Download - ME Theo Final 3.0
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
1/98
Chapter 1:
Introduction and Survey of Current Perspectives
Introduction
Overwhelmingly, scholars tend to see the Old Testament Law primarily through the eyes
of Pauls seemingly negative statements, ignoring the blatantly positive and creating a lens
through which the continuity between the Old and New Testament is all but forgotten. It is the
purpose of this study to do just the opposite. After a thorough investigation of the original
purpose of the Law in the OT this study will explore the thesis that Paul, at the Damascus road
encounter of the risen Jesus, experienced a personal reformation in regards to his view of and
approach to the Law. Previous to this encounter, Paul viewed the OT Law through the lens of his
pharisaical training. But, due to the revelatory nature of his encounter with the risen son of God,
Paul now views and approaches the Law in line with its original OT purpose, the revelation of
Gods nature and character. God, the one and the same Yahweh of the OT, revealed his Son to
Paul creating continuity between the Jewish scriptures and Pauls current revelation of the risen
Messiah.
This introductory chapter will include a brief survey of five Pauline scholars (Sanders,
Westerholm, Bird, Nanos, and Beker) each carefully chosen for their uniquely influential
perspective on the topic of Paul and the Law.
Current Perspectives Concerning Paul and the Law
Sanders
In his bookPaul, the Law, and the Jewish People, Sanders paints the picture of a Jewish
Paul that struggles to rectify his revelatory encounter of the risen Jesus with his own theological
presuppositions (founded in his Second Temple worldview). In his pre-converted state, Paul
1
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
2/98
believed that the Law (along with election) was the key aspect of God's plan for salvation. He
was in a situation which requires him to cast off, to deny, God's principal redemptive activities in
the past: the election and the law.1 But, while Sanders has Paul cutting ties with his Second
Temple Jewish understanding of Gods will for salvation, he still maintains Paul as thoroughly
Jewish in most every other aspect of his character.
Pauls attempt to straddle the border between his Jewishness and his new faith in Christ
causes what Sanders dubs as an acute theological problem that is rooted in two absolute central
convictions.2 The first is based on Paul's experience of God's personal revelation of his son, Jesus
Christ. This conviction overrides Paul's past and redefines his theological worldview by setting
the stage for understanding God's plan for salvation. Righteousness did not come from keeping
the Law (as Paul had previously believed) so God sent Christ to save all humanity on the same
basis, apart from the Law. Paul's second conviction is based on his Jewish theological
assumption that God had given the Law for a specific purpose.3
In Paul's struggle to rectify this paradox, the underlying theological question focused on
the functionof the Law and how it is associated with the perfect will of God: What is the
function of the Law if it does not save? Paul's Jewish background led him to understand that
whatever happened was in accordance to divine providence; the law, then, could not be opposed
to God's will; yet the law does not provide for salvation.4 So Paul, not knowing any other way
to rectify this conundrum and still holding to his central conviction concerning God's perfect
2
1 E.P. Sanders,Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Publishers,1983), 78.
2 Ibid., 79.
3 Ibid., 81.
4 Ibid., 66.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
3/98
will, connected the Law with sin in order to assign it a negative place in God's plan of salvation.5
Pauls assigning the law a negative role in Gods plan of salvation, an assignment which itself
arose from his view that righteousness is only by faith in Christ and that God must have given
the law with that righteousness, and not some other, ultimately in view.6 With this connection
the law's divinely given function can still be explained as part of God's plan to grant the promise
of salvation to his people(and everyone else sharing humanity's universal plight of being under
sin).
But, according to Sanders, Paul then makes a subtle but important shift in his explanation
of the law's relationship with sin for the purpose of representing a consistent God. Since the Law
was given by the will of God to reveal the way to righteousness but hijacked by sin and leading
men to death, it produced a situation contrary to the will of God.7
Thus there is an alteration in Paul's view of the relationship between sin and God's
intention.... and between God's will and the law (he gave the law to save, an intention
which was frustrated, rather than with the intent to condemn). These changes seem to be
required by the new role given to sin: it is now an active agent which employs the law
against the purpose of God.8
But, ..sin does not pervert the intention of the law by causing people to fulfill it in the wrong
way, thus producing legalism. The law, rather, is the agent of sin because it condemns and thus
provokes transgression.9 In Sanders thought, the Law is still connected to sin, but sin has no
connection to God's will.
3
5 Ibid., 66.
6 Ibid., 84.
7 Ibid., 73.
8 Ibid., 73
9 Ibid., 74.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
4/98
Sanders concludes his thoughts on the subject by stating: It is paradoxical, perhaps
ironic, that it was Paul's attempt to hold together God's will and the negative function which his
exclusivist christology led him to assign the law which finally pushed him into disassociatingthe
result of God's giving the law from his will.10 Sanders depicts Paul as making a valiant attempt
to salvage the reputation of God by putting the blame on sin and disassociating God's will from
the result.11 God has failed to achieve what he originally willed the function of the Law to
accomplish (to be followed by his people and lead them to life). Sin uses the Law against the will
of God and the weakness of the created order could not accomplish its requirements, rendering
the Law (and subsequently God's will) ineffective. But, with the coming of Christ, God has
rectified his first attempt and provided salvation not just to the Jews, but also to Gentiles. Pauls
thinking is governed by the overriding conviction that salvation is through Christ. Since Christ
came to save all, all needed salvation.12
Sanders represents a uniquely controversial new perspective within Pauline Studies. To
his credit, he does try to hold Pauls Jewish background into account as he works through Pauls
view of the Law. But, in presenting a Paul that is torn between the two conceptual worlds of
Second Temple Judaism and his newfound faith in Jesus Christ, Sanders fails to see the value of
the Law in the OT as well as its revelatory purpose. In effect, he fails to differentiate between the
Second Temple Jewish view of the Law and the OT view of the Law, limiting his perspective to
what the Law has become in its ethnocentric form (see below). It is this ethnocentric form of the
4
10 Ibid., 85.
11 Ibid., 85.
12 Ibid., 68.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
5/98
Law that Paul breaks from as he rediscovers the original revelatory purpose of the Law as given
in the OT.
In Sanders view, Gods will is divorced from his presence and action on behalf of his
chosen people. In actuality, Gods will is held firm by his presence and not able to be
manipulated by sin. Rather than straddling the two conceptual worlds of Judaism and belief in
Christ, Sanderss Paul falls into the gap, rendering Gods will as something that can be
manipulated by sin into serving a different purpose than it was originally intended to.
Westerholm
Stephen Westerholm presents Paul as a man steeped in the Second Temple Judaism of his
day but, due to his encounter with the risen Christ, Paul engages in a Christian reevaluation of
his own human predicament. Through this reevaluation Paul discovers that the Law itself does
not make him (or anyone else, either Jew or Gentile) righteous before God. Drawing extensively
from the tradition of Second Temple Judaism, Paul delves into this reevaluation as he reflects
on the disclosure of the human predicament implicit in the cross of Christ.13
During this
process, Westerholm claims that Paul experienced a plot twist when considering the sinfulness of
humanity in the light of the cross (the climax of the story) and subsequently had to engage in a
further reevaluate of the function of the Law in Gods plan for salvation.
Paul, who once pursued the righteousness of the Law, could only make a distinction
between this kind of righteousness and the righteousness of faith when reconsidering Scripture in
the process of a Christian reevaluation. These convictions were only available to him when the
crucifixion and resurrection of Christ were believed to be both efficacious for human
5
13 Stephen. Westerholm, Sinai as Viewed From Damascus : Pauls Reevaluation of the Mosaic Law, inRoad From Damascus, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 157.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
6/98
redemption and revelatory of the inadequacy of earlier institutions- even divine institutions- to
achieve such end.14
Due to his new understanding of the efficacy of the cross of Christ, Paul engages in a
polemic against what was once his former understanding of the Law in Gods plan of salvation,
that one could obtain/earn righteousness through human effort. Throughout his argument,
Westerholm pays particular attention the the Pauline phrase works of the law.15 By using this
phrase, Paul calls his audience to a broader understanding of more than just the ritual
prescriptions of the Law. In fact, the Law itself becomes a launching pad for the discussion
concerning Pauls conviction that no human work can make an individual righteous.16 Even
though these works were demanded by Israels particularism, work can still have nothing to do
with election. The idea that any kind of work would have part in the process of divine election
would run counter to what God is accomplishing in his gracious act of election. God has
determined to act through his gracious election and the very nature of this act pragmatically
excludes consideration of human endeavor.17
6
14 Ibid., 161.
15 Westerholms discussions of the phrase works of the law mainly focus on Gal. 2:16 StephenWesterholm,Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The Lutheran Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans, 2003), 152-153. and Rom. 9:11-12 Stephen Westerholm, Paul and the Law in Romans 9-11, inPauland the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 228-229.
