Walter Kaiser - Toward An OT Theology 1-142

.-:/,'>.
' !6 t
Toward an
^ Old
Testament
Theology
E K G Ji ii c. K o tt iv ? c -^ L-;
r o "c - -
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.

ZondervanPublishingHouse
Academic and Professional Books
Grand Rapids, Michigan
A Division o/
Toward an Old Testament Theology

Copyright 1978 by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.
First Paperback Edition 1991
Requests for information should be addressed to:
Zondervan Publishing House
Academic and Professional Books
1415 Lake Drive S.E.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Kaiser, Walter G.
Toward an Old Testament theology.
Bibliography: p. 271
Includes index.
1. Bible. O.T.Theology. I. Title.
BS1192.5.K3
230
78-865
ISBN 0-310-37101-5
All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are taken from the HOLY BIBLE: NEW
INTERNATIONAL VERSION (North American Edition). Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984, by
the International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted in any form or by any meanselectronic, mechanical, photocopy,
recording, or any otherexcept for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior
permission of the publisher.
Printed in the United States of America
91 92 93 94 95 / CH / 21 20 19 18
17
Contents
PREFACE
PART I
VI11
DEFINITION AND METHOD
CHAPTER 1
THE IMPORTANCE OF DEFINITION AND METHODOLOGY . . .
CHAPTER 2
THE IDENTIFICATION OF A CANONICAL THEOLOGICAL

CENTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20.
CHAPTER 3
THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN OUTLINE FOR OLD TESTAMENT

THEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
CHAPTER 4
THE CONNECTIONS ACROSS HISTORICAL EPOCHS OF

EMERGING THEMES IN OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY . . . . 55
PART II
MATERIALS FOR AN OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
CHAPTER 5
PROLEGOMENA TO THE PROMISE: PREPATRIARCHAL ERA . . 71
CHAPTER 6
PROVISIONS IN THE PROMISE: PATRIARCHAL ERA . . . . . . . . . . . 84
CHAPTER 7
PEOPLE OF THE PROMISE: MOSAIC ERA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
CHAPTER 8
PLACE OFTHE PROMISE: PREMONARCHICAL ERA . . . . . . . . . . . 122
CHAPTER 9
KING OF THE PROMISE: DAVIDIC ERA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 /
CHAPTER 10 LIFE IN THE PROMISE: SAPIENTIAL ERA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

CHAPTER 11 DAY OF THE PROMISE: NINTH CENTURY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
CHAPTER 12 SERVANT OF THE PROMISE: EIGHTH CENTURY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

CHAPTER 13 RENEWAL OF THE PROMISE: SEVENTH CENTURY . . . . . . . . . . . 220
CHAPTER 14 KINGDOM OF THE PROMISE: EXILIC PROPHETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
CHAPTER 15 TRIUMPH OF THE PROMISE: POSTEXILIC PROPHETS . . . . . . . . 250
PART III
THE CONNECTION WITH NEW TESTAMENT

THEOLOGY
CHAPTER 16 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW TESTAMENT . . . . . . . . . . 263

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
INDEX OF AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
INDEX OF SUBJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

INDEX OF HEBREW WORDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
Preface
No aspect of Old Testament studies is more demanding than
theology. The sheer magnitude and scope of this discipline have
been enough to discourage most scholars from entering their contributions before the end of their academic careers was in sight.
Such caution should have settled the issue for this writer. However, the more I read the theologies of our day, the more restless I
became. I felt some important options were being neglected in the
contemporary dialog. This was especially true in the unsettled area
of methodology and definition.
It is our contention that Old Testament theology functions best
as a handmaiden to exegetical theology rather than in its traditional
role of supplying data for systematic theology. The interpreter needs
some way to readily obtain the theology that relates to the text he is
investigating. This new role for biblical theology is presented in Part
I. If our analysis proves true, it could supply the missing ingredient
in the perplexing debate between a mere descriptive B.C. type of
theology and an imposed normative type of A.D. theology. It is our
contention that the writers themselves, by way of explicit reference,
allusion, and inferred presumption cast their messages against the
backdrop of an accumulated theology which they, their hearers, and
now their readers must recollect if they are ever to capture the
precise depth of the message they had originally intended. It is for
this reason that we have sided with the diachronic method of
Gerhard von Rad, for it will best serve the needs of exegesis and
carry out the original vision of the discipline.
There was also another matter. The quest for the unity of the
Old Testament's message as found in its present canonical shape is
presumed by all in the name of the disciplineOld Testament
VI11
theology, not theologiesbut is almost universally conceded to be

nonexistent. If the text is to be allowed to first speak for itself before
our assessments are made, then we would vigorously like to propose
that the element of the "promise" is that center which may be
demonstrated from every era of the canon.
It is our hope that this work may be expanded and refined over
the years as colleagues of all theological persuasions enter into
conversation with this writer. We have deliberately entered into a
wide and hopefully irenic dialog with scholars representing a wide
ecclesiastical and theological spectrum in the hopes that the compliment might be returned by those who do not share this writer's
evangelical stance. Of course, the work is addressed to more persons
than the professionals of the discipline; it is also written with the
needs of the pastor, college or university student, seminarian, and
the serious student of the Old Testament in mind.
One more happy task remains. I must acknowledge the help of
so many fine people who have aided this work. I am especially
grateful for a spring sabbatical granted by the Board of Education of
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School which allowed me to begin this
project in 1975. A number of others have shared in typing this
manuscript in some stage of its production: Georgette Sattler, Jenny
Wiers, Donna Brown, and Jan Woods. But I owe most to my wife
who was my greatest supporter and best helper. Therefore, I commend this work to the glory of God, grateful for His grace for all that
has been accomplished in this text. May my readers also find it to be
of benefit in their understanding and interpreting the theology of the
Old Testament.
IX
_____Chapter 1_____
The Importance of Definition
and Methodology
Since 1933 biblical theology has held the place of honor in

theological studies. Especially prominent during this era was an
existential form of the discipline known as the Biblical Theology
Movement. However, with the publication of Langdon B. Gilkey's
now deservedly famous article entitled "Cosmology, Ontology, and
the Travail of Biblical Language"1 and James Barr's inaugural address "Revelation Through History in the Old Testament and Modern Thought,"2 the "cracking of the walls"3 of the new movement
had begun. Both essays hit at the heart on the Biblical Theology
Movement by exposing its divided stance of modernity and Scripture. As Gilkey put it, "Its world view or cosmology is modern while
1
Langdon B. Gilkey, "Cosmology, Ontology, and the Travail oi Biblical Lan-
guage," Journal of Religion 41(1961): 194-205; also published in Concordia

Theological Monthly 33(1962): 143-54.
2
James Barr, "Revelation Through History in the Old Testament and Modem
Thought," Interpretation 17(1963): 193-205; also published in Princeton Seminary

Bulletin 56(1963). An expansion appears in Barr's book, Old tintl New in Interpretation (London: SCM, 1966), pp. 65-102.
3
Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1970), p. 61.
Definition and Method

its theological language is biblical and orthodox.""* Consequently,
biblical miracles and divine speeches were dispensed with so as not
to offend modernity's achievements while biblical language and
frequent reference, to the "mighty acts of God" (a biblical but
nonetheless convenient phrase which obviates the necessity of espousing miracles) were retained.
Certain questions had to be faced. In what sense(s) did God
"act" in history? And what did these "acts" mean? Was the language
of biblical theology merely an equivocation of terms, or was it to be
understood analogically or univocally with the things to which it
pointed?
Gilkey and Barr concluded that the Biblical Theology Movement, for all its then thirty years of activity, had remained within
liberal categories; indeed, it had hardly surpassed Schleiermacher's
brand of liberalism. Nevertheless, the search for a third alternative
between the traditional conservative and the aggressive liberal positions was an honest attempt to retain what was generally agreed by
all but the conservatives to be the assured results of source criticism.^ This was to be done without degenerating into such sterile
intellectual ism that it left the local pastor without a preachable
message. In its wake at least two influential American journals were
established to help bridge this very gap: T/ieofg;/ Tbdrn/ in 1944^
and Jf:ffr;jrgffJOH in 1947J The contribution of these and similar
journals along with the huge bibliography of monographs in this era
was both impressive and often extremely helpful.
Nevertheless, just as Walther Eichrodt's two volume Old Testament theology in German had begun the "golden age" in 1933,^ so
Gerhard von Rad's double volume Old Testament theology^ now
. 143.
This contest hits never been conceded by either si tie. The most recent conservative critiques are: Kenneth Kitchen, Aw/rnf Onr;*f m/ OM ?#?,s-fm<mf (Downers
Grove, III.: Inter Varsity Press, 1966); Gcrbard Maicr, T/i? End t)f f/te Hf.sforico/CnVtco/ Afgf/mf/ (St. Louis: Concordia, 1977).
""Our Aims," 77i<m/K(/ Tbdo;/ 1(1944): 3-11.
?Balmcr H. Kelly, "In Retrospect," Jnfer;jr('ff;mi 25(1971): 11-23.
^Actually, two monographs authored by E. Konig (1922) and J. Hamcl (1931)
and two important journal articles by C. Steuemagel (1925) and Otto Eissfetdt
(1926) had preceded Eichrodt's work, but he was the one who set the pace and
captured the scholar's attention in 1933. For one ofthe most extensive treatments of
the history of OT biblical theology and an exhaustive bibliography., see Robert C.
Denton, Frf/f/ce fo O&/ 7t?;fm<?nf TVico/og;/, rev. ed. (Xew York: Seabury Press,
1963). Bibliography updated with Wilfrid J. llarrington, TV)<? Pf/i o/Bi'Mco/ TVieo/-
K(/ (London: Gill and MacMillan, 1963). pp. 405-17.

^Gerhard von Rad's t\vo German vols. appeared in 1957 and 1960. The English
translations came in 1962 and 1965.
The Importance of Definition and Methodology

appears destined to mark its climax and to portend its ominous
reversion to a history of Israel's religion type of study.
The genesis of this reversion could be seen when von Rad
answered the question of the object of a theology of the OT forthrightly: it was what Israel professed about Yahweh. These professions were not statements of faith; they were acts by which the
people expressed their awareness of their relation to God. Accordingly, it was impossible to write a theology of the OT; now there
were theologies of the OT. Further, true factual history must be
separated from interpreted history which was the expression of Israel's faith as observed in such credos as Deuteronomy 25:5-10. In
this changing and doctored interpretation of history, von Rad asserted, biblical theology could find its object!
As if to demonstrate the fact that von Rad marked a theological
watershed, Roland dc Vaux qiieried, "Is it possible to write a 'Theology of the Old Testament'?"10 and Robert Martin-Achard surveyed
"La Tiieologie de I'ancien testament apres les travaux de G. von
Rad."11 But all were agreed, a "crisis" had indeed arrived.
Some were even more dramatic. For example, Horace Hummel
boldly announced " 'Biblical Theology' is dead, and IOVC [The
Interpreters One-Volume Commentary on the Bible (Nashville:
Ahingdon, 1971)1 is its witness."12 J. Christiaan Beker,13 Brevard S.
Guilds, 14 B. W. Anderson,15 and Hans-Joachin Kraus merely called it
a crisis.16
It was obvious by now that the post-von Rad era was indulging
itself in a large amount of self-analysis, and some real methodological problems had remained unsolved. What was not so clear was
whether it also signaled a new beginning, for the new decade
brought a whole new list of contributors (or were some of them
delayed entries in the older quest?).
There was an evangelical contribution from the Mennonite
l
Rolancl de Vaux, The Bible and the Ancient Near East, trans. Damian
McHugh (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1971), pp. 49-62.
u
Robert Martin-Achard, "La Theologie de I'ancien testament apres les travaux
de G.
von Rad," Etudes Theologiques et Religieuse 47 (1972): 219-26.
12
Horace Hummel, "A Second Rate Commentary [review article]," Interpretation 1326(1972): 341.
J. Christiaan Beker, "Biblical Theology in a Time of Confusion," Theology
Today14 25(1968): 185-94.
Childs, Biblical Theology.
15
B. W. Anderson, "Crisis in Biblical Theology," Theology Today 28(1971):
321-27.
16
Hans-Joachin Kraus, Die Biblische Theologie: Ihre Geschichte und Problematik (Neukirchener Verlag, 1970).

theologian Chester K. Lehman in 1971 entitled Biblical Theology,
volume I, OT. The next year Walther Zimmerli, the German promisef u l f i l l m e n t t h e o l o g i a n , entered his Grundriss der alltestamentliclien Theologie, while Georg Fohrer, following his large
History of Israelite Religion (German edition, 1969} and his studies
in Old Testament Theology and History (German, 1969), contributed
the Theologische Grund-struktnren des alten Testaments (1972).
The Irish Catholic- scholar W. J. Harrington published The Path of
Biblical Theology in 1973, and the American Catholic John L.
McKenzie added his A Theology of the Old Testament in 1974. To
these major monographs must also be added the scores of journal
articles that have continued to appear.
Therefore, it is only fair to ask, "Where are we now?" And we
can answer that amidst all the confusion of the last decade, some
things have become abundantly clear. In spite of its highest hopes,
biblical theology has not been able to restate and reapply the authority of the Bible.17 In fact, the Bible's authority has, if anything,
diminished during this period rather than increased.18 It has not
fully avoided the sterility of source criticism on the one hand or the
historicism of the history of religions on the other.19 Nor has the
force of philosophical theology been exchanged in every ease for a
methodology that refused to lay any a priori grids of any sort over the
text. More recently, some have toyed with a "process theology"
grid, 20 but there has always been a long list of potential philosophical suitors waiting in the wings of biblical theology.
If thirty years of history has taught anything, it has underscored
the desperate need tor a solution to the unresolved issues of the
definition, method, and object of OT theology. Since its inception,
these methodological and definitional problems have dogged the
steps of every biblical theologian. The resolution of these issues,
more than any other, would free the discipline from its periodicenslavement to reigning fads of philosophy and prevent its imminent capture by a revived historicism.
17
James Barr, The Bible in the Modern World (London; SCM, 1973), pp. 1-12;
also called "The Old Testament and the New Crisis of Biblical Authority," Interpre-
tation 25(1971): 24-40.

18
See the great efforts of John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1967); Daniel Lys, The Meaning of the Old Testament
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1967); and James D. Smart, The Strange Silence of the Bible
in the Church (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), especially pp. 90-101.
19
Pieter A. Verhoef, "Some Thoughts on the Present-Day Situation in Biblical

Theology," Westminster Theological Journal 33(1970); 1-19.
20
James Barr, "Trends in Biblical Theology," Journal of Theological Studies
25(1974): 267.
THE NATURE OF OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Eichrodt began the "golden age" with a well-deserved attack on
the reigning historic-ism of his day. He asserted that "the essential
inner coherence of the Old and New Testaments was reduced, so to
speak, to a thin thread of historical connection and causal sequence
between the two, with the result that an external causality . . . was
substituted for a homogeneity that was real."21 Thus the OT was
reduced to a collection of detached periods with little or no unity.
But after one quarter of a century, Gerhard von Rad came almost
full circle and adopted the very position that had originally prompted Eichrodt's rebuke. By separating the "kerygmatic" intention, or
homiletical purposes, of the different writers of the OT from the facts
of Israel's history, von Rad not only denied any genuine historical
foundation for Israel's confession of f a i t h in Yahweh, but he
switched the subject of theological study from a focus on God's Word
and work to the religious conceptions of the people of God. For von
Rad, there was no necessity to ground the kerygma of belief on any
historically objective reality, on any history as event. The Bible is
not so much the source of the faith of OT men as it is the expression
of their faith. Moreover, he opined that each historical epoch had a
theology unique to itself with internal tensions, diversity, and contradictions to the theology of the other OT epochs. In fact, there was
for him no synthesis in the mind ol the biblical authors or in the
texts, only a possible "tendency towards unification." 22 Historicism
had returned! The OT possessed no central axis or continuity of a
divine plan; rather, it contained a narration oi the people's religious
reading of their history, their attempt to make real and present older
events and narratives.
The object and focus of the discipline's study was shifted from
history as event and the Word as revelation to a history-of-religion
approach. Meanwhile, von Rad criticized Eichrodt's structural type
of theology for its failure to demonstrate that the covenant concept
was indeed central to the whole OT canon. In this regard, von Rad's
diachronic type of theology, which treated each successive epoch in
the canon as an organizing framework tor biblical theology, was
closer to the object originally set tor this discipline. The problem
was not in the use of a historical sequence of epochs but in allowing
21
Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (London: SCM, 1961),
p. 30.
22
Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2 vol.s. (London: Oliver and Boyd,
1962), 1:118.

this legitimate use of history to swallow up the total interests of the
discipline.
Whenever the interests of history began to dominate, the discipline lapsed into the same sterility that it had sought to evade in
1933. It left untouched the question of normative theology. As James
Barr argued, such theology had tailed to provide any reasons or
criteria for deciding what was to be taken as normative or authoritative in the OT or how this new norm could be the basis for all our
theological decisions. 23
But if von Rad was on the right track in a diachronic, longitudinal (long-cut) approach which paid attention to the chronological
sequence of the OT and its message, Eichrodt was also partially
correct when he observed that no theology was possible if there
were not some constant or normative concepts throughout that
history.
Where were these constant elements to be found? Unfortunately, in spite of all the disclaimers to the contrary, the imposition
of theological conceptuality and even of theological categories derived from systematic or philosophical theology became common.
When the historical-descriptive type of biblical theology (GablerStendahl) yielded to a theological-normative type (HoffmannEichrodt), an illegitimate jump in exegetical practice was always the
result. Whereas the descriptive type stopped with what the text
meant, those who urged that the reader of Scripture go on to find out
what the text means to us today did so on the basis of a Kierkegaardian leap in epistemology and exegesis. The formulations of normativeness came from one's modern framework or from the ready-made
formulations of systematic theology. The then of the ancient text
suddenly became the now of the present reader's needs, with no one
knowing how or by what process.
In such models modern faith and contemporary proclamation
(Geschichte and kerygma) easily replaced history (Historic) and
exegesis. And even on those other models where exegesis and history were involved, they tended to become an end in themselves,
filled with archaic particulars and a fragmented totality. The greatest
need, in that case, was to carry out the exegesis of the individual text
in light of a total theology of the canon. But what was this whole
theology of the canon like? Once again, the nagging insistence of
this need to identify a normative pattern became apparent.
Such a question was not the invention of modernity. It had long
since occurred to the ancient writers themselves. This quest for a
23
Barr, Bible in the Modern World, p. 79.
center, a unifying conceptuality, was at the very heart of the concern

of the receivers of the divine Word and the original participants in
the sequence of events in the OT. For them the question of factual is ni was not as important as the question of meaning; after all, in
many instances they were the actual parties to or participants in
these very events described in the text. Significance and correlation
of these facts with what they had known or failed to apprehend of all
antecedent events or meanings with which this new event might
now be connected were much more important. Therefore, their
witness and record of all the interconnections and ways in which the
activity and corresponding message was passed from one key figure,
generation, country, crisis, and event to another must be of
paramount interest in establishing the focus of our study. Should an
inductive search of the OT record yield a constant pattern of
progressive events, with meanings and teachings in which the recipients were made aware of each selected event's participation in a
larger whole, then the path of the discipline's progress would have
been set.
That would be the question: Did the progress of history involve
relationships where each advance in word, event, and time was
organically related to previous revelation? The answer, at least in
principle, would be straightforward and direct. Such progress need
not exclude organic relationships inasmuch as the OT record itself
would frequently insist on making precisely these connections.
Many will quarrel with the factualism or originality of these textual
connectors by insisting that the "assured results" of source criticism
have deleted most of them or exposed their secondary or tertiary
status. Perhaps the best we could do for such readers (while evangelicals remain alienated [!] from theological discourse) is to urge that
this liability (with its claims to "scientific" objectivity) be overcome
(temporarily) by listening to f/ie cmimi as a canonical witness to
itself. For our part we believe all texts should be innocent of all
charges of artificial it}' until they are proven guilty by clear external
witnesses. The text should first be dealt with on its own terms. All
editorial impositions designated by modernity (derived not from real
sourcesto which evangelicals have no objectionbut rather deduced from broad philosophical and sociological impositions over
the text) which can be credited with atomizing the text and deleting
the connectors allegedly assigned to pious or misguided redactors
must be excluded from the discipline until validated by evidence.
Biblical theology will always remain an endangered species until
the heavy-handed methodology of imaginary source criticism, history of tradition, and certain types of form criticism are arrested.
7

Such a protest cannot he facilely equated with a static concept of
the development of the record. On the contrary, we insist that if the
biblical record is allowed to speak its own intention first, it clearly
indicates progress, growth, development, movement, irregular and
sporadic revelations of meaning, and selections of events in the full
flow of historical currents. We do agree with Fere de Vaux that this
history was not just homiletically useful; it had to be real history, or
it was both unworthy of personal belief and liable to internal collapse from the sheer weight of its own contrivances. To borrow, with
apologies, an old adage, some of the generations might have been
fooled some of the time, but not all of the remnant of the people all of
the time.
So there was real progress in revelation. 24 But such progress did
not exclude either an organic relatedness or the possibility of realizing every now and again a full maturation of one or more points of
revelation along this admitted route of growth. Neither history nor
revelation proceeded at a prescriptively set uniform rate of
maturation.
More often than not the growth was slow, delayed, or even
dormant, only to burst forth after a long period in a new shoot off the
main trunk. But such growth, as the writers of Scripture tell it, was
always connected to the main trunk: an epigenetic growth, i.e., there
was a growth of the record of events, meanings, and teachings as
time went on around a fixed core that contributed life to the whole
emerging mass.
Whether the event, meaning, or teaching was viewed as a seedling, trunk, branch, root, or leaf, it all participated in the vitality of the
whole organism. As sucn, each part of the historical process was as
qualitatively perfect as the whole even if some parts were severely
limited either in their quantitative significance to the whole or in
their duration. For example, some events, meanings, or teachings
were deliberately given with a built-in statement of obsolescence
that limited the range of its application to certain historic times.
Such was the tabernacle legislation with its accompanying ceremony: it was a copy made according to the pattern shown to Moses
on Mount Sinai (Exod. 25:9,40; 26:30; N u m . 8:4). Hence its
limitation.
Once in a while historical progress also allowed a full maturaOrr dealt with this problem in his Lake Forest University lectures,
"The Progressiveness of Revelation," The Problem of the Old Testament (London:

Nisbet, 1909), pp. 433-78. The other man who responded to the works by John Henry
Newman and Adolph Harnack on developmentalism was Robert Rainey, Delivery
and Development of Christian Doctrine (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1974), pp. 35-73.

tion of an aspect of the record, and at those points the text amazes ns
with the way in which meaning and teaching outstrip experience
and the times. Men and time were neither in control of the theologically significant, nor were they the measure of divine capability!
Therefore, care must be exercised in this area lest a brand of theological positivism be allowed to spring up which would dictate what
could or did happen in the progress of revelation. God remained
sovereign Lord even in this realm. Consequently, the suddenness of
the description of the Creation, the Fall of the first human couple,
the universal extent of the Abrahamic promise, the priesthood of all
Israel, or Isaiah's depiction of the new heaven and the new earth
ought not to startle us and be judged as impossible. Only the embarrassment of an overly refined spirit of modernity would feel obliged
by some prior commitment to a philosophical principle or to a
sociology of knowledge to adjudge such textual claims as impossible
even before they were found guilty on the grounds of accepted
canons of evidence.
The nature of the theology of the OT as conceived here is not
merely a theology which is in conformity with the whole Bible, but
it is that theology described and contained in the Bible (subjective
genitive) and consciously joined from era to era as the whole previously antecedent context becomes the base tor the theology which
followed in each era.
Its structure is historically arranged and its content is exegetically controlled. Its center and unified conceptuality is to be found
in the textual descriptions, explanations, and connections.
THE METHOD OF OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Four main types of theologies have appeared in recent years.
1. The structural type describes the basic outline of OT
thought and belief in units borrowed from systematictheology, sociology, or selected theological principles
and then traces its relationship to secondary concepts
(Eichrodt, Vriezen, van Imschoot).
2. The diachronic type sets forth the theology of the successive time periods and stratifications of Israelite history. Unfortunately, the emphasis fell on the successive
traditions of the religious community's faith and experience (vou Rad).
3. The lexicographic type limits its scope of investigation to
a group(s) of biblical men and their special theological
9

vocabulary, e.g., the sages, the Elohist, the Priestly vocabulary, etc. Gerhard Kittel, ed., and G. W. Bromiley,
trans., Theological Dictionary of tl\e New Testament, 9
vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmaiis, 1964-74); Peter F. Ellis,
The Yah wist: The Bible's First Theologian (Notre Dame;
Fides Publishers, 1968).
4. The biblical themes type presses its search beyond the
vocabulary of the single key term to encompass a whole
constellation of words around a key theme (John Bright,
The Kingdom of God; Paul and Elizabeth Achtemeier,
The Old Testament Roots of Our Faith).
The ambiguity of method is obvious; for while the structural
type emphasizes that a theology must represent the systematic formulation of religious ideas, the diachronic type verges off in the
direction of a history-of-religions approach in its insistence that
biblical theology is a purely historic discipline which records impartially the beliefs of the religious community without trying to assess
the bearing these events and thoughts might have had on permanent
normative religious truth. The other two types generally grappled
with the same basic issue, only on a much more limited scope of the
canon or range of biblical ideas.
But both of the chief contenders for the field of OT theology
presented major methodological problems for the kind of OT theology envisaged here. The structural type maps out a program of stiidy
that is so close methodologically to systematic theology that one is
hard-pressed to discover the real usefulness of its mission other than
the heuristic value of seeing what a systematic theology of the OT
would look like. But how would that service the theological or
exegetical needs ot the community of faith? And why cause all the
fuss about the awful imposition of the categories of Western
philosophy or those of the great ecclesiastical confessions of the
Christian church if the resulting structure is only a weak concatenation of the relationship between God and man? In such a case,
biblical theology has no independent mission and makes a very
small contribution if any.
Likewise, the diachronic model verges off in the direction of the
history-of-religion approach. While it has supplied the new and
unique framework of the progress of event and thought through the
events of history, it has tended to settle tor a presentation which was
purely descriptive in character. Thus, while biblical theology began
as a reaction against the barrenness of the history-of-Israelitereligion approach, it seems now that due to the poverty of its own
10

methodology, it has been recaptured by this area of theology. However, this was not a necessary concomitant feature of the method as
we hope to show later.
Is there, then, a distinctive methodology for this discipline? Or
has all the toil of the last half century been for no real purpose? Is
there an inner, persistent, distinctive, and characteristic theme or
plan that would mark off the central concern for the OT? And would
it aid the theological curriculum or even the general reader's appreciation of the text to have this plan laid out in its successive
installments? Does all this amount to a system or a logic that builds
within the Old Testament? And does this pattern give evidence that
it expects additional events and meanings even beyond the range of
its canonical writings? Even more crucial, can it be shown from the
claims of the original participants in the events and thoughts of these
OT texts that they were conscious of a continuing stream of events,
meanings, and ideas which preceded them and that they felt themselves obligated to acknowledge some type of permanent, normative
demands laid on their beliefs and actions? These are the hard,
methodological problems which the past generation and ours have
found difficult to answer, especially since this discipline was viewed
as the synthesis of all the "assured results" of OT study over the past
two centuries. Unfortunately, some of these results represented as
great bondage to grids, systems, and philosophies as those the discipline had originally attempted to evade in 1933.
Our proposal is to distinguish sharply biblical theology's
method from that of systematic^ or the history-of-religion. There is
an inner center or plan to which each writer consciously contributed. A principle of selectivity is already evident and divinely determined by the rudimentary disclosure of the divine blessingpromise theme to all men everywhere as the canon opens in
Genesis 1-11 and continues in Genesis 12-50. Rather than selecting
that theological data which strikes our fancy or meets some current
need, the text will already have set up priorities and preferences of
its own. These nodal points can be identified, not on the basis of
ecclesiastical or theological camps, but by such criteria as: (1) the
critical placement of interpretive statements in the textual sequence; (2) the frequency of repetition of the ideas; (3) the recurrence of phrases or terms that begin to take on a technical status; (4)
the resumption of themes where a forerunner had stopped often
with a more extensive area of reference; (5) the use of categories of
assertions previously used that easily lend themselves to a description of a new stage in the program of history; and (6) the organizing
standard by which people, places, and ideas were marked for ap11

proval, contrast, inclusion, and future and present significance.
Not only must the job of selectivity be initiated and guided by
textual controls set by the authorial truth-intentions of the writers of
the OT, but these same men must also be closely followed in the
evaluation of" all theological conclusions drawn f r o m these
"selected" theological data.
If the value judgments, interpretations, and estimates which
they placed on these key events and persons in the text be deleted,
dismissed, neglected, or replaced with those of our own, we will
need to blame no one but ourselves if the authority of the Bible
seems to also have evaporated beneath our own best scholarly efforts. The truth of the matter, for better or for worse, is that these
writers claim they were the recipients of divine revelation in the
selection and evaluation of what was recorded. Consequently, all
serious theologies will need to reckon with both aspects of this
claim, not to speak of the claim itself to have received revelation.
To repeat then, in our proposed methodology, biblical theology
draws its very structure of approach from the historic progression of
the text and its theological selection and conclusions from those
found in the canonical focus. Thereby it agrees in part with the
historical and sequential emphasis of the diachronic type of OT
theology and the normative emphasis of the structural type.
Yet it does more than merely synthesize or eclectically accept a
new combination of what has been heretofore a set of antithetical
methods. It deliberately attempts to derive its theology from the
exegetical insights of canonical sections, whether it be a summarizing paragraph or chapter, a key teaching passage, a strategic event as
evaluated in the context where it first appeared and in subsequent
references in the canon, or a whole book or group of books which are
so closely connected in theme, approach, or message as to provide
an explicit unity.
Amidst all the multiplexity and variety of materials, events, and
issues, it is our contention that there does exist an eye to this storm of
activity. Such a starting point is textually supplied and textually
confirmed as the canon's central hope, ubiquitous concern, and
measure of what was theologically significant or normative. While
the NT eventually referred to this focal point of the OT teaching as
the promise, the OT knew it under a constellation of such words as
promise, oath, blessing, rest, and seed. It was also known under such
formulas as the tripartite saying: "I will be your God, you shall be
My people, and I will dwell in the midst of you" or the redemptive
self-assertion formula scattered in part or in full form 125 times
throughout the OT: "I am the Lord your God who brought you up
12

out of the Land of Egypt." It could also be seen as a divine plan in
history which promised to bring a universal blessing through the
agency of an unmerited, divine choice of a human offspring: "In
thee shall all families of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 12:3).
So crucial is the passive rendering'of Genesis 12:3 (also 18:18;
28:14all niphal form verbs) that Bertil Albrektson 25 acknowledges
that if the niphal form is passive here and not reflexive as most
modern translations claim, then a clear reference to a divine plan by
which Abraham is chosen to be God's instrument to reach all the
nations of the earth is explicitly taught in the text. But, alas, he feels
constrained to reject it on the basis that this formula appears in the
hithpael form (usually a reflexive form) in Genesis 22:18 and 26:4:
"Bless oneself."26
But a strong protest must be raised at this point tor several
exegetical reasons. First of all, in Genesis 12:2 the divine blessing
already is said to be attached to Abraham's person: "And thou [or
"it," referring either to Abraham's name or nation] shalt be a blessing." Hence, neither he nor the nation are merely to be a formula of
blessing; neither will he merely bless himself! Instead, even apart
from the controversial niphal of verse 3, Abraham is to be the
medium and source of divine blessing. Such was his destined mission in the first set of promises of verse 2 before moving on to
another and higher statement of purpose in verse 3.
All five passages in Genesis (both the niphal and hithpael forms
of the verb "to bless") are treated in the Samaritan, Babylonian
(Onkelos), Jerusalem (Pseudo-Jonathan) Targums as passives. Indeed, the harmonistic interpretation which insists on rendering
three niphals by two hithpaels is also misinformed when it insists on
a uniform reflexive meaning of the hithpael, for that is not true. 27
Thus it cannot be assumed so facilely that the sense of the hithpael is
clear and therefore it should be made the basis of rendering the
sense of the "disputed niphal." The sense of both of these stems
changed under the pressure of polemical interest in Rashi, then
Clericus, and now the greater majority of linguists and exegetes.
25
Bertil Albrektson, History and the Gods (Lund, Sweden: C. W. K. Gleerup
Fund, 1967), p. 79.

26
For the hithpael form of this verb, see Psalm 72:17 and its parallelism in
context, but note the LXX and Vulgate passive rendering.
27
The most definitive discussion of this problem ever is O. T. Allis's "The
Blessing of Abraham," Princeton Theological Review 25(1927): 263-98. See especially p. 281 where he lists these possible examples of a passive meaning for the
hithpael: Genesis 37:35; Numbers 31:23; Deuteronomy 4:21; 23:9; 1 Samuel 3:14;
30:6; 1 Kings 2:26; Job 15:28; 30:16,17; Psalms 107:17,27; 119:52; Isaiah 30:29;
Lamentations 4:1; E/ekiel 19:12; Daniel 12:10; Micah 6:16.
13

Meanwhile, O. T. Allis's linguistic challenge has stood unrelated
and even unacknowledged by contemporary scholarsthe meaning
is clearly passive and the implications for OT biblical theology are
massive!
The focus of" the record fell on the content of God's covenant
which remained epigenetically constant, i.e., the accumulation of
materials as time went on grew around a fixed core that contributed
life to the whole emerging mass. This content was a given word of
blessing and promise. It was a declaration guaranteed by a divine
pledge that God would freely do or be something to a certain person(s) in Israel there and then and to later Jewish descendants in the
future so that God might thereby do or be something for all men,
nations, and nature, generally. The immediate effects of this word
were divine blessings (happenings or arrival of persons) usually
accompanied by a promissory declaration of a future work or completion of the seriesa divine promise. Accordingly, men received
the promise and waited for the promise all in one plan.
But in its composition, it contained such variegated interests as
to include: (1) material blessings of all men and beasts; (2) a special
seed to mankind; (3) a land for a chosen nation; (4) spiritual blessing
for all the nations; (5) a national deliverance from bondage; (6) an
enduring dynasty and kingdom that would one day embrace a universal dominion; (7) a forgiveness of sin, and on and on.
No principle foisted as an "abstract divining rod" over the text
could be expected to yield so great a theological payload. Only a
textnally supplied claim could have pointed our attention to such a
constellation of interconnected terms and contents as are found in
this single plan of GodHis promise. The progress of this doctrine
can be historically measured and described. Further, it will include
its own pattern for a permanent, normative standard by which to
judge that day and all other days by a yardstick which claims to be
divinely laid on the writer of Scripture and on all subsequent readers simultaneously.
THE SCOPE OF OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Inevitably the question of the limits of the discipline is raised.
Should it include materials outside the OT canon? Should it attempt
to include all the OT in all its detail, or can it develop some fair type
of representative coverage that will present the interests of a total
OT theology?
To the first query we contend that the scope of our study is
properly restricted to the canonical books in the Jewish collection.
14

To add to our consideration the Apocrypha, Qumraii materials, Nag
Hammadi texts, and Rabbinical writings would seriously weaken
the stated purpose of discussing the wholeness of biblical theology
within a stream of revelation where the writers were consciously
contributing under divine command to an existing record of divine
revelation. The possibility of discovering the unity or center of the
OT or its correlation with the NT would be gone forever, tor the
theme line would now be blurred by the intrusion of what would
basically belong in the history of Israel's religion.
Even more determinative is the judgment of Christ Himself, for
He decisively pointed to the Jewish collection of books as known in
His day and affirmed that these were the ones that spoke of Him.
Such a judgment ought to settle for believers and caution all other
students of the discipline to restrict the scope of their "theological"
studies to that canon. Meanwhile, of course, a history-of-religion
approach will need to enlarge its area of studies to include all of the
intertestamental literature in its purview.
The goal of a theology of the OT is not to laboriously enter into a
discussion of every piece of information that bears on religious
history or practice. Therefore, all mere historiographie, cultic, institutional, or archaeological studies ought to be relegated to other
parts of the body of theology.
This is not to say that there is a "canon within the canon," as if it
were the theologian's prerogative to give to some parts of the canon a
preferential status while denigrating other parts by labeling them as
secondary or less in status. True enough, the Bible, la Biblia, is a
plural word pointing to the composite character of the books that go
to make up the whole. But this external nomenclature cannot
amount to evidence for a multiple canonicity.
Still less can the presence of a central theme or a material center
which carries the main line and meaning of the narrative be used as
a divisive tool to segregate levels of canonicity, authority, or revelatory value. Instead, if the center is indigenous to the text itself, its
authentication should be realized in that it unites all of the supporting parts of the canon. The very development of artificially devised
systems of bifurcating the text once again implies that the modern
scholar/reader's sieve, through which all the biblical texts are sifted,
is more accurate and dependable than the claims of the prophets or
apostles who stood in the divine counsel and received what they
recorded. In other words, what was denied to the biblical writers by
modern readers, they now claim for their own sieves! No, the whole
of the canonical text must be received on an equal level.
Therefore, all the text is equally important and comes to be
15

judge of us, not we of it. But this is not to say that it is all important
for the same reason. Not every text teaches doctrine. Nor does every
text give ethical instruction; but the whole aggregate does lend itself
to one unified totality with special surprise moments when the story
line or the attached teaching received a terrific advance forward due
to the significance of a new word or work of God. Hence, it is
possible to have unity without uniformity, solidarity without static
constancy. There was little, if any, sameness in form, character,
degree, and regularity of occurrence of interdependence which produced a harmony of thought, purpose, and life.
Consequently, biblical theology need not repeat every single
detail of the canon in order to be authentic and accurate. In fact,
what would be the most preferable of theologies woidd be that
method which could so synthesize what many refer to as the "disparate" details to the central theological structure of the canon as to
bring out their own representative validity, distinctiveness, and
theological contribution to the material and formal center of the
Bible.
That it is possible to write a biblical theology of sorts on particular sections of a large book of the Bible (e.g., Isa. 40-66) or on a group
of books belonging to a certain common historical stage of revelation
is not denied either. However, such a sectional approach will always
presume on the larger theological whole. That is, it will ultimately
need to be informed by all the antecedent theology against which
this small section may have been projected and especially on the
whole theme of the canon. The accumulation of the total message
was never far from most of the writers' minds as they chose the
words or connected their experiences with what had been their
religious and revelational heritage up to that point in time. Notice,
this is not the usual Analogy of Faith procedure in which the NT or
later theology is allowed to set the pace for earlier passages. On the
contrary, it is what we will call the Analogy of Antecedent Scripture
where chronologically antecedent canonical theology must be
checked to see whether it informed the theology under investigation.
One other point needs to be made: OT theology is a legitimate
and distinct discipline from NT theology. To be sure, OT theology is
obliged to point to those connecting links with NT theology as NT
theology is likewise obliged to trace its connecting roots to the OT.
But because of the sheer enormity of handling thirty-nine books
covering such a vast period of time, it would be better to package the
one biblical theology under the two labels of the two testaments.
Further, if, as we believe it can be successfully argued, biblical
16
k
theology is first and foremost an exegetical tool and not primarily an
aid in the construction of systematic theology, then it will once again
be more useful if the one biblical theology were published in two
parts matching the two testaments. Thus, without standing aloof

from either testament, it could be argued that the impact and usefulness of the theology would be greater if it were packaged separately.
THE MOTIVATION FOR OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

The primary impulse in constructing any biblical theology is no
longer a protest against systematic theology. That certain estrangement between the representatives of the two disciplines did exist in
the past though not necessarily cannot be denied. But that was
when the discipline was searching for a separate set of categories
from those of systematics and when both disciplines were committed to espousing a normative approach to theology. Now with the
rising fortunes of a purely descriptive approach to biblical theology
and a closer approximation, if not an outright imitation, of the
methods of the history-of-religion study, the need to distinguish
between these two disciplines is even more urgent than in the
former clash with systematic theology.
But given the original interest of biblical theology in the historical roots of the message as it developed and the balancing judgment
which sought to identify the text's own collection of normative
evaluations, the purpose and role of this new discipline should be
stated in much more different terms than it is currently.
Rather than finding an overlap in the systematic or historical
areas, we believe biblical theology is a twin tool of the exegete. Its
most immediate application is in the area of hermeneutics. Here its
contribution is neither competitive nor merely tolerated as an alternative approach to a similar body of material.
Its role is so distinctive that without it the exegetical task
likewise falls into a historicism of a B.C. or first century A.D. description. Its message becomes time bound and locked up in the then of
the event with very little to carry over to the now of the proclamation
or application situation of the reader or listener.
Even if exegesis should avoid the historicist trap with such
abominable practices as resorting to moralizing, allegorizing,
psychologizing, reinterpreting, or spiritualizing the text after it has
fulfilled its professional obligations by locating the text accurately in
the writer's space and time situation, it could also fall into a linguistic dead-end approach where the exegete and interpreter concludes
his work when the verbs are parsed, the unusual forms are iden17
EHBJIHOTEKA
O R
n *
UJ .: O I\ bl
r o c.' iX -
f&j"
tified, and connections with important cognate forms are noted.

