Christ as King and God
As king, Jesus also plays a mediating role between God and the world. The Messiah is the "anointed one," understood in Jewish terms to be the king who would restore the fortunes of Israel (e.g., Ps. of Sol. 17:21-25). God would thus use the Messiah to liberate Israel from its oppressors and renew its relationship with him. We find in the New Testament traces of messianic thinking in relation to Israel proper. Jesus does not deny a future restoration of the kingdom to Israel in Acts 1:6, and Acts 3:20 addresses a Jewish audience as it extends hope that God "may send the Messiah appointed for you, that is, Jesus" (cf. also Rom. 11:26).
Nevertheless, the New Testament expands the kingship of Christ well beyond the borders of Israel. The verse immediately following Acts 3:20 speaks of a coming apokata/stasis pa/ntwn in conjunction with Christ's return from heaven. Certainly part of Christ's kingship is now those who trust in him. "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Rom. 10:13 citing Joel 2:32). Since Christ is the way God has chosen to show his righteousness (cf. Rom. 1:17; 3:21; 10:3), submission to his lordship is submission to God's lordship.
For those who do not come to know the righteousness of God, whether Jew or Gentile, Christ will mediate judgment as God's representative. Indeed, "all of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil" (2 Cor. 5:10). Paul criticizes the Corinthians for their inability to make sound judgments among themselves when in fact "the saints will judge the world" (1 Cor. 6:2). Similarly, Matthew 19:28 predicts that Jesus' disciples will "sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." In these ways, therefore, Jesus will mediate God's royal authority over all the people of the earth.
Christ's mediation, however, extends even beyond the realm of mortals to the realm of angels and demonic forces (e.g., 1 Cor. 6:3). Jesus' earthly ministry already demonstrated this fact as Jesus declares, "if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you" (Luke 11:20). Jesus' exorcisms thus mediated God's rule over the demonic forces that surrounded the earth to where Jesus could say that he "watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning" (Luke 10:18). Colossians, as it addresses a Jewish "philosophy" with a high view of angels, makes it clear that Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation" (1:15). All things were created through him--"things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers" (1:16). He is indeed the "head of every ruler and authority" (2:10).
The Philippian hymn captures this cosmic lordship of Christ over all creation well when it gives God's demand that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" (2:10-11). Paul does not understand this lordship of Christ to be independent of God. It is rather a lordship that mediates God's lordship. The confession of Jesus as Lord is "to the glory of God the Father" (Phil. 2:11). Indeed, the subordination of Christ's enemies to him occurs in preparation for the ultimate subordination of everything to God himself. "When all things are subjected to him [Christ], then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all" (1 Cor. 15:28).
Christ's kingship thus represents and mediates God the Father's kingship over the entire creation. Jesus Christ is Lord, but "the LORD says to my Lord" to sit at his right hand (Ps. 110:1; cf. Mark 12:36-37). Jesus Christ is God whose throne is forever and ever (Heb. 1:8), but "God, your God, has anointed you" (Heb. 1:9). In each case, the lordship and divinity of Christ is subordinate and representative of the ultimate lordship and divinity of God the Father. Christ's kingship over the cosmos thus serves to mediate the kingship of God the Father.
Showing posts with label mediation in the Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mediation in the Bible. Show all posts
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Christ as Mediator: Priest
Christ as Priest and Servant of God
Romans 8:34 indicates that Christ intercedes for us at the right hand of God. This statement may very well indicate that already by the time of Paul, some Christians had begun to think of Christ in priestly terms. Certainly the idea that Christ is a sacrifice appears in the earliest writings of the New Testament. Romans 3:25 may very well draw on an early Christian affirmation Paul himself inherited when it says that God put Jesus "forward as a sacrifice of atonement." Romans 8:3 may refer to Jesus' death as a sin offering, and 1 Corinthians 5:7 pictures Christ as a Passover lamb.
We can imagine that it did not take long before Jesus' death on the cross was interpreted in sacrificial and salvific categories. Indeed, it is possible that Jesus anticipated his own death and drew an analogy between it and the Passover lamb. The logion in Mark 10:45 surely indicates what at the very least must have been an early understanding of Jesus' death: "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many." This saying may very well presuppose an identification of Jesus with the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, God's servant who "shall make many righteous" (Isa. 53:11).
If some dispute the allusion to Isaiah 53 in Mark, Luke 22:37 actually cites Isaiah 53:12 in relation to Jesus' approaching death. Acts 3:13 and 26 refer to Jesus as a pais, using the same word for servant as Isaiah 53. Further, Philip explicitly interprets Isaiah 53:7-8 for the Ethiopian eunuch in reference to Jesus' death. It is a more than reasonable conclusion that many early Christians also read Isaiah 53:6 in reference to Christ's death: "the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all."
Therefore, Christ's death served to mediate atonement and reconciliation with God in the manner of a sacrifice. Several Jewish texts are regularly brought into discussion of how the early Christians might have conceptualized the mediating value of Christ's death. Wisdom 2-3 wrestles with the son of God who has died an unjust death at the hands of the ungodly. The souls of such individuals are said to be in the hand of God (3:1), who has accepted them "like a sacrificial burnt offering" (3:6). In 2 Maccabees 7:38, one of seven brothers faces his impending death in hope "through me and my brothers to bring to an end the wrath of the Almighty that has justly fallen on our whole nation." Then most explicitly, 4 Maccabees 6:28-29, a text roughly contemporary with Paul, narrates a righteous martyr asking God to "let our punishment suffice for them [Israel]. Make my blood their purification, and take my life in exchange for theirs." While we can debate the precise nuances of these passages, they indicate a common understanding among certain Jews that a righteous individual's death might have mediating value of some sort in the relationship between God and mortals.
It is one thing to consider Christ's death as a sacrifice. The book of Hebrews goes one step further and pictures Christ as the consummate high priest offering the only truly effective sacrifice of all time. While Romans 8:34 may allude to Christ as a priest in some way, Hebrews is the only book in the New Testament explicitly to refer to him as such. The concept of Christ as both priest and sacrifice is heavily metaphorical. The literal picture of a high priest offering himself on an altar stretches the imagination and, in any case, does not fit with the imagery of Hebrews.