16 Stephen Westerholm,Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The Lutheran Paul and His Critics (GrandRapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 152-153. In Westerholms discussion of Rom. 9:11-12 he states: To be sure, theworks preformed by Israel are those prescribed by the Mosaic law; but nothing in this passage suggests that Israelis pursuing the wrong kindof works. What is emphatically excluded is consideration ofany human work in thegranting of divine favor(9:12); an exclusion which naturally includes the particular works enjoined by Moses.Stephen Westerholm, Paul and the Law in Romans 9-11, inPaul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn,(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 228.
17 Stephen Westerholm, Paul and the Law in Romans 9-11, in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G.Dunn, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 229.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
7/98
For Westerholms Paul, the cross of Christ is not only efficacious in contrast with any
human effort (including but not limited to that associated with the Law) but it also revealed the
inadequacy of the Law for human redemption.18 Paul now views the Law, in light of the cross, as
the agent which serves to highlight human bondage to sin while at the same time exacerbating
the human condition.19 In fact, Westerholm goes so far as to claim that the primary purpose of
the Law is to compel recognition of the nature and extent of human sinfulness.20 This
recognition serves to remind man of his place in creation and his responsibility to the Creator
God, a responsibility that elicits outright rebellion against God.
The Law itself, because it is Gods stated will, then becomes culpable for transforming
sin into deliberate transgression of this will as it highlights the unwillingness, as well as the
incapacity, of man to accomplish what God desires of his creation. In and of itself, the Law was
never equipped to overcome human sinfulness but it fulfills its original purpose by showing
human sinfulness to be, in Westerholms words, exceedingly sinful.21
Despite Westerholms seemingly negative view on the Law, he still holds that the Law,
through its afore mentioned revelation of the sinfulness of man, served a preparatory role to the
revelation of Gods righteousness in Jesus Christ.
Gods design for the law must have been, in part, to go on record as demanding what is
holy and righteous and good, but also (indeed, even more) to demonstrate the rebellious
character of humanity in Adam through the shortcomings of the most privileged segment
of Adamic humanity. Paradoxically, then, the righteousness demanded by the law can
7
18 Stephen Westerholm,Perspectives Old andNew on Paul: The Lutheran Paul and His Critics (GrandRapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 161.
19 Ibid., 157.
20 Ibid., 157.
21 Ibid., 157.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
8/98
only be obtained apart from the law, by faith in Christ. But since the the law had a divine
role to play until Christ came, since it demonstrated the culpability of humanity from
which Christ brought redemption, it can be said to have been pointing all along to
Christ.22
Westerholm represents a typical Lutheran/Old Perspective approach to Pauline Studies.
He is right to recognize the revelatory purpose of the Law but he, like Sanders, fails to
understand the original purpose of the Law as revelatory of Gods nature and character in the OT.
Throughout Westerholms argument he places a high value on the holiness and righteousness of
God, the Law giver. Yet, the Holy God, who has manifested his presence among his people in
conjunction with the giving of the Law, seems (according to Westerholm) to negate his own will
by allowing the Law to primarily (and overwhelmingly) reveal the sinfulness of man.
Westerholms understanding that through the revelation of the sinfulness of man, man will
somehow be able to understand the holiness of God seems to ascribe a spiritual discernment only
available through the presence of God in relationship.
Westerholms Paul would have us believe that the primary purpose of the Law was to
burden the people of Israel with an inescapable sinfulness. Yet, the OT itself speaks of the
Righteous God dwelling in the midst of a sinful people (see below discussion in Chapter 2).
Although most of Westerholms work is in and of itself a polemic against the adherents to the
new perspective, he continues to have the same core problem that Sanders faces when
explaining how the will of God can be held separate from his presence.
Bird
8
22 Stephen Westerholm, Paul and the Law in Romans 9-11, in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G.Dunn, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 234.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
9/98
Michael Bird finds a middle ground between Sanders and Westerholm by tackling Paul's
view of the Law from an eschatological perspective.23 Bird's Paul recognized before and after his
conversion that Christ and the Law are mutual exclusive. For Paul, obedience to the torah
cannot be pursued as the means of attaining membership in the people of God and, therefore, the
grounds upon which God will vindicate believers.24 Paul is not confronting legalism or nomism,
rather, according to Bird, he confronts an ethnocentric nomism. Ethnocentric nomism is the
view that Jewish identity is the locus of salvation (hence ethnocentric) and one must preform the
law so as to enter the Jewish constituency and be vindicated in the eschaton (hence nomistic).25
This is different from legalism in that the works preformed are done within a covenantal
framework that defines the identity of the people of God. It is different from covenantal nomism
because the desired end state is not just covenantal status but eschatological salvation. In Bird's,
view the post-conversion Paul understood the Law to be only effective in and regulated to the
pre-Christ epoch. Paul's view turns out to be decidedly negative as its main purpose was to act as
God's agent during this epoch and serve as a part of a triangle of forces consisting of law-sin-
death, a triangle that brings condemnation on both Jews and Gentiles.26 But as a national charter
for Israel, the Law temporarily limited salvation to Israel, while God's original covenantal plan to
save all nations was given through Abraham.27
9
23 Bird agrees with the idea of variegated nomism, as it underscores the diversity within the different sectsof Judaism and can accommodate a wider range of beliefs concerning the role of the law than covenantalnomism. Michael F. Bird, Justification as Forensic Declaration and Covenant Membership: A Via Media Between
Reformed and Revisionist Readings of Paul, Tyndale Bulletin 57, no. 1 (2006): 112.
24 Michael F. Bird, Justification as Forensic Declaration and Covenant Membership: A Via Media BetweenReformed and Revisionist Readings of Paul, Tyndale Bulletin 57, no. 1 (2006): 113.
25 Ibid.
26 Michael F. Bird, Introducing Paul: The Man, His Mission and His Message (Downers Grove, IL: IVPAcademic, 2009), 139.
27 Ibid.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
10/98
This leads Bird to three conclusions concerning the purpose of the Law. (1) To highlight
the holiness of God and the severity of sin.28 God wanted his people to understand that they
lived in a moral universe and that he himself was not morally indifferent, therefore he chose
Israel to reflect the glory of God in the presence of the nations through the covenantal life of
their community.29 (2) To be a temporary administration of Gods grace to govern his people.
It functioned to set Israel apart from the nations and cocoon Gods promises around them for a
time30 until the coming of the promised seed of Abe who would bring the Gentiles into Gods
covenant family.31 (3)To foreshadow and introduce the coming of Jesus Christ...When he came,
he would save people from the condemnation of the law (Rom. 3:21-22; 1 Cor 5:7; 10:3; Col.
2:17).32 Bird holds that by sending his Son and his Spirit, God accomplished what the Law
could not do enable Jews and Gentiles alike to live righteously for him and be counted righteous
before him.
Bird rightly identifies the Law as part of the previous epoch/age and its service as the
theological charter for the nation of Israel. He is also correct in giving value to the Law as
revelatory of the holiness of God, a holiness that the people themselves represent to the
surrounding nations. Birds ethnocentric nomism provides a great description of the function of
the Law in Second Temple Judaism but, he fails to take into account the evolution from its
original OT theocentric purpose to its ethnocentric state. Bird also seems to partake in a
fundamental misunderstanding of the Law as temporary administrator of Gods grace. Rather, the
10
28 Ibid., 139-140.
29 Ibid., 139-140.
30 Ibid., 140.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
11/98
Law was never designed to do this in and of itself. Grace in the OT was intimately associated
with the presence of God. The Law itself held no soteric value (as Paul explicitly states in Gal.
2:21, see discussion in Chapter 3) this was Gods work on behalf of his people, a work based on
his nature and character.
