me theo final 3.0

7/31/2019 ME Theo Final 3.0

1/98

Chapter 1:

Introduction and Survey of Current Perspectives

Introduction

Overwhelmingly, scholars tend to see the Old Testament Law primarily through the eyes

of Pauls seemingly negative statements, ignoring the blatantly positive and creating a lens

through which the continuity between the Old and New Testament is all but forgotten. It is the

purpose of this study to do just the opposite. After a thorough investigation of the original

purpose of the Law in the OT this study will explore the thesis that Paul, at the Damascus road

encounter of the risen Jesus, experienced a personal reformation in regards to his view of and

approach to the Law. Previous to this encounter, Paul viewed the OT Law through the lens of his

pharisaical training. But, due to the revelatory nature of his encounter with the risen son of God,

Paul now views and approaches the Law in line with its original OT purpose, the revelation of

Gods nature and character. God, the one and the same Yahweh of the OT, revealed his Son to

Paul creating continuity between the Jewish scriptures and Pauls current revelation of the risen

Messiah.

This introductory chapter will include a brief survey of five Pauline scholars (Sanders,

Westerholm, Bird, Nanos, and Beker) each carefully chosen for their uniquely influential

perspective on the topic of Paul and the Law.

Current Perspectives Concerning Paul and the Law

Sanders

In his bookPaul, the Law, and the Jewish People, Sanders paints the picture of a Jewish

Paul that struggles to rectify his revelatory encounter of the risen Jesus with his own theological

presuppositions (founded in his Second Temple worldview). In his pre-converted state, Paul

1


2/98

believed that the Law (along with election) was the key aspect of God's plan for salvation. He

was in a situation which requires him to cast off, to deny, God's principal redemptive activities in

the past: the election and the law.1 But, while Sanders has Paul cutting ties with his Second

Temple Jewish understanding of Gods will for salvation, he still maintains Paul as thoroughly

Jewish in most every other aspect of his character.

Pauls attempt to straddle the border between his Jewishness and his new faith in Christ

causes what Sanders dubs as an acute theological problem that is rooted in two absolute central

convictions.2 The first is based on Paul's experience of God's personal revelation of his son, Jesus

Christ. This conviction overrides Paul's past and redefines his theological worldview by setting

the stage for understanding God's plan for salvation. Righteousness did not come from keeping

the Law (as Paul had previously believed) so God sent Christ to save all humanity on the same

basis, apart from the Law. Paul's second conviction is based on his Jewish theological

assumption that God had given the Law for a specific purpose.3

In Paul's struggle to rectify this paradox, the underlying theological question focused on

the functionof the Law and how it is associated with the perfect will of God: What is the

function of the Law if it does not save? Paul's Jewish background led him to understand that

whatever happened was in accordance to divine providence; the law, then, could not be opposed

to God's will; yet the law does not provide for salvation.4 So Paul, not knowing any other way

to rectify this conundrum and still holding to his central conviction concerning God's perfect

2

1 E.P. Sanders,Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Publishers,1983), 78.

2 Ibid., 79.

3 Ibid., 81.

4 Ibid., 66.


3/98

will, connected the Law with sin in order to assign it a negative place in God's plan of salvation.5

Pauls assigning the law a negative role in Gods plan of salvation, an assignment which itself

arose from his view that righteousness is only by faith in Christ and that God must have given

the law with that righteousness, and not some other, ultimately in view.6 With this connection

the law's divinely given function can still be explained as part of God's plan to grant the promise

of salvation to his people(and everyone else sharing humanity's universal plight of being under

sin).

But, according to Sanders, Paul then makes a subtle but important shift in his explanation

of the law's relationship with sin for the purpose of representing a consistent God. Since the Law

was given by the will of God to reveal the way to righteousness but hijacked by sin and leading

men to death, it produced a situation contrary to the will of God.7

Thus there is an alteration in Paul's view of the relationship between sin and God's

intention.... and between God's will and the law (he gave the law to save, an intention

which was frustrated, rather than with the intent to condemn). These changes seem to be

required by the new role given to sin: it is now an active agent which employs the law

against the purpose of God.8

But, ..sin does not pervert the intention of the law by causing people to fulfill it in the wrong

way, thus producing legalism. The law, rather, is the agent of sin because it condemns and thus

provokes transgression.9 In Sanders thought, the Law is still connected to sin, but sin has no

connection to God's will.

3

5 Ibid., 66.

6 Ibid., 84.

7 Ibid., 73.

8 Ibid., 73

9 Ibid., 74.


4/98

Sanders concludes his thoughts on the subject by stating: It is paradoxical, perhaps

ironic, that it was Paul's attempt to hold together God's will and the negative function which his

exclusivist christology led him to assign the law which finally pushed him into disassociatingthe

result of God's giving the law from his will.10 Sanders depicts Paul as making a valiant attempt

to salvage the reputation of God by putting the blame on sin and disassociating God's will from

the result.11 God has failed to achieve what he originally willed the function of the Law to

accomplish (to be followed by his people and lead them to life). Sin uses the Law against the will

of God and the weakness of the created order could not accomplish its requirements, rendering

the Law (and subsequently God's will) ineffective. But, with the coming of Christ, God has

rectified his first attempt and provided salvation not just to the Jews, but also to Gentiles. Pauls

thinking is governed by the overriding conviction that salvation is through Christ. Since Christ

came to save all, all needed salvation.12

Sanders represents a uniquely controversial new perspective within Pauline Studies. To

his credit, he does try to hold Pauls Jewish background into account as he works through Pauls

view of the Law. But, in presenting a Paul that is torn between the two conceptual worlds of

Second Temple Judaism and his newfound faith in Jesus Christ, Sanders fails to see the value of

the Law in the OT as well as its revelatory purpose. In effect, he fails to differentiate between the

Second Temple Jewish view of the Law and the OT view of the Law, limiting his perspective to

what the Law has become in its ethnocentric form (see below). It is this ethnocentric form of the

4

10 Ibid., 85.

11 Ibid., 85.

12 Ibid., 68.


5/98

Law that Paul breaks from as he rediscovers the original revelatory purpose of the Law as given

in the OT.

In Sanders view, Gods will is divorced from his presence and action on behalf of his

chosen people. In actuality, Gods will is held firm by his presence and not able to be

manipulated by sin. Rather than straddling the two conceptual worlds of Judaism and belief in

Christ, Sanderss Paul falls into the gap, rendering Gods will as something that can be

manipulated by sin into serving a different purpose than it was originally intended to.

Westerholm

Stephen Westerholm presents Paul as a man steeped in the Second Temple Judaism of his

day but, due to his encounter with the risen Christ, Paul engages in a Christian reevaluation of

his own human predicament. Through this reevaluation Paul discovers that the Law itself does

not make him (or anyone else, either Jew or Gentile) righteous before God. Drawing extensively

from the tradition of Second Temple Judaism, Paul delves into this reevaluation as he reflects

on the disclosure of the human predicament implicit in the cross of Christ.13

During this

process, Westerholm claims that Paul experienced a plot twist when considering the sinfulness of

humanity in the light of the cross (the climax of the story) and subsequently had to engage in a

further reevaluate of the function of the Law in Gods plan for salvation.

Paul, who once pursued the righteousness of the Law, could only make a distinction

between this kind of righteousness and the righteousness of faith when reconsidering Scripture in

the process of a Christian reevaluation. These convictions were only available to him when the

crucifixion and resurrection of Christ were believed to be both efficacious for human

5

13 Stephen. Westerholm, Sinai as Viewed From Damascus : Pauls Reevaluation of the Mosaic Law, inRoad From Damascus, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 157.


6/98

redemption and revelatory of the inadequacy of earlier institutions- even divine institutions- to

achieve such end.14

Due to his new understanding of the efficacy of the cross of Christ, Paul engages in a

polemic against what was once his former understanding of the Law in Gods plan of salvation,

that one could obtain/earn righteousness through human effort. Throughout his argument,

Westerholm pays particular attention the the Pauline phrase works of the law.15 By using this

phrase, Paul calls his audience to a broader understanding of more than just the ritual

prescriptions of the Law. In fact, the Law itself becomes a launching pad for the discussion

concerning Pauls conviction that no human work can make an individual righteous.16 Even

though these works were demanded by Israels particularism, work can still have nothing to do

with election. The idea that any kind of work would have part in the process of divine election

would run counter to what God is accomplishing in his gracious act of election. God has

determined to act through his gracious election and the very nature of this act pragmatically

excludes consideration of human endeavor.17

6

14 Ibid., 161.

15 Westerholms discussions of the phrase works of the law mainly focus on Gal. 2:16 StephenWesterholm,Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The Lutheran Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans, 2003), 152-153. and Rom. 9:11-12 Stephen Westerholm, Paul and the Law in Romans 9-11, inPauland the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 228-229.

