 122–202. Trites, A. The New Testament Concept of Witness. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Trumbull, H. C. The Blood Covenant. London: Redway, 1887.     . The Threshold Covenant. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1896. Tucker, G. M. “Covenant Forms and Contract Forms.” VT 15 (1965): 487–503. Tuckett, C. M. “The Christology of Luke–Acts,” in The Unity of Luke–Acts. Edited by J. Verheyden. Leuven: Peeters, 1999, pp. 133–64. Turner, M. Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke–Acts. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Turner, V. W. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1966.     . “Sacrifice as Quintessential Process.” History of Religions 16 (1976–77): 189–215. Tyson, J. B. “ ‘Works of Law’ in Galatians.” JBL 92 (1973): 423–31. Ulshoefer, H. K. “Nathan’s Opposition to David’s Intention to Build a Temple in Light of Selected Ancient Near Eastern Texts.” Ph.D. diss., Boston University, 1977.

Bibliography  |  537 Unger, M. F. Israel and the Aramaeans of Damascus. London: James Clarke, 1957. Vagaggini, C. Theological Dimensions of the Liturgy. 4th ed. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1976. Vander Goot, H. Interpreting the Bible in Theology and the Church. New York: Edwin Mellon Press, 1984. Vanderkam, J. C. “Covenant and Biblical Interpretation in Jubilees 6,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by L. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000: 92–104. Vanhoozer, K. J. “From Speech Acts to Scripture Acts: The Covenant of Discourse and the Discourse of Covenant,” in After Penetecost: Language and Biblical Interpretation. Edited by C. Bartholomew et al. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001, pp. 1–49. Vanhoye, A. La Nuova Alleanza Nel Nuovo Testamento. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1984.     . Old Testament Priests and the New Priest. Translated by J. B. Orchard. Petersham, Mass.: St. Bede’s, 1986.     . Our Priest Is Christ. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977.     . Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1989.     . La Structure littéraire de l’Épître aux Hébreux. 2nd ed. Paris-Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer, 1976. Van Ruiten, J. A. T. G. “The Covenant of Noah in Jubilees 6.1–38,” in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Edited by S. E. Porter and J. C. R. de Roo. Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 167–90. Van Seters, A. “God and Family: From Sociology to Covenant Theology.” Themelios 5 (1980): 4–7. Van Seters, J. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975.     . “ ‘Comparing Scripture with Scripture’: Some Observations on the Sinai Pericope of Exodus 19–24,” in Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation. Edited by G. M. Tucker, D. L. Petersen, and R. R. Wilson. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988, pp. 111–30.     . “Law and the Wilderness Rebellion Tradition: Exodus 32.” SBL 1990 Seminar Papers. Edited by D. J. Lull. Alanta: Scholars Press, 1990, pp. 583–91. Van Zandt, A. B. “The Doctrine of the Covenants Considered as the Central Principle of Theology,” Presbyterian Review 3 (1882): 28–39. Vattioni, F. “Recenti studi nell’alleanza nella Bibbia e nell, Antico Oriente.” AION 17 (1967): 181–232. Vaux, R. de. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.     . The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Garden City: Doubleday, 1971.     . The Early History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978. Vawter, B. Genesis. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977.

538  |  Bibliography     . “Levitical Messianism and the New Testament,” in The Bible in Current Catholic Thought. Edited by J. L. McKenzie. New York: Herder and Herder, 1962, pp. 83–99.     . “Realized Messianism,” in De la Tôra au Messie. Edited by M. Carrez et al. Paris: Desclee, 1981, pp. 275–80.     . “Salvation Is a Family Affair,” in Sin, Salvation, and the Spirit. Edited by Daniel Durken. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1979, pp. 65–70. Veijola, T. “The Witness in the Clouds: Ps 89:38.” JBL 107 (1988): 413–17. Verhoef, P. A. Haggai and Malachi. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Vermeš, G. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. Leiden: Brill, 1961.     . Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Viberg, A. Symbols of Law: A Contextual Analysis of Legal Symbolic Acts in the Old Testament. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1992. Vilnay, Z. Legends of Jerusalem. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1973. Vink, F. J. “The Date and Origin of the Priestly Code.” OTS 15 (1969): 1–144. Vogels, W. “L’alliance primitive universelle.” Église et Théologie 3 (1972): 291–322.     . “Covenants Between Israel and the Nations.” Église et Théologie 4 (1973): 171–96.     . God’s Universal Covenant: A Biblical Study. Rev. ed. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1986. Vööbus, A., trans. and ed. The Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac. Vol. 2: Chapters XI–XXVI. Louvain: CSCO, 1979.     . History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient. Leuven: CSCO, 1958. Vorgrimler, H., ed. Dogmatic Versus Biblical Theology. Baltimore: Helicon, 1964. Vos, G. “Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke.” Princeton Theological Review 13 (1915): 587–632, 14 (1916): 1–61.     . The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and a Theological Discipline. New York: A. D. F. Randolph, 1894.     . The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956. Vriezen, T. C. “The Exegesis of Exodus XXIV 9–11.” OTS 17 (1972): 100–133. Waal, C. van der. “The Continuity Between the Old and New Testaments,” Neotestamentica 14 (1981): 1–20.     . “ ‘The People of God’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Neotestamentica 5 (1971): 83–92. Wagner, W. A. The Mission of the Holy Angels in the Economy of Salvation. Innsbruck: C.G.A., 1984. Waltke, B. K. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.     . “The Phenomenon of Conditionality Within Unconditional Covenants,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison. Edited by A. Gileadi. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988, pp. 123–40.

Bibliography  |  539 Walton, J. H. Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context: A Survey of Parallels Between Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.     . Covenant: God’s Purpose, God’s Plan. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994. Ward, J. M. “The Literary Form and Liturgical Background of Psalm lxxxix.” VT 11 (1961): 321–39. Watson, F. Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Watts, J. D. W. Isaiah 1–33. Waco, TX: Word, 1985. Weber, F. System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie aus Targum, Midrasch, und Talmud. Edited by F. Delitzsch and G. Schnedermann. Leipzig, 1880. Weber, M. Ancient Judaism. New York: Free Press, 1952. Weeks, N. “Admonition and Error in Hebrews.” WTJ 29 (1976): 72–80. Wegner, P. D. “The Nature of Divine Oaths in the Old Testament.” Th.M. thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1984. Weinandy, T. G. In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh: An Essay on the Humanity of Christ. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993. Weinfeld, M. “Berith,” TDOT 2: 253–79.     . “Berît—Covenant Versus Obligation.” Bib 56 (1975): 120–28.     . “The Common Heritage of Covenantal Traditions in the Ancient World,” in I trattati nel mondo antico: forma, ideologia, funzione. Edited by L. Canfora et al. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1990, pp. 175–91.     . “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East.” JAOS 90 (1970): 184–203.     . “Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on the West.” JAOS 93 (1973): 190–99.     . “Cult Centralization in Israel in the Light of a Neo-Babylonian Analogy,” JNES 23 (1964): 202–12.     . Deuteronomy 1–11. AYB 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991; reprint, New Haven: Yale University Press.     . Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. New York: Oxford University Press, 1972.     . “Deuteronomy: The Present State of Inquiry.” JBL 86 (1969): 249–62.     . “Jeremiah and the Spiritual Metamorphosis of Israel.” ZAW 88 (1976): 17–56.     . “The Loyalty Oath in the Ancient Near East.” UF 8 (1976): 379–414.     . “On ‘Demythologization and Secularization’ in Deuteronomy.” IEJ 23 (1973): 230–33.     . The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.     . “Sabbath, Temple, and the Enthronement of the Lord—The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1–2:3,” in Mélanges biblique et orientaux. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981, pp. 501–12.

540  |  Bibliography     . “Traces of Assyrian Formulae in Deuteronomy,” Bib 46 (1965): 417–27.     . “The Transition From Tribal Republic to Monarch in Ancient Israel and Its Impression on Jewish Political History,” in Kinship and Consent. Edited by D. J. Elazar. Philadelphia: Turtledove, 1981, pp. 151–68.     . “The Tribal League at Sinai,” in Ancient Israelite Religion. Edited by P. D. Miller et al. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987, pp. 303–14.     . “Zion and Jerusalem as Religious and Political Capital: Ideology and Utopia,” in The Poet and the Historian. Edited by R. E. Friedman. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983, pp. 75–115. Weingreen, J. From Bible to Mishna. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1976. Weiser, A. The Psalms. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962. Weisman, Z. “National Consciousness in the Patriarchal Promises.” JSOT 31 (1985): 55–73. Weiss, B. G. “Covenant and Law in Islam,” in Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives. Edited by E. B. Firmage, B. G. Weiss, and J. W. Welch. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990, pp. 49–84. Wellhausen, J. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. Edinburgh: A. & C. Black 1885. Repr., New York: Meridian, 1957. Wells, P. “Covenant, Humanity, and Scripture: Some Theological Reflections.” WTJ 48 (1986): 17–45. Wenham, G. J. Genesis 1–15. Waco, TX: Word, 1987.     . Genesis 16–50. Dallas: Word, 1994.     . Leviticus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.     . Numbers. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981.     . “The Symbolism of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15: A Response to G. F. Hasel.­” JSOT 22 (1989): 134–37.     . “Were David’s Sons Priests?” ZAW 87 (1975): 79–82. Westcott, B. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Rev. ed. New York: Macmillan, 1892. Westerholm, S. Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Westermann, C. Blessing in the Bible and the Life of the Church. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978.     . Genesis 1–11. Translated by J. J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984.     . Genesis 12–36. Translated by J. J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985.     . “The Old Testament Understanding of History in Relation to That of the Enlightenment,” in Understanding the Word. Edited by J. T. Butler et al. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985, pp. 207–19. Whedbee, J. W. “On Divine and Human Bonds: The Tragedy of the House of ­David,” in Canon, Theology, and Old Testament Interpretation. Edited by G. M. Tucker et al. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988, pp. 147–65. White, H. C. “The Divine Oath in Genesis.” JBL 92 (1973): 165–79.     . “The Initiation of Isaac.” ZAW 91 (1979): 1–30.     . Narration and Discourse in the Book of Genesis. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Bibliography  |  541 White, M. “The Elohistic Depiction of Aaron: A Study in the Levite-Zadokite Controversy.” VTSup 41 (1990): 149–59. White, R. E. O. The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1960. Whitelam, K. W. The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979. Whitely, C. F. “Covenant and Commandment in Israel.” JNES 22 (1963): 37–48. Whybray, R. N. The Making of the Pentateuch. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Widdicombe, P. The Fatherhood of God from Origen to Athanasius. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Widengren, G. “King and Covenant.” JSS 2 (1957): 1–32.     . Sakrales Königtum im Alten Testament und im Judentum. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1955. Wilcox, M. The Semitisms of Acts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.     . “ ‘Upon the Tree’—Deut 21:22–23 in the New Testament.” JBL 96 (1977): 85–99. Wildavsky, A. The Nursing Father: Moses as a Political Leader. Birmingham: University of Alabama Press, 1984. Wilfong, M. W. “Genesis 22:1–18. Int 45 (1991): 393–97. Wilken, R. L. The Land Called Holy: Palestine in Christian History and Thought. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992. Willesen, F. “The Yalid in Hebrew Society.” ST 12 (1958): 192–210. Williams, S. K. “Promise in Galatians: A Reading of Paul’s Reading of Scripture.” JBL 107 (1988): 709–20. Williamson, P. R. Abraham, Israel, and the Nations: The Patriarchal Promise and Its Covenantal Development in Genesis. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.     . Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose. NSBT 23. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007. Williamson, R. “The Eucharist and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” NTS 21 (1975): 300–312.     . Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Wilson, R. R. “Enforcing the Covenant: The Mechanisms of Judicial Authority in Early Israel,” in The Quest for the Kingdom of God. Edited by H. B. Huffmon et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983, pp. 59–75.     . Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977.     . “The Old Testament Genealogies in Recent Research,” JBL 94 (1975): 169–89. Wijngaards, J. “Death and Resurrection in Covenantal Contexts.” VT 17 (1967): 226–39. Winter, P. “Der Begriff ‘Söhne Gottes’ im Moselied Dtn 32,1–43.” ZAW 67 (1955): 40–48. Wisdom, J. R. Blessing for the Nations and the Curse of the Law: Paul’s Citation of Genesis and Deuteronomy in Gal 3.8–10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001.

542  |  Bibliography Wise, M. O. “The Concept of a New Covenant in the Teacher Hymns from Qumran (1QHa x–xvii),” in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Edited by S. E. Porter and J. C. R. de Roo. Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 99–128. Wiseman, D. J. “ ‘Is it Peace?’—Covenant and Diplomacy,” VT 32 (1982): 311–26.     . “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon.” Iraq 20 (1958): 28. Witherington, B. Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.     . “The Influence of Galatians on Hebrews.” NTS 37 (1991): 146–52.     . Paul’s Narrative Thought World. Louisville: John Knox/Westminster, 1994. Wolff, H. J. “Hellenistic Private Law,” in The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural, and Religious Life and Institutions. 2 vols. Edited by S. Safrai and M. Stern. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974, 1:534–560. Wolf, H. M. “The Transcendent Nature of Covenant Curse Reversals,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison. Edited by A. Gileadi. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988, pp. 319–25. Wolff, H. W. Anthropology of the Old Testament. Translated by M. Kohl. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974.     . “Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes.” ZAW 73 (1961): 171–86.     . “Kerygma of the Yahwist.” Int 20 (1966): 131–58. Wright, C. J. H. “Family,” AYBD. Edited by D. N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992, 2:761–69.     . God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.     . Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament. London: Marshall Pickering, 1992. Wright, G. E. “Deuteronomy,” in The Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 2. Edited by G. A. Buttrick. Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1952.     . “The Lawsuit of God: A Form-Critical Study of Deuteronomy 32,” in ­Israel’s Prophetic Heritage. Edited by B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson. New York: Harper, 1962. pp. 26–67.     . “The Levites in Deuteronomy.” VT 4 (1954): 325–30. Wright, G. R. J. “Shechem and League Shrines.” VT 21 (1971): 572–603. Wright, N. T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.     . “Gospel and Theology in Galatians,” in Gospel in Paul. Edited by L. A. Jervis and P. Richardson. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994, pp. 222–39.     . “Jerusalem in the New Testament,” in Jerusalem—Past and Present in the Purpose of God. Edited by P. W. L. Walker. Cambridge: Tyndale House, 1992, pp. 53–77.     . “Jesus, Israel, and the Cross,” in SBL 1985 Seminar Papers. Edited K. Richards. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985, pp. 75–95.

Bibliography  |  543     . “Justification: The Biblical Basis and Its Relevance for Contemporary Evangelicalism,” in The Great Acquittal: Justification by Faith and Current Christian Thought. Edited by G. Reid. London: Fount, 1980, pp. 13–37.     . The New Testament and the People of God. Vol. 1. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992.     . “The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith.” TynB 29 (1978): 61–88.     . “Putting Paul Together Again,” in Pauline Theology. Vol. 1. Edited by J. M. Bassler. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991, pp. 183–211.     . “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” in SBL 1992 Seminar Papers. Edited by E. H. Lovering. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992, pp. 184–213. Yadin, Y. The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Studies. Vol 2. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963. Young, E. J. “Confession and Covenant,” in Scripture and Confession. Edited by J. H. Skilton. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973, pp. 31–66. Young, N. H. “PAIDAGOGOS: The Social Setting of a Pauline Metaphor.” NovT 29 (1987): 150–76. Youngblood, R. “The Abrahamic Covenant: Conditional or Unconditional?” in The Living and Active Word. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983, pp. 31–46. Zeitlin, S. Book of Jubilees. Philadelphia: Dropsie, 1939. Zerafa, P. “The Land of Moriah.” Angelicum 44 (1967): 84–94.     . “Priestly Messianism in the Old Testament.” Angelicum 42 (1965): 318–41. Zevit, Z. “A Phoenician Inscription and Biblical Covenant Theology.” IEJ 27 (1977): 110–18. Zimmerli, W. “Christology and the Eucharist in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Bib 70 (1989): 74–95.     . “Erstgeborene und Leviten: Ein Beitrag zur exilisch-nachexilischen Theologie,” in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Edited by H. Goedicke. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971, pp. 459–69.     . Ezekiel 1. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.     . Ezekiel 2. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.     . “The History of Israelite Religion,” in Tradition and Interpretation. Edited by G. W. Anderson. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979, pp. 351–84.     . The Law and the Prophets. New York: Harper & Row, 1965.     . Old Testament Theology in Outline. Atlanta: John Knox, 1978.     . “Sinaibund und Abrahambund.” TZ 16 (1960): 205–16. Zlotowitz, M., and N. Scherman. Bereishis = Genesis: A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic, and Rabbinic Sources. 2 vols. New York: Mesorah, 1978.

This page intentionally left blank

general index Abiathar (priest), 160, 163 Abrahamic covenant, 101–35 as allegory of Israel’s covenant history, 112–20 blessings in, 38, 127, 131–32 canonical criticism approach to, 25 circumcision in, 115–16, 397n68 cumulative nature of three versions of, 120–23 familial or relational dimension of, 106–7, 123–25, 400n91 in Galatians (See under Galatians, covenant concepts in) Genesis 15 “covenant between the pieces” great nationhood, promise of, 104–5 Sinaitic covenant, parallels with, 112–14, 120 source of, 102, 392n1 Genesis 17 covenant of circumcision Deuteronomic or Moabite covenant and, 114–17, 120–21 “great name” promised by, 105–7 source of, 102, 392n1 as treaty-type covenant, 115 Genesis 22 covenant at the Aqedah blessing on all nations bestowed in, 108–11 Davidic covenant and, 117–20, 121–22, 191–92, 196 as grant-type covenant, 118, 398n80 Isaac, near-sacrifice of, 108, 123–30 oath-swearing in, 108–11, 125–29 Pauline emphasis on, 245–46, 255–56, 261–62 source of, 102, 392n1 grant-type features of, 101–3, 118, 398n80 in Hebrews (See under Hebrews, covenant in) Jerusalem and Salem, identification of, 132–34 Luke and Acts, fulfillment in, 236

name changes for Abram and Sarai, 105 Noahic covenant and Melchizedek (Shem son of Noah), 130–34 Pauline writings, primacy for, 21, 33, 238–39, 256–62 promissory elements of, 103–11 reasons for three versions of, 102–3 scholarship review, 10–11 Adam creation or Adamic covenant, 8–9, 388n20 in Hebrews Old and New covenants, relationship between, 280, 320 rest lost by, Christ offering, 290–92 restoration of lost glory by Jesus, 284–88 threefold royal priestly primogeniture of Christ and, 279 Luke’s tracing of Jesus’ genealogy back to, 219 royal priestly primogeniture of, 167, 279 Ahab (king of Israel), 61–62 Ahaz (king of Judah), 60–61 Aimon d’Auxerre, 473n52 Alcuin, 473n52 Amenhotep II (pharaoh), 413n36 ancient Near Eastern (ANE) literature Deuteronomy, and ANE treaties, lexical overlap between, 63–64 kinship terms in treaty covenants, 59–60 oath and covenant, association of, 260 suzerain-vassal treaties, 49–50, 58, 93–94, 386n4 angels birth of Jesus and, 219, 220 Davidic covenant and, 191–92 golden calf incident and, 147, 270 Hebrews on Jesus’ superiority to, 281–84, 285 Mosaic law, as givers of, 258–59, 265–55 animal sacrifice. See sacrifice

545

546  |  General Index anti-Semitism of author of Hebrews, supposed, 327 Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Seleucid king), 166 Aphrahat, 45, 46, 419n82 apocrypha, OT. See deuterocanonical texts apologetic letter, Galatians structured as, 244 Aqedah, Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 22 at. See under Abrahamic covenant Ashurnirari V (Assyrian king), 316 Assyrians. See Ancient Near East (ANE) literature Athaniasius of Alexandria, 419n82 atonement theology, 336 Augustine of Hippo, 419n82 Baal-peor incident, 68–69, 84, 158–59, 253–54, 263–65 Babel, Tower of, 98 Babylonian exile and return, 202–5 Babylonians. See Ancient Near East (ANE) literature Balaam, 159 Balak (Moabite king), 159 baptism Galatians on divine sonship through, 268–69 in Hebrews, 330 as New covenant counterpart to circumcision, 268–69 Bathsheba, David’s oath to, 186 Benhadad (king of Syria), 61–62 bĕrît. See also covenants diathĕkĕ used to translate in LXX, 257 as OT term for covenant, 43 blessings in Abrahamic covenant, 38, 127, 131–32 firstborn’s claim on, 38 in Galatians, 462n88 in Hebrews, 280–81, 325–26 in Noahic covenant, 98–99 in treaty-type covenants, 49, 53, 58, 77, 80 canonical criticism advantages of, 24–27, 332–33, 347n108 grant-type covenants, 96–97, 392n48 treaty-type covenants, 79 catena in Hebrews, 281–84 chiasm, 185, 239, 244, 277, 388n21 Christ, as title, 448n6 Christianity. See also New Testament covenants author of Hebrews addressing developing issues of, 327

baptism Galatians on divine sonship through, 268–69 in Hebrews, 330 as New covenant counterpart to circumcision, 268–69 circumcision, Paul on, 125, 245, 247, 268–69, 272–74 curses, Jesus as bearer/expiator of of Deuteronomic covenant curses, 239, 248–56 of Sinaitic covenant curses, 317–19 Eucharist Davidic kingdom of Jesus and table fellowship, Luke’s linking of, 222–29, 234 Hebrews, Jesus’ death as liturgical sacrifice in, 328–31 oath-sign, as, 56–57, 365–66n47 influence of Galatians on Christian thought on relationship between OT and NT, 238 Isaac’s near-sacrifice as prefiguring of Christ’s passion, 126 oath-sign, Eucharist as, 56–57, 365–66n47 sacrifice of Christ in Hebrews compared with liturgy of Old covenant, 307 liturgical sacrifice, Jesus’ death as, 327–31 Sinaitic covenant curse, as expiation of, 317–19 circumcision in Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 17), 115–16, 397n68 baptism as New covenant counterpart to, 268–69 of the heart, 78–79, 116, 252 as oath-sign, 53 Paul on, 125, 245, 247, 268–69, 272–74 classical literature, association of oath and covenant in, 260 covenants, 1–33 Abrahamic (See Abrahamic covenant) bĕrît diathĕkĕ used to translate in LXX, 257 as OT term for covenant, 43 blessings associated with (See blessings) centrality of concept to Second Temple Judaism, 239–41 creation as covenant, 8–9, 388n20 curse-bearing in (See curse-bearing) Davidic (See Davidic covenant) defined, 28–29

