UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Covenant in Galatians 3:15-18 : a comparative study in the Pauline and Jewish covenant concepts Tabert, George Thomas 1988

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
UBC_1988_A8 T32.pdf [ 8.86MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0097816.json
JSON-LD: 1.0097816+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0097816.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0097816+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0097816+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0097816+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0097816 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0097816.txt
Citation
1.0097816.ris

Full Text

COVENANT IN GALATIANS 3:15-18: A COMPARATIVE STUDY IN THE PAULINE AND JEWISH COVENANT CONCEPTS By GEORGE THOMAS TABERT B.A., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1985 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES RELIGIOUS STUDIES  We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1988 © George Thomas Tabert, 1988  In  presenting  degree freely  at  this  the  available  copying  of  department publication  of  in  partial  fulfilment  of  the  University  of  British  Columbia,  I  agree  for  this or  thesis  reference  thesis by  this  for  his thesis  and  study.  scholarly  or for  her  I  purposes  financial  gain  of  R e l i g i o u s Studies  T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f British Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6  (2/88)  Columbia  September 1>, 1988  shall  that  agree  may  representatives.  permission.  Department  further  requirements  It not  be is  that  the  Library  permission  granted  by  understood be  for  allowed  an  advanced  shall for  the that  without  head  make  it  extensive of  my  copying  or  my  written  i i ABSTRACT  The present thesis investigates Paul's understanding of covenant i n Gal 3:15-18 and r e l a t e s i t to covenantal thought i n Judaism. The B i b l i c a l  covenant  i s commonly thought of  as a contract with the  r e s u l t that the law i s not seen as a covenant i n i t s e l f but only as part of a covenant.  This covenantal view of the law i s seen as the s p e c i f i c OT and  Jewish view and forms the background against which Paul's treatment of the law i s studied.  The contractual view of covenant and the r e s u l t a n t way of  r e l a t i n g Paul's treatment of the law to Jewish thought i s challenged. The problem of defining Paul's covenant concept i s approached from a study of Gal 3:15. some i n s t i t u t i o n  The attempts to i n t e r p r e t t h i s t e x t as a description of of  the Greco-Roman world are found d e f i c i e n t .  A fresh  attempt i s made to understand t h i s t e x t as r e f e r r i n g to the OT covenant. I t is argued t h a t diatheke means "an enactment" or "ordinance."  This  claim counters the common notion t h a t the s p e c i f i c idea in t h i s term i s that of one-sidedness in an arrangement, a nuance absent from the Hebraic term b§ri"t. the  By understanding the OT covenant as an enactment, Paul works with  definition  Judaism.  of  There  covenant is  reflected  therefore  in  the OT and u n i v e r s a l l y  no d i s p a r i t y  between Paul  held  in  and Judaism  in  d e f i n i t i o n of covenant, as i s often assumed. Since covenant i s an enactment, being part of motif  seen  covenant  in  a covenant. the  between  law i t s e l f  This notion l i e s behind the singular  literature God and h i s  from Qumran. people,  formulations of the OT are only renewals. with the law.  i s a covenant rather than  of  The sectaries which  the  covenant  saw only one  various  The one covenant i s  covenant identified  Other Jewish sources surveyed r e f l e c t the same theology of  i ii covenant. Paul also understands the law as a covenant but denies the covenant m o t i f .  singular  In Gal 3:17-18 he t r e a t s the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant  formulations as separate and mutually exclusive covenants. the singular covenant m o t i f , covenantal thought.  By breaking with  Paul f i n d s himself outside the pale of Jewish  Paul's break with the Jewish understanding of law l i e s  thus i n his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the OT covenant formulations.  iv TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT  ii  TABLE OF CONTENTS  iv  ABBREVIATIONS  vii  CHAPTER 1.  A STUDY IN PAUL'S COVENANT CONCEPT A.  B.  A D e f i n i t i o n a l and A n a l y t i c a l Study of Paul's Covenant Concept  1  The Contemporary Context f o r the Present Study  4  i.  Schoeps:  Paul's "Fundamental Misunderstanding"  4  ii.  Sanders:  Covenantal Nomism  8  Law Without Covenant  11  i i i . Gaston:  2.  1  C.  The Prevailing Understanding of Covenant  13  D.  Questions Raised f o r a Study of Paul's Covenant Concept  15  THE INSTITUTION OF GALATIANS 3:15  19  A.  Contract or Testamentary Disposition?  19  B.  A Last W i l l and Gal 3:15  22  i.  A Last W i l l and I r r e v o c a b i l i t y  22  ii.  The Death of the Testator and Gal 3:15,17  25  C.  Adoption I n t e r Vivos and Gal 3:15  29  D.  Mattenat B a r i  32  E.  The Bearing of Kleronomia on the Meaning of Diatheke"  38  F.  Diathfke as Contract  41  G.  Diatheke and the Old Testament Bertt  44  ?  and Gal 3:15  V  3.  4.  GALATIANS 3:15 AND THE OLD TESTAMENT BERIT  46  A.  Gal 3:15 Re-examined  46  i.  The Structure of Gal 3:15-18  46  ii.  The Meaning of Kata Anthropon Lego  48  i i i . What is Said Kata Anthropon in Gal 3:15  51  B.  Diatheke as Old Testament B e n t  58  C.  Paul's Technical Vocabulary  63  THE MEANING OF DIATHEKE A.  5.  6.  68  The Broader Usage of Diatheke Apart from H e l l e n i s t i c Judaism and C h r i s t i a n i t y  69  B.  The Broader Usage of Diatheke in the LXX and Apocrypha  74  C.  Diatheke" as Ordinance  79  BERIT AS ORDINANCE  84  A.  The LXX Rendering of B e n t  84  B.  BeVtt as Ordinance i n Hebrew and Aramaic Sources  86  C.  BeVtt as Ordinance i n the Old Testament  88  D.  Covenant as Ordinance  99  BERIT AMONG THE QUMRAN SECTARIES  101  A.  Covenant, Torah and Community  101  B.  Covenant, Torah and Promise  106  C.  The Interrelatedness of Promise and Law i n Covenant  107  D.  Torah as the One Perpetually Renewed Covenant  110  E.  Torah and God's Covenant Faithfulness  113  F.  Torah and the Promissory Aspect of Covenant  114  G.  BeVtt as Diatheke at Qumran  116  vi 7.  8.  9.  THE UNITARY VIEW OF COVENANT IN JUDAISM  117  A.  P l u r a l i t y of Covenants in Jewish L i t e r a t u r e  117  B.  The Singular Covenant Motif i n Jubilees  122  C.  The Primacy of Torah  125  .  PAUL'S BREAK WITH THE JEWISH UNDERSTANDING OF COVENANT  128  A.  Gal 3:15-18 and the Singular Covenant Motif  128  B.  Promise and Law as A n t i t h e t i c a l i n Their Effects  131  C.  Promise and Law as Mutually Exclusive Categories  138  D.  Paul's Fundamental Departure from Judaism  141  CONCLUSIONS FOR THE STUDY OF COVENANT IN PAUL  142  A.  The Results of the Present Study of Paul's Understanding of Covenant  142  B.  Understanding Covenant  144  C.  Paul's Point of Departure from Judaism  149  D.  The F i n a l i t y of Paul's Break with Judaism  153  E.  Final Reflections  155  BIBLIOGRAPHY  162  ABBREVIATIONS ANE  Ancient Near East  BAGD  U. Bauer, w. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker, GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,  BDB  F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Lexicon of the Old Testament.  BDF  F. Blass, A. Debrunner and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament.  Bib  Biblica.  EncBib  T. K. Cheyne Biblica.  Exp  The Expositor.  ExpTim  Expository Times.  HR  History of Religions.  IDB  G. A. B u t t r i c k Bible.  JB  Jerusalem B i b l e .  JBL  Journal of B i b l i c a l  JTS  Journal of Theological Studies.  LSJ  L i d d e l l - S c o t t - J o n e s , Greek-English Lexicon.  MM  J . H. Moulton and G. M i l l i g a n , The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament I l l u s t r a t e d from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources.  Moul-T  J . H. Moulton and N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek.  MT  Masoretic Text.  NASB  New American Standard B i b l e .  NIV  New I n t e r n a t i o n a l Version.  NovT  Novum Testamentum.  NT  New Testament.  and J .  et  al.,  Sutherland  (eds.),  Briggs,  Black  Hebrew and English  (eds.),  Interpreter's  Encyclopaedia  Dictionary of  the  Literature.  viii NTS  New Testament Studies.  OT  Old Testament.  RSV  Revised Standard Version.  SR  Studies in Religion/Sciences r e l i g i e u s e s .  Str-B  H. Strack and P. B i l l e r b e c k , Talmud in Midrash.  TDNT  G. K i t t l e and G. F r i e d r i c h ( e d s . ) , Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.  TDOT  G. J . Botterweck and H. Ringgren ( e d s . ) , of the Old Testament.  TWOT  R. L. H a r r i s , G. L. Archer and B. K. Waltke ( e d s . ) , Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.  WTJ  Westminster Theological Journal.  ZAW  Z e i t s c h r i f t fuer die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft.  ZNW  Z e i t s c h r i f t fuer die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft.  Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus  Theological  Dictionary  1 CHAPTER 1 A STUDY IN PAUL'S COVENANT CONCEPT  A.  A D e f i n i t i o n a l and A n a l y t i c a l Study of Paul's Covenant Concept  The r e l a t i o n s h i p critical  between Pauline and Jewish thought has received new  a t t e n t i o n in the 20th Century due to the fresh attempt in Western  scholarship to study Judaism from i t s own sources and f o r  i t s own sake.-'  -  The p a r t i c u l a r l y sore point in t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s the Pauline treatment of the law.  Torah i s at the heart of Judaism.  i s at the heart of Paul's gospel.  But a c r i t i q u e of nomos or law  I f Paul does not d i r e c t his c r i t i q u e of  nomos against the Jewish Torah, he has at least been l a r g e l y understood to do so.  Thus at least f o r Western scholarship, the Pauline understanding of  law i s the most pressing issue i n r e l a t i n g Paul to Judaism. The way the  Pauline  variously understood. seen as of c r i t i c a l covenant  in  comparison.  critique  law relates  to  Judaism has been  However, the idea of covenant has been c o n s i s t e n t l y importance in t h i s comparative study.  understanding In the  of  idea of  law  has  come from the  covenant,  scholars  The emphasis on  Jewish  side of  have seen the  the  important  For a review of the general treatment of Judaism in New Testament s c h o l a r s h i p w i t h i t s tendency t o c h a r a c t e r i z e Judaism from i t s own perspective and a c a l l f o r a proper c r i t i c a l study of Judaism, see E.' P. Sanders, Paul and P a l e s t i n i a n Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of R e l i g i o n , (London: SCM, 1977) 33-59. On Paul and Judaism in Pauline scholarship, see pp. 1-12. Pioneering works in attempting to bring a Judaic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Judaism to bear on New Testament scholarship are: C. G. Montefiore, Judaism and St. Paul: Two Essays (London: Max Goschen, 1914); G. F. Moore, Judaism i n the F i r s t Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y , 1927-30) 3 v o l s . ; W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London: SPCK, 1948); and H. J . Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961).  2 category  in  Judaism t h a t  frees  Torah from the negative  elements i n the nomos t h a t Paul c r i t i c i z e s . raised some c r i t i c a l fail  to grasp the  simply reject  and  legalistic  As might be expected, t h i s has  questions about the Pauline c r i t i q u e of law. idea of covenant so central  the Jewish  idea of  covenant?  c r i t i q u e not the Torah of Judaism?  i n Judaism? Or i s  Did Paul  Or did Paul  the nomos of  Paul's  Such questions about Paul and the Jewish  covenant concept address the very heart of Pauline thought. Unfortunately,  the discussion  has l a r g e l y been carried on without a  s u f f i c i e n t e f f o r t given to defining the covenant concept i n e i t h e r Paul or Judaism.  The neglect of so basic a task has l e f t the discussion somewhat  vulnerable,  not only to  a lack  of  precision  and c l a r i t y ,  but also to a  f a u l t y analysis of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Paul and Judaism on t h i s p o i n t . An attempt to f u l f i l t h i s c r i t i c a l task i s made in t h i s t h e s i s . That there is  a disparity  between the concept of covenant in  c r i t i q u e of nomos and in the Jewish view of Torah i s c l e a r .  Paul's  While Judaism  embraces Torah not only as a covenant but also in u n i t y with the p a t r i a r c h a l covenant of promise, Paul relegates nomos to a negative r o l e and i s o l a t e s the p a t r i a r c h a l covenant from i t . fundamental  disparity  in  The temptation i s simply to point to some  understanding  or  subject  on the part  of  Paul.  Either he misunderstands the Jewish idea of covenant or he i s not speaking of the Torah of  Judaism.  The matter,  however,  is  not that  simple.  A  d i s t i n c t i o n must be made between the d e f i n i t i o n of covenant worked with and the theology of covenant worked out.  The d e f i n i t i o n of covenant concerns  the nature of covenant as an i n s t i t u t i o n .  The theology of covenant concerns  the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the divine covenant formulations of the OT.  The real  d i s p a r i t y between Paul and Judaism l i e s in the l a t t e r area. Paul's covenant term i s diatheke, by which he understands the OT b e r f t .  3 D e f i n i t i o n a l l y , he understands t h i s category as a binding a c t , enactment or ordinance.  Paul shares t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of covenant with a l l Judaism.  There  is no d i s p a r i t y between Paul and Judaism on the d e f i n i t i o n of the covenant concept. Paul r a d i c a l l y breaks with Judaism, however, i n the area of theology of covenant.  Judaism has a u n i t a r y  formulations  of  Accordingly,  the  inseparably  the  OT are  promissory  united.  view of  seen and  covenant.  The major  as re-enactments legislative  What Judaism thus holds  aspects together,  of  one of  covenant covenant.  covenant  Paul  sets  are  apart.  Promise and law are seen as mutually exclusive and the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant formulations as separate enactments. While the difference between the Pauline and Jewish view of covenant i s radical,  the basic agreement on the nature of the covenantal  must not be l o s t to view. precisely  where  This i s of c r i t i c a l  and why Paul  departs  importance f o r  institution determining  from the Jewish understanding  of  covenant. The claim t h a t Paul understands diatheke simply as the OT b e r t t must be principally  tested  against  Gal 3:15,  which i s  universally  understood as  r e f e r r i n g t o a legal i n s t i t u t i o n of the Greco-Roman world rather than the OT bertt.  The paragraph containing t h i s t e x t , Gal 3:15-18, i s also of c r i t i c a l  importance f o r r e l a t i n g Paul's understanding of covenant to t h a t of Judaism. It  r e f l e c t s both Paul's basic agreement with Judaism on the nature of the  i n s t i t u t i o n of covenant and his radical break from Judaism over the theology of covenant.  Therefore, t h i s  concept in t h i s passage.  thesis w i l l  treat  principally  the covenant  4 B.  The Contemporary Context f o r the Present Study  The r e l a t i o n s h i p understanding scholars.  of  between Paul's  covenant  has  critique  of  the  law and the  been worked out variously  by  Jewish  different  The positions of three 20th Century scholars w i l l be summarized  to provide a contemporary context f o r the d e f i n i t i o n a l  and a n a l y t i c a l  task  of t h i s t h e s i s .  i.  Schoeps:  Paul's "Fundamental Misunderstanding"  Schoeps closes his chapter on "Paul's Teaching About the Law" in his work on Paul with a section e n t i t l e d , "Paul's Fundamental Misapprehension." This  title,  which  refers  to  Paul's  notion  of  covenant,  reflects  a  fundamental f r u s t r a t i o n that Schoeps finds in Paul's teaching about the law. Schoeps i s able to f i n d Rabbinic presuppositions in the major elements of Paul's teaching about the law.  He sees the key to Paul's doctrine of the  cessation of the law i n Christ in the Jewish b e l i e f that the law would no longer be in e f f e c t  in the Messianic era.  Paul, however, does not leave  the matter of the cessation of the law with t h i s Jewish idea. other Jewish ideas, such as the e v i l  He takes  impulse and the u n f u l f i l a b i l i t y of the  law, and pushes them to completely non-Jewish conclusions. Under the t i t l e , the  Jewish  doctrines  "Further Jewish Counter-Positions," Schoeps shows how of  Schoeps, Paul, 213. 3  I b i d . , 171.  repentance  and of  power over the e v i l  impulse  5  counter Paul's radical conclusions on the negative side of the law. Judaism  always  concludes  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to obey i t .  with  an  affirmation  of  the  law  and  Thus the  Paul, however, in his treatment of the law seems  to ignore these doctrines and concludes with the displacement of the law. Schoeps depicts Paul's motive i n t h i s as f o l l o w s : [ H i s ] Messianic dogmatism induced him to assemble a l l those features of the law which indicated that i t would be cancelled in the Messianic age. Every c r i t e r i o n suggesting the law was inadequate f o r salvation was emphasized y i order to disperse with the old covenant f o r i n t r i n s i c reasons... But f o r Schoeps, the real problem with Paul's view of the law does not lie  in  his  problem s t i l l  Messianic  use of  Jewish ideas.  The  remains how Paul could make such an e c l e c t i c and non-Jewish  use of these ideas. of covenant.  dogmatism and e c l e c t i c  Schoeps f i n d the s o l u t i o n to t h i s problem in the notion  In covenant Schoeps sees the decisive category in the Jewish  understanding of the law which he f i n d s lacking in Paul.  Paul's f a i l u r e to  grasp the covenantal view of the law l i e s behind his treatment of the law. In answer to the question whether " . . . Paul r i g h t l y understood the law as the saving p r i n c i p l e of the old covenant," Schoeps says, " I think that we must answer t h i s question in the negative."^  He then explains,  Paul d i d not p e r c e i v e . . . t h a t in the B i b l i c a l view the law is i n t e g r a l to the covenant; in modern terms was the c o n s t i t u t i v e act by which the Sinai covenant was r a t i f i e d . . . I n the f i r s t place i t was given in order to bind the I s r a e l i t e people to i t s covenant God as His peculiar possession ('m s g l h ) . The maintenance of t h i s ordinance, the proving of t h i s c o n s t i t u t i v e act, i s required of every member of the people in order that the covenant might be r e a l l y embodied in I s r a e l i t e l i f e at a l l times and in a l l places. 4  I b i d . , 193-200.  5  I b i d . , 201.  6  I b i d . , 213.  7  Ibid.  6 In contrast to t h i s B i b l i c a l view, . . . w h e n Paul speaks of the Jewish nomos he implies a twofold c u r t a i l m e n t . . . i n the f i r s t place he has reduced the Torah, which means f o r the Jews both law and teaching, to the e t h i c a l (and r i t u a l ) law; secondly, he has wrested and isolated the law from the c o n t r o l l i n g context of God's covenant with I s r a e l . For Schoeps, the Sinai covenant is more than the law. law"  9  and i s the "context" of the law  covenant or b e r t t i s " r e c i p r o c i t y . " is  a sacred  legal  act  of  10  .  I t "precedes the  The key to his understanding of  He affirms t h a t " . . . t h e S i n a i t i c b e r i t h  reciprocity,  in the contraction  of  which  both  partners stand on one platform and speak on equal terms, recognizing each other (Deut. 26:17-18)."  11  The covenant i s a foedus aequum.  12  The people  of Israel are confoederati and between Israel and God " . . . e x i s t s a genuine relationship  of  contract—expressed  in  a Roman legal  formula,  a mutua  13 obiigatio--which league".  i s indissoluble and unredeemable."  is a "covenantal  14  The law's function Israelite  It  people to  its  in t h i s covenant  covenantal  relationship  God as His peculiar  was to  "bind the 15  possession,"  and  maintenance of i t i s required t h a t "the covenant might be r e a l l y embodied in I b i d . , 213. 8  9  I b i d . , 196.  1 0  U  I b i d . , 213.  Ibid.,  214.  1 2  Ibid.  1 3  I b i d . , 215.  1 4  Ibid.  1 5  I b i d . , 213.  Israelite  life."  I  c  Without  the r e l a t i o n a l  context  of  covenant,  law  is  reduced to a l e g a l i s t i c f u n c t i o n . Thus f o r  Schoeps the concept  of  covenant supplies  the law with  the  p o s i t i v e dimension that is so r a d i c a l l y lacking in Paul's treatment of law. He traces the development toward the Pauline view to the dropping out of the contractual which  idea in H e l l e n i s t i c  translates  remarks,  bertt  "The voluntary  with pact  Judaism. diatheke. involving  He sees t h i s c l e a r l y in the LXX Concerning t h i s mutual  obligations  translation  he  has become an  a u t h o r i t a t i v e legal d i s p o s i t i o n rather l i k e a testamentary decision f a m i l i a r to Greek c i v i l  law,  Further,  "...is  Paul  from which the profane entirely  use of  the term  dependent on LXX usage,  derives."^  and understands  diatheke as a one-sided declaration of the w i l l of God, an arrangement which 1  o  God has made and authorized." Schoeps concludes, Because Paul had l o s t a l l understanding of the character of the Hebraic b e r i t h as a partnership involving mutual o b l i g a t i o n s , he f a i l e d to grasp the inner meaning of the Mosaic law, namely, that i t is an instrument by which the covenant i s r e a l i z e d . Hence the Pauline theology of law and j u s t i f i c a t i o n begins with the f a t e f u l misunderstanding in consequence of which he tears asunder covenant and law, and then represents Christ as the end of the law." Thus f o r Schoeps, Paul's e n t i r e teaching on the law rests on a fundamental misapprehension concerning the covenantal nature of law, which in turn rests on a f a u l t y d e f i n i t i o n of covenant.  1 6  I b i d . , 213.  1 7  I b i d . , 216.  1 8  Ibid.  1 9  1 b i d . , 218.  8 ii  Sanders:  Covenantal Nomism  Sanders agrees with Schoeps that covenant i s the essential category by which the Jewish view of the law must be understood and the f a i l u r e to see law in the context of covenant i s the cause f o r a f a u l t y l e g a l i s t i c view of Judaism.  In  Paul  and P a l e s t i n i a n  Judaism,  he presents  treatment of the r o l e of law in P o s t - b i b l i c a l  Judaism.  Sanders' treatment is a great advance on Schoeps. "Fundamental Misapprehension" in a l i t t l e  an extensive  In t h i s  respect,  Schoeps deals with Paul's  less than six pages.  He seeks to  prove his covenantal view of law in Judaism simply by pointing out canonical and noncanonical covenant.  Jewish t e x t s which i d e n t i f y or i n t i m a t e l y r e l a t e  With Sanders i t i s d i f f e r e n t .  extensively t r e a t s  three groups of  Century Judaism can be derived:  literature  throughout  this  But he  from which the view of  1st  Tannaitic l i t e r a t u r e , the Dead Sea Scrolls  and the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. religion  He does not t r e a t the OT.  law and  literature,  Sanders finds a uniform pattern of with  4 Ezra, which he c a l l s "covenantal nomism."  the  (possible)  exception  Sanders w r i t e s , " B r i e f l y  of put,  covenantal nomism is the view t h a t one's place in God's plan i s established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to i t s commandments, while providing means of atonement f o r transgression."  20  Stating i t more f u l l y , Sanders w r i t e s , The ' p a t t e r n ' or ' s t r u c t u r e ' of covenantal nomism i s t h i s : (1) God has chosen Israel and (2) given the law. The law implies both (3) God's promise to maintain the election and (4) the requirement to obey. (5) God rewards obedience and punishes transgression. (6) The law provides f o r means of atonement, and atonement r e s u l t s i n ( 7 ) maintenance or r e - e s t a b l i s h m e n t of the covenantal 20  Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 75.  9  r e l a t i o n s h i p . (8) A l l those who are maintained in the covenant by obedience, atonement and God's mercy belong to the group which w i l l be saved. An important i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the f i r s t and l a s t points i s that e l e c t i o n and u l t i m a t e l y salvation are considered to be by God's mercy rather than human achievement. This l a s t point i s Sanders' t h e s i s . of  legalistic  works-righteousness  Palestinian Judaism i s not a r e l i g i o n  or of weighing merits against  demerits.  Obedience to the law is not p r i m a r i l y with a view to " s a l v a t i o n . " than such a forward covenant.  The  responsibility and not  by  look, obedience has p r i m a r i l y a backward look to the  covenant  causes  to obedience.  his  Rather  directly  both  salvation  and  the  So one is "saved" by v i r t u e of the covenant  "works."  One "works"  to maintain  covenant by v i r t u e of which position he i s saved.  his  position  in  the  So, the immediate import  of obedience i s maintenance in the covenant and not s a l v a t i o n .  Thus,  in  discussing zgkah and tsadaq in Tannaitic l i t e r a t u r e , Sanders w r i t e s , The u n i v e r s a l l y held view was rather t h i s : those who accept the covenant, which carries with i t God's promise of s a l v a t i o n , accept also the o b l i g a t i o n to obey the commandments by God in connection w i t h the covenant. One who accepts the covenant and remains w i t h i n i t is ' r i g h t e o u s ' , and that t i t l e applies to him both as one who obeys God and as one who has a 'sha^e in the world to come', but the former does not earn the l a t t e r . Covenant expresses the whole r e l a t i o n s h i p between God and His people. Salvation  is  a result  of  this  relationship  given graciously  to  Israel.  Obedience to the law is only I s r a e l ' s way of maintaining that r e l a t i o n s h i p . Rather than perfect  obedience, the essential  requirements are to maintain  the covenant in obedience and, in the case of f a i l u r e , to avail oneself of the means of atonement. According to Sanders, i t 2 1  I b i d . , 422.  2 2  I b i d . , 204.  i s not Paul but Western B i b l i c a l  Scholarship  10 that  has misunderstood  administer a c o r r e c t i v e .  Judaism,  and to t h i s  scholarship  he wishes  to  He believes that Paul understood covenantal nomism  in Judaism and made t h a t the object of his attack.  He w r i t e s :  Paul seems to ignore (and by i m p l i c a t i o n deny) the grace of God toward Israel as evidenced by the e l e c t i o n and the covenant. But t h i s i s neither because of ignorance of the significance of the covenant w i t h i n Jewish thought nor because of the demise of the covenant conception in l a t e Judaism. Paul in f a c t e x p l i c i t l y denies that the Jewish covenant can be e f f e c t i v e f o r s a l v a t i o n , thus consciously denying the basis of Judaism. After l i s t i n g examples of t h i s , l i k e the denial of the i n t r i n s i c value of circumcision, the denial that those who keep the covenant through works receive the promises, and the claim t h a t the covenantal promises apply to Christians and not to Abraham's descendants, he s t a t e s : I t i s not f i r s t of a l l a g a i n s t the means of being properly r e l i g i o u s which are appropriate to Judaism that Paul polemicizes ( ' b y works of l a w ' ) , but a g a i n s t the p r i o r fundamentals of Judaism: the e l e c t i o n , the covenant and the law; and i t is because t h e s e are wrong t h a t t h e means a p p r o p r i a t e d t o ' r i g h t e o u s n e s s according t o the law' (Torah observance and repentance) are held to be wrong or are not mentioned. In short, t h i s i s what Paul f i n d s wrong i n J u d a i s m : i t i s not Christianity. Thus, " . . . t h e  basis f o r  Paul's  polemic against the  against doing the law, was his e x c l u s i v i s t  law,  soteriology."  and consequently  pz:  27 Sanders  sees  2 3  I b i d . , 33f.  2 4  I b i d . , 551.  2 5  I b i d . , 551-2.  2 6  I b i d . , 550.  2 7  I b i d . , 513.  possible  elements  of  covenantal  nomism in  Paul  but  11 denies that covenantal nomism i s a major t h r u s t in his thought.  He sees  29 in Paul p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s t theology rather than covenantal nomism.  iii  Gaston:  Lloyd  Law Without Covenant  Gaston has taken a d i f f e r e n t  approach to  the problem of how  Paul's treatment of the law relates to the Jewish covenantal view of law or "covenantal nomism." Paul  (Schoeps)  Rather than seeing any fundamental misapprehension in  or seeing Paul  Gaston sees Paul as c r i t i q u i n g it.  as r e j e c t i n g  covenantal  nomism (Sanders),  law without covenant, as the Gentiles have  So the nomos that Paul c r i t i q u e s  i s not the Torah of Judaism.  Paul  leaves t h i s Torah i n t a c t . Gaston keeps Schoeps'  charge of "Fundamental Misapprehension" in mind  in his work on Paul and the law.  He makes reference to t h i s  "fundamental  misapprehension" in each of the f i r s t f i v e of the ten essays published in a book e n t i t l e d , Schoeps.  Paul  and the Torah.  3f)  Gaston h y p o t h e t i c a l l y  agrees  with  In his " I n t r o d u c t i o n " he w r i t e s ,  I f , on the one hand, one were to assume that Paul's statements about the Torah were intended t o be d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t the understanding of Judaism, t h e n . . . t h e conclusion would have to be I b i d . , 513-4. Sanders ( I b i d . , 511f) sees in Davies' (Paul and Rabbinic Judaism) i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Paul's theology the pattern of r e l i g i o n of covenant nomism. Sanders, however, denies that t h i s i s the case. 29 M. D. Hooker ("Paul and 'Covenantal Nomism'," Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C. K. B a r r e t t , eds., M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson LLondon: SPCK, 1982J 47-56) argues that Sanders goes too f a r in s e t t i n g Pauline theology o f f from covenantal nomism. While agreeing with Sanders that Paul's theology i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s t rather than nomistic,- she argues that the pattern of r e l i g i o n represented by covenantal nomism i s present i n Paul's thought as w e l l . 30 Lloyd Gaston, Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1987) 19,46,61,79,81,82.  12 that in t h i s respect at least Paul was simply wrong. This has often been the p o s i t i o n of those who know e a r l y Judaism best. For example, in his w e l l - w r i t t e n study of Pauline theology from a Jewish perspective H. J . Schoeps has to e n t i t l e the conclusion of his chapter on Paul's teaching about the law "Paul's Fundamental Misapprehension." I f Paul does not perceive the r e l a t i o n between covenant and commandment, then he does not understand anything at a l l about Torah., and nothing he says about i t should be taken seriously. Indeed, even to say "fundamental" misapprehension may be to g i v e Paul too much c r e d i t . Much more l i k e l y i s the v i e w . . . t h a t Paul i s simply inconsistent and confused. Before coming to such a conclusion, however, i t might be advisable to t r y a d i f f e r e n t s t a r t i n g p o i n t . . . I shall assume t h a t Paul understood "covenantal nomism" very w e l l indeed and t h a t , he i s to be interpreted w i t h i n the context of e a r l y Judaism.... Gaston comes to Paul with the assumption that understanding of the Jewish view of the law i s  Schoeps'  Paul's.  and Sanders'  He d i f f e r s  with  Schoeps, however, by s t a r t i n g " . . . f r o m the premise that Paul knew at least as much about "covenantal Sanders."  nomism" and Jewish " s o t e r i o l o g y "  32  While Gaston denies from the outset agrees  as does E. P.  that  most  concluded—without  of  what  Paul  says  Schoeps'  about  the  any connection with covenant.  c r i t i c i s m of law i s  Paul, he  as Schoeps has  Gaston accounts f o r  this  33 by the view, which he sees in early Judaism,  t h a t while law was given  w i t h i n the context of covenant to Israel i t was imposed on Gentiles without the context of covenant.  So, contrary to the s i t u a t i o n of I s r a e l , Gentiles  are not "saved" as a r e s u l t of being in the covenant but have to work out a l e g a l i s t i c works-righteousness,  and they are not in covenant with God but 34 under the administration of angels who punish transgression. 3 1  I b i d . , 4.  3 2  I b i d . , 65.  3 3  I b i d . , 24-28.  3 4  I b i d . , 28.  13 Gaston's view on law and covenant f i t s  in with a two-covenant theory  35  which  he b e l i e v e s  covenants:  is  held.  According to t h i s  theory God has two  the Sinai covenant with the Jews and a covenant in Christ with  the Gentiles. Christ  Paul  Torah is not a covenant f o r the Gentiles and the covenant i n  not f o r  Jews.  Christ  is  exclusively f o r  Gentiles.  In  fact,  Gaston denies that Paul sees Jesus as the Messiah f o r the Jews. C.  The Prevailing Understanding of Covenant  Though the three scholars j u s t reviewed d i f f e r  quite s u b s t a n t i a l l y on  how the Pauline c r i t i q u e of the law relates to Judaism, they share a common set of assumptions about the Jewish or "correct" understanding of covenant and  law.  Covenant  is  understood  as  a relational  category,  which  t h e o l o g i c a l l y represents the t o t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between God and his people. Law by i t s e l f  is  inflexible rule.  understood  in  a legalistic  sense as a mere demand, an  Law, however, i s freed from i t s  being subsumed under covenant.  l e g a l i s t i c character by  The noncovenantal view of law r e s u l t s i n the  l e g a l i s t i c character of Paul's (Schoeps) or scholarship's (Sanders) view of the Judaism or of the law f o r Gentiles (Gaston). The  "correct"  scholarship. apologists  It  view  of  covenant  is  not  a discovery  of  recent  is almost u n i v e r s a l l y assumed in scholarship, both by the  and c r i t i c s  of  Judaism.  Sanders, who seeks to correct  pervasive tendency in NT scholarship, notes: In C h r i s t i a n scholarship there has generally been the c o n v i c t i o n a l l but u n i v e r s a l l y h e l d — t h a t there was a degeneration of the b i b l i c a l view in p o s t - b i b l i c a l Judaism. The once noble idea of the covenant as offered by God's grace and of obedience as the 3 5  Ibid., 79.  a  14 consequence of that gracious g i f t degenerated i n t o the idea of petty legalism, according to which one had to earri the mercy of God by minute observance of i r r e l e v a n t ordinances. Thus, the scholarship that Sanders i s t r y i n g to correct has the  "correct"  view of covenant also but is only wrong in not seeing that view in Postb i b l i c a l Judaism. The p r e v a i l i n g understanding of covenant i s the r e s u l t of the triumph of the t r a d i t i o n Century AD.  of t r a n s l a t i o n of b e n t  The e a r l i e s t  introduced by Aquila in the 2nd  t r a d i t i o n of t r a n s l a t i o n of the Hebrew covenant  term i s represented by the LXX which translates b e n t with diatheke. tradition  dominates  Christianity.  the  literature  of  Hellenistic  This  Judaism and e a r l y  I t passed i n t o the Occident through the Vetus Latina which,  being a t r a n s l a t i o n of the LXX, renders diatheke with testamentum. Aquila, by rendering b e r t t with suntheke", introduced a new t r a d i t i o n of translation.  As w i l l  be seen l a t e r ,  while  diatheke  and suntheke  overlap in t h e i r usage, the two terms represent c l e a r l y d i s t i n c t Pi atheke  means  ordinance or  enactment whereas suntheke  meaning of agreement or c o n t r a c t .  Aquila  could  concepts.  has the  special  was followed w i t h i n Judaism by  Symmachus. Aquila's Jerome.  rendering of b e n t  was introduced into the Occident through  He affirmed that b e r t t did not mean testamentum but rather foedus 37  or pactum.  This t r a d i t i o n triumphed over the older one represented by the  LXX and Vetus Latina as seen in a l l modern t r a n s l a t i o n s . by the English  "covenant,"  I t i s represented  a term stemming from the Latin convenir,  "to  agree," the German Bund and the French a l l i a n c e . Of.  Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 419.  37  Ernst Kutsch, Neues Testament - Neuer Bund? Eine Fehluebersetzung wird k o r r i g i e r t (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978) 1.  D.  Questions Raised f o r a Study of Paul's Covenant Concept  The triumph of  Aquila over the  LXX has alienated  somewhat from the NT use of diatheke". gets theological  justification.  It  biblical  scholars  Often the NT use of diathgke only  i s admitted that sunthgke i s the more  accurate term f o r berTt and then argued that diatheke i s t h e o l o g i c a l l y more appropriate since the pact in mind i s rather one sided. affirms  that  bent  "uniformly  signifies  'covenant,'  For example, Burton 'compact'"  and then  suggests t h a t suntheke "the ordinary Greek word f o r 'compact'...was probably f e l t to be inappropriate to express the thought of the Hebrew berTt, [which was] commonly used not f o r  a compact between two p a r t i e s of  substantially  the same rank, but f o r a r e l a t i o n s h i p between God and man graciously created by God, and only accepted by man".  o p  Schoeps r e j e c t s any attempt to j u s t i f y the use of diatheke in the LXX 39 and NT.  For him, the s p e c i f i c idea in suntheke, which i s not brought out  in diatheke, alone accurately expresses the idea in b e r i t .  Having located  in the idea of suntheke the decisive element in Jewish thought t h a t frees the law from the l e g a l i s t i c character of the law Paul c r i t i c i z e s , he traces the f a u l t y view of law that he sees in Paul to the use of diatheke . -  Thus  Schoeps brings i n t o the foreground the question concerning the d e f i n i t i o n of the  b i b l i c a l covenant concept r a i s e d by the d i v e r g e n t t r a d i t i o n s of 38 Ernest De Witt Burton, A C r i t i c a l and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1920) 497498). Calvin (The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians [Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1965] 56-57) simply defines diatheke as suntHeke though he concedes that t h i s i s not the usual way diatheke was used. This approach at r e c o n c i l i n g the two t r a d i t i o n s of t r a n s l a t i o n is not common. Schoeps, Paul, 217.  16 t r a n s l a t i o n s of b e n t . The question  concerning  the d e f i n i t i o n  of the covenant concept  concerns the formulation of the problem of covenant f o r Each  of  the  three  scholars  reviewed  above  come t o  Pauline Paul  also  studies. with  the  understanding of law and covenant expressed by Sanders' formula, covenantal nomism.  For each, the question is how Paul relates to the understanding of  covenant in question. the p a r t i c u l a r suntheke".  If  This understanding of covenant, however, is based on  definition  of the covenant concept represented by Aquila's  this definition  i s f a u l t y , then the problem of covenant f o r  Pauline studies must be reformulated. In accordance with his concern with d i f f e r e n t  "patterns of r e l i g i o n , "  Sanders does not focus his a t t e n t i o n , as Schoeps does, on Paul's treatment of the elements of Judaism.  He sees in Judaism the pattern of r e l i g i o n t h a t  he c a l l s covenantal nomism and in Paul a p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s t theology. paradigms hardly compare.  The two  Thus, while he shares Schoeps' view of covenant,  he does not share his c r i t i q u e of Paul.  According to Sanders, Paul r e j e c t s  Judaism because i t i s a pattern of r e l i g i o n that is d i f f e r e n t from his own. This means t h a t Judaism i s c r i t i q u e d from without and the question of Paul's treatment of the elements of  Judaism i s minimized.  Accordingly,  Sanders  writes concerning Paul's treatment of the law: The law i s good, even doing the law i s good, but salvation i s only by C h r i s t ; therefore the e n t i r e system represented by the law i s worthless f o r s a l v a t i o n . I t i s the change of ' e n t i r e systems' which makes i t unnecessary f o r him to speak about repentance or the grace of God shown in the giving of the covenant...Paul was not t r y i n g accurately to represent Judaism on i t s own terms, nor need we suppose t h a t he was ignorant on essential p o i n t s . He simply saw the old dispensation as worthless i n comparison with the new.  Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 550-551.  17 Thus Sanders  sees Paul taking  a rather  sweeping approach  in  criticizing  Judaism. The d i f f e r e n t represented critique  of  approaches  by Schoeps law i s  to  explaining  and Sanders  raise  Paul's  critique  of  the  the question whether  law  Paul's  based on an understanding of elements w i t h i n Judaism,  such as covenant, or on a perspective wholly d i f f e r e n t from and thus without Judaism.  Does Paul r e j e c t  question  raises  the  law on i n t e r n a l  need t o  pin-point  or on external Paul's  point  of  grounds?  This  departure  from  Judaism. Gaston short-cuts the problem of how the law of Paul's c r i t i q u e r e l a t e s to  Judaism i t s e l f  by making i t  a law f o r  Gentiles  only.  Consequently,  Paul's c r i t i q u e does not a f f e c t the law w i t h i n Judaism, which, according to Gaston, Paul understands  in terms of covenantal  nomism.  For the present  study, Gaston's thesis raises the question whether Paul's thought allows f o r covenantal nomism or f o r the s p e c i f i c Jewish understanding of covenant. The q u e s t i o n s through the present concept.  are  intimately  definitional  related  and a n a l y t i c a l  and w i l l  be answered  study of Paul's  covenant  The demonstration t h a t Paul works with the d e f i n i t i o n of covenant  universally Paul's  raised  held  thought  in  Judaism leads the  departs  from Judaism.  study to This,  determine where and how  in t u r n ,  will  enable us to  determine i f there i s any room in Paul's thought f o r covenantal nomism. A final necessary.  word  on the  The use of  use of  "covenant"  "covenant" for  in  the  the b i b l i c a l  present  category  in  study  is  question  stands s o l i d l y w i t h i n the t r a n s l a t i o n t r a d i t i o n i n i t i a t e d by A q u i l a .  This  t h e s i s , however, argues in favour of the t r a n s l a t i o n t r a d i t i o n of the LXX and so concludes accurately  that  the  idea in  represent  the  biblical  "covenant," category.  i.e.,  agreement, does not  However,  since the  term  18 covenant  is  so deeply entrenched in b i b l i c a l  vocabulary, i t w i l l be r e t a i n e d .  and theological  studies and  19 CHAPTER 2 THE INSTITUTION OF GALATIANS 3:15  A.  Contract or Testamentary Disposition?  Galatians 3:15 o f f e r s a p a r t i c u l a r promise f o r defining Paul's covenant concept.  I t i s the only t e x t i n which Paul does not simply employ diatheke,  his covenant term, w i t h i n about the i n s t i t u t i o n . epidiatassetai.  