16 Stephen Westerholm,Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The Lutheran Paul and His Critics (GrandRapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 152-153. In Westerholms discussion of Rom. 9:11-12 he states: To be sure, theworks preformed by Israel are those prescribed by the Mosaic law; but nothing in this passage suggests that Israelis pursuing the wrong kindof works. What is emphatically excluded is consideration ofany human work in thegranting of divine favor(9:12); an exclusion which naturally includes the particular works enjoined by Moses.Stephen Westerholm, Paul and the Law in Romans 9-11, inPaul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn,(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 228.

17 Stephen Westerholm, Paul and the Law in Romans 9-11, in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G.Dunn, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 229.


7/98

For Westerholms Paul, the cross of Christ is not only efficacious in contrast with any

human effort (including but not limited to that associated with the Law) but it also revealed the

inadequacy of the Law for human redemption.18 Paul now views the Law, in light of the cross, as

the agent which serves to highlight human bondage to sin while at the same time exacerbating

the human condition.19 In fact, Westerholm goes so far as to claim that the primary purpose of

the Law is to compel recognition of the nature and extent of human sinfulness.20 This

recognition serves to remind man of his place in creation and his responsibility to the Creator

God, a responsibility that elicits outright rebellion against God.

The Law itself, because it is Gods stated will, then becomes culpable for transforming

sin into deliberate transgression of this will as it highlights the unwillingness, as well as the

incapacity, of man to accomplish what God desires of his creation. In and of itself, the Law was

never equipped to overcome human sinfulness but it fulfills its original purpose by showing

human sinfulness to be, in Westerholms words, exceedingly sinful.21

Despite Westerholms seemingly negative view on the Law, he still holds that the Law,

through its afore mentioned revelation of the sinfulness of man, served a preparatory role to the

revelation of Gods righteousness in Jesus Christ.

Gods design for the law must have been, in part, to go on record as demanding what is

holy and righteous and good, but also (indeed, even more) to demonstrate the rebellious

character of humanity in Adam through the shortcomings of the most privileged segment

of Adamic humanity. Paradoxically, then, the righteousness demanded by the law can

7

18 Stephen Westerholm,Perspectives Old andNew on Paul: The Lutheran Paul and His Critics (GrandRapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 161.

19 Ibid., 157.

20 Ibid., 157.

21 Ibid., 157.


8/98

only be obtained apart from the law, by faith in Christ. But since the the law had a divine

role to play until Christ came, since it demonstrated the culpability of humanity from

which Christ brought redemption, it can be said to have been pointing all along to

Christ.22

Westerholm represents a typical Lutheran/Old Perspective approach to Pauline Studies.

He is right to recognize the revelatory purpose of the Law but he, like Sanders, fails to

understand the original purpose of the Law as revelatory of Gods nature and character in the OT.

Throughout Westerholms argument he places a high value on the holiness and righteousness of

God, the Law giver. Yet, the Holy God, who has manifested his presence among his people in

conjunction with the giving of the Law, seems (according to Westerholm) to negate his own will

by allowing the Law to primarily (and overwhelmingly) reveal the sinfulness of man.

Westerholms understanding that through the revelation of the sinfulness of man, man will

somehow be able to understand the holiness of God seems to ascribe a spiritual discernment only

available through the presence of God in relationship.

Westerholms Paul would have us believe that the primary purpose of the Law was to

burden the people of Israel with an inescapable sinfulness. Yet, the OT itself speaks of the

Righteous God dwelling in the midst of a sinful people (see below discussion in Chapter 2).

Although most of Westerholms work is in and of itself a polemic against the adherents to the

new perspective, he continues to have the same core problem that Sanders faces when

explaining how the will of God can be held separate from his presence.

Bird

8

22 Stephen Westerholm, Paul and the Law in Romans 9-11, in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G.Dunn, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 234.


9/98

Michael Bird finds a middle ground between Sanders and Westerholm by tackling Paul's

view of the Law from an eschatological perspective.23 Bird's Paul recognized before and after his

conversion that Christ and the Law are mutual exclusive. For Paul, obedience to the torah

cannot be pursued as the means of attaining membership in the people of God and, therefore, the

grounds upon which God will vindicate believers.24 Paul is not confronting legalism or nomism,

rather, according to Bird, he confronts an ethnocentric nomism. Ethnocentric nomism is the

view that Jewish identity is the locus of salvation (hence ethnocentric) and one must preform the

law so as to enter the Jewish constituency and be vindicated in the eschaton (hence nomistic).25

This is different from legalism in that the works preformed are done within a covenantal

framework that defines the identity of the people of God. It is different from covenantal nomism

because the desired end state is not just covenantal status but eschatological salvation. In Bird's,

view the post-conversion Paul understood the Law to be only effective in and regulated to the

pre-Christ epoch. Paul's view turns out to be decidedly negative as its main purpose was to act as

God's agent during this epoch and serve as a part of a triangle of forces consisting of law-sin-

death, a triangle that brings condemnation on both Jews and Gentiles.26 But as a national charter

for Israel, the Law temporarily limited salvation to Israel, while God's original covenantal plan to

save all nations was given through Abraham.27

9

23 Bird agrees with the idea of variegated nomism, as it underscores the diversity within the different sectsof Judaism and can accommodate a wider range of beliefs concerning the role of the law than covenantalnomism. Michael F. Bird, Justification as Forensic Declaration and Covenant Membership: A Via Media Between

Reformed and Revisionist Readings of Paul, Tyndale Bulletin 57, no. 1 (2006): 112.

24 Michael F. Bird, Justification as Forensic Declaration and Covenant Membership: A Via Media BetweenReformed and Revisionist Readings of Paul, Tyndale Bulletin 57, no. 1 (2006): 113.

25 Ibid.

26 Michael F. Bird, Introducing Paul: The Man, His Mission and His Message (Downers Grove, IL: IVPAcademic, 2009), 139.

27 Ibid.


10/98

This leads Bird to three conclusions concerning the purpose of the Law. (1) To highlight

the holiness of God and the severity of sin.28 God wanted his people to understand that they

lived in a moral universe and that he himself was not morally indifferent, therefore he chose

Israel to reflect the glory of God in the presence of the nations through the covenantal life of

their community.29 (2) To be a temporary administration of Gods grace to govern his people.

It functioned to set Israel apart from the nations and cocoon Gods promises around them for a

time30 until the coming of the promised seed of Abe who would bring the Gentiles into Gods

covenant family.31 (3)To foreshadow and introduce the coming of Jesus Christ...When he came,

he would save people from the condemnation of the law (Rom. 3:21-22; 1 Cor 5:7; 10:3; Col.

2:17).32 Bird holds that by sending his Son and his Spirit, God accomplished what the Law

could not do enable Jews and Gentiles alike to live righteously for him and be counted righteous

before him.

Bird rightly identifies the Law as part of the previous epoch/age and its service as the

theological charter for the nation of Israel. He is also correct in giving value to the Law as

revelatory of the holiness of God, a holiness that the people themselves represent to the

surrounding nations. Birds ethnocentric nomism provides a great description of the function of

the Law in Second Temple Judaism but, he fails to take into account the evolution from its

original OT theocentric purpose to its ethnocentric state. Bird also seems to partake in a

fundamental misunderstanding of the Law as temporary administrator of Gods grace. Rather, the

10

28 Ibid., 139-140.

29 Ibid., 139-140.

30 Ibid., 140.

31 Ibid.

32 Ibid.


11/98

Law was never designed to do this in and of itself. Grace in the OT was intimately associated

with the presence of God. The Law itself held no soteric value (as Paul explicitly states in Gal.

2:21, see discussion in Chapter 3) this was Gods work on behalf of his people, a work based on

his nature and character.