The other sacrificial imagery in the New Testament does not demand that Christ's death be the end of the sacrificial system (cf. Acts 21:26). Nor does it indicate that Christ's death might in some way atone for the righteous under the old covenant. In this respect, Hebrews presents startling claims with regard to the priestly mediation of Christ. It claims that none of the sacrifices under the old covenant were actually able to take away sins (10:11). Accordingly, none of the witnesses to faith in the old covenant could be made perfect until the sacrifice of Christ (11:13, 40). By contrast, "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified" (10:14). The priestly mediation of Christ is thus universal in scope and time, the only effective means of atonement and reconciliation between God and humanity.
Half of the actual occurrences of the Greek word mesites actually occur in Hebrews (8:6; 9:15; 12:24). The word in each case refers to Christ's role as the mediator of a new covenant. This new covenant, in contrast to the covenant mediated through Moses, bodes better promises (8:6). For Hebrews, this is the promise of true redemption (9:15), of the actual forgiveness of sins. The blood of the new covenant "speaks a better word than the blood of Abel (12:24; cf. 1 Cor. 11:25). Hebrews thus conceptualizes Christ as mediator almost completely in cultic terms.
Romans 8:34 indicates that Christ intercedes for us at the right hand of God. This statement may very well indicate that already by the time of Paul, some Christians had begun to think of Christ in priestly terms. Certainly the idea that Christ is a sacrifice appears in the earliest writings of the New Testament. Romans 3:25 may very well draw on an early Christian affirmation Paul himself inherited when it says that God put Jesus "forward as a sacrifice of atonement." Romans 8:3 may refer to Jesus' death as a sin offering, and 1 Corinthians 5:7 pictures Christ as a Passover lamb.
We can imagine that it did not take long before Jesus' death on the cross was interpreted in sacrificial and salvific categories. Indeed, it is possible that Jesus anticipated his own death and drew an analogy between it and the Passover lamb. The logion in Mark 10:45 surely indicates what at the very least must have been an early understanding of Jesus' death: "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many." This saying may very well presuppose an identification of Jesus with the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, God's servant who "shall make many righteous" (Isa. 53:11).
If some dispute the allusion to Isaiah 53 in Mark, Luke 22:37 actually cites Isaiah 53:12 in relation to Jesus' approaching death. Acts 3:13 and 26 refer to Jesus as a pais, using the same word for servant as Isaiah 53. Further, Philip explicitly interprets Isaiah 53:7-8 for the Ethiopian eunuch in reference to Jesus' death. It is a more than reasonable conclusion that many early Christians also read Isaiah 53:6 in reference to Christ's death: "the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all."
Therefore, Christ's death served to mediate atonement and reconciliation with God in the manner of a sacrifice. Several Jewish texts are regularly brought into discussion of how the early Christians might have conceptualized the mediating value of Christ's death. Wisdom 2-3 wrestles with the son of God who has died an unjust death at the hands of the ungodly. The souls of such individuals are said to be in the hand of God (3:1), who has accepted them "like a sacrificial burnt offering" (3:6). In 2 Maccabees 7:38, one of seven brothers faces his impending death in hope "through me and my brothers to bring to an end the wrath of the Almighty that has justly fallen on our whole nation." Then most explicitly, 4 Maccabees 6:28-29, a text roughly contemporary with Paul, narrates a righteous martyr asking God to "let our punishment suffice for them [Israel]. Make my blood their purification, and take my life in exchange for theirs." While we can debate the precise nuances of these passages, they indicate a common understanding among certain Jews that a righteous individual's death might have mediating value of some sort in the relationship between God and mortals.
It is one thing to consider Christ's death as a sacrifice. The book of Hebrews goes one step further and pictures Christ as the consummate high priest offering the only truly effective sacrifice of all time. While Romans 8:34 may allude to Christ as a priest in some way, Hebrews is the only book in the New Testament explicitly to refer to him as such. The concept of Christ as both priest and sacrifice is heavily metaphorical. The literal picture of a high priest offering himself on an altar stretches the imagination and, in any case, does not fit with the imagery of Hebrews.
The other sacrificial imagery in the New Testament does not demand that Christ's death be the end of the sacrificial system (cf. Acts 21:26). Nor does it indicate that Christ's death might in some way atone for the righteous under the old covenant. In this respect, Hebrews presents startling claims with regard to the priestly mediation of Christ. It claims that none of the sacrifices under the old covenant were actually able to take away sins (10:11). Accordingly, none of the witnesses to faith in the old covenant could be made perfect until the sacrifice of Christ (11:13, 40). By contrast, "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified" (10:14). The priestly mediation of Christ is thus universal in scope and time, the only effective means of atonement and reconciliation between God and humanity.
Half of the actual occurrences of the Greek word mesites actually occur in Hebrews (8:6; 9:15; 12:24). The word in each case refers to Christ's role as the mediator of a new covenant. This new covenant, in contrast to the covenant mediated through Moses, bodes better promises (8:6). For Hebrews, this is the promise of true redemption (9:15), of the actual forgiveness of sins. The blood of the new covenant "speaks a better word than the blood of Abel (12:24; cf. 1 Cor. 11:25). Hebrews thus conceptualizes Christ as mediator almost completely in cultic terms.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Christ as Mediator: Prophet
I want to think a little about Christ as mediator in the New Testament, seeing how far I can get with the basic rubric of prophet, priest, and king.
Christ as Prophet and Word of God
Luke 4:16-21 understands Jesus' earthly mission in prophetic terms. The Gospel of Luke presents Isaiah 61:1-2 as the appropriate interpretive lens through which to view Jesus' mission. The Spirit of the Lord anointed Jesus to mediate and proclaim good news to the poor, liberty to captives, and sight to the blind. Jesus likely referred to himself as a prophet on more than one occasion (e.g., Matt. 13:57; Luke 13:33), and others also seem to have understood him in this way (e.g., Matt. 21:11; Mark 6:15).
