Thursday, July 12, 2007

Moses and Law in mediation

I'm continuing to turn the soil to reformulate, refine, and revise subsequently. Today I'm asking how Moses and the Law might have served mediating roles between God and Israel.

For Moses, there is of course his role in mediating the exodus. God sends him to Pharaoh (Exod. 3:10) and to Israel (3:13). God makes him as a god to Pharaoh, thus mediating God's authority to Pharaoh (7:1). Moses' role in these pages is very prophet-like in some ways.

Indeed, Deuteronomy 18:15 predicts the future rise of a "prophet like me." Regardless of who Deuteronomy originally had in mind, the passage clearly categorizes Moses as a prophet, in whom God "will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command" (Deut. 18:18). Many scholars (although probably not evangelical ones) think this might have originally referred to Josiah. If so, the passage leans toward a "king-prophet" type. Certainly when we take the passage in relation to Christ, this is the case.

Exodus 20:18-21 gives us a striking picture of Moses as mediator between God and Israel, striking in that the people beg Moses to be the one who talks to God. They are afraid of the thunder and lightning coming from the mountain. Deuteronomy 5:5 refers to the same event, saying, "At that time I was standing between the LORD and you to declare to you the words of the LORD; for you were afraid because of the fire and did not go up the mountain."

Leviticus 26:46 is quite straightforward about Moses as mediator of the law: "These are the statutes and ordinances and laws that the LORD established between himself and the people of Israel on Mount Sinai through Moses." The wording is very similar to Galatians 3:46, so Moses is the mediator through whom the Law came.

So Moses was a foundational mediator between God and Israel. God used Moses to lead Israel out of Egypt. God used Moses to reveal the Law to Israel. The people relied on Moses to mediate these things because they were afraid. These roles are primarily prophetic, but at the same time lean a little toward the kind of mediation a king would provide for a people in relation to God.

At the same time, Moses interceded for the people as well, just as Abraham interceded for Sodom and Gomorrah. This is a prophetic function as well.

When Israel had sinned with the Golden Calf, Moses pleaded with God not to destroy them (Exod. 32:11-14). Moses suggests that God doesn't want the Egyptians to be able to speak ill of God if He should destroy Israel in the desert. Moses reminds God of His promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In result, the LORD changes His mind (Exod. 32:14).

[By the way, this is high anthropomorphism from a Christian standpoint, although we have no reason to think the ancient Israelites might not have understood it literally. From a Christian standpoint, an omniscient God always knew these things would happen and can't be reminded of things by a human]

The Law itself was key to Israel's relationship with God, particularly in the post-exilic period. The evidence we have from Judges, Samuel, and Kings suggests that the Law played a negligible role in the life of Israel until the days of Josiah, and even then it is probably the book of Deuteronomy that began to take on a normative role.

In particular, Deuteronomy 28 sets out an extensive list of blessings and curses that follow in consequence of Israel either keeping or violating the law. The deuteronomistic history of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings understands the vicissitudes of Israel's fortune in the particular light of whether Israel served other gods or not.

From the time of Ezra's reforms, however, the Law in its fuller Exodus-Leviticus form seems to come into fuller play. Jeremiah 7:22 seems to imply that Jeremiah knows nothing of Levitical law at the hands of Moses. Malachi in particular (400's) refers finally to the statutes delivered to Moses (notice the striking absence of such rhetoric in the pre-exilic prophets and books like Judges, Samuel, and Kings). The Sabbath also seems suddenly to become more important from the late exile on.

In the intertestamental period, high priest seem to have become the focus of political and religious power in Israel. In that sense, the primary role of mediation between God and humanity came through a priestly channel. But it was probably not until the Maccabean period that the Law as we think of it took on full force within Palestinian Jewish life, and even then probably only in certain sects like the Hasidim (who become the Pharisees) and the Enochics (who become the Essenes).

The Sadducees are probably the heirs of the temple priestly class displaced by the Maccabean priests (the Hasmoneans). Since the roots of the Diaspora are prior to this period, we should not be surprised to find forms of Judaism outside Palestine that surprise us, such as the Jews at Elephantine who had a temple of their own. Even within Palestine the Samaritans had their own version of the Pentateuch and had no sense of obligation to the Jerusalem temple.

Although we can question how extensive E. P. Sanders' "covenantal nomism" was within Judaism. It certainly does describe some of the sects we mention above. For these, the Law in its canonical form was seen as the mediating factor between God and Israel. If Israel kept the Law, God would restore her land to her. If not, Israel's enslavement to the Romans would continue.