Important as this exercise is, it too cannot overcome a purely analytical result.
Meanwhile the text begs to be understood and set in a context of
events and meanings. Historical studies will put the exegete in
contact with the How of events in space and time, and grammatical
and syntactical analyses will identify the collection of ideas in the
immediate section of period under investigation. But what discipline will put the exegete in touch with that which the writer of this
single text found enduring and of special relevance to his day because of its explicit or implied allusions to the great acts and theological evaluations of the preceding revelation? It is precisely at this
point that biblical theology will make its most distinctive and unrivaled contribution.
In every successful exegesis, there must be some means of
identifying the center or core of the canon. When this distinctive
pattern and family resemblance is located and collected from the
fruit of a host of exegetical endeavors covering the whole OT canon,
the exegete, interpreter, preacher, reader, and listener of individual
pieces of text is enabled to hear God's normative Word,
Oi course, the warning must be reissued once again against all
premature impositions of assorted generalizations or allegedly
heightened and contemporaneous meanings on the text. In no way
could such a half-baked theologizing substitute for that diligent
search for an internally derived principle of unity.
Such a claim must carry its own verification and justification. If
it cannot demonstrate that its interests are precisely those raised in
the progress of growth of these "centrally accredited norms/' then
they must be abandoned and the search begun all over again.
When the right center is located, however, the exegete's job may
be completed after he has worked through the steps of the
grammatical-historical-syntactical-cultural exegesis by adding the
theological step.
Theological exegesis, when used with the grammaticalhistorical-syntactical-cultural steps, will employ the Analogy of Antecedent Scripture to aid the interpreter in making an authorized
transfer from the f/i<m of the B.C. context of the OT to the o; of the
twentieth century. In contrast with the method used by systematic
theology called the Analogy or Rule of Faith (which is a collection of
the fundamental doctrines of the faith from the chief and most
obvious chapters of Scripture without specially noting the time
period in which they appeared or the like), the Analogy of Scripture
strictly limits its use to that build-up of the core of the faith which
18

temporally and historically preceded the text under investigation.
While the Analogy or Rule of Faith is deductive and collects all
materials regardless of its relative dating, the Analogy of Scripture is
inductive and collects only those antecedent contexts which were in
the Scripture writer's mind as he wrote this new passage as indicated hy the same terminology, formulas, or events to which this
context adds another in the series.
Depending on where the exegete is working in the canon, he
will use the theology of the periods which preceded his text as they
introduce analogous or identical topics, share key words, or raise
similar theological interests. It is this theology which "informs"28
the text and supplies the background and available message against
which this new revelation was given.
Instead of using the NT or subsequent OT texts and ideas to
interpret (or even worse yet, to reinterpret) the old materialan
outright act of rebellion against the author and his claim to have
received divine authority for what he reports and sayswe urge the
new biblical theologian to provide the exegete with a set of accumulating technical, theological terms, identifications of the key
interpretive moments in the history of God's plan for man, and an
appreciation for the range of concepts grouped around a unifying
coreall of these according to their historical progression in time.
Likewise, expedients such as trying to bridge the B.C./A.D. gap
by using the analogy of the human situation 29 or the method of
re-presentation of the text in proclamation30 to contemporize the
message would be unnecessary.
Studied use of the resiilts of biblical theology will mark out the
abiding message as being grounded in historical specificity. Thus,
exegesis will be the chief benefactor of this discipline's efforts while
in a less direct way systematics will also wish to consult its results
along with those of exegetical theology, the history of dogma, and
philosophy of religion.
28
John Bright, Authority of the Old Testament (Xashville: Abingdon, 1967), pp.
143,170.
29
Lawrence E. Toombs, The Old Testament in Christian Preaching (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961); idem, "The Problematic of Preaching from the Old
Testament," Interpretation 23(1969): 302-14. Toombs said, "Insofar as we of the
twentieth century share with ancient man in a common humanity., liis evaluations ot
his situation are potentially relevant to our own," ibid., p. 303.
30
Martin Notli, "The Re-Presentation of the Old Testament in Proclamation,"
Essays on Old Testament Hermenciitica, ed. Clans Westermann, 2nd eel.

(Richmond: John Knox, 1969), pp. 76-88.
19
______Chapter 2______
The Identification of a
Canonical Theological Center
No discipline has struggled more valiantly to fulfill its basic

mission but with such disappointing results as OT biblical theology.
Inherent in its very name is the presumption that an inner unity
which can bind the various OT themes, concepts, and books will be
found. But, alas, to judge from the available literature, that inner
unity or central concept appears to have remained hidden and
perhaps buried beneath all the variegation and diversity of form and
content in the OT.

THE ISSUES INVOLVED
Simply stated, the real problem is this: Does a key exist for an
orderly and progressive arrangement of the subjects, themes, and
teachings of the OT? And here is the most crucial and sensitive
question of all: Were the writers of the OT consciously aware of such
a key as they continued to add to the historical stream of revelation?
The answer to these questions will literally determine the destiny and direction of OT theology. If no such key can be demonstrated inductively from the text, and if the writers were not deliberately writing out of such an awareness, then we shall have to be
20
The Identification of a Canonical Theological Center

content with talking about the different theologies of" the OT. Consequently, the idea of an OT theology as such must be permanently
abandoned. Not only would it be necessary to acknowledge that
there was no unity to be found in the OT, but the search for the
legitimate and authoritative lines of continuity with the NT would
need to be abandoned as well.
Of course, this latter eventuality will not come as a surprise to
some, for already they have decided that this state of affairs does
exist. Thus, while retaining the traditional terminology of OT theology, the focus of most OT theologies shifted from unity to variety,
from developing lines of continuity to competing trends of diversity.
That is also the judgment of Rudolf Smend. In an important essay in
which he surveys the last 150 years of OT theology, he begins by
saying, "The confidence with which one has postulated the existence of a center (Mitte) of the Old Testament, has steadily become
less and less."1
Even the very terms by which we referred to this phenomena
remained elusive. Most referred approximately to a central core of
events and/or meanings in the OT which provided some type of
unifying center for the welter of detail. Georg Fohrer spoke of a
"Mittelpunkt"2 while Rudolf Smend, as we have already noted,
chose "Mitte" and Gvinter Klein used "Zentralbegriff."3 Other terms
have included "central concept,"4 "focal point," "essential root
idea," or "underlying idea."5
In spite of the terminological variations, a similar note is
sounded in all these terms. Perhaps the word "center" is the most
useful, but it also has certain drawbacks. It does stress the desire
traditionally located in OT theology of identifying the integrating
points in the entirety of the testament, but that word does not
indicate any linear historical building of materials within that center. Hence, there still is a need for some term that has both a
dynamic aspect of the growth of revelation yet contains a u n i f y i n g
point of reference to it. So far, such a term has not suggested itself;
1
Rudolf Smend, "Die Mitte des Alten Testaments," Theologifiche Stndien
101(1970): 7.
2
Georg Fohrer, "Der Mittelpunkt einer Theologie des AT," Theologixchc
Zeitschrift 24(1968): 161-72.

3
Gimter Klein, "Reich Gottes" als biblischer Zentralbegrir'l'," Ei'diigelixclte
Theologie 30(1970): 642-70.

"Walther Eichrodt Theology of the Old Testament (London: SCM, 1961), pp.
13-16.
s
Tli. C. Vriexen, An Outline of Old Testament Tlieologij, 2nd ed. (\e\vton,
Mass.: Charles T. Branfoid Co., 1970), p. 150.
21
nevertheless, the idea is clear enough from the several terms which
approximate the concept from different angles.
Various analogies have also been suggested for this unifying but
developing concept. One epigenetical concept uses the relation of
the seed acorn to the full-grown oak tree. Just so, the central idea
matures as revelation progresses into the NT era. Another analogy
uses the successive folds of a road map. Again the emphasis is on
unity with plenty of provision for expansion and development. Only
this kind of dual emphasis will simultaneously respond to the demands of a f/:eo/og:/ of the OT (with its implied unity) and the
requirements of a revelation in Aiafon/ (with its contribution of
development, progress, and enlargement).
THE CURRENT RELUCTANCE TO ADOPT A CENTER

Traditionally, it has been commonplace among biblical theologians to find the justified warning against the all-too-prevalent temptation to impose one's own philosophical grid or theological
framework over the testament. Such externally formulated structures
cannot, of course, adequately serve as a key to the systematic ordering of the content of the OT. The procedure is to be faulted both on
methodological and on theological grounds.
The problem in methodology is that it denies the priority of the
results of careful exegesis. Instead of inductively deriving one's
center from the testament, a grid foreign to the form and content of
the text is slipped hastily and often carelessly over the material,
resulting in the obstruction of the text's own point of view; and large
amounts of intractable material are left dangling outside the imposed system.
When one joins to this fact the further complication that all alien
grids fail to reproduce or share in any derived authority which could
have been borrowed from the text had the form of its presentation
more closely approximated that of the very text it was investigating,
the theological problem has been faced. The writers of the text
claimed to possess the divine intentionality in their selectivity and
interpretation of what was recorded. Consequently, if biblical theology does not aim at reproducing the author's truth-intentions in its
general theological shape and content, then that generation of interpreters will necessarily suffer a corresponding loss of authority from
that word and a demise of confidence from their theological
descendants.
But can such a center be identified from the texts themselves?
For some, this may just be a further example of another modern
22

"abstract divining rod" by which the OT is forced to yield some
pleasant (or even not-so-pleasant) theological payload. It is one thing
to wholeheartedly condemn all attempts to impose a key or system
over the OT, but it is another to inductively derive such a core from
the testament itself. This is precisely where most OT theologies
have been wrecked. In an attempt to steer between the Charybdis of
chronological ordering of the canon (which, as we have seen, often
sadly residted in nothing more than a purely descriptive treatment)
and the Scylla of a topical arrangement (which also unfortunately
simply adopted the categories of philosophy, systematic theology, or
some system of covenants and dispensations), it frequently has suffered shipwreck on one or the other extreme. How can a discipline
which by name and definition searches for the pattern, plan, person,
and meaning of the record settle for a purely descriptive classification of-the information and facts in the text? If this discipline is
merely a descriptive science, should it be called "theology"? Should
not the definition of biblical theology be closely linked with the
nature of the Bible? 6 On the other hand, how could it take normative
categories ah extra from systematic^ and use these to unfold the
pattern of meanings according to the canon's own way of saying
things? Must not the particular purpose of every narrative and proposition in the Bible be understood first in the light that it contributes to the whole or total purpose and message?
But does a fair reading of the text lead one to such alleged single
purpose? Ever since the second half of the eighteenth century, men
of the Enlightenment and their intellectual descendants have found
themselves compelled as men making decisions in research to press
the case for the Scripture's multiplicity, variegation, and diversity.
By and large, no internal coherence was possible since, in their
estimation, the observed tensions amounted to contradictions. The
same opinion continues to the present moment even in NT theolo-
gy-7
More recently in OT studies, the prestigious voices of G. Ernest

Wright and Gerhard von Rad have added their weight to a rising
chorus that has decided that there is no unifying center to the OT.
G. E. Wright rules out any single theme on the grounds that it would
not be "sufficiently comprehensive to include within it all the vari6
A. A. Anderson, "Old Testament Theology and Its Methods," Promise and

Fulfillment, ed. F. F. Brnce {Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963), p. 8.
7
E. Kasemann, "The Problem of a New Testament Theology," New Testament
Studies 19(1973): 242; W. G. Kummel, The Theology of the New Testament
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1973), pp. 15-17.
23

ety of viewpoint." 8 Von Had, no less definite, asserts that the OT "has
no focal point such as is found in the New."9 Interestingly enough,
as already noted above, even the NT assurance has collapsed and
also followed the lead of the OT field.
Gerhard Hasel has also joined in this denial saying that the
biblical theologian "cannot and must not use a concept, fundamental
idea, or formula as a principle for the systematic ordering and arranging of the OT kerygmatic message and as a key that determines from
the start how he will present the content of the OT testimony."10
However, he does freely acknowledge that "the final aim of OT
theology is to demonstrate whether or not there is an inner unity that
binds together the various theologies and longitudinal themes, concepts, and motifs"11 even though it is a "hidden inner unity." 12
Still, the issue must be pressed: Is the unity all that opaque?
Were the authors of Scripture merely diffident or even ignorant of
any divine master plan behind the course of human events, authorial
selectivity of what was to be included or excluded, and the claims for
supramundane evaluations of what was recorded? Immediately,
some will protest that this prematurely raises the dogmatic consideration as to whether God did, as a matter of fact, reveal Himself in
human writings. And we concede the point that this could be construed in that light. However, we wish only to establish at this point
that the writers claimed (whether we concur here or not is not the
issue) that they felt themselves to be under a divine imperative. They
were under a holy obligation to speak what was often contrary to
their own personal interests and wishes (ci. Jeremiah's agony of soul
in this regard); but speak they must.
What is more, not only does a fair representation of their claim
attribute the content and selection of what they record to God, but it
contains numerous patent and latent references to an accumulation
of both promises and threats and persons, and programs which
8
G. Ernest Wright, "The Theological Study of the Bible," Interpreter's One
Volume Commentary on the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970), p. 983.
9
Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2 vols. (London: Oliver and Boyd,
1962), 2:362.
10
Gerhard Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issuea in the Current Debate
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), p. 62. See also his study, "The Problem of the
Center in the Old Testament Theology Debate," Zeitsclirift fiir die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 86(1974): 65-82'
"Hasel, Old Testament, p. 93. Page H. Kelley came to the same conclusion:
"The search for a unifying theme should be regarded as a valid one, else the Old
Testament would be reduced to a collection of unrelated literary fragments," "Israel's Tabernacling God," Review and Expositor 67(1970): 486. '
12
HaseI, Old Testament, p. 93,

preceded them. Further, they claim to be both in a direct succession
to these earlier words and contributors in their further development
of both the fulfillment and the enlarged promise for the future!
What, then, was the medium through which these claims were
made known, and why has the scholarly community all of a sudden
soured on the feasibility of finding such a unity if such a claim was
consciously transmitted as argued here? Could such a recorded
biblical history be the source of theological meaning and unification?
HISTORY AS THE MEDIUM OF MEANING

Up until the decade of the seventies, the principle which was
held with greatest reverence among most biblical theologians was
that history was the chief medium of divine revelation in the OT.13
What could be known of God was to be known primarily through
history.
By this choice, OT theologians could, so they hoped, set off byway of contrast Israel's uniqueness from the neighboring peoples of
the ancient Near East which invested the natural world with
myriads of divine powers. They could also, if all went according to
their expectations, bypass the embarrassment of the classical dew
that claimed revelation was to be located in the words of Scripture.14
Surprising as it may seem, it was not until 1967 that the basis for
the oft-repeated assurance that history was the chiefindeed almost
the onlymedium of divine revelation was finally subjected to a
thorough analysis in the light of the Bible's claims as over against
those of the comparative material from the ancient Near East. It was
Bertil Albrektson who did this in his book History and the Gods. To
be sure, James Barr had already delivered a vigorous challenge to
this new axiom of biblical theology in his 1962 inaugural address,15
claiming that verbal revelation had just as much a right to occupy the
center of the theological stage as did history. It was only apologetically more convenient to quietly delete the prepositional part of the
biblical record from public attention, complained Barr. Even apart
from this important neglect of the Bible's own system of meanings, it
turned out that revelation was not centered in real history after all,
13
G. E. Wright, The God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital (London;
SCM, 1952), p. 13; Vriezen, Outline, p. 189.
14
J. Baillie, The Idea of Revelation in Recent Titoftglit (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1956), p. 62t't.
15
James Barr, "Revelation Through History in the Old Testament and Modem
Thought," Interpretation 17(1963): 193-205.
25

i.e., events as they "actually" or "really" happened. Instead, the
arena of God's action in scholarly reconstruction resulted in something less real than events which occur in space and time; but, as it
to compensate for that loss, we were assured that they were "kerygmatically" more useful!
It was von Rad, more than anyone else, who sharpened a contrast between the two versions of Israel's history. For him, there
were "no bntta facta at all [in the OT]; we have history only in the
form of interpretation, only in reflection."16 Now there were two
types of history: the one obtained from the reconstructions of the
modern historico-critical method, the other from Israel's credal confessions supplied from the traditio-historical method. The former
yielded the "critically assured minimum" while the second tended
"towards a theological maximum."17
In this dichotomy, the old ghost of Immanuel Kant was still

haunting academia. Von Rad, like his predecessor in 1926,
Eissfeldt, 18 had managed to divide reality into two parts: there was
the phenomenal world of the past (available to us from historicocritical research), and there was the noumenal world of faith. Israel's
faith, like biblical theology, was to have as its object, not the real acts
of God in real history, but that which the people of ancient times
confessed to have happened in spite of modern critical doubts about
its factual status. These credal confessions (e.g., Deut. 26:16-19)
about a minimal number of alleged events in Israel's past redemption were reenacted in the cult; and as such, the "re-telling" of these
events constituted at once the kerygma and a theological interpretation of the OT. Handled in this way, this second version of Israel's
history was naturally subject to various forms of adaptation, reinterpretation, reflection, and even actualization. 19
In the meantime, another group of scholars was contending just
as vigorously for the other alternative: faith in the historical events
16
Gerhard von Rad, "Antwort auf Conzelmanns Fragen," Ecangelische
Theologie 24(1964): 393; Old Testament Theology, 2:416, as cited by Gerhard F.

Hasel, "The Problem of History in Old Testament Theology," Andrews University
Seminary Studies 8(1970): 29, to whom I am indebted in several places in this
section for his fine analysis. He, in turn, acknowledged the incisive analysis of
Martin Honecker, "Zum Verstiindnis der Geschichte in Gerhard von Rad's
Theologie des Alten Testament," Ecdngelische Theologie 23(1963); cf. Hasel, Old
Testament, chap. II.
I7
Von Rad, Theology, 1:108.
18
Otto Eissfeldt, "Israelitisch-jiidische Religions-geschichte und alttestamentliche Theologie," Z e i t . f c h r i f t fiir die Alttefitamentliche Wissemschaft
44(1926): Iff.
19
Hasel, "Problem," p. 34, for documentation in von Rad.
26

reconstructed by source criticism. Franz Hesse20 rejected von Rad's
case for making the confessional level of history the object of faith.
How could such erroneous history be the object of real faith? he
queried. Faith must rest on what happened, he concluded, and only
modern historico-criticism can tell us what actually took place and
did not take place in the OT tradition.
But which historico-critical theory? There were at least three
available: the so-called Baltimore School of William Foxwell Albright and John Bright; the A. Alt and Martin Noth axis; and G. E.
Mendenhall of the University of Michigan. Especially critical were
the assessments of these three schools of the "historical minimum"
of the prepatriarchal through the conquest eras. There was no scientific history of Israel to be hadespecially on the basis of the premises found in the historico-critical method.
Roland de Vaux also vigorously disagreed with von Rad's locating the object of Israel's faith and ours in a subjective and often
fallible estimate of history. His challenge was direct: either the
interpretation of history offered is true and originates from God, or it
is not worthy of Israel's faith and ours. Further, such a view not only
is unworthy of our attention, it is devastating in that it attacks the
foundation of all faith: "the truthfulness of God/'21
De Vaux's solution, like Wolfhart Pannenberg's argument, is to
stress the "internal" or "intrinsic" connection22 or unity of events
and their meanings. 23 For de Vaux, the connection was in the God
who ordered both the events and interpretations. Pannenberg, on
the other hand, stressed the "context" of the original happening with
its accompanying interpretation.
To the extent that these two men insisted on the legitimacy and
the necessity that the connection of history and its canonical significance be the proper starting point for biblical theology, we concur. It
was precisely this original unity of the historical events with their
attached meanings in the text which provided the possibility for
overcoming the post-Kantian dualism and the positivistic tendencies
of modern historiography. Not only had new canons of history and
historiography which were antithetical in their premises to the
whole Christian faith appeared, but a tyranny of the particular (in its
20
Cited by Hasel, Old Testament, pp. 31-34.

Roland de Vaux, The Bible and the. Ancient Near East, trails. Carman
McHugh {London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1971), p. 57.
22
Ibid., p. 58.
23
Wolfhart Pannenberg, "The Revelation of God in Jesus Christ," Theology as
History: New Frontiers in Theology 3(1967): 127.
21
27

isolation from the whole) had also arisen as a supporting preoccupation.
Events, facts, or statements were viewed in their individuality,
uniqueness, and separation from their contribution to the totality or
the multiplicity of the whole context or situation. Even if the event
was retained in its wholeness (which Was rare), the attached words
were neatly cut off from the happening.
It was here, more than anywhere else, that the unity of the Bible
was lost. Rather than starting with the organization and plan claimed
by the canonical writers themselves, a principle of natural development or of a Hegelian dialectic was laid over the texts. When the
results turned out to be disappointingly sterile in theologyeven to
the most resolute of all of the modern historiographersthe resulting vacuum was filled with new categories of "history," existentialism, or secularity.
Unless biblical theology is freed from the tyranny of the particular and the shackles of an imposed philosophical-historiographical
grid of modernity which takes precedence over the text, no hope
remains for any theology of the OT. Neither the so-called scientifically assured minimum nor the theologically devised maximum will
take us anywhere. Both systems, whether in the name of objectivity
or of faith, vaunt themselves over the texts which have a deserved
right, whether it is among those claiming inspiration or not, to be
first heard on their own terms and in their own canonical and contextual wholeness. Then when any measuring devices of truth, factualism or validity of interpretation are applied (as they must) to the
total contexts (which is another must), they should not be those which
provincially reflect the parochial interests of a generation which has
an axe to grind for or against any special outlook on life. Instead, all
criteria should approach the issue in a similar fashion to the American system of jurisprudence: a text is innocent until proven guilty by
known data provided by sources whose truthfulness on those points
can be demonstrated or which share the same general area of contemporaneity as the texts under investigation and whose performance record of producing reliable data has been good.
Given this approach, history can again be consulted in the
wholeness of its context of the times and the context of its attached
interpretation. In this way, history can conceivably again be a
medium of meaning along with unity of its context.
Did biblical history exhibit a divine plan then? Or must we once
again sink into generalities about the importance of history without
the benefit of a good inductive study of the terminology or pattern of
thought claimed by the texts?
28

Fortunately, Bertil Albrektson has made a preliminary study of
the Hebrew terms connected with a divine plan in history.24 In his
survey he found that there were ten passages where 'esah (usually
translated "counsel," "advice," but also meaning in these passages
"purpose" or "plan") was used in a nominal verbal form. They are
Psalms 33:10-11; 106:13; Proverbs 19:21; Isaiah 5:19; 14:24-27;
19:17; 25:1; 46:10; Jeremiah 49:20; 50:45; and Micah 4:12. In two
other passages, mahasdbdh ("thought," "purpose") is used for the
divine plan: Jeremiah 29:11; 51:29.
In addition to these two terms, two more are added by Albrektson. They are mezimmah ("a hostile plan") in Job 42:2;
Jeremiah 23:20; 30:24; 51:11 and derek ("way," "path") in Psalm
103:7; ef. Exodus 33:13; Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 18:31; Isaiah
55:8-9; 58:2.
When Albrektson completed this survey, he disappointingly
concluded that he found no single divine intention as would demonstrate that God has a fixed plan for the history of Israel and/or the
nations from one end of time to the other. For him, the words are
imprecise and wide ranging in that they refer to a number of divine
intentions but not to one single plan. What is more, distribution of
the passages is rather limited since they seem to group themselves
around Jeremiah, Isaiah, Micah, and the Psalms.25
Now we agree in part; most of these passages are an expression
of an individual application of God's intention to a particular situation in Israel or the nations. But how can such a disclaimer be made
fora text like Micah 4:12? Does not the prophet clearly state that the
pagan nations do not know Yahweh's thoughts; they do not understand His plan? Is this not in the context of a plan which involves
many nations simultaneously? Likewise, in Psalm 33:10 the "counsel [plan] of the nations" is set in juxtaposition to Yahweh's plan
which "stands forever" and "from generation to generation" (v. 11).
Surely this type of speaking commits the writer to claiming that God
does have some long-range planning which counters the moves and
planning of the total world community.
Perhaps the greatest weakness of Albrektson's line of argumen-
tation is that it adheres too closely to a lexicographical approach.

While he does acknowledge that the matter could still be present
even when the word for a plan was not, he does not discuss one of
the grandest claims of all made in Isaiah 40 and the following
chapters. The divine challenge repeatedly comes: "Who is like Me?
24
Albrektson, History and the Gods, pp. 68-77.

"Ibid., pp. 76-77.
29

Who declared it from the beginning so that we might know, or ahead
of time so that we might say, he was right!" (Isa. 40:25; 41:26-28; 42:9;
44:7-8,26-28; 45:21; 46:10-11; 48:3-6).
Even more important is the connection between the claim of
God to have already announced, long before anything happened, the
course of events from start to finish and the fact that all this was in
accordance with His "plan" and "purpose." The context which obviously and explicitly unites these two themes is Isaiah 46:9-11: "I
am God . . . who declares the end from the beginning . . . who says,
My plan shall stand, also, I will accomplish all My purpose [note
singular 'purpose'] . . . I have formulated it, indeed, I will ac-
complish it." God is willing to stake, as it were, His whole character

and claim to be the one unique God on the fact that He is able to
speak and declare the future. The pagan's god can do neither. Furthermore, God's announcements are not random ad lib comments on
this or that, here and there. They follow a premeditated plan which
encompasses the start and finish of the parts and the whole! All will
take place as He has said.
Such talk, apart from any considerations of a unified center for
OT theology, takes us back to the original obstacle for most modern
biblical scholars: prediction! Indeed, Albrektson verges on saying as
much when he introduces the key verse in Genesis 12:3. For him the
choice is clear: Does Yah well here survey past history from the
aspect of the achieved result where "all nations of the earth bless
themselves"? Or does Yah well project a divine plan for events yet to
come all within a universalistic framework where "all the nations of
the earth shall be blessed?"26 The issue revolves around the transla-
tion of the crucial word nibrekt'i. We concur: the results of this study
cannot be of a small interest to the whole progress of OT theology.
Now we have already anticipated this point by arguing in the
last chapter that the passive sense is not only possible ("all nations
shall be blessed") but is the required translation which fits the
single truth-intention of the author. Albrektson freely conceded that
if the passive translation were correctand he recognized it did
carry a great deal of contemporary support from O. Procksch, S. R.
Driver, G. von Rad, and H. W. Wolffthen the passage did claim
that God had a plan in which Abraham was selected as His instrument of divine blessing and by which He would reach all the nations
of the earth.27
However, many interpreters assume that the reflexive transla28
Ibid., p. 78.
"Ibid., p. 79.
30

tion ("all nations shall bless themselves") is to be preferred since the
same message as the passive usages of Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 28:14 is
given in the hithpael form of the verb in 22:18 and 26:4. The known
hithpael, so it is argued, will set the range of meanings for the
disputed niphal. But such a procedure is contested here. In addition
to the linguistic arguments in chapter 1, it is of more than passing
interest that we note also the passive rendering of the Septuagint
text and that of Acts 2:25 and Galatians 3:8, which follow the Septuagint. Furthermore, Genesis 12:2 had said that "he" (i.e., Abraham
or "it," the nation) "woiild be a blessing"; it was left to verse 3 to say
to whom and how.

Perhaps the most balanced assessment of Genesis 12:2-3 is to be
found in C. von Orelli's work on prophecy and God's kingdom.
First of all (vv. 2,3) the divine blessing is attached to Abraham's
person, of whom it is said expressly weheyeh berdkdh ["and he
shall be a blessing"] which by no means signifies merely that he
himself will be blessed (Hitzig), or that his name will be a formula
of blessing, but extols him as the medium and source of divine
blessing (cf. Prov. 11:25: nephesh berdkdh, a soul that finds pleasure in blessing, from which accordingly, streams of blessing
flow). How Abraham himself, in virtue of his special relation to
God, was a mediator of blessing to those about him, is shown in
Gen. 20:7; that his people in the same way were to convey the
divine blessing, the dispensation of God's grace to the whole
world, see in Isa. 19:24; Zech. 8:13. In the present passage the
import of the brief saying is expounded in verse 3, according to
which God's relation to men depends on their attitude to Abraham (cf. 20:7), aud the Lord will deal well with those who wish
well to him and do homage to the divine grace revealing itself in
him; and, on the other hand, will make him feel His displeasure
who despises and scorns one whom God has blessed. The singular number here is significant. It can only be single-handed sinners who so misunderstand one who is a source of blessing to all
about him, as to condemn and hate him, and in him his God. The
world, as a whole, will not withhold homage, and will therefore
enjoy the benefit of this source of blessing . . . We are certainly of
the opinion that the niphal here [v. 3] must have a meaning of its
own, distinct from the hithpael (so also Tuch, G. Baur, Hengstenberg, Keil, Kautzsch, etc.). In distinction from the piel (48:20) and
hithpael, it expresses more the objective experience of the divine
blessing. Only, even where the hithpael is used, the significant
position of the word at the end of the promise requires even there
more than a mere ceremonial honour is meant. The distinction
therefore is not material. The act of blessing is no mere formality,
for which reason also the name of God or of a man used in it is of
high importance. The former shows/rom whom the highest good

is to be expected, the latter in whom it is to be found, and through
whose mediation it may be attained. Therefore it is not something
31

trifling that is affirmed, even in the reflexive sense. Not merely
will Abraham's good fortune be proverbial throughout the world,
but all nations of the earth will see that in Abraham the highest
good is to be found; and thus he will be the priestly mediator of
salvation between God and the world, since Abraham's blessing
will bring to those farthest oft the knowledge of the true God, and
in praying for such blessing they will use the name of Abraham
who prevailed with God. They would not do the latter [pray for
blessing] (hithpael), unless the blessing and virtue of his person
and name had been attested to them fniphal) [italics ours].28
It is not for us to protest over either the text's universalism so early in

the history of revelation or over the announced futurity of its development. Only philosophical and historico-critical biases could
subvert the obvious intention of the author on both of these scores.
Again, let us take the text on its own terms and assume it is innocent
until proven guilty. Nothing in the text implies that Genesis 12:2-3
and its parallels are "retrojections" from the days of blessing under
David and Solomon as H. Gunkel, W. Wolff, and others would have
it. On the contrary, David himself expressed surprise and confused
delight when he was told that he and his sons were to stand in a
direct line with this earlier blessing (2 Sam. 7:18-20). In his prayer of
response, he referred to the promise given to the patriarchs and
repeated in Deuteronomy so as to show that this was already accepted as part of the ancient word of revelation. It was not a contemporary "retrojection" or reevaluation of the faith of the ancient
fathers!
Therefore, we respectfully submit that just where Albrektson
finally turned down the possibility that there might be a unifying plan
of God which governed history and the string of authorial estimates as
to what these things meant, there the plan of God was revealed. It
was the plan, not only for history, but for all of biblical theology.
CANONICAL PRECEDENCE FOR A CENTER
OT theologians have missed the only way for safe passage

through these treacherous waters. That way must be an inductively
derived theme, key, or organizing pattern which the successive

writers of the OT overtly recognized and consciously supplemented
in the progressive unfolding of events and interpretation in the OT.
If amidst all the variety and multiplexity of the text there does, as we
28
C. von Orelli, The Old Testament Prophecy of the Consummation of God's
Kingdom Traced in Its Historical Development, trans. J. J. Banks (Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark, 1889), pp. 107-8.
32

contend, exist an eye to this storm of activity, it must be textually
demonstrated that it is the canon's own "starting point" and textually reconfirmed in the canon's united witness that it is its own
ubiquitous concern, central hope, and constant measure of what was
theologically significant or normative!
Such a textually derived center, what the NT eventually was to
call the "promise" (epangelia), was known in the OT under a constellation of terms. The earliest such expression was "blessing." It
was God's first gift to the fish, fowl (Gen. 1:22), and then to mankind
(v. 28).
For men, it involved more than the divine gift of proliferation
and "dominion-having." The same word also marked the immediacy
whereby all the nations of the earth could prosper spiritually
through the mediatorship of Abraham and his seed: this, too, was
part of the "blessing." Obviously, pride of place must be given to
this term as the first to signify the plan of God.
But there were other terms. McCurley 29 counted over thirty
examples where the verb dibber (usually translated "to speak")

meant "to promise." The promised items included (1) the land
(Exod. 12:25; Deut. 9:28; 12:20; 19:8; 27:3; Josh. 23:5,10); (2) blessing (Deut. 1:11; 15:6); (3) multiplication of God's possession, Israel
(Deut. 6:3; 26:18); (4) rest (Josh. 22:4; 1 Kings 8:56); (5) all good
things (Josh. 23:15); and (6) a Davidic dynasty and throne (2 Sam.
7:28; 1 Kings 2:24; 8:20,24-25; 1 Chron. 17:26; 2 Chron. 6:15-16; Jer.
33:14). Also note the noun ddbar ("promise") in 1 Kings 8:56 and
Psalm 105:42.
To these "promises" God added His "pledge" or "oath," thus
making the immediate word of blessing and the future word of

promise doubly secure. Men now had the divine word and a divine
oath on top of that word (see Gen. 22; 26:3; Deut. 8:7; 1 Chron.
16:15-18; Ps. 105:9; Jer. 11:5).30
The case for this inductively derived center is even more wideranging than the lexicographical or vocabulary approach traced so
far. It also embraced several epitomizing formulae which summarized that central action of God in a succinct phrase or two. Such
was what we have called the tripartite formula of the promise. This
formula became the great hallmark of all biblical theology in both
testaments. The first part of the formula was given in Genesis 17:7-8
and 28:21, viz., "I will be a God to you and to your descendants after
29
Foster R. McCurley, Jr., "The Christian and the Old Testament Promise,"
Lutheran Quarterly 22 (1970); 401-10, esp. p. 402, n. 2.
30
Gene M. Tucker, "Covenant Forms and Contract Forms," Vetus Testamentum
15(1965): esp. pp. 487-503, for the use of "oath" with promise.
33

you." When Israel approached the eve of nationhood, again God
repeated this word and added a second part, "I will take you for My
people" (Exod. 6:7). Thus Israel became God's "son," His
"firstborn" (Exod. 4:22), "a distinctive treasure" (Exod. 19:5-6). Finally, the third part was added in Exodus 29:45-46 in connection
with the construction of the tabernacle: "I will dwell in the midst of
you." There it was: "I will be your God; you shall be My people, and
I will dwell in the midst of you." It was to be repeated in part or in
full in Leviticus 11:45; 22:33; 25:38; 26:12,44,45; Numbers 15:41;
Deuteronomy 4:20; 29:12-13; et. al. Later it appeared in Jeremiah
7:23; 11:4; 24:7; 30:22; 31:1,33; 32:38; Ezekiel 11:20; 14:11; 36:28;
37:27; Zechariah 8:8; 13:9; and in the NT in 2 Corinthians 6:16 and