The book of Acts understood Jesus to be the prophet like Moses predicted in Deuteronomy 18:15 (3:22; 7:37), and the Gospel of John alludes to this passage in more than one instance in relation to Christ (John 1:21, 25; 6:14; 7:40). God's statement at the Transfiguration that the disciples were to "Listen" to Jesus (Mark 9:7) draws on the same verse in Deuteronomy. Jesus' role as a prophet in these passages seems not so much about specific prophecies that he uttered on earth. Rather, Jesus' prophetic "word" here seems more directly related to the more abstract "word of salvation" proclaimed through his incarnation (cf. John 6:14), death, and resurrection (cf. Heb. 2:3). Jesus as prophet is the "apostle" of our confession (Heb. 3:1) whom God sent as a mediator to reconcile the world to himself (cf. 2 Cor. 5:18).
We can thus speak of Jesus' prophetic mediation on two levels. On one level, Jesus functioned in Galilee as a prophet who brought on God's behalf both good news to the "lost sheep of Israel" and warnings of coming judgment. The miracles he performs echo those of Elijah and Elisha, and his symbolic acts find their meaning against the backdrop of the words of prophets like Jeremiah (e.g., Jer. 7:11). On another level, Christ's cosmic ministry brokers a new covenant with all humanity, as Moses brokered the first covenant with Israel. Early Christians likely conceptualized such mediation through the lens of patron-client relationships, with Christ as the designated broker of God's grace.
John 1:17 gives one perspective on these two mediations: "The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." The idea that Christ brokered God's gracious patronage to both Jew and Gentile is a key concept for Paul's writings. The "law brings wrath" (Rom. 4:15) "since all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23). Salvation, escape from God's wrath, is a gift of God (cf. Eph. 2:8) that follows from God's willingness to justify the ungodly on the basis of their faith (Rom. 4:5). Justification thus "depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace" (Rom. 4:16).
For Paul, such grace can no longer come directly, as it apparently did in the case of Abraham, who "believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). God has rather brokered this new covenant through Jesus Christ. Several New Testament writers emphasize the exclusivity of this path to God: "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12), and "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). Salvation is possible now because of the consummate mediatorial act Paul describes as the faith of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:16), his obedience "to the point of death" (Phil. 2:8). Only "by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous" (Rom. 5:19). The New Testament thus seems not only to understand Christ as a broker of God's grace, but indeed the only truly effective broker.
Paul presents the cosmic scope of this mediation through the image of Christ as the "last Adam." "[S]in came into the world through one man," Adam, "and death came through sin" (Rom. 5:12). By contrast, with Christ, "one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all" (Rom. 5:18). "The first man, Adam, became a living being" but "the last Adam became a life-giving spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45). Indeed, the exalted Christ has brokered a new covenant in which the Spirit of Christ inhabits the renewed children of God (cf. Rom. 8:9, 14; 2 Cor. 3:6).
Christ is thus a prophetic mediator well beyond the bounds of any Old Testament prophet, including Moses. "Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son" (Heb. 1:1-2). This prophetic logos is the very Word of God itself. The Gospel of John draws on the Middle Platonic idea of God's logos and applies it to Jesus as the very will and purpose of God for the world. For this reason the New Testament can speak of Christ as the instrument of God in creation, the one "through whom he also created the worlds" (Heb. 1:2; cf. John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16).
From one point of view, Christ is thus God's highest ambassador to the world. "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life" (John 3:16). Christ is God's consummate apostle (Heb. 3:1), sent with the commission to bring salvation to all who believe. He is the very Word of God (John 1:1) who is one with the Father (e.g., John 10:30; 17:11). He is the ultimate prophet, through whom God has proclaimed and effected reconciliation with the world (2 Cor. 5:19).
Christ as Prophet and Word of God
Luke 4:16-21 understands Jesus' earthly mission in prophetic terms. The Gospel of Luke presents Isaiah 61:1-2 as the appropriate interpretive lens through which to view Jesus' mission. The Spirit of the Lord anointed Jesus to mediate and proclaim good news to the poor, liberty to captives, and sight to the blind. Jesus likely referred to himself as a prophet on more than one occasion (e.g., Matt. 13:57; Luke 13:33), and others also seem to have understood him in this way (e.g., Matt. 21:11; Mark 6:15).
The book of Acts understood Jesus to be the prophet like Moses predicted in Deuteronomy 18:15 (3:22; 7:37), and the Gospel of John alludes to this passage in more than one instance in relation to Christ (John 1:21, 25; 6:14; 7:40). God's statement at the Transfiguration that the disciples were to "Listen" to Jesus (Mark 9:7) draws on the same verse in Deuteronomy. Jesus' role as a prophet in these passages seems not so much about specific prophecies that he uttered on earth. Rather, Jesus' prophetic "word" here seems more directly related to the more abstract "word of salvation" proclaimed through his incarnation (cf. John 6:14), death, and resurrection (cf. Heb. 2:3). Jesus as prophet is the "apostle" of our confession (Heb. 3:1) whom God sent as a mediator to reconcile the world to himself (cf. 2 Cor. 5:18).
We can thus speak of Jesus' prophetic mediation on two levels. On one level, Jesus functioned in Galilee as a prophet who brought on God's behalf both good news to the "lost sheep of Israel" and warnings of coming judgment. The miracles he performs echo those of Elijah and Elisha, and his symbolic acts find their meaning against the backdrop of the words of prophets like Jeremiah (e.g., Jer. 7:11). On another level, Christ's cosmic ministry brokers a new covenant with all humanity, as Moses brokered the first covenant with Israel. Early Christians likely conceptualized such mediation through the lens of patron-client relationships, with Christ as the designated broker of God's grace.
