Forget the Channel » Acovenantalism Series

The Purpose of the Law in Galatians 3

Lionel — Wed, 19 May 2010 08:56:01 +0000

What is the purpose of the law according to Galatians 3?

(This post is part of a series)

The immediate question in Galatians 3:17 is that of the status of the Sinai covenant. Paul’s opponents seem to have been arguing that the Gentiles could only be blessed if they joined the covenant people and submitted to the covenantal obligations. After all, this seemed to be the path to blessing for Ishmael, the slave-child (Gen 17:20–27). They seem to be reasoning that if God chose to enter into a covenant with his people at Sinai, then the obligations that constituted that covenant had to be kept by anyone who wished to receive the blessing. Paul, however, argues that insisting upon such covenantal obligations would, in fact, invalidate the earlier covenant with Abraham (which has been fulfilled by Christ’s sacrifice) and so make the promise to Abraham void (Gal 3:17–18). Once the “seed” has displayed supreme loyalty and is sacrificed, God keeps his promise and the blessings flow to the nations. What, then, was the purpose of the legal obligations laid upon Israel at Sinai? The answer, “because of transgressions”, is, as we shall see, part of Paul’s integration of the law into the wider scheme of God’s salvation-historical plans (Gal 3:19–25).

We have seen that Paul mentions the existence of a mediator in order to highlight the disunity between God and Israel at the time of the giving of the law (Gal 3:20).

Nevertheless, the Sinai covenant was not useless. It “was added on account of the transgressions until such time as the seed to whom it was promised should come” (Gal 3:19). In the purposes of God, this disunity between the people and God had an ultimately positive effect—to imprison everything under sin so that it would be clear that justification would be by faith, not by works (Gal 3:22–25). The law’s purpose was not opposed to the promise (Gal 3:21). It formalised and focused the curse on humanity (3:10), it highlighted sin, it made the distance between God and his people obvious, and it pointed to the inevitability of faith (3:19–24). But that purpose was limited to Israel’s national life, and it has been achieved. Now that Christ, the seed, has come and has fulfilled the covenant (and taken the curse), the “many nations” are not required to be a party to these (temporary) covenantal obligations. They are simply required to be immersed into the “one” seed, Christ, to be found “in Christ” by faith (3:26–27). However, by becoming “in Christ” by faith, they actually become the one “seed”, and so heirs according to the promise (Gal 3:28–29). This is “the blessing of Abraham coming about in Christ Jesus for the sake of the nations.” (Gal 3:14). In fact, if the Galatians do place themselves under the law, they are in grave danger because they are identifying themselves with the one part of salvation history that was associated unequivocally with the curse (Gal 3:10).

The covenants with both Abraham and Israel, then, were instruments of international blessing. Abraham’s covenantal obedience foreshadows Christ’s sacrifice, and the covenant of law with Israel foreshadows the need for faith. The nations are blessed, not by entering Israel’s covenant with its obligations, but by trusting the seed who has fulfilled the covenant, and so becoming sons and heirs of God.

Full bibliography

The more immediate question in verse 17 is that of the status of the Sinai covenant. Paul’s opponents seem to have been arguing that the Gentiles could only be blessed if they joined the covenant people and submitted to the covenantal obligations.[1] After all, this seemed to be the path to blessing for Ishmael, the slave-child (Gen 17:20–27). They seem to be reasoning that if God chose to enter into a covenant with his people at Sinai, then the obligations that constituted that covenant had to be kept by anyone who wished to receive the blessing. Paul, however, argues that insisting upon such covenantal obligations would, in fact, invalidate the earlier covenant with Abraham (which has been fulfilled by Christ’s sacrifice) and so make the promise to Abraham void (Gal 3:17–18). Once the “seed” has displayed supreme loyalty and is sacrificed, God keeps his promise and the blessings flow to the nations. What, then, was the purpose of the legal obligations laid upon Israel at Sinai? The answer, “because of transgressions”, is, as we shall see, part of Paul’s integration of the law into the wider scheme of God’s salvation-historical plans (Gal 3:19–25).

[1] Perhaps the attitude that we saw in Jubilees (see above), was present among Paul’s opponents.

The mediator in Galatians 3:20

Lionel — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:55:00 +0000

Galatians 3:20 is literally translated:

A mediator is not of one, yet God is one.

The word “one” can mean either “one (as opposed to many)”; or it can mean “united (as opposed to divided)”. What does it mean in this verse? And what does this verse have to do with Paul’s argument about the law and covenants (Gal 3:15-19)?

(This post is part of a series)

Galatians 3:20 verse has spawned a multitude of interpretations, but a common thread in most interpretations is the juxtaposition of plurality and singularity.[1] This is exacerbated by certain translations, which add a concept of plurality into the verse which isn’t there in the original (e.g. the ESV, “Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one”).

Wright, for example, understands Galatians 3:20 to mean that God, being one, desires one worldwide covenantal family demarcated by faith, rather than a plurality of different families.[2] However, in normal Greek usage, the existence of a mediator (μεσίτης) usually implied a conflict or underlying disunity between two parties.[3] Hence it seems that Paul’s argument is not about plurality but disunity between Israel and God.

This is backed up by the allusion to an important Old Testament verse. One of the foundational statements of the law was the Shema, with its tight indicative-imperative logic: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, The LORD is One (κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν). And you shall love the LORD your God with your whole heart, and with your whole soul, and with your whole strength” (Deut 6:4–5 LXX). The logic is that, because God is “one”, there must be “whole” undivided devotion to him.

But this is precisely what had not happened at the time of the giving of the law (Exod 32–34). God was about to destroy Israel for her outright apostasy with the Golden Calf, so a mediator (Moses) was introduced to the covenant, and God’s glory was veiled to Israel. The existence of a mediator proved that God and Israel were not united. Israel was never going to be able to fulfil the promise of international blessing. From her very inception, Israel failed to display the blameless walk required of the seed as a prerequisite for this covenant (Gen 17:1). So Paul adds a further argument to his proof that Christ, not Israel, is the true obedient seed of Abraham, not by means of a semantic trick (cf. 3:16) but here from the Torah itself.

[1] N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (London: T & T Clark, 1991) , 159.

[2] Wright, Climax, 168–72.

[3] Becker, NIDNTT 1:372–76; see also Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 378–79.

Full bibliography

The ratification of the covenant in Galatians 3:17

Lionel — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:11:07 +0000

We have seen that the “seed” of Galatians 3:16 is referring to Genesis 17:8. In Galatians 3:16, Paul is explaining to the gentile Galatians that the “seed” of Genesis 17:8 is the “one” nation Israel, not the “multitude” of nations who will also have Abraham as their father (Genesis 17:5).

In Galatians 3:17, Paul goes on to explain that the covenant has already been ratified. When was this covenant to Abraham and his seed “ratified by God” and thus made inviolable (3:17)?

(This post is part of a series)

As we have seen in our survey of the Old Testament, a solemn oath or ceremonial act is needed to make a covenantal relationship of obligation legally binding. The covenant of land in Genesis 15 was ratified by the events recorded in the chapter—the passing of the flaming torch through the pieces, followed by solemn promises. But it is only after the Aqedah (binding) of Isaac that God finally makes a solemn oath that “in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice” (Gen 22:16–18). Almost paradoxically, the primary act of loyal devotion that made Abraham and his seed a fitting covenant partner with God—a fitting agent for blessing to the whole world—was the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice the seed himself. It is only when the seed is placed on the wood and a sacrifice is made that God ratifies his covenant, emphatically vowing to make Abraham’s seed numerous and victorious (Gen 22:17) and thereby to bless the world through Abraham’s seed (22:18).[1] Hahn presents a strong case that this is the “ratification” Paul has in mind, and that the Aqedah is the type for his exposition of Jesus’ crucifixion and the subsequent blessing to the nations in Galatians 3:13–14.[2] In Genesis, the covenant of international blessing is ratified after Abraham’s supreme act of loyalty in being willing to sacrifice the “seed” of the promise by binding him “upon wood”:

Thus, the sense of [Galatians 3:]13–14 is that the death of Christ ἐπὶ ξύλου allows the blessing of Abraham after the Aqedah (Gen 22:18) to flow to the ἔθνη through Jesus Christ (ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ).[3]

Hence it is “Christ” who is supremely the seed, the one in whom all nations are blessed (Gal 3:16).[4] This accords with the flow of biblical thought. Psalm 72 focusses the international scope of the promise to Abraham and his “seed” directly onto an ideal Davidic ruler (cf. 2 Sam 7). It is this Messiah-king “in whom all the nations will be blessed / bless themselves” (Psa 72:17, cf. Gen 12:3, 22:18).[5] Christ is the seed who fulfils the covenantal oath that God swore to Abraham by his obedience to death on the cross.

The larger import of this for Paul’s argument with his opponents is that the covenantal obligations laid upon Abraham (circumcision) and his national seed (the law) as a prerequisite for international blessing are not laid upon the nations as a prerequisite for their own blessing.[6] Abraham’s seed has fulfilled the covenantal obligations. The multitude of nations, therefore, are not called to enter this covenant, but to find blessing in the “seed”, to be “immersed” into Christ, to be “clothed” with Christ (Gal 3:27). This comes about by the Spirit and by faith in Christ (Gal 3:14). The blessings include justification (Gal 3:24), sonship (Gal 3:27) and unity with God and others in Christ (Gal 3:28). Hence it is faith in Christ, not covenant membership, that makes the Gentiles “seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29). Being the “seed of Abraham” does not mean that the Gentiles are subject to the covenantal obligations, for these obligations have been fulfilled by Christ’s sacrifice. Rather, being the “seed of Abraham” means that the Gentiles are now sons of God in the fullest sense, heirs of the inheritance that has now come in Christ (Gal 4:1–7). Even the Jews who were members of the covenant must also be in the “seed” by faith (Gal 2:16, 3:11). Hence Abraham’s international fatherhood is not by means of common covenantal membership, but by means of a common faith in the God who achieves his astounding promises (Gal 3:7, 9), and a common blessing of righteousness; the characteristics that Abraham had before any of the covenants was made (Gal 3:6, Gen 15:6).

[1] Williamson, Abraham, 246–48.

[2] Hahn, “Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah”, 90–94.

[3] Hahn, “Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah”, 93.

[4] Hahn, “Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah”, 96–97.

[5] Williamson, Abraham, 167–70.

[6] If this were so, then Carol K. Stockhausen, “2 Corinthians 3 and the Principles of Pauline Exegesis”, in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders; Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 83; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 143–64 (esp. 158–61) would be correct in concluding that Paul saw a real contradiction between the unilateral covenant of Genesis 15 and the bilateral covenant of Genesis 17.

Full bibliography

The singular seed of Galatians 3:16

Lionel — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 11:25:24 +0000

What is the purpose of Paul’s argument in Galatians 3:16?

(This post is part of a series)

In Galatians 3:16, Paul exegetes a phrase from the Abrahamic narrative: “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say, ‘And to seeds’, as though to a multitude (ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν), but as though to one, ‘And to your seed’ (καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου), who is Christ.” The phrase in question, καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου, occurs 3 times in the Abraham narrative (Gen 13:15, 17:8, 24:7). Given that the other key terms “of many” (πολλῶν, Gal 3:16) and “covenant” (διαθήκη, Gal 3:15, 17) also occur in Genesis 17 (Gen 17:2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 19, 21) it seems that the text under discussion is Genesis 17:8, in which God confirms that he will give Canaan to Abraham. This confirmation is part of the larger covenant of international blessing, which is contingent on Abraham’s loyalty (Gen 17:1) and includes the sign of circumcision (Gen 17:9–14). What, then, does Paul mean by his insistence that the promises were not given to a multitude, but to the one seed?