Revelation 21:3-7.
Another formula, found in Genesis 15:7, "I am Yahweh who
brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans," was matched by an even
greater work of redemption: "I am the Lord your God who brought
you out of the land of Egypt" (found almost 125 times in the OT).
Still another formula of self-prediction was, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." All such formulae stress a continuity between the past, present, and future. They are parts of God's single
ongoing plan.
As the record progressed, an accumulation of various metaphors
and technical terms began to emerge. Many of these focused around
the Davidic descendant. He was the "Seed," "Branch," "Servant,"
"Stone," "Root," "Lion," etc.31 More often than not, the text had a
backward glance to previous contexts which contained parts of the
same metaphors and technical terms.
Nevertheless, neither the vocabulary nor the formulae and
technical terms by themselves woidd make the case for a unified
plan to the entirety of the OT progress of theology. The accent must
ultimately fall where it fell for the writers themselveson a network
of interlocking moments in history made significant because of their
content, free allusions to one another, and their organic unity. The
focus of the record fell on the content and recipients of God's

numerous covenants. The content remained epigenetically constant,
i.e., there was a growtheven a sporadic growth from some points of
viewas time went on around a fixed core that contributed vitality
and meaning to the whole emerging mass. The content was a divine
"blessing," a "given word," a "declaration," a "pledge," or "oath"
31
Dennis C. Duling, "The Promise to David and Their Entrance into

ChristianityNailing Down a Likely Hypothesis," New Testament Studies
20(1974): 55-77.
34

that God Himself would freely do or be something for all men,
nations,, and nature, generally.
Conseqiiently, the revelatory event and/or declaration was frequently an immediate "blessing" as well as a promissory "word" or
"pledge" that God would work in the future or had already worked
in some given event or situation. God had done so in a way that
significance had been given to man's present history and by this,
simultaneously to future generations, also.
KEY OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES ON THE PROMISE

The two pivotal characters were, no doubt, Abraham and David.
Their respective covenants are initially recorded in Genesis 12:1-3
and 2 Samuel 7:11-16 (cf. 1 Chron. 17:10-14). The Abrahamic promise and blessing immediately captured the attention of that original audience, as it did all subsequent readers, by the exalted nature
of its content and the sheer repetition of its provision in Genesis
12-50. Likewise, the Davidic promise became the bright hope in
most of the writing prophets and the chronicler.
Perhaps it is not too much to point also to a prophetic consensus
on the "New covenant" announced most prominently in Jeremiah
31:31-34. If one takes into account the dozen-and-a-half references
to the same covenant elsewhere in Jeremiah and the other prophets
under such rubrics as the "everlasting covenant," the "new heart and
new spirit," "covenant of peace," or just "My covenant," then the
expectation of a new work of God along the lines of the AbrahamicDavidic covenant is broadly based, 32 As if to underline the importance already placed in the New covenant, Hebrews 8 and 10 quote
it, and it becomes the longest OT passage quoted in the NT.
Here, it would appear, the modern consensus ends. But any
faithful discussion of the canon's own view of things would necessarily include a discussion of key passages or central moments in the
history of revelation as indicated by the writers of Scripture. Especially of seminal importance are Genesis 3:15; 9:25-27; and 12:1-3.
Genesis 3:15
There can be no doubt that this passage was intended as a
pivotal interpretation on the first human crisis. Far beyond God's
cursing "the sequent" (always with the article and thus, no doubt,
32
\Valter C. Kaiser, Jr., "The Old Promise and the New Covenant: Jeremiah
31:34," Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 15(1972): 14, mi. 14-17.
35

referring to a title) "above"33 all cattle and all the beasts of the field
and consigning his fate to "on your belly you shall go" and "dust
shall yon eat"34 was the divinely implanted hostility: "I will put
enmity"an enmity between the serpent and the woman
"between your seed and her seed." Then comes the most important
but also the most disputed passage of all: "He [not 'it'] shall crush to
pieces your head, and you shall crush His [not 'its'] heel."
Now clearly the pronoun translated "he" or "it" ("she" in one
translation!) is a masculine singular independent personal pronoun
in Hebrew. But the problem comes from the fact that Hebrew
employs a grammatical gender agreeing with its masculine antecedent, "seed" (zera) whereas English employs the natural gender.
The contention, therefore, is that the only proper translation of
Hebrew/H(' would be "it" or "they. "That is the question then: Are the
"seed" and "he" collective, or is either singular?
The question, we contend, is misdirected, especially if the divine intention deliberately wished to designate the collective notion
which included a personal unity in a single person who was to
obtain victory for the whole group he represented. That such an
interpretation is not a Christian retrojection from a NT pesher or
midrash can be seen in the pre-Christian Septuagint translation of
the Hebrew Scriptures. The Greek boldly used the masculine independent pronoun antos, which failed to agree with the Greek neuter
antecedent "seed" (sperma). R. A. Martin, in a brilliant note on this
phenomena, concluded that of the 103 times where the Hebrew
masculine pronoun is used in Genesis, "in none of the instances
where the translator has translated literally does he do violence to
agreement in Greek between the pronoun and its antecedent, except
here in Genesis 3:15."35 Far from being a mere coincidence or some
sort of oversight, Martin argues that the quality of the Greek translation of the Pentateuch is much more carefully done in comparison to
^Hebrew mm is a particle ol distinction and eminence, not a partitive ("any of
the cattle"); rather, it is the comparative form ("above the cattle"). In this curse, "the
serpent" is distinguished from other divine creations, viz., the animals, and marked
oft tor greater rebuke. The same particle is seen in Judges 5:24: "Blessed above
women" (minmlsiin)blessed like no other woman (cf. Deut. 33:24).
34
A reference not to the diet and locomotion of "the serpent" but of his humiliation and subjugation (cf. Ps. 72:9; Isa. 49:23; Mic. 7:17). Creeping on the belly, i.e.,
the posture of the serpent, came to be regarded as contemptible (Gen. 49:17; Job
20:14,16; Ps. 140:3; Isa. 59:5). Also, "to eat dust" equaled "to descend to the grave"
in Descent of Ishtar 5:8; also, note Amarna E.A. 100:36. Consider that God had
already made "creeping things" in His creation and had pronounced them "good."
35
R. A. Martin, "The Earliest Messianic Interpretation of Genesis 3:15," Jour-
nal of Biblical Literature 84(1965): 427.

36

other books or sections. What is more important, in other instances
where the same type of choice between literalness and agreement of
the antecedent and its pronoun occurred in Genesis, the translator
declined the opportunity to translate literally (as he did in Gen.
3:15). Instead, he freely used the necessary feminine or neuter
pronouneven when the Hebrew pronoun required a masculine
to agree with its grammatical antecedent. That makes the LXX
choice to break this rule in Genesis 3:15 extremely impressive
especially when one considers the fact that the LXX was a third or
second century B.C. translation.
But what of the Hebrew author's intention? The case for a
singular unity of" the collective group of descendants is strengthened
by the singular suffix which refers to the seed's head, hit' yesiipka
ro's: "He shall crush yonr [sg.] head." Further, if we understand the
author's phrase in Genesis 4:1, Eve thought she had just such a
deliverer when she bore Cain. Said she, "I have gotten a man, even
the Lord." The Hebrew reads 'et YHWH. Translating the particle
as "with" doesn't make too much sense. Hence it must be a record,
even as Luther seems to argue in his translation, oi the mistaken
hope of Eve that she had received immediate relief from her
punishment with the birth of Cain.
Whatever the decision on Genesis 4:1 brings (and it is by no
means decisive), it was plain from the subsequent history of revelation to Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants that a
representative child continued to be both God's visible guarantee
for the present and a pledge for the future. Also, he was representative of the interests and spiritual and material fortunes of the whole
lot who were joined to him.
Genesis 9:25-27
We find the following comments ot'von Orelli 36 on this passage
full of honest exegetical sense. Since our generation has for the most
part lost contact with such exegetical methodology, we shall quote
extensively from several sections of his treatment:
Instead of blessing Shem himself, the aged father [Noah], with
prophetic glance at Shem's future salvation blesses (. . . in the
sense of praising . . . [when] it has God for its object . . .) Yahveh,
the God of Shem, whom he sees in intimate union with Shem.
The oracle of blessing is thus turned into praise of Him who is the
source of blessing, and has proved Himself such. Shem's highest
happiness is that he has this God for his God. Here, for the first
time, as Luther notes, we find the genitival combination common
36
C. von Orelli, Old Testament Prophecy, p. 98ff.
3t
i*T

afterwards: God of a man, nation, etc. For when humanity parts
into different branches, the universal Deity also is specialized. To
one portion of humanity the true, living Cod stands in a relation of
mutual possession . . .
But the second hemistich u/i/ijf&ofi 6*'aWg *^m ["And he
shall dwell in the tents of Shem"] is difficult. The chief question
in dispute is, who is to he considered the subject of i/%.;&on
["dwell"]. Among modems, von Hoffmann, Baumgarten, H.
Schultz, after the example of Onkelos and other Jewish expositors,
and also Theodoret, have taken God as the subject, which would
give an attractive and highly significant sense: Japhet gains the
wide world, but Shem's distinction consists in this, that God
dwells in his midst. SA:en is used specially of the dwelling of God
(Num. 35:34). By the later Jewish theologians, His gracious presence is called directly the V&ma/t, a reminiscence of Onkelos.
Nor is there any weight in the objection usually urged against this
interpretation, that the parallelism requires Japhet as the subject
in this verse since Shem has been dismissed in the preceding
one; for, just as the curse on Canaan recurs, so the blessing on
Shem may recur, and we should thus obtain the pleasing arrangement: 1. Curse on Canaan; 2. Blessing of firstborn Shem and
its antithesis in the curse of Canaan; 3. The second blessing on
the middle brother, with reminiscences of the higher blessing on
the first and the curse on the third.
At this point, von Orelli falters in our judgment. He continues:

Nevertheless, the majority of ancient and modem expositors give
up the reference of ["dwell"] to God, as it seems to us rightly. For
it cannot be denied that in the Brst hemistich the emphasis lies on
the repeated i/pf ["Japhet" and "enlarge"], not on Elohim, on
which account the harmony of style is best preserved by referring
what follows to Japhet. An antithetical relation of the two clauses
(/jf rYe tuW du;eW would of necessity have been noted in the
language used. More especially we should expect to find the
name ^ihveh, seeing that God dwells in Shem's tents as Yahveh.
The plural designation of place would also be strange, since God
elsewhere always dwells in his [tent]; yet this might perhaps be
explained by the indefinite generality of the oracle.
However, von Orelli, for all the propriety of these excellent

questions, is also now in an cxegetical impasse, for what could it
mean to have Japhet dwelling in Shem's tents? He struggled with
the options in this manner:
But supposing Japhet to be taken as the subject, his dwelling
"in the tents of Shem" makes no less difficulty. Some, not without
anti-Jewish tendency, have after Jus tin \1. (c Tryp. 139) understood a hostile occupation of the Shemitic country, which would
introduce a quite incomprehensible infringement of Shem's
birthright-blessing . . . The dwelling of this race in the tents of the
38

former seems to give the impression, if not of conquest, still of a
crowding inconvenient to both in strange contrast with the ["enlargement"]. The use of the phrase to denote peaceful, hospitable
relation cannot be proved . . . Nor does the uniform refrain, in
which the lamo, ["to him," or "his slave"] was to be taken as a
singular, favour any reference to Shem in this phrase.
Finally, von Orelli considers J. D. Michaelis's handling of'S/iew

as an appellative: "renowned tents" instead of "tents of Shem." But
this von Orelli also rejects because of the ambiguity it would cause
with the use of the proper name in the preceding verse. He weakly
concludes, after beginning so well, that Hebrew proverbs are fond of
assonance, hence the "God of Shem" and "the tents of Shem" echo
very similar sounds in Hebrew!
On balance, of the two options for the subject of "dwell," it
would seem preferable to take the subject of the previous stich:

Elohim. This is the most logical grammatical position to take. Certainly Japhet as subject makes very little sense at all, and the use of
Shem as an appellative appears as a desperation move. The objections raised to this view have all been anticipated by what von Orelli
had said prior to listing his objections except tor his expectation that
Yah well should have been the subject of "dwell" and not Elohim.
But in defense of Elohim, we can only note that the full revelation of
the "tabernacling" or "dwelling" and the disclosure of the nature or
character of Elohim as Yahweh had to wait for the Mosaic revelation
of Exodus 6 and 29.
Genesis 12:1-3
Since we have already discussed the content and the importance of that disputed phrase "in you all the nations of the earth shall
be blessed," we might simply add here that the word has an obvious
resumptive quality about it. The "seed" is still at the center of its
focus while it adds many new features. The fact that it is repeated
and renewed so frequently in Genesis 13,15,17,22,24,26, and 28 also
constitutes another reason why OT theologians should find it to be of
great significance.
The passages of 2 Samuel 7 and Jeremiah 31 will be discussed
later on, but for now the rudimentary points that go into the making
up of the single plan of God have been made. The divine promise
pointed to a seed, a race, a family, a man, a land, and a blessing of
universal proportionsall guaranteed, according to Genesis 17, as
being everlasting and eternal. In that purpose resides the single plan
of God. In that single plan lies a capability of embracing as much
variety and variegation as the progress of revelation and history can
39

engender. In that unity of goal and method unfolded a march of
events which the writers described and in a series of interconnected
interpretations they likewise boldly announced God's normative
views on those events for that generation and those to come.
40
______Chapter 3______
The Development of an Outline
for Old Testament Theology
An adequate treatment of the conceptual groupings of OT theology necessitates an awareness of the sequence of historical events in
the life of Israel. Israel's theologyand oursis rooted in history.
Thus Hebrews 1:1-2 continued that sequence when it affirmed that
"God, who in many and various ways had spoken to our fathers in
the past by the prophets, had in these last days spoken to us in His
Son."
Contrary to the prestigious opinion of Gerhard von Rad and his
school, the OT did reflect on Israel's history according to a preannouneed principle of selectivity. 1 That principle by which historical incidents were included or rejected was the consistent
prophetic statement: "Thus says the Lord."
This was far from being a mere syncretistic assimilator of traditions which mechanically or charismatically collated existing traditions and interpreted them in the light of the present day. Rather,
there was a single principle, a single understanding of all revelation,
which sorted things out for writers. It was God's revealed "promise"
1
Gerhard von Rad, Oh! Testament Theology, 2 vols. (London: Oliver and Boyd,
1962), 1:116tf".
41

in which He would be the hope of all men and effect divine work of
universal implications.
Such a stress is not that of a h'deistic imposition on the text of a
later Christian faith nor the result of a scientifically assured
minimum from destructive types of historical and literary criticism.
It is rather the claim of the canon itself as it now exists.
Moreover, a definite order of key events and meanings become
the repeated subject of numerous sections in the Psalms (136,105,78)
and the prophets (Jer. 2; Ezek. 16,20,23). Beginning either with Creation or the call of Abraham, the narrative usually followed the same
pattern of selectivity and emphasis.
The main substance of those events specially selected and interpreted by the writers of the OT could also be recorded in short
summaries which Gerhard von Rad designated as an early Israelite
CredoDeuteronomy 26:5-9:
A wandering Aramean was my father; he went down with a few
people into Egypt and there he became a nation, great, mighty,

and populous. But the Egyptians treated us harshly, they afflicted
us, and laid hard toil upon us. Then we cried to Jahweh, the God
of our fathers, and Jahweh heard us, and saw our affliction, our
toil, and oppression. And Jahweh brought us out of Egypt with a
mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror, with signs
and wonders, and brought us to this place and gave us this land, a
land flowing with milk and honey. ^
Similarly, Joshua 24:2-13 rehearsed much the same history in a

form which took on legal status as the citizens of Israel together
served as "witnesses against themselves" (v. 22) as to the truthfulness and significance of this historical sequence of events (cf. v. 27).
Therein lies the inner unity to Israel's history and theology. It
was more than a "strong tendency towards unification";^ it was a fact
of life and the life of the faithful. It was strung out on the washline of
history, but it contained accompanying conceptual motifs which the
writers claimed were not of their own invention but of God's devising. His was the sole right to interpret, set values, see significances,
and to point out meanings for the times and the future.
But what of this historical sequence? How shall the events be
grouped? Is there a conceptual convention which can be borrowed
from systematics for organizing OT theology? And if there is a method
of study which best suits the needs of a new responsible type of
exegetical theology which carefully marks the writer's use of language first in the light of his inherited set of terms and concepts
., p. 122.
., p. 118.
42
The Development of an Outline for Old Testament Theology

from Scripture antecedent to his day, what are its division points in
history? These questions we seek to answer.
THE HISTORIC PERIODS OF OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Just as the NT apostles and their epistles were in many ways the
interpreters of the Acts and Gospels, so OT theology could likewise
begin with the prophets tor much the same reason. However, even
for the phenomenon of biblical prophecy, there was the ever-present
reality of Israel's history. All of God's previous saving activity had to
be acknowledged and confessed before one could see more steadily
and more holistic-ally the further revelation of God. Therefore, we
must start where God began: in historyreal historywith its attendant geography, men, and events.
Prolegomena to the Promise: Prepatriarclial Era

The Abrahamic covenant is first given in Genesis 12:1-3. It
marks the beginning of both God's election of the man by whom He
would deliver the whole world if men would believe and also of
Israel's history and theology.
Abraham did, of course, occupy a central place in the climax of
revelation. But one must not trade off the moments that led to it as
being insignificant or even nonexistent. The text moves from the
wideness of all creation to the provincialism and strictures resulting
from the successive sins of mankind. Yet it also moves from the
threefold plight of man as a result of the Fall, the Flood, and the
founding of Babel to the universality of God's new provision of
salvation to all men through Abraham's seed.
Furthermore, the key word and concept is the repeated "blessing" of Goda "blessing" existent in only an embryonic state at first
but interconnected with subsequent blessings and words of promise
from the bands of a gracious and loving God. At first it is the "blessing" of the created order. Then it is the blessing of family and nation
in Adam and Noah. The climax came in the fivefold blessing to
Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3 which included material and spiritual
blessings.
In the sense, then, of being a word before a word, of running
ahead in germinative form, these blessings of the revelation in
Genesis 1-11 could be called a prolegomena to the promise.
The spirit of modernity has found serious objections to treating
Genesis 1-11 in a straightforward way. However, we believe such
objections are poorly grounded and inadequately defended. Our
own stance has been to treat the records for what they claim to be
43

until they are proven otherwise by artifacts, epigraphs, or related
evidential facts. 4
Provisions in the Promise: Patriarchal Era

So significant was this era that God announced Himself as the
"God of the patriarchs" (i.e., "fathers"), or the "God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob." Moreover, the patriarchs were regarded as
"prophets" (Gen. 20:7; Ps. 105:15). Apparently this was because
they personally received the word of God. Frequently the word of
the'Lord "came" to them directly (Gen. 12:1; 13:14; 21:12; 22:1) or
the Lord "appeared" to them in a vision (12:7; 15:1; 17:1; 18:1) or in
the personage of the Angel of the Lord (22:11,15).
The lifetimes of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob form another distinct
time in the flow of history. These three privileged recipients of
revelation saw, experienced, and heard as much as or more in their
combined two centuries of life than all those who lived in the
preceding millennia! Consequently, we may safely mark off Genesis
12-50 as our second historic period in the unfolding of OT theology
just as was done by later generations who had the written Scripture
record.
People of the Promise: Mosaic Era

A son (Gen. 3:15) born to a Semite (Gen. 11:10-27) named
Abraham was to be used to form a people and eventually a separate
nation. Such a call to nationhood meant that "holiness," or separation unto God, was not an optional feature. Therefore, both concepts
were to receive major attention in this era of revelation.
Israel was then called a "kingdom of priests and an holy nation"
(Exod. 19:6). Lovingly, God outlined the moral, ceremonial, and
civil means of accomplishing such a high calling. It would come in
the primary act of the Exodus with God's gracious deliverance of
Israel from Egypt, Israel's subsequent obedience of faith to the Ten
Commandments, the theology of the tabernacle and sacrifices, and
the likes of the covenant code (Exod. 21-23) for civil government.
All the discussion about being a new people of God was elaborated from Exodus 1-40; Leviticus 1-27; and Numbers 1-36. During
this whole era, God's prophet was Mosesa prophet who had no
equal among mankind (Num. 12:6-8). Indeed, Moses was the pattern
for that great Prophet who was to come, the Messiah (Dent.
18:15,18).
4
See our study, "The Literary Form of Genesis 1-11," \eic Perspec'tiiL's on the
Old Testament, ed. J. B. Payne (Waco, Texas: Word, 1970), pp. 48-65.
44

Place of the Promise: Premonarchical Era
One of the parts of the promise of God that received a full
enactment in the events of history and on the pages of Scripture was
the conquest of the land of Canaan. The promise of the land as a
place where God would cause His name to rest was by this time
already six centuries old. The ancient word given to Abraham
was now to receive at least a seminal fulfillment. Therefore
Deuteronomy with its concern about this place of rest (12:8-11) and
the book of Joshua with its description of the conquest of that land
are clearly joined in concept and act.
But do we have a clear unit of history which can be set off as
sharply as the patriarchal or Mosaic eras were by Scripture's own
claims? And should this history extend through the period of the
Judges to include the theology of the ark-of-the-covenant-of-God
narratives in 1 Samuel 4-7? These questions do not admit any decisive conclusionsthe times became so distorted and all appeared to
be in such flux due to the moral declension of man and the sparsity of
the revelation of God. Indeed, the word of God did become "rare" in
those days when God spoke to Samuel (1 Sam. 3:1). Consequently,
the lines of demarcation are not as sharply drawn even though the
central themes of theology and the key events are historically wellrecorded.
Our plan, then, is to allow for an overlap during this period of
the conquest and occupation of the land. This overlap is between the
theme of the place of rest and the emerging demand for a king to rule
a nation tired of its experiment with theocracy as it had been practiced by a rebellious nation. At best, the premonarchical era was a
time of transition.
However, the history of Joshua, Judges, and even Samuel and
Kings was assessed from the viewpoint of the moral standard of
Deuteronomy. And its chief connecting points were easily discerned: Deuteronomy 28,31; Joshua 1,12,24; Judges 2; 1 Samuel 12;
2 Samuel 12; 1 Kings 8; and 2 Kings 17. These significant moments
in the history of revelation of this period are usually conceded by
most biblical theologians today.
King of the Promise: Dacidic Era
What Genesis 12:1-3 was to the patriarchal era, 2 Samuel 7 is to
the times of David. The forty years of David's reign compare in
length to the Mosaic era, but their importance tor generations to
come defies comparison.
As a prelude to the history of this period, the early signs of regal
aspirations in Gideon's son Abimelech, the peoples' request for a

king during the judgeship of Samuel (1 Sam. 8-10), and even the
reign of Saul prepare us negatively for the grand reign of David
(1 Sam. 11-2 Sam. 24; I Kings 1-2; and royal Davidic psalms like
Pss. 2,110,132,145).
History and theology combined to emphasize the themes of a
continuing royal dynasty and a perpetual kingdom with a rule and
realm that would become universal in extent and influence. Yet each
of these regal motifs was painstakingly connected to ideas and
words from an earlier time: a "seed," a "name" which "dwelt" in a
place of "rest," a "blessing" to all mankind, and a "king" who now

ruled over a kingdom which would last forever.
Life in the Promise: Sapiential Era
Solomon's forty years were marked by the erection of the temple

and by another flurry of divine revelation. In part, this period is
much like the premonarchical times in that it too is partially transi-
tional in nature. Yet it also had its own distinctive character as well.
No period of time is more difficult to relate to the whole of a
continuing OT theology than that of the wisdom literature of this era
found in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and the Wisdom
Psalms. Nevertheless, as the Mosaic law presumed and built upon
patriarchal promise, so Solomonic wisdom likewise presupposed
both Abrahamic-Davidic promise and Mosaic law.
The key concept of the sapiential era was "the fear of the
Lord"an idea already begun in the patriarchal era as the response
of believing faith (Gen. 22:12; 42:18; Job 1:1,8-9; 2:3). It was this
connecting link that tied the promise and the law into the beauty and
fullness of all of man's living in the here and now. The temporal
became more than a mere existence; living could now be meaningful, enjoyable, and unified with eternal values and commitments.
Day of the Promise: Ninth Century

The "Day of the Promise" is the first of five great prophetic eras,
each with their own basic emphases ranging from the division of the
kingdom in 931 B.C. to the postexilic situation.
Now that David's "house" and Solomon's temple had been
established, the subjects of each of the multifaceted promises had
reached a provisional plateau in their development. God's future

ruler was now visible in the line of David and God's personal
presence in the midst of his worshiping subjects was dramatized in
the temple.
Accordingly, the prophets could now turn their focus on God's
world-wide plan and kingdom. Alas, however, Israel's sin also

46

claimed much of the prophets' attention. Nevertheless, mingled
with these words of judgment were the persistently inserted bright
prospects of another day when God's everlasting realm and rule, as
announced so long ago, would receive its fullest realization.
Many place Joel and Obadiah in the ninth century as the earliest
of the writing prophets. While Obadiah could be placed at any of
three different times in Judah's history, the best would probably be
in the reign of Jehoram (853-841 B.C.), when Edom revolted against
Judah along with the Arabians and Philistines (2 Kings 8:20-22;
2Chron. 21:8-10,16-17).3
Likewise, Joel is usually dated in the reign of Joash of Judah
(835-796 B.C.) because there is no mention of Assyria, Babylon, or
Persia among the long list of Israel's enemiespresumably because
they were not yet on the historical scene.6 If this reign be the general
time period, then the book must come early in the reign, say from
835-820, while the godly high priest Jehoiada acted as advisor to the
youthful King Joash.
Regardless of Joel's and Obadiah's final dating, their theology is
clear: it is the day of the Lord. A day is coming in which Yahweh will
vindicate Himself by such great works of salvation and judgment
that all men will instantaneously recognize these works as divine in
their cause. At that time, God will complete what all the prophets
anticipated and the believing remnant had hoped for.
Joel's locust plague and Obadiah's concern over Edom's lack of
brotherly love were occasions for God's ancient word of promise to
be renewed and enlarged.
Servant of the Promise: Eighth Century

The quintessence of OT theology reached its peak during the
eighth century. It included the works of such prophets as Jonah,
Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, and Micah. Graciously, each was sent a decade
or so in advance of the threatened judgment on Damascus, capital of
Syria, which fell in 732 B.C., and Samaria, the capital of the northern
ten tribes of Israel, which fell in 722 B.C.
Nothing can adequately describe the dizzy heights each of these
prophets attained in his writings. Indeed, "To whom shall we liken
our God? and to what shall we compare Him?" queried Isaiah of his
5
The other options are: (1) during Ahaz's reign (743-715 B.C.); (2) when Edom
invaded Judah (2Chron. 28:16-18); and (3) during the fall of Jerusalem under
Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. (2 Kings 25:1-21; 2 Chron. 36:15-20}.

6
However, it is puzzling why the Arameans of Damascus are not mentioned

also since they put Tash under heavy tribute late in his reign (2 Kings 12:17-18;
2 Chron. 24:23-24). '
47

day and ours (Isa. 40:18). Similarly, Micah asked, "Who is a pardoning God like Thee?" (Mic. 7:18). And Amos announced pointedly
that God would "raise up the fallen hut of David" again (Amos 9:11).
But dominating the whole era was that magnificent mini-OT
theology of Isaiah 40-66 with its key personage the Servant of the
Lord from the seed of Abraham and David.
Renewal of the Promise: Seventh Century

At the close of the seventh century came another succession of
writing prophets: Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Nahum, and Jeremiah.
Again Nahum warned (as had Jonah more than a century earlier) of
the imminent destruction that would come on the Assyrian city of
Nineveh (which did come in 611 B.C.). The other three prophets
likewise warned Judah's capital, Jerusalem, which was hit in 606,
598, and finally fell in 586 B.C. If only men would repent, they could
save themselves from the horrors and realities ot impending desolation.
Nevertheless, the bleak gloom was not the only word for Judah;
there was the joyous prospect of a renewed covenant for a believing
remnant. Jeremiah entitled it God's "New covenant" and built
around it a program for the rejuvenation of all men, nations, and
nature in his little book of comfort (Jer. 30-33). And for Zephaniah
there was more light on that coming day of the Lord. In the meantime, Habakkuk thundered out his solution to his own moments of
despair and doubt: the just would live by faith.
Yet the ancient themes were also clearly and prominently
present in this new advance. The lines of continuity stretched out
especially to those days when the tripartite formula first heard by the
patriarchs and Moses would be a total reality: "I will be your God,
you shall be My people and I will dwell in the midst of you." So it
was to be then and in the future.
Kingdom of the Promise: Exilic Times
Ezekiel and Daniel, while living in Babylonian Exile, continued to sharpen even more clearly how it was that the coming
"Good Shepherd" would one day reign over a reunited twelvetribed Israel in Canaan. Yes, the Son of man would come with the
clouds of heaven and would be given a dominion, glory, and kingdom wherein all people, nations, and languages would serve Him.
His dominion would be an everlasting dominion which would not
pass away, and His kingdom would be such that would not be
destroyed. Earthly kingdoms would come and go, but His would
never succumb.
48

In this regal note these two exiled prophets led Israel into the
sixth century and new day for all mankind. The scope and majesty of
what had been so anciently promised to Abraham and David was
staggering.
Triumph of the Promise: Postexilic Times

Together, the histories of Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, Chronicles,
and the prophecies of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi make up the
final note of revelation in the OT canon.

They move from the despondency of conditions in Israel after
their return from the seventy years of Babylonian Exile to the complete triumph of God's person, word, and work. What seemed to be
small and insignificant to them in a day like 520 B.C. was directly
connected in glory and durability with God's final wrap-up of history. Was the rebuilt temple small and insignificant in their eyes? Yet
it was that very temple whose glory would be even greater than the
Solomonic temple. No work done at the urging of God's prophets
could be regarded solely on empirical grounds. There was the larger

connection of the part to the whole of God's total finale in history.
Men must now look up, believe, and work. Their King was coming,
riding on a donkey, bringing salvation (Zech. 9:9). He would even go
forth and fight all the nations of the earth, which one final day would
gather to do battle against Jerusalem (Zech. 14).

And as if to reestablish the validity of the roots of this messianicvision of the kingdom of God on earth, the chronicler used Israel's
past history to show the normality of this vision after the pattern of
the Davidic "house" and the Solomonic temple and worship.
So the history of Israel lengthened, but the seminal roots of her
theology remained intact as the plant grew into a fully developed
tree with each new growth.
THE KEY ITEMS IN EACH HISTORIC PERIOD

The situation is just what Patrick Fairbairn assessed it to be:
In this outline, which we present, chiefly because of the happy
manner in which it connects together the beginning and the end,
and exhibits the analogy that subsists between God's method of
working in nature and in grace, only some of the more obvious
links are noticed. When the matter is looked at more closely, far
more is discovered of the progressive unfolding of the first promise and the i n t e r c o n n e c t i o n between it and s u b s e q u e n t
prophecies and of these again with each other.7
'Patrick Fairbairn, The Interpretation ofPropliecy, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1856), p. 185.
49

So the first of God's word of blessing-promise in the Creation
was followed by that embryonic word in Eden given to the woman's
seed: there would be a victorious Seed over a sniping seed of Satan.

Before we reach the time of Abraham, this word is enlarged in the
benediction of Noah on Shem to a whole race or a line in whose tents
God would dwell. Hence, the key items in this preparriarchal time
were "blessing," "seed," and a race in the midst of whom God
"dwelt."
The patriarchs also freely received God's benediction in an heir
("seed"), an inheritance ("land"), and a heritage ("all the nations of
the earth shall be blessed"the gospel according to Gal, 3:8).

The Mosaic era at first stressed Israel as God's "son," His
"firstborn." With the Exodus, God called the Israelites jointly into
being "a royal priesthood and a holy nation" to Him. Subordinate to
this high election to privilege was an election to service. Israel was
to be holy and clean. The former meant she was to be totally and
entirely separated unto God body, soul, and life. The latter called
her to be prepared and fit for the worship of God. Adequate instruction in proper morality was linked to God's abiding character and
His work in the Exodus. Likewise, provision for restoration to divine
favor in case of any human failure to meet that moral standard was
given in the sacrificial system.
The themes of the premonarchical era revolve around the "rest"
of God, Spirit of God, ark of the covenant, and the injunction to love,
fear, and serve God with all of one's heart, soul, strength, and mind.
For David, it was a dynasty ("a house"), a "throne," and a

"kingdom." For Solomon it was the "fear of God" as the beginning of
wisdom, living, knowing, and acting. As the palace was the symbol
of the former era of the monarchy, especially under the glorious days
of David, so the temple and the house built by wisdom were the
marks of the Solomonic era.

The prophets then took up in sequence the themes of the day of
the Lord, the Servant of the Lord, the New covenant, the kingdom of
God, and the triumph of God's plan.
But it all belonged to one plan. As Carl Paul Caspari summarized it:
The Old Testament prophets form a regular succession; they are
members of an unbroken continuous chain . , . When, therefore,
the Spirit of God came upon a prophet and irresistibly impelled
him to prophesy (Amos 3:8), it naturally happened first, that here
and there, sometimes more sometimes less, he clothed what the
Spirit imparted to him in words of one or other of the prophets he
had heard or readthe words of his prophetical forerunner thus
50

cleaving to his memory and forming part of the materials of utterance of which the Spirit availed himself; and second, that the later
prophet attached himself to the prophetical views of the earlier,
and in the power of the prophetic Spirit. . . either confirmed them
anew by a fresh promulgation, or expanded and completed them.8
And so it could be said for the whole OT canon.

THE PROVISION FOR UNIQUE ITEMS
Not everything was a bland repetition nor a recasting in a new
situation of the words of one or more of the writer's forerunners.
There was, to again use Caspari's words, "a fresh promulgation"
which developed almost completely new areas of thought in that

single plan of God's promise.
While each of these fresh branches of teaching was frequently
linked by historical antecedents or by way of response to the accumulated canon up to that point, often they were so startling in
their novelty as to threaten later attempts at tracing their continuity
with the existing canon. The best example of this is, no doubt, the
wisdom literature. It was so disparate and diverse from the revela-
tion which claimed to precede it that many to the present day still
cannot see any connection at all. Consequently, it can be used as a
sure sign of a unique and innovative item if some are willing to
conclude that it is a novel, unattached oddity.
Second only to wisdom literature is the law and its placement
alongside the Abrahamic-Davidic promise. But again, the text insists on its points of continuity, especially with the patriarchal era.
But the massiveness of original revelation which develops what it
means to be a people of God is staggering. It too must go down as
being another key instance of a major new item in the revelation of
God's single plan. In fact, it is so new that most again question its
continuity rather than its innovative abilities.
But more should be listed here than wisdom and law. On the
one hand, there was the constant narrowing and making more
specific of what the ultimate fulfillment was to be. It was a sort of
election within the election, i.e., a man David from a tribe of Judah,
from a nation Israel, from a race of Semites, from the seed of a
woman. On the other hand there was a constant expansion and
completion of the nascent projections in event, thought, and expression. In this process there was a constant lifting of the technical
terms, hopes, and concepts of the writer's forerunners as he con8
As cited by Fairbairn, ibid., p. 199.
51

tinned the unbroken, continuous chain in the emerging details of the
plan of God: His promise. But each writer added to the theme. The
writers of the OT were more than mere parrots. They were participants in a long line of revelation, true, but they were also recipients
of additional revelation par excellence.