a discussion but a c t u a l l y points  something out  Concerning a diatheke, he says t h a t oudeis athetei e  In f a c t , i n Gal 3:15 Paul even steps out of the theological  context of the discussion to make his point about the nature of a diatheke as signalled by his formula, kata anthropon lego. Unfortunately, in spite of the promise that these features of Gal 3:15 hold out f o r defining diatheke, scholarship has not been able to come to a s a t i s f a c t o r y explanation of t h i s t e x t .  Which i n s t i t u t i o n Paul has i n mind  s t i l l remains a question t h a t has not been s a t i s f a c t o r i l y answered. There i s universal agreement i n scholarship concerning the r o l e of t h i s t e x t in Paul's argument.  In Gal 3:15, i t i s agreed, Paul draws an analogy  of the divine diatheke from human experience, which he uses as a premise f o r his  argument concerning  v 17.  the r e l a t i o n s h i p  between the promise and law  in  That Paul i s drawing on human p r a c t i c e f o r his argument i s taken from  his i n t r o d u c t o r y formula, kata anthropon lego, which i s interpreted as " I draw an i l l u s t r a t i o n from common human p r a c t i c e . "  1  Also, anthropou diathSke  is taken i n the sense of a diatheke such as human make.  Accordingly, Paul  is made i m p l i c i t l y to reason t h a t what i s true of a human diatheke i s also  Burton, Galatians, 178.  20 true  of  a divine  djjthfkl,  or perhaps,  that  if  it  is  true of  a human  diatheke, how much more i s i t true of a divine one. Agreeing on these points of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Gal 3:15,  scholars are  l e f t with the task of determining which legal i n s t i t u t i o n of the Greco-Roman world of the 1st Century Paul has in mind. around two basic types of i n s t i t u t i o n s :  The discussion has centered  a testamentary d i s p o s i t i o n  3  or a  contract. Until the impact of the discovery of the papyri made i t s e l f f e l t in New Testament scholarship at the turn of the century, scholars working with the agreed upon assumptions about the basic meaning of Gal 3:15 could e a s i l y argue  that  Paul  had a c o n t r a c t  however, made a decisive d i f f e r e n c e .  in mind.  The papyrological  evidence,  Ramsay states the i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s  evidence f o r the common i n t e r p r e t a t i o n : ...Paul says t h a t he is speaking " a f t e r the manner of men," I I I 15. He therefore i s employing the word in the sense in which i t was commonly used as part of the ordinary l i f e of the c i t i e s of the East. What t h i s sense was there can be no doubt. The word i s often found i n the i n s c r i p t i o n s , and always in the same sense which i t bears in the c l a s s i c a l Greek w r i t e r s , W i l l or Testament. As w i l l be seen l a t e r , Ramsay overstates the case when he says that diatheke always has the sense of testament or w i l l  in the c l a s s i c a l Greek w r i t e r s .  He i s c o r r e c t , however, as to the usage of the word in the l a t e r  So Martin Luther, 1979) 1 7 8 f . , and John Galatians, e t c . , 56, and 3 By " t e s t a m e n t a r y contemplation of death. discussion shows. 4  evidence  Commentary on Galatians (Grand Rapids: Kregel* Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the most other commentators.  ,  d i s p o s i t i o n " i s meant any d i s p o s i t i o n made in This includes more than a l a s t w i l l as the ensuing  W. M. Ramsay, A H i s t o r i c a l Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1900) 350.  21 offered by the i n s c r i p t i o n s and p a p y r i . Deissmann expresses sentiments  s i m i l a r to Ramsay.  He, however, goes  f u r t h e r and extends the conclusion drawn from the papyrological evidence to every occurrence of diatheke.  He w r i t e s :  Now as the new t e x t s help us generally to reconstruct H e l l e n i s t i c f a m i l y law and the law of i n h e r i t a n c e , so in p a r t i c u l a r our knowledge of H e l l e n i s t i c w i l l s has been wonderfully increased by a number of o r i g i n a l s on stone or papyrus. There i s ample material to back me in the statement t h a t no one in the Mediterranean world in the f i r s t century A.D. would have thought of f i n d i n g in the word diatheke the idea of "covenant." St. Paul would not, and in f a c t did not. To St. Paul the word meant what i t meant in his Greek Old Testament, "a u n i l a t e r a l enactment," in p a r t i c u l a r "a w i l l or testament." Ramsay,  who wrote  at  the  time  the  evidence  of  the  papyri  and  i n s c r i p t i o n s was beginning to make i t s e l f f e l t on New Testament scholarship (1900), could l i s t  a whole battery of "excellent scholars" who interpreted  diatheke in Gal 3:15 as covenant or Bund ( C a l v i n , Beza, F l a t t , Meyer,  Lightfoot)  Wi 1 lensverfuegung Schott,  Winer).  m a j o r i t y of  7  or  in  the  or  Bestimmung  Betz,  however,  scholars  more  general  (Zoeckler, writing  sense  of  Phillippi,  much l a t e r ,  Higenfeld,  determination, Lipsius,  Hofmann,  can claim the vast  in support of rendering diath§ke with testament and o  notes only one dissenting voice in the 20th Century, Burton. The triumphant i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , however, i s a f f l i c t e d with one c r i t i c a l problem t h a t threatens to unsettle i t .  Bammel declares the triumph of the  5 Moulton and M i l l i g a n w r i t e , " I n papyri and i n s c r r . testament, w i l l , with absolute u n a n i m i t y . . . " MM 148.  the word means  ft  Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1911) 341. See also Deissmann, Paul: A Study i n Social and Religious History (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1912) 152. ^Ramsay,' H i s t o r i c a l Commentary on Galatians, 349. 8  Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians (Philadelphia:  Fortress, 1979) 155 n. 17.  22 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Gal 3:15 which sees in i t the i n s t i t u t i o n of a testament as f o l l o w s : durchsetzte letzten  "Es  hat  und e i g e n t l i c h  achtzig  Jahren  sichergestellt." Klarheit  lange  gebraucht,  bis  sich diese  Erkenntnis  e r s t das reiche Vergleichsmaterial, das in den zugeflossen  ist...hat  But he immediately  continues:  darueber g  argumentiert."  Zeit  ergeben,  die  "Umso weniger  von welchem Rechte  The search f o r  a specific  Bedeutung Testament  her  Paulus  testamentary  hat  sich  denkt  und  institution  that  meets the requirements of Paul's argument in Gal 3:15,17 has f a i l e d . B.  A Last W i l l and Gal 3:15  The contention difficulties:  that  Gal 3:15 r e f e r s  to  1) the r e v o c a b i l i t y of a w i l l ,  a last  will  encounters  and 2) the inseparable  two link  between a w i l l and the notion of the death of the t e s t a t o r .  i.  A Last W i l l and I r r e v o c a b i l i t y  If  diatheke  in Gal 3:15 r e f e r s  to a w i l l  and i f  Paul is drawing an  analogy from common human p r a c t i c e , then the question concerning which legal i n s t i t u t i o n Paul has in mind must be answered. first  of  athetei  all  match  Paul's  e epidiatassetai,  statement  i.e.,  it  The given i n s t i t u t i o n must  concerning  a diatheke  must be irrevocable.  that  oudeis  The testamentary  d i s p o s i t i o n must be i r r e v o c a b l e . The e a r l i e s t  attempt  at precisely  identifying  E . Bammel, "Gottes DIATHEKE (Gal. Rechtsdenken," NTS 6 (1958/59) 313. y  III.  the  15-17.)  legal  und das  institution  juedische  23 behind Gal 3:15 looked to Roman j u r i s p r u d e n c e . ^ 1  The problem with the Roman  w i l l i s t h a t i t was very vulnerable and thus does not meet the requirements of Gal 3 : 1 5 .  1 1  Hellenistic  jurisprudence  practice to look t o .  is  a natural  alternate  sphere of  legal  Eger argues at length that Paul has a H e l l e n i s t i c w i l l  12 in mind.  He r e l a t e s the oudeis athetei e epidiatassetai  the penalty clause ( S t r a f k l a u s e l ) establishes the punishment f o r  in Gal 3:15 to  found in H e l l e n i s t i c w i l l s .  This clause  any one who does contrary to the w i l l .  It  also appears before the statement he diatheke k u r i a which Eger r e l a t e s to 1o Paul's kekuromene diathlke in Gal 3:15. the w i l l , right  however,  The diathemenos, the one making  i s exempted from the penalty clause.  to metadiatithesthai  and akuroun while he l i v e s .  1 4  He retains  the  This means t h a t  the oudeis of Gal 3:15 would not include God who makes the d i a t h i k e . This exemption of God from the r e s t r i c t i o n s on the diatheke would be f a t a l to Paul's argument and thus weakens Eger's 'case.  One could respond to  Paul t h a t God himself annulled or replaced the promise when he gave the law. Paul's opponents might have argued that the law, i f not a dimension of the e g . , Max Conrat, "Das Erbrecht im Galaterbrief ( 3 , 1 5 - 4 , 7 ) , " ZNW 5 (1904) 204-227. Bammel (NTS 6 [1958/59] 313) notes the e a r l i e r studies: W. E. B a l l , The Contemporary Review, 60 (1881), 286f.; and A. Halmel, Ueber roemisches Recht im Galaterbrief (L895). ^ F o r a c r i t i q u e of the Roman w i l l as the i n s t i t u t i o n behind Gal 3:15, see Ramsay, H i s t o r i c a l Commentary on Galatians, 351-352. 12  Otto Eger, "Rechtswoeter B r i e f e n , " ZNW 18 (1917/18) 84-108. 1 3  I b i d . , 90.  1 4  I b i d . , 92.  und R e c h t s b i l d e r  in  den  paulinischen  24 promise i t s e l f ,  1c  was added to the promise by God.  If  Paul would r e t o r t  t h a t t h i s would i n v a l i d a t e (akuroun) the diatheke (v 17), they could respond that  God, who i s  exempt from any r e s t r i c t i o n s  on the diatheke,  could do  this. Schmiedel seeks to evade t h i s d i f f i c u l t y evidence angels.  that  Paul  did  not  regard  the  by appealing to Gal 3:19 as  law as coming from God but  from  He w r i t e s :  When i t is said (3:15) that 'no man maketh void or addeth t o ' a man's testament, the t e s t a t o r himself is not to be regarded as included in the p r o p o s i t i o n . He himself might perhaps have i t in his power to change i t . Only, t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y does not come i n t o account in the case under consideration. For in the apostle's view i t i s not God but the angels who are regarded as the authors of the Mosaic law, which announces a change of the divine purpose --compared to a testament—given in the promise to Abraham. Of the angels he assumes t h a t t h e i r a c t i o n was on t h e i r own r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , not at the command of God. Schmiedel's dubious.  appeal  to  v 19 is  both grammatically  and  theologically  When Paul speaks of the establishing of the diatheke" by God in  v 17, he uses hupo with the passive.  When speaking of the ordaining of the  law by angels, however, he uses dia with the passive.  The passive plus hupo  in the expression kekuromenen hupo tou theou (v 17) r e f e r s to an o r i g i n a t i n g agency.  The passive plus d i a , however, r e f e r s to instrumentality."'"  7  Burton  notes, " d i ' aggelon does not describe the law as proceeding from angels, but only as being given by t h e i r i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y . . . . " the use of the d i f f e r e n t prepositions: ^ T h i s was the Jewish view. S e c t a r i e s , " pp 101-116 below. 1 6  This much i s clear from  the angelic r o l e in v 19 i s not the  See chapter 6,  " B e r t t Among the Qumran  W. J . Woodhouse and P. W. Schmiedel, " G a l a t i a , " EncBib 2. 1611.  A . T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of H i s t o r i c a l Research (Nashvilie: Broadman, 1934) 820. 1 7  18 Burton, Galatians, 503.  same as the divine r o l e in v 17 which would not be the case i f ,  l i k e God,  19  the angels made a diathgke. Schmiedel's thesis i s also in c o n f l i c t with Paul's theology. true,  as Schmiedel  giving  the  states  in  law are the t h i r d  disassociated  from God,  the quotation given above, t h a t intruding  but  also  party,  against  If i t the  then the law i s  the promises of  is  angels  not  God.  only Paul,  however, denies in Gal 3:21 t h a t the law i s kata t(3n epaggelion tou theou. Even i f Schmiedel's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the r o l e of angels in the giving of the law in Gal 3:19 were c o r r e c t , excluding God from the oudeis of v 15 nevertheless g r e a t l y weakens Paul's argument.  Paul's argument would  still  be vulnerable to the suggestion that God may have revoked or changed the diatheke.  For Paul, however, the i r r e v o c a b i l i t y of the diatheke in vv 15,17  has an absolute character that makes the diatheke irrevocable i n p r i n c i p l e , even f o r God. ii.  The Death of the Testator and Gal 3:15,17  Luther, who saw a l a s t w i l l  in Gal 3:15,17, incorporated the idea of  the death of the t e s t a t o r i n t o his exposition of the t e x t .  Commenting on  v 17, he s t a t e s : For when a man maketh his goods t o h i s h e i r s , and confirmed and r a t i f i e d by nothing may now be added to law and e q u i t y . Now, i f  l a s t w i l l , bequeathing his lands and thereupon d i e t h , h i s l a s t w i l l i s the death of the t e s t a t o r , so that i t , or taken from i t , according to a l l a man's w i l l i s kept with so great  By d i a t a g e i s , Paul seems to have the implementation of the law in the world rather than the source of the law in mind. This is suggested by the f a c t t h a t the mediator, along with the angels, i s the agent of the passive. The mediator's r o l e i s c l e a r l y instrumental. J . B. L i g h t f o o t (The E p i s t l e of St. Paul to the Galatians [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957] 145) renders diatageis d i ' agge!5n with "administered by the medium of angels."  26 f i d e l i t y , how much more ought the l a s t w i l l of God t o be f a i t h f u l l y kept, which He promised and gave unto Abraham and his seed a f t e r him? For when Christ d i e d , then was i t confirmed in Him, and a f t e r His death the w r i t i n g of His l a s t w i l l was opened.... This was the l a s t w i l l and testament of God, the great t e s t a t o r , confirmed by the death of C h r i s t . . . . " Luther's language c l e a r l y echoes the language of Heb 9:16-17. does  not  refer  interpretation.  to  text  as  a source  or  confirmation  of  his  No doubt, f o r Luther the idea of a w i l l taking e f f e c t only  upon the death of support.  this  Yet, he  a testator  was commonplace and so needed no  biblical  This idea was also commonplace in the 1st Century.  An examination of  Gal 3:15,17  death of God as t e s t a t o r  shows, however, that the idea of  the  i s incongruous with the thought of the passage.  Burton r i g h t l y observes, " I t i s against the theory t h a t diatheke i n 3:17 i s a will  that  it  i s expressly said to have been made by God.  becomes e f f e c t i v e only on the death of the maker of i t . "  For a w i l l  He then adds t h a t  i t is " d i f f i c u l t to suppose t h a t the incongruous element of the death of God should e i t h e r be involved in the argument of vv. 15-17 o r , though implied in the  language,  God's."  be  ignored  in  silence  when the w i l l  is  directly  called  2 1  Luther's  idea that the death of Christ i s the death of the  testator,  while probably borrowed from Heb 9:16-17, is e n t i r e l y foreign to Gal 3:1517.  Throughout the e n t i r e section in which the theme of inheritance occurs  (Gal 3 : 1 5 - 4 : 7 ) ,  Paul does not even mention the death of C h r i s t .  He only  alludes to t h i s once in the reference to C h r i s t ' s coming " t o redeem those under the law" ( 4 : 5 ) . ^ L u t h e r , Galatians, 180-181. u  21 Burton, Galatians, 502. See also John J . Hughes, "Hebrews IX 1 5 f f . and Galatians I I I 1 5 f f . : A Study in Covenant Practice and Procedure," NovT 21 (1979) 72.  Paul r e f e r s to the death of Christ in 3:13.  While the death of Christ  occurred t h a t "the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles" (v 14), which no doubt i s the inheritance of v 18, i t does not f u n c t i o n to r a t i f y a will.  Rather, i t removes the curse of the law so that the blessing might  come.  Furthermore, in Galatians 3, rather than being the t e s t a t o r ,  Christ  himself is the seed or the heir (v 16,29). According to Luther's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , the diathgke would only have been irrevocable and unalterable a f t e r C h r i s t ' s death.  Thus, i t s  irrevocability  could only be urged against Paul's opponents since Christ had already d i e d . But  this  is  not  what  Paul  does.  Rather,  he urges  the  covenant's  i r r e v o c a b i l i t y in view of the law given at S i n a i , long before Christ d i e d . The prokekuromene of irrevocable  effect  v 17 c l e a r l y  as soon as i t  suggests  that  the diathlke  was made, as soon as the  went  into  promise was  spoken. The incongruity between Paul's use of prokuroun and the idea of a w i l l is pointed out by Behm, who also sees a w i l l Paul's  use of prokuroun, he w r i t e s ,  contradictory,  for  whereas  in Gal 3:15.  Commenting on  "The image and thought are here very  a human w i l l  comes i n t o e f f e c t  only with  the  death of the t e s t a t o r , the w i l l and testament of G o d . . . i s put i n t o e f f e c t as soon  as  it  is  drawn up,  and from t h i s  point  on i t  is  exclusively  and  22  incontrovertibly v a l i d . . . . " Luther's attempt to incorporate the idea of the death of the t e s t a t o r i n t o the meaning of Gal 3:15,17 f a i l s under a s c r u t i n y of the t e x t .  It  is  not s u r p r i s i n g that t h i s aspect of his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the t e x t has not found acceptance in scholarly i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . TDNT 3. 1100.  28 The incongruity of the notion of death with the idea of a l i v i n g God means that God can only be seen as making a testament by suppressing the 23 notion of the death of the t e s t a t o r .  This n o t i o n , however, is  difficult  to suppress since the death of the t e s t a t o r is essential to the concept of a testament.  Not only was the i r r e v o c a b i l i t y of a testament dependent on the  death of the t e s t a t o r ,  the very notion of a testamentary d i s p o s i t i o n was  inseparably linked with death. The practice of will-making arose i n Ancient Greece out of the concern f o r a successor f o r the man who did not have a natural h e i r .  The primary  r o l e of the heir was not to take over a man's property but to keep the oikos and i t s c u l t a l i v e .  I n i t i a l l y , t h i s need was met simply by adoption.  who had no sons would adopt a son during his l i f e t i m e .  A man  This adopted son  would leave the oikos of his father to j o i n and then eventually take over the adopter's oikos. The next step in the development of the laws of inheritance was taken by Solon, in the f i r s t  half of the 6th Century B.C., by " p e r m i t t i n g a man  without sons to adopt a son by w i l l , so that the adoption took e f f e c t only 24 a f t e r his death." MacDowell notes t h a t t h i s innovation gave "the wishes of the i n d i v i d u a l , as expressed in a w r i t t e n document, precedence over the r i g h t s of other members of the f a m i l y . "  25  Eger (ZNW 18 [1.917/18] 96) makes the strange suggestion that Paul has the testament of one who i s about to die in mind. This enables him to a f f i r m t h a t God, the t e s t a t o r , i s exempt from the oudeis and yet maintain t h a t Paul envisions no p o s s i b i l i t y of God changing the diatheke*. But Paul c e r t a i n l y did not envision God as a dying t e s t a t o r . Eger's attempt to both have a w i l l in Gal 3:15 and maintain the diathgke*'s i r r e v o c a b i l i t y f a i l s . 24  Douglas M. MacDowell, The Law in Classical and Hudson, 1978) 100. 2 5  Ibid.  Athens (London:  Thames  29 In the 6th Century,  the  idea of  the oikos  inheritance and so also the use of the w i l l . the w i l l  was independent of  dominated  laws  of  By the time of Paul, however,  such concerns f o r  death was always the c r i t i c a l  still  succession.  Nevertheless,  event that both occasioned and brought  into  e f f e c t the w i l l .  C.  Adoption I n t e r Vivos and Gal 3:15  Ramsay, seeing the incongruity of the l a s t w i l l with Gal 3:15, sought to  explain  i n t e r vivos.  this 26  text  in  light  of  the  Greek  practice  of  adoption  He writes concerning Gal 3:15:  We are confronted with a legal idea that the duly executed W i l l cannot be revoked by a subsequent act of the t e s t a t o r . Such i r r e v o c a b i l i t y was a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c feature of Greek law, according to which an heir outside the family must be adopted i n t o the f a m i l y ; and the adoption was the w i l l making...The appointment of an heir was the adoption of a son, and was f i n a l and i r r e v o c a b l e . The t e s t a t o r , a f t e r adopting his h e i r , could not subsequently take away from him his share i n the inheritance or impose new conditions on his succession." Ramsay i s Greek law.  correct  on the  His case that t h i s  irrevocable institution  nature of  adoption  in  applies to Gal 3:15,  ancient however,  f a l l s apart on h i s t o r i c a l grounds. Ramsay assumes that there was one type of Greek w i l l  which was f o r  adoption and was irrevocable over against the Roman w i l l which was a p r i v a t e Ramsay, H i s t o r i c a l Commentary on Galatians, 349-356. Deissmann (Paul, 152) argues the same t h e s i s . For a systematic c r i t i c i s m of Ramsay's argument, see P. W. Schmiedel's discussion on " I n h e r i t a n c e , e t c . " in the a r t i c l e , " G a l a t i a , " EncBib, 2. 1608-1610. For a sympathetic treatment of Ramsay's t h e s i s , see W. M. Calder, "Adoption and Inheritance in G a l a t i a , " JTS 31 (1930) 372-374. Calder, while taking up Ramsay's cause, only argues t h a t H e l l e n i s t i c legal practice i s in mind in Gal 3:15. Ramsay, H i s t o r i c a l Commentary on Galatians, 351.  30 document  28  and r e v o c a b l e .  ignores the h i s t o r i c a l  This  assumption,  development evident  however,  is  incorrect  in the Greek practice of  and will-  making. The Greek practice of will-making went through the f o l l o w i n g stages of development: sons  adoption i n t e r vivos,  and making  bequests  to  testamentary adoption, w i l l s  others,  and w i l l s  entirely  adopting  divorced  from  29 adoption.  Thus the Greek w i l l became divorced from the idea of adoption.  This divorce occurred quite e a r l y .  Norton notes that by the 3rd Century  B.C. the Greek w i l l "came to be e n t i r e l y divorced from the idea of adoption •3(1  that had given i t b i r t h . " des  Paulus  und  auch  J U  aus  Eger w r i t e s , "Meines Wissens i s t aus der Z e i t erheblich  frueherer  Zeit  kein  Beleg  fuer  testamentansche Adoption aus dem h e l l e n s i t i s c h e n Rechtsgebiet bekannt." Not practice Century  only of  does  Ramsay n e g l e c t  will-making  situation,  and thus  he also  the  historical  applies  confuses  the  development  a classical two  practice  categories  of  in  Greek  to  a 1st  adoption  i n t e r vivos and adoption by w i l l . There  were  three  methods  of  i n t e r v i v o s , by w i l l and posthumously.  adoption 32  in  the  Classical  period:  As already noticed, the purpose of  adoption was to keep a man's oikos and i t s ancestral r i t e s a l i v e .  To ensure  I b i d . , 366. the continuance of the man's d i s t i n c t oikos and guard against neglect of i t s 29 Hughes, NovT, 21 (1979) 84 and F. 0. Norton, A Lexicographical and H i s t o r i c a l Study of DIATHEKE from the E a r l i e s t Times to the End of the Classical Period (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1908) 69. 30 Norton, A Lexicographical and H i s t o r i c a l Study of DIATHEKE, 7 1 . 2 8  31  E g e r , ZNW 18 (1917/18) 95.  32 A. R. W. Harrison, The Law of Athens: (2 v o l s . ; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968) 1. 83.  The Family and Property  31 c u l t , the adoptee had to give up his place in his natural f a t h e r ' s oikos to take over the adopter's exchange took  oikos.  place during the  In the case of adoption i n t e r vivos adopter's  life-time.  Since the  adoption  meant that the adoptee gave up his membership in his natural oikos, obviously  the  adopter  could not  revoke the  adoption.  this  In f a c t ,  quite by  its  nature, adoption i n t e r vivos was a contract and so was not subject to the 33 arbitrary  will  of  the  adopter.  The  adopter  was r e s t r i c t e d  by the  adoption. Adoption by w i l l  only took e f f e c t a f t e r the death of the adopter.  It  34 was not a c o n t r a c t .  In f a c t , the adoptee did not even necessarily know of  his adoption before the adopter's death.  Also, the w i l l f o r adoption could  be revoked at any time by the adopter.  So, adoption by w i l l  same d i f f i c u l t i e s  in  explaining Gal 3:15  as what Ramsay c a l l s  e n t a i l s the the Roman  w i l l , "a p r i v a t e and revocable document." Posthumous adoption is hardy relevant to the discussion since i t was adoption without any involvement of the deceased. Norton summarizes the relevant information as f o l l o w s : We have seen t h a t the adoption from which the Geek w i l l was derived was a legal contract which could not be revoked without the consent of both p a r t i e s to i t . T h i s . . . h a s given r i s e to the idea t h a t i t (a w i l l ) was also a c o n t r a c t , and consequently irrevocable. B u t . . . s i n c e even i n i t s rudimentary stage of testamentary adoption the eispoiesis was not completed by the w i l l i t s e l f , i t was not a c o n t r a c t i n the eyes of the law, and consequently, while adoption i n t e r vivos was irrevocable except by the consent of both p a r t i e s , testamentary adoption could be revoked at the pleasure of the t e s t a t o r . Ramsay made the mistake t h a t Norton points out: he applied the p r i n c i p l e s 3 3  I b i d . , 89.  3 4  I b i d . , 90.  35 Norton, A Lexicographical and H i s t o r i c a l Study of DIATHEKE, p. 63.  32 of adoption i n t e r vivos to adoption by w i l l .  But of equal seriousness i s  the mistake of reading a p r a c t i c e from the e a r l i e s t stage of the development of w i l l  making i n t o a s i t u a t i o n t h a t comes from the period of i t s l a t e s t  development i n which the e a r l i e r practice was long obsolete.  D.  The MattHnat Bar?' and Gal 3:15  Another attempt to explain Gal 3:15 i n terms of testamentary  practice  oc  was made by Bammel. various  attempts  After  to explain  giving  a brief  sketch and c r i t i q u e  Gal 3:15 i n l i g h t  of the  of Roman and H e l l e n i s t i c  p r a c t i c e s , he turns to Jewish legal practice f o r the basis of t h i s t e x t .  rightly dismisses  the  legal  instrument (Rechtsinstrument) of  deyafTqt.  He Not  only i s the term a loan word, but the notion and p r a c t i c e of the i n s t i t u t i o n 37  was taken over from the H e l l e n i s t i c w i l l .  Bammel also notes that the term  deyattqi* only appears i n post-New Testament w r i t i n g s and that the extent of its  usage in e a r l i e r times i s uncertain.  More s i g n i f i c a n t f o r him i s the  f a c t t h a t the use of the deyattqf was l i m i t e d to the m o r t a l l y i l l .  3 8  This  aspect of the d e y ^ t f q t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y incongruous with the divine diatheke". For  the healthy,  Bammel f i n d s  another  in this  institution  institution  was a v a i l a b l e ,  "die einzige  the matt^nat b a n .  echte  1  Sachparalle  im  39  juedischen Bereich" to Gal 3:15. Bammel, NTS 6 (1958/59) 313-319. 36  37 See also Reuven Yaron, G i f t s i n Contemplation of Death i n Jewish and Roman Law (Oxford: University Press, 1960) 19. 38  39  See also I b i d . , 25.  Bammel, NTS 6 (1958/59) 315. Among commentators, Bammel i s followed by Franz Mussner, Der Galaterbrief (Freiburg: Herder KG, 1974) 237.  33 Bammel  points  out  the  specific  feature  of  the mattfenat  barT * as  follows: (1) Der Gegenstand des Rechtsgeschaefts geht s o f o r t in den Besitz des so Begabten ueber, der Verfuegende behaelt sich nur des Nutzniessungsrecht bis zu seinem Tode vor; (2) die Verfuegung karin--im Unterschiede zur d y y t y q y - - u n t e r keinen Umstaenden widerrufen oder abgeaendert werden; (3) es handelt sich urn die Verfuegung eines Gesunden, der Gedanke an den Tod b l e i b t , soweit d i e s bei § nem s o l c h e n Akte ueberhaupt moeglich i s t , im Hintergrund. 0  Such an i n s t i t u t i o n has clear advantages over the H e l l e n i s t i c diatheke, and even more so over  the Jewish deyatfqf",  in explaining Gal 3:15.  As  already seen, the status of a diatheke depended on the death of the one who made i t . Not  The l i n k with death was even stronger in the case of the deyattq"?.  only  could  it  only  be made by the m o r t a l l y  cancelled upon the recovery of the man who made i t . In contrast idea of death.  to the deyettfqf,  ill,  the deyatfqf was  4 1  the mattSnat barf * was not t i e d to the  The term mattenat barf* means "the g i f t  of one who i s  in  42  (good) h e a l t h , " of death.  and the g i f t could not be made by a sick man at the point  Furthermore, the g i f t went i n t o e f f e c t  passed from donor to donee while the donor s t i l l maintained  usufruct  until  his death.  immediately.  lived.  But the r i g h t  difference to the g i f t ' s irrevocable s t a t u s .  Ownership  However, the donor to usufruct made no  From a j u r i s t i c point of view,  the mattenat barf * was a g i f t and so could not be r e c a l l e d .  4 3  From these features of the mattenat b a r f * , Bammel's claim to have found an "echte Sachparallele im juedischen Bereich" receives an obvious warrant. 40 Bammel, NTS 6 (1958/59) 315. 41 Yaron, G i f t s in Contemplation of Death, 48. 42 43  Ibid  1 n. 1.  Ibid  49f.  34 However, as with Ramsay's attempt to explain Gal 3:15 i n l i g h t of the Greek practice of  adoption  i n t e r v i v o s , Bammel's case f a l l s  apart on h i s t o r i c a l  A 44 grounds.  The h i s t o r i c a l  evidence  indicates  that  describes did not e x i s t in the 1st Century. judge  in  Jerusalem p r i o r  to  its  the  institution  which Bammel  Bammel c i t e s Nahum the Mede, a  destruction  in A.D. 70, as the  Rabbinical example of the use of the mattenat b a r ? \  earliest  Tos. B. B. 9. 1 says:  R. Nathan says: Nahum the Mede was one of the judges of c i v i l law. He said: whoever assigns his goods to the name of his f r i e n d , one does not compel him (the doneeLjto return i t ; but i f he so s t i p u l a t e s beforehand he is compelled. I t i s not c e r t a i n what kind of d i s p o s i t i o n Nahum had in mind. Bammel  suggests,  he had a m a t t e n a t b a r i °  mattenat bart'was possible by s t i p u l a t i o n . statement,  however,  encounters  the  in  mind,  then  If,  as  a revocable  This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Nahum's difficulty  that  "a  revocable  mattenath bar?' was introduced only i n the l a t e Middle Ages" which used the AC.  formula, "from today, i f  I do not revoke t i l l  my death."  This h i s t o r i c a l  consideration means t h a t i f Nahum did indeed have a mattenat b a r t he was neither widely  expressing  accepted.  Another  mattenat s'ekhiv mera*  or  in mind,  >  a generally  accepted view nor was his  possibility  is  the  deyattqt.  that  he was t a l k i n g  Yaron observes,  opinion  about  the  "Whatever  the  correct i n t e r p r e t a t i o n may be, we should remember t h a t t h i s was the opinion of a single Tanna. There is reason to assume t h a t his view was not followed; i t was the f a t e of most of the opinions of Nahum the Mede to be rejected by 44 For a c r i t i q u e of many d e t a i l s of Bammel's case, see Hughes, NovT 21 (1979) 72-75. 45 Cited from Yaron, G i f t s in Contemplation of Death, 53-54. 4 6  I b i d . , 53.  35 his c o l l e a g u e s . "  47  The mattSnat b a r f  was  introduced  into  Judaism from Egypt.  In  Ptolemaic Egypt, two kinds of dispositions in contemplation of death stood side by side:  the diatheke and the meta ten t e l e u t e n .  The former was of  Greek o r i g i n and had the features of the H e l l e n i s t i c w i l l already discussed. The  latter  was native  to Egypt*  0  and quite  distinct  from the  diatheke.  Concerning i t Yaron says, "Ownership i s immediately transferred to the donee and the d i s p o s i t i o n i s not revocable. formula donor."  meta ten t e l e u t e n ;  this  I t i s characterized by the use of the  implies  that  usufruct  remains with  the  49  In the Egyptian practice of these two i n s t i t u t i o n s , no d i s t i n c t i o n was made on the basis of the health of the one making the d i s p o s i t i o n .  The same  s i t u a t i o n i s r e f l e c t e d in e a r l y Tannaitic law which i s " p r i m a r i l y concerned with types of d i s p o s i t i o n , deyctttqt and mattana, rather than with the health 50 of the donor."  At a l a t e r stage, Yaron points out, the Tannaim " b u i l t up  t h e i r own scheme of dispositions i n contemplation of death. was  to  assign  meta ten teleuten  a true gift  function  to  the  and the diatheke:  main  difference  What they did between  the  they l a i d down t h a t the one in  good health should be able to dispose in contemplation of death by way of 4 7  I b i d . , 54.  48  Yaron ( I b i d . , 47) reasons, "While there are great differences between the meta ten teleuten g i f t and the diatheke, nevertheless t h e i r functions are b a s i c a l l y the same: both are dispositions in contemplation of death. Especially there i s no reason f o r assuming that only one in good health could make a meta ten teleuten g i f t , or only a sick man a diatheke. The existence side by side of the two i n s t i t u t i o n s i s to be understood against the h i s t o r i c a l background we have mentioned: one i s n a t i v e , the other imported." 4 9  I b i d . , 46.  5 0  I b i d . , 47.  36 irrevocable g i f t ,  with or without r e t e n t i o n of u s u f r u c t , while a sick man  should dispose by means of a deyathfqf. This development of Jewish law on g i f t s critical  f o r assessing Bammel's hypothesis.  in contemplation of death i s The development took time and  did not reach the stage from which Bammel draws his evidence u n t i l the 3rd Century.  Yaron s t a t e s ,  "Dispositions  Jewish law at a rather l a t e stage. of the Tannaitic  in contemplation of death came i n t o  Their rules were evolved in the course  period and reached t h e i r  final  form in the time of the CO  early Amoraim, i n the f i r s t h a l f of the t h i r d century." One might disposition present  in  respond  defense  of  Bammel's  general  thesis  that  a  that was not dependent on the death of the donor was already Ptolemaic  suggestion brings  Egypt  and so may have been known by Paul.  up a terminological  meta ten t e l e u t e n absolute  in  a di atheke?  unanimity  for  last  problem.  The Egyptian  will.  Could Paul have called a papyri  use diatheke  The meta tSn teleuten  diathgke but dosis and suggraphg doseUs.  This  Interestingly,  is  not  with called  dosis corresponds  CO  exactly to mattana. While  diathek"e  dispositions,  and the meta ten teleuten  some a s s i m i l a t i o n  assimilated  to the former.  though,  that  is  assimilation  the  Ibid.  5 2  I b i d . , 33.  5 3  I b i d . , 26.  5 4  I b i d . , 47.  did take place.  The betraying  meta ten t e l e u t e n  would s t r i p  5 1  the  gift  gift  of  feature  gift  that  are c l e a r l y In Egypt, of  this  the  that  latter  assimilation,  became revocable.  feature  distinct  This  Bammel needs  to  37  defend  h i s c a s e - - i r r e v o c a b i 1 i t y of the disposition.  parlance the assimilation went the other way.  In Jewish  legal  DeyatTq? was designated i n  terms of mattana i n being called mattenat sekhiv rnera', the g i f t of one who is lying i l l .  5 5  But, and t h i s i s of importance to the present discussion,  mattenat bar?* never assimilated to d e y a t t q t . Since diatheke was the technical term f o r w i l l , for  a specific  But  more  type of mattana or dosis without misleading his audience.  decisive  indeed Paul  Paul could not use i t  against  Bammel's thesis  i s the consideration  that  if  i s speaking in terms of common human p r a c t i c e , he could not,  without some explanation, be r e f e r r i n g t o an Egyptian custom, not to speak of an undeveloped Jewish version of that custom.  I f kata anthropon lego*  means that Paul i s drawing from common human p r a c t i c e , the i n s t i t u t i o n i n mind must e i t h e r be of a universal character or be proven t o be common i n Galatia.  The mattenat  Since  barT'  no t e s t a m e n t a r y  requirements  qualifies for neither. institution  of the i n s t i t u t i o n  can be found  of Gal 3:15,17,  that  meets t h e  the claim that  Paul  t r e a t i n g covenant as a testamentary d i s p o s i t i o n i s g r e a t l y undermined. one s t i l l  is If  i n s i s t s on t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , i t would have t o be concluded t h a t  Paul i s simply taking legal terms from the area of testamentary d i s p o s i t i o n and using  them w i t h o u t  paying  any p a r t i c u l a r  attention  to the imagery  56 involved. 5 5  This, however, amounts to saying that Paul i s only using legal  I b i d . , 20,48.  56  So b a s i c a l l y Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, ( B e r l i n : Evangelische VerlagsanstaTTJ 1973) p. 1 1 1 . He thinks t h a t Paul has H e l l e n i s t i c p r a c t i c e i n mind but t h a t "Paulus argumentiert aber nun keineswegs von Besonderheiten des hellenistischen Rechts aus ( s . u . ) , sondern l e g t mehr oder weniger a l l g e m e i n g u e l t i g e Saetze zugrunde." S i m i l a r l y , Behm (TDNT 2. 129) writes concerning Paul's use of diathSke i n Gal 3:15, "No regard i s paid t o the f a c t that i n the case of God's testament the presuppositions of t h i s v a l i d i t y (prokekuromenen) are very d i f f e r e n t  38 terminology without arguing from a s p e c i f i c testamentary i n s t i t u t i o n .  E.  The Bearing of Kleronomia on the Meaning of Di atheke  For the claim that Paul has a testamentary d i s p o s i t i o n in mind in Gal 3:15, appeal is not only made to the use of diatheke, the Greek term f o r w i l l , but also to the notion of inheritance, kleronomia, in Galatians 3 and 4 (kleronomia, Gal 3:18, and kleronomos, 3 : 2 9 - 4 : 7 ) . In  nonbiblical  Greek,  the  word  group  5 7  kleronomia,  kleronomos and  kleronomeo is used almost unanimously in the sense of inheritance and the CO  related ideas of heir and to i n h e r i t . usual  idea associated with  inheritance,  In the LXX and NT, however, the acquiring someone's property upon  his death, i s wholly absent from most instances in which the terms are used. The Hebrew terms translated by t h i s word group have as t h e i r p r i n c i p a l sense CO  the idea of possession. The use of kleros as a synonym f o r kleronomia in the LXX indicates how from t h a t of a human w i l l , i . e . , the death of the t e s t a t o r . This metaphor of the testament seems to have been worked out by Paul quite spontaneously in accordance with his penchant f o r legal images." The focus on legal terminology rather than imagery i s a step in the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n as w i l l be shown l a t e r (pp. 63-67 below). This move, however, involves an abandonment of the central thesis of these scholars: t h a t Paul has a H e l l e n i s t i c w i l l in mind. 57  For t h i s argument, see Heinrich S c h l i e r , (Goettingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962) 142.  Der Brief  an die  Galater  L S J kleronomeo; TDNT 3. 768; MM 346-347. Foerster (TDNT 3. 768) notes four instances in which the terms are used in the sense of what i s possessed, acquired or gotten. LSJ only c i t e s the LXX f o r t h i s broader sense. 58  59 ^ The major terms are nahalah: possession, property or i n h e r i t a n c e ; nana!: to get or take as a possession; and yarasT: to take possession of or inherit. Foerster (TDNT 3. 769,777) gives an analysis of the klerom- word group in the LXX and the Hebrew terms translated by them.  39 the t r a n s l a t o r s understood kllronomia. i s gotten by l o t or " a l l o t m e n t . " inheritance  is  obvious.  fif)  Kleros means " l o t "  and then what  The l i n k between kleros and kleronomia as  An inheritance  i s what  is  alloted  to  someone.  However, the s p e c i f i c idea of property handed down to succeeding generations is not present in k l e r o s .  Kleros, the broader term, no doubt, stands behind  kleronomia rather than the other way around.  So, the t r a n s l a t o r s of the LXX  used kleronomia with i t s broader root idea, l o t . The broader  sense of  kleronomia and the related terms in the LXX i s  made abundantly clear by i t s usage of these t e r m s .  6 1  Israel i s said to have  possessed the land (kleronomein ten gen, Gen 15:7,8; Lev 20:24; e t c . ) . verb, klgronomein, is used f o r taking possession of something e i t h e r or u n j u s t l y  (1 Kgs 20:15f.;  sense of possession. Lord (Jer 2 : 7 ) .  Hos 9 : 6 ) .  The  justly  The noun is s i m i l a r l y used in the  The land is the kleronomia of I s r a e l , but also of the  Israel  i s God's kleronomia (Deut 32:9; e t c . ) .  But God is  also the kleronomia of Israel (Jer 10:16; 28:19) and the Levites (Num 18:20; Josh  13:14;  "inheritance"  Ezek is  44:28).  absent.  In  all  The idea i s  of  these  instances,  simply that  the  idea  of  of  k l e r o s , which both  Israel and Levi are to God (Deut 9:29; 10:9; Sir 45:22).  Another synonym i n  the LXX f o r kleronomia is meris, a part or p o r t i o n , which term is used in p a r a l l e l i s m with kleronomia in many of the texts c i t e d above (see also Sir 45:22).  From t h i s i t is clear that kleronomia in the LXX means possession,  allotment ( i . e . , kleros) or portion ( i . e . , m e r i s ) . 60  See TDNT 3. 759-760.  61  For an analysis of the use of t h i s word group in the B. F. Westcott, The E p i s t l e to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1980) 167-169 and Gustaf Dalman, The Considered in the Light of P o s t - B i b l i c a l Jewish Writings Language (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920) 125-127.  LXX and NT, see Wm. B. Eerdmans Words of Jesus and the Aramaic  40 The kleronomia word group is used in the NT i n much the same way as in the  LXX.  KleYonomia  and kleronomos  are used in  the narrow  sense of  inheritance and heir only in f i v e t e x t s (Matt 21:38; Mark 12:7; Luke 12:13; 20:14; Gal 4 : 1 ) . receiving  or  Otherwise, the word group is used in the broader sense of  possessing  something:  6:9,10; 15:50; Gal 5 : 2 1 ) , eternal (Heb 1:14;  1 Pet 1:4),  3:9),  grace  the  instances,  the  of  the kingdom (Matt 5:5;  life  25:34;  (Matt 19:29; Mark 10:17),  1 Cor  salvation  a promise (Heb 6:12), a blessing (Heb 12:17; 1 Pet life  notion of  (1 Pet 3:7)  and a name (Heb 1:4).  "inheritance"  which i s  related  In  to the  these  idea of  testamentary d i s p o s i t i o n of what i s passed on by a dying person i s c l e a r l y absent.  The notion of inheritance,  however, has the idea of receiving a  possession or a portion in common with t h i s broader usage. Since the notions associated with a l a s t w i l l , passing on of property,  are not central  death, succession and  to the meaning of the kleronomia  word group in the LXX and NT, there i s no warrant f o r appealing to the use of kleronomia in Gal 3:18 i n support of understanding diatheke in v 15,17 as a will. A close look at Paul's use of kleronomia and diatheke f u r t h e r suggests that one must not read diatheke in l i g h t of any idea about kleronomia.  In  Galatians 3, he introduces diatheke only to make the point t h a t the promise is i r r e v o c a b l e .  He discusses what was promised, i . e . ,  the blessing (v 14)  or the kleronomia (v 17b-18), only in terms of promise and not in terms of di atheke, as i s clear from v 18. In  Paul's  mind, kleYonomia and diatheke  are not  intimately  related  concepts.  Hence, in Rom 4:13-14 Paul can discuss the kleronomia without any  reference  to  diatheke.  Also,  in Gal 4 : l f . ,  where he c l e a r l y  imagery of inheritance, Paul makes no reference to diatheke.  uses the  In f a c t , the  41 idea of testamentary d i s p o s i t i o n has no place in the imagery of Gal The heir is already owner of a l l testament.  as an i n f a n t .  4:lf.  Nothing is conferred by a  The natural t i e s of sonship rather than testamentary d i s p o s i t i o n  provide the mechanism f o r the t r a n s f e r of ownership.  F i n a l l y , f o r Paul the  law, too, is a diatheke and i t too is related to the kleronomia (Gal 3:18; Rom: 13-14). denial law.  While Paul denies that the kleronomia i s through the law, t h i s  has nothing to do with the absence of the notion of a w i l l  i n the  His opponents, who argued t h a t the kleronomia was through the law,  c e r t a i n l y did not see the law as a w i l l . For Paul, the kleronoirria i s not what is w i l l e d to someone but simply what i s possessed.  Hence, the kleronomos is kurios panton--owner of  all.  In understanding kleronomia and kleronomos t h i s way, Paul i s moving w i t h i n a well established c i r c l e of thought and usage as witnessed by the LXX and the rest of the N T .  F.  62  Diatheke as Contract  The f a i l u r e  to  find  a testamentary  disposition  that  can meet the  requirements of the i n s t i t u t i o n of Gal 3:15 forces the discussion on t h i s t e x t to look elsewhere. in  the  contract.  This  Some scholars have found the s u i t a b l e alternative  position  is  alternative  taken by Calvin who,  commenting on the phrase, "though i t be a man's covenant," w r i t e s : This i s an argument from the less to the greater. Human contracts are regarded as binding; how much more what God has established? Moreover, where the Latin version reads testamentum, Paul's Greek word is diatheke. By t h i s the Greeks mean more often ' t e s t a m e n t ' , On the claim t h a t the primary idea in kleronomia i s possession rather than succession or passing on by testamentary d i s p o s i t i o n , see Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 125-127.  42 though also sometimes any sort of c o n t r a c t . . . h e r e I prefer to take i t simply f o r the covenant God made. For the simile from which the apostle argues would not apply so s t r i c t l y to a testament as to a covenant. Therefore l e t us proceed on the assumption that the apostle reasons from human agreements to that solemn covenant which God made with Abraham. I f human bargains are so f i r m that they must pot be added t o , how much more must t h i s covenant remain invioable. Unfortunately,  Calvin does not state why "the s i m i l e from which the  apostle argues would not apply so s t r i c t l y to a testament as to a covenant." Perhaps  it  contract. There i s ,  is  that  he understands the b e n t  Whether the OT b e n t  of the OT as a covenant  was a contract w i l l  be discussed  later.  however, another reason why a contract applies more s t r i c t l y  Paul's s i m i l e .  A contract was less v o l a t i l e than a w i l l .  or  to  Since a contract  is entered by the consent of a l l parties involved, i t can not be revoked at any person's wish.  This f a c t has already been seen in the case of adoption  i n t e r v i v o s , which was a c o n t r a c t . the consent of both parties involved.  The contract can only be revoked upon Hence, Burton reasons:  The diatheke of v 15 must be a c o n t r a c t , not a w i l l , f o r of the d i at h i k e here spoken of i t is said oudeis a t h e t e i e e p i d i a t a s s e t a i , and t h i s is true of an agreement, which once made can not be modified (except, of course, by mutual agreement of the parties to i t , an exception too obvious to receive mention), but is not true of a wi11. Burton does not explore the implications of the "too obvious" exception f o r Paul's argument i n Gal 3:15-18. to revoke the contract?  Could God and Abraham or the seed agree  Paul c e r t a i n l y would not e n t e r t a i n the thought.  A  contract is not as e a s i l y revoked as a w i l l since no one party has plenary John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, e t c . , 56-57. The f o l l o w i n g commentators take a s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n : J . B. L i g h t f o o t , Heinrich Meyer, John Eadie and Ernest De Witt Burton. More r e c e n t l y John J . Hughes, ("Hebrews IX 1 5 f f . and Galatians I I I 1 5 f f . : A Study i n Covenant Practice and Procedure," NovT 21 [1979] 27-96) argued t h a t diatheke i n Gal 3:15 means c o n t r a c t . Burton, Galatians, 502.  43 power over i t .  But i t i s nonetheless revocable.  There i s nothing in Paul's usage of diatheke to suggest that he sees a di atheke neither  as a c o n t r a c t . is  somewhat  really  The diatheke  a contract.  imbalanced c o n t r a c t .  is  either  a promise or  One could reply t h a t But to  imbalanced they became vulnerable  to  the extent  the w i l l  law,  the diatheke  that  contracts  of the powerful  and is a  became  party,  at  least in the Greek world. A final contract  is  consideration against understanding diatheke* in Gal 3:15 as a that  if  by saying  kata anthropon lego  Paul  is  drawing  the  a t t e n t i o n of his audience to common human p r a c t i c e , as Burton believes, he would not use diatheke, a word used unanimously f o r testament i n the p a p y r i , when he a c t u a l l y has a suntheke in mind.  Burton seeks to get around t h i s  problem by reasoning: The assumption...that the Galatians, being Gentiles, must have understood diatheke in the common Greek sense, ignores the f a c t , of c a p i t a l importance f o r the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Gal 3 : 1 5 f f . , t h a t throughout chaps. 3 and 4 Paul i s replying to the arguments of his judaising opponents, and i s i n large part using t h e i r terms in the sense w h i c h t h e i r use of them had made f a m i l i a r t o the Galatians. Burton i s r a i s i n g an important point that must be borne in mind.  The  discussion takes place w i t h i n a c e r t a i n context which could determine both the denotation  and connotation of words.  means, as Burton a f f i r m s ,  that Paul i s  However, i f  kata anthropon lego  leaving the theological context of  the discussion to go i n t o the "secular" world of common human experience, Concerning the t r e a t i e s or sumbolai of Ancient Greece, Sir Frank Adcock and D. J . Mosley (Diplomacy in Ancient Greece [London: Thames and Hudson, 1975] 186) w r i t e ; "The t e s t of whether the parties to an agreement were bound and obligated equally depended often not so much on the terms stated as on the a t t i t u d e s of the p a r t i e s , t h e i r r e l a t i v e power and the way in which the arrangements worked in p r a c t i c e . " Burton, Galatians, 503-504.  44 then  any p a r t i c u l a r  meaning that  the  special  theological  discussion would impart to a term would be also l e f t . have t a u g h t  the  Galatians  to  understand  context  of  the  The Judaizers may  a theological  diatheke* as a  c o n t r a c t ; but i t is u n l i k e l y t h a t they would have taught them to understand the diatheke of the secular world as a suntheke.  G.  Diatheke and the Old Testament BerTt  The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n that the diatheke of Gal 3:15,17  i s a contract  is  based on the assumption that the OT berTt, which i s c l e a r l y in view i n t h i s fi7 passage, i s also a c o n t r a c t .  In view of t h i s , i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g that  the only examples Hughes gives of a "contract" of which i t can be said that oudeis athetei e epidiatassetai are OT b e r t t o t . In the OT beVtt,  Hughes c l e a r l y  finds  an i n s t i t u t i o n t h a t meets the  requirements of the i n s t i t u t i o n of Gal 3:15 as well as the requirements of the context of Paul's discussion--the divine covenant. He reasons: I f Paul does not have the legal model of e i t h e r a Greek, Roman or Egyptian d i a t h e k e i n mind, i f he does not argue f o r e i t h e r t e s t a m e n t a r y d i s p o s i t i o n i n t e r vivos or the s i m i l a r mtnt bry**; j u s t what legal model does he employ? The answer, of course, i s that Paul i s employing the O.T. legal model of the 'covenant' which i t s e l f was in c e r t a i n important aspects patterned a f t e r the i n t e r n a t i o n a l t r e a t i e s prevalent in the ANE in the second and The l i n e of reasoning goes somewhat as f o l l o w s : b e r i t is a contract or t r e a t y ; the LXX t r a n s l a t e s i t with diatheke and so f o r the t r a n s l a t o r s of the LXX diatheke' must have meant c o n t r a c t . That they did not misunderstand the OT b e r i t is evident from an analysis of di at hike which shows that t h i s term i s used in the same way that be>Tt is used in the MT. Furthermore, since the NT uses diathike in the^same way as the LXX does, the term must have the same meaning there as b e r t t does in the OT. So, diatheke in the NT means c o n t r a c t . Since Paul in Gal 3:15 i s drawing an i l l u s t r a t i o n from common human experience f o r what is e s s e n t i a l l y a c o n t r a c t , he must be r e f e r r i n g t o a contract of the Greco-Roman world. So b a s i c a l l y J . B. L i g h t f o o t , Heinrich Meyer and Burton in t h e i r commentaries on Galatians. Hughes, NovT 21 (1979) 66f. argues s i m i l a r l y .  45 f i r s t m i l l e n n i a B.C. Once such a t r e a t y had been made no one (not even the great suzerain who imposed the t r e a t y on his vassal) a l t e r e d the s t i p u l a t i o n s of the t r e a t y f o r the t r e a t y was considered to be under the sanction of the d e i t i e s who witnessed i t . These guardian d e i t i e s were expected to play an avenging r o l e both in keeping the t r e a t y document sacrosanct and in punishing those who transgressed the terms of the t r e a t y . " fif  Hughes goes on to give examples of the irrevocable nature of OT b e r f t o t .  Of  special note i s the b e r t t that Israel under Joshua made with the Gibeonites. Israel the powerful party could not revoke the b e n t . There i s , however, a g l a r i n g problem with Hughes' attempt to explain Gal 3:15 in l i g h t of the OT b e r t t and the t r e a t i e s of the ANE.  Could Paul  have such an i n s t i t u t i o n in mind i f by kata anthropon lego he means t h a t he is drawing an i l l u s t r a t i o n from common human p r a c t i c e , as Hughes assumes? The only contact Paul and his audience had with the ANE was through the OT. The OT b e r t t , however, was by no means common human practice i n Paul's day. But neither was the Greek suntheke equivalent to the sacrosanct b e r t t . In the OT b e r t t , we have found an i n s t i t u t i o n t h a t meets the demands of the i n s t i t u t i o n mind i f  of Gal 3:15.  But Paul can only have t h i s  institution  the common i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of kata anthropon lego i s i n c o r r e c t .  in So  the discussion must s h i f t from an examination of possible i n s t i t u t i o n s to a re-examination of the basic sense of Gal 3:15.  68 69  I b i d . , 76-77. I b i d . , 70 n. 150.  46 CHAPTER 3 GALATIANS 3:15 AND THE OLD TESTAMENT BERIT  A.  Gal 3:15 Re-examined  i.  The Structure of Gal 3:15-18.  The re-examination  of Gal 3:15 must begin with a fresh  structure of Gal 3:15-18.  look  at  the  While there i s no p a r t i c u l a r debate concerning  the s t r u c t u r e of t h i s passage, i t does throw considerable l i g h t on the r o l e of  Gal  3:15  in  Paul's  i n t e r p r e t i n g t h i s verse.  argument  and thus  is  of  paramount  importance  in  This passage can be analyzed as f o l l o w s :  Al  kata anthropon lego (v 15)  Bl  homos anthropou kekuromengn diathSken  CI  a) oudeis b) athetei e epidiatassetai  DI  tp de Abraam errethe"san hai epaggeliai kai t§ spermati autou (v 16)  A2  touto de lego (v 17)  B2  diathe"ken prokekuromenen hupo,tou theou  C2  a) ho meta...gegonos nomos ouk b) akuroi  D2  eis to katargesai ten epaggelian (and v 18)  This analysis shows t h a t Gal 3:15-18 consists of two p a r a l l e l  sections,  vv 15-16 and 17-18, containing a p a r a l l e l series of four p r o p o s i t i o n s . p a r a l l e l i s m i s made obvious by matching terms and concepts as f o l l o w s : Al & 2:  lego/lego  The  47 Bl & 2:  kekuromenen diatheken/diathlken prokekuromengh  CI & 2:  a) oudeis/ho...nomos ouk b) athetei e e p i d i a t a s s e t a i / a k u r o i  DI & 2:  epaggeliai/epaggelian  The p a r a l l e l i s m between vv 15-16 and vv 17-18 suggests t h a t the l a t t e r is d i r e c t l y based on the former. the f i r s t di atheke  to the  (v 17).  second s e c t i o n .  and promise only.  discussion.  There i s , however, an important s h i f t from In vv 15-16 Paul  In vv 17-18 he brings  The movement of  his  thought  is  is  speaking of  nomos back  indicated  into  the the  by touto de lego  In vv 15-16 he states the f a c t s about the diatheke and the promise,  which he applies i n vv 17-18 to the issue in question: to what was covenanted and promised.  how the law r e l a t e s  Thus, in vv 15-16 Paul i s s t a t i n g his  premises and in vv 17-18 he i s drawing his desired conclusions. In  vv  15-16  Paul  states  two  premises:  1)  that  a di atheke  i r r e v o c a b l e , and 2) that the sole seed of promise i s C h r i s t .  Paul does not  leave these premises as mere assertions but seeks to substantiate them. substantiate the f i r s t premise, he speaks kata anthropon. second, he appeals to a grammatical  is  To  To establish the  s u b t l e t y in the Abrahamic t e x t  cited.  Thus, one may say, he speaks kata tas graphas. Paul's  attempt  at  substantiating  his  two premises  in vv 15-16 has  proven to be the most problematic point in the exegesis of these verses. His argument in v 16 from the use of the singular spermati in the Abrahamic text  has  often  struck  his  interpreters  as an undue s t r a i n i n g  of  the  A t h e t e i e e p i d i a t a s s e t a i r e f e r s t o two ways a covenant can be invalidated (akuroun)~ So, akuroi i n v 17 takes in both expressions in v 15. For more on t h i s p o i n t , see pp. 65-66 below.  48 language. also  I f Paul has a testamentary d i s p o s i t i o n in mind i n v 15, one must  conclude  institution. v 15, i t  that  he  is  unduly  stretching  the  status  of  such  an  In f a c t , i f Paul i s describing the testamentary i n s t i t u t i o n i n  must be concluded that  he was wrong and that he misrepresented  "man" in speaking kata anthropon.  This conclusion can only be avoided  if  the universal assumption that Paul i s describing common human practice when speaking kata anthropon i s abandoned.  ii  The Meaning of Kata Anthropon Lego  It Paul  is  is  universally  indicating  experience.  assumed in scholarship that by kata anthropon lego  that  he is  drawing an i l l u s t r a t i o n  from common human  A close examination of the expression i t s e l f and what is said  kata anthropon, however, suggests another p o s s i b i l i t y . Burton, commenting on the phrase, kata anthrSpon, i n Gal 3:15 expresses the  common understanding  of  meaning of the phrase a f t e r resemblance  being indicated  this  expression  a verb i s  as f o l l o w s :  'as men d o , '  in the context.  Here t h i s  general  he must go on to q u a l i f y ,  meaning  ( c f . 1 Cor. 9 : 8 ) ,  ' I draw an i l l u s t r a t i o n from common human p r a c t i c e . ' "  1 Cor 9:8 as a p a r a l l e l ,  regular  the s p e c i f i c point of  n a t u r a l l y becomes, ' I speak as men do about t h e i r a f f a i r s ' i.e.,  "The  Having adduced  "A reference to human  a u t h o r i t y such as i s suggested in 1 Cor 9:8 i s improbable here, both because there i s no suggestion of i t in the context and because the depreciation of the value of the argument which such a reference would imply i s uncalled f o r  On Gal 3:16, see p. 129 below.  49 and without value f o r the apostle's purpose." Burton's need to q u a l i f y the p a r a l l e l  he adduces between Gal 3:15 and  1 Cor 9:8 points to a weakness in his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of kata anthropon lego in Gal 3:15.  Apart from Gal 3:15,  Paul speaks kata anthropon only twice  (Rom 3:5; 1 Cor 9 : 8 ) , and the idea of " i l l u s t r a t i o n " i s wholly absent in the one and only  secondarily  present  in  the other  instance.  The notion  of  "human a u t h o r i t y , " which Burton sees i n 1 Cor 9:8 but denies i n Gal 3:15, approaches  the  specific  idea  in  speaking  kata  anthropon.  The human  a u t h o r i t y is in the way human beings n a t u r a l l y t h i n k , or more p a r t i c u l a r l y in human judgement or reasoning.  This i s what Paul expresses when he speaks  kata anthropon. Burton c o r r e c t l y  points  out  that  the phrase,  kata anthropon,  has a  merely q u a l i t a t i v e s i g n i f i c a n c e , the preposition s i g n i f y i n g "according t o , " "agreeably t o , " "according to the w i l l or thought o f , " or " a f t e r the manner of."  In Gal 1:11 the phrase i s used by Paul to s i g n i f y what i s merely  4  human in e i t h e r a u t h o r i t y , o r i g i n , content or character in contrast to what is divine or of C h r i s t . is q u a l i t a t i v e l y  Accordingly, to speak kata anthropon i s to say what  and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y  human.  In other words, i t  is  to  speak about something i n the way human beings normally speak about i t . In Rom 3:5 the f u l l  expression kata anthropon lego i s used to  qualify  as human the reasoning expressed in the question, " I s God who i n f l i c t s wrath unrighteous?"  Paul vehemently r e j e c t s the suggestion i n the question with a  me genoito (v 6 ) .  Thus by kata anthropon lego, Paul i s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he  is merely appropriating human reasoning, though he does not agree with 3 Burton, Galatians, 178. 4  I b i d . , 37.  it,  50 f o r the sake of discussion.  That concerning which he speaks kata anthropon  is the subject in mind in the context: kata  anthropon,  subject.  therefore,  the righteousness of God.  Speaking  means expressing human reasoning on a given  Furthermore, in a l l instances where Paul speaks i n such a way the  subject concerns a divine or r e l i g i o u s t r u t h . In tauta  1 Cor 9:8 the e s s e n t i a l l y  lalo  is  used.  The r o l e  of  equivalent this  expression  expression  in  kata  Paul's  anthropon  discussion,  however, i s s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t from i t s use in Rom 3:5.  Paul i s using what  is  than to express a  said  kata anthropon to  suggestion  that  he  strengthen  rejects.  his  case rather  Nevertheless,  in  each  case  Paul  is  appropriating human thought or judgement on the subject under discussion. The t a u t a i n the expression of 1 Cor 9:8 r e f e r s to the three statements of v 7.  These statements do in f a c t c o n s t i t u t e i l l u s t r a t i o n s or examples  from the human realm supporting Paul's p o s i t i o n t h a t the laborer deserves to make a l i v i n g from his labors.  That, however, i s not Paul's s p e c i f i c point  in speaking kata anthropon. Paul's complete statement in 1 Cor 9:8 i s the f o l l o w i n g question: kata anthropon tauta l a l o e kai ho nomos tauta ou legei?  me  Thus, speaking  kata anthropon i s distinguished from the voice of the law (ho nomos l e g e i ) . In c i t i n g the law in v 9, Paul also, as is the case in what he says kata anthropon, chooses a case t h a t applies to t h i s - w o r l d l y matters. the  law's  threshing.  requirement  that  the  ox must be allowed to  He c i t e s  eat what i t  is  Hence, the s p e c i f i c idea in speaking kata anthropon cannot be i n  the use of t h i s - w o r l d l y examples.  The difference between what i s said kata  anthropon and what the law says i s one of source, the law being of God, and  51 a u t h o r i t y , the law having greater  authority.  5  The expression kata anthropon simply q u a l i f i e s an idea or statement as being  characteristically  statement made is Paul's  use of  human.  the determining  examples  Perspective factor.  in 1 Cor 9:8  anthropon from the point  of  view to  rather  than the  One should not  into  shifting  the weight  summary,  to  speak  k a t a anthropon  is  of  kata  The examples  express human judgment or reasoning on the p r i n c i p l e in question:  In  of  be misled by  the use of examples.  worker i s e n t i t l e d to make a l i v i n g from his l a b o r s .  kind  that the  6  simply  to  express human  reasoning or judgement about the issue in question.  iii  What i s Said Kata Anthropon in Gal 3:15  If  kata  anthropon  lego  in Gal  3:15  is  taken to mean that  Paul  is  signaling the use of an i l l u s t r a t i o n from the human realm, the exegesis of t h i s t e x t is burdened with the search f o r a common i n s t i t u t i o n of the GrecoRoman world that meets the requirements of t h i s t e x t .  The f a i l u r e to f i n d  such an i n s t i t u t i o n weighs i n favour of an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the expression kata anthropon lego t h a t frees the exegesis of Gal 3:15 from t h i s burden. The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of kata anthropon lego argued f o r thus f a r  accomplishes  t h i s task. 5  So a l s o A. Robertson and A. Plummer, A C r i t i c a l and Exegetical Commentary on the F i r s t E p i s t l e of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 2nd. e d . , (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1978) 183. Paul's use of r h e t o r i c a l questions i n 1 Cor 9:8 may also indicate t h a t he i s p r i m a r i l y i n t e r e s t e d i n the human judgement r e f l e c t e d in the "examples." By u s i n g t h e s e q u e s t i o n s , Paul i s h i g h l i g h t i n g the u n i v e r s a l i t y , reasonableness and common sense of the p r i n c i p l e involved rather than simply s t a t i n g an example.  52 I f by speaking kata anthropon Paul i s simply expressing human judgment on the issue i n question, then Paul need not have a s p e c i f i c i n s t i t u t i o n of the Greco-Roman world in mind.  The context concerns the Abrahamic promise  which i s understood both by Paul and his audience as a d i a t h e k e .  Hence,  7  the subject of Paul's speaking kata anthropon, the diatheke* of Gal 3:15, i s the  type of  berTt.  institution  we have in the Abrahamic covenant,  i.e.,  an OT  In Gal 3:15 Paul i s appealing t o human judgement to substantiate his  point  that  an i n s t i t u t i o n  such as the Abrahamic covenant  is  absolutely  irrevocable. I n t e r p r e t i n g the diatheke of Gal 3:15 as an OT covenant makes the best sense of the t e x t . with  the  sense  The t e x t has homos, which i s an adversative conjunction of  "nevertheless,"  "all  the  same"  or  "yet."  8  This  conjunction indicates an exception, c o n t r a r i e t y or implied a n t i t h e s i s . appears three times i n the current t e x t of the NT.  It  In John 12:42 i t stands  in i t s natural p o s i t i o n before the second member of the implied a n t i t h e s i s and c l e a r l y has i t s usual meaning.  In the two Pauline examples (1 Cor 14:7  and Gal 3:15), however, homos i s not in i t s natural place but rather stands before the f i r s t member of the a n t i t h e s i s .  Such a t r a j e c t i o n of homos has  p a r a l l e l s i n Greek l i t e r a t u r e and does not c o n s t i t u t e a serious problem.  9  Based on the contention that these t e x t s contain a comparison rather than  an a n t i t h e s i s  or exception,  it  has been suggested t h a t the t e x t  of  1 Cor 9:8 and Gal 3:15 should have homo's (with the c i r c u m f l e x ) , which means " l i k e w i s e " or " e q u a l l y , " instead of the adversative, homos, of the e x i s t i n g 0n f u r t h e r grounds f o r understanding diatheke in Gal 3:15 as the OT b e r i t , see pp. 57-53 below. 7  BAGD homos.  8  Q  Burton, Galatians, 178.  53 text.^  Indeed, i f Paul i s simply s t a t i n g an example i n Gal 3:15, the homos  of the current t e x t i s odd and homo's would be a welcome emendation since i t at least expresses Paul's idea. several  However, the emendation i t s e l f  encounters  difficulties.  One problem f o r t h i s changed reading of the t e x t i s t h a t occurrences of homos are extremely rare in Koine sources.""""  This consideration, however,  only reduces the p r o b a b i l i t y of the correctness of the emended reading.  A  more serious objection i s t h a t , as already seen, the idea of comparison i s not  the  point  of  speaking  kata  anthropon.  Finally,  a contrariety  or  exception can be seen i n these t e x t s , e s p e c i a l l y in Gal 3:15. The changed reading, homos, makes good sense i n 1 Cor 14:7 since t h i s verse can be taken as a comparison to v 6.  However, the conjunction may be  adversative and indicate a c o n t r a r i e t y or exception w i t h i n v 7 between to apsucha phonen  didonta...  and ean d i a s t o l e n  tois  phthoggois me d p .  1 2  D i s t i n c t i o n of sound i s the necessary exception to general l i f e l e s s sounds i f such sounds are to be i n t e l l i g i b l e .  In f a c t , the notion of an exception  would have to be assumed in the t e x t even in the absence of an adversative conjunction.  Hence, the homos of the current t e x t has i n i t s favour  the  f a c t t h a t i t supplies the l o g i c a l sense of the t e x t . The s i t u a t i o n i n Gal 3:15 i s less ambiguous. be taken  as p a r t  of  a comparison.  What precedes v 15 cannot  Meyer c o r r e c t l y  notes,  "There  is  therefore a l l the less reason f o r w r i t i n g homos, i n l i k e manner, which would Joachim Jeremias, "OMOS (1 Cor 14,7; Gal 3 , 1 5 ) , " ZNW 52 (1961) 128128. Jeremias i s followed by Rudolf Keydell, "0M(3S," ZNW 54 (1963) 145-146. So also BDF 234 and BAGD homos. This reading i s followed by the JB and NIV. 10  M o u l - T 3. 337; Jeremias, ZNW 52 (1962) 127; Keydell, ZNW 54 (1963) 145; and MM 450. n  12  See Burton, Galatians, 178.  54 be unsuitable since that which i s to be i l l u s t r a t e d by the comparison only follows  (at ver.  17)."  never completes i t .  In f a c t ,  if  Paul has a comparison in mind, he  One cannot argue from the p a r a l l e l i s m between v 15 and  v 17 shown above that v 17 completes the comparison.  As pointed out above,  v 17 i s an a f f i r m a t i o n derived from v 15, and thus i t cannot be taken as the second member of a comparison begun in v 15. A c o n t r a r i e t y can be seen i n what Paul says kata anthropon in Gal 3:15. There  is  follows  no meaningful homos  contrariety  (which suggests  14  mentioned above).  between kata anthropon lego  that  we have a t r a j e c t i o n  of  and what homos as  But there i s a meaningful c o n t r a r i e t y between anthropou  and oudeis athetei e e p i d i a t a s s e t a i .  I t does not take much imagination to  see t h a t what i s "of man" i s n a t u r a l l y vulnerable and so oudeis athetei e epidi atassetai  marks  an exception  to what  is  expected  in  an anthropou  kekuromenen diatheken. Burton recognizes the implied a n t i t h e s i s i n Gal 3:15 but wrongly places kekuromen*§n  diatheken  oudeis a t h e t e i ,  etc.  once e s t a b l i s h e d  into  the  second member  Thus he reads, "though i t  no one annuls or  adds t o . "  1 5  of  the  antithesis  be man's, yet a covenant The p a r a l l e l i s m  in  structure of Gal 3:15-18 shown above, however, indicates otherwise. analysis  shows  corresponds  to  that  homos  diatheken  anthropou  with  kekurTjmenen  diatheken  prokekuromenen hupo tou theou  in  in  the This v 15  v 17 and the  second member of the c o n t r a r i e t y i n v 15, oudeis athetei e e p i d i a t a s s e t a i , is p a r a l l e l to ho meta...gegonos nomos ouk akuroi i n v 17.  As hupo theou i n  13  H e i n r i c h A. W. Meyer, C r i t i c a l and Exegetical Hand-Book to Epistle to the Galatians (New York^ Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1892) 120. 14 On t h i s reading of Gal 3:15, see Burton, Galatians, 178. 1 5  Ibid.  the  55 v 17 belongs to diatheken prokekuromenen so anthropou i n v 15 belongs to the f i r s t member of the statement. The p a r a l l e l i s m between vv 15 and 17 should not obscure the difference between anthropou  (v  15)  and hupo tou theou  (v 17).  agent, hupo, relates theou to prokekuromenen. in v 15. rather  Hence, the g e n i t i v e ,  than specifying  the  The preposition  This preposition is  of  lacking  anthropou, q u a l i f i e s the noun, diatheken,  agent of the passive p a r t i c i p l e ,  kekuromenen.  So, the idea in v 15 i s not a diatheke r a t i f i e d by man but a diatheke from the human realm.  Paul emphasizes the humanness of the diatheke i n v 15 due  to speaking kata anthropon. ratification  In v 17, however, Paul emphasizes the divine  of the diathekg, probably having the r a t i f i c a t i o n ceremony of  Genesis 15 i n mind. In view of these observations on the s t r u c t u r e of the t e x t , what Paul says  k a t a anthropon  r a t i f i e d covenant  17  in  Gal 3:15 may be rendered  i s a human o n e ,  rendering is a b i t awkward.  as f o l l o w s :  no one annuls or r e p l a c e s  1 8  Though a 19  it.  This  Paul's statement may be better expressed with  the paraphrase, "even a human covenant cannot be annulled or replaced." The i n t e n t  of  Abrahamic  covenant,  establish  the  1 fi  Paul's  statement  which i s  absolute  is  a divine  nature of  On the p o s s i b l e i n f l u e n c e discussion on pp. 58-62 below.  one.  covenant of  "Covenant" i s simply used as a suggesting t h a t the basic idea in t h i s in diathSke. The meaning of diathlk*e b i b l i c a l covenant w i l l be discussed i n 17  clear.  The context In Gal 3:15  itself  Genesis  concerns Paul  by appealing  15 on Gal  seeks  the to  to human  3:15-18,  see  naturalized theological term without English term, agreement, i s the idea and beVft and the basic idea i n the chapters 5 and 6.  18 — This construction in English i s used to t r a n s l a t e the emphatic anthropou. 19  On t h i s t r a n s l a t i o n of e p i d i a t a s s e t a i , see pp. 66-67 below.  56 judgement on the status of such an i n s t i t u t i o n . human covenant.  Thus Paul must speak of a  So, i n e f f e c t , Paul i s reasoning t h a t the i n s t i t u t i o n which  we have in the d i v i n e , Abrahamic covenant i s irrevocable even when i t human.  Thus  the  absolute  nature of  the  institution  i s made clear  is and  established. This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Gal 3:15 has c e r t a i n advantages.  I t agrees with  the idea in the expression kata anthropon lego ascertained in the present study.  Rather than i n d i c a t i n g a comparison or i l l u s t r a t i o n , as would be the  case i f  the t e x t read homos, t h i s expression indicates a specimen of human  reasoning or judgement adversative  on a concern given  conjunction  indicates  in the context.  such a statement.  Homos as an  Furthermore,  this  rendering of Gal 3:15 makes the t e x t complete in i t s e l f which the emended reading does not do. As a l r e a d y  shown,  anthropou in Gal 3:15. kata  anthropon  adversative necessary.  lego  the  proposed  interpretation  also explains  the  I f Paul were simply s t a t i n g an example, then a f t e r the  statement  anthropou would be redundant.  the  anthropou  is  not  only  However,  meaningful  but  in an also  I t bears the weight of the c o n t r a r i e t y suggested by homos, which  r o l e agrees with i t s emphatic p o s i t i o n . The question s t i l l remains how Paul could speak kata anthropon about an OT b e r t t .  The  bertt  was a common i n s t i t u t i o n  sacrosanct and i r r e v o c a b l e .  of  the ANE which was  The diatheke of the Greco-Roman world c e r t a i n l y  was not such an i n s t i t u t i o n .  However, two considerations  drawing conclusions from t h i s f a c t .  caution us in  F i r s t , the b e r t t was akin to the oath  as a sacrosanct i n s t i t u t i o n and t h i s kind of i n s t i t u t i o n would not have been unknown  or,  at  Second, as w i l l  least,  inconceivable  be argued s h o r t l y ,  to  people in  the 1st  Century AD.  diatheke" as a t r a n s l a t i o n term i s best  57  understood i n Galatians 3 i n terms of the OT concept behind i t , i . e . , as bjrvt.  I f t h i s i s the case, then diatheke" spoken of kata anthropon simply  refers t o any i n s t i t u t i o n l i k e the OT covenant which i s absolutely binding. One example of such an i n s t i t u t i o n  i s the oath.  The 1st Century person  could evaluate such an i n s t i t u t i o n and Paul could speak kata anthropon about it.  But even i f the OT covenant could not be linked with any i n s t i t u t i o n i n  the Greco-Roman world, human judgement on the OT covenant could s t i l l be i n v i t e d as long as the i n s t i t u t i o n was understood. A p a r a l l e l s i t u a t i o n may be found i n our use of the word covenant. The term "covenant" simply means "an agreement" or "compact." this  term can be used f o r any agreement or contract  irrevocability.  In i t s B i b l i c a l  and theological  In secular usage, and does not imply  usage, however, t h i s term  acquires p a r t i c u l a r nuances and a special r e f e r e n t .  I t refers  specifically  to the B i b l i c a l covenant and takes on the meaning of a solemnly binding act of  an a b s o l u t e  formally  have  and sacrosanct such  nature.  an i n s t i t u t i o n ,  While Western Society we understand  it  does not  and even  have  approximations of i t with the r e s u l t t h a t a theologian may s t i l l speak kata anthropon about i t . The  crux  Galatians 3 diatheke i s  terms next.  context  of  understood as a t r a n s l a t i o n  term and thus  in  plausibility  will  of the present thesis i s  of the OT  berTt.  best The  simply of  t h a t w i t h i n the  this claim  be explored  58 B.  Diatheke as Old Testament B e r t t .  The most natural meaning of a given term must be determined from the semantic and conceptual sphere of the discussion in which t h a t term appears. The discussion in Galatians 3 i s carried on w i t h i n a theological context and is based heavily on OT t e x t s .  Hence, the immediate semantic and conceptual  background of the discussion i s the t r a d i t i o n of t r a n s l a t i o n of OT terms and concepts i n t o Greek represented by the LXX. this  tradition  of  translation  Recourse must f i r s t be taken to  to determine the meaning of  key terms  in  Galatians. The previous discussion on the meaning of kleronomia has shown how a Greek  term,  scriptures, acquire  its  by being could  used  within  for  the  own specialized  a particular tradition  category  determined  in  by that  the  Hebrew  translation  sense and usage, though not unrelated to the  sense of the word in i t s secular usage.  As a r e s u l t , i t can be misleading  to turn to Greek sources outside of that t r a d i t i o n of thought to determine the meaning and usage of terms w i t h i n t h a t t r a d i t i o n . for  religious  technical  This precaution i s of  particular  importance  terms which as labels  theological  categories can be simply defined from t h e i r theological  for  usage  and thus become r e l a t i v e l y isolated from t h e i r secular usage. Di atheke l i k e kleronomi a i s c l e a r l y an example of such a theological term.  Being a t r a n s l a t i o n - t e r m of b e r t t in the LXX, t h i s Greek term would  become defined by i t s OT and theological own sense w i t h i n H e l l e n i s t i c governed by the  LXX,  it  diatheke of the LXX rather  I f diatheke acquired  Judaism and C h r i s t i a n i t y ,  follows  meaning of t h a t term i n i t s  usage.  that the papyrological  theological  both of which are evidence f o r  s e t t i n g can be misleading.  than of the papyri  its  the The  i s nearest at hand in the  59 sphere of ideas in Galatians 3. The conceptual tradition  of  theological  seed.  thought concerns  interpretation categories:  background of  of  the  Galatians  determined of  the  by the  3 is LXX.  discussion,  Abrahamic  tradition  much narrower  than  Besides, the  Galatians  immediate  3 concerns  which contains  the  Paul's  the major  righteousness, f a i t h , blessing, Gentiles, covenant, promise and  The Abrahamic t r a d i t i o n  i s a mine f o r Paul's thought.  But Paul's  thought in Galatians 3 seems to be dominated p r i n c i p a l l y by one chapter i n the Abrahamic cycle—Genesis from Genesis 15 (Gal 3 : 6 ) ;  15.  Not only i s Paul's f i r s t  his motifs  OT c i t a t i o n  in Gal 3:15-18 are concentrated  in  t h i s chapter. Paul c a l l s This  noun  passages.  what i s  promised to the seed the kleronomia in Gal 3:18.  and kleronomos  do not  appear  in the  Only the verb kleronomeo is used.  LXX t e x t  of  Abrahamic  Of i t s seven occurrences i n  the Abrahamic c y c l e , f i v e are found in Genesis 15:  three times of Abraham's  heir (vv 3-4) and twice of Abraham as the one who would receive the promised land  (vv 7 - 8 ) .  The Pauline sense of kleronomia i s  specifically  these two l a t t e r occurrences—possessing what i s promised.  that  of  Outside Genesis  15, kleronomeo i s used in Gen 21:10, which t e x t Paul quotes in Gal 4:30. This t e x t has no d i r e c t relevance f o r Paul's argument i n Gal 3:18. occurs  once  (kleronomein)  more the  in  Gen 22:17  gates of  its  where  enemies.  the  seed  Clearly  is  said  to  The verb possess  Paul's mention of  the  kleronomia i n Gal 3:18 harks back to Genesis 15, where the f i r s t promise of 20  Betz (Galatians, 156) sees Genesis 17 as the primary t e x t behind Gal 3:15-18. He affirms that Gen 17:1-11 of the LXX has a l l terms coordinated. This t e x t contains the most occurrences of diatheke in the Abrahamic c y c l e . But besides d i a t h e k e , i t o n l y contains sperma of Paul's terms in Gal 3:15-18. S c h l i e r , Der B r i e f an die Galater, 144f., and Mussner, Der G a l a t e r b r i e f , 237f. take the same p o s i t i o n .  60 possession i s made. Paul's reasoning about diatheke in Gal 3:15 and his use of prokekuroun in v 17 also hark back to Genesis 15. covenant r a t i f i c a t i o n idea of  In t h i s chapter we have the only  ceremony in the Abrahamic cycle answering to  a covenant r a t i f i e d  by God.  The purpose of t h i s ceremony,  which God goes through a s e l f - c u r s e r i t u a l flow  of  the chapter.  God f i r s t  land  (v  7).  promise (v 8 ) . ritual  promises Abraham a seed to be his  heir  Then God promises Abraham  This time Abraham asks God f o r  some assurance of  the  Upon t h i s request, God i n s t r u c t s Abraham to prepare f o r the  and undergoes  ritual.  in  (vv 9-17), i s made clear by the  (vv 1-5), which promise Abraham believes (v 6 ) . the  Paul's  In f a c t ,  it  himself  Abraham i s  (vv  9-17).  asleep while  God alone goes through it  is  being performed.  meaning of t h i s , most l i k e l y , did not escape Paul's n o t i c e : bound by t h i s covenant.  the The  God alone i s  A f t e r the n a r r a t i v e of the covenant ceremony, the  t e x t declares t h a t on t h a t day God made a covenant with Abram and states the divine grant of the land to his seed (vv 18-21). This n a r r a t i v e alone warrants the technical d i s t i n c t i o n t h a t Paul makes between promise and covenant  in Gal 3:15-18.  grant and the covenant i s the formal irrevocable.  This  technicality  receives  the promise but asks f o r  covenant  making ceremony.  promise.  Accordingly,  is  aspect of t h a t indicated  divine  grant t h a t makes  in Genesis 15.  is  a formal  dimension  reasons from the f a c t  of  it  Abraham  a guarantee, which he receives  Covenant  Paul  The promise i s the  in  the  added to  the  a covenant  being  The Hebrew karat b e r t t , used f o r making a covenant i n the MT, and the Greek diathesthai diatheken in the LXX are only used in Gen 15:18 in the Abrahamic c y c l e f o r the covenant t h a t God made with Abraham. These expressions are also used f o r a covenant Abraham made with Abimelek^in Gen 21:27,32. In Gen 17:7 God establishes his covenant with Abraham (wahaqimotf e t - b e r f t f i n MT and steso ten diatheken mou in the LXX).  61 r a t i f i e d to the i n d e s t r u c t i b l e character of the promise (Gal 3:17). Genesis 15 also answers t o prokekuromenen diatheken in Gal 3:17.  It  is  the only Abrahamic t e x t t h a t gives a timetable up t o the Exodus (linked with the giving of the law): fourth  generation.  12:40,  it  clearly  interestingly,  400 years of oppression and deliverance in the  While  Paul's f i g u r e ,  echoes  the  Gen 15:18 states  430 years,  timetable after  given  in  the timetable  hemera ekeing diatheto kurios tp Abram diatheken.  i s taken from Exod Genesis is  15.  More  given t h a t en t~g  This answers to Paul's  a f f i r m a t i o n t h a t the diatheke was r a t i f i e d before the giving of the law and the i m p l i c i t assumption t h a t i t was r a t i f i e d as soon as i t was given. Finally,  Paul's  third  represented in Genesis 15.  major  motif  in  Gal  3:15-18,  the seed,  is  The f u l l expression in Gal 3:16, kai tQ spermati  sou, occurs in Gen 13:15; 17:8; and 24:7.  In Gen 15:18 we have t g spermati  sou without the k a i . In Gal 3:16 Paul says t h a t the promise was spoken to Abraham and t o his seed.  We f i n d t h i s  in Genesis 15.  In Gen 15:7 the promise is given to  Abraham and in vv 13,18 i t i s given to his seed. to  de Abraam e r r e t h e s a n . . .kai  to spermati  language of these verses i n Genesis 15:  Furthermore, the statement  auto  in Gal 3:16  it  does  tighten  the  v 7, eipen de pros auton; v 13, kai  errethe .pros Abram; and v 18, legon t g spermati sou. incidental,  echoes  While t h i s evidence i s  the connection between Genesis 15 and Gal  3:15-18. There are two t e x t s i n the Abrahamic cycle in which God singles out a seed, answering to Paul's emphasis on one seed. Paul r e f e r s to in Gal 4:30 and Rom 9:7. t h i s Genesis passage as a r e j e c t i o n t e x t . the  physical  descendants  of  One i s Gen 21:10-12 which  In these two instances, Paul uses According to t h i s t e x t , some of  Abraham are excluded from the seed.  This  62 selection/exclusion motif i n Gen 21:10-12 does not answer as s t r o n g l y to the singular  seed motif  in Gal  3:16  as the other Genesis t e x t  determines a seed by promise--Gen 15:1-5. that  he has no seed and t h a t  house would be his h e i r .  in which God  In t h i s t e x t , Abraham complains  consequently one of his slaves born i n his  God, however, r e j e c t s t h i s one as heir and asserts  that one born from Abraham, his seed, would be his h e i r .  In Genesis 15 we  22  have the only promissory seed selection t e x t . The clear  l i n k s between Gal 3:15-18 and Genesis 15 show t h a t Paul  is  not simply moving in the thought world of the LXX but more p a r t i c u l a r l y i n that of Genesis 15.  As the b e r i t in Genesis i s i n t i m a t e l y linked with the i  idea of  a self-curse  and i r r e v o c a b i l i t y ,  so the diatheke  in Gal  3:15,17  could q u i t e n a t u r a l l y be thought of in terms of an oath or any sacrosanct institution. Interestingly, institution  Paul's  argument  from  the  irrevocability  of  the  linked with the promise to the absolutely f i r m nature of the  promise has a p a r a l l e l  in Heb 6:13-18.  