John 1:17 gives one perspective on these two mediations: "The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." The idea that Christ brokered God's gracious patronage to both Jew and Gentile is a key concept for Paul's writings. The "law brings wrath" (Rom. 4:15) "since all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23). Salvation, escape from God's wrath, is a gift of God (cf. Eph. 2:8) that follows from God's willingness to justify the ungodly on the basis of their faith (Rom. 4:5). Justification thus "depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace" (Rom. 4:16).
For Paul, such grace can no longer come directly, as it apparently did in the case of Abraham, who "believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). God has rather brokered this new covenant through Jesus Christ. Several New Testament writers emphasize the exclusivity of this path to God: "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12), and "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). Salvation is possible now because of the consummate mediatorial act Paul describes as the faith of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:16), his obedience "to the point of death" (Phil. 2:8). Only "by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous" (Rom. 5:19). The New Testament thus seems not only to understand Christ as a broker of God's grace, but indeed the only truly effective broker.
Paul presents the cosmic scope of this mediation through the image of Christ as the "last Adam." "[S]in came into the world through one man," Adam, "and death came through sin" (Rom. 5:12). By contrast, with Christ, "one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all" (Rom. 5:18). "The first man, Adam, became a living being" but "the last Adam became a life-giving spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45). Indeed, the exalted Christ has brokered a new covenant in which the Spirit of Christ inhabits the renewed children of God (cf. Rom. 8:9, 14; 2 Cor. 3:6).
Christ is thus a prophetic mediator well beyond the bounds of any Old Testament prophet, including Moses. "Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son" (Heb. 1:1-2). This prophetic logos is the very Word of God itself. The Gospel of John draws on the Middle Platonic idea of God's logos and applies it to Jesus as the very will and purpose of God for the world. For this reason the New Testament can speak of Christ as the instrument of God in creation, the one "through whom he also created the worlds" (Heb. 1:2; cf. John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16).
From one point of view, Christ is thus God's highest ambassador to the world. "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life" (John 3:16). Christ is God's consummate apostle (Heb. 3:1), sent with the commission to bring salvation to all who believe. He is the very Word of God (John 1:1) who is one with the Father (e.g., John 10:30; 17:11). He is the ultimate prophet, through whom God has proclaimed and effected reconciliation with the world (2 Cor. 5:19).
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
The Servant of the LORD and mediation
We traditionally speak of four "servant songs" in the middle of Isaiah.
1. The first appears in Isaiah 42:1-4. This servant will bring forth justice to the nations. I might incidentally that I'm working on this for a dictionary article, so I'm first asking what the likely original meaning of these passages was in their literary contexts.
The context of this portion of Isaiah is the late exile, whether one thinks it was written at that time or prophesied by Isaiah himself some 200 years earlier. 45:1 mentions Cyrus king of Persia and calls him God's "anointed." Cyrus allowed the Israelites to return to Jerusalem in 538BC. In context, therefore, Cyrus is one candidate for the servant of the LORD in chapter 42.
However, Isaiah 41:8 identifies the servant as "Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen." Therefore, inductively, we should work on the assumption that the servant of the LORD is Israel unless other contexts push us in a different direction.
Israel is thus a mediator through whom God will bring justice to the earth, and God does this by placing His spirit on "him" (42:1).
Other images of God's servant appear in the chapters that follow. 42:19 speaks of the servant of the LORD as blind and deaf. 42:22 make it clear that God is talking about His people, Israel, who has been robbed and plundered. And God himself is the one who gave them up because of their sin (42:24).
43:10 also refers to Israel as "my servant." This identity is clear because God sends off for them in Babylon in 43:14-15. 44:1-2 again refer to "Jacob, my servant." 44:21 again, "O Jacob and Israel... my servant," and their transgressions are mentioned (44:22).
44:26 mentions a servant of God that is slightly different in nuance. Here God says that He confirms "the word of his servant, and fulfills the prediction of his messengers." Here we see the first blurring of servant language. We might think of Israel as the servant predicting its own restoration. But this in practice would have to be a synecdoche, the whole for the part. Messages of this sort come from individuals. One might easily suggest that the servant language here alludes to a prophetic voice speaking for Israel, a "prophetic" mediator of some sort, predicting the restoration of Judah and the edict of Cyrus.
By 45:4, we are back to Jacob as God's servant. 48:20 also mentions "his servant Jacob."
2. The second servant song appears in 49:1-6.
This passage is confusing. At one point, the text reads, "you are my servant, Israel" (49:3). But the rest of the passage seems to read as if the servant is a "mediator" between God and Israel: "It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel" (49:6). Here the servant sounds more like Cyrus or some leader of Israel who is restoring Israel. Otherwise Israel is God's servant to raise up Israel.
There are a few possibilities of what might be going on here. One is that an individual is embodying Israel here. "You are my servant Israel" would then mean, "you are representing Israel." This would fit with what we saw in 44:26.
Cyrus is alluded to in 48:14-15. And someone says, "the Lord GOD has sent me and his spirit" (48:16). This "me" in 48:16 is intriguing. "Draw near to me ... the Lord GOD has sent me." This cannot be God. Then 49:1, "Listen to me ... the LORD called me..." This again is not God.
It doesn't seem to be Cyrus either. If it were Cyrus, these words would be placed on his lips as a literary device and he would metaphorically be saying that God formed him to bring Jacob back to God. It seems much more likely to me that this is a prophetic voice at the point of Israel's return from exile.
If so, this person seems to represent Israel (49:3) and will be instrumental in Israel's return from Babylon (49:6). This speaks of a mediatorial role probably beyond that of a prophet. Of the names available to us, Sheshbazzar, the "prince of Judah," has to be high on the list of possibilities (cf. Ezra 1:8; 5:14), for he is possibly of royal descent and did in fact lead the Jews back to Jerusalem. Of course these things are much debated and disputed.
3. The third servant song appears in Isaiah 50:4-11.
This passage has an even more striking tone of an individual, "The Lord GOD has given me the tongue of a teacher" (50:4). It is of course conceivable that the entire passage is to be understood as Israel speaking. But then who is the servant of 50:10 talking to, "who among you ... obeys the voice of his servant"? We are possibly pushed again toward some prophetic mediator for God with his people. Hard again to say. I've always sympathized with the Ethiopian eunuch who couldn't figure out who Isaiah 53 was about.