THE RESULTING OUTLINE
The resulting shape that emerges for OT theology with its
"long-cut" diachronic base and normative implications for exegetical theology or expository preaching is as follows:
I. Prolegomena to the Promise: Prepatriarchal Era
A. Word of Creation
B. Word of Blessing
C. First Word of Promise: A Seed
D. Second Word of Promise: The God of Shem
E. Third Word of Promise: A Blessing to All the Nations
II. Provisions in the Promise: Patriarchal Era
A. Word of Revelation
B. Word of Promise
1. An Heir
2. An Inheritance
3. A Heritage
C. Word of Assurance
D. Ruler of Promise
E. God of Promise
III. People of the Promise: Mosaic Era
A. My Son, My Firstborn
B. My People, My Possession
C. Kingly Priests
D. An Holy Nation
E. The Law of God

F. The Tabernacling God
IV. Place of the Promise: Premonarchical Era
A. Inheritance of the Land
B. Rest in the Land
C. Chosen Place in the Land

D. Name Dwelling in the Land
E. Conquest of the Land
52
The Development of an Outline for Old Testament Thet

F. Prophetic History in the Land
1. Repentance and Blessing

2. Predictive Word and Fulfilled Event
3. A Prophet like Moses

V. King of the Promise; Davidic Era
A. A Promised King
1. A Usurping Ruler
2. A Rejected Ruler
3. An Anointed Ruler
B. A Promised Dynasty
1.
2.
3.
4.
A House
A Seed
A Kingdom
A Son of God
C. A Charter for Humanity

D. A Promised Kingdom
1. The Ark and the Kingdom
2. The Royal Psalms and the Kingdom
3. The Succession Narrative and the Kingdoi
VI. Life in the Promise: Sapiential Era
A. The Fear of the Lord
B. Life in the Lord

C. Integration of Life and Truth in the Lord
D, Wisdom from the Lord
E. Eudaemonism and the Lord
VII. Day of the Promise: Ninth Century
A. The Prophets and the Promise
B. The Promise in the Ninth Century
C. Edom and the Promise: Obadiah
D. The Day of the Lord: Joel
VIII. Servant of the Promise: Eighth Century
A. Rebuilding David's Fallen Hut: Amos
B. Freely Loving Israel: Hosea
C. Mission to the Gentiles: Jonah
D. Ruler of Israel: Micah
E. The Promise Theologian: Isaiah
IX. Renewal of the Promise: Seventh Century

A. Mission to Gentiles Revisited: Nahum
B. The Day of the Lord: Zephaniah
53

C. The Just Shall Live by Faith; Habakkuk
D. The Word of the Lord: Jeremiah
X. Kingdom of the Promise: Exilic Times
A. The Good Shepherd's Reign: Ezekiel
B. The Promised Kingdom's Success: Daniel
XI. Triumph of the Promise: Postexilic Times
A. God's Signet Ring: Haggai
B. God's Conquering Hero: Zechariah
C. God's Messenger of the Covenant: Malachi
D. The Kingdom Is the Lord's: Chronicles, EzraNehemiah, Esther
54
_______Chapter 4_______
The Connections Across Historical

Epochs of Emerging Themes
in Old Testament Theology
Whenever biblical theologians have identified some key terms

or category as a theological center for organizing the developing
theology of either or both testaments (as we have also done here),
immediately they are confronted with the mass of diverse emphases

in Scripture. For some, it is more than a diversity of subject matter.
The multiplicity of ideas amounts to nothing less than contradictions
and reversals of opinion between the successive writers of Scripture.
Even when the text is treated fairly in its final canonical shape,1 the
1
We shall avoid the discussion that belongs to OT introduction or to the history
of Israelite religion, viz., the process in the formation of that text, the results of
literary criticism, and traditio-historical criticism. Suffice it here to say that evangel-
icals do believe in and utilize higher criticism, form criticism, etc. What they cannot
agree with is the use of imaginary or hypothetical sources (Chronicles and Kings
refer to many real sources, cf. Luke 1:1-4) and philosophical or sociological presuppositions which cannot stand the test when applied to epigraphical materials uncovered by the archaeologists of comparable age, style, and character as the biblical
texts since the antiquity and authorship of many of the excavated texts are secure on
other grounds! Cf. W. C. Kaiser, Jr., "The Present State of Old Testament Studies,"
Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 18(1975): 69-79.
55

issue of diversity still remains; and the goal of reaching a unified
theology appears hopelessly impossible.
Nevertheless, even after the more prejudicial evaluations have
been cared for by an objective type of higher criticism, four key
tension points remain as symbols of the fact that the OT appears to
contain a variety of viewpoints rather than a single integrated theme.
If bridges could be built across these high walls, perhaps there
would be hope for the whole project of writing an OT theology with
a central focal point. The four crucial connections are:
1. Prepatriarchal "Blessing" and Patriarchal "Promise"

2. Patriarchal "Promise" and Mosaic "Law"
3. P r e m o n a r c h i c a l "Deuteronomism" and Davidic
"Promise"
4. S a p i e n t i a l "Creation Theology" and P r o p h e t i c
"Promise"
No matter whatever else needs to be done by way of prolegomena to
biblical theology, the varying emphases of these eras will need to
preempt any other discussion. A plausible solution to these admittedly tricky connections would contribute a major portion to the type
of OT theology attempted here.
PREPATRIARCHAL "BLESSING" AND

PATRIARCHAL "PROMISE"
There seems to be little doubt that the key motif of the creation
narratives was the "blessing" of God on the creatures of the sea and
air (Gen. 1:22) and on man and woman (v. 28). Nor was the explanation of that blessing difficult either; it was both a capacity and a
result, to summarize Pedersen.2 God's creation was to be prolific
and bountiful on the earth.

This divine blessing was continued in Genesis 5:2 and after the
Flood in Genesis 9:1. But blessing was present even apart from the
use of the word "to bless" or the formula: "And God blessed them
saying, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.' " As Claus Westermann correctly argued, blessing is implied in what he called the
Heilsschilderung ("portrayal of salvation").3 It is our contention that
2
Johannes Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1926-40), p. 182.
3
Claus Westermann, "The Way of Promise Through the Old Testament," The
Old Testament and Christian Faith, ed. Bernhard W. Anderson (New York: Harper &
Row, 1963), pp. 208-9.

56
The Connections Across Historical Epochs

such Heilsschilderungen are also present in prepatriarchal passages
such as Genesis 3:15 and 9:27. Thus blessing is found in concept,
formula, and divine acts.
The obvious link between Genesis 1-11 and the patriarchal era
is one that the text itself makes in its fivefold repetition of the
"blessing" given to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3. Both Zimmerli 4 and
Blythin5 noted this association of "blessing" with the theme of

"promise" in the patriarchal record. However, they did not carry
back their observations to Genesis 1-11 as we have, nor did they

notice that this emphasis fell just where the two epochs met in the
canon: Genesis 12: Iff. The earlier epoch had ended with the query:
What now could be done for the nations at large who were more and
more alienated from God who had made them and blessed them
'with such proliferation? And the answer was in the form of another
blessing. God introduced a Semite by the name of Abraham. In him
all the families of the earth would find blessing. Indeed, the verb "to
bless" appears 82 times in the patriarchal narratives. Thus the verbal

and conceptual transition was smooth, continuous, and intentional.
But there is more. The blessing was pointedly continued from
father to son in varying situations, e.g., Isaac was blessed because of
his father (Gen. 26:24). Even the formula of blessing observed in the
creation narratives appeared again: "I am El Shaddai, be fruitful and
multiply! A nation and a community of nations shall come from you"

(Gen. 35:11).
Connected with the concept of "blessing" was the idea of being
successful in a venture or being made prosperous by God. The verb
salah (hisliah), "make prosperous, bring success," was used in
Genesis 24:21,40,42,56 in parallelism with bdrak, "to bless" (Gen.

24:1,27,31). It was God's indication that His favor was upon the
patriarchseverything they attempted succeeded. Consequently,
we feel confident in associating these two concepts of "blessing"
and "promise" across the two eras. While there exists no distinctive
Hebrew verb or noun for "promise," the root bdrak in the intensive
form of the Hebrew verb served admirably well for the time being.
Meanwhile, God continued to announce His acts of future deliverance even as He graciously supplied mankind and all of creation
with the capacity and results of success right then and there.
Both promise and blessing were so closely intertwined that
4
Walther Zimmerli, "Promise and Fulfillment," Essays on Old Testament Hermeneutics, ed. Clans Westennann, 2nd ed. (Richmond: John Knox, 1969), pp. 90-93.
5
Islwyn Blythin, "The Patriarchs and the Promise," Scottish Journal of Theology 21(1968): 72.
57

many scholars began to look for ways to segregate their origins and
concerns. But there has never been a secure demonstration of their
dichotomization, much less a scholarly consensus. On the basis of
the results of traditio-historical criticism, scholars (beginning with
Albrecht Alt) have alleged that each patriarch originally had his own
separate clan god: "The Shield of Abraham," "The Fear [or

'Kinsman' as W. F. Albright wanted it] of Isaac," and "The Mighty
One of Jacob." For Alt, "the choosing of Abraham and his descendants [had] originally nothing to do with Yahweh and his choosing of
Israel, but [went] back to the religion of the gods of the Father."6
Thus there were two choosings (the patriarchs and Israel) and sev-
eral gods (the three "clan gods" of the patriarchs and Israel's
Yahweh). Likewise, linked to these divine choosings were the promises of these gods which invariably focused on two matters: the
increase of the patriarchs' posterity and their possession of the land

of Canaan. But again, Alt divides the whole and awards the patriarchs the first promise and declares the second an editorial retrojection back to patriarchal times subsequent to Israel's entry into the
land.7
While Martin Noth8 asserted that both the promise of land and
the promise of progeny were very old, he did, however, assign to
Jacob and not Abraham the greater prominence in this era. Likewise
von Rad9 agreed. For him the twofold promise was very old and
went back to the time of the patriarchs. Only the later Israelite
understanding of the promise of land was different from what the
patriarchs understood it to be. For them, explained von Rad, it had
an immediate and direct fulfillment as they settled in the land; but it
later came to mean a final return under Joshua after a departure from
the land.
Nevertheless, a deep tendency still persisted in modern scholarship to associate "blessing" passages solely with the concerns of
progeny and wealthperhaps this was even a vestigial rudiment of
Canaanite society and religionwhile "promise" passages focused
on concern for the land.10
But neither the promise nor the blessing were syncretistically
6
Albrecht Alt, "The God of the Fathers," Essays on Old Testament History and
Religion, trans. R. A. Wilson (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968), p. 82.
7
Ibid., pp. 83-84.
8
Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, trans. B. W. Anderson
{Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972), pp. 54-58,79-115,147-56.
9
Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2 vols. {London: Oliver and Boyd,
1962), 1:168ft'.
10
See for example Blythin, "Patriarchs," p. 70.
58

created ad hoc out of the cultural experiences or imitations of other
religions surrounding Israel. The repeated claim of the patriarchs
was that the promises were given by divine revelations, revelations

which generally began with 'amar YHWH or wayyo'mer YHWH
(Gen. 12:1; 13:14; 18:13; 31:3). Neither were these blessings, as it was
alleged, individual and immediate while in contradistinction the
promises were corporate and future in nature. Rather, together the

blessing-promises were addressed to those descendants of the
present and future in the whole line of believers who had a historical
representative individual (e.g., Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) as an earnest,
or token, of what God would do in the immediate and distant future.

Yet all the descendants were corporately included in the blessing
and promise. All attempts to divide blessing-promise expose the
artificiality and subjectivity of these schemes, for the text in its
present canonical shape shouts "no" to every such artiface.
Hence we conclude that the generous word of God was realized

in His "blessing" to man in both eras: "Be fruitful and multiply and
fill the earth" (Gen. 1:28; 9:1,7; 12:1-3; 35:11) and in His promise
and the various portrayals of salvation (Heilsschilderungen) in both

eras, also: a seed, race, land, blessing to all nations, kings, etc. (Gen.
3:15; 9:27; 12:2-3; 15; 17). Some scholarly protestations to the contrary only prove the general reliability of this link.
PATRIARCHAL "PROMISE" AND MOSAIC "LAW"

Even more serious was the disjuncture that appeared between
law and promise. Here some believed that even the apostle Paul and
the writer of Hebrews could be cited among the detractors to the

unity of law and promise, if not the sheer facts of the OT text itself.
But the connections once again were so clear at several points that
the patriarchal materials were unfairly suspected of receiving more
retrojections of material from that grandest moment of them allthe
moment of nation-making at the deliverance from Egypt.
Take, for example, the formula of self-prediction or self-
revelation found in Exodus 20:2 (and about 125 times in the rest of
the OT): "I am Yahweh thy God, who brought you out of the land of
Egypt." A similar formula existed in Genesis 15:7: "I am Yahweh

who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans." They were too similar
in form, it was alleged, to be independent of each other. So what

type of dependence was assigned? The priority of Exodus 20:2! But
why not the reverse patternespecially since the text claimed that
pattern? Cannot a text be innocent until proven guilty? Or must we

always presume since it is religious or early in time it is suspect?
59

Likewise the indications of a divine epiphany and the aspects of
awe and dread that surrounded Abraham's reception of the covenant
in Genesis 15:17 similarly greeted Israel when the covenant was
delivered from Sinai in Exodus 19:18. The smoke, fire pot, and
flaming torch of Genesis 15 were matched by the smoke, kiln, and
fire of Exodus 19. The texts read:

And it came to pass that when the sun went down and it was dark,
behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between the
pieces.
Genesis 15:17
And mount Sinai was wrapped altogether in smoke because
Yahweh descended on it in fire; and the smoke thereof ascended
like the smoke of a kiln.
Exodus 19:18
Likewise the patriarchal phrase "the God of my/thy father"

continued into the Mosaic age. In God's call of Moses, He said:
I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to
look on God.
Exodus 3:6
When Israel was delivered from Pharaoh, the people sang:

Yahweh is my strength and my song,
and He has become my salvation.
This is my God, and I will praise Him;
The God of my father, and I will exalt Him.

Exodus 15:2
And prior to Moses' meeting with his father-in-law, Jethro, his son
Eliezer is named with this explanation that followed his name:
For the God of my father was my help
and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh.
Exodus 18:4
One need only compare the same formula in Genesis 26:24; 28:13;
and 32:10.
What God did at the Exodus was directly relatedto take the
present canon's claimto God's remembering His covenant with
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exod. 2:24; 3:13,15-16; 4:5; 6:3,5,8). The
promise of the land became more prominent for the momentHe
had sworn to give it to the fathers (Exod. 6:4,8; 13:5,11; 32:13; 33:1;
Num. 10:29; 11:12; 14:23; 32:11). But the other elements of the
ancient "blessing" were also evident: Exodus 1:7,9 has a sevenfold
stress (to count the expressions) on the amazing and rapid increase of
Israel to the chagrin of the Egyptians. Moreover, there was the
"firstborn," God's "son," in Exodus 4:22, who continued the theme of

60

the "seed" as well. Thus the writer of Exodus saw fulfillment of parts
of the ancient promise of blessing delivered to the patriarchs. The
covenant had not been forgotten.
But the continuity of the narrative itself was not the problem
troubling most theologians. It was the nature of the materials in the

two covenants. Sinai imposed commands, demands, and obligations
whereas the Genesis materials seemed to reflect the gifts of blessing
and promise. That was the troublesome contrast. How could the two
covenants be related in content?
In a widely received study of the literary structure of the
Hexateuch, Gerhard von Rad11 pointed to the credo of Deuteronomy
26:5-9and similar credos such as Joshua 24:16-18with its confession restricted to the patriarchal beginnings, the oppression in
Egypt, the deliverance from Egypt, and the wilderness wanderings
and entrance into Canaan as the heart of the first six books of the
canon. The most striking feature is that the events of Sinai, indeed
the heart of the Pentateuch, are not included in the credo. Von Rad
drew the conclusion, then, that the Sinai events belonged to a
separateeven if it were oldtradition and a separate history unconnected to the Exodus or wilderness experience. Only later dur-
ing the Exile did the so-called Yahwist dare to link law and gospel.
Otherwise, Sinai was a cultic legend of doubtful historicity and an
intrusion which separated the Kadesh materials in Exodus 17 from
their continuation in Numbers 10,
However, there was a strong voice of dissent.12 Most significant
of all was the clear association of the Exodus with Sinai in Exodus
19:3-8 and 20:2-17. In fact, if the total context of two of the credo
passages were considered (much less the total context of Deuteronomy 26), they, too, linked the deliverance from Egypt with
an appeal to accede to the demands of the Sinaitic covenantJoshua
24 and 1 Samuel 12.13 Consequently, Sinai must not be cut off from
the history or theology of the Exodus or the promise.
But the problem still remained. How were the demands of
Exodus 20-Numbers 10 to be integrated, if at all, with the blessings
of promises of the preceding ages? Perhaps an approach might best
u
Gerhard von Rad, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, trans.
E. W. T. Dicksen (New York: McGraw-Hill Co., 1966), pp. 1-26.
12
See the summary of these views in Herbert B. Huffmon, "The Exodus, Sinai,
and the Credo," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 27(1965): 102-3, nn. 6-10.
13
Joshua 24:25 refers to statutes, ordinances, and witnesses (vv. 22,27) and oaths
of acceptance (vv. 16,21); so argued J. A. Thompson, "The Cultic Credo and the
Sinai Tradition," The Reformed Theological Review 27(1968): 53-64.
61

be made by noting the connection in the patriarchal era between
command, promise, and blessing. The command form came in both
as an imperative and a prohibition. According to P. V. Premsagar14
the list from Genesis would read as follows:
12:1
13:14
15:1
15:9
17:1
22:2
26:2
"Go from your own country"

"Lift up your eyes and look"
"Do not be afraid"
"Bring me a heifer"
"Walk before me and be perfect"
"Take your son, your only son . . . and go"
"Do not go down to Egypt, but stay in this country"
26:24 "Fear not"

31:3
35:11
"Go back to the land of your fathers"

"Be fruitful and multiply."
Here, however, command preceded promise and blessing. At Sinai

it was an implication and a natural response to the grace of God
manifested in the promise, especially the portrayal of salvation in
the Exodus itself. For Abraham obedience was not a condition of the
covenant. Yet the duty of obedience was particularly stressed in
Genesis 22:18 and 26:5: "Because you have obeyed My voice . . .

and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My
laws." So it was as Hebrews 11:8 put it: "By faith Abraham . . .
obeyed." Faith had to be joined to works to demonstrate its effectiveness and authenticity.
Let it also be affirmed that if the promise was a gift from God, so
was the law likewise regarded. The psalmists celebrated this point
of view (Pss. 1:2; 19:7-11; 40:8; 119). Moses expressed this, too,
when he asked Israel rhetorically, "What nation has God so near to
them as the Lord your God?" or "What nation has statutes and
judgments so righteous as all this law which I set before you this
day?" (Deut. 4:7-8). Israel's response was repeated three times: "All
that the Lord has spoken we will do" (Exod. 19:8; 24:3,7). Rather
than rebuking them for "rashly" accepting so stringent terms when
promise and blessing were available, the Lord responded:
They have spoken well all that they said. Would that they always
had such a rnind to fear Me and to observe all My commandments
so that it might be well with them and with their children forever!
Deuteronomy 5:28-29
Finally, promise did not oppose God's law for the following
reasons: (1) Both the promise and the law were initiated by the same
14
R V. Premsagar, "Theology of Promise in the Patriarchal Narratives," Indian

Journal of Theology 23(1974): 121.
62

covenant-making God; (2) Far from being a legalistic code or a
hypothetical means of earning one's salvation, the law was a means

of maintaining fellowship with Yahwehnot the grounds of establishing it; (3) The same law that demanded a standard of holy living
equal to the character of God Himself also made provision for failure
under that law by forgiveness and atonement of sin; and (4) The
context of every and any demand of the law was the atmosphere of
grace: "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt." This
is an event which even the patriarch Abraham was vaguely aware of

from Genesis 15:13-14: "Your descendants will be aliens living in a
land that is not theirs . . . slaves . . . held in oppression for 400 years
, . . after which they shall come out with great possessions." Naturally some will disregard this as a later harmonizing detail projected
back to smooth out the transition, but the text must remain innocent
until proven guilty by better criteria than the subjective imposition
of value judgments. Such objections, in lieu of any proof, merely
prove that the stumbling block, found not only in prophetic literature
but elsewhere, continues to be the biblical claim to be able to predict

events before they take place.
PREMONARCHICAL "DEUTERONOMISM"
AND DAVIDIC "PROMISE"
The central text for the Davidic period is 2 Samuel 7. But rather
than coming as a brand-new interruption in the history of revelation,
it carefully rehearsed the old affirmations made in the promise and at
Sinai and gave them a continuing significance in David's administration. Some of these features in 2 Samuel 7 were:
9:
10:
"I will make you a great name" (Gen. 12:2, et al.)

"I will appoint a place for Israel and plant them" (Gen.
15:18; Deut ll:24f.)
12: "I will set up your seed after you" (Gen. 17:7-10,19)
14: "He will be My son" (Exod. 4:22)
23-24: "I will be to you for a God and you shall be to Me for a
people" (Gen. 17:7-8; 28:21; Exod. 6:7; 29:45; Lev.
11:45; 22:33; 25:38; 26:12,44,45; Num. 15:41; Deut. 4:20;
29:12-13, et al.two parts of the tripartite formula).
Even the same peculiar plural Hebrew verb in 2 Samuel 7:23 was a
clear allusion to the identical question in Deuteronomy 4:7-8: "Who
is like thy people, like Israel, one nation in the earth . . . whom
Elohim have gone?" Thus the Davidic covenant tended to absorb
the older promises made to Israel.

But how does the Davidic blessing of 2 Samuel 7 fitif at
63

allthe theology of the "deuteronomistic historian"? The
deuteronomistie type of materials usually included injunctions
about "keeping" God's "statutes, commandments, and judgments,"
walking "in the ways of Yahweh," and doing "that which is right in
the eyes of Yahweh," "with all your heart and all your soul." Most
biblical scholars now agree with the conclusion formulated in 1943
by Martin Noth:15 The OT books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges,
Samuel, and Kings evidence an astonishingly unified design. The
standard or norm for judging Israel's history during the conquest,
settlement of the land, the judges, monarchy, and divided monarchy
was Deuteronomy 5-30 to which Deuteronomy 1-4 was added as a
later introduction.16
The structure of this unified history breathed the hopes and
threats of Deuteronomy. It emerged especially in the editorial comments on the selected historical events and personages or in wellplaced speeches by the leading actors of that history: Joshua 1:11-15;
Joshua 23; 1 Samuel 12; 1 Kings 8:14-61. Often the writer interposed
his own assessment where he did not have a speech to summarize
the theology of the times, e.g., Joshua 12; Judges 2:11-23; and
2 Kings 17:7-23.
Surprisingly enough, Noth did not select 2 Samuel 7 as a major
articulation of deuteronomic thought. Even von Rad tended to treat
the history of David in a separate way, claiming that it was "noticeably free from deuteronomistic additions."17 He introduced what
could have widened into another chasm. He suggested that there
were originally two separate blocks of tradition which only in their
final incorporation in these books worked into a kind of fusion: the

Sinai/Mosaic tradition and the Mount Zion/Davidic tradition.18
Neither of these wedges reflected accurately the balance of
focus of this section. Dennis J. McCarthy19 adequately demonstrated
15
Martin Noth, Oberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studieti I, Die sainme Inden und

bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alien Testament, (Tubingen: Max Niemeyer
Verlag, 1943). Whether the entire deuteronomistic work represents the time of the
Exile is doubtful, but we leave that question to OT introductions to settle since it
will not adversely affect our theological inquiries here.
l6
The unity of Deuteronomy as a second millennium work is now correctly
defended on the basis of striking similarities in form between Deuteronomy and
second millennium vassal treaties, e.g., Hittite treaties, cf. Meredith Kline, Treaty
of the Great King (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963).
17
Gerhard von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy {Chicago: H. Regnery Co., 1953),
p. 86.
18
Von Rad, Theology, l;334ff.
19
Dennis J. McCarthy, "Second Samuel 7 and the Structure of the
Deuteronomic History, "Journal of Biblical Literature 84(1965): 131-38.
64

that 2 Samuel 7 did function as another one of the key moments in
the history of Israel as theologically reflected in Deuteronomy

through Kings. Deuteronomy did more than merely supply the norm
for history in his view; it set a pattern for subsequent literary
relationships.
According to McCarthy's fine analysis, three key passages
schematically set forth programmatic statements (Deut. 31, Josh. 23,
2 Sam. 7) and six subsequent passages showed how they either
worked or failed (two passages going with each of the three programmatic patterns): (Josh. 1,12; Judg. 2, 1 Sam. 12; and 1 Kings 8,
2 Kings 17). Only the assignment of the centrality of 2 Samuel 7
need be added to this refinement of Noth's view.
We believe each of the separate emphases of this history
whether it be word-fulfillment,20 repentance,21 and observance of
the commandments and statutes of the Lord as the key to long life in
the landcan be harmonized in one promise. Adding to such a
continuum is the clear identification of the Zion/David themes and
the Sinai/Moses materials in both Deuteronomy and the JoshuaKings sequence by Ernest W. Nicholson.22
In repeating Nicholson's evidence, we would only reverse the
flow of influence; it went from Deuteronomy to David rather than
the opposite thesis he developed. Our reason is plain: the canonical
shape of the message demands it and has priority until substantial
evidence is found to the contrary. These themes may be tabulated as
follows:
1. The obligation of David and all kings to follow the "law
of Moses" (1 Kings 2:Iff.; 9:4f.).
2. The frequent appeal by Davidic kings to Israel's election, Exodus, and gift of the promised land (1 Kings
8:16,20f.,34,36,53; cf. Deut. 17:17f.).

3. The constant recognition of Jerusalem as "the place
where Yahweh has chosen" (1 Kings 8:16,44,48;
11:13,32; 14:21; 2 Kings 21:7; 23:27; cf. Deut. 12).
4. The importance of "name-theology" ("I will cause My

name to dwell there") for the significance of Jerusalem (1
Kings 8:29; 14:21; 2 Kings 21:7; 23:27; cf. Deut. 12).
Von Rad, Studies, p. 78; Theology l:339f.
2l
Hans Walter Wolti, "The Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work,"
The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions, coauthored by Walter Brueggeman and
H.W. Wolff (Atlanta: Kiiox Press, 1975), pp. 83-100.
22
Ernest W, Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition {Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1967), pp. 107-118.
65

5. The confidence that Yahweh's word would not "fail"
(Josh. 21:45; 23:14; 2 Kings 10:10; cf. Deut. 13:1-5 or
18:15ff.).
6. The constant appearance of prophets (e.g., Nathan,
Ahijah the Shilonite, Jehu son of Hanani, Elijah, Elisha)
who spoke the unfailing word of the Lord but also taught
Israel and Judah "to keep My commandments and My
statutes in accordance with all the law which I commanded your fathers and which 1 sent to you by My
servants the prophets" (2 Kings 17:13).
To this list we would add the most significant of all:
7. The promised "rest" of Deuteronomy and Joshua and

David's measure of realization of that rest (Josh. 21:43-
45; 2 Sam. 7:1,11; 1 Kings 5:4; cf. Deut. 12:8-11).

Clearly, both law and promise were included in this history. In
fact, an element of conditionality is raised even in 2 Samuel 7:11-16
and 1 Kings 2:4 as it was already in Deuteronomy 17:18f. The
promise was indeed secure, and the Davidic line through which the
promise was to come was sure; but whether David and his sons were
transmitters or also personal participants in these benefits as
realized in their times was not secure, only their life of faith and
obedience could determine that.
Thus we conclude that there was neither anomaly nor divergency of theology in the Davidic and historical narratives of the
earlier prophetical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.
They originated in the environment of the Mosaic addresses of
Deuteronomy, proceeded as Noth and others indicated in the key
speeches of Joshua 1,12,23; Judges 2; 1 Samuel 12; and reached a
climax in 2 Samuel 7 and its responses in 1 Kings 8 and 2 Kings 17.23
SAPIENTIAL "CREATION THEOLOGY"

AND PROPHETIC "PROMISE"
For some the most intransigent of all connections is that of
wisdom theology and the rest of OT theology. It is so highly individualistic and with so few linking concepts, terms, or formulas with
either antecedent or subsequent theology of Israel that most despair
of ever unifying it into the rest of OT theology.
23
See the fine summaries of Carl Graesser, Jr. "The Message of the
Deuteronomic Historian," Concordia Theological Monthly 39(1968): 542-51.
66

Nevertheless, we believe the key appeared already in Genesis
22:12 as the attitude of a life of faith in Abraham: he "feared God."
Such was also the style of living manifested in Joseph (Gen. 42:18),
Job (1:1,8-9; 2:3), and the midwives for the Hebrews in the Egyptian
bondage (Exod. 1:15-21). The expression "to fear the Lord God"
continued in Exodus 14:31; 20:20; Leviticus 19:14,32; 25:17;
Deuteronomy 4:10; 5:26; 6:2,13,24; 8:6; 10:12,20; 13:4; 14:23; 17:19;
28:58; 31:12-13.
In one wisdom book, "the fear of the Lord" quickly assumed
the position of motto: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning (re'sit)
of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction" (Prov. 1:7).
Such a healthy fear prolonged life and yielded the fullness of life
(Prov. 10:27; 14:27; 19:23; 22:4) even as the Mosaic law yielded the
same fruit from faith, i.e., life (Lev. 18:5). Thus a "path," or as it is
said today, a life style, was provided by this attitude of reverence
and trust (Prov. 2:19; 5:6; 10:17; 13:14; 15:24). It became a veritable
"tree of life" (Prov. 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; 15:4).
To fear God was "to turn away from evil." If announced positively, then, fearing the Lord was turning to God in a life of faith and
trust. Only by such a commitment could one be enabled by the God
who created the world to enjoy the otherwise mundane activities of
eating, drinking, and earning a living. The wholeness of life, its
patterns of meaning, its integration of faith, knowledge, and actions,
and its significance were then realized (Eccl. 3:11,14; 5:7; 8:12;
12:13). Otherwise man remained bankrupt and unable to make it all
"fit."
The fear of the Lord also was linked with the acquisition of
wisdom (Prov. 1:7,29; 2:5; 8:13; 15:33). Since wisdom was a characteristic of God, it was His to share with all who came into a special
relationship with Him. Indeed, by wisdom He had created the world
(Prov. 3:19-20; 8:22-31); now He would share out of that same wisdom with all who feared Him.
But what of wisdom's relationship to the theology that follows it
in the writing prophet's era? If the fear-of-the-Lord theme had its
inception in the patriarchal theology and continued into Mosaic
times, did it continue beyond? Indeed it did! It supplied so many of
the concepts used by some of the prophets24 and had such a strong
prophetic savor about it that some scholars, without sufficient war24
J. L. Crenshaw, "The Influence of the Wise upon Amos: The Doxologies of
Amos and Job 5:9-16, 9:5-10," Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
79(1967): 42-57.
67

rant, labeled the concept of wisdom and the fear of the Lord a
prophetic reinterpretation of wisdom.25
Many of the prophetic techniques, images, or patterns were

common to the wise men: the x + 1 pattern of Amos, "for three . . .
yea four" (Amos 1:3,6,9,11,13 et al.); the rhetorical questions centered
on natural phenomena (6:12); the cause and effect sequence (3:3-8);

the woe oracles (5:18; 6:1); Isaiah's use of the vine allegory (Isa. 5)
and the parable of the farmer (28:23-29); Jeremiah's use of the

phrase "to take disciplining" (musdr, Jer. 2:30; 5:3; 7:28; 17:23;
32:33; 35:13); and Ezekiel's emphasis on individual punishment

(Ezek. 18:lff.; also Jer. 31:29-30).26
But the place where the promise doctrine of the prophets and
wisdom were most directly linked was in the sevenfold spirit prediction of Immanuel in Isaiah 11:1-2.27 This "Shoot" (hoter) out of
the "root" (geza') of Jesse, David's father, and "Branch" (neser) was
to have:
"the Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and might,
the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord."
As far back as 2 Samuel 14,16, and 20, wisdom was presented as

a political virtue. Kings and rulers needed it if they were to rule a
people or towns (Prov. 8:14-16). But wisdom also belonged to the
character of God and originated in the fear of Him. Therefore, when

Isaiah 11:1-10 prophesied that the future government of a Davidic
descendant would possess this political virtue of "wisdom" (hokmdh) along with the other wisdom themes of "understanding"
(bindh), "counsel" ('esah], "might" (geburdh), "knowledge" (da'at),
and the "fear of the Lord" (yir'at YHWH)"His delight is in the fear
of the Lord"the connection is more than accidental. It is
deliberate!
We conclude, then, that it is possible to discern the biblical
writers themselves making the connections between the various
25
Williarn McKane, Proverbs {Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), p. 348.

Also Norman Habel, "The Symbolism of Wisdom in Proverbs 1-9," Interpretation
26(1972): 144, n. 24; pp. 143-49.
26
For these and other examples, see J. Lindblom, "Wisdom in the Old Testament Prophets," Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East, eds. M. Noth and
D. Winton Thomas (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1955), pp. 202f.; David A. Hubbard, "The
Wisdom Movement and Israel's Covenant Faith," Tyndale Bulletin 17(1966): 8-10.
"This connection is suggested by A. von Roon, "The Relation Between Christ
and the Wisdom of God According to Paul," Afrwum Testamentum 16(1974): 207,212.
68

blocks of material and sections of Israel's history. Often the linkage
was made in a critical speech, pronouncement, or in a repeated
refrain that undergirds a whole section. Thus there were major items
of continuity; but there were new items associated with familiar
reference to the repeated blessing and promise of a seed, a land, a
world-wide blessing, a rest, a king, a dynasty, and a God dwelling
with His people.

All could be embraced, however, under the one comprehensive
blessing called the promise. Such a category was sufficient to encompass a great variety of biblical books, themes, and concepts. In
spite of an almost universal chorus to the contrary, the mass of data is
neither intractable nor impossible. It does yield up a single theology
with a deliberate plan of God. Furthermore, Scripture presents its
own key of organization. The OT does possess its own canonical

inner unity which binds together the various emphases and longitudinal themes. This is not a hidden inner unity. It lies open and
ready for all: The Promise of God.
69
______Chapter 5_____
Prolegomena to the Promise
Prepatriarchal Era
The hallmark of Genesis 1-11 is to be found in the Edenic,

Noachic, and Abrahamic "blessing." With the announcement of
God's promise to bless all created beings in the beginning of the
prepatriarchal narrative (1:22,28), at strategic points in the course of
its narrative (5:2; 9:1), and at its conclusion (12:1-3), the theme,
unity, and perimeters of the theology of Genesis 1-11 are secure.

Unfortunately, this block of biblical materials has rarely been
treated in its unified contribution to theology. All too often theologians have restricted their attention, as Clans Westermann ob-
served,1 to a discussion of Creation, the Fall, and man's personal sin

before God. However, the canonical shape of the message as we
have it in Genesis 1-11 asks of the interpreter much more than those
meager results. Man is placed before God in the Fall, but he is
* likewise located in a society and in the state according to chapters 4

\ and 6. Moreover, man was the recipient of much more than his life
\ and successive curses.
1
Claus Westermann, Creation, trans. J. J. Scullion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,

1974), pp. 17-31. His analysis of Genesis 1-11 agrees at several points with conclusions we had already reached independently.
71
Materials for an Old Testament Theology

The pattern of events in all eleven chapters is too closely interwoven to be left aside by the exegete or theologian. Structurally they
exhibit the juxtaposition of God's gift of blessing with man's revolt.
The divine word of blessing initiates every type of increase and
legitimate dominion; it follows the central tragedy of the section
the Floodand concludes the section in the blessing of the gospel
itself, Man's revolt, on the other hand, is evident primarily in the
three catastrophies of the Fall, the Flood, and the destruction of the
tower of Babel. Here too the divine word is present; only it is a word
of judgment and not of blessing.
But even this triple rhythm of blessing and curse, hope and
doom, did not exhaust the basic structure and theology of the text in
its wholeness. God's goal for history, while marked by the insertions
of His word at critically important junctures, was opposed by man's
continual rejection of these divine blessings in the areas of the
family (4:1-16), cultural achievements (vv. 17-24), a doctrine of work
(2:15), the development of the human race (5; 10; 11:10-32), and the
state (6:1-6).
The double line of man's failure and God's special word of grace
or blessing can be represented in this way:
Man's Failure
1. The Fall (Gen. 3)
2. The Flood (Gen. 6-8)
God's Blessing
a. Promise of a Seed (Gen. 3:15)
b. Promise of God's dwelling in
Shem's tents (Gen. 9:25-27)
3. The Scattering (Gen. 11) * c. P r o m i s e of w o r l d - w i d e
blessing (Gen. 12:1-3).
-*
>
WORD OF CREATION
But as the theology of this section began, so did the worldby
the divine word of a personal, communicating God. Ten times the
text reiterates this lead-off statement: "And God said" (Gen.
1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26,29; 2:18). Creation, then, is depicted as the
result of the dynamic word of God. To call forth the world in direct
response to His word was to act as Jesus of Nazareth did when in
response to His word men were healed. Said the centurion, "Only
speak the word, and my servant will be healed" (Matt. 8:8). So the
word was likewise spoken here, and the world came into being. This
theological affirmation appears later in the psalms:

By the word of the Lord the heavens were made
and all their hosts by the breath of His mouth . . .

He spoke, and it came into being;
He commanded, and it stood forth.
Psalm 33:6,9
72
Prolegomena to the Promise: Prepatriarchal Era

Whether secondary causes were also thereby set into motion in
effecting the result cannot be determined from the text. Every time
the text would seem to imply a mediate creation (i.e., where the
existing materials or forces of nature might be authorized or endowed by God to do the work of carrying out the creation orderthe
three instances being: "Let the earth bring forth" [Gen. 1:11]; "Let
the waters bring forth" [v. 20]; "Let the earth bring forth" [v. 24]), the
next verse in two of the three instances (vv. 21,25) attributes the
same things, which appeared to be immediately authorized to effect
the new work directly to God. Only Genesis 1:11 might be an
exception to representing God's work as immediate creation since
verse 12 continues that same way of speaking. However, that may be

all it was: a way of highlighting the recipient (the earth or the waters)
of the forthcoming benefits of God.
On the whole, however, the method of creation was as clear as
its source: it was God who created, and He did it by His word. But
word-creation stressed more than method. It also emphasized that
creation was in accordance with God's prior knowledge of the world,
for He spoke what He had previously thought of and planned.
Likewise His purposeful design and predetermined function of all
things was underscored since He often named what He created.