In t h i s t e x t the author of Hebrews  bases the c e r t a i n t y of the promise to Abraham on the divine oath, one o f t h e two pragmata ametatheta (v 18).  He also appeals to the f i n a l i t y  instrument in mind (horkos) among men (Heb 6:16). text bertt  (Gen 22:16-17) "cutting"  in  mind  (Gen 15)  the  He, however, has an oath  i n mind and so speaks in terms of oath.  text  of  and so speaks  in  Paul has a terms of  a  kekuromene diatheke. The i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o - t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of understanding the diatheke of Gal 3:15 simply as the OT b e r t t was stimulated by the f a i l u r e to f i n d an Since the promise in Gen 15:4-5 r e f e r s to Isaac, Ishmael i s excluded by i t . So t h i s t e x t establishes the exclusion of Ishmael, one of Abraham's descendants, expressed i n Gen 21:10-12.  63 institution  of the Greco-Roman world that meets the requirements of  text.  This  failure  again.  Hellenistic  investigation If  will,  institution.  it it  may best  be concluded  by r e f l e c t i n g  on  this this  i s i n s i s t e d t h a t Paul i s attempting to draw on the must be concluded that  Paul did not understand t h i s  To account f o r Paul's misunderstanding, one would have t o say  that Paul had no immediate experience with or knowledge of the H e l l e n i s t i c will.  This would have led Paul to erroneously read the nature of the OT  be>it  into  sufficiently Hellenistic  the  Hellenistic  describing will.  This  will.  the  Hence,  OT covenant  explanation  of  Gal but  Paul's  3:15  would be seen as  as f a i l i n g statement  to  fit  concerning  diatheke of Gal 3:15 concedes the main point of the present t h e s i s : Paul i s describing the OT covenant.  the the that  This i n s i g h t provides the primary basis  f o r the present t h e s i s .  C.  Paul's Technical Vocabulary  When Paul speaks kata anthropon i n Gal 3:15, he i s not only s t a t i n g the human assessment of the type of i n s t i t u t i o n represented by the diatheke of the scriptures but i s also speaking about t h a t diatheke as people normally speak about such i n s t i t u t i o n s .  In other words, he i s applying common legal  terms to the diatheke" i n question. The legal nature of kuroun, akuroun, athetein and epidiatassesthai has long been noted by scholars.  This legal language i s c l e a r l y a r e s u l t of  speaking kata anthropon. The d i s c u s s i o n  in  Gal  3:15-18  Eger, ZNW 18 (1917/18) 88f.  swings  between diatheke  and promise  64 (diatheke* i n vv 15 & 17a and promise i n vv 16 & 17b-18). only speaks kata anthropon of diatheke. i s used only with reference to diatheke. while the diatheke i s kekuromene. diatheke' i s seen i n p a r t i c u l a r  Of these two, Paul  Accordingly, the legal terminology Thus the promise i s spoken (v 16)  The s t r i c t use of the legal language f o r  in the switch of  langauge in v 17 as Paul  moves from diatheke to promise. In Gal 3:17 Paul i s pointing out the impact t h a t the law might have on the Abrahamic grant.  He speaks about t h i s grant both in terms of diatheke  and epaggelia, but he uses d i f f e r e n t terms f o r the impact t h a t the law might have on each. akuroun,  he uses a legal  term,  and in connection with the epaggelia he uses a nonlegal  term,  katargein. that i t  In  connection  with the diatheke  That akuroun i s a special term f o r Paul i s evident from the f a c t  only occurs t h i s one time i n Paul's w r i t i n g s when he steps out of  his normal way of t h i n k i n g to speak kata anthropon concerning a given legal institution.  Katargein, however, i s a nonlegal term t h a t Paul uses quite  24 often.  This switch from legal to nonlegal  di atheke  to  epaggelia shows that  language when switching from  speaking kata anthropon  alone caused Paul to use a special vocabulary.  about  diatheke"  This i n turn shows t h a t in  speaking kata anthropon about diatheke he i s speaking of the i n s t i t u t i o n  in  legal terms. Paul's  legal  vocabulary  in Gal 3:15,17  has been used by scholars  confirm the claim that Paul i s speaking of a w i l l .  to  In f a c t f o r some, in  view of the f a i l u r e to harmonize Gal 3:15,17 with the f a c t s about a w i l l , the legal  language in the t e x t  TDNT 1. 452f; render i n a c t i v e .  i s the only confirmation t h a t  Paul has a  MM 331; in the p a p y r i , katargein means to hinder or  65 testament in mind.  3  The legal vocabulary used, however, i s of a general  nature and thus does not point d e c i s i v e l y to a w i l l . Paul views whatever diatheke he has in mind as a legal Paul's  principal  legal  category  is  kuroun,  It  only  shows  that  institution. which appears  kekuromene of v 15 and the prokekuromene and akuroun of v 17.  in  the  This term,  which was used of a broad range of legal actions, means to enforce, confirm, 27 validate  or  determine.  kuroun i s not used. v a l i d i t y of a w i l l ,  In papyrological  testamentary  texts,  the  verb  The adjective k u r i a , however, i s used to speak of the 29  and akuroun i s used f o r revoking a w i l l .  30  But again  the legal use of the kuroun word group i s not r e s t r i c t e d to w i l l s . Kuroun i n Gal 3:15,17 r e f e r s  to the legal  status of an i n s t i t u t i o n .  Thus being kekuromene, a diatheke has legal f o r c e . I t i s l e g a l l y i n force or enacted. Akuroun i n v 17 r e f e r s to the act of s t r i p p i n g a diatheke" of i t s legal op  force.  The analysis of the t e x t given previously  shows that akuroun in  v 17 corresponds to and thus embraces the athetein and epidiatassesthai v 15.  of  Also, both akuroi i n v 17 and athetei e epidiatassetai in v 15 are in J  25  S o f o r example, Eger, ZNW 18 (1917/18) 96; and Oepke, Galater, 111.  pc  See Hughes' discussion of these terms, NovT 21 (1979) pp. 67-70 nn. 142-149. 27  L S J kuroo, TDNT 3. 1098, BAGD kuroo.  28  Hughes, NovT, 21 (1979) 68.  I b i d . , and Eger, ZNW 18 (1917/18) 90. On the use of k u r i a in papyrioTogTca1 testamentary t e x t s and how t h i s usage r e l a t e s to Gal 3:15,17, see p. 23 above. 2 9  30  31  E g e r , ZNW 18 (1917/18) 92, and MM 20.  TDNT 3. 1099-1100.  32  See p. 47 above.  66 opposition to kekuromene.  Thus, these two expressions represent two ways i n  which a diatheke can be invalidated or stripped of i t s legal f o r c e . Athetein means " t o regard as nought," aside" or " t o a n n u l . " legal t r a n s a c t i o n s .  "to declare i n v a l i d , "  "to  set  In the p a p y r i , t h i s term i s used of a v a r i e t y of  3 3  As a way of i n v a l i d a t i n g a diatheke, athetein r e f e r s  to the act of merely cancelling Epidiatassesthai  it.  does not  appear outside  of  Gal 3 : 1 5 .  diatassein means to appoint, ordain, arrange or order.  3 5  The verb  W. Judeich points  out t h a t d i a t a s s e s t h a i , d i a t a x i s , diatagma and diatage display the special meaning of "determine by testamentary d i s p o s i t i o n . " have a much broader usage.  But again the terms  37  Epidiatassesthai i n Gal 3:15 i s usually taken to mean " t o add a c o d i c i l op  to.  Thus, diatassesthai with the p r e f i x epi has the idea of " t o ordain  onto."  Max Conrat  hapax legomenon.  takes  exception  to  this  interpretation  of  this  He f e e l s that prosdiatassesthai, which term does appear  with the sense of "to add t o , " would be a more appropriate term i f Paul had on  meant what he i s commonly interpreted as saying. Since epidiatassesthai r e f e r s to an act t h a t would overthrow (akuroun) a diatheke, one must agree with Conrat t h a t , TDNT 8. 158; BAGD atheteo.  if  epidiatassesthai means to  33  MM 12, and Hughes, NovT 21 (1979) 69 n. 146.  34  35  E g e r , ZNW 18 (1917/18) 92.  oe  W. Judiech, Altertuemer von H i e r a p o l i s , p. 110, c i t e d by Deissmann, L i g h t , 87 n. 5. 37  MM 155; Hughes, NovT 21 (1979) 69 n. 147.  38  BAGD epidiatassomai. 39  Max Conrat, ZNW 15 (1904) 214.  67 make an addition t o , the addition must be of quite an extraordinary nature to  overthrow  means  the d i a t h e k e . ^  rather  "to  epidi atassesthai v e r s t e h e n . " "" 4  Conrat thus suggests t h a t  4  replace." vielmehr  He w r i t e s , in  dem Sinn  Thus di atassesthai  "Meines einer  epidiatassesthai  Erachtens erneuten  w i t h the p r e f i x  epi  ist  das Wort  Verfuegung  means " t o  zu  ordain  over." I f Conrat i s c o r r e c t , then Paul i s saying that a diatheke can be made i n v a l i d by being e i t h e r annulled or replaced. involves  stripping  replacing i t .  it  Even i f  of  force  or  While the f i r s t action merely  cancelling  epidiatassesthai  it,  the  second  involves  simply means "to add t o , " the act  entailed would have to be seen as producing a new diatheke which replaces AO  the o r i g i n a l since t h i s act invalidates i t . force,  if  not  exactly  the  definition,  Hence, "replace" captures the of  epidiatassesthai  and i s  the  preferred rendering of the term since "add t o " i s too weak an expression. For Paul, covenant i s of the genre of legal i n s t i t u t i o n s . legal  institutions,  Unlike some  such as a testament which can be revoked,  however,  covenant is absolute and i r r e v o c a b l e .  ^ I b i d . , 215. H u g h e s (NovT 21 [ 1 9 7 9 ] 70 n. 149) w r i t e s , "The sense of epidiatassetai in v. 15 seems t o be t h a t of a di atheke i n such a way as to substantially alter i t . I t does not seem to preclude any addition to a d i a t h l k g since the law, the Mosaic covenant, was added (prostith~"mi--v. 19) t o the Abrahamic--though i n such a way* as Paul argues, as not to s u b s t a n t i a l l y a l t e r the Abrahamic p r i n c i p l e of inheritance-through-promise." I f t h i s i s the case, to t r a n s l a t e epidiatassesthai with " t o add t o " i s misleading. 4 2  68 CHAPTER 4 THE MEANING OF DIATHEKE  The discussion so f a r i n s t i t u t i o n in question. be i n v e s t i g a t e d .  has focussed on the t e x t  of Gal 3:15 and the  Now the d e f i n i t i o n of the key term, diatheke, must  The p r i n c i p a l concern f o r the present study i s whether or  not diatheke accurately represents b j r v t .  This concerns both the meaning of  diatheke, which i s investigated i n the present chapter, and b e r v t , which i s treated i n the next chapter. Diatheke i s  usually understood as " d i s p o s i t i o n "  or " d i s p o s a l , " which  emphasizes the one-sidedness of the arrangement i n question.  Moulton and  M i l l i g a n express t h i s  is  understanding as f o l l o w s :  "...diathlke  properly  disposio, an "arrangement" made by one party with plenary power, which the other party may accept or r e j e c t , but cannot a l t e r . "  1  I f t h i s i s the case,  diatheke i s not r e a l l y a suitable term f o r b e r f t since the Hebrew term does not carry t h i s nuance of one-sidedness. Paul's  use of  diatheke  in Gal 3:15,17,  and p a r t i c u l a r l y  his  legal  terminology associated with diatheke, does not r e f l e c t the supposed nuance of one-sidedness.  He characterizes diatheke with the term kuroun.  Thus* a  diatheke f o r him i s p r i n c i p a l l y a binding act or an enactment, which idea i s quite  independent of the idea of one-sidedness or disposal.  usage of diatheke in both secular Greek and H e l l e n i s t i c  Jewish  The broader literature  r e f l e c t s the same understanding.  MM 148. S i m i l a r l y , Burton (Galatians, 496) describes a diatheke as follows: "An arrangement or agreement between two parties in which one accepts what the other proposes or s t i p u l a t e s ; somewhat more one-sided than a suntheke."  69 A.  The Broader  Usage of  Di atheke  Apart from H e l l e n i s t i c  Judaism and  Christianity  . Apart  from  the  literature  of  Hellenistic  Judaism and  Christianity,  diatheke i s predominantly used in the sense of testament or l a s t w i l l . few  instances,  however,  in which t h i s  term i s  used in  a broader  The sense  suggest that the basic idea in diatheke is t h a t of a binding act or order. Closely r e l a t e d to the idea of a w i l l , the term diatheke* used f o r a philosophical  testament in the sense of the legacy of a sage.  Behm suggests, "This derives from the legal usage; i t last  orders,  sometimes i s  i s assumed that the  sayings or admonitions of such a man are b i n d i n g . "  Behm's  d e r i v a t i o n of t h i s usage from the terms used f o r a w i l l i s not necessarily correct,  as w i l l  be seen s h o r t l y .  However, the meaning he assigns  diatheke i n t h i s usage i s most c e r t a i n l y c o r r e c t . are a diatheke because they are b i n d i n g . Removed from the idea of a w i l l to diathekai i n Dinarch 1:9:  to  The l a s t orders of a sage  4  i s the somewhat problematic reference  to sunedrion . . .  diathekas en hais t a tes poleos s o t e r i a k e i t a i  ho p h u l a t t e i tas aporr§tous (the Areopagus . . . who keeps  the secret d i a t h e k a i , i n which are the salvation of the c i t y ) .  5  I f diatheke"  means disposal, the diathekai may r e f e r to "the mystic deposits on which the common weal depended, probably o r a c l e s . "  However, diathekai may simply  For references see TDNT 2. 124. TDNT 2. 124-125; and Kutsch, Neues Testament - Neuer Bund?, 52.  3  4 This i s the sense of diatheke in the pseudepigraphic Testaments of the Twelve P a t r i a r c h s . See p. 82 below. 5  The Greek t e x t i s c i t e d from TDNT 2. 125.  6  LSJ diatheke.  70 mean, as Behm suggests, sacred decrees or statutes on which the welfare of the state depended. According Democritus  diathesis  to  Sextus  used  diatheken).  7  Empiricus,  di atheke  for  "bodily  According to t h i s (placing  in  Adversus  constitution"  usage, diatheke  order,  is  arrangement).  vii,  (kata  136,  somatos  used as a synonym of  This  s i g n i f i c a n t l y departs from the idea of disposal. fixed.  Mathematicos,  usage of  diatheke  The b o d i l y c o n s t i t u t i o n i s  But i t has no connotation of one-sidedness.  Aristophanes understood  in  Aves 440 uses diatheke  as t r e a t y ,  contract  or  i n a way that  suntheke.  The  line  is  commonly  reads,  en me _ q diathontai g' hoide diatheken emoi henper ho pithekos t e gunaiki d i e t h e t o . P e i s t h e t a i r o s , i n coming to terms with the b i r d s , w i l l not put his arms down unless the birds make a diatheke with him (not to hurt him) l i k e the ape made with his w i f e .  I f t h i s diatheke" is a c o n t r a c t , then as scholars have  often  rather  noted,  it  is  between two p a r t i e s ,  one-sided.  other.  is  a treaty  speaking, diatheke in t h i s t e x t is not a  I t i s only a commitment on the part of one party not to hurt the It  Behm's  "This  but binding only on the one according to the terms  f i x e d by the o t h e r . S t r i c t l y contract.  Behm remarks,  is  a guarantee or  inclusion  of  "the  a binding  terms f i x e d  commitment to c e r t a i n by the other"  action.  1 1  in the meaning of  TDNT 2. 125.  7  TDNT 2. 124; and LSJ diatheke. See Kutsch, Neues Testament - Neuer Bund? 53 f o r d i f f i c u l t i e s with t h i s l i n e . 8  9  C i t e d from TDNT 2. 124.  10  TDNT 2. 125.  See also Kutsch, Neues Testament - Neuer Bund? 54.  11 For a f u l l discussion Neuer Bund? 53-55.  of  this  text,  see Kutsch,  Neues Testament-  71 diatheke in t h i s t e x t i s unwarranted.  This diatheke cannot even be seen as  a s t i p u l a t i o n since only the birds make i t . Di atheke approaches the idea of contract more c l e a r l y in Isaeus 6:27 which  states,  kai  grapsas  diatheken, 1  katatithetai  eph'  hois  eisegage  ton  paida,  9  meta touton Puthodoro.  Burton translates t h i s as f o l l o w s :  "And having w r i t t e n out an agreement (diatheke) by which he introduced the boy  (into  his  Pythodorus. does  not  phratria),  he deposited  it,  with t h e i r  concurrence,  In t h i s t e x t , diatheke c l e a r l y i s not a w i l l .  0  think  it  is  a contract  as Burton suggests.  with  But Kutsch  He n o t i c e s ,  "Die  diatheke, die Euktemon niederschrieb, enthaelt die Bedingungen, unter denen er den Knaben i n seine F r a t r i e e i n f u e h r t e ; weder g i l t sie e r s t fuer den F a l l seines Todes noch t r i t t Vielmehr  steht  'Verfuegung.'"  eine andere Person als  auch hier 14  It  diatheke  '(Vertrags-)  Partner'  im Sinne der e i n s e i t i g e n  auf.  'Anordnung,'  i s true t h a t there i s no contracting partner.  Yet as  Kutsch himself admits, the diatheke contained the s t i p u l a t i o n s or conditions (Bedingungen) upon which he introduced the boy.  Thus, though the diatheke'  is an "order" or "disposal" and in t h i s sense i s c l o s e l y linked to the idea of a w i l l , i t not r a d i c a l l y d i s t i n c t from a contract even though the demands are one-sided. The  connection  between  Isaeus 4:12, where diatheke,  di atheke  and c o n t r a c t  meaning a w i l l ,  agreements or c o n t r a c t s . 12 Cited from Burton, Galatians, 496. I b i d . , 496.  1 3  14 Kutsch, Neues Testament - Neuer Bund?, 55. B u r t o n , Galatians, 497.  made c l e a r  in  i s classed among sumbolaia,  15  15  is  72 The common denominator  in the various  usages of  l i t e r a t u r e i s i n the idea of something t h a t i s binding: arrangement.  As Behm notes,  because they are binding.  the  last  sayings  di atheke  i n Greek  an order or binding  of a sage are a diatheke  As a binding act, a diatheke" can be a guarantee  (Aristophanes, Aves 440) or a s t i p u l a t i o n (Isaeus 6:27) and thus be classed with  contracts  (Isaeus  4:12).  Even the  use of  di atheke  for  c o n s t i t u t i o n by Democritus comes under the idea of a binding The bodily c o n s t i t u t i o n central  idea  arrangement,  of the  arrangement.  i s f i x e d and thus in a sense binding.  diatheke  in  diathekai  its in  various  Dinarch  uses  1:9  is  that  are most  of  bodily  Since the an order  or  decrees  or  likely  s t a t u t e s , as Behm suggests, rather than deposits. The use of diatheke f o r a w i l l does not deviate from the term's general sense of a binding a c t . idea of disposal from t h i s i t  Since a w i l l  does s u f f i c i e n t l y  represents- an act of disposal, the  express the idea i n a testament.  But  does not f o l l o w t h a t the meaning of diatheke as a term f o r a  w i l l i s t h a t of disposal.  The concept of a binding act equally, though from  a d i f f e r e n t perspective, represents the testamentary a c t .  Which nuance of  the testamentary act the Greeks saw i n t h e i r term f o r testament, diatheke, must be determined from the term's broader usage.  The use of diatheke by  Democritus noted above i s  In the idea of  decisive  in t h i s  case.  bodily  c o n s t i t u t i o n , the notion of disposal i s wholly absent. That the nontechnical sense of diatheke remained in i t s technical use is suggested by the peculiar use of the p l u r a l with reference to a w i l l . The p l u r a l  diath"5kai  was used f o r  both the single  provisions  of  a will  without designating the w i l l as a whole, as well as f o r the sum t o t a l of the provisions of a w i l l ,  so that the p l u r a l i s equivalent to " w i l l " or to the  — — 1 fi  s i n g u l a r , diatheke.  Thus, each provision or ordinance i s a diatheke.  Another source of confirmation t h a t the Greeks understood a testament as an ordinance, the nontechincal sense of diatheke, comes from the use of the diatasso word group f o r testamentary d i s p o s i t i o n noticed above. '' 1  word group has i t s ordained.  This  basic sense in the idea of to ordain and then what i s  Hence, a testament was seen p r i m a r i l y as an ordinance rather than  as a disposal. In view of t h i s , i t is. questionable whether the use of diatheke f o r the l a s t sayings of a sage was derived from the legal use of the term, as Behm 18 suggests.  The idea of a binding statement or order which i s native to the  nontechnical use of the term i s s u f f i c i e n t to explain t h i s usage. The papyrological  evidence suggests  that  the  legal  use of  completely monopolized the word by at least the 1st Century A D .  19  diatheke The f a c t  that the broader meaning of diatheke was carried over i n t o Judaism, however, checks  any hasty  deyatfqf  conclusions  or d T ' a t t q f  2 0  derived from the p a p y r i .  The loan words  found in Rabbinic w r i t i n g s were used both in  the pi  narrower  sense of  "last w i l l "  and in the broader sense of  "ordinance."  Since Judaism borrowed the legal i n s t i t u t i o n of a w i l l from the Greco-Roman 1 6  I b i d . , 496.  "" See p. 66 above. 7  18  (  See also MM 155.  See p. 69 above.  19  MM 148. 20 Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic L i t e r a t u r e (New Y o r k / B e r l i n : Verlag Choreb, 1926) 294. TDNJ_ 2. 125; Str-B 3. 545-549; and Yaron, G i f t s in Contemplation of Death, 19-20. 21  74 world, i t borrowed.  is not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t the technical term f o r w i l l would also be What i s  of  special  significance for  the meaning of  diatheke,  however, i s t h a t the broader meaning of diatheke was also adopted.  After  c i t i n g a few examples of the use of the term in t h i s more general sense, Behm argues,  "Since there i s  nothing to suggest t h a t the Jews themselves  gave a new sense to the term, one can only conclude t h a t they were adopting ??  a common Greek sense." Since the w i l l was taken over i n t o Judaism l a t e r , i . e . , po the 1st Century,  the loan words may also be l a t e .  probably a f t e r  Hence, i t s  broader  meaning i s most l i k e l y i n d i c a t i v e of the continuation of the broader usage of diatheke on i n t o the 1st and 2nd C e n t u r i e s . was p r i m a r i l y  24  seen as an ordinance, the technical  In f a c t ,  if  a testament  term i t s e l f  would have  kept the basic, broader sense of the word a l i v e . B.  The Broader Usage of Diatheke in the LXX and Apocrypha  In a few instances  i n the LXX and Apocrypha, diatheke  approach each other in meaning.  and suntheke"  The meaning of diatheke r e f l e c t e d in t h i s  l a t i t u d e of usage corroborates what has been seen thus f a r :  t h a t diatheke  i s p r i m a r i l y a binding a c t . Two Hebrew terms translated with diatheke i n the LXX suggest that t h i s term was used i n the sense t h a t approaches the idea of c o n t r a c t .  The f i r s t  is i n Ezekiel 16:29 where diatheke i s given f o r the Hebrew taznut  (harlotry,  22  TDNT 2. 125; see also Str-B 3. 545.  23 On the adoption of the w i l l by Judaism, see pp. 35f. above. 24 Contra Moulton and M i l l i g a n (MM 148) who suggest that the u l t i m a t e l y monopolized the term, diatheke.  will  75 fornication). illicit other  Harlotry i s a common metaphor i n the Old Testament f o r any  or corrupt gods.  This  union and i s especially used f o r is  harlotry  because Israel  wedlock and i d o l a t r y thus i s an i l l i c i t  Israel's  going  after  i s joined to YHWH as i f  by  union.  The Hebrew t e x t in question reads, "You also m u l t i p l i e d your with the land of merchants, C h a l d e a . . . . "  A similar  harlotry  statement i s said of  I s r a e l ' s r e l a t i o n with Assyria i n the previous verse ( v . 28) where i t says, "You played the h a r l o t ( t i z n t ) with the sons of A s s y r i a . "  The LXX renders  t i z n t with exeporneusas but uses diatheke f o r the substantive of the same r o o t , znh, in v 29. The use of diatheke i n v 29 i s probably due to the language of commerce in the Hebrew Text. harlotry  with the  diathekai  with  The LXX t r a n s l a t e s  land of  the  land  merchants, of  the  the Hebrew "you m u l t i p l i e d  Chaldea" with  Chaldeans."  "you m u l t i p l i e d  Perhaps  the  your your  translators  understood h a r l o t r y in r e l a t i o n to a commercial group as making diathlSkai. At  any r a t e ,  "covenant"  or  di atheke" i s "treaty"  or,  used  here,  quite  clearly,  perhaps more accurately,  in  in the  sense of  the sense of a  pc  commercial or p o l i t i c a l  arrangement.  The second time diatheke i s used i n t r a n s l a t i o n to express the idea of a r e l a t i o n s h i p i s in Zech 11:14 of the Alexandrian Text. "to  break  the  brotherhood  (""ahawah)  between  Judah and I s r a e l . "  Alexandrian Text renders the term * ahawah with diatheke". an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  of the breaking of  a staff,  The Hebrew reads, The  This statement i s  which in Hebrew i s  called  hahobltm, cords or bands (from habal, to bind or pledge), which can also be p(T  Concerning the use of diatheke in Ezekiel 16:29, Cooke (A C r i t i c a l and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1951] 171) c o r r e c t l y remarks, " . . . t h e t r a n s l a t i o n i s wrong, but the a l l u s i o n is r i g h t l y understood."  76  used f o r a measured portion or t e r r i t o r y .  The LXX renders t h i s term with  schoinisma, from schoinos, a reed, fence or land-measure. The V a t i c a n territory  and Syrian  i n hahoblfm  ten kataschesin,  versions  of the LXX continue the idea of  and s c h o i n i sma and t r a n s l a t e  possession.  The Alexandrian Text,  ~ * a h aw ah  by rendering  with  ""ahawah  with diatheke seems to l e t the idea of cords or bands i n hahobltm and the idea of brotherhood d i c t a t e the t r a n s l a t i o n .  I f t h i s i s so, diatheke i s  understood i n the sense of a covenant, bond or binding arrangement that t i e s Judah and Israel The  together.  association  Isaiah 28:15.  o f d i atheke  with  suntheke  i s made e x p l i c i t  in  The Hebrew l i n e s i n question read:  kT amartem karatnu b e n t we" "im-se'ol 5sTnu* hozeh ?  ?  et-mawet  c  The LXX uses suntheke" t o t r a n s l a t e the noun bozeh, which comes from the verb hazah, t o see, and as a noun normally means "seer" but i n t h i s case probably "vision." the  So the second l i n e i n Hebrew reads, "and with s e ' o l (the realm of  departed  dead,  hades  i n LXX) we have made  a vision,"  i.e.  by  nc  necromancy. How the LXX came t o t r a n s l a t e hozeh by suntheke may be explained by the parallelism  involved  in this  poetic  text.  The preceding  line  reads,  "Because you have s a i d , 'We have made ( l i t . , c u t ) a b e n t (diatheke* i n LXX) with d e a t h . ' "  Death and se^ol are p a r a l l e l concepts, and so beVft and h,ozeh  are also taken as p a r a l l e l concepts. The p a r a l l e l i n Hebrew i s does  the  berTt  death.  the vision with se^ol gives security as  The LXX, however, makes the p a r a l l e l  more  obvious i n rendering hozeh with suntheke w h i l e , as usual, rendering  beVTt  26  BDB 302.  with  that  77 with diatheke.  This t r a n s l a t i o n i s so a t t r a c t i v e f o r i t s c l a r i t y t h a t even 71  modern commentators  7R  and t r a n s l a t i o n s  f o l l o w the LXX here.  Di atheke and suntheke" also approach each other i n meaning i n the Wisdom of Solomon and 1 Maccabees. Suntheke i s used only twice i n Wisdom. t r e a t y which the ungodly verse  says  that  these  enforcing the r e l a t i o n a l  (asebeis)  made with death (thanatos).  sought to make death t h e i r idea of the suntheke.  used in the usual sense of a t r e a t y . however, i s odd. the p l u r a l )  In 1:16 suntheke i s used of a  friend  The same  (philos),  re-  In t h i s case, suntheke i s  The use of t h i s term i n Wis 12:21,  I t i s the only place i n the Apocrypha where i t i s used ( i n  i n the sense of b e n t .  The l i n e in question reads, non t o i s  p a t r a s i n horkous kai sunthekas edokas agathon huposcheseon you gave oaths and covenants of good promises).  (whose  fathers  The same author uses the  p l u r a l of diatheke" in an i d e n t i c a l manner in chapter 18:22, where he speaks of the horkous pateron kai d i a t h e k a s . has sunthekai agathon huposcheseon  29  Moreover, the f a c t t h a t the author  (covenants  of  good promises)  shows t h a t suntheke i s used in the sense of diatheke. more exact term f o r promise.  in  12:21  Diatheke would be a  The use of horkoi suggests the same.  The use of suntheke i n Wis 12:21 shows again t h a t diathfSkl" and suntfrSke" were not r a d i c a l l y  distinct  concepts.  Further,  it  shows t h a t i t  was not  simply the case t h a t diathele could be used in the sense of suntfrske" but 27  For a survey of the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of hozeh - j t h i s t e x t see Hans Wilderberger, Jesaja 28-39 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982) 1064-1065. n  28  S o RSV, NASB, JB and NIV.  On  Roetzel ("Diatheke in Romans 9 , 4 , " Bib_ 51 [1970] 381f.) persuasively argues t h a t the diath^kai in 18:22 are promises to the fathers who l i v e d at the time of the Exodus. This makes the p a r a l l e l with the sunthekai of 12:21 more s t r i k i n g since they are sunthekai agathon huposchesefJn.  78 t h a t suntheke could also be used i n the sense of diatheke. 1 Maccabees 1:11 and 11:9  gives f u r t h e r  evidence f o r  the  contention  that diatheke and suntheke could approximate each other in meaning.  In the  former passage where we read diathometha diatheke meta ton ethnon ton kukl? hemon, diatheke i s almost c e r t a i n l y used in the sense of suntheke". l a t t e r passage where we read sunthometha pros heautous diatheken. and as would be expected, the verb d i a t i t h e s t h a i use of  suntithesthai  for  In the  Normally,  goes with diatheke.  The  the act of making a diatheke c l e a r l y shows t h a t  diatheke could be a t r e a t y or pact. Remarking Wisdom 1 2 : 2 1 ,  on  the  Kutsch  1 . v o r c h r i s t l ichen  three  passages,  suggests,  "Diese  Jahrhundert  sich die  1 Maccabees 1 : 1 1 ; drei  Belege  Begriffe  zeigen,  diatheke  11:9  and  dass  im  und suntheke"  j e w e i l s am Rande ihres Bedeutungsfeldes uberschneiden konnten; wenn auch nur in  ganz  seltenen  Fallen,  konnten  beide  Worter  doch g e l e g e n t l i c h  die  Of)  Bedentung des anderen annehmen." over  into  each o t h e r ' s  range  d e f i n i t i o n a l f i e l d s i s important.  The observation t h a t the two terms cross  JU  of  meaning  only  at  the edges of  their  The vast m a j o r i t y of occurrences of both Ol  terms shows t h a t they represent quite d i s t i n c t notions.  However, a small  Kutsch, Neues Testament - Neuer Bund?, 7 1 . 31  In Philo and Josephus, the usage of diatheke narrows down. Philo never uses diatheke in the sense of covenant, t r e a t y or c o n t r a c t . For t h i s he uses suntheke. However, he maintains the broader sense of the term. For him diatheke" does not e x c l u s i v e l y mean " l a s t w i l l " (TDNT 2. 128; Burton, Galatians, 498-499). Josephus uses diatheke e x c l u s i v e l y in the sense of will. For a t r e a t y between nations or agreements between people, he uses suntheke, and f o r making an agreement, s u n t i t h e s t h a i . Burton (Galatians, 499) o b s e r v e s , "The absence of diatheke" in the sense of "covenant" is apparently to be explained by his f a i l u r e ever to speak of the covenant of God with his people, though i t i s also s i g n i f i c a n t of his f e e l i n g that diathek~§ was not the s u i t a b l e word in his day and c i r c l e of thought f o r an agreement between equals t h a t in r e f e r r i n g to agreements of t h i s character which i n the LXX are called diathekai he uniformly employs some other form of expression."  79 proportion of occurrences shows that any f i x e d p o l a r i z a t i o n of the terms i s unwarranted.  C.  Diatheke as Ordinance  Suntheke, being derived from suntithemi, sidedness of an arrangement. that  d i atheke  is  But, from t h i s i t does not l o g i c a l l y  a one-sided  - suntheke and diatheke  c l e a r l y emphasizes the two-  arrangement.  seems to be a f f l i c t e d  Much of with t h i s  follow  the discussion on logical  fallacy.  3?  The f a c t t h a t diatheke and suntheke" can approximate each other in meaning The pattern r e f l e c t e d i n Philo and Josephus i s i n s t r u c t i v e . Firstly, i n t h e i r works di atheke" and suntheke are d i s t i n c t notions t h a t do not r e a d i l y approximate each o t h e r . While the d i s t i n c t i o n i s not as consolidated in the LXX and Apocrypha, i t is nonetheless c l e a r l y evident t h e r e also. This prevents any attempt to see the two terms i n Jewish l i t e r a t u r e as synonyms. I t also m i l i t a t e s against the thesis t h a t the >translators of the LXX understood b e n t as a c o n t r a c t . Had t h i s been the case they would no doubt have used sunthlke f o r b e r v t . Hence^the use of diatheke i n the LXX i s j u s t i f i e d on the grounds t h a t the divine b e n t was rather one-sided though i t is conceded t h a t berTt means contract. The LXX use of diatheke only gets theological j u s t i f i c a t i o n . Annie Jaubert (La Notion d ' a l l i a n c e dans le Juda'i'sme aux Abords de V e r e ChrStienne [ P a r i s ! Editions du S e u i l , 1963] 312) states t h i s theological j u s t i f i c a t i o n more f u l l y than ususal as f o l l o w s : "En f a i t le terme hlbreu beVtt pouvait etre applique au t r a i t e de v a s s a l i t e impose par un superieur a un i n f e r i e u r . I I est probable pourtant que c ' e s t l a densite theologique du mot qui a i n f l u e ' sur sa t r a d u c t i o n . BerTt en hebreu s ' e t a i t comme specialise'pour exprimer l ' a l l i a n c e de Dieu avec son peuple. Dans l a be>?t hebra'fque nous avions distingue 1 ' a l l i a n c e - c o n t r a t et 1 'alliance-promesse, mais dans T u n et l ' a u t r e cas c ' e t a i t Dieu qui prenait 1 ' i n i t i a t i v e et Israel ne pouvait ni refuser d'adherer au contrat ni e'luder les obligations l i e e s aux promesses de Yahve...Israel e'tait choisi parmi les peuples, mais i l n ' e t a i t pas en son pouvoir de se derober a 1 ' e l e c t i o n . C'est cet aspect souverain de 1 ' i n i t i a t i v e divine qui semble avoir frappe* les traducteurs des Septante et leur avoir suggere l'emploi de diatheke. L'alliance divine, c ' e ' t a i t l a " d i s p o s i t i o n " de salut^ que Dieu avait e'tablie pour son peuple, dans 1'absolute l i b e r t e de ses decisions. La traduction diatheke est par elle-meme une i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ; e l l e engage d'emble'e une doctrine r e l i g i e u s e de 1 ' A l l i a n c e . (Emphasis i s added).  80  exposes t h i s f a l l a c y . the  difference  si dedness of  I f a diatheke can be a suntheke and vice-versa, then  between the two must not be in the one-sidedness or twothe  arrangement.  Rather  than being the polar  opposite  of  suntheke, diatheke must capture an essential component of suntheke". The essential i s t h a t of  idea in diatheke" t h a t captures the idea behind suntheke  a binding act or enactment.  A diatheke commits p a r t i e s to a  c e r t a i n ordered, s t i p u l a t e d or promised a c t i o n .  Thus the idea of an order  or a binding arrangement seen as the common denominator in the Greek usage of the term i s also the d e f i n i t i o n of diatheke that the t r a n s l a t o r s of the LXX and the authors of 1 Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon worked w i t h . Expressing usages.  the  idea of  a binding act,  diatheke can have a range of  I t can be used f o r decree, d i s p o s i t i o n , order, ordinance, s t a t u t e ,  guarantee, function  or as  arrangement.  As ordinance or  a suntheke.  The two terms,  arrangement, however,  a diatheke  are not  can  synonymous.  Suntheke i s l i m i t e d to a mutual arrangement whereas diatheke i s not. That the primary idea i n diatheke i n the LXX i s t h a t of ordinance or something  that  is  established  is  not  simply suggested by the f a c t  that  diatheke can approach the meaning of suntheke but also by the Hebrew terms other than b e r t t t h a t i t i s used f o r . The term translated  most f r e q u e n t l y with diathe'ke,  i.e.,  other  than  b e r t t , i s the term 'edut (testimony) which i s used in the Old Testament as a p a r a l l e l concept of b e r t t . to the ark, i . e . ,  This t r a n s l a t i o n of  c  edQt i s used in reference  the ark of the testimony, which i s a synonym f o r the ark  of the covenant ( e . g . Ex. 3 1 : 7 ) . The other instances where diatheke t r a n s l a t e s a Hebrew term other than bertt,  thought  not  understood the term.  numerous,  are more t e l l i n g  as to how the  translators  In Deut 9:5 diatheke i s used f o r dabar (word) which i s  81 used i n the sense of an oath (the word sworn).  The t e x t i n question c l e a r l y  shows t h a t dabar i s used f o r the b e r t t which God made with the p a t r i a r c h s . Furthermore, b e r t t and oath are very closely related concepts. I t i s d i f f i c u l t to determine whether i n the LXX of 2 Chr 25:4 we have a t r a n s l a t i o n of the MT. it  is  written  For the Hebrew kakkatub battorah bgseper mosSh (as  in the Law in the  book of  diatheken tou nomou Kuriou, kathos gegraptai the law of the Lord, as i t equivalent  of  kakkatub  "what i s w r i t t e n . "  is w r i t t e n ) .  Moses), the LXX has kata ten (according to the diatheke of Kata ten diatheken may be the  i n which case diatheke would be "the w r i t i n g "  I f i t i s not, the i n t e n t i o n of the t r a n s l a t o r s i s c l e a r .  The w r i t i n g s or the book of Moses are the diatheke. text  or  of Daniel 9:13,  diatheke  S i m i l a r l y i n the Syriac  i s used f o r torah (law of Moses), which i s  rendered in the Alexandrian and Vatican Text with nomos. The use of diatheke f o r dabar (word=oath), katub ( w r i t i n g )  and torah  (law) suggests t h a t t h i s term had the general sense of ordinance.  The range  of ideas expressed by i t includes both oath and law.  The common element i n  oath and law i s not a disposal by one party but a binding act. and law bind p a r t i e s to o b l i g a t i o n s . the divine (oath) or human party ( l a w ) . that binds any party related to Ecclesiasticus  Both oath  Further, a diatheke can bind e i t h e r As such, a diatheke i s an ordinance  it.  uses diatheke c o n s i s t e n t l y  in the sense of ordinance.  While diatheke t r a n s l a t e s b e r t t f i v e times, i t t r a n s l a t e s hog ( s t a t u t e ) ten times  and huqqah  (ditto)  once.  Diatheke  is  associated  with  law,  These s t a t i s t i c s are taken from Hatch and Redpath, Concordance of LXX. Roetzel (Bib 51 [1970] 380) gives s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t s t a t i s t i c s based on I s r a e l L e v i ' s e d i t i o n of the t e x t (The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus [Leiden: E. J . B r i l l , 1951]) as f o l l o w s : diatheke" i s used f o r hdq ten times, f o r b e r t t three times and f o r *ot once.  82 judgments, commandments and oath (24:23; 28:7; 41:19; 42:2; 44:20; 4 5 : 5 ) . The term i s used f o r the decree or ordinance of death ( 4 : 1 2 , 1 7 ) , decree  in  his works  (16:22)  and f o r  the decree or  f o r God's  3 4  sentence of  judgment  (38:33; cp. 45:17). In  2 Maccabees  everlasting judgment.  life  in  7:36  the martyr  contrast  to  dies  the  under  wicked  (hupo)  the diatheke  one who dies  of  under God's  This use of diatheke" agrees with the use in Ecclesiasticus.  It  is a decree, ordinance or ordainment. The use of  di atheke  for  the  last  sayings  pseudepigraphic Testaments of the Twelve P a t r i a r c h s from i t s usage ascertained thus f a r .  of 35  a patriarch  in  the  does not r e a l l y depart  The primary idea in the diathekai  is  not t h a t they are the 1ast words but rather t h a t the words are commanded (T. Reub. 1:1)  or decreed (T. Zeb. 1:1 and T. Naph. 1:1).  This much i s c l e a r ;  diatheke i s not used i n i t s narrow technical sense evidenced in the p a p y r i , i.e.,  a last w i l l . Di atheke  rather  than  as ordinance  or  as a one-sided  described in Gal 3:15,17.  as t h a t disposal  which  is  established  alone agrees with  and binding  the  institution  The notion of one-sidedness carries  implications  t h a t are incongruous with Paul's description of the divine diatheke in t h i s text.  Because a l a s t w i l l  own goods, i t aspect diatheke 34  of  i s the exercise of one's own r i g h t s over one's  was not binding over the one who makes i t ;  a will  that  causes the greatest  in Gal 3:15 as a w i l l .  difficulty  and i t  for  this  understanding  The argument in Gal 3:15,17  For the use of di atheke i n t h i s way, see W. 0. Ecclesiasticus (Cambridge: University Press, 1912) 99.  is  E.  presupposes  Oesterley,  T . Reub. 1 : 1 , T. Zeb. 1 : 1 , T. Naph. 1 : 1 , T. Gad 1 : 1 , T. Ash. 1 : 1 , T. Jos. 1 : 1 . 3 5  83 that  God h i m s e l f  is  bound by the diatheke.  In f a c t ,  Paul  introduces  diatheke i n t o the discussion to draw out the i r r e v o c a b i l i t y of the promise. Therefore,  the  institution  in  question  is  a u t h o r i t a t i v e w i l l of the one who makes i t . parties concerned. act or an ordinance.  not  a mere expression  of  the  Rather, i t i s objective to a l l  Hence, i n i t s basic sense, diatheke i s simply a binding  84 CHAPTER 5 BERIT AS ORDINANCE  By r e n d e r i n g  berit  with  diatheke,  understood  as a binding  act or  ordinance, H e l l e n i s t i c Judaism expressed the central idea that P o s t - b i b l i c a l Judaism  universally  understood  in the i n s t i t u t i o n  of covenant.  Greek,  Aramaic and Hebrew sources corroborate t h i s meaning of b e r t t .  A.  The LXX Rendering of B e r i t  The t r a n s l a t o r s of the LXX c l e a r l y understood b e r i t as ordinance.  Of  the 286 occurrences of b e r t t i n the MT, 270 are translated with di at hike, which term meant ordinance f o r the t r a n s l a t o r s .  That beVft meant ordinance  f o r them i s also evident from t h e i r t r a n s l a t i o n of beVft with terms other than diatheke.  Bertt  is  translated  with  m a r t u r i a,  testimonies  (Deut. 9:15; 2 Kgs 17:15), which reminds one of the f a c t t h a t diatheke was used f o r the Hebrew (1 Kgs 1 1 : 1 1 ) .  c  edut  In t h i s  (testimony). • Also b e r t t latter  case  bertt  is  i s translated  clearly  entole  understood as  ordinance. The t r a n s l a t i o n of b e r t t i n Gen 14:13 may suggest that beVtt i s used in the sense of a t r e a t y .  A close examination of the t r a n s l a t i o n i n question,  however, reveals t h a t again b e r t t i s understood as ordinance or binding a c t . In t h i s t e x t the expression ba'ale b e r t t (possessors of a b e r t t ) i s rendered sunomotai (confederates, from sunomnumi: in a league).  t o swear together and thus t o j o i n  Here the idea of covenant or t r e a t y comes through.  However,  the idea of league expressed in the p r e f i x sun r e a l l y t r a n s l a t e s "possessors of"  i n the expression  "possessors  of a b e r t t . "  The idea of b e r t t  is  85 expressed by omnumi ( t o swear). oath.  To possess a b e r t t  i s to come under an  Thus a b e r t t i s a binding commitment or ordinance. Suntheke,  a word that  expresses  sense i s used four times in the LXX. for bertt.  Otherwise, i t  the  idea of covenant in i t s  strict  Only in one doubtful case i s i t used  i s used twice to express the idea of t r e a t y  1  and  p  once as a p a r a l l e l t o diatheke. Since diatheke could be used f o r a suntheke* and, as w i l l be seen, an OT b e r t t could f u n c t i o n a l l y be a suntheke, i t i s amazing that suntheke* i s only used  in  one d o u b t f u l  instance  2 Kgs 17:15 (or 4 Kgs 17:15). Kutsch speculates  that  this  for  bertt  in  the  Alexandrian  Text  of  Since Codex A i s taken from O r i g i n ' s Hexapla, rendering  of  bertt  here stems from A q u i l a .  3  This conjecture may receive support from the f a c t t h a t the other t e x t s of the LXX only give one word (marturia) f o r three terms i n the MT ( s t a t u t e s , covenant  and warnings).  translation  This t r a n s l a t i o n  is  poor  in  the f u l l e r  from A q u i l a , which now appears  Codex A, was simply transposed i n t o t h i s t e x t .  and perhaps  a fuller  translation  of  Hence, the use of suntheke  in t h i s t e x t cannot be given much weight.  In Isaiah 30:1 the LXX renders the Hebrew phrase linsok massekah, l i t . , to pour a l i b a t i o n , with epoiesate...sunthekas, to make a compact. In Greek the p l u r a l spondai, l i b a t i o n s , was a term f o r t r e a t y since t r e a t i e s were concluded with l i b a t i o n s (LSJ sponde). In t h i s case, the LXX gives a correct rendering of the Hebrew idiom. The LXX uses suntheke t o give a s i m i l a r idiomatic t r a n s l a t i o n in Daniel 11:6. There the phrase tou poiesai sunthekas, which c l e a r l y r e f e r s t o a p o l i t i c a l a l l i a n c e or t r e a t y , t r a n s l a t e s t h e ^ Hebrew phrase l a ' a s o t mesarfm, t o make an e q u i t a b l e arrangement (mesarfm, from yasar, to be smooth, s t r a i g h t , r i g h t ) . Thus, suntheke* i s understood as an agreement or t r e a t y i n the s t r i c t sense of the word. For t h i s l a s t instance, see p. 76 above. 'Kutsch, Neues Testament - Neuer Bund?, 50.  86 B.  BerTt as Ordinance in Hebrew and Aramaic Sources  The unanimity in concept with which the LXX renders unanimity of  In  understanding throughout Judaism. seems to  berTt  reflects a  understanding  have been no difference  between  ordinance,  there  Hellenistic  Judaism on the one hand and the Hebrew and Aramaic  beVTt  as  the LXX and speaking  Jewish communities on the other.  Kutsch  notes that the beVTt of Exod 19:5 was understood by  as f o l l o w s : the  berTt  some  rabbis  Rabbi E l i e s e r - - t h e Sabbath-berit ( b r y t s b t ) , and Rabbi A k i b a of  circumcision  and  i d o l a t r y ( b r y t mylh  w bwdh z r h ) . f  While one  could, i n view of Gen 17:9-14, t a l k of a "covenant" (Bund) of circumcision, one could not l e g i t i m a t e l y t a l k of a Sabbath covenant (Bund) and surely not of an i d o l a t r y covenant. bent  Kutsch concludes that these Rabbis understood by  a commandment—the commandment of  against  idolatry.  4  Strack  the Sabbath, of  and Billerbeck  quote Rabbinic material  emphasize the berTt-nature of the commandments.  5  Buendnisse  (brytwt)  hat  es bei  circumcision  which  One quotation reads:  jedem e i n z e l n e n  Gebot  gegeben"  covenants (berTtot) were given with each single commandment).  or  "48 (= 48  Furthermore,  R. Simeon (150 A.D.) affirms "dass 576 Bundschliessungen wegen jedes Wortes in  der Tora stattgefunden  every word in the Torah). identified  haetten"  (that  576 covenants  occur  because of  Thus in the t h i n k i n g of these Rabbis, b e r i t  with commandment.  Similarly,  Roetzel  argues t h a t  the  plural  berTtot was used as a synonym f o r ordinances, decrees or commandments. 4  I b i d . , 23-24.  5  S t r - B 3. 262.  6  C.  Roetzel, Bib_ 51 (1970) 379.  is  6  87 The Targums confirm t h a t rendering of b e r i t . g&yam.  beVit  was understood as ordinance by t h e i r  With a few exceptions, the Targums t r a n s l a t e  beVtt  This term i s related to the verb gum which means, in i t s  forms, a r i s e , stand, set up, e s t a b l i s h or appoint.  with  various  The basic meaning of the  noun qeyam i s t h a t which i s f i r m , established or f i x e d , and the word i s used in Daniel 6:7,15 f o r a s t a t u t e established by the k i n g . qeyam also has the same semantic range as  beVtt.  7  In the Targums,  I t i s used f o r the Hebrew  terms !sebu a, oath (Num. 30:3; Dt. 7 : 8 ) , nedar, vow (Gen.28:20, 31:13), and f  hoq, s t a t u t e (Ex. 18:16,20; Ps. 9 9 : 7 ) .  8  B e r i t i s also t r a n s l a t e d with the  Aramaic term f o r i n s t r u c t i o n or law ( ' o r aye f a ' ) . Ecclesiasticus c l e a r l y t r e a t s b e r i t and Ijoq ( s t a t u t e ) as synonyms. only  are  diatheke,  berit  (five  times)  and hj5£ (ten  times)  both t r a n s l a t e d  in 45:5 and 15 the two terms are used interchangeably.  Not with  Whereas  Ijoq i s used f o r the e v e r l a s t i n g covenant made with Aaron in 45:5, b e r i t  is  used f o r the same covenant i n v 15. The qeyam of the Targums and hog of Ecclesiasticus as equivalents of b e r t t confirm the contention t h a t the covenant was understood p r i m a r i l y as ordinance literature  or of  something that Post-biblical  was b i n d i n g . Judaism r e f l e c t  covenant concept found i n the H e l l e n i s t i c  Thus the Hebrew and Aramaic the  same d e f i n i t i o n  of  the  literature.  Roetzel ( I b i d . , 380) argues t h a t the p l u r a l qeyamaya' means statutes or ordinances i n the Targums. He gives the f o l l o w i n g Targumic quotation on Ex. 1 8 , 1 5 f . , "Because the people come to me to inquire of God; when they have a dispute, they come to me and I decide between a man and his neighbor, and I make them know the covenants (qeyamaya*) of God and his d e c i s i o n s . " Kutsch, Neues Testament - Neuer Bund?, 26-27.  88 C.  BerTt as Ordinance in the Old Testament  While  Schoeps  traces  Paul's  'fundamental  misunderstanding'  of  the  Jewish view of the law to his use of diatheke and thus to Paul's source f o r t h i s term, LXX and H e l l e n i s t i c  Judaism, he also suspects that  Judaism f a i l e d to c l e a r l y grasp the meaning of berTt i n the OT.  Palestinian This turns  9  the discussion to the d e f i n i t i o n of berTt i n the OT. A full study.  review of that discussion i s beyond the scope of the present  The case f o r understanding the b e r i t of the OT as ordinance  will,  however, be presented.  The  problem  with  defining  d i f f i c u l t i e s of the word.  berTt  begins  with  the  Among the various etymologies proposed, the one  that l i n k s berTt to the Akkadian b i r i t u , "clasp," " f e t t e r , "  most scholarly support. the  idea of  treaty  10  etymological  "bond," has the  The idea of "bond" i s associated by scholars with  as a bond between p a r t i e s .  Weinfeld appeals to the  Akkadian and H i t t i t e terms f o r t r e a t y , r i k s u and i ^ h i u l respectively, which both mean "bond."  He l i n k s these terms with the Greek terms f o r covenant,  sunthgkl, harmonia (11iad 22: 255), sunthesia ( i i . 339), and sunemosume (22: 261) which also express the idea of binding or p u t t i n g together. appeals  to Arabic  ( aqd), f  Latin  (vinculum f i d e i ,  contractus)  (Bund) terms which use the concept of a bond f o r a t r e a t y .  1 1  He also  and German  However, even  though the idea of "bond" i n b i r i t u l i n k s the term with the idea of contract or the Greek term suntheke, i t Q  does not necessarily f o l l o w t h a t the basic  Schoeps (Paul, 213) w r i t e s , " . . . i n consequence of the p o s t - B i b l i c a l inadequacy of normative doctrine even in the schools of Palestine, there hardly existed clear ideas about the r e l a t i o n of Torah and B e r i t h . . . . " 1Q  n  TD0T 2. 255; TDNT 2. 108.  TD0T 2. 255.  89 idea i n  birTtu  "bond"  may  i s that of contract or agreement.  simply  imply  a binding  of  The idea of " f e t t e r "  obligations.  The  notion  or of  " i m p o s i t i o n , " " l i a b i l i t y , " or " o b l i g a t i o n " may be foremost.  birTt,  A related etymology derives b e r i t from the Akkadian "between" or occurs  in  "among" and corresponds to the Hebrew preposition  connection  with  covenant between X and Y." "This  which means  equation  is  bertt  in  ben which  the phrase bertt...ben...ubhen, "a  Weinfeld assesses t h i s d e r i v a t i o n as f o l l o w s :  based on the assumption t h a t the prep.  birTt  has been  developed i n t o an adverb and then i n t o a noun, an assumption t h a t cannot be accepted  without  reservations.  The main  difficulty,  however,  is  the  coupling of b e r i t h , "between," with the overlapping prep, ben, which r e s u l t s in a t a u t o l o g y . " Another d e r i v a t i o n , which sheds a d i f f e r e n t l i g h t on b e r t t , derives  it  from the Akkadian word burru which means " t o establish a legal s i t u a t i o n by testimony with an o a t h . " made,  14  but  Other  attempts  require more explaining  at deriving  bertt  have been  and so are more dubious than  those  mentioned. The derivations mentioned point to two p o s s i b i l i t i e s of bertt:  e i t h e r as a contract or agreement binding two parties or simply as  establishing an o b l i g a t i o n on one or more p a r t i e s . are  understanding  not  mutually  exclusive.  The  idea of  a contract  " i m p o s i t i o n , " " o b l i g a t i o n " or a "legal s i t u a t i o n . " not necessarily t r u e . 1 2  The question  here  The two understandings implies  that  of  However, the reverse i s  i s whether the idea of agreement  I b i d . , 254.  TWp_T 1 . 128.  13  1 4  See discussions TDOT 2. 253-255.  by Quell  in TDNT 2.  107-109,  and by Weinfeld  in  90 between p a r t i e s or of o b l i g a t i o n i s the foremost idea i n b e r i t .  This must  be decided by the use of b e r i t and the terms i t i s related to or associated with. The d e f i n i t i o n  of  bent  seeking to define b e r i t types  must  be taken  must be d i s t i l l e d  from the OT i t s e l f .  In  from i t s OT usage, however, the v a r i e t y of beVtt  into  consideration.  McCarthy r i g h t l y  gives  this  cautionary note: A c e r t a i n amount of current i n v e s t i g a t i o n of covenant sometimes seems t o t r e a t covenant as a univocal concept throughout the O.T.; wherever a covenant i s mentioned, i t i s assumed to have had c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which pertain to one form of covenant. However, i t i s simply a f a c t t h a t there are many d i f f e r e n t forms of covenant and these d i f f e r e n t forms imply d i f f e r e n t meanings. The f a i l u r e of any given form of b e r i t to take in the features of a l l the  different  unity  in a l l  different  berttot,  berit  meanings,  however, does not exclude an underlying conceptual  types.  While d i f f e r e n t forms may in themselves  beVTt certainly  has a  basic  meaning  that  is  imply  applicable  to a l l the forms of b e r t t . The one idea that binds a l l OT covenants together i s not "agreement" or "contract."  1 0  A contract i s only one kind of b e r i t .  Dennis J . McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant: • Opinions, (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1972) 4.  Rather, the u n i f y i n g A Survey of  Current  Mendenhall ("Covenant," I_DB_ 1 . 716f.) categorizes the beVitot of the OT a c c o r d i n g t o c o v e n a n t - t y p e or form as f o l l o w s : 1) S u z e r a i n t y ( I Sam 1 1 : 1 ; Ezek 17:12-14; Hos 1 2 : 1 ; Job 4 1 : 4 ) , 2) P a r i t y (Gen 31:44-50; 21:25-32; 26:27-31; Josh 9:3-22; I Sam 18:3; I Kgs 5:12; 15:19), 3) Patron (Noahic, Abrahamic and Davidic covenants), and 4) Promissory . (2 Kgs 11:412,17; 23:3; Jer 34:8; Neh 10:28-29). Only the f i r s t two £ an be called a t r e a t y . The t r e a t y status of the patron and promissory beVit i s not at a l l clear. The patron b £ r r t i s simply a guarantee or promise by the superior. In the ANE, t h i s b e r t t - t y p e i s the equivalent of the Royal Grant in which a king grants some favour to an i n f e r i o r . These were not t r e a t i e s . The promissory covenant does not even involve a r e l a t i o n s h i p . I t i s simply a commitment to c e r t a i n a c t i o n . For example, i n 2 Kgs 23:3 the king and the people make a covenant to keep the law which was rediscovered i n the temple. Jer 34:8 t e l l s of a covenant made during the siege to release a l l slaves, 16  91 idea i n a l l OT b e r i t o t i s t h a t of a binding act, an enactment or ordinance. E. Kutsch has been able to conceptually u n i f y the b e r t t o t of the OT i n the idea of Verplichtung or the imposition of o b l i g a t i o n . " " types  of  berit  obligations obligations  on  in  the  oneself  on others  Old Testament.  The f i r s t  (Selbstverpflichtung),  (Fremdverpflichtung)  obligations (gegenseitige V e r p f l i c h t u n g ) .  the  7  He sees three  involves  imposing  second  imposing  and the t h i r d mutually imposed  1p  which was conveniently revoked a f t e r the siege. " t r e a t y " i n these instances.  C l e a r l y , we do not have a  Ernst Kutsch, Neues Testament - Neuer Bund?, 5-26. Martin Buber (Moses: the Revelation and the Covenant [New York; Harper & Brothers, 1946] 103-104) also argues that "The o r i g i n a l meaning of b e r i t h i s not "contract" or "agreement"; that i s , no conditions were o r i g i n a l l y s t i p u l a t e d t h e r e i n , nor did any require to be s t i p u l a t e d " (p. 103). For Buber t h i s i s even the case i n a covenant that i s an " a l l i a n c e between two people who stand t o some degree on the same l e v e l . " He sees an example of t h i s type of covenant i n the covenant made by David and Jonathan in 1 Sam 18:3 and 23:18. Buber claims t h a t t h i s i s a covenant of brotherhood by which two p a r t i e s become brothers. The duties t h a t t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p implies need not be stated since they were obvious. Hence, "any detailed agreement i s superfluous." The idea in t h i s covenant is not contract but entering a r e l a t i o n s h i p . Buber understands God's covenant with Israel on the analogy of the covenant that David made with the elders of the Northern t r i b e s i n 2 Sam 5:3. "Here, t o o , " he argues,"no special agreement i s necessary, and indeed there i s no room f o r any such t h i n g . The r e l a t i o n of overlordship and service, i n t o which the two p a r t n e r s e n t e r , i s the d e c i s i v e f a c t o r . Engagements, c o n c e s s i o n s , c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n s of power may be added, yet the covenant i s founded not on thern^ but on the basic f a c t of r u l e and s e r v i c e . " He c l a s s i f i e s t h i s kind of b e r i t as the "Royal Covenant." The Book of the Covenant, according to him, "has the character not of an agreement but of a r o y a l p r o c l a m a t i o n , " and the people's response as simply a pledge of obedience (Ex 2 4 : 7 f f . ) . So covenant i s not an agreement but an instrument creating and imposing commitment f o r a r e l a t i o n s h i p . On Buber's r e l a t i o n a l emphasis, see the f o l l o w i n g footnote ( n . 18). IP  ^ The s p e c i f i c way Kutsch approaches the problem of d e f i n i n g berit has been formulated f o r him by the German language. As "covenant" i s the common term f o r beVit i n English, "Bund" i s the common term in German. Both terms represent the same t r a d i t i o n of t r a n s l a t i o n but have a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t emphasis. The term "covenant" emphasizes the idea of agreement which binds parties together and thus i s synonymous with "contract" or " t r e a t y . " The German term Bund, however, emphasizes the r e l a t i o n s h i p formed by such an agreement. Thus, i t s English equivalents, s t r i c t l y speaking, are a l l i a n c e ,  92 Kutsch sees an example of (Selbstverpf 1 ichtung) Gibeonites in Joshua 9. observes,  "Ein  in  a beVtt  the  beVtt  that  that  involves the  obligating  Israelites  made with  the  He denies t h a t t h i s b e r t t i s a p a r i t y t r e a t y and  "Bundesschluss"--dass  die Gibeoniten etwa "Bundesgenossen"  oder gar "Kampfgenossen" der I s r a e l i t e n wurden--ist heir n i c h t Accordingly,  oneself  Kutsch d i f f e r s  with  the usual  interpretation  gemeint."  on Josh  19  9:15,  which reads, "And Joshua made peace with them and made a b e r t t with them, to l e t them l i v e ; and the leaders swore an oath to them." Kutsch does not see the idea of t r e a t y i n the phrase "made peace w i t h them."  Based on other Old Testament passages l i k e  passage  2 Chr 19:19)  Kutsch  interprets  the  and especially  your  servants;  Deut 20:10-11 and Egyptian  phrase as meaning that  subservient to the I s r a e l i t e s . now t h e n ,  make  2 Sam 10:19  the Gibeonites  (parallel Texts,  2 0  were made  This i s implied in t h e i r request, "We are a bertt  with  us"  (v.  11)  and in  their  reduction to servanthood when i t  was discovered t h a t they were w i t h i n the  territory  (v.  Israel  was to conquer  16-27).  As servants,  they were not  covenant partners. To Kutsch's observations i t may be added t h a t making peace was not part league, c o a l i t i o n or confederacy. The German equivalent f o r covenant, contract or t r e a t y i s Vertag. Kutsch i s arguing against t r a n s l a t i n g beVtt with Bund which he defines as "ein gegenseitiges Verhaltnis von Personen oder Personengruppen, in das diese f r e i w i l l i g e i n t r e t e n und in dem die gegenseitigen oder gemeinsamen Rechte und P f l i c h t e n v e r b i n d l i c h f e s t g e l e g t sind" (Neues Testament - Neuer Bund?, 1) Thus b e r t t would be a mutual r e l a t i o n s h i p of p a r t i e s , v o l u n t a r i l y entered i n t o , i n which mutual or agreed upon r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s are bindingly set f o r t h . While Bund puts the emphasis on the r e l a t i o n s h i p entered by agreement and covenant on the agreement f o r m i n g a r e l a t i o n s h i p , the common idea of agreement between parties i s the issue i n question. The basic question i s whether b e r i t i s fundamentally a r e l a t i o n a l or an o b l i g a t o r y concept. 19 Kutsch, Neues Testament - Neuer Bund?, 1 1 . 2 0  Ibid.  93 of the b e r i t .  In the t e x t s Kutsch r e f e r s t o , i n which peace i s made with  bertt i s made.  someone, no mention of a  The t e x t quoted above states i t s content: only the r e s u l t  of  bertt.  such a  beVtt concerns another issue.  The  " t o "let them l i v e . "  The t e x t  also states t h a t  Peace i s the  berft-  making process simply consisted of an oath sworn i n regard to the Gibeonites by Israel  alone.  relationship  So, in t h i s  but  one p a r t y  beVtt two p a r t i e s were not entering i n t o a was making  observation i s supported by the Gibeonites' l i v e s saved.  a guarantee  to  another.  goal, which was to have t h e i r  That was t h e i r objective i n securing t h i s  bertt, as indicated  by the content of the covenant and the o b l i g a t i o n Israel took on. Kutsch  rightly  observes,  "bertt  This  bezeichnet  aber  eindeutig  Hence,  nicht  das  Verhaeltnis—dass damit Unterwerfung und Lebensgewaehrung umfasst waeren—, sondern a l l e i n (1 ahaem!)  die Garantie des Lebens, ausgesprochen von Josua zugunsten  der Gibeoniten.  Das Heisst  aber:  bertt  bedeutet  heir  nicht  "Bund" sondern die "Zusage," die " S e l b s t v e r p f l i c t u n g , " die V e r p f l i c t u n g , die  pi Josua f u e r  sich  und die  Israeliten  uebernimmt."  Thus,  if  Kutsch  is  c o r r e c t , the phrase wayyikrot lahem b e r t t usually rendered, "and they made ( l i t . cut) a covenant with (Je:  l i t . to) them," means, "they made a pledge  or guarantee to them." In  another  kind  of  bertt,  instead  of  Selbstverpflictung,  we have  Fremdverpf1ichtung or the imposition of o b l i g a t i o n by one, a superior, upon another, an i n f e r i o r . treaty,  of  which  Nebuchadnezzar,  c  This kind of b e r i t i s usually called a suzerainty  we have  a secular  example  the superior or suzerain, a f t e r  2 1  I b i d . , 12.  2 2  I b i d . , 13-18.  in  Ezek  17:12-21.  King  having taken the king of  94 Judah c a p t i v e , i n s t a l l e d Zedekiah as his vassal.  The t e x t s t a t e s , "And he  took one of the royal family and made a b e r t t with him, p u t t i n g him under oath ( l i t . and caused him to enter i n t o an oath)" ( v . 13).  The purpose  of  the b e r i t t h a t Nebuchadnezzar made with Zedekiah, the vassal, i s given i n verse 14:  " t h a t the kingdom might be i n s u b j e c t i o n , not e x a l t i n g  itself,  but keeping his ( i . e . , Nebuchadnezzar's) b e r t t , and t h a t i t might continue." In answer to the question how b e r t t in t h i s t e x t i s to be understood, Kutsch observes that Zedekiah, being made king by Nebuchadnezzar, did not enter i n t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l i n g l y only of Zedekiah's obligations promise on his p a r t . does  not  denote  and that the t e x t throughout speaks  and not of Nebuchadnezzar's, not even of a  Kutsch concludes from t h i s t h a t the word b e r t t a relationship po  entered  upon  by  agreement  itself between  Nebuchadnezzar and Zedekiah. Kutsch observes f u r t h e r ?  alah  t h a t the word beVtt  (oath) throughout the t e x t  i s linked with the word  ( v . 13,16,18,17), which has p a r a l l e l s  in  P4  Ancient  Near  Eastern  "covenant"  terminology.  Kutsch concludes,  "Der  ' F l u c h , ' in den Nebukadnezar den Zedekia hat ' e i n t r e t e n l a s s e n ' . . . i s t nichts anderes  als  vertragen. bertt  y  der  Eid  der  Vasallen  in  altorientalischen  Und das p a r a l l e l e b e r t t e n t s p r i c h t . . . d e n  bezeichnet  hier  einseitig  die  Vasallen  auferlegt  also  Bestimmung, (und  wi e jene die  Termini  Verpf 1 i c h t u n g ,  deren  Einhaltung  Suzeraenitaets-  Vasallenbestimmungen.  (nicht  'Bund,'  sondern)  die der Grosskoenig dem dieser  durch  einen  Eid  uebernimmt)," Thus, instead of a " t r e a t y " in which two p a r t i e s enter i n t o 23 I b i d 13-14. 25  24 I b i d  14-15. 16.  95 a r e l a t i o n s h i p we have simply one party imposing an o b l i g a t i o n on the o t h e r . "Fuer Ez. 17;13,16,18,19 e r g i b t s i c h , dass hier berTt nicht kann, sondern die ' V e r p f l i c h t u n g ' der  Fremdverpflichtung  'Bund' bedeuten  im Sinne der Verpflichtung eines anderen,  m e i n t . H 26  Once a g a i n ,  berTt  reduces  to  the  imposition of o b l i g a t i o n . In 1 Kgs 5:12 and Gen 31:44,52 we have another s i t u a t i o n .  Here we do  not have one subject of the berTt imposing an obligation upon himself, as i n the case of Joshua, or upon another as i n the case of Nebuchadnezzar, but we have two subjects,  i.e.,  both parties making berTt.  1 Kgs 5:12 says of  Solomon and Hiram, "and the two of them made a berTt,"  and i n Gen 31:44  Laban says t o Jacob " l e t us make a berTt, you and I . " In these two t e x t s , we have what might be called p a r i t y t r e a t i e s .  The  context of both passages shows that both parties have taken on obligations in r e l a t i o n to each other.  Commenting on the berTt i n 1 Kgs 5, however,  Kutsch s t a t e s , Die Gegenseitigkeit von "Verpf1ichtung"...koennte fuer berTt auch an die Bedeutung "Abkommen," "Vertag" denken lassen; und derarticje Belege sind wohl i n spaeterer Z e i t der Anlass dazu gewesen, b e n t als "Bund".o.a. zu verstehen. Nur i s t n i c h t zu uebersehen: Nicht d i e s , dass zwei P a r t n e r einander "verbunden" s i n d , i s t das entscheidende Moment bei berTt--dass dieses "Bund" bedeuten wuerde--,sondern d i e s , dass man gegenseitig verpf-Lichet i s t oder gemeinsam dieselbe Verpflichtung uebernommen h a t . " In t h i s quote Kutsch acknowledges the connection between t h i s type of berit  ( i . e . , mutual o b l i g a t i o n )  returns  t o the idea that  and Bund or t r e a t y  the basic  idea i n b e r t t  (Vertag).  However, he  i s the taking  on of  o b l i g a t i o n s , i n t h i s case by both p a r t i e s . Especially i n reference t o t h i s 26 I b i d 27  Ibid  17. 21.  last  case, one may wonder whether a  96 radical d i s t i n c t i o n  between  beVtt and t r e a t y can be maintained.  not equal t o t r e a t y i n terms of meaning,  berTt  berTt  If  is  often functions as a t r e a t y .  Functionally the two categories can be the same, even i f not d e f i n i t i o n a l l y . Perhaps one could even argue that  beVTt  in  all  cases analyzed f i t s  general category of t r e a t y i n that they concern the o b l i g a t i o n s the  relationships  between  two  parties  (Israel  and  the  the  governing  Gibeonites,  Nebuchadnezzar and Zedekiah, and Solomon and Hiram) even i f the o b l i g a t i o n s are  only  imposed  on one p a r t y .  However,  only  the  last  case can be  considered a proper t r e a t y i n t h a t i t alone involves mutuality and agreement between  two  denominator  parties.  Kutsch  throughout  and the  has r i g h t l y  pointed  essential  element  out t h a t  the common  in each case i s  not  "agreement" but imposition of o b l i g a t i o n . Biblical  Hebrew has no separate term f o r the idea of a t r e a t y and so  uses beVTt f o r t h i s notion since f u n c t i o n a l l y a t r e a t y is a form of beVtt i n that i t  concerns imposition of o b l i g a t i o n .  However, not every berTt i s a  treaty.  This i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e of those instances in which a b e r t t i s made  without reference to a partner or other p a r t y . Such b e r t t o t are found in 2 Kgs 23:3, 2 Chr 15:12 and Jer 34:10 where the  berTt  action.  consists  i n merely making a binding  a certain  One f u r t h e r t e x t which requires such an understanding of  Job 31:1 i n which Job says, " I  have made a  eyes; How then can I gaze at a v i r g i n ? " eyes.  commitment to  berTt  with (J_e:  berTt  lit.  is  to) my  Job hardly made a t r e a t y with his  Rather, he imposed a r e s t r i c t i o n on them. The basic idea i n b e r t t i s , on the one hand, that of a binding pledge,  guarantee, promise, commitment and, on the other hand, t h a t of command or stipulation.  The basic t h r u s t of b e r t t i s t h a t of guaranteeing, assuring or  securing action e i t h e r  toward  (promise)  or from (command) another.  Thus  97  right  Quell may be  i n detecting the basic motive behind making a b e r f t  in  the Ancient World i n the establishment of a legal i n s t i t u t i o n t o regulate relationships blood-bond  and behaviour between p a r t i e s where a natural did not e x i s t .  Thus a b e r t t  bond l i k e the  was designed to provide  legal  guarantee and s e c u r i t y where t h i s was not provided by some natural t i e .  beVft  This makes  an enactment.  The divine b e r f t o t i n the OT r e f l e c t the same meaning and f u n c t i o n as the secular examples already considered. covenants  The Noachic, Abrahamic and Davidic  are of the kind that Kutsch designates  Only God i s bound by the relationship.  It  is  beVft. only  Furthermore, the beVft does not "create" a  a guarantee  or r a t i f i e d  r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t has already been established. the new world i s made  after  the use of the imperfect, Abrahamic b e r f t  i s made  upon a.request for  as S e l b s t v e r p f l i c h t u n g .  promise w i t h i n a  So, the b e r f t with Noah and  Noah i s already i n the new world (Gen 6:18, note i.e.,  after  future  tense,  and 9 : 9 f ) .  the promise was given.  some guarantee (Gen 1 5 : 8 ) .  Likewise, the  In f a c t i t was made  The Davidic b e r i t was also  made, not t o set the house of David up, but to establish i t to perpetuity or to guarantee i t s continuation (2 Sam 7; 23:5; Ps 8 9 ) . The n a r r a t i v e of the making of the b e r f t with Abraham i n Genesis 15 i s i n s t r u c t i v e f o r t h i s type of bervt. to  prepare  Jer 34:18.  for  a beVft-making r i t e ,  The meaning of the r i t e  Abraham i s t o l d to divide the animals which r i t e seems c l e a r .  i s also referred The berft-making  passes through the animals as a form of self-curse or oath. however,  i n both  to in party  Interestingly,  Genesis 15 and Jeremiah 34 only the party making the  Quell argues f o r t h i s thesis at length i n TDNT 2. 111-118. c p . , Buber's treatment of covenant i n Moses, pp. 103-104, outlined on p. 91 n. 17 above.  98 promise passes through. is  In f a c t ,  asleep during the ceremony.  in Genesis 15, Abraham, the human p a r t y , This removes any idea of a t r e a t y .  The  (Exod  19f).  b e r t t i s a r a t i f i e d promise. The other divine This  beVtt berTt  i s the Mosaic covenant made at Sinai  takes the form of the suzerainty  suzerain and Israel the  bertt  i s the vassal.  However,  God demands  i s t h a t which  meiner Stimme  gehorchen)'  Jahwes ' V e r p f l i c h t u n g , '  Exod  of I s r a e l .  in which  God  i s the  19:5-6 makes clear  God said  they obey  have a special r e l a t i o n s h i p with himself i f  beVTt. Kutsch correctly observes,  treaty  that  would  t h a t Israel  his voice and keep his  " I n P a r a l l e l e zu 'meine Stimme hoeren (=  kann 'meine  berTt  bewahren' nur die Einhaltung von  'Gebot' bedeuten."  29  As i n the Noachic, Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, the r e l a t i o n s h i p with God entailed in the only secured.  berTt  i s not created by the  berTt.  Rather, i t i s  God has already brought Israel t o himself (Exod 1 9 : 4 ) .  The  covenant only provides f o r the securing of t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p by means of s t i p u l a t i n g the necessary conduct on the part of I s r a e l . D e f i n i t i o n a l l y , the divine b e r t t i s a binding a c t .  Functionally,  it  serves to secure c e r t a i n action or conduct from e i t h e r party i n the preexisting  divine-human r e l a t i o n s h i p .  create a legal s i t u a t i o n . The basic  insight  Hence, the t h r u s t of a b e r t t  is to  Bertt i s an enactment.  of t h i s  discussion  i s confirmed by Weinfeld.  He  w r i t e s , "The o r i g i n a l meaning of the Heb. b e r i t h (as well as of Akk. r i k s u 29  • • I b i d . , 23. Kutsch ( I b i d . ) also shows that b e r i t cannot r e f e r t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p (Bund) between God and Israel since according t o Ex. 19:5, beVtt i s the precondition f o r the r e l a t i o n s h i p and not the r e l a t i o n s h i p itself. He s t a t e s , "Wenn das Bewahren von Jahwes beVtt die Vorbedingung fuer das (neue) Verhaeltnis zwischen Jahwe und dem Volk Israel i s t , dann kann hier mit der b e r i t nicht ebendieses Verhaeltnis selbts gemeint s e i n . " This point i s more p e r t i n e n t t o the s p e c i f i c concept of Bund than t o t h a t of covenant.  99 and H i t t . is  ishiul)  commonly  i s not 'agreement or settlement between two p a r t i e s , ' as  argued.  Berith  implies  first  and foremost  the notion  of  on  'imposition,'  'liability,'  or ' o b l i g a t i o n , '  comes through often i n the Old Testament.  This fundamental notion Weinfeld observes, " . . . b e r i t h i s  commanded...(Ps. 111:9; Jgs. 2:20) which c e r t a i n l y  cannot be said about a  mutual agreement...berith i s synonymous with law and commandment ( c f . ,  e.g.,  Dt. 4:13; 33:9; I s a . 24:5; Ps. 50:16; 103:18), and the covenant of Sinai in Ex. 24 i s  in  its  essence an imposition of 31  people (vv. 3 - 8 ) . " riksu  in  ishiu1: Hittite  "the occur  formulas  in  his vassals" (cp. 2 Kgs 1 1 : 4 ) . (Gen 2 1 : 2 2 f . ;  Ezek 16:8;  of  Akkadian and commandments  his soldiers or c i t i z e n s , as well as  Furthermore, b e r i t i s closely linked with  26:29f.; a link  a set  in  Deut 2 9 : 9 f . ;  which  is  Josh 9 : 1 5 - 2 0 ;  2 Kgs 1 1 : 4 ;  in the Akkadian of 33 second millennium B.C. and in the Neo-Assyrian Period. D.  17:13f.),  riksu irkus  connection with  imposed by the king on his o f f i c i a l s ,  oath  upon the  He goes on to notice a p a r a l l e l in the use of the Akk.  and H i t t .  ishiul isjiya  laws and o b l i g a t i o n s  parallelled  the  Covenant as Ordinance  The OT universal  beVft,  as a binding  act  or enactment,  i s the basis f o r  understanding of covenant as ordinance in P o s t - b i b l i c a l  the  Judaism.  This idea of ordinance takes i n both aspects of covenant: promise and law. 30  TD0T 2. 255.  3 1  I b i d . , 255.  3 2  I b i d . , 255.  3 3  I b i d . , 256.  100 As promise,  covenant  is  a guarantee,  and as  law  it  is  an order  or  The i n t e g r a t i o n of both law and promise in the idea of ordinance  is  commandment.  made e x p l i c i t  in Jubilees.  Jubilees 30:21 equates covenant and ordinance  with command.  Jubilees 15, however, equates them with promise.  In 15:4 God  says to Abraham, "And I w i l l make my covenant between me and you and I w i l l make you increase  very much."  In  15:6,  however,  God says,  "Behold, my  ordinance i s with you and you w i l l be the father of many n a t i o n s . " the  covenant  of  promise  is  called  an "eternal  ordinance"  In 15:9  and in  15:15  circumcision i s said to be a "sign of the eternal ordinance" between God and Abraham. In promise God ordains what w i l l  be with regard to the r e c i p i e n t s of  his covenant, and i n command he ordains what they must do or be. In Galatians, law and promise also share a formal unity i n the idea of ordinance.  That Paul understood covenant as ordinance i s made clear from  his use of epidiatassesthai in Gal 3:15 f o r the act of replacing a covenant. While Paul does not c a l l the law a diatheke in Galatians 3, he does t r e a t as a covenant.  The act of epidiatassesthai  in v 15 r e f e r s to the p o t e n t i a l  impact of the law on the promissory covenant in v 17. t h a t the law was d i a t a g e i s , ordained. character.  It  too i s  a diatheke  promise are mutually exclusive f o r enactments, as ordinances.  it  Also, he says i n v 19  Thus, the law also has a covenantal  as stated  in Gal 4:24.  While law and  Paul, the two are f o r m a l l y the same as  101 CHAPTER 6 BERIT AMONG THE QUMRAN SECTARIES  might  Two aspects of the theology of covenant at Qumran  suggest on the  surface t h a t covenant among the sectaries was seen as a c o n t r a c t .  First,  the idea of covenant i s closely linked with the idea of community so t h a t the two categories at times appear to be synonymous. seen  as  inseparable  Second, promise and  commandment  are  dimensions of  covenant  appears that  covenant expresses the idea of mutuality  so that  it  in a contract.  A  close examination of the evidence, however, shows t h a t Qumran saw only one covenant  which  was Torah  and thus  u n i v e r s a l l y witnessed i n Judaism:  shared  the  definition  of  covenant  ordinance.  The d e f i n i t i o n of b e r t t at Qumran must be d i s t i l l e d from i t s theology. This  fact  sectaries.  calls  for  a separate  chapter  Since t h i s treatment w i l l  to deal  beVft  with  among the  lead the i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the  of the theology of covenant, t h i s chapter also forms a t r a n s i t i o n next concern of t h i s t h e s i s :  A.  area  to the  Paul's departure from Judaism.  Covenant, Torah and Community  In the Dead Sea S c r o l l s , b e r t t i s closely connected with the community. This has led scholars to assume t h a t or r e l a t i o n s h i p .  Driver  beVft  understands  agreement between God and the society  berft  i s used in the sense of compact at Qumran " . . .  at Q u m r a n . . . . "  about the idea of community at Qumran, a f f i r m s , ""G. R. Driver, The Judean S c r o l l s : Basil Blackwell, 1965) 518.  1  as a pact  Ringgren,  or  writing  "This fellowship i s often  The Problem and a Solution (Oxford:  102 called  a covenant  (bertt).  To "enter  i n t o the covenant" means the same p  thing as to become a member of the o r d e r . . . . "  However, while entering the  covenant  as entering the  at Qumran amounts to  the same thing  community,  covenant and community represent c l e a r l y d i s t i n c t notions. The Manual of D i s c i p l i n e connects covenant and community most c l e a r l y , which, no doubt, i s due to i t s focus on community d i s c i p l i n e . expressions community: (bw*  are  used f o r  the  idea  of  becoming  or  The f o l l o w i n g  being part  of  the  to pass or go i n t o ( b r b l ) the covenant ( 1 : 1 6 , 2 5 ) , to come i n t o (  be)  the  covenant  covenant  (1:7-8;  (5:11).  The l i n k  covenant  of  (5:8,20),  6:14-15),  to  and to  bring  into  be reckoned  (bw' [ i n in  hi p h . ]  (h£b b£)  the  bl)  the  covenant  between covenant and community i s also expressed in "a  eternal  community"  (3:11,12)  and "a community of  an eternal  covenant" ( 5 : 5 ) . While covenant  these  expressions  and community,  Qumran as w i l l  clearly  which i s  be seen,  suggest  essential  covenant  an intimate  link  between  to the notion of covenant  and community  are  not  at  synonymous.  Throughout the Manual, the covenant in mind is simply Torah. Helmer R i n g g r e n , The Faith of Qumran: Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia: F o r t r e s s , 1963) 128. Ringgren, however, does not miss the n o t i o n of o b l i g a t i o n in covenant. In pp. 201-202 he w r i t e s , "Becoming a member of the community i s called "entering the covenant" (1QS i.18, e t c . ) . This presupposes willingness (forms of the verb NDB) to do God's statutes (1QS i . 7 ) and to o f f e r "his knowledge, his strength and his wealth to God's congregation" (1QS i . l l f . ) . Hence i t i s a question of a real covenant which puts one under o b l i g a t i o n and not only a designation f o r the community as such." While in t h i s passage Ringgren captures the sense of covenant, he f a i l s to make t h i s sense i t s primary meaning. In f a c t , as w i l l be shown, covenant i s never used as a designation f o r the community. Covenant always has i t s basic sense of ordinance or enactment at Qumran. I t s close l i n k with "community" must be explained from the theology of covenant and not from a f a u l t y d e f i n i t i o n of the term. 3 Yigael Yadin (The Temple S c r o l l : The Hidden Law of the Dead Sea Sect [London: Weidenfeld and Nicol son]) argues that the Temple Scroll which contains both material i n the Pentateuch (the known Torah) and supplementary  103 The covenant 10:10).  entered  is  God's covenant  (1:8;  2:25;  5:8;  5:11,20,21;  The human being entering t h a t covenant i s by no means a contracting  partner with God.  Further, entering t h i s covenant means p r i m a r i l y to commit  oneself to f u l f i l l i n g the Mosaic law.  This i s brought out c l e a r l y i n 5:7b-  10 which reads: Everyone who approaches the council of the community shall enter the covenant of God in the sight of a l l who o f f e r themselves; and he shall take upon his soul with a binding oath to return to the Law of Moses, according to a l l that he commanded, with a l l his heart and a l l his s o u l , and to a l l that has been revealed from i t to the sons of Zadok, the p r i e s t s who keep the covenant and who seek out his w i l l , according to the majority of the men of t h e i r covenant who o f f e r themselves i n community to his t r u t h and to walk according to his w i l l . material was an additional Torah at Qumran. He f i n d s several l i n e s of evidence f o r t h i s hypothesis. In the Temple S c r o l l , God speaks in the f i r s t person. Yadin observes concerning t h i s , "The clear aim of the author i s to dispel any doubt that i t i s God himself who is u t t e r i n g not only the known injunctions in the Pentateuch (the Torah), even when they are presented in r e p o r t e d speech, but also the supplementary t e x t t h a t appears in the scroll." He goes on, " I n , most cases he [God] i s addressing someone in the second person, and t h i s i s especially true in the section where the Lord commands the b u i l d i n g of the Temple. The s t y l e there i s very s i m i l a r to that in Exodus, where the Lord speaks to Moses d i r e c t l y and i n s t r u c t s him t o b u i l d the tabernacle. I t may be assumed, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t in the s c r o l l , too, the person addressed i s Moses" ( p . 6 6 ) . He also f i n d s evidence t h a t the Temple S c r o l l was seen as s c r i p t u r e in i t s use of the tetragrammaton (p. 68). In b i b l i c a l quotations at Qumran, the tetragrammaton i s w r i t t e n i n the Old Hebrew s c r i p t of the F i r s t Temple period. In b i b l i c a l books, however, the same square s c r i p t as in the rest of the book is used. The same i s found in the Temple S c r o l l . Yadin finds references to t h i s S c r o l l in the Book of Hagu, a fundamental book in the community (CD 10:4-6; 13:2-3; 14; 6-7; 1QS 11:2; 15:5; 17:5; The Messianic Rule 1 : 6 - 8 ) , in the mentions of a second 'Torah' (Pesher on Ps 37:32 and on Hos 5 : 8 ) , and in the reference to the sealed Book of the Law (CD 5:1-5) which David had not read and which was hidden u n t i l Zadok arose (pp. 225-228). Ben Zion Wacholder, (The Dawn of Qumran: The S e c t a r i a n Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness [Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1983]) goes f u r t h e r than Yadin and argues that t h i s t e x t , which he c a l l s "HQ Torah," "arrogates to i t s e l f not merely e q u a l i t y to the t r a d i t i o n a l Pentateuch, but s u p e r i o r i t y to the Mosaic Law" (p. 33). Thus Torah at Qumran, while seen as the Mosaic law, was, most l i k e l y , not simply the Pentateuch as known today. Translations of 1QS are taken from A. R. C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and i t s Meaning (London: SCM, 1966).  104 This passage shows, f i r s t , t h a t to enter i n t o the covenant of God i s to return to the law of Moses. make keeping the  The same is suggested in those passages t h a t  5  law or the t r u t h  (1:8,16;  5:20;  6:14,15).  priests  keep the covenant,  i n t e r p r e t e r s of the law.  the purpose of  Secondly,  this  which r e f e r s  entering  the  covenant  passage says t h a t  the  Zadokite  to  their  role  as guardians  and  Thus, to enter the covenant i s not only to return  the law of Moses but also " t o a l l t h a t has been revealed from i t to the sons of Zadok."  That the p r i e s t ' s r o l e i n r e l a t i o n to the covenant concerns his  handling of the law i s made clear in a fragment containing the blessing of the Priests (lQSb 3:22-25): Words of blessing. The Master shall bless the sons of Zadok the p r i e s t s , whom God has chosen to confirm his covenant f o r e v e r , and to inquire i n t o a l l His precepts in the midst of His people, and t o i n s t r u c t them as He commanded; who have established [His c o v e n a n t ] on t r u t h and w a t c h e d o v e r a l l His l a w s , w i t h righteousness and walked according to the way of His choice. The i d e n t i t y between the covenant and the Torah i s also suggested by parallelisms such as in 1QS 5:20 which reads " . . . v a n i t y are a l l t h a t do not acknowledge his God's  word  is  covenant his  and a l l  covenant.  who spurn his  Similarly  p a r a l l e l i s m with "the covenant of God".  7  word he shall  10:10 puts  "his  statutes"  But more s i g n i f i c a n t l y ,  t e x t coming i n t o God's covenant i s a d a i l y act.  destroy." into  in this  The t e x t reads:  With the coming-in of day and night I w i l l come i n t o the covenant of God and at the going-out of evening and at morning I w i l l r e c i t e his s t a t u t e s . Cf. the oath of the covenant t o r e t u r n to the law of Moses i n CD 15:1-16:2. 6 The t r a n s l a t i o n i s taken from G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in Engl i s h ( M i d d l e s e x : Penguin, 1962) 207. On the p r i e s t ' s r o l e and" i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of law see Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and i t s Meaning, 165. C f . 1QM 10:10 which describes God's chosen as "a people of men holy through the covenant taught the s t a t u t e s . " 7  105 Thus the idea of entering or coming to the covenant i s not p r i m a r i l y t h a t of entering the community but of coming i n t o the commitment of Torah. The community dimension of b e r i t  in the Manual of D i s c i p l i n e l i e s  in  the f a c t t h a t the law, i t s true i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and p r a c t i c e are given t o the community and are to  be carried  out  in  community.  This  is  brought  out  c l e a r l y i n 5:20b-22. When a man enters the covenant to act according to a l l these s t a t u t e s , to be united with the community of holiness, they shall examine i n community his s p i r i t as between a man and his neighbor, according to his i n t e l l i g e n c e and his deeds in the law interpreted according to the sons of Aaron who devote themselves i n community to restore his covenant and to heed a l l his statutes which he has commanded men to p r a c t i c e , according to the m a j o r i t y of Israel who devote themselves to return in community to his covenant. Concerning the backsliders, 5:5-6 says "unclean, unclean shall he be a l l the days of his r e j e c t i o n of the precepts of God with his refusal to d i s c i p l i n e himself in the community of his counsel."  Thus, the backslider r e j e c t s the  practice of law in community. F i n a l l y , the purpose of each one in the group i s to "lay a foundation of t r u t h f o r Israel to make a community of an eternal covenant ( 5 : 5 ) . In summary, i n the Manual of D i s c i p l i n e equivalent to i t s Torah.  is  This covenant i s given to the community and can  only be realized in the community. covenant.  the community's covenant  Also, the community i s based on t h i s  To enter t h a t covenant means to enter i n t o the commitment imposed  by the law which in turn means to enter the community of the covenant since that commitment is one of doing Torah in community.  106 B.  Covenant, Torah and Promise  The Damascus Document r e f l e c t s a s i m i l a r but broader and more complex P view of covenant.  The connection between law and covenant i s made clear i n  20:25, which says concerning the apostates, "But as f o r  all  those of the  members of the covenant who have broken out of the boundary of the Law: when the glory of God w i l l appear unto Israel they shall be cut o f f from the q midst of the c a m p . . . . "  From t h i s quotation i t i s clear t h a t the members of  the covenant are those who are w i t h i n the boundaries of the law. same v e i n ,  1:20 puts covenant and ordinance  faithless  "caused  others  to  transgress  In the  (hog) i n t o p a r a l l e l i s m :  the covenant  and to  the  break  the  ordinance (h5q)." The Damascus  Document,  however,  presents  a more complete  view  of  covenant than the Manual of D i s c i p l i n e , which, no doubt, i s also assumed i n the l a t t e r .  It  speaks of a pre-Mosaic covenant with the patriarchs  (3:4;  20:25), a New Covenant (6:19; 8 : 2 1 ; 20:12), a covenant of repentance (8:4) and the covenant to r e t u r n  to the  law of  Moses ( 1 5 : 9 ) .  This  array  of  covenants, however, does not c o n t r a d i c t the conclusion drawn from the Manual of D i s c i p l i n e t h a t the Qumran sectaries only saw one covenant between God and his people.  The various covenants only are re-enactments or renewals of  one basic covenant which i s Torah. The b e l i e f t h a t a l l covenants are e s s e n t i a l l y the same assumes t h a t P For expressions of entering i n t o covenant, see CD 1:2; 2:2; 6:12; 8:4; 12:11 and t h a t the covenant i s God's, 1:7; 3:11,13; 15:12; 7:5; 8:2; 13:14; 14:2). g Cf. the expression in 20:13, to have a "share i n the house of the Law". The t r a n s l a t i o n s of CD are taken from Chaim Rabin, The Zadokite Documents (Oxford: Clarendon, 1958).  107 divine promise and law, both of which are linked with covenant in the OT, are merged i n t o the one covenant t h a t the sectaries had in mind.  Hence, the  w r i t i n g s from Qumran do not make a d i s t i n c t i o n between a promissory covenant with Abraham and a l e g i s l a t i v e covenant with Israel through Moses. and commandment are essential  to  covenant  suggest  may at  first  contract at Qumran. the  Damascus  sight  any covenant. that  Promise  These two dimensions  covenant  was understood  of  as a  Again, however, a careful examination of covenant i n  Document  shows  that  covenant  is  simply Torah, with  the  promissory dimension of covenant being simply the blessing of Torah.  C.  The Interrelatedness of Promise and Law i n Covenant  The interrelatedness of promise and law i s seen i n the section i n the Damascus  Document  on the  covenant  that  God made with  the  patriarchs.  Speaking about the "stubbornness" of heart (2:17) through which the watchers of  heaven  fell  (2:18-21)  and through which the sons of  Noah and  their  f a m i l i e s went astray ( 3 : 1 ) , the author says: Abraham did not walk in i t , and he was recorded as a f r i e n d , through keeping the commandments of God and not choosing the desire of his own s p i r i t . And he handed i t down to Isaac and to Jacob; and they kept i t and were w r i t t e n down as friends of God and His covenanters f o r e t e r n i t y ( 3 : 2 - 4 ) . This t e x t contains an ambiguity in t h a t i t does not specify the object of msr, however,  i.e., is  what Abraham handed down to quite  commandments of keeping [ i t ]  clear.  The p a r a l l e l  God and being recorded  Isaac and J a c o b . ^ between  as a f r i e n d  The idea,  Abraham keeping and Isaac  the  and Jacob  and being w r i t t e n down as friends of God makes i t clear  that  ""°Rabin (The Zadokite Documents, 10 n. 3:1) suggests t h a t "the object of msr i s the correct i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the law, as Aboth 1 . 1 . "  108 what Abraham handed down and what Isaac and Jacob kept were the commandments of God. As a r e s u l t  of  keeping  the  Isaac  possessors  ba'ale b e r t t 1£'6*1 am  contains the promissory element of the covenant.  means t h a t  the covenant t h a t  a covenant f o r e v e r .  and Jacob became  b a a l e be>tt le'olam, (  of  commandments,  The expression  God established with the patriarchs w i l l  established with t h e i r p o s t e r i t y .  1 1  It be  Thus the basic promise of the covenant  presupposes the keeping of the commandments. The meaning of the promise of an eternal covenant f o r the p o s t e r i t y of the  patriarchs  is  brought out  in the expression  covenant of the f o r e f a t h e r s " ( 1 : 4 ; 6:2; 8:18).  "God/he remembered  the  In the opening l i n e s of the  Damascus Document ( l : 3 - 5 a ) , which contain t h i s expression, we read:  In E c c l e s i a s t i c u s , not only are the covenants, e x p l i c i t l y called e t e r n a l covenants (diathekai aionos), passed on to p o s t e r i t y but every divine covenant i s passed on perpetually with the p o s t e r i t y of the one with whom i t was made. In 44:18, God makes diathekai aionos with Noah not to b l o t out a l l f l e s h with a f l o o d . The perpetuity of the diathekai i s obvious. In 45:7, Aaron receives a diatheke aionos which confers on him the priesthood. The priesthood thus passes on to his descendants perpetually ( t a ekgona autou dia pantos, v 13). Verse 15 states t h a t the anointing by Moses egenethg auto eis diatheken aionos kai tp spermati autou en hemerais ouranou. En hgmerais ouranou defines aionos or 'olam; forever means as long as creation l a s t s . Phinehas was also given a covenant (vv 23-24). Though i t i s not called an eternal covenant, t h i s covenant gave to him and his descendants the d i g n i t y of priesthood forever (eis tous aionas, v 24). Verse 25 says that a covenant was established with David and that the heritage of the king i s only from son to son (kleronomia basileos huiou ex huiou monou) and compares i t to the heritage of Aaron which i s f o r his offspring. This verse s t a t e s c l e a r l y t h a t a covenant passes on to p o s t e r i t y . But, again, the covenant i s not said to be e t e r n a l . The obvious assumption i s t h a t a divine covenant with a party passes on to his p o s t e r i t y forever. The covenant of eternal priesthood i s mentioned in lQSb 3:26 ( b e r t t kehunnat c6lam). For a comprehensive study of f6lam, see Ernst Jenni, "Das Wort olam im Alten Testament," ZAW 64 (1952) 196-248; 65 (1953) 1-35. Concerning^o"!am at Qumran, he says, "Als spaete Texte erweisen sie sich durch die t e i l w e i s e haeufige Verwendung der Pluralform und durch die festgepraegte Bedeutung "Ewigkeit," die alien goettlichen und eschatologischen Groessen p r a e d i z i e r t " (64 [1952] 247). f  109 For when they sinned i n that they forsook Him, He hid his face from Israel and from His sanctuary and gave them to the sword. But when He remembered the. covenant of the f o r e f a t h e r s , He caused a remnant to remain of Israel and gave them not up to be consumed. God remembers his covenant by sparing a portion of the seed of fathers berft  c  from  annihilation.  olam be established.  survival  Only i f  a seed continues  But the beVit  forever  the  can the  'Slam requires more than the  of the seed. The granting of a b e r f t 6Tam to the fathers means c  that the covenant would be perpetually established with t h e i r seed. Since the covenant i s Torah, the promise of perpetuity means t h a t Torah will  be perpetually established with the p o s t e r i t y  of the f a t h e r s .  This  aspect of the covenant with the f a t h e r s i s made clear i n 6:2-5, which reads: But God remembered the covenant from Aaron men of understanding He caused them to hear and they Law. And those t h a t digged i t of I s r a e l .  of the f o r e f a t h e r s , and He raised and from Israel men of wisdom, and digged the w e l l . . . T h e well i s the are they that turned from impiety  God remembers his covenant by r e v i v i n g the law among the remnant. The preservation of a Torah-keeping community i s of c r i t i c a l f o r the preservation of a remnant. due t o  their  forsaking  God's  importance  The f a t e of the majority of Israel  law.  Thus God causes  "the curses  covenant to cleave to them, thus d e l i v e r i n g them to the sword t h a t execute  the  vengeance of  the covenant"  ensures the a n n i h i l a t i o n of the u n f a i t h f u l . spared i f i t keeps the covenant, Torah.  (1:17-18).  The covenant  of  is the  shall itself  Hence, the remnant can only be  110 D.  Torah as the One Perpetually Renewed Covenant  The p r i n c i p a l reason f o r the Torah r e v i v a l motif i s t h a t the covenant is Torah and so covenant renewal is Torah renewal.  This is brought out i n  CD 3:10-16. The succession of commandment keeping from Abraham to Jacob (3:2-4) was broken by the sons of Jacob who went astray and were punished accordingly (3:4).  Their sons i n Egypt sinned f l a g r a n t l y against the commandments and  were cut o f f i n the wilderness ( 3 : 5 - 1 0 ) . a surviving remnant.  But the covenant was renewed with  3:10-16 reads:  Through i t [ s t u b b o r n n e s s of h e a r t ] the f i r s t members of the covenant became culpable, and they were given over to the sword, because they forsook the covenant of God and chose t h e i r own desire and went about a f t e r the stubbornness of t h e i r hearts by doing each man his d e s i r e . But with them t h a t held f a s t to the commandments of God who were l e f t over of them, God established His covenant with Israel even u n t i l e t e r n i t y , by revealing to them hidden things concerning which a l l Israel had gone astray. His s a b b a t h s and His g l o r i o u s appointed t i m e s , His r i g h t e o u s testimonies and His true ways and the requirements of His d e s i r e , which man shall do and l i v e t h e r e b y . . . . " The covenant covenant Jacob.  apostatized First,  commandments. It  that  God established  after  the f i r s t  members of  the  i s the same as the covenant he made with Isaac and  both times the covenant i s made with those t h a t keep the Second, both times the covenant i s established f o r  eternity.  has already been pointed out t h a t the expression 1e o1am i n connection c  with the covenant made with the fathers i n 3:4 indicates t h a t the covenant would be established with the seed of the f a t h e r s .  The renewed covenant  which i s established ad 6lam i s thus also established e t e r n a l l y with the f  c  remnant community throughout i t s successive generations. To understand the renewal of the perpetuity of covenant, the community aspect of the covenant seen in the Manual of D i s c i p l i n e must be r e c a l l e d .  Ill The covenant  is  community.  All  given to the community and can only by realized in t h a t Israelites  outside the covenant.  who are not  part  of  given the covenant f o r e v e r . and w i t h  one community  are  To enter the covenant they must enter the remnant  community with whom the covenant was renewed.  community  that  its  This remnant community  is  That means i t w i l l only be perpetuated i n t h a t  successive  covenant with the community i s  generations.  identical  So, the  re-established  with t h a t established with Isaac  and Jacob i n t h a t i t too has the promise of p e r p e t u i t y . The covenant established with the remnant i s c l e a r l y the establishment of Torah among them.  Thus "God established His covenant with Israel even  u n t i l e t e r n i t y , by revealing to them" the laws "which man shall do and l i v e thereby."  Since t h i s re-established covenant i s i d e n t i c a l to the one made  with the f a t h e r s ,  it  follows that the covenant with the fathers was also  Torah. The correspondence between the covenant made with the fathers and with the  remnant  is  completed  by  the  clear  implication  that  patriarchs  themselves, l i k e the remnant, only had a p r e - e x i s t i n g covenant renewed with them t h a t was handed down to them i n the commandments they kept. That covenant i s implied i n the commandments of 3:2-4 i s suggested by the f a c t t h a t covenant i s not mentioned with reference t o Abraham. Jubilees, Abraham i s not the p r i n c i p a l  As i n  f i g u r e with reference to covenant.  1?  Rather, Jacob i s emphasized.  Also, the idea prominent in Jubilees, that  the covenant began w i t h Noah and was renewed w i t h Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, 12 On the prominence of Jacob in Jubilees, see John C. Enders, B i b l i c a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n in the Book of Jubilees, The Catholic B i b l i c a l Quarterly Monograph Series 18 (Washington, DC: The Catholic B i b l i c a l Association of America, 1987) 18-19; Michel Testuz, Les Idees Religieuses du Livre des Jubi1es (Geneve: L i b r a i r i e E. Droz, 1960) 72-73; and Annie Jaubert, La Notion d ' A l l i a n c e , 99-100.  112 i s c l e a r l y assumed in the Damascus Document. A clear succession i s presented. went astray.  That implies t h a t  CD 3:1 mentions t h a t the sons of Noah  Noah kept the commandments.  Immediately  a f t e r s t a t i n g that the sons of Noah were cut o f f , the t e x t presents Abraham as one who kept the commandments ( 3 : 2 ) .  He handed the commandments down to  Isaac and Jacob and as a r e s u l t of keeping them they were made possessors of a covenant forever (3:4).  Their  (3:3-4).  The sons of Jacob strayed and were punished  sons, however,  apostasized and were cut o f f  ( 3 : 6 - 1 0 ) , thus  meeting the f a t e of Noah's sons. While the expression especially  used f o r  "to be cut o f f "  those  who break  means to be a n n i h i l a t e d ,  the  covenant.  it  The use of  is this  expression f o r both the sons of Noah and the I s r a e l i t e s i n the wilderness c l e a r l y suggests t h a t the former, l i k e the l a t t e r , broke the covenant.  This  in turn suggests t h a t Noah i s thought of in terms of covenant. Thus 3:1-10 presents the sequence of Noah and an apostasy among his children followed by the patriarchs  and an apostasy among t h e i r  children.  This pattern suggests that the covenant given to Isaac and Jacob was only a renewal of covenant.  The covenant in the commandments was handed down to  them by Abraham and then renewed with them by God as a r e s u l t  of  their  obedience. Neither i n the case of Isaac and Jacob nor of the remnant i s a covenant initiated. the  Each party stands w i t h i n a t r a d i t i o n of covenant, handed down i n  commandments,  covenant  and as a r e s u l t  established  apostates,  they  covenant renewed.  with  and t h e i r  of  keeping the commandments has the  them f o r e v e r . seed w i l l  This l a t t e r  That means t h a t ,  not be cut o f f  unlike  the  and w i l l  have the  point means t h a t t h e i r seed w i l l  also have  the law and as a r e s u l t of keeping i t w i l l  have the covenant  established  113 with them f o r e v e r .  E.  Torah and God's Covenant Faithfulness  The intimate l i n k between keeping the commandments and covenant renewal even bears on the Document's interpretation  idea of God's covenant f a i t h f u l n e s s  of Deut 9:5 shows.  The t e x t  as  its  in question i s 8:14-18 which  reads: And as f o r t h a t which Moses s a i d t o I s r a e l : Not f o r thy righteousness, or f o r the uprightness of thy heart, dost thou go in to possess the nations, but because He loved thy fathers and because He would keep the oath--thus i s the case with those t h a t t u r n e d ( f r o m i m p i e t y ) of I s r a e l , who forsook the way of the people: owing to God's love f o r the f o r e f a t h e r s , who bore witness against the people f o r His sake, He loves them t h a t come a f t e r them, f o r t h e i r s i s the covenant of the f a t h e r s . At a glance t h i s passage seems to be c o n t r a d i c t o r y .  The quotation from  Deut 9:5 emphasizes t h a t God does not act on behalf of the people because of t h e i r uprightness (keeping the commandments) but simply out of love f o r the fathers and f a i t h f u l n e s s to his b a t h .  The author of the Damascus Document,  however, applies the t e x t to those who r e t u r n to the law and are f a i t h f u l . He i s  led to t h i s  interpretation  by his conviction t h a t  the covenant  is  Torah and only belongs to those who are f a i t h f u l " f o r t h e i r s i s the covenant of the f a t h e r s . " God's f a i t h f u l n e s s to his oath i s seen in that God renews the covenant with the f a i t h f u l  remnant. He renews his covenant with them because he i s  committed by oath to do so.  But since covenant is Torah, the covenant can  only be given to those who keep Torah.  Any idea t h a t God would f u l f i l  the  covenant w i t h those t h a t do not keep the commandments i s excluded. The basis  of  the  divine  commitment  to  renew  the  covenant  with  114 succeeding generations i s God's love of the fathers and his oath to them. Both of these are based on the f a t h e r s '  keeping of the commandments.  3:2-4 God reckons Abraham, Isaac and Jacob his f r i e n d s in 8:15)  ('ohabfm, c f .  In 'Shab  because they keep the commandments and Isaac and Jacob are made  possessors of the covenant forever ( c f . oath in 8:15) f o r the same reason. Hence, as the oath or the promissory aspect of the covenant i s based on the keeping of  commandments, so i t  i s only f u l f i l l e d  for  those who keep the  commandments, f o r the covenant as Torah only belongs to such.  F.  Torah and the Promissory Aspect of Covenant  The f a c t always  given  that the promise of having an eternal to  those  that  keep the covenant  covenant i s only and  (i.e.,  the commandments)  suggests t h a t the promissory aspect of covenant i s the same as the blessing' attached to the law.  This suggestion i s confirmed by the other aspect of  the covenant promise:  deliverance.  The party perpetuity  that  but  also  has the covenant does not only of  divine  covenant by sparing the f a i t h f u l alive  (7:5-6)  favour  have the promise  and deliverance.  from a n n i h i l a t i o n  God keeps  of the  ( 1 : 4 ) , by keeping them  and by saving "them from a l l the snares of the p i t "  (14:2).  War S c r o l l 18:7-8 says, "Thou hast many a time opened f o r us the gates of 13 deliverances f o r  the sake of thy covenant."  This deliverance which i s  pledged by God i n the covenant i s nothing more than the blessing f o r keeping the law. The opposite of t h i s salvation are the curses and vengeance of the 13 Cited from Yigael Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness (Oxford: University Press, 1962).  115 covenant v i s i t e d on those t h a t forsake the law (1:18; 8 : 1 ; 15:33). The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the promise in the covenant and the blessing i n Torah enables us to see the complete i d e n t i t y of covenant with Torah.  In  the covenant, the promise i s given on basis of f u l f i l l i n g the commandments of the covenant.  The same arrangement can be expressed in terms of Torah.  Torah i s a set of commandments w i t h promises or blessings attached to  it.  The promise  the  in  either  case  includes  both  a divine  commitment to  salvation of the immediate community and the perpetuation of the covenant with  their  succeeding  generations,  i.e.,  the promise of covenant  renewal  with the seed of the f a i t h f u l . Furthermore,  the  identification  of  Torah and covenant means t h a t  promise and commandment can not be separated. distinguished.  At the most, they can only be  Divine commandment implies divine promise and vice versa.  But t h i s does not mean t h a t Torah i s an abstract universal law t h a t anyone can keep and thereby be in the covenant of God. covenant Israel  and Torah f o r b i d  and w i t h i n  Israel  this  conclusion.  The community dimension of  God gave the Torah only  only to the remnant community.  to  That community  alone i s i n the covenant and alone has the true i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and p r a c t i c e of  the  law.  For  this  reason  the  covenant  community i s  of  paramount  importance. The only  a l l u s i o n to a universal  aspect of the law in the Damascus  Document i s in the reference to the straying of the sons of Noah and t h e i r families  (3:1).  As a l r e a d y  connected with Noah.  seen,  the  idea of  covenant  is  implicitly  His sons, however, were cut o f f as a r e s u l t of t h e i r  straying and the covenant was only renewed with Abraham. commandments and handed them down to his o f f s p r i n g .  He alone kept the  So the e n t i r e Gentile  world i s outside the covenant and Torah, and not being of the o f f s p r i n g of  116 Jacob  with  whom the  covenant  was renewed they have no access to  the  covenant.  G.  Bertt as Diatheke at Qumran  The merging of contractual  character.  human commitment. bertt  promise and law in covenant gives bfertt  a seemingly  The promise represents the divine and the law the  Two f a c t o r s , however, prevent the conclusion t h a t i n the  at Qumran we have a contract or a suntheke rather than a diathgke.  First,  if  it  i s a question of whether at Qumran we have a one-sided or a  mutual arrangement, the features of the beVtt in question decide in favour of  the  former.  God gives  both  the  inseparable u n i t c o n s t i t u t e an ordinance. be>tt  that  stipulations parties  unifies or  both  promise  sharing of  in r e l a t i o n  to  it,  promise  and the  law which as an  Second, the essential feature in  and  law  is  not mutual  commitments  but  an ordinance t h a t  both human and d i v i n e .  imposition binds  At Qumran, b e r t t  of all is  diatheke in the sense of ordinance as implied by i t s complete i d e n t i t y with Torah.  117 CHAPTER 7 THE UNITARY VIEW OF COVENANT IN JUDAISM  The i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the covenant concept at Qumran has disclosed a u n i t a r y view of covenant.  By " u n i t a r y view of covenant" i s meant the view  that  covenant formulations  the  covenant  various, divine and t h a t  indissoluble  law and promise,  unity.  This  of  the OT represent  one  the two covenanted elements, form an  means t h a t  covenants t h a t God made with his people. a re-enactment of one basic covenant.  there  is  not  a multiplicity  of  Rather, there i s only a renewal or Also, in accordance with the Jewish  emphasis on Torah, t h a t one covenant i s e s s e n t i a l l y Torah. However sectarian the views at Qumran were, the view of covenant seen there i s representative of Judaism at l a r g e . at Qumran thoroughly Jewish.  Several  This f a c t makes the community  strands of evidence of the  unitary  view of covenant in Judaism w i l l be b r i e f l y presented.  A.  P l u r a l i t y of Covenants in Jewish L i t e r a t u r e  Calvin Roetzel i n an a r t i c l e on the meaning of the p l u r a l diathekai i n Rom 9:4 has made an i n t e r e s t i n g and important study of the use of the p l u r a l of  the  covenant  literature. interpreted different  1  terms, He notes  the p l u r a l  beritot, that  geyamaya''  "almost  noun, d i a t h e k a i ,  and d i a t h e k a i ,  unanimously  in  commentators  Jewish have  i n Rom 9:4 as a reference to the  covenants which Yahweh established with the patriarchs—Abraham,  Calvin Roetzel, "Diatheke in Romans 9,4" Bib_ 51 (1970) 377-390.  118 Isaac,  Jacob,  Moses, e t c . "  interpretation.  Rather  Roetzel,  however,  takes  than reading Paul against  exception  a Christian  to  this  background  with i t s tendency "to juxtapose the "new" and " o l d " covenants, or to regard the covenant i n Christ as the l a s t and greatest in a series of covenants," he prefers "to read Paul against his f i r s t - c e n t u r y Jewish background." do t h i s ,  he studies the use  Aramaic and H e l l e n i s t i c  of the p l u r a l  for  3  To  covenant terms i n Hebrew,  literature.  Roetzel argues persuasively t h a t i n p o s t - b i b l i c a l Jewish l i t e r a t u r e the plural  of the covenant terms i s c o n s i s t e n t l y used i n a way other than f o r  multiple  beVrtot decrees,  covenants t h a t  God established  with the people.  " i n both Sofrah and Yebamoth b e r t t o t or  commandments."  4  i s a synonym f o r  In a d i f f e r e n t  vein,  Berakoth 48b-49a f o r the number of times the word texts.  He shows t h a t  beVftot  beVft  ordinances, is  used  in  appears i n c e r t a i n  5  In the Targums, the Aramaic covenant term i n p l u r a l i s also used as a synonym f o r commandments or ordinances.  Roetzel notes,  Q^yama ( s i n g . ) i n the Aramaic, denotes God's covenant with Abraham i n Gn 15,18, but in Gn 26,5 the p l u r a l form stands as a synonym f o r statutes or laws. "Abraham" the Targum says, "obeyed my word (mymry), my statutes (pqwdy), my covenants (qeyama), and my laws ( w r y t y ) " . The appearance of the Aramaic qymy ( p i . ) , f o r the Hebrew hqwty ( s t a t u t e s ) bracketed by references to "laws" and J  2  I b i d . , 377.  3  Ibid.  Roetzel ( I b i d . , 379) w r i t e s , " I n discussing circumcision Yebamoth notes that i t "stands in a d i f f e r e n t category f o r concerning i t t h i r t e e n covenants (beVttot) were made". On the other hand, the Rabbis note in t h e i r discussion of t h e Decalogue, in Sofrah 37b, t h a t "there were f o r t y - e i g h t covenants ( b e r i t o t ) i n connection with each commandment". In each of these i n s t a n c e s the p l u r a l form denotes ordinances or decrees, not m u l t i p l e covenants or agreements with the p a t r i a r c h s . " Cf. discussion on p. 86 above. A  5  I b i d . , 379.  119 " s t a t u t e s " suggests t h a t covenants w r i t e r s was synonymous with both.  (pi.)  Roetzel  the  finds  the  same p a t t e r n  in  i n the mind of Apocrypha.  The  the plural,  d i a t h e k a i , i s used i n the sense of s t a t u t e s , ordinances, decrees, promises or oaths, but i t people.  In  Sir  i s never used f o r m u l t i p l e covenants between God and his 45:17,  promises or oaths.  diathekai  means statutes  and in 44:18 i t  means  Roetzel s t a t e s , " I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t , moreover, t h a t with  absolute consistency the author refuses to use diathekai to r e f e r to God's r e l a t i o n s h i p with the d i f f e r e n t f i g u r e s in I s r a e l ' s The p l u r a l , d i a t h e k a i , 18:22.  history."  7  i s used only once in the Wisdom of Solomon i n  The t e x t says concerning Aaron,  He conquered the wrath not by strength of body, and not by force of arms, but by his word he subdued the punisher, appealing to the oaths and covenants (diathekas) given to our f a t h e r s . Roetzel  l i n k s the reference to the " f a t h e r s " with 18:6 which concerns the q  generation of the exodus.  Thus the p l u r a l  is  not used f o r the various  covenant formulations with the p a t r i a r c h s , Abraham, Isaac and Jacob but f o r promises given to the exodus generation.  This much i s c l e a r : "covenants" i s  simply a p a r a l l e l expression to "oaths."  Consequently, the p l u r a l does not  r e f e r to the various divine covenant formulations of the OT but to c e r t a i n promises t h a t Aaron could appeal t o , whether made with the exodus generation or n o t .  1 0  Roetzel's  skill  6  Ibid.  7  I b i d . , 381.  in  arguing his  thesis  is  seen i n  his  treatment  p  Quotations of Apocrypha are taken from the RSV (1965/77). 9  I b i d . , 381.  1 0  C f . the use of sunthekai in Wis 12:21 discussed on p. 77 above.  of  120 2 Mace 8:15 which reads kai ei me di autous, a l i a dia tas pros tous pateras auton diathekas.  The RSV renders t h i s t e x t , " i f not f o r t h e i r own sake, yet  f o r the sake of the covenants made with t h e i r f a t h e r s . "  Roetzel, however,  argues, The t r a n s l a t o r supplies "made" which i s absent from the Greek t e x t t o gain fluency. The understanding of t h i s passage, however, depends on how one t r a n s l a t e s pros with the accusative--that i s , whether one renders i t " w i t h " (as in the RSV) or " t o " . I f the preferred reading " t o " i s taken and the t e x t i s rendered l i t e r a l l y we have, " i f not f o r t h e i r own sake, yet f o r the sake of the covenants t o t h e i r f a t h e r s " . In t h i s case, "covenants" apparently means "promises" or possibly "decrees". That being the case, i t seems much more natural to read, ''covenants ( i . e . , promises or decrees) (given) t o t h e i r f a t h e r s " . Roetzel f i n d s "clear 1:2.  a confirmation of his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of 2 Mace 8:15 i n the  reference  to one covenant which God made with the p a t r i a r c h s "  in  1 2  Roetzel's work suffers from one d e f i c i e n c y .  While he has successfully  defined the covenant terms i n the p l u r a l as decree or ordinance, he f a i l s to apply t h i s  sense to the covenant terms in the s i n g u l a r .  He p e r s i s t s  in  understanding the covenant terms in the s i n g u l a r , used f o r the one covenant that  embraces  the  various 1 A  1 O  agreement,  covenant formulations  relationship  of  the OT, as meaning  IK  or union.  The d i s p a r i t y i n d e f i n i t i o n s makes  the difference between the singular and p l u r a l  of the covenant terms more  pronounced than i f  the terms i n both t h e i r singular and p l u r a l forms have  the same meaning.  T h i s , however, does not a f f e c t Roetzel's basic t h e s i s :  1 1  I b i d . , 382.  1 2  Ibid.  1 3  I b i d . , 379.  1 4  I b i d . , 381.  1 5  I b i d . , 383.  121 that  the  prevailing  use of  the p l u r a l  in the sense of  commandments or  promises in Hebrew, Aramaic and H e l l e n i s t i c Jewish l i t e r a t u r e shows t h a t the various covenant formulations between God and his people were not seen as m u l t i p l e covenants. Roetzel sees the same understanding r e f l e c t e d in the OT.  No case can  be argued from the use of the p l u r a l of the covenant term since the p l u r a l berftot  does not appear in the MT.  never  used "to  denote m u l t i p l e  different  times."  historical  accident.  the  numerous  He does  Accordingly,  covenants  not  think,  diathekai  which God made with  Israel  however,  is  that  Rather, he follows Annie J a u b e r t  covenant formulations  in the LXX i s  16  i n the Old Testament  this  at  a mere  who argues  "that  are hardly new  covenants but copies of the one covenant which God made with I s r a e l .  The  covenant with Moses, f o r example, i s not d i f f e r e n t from but a continuation 17  of God's covenant with Abraham (Ex 3 , 6 ) . " A study of the theology of covenant i n the OT and a thorough assessment of  Jaubert's  study. ° Roetzel.  and Roetzel's  As w i l l  thesis  be seen s h o r t l y ,  is  outside  the  scope of  the  present  Paul would disagree with Jaubert and  Their t h e s i s , however, i s in agreement with P o s t - b i b l i c a l  where, as Roetzel has shown, the consistent use of the p l u r a l  Judaism  i n a sense  other than the m u l t i p l i c i t y of covenants t h a t God made in the OT betrays a clear theological  conviction:  the s i n g u l a r i t y of God's covenant with his  1 fi  Annie Jaubert, La Notion d ' a l l i a n c e , 1 7  27f.  . I b i d . , 378.  18  The expression "the covenant with the f a t h e r s " c e r t a i n l y does not include the divine covenant with Phinehas or David. I t c l e a r l y embraces the various covenant formulations made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Whether i t ever units the covenant with the patriarchs and t h a t made with Israel at Sinai remains t o be proven.  122 people.  The view of  covenant found  at Qumran in the previous  chapter  c l e a r l y supports Roetzel's t h e s i s .  B.  The Singular Covenant Motif i n Jubilees  Perhaps the clearest expression of the conviction t h a t God only has one covenant with his people comes from Jubilees. which f i r s t  mentions  Unlike the Damascus Document,  covenant with reference to the p a t r i a r c h s ,  begins i t s treatment of God's covenant with Noah.  Jubilees  But more important,  it  makes the Noachic covenant the prototype of a l l covenants. The Noachic covenant includes both promise and commandment. covenant  with  destroy  the  Noah "so that earth"  there might not  (Jub 6 : 4 ) .  1 9  be floodwaters  The covenant,  however,  God made a which would  does not  only  consist of a promise, but also of the covenant commandment not to eat blood (6:7).  Noah establishes t h i s p r o h i b i t i o n as a perpetual covenant in verse  10 which reads:  "And Noah and his sons swore t h a t they would not eat any  blood which was in any f l e s h . forever  in  all  of  the  And he made a covenant before the LORD God  generations  of  the earth  in  that  month."  This  covenant was renewed by Moses on the mountain with the children of Israel  in  the same month (v 11). The i d e n t i t y of the Noachic covenant with the covenant established with Israel  is  c l e a r l y brought out i n 6:17-19, which deals with the feast  of  0. S. Wintermute's t r a n s l a t i o n of Jubilees i n The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, e d . , James H. Charlesworth (2 v o l s . ; New York: Doubleday & Company, 1985) 2. 52-142, i s used.  123 Shebuot (oaths)  .  The t e x t reads:  Therefore, i t i s ordained and w r i t t e n in the heavenly t a b l e t s that they should observe the feast of Shebuot in t h i s month, once per year, in order to renew the covenant in a l l ( r e s p e c t s ) , year by year. And a l l of t h i s feast was celebrated i n heaven from the day of creation u n t i l the days of Noah, twenty-six j u b i l e e s and f i v e weeks of years. And Noah and his children kept i t f o r seven j u b i l e e s and one week of years u n t i l the day of the death of Noah. And from the day of the death of Noah, his sons corrupted i t u n t i l the days of Abraham, and they ate blood. But Abraham alone kept it. And Isaac and Jacob and his sons kept i t u n t i l your days, but i n your days the children of Israel f o r g o t i t u n t i l you renewed i t f o r them on t h i s mountain. The f e a s t of Shebuot i s i d e n t i f i e d with the covenant. covenant renewal f e a s t , first  to celebrate  it  its  history  i s the h i s t o r y of the covenant.  on earth was Noah who f i r s t  The feast was corrupted  by a l l  Not only i s i t a The  received the covenant.  the descendants of Noah u n t i l  Abraham who  21  alone kept i t .  This c l e a r l y p a r a l l e l s the f a c t that the covenant was only  renewed with Abraham.  This feast was kept, and so the covenant renewed, by  Wintermute ( I b i d . , 67 n. f . ) e x p l a i n s concerning "Shebuot" i n Jubilees t h a t while the Ethiopic word means "weeks," the Hebrew word behind i t undoubtedly had a double meaning of weeks and oaths. " I n an unpointed Heb. t e x t the consonants s'b'wt could be t r a n s l a t e d e i t h e r "weeks" or "oaths." The MT vocalizes the absolute form of the word f o r "weeks" as iaabu^ot and the word f o r "oaths" as Sebu'ot, but "weeks" also appears as lagbu'ot in the c o n s t r u c t . " He goes on to observe, "The feast referred to by the Eth. word i s , of course, b e t t e r known by the name of Pentecost or weeks, but both of these names are supposedly derived from the number of days (or weeks) which separate t h a t f e a s t from the o f f e r i n g of Omer (Lev 23:9-17). Since the book of Jub, which i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s e n s i t i v e to chronology, does not i d e n t i f y t h i s feast i n r e l a t i o n to the passing of seven weeks, S. Z e i t l i n (The Book of Jubilees: I t s Character and Significance [ P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1939]) made the f o l l o w i n g observation: " I venture to say t h a t even the name Shabuot in the Book of Jubilees has not the connotation of 'weeks,' but means ' o a t h s ' " ( p . 6 ) . " This conjecture i s in l i n e with the purpose of the f e a s t . As a feast of oaths i t i s a covenant renewal f e a s t . 21  Jub 14:20 also connects the Abrahamic covenant with the Noachic. Chapter 14 r e t e l l s the story of Genesis 15. Verse 20, which concludes the n a r r a t i v e on the covenant making ceremony says, "And on t h a t day we made a covenant with Abram j u s t as we had made a covenant in t h a t month with Noah. And Abram renewed the feast and the ordinance f o r himself f o r e v e r . "  124 Isaac and Jacob and his sons.  oo  Hence, the covenant i s only f o r  Israel.  The I s r a e l i t e s in Moses' day f o r g o t the feast and so i t , with the covenant, was renewed on the mountain.  From the feast renewal theme in t h i s t e x t  it  is clear t h a t the various covenant formulations from Noah t o Moses are not m u l t i p l e covenants but renewals of one c o v e n a n t . The u n i t y  of  all  covenants  in  Jubilees  23  is  also  seen in  the way  important covenant events are synchronized as J . C. Enders points out: In Jubilees a l l of the i n d i v i d u a l covenants collapse i n t o a single covenantal r e l a t i o n s h i p , which began with Noah's covenant with God in Jub. 6 : 1 - 2 1 . In order to r e - e s t a b l i s h t h i s covenant as the p r o t o t y p e f o r a l l o t h e r s , the author concentrated a l l major covenant celebrations on the same day of the year. Thus, on 111/15 the Jewish community of t h i s author should celebrate the f o l l o w i n g events: t h e covenant w i t h Abraham (14:1-20); the changing of Abram's and Sarai's names and the i n s t i t u t i o n of circumcision (15:1-34); the b i r t h of Isaac (16:13) and his weaning ( 1 7 : 1 ) ; Abraham's farewell address and death (Jubilees 22); the covenant between Jacob and Laban ( 2 9 : 7 - 8 ) ; and Jacob's celebration of the Well of the Oaths ( 4 4 : 1 , 4 ) . A f t e r a period of desuetude, Moses renewed the celebration of Shabuot on t h i s date at Mt. Sinai (6:19). 2 4  Though  Jubilees  is  a sectarian  work,  the singular  c l e a r l y expressed i n i t i s common throughout Judaism. expressed in the l i t e r a t u r e  from Qumran, t h i s motif  covenant  motif  While not as c l e a r l y is certainly  present  pc  there as w e l l .  Also, the f a c t t h a t the p l u r a l of the covenant term was  c o n s i s t e n t l y used throughout Judaism in a sense other than t h a t of m u l t i p l e 22 On the renewal of covenant with Jacob, see Jub 22:15,30. 23  On the renewal of covenant from Noah to Moses, see Michel Testuz, Les Idees Religieuses du L i v r e des Jubilees, 62-69. 24 Enders, B i b l i c a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n the Book of Jubilees, 227. 25 On the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Jubilees and the l i t e r a t u r e from Qumran, see VanderKam, T e x t u a l and H i s t o r i c a l Studies in the Book of Jubilees (Missoula: Scholars, 1977) 255-285 and Michel Testuz, Les Ide"es Religieuses du L i v r e des J u b i l e s , 179-195. The Damascus Document in 16:3 mentions Jubilees, and fragments of Jubilees were found at Qumran.  125 covenants t h a t  God made with his people witnesses to the u n i v e r s a l i t y  of  t h i s motif i n P o s t - b i b l i c a l Judaism.  C.  The Primacy of Torah  Enders perceptively covenants  into  notes concerning the collapse  one covenant  theologoumenon i s  critical  for  in  Jubilees,  "The  of  all  individual  significance  the book of Jubilees;  of  this  even the people of  Noah's generation were f u l l y observant 'Mosaists,' since they shared in the f u l l n e s s of the covenant r e l a t i o n s h i p between God and I s r a e l .  There never  was a time, t h e r e f o r e , when I s r a e l ' s ancestors did not observe the customs and laws revealed at S i n a i . "  2 6  The conviction that the patriarchs kept the law was also seen i n the Damascus Document.  The patriarchs kept the commandments and as a r e s u l t had  the covenant established as a beVit 6lam with them. f  In the same v e i n , Jub  24:11 has God saying to Isaac t h a t he would give t o his seed the covenanted blessings "because your f a t h e r obeyed me and observed my r e s t r i c t i o n s and my commandments and my laws and my ordinances and my covenant." The conviction t h a t  the patriarchs were f u l l y observant Mosaists was  not merely a sectarian t r a i t .  Betz notes that "according to the normative  Jewish t r a d i t i o n , Abraham kept the Torah, even though i t was given only much later.  How he could do so i s explained in various ways:  "out of h i m s e l f , " from God."  he knew the Torah  or from secret w r i t i n g , or through a special  revelation  Betz gives as an example R. Shimeon, Gen. Rab. 61 (38b) who said  concerning Abraham, "A f a t h e r did not teach him, and a teacher he did not  Enders, B i b l i c a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n in the Book of Jubilees, 227.  126 have.  Wherefrom did he learn the Torah?"  reference to Ps 16:7:  Betz adds, "Shimeon explains by  God used the kidneys to teach Abraham the T o r a h . "  2 7  In a d i f f e r e n t v e i n , Jub 21:10 has Abraham saying a f t e r giving i n s t r u c t i o n s on s a c r i f i c i a l meat, "Because thus I have found w r i t t e n in the books of my f o r e f a t h e r s and i n the words of Enoch and i n the words of Noah."  2 Baruch  57:2 says concerning the time of  time  unwritten  the  patriarchs,  "For  at  that  the  law was in force among them, and the works of the commandments pp  were accomplished at t h a t t i m e . "  Despite the d i v e r s i t y of explanations as  to how Abraham knew the law, these quotation r e f l e c t a clear consensus t h a t Abraham kept the law. The reason f o r t h i s tendency to read the Mosaic law i n t o the l i v e s of the  patriarchs  previous  chapter  lies  in  the  identity  of  on covenant at Qumran.  Torah and covenant This i d e n t i t y  singular covenant motif exemplified in Jubilees.  seen in  the  i s rooted in the  I f the giving of the law  at Sinai was merely a renewal of the covenant with the p a t r i a r c h s , then t h a t covenant must be Torah.  The singular covenant m o t i f ,  in t u r n , i s rooted i n  the u n i t a r y view of covenant t h a t promise and commandment or law c o n s t i t u t e an indissoluble u n i t y . In the u n i t y between promise and law seen thus f a r , law i s predominant. The promissory aspect of the covenant i s only established with those who keep the commandments. law.  As we have seen, promise i s , i n f a c t , a dimension of  The primacy of law i s given clear expression i n 2 Mace 2:17f. which  reads: "God has saved his whole people and gave us a l l the i n h e r i t a n c e , the kingship, the priesthood, and the consecration, as he had promised by the 2 7  B e t z , Galatians, 158.  28 The t r a n s l a t i o n i s that of A. F. J . K l i j n Pseudepigrapha, e d . , J . H. Charlesworth, 615-652.  i n The Old Testament  127 law (katos epSggeilato dia tou nomou)." are given to  Israel.  This conviction concerning the primacy of Torah i s  c l e a r l y behind the p e r s i s t e n t lives  of  Thus, through the law the promises  the p a t r i a r c h s .  tendency to read the law of Sinai  Covenant and divine  promise without  i n t o the Torah  is  inconceivable i n Judaism. The s i n g u l a r  covenant  motif,  the u n i t a r y  view of  the OT covenant  formulations and the primacy of Torah are not simply theories of covenant worked out framework divine  in Judaism but c o n s t i t u t e or  a presuppositional  covenant  a basic o r i e n t a t i o n ,  basis  formulations.  for  This  a. hermenutical  the Jewish approach to the OT fact  alone  accounts  for  the  pervasiveness of the conviction t h a t there i s no covenant without Torah. What n a t u r a l l y f i t s together i n Judaism, promise and law, i s sundered i n t o mutually exclusive e n t i t i e s  in Paul.  Not only does Paul conceive of  promise without law and i n s i s t on the primacy of the former; f o r him promise and law  can not  be u n i t e d  into  fundamental break with Judaism, i . e . ,  a single  covenant.  Here l i e s  i n the area of covenant concept.  Paul's  128 CHAPTER 8 PAUL'S BREAK WITH THE JEWISH UNDERSTANDING OF COVENANT  While Paul works with the d e f i n i t i o n of covenant or the understanding of the nature of the covenantal i n s t i t u t i o n held u n i v e r s a l l y in Judaism, he r a d i c a l l y breaks with Judaism on the question of the theology of covenant. As universal as the idea t h a t a covenant i s a binding act was i n Judaism, so universal also was the conviction t h a t the covenant formulations of the OT and the l e g i s l a t i v e and promissory covenantal elements form an indissoluble unity.  In parting with t h i s c o n v i c t i o n , Paul makes a radical  Judaism and finds himself outside of i t s pale.  break with  As a r e s u l t , any agreement  between Paul and Judaism i s at best p a r t i a l and fragmentary.  A.  Gal 3:15-18 and the Singular Covenant Motif  The examination of the nature of the diatheke in Gal 3:15,17 has shown the fundamental d e f i n i t i o n a l u n i t y between Paul and Judaism.  An examination  of the whole paragraph, Gal 3:15-18, however, demonstrates with equal force the  radical  break  Paul  makes w i t h  the  Jewish  interpretation  of  the  p a t r i a r c h a l and S i n a i t i c covenant formulations. Paul i n t e r p r e t s the temporal distance between the Abrahamic and Mosaic enactments in a way t h a t Judaism does not.  The f a c t t h a t the law came a f t e r  the covenant established with Abraham (Gal 3:17) means f o r Paul t h a t the law is a d i f f e r e n t enactment and thus has no bearing on the previously r a t i f i e d promise.  In Judaism t h i s  fact  would only mean that  the  law was a r e -  enactment of the Abrahamic covenant with his seed at S i n a i . The covenant  renewal  motif,  so s t r o n g  in  Jewish thought,  is  not  129 necessarily  absent from Paul's  thought.  In Gal 3:16,  he says that  the  promises, which c o n s t i t u t e the covenant, were given to Abraham and to his seed which i s C h r i s t , who i s separated from Abraham by two m i l l e n n i a .  Thus  while Paul does not use the language of covenant renewal, he works with the idea  that  posterity.  the 1  covenant  is  passed  on t o  or  established  with  future  The f a c t t h a t Paul does not speak of a new covenant in Christ i n  Galatians 3 but wholly subsumes Christ under Abraham may also suggest the covenant renewal m o t i f . I t is possible t h a t Paul does not see the law as a re-enactment of the Abrahamic covenant because he comes to the question of the covenant with the presupposition  that  Christ  is  the one and only seed.  For Paul,  the  Abrahamic covenant e n t a i l s the j u s t i f i c a t i o n of the Gentiles through f a i t h (Gal  3:8)  and the blessing of  Abraham comes to  the Gentiles  in  Christ  The idea i n Gal 3:16 that the covenant i s re-established with a singular seed may be present in the Damascus Document. As seen above, pp. 107f., the covenant i s renewed only with the f a i t h f u l p o s t e r i t y or remnant. This remnant i s a s o l i d a r i t y and as a single community alone has the covenant. So, f o r any I s r a e l i t e to be i n the renewed covenant, he must j o i n t h i s community. No other covenant community could spring up. This idea, held at Qumran, only corresponds to Paul's emphasis on the s i n g u l a r i t y of the seed, i f by the one seed Paul means a c o l l e c t i v e rather than an individual i d e n t i t y . According to t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the one seed, Christ in the phrase hos e s t i n Christos i s understood as a representative and c o l l e c t i v e p e r s o n a l i t y . Christ as a c o l l e c t i v e i d e n t i t y i s connected with the theme of u n i t y and the seed of Abraham i n Gal 3:28-29. The view t h a t Paul has a c o l l e c t i v e u n i t y in mind i n Gal 3:16 i s argued by L i g h t f o o t , Galatians, 142-143. For a discussion on d i f f i c u l t i e s in i n t e r p r e t i n g t h i s t e x t , see Burton's a r t i c l e "Spermati and Spermasin," Galatians, 505-510. 2 Paul's c h r i s t o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the OT, no doubt, governs his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the singular spermati i n Gal 3:16. Burton (Galatians, 182) a p t l y w r i t e s , " I t i s not probable, indeed, t h a t the apostle derived the meaning of the promise from the use of the singular spermati. He i s well aware of the c o l l e c t i v e sense of the word sperma in the Gen. passage (see v. 29 and Rom. 4: 13-18). He doubtless arrived at his thought, not by exegesis of s c r i p t u r e , but from an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of h i s t o r y , and then a v a i l e d himself of the singular noun t o express his thought b r i e f l y . " Sanders (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 550f.) even thinks t h a t Paul's e n t i r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the law i s c h r i s t o l o g i c a l l y determined.  130 (v 1 4 ) .  So,  transpires  Paul  only  in C h r i s t .  sees  the  fulfillment  of  the  promise  in what  Thus Christ rather than the law represents the r e -  enactment of the covenant. While Paul's c h r i s t o l o g i c a l interpretation  of  covenant,  reading of the OT no doubt influenced his he p r e s e n t s  a more  radical  reason  for  disassociating the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. In Gal 3:17 Paul states t h a t the law does not i n v a l i d a t e the covenant previously r a t i f i e d by God.  In so f a r as t h i s statement i s based on the  nature of a covenant as stated in v 15, Judaism is i n agreement with The s i n g u l a r  covenant  motif  in  Judaism i s  it.  based on the notion t h a t  covenant i s irrevocable or t h a t oudeis athetei e epidiatassetai  a  (Gal 3 : 1 5 ) .  Because a covenant cannot be annulled or replaced, the divine covenant i s a berit  c  6lam,  faithfulness Accordingly,  and, as was seen in the Damascus Document, God's  covenant  necessitates  renewed.  that  the  covenant  be p e r p e t u a l l y  the giving of the law at Sinai was seen simply as a renewal,  and by no means an i n v a l i d a t i o n , of the covenant with Abraham. When Paul, however, on the basis of v 15 affirms that the law does not invalidate  the covenant,  he i s  not  stating  a fact  agreeable to Judaism.  Rather, he i s making an inference t o t a l l y disagreeable to Judaism:  that the  law, i f not separated from i t , would i n v a l i d a t e the Abrahamic covenant.  The  law would  ten  do t h i s  epaggelian).  by n u l l i f y i n g  the  promise  (eis  to  katargesai  Paul explains t h i s phrase in v 18 as signalled by gar.  The  concern in Gal 3:18 i s he kleronomia which, as has already been shown, means "possession."  The kleronomia i s what i s promised and thus i s the blessing  See pp. 38f. above.  131 of Abraham.  4  In r e l a t i o n to the kleronomia^ Paul sees the promise and the  law as mutually exclusive epaggelias.  so that  ei  ek nomou he kleronomia,  ouketi  ex  Thus, the u n i t y of promise and law essential f o r the singular  covenant motif i s shattered.  B.  Promise and Law as A n t i t h e t i c a l in Their Effects  A s i m i l a r a n t i t h e s i s between promise and law to t h a t suggested in Gal 3:18 i s found i n Rom 4:13-15.  The promise to Abraham and his seed to be  to kleronomon kosmou i s not dia nomou (v 13).  The reason i s t h a t ei gar hoi  ek nomou kleronomoi, kekenotai he p i s t i s kai katergetai he epaggelia (v 14). This explanation c l e a r l y echoes Gal 3:17 which states t h a t the law would i n v a l i d a t e the covenant by n u l l i f y i n g (katargeo) the promise. In Rom 4:15 Paul states how the law would n u l l i f y the promise: nomos orgen katergazetai;  hou de ouk e s t i n nomos oude parabasis.  ho gar The law  Burton (Galatians, 185)j_ commenting on v 18, w r i t e s , "The previous r e f e r e n c e t o t h e d i a t h e k e and t h e epaggel i a make i t c l e a r t h a t he k l e r o n o m i a - - n o t e the r e s t r i c t i v e a r t i c l e — r e f e r s to the possession promised i n the covenant (Gen. 13:15; 15:7; 17:8; c f . Rom. 4:13,14), which was with Abraham and his seed. This promised possession, while consisting m a t e r i a l l y in the promised land, ,was the expression of God's favour and blessing ( c f . , e . g . , 2 Chron. 6:27; Ps. Sol. 7:2; 9:2; 14:3, hoti he meris kai he k l e r o n o m i a tou theou e s t i n I s r a e l , 17:26), and the term e a s i l y becomes in the Christian vocabulary a designation of the blessing of God which they shall obtain who through f a i t h become acceptable to God (see Acts 20:32; 1 Cor. 6:9,10; 15:50; Gal. 5 : 2 1 ; Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:24), of which blessing the S p i r i t , as the i n i t i a l g i f t of the new l i f e ( v . 2) i s the earnest (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph. 1:13, 14; 4 : 3 0 ) , and so the f u l f i l l m e n t of the promise. Such a s p i r i t u a l i s e d conception i n general doubtless underlies the apostle's use of i t here. Cf. Rom. 4:14 and the suggestion of v. 14 above, t h a t he thought of the promise to Abraham as a promise of the Spirit." Burton adds, however, "But f o r the purposes of his argument at t h i s p o i n t , the content of the kleronomia i s not emphasised."  132 threatens to n u l l i f y the promise by working wrath ( o r g e ) .  5  In contrast to  the e f f e c t of the law i s the law-free state which is without transgression (parabasis).  Hence, the law's f u n c t i o n i n working wrath i s i d e n t i f i e d with  i t s r o l e i n producing transgression. Transgression  (parabasis)  is  linked with law f o r  4:15, parabasis i s used i n Romans in 2:23 and 5:14.  Paul.  Besides Rom  In the former passage,  the Jew who boasts i n the law i s involved in the transgression of the law (he parabasis tou nomou). i s not as d i r e c t  Though the connection between parabasis and law  in the Rom 5:14,  it  i s nonetheless t h e r e .  Only between  Adam and Moses did people not sin epi to homoiomati tes parabaseos Adam. That means t h a t a f t e r Moses, i . e . ,  the giving of the law, people sinned in  the likeness of Adam's transgression.  So, Adam's sin was sin under law and  thus transgression. This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Rom 4:14-15 i s the most n a t u r a l . The gar of v 15 introduces an explanation of v 14, i . e . , why, i f those of the law were h e i r s , f a i t h would be made v o i d and the promise n u l l i f i e d . This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is taken by the f o l l o w i n g commentators i n t h e i r commentaries on Romans: Meyer, Schmidt, S c h l i e r , Kaesemann, Cranfield and Murray. The t e x t has also been interpreted d i f f e r e n t l y . C. K. Barrett (A Commentary on the E p i s t l e to the Romans [New York: Harper & Brothers^ 1975] 94-95) represents the major a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . He argues that i n v 14 Paul i s appealing to the proper meanings of p i s t i s and epaggelia to j u s t i f y what he said in the previous verse. A promise is not a legal contract of payment but i s w i t h i n the sphere of g i f t or grace. Becoming heir by keeping the law, however, is c o n t r a c t u a l . Thus Barrett understands Paul as saying, " I f then i t should be true t h a t the way to be an heir ( i n the terms of the promise) i s to keep the law, we can only conclude t h a t the terms " f a i t h " and "promise" have l o s t t h e i r meanings" (p. 95). B a r r e t t reads v 4 i n t o t h i s text. With t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of v 14, Barrett must make v 15 a second argument, added p a r e n t h e t i c a l l y , t h a t i n t e r r u p t s the connection between vv 14 and 16. Luther, Hodge, Sanday and Headlam, and Nygren i n t e r p r e t the t e x t s i m i l a r l y in t h e i r commentaries. The primary d i f f i c u l t y w i t h t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s i t s awkwardness. According to i t , the gar of v 15 does not r e f e r to what immediately precedes but to v 13. Thus the flow of the passage i s i n t e r r u p t e d . This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n also brings to the t e x t the idea t h a t law on the one hand and f a i t h and promise on the other are d e f i n i t i o n a l l y contrary. There i s no. warrant to read v 4 i n t o the t e x t as Barrett does. And since Paul points out what i s the problem with the law i n v 15, there i s no need to introduce the notion of d e f i n i t i o n a l c o n f l i c t .  133 The difference follows:  t h a t the law makes f o r  sin i s  stated  in Rom 5:13 as  achri gar nomou hamartia en en kosmo, harmatia de ouk e l l o g e i t a i  me ontos nomou. transgression.  Romans 4:15 states t h a t where there i s no law there i s no Romans 5:13 makes the p a r a l l e l statement t h a t where there i s  no law sin i s not reckoned.  Transgression is sin t h a t i s reckoned, and the  law produces transgression by pointing out s i n .  Thus the law gives sin the  character of v i o l a t i o n and so introduces wrath. As p r o d u c i n g  wrath  and t r a n s g r e s s i o n ,  promise as to i t s e f f e c t i n Rom 4:14-15.  the  law i s  antithetical  This theme of the law's i l l  to  effect  i s also present in Galatians 3. The only e x p l i c i t  connection between Galatians 3 and Rom 4:15 i s the  statement concerning the law in v 19:  ton parabaseon charin prosetethe.  The t e x t  charin means "because o f , "  does  not  make clear  whether  because of e x i s t i n g transgressions, or " f o r the sake o f , " transgressions.  i.e.,  i.e.,  to produce  However, the intimate l i n k between law and transgression i n  Romans and the r o l e of law i n producing transgressions in Rom 4:15 strongly suggests the l a t t e r . Galatians 3:10 i s  another p a r a l l e l  to Rom 4:15.  In t h i s t e x t ,  Paul  uses Deut 27:26 to show t h a t a l l those who are of the works of the law are under a curse.  The c i t a t i o n pronounces a curse on those who do not continue  in the things w r i t t e n in the law to do them.  Most scholars f o l l o w Calvin  who suggests t h a t t h i s t e x t substantiates the a f f i r m a t i o n that those of the works of  the  law are cursed f o r  Paul  because no one a c t u a l l y keeps the  The only other occurrence of parabasis in the Pauline corpus, besides those already mentioned, i s i n 1 Tim 2:14. Eve's transgression was c l e a r l y the v i o l a t i o n of a commandment and so i s l i n k e d w i t h law as Adam's transgression i s i n Rom 5:14.  134 e n t i r e law without breaking i t . two  problems.  proposition:  First,  it  must  This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , however, encounters import  into  the  argument  t h a t no one keeps the whole law p e r f e c t l y .  8  an  entire  Second, while  Paul would agree t h a t no one keeps the law without ever breaking i t 3:23),  Paul  never uses the u n f u l f i l a b i l i t y  of  the  law as a grounds  (Rom for  r e j e c t i n g the law as a means f o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n .  The law i s not simply a  failing  i t was never given as a  attempt to secure the blessing.  In f a c t ,  means f o r securing the inheritance (Gal 3:18) or imparting l i f e (Gal 3 : 2 1 ) .  9  Calvin, Galatians e t c . , 53. o  Scholars have sought to e s t a b l i s h t h i s missing premise on the basis of the presence of pas (everyone) and pasi ( a l l ) i n the t e x t , which do not appear i n the MT. However, since Paul i s quoting the LXX here, the presence of these words may simply be i n c i d e n t a l . J . B. L i g h t f o o t (Galatians, 138) notes t h a t the " a l l " (pas) i s found in the Peshito and the "every" (pasi) i n the Samaritan P e n t a t e u c h . Jerome states that he saw the kol in the Samaritan t e x t and accused the Jews of w i l f u l l y deleting i t l e s t they too should be under a curse. Eadie (A Commentary on the Greek Text of the E p i s t l e of Paul t o the G a l a t i a n s LGrand Rapids: Baker, 1979J 242) perceptively remarks t h a t " . . . t h e motive he ascribes to them i s somewhat p u e r i l e . . . f o r the omission does not change the sense, and the verse i s a summary c o n c l u s i o n of a l l the Ebal curses recorded i n the previous paragraph." The "every" i s not necessary in the Hebrew t e x t since the ~a5er indicates t h a t each and every v i o l a t o r i s cursed. For t h a t matter, neither is pas necessary in the Greek. The pas is simply a matter of emphasis and not a change of meaning. The " a l l " (pasi) may seem to be more s i g n i f i c a n t in t h a t without i t the curse pronouncement may not have such an absolute tone. But again, i t i s a matter of connotation and emphasis rather than of meaning since ' e t - d i b r e hattorah-hazzo*t r e f e r s to a l l of the words of the law i n question. Quite an array of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s have been given of Gal 3:10. Martin Noth i n an essay e n t i t l e d , "For a l l who r e l y on the works of the law are under a curse," i n The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1966), argues t h a t since the blessing was not given by the law but through the oath to the p a t r i a r c h s , the law only added a curse. As such, the law only brings a curse i n t o the existence of a l l under i t , which he takes to be the force of Gal 3:10. E. Edwards ( C h r i s t , a Curse, and the Cross: An I n t e r p r e t a t i v e Study of Galatians 3:13 [Michigan: University M i c r o f i l m s , 1972] 209f.) picks up Noth's suggestion and develops i t f u r t h e r . She argues t h a t hupo kataran r e f e r s to a conditional curse t h a t the law puts people under. Since Christ became an actual curse v i c a r i o u s l y (Gal 3 : 1 7 ) , the curse must be a c t u a l . Luther i n his commentary on Galatians, followed  135 For Paul the law a c t i v e l y produces i t s negative e f f e c t as seen in Rom 4:14-15.  This i s also the case in Gal 3:10.  a f t e r breaking the law.  The curse does not simply come  Rather, as being blessed or j u s t i f i e d i s d e f i n i t i v e  of those who are of f a i t h  (v 9 ) , so being under a curse i s d e f i n i t i v e of  those who are of the works of the law (v 10). The curse pronouncement i s connected with the preceding verse i n two ways.  Firstly,  precedes i t .  the p a r t i c l e gar points to a l o g i c a l connection with what Secondly,  v 10a i s p a r a l l e l  in s t r u c t u r e to v 9.  Verse 9  reads, hoste hoi ek pisteos eulogountai sun t q pistQ Abraam; and v 10 reads, hosoi  gar ex ergon nomou hupo kataran e i s i n .  Each clause begins with an  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of those who are i n a p a r t i c u l a r class: hosoi ex ergon nomou. thought  (cf.  Gal  2:16;  These two classes are a n t i t h e t i c a l 3:2).  Paul  phrase t h a t depicts t h e i r s i t u a t i o n .  predicates  pairs i n Paul's  to those of each class a  The f i r s t are eulogountai sun to p i s t p  Abraam and the second are hupo kataran. pair:  hoi ek pisteos and  Again Paul uses an a n t i t h e t i c a l  blessing and curse. This p a r a l l e l i s m indicates t h a t v 9 brought v 10a to Paul's mind.  was  thinking  pronouncement  in Paul  terms  of  quotes  opposites. Deut 27:26 i n  Then  to  support  accordance with  this  He  curse  his method of  by R. Bring (Christus und das Gesetz [Leiden: E. J . B r i l l , 1969] 115-125) and D. P. F u l l e r ("Paul and 'The Works of the Law'," WTJ 38 [1975/76] 3233), argues t h a t the works of the law are l e g a l i s t i c works while the "doing" required by the law are f a i t h - w o r k s . Hence, those of the works of the law do not f u l f i l l the law and so are cursed. This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s t r a i n s the language of Deut 27:26. H. Schlier (Der Brief an die Galater, 132) suggests t h a t the emphasis in Paul's c i t a t i o n rests on poiSsai. Thus the curse i s not p r i m a r i l y given because the law i s not q u a n t i t a t i v e l y f u l f i l l e d but because something must be done. Doing i t s e l f i s cursed. Schlier must turn to Romans 7 to support his t h e s i s . The f a c t that the idea must be imported i n t o the t e x t i s s u f f i c i e n t to dismiss t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Lloyd Gaston (Paul and Torah, 75) argues t h a t the curse i s only on Gentiles since they have law without covenant. A response to Gaston's theory w i l l emerge out of the ensuing discussion and w i l l be given i n the concluding chapter.  136 arguing from p r o o f - t e x t s . In Gen 18:18 Paul f i n d s a blessing pronouncement: "All  nations  shall  corresponding  be  blessed  in  curse pronouncement:  you." "Cursed  In is  Deut  27:26  he f i n d s  everyone...."  a  These two  s c r i p t u r e statements y i e l d f o r Paul the basis f o r his own statements in vv 9 and 10a. The p o l a r  correspondence  of  these two t e x t s  suggests  that  Paul's  i n t e r e s t i n Deut 27:26 was not in some accidental feature of the curse such as a curse f o l l o w i n g the event of transgression. the t e x t  is  in the connection  it  Rather, his i n t e r e s t , i n  makes between law and curse.  Sanders  points out " . . . t h a t Deut 27:26 i s the only passage i n the LXX i n which nomos i s connected with say that  'curse'."  He goes on to say, "There are passages which  one who does not keep the commandments ( e n t o l a i :  28:15) w i l l  see e . g . Deut  be cursed, but t h a t does not s u i t Paul's argument.  He wants a  passage which says t h a t the nomos brings a curse, and he c i t e s the only one which d o e s . " ^ 1  The opposites with which Paul i s working w i t h , p i s t i s / e r g a nomou and eulogia/kataran, r e f l e c t a polar l o g i c t h a t explains the gar i n v 10a.  The  curse pronouncement i s a negative proof of the conclusion drawn in v 9.  The  claim t h a t  it  is  those of f a i t h  who are blessed with Abraham, and only  those, i s supported by the f a c t t h a t those who are of the works of the law, the a l t e r n a t i v e , are under a curse.  Paul's polar l o g i c also indicates t h a t  the curse i s inherent in being of the works of the law.  I t i s an essential  rather than accidental f e a t u r e . The reason why the law curses a l l who are of the works of the law must be sought in the context of Gal 3:10 rather than in a missing premise. The E . P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People Fortress, 1983) 2 1 . 1 0  (Philadelphia:  137 curse i s  in d i r e c t  contrast to the blessing (v 9) which i s  (v 8 ) .  The j u s t i f i c a t i o n  person  (cf.  the  soteriological  in question i s not the v i n d i c a t i o n of a sinless  justification  justification  of  God in Rom 3 : 4 ) .  of the sinner.  Rather,  him,  the  law  it  curses  the  In t h i s context,  When a sinner comes to the law, instead of  automatically  is  Those ex ergon nomou in Gal  3:10 are those who seek t h i s j u s t i f i c a t i o n from the law. they are Gentiles.  justification  him because of  its  justifying  built-in  Hence the absurdity of seeking j u s t i f i c a t i o n from the law.  curse.  1 1  The idea t h a t  explains the verse i s the subject of d i s c u s s i o n — j u s t i f i c a t i o n . The argument in Gal 3:10 i s p a r a l l e l to the one in Rom 4:14-15. curse of the law and the wrath i t effect  is  passages,  the exact opposite of Paul  argues  against  The  produces are invoked to show that what was promised.  the  law  as  a means  its  Thus in these two of  inheriting  the  kleronomia or Abrahamic blessing by appealing to i t s opposite e f f e c t . Paul's choice of "wrath" in Rom 4:15 and of "curse" in Gal 3:10 are clearly  determined  "wrath"  because  by the respective  that  term  is  contexts.  thematic  in  In Rom 4:15,  the f i r s t  five  Paul  uses  chapters  of  1? Romans.  As already seen, the choice of "curse" in Gal 3:10 i s determined  by his polar l o g i c and p r o o f - t e x t i n g . Thus any semantic b a r r i e r to seeing Rom 4:15 and Gal 3:10 as p a r a l l e l passages i s removed. Thus f o r Paul the law i s adverse to the promise since i t i n e v i t a b l y , by i t s very nature, produces wrath and transgression or brings people under a curse.  Consequently,  if  the  law i s  related  to the promised  possession  ( k l e r o n o m i a ) , i t n u l l i f i e s the promise of t h a t possession since i t 11 Cf. Gal 2:15,17 where Gentiles are c a t e g o r i c a l l y judged sinners and are on a par w i t h the Jewish apostate. 12 Orge appears in Rom 1:18; 2 : 5 , 8 ; 3:5; 4:15; 5:9.  138 i n e v i t a b l y brings the opposite of t h a t possession. as  a means  (condition)  to  obtaining  So i f the law were added  the possession of  the  covenanted  promise, i t would indeed i n v a l i d a t e (akuroi) the covenant so as to  nullify  (eis to katargesai) the promise (Gal 3 : 1 7 ) .  C.  Promise and Law as Mutually Exclusive Categories  The a n t i t h e s i s between j u s t i f i c a t i o n and wrath or blessing and curse i s not  the  only  antithesis  between  promise  and law.  There i s  a n t i t h e s i s between grace and earning or believing and doing. is c l e a r l y stated in Rom 4 : 4 : charin a l i a kata opheilema. what  one does  not  work  also  the  This contrast  t9 de ergazomemj" ho misthos ou l o g i z e t a i kata What one works f o r i s considered his due, but  for,  i.e.,  he simply believes  (v 5:  tp de me  ergazomeno pisteuonti de), i s considered a g i f t or grace ( c h a r i s ) . The a n t i t h e s i s between grace and earning or f a i t h and doing i s present in Galatians 3, at least i n v 12.  The t e x t says, ho de nomos ouk e s t i n ek  p i s t e o s , a l l ' ho poiesas auta zesetai en a u t o i s .  L i f e , jwhich i s treated as  that which was promised and as an equivalent of righteousness i n v 2 1 , must, under the law, be achieved by doing according to the law and thus must be earned.  As such, the law i s not of f a i t h .  Commentators, generally  seen  the  taking  their  same m o t i f  clue from Paul's in  Gal  3:18.  use of  After  charizo,  having stated  have his  argument, ei gar ek nomou he kleronomia, ouketi ex epaggelia, Paul a f f i r m s , t~) de Abraam d i ' epaggelias kecharistai ho theos. Commenting on t h i s l a t t e r statement, Calvin w r i t e s , "And he immediately adds t h a t God gave i t to Abraham, not by r e q u i r i n g some sort of reciprocal compensation, but by f r e e promise.  For i f you take i t as c o n d i t i o n a l , the  139 word  gave would be u t t e r l y  inapplicable."  1  o  In  a similar  vein,  Burton  w r i t e s , "kecharistai emphasises the gracious, uncommercial, character of the grant,  and the perfect tense marks the grant as one s t i l l  r e c a l l i n g the argument of vv. 1 5 - 1 7 . H e n c e ,  in f o r c e ,  thus  charizo, to f r e e l y give, i s  understood as expressing the nature of promise to which law i s a n t i t h e t i c a l . A possession received ek nomou i s not given f r e e l y as i s the case when i t  is  received ex epaggelias. If  this  exactly  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Gal 3:18 i s c o r r e c t , then t h i s t e x t i s not  parallel  to Rom 4:14-15.  promise by i t s adverse e f f e c t . by i t s contrary nature:  In the  latter,  the  law n u l l i f i e s  the  In the former, the law n u l l i f i e s the promise  requirement instead of  gift.  The f a c t t h a t Gal 3:19 contains the notion i n . Rom 4:15, t h a t the law produces transgressions, does not mean t h a t the a n t i t h e s i s  in Gal 3:18 i s  the same as in Rom 4:14-15 since Gal 3:15-19 i s a complete u n i t in i t s e l f so that  a new  thought  significantly,  could  however,  the  easily  be  structure  d i f f e r e n t from t h a t i n Rom 4:14.  introduced of  the  in  argument  v 19. in Gal  More 3:18  is  Romans 4:14 says t h a t i f those of the law  Calvin, Galatians, e t c . , 60. 14  Burton, Galatians, 186. Luther, L i g h t f o o t , Oepke, Ebeling, Mussner and Betz f o l l o w the same l i n e of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . F. F. Bruce (The E p i s t l e of Paul t o the G a l a t i a n s [ E x e t e r : P a t e r n o s t e r , 1982] 174) gives the f o l l o w i n g unusual explanation of 3:18: " I f the inheritance of Abraham's descendants were based on law--more s p e c i f i c a l l y , the Mosaic law--then i t would belong to the people of the law ( c f . v 10, h o s o i . . . e x ergon nomou e i s i n ) , i . e . the Jewish n a t i o n . But i f i t i s based on the promise made to Abraham, generations before the giving of the law, then the law cannot affect i t . I t belongs to the people of f a i t h ( c f . v 7, hoi ek pisteos) who, whether of Jewish or Gentile b i r t h , are the true children of Abraham." Nowhere i n Galatians i s i t a question of whether the kleYonomia i s f o r Jews only or f o r a l l the children of Abraham by f a i t h . Also, the expression h o s o i . . . e x ergon nomou e i s i n c e r t a i n l y does not r e f e r to the Jewish n a t i o n . Rather, i t simply r e f e r s to those who seek j u s t i f i c a t i o n from the law. See analysis of Gal 3:15-18 on p. 46 above.  140 are h e i r s , f a i t h i s made void and the promise n u l l i f i e d .  This i s so because  what f a i t h believes and the promise holds out w i l l not happen since the law brings  the  argument.  opposite.  Galatians  I t says t h a t i f  promise.  3:18,  however,  contains  the inheritance i s of the law, i t cannot be of  In other words, i t must be one or the other.  I t cannot be both.  Such an argument hypothetical l y contemplates the p o s s i b i l i t y the inheritance by law and only argues t h a t i f by promise.  of  obtaining  i t were by law, i t cannot be  Hence, Paul resolves the e i t h e r / o r  God gave i t  a different  s i t u a t i o n by s t a t i n g  ( i . e . , the kleronomia) to Abraham by promise.  that  So the f a c t t h a t  the kleronomia was given by promise rather than t h a t the law's e f f e c t  is  opposite to what i s promised i s what decides in favour of the promise and against  the  law.  Law and promise thus  represent  mutually  exclusive  paradigms of salvation i n Gal 3:18. That suggested  Paul  has paradigms of  by the  absence of  salvation  in mind in Gal 3:18  the a r t i c l e s .  When Paul  promise(s) i n mind, he uses the a r t i c l e (vv 16, 17). de Abraam d i '  epaggelias kecharistai  has the  is  also  specific  C l e a r l y , i n v 18b, tp  ho theos, the absence of the  article  puts the emphasis on the nature of promise as opposed to what i s promised. The same i s true of  v 18a, ei  gar ek nomou...ouketi  ex epaggelias.  Rom  4:14, which does not argue from the nature of a promise, only mentions the promise with the a r t i c l e . Paul sees a t w o - f o l d a n t i t h e s i s between the law and the promise. law n u l l i f i e s 3:9-10). very  the promise by i t s  opposite e f f e c t  (Rom 4:14-15,  cf.  The Gal  But i t also n u l l i f i e s (katargeo) the promise by c o n t r a d i c t i n g the  nature  of  promise  (Gal  3:17-18).  This  a n t i t h e s i s between law and promise absolute.  latter  situation  makes the  Not only by the law's e f f e c t ,  but by i t s contrary nature i s the law incompatible with the promise.  141 The two antitheses are i n t i m a t e l y r e l a t e d . produces transgression demanding righteousness.  and wrath by p o i n t i n g  out  As we have seen, the law sin.  It  does t h i s  by  Also, i t curses those who do not continue i n what  i s w r i t t e n in the law to do.  So again, the law's adverse e f f e c t i s based on  i t s requirement to do and continue.  The fundamental problem with the law i s  in the paradigm of salvation i t represents.  D.  Paul's Fundamental Departure from Judaism  In Judaism covenant was Torah and promise was inseparable from law. Paul's  idea of  a promise wholly free from law i s outside of the pale of  Jewish thought and his argument that promise and law are mutually exclusive an a f f r o n t to i t .  This departure from Judaism i s so fundamental t h a t there  can be no real u n i t y between Paul and Judaism. them must i n e v i t a b l y be p a r t i a l Jewish thought i s r e j e c t e d .  Any conceptual u n i t y between  and fragmented since in Paul the heart of  142 CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSIONS FOR THE STUDY OF COVENANT IN PAUL  A.  The Results of the Present Study of Paul's Understanding of Covenant  The present disunity  investigation  has disclosed both a fundamental  in the covenant concepts of Paul and Judaism.  t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n of covenant. the p a t r i a r c h a l  unity and  The u n i t y l i e s  in  The d i s u n i t y l i e s in t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of  and S i n a i t i c covenant formulations.  Both Paul's agreement  and break with the Jewish understanding of covenant receive clear expression in Gal 3:15-18. In  Gal  enactment.  While  Hellenistic does  Paul  sees  covenant  he has the OT covenant  primarily  as an  specifically  irrevocable  in mind,  he uses  legal terminology f o r i t due to speaking kata anthropon.  not  mean t h a t  institution covenant  3:15,17  is  conclusions  he sees covenant  of the Greco-Roman world. of  a general  from a j u r i s t i c  light  The legal  and does  concerning the i n s t i t u t i o n  anthropon, he i s  not  of  any p a r t i c u l a r  perspective  However,  irrevocable  institution  the  to  warrant  he has i n mind.  establish  idea of  legal  terminology he uses f o r  simply contemplating the i n s t i t u t i o n  enactment.  Century AD.  nature  in  This  any  In speaking kata of the OT covenant  the absolute nature of  the OT covenant  specific  such an  as a sacrosanct  and  was not necessarily foreign to people of the 1st  Thus Paul could e a s i l y invoke human judgement to e s t a b l i s h the  absolute nature of covenant since a l l who understood the i n s t i t u t i o n would acknowledge t h i s . Paul's covenant term i s diatheke.  In understanding di atheke simply as  an enactment, Paul i s using the term in i t s basic sense.  While diatheke i s  143 a technical  term f o r  last  will,  which  institution  has the nuance of  d i s p o s i t i o n or one-sided arrangement, the idea of one-sidedness i s not the primary sense of the term.  The few times diatheke appears in secular Greek  usage with a sense other than " l a s t w i l l " c l e a r l y show t h a t the primary idea in t h i s term i s t h a t of binding or f i x i n g .  The broader usage of diatheke i n  the LXX and Apocrypha corroborates t h i s conclusion.  The use of diatheke" f o r  a l a s t w i l l does not argue against t h i s contention since a l a s t w i l l can be understood simply as a binding a c t . A survey  of  Greek,  Aramaic  and Hebrew  sources  of  the  Jewish  understanding of covenant shows t h a t i t i s understood precisely i n the sense of  diatheke  established  ordinance.  in  Hence, contrary  this  study:  a binding  to the majority  act,  opinion,  enactment  there  is  unanimity in the understanding of the nature of the covenantal  or  complete  institution  w i t h i n the various groups i n Judaism and between Paul and Judaism. Judaism  also  holds  firmly  explicated by Paul in Gal 3:15,17. f o r r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t ends. taken to mean t h a t people  are  covenant.  not  the  irrevocable  nature  of  covenant  Paul and Judaism, however, use t h i s idea  In Judaism the absolute nature of covenant i s  the various covenant formulations between God and his  different  Paul,  to  however,  covenants uses t h i s  but  simply  idea to  Abrahamic enactment from the S i n a i t i c law.  renewals  isolate  of  one basic  and insulate  Though c h r i s t o l o g i c a l  the  interests  are, no doubt, behind t h i s move on the part of Paul, in Gal 3:18 he bases the separation of the two covenant formulations on the mutual exclusiveness of t h e i r respective characters, promise and law.  Thus Paul breaks up the  unity  singular  at  impossible.  the  heart  of  Judaism and makes  the  covenant  motif  In t h i s move l i e s Paul's break with Judaism.  The bearing of the present study on the contemporary discussion of the  144 Pauline and Jewish views of covenant represented by the work of the three scholars o u t l i n e d i n chapter one w i l l now be discussed.  B.  Understanding Covenant  The three positions outlined  in chapter one share a common s t a r t i n g  point in the Jewish or " c o r r e c t " view of covenant. receives  its  Sanders'  clearest,  and perhaps  "covenantal nomism."  already  This view of covenant  classical,  alignment category, itself,  of  a contract,  law i s  contract.  Thus the law i s not a  but is only part of a covenant t h a t embraces i t .  covenant  and  in  This formula sees covenant as the framework  in which law operates ( i . e . , nomism i s covenantal). covenant in i t s e l f  formulation  law  assumes  that  covenant  is  This  a relational  rather than simply an ordinance or binding a c t .  not a c o n t r a c t .  At the most,  In  law can only be part of a  I t can only be a s t i p u l a t i o n of a c o n t r a c t .  This understanding  of covenant i s challenged by the present study. The  contractual  c r i t i c i s m of Paul.  understanding  covenant  lies  behind  Schoeps'  Schoeps' complains t h a t Paul "wrested and isolated the  law from the c o n t r o l l i n g could only wrest  of  the  contract.  However,  criticism  dissipates.  context  of  God's covenant with  law from the context if  covenant Rather  collapses the two so t h a t  is  simply  than  Israel."  1  Paul  of covenant i f  covenant i s a  an enactment,  then Schoeps'  divorcing  covenant  law cannot be seen as " w i t h i n "  and law,  Paul  the context  of  According  to  covenant. Sanders  does not  follow  Schoeps, Paul, 213.  Schoeps  1  c r i t i c i s m of  Paul.  145 Sanders,  Paul's  understanding  of  break  with  covenant.  against Sanders'  Judaism  is  not  based  on  d e f i n i t i o n of covenant, i t  leaves Sanders'  interpretation  In f a c t , Sanders' contention t h a t  Paul c o r r e c t l y understood Judaism and consciously rejected i t present  Sanders'  thesis.  formula,  particular  Consequently, while the present study argues  of Paul's r e l a t i o n s h i p to Judaism i n t a c t .  by the  a  However,  "covenantal  the present  nomism," f o r  study c a l l s  i s sustained into  question  the Jewish understanding  of  covenant which he sees Paul r e j e c t i n g . In  light  of  the present  study  "covenantal  nomism" i s  tautological.  Since covenant i s a binding act or an enactment and thus law i s a covenant in  itself,  "nomism."  the  adjective  "covenantal"  does  not  meaningfully  qualify  The idea of an enactment or covenant i s i m p l i c i t in the idea of  law and nomism. In the singular covenant motif i n Judaism, the t a u t o l o g i c a l "covenantal  nomism" extends i n t o the  theological  level.  nature of  Not only i s the  law by d e f i n i t i o n a covenant, but also the one covenant t h a t i s repeatedly renewed i s the law.  Hence, i n Judaism we have a complete i d e n t i t y between  covenant and law. In  Pauline thought,  covenant  and law are more c l e a r l y  distinguished  than i n Judaism due to Paul's r e j e c t i o n of the singular covenant motif and thus the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of covenant and law. as being without law. "covenantal  He sees the Abrahamic covenant  However, even working with Paul's system of thought,  nomism" i s  a questionable  formulation.  For Paul,  the  only  covenant t h a t the law i s related to is the S i n a i t i c one which simply i_s the law. The t a u t o l o g i c a l  nature of "covenantal nomism" raises the question as  to the background and ultimate source of t h i s f o r m u l a t i o n .  Unfortunately,  146 in his otherwise excellent work on Paul and Palestinian Judaism, Sanders does not carry on an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the d e f i n i t i o n of "covenant."  He  simply assumes t h a t the u n i v e r s a l l y accepted d e f i n i t i o n of covenant w i t h i n his t r a d i t i o n of scholarship i s that held by 1st Century Judaism.  Hence, a  review of "covenantal nomism" i s a review of the p r e v a i l i n g understanding of covenant and law. The formula "covenantal nomism" has a point of contact with Paul i n i t s understanding of nomos.  Since Paul divorces law from promise, law has a  negative and l e g a l i s t i c sense. in "nomism."  This bare and legal sense of law i s entailed  The adjective "covenantal," however, i s not taken from Paul.  Neither, as already noticed, i s i t taken from the p r e v a i l i n g of covenant in 1st Century Judaism.  understanding  However, i t can be traced to a Jewish  root. The u n d e r s t a n d i n g nomism has i t s Century.  roots  of  covenant  i n Aquila's  as a contract  use of  assumed i n  suntheke f o r  bertt  covenantal in  the 2nd  Though Aquila was a Jew, one can only say with reservations t h a t  the adjective "covenantal" i s derived from Judaism since the s p e c i f i c in suntheke does not represent the central  idea  notion in the Jewish covenant  concept. One can only speculate as to why Aquila used suntheke f o r beVft.  The  reason given by Schoeps t h a t Aquila and Symmachus were more strongly rooted in the Rabbinic t r a d i t i o n weight. on his  of the LXX c a r r i e s  He gives no proof f o r his assertion. assumption t h a t  Moreover,  2  than the t r a n s l a t o r s  the  present  suntheke  is  little  Perhaps i t i s simply based  the more exact t r a n s l a t i o n of  study has shown a unanimous consensus  I b i d , 217.  i  berft.  throughout  147 Judaism,  w i t h the exception of  understood as a diatheke.  Aquila and Symmachus, that  Whether Aquila's  covenant was  change in terminology  from  diatheke in the LXX t o suntheke has anything to do with the Jewish r e j e c t i o n of the LXX as a C h r i s t i a n Bible is uncertain.  I f a Christian interpretation  of  the change in  "covenant"  was urged  against  Judaism,  understandable.  There may also be some basis f o r  suntheke  Jewish theology of  motif,  i n the  promise  and  law,  which  covenant.  represent  terms may be  rendering  bertt  In the singular  with  covenant  divine  and human commitments  r e s p e c t i v e l y , were united i n t o an i n d i s s o l u b l e u n i t .  Perhaps Aquila sought  to h i g h l i g h t t h i s aspect of the Jewish understanding of covenant. The a d j e c t i v e ,  "covenantal,"  in  "covenantal  considered to be derived from Judaism i f  nomism" may thus be  i t i s taken only to represent the  i n c l u s i v e understanding of covenant in Judaism, which embraces promise and law.  But the idea of law as bare regulation i s not Jewish.  The Damascus  Document shows how the promise in the covenant i s the blessing attached to Torah.  The idea of law without promise i s Pauline.  "covenantal  nomism,"  inclusive exclusive  is  at  understanding idea of  best  of  the  law in Paul.  Judaism nor to Paul.  a theological divine  Hence, the formula,  hybrid.  covenant  in  It  draws on the  Judaism and on the  The formula, however, belongs to  neither  I t i s a cross between two systems of thought and thus  f a i l s to represent e i t h e r system of thought properly. Despite any theological bertt making  with  suntheke,  bertt  j u s t i f i c a t i o n Aquila may have f o r  the t r a n s l a t i o n  a contract  instead  of  is  both wrong and misleading.  an ordinance,  obscured the i d e n t i t y of law and covenant.  translating  this  translation  By has  This, i n t u r n , has obscured the  singular covenant motif which was suggested as a possible basis f o r A q u i l a ' s use of suntheke.  This motif  requires the notion t h a t Torah i t s e l f  is a  148 covenant.  The i d e n t i t y  Jewish notion t h a t  between Torah and covenant leads to .the s p e c i f i c  Torah is  the one renewed covenant which the  idea  of  covenant as contract obscures. The  idea  that  covenant  is  a contract  formulation of the problem of covenant f o r has raised  the question how Paul r e l a t e s  has  also  led  to  a faulty  Pauline studies inasmuch as i t to the covenantal  view of  law.  S t r i c t l y speaking, Paul did not have a covenantal view of law since f o r him the  law  itself  conclusions held  the  is  a covenant.  But  about Paul's r e l a t i o n s h i p same p o s i t i o n .  (Schoeps), rejected  Hence,  (Sanders)  this  fact  does  not  warrant  to Judaism since, f o r m a l l y ,  the  claims  that  Paul  any  Judaism  misunderstood  or accepted (Gaston) the covenantal  view of  the law are a l l erroneous. Using Pauline categories, one might suggest "promissory nomism" f o r the Jewish  view  of  understood. context  law against which the  In Judaism, rather  of covenant,  it  than  Pauline treatment law being  seen in  of  law must be  the  controlling  i s seen as inseparably united with promise.  The  formula, promissory nomism, has the advantage over covenantal nomism i n not being t a u t o l o g i c a l .  But i t has the disadvantage of formulating the Jewish  p o s i t i o n from the perspective of the Pauline dichotomy between promise and law.  Also, t h i s formulation omits the category of covenant, the basic term  f o r the divine enactments i n question. The real c o n f l i c t  between the Pauline and Jewish views of the law i s  over the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the covenant formulations of the OT. law are the concern of these formulations. summarized patriarchal Thus, i t  in  the  singular  and S i n a i t i c  covenant  Promise and  The Jewish p o s i t i o n  motif.  covenant formulations  This into  motif  is  best  unites  the  one basic  covenant.  also unites promise and law, the two covenanted elements, i n t o an  149 indissoluble u n i t y . that  is  between  lacking Paul  I t i s t h i s u n i t a r y view of the OT covenant formulations in  Paul's  understanding  of  the  and Judaism concerns whether or  law.  Thus, the  not the S i n a i t i c  debate  covenant  formulation i s a re-enactment of the p a t r i a r c h a l covenant. Formulating the problem of covenant f o r Pauline studies i n terms of the singular covenant motif has several Jewish  orientation  toward  the  advantages.  divine  First,  it  represents the  covenant formulations  of  the OT.  Second, i t e n t a i l s the issues of law and promise and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p with each other, which are at stake in Paul's c r i t i q u e of the law.  Third,  represents  in  the  fundamental  break  between  Paul  and Judaism  it  their  respective i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the OT covenant formulations.  C.  Paul's Point of Departure from Judaism  While Schoeps and Sanders agree t h a t Paul r a d i c a l l y departs from the Jewish understanding break  with  background  of  Judaism. of  the  law,  Schoeps  rabbinic  they disagree on the grounds of sets  out to  presuppositions.  understand Paul He f i n d s  Paul's  against  the key to  the  Paul's  treatment of the law p a r t i c u l a r l y i n "the f a c t that f o r a Jew the problem of the a b o l i t i o n of the law could only be solved by the law i t s e l f , drawing out from s c r i p t u r e the " t r u e meaning of the law"."  i.e.,  by  In keeping with  t h i s hermeneutical presupposition, Schoeps sees Paul breaking with Judaism on i n t e r n a l  grounds,  on Paul's  understanding  of  elements w i t h i n  Judaism  itself. Schoeps'  3  discovery  I b i d , 170.  of  Paul's  radically  non-Jewish use of  rabbinic  150 presuppositions basis  of  and the law leads him to look at Paul i n the l i g h t of the  Judaism,  the  idea  of  fundamental misunderstanding t h a t against  covenant.  Here  Schoeps  l i e s behind his peculiar  finds  Paul's  use of the law  itself.  Sanders  approaches  Paul from a d i f f e r e n t  perspective.  Rather  than  seeking to i n t e r p r e t Paul in l i g h t of Jewish presuppositions, he approaches Paul with the i n t e r e s t of comparing "patterns of r e l i g i o n . " Sanders  looks  to the Pauline  Paul's treatment of the law.  pattern  of  religion  to f i n d  Accordingly, the basis  for  Consequently, Sanders f i n d s Paul breaking with  Judaism on grounds wholly external to Judaism, i . e . , c h r i s t o l o g y and his own Christian soteriology. Sanders' approach to Paul i s in keeping with his basic concern i n Paul and Palestinian Judaism.  The t a r g e t of his apologia f o r Judaism i s Western  scholarship which has p e r s i s t e n t l y interpreted Judaism from i t s own rather than Jewish presuppositions and sources.  Sanders i s very sensitive to the  d i s t o r t i o n s t h a t r e s u l t from such an approach. proof-texting  for  He c o r r e c t l y emphasizes t h a t  one's characterization of the r e l i g i o n i n question only  masks the biased c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n .  As a c o r r e c t i v e to such a d i s t o r t i n g  approach, he proposes a comparative study of the patterns of r e l i g i o n .  This  means determining the pattern of each r e l i g i o n , i n t e r p r e t i n g the t e x t s and elements of each r e l i g i o n  in l i g h t of i t s own pattern instead of  drawn from o u t s i d e  religion,  that  and then  comparing  the  notions  patterns.  4  Sanders' approach thus c a l l s f o r a moratorium on the approach represented by Schoeps.  I t also leads to emphasizing the grounds w i t h i n Paul's pattern of  r e l i g i o n ( f o r e i g n t o Judaism) t h a t led to his break with Judaism. 4  For an evaluation of the success of Sanders' undertaking, see Jacob Neussner, "Comparing Judaisms," HR 18. 2 (Nov, 1978) 177-191.  151 Sanders' approach to comparing Paul and Judaism minimizes the impact of the erroneous notion t h a t law i s r i g h t l y understood as a part of covenant on his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Paul.  Schoeps' approach maximizes i t .  The important  question raised by the two approaches, however, i s whether Paul's break with Judaism rests on grounds i n t e r n a l or external to Judaism. The present study has shown t h a t on the meaning of covenant, Paul i s i n agreement with universally  Judaism.  accepted  He i s  in  the  working with the d e f i n i t i o n  Judaism of  his  time.  misunderstanding" i s with Schoeps rather than with Paul.  The  of  covenant  "fundamental  Yet, Schoeps was  not altogether wrong i n p o i n t i n g to the covenant concept as the issue.  He simply went astray in t r a c i n g the d i s p a r i t y  critical  between Paul and  Judaism to d i f f e r i n g d e f i n i t i o n s of covenant. By separating the p a t r i a r c h a l and S i n a i t i c covenant formulations and by making promise and law mutually exclusive concepts, Paul r a d i c a l l y breaks with  the  Jewish understanding  of  covenant.  But  in t h i s  case also,  as  Schoeps notes in other instances, Paul uses basic Jewish notions to argue f o r non-Jewish conclusions. Paul  shares  with  Judaism the  notions  that  covenant  is  the  basic  s o t e r i o l o g i c a l category, t h a t covenant i s a binding and irrevocable act and that  it  is  renewed with the seed.  But from these notions he draws the  t o t a l l y non-Jewish conclusion t h a t the Abrahamic enactment i s both isolated and insulated from the law. The cause critical  for  this  turn  against  concern f o r Pauline s t u d i e s .  with Judaism to his c h r i s t o l o g i c a l  Judaism in  Paul's  thought  Sanders traces Paul's radical  presuppositions.  is  of  break  Thus, Paul i s seen as  r e j e c t i n g Judaism simply because i t i s not C h r i s t i a n i t y .  The clash between  Paul and Judaism, concentrated on the question of law, i s simply a clash  152 between two patterns of r e l i g i o n . The c h r i s t o l o g i c a l  basis f o r Paul's c r i t i q u e of the law can hardly be  denied.  Paul received a r e v e l a t i o n of Christ (Gal 1:16) i n view of which he  saw a l l  he had achieved in Judaism, especially v i a the law,  dross  (Phil  christology simply  3:4-11).  i n his thought.  rejected  different  These biographical  Judaism  f a c t s e s t a b l i s h the p r i o r i t y  But from t h i s , and i t s  "pattern of r e l i g i o n "  as loss and  view of  it  of  does not f o l l o w t h a t Paul  the  law because i t  than what he found in C h r i s t .  was of  a  Paul does  c r i t i c i z e the law from the law. Paul's r e j e c t i o n of the Jewish view of covenant by r e - i n t e r p r e t i n g the covenantal  formulations  of  the  Pentateuch  is  dichotomizing of promise and law i n Gal 3:18.  clearly  established  in  his  Paul i s drawing from the very  nature of the enactments to a r r i v e at his non-Jewish conclusions about the law.  Through t h i s hermeneutical move, Paul shatters the u n i t y at the basis  of Judaism. As a r e s u l t of Paul's separating promise and law, any agreement between Paul and Judaism i s at best p a r t i a l and fragmentary. does, use Jewish notions.  Paul can, and l a r g e l y  But having rejected the u n i t a r y view of covenant,  he cannot a r r i v e at a Jewish synthesis.  By shattering the u n i t y between law  and promise, Paul has destroyed the Jewish i n t e g r a t i n g p o i n t . I f Paul begins with a c h r i s t o l o g i c a l and external basis i n his c r i t i q u e of the law, he ends with a hermeneutical and i n t e r n a l basis f o r the  law.  All  this  has nothing to  do with  the basic  covenant as an i n s t i t u t i o n , as Schoeps supposes. the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  of the covenant formulations  Paul's point of departure from Judaism.  rejecting  understanding  of  I t simply has to do with of the Torah.  Here l i e s  153 D.  The F i n a l i t y of Paul's Break with Judaism  The d i s c u s s i o n Paul's  treatment  assumption critique  is  thus f a r  of  the  law  challenged  the  represents  i s not the Torah of Judaism.  traditional  a break  by Gaston who argues that  would leave Judaism i n t a c t . to  has assumed with Schoeps and Sanders with  Judaism.  that This  the nomos of  Paul's  Hence, Paul's treatment of the law  Gaston's thesis represents a major a l t e r n a t i v e  and commonly accepted  interpretation  of  Paul.  The  bearing of the present study on t h i s thesis w i l l b r i e f l y be considered. Gaston comes to the problem of Paul and Judaism with the assumption that the view of covenant put f o r t h by Schoeps and Sanders i s c o r r e c t .  The  previously given c r i t i q u e of t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of covenant thus s t r i k e s at the basis of his t h e s i s .  Like Schoeps, Gaston basis his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  Paul d i r e c t l y on the idea of a covenantal view of the law.  Schoeps f i n d s i n  the absence of t h i s notion i n Paul's c r i t i q u e of the law the real underlying his treatment of the law.  Gaston agrees with Schoeps t h a t the  idea of "covenant" i s absent from the law of Paul's c r i t i q u e . interprets  this  Judaism, i . e . , it,  i.e.,  problem  absence as meaning t h a t  He, however,  Paul i s not c r i t i c i z i n g Torah in  law i n the context of covenant, but law as the Gentiles have  law without  covenant.  Gaston also  affirms  that  Paul  accepts  covenantal nomism f o r Jews. The f i n d i n g s of the present study seriously challenge Gaston's t h e s i s . Since covenant i s simply an enactment, the law i t s e l f i s a covenant and both the ideas of law without covenant and law in the context of covenant are fallacious.  Furthermore, in Jewish thought law i s not simply covenant by  definition  but  there  is  no covenant  without  law.  This  complete  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of covenant and law in Judaism means t h a t a c r i t i q u e of law  154 i s a c r i t i q u e of covenant. As a r e s u l t  of  working  with  the  idea of  covenantal  nomism which  represents neither Pauline nor Jewish thought, Gaston's thesis i s erroneous. His p o s i t i o n , however, can be reformulated in terms of the singular covenant motif.  I t might be argued t h a t f o r Jews Paul understood the Mosaic law as  the renewal of the p a t r i a r c h a l covenant, and, f o r Gentiles, law as separate from promise.  As a r e s u l t , Torah would form a u n i t with promise as f a r as  the Jews are concerned. and Judaism. promise  Such a thesis encounters d i f f i c u l t i e s  From a Pauline perspective,  and law are mutually exclusive.  it  in both Paul  encounters the problem t h a t  From a Jewish perspective,  it  encounters the d i f f i c u l t y t h a t there i s no law-free promise. So f a r  only the conceptual  side of Gaston's work has been t r e a t e d .  Gaston also argues from s p e c i f i c t e x t s .  A review of the exegetical aspect  of his thesis i s beyond the scope of the present study.  Some considerations  on the exegetical basis of his work, however, may be pointed out here. Gaston does not have any Jewish or Pauline t e x t s t h a t e x p l i c i t l y teach his t h e s i s .  His thesis must be i n f e r r e d from the t e x t s .  p r i n c i p a l d i f f i c u l t y with the t e x t u a l  But here l i e s the  basis f o r his theory.  Inference can  e a s i l y amount to nothing more than reading an idea i n t o the t e x t .  Since  Gaston reads the Pauline and Jewish t e x t s in l i g h t of covenantal nomism, an idea foreign to both Pauline and Jewish thought, one must be suspicious of his exegesis from the outset. work requires  Nevertheless,  a painstaking review of  his  a thorough treatment of  his  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the t e x t s he  uses to see i f the t e x t s can possibly be understood to represent his theory. The present study only affords a l i m i t e d c r i t i q u e of Gaston's t h e s i s . This much i s c l e a r , thesis i s untenable.  however:  if  the present thesis i s c o r r e c t ,  Gaston's  The dichotomy which Paul sets up between promise and  155 law  shatters  covenant  the unifying  motif.  idea in  As a r e s u l t ,  Jewish thought  Paul's  break w i t h  found in  the  singular  Judaism i s f i n a l .  By  parting with the singular covenant m o t i f , Paul f i n d s himself outside of the pale of Jewish thought.  E.  Final Reflections  I  will  close  the. present  study  with  some r e f l e c t i o n s  oq  its  d e f i n i t i o n a l task and with a suggestion concerning the f u r t h e r questions f o r Pauline studies i t r a i s e s . I embarked on the research f o r t h i s thesis sensing a need f o r a fresh investigation  into  the meaning of  completed the t h e s i s , retrospect, covenant  I  I  clearly  constitute  ground the  Pauline  am convinced of the need f o r see that  has been g r e a t l y  definitional  covenant f o r  impaired  work.  principal  Pauline  Having  such a study.  In  on the question  of  and even handicapped by the  Some of barriers  scholarship  studies.  the  causes  for  that  stand  in  this, the  lack  which  way of  of also  fresh  d e f i n i t i o n a l work, w i l l be considered. There  is  an almost  complete scholarly  consensus t h a t  covenant i s properly a suntheke rather than a d i a t h i k e .  the  Biblical  This consensus i s  r e f l e c t e d in the absence of a serious attempt t o define covenant i n the work of the three scholars reviewed in chapter one.  Sanders makes no attempt at  d e f i n i n g covenant in Jewish and Pauline thought.  He simply  speaks about  covenant.  Gaston assumes the work of Sanders and likewise f a i l s to define  covenant.  Schoeps makes a b r i e f and sketchy attempt at defining covenant.  Schoeps, Paul, pp. 214-215.  5  156 He c i t e s a few OT references which show that law and covenant are c l o s e l y related.  These t e x t s a c t u a l l y confirm the r e s u l t s of the present study t h a t  the law i s a covenant. that  covenant  is  This idea, however, i s missed by Schoeps who holds  a contract  and that  law i s  only  a part  of  covenant.  Furthermore, in arguing t h a t beVft i s properly suntheke, Schoeps does not have t o  enter  into  a discussion  with  a counter-position.  contention i s simply u n i v e r s a l l y assumed. raised, The triumph  Schoeps'  A few dissenting voices have been  but they have not received serious a t t e n t i o n . lack of  of  the  definitional tradition  introduced by A q u i l a .  work on covenant  of  translation  is  due to  the  complete  of  covenant  and understanding  This t r a d i t i o n has formed the t r a n s l a t i o n terms, the  theological vocabulary and the conceptual framework of Western scholarship. It  has been so pervasive t h a t  it  represents an almost universal  consensus  t h a t receives no serious challenge. Overcoming the l i n g u i s t i c and conceptual consensus has proven to be the most d i f f i c u l t entirely  with  task of the present study. current  scholarship  to  This has meant at times parting  strike  out  on my own.  This was  p a r t i c u l a r l y the case i n determining the meaning of be>ft in the DSS.  All  the t r a n s l a t i o n s and works on the DSS simply assume the beVft i s a c o n t r a c t . Hence, there was very l i t t l e , i f any, scholarly d i r e c t i o n and support t h a t I could obtain f o r  my t h e s i s .  However, the attempt at f r e s h l y  redefining  b e r f t i n the DSS proved f r u i t f u l . I began to study the t e x t s of Qumran i n an experimental fashion to see i f beVft could be understood as an enactment or ordinance.  I soon realized  t h a t i t was necessary to study the theology of covenant in the t e x t s rather  e g . , Kutsch, Neues Testament - Neuer Bund?  157 than j u s t  beVTt.  isolated t e x t s containing the term  This study confirmed  the hypothesis with which I set out to study the DSS and resulted in a new understanding of the idea of covenant at Qumran.  covenant  was discovered in Jubilees  and  was  The same understanding of  corroborated  by the other Jewish  evidence surveyed in the process of w r i t i n g t h i s t h e s i s . The fresh i n s i g h t s understanding  of  on the idea of covenant in Judaism led to a new  Paul's  relationship  with  Judaism.  However,  the  fresh  i n s i g h t s also led me to part w i t h the p r e v a i l i n g scholarly i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of both Paul and Judaism.  As a r e s u l t , I have struck out on a new and untried  path. The d e f i n i t i o n a l in  the understanding  berit  task of t h i s study also had to deal with d i s t o r t i o n s of  diatheke.  The discussion on the t r a n s l a t i o n  i n the LXX and NT has l a r g e l y  assumed that  the s p e c i f i c  diatheke is that of the one-sidedness of an arrangement.  idea  of in  This assumption  has contributed to the conviction t h a t diatheke i s not the appropriate term f o r b e r i t since the nuance of one-sidedness i s c l e a r l y absent from  beVft.  The emphasis on the notion of one-sidedness i n diatheke may in part be due to A q u i l a ' s  suntheke  alternative  rendering of  berTt.  In much scholarly work,  i s simply not treated as an a l t e r n a t i v e rendering  opposite to diatheke.  but  as the polar  The emphasis on two-sidedness in suntheke seems to  have determined the understanding of diatheke  in b i b l i c a l  studies.  Even  Kutsch's work, which contributed s i g n i f i c a n t l y toward the present t h e s i s , i s afflicted  with  the  assumption  that  diatheke  is  the polar  opposite  of  suntheke". The use of diatheke f o r a l a s t w i l l disparity institution  between t h i s  term and beVtt.  in terms of the t e s t a t o r ' s  also contributed to the sense of We understand the act of disposal.  testamentary  Hence, the one-  158 sidedness of the arrangement i s emphasized.  But the idea of one-sidedness  expresses only one aspect of the i n s t i t u t i o n in question.  Another i s the  notion of  A study of the  a binding act i r r e s p e c t i v e of  usage of  diatheke shows t h a t t h i s  di atheke  by which  the  "one-sidedness."  latter  testamentary  idea i s the s p e c i f i c  act  was understood.  nuance of  Scholarship,  however, l a r g e l y f a i l e d to see t h i s due to reading i n t o the Greek term f o r a l a s t w i l l our s p e c i f i c understanding of t h a t instrument. The d i s t o r t i o n s serious  problem  assumptions longer  in  of  that  the meanings of  can  afflict  bent  and diatheke  scholarship  in  any  a given area can so dominate scholarship  see beyond them.  A universal  unchallenged and even unnoticed.  consensus  leaves  point  area. that the  to a  Certain it  can no  assumptions  Moreover, a l l the terms i n questions can  be subconsciously defined i n terms of the assumptions which r e s u l t s in the assumptions being b u i l t i n t o our vocabulary, the very b u i l d i n g blocks of our thought.  These dangers c o n t i n u a l l y c a l l  us back to the most basic,  the  definitional,  task which must be carried on with a healthy skepticism and  self-critical  attitude.  Critical  definitional  work does not only require  preconceived  notions  about  sensitivity  to  factors  the  the  meaning  of  determining  terms the  but  breaking also  development  through  demands a of  terms.  Unfortunately, scholarship has not always been s e n s i t i v e to these f a c t o r s . The impact t h a t translation  the  adoption of  and t h e o l o g i c a l  diatheke  discussion  into a particular  tradition  of  has on the meaning and f u r t h e r  development of t h a t term has been almost e n t i r e l y overlooked i n scholarship. This consideration, however, g r e a t l y q u a l i f i e s the evidence from outside the given t r a d i t i o n  of  translation  and thought f o r  t r a n s l a t i o n and theological terms.  the meaning of  important  For the present study, t h i s concerns the  159 weight given to papyrological NT.  But despite t h i s cautionary note, the present study has shown t h a t the  Biblical with  evidence f o r the meaning of diatheke in the  use of terms such as kleronomia and diatheke i s not  the  secular  usage  of  these  terms.  In f a c t ,  incompatible  the B i b l i c a l  usage  preserves the broader and non-technical sense of the terms t h a t are obscured in the terms' secular usage as known through extant sources. In view of the f a c t o r s historical  that  influence our own understanding and the  development of terms, the d e f i n i t i o n a l  However, i t i s also important and f r u i t f u l . an a l t e r e d  understanding  of  covenant  task i s a d i f f i c u l t  one.  The present study has shown how can r a d i c a l l y  restructure  one's  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Judaism and Paul and how the l a t t e r r e l a t e s to the former. Furthermore, f a u l t y d e f i n i t i o n s i n v a r i a b l y contribute to a scholarly muddle and can set what may be otherwise good scholarship on a f a u l t y basis and thus impair a scholar's e n t i r e work. The changed understanding  of  covenant proposed i n the present  study  introduces new questions.  The troublesome issue about a covenantal and non-  covenantal  law  view  of  the  vanishes.  The p r i n c i p a l  question  for  a  comparative study of the Pauline and Jewish understandings of covenant now concerns the d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the OT covenant formulations. changed understanding also leads to fresh h i s t o r i c a l  problems.  It  The  raises  the question as to the development of Paul's r a d i c a l l y non-Jewish p o s i t i o n on the OT covenant formulations.  One source f o r answers w i l l , no doubt, be  his own c h r i s t o l o g y and s o t e r i o l o g y . explored f o r  possible p a r a l l e l s  But non-Pauline sources must also be  and antecedents to his p o s i t i o n .  I  will  close t h i s study with a suggestion about the immediate precursor to Paul's i  radical break with the u n i t a r y view of covenant in Judaism. To my knowledge, no other NT w r i t i n g separates promise and law as Paul  160 does.  This separation seems to be genuinely Pauline.  The break with the  singular covenant m o t i f , however, i s r e f l e c t e d in the teaching about the new covenant in Hebrews.  The author of Hebrews argues that the new covenant i s  a better covenant ( 8 : 6 ) , that i t  replaces (instead of renews) the old one  ( 8 : 7 , 1 3 ) , and t h a t i t i s based on a better s a c r i f i c e as a r e s u l t of which i t o u t s t r i p s the former ( 9 : 2 3 ) .  In Hebrews, the new covenant t h a t i s based on  a superior s a c r i f i c e , the death of C h r i s t , i s q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t the old one.  Hebrews also argues t h a t  change of law ( 7 : 1 2 ) . Jewish.  from  a change of priesthood e n t a i l s a  This idea of a new covenant replacing the old i s non-  The Damascus Document speaks of a new covenant.  But t h i s covenant  is only a renewal of the one and only covenant the sectaries envisioned.  In  t h i s regard, Hebrews breaks with the Jewish understanding of covenant. The idea of a new covenant based on the blood of Christ i s present i n the e u c h a r i s t i c formula, which Paul received from the Lord (1 Cor 11:23-25). The author  of  Hebrews only draws out  the conclusion  that  the change  in  priesthood and s a c r i f i c e entailed in the idea of a new covenant i n C h r i s t ' s blood involves a change rather than a renewal of covenant. the death of which c l e a r l y  Jesus Christ  as the basis of  antedates Paul,  covenant was replaced.  inevitably  represent a natural  development.  the law was the f u l f i l l m e n t lead to Paul's p o s i t i o n . promise  and the  in  a new covenant and s a l v a t i o n ,  led to the idea that the Mosaic  In pre-Pauline C h r i s t i a n i t y ,  between promise and law was not made.  The b e l i e f  however, a dichotomy  But Paul's separating of the two may  From the conviction t h a t Christ and not  of the promise, a two-fold development would  First,  Christ would be linked d i r e c t l y with the  law be subordinated  in the  soteriology  of  the church.  Second, the a n t i t h e s i s involved in the idea that the new covenant i n Christ replaced  the  old  Mosaic  covenant  could  easily  be t r a n s f e r r e d  to  the  161 r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Mosaic law and the promise t h a t Christ  fulfilled.  Thus while Paul's radical separation of promise and law has no antecedents, the  separation  soteriology.  nevertheless  has roots  in early Christian c h r i s t o l o g y and  The pre-Pauline church's b e l i e f in a new covenant i n the blood  of Jesus Christ forms a l o g i c a l  t r a n s i t i o n from the Jewish to the Pauline  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the OT covenant formulations.  162 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adcock, Sir Frank, and D. J . Mosley, Diplomacy in Ancient Greece (London: Thames and Hudson, 1975). Baab, 0. J . , " I n h e r i t a n c e , " IDB 2. 700-701. Bammel, E . , " G o t t e s Diatheke ( G a l . I I I . Rechtsdenken," NTS 6 (1958-59) 313-319.  15-17)  und  das  juedische  B a r r e t t , C. K., A Commentary on the E p i s t l e to the Romans (New York: & Brothers, 1957).  Harper  Behm, Johannes, "kuroo, e t c . , " TDNT 3. 1098-1100. ,  and G o t t f r i e d  Quell,  "diatithemi,  diatheke," TDNT 2. 104-  134. B e r n e k e r , E r i c h , Zur g r i e c h i s c h e n R e c h t s g e s c h i c h t e Wi ssenschaftli che Buchgesellschaft, 1968). Betz, Hans D i e t e r , Galatians (Philadelphia:  (Darmstadt:  Fortress, 1979).  Blass, F., A. Debrunner and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian L i t e r a t u r e (Chicago: University of Chicago,  T96TT:  B l i g h , John, Galatians: Paul, 1969"^ B r i n g , R., Commentary Mulenberg, 1961).  A Discussion of on G a l a t i a n s ,  St.  ET,  , Christus und das Gesetz (Leiden:  E.  Paul's  Wahlstrom  Burrows, M i l l a r , 1978).  (London: St  (Philadelphia:  E. J . B r i l l , 1969).  Bruce, F. F., The E p i s t l e of Paul to the Galatians: Greek Text (Exeter: Paternoster, 1982). Buber, Martin, Moses: Brothers, 1958).  Epistle  A Commentary on the  The Revelation and the Covenant (New York:  Burrows on the Dead Sea Scrolls  (Grand Rapids:  Harper & Baker,  Burton, Ernest De W i t t , A C r i t i c a l and Exegetical Commentary on the E p i s t l e to the Galatians (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1920). Calvin, John, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, ET, T. H. L. Parker (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1965). ~  163 _ _ , The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, ET, Ross Mackenzie (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960). Calder, W. M., "Adoption and Inheritance i n G a l a t i a , " JTS 31 (1930) 372-374. Candlish, J . S., "The Notion of Divine Covenants in the B i b l e , " (Oct. 1892 - Sept. 1893) 19-23, 65-68.  ExpTim 4  Charlesworth, James H., e d . , The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Garden C i t y : Doubleday & Company, 1983/85) 2 v o l s . Conrat, Max, "Das Erbrect im G a l a t e r b r i e f 227.  (3,15-4,7),"  ZNW 5 (1904) 204-  Cooke, G. A., A C r i t i c a l and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951). C r a n f i e l d , C. E. B., A C r i t i c a l and Exegetical Commentary on the E p i s t l e to the Romans (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975) 2 v o l s . Dalman, Gustaf, The Words of Jesus Considered in the Light o-f P o s t - B i b l i c a l Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language, ET, D. M. Kay (Edinburgh: T7 & T. Clark, 1902). Davenport, Gene L., The Eschatology of the Book of Jubilees (Leiden: B r i l l , 1971).  E. J .  Davies, W. D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London: SPCK, 1948). Davis, P h i l i p R., The Damascus Covenant: An I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the "Damascus Document," ( S h e f f i e l d : J0ST, 1982). Deissmann, Adolf, Bible Studies, ET, Alexander Grieve, 2nd ed. T. & T. Clark, 1903).  (Edinburgh:  , Light from the Ancient East, ET, Lionel R. M. Strachen, 2nd ed. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1911). •  , Paul: A Study in Social and Religious H i s t o r y , ET, W. E. Wilson, 2nd ed. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1912).  Del l i n g , Gerhard, "argos, e t c . , " TDNT 1 . 452-454. Driver, G. R., The Judaean S c r o l l s : Basil Blackwell, 1965).  The Problem and a Solution  (Oxford:  Eadie, John, A Commentary on the Greek Text of the E p i s t l e of Paul to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979). Ebeling, Gerhard, The Truth of the Gospel: An Exposition of Galatians, ET, David Green (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).  164 Edwards, E., C h r i s t , a Curse, and the Cross: An I n t e r p r e t a t i v e Galatians 3:13 (Michigan: University M i c r o f i l m s , 1972). Eger, Otto, "Rechtswoerter und Rechtsbilder ZNW 18 (1917/18) 84-108.  in den paulinischen  Study of Briefen,"  E n d e r s , John C , B i b l i c a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n the Book of J u b i l e e s (Washington, DC: The Catholic B i b l i c a l Association of America, 1987). Foerster, Werner, and Johannes Hermann, " k l e r o s , e t c . , " TDNT 3. 758-785. F u l l e r , Daniel P., "Paul and "The Works of the Law," WTJ 38 (1975/76) 28-42. Gaston, L l o y d , Paul Columbia, 19877^  and the Torah,  (Vancouver:  University  of  British  Hammer, Paul L., "Inheritance in N.T.," IDB 5. 428-429. , "A Comparison of Kleronomia in Paul and Ephesians," (1960) 267-272. Harrison, A. R. W., The Law of Athens: Clarendon, 1968) 2 v o l s .  The Family and Property  Hodge, Charles, A Commentary on Romans (Edinburgh: 1972). Huebner, Hans, Das Gesetz bei Paulus (Goettingen: 1978).  JBL 79 (Oxford:  Banner of Truth T r u s t , Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,  Hughes, John J . , "Hebrews IX 1 5 f f . and Galatians I I I 1 5 f f . : Covenant Practice and Procedure," NovT 21 (1979) 27-96.  A Study in  Hughes, P. E., A Commentary on the E p i s t l e to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977). Jaubert, Annie, La Notion d ' A l l i a n c e dans le Juda'fsme aux Abords de T E r e ChrStienne (Paris: Editions du S e u i l , 1963). Jenni, Ernst, "Das Wort olam im Alten Testament," ZAW 64 (1952) 196-248; 65 (1953) 1-35. f  Jeremias, Joachim, "0M0S (ICor 14,7; Gal 3 , 1 5 ) , " ZNW 52 (1961) 127-128. Jocz,  Jakob, The Covenant: Eerdmans, 1968).  A Theology of  Jones, J . W a l t e r , The Law and Legal Clarendon, 1956).  Human Destiny  Theory  Kaesemann, Ernst, An die Roemer (Tuebingen:  of  the  (Grand Rapids:  Greeks  J . C. B. Mohr, 1973).  (Oxford:  165 Kennedy, H. A. A., "The Significance and Range of the Covenant-Conception i n the New Testament," Exp_ 8th Series, 10 (1915) 385-410. Keydell, Rudolf, "0M0S," ZNW 54 (1963) 145-146. Kutsch, Ernst, Neues Testament - Neuer Bund? Eine Fehluebersetzung k o r r i g i e r t (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978). Lohse, Eduard, Die Texte aus Buchgesellschaft, 1971).  Qumran  (Darmstadt:  wird  Wissenschaftliche  LaSor, W. S., The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Faith (Chicago: 1962). Leaney, A. R. C , The Rule of Qumran and i t s Meaning (London:  Moody,  SCM, 1966).  Levi, I s r a e l , The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus (Leiden: B r i l l , 1904TT  E. J .  L i g h t f o o t , J . B., The E p i s t l e of St. Paul to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957]^ Luehrmann, Dieter, Der Brief an die Galater (Zuerich: Theologischer Verlag, 1978). L u t h e r , M a r t i n , Commentary Rapids: Kregel, 1979).  on G a l a t i a n s ,  ET, Erasmus Middleton  (Grand  , Commentary on the E p i s t l e to the Romans, ET, J . Theodore Mueller (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1976). Maier, Johann, The Temple S c r o l l : An I n t r o d u c t i o n , T r a n s l a t i o n Commentary, ET, Richard T. White ( S h e f f i e l d : JSOT, 1985).  &  McCarthy, Dennis J . , Old Testament Covenant: (Oxford: Blackwell, 1972).  A Survey of Current Opinions  MacDowell, Douglas M., Hudson, 1978).  Athens  The Law i n Classical  :  (London:  Thames and  Maurer, C h r i s t i a n , " t i t h e m i , e t c . , " TDNT 8. 152-168. Mendenhall, G. E., "Covenant"  I_DB 1 . 714-723.  Meyer, Heinrich A. W., C r i t i c a l and Exegetical Hand-Book to the E p i s t l e to the Galatians, ET, G. H. Venables (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1892). . , C r i t i c a l and Exegetical Hand-Book to the E p i s t l e to the Romans, ET, Timothy Dwight (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884) Meyer, Paul M., J u r i s t i s c h e Papyri: Erklaerung von Urkunden zur Einfuehrung in die J u r i s t i s c h e Papyruskunde (Chicago: Ares, 1976).  166 M i l l i g a n , George, The New Testament Documents: Hi story (London! MacMillan and Co., 1913). The Theology of T. & T. Clark, 1899).  Their  Origins  the Epistle to the Hebrews  and Early (Edinburgh:  M o f f a t t , James, A C r i t i c a l and Exegetical Commentary on the E p i s t l e to the Hebrews (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1924). Monefoire, C. G., Judaism and St. Paul: 1914).  Two Essays (London:  Max Goschen,  Moore, G. F., Judaism in the F i r s t Centuries of the C h r i s t i a n Era: The Age of the Tannaim (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y , 1927-30) 3 v o l s . Moulton, James Hope, and Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963/76). Murray, John, The E p i s t l e to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Mussner, Franz, Der G a l a t e r b r i e f , 2nd ed. (Freiburg: Neusner, Jacob, "Comparing Judaisms,"  Eerdmans, 1959). Herder KG, 1974).  HR 18. 2 (1978) 177-191.  Norton, F. 0 . , A Lexicographical and H i s t o r i c a l Study of DIATHEKE from the E a r l i e s t Times to the End of the Classical Period (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1908). Noth,  M a r t i n , The Laws in the Oliver and Boyd, 1966).  Pentateuch  and Other  Nygren, Anders, Commentary on Romans (Philadelphia:  Studies  Fortress, 1949).  Oepke, Albrecht, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1973). Oesterley, W. 0. E., Ecclesiasticus, (Cambridge: Rabin, Chaim, The Zadokite Documents (Oxford:  (Edinburgh:  3rd ed.  (Berlin:  University Press, 1912).  Clarendon, 1958).  Ramsay, W. M., A H i s t o r i c a l Commentary on St. Paul's E p i s t l e Galatians, 2nd ed. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1900).  to  the  Ridderbos, Herman N., The E p i s t l e of Paul to the Churches of G a l a t i a , ET, Henry Z y l s t r a (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953). Ringgren, Helmer, The Faith of Qumran: Theology of the Dead Sea S c r o l l s , ET, E. T. Sander (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963). Robertson, A. T . , A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light H i s t o r i c a l Research ( N a s h v i l l e : Broadman, 1934).  of  167 Robertson, A r c h i b a l d , and A l f r e d Plummer, A C r i t i c a l and Exegetical Commentary on the F i r s t E p i s t l e of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978). Roetzel, C a l v i n , "DiathSke in Romans 9 . 4 , " Bib 51 (1970) 377-390. Sanday, W i l l i a m , and Arthur C. Headlam, A C r i t i c a l and Exegetical Commentary on the E p i s t l e to the Romans (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,  19037!  Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism: Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977). , Paul, Fortress, 1983).  the  Law,  and the  A Comparison of Patterns of  Jewish  People  (Philadelphia:  Schechter, S., and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Documents of Jewish Sectaries (Ktav, 1970). S c h l i e r , H e i n r i c h , Der Brief Ruprecht, 1962).  an die Galater  , Der Roemerbrief (Freiburg: Schmidt, Hans W i l h e l m , Per B r i e f des Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1972).  (Goettingen:  Vandenhoeck &  Herder, 1977).  Paulus  an die  Roemer  (Berlin:  Schoeps, H. J . , Paul: The Theology of the Apostle i n the Light of Jewish R e l i g i o u s H i s t o r y , ET, Harold Knight (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961). Segal, Alan F., "Covenant in Rabbinic W r i t i n g s , " SR 14. 1 (1985) 53-62. Strack, Hermann L., and Paul B i l l e r b e c k , Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash (Muenchen: C. H. Beck'sche, 1926) 5 v o l s . Taubenschlag, Raphael, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of Papyri (New York: Herald Square, 1944). T e s t u z , M i c h e l , Les Idges R e l i g i e u s e s L i b r a i r i e E. Droz, 1960).  du L i v r e  des  Jubiles  the  (Geneve:  Toy, C. H., A C r i t i c a l and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs (New York! Charles Scribner's Sons, 1899). VanderKam, James C , Textual and H i s t o r i c a l Studies in the Book of Jubilees (Missoula: Scholars, 1977). van  Duelmen, Andrea, Die Theologie des Gesetzes' bei Katolisches Bibelwerk, 1968).  Vermes, G., The Dead Sea S c r o l l s in English (Middlesex:  Paulus  (Stuttgart:  Penguin, 1975).  168 Wacholder, Ben Zion, The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness ( C i n c i n n a t i : Hebrew Union College, 1983). Wernberg-Mtfller, P., The Manual of D i s c i p l i n e (Leiden:  E. J . B r i l l , 1957).  Westcott, B. F., The E p i s t l e to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Wildberger, 1982).  Hans,  Jesaja 28-29  (Neukirchen-Vluyn:  Eerdmans, 1980).  Neukirchener  Verlag,  Woodhouse, W. J . , and P. W. Schmiedel, " G a l a t i a , " EncBib 2. 1589-1618. Yadin, Yigael, The S c r o l l of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, ET, Batya & Chaim Rabin (Oxford: University Press, 1962) , (London:  The Temple S c r o l l : The Hidden Law of Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1985).  Yaron, Reuven, G i f t s in Contemplation of (Oxford: University Press, 1960).  Death in  the  Dead Sea Sect  Jewish and Roman Law  REFERENCE WORKS Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian L i t e r a t u r e (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1958). Botterweck, G. Johannes, and Helmer Ringgren, eds., Theological of the Old Testament, ET, John T. W i l l i s (Grand Rapids: 1975) 5 v o l s .  Dictionary Eerdmans,  Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1951). B u t t r i c k , George Arthur, et a l . , eds., The I n t e r p r e t e r ' s Dictionary of the Bible ( N a s h v i l l e : Abingdon, 1962) 5 v o l s . Cheyne, T. K., and J . S u t h e r l a n d Black ( e d s . ) , Encyclopaedia (Toronto: George N. Morang & Co., 1901) 4 v o l s .  Biblica  H a r r i s , R. L a i r d , Gleason L. Archer, J r . , and Bruce K. Waltke, eds., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1980) 2 vols. J a s t r o w , Marcus, A D i c t i o n a r y of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli amd Yerushalmi, and~~the Midrashic L i t e r a t u r e ( B e r l i n : Choreb, 1926). K i t t e l , Gerhard, Gerhard F r i e d r i c h and Ronald P i t k i n eds., Theological D i c t i o n a r y of the New Testament, ET, Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1976) 10 v o l s .  169 Krauss, Samuel, and Emmanuel Loew, Griechische und Lateinische Lehnwoeter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum (Hildesheim: Georg 01ms, 1964). L i d d e l l , Henry George, Robert Scott and Sir Henry Stuart Jones, A GreekEnglish Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968). Moulton, James Hope, and George M i l l i g a n , The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament I l l u s t r a t e d from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930).  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 11 16
United States 7 0
Republic of Korea 5 0
Japan 4 0
Netherlands 2 1
Bangladesh 1 0
Poland 1 0
Vietnam 1 0
City Views Downloads
Beijing 9 0
Unknown 8 6
Tokyo 4 0
Ashburn 3 0
Putian 1 0
Mishawaka 1 0
Shenzhen 1 16
Seattle 1 0
Los Angeles 1 0
Plano 1 0
Rzeszów 1 0
Hanoi 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097816/manifest

Comment

Related Items