Nanos
Nanos views Paul as a typical monotheistic Law following Second Temple Jew who
understood the covenantal background that God had initiated as still viable for the Jewish
decedents of Abraham. This covenantal background flows through the history of Israel to the
giving of the Law which defines behavior extending from the thoughts of the heart to the acts of
the hands.33 In fact, Nanos advocates that one of the main teachings of the Law is freedom, the
same kind of freedom that Paul speaks about which believers have in Christ. This same idea of
freedom is the heart behind core elements of Judaism i.e. the celebration of Sabbath and many of
the commands about the treatment of others and animals. Responsibility to God and others is
magnified in Torah because of this freedom.34
For Nanos, only one aspect of Paul's view on the Torah changed at his conversion, its
association with Gentiles. Paul understood that the resurrection of the Christ and the coming of
the Holy Spirit initiated the age for which the Jewish people had been wanting for, when all
Gentile nations would recognize Israel's God as the one true God, creator of all humankind. In
this age, Christ-following non-Jews are obligated to bear witness to the righteousness expressed
in Torah, that is, the love of God and neighbor, but as representatives of the other nations, and
11
33 Mark Nanos, Locating Paul on a Map of First-Century Judaism, SBL Annual Meeting (Nov. 22, 2010):122.
34 Ibid., 123.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
12/98
not as members of Israel and her Mosaic covenant. This age represents the fulfillment of God's
covenant with Abraham, bringing blessing to all of the nations through his seed.35
Nanos holds that Paul never advocated for the end of Torah following. Rather, Paul did
teach that Gentile believers were not to become Jews, nor be under the Torah in the same manner
that Jews had always been and still remained.36 Paul himself continued to follow the Torah as a
matter of faith and viewed himself as a faithful Jewish believer in Christ. Rather than advocating
for a break with Judaism and the Law, Paul defended his spiritual heritage claiming that the
coming of Christ actually established the law's validity through Christ's fulfillment.37
For Nanos Paul, the issue of membership for the non-Jews in the Jewish politico-
religious community (without becoming ethnicity Jewish) was the main reason he authored his
letters to the Gentile communities. This mixing of different people while retaining their
different religio-ethnic identities and thus different relationships to Torah confused some of his
original audiences, provoking him to write letters intended to clarify this proposition, but they
have misled later interpreters reading his instructions to non-Jews in particular as if universal
truths Paul applied without distinction to every person, including Jews. 38
Nanos represents a minority of vocal scholars in Pauline studies that advocate for a
completely Jewish Paul (before and after the road to Damascus experience).39 He is correct in
12
35 Ibid., 128-129.
36 Mark Nanos, The Myth of the Law Free Paul Standing Between Christians and Jews, Studies inChristian-Jewish Relations 4, (2009): 3.
37 Ibid., 3.
38 Ibid., 3.
39 for more on the Jewish perspective: See e.g., Pamela Michelle Eisenbaum,Paul Was Not a Christian:The Real Message of a Misunderstood Apostle (New York: HarperOne, 2009); Paula Fredriksen, "Judaizing the
Nations: The Ritual Demands of Paul's Gospel,"New Testament Studies 56 (2010): 232-52.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
13/98
advocating that the coming of the Jewish Messiah initiated a new eschatological age when the
God of Israel would be worshiped by Jew and Gentile alike. Nanos also serves as a helpful
reminder ofPauls continued stance concerning the practice of the Law as a Jewish follower of
Christ. But, Nanos fails to understand the break that Paul advocates from the halakhah Law that
has been created within the Rabbinic tradition. The idea, advocated by Nanos, that Paul would
confuse his followers with preaching in regards to their distinct religio-ethnic identities is
extremely unhelpful in light of Pauls explanation of the presence of the Spirit of God in their
midst. This seems to be an interpretive presupposition for Nanos rather than an idea born out of
an exegetical study of the text. Rather, Pauls preaching transcends the idea of religio-ethnic
boundaries as he advocates for their spiritual identity as sons of Abraham, an identity consistent
with the OT idea of the presence of God (see chapter 3).
Beker
Beker, in his bookPaul the Apostle, identifies the crucial exegetical issue as whether
Paul argues for the abrogation of the law or for a continuing validity of the law in the gospel40
He believes that a middle ground between the legitimate speculation about Paul's pre-conversion
past and the pure theological exposition of Pauls theological position can be found by taking an
in-depth look at Paul's experience of the risen Christ. When scholarship concentrates solely on
Pauls theological exposition of the law, it overlooks the distinction between faith and its
theological expression and thus overlooks the matrix of Pauls theology of the law in his own
experience.41 Understanding the reason that Paul became an ardent follower of Christ is
13
40 Johan C. Beker, Paul the Apostle (Augsburg: Fortress Publishers, 2000), 236.
41 Ibid., 237.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
14/98
exclusively located in the facticity of the Christophany helps clear up the obscurity regarding
Paul's pre-conversion Pharisaic convictions.42
Beker argues that delving further into Paul's attested Christophany shows that the
underlying coherence of Paul's view of the Law finds its source in the radicalization of the
Jewish position on the evil impulse and sin.43 In Judaism, sin can be dealt with through the
prescribed sacrificial system but, for the post-conversion Paul, a sinful act leads to bondage
under the power of sin and subsequently into the human plight44 Beker attributes this
radicalization of sin to Pauls new understanding of God's plan of salvation due to his encounter
with Christ (the Christophany). Because Christ atoned on the cross for our sins, committed
under the law, he not only unmasked sins as the power of death but also defeated that power of
sin in his death and resurrection.45 Henceforth the function of Gods holy Law was taken up and
absorbed by Christ in whom thejust requirement of the law was fulfilled (Rom. 8:4) and its
deadly function under sin was abrogated.46
Paul's newly understood fulfillment of the Law, through Christ, lead him to emphasize
the discontinuous character of the Christ-event in conjunction with Gods continuous salvation-
historical command.47 The Law was preforming its function ofrevealing sin and sealing the fate
of humanity (death), when Christ came and rearranged God's plan of salvation under and
according to himself. The laws positive function in salvation-history is not only because it
14
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid., 243.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid.
46 Ibid.
47 Ibid., 244.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
15/98
makes sin accountable before God (Rom. 4:15; 5:13) but also because it holds the whole range of
history together in the plan of God.48 In short, Beker posits that Law is not a supernatural
mistake or a tragic flaw, because of it's role in making sin accountable to God.49 The law's
purpose was not ultimate damnation but it confirms the unity of salvation history by
demonstrating God's will to save.50
Consequently, as Paul works through his arguments about the Law he now views the
unity of salvation history eschatologically and not protologically. Rather than understanding
Gods election from the beginning of the world he now deduces Gods election and
predestination from his eschatological vindication.51 The function of the Law is viewed
retrospectively and not prospectively. To engage in works of the Law is equivalent to being
misdirected and following sin's deceptive instrument.52 Now, because Christ is the fulfillment of
the Law and love is the fulfilling of the Law, the works that followers of Christ take part in have
a new focus, love. This focus leads Beker's Paul to refer to these works as doing the law of
Christ, which in turn makes the Christians worktransparent to Gods redemptive purpose.53
But Beker's Paul is not just content with radicalizing the Jewish position on sin, he also is
a revolutionary in that he radicalizes the issue of law and gospel: lawless Gentiles are full
members of the people of God by faith alone. Paul ruptures the connection between Torah and
Christ so decisively that Jewish life as such is invalidated. He interprets adherence to the law in
15
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid., 244-245.
51 Ibid., 245.
52 Ibid., 246.
53 Ibid., 247.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
16/98
all its forms as a rebuilding of those things which I tore down (Gal. 2:18). This rupture
between Torah and Christ establishes the equality of Jew and Gentile because the dividing wall
of the Torah is torn down. Paul then, despite his understanding of the inspiration and authority of
scripture, sets up Christ as the hermeneutical key to all further interpretation of Jewish scripture.
In effect, for Beker, Christ becomes the cannon within the cannon, even to the extreme that Paul
quotes scripture against scripture to prove his point.
Bekers understanding is valuable in that he attempts to uncover the positive view of the
Law through an in-depth look at Pauls Damascus road Christophany. His eschatological
perspective is helpful in focusing Pauls view of the Law from a post-conversion standpoint as
Paul explains Jew and Gentile relationship in the new age/epoch. But, as Beker seeks to explain
how Christs fulfillment of the Law invalidates the Jewish life he fails to take into account the
OT understanding of the purpose of the Law to reveal Gods nature and character. Beker also
attribute a striking inconsistency to Gods will. God begins by condemning man through the Law
then changing his mind and saving the people from this condemnation with by the sending of his
Son. Beker also fails to consider that the Christophany could cause anything other than an
extreme break from Pauls Jewish past.
Conclusion
As can be seen through this brief sample of Pauline scholarship, each author approaches
the person of Paul and the concept of the Law from very different perspectives. As thorough as
some of the explanations and exegesis may be, all of the authors mentioned (and the majority of
Pauline scholarship) fail discuss a few concepts that are essential in understanding exactly what
Paul is trying to communicate concerning the Law in the letter to the Galatians. The majority of
16
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
17/98
these scholars fail to different the thoroughly ethnocentric approach to the Law within Second
Temple Jewish from the original theocentric purpose of the Law found in the OT. My
understanding of the ethnocentric form of the Law differs from Birds ethnocentric nomism in
one very important aspect: I would hold that an ethnocentric approach to the Law consists of a
distortion of its original theocentric purpose, the revelation of Gods nature and character. In its
ethnocentric form, the Law has become so intermingled with and interpreted through halahkah
tradition and pagan culture that it has become centralized on the action of man. Approaching the
Law in an ethnocentric manner, a manner consistent with our understanding of Second Temple
Judaism, removes it from the context of the promised blessing of Gods presence (Gen. 12) and
serves to promote both legalism and ethnic superiority in their various forms.
As this thesis moves forward, it is with the intention to explore the original purpose of the
Law as originated in the promise given to Abraham (Gen.12). Chapter 2 will focus on the
understanding that God has chosen to reveal his nature and character through the manifestation
of his presence and the declaration of his will. Chapter 3 will explore these concepts in Pauls
letter to the Galatians for the express purpose of exploring our main thesis: Due to Pauls
revelatory encounter with the Son of God, he now views and approaches the Law in line with its
original OT purpose, the revelation of Gods nature and character.
17
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
18/98
Chapter 2:
The Revelation of Yahwehs Nature and Character in the Old Testament
Genesis 12
While Genesis 12 begins the story of Abraham (then Abram) with the experience of
Yahweh's call, the story of Abraham really begins with his father Terah, a descendent of Noah,
from the line of Shem, leaving the land of Ur en route to the land of Canaan (Gen. 11:27-32).
The biblical text does not indicate what motivated Terah to move his family towards Canaan, nor
does it explain the reason he discontinued his journey and settled in Haran. It does however set
the stage for Abram, along with his wife Sarai, to continue the Biblical narrative concerning the
line of the righteous Noah. Abram, descendant of Shem, is now the inheritor of the blessing
uttered by Noah concerning his sons, Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be
his servant. May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be
his servant (Gen. 9:26-27). We can only assume that this legacy of blessing was an integral part
of the tradition handed down from father to son, and the awareness of the personal name of God,
Yahweh, was an important part of that tradition.
So, when Yahweh speaks to Abram in Gen. 12, we need not wonder if Abram knew who
was giving the command. Yahweh, the God of Abram's forefathers and source of the blessing of
his family, commands and Abram obeys. But what does this command entail and what part does
the following promise play in Yahweh's revelation of his nature and character?
Before being able to consider the implications of the command given, we first must
consider its source. It is extremely important to understand that although Abram is theprimary
humancharacterin the sub-narrative that begins in Gen. 12, Yahweh, who has been the divine
18
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
19/98
subjectthroughout the entire Genesis narrative, continues to be so throughout the story of
Abraham and his descendants.54
While many commentators focus on Abram and his obedience to the divine call, I would
posit that they miss the point of the narrative, namely that Yahweh has commanded Abram to act
in conjunction with a promise that finds its basis in his divine nature and character. Abram's
obedience is an important part of the story but what the narrator has primarily in view is the
establishment of the promise as the foundation for Yahwehs self-revelation. Abram, as well as
his descendants after him, will experience the further revelation of Yahwehs nature and
character through a direct encounter with and the continuation of Yahweh's divine presence. This
in turn prepares Abram and his descendants for the purpose of serving as a revelatory vehicle to
all nations. They will be an important part of Yahweh's systematic self-revelation through which
all nations will be blessed.55
So, with the understanding that Yahweh is the divine subject of the narrative, we must
now focus on the question at hand: How does Yahweh reveal his nature and character through the
foundational promise given to Abram?
The promise of Gen. 12:1-3 includes two divine imperatives given by Yahweh: (1) Go
and (2) that you may be a blessing.56 The significance of these divine imperatives cannot be
19
54 Yahweh is the subject of the first verb at the beginning of the first statement and thus the subject of theentire subsequent history. Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis, a Commentary (Old Testament Library), Revised ed.
(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1973), 159. Von Rad is correct when he states that there is noindication of an internal struggle of faith or a criticism of the religions of his father (as later in the Apocalypse ofAbraham), the focus is on Yahweh, he has commanded and Abram listens. the Yahwist understands Abraham heremerely as the object of a divine command. Ibid., 162.
55 cf. John H. Walton, Covenant(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 24-46. Walton understands thisrevelation to take place through the means of covenant.
56 Allen P. Ross, Genesis, Exodus (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary) (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale HousePub., 2008), 95.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
20/98
understated. Here, Yahweh is commanding an action and promising a result based solely on his
own ability to bring this result to fruition. Abram will go to the land he will be shown, he will
be made a greatnation and his name will be great. None of these accolades are predicated
on Abrams action. All of these things will be accomplished on Abrams behalf in accordance
with the nature and character of Yahweh. Yahweh promises with his own words that he will
show Abram the land, make Abram a great nation, bless ( ) Abram and make his
name great. It is Yahweh who will do all of these things for the purpose of fulfilling his second
divine imperative, so that you will be a blessing.57 The divine imperatives of v. 1 and v. 2
bookend Yahwehs promised action on behalf of Abram rooting the promise in his own divine
nature and character while laying the foundation for his further self-revelation through his action
on Abrams behalf. Yahwehs action, and nothing else, brings these promises to fruition.
Yahweh's promise to Abram continues to unfold in v. 3 as the second divine imperative
that you may be a blessing( ) is further explained. I will bless those who bless you,
and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be
blessed. (emphasis mine).The wording of thesepromises is precise. The first uses the
cohorative construction of the verb that stresses God's determination or resolve, and the object,
the participle, is a plural form; I am determined to bless all those who bless you.58 But what
exactly does Yahweh mean by the promised blessing? In order to answer this important
20
57 Based in the use of the imperatives in this passages, Sailhammer concludes that: The purpose of God'scall is not only that Abraham might become a great nation, but also that he might be a blessing. John H.Sailhammer, Walter C. Kaiser Jr, and Richard Hess, The Expositors Bible Commentary: Genesis-Leviticus, Reviseded. (Zondervan, 2008), 156.
58 Allen P. Ross, Genesis, Exodus (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary) (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale HousePub., 2008), 95.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
21/98
question we must jump ahead a bit in the narrative and visit the paradigmatic expression of
blessing in the Torah, the priestly blessing of Num. 6:22-27.
Numbers 6:22-27 as the Paradigmatic Blessing of Torah
Num. 6:22-27 describes, what I believe to be, the paradigm through which the concept of
the blessing of Yahwehs presence is understood in the context of the Pentateuch.59 Here, Yahweh
specifically commands Moses (who is to tell Aaron) to bless ( ) the people of Israel with
specific words relating to his presence among them. It is important to remember that this is a
prescribed blessing from Yahweh. Aaron (Israels first the Chief Priest) and his sons (the future
leaders of the Levitical priestly caste) are specifically chosen to lead the people of Israel in the
detailed and clearly defined worship of Yahweh. Yahweh himself, connects this priestly blessing
with the reminder of his continued presence, defining what his blessing truly is.
The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying, Thus you shall
bless the people of Israel: you shall say to them,
The Lord bless you and keep you;
the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.
So shall they put my name upon the people of Israel, and I will bless them (Num 6:22-27,
emphasis mine)
While the space for a complete exegetical discussion of this paradigm of blessing is not
available,60 a few salient points connecting the presence of Yahweh and the blessing of Num.
6:22-27 are important to point out. First, this is a declaration by Yahweh himself, not a man-
made blessing that references the God of the Israelites. It was given by Yahweh to become a part
21
59 cf. J. McKeown, Blessings and Curses, inDictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (the IVP BibleDictionary Series), ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2002), 85.
60 cf. Patrick D. Miller, Blessing of God : An Interpretation of Numbers 6:22-27,Interpretation 29, no. 3(1975): 240 - 251. and Elmer A. Martens, Intertext Messaging: Echoes of the Aaronic Blessing (Numbers6:24-26),Direction 38, no. 2 (2009): 163 - 178.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
22/98
of the worship of the people of Israel, a worship that continued into the Second Temple period
and beyond.
Second, this declaration concerns the nature of Israel's relationship with Yahweh, from
the perspective of Yahweh. Yahweh's role ofblesserand keeperserves to connect the promised
blessing of Gen. 12 and the covenant of Gen. 15. As we have discussed, Yahweh's nature and
character are the foundation of his promised blessing. As we will discuss, the Abrahamic
covenant is predicated on Yahweh and continues solely because of Yahwehs action in
accordance with revealed his nature and character.
Thirdly, the explanation that Yahweh will make his face to shine upon you and Yahweh
will lift up his countenance upon you are both strong indications of Yahweh's presence among
his people. The results of Yahweh's actions, peace ( ) and grace ( ) are both concepts
only found in the presence of Yahweh.61
Finally, Yahweh ends his command to Moses with the explanation that in preforming this
blessing, Aaron and his sons will be putting the name of Yahweh upon the people of Israel,
something that the people already bear as a revelation of the presence of Yahweh among them
(see below).