Thus the essence and purpose of His creation was outlined from its
inception. And if He named these things, He then owned them, for
one only names what He owns or is given jurisdiction over.
Often the discussion of the time of creation consumes more time

and energy than it should. Theology generally is disinterested in
this discussion. However, the decision over whether Genesis 1-2
reports an absolute beginning or a relative beginning is central to its
concern. Recently, many modern translations have prefered a "when
.. . then" construction for Genesis 1:1-3: "When God created, . . . the
earth being without form, . . . then God said."
While on some grammatical grounds such a construction is possible, there are strong arguments against such an analysis. Both the
Hebrew Masoretic punctuation and those Greek transliterations of
the Hebrew text into Greek letters show convincingly that there was
quite a respectable history of interpretation which took the first
word, beresit, as an absolute noun, "in the beginning," rather than as
a Hebrew construct noun, "in beginning of creating."2 Therefore,

2
See for further support and additional arguments, E. J. Young, Studies in

Genesis (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing House, 1964), pp.
1-14. See also the fine article by Gerhard F. Hasel, "Recent Translations of Genesis
1:1: A Critical Look," The Bible Translator 22(1971): 154-67.
73

Genesis 1:1 commits itself to the absolute beginning of everything
("heaven and the earth") outside of God.
The use of the verb bara, "create" (Gen. 1:1,21,27; 2:3-4; 5:1-2;
6:7), does not appear to be as determinative for an absolute beginning as some might expect it to be. While the verb is indeed restricted to God as its sole subject, is never used with any agency of
material, and is rendered by the strongest Greek verb for create
(ktizo) in the LXX, it also appears in parallel usage to two other

words in the creation narrative: 'dsah, "to make, do" (Gen. 1:26-27;
cf. also its later parallels in Isa. 41:20; 45:18), and ydsar, "to form,
mold" (Gen. 2:7; cf. its later usage in Isa. 43:1; 45:18; Amos 4:13). In
Isaiah 45:18 all three verbs appear in parallelism, thus disallowing
any major distinctive between them:
Thus says the Lord,
Who created (bard') the heavens, He is God!
Who formed (ydsar) the earth
and made ('dsah) it
He established (kun) it
He did not create (bard') it a chaos
He formed (ydsar) it to be inhabited.
I am the Lord, there is no one else.
To be sure, "create" does appear at the outset of the creative

order (Gen. 1:1), at the first appearance of life (v. 21), and with the
designation that man is made in the image of God (v. 27). But this
cannot be used to support the untenable view of mechanistic evolution with three divine interruptions, as it were, at the creation of
matter, the creation of life, and the creation of the imago Dei. The
preceding evidence of parallel usage of creation verbs sees to that.
We conclude, then, that God initiated the creation process out of

nothing but His word. More detailed statements will need to wait
until Hebrews 11:3 states a doctrine of ex nihilo, "out of nothing," in
definitive terms.
The "days" of creation climax in the creation of man and woman. They were the chief interest of our writer. For in typical style
observed throughout the whole work on Genesis, he quickly traced
the entire picture caring for those details which were only of passing
interest first before he treated in detail the subject or persons which

concerned him most. Adam and Eve both were made on the sixth
day, but the duration of that "day" (yom) and the details of how they
were created are detailed in Genesis 2:4ff. By now the reader is

aware of the author's elasticity in his use of the word "day": it shares
74

the same range of meaning as is known in modern English. It is
equal to daylight (1:5); our calendar days which make up the year
(v. 14); and the whole span of creation, or as we would say, the day of
the horse and buggy (2:4).
The sixth creative period of time must have lasted more than
twenty-four hours, for Adam grew lonely for a companion (Gen.
2:20). Surely this took more than an afternoon's idle thought!
Moreover, he busied himself with the task of naming the animals as
his loneliness continued to build. Finally, God created a woman,
and it was still that sixth "day."
Through the influence mainly of Augustine, the early church
up until the middle of the nineteenth centuryheld the majority
view that there had been three creative "days" before the calendar
type of days were created on the fourth day (Gen. 1:14). Thus the
usage urged here is not a modern backward projection to an antiquated text that needed to be rescued from embarrassment. It was
the clear teaching of the text itself.
Some of the details of what followed the divine word of Genesis
1:26 are now supplied in 2:4ff. Adam was not "alive" (nepes hayyah,
literally, but inaccurately, "living soul") until God had taken some of
the dust of the ground, shaped it, and breathed into it the breath of
life. Now to be sure, there are anthropomorphic expressions here,
but they are figures of God's direct activity. Man's vitality was a
direct gift from God, for prior to that he was not "alive"that much
is certain!
Eve too was "built" (bdndh) by God, yet in such a way that her
propinquity to Adam was assured. She was to be "bone of [his] bone
and flesh of [his] flesh" (Gen. 2:23). Together they originated from
the hand of God. Man was so linked to the soil that as his fortunes
went, so did the fortunes of nature; and woman was likewise linked
to man, for she was "taken from man."
Both, however, shared equally in the highest gift given to any of

the orders of creation: the image of God. Male and female shared
alike and equally in this highest mark yet set on creation. Only later
in NT terms will the definitional content of this image become clear
(e.g., knowledge, Col. 3:10; righteousness and holiness, Eph. 4:24).

In the Genesis record, the precise content of the image is less
specific. We see it expressed in concepts such as the possibility of

fellowship and communication with God, the exercise of responsible dominion and leadership over the creation owned by God, and
the fact that in some way unspecified as yet, God is the prototype of
75

which man and woman are merely copies, replicas (selem,, "carved
or hewn statue or copy") and facsimilies (dfmut, "likeness").3
WORD OF BLESSING
The word of creation was followed by a word of blessing. Accordingly, all creatures of sea and air were endowed with reproductive capabilities and given a divine mission:
God blessed them by saying:
"Be fruitful and multiply
and fill the waters of the seas;
and let the birds multiply on the earth."
Genesis 1:22
This part of the blessing mankind shares with the created order
mentioned in verse 22, but an additional part of our blessing appears
to stem decidedly from the gift of the image of God. Almost identical
terms are used in verses 26 and 28 to amplify one part ol the image
that was foremost in the mind of God when He so graciously benefited that first couple; they were to subdue and have dominion
over all creation (v. 28).
Of course, the divine mission to "subdue" (kdbas) and to "dom-
inate" (radah) was no license for mankind to abuse the creative

orders. Man was not to be a bully and a law to himself. He was only
to be God's viceroy and therefore accountable to Him. Creation was

to benefit man, but man was to benefit God!
Once more the divine word of blessing came: "God blessed the
seventh day and sanctified it because on it [He] ceased (safaai) from
all His work which He had done in creation" (Gen. 2:3). The day is
called the Sabbath (sabbdt) because it was the day commemorating
God's cessation (sabai) of His work. In this way He put a division
between His work of creation and all subsequent work (usually
termed providence). Thus history has the first of three great divine
markers found in revelation: (1) the Sabbath; (2) the "it is finished"
of Psalm 22:31; John 19:30 (the division between redemption promised and redemption accomplished); and (3) "it is done" of Revelation 21:6 (the division between history and eternity!).
Thus God made the seventh "day" holy as a perpetual memorial
to the completion of the entire universe and all that was in it. His
3
The literature on the image of God is huge. Some of the more representative
but recent contributions are: D. J. A. Clines, "The Image of God in Man," Tyndale
Bulletin 19(1968): 55-103; James Barr, "The Image of"God in the Book of Genesis
A Study in Terminology," Bulletin of John Ry land's Library 51(1968): 11-26.
76

"rest" was to be symbolic for man both in his own rhythm of work
and cessation from labor as well as for his eternal hopes. So decisive
was this ending that the writer also abruptly "stops" his narration of
events; he does not conclude with the expected: "And there was
evening and there was morning, a seventh day."
All had been completed. Everything had been done. It was all
"good"; in fact, it was all "very good" (Gen. 1:31). Every function,
every being, and every blessing necessary to carrying out life and its
joys were now in hand. But this was all an untested goodness.
FIRST WORD OF PROMISE: SEED

To test man's obedience and free decision to follow his creator,
God placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden
of Eden with a prohibition that Adam and Eve were not to eat its
fruit. As such, the tree contained no magical enzymes or vitamins; it
simply stood for the possibility of man's rebellion against the simple
word of God. In eating the fruit, mankind would personally "know,"

i.e., experientially taste, the opposite side of all the good they currently experienced. The totality of experienceboth good and
badwould be in their repertoire of sensations.
Another factor must be added before the theology of the Fall can
be understood. The serpent (hanndhas), that creature who was

"more subtle than the beasts of field" (Gen. 3:1), was also present in
the garden. The craftiness and subtlety of the serpent was comparably
greater than any of the beasts of the field.4
Most know that the NT identified this serpent with Satan: "God
of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet" (Rom. 16:20); "The
great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called
the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world" (Rev. 12:9;
20:2); "The serpent deceived Eve by his cunning . . . for Satan
disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:3,14). But few

recognize that he is treated as such in these passages as well.
Satan's form and shape are no more implied by his appellation
serpent than by the name dragon. Nor is the curse on him determinative for setting his morphology. Genesis 3:14 only asserts that his
conquest was so secure that "on his belly he would go" (cf. Gen.
4
The Hebrew mikkol can be taken in Genesis 3:1,14 as a partitive"any of the
beasts of the field" or as a comparative "than the beasts of the field." But in 3:14 all
agree the same construction must be comparative. Context also dictates in favor of
our rendering. See Paul Haupt, "The Curse on the Serpent," Journal of Biblical
Literature 35(1916): 155-62.
77

49:17; Job 20:14,16; Ps. 140:3; Isa. 59:5; Mic. 7:17). Also, his contemptible station and abject humility were so real that he would lick
the dust, or as we say today, "bite the dust." Both phrases were
oriental pictures from the ancient Near East of vanquished mortals:
they laid face down prostrate before the conquering monarchs often
forming nothing more than a footstool for his throne.5 Reptiles do
not, of course, eat dirt for food; but Satan would taste defeat as a
result of his part in the temptation. Also observe carefully that God
had already created "creepers" in Genesis 1:24 and had pronounced
them "good" (v. 25)!

The serpent consistently spoke on his own behalf in the dialog
with the woman; he was not a surrogate for someone else. He was
party to what God had said; in fact, he knew the possible alternatives
and eventualities from his own knowledge. To the woman, he was a
person and not one of the animals, for she did express surprise at
being addressed by him. She was, however, offended by the distorted narrowness which he attributed to God and the limited freedom of the first couple. It was grossly unfair to attribute to God the
fact that they were denied the privilege of eating from any of the
trees of the garden.
Deception worked its trick, however, and the woman succumbed to the heavy pressure and cunning argumentation of the
tempter himself. Adam also disobeyed, but on less strenuous
grounds than those laid upon the woman. Thus the first tragedy of
failure of three selected by the writer for theological reflection set
the scene for a new word of divine blessing. If any was to come from
any place, it would be from God.

It was a prophetic word of judgment and deliverance addressed
to the serpent (Gen. 3:14-15), the woman (v. 16), and the man (vv.
17-19). The reason for the curse was stated in each case: (1) Satan
beguiled the woman; (2) the woman listened to the serpent; and (3)
the man listened to the womanno one listened to God!
Consequently the ground would feel the effects of man's Fall. It
would bring forth thorns and thistles as well as man's sweat. Meanwhile children would be born with pain, and a woman's "turning"
(tfsuqdh), not "desire," to her husband would result in the fact that he
would "rule over" (mdsal) her. The serpent, for his part, would face
the disgrace of certain defeat.
But in the midst of the heavy dirge of gloom and rebuke came
God's surprising word of prophetic hope (Gen. 3:15). A divinely
5
Cf. the Amarna Tablets, E.A. 100:36; Psalm 72:9; Isaiah 49:23; Micah 7:17.
78

instigated hostility ("I will put enmity") between the person of the
serpent and the woman, between his "seed" and her "seed,"
climaxes with the triumphant appearance of a "he"no doubt a
representative person of the woman's seed. He would deliver a

lethal blow to the head of Satan while the best the serpent would be
able or even permitted to do would be to nip the heel of this male
descendant.
Who this male descendant was to be was not immediately revealed. Perhaps Eve thought Cain was that one. She named her son
Cain saying she had "gotten a man, even the Lord" (Gen. 4:1); at
least, that is one way of rendering the enigmatic phrase. Regardless

of how it is to be interpreted, she was mistaken; and the biblical text
only records her longings and perhaps hints at the clear understand-
ing she had of Genesis 3:15.

But God had not been silent. He had spoken, and His word
prophesied of another day when a complete reversal of the serpent's
temporary coup would happen as a result of the one who had spoken
so authoritatively.
Furthermore, the blessing God had promised to mankind did
continue. The genealogy of the ten most significant men in the antediluvian period recorded in Genesis 5 was one evidence of that
blessing. They were "fruitful" and they did "multiply" just as

Genesis 5:2 reaffirmed that word saying, "Male and female He
created them and He blessed them." And so they had "sons and
daughters."
Mankind was blessed in the fields (Gen. 4:1-2) and in cultural
advances, also (vv. 17-22). Moreover, the selection of the twenty

men leading up to Abraham plotted the progress of that "seed"
promised to Eve as well as the agents of that blessing for their

contemporaries.
Meanwhile the theme of judgment continued to mark the
record. There was another notice of banishment from the immediate
presence of the Lord. Just as Adam and Eve had been sent forth in
Genesis 3:23-24 from the Garden of Eden, so Cain, the murderer of

his brother Abel, was condemned to be "a fugitive and wanderer on
the earth" (4:12-16).

So intimate had that sense of presence been that when offerings
: were brought to the Lord, it was the Lord Himself who first inspected the man (Gen. 4:4-5) and then the offering. God valued the
heart condition of the offerer more than the gift he brought. Thus it
was that jealousy broke out in the institution of the family, resulting
in murder and the necessary imposition of the theme of judgment
79

SECOND WORD OF PROMISE: THE GOD OF SHEM
The earth's second crisis came with the subversion of the institution of the state as it led an unruly populace in the practice of
evil. Already a proud Lamech had begun to distort the purpose of
government with his boastful tyranny and polygamy (Gen. 4:23-24).
He was not to be challenged or rebuked by anyone. If Cain would be
avenged by God sevenfold, then Lamech would be avenged
seventy-seven times.
In the midst of the blessing of God"men began to multiply on
the face of the earth" (Gen. 6:1)came the heaping up of evil. The
rulers of the day, having adopted for themselves the Near Eastern
titulary of "sons of God,"6 autocratically began to multiply as many
wives for themselves as they pleased. Their lust for a "name," i.e., a
reputation (v. 4), led them to compound their excesses and abuse the
purposes of their office.
In exasperation God gave up on mankind. His Spirit would not
always continue to strive with men (Gen. 6:3). Such "mighty men"
(v. 4), or aristocrats (nepilim gibborim) must be halted in their wick-
edness. The hearts of men and women were filled continually with
evil. Once again the theme of expulsion will come, only in a much
more tragic and final way: God would blot man from the face of the
earth (v. 7).

"But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord" (Gen. 6:8), for he
was "a righteous man, blameless in his generation" (v. 9). Thus the
earth's second greatest time of need, according to this text, was to be
relieved as it had been in Genesis 3:15 with an enactment of the
salvation of God. There was a righteous remnantnot by accident or
by any means of partiality. Noah's father, Lamech, found in Noah
at the time of his birththe comfort that his work in the earth
previously cursed by the Lord would now be lightened with Noah's
help (5:29). The reference to Genesis 3:17 is patent, and the unity of
this section to chapters 3-4 is clear.
The wickedness forcing the hand of God was not an inevitable
fate alloted to all men now that the Fall was a. fait accompli. There
had been righteous men. Consider Enoch. "He walked with God"
for 300 years, not as a hermit in isolation, but as a man raising a
family of sons and daughters (Gen. 5:22). So pleased was God with his
life of obedience and faith that "he was not" on earth any longer; God
"took him" (v. 24). The text handles so easily the issue of mortal man
e
Meredith Kline, "Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1-4," Westminster Theologi-
cal Journal 24(1961-62): 187-204.
80

being ushered into the very presence of God that we are amazed that
no further explanation or caveat follows. Did Enoch's translation

serve as a paradigmatic model for OT men until further revelation
filled in the hiatus of information? The revelation of that fact would
always be available if men wanted to ponder its implications.

Noah was of that stock. He found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
Noah was "righteous before God in [his] generation" (Gen. 7:1).
Instructed by God, he built an ark. Thus he and his family experienced the salvation of God while judgment came on the rest of
mankind.
The divine blessing, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the
earth," was again repeated; this time to Noah, his wife, his sons,
their wives, and every living thing on the earth, in the air, and on the
sea (Gen. 8:17; 9:1,7). Here God added His special covenant with
nature. He would maintain "seedtime, harvest, cold, heat, summer,
winter, day, and night" without interruption as long as the earth
remained (8:22). The contents of these promises formed an "everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh"
(9:8,11,16) as signified by the rainbow in the sky. Along with this
note of God's blessing was His explicit refusal "to never again curse
(gallel) the ground for the sake of man" (8:21), a reminder of a similar
curse on the ground in Genesis 3:17. Likewise the reference to the
"imaginations of [man's] heart" (yeser leb) in 8:21 recalled a similar
phrase using the same word (yeser) in Genesis 6:5. Given the repeated appearance of such features, it may be confidently asserted
that the structural unity stretched from Genesis 1-11.7
The word of judgment and salvation reached its highest point in
the aftermath of the earth's second crisis. It came through Noah after
he learned what his son Ham had done to him while he was sleeping
off the effects of his wine.
The structure of Genesis 9:25-27 is a heptastich which is divided into three parts by the repeated refrain of Canaan's servitude,
a son of guilty Ham:

And he said,
Cursed be Canaan;
A servant of servants will he be to his brothers.
______
verse 25
7
See the informative discussion of R. Rendtorff, "Genesis 8:21 und die Urge-
schichte des Yahwisten," Kirche und Dogma 7(1961): 69-81, as cited by W. M. Clark,
"The Flood and the Structure or the Prepatriarchal History," Zeitschrift fiir die
alttestamentliche Wlssenschaft 83(1971); 205-10. Rendtorff argued that the age of
curse and primeval history both concluded in Genesis 8:21. As Clark pointed out,
Genesis 9:25f. does raise the curse again, but it is of limited application to Canaan,
and it is followed by an immediate blessing.
81

And he said,
Blessed be the Lord God of Shem;
Let Canaan be a slave to him.
verse 26
God will enlarge Japhet,
But He will dwell in the tents ot Shem;
Let Canaan be a slave to him.
verse 27
Now the key issue is this: Who is the subject of the verb "he will
dwell" in Genesis 9:27? We concur with the judgment of the Targum
of Onkelos, Philo, Maimonides, Rashi, Aben Ezra, Theodoret,
Baumgarten, and Delitzsch that the subject is "God." Our reasons
are these: (1) the subject of the previous clause is presumed to
continue into the next clause where the subject is unexpressed; (2)
the use of the indirect object of the previous line as subject
("Japhet") would require strong contextual reasons for doing so; (3)
the context of the next several chapters designates Shem as the first
in honor of blessings; and (4) the Hebrew phrase tveyiskdn be'ohle
sem, "and he will dwell in the tents of Shem," hardly makes sense if
attributed to Japhet, for Japhet had already been granted the blessing of expansion.
The plan of the whole prophecy appears to devote the first
strophe only to Canaan, the second to Shem and Canaan, and the
third to all three brothers. On balance, then, the best option is to
regard God as promising to Shem a special blessing. He would dwell
with the Semitic peoples. The word for "dwell" is related to the later
concept of Mosaic theology of the Shekinah glory of God wherein
the presence of God over the tabernacle was evidenced by the pillar
of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night. Hence, the man Shem
wcmld be the one through whom the "seed" promised earlier would
now come. Had not God said, "Blessed be the Lord God of Shem"
(Gen. 9:26)? And why did He use this distinctive form of address?
Could it be that the blessing and indwelling were linked? And could
it be that they were God's next provision to earth's latest crisis?
THIRD WORD OF PROMISE;
A BLESSING TO ALL THE NATIONS

The third and final crisis to hit the earth during this period of
mixed blessing and curse was the concerted effort put forth by the
human race to organize and preserve their unity around some architectural symbol. As they put it, "Let us make a reputation [liter-
82

ally, 'name'] for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad on the face of
the whole earth" (Gen. 11:4).8
Even though the blessing of God continued to be realized in
their multiplication (Gen. 11:10-32) and their filling the earth with
some seventy nations (10:1-32), the thoughts of their hearts were
again directed away from the glory of God or His provisions. The
judgment of God came in the double form of the confounding of
their speech and the scattering of the peoples over the face of the
earth. But again the sin-curse theme was closely matched with a
divine grace-blessing theme.
Instead of uniting men around an ethno-political project aimed at
the glorification of man and his abilities to meet the needs of a

disparate community of nations, God provided His word of blessing
once again. It was a word that climaxed every blessing pronounced
in the prepatriarchal narrative. Five times over Genesis 12:1-3 repeated the word "blessing." Nor was it any surprise that it was a
word directed to one of Shem's descendants (cf. 9:27), Abraham. He
was himself to be blessed; yet he was thereby to be a blessing to all
the nations of the world. What the nations could not attain on their
own organization and goals would now be given to them in grace.
The number of people included in "all the families of the earth"
(mispehoi hd'"ddmah) is the same as the list of nations in Genesis 10.
Had not Genesis 10:32 concluded, "These are the families of the
sons of Noah" (mispehdt bene Noafi)? The promise, then, was universal and limited in its participation only by the response of
faitheven as it was so limited for Abraham's participation.
Thus earth's third crisis was again resolved with the gracious
word of the same God who dealt justly with sin. We conclude that
the theology of this section is a unified development bracketed and
advanced by the free word of God. It commences in a word of
creative power; it concludes in a word of promise.
The debacles of man's first disobedience, the tyrannical distortion of political power, and the haughty aspiration of unity on a
humanistic basis led to the judgment of the Fall, the Flood, and the
dispersion of mankind. The theological factors found in each crisis

which perpetrated the judgment of God were the thoughts, imaginations, and plans of an evil heart (Gen. 3:5-6; 6:5; 8:21; 9:22; 11:4).
But God's salvific word was equal to every default. Alongside the
sin-judgment themes came a new word about a seed (3:15), a race
among whom God would dwell (9:27), and the blessing of the good
news offered to every nation on the face of the earth (12:3).
8
Samuel \oah Kramer, "The 'Babel of Tongues': A Sumerian Version" Journal
of American Oriental Society 88(1968): 108-11.

83
_____Chapter 6____
Provisions in the Promise:
Patriarchal Era
A new departure in the divine revelation commenced with

Genesis 12. In this new era there was a succession of individuals
who now served as God's appointed means of extending His word of
blessing to all mankind. Under God's election for service and His
call to personal and world-wide blessing, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
became hallmarks of a new phase in the accumlated divine blessing.
WORD OF REVELATION
The emerging prominence assigned to the divine word in the
prepatriarchal era did not diminish in the patriarchal times; instead,
it increased. In fact, it may be noted as one of the distinctive features
of Genesis 12-50, for repeatedly the patriarchs were presented as the
frequent and immediate recipients of various forms of divine revelation. 1 It is not surprising, then, that the record should treat them as
"prophets" (Gen. 20:7; and later in Ps. 105:15), men who had immediate access to the word and ear of the living God,
*P. V. Premsagar, "Theology of Promise in the Patriarchal Narratives," Indian
Journal of Theology 23(1974): 114.
84

At crucial junctures in their history, God addressed these men
directly in spoken words (Gen. 12:1,4; 13:14; 15:1; 21:12; 22:1) with
the introductory formula of "The word of the Lord came to him" or
"The Lord said to him." Therefore it was not only Moses to whom
God spoke clearly "mouth to mouth" (Num. 12:6-8) but also Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Even more startling was the fact that the Lord Himself appeared
(lit., "let Himself be seen" [wayyerd']) by these men in what has
subsequently been called a theophany (Gen. 18:1). The reality of the
living God's presence underscored the importance and authenticity
of His words of promise, comfort, and direction. These appearances,
also known as epiphanies, brought man, God, and His purposes for
men and women into a very close nexus. All three patriarchs experienced the impact of God's presence on their lives (12:7; 17:1, 18:1;
26:2-5,24; 35:1,7,9). Each appearance of God marked a major development in the progress of revelation as well as in the lives of
these men. There He would again "bless" the men, rename them, or
send them on a mission which carried with it major consequences
for the patriarchs if not for the whole scheme of theology to follow.
Coupled with these theophanies was the manifestation of "the
Angel of the Lord" (Gen. 16:7).2 The identity of this particular Angel
appears to be more than just an angelic messenger from God. So

frequently He received the respect, worship, and honor reserved
only for God; yet He was consistently distinguished from God. His
role and appearance are even more obvious in the period of the
judges; however, there was no scarcity of references in this period
either (16:7-11; 21:17; 22:11-18; 24:7,40; 31:11,13; 32:24-30; 48:1516). Thus He carried an identity with God; yet He was also sent from
Him! To say that the patriarchs regarded Him as equivalent to a
Christophany would probably be to claim too much. One thing for
sure, He was not the invisible God. And He acted and talked as the
Lord. There the matter apparently rested until revelation clarified
the enigma.
God also spoke during this era through dreams (hnlom, Gen.
20:3; 31:10-11,24; 37:5-10; 40:5-16; 41:1-32) and visions (mahazeh,

marot15:1; 46:2). The vision was a distinct mode of communicating new knowledge to Abraham in a dramatic setting in which he
was aware of a complete panorama of detail (chap. 15). Jacob,
likewise, experienced a similar vision urging him to go down to
Egypt (chap. 46). Dreams, however, were more widely distributed to
2
See Aubrey R. Johnson, The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of
God (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1961), pp. 28-33.
85

persons such as the Philistine king Abimelech, Jacob's uncle Laban, the jailed Egyptian butler and baker, Pharaoh, and the young
inexperienced Joseph. In all such instances the emphasis was on the
dream as dream; its interpretation or revelation was not always an
integral part of this form of God's address to men and nations.
WORD OF PROMISE
What a premium this era placed on the innovative and beneficial
character of that word! Indeed, from the very outset of Genesis
12-50, the accent fell on God's word of blessing and promise. To
Abraham this one promise appeared in four stages of development.
They are to be found in Genesis 12:1-3; 13:14-16; 15:4-21; and
17:4-16 (perhaps 22:15-18 could be added, also).
The content of this promise was basically threefold: a seed, a
land, and a blessing to all the nations of the earth. If one could select
an emphasis in this series, pride of place would go to the last item.
On five separate occasions the patriarchs were designated as a blessing for all nations: Abraham in Genesis 12:3; 18:18; and 22:17-18;
Isaac in 26:3-4; and Jacob in 28:13-14. Indeed, world-wide blessing
was the whole purpose of the very first statement of the promise in
12:2-3.
Even before any technical vocabulary about entering into a
covenant appeared, God promised to enter into a relationship with
Abraham and thereby to be and to do something for Abraham that
would benefit both him and all the nations of the earth. The writer
presented Genesis 12:2-3 as the substance of that word of blessing
and promise.
First there were three short clauses addressed to Abraham alone
using the Hebrew cohortative form of the verb.
1. "I will make you a great nation."
2. "I will bless you."
3. "I will make your name great."
The third one states something that is almost certainly filled with
irony. The quest for a "name," that is to say "renown," "reputation,"
and even "superiority," had been the driving ambition of those
tyrannical kings called "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4 and the
architects of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11:4. Now God Himself
would donate to one man on His own grounds what others had so
selfishly sought but failed to attain.
Moreover, the significance of this third clause and the previous
two becomes clear for the first time when the next clause is added to
86

the previous three. No doubt it is to be taken as a result clause. It
states the divine purpose and intention for benefiting Abraham so
generously: "So that [or in order that] it [or you] may be a blessing"
(Gen. 12:2). The Hebrew simply reads weh'yeh berdkdh. Consequently a preliminary goal has been reached in this newly an.nounced relationship. Abraham is to be a great nation, be personally
blessed, and receive a great name "so that [he] might be a blessing."
But to whom? And how was Abraham to be a blessing? Those
questions appear to be answered in the next three clauses. First, the
Lord added two more promises in Genesis 12:3, again using the
Hebrew cohortative for its verbs.3
4. "I will bless those who bless you."
5. "I will curse those who curse you."
Not only did God thereby continue the promise, but He introduced a
whole class of people who would respond variously to Abraham.
Only then was the grand finale reached. This time the Hebrew verb
shifts suddenly to the "perfect tense"4 in what again can only be a
result clause: "So that in you all the nations of the earth shall be
blessed."
What a vast sweep was now included in what might have been
so trite and so personal an exchange between a single individual and
his God! Of course, most competent commentators remain skeptical

about the passive rendering of the niphal form of the Hebrew verb,5
but they fail to see that already the previous result clause had stated
as much without specifying exactly to whom Abraham was to be a
blessing. The text is so clearly a response to the needs of the swarming multitudes listed in the table of nations (Gen. 10) and the multiplication of Shem's line (chap. 11) that it easily could be classified as
one of the first great world-wide missionary texts of Scripture.
Thus far the emphasis was on God's word of blessing. There was
a deliberate attempt to connect this new phase of theology with the

prepatriarchal emphasis. Five times God had promised His blessing
3
E. Kautzsch, Genesius' Hebrew Grammar (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909),

p. 325, says that cohortative following the imperative expresses either result or
intention. Intention fits here very well.
4
I am indebted to H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1968), 1:411-14, for many of the observations in this analysis of
Genesis 12:2-3.
5
See our discussion in the introduction and especially our reference to O. T.
Allis's article on "The Blessing of Abraham" which contained an irrefutable linguistic case on the passive rendering of this niphal. No one to this day has attempted a
response to his evidence.
87

in the short space of two verses, but Abraham was to be the focus of
attention: he was to be a great nation, he was to have a great name,
and he was to be blessed by God and by all men. There was no direct
reference as yet in Genesis 12:1-3 to a seed or an indwelling in the

tents of Abraham as was promised in Genesis 1-11. Nor was there a
reference as yet to a covenant (berit) which God would "cut"
(karat 15:18), "give" (ndian17:2), "establish" (heqim
17:7,19,21), or "swear" to (nisba*22:16). As the references show,

that was to come later in God's disclosures. Just now it was a rela-
tionship with a man which served as a basis for blessing the peoples
of the earth. Interestingly enough, the actual realization of a promise
such as nationhood would have to wait for several centuries until
Israel was delivered from Egypt,
An Heir
When Yahweh appeared to Abraham after the patriarch had
arrived at Shechem, that ancient word about a "seed" was again

revived and now directed to Abraham (Gen. 12:7). From there on the
importance of this gift of a child who would inherit the promises and
blessings became one of the dominant themes in the patriarchal
narrative. It appeared in 12:7; 13:15,16 (bis); 15:13; 16:10;
17:7,8,9,10,13,16,19; 21:12; 22:17 (bis), 18; 24:7; 26:3,4 (ter), 24;

28:13,14 (bis); 32:12; 35:12; 48:3,4.
Eve had been promised both a "seed" and a male individual
apparently from that "seed." Now the progress of revelation with
greater specification elaborated on both the corporate and repre-
sentative aspects of this promised "seed." It was to encompass so

great a number that, in hyperbolic fashion, they would rival the stars
of heaven and the sands on the seashore. But this seed would also be
another "son"born at first to Abraham, when all hope of his ever
having children was lost, and then born to his son Isaac and to
Isaac's son Jacob.
A line of successive representative sons of the patriarchs who
were regarded as one with the whole group they represented
matched the seminal idea already advocated in Genesis 3:15. Furthermore, in the concept of "seed" were the two aspects of the seed
as a future benefit and the seed as the present beneficiaries of God's

temporal and spiritual gifts. Consequently, "seed" was always a
collective singular noun; never did it appear as a plural noun (e.g., as
in "sons"). Thereby the "seed" was marked as a unit, yet with a
flexibility of reference: now to the one person, now to the many
descendants of that family. This interchange of reference with its
implied corporate solidarity was more than a cultural phenomena or

an accident of careless editing; it was part and parcel of its doctrinal
intention.
The drama of the possible obstacles and frustrations that could
have permanently blocked the divine intention here made up a large
part of the historical record in this era. Barrenness seemed to plague
doggedly all three wives of the patriarchs: Sarah (Gen. 16:1; 17:1521); Rebekah (25:21); and Rachel (30:1), Old age was another threat
in Abraham's case (17:17; 18:11-13). Egyptian and Philistine
monarchs nearly stole the wives away from the patriarchs because of
each husband's fearful lying (12:10-20; 20:1-18; 26:1-11). Added to
this were the ravaging effects of famine (12:10), filial hostility (32:78), and the slaughter of infants conducted by Pharaoh (Exod. 1:22).
But through it all the meaning was precisely as God put the question
to Sarah: "Is anything too miraculous ['wonderful' or 'difficult,'
Heb.hayippale"\ for the Lord?" (Gen. 18:14).
Not even Abraham's attempt to preserve this seed was to count,

for the whole life of this child (and each one that followed him) was
entirely a gift of God. Therefore when God "tested" (nissdh) Abraham's faith by asking him to sacrifice his only sonyes, the very
one on whom the whole plan and promise of God restedhe did not
demur (Gen. 22:1-10). He feared God (v. 12) and believed that God
would "provide" (vv. 8,14ijir'eh) so that he and the lad would be
able to rejoin the party waiting at the base of Mount Moriah (v, 5).
Isaac also was more than a mere foil. He too had a deep stake in
what was happening. Yet he learned obedience and trust in this
same Lord. Later in his life, when Isaac had selected Esau to receive
his blessing, and when everything humanly possible of going wrong
was taking place as sons, mother, and father plotted as to whom
would be the marked heir to carry the line of the "seed," again Isaac
learned that the calling and election of God were not of human
intellect or work. God made His selection of His heir apart from the
tragic and ridiculous human attempts to upstage the divine plan and
free gift.
An Inheritance
The promise of the land of Canaan to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and
their seed ran through these narratives as the second of the three key
themes (Gen. 12:7; 13:15,17; 15:7-8,18; 17:8; 24:7; 26:3-5 [pi.
"lands"]; 28:13-14; 35:12; 48:4; 50:24). Genesis 15:18 described the
borders of this land as extending "from the river of Egypt to the
Euphrates." Genesis 17:1-8 emphasized that the land was to be an
"everlasting possession." And Genesis 15:1-21 explained that the

patriarch would possess the promised word about the land, but he
89

would merely taste some of the reality of being personally in the
land, for the full reality would be delayed until the "fourth generation" when "the iniquity of the Amorites [was] complete" (v. 16).
From the very first moment of God's call to Abraham, He had
spoken of this "land" or "country" to which He was sending him
(Gen. 12:1). As stated in the earlier chapters, Albrecht Alt was wrong
in rejecting the promise of land as being an authentic part of the
patriarchal promise. Likewise, Gerhard von Rad had no basis for
denying that the entrance into the land by the twelve tribes was not
exactly the same vision held by the patriarchs. Only Martin Noth
allowed both the land promise and the promise of a seed to be part of
the patriarchal religion. Faithfulness to the message of the text in the
canonical shape as it has now come down to us demands that both
promises be treated as equally authentic and necessary parts of
God's message to the patriarchs.

The solemnizing of this offer of land took place in the so-called
covenant of pieces (Gen. 15:7-21). Acting on the instructions given
by Yahweh, Abraham took various sacrificial animals and divided
them into two. After sunset "a smoking furnace and a flaming torch
passed between the pieces" (v. 17), and Yahweh made a covenant to
give to Abraham and his seed the whole land.
Such a material or temporal blessing was not to be torn apart

from the spiritual aspects of God's great promise. Nor was it to be
spiritualized or transmuted into some type of heavenly Canaan of
which the earthly Canaan was only a model. The text was emphatic,
especially chapter 17, that this covenant was to be eternal. However,
already in Genesis 13:15 the offer of the land in its entirety was
given to Abraham "forever." And when Abraham was ninety-nine
years old, this promise was made into "an everlasting covenant"
(berit 'oldm17:7,13,19) and the land was to be for an "everlasting
possession" ('"huzzat 'oldm17:8; also 48:4). The word 'oldm,
"everlasting," must add something more to the noun it went with, for
in the case of covenant there was already a strong idea of perpetuity.6
The ancestral promises were fulfilled in the later settlement of

the land under Joshua. This, in turn, became a token or pledge of the
complete land grant yet to come in the future even as the earlier
occupations were simultaneously recognized as "expositions, con6
See the somewhat unsatisfactory studies of E. Jenni, "Das Wort 'oldm in AT,"
Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84(1952): 197-248; idem,
"Time," Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1964),
IV:644; James Ban, Biblical Words for Time (Naperville: Allensons, 1962), p. 69,
n. 1.
90

firmations, and expansions of the promise."7 Thus even Joshua's
settlement of the land did not exhaust the promise of this land as a
place chosen by Yahweh for His people. For just as the promise of a
son had been enlarged to include in that sonship all the patriarch's
descendants, so there was an "overspill" here as well in the land
promise.
A Heritage
The third and climactic element in the promise was that Abraham and each successive son of promise were to be the source of
blessing; indeed, they were to be the touchstone of blessing to all
other peoples. All nations of the earth should be blessed by them, for
each was the mediator of life to the nations (of Abraham12:3;
18:18; 22:17-18; of Isaac26:3-4; and of Jacob28:13-14).
The apostle Paul would later point to this phrase and declare
that it was the same "gospel" he preached. Simply put, the good
news was "in [the promised seed] all the nations of the earth shall be
blessed" (Gal. 3:8). Thus the embryo of God's good news could be
reduced to the linchpin word "blessing." The one who was blessed
was now himself to effect blessing of universal proportions. In con-
trast to the nations who sought a "name" for themselves, God made
Abraham a great name so that he might be the means of blessing all
the nations.
But it might be asked, How were the nations to receive this
blessing mediated by Abraham or any of his successive sons? The

method must be the same as it was for Abraham. It was by faith: "He
believed the Lord, and he added it up for him as righteousness"
(Gen. 15:6).
The literal rendering of Genesis 15:6 is simply he believed in
Yahweh (he'emin baYHWH). This, of course, was more than a vague
intellectual assent to a supreme deity in general. The object of his
faith was to be found in the content of the total promise. As such,
pride of place may be given to the oldest, most ancient, and most
central part of that promise: the person of the man of promise signified by that male descendant who was to come from the seed
(3:15). Indeed, when God first met Abraham, the issue of progeny
was not specifically included but inferred (12:1-3), for the first clause
promised to make Abraham into a great nation. His trust, then, was
in the Lordbut particularly in the Lord who had promised.
'Jiirgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope (New York: Harper & Row, 1965),
p. 105.
91

Once again let us repeat von Orelli's summation of this connection between Abraham and the faith of the nations.
How Abraham himself, in virtue of his special relation to God,
was a mediator of blessing to those about him, is shown in Gen.
xx.7; that his people in the same way were to convey the divine
blessing, the dispensation of God's grace to the whole world, see
in Isa. xix.24; Zech. viii.13. In the present passage the import of
the brief saying is expounded in [Gen. 12:]3, according to which
God's relation to men depends on their attitude to Abraham (cf.
xx,7), and the Lord will deal well with those who wish well to
him and do homage to the divine grace revealing itself in him;
and on the other hand, will make him feel His displeasure who
despises and scorns one whom God has blessed. The singular
number here is significant. It can only be single hardened sinners
who so misunderstand one who is a source of blessing to all about
him, as to condemn and hate him, and in him his God. The world,
as a whole, will not withhold homage, and will therefore enjoy the
benefit of this source of blessing. The latter is implied in the final
words [of 12:3] which puts the crown on the promise. . . . But
whether the subjective act of homage or the objective act of divine
blessing lies in the niphal ["be blessed"], exegetes are not agreed.
That one involves the other follows, however, from the preceding
words.8
Since the verb to "believe" in Genesis 15:6 is the Hebrew

hiphil form of the verb 'dman (cf. English "amen"), Geerhardus Vos
pointed to the "causative-productive sense"9 of the verb and to the

preposition. Both, in his judgment, showed that faith had its source
and its object in the personal Yahweh. For Abraham, it meant he had
to renounce all his human efforts to secure the promise and depend
on the same divine person who spoke of the future to work in the
present and the future to accomplish what He said He would do.