Wright rightly rejects interpretations that conclude that Paul is simply employing a “semantic trick”.[1] According to these interpretations, “Paul appears to be arguing, on the basis of the singular form of σπέρμα, that the promises made to Abraham and his seed point exclusively to Christ, not to the patriarch’s many other physical descendants”. The problem is that “in the LXX σπέρμα in the singular, when referring to human offspring, is in fact almost always collective rather than singular”.[2] Wright proposes an alternative view: that the singular form of σπέρμα is

not the singularity of an individual person contrasted with the plurality of many human beings, but the singularity of one family contrasted with the plurality of families which would result if the Torah were to be regarded the way Paul’s opponents apparently regard it. The argument of vv. 15–18 would then run: it is impossible to annul a covenant; the covenant with Abraham always envisaged a single family, not a plurality of families; therefore the Torah, which creates a plurality by dividing Gentiles from Jews, stands in the way of the fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham; and this cannot be allowed.[3]

Wright’s thesis relies on three questionable premises. The first premise is that Paul’s main problem with the Torah was its tendency to create ethnic “boundary markers” for the “people of God” which were inappropriate because the true “demarcation line” of the covenant family is faith in Christ.[4] But this sort of terminology is not the way either the ot or Paul uses “covenant” concepts; it is more akin to the covenantal grammar of the Qumran sectarians who were preoccupied with defining how to “enter” their community. Secondly, Wright takes the word “Christ” as a “corporate personality”, shorthand for the “family of God” who are incorporated into Christ.[5] While this might be conceivable later in the chapter (Gal 3:26–28, and even there it is possible to distinguish Christ from his people), at this point in the argument Christ is quite distinct from his people (cf. Gal 3:13). Wright seems to have read the text from the perspective of now somewhat discredited sociological theories of “corporate personality”.[6] Thirdly, if the Gentiles are blessed by “joining” the covenant family, then the obligations of the Abrahamic covenant (i.e. explicitly physical circumcision, Gen 17:9–14) have been reordered or nullified (Gal 5:2–3, 6, 11). Yet this is precisely what Paul states never happens. Man does not reject or reorder a ratified covenant (Gal 3:15); neither does God (Gal 3:17).

Furthermore, Wright’s assertion that “the covenant with Abraham always envisaged a single family, not a plurality of families” is false unless it is strictly qualified. The promises in Genesis 12:1–3 envisage that all the families (plural, מִשְׁפְּחֹת) of the earth will be blessed in Abraham (Gen 12:3).[7] Abram has his name changed to Abraham precisely because God has made him “the father of a multitude of nations (πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν)” (Gen 17:5). In one sense, this multitude is one “family” because Abraham is their father. Nevertheless, they remain a multitude of nations. There is no indication in Genesis that the nations will “join” the covenant of circumcision that God makes with Abraham and his seed. There remains a twofold process: nationhood (seed and land) for Abraham will mean international blessing for the multitude of nations in Abraham (Gen 17:6–8). Even Ishmael, although he receives the sign of circumcision as a member of Abraham’s household and is greatly blessed (17:20), is not a party to the covenant (Gen 17:21). Given this context, it seems that Galatians 3:16 intends to make a precise exegetical point about the covenant of Genesis 17. The promises, while they were “for the sake of the nations” (Gal 3:14), are not, in fact, spoken directly to the multitude of nations (Gen 17:5). Rather, they are spoken to Abraham and his seed. Hence it is only Abraham and his seed who stand under this particular covenantal relationship of obligation, for the sake of the nations. The blessed multitude of nations is not required to be included in the covenant; hence they are not required to be circumcised. It is not that the covenant with Abraham has been reordered by Christ in favour of the Gentiles (Gal 3:15 rules this out),[8] but that the nations are not required to enter the covenant at all.

[1] Wright, N. T. The Climax of the Covenant. London: T & T Clark, 1991. Pages 158–59.

[2] Wright, Climax, 158.

[3] Wright, Climax, 163–64.

[4] Wright, Climax, 165, 67, see 155–56 for Wright’s use of the term “covenant family”.

[5] Wright, Climax, 165.

[6] Cf. John W. Rogerson, “The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality: A Re-Examination”, Journal of Theological Studies 21 (1970): 1–16; Gary W. Burnett, Paul and the Salvation of the Individual (Biblical Interpretation Series 57; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1–29.

[7] Pace Wright, Climax, 166.

[8] Pace Wright, Climax, 155–56.

Full bibliography

The word ‘covenant’ in Galatians 3:15

Lionel — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:00:15 +0000

What does the word διαθήκη (“covenant”) mean in Galatians 3:15?

(This post is part of a series)

Some interpreters understand the word to mean “last will and testament”.[1] In this understanding, when Paul speaks in “human terms” (κατὰ ἄνθρωπον) about a “human” covenant (ἀνθρώπον [. . .] διαθήκην) he refers to the secular Graeco-Roman practice of will-making. According to this understanding, Paul then proceeds, by way of comparison, to show that just as a human will cannot be rejected (cf. ἀθετεῖ) or reordered (cf. ἐπιδιατάσσεται), so it is with God’s covenant.

Hughes, however, marshalling an impressive array of internal and external evidence, shows that διαθήκη in Gal 3:15 cannot possibly be used in the Hellenistic sense of “will”.[2] Throughout the ancient world, a will could, and frequently was, nullified and changed by the testator.[3] If Paul was using a will as his “human” example, the basic premise of his comparison would have been nonsense to his original readers. On the other hand, if Paul meant “covenant” according to our inductive definition (“elected relationship of obligation under oath”), the argument makes perfect sense. Sworn covenants between human beings in the Old Testament were inviolable (e.g. Josh 9:19–20, cf. 2 Sam 21:1–14).[4] So, it seems, was the birds” covenant with Peisetaerus. Hence Paul is arguing from the general inviolability of covenants between human beings (3:15) to the inviolability of the particular covenant with Abraham (3:17).[5] He is not introducing the idea of a “will” into his argument.

[1] E.g. Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (Word Biblical Commentary 41; Dallas: Word, 1990); N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (London: T & T Clark, 1991) , 166; see also the Bible versions NJB, RSV, NRSV.

[2] John J. Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff. and Galatians III 15ff: A Study in Covenant Practice and Procedure”, Novum Testamentum 21 (1979): 27–96 (here 66–96).

[3] Of course, a “last will and testament” couldn’t be changed by anyone other than the testator, nor for this reason could it be changed after the testator’s death; but this is irrelevant, for Paul is claiming that God himself would not change his own previously ratified διαθήκη.

[4] Scott W. Hahn, “Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah: Διαθήκη in Galatians 3:15–18”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 67 (2005): 79–100 (esp. 83–86).

[5] Hahn, “Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah”, 95.

The covenants in Galatians 3:15-22 – Introduction

Lionel — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 08:46:56 +0000

The argument of Galatians 3:15–22 is “generally reckoned among the most difficult in Paul”.[1] In Galatians, Paul is strenuously arguing against opponents who want the Gentile Christians to adopt circumcision and the law (i.e. become ethnic Jews) as a prerequisite for salvation in Christ (e.g. Gal 2:14, 4:21, 5:3, 11, 6:13). Wright, in the light of his assumption of a “covenantal” background to Galatians 3–4, concludes that these chapters are about the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Abrahamic covenant without the need for them to become ethnic Jews. According to Wright, Christ’s death and resurrection has reordered Israel’s covenant in favour of the Gentiles. Now that the “demarcating mark” of the “new covenant family” is faith rather than Torah, Gentiles may “get in” to the covenant.[2]

However, a close reading of Paul’s argument in the light of our inductive definition of the Old Testament term “covenant” (“elected relationship of obligation under oath”, see above) and the two-fold nature of the Abrahamic covenants (nationhood followed by international blessing) points to a very different, even opposite, conclusion. As we will see, Paul’s sustained argument is that the extension of blessing to the Gentiles is not brought about by their inclusion in the covenant. Rather, the extension of sonship to the Gentiles happens by the coming of Christ, the one seed of Abraham, who fulfils the covenants, pours out the Spirit, and enables all nations to be blessed in him through faith.

To be continued …

(This post is part of a series)

[1] N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (London: T & T Clark, 1991), 157.

[2] Wright, Climax, 155–56.

The covenants in the background to Paul’s letters – a summary

Lionel — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:00:16 +0000

Before we look in detail at Paul’s use of the word “covenant”, it’s worth pausing briefly to review what we have learned about the use of the word “covenant” in the Old Testament, second-temple Jewish literature, and Greek sources. In particular, two important conclusions flow from our survey of the idea of “covenant” in the background to Paul’s thought.

Firstly, the concept of “covenant” takes many different shapes and sizes. While all covenants have the same basic nature (an elected, as opposed to natural, relationship of obligation under oath), there are various types of divine-human covenants in the documents we have examined:[1]

a covenant between God and Abram (and his seed), to make him into a geopolitical nation (Gen 15).
a related but distinct covenant between God and Abraham (and his seed), to bring about international blessing contingent upon his loyalty (Gen 17). This covenant involves the sign of circumcision (which seems to signify the restraint of the flesh), and is ratified by the sacrifice of his son.
a covenant of law with Israel, related to the covenant of Genesis 17. If Israel is obedient to God, they will be a source of international blessing (e.g. Exod. 19). This covenant is broken by Israel as soon as it is received.
a covenant of mediation between Moses and God, upon which the covenant with Israel becomes contingent (Exod 33-34).
a related covenant of mediation between God and the Levitical priesthood (Num 25:11-13, Neh 13:28, Jer 33:21, Mal 2:4). This involved offering sacrifices and teaching the law. This is emphasised as a covenant of great glory in Sirach 45.
the servant of Yahweh, who is “a covenant [for the] people” and (therefore) “a light [for the] nations” (Isa 42:6, 49:8).
a covenant between God and redeemed Israel, that they will minister to the nations (Isa 59-61). This also appears to be the expectation of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
the single, overarching covenant of human obligation expounded in Jubilees.
Philo’s allegorical interpretations of the covenants as “bequests”
the unique sociological view expounded by the Qumran “Community of Those Entering the New Covenant”, in which concepts such as “community”, “entry” and boundary markers begin to make an appearance. This kind of view of the meaning of “covenant” is also often assumed by proponents of the New Perspective on Paul, even though it is the one that is farthest removed from the Old Testament.

The task of identifying any “covenantal” background to Paul’s thought must take this pluriformity into consideration. We cannot simply speak of “the covenant”, as if it is an easily identifiable, monolithic entity. We must understand which covenant (or covenants), if any, Paul is speaking about in any given passage. This observation, of course, also follows from the fact that Paul himself tends to speak of a plurality of covenants.

Secondly, there is no indication in these documents that blessing for the nations is contingent upon their “entering into” any of these covenants. The fulfillment of the covenants by Israel does, indeed, bring salvific blessing to the nations, but there is no requirement that they must be a party to any of the covenants. A salvific relationship with God, therefore, is a much broader concept than the narrower category of “covenant”.

[1] In addition to covenants that we have not examined: e.g. the covenant with David in Psalm 89.

The sectarian covenants of Qumran and the New Perspective

Lionel — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:43:16 +0000

We asked, in our previous post in this series, whether we could detect a shift in the second temple literature away from the pervasive Old Testament understanding of the word “covenant” (“an elected relationship of obligation under oath”) towards a more sociological concept (akin to the New Perspective’s emphasis). The answer was “no” – apart from one exception. This post discusses the exception.