All of these factors leads us to understand that the priestly blessing served as a
confirmation of what Yahweh has already done and an explanation of what he will continue to
do. The blessing, spoken by Aaron on Yahwehs behalf, was to serve as a worshipful reminder
22
61 Yahweh is the giver of peace. In this respect the Aaronic blessing of Num. 6:24-26 is most important inthe Pentateuch. This prayer shows that peace from God is linked with blessing, preservation or protection, and grace.Peace is enjoyed in Yahwehs presence. Similarly, in Gen. 28:19-22 Jacobs prayer for peace is based on hisexperience of Gods presence. The Bible goes on to show the ultimately Gods provision for restitution for sin makessuch peace possible. P.A. Barker, Rest, Peace, inDictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (the Ivp Bible
Dictionary Series), ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2002),691. John I. Durham, Shalom and the Presence of God, inProclamation and Presence : Old Testament Essays in
Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies, ed. John I. Durham and J. R. Porter, (Richmond : John Knox Press, 1970).
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
23/98
that Yahweh was and would continue to be present among his people. The concept of Yahwehs
divine blessing itself is so intimately connected to the divine presence of Yahweh that the two are
virtually inseparable. The blessing that is promised in Gen. 12 flows from the presence of
Yahweh among his people. Land, seed, Abram's name becoming synonymous with greatness and
a great nation, will all come to fruition because of Yahweh's action as he is present in Abrams
life and the life of Abrams descendants.
As stated before, Yahweh's determination to bless Abram reveals that he is the foundation
and source for any blessing that Abram will incur. In fact, I would posit that the primary blessing
being promised to Abram in Gen. 12 is none other than the continued presence of Yahweh among
his people. This is important to remember as we move through the narrative. Any action that
Yahweh takes on behalf of Abram points directly back to Yahwehs active presence with Abram
and his determination to continue to be a blessing to Abram. This is more than just a concern for
Abram's welfare.62 Rather, as Yahweh is recognized as the source of Abrams fortunate
circumstances, he, in effect, reveals his nature and character to Abram and everyone Abram
encounters in the narrative. Yahweh's determination to bless Abram with his divine presence is a
determination rooted solely on his nature and character and not on the action of Abram. This
will become especially evident as the narrative progresses.
The Promise and Abrams Seed
Following Yahwehs declaration of blessing, Abram (along with his wife Sarai, and his
nephew Lot) passes through the land of Canaan. Here, Yahweh appears to Abram a second time,
23
62 Wenham says that 12:3 employs the first person (I will bless/I shall curse) instead of the impersonalpassive participles (blessed/curses) found in parallel passages (27:29; Num. 24:9) He thinks it emphasizes concernfor Abram's welfare. Retribution and justice are not left to the impersonal operation of fate. The LORD himself willactively intervene on Abram's side. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, (Word Biblical Commentary), vol. 1(Thomas Nelson, 1987), 276.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
24/98
further explaining a facet of the promise, this time specifically including a mention of Abram's
offspring. To your seed I will give this land (12:7, my translation). Here, in conjunction with
some sort of experience with Yahweh's presence, Yahweh's nature and character are again
revealed to Abram as Yahweh states that the line of Abram will continue through Abrams own
seed ( ). The main thrust of the passage seems to focus on the promise that Abram will
become a great nation (12:2a) through Yahwehs ability to overcome the current state of
Sarais bareness. The land itself seems to be a secondary matter in that it serves as an illustrative
backdrop for Yahwehs explanation of his extraordinary ability to continue the line of Abram
through Abrams ownseed.
In response to the word of Yahweh, Abram builds an altar, probably in competition with
the other gods of the land in the already designated holy space of the Oak of Moreh.
Interestingly, with the building of this altar, Abram seems to take part in the revelation of God's
nature and character to the surrounding nations. Ross understands Abram's action of building an
altar and calling on the name of Yahweh as similar to Yahwehs self-revelation in Ex 34:5-7.
[Yahweh] descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of
[Yahweh]. [Yahweh] passed before him and proclaimed, [Yahweh], [Yahweh], a God
merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and
faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression
and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on
the children and the childrens children, to the third and the fourth generation.
By building this altar, Abram distinguishes his worship from the worship of the Cannanites and,
in effect, proclaims the nature and character of Yahweh through this distinction.63
24
63 Allen P. Ross, Genesis, Exodus (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary) (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale HousePub., 2008), 98.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
25/98
In the next section of chapter 12 (vv. 10-20), Yahweh again takes center stage as he acts
according to his promise in an encounter with the Egyptian Pharaoh. During his sojourn in the
land of Egypt, Abram fears for his life because of the beauty of Sarai and the self-interest of the
Egyptian ruler. With little regard to the promise of Yahweh, Abram disguises Sarai's identity and
allows her to be taken as a concubine into the court of Pharaoh. Here, facer of Yahwehs promise
is in jeopardy of not being fulfilled. Without a wife Abram would not be able to conceive an
offspring.64 Also, and most importantly, Abram was dishonored by Pharaoh and Pharaoh
encountered the promised curse of 12:3.
God's action of testing Pharaoh and his house with great affliction and plagues on
account of Sarai, the wife of Abram, is a prime example of his action according to the promise
given to Abram. Yahweh, who is present with Abram in Egypt, is able to actively work on
Abrams behalf despite the protection and security the pagan gods are supposed to afford the
Egyptian king. Yahweh does this despite Abram's lack of trust that Yahweh would be able to
protect him in a foreign land. Wenham explains Yahwehs actions towards Pharaoh by pointing
out the difference between the Hebrew words for curse and disdain. Traditional English
translations fail to bring out the difference between these words, usually translating both curse.
However, ( ) disdain generally covers illegitimate verbal assaults on God or one's superiors
e.g., Ex. 21:17; Lev 24:11; 2 Sam 16:5-13, whereas the latter term refers to a judicial curse
pronounced on evildoers (3:14,17; 9:25; Deut 27:15-26).65
Pharaoh's actions not only
25
64 In this way chapter 12 sets the tone for the next ten chapters as advance and jeopardy are intertwined.God will demonstrate again and again his ability to overcome obstacles and resolve jeopardy as he fulfills promisesand provides what is necessary for the covenant to move forward. John H. Walton, Genesis (The NIV ApplicationCommentary) (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 398.
65 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, (Word Biblical Commentary), vol. 1 (Word Books, 1987), 276.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
26/98
dishonored Abram but they were also a direct affront to Yahweh. How Pharaoh discovered the
truth of Sarais relationship to Abram is not related in the narrative but neither is Pharaoh's
understanding of the source of the affliction and plagues. The fact that Pharaoh did not kill
Abram outright (fulfilling Abram's original fears of his impending death at the hands of the
Egyptian ruler), keep Sarai as his concubine, or even revoke the gifts given to Abram shows that
Pharaoh did make some sort of connection between Abram and the power behind him.66
In the circumstances surrounding Abrams sojourn to Egypt, we find Yahweh acting in
accordance with his promise to Abram, despite the faithlessness of Abram. Abram, whether
attempting to help the promise of Yahweh become fulfilled through the preservation of his own
life or due to a complete lack of faith in Yahweh's ability to operate outside of the promised land
and among the powerful Egyptian gods, acted contrary to the promise made to him. Yet, Yahweh,
for the purpose of fulfilling a promise that was based on his own nature and character, acted on
Abrams behalf. He preserved Abram's life, rescued Abram's wife, revealed his power to Pharaoh
(a power that exceeded the protection of the Egyptian gods), and even used the Egyptian ruler to
increase Abram's possessions. In short, Yahweh made his presence known through his actions on
behalf of Abram, revealing to Abram, as well as the Egyptians, that it is in his nature and
character to be true to the promise he has given, despite Abrams efforts to assist Yahweh in the
process.
Genesis 15
Yahweh's program self-revelation continues in Gen. 15 as he reveals his nature and
character through: (1) three foundational revelatory statements concerning his relational
26
66 Claus Westermann, Genesis 12-36(Continental Commentaries) (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg FortressPublishers, 1995), 166.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
27/98
presence, (2) the clarification of his intention concerning Abram's progeny, and (3) the
declaration of his continued presence with Abram and his descendants. It is also important to
note that each of the ways Yahweh chooses to reveal his nature and character are intimately
linked to the promise of Gen. 12. Using the promise as the foundation for his continued presence,
Yahweh continues his program of self-revelation as he manifests his presence to Abram in the
covenant ceremony of vv. 7-21.