Nanos

Nanos views Paul as a typical monotheistic Law following Second Temple Jew who

understood the covenantal background that God had initiated as still viable for the Jewish

decedents of Abraham. This covenantal background flows through the history of Israel to the

giving of the Law which defines behavior extending from the thoughts of the heart to the acts of

the hands.33 In fact, Nanos advocates that one of the main teachings of the Law is freedom, the

same kind of freedom that Paul speaks about which believers have in Christ. This same idea of

freedom is the heart behind core elements of Judaism i.e. the celebration of Sabbath and many of

the commands about the treatment of others and animals. Responsibility to God and others is

magnified in Torah because of this freedom.34

For Nanos, only one aspect of Paul's view on the Torah changed at his conversion, its

association with Gentiles. Paul understood that the resurrection of the Christ and the coming of

the Holy Spirit initiated the age for which the Jewish people had been wanting for, when all

Gentile nations would recognize Israel's God as the one true God, creator of all humankind. In

this age, Christ-following non-Jews are obligated to bear witness to the righteousness expressed

in Torah, that is, the love of God and neighbor, but as representatives of the other nations, and

11

33 Mark Nanos, Locating Paul on a Map of First-Century Judaism, SBL Annual Meeting (Nov. 22, 2010):122.

34 Ibid., 123.


12/98

not as members of Israel and her Mosaic covenant. This age represents the fulfillment of God's

covenant with Abraham, bringing blessing to all of the nations through his seed.35

Nanos holds that Paul never advocated for the end of Torah following. Rather, Paul did

teach that Gentile believers were not to become Jews, nor be under the Torah in the same manner

that Jews had always been and still remained.36 Paul himself continued to follow the Torah as a

matter of faith and viewed himself as a faithful Jewish believer in Christ. Rather than advocating

for a break with Judaism and the Law, Paul defended his spiritual heritage claiming that the

coming of Christ actually established the law's validity through Christ's fulfillment.37

For Nanos Paul, the issue of membership for the non-Jews in the Jewish politico-

religious community (without becoming ethnicity Jewish) was the main reason he authored his

letters to the Gentile communities. This mixing of different people while retaining their

different religio-ethnic identities and thus different relationships to Torah confused some of his

original audiences, provoking him to write letters intended to clarify this proposition, but they

have misled later interpreters reading his instructions to non-Jews in particular as if universal

truths Paul applied without distinction to every person, including Jews. 38

Nanos represents a minority of vocal scholars in Pauline studies that advocate for a

completely Jewish Paul (before and after the road to Damascus experience).39 He is correct in

12

35 Ibid., 128-129.

36 Mark Nanos, The Myth of the Law Free Paul Standing Between Christians and Jews, Studies inChristian-Jewish Relations 4, (2009): 3.

37 Ibid., 3.

38 Ibid., 3.

39 for more on the Jewish perspective: See e.g., Pamela Michelle Eisenbaum,Paul Was Not a Christian:The Real Message of a Misunderstood Apostle (New York: HarperOne, 2009); Paula Fredriksen, "Judaizing the

Nations: The Ritual Demands of Paul's Gospel,"New Testament Studies 56 (2010): 232-52.


13/98

advocating that the coming of the Jewish Messiah initiated a new eschatological age when the

God of Israel would be worshiped by Jew and Gentile alike. Nanos also serves as a helpful

reminder ofPauls continued stance concerning the practice of the Law as a Jewish follower of

Christ. But, Nanos fails to understand the break that Paul advocates from the halakhah Law that

has been created within the Rabbinic tradition. The idea, advocated by Nanos, that Paul would

confuse his followers with preaching in regards to their distinct religio-ethnic identities is

extremely unhelpful in light of Pauls explanation of the presence of the Spirit of God in their

midst. This seems to be an interpretive presupposition for Nanos rather than an idea born out of

an exegetical study of the text. Rather, Pauls preaching transcends the idea of religio-ethnic

boundaries as he advocates for their spiritual identity as sons of Abraham, an identity consistent

with the OT idea of the presence of God (see chapter 3).

Beker

Beker, in his bookPaul the Apostle, identifies the crucial exegetical issue as whether

Paul argues for the abrogation of the law or for a continuing validity of the law in the gospel40

He believes that a middle ground between the legitimate speculation about Paul's pre-conversion

past and the pure theological exposition of Pauls theological position can be found by taking an

in-depth look at Paul's experience of the risen Christ. When scholarship concentrates solely on

Pauls theological exposition of the law, it overlooks the distinction between faith and its

theological expression and thus overlooks the matrix of Pauls theology of the law in his own

experience.41 Understanding the reason that Paul became an ardent follower of Christ is

13

40 Johan C. Beker, Paul the Apostle (Augsburg: Fortress Publishers, 2000), 236.

41 Ibid., 237.


14/98

exclusively located in the facticity of the Christophany helps clear up the obscurity regarding

Paul's pre-conversion Pharisaic convictions.42

Beker argues that delving further into Paul's attested Christophany shows that the

underlying coherence of Paul's view of the Law finds its source in the radicalization of the

Jewish position on the evil impulse and sin.43 In Judaism, sin can be dealt with through the

prescribed sacrificial system but, for the post-conversion Paul, a sinful act leads to bondage

under the power of sin and subsequently into the human plight44 Beker attributes this

radicalization of sin to Pauls new understanding of God's plan of salvation due to his encounter

with Christ (the Christophany). Because Christ atoned on the cross for our sins, committed

under the law, he not only unmasked sins as the power of death but also defeated that power of

sin in his death and resurrection.45 Henceforth the function of Gods holy Law was taken up and

absorbed by Christ in whom thejust requirement of the law was fulfilled (Rom. 8:4) and its

deadly function under sin was abrogated.46

Paul's newly understood fulfillment of the Law, through Christ, lead him to emphasize

the discontinuous character of the Christ-event in conjunction with Gods continuous salvation-

historical command.47 The Law was preforming its function ofrevealing sin and sealing the fate

of humanity (death), when Christ came and rearranged God's plan of salvation under and

according to himself. The laws positive function in salvation-history is not only because it

14

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid., 243.

44 Ibid.

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid.

47 Ibid., 244.


15/98

makes sin accountable before God (Rom. 4:15; 5:13) but also because it holds the whole range of

history together in the plan of God.48 In short, Beker posits that Law is not a supernatural

mistake or a tragic flaw, because of it's role in making sin accountable to God.49 The law's

purpose was not ultimate damnation but it confirms the unity of salvation history by

demonstrating God's will to save.50

Consequently, as Paul works through his arguments about the Law he now views the

unity of salvation history eschatologically and not protologically. Rather than understanding

Gods election from the beginning of the world he now deduces Gods election and

predestination from his eschatological vindication.51 The function of the Law is viewed

retrospectively and not prospectively. To engage in works of the Law is equivalent to being

misdirected and following sin's deceptive instrument.52 Now, because Christ is the fulfillment of

the Law and love is the fulfilling of the Law, the works that followers of Christ take part in have

a new focus, love. This focus leads Beker's Paul to refer to these works as doing the law of

Christ, which in turn makes the Christians worktransparent to Gods redemptive purpose.53

But Beker's Paul is not just content with radicalizing the Jewish position on sin, he also is

a revolutionary in that he radicalizes the issue of law and gospel: lawless Gentiles are full

members of the people of God by faith alone. Paul ruptures the connection between Torah and

Christ so decisively that Jewish life as such is invalidated. He interprets adherence to the law in

15

48 Ibid.

49 Ibid.

50 Ibid., 244-245.

51 Ibid., 245.

52 Ibid., 246.

53 Ibid., 247.


16/98

all its forms as a rebuilding of those things which I tore down (Gal. 2:18). This rupture

between Torah and Christ establishes the equality of Jew and Gentile because the dividing wall

of the Torah is torn down. Paul then, despite his understanding of the inspiration and authority of

scripture, sets up Christ as the hermeneutical key to all further interpretation of Jewish scripture.

In effect, for Beker, Christ becomes the cannon within the cannon, even to the extreme that Paul

quotes scripture against scripture to prove his point.

Bekers understanding is valuable in that he attempts to uncover the positive view of the

Law through an in-depth look at Pauls Damascus road Christophany. His eschatological

perspective is helpful in focusing Pauls view of the Law from a post-conversion standpoint as

Paul explains Jew and Gentile relationship in the new age/epoch. But, as Beker seeks to explain

how Christs fulfillment of the Law invalidates the Jewish life he fails to take into account the

OT understanding of the purpose of the Law to reveal Gods nature and character. Beker also

attribute a striking inconsistency to Gods will. God begins by condemning man through the Law

then changing his mind and saving the people from this condemnation with by the sending of his

Son. Beker also fails to consider that the Christophany could cause anything other than an

extreme break from Pauls Jewish past.

Conclusion

As can be seen through this brief sample of Pauline scholarship, each author approaches

the person of Paul and the concept of the Law from very different perspectives. As thorough as

some of the explanations and exegesis may be, all of the authors mentioned (and the majority of

Pauline scholarship) fail discuss a few concepts that are essential in understanding exactly what

Paul is trying to communicate concerning the Law in the letter to the Galatians. The majority of

16


17/98

these scholars fail to different the thoroughly ethnocentric approach to the Law within Second

Temple Jewish from the original theocentric purpose of the Law found in the OT. My

understanding of the ethnocentric form of the Law differs from Birds ethnocentric nomism in

one very important aspect: I would hold that an ethnocentric approach to the Law consists of a

distortion of its original theocentric purpose, the revelation of Gods nature and character. In its

ethnocentric form, the Law has become so intermingled with and interpreted through halahkah

tradition and pagan culture that it has become centralized on the action of man. Approaching the

Law in an ethnocentric manner, a manner consistent with our understanding of Second Temple

Judaism, removes it from the context of the promised blessing of Gods presence (Gen. 12) and

serves to promote both legalism and ethnic superiority in their various forms.

As this thesis moves forward, it is with the intention to explore the original purpose of the

Law as originated in the promise given to Abraham (Gen.12). Chapter 2 will focus on the

understanding that God has chosen to reveal his nature and character through the manifestation

of his presence and the declaration of his will. Chapter 3 will explore these concepts in Pauls

letter to the Galatians for the express purpose of exploring our main thesis: Due to Pauls

revelatory encounter with the Son of God, he now views and approaches the Law in line with its

original OT purpose, the revelation of Gods nature and character.

17


18/98

Chapter 2:

The Revelation of Yahwehs Nature and Character in the Old Testament

Genesis 12

While Genesis 12 begins the story of Abraham (then Abram) with the experience of

Yahweh's call, the story of Abraham really begins with his father Terah, a descendent of Noah,

from the line of Shem, leaving the land of Ur en route to the land of Canaan (Gen. 11:27-32).

The biblical text does not indicate what motivated Terah to move his family towards Canaan, nor

does it explain the reason he discontinued his journey and settled in Haran. It does however set

the stage for Abram, along with his wife Sarai, to continue the Biblical narrative concerning the

line of the righteous Noah. Abram, descendant of Shem, is now the inheritor of the blessing

uttered by Noah concerning his sons, Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be

his servant. May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be

his servant (Gen. 9:26-27). We can only assume that this legacy of blessing was an integral part

of the tradition handed down from father to son, and the awareness of the personal name of God,

Yahweh, was an important part of that tradition.

So, when Yahweh speaks to Abram in Gen. 12, we need not wonder if Abram knew who

was giving the command. Yahweh, the God of Abram's forefathers and source of the blessing of

his family, commands and Abram obeys. But what does this command entail and what part does

the following promise play in Yahweh's revelation of his nature and character?

Before being able to consider the implications of the command given, we first must

consider its source. It is extremely important to understand that although Abram is theprimary

humancharacterin the sub-narrative that begins in Gen. 12, Yahweh, who has been the divine

18


19/98

subjectthroughout the entire Genesis narrative, continues to be so throughout the story of

Abraham and his descendants.54

While many commentators focus on Abram and his obedience to the divine call, I would

posit that they miss the point of the narrative, namely that Yahweh has commanded Abram to act

in conjunction with a promise that finds its basis in his divine nature and character. Abram's

obedience is an important part of the story but what the narrator has primarily in view is the

establishment of the promise as the foundation for Yahwehs self-revelation. Abram, as well as

his descendants after him, will experience the further revelation of Yahwehs nature and

character through a direct encounter with and the continuation of Yahweh's divine presence. This

in turn prepares Abram and his descendants for the purpose of serving as a revelatory vehicle to

all nations. They will be an important part of Yahweh's systematic self-revelation through which

all nations will be blessed.55

So, with the understanding that Yahweh is the divine subject of the narrative, we must

now focus on the question at hand: How does Yahweh reveal his nature and character through the

foundational promise given to Abram?

The promise of Gen. 12:1-3 includes two divine imperatives given by Yahweh: (1) Go

and (2) that you may be a blessing.56 The significance of these divine imperatives cannot be

19

54 Yahweh is the subject of the first verb at the beginning of the first statement and thus the subject of theentire subsequent history. Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis, a Commentary (Old Testament Library), Revised ed.

(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1973), 159. Von Rad is correct when he states that there is noindication of an internal struggle of faith or a criticism of the religions of his father (as later in the Apocalypse ofAbraham), the focus is on Yahweh, he has commanded and Abram listens. the Yahwist understands Abraham heremerely as the object of a divine command. Ibid., 162.

55 cf. John H. Walton, Covenant(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 24-46. Walton understands thisrevelation to take place through the means of covenant.

56 Allen P. Ross, Genesis, Exodus (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary) (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale HousePub., 2008), 95.


20/98

understated. Here, Yahweh is commanding an action and promising a result based solely on his

own ability to bring this result to fruition. Abram will go to the land he will be shown, he will

be made a greatnation and his name will be great. None of these accolades are predicated

on Abrams action. All of these things will be accomplished on Abrams behalf in accordance

with the nature and character of Yahweh. Yahweh promises with his own words that he will

show Abram the land, make Abram a great nation, bless ( ) Abram and make his

name great. It is Yahweh who will do all of these things for the purpose of fulfilling his second

divine imperative, so that you will be a blessing.57 The divine imperatives of v. 1 and v. 2

bookend Yahwehs promised action on behalf of Abram rooting the promise in his own divine

nature and character while laying the foundation for his further self-revelation through his action

on Abrams behalf. Yahwehs action, and nothing else, brings these promises to fruition.

Yahweh's promise to Abram continues to unfold in v. 3 as the second divine imperative

that you may be a blessing( ) is further explained. I will bless those who bless you,

and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be

blessed. (emphasis mine).The wording of thesepromises is precise. The first uses the

cohorative construction of the verb that stresses God's determination or resolve, and the object,

the participle, is a plural form; I am determined to bless all those who bless you.58 But what

exactly does Yahweh mean by the promised blessing? In order to answer this important

20

57 Based in the use of the imperatives in this passages, Sailhammer concludes that: The purpose of God'scall is not only that Abraham might become a great nation, but also that he might be a blessing. John H.Sailhammer, Walter C. Kaiser Jr, and Richard Hess, The Expositors Bible Commentary: Genesis-Leviticus, Reviseded. (Zondervan, 2008), 156.



21/98

question we must jump ahead a bit in the narrative and visit the paradigmatic expression of

blessing in the Torah, the priestly blessing of Num. 6:22-27.

Numbers 6:22-27 as the Paradigmatic Blessing of Torah

Num. 6:22-27 describes, what I believe to be, the paradigm through which the concept of

the blessing of Yahwehs presence is understood in the context of the Pentateuch.59 Here, Yahweh

specifically commands Moses (who is to tell Aaron) to bless ( ) the people of Israel with

specific words relating to his presence among them. It is important to remember that this is a

prescribed blessing from Yahweh. Aaron (Israels first the Chief Priest) and his sons (the future

leaders of the Levitical priestly caste) are specifically chosen to lead the people of Israel in the

detailed and clearly defined worship of Yahweh. Yahweh himself, connects this priestly blessing

with the reminder of his continued presence, defining what his blessing truly is.

The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying, Thus you shall

bless the people of Israel: you shall say to them,

The Lord bless you and keep you;

the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;

the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.

So shall they put my name upon the people of Israel, and I will bless them (Num 6:22-27,

emphasis mine)

While the space for a complete exegetical discussion of this paradigm of blessing is not

available,60 a few salient points connecting the presence of Yahweh and the blessing of Num.

6:22-27 are important to point out. First, this is a declaration by Yahweh himself, not a man-

made blessing that references the God of the Israelites. It was given by Yahweh to become a part

21

59 cf. J. McKeown, Blessings and Curses, inDictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (the IVP BibleDictionary Series), ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2002), 85.

60 cf. Patrick D. Miller, Blessing of God : An Interpretation of Numbers 6:22-27,Interpretation 29, no. 3(1975): 240 - 251. and Elmer A. Martens, Intertext Messaging: Echoes of the Aaronic Blessing (Numbers6:24-26),Direction 38, no. 2 (2009): 163 - 178.


22/98

of the worship of the people of Israel, a worship that continued into the Second Temple period

and beyond.

Second, this declaration concerns the nature of Israel's relationship with Yahweh, from

the perspective of Yahweh. Yahweh's role ofblesserand keeperserves to connect the promised

blessing of Gen. 12 and the covenant of Gen. 15. As we have discussed, Yahweh's nature and

character are the foundation of his promised blessing. As we will discuss, the Abrahamic

covenant is predicated on Yahweh and continues solely because of Yahwehs action in

accordance with revealed his nature and character.

Thirdly, the explanation that Yahweh will make his face to shine upon you and Yahweh

will lift up his countenance upon you are both strong indications of Yahweh's presence among

his people. The results of Yahweh's actions, peace ( ) and grace ( ) are both concepts

only found in the presence of Yahweh.61

Finally, Yahweh ends his command to Moses with the explanation that in preforming this

blessing, Aaron and his sons will be putting the name of Yahweh upon the people of Israel,

something that the people already bear as a revelation of the presence of Yahweh among them

(see below).

All of these factors leads us to understand that the priestly blessing served as a

confirmation of what Yahweh has already done and an explanation of what he will continue to

do. The blessing, spoken by Aaron on Yahwehs behalf, was to serve as a worshipful reminder

22

61 Yahweh is the giver of peace. In this respect the Aaronic blessing of Num. 6:24-26 is most important inthe Pentateuch. This prayer shows that peace from God is linked with blessing, preservation or protection, and grace.Peace is enjoyed in Yahwehs presence. Similarly, in Gen. 28:19-22 Jacobs prayer for peace is based on hisexperience of Gods presence. The Bible goes on to show the ultimately Gods provision for restitution for sin makessuch peace possible. P.A. Barker, Rest, Peace, inDictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (the Ivp Bible

Dictionary Series), ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2002),691. John I. Durham, Shalom and the Presence of God, inProclamation and Presence : Old Testament Essays in

Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies, ed. John I. Durham and J. R. Porter, (Richmond : John Knox Press, 1970).


23/98

that Yahweh was and would continue to be present among his people. The concept of Yahwehs

divine blessing itself is so intimately connected to the divine presence of Yahweh that the two are

virtually inseparable. The blessing that is promised in Gen. 12 flows from the presence of

Yahweh among his people. Land, seed, Abram's name becoming synonymous with greatness and

a great nation, will all come to fruition because of Yahweh's action as he is present in Abrams

life and the life of Abrams descendants.

As stated before, Yahweh's determination to bless Abram reveals that he is the foundation

and source for any blessing that Abram will incur. In fact, I would posit that the primary blessing

being promised to Abram in Gen. 12 is none other than the continued presence of Yahweh among

his people. This is important to remember as we move through the narrative. Any action that

Yahweh takes on behalf of Abram points directly back to Yahwehs active presence with Abram

and his determination to continue to be a blessing to Abram. This is more than just a concern for

Abram's welfare.62 Rather, as Yahweh is recognized as the source of Abrams fortunate

circumstances, he, in effect, reveals his nature and character to Abram and everyone Abram

encounters in the narrative. Yahweh's determination to bless Abram with his divine presence is a

determination rooted solely on his nature and character and not on the action of Abram. This

will become especially evident as the narrative progresses.

The Promise and Abrams Seed

Following Yahwehs declaration of blessing, Abram (along with his wife Sarai, and his

nephew Lot) passes through the land of Canaan. Here, Yahweh appears to Abram a second time,

23

62 Wenham says that 12:3 employs the first person (I will bless/I shall curse) instead of the impersonalpassive participles (blessed/curses) found in parallel passages (27:29; Num. 24:9) He thinks it emphasizes concernfor Abram's welfare. Retribution and justice are not left to the impersonal operation of fate. The LORD himself willactively intervene on Abram's side. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, (Word Biblical Commentary), vol. 1(Thomas Nelson, 1987), 276.


24/98

further explaining a facet of the promise, this time specifically including a mention of Abram's

offspring. To your seed I will give this land (12:7, my translation). Here, in conjunction with

some sort of experience with Yahweh's presence, Yahweh's nature and character are again

revealed to Abram as Yahweh states that the line of Abram will continue through Abrams own

seed ( ). The main thrust of the passage seems to focus on the promise that Abram will

become a great nation (12:2a) through Yahwehs ability to overcome the current state of

Sarais bareness. The land itself seems to be a secondary matter in that it serves as an illustrative

backdrop for Yahwehs explanation of his extraordinary ability to continue the line of Abram

through Abrams ownseed.

In response to the word of Yahweh, Abram builds an altar, probably in competition with

the other gods of the land in the already designated holy space of the Oak of Moreh.

Interestingly, with the building of this altar, Abram seems to take part in the revelation of God's

nature and character to the surrounding nations. Ross understands Abram's action of building an

altar and calling on the name of Yahweh as similar to Yahwehs self-revelation in Ex 34:5-7.

[Yahweh] descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of

[Yahweh]. [Yahweh] passed before him and proclaimed, [Yahweh], [Yahweh], a God

merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and

faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression

and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on

the children and the childrens children, to the third and the fourth generation.

By building this altar, Abram distinguishes his worship from the worship of the Cannanites and,

in effect, proclaims the nature and character of Yahweh through this distinction.63

24



25/98

In the next section of chapter 12 (vv. 10-20), Yahweh again takes center stage as he acts

according to his promise in an encounter with the Egyptian Pharaoh. During his sojourn in the

land of Egypt, Abram fears for his life because of the beauty of Sarai and the self-interest of the

Egyptian ruler. With little regard to the promise of Yahweh, Abram disguises Sarai's identity and

allows her to be taken as a concubine into the court of Pharaoh. Here, facer of Yahwehs promise

is in jeopardy of not being fulfilled. Without a wife Abram would not be able to conceive an

offspring.64 Also, and most importantly, Abram was dishonored by Pharaoh and Pharaoh

encountered the promised curse of 12:3.

God's action of testing Pharaoh and his house with great affliction and plagues on

account of Sarai, the wife of Abram, is a prime example of his action according to the promise

given to Abram. Yahweh, who is present with Abram in Egypt, is able to actively work on

Abrams behalf despite the protection and security the pagan gods are supposed to afford the

Egyptian king. Yahweh does this despite Abram's lack of trust that Yahweh would be able to

protect him in a foreign land. Wenham explains Yahwehs actions towards Pharaoh by pointing

out the difference between the Hebrew words for curse and disdain. Traditional English

translations fail to bring out the difference between these words, usually translating both curse.

However, ( ) disdain generally covers illegitimate verbal assaults on God or one's superiors

e.g., Ex. 21:17; Lev 24:11; 2 Sam 16:5-13, whereas the latter term refers to a judicial curse

pronounced on evildoers (3:14,17; 9:25; Deut 27:15-26).65

Pharaoh's actions not only

25

64 In this way chapter 12 sets the tone for the next ten chapters as advance and jeopardy are intertwined.God will demonstrate again and again his ability to overcome obstacles and resolve jeopardy as he fulfills promisesand provides what is necessary for the covenant to move forward. John H. Walton, Genesis (The NIV ApplicationCommentary) (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 398.

65 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, (Word Biblical Commentary), vol. 1 (Word Books, 1987), 276.


26/98

dishonored Abram but they were also a direct affront to Yahweh. How Pharaoh discovered the

truth of Sarais relationship to Abram is not related in the narrative but neither is Pharaoh's

understanding of the source of the affliction and plagues. The fact that Pharaoh did not kill

Abram outright (fulfilling Abram's original fears of his impending death at the hands of the

Egyptian ruler), keep Sarai as his concubine, or even revoke the gifts given to Abram shows that

Pharaoh did make some sort of connection between Abram and the power behind him.66

In the circumstances surrounding Abrams sojourn to Egypt, we find Yahweh acting in

accordance with his promise to Abram, despite the faithlessness of Abram. Abram, whether

attempting to help the promise of Yahweh become fulfilled through the preservation of his own

life or due to a complete lack of faith in Yahweh's ability to operate outside of the promised land

and among the powerful Egyptian gods, acted contrary to the promise made to him. Yet, Yahweh,

for the purpose of fulfilling a promise that was based on his own nature and character, acted on

Abrams behalf. He preserved Abram's life, rescued Abram's wife, revealed his power to Pharaoh

(a power that exceeded the protection of the Egyptian gods), and even used the Egyptian ruler to

increase Abram's possessions. In short, Yahweh made his presence known through his actions on

behalf of Abram, revealing to Abram, as well as the Egyptians, that it is in his nature and

character to be true to the promise he has given, despite Abrams efforts to assist Yahweh in the

process.

Genesis 15

Yahweh's program self-revelation continues in Gen. 15 as he reveals his nature and

character through: (1) three foundational revelatory statements concerning his relational

26

66 Claus Westermann, Genesis 12-36(Continental Commentaries) (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg FortressPublishers, 1995), 166.


27/98

presence, (2) the clarification of his intention concerning Abram's progeny, and (3) the

declaration of his continued presence with Abram and his descendants. It is also important to

note that each of the ways Yahweh chooses to reveal his nature and character are intimately

linked to the promise of Gen. 12. Using the promise as the foundation for his continued presence,

Yahweh continues his program of self-revelation as he manifests his presence to Abram in the

covenant ceremony of vv. 7-21.

Three Foundational Revelatory Statements

Chapter 15 begins with the word of Yahweh coming to Abram in a vision. Fear not,

Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great (15:1). These three seemingly simple

statements provide us with valuable insight into Yahwehs relational presence in Abrams life.

They provide an explanation for Yahwehs past action on Abrams behalf as well as prepare

Abram for the impending encounter with Yahwehs manifest presence. All of this based on

Yahwehs promise given in 12:2b, I will bless you and make your name great.

Fear Not

It is important to note that Yahweh's command to fear not ( ) appears here for

the first time in the book of Genesis. The word for fear ( ) has made an appearance only

once before when it is used by Adam to describe his own reaction to the impending presence of

Yahweh in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:10).

And they heard the sound of [Yahweh] God walking in the garden in the cool of the day,and the man and his wife hid themselvesfrom the presence of [Yahweh] Godamong the

trees of the garden. But [Yahweh] God called to the man and said to him, Where are

you? And he said, I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I

was naked, and I hid myself. (3:8-10, emphasis mine)

27


28/98

An excellent case has been made by Jeffery Niehaus that the Hebrew word for day

could be translated storm due to a similar cognate in Akkadian. Niehaus reinterprets v. 8 as

follows: Then the man and his wife heard the thunder of Yahweh God as he was going back

and forth in the garden in the wind of the storm, and they hid from Yahweh God among the

trees of the garden.67

This interpretation would explain Adam's response to Yahweh, I heard the sound of you

in the garden, and Iwas afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself (3:10).68 At the

experience of the manifest presence of Yahweh in the thunder and storm, Adam responded with

an incoherent fear that caused him to flee from Yahwehs presence. Adam and Eve's disobedience

spiritually altered their (and subsequently all of mankinds) ability to be in the presence of

Yahweh. What had previously been a relational blessing had now become a threat to their

physical well being. the presence of God is so threatening to less than entirely holy people

that his presence in this world, even among his own people, must be limited as to not overwhelm

humans. This phenomenon is a reflection of the contrast between God's holiness and human sin.

He cannot abide sin in his presence, so the closer he is to a sinner, the more difficult it is for the

sinner to survive. 69 In other words, Adam's experience of Yahweh was now associated with fear

28

67 Jeffrey Niehaus, In the Wind of the Storm : Another Look At Genesis Iii 8, Vetus testamentum 44, no. 2(1994): 265. (Emphasis mine)

68 Walton finds issue with this translation because (1) umu is most often connected with a storm demon orpersonification of a storm, rather than just storm and (2) Adam claimed that he was only hiding from the presenceof Yahweh because he was naked. John H. Walton, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, (ZondervanIllustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2009), 35.

While Walton's first objection has some merit and needs to be explored further, his second objection inrelation to Adam's response is faulty. Adam's claim of fear because of his nakedness should be considered a lie (or at

best a half-truth) in the light of the post-fall consequences of his sin. He was not physically naked (3:7). In additionto this, Adam's next response (v. 12) shifted the blame to Eve in order to avoid the direct impact of guilt.

69 Douglas K. Stuart,Exodus (the New American Commentary), vol. 2 (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference,2006), 469. While Stuart articulates the understanding of the holiness of Yahweh and its interaction with human sinextremely well, I do not agree with his conclusions the fear of Yahweh's wrath is the beneficial guiding mechanismfor human behavior.


29/98

brought on by an internal spiritual reaction of self-preservation due to Yahweh's consuming

holiness.70 This fearfulness serves to define the natural human reaction that was continued in

Adam's progeny.

In Gen. 15:1 we find the same kind of fear that Adam experienced immediately negated

by Yahwehs own words, Fear not ( ). Rather than interpret this as a general command

for Abram to not be afraid, the jussive construction of Qal imperfect form of seems to

indicate something deeper: Yahwehs desire that Abram not react in fear and flee from the threat

of his impending presence. Along with Yahwehs desire that Abram not be afraid, the jussive

conveys the sense that Yahweh himself will also provide the empowerment/resources necessary

to make the command that has been given possible. Abrams ability to follow Yahweh's

command is not based on Abram's cognitive choice to not fear, but on Yahweh's desire and

command that Abram fear not, a desire that Yahweh will see to fruition. Taking the

intertextual meaning of fear and the context and structure of Yahwehs command to fear not

into account shows us that Yahwehs communication to Abram should be read as: It is my

[Yahwehs] desire/will/purpose that you [Abram] should not react in fear and flee from my

presence.

I Am Your Shield

Immediately following the command to fear not, Yahweh further explains his

relationship to Abram in a specific self-revelatory I am statement concerning his nature and

character, I am your shield ( ). This I am statement, the first in the Abrahamic

29

70 Walton believes that if Neihaus is correct then the approach of Yahweh in the thunder and storm wouldinfer judgment. see John H. Walton, Genesis (The NIV Application Commentary), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,2001), 223-224. But, I would contend that that this passage is revelatory of Yahweh's holiness as compared to humansinfulness. Judgment follows (3:16-19) because of who Yahweh is as revealed in his command.


30/98

narrative, is particularly interesting in that Yahweh (who has previously revealed his nature and

character through acting on the promise of Gen. 12) now specifically applies the noun shield to

himself. Yahwehs self-designation as a shield describes, not only his past action on Abrams

behalf but also, his continued relational presence in Abrams life. Through this statement,

Yahweh reveals that his self-designation as Abrams shield is congruent with his own past

actions, actions taken in accordance with his nature and character. The Hebrew word

indicates more than the defensive weapon used in battle. Rather, it is used in this context to speak

of the relational nature of Yahweh's divine covering and protection over Abram.71 Yahweh, with

this self-revelatory statement, has not only pledged himself to the care and protection of Abram

but he also, has chosen to reveal to Abram a facet of his own nature and character. His presence

acts as a shield to Abram, a designation that is consistent with the promise of blessing

Yahweh has given in Gen. 12.

Yahweh himself declares, through these two statements (fear not and I am your

shield) that Abram should/will not be afraid and that Abram is protected, both things that can

only be attributed to Yahweh's active and continued presence in his life. But what do these two

relational statements have to do with Abram's immediate circumstances? Abram is not facing any

immediate human threat to his physical well-being. In fact, previous to this revelatory encounter

with the word of Yahweh, Abram has just come from a decisive victory over Chedorlaomer and

the kings who were with him (14.17). According to Melchizedek Abram can attribute this

victory to the God Most High, and, in an interesting use of the same root of the word Yahweh

30

71 Swanson, James.Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament).electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 4482.


31/98


32/98

Abram's statement, coupled with Melchizedek's blessing (14:19a-20), makes it clear that

Yahweh has already established himself as a source of Abram's material wealth. But what is this

exceedingly great reward being promised to Abram? I would agree with Hamilton that the

statement Your reward shall be exceedingly great is a self-declaration by Yahweh concerning

his nature and character. This statement was given to reiterate the promise of Gen. 12:2a, that

Yahweh himself will be a blessing to Abram.

The divine imperative [do not fear] is followed by a word of divine self-disclosure [I am

your shield]. Two clauses in apposition [I am your shield and your reward shall be

exceedingly great] state the same fact twice. The first states a fact from the speakers point

of view:I am a benefactor for you. The second states the same point, but from the

addressee's point of view: your reward shall be exceedingly great.74

So, Yahweh, who is provides the means necessary for Abram to not fear, reveals that he himself

is a shield of protection as well as the exceedingly great reward. All of these things speak

intensely of Yahwehs continued relational presence with Abram. Abram himself will experience

each aspect of Yahwehs declared relational presence during the upcoming covenant ceremony.

This experience will forever alter Abram's understanding of Yahweh and lay the foundation for

future generations understanding of how Yahweh has chosen to bless his people with his divine

presence.

Yahweh Clarifies His Intention Concerning Abrams Progeny

Following Yahweh's self-revelatory statements of 15:1, the narrative records Abram

asking two important questions concerning his progeny: But Abram said, O [Yahweh] God,

what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?

And Abram said, Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will

32

74 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 1-17, (New International Commentary on the Old Testament),vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 418.


33/98

be my heir (15:2-3). Abram, in his first direct address to Yahweh, respectfully questions Yahweh

concerning, not Yahwehs self-revelatory statements but, how these declarations will relate to his

progeny. Abram understood that the declaration of Yahwehs protective presence had to be seen

through the lens of the original promise that Yahweh had given.75 In 12:2a Yahweh had promised

to make a great nation of Abram, implying that Abrams line would continue directly through his

own seed. Rather than doubting Yahweh's self-revelatory statements, Abram appears to be trying

to rectify what he already knows to be true concerning Yahwehs nature and character, the

promise he has been given, and his current childlessness.

In response to Abram's questions, Yahweh further unpacks the promise of Gen. 12 by

explaining that his relational presence would continue to be with Abrams progeny. In a vivid

illustration of his creative power, he directs Abram to Look toward heaven, and number the

stars, if you are able to number them (15:5a). Then Yahweh confirms that the heir to the

promise of Gen. 12 would come from Abram's own seed ( ) with the words, So shall your

offspring be (15:5b).

One should not mistake the emphasis of Gen. 15:4-6 by thinking that the vivid illustration

concerning the unfathomable number of offspring was what prompted Abram's confirmation/

33

75 In the ANE, there were two essential values: progeny and land. It is only logical that Abram would askYahweh questions concerning these two things, especially in light of the promise of of Gen. 12. The relationship

between Israel and Yahweh was not a merely conceptualized, spiritual entity. It was very deeply rooted in theconcrete circumstances of Israel's life - social, economic and political. The primary symbol of this 'concreteness' wasthe Land, and the family - the household, or 'father's house' - formed the basic unit of land tenure, as it did of thesocial, kinship structure. In many ways - economic, judicial, military, cultic, didactic - this social unit of 'household-

plus-land' was the basis of Israel's relationship with God. Since therefore, the family was of pivotal importance inthe mediation and enjoyment of the nation's covenant relationship with Yahweh, the family's protection, externallyand internally, was important. Christopher J. H. Wright, Ten Commandments, in The International Standard

Bible Encyclopedia: Q-Z, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 788.


34/98

belief76 in v. 6. To do so seems to cheapen the length Yahweh has gone to reveal himself in

order that Abrams belief not be centered on the idea of material gain or continued progeny.

Rather, I agree with Ross' conclusion that Abram's belief was not due to his observance of the

number of the stars in the sky. The verb confirm/believe ( ) is used with a Waw disjunctive

and cannot be interpreted as in sequence with the verses that came before it.77 The sentence

begins with a Waw on a perfect and could not be a Waw consecutive or the tense would be put

in the future.78 Instead, the Waw disjunctive marks a parenthetical clause that the author uses to

state that Abram believed in Yahweh and Yahweh reckoned righteousness to him.79

Walton holds a similar view as he explains the belief stated in v. 6 has nothing to do

with a comprehensive belief system. Rather, this belief should be associated with Abrams

hearing the spoken word and believing in the source of that word. Abram's belief has nothing to

do with salvation and nothing to do with a faith system. He simply believed that, though he had

no children and no hope of having any, God could make his offspring as numerous as the stars of

the sky.80

I would further the argument by emphasizing that Abram's belief was due to the

recognition ofYahweh's nature and character. Yahweh consistently revealed his nature and

character through his actions according to the foundational promise and his self-revelatory

34

76 The basic sense of the form is to affirm, recognize as valid. In other words, the result is not so much amatter of objective faith as of absolute fact. Our Amen derives from the same Heb. root. E. A. Speiser, Genesis,

2nd Edition, (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries), (Yale University Press, 1963), 112.


78 Ibid..

79 Ibid.

80 John H. Walton, Genesis, (The NIV Application Commentary), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001),421.


35/98

statements. Now, with creation as a witness to his word as well as a vivd illustration of his

creative power, Yahweh's nature and character are confirmed by Abram. This confirmation

garnered Abram a righteous standing before Yahweh, an essential spiritual prerequisite for being

in close proximity to the manifest divine presence.

It is important to note that Abram did not take part in any work that would have earned

him the righteousness reckoned to him by Yahweh. Rather, Yahweh, in an act of grace, reckoned

righteousness to Abram because of his belief. Again, it is important to understand that Abram's

belief was not centered on anything other than on Yahweh himself. Yahweh had laid the

foundations for his self-revelation in the promise of Gen 12, consistently acted on this promise in

Abram's life, led Abram safely to the promised land, and continued to reveal himself through

direct statements concerning his nature and character. Abram's belief was a confirmation of all

these things but most importantly it was a confirmation of the revelation of Yahweh's nature and

character and thus, a confirmation of who Yahweh is. Abram's belief was in Yahweh (

) and Yahweh reckoned this belief as righteousness.

Yahweh Declares His Impending Presence

Yahweh- having reckoned Abram righteous, further reveals his nature and character

through a direct revelation of his personal name. I am [Yahweh] who brought you out from Ur

of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess (15:7).

This is the second self-revelatory statement spoken by Yahweh and the first recorded

instance where Yahweh declares his personal name to Abram. Traditionally the Hebrew

Tetragrammaton ( ) in this passage has been understood to be a declarative statement of

35


36/98

Yahweh's eternal existence (I am) or his creative purposes the (One Who Causes to Be),81 all

in the context of his past faithfulness to Abram according to the promise of Gen. 12. While these

interpretations hold to the understanding that God is revealing something specific about his

nature and character in the context of the promise, they miss the essential quality of Yahwehs

relational presence that pervades the biblical narrative.

As has been previously discussed, Yahweh's command to fear not coupled with the self-

revelatory relational statements I am your shield and your reward shall be exceedingly great,

all serve to create the context for an understanding of Yahweh's presence with Abram. Yahweh

has laid the foundation of his self-revelation through his action according to the promise. Now,

after guiding Abram safety to the land he will posses (as promised in 12:1b), Yahweh declares his

impending presence through the use of his personal name, Yahweh, I am/will be present.

The Hebrew Tetragrammaton [ ] has an essential quality of relationship not often

discussed in scholarship. Jacob Milgrom, has suggested that the Hebrew Tetragrammaton [ ]

finds its meaning in thepromised continued presence of Yahweh among his people and should be

interpreted as I am/will be present.82 Isbell also relates the importance of the name of Yahweh

as he explains the purpose of the Tetragrammaton in its verbal form.

Whenever appears in a context of divine action or promise, its theological

significance as asymbol of divine presence far exceeds its simple syntactic function as a

first person singular verbal form.... was from its first use in Israelite traditions

involved in an emotional context; always its function was to express the presence of God

in a promissory and assuring fashion. Always this assurance was expressed to someone

36

81 cf. David Noel Freedman, Name of the God of Moses,Journal of Biblical Literature 79, no. 2 (1960):151-156.

82 J. Milgrom, The Desecration of YHWHs Name: Its Parameters and Significance,Birkat Shalom:Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on theOccasion of his Seventieth Birthday, 80-81. c.f. Kenneth Way, Hello My Name is Yahweh, Good Book Blog(3/8/2011).


37/98

who really needed it. was a personal word, an I from God which one could

remember and upon which one could count in the crunch. This much is certain.83

Understanding in its verbal form (3rd person singular Qal imperfect form of the verb

)helps better explain the main thrust of Yahweh's statement. Not only has Yahweh been

with Abram and acting on his behalf previous to and in accordance with the promise of Gen. 12,

he is also present with Abram at the very moment he is speaking, and will be with Abram (and

his descendants) in the future. Here, Yahweh uses the land he has brought Abram to, not as an

ultimate reward for Abram's faithfulness but as a visible and tangible reference to his presence in

Abram's life.

As the narrative moves forward, Abram continues to press Yahweh for an answer

concerning his own possession of the land. O [Yahweh] God, how am I to know that I shall

possess it? (15:8) Abram does not appear to be questioning Yahweh's ability to procure the land

itself. Yahweh has already proven his ability to overcome the current inhabitants (Gen. 14).

Abram is, in fact, desiring a tangible sign that guarantees his and his promised seed's possession.

In the ancient Near East (ANE) a sign was not a request for the god to prove himself capable of

delivering on the promise given. Rather, it would serve as a tangible confirmation or seal that the

deal would go through.84

Although the word for sign ( ) in Hebrew is not specifically used in this passage, all

the elements for the request of a sign appear.85

37

83 Charles D. Isbell The Divine Name as a Symbol of Presence in Israelite Tradition,Hebrew AnnualReview 2 (1978). 101, 115.

84 cf. Benjamin R. Foster, Transmission of Knoweldge, inA Companion to the Ancient Near East(BlackwellCompanions to the Ancient World), ed. Daniel C. Snell, (Wiley-Blackwell, 2005-02-07) 254-252.

85 sign is only used once previous to this passage in relation to the mark Cain had received on his headGen. 4:15.