4 comments:

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Israel under Roman rule? I thought that there was a government, such as ours, that allowed the Jewish religion their "freedom", during Jesus time....
I have seen the corrolaries of Judiasm and Catholism and have thought, as most Reformed, that these understandings of sacraments were "law"...whereas the relational aspect that Christ "mediated" was under the New Covenant....Where the "law" was written on our hearts through a "re-birth", but I now understand it as an innate nature within man..(such as "reason")...
I am rethinking all of my faith...and now read that the Trinity itself was brought into the Christian religion when the Gentiles were "allowed" entrance, but was of pagan origin...I am in no sense "committed" to anything from my past commitment...but then in a book on foreign policy, "Statecraft", mediation between two opposing parties must be resolved through demytholization...Myths hold sway over "reality" and define it in ways that inhibit conflict resolution, which is what is needful when a "mediator" is needed...
I had thought that since "Christ fullfilled the Law" that that meant that a Christian was "free" to "serve the Living God" with clear conscience...and clean heart...without others judging as regards to the "Law's commands"...in eating, drinking, and dressing...etc...For the Midwest, it seems from my experience that THAT is pure religion...i.e. eating, drinking, dressing, etc...which has hindered my desire to serve in freedom, because everything one does "may be judged"...I had thought I was accepted not because of the Law, but because of Christ....I don't beleive that anymore...and I am trying to understand what my "faith" should be defined by...and I much more trust "reason", than I do "blind" faith...

Angie Van De Merwe said...

bwzSeparation of Church and State is necessary in regards to imposing upon another it's values, standards, etc. that the "other" may not have "personal convictions" about...But, government is ordered by laws that maintain the freedom of conscience for all....that is my understanding of our "Bill of Rights"...where does "freedom" step "over the bounds" of another's conscience and yet, still maintain the free society that we "love"...Freedom must be maintained within the boundaries of a responsible conscience, where there is consideration of another's views, as well as one's own...that is what negoitiation is all about..the "balance of power" in the branches of government is most important to maintain, as it is in negotiation between two opposing parties...such balancing of power means that each side must view that other with a "fair eye" (justice) and meet the demands of the "other" in a "free market society"...
In regards to Moses in this context, our nation has seen Martin Luther King, Jr. and Abraham Lincoln in regards to the African American speak to the "powers that be" (Pharoah) for liberation and equality...these values are humanities' "rights" and are just measures and weights that God delights in...

Ken Schenck said...

The Romans did allow the Sanhedrin to govern local affairs as much as they thought reasonable, and for the most part did not interfere with religious matters (although they did take the high priest's robe for a long period just after Jesus.

But the Romans were ultimately in charge from 63BC on. Prior to that, they were "watching" in the wings and the Hasmoneans ruled with their permission and Syria's. The Maccabean period was not really a period of full independence. Prior to the Maccabees, Israel was under the control first of Egypt and then around 198BC of Syria.

In terms of the Trinity coming from Gentiles, it is important to say from Gentile Christians. Christianity ceased being a predominantly Jewish population from the second century on. I'm not sure what you mean by pagan origin for the Trinity. Logos concepts were the playground of Jewish Middle Platonism, so the idea of Christ's pre-existence is not pagan in that regard (if indeed this is the right background to see its origins). Spirit language is also Jewish (e.g. Dead Sea Scrolls). There may be some Aristotelian language in the Nicean formulation of the Trinity (which in my mind is open to restatement). But the basic concept seems the logical outworking of what had gone before:

God is God, Jesus is God, the Spirit is God. There is only one God. Yet these three function biblically as three distinct personalities with distinct roles. Therefore, the Trinity...

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I have been trying to assess what brings "full acceptance"...Faith had been my understanding..."whatsoever is not of faith is sin", and "without faith"...(covenant nomism is what I gather is what makes one fully accepted, which is "law abiding") ...The rain rains on the just and unjust...as this is not a completely just world...Jesus in this sense brought about justice to those "outside the law" and was viewed by them as "god" (as this was the culture in which they lived..viewing leaders as "gods")..Jesus was a mediator..."the blood covenant" (an ancient sacrificial understanding of "being right with God")...I understand all of that, but do not believe that just because covenant nomism was the culture of ancient Judiasm and the context of the Gospels that it means it is representative of an absolute culture....ANCIENT CULTURE IS NOT SACRED CULTURE, BUT A MEANS OF REVELATION...Jesus was the perfect man in mediating God's character to those who'd been shunned...because of the "law". He went "outside the camp" and bore the reproach of those who resided there..and was scapegoated by the religious who felt Jesus was not representing covenant nomism..and in this sense Jesus was one like "Moses"...who brought deliverance...setting the captive free, preaching liberty, etc."