General Index  |  547 Deuteronomic (See Deuteronomic covenant) diathĕkĕ as Greek term for (See diathĕkĕ) diversity of covenant perspectives in Scripture, 337–38 in Galatians (See Galatians, covenant concepts in) goal and methodology of study of, 22–28, 31–33 grace and works, tension between, xi–xii, 127, 250–52 grant type (See grant-type covenants) in Hebrews (See Hebrews, covenant in) historiography of scholarship on, 1–2, 335 as inviolable legal institutions, 259–60 kinship dimension of (See familial or relational dimension of covenants) kinship type (See kinship covenants) Levitical (See Levitical covenant) as natural versus contractual or theocratic relationship, 1, 339n1 Noahic (See Noahic covenant) in NT (See New Testament covenants) oaths associated with (See oath-swearing and covenants) in OT (See Old Testament covenants) scholarship review general studies, 3–9 historical background, 1–2 particular covenants, 9–14 recent work, 2–3 specific biblical and parabiblical texts, 14–22 typology of covenants, 30 secular covenants as inviolable legal institution, 259–60 kinship covenants in OT, 43–44 treaty-type covenants in OT, 60–62 social covenants, 351n1 (See also kinship covenants) treaty type (See treaty-type covenants) typology of, 28–32 Cozbi (Midianite princess), 159 creation as covenant, 8–9, 388n20 curse-bearing, 32, 334 in Abrahamic covenant of circumcision (Genesis 17), 115–16 death, curse of, 316–19 in Deuteronomic covenant, 73, 77–78, 239, 248–56 in Hebrews, 280–81, 316–19, 326–27 Jesus as bearer/expiator of Deuteronomic covenant curses, 239, 248–56 of Sinaitic covenant curses, 317–19

kinship covenants, 357n73 self-maledictory pledges Hebrews and, 315–16 in treaty-type covenants, 51–53, 363–64n27 treaty-type covenants, self-maledictory pledges in, 51–53, 363–64n27 D material. See Deuteronomic history Davidic covenant, 176–213 Abrahamic covenant and, 117–20, 121–22, 191–92, 196 canonical criticism approach to, 25, 26 chief characteristics of, 200–201 conclusions regarding, 212–13 Deuteronomic covenant and New covenant, as link between, 121–23, 385n212 familial or relational dimension of divine sonship, 182–83, 194–97, 200–201 God’s oath to David in 2 Samuel 7, 188–90 as central characteristic of covenant, 200 correlating and understanding different versions of, 190–94 in Psalm 89, 184 in Psalm 110, 184–87, 190 in Psalm 132, 187–89 as grant-type covenant, 176–79 Jerusalem, centrality of, 179–80, 190–93, 201 Jerusalem Temple and, 181–83, 191, 201 in NT (See under Hebrews, covenant in; Luke and Acts) prophets, restoration in, 202–5 purposes of, 179–83 royal priesthood in, 180–82, 192–93, 198–200 sacrifice and, 180–81 scholarship review, 12–14 in Second Temple literature, 206–12 Sinaitic or Mosaic covenant and, 196–99 Davidic monarchy and Deuteronomic covenant, link between, 119 Dead Sea Scrolls. See Qumran texts death, curse of, 316–19 deuterocanonical texts Davidic covenant restored in, 206–12 oath and covenant, association of, 260 scholarship review of covenant in, 15–17 Deuteronomic Code, 75, 76, 81, 264, 277, 294 Deuteronomic covenant Abrahamic covenant of circumcision (Genesis 17) and, 114–17, 120–21

548  |  General Index Deuteronomic covenant (cont.) curse-bearing in, 73, 77–78, 239, 248–56 Davidic covenant as link between New covenant and, 121–23, 385n212 Davidic monarchy and, 119 Ezekiel 20 and, 80–82 Galatians on, 238–39, 248–56 Jesus as bearer/expiator of curses of, 239, 248–56 laity, as law for/of, 70–71 laws unique to, 73–74 Levites, role of, 70 mediation in covenant relationship, elevation of, 69 as Moses’ farewell discourse and final testament, 72 as national constitution for Israelites, 71 oral law, as source of, 72 pastoral strategy in, 73 periodic renewals of, 83–90 ratification of, 70, 72–73 restoration, promise of, 78–79 Sinaitic, Deuteronomic, and Levitical covenants compared, 64–65, 68–69, 74–77, 371n90 Song of Moses, prediction of apostasy and renewal in, 79–80 sources for, 67 theological conclusions regarding, 90–92 as treaty-type covenant, 82–83 Deuteronomic history apostasy, Israel viewed as in state of, 240–41 collapse of monarchy and Judean state, culminating in, 121 covenant faithfulness, Israel’s lack of capacity for, 372n101 on Davidic covenant, 201, 429n11, 431n23 golden calf incident in, 143 diathĕkĕ in Galatians, 227, 256–60 in Hebrews (See under Hebrews, covenant in) LXX, used to translate bĕrît (covenant) in, 257, 259, 476n77 testament, as meaning, 256–57, 281, 476n77 treaty-type covenants, 50, 54, 365n42 Didascalia Apostolorum on Eucharist, 452n51 on sacrifice, 46, 357n68, 419n82 on “the works of the law,” 466n136 traditional interpretation, role of, 27 divine sonship. See familial or relational dimension of covenants

Drohritus, 316–17 Duns Scotus, 473n52 E material. See Elohist (E) material ecclesiology covenant theology and, 337 Lukan Institution Narrative, ecclesiological significance of, 230–34 Egyptian kingship rituals, 441n82–442n84 Eli, house of, 160–64 Elohist (E) material Abrahamic covenant, 102, 392n1 golden calf incident, 143 Holiness Code, 11 1 Enoch, targumic theology and, 299 Ephrem, 419n82, 472–73n52 Esarhaddon (king of Assyria), 29, 72, 386n4, 432n24 Eucharist Hebrews, Jesus’ death as liturgical sacrifice in, 328–31, 481n146–482n156 Jesus’ Davidic kingdom and table fellowship, Luke’s linking of, 222–29, 234 oath-sign, as, 56–57, 365–66n47 Eusebius of Caesarea, 45, 46, 419n82 exegesis, theological, in Scripture, 27–28, 332–33, 345–44n102, 349n123–350n124 Exodus comparison of Deuteronomic and Levitical covenants in, 64–65, 69, 74–77, 371n90 Levitical priesthood and primogeniture in, 139–42 place of Decalogue in, 414n47–48 Exodus Rabbah, on sacrifice, 45 Ezekiel restoration program instituted by, 164–66 Zadokite priesthood, establishment of, 164 4 Ezra, on restoration of Davidic covenant, 206, 209–10 familial or relational dimension of covenants, 1, 333–34, 339n1 Abrahamic covenant, 106–7, 123–25, 400n91 in covenant definition, 28–29, 350n127 in covenant typology, 31–32, 351n137 Davidic covenant, divine sonship in, 182–83, 194–97, 200–201 father’s role and authority in ancient Near East, 39–40

General Index  |  549 Galatians, paternal pedagogy of covenant process in (See under Galatians, covenant concepts in) grant-type covenants, 94, 386n4 in Hebrews, 288, 299–300, 325 kinship covenants, 40–41, 358n77 Levitical covenant, 172–73, 427n149 primogeniture (See firstborns) servants/slaves versus sons Galatians on transition between, 267–72 in treaty-type covenants, 368n64 theological function of, 41–42 treaty-type covenants (See under treatytype covenants) firstborns blessing of father, claim on, 38 Davidic covenant, divine sonship in, 182–83, 194–97, 200–201 golden calf incident, loss of priestly status after, 146–47 Hebrews covenant and inheritance in, 311 royal priestly primogeniture of Christ in, 278–80, 281–84, 292 kinship covenants and, 38, 353n20 Levitical priesthood and primogeniture in Exodus, 139–42 in Genesis, 136–39 golden calf incident and firstborns’ loss of priestly status, 146–47, 279 nations, Israel as firstborn among, 140–42 Noahic covenant, Shem in, 98, 100 primordial priesthood of, 139–42, 279, 299–300 replacement by younger brothers, 139, 386n10, 410n13, 411n17 selection by father, 386n10 treat-type covenant of Deuteronomy, 74, 76–77, 81 form criticism, 333, 391n47 fundamentalism, 348n121 Galatians, covenant concepts in, 238–77 Abrahamic covenant disinheritance of circumcised seed of Abraham, 272–74 Genesis 22 covenant at the Aqedah, emphasis on, 245–46, 255–56, 261–62 “the Gospel,” God’s promissory oath to Abraham as, 245–47 Jesus as one seed of Abraham, 246, 263–64

Pauline writings, primacy of Abrahamic covenant in, 21, 33, 238–39, 256–62 apostasy, Second Temple Judaism’s view of Israel as in state of, 240–41 centrality of covenant concept to Second Temple Judaism, 239–41 circumcision, 245, 247, 268–69, 272–74 conclusions regarding, 276–77 Deuteronomic covenant curses, Jesus as bearer/expiator of, 238–39, 248–56 diathĕkĕ as covenant, 256–60 grace and works, tension between, 250–52 legal terminology in diathĕkĕ, legal and nonlegal senses of, 257–58 inviolable legal institution, covenant regarded as, 259–60 kal va-homer (lesser-to-greater) form, 262 probatio, use of, 239, 242, 244, 264, 272, 274, 463n100 literary structure of epistle, 244–45 Mosaic law as added for transgressions, 264–67 legal arguments as to need for obedience to, 262 “the works of the law,” 274–76 OT, Paul’s contextual use of, 241–44, 456–57n12 paternal pedagogy of covenant process, 239 Abraham, Jesus as one seed of, 246, 263–64 baptism in Christ, divine sonship through, 268–69 disinheritance of circumcised seed of Abraham, 272–74 salvation history, development of Israel’s divine sonship in, 269–72 servants/slaves to sons, transition between, 267–72 structure of epistle and, 244–45 Sinaitic covenant, Pauline views on, 238–39, 264 Genesis Abrahamic covenant accounts in (See under Abrahamic covenant) Levitical priesthood and primogeniture in, 136–39 gezera sewa, 288 God Memra, 57, 128, 283 oath-swearing, use of God’s name in, 54–55

550  |  General Index God (cont.) oaths sworn by, 57–58, 294–300, 366n51 (See also under Davidic covenant) golden calf incident, 142–55 Abrahamic covenant and, 108, 117, 134 conclusions regarding, 154–55 Deuteronomic covenant and, 68, 69, 80 First Generation out of Egypt, second chance for, 152–53 firstborn of Israel, loss of priestly status by, 146–47, 167, 279 Hebrews’ consideration of Sinaitic covenant in light of, 317–19 historical-critical issues with, 142–44 importance to Jewish historiography, 240 Kadesh-barnea, report of spies at, 153–54 Levitical priesthood inaugurated following, 147, 279 nature and origins of worship of golden calf, 142–43, 413n31 renewal of covenant after, 147–53 rupture of covenant between God and Israel by, 144–45 “the Gospel,” God’s promissory oath to Abraham viewed by Paul as, 245–47 Gospels, covenant in Luke (See Luke and Acts) scholarship review of, 17–18 grace and works, tension between, xi–xii, 127, 250–52 grant-type covenants, 93–100 Abrahamic, 101–3, 118, 398n80 (See also Abrahamic covenant) Davidic, 176–79 (See also Davidic covenant) definition and elements of, 93–95 familial or relational dimension of, 94, 386n4 Levitical covenant as, 155–58 (See also Levitical covenant) Noahic, 95–96 (See also Noahic covenant) treaty-type covenants compared, 93–94, 385–86n2 as typology, 29–31 Greek term for covenant. See diathĕkĕ Hattusili III of Hatti (Hittite king), 429n8 heart, circumcision of, 78–79, 116, 252 Hebrews, covenant in, 278–331 Abrahamic covenant, 280–81 God’s oath to Abraham, 294–300 Jesus as restorer of, 287–88

Old and New covenants, relationship between, 294–95, 320 soteriological and martyological scheme of Epistle and, 470n28 Adam Old and New covenants, relationship between, 280, 320 rest lost by, Christ offering, 290–92 restoration of lost glory by Jesus, 284–88 threefold royal priestly primogeniture of Christ and, 279 angels, Jesus as superior to, 281–84, 285 blessings in, 280–81, 325–26 change in priesthood and change in law, 303–4 curse-bearing in, 280–81, 316–19, 326–27 Davidic covenant and, 280–81 Jesus as fulfillment of, 325–26 Melchizedek, Christ as high priest like, 292–93, 326 Old and New covenants, relationship between, 320 rest as theme of, 290–91 royal Davidic christology, 289, 469n21 death, curse of, 316–19 diathĕkĕ as covenant, 309, 314–17 cultic and liturgical considerations, 311–12 grammatical and terminological considerations, 309–10 inheritance, concepts of, 311 in internal logic of text at 9:11–22, 312–14 meaning of, determining, 281, 307–14 as testament, 281, 307–14, 476n77 theological considerations, 310–12 use as term, 278, 295 Eucharist in, 328–31 familial imagery, use of, 288, 299–300, 325 fourfold covenant structure in, 319–20 God’s oath, trust in, 294–300 inheritance of firstborns, 311 Levitical priesthood and covenant anti-Levitical bent of author of Hebrews, 327 change in priesthood and change in law in, 303–4 Christ as better mediator than Levites, 305–7 liturgical issues covenant curse of death, ritual enactment of, 317–18

General Index  |  551 diathĕkĕ, use of, 311–12 Jesus’ death as liturgical sacrifice, 327–31 Old covenant liturgy compared with sacrifice of Christ, 307 Melchizedek, Christ compared to, 292–94, 297–305, 326 Moses as covenant mediator, Jesus’ superiority to, 288–90 name of Christ, 282–84 oath-swearing, 304–5, 314–16, 326–27 Old and New covenants, author’s understanding of relationship between, 278–81 fourfold covenant structure, 319–20 God’s oath to Abraham, 294–95 Levitical priesthood, Jesus as mediator superior to, 306–7 liturgical sacrifice, Jesus’ death as, 327–31 rest lost by Israel, Christ offering, 291 schematic display of, 324 Sinaitic covenant curse, Jesus as bearer/expiator of, 319 rest lost by Adam and Israel, Christ offering, 290–92 sacrifice of Christ compared with liturgy of Old covenant, 307 liturgical sacrifice, Jesus’ death as, 327–31 Sinaitic covenant curse, as expiation of, 317–19 scholarship review of, 21–22 Sinaitic covenant (See under Sinaitic or Mosaic covenant) summary and conclusions regarding, 321–27 supposed anti-Semitism of author, 327 theological framework of epistle, 310–12 threefold royal priestly primogeniture of Christ in, 278–80, 281–84, 292, 299–305 historical-critical methodology canonical criticism and narrative analysis versus, 7, 23, 24, 26, 347n107 Deuteronomic covenant, 67 as end in itself, 348n118 golden calf incident, 142–44 NT use of OT readings and, 333 treaty-type covenants and, 375n119 Hittites. See Ancient Near East (ANE) literature Holiness Code Abrahamic covenant and, 114–15 Hebrews and, 294

Levitical covenant and, 150–53, 158 in recent covenant research, 11, 347n112 treaty-type covenants and, 76–77, 376n121, 379n147 Holy Place and Holy of Holies, in Jerusalem Temple, 307 Hugh of St. Victor, 419n82 inheritance and use of diathĕkĕ in Hebrews, 311 Institution Narrative in Luke, Davidic covenant fulfillment in, 32–33, 217, 221–34 ecclesiological significance of, 230–34 four pericopes highlighting Jesus’ royal and Davidic identity, 221–22 Israel as nation, anticipated restoration of, 229–30 kingdom and table fellowship, linking of, 222–29, 234 Irenaeus of Lyons, 27, 46, 357n68, 419n82, 466n136 Isaac Christ as type of, 263–65 near-sacrifice of, 108, 123–30 Ishmael Abrahamic covenant and, 105, 125, 400n97–401n100 Galatians on, 411n17 Levitical covenant and, 411n17 Israel as nation. See nation, Israel as Ithamar (son of Aaron), 160, 163, 423n121, 424n122 J material. See Yahwist (J) material Jerome, 419n82, 472n52 Jerusalem Davidic covenant and, 179–80, 190–93, 201 Jesus as fulfillment of Davidic covenant, 218, 448n7 Paul in Galatians on, 273–74 Salem, identification with, 132–34, 190 Jerusalem Temple Christ’s sacrifice compared with liturgy of, in Hebrews, 307 Davidic covenant and, 181–83, 191, 201 destruction of, 202–5 Holy Place and Holy of Holies, 307 Isaac’s near-sacrifice, site of, 128–29 Jesus as fulfillment of Davidic covenant, 218–19, 448n8 John Chrysostom, 357n68, 419n82 Josephus on Deuteronomic covenant, 71 on El-Elyon, 132

552  |  General Index Josephus (cont.) on Isaac’s near-sacrifice, 125 on sacrifice, 45, 46 Jubilees on Abrahamic covenant at the Aqedah, 401n98 farewell address and last testament format, use of, 384n207 targumic theology and, 299 Justin Martyr, 27, 46, 357n68, 419n82, 466n136 Juvenal, 125 Kadesh-barnea, covenant failure at, 153–54 kal va-homer (lesser-to-greater) form of legal argument in Galatians, 262 kinship covenants, 37–48 curse-bearing, 357n73 defined, 37 divine kinship covenant at Sinai, 44–48 family solidarity as represented by, 40–41 father’ role and authority in ancient Near East, 39–40 importance to OT Hebrews, 37–39 oath-swearing, 32, 352n6, 357n73 secular kinship covenants in OT, 43–44 theological function of family and covenant in OT, 41–42 as typology, 29–31 kinship dimension of covenants. See familial or relational dimension of covenants Lactantius, 366n53 law Mosaic (See Mosaic law) oral law, Deuteronomic covenant as source of, 72 legal terminology in Galatians (See under Galatians, covenant concepts in) Hebrews, use of diathĕkĕ in first century testamentary law, 309–10 inheritance considerations, 311 Levitical covenant, 136–75 Deuteronomic covenant, role of Levites in, 70 Exodus, priesthood and primogeniture in, 139–42 familial or relational dimension of, 172–73, 427n149 Genesis, priesthood and primogeniture in, 136–39 golden calf incident, inauguration of Levites following, 146–47, 279 (See also golden calf incident)

grant-type covenant, Levitical covenant as, 155–58 Hebrews anti-Levitical bent of author of, 327 change in priesthood and change in law in, 303–4 Christ as superior mediator in, 305–7 literary-historical development of, 158–72 fall of house of Eli and emergence of Zadok, 160–64 in New covenant, 170–72 permanence of Levitical priesthood, problem of, 166–72 Phinehas, 158–60 restoration program instituted by Ezekiel, 164–66 Zadokite priesthood, Ezekiel’s establishment of, 164 Melchizedek’s lack of genealogy in respect to, 300–301 Sinaitic, Deuteronomic, and Levitical covenants compared, 64–65, 68–69, 74–77, 371n90 liturgical issues in Hebrews covenant curse of death, ritual enactment of, 317–18 diathĕkĕ, use of, 311–12 Jesus’ death as liturgical sacrifice, 327–31 Old covenant liturgy compared with sacrifice of Christ, 307 Luke and Acts Abrahamic covenant fulfillment in, 236 Davidic covenant fulfillment in, 217–37 Christ as title, Davidic sense of, 448n6 Deuteronomic covenant and New covenant, Davidic covenant as link between, 121–23, 385n212 division in Israel, Jesus as healer of, 450–51n27 heir to David, Jesus as, 200–201, 217, 218–21 Institution Narrative (See Institution Narrative in Luke, Davidic covenant fulfillment in) Jerusalem, role of, 218, 448n7 Jerusalem Temple and, 218–19, 448n8 kingdom and covenant, relationship between, 234–37 Messiah, Davidic, Jesus as, 448n4–5 oath-swearing, 235–36 Sinaitic covenant fulfillment in, 226 Luther, Martin, 473n52 LXX. See Septuagint

General Index  |  553 Maimonides on blessing of Japhet, 98 on golden calf incident, 412n29, 417n76 on sacrifice, 357n66, 357n68 traditional interpretation, role of, 27 Manetho, 45, 46 marriage, as covenant relationship, 5, 341n25, 362n17 Mati’ilu (king of Arpad), 316 meals and covenants, 53, 222–29, 234, 352n5, 355n48 mediation of covenant relationship elevated in Deuteronomic covenant, 69 Melchizedek Christ compared in Hebrews, 292–94, 297–305, 326 Davidic covenant and, 185, 187, 190, 192, 193, 196, 446n124 duration of ministry of, 303 as first priest, 297 genealogy, lack of, 300–301 priestly order of, 297, 298 primordial priesthood of firstborns and, 299–300 royal priesthood of, 299 Shem (son of Noah) as, 97–100, 130–34, 282, 299, 301–2, 472–73n52 Memra, 57, 128, 283 Messianism Davidic, 26, 165–66, 175, 208–11 (See also Davidic covenant) Jesus as Davidic Messiah, 448n4–5, 449n14 Midrashim on Abrahamic covenant, 132 farewell addresses incorporating elements of, 385n207 fundamentalism not an error of, 348n121 Galatians on covenants and, 240, 254 on golden calf incident, 412n29, 417n76 Hebrews on covenants and, 288, 289, 468n12, 470n27 on identification of Shem/Melchizedek and Salem/Jerusalem, 404n120 on Levitical covenant, 144 Pontifical Biblical Commission on, 347n115 on sacrifice, 418n82 traditional interpretation, role of, 27, 348n119 Mishnah, Deuteronomy as prototype of, 72 Moabite covenant. See Deuteronomic covenant Mosaic covenant. See Sinaitic or Mosaic covenant

Mosaic law Galatians on as added for transgressions, 264–67 obedience to law, legal arguments on need for, 262 “the works of the law,” 274–76 Hebrews, change in priesthood and change in law in, 303–4 Moses Deuteronomic covenant as farewell discourse and final testament of, 72 Hebrews on Jesus’ superiority as covenant mediator to, 288–90 Mt. Moriah and Abrahamic covenant, 117–18, 128 mystery religions, 365n45 name changes for Abram and Sarai, 105–7 name of Christ, Hebrews on, 282–84 name of God (Memra), 57, 128, 283 narrative analysis, 23–24, 26, 27, 346n105, 392n48 Nathan and Nathan’s oracle Davidic covenant and, 179, 181, 183, 184, 186, 187, 193 Hebrews evoking, 288–91, 295, 321 Luke and Acts, Davidic covenant fulfillment in, 212 nation, Israel as Abrahamic covenant as allegory for covenant history of Israel, 112–20 Genesis 15, great nationhood promised by, 104–5 Deuteronomic covenant as national constitution, 71 firstborn among nations, Israel as, 140–42 in Luke healer of divisions in Israel, Jesus as, 450–51n27 Institution Narrative, 229–30 salvation history, Galatians’ development of Israel’s divine sonship in, 269–72 neo-Assyrians and neo-Babylonians. See Ancient Near East (ANE) literature New Exodus, return from Babylonian exile as, 202–5 New Testament covenants, 32–33 further research, need for, 335 in Galatians (See Galatians, covenant concepts in) in Hebrews (See Hebrews, covenant in) Levitical covenant, problem of permanence of, 170–72 Luke and Acts (See Luke and Acts)