38/98

The request concerns Yahweh's will and Abram's future possession of the land86

Abram seeks to validate the divine origin of an accompanying statement or revelation

that Yahweh has already given him87

The request is linked to a confirmation of a previous promise, which becomes

intimately linked with covenant88

Yahweh answers with a supernatural phenomenon (his manifest presence) in order tostrengthen Abram's confidence in the promise given89

Yahweh's manifest presence in the covenant ceremony becomes the basis for Abram's

faith and is used to convince others that Yahweh was the true all powerful God90

Yahwehs response to Abram's request for a sign was the manifestation of his divine

presence as he performed a covenant ceremony that, not only excluded any human participation

but also, furthered the revelation of his nature and character. But why does Yahweh respond to

this question with a covenant ceremony? Previous questions (2-3) have been answered with a

vivid illustration as a witness to Yahweh's creative power (4-5). This has seemed sufficient for

Abram's belief in Yahweh to culminate into a confirmation that garners him being reckoned

righteous. So, what is Yahweh trying to convey by manifesting his presence to Abram in this

way? And what does the manifest presence of Yahweh have to do with the promise of Gen. 12?

38

86 G.A. Turner, Sign, in The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney and MoisesSilva, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 508.

87 G.H. Twelftree, Signs and Wonders, in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity &Diversity of Scripture, ed. Brian S. Rosner and others, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2000), 776.

88 G.A. Turner, Sign, in The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney and MoisesSilva, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 508. ZEB links them to covenant in Gen. 1:14: And God said, Let

there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and forseasons, and for days and years,

89 G.A. Turner, Sign, in The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney and MoisesSilva, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 508.

90 G.A. Turner, Sign, in The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney and MoisesSilva, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 509 These signs were regarded by the writers of the Bible asinterventions by the Creator into the sphere of creation for the purposes of revelation and redemption. As such, theywere an encouragement to faith and many times theyprovided a basis for faith. G.H. Twelftree, Signs andWonders, in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity & Diversity of Scripture, ed. Brian S.Rosner and others, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2000), 776. cf. Deut. 4:35, and later 1 Chr. 16:12;Neh.9:10; Ps. 78:43-44; 105:26-45; Jer. 32:20-21.


39/98

I would posit that the Abrahamic Covenant (15:7-21) is a condescension made by

Yahweh to present a tangible sign of his current and continued presence to Abram. Yahweh chose

to answer Abram's request for a sign with the manifestation of his presence, further revealing

himself with an action that corresponded with his self-revelatory declarations. In effect, the

covenant ceremony itself becomes secondary to the central point of Gen. 15, Yahweh's divine

presence is and will continue to be with Abram.

It is important to understand that this ceremony is, at its very core, rooted in the promise

that Yahweh will bless Abram (12:2b). The presence of Yahweh among his people, a people

that began with Abram, would be considered the greatest blessing available. Quite often

scholarship has gotten lost in trying to understand the soteric value of the Abrahamic covenant

and ends up missing the main point: All-Mighty Yahweh -who has made irrevocable promises

based on his character and nature - promises that he has already actively kept by means of his

own divine power - continues to reveal himself as he manifests his presence in a covenant

ceremony.

Interestingly, Yahweh is the only active participant in the covenant ceremony of Gen.

15:7-21. In fact, Abram is removed from the picture, only able to witness Yahwehs action on his

beahlf and not participate. As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold,

dreadful and great darkness fell upon him (15:7).91 Also Interesting is the Hebrew verb used in

v. 12 often translated sleep ( ), actually holds the idea of an insensitivity to danger in a

39

91 Von Rad calls this a miraculous deep sleep... in which the natural activities of spirit and mind areextinguished (see Gen. 2.21), which however, sometimes awakens a man to receive a revelation (Job 4.13; 33.15).Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis - a Commentary (Old Testament Library), Revised ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster JohnKnox Press, 1973), 187. He calls the meaning of the ceremony simply the gift of quite a real guarantee. Theceremony proceeded completely without words and with the complete passivity of the human partner! Ibid., 188.


40/98

divinely empowered trance.92 This would follow Yahwehs purpose of having Abraham

personally witness the cutting of the covenant yet not be an active participant in the ceremony

itself. Yahweh desired to let Abram experience the dread/fear associated with his divine presence

yet not let it hinder Abram's witnessing of this relational covenant event.93 As discussed

previously, in Yahwehs command to fear not and relational self-description as Abram's

shield, Abram received the external empowerment from Yahweh needed to not experience the

typical consuming effects that the manifest presence of Yahweh would have on the fallen human

physical body. These two things combined with Abram's being reckoned righteous by Yahweh,

a spiritual prerequisite to being in the manifest presence of Yahweh, prepared Abram, physically

and spiritually, to witness Yahweh making a covenant concerning Abram and his descendants.

It is also important to note that Yahweh himself, with Abram as a witness, walks through

the pieces of animal (as a smoking pot and a flaming torch) and swears a covenant oath over

Abram taking sole responsibility for Abram's future (13-17). The covenant Yahweh performs

concerning Abram can be described as a modified suzerain-vassal land grant where the

obligation to keep the covenant lies on the master rather than the servant.94 In this covenant it is

God as the suzerain who commits himself and swears, as it were, to keep the promise. It is he

40

92 William White, in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Electronic Ed., ed. R. Laird

Harris, Jr. Archer, Gleason L., and Bruce K. Waltke, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 834.

93 cf. Gen. 2:26 Where a similar deep sleep falls over Adam in the rib ceremony

94 Weinfeld states: While the treaty constitutes an obligation of the vassal to his master, the suzerain, thegrant constitutes an obligation of the master to his servant. In the grant the curse is directed towards the one whowill violate the rights of the king's vassal, while in the treaty the curse is directed towards the vassal who will violatethe rights of his king. In other words, the grant serves mainly to protect the rights of the servant, while the treatycomes to protect the rights of the master. What is more, while the grant is a reward for loyalty and good deedsalready performed, the treaty is an inducement for future loyalty. M. Weinfeld, The Covenant of Grant in the OldTestament and in the Ancient NearEast,Journal of the American Oriental Society 90, no. 2 (Apr.-Jun., 1970): 185.


41/98

accompanied by a smoking oven and a blazing torch who passes between the parts as though he

were invoking the curse upon himself.95

In his argument that Gen. 15 can be compared to the Alalakh texts (AT 456) regarding the

significance of ritually slaughtering animals, Hess concludes that the focus of the ritual is not a

self-imprecation oath performed by God. Rather, the common element in each animal (since they

are not all spilt into two) is that each animal's life is taken away. The implication of this is that

God's own divine life forms the surety for the promise.96 He then follows Wenham in

understanding the significance of the animals as symbolic.

[Yahwehs] act of walking between the pieces signifies his presence with his people.

However, even here the symbolic identification of the life of the animals with [Yahwehs]

own life reinforces the representation. His promise of the land is also a promise that his

people will never perish entirely. [Yahweh] is with Israel. He guarantees by his life that

he will bring them back to their land, no matter how unlikely or uncertain that may seem

(vv. 13-16).97

In Gen. 12, Yahweh has promised to bless Abram with the greatest blessing possible, his

continued presence. He has consistently revealed himself through his actions on behalf of Abram

and, now, he has manifested his divine presence to take part in a covenant ceremony in which his

own existence serves as the guarantee of his continued presence. Just as the righteousness that

was reckoned to Abram found its source in Yahweh, in the same manner Yahweh's continued

41

95 Ibid., 196.

96 R. Hess,He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes From Genesis 12-50, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,1994), 63. emphasis mine

97 Ibid., 63-64, emphasis mine. In any event the details present a daring anthropomorphism whereby Godinvolves himself in an obligation whose nature is dramatized by an acted oath of self-commitment, (cf. Heb. 6:13).In any case, no undertaking is exacted from Abram; God alone is bound. William J. Dumbrell, Covenant andCreation: Old Testament Covenantal Theology (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 49.


42/98

presence among his people is predicated on his grace.98 Everything about the covenant

ceremony of Gen. 15 leads to a deeper understanding that his nature and character are the basis

of his relationship with Abram and his offspring. Here, at the very foundation of the covenant

that would later define the people of Yahweh, we do not find any conditions or stipulations that

would cause a break in relationship. Rather, what we do find is a gracious covenant that is the

natural outworking of the foundational promise which is based solely Yahweh's desire to reveal

himself to his creation, so that they may know him.

Genesis 17

The next section of the Abrahamic narrative that needs to be discussed, (although

somewhat briefly) is Gen. 17. In this section I will show that the sign of circumcision attached to

the covenant is, in and of itself, revelatory of Yahwehs nature and character. It

me theo final 3.0

Documents