Three Foundational Revelatory Statements
Chapter 15 begins with the word of Yahweh coming to Abram in a vision. Fear not,
Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great (15:1). These three seemingly simple
statements provide us with valuable insight into Yahwehs relational presence in Abrams life.
They provide an explanation for Yahwehs past action on Abrams behalf as well as prepare
Abram for the impending encounter with Yahwehs manifest presence. All of this based on
Yahwehs promise given in 12:2b, I will bless you and make your name great.
Fear Not
It is important to note that Yahweh's command to fear not ( ) appears here for
the first time in the book of Genesis. The word for fear ( ) has made an appearance only
once before when it is used by Adam to describe his own reaction to the impending presence of
Yahweh in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:10).
And they heard the sound of [Yahweh] God walking in the garden in the cool of the day,and the man and his wife hid themselvesfrom the presence of [Yahweh] Godamong the
trees of the garden. But [Yahweh] God called to the man and said to him, Where are
you? And he said, I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I
was naked, and I hid myself. (3:8-10, emphasis mine)
27
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
28/98
An excellent case has been made by Jeffery Niehaus that the Hebrew word for day
could be translated storm due to a similar cognate in Akkadian. Niehaus reinterprets v. 8 as
follows: Then the man and his wife heard the thunder of Yahweh God as he was going back
and forth in the garden in the wind of the storm, and they hid from Yahweh God among the
trees of the garden.67
This interpretation would explain Adam's response to Yahweh, I heard the sound of you
in the garden, and Iwas afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself (3:10).68 At the
experience of the manifest presence of Yahweh in the thunder and storm, Adam responded with
an incoherent fear that caused him to flee from Yahwehs presence. Adam and Eve's disobedience
spiritually altered their (and subsequently all of mankinds) ability to be in the presence of
Yahweh. What had previously been a relational blessing had now become a threat to their
physical well being. the presence of God is so threatening to less than entirely holy people
that his presence in this world, even among his own people, must be limited as to not overwhelm
humans. This phenomenon is a reflection of the contrast between God's holiness and human sin.
He cannot abide sin in his presence, so the closer he is to a sinner, the more difficult it is for the
sinner to survive. 69 In other words, Adam's experience of Yahweh was now associated with fear
28
67 Jeffrey Niehaus, In the Wind of the Storm : Another Look At Genesis Iii 8, Vetus testamentum 44, no. 2(1994): 265. (Emphasis mine)
68 Walton finds issue with this translation because (1) umu is most often connected with a storm demon orpersonification of a storm, rather than just storm and (2) Adam claimed that he was only hiding from the presenceof Yahweh because he was naked. John H. Walton, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, (ZondervanIllustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2009), 35.
While Walton's first objection has some merit and needs to be explored further, his second objection inrelation to Adam's response is faulty. Adam's claim of fear because of his nakedness should be considered a lie (or at
best a half-truth) in the light of the post-fall consequences of his sin. He was not physically naked (3:7). In additionto this, Adam's next response (v. 12) shifted the blame to Eve in order to avoid the direct impact of guilt.
69 Douglas K. Stuart,Exodus (the New American Commentary), vol. 2 (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference,2006), 469. While Stuart articulates the understanding of the holiness of Yahweh and its interaction with human sinextremely well, I do not agree with his conclusions the fear of Yahweh's wrath is the beneficial guiding mechanismfor human behavior.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
29/98
brought on by an internal spiritual reaction of self-preservation due to Yahweh's consuming
holiness.70 This fearfulness serves to define the natural human reaction that was continued in
Adam's progeny.
In Gen. 15:1 we find the same kind of fear that Adam experienced immediately negated
by Yahwehs own words, Fear not ( ). Rather than interpret this as a general command
for Abram to not be afraid, the jussive construction of Qal imperfect form of seems to
indicate something deeper: Yahwehs desire that Abram not react in fear and flee from the threat
of his impending presence. Along with Yahwehs desire that Abram not be afraid, the jussive
conveys the sense that Yahweh himself will also provide the empowerment/resources necessary
to make the command that has been given possible. Abrams ability to follow Yahweh's
command is not based on Abram's cognitive choice to not fear, but on Yahweh's desire and
command that Abram fear not, a desire that Yahweh will see to fruition. Taking the
intertextual meaning of fear and the context and structure of Yahwehs command to fear not
into account shows us that Yahwehs communication to Abram should be read as: It is my
[Yahwehs] desire/will/purpose that you [Abram] should not react in fear and flee from my
presence.
I Am Your Shield
Immediately following the command to fear not, Yahweh further explains his
relationship to Abram in a specific self-revelatory I am statement concerning his nature and
character, I am your shield ( ). This I am statement, the first in the Abrahamic
29
70 Walton believes that if Neihaus is correct then the approach of Yahweh in the thunder and storm wouldinfer judgment. see John H. Walton, Genesis (The NIV Application Commentary), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,2001), 223-224. But, I would contend that that this passage is revelatory of Yahweh's holiness as compared to humansinfulness. Judgment follows (3:16-19) because of who Yahweh is as revealed in his command.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
30/98
narrative, is particularly interesting in that Yahweh (who has previously revealed his nature and
character through acting on the promise of Gen. 12) now specifically applies the noun shield to
himself. Yahwehs self-designation as a shield describes, not only his past action on Abrams
behalf but also, his continued relational presence in Abrams life. Through this statement,
Yahweh reveals that his self-designation as Abrams shield is congruent with his own past
actions, actions taken in accordance with his nature and character. The Hebrew word
indicates more than the defensive weapon used in battle. Rather, it is used in this context to speak
of the relational nature of Yahweh's divine covering and protection over Abram.71 Yahweh, with
this self-revelatory statement, has not only pledged himself to the care and protection of Abram
but he also, has chosen to reveal to Abram a facet of his own nature and character. His presence
acts as a shield to Abram, a designation that is consistent with the promise of blessing
Yahweh has given in Gen. 12.
Yahweh himself declares, through these two statements (fear not and I am your
shield) that Abram should/will not be afraid and that Abram is protected, both things that can
only be attributed to Yahweh's active and continued presence in his life. But what do these two
relational statements have to do with Abram's immediate circumstances? Abram is not facing any
immediate human threat to his physical well-being. In fact, previous to this revelatory encounter
with the word of Yahweh, Abram has just come from a decisive victory over Chedorlaomer and
the kings who were with him (14.17). According to Melchizedek Abram can attribute this
victory to the God Most High, and, in an interesting use of the same root of the word Yahweh
30
71 Swanson, James.Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament).electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 4482.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
31/98
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
32/98
Abram's statement, coupled with Melchizedek's blessing (14:19a-20), makes it clear that
Yahweh has already established himself as a source of Abram's material wealth. But what is this
exceedingly great reward being promised to Abram? I would agree with Hamilton that the
statement Your reward shall be exceedingly great is a self-declaration by Yahweh concerning
his nature and character. This statement was given to reiterate the promise of Gen. 12:2a, that
Yahweh himself will be a blessing to Abram.
The divine imperative [do not fear] is followed by a word of divine self-disclosure [I am
your shield]. Two clauses in apposition [I am your shield and your reward shall be
exceedingly great] state the same fact twice. The first states a fact from the speakers point
of view:I am a benefactor for you. The second states the same point, but from the
addressee's point of view: your reward shall be exceedingly great.74
So, Yahweh, who is provides the means necessary for Abram to not fear, reveals that he himself
is a shield of protection as well as the exceedingly great reward. All of these things speak
intensely of Yahwehs continued relational presence with Abram. Abram himself will experience
each aspect of Yahwehs declared relational presence during the upcoming covenant ceremony.
This experience will forever alter Abram's understanding of Yahweh and lay the foundation for
future generations understanding of how Yahweh has chosen to bless his people with his divine
presence.
Yahweh Clarifies His Intention Concerning Abrams Progeny
Following Yahweh's self-revelatory statements of 15:1, the narrative records Abram
asking two important questions concerning his progeny: But Abram said, O [Yahweh] God,
what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?
And Abram said, Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will
32
74 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 1-17, (New International Commentary on the Old Testament),vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 418.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
33/98
be my heir (15:2-3). Abram, in his first direct address to Yahweh, respectfully questions Yahweh
concerning, not Yahwehs self-revelatory statements but, how these declarations will relate to his
progeny. Abram understood that the declaration of Yahwehs protective presence had to be seen
through the lens of the original promise that Yahweh had given.75 In 12:2a Yahweh had promised
to make a great nation of Abram, implying that Abrams line would continue directly through his
own seed. Rather than doubting Yahweh's self-revelatory statements, Abram appears to be trying
to rectify what he already knows to be true concerning Yahwehs nature and character, the
promise he has been given, and his current childlessness.