Thus Abraham possessed the promises of God as yet unrealized
when he possessed the God of the promises and His trustworthy
word.
Some will object to an unconditional construction being laid
over the Abrahamic promises. Five passages are often cited as
C. von Orelli, The Old Testament Prophecy of the Consummation of God's

Kingdom Traced in Its Historical Development, trans. J. J. Banks (Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark, 1889), p. 107.
9
Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), p. 98.
Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2 vols. (London: Oliver and Boyd,
1962), 1:171, stressed that the object of faith was "something in the future," God's
"plan for history (Gen. xv. 5)," and this is what Abraham believed and " 'made
himself secure' in."
92

examples of stipulations placed on Abraham: Genesis 12:1; 17:1,9-
14; 22:16; 26:5.

The first is the imperative, "Get thee out from your country,
your kindred, and your father's house to a land I will show you"
(Gen. 12:1). This imperative is followed by two imperfects and then
a series of cohortative imperfects in verses 2-3. But does such a
command amount to a formal condition on the divine intention to
bless? While admitting that there is a certain conditional element
present, Cleon Rogers correctly demonstrated that the accent of the
passage was on the cohortatives which emphasized intentionality
rather than obligation and that this type of construction occurs in
Genesis 45:18 (where the stress was on what Joseph intended to do

for his brothers) or Genesis 30:28 (what Laban intended to do for
Jacob) and Genesis 27:3; 1 Samuel 14:12; 28:22; 2 Samuel l4:7.10

The summons to "go," then, was an invitation to receive the gift of
promise by faith.11
Genesis 17:1-2 would appear at first to impose another condition: "Walk before Me and be blameless and I will make My covenant between Me and thee." Once more the sequence was two
imperatives followed by two cohortative imperfects. Therefore,
what was true of 12:1-3 is applicable here also. Furthermore, the

promise had already been repeated several times prior to this time in
12:1-3,7; 13:14-17; 15:7-21; and 16:10. Consequently, some expositors have argued that the force of the verb translated "I will make"
(uf'ettfndh) does not mean "to set up" but "to put into force" or
"make operative the one that is in force."12 The identical argument
would apply for 17:9-14 where circumcision might, at first blush,

seem like another condition on the promise. But verse 11 completely settled the argument: circumcision was only a "sign" of the
covenant, not its condition.
The last two passages are more difficult. In Genesis 22:16-18
Abraham was told, "Because (ki ya'an '"ser) you have done this
[been willing to offer your son] . . . I will bless you . . . because
('eqeb '"ser) you obeyed My voice." In Genesis 26:5 the blessing is

repeated to Isaac "because ('eqeb '"ser) Abraham obeyed My voice
10
Cleon L. Rogers, Jr., "The Covenant with Abraham and its Historical Setting," Bibliotheca Sacra 127(1970): 252 and n. 61.
"Hans Walter Wolff also agrees; Walter Brueggemann and Hans Walter Wolff,
"The Kerygma of the Yahwist," The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions (Atlanta:
Knox Press, 1975), p. 47.
12
Leupold, Genesis, 1:514; C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on
the Old Testament, 25 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.), 1:223.
93

and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My
laws." In our judgment, the conditionally was not attached to the
promise but only to the participants who would benefit from these
abiding promises. If the condition of faith was not evident, then the
patriarch woidd become a mere transmitter of the blessing without
personally inheriting any of its gifts directly. Such faith must be
evident also in an obedience that sprang from faith. Certainly the
promise was not initiated in either chapter 22 or 26; that had long
since been settled. But each chapter did have a sensitive moment of
testing or transition. Further, the election of God had been with a
purpose of not only blessing Abraham and the nation (18:18) but also
with a purpose of charging him and his household to "maintain the
way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice in order that
(l('mu'an) the Lord might bring on Abraham what He has promised
him" (v. 19).
The connection is undeniable. The duty of obedience (law, if
yon wish) was intimately tied up with promise as a desired sequel.
Therefore, the transition to the coming time of Mosaic law should
not be all that difficult for any who had really adequately listened to
the full revelation of the promise in the patriarchal era.
WORD OF ASSURANCE
Throughout the patriarchal narratives one more theme rang out
as another part of the blessing of the promise. It was simply God's
pledge: "I will be with you."
Actually, the first time God's presence with men was explicitly
mentioned was where the writer commented that God was "with"
('e$) Hagar's son Ishmael (Gen. 21:20). Then it appeared as a word in
the Philistine mouths of Abimelech and Phicol to Abraham: "God is
with ('im) you in all that you do" (21:22) and later to Isaac: "We can
certainly see that the Lord is with ('im) you" (26:28).
Out of 104 examples of this formula of the divine presence
employing the two Hebrew prepositions translated "with" (*et and
'im) in the OT, 14 examples appear in the Isaac and Jacob narratives
of God's assurance.13 God appeared to Isaac with the comforting
words, "Fear not, for I am with ('et) you" (26:24). Or as He said it in
an earlier appearance, "Sojourn in this land, I will be with ('im) you"
13
Horst D. Preuss, " 'eth, 'im," Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament,
eds. G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren; trans. John T. Willis (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1974-) 1:449-63, especially 456.
94

(26:3). For Jacob, it was a dream of a ladder with God's assurance as
he set out for Haran: "Behold, I am with ('im) you" (28:15).

To this Jacob vowed, "If God will be with ('im) me, and will
protect me in the way I go, . . . then the Lord will be my God" (Gen.
28:20-21). Again, when Jacob was about to return to Canaan, the
Lord repeated His earlier promise: "I will be with ('im) you" (31:3).
Accordingly, Jacob repeated to Laban that the Lord had indeed been
with ('im) him (31:5; 35:3). Jacob's son, Joseph, likewise experienced that same divine presence of God (39:2,3,21,23).14 As Jacob
had been favored and blessed by the God who knew of his problems
with a scheming Laban, so Joseph was likewise rescued and blessed

by the same Lord who followed his changing situation in Egypt.
Yahweh's active presence manifested His character, power, and
ability to fulfill the repeated word of promise. It was preeminently a
word of personal relationship. The divine presence, of course, had
been felt by Abraham before the words were put into a promisetheology formula. For example, the victory Abraham won over
Chedorlaomer in Genesis 14:13-24 was an illustration of this fact
even if the word was not present. Similarly, so was the intimacy of
Abraham's cross-examination of God over His justice in dealing with
Sodom and Gomorrah (18:23-33); the Judge of the whole earth

would do what was right. Had He not been Abraham's "shield" and
"exceeding great reward" (15:1)?
Abraham received the first part of what was to become the
oft-repeated tripartite formula of the promise. For now, it was the
divine promise: "I will be a God to you and to your seed" (Gen.
17:7). The sovereign God of all the universe would now condescend
and call Himself the God of Abraham and his seed. Therein lies the
essence of their personal relationship. No wonder James remarked
that Abraham was "called the Friend of God" (James 2:23). Their
relationship was one of love (18:19), action (19:29), and blessing in
all that Abraham did (21:22).
RULER OF PROMISE
As the blessing Abraham received in Genesis 12:1-3; 15; and 17
was transferred to Isaac in 26:3-6 and then to Jacob in a dream at
Bethel in 28:13-14 and especially at Paddan-Aram (35:9-12; cf.
46:1-4), so Judah, the fourth son of the patriarch, received it from
Jacob's blessing in 49:8-12.
"Charles T. Fritsch, "God Was With Him: A Theological Study of the Joseph
Narrative," Interpretation 9(1955): 21-34.
95

True, Joseph did receive a double portion in the inheritance
since his two sons were in a sense adopted by Jacob (cf. bekordt of
1 Chron. 5:1), but Judah became the "leader" (ndgid) among his
brethren. The oldest son, Reuben, lost his birthright because he
dishonored his father's marriage bed (Gen. 35:22). Simeon and Levi,
Jacob's second and third sons, were bypassed because of their outrageous revenge on the Shechemites (34:13-29). So the mantle of
leadership fell to Judah.
As Isaac had blessed Jacob in Genesis 27:29, so Jacob now
transmitted the same supremacy over his brothers to Judah in 49:8.
His prowess would make him a princely tribe, and he would maintain his superiority over his foes. His emblem would be the regal
lion. To him are given the scepter (sebet) and the ruler's staff
(nfhoqeq49:10).
But what is the meaning of the phrase "until Shiloh comes"

('ad ki ydbo' siloh)? Again, the opinion of von Orelli merits careful
attention:
The context on one hand, the oldest authorities in respect of
reading on the other, conduct us to our translation. &elloh was the
reading handed down from antiquity, and the LXX rendered this
neutrally: heds 'ean 'elthe ta apokeimena auto [until there come

the things stored up for him]. Instead of this abstract neuter subject we take the personal subject dominating everywhere here
and render: until he come into that which belongs to him, therefore into his own, his possession described on the sequel. Cf.
especially the blessing of Moses on Judah, Deut xxxiii. 7: uf'el
'ammo tebi' ennu ["to his people bring him"]. As champion
of the other tribes, he will display untiring energy until he has
won his territory without curtailment; and then not merely will
the tribes of Israel do homage to him but other nations also will
bow to his rule.15
Of the last phrase of Genesis 49:10, viz., "he shall take to him the
peoples" (welo yiqqehat 'ammim), he continued:
[peoples] cannot apply to the Israelites merely, . . . but must refer
to the more general national rule, which according to xxvii. 29 is
part of Jacob's heritage, and will be Judah's special portion.16
For Ezekiel or later Jewish and Christian interpreters to regard

this as another addition to the doctrine of the seed to come is
15
Von Orelli, Prophecy, pp. 121-22. The Lucianic and Origenic recensions of
the LXX read heds an elthe apokeitai, "until he, to whom it is reserved, conies."
16
Ibid. See W. Gesenius, Hebraisches und Aramaisches Handworterbuch, 17th
ed., F. Buhl, ed. (Leipzig, 1921), p. 596". He concluded that 'ammim is never used of
Israel exclusively; it refers to all peoples or people outside Israel.
96

therefore not unwarranted. Neither was Ezekiel's allusion in 21:27,
"until He comes whose right it is, to Him I will give it," out of
bounds either.17 The Man of promise would be overwhelmingly
successful; He would reign over all the peoples of the earth because
it was His right and destiny so to do. Furthermore, He would originate from the tribe of Judah in Israel!
GOD OF PROMISE
In the patriarchal narratives, there was a series of names for
God. He was El Olam, "the Everlasting God" (Gen. 21:33); El

Elyon, "the Most High God" (14:18-20,22), or Yahweh Yireh,
"Yahweh will provide" (22:14). But the most frequent and important
name was El Shaddai, usually translated "God Almighty" (17:1;
28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; cf. also 49:25'et Shaddai).

In the book of Job, El Shaddai is used some thirty times begin-
ning with Job 5:17. This is not unexpected, for the prologue and
epilogue of that book have such clear credentials for placing the
events of Job in the patriarchal era. Some of these indicators are: (1)
the wealth of Job puts him in the class of such big cattle owners (Job
1:3,10) as was true also of Isaac (Gen. 26:13-14; cf. 30:29-30); (2) his
officiating at sacrifices on behalf of his children (Job 1:5; 42:8) can
likewise only be compared to the patriarchal or prepatriarchal age;
(3) the currency in use (qesitahJob 42:11) is the same as mentioned in Jacob's time (Gen. 33:19; cf. Josh. 24:32); (4) the longevity
of Job (over 140 years, or five generations, Job. 42:16) is comparable

to Joseph's 110 years and three generations (Gen. 50:23); and (5)
Job's death (42:17) is described in exactly the same terms as that of

Abraham (25:8) and Isaac (35:29).
Regardless of what scholars ultimately decide the meaning of
17
For further study, cf. XV. L. Moran, "Genesis 49:10 and its use in Ezekiel
21:32," Biblica 39(1958): 405-25. He would vocalize "Shiloh" as say and loh and
change ydbo' to the hiphil yuba', "until tribute is brought to him and his is the
obedience of the people." Moran rightly rejects the reading silu(m) as an alleged
Akkadian cognate meaning "Prince, ruler, king" (which does not occur in Akkadian,
405-409) and the reading of the City Shiloh (which is never spelled sylh in Hebrew,
410-11), but he also rejects sello (409-10,14-16) because the unexpressed subject
cannot be "the staff" or "the septer" since this ruins the parallelism. (Orelli, of
course, took the personal subject dominating the whole section.) Further, it should
have been written sello ho' and se as a relative pronoun is very improbable since
that is a feature of the northern dialect. (In response to these last two problems, we
call attention to the parallel between weld and siloh in the two parallel lines and to
the use of se in contexts not necessarily northern or late.)
97

Shaddai is (whether "nourisher" or "God of the Mountain"),18 the
pattern of usage is clear in the six patriarchal references and most of
Job's more than thirty references. This name stressed the might and
power of God; thus the LXX rendered it in Job as ho pantokrdtor,
the "All-Ruler" or "Almighty." As Gerhardus Vos stated it,19 El
Shaddai emphasized the supernatural work of His grace. As He
overpowered nature and forced her to forward His plan of salvation,
El Shaddai indicated God's ability to master nature. Thereby it
linked together His work in Creation and now His overpowering
work in history to effect His plan.
Outside of these six references in Genesis and the thirty-one
references in Job, this divine name appears three other places in the
Pentateuch (Exod. 6:3; Num. 24:4,16), four times in the Prophets
(Isa. 13:6; Joel 1:15; Ezek. 1:24; 10:5), and in Psalms (68:15 [Heb.];
91:1) and Ruth (1:20-21). Together they fit the general tenor of the
name and its use in the patriarchal era; God is omnipotent and a
great Sovereign who can and will act on behalf of those whom He
loves and who are called according to His purpose and plan.
Thus the theology of this section was intertwined around that
word from on high, its blessing to a chosen seed, and the assurance
of the divine presence that guaranteed the certainty of the promised
heir, inheritance, and heritage or even the present success of the
patriarchs. It was all God's word of encouragement.
So blessed were these men that their benefits overflowed to
their neighbors. Hence Laban claimed that he was blessed of
Yahweh on account of his proximity to Jacob (Gen. 30:27,30). In the
same way Pharaoh was blessed because of his proximity to Joseph
(39:5).
Perhaps this same concept of physical proximity was involved in

the act of communicating blessing from father to son as H. Mowvley
suggested.20 Rather than locating the root for the verb to bless (brk)
as Gesenius did in the root prq, "to break," i.e., the bending of or
breaking of one's knees when homage or thanks is given, he followed J. Pedersen, von Rad, and Procksch who translate the verb
bdrak as "to place on the knees of." (Joseph may have placed his
18
From Ugaritic/c/y, "mountains," or from d, "breast"; contrast sd, "field."

Vos, Theology, pp. 95-96. He noted the connection in Isaiah 13:6 and Joel 1:15
between shaddai and the Hebrew verb sadad, "to overpower, destroy." Cf. Frank
M. Cross, "Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs," Harvard Theological Review
55(1962): 244-50.
20
H. Mowvley, "The Concept and Content of'Blessing' in the Old Testament,"
Bible Translator 16(1965): 74-80.
19
98

children on Jacob's kneesGenesis 48.) Thus Isaac touched and
kissed Jacob as he imparted his blessing to him (Gen. 27:27). So

Laban kissed his grandchildren and blessed them (31:55). Likewise,
the one who wrestled with Jacob touched the hollow of his thigh
(32:25-32).
Just as important as the act, however, was the word of blessing
itself. The blessing was many things: a prediction, the gift itself
resulting from blessing (Gen. 33:11), a capacity given by God to
ensure the fulfillment of the promise (17:16; 24:60), the reward of
prosperity (15:1), the peace of the Lord (26:29), and nothing less
than the presence of God Himself (26:3,28).21
The patriarchs' confidence that they survived death, even if the
actual method or means was left undiscussed, appeared with the
other blessings of the age. Abraham believed that the almighty God
could effect the deliverance of his son from death itself in Genesis
22. He had as much a right to this view as Gilgamesh had for his
friend Enkidu or the myth of Tammuz had for dead vegetation.
Therefore, the patriarchal text always carefully distinguished the
fact that each patriarch was "gathered to his people" from the act of
burial in the "grave" (Gen. 25:8-9; 35:29; 37:35; 49:29,31,33).

Neither was their relationship to God or His continuing association
with them canceled after death, for He repeatedly identified Himself, the living personal God, as the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob" (Exod. 3:6; cf. Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37).22 No wonder the
psalmist confidently expressed the fact that men continued to enjoy
fellowship with God beyond the grave (Pss. 16:10; 49:15; 73:24).
Likewise, Job argued in 14:14 that man enjoyed the same prospect of
"sprouting forth" again as did the felled tree (Job. 14:7).23
21
22
Ibid., pp. 78-79.
For fuller discussion, see James Orr, Christian View of God and the World,
appendix to lecture V (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), pp. 200-210; Patrick Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963), 1:343-59.
23
See our full discussion in the chapter on wisdom theology.
99
Chapter 7
People of the Promise
Mosaic Era
In spite of the four hundred years of silence which separated the

patriarchal times from the Mosaic era, the theology hardly missed a
beat. For example, the brief review of Jacob's family concluded in
Exodus 1:7 with seven words deliberately piled one on the other.
These evidenced the fulfillment of God's promise that Jacob's seed
had indeed been "fruitful," "increased greatly," "multiplied," and
"grown exceeding strong." It was a clear allusion to the blessing
promised in Genesis 1:28 and 35:11.
But the seed was now more than a mere family; it was a people,
a nation. There lies the new distinction for this era. And their
experience of the gracious acts of God was more than a collection of
personal interventions for selected individuals. Here, as their confession, God's acts would be reaffirmed by the whole nation:
"Yahweh delivered His people from Egypt." Nevertheless, it all
would be traced back to the same comforting assurance: "I will be
with you," for that was God's name and character. His name was "I
am," i.e., Yahweh, the God who would be dynamically, effectively
present when He was needed and when men called on Him.
The loyal love and dependable grace of this covenant-making
God to His promises dominated the transition between these ages.
100

He had heard Israel's groanings in Egypt, and His interest in them
and action on their behalf were summed up as a "remembering" of
His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exod. 2:24). The God
of the deliverance was one and the same as "the God of your fathers"
(3:13); "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"
(vv. 15-16).
Previously, God had appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in
the character and nature of El Shaddai; but now He would manifest
Himself as Yahweh (Exod. 6:3) by delivering Israel and leading her

into the land He had sworn to give to the patriarchs (6:8; 33:1).
Again, all this divine activity could be subsumed under one concept:
it was a "remembering" of His covenant (6:5).
Hence the author of Exodus connected the patriarchs and the
Exodus periods directly; for him the Sinaitic covenant was theologically and historically a continuation of the Abrahamic promise.
Rather than treating Egypt and Sinai as an interruption to the previous promises, their needs became a new opportunity for another
manifestation of God's divine loyalty to His oft-repeated promise.
MY SON, MY FIRSTBORN
Jacob's twelve sons and Joseph's two children multiplied until
they became a great nation during the Egyptian bondage. After four
hundred and thirty years of slavery (Exod. 12:40), the sons of Jacob
had had enough; they cried out to God for help.
Help came in the person of Moses and in the miraculous interventions and words of the Lord. Moses' first act as the newly appointed spokesman for the living God was categorically to command
Pharaoh, "Israel is my firstborn son: . . . Let my son go" (Exod.
4:22-23). Yahweh was now to be seen as a "Father" by what He did:
He brought Israel into being as a nation; He fostered the nation and
led it. That is what fatherhood was all about. So Moses would reason
in his final speech to Israel: "Is not [the Lord] your Father, who
created you, who made you, and established you?" (Deut. 32:6).
The text pointedly used the singular for the whole community of
Israel collectively. When the OT referred to individual Israelites, it
used the plural (e.g., "You are sons of the Lord your God" [Deut.
14:1]). But the individual Israelite was also a "son of God" precisely
because he was a member of the chosen people.

While it is true that it was commonplace in the ancient Near
East for monarchs to claim that they were sons of one god or
anotherand especially true in Egypt where the Pharaoh was

thought to be derived from sexual union between the god and the
101

queenIsrael carefully avoided any idea of divine sonship. Yet
when God used the designation "my firstborn son," it was not a
mindless epithet or a poetic indulgence. It was an integral part of
God's call and His deliverance of Israel from Egypt.
Israel's sonship expressed a relationship: 1 Israel was the son of
Yahweh but not merely in the sense of a citizen of a nation, a
member of a craftsman's guild, or a disciple of a teacher. Hebrew
ben, "son," can be understood in varying contexts in all of these
senses. Here, however, it was a familial relationship: a people who
made up the family of God. Israel was not a family in an adopted
sense or a mere ethnic, political, or social unity. Rather, it was a
family formed, saved, and guarded by God the "Father" of this
family.
As true sons, Israel must imitate its Father in activity. Everything the Father is, the son should aspire to be (e.g., "Be ye holy as I
am" [Lev. 19:2], passim). The son, on his part, must respect the
wishes of the Father and show his respect and gratitude by doing
what his Father commands him to do. The Father, on the other hand,
would demonstrate His love in His tender and loyal dealings with
His sou.
The title "firstborn" (b*'kdr), on the other hand, usually meant
the first child to be born (e.g., Gen. 25:25) or to open the womb (e.g.,
Exod. 13:2). In the transferred sense, as used here, it denoted "first
in rank," "first in preeminence." As such it bestowed special rights
and honors of inheritance and favor on its recipients.
The rights of primogeniture were superseded when another son
was designated as "firstborn." What had previously rested on position was now removed and grounded in grace. So it was with Jacob
who was renamed Israel. Esau was the first in position of actual
birth, then Jacob (Gen. 25:25-26); but it was Jacob who received
God's favor and the surprise of being called His "firstborn."
Likewise Ephraim was Joseph's second child, but Jeremiah recognized him as God's "firstborn" (Jer. 31:9).
The importance of both the meaning and the concepts of collective solidarity in the terms "My son" and "My firstborn" are not
always appreciated by readers and theologians of the OT. "Seed" is a
collective term which first appeared in Genesis 3:15 as a representative person for both the whole group identified with him and the
ultimate or final representative person who was to come. "My son"
and "My firstborn" likewise functioned in the same dual capacity.
*I am indebted to Dennis McCarthy for many of the insights here: "Israel, My
Firstborn Son," The Wat/ 5(1965): pp. 183-91.

102

They were collective terms which represented and included that
one who was to come and the many who already believed on him.
Readers of the NT should not be surprised, then, when the same
terms were used of Jesus the Messiah. He, too, was addressed by
what had become, by then, technical terms. He, too, was delivered
out of Egypt and was given the same familial term "my son" (Matt.
2:15; cf. Hos. 11:1). Moreover, He was God's "firstborn," prototokos
(Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15,18; Heb. 1:6; Rev. 1:5). And the title prototokoi He shared with all believers just as it was true of all Israel in
the OT (Heb. 12:23). The continuity of terms, identities, and meanings throughout both testaments is more than a mere accident. It is a
remarkable evidence of a single-planned program and a unified
single people of God.
MY PEOPLE, MY POSSESSION
Israel was more than a family or God's son; Israel had also
become a goy, a "nation" (Exod. 19:6). This fact first became evident
when the Lord told Moses at the burning bush, "I have seen the
affliction of My people who are in Egypt" (3:7). This title Moses
repeated to Pharaoh in God's categorical demand: "Let My people
go" (Exod. 5:1; 7:14; 8:1,20; 9:1; 10:3). To be called a "people" Cam)2
meant that they were an ethnic social group with enough numerical
strength and enough unity to be regarded as a corporate whole. Yet
they were so intimately linked to Yahweh that He called them "My
people."
Yahweh's loyalty to His people became evident in the events of
the plagues, the Exodus, and the wilderness journey. Israel was to
be released from servitude to Pharaoh so that she might serve the
Lord. However, when the Egyptian monarch consistently refused to
yield to Yahweh's demands, His power (called the "finger of God" in
Exodus 8:19; [cf. Exod. 31:18; Ps. 8:3; Luke 11:20]) was unleashed
in increasing degrees of severity against Pharaoh, his people, and
their lands and goods.
But the objective was never mere punishment as a requital for
Pharaoh's obstinacy. The plagues had a salvific purpose for both
Israel and Egypt. They were to convince Pharaoh that Yahweh indeed had spoken and had to be feared and obeyed; Israel had no
choice and neither did the Egyptians.
Was this God chauvinistic and unfairly partial to Israel to the
2
Contrast our conclusions with those of Richard Dentsch, "The Biblical Concept of the 'People of God,' " Southeast Asia Journal of Theology 13(1972): 4-12.
103

detriment of the Egyptians' economy? Not so again! The text insisted that His plagues also had an evangelistic appeal to the Egyptians. Each catastrophe was invoked so "that you [Egyptians] might
know that I am the Lord in the midst of the earth" (Exod. 8:22); "that
[you] might know that there is none like Me in all the earth" (9:14;
cf. 8:10); "to show [you God's] power so that [His] name might be
declared throughout all the earth" (9:16); and "that [you] might
know that all the earth belongs to the Lord . . . [and that you might]
fear the Lord God" (vv. 29-30).
Egypt's gods were no gods at all. Only Yahweh was God; and He
was such in all the earth, not just in the patriarchs' territory of Haran
or Canaan. His name and power had to be published throughout the
whole earth so that all nations of the earth might "fear Him," i.e.,
"believe Him." And so some Egyptians did. Some of Pharaoh's
servants "feared the word of Yahweh" (Exod. 9:20) and did as Moses
commanded. No doubt that is the explanation for the "mixed multitude" that left Egypt with Israel (12:38). It included those Gentiles
who had come "to know," i.e., to experience personally, the Lord
God of all the earth.

Even after the miraculous deliverance was accomplished on the
evening of the Passover, many Egyptians still clung adamantly to
their reckless course of direct confrontation with this incomparably

great God. Patiently, the divine offer of grace remained open as they
pursued Israel as she crossed the sea. They must "know that I am the
Lord" (Exod. 14:4) even when that God had received praise and
glory from Israel for His mighty victory over Pharaoh, his chariots,
and his horsemen (v. 18).
The effect on Israel was overwhelming. After she saw what God
had finally done against the impervious Egyptians, they "feared the
Lord and believed in the Lord and in His servant Moses" (Exod. 14:31).
Together they sang:
Thy right hand, O Lord,
is glorious in power.
Thy right hand, O Lord,
shatters the enemy.
Exodus 15:6
Who is like thee, O Lord, among the gods?
Who is like thee, majestic in holiness,
Terrible in glorious deeds, doing miracles?
Exodus 15:11
All Israel's freedom was owed to the loyal love (hesedExod.
15:13) Yahweh had for His people. Other peoples heard and trem104

bled, but God's people whom He had purchased (qdndh15:16)
saw the "salvation of the Lord" (yesu'ai YHWH14:13). Human
manipulation was clearly excluded; it was God's "deliverance" (3:8;
6:6). He was Israel's "kinsman-redeemer" (go'el6:6) who with
miracles and an "outstretched arm" took them and called them "My
people" (v. 7).
The meaning of this event had been set forth in the ceremony of
the Passover held on Israel's last night in Egypt. That rite was to be
celebrated annually along with the accredited explanation supplied

in Exodus 13:14-16. You must say, went the explanation to later
generations, that "the Lord slew all the firstborn in Egypt, both the
firstborn of man and cattle. Therefore I sacrifice to the Lord all the
males that first open the womb; but all the firstborn of my sons I
redeem (pddah)" (v. 15).

Thus Israel was constituted a "people." In fact, Exodus 12:3
called her a "congregation" ('edah) for the first time as she began to
prepare for the Passover meal in each family. Abraham had become
numerous; indeed, he had now become a great nation, and God's
two great redemptive acts of the Passover and the Exodus had
underscored the reality of this new fulfillment.
Most surprising of all was Israel's status as God's "choice or
treasured possession" (s^gulldhExod. 19:5). But what made Israel
so valuable and what exactly did the phrase mean? The meaning of
this special term was elucidated by Moshe Greenberg who pointed
to its Akkadian equivalent sikiltum3 and by C. Virolleaud who noted
Ugaritic sglt, which he translated "propriete."4 The basic root of this
term was sakalu, "to set aside a thing or a property." It was the
opposite of real property, e.g., real estate, which could not be
moved. God's segullah, on the other hand, was his moveable treas-
ure. Israel's value, then, came from God's love and affection which
He had set on her. She became His property.
Later in Deuteronomy, Israel was also called "holy" (qddos) as

well as a "treasured possession." But these passages were always
linked with the concept of the "people" ('amDeut. 7:6; 14:2;
26:18,19; also without segullah14:21; 28:9); thus the same point
was preserved. Israel was to be God's distinct treasure set aside for a
marked purpose.
With this we have a fourth new term to refer to Israel's standing
3
Moshe Greenberg, "Hebrew svgulla: Akkadian sikiltu," Journal of American
Oriental Society 71(1951): 172ff.
4
As cited by Moshe Weinfeld, "The Covenant of Grant in Old Testament and
Ancient Near East," Journal of American Oriental Society 90(1970): 195, n. 103.
105

before a God who had chosen and called her, not individually, but
collectively, which gives the complete meaning of peoplehood and
nationhood. The whole concept could be reduced to a single phrase:
"I will take you to Myself for a people" (Exod. 6:7). That affirmation
became the second part of the tripartite formula: "I will be your God
and you shall be My people." Only the third part was lacking now:
"And I will dwell in the midst of you." That would come
momentarily.
But who was this God and who could be compared to Him
(Exod. 15:11)? Moses and Miriam had celebrated the answer on the
occasion of the Red Sea deliverance in a song which magnified
God's incomparable greatness. His deliverance from Egypt (15:112), which also signaled His future help in their pending entrance
into Canaan (vv. 13-18), made His undisputed sovereignty over man,
nations, and nature most clear: "The Lord will reign forever and
ever" (v. 18).
Few passages are more pivotal for the discussion of God's name5
and character than Exodus 6:2-8. The distinction between His appearance to the patriarchs as El Shaddai and His present manifestation to Moses as Yahweh (YHWH) has continued to be a source of
scholarly debate and conjecture. Certainly the patriarchs were not
without a knowledge of the name "Yahweh," for it did occur in the
Genesis record well over one hundred times. What Exodus 6:3
stressed was the two niphal reflexive verbs, waera ("I showed
Myself") and noda'ti ("I did not make Myself known") and the
Hebrew preposition be ("by") before El Shaddai and by implication
before Yahweh.
This preposition, known as a beth essentiae, is to be translated
"as" and means that "God showed Himself to Abraham, to Isaac, and
to Jacob in the character of (i.e., with the accompanying attributes of
the name of) El Shaddai; but in the character of My name Yahweh I
did not make Myself known to them." The name, then, revealed the
character, qualities, attributes, and essence of the person so
designated.
Such an analysis of Exodus 6:3 may be confirmed by an examination of 3:13. When God promised to go with Moses when he stood
before Pharaoh and the people, Moses queried, "Suppose the
people ask, 'What is the name of this God who will lead us out of
Egypt?' What shall I say then?"
5
See W. C. Kaiser, Jr., "Name," Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible,
5 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 4:364.
106

As Martin Buber6 and others have noted, the interrogative
"what?" (mah) is to be distinguished from "who?" (mi). The latter
only asked for the title or designation of a person while mah, especially when connected with the word "name," sought out the qualities, character, powers, and abilities resident in that name.
Thus, the answer came back bluntly. His name was "I am the
God who will be there" (Exod. 3:14). It was not so much an ontological designation or a static notion of being (e.g., "I am that I am"); it
was rather a promise of a dynamic, active presence. As God had
revealed Himself in His supernatural control over nature for the
patriarchs, now Moses and Yahweh's son, Israel, would know His
presence in a day-by-day experience as it never was known before.
Later on in Deuteronomy, this will develop into a whole name-
theology. The name came to represent the presence of God Himself

instead of merely experiencing the effects of His presence on nature.
KINGLY PRIESTS
This uniquely owned, treasured possession was destined to be a
royal priesthood composed of the entire congregation. Israel, the
first-born of the nations, was given the status of sonship, delivered
from Egypt as if they had been borne along on eagles' wings, and
made ministers on behalf of themselves and the nations. This
mediatorial role was announced in Exodus 19:3-6:
Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob,
and you shall declare to the sons of Israel,
You have seen what I did to the Egyptians,
And that I bore you on eagles' wings,
and brought you to Myself;
And now if yon will listen attentively to My voice,
And keep My covenant
You will be My treasured possession above all peoples,
though the whole earth is Mine;
Yes, you will become for Me kingly priests and a holy nation.
The entire world belonged to the Lord; yet in the midst of the
nations He had placed Israel. To her He had given a special task.
Few have captured the meaning of this text better than Charles A.
Briggs:
We have a further unfolding of the second Messianic prophecy
6
Martin Buber, Kingship of God (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), pp. 104-6,
189-90; also, J. A. Motyer, The Revelation of the Divine Name (London: Tyndale,
1956), pp. 3-31.
107

[Gen. 9:27] in that the dwelling of God in the tents of Shem
becomes the reign of God as the King of the kingdom of Israel.

The kingdom of God is a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. It has a
sacred ministry of priesthood, as well as sovereignty with reference to the nations of the world. As holy, the Israelites are the
subjects of their holy King, and as priests they represent Him and
mediate for Him with the nations. Thus the third feature of the
Abrahamic covenant is unfolded. As the essential thing to Abraham had been the promised seed, as the essential thing to Jacob
had been the promised land, so now, when Israel had become a
nation, separating itself from the Egyptians, and entering into
independent national relations to the various nations of the world,
the essential thing became the relation which they were to assume on the one side to God their king, and on the other to the
nations, and indeed first of all the positive side of that relation.
This is represented in our promise: as a ministry of royalty and
priesthood. They are a kingdom of priests, a kingdom and a
priesthood combined in the unity of the conception, royal priests
or priest kings.7
Briggs noted that the term "kingdom of priests" (mamlekei
kohanim) was more a compound noun than it was a construct relation

of the genitive case. In fact, the terms were so closely combined in
their unity that Israel was to be at once priest-kings and also royal
priests. It was to be true of everyone in the nation as a whole just as

all had been included in sonship.8
Recently, William Moran9 has convincingly argued that "king-
dom of priests" is not a synonym for a "holy nation." It was a
separate entity. Further, mamleket occasionally meant "king"

(1 Kings 18:10; Isa. 60:11-12; Jer. 27:7-8; Hag. 2:22), especially in
prose passages such as Exodus 19.