4. The fourth servant song is 52:13-53:12, the classic text.
As I look at this text now after looking at the others, it actually seems less ambiguous. Throughout this section of Isaiah, the primary referent for the servant has been Israel, stated explicitly time and time again. In a couple instances, the servant language has blurred over into someone who seems to have played a prophetic and/or leadership role in the return of Israel from Babylon.
The lead up to Isaiah 53 reads like a procession of Israel from Babylon back to Jerusalem. How beautiful are the feet of them who bring the good news of Israel's return from exile (52:7). The ruins of Jerusalem break forth into singing (52:9). Holy vessels are being carried, as Ezra 1:8-11 indicates Sheshbazzar brought back with him.
So the servant who is marred beyond human likeness is Israel returning from exile. Israel was rejected in Babylon, paid for its own sins with its suffering, like a sin offering. But the restored servant will divide the spoil with the strong (53:12). Given the overall context of this part of Isaiah, this interpretation makes the most sense. "For a brief moment I abandoned you [Israel], but with great compassion I will gather you" (54:7).
It is figurative language which turns on itself if taken too literally. Israel itself mediates atonement for Israel itself. It is a beautiful set of imagery for the salvation of Israel. Of course the NT will find in it a parable of Jesus Christ, the consummate servant of the LORD.
1. The first appears in Isaiah 42:1-4. This servant will bring forth justice to the nations. I might incidentally that I'm working on this for a dictionary article, so I'm first asking what the likely original meaning of these passages was in their literary contexts.
The context of this portion of Isaiah is the late exile, whether one thinks it was written at that time or prophesied by Isaiah himself some 200 years earlier. 45:1 mentions Cyrus king of Persia and calls him God's "anointed." Cyrus allowed the Israelites to return to Jerusalem in 538BC. In context, therefore, Cyrus is one candidate for the servant of the LORD in chapter 42.
However, Isaiah 41:8 identifies the servant as "Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen." Therefore, inductively, we should work on the assumption that the servant of the LORD is Israel unless other contexts push us in a different direction.
Israel is thus a mediator through whom God will bring justice to the earth, and God does this by placing His spirit on "him" (42:1).
Other images of God's servant appear in the chapters that follow. 42:19 speaks of the servant of the LORD as blind and deaf. 42:22 make it clear that God is talking about His people, Israel, who has been robbed and plundered. And God himself is the one who gave them up because of their sin (42:24).
43:10 also refers to Israel as "my servant." This identity is clear because God sends off for them in Babylon in 43:14-15. 44:1-2 again refer to "Jacob, my servant." 44:21 again, "O Jacob and Israel... my servant," and their transgressions are mentioned (44:22).
44:26 mentions a servant of God that is slightly different in nuance. Here God says that He confirms "the word of his servant, and fulfills the prediction of his messengers." Here we see the first blurring of servant language. We might think of Israel as the servant predicting its own restoration. But this in practice would have to be a synecdoche, the whole for the part. Messages of this sort come from individuals. One might easily suggest that the servant language here alludes to a prophetic voice speaking for Israel, a "prophetic" mediator of some sort, predicting the restoration of Judah and the edict of Cyrus.
By 45:4, we are back to Jacob as God's servant. 48:20 also mentions "his servant Jacob."
2. The second servant song appears in 49:1-6.
This passage is confusing. At one point, the text reads, "you are my servant, Israel" (49:3). But the rest of the passage seems to read as if the servant is a "mediator" between God and Israel: "It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel" (49:6). Here the servant sounds more like Cyrus or some leader of Israel who is restoring Israel. Otherwise Israel is God's servant to raise up Israel.
There are a few possibilities of what might be going on here. One is that an individual is embodying Israel here. "You are my servant Israel" would then mean, "you are representing Israel." This would fit with what we saw in 44:26.
Cyrus is alluded to in 48:14-15. And someone says, "the Lord GOD has sent me and his spirit" (48:16). This "me" in 48:16 is intriguing. "Draw near to me ... the Lord GOD has sent me." This cannot be God. Then 49:1, "Listen to me ... the LORD called me..." This again is not God.
It doesn't seem to be Cyrus either. If it were Cyrus, these words would be placed on his lips as a literary device and he would metaphorically be saying that God formed him to bring Jacob back to God. It seems much more likely to me that this is a prophetic voice at the point of Israel's return from exile.
If so, this person seems to represent Israel (49:3) and will be instrumental in Israel's return from Babylon (49:6). This speaks of a mediatorial role probably beyond that of a prophet. Of the names available to us, Sheshbazzar, the "prince of Judah," has to be high on the list of possibilities (cf. Ezra 1:8; 5:14), for he is possibly of royal descent and did in fact lead the Jews back to Jerusalem. Of course these things are much debated and disputed.
3. The third servant song appears in Isaiah 50:4-11.
This passage has an even more striking tone of an individual, "The Lord GOD has given me the tongue of a teacher" (50:4). It is of course conceivable that the entire passage is to be understood as Israel speaking. But then who is the servant of 50:10 talking to, "who among you ... obeys the voice of his servant"? We are possibly pushed again toward some prophetic mediator for God with his people. Hard again to say. I've always sympathized with the Ethiopian eunuch who couldn't figure out who Isaiah 53 was about.
4. The fourth servant song is 52:13-53:12, the classic text.
As I look at this text now after looking at the others, it actually seems less ambiguous. Throughout this section of Isaiah, the primary referent for the servant has been Israel, stated explicitly time and time again. In a couple instances, the servant language has blurred over into someone who seems to have played a prophetic and/or leadership role in the return of Israel from Babylon.
The lead up to Isaiah 53 reads like a procession of Israel from Babylon back to Jerusalem. How beautiful are the feet of them who bring the good news of Israel's return from exile (52:7). The ruins of Jerusalem break forth into singing (52:9). Holy vessels are being carried, as Ezra 1:8-11 indicates Sheshbazzar brought back with him.