Of all the second-temple documents we have surveyed, the writings of the Qumran community are the most strikingly radical in their interpretations of the Old Testament “covenant” concept. At Qumran, covenantal vocabulary became inseparably bound up with sociological, sectarian concepts such as “community”, “entry” and boundary markers.[1] The history of the community helps us to explain this transformation: it seems that after being expelled by the Jerusalem priesthood, this community was established outside Jerusalem by its leader, the “Teacher of Righteousness”. They believed that the rest of Israel had committed apostasy. Their own community was the only true remnant of Israel, and therefore the unique locus of God’s covenant with Israel. The particular rules of the community (involving worship, calendar observance, etc.) were coterminous with the boundaries of the new (or renewed) covenant thus established: all other Jews were outside the covenant.[2]

The Qumran community describes itself as “The Community of Those Entering the new covenant” (יחד באי הברית החדשה).[3] A person’s commitment is described in terms of “entry” (בוא) into the Covenant (1QS 2.12, 18; 5.8, 20; 6.15; CD 2.2; 3.10; 6.11, 19; 8.1; 9.3; 13.14; 15.5; 19.14; 20.25; 1QH^a 13.23; 21.9); “crossing over” (עבר) to the Covenant (1QS 1.16, 18, 20, 24; 2.10; CD 1.20; 16.12); and “holding fast to” (חזק) the Covenant (1QS 5.3; 1QSb 1.2; CD 20.27; 1QH^a 10.28; 12.39; 23.9).[4] It seems that the Qumran community had taken concepts that initially applied to the initiation of the covenant relationship between God and Israel, and has transformed them by speaking of an individual entering into an already established covenant. The verb עבר, which in Deut 29:11 refers to the whole community “crossing over” (the Jordan) into a covenant, is used in the initiation ceremony for an individual who is “inducted into” the covenant.[5] Food laws, in particular, served as important marks distinguishing between the Qumran covenant community and the Gentiles and other Jewish groups who were “outside” the covenant.[6]

Interestingly, while this sociological “grammar” of covenant appears to be unique to the Qumran sectarians in the Second Temple period, it finds many parallels in the covenantal grammar of the New Perspective.[7] Here is an example of this “sociological” use of covenantal grammar from Tom Wright, which is far more akin to the Qumran sectarians than to the use of the word ‘covenant’ in the Old Testament or other second-temple writings (italic emphasis original, bold emphasis mine):

The second element in justification is of course … that of the covenant. The question is … Who are the members of God’s single family, and how can you tell? … It is to recognize that this [covenantal theology] is part of the root meaning of the words Paul is using, that Torah itself was the covenant charter which left Israel with the puzzling question, how it could be fulfilled and thus do its job of designating God’s people and keeping them on track. ‘The works of Torah’ could not do it, partly because Israel failed lamentably to perform them (2:21-24) and partly because, to the extent that those “works” focused on the things which kept Jews separate from Gentiles, they would have prevented the establishment of the single family God always had in mind … But this “covenantal”, and hence “ecclesiological”, meaning of “justification” …[8]

For Wright, “covenantal theology” has sociological / ecclesiological distinctions at its heart. While this kind of strong association of sociological terms with the covenant is akin to the Qumran sectarians, it is quite different to the use of the word “covenant” in the Old Testament or in any of the other second temple texts we have examined. And, we shall argue, it is also quite different to Paul’s use of the word “covenant” as well.

[1] Craig A. Evans, “Covenant in the Qumran Literature”, in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C. R. de Roo; Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 71; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 55–80.

[2] Evans, “Qumran Literature”, 79-80.

[3] David N. Freedman and David Miano, “People of the New Covenant”, in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C. R. de Roo; Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 71; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 7–26 (22–23).

[4] Evans, “Qumran Literature”, 63.

[5] Martin G. Abegg, “The Covenant of the Qumran Sectarians”, in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C. R. de Roo; Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 71; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 81–97 (esp. 85–86); Evans, “Qumran Literature”, 63.

[6] Stephen A. Reed, “The Role of Food as Related to Covenant in Qumran Literature”, in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C. R. de Roo; Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 71; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 129–64.

[7] See also the quotations in Stephen Westerholm, “The ‘New Perspective’ at Twenty-Five”, in Justification and Variegated Nomism Volume 2: The Paradoxes of Paul (ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien and Mark A. Seifrid; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 1–38.

[8] Wright, Tom. Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (London: SPCK, 2009), 187-88.

Full bibliography

Covenants in Second Temple Judaism

Lionel — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:44:31 +0000

We have seen, in our series so far, the way that the word “covenant” is used in the Old Testament. A covenant is not a catch-all term for “relationship”, but it refers to a specific kind of relationship: “an elected relationship of obligation under oath”. Furthermore, although some of the covenants are made between God and a national entity (Israel, or Abraham’s seed), the word “covenant” itself is not a sociological term, and is not associated with sociological categories like “community”, “entry” or “boundary markers”. Hence the New Perspective’s emphasis on “covenant” as a “sociological” term is not supported by the Old Testament. Indeed, many of the important covenants are made with individuals rather than nations (e.g. Phineas and David). Can we detect a shift away from the Scriptural use of the word “covenant” towards a more sociological usage amongst Jews in the centuries around the writing of the New Testament? The answer is no, except for one rather striking example.

In this post we will look at the usages of the word “covenant” amongst second-temple Jews that conform closely to the Old Testament’s usage. In the next post we will look at the exception.

Many of the writings use διαθήκη in more or less the same way we find in the Old Testament, albeit with differing emphases. The close association between covenant and oath continues (e.g. Wis 18:22). The Psalms of Solomon refer to the covenant as a firm, binding promise made by God to the nation (Pss. Sol. 9:8–11, 10:4, 17:15). The books of the Maccabees concentrate on “the covenant of the fathers” (1 Macc 2:20, 2 Macc 8:15), which is associated particularly with circumcision (1 Macc 1:15) and the law (1 Macc 1:57, 63; 2:27, 50). Human loyalty to the covenant will be rewarded by divine loyalty in crushing Israel’s enemies (1 Macc 4:10). The “covenant of everlasting priesthood” with Phinehas is also mentioned (1 Macc 2:54), as a reward for Phineas’ ‘zeal’ (a key word in Maccabees). There are also references to non-divine covenants (e.g. Sir 11:20; Sir 14:12, 17; 1 Macc 1:11, 11:9).

The Wisdom of Ben Sira contains an extended treatise which mentions many of the covenants between God and glorious national heroes. Earlier in Sirach, διαθήκη refers mainly to the Mosaic law or commandments (Sir 24:23, 28:7, 39:8, 41:19, 42:2). But in chapters 44–45 there is a list of various “famous men” that are praised because “The Lord apportioned to them great glory” (Sir 44:1). The covenants with Noah (Sir 44:18), Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Sir 44:19–23), Aaron (Sir 45:6–22), Phinehas (Sir 45:23–24) and David (Sir 45:25–26) all get a notable mention. The covenantal ministries of Moses and Aaron, in particular, are depicted as ministries of fabulous God-given glory (Sir 45:2, 3, 7, 20) as they teach the law and offer sacrifices.

Jubilees (late 2^nd Century BC) sees the covenant in similar terms to Genesis—a commitment or obligations by or between God and men under oath.[1] However, Jubilees stresses the human commitments more than does Genesis.[2] Jubilees 6:1–38 transforms the unilateral covenant that God makes with Noah into a bilateral covenant where human obligations are given prominence, explicitly linking it to the Mosaic covenant.[3] The same trend can be seen with Jubilees’ interpretation of the patriarchal covenants. “The ultimate goal of Jubilees is to show that there is only a single covenant” in which human obligation is emphasised—in effect, Jubilees universalises the Sinai covenant.[4]

Philo uses covenantal concepts sparingly. “He has no choice but to deal with it because it is a part of the Septuagint text”.[5] He generally interprets the word according to its legal usage, “will”, using it as an allegorical symbol to describe the gracious bequest by God of certain graces: wisdom, law, word, justice, even himself (Sacrifices 57; Worse 67–68; Names 51–53, 58; Dreams 2.223–24, 2.237).[6] Nevertheless, Philo does share some of the concerns of the ot that we noted above. He discusses the question of the identity of the seed of Abraham, concluding that it is the wise man (Heir 313). He understands that the covenant with Abraham brings blessing to the nations, not by the nations joining the covenant, but by the nations learning from Israel’s wisdom (Names 263, cf. Deut 4:4–8).

Every reference to διαθήκη in Josephus is to a human will (Ant. 17.p, 17.53, 17.78, 17.146, 17.188, 17.195, 17.202, 17.224, 17.226, 17.228, 17.238, 17.244, 17.246, 17.249, 17.321, 17.322, 18.156; J.W. 1.451, 1.573, 1.588, 1.600, 1.625, 1.646, 1.664, 1.668, 1.669, 2.3, 2.20, 2.21, 2.31, 2.35, 2.38, 2.98, 2.99.). Mason observes that Josephus “systematically removed the stronger covenantal statements from his paraphrase of the Bible (Ant. 1.183–185, 191–193) in his attempt to avoid angering his Roman opponents (who, in fact, possessed the land along with their ‘gods’)”.[7] Hence “[t]he only advantage the Jews have is their association with Moses, who in his extreme sagacity discovered the truth about God and formulated laws in keeping with God’s will”.[8]

We have seen that none of these texts import sociological categories (such as “boundary markers” or “badges of membership” or “entry into a community”) into their use of the word “covenant”. This fact makes it less likely that we will find Paul himself using sociological categories when he used the word. However, there is one community in the second temple period which does use sociological categories in speaking of the “covenant”: the Qumran sectarians. We will look at the Qumran use of the word “covenant” in the next post.

[1] Jacques Van Ruiten, “The Covenant of Noah in Jubilees 6.1–38”, in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C. R. de Roo; Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 71; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 167–90.

[2] Van Ruiten, “Covenant of Noah”, 170.

[3] Van Ruiten, “Covenant of Noah”.

[4] Van Ruiten, “Covenant of Noah”, 190.

[5] Lester L. Grabbe, “Did All Jews Think Alike? ‘Covenant’ in Philo and Josephus in the Context of Second Temple Judaic Religion”, in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C. R. de Roo; Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 71; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 251–66 (256).

[6] Grabbe, “Philo and Josephus”, 257.

[7] Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992), 70.

[8] Paul Spilsbury, “Josephus”, in Justification and Variegated Nomism Volume 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien and Mark A. Seifrid; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen, 2001), 241–60 (258).

Full bibliography

While Paul is explicitly dependent upon the ot and the Christian gospel for his theological argument, he is clearly writing about questions and issues that arose in his time. While we may wish to postpone judgment on the nature of the connection between Paul’s theology and that of his contemporaries, a consideration of the concerns and questions of various intertestamental writings may shed light on the issues Paul faced. We will look at a number of the intertestamental writings to see what they have to say about the covenants.

Many of the writings use diaqh,kh in more or less the same way we find in the ot, albeit with differing emphases. The close association between covenant and oath continues (e.g. Wis 18:22). The Psalms of Solomon refer to the covenant as a firm, binding promise made by God to the nation (Pss. Sol. 9:8–11, 10:4, 17:15). The books of the Maccabees concentrate on “the covenant of the fathers” (1 Macc 2:20, 2 Macc 8:15), which is associated particularly with circumcision (1 Macc 1:15) and the law (1 Macc 1:57, 63; 2:27, 50). Human loyalty to the covenant will be rewarded by divine loyalty in crushing Israel’s enemies (1 Macc 4:10). The “covenant of everlasting priesthood” with Phinehas is also mentioned (1 Macc 2:54) [as a reward for Phineas’ ‘zeal’ (a key word in Maccabees)]. There are also references to non-divine covenants (e.g. Sir 11:20; Sir 14:12, 17; 1 Macc 1:11, 11:9).

Sirach contains an extended treatise on the various covenants between God and glorious national heroes. Earlier in Sirach, diaqh,kh refers mainly to the Mosaic law or commandments (Sir 24:23, 28:7, 39:8, 41:19, 42:2). But in chapters 44–45 there is a list of various “famous men” that are praised because “The Lord apportioned to them great glory” (Sir 44:1). The covenants with Noah (Sir 44:18), Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Sir 44:19–23), Aaron (Sir 45:6–22), Phinehas (Sir 45:23–24) and David (Sir 45:25–26) all get a notable mention. The covenantal ministries of Moses and Aaron, in particular, are depicted as ministries of fabulous God-given glory (Sir 45:2, 3, 7, 20) as they teach the law and offer sacrifices.

Every reference to diaqh,kh in Josephus is to a human will (Ant. 17.p, 17.53, 17.78, 17.146, 17.188, 17.195, 17.202, 17.224, 17.226, 17.228, 17.238, 17.244, 17.246, 17.249, 17.321, 17.322, 18.156; J.W. 1.451, 1.573, 1.588, 1.600, 1.625, 1.646, 1.664, 1.668, 1.669, 2.3, 2.20, 2.21, 2.31, 2.35, 2.38, 2.98, 2.99.). Mason observes that Josephus “systematically removed the stronger covenantal statements from his paraphrase of the Bible (Ant. 1.183–185, 191–193) in his attempt to avoid angering his Roman opponents (who, in fact, possessed the land along with their ‘gods’)”.[7] Hence “[t]he only advantage the Jews have is their association with Moses, who in his extreme sagacity discovered the truth about God and formulated laws in keeping with God’s will”.[8]

[2] Van Ruiten, “Covenant of Noah”, 170.

