PEOPLE OF THE COVENANT II The El Who Makes Covenant: The El Who delivered IsraEl from Egypt initiates a special relationship with IsraEl at Mount Sinai: I will take you as My people, and I will be your El. You shall know that I am YAHweh your El Who has freed you from the burdens of the Egyptians (Ex. 6:7). You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles wings and brought you to Myself. Now therefore, if you obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My treasured possession out of all the peoples (Ex. 9:4-5). As a part of this establishment of relationship YAHweh also gives commandments and statutes, His teachings, instructions (Torah). The Hebrew term for this relationship is used broadly in the O.T. to refer to contracts or agreements (e.g., a treaty, Gen. 31:44; a friendship, I ShemuEl 23:18; or/and an alliance, I Kings 20:34). It is used to refer to unconditional divine promises to Noah (Gen. 9:9) and Avraham (Gen. 15:18). Covenant, however, comes to have special meaning for defining the relationship between YAHweh and IsraEl, established at Sinai and including the giving of the law (Ex. 19:5; 24:7-8; 31:16; 34:10, 27-28; Lev. 24:8; 26:9, 15, 25, 44-45; Deut. 4:13; 29:1, 21). It has become commonplace to relate the IsraElite covenant to the formal structure of Hittite suzerainty treaties (14th and 13th centuries B.C.E.). This thesis has usefully served to stress the initiative of the sovereign in establishing the treaty, and the basis for its acceptance in the recitation of benevolent acts already performed by the sovereign. Stipulations (laws) are then specified as the obligation of the weaker (vassal) party. These features have some obvious analogy to aspects of Biblical covenant, but other features of the treaty-form are notably missing in most covenant texts. Recent scholarship has been increasingly critical of the treaty hypothesis. No single Biblical text displays all the features of the treaty form. Its closest analogies seem to be to the book of Deuteronomy. Further, the substance of the treaties does not correspond to that of Biblical law, each governing quite different matters. It seems best at this point in the discussion not to rely heavily on the treaty analogy. It may suffice to simply note the uniform witness to covenant as established by divine, sovereign initiative and leave to further research the aptness of analogy to royal treaties. In the O.T., YAHweh as the covenant Initiator brings to the fore a terminology for the character of Himself that is especially related to His role in covenant relationship. Terms descriptive of YAHwehs character such as holiness, steadfast love, righteousness, justice, and compassion are not limited to covenantal texts but may best be understood in the context of the relationship which covenant implies. Such aspects of the divine character are only properly understood as relational. They point to both the identity and the activity of Elohim as understood in the context of the covenant relationship. As we turn to discussion of these aspects of divine character and conduct we must be reminded of the long course of time from which the texts are drawn. The terms overlap and inter-relate. There is no completely consistent usage. Each textual witness chooses emphases within the range of images available for understanding the divine character. Thus, an Amos may speak more of the justice and righteousness, but a Moses more of the basic covenant-related witnesses to the nature of IsraEls El as they are now available to us in the collective witness of the canon.
Posted on: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 18:06:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015