554  |  General Index New Testament covenants (cont.) OT, NT readings of, 22, 332–33 Pauline writings (See Pauline writings, covenant in) Nicholas of Lyra, 27, 45, 357n68, 419n82, 473n52 Noahic covenant, 95–100 Abrahamic covenant and, 130–34 canonical criticism approach to, 25 as grant-type covenant, 95–96 nature and extent of, 96–97 scholarship review, 9–10 Shem/Melchizedek, significance of, 97–100, 130–34 nomism, covenantal, 239 oath-swearing and covenants, 32, 334 in Abrahamic covenant of Genesis 22, 108–11, 125–29 Christian Eucharist as oath-sign, 56–57, 365–66n47 David’s oath to Bathsheba, 186 family solidarity, underlying principles of, 40–41 formal declaration or verba solemnia, 52 God’s name as witness, judge, and guarantor, 54–55 God’s sworn oaths, 57–58, 366n51 (See also under Davidic covenant) Hebrew terms for oath, 51–52 in Hebrews, 304–5, 314–16 inviolable legal institutions, covenants as, 260 kinship covenants, 32, 352n6, 357n73 loyalty oaths, 50, 365n44–45 in Luke and Acts, 235–36 ordeals, 364n28 parallels between oaths and covenants in OT, 361n12 ritual enactment or oath-sign, 52–54 Roman empire, 56–57, 365–66n47 sacramental theology and, 336–37 sacramental understanding of early Christians and, 56–57 sacrifice, 55–56 self-maledictory pledges, 51–53 stelas, use of, 355n48 treaty-type covenants, 50–59 vows versus oaths, 362n15 Old Testament covenants, 31–32 Abrahamic (See Abrahamic covenant) Davidic (See Davidic covenant) Galatians, Christian thought on relationship between OT and NT influenced by, 238 grant type (See grant-type covenants)

Hebrews’ understanding of relationship between Old and New covenants (See under Hebrews) kinship type (See kinship covenants) Levitical (See Levitical covenant) Noahic (See Noahic covenant) NT readings of OT, 22, 332–33 Paul’s contextual use of OT, 241–44, 456–57n12 Sinaitic or Mosaic (See Sinaitic or Mosaic covenant) terminological use of Old Testament versus Hebrew Bible, 351n138 treaty type (See treaty-type covenants) oral law, Deuteronomic covenant as source of, 72 ordeals and oaths, 364n28 Origen, 419n82 P material. See Priestly (P) material pastoral strategy in Deuteronomy, 73 Pauline writings, covenant in Abrahamic covenant’s primacy for, 21, 33, 238–39, 256–62 on circumcision, 125, 245, 247, 268–69, 272–74 Deuteronomy and, 379n146 Ezekiel and Paul compared, 82 Galatians (See Galatians, covenant concepts in) on Ishmael’s disinheritance, 272–74, 401n100 OT, Paul’s contextual use of, 241–44, 456–57n12 scholarship review of, 19–21 Sinaitic covenant, views on, 238–39, 264 Peter Lombard, 473n52 Petronius, 125 Philo of Alexandria, 98, 132, 365n45 Phinehas (high priest), 69, 158–63, 421n101 Pliny the Younger, 56–57 Plutarch, 125 political covenants, 351n1. See also treatytype covenants Pontifical Biblical Commission, 24, 27–28, 346n104, 347n115, 348n120, 349n123 priesthood Davidic covenant, royal priesthood of, 180–82, 192–93, 198–200 firstborns, primordial priesthood of, 139–42, 279, 299–300 Hebrews change in priesthood and change in law in, 303–4

General Index  |  555 Christ compared to Melchizedek in, 292–94, 297–305 threefold royal priestly primogeniture of Christ in, 278–80, 281–84, 292, 299–305 Levitical priesthood, covenant traditions associated with (See Levitical covenant) Melchizedek (See Melchizedek) Zadok and Zadokite priesthood Ezekiel’s establishment of Zadokite priesthood, 164 fall of house of Eli and emergence of Zadok, 160–64 length of survival of, 166 reversion of postexilic priesthood to, 199 Priestly Code Abrahamic covenant and, 113–15, 397n62 Galatians and, 264 Levitical covenant and, 149–51 treaty-type covenants and, 71, 378n137, 379n147, 379n149, 382n173 Priestly (P) material Abrahamic covenant, 102, 392n1 Holiness Code, 11 Noahic covenant, 96, 389n27 pristine or ideal nature of, 382n173 primogeniture. See firstborns probatio in Galatians, 239, 242, 244, 264, 272, 274, 463n100 prophets Davidic covenant restored in, 202–5 Pauline citation of Habakkuk in context of Deuteronomic covenant curses, 250 scholarship review of covenant in books of, 14–15 Psalms of Solomon and restoration of Davidic covenant, 206–9 pseudepigrapha, OT. See deuterocanonical texts Pseudo-Philo, 15, 125 Qumran texts Davidic covenant, restoration of, 206, 210–12 God’s sworn oaths, 57 oath and covenant, association of, 260 scholarship review, 16–17 Quod non in thora, non in mundo, 301 Rabbinical Judaism, author of Hebrews addressing issues of, 327 rainbows, 388n21

Rashi on blessing of Japhet, 98 on golden calf incident, 412n29, 417n76 on identity of Melchizedek and Shem, 406n140 on place of Decalogue in Exodus story, 414n47–48 on sacrifice, 45, 357n68, 418n82 traditional interpretation, role of, 27 redaction criticism, 333 rest lost by Adam and Israel, Hebrews on Christ offering, 290–92 Roman empire, oath-swearing in, 56–57, 365–66n47 royal priesthood in Davidic covenant, 180–82, 192–93, 198–200 Hebrews, threefold royal priestly primogeniture of Christ in, 278–80, 281–84, 292, 300 of Melchizedek, 299 sacraments baptism Galatians on divine sonship through, 268–69 in Hebrews, 330 as New covenant counterpart to circumcision, 268–69 Eucharist Hebrews, Jesus’ death as liturgical sacrifice in, 328–31, 481n146–482n156 Jesus’ Davidic kingdom and table fellowship, Luke’s linking of, 222–29, 234 oath-sign, as, 56–57, 365–66n47 oath-signs, sacramental nature of, 56–57, 269, 442n85, 465n118 theology of, 336–37 sacrifice Davidic covenant and, 180–81 Hebrews, Christ’s sacrifice in compared to OT liturgy, 307 liturgical sacrifice, Jesus’ death as, 327–31 Sinaitic covenant curse, as expiation of, 317–19 Isaac, near-sacrifice of, 108, 123–30 Jewish tradition regarding, 418–19n82 kinship covenant in OT, as means of sealing, 44–48 treaty-type covenants in OT, 55–56 Salem and Jerusalem, identification of, 132–34, 190

556  |  General Index Samaritans and Samaria, 220–21, 450n24–27 Scripture and Hermeneutics Project, 346n103 Second Temple Judaism apostasy, Israel viewed as in state of, 240–41 centrality of covenant concept to, 239–41 Davidic covenant in, 206–12 literature of (See deuterocanonical texts) secular covenants as inviolable legal institution, 259–60 kinship covenants in OT, 43–44 treaty-type covenants in OT, 60–62 Sedulius, 473n52 self-maledictory pledges. See also cursebearing Hebrews and, 315–16 in treaty-type covenants, 51–53, 363–64n27 Septuagint (LXX) angels called sons of God in, 283 diathĕkĕ used to translate bĕrît (covenant) in, 257, 259, 476n77 Luke’s stylistic dependence on, 227 Nathan oracle in, 289 servants/slaves versus sons in covenants Galatians on transition between, 267–72 in treaty-type covenants, 368n64 Shem as Melchizedek, 97–100, 130–34, 282, 299, 301–2, 472–73n52 Noahic covenant and, 97–100, 130–34, 282 Sinaitic or Mosaic covenant Abrahamic covenant of Genesis 15, parallels with, 112–14, 120 canonical criticism approach to, 25 Davidic covenant and, 196–99 Deuteronomic, Levitical, and Sinaitic covenants compared, 64–65, 68–69, 74–77, 371n90 as divine kinship covenant, 44–48 in Hebrews, 280–81 golden calf incident, Sinaitic covenant always understood in light of, 317–19 insufficiency of Sinaitic covenant in, 325 Old and New covenants, relationship between, 320 references to Sinaitic covenant in, 479n127 supposed anti-Semitism of author of, 327 Jesus as bearer/expiator of curses of, 317–19

Luke and Acts, new covenant in, 226 Pauline views on, 238–39, 264 scholarship review, 12 as treaty-type covenant, 49 slaves/servants versus sons in covenants Galatians on transition between, 267–72 in treaty-type covenants, 368n64 social covenants, 351n1. See also kinship covenants Solomon divine sonship of, 198–200 Psalm 110 and Davidic covenant, 186–87 in Psalms of Solomon, 206–9 royal priesthood of, 199 Song of Moses, 79–80 “Song of the Cosmic Oath,” 57 sonship, divine. See familial or relational dimension of covenants source criticism Abrahamic covenant, 102 compared to narrative analysis and canonical criticism, 10, 11, 333 grant-type covenants, 391n47 Levitical covenant, 143 treaty-type covenants, 67, 372n99 stelas and oath-swearing, 355n48 suzerain-vassal treaties, ANE, 49–50, 58, 93–94, 386n4 Tacitus, 45, 46, 125 Targums Aqedah, sacrifice, and Temple in, 128–29 dating of, 299, 406n137 on firstborns, 279, 473n53 Fragmentary, 132 God’s sworn oaths in, 57 on golden calf incident, 412n29 identification of Mekizedek/Shem Salem/ Jerusalem in, 132, 299, 404n120, 406n137 kinship covenants and, 45, 356n61 name theology of, 283 Nathan oracle in, 289 oath and covenant, association of, 260, 462n81 Pontifical Biblical Commission on, 347n115 on sacrifice, 418n82 Temple, Jerusalem. See Jerusalem Temple testament defined, 476n77 Deuteronomic covenant as Moses’ final disposition, 72 diathĕkĕ as meaning, 256–57, 281, 307–14, 476n77

General Index  |  557 legal terminology of, 309–10 as literary format, 384n207 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs farewell address and last testament format, use of, 384n207 Hebrews, view of OT figures in, 474–75n67 priestly messianism of, 210 Theodoret, 98 theology of covenant, 332–38 atonement theology, 336 ecclesiology, 337 exegesis, theological, in Scripture, 27–28, 332–33, 345–44n102, 349n123–350n124 family and covenant in OT, theological function of, 41–42 Hebrews, theological framework of, 310–12 sacramental theology, 336–37 treaty-type/Deuteronomic covenant, theological conclusions regarding, 90–92 Trinitarian theology, 336 Theophilus of Antioch, 367n53 Thomas Aquinas on sacrifice, 45, 46, 357n68, 419n82 on “the works of the law,” 466n135 traditional interpretation, role of, 27 Tiglath-Pileser III (king of Assyria), 60–61, 432n24 tradition-historical approach to covenant, 340n6 traditional interpretation of scripture, use of, 26–27, 347n115–348n117 treaty-type covenants, 49–92 Abrahamic covenant of the circumcision (Genesis 17) as, 115 ANE literature, suzerain-vassal treaties in, 49–50, 58, 93–94 curse-bearing in, 51–53, 363–64n27 defined, 49–50 in Deuteronomy (See Deuteronomic covenant)

elements of, 49 familial or relational dimension of, 59–60 in Deuteronomy’s divine covenant, 63–67 extension of brotherhood relationship, 367n60 in secular treaty covenants, 61, 62 servants versus sons, 368n64 grant-type covenants compared, 93–94, 385–86n2 oath-swearing, 50–59 secular covenants in OT, 60–62 Sinaitic or Mosaic covenant as, 49 theological conclusions regarding, 90–92 as typology, 29–31 Trinitarian theology, 336 Ulmi-Teshshup of Tarhuntassa, 429n8 Uzziah (Israelite king), 199 vassal-suzerain treaties, ANE, 49–50, 58, 93–94, 386n4 verba solemnia, 52 vows versus oaths, 362n15 works and grace, tension between, xi–xii, 127, 250–52 Yahwist (J) material Abrahamic covenant, 102, 392n1 golden calf incident, 143 Holiness Code, 11 Zadok and Zadokite priesthood Ezekiel’s establishment of Zadokite priesthood, 164 fall of house of Eli and emergence of Zadok, 160–64 length of survival of, 166 reversion of postexilic priesthood to, 199 Zimri the Simeonite, 159

This page intentionally left blank

index of modern authors Aalen, S., 482n155 Abegg, M. G., 344n72 Aberbach, M., 144, 147, 240, 241, 413n39, 415n52, 416n64, 427n148, 456n6–8 Abrahams, I., 396n48 Ackerman, S., 341n13 Ackroyd, P. R., 392n1 Agus, A., 399n88 Ahlström, G. W., 434n37, 439n66 Alden, R. L., 436n50 Alexander, Patrick H., 1n Alexander, T. D., 10, 110, 343n51, 388n24, 390n38, 394n8, 394n10, 395n25–26, 396n44, 397n66, 399n88, 463n90, 463n94 Allen, L. C., 469n19 Allison, D. C., 382n179, 383n185, 383n188 Alonso-Schökel, L., 388n20 Alter, Robert, 346n105, 391n47, 422n104 Altmann, A., 404n123, 434n37 Andersen, F. I., 352n7, 371–72n94 Anderson, B. W., 372n99, 381n162, 387n14, 388n20, 406n132, 407n144, 414n43, 423n118, 445n109 Anderson, C. P., 342n42, 472n48, 477n101, 478n102 Anderson, D. R., 469n21 Anderson, G. A., 356n54 Anderson, G. W., 339n5 Andreasen, N.-E. A., 366n53, 404n123 Andriessen, P., 482n155 Andriolo, K. R., 390 Armerding, C. E., 431n22 Arnold, W. R., 431n20 Astour, M. C., 404n123 Attridge, H. W., 467n1, 471n43, 473n54, 476n75, 476n78, 477n89, 477n91, 477n93, 477n97, 478n111–12 Baal, J. van, 356n53 Baaren, T. P. van, 356n53 Bailey, L. R., 413n31

Baker, C., 351n137, 388n20 Baker, D. L., 455n1 Baker, J. A., 364n33 Baltzer, Klaus, 6, 85, 89, 342n31, 359n2, 359n4, 370n78–79, 377n130, 383n182, 383n190, 384n200, 384n204–6, 416n70, 425n133 Bammel, E., 461n71 Barclay, W., 469n19 Barker, M., 375n117, 375n119, 434n36 Barr, J., 109, 340n8, 340n10, 342n46, 395n35, 419n90, 475n70 Barrick, W. B., 340n10, 434n37 Barth, K., 388n20 Barthélemy, D., 416n65, 417n72, 417n74 Bartholomew, Craig, 346n103, 454n94 Bartlett, J. R., 423n120 Barton, John, 6, 342n32 Barucq, A., 370n81 Bassler, J. M., 466n133 Bateman, H. W., 436n47 Batto, B. F., 421n101, 422n110 Bauckham, R., 455n100 Baumgarten, 98 Baumgartner, W., 418n79 Beale, G. K., 457n12 Bechard, D. P., 448n7 Beck, A. B., 381n165, 381n170 Becker, J., 400n92 Beckwith, R. T., 408n2 Bee, R. E., 437n55 Beecher, W. J., 183, 433n34 Begrich, J., 425n133 Behm, J., 460n49–51, 460n53, 460n58, 460n63, 473n81, 476n77, 477n98–99, 478n111 Beitzel, B. J., 409n8, 410n11 Bell, R. H., 380n162 Bellefontaine, E., 353n16, 370n76, 377n136 Bellville, L., 464n107 Ben-Barak, Z., 384n196 Benin, S. D., 357n68, 418–19n82

559

560  |  Index of Modern Authors Benoit, P., 225, 452n48–50 Bentzen, A., 375n115, 388n20 Bergen, R. D., 395n25, 395n27 Bergsma, J., 381n167 Betz, H. D., 244, 456n2, 457n22–23, 460n55, 461n65, 461n73, 463n100 Betz, J., 482n156 Beyerlin, W., 359n3 Biddle, M. E., 396n48 Bigger, S. F., 352n7 Billerbeck, P., 301, 473n55–56, 474n60 Blaising, C. A., 348n121, 452n52 Blank, S., 361n14, 378n136 Blenkinsopp, J., 373n103, 374n106, 390n34, 397n58, 420n91 Bligh, J., 266, 456n2 Blocher, H., 388n20 Block, Daniel I., 14, 343n61, 381n169, 382n176 Bock, D. L., 228, 348n121, 447n1–2, 449n13–14, 449n16, 449n18–21, 452n52–53, 453n64–65, 454n88, 454n90–91, 454n97 Boecker, H. J., 353n11, 441n76, 441n79 Boling, R., 421n101 Bonnefoy, F., 469n19 Booij, T., 436n46, 439n64 Boorer, S., 393n5 Bopp, L., 349n122 Borgen, P., 464n109 Bori, P. C., 456n8 Bornkamm, G., 469n16 Borse, U., 456n2 Bossman, D., 425n131 Bousset, W., 465n119 Bovon, F., 399n88 Bowden, J. S., 353n16, 372n99, 423n116 Bowker, J. W., 436n46 Boyd, J., III, 470n26 Boyd, J. L., 364n28, 439n65 Braulik, G., 377n134 Brawley, R. L., 447n2, 449n19, 454n83, 455n102 Brege, Daniel J., 481n150 Breitbart, S., 399n88 Brekelmans, C., 360n11, 369n76, 387n14, 437n55 Brewer, D. I., 241, 242, 457n13–14 Brichto, H. C., 137, 346n105, 352n7, 378n139, 386n5, 407n146, 409n7, 414n44–45, 417n73 Briggs, C. A., 391n45, 426n139, 435n44 Bright, J., 434n38 Brinsmead, B. H., 268, 464n110–16 Brodie, I., 474n61 Brodie, T. L., 396n54, 398n79

Brooke, G. J., 426n137 Brooks, O. S., 464n110 Broughton, Hugh, 473n52 Brown, J., 301, 303 Brown, Raymond E., 213, 426n142, 447n136, 474n59, 474n61, 474n63–64, 476n80, 478n110 Bruce, F. F., 252, 438n58, 447n1, 456n2, 459n38, 460n56, 469n16, 470n25, 471n41, 473n54, 474n61, 474n65, 475n67, 476n71, 478n110 Brueggemann, Walter, 38, 352n9, 353n13–14, 373n102, 429n12 Buber, Martin, 141, 412n29 Buccellati, G., 59, 368n62, 467n1 Buchanan, G. W., 342n43, 468n12, 474n65, 476n78 Büchler, A., 474n61 Buis, P., 359n4, 370n81 Burke, T. J., 464n108 Burton, E. D., 258, 456n2, 460n61, 461n64, 461n68, 461n74–75, 463n96 Buss, M. J., 367n60 Butler, J. T., 392n49 Butler, T. C., 383n183, 385n208 Byrne, B., 271, 441n77, 464n114, 465n120, 465n122–24 Caird, G. B., 469n22 Cairns, D., 372n99 Calderone, P. J., 59, 360n5, 368n61, 384n203, 394n13, 394n19, 428n1 Callan, T., 266, 464n105 Campbell, A. F., 430n18, 458n31 Canfora, L., 461n77 Caquot, A., 425n133 Carlson, R. A., 431n18, 431n23, 432n26 Carrez, M., 340n6 Carroll, M. D., 343n61, 449n14 Carson, D. A., 457n12 Cartledge, T., 51, 362n16 Cassuto, U., 45, 356n59, 396n48, 412n29, 415n58 Cathcart, K. J., 360n6, 472n51 Cazelles, H., 340n10, 433n34, 436n47 Chamberlayne, J. H., 354n27 Chance, J. B., 448n9 Charles, J. D., 469n18–19 Charlesworth, J. H., 446n120, 452n58, 475n67 Chazan, R., 341n25 Chester, A. N., 480n143 Childs, B. S., 19, 45, 144, 148, 347n107–8, 355n51, 356n56, 357n67–68, 358n78, 414n46, 415n49, 416n69, 436n47 Chilton, B. D., 399n88

Index of Modern Authors  |  561 Chirichigno, G. C., 143, 414n45 Christensen, D. L., 369n76, 377n136 Christensen, Ellen J., 20, 344n72, 345n93 Claassen, W. T., 437n55 Clark, A. C., 448n9, 451n28, 453n72 Clark, W. M., 387n14, 387n16, 389n29 Clements, R. E., 13, 14, 15, 113, 119, 340n6, 343n58–60, 358n79, 360n6, 372n97, 393n7–8, 394n16, 396n50, 396n56, 397n57, 398n83, 434n36, 440n69, 442n86, 443n88 Coats, G. W., 392n48, 399n88, 413n37 Codrington, R. H., 356n52 Cody, A., 408n1, 423n120, 431n22, 476n75 Cogan, M., 342n36 Coggins, R., 340n10 Cohen, C., 342n48, 358n74, 388n19 Coleran, J. E., 406n129 Collier, G. D., 369n76 Collins, J. J., 358n77, 444n103, 446n119, 446n125, 447n134, 463n97 Colson, F. H., 411n14 Connor, K. J., 468n8–9 Cook, J. I., 358n79, 361n14, 369n76, 426n143 Cooke, G., 433n31, 441n79–80 Cooper, A. M., 436n47 Coppens, J., 369n76, 408n1, 481n148 Cosgrove, C. H., 258, 459n45, 460n61 Cousar, C. B., 456n2 Craigie, P. C., 370n77 Cremin, P. F., 131, 405n129 Crenshaw, J., 399n88 Crim, K., 391n41 Cross, Frank Moore, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 28, 37, 38, 41, 42, 194, 259, 333, 340n11–13, 341n14, 341n16, 341n23, 341n25, 350n126, 350n131, 352n7–8, 353n10, 353n12, 353n15, 354n27, 354n29–30, 354n33, 354n35, 354n39–40, 373n102, 387n14, 389n27, 393n5, 407n144, 421n101, 423n114–15, 424n123, 425n136, 437n55, 441n82, 461n76, 462n79 Crossan, J. D., 358n77 Dahl, N. A., 399n88, 462n89 Dahood, M., 187, 436n47, 437n56 Daly, R. J., 399n88 Damrosch, D., 389n32, 390n33 Danby, H., 416n63 D’Angelo, M. R., 288–89, 425n135, 470n33, 471n36 Daniels, D. R., 371n92 Darr, Katheryn Pfisterer, 382n175 Das, Andrew A., 20–21, 345n94

Daube, D., 379n144, 383n189, 465n118 Davenport, J. W., 413n30 Davidson, R. M., 340n6, 457n12 Davies, D., 358n78 Davies, E. W., 353n20, 385n212, 441n76 Davies, G. H., 438n58 Davies, Graham, 10, 11, 12, 343n52 Davies, J. H., 481n154 Davies, John A., 350n126, 358n75, 359n80, 395n21, 426n140, 468n6 Davies, P. R., 340n10, 399n88, 447n135 Davies, W. D., 465n118 Davis, D. R., 413n30 Davis, J., 45, 356n57–58 Day, J., 340n10, 371n92, 445n108 De Boer, P. A. H., 352n7, 385n211 De Geus, C. H. J., 354n27 De Saussure, F., 346n105 De Vaux, R., 353n11, 357n71, 360n5, 367n53, 384n203, 388n20, 409b4, 409n7 Dearman, J. A., 343n55 Del Agua, A., 453n76, 455n106 Delitzsch, Franz, 98, 381n166, 431n20, 456n5 Dell, Katherine J., 9, 342n47 Demarest, B. A., 468n2, 474n59, 474n61, 474n63 Denova, R. I., 454n84–86, 454n93 Dequeker, L., 387n14 Deurloo, K. A., 395n28–29 DeVries, S. J., 369n72, 369n76, 392n2 Dillard, R. G., 347n114, 439n65, 439n67 Dodd, C. H., 241, 456n12 Donaldson, M. E., 352n7 Donaldson, T. L., 271, 465n127 Donner, H., 340n8, 379n150, 395n35, 419n90, 440–41n76, 475n70 Doob-Sakenfeld, K., 341n13 Dozeman, T. B., 355n51, 414n42 Driver, S. R., 381n166, 414n47, 431n20 Drumwright, H. L., 464n106 Dumbrell, W. J., 343n64, 387n14, 387n19, 411n20, 412n22, 412n26, 425n131, 428n1, 443n90 Dumortier, J.-B., 434n37 Dunn, James D. G., 19, 20, 275, 286, 344n86–88, 345n92, 455n2, 460n55, 463n96, 463n98, 466n135, 467n137–40, 469n24 Dunnill, John, 8, 314, 316, 342n40–42, 470n25, 470n27–28, 471n35, 472n47, 474n58, 478n102, 478n114, 479n124, 481n148 Durham, J. I., 377n130, 385n212, 433n34 Durrwell, F. X., 224, 349n122, 451n46

562  |  Index of Modern Authors Eck, J., 409n8 Edelheit, J. A., 408n2 Eichrodt, Walther, 2, 15, 54, 335, 340n7, 354n42, 364n33, 385n212, 462n83 Eilander, S., 428n2 Eissfeldt, O., 372n99, 392n1 Eller, V., 362n14 Elliger, K., 409n6 Ellingworth, P., 467n1, 471n41, 473n54, 476n78, 477n89, 477n91, 478n106, 478n109, 478n111, 480n134 Elliott, J. H., 471n35 Ellis, E. E., 399n88, 401n100, 455n1 Ellis, P. F., 388n20 Emerton, J. A., 404n123, 413n40 Endres, J. C., 367n54 Epstein, E., 350n127 Epsztein, L., 353n16 Erdmann, C. F. D., 431n20 Ethridge, J. W., 459n42 Evans, C. A., 241, 344n71, 447n1, 456n9, 457n15, 458n31 Evans, C. D., 404n123, 438n62 Evans, Craig, 16 Eynde, S. van den, 455n103 Fabry, H. J., 355n45 Faley, R. J., 339n5, 411n14 Farris, S., 449n16 Farris, T. V., 373n103 Faur, J., 385n213 Feinberg, J. S., 455n1 Fensham, F. C., 54, 59–60, 340n13, 361n13, 364n28, 364n32, 368n64, 385n214, 394n19, 413n31, 414n48, 444n105, 462n83, 462n85, 480n140 Field, J. E., 481n146–47 Firmage, E. B., 339n5, 366n51 Fishbane, M., 26, 347n116, 391n46, 415n59 Fisher, L., 405n127 Fitzgerald, J. T., 462n85 Fitzmyer, J. A., 132, 220, 347n113, 349n123, 396n40, 406n139, 426n141, 448n7, 449n24, 453n70, 454n84, 454n93, 454n96, 456n2, 468n9, 472n52 Flanagan, J. W., 370n76, 429n13, 430n15 Floyd, M. H., 184, 434n37, 435n39–40 Fohrer, G., 379n144 Fokkelman, J. P., 390n39, 399n88 Fortes, M., 352n7 Fox, M. V., 389n25 Fox, R., 352n7 Frankena, R., 359n4, 370n81 Frazer, J. G., 356n52

Freedman, David Noel, 4, 5, 15, 28, 30, 57, 116, 177, 178, 341n18, 341n19, 343n63, 366n50, 371–72n94, 395n35, 396n52, 397n63, 397n67, 398n69, 429n9, 445n113 Freemen, H., 404n120 Frei, H., 23, 346n105 Fretheim, T. E., 437n55 Friedman, R. E., 24, 25, 347n110–12, 347n116, 373n102, 428n2, 431n19, 436n47 Frye, N., 443n94 Frymer-Kenski, T. S., 28, 350n127, 352n7, 364n28, 368n66, 388n20, 390n34, 394n19 Fuller, M. E., 446n118, 446n122, 447n1, 448n10 Fung, R. Y. K., 456n2 Gadenz, P., 409n7, 415n57, 426n142 Gaffin, R. B., 467n1 Gager, J. G., 364n27 Gakuru, Griphus, 12, 13, 343n56 Galbiati, E., 411n18 Galloway, A. D., 388n20 Gammie, J. G., 405n127, 411n16 García Martínez, F., 446n119, 446n123, 455n104–5 Garcia-Treto, F. O., 339n5, 354n43 Gardner, P. D., 465n118 Garlington, D., 460n48 Gehman, H. S., 358n79, 361n14 Gelander, S., 439n65 Gelardini, Gabriella, 480n138 George, T., 455n2 Gerhardsson, B., 123, 372n98, 399n90–400n91 Gerstenberger, E., 59, 360n7, 367n60 Gese, H., 75, 379n150–51, 382n172, 382n177, 437n58, 442n87, 446n125 Gileadi, A., 94, 341n22, 355n48, 385n214, 387n11, 387n16, 392n3, 411n20, 428n1–2, 434n36 Ginzberg, L., 390n35, 404n120, 406n141, 414n47, 416n64, 417n76, 421n101 Girard, R., 356n52 Gispen, W. H., 413n36 Glueck, N., 28, 341n13, 350n127, 354n42 Godfrey, W. R., 364n28, 439n65, 470n26 Goedicke, H., 341n13, 368n64, 394n19, 409n5 Goldberg, M., 346n106 Goldin, J., 352n7, 408n3, 411n17 Goldingay, J., 375n120, 379n143–44, 399n88 Good, R. M., 374n111

Index of Modern Authors  |  563 Goodblatt, D., 344n71 Goodspeed, E. J., 374n106 Goppelt, L., 455n1 Gordon, C. H., 409n8 Gordon, R. P., 428n2, 433n34, 444n102 Gordon, T. D., 464n106 Gordon, V. R., 467n1 Gottschalk, A., 341n13, 350n127 Gottwald, N. K ., 353n27, 409n6 Gouge, W., 473n52 Graham, M. P., 343n55 Grant, R. M., 465n121 Gray, G. B., 421n103 Gray, J., 384n193 Green, D. E., 342n31 Green, J., 448n8, 449n15–18, 449n17–18, 453n67, 453n70 Greenberg, M., 362n19, 382n175 Greenspahn, F. E., 410n8 Gregory, P., 356n52 Greimas, A.-J., 346n105 Grossfeld, B., 356n62, 410n9–10, 468n4 Grüneberg, M., 394n9, 396n45 Guinan, M. D., 29, 350n128, 351n2, 355n47, 355n50, 395n30, 395n32, 397n64 Gundry, R. H., 436n47, 466n135 Gunkel, H., 388n21, 396n48 Gunn, D. M., 430n18 Gunneweg, A. H. J., 408n1 Gunther, J. J., 482n156 Guthrie, D., 406n133 Guttmann, A., 416n63 Ha, J., 112, 128, 145, 362n14, 393n8, 396n48–49, 396n51, 396n54–55, 402n105, 403n114, 409n3, 415n54–56 Habel, N., 413n31 Hafemann, S. J., 350n127 Hahn, J., 413n30 Hahn, S. W., 344n70, 344n90, 345n95, 345n99, 349n122, 349n123, 381n167, 409n7, 426n142, 460n57, 461n63, 476n80, 480n138 Hailperin, H., 407n146, 409n8, 412n29, 414n47, 417n76, 473n52 Hallo, W. W., 436n52 Halpern, B., 341n15, 347n116, 373n102, 430n18 Halpern-Amaru, Betsy, 15–16, 343n66–344n67, 396n38 Hamerton-Kelly, E., 456n3 Hanson, A. T., 254, 459n38, 459n42–43, 464n106–7 Hanson, K. C., 352n7 Hanson, P., 355n51

Haran, Menahem, 7, 8, 9, 12, 342n36–39, 408n1, 413n38 Harless, H., 30, 429n8 Harrelson, W., 140, 143, 381n162, 412n22, 413n37, 423n118 Harrington, D. J., 462n88, 468n12 Hartley, J. E., 418n79 Hartmann, L., 366n53 Harvey, J., 360n6 Hasel, G. F., 393n5 Hauer, C. E., 423n120 Hawthorne, G. F., 431n22, 456n9 Hayes, J. H., 431n22, 438n62 Hays, R. B., 241, 457n12, 458n31–32 Hayward, C. T. R., 58, 128, 299, 367n55–59, 396n39, 399n88, 400n98, 402n111, 403n115, 403n117–18, 404n119, 404n121, 406n137, 462n81, 469n15, 472n50–51 Hehn, J., 362n19 Heider, George C., 382n172, 382n175 Heil, J. P., 451n33, 451n36–37 Hein, K., 482n157 Helyer, L. R., 311, 394n11, 468n10, 469n18, 477n96 Herion, G. A., 56, 365–66n47, 366n48 Herman, M., 420n97 Hertzberg, H. W., 423n116, 468n9 Hess, R. S., 343n61, 394n8, 399n88, 449n14 Heyns, M., 353n11 Hicks, F. C. N., 365n41 Hill, A. E., 386n2 Hillers, D. R., 339n5, 340n6, 359n2, 359n4, 360n6, 360n8, 370n81, 392n3, 437n55 Hinrichs, J. C., 362n19 Hirsh, Rabbi S. R., 402n104 Hoffmeier, J. D., 356n62 Hoffner, H. A., 433n29 Hofius, O., 469n16 Hoglund, K. G., 437n55 Holladay, J. S., 360n6 Holmén, Tom, 17, 18, 344n74 Hooke, S. H., 438n62 Hooker, M. D., 457n12, 464n109, 465n124 Hoppe, L. J., 375n115 Horbury, W., 445n118 Horton, F. L., 132, 405n127, 406n135–37, 406n140, 472n52, 474n56 Houk, C. B., 437n55 House, P. R., 350n127 Huffmon, H. B., 353n27, 360n6, 360n8 Hugenberger, Gordon Paul, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 28, 43, 51, 52, 109, 155, 260, 315, 333, 341n24–25, 342n26–27, 345n96,

564  |  Index of Modern Authors Hugenberger, Gordon Paul (cont.) 351n4, 361n13–14, 362n17, 363n23–26, 395n31, 395n35, 397n68, 398n70, 420n91, 420n95, 460n54, 462n80–82, 463n90, 475n70, 476n77, 478n116–20, 479n125–26 Hughes, G., 361n14, 362n21 Hughes, J. J., 309, 460n63, 461n71, 465n123, 469n16, 470n25, 472n52, 476–77n86–89, 476n80, 476n83–84, 478n104–5, 479n128, 480n145, 481n149, 481n155 Hunt, I., 405n127 Hurd, J. C., 399n88 Hurowitz, V., 431n20, 432n24–25, 434n36, 439n63, 445n108 Hurst, L. D., 469n20, 469n22–23, 470n24 Huwiler, E. F., 437n55 Hyatt, J. P., 416n70 Isaac, E., 388n20, 397n68 Isaacs, M. E., 469n18, 472n45 Ishida, T., 347n114, 360n11, 425n135, 428n2, 435n43, 437n54, 439n62, 439n64, 439n68, 440n69, 440n71, 444n107, 445n108–9 Jacob, Benno, 392n49, 406n129 James, E. O., 442n85 Jansma, T., 472n52 Japhet, S., 444n107 Jathanna, C., 340n6 Jenkins, A. K., 390n40, 394n16 Jenni, E., 388n25 Jeremias, J., 481n147 Jervell, J., 450n26, 451n41, 452n58, 453n73, 453n75 Jobling, D., 376n124 Jocz, J., 388n20 Johag, I., 355n45 Johnson, A. R., 434n38, 438n62, 441n80 Johnson, L. T., 230–31, 449n20, 449n24, 453n71, 453n74, 454n82, 454n87, 454n96 Johnson, M. D., 407n145 Johnson, S. L., 457n12 Johnstone, W., 447n135 Juel, D., 447n1 Kaiser, Otto, 15, 98, 343n65, 372n99, 392n1 Kaiser, W. C., 183, 343n64, 391n42–45, 409n8, 428n2, 429n5, 433n33, 434n35 Kalimi, I., 398n76–78, 403n113 Kalluveettil, Paul, 2, 28, 31, 39–40, 43, 61, 333, 340n9, 350–51n136–137, 351n1–3,

353n25–26, 354n41, 358n77, 359n1, 360n8, 368n64, 368n69–70, 369n71, 369n73–75, 386n3, 411n20, 420n92, 428n5, 461n78 Kaminski, C. M., 387n14, 390n37 Kapelrud, A. S., 340n10, 358n78, 432n24 Karavites, P., 360n8, 462n85 Käsemann, E., 469n16, 471n41 Kaufman, S. A., 369n76 Kearney, P. J., 388n20 Keel, O., 192, 432n24, 436n51, 440n70 Keil, C. F., 381n166, 431n20 Keller, C. A., 362n18 Kennedy, G. T., 474n65 Kereszty, R., 349n124 Kessler, M., 395n28 Ketcherside, W. C., 475n69 Kilpatrick, G. D., 313, 477n90 Kirkland, J. R., 404n123 Kistemaker, S., 469n17 Kitchen, Kenneth A., 4, 340n10, 341n17, 404n123 Kleven, T., 180–81, 430n15–17, 431n21 Kline, M. G., 30, 31, 57, 62, 95, 350n133–34, 360n4, 361n14, 364n28, 366n49, 370n79–80, 377n130–31, 379n146, 387n16, 387n18, 397n68, 402n108, 406n133, 465n118, 470n26 Knight, D. A., 26, 340n10, 348n117, 358n78–79, 359n1, 361n14, 386n4 Knight, Harold, 461n67 Knight, J. C., 340n6, 438n62, 470n24 Knoppers, Gary N., 4, 5, 12, 177, 178, 341n20, 350n132, 429n7 Koehler, L., 418n79 Koenig, John, 222, 451n32–33, 451n40 Koester, C. R., 417n72, 468n1, 476n75, 476n78, 477n89 Kohl, M., 342n29, 388n20 Kohn, R. L., 381n168, 381n171 Kok, J. H., 358n78 Kolenkow, A. B., 385n207 König, E., 436n47 Koopmans, W. T., 436n52 Kooy, V. H., 370n76 Korošec, V., 359n2 Kraus, H.-J., 360n7, 430n18, 433n30, 436n47 Kruse, H., 199, 395n30, 428n1, 437n55, 438n60, 441n77, 443n89, 443n93, 444n100, 445n108 Kugel, J. L., 346n105 Kugler, Robert A., 408n1 Kurz, W., 384n207 Kutsch, Ernst, 2, 3, 6, 28, 340n8, 340n10, 354n40, 357n71, 360n7, 383n190 Kuula, Kari, 20

Index of Modern Authors  |  565 Kwon, Y.-G., 271, 458n25, 465n126, 466n130 Kyle, M. G., 356n57 Laato, A., 437n55, 444n102, 445n118 Labuschagne, C. J., 369n76, 390n39 Lacomara, A., 377n130 Lambert, C., 413n30 Landy, F., 399n88, 415n59 Lane, D. C., 342n27, 350n125, 350n130, 350n135 Lane, T. J., 448n2, 449n24, 454n92 Lane, W. L., 30, 468n11, 469n20, 471n41, 476n71, 476n75, 476n80, 477n92, 477n100, 478n104, 478n107 LaVerdiere, E., 222–23, 451n34–35, 451n40, 453n77 Lawlor, J. I., 399n88, 400n99 Le Déaut, R., 128, 401n100 Lea, H. C., 361n14 Leeuw, G. van der, 356n52 Lehmann, M. R., 361n14, 362n19, 364n35 Lehne, S., 467n1 Leloir, L., 408n1 Lemche, N. P., 353n27 Lenchak, T. A., 70, 373n103, 375n113, 375n115, 376n122 Leonard, W., 474n61 Levenson, J. D., 94, 101, 164, 255, 264, 385n2, 386n6, 386n8, 387n13, 398n74, 398n76, 398n79, 398n80, 399n88, 401n100, 424n125–31, 425n132–34, 427n151, 428n1, 434n36, 458n29, 460n47, 462n89, 463n98–99 Levi, Amora R., 46 Levine, B., 410n11, 416n61 Levine, L. I., 444n107 Lewy, H., 368n64 Lewy, I., 377n135 L’Hour, J., 385n209 Lietzmann, H., 456n2 Lightfoot, J. B., 456n2 Lincoln, A. T., 466n131 Lindars, B., 458n31, 482n156 Livingstone, E. A., 436n47 Loewenstamm, S. E., 385n2, 392n3, 413n31 Lohfink, Norbert, 14–15, 343n50, 343n62, 358n79, 359n81, 360n11, 369n76, 373n102–3, 393n5 Lonergan, Bernard, 454n94 Long, B., 388n25 Long, T. G., 467n1, 476n78, 478n111 Longenecker, R. N., 456n2, 460n56, 461n65–68, 461n73, 463n96, 464n106 Louw, J. P., 452n58–59, 453n77, 477n91, 479n129

Lull, D. J., 413n38, 414n42, 464n105 Lundquist, J. M., 355n48, 434n36 MacGorman, J. W., 464n106 Mackie, S. D., 474n62 Madsen, T. G., 343n36 Magnetti, D. L., 109, 354n41, 361n14, 395n33, 396n37, 396n43, 397n65 Maher, M., 356n61, 410n10, 472n51 Malina, B. J., 409n6 Mann, T. W., 141, 148, 373n103, 374n110, 375n113, 394n8, 412n25, 417n71 Manns, F., 463n101 Marcus, J., 342n42, 425n137, 458n31, 472n48 Marin, L., 346n105 Marks, J. H., 374n111 Marshall, I. Howard, 448n9, 452n58–59, 455n100 Martin, Francis, 346n103, 454n94 Martin, J. D., 340n10, 447n135 Martin, J. L., 455n2 Martin, James, 381n166 Martin, W. J., 414n46 Martyn, J. L., 460n55, 461n67, 461n74, 462n88, 463n90 Mascall, E. L., 481n146 Mason, R., 445n108 Mastroeni, A., 349n123 Matera, F. J., 456n2, 462n88, 463n96, 466n135 Mauchline, J., 455n98 Mawhinney, A., 465n118 Mayes, A. D. H., 62–63, 342n32, 342n46, 369n76, 370n81, 371n83–84, 375n112 Mays, J. L., 419n89 Mazar, Benjamin, 193, 347n114, 377n132, 383n181, 440n72–73 McBride, S. D., 71, 376n123–27 McCarter, P. K., Jr., 87, 383n191, 423n116, 428n2, 432n26, 439n66 McCarthy, C. B., 437n55, 442n88 McCarthy, D. J., 2, 23, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 48, 50, 54, 55, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 87, 91, 109, 333, 339n5, 340n6, 340n9, 341n14, 346n106, 347n109, 348n118, 350n135–36, 351n2, 351n136–37, 352n5, 353n26, 355n48, 355n51, 358n76–77, 359n1, 359n82–83, 360n8, 360n10–11, 364n31, 364n36–37, 365n39, 368n65–66, 370n80–81, 371n85–86, 371n88–89, 371n91,383n182,383n191–92,384n197–98, 384n203, 385n210, 386n4, 394n19, 395n35, 398n71, 398n84, 420n92, 431n23, 479n125

566  |  Index of Modern Authors McComiskey, T. E., 113, 388n20, 392n3, 396n53, 428n2 McConville, J. G., 74, 77–78, 372n101, 373n104, 374n108, 379n145, 380n156, 380n158, 380n160, 435n40 McEleney, N. J., 464n109 McIvor, J. S., 410n10, 473n53 McKane, W., 363n26 McKelvey, R. J., 466n131 McKenzie, J. L., 48, 359n84, 368n67, 399n88, 405n127 McKenzie, S. L., 343n55, 343n57, 443n88 McKinney, R., 388n20 McKnight, Scot, 18, 19, 235, 344n78–84, 455n101 McNamara, M., 132, 356n61, 401n100, 404n120, 404n122, 406n137–38, 410n10, 466n132, 468n14, 472n52, 473n53, 474n66 Meenan, A. J., 413n30 Meier, J. P., 345n102, 469n16 Mejia, J., 372n100 Mendelsohn, I., 409n8 Mendenhall, George E., 2, 3, 30, 49, 56, 339n5, 354n27, 359n2, 362n14, 365n47, 366n48, 370n80, 383n182, 395n34, 397n65, 421n101 Menzel, B., 432n24 Merrill, E. H., 388n20, 439n65 Mettinger, T. N. D., 195, 359n81, 384n193, 428n1, 433n31, 435n41–42, 435n45, 436n48, 437n53, 437n56, 440n74–75, 441n78, 442n83–84 Meyers, C. L., 51, 362n20, 388n20, 421n101, 430n15, 439n63, 443n97, 445n113 Meyers, E. M., 51, 362n20, 420n91, 443n97 Miano, David, 4, 5, 9, 15, 177, 178, 341n18, 343n63, 429n9 Michaélidès, D., 465n117 Michel, O., 471n41 Milgrom, Jacob, 9, 11, 12, 50, 138, 146, 342n48, 343n50, 343n53, 358n79, 361n12, 362n15, 364n29, 374n109, 375n119, 378n139–40, 379n149, 379n154, 388n19, 397n68, 398n72, 399n88, 403n117–18, 410n12, 415n57, 415n60–416n61, 416n63, 419n89, 421n101–2, 422n105–9, 422n111 Millar, J. G., 373n104, 374n108, 380n160 Miller, J. M., 431n22 Miller, J. W., 352n7 Miller, P. D., 339n5, 430n18, 433n29, 439n63, 441n82 Milligan, G., 469n17, 476n80, 477n94

Minear, P. S., 287, 354n38, 470n24, 470n29, 471n35 Miscall, P. D., 346n105, 423n116 Mitchell, C. W., 391n41 Miura, Y., 455n100 Moberly, R. W. L., 118, 126, 128, 142, 375n111, 395n24, 398n74, 398n78–79, 399n88, 401n99, 401n103–402n104, 402n107, 402n111, 408n3, 412n21, 413n35, 413n39, 414n41, 414n44, 416n70, 468n2 Moe, O., 482n155 Moloney, F. J., 470n24 Moltmann, J., 388n20 Moran, W. L., 62, 148, 341n13, 360n8, 369n76, 371n85, 381n162, 416n70 Morgan, J. H., 366n47 Moriarty, E. J., 361n14 Mosca, P. G., 434n37 Moule, C. F. D., 465n118 Mowinckel, Sigmund, 1, 2, 3, 339n3, 430n18 Moye, R. H ., 99, 391n47, 392n49 Muilenburg, J., 369n76, 383n190, 393n6 Mullen, E. T., 385n2, 387n16, 428n2 Muller, E. C., 244, 245, 274, 457n23–24, 458n26, 466n134 Munn-Rankin, J., 368n63 Murray, R., 340n6, 348n121, 366n53, 388n20 Murray, S. R., 21–22, 345n98, 467n1 Murtonen, A., 391n41 Nairne, A., 480n144, 481n146 Nardoni, E., 471n36, 471n38 Naylor, P. J., 6, 342n28, 361n13, 419n90 Neff, R. W., 401n99 Nel, P., 353n11, 437n55 Nelson, B., 227, 378n142 Nelson, P. K., 451n33, 451n36, 452n58, 453n61, 453n68 Newman, M. L., 340n6, 359n3, 413n39, 423n118 Neyrey, J., 232, 453n73, 454n84 Niccacci, A., 396n35 Nichol, James, 473n52 Nicholson, E. W., 2, 3, 28, 339n1, 340n10, 354n40, 355n51, 358n77, 360n7, 368n67, 370n81, 385n212 Nicole, E., 439n65 Nida, E. A., 452n58–59, 453n77, 477n91, 479n129 Nielsen, E., 369n76 Nitzan, Bilhah, 16, 344n71 Nolan, Brian M., 448n6 Nolland, J., 452n58

Index of Modern Authors  |  567 North, R., 367n53, 378n142, 470n24 Noth, M., 67, 142, 372n100, 372n102, 413n32, 414n43 Nötscher, F., 360n7 Nougayrol, J., 368n64 Nurmela, R., 408n1 Nwachukwu, Mary Sylvia C., 19, 344n90, 396n47 Obrien, J. M., 156, 408n1, 420n95, 420n98, 421n100 Ocáriz, F., 465n125 O’Connell, K. G., 340n6 O’Connor, D., 340n10 O’Connor, M., 388n20, 421n101, 430n15 O’Connor, P., 445n113 Oden, R. A., 339n5, 352n7 Ohler, A., 372n99 Olayiwola, D. L., 425n137 Ollenburger, B. C., 430n14 Olson, D. T., 79, 153, 373n103, 373n106, 375n114, 379n155, 380n161, 419n88–89, 421n101–2, 421n104 Olyan, S., 404n123, 423n120 Oppenheim, L., 362n14 Orchard, J. B., 471n39 O’Rourke Boyle, M., 360n6 Ossom-Batsa, G., 452n53, 453n69 Oswalt, J., 413n31 O’Toole, R. F., 454n88 Otto, E., 377n132 Pao, D. W., 450n26, 453n64, 454n80, 454n84, 455n100 Pardee, D., 434n37 Park, H. D., 172, 427n145 Patcas, H., 399n88 Pate, M., 470n30 Paul, M. J., 473n56 Paul, S. M., 441n76 Payne, J. B., 339n5 Peck, W. J., 399n88 Pedersen, J., 3, 38–39, 351n4, 352n5, 353n11, 353n17–24, 354n44, 358n77, 361n14, 362n19, 392n50 Penney, J. M., 454n78–79, 454n81, 454n95, 455n100 Perdue, L. G., 413n31, 436n52 Pérez Fernández, M., 263, 463n101, 463n103 Perlitt, Lothar, 2, 3, 6, 28, 340n8, 340n10, 352n7, 354n40, 355n51, 360n7, 375n111, 383n190, 385n212, 389n27, 414n42 Peterson, David, 448n9, 455n100, 472n46, 476n71 Petuchowski, J. J., 468n9

Pfeiffer, R. H., 372n99 Pfitzner, V. C., 467n1, 476n78, 478n111 Phillips, A., 340n10, 353n16, 378n140, 431n21 Pitkänen, P., 382n173, 383n180 Pleins, J. D., 399n88 Plescia, J., 462n85 Ploeg, J. M. van der, 353n25 Polak, Frank H., 12, 48, 343n54, 358n74 Polish, D., 408n2 Polk, T., 380n159 Polley, M. E., 428n2, 455n98 Polzin, R. M., 69, 346n105, 369n76, 375n112, 378n136, 423n116 Pomykala, K. E., 444n99 Pope, M. H., 55, 365n40 Porter, J. R., 352n7, 377n130, 385n212, 409n6, 419n83, 430n18, 433n34 Porter, Stanley. E., 19, 20, 137, 341n18, 342n43, 344n86, 344n89, 345n92, 429n9 Porúbcan, S., 94, 96, 387n12, 388n22 Poythress, V., 455n1 Press, R., 364n28 Prewitt, T. J., 352n7 Price, I. M., 361n14 Priest, J., 227, 367n60, 452n58, 452n60 Pursiful, D. J., 476n80, 477n97–98, 481n155 Quell, G., 41, 260, 354n34, 460n49, 460n52, 460n54, 460n59, 460n63, 462n79, 462n84, 476n77, 479n126 Rabbinowitz, J., 474n61 Rad, G. von, 70, 106, 372n102, 375n115–16, 378n138, 383n182, 393n7, 394n18, 395n23, 396n54, 398n75, 399n89 Rahner, K., 349n122 Räisänen, Heikki, 20 Ramsey, G. W., 360n6 Rattray, S., 352n7 Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal, 345n102, 349n123, 482n1 Ravens, D., 447n1, 449n11–12, 449n17, 449n23–24, 450n24–27 Redfern, M., 349n122 Reed, S. A., 344n72 Reichert, A., 66, 372n97 Reicke, B., 172, 426n143, 427n144 Reif, S. C., 421n101, 422n108 Rendsburg, G. A., 395n25, 396n50 Rendtorff, Rolf, 6, 7, 19, 342n29, 342n33–35, 343n50, 372n99, 389n29–31 Richards, K. H., 352n7, 392n2, 434n36 Richardson, P., 399n88

568  |  Index of Modern Authors Ricoeur, P., 414n45 Ridderbos, N. J., 358n78 Rivkin, E., 377n129 Roberts, J. J. M., 340n10, 359n1, 430n18, 438n62, 441n81–82 Robertson, O. P., 50, 361n13, 479n124, 480n136 Robinson, A. W., 370n76, 437n55 Robinson, R. B., 391n46 Rodd, C. S., 352n7 Rodriguez, A. M., 144, 415n51 Roetzel, C. J., 427n147 Rofé, A., 369n76, 374n107, 378n140, 395n35 Roo, Jacqueline C. R. de, 16, 341n18, 342n43, 343n66, 344n68–69, 429n9 Rooke, D. W., 293, 408n1, 468n3, 468n13, 469n21, 470n32, 471n40, 474n57 Rosenbaum, M., 391n45 Rosenberg, J., 428n1 Rost, L., 430n18 Rouiller, G., 399n88 Rowdon, H. H., 469n19 Rowley, H. H., 423n120 Ruprecht, E., 394n15 Sabourin, L., 408n1, 455n1 Safrai, S., 477n88 Safren, J. D., 422n104 Sailhamer, J. H., 79, 150–51, 154, 346n105, 381n163, 381n166, 409n7, 414n47–48, 415n57, 417n75, 417n77–418n78–82, 419n89, 423n113 Sakenfeld, K. D., 353n15 Salters, R. B., 342n32, 342n46 Sanders, E. P., 17, 19, 20, 239, 240, 241, 344n74, 375n117, 456n3, 456n5 Sanders, J. A., 347n108, 400n91, 456n9, 456n11, 457n15, 458n31 Sanders, J. T., 464n109, 464n113, 466n135 Sarna, N. H., 184, 390n36, 409n7, 412n24, 415n57, 426n138, 434n37, 435n39 Sasson, J., 413n31 Sauer, E., 279, 468n9 Scharbert, J., 340n6, 384n199, 391n41 Schenker, A., 357n72, 439n65 Schiffman, L. H., 472n50 Schlier, H., 456n2 Schlisske, W., 381n164 Schloen, J. D., 341n15 Schmid, H. H., 355n51 Schmid, R., 356n54, 358n78 Schmidt, W., 356n52 Schmitt, H.-C., 399n88 Schmitt, J. J., 438n62 Schnackenburg, R., 464n110, 464n114

Schnedermann, Georg, 456n5 Schniedewind, W. M., 425n137 Schoenberg, M. W., 441n79 Schoeps, H. J., 461n67 Schofield, A., 425n136 Schoonenberg, P., 388n20 Schreiner, S., 436n46 Schreiner, T. R., 465n121, 466n135 Schurer, E., 474n60 Schüssler-Fiorenza, E., 412n20 Scott, J. M., 240, 241, 249, 441n76, 456n9–10, 458n30, 465n120, 465n123 Scroggs, R., 427n148, 456n3 Scullion, J. J., 393n7 Seccombe, D., 455n100 Seebass, H., 401n101 Seely, D. R., 381n165, 381n170 Segal, A. F., 41–42, 354n36–37, 399n88, 467n141 Selwyn, E. G., 465n117 Seow, C. L., 187, 428n2, 435n41, 437n55, 437n57, 438n59–61 Seybold, K., 187, 437n57 Sheehan, J. F. X., 131, 406n129–30 Sheriffs, D. C. T., 360n8 Shinan, A., 372n100 Silverman, A. M., 391n45 Silving, H., 362n15 Simlai, R., 416n64 Simon, M., 404n120, 466n136 Sinclair, L. A., 340n6, 438n62, 470n24 Skehan, P. W., 381n162 Skillen, J., 428n2 Skilton, J. H., 343n64 Skinner, J., 387n17, 393n7 Sklba, R., 136, 358n76, 408n1, 409n5, 410n11 Smelik, K. A. D., 430n18 Smend, Rudolf, 6, 342n30 Smith, D., 340n10 Smith, D. A., 371n92–93, 372n95–96 Smith, J., 476n75 Smith, M. S., 28, 350n127 Smith, M. W., 357n73 Smith, R. H., 405n127 Smith, R. L., 65–66 Smith, S., 439n66 Smith, W. Robertson, 3, 341n14, 351n2, 355n52 Smolar, L., 144, 147, 240, 241, 413n39, 415n52, 416n64, 427n148, 456n6–8 Snaith, N., 421n101 Snijders, L. A., 358n78 Soards, M. L., 342n42, 458n31, 472n48 Soggin, J. A., 372n99, 373n102, 431n22 Sohn, Seock-Tae, 9, 341n25

Index of Modern Authors  |  569 Son, K., 445n117, 471n37, 480n139 Spencer, J., 356n52 Spencer, J. R., 340n10, 357n67–68, 434n37 Sperling, J. D., 340n6 Spicq, C., 468n9, 473n52, 477n99 Spiegel, S., 128, 399n88 Stager, L. E., 352n7, 468n5 Steck, O. H., 86–87, 383n186–87, 456n9 Stegner, W. R., 447n1 Steinberg, N., 99, 376n124, 392n48 Steinmetz, D., 130, 132, 347n113, 352n7, 404n124–405n125–126, 405n128, 406n134 Stern, M., 477n88 Sternberg, M., 346n105, 414n45 Steudel, A., 472n50 Stockhausen, Carol, 242, 243, 244, 262, 457n15–19, 459n38, 463n95 Stoebe, H. J., 355n51 Strack, H. L., 301, 473n55–56, 474n60 Strauss, M. L., 447n1, 449n14, 449n22, 451n29–31, 453n73, 455n99 Suh, M. Soo, 415n49 Sung, Myung Soo, 356n55 Suprenant, J., 409n7, 426n142 Swartley, W. M., 445n108–9 Sweeney, M. A., 414n42, 416n67 Swetnam, J., 399n88, 401n100, 470n27, 472n45, 476n72, 476n76, 476n79, 477n99, 478n111, 478n115, 480n137, 481n146, 481n150, 481n155 Sykes, S. W., 480n143 Tadmor, H., 358n79, 361n14, 386n4 Talbert, C. H., 171–72, 426n143 Talmon, S., 347n113, 407n143 Tannehill, R. C., 448n4–6, 454n89 Tarazi, P. N., 461n68 Tasker, D. R., 371n87 Taubenschlag, R., 477n88 Taylor, G. M., 461n70 Taylor, Greer, 259 Taylor, N. H., 448n8 Tellenbach, H., 352n7 Thielman, F., 456n11, 458n32 Thompson, J. A., 359n2 Thompson, R. J., 46, 356n52, 357n67, 393n5 Thompson, T. D., 386n5 Thompson, T. L., 400n95, 401n99 Thundyil, Z. P., 362n15, 364n38, 365n40 Tigchelaar, E. J. C., 446n119, 446n123, 455n104–5 Tonneau, R.-M., 472n52 Toorn, K. van der, 341n15, 363n26, 364n28 Torrance, T. F., 475n69

Trible, P., 399n88 Trumbull, H. C., 351n2 Tsevat, M., 411n16 Tucker, G. M., 355n51, 358n79, 361n12, 361n14, 386n4, 429n6 Tuckett, C. M., 448n6 Turner, L. A., 401n99, 401n102 Turner, M., 453n73 Turner, V., 356n53 Tylor, E. B., 355n52 Ulshoefer, H. K., 432n25 Unger, M. F., 369n72 Vanderkam, J. C., 408n1, 425n136, 472n50 Van Groningen, G., 138, 139, 410n13–411n14, 411n19 Vanhoozer, K. J., 346n103 Vanhoye, A., 305, 312, 328, 471n39, 474n65, 475n69, 476n72–73, 476n76, 477n99, 478n103, 478n113, 480n135, 480n143–44, 482n155 Vannoy, J. R., 88, 383n190, 384n195, 384n201–2 Van Seters, A., 352n9 Van Seters, J., 110, 343n50, 355n51, 392n3, 393n5, 394n14, 395n25, 396n43, 396n52, 396n54–55, 397n66, 398n81–83, 399n89, 413n38 Vattioni, F., 359n2 Vaughn, C., 464n106 Vawter, B., 347n113, 407n142, 434n37 Veijola, T., 434n37 Verheyden, J., 448n7–8, 453n76, 454n84, 455n102–3 Verhoef, P. A., 420n91 Vermes, Paul G., 128, 255, 264, 347n113, 399n88, 400n97, 403n117–18, 460n46, 463n89 Viberg, A., 352n5, 355n46, 355n49, 361n14, 363n24, 420n92–93 Vilnay, Z., 466n131 Vogels, W., 100, 140, 392n51, 412n23 Vööbus, A., 452n51 Vos, G., 467n1, 476n78, 476n82, 477n97 Vriezen, T. C., 355n51 Walker, P. W. L., 435n40 Waltke, B. K., 341n22, 387n16, 392n3, 394n17, 397n60, 398n78, 398n86, 445n116 Walton, J. H., 359n1, 364n28 Warburton, W., 357n68 Ward, J. M., 434n37 Watts, J. D. W., 372n97 Weber, F., 240, 456n5

570  |  Index of Modern Authors Weber, Max, 1, 2, 3, 339n4 Weeks, N., 471n42 Wegner, P, 57, 362n14–15, 362n19, 362n21, 364n32, 366n51–52, 381n165, 419n85, 422n110, 423n117, 423n121 Weinfeld, Moshe, 4, 5, 12, 29, 30, 56, 59, 70, 72, 76, 93–94, 101, 109, 110, 133, 142, 156–57, 159, 177, 178, 315, 339n2, 340n10, 341n21, 347n113, 350n129, 357n63, 359n4, 360n9, 363n27, 365n43–45, 368n63, 369n76, 370n78, 370n80–82, 371n83, 373n105–6, 374n109, 375n118–19, 376n121, 377n130–33, 378n136–38, 379n152–54, 380n159, 383n191, 385n1–2, 386n3, 386n5, 386n7, 386n9–10, 387n11, 387n15, 390n35, 392n3, 393n4–5, 394n13, 394n19–20, 395n35, 396n42, 396n54, 397n58, 397n61, 397n63, 397n65, 398n71, 398n80, 398n85, 398n87, 407n141, 407n144, 413n34, 420n97, 421n101, 428n2, 428n5, 429n7, 434n36, 461n77, 462n79, 462n81, 475n70, 478n118 Weingreen, J., 72, 376n129 Weippert, M. H. E., 341n15 Weiser, A., 47, 357n69–70 Weisman, Z.., 396n42 Weiss, B. G., 366n51 Welch, J. W., 366n51 Wellhausen, J., 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 28, 143, 339n1, 340n10, 354n40, 388n21 Wells, J. B., 358n75 Wenham, G. J., 124–26, 388n21, 392n3, 393n5, 394n11–12, 395n26–27, 396n36, 396n45, 396n54–55, 398n73, 399n88, 400n93–96, 401n103, 402n105–6, 404n123–24, 417n76, 426n138, 463n102 Westcott, B. F., 469n18, 476n80, 477n90, 477n95, 478n115 Westermann, C., 387n14, 388n21, 389n26, 389n32, 391n41, 392n2, 392n49, 393n7–8, 394n9, 394n16, 400n92, 406n131 Whedbee, J. W., 429n6 White, H. C., 362n22, 399n88 White, L. M., 462n85 White, M., 413n40 White, R. E. O., 466n128 Whitelam, K. W., 430n18 Whitely, C. F., 360n7

Whittaker, G. H., 411n14 Wilcox, Max, 254–55, 399n88, 459n44–45, 463n99, 463n101 Wildavsky, Aaron, 146, 159, 359n82, 416n62, 422n112 Wilfong, M. W., 399n88 Wilken, R. L., 466n131 Willesen, F., 353n25 Williams, J. G., 140, 141, 412n24, 412n29 Williams, P. L., 346n106 Williamson, H., 457n12 Williamson, Paul R., 8, 10, 11, 104, 342n44–45, 343n49, 343n51, 345n97, 393n7–8, 394n10, 394n16, 395n25–26, 397n66, 398n83, 460n48, 462n87, 463n90, 468n1 Williamson, R., 330, 481n151–53 Willitts, J., 382n178, 459n34–35 Wilson, J. A., 54, 364n30 Wilson, R. R., 40, 353n27, 354n28, 391n46 Wilson, S. G., 464n109 Winter, P., 372n98 Wintermute, O. S., 367n54 Wisdom, J. R., 462n88, 463n90 Wise, M. O., 16–17, 344n73 Wiseman, D. J., 360n9 Witherington, B., 460n61, 461n72, 462n86, 463n97–98 Wolf, H. J., 477n88 Wolff, H. M., 92, 385n214 Wolff, H. W., 354n27, 372–73n102, 394n16 Wren, T. E., 462n85 Wright, C. J. H., 42, 138, 352n7, 353n16, 353n27, 354n31, 354n38, 411n15, 411n18 Wright, G. C., 381n162 Wright, G. H., 377n132 Wright, N. T., 17–18, 239, 252–53, 344n75–77, 456n4, 456n9, 458n30, 459n38–41, 466n133, 469n20 Wright, R. B., 446n120 Yarbrough, O. L., 462n85 Young, N. H., 464n106 Youngblood, R. F., 409n8, 424n123 Zeitlin, S., 367n54 Zenger, E., 343n50, 343n62 Zerafa, P., 423n115, 425n137 Zimmerli, W., 339n5, 355n51, 409n5 Zlotowitz, M., 402n104, 402n109

index of scripture and other ancient texts Old Testament Genesis chs. 1–11, 326 1:26, 285 1:28, 96, 279 2:5, 295 2:15, 279 ch. 3, 295, 471n44 3:14–24, 471n44 3:17–19, 295 3:18, 322 ch. 6, 387n19 chs. 6–9, 9, 96 6:1–5, 96 6:8, 95, 387n17 6:8–9, 95 6:9, 95 6:10, 299 6:11, 390n34 6:13, 390n34 6:14–16, 19–21, 96 6:18, 95 6:22, 96, 389n32 7:1, 95 7:1–2, 96 7:1–3, 96 7:5, 96 8:13, 389n32 8:20, 96, 298, 299, 389n28 ch. 9, 9–10, 97, 130, 367n54, 387n19 9:1–3, 389n28 9:2–3, 388n23 9:8, 141 9:8–17, 95, 97, 388n21 9:9, 96, 97 9:9–17, 366n52 9:11, 96 9:13, 388n21

9:15, 96 9:16, 94, 96 9:16, 17, 97 9:25–27, 97, 388n23, 389n28 9:26, 98, 132, 303 9:27, 282 9:27–32, 98 chs. 10–11, 99, 130 10:5, 10, 405n125 10:19, 405n125 10:22, 405n125 ch. 11, 98, 130, 131, 472n52 11:10–11, 299 11:10–26, 99, 132 11:11, 98 ch. 12, 10, 111, 242, 255 12:1–3, 11 12:2, 102, 282, 433n27 12:2a, 104, 111, 112, 115 12:2c, 105, 107 12:2d–3, 393n8 12:3, 125, 140–41, 246, 247, 263, 381n166, 394n9, 422n104, 467n139 12:3a, 393n8 12:3b, 246, 247, 394n8 12:3c, 111 12:6, 390n35 12:7–8, 298 12:18a, 247 13:6, 402n109 13:15, 463n97 13:18, 298, 404n124 ch. 14, 130–34, 187, 296, 299 14:1, 405n125 14:1–11, 405n126 14:1–12, 130

571

14:2, 405n125 14:6, 15, 133 14:7, 405n126 14:13, 404n124, 405n128 14:17, 403n115 14:17–21, 190, 192 14:18, 132, 192, 282, 297, 347n113, 390n35, 402n111, 404n120, 407n141, 407n145, 443n90, 472n52 14:18–20, 297, 439n64, 440n68 14:18b, 131 14:19, 297 14:19–20, 132, 326 14:20, 132 14:22, 53, 297, 363n25, 402n112, 440n68 14:22–23, 131, 362n15 14:27–20, 192 ch. 15, 7, 8, 10, 11, 20, 24, 32, 101, 102, 103, 104–5, 111, 112–14, 117, 120, 123, 130, 134, 242, 245, 246, 247, 268, 272, 316, 343n50, 347n112, 367n54, 479n126 15:1, 405n124 15:1–21, 11 15:3, 433n27 15:5, 111, 402n109 15:6, 102, 245, 246 15:7, 112 15:7–20, 432n23 15:7–21, 124, 366n52, 393n5 15:9–10, 17, 53 15:9–21, 53 15:12–16, 104, 113

572  |  Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Texts Genesis (cont.) 15:12–17, 113 15:13, 113 15:13–16, 18–20, 53 15:14, 104 15:17–21, 261, 463n90 15:18, 102, 113 15:18–21, 120 ch. 16, 117, 242 chs. 16–17, 21, 273 chs. 16–21, 243, 457n21 16:2, 433n29 16:15, 401n99 ch. 17, 7, 8, 10, 20, 24, 32, 101, 102, 103, 105–7, 110, 111, 112, 114–17, 119, 120, 121, 123, 130, 134, 238, 245, 246, 247, 248, 268, 272, 273, 276, 343n50–51, 347n112, 387n19, 422n110 17:1, 10, 114, 116, 120, 343n50, 398n69 17:1–22, 11 17:1–27, 108, 261, 463n90 17:2, 397n66 17:2, 422n110 17:4, 106 17:4–5, 106, 121 17:4–6, 115 17:4–8, 53 17:5, 102, 105 17:6, 106 17:7, 110, 422n110 17:7–10, 141 17:7–13, 102 17:8, 463n97 17:9–14, 116, 120, 343n50 17:11, 79, 245 17:14–20, 114 17:15–16, 53 17:16, 106, 115 17:18–21, 105, 248, 263 17:19, 106, 401n99 17:19–21, 124 17:20, 105 17:21, 106, 401n99 17:22–27, 116, 117 17:23, 248, 274 17:23–27, 120 ch. 18, 255 18:1, 404n124 18:11a, 356n62

18:18, 125, 263, 398n82, 458n27, 467n139 18:19, 22–32, 102 19:3b–6, 443n90 ch. 20:7, 102 ch. 21, 242, 263, 264 21:3, 118 21:8–21, 262 21:10, 411n17 21:18, 105 21:22, 315 21:22–24, 43 21:22–34, 262, 463n95 21:27–32, 259 21:31–32, 109, 462n81 21:33, 298 ch. 22, 10, 11, 21, 24, 32, 53, 101, 102, 103, 108–11, 112, 117–20, 122, 123–30, 134, 238, 242, 247, 255, 263, 272, 347n112, 366n51, 415n55, 457n21 chs. 22–26, 384n207 22:1, 123 22:1–2, 125 22:1–14, 439n64, 439n68 22:1–19, 190, 191, 262, 395n25, 399n89 22:2, 105, 117, 120, 256, 263, 287, 347n113, 399n87, 402n111, 403n113, 440n68 22:3, 120, 124, 403n113 22:3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 19, 399n87 22:4, 118 22:5, 120, 124 22: 6, 120 22:6–9, 254 22:7, 124 22:7–8, 124 22:8, 120, 256 22:9, 124, 254, 393n4 22:12, 105, 124, 263, 287, 402n106 22:13, 120, 191 22:14, 120, 192, 256, 347n113 22:14–19, 53 22:15, 261 22:15–18, 11, 16, 21, 32, 102, 108–11, 117–20, 121, 238, 247, 256,

261, 276, 280, 287, 294, 295, 296, 320, 322, 326, 395n25, 397n66, 398n80, 399n89, 459n40 22:16, 101, 102, 105, 108, 109, 125, 263, 287, 393n5, 395n29, 398n80, 402n106 22:16–18, 10, 21, 53, 57, 58, 101, 102, 110, 111, 125, 145, 155, 174, 183, 245, 256, 262, 263, 269, 284, 343n51, 366n52, 396n42, 423n117 22:16–18, 124, 261, 325, 345n101, 364n34 22:17, 111, 118, 401n99 22:17–18, 111, 120 22:17a, 463n90 22:18, 111, 125, 239, 245, 246, 247, 248, 254, 255–56, 263, 264, 267, 270, 273, 276, 326, 394n9, 396n41, 398nn80–81, 398n82, 458n27, 462n89 22:18a, 246, 255, 463n97 24:1–67, 476n70, 478n116 24:7, 395n28, 401n103, 463n97 24:35, 38 24:41, 316 25:1–5, 263 25:29–34, 395n22, 410n13 26:2–4, 124 26:3, 110, 395n28, 401n103, 463n97 26:3–4, 396n42 26:3–5, 110, 415n53 26:4, 270 26:5, 102, 398n80 26:25, 298 26:26, 315 26:26–33, 43 26:28, 109, 355n44, 461n78, 462n81, 476n70, 478n116 26:30, 223 26:31, 355n44 26:40, 398n81 27:23–29, 298

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Texts  |  573 27:27–28, 38 27:27–29, 395n22 28:1, 298 28:1–4, 458n29 28:4, 460n47, 463n97 28:13, 463n97 28:13–15, 124, 415n53 28:14, 398n82 28:18–22, 298 28:20–22, 362n15 29:14, 38, 354n32 30:3, 433n29 31:14, 259 31:43–50, 351n4 31:43–54, 43–44 31:44, 53, 109 31:46, 54, 223 31:53, 362n15 32:1–21, 369n75 32:3, 395n22 32:4, 18, 20, 369n75 33:1–9, 369n75 33:1–20, 387n13 33:5, 369n75 33:9, 369n75, 395n22 33:18–20, 383n181 33:19–20, 383n182 35:12, 463n97 35:14, 298 35:22, 410n13 36:31, 395n22 37:22, 27, 38 40:4, 463n97 41:14–45, 387n13 41:45, 50, 297 42:15, 437n53 43:33, 410n13 46:1, 298 46:3, 104 46:20, 297 46:34, 45, 356n62 47:7, 10, 298 47:22, 26, 297 chs. 48–49, 384n207 48:15, 20, 28, 298 49:3, 38, 137, 279, 410n10, 473n53 49:3–4, 410n13 49:8–12, 387n13 49:10, 211, 236, 444n100 49:22–26, 387n13 50:24, 395n28, 401n103 Exodus 1:1–7:7, 411n18 ch. 2, 86 2:13, 450n27

ch. 3, 382n170 3:4, 86 3:6–17, 197 3:13–15, 282 3:14, 430n15 4:14–16, 423n122 4:21–23, 411n18 4:22–23, 279, 468n8 4:22, 48, 74, 139, 167, 182, 184, 197, 212, 253, 270, 284, 304, 379n146, 411n18, 435n44 4:27–28, 423n122 5:21, 265 6:2–8, 124 6:3, 430n15 6:8, 363n25, 381n165 6:9, 265 6:25, 424n122 8:5, 306 8:7–13, 306 8:25–27, 44 12:12, 356n62 12:40–41, 113 ch. 13, 128, 415n59 13:1, 146 13:1–2, 146, 171, 172, 415n59 13:2, 138, 172, 426n143 13:5, 401n103 13:11, 395n28, 415n59 13:12, 382n172 13:12–15, 138 13:13, 171, 172, 426n143 13:21–22, 294 ch. 14, 382n170 14:11–12, 265 15:17–21, 108 15:24, 265 15:25–26, 143 15–40, 143 16:2–12, 265 ch. 17, 382n170 17:2–3, 265 18:11, 47 chs. 19–24, 2, 12, 49, 64, 67, 68, 69, 112–14, 117, 123, 141, 143, 148, 198, 270, 319, 370n80, 371n90, 376n128, 412n27 19:1–6, 468n8 19:3–8, 412n23 19:5, 270

19:5–6, 112–13, 140, 144, 153, 171, 175, 197, 212, 337 19:6, 48, 144, 164, 167, 253, 279, 304, 412n21 19:16, 74 19:18, 113 19:22, 426n138 19:22, 141, 146 19:24, 141, 146, 426n138 19:25, 414n47 ch. 20, 149, 238 chs. 20–23, 266 chs. 20–24, 24, 114 20:1, 375n113 20:1–17, 414n47 20:1–21:1, 265, 266 20:2, 112 20:3, 47 20:7, 54 20:18, 113 20:18–19, 375n113 20:18–20, 294 20:21, 113 20:23, 47 21:15–17, 38 chs. 21–23, 143, 149, 265, 414n48 22:28, 138 22:29–31, 146 22:31, 415n59 23:20–33, 378n140 23:22–33, 397n62 23:24, 47 23:31, 113 23:32, 47 ch. 24, 44–48, 55, 64, 141, 149, 150, 305, 408n2 24:1–11, 44, 47, 65, 155 24:3, 414n47 24:4–8, 12 24:4b–5, 47 24:5, 141, 146, 167, 410n10 24:5–8, 317 24:6–8, 116, 226 24:8, 329, 363n27, 481n148 24:9–11, 12, 48, 53 24:11, 223 24:17, 113 24:31, 120 ch. 25, 266, 274

574  |  Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Texts Exodus (cont.) chs. 25–31, 143, 144, 414n48 chs. 25–40, 144 25:40, 306 chs. 28, 29, 426n138 29:1, 150 29:1–14, 150 30:32, 150 31:18, 144 ch. 32, 68, 86, 117, 134, 150, 154, 305, 319, 415n49, 417n76, 479n127 chs. 32–33, 88 chs. 32–34, 142–55, 375n111, 416n67 chs. 32–40, 376n128 32:6, 117 32:7, 144, 416n68 32:7–14, 25–39, 143 32:7b, 145 32:8, 421n102 32:9, 389n31 32:9–14, 145 32:10, 145 32:13, 80, 108, 155, 395n28, 395n29 32:13–14, 295 32:14, 108 32:25, 152 32:25–28, 167 32:25–29, 33, 158, 422n109 32:25–35, 479n127 32:25–39, 147 32:26–28, 421n102 32:26–29, 156 32:27, 450n27 32:29, 69, 156, 159 32:33–34, 147 32:39, 421n102 ch. 33, 143 33:1, 395n28 33:1–6, 416n67 33:2, 147, 416n67 33:7–11, 148 ch. 34, 24, 74, 88, 143, 148, 149, 304, 408n2, 417n71, 479n127 chs. 34–40, 68, 304 34:1–20, 138 34:9, 389n31 34:10–28, 145 34:14, 47

34:20, 146, 415n59 34:27, 148 34:28, 148 34:29, 144 ch. 35, 152 chs. 35–40, 83, 143, 144, 148, 149, 152, 414n48, 417n71 chs. 35–41, 147 36:12, 139 39:42, 389n32 40:2, 389n32 40:12–15, 298 40:15, 169, 171 Leviticus chs. 1–16, 71, 149, 150, 152, 379n147 chs. 1–26, 68, 83, 148, 304, 376n128 1:5, 11, 403n118 1:17, 113, 393n5 3:1, 6, 113 4:3, 150 4:22–31, 418n81 5:7, 113 5:8, 113 7:12, 422n109 7:12–15, 472n49 7:34, 157 8:1–13, 86 9:1–14, 150 9:1–16, 150 9:3–4, 113 9:22–23, 156 10:1–3, 159 12:3, 398n72 ch. 16, 150, 152 16:1–6, 165 ch. 17, 152 chs. 17–26, 149, 150, 152, 158, 379n147 17:1–4, 73 17:1–7, 75, 76 17:1–9, 152, 418n79 17:2–9, 418n81 17:5, 152 17:7, 150, 152, 418n81 17:13, 76 ch. 18, 152 chs. 18–26, 418n81 18:1–4, 152 18:5, 80, 82, 152–53, 158, 248, 250–52, 459n36 18:21, 382n172 19:7, 144 19:12, 54

19:18, 450n27 19:27, 415n50 20:2–5, 382n172 20:10, 38 21:7, 424n131 21:14, 378n141, 424n131 22:25, 144 25:21, 38 25:36, 378n142 ch. 26, 11, 73, 294, 304, 316, 322, 479n133 26:6–8, 397n62 26:14–39, 478n121, 479n133 26:16, 478n121, 479n133 26:22, 382n175, 478n121, 479n133 26:25, 478n121, 478n123, 479n133 26:30, 478n121, 479n133 26:31–35, 382n175 26:38, 478n121, 479n133 26:42, 11, 110 26:43, 382n175 26:46, 376n121 ch. 27, 24, 74, 76, 266, 274, 479n127 27:9–10, 28, 76 27:11–27, 77 27:26, 76, 415n60 27:39, 376n121 Numbers chs. 1–4, 146 1:5, 181 1:47–54, 146 1:51, 181 3:5–39, 146 3:5–51, 155 3:6–8, 14–38, 181 3:11, 146 3:11–12, 146 3:11–13, 138, 146, 426n138 3:11–15, 407n146 3:11–51, 69 3:12, 141 3:40–51, 146 3:47, 172 3:49, 420n99 4:1–33, 181 4:3–43, 303 4:14–38, 149 4:16, 199 4:28, 169 4:47, 181 6:16–17, 181

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Texts  |  575 6:22–27, 181 6:23–24, 156 8:5–26, 69 8:11, 169 8:14–18, 146 8:14–26, 181 8:15, 169 8:15–19, 155 8:16–18, 138, 426n138 8:19, 169 8:25, 303 10:1–10, 152 11:5–20, 413n33 11:6–7, 294 11:11–12, 464n107 11:24–30, 294 12:7, 288, 289, 419n87 ch. 13, 153, 382n170 chs. 13–14, 68, 154, 419n87, 421n102 ch. 14, 366n51, 419n85 14:2–22, 413n33 14:6–10, 421n102 14:16, 419n86 14:20–23, 296, 325 14:20–35, 155 14:21–30, 153 14:21–35, 423n117 14:23, 153, 395n28 14:24, 421n102 14:28–35, 57, 345n101 14:30, 153, 363n25, 381n165, 421n102 14:37, 421n102 15:1–19:22, 154 17:1–13, 298 18:1–7, 298 18:6, 407n146 18:8, 157 18:15, 138, 415n60 18:16, 172 18:17, 76, 415n60 18:21, 157, 297 23:1, 364n32 24:17, 444n100 24:25, 364n32 ch. 25, 68, 117, 421n102, 421n103, 422n104 25:1, 374n109 25:1–2, 421n101 25:1–4, 159 25:1–10, 253, 419n84 25:2, 374n109, 421n102 25:3–4, 421n101 25:4, 159 25:6–7, 421n102

25:6–13, 69, 158 25:7–8, 421n102 25:8, 159, 422n108 25:9, 421n102 25:10–13, 421n102 25:10–15, 422n110 25:11, 159 25:11–13, 156, 420n95, 421n102 25:12, 422n110 25:12–13, 157, 167 25:13, 169, 171, 420n98 ch. 26, 374n110 26:3, 117 26:10, 363n26 30:40–51, 167 31:6, 69, 160 32:11, 395n28 33:4, 356n62 ch. 36, 238 36:13, 374n110 Deuteronomy 1:1, 114, 376n121 1:1–4:3, 68 1:1–5, 370n79 1:2, 118 1:5, 117, 374n109 1:6–4:49, 370n79 1:8, 34, 395n28 1:31, 63, 91 2:33–36, 86 3:8, 371n82 3:23–29, 72 3:29, 68, 117, 374n108–9 ch. 4, 88 4:1–40, 377n134 4:3, 117, 374n108 4:3–4, 68 4:23, 478n121 4:25, 382n171 4:25–31, 382n171 4:26, 370n82, 478n121 4:26–27, 381n171 4:26a, 382n171 4:27, 381n171, 382n171 4:31, 109, 462n81, 476n70, 478n116 4:37–38, 371n82 4:44–49, 82 4:45–46, 114, 376n121 4:46, 117, 374n109 ch. 5, 375n113 chs. 5–26, 370n79 5:1–21, 265 5:4, 22–27, 265, 266 5:6–21, 69

5:11, 54 5:22, 265 5:24–27, 375n113 5:33, 397n59 6:5, 62 6:7, 397n59 6:10, 18, 23, 395n28 7:7–8, 124 7:8, 371n82 7:12, 109, 361n13, 462n81, 476n70, 478n116 8:2, 397n59 8:5, 63, 91 8:6, 397n59 8:11–20, 459n37 8:18, 109, 361n13, 462n81, 476n70, 478n116 9:5, 371n82 10:1–5, 68 10:5, 374n106 10:8, 181 10:12, 397n59 10:12–13, 116 10:16, 78, 116 11:6, 363n26 11:22, 397n59 chs. 12–26, 249, 373n103 12:1–14, 443n91 12:1–26, 115 12:5, 119, 282 12:5–18, 73 12:10, 119 12:10–11, 282, 432n23 12:11, 119 12:14, 121 12:15, 75, 76, 378n139 12:15–24, 73 12:15–28, 75 12:16, 20–24, 76 12:21, 378n139 12:31, 382n172 13:4, 63 13:4–5, 397n59 14:1, 63 14:22–23, 75 14:22–26, 76, 77 14:22–27, 75 ch. 15, 115 15:1–18, 74 15:1–23, 74 15:3, 73 15:6, 107, 115, 121 15:19–23, 74, 75

576  |  Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Texts Deuteronomy (cont.) 15:20, 379n148 17:2–7, 478n121 17:9–12, 71 17:14–17, 199 17:14–20, 73, 121, 284n194 17:16, 413n33 17:18, 68, 69, 373–74n105–106 17:18–19, 370n82 17:18–20, 235 18:10, 12, 382n172 18:13, 114 19:9, 397n59 20:15–20, 251 20:16–17, 73, 378n140 21:5, 181 21:15–17, 353n20, 410n13 21:17, 38 21:18–21, 459n38 21:22, 254 21:23, 245, 248, 252–54, 255, 265, 459n38 22:25, 38 chs. 22–28, 81 23:20, 73, 378n142 24:1–4, 73 24:8, 69 25:9, 433n29 26:6, 104 26:17, 397n59 26:19, 115 ch. 27, 65, 72, 249, 377n132, 378n136, 412n27, 458n30 chs. 27–28, 81 chs. 27–30, 239, 370n79, 458n30 chs. 27–31, 80 chs. 27–32, 74, 249 chs. 27–33, 77 27:2–12, 72, 73 27:9–14, 70 27:11–26, 116 27:12–13, 85 27:15–26, 77, 81, 92 27:26, 248–50, 252 ch. 28, 73, 77, 249, 316, 322, 479n133 chs. 28–30, 86 28:1–14, 73 28:1–44, 379n155 28:9, 397n59 28:12–13, 115 28:14–54, 270

28:15, 38, 249, 380n155 28:15–68, 73, 77, 78, 81, 294, 478n121, 479n133 28:20, 22, 24, 26, 478n121, 479n133 28:36, 115 28:45–68, 380n155 28:48, 51, 478n121, 479n133 28:58, 249, 478n121, 479n133 28:61, 248, 249, 478n121, 479n133 28:64, 81 28:69, 114, 374n109, 376n121 chs. 29–30, 79, 88 chs. 29–32, 85, 380n161 chs. 29–33, 66 29:1, 68, 69, 82, 114, 117 29:1–4, 81 29:4, 459n37 29:9, 315 29:10–13, 375n120 29:11, 475n70, 478n116 29:11–14, 365n45 29:12, 50, 395n31, 462n81 29:14, 395n31, 462n81 29:19, 249, 316 29:20, 26, 249 chs. 30–33, 84 30:1, 77, 249 30:1–3, 81 30:6, 78, 79, 251, 447n135 30:7, 316 30:10, 248, 249 30:11–20, 81 30:15–19, 249 30:15–20, 84 30:16, 397n59 30:19, 370n82 chs. 31–34, 370n79 31:1–8, 72 31:1–23, 88 31:2, 84 31:3–5, 84 31:9–13, 70, 86, 370n82 31:12–13, 84 31:16, 478n121 31:16–22, 81, 249 31:20, 109, 462n81, 476n70, 478n116 31:20–21, 395n28 31:25–26, 68

31:26, 248, 373n106 31:27–29, 249 ch. 32, 249, 381n162 32:1–43, 79–80 32:5, 63 32:5–6, 381n164 32:6, 91, 435n44 32:15, 435n44 32:16–20, 381n164 32:18–20, 91 32:19, 63 32:21b–27, 28–33, 79 32:40, 80, 81, 345n101, 363n25, 382n171 32:40–41, 81, 381n165 32:40–42, 57, 79, 80, 423n117 32:40–43, 283, 381n165 32:43, 79, 80, 184 32:47, 251 32:49, 113, 117 ch. 33, 384n207 33:8–10, 416n66, 427n146 33:8–11, 69, 156 33:10, 199 34:1, 117 34:1–2, 113 34:1–12, 84 34:4, 395n28 34:6, 117, 374n109 Joshua ch. 2, 382n170 2:1, 374n109 2:4–20, 357n73 2:9–21, 387n13 2:12–14, 53 3:1, 374n109 ch. 5, 116, 123, 382n170 5:1–9, 116, 117 6:1–8, 29, 116 6:22–25, 387n13 7:11, 15, 478n121 7:16–18, 40 7:22–26, 364n29 ch. 8, 123, 382n170 8:30–35, 72, 85, 116, 120, 412n27 8:32, 374n106 ch. 9, 260 9:3–17, 364n29 9:3–27, 462n85 9:15, 356n54, 395n31, 462n81, 476n70, 478n116 9:15–20, 315, 361n13

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Texts  |  577 10:4, 356n54 11:19, 356n54 14:6–14, 387n13 15:16–19, 387n13 15:63, 201 chs. 22–24, 83–86, 90 22:10–12, 84 22:13, 20, 69, 160 22:13–18, 84 22:16, 84 22:17, 84 23:2, 84 23:4–5, 84 23:6, 84 23:6–16, 84 23:14, 84 24:14–15, 85 23:16, 478n121 ch. 24, 90 24:1, 85 24:14, 47 24:16–18, 85 24:19, 85 24:20, 47 24:29–31, 84 24:32, 383n182 24:33, 383n181 29:14, 361n13 Judges 1:21, 201 2:1, 361n13, 395n31, 462n81 4:17, 356n54 6:24, 356n54 6:37, 439n66 8:27, 181 9:1–4, 38 9:1–57, 445n111 9:2, 354n32 11:30–31, 362n15 ch. 17, 410n11 17:2, 364n32 17:5, 410n11 17:10, 13, 410n11 19:10–12, 201 20:28, 69, 160 21:1–7, 53 Ruth 1:17, 478n120 4:11, 433n29 1 Samuel chs. 1–2, 172 1:21–28, 86 1:24, 393n5 1:26, 437n53 1:28, 427n143

chs. 2–4, 160 2:1–10, 427n143 2:11, 427n143 2:12–17, 160 2:18, 427n143 2:22, 161 2:22–23, 427n143 2:22–25, 423n115 2:25, 161 2:27, 423n122 2:27–35, 161 2:27–36, 160, 421n103, 423n115 2:29, 161 2:30, 386n8 2:35, 288–89, 290, 425n135, 427n143 3:4, 86 3:11–14, 162 3:13, 161 3:14, 163, 345n101 3:17, 478n120 3:19–4:1, 427n143 3:25, 166 4:2–8, 162 4:4, 430n15 4:11, 162 4:18, 162, 423n119, 427n143 5:1–6:16, 162 6:7, 430n17 6:15, 427n143 7:3–6, 86 7:7–14, 86 ch. 8, 87 8:5, 162 8:7–9, 284n193 8:7–19, 87 chs. 9, 10, 87 10:1, 86 10:25, 284n196 11:1, 461n78 11:6–11, 87 11:14–12:25, 88 ch. 12, 86–89, 90 12:5–6, 87 12:6–18, 86 12:7, 9–17, 87 12:18–19, 88 12:18–22, 87 12:20b–21, 87 12:24–25, 87 14:3, 163, 181, 423n121 14:9, 193 14:24–28, 53 14:32–35, 76

14:44, 478n120 14:44–45, 364n32 14:52, 445n111 16:6, 218 16:10–12, 452n56 16:11–13, 185 16:13, 86, 444n106 17:12–58, 387n13 18:1–5, 351n4, 387n13, 444n98 18:2, 259 18:14–17, 22, 444n98 20:8, 461n78 20:12–13, 444n98 20:12–17, 387n13 20:13, 478n120 21:9, 181 22:9–23, 163 22:18, 181 22:20, 163 23:9, 181 23:18, 461n78 24:6, 218 24:6–10, 185 25:5–7, 387n13 25:8, 368n70 25:22, 478n120 26:17–19, 185 ch. 31, 179 31:1–7, 445n111 2 Samuel 1:10, 443n97 1:26, 354n32 ch. 2, 179 chs. 3–4, 179 3:9, 478n120 3:12–13, 20–21, 223, 259 3:35, 478n120 ch. 5, 180 chs. 5–8, 429n6 5:1, 38, 354n32 5:1–3, 429n6 5:1–5, 179, 201 5:3, 461n78 5:5, 231 5:6–10, 429n6 5:6–12, 201 5:6–14, 179 5:7, 297 5:9, 201 5:9b–12, 179 5:11–16, 429n6 5:17–25, 180 ch. 6, 187, 429n6, 430n14, 432n24

578  |  Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Texts 2 Samuel (cont.) chs. 6–7, 188–89, 192, 438n61 6:1–2, 180 6:2, 189, 430n15 6:12–13, 180 6:13–14, 180–81 6:13, 193 6:13–18, 180 6:14, 180, 181, 193, 213 6:14, 192 6:17–19, 180 6:17, 181, 193 6:18, 181, 192 6:19, 431n20, 451n38 6:29, 438n58 ch. 7, 4, 5, 7, 91, 108, 117–20, 121, 123, 178, 187, 190, 193, 210, 211, 212, 218, 235, 283, 284, 288, 290, 395n30, 429n6, 432n27, 435n45, 438n61, 469n21 7:1, 119, 290 7:1–2, 181 7:1–3, 282 7:1–17, 288 7:2–3, 119 7:3, 181 7:4–17, 119, 181, 471n36 7:5–7, 182 7:5–16, 184 7:8, 198 7:8–16, 280 7:9, 106, 107, 177, 182, 211, 218, 282, 290, 433n27, 452n56 7:10, 182, 211 7:10–11, 290, 291 7:11, 182 7:11–12, 177 7:11–13, 201 7:11–14, 289 7:11–16, 188, 425n135 7:11–19, 184 7:11a, 290 7:11b, 182, 290 7:12, 182, 433n27 7:12–13, 218 7:12–14, 210, 218 7:12–15, 119 7:12–16, 177, 444n100 7.12b, 425n135 7:13, 178, 182, 211, 227, 398n86, 433n29

7:13a, 425n135 7:14, 178, 182, 196, 197, 200, 211, 227 7:15–16, 398n86 7:16, 94, 177, 178, 201, 211, 218, 438n61 7:16a, 425n135 7:18–29, 178, 183, 193 7:19, 15, 119, 183, 433n32 7:19b, 192 7:28, 438n61 ch. 8, 106, 118 8:1–14, 107, 111 8:11–12, 445n113 8:12, 119 8:15–18, 429n6 8:17, 423n114, 423n121, 424n124 8:17–18, 445n109 8:18, 431n22 9:1–13, 223, 228, 444n98 ch. 10, 118 10:1–19, 107, 111 10:19, 445n113 12:11, 443n92 12:16–23, 438n60 12:26–31, 107, 111, 118 12:30, 443n97, 445n113 15:7, 438n60 15:21, 437n53 15:24–29, 35, 424n124 17:11, 118 19:11, 163, 424n124 19:14, 478n120 19:21, 444n106 20:25, 424n124 20:25–26, 445n109 21:1–12, 364n29 21:1–14, 260, 462n85 ch. 22, 206 22:18–19, 428n4 22:21–26, 177 22:38–46, 428n4 22:51, 444n106 23:1, 218, 444n106 23:1–77, 384n207 23:2–7, 235 23:5, 178, 201, 280, 444n102, 453n62 23:5–7, 428n4 ch. 24, 191, 192 24:1–25, 191 24:17, 193 24:18–25, 431n22

1 Kings 1:5–2:25, 186 1:9, 18, 431n22 1:29–31, 186 1:33–37, 186 1:38–39, 444n106 1:43, 45–48, 187 2:1–4, 121, 235 2:1–9, 384n207 2:3, 397n61 2:4, 114 2:7, 223, 228 2:23, 478n120 2:26–27, 163, 421n103, 445n109 2:27, 162, 423n121, 424n124 2:35, 163, 421n103, 424n124, 445n109 3:1, 445n113 3:4–5, 189 3:6, 114, 428n2 3:15, 431n22 4:1–4, 424n124 4:1–19, 201 4:2, 4–5, 445n109 4:4, 424n124 4:20, 118, 223 4:20–21, 445n113 4:20–34, 118 4:21, 106, 107, 111 4:21, 24, 118 4:29–34, 119 5:12, 461n78 5:17–19, 432n25 5:26, 355n44 5:9b–12, 179 chs. 6–7, 445n109 6:12–13, 443n92 8:1–66, 337 8:3–4, 5, 12–21, 431n22 8:14, 56, 193 8:15–16, 337 8:20, 282 8:22–53, 431n22 8:23, 114 8:23–24, 444n102 8;25, 114 8:41–43, 119 8:55–64, 431n22 8:65, 107 8:65–66, 223, 451n38 ch. 9, 431n22 9:3–9, 429n11 9:4, 114 9:4, 6–7, 443n92

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Texts  |  579 9:4–5, 397n60 10:1–25, 119 10:14–23, 443n95 10:15, 107, 445n113 10:26–29, 443n95 11:1–8, 199, 443n95 11:9–13, 199 11:40, 413n33 ch. 12, 143 12:1–11, 443n95 12:2, 413n33 12:16, 231 12:21, 231 12:25–33, 450n27 13:1–6, 450n27 14:8, 428n2 14:21, 403n113 15:3, 428n2 15:16–21, 369n74 15:18, 445n109 15:19, 461n78 20:30b–37, 61–62 20:34, 461n78 32:38, 40, 222 2 Kings 2:2, 4, 6, 437n53 4:30, 437n53 6:31, 478n120 11:4, 50, 315, 395n31, 461n78, 462n81, 476n70, 478n116 11:12, 422n109, 443n97, 444n106 11:17, 115 12:5–17, 19, 445n109 15:35, 445n109 16:3, 382n172 16:5–18, 60–61 16:10–18, 445n109 17:17, 382n172 18:15, 16, 445n109 20:3, 114, 397n60 21:4–5, 445n109 21:6, 382n172 23:3, 114 23:4–12, 445n109 23:8, 418n79 23:10, 382n172 23:30, 444n106 25:27–30, 67 1 Chronicles chs. 1–9, 447n135 5:1–2, 410n10 6:4–8, 163 6:50–53, 423n114 chs. 11–13, 447n135

13:1–5, 430n17 14:17, 447n135 15:12–15, 361n13 16:16, 50 16:39, 189 ch. 17, 117–20, 288, 290, 321 17:3–14, 471n36 17:3–15, 288 17:10–13, 289 17:12, 289, 433n29 17:13, 444n104 17:13–14, 289 17:14, 471n34 17:17, 433n32 19:19, 452n58 20:12, 443n97 chs. 21–22, 192 21:1–22:1, 191 21:29, 189 22:1, 191, 192 22:18–22:1, 431n22 24:3, 163, 423n114, 423n121 24:6, 163, 423n121 28:6, 444n104 29:3, 411n20 2 Chronicles 1:3–6, 189 3:1, 58, 117, 126, 190, 191, 347n113, 402n111, 440n68, 445n109 chs. 3–4, 445n109 5:10, 452n58 6:42, 444n106 7:18, 452n58 11:15, 418n79 13:5, 444n102 15:10–15, 55–56 15:15, 396n43 ch. 16, 461n78 16:3, 461n78 21:7, 444n102 23:3, 461n78 23:11, 444n106 26:16–21, 199 28:2–3, 382n172 30:21–26, 451n38 33:6, 382n172 35:7–19, 451n38 Ezra 2:61–63, 474n60 ch. 9, 425n131 9:6–15, 241 7:1–5, 163

Nehemiah 7:63–65, 474n60 9:5–37, 241 9:15, 363n25 9:29, 251 13:23–29, 425n131 Esther 8:17, 458n28 Job 1:5, 298 1:6, 469n17 2:1, 469n17 29:13, 38 38:7, 469n17 38:8, 440n75 42:11, 383n181 38:28, 440n75 Psalms Ps 2, 5, 15, 91, 119, 220, 281, 283, 284, 294, 434n38, 469n21 2:2, 444n106 2:2–3, 190 2:6, 227 2:7, 178, 220, 227, 294, 295, 322, 325, 440n76, 444n104 2:7–8, 220, 231 2:7–9, 428n4 2:7–12, 106 2:8, 227, 445n114 2:9, 209 Ps 8, 284–86, 321, 469–70n24 8:4, 480n142 8:4–6, 325, 480n142 2:7–8, 220, 231 8:6, 285 10:7, 316 11:4, 297 Ps 15, 107 Ps 16, 184 16:5, 451n39 17:6, 16, 107 17:20, 107 18:37–50, 119 18:43, 445n114 18:47, 211, 445n114 18:50, 444n106 Ps 20, 434n38 20:6, 444n106 Ps 21, 355n44, 434n38 21:4, 201 Ps 22, 184 22:26, 451n39 22:27, 445n114 23:5, 451n39

580  |  Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Texts Psalms (cont.) 24:3, 439n68 24:4, 54 Ps 28, 434n38 28:8, 444n106 29:1, 469n17 Pss 31–32, 119 34:8, 10, 451n39 36:8, 451n39 41:9, 17, 452n54 Ps 45, 283, 434n38 45:8, 420n93 46:4, 297 47:1, 445n114 47:7–9, 107 47:9, 381n163, 445n114 50:5, 55 50:7–15, 168 50:13–14, 419n82 51:16–17, 168 Ps 55, 355n44 55:20, 461n78 59:13, 316 63:5, 451n39 Ps 65, 119 65:4, 451n39 66:8, 445n114 Ps 67, 119 67:2–5, 445n114 68:21–23, 29, 119 Ps 69, 184 69:15, 363n26 Ps 72, 5, 15, 434n38 72:5, 201 72:5–8, 212 72:8, 220, 445n114 72:8–11, 106, 119 72:8–12, 231 72:10, 431n20 72:11, 445n114 72:12–14, 119 72:17, 398n82 72:17b, 119 72:20, 435n40 Pss 73–89, 435n40 Ps 74, 435n40 76:1–2, 133, 190, 347n113 76:2, 133, 402n111 76:3, 133 76:12, 133 76:19–20, 133 76:22, 297 Ps 79, 435n40 82:6, 435n41 84:9, 444n106

86:9, 445n114 87:3, 297 Ps 89, 5, 7, 12, 15, 91, 117–20, 178, 184, 187, 190, 193, 202, 206, 210, 212, 235, 283, 434–35n37–41, 434n38, 443n93 89:1–2, 179 89:1–18, 434n38 89:3, 50, 176, 178,220, 345n101, 395n31, 444n102, 462n81, 476n70, 478n116 89:3–4, 184, 227, 280, 453n62 89:4, 50, 177, 178 89:5–18, 179 89:6, 469n17 89:13, 211 89:19–37, 434n38 89:20, 198, 444n106 89:20–23, 176–77 89:21, 211 89:24–29, 428n5 89:25, 211, 227 89:25–27, 106, 220, 231 89:26, 444n104 89:26–27, 175, 184, 196, 198, 227 89:26–36, 197 89:27, 227, 283, 284, 445n114, 469n20 89:28, 435n42 89:28–29, 178, 453n62 89:28–37, 227 89:32, 178 89:33–37, 178, 428n5 89:34–37, 453n62 89:34–40, 122 89:35, 178, 428n3 89:35–36, 201 89:38, 444n106 89:38–51, 202, 434n38 89:39, 453n62 89:49, 184 89:51, 444n106 Ps 95, 321, 479n127 95:1, 435n44 95:7–8, 289, 292, 306 95:7–11, 290–91 95:11, 296, 325, 479n127 96:7, 445n114 Pss 96–97, 119 97:7, 469n20 99:1, 445n114

99:6, 86 Ps 101, 434n38 105:9, 50, 110, 396n43 105:10, 433n31 106:26, 363n25 106:37–38, 382n172 Ps 110, 91, 119, 184–86, 190, 193, 212, 233, 281, 282, 283, 284, 294, 298, 300, 434n38, 436n46–49, 443n90, 443n93, 446n124, 468n12, 469n21 110:1, 185, 193, 294, 298 110:1–3, 185 110:1–4, 453n62 110:2, 190 110:3, 440n75 110:3–4, 294 110:4, 57, 134, 166, 175, 177, 178, 184, 187, 190, 192, 193, 195, 196, 201, 280, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 300, 304, 305, 307, 320, 322, 326, 345n101, 428n3, 440n71, 440n74, 443n90 110:4–6, 428n4 110:4–7, 185 110:5–7, 443n90 116:16, 368n70 122:5, 233 Ps 132, 5, 117–20, 178, 187–89, 190, 193, 206, 210, 212, 235, 434n38, 437–38n55–61, 443n93, 471n39 132:8, 438n58 132:10, 444n106 132:11, 178, 184, 188, 235, 345n101, 428n3, 438n61 132:11–12, 280, 453n62 132:12, 178, 437n58 132:15, 438n58, 451n39 132:17, 220, 236, 444n106, 449n16 132:18, 428n4, 443n97 137:5, 450n27 Ps 144, 434n38 Proverbs 28:8, 378n142 Ecclesiastes 2:8, 411n20

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Texts  |  581 Canticles (Song of Songs) 3:11, 443n97 Isaiah 1:2–4, 372n97 1:11, 168 ch. 2, 209 2:1–4, 212, 445n110 2:2, 439n68 2:3, 218, 454n79 2:3–4, 445n115 2:4, 211 4:2, 444n100 8:18, 470n25 ch. 9, 13, 205,209 9:6–7, 213 ch. 11, 205, 208, 209 11:1–16, 445n112 11:4–9, 212 11:6–9, 9 11:11–16, 202–3 13:21, 418n79 19:24–25, 381n163 23:6–8, 223 24:3–5, 9 24:6, 316 25:6–8, 222 30:1–9, 372n97 30:2–3, 413n33 30:29, 439n68 31:1, 413n33 33:8, 461n78 33:8–9, 9 33:8–12, 478n121 34:14, 418n79 35:8–10, 205 37:35, 213 40:28–30, 209 42:1–6, 445n115 42:4, 209 42:6, 422n110 43:10–12, 453n73 43:16–20, 203 ch. 45, 13–14 49:1–7, 445n115 49:2, 209 49:6, 231, 453n73 49:8, 422n110 49:22–23, 209 49:22–26, 445n115 51:4–6, 445n115 51:9–11, 205 51:10–11, 203 52:8–12, 205 ch. 53, 14, 318 53:3, 4, 318, 479nn130–31

53:4–6, 479n131 53:8, 132, 479n131 53:9, 479n131 53:10, 422n110, 470n25, 479n131 53:11, 479nn130–31 53:12, 318, 479nn130–31 55:1–3, 13 55:1–5, 223 55:3, 13–14, 205, 213, 230, 444n102 55:3–5, 445n115 55:5, 209 56:3–8, 445n115 56:5, 93 56:6–7, 169 56:6–8, 445n110 ch. 60, 210 60:1–16, 445n115 60:3–16, 445n110 60:4–7, 210 61:5–6, 169 63:10–18, 205 63:18, 205 66:1–2, 168 66:3–4, 168 66:18–19, 445n115 66:18–21, 168, 445n110 66:20:22–23, 209 Jeremiah 2:3, 138 3:6, 451n27 3:14–18, 205 3:19, 65 3:24, 382n172 5:22–5, 9 7:22, 376n121 7:22–23, 418n82 7:31, 382n172 11:10, 16, 478n121 12:9, 363n25 13:18, 443n97 14:20–22, 9 15:1, 86 15:1–2, 419n82 16:14–15, 204 19:7, 363n25 22:8–12, 478n121 23:5, 211, 213 23:5–6, 209 23:5–8, 205 23:10, 316 chs. 30–33, 226 30:1–9, 445n112 30:4, 226 30:9, 226, 452n53

ch. 31, 479n127 chs. 31–33, 452n53 31:9, 65, 411n18 31:12–14, 223 31:31, 9, 32, 205, 226, 249 31:31–34, 79, 167, 168, 306, 307, 327 31:32, 226, 476n74 31:33, 78 31:33–34, 226 32:35, 382n172 32:39–40, 78 33:11, 445n110 33:14–26, 226, 452n53 33:15, 211, 444n100 33:15–26, 213 33:17–18, 20–22, 170 33:17–20, 155 33:18, 171 33:19–21, 226 33:19–26, 91 33:20–21, 156 33:20–22, 9 33:21, 169 ch. 34, 479n126 34:8, 461n78 34:8–22, 53 34:15–19, 55 34:18, 55 34:18–20, 317 34:18–21, 478n121 34:20, 363n25 42:5, 478n120 42:14–19, 413n33 Ezekiel 5:1, 382n172 7:2–3, 390n34 7:13, 16, 18, 19, 462n81 7:23, 390n34 8:17, 390n34 14:15, 382n172 ch. 16, 475n70, 478n116 16:8, 315, 395n31, 462n81, 476n70, 478n116 16:20, 382n172 16:30, 452n58 16:59, 361n13, 395n31, 462n81 17:11–18, 462n85 17:13, 315, 461n78 17:13–19, 315, 395n31 17:15, 315, 318 17:16, 315, 316 17:18–19, 315 17:19, 50, 315

582  |  Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Texts Ezekiel (cont.) 18:13–17, 378n142 ch. 20, 75, 80–82, 251, 264, 265, 357n68, 381n165 20:1–44, 332 20:5, 6, 363n25, 381n165, 459n36 20:5–26, 85, 345n101 20:5–44, 57, 92 20:7–8, 47 20:8, 265 20:9, 283, 459n36 20:10, 80 20:10–14, 80 20:11, 80, 251, 265 20:12, 20, 367n53, 388n20 20:13, 80, 155, 251, 415n55 20:14, 80, 155, 283, 415n55, 459n36 20:15, 363n25, 381n165 20:15–20, 80 20:18–26, 82 20:21, 251 20:22, 283, 459n36 20:23, 81, 363n25, 381n165, 382n171 20:23–26, 80, 381n165, 459n36 20:25, 80, 267, 382n172 20:25–26, 419n82 20:26, 75, 80, 81, 382n172 20:27–43, 415n55 20:28, 363n25, 381n165 20:31, 382n172 20:33–38, 82 20:33–40, 205 20:33–44, 82 20:34–37, 204 20:37, 382n172 20:40–44, 82 20:41, 459n36 20:42, 363n25, 381n165 20:44, 283 21:31, 443n97 22:12, 378n142 23:3–27, 413n33 23:37–39, 382n172 25:23, 381n171 27:15, 431n20 30:5, 461n78 34:23, 223 34:23–24, 422n110

34:23–25, 213 34:23–28, 205 34:23–31, 91 34:25, 422n110, 444n102 34:25–30, 9 34:28, 205 chs. 36–37, 452n53 36:1–37:28, 92 36:7, 363n25, 381n165 36:21–23, 283 36:25–27, 167 36:26–28, 79 ch. 37, ix, 165 37:2, 382n172 37:15–28, 445n112 37:20–29, 165 37:24–25, 91, 205, 422n110, 452n53 37:24–27, 213 37:26, 9, 422n110 39:17–20, 363n25 chs. 40–44, 164, 445n110 chs. 40–48, 164, 165 40:45–46, 164, 165 43:7–9, 445n109 44:3, 165 44:9–15, 167 44:9–18, 199 44:12, 345n101, 363n25 44:22, 424n131 45:4–5, 7–9, 165 45:7–9, 443n96 45:8, 209 45:17–19, 22, 165 46:2–24, 165 46:21, 382n172 47:3–4, 382n172 47:13, 21, 209 47:14, 363n25 47:22, 166 48:14, 382n172 48:21–22, 165 Daniel ch. 2, 209 3:25, 92, 469n17 3:38, 240 ch. 7, 209 7:1–28, 453n63 7:14, 453n63 7:18, 22, 27, 453n63 ch. 9, 209 9:4–19, 24, 241 9:24–27, 445n110 9:27, 461n78 12:7, 363n25

Hosea 2:18, 9 4:15, 451n27 5:3, 451n27 6:7, 478n121 7:13, 478n121 8:11, 478n121 9:10, 374n109 10:4, 361n13, 395n31, 462n81, 475n70, 478n116 12:1, 461n78 13:4, 78 11:1–4, 65–66 Joel 3:18, 445n110 Amos 1:9, 461n78 5:25, 376n121 5:25–26, 419n82 9:10–11, 205 9:11, 211, 213, 234 9:11–12, 234, 444n100, 445n115 Obadiah 1:7, 461n78 Micah 4:1–4, 445n110 4:2, 439n68 4:2–3, 445n115 4:8, 444n100 5:1–3, 220 5:2, 209 5:2–4, 205 7:12, 15, 204 Habakkuk 1:12–2:20, 250 2:4, 248, 250, 251, 458n32 Haggai 2:1–9, 445n110 Zechariah 3:1–10, 213 3:8, 211, 444n100 6:9–15, 213 6:11, 443n97 6:12, 444n100 6:12–14, 445n110 8:20–23, 445n110 9:9, 209 9:9–13, 205 9:11, 363n27 10:8–12, 205 12:1–13:1, 213 12:7–13:1, 451n31 14:16, 445n110 14:16–19, 445n115 6:9–13, 199 8:7–8, 19–23, 222

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Texts  |  583 10:8–9, 11, 204–5 11:4–17, 5, 17 Malachi 1:11, 14, 106 2:1–9, 168 2:3, 420n98 2:4, 5, 8, 155 2:13–16, 425n131 2:4–7, 420n95 2:4–8, 159 2:14, 5, 461n78 2:14–15, 462n85 Old Testament Deuterocanonical Texts Baruch 1:15–3:8, 241 2 Esdras 1:2, 163 1 Maccabees 1:11, 260 2:57, 212 11:9, 260 14:41, 474n66 Prayer of Azariah, 241 Sirach 36:11, 446n131 36:14, 240 44:20–21, 361n13 45:7, 15, 24, 171 45:15, 24–25, 170 45:25, 212, 236, 444n102 45:31, 444n100 46:1, 84 47:11, 212, 236 36:1–17, 241 chs. 44–45, 15 Tobit 14:5, 240 Wisdom of Solomon 2:23, 470n30 3:8, 470n30 10:22, 361n13 12:21, 361n13, 462n81 18:22, 361n13, 462n81 New Testament Matthew 1:1–17, 301 10:5–15, 450n25 19:28, 224 19:29, 224 20:1–16, 459n38 20:24–28, 451n44, 452n55 22:41–45, 436n49

23:1–2, 72 26:28, 329, 451n43, 460n63 36:29, 451n42 Mark 10:38, 363n26 10:38–39, 357n73 10:41–45, 451n44, 452n55 14:24, 18, 329, 451n43, 460n63 14:25, 224, 451n42 14:36, 357n73 Luke ch. 1–2, 448n8 1:4, 11, 451n31 1:5–23, 218, 219 1:11, 451n31 1:14, 222 1:27, 220 1:31–33, 345n101 1:32–33, 218, 228, 230, 337, 454n92 1:35, 218 1:54–55, 236 1:55, 337 1:68–69, 223 1:68–79, 235 1:69, 220 1:72, 460n63 1:72–73, 110, 236, 337, 361n13, 462n81 1:72–73a, 235 1:72b–73a, 236 2:4, 220 2:7, 172, 426n141 2:8–20, 220 2:10, 219 2:11, 218, 220, 448n5 2:22, 23, 172 2:22–38, 171 2:22–52, 219 2:22–53, 218 2:26, 218 2:36, 219 2:40, 52, 427n143 2:48–49, 172 3:23–28, 220, 301 3:38, 279 4:14–9:50, 220 4:25–27, 219 4:41, 218 5:27–39, 451n35 6:1–5, 220 6:6–11, 450n27 6:12–16, 219

6:20, 451n32 7:1–10, 219 7:9, 219 7:36–50, 451n35 9:10–17, 222, 451n32, 451n35 9:16, 234 9:17, 223 9:20, 218 9:51, 450n24 9:51–56, 221 9:51–17:11, 220 9:51–19:27, 218, 219 10:1–12, 221 10:30–37, 450n27 10:38–41, 450n24 10:38–42, 451n35 11:2, 451n32 11:14–23, 450n27 11:17, 450n27 11:20, 228 11:23, 450n27 11:37–54, 450n24, 451n35 13:28, 451n32 13:29, 219 14:1–6, 450n24 14:1–24, 451n35 15:11–32, 450n27, 451n32 15:32, 459n38 17:11, 450n24 17:11–19, 220, 221 17:11–21:38, 220 18:18–30, 219 19:1–10, 451n35 19:11–27, 222 19:28–40, 222 19:28–24:49, 218 19:35–39, 222 19:37, 220 19:45–21:38, 219 20:1–40, 41–44, 222 21:6, 237 ch. 22, 22, 32, 123, 217, 232, 332, 453n75 22:7–38, 32, 222, 451n35 22:14–30, 221–30, 448n3 22:16, 224, 451n42 22:18, 224, 451n32, 451n42 22:19, 224, 225, 234 22:19–20, 225, 230 22:20, 32, 218, 226, 227, 228, 237, 345n100, 451n43, 452n53, 460n63

584  |  Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Texts Luke (cont.) 22:21, 452n54 22:24–27, 452n55 22:24–30, 451n44 22:24–37, 451n41 22:25–27, 229 22:26–27, 226 22:27, 226, 229 22:28, 228 22:28–29, 224, 226 22:28–30, 32–33, 217, 227, 230, 345n101 22:29, 218, 237, 448n4 22:29–30, 232, 337 22:29a, 230 22:29b, 227, 229 22:30, 219, 224, 228, 231, 232, 233, 453n71 22:30a, 226, 228, 229, 230, 231 22:30b, 229, 230, 231, 232 22:29b–30, 227 23:31, 225 24:9, 453n73 24:13–35, 222, 451n35 24:30, 222, 234, 451n45 24:35, 225 24:41–43, 451n35 24:42–43, 451n45 24:43, 222, 453n77 24:47, 218, 219 24:49, 218 28:31, 231 John 3:16, 16, 264, 402n106 8:35, 459n38 11:1, 450n24 12:1, 450n24 6:66–69, 452n48 8:31–59, 459n38 Acts ch. 1, 231 chs. 1–2, 234 chs. 1–6, 453n71 1:1, 230 1:1–11, 231, 453n75 1:3, 6, 231 1:4, 231, 451n45, 453n77 1:6, 231 1:7, 231 1:8, 218, 231, 232, 450n24, 453n73 1:12–26, 231 1:15–26, 232 1:16, 219

1:33, 233 ch. 2, 122, 231, 232 2:1, 232 2:1–4, 232 2:1–42, 232 2:5, 232 2:9–11, 232 2:24–31, 454n92 2:25–28, 233 2:29–31, 235 2:30, 33, 233 2:30a, 219 2:33b, 237 2:34, 436n49 2:34–35, 233 2:36, 233 2:41, 232 2:41–42, 233 2:42, 222, 234, 451n47 2:46, 219, 222, 451n47 3:13, 25–26, 236 3:25, 110, 460n63 3:25b, 396n41 4:32–5:11, 233 5:1–11, 230, 232 5:11, 233 6:7, 171 7:8, 460n63 7:38, 53, 461n69 7:48–50, 237 7:53, 461n69 8:1–3, 451n27 8:4–6, 450n26 8:4–25, 451n27 10:41, 451n45, 453n77 13:16–41, 236 13:17, 26, 32–33, 236 ch. 15, 234 15:13–18, 234 15:16, 337 20:7, 225 20:7, 11, 222, 451n47 20:11, 234 27:35, 222, 234, 451n47 28:31, 231 Romans 3:13, 265 4:9–19, 401n100 4:10–12, 245 4:16, 337 8:17, 379n146 8:31–32, 402n106 8:32, 16, 264 9:4, 379n146, 460n62 9:7–9, 401n100 10:1–5, 250

11:27, 460n62 15:12, 337 1 Corinthians 3:3, 479n129 5:1–13, 229 5:4, 7–8, 229 9:17–34, 329 10:1–4, 16–21, 357n73 11:25, 460n62 11:27–30, 363n26 11:31, 229 15:25, 436n49 2 Corinthians 3:6, 14, 460n62 3:7–18, 266 5:17, 464n113 Galatians 1:1–5, 244 1:6–11, 244 1:12–2:14, 244 2:11–16, 275 2:14, 247, 251 2:15–21, 244, 245 2:20, 366n47 ch. 3, 247, 253–54, 257, 268, 460n48, 463n90 chs. 3–4, 20, 22, 32, 125, 130, 134, 242, 243, 244, 246, 251, 256, 260, 271, 274–76, 332, 345n100, 401n100 3:1–5, 244, 245 3:1–4:7, 464n110 3:1–4:31, 244, 463n100 3:2, 5, 264 3:6, 457n21 3:6–7, 246 3:6–9, 243, 245–47 3:6–14, 274 3:6–18, 29, 246, 337 3:6–4:31, 239, 457n24 3:7, 345n100, 457n24 3:8, 246, 255, 459n36, 467n139 3:8–9, 247, 457n21 3:8–14, 16 3:8–18, 21 3:9, 458n30 3:10, 239, 241, 248, 249, 251, 252, 458n30, 459n36 3:10–12, 250 3:10–13, 248 3:10–14, 71, 73, 82, 243, 248–56, 377n134

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Texts  |  585 3:10–17, 345n101 3:12, 251 3:13, 245, 248, 252, 255, 265, 272, 459n36 3:13–14, 255–56, 261 3:13–17, 128 3:14, 122, 248, 254, 255–56, 265, 459n36, 460n47, 462n88 3:14–16, 457n21 3:14–18, 401n100 3:14a, 255, 462n89, 463n90 3:15, 20, 21, 50, 256–59, 260, 261–62, 460n63, 462n88, 463nn95–96 3:15–16, 54 3:15–17, 20, 245, 262, 263, 365n42, 367n59 3:15–18, 21, 22, 256–62, 261, 262, 345n100, 458n29, 460n48 3:16, 242, 255, 263–64, 459n36, 462n88, 463n97, 463n99, 463n103 3:17, 20, 21, 256, 258, 261–62, 460n62, 462n88, 463n96 3:18, 462n88 3:19, 240, 258, 265, 266, 274, 284, 345n100 3:19–21, 416n67 3:19–22, 258, 264–67 3:19–23, 154 3:19–25, 270 3:20, 274 3:23–25, 248 3:23–29, 267–69 3:24, 267, 268 3:24–29, 268, 465n119 3:25–27, 268 3:25–29, 269 3:26, 246, 268, 345n100, 457n24 3:26–29, 239, 267–69 3:27, 268, 467n141 3:28, 268, 459n36 3:29, 268, 271 4:1, 248, 270 4:1–7, 267, 269–72, 345n100, 379n146 4:2, 270

4:3, 248 4:4, 271, 272 4:4–7, 271 4:6, 457n24 4:7, 248, 271, 379n146 4:10, 275 4:21–23, 272 4:21–30, 345n100 4:21–31, 242, 243, 244, 248, 262, 263, 264, 267, 272–74, 337, 401n100, 457n21, 459n38, 463n100 4:22, 457n24 4:24, 460n62 4:28–31, 401n100 4:29, 247 4:29–30, 466n133 4:30, 248 5:1–6:10, 244 5:3, 251 5:3–4, 464n109 5:4, 248 5:6, 273 6:11–18, 244 6:13, 251 6:15, 464n113 6:16, 274 Ephesians 2:12, 460n62 Hebrews ch. 1, 281–84, 321, 323 chs. 1–2, 278, 288, 299, 323, 325 chs. 1–9, 22, 32, 130, 134, 310, 321–24, 325, 332 chs. 1–12, 468n12 1:1–4, 279, 281–82, 283 1:2, 325, 170, 345n100, 469n19, 470n28 1:2–3, 300 1:3, 282, 436n49, 471n41 1:4, 469n19 1:5, 282, 292, 325 1:5–6, 283 1:5–13, 283, 284 1:5–14, 281–82, 285, 289 1:6, 170, 175, 283, 299, 311, 325, 419n87, 470n25 1:7–12, 283 1:8, 325, 470n28 1:9, 420n93 1:13, 296, 436n49 1:14, 323, 469n19 ch. 2, 284–88, 320, 321

chs. 2–4, 284, 290 2:1–4, 285, 321 2:2, 284, 416n67, 461n69, 479n127 2:4, 377n134 2:5, 285 2:5–9, 284, 286 2:5–15, 287 2:5–16, 470n30 2:5–18, 285, 470n27 2:6, 470n28 2:6–8, 287, 480n142 2:7–10, 323 2:8, 469–70n24, 480n142 2:8–9, 280, 325, 480n142 2:9, 286, 295, 320, 337, 480n142 2:10, 286, 288, 325 2:11, 288, 300, 311, 325, 419n87, 480n141 2:12, 286, 288, 325 2:13, 288, 300, 325 2:13–14, 286 2:14, 288, 325, 470n25, 480n141 2:14–15, 284, 286–87, 295, 320 2:15, 280, 287, 288, 295 2:15–18, 284 2:16, 287, 288, 320, 325, 326, 337 2:17, 288–89, 325, 470n25, 471n41 2:17–3:6, 471n34 2:18, 288 ch. 3, 278, 323, 471n35 chs. 3–4, 323, 470n33 chs. 3–6, 325 3:1, 294 3:1–4:13, 325 3:2, 289 3:2–6, 290 3:3, 479n127 3:3–6, 337 3:5, 323, 419n87, 479n127 3:6, 325 3:7–8, 419n87 3:7–9, 284 3:7–11, 325, 479n127 3:7–4:13, 290–92, 295, 296, 321, 323 3:10, 479n127 3:11, 291, 345n101

586  |  Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Texts Hebrews (cont.) 3:13–15, 292 3:14, 471n36 3:15, 325 3:15–4:7, 280 3:16, 291 3:16–19, 285, 479n127 ch. 4, 285 chs. 4–10, 278 4:1–10, 306 4:1–11, 419n87 4:3, 325, 345n101 4:3–4, 285 4:3–5, 291 4:5–7, 325 4:6–10, 285 4:7, 289, 290, 292 4:8, 291 4:9–10, 292 4:14, 302 4:14–5:10, 292–94, 322 4:14–6:20, 325 4:16–18, 419n87 chs. 5–6, 325 chs. 5–7, 185 chs. 5–9, 292 chs. 5–10, 299 5:5, 302, 471n41 5:5–6, 284, 294, 295, 471n41 5:5–7, 326 5:6, 175, 294, 296, 298, 322, 436n49 5:7, 471n41 5:7–10, 295 5:8, 302 5:8–10, 337 5:9, 471n41 5:10, 294, 298, 302, 436n49, 471n41 5:11–6:3, 294 5:11–6:12, 322 5:11–6:20, 296–300, 297 5:11–10:13, 305 ch. 6, 296 6:1, 330 6:1–5, 280 6:2, 330 6:4, 294 6:4–6, 479n127 6:4–8, 294, 295 6:5a, 294 6:7–8, 294 6:8, 280 6:9–12, 294 6:12, 295

6:13–14, 294 6:13–15, 295 6:13–17, 325 6:13–18, 326, 337, 401n103 6:13–20, 287, 294, 295, 296, 320, 322, 326, 345n101 6:13–21, 312 6:15, 296 6:16, 361n13 6:17, 18, 296 6:19, 295 6:19–20, 312, 326 6:20, 175, 294, 296, 298, 436n49, 479n129 ch. 7, 300–305 chs. 7–9, 288 chs. 7–10, 309 7:1, 468n9 7:1–10, 300 7:1–28, 97, 170 7:3, 300, 301, 302, 303 7:3–28, 303 7:6, 302 7:11, 175, 298, 436n49 7:11–12, 477n97 7:11–14, 300 7:11–19, 307 7:11–28, 300, 322 7:12, 300, 303, 427n150, 475n69, 479n127 7:14, 284, 300, 301 7:15, 436n49 7:15–17, 170 7:15–19, 300 7:15–22, 296 7:16, 303 7:17, 175, 298 7:18–23, 157 7:20–21, 170 7:20–22, 300, 304 7:20–28, 305, 345n101 7:21, 420n94, 436n49 7:21–22, 462n81 7:22, 295, 460n63 7:23–28, 300 7:28, 302, 303, 304, 320, 345n100 ch. 8, 479n127 chs. 8–9, 155, 281, 305–7, 312, 322–23, 326, 345n100 8:1, 312, 305 8:1–6, 305, 306 8:1–9:28, 476n76

8:2, 3, 312 8:3–9:10, 312 8:4, 5, 312 8:6, 312, 460n63 8:7–13, 307 8:7–9:22, 305 8:8–10, 460n63 8:8–12, 327 8:9, 479n127 8:9–13, 306 8:10, 312 8:12, 479n127 ch. 9, 320, 329 9:1–3, 312 9:1–14, 307 9:4, 15–17, 20, 460n63 9:6, 312 9:6–10, 307 9:7, 282, 312 9:8, 9, 312 9:9–10, 330 9:10, 331 9:11, 312 9:11–14, 313 9:11–22, 312–14 9:11–28, 312 9:12, 312, 479n131 9:13, 312 9:14, 22–23, 312 9:15, 22, 308, 312, 313, 317, 319–21, 479n131 9:15–17, 327 9:15–18, 21–22, 281, 307, 314, 317–19, 322, 480n137 9:15–22, 307–14, 309, 313, 317, 478n109 9:15–28, 329 9:16, 308, 313, 317, 318, 479n129, 479n131 9:16–17, 22, 50, 54, 308, 309, 312, 313, 314–17, 345n101, 365n42, 367n59, 460n63, 478n111, 479n128, 480n144 9:16b, 310 9:17, 309, 310, 313, 318 9:18, 308, 313, 318 9:18–22, 313, 317, 318 9:18–23, 25, 312 9:19, 312, 329, 479n131 9:20, 329, 481n148 9:21–23, 312 9:22, 191

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Texts  |  587 9:22–23, 479n131 9:23–24, 319 9:23–28, 305 9:24, 25, 312 9:25–28, 480n137 9:26, 312, 479n131 9:28, 312, 318, 479n131 10:1, 319 10:1–4, 319, 417–18n77 10:3, 4, 479n127 10:11–13, 319 10:11–18, 170 10:16, 460n63 10:18, 479n129 10:19–20, 330 10:19–35, 482n156 10:21, 471n35 10:22, 330 10:25, 482n156 10:26–31, 318 10:29, 460n63, 482n156 11:8–19, 337 12:5–9, 325 12:16, 470n25 12:18–24, 471n37, 480n139 12:22, 171, 337 12:22–24, 303 12:22–25, 482n156 12:22–28, 337 12:23, 170, 175, 311, 322, 325, 469n19, 470n25 12:24, 460n63 12:25, 318 12:28, 482n156 13:12–13, 482n156 13:20, 460n63 1 Peter 1:3, 171 2:5, 170, 175 2:7, 171 2:9, 144, 171, 175 3:20–21, 357n73 3:21, 465117 Revelation 11:19, 460n63 Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Assumption of Moses 1:9, 462n81 2:7, 462n81 3:9, 462n81 11:17, 462n81 12:13, 462n81

2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse), 446n125 14:17–19, 470n30 39:8, 212 73:1, 212 65:5–7, 240 1 Enoch, 446n125 49:1–2, 212 53:6, 212 69:15–27, 57 89:50–67, 471n35 89:73, 240 90:19, 30, 37, 470n30 90:28–33, 240 4 Ezra 3:4–36, 470n30 6:53–59, 470n30 7:28, 446n128 7:28–29, 209, 446n121 7:28–44, 209 9:17, 470n30 12:30–31, 209 12:32, 209, 446n121, 446n125, 446n128 12:33, 446n121 12:34, 209, 446n121 12:48, 209, 446n130 13:26, 446n121 13:32, 52, 446n127 13:33, 446n132 13:35–36, 446n129 13:36, 209 13:37, 446n121, 446n132 13:38, 209, 446n132 13:39, 446n121 13:39–48, 446n131 13:40–50, 209 13:48–49, 446n121 Jubilees 2:23, 470n30 3:30, 470n30 6:10–11, 462n81 6:17, 367n54 15:27, 470n30 16:26, 470n30 18:13, 402n111 19:23–31, 470n30 20:12–13, 107, 394n11 22:11–13, 470n30 36:7, 57 49:1, 17, 403n117 4 Maccabees 2:14, 479n129 6:34, 479n129 13:12, 125

14:11, 14, 19, 479n129 18:3, 125 Psalms of Solomon 8:10, 462n81 13:9, 372n97 17:4, 446nn125–26 17–18, 206 17:21, 446n125 17:21–26, 207–8 17:21–46, 208 17:22, 206, 446n129 17:23, 207 17:24, 25, 209 17:26–28, 446n131 17:28, 207 17:28–32, 207–8 17:29, 207, 209 17:29–34, 446n132 17:30, 206, 446n129 17:32, 206, 209, 446n128 17:33, 209, 212 17:34–42, 207–8 17:35, 207, 209, 212 17:35–38, 447n133 17:36, 209, 212 17:37, 207 ch. 31, 446n131 17:33–34, 209 17:41–43, 209 chs. 43–44, 446n131 Sibylline Oracles 5:261, 212 5:420–27, 212 5:425–28, 212 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs T. Benjamin 9:2, 212 T. Isaac 8:5, 227 T. Judah 22:3, 212 24:1–25:3, 212 24:6, 121 T. Levi 2:10–11; 4:2–5:2; 8:2–15, 475n67 10:5, 471n35 16:1–5, 240 17:1–2, 446n128 17:10–11, 24018:10, 470n30 18:2, 446n128 18:2–9, 212 T. Moses 3:9, 110 4:8, 241

588  |  Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Texts Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (cont.) T. Simeon 6:5–7:2, 474, 75n67 Qumran Texts and Related Materials 4Q47 (4QJosh a), 116 4Q161 (4QpIsa a) 8–10 III, 21–22, 446n132 8 X, 17, 446n125 4Q174 (4QFlor), 211 1 I, 1–5, 11, 447n133 1 I, 7–13, 446n126 1 I, 11, 446n127 1 I, 12, 446n129 1 I, 13, 446n131 III, 10–12, 211 4Q246 (4QapocrDan ar), 206, 211, 446n125 1 II, 1–9, 211 II, 1, 446n127 II, 5–7, 446n132 II, 5–9, 447n133 4Q252 (4QCommGen A), 206 5 I, 1–4, 211 V, 1–3, 446n125 V, 1–5, 446n126 V, 3, 446n128 V, 4, 447n133 V, 1–4, 236 4Q390 (4QapocrJer E) 1 lines 9–10; 2 I, 4, 478n123 4Q504 (4QDibHam a), 206, 210 1–2 III, 8–12, 210 1–2 IV, 3, 212 1–2 IV, 6–8, 446n126 1–2 IV, 12, 446n130 1–2 IV, 2–8, 210 1–2 IV, 4–8, 237 11Q13 (11QMelch), 446n124, 472n49 1Q34 (1QLitPr) 2 lines 3–6, 470n30 4Q266 (4QD a) 2 I, 21, 478n123 4Q267 (4QD b) 9 I, 7, 462n81 4Q271 (4QD f ) 4 I, 11, 462n81

4Q369 (4QPrayer of Enosh) 1 II, 6, 212 4Q269 (4QD d) 2 line 6, 478n123 1Q22 (1QDM) I, 10–11, 478n123 1Q33 (1QM) V, 1, 446n131 4Q388a (4QJer Oc) 1 II, 5, 478n123 1QH 17 line 15, 470n30 1QS 4 line 23, 470n30 V, 8, 10, 462n81 Philo of Alexandria De Sobrietate 66, 411n14 Josephus Against Apion 2.174, 464n107 Antiquities of the Jews 1.226, 125 4.176–331, 71 5.361, 163, 423n121 10.63, 462n81 15.136, 461n69 Jewish Wars 2.454, 463, 458n28 6.10, 438, 407n141 Talmud and Mishnah Literature Babylonian Talmud b. Nedarim 32b, 299 b. Shabbath 88a, 416n64 Bekhorot 4b, 415n60 Mishnah m. Qiddushin 4:4, 474n60 m. Zevahim 14:4, 416n63 Targumic Texts Chronicles, 1 Chron 5:1–2, 410n10, 473n53 Fragmentary Targum, 132, 403n118 Leviticus 26:42, 110 Neofiti, 45, 57, 129, 132, 406n137, 472n52 Genesis 49:3, 410n10, 473n53 Onqelos, 45, 98, 137 Exodus 24:5, 410n10 Genesis 49:3, 137, 279

Pseudo-­Jonathan, 125, 132, 137, 356n61, 400n97, 472n52 Genesis 49:3, 137, 410n10 Other Rabbinic Works Cairo Genizah text of Damascus Document (CD) 1:3, 17–18, 3:10–11, 15:4–5, 478n123 3:20, 470n30 9:12; 15:6, 8; 16:1, 462n81 Exodus Rabbah 11.3, 356n62 Genesis Rabbah 43.6, 299 56.4, 254 56.10A, 404n120 Leviticus Rabbah 22.5, 46 25.6, 299 Maimonides: Guide for the Perplexed 359, 357n66 364, 417n76, 418n81 325–326, 418n82 Midrashim Midrash Aggadah on Gen 12:6, 390n35 Midrash Joma 10a, 391n45 Midrash Rabbah, 404n120 Numbers Rabbah 4.8, 299, 407n145 Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 8.2, 299 Rashi Pentateuch: Exodus 38, 356n60 Pentateuch: Genesis 36, 391n45 58, 406n141 Apostolic Fathers 1 Clement 15:4, 460n63 35:7, 460n63

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Texts  |  589 New Testament Apocrypha Letter of Barnabas 4:6–8, 460n63 6:19, 460n63 9:6, 9, 460n63 13:1, 6, 460n63 14:1–3, 5, 7, 460n63 Classical and Ancient Christian Writings Aeschylus Seven Against Thebes 401, 364n27 Aphrahat Demonstrations 15.4, 357n65 Aristophanes Aves 440, 460n51

Clement of Alexandria Stromata 1.5, 407n141 Didascalia Apostolorum ß26, 419n82 ß50, 458n33 Ephrem Genesis 25:22, commentary on, 472–73n52 I, 61E, 406–7n141 Epiphanius Adversus haereses 55.6, 407n141 Eusebius of Caesarea Demonstration of the Gospel 1.6, 357n65

Jerome Epistola ad Evargium 73, 407n141 Monitorum Pachomii versio latina 23:980, 409n8 Questiones 14.18, 406n141 Pliny the Younger Letter 10.96.7, 365n46 Tertullian Adversus Judaeos 10:6, 254 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Epic of Gilgamesh, tablet vii, cols. 3–4, 364n32