In response to Abram's questions, Yahweh further unpacks the promise of Gen. 12 by
explaining that his relational presence would continue to be with Abrams progeny. In a vivid
illustration of his creative power, he directs Abram to Look toward heaven, and number the
stars, if you are able to number them (15:5a). Then Yahweh confirms that the heir to the
promise of Gen. 12 would come from Abram's own seed ( ) with the words, So shall your
offspring be (15:5b).
One should not mistake the emphasis of Gen. 15:4-6 by thinking that the vivid illustration
concerning the unfathomable number of offspring was what prompted Abram's confirmation/
33
75 In the ANE, there were two essential values: progeny and land. It is only logical that Abram would askYahweh questions concerning these two things, especially in light of the promise of of Gen. 12. The relationship
between Israel and Yahweh was not a merely conceptualized, spiritual entity. It was very deeply rooted in theconcrete circumstances of Israel's life - social, economic and political. The primary symbol of this 'concreteness' wasthe Land, and the family - the household, or 'father's house' - formed the basic unit of land tenure, as it did of thesocial, kinship structure. In many ways - economic, judicial, military, cultic, didactic - this social unit of 'household-
plus-land' was the basis of Israel's relationship with God. Since therefore, the family was of pivotal importance inthe mediation and enjoyment of the nation's covenant relationship with Yahweh, the family's protection, externallyand internally, was important. Christopher J. H. Wright, Ten Commandments, in The International Standard
Bible Encyclopedia: Q-Z, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 788.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
34/98
belief76 in v. 6. To do so seems to cheapen the length Yahweh has gone to reveal himself in
order that Abrams belief not be centered on the idea of material gain or continued progeny.
Rather, I agree with Ross' conclusion that Abram's belief was not due to his observance of the
number of the stars in the sky. The verb confirm/believe ( ) is used with a Waw disjunctive
and cannot be interpreted as in sequence with the verses that came before it.77 The sentence
begins with a Waw on a perfect and could not be a Waw consecutive or the tense would be put
in the future.78 Instead, the Waw disjunctive marks a parenthetical clause that the author uses to
state that Abram believed in Yahweh and Yahweh reckoned righteousness to him.79
Walton holds a similar view as he explains the belief stated in v. 6 has nothing to do
with a comprehensive belief system. Rather, this belief should be associated with Abrams
hearing the spoken word and believing in the source of that word. Abram's belief has nothing to
do with salvation and nothing to do with a faith system. He simply believed that, though he had
no children and no hope of having any, God could make his offspring as numerous as the stars of
the sky.80
I would further the argument by emphasizing that Abram's belief was due to the
recognition ofYahweh's nature and character. Yahweh consistently revealed his nature and
character through his actions according to the foundational promise and his self-revelatory
34
76 The basic sense of the form is to affirm, recognize as valid. In other words, the result is not so much amatter of objective faith as of absolute fact. Our Amen derives from the same Heb. root. E. A. Speiser, Genesis,
2nd Edition, (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries), (Yale University Press, 1963), 112.
77 Allen P. Ross, Genesis, Exodus (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary) (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale HousePub., 2008), 111.
78 Ibid..
79 Ibid.
80 John H. Walton, Genesis, (The NIV Application Commentary), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001),421.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
35/98
statements. Now, with creation as a witness to his word as well as a vivd illustration of his
creative power, Yahweh's nature and character are confirmed by Abram. This confirmation
garnered Abram a righteous standing before Yahweh, an essential spiritual prerequisite for being
in close proximity to the manifest divine presence.
It is important to note that Abram did not take part in any work that would have earned
him the righteousness reckoned to him by Yahweh. Rather, Yahweh, in an act of grace, reckoned
righteousness to Abram because of his belief. Again, it is important to understand that Abram's
belief was not centered on anything other than on Yahweh himself. Yahweh had laid the
foundations for his self-revelation in the promise of Gen 12, consistently acted on this promise in
Abram's life, led Abram safely to the promised land, and continued to reveal himself through
direct statements concerning his nature and character. Abram's belief was a confirmation of all
these things but most importantly it was a confirmation of the revelation of Yahweh's nature and
character and thus, a confirmation of who Yahweh is. Abram's belief was in Yahweh (
) and Yahweh reckoned this belief as righteousness.
Yahweh Declares His Impending Presence
Yahweh- having reckoned Abram righteous, further reveals his nature and character
through a direct revelation of his personal name. I am [Yahweh] who brought you out from Ur
of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess (15:7).
This is the second self-revelatory statement spoken by Yahweh and the first recorded
instance where Yahweh declares his personal name to Abram. Traditionally the Hebrew
Tetragrammaton ( ) in this passage has been understood to be a declarative statement of
35
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
36/98
Yahweh's eternal existence (I am) or his creative purposes the (One Who Causes to Be),81 all
in the context of his past faithfulness to Abram according to the promise of Gen. 12. While these
interpretations hold to the understanding that God is revealing something specific about his
nature and character in the context of the promise, they miss the essential quality of Yahwehs
relational presence that pervades the biblical narrative.
As has been previously discussed, Yahweh's command to fear not coupled with the self-
revelatory relational statements I am your shield and your reward shall be exceedingly great,
all serve to create the context for an understanding of Yahweh's presence with Abram. Yahweh
has laid the foundation of his self-revelation through his action according to the promise. Now,
after guiding Abram safety to the land he will posses (as promised in 12:1b), Yahweh declares his
impending presence through the use of his personal name, Yahweh, I am/will be present.
The Hebrew Tetragrammaton [ ] has an essential quality of relationship not often
discussed in scholarship. Jacob Milgrom, has suggested that the Hebrew Tetragrammaton [ ]
finds its meaning in thepromised continued presence of Yahweh among his people and should be
interpreted as I am/will be present.82 Isbell also relates the importance of the name of Yahweh
as he explains the purpose of the Tetragrammaton in its verbal form.
Whenever appears in a context of divine action or promise, its theological
significance as asymbol of divine presence far exceeds its simple syntactic function as a
first person singular verbal form.... was from its first use in Israelite traditions
involved in an emotional context; always its function was to express the presence of God
in a promissory and assuring fashion. Always this assurance was expressed to someone
36
81 cf. David Noel Freedman, Name of the God of Moses,Journal of Biblical Literature 79, no. 2 (1960):151-156.
82 J. Milgrom, The Desecration of YHWHs Name: Its Parameters and Significance,Birkat Shalom:Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on theOccasion of his Seventieth Birthday, 80-81. c.f. Kenneth Way, Hello My Name is Yahweh, Good Book Blog(3/8/2011).
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
37/98
who really needed it. was a personal word, an I from God which one could
remember and upon which one could count in the crunch. This much is certain.83
Understanding in its verbal form (3rd person singular Qal imperfect form of the verb
)helps better explain the main thrust of Yahweh's statement. Not only has Yahweh been
with Abram and acting on his behalf previous to and in accordance with the promise of Gen. 12,
he is also present with Abram at the very moment he is speaking, and will be with Abram (and
his descendants) in the future. Here, Yahweh uses the land he has brought Abram to, not as an
ultimate reward for Abram's faithfulness but as a visible and tangible reference to his presence in
Abram's life.
As the narrative moves forward, Abram continues to press Yahweh for an answer
concerning his own possession of the land. O [Yahweh] God, how am I to know that I shall
possess it? (15:8) Abram does not appear to be questioning Yahweh's ability to procure the land
itself. Yahweh has already proven his ability to overcome the current inhabitants (Gen. 14).
Abram is, in fact, desiring a tangible sign that guarantees his and his promised seed's possession.
In the ancient Near East (ANE) a sign was not a request for the god to prove himself capable of
delivering on the promise given. Rather, it would serve as a tangible confirmation or seal that the
deal would go through.84
Although the word for sign ( ) in Hebrew is not specifically used in this passage, all
the elements for the request of a sign appear.85
37
83 Charles D. Isbell The Divine Name as a Symbol of Presence in Israelite Tradition,Hebrew AnnualReview 2 (1978). 101, 115.
84 cf. Benjamin R. Foster, Transmission of Knoweldge, inA Companion to the Ancient Near East(BlackwellCompanions to the Ancient World), ed. Daniel C. Snell, (Wiley-Blackwell, 2005-02-07) 254-252.
85 sign is only used once previous to this passage in relation to the mark Cain had received on his headGen. 4:15.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
38/98
The request concerns Yahweh's will and Abram's future possession of the land86
Abram seeks to validate the divine origin of an accompanying statement or revelation
that Yahweh has already given him87
The request is linked to a confirmation of a previous promise, which becomes
intimately linked with covenant88
Yahweh answers with a supernatural phenomenon (his manifest presence) in order tostrengthen Abram's confidence in the promise given89
Yahweh's manifest presence in the covenant ceremony becomes the basis for Abram's
faith and is used to convince others that Yahweh was the true all powerful God90
Yahwehs response to Abram's request for a sign was the manifestation of his divine
presence as he performed a covenant ceremony that, not only excluded any human participation
but also, furthered the revelation of his nature and character. But why does Yahweh respond to
this question with a covenant ceremony? Previous questions (2-3) have been answered with a
vivid illustration as a witness to Yahweh's creative power (4-5). This has seemed sufficient for
Abram's belief in Yahweh to culminate into a confirmation that garners him being reckoned
righteous. So, what is Yahweh trying to convey by manifesting his presence to Abram in this
way? And what does the manifest presence of Yahweh have to do with the promise of Gen. 12?
38
86 G.A. Turner, Sign, in The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney and MoisesSilva, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 508.
87 G.H. Twelftree, Signs and Wonders, in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity &Diversity of Scripture, ed. Brian S. Rosner and others, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2000), 776.
88 G.A. Turner, Sign, in The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney and MoisesSilva, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 508. ZEB links them to covenant in Gen. 1:14: And God said, Let
there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and forseasons, and for days and years,
89 G.A. Turner, Sign, in The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney and MoisesSilva, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 508.
90 G.A. Turner, Sign, in The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney and MoisesSilva, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 509 These signs were regarded by the writers of the Bible asinterventions by the Creator into the sphere of creation for the purposes of revelation and redemption. As such, theywere an encouragement to faith and many times theyprovided a basis for faith. G.H. Twelftree, Signs andWonders, in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity & Diversity of Scripture, ed. Brian S.Rosner and others, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2000), 776. cf. Deut. 4:35, and later 1 Chr. 16:12;Neh.9:10; Ps. 78:43-44; 105:26-45; Jer. 32:20-21.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
39/98
I would posit that the Abrahamic Covenant (15:7-21) is a condescension made by
Yahweh to present a tangible sign of his current and continued presence to Abram. Yahweh chose
to answer Abram's request for a sign with the manifestation of his presence, further revealing
himself with an action that corresponded with his self-revelatory declarations. In effect, the
covenant ceremony itself becomes secondary to the central point of Gen. 15, Yahweh's divine
presence is and will continue to be with Abram.
It is important to understand that this ceremony is, at its very core, rooted in the promise
that Yahweh will bless Abram (12:2b). The presence of Yahweh among his people, a people
that began with Abram, would be considered the greatest blessing available. Quite often
scholarship has gotten lost in trying to understand the soteric value of the Abrahamic covenant
and ends up missing the main point: All-Mighty Yahweh -who has made irrevocable promises
based on his character and nature - promises that he has already actively kept by means of his
own divine power - continues to reveal himself as he manifests his presence in a covenant
ceremony.
Interestingly, Yahweh is the only active participant in the covenant ceremony of Gen.
15:7-21. In fact, Abram is removed from the picture, only able to witness Yahwehs action on his
beahlf and not participate. As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold,
dreadful and great darkness fell upon him (15:7).91 Also Interesting is the Hebrew verb used in
v. 12 often translated sleep ( ), actually holds the idea of an insensitivity to danger in a
39
91 Von Rad calls this a miraculous deep sleep... in which the natural activities of spirit and mind areextinguished (see Gen. 2.21), which however, sometimes awakens a man to receive a revelation (Job 4.13; 33.15).Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis - a Commentary (Old Testament Library), Revised ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster JohnKnox Press, 1973), 187. He calls the meaning of the ceremony simply the gift of quite a real guarantee. Theceremony proceeded completely without words and with the complete passivity of the human partner! Ibid., 188.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
40/98
divinely empowered trance.92 This would follow Yahwehs purpose of having Abraham
personally witness the cutting of the covenant yet not be an active participant in the ceremony
itself. Yahweh desired to let Abram experience the dread/fear associated with his divine presence
yet not let it hinder Abram's witnessing of this relational covenant event.93 As discussed
previously, in Yahwehs command to fear not and relational self-description as Abram's
shield, Abram received the external empowerment from Yahweh needed to not experience the
typical consuming effects that the manifest presence of Yahweh would have on the fallen human
physical body. These two things combined with Abram's being reckoned righteous by Yahweh,
a spiritual prerequisite to being in the manifest presence of Yahweh, prepared Abram, physically
and spiritually, to witness Yahweh making a covenant concerning Abram and his descendants.
It is also important to note that Yahweh himself, with Abram as a witness, walks through
the pieces of animal (as a smoking pot and a flaming torch) and swears a covenant oath over
Abram taking sole responsibility for Abram's future (13-17). The covenant Yahweh performs
concerning Abram can be described as a modified suzerain-vassal land grant where the
obligation to keep the covenant lies on the master rather than the servant.94 In this covenant it is
God as the suzerain who commits himself and swears, as it were, to keep the promise. It is he
40
92 William White, in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Electronic Ed., ed. R. Laird
Harris, Jr. Archer, Gleason L., and Bruce K. Waltke, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 834.
93 cf. Gen. 2:26 Where a similar deep sleep falls over Adam in the rib ceremony
94 Weinfeld states: While the treaty constitutes an obligation of the vassal to his master, the suzerain, thegrant constitutes an obligation of the master to his servant. In the grant the curse is directed towards the one whowill violate the rights of the king's vassal, while in the treaty the curse is directed towards the vassal who will violatethe rights of his king. In other words, the grant serves mainly to protect the rights of the servant, while the treatycomes to protect the rights of the master. What is more, while the grant is a reward for loyalty and good deedsalready performed, the treaty is an inducement for future loyalty. M. Weinfeld, The Covenant of Grant in the OldTestament and in the Ancient NearEast,Journal of the American Oriental Society 90, no. 2 (Apr.-Jun., 1970): 185.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
41/98
accompanied by a smoking oven and a blazing torch who passes between the parts as though he
were invoking the curse upon himself.95
In his argument that Gen. 15 can be compared to the Alalakh texts (AT 456) regarding the
significance of ritually slaughtering animals, Hess concludes that the focus of the ritual is not a
self-imprecation oath performed by God. Rather, the common element in each animal (since they
are not all spilt into two) is that each animal's life is taken away. The implication of this is that
God's own divine life forms the surety for the promise.96 He then follows Wenham in
understanding the significance of the animals as symbolic.
[Yahwehs] act of walking between the pieces signifies his presence with his people.
However, even here the symbolic identification of the life of the animals with [Yahwehs]
own life reinforces the representation. His promise of the land is also a promise that his
people will never perish entirely. [Yahweh] is with Israel. He guarantees by his life that
he will bring them back to their land, no matter how unlikely or uncertain that may seem
(vv. 13-16).97
In Gen. 12, Yahweh has promised to bless Abram with the greatest blessing possible, his
continued presence. He has consistently revealed himself through his actions on behalf of Abram
and, now, he has manifested his divine presence to take part in a covenant ceremony in which his
own existence serves as the guarantee of his continued presence. Just as the righteousness that
was reckoned to Abram found its source in Yahweh, in the same manner Yahweh's continued
41
95 Ibid., 196.
96 R. Hess,He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes From Genesis 12-50, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,1994), 63. emphasis mine
97 Ibid., 63-64, emphasis mine. In any event the details present a daring anthropomorphism whereby Godinvolves himself in an obligation whose nature is dramatized by an acted oath of self-commitment, (cf. Heb. 6:13).In any case, no undertaking is exacted from Abram; God alone is bound. William J. Dumbrell, Covenant andCreation: Old Testament Covenantal Theology (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 49.
-
7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0
42/98
presence among his people is predicated on his grace.98 Everything about the covenant
ceremony of Gen. 15 leads to a deeper understanding that his nature and character are the basis
of his relationship with Abram and his offspring. Here, at the very foundation of the covenant
that would later define the people of Yahweh, we do not find any conditions or stipulations that
would cause a break in relationship. Rather, what we do find is a gracious covenant that is the
natural outworking of the foundational promise which is based solely Yahweh's desire to reveal
himself to his creation, so that they may know him.
Genesis 17
The next section of the Abrahamic narrative that needs to be discussed, (although
somewhat briefly) is Gen. 17. In this section I will show that the sign of circumcision attached to
the covenant is, in and of itself, revelatory of Yahwehs nature and character. It