So the servant who is marred beyond human likeness is Israel returning from exile. Israel was rejected in Babylon, paid for its own sins with its suffering, like a sin offering. But the restored servant will divide the spoil with the strong (53:12). Given the overall context of this part of Isaiah, this interpretation makes the most sense. "For a brief moment I abandoned you [Israel], but with great compassion I will gather you" (54:7).
It is figurative language which turns on itself if taken too literally. Israel itself mediates atonement for Israel itself. It is a beautiful set of imagery for the salvation of Israel. Of course the NT will find in it a parable of Jesus Christ, the consummate servant of the LORD.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Prophetic Critique of Sacrifice
There's a steady stream of critique of sacrifice as an effective medium between Israel and Yahweh. I thought I would lay out some of the verses here as I process this dimension of the OT:
Psalm 51:16-19--"You have no delight in sacrifice; if I were to give a burnt offering, you would not be pleased. The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.
"Do good to Zion in your good pleasure; rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, then you will delight in right sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; then bulls will be offered on your altar" (NRSV).
This psalm is of course usually located in relation to David's sin with Bathsheba. This is the current heading to the psalm (which is not inspired). Certainly the psalm has a richness when read in that light.
But the final two verses make it clear that the psalm--at least in its current form--could not come from David but must date to period between Jerusalem's destruction and when Nehemiah rebuilt the walls of the city.
In this context, these words are not a wholesale rejection of sacrifice but a sense that sacrifice is of no value if a person is not truly repentant.
Isaiah 1:11-13, 15-17--"What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats.
"When you come to appear before me, who asked this from your hand? Trample my courts no more; bringing offerings is futile; incense is an abomination to me... I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity ... even though you make many prayers, I will not listen... Wash yourselves ... learn to do goo; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow..."
Here we have the same basic theme as Psalm 51. Sacrifice really isn't that important to God. What is really important is obedience, and obedience has to do not with going through motions but with justice in the prophetic sense.
Micah 6:6-8--"With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings... Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams... Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression... what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
As with the other passages, there is no sense of any need for a Levitical system. Micah, like Isaiah, indicates that what the LORD requires is justice (in the prophetic sense), not sacrifice.
Similar to this passage is
Amos 5:21-24--"I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them... But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream."
Hosea 6:6--"For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings."
Psalm 40:6-8--"Sacrifice and offering you do not desire, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required. Then I said, 'Here I am; in the scroll of the book it is written of me. I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart."
Hebrews of course reads this passage against the backdrop of Christ and can build its case quite well off of a change that took place in the text of this psalm by the time it was translated into Greek ("a body you have prepared for me").
The psalm itself is different from Psalm 51 in that the individual in question is not repenting of sin but actually thanking God for rescue and seeking deliverance. The rejection of sacrifice in this context is more striking than in the passages above in that sacrifice is not contrasted with justice or a right attitude. The psalmist simply says that obdience and willingness to obey God's law is what He wants.
1 Samuel 15:22--"Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obedience to the voice of the LORD? Surely to obey is better than sacrifice..."
This is the classic moment where Saul has sacrificed without waiting for Samuel. This statement does not reject sacrifice, but clearly places obedience as far more important.
Psalm 50:8-15--"Not for your sacrifices do I rebuke you; your burnt offerings are continually before me. I will not accept a bull from your house... For every wild animal of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills... If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and all that is in it is mine. Do I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving... Call on me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you..."
This is a fascinating argument against one of the functions that sacrifice plays in many cultures, indeed, that is alluded to in various biblical texts. This is the idea that sacrifices feed and empower the god. It is the image evoked from those biblical passages that speak of a "sweet smelling savor" before the LORD.
But this psalm rejects that function for sacrifice. God couldn't care less. He is interested in right living and thanksgiving for His favor.
A final text is very interesting indeed:
Jeremiah 7:21-22--"Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat the flesh. For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them, 'Obey my voice, and I will be your God..."
A look at Jeremiah 6:20 and 7:18 places this statement in context. Sacrifices are not part of God's original covenant with Israel, obedience was. By the way, the NIV adds the word "just" here because otherwise the verse seems to imply that Leviticus was either not known or not accepted by Jeremiah.
If the other prophets were similarly unaware of the tradition that saw the Levitical system as instituted by Moses, that has certain implications for how we take their comments about sacrifices. In particular, prophets like Isaiah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, and the psalmists would not see sacrifice as a "biblical" mandate (a little anachronistic to use the word "biblical" for their time period) but as something that was truly unimportant to God.
Of course I suspect most of us find this "prophetic critique" of sacrifice encouraging, although it does wreak havoc with those who hold to a rigid penal substitution view of atonement. Apparently, God does not need a sacrificial surrogate to allow Him to forgive sins or accept humanity.
Even Hebrews, which says that "without blood shedding there is no remission of sins" (10:22), in my opinion does not represent some mechanistic view of the need for sacrifice. After all, where does the author go with this idea? Where he goes is to the fact that there is no more need for sacrifice because Christ has taken care of it. In my opinion, the Hellenistic author has no real commitment to the need for blood sacrifice, but finds in that idea the possibility of arguing that no more blood sacrifice is ever need again!
Some thoughts...
Psalm 51:16-19--"You have no delight in sacrifice; if I were to give a burnt offering, you would not be pleased. The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.
"Do good to Zion in your good pleasure; rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, then you will delight in right sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; then bulls will be offered on your altar" (NRSV).
This psalm is of course usually located in relation to David's sin with Bathsheba. This is the current heading to the psalm (which is not inspired). Certainly the psalm has a richness when read in that light.
But the final two verses make it clear that the psalm--at least in its current form--could not come from David but must date to period between Jerusalem's destruction and when Nehemiah rebuilt the walls of the city.
In this context, these words are not a wholesale rejection of sacrifice but a sense that sacrifice is of no value if a person is not truly repentant.
Isaiah 1:11-13, 15-17--"What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats.
"When you come to appear before me, who asked this from your hand? Trample my courts no more; bringing offerings is futile; incense is an abomination to me... I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity ... even though you make many prayers, I will not listen... Wash yourselves ... learn to do goo; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow..."
Here we have the same basic theme as Psalm 51. Sacrifice really isn't that important to God. What is really important is obedience, and obedience has to do not with going through motions but with justice in the prophetic sense.
Micah 6:6-8--"With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings... Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams... Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression... what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
As with the other passages, there is no sense of any need for a Levitical system. Micah, like Isaiah, indicates that what the LORD requires is justice (in the prophetic sense), not sacrifice.
Similar to this passage is
Amos 5:21-24--"I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them... But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream."
Hosea 6:6--"For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings."
Psalm 40:6-8--"Sacrifice and offering you do not desire, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required. Then I said, 'Here I am; in the scroll of the book it is written of me. I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart."
Hebrews of course reads this passage against the backdrop of Christ and can build its case quite well off of a change that took place in the text of this psalm by the time it was translated into Greek ("a body you have prepared for me").
The psalm itself is different from Psalm 51 in that the individual in question is not repenting of sin but actually thanking God for rescue and seeking deliverance. The rejection of sacrifice in this context is more striking than in the passages above in that sacrifice is not contrasted with justice or a right attitude. The psalmist simply says that obdience and willingness to obey God's law is what He wants.
1 Samuel 15:22--"Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obedience to the voice of the LORD? Surely to obey is better than sacrifice..."
This is the classic moment where Saul has sacrificed without waiting for Samuel. This statement does not reject sacrifice, but clearly places obedience as far more important.
Psalm 50:8-15--"Not for your sacrifices do I rebuke you; your burnt offerings are continually before me. I will not accept a bull from your house... For every wild animal of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills... If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and all that is in it is mine. Do I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving... Call on me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you..."
This is a fascinating argument against one of the functions that sacrifice plays in many cultures, indeed, that is alluded to in various biblical texts. This is the idea that sacrifices feed and empower the god. It is the image evoked from those biblical passages that speak of a "sweet smelling savor" before the LORD.
But this psalm rejects that function for sacrifice. God couldn't care less. He is interested in right living and thanksgiving for His favor.
A final text is very interesting indeed:
Jeremiah 7:21-22--"Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat the flesh. For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them, 'Obey my voice, and I will be your God..."
A look at Jeremiah 6:20 and 7:18 places this statement in context. Sacrifices are not part of God's original covenant with Israel, obedience was. By the way, the NIV adds the word "just" here because otherwise the verse seems to imply that Leviticus was either not known or not accepted by Jeremiah.
If the other prophets were similarly unaware of the tradition that saw the Levitical system as instituted by Moses, that has certain implications for how we take their comments about sacrifices. In particular, prophets like Isaiah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, and the psalmists would not see sacrifice as a "biblical" mandate (a little anachronistic to use the word "biblical" for their time period) but as something that was truly unimportant to God.
Of course I suspect most of us find this "prophetic critique" of sacrifice encouraging, although it does wreak havoc with those who hold to a rigid penal substitution view of atonement. Apparently, God does not need a sacrificial surrogate to allow Him to forgive sins or accept humanity.
Even Hebrews, which says that "without blood shedding there is no remission of sins" (10:22), in my opinion does not represent some mechanistic view of the need for sacrifice. After all, where does the author go with this idea? Where he goes is to the fact that there is no more need for sacrifice because Christ has taken care of it. In my opinion, the Hellenistic author has no real commitment to the need for blood sacrifice, but finds in that idea the possibility of arguing that no more blood sacrifice is ever need again!
Some thoughts...
Monday, June 25, 2007
Sacrifice as Mediation
This is part of the dictionary article I'm writing:
________________________
Theories abound to explain how sacrifice functions in religion. A key element in most of these is sacrifice as a mediating factor in the relationship between gods and mortals. Certainly sacrifice functions this way in the Old Testament. Yet within the pages of the Old Testament we find more than one sacrificial paradigm, and thus more than one perspective on sacrifice as an instrument of mediation between God and humankind.
On one end of the spectrum, embedded within the biblical narratives, are glimpses of Israel’s pre-scriptural past. We hear rumblings of child sacrifice (e.g., Ezek. 16:20-21; 1 Kings 11:7; cf. Deut. 13:2) and puzzle over God’s command that Abraham offer up Isaac (Gen. 22:1-19). We are unsure what is taking place when Zipporah touches Moses with the foreskin of her son so that God does not kill her “bridegroom of blood” (Exod. 4:24-26). Similarly unfamiliar is the strange ritual where Abraham cuts a heifer and a goat in two and lays with them an uncut turtledove and pigeon (Gen. 15:12-21). Then when he is sleeping, the LORD reveals the future and a flaming torch passes between the cut pieces. These obscure artifacts of Israel’s pre-biblical past play into the hands of sacrificial theories that connect sacrifice to human violence and the appropriation of divine power on the human plane (cf. 2 Kings 3:26-27). Sacrificial mediation in such instances has less to do with the person of God than with the intrinsic power of the sacrificial acts themselves.
In terms of mediating value, the two most important functions sacrifices can perform are 1) their function as gifts to God and 2) their function in expiating sin and uncleanness. Since all sacrifices and offerings involve the presentation of something to God, the gift aspect of sacrifice is perhaps its most fundamental characteristic. It is no coincidence that the most generic Hebrew words for sacrifice have the connotations of a gift: minchah, mattanah, and qorban.
As gifts, sacrifices perform the same meditating functions that gifts do between humans. Some are offered to secure God's favor, such as when Saul offers a sacrifice before going to battle (1 Sam. 13:9). Votive sacrifices and offerings are either offered when making a vow or upon its successful completion. Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter is such a sacrifice after he returns from a victorious battle (Judges 11:30-31, 39). The gift of a sacrifice can propitiate God's wrath toward an individual or a people. After the LORD sent a pestilence on Israel for David’s census, God’s anger is finally satisfied when David erects an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite and offers burnt offerings there (2 Sam. 24:15-25).
In this same vein sacrifices are offered regularly to maintain God's favor and to give him thanks for good things. Such gifts function somewhat like the tributes one might give to a king for his protection and blessing. The gift of the firstfruits of harvest give God thanks for the way he has blessed the soil and look to future blessing. Sacrificial gifts thus mediate good relationships between God and humanity in ways that humans can easily understand.
The function of sacrifices in relation to sin and impurity is both one of the most familiar and yet most misunderstood. In general, sacrificial law was not designed to restore an individual's relationship with God for intentional sin, so called "sins with a high hand" (e.g., Num. 15:30-31). The chatta't or "sin offering" thus more mediated impurity and uncleanness than what we would consider "moral" sin, the distinction between the two being very loose in Old Testament times (cf. Lev. 4:2). A person "impaired" by things like childbirth, leprosy, or the inadvertent violation of a taboo might be restored to wholeness by way of this "purification offering."
The idea that the sacrificial animal substituted for the person sacrificing perhaps has some element of truth, but is prone to overstatement given modern debates about penal substitution. In the Day of Atonement ritual, we should probably think more of defilement being transferred from the community of Israel to the animal, which then takes that miasma out of the community and into the desert.
Modern notions of guilt seem anachronistic in relation to the Levitical system of Israel. The so called "guilt offering," the 'asham, functioned almost like a fine, a penalty offered because one has inadvertantly wronged God (cf. Lev. 5:14, 17). Yet even in this case, the amount of the sacrifice is not gradated in accordance with the level of the offense. It thus does not figure well as some kind of substitution for the offender.
In general, the mediation provided by these kinds of offerings had far more to do with cleansing impurity, as the verb kipper seems to indication, perhaps having a fundamental sense of wiping away...
________________________
Theories abound to explain how sacrifice functions in religion. A key element in most of these is sacrifice as a mediating factor in the relationship between gods and mortals. Certainly sacrifice functions this way in the Old Testament. Yet within the pages of the Old Testament we find more than one sacrificial paradigm, and thus more than one perspective on sacrifice as an instrument of mediation between God and humankind.
On one end of the spectrum, embedded within the biblical narratives, are glimpses of Israel’s pre-scriptural past. We hear rumblings of child sacrifice (e.g., Ezek. 16:20-21; 1 Kings 11:7; cf. Deut. 13:2) and puzzle over God’s command that Abraham offer up Isaac (Gen. 22:1-19). We are unsure what is taking place when Zipporah touches Moses with the foreskin of her son so that God does not kill her “bridegroom of blood” (Exod. 4:24-26). Similarly unfamiliar is the strange ritual where Abraham cuts a heifer and a goat in two and lays with them an uncut turtledove and pigeon (Gen. 15:12-21). Then when he is sleeping, the LORD reveals the future and a flaming torch passes between the cut pieces. These obscure artifacts of Israel’s pre-biblical past play into the hands of sacrificial theories that connect sacrifice to human violence and the appropriation of divine power on the human plane (cf. 2 Kings 3:26-27). Sacrificial mediation in such instances has less to do with the person of God than with the intrinsic power of the sacrificial acts themselves.
In terms of mediating value, the two most important functions sacrifices can perform are 1) their function as gifts to God and 2) their function in expiating sin and uncleanness. Since all sacrifices and offerings involve the presentation of something to God, the gift aspect of sacrifice is perhaps its most fundamental characteristic. It is no coincidence that the most generic Hebrew words for sacrifice have the connotations of a gift: minchah, mattanah, and qorban.
As gifts, sacrifices perform the same meditating functions that gifts do between humans. Some are offered to secure God's favor, such as when Saul offers a sacrifice before going to battle (1 Sam. 13:9). Votive sacrifices and offerings are either offered when making a vow or upon its successful completion. Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter is such a sacrifice after he returns from a victorious battle (Judges 11:30-31, 39). The gift of a sacrifice can propitiate God's wrath toward an individual or a people. After the LORD sent a pestilence on Israel for David’s census, God’s anger is finally satisfied when David erects an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite and offers burnt offerings there (2 Sam. 24:15-25).
In this same vein sacrifices are offered regularly to maintain God's favor and to give him thanks for good things. Such gifts function somewhat like the tributes one might give to a king for his protection and blessing. The gift of the firstfruits of harvest give God thanks for the way he has blessed the soil and look to future blessing. Sacrificial gifts thus mediate good relationships between God and humanity in ways that humans can easily understand.
The function of sacrifices in relation to sin and impurity is both one of the most familiar and yet most misunderstood. In general, sacrificial law was not designed to restore an individual's relationship with God for intentional sin, so called "sins with a high hand" (e.g., Num. 15:30-31). The chatta't or "sin offering" thus more mediated impurity and uncleanness than what we would consider "moral" sin, the distinction between the two being very loose in Old Testament times (cf. Lev. 4:2). A person "impaired" by things like childbirth, leprosy, or the inadvertent violation of a taboo might be restored to wholeness by way of this "purification offering."
The idea that the sacrificial animal substituted for the person sacrificing perhaps has some element of truth, but is prone to overstatement given modern debates about penal substitution. In the Day of Atonement ritual, we should probably think more of defilement being transferred from the community of Israel to the animal, which then takes that miasma out of the community and into the desert.
Modern notions of guilt seem anachronistic in relation to the Levitical system of Israel. The so called "guilt offering," the 'asham, functioned almost like a fine, a penalty offered because one has inadvertantly wronged God (cf. Lev. 5:14, 17). Yet even in this case, the amount of the sacrifice is not gradated in accordance with the level of the offense. It thus does not figure well as some kind of substitution for the offender.
In general, the mediation provided by these kinds of offerings had far more to do with cleansing impurity, as the verb kipper seems to indication, perhaps having a fundamental sense of wiping away...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