For Moran, the style of the passage was remarkably personal. It
began in verse 3 "to the sons of Israel" (libene yisrael) and concluded
in verse 6 "to the sons of Israel" ('el bene yisrael). In the message
addressed to the people, verses 4-6, the first and last clauses, were
introduced by the emphatic "you" ('attem). Other repetitions of

references to persons stressed the deep personal address in the
'Charles Augustus Briggs, Messianic Prophecy (New York: Charles Scribner's

Sons, 1889), p. 102.
"Ibid., pp. 102-3, n. 2.
9
WilIiam L. Moran, "A Kingdom of Priests," The Bible- in Current Catholic
Thought, ed. John L. McKenzie (New York: Herder & Herder, 1962), pp. 7-20, esp.
14-16. See some mild revisions of Moran in Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974), p. 367; yet cf. p. 342, n. 6 and p. 374, n. 6.
108
covenant of Exodus 19:3-6: "you" ('eikem, bis), "to me" (li, ter), and
alliteration "though all belongs to me" (ki li kol, K-L-K-L).
The distinctive nature and special status given to this nation,
God's personal possession, segulldh, was wrapped up in their uni-
versal priesthood. They were to be mediators of God's grace to the

nations of the earth even as in Abraham "all the nations of the earth
were to be blessed."
Unfortunately for the people, they declined the privilege of
being a national priesthood in preference to representation under

Moses and Aaron (Exod. 19:16-25; 20:18-21), Therefore the original
purpose of God was delayed (not scrapped or defeated forever) until

NT times when the priesthood of all believers was again proclaimed
(1 Peter 2:9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10). Nevertheless, Israel's role of being the
agents chosen by God to minister to the needs of the nations was not
rescinded.
The people keenly felt the magnificence and holiness of
Yahweh's presence in the thunder of His voice and in the lightning
effect of His presence that left the natural world in seismographic
convulsions. Thus they begged Moses to approach God on their

behalf and receive His communications for them. So Moses became
the first Levite to represent the people.10 Later, by divine authority,
Moses consecrated Aaron and his sons to function at the altar (Exod.
28:1). Other jobs connected with the sanctuary and the cult were
given to the whole tribe of Levi after they had proved their faithful-
ness during the golden calf incident (Exod. 32:25-29).

Still, the whole scene had been an unprecedented event in the
annals of men. Of the original encounter with God at Sinai, Moses
queried the people in Deuteronomy 4:32-37:
Did any people ever hear the voice of God speaking out of the
midst of fire, as you have heard, and still live? . . .
Out of heaven He let you [all] hear His voice . . . and on earth He
let you [all] see His great fire . . . because He loved [you].
But now God's voice was heard by Moses; and the mediatorial
work for Israel must now be performed by the priests, Aaron and his
sons, and the Levites. The representative nature of the Levitical

priesthood was made even more graphic in Numbers 3:12-13. For
every first-born son in each Israelite family, a Levite was conse-
crated to God in lieu of the death of that first-born son. Rather than
10
Note, however, that there apparently had been priests prior to this new
provision {Exod. 19:22,24).
109

completing the implied logical consequences of the death and sacrifice to the Lord of every first-born thing to show Yahweh's owner-
ship over the whole earth, this legislation halted that inference in
the case of first-born from men and women. In their case God was
pleased to provide the Levites as substitutes. Likewise, the high

priest represented all the people, for he bore the names of all the
tribes of Israel on his breastplate as he went into the sanctuary
(Exod. 28:29).
This priesthood was given to Aaron in a "perpetual statute"
(Exod. 29:9) and renewed again to Phinehas (Num. 25:13). It is

important to notice that the office, the priest/ioot/, was eternally
secured, not the particular individuals or family. Thus it did not
suffer abrogation when it later passed temporarily from Phinehas's
descendants to Ithamar's line. The conclusion, once again, is the
same: the promise remained permanent but the participation in the
blessings depended on the individual's spiritual condition.
A HOLY NATION
Yet another title was given to Israel in Exodus 19:6. There was
to be a nation but not like the ordinary run of nations that did not
know God. Israel was to be a holy nation. But this promise was to
be linked with the people's response and preparation for the
theophany. Such requirements were a "test" according to Exodus
20:20:
Do not fear: for God has come to prove you,
and that the fear of Him may be before your
eyes that you may not sin.
Was this covenant a deliberate change from the promissory

covenant of the patriarchs to a conditional covenant in which
"obedience was the absolute condition of blessing"?11 Was God
displeased with the response of the people who pledged, "All that
the Lord has spoken we will do" (Exod. 19:8; 24:3,7)? Could this be
interpreted as a "step downward" and a "mistake" tantamount to
"rejecting God's gracious dealings with them"?12 What was the rela-
tionship of the "if" statements (Exod. 19:5; Lev. 26:3ff.; Deut.

"James Freemen Rand, "Old Testament Fellowship with God," Bibliotheca
Sacra 109(1952): 153. Note C.I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1909), p. 20: "The Dispensation of Promise ended when
Israel rashly accepted the law (Exod. 19:8)."

12
Rand, "Fellowship," p. 155.
110

28:1) and the command "You shall walk in the way which
the Lord your God has commanded you that (lema'an) you may live
and that (we) it may go well with you and that (we) you may live long
in the land which yon shall possess" (Dent. 5:33)?
The contrast implied in these questions was too sharp for the
text. If the alleged obligatory nature of this covenant should prove to
be the new grounds for establishing a relationship with the covenantal
God, then it should prove possible to demonstrate that the same
logic can be applied to the conditional statements noticed in the
chapter on patriarchal theology.13
The "if" is admittedly conditional. But conditional to what? It
was a condition, in this context, to Israel's distinctive position among
all the peoples of the earth, to her mediatorial role and her status as a
holy nation. In short, it could qualify, hamper, or negate Israel's
experience of sanctification and ministry to others; but it hardly
could effect her election, salvation, or present and future inheritance
of the ancient promise. She must obey God's voice and heed His
covenant, not "in order to" (lema'anpurpose clause) live and have
things go well for her, but "with the result that" (lema'anresult
clause)14 she will experience authentic living and things going well
for her (Dent. 5:33).
Israel was to be separate and holy; she was to be separate and as
no other people on the face of the earth. As an elect or called people
now being formed into a nation under God, holiness was not an
optional feature. Israel had to be holy, for her God, Yahweh, was
holy (Lev. 20:26; 22:31-33). As such, they could not be consecrated
any further to any thing or person (27:26) or enter into any rival
relationships (18:2-5).
Eternal life or living in the benefits of the promise was not now
conditioned by a new law of obedience.15 Nor did Leviticus 18:5

make it so when it said, "Do this and you shall live in them."
Andrew A. Bonar was wrong when heicommented on this verse:
But if, as most think, we are to take, in this place, the word [sic]
"live in them," as meaning "eternal life to be got by them," the
scope of the passage is, that so excellent are God's laws, and every
13
See Genesis 18:17ff.; 22:18; 26:5.
14
This Hebrew particle is used to indicate inevitable consequence as well as

purpose; see S. R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of Tenses in Hebrew, 4th ed.
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906), p. 200.
15
For parts of the following argument and further details see W. C. Kaiser, Jr.,
"Leviticus and Paul: 'Do This and You Shall Live' (Eternally?)," Journal of
Evangelical Theological Society 14(1971); 19-28.
Ill

special minute detail of these laws, that if a man were to keep
these always and perfectly, the very keeping would be eternal life
to him. And the quotations in Rom. 10:5, and Gal. 3:12 would
seem to determine this to be the true and only sense here (italics
his). 16
But this view misses the following points:

1. Leviticus 18 begins and ends (vv. 2,20) with the theological setting of "I am the Lord your God." Thus lawkeeping here was Israel's sanctification and the grand
evidence that the Lord was indeed her God already.
2. Instead of imitating the customs of the surrounding pagans, Israel's happy privilege would be to manifest the
life already begun in faith by her observance of God's
laws.
3. "Those things" which Israel was rb do were the Lord's
statutes and judgments which were sharply contrasted
with the customs and ordinances of the Egyptians and
Canaanites.
4. The same point made in Leviticus 18:5 will be made by
Moses later on in Deuteronomy 16:20 and by Ezekiel in
Ezekiel 20:11. G. A. Cooke summarized it succinctly:
The ancient mind fastened on the outward acts revealing the
inward state. While the modern mind goes directly to the
internal condition.17
Patrick Fairbairn was of a similar mind:

Neither Moses nor Ezekiel, it is obvious, meant that the life
spoken of, which comprehends whatever is really excellent
and good, was to be acquired by means of such conformity to
the enactments of heaven; for life in that sense already was
theirs . . . Doing these things, they lived in them; because
life thus had its clue exercise and nourishment and was in a
condition to enjoy the manifold privileges and blessings secured in the covenant. And the very same thing may be said
of the precepts and ordinances of the [NT] gospel: a man
lives after the higher life of faith only insofar as he walks in
16
Andrew A. Bonar, A Commentary on Leviticus (1846; reprinted ed., London:

Banner of Truth Trust, 1966), pp. 329-30. So also agrees Charles L. Feinberg, The
Prophecy of Ezekiel (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969), p. 110: "Obedience would have
brought life physically and spiritually, temporally and eternally (see Dent. 4:40;
5:16)."
17
G. A. Cooke, The Book of Ezekiel, I.C.C. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1967),
p. 199.
112

conformity with these; for though he gets life by a simple act
of faith in Christ, he cannot exercise, maintain and enjoy it

but in connection with the institutions and requirements of
the gospel (italic his).18
5. One of the ways of "doing" the law was to recognize the

imperfection of one's life and thus to make a sacrifice for
the atonement of one's sins. Thus Leviticus 18:5 was not

a hypothetical offer of eternal life as a reward for perfect
law-keeping. The law itself assumed and provided for
lawbreakers in the great sacrificial system which was a
part of that covenant of law!
6. Furthermore, the people had not spoken "rashly" in saying in Exodus 19:5, "All that the Lord says, we will do."
On the contrary, the Lord had spoken in glowing terms
of approval in Deuteronomy 5:28-29: "Oh that there
were such an heart in them that they would fear Me and

keep all My commandments always" (cf. 18:18).19
Let it be noted well that even the Sinaitic covenant was initiated
by Yahweh's love, mercy, and grace (Deut. 4:37; 7:7-9; 10:15,
passim). When Israel broke the law of God, she no more forfeited
her inheritance to the promise and her certain transmission of the
promise to her children than did the patriarchs or the Davidic royal
line later. Even Israel's involvement in the golden calf incident did
not end God's faithfulness (Exod. 32). It only highlighted the necessity of obedience for those who claimed to have experienced the
grace of God's deliverance in the Exodus and the truth that the Lord
God is "merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in

steadfast love and faithfulness" (Exod. 34:6).
18
Patrick Fairbairn, An Exposition of Ezekiel (Evansville: Sovereign Grace
Publishers, I960), pp. 215-16.
19
Note also J. Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion,
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), p. 313: "The words, en aute [Rom. 10:5] and the
corresponding words in Galatians 3:12, en autois, where the same Old Testament
passage [Lev. 18:5] is quoted, should not be construed as instrumental, but as
locative, indicating the sphere or horizon of life of a godly man .. . Moses is
obviously describing not the means of attaining eternal life, but the horizon within
which an earthly godly life ought to be lived." The New Scofield Reference Bible,
E. Schuyler English et al., eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), p. 95,
now says, "The 'if of v. 5 is the essence of law" and hence "the fundamental reason
why 'the law made nothing perfect' (Heb. 7:18-19; cp. Rom. 8:3)." We believe this
still misses the point. Even the added observation about the order is not correct
either: "To Abraham the promise preceded the requirement; at Sinai the requirement preceded the promise. In the New Covenant the Abrahamic order is followed
(see Heb. 8:8-12)."
113
THE LAW OF GOD

No formula appeared with greater insistence in this period of
time than "I am Yahweh" or "I am Yahweh your God" (Lev. 18:5,30;
19:2,4,10,12,14,16,18,25,28,30,31,32,34,37; 20:7,8,24,26, passim).
And that was the basis for any and all demands laid on Israel. Her
Lord was Yahweh, the God who was dynamically present. What is
more, He was holy; therefore, Israel had no choice in the matter of
good and evil if she were to enjoy the constant fellowship of one
whose very character did not and would not tolerate evil.
To aid the young nation recently released by centuries of bondage into the privileges and responsibilities of freedom, God gave His
law. This single law had three aspects or parts: the moral law, the
civil law, and the ceremonial law.20
The Moral Law

The context of God's moral demands was twofold: "I am
Yahweh your God," and "I brought you out of the land of Egypt, out
of the house of slavery" (Exod. 20:2). Consequently, the standard of
moral measurement in deciding what was right or wrong, good or

evil, was fixed in the unwavering and impeccably holy character of
Yahweh, Israel's God. His nature, attributes, character, and qualities
provided the measuring stick for all ethical decision. But there was,
by the same token, an environment of gracethe free loving act of
deliverance from Egypt. Israel did not need to keep the law in order
to be released from Egypt. On the contrary, since she was so dramatically redeemed, the lever of obligation could not be easily rejected
by Israel.
Should anyone doubt that grace was in the foreground of the
law, let him carefully ponder the sequence of the Exodus, the journey to Sinai, God's graciousness to Israel during the wanderings,
and His forgiveness of the idolatrous and sexually distracted golden

calf cultists.
The form of the moral law as found mainly in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:2-17; Deut. 5:6-21) was overwhelmingly
negative. However, this had nothing to do with either the tone
or aim of that law. It was simply easier to express a believer's

restrictions in a few words, for his freedom was so vast. Besides, all
20
For a defense of God's single law having "heavier or weightier" parts to it, see
W. C. Kaiser, Jr., "The Weightier and Lighter Matters of the Law: Moses, Jesus, and
Paul," Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of
Merrill C. Tenney, ed. G. F. Hawthorne (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 176-92.
114

morality is double sided anywayevery moral act is at one and the
same time a refraining from a contrary mode of action and the

adoption of its opposite. It would make no difference if that law were
stated negatively or positively. Further, when an evil was prohib-
ited, as for example murder, that law was not fulfilled when men
merely abstained from violently snatching away the lives of their
fellow humans. It was only "kept" when men and women did all that
was in their power to aid their neighbors' lives. Human life was
viewed as valuable since mankind was made in the image of God,

and thus life was based on the character of God. Therefore, human
life must be preserved and enhancedboth! Nor could one refuse to
do either, i.e., to refuse to preserve or to seek to improve the life of

his neighbors. Inactivity in the moral realm could never be a fulfill-
ing of the law; that would be equivalent to a state of death. More

was required of Israel than merely refraining from doing anything
forbidden.
The Decalogue did, however, contain three positive statements:

"I am the Lord your God" (Exod. 20:2); "Remember the Sabbath
day" (v. 8); and "Honor your father and your mother" (v. 12). To each
of these three statements having nonfinite verbal forms the other
seven negative statements were in turn subordinated.21 These three
positive injunctions introduced three spheres of man's responsibility:
1. Man's relationship to his God (Exod. 20:2-7)
2. Man's relationship to worship (vv. 8-11)

3. Man's relationship to society (vv. 12-17).
In the first sphere of responsibility, man was told to love God
with a proper internal and external veneration for His person and
work. The second sphere declared God's sovereignty over man's
time while the third spelled out the sanctity of life, marriage, property, truth, and internal desire.22
The Ceremonial Law

The same law that made such high demands on mankind also
provided in the event that there was a failure to reach those standards an elaborate sacrificial system. But that was only one of the
21
J. J. Owens, "Law and Love in Deuteronomy," Review and Expositor
61(1964): 274-83.
^For further detail, see W. C. Kaiser, Jr., "Decalogue," Baker's Dictionary of
Christian Ethics, ed. C. F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973), pp.
165-67.
115

three strands belonging to the ceremonial law. One had to take note
of the tabernacle with its theology of the "tabernacling" God (see
later for a development of this point) and the theology of uncleanness and purification.
To begin with the last first, it must be insisted that the "unclean"
was not equated in the writer's mind with that which was dirty or
forbidden. The teaching of this section of Scripture was not that
cleanliness was next to godliness. That may be all well and good, but
the word of the text was cleanness, not cleanliness.
Simply put, cleanness meant the worshiper was qualified to
meet Yahweh; "unclean" signified that he lacked the necessary qualifications to come before the Lord. This doctrine was closely aligned
with the teaching of holiness: "Be ye holy" urged the text repeatedly, for "I the Lord your God am Holy." Similarly, holiness in
its positive aspect was a wholeness: a life entirely dedicated to God

and set apart for His use.
Many of the basic actions of life left one unclean. Some of these
acts often were unavoidablesuch as caring for the dead or giving
birthbut which nonetheless rendered one unclean. Instead of
using this word as his rubric to teach hygiene or sanitary standards,

Moses used it to fix in the worshipers' minds the "otherness" in
being and morality of God as compared to men.
Had not God told Moses to remove his sandals from his feet
because the ground on which he stood was holy? And why so?
Wasn't Moses' inner heart attitude sufficient preparation for a proper
meeting with God? Obviously not! Proper preparation for worship
also led to external acts that involved the whole person and not just
his heart. While pride of place is to be given to a repentant and open
heart, mankind still must take a holistic view when preparation was
being made to meet God. He was radically different from men in
general.
But lawbreakers were not left without remedy. Fellowship with
God was conditioned only on faith in Himself and what He had
promised; if broken by sin, it was rectified by God's forgiveness on
the basis of a ransom as ordained by God. The principle was "The
life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar
to make atonement for your souls" (Lev. 17:11). Hence the means of
dealing with sin was provided for by God Himself in the system of
sacrifices.
Not all the sacrifices addressed the problem of the disruption of
fellowship between God and man. Some, like the peace or fellowship offerings, were rich times of sharing with one another the gifts
of God in His presence. But others, like the whole-burnt offering, sin
116

offerings, or guilt offering, were specifically provided for the hiatus
caused by sin's damaging effects.
Forgiveness was not and could not be cheap just as human
forgiveness necessitated that someone pay if the reality of forgive-
ness were ever to be more than a cliche. In the same way divine
forgiveness would necessitate the same. And that payment was
wrapped up in the theology of atonement (Hebrew root kpr).

Now there are four basic Hebrew words using kpr: a "lion," a
"village," to "caulk" or smear a ship with pitch as in Noah's ark, and
"to ransom by a substitute." It is this fourth root of kpr, kipper, that
interests us here.
Some argued that the fourth word was related to the third, "to
caulk," and to Near Eastern cognate words meaning "to cover." But
Hebrew usage dictated differently. The noun form clearly indicated

that a substitute of one kind or another was always meant {e.g., Exod.
21:30; 30:12; Num. 35:31-32; Ps. 49:8; Isa. 43:3-4).23 Thus the de-
nominative verb likewise meant "to deliver or ransom someone by a

substitute." Man, by his sin against God, owed his very life as a
forfeit to God; but God had provided that animals' lives should serve
for the time being until the God-man could later give His life as the
only proper and final substitute.

How many sins could be atoned by such a system in Israel? All
sins of weakness or rashness were capable of being atoned whether

they were done knowingly or unwittingly. Leviticus specifically
affirmed that the trespass offering was for sins such as lying, theft,
fraud, perjury, or debauchery (Lev. 6:1-7). And on the great day of
Atonement (Yom Kippur), "all" the sins of "all" Israel of "all" who
had truly repented ("afflicted their souls" [Lev. 16:16,21,29,31] were

forgiven. Indeed the most persistent phrase in the Levitical sacrificial instructions was the assurance: "And he shall be forgiven" (Lev.
1:4; 4:20,26,31,35; 5:10,16; 16:20-22). Therefore, the old but false
distinction between witting, i.e., "sins done with a high hand," and
unwitting, i.e., as it was explained, sins done in ignorance of what
the law said on the matter, was unwarranted. The unwitting sins
(bisegdgah), or better still, sins "in error," involved all sin which
sprang from the weakness of flesh and blood. But the sin of Numbers
23
Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1955), pp. 160-78 and J. Hermann, "Kipper and Kopper," Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, 9 vols., Gerhard Kittel, ed., and G. W. Bromiley,
trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 3:303-10. Hermann concluded by saying,
"It would be useless to deny that the idea of substitution is present to some degree,"
p. 310.
117

15:27-36, the sin of a "high hand" (beydd rdmdh), was plainly that
of rebellion against God and His Word. So Numbers 15:30-31 explained, "He blasphemed the Lord . . . because he has regarded
with contempt the word of the Lord." This is what the NT calls
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit or the unpardonable sin. It was
high treason and revolt against God with the upraised, clenched fist;
a picket against heaven! But this was not to be put in the same class
as sins of murder, adultery, or the like. Treason or blasphemy against
God was much more serious. Rather, it attacked God Himself.

If all sins, except the unpardonable revolt against God, were
forgivable, what part did the sacrifices play and how efficacious were
they? Subjectively, they were most effective.24 The sinner did receive complete relief. His sins were forgiven on the basis of the
word of a faithful God and the God-approved substitute. Of course,
the efficacy did also depend on the internal state of the sinner's heart
(Lev. 16:29,31; and later, Ps. 50:10-13; Prov. 21:27; Isa. 1:1114; Jer. 6:20; 7:21; Hos. 5:6; 6:6; Amos 5:25; Mic. 6:6-7). And he did get
relief from the penalty and memory of his sins. On the day of
Atonement there were two goats to indicate two parts of the same
actone goat slain as the substitute so that sins might be forgiven

and the other goat led away (az"goat"'dzal"to lead away"
Lev. 16:26) to picture the fact that those same sins were forgotten in
the sense that God remembered them against Israel no more.
Nevertheless, man's sin was not objectively cared for as yet. The
blood of bulls and goats could never take away or remove sin, and
neither did the OT claim it did (Heb. 10:4)! These were substituted
animals, not people; hence, they could only be symbols of that real
sacrifice yet to come. Thus in the meantime there was a "passing by"
(paresisRom. 3:25) of the sins of the OT on the basis of God's
declared Word until He would later provide His own final substitute
who was a true man, yet one who had not sinned.
The Civil Law

As far as theology is concerned, this aspect of God's law was a
mere application of the moral law to selected parts of the communi-
ty's life, especially where tensions were likely to develop in that

day. True justice and holiness on the part of the judges and rulers
was to be measured by the demands of the Decalogue. Accordingly,
M
I was greatly aided in my understanding of parts of this argument by Hobart
Freeman, "The Problem of Efficacy of Old Testament Sacrifices," Bulletin of
Evangelical Theological Society 5(1962): 73-79.
118

the civil law illustrated its practice in the various cases or situations
which confronted the leadership during the Mosaic era.
THE TABERNACLING GOD
The single most important fact in the experience of this new
nation of Israel was that God had come to "tabernacle" (sdkan), or

"dwell," in her midst. Nowhere was this stated more clearly than in
Exodus 29:43-46 where in connection with the tabernacle it was

announced:
There [at the entrance] I will meet with the sons of Israel, and it
shall be sanctified by My glory. I will consecrate the tent of
meeting and the altar . . . I will dwell ("tabernacle") among the

sons of Israel, and I will be their God. And they shall know that I
am the Lord their God who brought them out of the land of Egypt,
that I might dwell among them: I am the Lord their God.
Now the triad was complete. One of the most frequently repeated
formulas of the promise would be:
I will be your [their] God;
You [they] shall be My people.
And I will dwell in the midst of you [them].
In its very first announcement, the dwelling of God was connected with the tabernacle. In fact, one of the names of the tent-
sanctuary of God was miskdn, which clearly was related to the verb
sak.an, "to tent, dwell, tabernacle." Ordinarily Hebrew preferred to
speak of a permanent dwelling as yasab, "to sit, dwell," and so it did
whenever it spoke of Yahweh dwelling in heaven. But as Frank

Cross pointed out, invariably when the text pointed to Yahweh's
presence dwelling with men on earth, or in the tabernacle and later
in the temple, the verb was sdkan.25 Thus, it would appear, even as
Cross suggested, that these two verbs contrasted the divine transcendence (ydsal)) with divine immanence. And in the case of the
tabernacle, it was the place where He would take up His temporary
abode. A new sense of the "closeness" and active presence of God

was to be Israel's.
The only exception to this distinction was to be found in the use
of ydsal) and its derivatives to express the fact that God was "en-
M. Cross, Jr., "The Priestly Tabernacle," The Biblical Archaeologist

Reader, eds. David N. Freedman and G. Ernest Wright (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor
Books, 1961), pp. 225-27.
119

throned," or sat on the throne,26 especially in the use of this verb in
connection with the central piece of furniture in the tabernacle: "He
who is enthroned on the Cherubim" (1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2; 1
Chron. 13:6; Ps. 99:1; Isa. 37:16). The ark of the covenant of God
with its mercy seat, or place of atonement, overspread by the two
cherubim was the most intimate of all the expressions of God's
nearness to His people. Exodus 25:22 commented:
There I will meet you and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are upon the ark of the covenant, I
will speak with you of all that I will give you in commandment for
the people of Israel.
The theology of the tabernacle was to be formed in the purpose

statement of Exodus 25:8: "Make a tabernacle that I might dwell
(sakan) among them."27 But its central feature both in the theology of
atonement and in the theology of the divine presence was the ark of
the covenant of God.
Yahweh's divine presence was so central and significant in the
Mosaic era that four other forms are used to speak of it: the "face,"
"appearance," or "presence" of the Lord (panim); His "glory"
(kdbod); the "angel of the Lord" (mal'ak YHWH); and His "name"
(sent). The passage that connects most of these divine presence
themes is Exodus 33.28 There Moses had asked God to show him His
"glory" (v. 18) so that he might be assured that God's "face," i.e.,
"presence" (vv. 14-15) was indeed going before him. To this request
God acceded by causing all His "goodness" to pass before Moses,
and there God proclaimed in front of Moses the "name" Yahweh
(v. 19). Protected by the "hand" of God while he waited "in the cleft
of the rock," the reality of God's presence was verified by Moses as
he saw the "aftereffects" ("my back," '"hordy) of the radiance (glory)
of God's presence after it had passed in front of him (vv. 21-23).
Of the angel that would accompany Israel, the promise had been
equally clear. Exodus 23:20-21 declared:
26
27
Ibid., p. 226.
See for further details, R. E. Clements, God and Temple: The Presence of God
in Israel's Worship (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965), pp. 35ff. and Gerhard von
Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2 vols. (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1962), 1:234-36,
He argues that God's permanent dwelling was attached to the ark while the mo'ed,
"meeting of God," was connected with the tent.
28
Page H. Kelley, "Israel's Tabernacling God," Review and Expositor 67(19-70):
488-89.
120

Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and
to bring thee into the place I have prepared. Beware of him, and
obey his voice. Provoke him not, for he will not pardon your
transgressions; for My name is in him.
He was that same one mentioned in Exodus 32:34 as "My angel

[which] shall go before you." If the namei.e., the character, nature,
or attributesof God was "in him," could He be less than the

nonincarnate Word tabernacling among them? Indeed, God's pres-
ence was with Israel, and He would give her "rest" (Exod. 33:14). To
such a promise as this, God signed His name, as it were, in Exodus
29:46: "I am the Lord."
The theology of those days revolved around three dominating
concepts; redemption (from Egypt), morality, and worship. As Bernard Ramm put it:
Redeemed man is called to morality; moral man is called to
worship. The redeemed man shows his repentance in the quality
of his moral life; he shows his gratitude in his worship.29
^Bernard Ramm, His Way Out (Glendale, Calif.: Regal Books, 1974), p. 148.
121
Chapter 8
Place of Promise:
Premonarchical Era
The spirit and the theology of Deuteronomy extended far beyond the confines of the closing days of the Mosaic era or even the
contents of a single work. Deuteronomy served as an introduction to
most, if not all, of the former or earlier prophets: Joshua, Judges,
Samuel, Kings. The thesis of Martin Noth, already referred to in
chapter 4, regarded Deuteronomy to 2 Kings as an original work
which attempted to write a history of Israel from Moses to the Exile
and interpret it from the vantage point of theology. This interpretation was one of the most insightful contributions to OT studies in
this century. Whether it was all the work of one author who wrote
most of Joshua-2 Kings after the shadows of the fall of Samaria in 721
B.C. and fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. had passed is another matter.
But of the basic theological motivation and general prophetic tone of
these books there can be very little debate.
The close relationship between Deuteronomy and the books of
Joshua through 2 Kings, which scholars delight in calling the work of
the deuteronomic historian, can be seen everywhere. Foremost
122
Place of the Promise: Pre monarchical Era

among these similarities is the deuteronomic phraseology which
Moshe Weinfeld1 has listed in great detail.
In addition to the influence of language and style, Deuteronomy
has also contributed the basic theological tradition. According to
Gordon J. Wenham,2 the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua are
bound together theologically by five leitmotifs: (1) the holy war of

conquest; (2) the distribution of the land; (3) the unity of all Israel;
(4) Joshua as the successor of Moses; and (5) the covenant. Each of
these five themes appeared in the first chapter of Joshua: holy war
(vv. 2,5,9,11,14); the land (vv. 3-4,15); the unity of Israel (vv. 12-16);
the role of Joshua (vv. 1-2,5,17); and the covenant (vv. 3,7-8,13,1718).3
Yet there is more. In these books the Abrahamic-Davidic covenant tradition will be linked with the Sinaitic-Mosaic covenant. For
example, David and his successor recognized their obligation to

obey the "law of Moses," to keep the statutes, commandments, and
ordinances of God written there, that they might prosper in'all that
they did and be established (1 Kings 2:1-4; 9:4-5). In fact, Solomon
freely appealed to God's ancient work in the Exodus and the promised gift of the land to that generation (1 Kings 8:16,20,34,36,53).
But one of the most immediate concerns that linked the patri-
archal and Mosaic traditions with the earlier prophets of Joshua-2

Kings was the frequent reference made to the place which Yahweh
would choose or already had chosen for His name to dwell. Closely
tied with this concept was the theme of the "rest," the "inheritance,"
which was to be Israel's possession when she entered the land.

These two emphases emerge as the two dominant theological
themes of the pre monarchical era.
However, the theology of the earlier prophets is more than just a
collection of deuteronomic themes. For these earlier prophets (what
others call the deuteronomic history of Joshua-Judges-SamuelKings), there were, as Dennis J. McCarthy has pointed out,4 three
programmatic statements which dominated both the history and

theology from the Exodus to the Exile: Deuteronomy 31, Joshua 23,
1
Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1972), appendix A, pp. 320-59. See also the list of S. R. Driver, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1916), pp. Ixxviii-lxxxiv.
2
Gordon J. Wenham, "The Deuteronomic Theology of the Book of Joshua,"
Journal of Biblical Literature 90(1971): 140-48.
3
Ibid., p. 141.
Dennis J McCarthy, "II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the Deuteronomic

History," Journal of Biblical Literature 84(1965): 131-38.
123

and 2 Samuel 7. These three passages came from three of the most
emotionally charged moments in the history of Israel; The swan
song of Moses (Deut. 31), the last speech of Joshua (Josh. 23), and
the unexpected divine announcement made to David when he was
contemplating the construction of the house of God (2 Sam. 7).
These key statements underscored the prophetic emphasis in the
mouths of God's spokesmen for the most crucial moments in the

history and the theology of Israel. However, six other passages
followed up these three programmatic statements with well-placed
speeches by the leading actors in that history (Josh. 1:11-15; 1 Sam.
12; 1 Kings 8:14-61) or the writer*s own assessment and summary of
the times (Josh. 12; Judg. 2:11-23; 2 Kings 17:7-23). Actually, two
passages were matched with each of the three programmatic texts.
The resulting pattern was as follows:
I. Deuteronomy 31
A. Joshua 1
B. Joshua 12
II. Joshua 23
A. Judges 2:11-23
B. 1 Samuel 12
III. 2 Samuel 7
A. 1 Kings 8
B. 2 Kings 17
While this structure will aid us in understanding the overall
theological plan in the earlier prophets (Joshua-2 Kings), it cannot
form the total progress of theology for all of Israel's subsequent
history from the Exodus to the Exiletoo much would be neglected,

e.g., wisdom theology and the latter prophets. Neither does its adoption here detract from the theme already discovered in prepatriarchal, patriarchal, or Mosaic eras. The theme of both swan songs by
two of Israel's greatest leaders, Moses and Joshua, centered on the

momentary fulfillment of that anciently announced promise: a land,
a rest, and a place chosen by Yahweh (Deut. 31:2-3,5,7,11,20,23;

Josh. 23:1,4,5,13,15). These three features dominated the transition
from the Mosaic era to the premonarchical era.
INHERITANCE OF THE LAND

Sixty-nine times the writer of Deuteronomy repeated the pledge
that Israel would one day "possess" and "inherit" the land promised
124

to her. Sporadically he explicitly linked this pledge to the word that
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had received (Dent. 1:8; 6:10,18; 7:8;
34:4). Thus Israel was forced to relate the impending conquest of
Canaan under Joshua to the promise of God and not to any feelings
of national superiority.
The land of Canaan and the people of Israel alike were called
the "inheritance (nahaldh) of Yahweh" (1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 21:3; 1

Kings 8:36) or His "possession" ('"huzzdh, Josh. 22:19; ifrussah, 2
Chron. 20:11). Ever since Exodus 19:5 had called Israel Yahweh's
"treasured possession" (segulldh),5 they had become a "treasured
people" out of all the peoples of the earth (Dent. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18)
and a "people of inheritance" ('am nahaldh, Deut. 9:26,29; 32:8-9; 1

Kings 8:51,53; 2 Kings 21:14).6 Thus Israel became the promised
people, and Canaan became the promised land.
In Deuteronomy the land became the special area of focus.
Repeatedly in some twenty-five references the land was called a gift
from Yahweh (Deut. 1:20,25; 2:29; 3:20; 4:40; 5:16, passim). And this
gift was the same land that was promised to the "fathers" (Deut.
1:8,35; 6:10,18,23; 7:13; 8:1; 9:5; 10:11; 11:9,21; 19:8; 26:3,15;
28:11; 30:20; 31:7,20-21,23; 34:4). Why von Rad would confuse the
issue and say that since the land belongs to Yahweh, "it is now quite
clear that this notion is of a totally different order from that of the
promise of the land to the early patriarchs" is hard to understand.7

His line of argument does not stand up to the blunt claims of the text.
Surely the fact that Yahweh is the true owner of the land is no mark
of syncretism with features from Canaanite religion. While Baal may
have been regarded as the Lord of the land and the giver of all
blessings in pagan Canaanite religion, Yahweh was Lord of all the
earthHis creative word, to use a fine von Rad phrase, had settled
5
The English AV "peculiar" derives from Latin peculiaris and that from
pecu/ium, a technical term ineaning private property which a child or a slave was
permitted to possess. At Alalakh, the cognate sikiltu is the "treasured possession" of
the god. I am endebted to T- A. Thompson for this material, Deuteronomy (Downers
Grove, 111.: InterVarsity Press, 1975), pp. 74-75, n. 1.
6
Cf. J. Hermann, "Nah"ldh and Ndhal in the Old Testament," Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, 9 vols., Gerhard Kittel, ed., and G. W. Bromiley,
tram. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 3:769-76. Also Patrick D. Miller, Jr., "The
Gift of God: The Deuteronomic Theology of the Land," Interpretation 22(1969):
451-61.
7
Gerhard von Rad, "The Promised Land and Yahweh's Land in the Hexateuch,"
The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, trans. E. W. Truemen Dicken
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), p. 88; idem, Old Testament Theology, 2 vols.
(London: Oliver and Boyd, 1962), 1:296-301.
125

that issue. Consequently there were not two viewpoints on the
inheritance of the land. It can only be Israel's because it was first
Yahweh's land and His to give to whomever He pleased for however
long He pleased. Had not Deuteronomy begun with the same observation about some of the previous inhabitants of Transjordania? The
Emim, Horites, and Zamzummim had been dispossessed and destroyed by the Lord (Deut. 2:9,12,21) and their lands had been
divinely given to Moab, Edom, and Ammon just as Israel had similarly received Canaan from His hands. The comparison with Israel is
made in that very context: "As Israel did to the land of their possession which the Lord gave to them" (Deut. 2:12).
It is agreed that Leviticus 25:23 did say, "The land is Mine [says
Yahweh]; you are only strangers and sojourners with Me." But was
that at cross-purposes with the promise made to the patriarchs that
they would possess the land? Never in Israel's history did she ever
own outright the land, earth, or soil in our sense of the word; it was
always granted to her by Yahweh as a fief in which she could cultivate and live on it as long as she served Him. But this land, like the
whole earth, belonged to the Lordand so did the abundance that
was in it and the people who lived on it. That was the lesson taught
to Pharaoh in the repeated plagues ("That you might know that the
earth is the Lord's" [Exod. 9:29]) and to Job ("Whatever is under the
whole heaven is mine" [41:11]) and later in Psalm 24:1 and in that
great commentary on the Davidic covenant, Psalm 89:11.
Von Rad was likewise too concerned over the fact that the word
"inheritance" (nah"lah) was persistently used to denote tribal lands,
but that nowhere in the Hexateuch was the total land called
Yahweh's "inheritance."8 But there were examples of its use with the
whole land. J. Hermann 9 noted that it was Joshua's job to lead Israel
in taking the whole land as an "inheritance," or in the verbal form,

"to inherit" it (Deut. 1:38; 3:28; 31:7; Josh. 1:6hiphil form of verb
ndhal). Of course, the emphasis of the hour was on each tribe. They
had to be separately satisfied and do their part to receive their
"share" (tiebelJosh. 17:5,14; 19:9), "portion" (heleqDeut. 10:9;

12:21; 14:27; 18:1; Josh. 18:5,7,9; 19:9), or "lot" (gordlJosh. 14:2;
15:11; 16:1; 17:1; 18:11; 19:1,10,17,24,32,40,51).

Previous to this the patriarchs had only possessed a small part of
that land, a burial place, as an earnest of the fulfillment that was to
come. Thus in a real sense, Canaan was the "land of their sojourn8
9
Ibid., pp. 82,86.

Hermann, "Nah"ldh," p. 771.
126

ing" (Gen. 17:8; 28:4; 36:7; 37:1; 47:1; Exod. 6:4). The patriarchs
possessed mainly the promise but not the total reality itself.
The land was a gift, but Israel had to "possess" (ydras) it; thus
the reception of the gift had a corresponding action, a military action.
Both of these notions, as Miller10 pointed out, were located side by
side in the expression "the land which Yahweh gives you to possess"
(Deut. 3:19; 5:31; 12:1; 15:4; 19:2,14; 25:19). Divine sovereignty and
human responsibility were complementary ideas rather than antithetic pairs.
What God gave could only be called a "good land" (Deut.