[3] Van Ruiten, “Covenant of Noah”.

[4] Van Ruiten, “Covenant of Noah”, 190.

[6] Grabbe, “Philo and Josephus”, 257.

[7] Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992), 70.

Covenants in Cloudcuckooland and the Greek Old Testament

Lionel — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:32:14 +0000

We have seen, in our series so far, the way that the word “covenant” is used in the Old Testament. How did the Hebrew word for covenant (בְּרִית) come to be translated by the Greek word διαθήκη? A good case can be made that there is a specific use of the Greek word διαθήκη that corresponds almost exactly with the definition of the word that we have confirmed by our study of the Old Testament: “an elected relationship of obligation under oath”. This usage of διαθήκη confirms our assertion that a biblical “covenant” is not just any kind of relationship, and nor is it inherently sociological or ecclesiological. Rather, a covenant a very specific kind of relationship between two well-defined parties.

A covenant is not just a ‘will’

The fact that translators of the LXX chose to translate בְּרִית with the Greek word διαθήκη is a little surprising given that by far the most common use of διαθήκη in the extant Greek literature is not a “covenant” in the Old Testament sense (“elected relationship of obligation under oath”), but a written document drawn up to distribute property after a person’s death, a “disposition”, “testament” or “will”.[1] Prior to the 3^rd century BC, there are about 240 instances of διαθήκη.[2] It occurs most abundantly in orators arguing legal cases and in Plato’s Laws (e.g. 922.c, 923.c, 923.e, 924.a, 926.b). Often the plural is used to refer to a will, since the various “dispositions” (διαθήκαι) collectively form a will (Isocrates, Aeginet. 1, 12, 15, 34; Isaeus, Cleonymus, 3). By contrast, the plural of διαθήκη never occurs in the Old Testament. The testator could make or leave a will (διατίθεμαι [Isaeus, Cleonymus 3, 11, 15, 20, 48], ποιέω [Isaeus, Cleonymus 10, 30–31], καταλείπω [Isocrates, Aeginet. 5, 15, 34]), confirm a will (βεβαίω [Isaeus, Cleonymus 18–19]), alter a will by codicil (ἐπανορθόω [Isaeus, Cleonymus 26]), and revoke a will (ἀναιρέω [Isaeus, Cleonymus 14, 18, 21; Philoctemon 30], λύω [Isaeus, Cleonymus 3, 18, 50]). After the death of the testator, a court could declare his will invalid (ποιέω ἄκυρον [Isocrates, Aeginet. 3, 15; Isaeus, Cleonymus 21, Philoctemon 4], καθίστημι ἄκυρον [Isaeus, Aristarchus 22]). By contrast, Old Testament covenants are “broken” (הֵפֵר, διασκεδάζω) by negligence or wilful disobedience (e.g. Gen 17:14; Lev 26:15; Deut 31:16, 20; Isa 24:5, 33:8; Jer 11:10, 31:32; Ezek 16:59), never simply invalidated.

One feature common to Old Testament covenants and some Greek wills is the creation of kinship bonds by “election”. A διαθήκη could be used to bestow legal rights upon people who naturally did not have these rights (e.g. Isaeus, Philoctemon 28). A διαθήκη was a possible means for adopting a son and thus allowing him to inherit property (Isaeus, Aristarchus 9; Astyphilus 5, cf. 10–11; Ciron 40). However, there is evidence that this process was fraught with complications. For example, “I was adopted by Menecles with the strictest possible legality, and [. . .] the form of adoption was not merely verbal or by will [διαθήκῃ] but by very act and deed” (Isaeus, Menecles 44 [Forster, LCL]; see also Isaeus, Hagnias 8–9). By contrast, an ot covenant is a much stronger means of creating kinship bonds.

A covenant is more than just a ‘pact’

The choice of διαθήκη is even more surprising when one considers that there was a Greek word for “pact”: συνθήκη.[3] Demosthenes (1 Steph. 41.9) mentions both συνθήκαι (articles of agreement) and διαθήκαι (articles of disposition) in parallel, showing that they are not synonyms. The translators of the LXX clearly knew the former word; they used it for political pacts between humans (1 Macc 10:26; 2 Macc 12:1, 13:25, 14:20, 14:26–27; Isa 30:1; Dan 11:6, 17) and metaphorical pacts between humans and “death” (Wis 1:16, Isa 28:15). Once, it is used of an agreement between God and humans (Wis 12:21). Nevertheless, 270 times, διαθήκη translates בְּרִית in the Septuagint.[4] Why did the Greek translators of the Old Testament consider the word commonly used for “will” to be more appropriate than the word for “pact” for translating the Old Testament word “covenant”?

The covenant in Cloudcuckooland

The answer, quite literally, may be found in Cloudcuckooland. The ancient comic Aristophanes (c. 445–385 bc), although familiar with the meaning “will” for διαθήκη (Wasps, 584, 589), and also with the word συνθήκη (“pact”, Peace, 1065; Lysistrata, 1268–69), uses διαθήκη in one passage in a way that is identical with our inductive definition of the OT word בְּרִית: “an elected, as opposed to natural, relationship of obligation under oath”.[5] In his fantastic play Birds the hero, Peisetaerus, wants to convince the bird community to establish a carefree hedonistic utopia called “Cloudcuckooland”. The birds gather and ask Peisetaerus to disclose his plan to them. But they are armed and look a little too dangerous, so Peisetaerus says (lines 438–42, my translation):

By Apollo! I will not / unless (and not otherwise) they make a covenant with me [διάθωνται, … διαθήκην ἐμοι] / the very same one that the ape made [διέθετο] with the woman[6] / (the knifemaker): that they neither bite me / nor yank [my] testicles nor dig…

After some brief innuendo, the play continues (lines 444–47, my translation):

Leader of the birds: I make [a covenant] [διατίθεμαι ’γώ]

Peisetaerus: “Now swear these things to me”

Leader of the birds: I swear to prevail in [the opinion of] these: all the judges / and all the spectators [. . .] But if I should transgress, to prevail in [the opinion of] one judge only.

The result of this sworn oath is that Peisetaerus now has a claim over the birds, and is able to order them to dispose of their arms. While the details of the oath are obscure, the meaning of διαθήκη is clear. The birds choose to enter into a new relationship with a human by oath, whereby they are obliged not to hurt him. While the covenantal obligation is unilateral, the covenant established a “truce” (τὰς σπονδάς, line 461), a relationship which enables Peisetaerus to get on with his original task of explaining his idea about Cloudcuckooland to the birds.[7]

The significance of this reference is that it shows a popular usage of διαθήκη, quite distinct from the legal usage, which overlaps significantly with the semantic range of the Hebrew word בְּרִית as we have defined it. This both strengthens our inductive definition of בְּרִית (not merely “pact” but “an elected relationship of obligation under oath”) and also enables us to allow that the Septuagint translators (who undoubtedly influenced Pauline usage of the term more than anyone else) could have easily had this concept in mind when they used διαθήκη.[8]

Although it is only one instance among hundreds, it is a much more significant instance than the statistics would appear to suggest. Firstly, the statistics are already skewed in favour of the legal usage, since there are far more extant legal texts than comic texts.[9] Secondly, Aristophanes himself was being critically studied and copied by scholars at around the same place and time as the Septuagint was being translated (i.e. Alexandria in the 3^rd and 2^nd century bc).[10] Hence there are good reasons to suppose that the translators of the Septuagint would have been familiar with the sort of usage we find here in Aristophanes. In any case, our definition of διαθήκη in the Septuagint, “elected relationship of obligation under oath”, has arisen from the inductive semantic study of Hugenberger and others and does not rely on Aristophanes’ usage. This instance in Aristophanes merely helps to confirm a definition arrived at independently.

[1] W. Danker, “διαθήκη”, BDAG 228–29;

[2] This is based on an exhaustive search of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. For details of the TLG see Luci Berkowitz and Karl A. Squitier, Thesaurus Linguae Graecae Canon of Greek Authors and Works (3rd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990).

[3] J. Behm and G. Quell, “διαθήκη”, TDNT 2:106–34 (126).

[4] John J. Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff. and Galatians III 15ff: A Study in Covenant Practice and Procedure”, Novum Testamentum 21 (1979): 27–96 (30).

[5] Hugenberger, Marriage, 11.

[6] “The various guesses in the scholia show that not even ancient scholars could explain this allusion” (Jeffrey Henderson, “Birds”, in Aristophanes [4 vols.; Loeb Classical Library 178, 488, 179, 180; Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1998–2002], 3:1–251 [3:77 fn 30]).

[7] William L. Lane, “Covenant: The Key to Paul’s Conflict with Corinth”, Tyndale Bulletin 33 (1982): 3–29 (22).

[8] See also the definition in Behm and Quell, TDNT 2:112: “a legal fellowship under sacral guarantees”.

[9] Henderson, “Introduction”, 1:33.

[10] Henderson, “Introduction”, 1:33.

Full bibliography

The two-fold covenantal relationship in the prophets: with Israel, for the nations

Lionel — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 06:23:08 +0000

We have seen that the covenants with Abraham envisaged two distinct but related goals: nationhood for Abraham’s seed, followed by blessing for the world. The eighth-century prophets use the word “covenant” sparingly, but when they do this two-fold structure is also evident. The prophets never promise that the nations will be included in Israel’s covenants. Instead, they promise something else: that the special covenant with Israel will have benefits for the nations, without the nations being included in Israel’s covenants. In other words, “covenant” in the prophets is used to refer to Israel’s distinct role in relation to the world. “Covenant” is not a catch-all term to describe “salvific relationship with God”. This is consistent with use of the word “covenant” in the rest of the Bible, as we have seen and will see.

Except for Isaiah 40–66, the eighth century prophets tend not to refer explicitly to Yahweh’s covenant with Israel, even though their message seems to be premised on its existence (e.g. Hos 6:7, 8:1).[1] However, with the exile of national Israel, the prophets begin to refocus on God’s international purposes and look beyond the exile to the “last days”. Here the two-fold covenantal structure of God’s relationship with Israel (nationhood followed by international blessing) re-emerges in a familiar yet also strikingly new form.

Isaiah chapter 40ff speaks about Israel’s restoration, but the ultimate grounds of the restoration is God’s sovereignty as creator and judge (40:27–28)—Israel’s restoration as God’s “people” is both for the sake of God’s special relationship with her (e.g. Isa 43:1–7) and for the sake of the whole world being set to rights, idolatry judged, and “justice” being established in the nations (chapter 41). Historical Israel had not lived up to its calling—it had sinned, and so Israel as a geopolitical entity was blotted out (43:22–28). However, the hope for the nation of Israel and for the other nations comes through an enigmatic “servant” figure. He is given by God as “a covenant [for the] people, a light [for the] nations” (לִבְרִית עָם לְאוֹר גּוֹיִם, Isa 42:6). The two-fold structure of the Abrahamic covenants is evident here: the covenant with the one people will mean blessing and light for all nations.

The servant thus embodies the covenant and perpetuates it for the true “Israel”, who are to recognize that the covenant with whatever Israel may be on view in this context has its point of final reference in its wider application to the nations.[2]

In Isaiah 49:3, the servant is identified with Israel. Yet it is not the “Israel” that was originally called “Israel” (48:1), i.e. geopolitical Israel. The old geopolitical Israel has failed to obey God’s commands, forfeiting any claim to be heirs of the Abrahamic covenant (48:17–18). This new “Servant Israel” is one who will bring national Israel back to God. He will also fulfil the covenant of international blessing by being a “light to the nations”, bringing salvation to the ends of the earth (49:6). Although he will be despised and abhorred by the nation (49:7), God will make him “a covenant for the people”; one who will fulfil the Abrahamic covenant of land (Isa 49:8, cf. Gen 15). Here again we see the twofold structure of the Abrahamic covenants: the servant will fulfil the covenant of land (49:8) so that the promise of international blessing will come about (49:6).

However, there is no indication in Isaiah that the vast mass of saved and worshipping Gentiles are to be “included” in the covenant, or to “enter” the covenant.[3] They don’t need to be! The servant figure is depicted as the one who fulfils the covenants, who brings God’s purposes of nationhood and international blessing to completion. In Isaiah 52:13–53:12, the Servant becomes a vicarious sacrifice for the sins of the people. The outcome of the Servant’s sacrifice is that the covenantal promises associated with Noah, Abraham, Israel and David are fulfilled (Isa 54–55).[4]

Nevertheless, the new “Israel” has a further covenantal role to play in bringing about international blessing. Every individual member of Israel without exception is unrighteous, and must repent and trust in the LORD’s redeemer (Isa 56–59, esp. 59:16–21, cf. Rom 3:10–18). Once Israel is redeemed from this universal depravity, God makes an “everlasting covenant” of ministry with them (Isa 59:20, Isa 61:8). Israel and her seed will be God’s Spirit-empowered mouthpiece (Isa 59:20–21). Nations and kings will come to their light (Isa 60:2, cf. Gen 17:6). They will be a nation of priests, receiving the wealth of the nations as their payment (Isa 60:3–22; 61:6, 8, cf. Exod 19:5). These covenantal promises are ratified by a solemn oath (Isa 62:8–9). Israel’s “priestly” role, however, is now entirely declaratory. The reconstituted Israel does not bring salvation by teaching the law or by providing atonement, but by evangelism (Isa 61:1). Hence “[t]heir seed will be known in the nations and their descendants in the midst of the peoples; all who see them shall recognise that they are seed that YHWH has blessed” (Isa 61:9). Israel has a glorious ministry to the nations that exceeds the glory of Moses’ mediatorial ministry: Israel is “clothed with the garments of salvation” (Isa 61:10–11); they are a “crown of beauty in the hand of [their] God” (Isa 62:2–3). This is in stark contrast to the mediatorial ministry of Moses, who was clothed with a veil to hide God’s glory from the sinful people (Exod 34:33–35).

The nations, then, are called, not to “get in” to the covenant as if they, too, could bring about international blessing, but rather to partake in the blessing that has already been won by the servant’s fulfilment of the covenants, proclaimed by the Spirit-enabled covenant ministers. The nations are to be ruled by Israel’s king (Isa 55:4) and drawn to Israel’s glory (60:1–4). This international blessing is spoken of in the grandest cosmic terms in Isaiah 65–66. There will be a “new heavens and a new earth” in which a new Jerusalem is the centre of a new creation (65:17–25). This new Jerusalem is a woman who brings forth children (66:8), the glory of the nations flows to her (66:12) and God’s glorious name is proclaimed among the nations (66:19). The result is that all flesh will come and worship before the LORD in the new Jerusalem (66:23).

Jeremiah, too, looks forward to an eschatological covenant with Israel with international implications. The book of Jeremiah as a whole is set in the context of international blessing and judgment (1:5, 3:14–18).[5] Jeremiah censures the people for breaking Yahweh’s sworn covenant with their fathers (Jer 11:2–10).[6] In chapters 1–20 Judah has lost her distinction from the nations, standing with the nations under God’s judgment (9:25–26, 18:5–12).[7] Israel is no longer a kingdom of priests or a holy nation (Exod 19:6). The question of how God will bring about international blessing through Abraham’s seed is answered, however, by the new covenant that God will make “after those days” (Jer 31:31–34). God promises here that he will once again write his law on Israel’s hearts (cf. Deut 30:11–14); that he will once again be their God and they his people (cf. Deut 29:13); that knowledge of God will be universal amongst his people; and that he will forgive their sins. International blessing is implicitly linked to the hope of the restored Israel (Jer 31:10).[8] The associated covenants of kingship and ministry also continue (Jer 33:20–22). Once again, however, it would be misleading to speak of the nations being “included” in the covenant.[9] What the Gentiles receive in Jeremiah is not “inclusion” in the covenant, but all the blessings of salvation and forgiveness (via repentance) that flow to them because God has fulfilled his covenant with Israel.

Ezekiel, too, looks forward to a time when God’s covenant with Israel will be renewed, resulting in international blessing. The re-establishment of national unity (Ezek 37:15–22), obedience (Ezek 37:23) and kingship (Ezek 37:24) leads to a “covenant of peace” with Israel which (like Genesis 15) involves land, numerous descendants and Israel’s designation as “God’s people” (Ezek 37:25–27). This leads to knowledge of Yahweh in the nations (Ezek 37:28), first through judgment (Ezek 38–39) and then (more implicitly) in glorious blessing (Ezek 47:8–12, cf. Rev 22:1–2).

Hence the two-fold covenantal structure of God’s relationship with Israel is affirmed, not collapsed, by the prophets. The new covenants that the prophets look forward to are new “elected relationships of obligation under oath” between God and a reconstituted Israel, in which Israel’s obedience to specific obligations will result in blessing for all the nations. Isaiah, in particular, spells out Servant Israel’s obligations in detail: suffering sacrifice (e.g. Isa 49:7–8) and gospel proclamation (e.g. Isa 59:21).

[1] Nicholson, God and his People, 115.

[2] Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 193.

^{^[3]} There are, admittedly, proselytes and eunuchs (“outcasts of Israel”, Isa 56:8a) who will gain full access to the Sinai covenant in its historical form (Isa 56:1–8). Luke seems to see this fulfilled in the cleansed Samaritan lepers (Luke 17:11–19) and the temple-worshipping Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:27–40). But this inclusion of physical outcasts into the historical structures of national Israel, while significant, is only the historical precursor to a greater event: the blessing of the Gentiles apart from the historical structures of Israel (Acts 10–11, cf. Isa 56:8b).

[4] Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 194–96.

[5] Andrew G. Shead, “The New Covenant and Pauline Hermeneutics”, in The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission (ed. Peter Bolt & Mark Thompson; Leicester: Apollos, 2000), 33–49 (34).

[6] Weinfeld, TDOT 2:277.

[7] Shead, “New Covenant”, 35.

[8] Shead, “New Covenant”, 43.

[9] Pace Shead, “New Covenant”, 42–43.

Two kinds of covenant at Sinai: law and mediation

Lionel — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:50:27 +0000

Just as there are two distinct but related covenants described in Genesis 12-22, so also there are two distinct but related covenants stemming from the events at Sinai. Firstly, there is the well-known covenant of law, which is a covenant between God and Israel. But the word “covenant” is also used to speak of another kind of covenant between God and particular people within Israel: a covenant of mediation. This second covenant is less well-recognised today, but still quite important for the development of the “covenant” concept in the Old Testament.

(This post is part of a series. See here for an introduction to the series.)

Exodus-Deuteronomy describes the two-fold outworking of the covenants with Abraham in the life of Abraham’s national “seed”: Israel. The numerical growth of Israel (Exod 1:6–10), their deliverance from Egypt and the subsequent capture of Canaan fulfils the promise of “nationhood” held out in the unilateral covenant of Genesis 15 (esp. Gen 15:13–14, 18–21).[1] Through Moses, God brings his newborn nation to Sinai (Exod 19:4, cf. Gen 15:14) and makes a bilateral covenant with them (Exod 19:5–6, cf Gen 17:1–2). As with Abraham, Israel is obliged to obey God’s voice (Exod 19:5, cf. Gen 22:18) and keep his covenant (Exod 19:5. cf. Gen 17:9). If they do this, then they, like Abraham, will be a source of international blessing: they will be a special possession, a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation, for the sake of the whole earth which is God’s possession (Exod 19:5b–6a, cf. Gen 17:4–5, 16, 18:18–19). The subsequent chapters show that the content of the covenant is, in fact, various laws and rules whose primary intention appears to be to reveal the character of God to the surrounding nations (Exod 20–23).[2] The covenant is ratified with a solemn oath of allegiance and a blood-throwing rite (Exod 24:3–8), followed by a covenant meal (Exod 24:9–11).[3]

But even at her very foundation, Israel is tragically bereft of the requisite loyalty and obedience displayed by Abraham (cf. Gen 17:1, 22:15–18). This is seen graphically in the national apostasy during the golden calf episode (Exod 32–33), where “[e]ven as Moses is receiving the covenant stipulations, the Israelites are breaking them”.[4] The people have broken God’s covenant, so Moses breaks the written record of that covenant (Exod 32:19).[5] The “disastrous word” (Exod 33:4), therefore, is that although God will fulfil his unilateral covenant to give them the land (Exod 33:1–2, cf. Gen 15), God himself will not go with them to be their God, because the covenant of Genesis 17 has been broken (Exod 33:3, cf. Gen 17:7–8).

It is at this point that Moses steps in as the mediator of the covenant. Moses is one with whom God meets face to face, separate from Israel (Exod 33:7–11). In contrast to the rest of the nation, Moses is a “seed” of Abraham through whom God could re-establish his covenant—he has found favour in God’s eyes and God knows him by name (Exod 33:12). But Moses pleads to God in favour of the nation (Exod 33:13). He reasons that God’s purpose of international blessing will not come about unless God actually goes with this nation (Exod 33:16, cf. Exod 32:11–13). God agrees, because Moses has indeed found favour in his sight (Exod 33:17). So the covenant with Israel is renewed; new tablets are carved in stone and the law is reiterated (Exod 34:10–26).[6] However, the renewed covenant with Israel is an indirect, mediated relationship, contingent upon God’s gracious relationship with Moses (Exod 34:10). God’s covenant with Israel is now based upon his relationship with Moses: “I have made a covenant with you, and with Israel” (כָּרַתִּי אִתְּךָ בְּרִית וְאֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל) (Exod 34:27). Moses has a direct experience of God’s glory (Exod 34:29)—that is, his compassionate and gracious nature (Exod 33:18–19)—but God’s glory is veiled to Israel (Exod 34:33–35).[7]

It appears that this implicit “covenant of mediation” with Moses was inherited by the Levitical priesthood. In the Sinai narrative, the Levites provided the bloody sacrifice of atonement that turned away God’s wrath from his people between the Golden Calf apostasy and Moses’ intercession with God, and so they were “ordained” for service and blessing (Exod 32:25–29, cf. Exod 32:30). Later, Phinehas received a “covenant of peace” for providing atonement in the same way (Num 25:11–13), which is probably a special case of the Levitical covenant.[8] Later prophets can refer to this covenant of mediation as “the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites” (Neh 13:28), “my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers” (Jer 33:21), and “my covenant with Levi” (Mal 2:4).[9] From the context of this last quotation, we may infer that the obligations of the “covenant with Levi” involved offering sacrifices (Mal 1) and teaching the law (e.g. Mal 2:7).

The Golden Calf incident highlights the dark underside of the covenantal relationship between God and Israel. If the covenant with Israel was intended to bring blessing to all the families of the earth (אְַדָמָה, Gen 12:3), we must not forget that what originally prompted the need for this covenant in the first place was the pre-covenantal curse (ארר) brought on by Adam’s sin (Gen 3:17). Under this curse, all humanity (אָדָם) must return to the earth (אְַדָמָה) in death (Gen 3:19). Thus Israel’s failure to bring blessing through obedience naturally brought home to them in a special way the general curse on humanity for disobedience (Exod 32:33–35).[10] The atoning priestly ministry prevented total destruction of the nation. However, Deuteronomy warned of the day when the sin of the people with whom God had made the covenant would be reckoned. The nation itself was instructed to proclaim the covenant curses, climaxing with the great covenantal curse: “Cursed (אָרוּר) be anyone who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them” (Deut 27:26). A number of significant passages in Deuteronomy point to Israel’s inability to be a faithful covenant partner (1:26–46, chs. 9–10, 11:26–32, ch. 28). Deuteronomy finally predicts the curse of the exile, followed by a future restoration on the horizon (Deut 29–30).[11]

[1] Williamson, “Covenant”, 150.

[2] Williamson, “Covenant”, 150–51 (151).

[3] Williamson, “Covenant”, 151.

[4] Williamson, “Covenant”, 152.

[5] Weinfeld, TDOT 2:276.

[6] Weinfeld, TDOT 2:276.

[7] William J. Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old Testament (Moore Theological College Lectures 1983; Homebush West, NSW, Australia: Lancer, 1985), 109.

[8] Williamson, “Covenant”, 152.

[9] Williamson, “Covenant”, 152.

[10] Williamson, “Covenant”, 152.

[11] J. Gordon McConville, Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 133–39.

Full bibliography

What is the significance of circumcision in Genesis?

Lionel — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:30:36 +0000

Why did God give circumcision to Abraham (Gen 17:9–14)? What is it for? It’s not very useful as a “boundary marker” or “badge of membership”, because under most circumstances people can’t tell whether you’ve been circumcised! Furthermore, lots of other ancient peoples practiced circumcision. Can we discern why circumcision is commanded in the story of Abraham?

(This post is part of a series. See here for an introduction to the series.)

We’ve seen the way that Genesis 12-22 describes two distinct but related covenants. God gives Abraham a two-fold set of promises involving, firstly, nationhood (land and seed, inheritance and heir, Gen 12:1–2c) and, secondly, international blessing (Gen 12:2d–3). Abraham’s faith in the promise of seed (Gen 15:6) is the basis for a covenantal commitment by God to give the land to Abraham (Gen 15:7–21). Abraham’s loyalty (Gen 17:1), displayed in his willingness to trust God even to the point of sacrificing the seed of the promise, is the basis for a covenantal commitment by God to bless all nations through Abraham and his great, numerous seed (Gen 17, Gen 22:15–18). Abraham’s children after him must also follow in the footsteps of Abraham’s faith and loyalty in order for international blessing to be accomplished (Gen 18:18–19).[1] The constantly recurring question in the whole of Genesis-Kings is the question of the identity of the “seed” who will mediate international blessing, especially in the light of the recurring failure of the majority of Abraham’s physical descendants (e.g. 2 Kgs 17:20, “And Yahweh rejected the whole seed of Israel”).[2] The focus narrows down onto a “royal” seed, one from the line of David, for whom God will establish an “everlasting kingdom” (2 Sam 7).

God’s command for Abraham and his descendants to be circumcised occurs in the description of the second of these covenants (Genesis 17).

Circumcision itself is not a major feature in the Old Testament; it is assumed as an obligation for Abraham’s descendants and those in their household (Gen 21:1–4; 34:13–30; Exod 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:1–9, cf. Judg 14:3, 15:18; 1 Sam 14:6, 17:26, 17:36, 31:4; 2 Sam 1:20; 1 Chr 10:4; Isa 52:1; Ezek 28:10, 31:18, 32:19–32, 44:7–9), required to avoid curse and death (Exod 4:22–26), often internalized (Exod 6:12; Lev 26:40–43; Deut 10:16; Deut 30:5–6; Jer 4:4, 6:10, 9:25–26; Hab 2:16), but seldom explained. Yet Paul deals with circumcision with some frequency and at some length (Rom 2:25–29, 3:1, 3:30, 4:9–12, 15:8; 1 Cor 7:18–19; Gal 2, 5, 6; Eph 2:11; Phil 3:3–5; Col 2:11–13, 3:11, 4:11; Tit 1:10). How is the “covenant” of circumcision in Genesis 17 related to the covenant of international blessing described in the rest of the chapter? Some would see them as two entirely separate covenants.[3] However, it seems best to assume with Hugenberger that בְּרִית in Gen 17:9, 13 is shorthand for a specific obligation (Gen 17:10) or sign (Gen 17:11) within the covenant of Genesis 17.[4]

But is circumcision simply an ethnic “boundary marker” or “badge”,[5] or does it actually signify something? It is not, in fact, particularly useful as a “boundary marker”, for many of Israel’s ANE neighbours also practiced circumcision.[6] Moreover, circumcision is invisible under normal circumstances. But neither does circumcision seem to be a proof or symbol of God’s activity, or a sign to remind God of his obligations (cf. Gen 9:16–17). It seems to be a sign for the sake of the one circumcised.[7] Williamson suggests that circumcision reminds the Israelites to “walk before God and be blameless (תָּמִים, whole)”.[8] Yet it is difficult to see how cutting off a part of one’s body would remind one to “be whole”. Goldingay sees the significance of circumcision in “disciplining of (especially male) procreation” (an interpretation also found in Paul’s contemporary Philo).[9]

The narrative context of Genesis 17 may shed light on this question. Given chapter 16 and 17:17–18, circumcision may be a symbolic means to perpetually restrain Abraham’s desire to achieve God’s purposes through his own effort (i.e. his “flesh”). God commands Abraham and his seed to “cut” the very instrument that Abraham had used to try to fulfil the Genesis 15 promise of seed by begetting Ishmael through Hagar (Chapter 16). Abraham had thought that Ishmael (the result of his own effort) was to be the seed (17:17–18). But God, while promising international blessing through Abraham’s blameless walk (17:1) simultaneously restrains Abraham’s natural inclination to achieve God’s purposes by himself. Thus the purpose of the covenant of circumcision is to remind Abraham that God will make a name for him (Gen 12:2; 17:5); he is not to make a name for himself (cf. Gen 11:4). It also reminds Abraham’s seed of the danger of being “cut off” (כרת) if they should break this covenant (Gen 17:14). Hence circumcision is both a sign and warning of fleshly weakness and a stimulus to faith in the God who can achieve his purposes despite the odds (cf. Rom 4:11–12, 17–19).

[1] Williamson, Abraham, 182.

[2] Williamson, Abraham, 253–58.

[3] E.g. Thomas E. McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants (Nottingham: IVP, 1985), 146–50; see also Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis Chapters 15–20 (ed. Jaroslav Pelikan; trans. George V. Schick; LW 3; Saint Louis: Concordia, 1961), 162–63.

[4] Hugenberger, Marriage, 174; see Williamson, Abraham, 149.

[5] So N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (London: T & T Clark, 1991), 3.

[6] Williamson, Abraham, 176–81.

[7] Williamson, Abraham, 176–81.

[8] Williamson, Abraham, 180–81.

[9] John Goldingay, “The Significance of Circumcision”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 88 (2000): 3–18.

Full bibliography

The two covenants with Abraham – part 2 (Genesis 15, 17 and 22)

Lionel — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:52:02 +0000

In the previous post we saw how Genesis 12:1-3 makes two distinct but related sets of promises. The first set of promises involves blessing to Abraham (Gen 12:1-2c). The second set of promises involves blessing through Abraham to the world (Gen 12:2d-3). Following Paul Williamson’s analysis, we will now see how these two sets of promises issue in two distinct but related covenants in the rest of the Abraham story.

(This post is part of a series. See here for an introduction to the series.)

Genesis 15 and 17 describe two distinct but related covenants (i.e. “elected relationships of obligation under oath”) based on the two sets of promises in Gen 12:1–3. The first covenant (Gen 15) is related to nationhood (heirs and inheritance) without any explicit mention of international blessing, while the second (Gen 17, which is dependent upon the fulfilment of the first) is related to the international significance of Abraham and his seed.[1] Apart from the obvious (but often overlooked) fact that the two covenants are separated both in time (by at least 13 years, cf. Gen 15:2, 16:16, 17:1) and in the story of Genesis (by the obvious fact that chapter 16 occurs in between chapters 15 and 17), there are numerous other significant differences between chapters 15 and 17.[2] The chapters have different structures,[3] and describe different rituals. Genesis 15 is a unilateral covenant,[4] while Genesis 17 describes bilateral commitments. Genesis 15 describes a temporal covenant, fulfilled once the nation had taken possession of the land, whilst Genesis 17 describes an enduring covenant (עוֹלָם Gen 17:7). There is a shift in focus from the single nation (Gen 15) to the multitude of nations (Gen 17). The “nation” (i.e. Abraham and his seed) is the result of the Genesis 15 covenant but the partner in the Genesis 17 covenant. This is paralleled by the name change from Abram to Abraham (Gen 17:5). There are two distinct covenantal oaths: the oath of the Genesis 15 covenant (see Gen 24:7),[5] and the oath of the Genesis 17 covenant in Gen 22:16–18 (see below).[6]

The covenants do not stand alone, but are integrated into a story that focuses on Abraham’s faith and loyalty. There is a causal connection (sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit) between Abraham’s faith and loyalty, and the making of the covenants. In chapter 15, God makes a promise of abundant seed to Abram despite Abram’s childlessness (Gen 15:1–5). Abram believes God, and this is accounted as righteousness (Gen 15:6). Then God makes a unilateral covenant of land (inheritance) with Abram (Gen 15:7–21).[7] There is also an explicit connection between Abraham’s loyalty to God and the establishment of the Genesis 17 covenant:

When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly”. (Gen 17:1–2 ESV)

“Walking before” the LORD and “being blameless” means primarily loyalty and devotion to God. It is the moral prerequisite for the establishment of the eternal covenant between God and Abraham.[8] This covenant is that God will make Abraham the father of a multitude of nations (Gen 17:4–7). Whilst this covenant encompasses the first covenant of physical seed and inheritance (Gen 17:8), it goes far beyond it.

[T]he central promise in Genesis 17 closely relates to Abraham’s phenomenal expansion in a multinational sphere. Abraham will be a ‘father’ to this international company, not in the sense of being their progenitor, but rather through his special status and the particular responsibilities that he will discharge on their behalf.[9]

God will make a covenant to bless all nations through Abraham and his physical seed, provided Abraham is loyal to God.

In the “Aqedah” (“binding”) incident (Gen 22:1–13), Abraham fulfilled the conditions of loyalty by not withholding his “only son”. Abraham showed his willingness to sacrifice the very “seed” that was the basis for the promises. This was a display of supreme loyalty to God—an outworking of Abraham’s faith in the One who could fulfil His promises despite overwhelming odds.[10] Once Abraham had displayed the necessary blameless walk before God, the covenant spoken of in the future tense in Genesis 17 is ratified by a solemn oath and becomes a reality (Gen 22:15–18, cf. 26:4b–5). Even though the seed is not, in the end, sacrificed, a sacrifice is still an important factor in the ratification of this covenant (Gen 22:13-14). The God who ratifies the covenant by oath is the same God who has just provided a sacrifice.

[1] Williamson, Abraham, 99–113.

[2] Williamson, Abraham, 99–113.

[3] Williamson, Abraham, 113–19.

[4] see further Williamson, Abraham, 135–40.

[5] Williamson, Abraham, 139–40.

[6] Williamson, Abraham, 234–53.

[7] Williamson, Abraham, 124.

[8] Williamson, Abraham, 174–76.

[9] Williamson, Abraham, 157–66 (166).

[10] Williamson, Abraham, 234–58.

Full bibliography

The two covenants with Abraham – Part 1 (Genesis 12)

Lionel — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:30:37 +0000

This post, and the next few posts, will examine the way that the word “covenant” (בְּרִית) features in Genesis 12–22, which one of the key foundational texts for Galatians 3.

(This post is part of a series. See here for an introduction to the series.)

It is common to speak of “the Abrahamic covenant”. However, if Genesis 12-22 is read seriously as a single narrative whole, it is clear that two different covenants are being described in the story of Abraham.

Some scholars believe that the two covenant descriptions are simply different versions of the same covenant that have undergone different textual histories. Weinfeld sees a single covenant with Abraham throughout Genesis 12–22, which was originally unilateral, without any human obligation (Gen 13:15).[1] According to Weinfeld, the exile forced Israel to reinterpret the promises, adding conditional elements that are reflected in later accretions to the story (e.g. Gen 22, 26:5).[2]

It is unlikely that Paul himself would have identified such “early” and “late” elements in the text. Rather, he would have read Genesis as an integrated narrative whole. Hence, for our purposes, the most helpful analyses of the Abraham story are those that take its final form seriously. We will largely follow Williamson’s detailed synchronic reading of the Abraham narrative.[3]

The Abraham story occurs in the context of universal human need. God’s creation of the world and his “blessing” of all humanity (Gen 1–2) has seemingly been negated by human disobedience which called forth a “curse” (Gen 3). As disobedience reaches its full measure, God regrets his creation of humanity (Gen 6:6) and sends a flood in a great act of “uncreation” followed by “recreation”.[4] God then makes a covenant (Gen 9:8–17) with the humans and animals who survive the flood. This covenant affirms God’s choice to maintain his original creational intent despite humanity’s continued sinfulness (Gen 8:21–22).[5] The Babel incident, where humanity attempts to build a tower that reaches to the heavens in order to make a “name” for itself (Gen 11:4) but is thwarted by God (Gen 11:6–7), shows decisively that this will not be achieved by independent human effort. Genesis 11 ends with humanity, composed of various “nations” (Gen 10), dispersed across the earth and confused (Gen 11:9). The story of Abraham is God’s answer to how he will fulfil his covenant in the face of human sin and the curse on creation.

Williamson describes a narrative arc in Genesis 12–22 that begins with a twofold set of promises from God to Abram (Gen 12:1–3), includes the details of two related but distinct covenants based on these promises (Gen 15, 17),[6] and concludes with a solemn oath of ratification (Gen 22:16–18).[7] The two distinct promises (Gen 12:1–3) are, firstly, nationhood (Gen 12:1–2c), and secondly, international blessing (Gen 12:2d–3). The first promise is a geopolitical promise to Abram: a promise of land and descendants (together constituting nationhood) that will give Abram a great “name”. The second promise is a universal promise through Abram: that in him all the families of the earth will be blessed. The second promise is clearly based upon the first, but even so it is quite distinct.

Even though there is a clear connection between the blessing promised to Abraham [12:1–2c] and the blessing promised through Abraham [12:2d–3], a failure to demarcate these two prospects unfortunately obscures the meaning of this programmatic text in the Abraham narrative.[8]

To be continued …

[1] Weinfeld, TDOT 2:270.

[2] Weinfeld, TDOT 2:270–72.

[3] Paul R. Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations: The Patriarchal Promise and its Covenantal Development in Genesis (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 315; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).

[4] Williamson, “Covenant”, 139.

[5] Williamson, “Covenant”, 140.

[6] Williamson, Abraham, 220–34. See pages 188–216 for a detailed defence of both continuity and discontinuity between the two covenents.

[7] Williamson, Abraham, 217–59.

[8] Williamson, Abraham, 230, emphasis mine.

Full bibliography

What’s the precise meaning of the word ‘covenant’ in the Old Testament?

Lionel — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:19:38 +0000

The word “covenant” in the Old Testament has a precise and consistent meaning. It doesn’t just mean ‘relationship’, as is commonly assumed today. Rather, “covenant” refers to a very specific type of relationship. The best definition of the word, which accounts for all of its uses in the Bible, is as follows:

Covenant = an elected, as opposed to natural, relationship of obligation under oath.

Here is a brief summary of some scholarly work on the definition of the word.

(This post is part of a series. See here for an introduction to the series.)

For more than a century, there has been a scholarly debate over the precise meaning of the Hebrew word בְּרִית (“covenant”). We can summarise the discussion according to four axes: “obligation”, “solemnity”, “relationship” and (more recently) “election”.[1] Each of these axes has been emphasised to a greater or lesser extent in the scholarship under review here.

Earlier understandings tended to play the first three axes off against each other. Wellhausen, Kittel and Gressman viewed a covenant as essentially a set of obligations (usually reciprocal).[2] For Kraetzschmar (1896), it was a means of solemnising such obligations.[3] Pedersen (1914) saw the covenant more as a relationship, with ensuing obligations.[4] This view became somewhat influential, but was seriously challenged by Kutsch’s Verheißung und Gesetz (1973). Kutsch argued that בְּרִית always means “obligation” or “duty”, and does not denote the making of a relationship as such.[5] While בְּרִית can mean “treaty” when used of covenants among humans (i.e. a bilateral acceptance of obligations),[6] when used of Yahweh, בְּרִית never means “agreement” but only unilateral obligation, either self-imposed by Yahweh (a covenant of grace), or imposed by Yahweh on the people (a covenant of law).[7] Kutsch’s view influenced Weinfeld,[8] although Weinfeld also highlights the significance of the common hendiadys between “covenant” and “oath” (i.e. solemnisation).[9]

Barr sought to bring some order to the discussion by calling for the application of functional semantics. For Barr, בְּרִית can be used for a wide range of concepts (expressed in English by various words such as “agreement”, “treaty”, “contract”, “promise”, “obligation”), with solemnity perhaps being the common factor.[10] However, בְּרִית is remarkably restricted in the contexts in which it may occur.[11] A בְּרִית may be made, kept, broken, left, remembered or forgotten; it has certain material or visible signs such as the ark, the book, the tablets and the blood; and it is usually “forever”. That is about all the Biblical writers do with the word.[12] Nobody ever counts or numbers covenants. Nobody ever loves, meditates upon or rejoices in a covenant (except in the later Qumran literature). Nobody ever recounts or retells a covenant, as they do God’s other mighty acts and words. In the light of the New Perspective, we might add here that nobody in the Bible ever “gets in” or “stays in” a covenant either.[13]

Dumbrell, returning to an older view but modifying it somewhat, sees the relational factor in a covenant as foundational and pervasive. He argues that a covenant does not initiate a relationship. Rather “[w]hat the covenant does is formalize and give concrete expression to a set of existing arrangements [. . . T]he covenant will give firm quasi-legal backing to an arrangement which is already in existence”.[14] In other words, a covenant ceremony adds obligation and solemnity to a pre-existing “covenantal” relationship. He cites the various “human” covenants (Gen 21:22–32, 26:26–33; Josh 9; 1 Sam 11:1–3, 18:3; 2 Sam 3:12–21, 5:1–3; 1 Kgs 20:31–34; 2 Kgs 11:17) as examples. On this basis he posits a “covenant with creation” that exists prior to its formalisation with Noah.[15] This would seem to provide a licence for Dumbrell to conceive the whole of reality in covenantal terms.

The problem with Dumbrell’s view is that it replaces the specific biblical usage of the word “covenant” with a more wide-ranging meaning that could, in theory, cover any kind of relationship. It cannot, of course, be disputed that when a covenant is made between two parties, there is some prior “relationship” between these two parties (how or why would two complete strangers spontaneously make a covenant?). However, covenants achieve much more than merely “legalising” existing sets of relationships. For example, the covenant between Joshua and the Gibeonites (Josh 9:15–20) does not merely formalise a pre-existing relationship, it creates a new relationship of peace where previously there had been enmity, even if that enmity was hidden when the covenant was made. Hence “covenant” is not simply synonymous with “relationship”; a covenant is a specific type of relationship.

Hugenberger provides a comprehensive and integrated inductive definition of בְּרִית in his defence of the “covenantal” nature of Old Testament marriage. Decrying “the now discredited notion that ‘covenant [בְּרִית]’ is essentially a synonym for ‘relationship’”,[16] Hugenberger maintains that there is now a “substantial scholarly consensus” about “the major elements which typically comprise a covenant”. His working definition of a בְּרִית in its normal sense is “an elected, as opposed to natural, relationship of obligation under oath”.[17] This definition of “covenant” is not apriori, but comes from a careful examination of the occurrences of the word in their ot context. We have good reason, therefore, to adopt it as our working definition.

A covenant is elected because it is always entered into by choice rather than necessity. Hence “בְּרִית is nowhere employed of naturally occurring relationships and the ordinary obligations which attend them, such as those which exist between parents and a child”.[18] A covenant is relational because it always involves two parties.[19] This explains the common use of familial terminology to describe a covenant, even though the parties previously had no kinship bond.[20] But a covenant is not just any type of relationship; it is specifically a relationship of obligation, because it always binds one or both of the parties to certain specified duties.[21] Finally, a covenant is always solemnified by an oath or oath-sign (e.g. a solemn rite).[22] In fact, בְּרִית may be used as a shorthand for אוֹת בְּרִית, “covenantal sign” (e.g. circumcision, Gen 17:9–14).[23]

[1] Based on Gordon P. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law & Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (Vetus Testamentum Supplements; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), 11.

[2] Ernest W. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), 13.

[3] Nicholson, God and his People, 16.

[4] Nicholson, God and his People, 18–20.

[5] Nicholson, God and his People, 90.

[6] Nicholson, God and his People, 91–92.

[7] Nicholson, God and his People, 106–8.

[8] M. Weinfeld, בְּרִית”, TDOT 2:253–79 (esp. 255). See also H. Hegermann, “διαθήκη”, EDNT 1:299.

[9] Weinfeld, TDOT 2:256.

[10] James Barr, “Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant”, in Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 23–38 (31).

[11] Barr, “Semantic Notes”, 33.

[12] Barr, “Semantic Notes”, 34.

[13] This language comes from Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 17.

[14] William J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: An Old Testament Covenantal Theology (Exeter: Paternoster, 1984), 16–20.

^{^[15]} Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 22–26. Dumbrell also employs a semantic argument, distinguishing the perpetuation (הֵקִים) of a covenant relationship from its establishment (כָּרַת). The appropriateness of this distinction had earlier been questioned by Barr, “Semantic Notes”, 33. Paul R. Williamson, “Covenant”, in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (ed. T. Desmond Alexander, David W. Baker; Downers Grove: IVP, 2003), 139–55 (142–43) demonstrates the semantic weakness of Dumbrell’s case.

[16] Hugenberger, Marriage, 4.

[17] Hugenberger, Marriage, 11, emphasis mine.

[18] Hugenberger, Marriage, 180; see also Nicholson, God and his People, 215–16.

[19] Hugenberger, Marriage, 176.

[20] Hugenberger, Marriage, 177–79.

[21] Hugenberger, Marriage, 181. According to Hugenberger, there is some debate about whether a covenant can be entirely “unilateral”, such that only one of the two parties is under obligation; but Hugenberger’s own case is not affected by this debate because he is interested in marriage, which is always bilateral.

[22] Hugenberger, Marriage, 182–83.

[23] Hugenberger, Marriage, 173–74.

Full bibliography

Some important features of Paul’s use of the word ‘covenant’

Lionel — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:56:00 +0000

We’ve seen a couple of approaches to the task of detecting ‘covenant’ ideas in Paul. These approaches are, in the end, hopelessly subjective, because they start with an assumed definition of ‘covenant’ which is then read into Paul’s texts. A much better approach is to begin with Paul’s actual use of the word ‘covenant’ and see what he makes of it.

(This post is part of a series. See here for an introduction to the series.)

Here are some important features of Paul’s use of the word διαθήκη (Gal 3:15, 3:17, 4:24; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6, 14; Rom 9:4, 11:27; Eph 2:12).

Firstly, plurality is a significant feature in at least seven of the nine instances of διαθήκη in Paul. The plural form is used twice (Rom 9:4, Eph 2:12). In five of the instances, one covenant is compared or contrasted with another: a covenant ratified by God (Gal 3:15) has the same binding force as a human covenant (Gal 3:17); Sarah and Hagar are metaphorically two different covenants (Gal 4:24); Paul and Timothy are ministers of a new covenant (2 Cor 3:6), whereas there is a veil over the public reading of the old covenant (2 Cor 3:14). Furthermore, the word καινή (“new”) in reference to the covenant in Jesus’ blood (1 Cor 11:25) probably implies a previous covenant or covenants. Hence we should expect Paul’s concept of “covenant” to have some pluriformity.

Secondly, every instance of διαθήκη occurs in a context in which the Old Testament is unmistakeably on view. The Abraham narrative (Genesis 12–22) features prominently in ot citations in Galatians 3–4 (Gal 3:6 // Gen 15:6; Gal 3:8 // Gen 12:3, 18:18, 22:18, cf. 26:4; Gal 3:16 // Gen 13:15, 17:8; Gal 4:22 // Gen 16:15, 21:2; Gal 4:30 // Gen 21:10). Other relevant ot background includes the “covenant” of law given at Sinai (cf. Gal 4:24 with Exod 19:5), the stipulations and curses of this law (Gal 3:10 // Deut 27:26; Gal 3:12 // Lev 18:5; Gal 3:13 // Deut 21:23), the role of Moses as glorious mediator of the law (2 Cor 3:6–7, 14 // Exod 34:29–35), the covenant of priestly ministry (cf. 2 Cor 3:6 with Isa 61:5–9, Jer 33:20–22, Mal 2:4–9, Neh 13:29), the covenants of peace and redemption with the eschatological Israel / Jerusalem (Gal 4:26–27 // Isa 54:1, 10; Rom 11:27 // Isa 27:9, 59:21; cf. Isa 65–66), and the “new covenant” through which the law is written on the heart (2 Cor 3:6 // Jer 31:31–33, cf. 2 Cor 3:2–3). Also on view may be passages which describe a “covenant” in terms of blood or suffering (cf. 1 Cor 11:25 with Isa 49:7–8, Zech 9:11). More generally, the covenants are associated strongly with national Israel. The covenants belong to Israel “according to the flesh” (Rom 9:4) and are connected with “the commonwealth of Israel” (Eph 2:12).

Thirdly, Paul is particularly interested in the outcome of the covenants, especially insofar as they fulfil a promise or promises. There are covenants “of [the] promise” (Eph 2:12). An annulled covenant would invalidate the promise of inheritance (Gal 3:17–18). Two covenants are metaphorically mothers who “bear” children, either “into slavery” (Gal 4:24) or “of promise” (Gal 4:28). The ministry of the new covenant (2 Cor 3:6) results in life (verse 7) and righteousness (verse 9). Israel, who possesses the covenants (among other things) is the one from whom, according to the flesh, comes Christ who is God over all (Rom 9:4–5). The covenant with Israel results in salvation and the removal of sins (Rom 11:27). Negatively, being aliens with respect to the covenants of the promise means hopeless godlessness (Eph 2:12).

Fourthly, two of the instances associate covenants with Christ’s blood (i.e. his crucifixion). Jesus says that the cup is the new covenant “in my blood” (1 Cor 11:25, cf. Matt 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20). Those who were “aliens of the covenants of the promise” (Eph 2:12) are “brought near” by “Christ’s blood” (Eph 2:13) and are subsequently no longer “aliens” (Eph 2:19). This points to a connection between covenant and sacrifice.

Furthermore, contrary to the popular assumption that “covenant” is a corporate or ecclesiological word, Paul never uses διαθήκη as a designation for the people of God.^[1] He prefers terms such as “assembly” (e.g. 1 Cor 1:2, 2 Cor 1:1, Gal 1:2, Eph 1:22, 1 Thess 1:1, 2 Thess 1:1), “brothers” (Rom 1:13, 1 Cor 1:10, 2 Cor 1:8, Gal 1:11, Phil 1:12, Col 1:2, 1 Thess 1:4, 2 Thess 1:3, 1 Tim 4:6) and “saints” (Rom 1:7, 1 Cor 1:2, 2 Cor 1:1, Eph 1:1, Phil 1:1, Col 1:2, 1 Tim 5:10).

[1] Ellen J. Christiansen, The Covenant in Judaism & Paul: A Study of Ritual Boundaries as Identity Markers (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 27; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), 270.

Full bibliography

How should you look for ‘covenantal’ ideas in Paul?

Lionel — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:00:02 +0000

How do you look for ‘covenantal’ ideas in Paul when he only rarely uses the word ‘covenant’?

(This post is part of a series. See here for an introduction to the series.)

Of course, we must admit that “covenantal” concepts may be present in a Pauline passage without the word διαθήκη appearing. Porter, for example, suggests that a serious investigation of the “covenant” concept in Paul is needed. Such an investigation would go beyond naïve word studies and take account of the concept of “semantic domain”. A proper lexical study of “covenant” in Paul must take into account patterns of usage, synonyms, antonyms, syntactical patterns, literary types, situation and culture, etc.^[1] Porter adopts a particular definition of covenant: “the salvific relationship between God and his people”.^[2] On this basis, he suggests that we exclude instances where διαθήκη means “last will and testament” in the Hellenistic sense (Gal 3:15, possibly Gal 3:17; cf. Heb 9:15–17),^[3] and then examine other words that may be related to the concept of covenant, such as “mediator” (μεσίτης, Gal 3:19, 20),^[4] “promise” (ἐπαγγελ-, Gal 3, Rom 4:13, 16, 20, Rom 9:8, Eph 2:12),^[5] and “ministry” or “service” (διακον-, 2 Cor 3).^[6] Porter claims that the “righteousness” (δικ-) concept, too, overlaps significantly with the “covenant” concept by virtue of a shared concern with the relationship between God and people.^[7]

Porter is correct in warning that theological concepts cannot be restricted to the use of an individual lexical item. However, there is some stability in the sense of words, especially technical words, and so any overlap between word and concept must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. In this case, as we shall see, there is a strong connection between the Old Testament term בְּרִית. (almost exclusively translated διαθήκη in the LXX)^[8] and the biblical concept of the covenant, with which Paul would have been familiar.^[9] We shall also see that every instance of διαθήκη in the New Testament (including Gal 3:15) corresponds very closely with the ot word term בְּרִית / διαθήκη rather than the Hellenistic “last will and testament”. Hence an investigation of the uses of διαθήκη in Paul, although incomplete in itself, is the most logical starting point for a broader investigation of the covenant concept in his thought.

Furthermore, semantic domain analysis needs strict controls, because it can easily become too dependent upon the subjective judgments of those who perform the semantic mappings. Porter’s article itself is subject to this criticism. He adopts an apriori definition of “covenant” (“the salvific relationship between God and his people”)^[10] but shows no inclination to modify his definition in the light of his discoveries. Porter relies upon the Louw-Nida semantic domain lexicon, which groups the “covenantal” uses of διατίθεμαι (34.43) and διαθήκη (34.44) together with “justify” (δικαιόω 34.46), righteous (δίκαιος 34.47) and other words under the general topic “establish or confirm a relation” (34.42–34.49).^[11] Louw-Nida also explicitly denies a forensic element in the δικαι-* word-group, regarding relational (covenantal) and legal categories as mutually exclusive (34.46).^[12] But there are many questionable assumptions in these classifications. There are many different types of relationship. Just because covenants are “relational”, and righteousness is “relational”, it does not necessarily follow that righteousness is covenantal. Neither are forensic categories necessarily inimical to relationships. In fact, Seifrid’s careful analysis of the terminology suggests that “righteousness” is much more connected to “creational” categories of relationship than “covenantal”; that is, “righteousness” refers to a relationship with God as creator and judge, which implies both normative and forensic categories.^[13] While the semantic fields of “righteousness” and “covenant” may overlap at times in the Old Testament, New Testament and intertestamental literature, “righteousness” is a concept fundamentally distinct from “covenant”.^[14]. Hence Porter’s analysis collapses under the weight of his unexamined assumptions.

Dunn’s view of the covenant in Paul is even more subjective. He argues that every reference to the actual word διαθήκη in the Pauline corpus is incidental, even rhetorical. But because of Dunn’s prior convictions about the covenantal continuity between Christian believers and historical Israel, he insists that Paul’s whole discourse has an implicit underlying “covenant theology”.^[15] He explains this discrepancy by positing that the covenantal relationship between God and his people was a basic uncontroversial assumption shared by Paul and his opponents, so Paul usually had no need to mention the word “covenant”.^[16] This is not very helpful for those who do not share Dunn’s presuppositions.

[1] Porter, “Covenant in Paul”, 273.

[2] Porter, “Covenant in Paul”, 275.

[3] Porter, “Covenant in Paul”, 275–79.

[4] Porter, “Covenant in Paul”, 280–81; cf. J. Gurht, O. Becker, “Covenant, Guarantee, Mediator”, NIDNTT 1:365–76

[5] Porter, “Covenant in Paul”, 283–84.

[6] Porter, “Covenant in Paul”, 284.

[7] Porter, “Covenant in Paul”, 281–83.

[8] In Gen 14:13 בַּעַל בְּרִית (“covenant-partner’) is translated with συνωμότης (“confederate’). This is the only exception not due to textual variations (cf. Deut 9:15; 1 Sam 4:3-5; 1 Kgs 11:11, 19:10; 2 Kgs 17:15; Job 5:23; Jer 11:8; Ezek 20:37; 2 Chr 23:1).

[9] Moisés Silva, “Old Testament in Paul”, DPL 630–42.

[10] Porter, “Covenant in Paul”, 275.

[11] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene P. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (2 vols.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1988), 1:451–53.

[12] Porter, “Covenant in Paul”, 281–84.

[13] Mark A. Seifrid, “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism”, in Justification and Variegated Nomism Volume 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien and Mark A. Seifrid; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen, 2001), 415–42; Seifrid, “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language”. Porter “Covenant in Paul”, 282, quotes Seifrid, but confesses ignorance of Seifrid’s understanding of the connection (or lack thereof) between righteousness and covenant.

[14] Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 286–96.

[15] James D. G. Dunn, “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 (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C. R. de Roo; Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 71; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 287–307.

[16] See also E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of the Patterns of Religion (London: SCM, 1977), 420–21.

Full bibliography

What Saint Paul Rarely Said

Lionel — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:09:09 +0000

Being a Christian is about being in a relationship with God. Few people would deny this statement. But what, exactly, does this statement mean? What does a relationship with God look like? How does it operate? What is the nature of a Christian’s relationship with God?

The word “covenant” has often been used as an important, sometimes even central, category to describe a Christian’s relationship with God. The apostle Paul, in particular, has been thought of as a champion of the “covenantal” view of a relationship with God. A more traditional view, which won’t be discussed in detail here, makes much of the fact that Paul is a minister of a “new covenant” (2 Cor 3:6). The new covenant, according to this view, is discontinuous with the old covenant in some ways, but it is still a covenant, and it still retains the basic covenantal structure of relationship. The new covenant is similar to the old covenant in that God and Christians are “covenant partners” with well-specified obligations to one another. But, in contrast with the old covenant, the obedience and forgiveness of Christians is (or, at least, will be) perfect and complete under the new covenant by virtue of Christ’s perfect atoning sacrifice.^[1]

On the other hand, in recent decades the influential “New Perspective” on Paul has tended to emphasise the continuity between the old and new covenants.^[2] According to this perspective, the “covenantal” nature of a Christian’s relationship with God is derived from God’s covenant with geopolitical Israel, reinterpreted in the light of the Messiah’s appearance and work. N. T. Wright, for example, in his popular book What Saint Paul Really Said, advocates “a covenantal reading of Paul”.^[3] Wright takes biblical terms that describe the Christian’s relationship with God and ties them all together under the overarching theme of “covenant”.

For N.T. Wright, it is very important to maintain that the “covenant” is a corporate concept. Like the covenant with national Israel, the covenant in the New Testament puts the community first before the individual, and not vice versa.^[4] Our union with Christ by the Spirit, for example, is described by Wright as something “irrevocably covenantal”, which is virtually synonymous with “ecclesiological”.^[5] So too, justification is described repeatedly by Wright as a “definition” of covenant membership,^[6] “the covenant declaration, which will be issued on the last day, in which the true people of God will be vindicated”.^[7]

James Dunn also sees “covenant” as the unifying concept in Pauline theology, especially when it comes to justification.^[8]

It is not too far off the mark to declare that this “‘covenant romanticism’ [. . .] has captured the current study of Paul, in which ‘the covenant with Israel’ has become the unexamined basis for resolving all questions about his soteriology”.^[9]

There is, however, a serious problem, too often ignored by exponents of a covenantal theology in Paul. The word διαθήκη (“covenant”) occurs only nine times in all of Paul’s letters (Gal 3:15, 3:17, 4:24; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6, 14; Rom 9:4, 11:27; Eph 2:12). By contrast, the δικ- (“righteous” / “justification”) word group occurs 152 times.^[10] If, as Wright claims, covenantal theology is “what Saint Paul really said”, then why is “covenant” a term that Saint Paul so rarely said?

This post is part of a series. See here for an introduction to the series.

[1] E.g. Scott Hafemann, “The ‘Temple of the Spirit’ as the Inaugural Fulfillment of the New Covenant within the Corinthian Correspondence”, Ex Auditu 12 (1996): 29–42 (esp. 34–35).

[2] Stanley E. Porter, “The Concept of Covenant in Paul”, in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C. R. de Roo; Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 71; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 269–85 (here 269–71).

[3] N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Oxford: Lion, 1997), 132.

[4] Wright, Saint Paul, 117–18, 151–53, 160.

[5] Wright, Saint Paul, 121.

[6] Wright, Saint Paul, 119.

[7] Wright, Saint Paul, 131.

[8] James D. G. Dunn, “The Justice of God: A Renewed Perspective on Justification by Faith”, Journal of Theological Studies, NS 43/1 (1992): 1–22 (esp. 15–18).

[9] Mark A. Seifrid, “In What Sense Is ‘Justification’ a Declaration?”, Churchman 114 (2000): 123–36 (124).

[10] Mark A. Seifrid, “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language Against its Hellenistic Background”, in Justification and Variegated Nomism Volume 2: The Paradoxes of Paul (ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien and Mark A. Seifrid; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 39–74 (39).

Full bibliography