1:25,35; 3:25; 4:21-22; 6:18; 8:7,10; 9:6; 11:17) just as His work in
creation had received His word of approbation. It was "a land
flowing with milk and honey" (Deut. 11:9; 26:9,15; 27:3; 31:20).n In
every way the promised inheritance was a delightful giftowned by

Yahweh and leased to Israel in partial fulfillment of His word of
promise. In this land Israel was to be blessed (Deut. 15:4; 23:20;

28:8; 30:16), but special emphasis was placed on the blessing of the
ground (28:8). Thus God's "blessing" again became one of the connecting concepts which united the theology of the earlier periods
with that of the premonarchical era.
REST IN THE LAND

One of the new provisions added to the expanding revelation of
the promise theme was the provision of "rest" for Israel.12 So special
was this rest that Yahweh would call it His rest (Ps. 95:11; Isa. 66:1).
It was precisely this aspect of the promise theme which provided a
10
Miller, "Gift," p. 454.

J. A. Thompson, Deuteronomy, pp. 120-21, noted that this same phrase appears in the Egyptian Tale of Sinuhe (ANET, 18-25, lines 80-90), four times in
Exodus (3:8,17; 13:5; 33;3), Leviticus (20:24), four times in Numbers (13:27; 14:8;
16:13,14), five times in Deuteronomy (see above).
12
For a development of the ideas in this section see W. C. Kaiser, Jr., "The
Promise Theme and the Theology of Rest," Bibliotheca Sacra 130(1973): 135-50.
Also see Gerhard von Rad, "There Remains a Rest For the People of God: An
Investigation of a Biblical Conception," Hexateuch and Essays, pp. 94-102. A New
Testament approach to the problem is E. Kasemann, Das Wandernde Gottesvolk
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1957); J. Frankowski, "Requies, Bonum
Promissum populi Die in VT et in Judaismo (Heb. 3:1-4:11)," Verbum Domini
43(1965): 124-49; O. Hofius, Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom Endzeitlichen
Ruheort im Hebraerbrief (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1970); David Darnell, "Rebellion, Rest and the Word of God: An Exegetical Study of Hebrews 3:1-4:13" (Ph. D.
diss., Duke University, 1974); and Elmer H. Dyck, "A Theology of Rest" (M.A.
11
diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1975).
127

key link between the end of the book of Numbers and the time of
David: the two texts at opposite ends of the time period being
Deuteronomy 12:9-10 and 2 Samuel 7:1,11.
Nowhere in the patriarchal promises did "rest" (menuhah) appear as one of God's future blessings to the fathers or Israel. But
when it first appeared in Deuteronomy 12:9, one gathers that it
might already have been known in the tradition of the people:
For you have not as yet come to the resting place (menuhdh) and
to the inheritance (nahaldh) which Yahweh your God is giving to
you.
Yet it must be noted that Moses had been promised "rest"

(nuah) as early as Exodus 33:14 when he led Israel out of Egypt.
Later in Deuteronomy 3:20, Moses again promised that "rest"
(nuah) would shortly come to all his fellow countrymen when they
possessed the land of Canaan. Both of these words were cognates of
the Deuteronomy 12:9 term. Indeed, the Hebrew root nuah, "to
rest," supplied the majority of words for the concept of rest
Whenever the hiphil stem of this root was followed by the preposition lp, "to, for," plus a person or group, it usually assumed a technical status. Thus in some twenty instances ofheniah le, it was a place
granted by the Lord (Exod. 33:14; Deut. 3:20; Josh. 1:13,15; 22:4; 2
Chron. 14:5); a peace and respite from enemies round about (Deut.
12:10; 25:19; Josh. 21:44; 23:1; 2 Sam. 7:1,11; 1 Kings 5:18 [5:4]; 1
Chron. 22:9,18; 23:25; 2 Chron. 14:6; 15:15; 20:30; 32:22 [probable

reading?]); or a cessation of sorrow and toil in the future (Isa. 14:3;
28:12).
The noun nfnuhdh, "resting place" or "rest," came to assume
technical status as well. In Jacob's blessing of Issachar, the portion
of land given to him was called a "resting place" (Gen. 49:15). So far
as we can see, this usage was not as yet technical. But the strong
associations of a geographical, spatial, and material "rest" in subsequent texts like Deuteronomy 12:9; 1 Kings 8:56; 1 Chronicles 22:9;
Isaiah 28:12; and Micah 2:10 cannot be denied. This "rest" was a
"place" where Yahweh would "plant" His people where they could
live without being disturbed any more.
Yet there was more to this "rest" than geography. Rest was
where the presence of God stopped (in the wilderness

wanderingsNum. 10:33) or where He dwelt (1 Chron. 28:2; Ps.
132:8,14; Isa. 66:1). No doubt it was for this reason that David
stressed the aspect of belief and trust as the basis of entering into
that rest in Psalm 95:11. The condition was not an automatic one.
For the time being, "rest" would signify the quality of living in
128

the land of inheritance when it was occupied. Yahweh Himself
would give Israel rest in the land (Deut 3:20; 12:10; 25:19). So
Joshua 21:44-45 summarized the promise and its reality:
The Lord gave them rest on every side just as He had sworn to
their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for
the Lord had given all their enemies into their power. Not one of
all the good promises which the Lord had made to the house of
Israel failed; all had come to pass.
But this only yielded a conundrum. If Joshua had fulfilled the promised rest, what was 2 Samuel 7:1,11 claiming, coming as it did from a
later time? And how could Solomon, later still, be called a "man of
rest" (1 Chron. 22:9; 1 Kings 8:56)? How, also, are we to understand

the spiritual and material aspects of rest? The resolution of these
matters can be found in the OT view of fulfillment. Specially named
generations received their share of the completion of the single plan
of God. This at once served as a partial confirmation of God's longstanding word and a contemporaneous installment on the fulfillment. This, in turn, simultaneously functioned as a means of connecting that word to its ultimate or climactic fulfillment since these
periodic installment type of fulfillments were generically part and
parcel with that ultimate event. Thus there was a single meaning in
the mind of the author even though he might know of or experience
multiple fulfillments of that single meaning! The promise was not to

be thought of as having been given its final effect even in the aspect
of the land.13 Hence rest was more than entry and division of the
land to all the tribes; it was also to be a final condition which
pervaded *he land. Thus after Israel entered the land, she was
warned that she would only enjoy the quality of life God had intended for her if she continually obeyed His commandments (Deut.
4:10; 12:1; 31:13). The extent of Israel's possession of the land was
likewise important before the promise could be said to have been
completely fulfilled.
That was the way Stephen also put it in his speech in Acts 7:4-5:
God removed him from there into this land . . .
Yet He gave him no inheritance in it, . . .
but promised to give it to him as a possession
and to his descendants.
The emphasis of Joshua 21:43-45 was still on the promised word

which had not failed Israel, nor would it. But whether Israel would
13
In a different connection, see von Rad, Theology, 2:383.
129

retain her privilege of remaining in the land was another matter. She
had to choose between life and death, good and evil. To choose life
and the good was to "obey" one command which summarized all the
others: Love the Lord your God. The presence of the conditional
"if" did not pave the way for a "declension from grace into law"14
any more than it did for the patriarchs or the generation of Moses,
much less the Davidic covenant to come! Therefore the promise of
the inheritance of God's rest was protected even in the event of

subsequent sins by the recipient's descendants. Rest was no blank
check in which future generations could slide by God's standards on
their fathers' laurels. This promise was to be theirs only if they
would appropriate it by faiththat was the spiritual and immediate

benefit of "rest."
In its final fulfillment, the God of restwhose house of "rest"
(menuhdh) contained the ark of the covenant of the Lord and His
footstool (1 Chron. 28:2) built by the "man of rest" to whom God had
given respite from all his enemies (1 Chron. 22:9)would again take
up His rest in His temple in the future messianic era (Ps. 132:14; cf.
2 Chron. 14:6), in "that day" "when the Lord extends His hand a
second time to recover the remnant of His people" (Isa. 11:11). It is
in this context that a series of psalms (93-100)variously designated

as "Apocalyptic Psalms," "Theocratic Psalms" (Delitzsch), "Millennial Psalms" (Thorluck), "Songs of the Millennium" (Binnie),
"Group of Millennial Psalms" (Herder), "Second Advent Psalms"
(Rawlinson), "Enthronement Psalms" (Mowinckel), or "Royal
Psalms" (Perowne)where the Lord is depicted as King reigning

over all peoples and lands (Pss. 93:1; 96:10; 99:1), that Psalm 95
raised the offer of entering into God's rest again. For the psalmist,
that ancient offer of rest was ultimately tied up with the events of the
second advent. Every other rest, apparently, was only an "earnest,"
down payment, on the final Sabbath rest yet to come in the second
advent.15
CHOSEN PLACE IN THE LAND

One of the most hotly debated phrases in the theology of
Deuteronomy is the so-called centralization of sacrificial worship at one
single sanctuary in Jerusalem. Indeed, this plank was the starting

point and keystone from all other deductions made in the Wellhau14
As suggested by von Rad, "Promised Land," Hexateuch and Essays, p. 91.

See W. C. Kaiser, "Promise Theme," pp. 142-43. See also our discussion of
Hebrews 3:7-4:13 on pp. 145-49 in that same article.
15
130
Place of the Promise: P re-monarchical Era

sian system of literary criticism.16 The claim was that the cultic
requirements of Deuteronomy were a clear advance over the altar

law of the Sinaitic "Book of the Covenant":
An altar of earth you shall make for Me
and shall sacrifice on it your hurnt offerings,
your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen.
In every place where I cause My name to be remembered
I will come to you and bless you.
Exodus 20:24
That is to say, the Sinaitic law limited the use of sacrifices only to
those places sanctified by the divine presencethose places where

God had appointed that His name should be remembered because
He had met with His representative or people at that spot.
But was Deuteronomy reversing these Sinaitic directions when
it ordered Israel to seek the Lord:
In the place [site] which the Yahweh will choose to put His name
there (Deut 12:5,11,21; 14:23-24; 15:20; 16:2,6,11; 26:2)
or
The place which Yahweh shall choose (Deut 12:14,18,26; 14:25;
16:7,15-16; 17:8,10; 18:6; 31:11; Josh. 9:27)?
Both the laws of Deuteronomy and Exodus insisted that the place of
sacrifice must be appointed and chosen by the Lord, not by man.
Sacrifices may not be offered "in every place that you see" {Deut.
12:13).17
And when the context of Deuteronomy 12 is investigated, the

contrast is not between many Yahweh altars and one such altar but
between those altars erected to other gods whose names are to be
destroyed and that "place" where Yahweh's name shall abide (w.
2-5). Thus, instead of revoking the Sinaitic legislation, Deuteronomy

built on it. We again hear of a "place" (mdqom) where Yahweh will
"cause His name to be remembered" (or "dwell"), where sacrifices
and offerings may be made, and where blessing will result.18
Scholarly attention, however, has focused on the article and
number of the noun in the expression "the place" in Deuteronomy
16
J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, trans. J. S. Black and A.
Menzies (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1885), p. 368.
17
Ko/ hammaqom; (cf. Gen. 20:13; Deut. 11:24; Josh. 1:3), M. H. Segal, The
Pentateuch: Its Composition and Its Authorship (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967),
p. 87, n. 17.
18
As argued by G. T. Manley, The Book of the Law (London: Tyndale Press,
1957), p. 132.
131

12:5,14. Oestreicher argued that the article was distributive and not
restrictive and the lack of an article in the expression "in one of your
tribes" (v. 14) was to be given a general meaning due to an analogous expression in the fugitive slave in Deuteronomy 23:16[17].19
Thus the translation of Deuteronomy 12:14 would be:
In every place which Yahweh shall choose in any of your tribes.
The singular number on the expression "the place" would denote

a class and not a single locality even as it did in Deuteronomy 23:16.
E. W. Nicholson disagreed with this analogy, however. The subject of the Deuteronomy 23:16 law was a class of people, viz.,
r u n a w a y slaves seeking a s y l u m , w h i l e the subject of the
Deuteronomy 12:5-7 law was Yahweh. Further, the singular number
on "place" is strange if the writer meant to say "in the places which
Yahweh shall choose in your tribes."20 Nicholson's counter arguments to Oestreicher are probably correct. But this still does not
support a centralization hypothesis. The subject was not over one
Yahweh altar versus many Yahweh altarsnothing is said on that
topic. It is only about Yahweh's intention to put His name in an as
yet unnamed place after the people arrive in Canaan. In fact
Deuteronomy 27:1-8 with its injunction to build an altar on Mount
Ebal raises a fatal flaw to the centralized altar theory. "It manifestly
commands that which the law is supposed to forbid and, to make
matters worse, uses the very words of Exodus xx.24 which Deuteronomy is supposed to revoke."21
At most, Deuteronomy taught that Yahweh would select a site in
Canaan after He had helped Israel to "inherit" the land and to find
"rest" (Deut. 12:10-11) in much the same way as He had done in the
past. He would "make His name dwell" in the place of His election.
This promise joined the Immanuel and Shekinah-glory theology of
the patriarchal and Mosaic eras. And just as God had elected one
man out of all humanity, viz., Abraham, and one tribe out of the
twelve sons of Jacob, viz., Judah, so now He would choose one place
19
Th. Oestreicher, "Dtn xii.!3f. im Licht von Dtn xxiii.lGf.," Zeitsckrift fur
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 43(1925): 246-49. Deuteronomy 23:16 would read,
"He [the slave] shall dwell with you in any place which he shall choose within any
of your gates" [italics mine].
20
E. W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1967), pp. 53-54. Cf. p. 53, n. 1 for list of those challenging his exegesis. To this add
Manley, Book.
21
Manley, ibid., p. 134; cf. also James Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament
(London: J. Nisbet & Co., 1909), pp. 174-80; Gordon J. Wenham, "Deuteronomy and
the Central Sanctuary," Tyndale Bulletin 22(1971): 103-18, esp. 110-14.
132

in one of the tribes in which His name would dwell. There He
would take up His dwelling (12:5), and there Israel would come to
worship Him. It would function in many ways as the tabernacle had
done for so long.
NAME DWELLING IN THE LAND

There are three other theologically important expressions which
are connected with the "place" promise. They are phrases where
Yahweh promises;
1. "To make his name dwell (sakan) there" (Deut 12:11; 14:23;
16:2,6,H; 26:2).
2. "To put (sim) His name there" {Deut. 12:5,21; 14:24; 1 Kings
9:3; 11:36; 14:21; 2 Kings 21:4,7; 2 Chron. 6:20; 33:7).
3. "That My name might be there" (1 Kings 8:16,29; 2 Kings
23:27).
Too much is made of this material when some, following von Rad,
make this "name-theology" a replacement for the older "glorytheology" in that no longer is Yahweh Himself present at the ark of
the covenant but only His name is now present.22 Von Rad himself
noted, however, that the "name" was present already in Exodus
20:24 and Exodus 31. The "name" here, as in the antecedent theology, stood for the total being, character, and nature just as name was
used in the prohibition given at Sinai about taking the name of the
Lord God in vain. Roland de Vaux could not agree with von Rad
either. These three phrases meant "to claim ownership."23 While it
is true that God's "holy habitation" (me'on qodesDeut. 26:15) and

His "dwelling place" (mfkon sebet1 Kings 8:30,39,43,49) is in
heaven, the latter expression is also found in the Song of the Sea
(Exod. 15:17) in parallelism with the "sanctuary" of the Lord.

The point seems to be that God is transcendent in that His
permanent abode (ysb, sbt) is in heaven; yet He is immanent in that

He dwells (skn) on the earth (Exod. 25:8; 29:45; Lev. 26:11; Num.
16:3) in His glory, angel, name, and now in a "place" that He will yet
elect (Deut 12:5). Thefe is no evidence that Deuteronomy or Moses
rejected in any way this so-called dialectical conception of the divine abode. Heaven is not the exclusive dwelling place of GodHe
may "sit" or "be enthroned" there, but He also "tabernacled" on
^Gerhard von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co.,
1953), pp. 38-44.

cited by Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, p. 194, n. 2.
133

earth as well. And Deuteronomy added to the list of His manifestations of Himself to Israelthe place where He will cause His name
(His person) to dwell. What God owned He now openly possessed

by having His name "put" on it or "called'over" it.
CONQUEST OF THE LAND
Yahweh was known as a "Man of war" after His celebrated

victory at the Red Sea (Exod. 15:3). Even before there was a king to
lead her, the Lord went out at the head of Israel's army (Judg.
5:5,13,20,23). And the rules for such wars were given in explicit
legal enactments in Deuteronomy:
1. The laws of battle (20:1-15)

2. The laws on beautiful captive women (21:10-14)
3. The destruction of Canaanite sanctuaries (12:1-4)
4. The extermination of previous inhabitants (20:16-20)
5. The purification for battle (23:9-14)

6. The war with Amalek (25:17-19).
These laws were illustrated in Joshua 1-11 where four full-length
descriptions of this type of war were detailed:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Conquest of Jericho (Josh. 6)

Second attack on Ai (Josh. 8)
Southern campaign (Josh. 10)
Northern campaign (Josh. 11).
Two other descriptions recorded Israel's failure to conduct this type

of war:
1. First attack on Ai (Josh. 7)
2. Unapproved treaty with the Gibeonites (Josh. 9).

Such wars have been named "holy wars" by Gerhard von Rad.24
They were in actuality "Yahweh's wars" (1 Sam. 18:18; 25:28); therefore, such battles were not to be initiated by any leader or group
without consulting the Lord first (1 Sam. 28:5-6; 30:7-8; 2 Sam.
5:19,22,23). After Israel had been assured by Yahweh that the anticipated battle was His own, then the trumpets were sounded and the
cry went up: "Yahweh has delivered the enemy into our hands"
Rad, Studies, pp. 45-59; idem, Der heilige Krieg im alien Israel (Zurich:
Zwingli Verlag, 1951); Gordon J. Wenham, "The Deuteronomic Theology of the
Book of Joshua," Journal of Biblical Literature 90(1971): 141-42.
134

(Judg. 3:27; 6:3; 7:15; 1 Sam. 13:3). The war began with Yahweh's
promise of success and an exhortation to fight valiantly. Israel must

only trust and not be afraid (Josh. 1:6,9; 6:2; 8:1; 10:8; 11:6). The
men were then "consecrated" to the Lord, for their mission set them
apart from all mundane activity (1 Sam. 21:6; 2 Sam. 11:11). Yahweh
went before the army and dwelt in the camp (Deut. 23:14; Judg.
4:14) and "fought" on behalf of Israel (Deut. 1:30). The military
leader of the army, though often specially endowed with powers,
was ultimately dependent on the Lord, for He could save by few or

by many (Judg. 7:2fF.; 1 Sam. 13:15ff.). This is vividly brought out by
Joshua's vision of the "commander of the Lord" who stood with
sword in hand ready for action (Josh. 5:13-15). At the climax of the
battle, Yahweh sent terror or panic (mehumdh, hdmam) into the
hearts of the enemy which brought about their overthrow (Josh.
10:10; Judg. 4:15; 1 Sam. 5:11; 7:10, passim).
In this type of warfare, spoils were not to be taken by anyone, for

everything in this war was under "ban" (herem=hdram, "to utterly
destroy"Deut 20:17; 2:34; 3:6; 7:2). It was the exclusive property
of the Lord; therefore, it was to be totally devoted to destruction
(Josh. 6:17-27; 1 Sam. 15:3). What could not be burned, such as
silver, gold, or iron, was to be placed in the sanctuary of God. The
"ban" was just the opposite of a voluntary whole-burnt offering in
which the offerer willingly gave up the entire animal in an act of

total submission (Lev. 1; cf. Rom. 12:1-2). Here, after much divine
long-suffering and waiting, God called for everything that belonged
to Him in the first placelife, possessions, valuablesas an involuntary whole-burnt offering. Thus more was involved than mere
destruction; it was a "religious punishment" which signified "the
separation from the profane sphere and deliverance into the power
of God."25 As God had predicted to Abraham, He would wait "until
the iniquity of the Amorite" was "complete" (Gen. 15:16). And so He
didsix hundred years! Now Joshua was fulfilling that word.

The theology of this type of conquest emphasized the pattern of
the priority of the divine command and the fidelity to which that
divine word was carried out. When men were responsibly obedient,
then God was sovereignly present; e.g., in Israel's southern campaign: "The Lord threw down great stones from heaven" (Josh.
^Johannes Bauer, "Ban," Sacramentum Verbi (New York: Herder & Herder,
1970), 1:55. Cf. also G. R. Driver, "Hebrew Homonyms," Vetus Testamentum
Supplements 16(1967): 56-59, who sees two roots behind herem: hrm, Akkadian
haramu, "to cut off, separate," and hrm, Arabic harama, "prohibited, declared
illicit"
135

10:11), for "the Lord fought for Israel" (v. 14). But when Israel "did
not ask direction from the Lord" (Josh. 9:14), or when she attempted
to attack Ai when Achan's personal sin of stealing from God those

things in Jericho "dedicated to destruction" had left a cloud of moral
pollution over all the people (7:11,13,19), the results were catastrophic and disgraceful.
PROPHETIC HISTORY IN THE LAND
Beyond the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise of the land

with its anticipated conquest, distribution, rest, and place for the
name of God to dwell was another major theological element in

Deuteronomy and the earlier prophets. It was the structure found in
Joshua to 2 Kings and mentioned earlier in this chapter. In the case
of the book of Judges, the meaning and significance of the narratives
was to be found in a familiar cycle of apostacy, punishment, repent-
ance, divine compassion, a deliverer, and a period of rest in the

land. This cycle was first stated in Judges 2:11-3:6, but subsequently
it served as an outline for the experiences of several generations.
The most significant theological point was, as Carl Graesser, Jr., has
observed,26 that the phrases, concepts, and theological emphases
were those of the book of Deuteronomy. Compare:
Judges 2:11 with Deuteronomy 4:25; 6:3
Judges 2:12 with Deuteronomy 4:25; 6:14

Judges 2:14 with Deuteronomy 6:15
The impact of Deuteronomy on Judges 2:11-14 was just as heavy as
it had been on Joshua 1:2-9 where, according to Graesser, "more

than fifty percent" of that speech could "be reproduced verbatim
from verses in Deuteronomy."27 Compare:
Joshua 1:2 with Deuteronomy 5:31
Joshua 1:3-4 with Deuteronomy 11:24

Joshua 1:5 with Deuteronomy 11:25; 31:6
26
Carl Graesser, Jr., "The Message of the Deuteronomic Historian," Concordia

Theological Monthly 39(1968): 544, n. 10. For a complete list of "deuteronomic"
language, see S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament
(New York: Meridian Books, 1956), pp. 99-102. Also see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy,
app. A, pp. 320-59 and S. R. Driver, Commentary on Deuteronomy (New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1916), Ixxviii-Ixxxiv.
27
Ibid., p. 545, n. 19.

136

Joshua 1:7-8 with Deuteronomy 5:32
But what was the key or organizing concept that made this history
more than just a dreary report of constant failure? What use was
there in detailing these narratives for those days much less future
generations? We believe Hans W. Wolffhas correctly identified that
lost piece of theology in the doctrine of repentance.28
Repentance and Blessing

"As long as Joshua lived," began Judges 2:7 on an ominous note,_
"the people served the Lord." However, from there on the story was
the same: "They did evil in the sight of the Lord, . .. and departed
from Yahweh . . . and followed other gods .. . [whereupon] the anger
of the Lord was hot against Israel . . . and He sold them into the
clutches of their enemies round about" (Judg. 2:11-12,14). Then
"they cried to Yahweh" (Judg. 3:9; 4:3; cf. also 1 Sam. 12:19)and
there it was. Misery would finally find a voice and in her despair,
Israel would "return" (sub) to the Lord.
The basis for this injunction was to be found in Deuteronomy
30:1-10. Three times the catchword "to return" was repeated (vv.
2,8,10). "If you will turn back to Yahweh your God with all your heart
and with all your soul," then God would again bless His people.
The earliest prophetic use of the term to "repent," to "return" to
the Lord, appears in 1 Samuel 7:3.
If you are returning (sdbim) to Yahweh with all your heart, then
remove the foreign gods and Ashtaroth from your midst and direct
your heart to Yahweh and serve Him alone so that He may rescue
you out of the hand of the Philistines.
Wolff found 1 Kings 8:46ff. "the most impressive connection"

with Deuteronomy 30:1-10especially the rare phrase "to take
something to heart" (hesib 'el lebDeut. 30: Ik and 1 Kings 8:47a;
cf. also 1 Sam. 7:3). Twice during his dedicatory prayer for the
temple, Solomon prayed that God would be merciful to Israel if she
"repented" and "turned" to Him (1 Kings 8:46-53).
Likewise 2 Kings 17:13 summarized the message "by all prophets and seers of Israel and Judah." It was simply "repent" (subu):
28
Hans Walter Wolff, "The Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work," The
Vitality of Old Testament Traditions, coauthored by Walter Brueggemann and Hans
W. Wolff (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975), pp. 83-100.
137

Turn back (subu) from your evil ways and observe My commandments and statutes strictly according to the instruction which I
gave to your fathers and which I sent to you by My servants the
prophets.
The same word could also be used as the highest aecolade given
to any Israelite king. Of King Josiah it was said in 2 Kings 23:25:
There never had been a king like him who turned (sab) to Yahweh
with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength
wholly in accordance with the instruction of Moses: and after him
there arose no one like him.
He was faithful to the Davidic type; yet he was also faithful to the
Sinaitic commandment as well. There was no duality here. It was
one and the same thing. In fact, so markedly different in morality
and religion were the lives of the kings of Israel and Judah that
David and Jeroboam became standards of piety and impiety respectively. Every northern king was condemned because he "walked in
all the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat and in the sin which he
made Israel to sin" (1 Kings 14:16; 15:26,30,34; 16:26; 22:52; 2 Kings
3:3; 10:29,31; 13:2,6; 14:24; 15:9,18,24,28; 23:15; also cf. 1 Kings
12:30; 13:34; 2 Kings 17:21-22). Of any good king of Judah it was
said, "He walked before Me as David his father walked" (1 Kings
3:3,14; 11:4,6,33,38; 14:8; 15:3,5,11; 2 Kings 14:3; 16:2; 18:3; 22:2).
Out of all the kings of Israel and Judah only Hezekiah and
Josiah are commended unconditionally while six othersAsa,
Jehoshaphat, Jehoash, Amaziah, Uzziah, and Jothamreceived a
qualified commendation. Consistently the others scorned the commandments and proudly refused to repent.
Repentance was the basis for any new work of God after a time
of failure. And the result of that repentance was the "good" (tob)
God would do to them. It is Walter Brueggemann 29 who pointed to
this theme of "goodness" as a parallel to WolfFs "repentance"
theme. For him the theme was a covenantal term. To speak "well" or
"rightly" (tob) in all that they said (Deut. 5:28; 18:17) was for Israel
to honor a formal treaty or covenant obligation (cf. the only two other
instances, 1 Sam. 12:23; 1 Kings 8:36; and perhaps 2 Kings 20:3).30

But in a larger sense, Israel was also the recipient of "good." As
such, "good" functioned as a synonym for salom, "peace" in its most
comprehensive and most holistic sense, observed Brueggemann,
29
Walter Brueggemann, "The Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historian," Interpretation 22(1968): 387-402.
30
Ibid., p. 389, nn. 6,7 refer to Aramaic treaties where tob occurs.
138
Place of the Promise; Premonarchical Era

while in Deuteronomy 30:15 "good" was a synonym for "life."31
Thus every "blessing" (an old theological term by this time) was
included in the good life which included life itself (Deut. 5:16,33;
6:18,24); longevity (4:40; 5:16; 22:7); the land (5:16,33; 6:18); and
the increase and multiplication of one's family (6:3). Israel was to
"obey" in order that Yahweh might do her "good" (12:25,28; 19:13;
22:7).
In the very text that Wolff found his programmatic threefold call
to "repent" (Deut. 30:2,8,10), Brueggemann found two divine offers

to make Israel "more prosperous (tob) and numerous than [her]
fathers" (w. 5,9). This goodness surpassed mere description and
moved into the category of promises and confession. The land given
to Israel was a "good land" (Deut. 8:7-10), for Israel would "bless the
Lord [her] God for the good land He had given [her]" (note also the
word of promise about the land in Deut. 1:8,25; 6:10,18).
The same word of goodness and blessing could be seen in the
Davidic house which did the "good" which Saul refused to do (1
Sam. 16:16; 20:7,12,31). Yet David was able to do the "good" because Yahweh granted it to him: "And when the Lord has dealt well
with my lord" (1 Sam. 25:31; cf. 1 Kings 8:66). Thus the key promise
to David in 2 Samuel 7:28, which was to "endure" (eight times in
that chapter there is the adverb "forever"), was called His "good
[word] to [His] servant." Everything related to the well-being of
David's realm could be summarized in this word "good" (2 Sam.
2:6).
Thus "repentance" has a counter theme: Israel was offered the

blessing, promise, and assurance of God. This balance prevented the
theologian, as Brueggemann correctly commented, from finding in
Deuteronomy only law, obedience, judgment, curse, and repent-
ance; there were likewise the faithfulness and blessing of God to a

covenant and a word from which He does not renege.32
Predictive Word and Fulfilled Event
The prophetic historians especially found God's word "good."
His words were fulfilled in history"Not one good word of all that
He had promised to the house of Israel had failed; all had come to
pass" (Josh. 21:45; 23:14; 1 Kings 8:56; 2 Kings 10:10). For that word
was not an "empty" (req) word or a word "void" of power (Deut.
32:47); once it was uttered, it reached its goal.
31
Ibid.,
2
p. 391.
3 Ibid., p. 38.
139

Such a series of "good" words uttered by the prophets could be
made into another whole framework for another aspect of the single
plan of God that embraced these days of entering into the promised
inheritance, rest, and place where He would put His name. It was
Gerhard von Rad33 who pointed out this thread of prophecy and
fulfillment throughout the prophetic historians. Each divine word of
prediction spoken by the prophets had its corresponding historical
event. His list included:

Word of Creation
Promise:
2 Samuel 7:13
1 Kings 11:29-36
1 Kings 13:1-3
1 Kings 14:6-16
1 Kings 16:1-4
Topic:
Solomon, the temple builder
Division ofthe kingdom
Josiah's pollution of Bethel altar
Uprooting of Jeroboam's kingdom
Uprooting of Baasha's kingdom
Fulfillment:
1 Kings 8:20
1 Kings 12:15
2 Kings 23:16-18
1 Kings 15:29
1 Kings 16:12
Joshua 6:26
Curse on rebuilding of Jericho
1 Kings 16:34
1 Kings 22:17
1 Kings 21:21
Death of Ahab in battle

Judgment on Ahab and his family
2 Kings 1:6
2 Kings 21:10-16
Sick Ahaziah will die

Manasseh's sins will bring disaster
1 King 22:35-38
1 Kings 21:27-29;
2 Kings 9:7
2 Kings 1:17
2 Kings 23:26;
2 Kings 22:15-20
Josiah will escape impending evil days
24:2
2 Kings 23:29-30.
This theology of history accented the priority of God's creative

word. The northern ten tribes had their doom sealed with the apostasy of Jeroboam (1 Kings 14:16). Yet because of Yahweh's word of
promise to David, Judah continued to live on (1 Kings 11:13,32,36).
Yahweh wanted to leave "a light in Jerusalem" (1 Kings 15:4)an

obvious allusion to the Davidic house and promise (2 Sam. 21:17; Ps.
132:17; cf. 2 Sam. 14:7).

While David spoke this word to his son Solomon, "May Yahweh
establish His word . . . there shall not fail a man to sit on the throne
of Israel" (1 Kings 2:4), Solomon realized the fulfillment of that
blessing in his own life (1 Kings 8:20,25), which Yahweh also con-
firmed to Solomon directly (1 Kings 9:5). Later on, Isaiah (55:3)

reflected back on it and called this "good" word the "sure mercies of
David" (hasede Ddwid). Thus, the ancient words of blessing and

promise were still being renewed, enlarged, and fulfilled. As von
Rad put it, the prophets changed "the gears of history with a word of
God."34
Won Rad, Studies, pp. 74-91.

34
Von Rad, Theology, 1:342.

140

A Prophet Like Moses
Every reference made to the promised seed throughout the
prepatriarchal, patriarchal, and Mosaic eras had been generic in
character; they portrayed the future redemption as the "seed" of the

woman, the race of Shem, the "seed" of Abraham, the tribe of Judah,
and the kingdom of Israel. But when Moses predicted in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 that Yahweh had said to him, "A prophet will
I raise up for them, from the midst of their brethren, like you," the
question now was: Did He mean a simple singular "prophet," a
collective, or a generic idea? And was this "prophet" another messianic figure?
From the context one might, at first reading, only expect an
individual prophet coming from Israel and compared with Moses.
However, the prophetic office was not transmitted to Moses' successors like the Davidic line was. Rather, Moses' ministry and person
were outside the usual class of prophets, for he had been placed over
all God's house (Num. 12:7)- He also had fulfilled the priestly func-
tions before the Aaronic priesthood had been inaugurated (Exod.

24:4-8). Furthermore, each of the parallel offices of "judge" (Deut.
17:8-13), "king" (vv. 14-20), and "priest" (18:1-8) were collective and
generic, not individual in the immediate context.
Thus we conclude that this promise is also generic. Moses
recognized that his work was incomplete; yet he could see another
prophet in view who unlike himself would complete the ministry of
instruction and revelation of God. This coming prophet would be (1)
an Israelite, "of thy brethren" (Deut. 18:15,18); (2) "like" Moses
(vv. 15,18); and (3) authorized to declare the word of God with
authority (vv. 18-19). Such an expectation was common knowledge
even before the days of Jesus. Philip found Nathaniel and an-
nounced, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and the
Prophets did write" (John 1:45). Likewise the Samaritan woman concluded that Jesus was that "prophet" (4:19,29); and the multitude
near the Sea of Galilee exclaimed, "This is truly the prophet that
should come into the world" (6:14). Peter likewise quoted our pas-
sage in his temple address and applied it to Jesus (Acts 3:22-26), as

did Stephen (7:37).
Summary
The key to the theology of this period remained the inheritance
of the land and the "rest" into which Israel entered by faith. Furthermore, in that very "place" Yahweh would cause His name to
dwell. And Israel's history would be marked by the "good" if she
141

would "repent" and receive the "good" prophetic word sent from
God at those crucial junctures in her history.
The internal structure for the narration of how Israel succeeded

or failed to fully enter into that "rest" is found in the prophetic
history with its programmatic statements and its evaluative comments put in the mouths of key speakers. In this sequence, it was the
word of God through His messengers that led the way. The people
followed in obedience or repentanceor in total collapse. Yet the

promise of God continued to survive in David's house regardless of
ineptitude present on every hand.
142

Walter Kaiser - Toward An OT Theology 1-142

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Walter Kaiser - Toward An OT Theology 1-142

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Walter Kaiser - Toward An OT Theology 1-142

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the main topic discussed in the text?

What is the main topic discussed in the text?

What era does most of the text focus on?

What era does most of the text focus on?

.-:/,'>.

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.

Toward an Old Testament Theology

DEFINITION AND METHOD

THE IMPORTANCE OF DEFINITION AND METHODOLOGY . . .

THE IDENTIFICATION OF A CANONICAL THEOLOGICAL

THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN OUTLINE FOR OLD TESTAMENT

THE CONNECTIONS ACROSS HISTORICAL EPOCHS OF

MATERIALS FOR AN OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

PROLEGOMENA TO THE PROMISE: PREPATRIARCHAL ERA . . 71

PROVISIONS IN THE PROMISE: PATRIARCHAL ERA . . . . . . . . . . . 84

PEOPLE OF THE PROMISE: MOSAIC ERA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

PLACE OFTHE PROMISE: PREMONARCHICAL ERA . . . . . . . . . . . 122

KING OF THE PROMISE: DAVIDIC ERA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 /

CHAPTER 10 LIFE IN THE PROMISE: SAPIENTIAL ERA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

CHAPTER 12 SERVANT OF THE PROMISE: EIGHTH CENTURY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

THE CONNECTION WITH NEW TESTAMENT

CHAPTER 16 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW TESTAMENT . . . . . . . . . . 263

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

theology, not theologiesbut is almost universally conceded to be

Since 1933 biblical theology has held the place of honor in

Langdon B. Gilkey, "Cosmology, Ontology, and the Travail oi Biblical Lan-

guage," Journal of Religion 41(1961): 194-205; also published in Concordia

Thought," Interpretation 17(1963): 193-205; also published in Princeton Seminary

Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia: Westminster

Press, 1970), p. 61.

Definition and Method

K(/ (London: Gill and MacMillan, 1963). pp. 405-17.

The Importance of Definition and Methodology

Definition and Method

tation 25(1971): 24-40.

Pieter A. Verhoef, "Some Thoughts on the Present-Day Situation in Biblical

The Importance of Definition and Methodology

THE NATURE OF OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (London: SCM, 1961),

Definition and Method

Barr, Bible in the Modern World, p. 79.

The Importance of Definition and Methodology

center, a unifying conceptuality, was at the very heart of the concern

Definition and Method

"The Progressiveness of Revelation," The Problem of the Old Testament (London:

The Importance of Definition and Methodology

THE METHOD OF OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Definition and Method

The Importance of Definition and Methodology

Definition and Method

The Importance of Definition and Methodology

Bertil Albrektson, History and the Gods (Lund, Sweden: C. W. K. Gleerup

Fund, 1967), p. 79.

Definition and Method

THE SCOPE OF OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

The Importance of Definition and Methodology

Definition and Method

parts matching the two testaments. Thus, without standing aloof

THE MOTIVATION FOR OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY