Standing in the Breach: An Old Testament Theology and Spirituality of Intercessory Prayer (Siphrut) 9781575063256, 1575063255

Citation preview

Standing in the Breach

Siphrut

Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures Editorial Board Stephen B. Chapman Tremper Longman III Nathan MacDonald

Duke University Westmont College University of Cambridge

 1. A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament, by Mark J. Boda  2. Chosen and Unchosen: Conceptions of Election in the Pentateuch and JewishChristian Interpretation, by Joel N. Lohr  3. Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible, by Konrad Schmid  4. The Land of Canaan and the Destiny of Israel: Theologies of Territory in the Hebrew Bible, by David Frankel  5. Jacob and the Divine Trickster: A Theology of Deception and Yhwh’s Fidelity to the Ancestral Promise in the Jacob Cycle, by John E. Anderson  6. Esther: The Outer Narrative and the Hidden Reading, by Jonathan Grossman  7. From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis, by Matthew R. Schlimm  8. The Rhetoric of Remembrance: An Investigation of the “Fathers” in Deuteronomy, by Jerry Hwang  9. In the Beginning: Essays on Creation Motifs in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, by Bernard F. Batto 10.  Run, David, Run! An Investigation of the Theological Speech Acts of David’s Departure and Return (2 Samuel 14–20), by Steven T. Mann 11.  From the Depths of Despair to the Promise of Presence: A Rhetorical Reading of the Book of Joel, by Joel Barker 12.  Forming God: Divine Anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch, by Anne Katherine Knafl 13.  Standing in the Breach: An Old Testament Theology and Spirituality of Intercessory Prayer, by Michael Widmer 14.  What Kind of God? Collected Essays of Terence E. Fretheim, edited by Michael J. Chan and Brent A. Strawn 15.  The Image of God in the Garden of Eden: The Creation of Humankind in Genesis 2:5–3:24 in Light of the mīs pî pīt pî and wpt-r Rituals of Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt, by Catherine L. McDowell 16.  The Shape of the Writings, edited by Julius Steinberg and Timothy J. Stone 17.  A Message from the Great King: Reading Malachi in Light of Ancient Persian Royal Messenger Texts from the Time of Xerxes, by R. Michael Fox 18.  “See and Read All These Words”: The Concept of the Written in the Book of Jeremiah, by Chad L. Eggleston

Standing in the Breach An Old Testament Theology and Spirituality of Intercessory Prayer

Michael Widmer

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2015

© 2015 by Eisenbrauns Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Widmer, Michael, 1970– Standing in the breach : an Old Testament theology and spirituality of intercessory prayer / Michael Widmer.   pages cm. — (Siphrut) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-57506-325-6 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Bible. Old Testament—Theology.  2. Intercessory prayer— Biblical teaching.  I.  Title. BS1199.P68W53 2015 248.3′2—dc23 2015014141

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. ♾™

This volume is dedicated to all who have been standing alongside us, carrying, and supporting us in prayer in our teaching ministry in Japan, and to the One who ultimately stood in the breach for the world and consequently “is able for all time to save those who approach God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25).

Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   x Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  xii Chapter 1.  Hermeneutical Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1 Introduction: Reason, Perspective, and Objectives  1 Prayer as a Hermeneutical Key to Theology  7 Jesus Christ, the Key to Biblical Intercession  15

Chapter 2.  Abraham: Patriarch and Intercessor (Genesis 18) . . . . 28 Introduction 28 Israel’s First Prophet (Genesis 18:17–19)  34 Divine Invitation to Speak Up (Genesis 18:20–22)  36 Abraham’s Intercession (Genesis 18:23–32)  40 Further Theological Reflections and Application  50 Concluding Summary  53

Chapter 3.  Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor (Exodus 17, 32–34, Numbers 13–14, Deuteronomy 9–10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Introduction 57 Moses, God, and Amalek: Anticipating Moses’ Intercessory Ministry on Mount Sinai (Exodus 17:8–16)  58 Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer in Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 14  82 Moses, Advocate of God and Advocate of the People (Deuteronomy 9–10)  101

Chapter 4.  Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor (1 Samuel 7, 12, 15) . . . 172 Introduction 172 Samuel the Prophet: Judge and Intercessor (1 Samuel 7)  177 The Role of the Prophet Re-defined (1 Samuel 12)  190 Excursus: Psalm 99, the Intercessors Call on the Name of the King  197 Concluding Summary  205 Saul’s Disobedience, Samuel’s Intercession, and Yhwh’s Judgment (1 Samuel 15)  207 Further Theological Reflections  220

vii

viii

Contents

Chapter 5.  David: Repentant Sinner, Priestly Intercessor, and Yhwh’s Change of Mind (2 Samuel 24) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 Introduction 224 Yhwh Incites David to Sin: A Problematic Portrayal of God?  229 David’s First Confession: Divine Judgment and Mercy (2 Samuel 24:10–15)  236 Yhwh’s Change of Mind and David’s Intercessory Prayer (2 Samuel 24:16–17)  239 Divine Pardon for the People through Contrite Prayer and Sacrifice  245 Further Theological Reflections  246

Chapter 6.  Solomon: Prayer of Dedication (1 Kings 8) . . . . . . 251 Introduction: The King and the Temple  251 The Context of Solomon’s Prayer  253 Solomon’s Prayer (1 Kings 8:22–61)  257 God’s Response to the Prayer (1 Kings 9:1–9)  276 Further Theological Reflections  280

Chapter 7.  The Suffering Servant: Substitutionary Atonement through Intercession (Isaiah 53) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 Introduction 294 The Mission of God and His Servant  296 He Made Intercessions for the Transgressors (Isaiah 53:12)  303 Further Theological Reflections  318 Concluding Summary  325

Chapter 8.  Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment . . . . . . . . 329 Introduction: Prophet and Intercessor  329 “Do Not Pray for This People!”  338 Jeremiah’s Imprecatory Laments and God’s Response  357 Jeremiah’s Intercessory Prayers  363 The Prophet’s Inner Conflict and God’s Renewed Calling ( Jeremiah 15:10–21)  384 “Remember How I Stood before You” ( Jeremiah 18:18–23)  400 The Logic of Imprecatory Prayers in the Context of the Old Testament  406 Further Hermeneutical Reflections  410 Concluding Theological Reflections  429

Contents

ix

Chapter 9.  Joel: The People’s Repentance, Priestly Intercession, and God’s Gracious Return ( Joel 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442 Introduction 442 The Divine Call to Repentance ( Joel 2:12–14)  447 Priestly and Prophetic Mediation  454 The Priestly Intercessory Prayer ( Joel 2:17)  457 God’s Response  463 Concluding Summary  468 Further Theological Reflections  469

Chapter 10.  Amos: The Logic of Intercessory Prayer (Amos 7) . . . 477 Introduction 477 Canonical Context  478 Amos’s Intercessory Prayers  487 Concluding Summary  498 Further Theological Reflections  500

Chapter 11.  Summary of Theological Findings and Some Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506 The Hermeneutical Spiral and Jesus’ Archetypal Mediatory Role  506 The Mosaic Prayer Paradigm  507 Prayer and the Unfolding of God’s Nature and Purposes  509 “For the Lord God Does Nothing without Revealing His Secrets to His Servants the Prophets”  511 Prophetic Intercession and God’s Holy Mutability  513 Intercession and Suffering in the Prophets  515 “Standing in the Breach”: Between Divine Mercy and Wrath  517 The Love and Wrath of God  519 An Angry God Who Needs to Be Appeased: Crude Theology or the Heart of the Gospel?  523 Christian Intercessory Prayer Is Cruciform  527

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530 Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561 Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567

Preface “Christianity stands or falls by what is believed and thought about Jesus” (E. Brunner, The Mediator). “Beginning with Moses and all the prophets,” I embarked on a journey through some of the great Old Testament intercessory prayers to explore “things about Jesus” (Luke 24:27). The study of intercession adds depth and clarity to the nature and function of the biblical mediatory role. That is particularly true for prophetic intercessory prayers that could be described as standing in the breach between divine mercy and wrath on behalf of a guilty party. The origin of this book goes back to an invitation from a major publisher to write on the subject of intercessory prayer in the Old Testament. This call reached me nine years ago, shortly after the publication of an extended version of my dissertation on Moses’ intercessory prayer (Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2004]). Delighted that the publisher recognized the importance of the subject and the fact that not much has been written on the topic of intercessory prayer for seminary students, studious pastors, teachers, and scholars, I gladly accepted the invitation. Because life became increasingly busy as we left for Japan to embark on a cross-cultural teaching ministry, I could not meet the proposed deadline of 2008. Although the publisher’s invitation was gradually withdrawn, I was still convinced of the importance of the subject and kept working on the project. These long years of writing have been accompanied by several major projects (such as acquiring the Japanese language) and other ministry engagements. In other words, this book saw some prolonged interruptions that account for a few repetitions, for which I apologize to those who read from cover to cover. In the fullness of time, I approached Eisenbrauns about publication. I am grateful to the editorial board, Stephen Chapman, Tremper Longman III, and Nathan MacDonald, for recommending my work for the Siphrut series and to the publisher, Jim Eisenbraun, for accepting it. I am much indebted to Jim and his team. Especially Amy Becker, my manuscript editor, has worked hard to improve my writing in terms of clarity of expression and style and turned my manuscript into a book. This work has evolved from my research years in Durham, UK, under the formative and inspiring supervision of Walter Moberly. It still bears his spirit on many pages. I am deeply grateful for his ongoing interest in this project and his constructive criticism along the way. The roots of this book reach back to Deryck Sheriffs’ stimulating lectures during my undergradu-

x

Preface

xi

ate years at the London School of Theology. He encouraged his students to explore the spirituality of Old Testament prayers (particularly the Psalms) and to search for ways to reread them as Christian Scripture. Particular chapters of this study have also greatly benefited from input from two of my former research colleagues Nathan MacDonald and Joel Lohr, and my fellow cross-cultural worker Jerry Hwang. All three have assisted me with insightful comments on major chapters and pointed me to relevant publications. Probing some of the content of the book in Japanese at the Hokkaido Bible Institute, where I have been teaching for the last eight years, has been both a challenge and great learning experience. Being involved in the training of prospective Japanese church leaders helped to shape the questions that I have brought to the topic and confirmed for me the universal and abiding authority of Scripture. Working with OMF International, a mission organization that has held prayer as one of its core values since the time of its founder, Hudson Taylor (1865), has been both formative and enriching. As a Swiss national, I am very grateful to a number of native English speakers and dear fellow workers­who have saved me from many mistakes by proofreading individual chapters and by making helpful comments. Particular thanks go to How Chuang Chua, Richard East, Steve and Anna Griffiths, Chris Pain, Peter and Martin Seccombe, and Dale Viljoen. OMF CH director Markus Dubach and our former Japan director Wolfgang Langhans have shown consistent interest in the project. In spite of my full teaching ministry, they encouraged me to press ahead with the writing. Also a word of thanks goes to Stefan Felber, who invited me to present aspects of Moses’ intercessory prayers at the Theological Seminary St. Chrischona (Basel), while we were on Home Assignment. During two short study leaves, I enjoyed the quiet and well-stocked library of the seminary and the inspiring hospitality of Andreas Loos, who drew my attention to some relevant and important new German publications. In this connection, I would also like to thank my parents for making many trips to the library of the University of Berne to obtain and send needed articles to Japan. I am also grateful to Mohr Siebeck Tübingen for their permission to reuse some of the material, which I have previously published with them. Last but in no way least, I am much indebted to my wife, Haruhi, and our daughter, Ayuki. Over the past years, I have probably told them far too many times that I needed to get on with this project, if it was ever going to finish. For their patience, ongoing encouragement, support, and understanding, I am deeply grateful indeed. Michael Widmer Sapporo, Japan Christmas 2014

Abbreviations General esv English Standard Version jb Jerusalemer Bibel / La Bible de Jerusalem net New English Translation niv New International Version njpsv New Jewish Publication Society Version nrsv New Revised Standard Version rsv Revised Standard Version LXX Septuagint MT Masoretic Text

Reference Works AB ABD

Anchor Bible Freedman, David N. ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992 ACCS Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture AnBib Analecta Biblica AOTC Apollos Old Testament Commentary ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch AThANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge BDB Brown, F.; Driver, S. R.; and Briggs, C. A. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907 BETL Bibliotheca ephemerdium theologicarum lovaniensium BEvTh Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie BHS Elliger, K., and Rudolph, W., eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984 BI Biblical Interpretation Bib Biblica BIS Biblical Interpretation Series BiTod Bible Today BJS Brown Judaic Studies BKAT Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin BThSt Biblisch-Theologische Studien BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CBOT Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CSCD Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine

xii

Abbreviations EKL EvTh ExpTim FAT FRLANT

xiii

Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon Evangelische Theologie Expository Times Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments GSAT Gesammelte Schriften des Alten Testaments HALOT Koehler, L.; Baumgartner, W.; and Stamm, J. J. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000 HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament HBS Herders biblische Studien HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology HCOT Historical Commentary on the Old Testament HTKAT Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual IBC Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching ICC International Critical Commentary Int Interpretation ITC International Theological Commentary JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series JBL Journal of Biblical Literature KHKAT Kurzer Hand-Kommentar zum Alten Testament LD Lectio Divina NCBC New Century Bible Commentary NEchB Die Neue Echter Bibel NIB Keck, L. E., editor. New Interpreter’s Bible. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994–98 NIBC New International Biblical Commentary NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIDOTTE VanGemeren, W. A., editor. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997 NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary NSBT New Studies in Biblical Theology NSKAT Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar Altes Testament NTD Das Neue Testament Deutsch OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis OBT Overtures to Biblical Theology OTEs Old Testament Essays OTG Old Testament Guide OTL Old Testament Library OTS Oudtestamentliche Studiën PBM Paternoster Biblical Monographs QD Quaestiones disputatae SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien

xiv SBTh SHBC SNTSMS SJT SSN TB TB

Abbreviations

Studies in Biblical Theology Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Scottish Journal of Theology Studia Semitica Neerlandica Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Bücherei: Neudrucke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert TDNT Kittel, G., and Friedrich, G., editors. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76 TDOT Botterweck, G. J., and Ringgren, H., eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by J. T. Willis et al. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2012 THAT Jenni, E., and Westermann, C., eds. Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. 2 vols. Munich: Chr. Kaiser / Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1971–76 Theol Theology ThQ Theologische Quartalschrift ThSt Theologische Studien TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentary TRE Krause, G., and Müller, G., eds. Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977–2004 TrinJ Trinity Journal TS Theological Studies TT Theology Today UF Ugarit-Forschungen VE Vox Evangelica VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements WA Weimarer Ausgabe (D. Martin Luthers Werke) WBC Word Biblical Commentary WGT Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft für Theologie WiBiLex Das wissenschaftliche Bibellexikon der Deutschen Bibelgesellschaft im Internet WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament WSAT Wuppertaler Studienbibel Altes Testament WTJ Westminster Theological Journal WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZBKAT Zürcher Bibelkommentare Altes Testament ZKT Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie ZThK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Chapter 1

Hermeneutical Reflections Introduction: Reason, Perspective, and Objectives Let me start with some weighty preliminary statements that I will seek to substantiate in the course of this book. 1. There is hardly a richer vein in biblical theology than the study of biblical intercessory prayer. Fundamental subjects and themes such as God’s mercy and judgment; retribution and forgiveness; divine mutability; covenant breach, maintenance, and renewal; substitutionary suffering and atonement; and the cross are all intrinsically related to biblical intercession. 2. Prayer in general and intercessory prayer in particular provide an essential hermeneutical key to theology and thus make an indispensable contribution to a biblical theology and spirituality. 3. The study of intercessory prayer provides unique insights not only into the heart of the God and Father of Jesus Christ, but also into the portrayals of prophetic main characters of the Bible. 4. The entire work of Jesus Christ can be understood in terms of intercession. 5. God often works out His purposes in cooperation with faithful intercessors. It is undisputed that there is hardly another theme or practice in Scripture that is more fundamental to the faith of God’s people than prayer. The Centrality of Prayer According to the Bible, God is a speaking and acting God. God’s acts and words always seek to elicit a human response in the form of words and acts. Westermann argues that the relationship between God and His people is not just an important theme but the primary theme of the Old Testament. 1 Right from the outset of the biblical account, people have been calling on the name of God (Gen 4:26). Calling on the name of God is of course a Hebrew way of saying that humans have praised, thanked, and petitioned God through prayer and sacrifice from the beginning of public worship. 2 The foundation for calling on the name of God is God’s self-revelation, as the book of Exodus confirms. Although already the book of Genesis refers 1. Claus Westermann, Die Theologie des Alten Testaments in Grundzügen (2nd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985) 2. 2.  Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (WBC 1; Waco, TX: Word, 1987) 116.

1

2

Chapter 1

to God as Yhwh or Elohim, it is only to Moses that God reveals Himself for the first time under the name Yhwh (Exod 3:14). 3 Before that, Yhwh appeared to the patriarchs as God Almighty (‫ש ָדּי‬ ַ ׁ ‫)אֵל‬, but did not reveal Himself as Yhwh (Exod 6:2–8). It is after the golden calf incident, in the context of Moses’ intercessory prayer, that God reveals to His servant the full meaning of the divine name. As a consequence of Moses’ audacious plea (“Show me your glory,” Exod 33:18–19), Yhwh makes Himself known in an unprecedented way (Exod 34:6–7). The rich and engaging dialogue between Moses and God illustrates well the intrinsic relationship between prayer and understanding of God (Exod 33:12–34:9). Nouwen reminds us that the original meaning of “the word ‘theology’ was ‘union with God in prayer.’” 4 It is one of the leading themes of this book that prayer and theology are mutually dependent as expressed in Evagrius’ well-known dictum: “If you are a theologian, you will pray truly, and if you pray truly, you are a theologian.” 5 Häring states that “prayer is the heart of theology,” 6 and Ott asserts that “Theology as Wissenschaft is only possible as theo-logy of a praying faith.” 7 Thus, one could say that the theologian cannot interact with God in any meaningful way but in prayer. In fact, the entire relationship between God and humans is concentrated in the divine-human dialogue. Nowhere does this come better to expression than in the book of Psalms. The psalms contain the people’s response to the words and acts of God. There, the full range of the human-divine dialogue finds voice in songs of praise and thanksgiving, laments and petitions, and meditations on God and life. Little wonder that the psalter has traditionally been referred to as the “prayer book” of the Bible. Interestingly, the psalms do not contain any intercessory prayers for divine mercy, forgiveness, and covenant renewal as are characteristic of the prophets who stood in the breach between divine mercy and wrath on behalf of a sinful party. 3. See pp. 32–33, particularly n. 12 for a discussion on the appearance of the name Yhwh in the book of Genesis. Throughout this work I will leave the tetragrammaton unvocalized. In quotations from other scholars, however, their own usage is retained. In continuity with ancient Jewish and Christian reverential practice, I will sometimes capitalize “the Lord” when referring to “Yhwh.” Moreover, throughout the book I capitalize pronouns and possessives that refer to God (e.g. “He,” “His”). This is not only due to reverence, but also to indicate that God is beyond gender. Nevertheless, by retaining the masculine pronoun, I seek to be in continuity with the biblical language. For a brief discussion on the gender of God, see Brevard S. Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (London: SCM, 1985) 39–40. 4.  Henri J. M. Nouwen, In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership (New York: Crossword, 1989) 44. 5. Evagrius Ponticus, The Praktikos Chapters on Prayer (trans. J. E. Bamberger: Cistercian, 1981) 153. 6. Bernhard Häring, Gebet in einer weltlichen Welt (Munich: Ars Sacra, 1972) 131. 7.  My translation: “Theologie ist gerade als Wissenschaft nur möglich . . . als Theologie des betenden Glaubens” (Heinrich Ott, “Theologie als Gebet und als Wissenschaft,” ThZ 14 [1958] 122).

Hermeneutical Reflections

3

Old Testament Intercessory Prayers: Scope and Focus Intercessory prayer is basically petitionary prayer that is brought before God on behalf of someone else. The objectives of Old Testament intercessory prayers are diverse. 8 The prayers for others range from general blessings such as “may the Lord be with you” (1 Sam 20:13, 2 Sam 14:17) and “the Lord make His face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you” (Num 6:25) to Israel’s patriarchs who pray that their wives may conceive (Gen 25:21). On other occasions the objective of intercession is the well being of non-Israelites (cf. Ps 121:7, 1 Kgs 8:35–40, Jer 29:7). On this common level, the Old Testament ascribes prayers to the people in general and comes close to the meaning of blessing somebody (Ps 128:5). Protection from national enemies and victory in war belong also to Israel’s prayer objectives (cf. 1  Sam 7:8–9, Isa 37:15–20). Judging from the psalms of lament, a widespread prayer practice in ancient Israel was the invocation of divine justice and retribution (e.g. Pss 69, 74, 79). There are more than 40 imprecatory petitions in the psalter alone. In these prayers, the Israelites pray often in a lex talion manner against their personal or national enemies. God is entreated against a third party. In other words, these petitions qualify also as a form of intercessory prayers. Because these prayers raise significant hermeneutical challenges, we shall engage at some length with them in the context of Jeremiah’s prayer life. A specific and more complex objective of intercessory prayer is the mediation between two parties that have come to stand in a strained relationship. This scenario occurs on a human level as well as on a divine-human level. Examples of the former would be Abigail’s mediation between an enraged David and her selfish husband Nabal (cf. 1 Sam 25:12–35), or Queen Esther, who pleads before her husband, the Persian king, for mercy on behalf of her people (cf. Esth 5:6–8, 7:2), or Paul advocating for the runaway slave Onesimus before his master (cf. Philemon). 9 In these cases, a mediator brings the needs of the vulnerable side before the party who has the power to show pardon or exercise judgment. By analogy, this type of mediation finds several parallels in the type of intercessory prayers that will be the objective of this book. To be more specific, we shall investigate primarily the dynamics of intercessory prayers for a party that has in some way offended God and evoked divine wrath and punishment. 10 It will become evident 8.  See Michael Rohde, “Fürbitte (AT),” in Das wissenschaftliche Bibellexikon im Internet. On-line: http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/wibilex/ (hereafter, WiBiLex); and Joseph Scharbert, “Die Fürbitte in der Theologie des AT,” Theologie und Glaube 50 (1960) 336–38, for brief overviews. 9.  See Francois Rossier, L’ intercession entre les hommes dans la bible hébraïque: L’ intercession entre les hommes aux origines de l’intercession auprès de Dieu (OBO 152; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995). 10.  In this book Solomon’s prayer at the inauguration of the Jerusalem temple is an exception (1 Kgs 8).

4

Chapter 1

that often the following pattern emerges: human rebellion leads to the announcement of divine judgment. This is followed by prophetic mediation and God’s verdict. In this case, the intercessors, usually the prophets, advocate on behalf of the guilty party before God. For reasons of clarity, it is helpful to distinguish between intercessory prayer on a general level (that is, for blessings, protection, and so on) and prophetic intercessory prayer. The latter is primarily concerned with pacifying Yhwh’s wrath, preserving the covenant relationship, and reconciling the guilty party to God. Although the contemporary church recognizes the importance of intercessory prayer, the objectives of the interceding community are somewhat different from Old Testament prophetic intercession. Today, it is customary to pray for church unity, world peace and justice, protection and guidance, and a wide range of blessings. It is far less common to pray for divine mercy and forgiveness for a third party. 11 It is even less common to hear intercessory prayers such as “Turn from your fierce wrath; change your mind and do not bring judgment on your people” (Exod 32:12) or prayers like that of Jeremiah, determined to pacify God’s righteous anger and seeking reconciliation and the renewal of a destructive divine-human relationship ( Jer 10:24, 14:19–22). Is this difference of tone and prayer objective related to Jesus Christ’s mediatory work on the cross (1 Thess 1:10)? What about Paul’s argument and warning that both Jews and Gentiles have fallen short of God’s purposes and evoke divine wrath (Rom 1:18–3:18)? Is the sinfulness of humanity the reason why the risen Christ, in spite of His work on the cross, still intercedes for His people (Rom 8:34, Heb 7:25)? 12 We shall explore various hermeneutical avenues in the course of this book that seek to inform our understanding of biblical intercessory prayer and enrich this fundamentally important ministry of the church. Approach and Objectives This study works with the received form of the text. This is not to deny the multilayered nature of the canonical text or that Israel’s theology of prayer underwent development. Rather, a canonical approach as envisaged in this book is engendered by three major factors: (1) The final form of the text has served the majority of the Jewish and Christian communities of faith as foundation for authoritative teaching and for faithful living for approximately two millennia. 13 (2) The final form often transforms earlier traditions. This is either to extend its relevance from those who were originally addressed to subsequent generations who lived under different 11.  See for example the section on intercessory prayers in the Anglican Prayer Book, Anglican Daily Prayer: Common Worship (4th ed.; London: Church House, 2010); or John Prichard, The Intercession Handbook (4th ed.; London: SPCK, 2011). This strong tendency is confirmed by the average church prayer-meeting. 12. John Mauchline, “Jesus Christ as Intercessor,” ET (1953) 355–60, engages with this important question. 13.  Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (London: SCM, 1992) 8.

Hermeneutical Reflections

5

circumstances, or to give expression to a more mature theological understanding of matters in question. 14 (3) Related to the second point, a canonical reading seeks to give a fair hearing to the Old Testament as it presents itself, rather than to reconstruct the stages, which led to the canonical form. 15 Having said that, occasionally I will draw attention to historicalcritical proposals where they offer a viable option for resolving puzzles within the text. In my exegesis, I will work primarily with the Masoretic Text and the nrsv. In this book, I attempt to take the narrative portrayal of the Old Testament’s intercessors and their prayers with utmost seriousness. I shall attempt to adhere closely to the received form of the text, carefully analyzing the dynamics of these prayers in their narrative contexts. The focus will be on the rich theological witness of the prayers and on some of their inner biblical relations. In our examination of central Old Testament texts on intercessory prayer, we shall note that most biblical intercessors are closely associated with the portrayal of Moses, Israel’s archetypal prophet. We shall see that the subject of Old Testament intercessory prayer provides good insights into “the prayer life and theology” of many of the Old Testament main characters. This book is written from a Christian perspective. In other words, I seek to read the Old Testament in order to gain a better understanding of the nature of the God whom the contemporary community of faith worships and confesses to be the Father of Jesus Christ. For most of church history, Christians have acknowledged the Old Testament as authoritative Scripture of the church. Therefore, the Old Testament provides an essential and unique contribution to the scriptural portrayal of God. It seems natural to a Christian reading of the Old Testament to relate one’s exegesis and findings to Jesus Christ. After all, there is a time-honored tradition within the Church that reads the Old Testament with view to know Christ better (cf. Luke 24:25–27, Heb 1:1–2). 16 I would like to suggest that there is no other Old Testament theme that helps the biblical theologian to understand the life and work of Christ better than intercession. Old Testament hermeneutics, as we perceive it, operates within a rule of faith. That is, it operates in the context of the community of faith, which in turn understands itself in the light of Scripture (Old and New Testament). There is good reason to argue that it is intrinsic to the canonical 14. R.  W.  L. Moberly, “The Canon of the Old Testament: Some Historical and Hermeneutical Reflections from a Western Perspective,” in Das Alte Testament als christliche Bibel in orthodoxer und westlicher Sicht (ed. I. Z. Dimitrov, J. D. G. Dunn, U. Luz, and K-W. Niebuhr; WUNT 1/174, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 239–57. 15.  Cf. Rolf Rendtorff, Theologie des Alten Testaments: Ein Kanonischer Entwurf, vol. 1: Kanonische Grundlegung (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999) 1–3; and idem, Theologie des Alten Testaments: Ein Kanonischer Entwurf, vol. 2: Thematische Entfaltung (Neukirchen-­Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001) 280–301. 16.  This was the underlying hermeneutical force of the Fathers, Luther, Calvin, Barth, and Childs. See Childs, Biblical Theology, 43­–52.

6

Chapter 1

process and to the discipline of normative theology that they seek to relate the biblical traditions to the community of faith. 17 In the same spirit, this book seeks to understand the rich theological content of Old Testament intercessory texts and explores how they add depth to the biblical portrayal of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, I also attempt to relate my findings to the life and conduct of the church. I endeavor to do this in sections called Further Theological Reflections. Throughout Israel’s history, we find men and women of God who were standing before God on behalf of others. The conviction that standing before God on behalf of others is not just possible but also required is deeply rooted in the Old Testament. Every believer who appeals to God’s mercy and grace on behalf of somebody else stands in the long tradition of biblical intercessors. The church is also called to be a community of intercessors (cf. Luke 6:27–28, Jas 5:14­­–16). Christians’ intercessory prayers, however, are mediated prayers, mediated through Jesus Christ. 18 In the dispensation of the Church, Christian intercessors participate in the intercession of Christ (Phil 2:4). Theologically speaking, the entire life and ministry of Jesus Christ can be depicted and understood under the rubric of intercession. Jesus Christ as the archetype and reason for intercessory prayer is only understandable if one reads the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth against the rich and diverse witness of the Old Testament. Given the central importance of prayer, it does not surprise us that there are a number of discerning studies on Old Testament prayer available. 19 In contrast to literature on Old Testament prayer in general, as far as I am aware, there is currently no recent book available that engages with Old Testament intercessory prayers in particular. 20 This book has been written in the awareness of this gap. As the opening statements postulate, I am convinced that intercession is one of the richest veins of biblical theology. It runs through the entire Bible via its main characters, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, the kings, the prophets, and, from a Christian perspective, it reaches its climax in Jesus Christ. At 17.  Brevard S. Childs, “Interpretation in Faith: The Theological Responsibility of an Old Testament Commentary,” Int 18 (1964) 432–49. 18. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (“Christus in den Psalmen,” in Gesammelte Schriften [ed. E. Bethge; vol. 3; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1966], 296.): “Unser Gebet ist vermitteltes Gebet, vermittelt durch Christus, den Mittler.” 19.  Some of the major works include Moshe Greenberg, Biblical Prose Prayer: As a Window to the Popular Religion of Ancient Israel (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983); H. G. Reventlow, Gebet im Alten Testament (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986); Ronald E. Clements, The Prayers of the Bible (London: SCM, 1986); Samuel E. Balentine, Prayer in the Hebrew Bible: The Drama of Divine-human Dialogue (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993); Patrick. D. Miller, They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994); Walter Brueggemann, Great Prayers of the Old Testament (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008). See my Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer (FAT 2/8, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 9–27, for an overview of the literature. 20. Franz Hesse, Die Fürbitte im Alten Testament (Hamburg, 1951); Joseph Scharbert, Heilsmittler im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient (QD 23/24; Freiburg: Herder 1964).

Hermeneutical Reflections

7

present, the only substantial treatments on Old Testament intercession are focused on Moses. Besides my own book, the others are written in German and French and are primarily concerned with the diachronic dimensions of texts and the reconstruction of the development of intercessory prayer in Israel’s history. 21 Approaches that are committed to historical reconstruction can attempt to describe Israel’s prayer-practice at various stages in Israel’s history, or, with regard to specific prayer texts, they can allocate them to specific life settings, sources, and dates. Although historical criticism asks important questions, when it comes to address the intrinsic logic and theological concerns of the narratives in their received form and context, the tools of the historian are not the most appropriate. By its own definition, a historical approach cannot address issues concerning the theology and spirituality of prayer, because these issues clearly go beyond historical verification. These issues involve theological concerns such as faith, obedience, and discernment. 22

Prayer as a Hermeneutical Key to Theology Intercessory Prayer and Some of Its Theological Challenges Petitionary prayers in general, and intercessory prayer in particular raise a number of questions, which find no easy answers. 23 When the people of God plead for someone or something, does anything happen? Does God step in to change the course of events in ways that He would not, if there was no intercessor? Can prayers really persuade God to refrain from a deserved judgment and to show grace and forgiveness? These questions focus primarily on the external situation. There is also an internal aspect of intercessory prayers. Do prayers bring any change to the one praying and the one(s) being prayed for? In other words, does God work in the hearts and minds of the intercessors and the parties that are being interceded for in ways that He otherwise would not? Does God, through the means of prayer, guide, remove fear and guilt, forgive and heal, or transform people in their relationship with God? In other words, prayer in general and intercessory prayer in particular raise ultimate issues about the nature of God and His dealing with His people. Petitionary prayers for others evoke questions about the divine nature and thereby raise the important and complex issue of how human participation in the divine decision-making process is envisaged in the Bible. 21. Erik Aurelius, Der Fürbitter Israels: Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament (Stockholm: A. & W., 1988); Widmer, Moses, God, 2004; Vincent Sénéchal, Rétribution et intercession dans le Deutéronome (BZAW 408; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009). 22.  Cf. Nicholas Lash, “What Might Martyrdom Mean?” Theology on the Way to Emmaus (London: SCM, 1986) 80–81. 23.  Here, I reiterate some of my material that has been published in Moses, God, 3–5.

8

Chapter 1

Intercession, both in theory and practice forces one to think through some of the most fundamental issues in theology: the relationship between God and intercessor, the relationship between God and the party who is interceded for, and finally, the relationship between the intercessor and those being prayed for. 24 There is, of course, a mystery about prayer in general, and about intercessory prayer in particular, but given its central importance in the Bible and theology, a close study of it has been neglected for too long. Because the act of prayer has been rightly described as the most fundamental expression not only of religion in general but also of biblical faith, it is therefore one of the most attacked areas by critics of religion. Especially Kant left a legacy of suspicion. According to him, the idea of a personal God who engages meaningfully with the needs of individuals is nothing but wishful thinking. 25 Ebeling talks about the “intellectual vulnerability” of prayer. 26 By this he shows awareness that the phenomenon of prayer is frequently juxtaposed with a number of apparently contradicting divine attributes. 27 In classic Christian understanding God is omniscient. Thus, the question is often posed, why does God need to be told of human needs and why does He need to be reminded of His promises? Moreover, God is often confessed as impassible and immutable, and yet in prayer one apparently seeks to change God or His divine plans. What is more, prayer by its very nature presupposes a personal God who adheres to human requests. This anthropomorphic picture of God, who is frequently addressed as “Father,” has been a major point of critique throughout Christian history. 28 Given the “intellectual vulnerability” of prayer, Ebeling is convinced that if theology is based on the witness of both the Old and the New Testament, prayer is not just one religious act among others, but in it is concentrated the entire divine-human relationship. Thus, for Ebeling, the phenomenon of prayer becomes the hermeneutical key to the doctrine of God. 29 The following paragraphs of this section seek to introduce various aspects of the mutually dependent association between intercessory prayer and theology. They are also principal themes of this book. 24.  Clements, The Prayers, 11. 25. Immanuel Kant, Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, and Other Writings (ed. and trans. A. Wood and G. di Giovani; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998) 184–87. 26. Gerhard Ebeling, Dogmatik des christlichen Glaubens (vol. 1; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979) 209. 27.  Cf. Oscar Cullmann, Das Gebet im Neuen Testament (2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 19. 28. Cf. Reventlow, Gebet, 2–80; Patrick D. Miller, “Prayer and Divine Action,” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann (ed. T. Linafelt and T. K. Beal; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) 211–33. 29.  Ebeling, Dogmatik, 193, 208: “Das Phänomen des Gebets wird somit zum hermeneutischen Schlüssel der Gotteslehre.”

Hermeneutical Reflections

9

Prayer and Theology The fact that theology and prayer are intrinsically connected can be demonstrated with a brief outline of Exodus 32–34. The narrative setting of Moses’ intercessions is that of rebellion, idolatry, and divine judgment. In Exodus 32, the erection and worship of the golden calf endangers Israel’s covenant relationship with God and leads Israel’s future as Yhwh’s people into jeopardy. In righteous wrath, Yhwh intends to annihilate the people who have committed idolatry right after they have entered a covenant relationship with God. Just as with Noah and Abraham, God seeks to make a new start with Moses (Exod 32:10). Moses however, mediates in prayer on behalf of the sinful party and thereby succeeds in preventing Yhwh from implementing judgment for breaching the covenant. Exod 32:14 explicitly speaks about a change of God’s mind (‫)נחם‬. As a result of Moses’ persistent prayers, Israel is not only spared from destruction but also pardoned (‫סלח‬, Exod 34:9–10). Moreover, the battered covenant relationship is renewed. This brief preview makes it evident that the nature of Moses’ prayers evokes important theological questions, especially with regard to divine mercy, grace, reputation, and covenant commitment in the face of a rebellious and unbelieving people. Moreover, the puzzling notion of a God who “repents” (‫ )נחם‬and changes His mind is not an unproblematic theological venture. This underlines the fact that prayer and theology are intrinsically related to each other. Clements remarks that “it is in reality almost impossible to separate the questions of ‘What is God like?’ and ‘How should I pray?’” 30 It is one of the leading themes of this book that one’s understanding of God and prayer go hand in hand. A close reading shows that Moses’ understanding of God and his prayer stand in a spiral relation to each other. We shall demonstrate the same point in and through the portrayal of Abraham, Jeremiah, and Amos. In other words, it will become evident that intercessory prayer is a major hermeneutical key to theology. Moses as “Father” of Biblical Intercessory Prayer Moses’ encounter with the God of the patriarchs at the burning bush is one of the key revelatory events in the Bible. The history of interpretation of Exodus 3 has revolved mainly around the nature of God and God revealing Himself in terms of His redemptive plans. 31 For our purposes, I would like to highlight a few related aspects that have important implications for our understanding of prayer. We note that God initiates the dialogue by revealing Himself to Moses as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exod 3:6). Yhwh reveals Himself with the purpose to send Moses to redeem His people from the bondage of slavery (Exod 3:1–10). One could say 30.  Clements, Prayers, 3. 31. See Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (Louis­ville: Westminster, 1974) 84–87, for a concise overview of the history of exegesis of Exodus 3.

10

Chapter 1

that God wants Moses to participate in His redemptive work. Only after a long dialogue, Moses assents to the divine will. Initially, Moses raises concerns, questions God’s plan, and makes excuses (Exod 3:11–4:17). In this sustained dialogue, God teaches Moses how to pray. God answers Moses in revealing Himself as ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫( א‬Exod 3:14). Few expressions in the Old Testament have evoked as much debate as the interpretation of God’s name. Scholars are still discussing the best rendering of the somewhat elusive name. It seems clear, however, that the divine name communicates God’s sovereignty, His reliable presence, and commitment to the people. 32 Only later in the context of Moses’ intercessory prayer, God reveals the fuller meaning of His name (Exod 33:18–19, 34:6­–7). Exod 34:6–7 not only contains Yhwh’s fullest revelation of His nature, but I shall argue that God is also teaching Moses how to use the divine name in prayer (cf. Num 14:18–19, Joel 2:13). The Pentateuch describes Moses’ relationship with Yhwh as one who speaks “face to face, as one speaks to a friend” (Exod 33:11). Yhwh does not speak to Moses in visions, dreams, or riddles as He does with subsequent prophets, but clearly, face to face (cf. Num 12:6–8). Although Israel’s forthcoming prophets will be like Moses in the sense that God will put words into their mouths and that they will continue to proclaim God’s will, passages such as Num 12:6–8 and Deut 34:10 make it clear that they will not be on equal footing with Moses. The messages of prospective prophets will be evaluated on the basis of the Mosaic law (cf. Deut 13:1–5, 18:20). 33 Scripture presents Moses as the archetype of Israel’s prophets (cf. Deut 5:28–31, 34:10), but he can also rightfully be called the father of biblical prayer. 34 Heiler in his classic treatment on prayer writes: The ultimate roots of Christian prayer go back to the prophetic mediation of Moses between Jahve and Israel. He is the great man of prayer who intercedes for his people with Jahve; none of his contemporaries stand in such immediate relation to Jahve as he. He “sees Jahve’s face”. . . . He “speaks with Him mouth to mouth.” The tremendous dramatic realism, which is peculiar to the prayer of the great Christian personalities, is the 32.  The Hebrew has been rendered in the following ways: “I am Who I am” (nrsv); or “Ich werde sein, der ich sein werde” (Zürcher Bible; that is, God’s nature will become evident from His subsequent acts); or “I am here, as the one that I am” (Wilckens); “Ich werde dasein, als der ich dasein werde” (Buber). See Childs, Exodus, 60–64, for an informed discussion on the interpretive issues related to the divine name in Exod 3:14. 33.  Stephen B. Chapman (The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation [FAT 27; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000] 129) argues that the Torah (the living legacy of Moses) is depicted in Deuteronomy in conjunction with its concluding verses 34:10–12 as “both the authority and the criterion of the prophetic word, while at the same time the prophets are seen as the authoritative heirs and interpreters of the mosaic tradition.” 34.  This is obviously not a “historical” statement. The canonical portrayal of Moses is likely the result of a long and complex process of recording, compiling, and editing.

Hermeneutical Reflections

11

creation of Moses. The prayer life of the older leaders and prophets of Israel, of a Joshua, a Samuel, and Elijah, and an Amos, moves within the forms of the Mosaic intercessorship. 35

In Deuteronomy, Israel is prepared for Moses’ successor(s). Yhwh will raise a prophet (‫ָביא‬ ִ ‫ )נ‬like Moses, who is to bring God’s word to Israel (Deut ִ ‫ נ‬in this passage has caused some confu18:18). The singular form of ‫ָביא‬ sion and led to the mistaken interpretation that Deut 18:15/18 anticipates one particular prophet who will come at a particular time in the future. Various later Jewish texts associate this prophet with the messianic hope, 36 while several passages in the New Testament identify Jesus as the promised prophet and the new Moses, as the one who embodies God’s word and fulfills the law and the prophetic tradition. 37 The primary meaning of Deut 18:15, 18 in its context, however, is about a line of prophets who will succeed Moses. 38 In fact, it is another objective of this study to draw attention to the remarkable typological associations between Moses and most of the succeeding intercessors of the Old Testament. One could speak of a “family resemblance” between the portrayals of Moses and that of subsequent prophetic intercessors. 39 The Twofold Ministry of the Prophetic Intercessor Related to the fact that there is a strong “family resemblance” between Moses and subsequent intercessors, is the observation that it is mostly prophets who are associated with intercessory prayer. Even though the Old Testament ascribes intercession also to nonprophetic figures, such as priests and kings, the large majority of those who prayed for divine pardon on behalf of others are either prophets or are closely associated with the prophetic role. 40 Thus, another central objective of this study is to examine and to gain a deeper understanding of Old Testament intercessory activity in relation to the prophetic qualities. According to von Rad, intercession was not only associated with the ‫יאים‬ ִ ‫ְב‬ ִ ‫נ‬, but historically speaking, intercession also signified one of the 35. Friedrich Heiler, Prayer: A Study in the History and Psychology of Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932) 121–22. 36.  1QS 9:11 and 4Q175 (4QTest) 5–8 testify to an eschatological figure, a prophet like Moses. For bibliographical details, see Allison, The New Moses, 35, 53, 58, 61, 218, 222, 226. 37.  Cf. Mark 9:7; John 1:21, 45; 6:14; 7:40; Acts 3:22–24, 7:37. Cf. Frederick F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990) 145. 38.  It has been repeatedly argued that the term ‫ָביא‬ ִ ‫ נ‬should be taken collectively here. Just as Deuteronomy speaks of one king (Deut 17:14–20) when it in fact is referring to the institution of kingship. See Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress 1984) 162. 39.  See Havilah Dharamraj, A Prophet like Moses? A Narrative-Theological Reading of the Elijah Stories (PBM; Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2011). 40.  I substantiate this claim in some details in Moses, God, 80–85.

12

Chapter 1

earliest­functions of the prophets. 41 The fact that intercession belongs to the fundamental responsibilities of the prophet is clearly mentioned in Jer 27:18, where commitment to intercession is presented as a benchmark of the true prophet. If indeed they are prophets, and if the word of the Lord is with them, then let them intercede with the Lord of hosts (‫ִפּגְעּו־נָא ּבַיהוָה ְצבָאֹות‬ ְ ‫)י‬, that the vessels left in the house of the Lord, in the house of the king of Judah, and in Jerusalem may not go to Babylon ( Jer 27:18).

In context, Jeremiah warns the priests not to listen to the false prophets who spread false hopes that the deported sacred vessels will be brought back. Rather, states Jeremiah, if the “false prophets” had true insight into the situation, they would pray for the safety of the remaining vessels. Authentic prophets, according to Jeremiah, would not neglect their duty to intercede. 42 Similarly, but more explicitly, Ezekiel refers to the authentic prophet (as opposed to the false ones), as one who stands in the breach on behalf of the people and one who defends the people from the wrath of God (Ezek 13, 22). Of course it has long been noted that Moses is presented as Israel’s archetypal prophet (Deut 34:10). However, it has been less noted that there is an intrinsic relatedness between his prophetic role and his fruitful intercessory ministry. The prophetic ministry is by its very nature twofold. It includes the proclamation of Yhwh’s will, often in the form of divine ultimata and judgment, but also involves advocating for sinful people before the divine throne. 43 The dynamic of the twofold prophetic ministry can be well illustrated in the account of the “plagues” in the book of Exodus. Moses delivers the word of Yhwh to Pharaoh in prophetic manner (“Thus, says the Lord: Let my people go, so that they may worship/serve me [‫דנִי‬ ֻ ‫”]ויַע ְַב‬ ְ Exod 8:1 [MT 7:26]). As a prophetic figure, Moses also conveys Pharaoh’s concern to Yhwh (e.g. Pharaoh called Moses and said: “Pray to the Lord [‫ה ְַע ִּתירּו‬ ‫ ]אֶל־יְהוָה‬to take away the frogs from me and my people, and I will let the people go to sacrifice to the Lord” Exod 8:8). In other words, Moses mediates between the two “kings,” entreating Yhwh on behalf of Pharaoh to remove the judgment (cf. Exod 9:28, 10:16–17, 18:19­–20). 44 Usually, both aspects of the prophetic ministry have the same twofold goal: the good of 41.  Gerhard von Rad (“Die falschen Propheten,” ZAW 51 [1933] 114) argues that in early times the cultic function of the prophet was intercession. See Uwe Becker, “Der Prophet als Fürbitter: Zum Literarhistorischen Ort der Amos-Visionen,” VT 51 (2001) 142, 162. 42.  Hesse, Die Fürbitte, 47, based on this verse, even goes so far as to say that “Viel wichtiger und characteristischer als die Heilsweissagung ist für den echten Propheten die Fürbitte.” 43. Jörg Jeremias, “Die Vollmacht des Propheten im Alten Testament,” EvTh 31 (1971) 309. 44. Mark J. Boda, A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament (Siphrut 1; Winona­Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009) 36.

Hermeneutical Reflections

13

the sinful party and the fulfillment of God’s plans. Both effective intercession and authoritative prophetic speech presuppose intimate knowledge of Yhwh’s nature and purposes (e.g., Num 14:13–19). Only when the intercessor has deeper insight into the heart of God can the prophet, on the one hand, participate and influence the divine decision-making process and, on the other hand, instruct or rebuke the people with divine authority (cf. Amos 3:7). Growing in Understanding of God: Exodus 34:6–7 in Canonical Context In Exod 34:6–7, one finds the most comprehensive biblical account of the nature of God. Exod 34:6–7 has increasingly been recognized as a pivotal passage of Scripture. 45 By the logic of the narrative the two verses come as a response to Moses’ prayer for a deeper insight into God’s nature and Yhwh’s announcement that He will pass before Moses in all His goodness and proclaim His name (Exod 33:18–19). 46 In other words, the fullest revelation of Yhwh’s nature is in an important way the result of Moses’ intimate dialogue with Yhwh. 47 Moses said, “Show me your glory, I pray.” And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim before you the name, ‘The Lord’; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy”. . . . The Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name, “The Lord.” 45. Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1997) 117–303; Hermann Spieckermann, “God’s Steadfast Love: Towards a New Conception of Old Testament Theology,” Bib 80 (2000) 305–27; Ruth Scoralick, Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn: Gottesprädikationen in Ex 34:6f und ihre intertextuellen Beziehungen zum Zwölfprophetenbuch (HBS 33; Freiburg: Herder, 2002); Widmer, Moses, 169–202; Ulrich Wilckens, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (vol. 2/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007) 17–20, 95­–99. 46.  Unfortunately, these two extremely rich verses are often extrapolated from their textual context by form critics and treated separately as a confessional formula of some kind. For example, see Robert C. Dentan, “The Literary Affinities of Exod 34:6f.,” VT 13 (1963) 34–51; and Brueggemann, Theology, 216. 47.  Some scholars hold that Exod 34:6–7 is a mature theological statement that had evolved over time and probably reached its present formulation in the Postexilic Period. See Scoralick, Gottes Güte, 10–35. Others who attribute (at least the core of) these verses to Moses seek to differentiate between Moses’ interpretation of a divine encounter and Yhwh’s actual words. G. Ernest Wright (God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital [London: SCM, 1952] 103), for example, understands the statement that Yhwh revealed Himself to Moses as Moses’ interpretation of the event. In this reading, the divine attributes would not be a direct divine revelation but rather Moses’ (inspired?) interpretation of an event. According to the logic of the text, however, Yhwh’s revelation is presented not as Moses’ impression (or as Israel’s mature reflection) but as a direct communication from Yhwh to Moses of His attributes. James Barr (“The Interpretation of Scripture II: Revelation Through History in the Old Testament and in Modern Theology,” Interpretation 17 [1963] 196) comments helpfully that one may hold the view that this is Moses’ interpretation (or some later redactor’s inspired construal), and this view may be correct in a technical sense, but one should be aware that view proceeds on critical rather than biblical grounds.

14

Chapter 1 “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, yet by no means clearing the guilty, but visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.” (Exod 33:18–19, 34:5–7)

There is good reason to argue that the received form of the text suggests that Yhwh teaches Moses through the disclosure of His name how to use the divine name in subsequent prayers. Jacob, following a time-honored Jewish interpretation, writes that Yhwh adopts here the language of prayer. Like a prayer leader, Yhwh instructs Moses in the way of prayer. R. Johanan said: Were it not written in the text (i.e., Exod 34:6), it would be impossible for us to say such a thing; this verse teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, drew his robe round Him like the reader of a congregation and showed Moses the order of prayer. He said to him: Whenever Israel sins, let them carry out this service before Me, and I will forgive them. 48

Jacob recalls an anecdote from Luther who apparently once said that he was prepared to pay 200 gold pieces, if he could pray like the Jews. They have learned how to pray from the most powerful teacher of prayer: Moses. Moses in turn, has been instructed by God Himself! 49 This reading is hermeneutically suggestive because in essence it suggests that theology in its purest form is not only revealed by God Himself but also intrinsically linked to prayer. In the context of Israel’s renewed rebellion at Kadesh, Moses prayerfully appropriates Yhwh’s name as revealed on Sinai in his intercessory prayer for the rebellious people (Num 14:18–19). Yhwh’s disclosure of His name provides Moses with an “authoritative theological benchmark” for prayer. Yhwh’s fullest revelation not only shaped Moses’ approach to intercession but also became the heart of many subsequent prayers (e.g. Pss 86:15; 103:8; Neh 9:17, 31; Joel 2:13). This brings us perhaps to the most important contribution this book seeks to make. Namely, that biblical intercessory prayer is almost always closely associated with God’s name as revealed to Moses. We shall see again and again in our exegesis that intercessory prayer engages with the tension between the divine attributes of love and justice. Or to put it differently, the intercessor stands in the breach between divine mercy and righteous wrath. Since Moses, by invoking God’s mercy and promises against God’s justice, the intercessor participates in God’s “internal dialogue” (cf. Exod 34:6–9). If the intercessor manages to appeal to the divine promises and 48. From b. Rosh HaShanah 17b; cited from The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Mo’ed (ed. and trans. Isidore Epstein; London: Soncino, 1938) 4:68. I am grateful to Walter Moberly for this reference. 49. Benno Jacob, Das Buch Exodus (Stuttgart: Calver, 1997) 969–70. Unfortunately, Jacob does not provide the source of Luther’s statement.

Hermeneutical Reflections

15

will, then God is likely to answer favorably. Moses’ intercessions are effective because he prays in tune with God’s nature and because he anticipates the realization of God’s promises. We shall see that Moses’ intercession foreshadows in important ways the cross. The cross, according to Luther, is above else the place where the God of love and the God of justice “fight” with each other. 50

Jesus Christ, the Key to Biblical Intercession Every intercessor since Abraham and Moses appeals to the fundamental divine attributes of grace, mercy, and love. Christian intercessory prayer, however, is always mediated prayer. It is mediated through Jesus Christ’s mediatorship. 51 “For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:5–6). Theologically speaking, Jesus Christ, the preexistent Word, full of grace and truth, is really the archetypal intercessor and advocate in the divine council (cf. John 1:14, Exod 34:6). Not only does the eternal and risen Christ sit at the right hand of the Father and intercede for the world in general and His people in particular (Heb 7:25, Rom 8:34), but also on earth, Jesus’ life and death were characterized by a sacrificial love that expressed itself often in prayer for others and eventually in the ultimate act of intercession: His sacrifice on the cross (cf. John 17). Therefore, Christian intercessory prayer is always intrinsically related to Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection (cf. John 15:7, 1 Pet 2:5–10, Heb 4:14–16). Moses represented Israel before God. As we shall see, in its distinct yet related way, Yhwh judged Israel in the light of Moses’ humble and obedient mediatorship. The Mosaic portrayal provides a prime, if not the most important, typological category for understanding Jesus Christ. 52 Thus, we shall attempt to underline the typological value of some of the main Old Testament intercessors and their prayers for our understanding of Jesus Christ. It is a time-honored tradition within the Church to read the Old Testament Scriptures with view to know Christ better. 53 This has not only been the dominant hermeneutic of the Reformers, but as we shall see, it is already firmly rooted in the resurrected Christ’s reading of the Hebrew Scriptures (cf. Luke 24:27). Jesus Christ and the Old Testament: A Reformers’ Perspective The Fathers and Reformers understood Jesus Christ as the center of Scripture in their distinct ways. Martin Luther saw the Old Testament as a 50. Theodosius Harnack, Luthers Theologie (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1927) 1:370. 51. Karl Barth, Prayer and Preaching (London: SCM, 1964) 17. 52. Cf. Dale C. Allison Jr., The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Edinburgh: T.  &  T. Clark, 1993). 53.  Childs, Biblical Theology, 30–52, provides a concise overview of classic Christian approaches to Biblical Theology.

16

Chapter 1

witness to Jesus Christ. This did not result in harmonizing the witness of the Old Testament. In fact, Luther struggled as few before him to recover the literal sense of the text with the goal to allow the text in its literal sense to witness to Jesus. Luther attacked any uncritical piety of the mediaeval church and the secular emerging humanities. Reading the Old Testament with a view to illuminate and give depth to Jesus, however, helped him to reflect on the differing grand themes of Scripture such as judgment and salvation, law and gospel. Both the Old and the New Testament, according to Luther, bear witness to law and gospel. 54 More than Luther, Calvin outlined the commonalities between the old and the new covenants. Although the covenants differ in their mode of dispensation, they are of the same substance. Thus, Calvin could speak of a common grace, salvation, and inheritance. John Calvin also strove for the natural and literal sense of the text. The Genevan Reformer, however, reverses the order of interpretation. The interpreter needs to know in advance what he/she is looking for in Scripture. Thus, the role of theology is to guide exegesis. The task of the biblical interpreter is not primarily to understand the text, but its subject matter, which according to Calvin is Jesus Christ. 55 It is one of Calvin’s great contributions to the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament to observe that the New Testament writers expound Jesus’ mediatorial ministry in the light of the three major Old Testament offices: prophet, priest, and king. 56 David and his reign foreshadow typologically the Messianic spiritual rule of God, Moses and the prophets anticipate Jesus the messenger (the living Word) and mediator, while the office of the high priest is fulfilled in the great High Priest who offered himself to God as a sacrifice for our sins (cf. Heb 4:14–5:10, 7–10). It is interesting to note that Luther and Calvin assess the validity of the Old Testament not so much on its historicity but on its moral and theological contributions and its witness to Christ. 57 The Emmaus Encounter and Old Testament Hermeneutics The story about the Emmaus encounter between the resurrected Christ and the two disciples who did not recognize Jesus at first, provides important guidelines with regard to Christian Old Testament hermeneutics. Moberly comments: “If the evangelist portrays the risen Christ himself ex54.  See Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther und das Alte Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1948). 55.  Cf. Hans-Joachim Kraus, “Calvin’s Exegetical Principles,” Int 31 (1977) 8–18. 56. John Calvin, Biblical Christianity (London: Grace, 1994) 83–84; James I. Packer, Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs (Carol Stream: Tyndale, 1993) 132–33. 57. Cf. David C. Steinmetz, “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis,” TT 37 (1980) 27–38.

Hermeneutical Reflections

17

pounding scripture to his disciples, it is imaginatively as weighty a story about biblical interpretation and Christ as one could hope to find.” 58 The story shows that Jesus wants to be understood and interpreted in the light of the Old Testament (cf. Luke 24:13–35). And beginning with Moses and the Prophets, he ( Jesus) interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27)

This interpretation of the Scriptures does not seem to be straightforward. First, we recognize that it is possible to know the content of the Scriptures without understanding it (cf. Luke 24:25). Moberly argues that a hermeneutical key, or a particular perspective is needed to unlock the deeper meaning of the Old Testament in Christ. The key . . . is indeed rooted in the actual content of the scripture, but which is only realized, and so made accessible, through the passion and resurrection of Jesus (v. 26). So, as Jesus cannot be understood apart from Jewish scripture, Jewish scripture cannot be understood apart from Jesus; what is needed is an interpretation which relates the two — and it is this what Jesus proves. (v. 27) 59

Interestingly, only when Jesus took the bread, blessed it, and broke it in characteristic fashion were the disciples’ eyes opened and they recognized him as the risen Jesus. In other words, the combination of interpretive words on the basis of the Scriptures and personal communion with Jesus enabled true recognition of him (cf. Luke 24:30–35). The interpretation of Israel’s Scriptures is presented as a dialogue with the risen Christ. According to our passage, it is the resurrected Christ who exposits the Old Testament with regard to himself and thereby sets hearts on fire (Luke 24:32). Thus, Christian interpretation of the Scriptures requires eyes opened by Jesus Christ (Luke 24:31). Spieckermann reckons that “every form of interpretation in Christian theology, even scholarly exegesis, is dependent on this.” 60 Barth’s observation that there can be no theology apart from prayer, and no theology apart from God’s revelation, seems an appropriate commentary on this passage as well. 61 For methodological purposes, it is important to highlight once again this Christian twofold hermeneutical process. First, Jesus cannot be understood apart from the Jewish Scriptures. Second, Scripture cannot be fully 58. R. W. L. Moberly, The Bible, Theology, and Faith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) 45. 59.  Moberly, The Bible, 51. 60.  Spiekermann, “God’s Steadfast Love,” 326, comments: “Interpreting the authentic testimony of the Christian Bible means to take investigations into the text’s world seriously. Neglecting the text’s historical dimension results in docetism, whereas disregarding the question concerning the truth results in religious indifference.” 61. Karl Barth, Die Kirchliche Dogmatik: Die Lehre vom Worte Gottes, Prolegomena zur Kirchlichen Dogmatik (vol. 1/1; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1932) 238–41.

18

Chapter 1

understood apart from Jesus. The way we hope to approach this twofold process of Christian interpretation is via typology and a Christological reading of the Old Testament. Typology, as understood for the purposes of this study, is a tool that enables us to work from the Old Testament (intercessory prayers) toward the New Testament, whereas a Christological rereading works the opposite way. Moberly clarifies some of the issues that are involved in a Christian reading of the Old Testament. To read the scriptures in the light of Christ constitutes the heart of a continuing Christian claim to read Israel’s scriptures as the Old Testament. It does not deny that the material may be read otherwise, with differing hermeneutic assumptions and priorities, by Jews in genuine engagement with the will of God, or by philologists or historians concerned to understand the meaning of the text in its ancient contexts. . . . Nor is it to deny that Christians can profitably learn from, and be corrected by, these other interpreters (a process one hopes will always be mutual). Rather it affirms that once Israel’s scripture has been interpreted by Jesus Christ, then it can most fruitfully be read and appropriated as a whole in ways and with priorities which might otherwise not have been evident to its readers. (most of whom, without this particular context of understanding, would never bother to become its readers in the first place). 62

To sum up, it has to be emphasized that neither a typological nor a Christological reading is a substitute for thorough exegesis, but they are both developments from a close reading of the Old Testament text. These explicitly Christian reading strategies are based on the conviction that behind the Old and New Testament is the same God. The Typological Witness of the Old Testament A typological reading of the Old Testament, as we understand it, depends ultimately on the doctrine of the Trinity. Namely, that the same God who revealed himself in Christ has already been active among the great Old Testament intercessors and is still working in and through His church. Thus, one of the guiding hermeneutical question for our purposes becomes, “In what way do the intercessory prayers of Moses and the prophets shed light on Jesus?” and “What is the theological relevance of these ancient prayers for the Christian community of intercessors?” A typological reading is dictated by the very nature of Scripture. The prophets assumed that God would act in the future in the same way as he had acted in the past. 63 Deutero-Isaiah expects a “new Exodus” (cf. Isa 43:16–21, 52:11–12), Hosea speaks of another “wilderness period” (Hos 12:10). However, there is more to typology than mere repetition of God’s acts. Outstanding events such as the Exodus or the reign of David take on 62.  Moberly, The Bible, 69–70. 63. Francis Foulkes, The Acts of God: A Study of the Basis of Typology in the Old Testament (London: Tyndale, 1958) 7; David L. Baker, “Typology and the Christian Use of the Old Testament,” SJT 29 (1976) 137.

Hermeneutical Reflections

19

more and more significance, as they became symbolic paradigms for God’s dealings with his people. It is a biblical theological reflection on the correspondence between God’s acts in salvation history. In the light of these types, Israel anticipated unprecedented developments of those paradigms, such as a new Moses, a new David, a new covenant, new creation, and new temple. Typology from a biblical-theological perspective sees in the Old Testament types, such as persons, events, theological convictions, “something in preparation, something sketching itself out, of which the Old Testament witness is not itself aware, because it lies quite beyond its purview.” 64 Thus, a Christian typology moves beyond the self-­understanding of the Old Testament texts and thereby seeks to interpret Christ in the light of the Old Testament types. If we look at a concrete example such as Isaiah 53, we recognize its typological value. Not that the servant song contains necessarily prophetic or eschatological elements, but in the light of the whole canon, one can see a fundamental typological relationship between the servant and Jesus. The Isaianic servant is exposed to a God-forsakenness (Gottverlassenheit) and suffers innocently on behalf of others. The reason that a righteous person is allowed to die without seeing any divine relief remains a mystery to the believers in the Old Testament. Moreover, the concept of substitutionary suffering only starts to make sense in the light of the Christ event. Although we shall see that the motif of the righteous sufferer on behalf of others is closely related to the prophetic intercessory ministry, it only comes to a fulfillment in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. 65 The suffering servant’s experience and ministry becomes a type of the ultimate antitype. Thereby, the witness of the servant Song gives historical and theological depth to and sheds light on the Christ event. Wolff remarks that typology, if properly applied, has an important safeguarding function. It guards our understanding of Jesus against false isolation. 66 Therefore, it is important that the Old Testament speaks with its own voice. This approach, however, facilitates only one way of the suggested twoway process. Rereading the Old Testament from a Christian perspective is at the same time reading it with the advantage of a fuller knowledge and understanding of the Christian truth. A Christological Reading of the Old Testament In essence, reading the Scriptures in the light of Christ is not much different from what the Old Testament authors have done with their older traditions. In fact, it is one of the features of the Old Testament that many of 64.  Gerhard von Rad, “Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament,” in Essays in Old Testament Hermeneutics (ed. C. Westermann; Richmond: John Knox, 1963) 36. 65. Hermann Spieckermann, Gottes Liebe zu Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Alten Testaments (FAT 33; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 147. 66.  Hans W. Wolff, “The Hermeneutics of the Old Testament,” in  Essays on Old Testament Hermeneutics (ed. C. Westermann; Richmond: John Knox, 1963) 191.

20

Chapter 1

its major traditions had been ongoingly interpreted and appropriated from the current circumstances and a more mature understanding of God. 67 For example, it is widely recognized among scholars that the patriarchal narratives are retold from the perspective of Yahwistic faith. 68 This could be argued from the fact that the name Yhwh is found throughout Genesis, although the seminal passage in Exod 6:2–3 states explicitly that God was not known as Yhwh to the patriarchs, but as El Shaddai. The name Yhwh was first revealed to Moses. Moberly investigates this source and redactional problem 69 and explores in a number of articles its possible implications for the important story in Genesis 22. Based on the two key concepts “testing” and “fearing” (Gen 22:1, 12), and the name “Moriah” (Gen 22:2; cf. 2 Chr 3:1), he argues that Genesis 22 was rewritten from the perspective of Israel’s relationship with God that is centered on Torah obedience and worship in Jerusalem. 70 Of course, this does not suggest that Genesis 22, or the patriarchal narratives in general, do not contain any authentic pre-Israelite material, as in fact these accounts differ radically in a number of ways from Mosaic Yahwism. 71 there is considerable evidence that the Yahwistic tellers of the patriarchal stories were not only aware of the distinctively pre-Yahwistic, pre-Israelite nature of the stories, but also preserved this distinctiveness in many ways. . . . Nonetheless, the point remains that the writers did feel free to retell the patriarchal stories in their own terms and categories. 72

I do not intend to go into the complex debate about pentateuchal source and redaction criticism but merely suggest that there is good evidence that Israel already reread pre-Israelite material based on the conviction that Yhwh, the God of Israel, is none other than the God of the patriarchs. A similar point could be made with regard to the diachronic dimension of Moses’ prayers. For example, many scholars ascribe Moses’ intercessory prayers as recorded in Exodus 32–34 to a Deuteronomistic pen. 73 Aurelius 67.  Wolff (“Hermeneutics,” 184) points to the uniqueness of Israel’s ongoing interpretive process of ancient traditions among the cultures of the ANE. 68. Gerhard von Rad (Old Testament Theology [2 vols.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001] 1:167) comments: “These stories of the patriarchs are not retold in that exclusively historical sense whose sole concern is merely to reproduce exactly what happened at the time: instead, experiences and insights of succeeding ages also found expression in them.” 69. R. W. L. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992). 70.  Idem, Genesis 12–50 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 40–56. 71.  Moberly (The Old Testament, 79–104) lists seven important features of the patriarchal religion, which differ from later Mosaic Yahwism. This strongly suggests that the patriarchal narratives testify to an ancient pre-Yahwistic religion. 72.  Idem, Genesis, 51–52; cf. von Rad, Theology 1, 175. 73. For example, Lothar Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT 36; Neukirchen-­Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969) 208–9; Suzanne Boorer, The Promise of the Land as Oath: A Key to the Formation of the Pentateuch (BZAW 205; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992)

Hermeneutical Reflections

21

offers a substantial, though not undisputed, historical-critical analysis of Moses’ prayers. 74 He suggests two Deuteronomistic redactions, one exilic and one postexilic. 75 A “mirror-reading” of Moses’ prayers from exilic and postexilic times is based not only on linguistic and conceptual parallels but also on various larger assumptions about the Entstehungsgeschichte of the Pentateuch. Ever since Wellhausen’s influential work Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, an ongoing stream of scholars maintained and refined Wellhausen’s thesis that the final composition of the Pentateuch (according to him Hexateuch) is the work of exilic and postexilic writers (D and P). 76 This is not the place to evaluate the Wellhausen model. Acknowledging the likelihood that a complex process of transmission, writing, compiling, and redacting underlie Exodus 32–34 (and other intercessory texts) a canonical reading as advocated in this book focuses on the final literary composition which has its own integrity and intrinsic logic. As for the spiritual authority of the received form of the text, the Jewish theologian and philosopher Franz Rosenzweig once remarked wittily that the sign “R” (for the redactor of the Hexateuch documents, so lowely esteemed in Protestant research) should be interpreted as Rabbenu, “our master,” because basically we are dependent only on him, on his great work of compilation and his theology. 77

In other words, in a canonical reading as advocated here, the main point is not so much whether the text is the literary product of Moses or of Moses and later redactors, but rather whether the final form of the text reflects God’s intended meaning or not. Bonfils in the 14th century (Hebraized as Tov Elem) commented on Gen 12:6: “What should I care whether it was Moses or another prophet who wrote it?” That is, if the real author is God, it is of no account which human vessel he inspired with any given verse. 78 209–10. See Konrad Schmid, “Israel am Sinai; Etappen der Forschungsgeschichte zu Ex 32–34 in seinen Kontexten,” in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10 (ed. M. Köckert and E. Blum; Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser and Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001) 9–41, for a research overview of Exodus 32–34. 74.  Aurelius, Der Fürbitter Israels. See N. Lohfink, “Der Fürbitter,” 85–111, for a critical assessment of some aspects of Aurelius’ diachronic reconstructions. See also Bernard Renaud, L’Alliance, un Mystère de Miséricorde: Une Lecture de Exode 32–34 (LD 169; Cedex: du Cerf, 1998); and Sénéchal, Rétribution et intercession. 75.  See my Moses, 58­–62, for a summary of possible historical and theological factors that are behind the four prayers as recorded in Exodus 32–34. 76.  This understanding was obviously not single-handedly established by Wellhausen, but as he acknowledges, it goes back to the works of Graf, Vatke, and de Wette. See Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (6th ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001) 3–4. 77.  Gerhard von Rad, Genesis, (4th ed.; OTL; London: SCM, 1979) 43. See M. Buber and Franz Rosenzweig, Die Schrift und ihre Verdeutschung (Berlin: Schocken, 1936) 322. 78. Joseph Bonfils, Tsaphenat Pa’aneah (ed. D. Herzog; Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1911) cited from Jon. D. Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, The Old Testament and Historical Criticism (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993) 69.

22

Chapter 1

The texts may have been humanly construed, traditionally both Jews and Christians have held onto the conviction that the biblical authors wrote in response to divine invitation, pressure, and guidance. 79 “They were carried along” by the Holy Spirit to speak (and/or write) of God (2 Pet 1:12). This is a way of saying that Scripture is God’s word in human words. Reading the final literary product is further endorsed by the fact that biblical writers and redactors chose to remain anonymous most of the time. To the frustration of modern historical-critical scholarship, neither the golden calf account nor the Pentateuch in general provides explicit indication as to historical context and purpose other than the self-presentation of the texts. Childs describes the phenomenon as follows: “The tradents have consistently sought to hide their footprints in order to focus attention on the canonical text itself rather than the process.” 80 This dynamic use of already existing traditions illustrates that Israel tried to relate her traditions to the ongoing life of faith. Thus, the very nature of the Old Testament suggest itself as a paradigm for a Christian rereading of the Old Testament from the perspective of a fuller understanding of God in Christ. In essence, this would not be very different from what the Deuteronomists, with their available traditions, or the author(s) of Genesis, have done with the pre-Israelite accounts. In other words, a Christological reading of the Old Testament is not arbitrary, but rather it is what the historic communities of faith, both Jews and Christians, have recognized as central to their existence. The major difference is that Israel’s rereading of her traditions has become part of the canon, whereas a Christological rereading, as suggested here, relies entirely on the final form of the text. This, however, need not be a difference between authoritative and nonauthoritative, but rather between different stages of a continuing quest to relate the paradigmatic stories, or in our case, the paradigmatic prayers, to the ongoing life of faith. 81 Von Rad is known as a “committed Christian Old Testament theologian.” His hermeneutical foundation may be represented in this statement on the patriarchal narratives: We receive the Old Testament from the hands of Jesus Christ, and therefore all exegesis of the Old Testament depends on whom one thinks Jesus Christ to be. . . . We must go on to raise the chief question: can we not recognise a common link even between the revelation of God in the old covenant and that in the new, a “type”? . . . In the patriarchal narratives, which know so well how God can conceal himself, we see a revelation of 79.  See Jer 20:7–9, Ezek 3:1–4, Amos 3:7–8, 2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet 1:21. 80.  Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 68. See also Moberly, Genesis, 59. 81.  Idem, “Christ as the Key to Scripture: Genesis 22 Reconsidered,” in He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes from Gen 12–50 (ed. R. S. Hess, G. J. Wenham, P. E. Satterthwaite; 2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994) 168.

Hermeneutical Reflections

23

God which precedes his manifestation in Jesus Christ. What we are told here of the trials of a God who hides himself and whose promise is delayed, and yet of his comfort and support, can readily be read into God’s revelation of himself in Jesus Christ. 82

Von Rad’s hermeneutical principle could easily be transferred to Old Testament intercessory prayers as well. For example, Abraham’s persistent prayer for the sinful pagans in Sodom that stood under God’s judgment (Gen 18). Moses’ costly solidarity and immense commitment to the sinful people— knowing that Israel had breached the covenant, Moses pleads for divine pardon and grace (cf. Exod 32–34, Num 14). And the Isaianic servant’s innocent suffering and prayer for the sinful party can be understood by analogy with Jesus’ life and work on the cross. Thereby, a Christological approach enables us to read Old Testament prayers in the light of God’s commitment to His people in Jesus Christ. In principle, von Rad seems to identify his hermeneutic with that of the Fathers and the Reformers. Holladay expresses the conviction that the Reformers’ Christological hermeneutic have theological integrity. 83 Clines, though not in favor, predicts “a new lease of life for Christological interpretations of the Old Testament”— not precritical any longer but postcritical, which serves the pietism of the new Christian community. He makes this observation in the light of the increasing interest in literary approaches, which are more concerned with the text than with origins and composition. 84 Needless to say, von Rad knew well that reading the Old Testament “with eyes opened and a burning heart” does not mean that one discovers all over the Old Testament testimonies to Christ. Our understanding of Christ grows with our grasp of the intrinsic meaning of the entire Old Testament. 85 Of course, not all Old Testament texts can have their meanings Christologically extended. Only accounts whose content deals with features, which are central to the dynamics of the Christian faith, are suitable. For example, major Old Testament passages and themes such as the people’s­constant rebellion against Yhwh and His servant, God’s wrath against injustice and idolatry, a favored and inseparably committed mediator that is willing to stand in the breach between God’s mercy and judgment, divine pardon instead of deserved punishment, and covenant renewal are some of the themes that invite naturally typological and Christological reflections and add depth and nuances to Jesus’ ministry and death. How about the intimate but metaphorical passage where it says that Moses speaks with God “face to face” just as with a friend (Exod 33:11)? 82.  Gerhard von Rad, Genesis, 43. 83.  William L. Holladay, The Psalms through Three Thousand Years: Prayerbook of a Cloud of Witnesses (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997) 347–50. 84.  David J. A. Clines, “Biblical Interpretation in an International Perspective,” BI 1 (1993) 67–87, 80, cited in Moberly, “Key,” 146. 85. Von Rad, “Typological,” 36.

24

Chapter 1

This metaphor comes to fulfillment in the New Testament (cf. 1 John 1:1– 2). How about Yhwh’s will to come together with His people in the tent of meeting/tabernacle (LXX, σκηνή), to dwell among them and be their God (Exod 29:42–46)? The Gospel of John makes a beautiful typological connection when it says: “The Word became flesh and lived (lit., tabernacled) among us” (σκηνόω, John 1:14; cf. 1 John 1:1–2). 86 We have seen that Jesus himself on the road to Emmaus sets the precedent to read the Old Testament “Christologically.” There, he demonstrated through Moses and the prophets that the Messiah must suffer (Luke 24:25– 26). In other words, if Jesus himself sets the hermeneutical paradigm of reading Moses and the prophets with view to explain his own death and resurrection, then followers of Christ are encouraged to follow his “hermeneutic.” Pope Benedict XVI invites the Christian community to read Scripture anew with the suffering Christ. Again and again we must allow the Lord to lead us into discussion with Moses and Elijah; and learn to understand Scripture anew from him, the resurrected one. 87

We shall see that it is particularly in the concept and practice of intercession that one encounters a lot of substantive issues that lend themselves naturally to typological and Christological reflections. In conclusion, it must be emphasized once again that a typological and Christological approach are not meant to replace the critical question of what these prayers mean in their immediate literary context. A Christian Old Testament reader must still make every attempt to discern how God and life were understood in the context of the Old Testament and take these findings as a guide to one’s interpretation. Interpreting Old Testament Intercessory Prayers It will hopefully become evident that intercessory prayers are often deliberately used by biblical writers as theological instruments. In other words, most of the intercessory prayers that we are going to look at are embedded at crucial and strategic places in the narratives. Balentine observes that these prayers are usually found between a crisis in the humandivine relationship and the divine resolution of it. 88 For example, both in the golden calf account and in the scout narrative, Moses’ prayers occur between Israel’s rebellion, which results in Yhwh’s intention to annihilate the entire people and a modified divine response (Exod 32:1–14, Num 14:1–12). In both instances, Yhwh changes His mind and refrains from de86.  Idem, Theologie 2, 378–79. 87.  My translation of: “Immer wieder müssen wir uns vom Herrn in sein Gespräch mit Mose und Elija hineinführen lassen; immer wieder von ihm, dem Auferstandenden, her neu die Schrift verstehen lernen” (Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus von Nazareth [2 vols.; Freiburg: Herder, 2007–11] 1:360). 88.  Balentine, Prayer, 18–28.

Hermeneutical Reflections

25

stroying them (Exod 32:14, Num 14:20–32). The change of mind is clearly associated with Moses’ brave and loyal mediatorship. In other words, Moses’ prayers play a key role in the unfolding of the narratives. As mentioned before, I am not primarily concerned with literary critical questions that seek to allocate specific prayer texts or pericopes to specific life-settings and sources; rather, I will look for coherence and meaning in the text. In other words, I will attempt to adhere closely to the intrinsic logic of the biblical accounts in their final form, particularly to the rich theological content of the prayers and their theological functions within the immediate and wider narrative contexts. As a Christian exegete, I come in faith and obedience to what I profess to be the first part of the Christian Scripture in order to seek knowledge and understanding of the living and transforming reality of God. 89 More than that, our knowledge of Christ is incomplete or in danger of being distorted without the witness of the Old Testament. A hermeneutic such as I suggested previously allows us to move from the immediate prayer context to the ultimate narrative context—the whole Christian canon. 90 The Old Testament prepares the way for the Messiah, “not least by presenting an understanding of God and humanity in which Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection become possible and intelligible in the form they take.” 91 This leaves me still with the task of offering a few theological reflections on relating these findings to the prayer life and conduct of the church. Called to Intercede in the Name of Jesus Christ The theme of intercession runs through the entire Old Testament, from Abraham, via Moses and some of the kings, to the prophets. It is particularly the latter that were called to pray on behalf of the people. It will become evident in our reading of the Old Testament texts that pleading for others before God, standing in the breach on behalf of the party under divine judgment, is not only possible but demanded from people. I [Yhwh] sought for anyone among them who would repair the wall and stand in the breach before me on behalf of the land, so that I would not destroy it; but I found no one. (Ezek 22:30)

The New Testament takes up this essential ministry that is deeply rooted in Israel’s Scriptures and carries it on. Every believer who appeals to God’s mercy and grace on behalf of somebody else stands in the long biblical tradition of Old Testament prophetic intercessors that comes to a climax and fulfillment in Jesus Christ. 89. Nicholas Lash, “What Might Martyrdom Mean?” in Theology on the Way to Emmaus (London: SCM, 1986) 81. 90.  Douglas J. Moo, “The Problem of Sensus Plenior,” in Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon (ed. D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986) 205. 91.  Moberly, The Bible, 69–70.

26

Chapter 1

Theologically speaking, intercessory prayer not only reaches its fulfillment in Christ but also has its origin and legitimacy in and through Jesus Christ. In God’s eternal salvific purposes, He chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love. He destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ. . . . In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace. (Eph 1:4–7)

From before the creation of the earth, the triune God has ordained the redemption of humanity through the mediation of Jesus Christ. In other words, God has inaugurated a life of prayer in and through the salvific work of Christ. Barth comments, God knows man, looks on him and judges him, but sees and judges him always in the person of Jesus Christ, his own Son, who was obedient and in whom he is well-pleased . . . we have one who represents us before God. 92

It follows that Christians always pray through Jesus Christ. It is through the intercessory work of Christ that is through his atoning sacrifice and his redemptive mediation that we can come before the heavenly throne (Heb 4:14–16). Calvin confirms that our prayers are founded on the intercession of Christ, for “our mouths are not clean enough to sing the praises of God’s name until Christ’s priesthood intercedes for us.” 93 Thus, Christ is not only the source and reason of all mediatory activity, but he also “sponsors” and warrants our intercessory prayers. To intercede in the name of Jesus Christ means among other things praying in the knowledge that our intercessions have no worthiness or efficacy apart from Jesus’ intercessory work. According to 1 Pet 2:5–9, Christians are called to a “holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” As priests, the church has the honor and duty of joining the heavenly High Priest in interceding on behalf of others (cf. 1 Tim 2:1–5). In intercessory prayer, Christians participate not only in the priestly but also in the prophetic ministry of Christ. As the Father has sent the Son, so the sent one sends his followers (cf. John 20:21–23, 17:18). In the context of commissioning a messenger, in both the Old and New Testaments, the word “to send” (‫ׁשלח‬/ἀποστέλλω) is a technical word that describes the commissioning of a prophetic messenger (cf. Exod 3:10–15, Isa 6:8, Jer 1:7, Ezek 2:3). In the Johannine “Great Commission,” the prophetic dimension is enforced by equipping the disciples with the gift of the Holy Spirit. 94 Being sent out to 92. Karl Barth, Prayer and Preaching (London: SCM, 1964) 17. 93. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (vol. 3/21–22; 2nd ed.; Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 1994) 879. 94. Max Turner, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts in the New Testament Church and Today (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson 2005) 2–18, shows that the background to New Testa-

Hermeneutical Reflections

27

proclaim the Word of God and to intercede on behalf of a sinful party are essentially prophetic categories. Petition is said to be the essence of prayer. 95 While prayers of lament could be described as the most heartfelt and honest prayers. Prayers of praise are the most elevated of prayers. It could be argued though that contemplative and intercessory prayers represent the very heart of Christian spirituality. Meditating on and opening oneself up to the majestic greatness of the divine Word, according to von Balthasar, is the ultimate expression of love and submission to God. The contemplative prayer (das betrachtende Gebet) has a long tradition in Catholic spirituality. 96 Intercessory prayer, by contrast, could be described as the most noble and most Christ-like prayer, as intercessory prayer puts the needs of others before one’s own. Thus, one could say that the contemplative and the intercessory prayer reflect Jesus’ double command to love God and to love our neighbor (cf. Matt 22:37–39). Total devotion to God and a self-giving love that seeks the greatest good for others, according to Jesus, summarizes the essence of the kingdom life. We shall see that the authentic intercessory prayer flows out of a deep understanding of the Triune God and His ways (that is, out of contemplative prayer) and in correspondence with the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, the petitions of the Christians will be primarily intercession. 97 To close the circle of interpretation, I conclude that Jesus’ intercession in life, death, and eternity can only be fully understood when it is seen and interpreted in the light of Moses and the prophets (the Old Testament). ment pneumatology grows from the Jewish understanding of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament. Turner argues that by far the most widespread understanding of the Spirit in Judaism (1st century onward) is that of the “Spirit of prophecy” that was mainly associated with the prophets of the Old Testament. 95. Karl Barth, Die Kirchliche Dogmatik: Die Lehre von der Schöpfung (vol. 3/4; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1951) 4, 106, 117. 96. See Balthasar, Prayer; and Nouwen, In the Name of Jesus, 42–47. 97.  Barth, Prayer, 99–100.

Chapter 2

Abraham: Patriarch and Intercessor (Genesis 18) Introduction From a canonical perspective, the prayer dialogue between Abraham and God over the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah is the first recorded extensive intercessory prayer found in Scripture. In other words, Abraham could be called the Bible’s first or archetypical intercessor. 1 The dialogue between God and Abraham, as we find in Gen 18:17­–33, is extremely rich and, as von Rad writes, open to multiple interpretation. one may not assume that the conversation has only one meaning and one thesis toward which it is driving, like a modern philosophical treatise. Texts like this always have somewhat wide meshes; they are open toward many sides and have room for more than one single interpretation.  2

We shall see that Abraham’s intercessory prayer is closely related to God’s promise to make the patriarch a blessing to the nations (cf. Gen 12:3). Immediately before Abraham appears on the biblical scene in Genesis 12 is the tower of Babel narrative. The project to build a tower that reaches the sky stands for the arrogance and rebellion of the nations. God comes down, first to examine the ambitions of the nations and then to scatter them over the face of the earth (Gen 11:5–9). When the reader arrives at the beginning of chap. 12, the inevitable question arises, what has become of God’s relationship with the nations? From among the scattered nations, God chose a nomad who came to be called Abraham (cf. Gen 17:5). Abraham appears suddenly on the scene of history. His ancestors, including Abraham’s father Terah, worshiped many gods ( Josh 24:2). Abraham was not only the first in his family to be directly addressed by God, but he was also the first to worship only one God. 1.  Noah’s mediatory role could also be described as intercessory in the wider sense of the word (Genesis 6–8). However, some Jewish traditions criticize him precisely because he says nothing, in contrast to Abraham. 2.  Gerhard von Rad, Genesis (rev. ed.; OTL; London: SCM, 1979) 214. See E. Ben Zvi, “The Dialogue between Abraham and Yhwh in Gen 18:23–32: A Historical Critical Analysis,” JSOT 53 (1992) 27–29, for an overview of scholarly proposals.

28

Abraham: Patriarch and Intercessor

29

The Bible does not tell us why God chose Abraham. The first 75 years of his life are passed in total obscurity. The Bible is clear, however, that Israel’s election started with the calling of Abraham (cf. Ps 105:6, Isa 41:8, Matt 3:9). In God’s call to Abraham, the biblical reader gains, for the first time, a preview of God’s larger purposes, which He will bring about through the mediation of Abraham and his descendants (Gen 12:1–3). 3 In him, God is intending to make a new start, make him the patriarch of His people and, interestingly, somehow bring through him blessings to all the nations who stand in rebellion to their creator. 4 In Abraham’s intercessory prayer for the godless cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, one gains an idea of how Abraham and later Israel are called to become a blessing for the nations. 5 It is in association with texts such as Genesis 18 that Abraham became a model of righteousness in Israel. Abraham’s prayer for the corrupt cities bears many abiding characteristics of biblical intercessory prayers. He is portrayed as a man of compassion and boldness. Abraham displays an awareness of suffering and an ability to look beyond his immediate personal interest. His faith (cf. Gen 15:6, Rom 4:3, 18), his walk of life (Gen 17:1, Jas 2:21–24), his submissive obedience (Gen 22:1–18, Heb 11:17–19), made him a model of righteousness in Israel. Before we turn to Gen 18:16–33 in more detail, we would like to draw attention to a further important reference to Abraham’s intercessory role found in the context of his encounter with king Abimelech (cf. Gen 20). There a very different picture of Abraham the intercessor is given. The picture of Abraham as exemplar of faith and model intercessor is somewhat qualified by an all-too-human Abraham who is primarily concerned about his own life. Already in chap. 12, Abraham presents Sarah as his sister to King Abimelech of Gerar. By chap. 20, the monarch takes Sarah as one of his wives (Gen 20:1–18; cf. 12:10–20). God, however, appears to the king in a dream convicting him of the guilt that he had inadvertently committed. 3. David Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (Sheffield: JSOT, 1978) demonstrates that in God’s call of Abraham (Gen 12:1–3) the main themes of the Pentateuch are expressed. God makes seven promises to Abraham that prepare the establishing of His kingdom: (1) to make Abraham into a great nation, (2) to bless him, (3) to make his name great, (4) to make him a blessing, (5) to bless those who bless him, (6) to curse those who curse him, and (7) to bless all the families of the earth through him. The covenant established between God and Abraham forms the basis of biblical faith. God will be the God of Abraham and his descendants and Abraham and his descendants will be the people of God. 4.  Cf. Keith N. Grüneberg, Abraham, Blessing and the Nations: A Philological and Exegetical Study of Genesis 12:3 in its Narrative Context (BZAW 332; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003). See R. W. L. Moberly, The Theology of the Book of Genesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) 141–61, for an alternative reading of Gen 12:3. 5.  God’s promise to make Abraham a blessing to the nations takes on special significance if we remember that Abraham is the biblical father of all three monotheisitic religions. From a Christian perspective, this comes as an appeal to include the Jews and Muslims into our prayer horizon as well. Cf. K-J. Kuschel, Streit um Abraham: Was Juden, Christen und Muslime trennt–und was sie eint (Munich: Piper, 2006).

30

Chapter 2

In other words, God Himself convicts the king of his guilt and refers him to the advocatory role of Abraham (Gen 20:3–7). Interestingly, the prayer of Abraham could save the king from divine punishment. Then Abraham prayed to God (‫ִת ַּפ ֵלּל א ְַב ָרהָם אֶל־ ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬ ְ ‫ ;) ַוּי‬and God healed Abimelech, and also healed his wife and female slaves so that they bore children. (Gen 20:17)

Again Abraham is portrayed as God’s chosen one, who alone can release the king from God’s judgment. Although God makes Abraham also here eventually a blessing through an enforced prayer for a pagan king, the patriarch does not really seem worthy of the designation prophet that appears here for the first time in Scripture (‫ָביא‬ ִ ‫ ;נ‬Gen 20:7). Only the reader can see how far Abraham has fallen short of the designation prophet. The story of Abraham and Abimelech seems to suggest that no moral conditions are attached to intercessory prayer. It appears as if the answering of prayer does not depend on the uprightness of the prophet. Abraham’s failure is further underlined in the light of his calling to become a teacher of righteousness (cf. Gen 18:19). The patriarch has failed in two crucial areas: wife and faith. God had just come down to announce a biological heir to Abraham and Sarah (Gen 18:9). How could God’s promise come to a fulfillment, if Sarah was given to the harem of a pagan king? Perhaps this account is less about Abraham’s moral failure and lack of faith and more about God’s faithfulness to His promise and His purposes for Israel and the nations. After all, the Lord graciously turns His chosen one’s failure into a blessing for a pagan king. Moreover, God, against human failure, protected the promise of an heir that runs here into jeopardy. It is not the first time that Scripture portrays the ups and downs of Abraham. One could almost speak of a pattern of great spiritual moments that end up in anticlimaxes in Abraham’s life (cf. Gen 12:1–3 vs. 12:10–20; chap. 15 vs. chap. 16, chaps. 18–19 vs. chap. 20). Again and again, the divine promises, if they were ever to be fulfilled, needed to be protected and carried to fulfillment by the grace of God. For our purposes, it is important to note not only that Abraham is referred to as a prophet in this context but also that this somewhat anachronistic designation is immediately qualified with a clear reference to intercessory prayer. 6 for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you (ָ‫ִת ַּפ ֵלּל ַּבע ְַדך‬ ְ ‫ָביא הּוא ְוי‬ ִ ‫)ּכי־נ‬ ִ and you shall live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die, you and all that are yours. (Gen 20:7)

The term prophet probably finds further “scriptural legitimacy” in Abraham’s prayer for Sodom and Gomorrah that resembles in many ways the intercessions of Israel’s prospective prophets. In fact, it shall become 6. The Hebrew testifies to standard intercessory terminology (‫ ;התפלל בעד‬e.g., Deut 9:26, 1 Sam 7:5, Jer 7:16).

Abraham: Patriarch and Intercessor

31

evident in the course of this book that intercessory prayer is intrinsically linked to the prophetic task. Abraham, as we shall see in some more detail, is made privy into the secrets of God and His purposes (Gen 18:17–33). This shall become the privilege of the genuine prophet (cf. Amos 3:7). In other words, Abraham assumes in chap. 18 a role that will later be carried to greater depths by Moses (cf. Exod 32–34, Num 14, and so on), Israel’s prophets, and ultimately finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ himself (cf. John 5:19­–30). We find not only the biblical roots of prophetic intercessory prayer in Abraham but also the beginnings of what came to characterize the JudeoChristian understanding and experience of the divine-human relationship. 7 It is a dynamic that the community of faith takes often for granted: the intimate “I-Thou” dialogue between God and His people. The commentators often refer to Abraham’s audacious bargaining prayer style with which he questions God’s justice. Therefore, one easily neglects or mishears God’s voice and teaching. Is Abraham really emerging as someone who through “haggling” seeks to persuade or even teach God to be more merciful? 8 I shall argue that the point of the prayer dialogue in question is not so much about pressing the judge of the world to be more just and merciful, but rather the entire prayer dialogue, is about God inviting Abraham to participate in the outworking of the divine purposes. Therefore, Yhwh is accommodating Abraham’s concerns and at the same time teaching Israel’s patriarch a major lesson about the divine character and how God envisages His people to engage in the divine economy, especially with regard to the nations. The Pre-Sinai Dispensation Following the sequence of the received text, it is of considerable importance for our understanding of Abraham’s prayer that we note that Israel’s founding father lived in a different dispensation from all the subsequent intercessors that we shall look at in this book. Abraham lives in a pre-Sinai era. At Sinai, with the giving of the Ten Commandments and the entering of a new covenant relationship with Yhwh, Israel was commencing a new dispensation with God (cf. Exod 20–24). Moberly has insightfully highlighted the differences and continuities between the patriarchal narratives and Mosaic Yahwism in the book The Old Testament of the Old Testament. The relationship between the patriarchal narratives and Mosaic Yahwism, so Moberly argues, corresponds in many ways to that between the Old and New Testament. 9 Just as there are 7. It is also in Abraham that the concept of covenant is introduced. Thus, it is important to note that Abraham is not simply the ancestral father of Israel, but in him the essence of Israel’s relationship with God, the covenant relationship, has begun. 8.  For example, Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (IBC; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982) 168. 9.  R. W. L. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 125–30.

32

Chapter 2

differences and continuities between the patriarchal religion and Mosaic Yahwism, so are there continuities and discontinuities between the Old and New Testament faith. Just as the revelation at Sinai introduced a new theological dispensation of God’s relation with His people, so God revealed a new aspect of His nature in the Christ event. Moberly observes: We can say that within the New Testament and the Pentateuch there is a remarkable parallelism in the concept of different dispensations and the attendant hermeneutical process. Indeed, so similar are the dynamics of the two interpretative processes that it seems not inappropriate to borrow Christian terminology for the theological concept of the pentateuchal writers and so to designate the patriarchal traditions of Genesis 12–50 as the Old Testament of the Old Testament. 10

Moberly shows that neither Mosaic Yahwism nor the New Testament invalidates the former revelations, but rather they both brought a new perspective to the nature and purposes of God. 11 So what are some of the implications of these important observations for our understanding of Abraham’s prayer? As we shall see, the revelation of Yhwh’s name has fundamental implications for Israel’s understanding and experience of prayer. Abraham and the patriarchs do not know God as Yhwh yet, but as El Shaddai (‫שדַ ּי‬ ַ ׁ ‫אֵל‬, Gen 17:1) and El Eljon (‫ֶליֹון‬ ְ ‫אֵל ע‬, Gen 14:18). According to Exod 6:2–3, the same God introduces Himself for the first time as “Yhwh” (‫ )יהוה‬to Moses. 12 Later on in the context of Moses’ 10.  Moberly, The Old Testament, 146; cf. Gerhard von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments, vol. 2: Die Theologie der prophetischen Überlieferungen Israels (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1993) 342–43. 11.  Moberly, The Old Testament, 125–46, 165, argues that both systems (Yahwism and patriarchal religion) have their strong points. Yahwism emphasises commitment, morality, and holiness, while the latter is characterized by ritual simplicity and “ecumenical” openness. Moberly is obviously aware that Genesis 12–50, in contrast to the Old and New Testaments, never existed as an independent canonical text (for a “patriarchal religion” community) but served Mosaic Yahwism for its purposes. This difference is also reflected in the fact that Genesis 12–50 bears many marks of later redactions, whereas the New Testament writers did not edit the Hebrew Scriptures in any way. 12.  On the basis of a detailed study on Exodus 3 and 6, Moberly (The Old Testament, 70–78) in contrast to the traditional documentary hypothesis, argues that all “sources” are aware of a distinction between patriarchal religion and Mosaic Yahwism. Consequently, Moberly suggests that God is often referred to as Yhwh in the patriarchal period, not because of a particular historical perspective of the Yahwist ( J), but because of the writer(s)’s theological conviction that the creator of the universe (Genesis 1–11) and the God of the patriarchs (Genesis 12–50) is the same as that of Mosaic Yahwism. Cf. Brevard S. Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (London: SCM, 1985) 38–39. More recently, Konrad Schmid (Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible [Siphrut 3; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010]) has discussed the issue of the ancestor traditions in Genesis and the Moses story in Exodus. The contemporary trend appears to limit Moberly’s point to the perspective of P. In response to Moberly (The Old Testament, 36–78), Chris R. Seitz (“The Call of Moses and the ‘Revelation’ of the Divine Name,” Word without

Abraham: Patriarch and Intercessor

33

intercessory prayer for Israel, Yhwh reveals more of His name (cf. Exod 34:6–7). Particularly, Yhwh’s attributes of grace and mercy make prayer possible in a totally new way (cf. Num 14:18–19). It is little wonder that God’s mercy and grace are celebrated and recorded in so many of Israel’s writings (e.g. Ps 103:8, Jonah 4:2, Dan 9:18). Abraham, by contrast, is right at the beginning of Israel’s history with God. He has no “tradition of prayer” on which to look back. Nor has God explicitly revealved to Abraham His attributes of mercy and grace to which Abraham could appeal to in prayer (cf. Num 14:19). Unlike Moses, Abraham has no people to watch over; he enjoys a fairly free relationship with God. The law and covenant stipulations have not yet been given. 13 All these factors explain some of the differences between Abraham’s prayer and that of subsequent intercessors. In spite of different dispensations, there are also some profound parallels between Abraham and Moses. Abraham, Moses, and the Nature of God There are notable intertextual links between the dynamics of Abraham’s dialogue with God (Genesis 18) and of Moses’ intercessory role, especially as portrayed in Psalm 103. In both passages, we find reference to God’s concern for (righteousness and) justice (Gen 18:19, 25, Ps 103:6). What is significant is that God does not want to exercise this justice on His own. For this reason, both Abraham and Moses are made privy to Yhwh’s intention to judge and punish (cf. Gen 18:17–33, Exod 32:7–10). God does not hide from Abraham His intention to judge the sins of Sodom, nor does Yhwh withhold His destructive plans from Moses after the golden calf apostasy. “He made known his ways to Moses” (Ps 103:7). Throughout the Old Testament, God revealed to His prophets His perspective on the situation and informed them in advance of His plans, so that they could communicate God’s will to the people and pray accordingly (cf. Amos 3:7). End: The Old Testament as Abiding Theological Witness [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998] 229–47) has developed an alternative reading to what is still widely understood as P, saying that God had not been known as Yhwh before His revelation to Moses (Exod 6:3). Taking the wider narrative context of Exodus 1–20 into account, Seitz argues that Exod 6:1–8 is not about a new knowledge of the name Yhwh per se (nor is Exod 3:14) but is about a fuller and deeper revelation of Yhwh’s nature as He is going to be known in and through the salvific act of the Exodus. In other words, not until Exodus 14 and the victory at the sea has the ‫ֶהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ֶהיֶה א‬ ְ ‫“ א‬found its proper content: ‘I am Yhwh your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt’” (Exod 20:2). God, according to Seitz, has already been known by the name Yhwh in primeval time. Not until the events at the sea, however, has God been known fully in His name Yhwh. Despite the disagreement about when the actual name Yhwh was known, Moberly and Seitz agree that there is a clear distinction between the time of the patriarchs and that of Mosaic Yahwism in terms of understanding the name Yhwh. 13.  Having said that, a covenant has been cut also with Abraham; an everlasting covenant with regard to a multitude of descendants and with regard to the promised land (Gen 17:1–10).

34

Chapter 2

I shall argue that God implicitly invites both Abraham and Moses to intercede for divine mercy on behalf of the sinful party. Both respond to the divine prompting with a prayer that is characterized by a combination of boldness and humility. On both occasions, the Lord’s “prophets” face the possibility of divine judgment on the sinful people, while intercession provides a way of exploring God’s grace, mercy, and justice. Although Yhwh’s attributes of grace and mercy are not explicitly mentioned in the context of Genesis 18, it is clear from the context that God is not dealing with Sodom according to their sins (Gen 18:32–33; cf. Ps 103:8–10). It will become evident that both prayer dialogues lead not only to a disclosure of Yhwh’s ways but also to a revelation of His attributes. God incorporates the prayers of His appointed intercessors in the outworking of His judgment. A judgment that is characterized by grace and justice. We will turn now to a closer reading of Abraham’s dialogue with God.

Israel’s First Prophet (Genesis 18:17–19) Abraham’s audacious dialogue with God over the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah takes place in the context of the appearance of three mysterious visitors at the oaks of Mamre (Gen 18:1). They bring both a message of life and death: 14 a promise of the long expected heir (Gen 18:10) and a warning of bringing punishment on the two cities in the plain. Interestingly, both parts of chap. 18 can be read against Yhwh’s promise to make Abraham a great nation and to make him a blessing to the nations (Gen 12:1–3). This connection comes explicitly to expression in 18:18. Abraham’s intercession for the two cities is among other things an expression of this blessing for the nations. It is in v. 16 that the transition from the hospitality scenery (Gen 18:1– 15) to the Sodom and Gomorrah account takes place (cf. Gen 18:17–33). Then the men set out from there, and they looked toward Sodom; and Abraham went with them to set them on their way. The Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do seeing that Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? No, for I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice; so that the Lord may bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.” (Gen 18:17–19)

Just as the two mysterious men were about to head toward Sodom, God raises the question whether He should make Abraham privy to His plans. 14.  On a strictly grammatical level, it would be natural to use past tenses when referring to biblical events. Nevertheless, I will usually use the present tense in my exegetical readings as a way of taking the reader into “the world of the text” and as an attempt to underline the abiding witness of Scripture.

Abraham: Patriarch and Intercessor

35

God’s question seems to be directed to the two divine agents who are presumably members of the divine council (cf. Gen 19:13, Jer 23:18). 15 Nevertheless, Abraham seems to have overheard the exchange, because v. 23 presupposes that Abraham knows the intention of God. But why should or why will God inform Abraham about His plans? Westermann points to the covenant that God has entered with Abraham (Gen 17:7) and suggests that: “the promise . . . raises Abraham to a level of importance and honor that he deemed worthy to share in God’s plan.” 16 It seems to me more significant that God is considering granting Abraham the privilege of access and participation in the divine committee that is to characterize Yhwh’s prophets. Indeed, it is notable that two chapters later, in the context of Abraham’s prayer for Abimelech, Abraham is explicitly called a prophet (‫ָביא‬ ִ ‫ ;נ‬Gen 20:7, 17). Jacob infers: “Abraham is the first prophet and confidant of God.” 17 In the context of Israel’s later intercessors, it is characteristic of the true prophet that he is made privy to the divine secrets (cf. Jer 23:18). Indeed, Amos 3:7 is quite instructive: “Surely the Lord God does nothing, without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets” (‫יאים‬ ִ ‫ְב‬ ִ ‫)נ‬. 18 In the following chapters, it will become evident that the divine foretelling is an expression of God’s grace and mercy for His people and the world. In doing so, God not only invites prayers on behalf of the people from his prophets but also gives his servants a chance to warn the sinful party of an impending judgment (cf. Exod 32–34, 1 Sam 12, Amos 7). Although subsequent prophets rarely fail to summon the sinful party to repentance, it is almost completely absent in the portrayal of Abraham (and Moses). Noah was also made privy of God’s plans, and yet there too is no element of bringing the sinful party to repentance. 19 We read: And God saw that the earth was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth. And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them; now I am going to destroy them along with the earth.” (Gen 6:12–13) 20

Both Noah and Abraham are informed about God’s plans. Noah accepts God’s decision and obeys His instructions, whereas Abraham, as we 15.  Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (WBC 2; Dallas: Word, 1994) 50. On the complex and in some sense deliberately mysterious picture of the three figures, see particularly von Rad, Genesis, 203–4. 16. Claus Westermann, Genesis 12–36 (London: SPCK, 1986) 288. 17. Benno Jacob, Das Erste Buch der Tora: Genesis (Berlin: Schocken, 1934) 447. 18.  The prophet Amos pleads similarly for a suspending of God’s judgment (“shower of fire”). See pp. 493–496. 19.  Interestingly, some traditions present Noah as a herald of righteousness (cf. 2 Pet 2:5). 20.  Also in the flood account, the destructive visitation is preceded by a divine selfreflection (cf. Gen 6:5–8, 18:17–21).

36

Chapter 2

shall see, stands in the way of the Lord and prays for the doomed pagan cities. 21Abraham and his descendants are chosen for a particular role among the “nations” (‫ֲדמָה‬ ָ ‫ש ְּפחֹת ָהא‬ ְׁ ‫מ‬, ִ Gen 12:3, 22:18, 26:4). They are not only to be the recipients of divine blessing, but they are to become a blessing to the nations. The reason for Abraham’s election is further clarified in v. 19: Abraham is to instruct his children and posterity the way of the Lord, by doing “righteousness and justice” (‫ּומ ְׁש ָפּט‬ ִ ‫) ַלעֲׂשֹות ְצ ָד ָקה‬. 22 In some sense, this word pair summarizes the teaching of the prophets (cf. Isa 5:7; Ezek 18:5, 19, 21; Mic 6:8) 23 and, according to Weinfeld, is equivalent to our understanding of “social justice.” 24 The fact that the Lord entrusts Abraham with the role of a teacher of the divine values and principles within his prospective household is not only with view to promote a way of life that is pleasing to God among Abraham’s descendants, but also with view to fulfilling God’s plans for the nations. In order to become a blessing to all nations, Abraham and his descendants must learn to discern between justice and injustice in all its universal complexity. I shall argue that Yhwh’s involvement of Abraham in the examination of the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:21) serves in some ways as part of this learning process. In other words, Abraham assumes not only the role of a patriarch and teacher but first of all the role of a learner. Here is emerging an important biblical pattern about God’s activity in the world, namely, that God foretells a judgment to His chosen ones but then does not execute it immediately. Rather, God seeks to involve His servants in the process of reaching decisions for the world.

Divine Invitation to Speak Up (Genesis 18:20–22) Then the Lord said, “How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin! I must go down and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me; and if not, I will know.” So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before the Lord. (‫עֹודּנּו‬ ֶ ‫ְוא ְַב ָרהָם‬ ‫ ;עֹמֵד ִל ְפנֵי יְהוָה‬Gen 18:20–22)

21.  This intertextual link shows some more helpful associations. In the pre-flood setting, we find the same theme of mass destruction of a wicked people and the rescue of one “righteous” man with his family. There are also some verbal parallels. For example: “God remembered Abraham” (Gen 19:29; cf. 8:1). Moreover, Wenham (Genesis 16–50, 41) points to the similar overall structure: “in both cases the story of the hero’s escape and the destruction of the wicked . . . is followed by his intoxication and shameful treatment by his children (9:20–27//19:30–38).” 22.  The obligation of instructing children is constantly reiterated in the law (cf. Exod 12:25–27, Deut 6:1–3). 23.  Brueggemann, Genesis, 169. 24. Moshe Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995). Cf. Ps 103:6; Jer 22:3, 15–16.

Abraham: Patriarch and Intercessor

37

The reader has already been told before that the inhabitants of Sodom were wicked and sinned against the Lord (Gen 13:13). In fact, the text anticipates the destruction of the cities in the plain of what came to be known as the Dead Sea (Gen 13:10). Now in chap. 18, the cities’ great sin has finally reached God’s throne in heaven (Gen 18:20). Thus, the inevitable question arises whether the time of reckoning has come for the two cities. Just like in the account of the tower of Babel (Gen 11:5), God comes down to investigate the allegations that came before His throne before Yhwh will reach a final judgment. It is popularly believed that the sin refers primarily to homosexual activity in Sodom (cf. Lev 20:13). A careful reading of chap. 19, however, reveals that it refers mainly to abusive violence and inhospitality. 25 Moreover, the term outcry is often closely associated with the anguished cry of the oppressed in the face of some great injustice. For example, when Yhwh hears Israel’s outcry under their Egyptian task-masters God’s “anger blazes forth” (Exod 3:7). God is attuned to the outcry of the ill treated, particularly to the widows and orphans (Exod 22:21–23). Sarna concludes: The indictment of Sodom lies entirely in the moral realm; there is no hint of cultic offense, no whisper of idolatry. As with the Flood story, the Sodom and Gomorrah narrative assumes the existence of a universal moral law that God expects all humankind to follow. The idea that there is an inextricable connection between the social and moral behavior of a people and its ultimate fate is one of the pillars upon which the entire biblical interpretation of history stands. 26

It is important to underline once again that Yhwh at this stage merely sets out to investigate the allegations. God has heard the outcry and is intending to examine the extent of it. This stands somewhat in tension with v. 17b (“what I am about to do”) where one gets the impression that Yhwh has already decided on the matter and the judgment only remains to be executed. 27 In the light of v. 21, however, v. 17 refers only to Yhwh’s investigation. In v. 21 we read that God must go down and see whether the cities have done altogether according to the outcry that has come before the divine throne; and if not, God will know. 28 For God to use “if” language means the future remains open at this stage. 29 The anthropomorphic 25.  Terence F. Fretheim, “Genesis,” NIB 1:477. Cf. Jer 23:14, Ezek 16:48­–55. Jesus condemns a town to a fate like Sodom’s because of its inhospitality toward strangers who bear the word of God (Matt 10:14­­­­–15). Only Jude 7 refers to homosexual behavior. 26. Nahum M. Sarna, ‫ בראשית‬Genesis ( JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989) 132. 27. Horst Seebass, Vätergeschichte 1 (11:27–22:24) (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997) 127. 28.  According to Jacob (Genesis, 448–49), no definite and unalterable judgment has yet been made in these verses. There is still divine openness in mitigating circumstances. 29.  There are many texts in the Old Testament that speak of a divine openness that depends on the response of the adressee (cf. Exod 4:8–9, Jer 22:4–5).

38

Chapter 2

language­suggests that God has been informed about the sinful state of the two cites, and now He wants to make sure for Himself that what He has heard is true. 30 In other words, the picture of a righteous and conscientious judge is being painted. 31 It is a judge that overviews and judges the nations. Yhwh is not a tribal god, He is concerned about justice on a universal scope. As anthropomorphic as these verses may sound to modern ears, if one attributes any integrity to the logic of the text, one must concede that the destruction of the cities is only a possibility at this stage. 32 Another important factor is Abraham’s prayer. If God was determined to destroy the two cites, why does He consult His chosen servant at the last moment? One could argue that God is omniscient (knows the exact number of righteous people in Sodom) and only tests here Abraham’s sense of justice. But this would deny the integrity of the dialogue. Given the divine “if,” God does not appear certain just how far and in what direction the prayer dialogue will develop. God seeks to incorporate Abraham’s response in His judgment (cf. Exod 32:9–14, Num 14:11–20). 33 The departure of two of the men toward Sodom marks the transition in the text (cf. Gen 19:1, 16). Although both Sodom and Gomorrah are in view in the larger narrative, the author focuses here on Sodom, the home of Lot. 34 In the light of Abraham’s brave rescue operation of his nephew in chap. 14, there is a sense that Abraham feels alarmed about the security of his protégée. Brueggemann comments: “Abraham’s intercession for Sodom and Gomorrah raises numerous great theological issues, but it is also about saving Lot once again.” 35 Is it initially for this reason that Abraham remains standing before God when the two messengers turned toward Sodom (Gen 18:22)? With regard to Abraham remaining to stand before God, there is a welldebated alternative ancient reading that suggests that God remained behind, standing before Abraham. 36 This would imply that while the two 30.  The verb ‫ כ‬+ ‫ ראה‬carries the connotations of a judicial activity: “to inspect, inquire into a matter” (cf. Gen 6:5, 12; Exod 3:7–9, 32:9). 31.  Rashi, Pentateuch, 74. 32.  Terence F. Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective (OTB; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 50. 33.  Idem, “Genesis,” 468. 34.  Sarna, Genesis, 133, argues that the narrative concentrates on Sodom because it was the metropolis and thus representative of all five cities of the plain. 35. Walter Brueggemann, Great Prayers of the Old Testament (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008) 3–4. 36.  ‫ אברהם‬. . . ‫ויהוה‬. See BHS Tiq soph. This is one of 18 allegedly deliberate scribal emendations (‫תיקון סופרים‬, ancient scribal corrections). Cf. Page H. Kelley, Daniel S Mynatt, and Timothy G. Crawford, The Masorah of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 38, 191. The contention states that the scribes modified the text because it was considered irreverent to pose Yhwh in a position that implies service or inferiority to Abraham. So Jacob, Genesis, 449. However, Carmel McCarthy (The Tiqqune Sopherim and

Abraham: Patriarch and Intercessor

39

heavenly agents went ahead to the cities, Yhwh remained in a position of deference before Abraham as if He were obliged to wait and see what Abraham has to say regarding the judgment of the cities. 37 According to this interpretation, God seeks to communicate with Abraham, not the other way around. 38 One could even argue that it is as if God were petitioning Abraham to allow Him to go ahead with His plans. 39 There is good grammatical and contextual warrant arguing that God is making His judgment deliberately vulnerable to Abraham’s response. In fact, one could render God’s speech in v. 21 with: “Allow me to go down so that I can see whether.” 40 Seebass suggests that Yhwh started, even provoked the dialogue with Abraham already in v. 17. Moreover, the final clause of v. 21, “and if not, I will know,” seems to contain a ray of hope and thereby could be perceived as a subtle invitation to intercede. 41 Regardless, whether one prefers the scribal emendation or the MT, in the latter the sense is still that Abraham does not let God depart, but continues to stand before Him in prayer (cf. Gen 32:26/27). From v. 19, we know that God has opened the dialogue because He wanted to make Abraham privy to the divine decision making process. So the dialogue commences as a result of Yhwh’s readiness to enter a discussion. 42 Abraham understood that God implicitly invites him to participate in the decision making process and draws near to God as one who has something urgent to say (Gen 18:23). 43 Jacob concludes: It is God Himself who wants the intercession and its advocate should be Abraham. In the judicial council of God, the voice of humanity should be leading. God will listen to it, even invites it, because the voice of humanity is in fact His own other voice. 44 Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament [OBO 36; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg, 1981] 70–76) argues, partially on the basis of total lack of support from the other textual witnesses, that the rabbinic and midrashic traditions that regarded Gen 18:22 as a ‫“ תיקון סופרים‬may not be trusted.” 37.  Regarding the ‫תיקון סופרים‬, Seebass (Vätergeschichte 1, 129) prefers the BHS because there is a certain expectation toward Abraham. 38.  Fretheim, “Genesis,” 468. 39. Patrick D. Miller, They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 268. 40.  Even if the cohortative followed by ‫ נא‬only seeks to underline the divine resolution and urgency (“I want to go down”; cf. Joüon & Muraoka, A Grammar, § 114d), one could still argue on the basis of v. 22 that God makes His plans vulnerable to Abraham’s response. 41.  We shall observe a similar dynamic in Moses’ prayer in Exod 32:10. 42. Harald Schweizer, “Das seltsame Gespräch von Abraham und Jahwe (Gen 18:22– 33),” ThQ 164 (1984) 121–39. 43.  The Hebrew term ‫ נגש‬is often used in the context of someone drawing near in the courtroom (cf. Gen 44:18; Exod 24:2; Isa 41:1, 50:8). 44.  This is my own translation of Jacob, Genesis, 448–49: “Es ist Gott selbst, der die Fürbitte will, und ihr Sprecher soll Abraham sein. Im Rat des Gerichte Gottes soll die

40

Chapter 2

Abraham’s Intercession (Genesis 18:23–32) “Shall Not the Judge of All the Earth Do What Is Just?” Then Abraham came near (‫ ) ַו ִּיּגַׁש א ְַב ָרהָם‬and said, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will you then sweep away the place and not forgive it (‫ּׂשא ַלּמָקֹום‬ ָ ‫א־ת‬ ִ ֹ ‫)ול‬ ְ for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of ׁ ‫ ;ה‬Gen 18:23–25) all the earth do what is just? (‫ֲשׂה ִמ ְׁש ָפּט‬ ֶ ‫ֲש ֹפֵט ָכּל־ ָה ָארֶץ לֹא יַע‬

Abraham not only stands before God but draws near and bursts out with a series of accusatory questions and allegations. 45 He gets right to the heart of what he perceives to be the matter at stake. Abraham seems to raise at least three concerns: (1) It would be grossly unjust if the righteous incur the same judgment as the wicked. (2) The wicked city should be endured and pardoned for the sake of a certain number of righteous people. This is more than an appeal to justice. It is an appeal to divine mercy. (3) The judge of all the earth should do what is just. All these allegations and implicit appeals seem to anticipate an unfair and destructive divine judgment. As we have seen, however, God has not yet decided on the outcome. Is there a sense that Abraham has misheard and misinterpreted God’s gesture? Is Abraham rushing to an unwarranted conclusion? One of the unresolved problems of this dialogue is Abraham’s reference to 50 righteous people in the city. By referring to 50 moral inhabitants, does he begin his “bargaining” with a figure, which he thinks is easily attainable to avert God’s judgment, or does Abraham implicitly acknowledge that the large majority of Sodom is wicked and deserves punishment? In order to answer this question, one would need to have a fairly accurate idea of the size of Sodom (and Gomorrah). Nor do we know for certain whether 50 includes families or whether the figure refers only to the family heads. Depending on one’s interpretation, these numbers would vary Stimme der Menschlichkeit der Mensch führen. Daß Gott sie anhören will, ja herausfordert, zeigt, daß es im Grunde seine eigene andere Stimme ist.” 45.  Jon D. Levenson (“Genesis,” in The Jewish Study Bible [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004] 89) points to some interesting similarities between Abraham’s intercession and Judah’s bold mediatory effort in front of Joseph over the fate of Benjamin. Both intercessory activities are introduced with ‫“( ַו ִּיּגַׁש‬to approach; to turn to”; Gen 18:23, 44:18). Both mediators draw near to present their plea in a delicate balance of deference and assertion. Both succeed in moving the addressee from judgment to mercy. Judah’s selfless appeal to Joseph’s compassion (“Now therefore [‫]וע ַָּתה‬, ְ please let your servant remain as a slave to my lord in place of the boy; and let the boy go back with his brothers”; Gen 44:33) reminds of Moses’ selfless prayer to be blotted out of the heavenly book (‫ ְ;וע ַָּתה‬cf. Exod 32:32).

Abraham: Patriarch and Intercessor

41

considerably. Noth suggested that 50 could be the number of a single family unit. 46 Seebass, presumably thinking of family heads, suggests that 50 would make approximately one-tenth of the relatively small old Israelite towns (2,500–3,000 inhabitants). Although Abraham demonstrates clearly some awareness of the wickedness of the cities on the plain, he probably begins with a relatively high number in order to give some weight to his argument. Interestingly, Abraham prays that God would “forgive” (nrsv), or perhaps the Hebrew (‫ָׂשא‬ ָ ‫ )נ‬should be rendered with “bear” with the wicked, for the sake of the innocent, and not for the removal of the innocent few from the sphere of judgment. 47 Thus, Abraham seems to imply that there is greater injustice in the death of the innocent than in the life of the wicked. 48 By praying that God should “endure” (‫ָׂשא‬ ָ ‫ )נ‬the wickedness of the majority for the sake of a minority of righteous, Abraham appeals no longer to justice, but to the mercy of God. The righteous ones do not exercise an atoning function for the others, but the effect is comparable. 49 Abraham’s first set of questions climax in what became one of the most famous rhetorical questions in the entire Bible: “Will not the judge (‫)הֲׁשֹפֵט‬  50 Abraham acknowledges that God of all the earth do justice/right (‫ׁשּפָט‬ ְ ‫?”)מ‬ ִ is the judge of all the earth. In other words, Yhwh’s status as judge and His power to rule is not disputed. What seems at issue is the nature of God’s governance. For example, Clements interprets Abraham’s questions as an accusation against the heavenly judge. How unthinkable it would be if the one who is the Ground and Guardian of all right and justice should behave in an unjust way! The very foundations of justice itself would be swept away. In this way what might so readily have began with a very simple request that Lot and his family be spared has been lifted to a higher plane altogether because such a request raised questions about the nature and actions of God. Will not, indeed must not, God always act in a manner that is completely just and righteous?  51 46. Martin Noth, Geschichte Israels (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966) 103. 47.  The word ‫ָׂשא‬ ָ ‫ נ‬is one of the key words that frequently appears in the context of Old Testament intercessory prayer. Here, it appears for the first time in a prayer for pardon. When ‫ָשׂא‬ ָ ‫( נ‬Qal) is followed by some form of “sin,” it often connotes forgiveness in the sense of “bearing” or “enduring” the wrong (cf. Buber and Schocken translation: “Will you not bear with the place,” Gen 18:24). Moses employs the same word in his prayer for pardon after the golden calf incident (cf. Exod 32:32). Eventually, Yhwh reveals Himself as the One who is merciful and gracious . . . who forgives/bears (‫ָׂשא‬ ָ ‫ )נ‬iniquity, transgression, and sin” (Exod 34:6­­­–7). 48.  Sarna, Genesis, 133. 49.  Fretheim, “Genesis,” 469. One is reminded of the suffering servant in Isaiah where we read that “one” brings salvation and reconciliation for the “many” (Isa 53:5, 10). 50.  Cf. 1 Kgs 8:32. 51.  Ronald E. Clements, The Prayers of the Bible (London: SCM, 1986) 21.

42

Chapter 2

The text does not say anything about Abraham being initially concerned about the well-being of his nephew. Abraham never mentions his nephew in the prayer. This can only be argued on the basis of the larger context. What about the tone of Abraham’s question, is it justified? Is Yhwh really a judge who does not care about the evidence that is brought before His court? As we have seen before, God has not made up His mind regarding the judgment yet (cf. Gen 18:21). He came down to investigate the state of the cities. Although heavily anthropomorphic in outlook, the sense is clearly that Yhwh is precisely concerned about a just verdict. Thus, our understanding that Abraham has misheard and misinterpreted God’s gesture to involve him in the judgment finds support. In any case, Abraham’s question in v. 25 refers back to v. 19. If God expects Abraham and his family to do righteousness and justice (‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬and ‫ׁשּפָט‬ ְ ‫)מ‬, ִ then Abraham can expect the same from God. One wonders whether there is any significance attached in Abraham’s omission of righteousness? Why does Abraham not ask, “Will not the Judge of all the earth do righteousness (‫)צ ָד ָקה‬ ְ and justice?” Is this another indicator that Abraham does not fully understand what Yhwh’s intentions are? Does Abraham perhaps impose more judicial categories on God than he ought? 52 The combination of the two words the “judge” (‫ )הֲׁשֹפֵט‬and “justice” (‫ׁשּפָט‬ ְ ‫)מ‬ ִ seem to suggest that Abraham is primarily thinking in terms of a “judge’s just decision.” 53 Interestingly, in v. 26 God does not directly take up Abraham’s allegation that He is not a just judge. Instead He only picks up Abraham’s concern for the hypothetical group of 50 righteous inhabitants. In fact, God affirms almost verbatim Abraham’s concern from v. 24. The divine response seems to encourage Abraham to press on, if not to test the capacity of God’s justice then certainly of God’s grace. In other words, it seems as though Yhwh is about to illustrate to Abraham what divine justice and righteousness look like. The Dialogue: An Act of Bargaining? And the Lord said, “If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will forgive the whole place (‫ּׂשא ַלּמָקֹום‬ ָ ‫א־ת‬ ִ ֹ ‫)ול‬ ְ for their sake.” Abraham answered, “Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes. Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five?” And he said, “I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.” Again he spoke to him, “Suppose forty are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of forty I will not do it.” Then he said, “Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak. Suppose thirty are found there.” He answered, “I will not do it, if I find thirty there.” He said, “Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of twenty I will not destroy it.” Then he said, “Oh 52. The phrase “to do justice” does often, though not exclusively, refer to judicial procedures (cf. Jer 7:5, Ezek 18:8). 53.  Cf. Karl Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik (vol. 2/1; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1940) 557–61.

Abraham: Patriarch and Intercessor

43

do not let the Lord be angry if I speak just once more. Suppose ten are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of ten I will not destroy it.” And the Lord went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place. (Gen 18:26–33)

Abraham makes numerous appeals to reduce the saving number of righteous city dwellers. Abraham’s first attempt to lower the figure is characterized by an interesting combination of humility and audacity. As the divine response is brief though affirming (Gen 18:28), the probing continues. This time, Abraham does not introduce his request by drawing attention to his creaturliness. Forty is granted. The next round is again characterized by Abraham’s caution and concern that he may test God’s patience. Nevertheless, he dares to reduce the saving number by 10 and brings it down to 30. God’s response recurs in brief formulaic fashion (v. 30). Abraham takes it on himself to take the number down to 20. The same affirmative and yet very brief divine answer is provided (v. 31). The last “bid” takes the number right down to 10. It is important to note that it is Abraham and not God who decides to conclude the discussion at 10. “Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak just once more.” Abraham seems aware that he might be stretching the limit of God’s grace. He is cautious and apologetic in his final request. God, however, is as neutral and determined to forgive/to endure (‫ָׂשא‬ ָ ‫ )נ‬the wicked city for the sake of 10 as He was for the sake of 50 at the outset of their dialogue (v. 32). The discussion between God and Abraham is sometimes compared to an act of bargaining or haggling. The logic of this analogy requires that Abraham, as the “buyer,” offers a low price (50 righteous) to God, who would be the “vendor.” 54 For example, Brueggemann interprets the dynamics of the prayer to an auction where the best possible price is being explored. The tone of the interaction is like the bargaining in a Near Eastern bazaar. . . . Once Yhwh has conceded Abraham’s argument, the two parties seem at ease with a classic Jewish transaction of seeking the best deal. . . . In such bazaar bargaining, however, one is never sure one has reached the limit. . . . Abraham will try one more time for a smaller number, but he must now tread into risky territory. He might offend the judge and so qualifies his request with the hope that the judge will not be affronted. But the judge is agreeable, and accepts the new offer. . . . in verse 32, Abraham acknowledges that he will speak “one last time” . . . final offer! 55

MacDonald, however, exploring Middle Eastern bazaar economics, has shown that on a closer reading of the text, the analogy of bartering breaks 54. Joseph Scharbert, (“Die Fürbitte im Alten Testament,” in “Diener in eurer Mitte”: Festschrift für Dr. Antonius Hofmann, Bischof von Passau zum 75. Geburtstag [Passau: Passavia Universitätsverlag, 1984] 92) compares Abraham to a “business man who seeks to lower the price” (“Kaufmann, der den Preis zu drücken sucht”). 55.  Brueggemann, Great Prayers, 6­­–7.

44

Chapter 2

down. He conjectures that Abraham starts with the number 50 because he thought that the figure is easily attainable. He then anticipates that Yhwh as the overbearing judge, upon whom he is trying to impress a measure of proportion and reasonableness, will require a greater number of righteous people in Sodom and Gomorrah in order to forgo destroying them. Abraham anticipates that Yhwh will come back with a figure of, say, two hundred. The bargaining can continue in the usual way and settle somewhere between two numbers, maybe one hundred and ten. In the bargaining, both parties will hope to get a good deal. Yhwh will maintain an appropriate level of justice, and Abraham will hope to get a price for the city that is attainable and not behind his (or rather, its) means. 56

As we have seen, the dynamics of Abraham’s discussion with God develops somewhat differently. God does not raise the price (the number of the righteous), as one would expect for a model of haggling to make sense. Instead, God continues to agree to Abraham’s “offer.” For this reason, MacDonald reaches the conclusion that, if one refers to bargaining in Genesis 18, one ought to highlight that the haggling is one-sided. Only Abraham can, with some reservations, be compared to a haggler. Not fewer than six times does Abraham seek to lower the “price” (number). Perhaps closer than describing the dynamics of the prayer dialogue with haggling, would be “exploring” the mercy and grace of Yhwh. 57 Kidner notes: Abraham is feeling his way forward in a spirit of faith (superbly expressed in 25c, where he grasps the range of rightness of God’s rule), of humility, in his whole mode of address, and of love, demonstrated in his concern for the whole city, not for his kinsmen alone. 58

There is, however, clearly also an element of humility and fear of God. “Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes” (‫ואָנ ִֹכי ָעפָר ָו ֵאפֶר‬,ְ v. 27; cf. Job 30:19, 42:6). Abraham knows his place, he is a mere mortal who has, strictly speaking, no right to appeal to his creator and Lord on behalf of other humans. Given Abraham’s humility, it is amazing that his courage seems to grow during his conversation with God. God, in His grace, seems to encourage Abraham in his prayer by allowing him to stretch the capacity of divine grace and righteousness (cf. Exod 33:12–19). 59 Thus, we clearly recognize here at the outset of Israel’s history, embodied in the patriarch, an important element which will come to characterize 56. Nathan MacDonald, “Listening to Abraham–Listening to Yhwh: Justice and Mercy in Genesis 18.16–33,” CBQ 66 (2004) 32­–33, insightfully explores Middle Eastern bazaar economics and tests it against Abraham’s dialogue with God. 57.  Jacob, Genesis, 450. 58. Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Leicester: InterVarsity, 1967) 133. 59. Von Rad, Genesis, 214.

Abraham: Patriarch and Intercessor

45

Israel’s spirituality: a bold and yet humble “I-Thou” relationship with God. The characteristic mix of boldness and humility anticipates the audacious intercessory prayers of a Moses and Jeremiah. Innocent Ten: An Important Insight into the Nature of God Abraham has decided on the opening number of 50 and it is Abraham who decides where to stop. This leaves us with the puzzling fact that the patriarch ends his “exploration” with the number 10. The reason for this has given rise to numerous reflections. A number of commentators raise the question as to what would have happened if Abraham had pressed the number down to 5 or even one righteous person in the city (Lot and his family)? Would the cities have been spared? For some reason, Abraham does not go lower than 10. Thompson suggests: To have argued further with the Lord might have been to seek to manipulate him, to seek from him an assurance that would take away his authority and his freedom. 60

Perhaps Abraham came to the conclusion that this “number game” cannot be pressed any further as it would imply that there is a “precise number ‘out there,’” that would trigger a divine decision, as though all that counts is ‘counting noses.’” 61 Others have argued that 10 is the smallest unit that can still have an effect. 62 Sarna, for example, holds that Ten is a round and complete number that symbolizes totality. Ten persons thus constitute the minimum effective social entity. 63

Does Abraham, by stopping at 10, implicitly admit that Yhwh’s judgment is justified? Perhaps Abraham is now assured that God would act justly indeed and that he could leave the fate of the few righteous in God’s care. This does, however, not necessarily indicate that Abraham thought that the few righteous inhabitants may now “fare as the wicked” (Gen 18:25). Gen 19:29 seems to suggest that God, for the sake of Abraham’s intercessory prayer, dealt with Lot and his family separately. Thus, the bottom line seems to be that Abraham arrived at a point at which he was absolutely convinced that God is a righteous judge. It became evident that God does not want to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah merely on a whim. The patriarch learns that even a small minority of righteous people have the capacity to save an entire city that is dominated by wicked people. According 60.  Michael E. W. Thompson, I Have Heard Your Prayer: The Old Testament and Prayer (Peterborough: Epworth, 1996) 103. 61.  Fretheim, “Genesis,” 478. 62.  Jacob, Genesis, 453; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 292. 63.  Sarna, Genesis, 134.

46

Chapter 2

to Jer 5:1 and Ezek 22:30, there will be a time when Yhwh is prepared to spare the sinful people of God for the sake of a single just and faithful person. Eventually, the righteous suffering of the Isaianic servant will save the entire people (cf. Isa 53). Brueggemann sees in Genesis 18 a key biblical pattern emerging: This remarkable assertion shows biblical faith and biblical prayer on their way to the conviction that a life well lived may be a mode of rescue of the others, an insight that in Christian tradition will eventuate in an affirmation about the saving significance of the life of Jesus, the singularly righteous man. 64

Abraham learns not only about the saving role of a righteous minority but also a major lesson about Yhwh’s justice. This is justice that is characterized by divine grace and mercy. Moreover, the same revelation of God’s nature, only more explicit, will emerge in Moses’ intercession for Israel’s pardon. There, Yhwh reveals Himself as a God “merciful and gracious . . . forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty” (Exod 34:6–7). In the course of this book, we shall see again and again that biblical intercessors engage on various levels with God’s grace, mercy, and justice. Abraham has learned that Yhwh’s grace and mercy are great indeed, but they stand in an irresolvable tension with divine justice. Westermann’s and Brueggemann’s Understandings of Abraham’s Prayer In this section we shall primarily interact with two scholarly contentions. The first is by Westermann, who argues that the dialogue is not really an intercessory prayer but a theological reflection on the justice of God. 65 The second is by Brueggemann, who argues that Abraham is portrayed as God’s theological teacher. Westermann acknowledges that Gen 18:16–33 has traditionally been interpreted as Abraham’s intercession on behalf of Sodom. He questions, however, whether it is appropriate to refer to the dialogue between God and Abraham as an intercessory prayer. 64.  Brueggemann, Great Prayers, 5. 65.  It is a widespread conviction among historical-critical scholarship that Gen 18:16– 32 is a later theological reflection on an older account, according to which God destroyed the entire wicked city of Sodom and saved only Lot and his daughters. Thus, so the argument goes, the writer of the dialogue between Abraham and God is bound to the tradition. Westermann (Genesis 12–36, 292), following this line of thought, suggests that the writer was primarily concerned to “show indisputably that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a just action. His argumentation is directed at removing any possible doubt about God’s righteousness which could arise as a result of the catastrophe.” It is one thing to attempt to differentiate between the various traditions and to allocate to them particular theological accents and historical settings. It is another to read the narrative in its received form seeking to understand the logic and dynamic of the canonical text.

Abraham: Patriarch and Intercessor

47

Where there is clearly an intercession, especially in the prophetic texts (Amos chs. 7–9; Jer 11:4f.), then it has a fixed structure and is designated as intercession for . . . petition for God’s mercy concerning, . . . Moreover, at the end comes God’s concession or denial. Neither occurs in Gen 18; its structure is that of question and answer, not of petition and concession. On cannot, therefore, describe vv.  18–23 as a prayer, as many exegetes do; it bears no relation to the prayer formulas. Now if 18:23–32 is neither intercession nor prayer, then what the history of exegesis right down to the present time thought it found there disappears, namely, bargaining, beating down, haggling with God. . . . This cannot be the meaning because Abraham, for all his questioning, is aware from the start that God will go through with his decision to punish Sodom. 66

Westermann is right in the sense that there is no explicit reference to prayer in the passage in question, nor do we find any explicit appeals, neither for the righteous in the cities nor for the wicked cities as a whole. Still, we like to argue that the exchange clearly bears the mark of an intercession. For a start, there is a genuine dialogue taking place. God opens the discussion by making Abraham privy of His judicial process. By doing so, we have argued, God invites, yes, almost provokes Abraham to take part in the divine counsel. Abraham in turn understands the cue and seems to hinder God from going ahead to judge the cities (Gen 18:22). By raising the questions “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?” and “will you sweep away the place and not forgive it for the sake of fifty righteous who are in it?” (Gen 18:23–24), the patriarch shows a clear concern over the impending judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah. It has almost the same force as if he was saying “Please do not sweep away. . . . Please bear the place for the sake of fifty!” Abraham’s implicit and yet impassionate petition becomes more explicit in v. 25, where he in effect “prohibits” God to slay the righteous with the wicked. Thus, overall, Abraham’s utterance is clearly motivated by a desire to intercede not only on behalf of the righteous in the cities but even for the entire cities. 67 Westermann’s comment that there is no divine concession is not true either. God agrees not fewer than six times to Abraham’s request to spare the cities for the sake of a righteous minority. Finally, with regard to Westermann’s observation that the dialogue does not exhibit any fixed structure or any other of the “traditional” elements of the “classical” intercessory prayers of the Bible, I would like to say that this has to do with the fact that we are dealing here with the first “prophetic” intercessory prayer according to the canonical order. As we have noted, it is a pre-Sinai and pre-Mosaic prayer. If we allow the logic of the canonical order its say, then it does not come as a surprise that we do not find here an established prayer-structure or pattern. Abraham’s 66.  Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 291 67.  See also Thompson (The Old Testament, 102), who understands Abraham’s question also as impassionate appeals to God on behalf of the sinful cities.

48

Chapter 2

prayer varies from subsequent intercessory prayers, because he is still unfamiliar with what became Israel’s “typical” way of pleading for mercy and forgiveness. Israel’s understanding of Yhwh and His ways and how to plead for divine mercy and appeal to the covenant promises has yet to develop. We shall see in chap. 3 of this volume that Moses has a major influence in shaping Israel’s way of prayer. Having said that, in the light of our observations above, many of the essential and characteristic elements of Israel’s intercessory prayers to come are already clearly visible in Abraham’s exchange with God. (1) There is the divine decision to make Abraham privy to God’s decision-making process. (2) Abraham is implicitly invited to participate in the outworking of God’s plans. Moreover, we have noted that there is a genuine divine openness to integrate Abraham’s contribution. (3) Abraham’s prayer is already marked by an honest and straightforward but humble tone. These elements shall become essential hallmarks of Judeo-Christian spirituality. (4) Abraham’s intercession displays an impassioned sense of God’s righteousness and mercy. (5) We can already detect in Abraham’s prayer an appeal to God’s nature and attributes. Although it is only implicit in this prayer, Abraham clearly appeals to divine justice, mercy, and forgiveness on behalf of the sinful party. (6) God’s reply comes in form of concessions to Abraham’s appeals. In short, the dialogue bears in every sense the essential characteristics of an intercessory prayer. 68 Brueggemann, as we have noted, argues that Abraham is not only portrayed as an intercessor but also as Yhwh’s theological teacher in Genesis 18:22–33: Abraham is the bearer of a new theological possibility. He dares to raise risky questions with Yahweh. . . . this text reports that Yahweh must think a quite new theological thought. God is pressed by Abraham to consider an alternative. 69

Abraham, so argues Brueggemann, boldly presses God to be more compassionate and thereby offers himself as a theological teacher to God so that God may think more clearly and responsibly about his own vocation. There is something unembarrassed about Abraham which helps us to see intercession as nearly strident in the face of God. We must not miss the point. This revolution in the heart of God (cf. Hos. 11:8–9) is because Abraham intervened. Intercession does matter (cf. James 5:16). This is not pro forma prayer. The prayer of Abraham goes beyond that of Job ( Job 31). Job prayed only for himself in his presumed righteousness. Abraham prays for the others who are recognized by all as unrighteous. Abraham disputes with God about the meaning of his Godness. 70 68.  Clements, The Prayers, 20; Miller, They Cried, 270. 69.  Brueggemann, Genesis, 168. 70.  Ibid., 176.

Abraham: Patriarch and Intercessor

49

We have seen in our treatment of Abraham’s prayer that it is indeed characterized both by audacity and humility (e.g. Gen 18:23–25). I can also affirm with Brueggemann that intercession, not least Abraham’s intercession, matters. I disagree, however, as to why it matters. To Brueggemann, the importance of Abraham’s prayer lies in his understanding that it has the power to instruct and change God. According to my reading of the text, Abraham’s prayer matters because God has initiated and invited the patriarch to participate in the outworking of the divine purposes. God is open to integrate Abraham’s prayer in His decision-making. In other words, it matters because God has chosen to work with Abraham. Following the logic of the canonical sequence shows that God is the patient theological teacher, not Abraham. Abraham’s concern that God will not deal justly with the two cites is gradually set at ease by God’s patient concessions to Abraham’s plea. Thereby, Abraham learns through his prayer dialogue that God is indeed a righteous judge. MacDonald, in his treatment of Gen 18:16–33, reasons also against the widespread notion that Abraham is portrayed either as a theological teacher of God or as an exemplary just man who challenges Yhwh’s justice in Ancient Near Eastern bargaining fashion. Instead, MacDonald argues that the dialogue is an interactive lesson in which Abraham learns the extent of Yhwh’s mercy toward his creation, so that Abraham and his descendants may follow in that same way. 71

If one were to search for an analogy other than haggling, MacDonald suggests, “comparison might be made to a child persistently testing parental boundaries, whether real or imagined.” 72 The appearance of parental education in v. 19 makes this a suggestive parallel. In chap. 19, we read that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed under God’s judgment. At first sight, it looks as though Abraham’s intense and engaging prayer for the wicked population in the cities was in vain. Abraham’s intercession, so it appears, was only successful in the sense that Lot and his family were saved. 73 No one else survived. The reader, however, is assured that God remembered Abraham’s prayer (Gen 19:29). On the one hand, this prayer outcome is sobering, and on the other hand, God has 71.  MacDonald, “Listening,” 41. 72.  Ibid., 35. 73.  Why does God provide a way of escape for Lot and his family? Lot is never explicitly mentioned in Abraham’s prayer. Nevertheless, in the light of Abraham’s brave rescue campaign of his nephew (Genesis 14), and the comment that God remembered Abraham’s prayer (Gen 19:29), one could argue that Lot is included in Abraham’s intercession. Although Lot is portrayed as an ambiguous character, his hospitality is strongly contrasted against that of the Sodomites. Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that the author understands Lot as one of the “righteous.”

50

Chapter 2

established­beyond doubt to Abraham that He is far more gracious and merciful in His execution of judgment than Abraham initially dared to ask. God was slow to anger, even over the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah. God proved beyond a shadow of doubt in His concessions to Abraham’s prayer that He has no pleasure in the death of anyone, even the godless (cf. Ezek 18:32). Thus, the prayer-dialogue and the outcome foreshadow God’s fullest revelation of His nature: “Yhwh is merciful and gracious, slow to anger . . . yet by no means clearing the guilty” (Exod 34:6–7).

Further Theological Reflections and Application Called to Be God’s Co-worker Abraham accepts and participates in the role that God intended for him. Namely, to be an intercessor for Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham’s role is to be “God’s means of realizing the purpose of bringing justice and righteousness to the cities in the plain.” 74 For some reason, God does not want to work alone, but involves Abraham. Goldingay seeks to explain the dynamics (or the logic, as he calls it) of intercessory prayer, here in particular Abraham’s prayer, with the analogy of a vicar working with a young assistant, and the congregation. Just as a training-minded vicar would not take decisions on his own but would seek to involve his curate, so God is interested in teaching Abraham in His ways. Goldingay’s analogy is fresh and illuminating and thus deserves quoting at some length: The vicar will have some aims for the church, will keep working at those, and ultimately will not compromise over them or give up on them. But the way they are pursued and the timing of attempts to fulfill them may be endlessly negotiable, because the process is part of the aim. The kind of community the vicar is committed to building has to be involved in the aims’ fulfilment, otherwise the very aims would not be being fulfilled. In a parallel way, God has some ultimate aims for the world, and our prayer needs to accord with God’s will in the sense of matching those aims. But because of that concern for process and the building of a community, God is willing to be tirelessly flexible about these aims’ fulfilment. 75

Genesis 18, alongside other prophetic intercessory accounts, shows clearly that God chooses not to act alone but rather seeks the participation of His servants in the outworking of the heavenly purposes. Thereby, Goldingay’s illustration shows well that God’s purpose in inviting Abraham to participate embraces both the process and the result. It is about an apprenticeship in prayer that leads to maturity in interceding according God’s will. 74. John Goldingay, “The Logic of Intercession,” Theology 101 (1998) 263. 75.  Ibid., 267.

Abraham: Patriarch and Intercessor

51

Goldingay goes on to acknowledge the fact that our prayers are not always answered in the way that we expected or imagined. Here as well, he draws parallels between a negotiation table, where not every suggestion finds approval, and Abraham’s persistent attitude in prayer. There is no mystery about the fact that many of our contributions to the debate, many of our urgings, do not win assent. As can happen with any item on an agenda, other insights and other factors may overcome our urgings this time. Another time this may not be so; we keep making our point, because its moment may come. So we persist in prayer and repeat our prayers. And when we intervene with an “Amen” in the midst of someone’s prayer, it is like saying “Yes” . . . when someone makes a contribution to a debate. It adds to the force of the argument. Likewise when Christians pray “in Jesus name” we are claiming that the point we make fits in with Jesus’ priorities . 76

This line of thought is further developed and applied to the theme of persistency that runs through Abraham’s prayer. In ordinary life, intervening and arguing a case involves effort and persistence; so it is with prayer (e.g. Romans 12:12; Colossians 4:2). It requires self-discipline, hard work and doggedness. In this sense there may be no special or modern reason why Christians have difficulties with prayer. If the analogy holds between prayer and the confrontational arguing of a case, this may help to indicate why prayer often seems hard work and potentially seems to require perseverance and the refusal to give up a task before it is completed. 77

Goldingay’s analogy illuminates a number of aspects of the divine-human dialogue, such as persistence and the argumentative character of the prayer. The analogy of a vicar training a curate underlines also the fact that an important aspect of God’s dialogue with Abraham is concerned with teaching and learning. The analogy, however, falls short in the sense that it does not show that God is teaching Abraham about His attributes, about grace and righteousness. We have noted in our exegesis that God is seeking to impart His grace and justice to Israel’s first intercessor, something that Yhwh does in an even clearer way to Moses (cf. Exod 33:17–34:7). Moreover, in Goldingay’s analogy, there is little emphasis on listening and discerning the divine signs of approval, but much about negotiation. However, there is no negotiation on God’s part in the dialogue with Abraham. Rather, it is about a gracious accommodation of Abraham’s audacious explorations. It is in Abraham’s exploration of Yhwh’s character and His ways that Israel’s patriarch grows in his understanding of his God. 76.  Ibid. 77.  Ibid., 269.

52

Chapter 2

From Prayer to Theology and from Theology to Prayer From Abraham’s dialogue with God we learn not only that prayer has its origin in the movement of God toward humans but also that the divine response to prayers should lead to a fuller and deeper understanding of God and His ways with the world. With regard to the former, we noticed that the enabling initiative for this great intercession came from God (“Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do”; Gen 18:17). After Yhwh’s invitation to pray, God waited for Abraham’s response (Gen 18:22). With regard to the latter, we noticed that God, not Abraham, emerges as the theological teacher from this prayer. I shall argue at some length in the context of our treatment of Exodus 32–34 that prayer and theology are intrinsically linked. 78 Possibly the greatest of all the features of Abraham’s prayer is precisely the way in which it calls on us, when we pray, to develop a theology. Clements observes: “Prayer and the act of praying involve us in theology—the thinking out of the true nature and character of the supreme Ruler of the Universe.” 79 Not only must we think about who God is and how He relates to the world but also we must learn to listen to God. Abraham’s “theology” was taught by God Himself in a prayer. As Abraham wrestles with the divine will, which was not fully manifest at the outset of the prayer, he penetrates deeper into God’s character and will. Eichrodt comments, on the basis of the revelation already received (Abraham) presses forward to a new revelation of the divine thought, confident that in so doing he is in accord with the profoundest intention of the God who calls, and that, whether his prayer is heard or refused, he will receive the gift of a new communion with the will of that God who, supreme though he be, yet does not work without Man. 80

In the intercessory dialogue, it has become increasingly clear to Abraham that Yhwh is a merciful and gracious God, who nonetheless is firmly committed to righteousness and justice. It is then on the basis of this gained understanding of the revealed will, that the intercessor dares to pray with confidence of one who is intimate with God and His ways. Yhwh teaches Abraham a spirit of grace, mercy and justice so that Israel’s patriarch will be able to teach his children to keep the way of the Lord. One could almost say that the intercessor is being transformed into the “image of God.” It is in doing righteousness and justice that the divine promise of becoming a blessing to the nations is being fulfilled (Gen 18:19; cf. Isa 42:1–4). 78. See my Moses, 174–75. 79.  Clements, The Prayers, 21. 80. Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (vol. 2; OTL; London: SCM, 1985) 449–50.

Abraham: Patriarch and Intercessor

53

God’s Universal Mission and Intercessory Prayer From a canonical perspective, one can easily see how Abraham, the father of Israel, foreshadows the relationship between Israel and the nations. Israel’s election served also the purpose of becoming a light and a blessing to the nations (cf. Isa 49:6). Abraham was divinely elected so that all nations on earth would eventually be blessed through him (Gen 18:18). In other words, God chose one man for the sake of all nations. This underlines that biblical election is not an exclusive affair but serves the purpose of blessing others. 81 Abraham mediates between God and the pagan cities thereby foreshadowing also Israel’s priestly function among the nations (cf. Exod 19:6). According to Genesis 18, Abraham blesses Sodom by interceding for the city. Even though Sodom and Gomorrah had sinned themselves beyond the possibility of blessing, it is amazing that Abraham was pleading for them to be spared from the divine judgment. Abraham intercedes for the corrupt pagans whom he did not even know. Wright compares Abraham’s response to Yhwh’s judgment over Sodom with that of Jonah’s and remarks that many Christians’ attitude toward the wickedness of the world resembles more that of Jonah than that of Abraham. 82 Prayers are frequently made for people we approve of, or for projects that we endorse. The community of faith, however, does not often pray for the Sodoms and Gomorrahs of this world. Jeremiah encourages exiled Israel to pray for the welfare of their captors ( Jer 29:7). 83 Also Jesus endorses Abraham’s prayer by the hard dictum: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt 5:44–47). In Exodus 19, Yhwh says that He has chosen Abraham’s descendants to be a kingdom of priests. The apostle Peter picks up this language when he says, “you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (1 Pet 2:9). As priests appointed by the heavenly High Priest, Christians have the responsibility and priviledge of standing before the creator of heaven and earth, mediating on behalf of the nations (cf. 1 Tim 2:1–4). In these Old Testament texts, the missional dimension of biblical intercessory prayer comes to expression. Given that Abraham is the father not only of the JudeoChristian faith but also of Islam seems to suggest that the Church ought to include the monotheistic faiths in particular in their intercessions. 84

Concluding Summary We have attempted to read the dialogue between God and Abraham in the light of the canonical sequence. Thereby, I have pointed out that this 81.  Cf. Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society (London: SPCK, 1989) 80. 82.  Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 2006) 362. 83.  For a more detailed treatment of Jeremiah 29, see pp. 437–439. 84. Hans Küng, Judaism: The Religious Situation of our Time (London: SCM, 1992) 3–18.

54

Chapter 2

is a pre-Sinai prayer. In other words, it takes place in a different dispensation from all the following intercessory prayers in the Old Testament. Characteristic of the pre-Sinai and pre-Yahwistic period is that God had not revealed Himself by that time as Yhwh, as a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger but by no means clearing the guilty (Exod 34:6–7). Although these divine attributes are clearly recognizable throughout the dialogue with Abraham (most noticeably in all the divine concessions up to the point that God was prepared to spare the entire wicked cities for the sake of a small righteous minority), the patriarch had to explore first the nature of His new covenant God. The Lord in turn instructs Abraham in His ways with the world and leading him thereby into a deeper knowledge about His character. In the flood story, the reader learns about the pathos of God (Gen 6:6). Here, one of the primary insights into the character of God is the fact that He is valuing the wellbeing of the righteous more than insisting on the destruction of the wicked. 85 Preserving even a tiny number of innocent humans is more important to God’s eyes than bringing deserved judgment on the guilty. Thus, this account underlines the biblical teaching that God’s will to save clearly dominates over His will to punish. This insight into the divine nature foreshadows the proportion of keeping steadfast love to the 1000th generation but visiting in judgment the guilty up to the fourth generation­(Exod 34:6–7). Abraham’s prayer assures us that even a minority of righteous people suffice to avert God’s just punishment. This is not only a clear demonstration of Yhwh’s grace and mercy but also an indication that in God’s economy a faithful minority can make a significant difference. This has of course important implications for the people of God today, who live in a primarily secular society. They have the capacity to function as agents of salvation and renewal. In other words, through his audacious prayer, Abraham has achieved a new awareness of “what the role of the people of God was to be throughout the centuries.” 86 More than that, “If we listen to Yhwh, we learn that Abraham’s exchange with Yhwh teaches the kind of response expected from Yhwh’s elect so that the divine blessing may be mediated to the nations (Gen 12:1–3).” 87 From a canonical perspective, one can also discern how Abraham’s election to be God’s paradigmatic righteous man and his relation to the pagan cities (pagan nations) foreshadow the relationship between the Jewish nation and the nations. Abraham anticipates and symbolizes in some sense the future Jewish people that is to become a source of blessing to the nations (cf. Isa 19:24, Zech 8:13). The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, however, comes also as an implicit warning to Israel (cf. Ezek 16:44–58). 85.  Brueggemann, Genesis, 170. 86.  Clements, The Prayers, 22. 87.  Goldingay, Theology, 43.

Abraham: Patriarch and Intercessor

55

According to Scripture, God’s dealing with Sodom will be of special admonitory significance for all time and for all peoples (cf. Deut 29:22–27, 2 Pet 2:6). 88 The summons to turn from sin and to return to Yhwh will become the central message of the prophets. Although Abraham is already referred to as a prophet (cf. Gen 20:7), there is still no mention of repentance in Genesis 18–19. Turning away from sin becomes the requirement for intercession for forgiveness and reconciliation to be effective in the long run. 89 This could be illustrated with a couple of biblical examples. Milgrom comments, When God punishes a community by natural disasters—earthquake, flood, plague—the righteous perish together with the wicked unless they leave the arena of punishment. Thus Lot and his family must flee the plains of Sodom; Noah must be given the means of riding out the flood; Israelites in Egypt require blood on their doorposts to ward off the destroyer (Exod. 12:23). . . . the people must distance themselves from Dathan and Abiram lest the earth swallow them up too (16:26), and Moses and Aaron must remove themselves if they are to escape the plague. 90

On one level, Lot and his family turned away from the sinful city and fled from Sodom. On another level, we also read in Gen 19:29 that God remembered Abraham when He destroyed the cities of the plain and sent Lot out of their midst. Lot’s wife, however, disobeyed and was turned into a pillar of salt (Gen 19:26). In other words, although God saved Lot for the sake of Abraham’s prayer, Lot’s wife was cut off from the effect of Abraham’s intercession because she did not turn away from her sins. Fretheim notes, “Choices people make can adversely affect the power of intercession and the divine engagement in their lives.” 91 In spite of the fact that the theme of repentance remains undeveloped in Genesis 18–19, we have noticed that Abraham’s prayer and role anticipates and resembles in many ways the intercessions of Israel’s prophets. There is the divine invitation into the “divine counsel” (compare Gen 18:17 with Amos 3:7). Only the prophet who has insight into God’s will and intentions can intercede with authority. Moreover, there is the persistent and audacious “I-Thou” dialogue that is so characteristic of Israel’s great intercessors. The patriarchal intercessor shows a tremendous passion for divine mercy for the sinful party. Nevertheless, Abraham is being taught that there is no cheap grace and mercy. We have noted that the learning process of Abraham is as important as the actual outcome of the prayer. Genesis 18 is about a genuine dialogue 88.  Seebass, Vätergeschichte 1, 128. 89.  See particularly the chapter on Deuteronomy 9–10, pp. 164–167. 90.  Jacob Milgrom, Numbers ( JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990) 141. 91.  Fretheim, Genesis, 479.

56

Chapter 2

in which God takes seriously what Abraham says, and there is a sense that Abraham was participating in the divine decision-making process. Even so, Abraham’s prayer could not change the fact that there were fewer than 10 righteous people in Sodom. The prayer reveals the greatness of divine grace and mercy. It also makes evident that divine justice is real.

Chapter 3

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor (Exodus 17, 32–34, Numbers 13–14, Deuteronomy 9–10) Introduction The Pentateuch in its received form is closely associated with Moses. He features dominantly from the outset of the book of Exodus to the end of Deuteronomy. Most of the biblical high offices are reflected in the portrayal of Moses. Not only is he Israel’s liberator, but he is also judge, lawgiver, covenant mediator, and prophet. Given our interest in Moses’ prayers, we shall focus particularly on his role as prophetic mediator. 1 In our introduction, we have noted that Scripture presents Moses as both Israel’s archetypal prophet and intercessor and could well be described as father of biblical prayer. 2 Some of the richest and foundational prayer dialogues are recorded in the context of Israel’s two characteristic sin accounts, the golden calf apostasy (Exodus 32–34) and Israel’s rebellion at Kadesh (Numbers 13–14). Because I have written elsewhere at considerable length about Moses’ intercessory prayers in those two accounts, I do not provide a detailed account of these texts here. However, I will give a summary of my findings on pp. 82–101 of this chapter and will direct the reader to my fuller treatment (Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004]). Having said this, I will advance here a close reading of the deuteronomic account of the golden calf apostasy (Deuteronomy 9–10). In contrast to the Exodus account (Exodus 32–34) and the scout narrative (Numbers 13–14), Moses’ intercessory ministry in Deuteronomy is not just one important element among several major concerns in the narrative, but it is the main focus of the story with its distinct emphases. The account of Moses’ intercessory act has been regarded as a high point of deuteronomic theology. 3 First, however, I will consider the story of Amalek that sheds significant light on Moses’ intercessory role on Mount Sinai. 1. See Rolf Rendtorff (Theologie des Alten Testaments: Ein kanonischer Entwur, vol. 2: Thematische Entfaltungen [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001] 121–34), for a helpful overview of Moses’ manifold roles. 2.  See pp. 9–13. 3.  Ronald E. Clements, Deuteronomy (NIB; Nashville: Abingdon, 1998) 366.

57

58

Chapter 3

Moses, God, and Amalek: Anticipating Moses’ Intercessory Ministry on Mount Sinai (Exodus 17:8–16) The story of Amalek’s attack on Israel has invited numerous artistic depictions in church history. The picture of Moses’ uplifted arms holding the staff of God overlooking the battlefield reminded several of the Church Fathers of Jesus’ victory over evil on the cross. 4 Early Jewish and Christian interpreters understood Moses’ activity on the hill as prayer, while modern­ exegetes have pointed to the fact that no words are recorded. Thus, it has been argued that the outcome of the battle is merely determined by the raising and lowering of Moses’ arms. In fact, a number of commentators describe Moses’ gesture with the staff as an act of magic whereby he holds the destiny of Israel in his hand. Houtman, for example, comments: “As a magician Moses guides the combat.” 5 Dozemann suggests that the power to wage war resides not so much in Moses but in the magical staff of God. 6 Part of the confusion of this story is the tension between Moses’ staff, his hand, and his hands. Although there are some difficulties with the account, there are good intertextual reasons to interpret Moses’ activity as intercession on behalf of Israel. In an article called “Anticipating Horeb,” MacDonald shows convincingly how the accounts recorded in Exodus 17 (Israel in Massa and Meribah and the Amalek incident) contain numerous intertextual clues that prepare the reader for Israel’s arrival at Horeb. 7 Building on MacDonald’s findings in the area of Moses’ mediatory role, I shall argue that the Amalekite account anticipates Horeb not only with regard to the making and breaking of the Sinai covenant but also with regard to the dynamics of intercessory prayer as we find them in Exodus 32–34. There are good reasons to argue that Amalek not only represents an external enemy but foreshadows, if not already represents, Yhwh’s wrath and judgment. At first sight, this biblical account is a story of human war. It is to the shame of the Church that stories such as this one have served to justify war in the name of God throughout church history. 8 It will become evident 4.  Origen, Exod. Hom. 11.3. See also Stephen B. Chapman, “Perpetual War: The Case of Amalek,” in The Bible and Spirituality: Exploratory Essays in Reading Scripture Spiritually (ed. J. G. McConville, A. T. Lincoln, and L. K. Pieterson; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2013) 6–8, for further patristic Christological interpretations. 5. Cornelis Houtman, Exodus 7:14–19:25 (vol. 2; HCOT; Kampen; Kok, 1996) 370. Thus it is perhaps understandable that the account has been regarded as a hero saga or legend. See George W. Coats, “Moses versus Amalek: Aetiology and Legend in Exod. Xvii 8–16,” in Congress Volume 1974 (VTSup 28; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 37. 6. Thomas B. Dozeman, Exodus, Eerdmans Critical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) 395. 7. Nathan MacDonald, “Anticipations of Horeb: Exodus 17 as Inner-Biblical Commentary,” in Studies on the Text and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in Honour Robert Gordon (ed. D. Lipton and G. Khan; Leiden: Brill, 2012) 7–19. 8. Philip Jenkins, Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can’t Ignore the Bible’s Violent Verses (New York: Harper Collins, 2011) illustrates how Catholics and Protestants have used this

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

59

that the battle against Amalek is won not through Joshua and his army, but through Moses’ intercession on the mountain. 9 Having said that, I have preached several times on this passage as a way of emphasizing the delicate but important balance between divine and human involvement in the outworking of God’s will and purposes. I believe that this text offers a biblical corrective to what often looks from the outside as though the “Joshuas” of this world (that is, politicians, pastors, missionaries, and so on) do all the work. This account reveals where the true power to win comes from. In very memorable form, this story illustrates how the three parties that are always involved in biblical intercessory prayer (God, intercessor, and the party that is being interceded for) relate to each other. Exposition and Coherence of Exodus 17 Exodus 17, with its Massah and Meribah account (vv. 1–7) and the Amalek incident (vv. 8–16), is part of the wilderness narratives, which follow Miriam’s song after Yhwh’s deliverance at the Sea (Exod 15:22). They extend all the way to Israel’s arrival at their first major destination: Mount Sinai (Exod 18:27). 10 These accounts testify that God leads His people through the wilderness to the Mountain of God in stages (Exod 17:1). The harsh conditions of the desert, however, pose a constant threat. In fact, on their way to Sinai Israel encounters four major challenges. In Marah, Israel hits the first water crisis (Exod 15:22–27); in the wilderness of Shur, there is a shortage of food (Exod 16:1–36); in what came to be called Massah and Meribah, Israel lacks water again (Exod 17:1–7); finally, Israel is attacked by Amalek, a desert tribe (Exod 17:8–16). In particular, the shortage of water is an ongoing temptation to doubt God’s faithfulness, providence, and power (cf. Num 20:1–13). These accounts serve to underline Yhwh’s providential care and Israel’s dependence on God and His servant Moses (cf. Exod 14:31). The natural hardship of the desert leads again and again to dissatisfaction and complaint among the people. Sarna comments: Although in no case is divine anger displayed, the first three narratives nevertheless leave the unmistakable impression of being a negative judgment on Israel’s behavior, an implicit critique of the people’s ingratitude to God and their lack of faith in spite of their very recent experience of His wondrous protection and deliverance. 11

Each complaint is first directed toward Moses. He in turn would pray for a divine resolution, while God would respond graciously to Moses’ prayers and other violent texts to justify war against each other, or how Christians employed this text as a rationale to commit genocides against “outsiders.” 9. E. Zenger, Das Buch Exodus, Geistliche Schriftlesung (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1987) 181. 10.  The Pentateuch preserves two blocks of literary composite materials on the wilderness journeys before Sinai (Exod 15:22–18:27) and after (Num 10:11–36:13). See my Moses, 231–33, for a concise overview of the differing theological emphases. 11. Nahum Sarna, ‫ שמות‬Exodus ( JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991) 83.

60

Chapter 3

for the needy party. Patiently, Yhwh helps Israel to overcome their thirst and hunger by providing miraculously and by manifesting His presence. Throughout the narratives the reader gains the impression of a people on the move toward a promised goal. On their way, however, they are tested to put their faith in their God and His servant Moses (Exod 14:31).

The Massah and Meribah Account (Exodus 17:1–7) When Israel reaches Rephidim, there is again no water for the people to drink (Exod 17:1). They complain for the third time against Moses. Moses in turn transfers the responsibility to God by telling Israel: “Why do you test the Lord?” (Exod 17:2). Compared to the previous two instances, Israel’s complaint grows stronger and more threatening. 12 “Why did you bring us out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and livestock with thirst?” (Exod 17:3). Israel not only starts to question God’s providence, but they also become violent toward Moses. As Israel’s complaint escalates, Moses cries to God: “What shall I do with this people?” They are almost ready to stone me“ (Exod 17:4). God advises Moses to go ahead and take some elders of the people and the staff with which he struck the Nile (Exod 17:5). Yhwh would then be standing on the rock at Horeb and would ensure that water flowed from it when Moses struck the rock in the sight of the elders (Exod 17:6). In other words, the very instrument that brought judgment on the Egyptians by turning the water of the Nile into undrinkable blood (Exod 7:2) would become the channel of blessing for the people of God. Like so often in the wilderness narratives, or in the prophets’ accounts, the one that is accused of the misery turns out to be the deliverer (cf. Isa 53:3–12). The place is named in remembrance of the people’s sin. In subsequent writings, Israel often referred back to Massah and Meribah as prime examples of discontent. Massah became somewhat a motif that stood for “trying” and “provoking” God (cf. Deut 9:22, Ps 95:8). 13 Moses calls the place Massah (‫ ) ַמּסָה‬and Meribah because the Israelites quarreled and tested the Lord, saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?” (Exod 17:7; cf. v. 2). 14 Fretheim helpfully expounds the meaning of testing. Testing has to do with “putting God to the proof,” that is, seeking a way in which God can be coerced to act or show himself. . . . Israel’s testing of God consisted in this: if we are to believe that God is really present, then God must show us in a concrete way by making water materialize. . . . It is, in essence, an attempt to turn faith into sight.  15 12.  In Marah and in the wilderness of Shur, Israel’s complaint is expressed with the verb ‫“( לון‬to grumble, murmur”; Exod 15:24; 16:2, 7, 12, etc.). In Exodus 17, however, the narrative employs ‫“( ריב‬to quarrel”; Exod 17:2, 7). It is a stronger term that is used in situations before they become legal problems (see HALOT, s.v.). It gives the impression of an aggressive confrontation. 13.  Ps 81:8 reads “I tested you at the waters of Meribah.” 14.  The Hebrew word “‫ ” ַמּסָה‬can also be rendered with “testing” or “attempting.” See HALOT, s.v.. 15. Terence Fretheim, Exodus (IBC; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991) 189–90.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

61

Judging from the wider narrative context, one comes to the verdict that Israel has experienced not only God’s favor and power in the miraculous events that are associated with the exodus but also His providence in the wilderness. But even so, Israel persistently doubted, complained, and rebelled against Yhwh and thus “must be judged guilty of lack of faith and gross ingratitude.” 16

Amalek, Israel, and Moses’ Staff (Exodus 17:8–16) The Massah-Meribah account closes with the opening question: “Is Yhwh among us or not?” With the sudden attack of Amalek, this question becomes fundamental for Israel’s survival. 17 Who is this Amalek that appears seemingly out of the blue at Rephidim? 18 The first appearance of the name is in Genesis 36. According to the genealogy, Amalek is a distant descendant of Esau-Edom. Looking at the available clues, Cassutto reconstructs the situation as follows: Amalek was a Bedouin people, who led a nomadic existence in the desert south of the land of Canaan, as is evidenced by Scripture in Gen Xiv 7, which mentions the country of the Amalekites as being in the proximity of Kadesh, and in other passages that speak of Amalek as dwelling in the region of the Negeb (Num. Xiii 29; xiv 25); but it is not to be inferred from here that Rephidim was near to Kadesh. On the contrary, it is stated here, And Amalek came, that means to say, that they were not settled there but came from a distance. 19

There is a general consensus that Amalek’s origin is somewhat shrouded in mystery. Childs concludes that, for understanding the message of the story, certainty with regard to the origin of Amalek is of little consequence. 20 In the face of the Amalek threat, Moses immediately summons Joshua to muster men who were able to fight. 21 This is the first time that Joshua is mentioned in the canonical order. Later in Numbers 13, we learn more about his identity. He is not only one of the two faithful scouts, he is also Moses’ faithful attendant on Mount Sinai (cf. Num 14:6; Exod 32:17, 33:11). As to his military skill, Joshua would eventually lead Israel in the conquest of Canaan. While Joshua leads his “army” into battle against Amalek, 16.  Sarna, Exodus, 93. 17.  There is some tension within the flow of the narrative. On the one hand, it says that Moses has already gone ahead and struck the rock in the sight of the elders at Mount Horeb (cf. Exod 17:6), while on the other hand, at the beginning of the Amalek account, it says that Israel was still at Rephidim when Amalek attacked Israel (Exod 17:8). 18.  The shared localization of Rephidim is only one of several links that connect the Amalekite account with the Meribah story (Exod 17:1, 8). 19. Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary of the Book of Exodus ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967) 204. 20. Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus (OTL; Louisville: Westminster, 1976) 314: “Certainty for the story itself it is of little consequence.” 21.  It is significant to note that Joshua is mentioned first in the context of a battle, because it is he who will eventually lead Israel in the military conquest of Canaan.

62

Chapter 3

Mose­s ascends the hill (‫ )ה ִַּג ְבעָה‬22 with Aaron and Hur to overlook the battlefield with the staff of God (‫טּה ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬ ֵ ‫) ַמ‬. The text pays special attention to the staff (Exod 17:9–10). It connects the Amalek account with the preceding miracle, where Moses produced drinking water for Israel through the staff of God, and it probably also sought to remind Joshua of the mighty works that God achieved through Moses and his staff in the run up to the Exodus (cf. Exod 4:17, 7:20, 9:22, etc.). The battle in the valley receives comparatively little attention in the text. The focus of the account is clearly on Moses and the happenings on the top of the hill. The development of the battle in the valley clearly depends on what Moses does. As long as Moses held up his hands, Israel gained the upper hand in the conflict, but when he lowered his hands, Amalek became stronger (‫גבר‬, Exod 17:11). But Moses’ hands grew tired and heavy (‫ שה ְ ּכב ִֵדים‬ ֶׁ ֹ ‫)וידֵ י מ‬. ִ There came the point when Moses could no longer sustain his posture and needed the assistance of his two helpers. Moses was seated on a stone and his hands were supported on both sides by Aaron and Hur. 23 Only with their support could Moses’ hands remain steadfast (‫ָדיו אֱמּונָה‬ ָ ‫ )י‬until sunset (Exod 17:12). So it came that Joshua and his men managed to weaken/defeat (‫ )חלש‬Amalek and his people with the sword (Exod 17:13). The text makes it clear that Moses’ prayer gesture on the mountain lasted until sunset and thus was parallel to the fighting. In other words, Israel’s victory was directly related to Moses’ upheld hands. 24 One of the difficulties of this story lies in understanding the “mechanics” of Moses’ gesture. Scholars have detected a certain tension with regard to Moses’ staff, his hand, and his hands. First, it has been pointed out that the “legendary” staff is emphatically introduced in v. 9, but then does not receive any further attention in the account. Moreover, initially the text speaks only of one raised hand of Moses (Exod 17:11), while by v. 12 both hands have grown tired. Rather than detecting behind the change of the term from singular to plural a different tradition, it seems natural to read that initially the staff was in one uplifted hand (v. 11). Then, Moses had to alternate between the hands until he needed both hands to keep the staff in position. As the development of the battle in the valley is closely related to Moses’ gesture, a certain narrative suspense builds up. Will Moses persevere, or will his strength fail him? Houtman notes this increased suspense as well: 22.  The definite article suggests that the location, Horeb, was well known. 23.  Not only is Moses’ intercessory prayer anticipated in this passage, but also Aaron’s support of Moses’ uplifted arms points forward to the main responsibility of Israel’s high priest, to bear the twelve tribes of Israel in remembrance before God (cf. Exod 28:12, 29). By carrying their names on his shoulder and on his breast piece, Aaron does not merely represent the children of Israel but also implicitly (or explicitly) intercedes for them (cf. Exod 28:15–30). 24. Is Moses’ role psychological in the sight of the fighting men? See W. Gunther Plaut, ed., Die Tora in Jüdischer Auslegung (Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser and Gütersloher Verlags­ haus, 2000) 177.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

63

The reader notices how Moses grows tired and struggles to hold up the staff, alternately using the one hand and then the other, but that even so the effort is too much for the man. Fear sizes the reader. Will Moses fatigue cause Israel to lose the battle? 25

What started as a one-man activity ended in a corporate effort. 26 Together, the three men achieve a posture of steadfastness before God. The Hebrew reads, literally, “his hands were steady, faithful” (‫ָדיו אֱמּונָה‬ ָ ‫י‬, Exod 17:12). Having familiarized ourselves with the broad narrative flow, we need to attend to the meaning and logic of Moses’ gesture. Traditionally, Jewish and Christian interpreters have understood Moses’ act with the staff as a prayer. Numerous commentators, however, have questioned this reading. Frequently, it is pointed out that there are no words recorded, nor is there any explicit indication in the text that would confirm Moses’ act as a prayer. The outcome of the battle, so it seems, is determined by the raising and lowering of Moses’ staff. Thus, there has been a steady stream of interpreters who have described the happenings on the mountain as magical. For example, Hesse writes that behind Moses’ gesture is the understanding of an act of magic (Zauberhandlung). He refers to the staff as a “magic wand” (Zauberstab). 27 Similarly Dozeman suggests that the power to wage war resides in the magical staff of God. . . . The staff of God is like a lightning rod at the summit of the hill channeling power down to the Israelites in the battle. When the antenna is down, the power ceases. The eventual weakness of Moses even to raise his arms underscores further that the power in the battle does not reside with him but with God. 28

Following a history of religion approach, Hesse argues that intercession was initially a kind of religious magic (religiöse Magie) in the sense that only a power-endowed functionary could attempt to influence God. 29 More recently, Houtman sees supernatural power residing not so much in the staff, but in Moses himself. He refers to Moses in this context as a magician who leads the combat in the presence of God who seeks to manipulate God through his conjuring posture (Exod 17:11). 30 In contrast, Zenger contends any magical understanding of Moses’ gesture by saying that it would be impossible for the Israelites to believe that 25.  Houtman, Exodus, 370. 26.  Ibid., 375. 27. Franz Hesse, Die Fürbitte im Alten Testament (Hamburg: Erlangen, 1951) 16­–17. 28.  Dozeman, Exodus, 394–95. 29.  According to Yochanan Muffs, (Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992] 11, 38–41), this semi-magical understanding of intercessory prayer is still reflected in biblical texts from preprophetic times, such as the plague narratives in Exodus (cf. Exod 8:5–8). 30.  Houtman, Exodus, 370, 383. Reference is often made to Balaam, who was hired to curse Israel (Numbers 22), or to Moses’ gesture of raised hands with the staff of God in the plague narratives. See Childs, Exodus, 314.

64

Chapter 3

any human could have a magical influence on God. According to Israel’s tradition, nobody, not even Moses, can coerce God to act in a certain way. God can, however, be persistently petitioned to act for his people. Thus, Zenger regards the gesture of Moses’ hands as a symbol of the prayer in solidarity and trust. 31 That the gesture of uplifted hands is a form of prayer and intercession is endorsed by the account of the dedication of the temple, where Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord in the presence of Israel and spread out his hands toward heaven (1 Kgs 8:22; cf. Ps 141:2). That the text has a prayer in view is further supported by the fact that the victory is clearly ascribed to God. Moses builds an altar as an expression of gratitude and memorial. He names the altar “Yhwh is my banner” (‫ִּסי‬ ִ ‫יְהוָה נ‬, Exod 17:15). 32 It is unlikely that Moses alludes here to his staff, but rather he testifies that Yhwh is faithful in battle. Moses refers to the altar as “for it is a hand on Yh’s throne” (‫ּכי־יָד עַל־ ֵכּס יָּה‬, ִ Exod 17:16). 33 It is possible that by using the word hand, Moses seeks to recall the role of the hand(s) in the battle against Amalek. Does Moses want to say that by building an altar, that at the time of prayer, he found himself with raised hands before Yhwh’s throne? In other words, the altar conceivably serves as a memorial that hand(s) raised in (urgent and consistent) prayer receive a special hearing in the very presence of God. This sort of reading would be reinforced, if we can presume that the battle of prayer happened at Horeb, the Mount of God (Exod 17:6; cf. 34:5–9). A brief comparison of Exod 17:8–16 and 1  Sam 7:2–13 will substantiate the position that we are dealing with an intercessory prayer in Exod 17:11–12.

Moses’ and Samuel’s Persistent Mediation (Exodus 17:8–16 and 1 Samuel 7:8–13) We shall look at Samuel’s intercessory role in more detail in chap.  4­. Here, I would merely like to underline a few illuminating parallels between the two accounts. Both times, Israel is under military attack. As at Rephidim, Israel is once again in a vulnerable military situation as they gather at Mizpah to fast and to confess (1 Sam 7:6; cf. Deut 25:17–19). 31.  Zenger, Exodus, 106, 182: “Der Text kann eine Anregung dazu sein, das Problem der absoluten Freiheit Gottes und der ‘bezwingenden’ Macht des unablässigen, beharrlichen Gebetes zu durchdenken.” 32.  The interpretation of the Hebrew in vvv. 15 and 16 is very difficult. The expression ‫ִּסי‬ ִ ‫ יְהוָה נ‬appears here only. Hugo Gressmann (Mose und seine Zeit: Ein Kommentar zu den Mose–Sagen [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913] 157) points to a possible connection between ‫ נֵס‬and the staff (Exod 17:9) and suggests that the altar is dedicated to Yhwh in the form of a staff, like the symbol of the serpent (cf. Num 21:9). Sarna (Exodus, 95) reads ‫ִּסי‬ ִ ‫ יְהוָה נ‬as “The Lord is my standard” and thus considers Rashbam’s interpretation plausible. According to Rashbam, Moses held up a standard bearing some conspicuous symbol that signified the presence of God in the Israelite camp. 33.  The Hebrew is ambiguous. The nrsv seems to suggest that ‫ ּכֵס‬it is a scribal error for ‫“ נֵס‬banner” as in v. 15. It could, however, be a form of the more standard term for throne (‫)ּכּסֵא‬. ִ See especially Houtman, Exodus, 388–391, for a fuller discussion.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

65

the lords of the Philistines went up against Israel. And when the people of Israel heard of it they were afraid of the Philistines. The people of Israel said to Samuel,“Do not cease to cry out to the Lord our God for us, and pray that he may save us from the hand of the Philistines.” (1 Sam 7:7–8)

According to 1 Samuel 7, it is the insistent prayer of Samuel that eventually won the victory over the hostile Philistines. This finds its parallel in Moses persistently raising his hands in prayer against the Amalekites (cf. Exod 17:11–12). Moreover, in both cases the account is sealed with the mediator erecting an altar that expresses that the victory was won through Yhwh (cf. Exod 17:15, 1 Sam 7:12). By drawing attention to the form-critical and conceptual parallels between the two accounts, Schmitt argues against the widespread scholarly contention that Moses’ act with the staff is a magical gesture. Schmitt points also to the fact that the Amalek account itself, underlines that the victory is ascribed primarily to Yhwh and not to Moses “magical” power (cf. Exod 17:8–16). 34 In the coming pages, I shall try to substantiate further the claim that Moses’ gesture on the hill should be understood as an intercessory prayer on behalf of Israel. In fact, we shall see that both the account of the battle against Amalek and the Massah and Meribah incident, in their distinct yet related ways, anticipate Sinai. We shall follow MacDonald’s findings and then attempt to build on them with particular regard to Moses’ intercessory prayer. Anticipating Horeb (Nathan MacDonald) MacDonald, in his article, pursues two objectives, the second being the main goal. First, MacDonald engages with the scholarly contention that the two accounts that we find in Exodus 17 have no particular connection. He draws attention to verbal and thematic links between the two narratives and convincingly demonstrates that the narratives of the spring at Massah and Meribah and the Amalek attack should be read together. 35 Second, MacDonald shows that both stories anticipate the narratives concerning the making and breaking of a covenant on Mount Sinai (Exod 24, 32–34). As his findings are directly relevant for the development of our argument that the account of the Amalek attack is anticipating not only the Sinai covenant but also the dynamics of Moses’ intercession with Yhwh, we shall provide a detailed summary of MacDonald’s conclusion.

The Spring at Massah and Meribah (Exodus 17:1–7) MacDonald lists six observations that substantiate his claim that the Massah/Meribah account anticipates the happenings at Mount Sinai. First, he draws attention to the fact that in this narrative the name and place of 34. Hans-Christoph Schmitt, “Die Geschichte vom Sieg über die Amalekiter Ex 17,8–16 als theologische Lehrerzählung,” ZAW 102 (1990) 340–42. 35.  For example, Coats (“Moses,” 29) argues that the account of Amalek “appears to be . . . completely isolated from its context.” See also MacDonald, “Anticipations,” 7–19.

66

Chapter 3

Horeb is mentioned several times and thus probes some of its reverberations in the book of Exodus and beyond. Horeb is, of course, the mountain of revelation. For the reader of the present-form of Exodus the mention of Horeb is not entirely surprising for although the name is more characteristic of Deuteronomy it is the place of the original revelation of Moses (3:1). The more familiar name ‘Mount Sinai’ will not appear until 19:11, after which it will dominate the Pentateuchal story until Deut 1:2. . . . According to Exod. 32:6 Horeb is where the worship of the Golden Calf takes place. Interestingly, Sinai is always associated with the giving of the law in the book of Exodus, a pattern shared with the other biblical books. As far as I am aware, it is never associated with the sin of the Golden Calf. Horeb, on the other hand, is both the mountain of revelation and the place of sinfulness. (Exod. 32:6; Deut 9:8; Ps 106:19) 36

For our purposes, it is important to highlight that the name Horeb anticipates the mountain of God where Moses interceded on behalf of sinful Israel. As we shall see, Yhwh’s fullest revelation of His name appears also in the context of Moses’ prayer for Israel (Exod 33:12–34:7). Second, we have noted that the Massah account closes in the saying “Is the Lord among us or not” (Exod 17:7)? MacDonald comments: The question of Yhwh’s presence will occur again in Exodus, when Moses ascends the mountain to receive the law and disappears for forty days. The people demand that gods be fabricated because Moses and his god have disappeared. The issue of presence remains at stake for Yhwh initially refuses to go with the people. The dialogues between Moses and Yhwh frequently utilize the same language of God’s presence in the midst (33:3; 5; 34:9; ‫)קרב‬. 37

When we develop the canonical link between Exodus 17 and Moses’ intercessory prayers, we will see that Yhwh’s presence is again a central issue in Numbers 14. There, because of Israel’s disobedience Yhwh will not be with them when they attempt to enter Canaan. Consequently, Israel is defeated by the Amalekites (Num 14:42–43). Third, we have seen that, in the face of a water shortage, the people turn against Moses with the strong words: “Why did you bring us out of Egypt, to kill us and our children . . . with thirst” (Exod 17:3). MacDonald notes that the people in their complaint describe Moses, “rather than Yhwh, as the one who brought them out of the land of Egypt . . . it finds a striking echo in the account of the Golden Calf. There the people attribute their deliverance from Egypt to Moses (32:1, 23).” 38 Fourth, MacDonald points out that when Moses was summoned to take the elders of Israel (‫ )זקן‬to Horeb (Exod 17:5–6), this finds its closest parallel 36.  Ibid., 12–13. 37.  Ibid., 13. 38.  Ibid.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

67

in the Sinai narrative (Exod 24:9–11). Fifth, in Exod 17:6, Israel drink from the stream that flows from Horeb. “In the Golden Calf story Moses makes the people drink from water in which the powdered remains of the Calf have been scattered (32:20) . . . in both cases the rebellion of the people leads to them drinking water that flows down from Horeb.” 39 Besides, it has long been noted in the tradition of interpretation that the water that flows from the rock at Horeb anticipates Torah/the Law that later emanates from Sinai. 40 Sixth, with reference to Moberly’s observation, MacDonald notes that there is an interesting intertextual parallel between the rock at Horeb that is mentioned at Massah and Sinai. At Massah, Yhwh tells Moses: “I will be standing there in front of you on the rock at Horeb” (‫ ;עַל־הַּצּור‬Exod 17:6), while in the aftermath of the golden calf incident, Moses is instructed to stand on a rock before Yhwh (‫ ;עַל־הַּצּור‬Exod 33:21, 34:2). As Moses passes before the people at Massah (‫ ;עֲבֹר ִל ְפנֵי ָהעָם‬Exod 17:5), so Yhwh passes before Moses (ָ‫ עַל־ ָּפנֶיך‬. . . ‫ֲביר‬ ִ ‫ ; ַאע‬Exod 33:19, 22). 41

The Battle with Amalek (Exodus 17:8–16) In the second part of his article, MacDonald turns to the story of Amalek and notes a number of important parallels to the making of the Sinai covenant and the sin of the golden calf (Exod 24, 32–34). For a start, the four main characters of the story are those that will emerge together again in the story of Sinai and the golden calf—Moses, Joshua, Aaron, and Hur (cf. Exod 24:13–14, 32:1–5, 17). Moreover, MacDonald refers to Moses building an altar. “The only occasions in which Moses is said to have built an altar are to be found in Exodus 17:15 and 24:4.” 42 What is also of interest is the common language of writing, blotting out, and books. These expressions appear in both Exodus 17 and 32 in strikingly similar ways. According to Ex 17.14 Yhwh instructed Moses to write down and recite to Joshua Yhwh’s judgment against Amalek: Write (‫)ּכתֹב‬ ְ this is a reminder in the document (‫ ) ַּב ֵּספֶר‬and recite it in Joshua’s hearing: ‘I will utterly blot (‫ֶמחֶה‬ ְ ‫ )מָחֹה א‬out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.’ By comparison in Exod 32 Moses asks to be blotted out of God’s book if he doesn’t forgive the people’s sin: (‫ֲשר ָכ ָּת ְב ָּת‬ ֶׁ ‫ו ִאם־ ַאיִן ְמ ֵחנִי נָא ִמ ִּס ְפ ְרךָ א‬,ְ 32). God’s response is that he will punish those who have rebelled against him: (‫ֶמחֶּנּו ִמ ִּס ְפִרי‬ ְ ‫ָא־לי א‬ ִ ‫ֲשר ָחט‬ ֶׁ ‫)מי א‬. ִ  43

MacDonald has clearly demonstrated that there are numerous connections of key words and themes between Horeb in Exodus 17 and Horeb/Sinai in 39.  Ibid., 14. 40.  Cassuto, Exodus, 201. See also Fretheim, Exodus, 190, following Jewish interpretations, he also links the water flowing from the rock with the law. 41. R.  W.  L. Moberly, At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34 ( JSOTSup 22; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983) 206. 42.  MacDonald, “Anticipations,” 16. 43.  Ibid.

68

Chapter 3

chaps. 24 and 32–34 that bind together the narratives. The result is a subtle interaction that could well be called “implicit commentary” that often exhibits an “ironic parallelism.” 44 Having said this, MacDonald raises the concern of not dissolving into allegories and thereby calls for controlled analogies. He reckons that a good start would be to observe that both stories in Exodus 17 speak of mortal threat with Yhwh as savior and Moses playing a principal role. The same dynamics are also present in the golden calf account. In each of the stories, Israel faces a threat to its existence. In Exodus 17, these threats are external: thirst and the Amalekites. In Exodus 32, the threat is internal, but no less—and perhaps even more—threatening to Israel’s existence. Basic analogies could be drawn between the lack of water and idolatry and between military threat and idolatry. 45

In the golden calf account the threat could be described as internal in the sense of Israel’s stiff-necked attitude and apostasy that flows from the heart. However, as a result of Israel’s great sin, the threat also becomes external in the form of Yhwh’s consuming wrath (Exod 32:10). We shall consider in the next section whether or not divine judgment also falls within the intertextual connections between these narratives. Building on these and some other links between these narratives, I shall attempt to include Moses’ intercessory role within the range of “implicit commentary.” Anticipating Moses’ Intercessory Ministry Without doubt, Moses plays the central human role in all these stories. It is through him that Yhwh mediates His salvation to Israel. In a general sense, we can say that Moses operates as the intercessor between the people under threat and God. First, in Massah, Israel faces a shortage of water that leads to severe complaint against Moses. They accuse him of bringing them into the wilderness to kill them with thirst (Exod 17:3). So Moses cries out in helplessness to the Lord, and God saves them by providing water. Although Moses’ prayer appears to be motivated partially by his own security, it clearly has the severe situation of the people in view. Second, at Rephidim, Israel is suddenly under attack from Amalek (Exod 17:8). Here, there is no mention of complaint, but Israel’s survival depends again on Moses’ persistent mediation on the mountain. Third, at Sinai, Israel produces the golden calf (Exod 32:1–6). Consequently, Yhwh intends to consume the apostate people in judgment, so that Moses needs to intervene on behalf of Israel in prayer. All accounts fall within the wider pattern of the wilderness narratives where we regularly find Israel under an external threat (natural hazard, military danger, divine judgment, and so on). Moses intercedes, and God responds in relief and/or judgment. 44.  Ibid., 17, with reference to R. Gordon. 45.  Ibid., 25.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

69

In the case of Amalek’s attack, the circumstances that led to Moses’ intervention and the way he intervenes look quite different at first sight from his prayers for Israel on Sinai. What looks initially as a somewhat mechanical relationship between Moses’ uplifted arms and what happens on the battlefield seems at some distance from Moses’ wordy prayers for Israel in the aftermath of the golden calf (cf. Exod 32:11–13, 33:12–23). However, given, the many intertextual links that connect Exodus 17 and Exodus 32– 34, it is not only suggestive to read Moses’ activity in the face of Amalek as wrestling in prayer for Israel, but it is also worth probing whether there are further mutual conceptual associations between the dynamics of Moses’ prayers. 46 For a start, we note that in contrast to Massah and Meribah, Moses acts in the face of the Amalek threat and the consuming wrath of God without divine command to intervene (cf. Exod 32:10–13). In both accounts, the persistency of Moses’ prayer is emphasized. The direct relationship between Moses’ sinking and upheld arms and the course of the battle demonstrate the importance of endurance and steadfastness in prayer. As the narrative evolves, the reader is wondering whether Moses can persevere in his intercessory battle to win salvation for Israel. In the case of the golden calf, we shall see that Moses’ determination in prayer comes to expression in the fact that it needed four prayers to pacify Yhwh’s consuming righteous wrath and to renew the covenant relationship. Both narratives create a clear sense of suspense. Will Moses persist in wrestling in prayer with Yhwh? MacDonald speaks thus of an inner-biblical commentary between Exodus 17 and 32. The story of Moses’ tiring hands draws attention to the importance of Moses as the mediator. In his weariness will Moses prevail? As the story of the Golden Calf unfolds in Exodus 32–34 exactly this question is in the reader’s mind: will Moses persist with Yhwh and can his intercession succeed? The stories leave no doubt about the importance of prophetic intercession for the continued life of Israel. 47

A further interesting parallel is the issue of Yhwh’s presence among His people. We have noted that the Massah/Meribah account closes with the question “Is the Lord among us or not” (Exod 17:7)? The problem of Yhwh’s presence is of central importance in Moses’ third and fourth intercession after Israel’s golden calf apostasy (Exod 33:14–18, 34]:8–9). Yhwh initially refuses to go with the people to the promised land because they are stiff-necked (Exod 33:1–11). In fact, these verses introduce the fundamental problem of how a holy God can live among a sinful people. Psalm 95 offers a commentary on the Massah/Meribah account that speaks of 46.  As we have pointed out, Jews and Christians have traditionally understood Moses’ gesture as prayer. Cf. Childs, Exodus, 316–17. 47.  MacDonald, “Anticipations,” 26.

70

Chapter 3

Israel’s hardness of heart when putting Yhwh to the test, though they had repeatedly seen God’s work (Ps 95:8–9). In other words, not only the issue of God’s presence but also the way the texts refer to Israel’s sin bring the two narratives in close proximity. 48 Moreover, it is only because Moses persists in intercession that the question of whether God is among Israel or not (Exod 17:7), finds a positive answer. Similarly, it is through Moses’ tenacious prayer negotiation that God’s saving presence among His people is secured (“Consider too that this nation is your people,” cf. Exod 33:13). At this point, I would like to draw another important account into our intertextual dialogue: Moses’ prayer for Israel at Kadesh (Num 13–14).

Further Canonical Echoes (Exodus 17 and Numbers 14) We shall look at the scout narrative in its own right later. Here, I would like to point to some of the intertextual connections with Exodus 17. Of course, there is again the regular pattern that we find in most wilderness accounts of an external threat that leads to complaint among the people. The murmuring is directed to Moses and escalates into open rebellion and unbelief (Numbers 14). 49 As frequently occurs in the post-Sinai wilderness accounts, Yhwh appears in judgment and Moses has to intervene on behalf of the people praying for some kind of divine resolution. 50 In the case of the scout narrative, the similarities go further. For a start, there is the connection with Joshua. He is mentioned for the first time in the Bible in Exod 17:9. His family lineage and his spiritual stature, however, are only revealed in Numbers 13–14. On both occasions Israel’s complaint is directed against Moses (cf. Exod 17:2–3, Num 14:2). Thirst and fear of the inhabitants of Canaan leads Israel to express strong regret that they have ever left Egypt (Exod 17:3, Num 14:2). Both times, the complaint is voiced with a “why” question that expresses particular concern for the children and escalates to the point that the people intend to stone Moses (Exod 17:4, Num 14:10). Both times, Israel’s lack of faith is considered as testing Yhwh (cf. Exod 17:2, Num 14:22). The people quarreled with Moses (‫ שה‬ ֶׁ ֹ ‫) ַו ּּיָרֶב ָהעָם ִעם־מ‬, and said, “Give us water to drink.” Moses said to them, “Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test the Lord?” But the people thirsted there for water; and the people complained against Moses (‫ שה‬ ֶׁ ֹ ‫ ) ַו ּּיָלֶן ָהעָם עַל־מ‬and said, “Why (‫) ָלּמָה‬ did you bring us out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and livestock with thirst?” So Moses cried out to the Lord, “What shall I do with this people? They are almost ready to stone me.” (ִ‫;ּוס ָק ֻלנ‬ ְ Exod 17:2–4) 48.  The idioms of stiff-neckedness (‫ )ערף קשה‬and hardness of heart (‫ )לב קשה‬are related. See HALOT, s.v. 49.  For a detailed reading of the narrative logic, see my Moses, 254–80. 50.  Cf. Claus Westermann, “Die Herrlichkeit Gottes in der Priesterschrift,” in Wort— Gebot—Glaube: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Walther Eichrodt zum 80. Geburts­ tag (ed. H. J. Stoebe; AThANT 59; Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1970) 240–45.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

71

And all the Israelites complained against Moses (‫ שה‬ ֶׁ ֹ ‫ ) ַוּיִּלֹנּו עַל־מ‬and Aaron; the whole congregation said to them, “Would that we had died in the land of Egypt! . . . Why (‫ ) ָלּמָה‬is the Lord bringing us into this land to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will become booty; would it not be better for us to go back to Egypt?” . . . the whole congregation threatened to stone them (‫)ל ְרּגֹום א ָֹתם‬. ִ . . . (Num 14:2–10)

In both accounts, Yhwh’s presence plays an important role. As mentioned, the Massah and Meriba account finishes with the open-ended question and implicit judgment: “Is the Lord among us or not?” (‫הי ֵׁש יְהוָה ְּב ִק ְר ֵבּנּו ִאם־‬ ֲ ‫ ָאיִן‬, Exod 17:7). Thus, when it says in the next verse that Amalek came and fought with Israel, the question becomes urgent. Will the Lord help Israel or not? We have seen that, with and through Moses’ intercessory help, God’s divine presence is secured (Exod 17:10–13). Interestingly, in the scout narrative, also in the wider context of Moses’ intercessory prayer, Amalek wins against disobedient Israel because Yhwh is not with Israel (Num 14:43). In other words, Num 14:39–45 contains a remarkable contrasting parallel to Exod 17:8–16. This time, Amalek (not Moses) is on “the top of the mountain” (cf. Exod 17:9–13, Num 14:40, 44) and triumphs over Israel. The roles are reversed. The reason, according to Moses: “Because you have turned away from Yhwh, and so Yhwh is not with you” (‫ִהיֶה יְהוָה ִע ָּמכֶם‬ ְ ‫ולֹא־י‬,ְ Num 14:43). 51 In the Exodus account, divine presence is visualized against the Amalekites through Moses’ staff, in the scout narrative through the ark of the covenant (cf. Num 14:44). The motif of the Lord being in the midst of the people as a means to ensure military victory is already raised in Moses’ prayer (Num 14:14). As a result of Israel’s unbelief and rebellion, Yhwh intends to consume Israel. Moses, however, intercedes, raising among other things the issue of divine reputation and presence. “I will . . . disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they.” But Moses said to the Lord, “Then the Egyptians will hear of it, for in your might you brought up this people from among them, and they will tell the inhabitants of this land. They have heard that you, O Lord, are in the midst of this people (‫ַּתה יְהוָה ְּב ֶקרֶב ָהעָם ַהּזֶה‬ ָ ‫)ּכי־א‬ ִ . . . Now if you kill this people all at one time, then the nations who have heard about you will say, ‘It is because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land he swore to give them that he has slaughtered them in the wilderness.’” (Num 14:12–16)

On both occasions, Israel quarreled and tested the Lord (Exod 17:7, Num 14:22). Given all these intertextual similarities, the sudden appearance of Amalek raises not only the question whether the Lord is among them or not but also whether the attack could or should not be understood as a form of divine judgment (“if you [Yhwh] kill this people all at one time,” 51.  Zenger, Exodus, 181.

72

Chapter 3

Num 14:15)? In other words, is Yhwh, like in the scout narrative and the golden calf story, visiting His people in judgment, here in the form of an Amalekite attack? Amalek: Symbol of the Enemy or Vehicle of God’s Judgment? In this section, we shall explore some of the main interpretive options as to the possible reason for Amalek’s attack. Some commentators have speculated that it was a matter of defending their already contested water places and fear for their territory that provoked the attack. 52 Others see in the attack the old Jacob-Esau tension that resurfaces here. 53 From Deut 25:17–19, we learn that Amalek attacked Israel from behind when they were weak and vulnerable. It says that there was no fear of God in Amalek. This may provide a partial answer as to why Amalek attacks Israel (Exod 12:37). Suggestive as these may be, the fact is, the text contains no explicit answers as to why Amalek was driven to fight with Israel. Although scholars have attempted to locate Israel’s war with Amalek historically or geographically, Houtman, in his massive 4-volume historical commentary, concludes that it is difficult, 54 and according to Jacob, it is misguided to look for a historical core of this story. Rather, he calls the interpreter to search for the meaning and purpose of the text. 55 From a canonical point of view, the Amalek story follows the Massah/Meribah account. Thus, we shall continue to draw lessons from the narrative flow between those two accounts. Moreover, its placement after the Exodus and before the Sinai event is meaningful. Looking at the place of the Exodus within the larger canonical context, Houtman comments that Pharaoh has disappeared from the scene in Egypt, but the threat that he embodied to the people of God persists. This threat surfaces, according to Houtman, in the attack of Amalek and is essentially an attempt to cut short the Exodus out of Egypt and to frustrate the fulfillment of the promises to the patriarchs. “Amalek’s attack is tantamount to a rebirth, outside Egypt, of Pharaoh, Yhwh’s adversary. . . . Amalek is Pharaoh redivivus.” 56 Houtman would even go as far as to say that the writer of these accounts understands 52.  Sarna, Exodus, 95: “The Amalekites interpreted the sudden appearance of the Israelites in this region as a menacing encroachment upon their territory and as a threat to their control of the oases and trading routes.” 53. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses: Arranged in the Form of a Harmony (4 vols.; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1854) 1:219. Especially the Jewish commentators are keen to trace back the genealogy of Amalek back to Esau–Edom (cf. Gen 36:9–12). Jacob (Exodus, 501) comments that the Amalekite, according to the Torah, could not boast of their origin. Although Amalek was a grandson of Esau/Edom, Jacob/ Israel’s brother, he was a “bastard of a bastard, three quarters of Horite (Canaanite) origin.” 54.  Houtman, Exodus, 2:378. 55.  Jacob, Exodus, 500. 56.  Houtman (Exodus, 2:370) titles his section on Exod 17:8–16, “Amalek Opposes the Fulfillment of the Promises to the Patriarchs.”

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

73

Amalek as the enemy. 57 Jacob takes a similar line of argument in drawing attention to the fact that Israel was on its way to Sinai where they were constituted as the people of God. Thus, so argues Jacob, Amalek’s attack was an attempt to keep Israel from becoming the people of God. 58 This reading makes sense of the final verses of the account, where Yhwh resolves to be in unending hostility toward Amalek (Exod 17:14). 59 Although the text does not provide any explicit reason for Yhwh’s harsh-sounding words, we have seen that vv. 14–16 ensure that the Amalek incident becomes a kind of divine lesson of how Yhwh relates to the enemy and how God will involve His people in the fight against the adversary. 60 In the light of the forthcoming military struggles to conquer the promised land, one can see why this would be an encouragement for Joshua who will lead Israel into Canaan. It is, however, not always an external enemy like Pharaoh or Amalek that threatens Israel’s future. 61 Ever since the flood, it is clear that the “enemy” also comes from within. It was the world’s sinfulness that led to the flood (Gen 6:5­–7). God declares in judgment: “I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created.” (Gen 6:7) 62 It was because of Israel’s persistent waywardness that God swore in His anger that they would not enter His rest (Ps 95:11). It was apostasy in and through the golden calf incident, and Israel’s rebellion at Kadesh that provoked divine anger and led to divine judgment. 63 In other words, it was Yhwh Himself who was going to terminate the covenant relationship with Israel and make a new start with Moses (Exod 32:10, Num 14:10). From the outside, it looked as if Yhwh Himself would became Israel’s enemy (Exod 32:12, Num 14:14–16). Moreover, we shall see in the context of Joel’s and Amos’s intercession that Israel’s idolatry and social injustice causes Yhwh to visit His people as a divine warrior to execute His judgment: “I (Yhwh) will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword” (Amos 7:8–9). 57.  Ibid., 377. 58.  Jacob, Exodus, 503–4. 59.  An approach that works with the received form of the text can take little comfort in the fact that most literary critics regard Exod 17:14–16 as a secondary expansion to a “basic narrative” consisting of Exod 17:8–13. See for example, Christoph Levin, Der Jahwist (FRLANT 157; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993) 358. 60.  Especially in Jewish tradition, Amalek became the shorthand for the enemy, whoever it may be. Walter Dietrich and Christian Link (Die Dunkeln Seiten Gottes: Willkür und Gewalt [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997] 196) comment: “On this and on other places of the Hebrew Bible, and more so in post-biblical Jewish tradition, Amalek does not so much appear as a real political-ethnic entity, but rather as a code or symbol for attempted genocide against Israel” (my translation). 61.  Even if Pharaoh is considered as an external threat, the Bible pictures the run-up to Israel’s deliverance as a complex process that emphasizes again and again that Yhwh hardened the heart of Pharaoh so that His power and glory will be known among Israel and the peoples (cf. Exod 14:4, 17). 62.  Exod 17:14 and Deut 25:19 employ the same Hebrew verb to describe the divine judgment, ‫מחה‬, which literally means” to wipe clean (a document), to erase, to wipe out.” 63.  The Amalekites act also as a vehicle of divine judgment in Num 14:43–45.

74

Chapter 3

Given this wider background and particularly the strong canonical association among Exodus 17, subsequent Sinai happenings, and Numbers 14, it is not too far fetched to consider whether behind Amalek’s military attack there is also a divine judgment. In fact, this interpretation has some ancient precedent. Calvin, taking the theological thrust of the preceding Massah/Meriba story into account, argues that there are two possible reasons that God chooses to involve them in a conflict with Amalek: either to punish them for their recent sin or as a warning to “render the people more obedient to Him.” 64 Rashi also considers the coming of Amalek as a divine punishment. 65 Israel’s ingratitude toward Yhwh who had just delivered His people from slavery (and their neglect of the Torah) led to judgment. Both premodern commentators assume a close connection between Israel’s question in Exod 17:7 and the appearance of Amalek. This is also the tone of Psalm 95 where it says that Israel hardened their hearts at Meribah and put Yhwh to the test in spite of having experienced Yhwh’s mighty deliverance from Egypt (Ps 95:8–9). In Deut 9, Massah is also mentioned among the notorious places of rebellion at which Israel provoked Yhwh to wrath (cf. Deut 9:22). 66 In other words, there is considerable scriptural background to argue that the appearance of Amalek is a divine judgment. If this reading has any credibility, one of the implications would be that Moses’ intercessory prayer on behalf of Joshua and his army would be a prayer that engages with divine judgment and wrestles for Yhwh’s presence among Israel. Building on MacDonald’s findings, we have seen how Exodus 17 clearly anticipates the happenings at Sinai. 67 One of the, if not the main event of Sinai, is Yhwh’s fullest self-revelation to Moses (cf. Exod 34:6–7). Taking all the intertextual associations into account, one could argue that the same 64.  Calvin, Harmony of the Law, 1:219. 65.  Mek. 2.129, 135–37; ExR.26.2; MidrTanh. Exod. 5.3, 4; Zohar Exod. 65; see Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (7 vols; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1954) 3:54–55. 66.  In our section on Deuteronomy 9, we shall see that v. 22 is part of an inclusio that refers back to vv. 7–8. Besides verbal parallels, we also find the reference that Yhwh was ready to destroy Israel in His wrath. vv. 7–8: you have been rebellious against the Lord (‫ִיתם ִעם־יְהוָה‬ ֶ ‫הי‬ ֱ ‫ )מ ְַמִרים‬from the day you came out of the land of Egypt. . . . Even at Horeb you provoked (‫)ה ְקצ ְַפ ֶּתם‬ ִ the Lord to wrath, and the Lord was so angry with you that he was ready to destroy you. vv. 22, 24: At Taberah also and at Massah (‫)ּוב ַמּסָה‬, ְ and at Kibroth-hattaavah, you provoked the Lord to wrath (‫)מ ְַק ִצ ִפים‬. . . . You have been rebellious (‫ִיתם ִעם־‬ ֶ ‫מ ְַמִרים הֱי‬ ‫ )יְהוָה‬against the Lord as long as I have known you. 67.  Just as Moses said to the stiffnecked Israelites after the golden calf apostasy that on the next day he would go up to the Lord and hope to make atonement for their sins (Exod 32:20), in the same way, when the sinful Israelites (cf. Ps 95:8) were attacked by Amalek, Moses and “his prayer team” went up on the hill on the next day to intercede on behalf of Israel (cf. Exod 17:9–12).

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

75

dynamics of Yhwh’s character are already anticipated in Moses’ prayer in Exod 17:11–13.

Intercession: An Engagement with Yhwh’s Righteous Wrath In the course of this book, it will become increasingly evident that prophetic intercession often engages with divine mercy and wrath on behalf of Israel (cf. Exod 34:6–9, Num 14:18–20). It is interesting to note that, after the golden calf incident, which arguably took place at the same place as the Amalek attack, 68 Moses will implore Yhwh with prayer motives that would fit well with the context of his struggle against Amalek. Moses counters Yhwh’s anger and the divine resolve to consume sinful Israel: “O Lord, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt . . .”? Why should the Egyptians say, “It was with evil intent that he brought them out to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth”? Turn from your fierce wrath; change your mind and do not bring disaster on your people.” (Exod 32:11–12)

In bringing these two texts together, I would like to mention three things. (1) Obviously, we are not told about the content of Moses’ prayer in Exod 17:8–13. We should note, however, that the Bible does not always report the words of Moses’ (or other prophets’) prayers. Often, we only find expressions such as Moses “cried to Yhwh,” 69 “prayed to Yhwh for the people,” 70 or like in the passage under discussion, “raises his hands” on behalf of Israel (‫ שה יָדֹו‬ ֶׁ ֹ ‫ ;יִָרים מ‬Exod 17:11). (2) I am not arguing that we should put here Moses’ prayer from Exodus 32 into his mouth. (3) What I am suggesting, given the strong intertextual associations, is to allow Moses’ post– golden calf intercession to comment on the dynamics of Moses, God, and Amalek. In other words, keeping Moses’ prayer argument (Exod 32:11–13) in the background, one could readily ask, why should Yhwh allow the Amalekites to nullify the divine promise to the patriarchs (Exod 32:13), or mock His reputation? Or why should God Himself destroy Israel in punishment through the Amalekites right after the Exodus and thereby invite the nations to mock His holy name (cf. Exod 32:11, Num 14:15–16)? Reading Moses’ prayer act with Aaron and Hur from the perspective of Exodus 32 anticipates Moses’ intercession in in the golden calf context. 71 As part of the pre-Sinai wilderness accounts, the Amalek challenge contributes to Israel’s understanding of their God who is fully committed to His people and His promises, but who is also a holy God who tests the 68.  The definite article of the hill probably refers back to Horeb (cf. Exod 17:6, 18:5). See Houtman, Exodus, 2:380. 69.  For example, ‫ִצעַק אֶל־יְהוָה‬ ְ ‫ ַוּי‬, Exod 15:25, 17:4; Num 12:13. 70.  For example, ‫ שה אֶל־יְהוָה‬ ֶׁ ֹ ‫ִת ַּפּלֵל מ‬ ְ ‫( ַוּי‬Hithpael), Num 11:2, 21:7. 71.  Exod 17:12 reads that, with Aaron and Hur’s help, Moses’ “hands were steady until the sun set” (‫ַשמֶׁש‬ ּׁ ָ ‫ָדיו אֱמּונָה עַד־בֹּא ה‬ ָ ‫)י‬. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan renders it as “spread out in faith, prayer and fasting” (the fasting lasts till sunset; cf. Mek. 2.145).

76

Chapter 3

genuineness­of Israel’s faith. One could say that through the Amalek incident, Israel, but perhaps primarily Moses, are being trained in matters of faith and prayer. The Amalekites could have slaughtered Israel, if Yhwh were not in their midst. It seems theologically suggestive to read Moses wrestling on behalf of Israel against Amalek, as a wrestling for divine presence against Yhwh’s anger and judgment. Further Theological Reflections I would like to offer further theological reflections on three related areas. First, the account of Israel’s battle against Amalek lends itself well to illustrate the delicate balance between divine and human involvement in achieving God’s purposes. Second, we have seen that many commentators follow a long tradition of interpretation that takes Amalek as a symbol for the enemy of God. We shall explore briefly some of the theological implications for this sort of reading. Finally, we shall attempt to follow the theological trajectory of our argument in this chapter that Moses’ gesture on the hill foreshadows the heart of his forthcoming intercessory ministry, engaging with God’s love and justice on behalf of the people of God.

Prayer and Human Action Although strictly speaking there is no parallel to Moses’ gesture of a staff in uplifted hands in the Old Testament, Jewish and Christian interpreters have traditionally understood it as a gesture of prayer (cf. 1 Kgs 8:22, Ps 141:2). We have found good support in our exegesis for early Jewish readings that have taken the story as an example of the power of prayer. 72 It is, however, not only a story that underlines the power of prayer, but it is also a story of human bravery. Calvin reads this account as an example of how God delegates his authority through His ministers who then operate as His instruments of power. 73 In other words, Exod 17:11–13 illustrates that, while Moses’ prayer decides the outcome, Joshua’s leading of the charge in the valley is also necessary for victory. The text makes it absolutely clear, where the power to win comes from. Still, the message of this account is different from the Exodus from Egypt, where the struggle against Egypt was fought by Yhwh alone (through the mediation of Moses; cf. Exod 14:14). Thus, Barth found in Exodus 17:8–16 a lesson of God’s working through man in a delicate balance which neither impaired God’s will nor destroyed man’s genuine activity. 74 This delicate divine-human balance is central to the biblical concept of faith. It is also well expressed in the scout narrative. When Israel arrived at the threshold of Canaan, they had the choice between going forward, trusting in Yhwh and His promise, or abandoning faith and losing it all. According to God’s judgment, Israel had every reason 72. Cf. Mekilat Rosh Hashana 29, cited in Childs, Exodus, 316. 73.  It is interesting to note that, in the canonical order, the next account is about Moses’ delegating his responsibilities to other human leaders (Exod 18:13–27). 74.  Barth, Church Dogmatics 2:2, 375; cf. Childs, Exodus, 317.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

77

to trust Him and march ahead. After all, Yhwh has performed many miraculous signs among them in Egypt and throughout the wilderness journey (cf. Num 14:11). According to the writer of Psalm 95, the same truth applies to Israel at Meribah and Massah (v. 9). This raises the question of the relation between faith and human action. Moberly succinctly poses the question, “Does it mean trusting God and ‘keeping the powder dry’ (i.e. taking appropriate military action), or does it mean trusting God and taking no action?” 75 Moberly argues that the former is generally envisaged in Scripture, though the latter is also advocated on special occasions, such as the Exodus, where God takes over completely. In the Amalek incident and the scout narrative, however, some human action was required. Joshua needed to lead his men against Amalek (Exod 17:8–9), while Moses had mustered the army to enter the promised land (cf. Numbers 1–2). Both times, it required a firm trust that God was in their midst (Exod 17:7, Num 14:14) and appropriate military action. In other words, even though Moses will stand with his staff in the presence of God and pray for Yhwh’s salvific presence, Joshua and his men needed to obey Moses’ instructions and do their share. Belief, as Moberly puts it, has almost always the added sense of “acting in response to what is heard with trust or obedience.” 76 When Jesus sends his disciples into the battlefield, we observe a similar dynamic, as he promises to be with them in prayer. 77 Both levels of involvement are essential for the achievement of God’s purposes. Hall notes: “In vain shall Moses be upon the hill, if Joshua be not in the valley. Prayer without means is a mockery of God.” 78 Still, it is interesting to note how little attention is given to the battle, the emphasis is clearly on what was happening on the hill. 79 Indeed, the point of the story, as Chapman points out, is Moses’ gesture on the mountain, not the size of Joshua’s army or his tactics. “The story actually turns on the superiority of piety over power, of gestures over weapons, of arms over armaments.” 80

Intercession and War against God’s Enemy In our exegesis I have noted that numerous commentators follow a long Jewish and Christian tradition that takes Amalek as a symbol for the enemy of God. Let us briefly explore some of the theological implications for such a reading. After Joshua defeated the Amalekites with the sword, Moses is instructed by God to record the incident as a memorial with the following words: “I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under the heavens!” (Exod 17:14). Then Moses interprets Yhwh’s words in saying: “War for 75.  R. W. L. Moberly, “‫אמן‬,” NIDOTTE 1:432. 76.  Moberly, “‫אמן‬,” 431–32. 77.  Cf. Matt 28:19–20, Luke 10:17, John 17:20. 78. J. Hall, “Contemplations,” cited in Childs, Exodus, 317. 79. Georg Fischer and Dominik Markl, Das Buch Exodus (NSKAT; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009) 198. 80.  Chapman, “Perpetual War,” 10.

78

Chapter 3

Yhwh against Amalek generation after generation” (Exod 17:16). Brueggemann underlines the theological offense that is seemingly contained in these verses. When we try to understand this statement, we are reduced to bewildered, awkward silence. We are given no hint of why the report in vv. 8–13, in itself not unusual, leads to the ideological intensification of vv.  14–16. We know of nothing from any other text (except possibly Deut 25:17–19 . . .) why Amalek is singled out in this way. We have no evidence of more than conventional conflict, and nothing is noticeably barbaric in the relationship between the two peoples. It is as though in an unguarded, undisciplined moment the tradition (or the God of the tradition) has given vent to a deep, irrational hunger to have a permanent enemy. 81

My reading of the text has confirmed that text and context provide little rationale for either Amalek’s attack on Israel, or for Yhwh’s resolve to wipe out the memory of Amalek. From a canonical perspective, it is Israel’s first enemy that opposes the people of God since their deliverance from Egypt. According to rabbinic literature, Moses was asked to keep a record of the divine judgment so that all peoples of all times will know that if they cause any harm to Israel they will eventually find themselves fighting God. 82 Thus, one finds an interesting paradox in God’s command to Moses: “Write this as a reminder in a book and recite it in the hearing of Joshua: I will utterly blot out the remembrance (‫ֶמחֶה אֶת־זֵכֶר‬ ְ ‫)ּכי־מָחֹה א‬ ִ of Amalek from under heaven” (Exod 17:14). 83 On the one hand, Amalek must be remembered, and on the other hand, it must be forgotten! The book of Esther and the festival of Purim provide a canonical commentary on this paradox. Haman, who is said to be a descendant of Agag, king of the Amalekites himself (Esth 3:10), 84 is remembered by name during the annual festival of Purim for “the purpose of being denounced, that is, actively ‘forgotten.’” 85 In fact, in Jewish thought, one finds an increasing network of evil that evolves from Amalek such as Edom, Haman, Rome, and eventually Hitler. 86 Jewish tradition says that all who seek the elimination of the Jews are called “Amalek.” With the execution of Agag, the nature (and challenge) of Holy War comes graphically to expression. 87 King Saul was instructed by Samuel to 81. Walter Brueggemann, “Exodus, The Book of” in NIB 1:821. 82.  Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael: A Critical Edition on the Basis of the Manuscripts and Early Editions with an English Translation, Introduction, and Notes (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1961). Mekilta Amalek 2. 83.  Hebrew verb ‫ מחה‬connotes the “wipping clean” of a document. See HALOT, s.v. 84. Already Josephus, Ant. 11:6.5, interpreted that Haman son of Hammedatha the Agagite was a descendant of Agag king of the Amalekite (the only Agag mentioned in the OT). 85.  Chapman, “Perpetual War,” 12. 86.  Dietrich and Link, Die Dunkeln Seiten, 196. 87.  Although the term Holy War does not exist in the Old Testament, the Bible speaks of Yhwh’s war (cf. Num 21:14). See Horst D. Preuß, Theologie des Alten Testaments 1, Jhwhs erwählendes und verpflichtendes Handeln (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991) 148.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

79

put all the Amalekites and their cattle to the ban (‫חרם‬, 1 Sam 15:2–3). Saul, however, compromises the prophet’s command by taking the spoil and sparing the life of King Agag. Because Saul fails to put Samuel’s order into action, the prophet revokes the kingship from him. Interestingly, it took a prophetic mediator that would uphold the ancient divine resolve to blot utterly out the remembrance of Amalek (cf. Exod 17:14, 1 Sam 15:32–33). 88 It looks as though, according to 1 Samuel 15, the religious leader still has authority over the military leader. 89 Buber, the Jewish ecumenical thinker, argues, however, that Samuel has misunderstood God’s will in the case of Agag. 90 He refers to the serious danger­of misreading God’s will and appropriating difficult biblical passages such as Exod 17:14–16 to today’s situations. Interestingly, Levenson, another Jewish scholar, who has been fruitfully dialoging with the Christian tradition, refers to the Amalek account and cautions Jewish inter­ preters in using passages such as Exodus 17 to justify controversial political programs. He refers to the Amalek account as an Old Testament equivalent of what he calls the strain of anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism in the New Testament. 91 Needless to say, one has to be extremely careful in saying that Israel’s wars (or for that matter, wars that were waged in the name of the Church) are (with some exceptions) Yhwh’s wars and that Israel’s (political and religious) enemies are also God’s enemies. Stories, such as the Amalek account, when not interpreted in the light of the whole canon, have the potential of demonizing our opponents and perpetuating conflicts that still bedevil some of the Middle Eastern affairs. This leaves us still with the question what to do with passages of this kind. If one upholds the authority of Scripture, one cannot simply reject passages that speak of Yhwh’s wars. It may be uncomfortable to modern ears, but one of the main metaphors for God in the Old Testament is that of a divine warrior. After the Exodus, Yhwh is praised as a “man of war” (Exod 15:3). In fact, this metaphor is essential to the logic of a lot of biblical accounts that affirm that God saves His people in faithfulness from the enemy(ies). If we stay with the stories and observe what happens to 88.  In v. 33, Samuel says that Amalek has in the past murdered pregnant women. Is he refering back to the record in Deut 25:18? There is no biblical record. 89. Hans-Christoph Schmitt, “Die Geschichte vom Sieg über die Amalekiter Ex 17,8–16 als theologische Lehrerzählung,” ZAW 102 (1990) 343. See also pp. 207–219 on 1 Samuel 15 for a more detailed discussion. 90. Martin Buber, Commentary Magazine ( January 1962) 63–64. 91.  Jon D. Levenson (“Is There a Counterpart in the Hebrew Bible to New Testament Antisemitism?” JES 22 [1985] 242–60) rejects any claim that fellow Jews might make against their enemies on the basis of such stories. Needless to say, he does so also in order to challenge Christians not to misuse New Testament passages as a basis for continual hostility against their enemies. New Testament passages such as John 8:44 have been misused for anti-Semitic sentiments and crimes throughout church history and must be read with equal caution. See Steve Motyer, Your Father the Devil: A New Approach to John and “the Jews” (PBM; Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006).

80

Chapter 3

the Old Testament metaphors, themes, and motifs in Jesus, we see that Satan and the demons become the principal enemies of God’s rule (Mark 3:22–27, Luke 11:14–23). Thus, Longman and Reid argue that Jesus’ whole mission should be viewed as a typological fulfillment of the divine warrior motif of the Old Testament. According to them, Jesus is presented as the eschatological divine warrior who by the “finger” (Spirit) of God brings in the kingdom by driving out the spiritual enemies of God (Matt 12:28, Luke 11:20). 92 Janzen observes that if we follow the trajectories from Exodus to Revelation we find a steady transformation until we find ourselves in the place where the New Testament would leave us: Jesus’ warfare against untruth and evil, a warfare he conducts simply by his witness to the truth: What we find is a progressive transformation of these images, in such a way that the very theme of Yhwh as warrior who vanquishes the enemy becomes the theme of God who in Christ conquers the world ( Jn. 16:33), not with the sword, but simply by bearing witness to the truth as he is crucified by this world’s political and military powers ( Jn. 18:33–38). 93

Brueggemann evaluates the theological process from transforming the concreteness of battle to metaphors of God battling against evil in all its manifestations as both necessary and legitimate. He cautions, however, that care must be taken, “when turning these concrete narratives into metaphor, that one does not lose specificity and the connections to socioeconomic reality.” 94 Thus, it is important to have reliable means to assess theologically the socio-political circumstances. For example, in the case of Liberation Theology, it has been pointed out by biblical scholarship that Israel’s Exodus from Egypt does not provide a timeless and context free overruling paradigm of God’s identification with and liberation of the oppressed. Levenson, taking the logic of the narratives seriously notes: In modern times, the tendency is to see the Exodus from Egypt as rooted in God’s principled opposition to slavery. In point of fact, however, there is no such opposition in the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament, and the motivation for the Exodus actually lies in the special relationship of Israel to God. . . . It is the special status of Israel, son of God, that explains why the Exodus is not a story of universal liberation at all but only of one nation’s release, the release of the first–born son to rejoin and serve his divine father. 95 92. Tremper Longman III and Daniel G. Reid, God Is a Warrior (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995). 93.  J. Gerald Janzen, Exodus (WBC; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997) 124. 94.  Brueggemann, “Exodus,” 822, notes that “in the end, oppressed communities do not move too quickly away from the conviction that their enemies are God’s enemies as well (cf. Ps 139:21­–22). That conviction lives close to this sort of text, even as it offends those of us who are less oppressed.” 95. Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993)

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

81

The idea of liberation is sometimes summarized in the popular slogan “Let My people go.” The full demand Moses brings before Pharaoh in the name of Yhwh is “Let My people go that they may serve Me” (‫דנִי‬ ֻ ‫;שּלַח אֶת־ע ִַּמי ְויַע ְַב‬ ַׁ cf. Exod 7:16, 26, 8:16). Perhaps we can make the following comparison. Just as the emphasis is actually on “serving the Lord,” 96 so the focus in the story of Amalek attacking Israel is not on Joshua and the battle in the valley, but on Moses’ intercession. In other words, the victory against Amalek was brought about through the mediation of Moses (“whenever he lowered his hand, Amalek prevailed”). God achieved the victory through prayer. In other words, answered prayer serves here as a means of verifying whether God is in it or not. Although there is good scriptural support that intercession is sometimes directed against the enemy/ies of God (e.g. 1 Sam 7:8, Jer 18:21–23, John 17:15), there is also the important, if not more significant scriptural teaching, that intercession seeks to enter a complex dialogue within God. Thereby, the intercessor sides with the God of love and covenant solidarity against the God of merited wrath and justice.

Intercession: “Fighting with God against God” In this final section, I shall attempt to follow the theological trajectory of the argument that Moses’ gesture on the hill foreshadows not so much prayers that are directed against God’s enemies, but his intercession for God’s saving presence among the people in spite of Israel’s unbelief (cf. Exod 17:7, 34:9; Ps 95:9). I have suggested that there is good intertextual support to argue that Amalek’s attack is a form of divine punishment. This sort of reading would also be in line with rabbinic interpretations that note that “whenever the Jews failed to abide by the covenant, the Amalekites are said to have prevailed over them.” 97 Thus, one could say that Moses’ prayer gesture with the staff anticipates his intercessions where he seeks to pacify Yhwh’s righteous wrath, reminds God of His promises to the patriarchs, and warns Yhwh that if He killed His people in the desert His reputation would be at stake (cf. Exod 32:11–13, Num 14:14–15). In patristic exegesis, the Amalek account is sometimes taken (typologically/allegorically) as a story of Christ that brought victory over sin and evil. Origen sees in this story Jesus foreshadowed. Not least because Joshua (“Jesus” in Greek) defeated Amalek and brought the people into the promised land, he was regarded as a type of Christ, and Amalek was equated with evil. 98 Referring to Origen, Houtman endorses that Exod 17:8–16 could be 37–38. Cf. Levenson, “Exodus and Liberation,” 127–60. In both the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy, Yhwh’s compassion for the enslaved people is also an important incentive for their liberation (cf. Exod 2:23–25, Deut 26:7). For Levenson’s argument about Israel as firstborn son and “divine fatherhood,” see pp. 153–160. 96.  Levenson, “Exodus and Liberation,” 144. 97.  David A. Glatt-Gilad, “Amalekites,” in, The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997) 42. 98. In Exod. Hom. 11.3.

82

Chapter 3

used in the proclamation of the meaning of Christ. 99 Following our interpretation of Moses’ role as intercessor, who engages with Yhwh on behalf of sinful Israel, it seems that Moses, not Joshua, should be taken as a type of Christ. 100 One does not need to go as far as saying that Moses’ horizontally outstretched hands holding the staff and his body would have formed the shape of a cross, to make the point. 101 Rather, I have argued that Moses’ prayer on Horeb anticipates his subsequent prayers where he engages in intercession with the wrath and love of God. Thereby, Moses ensures Yhwh’s presence among the people and enables Israel to become the people of God who proceed to the promised land (cf. Exodus 24; 33:3, 12–17). By seeking to pacify Yhwh’s wrath, Moses battles in a sense against God on behalf of God and the people. One could follow the theological trajectory even further and say that this kind of intercession points to the dynamics of the cross. Arguing that Moses’ prayer was directed at pacifying God does not mean that Amalek was not a real enemy that needed to be defeated by God through Joshua. Rather, the scenario suggests that God sometimes works out His judgment on Israel (and Amalek) through godless agents (like Amalek). This does not necessarily imply that God misused the Amalekites for His purposes. Rather, I suggest that the dynamics between God’s judgment and using a godless agent to do so would not be unlike the delicate balance between Pharaoh hardening his heart against God and Yhwh being involed in the hardening of the monarch’s heart. In allowing the monarch to grow obstinate, God worked out His larger purposes to make His name known before the peoples, redeeming Israel, and bringing judgment on Pharaoh.  102

Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer in Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 14 While composing this chapter, I wondered whether to include a summary of my previous work on Moses’ intercessory prayers as recorded in Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 14, or whether I should turn to different biblical prayer accounts instead. On reflection, however, I realized quickly that these two accounts are fundamental for a biblical understanding of intercessory prayer, and omitting them would seriously weaken the flow of this study, not least because Exodus 32–34 testifies to how God’s name is related 99.  Houtman, Exodus, 384; cf. Childs, Exodus, 316. 100.  Calvin (Harmony of the Law, 1:220) understands Moses to be a type of Christ because Moses “did not only offer his prayers as a work of charity, but because God had chosen him as intercessor, to conquer the enemies from afar by the stretching forth of the rod, and by his secret earnestness in prayer; and in this respect he was a type of Christ.” 101. Jean Danielou, Sacramentum Futuri, 145–47, 203. 102.  In chap. 5, we see a similar dynamic at work in God inciting David to punish Israel.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

83

to sin, divine judgment, intercessory prayer, and covenant renewal. We shall see that Exod 34:6–7 is at the very heart of a foundational story of theology and, as such, emerges as a hermeneutical key to prayer and the Bible as a whole. 103 Moreover, the strong inner-biblical relation between Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 14 highlights some of the other core themes that run through this book, such as the following. (1) Theology in its purest form is revealed by God Himself. It is certainly important to note that the deepest insight into the nature of God is given in the context of a prolonged prayer dialogue between Moses and Yhwh. (2) How to use Yhwh’s name in prayer: it is in the canonical relation between Exodus 32–34 and Num 14:17–19 that the reader of the Bible is shown for the first time how Moses employs Yhwh’s fullest revelation of His name (Exod 34:6–7), in a prayer for pardon and covenant maintenance (cf. Num 14:18–35). In other words, we shall see how Moses prays back God’s name to Yhwh. From a canonical perspective, Moses thereby sets an important biblical paradigm. 104 (3) Prophetic intercessory prayer engages with divine love and wrath: in the context of Israel’s election and covenant ratification on the one hand, and Israel’s apostasy and rebellion on the other hand, Yhwh reveals Himself as a God who is merciful and gracious, but also as a God who will by no means clear the coveant breakers. It is particularly in Exod 34:8–9 and Num 14:18–19 that we see that prophetic intercessory prayer participates in the internal struggle of God, a struggle between a God who is fundamentally committed to Israel in love and covenant loyalty and a God who is just and visits His people in judgment if the situation demands it. (4) Num 14:11–35 can be seen as a commentary on Exod 34:6–7. Although Yhwh’s name is revealed as a result of an intense and searching prayer dialogue with Moses, the divine name stands somewhat as an abstract reality in Exodus 34. In Numbers 14, in contrast, Yhwh’s full name is enacted in a specific and concrete situation. (5) Intercessory prayer and God’s holy mutability: The Bible speaks several times about God’s changing His mind with regard to an announced judgment. 105 This important and somewhat puzzling phenomenon comes clearly to expression in Exod 32:10–14, where Yhwh regrets that He has 103.  Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets (Peabody, MA: Prince, 1999) 71. Ruth Scoralick, Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn: Gottesprädikationen in Ex 34:6f und ihre intertextuellen Beziehungen zum Zwölfprophetenbuch (HBS 33; Freiburg: Herder, 2002), has convincingly shown that Exod 34:6–7 stands in close linguistic and conceptual association with the Minor Prophets and thereby emerges as a key to understand “the Twelve.” Spieckermann (“God’s Steadfast Love”) and Wilckens (Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 17–20) argue compellingly that Exod 34:6–7 stands at the heart of the Old Testament. 104.  Cf. Pss 86:15, 103:8, 145:8; Jonah 4:2; Joel 2:13. 105.  The important and complex phenomenon of God’s change of mind received a detailed treatment by Jan-Dirk Döhling, Der Bewegliche Gott: Eine Untersuchung des Motivs der Reue Gottes in der Hebräischen Bibel (HBS 61; Freiburg: Herder, 2010).

84

Chapter 3

entered­a covenant relationship with Israel and thus seeks to annihilate them. The Bible speaks often about a divine change of mind in association with intercessory prayers for mercy. It occurs usually in the context of Yhwh’s deferring or withdrawing, in His grace and mercy, from His punitive intentions. It will become evident that God’s mutability is intrinsically related to His nature and name as revealed in Exod 34:6–7. God’s love and justice speak of a living God who is actively involved in history. In gracious and holy sovereignity, God trains and allows His faithful mediators to participate in the outworking of His gracious and just will and purposes. Having written in considerable detail on Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 13–14, I will not reiterate my previous discussion in full; instead, I will provide a summary of my main findings in the following pages. 106 Moses’ Intercessory Prayers at Sinai (Exodus 32–34) Exodus 32–34 starts with Israel’s breach of the first two commandments by making and worshiping the golden calf. In other words, the narrative account begins with an apostasy that results in a divine death sentence (Exod 32:10) and ends with the renewal of the divine-human covenant relationship (Exod 34:10). This dramatic shift from Yhwh’s determination to destroy Israel to His pardon and resolve to restore the covenant relationship is largely due to Moses’ persistent and skillful intercessory activity. In contrast to the Deuteronomic parallel account of the golden calf (Deuteronomy 9–10), Exodus 32–34 is the primary narrative account of the Mountain of God. Just as all the pillars of Israel’s faith are closely associated with the Mountain of God (the Torah, the covenant ratification, the revelation of God’s name, and the sanctuary), 107 so too is Israel’s account about its archetypal breach of covenant and Moses’ successful restoration of it. The fact that Yhwh’s fullest self-disclosure comes as a result of Moses’ persistent prayer surely adds to the importance of the Exodus account (Exod 34:6–7). It is perhaps the acute seriousness of Israel’s sin and the extensive dialogue between Yhwh and Moses that make Exodus 32–34 the most detailed and intense treatment of intercessory prayer in the entire Old Testament. Moses is said to have interceded four times on behalf of the sinful people in order to save them from Yhwh’s destructive wrath and to reconcile them to their God (Exod 32:11–13, 32:30–32, 33:12–23, and 34:9). The theme of Moses’ persistent intercessory activity pervades the entire narrative. Four prayers are recorded, each extremely rich and complex in theology. The emphasis of the following pages will be primarily in the following areas: understanding the dynamics and logic of each prayer, recognizing the literary and conceptual relationship between the four prayers, compre106.  The material on pp. 84–101 is largely an adaption of my concluding summary of Moses, 329–50. It is reused with permission from Mohr Siebeck. 107.  Cf. Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1985) 15–19.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

85

hending the prayers’ function and effect in their narrative contexts, and appreciating Moses’ intercessory ministry in relation to his twofold prophetic role.

First Prayer: “Faithful Disagreement” (Exodus 32:10–14) Moses was still on the mountain in Yhwh’s presence to receive “the tablets of stone, with the law and the commandment” (cf. Exod 24:12, 31:18), when he was made privy to Israel’s idolatrous behavior at the foot of the mountain (Exod 32:7–10). Yhwh not only informs His mediator of the people’s sinful conduct but also shares with him His plans of judgment. I have seen this people, how stiff-necked they are. Now let me alone (‫ְוע ַָּתה‬ ‫) ַהּנִיחָה ִלּי‬, so that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them; and of you I will make a great nation. (Exod 32:9–10)

We shall see in my fuller treatment of the deuteronomic parallel version (Deut 9:14) that there is good exegetical reason to argue that, when Yhwh tells Moses “to leave Him alone,” God is actually asking His covenant mediator “not to leave Him alone.” 108 Here, I follow a long interpretative tradition, which suggests that Yhwh implicitly invites (by prohibition), possibly even tests, His mediator to challenge His justified yet circumstantial wrath. This line of interpretation has been substantiated by a number of observations: First, Yhwh could have simply proceeded with His intentions without involving Moses at all. Second, and following from that, it appears that Yhwh intentionally makes His decision vulnerable to Moses’ response (cf. Num 14:12). The imperative “leave me alone” opens the door “not to leave Him alone.” Third, by presenting Moses with an offer to make him the new patriarch at the cost of the death of the sinful generation, Yhwh makes His intention and the fulfillment of the divine promise clearly susceptible to Moses’ response. All these points endorse the view that Yhwh’s “no” is a subtle divine invitation to intercede. The underlying logic of Exod 32:10–14 could be explained in the light of the dynamics of what became the classic form of prophecy. Just as the prophets (especially those under deuteronomic influence) confronted sinful Israel with a message of doom in the hope of provoking a response of repentance and change of heart, so it is likely that Yhwh sought to elicit Moses’ intercession through confrontational language. Eagleton, with reference to Jonah’s prophecy, describes the linguistic phenomenon as follows: “Effective declarations of imminent catastrophe cancel themselves out, containing as they do a contradiction between what they say and what they do.” 109 If this analogy holds true to the underlying logic of Exod 32:10–14, it would also explain the paradox between a subtle divine 108.  See pp. 132–138. 109.  T. J. L. Eagleton, “Austin and the Book of Jonah,” in The Book and the Text: the Bible and Literary Theory (ed. Regina M. Schwartz; Oxford: Blackwell, 1990) 233.

86

Chapter 3

invitation­to intercede and the statement that Yhwh changed His mind as a result of Moses’ prayer (Exod 32:14). It thus follows that Yhwh’s initial reaction is genuine and has the potential for destruction. However, just as often appears in prophetic announcement of judgment, Yhwh’s intentions are only exploratory at the initial stage and the final outcome is intrinsically linked to the response of the addressed party. Destruction, though a possibility, would undermine Yhwh’s ultimate salvific purposes (cf. Ezek 33:11). This sort of reading of Exod 32:10–14 is further supported by inner-­ biblical interpretations of Moses’ intercessory activity. The writer of Psalm 106 reads Moses’ prayer through the helpful image of “standing in the breach” (‫ ָעמַד ַּב ֶּפרֶץ‬, v. 23). Ezek 22:30 makes it clear that Yhwh expects and in some sense invites the prophetic mediator to defend sinful Israel from the divine wrath by covering for the offence with prayer. Hence, as hoped for, Moses faithfully disagrees with Yhwh’s intention and urges Him to turn from His justified intentions. O Lord, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, “It was with evil intent that he brought them out to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth”? Turn from your fierce wrath; change your mind and do not bring disaster on your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, to whom you swore by your own self. (Exod 32:11–13)

Faithful disagreement, because Moses seeks to persuade Yhwh through three arguments that the acquittal of the people and the preservation of the covenant is in the best interest of Yhwh as well. According to Hesse, Moses’ prayer participates in Yhwh’s internal dilemma of whether to be a God of wrath or of promise, and thereby seeks to prove wrong the “Yhwh of wrath” through persistent listing of counterarguments. Moses knows, states Hesse, that God must fight an internal battle. Thereby, the intercessor appeals against the angry God to the God of the promises. Hesse writes that God restrains His wrath rather than leaving the promises unfulfilled and thereby making Himself vulnerable to the mockery of the nations. Thus, the path for Moses’ intercession is given. The intercessor must appeal at any cost to the divine promises until God gives up His destructive intentions. In this way only can the intercessor overcome the internal divine conflict and to bring Yhwh to act in ways that are truest to His nature and purposes. 110 In terms of persistence, Hesse’s understanding of Moses’ prayer attitude reminds one of the parable of the widow and the unjust judge who eventually gives in to the widow’s persistent pleas (Luke 18:1–7). I certainly do not deny the audacious and persistent tone of the prayer, but in the 110.  Hesse, Die Fürbitte, 112–13.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

87

light of vv. 11–13, it seems as though Moses seeks to persuade and pacify God’s wrath not so much on the basis of the divine promise made to the patriarchs but rather in response to Yhwh’s invitation by prohibition. 111 Moreover, it is on the basis of a deeper understanding of the divine plan that Moses attempts to persuade God to pursue His initial intentions. In other words, Moses sides with God: his intercession is profoundly in tune with Yhwh’s nature and purposes, and it is because of this that he “dares to assert his prerogative with the confidence of one who is intimate with God, and with the vehemence of his own longing that God’s salvation shall be fully realized.” 112 As a result, “the Lord changed his mind about the dis­ aster that he planned to bring on his people” (Exod 32:14). Hence, Moses’ prayer secured the continuing existence of Israel as the people of Yhwh. The wording of v. 14, however, does not exclude the possibility of punishment of a less radical kind. To be more precise, v.  14 is not so much about divine forgiveness of Israel’s sin as it is often assumed; rather, this verse is primarily about an assurance that the Sinai generation will not be eradicated and that they have a future as God’s people. Having said all this about Moses’ faithful mediation on the mountain, it is he himself who becomes the means of judgment on some of the Israelites (cf. Exod 32:26–29). Moses shatters the tablets of the covenant, pulverizes the golden calf, and commissions the Levites to execute a fierce judgment on the idolatrous people. On the next day, Moses returned out of his own initiative to the mountain to advocate for the people before Yhwh. So far, Moses has climbed the Mount of God several times to speak with God. Every time, Moses followed God’s summons to come up (cf. Exod 19:3, 20, 21, 24:1, 12); this time, however, Moses sought God’s audition without invitation. “But now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin” So Moses returned to the Lord and said, “Alas, this people has sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold. But now, if you will only forgive their sin—but if not, blot me out of the book that you have written.” (Exod 32:30–32)

Second Prayer: “Costly Solidarity” (Exodus 32:30–34) In his second prayer, Moses’ mediatory role rises probably to its greatest intensity in his willingness to be blotted out from Yhwh’s book. Calvin condemns Moses’ prayer as full of pride and foolishness, for, according to him, it not only presumes that Moses could overthrow God’s eternal predestination but it also blurs the distinction between the innocent and the transgressors. 113 Although the concept of predestination is anachronistic, the idea of a divine record or a book of life is found in several places in the Old Testament. The logic of most passages suggests that it was Yhwh’s 111.  See my Moses, 94–122, for a more detailed reading of Exod 32:11–13. 112.  Eichrodt, Theology 2, 450. 113.  Calvin, Commentaries 3, 265–66.

88

Chapter 3

prerogative to maintain the book and thus to bless those who adhere to the covenant with the gift of life and to cancel the names of those who disobey and breach the covenant (cf. Ps 69:29, Dan 12:1–2). Thus, when Moses asks to be erased from God’s record, he appears to express a willingness to be cut off from his relationship with Yhwh and thus subjects himself to curse and eventual death (cf. Neh 13:14). Having gained some clarity regarding the idea of being blotted out from Yhwh’s book, we must ask the more important question as to how the relation between Moses’ willingness to be blotted out from the heavenly book and Israel’s sin is envisaged. What is the logic of Moses’ petition? Scholars are divided roughly into two camps. First, there are those who argue that Moses’ offer to be blotted out of the heavenly book is somehow functional for Israel’s reconciliation with Yhwh. This interpretation usually takes the form of Moses expressing willingness to die in the place of sinful Israel in order to obtain atonement for their sins, if Yhwh was unwilling to forgive their sins. 114 For example, Childs speaks of an “exchange” of Moses’ life for the forgiveness of Israel. 115 Second, there are those who postulate that Moses’ supplication is an expression of extreme solidarity, that is, that he is prepared to share Israel’s fate, if God were not willing to forgive Israel’s sin. 116 Dohmen sees in Moses’ prayer a kind of ultimatum. Either God forgives the people or He has to start looking for a new leader. Using a modern analogy, Dohmen explains the dynamics as Moses threatening God that he will “hand in his resignation.” 117 Careful reading of the text makes it evident that what Moses has in mind is to express his inseparable loyalty to the people. 118 The text does not say that Moses perceives himself as a ransom (‫ )ּכֹפֶר‬or that he is prepared to surrender himself on behalf of Israel. Rather, the sense is that Moses is prepared to have his name wiped out from the book alongside the sinful people. Hence, to conclude that Moses intended to stand in the place of Israel in the same way as the suffering servant would be reading too much into the text. What is clear, however, is Moses’ compassionate bond to the people. He has already proven his solidarity to the people in his previous prayer, where he implicitly rejected Yhwh’s offer to make a fresh start with him at the cost of Israel (Exod 32:10–13). This time Moses spells out a solidarity of unprecedented nature; he is prepared to bear the divine wrath with the sin114.  E.g. Martin Noth, Exodus: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM, 1962) 252; Helmut Gese, “Die Sühne,” in Zur biblischen Theologie: Alttestamentliche Vorträge (BEvTh 78, Munich: Chr. Kaiser and Güterloher Verlagshaus, 1977) 87–88. 115.  Childs, Exodus, 571. 116.  Cassuto, Exodus, 423; Houtman, Exodus 3, 673; Bernd Janowski, Stellvertretung: Alttestamentliche Studien Zu Einem Theologischen Grundbegriff (SBS 165; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1997) 29. 117. Christoph Dohmen, Exodus 19–40 (HTKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2004) 326. 118.  See my Moses, 131–34 for a detailed reading.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

89

ful and to die with them if Yhwh will not give them a second chance. Thus, Moses, once more refuses as forcefully as he could to be part of God’s future plan unless it includes contemporary Israel as well. In Exod 32:30–33, prayer and deed become one. Moses acts as he prays. In other words, his actions substantiate and authenticate his intercessions (cf. Jas 5:16b, 1 Pet 3:12). One could even go so far as to say that Moses in some sense embodies the divine attributes of costly solidarity without cheapening Yhwh’s wrath (Exod 34:6–7; cf. Lev 11:45). In spite of Moses’ sacrificial solidarity, Yhwh reserves the sovereign right to judge whoever sinned against Him and announces a day of judgment (Exod 32:34). Is there a tension between Moses’ first and second prayer? Was Moses’ first prayer not successful? After all, according to Exod 32:14, Yhwh changed His mind regarding His intention to consume Israel. Whereas this time Yhwh seems to disregard Moses’ substitutionary confession and appears to ignore the intercessor’s warning that he will withdraw from his leadership role if God does not forgive the people. Instead, a forthcoming punishment is announced (Exod 32:33). Scholars frequently seek to resolve the tension by arguing that Moses’ first prayer is a later deuteronomic interpolation. A close reading of Moses’ prayers in their received form and sequence shows however, that both Exod 32:10–14 and 32:33–34 are in a profound sense open ended and anticipate further dialogue and clarification regarding the exact future of Israel. Moses’ first prayer prevented Israel’s destruction and transformed Yhwh’s radical judgment into a more balanced theological discourse on the complexity of judgment that contains grace and mercy. Thereby, both prayers foreshadow Yhwh’s climactic revelation to be gracious and merciful while at the same time not leaving the sinner unpunished (Exod 34:5–7).

Third Prayer: “Engaging God Face to Face” (Exodus 33:12–23) Moses’ third prayer has understandably been described as the climactic prayer because, arguably, it is in this intense dialogue that the fundamental breakthrough happens. At the outset of the chapter, everything hangs in the balance: Although Moses is to lead Israel into the promised land, Yhwh announces that He cannot go with a stiff-necked people. Thus, Israel’s future is still undecided and Moses is uncertain regarding his role and Yhwh’s purposes. Verses 1–11 not only introduce the fundamental problem of how a holy God can live among a sinful people but also testify to a transformation of the people and, implicitly, of Yhwh’s relation to them. This change of attitudes on both sides is significant for the development of the story. It seems that the text presupposes this mutual change of heart for Moses’ intercession to be fruitful. At the end of the chapter, Yhwh affirms the resumption of His presence among the people and announces a show of His goodness to Moses in a forthcoming theophany. In contrast to his previous prayer, Moses’ dialogue with Yhwh is characterized by an increasingly brave and insistent tone. Although it is clear

90

Chapter 3

that the objective of Moses’ prayer has always been the restoration of the breached covenant relationship, Moses initially mentioned sinful Israel only in a seemingly incidental manner, as carefully exploring Yhwh’s reaction after the previous divine word of reproof (Exod 32:33). Encouraged by not being opposed this time, Moses becomes bolder and speaks of Israel more directly. Although Yhwh shows some reluctance in committing Himself to the people, we note that He does not dismiss Moses’ plea either. Moreover, it is noteworthy that Moses’ brave words are not presented in a negative light. It is likely that this is the reason that Moses’ prayer increases in boldness as Yhwh is graciously willing to respond. The reader is reminded of the dynamics of Abraham’s dialogue with God over the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:16–33). Moses’ audacity reaches its climax in his request to see Yhwh’s glory (Exod 33:18). Much of the narrative provides a commentary on what it means to dialogue with Yhwh face to face as with a friend (Exod 33:11). Although Moses’ prayer requests thus far have only been partially granted, there is a clear progression in the dialogue; with each oral interchange, Moses moves one step closer to his ultimate goal: God’s presence among Israel and the restoration of the breached covenant relationship (Exod 33:13, 18). Reading Moses’ intercessory prayers, one gains a sense that the more Moses engages in prayer the deeper he is led into the divine mystery. 119 There is a clear sense that God’s revelation is intrinsically connected to Moses’ response. Moses self-involvement enables an encounter with God of unprecedented nature. Through the use of a variety of metaphors and anthropomorphic language, a complex and sophisticated biblical truth is established: God is gracious and merciful and yet holy and morally demanding, He is seen and yet unseen, He is close and yet He transcends human perception. These irresolvable tensions are inherent in Exod 33:18–24 and are confirmed in the actual revelation of God’s name (Exod 34:6–7). The text, as Moberly observes, articulates, in its own way, “that sense which has been fundamental to classic theology that to know God is to know the one who surpasses knowledge.” 120 It is surely significant that even the divinely chosen mediator and favored advocate is restricted in his understanding of God. Moses, at the end of v. 17, is left in a position of knowing and not knowing, and by the end of v. 23, is left seeing and not seeing, to use von Balthasar’s terminology. 121 Yhwh’s ways, name, and nature are revealed and yet remain mysterious. 119.  In the context of Exodus, it is clear that Moses does not seek to penetrate the divine mystery in order to satisfy his own “mystical” interests but does it for the sake of the people with whom he was entrusted. 120. R. W. L. Moberly, “How May We Speak of God? A Reconsideration of the Nature of Biblical Theology,” TB 53 (2002) 199. 121.  Urs von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics, Theology of the Old Covenant (7 vols.; San Francisco: Ignatus, 1991) 6:37–38.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

91

It is God’s elusiveness, His freedom, and gracious character, which make prayer meaningful. Even though Yhwh responds to Moses, the divine answer remains ambiguous. Moses’ prayer has certainly achieved something. It has just “provoked” what is going to be the fullest revelation of God’s nature in Scripture. Scripture undoubtedly ascribes to Moses’ persistent intercessory prayers a deeper insight into God’s nature and “economics.” Moses’ prayer has evoked not only a unique revelation of God’s nature but also the renewal of the covenant. The covenant mediator is instructed to prepare an identical set of stone tablets and present himself once again to God on the Mount (cf. Exod 34:1–5).

The Revelation of God’s Name (Exodus 34:6–7)

So Moses cut two tablets of stone like the former ones; and he rose early in the morning and went up on Mount Sinai, as the Lord had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tablets of stone. The Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name. (Exod 34:4–5)

Apart from the mention of cloud and Yhwh’s passing, no further reference is made to a visual manifestation. The revelation is primarily portrayed in terms of Yhwh’s attributes rather than His appearance. In the light of Yhwh’s actual revelation (Exod 34:6–7), it is evident that the visual aspect of Moses’ request (“show me your glory”) has been subordinated to the proclamation of the moral aspects of God’s nature. Verses 6 and 7 come as the fulfillment of Exod 33:19, where Yhwh announced that He will pass before Moses in all His goodness and proclaim His name. In other words, the fullest revelation of Yhwh’s nature is in an important way the result of Moses’ intimate dialogue with Yhwh. Moreover, there is good reason to argue that the text suggests that Yhwh teaches Moses through the disclosure of His name how to use the divine name in subsequent prayer. “The Lord descended in the cloud and . . . proclaimed the name: “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful” (Exod 34:6). It is particularly the Jewish tradition that has creatively dealt with the fact that the proclamation is in the third person singular. Rashi, for example, takes this to mean that Yhwh taught Moses on Sinai how to pray by giving him a set prayer form. He comments on Exod 33:19: I will call on the name of the Lord before thee, to teach you the formula when praying for mercy even though the merits of the patriarchs should be exhausted. And according to the manner in which you see Me doing this . . . and proclaiming the thirteen attributes of mercy, do you teach Israel to do. 122 122.  Rashi, Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Prayers for Sabbath and Rashi’s Commentary (trans. M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann; London: Shapiro, Vallentine, 1946) 190. See Jacob, Exodus, 970, and Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 358, for possible ways of counting the 13 Middot. See also Rabbi Jochanan (Ro)sh ha-Shanah 17b, Talmut, 541.

92

Chapter 3

This reading is hermeneutically suggestive because in essence this sort of interpretation suggests that theology in its purest form is not only revealed by God Himself but is also intrinsically linked to prayer. 123 We shall see below how Yhwh’s disclosure of His name provides Moses not only with clear guidelines but also with an authoritative model prayer. In the context of Israel’s renewed rebellion at Kadesh, we shall see how Moses prayerfully appropriates Yhwh’s name as revealed on Sinai (cf. Num 14:18; cf. Pss 86:15, 103:8). In other words, Moses’ prayer, as anticipated in Num 14:18 and numerous other passages is rooted in and legitimated by Yhwh’s disclosure of His name. And so Yhwh passes before Moses, proclaiming His name and thereby revealing His nature and implicitly teaching him how to pray. The Lord passed before him, and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, yet by no means clearing the guilty, but visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.” (Exod 34:6–7)

Yhwh’s disclosure of His name not only reveals the divine character to a unique extent, but also testifies to a divine recharacterization. This becomes evident when one juxtaposes Yhwh’s revelation with His previous Sinai revelation before Israel broke the covenant. There, Yhwh makes Himself known as a jealous God (‫ )אֵל קַ ּנָא‬who cannot tolerate any other loyalties. We read: I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Exod 20:5–6)

It looks very much as though Yhwh in the aftermath of the golden calf incident deliberately reformulates His previous pronouncement. 124 Most striking is the reversal of the order of His attributes. In Exod 34:6, Yhwh commences with a fundamental statement about His nature. He is basically merciful and gracious, whereas in the Decalogue the warning of a jealous God precedes Yhwh’s attributes of mercy and grace. In other words, there is a radical shift from an emphasis on divine jealousy to an emphasis on divine mercy, grace, and loyalty without denying justice. God allowed Himself in His sovereignty to be persuaded by the persistent prayer of His faithful mediator to overcome justified wrath with grace and loving compassion. 123. Cf. Andrew Louth, Theology and Spirituality (Fairacres Publications 55; Oxford: SLG, 1976) 1–18. 124. Cf. Keil, Pentateuch, 3:240–41; Jacob, Exodus, 968–69; Moberly, At the Mountain, 87–88.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

93

Therefore, the revelation of Yhwh’s name came as an affirmation to Moses (and through him to Israel) that Yhwh is primarily and fundamentally for Israel. This is not to say that divine pardon can easily be presumed, for v.  7b comes as a stern warning that God’s moral order still matters. One could say that vv.  6–7a give expression to Yhwh’s fundamental nature, whereas v. 7b gives expression to His action if Israel’s offence persists. Therefore, it can be seen that God’s visitation of Israel’s iniquities does not stand in an irresolvable tension with His fundamental covenant loyalty. The immediate and wider context of vv. 6–7 make it evident that Yhwh’s wrath is provoked by and directed against a specific sin. In other words, divine wrath and judgment are circumstantial and temporary, and as the proportion of thousands to four generations indicates, they cannot overrule Yhwh’s faithfulness and love. 125 Distinguishing between Yhwh’s circumstantial act of judgment and His loving ultimate will for Israel does not mean the two are incongruous. For, as Heschel points out, Anger is an act, a situation, not an essential attribute. This distinction is implied in the words which are of fundamental importance for the understanding of all biblical words: “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious.” 126

Not only does Heschel endorse the centrality of Exod 34:6–7 by ascribing to it the function of a hermeneutical key to the Bible but he also differentiates between specific acts of judgment and the underlying divine love which never ends. This particularly comes to expression in the prophets, where Yhwh’s wrath is consistently proclaimed as short-lived, while His love goes on forever (cf. Isa 54:8, 57:16–17; Jer 3:5, 12; Ps 30:5). Divine wrath according to Exod 34:7 will manifest itself in the form of divine visitations to the sinful generation and their descendants before appropriate measures are taken. Thus, Yhwh’s wrath is not a seemingly uncontrollable force within Yhwh, but rather is characterized by great patience (cf. Exod 34:6, Num 14:18, Jer 15:15, Joel 2:13, and so on). Patience, in the light of Yhwh’s willingness to bear Israel’s sins, is the restraint of deserved wrath; it is the divine enduring of disloyalty and personal offense in the hope that Israel will ultimately recognize Yhwh as Lord and God without having to assert it with power and judgment (cf. Pss 78:38–40, 89:29–35). Although God’s moral demands are upheld and punishment is exerted if necessary, the fact that Yhwh has adjusted His priorities out of His inmost nature and Moses’ mediation reveals that He is fundamentally graciously and loyally committed to His people. This comes well to expression in Moses’ final prayer and Yhwh’s response. 125.  Cf. Deut 4:24–31, Jer 31:35–37, Lam 3:22–23. 126.  Heschel, The Prophets, 71.

94

Chapter 3

Fourth Prayer: The Covenant Mediator (Exodus 34:8–9) In gratitude and worship for the affirmative recharacterization of the divine name, Moses prostrates himself and launches his climactic prayer. In this petition, Moses resumes most of the major themes of his previous prayers and boldly advances them in the light of Yhwh’s new revelation. Holding together personal divine favor and the good of the people, Moses prays: “If I have found favor in your eyes then walk in our midst for they are a stiff-necked people and pardon our guilt and sins and take us for your inheritance” (Exod 34:9; cf. 33:13). In total solidarity and in tune with his previous unswerving loyalty to Israel (Exod 32:32), Moses identifies himself with the people’s guilt and sin and makes their pardon depend on his intimate relationship with Yhwh. Moreover, there is good reason to argue that Moses actually promotes Israel’s recalcitrant nature as the very reason for the resumption of Yhwh’s presence and pardon. “Please let the Lord go in the midst of us, for it is a stiff-necked people (‫שה־עֹרֶף הּוא‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ַם־ק‬ ְ ‫ּכי ע‬, ִ Exod 34:9, esv).” 127 Fretheim comments: Moses’ prayer assumes that Israel will always be a stiff-necked people; it is the nature of its very being in the world that it cannot extricate itself from such a condition. But it is precisely because Israel is such a people that it needs God’s close presence and constant pardon . . . Only because of such a God, who chooses to dwell among the people and stands ready to forgive, can a stiff-necked people move into a future worth talking about. 128

Agreeing with the thrust of this statement, I believe that Moses’ petition: “pardon our iniquity and our sin” (‫ַּטאתֵ נּו‬ ָ ‫ּולח‬ ְ ‫ו ָסל ְַח ָּת ַלעֲֹונֵנּו‬,ְ Exod 34:9), calls for some nuance. There is good reason to argue that Moses, even here in his final prayer, did not primarily have Israel’s forgiveness (in the sense of cancellation of sins) in mind, but rather was concerned with the renewing of the covenant relationship. This notion is not only supported by Yhwh’s immediate response “I hereby make a covenant” (‫ ;אָנ ִֹכי כֹּרֵ ת ְּבִרית‬Exod 34:10), but is also further substantiated in the context of Moses’ prayer in Kadesh (Num 14:19) where the concept of divine pardon (‫)ס ִליחָה‬ ְ is unfolded in Yhwh’s twofold response (Num 14:20–35). On both occasions, the granting of ‫ ְס ִליחָה‬has to do not so much with the elimination of punishment but with the preservation of the fundamental covenant relationship. In response to Moses’ faithful intercession, God incorporates the mediator’s arguments in His purposes and renews the covenant with the undeserving people (Exod 34:10, 27). This time, however, the covenant is ratified only in the presence of Yhwh and Moses. There seems a deliberate 127.  See my Moses, 208–9, for a fuller discussion on the translation of the particle “‫”ּכי‬ ִ as a causative (“because they are a stiffnecked people”) and not as a concessive “although this is a stiffnecked people”). 128.  Fretheim, Exodus, 304 (his emphasis).

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

95

emphasis on Moses’ key role in the renewal of the divine-human bond. One aspect of Moses’ radiance is that it serves to vindicate him before the people as the God-sent covenant mediator. It is possible that the text suggests that Yhwh initially resumed His presence among the sinful people in the “transfigured” Moses. Moses is thus to summon the people in God’s name to grateful obedience and it is primarily through Moses’ mediatorship that the divine acts (‫ִפלָאֹת‬ ְ ‫ )נ‬will be administered. Moses’ Intercessory Prayer at Kadesh (Numbers 13–14) The scout narrative is rightly called the second main focus of theological reflection on the nexus of sin, judgment, prayer, and divine verdict in the canonical sequence of the Pentateuch. 129 Moreover, the relation between the golden calf account and the scout narrative goes far beyond common themes. There are numerous conceptual and verbal parallels between these two narratives. The problem of Yhwh’s presence among a fundamentally rebellious people is significantly developed in relation to the outstanding promised land in Numbers 13–14 (cf. Exod 33:1–6). Moreover, it is in these chapters that the outstanding divine warning of a forthcoming judgment finds a concrete resolution (cf. Exod 32:34). For our purposes, however, most important is the intrinsic relationship between Yhwh’s fullest self-disclosure of His name (Exod 34:6–7) and Moses’ praying the divine attributes “back” to Yhwh in the face of a threatening judgment (Num 14:11–12). Yhwh’s response to Moses’ prayer provides a helpful inner-­biblical commentary on the meaning and implications of Yhwh’s attributes in a specific context. The divine resolution encompasses both judgment and mercy. Although all the people who have despised Yhwh are punished, Yhwh maintains the covenant relationship with Israel as a people. By implication, the prayer of the covenant mediator was successful. Israel can continue as Yhwh’s people; their children will be the bearer of the divine promise made to their ancestors, and they will eventually be given the chance to inherit the promised land alongside the two loyal scouts. Thus, Yhwh’s response to Moses’ prayer includes the complex interplay of human rebellion, divine judgment, prophetic mediation, and God’s merciful and gracious disposition.

Praying Back God’s Name to God (Numbers 14:18–19) Just as in Exodus 32–34, the canon makes it evident that prophetic categories underlie Moses’ dialogue with Yhwh in Numbers 14. In Num 12:6–8, Moses is vindicated as the archetypal prophet who enjoys unparalleled access to Yhwh’s council. Being entrusted with the entire house of Israel, Moses does not waver when Yhwh intended to make him the new 129.  Dennis T. Olson, The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch (BJS 71; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985) 145.

96

Chapter 3

Patriarch of Israel (Num 14:12). Instead, he sets out to again intercede for the rebellious people who are once again sentenced to destruction (Num 14:12; cf. Exod 32:10). Moses said to the Lord, “Then the Egyptians will hear of it, for in your might you brought up this people from among them, and they will tell the inhabitants of this land. . . . Now if you kill this people all at one time, then the nations who have heard about you will say, ‘It is because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land he swore to give them that he has slaughtered them in the wilderness.’” (Num 14:13–16)

In the first part of Moses’ intercession, he employs the same argument as in his first prayer in Exod 32:11–12. Although there is nothing to say in defense of Israel’s great sin, Moses, being aware that Yhwh’s name is intrinsically associated with the well-being of His covenant people, again seeks to persuade Yhwh to act for the sake of His reputation among the nations. However, rather than then promoting another show of divine “military might” (e.g., Exod 9:16), Moses cleverly suggests an alternative by appealing to Yhwh’s name as revealed to him on Sinai (Exod 34:6–7). Moses thereby redefines divine greatness and power in terms of patience, loyalty, and moral demand. And now, therefore, let the power of the Lord be great in the way that you promised when you spoke, saying, “The Lord is slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children to the third and the fourth generation.” (Num 14:17–19)

That there is a profound literary, conceptual, and theological relationship going on between Yhwh’s self-disclosure in Exod 34:6–7 and Moses’ prayer in Num 14:18–19 has been noticed for some time. Calvin offers some rich theological thoughts as he contemplates the relationship: we derive a general piece of instruction, that there is nothing more efficacious in our prayers than to set His own word before God, and then to found our supplications upon His promises, as if He dictated to us out of His own mouth what we were to ask. Since, then, God had manifested Himself to Moses in that memorable declaration . . . he was able to derive from thence a sure directory for prayer . . . since He who has spoken will prove Himself to be true. 130

Calvin has certainly touched the heart of the inner-biblical relation between the two accounts. Brueggemann is one of few modern interpreters who recognize the canonical logic behind the two important passages and 130.  Calvin, Commentaries 4:75. Chris Seitz (“Prayer in the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible,” Figured Out: Typology and Providence in Christian Scripture [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001] 163) makes a similar point: “if prayer is to be understood rightly, it must be situated within the reality of God’s disclosure of himself, which is the central revelatory truth at the heart of the Old Testament.”

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

97

rightly argues that Moses is presented as the first of many to appeal to Yhwh’s revealed nature in prayer (cf. Pss 25, 86, 103, 145, and so on). 131 Moses clearly prays back, in slightly modified form, the divine characteristics as they were revealed to him. By implication, Moses entreats Yhwh to be as He said He would be and act in a manner that conforms to His revelation. Moses proceeds to his climactic petition: “Forgive (‫)סלַח־נָא‬ ְ the iniquity of this people according to the greatness of your steadfast love, just as you have pardoned this people, from Egypt even until now” (Num 14:19), whereupon Yhwh immediately responds: “I do forgive, just as you have asked” (ָ‫) ָסל ְַח ִּתי ִּכ ְד ָברֶך‬. Yhwh’s assurance of pardon, however, is straightaway followed by a sharp “nevertheless.” nevertheless—as I live (‫)ואּולָם חַי־ ָאנִי‬ ְ . . .—none of the people who have seen my glory and the signs that I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and yet have tested me these ten times and have not obeyed my voice, shall see the land that I swore to give to their ancestors. (Num 14:20–23)

Brueggemann sees in the sharp disjunction a reflection of the disjunction in the middle of Yhwh’s name (forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, yet by no means clearing the guilty; Exod 34:6–7). He comments further that Yhwh acts in faithful solidarity, as prayed for by Moses, but Yhwh also acts “in fierce sovereignty, befitting the claim of Exod 34:7b.” Except Caleb, the generation for which Moses intercedes receives nothing of Yhwh’s generous solidarity. Brueggemann then concludes: “Yahweh’s fierce sovereignty has won over Yahweh’s compassionate solidarity.” 132 In contrast to Brueggemann, I suggest that the divine resolution is one not of fierce sovereignty, belittling Moses’ prayer, but rather a sophisticated and complex statement, which implicitly affirms pardon and covenant loyalty without failing to execute divine justice. I think that the problem has to do with the concept and meaning of divine ‫ס ִליחָה‬, ְ as envisaged in this context. If, as we have suggested before, Moses’ petition for divine ‫ ְס ִליחָה‬is primarily a plea for the preservation of divine covenant loyalty, rather than Israel’s forgiveness in the sense of annulment of guilt and sin, then Moses’ prayer has been heard and achieved its objectives. That is, the continuance and 131. Walter Brueggemann (“The Psalms as Prayer,” The Psalms and the Life of Faith [Augsburg: Fortress, 1995] 43–49) convincingly shows that the paradigm initiated by Moses is followed by various psalms. Israel takes Yhwh’s attributes up in several prayers. In Psalm 86, the one praying insists (with reference to Exod 34:6–7) that Yhwh does live up to His nature. Whereas in Psalm 103, the psalmist muses in amazement and gratitude, in Psalm 145, the one who prays rejoices in the nature of Yhwh. Like the psalmists, Jonah knows the characteristics of Yhwh; unlike them, however, he protests against God’s character ( Jonah 4:1–3). See Matthias Franz, Der barmherzige und gnädige Gott: Die Gnadenrede vom Sinai (Exodus 34:6–7) und ihre Parallelen im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt (BWANT 160; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003), for an overview of all the explicit and implicit references to Exod 34:6–7. 132.  Brueggemann, Theology, 270–71.

98

Chapter 3

preservation of Yhwh’s covenant relationship with Israel and the assurance that they as a people will eventually settle in the promised land.

Yhwh’s Name Enacted It is clear that God’s pronouncement of His name (Exod 34:6–7) forms a beautifully balanced statement on the goodness of Yhwh who is committed to His people but who nonetheless demands moral integrity. 133 Flowing from the loving divine commitment to the people, Yhwh allowed Himself to be persuaded by His mediator to renew the covenant relationship (Exod 34:8–10). Although the covenant was renewed, the second half of the divine self-disclosure (Yhwh’s judgment), did not find any concrete application in the context of Exodus 32–34. It seems to me that Num 14:20–35 sheds significant light on the nature of the divine name, particularly on the logic of Yhwh’s visitation. In fact, I have suggested that Yhwh’s twofold response to Moses’ prayer (Num 14:20–35) provides an inner-­biblical commentary on Yhwh’s nature as revealed to Moses on Sinai (Exod 34:6–7). It is particularly the important relationship between divine pardon and covenant maintenance, and the much-debated logic of the divine visitation to the third and fourth generation, that receive an illuminating outworking in Num 14:20–35. To be more precise, Yhwh’s judgment on both the rebellious wilderness generation and on their offspring exemplifies how His holy name (Exod 34:6–7) is enacted in a concrete situation. The meaning of Yhwh’s visitation of the iniquities (‫)פ ֹקֵד עֲֹון‬ ּ varies considerably depending on context. Its exact semantic value has to be carefully established in its given setting. Although the concept of intergenerational collective punishment and the “doctrine” of deferred punishment are fairly widespread in the Old Testament, we would like to question whether these are the best categories for understanding Yhwh’s visitation to the fourth generation in the context of Numbers 14. First, the rebellious scouts were subjected to immediate destruction by plague (cf. Num 14:36–37). Second, the children of the sinful generation would eventually have a genuine chance to settle in the promised land and be reconciled with God. The sinful generation by contrast was to die in the wilderness. Yhwh’s response makes it clear that the children will ultimately not be pursued in judgment for their parents’ sins (Num 14:30–31). In fact, Numbers 32 makes it evident that the new generations’ standing with God will depend on their own response to the divine promise (Num 32:6–15). Olson has suggestively argued that, on the basis of the canonical shape of the book of Numbers, each generation of Israel is given the same chance as the wilderness generation had. 134 Thus, divine visitation in this context (that is, Exod 34:7) seems to mean that Yhwh visits with view to examine the iniquities of the fathers onto the third and fourth generation. In other words, Yhwh comes first 133.  See my Moses, 169–203, for detailed exegesis of Exod 34:5–7. 134.  Olson, The Death, 96–97.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

99

to examine or to assess the moral standing of successive generations before appropriate measures are being taken. 135 Although the rebellious generation was sentenced to die a natural death in the wilderness, Israel’s forty years in the wilderness were not marked by a miserable existence. The book of Numbers does not say much about this period, with hindsight though, Israel came to see their time in the wilderness not so much as a time of punishment (although this aspect is not denied — cf. Deut 1:19–46), but rather as a time of discipline, providence, and growing understanding of God (Deut 8:2–4). Further Theological Reflections

“And the Lord Changed His Mind”: The Persuasive Power of Prayer In this section I would like to address the issue of divine mutability and bring it into dialogue with Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 14. To be more precise, I would like to take issue with the legacy, which regards divine repentance or change of mind as a result of prayer as an alarming theologumenon, or as a naive anthropomorphism. 136 To begin, it is clear that the Old Testament shows no signs of embarrassment in depicting God in human ways. Acknowledging the metaphoric value of anthropomorphic language, it is exactly this anthropomorphic language that helps us to perceive God in a truly personal and responsive fashion. 137 It is surely noteworthy that all the adjectives employed in Yhwh’s fullest self-disclosure are relational in character (cf. Exod 34:6–7). By the logic of the Old Testament, “God-talk” is either descriptive or prescriptive (third or first person) because Yhwh in His grace and free decision revealed Himself in ways that are comprehensible to humans (that is, in anthropomorphic language). Strictly speaking, however, one should not forget that the Old Testament perceives humanity as theomorphic and not God as anthromorphic. 138 Having said that, I believe that there is good reason to argue that all biblical passages which speak about God’s change of mind could be understood in the light of Yhwh’s disclosure of His name (Exod 34:6–7). God speaks not only of His merciful and gracious nature but also of His justice. 135. Joseph Scharbert, “Formgeschichte und Exegese von Exod 34:6f.,” Bib 38 (1957) 139. 136. Especially Kant, Religion, 184–87. Cf. Henning Graf Reventlow, Gebet im Alten Testament (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986) 14–21. Friedrich Schleiermacher (Predigten von Friedrich Schleiermacher [vol. 4; Nabu, 2012] 357) maintains the wholly otherness of God and limits prayer to a means of renewing one’s God–consciousness. In other words, he denies biblical prayer its distinct character by reducing it largely to praise and thanksgiving. See Oscar Cullmann, Das Gebet im Neuen Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 18. 137.  Cf. Anthony C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading (Glasgow: Harper Collins, 1992) 315–19. 138.  Cf. von Rad, Theologie 1, 159.

100

Chapter 3

Hence, God’s constancy is not only found in His fundamentally loving commitment to His people, which enables Him to show mercy and grace in the light of appropriate human response, but also in His moral nature, which is stirred at the sight of human sin. Both Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 13–14 present us with a context of grave human sin and the threat of divine judgment. It is in this context that we have to examine the concept of “divine mutability.” Neither narrative depicts Yhwh as an immutable and impassible God but as a living God who is genuinely responsive to the development among His people. In both incidents sin stirs the divine wrath and provokes Yhwh to announce judgment. In other words, God’s good original intention and purposes with Israel have been endangered by sin and God’s wrath. Divine change of mind has to be understood against this background. As we have just noted, not only does His tendency toward grace and mercy belong to Yhwh’s constancy, but so too does His commitment to holiness. God’s intended judgment, however, is always open to an appeal to mercy and compassion. 139 It is in the context of a loyal and responsive God that Moses’ intercessions, and any other prayer, must be understood. Yhwh’s nature enables Him to respond to development and incorporate it in the shaping of the future, for better or for worse (cf. Jer 18:1–12). The notion that God genuinely concerns Himself with a prophet’s prayer in working out His judgment is not a sign of divine weakness or inconsistent behavior. Rather, it is a sign of true greatness. God can and chooses to accommodate human prayer in His will and plan. 140 The results of our exegesis enable us to bring the nexus of “holy mutability” and prophetic intercessory prayer more into focus. Besides creating a portrait of a God who is genuinely responsive to prophetic intercessions and who can incorporate prayer into the outworking of the divine plans, there is good warrant to argue that God expects His servants to engage with His circumstantial, but justified, wrath and to persuade Him to prolong judgment graciously and act in accordance with His innermost gracious and loving being and His ultimate will for Israel. We have suggested that the destruction of Israel in the immediate aftermath of the golden calf incident or after the rebellion at Kadesh was a real possibility, but it is surely revealing of Yhwh’s personality that He chooses first to involve Moses concerning His plans before He executes the punishment. In a similar way, God informed Abraham about His destructive plans for Sodom: “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do” (Gen 18:17). In other instances, God shares His plans of judgment with the prophets so that they could warn the sinful party of a potentially destruc139.  Patrick D. Miller, “Prayer and Divine Action,” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann (ed. T. Linafelt and T. K. Beal; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) 221. 140. Karl Barth, Die Kirchliche Dogmatik: Die Lehre von der Schöpfung (vol. 3/4; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1951) 119–20.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

101

tive forthcoming punishment (cf. Amos 3:7). There is a pervasive pattern in Scripture showing that God will, before executing His judgment, make His intention known to His servants, thus providing them with an opportunity to participate in the outworking of the divine resolution. In our reading of Exod 32:10, we have seen that there is good reason to argue that Yhwh seeks to “provoke” Moses to stand in the breach. It seems as though God chooses to make His punitive intentions vulnerable to Moses by presenting him with the implicit option of not letting Him go ahead with the deserved judgment. Because this comes close to a divine invitation to persuade God to act differently from what is announced, it hardly does justice to the dynamics of the narratives to juxtapose God’s omniscience with Moses’ prayer, or to talk about Moses’ prayers as an unexpected and futile intrusion into the divine rule as Enlightenment scholarship tended to characterize petitionary prayer. 141 Rather, Moses’ prayer is evoked to make it an integral part of God’s decision and history making. Wright helpfully encapsulates the prayer dynamics by saying that God not only allows human intercession, God invites it (in later biblical texts God also commands it), and builds it into the decision–making processes of the heavenly council in ways we can never fathom. . . . Such prayer, therefore, not only participates in the plan of God in history, but is actually invited to do so for God’s sake as well as ours. 142

That God incorporates the intercessions of His servants in the outworking of His purposes is further endorsed by two conceptually related passages from Ezekiel (Ezek 22:30–31, 13:5). God chooses not to act on His own, but in collaboration with His chosen servants. 143 Moses’ intercessory prayers are effective because they are in profound tune with God’s nature, and because they aspire to the realization of Yhwh’s deeper plan with Israel. In other words, Yhwh’s change of mind is in a sense a reversal to be true to Himself.

Moses, Advocate of God and Advocate of the People (Deuteronomy 9–10) Introduction By the narrative logic of the canon, Deuteronomy 9–10 is Moses’ recollection of the wilderness generation’s idolatry with the molten calf and his intercessory efforts at Sinai (Exod 32–34). We shall see that Moses 141. See Gordon Kaufman, “On the Meaning of ‘Act of God,’” in God the Problem (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972) 146–47. 142.  Christopher J. H. Wright, Deuteronomy (NIBC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998) 140. 143.  The inauguration of a prophetic mediator in itself, in our case the appointment of Moses, not only confirms Yhwh’s choice of working in cooperation with His chosen servants but also reflects His fundamental commitment to Israel.

102

Chapter 3

transforms­to a certain extent the Exodus account as he applies it to a new generation. 144 Although the canon ascribes greater weight to the Exodus account (Exod 32–34), Moses’ intercessory prayer in Deuteronomy is not just one important element among several major concerns in the narrative but comes as the main focus of the account. 145 Von Rad comments: In the earlier account Moses’ struggle with God (if we neglect the long interpolation in Exod 32:9–14 because it is primarily Deuteronomistic), was only one incident among many. Here on the contrary the struggle is at the centre of events. 146

Not only the centrality of Moses’ prayer, but also the distinct emphasis of the deuteronomic version make this an important text for understanding Israel’s perception of intercessory prayer. In Exodus 32–34, there are four accounts of Moses’ prayers (cf. Exod 32:11­–14, 31–32, 33:12–23, 34:9), while Deuteronomy seems to condense the prayer content into one (Deut 9:25– 29). 147 Nevertheless, Moses’ sermon in Deuteronomy recounts his intercessory act in four scenes: (1) physical act of protestation (Deut 9:18–19); (2) prayer for Aaron (Deut 9:20); (3) the words of his intercessory prayer (Deut 9:25–29); and (4) God’s reply (Deut 10:10–11). We shall see that nonlinear narration of Moses’ intercession is one of the distinctive marks of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy omits the act of punishment for Israel’s apostasy (cf. Exod 32:25–29, 35); instead, there is greater emphasis on Moses’ selfdenial, Israel’s election, his prophetic call to covenant commitment, and his subtle teaching on how divine grace and covenant relate to prophetic intercession. 148 Of particular theological interest are Yhwh’s command to 144. As indicated before, I do not deny the likely complex diachronic relationship between Exodus 32–34 and Deuteronomy 9–10, but our focus and interest lie in the way that the narrative logic of the final form present the canonical relationship between these two accounts. For detailed discussions on possible diachronic associations between these two texts, see Erik Aurelius, Der Fürbitter Israels: Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament (CBOT 27; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1988) 33–55; Norbert Lohfink, “Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11 und Exodus 32–34: Zu Endstruktur, Intertextualität, Schichtung und Abhängigkeiten,” in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10 (ed. M. Köckert and E. Blum; WGT 18; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001) 41–87; Jerry Hwang, “The Rhetoric of Theophany: An Imaginative Depiction of Horeb in Deuteronomy 9–10,” in For Our Good Always: Essays on Deuteronomy’s Message and Influence (ed. J. DeRouchie, J. Gile, and K. Turner; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013) 145–64. 145.  Exodus 32–34 is arguably equally concerned with Israel’s apostasy, the erection and destruction of the golden calf, and the role of Aaron and the Levites. Although all these issues feature in Deuteronomy 9–10 as well, they are clearly side issues. Cf. Aurelius, Der Fürbitter, 6–8. 146.  Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966) 55. 147. See Lohfink, “Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11,” 57. 148. Vincent Sénéchal, Rétribution et intercession dans le Deutéronome (BZAW 408, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2009), addresses the question why the deuteronomic account of the golden calf incident does not contain any references to divine punishment. Sénéchal suggests there are two possible explanations for this: (1) the mention of divine retribution

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

103

refrain from prayer in the face of the archetypal apostasy and Moses’ “faithful disagreement” (cf. Deut 9:14). In the dynamic human-divine dialogue, we shall see that prayer and theology exist in some sense in “a correcting circle, the one learning from the other and correcting the other.” 149 Deuteronomy 9–10 is one in a series of sermons recorded in chaps. 6–11. Moses’ sermons are held at the end of Israel’s 40 years in the wilderness just before the new generation was to enter the promised land (cf. Deut 1:1, 3; 2:7, 14; 9:1). The geographical setting is in the plains of Moab on the banks of the Jordan (Deut 1:5). In other words, the book of Deuteronomy deliberately seeks to continue from the plot of the book of Numbers. The rebellious wilderness generation has died (cf. Num 33:38; Deut 2:14–16) and thus Moses is preparing the new generation for the long-expected move into Canaan. He appeals in a series of sermons for the new generation to renew their trust, obedience, and devotion to Yhwh. Moses’ Intercessory Prayer in Context: Deuteronomy 5–11 Moses’ speeches in Deuteronomy 6–11, as Lohfink has shown in his influential study, each seek to explicate and illustrate what it means to obey the main commandment (das Hauptgebot), as expressed in Deuteronomy 5. 150 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt . . . you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol . . . You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Deut 5:6–10)

What is stipulated here in the negative is positively rephrased in the summons to love God with all one’s heart, soul, and strength (Deut 6:4–5). It is widely agreed that what came to be known as the Shema is a concise summary statement of the ten commandments (particularly of the first in Deuteronomy 9–10 is unnecessary because the reader knows that the Exodus generation has already been punished (cf. Deut 1:19–46); (2) reference to divine punishment is omitted as a rhetorical device to emphasize the (postexilic) audience’s solidarity with the first exodus generation. The concept of election is particularly prominent in the book of Deuteronomy (cf. Deut 6:10, 7:7–9, 10:14ff.). Cf. Rolf Rendtorff, “Die Erwählung Israels als Thema der deuteronomischen Theologie,” Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift für Hans Walter Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981) 75–86. 149.  Patrick D. Miller, They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 1. 150. Norbert Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot: Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn. 5–11, (AnBib 20; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963); cf. Patrick D. Miller, Deuteronomy (IBC; Louisville: John Knox, 1990) 124.

104

Chapter 3

two) or indeed of the entire law. 151 After Moses has called Israel to exclusive devotion and obedience to God (cf. Deut 6:1–9), 152 he goes on to exposit in three sermons what it means to love Yhwh with all one’s heart, soul, and strength (cf. Deut 7:1–26, 8:1–20, 9:1–10:11).

Moses’ Speeches There are various linguistic, conceptual, or thematic associations among Moses’ sermons. Particular attention is given to the “heart.” Although the Old Testament ascribes many aspects of human experience to the “heart” in the context of Deuteronomy 6–11, the heart functions primarily as a place of thinking and of virtues. The place where decisions of faith and of good and evil are being made. 153 Not only the repeated idiom “say in your heart” (‫ ;אמר בלבב‬Deut 7:17, 8:17, 9:4) suggests a certain unity between these passages but also the recurrent summons “to remember” (‫ )זכר‬God’s mighty acts and the sinful past (cf. Deut 7:18, 8:2, 18, 9:7). If you say in your heart (ָ‫ָבך‬ ְ ‫)ּכי תֹאמַר ִּב ְלב‬, ִ “These nations are more numerous than I; how can I dispossess them?” do not be afraid of them. Just remember (‫ )זָכֹר ִּתזְכֹּר‬what the Lord your God did to Pharaoh and to all Egypt. (Deut 7:17–18) Now should you say in your heart (ָ‫)ו ָאמ ְַר ָּת ִּב ְל ָבבֶך‬, ְ “My power and the might of my own hand have gotten me this wealth.” But remember the Lord (‫)וזָכ ְַר ָּת אֶת־יְהוָה‬ ְ your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, so that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your ancestors, as he is doing today. (Deut 8:17–18)

When the Lord your God thrusts them out before you, do not say in your heart (ָ‫ָבך‬ ְ ‫)אַל־תֹּאמַר ִּב ְלב‬, “It is because of my righteousness that the Lord has brought me in to occupy this land”; it is rather because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is dispossessing them before you. . . . Remember (‫ )זְכֹר‬and do not forget how you provoked the Lord your God to wrath in the wilderness. (Deut 9:4, 7) 154

All three sermons highlight potential threats, which might hinder Israel’s relationship with God. In the first sermon (Deut 7:1–26), Moses raises 151.  See, for example, von Rad (Theologie, 243), who argues that all deuteronomic laws are nothing else but a wide explication of the underlying command to love Yhwh. This love, according to von Rad, is a response to the experienced divine love. Lohfink (Hauptgebot, 158) reckons that the Hauptgebot ought to be understood in the sense of Matthew 22:38, 40, that is, the first and major commandment on which the entire law is attached. Cf. Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 5; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 328. 152. See Aurelius, Fürbitter, 29, on the literary and conceptual affiliation between the Shema and chap. 9. 153.  See H-J. Fabry, “‫ ֵלבָב‬,‫לב‬,” TDOT 7:412, 419, 431. 154.  Dennis T. Olson (Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading [OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994] 52–53) has labeled Moses’ speeches with the following headings: “Militarism and the worship of military might (7:1–26), materialism and the worship of wealth (8:1–20), and moralism and the worship of self-righteousness (9:1–10:11).”

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

105

the danger of Israel’s boastfulness, which might arise from Israel’s numerical might (Deut 7:7) and moves on to address Israel’s fear before the conquest (Deut 7:17­–18). In his second sermon, Moses warns against reliance on one’s own achievements and military power after the settlement (cf. Deut 8:1–20), while his third address targets the possible emergence of self-righteousness that might arise during or shortly after the conquest (Deut 9:1–10:11). The sequence of events (before, after, during) appears to be chronologically confused. Theologically, however, there is a logic behind this particular arrangement of material. According to Weinfeld, all three sermons seek to combat feelings of “superiority that might be stimulated by election (Deut 7:7), affluence (Deut 8:17), or inheritance of new land (Deut 9:5).” 155 Besides feelings of superiority, Moses’ sermons seek to address the problem of various forms of unbelief and thus seek to promote belief and trust in Yhwh. In chap. 7, unbelief and faint-heartedness are contested with reference to Yhwh’s mighty acts in Egypt and His immediate presence in the camp (Deut 7:18–21; cf. Num 13–14). Chapter 8 raises the danger of a self-­ sufficient attitude that springs from affluence and leads ultimately to denial of dependence on Yhwh. In order to prevent any attitude that denies the need of God, Moses reminds (‫ )זכר‬Israel of the reason behind the forty-year wilderness period. It was to test them so that it will become evident what was in their hearts (Deut 8:2). He goes on to remind them (‫ )זכר‬that the accumulated wealth is a consequence of Yhwh’s fidelity to the promise made to the fathers (Deut 8:18). In fact, references to the ancient promise to the patriarchs are made in all three chapters (cf. Deut 7:8, 8:18, 9:27). This argument climaxes in Moses’ prayer, where he seeks to persuade Yhwh to renew the relationship with Israel (cf. Deut 9:27). In any case, chap. 9 addresses possibly the subtlest form of unbelief: the problem of self-­righteousness. The discerning reader might detect an increasingly subtle form of unbelief, which is addressed in Moses’ sermons. First, the simplest form of unbelief is expressed: fear and despair in the face of the enemy in spite of Yhwh’s decisive deliverance from Egypt (Deut 7:17–18). Second, a more insidious form of unbelief comes to expression in Israel’s self-sufficiency, which leads to independence from God. Third, the subtlest form of unbelief is a distorted form of piety, a self-righteousness, which attributes God’s graciously bestowed gift(s) to one’s own virtues. 156 In sum, the sermons share the common concern of exploring various aspects of belief and unbelief. 157

The Conquest and Faith The theme of holy war and conquest that runs through chaps. 7 and 9 illumines the centrality of faith and trust from a different perspective. In 155.  Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 406. 156.  Aurelius, Fürbitter, 21. Olson (Deuteronomy, 54) remarks, “Despair does not trust God enough; arrogance trusts too much in its own human ability and calculation.” 157.  Aurelius, Fürbitter, 27.

106

Chapter 3

these accounts, there is a strong emphasis on the military superiority of the inhabitants of the promised land. They are mightier and more numerous than Israel (Deut 1:28; 7:2, 17; 9:1–2). Because Israel cannot match the military power of Canaan’s armies, there is an equally strong emphasis to be of good courage, not to fear, but to trust in Yhwh’s determinative involvement and immediate presence in the conquest (Deut 1:29–30, 42; 7:2, 21–22, 9:3). Yhwh is presented as the main, though not sole, actor in the conquest. Because Yhwh will fight as a divine warrior on behalf of Israel, the strength of the enemy is rendered irrelevant. As we shall see in our more detailed reading of Deut 9:1–6, these chapters are pervaded by holy-war concepts. Yhwh is the main protagonist of the conquest, for He Himself will cross the Jordan and enter into the land (cf. Deut 1:30, 7:2, 9:3). He will destroy the peoples before Him and give Israel the good land, provided that Israel goes with the right attitude into battle. Moses summons Israel several times not to fear their human opposition but to put their trust in the power of Yhwh (Deut 1:29–33, 7:2, 9:3). Thus, the crucial condition that will determine the outcome of the conquest is faith in Yhwh (cf. Num 14:11, Deut 1:32, 9:23). 158 Yhwh’s involvement in warfare is primarily based on His promise to the fathers to bring Israel into Canaan (Deut 1:19–45, 6:10, 7:13). Chapter 7 also contains the nonnegotiable divine requirement to destroy totally (‫ )חרם‬the seven nations that inhabit the land. They are to be punished for their sins, and Israel is to act as God’s executioner. Besides being morally questionable, the divine command for destruction raises certain textual difficulties. For a start, according to Exod 34:11, God demands not the total destruction of the inhabitants but only their expulsion. In fact, Deut 7:22 talks about a gradual displacing of the nations. This picture appears also to be more in tune with other biblical accounts that suggest not so much a radical conquest, but rather a long process of occupation and infiltration (cf. Joshua 13–17; Judges 1; 3:1–6). Another factor that stands in tension with Yhwh’s uncompromising call to destruction of the inhabitants of Canaan (Deut 7:2) is the prohibition against intermarriage. 159 How could the possibility of intermarriage arise if the population is entirely wiped out? Thus, it has been argued that Deuteronomy utilizes the traditional language of ‫ חרם‬in a metaphorical sense. ‫ חרם‬probably became a metaphor for religious fidelity and an expression of Israel’s total devotion to Yhwh as commanded in the Shema. 160 The only thing that Israel is explicitly com158. Von Rad, Holy War, 48. See also Prov 29:25, Isa 7:39. 159.  Intermarriage with those of other religions is the issue, not interracial marriage or ethnic cleansing (cf. 1 Kings 11). The command ‫יתם ַהחֲרֵם‬ ָ ‫( ְו ִה ִּכ‬Deut 7:2) is rendered by the nrsv as “you must utterly destroy them.” 160.  See R. W. L. Moberly, “Towards an Interpretation of the Shema,” in Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs (ed. C. Seitz & K. Greene–McCreight; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 124–44. Moberly’s interpretation is endorsed by von Rad’s argu-

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

107

manded to destroy (‫ )חרם‬are the Canaanite cultic objects (Deut 7:5). Verse 6 provides perhaps the main reason for Yhwh’s total separation from the Canaanites (cf. Deut 7:2–3, 5). for (‫)ּכי‬ ִ you are a people holy to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on earth to be his people, his treasured possession. (Deut 7:6)

Being a holy people means essentially being exclusively separated for God. Israel must have no association with pagan religion. Israel is to love their God, because the Lord loved them first (‫ ;אהבה‬cf. Deut 7:7–8). 161 It is to these two elements, Israel’s attitude toward election and the reason for the expulsion of the Canaanites, that chap. 9 adds new important aspects. As we shall see, Deuteronomy 9 takes up the theme of election and defines it in the light of Israel’s misconceived virtues and their true nature. Deut 9:1–6 is a warning against Israel’s pride and clarifies once and for all the reason for Israel’s inheritance of Canaan. It will become evident that, according to Moses’ sermon, the land is a totally undeserved gracious gift. Moreover, chap. 9 explains the expulsion of the Canaanites on the grounds of their immoral standing before Yhwh (cf. Deut 9:4, 6). Thus, it will become clear that the text, on the one hand, envisages the conquest as a just divine judgment and on the other hand, as a gracious act of God. By emphasizing Israel’s undeserving character, chap. 9 also roots election, covenant, and the inheritance of Canaan in the Lord’s faithfulness to His promise (Deut 9:5).

Breach of Covenant, Idolatry, and the Golden Calf Another dominant theme of Deuteronomy 9–10 is the covenant, namely, its breaking and its renewal. This obviously presupposes the making of it, which is described in chap. 5. In fact, there are several points of contact between chaps. 5 and 9–10. 162 Chapter 5 depicts the covenant making (Deut 5:2–3). It remains ambiguous, however, whether the covenant is based on the Decalogue only. 163 Chapter 9 clarifies this by speaking explicitly about ment in Holy War, 52, that the text is not going back to the time when Israel was actually engaged in holy war (that is, during the period of the judges; cf. Joshua 1–11, Judges 1–11, 1  Samuel 15). In fact, von Rad reckons that Deuteronomy makes only use of some of the language and concepts associated with holy war. He proposes that what happens in chaps. 7 and 9 is in principle the same as when Deuteronomy takes up old laws or other older traditions and reappropriates them for its contemporary audience. 161. Jon D. Levenson (Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible [San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1985] 76) comments on Deut 7:6–8: “Deuteronomy . . . sees in the selection of Israel to be Yhwh’s treasured possession, the fruit of a passionate affair (Deut 7:6–8). The special status of Israel rests not upon her merits, her strength or numbers or intelligence or honesty, but upon something irrational, a passion, an affair of the heart, not the mind, in short a love.” 162. Cf. Mayes, Deuteronomy, 195. 163.  Childs (Introduction, 216) writes that “the writer of ch. 5 makes it absolutely clear that the decalogue formed the basis of the covenant” It is, however, not as clear as Childs

108

Chapter 3

the tablets of the covenant (‫ ;לֻחֹות ה ְַּבִרית‬Deut 9:11) and later on about the ark of the covenant (‫ ;אֲרֹון ְּבִרית־יְהוָה‬Deut 10:8). 164 By placing the account of the golden calf in its canonical context, several effects are achieved. First, Israel did not heed God’s words from the fire or listen to Moses’ admonition not to fashion any image of God (Deut 4:15, 23–24), in spite of its destructive consequences (Deut 4:26). Thus, chap. 9 establishes beyond doubt that Israel broke the second commandment. Thereby, the golden calf account speaks to the new generation like a commentary or case study on the second commandment. By destroying the calf according to instruction, Moses emerges as the obedient and law-abiding Israelite. But obviously more than this, through his costly mediatory effort, he manages to restore and maintain the breached covenant (Deut 9:25–29, 10:12–22). As we have noted before, intercession goes hand in hand with prophetic admonition. As any good preacher would, Moses challenges the second generation with real and important issues.

“Today You Are About to Cross the Jordan”: Aspects of Moses’ Sermons Taking it for granted that sermons seek to address real issues and problems, we can infer from chaps.  9 and 10 that Israel was tempted by the delusion that they were about to inhabit Canaan on the grounds of moral and ethical superiority. But it is exactly this sort of thinking that Moses seeks to combat (Deut 9:4–6). It thus appears natural that Moses recalls in great detail the darkest moments in Israel’s past. The prime example of Israel’s sinful past is doubtlessly the golden calf incident. Moses’ sermon on the golden calf is very interesting for several reasons. First, Moses refers to a past event, which he now recalls from his own perspective and obviously, as with any good preacher, with a specific agenda. Second, Moses’ address merges, in a characteristically deuteronomic way, different generations of past, present, and future. Chapter 9 begins clearly with an address to the new generation, which was about to enter the promised land. 165 By the internal logic of the narrative it is the children of the rebellious wilderness generation who are about to inherit Canaan. Interestingly, in several verses Moses addresses the new generation as if they (and not their rebellious parents) had participated in the exodus, as if Yhwh made the covenant with the younger generation at the mountain and as if they had personally experienced the awesome spectacles on Sinai (“Even at Horeb you provoked the Lord to wrath, and the Lord was so angry with you that he was ready to states, chap.  5 begins with an announcement to listen to both statutes and commandments (Deut 5:1), and comes to an end with a summons to follow the entire law (Deut 5:32–32). 164.  To be accurate, Deut 4:13 already foreshadows 9:11. 165.  According to Deut 8:2–4, Israel has spent 40 years of judgment and discipline in the wilderness (cf. Num 14:29–33, 26:64–65). Moreover, Deuteronomy 1 makes it clear that Moses addresses the new generation who is about to enter the promised land.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

109

destroy you.” Cf. Deut 9:7–9). A characteristic feature of the deuteronomic faith is that the covenant at Horeb is not confined to the first generation of Israelites who participated historically in the event, but to subsequent generations as well. 166 This is achieved by taking the following generations back to the past and by letting them participate in the covenant procedure. Not with our ancestors did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today. (Deut 5:3)  167

Deuteronomy employs several homiletical means to actualize significant events of the past. For example the usage of “we/us” in the “credos” (cf. Deut 6:21–25, 26:5–10), or in 9:1 the writer employs an emphatic “you” in the singular when he addresses Israel, and utilizes “today” as a means to underline its relevance for the contemporary generation. 168 Hear, O Israel! You are about to cross the Jordan today (‫)הַּיֹום‬, to go in and dispossess nations larger. (Deut 9:1; cf. 26:17, 27:9, etc.)

Just as the covenant ratification is not just something that happened in the past but has to be actualized and accepted by subsequent generations, so the past sin of the golden calf has implications for the new generations (Deut 9:7). In fact, Moses talks to the new generation as though they had shared in the golden calf incident (Deut 9:8) and as though they had rejected the offer to enter the promised land (Deut 9:23). Unless it is recognized that subsequent generations share in the sins of the fathers, there is the danger of attributing innocence and self-righteousness to themselves. In other words, he actualizes the act of apostasy and makes it an existential reality for the new generation (e.g. Deut 9:7–8). The rationale behind Moses’ paraenetic speeches is a reapplication or actualization of past events. This is done with a view to learn from past failures. Although chap. 9 begins with a summons to the new generation to enter the promised land, the nature of Moses’ sermon suggests that it was still possible for the new generation to lose the content of the outstanding promise. According to the logic of the text, the sermons are given between Israel’s election as Yhwh’s people and the fulfillment of the divine promise. Therefore, Israel’s future is still open and depends on their response to Yhwh. 169 This merging of different generations and past and future ought to be seen in the wider context of Deuteronomy. It has long been recognized as a 166.  For a recent detailed treatment of Deuteronomy’s use of anachronism as a rhetorical device, see Jerry Hwang, The Rhetoric of Remembrance: An Investigation of the “Fathers” in Deuteronomy (Siphrut 8; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012). See also Bernard Levinson “The Hermeneutics of Tradition in Deuteronomy,” JBL 119 (2000) 269–86. 167. Behind this and other verses might well be a covenant renewal ceremony (cf. Deut 29:9–14). Here, however, we are not so much concerned with the Sitz im Leben of these texts as with their canonical function. See von Rad, “Das formgeschichtliche Problem,” 28–32. 168. Cf. Miller, Deuteronomy, 12; Levenson, Sinai, 81. 169. Von Rad, Theologie 1, 236.

110

Chapter 3

typical feature of the book of Deuteronomy in general and of Moses’ paraenetic speeches in particular. Von Rad was one of the first to engage seriously with the deuteronomic concern of actualizing past traditions for subsequent generations. 170 Although putting a date on the final composition of Deuteronomy has proven extremely controversial, most scholars would agree that Deuteronomy is somehow related to Josiah’s reform program (2 Kings 22–23) and probably received its basic shape around that time. 171 Even though most of the material of Deuteronomy is probably much older than the seventh century b.c., 172 there are many scholars who would argue that the final redaction occurred later than Josiah’s period. 173 The issue of date is raised because it has implications for the nature of Moses’ homiletic speeches, as comes to expression in von Rad’s words: Deuteronomy wipes out some seven centuries squandered in disobedience, and places Israel once again in the wilderness, with Moses speaking to her. But it has to be borne in mind that this Israel is in no way comparable to the ancient people of Israel that stood once at Sinai: the conditions in which she lived were utterly different in culture, economy, and politics, and she is a stubborn people (Deut ix.6, 13, xxxi. 27). Nonetheless, she is offered present salvation on exactly the same terms as before: “today you have become the people of Jahweh your God.” Nowhere else does the impassioned endeavour to make the commandments given at Sinai relevant for its own time find such a clear expression as in the endless variations played up the word “today,” which the preacher drums 170. Cf. idem, “Ancient Word and Living Word: The Preaching of Deuteronomy and our Preaching,” Int 15 (1961) 3–13. 171. There are several indicators that suggest that Deuteronomy received its basic shape around the time of Josiah. For example, the deuteronomic demand for centralization of the cult was first implemented under Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:4, 22). Moreover, the prohibition against astral worship (Deut 4:19, 2 Kgs 23:6) probably ought to be understood in the light of Assyrian influence from the eighth century onward. Furthermore, there are numerous close parallels with Hosea, the eighth-century northern prophet (cf. Deut 8:12–14; Hos 13:6; Deut 12:2, 16:22; Hos 4:13; Deut 11:28; Hos 13:4) which suggest a mutual dependence. Moreover, the literary and conceptual affinities between the book of Deuteronomy and King Josiah’s reform programme (2 Kings 22–23) strongly suggest some historical connections. The prime example is found in 2 Kgs 23:25, where the wording of the second part of the Shema is literally reflected in order to describe Josiah’s devotion to God. See Tigay, Deuteronomy, xx–xxiv, for a concise and helpful discussion on the relationship between Deuteronomy and Joshiah’s reform. 172.  E.g., The laws in Deuteronomy do not reflect an advanced society of merchants, professional soldiers, and royal officials. Even the monarchy is only briefly mentioned in the form of a warning (cf. Deut 17:14–20). Rather, the majority of laws reflect the needs of farmers and herders (probably period of the judges). See ibid., xxi. 173. Georg Braulik (“Das Buch Deuteronomium,” in Einleitung in das Alte Testament [ed. E. Zenger; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008] 140–49), for example, believes that Deut 4:9–32, 7–9, reflect the theological climate of the exile, when the question arose if Yhwh’s grace and faithfulness will not outweigh Israel’s sins. Thus, according to Braulik, Israel increasingly understood their relationship in the light of Yhwh’s oath to the patriarchs and not so much on the basis of a conditional covenant.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

111

into the ears of his audience. This “today” means both the time of Moses and that of Deuteronomy taken together. 174

Although there are undoubtedly several parallels between Deuteronomy and the Josianic reform, there are no explicit references to Josiah and his contemporaries in the speeches of Moses and in Deuteronomy as a whole. This is not to deny the likely historical interdependence of the two, but it is to say that Moses’ speeches are not restricted to the Josianic context; rather, they supersede it. 175 Moses’ paraenetic speeches by their nature are always addressed to the next generation. 176 Or, in the words of Childs, Deuteronomy consciously relativizes the importance of chronological time when describing the new generation as being fully involved in the events of the past. By making every generation analogous to the generation at Sinai, the historical qualities of the people of God recede before an ideal of faith. 177

Thus, successive generations (whether they were contemporaries of Josiah or not is only of minor importance for our purposes) were asked in the same way as the children of the wilderness generation to identify with those Israelites who stood at Sinai and enter afresh into an obedient covenant relation with Yhwh. In the face of seemingly insurmountable challenges, Moses appeals to them as well to put their trust in Yhwh. They are still in some sense at the border of the Jordan and await the fulfillment of the promise. Their future is open and depends on their response to Yhwh’s invitation. Judaism has maintained the understanding of an ever-relevant address of Moses. Weinfeld points to the modern Passover liturgy where Jews “participate” once more in the Exodus and the Sinai event. Not only our ancestors had he, the Holy one blessed be his name, released from Egypt, but he also released us with them, as it is written: “and us he freed from there.” 178

In fact, Moses himself ordered a public reading of the law (that is, Deuteronomy) every seven years at the Feast of Booths so that every generation is invited afresh by the immediate “you” of the narrative to identify with the exodus generation (cf. Deut 31:9–13). Fishbane describes helpfully the paradigmatic nature of Sinai: 174. Von Rad, Theology 1, 231. 175. Cf. Moberly, “Shema,” 3–4. 176.  Miller (Deuteronomy, 107) writes: “The children are now the ones before whom all the choices are laid, and some day their children will be there and the divine instruction will confront them (e.g. 30:2) Can they learn afresh what it means to love the Lord wholeheartedly?” 177.  Childs, Introduction, 222. 178.  Cited from Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 239. This sort of understanding is obviously akin to the Lord’s Supper in the Christian tradition.

112

Chapter 3

Sinai is . . . not a one-time event, but for all times; it is not only grounded in the historical past, but hovers in the living present. Sinai stands at the mythic core of religious memory, and the explication of its teachings is a sacred ritual for Judaism. 179

In sum, the Deuteronomist(s) started to develop traditions that transcend the original event so that later generations are equally addressed by the testimony of Deuteronomy. In our next section we shall see that the writer/ final editor of chaps. 9 and 10 clearly intended to create something like an authoritative body of sacred Scripture for subsequent generations of believers who did not participate in the original revelatory events. The very nature of Deuteronomy seems not only to endorse a theological reading of the text and a continuing process of interpretation, 180 but also provides reason for some of the discrepancies between the Exodus and Deuteronomy version of the golden calf incident. This is further endorsed by the composition of Deuteronomy 9–10. What looks at first sight like a chronologically confused narrative, emerges as a carefully composed theological account. Chronology and Theological Arrangement of Deuteronomy 9–10 The centrality of Moses’ intercession in Deuteronomy 9–10 is underlined by the fact that there are not less than three references to Moses’ prayer (Deut 9:18–20, 9:25–29, 10:10–11). It remains disputed, however, how these references relate to each other. In fact, the sequence of the entire narrative appears to be chronologically confused. We shall see, however, that this is not so much due to a complex tradition history but rather is due to the specific agenda of the writer. First, we will consider some of the major literary-critical arguments. This will help to formulate the questions for our subsequent canonical reading where we seek to read the text in its final form.

Some Literary Critical Observations It does not take a specialist to notice the sequential disorder within Deut 9:1–10:11. Apart from surprising insertions appearing in the middle of the narrative (such as Deut 9:22–24 and 10:6–9, a matter we will adhere to later), the main thread of the account appears chronologically mixed up. According to the text, Moses climbs Horeb three times (Deut 9:9, 10:3, 10:10). There are also three references to Moses’ prayers (Deut 9:19–20, 25–29, 10:10–11). It remains unclear, however, when and where precisely he prayed in the course of the events. Some would suggest that the prayers were spoken on different occasions, while the majority of scholars argue 179. Michael Fishbane, Sacred Attunement: A Jewish Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008) 49. I am indebted to Jerry Hwang for this reference. 180.  Childs, Introduction, 212.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

113

that all three refer to the same event. 181 Following the assertion of the text, the first mountain stay comes to a close in v. 15, where it says that, after Moses descended from Horeb, he witnessed the people’s idolatrous activities. As a result of this, he smashed the tablets of the covenant (Deut 9:16–17) and then interceded for the people for 40 days without eating or drinking anything (Deut 9:18–20). Subsequently, he destroyed the golden calf (Deut 9:21). These verses pose two challenges. First, with regard to v. 18, it has frequently been questioned whether Moses really waited an entire month (in prayer) after he shattered the tablets before he actually destroyed the object of idolatry (Deut 9:21). 182 Second, there is some confusion regarding the place of intercession. Because there is no reference to an ascent, v. 18 seems to suggest that Moses pleaded for sinful Israel down in the valley in the presence of the people, whereas Deute 10:10, which arguably refers to the same event, suggests that Moses returned to the mountain to pray. 183 The third ascent is reported in Deut 10:3, where Moses is to carry up the new tablets. After God had written the “Decalogue” anew, Moses descends from the mountain and deposits them in the ark (cf. Deut 10:5). Then, the text, after a diversion, which we will comment on later (Deut 10:6–9), puts Moses back on the mountain top and provides some complementary information (Deut 10:10–11). 184 Thus, it comes as no surprise that scholarship has repeatedly attempted to bring some order into this chronological confusion. The literary-critical 181.  Different occasions: Keil, Pentateuch, 338–39, 343; Craigie, Deuteronomy, 197; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 411. Same event: Steuernagel, Deuteronomium, 6; von Rad, Deuteronomium, 55; Gottfried Seitz, Redaktions-geschichtliche Studien zum Deuteronomium (BWANT 13; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971) 51–57; Brian Peckham, “The Composition of Deuteronomy 9:1–10:11,” in Word and Spirit: Essays in Honor of David Michael Stanley, S.J. on His 60th Birthday (ed. J. Plenvik; Ontario: Regis College Press, 1975) 3–59. 182. Cf. Seitz, Redaktonsgeschichtliche, 55; Blum, Studien, 181; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 101. 183.  Compare vv. 18–19 with v. 10: v. 18–19: Then I lay prostrate before the Lord as before, forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water. . . . For I was afraid that the anger that the Lord bore against you was so fierce that he would destroy you (‫ֶתכֶם‬ ְ ‫ַש ִמיד א‬ ְׁ ‫)לה‬. ְ But the Lord listened to me that time also. (‫ִשמַע יְהוָה ֵאלַי ּגַם ַּב ַּפעַם ה ִַהוא‬ ְׁ ‫) ַוּי‬ v. 10: I stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights, as I had done the first time. And once again the Lord listened to me (‫ִשמַע יְהוָה ֵאלַי ּגַם ַּב ַּפעַם ה ִַהוא‬ ְׁ ‫) ַוּי‬. The Lord was unwilling to destroy you (ָ‫יתך‬ ֶ ‫ַש ִח‬ ְׁ ‫לֹא־ ָאבָה יְהוָה ה‬, Deut 10:10) If Deut 9:18–20 refers to the second stay on the mountain, the depiction of the destruction of the calf in v. 21 would interrupt the order of the narrative, and the reader is left wondering whether the iconoclasm occurred before or after the second stay on the mountain. 184.  In addition to the problem of chronological disorder, alleged doublets and the interchange of you singular and you plural are often taken as evidence of a complex textual history. Cf. Samuel R. Driver, Deuteronomy (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895) 111–24; von Rad, Deuteronomium, 55; Lohfink, Hauptgebot, 200–218; Peckham, Composition, 3–59; Aurelius, Fürbitter, 8–56; Boorer, Promise, 272–81.

114

Chapter 3

approach has heretofore been the most prevalent one to these chapters. There is, however, no consensus among literary critics regarding the reconstruction of the textual history of this narrative. Literary-critical judgments are primarily based on sequence of thought, linguistic parallels, and conceptual links. Lohfink and Weinfeld are in the minority when arguing that Deut 9:1–10:11, with a few later additions, was originally composed as a unity. 185 Several scholars would instead argue that the account consists of a basic layer to which several redactional layers were added. 186 A not-­ insignificant number of literary critics divide the chapters into two major strata and explain other tensions on the basis of later additions. The first layer, which is usually believed to be the older one of the two, was a retelling of Israel’s rebellion and Moses’ intercessory prayer in the wilderness, whereas the second layer, it is often proposed, originally followed the Horeb account in chap. 5. 187 So where does this leave us? It is evident that the chronology of the narrative is somewhat unclear. Having said that, it seems that even a redactor who was editing various layers could have established some chronological coherence, if that was his purpose. This raises at least the question whether there is not another organizing structural principle inherent in the account. Lohfink in his influential thesis, Das Hauptgebot, asks exactly this question. He is aware of all the puzzling literary features in question, but he approaches them with an openness to discern in them the structural intentions of the writer. Thus, what may first appear like a confused chronology, doublets, or the changes of singular and plural, according to Lohfink, may not necessarily indicate different levels within the narrative, but may actually be stylistic literary features to denote emphasis, borders, peaks, or simply a different nuance.

Lohfink’s Stylistic Reading Lohfink argues that the bulk of Deut 9:8–10:11 was composed as we find it now (basic text: Deut 9:9–19, 21, 25–29, 10:1–5, 10–11). 188 Bearing in mind our discussion on chronological disorder, it is interesting to note how Lohfink sets out to determine a structure of the basic text other than one oriented by chronology. He has pointed to the reoccurring phrase “forty 185.  Lohfink (Hauptgebot, 205–18), as we shall see in greater detail, argues for a basic text of 9:9–19, 21, 25–29; 10:1–5, 10–11. To this account was first added 9:1–8, 22–24 ,and in a final stage, 9:20; 10:6–7, 8–9. 186. E.g., Peckham, Composition, 58; Boorer’s position (Promise, 277–81) is close to that of Lohfink in arguing for two levels. The first is 9:9–21, 25–29; 10:1–5, 10–11, to which were added 9:22–24. In line with wide consensus, 10:6–7, 8–9 were finally added. She allows, however, for the possibility that what she called first level is the result of a complex textual history. 187. Cf. Seitz, Redaktionsgeschichtliche, 51–69, 79–81, Mayes, Deuteronomy, 195, Aurelius, Fürbitter, 10–18. 188.  Lohfink, Hauptgebot, 209–11, 216–17, follows the consensus of literary critics by bracketing out Deut 9:1–7, 22–24; 9:20; 10:6–9 as later additions.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

115

days and forty nights” (‫ָעים ַל ְילָה‬ ִ ‫ָעים יֹום ְוא ְַרּב‬ ִ ‫) א ְַרּב‬. It appears five times in the narrative (Deut 9:9, 11, 18, 25; 10:10). Moreover, he has drawn attention to the fact that the word “fire”(‫ )אֵׁש‬regularly appears in connection with it. 189 The first and second mention of the 40 days and nights refer to Moses’ first one-month stay on Horeb when he received the tablets of the covenant (Deut 9:9–11). There is also the reference to fire, when on the tablets were all the words that God spoke at the mountain out of the ‫( אֵׁש‬Deut 9:10). The third appearance of ‫ָעים יֹום‬ ִ ‫ א ְַרּב‬specifies the length of Moses’ abstinence from bread and water because of the people’s sin (Deut 9:18). Subsequently, Moses burned the calf with ‫( אֵׁש‬Deut 9:21). The fourth reference to “forty days and nights” provides the time frame for Moses’ intercession (Deut 9:25–29). As a consequence of Moses’ prayer, Yhwh renewed the covenant by writing exactly the same words as those when He spoke out of the ‫אֵׁש‬ on the day of the assembly (Deut 10:4). The final mention of ‫ָעים יֹום‬ ִ ‫ א ְַרּב‬is at the end of the narrative (Deut 10:10). Having listed the data, Lohfink goes on to inquire after the possible reason for these particular stylistic features of the text. He is right in noting that in Deut 9:9, 25, and 10:10 the expression ‫ָעים ַל ְילָה‬ ִ ‫ָעים יֹום ְוא ְַרּב‬ ִ ‫ א ְַרּב‬introduces a new scene in the narrative plot. But in this regard, vv. 11 and 18 are slightly less clear. In the light of the other three cases, Lohfink considers it worthwhile to assume for discussion’s sake that they also signal a change of scene. 190 From this structure, Lohfink derives five narrative sections, each of which forms a coherent unit. (1) Deut 9:9–10 depicts the making of the covenant. (2) 9:11–17 moves from reception of the covenant tablets (v.  11) to the breaking of them (v. 17). (3) 9:18–21 describes the preparation for the restoration of the covenant, or as Mayes has rendered Lohfink’s heading, the measures of atonement necessary for covenant renewal. 191 Moses’ emergency intercessory prayer (in order to pacify the enraged Yhwh [vv. 18–20]) is followed by the destruction of sin, that is, the idol. (4) 9:25–10:5 provide the details of Moses’ intercessory prayer, which results in the restoration of the covenant. (5) 10:10–11 bring the narrative to a resolution by summarizing the leading issues involved in the account. Based on the following observations, Lohfink views these sections through juridical-theological lenses (juristisch-theologisch). First, he does this because in comparison to the Exodus account, the deuteronomic version of the golden calf adds several juridical-theological commentaries. Lohfink points particularly to Deut 9:21, which by contrast to the Exodus parallel clearly equates the calf with Israel’s sin (‫)חטא‬. 192 189.  Lohfink, Hauptgebot, 214. 190. Moreover, Lohfink (Hauptgebot, 215) observes that the reference to ‫ אֵׁש‬appears at the end of each sense unit of the fivefold narrative structure. 191.  Mayes, Deuteronomy, 200. 192.  Lohfink, Hauptgebot, 212; cf. Boorer, Promise, 275.

116

Chapter 3

Then I took the sinful thing you had made, the calf (‫ֲשר־‬ ֶׁ ‫אתכֶם א‬ ְ ַ‫ְואֶת־חַּט‬ ‫ׂיתם אֶת־ ָה ֵעגֶל לָקַ ְח ִּתי‬ ֶ ‫ֲש‬ ִ ‫—ע‬a more accurate translation might be; “But your sin, which you had made, [that is] the calf I took . . .) and burned it with fire. (Deut 9:21) He took the calf that they had made (‫ֲשר עָׂשּו‬ ֶׁ ‫) ַוּיִקַ ּח אֶת־ ָה ֵעגֶל א‬, burned it with fire. (Exod 32:20)

This deuteronomic addition prompts Lohfink to further comparison of all the appearances of the root ‫ חטא‬in Deuteronomy 9 with the parallel texts in Exodus. He arrives at the conclusion that in all instances Deuteronomy adds a juridical-theological commentary. 193 This particular interest is further endorsed by the deuteronomic account of the destruction of the tablets. Apart from a heavy emphasis on the deliberate and decisive act of destruction, 194 Deut 9:17 adds that the tablets of the covenant were shattered before the eyes of Israel. Supporting Lohfink’s thesis that these chapters are permeated with legal language in general and v. 17 in particular, Mayes comments, “For this phrase (i.e. ‘. . . before your eyes’), which is not found in the Exodus account, points to a legal act carried out in the presence of witnesses” 195 (Deut 9:17, Exod 32:19b). Having argued for a juridical-theological accent of the deuteronomic account, Lohfink arrives at the following structure: 1.  Covenant Making (9:9–10) (Bundesschluß) 2.  Covenant Breaking (9:11–17) (Bundesbruch) 3.  Measures taken for the Atonement (9:18–21) (Sühnemaßnahmen) 4.  Covenant Renewal (9:25–10:5) (Bundeserneuering für das Volk) 5.  Consequences of the Renewal for Moses (10:10–11) (Folgen der Bun­ deserneuerung für Moses) 196 193.  Lohfink, Hauptgebot, 212. Deut 9:16 qualifies Israel’s act as a “sinful act toward Yhwh.” In 9:18, Moses’ 40 days of penitence finds its reason in Israel’s sin. Finally, 9:27 adds to Moses’ appeal to the patriarchs not to pay any attention to Israel’s sin. Obviously, the law court imagery is continued and buttressed with the word pair “wickedness” (‫ׁשעָה‬ ְ ‫)ר‬ ִ and “righteousness” (‫)צ ָד ָקה‬ ְ in the introductionary section (Deut 9:1–7). 194.  The rhetoric of Deut 9:17 is noteworthy. Three graphic verbs are employed in the first-person singular in order to convey in the strongest possible sense that the covenant is broken: So I took hold of the two tablets (‫ֶתפּפֹׂש ִּב ְׁשנֵי ַה ֻלּחֹת‬ ְ ‫ )ָוא‬and flung them (‫ַׁש ִלכֵם‬ ְ ‫ )ָוא‬from my two hands, smashing them before your eyes. (‫ֲש ְּברֵם ְלעֵינֵיכֶם‬ ַ ׁ ‫)ָוא‬ Several scholars have pointed to Mesopotamian parallels. The cancellation of a contract is expressed by breaking the clay tablets on which they were written. Wittily, Tigay (Deuteronomy, 100) compares it to ripping up legal documents in a more modern setting. 195.  Mayes, Deuteronomy, 200; Lohfink, Hauptgebot, 212–13; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 410. 196.  Lohfink, Hauptgebot, 215–16. Several major commentators adopt Lohfink’s division. See Mayes, Deuteronomy, 195; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 427; Braulik, Deuteronomium, 74–76.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

117

An Assessment of Lohfink’s Reading My reading of the text, like several Deuteronomy commentators, 197 is indebted to Lohfink’s ground-breaking thesis. 198 Although I will build on Lohfink’s illuminating reading of the text, there are, as indicated above, several issues left unexplored or that could now be said better with the benefit of hindsight. Moreover, I would like to draw brief attention to the differences between Lohfink’s approach and the one advocated here. Lohfink, based on a historical judgment, argues that the bulk of Deut 9:8–10:11 was composed the way we find it now (basic text: Deut 9:9–19, 21, 25–29; 10:1–5, 10–11). 199 I, by contrast, remain agnostic about the textual history but work synchronically with the final form of the text. According to Lohfink, the text had been carefully arranged for cultic emphasis, that is, the making, breaking, and renewing of the covenant. 200 Lohfink’s reading of this narrative is suggestive, because he has convincingly shown that what initially appeared to be a confused chronology starts to look clearer in the light of a new organizing principle. In other words, what literary critics consider to be indicators of different levels or later additions may actually be signals that mark a carefully arranged structure. 201 For example, the majority of literary critics struggle to accommodate the order of vv. 18–21 (because of the 40-day gap between the breaking of the tablets and the destruction of the calf). Lohfink’s structure, however, relativizes chronological concerns because the account appears to have a theological and cultic agenda. 202 In other words, the text suggests that Moses needed first to intercede for Israel in order to pacify Yhwh and to attain pardon for the people (Deut 9:18–20). Only then could the cause of the divine anger (the calf, Deut 9:21) be removed and washed away. 203 197. E.g., Mayes, Braulik; Weinfeld, Miller. 198.  See also Norbert Lohfink’s newer essay “Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11 und Exodus 32–34; Zu Endtextstrucktur, Intertextualität, Schichtung und Abhängigkeiten,” in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10 (ed. M. Köckert und E. Blum; Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser and Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001) 41–88. 199.  Lohfink, Hauptgebot, 211. 200.  Ibid., 210–12, 215. Weinfeld (Deuteronomy, 427), building on Lohfink’s structure, takes it a step further by suggesting that the expression “forty days and forty nights” points toward a liturgical-intercessory nature of the whole account. Weinfeld, however, does not develop this suggestion. 201. See Boorer, Promise, 281–91, for a detailed description and interpretation of Loh­ fink’s sense units. 202.  See also Christine Hays, “Golden Calf Stories: The Relationship of Ex 32 and Deuteteronomy 9–10,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation (ed. H. Najman and J. H. Newman; Leiden: Brill, 2004) 45–94. 203. See Mayes, Deuteronomy, 201. For a more detailed treatment on the symbolism inherent in the destruction of the calf, see Christopher T. Begg, “The Destruction of the Calf (Ex 32,20/Deut 9,21),” in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (ed. N. Lohfink; BETL 68; Louvain: Peeters, 1985) 24–48.

118

Chapter 3

The major problem with Lohfink’s stylistic analysis however, is that he fails to accommodate sufficiently Deut 9:1–7 and 22–24 in his structure (the same is true for 10:6–9). 204 Like most scholars, he provides a diachronic explanation for the position of these verses. 205 Although he offers some observations regarding the relationship between vv. 22–24 and the introductionary section, he hardly comments on how these verses affect the whole narrative in its final form. 206 This is possibly due to the fact that an inclusion of these verses would shake his fivefold structure. For one could argue that the position of the list of Israel’s rebellions (Deut 9:22–24) nullifies, or at least calls into question, the effectiveness of Moses’ measures taken for atonement (Sühnemaßnahmen) as described in vv. 18–21. Moreover, as we shall see in our close reading of the narrative, v. 23 introduces Kadesh-barnea and with it a new important theme: the promised land, or rather the loss of it. Furthermore, the final reference to Moses’ prayer in 10:10–11 seems also to pose some problems for his structure, because what he calls die Folgen der Bundeserneuerung für Moses does not naturally fit into his cultic scheme of Bundeschluß, Bundesbruch, Bundeserneuerung. Thus, one of the objectives of our reading of the final form is to comment on the effect created by these verses on the whole narrative. Finally, although Lohfink has highlighted the importance of the refrain “forty days and forty nights” and has shown how it serves to explain the narrative better, he has not explored its significance beyond the structure of the narrative. I would like to suggest that the recurring phrase also highlights Moses’ intercessory role. Each of Lohfink’s sense units begin with a reference to Moses’ mediatory activities lasting 40 days and nights. These repeated references to Moses’ fasting contribute to the larger deuteronomic picture of Moses the faithful and selfless mediator. Moreover, throughout these two chapters, the message is persistently hammered out that the Lord was so angry with Israel that He was ready to eliminate (‫ַׁש ִמיד‬ ְ ‫ )ה‬them. the Lord was so angry with you that he was ready to destroy you. (‫ַש ִמיד‬ ְׁ ‫ְלה‬ ‫ֶתכֶם‬ ְ ‫א‬, Deut 9:8) Let me alone that I may destroy them (‫ַׁש ִמידֵ ם‬ ְ ‫)וא‬ ְ and blot out their name from under heaven. (Deut 9:14) For I was afraid that the anger that the Lord bore against you was so fierce that he would destroy you (‫ֶתכֶם‬ ְ ‫ַש ִמיד א‬ ְׁ ‫)לה‬. ְ But the Lord listened to me that time also. (Deut 9:19) The Lord was so angry with Aaron that he was ready to destroy him (‫ַׁש ִמידֹו‬ ְ ‫)לה‬, ְ but I interceded also on behalf of Aaron at that same time. (Deut 9:20) 204. Cf. Lohfink, Hauptgebot, 211–16. 205.  Ibid., 216–17. 206. Cf. ibid., 210–11. Lohfink merely comments that the insertion of Deut 9:1–7, 22–24 became a necessary digression (“notwendige gewordene Digression”), which expands the meaning of the earlier layer (p. 217).

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

119

Throughout the forty days and forty nights that I lay prostrate before the Lord when the Lord intended to destroy you. (‫ֶתכֶם‬ ְ ‫ַש ִמיד א‬ ְׁ ‫לה‬, ְ Deut 9:25)

The implicit message of this constantly flashing up reminders of Yhwh’s consuming wrath is of course that if Moses had not interceded for Israel they would have been destroyed. 207 Thus, the persistent theme of fasting serves to underline the seriousness of Israel’s sin and the necessity of Moses’ intercessory role. Moses’ intercessory role is further highlighted through the stark contrast with Aaron, the father of Israel’s priesthood (cf. Deut 9:20). In sum, this ongoing emphasis on Moses’ intercessory role not only provides further substance to von Rad’s observation that Moses’ wrestling with God is absolutely central in the deuteronomic version of the golden calf 208 but also suggests that there might be a deliberate contrast between Moses the faithful intercessor who preserves Israel from destruction, and the people’s sinfulness and their deserved doom. In fact, the sinfulness of the people is another persistent theme of this account. It comes to expression in a variety of repeated key words of Israel’s “sin-vocabulary,” such as Israel’s sin (‫ ; ָחטָא‬Deut 9:16, 18, 21, 27), rebelliousness (‫ ;מרה‬Deut 9:7, 23, 24), stubbornness (‫ַם־קׁשֵה־עֹרֶף‬ ְ ‫ ;ע‬Deut 9:6, 13, 27), evil (‫ ;רַ ע‬Deut 9:18), wickedness (‫ ;רֶׁשַ ע‬Deut 9:27), disbelief, and disobedience (Deut 9:23). 209 The clear emphasis on Moses’ intercessory role does obviously not contradict Lohfink’s findings that the narrative is primarily about covenant making, breaking, and renewing, but complements it. That is, the covenant renewal ought to be seen in close association with Israel’s hopeless sinfulness and Moses the faithful covenant mediator.

Integrating Deuteronomy 10:6–9 This leaves us with the segment recorded in 10:6–9. The fact that Lohfink’s structure of the narrative does not accommodate these seemingly unrelated verses underlines their problematic nature. The interpolation of these verses contains references to the death of Aaron, the tribe of Levi, and the ark and thereby bring us, as Clements puts it, “face to face with an important aspect of Deuteronomic thinking.” He refers, as we have already noted in our opening section of this chapter, to the characteristic deuteronomic feature that seeks to bridge the gap between events of the past and later generations of readers. 210 There are references in these verses that look back on the events in the past (for example, “as is still the case,” Deut 10:8). We shall see that the death of Aaron is probably placed after the itinerary of Israel’s journey to indicate that he did not die as a direct result of Yhwh’s anger (Deut 9:20). Nevertheless, he was not allowed to enter the 207. Cf. Blum, Studien, 183. 208. Von Rad, Deuteronomium, 55. 209. Cf. Rose, 5 Mose, 507. 210.  Clements, Deuteronmy, 365.

120

Chapter 3

promised land. Although the itinerary of Israel’s trip is problematic because of significant differences with the record in Numbers (see Numbers 33), 211 the meaning in context seems to suggest that Israel was allowed to advance toward the promised land. The death of Aaron also raises the issue of a successor beyond his son Eleazar (Deut 10:6). In other words, the mention of the Levites not only corresponds with the Exodus account, where the Levites ordained themselves for their future role at the sanctuary through their uncompromising loyalty to Yhwh and Moses (Exod 32:26–29), but it also seems to introduce the successors who would attend to the ark and stand before Yhwh. 212 Given the central theme of the covenant breaking and renewal in chaps. 9–10, it makes sense to address the need of people who would ensure in the future that the covenant relationship would be protected through teaching and intercession, especially in taking up Moses’ role after his death. Thus, the ministry of the Levites would be fundamental for the reading and hearing of the law and all the rites and customs that give visual expression to Israel’s covenant relationship with Yhwh. At that time the Lord set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to minister to him, and to bless in his name, to this day. (Deut 10:8)

The Levites occupy an important role in the book of Deuteronomy (Deut 10:8–9). 213 In Nehemiah 8, we find a parallel to Moses’ teaching role in Deuteronomy, where it says that: the Levites, helped the people to understand the law. . . . So they read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation. They gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading. (Neh 8:7–8) 211. See Steuernagel, Deuteronomium, 86–87, for details. The place of Aaron’s death is equally controversial (cf. Num 20:33). See Keil, Pentateuch, 340–42, for an attempt to harmonize the discrepancies. 212.  According to Deut 10:8, God chose the Levites for their future priestly role. This stands in tension with the Exodus record where only the direct descendants of Aaron can become priests (cf. Exod 28:1 and Deut 18:1–8). According to Rose, Mose, 514, Aaron and the succession of his son as priest are mentioned before the discourse on the Levitical privileges and responsibilities in order to subordinate the Levites to the aaronic priesthood. Although there is no warrant for such a distinction in the book of Deuteronomy, it has been suggested that vv. 6–7 are one of the few Priestly glosses in the book of Deuteronomy. Do these verses reflect an ongoing biblical tension between the Levites and the priesthood that claims direct descend from Aaron, for example, Aaron failing in his duty while the Levites qualified themselves through their uncompromising loyalty (cf. Exod 32:25–29)? 213.  See also Deut 18:1–6, 27:9–26, 31:9–13. The importance of the Levites in Deuteronomy might provide a clue to a Sitz im Leben of these chapters and the paranetic speeches in general. Gerhard von Rad (Studies in Deuteronomy [London: SCM, 1953] 52) proposes that the homiletical and parenthetic style of Deuteronomy points to the Levitical priestly circles as its environment of origin. He refers to Neh 8:7–8 as a strong parallel to Moses’ teaching role in Deuteronomy. Thus, von Rad reckons that the Levites are among the prime candidates for preserving the old sacral and legal traditions, which appears to be reflected in the final shape of the book. Von Rad’s view, however, is not uncontested. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 62–65.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

121

Moreover, Deut 10:8 is clearly linked with the ark that is mentioned in 10:1–5. These opening verses give the impression that the ark is a mere wooden container for the tablets (cf. Deut 10:1, 3, 5). Verse 8, however, seems to qualify this impression by giving the ark the grand name “the ark of the covenant of the Lord” (‫)אֲרֹון ְּבִרית־יְהוָה‬. According to Deut 31:9, the ark of the covenant of the Lord was carried indeed by the priests, the sons of Levi. Finally, we should note that the parenthesis on the ark of the covenant and the Levites’ exclusion from the inheritance of land, presuppose a renewed covenant and an imminent entrance into the promised land. What is only implied in vv. 8 and 9 is then explicitly confirmed in vv. 10 and 11, where Yhwh gives the command to enter the land of promise. In sum, we can say that the author did not organize his narrative following a chronological order; instead, he organized the chapters according to a carefully composed theological argument. In vv. 1–7, he set out to combat the widespread misunderstanding that Israel will inherit the promised land because of its righteousness. Then Moses goes about to disprove this common perception by highlighting Israel’s sinful history and by reminding them that they have continually lived at the brink of termination (Deut 9:8–24). As the narrative moves from Israel’s stubbornness, via the violation of the covenant at Horeb, to the people’s rejection of the land at Kadesh, the suspense builds as to whether the covenant will be renewed and the opening invitation to inherit the land (Deut 1:8) is still valid. The three places in the wilderness are all associated with Moses’ intercessory prayers. Thus, the question arises of whether Moses can yet again pacify Yhwh and bring about pardon, and if he can, how Moses prayed. Only toward the end of the account is the content of Moses’ intercessory prayer revealed (Deut 9:25–29). The tension builds as the divine response to Moses’ plea for Yhwh’s mercy and his implicit request to be brought into the promised land is anticipated. Deut 10:1–5 confirm that the covenant is renewed, while vv.  6–9 already testify to Yhwh’s provisions for the maintenance of the covenant. The explicit divine assurance that Israel will be led on to Canaan, however, comes only at the very end in the last mention of Moses’ prayer: I stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights, as I had done the first time. And once again the Lord listened to me. The Lord was unwilling to destroy you. The Lord said to me, “Get up, go on your journey at the head of the people, that they may go in and occupy the land that I swore to their ancestors to give them.” (Deut 10:10–11)

According to Aurelius, Moses’ intercession forms the climax of what he considers the oldest part of Deut 5–11. 214 He understands Deuteronomy 10:12–11:32 to be a later addition. 215 Not only is this frequently contested 214.  Aurelius (Fürbitter, 28, 30, 32) argues for a first layer (Grundschicht) which, according to him, encompasses Deut 7:17–19, 21, 23–24; 8:7–11a, 12–18a; 9:1–7a, 13–14, 26a, 27; 10:11. 215.  Ibid., 30–31.

122

Chapter 3

on literary-critical grounds, 216 but this is only of secondary importance when one adheres to the received form of the text. Thus, one of our tasks is to explore further the relationship between Moses’ answered prayer and his subsequent prophetic summons to fear, love, and serve Yhwh (Deut 10:12–22). A Theological Reading

Hermeneutical Key: “Not Because of Your Righteousness”

Chapter 9 begins with the characteristic admonition to listen (‫)ׁשמַע‬. ְ  217 This imperative prepares Israel for an important message. The very moment (‫ )הַּיֹום‬has arrived for the new generation to cross the Jordan in order to inherit the promised land. They are to dispossess nations, which are greater and stronger than Israel (Deut 9:1–2; cf. 7:1–2). The “nations” clearly refer back to the scout narrative, where fear and rebellion resulted in the rejection of the promised land (cf. Deut 1:28, Num 13:28). On both occasions, reference is made to a great and tall people (‫ ;עַם־ּגָדֹול ָורָם‬Deut 1:28, 9:2), towns great and fortified up to heaven (‫ש ַמיִם‬ ָׁ ‫ּובצֻרֹת‬ ְ ‫ָרים ּגְדֹלֹת‬ ִ‫ ;ע‬cf. Deut 1:28, 9:1; Num 13:28), and the children of the Anakites (‫ָקים‬ ִ ‫;ּבנֵי עֲנ‬ ְ cf. Deut 1:28, 9:2; Num 13:28). The difference between the accounts is that Deuteronomy 9 exclusively identifies the ‫ָרם‬ ָ ‫ עַם־ּגָדֹול ו‬with the ‫ָקים‬ ִ ‫( ְּבנֵי עֲנ‬Deut 9:2; cf. Num 13:28–29), 218 the fearsome and, according to the scouts’ report, invincible people (cf. Num 13:33, Deut 1:28, 2:11). Moses probably focuses on the Anakites in order to underline that the chances for Israel to win the conquest are still very small. Judging from the statement “Who can stand up to the Anakim”? (Deut 9:2), Israel is well aware of their notorious reputation. Weinfeld even suggests that the phrase became something like a proverbial saying. 219 Although the Anakites were very likely a historical people, considering the biblical data regarding their identity, one is left with a rather vague and mysterious picture. Apart from their fearful reputation (cf. Num 13:33, Deut 1:28), that they are great and tall (cf. Deut 2:10–11, 20–21, 9:2, Josh 14:15), not much is known. 220 One could argue that Deuteronomy makes use of their shadowy, war-minded 216.  Rose, Mose, 2, 329–48, for example, understands Deut 10:12–22 alongside the Shema (6:4–9) and 7:1–11 as the oldest introduction to the law. 217.  cf. Deut 4:1, 5:1, 6:4. 218. Cf. Peckham, Composition, 11. 219.  Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 405. 220. Deuteronomy 2 uses the legacy of the Anakim as a means to underline the strength of other peoples such as the Emim and Zamzummim. Moreover, they are associated with the area around Hebron (Num 13:22, Josh 15:13–14). The Anakim are identified with the equally legendary Rephaim (Deut 2:11). This would make Goliath one of the few remaining giants from the area of Gaza in Gath and Ashdod (cf. Josh 11:22, 1 Sam 17:4, 2 Sam 21:22. In the story of David and Goliath, obviously similar issues are involved. That is, only in the name of Yhwh, could the seemingly invincible opposition be defeated). Apart from that, it is difficult to be more specific. Cf. Milgrom, Numbers, 103; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 162.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

123

reputation and transforms them into symbols of fear and terror. This phenomenon reminds one of the imagery of the elusive enemy in the psalms. It is well known that the enemy imagery in the psalms may not always reflect a historical enemy but embodies a projected archetypical opposition of all forces that are hostile to God and His people. 221 In any case, the scouts ascribed to the Anakites semi-divine nature and strength by bringing them into mystical connection with the Nephilim (Num 13:33). Thus, Miller notes: In the context of these chapters . . . the Anakim are a paradigmatic symbol. They embody the problem that is too great, that strikes fear into the hearts of the people. 222

Moses does not intend to discourage the people by exaggeration and false propaganda as the scouts did to the previous generation (Num 13:32–33). Rather, he seems to remind the new generation of their fathers’ lack of faith (cf. Num 14:11) and thereby seeks to appeal to the new generation to learn from the past and trust wholly in the One who alone is able to overcome opposition of this nature. Israel is to know with certainty that victory is assured with the help of God, who in warrior-like fashion goes ahead of them as a consuming fire (Deut 9:3; cf. Exod 19, 24; Deut 4:24, 5:25). 223 In order to underline Yhwh’s determining involvement in the conquest, the Hebrew in v. 3 is emphatic by preceding the personal pronoun “‫ ”הּוא‬before the verb three times. 224 Know then today that the Lord your God, he himself is the one who crosses over before you as a devouring fire (‫ ;)הּוא־הָעֹבֵר ְל ָפנֶיךָ אֵׁש א ְֹכלָה‬he himself will defeat them (‫ )הּוא י ְַׁש ִמידֵ ם‬and will himself subdue them before you (ָ‫)והּוא י ְַכנִיעֵם ְל ָפנֶיך‬, ְ so that you may dispossess and destroy them quickly, as the Lord has promised you. (Deut 9:3) 225

As von Rad has convincingly shown, the idea of holy war as practiced during the period of the judges (cf. Judg 1–11, 1 Sam 15), probably lies in the background of these accounts. 226 Based on his influential study, Holy War in Ancient Israel,  227 we can point to a number of typical features of the “holy-war genre” in chap.  9. Most importantly, Yhwh is the main agent 221. T. R. Hobbs and P. K. Jackson, “The Enemy in the Psalms,” BTB 21 (1991) 26. Because the psalms were used in liturgy and thus have been reread on many occasions, the stereotypical enemy imagery allowed for various appropriations according to the historical situation. 222.  Miller, Deuteronomy, 35. 223.  The strength of God is described equally graphically as is that of the inhabitants. 224. See Gibson, Syntax, 2–3. 225.  Emphasis added. 226.  Gerhard von Rad, Holy War in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 122; cf. 115–27: “this text functions completely within the ideology of the holy war.” See Lohfink, “Darstellungskunst,” 110–14. 227. Von Rad, War, 120–23.

124

Chapter 3

of the conquest. He is the holy warrior. 228 He Himself will cross the Jordan and enter­into the land (cf. Deut 9:3, 1:30, 7:2). He will destroy the peoples before him and He will give Israel the good land. Moreover, part of the holy-war genre refers to Yhwh’s presence in the people’s camp (cf. Deut 9:3, 1:42, 7:21). Although not mentioned in chap.  9, part of the divinewarfare strategy is the sending of “hornets” in advance on the enemies (cf. Deut 7:20, 23, Exod 23:27, Josh 24:12). 229 Another important aspect of holy war terminology is the comparison between Israel’s military inferiority and the enemy’s military superiority. Because Yhwh dwells with them in the same camp and fights alongside them, the might and number of the opposition do not matter (cf. Deut 1:29–30, 7:18, 9:1–2). 230 The sole criterion by which the outcome of a holy war is determined is the right attitude of the people. Moses summons Israel several times not to fear their human opposition but to put their trust in the power of Yhwh (Deut 1:29, 7:21, 9:3). Thus, the crucial element that endangers a victorious outcome is unbelief (cf. Num 14:11; Deut 1:32, 9:23; Isa 7:9). So one could say that Israel’s main responsibility while participating in holy war was to exercise their faith in Yhwh. In fact, von Rad reckons that “in all probability the biblical demand for faith has its proper origin here in the holy war of ancient Israel.” 231 With this background in mind, it is significant to note that Israel is not supposed to stand back and idly watch God do all the work. The text clearly suggests that Israel is meant to actively participate in the conquest by dispossessing and destroying them. Not unlike in Israel’s battle against Amalek, a joint venture is envisaged (Exod 17:8–16). Miller is right in writing that the text does not precisely tell how this cooperative effort is envisaged. There is no explanation of how this symbiosis works, no indication of what part Israel plays over against the Lord’s activity. The action of history is a shared enterprise in this instance. The victory is seen on both the divine and human levels. What is clearly indicated is that Israel could 228. Patrick D. Miller (“God the Warrior: A Problem in Biblical Interpretation and Apologetics,” Int 19 [1965] 39–46) shows that the image of God the warrior is rooted in the origins of Israel’s existence (particularly in the Exodus narratives). He suggests that the warrior imagery not only underlines Yhwh’s sovereignty in history but also seeks to evoke a respose of total trust from His proteges. 229.  The meaning of the Hebrew is not entirely clear (sometimes it is rendered with terror or pestilence). The LXX might be correct in interpreting ‫ ִּצ ְרעָה‬as σφηκία, “hornet.” It remains debated whether hornet functions as a metaphor for terror or whether real insects were envisaged. According to E. Neufeld (“Insects as Warfare Agents in the Ancient Near East,” Orientalia 49 [1980] 30–57), insects had been employed in warfare in the ANE. 230.  This is expressed in the account of David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17). Von Rad (War, 47) argues that it is not unusual to exaggerate in this genre in order to give all honor to God and to evoke total trust in Him (cf. Deut 20:1–9, Judg 7:2­–7). 231.  Ibid., 48.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

125

not win the battle against such powerful and overwhelming forces on its own. 232

Maybe the most one can deduce from the juxtaposition of divine and human involvement is that the conquest, or indeed other acts in history, are often understood as a mutual undertaking. The relationship between faith and human action is a central issue for the wilderness generation who was supposed to act in faith and obedience to Yhwh’s invitation to inherit the land and march their army into Canaan under the leadership of Yhwh. Thus, one could possibly conclude that there is a mutual dependence for the achievement of the conquest. Israel acts as primary mover, but their achievement depends on Yhwh’s prevenient and accompanying grace. 233 In the light of our discussion above (cf. Deut 7, Num 13–14), the content of Moses’ warning in v. 4 comes as a surprise. He does not primarily exhort Israel to be of good courage and to put their trust in Yhwh (Num 14:9, Deut 1:29–30). Nor does he prioritize the danger of unbelief (Deut 7:21). This time, the focus is on the danger of distorted belief. To put it differently, fear is not the prime concern this time, nor is it that Israel would deny the fact that they owe the victory to Yhwh (Deut 8:17). This time, Moses addresses a problem, which is more subtle. According to the logic of the text, Moses, in a way, looks ahead to the psychological situation after the conquest and fears that Israel may attribute the victory to their own “righteousness” (‫)צ ָד ָקה‬ ְ and not to the wickedness of the inhabitants of Canaan (‫ׁשעָה‬ ְ ‫ר‬,ִ Deut 9:4). According to v. 4, Israel is well aware of Yhwh’s primary role in the conquest and therefore is likely to interpret the outcome of the war as a divine judgment. This attitude presumes that “whoever is in the right before God will win, whoever is in the wrong will lose.” 234 This interpretation would be expected because this was the widespread understanding in the ancient Near East. 235 According to this sort of world view, Israel would not only be in danger of ascribing to themselves a moral superiority but would also consider themselves in the right before Yhwh. Moses asserts that Yhwh, however, has different motives for bringing Israel into Canaan. In the clearest possible way, Moses states that the conquest is not because of their innocence or right standing before God, for they are a stubborn and rebellious people (Deut 9:6). Nevertheless, Israel will inherit the land in spite of their lack of virtue. Two reasons are given. First, the nations are indeed guilty before the Lord. Second, Yhwh remains committed to His promise made to the patriarchs. Thus, one could say, in the words of Craigie, “the gift of the land was first an act of judgment by 232.  Miller, Deuteronomy, 119. 233. Cf. Georg Braulik, “Gesetz als Evangelium: Rechtfertigung und Begnadigung nach der deuteronomischen Tora,” ZThK 79 (1982) 145. 234.  Ibid., 147. 235. Cf. ibid.; Miller, Deuteronomy, 120.

126

Chapter 3

God (v. 4), and second an act arising out of God’s faithfulness to the covenant promise made long ago.” 236 Although Moses does not dwell on the wickedness and punishment of the nations, it is at least noteworthy that the expulsion of the natives is not an arbitrary act but is envisaged as an act of judgment by a moral God. According to Gen 15:16–20, Yhwh had already taken into account the iniquities (‫ )עֲֹון‬of the Amorites 237 when He promised Canaan to Abraham’s descendants. Moreover, it anticipates the conquest only when the sins of the natives are complete. This is further developed in Lev 18:24–27 and Deut 18:9–12. In the latter, the expulsion of the nations is due to abhorrent practices such as child sacrifices, divination, sorcery, or witchcraft. In the former context, the sins of the Canaanites have gradually polluted the land to a degree that it “vomited” out its habitants (cf. Lev 18:25, 28). It is important to note that Leviticus 18 voices a clear warning to Israel that the same would happen to them, if they continued the abhorrent practices of the Canaanites (cf. 2 Kgs 17:7–18). And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. (Lev 18:28, niv)

That the same criterion is applied to Israel as to the Canaanites is supported by our text. In Deut 9:3 where it talks of the destruction of the natives, the same verb (‫ׁשמד‬, Hiphil) is employed as in v. 8, where Moses recalls that Yhwh was so angry with the exodus generation that He was prepared to destroy them (‫ׁשמד‬, Hiphil). In the light of our discussion, Wright appears to be right in drawing the following conclusion. Israel had many advantages and blessings that were undeniable and based on God’s election, but when it comes to moral standing before God, to matters of relative guilt or innocence, then there is fundamentally no difference between Israel and the nations, Jews and Gentiles. All alike stand under God’s judgment. 238

It is certainly significant that Moses does not dwell on either the wickedness of the nations nor Yhwh’s loyalty to His oath, but rather he turns the argument toward Israel’s standing before God. Repeatedly, in an emphatic tone, not dissimilar in rhetoric from the Shema, Israel is exhorted to know, to remember, and not to forget its own shameful history of stubbornness and rebellion. 236.  Craigie, Deuteronomy, 193. 237.  In this context, Amorites stands for all Canaanites; cf. von Rad, Genesis, 187. 238.  Christopher J. H. Wright, Deuteronomy (NIBC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson; 1998) 113. Later, he draws attention to the fact that Scripture generally applies stricter criteria to Israel’s own standing before God than to that of the nations. The Bible condemns Israel more harshly for its idolatry than it does the nations. It is interesting to note that Yhwh’s capacity to judge both Israel and the nations obviously implies that He is not just the God of Israel, but He is sovereign over all the nations.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

127

Know then (‫)ויָדַ ְע ָּת ִּכי‬ ְ that the Lord your God is not giving you this good land to occupy because of your righteousness (‫;)צ ָד ָקה‬ ְ for you are a stubborn people. Remember (‫ )זְכֹר‬and do not forget (‫ׁשּכַח‬ ְ ‫ַל־ּת‬ ִ ‫ )א‬how you provoked the Lord your God to wrath in the wilderness; you have been rebellious against the Lord from the day you came out of the land of Egypt until you came to this place. (Deut 9:6–7)

Listening to these verses, the agenda of Moses becomes clearer. He is not so much concerned with the wickedness of the nations as with Israel’s own standing before God. Israel’s status is no longer to be measured against that of the nations, but according to their standing before Yhwh. Israel’s status is described with the complex term ‫( ְצ ָד ָקה‬commonly rendered with “righteousness”). It has been debated whether ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬in context describes a legal status. 239 In other words, the word could signify being innocent as opposed to being guilty. Although this specific meaning of the term appears to be in the semantic range, the meaning in context is broader. Already in v. 5 the term ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬is qualified by the parallel term “uprightness of heart” (‫לבב‬ ‫)יׁשר‬. This is a synonym for integrity and loyalty that is frequently used to describe the ideal relationship with God (cf. 1 Kgs 3:6, 9:4, Ps 7:9[10]). 240 Whereas in v. 6, ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬is juxtaposed with the people’s stubbornness (‫ַם־קׁשֵה־‬ ְ ‫ע‬ ‫)עֹרֶף‬, a synonym for obstinacy and disobedience, and with their continuing rebellious nature (‫ִיתם‬ ֶ ‫ ;מ ְַמִרים הֱי‬Deut 9:7). 241 This brief overview of ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬suggests that Moses in some sense rectifies or at least extends the meaning of ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬from the limited sense of being legally innocent to an attribute, which has to do with proper disposition and attitude toward God. An ongoing theme of Deuteronomy 5–11 is Yhwh’s claim to an exclusive and total devotion to Him (cf. Deut 5:7, 6:4–5). 242 I would like to suggest that Deuteronomy 5–11 provide an intrinsic definition of Israel’s ‫צ ָד ָקה‬. ְ It is characterized by wholehearted love and trust in God and a devotion to keep the commandments (cf. Deut 10:12–20; 11:1, 22; 19:9; 30:16). 243 In obedience to the law, the fear of Yhwh is realized (cf. Deut 6:1–2, 24). 239. These verses are permeated with the two Leitwöter ‫( ְצ ָד ָקה‬Deut 9:4, 5, 6), ‫ׁשעָה‬ ְ ‫ִר‬ (Deut 9:4, 5, 27). It has long been noticed that these two terms belong often together and are frequently closely associated with legal language. See Lohfink, Hauptgebot, 202. 240.  Tigay, Deuteronomy, 98. 241.  See Deut 10:16; Exod 32:9, 33:3, 34:9. 242.  Miller, Deuteronomy, 121. 243.  The Christian reader ought to be reminded that keeping the law for the Israelite had nothing to do with “justification by works.” ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬was not so much achieved by obeying the law, but rather it was a response in loving gratitude and obedience to Yhwh’s redemptive activities. The commandments, as Levenson, Sinai, 77, describes: are the words of the language of love, the fit medium in which to respond to the passionate advances of the divine suzerain. It is not a question of law or love, but law conceived in love, love expressed in law. The two are a unity. To speak of one apart from the other is to produce a parody of the religion of Israel. The love of God moves Israel to embrace the norms of Sinai.

128

Chapter 3

Moses’ point in Deut 9:5–6 is that Israel has failed to live up to this claim of total trust and exclusive devotion to their covenant God (the theme of chaps. 7–9). This has been manifested in Israel’s persistent rebellion, lack of trust in Yhwh during the wilderness period (cf. Deut 9:22–24), and supremely in the apostasy at the Mountain of God. It is through a recapitulation of the golden calf episode, the archetypical breach of the covenant relationship, that Moses sets out to prove that Israel cannot claim to have lived in a relationship pleasing to Yhwh, nor that they can claim divine favor (here in the form of the land), but that the people of God live by the mercy, grace and faithfulness of God only. In sum, we have seen that in vv. 1–7, Moses sets out the argument that Israel will not inherit the promised land on account of any ‫צ ָד ָקה‬, ְ for they are a ‫ַם־קׁשֵה־עֹרֶף‬ ְ ‫ע‬, a people who continually rebels against Yhwh (‫ִיתם‬ ֶ ‫מ ְַמִרים הֱי‬ ‫עם־יְהוָה‬, ִ vv. 6–7). The expression ‫ַם־קׁשֵה־עֹרֶף‬ ְ ‫ ע‬leads naturally into an extensive recapitulation of the golden calf episode (Deut 9:7–10:11; cf. Exod ֶ ‫ מ ְַמִרים הֱי‬in32:9, 33:3, 5; 34:9), 244 while the other key Hebrew idiom ‫ִיתם‬ troduces the theme of Israel’s ongoing rebellious attitude throughout the wilderness period. On the basis of Israel’s darkest moment and with reference to their continuous rebellious attitude (Deut 9:22–24), Moses seeks to combat the possibility of self-deception, which attributes the promised land to one’s own virtue. 245 In a nutshell, Moses sets out the argument that it is not because of Israel’s ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬that they are going to inherit Canaan, but because of the ‫ׁשעָה‬ ְ ‫ ִר‬of its inhabitants and because of Yhwh’s loyalty to His promise (Deut 9:5). Thus, the subsequent narrative ought to be viewed in the light of this postulation. The initial six or seven verses function thus as a kind of hermeneutical key to the entire narrative. 246

“Even at Horeb” (Deuteronomy 9:7–8) Remember and do not forget (‫ַל־ּת ְׁש ַכּח‬ ִ ‫ )זְכֹר א‬how you provoked the Lord your God to wrath in the wilderness; you have been rebellious against the Lord (‫ִיתם ִעם־יְהוָה‬ ֶ ‫ )מ ְַמִרים הֱי‬from the day you came out of the land of Egypt until you came to this place. (Deut 9:7)

Israel is summoned in characteristic fashion to remember and not to forget their rebellious history. They have continuously been rebellious from the very first day of their deliverance from Egypt (cf. Deut 9:7, 24). 247 The verb “to rebel” (‫מרה‬, Hiphil) appears in several other wilderness-related passages Levenson’s words are confirmed in the Torah-psalm Psalm 119 presents the law as the object of greatest joy and spells out in amazing superlatives what keeping the law meant to the ‫( ְצ ָד ָקה‬cf. Ps 119:14, 20, 72, 97, 112, 143). Cf. von Rad, “Gerechtigkeit,” 225–48. 244.  Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 215, has rightly identified this expression as an important Leitmotif in Exodus 32–34. See also Moberly, Mountain, 89–93. 245. Von Rad, Deuteronomium, 53. 246.  Lohfink, Hauptgebot, 200. 247.  The Hiphil participle in conjunction with ‫ היה‬indicates not only Israel’s state, but in this case expresses also the idea of continuity. Cf. Gibson, Syntax, 138.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

129

and is one of the central terms to describe Israel’s sinful and disobedient behavior. 248 In all instances the verb testifies to a fundamentally wicked opposition to Yhwh. Israel is supposed to obey, instead they consciously and deliberately resisted the divine command. 249 Israel’s rebellious behavior is always condemned and results in divine punishment. The nature of ‫מרה‬ comes pertinently to expression in an antithetical statement in Isa 1:19–20 when ‫ מרה‬is juxtaposed with ‫ ׁשמע‬in God’s opening speech to Judah: (v. 19) If you are willing and obedient (‫ּושמ ְַע ֶּתם‬ ְׁ ‫)אם־ּתֹאבּו‬, ִ you shall eat the good of the land (v. 20) but if you refuse and rebel (‫יתם‬ ֶ ‫ּומִר‬ ְ ‫ם־ּת ָמאֲנּו‬ ְ ‫)ו ִא‬, ְ you shall be devoured by the sword

The Hebrew expression appears only three times in Deuteronomy and nowhere else in the Old Testament (cf. Deut 9:7, 24, 31:27). The instance in 9:24 is of particular importance for our purposes, because it forms part of an inclusio with v. 7 and thereby reinforces Israel’s persistent defiance against Yhwh. you have been rebellious against the Lord (‫ִיתם ִעם־יְהוָה‬ ֶ ‫ )מ ְַמִרים הֱי‬from the day you came out of the land of Egypt. . . . Even at Horeb you provoked (‫)ה ְקצ ְַפ ֶּתם‬ ִ the Lord to wrath, and the Lord was so angry with you that he was ready to destroy you. (Deut 9:7–8) At Taberah also and at Massah, and at Kibroth-hattaavah, you provoked the Lord to wrath (‫)מ ְַק ִצ ִפים‬. . . . You have been rebellious (‫ִיתם ִעם־‬ ֶ ‫מ ְַמִרים הֱי‬ ‫ )יְהוָה‬against the Lord as long as I have known you. (Deut 9:22–24)

Even at Horeb, where Yhwh revealed Himself to all Israel in awe-inspiring fashion, they provoked Him. That the Mountain of God is the place of Israel’s prime rebellion is not only confirmed by the amount of space Moses dedicates to it but also by mentioning that Yhwh was angry enough with Israel to destroy them (Deut 9:8). 250 The reference to Yhwh’s consuming anger anticipates Moses’ prolonged time of intercession (cf. Deut 9:14, 18–29).

The Nature and Gravity of Israel’s Sin From vv. 8 to 21, Moses launches into a detailed recounting of the golden calf event. The sense of the text is clearly that, if there were one place above all others where the people should have been faithful it would have been Horeb, the place where they had encountered God in a unique way. At the Mount of God, Yhwh spoke to them out of the fire and thus they had experienced that Yhwh is God. The gravity of Israel’s sin is underlined­by 248.  Cf. Num 17:25, 20:10, 24; Isa 63:10; Pss 78:8, 17; 106:7, 43. 249.  The idiom is more or less synonymous to “being unwilling” (Deut 1:26), “not listening to Yhwh,” (Deut 1:43, 9:23), “not trusting Yhwh” (Deut 9:23, Num 14:11). Cf. Rolf Knierim, “‫מרה‬, mrh, widerspenstig sein,” THAT 1:929. 250. Cf. Boorer, Promise, 292.

130

Chapter 3

the fact that it took place while Moses was on the mountain to receive the tablets of the covenant that contained the very words which Yhwh spoke out of the fire (cf. Deut 9:10). As in Exod 31:18, the text underlines the authority of the inscription by referring to the “finger of God.” 251 It is a great irony that while Moses was receiving the tablets of the covenant made by God on the mountain, the people were making a god-image by their own hand at the foot of the mountain. Of course, the irony and the gravity of the offense is further underscored when one considers that the first two commandments prohibit worship of other gods and the making of any graven images (cf. Deut 5:6­–10). God’s verdict is this: Israel has acted perversely, turning quickly from Yhwh’s way by making an image for themselves (Deut 9:12; cf. Exod 32:7–8). 252 It remains debated what exactly the image represented. Regardless of whether the bull-calf was intended to symbolize Yhwh, to function as God’s footstool, or even to represent another deity, the final form of the text clearly condemns it in the strongest possible way. 253 By casting for themselves an image (‫)עָׂשּו ָלהֶם ַמ ֵ ּסכָה‬, Israel had violated God’s commandֶׂ ‫לֹא־תַ ע‬, Deut 5:8). 254 ment not to make any images (‫ה־לךָ ֶפסֶל‬ ְ ‫ֲש‬ A significant part of Deuteronomy 4 provides the most extensive theological rationale in Scripture why Israel is not to fashion any idol(s) of God (‫ ; ֶפסֶל‬Deut 4:12, 15–17). 255 At Horeb, the place of Yhwh’s major revelation, Yhwh revealed Himself in an audible way, there was no figure or image only fire and the cloud (Deut 4:11–12; cf. 4:33). The connection between chaps. 4, 5 and 9–10 is underlined by the references to fire. It is clearly the key symbol for God’s presence (bright and consuming) in these chapters. 256 Miller helpfully draws out the implications: The images of cloud and fire and the voice without form point us to the heart of the prohibition of images as Deuteronomy 4 interprets it. The theological basis for this commandment is to be found in the mystery, transcendence, ineffability, and wholly ‘otherness’ of God. 257 251.  According to Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 408, the finger of God ought to be understood in contrast to the work of the hand of God which refers to Yhwh’s general works in nature, whereas the former is used with reference to God’s exceptional acts of creation (cf. Exod 8:15, Ps 8:4). 252.  Exod 32:8 and Deut 9:16 qualify the image with molten calf (‫) ֵעגֶל ַמ ֵ ּסכָה‬ 253.  For a fuller dicussion, see my Moses, 91–93. 254. Cf. Zimmerli, Gebot, 234–48; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 100. 255.  The term ‫ ֶפסֶל‬does not exclusively refer, as the root suggests, to hewn or cut images, but if unqualified, it is used of any kind of cultic image (cf. Exod 20:4, Isa 44:10, Jer 51:47). Cf. Dohmen, Bilderverbot, 48. 256.  Of all the 29 instances in the book of Deuteronomy, ‫ אֵׁש‬appears 19 times in the passages mentioned. In Deuteronomy 4, it appears no fewer than seven times (Deut 4:11, 12, 15, 24, 33, 36 [2×]), and in chap. 5, it appears six times (Deut 5:4, 5, 22, 23, 24, 26). In chaps. 9 and 10, out of five instances (Deut 9:3, 10, 15, 21; 10:4), three refer to Yhwh’s words out of the fire and thereby implicitly condemn the calf because no form was seen at the mountain. 257.  Miller, Deuteronomy, 59.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

131

Chapter 4, with its polemic against idolatry foreshadows the second commandment and provides a “theological background” from which to assess the golden calf apostasy. Both in Deut 4:15–19 and in the Decalogue (Deut 5:7–8) the manufacturing of Yhwh images and the worship of other gods are closely brought together. Also in Exodus 32 and Deuteronomy 9, the sin of the golden calf seems to be multilayered. Chapters 6, 7, and 8 do not so much warn of the making of Yhwh images but speak of the enticing power of foreign gods and their images, the ultimate consequence of adherence to idols is the same. They either reduce and distort the true nature of God or they replace Yhwh all together. Both result in breach of covenant and end ultimately in destruction. 258 Thus, it is not surprising that Moses’ detailed instruction of how to eradicate foreign god­idols is also applied to the destruction of the golden calf (cf. Deut 7:5, 25, 9:21). The golden calf account functions in some sense like a negative commentary on the first two commandments. Thereby, chap. 9 establishes beyond doubt that Israel broke the essence of Yhwh’s requirement (cf. Exod 20:4, 23). Deut 9:11 repeats part of the content of vv. 9 and 10 and does not seem to add much to the argument. Following Lohfink’s structure of Deuteronomy 9–10, we have seen that v. 11 signals the beginning of a new sense unit about the covenant breaking that streches to v. 17. Moreover, v. 11 also indicates through its verbal repetition of v. 10 that the “ink of the covenant,” as it were, was still wet when Israel trespassed the covenant. 259 And the Lord gave me the two stone tablets written with the finger of God; on them were all the words that the Lord had spoken to you at the mountain out of the fire on the day of the assembly. At the end of forty days and forty nights (‫ָעים יֹום‬ ִ ‫ְהי ִמ ֵקּץ א ְַרּב‬ ִ ‫ ) ַוי‬the Lord gave me the two stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant. (Deut 9:10–11)

Through repetition and by placing the time indicator right at the beginning of the sentence, a sense of urgency is created. This is further developed in the following verse, where in contrast to the Exodus account (Exod 32:7–8), Moses was urged to rush down at once. Then the Lord said to me, “Get up, go down quickly from here, for your people whom you have brought from Egypt have acted corruptly (‫ִׁשחֵת‬ ָ‫)ע ְַּמך‬. They have been quick to turn from the way that I commanded them; they have cast an image for themselves.” (Deut 9:12)

Weinfeld suggests on the basis of the adverb ‫“( מהר‬quickly”) that the deuteronomic account, in contrast to Exod 32:11–14, does not allow any time for intercession before climbing down to the people. 260 Faithful to the Exodus account, Moses recounts Israel’s apostacy verbatim. Israel has acted 258.  Cf. Deut 4:26, 6:15, 7:4, 8:19–20. 259. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 409. 260. Ibid.

132

Chapter 3

perversely, 261 turning quickly from the way that God commanded them by casting an image for themselves (cf. Exod 32:7–8, Deut 9:12). 262 Moreover, Moses recalls Yhwh’s words that Israel is indeed a stubborn people (Deut 9:13, cf. 9:6). In light of Israel’s sinful behavior, Moses reminded the new generation of how Yhwh’s wrath blazed up and that God was ready to blot out the names of the unfaithful. Thereby, Moses recalls how God requested to be left alone so that He can consume the sinners without the interference of an intercessor (Deut 9:14).

“Let Me Alone That I May Destroy Them” (Deuteronomy 9:14) Let me alone (‫ ) ֶהרֶף ִמ ֶּמּנִי‬that I may destroy them (‫ַׁש ִמידֵ ם‬ ְ ‫)וא‬ ְ and blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make of you a nation mightier and more numerous than they. (Deut 9:14)

Yhwh’s request to be left alone implies the possibility of not leaving Him alone and thereby restraining God in the outworking of the judgment. In other words, God’s demand implies nothing less than that Moses has to make Israel available for punishment, as it were, otherwise Yhwh would be hindered to act. 263 Jewish interpreters have long noticed the disturbing notion that Moses is somehow capable of holding back God from executing His judgment. Rabbi Awahu comments: If this verse were not written, it would be impossible to say it. This verse teaches us that Moses held the Holy One, blessed be He, like one grabs the cloak of a friend and said to Him. Master of the universe, I will not let you go until you have forgiven them. 264

Probably disturbed by the anthropomorphism that Yhwh has to be left alone to exercise judgment on Israel, several Targumim paraphrase the parallel account in Exodus along the following lines: “refrain yourself from beseeching mercy from them before me” 265 I shall try to unfold some of the dynamics of this truly extraordinary potential of prayer. But first let us adhere to some semantic details regarding Yhwh’s demand. Deuteronomy uses different terminology from the Exodus account. 266 261.  Unfortunately, the nrsv uses different adverbs in its translation of the same Hebrew word. 262.  Except that Exod 32:8 qualifies the image ‫ ַמ ֵ ּסכָה ֵעגֶל‬, whereas Deut 9:12 has only ‫ ַמ ֵ ּסכָה‬. Later in v, 16, the full expression is attested in the MT. 263.  Scharbert, Heilsmittler, 97, comments that Moses must “sozusagen das Volk erst zur Bestrafung freigeben.” 264. R. Mayer, Der Talmud: Ausgewählt, übersetzt und erklärt (Munich: Orbis, 1999) 142. My translation of: “Wenn der Vers nicht geschrieben wäre, so wäre es unmöglich, ihn zu sagen Dies lehrt, dab Mose den Heiligen, gelobt sei er, festhielt, wie ein Mensch seinen Freund am Gewand festhält, und vor ihm sagte: Herr der Welt, ich lasse dich nicht, bis du ihnen vergeben und verziehen hast.” 265.  Neofiti on Exod 32:10. 266. Cf. Davidson, Courage, 72ff.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

133

Now let me alone (‫) ַהּנִיחָה ִלּי‬, so that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them (‫א ַכּלֵם‬ ֲ ‫ ;) ַו‬and of you I will make a great nation. (Exod 32:10)

In Deuteronomy, the divine command reads ‫ ֶהרֶף ִמ ֶּמּנִי‬, whereas in Exodus it reads ‫ ַהּנִיחָה ִלּי‬. Because neither of the two expressions has any direct comparison in Scripture (that is, with Yhwh as subject), it is extremely difficult to determine their exact meaning. This difficulty is already reflected in the LXX, which on both occasions uses the same verb, ἐάω. 267 A comparison between the various translations of these two Hebrew idioms suggests a close semantic range. 268 Davidson is one of the few who makes something of the difference between the two accounts. He argues that the Exodus wording is sharper and more offensive. He translates it as “leave me alone,” and the deuteronomic version as “let me be.” 269 Davidson points out that Moses’ attempt to “pacify or appease” the enraged Yhwh in Exodus (‫;חלה‬ cf. Exod 32:11), is replaced by a neutral term “I prayed to the Lord” (‫פלל‬, Deut 9:26). Furthermore, he observes that the penetrating and accusing “‫ ָלמָה‬-questions” (‘why-question’) in Moses’ Exodus prayer (Exod 32:11–12) becomes a moderate plea “not to destroy the people” (Deut 9:26) and a “shy” request, “otherwise the Egyptians will say . . . (Deut 9:28).” Finally, Davidson draws attention to Moses’ decisive request to turn from the burning anger (ָ‫ )ׁשּוב ֵמחֲרֹון ַאּפֶך‬and to “repent” of the intended evil judgment )‫ֲשר ִדּ ֶבּר ַלעֲׂשֹות ְלעַּמֹו‬ ֶׁ ‫ָרעָה א‬ ָ ‫ ; ַו ִּיּנָחֶם יְהוָה עַל־ה‬Exod 32:13–14). 270 The different tone of Moses’ prayer prompts Davidson to question the widely held view that the Exodus tradition is deuteronomic. In fact, he suggests that the deuteronomic version reads like “an early attempt to make the Exodus tradition more theologically acceptable.” 271 He continues: “The disturbing urgency of the Exodus tradition has disappeared; protest has been transformed into respectful plea.” 272 These are obviously historical evaluations with a theological interest, and as such they are helpful. Davidson, however, does not seem to appreciate fully the logic of the wider 267.  Deut 9:14: ἔασόν με; Exod 32\:10: καὶ νῦν ἔασόν με. The Aramaic Targumim also harmonize the two texts. Cf. I. Drazin, Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy: An English Translation of the Text with Analysis and Commentary (New York: Ktav, 1982) 128–29. 268.  ‫ ֶהרֶף ִמ ֶּמּנִי‬is rendered by Driver, Deuteronomy, 114: “Desist from me (lit: relax, slacken [sc. thy hand] from me”; Rose, 5 Mose, 508: “Laß [deine Hände] niedersinken von mir”; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 402: “loosen [your grip] from me.” ‫ ַהּנִיחָה ִלּי‬is rendered by Durham, Exodus, 423, “do not interfere with me”; Jacob, Exodus, 931: “Laß mich!”; Childs, Exodus, 554: “let me alone”; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 402: “let me rest, let me be.” 269.  Davidson, Courage, 72. The fact that the verse previous to the divine command in both versions is the same highlights the choice of different expressions for Yhwh’s command and thus would suggest a different nuance. 270.  One could add that Moses’ immediate prayer opposition in Exodus (Exod 32:11– 13) stands in tension with Moses’ immediate silent descent from the mountain in Deuteronomy (9:15). 271.  Ibid. 272.  Ibid., 72–73.

134

Chapter 3

pentateuchal narrative development. Although he notes that the narrative sequence of Moses’ prayer in Deuteronomy is different, he contents himself with a juxtaposition of the two versions. If one takes seriously that Deut 9:7–10:11 by its own logic is a retrospective account of Israel’s rebellion from Moses’ own perspective, then it seems natural that Moses does not recount the event with the freshness and urgency of the original prayer. Just as there is a difference in rhetoric between being involved in an accident and reporting it with hindsight (not many people would reenact the oos and ahs of shock and pain), so the alarming and penetrating “whyquestions” would be out of place in a recapitulation of a previous event. In other words, it makes good sense that the deuteronomic version has blunted the alarming edge from Moses’ prayer and possibly from Yhwh’s original command. Regardless of the exact nuance of Yhwh’s controversial claim, both versions imply that Moses has the potential to restrain God from executing His destructive intentions. 273 I have noted in a previous study of Exod 32:10 that already some of the classic rabbinic and Christian interpreters understood Yhwh’s denunciation of Moses’ advocacy as, paradoxically, a divine invitation to intercede on behalf of the people. For example Shemot Rabbah notes: God said to Moses . . . “Let me at them, and my anger will rest on them and I will get rid of them.” Is Moses holding back God’s hand, so that God must say “Let go of me”? What is this like? A king became angry at his son, placed him in a small room, and was about to hit him. At the same time the king cried out from the room, and was about to hit him. The prince’s teacher was standing outside, and said to himself, “The king and his son are in the room. Why does the king say ‘stop me’? It must be that the king wants me to go into the room and effect a reconciliation between him and his son. That’s why the king is crying, ‘Stop me.’” In a similar way, God said to Moses, “Let Me at them.” Moses said, “Because God wants me to defend Israel, He says, ‘Let Me at them.’” And Moses immediately interceded for them. 274

Jacob affirms the idea that let me alone actually means do not let me alone and is paradoxically a summons to persuade Yhwh not to destroy Israel. Jacob develops the idea of an implicit invitation to intercede by remarking that Yhwh could have shut the door and said: “Enough, do not speak of the matter anymore,” as he did when Moses requested permission to enter the promised land (Deut 3:26; cf. Jer 7:16). According to Jacob, God not only encourages Moses to intercede for Israel by increasing his self-­confidence (“and I will make of you a nation mightier and more numerous than they,” 273.  Although Exod 32:10 contains the closest linguistic parallel, Num 14:12 exhibits the same logic by saying that Yhwh’s announced judgment is subject to the mediator’s response. 274.  M. A. Mirkin, ed., Shemot Rabbah (Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1959), 42:9. Cited in Muffs, Love and Joy, 34.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

135

Deut 9:14), but even provides him with a persuasive argument to counter His anger by reminding him of the promise made to the patriarchs (cf. Gen 12:2, Exod 32:13, Deut 9:27). 275 Calvin sees in the divine demand to be left alone Moses’ sharpest and sorest trial of faith. The reformer compares it with God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Gen 22). First, the patriarch is told that in and through Isaac God will raise a people for Himself and then Abraham is to slay him. As Calvin observes: The same thing is here recorded of Moses, before whom God sets a kind of contradiction in His Word, when He declares that He has intention of destroying that people, to which He had promised the land of Canaan. 276

Of particular interest is Calvin’s interpretation of Yhwh’s demand to be left alone. He senses in this request a divine testing of Moses’ faith, while at the same time a means to provoke Moses to pray more earnestly. Calvin’s interpretation is not only congruent with the rabbinic interpretation above but also realizes the critical interrelation between Moses’ prayer and Yhwh’s outworking of salvation history. Calvin denies the possibility that God was not serious, or even deceitful when He announced His intention to destroy sinful Israel. According to Calvin there is a delicate line between Yhwh’s providence and Moses’ prayer. In contrast to Calvin, Davidson understands Yhwh’s destructive intention as determined. Davidson argues that Yhwh’s intention to make a new start with Moses does not come as a subtle invitation or encouragement (by way of increasing Moses’ confidence and status) to object to Yhwh’s destructive intention, but as a kind of divine assurance that the fulfillment of the promise is not endangered but could come to its fulfillment through Moses. It is Moses’ audacious refusal of what has been presented to him, which “calls forth the divine response.” 277 Davidson argues that the divine change of mind only makes sense if there is a genuine act of persuasion happening. After all, how could something willed by Yhwh (subtle invitation) lead to His repentance or change of mind if it was in tune with the divine mind in the first place? One could try to understand this somewhat paradoxical dynamic using the basic logic of Hebrew prophecy. 278 Just as Yhwh’s initial utterance to 275.  Jacob, Exodus, 931; cf. Childs, Exodus, 567–68. 276.  Calvin, Moses, 3, 340. 277.  Davidson, Courage, 71–72. 278.  Although it is disputed whether all biblical prophetic pronouncements of judgment ideally intend to evoke repentance (that is, the conception of prophecy as influenced by the Deuteronomists) and lead to a change of heart, or whether some, particularly 8thcentury prophets, simply announced inexorable doom (even Isa 6:9–10 presupposes the understanding of repentance). From a canonical perspective, prophetic utterances point beyond their original intention and have the potential to effect some kind of response. In other words, a prophetic judgment, announced in the past may have originally had one

136

Chapter 3

Moses is adversarial and provocative, so too are prophetic oracles usually declared in confrontational language in order to provoke a response from the addressed party (cf. Ezek 33:1–9). As Moberly argues, “this responsive dynamic of prophecy is set out as a basic axiom in key prophetic texts such as Jer 18:1–12 (esp. 7–10).” 279 At one moment I may declare concerning a nation . . . that I will . . . destroy it, but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster (‫ֲשר‬ ֶׁ ‫שב הַּגֹוי הַהּוא מ ֵָרעָתֹו א‬ ָׁ ‫ְו‬ ‫)דּב ְַר ִּתי ָעלָיו ְו ִנח ְַמ ִּתי עַל־ ָה ָרעָה‬ ּ ִ that I intended to bring on it.

With some qualification one could argue that the dynamics between God and Moses are similar to that of prophet and people. This is not so much in the sense that Yhwh expects Moses to repent (though he confesses Israel’s sin and even identifies himself with their sin in Deut 9:27; cf. Exod 32:31, 34:9), but that He seeks to engage Moses with the fundamental tension between Israel’s sinful ways and His demanding and yet wholesome commands. If this perspective is anywhere near the dynamics of Yhwh’s request to be left alone and Moses’ response (cf. Exod 32:10–14, Deut 9:14), this would suggest that Yhwh’s initial reaction, though genuine, is exploratory in character and has not “reached an irretrievable point.” 280 In fact, this sort of understanding would imply that, just as a literal fulfillment of a prophetic warning is in some way against Yhwh’s will (cf. Ezek 33, esp.  v.  11), so is Yhwh’s warning about Israel’s destruction to Moses opposed in a fundamental way to His salvific will for them. 281 The understanding that the devastation of Israel goes against Yhwh’s will and that He somehow expects, possibly even provokes, Moses to oppose Him is further endorsed by Ps 106:23, an important and illuminating inner-biblical interpretation of the logic of Moses’ intercession: Therefore he said he would destroy them—had not Moses, his chosen one, stood in the breach (‫ ) ָעמַד ַּב ֶּפרֶץ ְל ָפנָיו‬before him, to turn away his wrath from destroying them.

Although the image of a breached city wall introduces, at least strictly speaking, anachronistic and foreign categories when it comes to describe Moses’ intercessory activity in the wilderness, the metaphor of “standing in the breach” (‫ ) ָעמַד ַּב ֶּפרֶץ‬not only accurately depicts the dynamics of Moses’ prayer(s) as envisaged by Deut 9:14 (and Exod 32:10, Num 14:12), it also purpose; in its canonical context the announced judgment seeks to provoke repentance and obedience from later generations. Cf. Houston, “What Did,” 167–88. 279. R. W. L. Moberly, “Does God Lie to His Prophets? The Story of Micaiah ben Imlah As a Test Case,” HTR 96 (2003) 8; cf. Jonah 3:1–10. 280.  Fretheim, Exodus, 283. 281.  Fretheim (“The Repentance,” 61) makes the point clear: “God’s will is done, it would seem, when prophecies of judgment fail. . . . In other words, God hopes to reverse himself.”

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

137

sheds further light on the logic underlying the tense dialogues between Moses and Yhwh. Ps 106:23 stands in close conceptual and linguistic association with another important passage in Ezekiel (22:30; cf. 13:5) in which one finds some of the most profound biblical insights into the logic of prophetic intercession. 282 Ezek 22:30 explicitly states that Yhwh expects and, in some sense asks, the prophetic mediator to make a case for Israel and thereby defend them from the justified divine wrath: And I sought for anyone among them who would repair the wall and stand in the breach before me on behalf of the land (‫ְועֹמֵד ַּב ֶּפרֶץ ְל ָפנַי ְּבעַד‬ ‫) ָה ָארֶץ‬, so that I would not destroy it; but I found no one. (Ezek 22:30)

Yhwh sought in vain for a faithful mediator who would confront Israel in their sinful ways and who would defend them from His wrath. 283 Both passages in Ezekiel imply that the justified destruction of Israel goes somehow against God’s nature and plan, otherwise Yhwh would not have looked for a faithful mediator who would defend the people from the divine wrath. Even at the peak of His anger, God hopes that His mediator would oppose Him and fend off the divine wrath. 284 What is implied in Ezekiel 13 and 22 is illuminatingly spelled out in Isa 58:12, which is one of few places in Scripture that take up the metaphor of the breached wall. if you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then your light shall rise in the darkness. . . . The Lord will guide you continually, and satisfy your needs in parched places. . . . Your ancient ruins shall be rebuilt; you shall raise up the foundations of many generations; you shall be called the repairer of the breach. (‫ּגֹדֵ ר ֶּפרֶץ‬, Isa 58:10–12)

Restoring a breached wall by doing the work of justice and compassion in a community is a committed long-term process. When the hour of destruction is about to arrive, it is the prophets’ duty to stand temporarily in the breach in prayer before the gradual process of restoration can be resumed. I shall argue that Deuteronomy 9–10 gives expression exactly to this dynamic. 285 First, Moses in prophetic fashion draws attention to Israel’s sin by shattering the covenant tablets (Deut 9:15) and hastens to defend the “breached wall” from Yhwh’s destructive wrath (“For I was afraid that the anger that the Lord bore against you was so fierce that he would destroy you” Deut 9:19). After having successfully fended off the first attack (Deut 10:10–11), Moses urges Israel to repair the “wall” by recommitting themselves to fear Yhwh and to love their neighbor (Deut 10:12–22). With these reflections we return to our narrative. 282. Cf. Miller, “Prayer and Divine,” 218–19. 283.  Cf. von Rad, “Propheten,” 109–22. 284. Cf. Muffs, “Love,” 31. 285. Cf. Jeremias, “Vollmacht,” 320.

138

Chapter 3

Forty Days in the Breach (Deuteronomy 9:18–19) In contrast to the Exodus account, there is no mention in Deuteronomy of Moses’ immediate intercessory response to Yhwh’s intention to consume Israel (cf. Exod 32:11–14). Instead, it says that Moses descends the Mountain of God while it was “ablaze with fire.” Here, the deuteronomic account juxtaposes the holiness of God with the terrible sin of producing a molten calf image (Deut 9:15). Moses does not pray until after he had witnessed Israel’s apostasy for himself (Deut 9:16–18). Before he throws himself before Yhwh in prayer, the covenant mediator decisively shatters the just-received covenant tablets (Deut 9:16–17). Three graphic verbs are employed (first person singular) in order to underline Moses’ strong disapproval. So I took hold of (‫ֶתּפֹׂש‬ ְ ‫ )ָוא‬the two tablets and flung them from (‫ַש ִלכֵם‬ ְׁ ‫ָוא‬ ‫ ) ֵמעַל‬my two hands, smashing them (‫ )ָואֲׁשַ ְּברֵ ם‬before your eyes. (Deut 9:17)

In prophet-like fashion, Moses express that the covenant has been breached. In other words, what Moses’ action is concerned, the covenant is broken and void. 286 The people have indeed sinned against Yhwh by violating the command not to make any images of Yhwh (cf. Deut 5:8). Moses does not only recognize Israel’s sin, but also uncompromisingly condemns their behavior. Although the covenant relationship, metaphorically speaking, the wall, is breached, Moses throws himself before the Lord into the breach in fervent prayer in order to protect Israel from the immanent destructive wrath of Yhwh (Deut 9:18). Then I lay prostrate before the Lord as before, forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water, because of all the sin you had committed, provoking the Lord by doing what was evil in his sight. (Deut 9:18)

The order of events, as they are retold in Deuteronomy, create a different effect from the Exodus account. There we have noted that Moses already achieved Yhwh’s change of mind with regard to His annihilating intentions in a first prayer, before he symbolically annulled the covenant (cf. Exod 32:14). In Deuteronomy, however, the tablets of the covenant lie in pieces before the audience is told that Yhwh let Himself be sorry about the intended punishment. 287 In other words, the crucial intercessory prayer that will pacify Yhwh’s wrath and secure Israel’s covenant relationship is still pending. The next thing the reader is told that Moses is back on the mountain, interceding before Yhwh (‫ֶתנַּפַל ִל ְפנֵי יְהוָה‬ ְ ‫ָוא‬, Deut 9:18). The location is probably indicated by the expression “before Yhwh.” In our section on the narrative’s structure we have attempted to provide an answer to this abrupt change of scenery. 286.  Oettli, Deuteronomium, 48. The cancellation of the validity of a contract is expressed by breaking the clay tablets on which they were written. 287.  McConville, Deuteronomy, 184.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

139

Only the deuteronomic account presents Moses’ intercession in connection with an extraordinary time of prostrated fasting. In contrast to Moses’ previous fasting, which served most likely as preparation for the momentous occasion of the reception of the covenant tablets (Deut 9:9, 11), this time it is not only qualified by a reference to his prostration but also provides the reasons for it: “because of all the sin you had committed” (Deut 9:18), 288 and because Moses was terrified that Yhwh’s fierce anger would wipe out Israel and Aaron (Deut 9:19–20). In other words, Israel’s sin and the fear of God’s judgment, prompted Moses to undergo great psychological and physical hardship. It is difficult to disagree with von Rad’s observation that in these verses Moses is seen in the clearest light as the great intercessor; more even than that—he himself suffers on behalf of the people and for their sake. 289

In his Theology of the Old Testament, von Rad brings Moses’ fasting in close connection with Ezekiel’s symbolic action of lying on one side (390 days for Israel and 40 days for Judah) to bear the guilt (or punishment) of Israel (‫ּׂשא אֶת־עֲֹונָם‬ ָ ‫ּת‬, ִ Ezek 4:4ff.). Von Rad argues that the term ‫נׂשא את עון‬, which he says is closely associated with the scapegoat ritual (Lev 16:21), 290 points to a real vicarious bearing/taking away of Israel’s guilt-punishment. 291 From there, von Rad suggests, it is only a small step to the total substitution of Moses, as portrayed in Deuteronomy, and to the suffering servant. Moses is there designated the Servant of God, indeed, he stands there as the prophetic prototype. . . . He too acts as a mediator between Jahweh and Israel, he suffers, and raises his voice in complaint to Jahweh, and at the last dies vicariously for the sins of his people (Deut 3:23ff; 4:21; 9:9, 18ff, 25ff. . . .). “Chastisement was laid upon him”—are not these traits which all recur in the Servant? 292

Von Rad associates their extraordinary deaths (Moses dies outside of the promised land and the suffering servant dies the death of an ostracized and guilty one) with what he interprets as vicarious guilt bearing. Henceforth, he draws the bold conclusion that Deuteronomy gives the picture of a man who, while greatly afraid, took God’s wrath on himself [aufgefangen], and who was to die vicariously outside the promised land. 293 288.  These elements are not mentioned in the parallel account in Exodus. 289. Von Rad, Moses, 15; followed by Fretheim, Suffering, 163–64. 290.  He depends on Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 116–17. 291.  ‫ עון‬indicates both guilt and punishment (that is, it includes the offense and the consequence thereof), and these are not separated in Hebrew thinking. See Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 111, 117; idem, Theology, 223–24. 292. Von Rad, Theologie, 2:261. 293.  Ibid., 2:276; idem, Theologie, 2:287. Olson’s interpretation (Deuteronomy, 57) is in tune with von Rad’s (see particularly von Rad, Moses, 15–16), as he also brings Moses’ intercession into connection with his mysterious death:

140

Chapter 3

There are several problems with von Rad’s interpretation of Moses’ intercession, 294 first with regard to his reference to Ezek 4:4 through which he seeks to elucidate Moses’ prostrated fasting. Von Rad comes close to saying that just as the high priest lays the ‫ עון‬of the people on the head of the scapegoat by laying his hands on it (Lev 16:21), so Ezekiel is to lay Israel’s ‫ עון‬on his left side. 295 However, before one rushes to the conclusion that Ezek 4:4 depicts an act of substitutionary suffering 296 or even an act of atonement, one ought to consider the context of Ezekiel’s bearing of Israel’s ‫עון‬. Ezek 4:1–3 and v. 7 clearly present the prophet as a revealer and accuser of Israel’s guilt. 297 Thus, it is most likely that Ezekiel’s lying on one side is above all a prophetic action, which foreshadows Israel’s suffering. 298 Having said that, Ezekiel, because of Israel’s ‫עון‬, is physically and psychologically drawn into the sphere of punishment. In other words, the prophet’s gesture is obviously more that a symbolic act of accusation. As Zimmerli remarks, “He brings together in his symbolic bondage the guilt of Israel as a burden in his own life.” 299 This, however, is not to say that his hardship is a substitutionary act for Israel’s ‫עון‬. Although there are some linguistic and conceptual affinities with the priestly idea of an animal bearing the ‫ עון‬of many (cf. Lev 16:21, Ezek 4:4), the most one can say regarding Ezekiel’s act is that an obedient human (prophet) can at the same time embody the divine word of accusation (that is, Yhwh’s spokesman) and co-bear the judgment of the sinful party. 300 It is also in this sense that one can bring Ezekiel in fruitful association with Moses. Both act as representatives of Yhwh and the accused party. Just as Ezekiel is commissioned to accuse Israel and predict their punishment, so Moses shattered the tablets with divine authority. As a consequence of the people’s sin, both undergo a time of hardship. However, Ezekiel’s hardship seems primarily a prophetic sign of accusation and forthcoming suffering, The one factor that kept Yahweh from destroying Israel was the vicarious suffering, self-denial, and intercession of Moses. . . . Moses “lays prostrate” . . . before Yahweh, a posture resembling death and connoting humility (9:18). Moses’ abstinence from food and drink and his laying prostrate before the Lord are unique elements of Deuteronomy’s retelling of the golden calf story . . . These elements form part of the larger theme of Moses’ death and denial that runs throughout the book of Deuteronomy and climaxes with the final death and burial of Moses in chap. 34. 294. See Moberly, Bible, 145–49, for an illuminating exploration of von Rad’s underlying theological assumptions. 295.  See von Rad, Theologie, 2:430. 296.  Ibid., 2:286. 297. Cf. Zimmerli, Ezechiel, 117. 298. Von Rad (Theologie, 2:243, 430) does not seem to realize that he contradicts himself by saying earlier on that Ezekiel’s action is not about vicariously carrying of Israel’s guilt but is about a prefiguration of the forthcoming disaster. 299.  Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 165. 300.  Thereby Ezekiel obviously contributes to the conceptual categories of the suffering servant. Cf. Fretheim, Suffering, 163.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

141

while Moses’ prostrated fasting is, as we shall argue in the following section, primarily an act of faithful and humble intercession. Because hardly any of the commentators pay close attention to the meaning and significance of Moses’ prostration and fasting, which are clearly part of his intercession, we shall explore some of the possible underlying motives. For a start, we note that abstinence from nourishment for 40 days and nights is also, by the standards of the Old Testament, an extraordinary time span. Fasting usually means abstaining “from regular food during the day.” 301 Only on rare occasions does one read of a 24-hour fast (cf. Lev 23:32, Esth 4:16). 302 In the psalms prostration, along with fasting, tearing one’s robe, putting on sackcloth, shaving and putting ash on one’s head, are expressions of repentance and usually prepare for petition. 303 Although Moses’ prostration before God is certainly preparing in some sense the way for his plea on behalf of the people (cf. Deut 9:25–29), his prostration does not seem to connote repentance, after all, he is the mediator and not the sinful party. Having said that, in Exod 34:9 Moses identifies himself with the sinful people by speaking of “our guilt.” There, he puts himself in solidarity alongside the sinners. In Deuteronomy, however, there is no explicit indication of an “inclusive prayer.” Instead, one finds reference to an outstanding period of prostrated fasting. We learn from the book of Ezra that fasting in the context of making a petition serves the act of making oneself vulnerable and humble before God. Then I proclaimed a fast . . . that we might deny ourselves before our God (‫ל ִה ְתעַּנֹות ִל ְפנֵי אֱלֹהֵינּו‬: ְ a more exact rendering would be “so that we might humble ourselves before” 304), to seek from him a safe journey for ourselves, our children, and all our possessions. . . . So we fasted and petitioned our God for this, and he listened to our entreaty. (Ezra 8:21–23)

Thus, one dimension of Moses’ prayer gestures might also indicate a deliberate humbling, an act of reverence and obedience, which facilitates or intensifies the right attitude of mind and heart. 305 This might be endorsed by Deut 8:2–3. During Israel’s wilderness period (40 years) the refraining from food served a particular purpose, namely, the humbling of Israel, so that it would become apparent what was in their hearts and so that they would ultimately learn obedience and trust by acknowledging direct dependence 301.  Goldingay, Daniel, 253. Cf. Judg 20:26; 1 Sam 14:24; 2 Sam 1:12, 3:31–35, 12:15– 23; Jer 16:7; Ezek 24:17. 302.  Goldingay, Daniel, 253. 303.  Cf. Josh 7:6–9; Pss 6:7; 30:12; 35:13; 55:18, 69; 95:6; Job 1:20; Ezra 9:1–15; Neh 9:1. Othmar Keel’s work, Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament: Am Beispiel der Psalmen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996) 297–99, on symbolism of ancient Israel’s environment, provides some pictures that illustrate well the culturespecific prayer gestures. 304.  Cf. the niv; Williamson, Ezra, 112. 305. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in its introduction on prayer, “Humility is the foundation of prayer” (London: Chapman, 1994) 544.

142

Chapter 3

on Yhwh (Deut 8:2–3). What is envisaged by the writer of Deuteronomy is, as Moberly helpfully brings to our attention, a learning process. The meaning of “being humbled” is thus the painful learning and appropriating of a particular way of human living in relation to God, as particularly exemplified by Moses. 306

Moses is said to be more humble than any other person (‫ ָענָו‬, Num 12:3). The ‫ ענו‬seeks God for help and salvation (Pss 76:9, 147:6) because he/she trusts Him for his/her vindication (Ps 149:4). Like in Ps 149, the humble (‫ָוים‬ ִ‫ )עֲנ‬are fully committed in loyalty to the Lord. 307 They wait for Yhwh “quietly and humbly, patiently and confidently” (cf. Ps 131). 308 It is probably in this sense that Moses exemplifies the virtue of “being humble” more than anybody else, and it is likely also an essential prerequisite for his successful intercession. Another, possibly more prominent, aspect of Moses’ prayer gestures comes also to expression in a later prayer of Ezra. We read in the context of the people’s sin of engaging in mixed marriages: At the evening sacrifice I got up from my fasting (‫ִיתי‬ ִ ‫מּתַ עֲנ‬, ִ Williamson translates: “from where I had sat in humiliation” 309) with my garments and my mantle torn, and fell on my knees, spread out my hands to the Lord my God. (Ezra 9:5)

In both Ezra’s and Moses’ cases, their acts signal grief over the sin committed by others and express a deep sense of shame and humility for what has happened and fear of what is going to happen (Deut 9:19). 310 Ezra fell on his knees while Moses, in humble submission, literally throws himself at the mercy and grace of Yhwh in order to plead on behalf of the people. Thereby, abstaining from nourishment seems to reinforce the prayer (cf. 1 Sam 12:23). 311 This act of humble self-abasement does not only come as a sharp contrast to Israel’s rebellious attitude, but also raises the question of why Moses would do this. After all, he has just condemned Israel’s behavior by shattering the covenant tablets? This brings us back to the twofold role of the prophet. On the one hand, he confronts and rebukes the people’s sin with divine authority, and on the other hand, he entreats Yhwh with reverent boldness on behalf of the people. This puts the mediator in an uncomfort306.  Moberly, Bible, 101. 307.  Coats, “Humility,” 101. 308. Cf. Mowinckel, Psalms, 1, 216. 309.  Williamson (Ezra, 133) suggests that in later Judaism humiliation was expressed by fasting. 310.  Butler, Joshua, 84, entifies Joshua’s prostration in the aftermath of Israel’s defeat at Ai, as “the humility of defeat and shame, while Joshua’s former prostration when confronted with the divine messenger (5:14) was an act of humble worship.” 311.  Physical hardship served sometimes as a means to awaken Yhwh’s compassion. Cf. Mowinckel, Worship, 1, 204.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

143

able position, as he is caught up between announcing judgment and pleading with Yhwh for mercy and pardon in an act of costly intercession. Muffs comments, “Only boundless spiritual bravery allows the prophet to suffer the great loneliness of one who stands in the breach and at the same time to call on the people that does not listen.” 312 In sum, Moses’ prayer gesture probably has multiple connotations, ranging from a sign of his humility and seriousness to grief and vicarious penance before the wronged covenant God. 313

Moses Prays on Behalf of Aaron (Deut 9:20) Not only was Moses afraid that the divine wrath would consume Israel, but interestingly, he feared also for Aaron. For I was afraid that the anger that the Lord bore against you was so fierce that he would destroy you. But the Lord listened to me that time also. The Lord was so angry with Aaron that he was ready to destroy him (‫ַש ִמידֹו‬ ְׁ ‫)ּוב ַאהֲרֹן ִה ְת ַאּנַף יְהוָה ְמאֹד ְלה‬, ְ but I interceded also on behalf of Aaron at that same time. (‫ַם־ּבעַד ַאהֲרֹן ּ ָּבעֵת ה ִַהוא‬ ְ ‫ֶת ַּפּלֵל ּג‬ ְ ‫ָוא‬, Deut 9:19–20)

Only in Deuteronomy do we read of Yhwh’s intention to punish Aaron and Moses’ explicit concern for his brother. Verse 20 does not find any mention in the MT of the Exodus account. It has been added, though, in the Samaritan Pentateuch to Exod 32:10 and is part of Exod 32:10–30 in the Qumran text. 314 According to the Exodus account, Aaron’s motives and behavior are to a certain degree ambiguous. Although Aaron’s intention in producing the calf is enigmatic and debated (cf. Exod 32:2–5, 21–24), 315 the people obviously could not handle the ambiguous calf. They started to worship it. So both Yhwh and Moses held Aaron accountable for his actions and the people’s idolatrous worship. In the light of the Exodus account, where Aaron’s offense is clearly condemned, one can understand Yhwh’s intention to destroy him (Deut 9:20). In the context of Deuteronomy, Yhwh’s anger with Aaron comes somewhat surprisingly, as he had not even been mentioned before in connection with the calf. Gaps in the narrative flow of this sort support a canonical reading. Urged by fear of the consuming judgment, Moses prays on behalf of Aaron. 316 Wright notes that if even Aaron, the prototype of Israel’s high priest, is in need for Moses’ intercession, how much more the Israelites. 317 This observation gains force when one considers that it was the high priest 312.  Muffs, Love and Joy, 32. 313.  Cf. Num 14:5, 16:22, 17:9–10, 20:6; Ezra 9:3; Dan 9:20. 314.  4Q paleoEx m. Cited in Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 411. 315.  Compare, for example, Jacob’s interpretation (Exodus, 925ff.) with that of Childs (Exodus, 568–71). 316.  This is the Old Testament’s most common term for intercession. Cf. Hesse, Fürbitte, 92–93. 317.  Wright, Deuteronomy, 137. Rose (5. Mose, 510) cautions, however, not to take Aaron as the architype of the priesthood as he is not mentioned in the deuteronomic

144

Chapter 3

who is to carry the twelve tribes on his breastplate in prayer before the Lord (cf. Exod 28:29). The Hebrew wording suggests that God’s anger over Aaron was in some sense even more severe than that over the people. This is indicated by the qualifying adverb ‫( ְמאֹד‬that is, exceedingly angry), which is only found here and not in the context of Israel’s sin. 318 Although there is no explicit confirmation that Yhwh spared Aaron because of Moses’ prayer, it is clear from two textual clues that he was provisionally pardoned alongside the sinful people. 319 First, Moses’ statement that his prayer had been heard this time as well (v. 19) 320 seems to encompass his intercession for Aaron as well. 321 This is endorsed by the clear statement that Moses also prayed on behalf of Aaron at that time. Moreover, as we have seen, Deut 10:6–7 makes it clear that Aaron died a natural death later on the journey. In other words, Aaron was spared after the making of the golden calf. Nevertheless, the mention of Aaron’s death in the context of the golden calf offense (Deut 10:6) implies that his death outside of the promised land was due to his sin. 322 In other words, Moses’ intercession was only partially heard. This is similar to what happened to the sinful wilderness generation. Through prayer Moses managed to postpone their death for some 40 years (cf. Num 14:20–35, 33:38; Deut 1:35). It has been pointed out that a comparable dynamic is at work behind the death of both Aaron and Moses. Just as God held Aaron accountable for the consequence of the golden calf apostasy, so Yhwh held Moses accountable for the consequences of the people’s unbelief and rebellion after the mission of the scouts (Deut 1:37). 323 In both cases, Deuteronomy seems to envisage the guilt of the leaders as a sin of passivity (that is, they failed in their responsibility, not an active sin). 324 priestly law (cf. Deut 18:18). If one reads Deuteronomy in the context of the final form, this argument does not apply (cf. Exod 29). 318.  Tigay, Deuteronomy, 101. 319.  Oettli, Deuteronomium, 48, suggests that this reference indicates that the Aaronic priesthood operates under Yhwh’s special grace. 320.  There is an ongoing debate as to how “that time too” (Deut 9:19) ought to be understood. It appears to make good sense that Moses, at the end of Israel’s wilderness period, refers to previous occasions where he interceded on behalf of Israel (cf. Num 11:2, 14:13–20, 21:7–9). So Driver, Deuteronomy, 115; McConville, Deuteronomy, 185. 321. Alfred Bertholet (Deuteronomium [KHAT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1899] 32) infers from this that prayer has the potential to save an individual. The same idea comes again to expression in Ezek 14:13­–23. 322.  According to the sequence of the text, the appeasement of Yhwh was a prerequisite (Deut 9:19, 10:10–11) for the eradication of the calf, the cause of the divine anger (Deut 9:21). The destruction procedure of the calf slightly varies from the Exodus account. Of particular note is the omission of the “drinking ordeal.” 323.  Tigay, Deuteronmy, 101. 324.  This is also endorsed by the fact that Aaron’s sin is introduced in almost the same way as Moses. Even with me the Lord was angry (‫ַם־ּבי ִה ְת ַאנַּף יְהוָה‬ ִ ‫ )ּג‬on your account, saying, “You also shall not enter there” (Deut 1:37)

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

145

In the subsequent verses, Moses makes it clear by listing several other places that are associated with rebellion against Yhwh that Israel’s sin at Sinai/Horeb was not a unique occasion.

Israel’s Persistent Rebellion (Deuteronomy 9:22–24) Back in v. 7 Moses spoke of Israel’s ongoing rebellious attitude during the wilderness period. This general statement is now substantiated in vv. 22–24 by providing specific examples of major places of rebellion. At Taberah also, and at Massah, and at Kibroth-hattaavah you provoked, the Lord to wrath (‫ִיתם אֶת־יְהוָה‬ ֶ ‫)מ ְַק ִצ ִפים הֱי‬. And when the Lord sent you from Kadesh-barnea, saying, “Go up and occupy the land that I have given you,” you rebelled against the command of the Lord your God, neither trusting him nor obeying him. You have been rebellious against the Lord as long as he has known you. (Deut 9:22–24)

It is not insignificant to note that all three places are also closely associated with Moses’ saving intercessory prayer. At Taberah, the people’s complaint about their hardship provoked Yhwh’s consuming anger. Only after Moses interceded on behalf of the people were they saved (Num 11:1–3). In Massah the people turned against Moses because of water shortage. So Moses cries to Yhwh and God provides graciously for Israel (Exod 17:1–7). In Kibroth-hattaavah, the people murmur again and Yhwh’s anger is inflamed (Num 11:4–35). As a result, there is a lengthy dialogue between Yhwh and Moses (vv. 11–23). Strictly speaking, the latter is not an intercessory prayer because Moses voiced his frustration and limitation rather than prayed on behalf of the people. 325 All the places of rebellion are introduced in exactly the same way with a waw-conjunction. The space given to the depiction of each rebellion, however, varies greatly. The introduction of Horeb (‫)ּובחֹרֵב ִה ְקצ ְַפ ֶּתם אֶת־יְהוָה‬ ְ is followed by a detailed account of the golden calf incident (Deut 9:8–21), whereas the other places are only introduced with a brief summary note attached to them, saying that Israel had enraged provoked Yhwh at these places. This suggests that in the case of Horeb the force of the waw is different from the rest, that is, “even at Horeb,” while the others should be rendered with “also.” Acceleration of places and events is sometimes used as a literary technique to foreshadow a peak in the narrative. 326 The final The Lord was so angry with Aaron (‫)ּוב ַאהֲרֹן ִה ְת ַאנַּף יְהוָה‬ ְ that he was ready to destroy him . . . (Deut 9:20) The complexity of divine judgment comes further to expression in the passages where Moses blames the people for not being able to enter the promised land (cf. Deut 1:37, 3:26, 4:21). See Robert Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History, vol. 1: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (New York: Seabury, 1980) 37–43. 325. Cf. Reventlow, Gebet, 232–35. 326.  Lohfink, Hauptgebot, 211. Peter Cotterell and Max Turner (Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1989] 244–47) list several literary features, which may indicate a peak in a narrative. A typical indication of a forthcoming peak, as

146

Chapter 3

reference to Kadesh-barnea seems to confirm that Moses intends a peak in his speech because it forms an inclusio with the initial verse of the narrative, which also contains a reference to the scout narrative (cf. Deut 9:1, 23). The principal indicator of a climax in the narrative, however, is the fact that the thesis posed in vv. 4–6 is answered and justified by v. 24. 327 Moses has by now proven beyond any doubt that Israel will not inherit the land on account of their righteousness. Let us reflect a bit further on the logic of the narrative flow. We have noticed that until the end of v.  24, the narrative has almost exclusively focused on Israel’s sin (from Horeb to Kadesh-barnea) and on the consequences threatened by it. By highlighting first Israel’s history of rebellion before Moses goes on to tell in detail how he wrestled with the Lord in prayer, a powerful effect is created. By postponing the actual content and outcome of the prayer to the end of the narrative, suspense is built up. First, as we have pointed out, Moses repeatedly reminds Israel that they had stirred Yhwh’s wrath to such a degree that God intended to destroy them (Deut 9:8, 14, 19, 20). Second, the covenant was clearly breached, and as far as Moses’ action is concerned, annulled. Even though Moses informs the Israelites that his prayer for their protection and pardon was heard in the aftermath of the golden calf (Deut 9:18–19), the ongoing validity might be questioned in the light of Israel’s continuous rebellion. It has even been argued that the reference to Israel’s persisting rebellion (Deut 9:22–24) nullifies Moses’ previous prayer (Deut 9:19). 328 Although this is a questionable reading, not least because the prayer mentioned in vv. 18–19 is most likely the same as the one reported in vv. 25–29, the point remains that the problem of the loss of land has not been addressed yet (cf. Deut 10:11). Moses’ prayer, recorded in vv. 26–29, takes up the need for pardon, divine honor, and assurance that the gift of land is still valid.

Moses’ Intercessory Prayer (Deuteronomy 9:25–29) There is good reason to argue that vv. 26–29 contain the words of Moses’ intercession that were mentioned back in vv. 18–19. There is already reference to Moses’ extensive prostration before God. Then I lay prostrate before the Lord (‫ֶתנַּפַל ִל ְפנֵי יְהוָה‬ ְ ‫ )ָוא‬as before, forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water. . . . the anger that the Lord . . . was so fierce that he would destroy you. (‫ֶתכֶם‬ ְ ‫ַש ִמיד א‬ ְׁ ‫לה‬, ְ Deut 9:18–19) exemplified in Deut 9:4–6, is the posing of a question or thesis that is answered at the climactic point. Another indication of a peak in a narrative is the change of pace, as we have noticed in the listing up of places. 327.  Boorer (Promise, 294) is right in saying that v. 24 divides the account into two main sections (Deut 9:7–24, 9:25–10:11). The first bears a negative tone and the second a positive tone. 328.  Boorer, Promise, 293; cf. Blum, Studien, 182.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

147

Throughout the forty days and forty nights that I lay prostrate before the Lord (‫ֶתנַּפַל ִל ְפנֵי יְהוָה‬ ְ ‫ )ָוא‬when the Lord intended to destroy you. (‫ַש ִמיד‬ ְׁ ‫ְלה‬ ‫ֶתכֶם‬ ְ ‫א‬, Deut 9:25)

Moses’ grief and urgency caused by the people’s sin comes clearly to expression in the double employment of the verb ‫“( נפל‬to prostrate oneself,” Hithpael) in v. 25. Unfortunately, none of the major English translations bring out the full force of the Hebrew. It should be translated along the following lines. “But I threw myself down before Yhwh and stayed prostrated for forty days.” 329 Moses throws himself before God, begging for mercy. This gesture is similar to Abigail’s act of shrewd intercession before David (cf. 1 Sam 25:23–35). When Nabal’s wife heard of David’s destructive anger, she hurried out to calm David’s wrath. She threw herself before (‫נפל‬, Niphal) David and begged for mercy. Moses’ prayer (‫ְהוה‬ ִ ‫אֲדֹנָי י‬, 330) tells us something about the relationship between Moses and God (Deut 9:26). Moses approaches Yhwh as a servant in humility and recognition of Yhwh’s lordship. 331 Although Moses is not explicitly called “servant” here, there are many references in Scripture to Moses as the servant of Yhwh. 332 “Servant of Yhwh” is, of course, an honorary title in the Old Testament which is frequently associated with faithful men of God who intercede on behalf of others. 333 Making use of his special relationship with Yhwh, Moses, like in the Exodus account, employs a threefold prayer strategy in order to evoke Yhwh’s mercy and grace. Moses’ recounting of his intercession, however, has a different emphasis from the prayer recorded in Exodus 32:11–14.

Appeal to Israel’s Special Status I prayed to the Lord (‫ֶת ַּפּלֵל אֶל־יְהוָה‬ ְ ‫ )ָוא‬and said, “Lord God (‫ְהוה‬ ִ ‫ )אֲדֹנָי י‬do not destroy the people who are your very own possession (ָ‫ָתך‬ ְ ‫חל‬ ֲ ַ‫)ונ‬, ְ whom you redeemed (‫ית‬ ָ ‫ָד‬ ִ ‫ )ּפ‬in your greatness, whom you brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand.” (Deut 9:26)

Moses’ first appeal intends to contrast and correct Yhwh’s words in 9:12–13, where Yhwh clearly disassociates Himself from the rebellious people by talking about Moses’ people and by attributing the Exodus to Moses (“Get up, go down quickly from here, for your [Moses’] people whom 329.  An exception is the Schocken Bible: “Now when I lay-fallen before Yhwh (‫ֶתנַּפַל‬ ְ ‫ָוא‬ ‫)ל ְפנֵי יְהוָה‬ ִ for the forty days and the forty nights that I was fallen (‫ָל ִּתי‬ ְ ‫)ה ְתנַּפ‬, ִ when Yhwh said he would destroy you.” This is also the sense of the Lutheran translation (1984): “Ich aber fiel nieder und lag vor dem HERRN vierzig.” 330.  Tigay (Deuteronomy, 431) provides an excursus on the expression. This address is characteristic of prayer (cf. Deut 3:24; Gen 15:2, 8; Josh 7:7; 2 Sam 7:18ff.). 331.  Craigie, Deuteronomy, 197. 332.  E.g. Exod 14:31, Num 12:7–8, Josh 1:2, Neh 9:4, Ps 105:26. 333. Cf. 2  Sam 7:19, Isa 53:12. Miller (Cried, 263) suggests that the title servant of Yhwh provides a more inclusive category for Old Testament intercessor than prophet.

148

Chapter 3

you have brought from Egypt have acted corruptly”). 334 In the strongest possible sense, Moses insists that Israel is still Yhwh’s people (ָ‫)ע ְַּמך‬, His inheritance (ָ‫ָתך‬ ְ ‫חל‬ ֲ ַ‫)נ‬, whom He has redeemed (‫ית‬ ָ ‫ָד‬ ִ ‫)ּפ‬. In comparison to the Exodus account, Yhwh’s ownership of the people is more emphasized in Deuteronomy. In fact, it is the dominant theme of Moses’ prayer. Not only the word pair ָ‫ָתך‬ ְ ‫חל‬ ֲ ַ‫נ‬/ָ‫“( ע ְַּמך‬your people” and “your possession”) distinguishes it from the former, but also v. 29 reinforces God’s ownership of Israel by repeating the fact that they are Yhwh’s people and His inheritance whom He has brought out with great strength and an outstretched arm. Thus, Moses, as any good preacher would, begins, repeats, and at the same time seals off his prayer with the main point: “The people, You are going to destroy are Your people and Your possession (‫)נחל‬, whom You delivered at great cost.” As Greenberg notes: “Moses starts his prayer with this fundamental proposition and that is what he wishes to leave in God’s mind when he finishes it.” 335 Thus, the emphasis on God’s very people not only provides the framework to Moses’ prayer, but also entails the main motive. 336 Let us try to unfold this chief objective and explore some of the likely underlying motifs of Moses’ first and major appeal. The main motif revolves around two concepts that are central in Deuteronomy: Yhwh’s people (‫)עם‬ and His inheritance (‫ ;נחל‬cf. Deut 4:1–40, 9:26–29, 32:1–9). 337 Both terms, as we shall see, are part of the larger theme of election. By pleading with God not to destroy His own people, Moses on the one hand alludes to God’s special relationship with Israel, and on the other hand, he challenges Yhwh’s commitment to His people. After all, had He not sovereignly declared: I will take you as my people (‫ֶתכֶם ִלי ְלעָם‬ ְ ‫)ולָקַ ְח ִּתי א‬, ְ and I will be your God. You shall know that I am the Lord your God, who has freed you (‫ַּמֹוציא‬ ִ ‫ה‬ ‫ֶתכֶם‬ ְ ‫ )א‬from the burdens of the Egyptians. (Exod 6:7)

This divine statement, which came to be called the covenant formula (Bundesformel 338) reflects in many ways the essence of Israel’s Scripture. The same comes to expression in Deuteronomy. the Lord has taken you (‫ֶתכֶם לָקַ ח יְהוָה‬ ְ ‫)וא‬ ְ and brought you out (‫ֶתכֶם‬ ְ ‫ַּיֹוצא א‬ ִ ‫)ו‬ of the iron-smelter, out of Egypt, to become a people of his very own possession (‫חלָה‬ ֲ ַ‫)ל ְהיֹות לֹו ְלעַם נ‬, ִ as you are now. (Deut 4:20) 334.  Keil (Pentateuch, 339) suggests that Moses’ recollection of his prayer is done with great freedom and in such a manner as to “bring it into the most obvious relation to the words of God in verse 12, 13. 335. Moshe Greenberg, “Moses’ Intercessory Prayer, Exod 32:11–13, 31–32, Deut 9:26– 29” Tantur Yearbook (1977–78) 31. 336.  Greenberg, “Moses,” 31: “This marked divergence from the Exodus version brings out the theme of this prayer and its chief motive by strategic placement and repetition.” 337.  Christensen, Deuteronomy, 191. 338. Rolf Smend, Die Bundesformel (ThSt 68; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1963).

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

149

This brings us to the related and complex term ‫חלָה‬ ֲ ַ‫( נ‬often translated as: “possession,” “hereditary property”). Frequently, it refers either to the good land which Yhwh has promised to the patriarchs and will give to Israel as hereditary property (cf. Deut 8:7–9, 11:10–12), 339 or it refers to Yhwh’s land. 340 In Deut 4:20, 9:26, 29, however, it refers to the people. 341 Preuß suggests that the otherwise legal property term (bodenrechtlicher Begriff) was personified in order to underline Yhwh’s legal claim on Israel, 342 and His attachment to them. With regard to the latter, ‫חלָה‬ ֲ ַ‫ נ‬itself might refer not as much to the aspect of inheritance as to the enduring and permanent dimension of one’s hereditary property. If that were the case, then one aspect of Moses’ petition would point to the constant and enduring nature of Yhwh’s possession. Just as Israel could not relinquish its family property, so Yhwh could not just drop His heritage. The story of Naboth’s vineyard illustrates the idea well. Not even King Ahab could interfere with hereditary conventions (cf. 1 Kgs 21:2–4). 343 Yhwh’s legal claim to the ownership of Israel is based on His act of sovereign redemption. The verb ‫ פדה‬carries the sense of ransoming an enslaved party. 344 Hence, on one level an acquisition of slaves has taken place, and on an other level, Israel does not remain merely a “material” property which changed its owner, because the verb ‫ פדה‬is closely associated with the ‫“( ּגֹאֵל‬redeemer”). 345 In other words, Yhwh is portrayed not as slave trader but as faithful and generous redeemer who ransomed Israel from bondage. There might even be a sense that the redeemer is obliged to ransom his near of kin, that is, His son (cf. Exod 4:23). 346 By implications, Moses’ first appeal entails both gratitude and critique. On the one hand, he thanks Yhwh for His gracious redemption and His mighty act of deliverance, while on the other hand, he implicitly raises the question of whether it would be wise to destroy what has been redeemed at great cost and effort. 347 Even though Israel has breached the covenant, Moses’ choice of words seems to imply that Yhwh cannot destroy His special family property. This begs the wider question why Yhwh would redeem Israel in the first place. According to Exod 2:23–25 and Deut 26:7, 339.  Cf. Deut 4:21, 38; 12:9; 14:4; 19:10; 24:4; etc. 340.  Cf. Exod 15:17, Ps 79:1. See Gerhard von Rad, Theologie 1, 237; idem, “Verhei­ ßenes Land und Jahwes Land im Hexateuch,” Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971) 87–100. 341.  In both Deut 4:20 and 9:26 ‫חלָה‬ ֲ ַ‫( נ‬possession) is used in parallelism to ‫( עם‬people). 342.  Horst D. Preuß, Theologie des Alten Testaments 2, Israels Weg mit Jhwh (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992) 58. 343. So Tigay, Deuteronomy, 51. 344.  According to Exodus, the redemption of Israel is at the cost of the firstborn sons of God’s rival: Egypt (cf. Exod 4:21–23). Levenson, Death, 38. 345.  The verb ‫( גאל‬Qal) also means to redeem (cf. Exod 6:6, Lev 25:25ff.) and is used as a parallel expression in Hosea 13:14. 346.  Eichrodt, Theology 1, 255. Cf. Isa 60:16. 347.  Rose, 5 Mose, 512.

150

Chapter 3

the miserable­condition of enslaved Israel stirred Yhwh’s pity and compassion. 348 In his prior speech, Moses stated the reason for Israel’s redemption from the house of slavery was not so much motivated by Israel’s pitiful state but foremost by Yhwh’s love for them and His faithfulness to the patriarchs. It was not because you were more numerous than any other people that the Lord set his heart on you (‫ָשק יְהוָה ָּבכֶם‬ ַ ׁ ‫ )ח‬and chosen you (‫ִבחַר ָּבכֶם‬ ְ ‫—) ַוּי‬ for you were the fewest of all peoples. It was because the Lord loved you (‫הבַת יְהוָה‬ ֲ ‫)ּכי ֵמ ַא‬ ִ and kept the oath that he swore to your ancestors, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of slavery (‫ָדים‬ ִ ‫ִפ ְדּךָ ִמ ֵבּית עֲב‬ ְ ‫) ַוּי‬, 349 from the hand of Pharaoh king  350 of Egypt. (Deut 7:7–8)

In what is sometimes called the locus classicus 351 of the central deuteronomic theme of election, Moses forcefully insists that Yhwh singled out Israel to be His treasured possession (‫)סגֻּלָה‬, ְ  352 not because of any qualifications on their part, but because of a seemingly “irrational, free decision of love . . . which cannot be examined further.” 353 As we have noted, this idea is extended in Deut 9:4–6, where Moses alerts Israel that it is not their “righteousness” (‫)צ ָד ָקה‬ ְ or the uprightness of their heart, which distinguish them from the nations, for they are a stubborn people, but it is because Yhwh set His heart (‫אֹותם‬ ָ ‫הבָה‬ ֲ ‫ָשק יְהוָה ְל ַא‬ ַ ׁ ‫ )ח‬on the patriarchs and chose their descendants (Deut 10:15).  354 The irrational and mysterious aspect of Israel’s election is further underlined in Deut 10:14–15, where Moses reminds the people that Yhwh is the Lord of all heavens and the entire earth and yet He singled (‫ )בחר‬them out from among the peoples. Not only did Yhwh take the initiative to make Israel His special possession but Deuteronomy also portrays Israel’s election as an act of God’s free will and of absolute grace. 355 348. This is the line several modern liberation theologians take and argue that the exodus is paradigmatic for the redemption of oppressed peoples. See Levenson, “Exodus,” 127–61. 349.  The verb ‫ פדה‬appears only in Deut 7:8, 9:26, 13:6, 15:15, 21:8, and 24:1 in the Pentateuch. 350.  Brueggemann, Theology, 414–17, is right in noting that all three verbs used in this section indicate that Israel’s election solely rests on Yhwh’s initiative and commitment. 351.  This expression was coined by Theodorus C. Vriezen, Die Erwählung Israels nach dem Alten Testament (AThANT 24; Zürich: Zwingli, 1953) 51. 352.  ‫חלָה‬ ֲ ַ‫ נ‬is frequently used as a synonym for ‫סגֻּלָה‬, ְ “treasured possession/people.” Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 207. 353.  Zimmerli, Theology, 45. Levenson, Sinai, 76–77, uses similar words to describe Israel’s election: “something irrational, a passion, an affair of the heart, not the mind, in short a love. All the efforts to explain the special destiny of Israel in rational terms only dissolve its power. For Israel is singled out by and for the love of God.” 354.  Eichrodt (Theology, 1:250) translates: “to cleave to someone in love.” Brueggemann (Theology, 384) infers from the choice of verb a “passion that lives in the ‘loins’ of Yahweh, who will risk everything for Israel and, having risked everything, will expect everything and will be vigilant not to share the beloved with any other.” 355.  Wildberger, “‫בחר‬,” 286; Childs, Biblical, 445. Both of them are aware that Israel’s election in Deuteronomy is on the one hand portrayed as an act of grace and on the other

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

151

Later on, in Deut 14:1–2, in the context of some legal requirements, a slightly different aspect of Israel’s election is brought out. Besides mentioning that Israel is selected from among the nations to be Yhwh’s treasured possession (‫)סגֻּלָה‬, ְ they are called the children of the Lord their God (‫ָּבנִים‬ ‫ַּתם לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם‬ ֶ ‫ ;א‬cf. Deut 32:1–9). 356 Deuteronomy 14 does not provide any explicit explanation for how one ought to understand this intimate designation of Israel. It is simply paralleled with being a holy and treasured people to Yhwh. Eichrodt holds that: God’s election of Israel means that he has adopted her, and so indeed become the Father of his people; and this position is seen to be the foundation both of his claim to obedience from his son and of the son’s confidence in his Father’s loving concern, a concern which is held with increasing emphasis to include the bestowal of pardon. 357

We shall turn to the fundamental dialectic between election and covenant (obedience), which is entailed in Eichrodt’s statement in a moment. Before that, for clarity’s sake, we would like to explore a bit further the metaphor of father and son. Israel became Yhwh’s children and treasured possession by Yhwh’s free and decisive initiative. As we shall see with regard to Moses’ appeal to the patriarchs, to talk of “divine fatherhood” and “children of God” is more than a figure of speech. Although Israel is obviously not of divine biological descent, the logic of Scripture attributes their status as children of God to several factors. In the Song of Moses, for example, metaphors of begetting and adoption are employed to describe the tight bond between Yhwh and Israel. Is not he your father, who created you (ָ‫)ּקנֶך‬, ְ ‫ )ע‬and ָ who made you (ָ‫ָׂשך‬ ָ established you (‫ ?) ַויְכ ְֹננֶך‬. . . He sustained him (found him, is a more accurate translation of ‫ִמ ָצאֵהּו‬ ְ ‫ )י‬in a desert land . . . he shielded him, cared for him, guarded him as the apple of his eye . . . (Deut 32:6–10; cf. Ps 135:4) 358

Israel, as the people of God, came into being (was created) through a free initiatory act of Yhwh. 359 He adopted what was an “ethnic antecedent” of hand, however, is a dialectical process that requires an appropriate response from Israel. We shall turn to the dialectical dimension of election–covenant in a moment. 356. Yhwh’s love for Israel is also expressed as parental care in Deuty 1:31, 8:5, and above all in Hos 3:1; 9:15; 11:1, 4; 14:5. Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 369. 357.  Eichrodt, Theology, 2, 475. 358.  Behind the concept of Yhwh’s heritage is possibly the myth of El the high God allocating the nations to various gods, just as a rich father divides his possessions among his heirs. In its final form, however, Deut 32:8–9 portrays Yhwh as the High God who divides the nations among the “sons of God” (see Tigay, Deuteronomy, 302–3, 513–515, for a brief and helpful discussion of the problematic eighth verse). Our interest lies in the fact that Yhwh had singled out Israel as His own allotment. By taking Israel as His, they were obviously attributed a special and unique privilege. They became Yhwh’s special treasure (cf. 1 Kgs 8:51–53, Deut 4:34, Ps 135:4). 359.  Mayes, Deuteronomy, 384: creation through the deliverance from Egypt; established in the sense of. “Begot you” or “brought you into being” (as a synonym of the

152

Chapter 3

Israel and made it His people, His treasured possession. To put it differently, Yhwh brought Israel as a sociotheological entity into the world. 360 A preliminary corollary of this might be that God cannot abandon His responsibility to His beloved children, His chosen people (Deut 6:4, 7:9, 10:15; Jer 31:7–9; Hos 11:1–9). 361 Having stressed the unconditional and irrevocable side of Yhwh’s loving election of His people, we have undoubtedly touched one of Scripture’s fundamental themes, which is in the background of Moses’ first petition (and of the second too as we shall see). Yet one must not ignore the fact that on all instances where Israel’s election is mentioned in the book of Deuteronomy, it also talks about their obligation to keep the commandments. 362 Moreover, we shall see in more detail that Moses’ intercession leads to a renewed summons to fear Yhwh and keep the commandments (Deut 10:12–13). There is a fundamental dialectic between Israel’s election and those aspects of the divine-human relationship, which are usually associated with the concept of covenant. On the one hand, Yhwh freely and graciously redeemed Israel from Egypt, and on the other hand, Israel willingly entered into a covenant relationship with Yhwh at Sinai (Exod 19:8, 24:3, Deut 5:27). The covenant relationship, by its very nature, makes certain demands on both sides of the party (Deut 26–30), by which life and blessing can be gained or lost depending on the human response. Childs helpfully comments: “Election was not a privilege to be enjoyed, but a calling to be pursued.” 363 Buber, after an inquiry into the biblical understanding of election concludes: “Israel is elected only when it realises its election.” 364 By this, he means that, unless the commandments are kept and observed, the covenant does not provide any security (cf. Deut 4:24, 34, 40). Israel has sinned by turning away from Yhwh’s way (cf. Deut 9:12– 13, 26). In other words, there is a tension between Israel’s special status and the breached covenant. This dynamic is clearly in the background of Moses’ prayer. The Scriptures witness to this subtle but fundamental tension between election and covenant. On the one hand, Yhwh, in sovereign love, choses people on His own initiative. This divine call is unchangeable because it depends on God’s loyalty. On the other hand, the chosen people have entered a covenant relationship that requires obedience. It is a real previous two verbs) is a better translation. Thus, created and “brought you into being” are compatible with the metaphors of adoption. 360.  Brueggemann, Theology, 414. 361.  Wright, Deuteronomy, 138. 362.  For example: Deut 4:40, 7:9–11, 10:12–20, 14:1–28. 363.  Childs, Biblical, 445. He draws attention to the fact that the same tension is still found in Romans 9–11, particularly 11:22: “Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.” 364. Martin Buber, “The Election of Israel: A Biblical Inquiry (Exodus 3 and 19, Deuteronomy),” Biblical Humanism (New York: Schocken, 1968) 92.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

153

relationship that depends on both covenant people and covenant God. This dynamic tension cannot and should not be resolved because it is the dynamics of love. 365 The next verse of Moses’ prayer (v. 27) confirms that this fundamental tension is also at the heart of Moses’ second appeal. On the one hand, he appeals to Israel’s founding fathers and thereby reinforces Israel’s special status, but on the other hand, he acknowledges, possibly even confesses, 366 the people’s sinfulness. As we shall see, Moses’ intercession grows in a sense out of this dialectic.

Appeal to the Patriarchs (Deuteronomy 9:27) Like in the Exodus account, Moses’ second appeal is introduced with an imperative to remember the patriarchs (cf. Exod 32:13). Remember your servants, Abraham (‫)זְכֹר ַלעֲ ָבדֶיךָ ְלא ְַב ָרהָם‬, Isaac, and Jacob; pay no attention to the stubbornness of this people, their wickedness and their sin. (Deut 9:27)

Moses’ appeal to the fathers, however, is notably shorter than that in Exod 32:13. Besides the fact that the Exodus account is qualified with reference to Yhwh’s oath of great offspring and the promised land, Deuteronomy differs in that Moses juxtaposes his appeal to the patriarchs with an acknowledgment of Israel’s sins (Deut 9:27). The absence of this “confession” of sin in the Exodus account can be explained on the basis of the different sequence of events. In Exodus, Moses’ intercedes for the people before he had witnessed their sin (cf. Exod 32:11–13), whereas in Deuteronomy, Moses’ prayer appears only after he has seen and destroyed the calf. Besides, by the logic of the narrative, it is a prayer with “forty years of hindsight.” In the Exodus account, God was about to consume Israel, but God would not destroy Israel without first consulting Moses (Exod 32:7–14). In the face of imminent punishment, it appears natural for Moses to buy time and try to pacify God’s wrath (cf. Exod 32:11–13) in order to gain first a clearer picture of what was going on at the foot of Sinai. It is only on Moses second stay on the mountain, after he had witnessed the severity of the situation and after having purged the camp of the worst sin, that he confessed Israel’s sin: “Alas, this people has sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold (Exod 32:31; cf. 34:9).” In Deuteronomy, Moses’ acknowledgment of the gravity of Israel’s sin comes in some sense as a climax to the preceding narratives. Throughout chaps. 4–9, Israel is implicitly or explicitly summoned to be a holy people (cf. Deut 4:20, 6:3–25, 7:6). This call to be different is rooted in Israel’s election (Deut 7:6, 10:14–15). Throughout these chapters, a clear distinction is maintained between the nations and Israel. This distinction, as we have seen, is particularly prominent in the 365.  Moberly, “God,” 121; cf. Childs, Biblical, 424. 366. So Greenberg, “Moses,” 31.

154

Chapter 3

initial verses of chap. 9, where Israel understands itself as righteous (‫)צ ִַּדיק‬, whereas the nations are characterized by wickedness (‫)רׁשע‬. It is on the basis of this self-imposed distinction that Israel is in danger of explaining the conquest and the inheritance of the land (Deut 9:1–4). The first big blow comes with Moses’ correction in v. 5. The nations are indeed disinherited because of their wickedness, but not because of Israel’s righteousness, for they are in fact a stubborn people (Deut 9:5–6). In the light of this sobering observation, it would have still been possible to work out a minor distinction of virtue between Israel and the nations, because Israel is not described as wicked (but merely as an obstinate people). It is exactly this conclusion that Moses’ acknowledgment of Israel’s sin refutes when he prays, pay no attention to the stubbornness of this people their wickedness and their sin. (‫ֶל־ר ְׁשעֹו‬ ִ ‫ַּטאתֹו ְוא‬ ָ ‫ואֶל־ח‬,ְ Deut 9:27)

Although there ought to be a difference between Israel and the nations, there is none. By implication, Yhwh has the right to eradicate Israel and to wipe out their names from heaven just like the pagans (cf. Deut 7:24, 9:14). Because the covenant relation has been breached (Deut 9:16–17) and the divine intent pronounced, the future of Israel depends on Moses’ mediatory skills (Deut 9:18–20, 9:25–29). Aurelius confirms this and helpfully articulates the subtle interrelation between Israel’s sin, Moses’ intercession, and Yhwh’s promise to the patriarchs. The only reason Yhwh spares Israel’s existence is his promise/word to the patriarchs. Thanks to Moses’ intercession this word remains valid and is highlighted all the more for it. It is the first thing on which Moses bases his only positive petition: “Remember your servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (9:27a); the thought recurs in Yahweh’s response (10:11). Neither in the petition nor in the response is any kind of penitence mentioned. The fact that Yahweh’s promise is still valid, does not depend in any way on “you,” but on Moses’ intercession. 367

What is the logic behind Moses’ invocation of Israel’s founding fathers, and what aspect(s) of the three patriarchs does Moses want God to remember? With regard to the former, Weinfeld suggests that the ancestors were often perceived as protectors of their descendants. He remarks that Interceding with the ancestors on behalf of their children was a common phenomenon in ancient Israel and in the ancient Near East. . . . In rab367.  My translation of Aurelius, Fürbitter, 27–28: “ist sein Wort an die Väter. Das bleibt in Kraft, dank Moses Fürbitte, und das wird um so mehr hervorgehoben. Es ist das erste, worauf Mose sich beruft, in seiner einzigen positiven Bitte: “Gedenke deiner Knechte Abraham, Isaak und Jakob” (9:27a); und der Gedanke kehrt in Jahwes Antwort wieder (10:11). Weder in der Bitte noch in der Antwort ist von irgendeiner Art Buße die Rede. Daß Jahwes Verheißung noch gilt, liegt in keinem Teil an “dir,” sondern an Moses Fürbitte.”

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

155

binic literature the term for intercession is “to invoke the merit of the fathers . . . when Moses prayed on behalf of Israel he interceded with the ancestors (literally, kept the merits of the fathers). 368

How does one assess the concept of cooperative and intergenerational intercession? Besides a few (to my mind) ambiguous Akadian references, 369 Weinfeld lacks also any conclusive biblical evidence to suggest that Moses prayed in the company of the ancestors on behalf of the sinful children. 370 The text does simply not say that. The widespread concept of the merits of the patriarchs is used differently and more faithfully to the text by Greenberg. On the basis of an extensive discussion on the Hebrew idiom ‫“( זכר ְל‬remember”), he argues that the first half of v. 27 means remembering Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob for the benefit of their descendants. 371 Henceforth, he paraphrases v. 27 as follows: Remember for the patriarchs the love You bore them—on account of which You chose their descendants—and for its sake ignore the wickedness of this people. 372

It looks as if Moses launches a plea “to ignore the wickedness of the children out of consideration for their meritorious fathers.” 373 Muffs and Tigay take it a step further by suggesting that Moses’ appeal to the patriarchs is twofold. It embodies both a legal and an emotional aspect. 368.  Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 416. 369.  Ibid., 415–16: “Intercession was called in Akkadian ‘keep fatherhood . . .’; cf., e.g. in a Mari letter, ‘Just as I interceded [kept your fatherhood . . .] for you so shall the god Šamaš intercede for my business’ (ARM 10.156:30–33; see Artzi and Malamat 1971, p. 183).” 370.  By referring to the ancestors, Weinfeld presumably means the patriarchs. Moreover, if I understand Weinfeld correctly, interceding with the ancestors, as he advocates it, would presuppose a sophisticated concept of life after death, which probably did not exist until late OT times. 371.  Greenberg (“Moses,” 26–29) argues that ‫ זכר ְל‬entails a significant difference from ‫זכר אֵת‬. On a basic level, the former demands remembering somebody as object and not something. Thus, “to remember for (on behalf of, to the credit of, or against, to the condemnation of) somebody, something he did” (p. 26). Greenberg substantiates his argument on the basis of Ps 132:1, 10. In v. 1, the speaker (probably the ruling Davidic king) evokes Yhwh to act for the sake of David (. . . ‫זְכֹור־יְהוָה ְל ָדִוד אֵת‬, “Remember, O Lord, for David . . .”). This is confirmed in v. 10, where it becomes apparent that the speaker (the anointed one) implores God, very likely from a later point in time, for a favor on account of David’s loyalty. Thus, Greenberg infers that the reigning king invokes divine favor in the name of his “saintly ancestor,” for the sake of Your servant David (p. 26). According to Weinfeld (Deuteronomy, 415), ‫ זכר ְל‬means “to think in favor of someone.” Besides Ps 132:1, he refers to Jer 2:2; Pss 25:7, 136:22. 372.  Greenberg, “Moses,” 29. 373.  Ibid., 28–29. Although Moses’ appeal to remember is very concise, it ought to be seen in relation to Deut 9:5; 10:11,14ff. Twice, Yhwh’s oath to give Israel the promised land is mentioned (Deut 9:5, 10:11) and once reference to Yhwh’s love for the patriarchs is made (Deut 10:15).

156

Chapter 3

With regard to the former, they draw attention to what they consider the unconditional and irrevocable nature of the covenant made with the patriarchs. 374 With regard to the latter, they point to Yhwh’s passionate love for the fathers. 375 Tigay concludes with a reflection on the Wirkungsgeschichte of Moses’ appeal in Judaism: Moses’ invocation of the patriarchs became the precedent for invoking the “merits of ancestors” (zekhut ʾavot) in Jewish prayers. Going beyond the idea that God rewards later generations for their ancestors’ merits (5:10, 7:9), this concept holds that even when Israel lacks merit—as in the present case—its ancestors’ merits can sustain it and God may grant mercy for their sake. 376

The problem with these interpretations is the fact that the patriarchs’ merits are not mentioned, neither here nor in the fuller appeal in the Exodus account (cf. Exod 32:13). In the latter case, the qualifying clause indicates the content of the divine oath and not the patriarchs’ virtues and achievements. 377 Their merits are at best hinted at in the epithet “your servants” (ָ‫)זְכֹר ַלעֲ ָבדֶיך‬. But the scriptural portrayal of Isaac and Jacob does not easily fit this honory designation, which is usually attributed to faithful men of God who live in intimate and obedient relation with Yhwh. 378 One could argue for Abraham’s meritorious status (Gen 26:5) but not so easily for Isaac or Jacob (cf. Gen 26:24). 379 Of course one could reason that Abraham’s descendants are blessed because of his obedience (cf. Gen 22:15–18, 26:4–5). 380 Depending on how one interprets the much-debated Niphal of ‫ ברך‬in Gen 12:3, Abraham functions as a channel of blessing for subsequent generations. 381 Granted the possibility that this is part of Moses’ argument, it seems strange that he appeals to all three of them and not only to Abraham. Thus, it seems more likely that Moses wants Yhwh to remember something which is common to all three of them. 374.  Muffs (Love and Joy, 13) dynamically paraphrases Moses: “You cannot behave in such arbitrary fashion. . . . You are obligated to realize what You have promised, like it or not! . . . Your promise to our fathers was unconditional. Your obligation to the patriarchs is still binding. This specific act of Israel does not cancel Your obligation to the patriarchs. For if You destroy their children, and breach Your contract, how will You ever be able to look the patriarchs in the eye!” 375.  Ibid., 13; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 103. 376.  Ibid. 377. Cf. Childs, Exodus, 568. 378.  Cf. Gen 26:24, Num 12:7–8, Deut 34:5, 1 Kgs 8:56, Neh 10:29, Dan 9:11. On the ambiguous characters of Isaac and Jacob, see Moberly, Genesis, 26–33. 379.  Perhaps it is for this reason that the designation “your servants” with reference to the three patriarchs appears only here and in the Exodus parallel. 380.  Moberly, Bible, 120. 381.  So von Rad, Genesis, 160; Wolff, “Kerygma,” 41–67; David R. Blumenthal, “Confronting the Character of God: Text and Praxis,” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann (ed. T. Linafelt and T. K. Beal; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) 38–42.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

157

Two major aspects come to mind. First, when we look at the three previous references to the three patriarchs in Deuteronomy, they are mentioned in relation to the promised land (Deut 1:8, 6:10, 9:5). 382 you are going in to occupy their land . . . in order to fulfil the promise that the Lord made on oath to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. (Deut 9:5) 383

Strictly speaking, Yhwh made this oath only to Abraham as a result of his obedience not to withhold his beloved son Isaac from God (Gen 22:15– 18). 384 Nevertheless, the promise had been repeated to Isaac and Jacob (cf. Gen 12:1–3, 26:2–5, 28:13–15). This, on the one hand, is quite surprising because both Isaac and particularly Jacob tended to lack moral integrity. 385 This does not only indicate a difference between patriarchal religion and Mosaic Yahwism, 386 but more importantly, it underlines Yhwh’s mysterious love for the patriarchs, which outshines their deviousness. This takes us to the second aspect they have in common. In Deut 10:15, where Moses talks of Yhwh’s love for the fathers, he uses ‫קׁשח‬, a verb that connotes intimate and inseparable love (cf. Deut 4:37, 7:8). 387 Levenson’s reading of Yhwh’s parental involvement in the fathers’ lives helps us to appreciate the rhetoric of divine love. This is not a man (i.e. Isaac) born of natural desire of his parent for offspring, but of God’s solemn covenantal pledge to make Abraham “the father of a multitude of nations” . . . Abraham is his biological father, but it is God who sets aside the laws of biology that have prevented his conception for year upon painful year. And so it is with Jacob/Israel, born of Rebekah, who was barren until God answered her husband’s entreaty and she conceived (Gen 25:21), and with Joseph as well, the son of Rachel, another women barren until “God remembered . . . and opened her womb” (Gen 30:22). . . . The conception of each son in a barren woman is another refraction of this same heavenly supersession of the hard realities­ 382.  In fact, all references to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Deuteronomy are in connection with the promised land. Cf. 1:8, 6:10, 9:5, 9:27, 29:13, 30:20, 34:4. 383. That this is an important aspect of Moses’ plea is supported in the following verse, which clearly refers to the promised land; “Because the Lord was not able to bring them into the land that he promised them” (Deut 9:28). Even more significant is the climactic divine affirmation in 10:11, where Yhwh says: “Get up, go on your journey . . . that they may go in and occupy the land that I swore to their ancestors to give them.” 384.  All the references to Yhwh’s oath go back to Genesis 22. Cf. Blumenthal, “Confronting,” 38–39. 385.  Eichrodt, Theology, 476, draws attention to the fact that the fathers are portrayed in all their weaknesses, and yet God was patient with their shortcomings and consistently worked toward His purposes. God’s dealings with them becomes the model for His dealings with Israel. 386. See Moberly, Old Testament, 79–104. 387.  Gesenius renders ‫ חׁשק‬with “being attached with very great love, as though it were to be joined together.”

158

Chapter 3

of biology. The ancestor of Israel—and thus also Israel itself—is the first– born son of two fathers, one human and one divine. 388

By highlighting that the patriarchs, and through them, Israel, are in some special sense children of God, Levenson helps us to see another important aspect of Israel’s election. Although we cannot be totally certain that Moses reminds Yhwh of His intimate and inseparable bond with the beloved fathers, in the light of the persistent theme of it (i.e. Deut 4:37, 7:6–10, 10:15) it seems to be the most likely reading of v. 27. Thus, Muffs and Tigay seem right in saying that Moses’ appeal has an emotional aspect to it. Moses intends to stir Yhwh’s fatherly heart by reminding Him of His intimate involvement with the patriarchs. But here again, one cannot ignore the responsive side of the human-divine relationship. Yhwh has elected Abraham for a particular purpose. I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice; so that the Lord may bring about for Abraham what he has promised him. (Gen18:19)

This summarizes aptly the purpose of Israel’s election, that they should walk according to the way of Yhwh so that they will increase and inherit the land (cf. Deut 6:24–25, 10:12–22). Keeping the way of Yhwh, which is later paralleled with keeping the commandments (cf. Job 23:11, Deut 9:16), is seemingly the prerequisite for the fulfillment of the promise (cf. Gen 22:15–18, 26:5). This pattern of “promise, obedience, fulfillment of promise” 389 should come as a word of caution to Muffs and Tigay, who believe that Moses is appealing here to the unconditional covenant with the patriarchs. Although the promise of descendants, land, and blessing came initially without any conditions attached to Abraham (Gen 12:1–3), subsequent narratives link the promise with Abraham’s obedience (cf. Gen 17:9, 22:15–18). Moberly helpfully reflects on this tension. A promise which previously was grounded solely in the will and purpose of Yhwh is transformed so that it is now grounded both in the will of Yhwh and in the obedience of Abraham. It is not that the divine promise has become contingent upon Abraham’s obedience, but that Abraham’s 388.  Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993) 41–42. The idea of Israel being the firstborn son is also encountered in the book of Exodus, where Israel’s liberation from Egypt is primarily attributed to Yhwh’s special relationship with Israel, His firstborn son (Exod 4:21–23). Levenson (p. 38) notes: “It is the special status of Israel, son of God, that explains why the Exodus is not a story of universal liberation at all but only of one nation’s release, the release of the first–born son to rejoin and serve his divine father.” A word of caution regarding Levenson’s emphasis on sonship: both in Exodus and Deuteronomy Yhwh’s compassion for the enslaved people is also an important incentive for their liberation (cf. Exod 2:23–25, Deut 26:7). 389.  Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 50.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

159

obedience has been incorporated into the divine promise. Henceforth Israel owes its existence not just to Yhwh but also to Abraham. 390

There is some warrant to argue that what became central to Mosaic Yahwism is already foreshadowed in God’s dealing with Abraham. What is only in its infancy stage is anticipated for future generations (Gen 18:19). Thus, there is some scriptural evidence that the tension between unconditional promise and obedient response (analogical to election and covenant), goes right back to the patriarchs. This reaffirms our suggestion that Moses’ appeal to the patriarchs, like his previous appeal to Israel’s special status, revolves around this tension, which is fundamental to Scripture. By reminding Yhwh of His love for the patriarchs and of His special bond with Israel, the irrevocable and the unconditional side of the divine-human relationship comes to expression. But by acknowledging, possibly even confessing, the people’s rebellious and sinful behavior, Moses shows awareness that they have failed to live up to their calling. This is obviously endorsed by the fact that Moses does not excuse or belittle Israel’s sin at any stage of this prayer (cf. Deut 9:27, Exod 32:30–31). Because of this tension, he can ultimately only appeal to Yhwh’s nature and His purposes. This takes us naturally to Moses’ final appeal in which the theme of election and Yhwh’s purposes are unfolded and passionately brought together with the character of Yhwh.

Appeal to Yhwh’s Honor (Deuteronomy 9:28) In his appeal, Moses cautions Yhwh to reconsider carefully His intention to deal with Israel in punishment (cf. Exod 32:12, Num 14:13–16) lest (‫ )ּפֶן‬391 the inhabitants of Egypt question Yhwh’s unchallenged power associated with the Exodus (cf. Exod 9:14–16, 10:1–2). Moreover, the annihilation of Israel would also jeopardize His integrity as a faithful God (Deut 7:9). Thus, Moses utilizes Yhwh’s prime concerns as a basis for his petition for Israel’s pardon. Otherwise (‫ּפֶן‬, lest) the land from which you have brought us might say, “Because the Lord was not able to bring them into the land that he promised them, and (or) because he hated them (‫אֹותם‬ ָ ‫)ּומ ִׂש ְנאָתֹו‬ ִ he has brought them out to let them die in the wilderness.” (Deut 9:28)

The Hebrew syntax allows for two possible translations, depending on whether one renders the clause with the conjunction waw before ‫ ׂשנא‬as “and because he hated them” or as “or because.” 392 Most English translations­opt 390. R. W. L. Moberly, “Earliest Commentary on the Akedah,”in From Eden to Golgotha: Essays in Biblical Theology (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992) 71. 391.  The word ‫“( ּפֶן‬lest, so that not, or else”) at the beginning of a clause expresses usually a precaution or a fear. See HALOT. 392.  Tigay, Deuteronomy, 104.

160

Chapter 3

for the former and thereby imply that the Egyptians would conclude that Yhwh knew that He was not able to fulfill His promise, but led them to die in the wilderness out of hatred. 393 Such a gloomy corollary of Yhwh’s punishment would obviously charge Him with both impotence and viciousness. Regarding the latter translation (waw as “or”), the two clauses express alternative views and thereby suggest that Yhwh either intended to bring Israel into Canaan but could not, or that “He was able but would not.” 394 Now if this were the correct reading, Yhwh’s act of judgment would still be prone to misunderstanding. Either Yhwh is not capable of fulfilling His promise (that is, His plan) or the exodus was motivated by divine hatred (cf. Deut 1:27) and not by paternal love. 395 Muffs dynamically paraphrases the “Gentile” perspective: The gentiles [nations] will say, “God deceives His people. He told them that He loved them, but deep in His heart He really hated them. What did He actually do? He took them out of Egypt only in order to kill them in the desert.” They will say, “He was not able to complete the act of redemption and hid his aborted redemption deep in the sands of the desert.” 396

In the context of Num 14:13–16, the thought of divine inability is fundamentally opposed to Yhwh’s international reputation as an incomparable and victorious God (cf. Deut 4:34; Exod 9:14, 15:11). There Moses implicitly called Yhwh to act and live up to His name (His nature and reputation) as established in the Exodus. 397 Thus, from a canonical perspective this motive is not new in the Deuteronomic version of Moses’ prayer, but looks back to the rebellion at Kadesh (Num 14:16), whereas the idea of divine hatred goes back to the prayer on Sinai (Exod 32:12). Whatever the exact textual history behind these three prayers is, the inherent logic of the narrative suggests that Moses freely integrates in his prayer insights about God that he experienced in Kadesh and at Sinai. Moses’ argument about divine impotence fits well with the narrative setting in Deuteronomy (Moab, not Sinai). Israel finds itself once again at the border of the promised land (Deut 9:1; cf. Num 13) and is reassured that Yhwh will go ahead in warrior fashion (Deut 9:3). This time, it is only Egypt who carefully watches Israel’s movements. The remaining task is to work out how Moses’ appeal to Yhwh’s honour relates to the theme of election, which seems to be the guiding motive of his prayer (Deut 9:25–29). Before we have noticed that Yhwh’s free self-commitment to Israel, and His faithfulness to the patriarchal promise 393.  Although different terminology is employed, the motive is akin to the parallel account where the idea of evil intention comes clearer to expression (cf. Exod 32:12). 394.  Ibid.; and Zürich translation (2007) 395. Cf. Rose, 5 Mose, 512. 396.  Muffs, Love and Joy, 12. 397.  See my Moses, 300–306.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

161

provided a foothold for Moses’ petition for divine pardon. Here in v. 28, Moses’ reasoning is developed and coupled with the wider issue of divine honor. Just as the allegation of divine impotence is fundamentally opposed to Yhwh’s victorious exodus, so divine hatred is obviously opposed to Yhwh’s election of Israel. 398 Because of the exodus, Yhwh has been inseparably associated with His people. Eichrodt helpfully reflects on the wider implications that Israel’s destruction would have on Yhwh’s honor and reputation. For with Israel’s misfortune dishonour falls on God’s name, and with her destruction Yahweh’s name, too, would be exterminated from the world. Thus men can pray God to give his own name the honor which is due before the whole world by pardoning and succouring Israel. 399

Israel’s destruction, no matter how justified, would ultimately harm and degrade Yhwh’s reputation and purposes. Thenceforth, Israel’s pardon is not only for their sake, but also in the best interest of Yhwh. After all, has He not revealed Himself with an unshakable determination to make His name great among the nations (Exod 14:9)? This overruling plan cannot possibly be hindered or even be abandoned simply because his people rebelled against him. Because God’s honor depends on Israel’s existence, Moses’ prayer has one more reason to be effective. Thus, in this particular appeal it does not seem to be a matter of divine mercy but rather of “divine need.” Israel’s pardon would be a means to uphold the revelation of Yhwh’s name in the exodus. Although Moses is primarily interested in the pardon of Israel, he effectively establishes the wider issues, which are at stake. By the standards of the canon, by appealing to act in favor of Israel for the sake of Yhwh’s name, Moses starts an important line of reasoning with God. This is particularly evident from the prophetic literature and the psalms. 400 So for example, Deutero-Isaiah is convinced that God would act for the sake of His honor and redeem the exiled people. For my name’s sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you, so that I may not cut you off. . . . For my own sake, I do it, for why should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another. (Isa 48:9, 11)

In spite of the fact that Israel has been obstinate and rebellious from the moment of birth (Isa 48:4; cf. Deut 9:7, 24), Yhwh is determined to glorify­ 398.  Keil, Pentateuch, 340. 399.  Eichrodt, Theology, 2, 477. 400.  Tigay, Deuteronomy, 104: “The appeal to God to act for the sake of His name became a popular theme in prayers. In the prophetic literature, the belief that He would do so became a source of hope for the end of the exile.” Joshua makes a similar appeal after Israel’s defeat at Ai ( Josh 7:9; cf. Pss 23:3; 25:11; 79:9–10; 115:1–2; Isa 48:9–11; Jer 14:7–9, 21; Ezek 20:9, 22, 44; Joel 2:17).

162

Chapter 3

Himself by delivering Israel from exile and thereby show once again that He is God of gods (cf. Isa 52:5–6). 401 This is a costly undertaking on God’s part because the restoration and preservation of God’s name (and covenant) is ultimately only possible by way of self-sacrificial commitment to His people. Thus, it has become clear that Moses raises a problem, which reaches to the very heart of God’s internal dilemma. How is one to consolidate divine justice with divine grace and loving commitment? There is no way that one can or should try to resolve this tension because it belongs to the very essence of God’s being (cf. Exod 34:6–7, Num 14:18). The fact, that Yhwh allows, even invites, Moses to participate in this dilemma in faithful prayer speaks volumes for Yhwh’s solidarity for His people. We have seen that Moses at no point excuses or belittles Israel’s rebellion and disobedience, but he juxtaposes it with Yhwh’s history of loving and faithful commitment to them and with the fact that Yhwh’s name would be at stake if Israel were annihilated. In sum, we have seen that Moses does not only recall Israel’s history of rebellion to the people in order to appeal for a change of heart, but also for reporting the content of the prayer and Yhwh’s gracious response. Moses reminds the people of their unfaithfulness. Yhwh could have destroyed the people and still been faithful to His promise, provided that Moses had consented to the divine offer to become the new patriarch (Deut 9:14). Through this offer Yhwh made Israel’s outcome contingent on Moses’ agreement (Deut 9:14). As noted, however, Moses does not even respond to the divine offer and thus effectively turns down Yhwh’s only proposed option for fulfilling the divine promise. Instead, Moses insists in the strongest possible terms that Israel is still Yhwh’s people (cf. Deut 9:12, 26, 29). He had chosen them and at great expense delivered them from Egypt. Following from that, Moses attempts to show that sparing Israel is also in the best interest of Yhwh, because Israel’s annihilation would seriously endanger Yhwh’s reputation as a compassionate, loyal, and powerful God. Knowing that Israel has lost its covenantal right to divine protection and the promised land, Moses attempts to appeal to Yhwh’s “parental” involvement in the formation of Israel (Deut 9:27). Moses, probably upon reflecting on Yhwh’s mysterious election of the patriarchs and through them of Israel, His providential involvement in the life of His people, His faithful redemption of Israel from Egypt, followed by the covenant making at Sinai, and the continuous forbearance of Yhwh through the wilderness, must have come to the fundamental insight that Yhwh bound Himself in a relationship of costly solidarity to His people. Thus, Moses’ prayer ought to be understood in the light of his experience of God’s fundamental orientation toward His people. 402 401.  Eichrodt, Theology, 2, 480–81. The theme of Yhwh’s honor is even further developed in the book of Ezekiel (20:9, 22, 44). 402.  Eichrodt, Theology 2, 475.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

163

The Divine Response (Deuteronomy 10:1–11) In Deuteronomy, no immediate answer to Moses’ prayer is recorded. Yhwh’s command to cut new stone tablets, however, raises hope for restoration of the covenant relationship (cf. Deut 10:1ff.). The suspense nevertheless builds up until 10:10–11, for only there is the audience told that Moses’ intercession has been successful. There comes the long expected assurance: the Lord listened to me. The Lord was unwilling to destroy you. (Deut 10:10) 403

This affirmation brings the disturbing and almost “refrain-like” threat that the Lord was ready to destroy Israel (Deut 9:8, 14, 19, 20, 25) to a settled conclusion. In this way, one major concern of the first section, Israel’s annihilation because of breach of covenant, is resolved. This still leaves open the question concerning the inheritance of the land (cf. Deut 9:23). Has God heeded Moses’ disguised plea to bring Israel into the promised land (Deut 9:28)? Only in the climactic divine response (strikingly, the first and only divine word in the narrative!) at the very end of the first major section does Yhwh assure Moses: Get up, go on your journey at the head of the people, that they may go in and occupy the land that I swore to their ancestors to give them. (Deut 10:11)

In other words, only at this stage of the narrative can Israel rest assured that their lives are spared, that their covenant relationship with Yhwh is restored, and that Yhwh’s promise to inherit the land is renewed. The fact that Yhwh responds favorably to Moses’ threefold appeal reveals not only that mercy depends on Yhwh’s character and His promises 404 but also that God allows Himself to be persuaded by His faithful servant to let love triumph over justice. This is not to deny the fact that Yhwh has the freedom of disciplining His rebellious son, but the outcome of Moses’ prayer strongly suggests that one of the central purposes of Israel’s election is God’s commitment to fellowship with His people. This is a commitment that in times of rebellion costs Him dearly. 405 Moses’ detailed recollection of Israel’s history with Yhwh serves a particular goal. Having juxtaposed Israel’s history of disobedience, rebellion, and unfaithfulness with Yhwh’s record of faithfulness, patience, and loving covenant commitment, he calls Israel to obedience and faithfulness.

Climactic Prophetic Call to Commitment (Deuteronomy 10:12–22) Moses’ summon to a fresh commitment comes as the climax of Moses’ preceding sermons. This is supported by the following factors. Deut 10:12ff. 403. Von Rad, Deuteronomium, 55. 404.  Moberly, Mountain, 50. 405. Cf. Eichrodt, Theology 2:481.

164

Chapter 3

contains in summary form most of the important themes of chaps. 5–10. This is further indicated by the fact that the introductionary words ‫ְוע ַָּתה‬ ׂ ְ ‫“( י‬And now, O Israel”) stand in rhetorical relation to its three preced‫ִש ָראֵל‬ ׂ ְ ‫“( ְׁשמַע י‬Hear, O Israel”). Only in Deut 5:1, 6:4, 9:1, and ing addresses ‫ִש ָראֵל‬ 10:12 is Israel summoned in such a distinct way. 407 ׂ ְ ‫ ְוע ַָּתה י‬is often employed as a rhetorical device to signal Moreover, ‫ִש ָראֵל‬ a transition or the beginning of an important corollary. 408 Here, the penetrating introductionary question (“So now, O Israel, what does the Lord ְ ‫ ]מָה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ ׁש ֹאֵל מ ִֵעּמ‬not only marks a shift your God require of you?” [‫ָך‬ in genre from a historical narrative (Deut 9:7–10:11) to a “prophetic challenge” (Deut 10:12–22), 409 but also clearly indicates the peak in the narrative. Moses’ authoritative summons has helpfully been compared with Micah’s key question: “what does the Lord require of you” (‫ּומָה־יְהוָה ּדֹורֵׁש‬ ָ‫מ ְּמך‬, ִ Mic 6:8)? 410 On both occasions, the answer comes in a similarly poignant and memorable statement. Moses stipulates in vv. 12–22 what all his recapitulation of the past boils down to. In short, these verses contain the essence of Yhwh’s requirements. In the parallel account in Exodus, after the covenant renewal, the Decalogue (though in different form) is restipulated (cf. Exod 34:10–28), whereas in Deuteronomy, Moses focuses on the underlying covenant principles. 411 It is above all a call to love and fear Yhwh, which is basically an appeal to trust in God and to covenant obedience (Deut 10:12–13). 412 This priority seems programmatic because Moses has just spent the last chapters talking about Israel’s rebellion and unbelief. The fact that core principles such as covenant obedience and total dedication to Yhwh have already come to expression throughout Moses’ sermons confirms the climactic nature of Deut 10:12–22. 413 Rose understands 10:12–22 alongside the Shema (Deut 6:4–9) and 7:1– 11 as the oldest introduction to the law. This observation is only of secondary importance for a reading of the received text. Our task is to explore  406

406. See Miller, Deuteronomy, 124–25, for details. 407.  Lohfink, “Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11,” 42–43. 408.  See Deut 4:1, 10:12; Josh 24:14; 1 Sam 12:13. Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 199. 409.  Weinfeld (ibid., 435) talks about a shift to religious teaching. 410. Cf. Miller, Deuteronomy, 125. 411. It is widely agreed that the Shema is a concise summary statement of the ten commandments (particularly of the first two) or indeed of the entire law. Given the fact that 10:12–20 shows many affinities with 6:4–25, the same seems to apply to our passage. Von Rad (Theologie 1:243) argues that all deuteronomic laws are nothing but a wide explication of the underlying command to love Yhwh, and this love, according to von Rad, is a response to the experience of divine love. Lohfink (Hauptgebot, 158) reckons that the main commandment ought to be understood in the sense of Matt 22:38, 40, that is the first and major commandment on which the entire law is attached. 412.  Cf. von Rad, Deuteronomium, 59. 413.  Cf. Deut 4:10, 6:5,13, 8:6. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 107.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

165

the relationship between Moses’ prayer and his immediately following prophetic call to fear, love, and serve Yhwh (Deut 10:12–22). 414 Of particular interest, because of its resonance with Deut 9:6 and 13, is Moses’ appeal to circumcise the foreskin of the heart and not to be stiffnecked any longer (Deut 10:16). The resumption of the key idiom ‫ַם־קׁשֵה־‬ ְ ‫ע‬ ‫“( עֹרֶף‬stiff-necked people”) confirms that vv. 12–22 need to be read in the light of the golden calf narrative. We have noted that Moses has established beyond doubt that Israel has no claim to righteousness, for they are an ‫עַם־‬ ‫( ְקׁשֵה־עֹרֶף‬Deut 9:6). More than that, even after their most grievous offense was pardoned, they continued to be rebellious (cf. Deut 9:22–24). The continuous intercessory activity of Moses indicates, however, that his prayer, though powerful and effective, provides only a temporary solution to Israel’s predicament. It appears that Moses’ summons to a change of heart suggests itself as a more permanent solution to Israel’s rebelliousness. Their stubbornness, in the long run, can only be remedied through circumcision of heart (Deut 10:16), a metaphor for an inner renewal of the covenant relationship, a decisive act of committed obedience. 415 Clements writes that genuine communion with God must embrace thought, feeling and will if it is to be an effective contact between the divine and human realms. Without this personal turning, seeking and loving God there can be no genuine relationship with him. . . . The true altar where a transaction with God can take place is the human heart. 416

Love of Neighbor: A Form of Intercession There is good reason to argue that Moses entreats Israel to emulate God in His role as righteous judge and compassionate protector of the underprivileged (Deut 10:17–18). Although Moses does not explicitly appeal to Israel to mirror Yhwh’s impartiality and compassion for the needy of society, it is interesting to note that exactly these virtues are demanded from Israel in the book of Covenant and in the book of Leviticus. 417 (Yhwh) who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and who loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing. You shall also love 414.  Rose, 5. Mose, 2, 329–348. 415.  The metaphor of circumcision of heart is probably sparked by the mention of the election of the patriarchs, particularly Abraham (Deut 10:15), whose selection was sealed by circumcision of the flesh, a covenant sign (Gen 17:10–14). Here, however, it speaks figuratively of the skin, which covers the hearts of Israel and thereby renders them inaccessible to God. We have seen that in Deuteronomy 6–11, the heart functions primarily as a place of thinking (noetic center) and of virtues. The place where decisions of faith, of good and evil are made. Cf. H.-J. Fabry, “‫ ֵלבָב ;לֵב‬,” TDOT 7:412, 419, 431. In other words, foreskin over the heart is “a metaphor for a mental block that has made Israel stubborn.” See Tigay, Deuteronomy, 108. 416.  Clements, Deuteronomy, 52. 417.  Cf. Exod 22:22, 23:7–9; Lev 19:34. Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 439.

166

Chapter 3

the stranger (‫אה ְַב ֶּתם אֶת־ ַהּגֵר‬ ֲ ‫) ַו‬, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. (Deut 10:18–19)

In v. 19, Israel is asked to imitate the divine attitude toward the stranger. Of course, the fundamental scriptural concept of imitatio dei is best summarized in the Holiness Code: “Be holy because I, Yhwh your God, am holy . . . you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord” (Lev 19:2, 18; cf. Psalms 111–12). In other words, even if one must slightly press the point in the context of Deut 10:17–19, there is plenty of scriptural evidence that imitating Yhwh’s concerns is inherent to a wholehearted commitment to God. For our purposes, it is particularly interesting to note that contributing to the welfare of the community by embodying God’s concern for the underprivileged, comes close to intercessory prayer. Just as Moses’ intercessions are in tune with Yhwh’s nature and His purposes, so doing works of righteousness and compassion coincide with God’s gracious and merciful nature. Isa 58:12 closely associate righteous works with the important metaphor of standing in the breach. if you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then your light shall rise in the darkness. . . . The Lord will guide you continually, and satisfy your needs in parched places. . . . Your ancient ruins shall be rebuilt; you shall raise up the foundations of many generations; you shall be called the repairer of the breach (‫)וק ָֹרא ְלךָ ּגֹדֵ ר ֶּפרֶץ‬, ְ the restorer of streets to live in. (Isa 58:10–12)

Restoring a breached wall by doing righteous community work is a longterm process. When the hour of destruction is advancing, it is the prophets’ duty to stand temporarily in the breach in prayer, before the gradual process of restoring the divine-human relation can begin. Deuteronomy 9–10 gives exactly expression to this dynamic. 418 First, in prophetic fashion, Moses draws attention to Israel’s sin by shattering the covenant tablets (Deut 9:15) and hastens to defend the breached wall from Yhwh’s destructive wrath (“For I was afraid that the anger that the Lord bore against you was so fierce that he would destroy you” Deut 9:19). After having successfully fended off the first attack (Deut 10:10–11), the mediator urges Israel to repair the wall by recommitting themselves to fear Yhwh and to love their neighbor (Deut 10:12–22). Miller comments insightfully, The work of justice and compassion in the human community is an activity that is comparable to intercession for the sinful community. In both cases, a human activity corresponds to the nature and activity of God. In the case of prophetic intercession, the relation of this to the divine purpose is made explicit. One may infer, however, that those other prophetic words and deeds that enhance a just, merciful, and compassionate society also participate in and effect God’s will for human life. 419 418. Cf. Jeremias, “Vollmacht,” 320. 419.  Patrick D. Miller, “Prayer and Divine Action,” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann (ed. T. Linafelt and T. K. Beal; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) 220.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

167

Both activities, Moses’ prayer and Israel’s deeds of compassion, emerge from faithful obedience to Yhwh and from participation in the ultimate divine purposes for Israel. That is the formation of a society, which reflects the divine attributes of mercy, grace, and compassion (cf. Psalms 111–12). The logic of the narrative suggests that Moses’ intercession enabled Israel to make a new start. He established a fresh starting point for the people of God. He lays before Israel the choice either to follow wholeheartedly Yhwh and thereby gain life or to continue in the stubborn ways of their fathers and end in death (cf. Deut 11:26–31). The theme of blessing and curses is obviously very central to Deuteronomy (cf. Deut 28, 30, 32; Josh 24). In other words, the people’s choice will determine their future. It is, however, not an entirely neutral choice, Moses’ appeal to devote themselves totally to Yhwh has to be seen in the light of a history of rebellion, intercession, and pardon. Thus, Moses’ summon to fear, love, and serve Yhwh ought to be understood as an invitation to a grateful devotion to the One who patiently and graciously pardoned the sinful party (Deut 9:24, 10:11, Num 14:19). Further Theological Reflections

Advocate of God and Advocate of the People We have seen that the prophetic ministry is by its very nature twofold. Often the prophet’s prime or sole responsibility is mistakenly perceived as receiving and communicating God’s words (judgment or salvation), 420 but the biblical picture of the prophetic office is clearly twofold. It entails both the communication of God’s will and the representation of the people’s concerns before God. The prophets usually spoke with as much fervor and zeal to the Lord in prayer as to the people in judgment oracles. The reality of judgment and threat usually go hand in hand with intercessory prayer. 421 Only the office of the prophet allows for this dialectic role. Thus, Jeremias is right in noting that The authority of the Old Testament prophet was in principle double-sided: Whether as advocate of Israel or of an individual Israelite, the prophets made the individual or collective predicament their own and brought it before Yhwh in order to move God to deflect the predicament; as mouthpiece of Yhwh they proclaimed to the people or its members the will of Yhwh. Both sides of prophetic authority belong intimately together. 422

Our reading of Deuteronomy 9–10 has confirmed that the responsibility of the prophet is of a bilateral nature. Moses, on the one hand, stood in 420.  Balentine, “Intercessor,” 172. 421.  Miller, Cried, 265. 422.  My translation of Jeremias, “Vollmacht,” 309: “Die Vollmacht alttestamentilicher Propheten war somit prinzipiell doppelseitig: Als Fürsprecher Israels oder eines einzelnen Israeliten machten sie die jeweilige individuelle oder kollektive Not zu der ihren und brachten sie vor Jahwe, um ihn zur Abwendung der Not zu bewegen; als Mund Jahwes verkündeten sie dem Volk oder dessen Gliedern den Willen Jahwes. Beide Seiten prophetischer Vollmacht gehören von Haus aus eng zusammen.”

168

Chapter 3

the breach before God for the people before God (and for Aaron as an individual; Deut 9:18–19, 25–29). On the other hand, Moses confronted the new generation with prophetic spirit: “So now, O Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you?” (Deut 10:12–22). Genuine prophetic mediation therefore includes conveying the divine word on the one side and representing the people’s interest before Yhwh on the other. Those two aspects are widely recognized as the marks of the authentic prophet (cf. 1 Sam 12:23; Jer 27:18; Ezek 13:5, 22:30). Moses speaks to the people as one who has intimate knowldedge of Yhwh’s nature and purposes. Not only does his prophetic utterance presuppose intimate knowledge of the divine, but Moses’ intercessory prayer also testifies to a deep understanding of Yhwh’s attributes and plan. The intercessor can influence the divine decision-making and rebuke the people with divine authority because he has a “place” at the divine council (cf. Exod 24:2–4, 15–18; Deut 5:27, 31). The twofold prophetic role anticipates Jesus’ life and ministry. As one who is part of the divine council, he speaks with divine authority (Matt 5:21–22; John 5:19­–30, 12:49–50, 17:8). As for Jesus’ intercessory prayer, as one who was tested in every way, yet without sin, Jesus can advocate on behalf of humanity in a unique way before the throne of God (cf. Heb 4:15, John 17). Both aspects of the prophetic ministry seek the good of the people and the outworking of God’s purposes.

Law, Gospel, and Intercession As the name Deuteronomy (δευτερονόμιον, “second law”; cf. Deut 17:18)

already indicates, the law is of central importance to the book. 423 Although “law” is a wide and versatile concept, 424 in the context of Deuteronomy one could perhaps narrow its nature and function to two broad aspects, which stand in a fruitful tension to each other. First, the law is a gracious gift, which will serve Israel to regulate life before the covenant God once they live in the promised land (cf. Deut 6, 12:1). Second, the law stands as a benchmark which determines whether Israel will inherit the land and receive divine blessings or not. 425 Up to chap.  9, a significant number of references suggest that the inheritance of the land is not so much a divine gift (based on Yhwh’s oath to the patriarchs) but depends on Israel’s obedience to the law (cf. Deut 4:1, 40, 6:17–18, 7:12–13, 8:1). In other words, all these references indicate that obedience to the law is the condition for the possession of Canaan and other divine blessings. 426 In the light of this tenor, we have seen that Deut 9:4­–8 brings something of an inner-biblical 423.  I use the term law as a short form for the more deuteronomic terms: commandments (‫)מ ְצֹות‬, ִ decrees, testimonies (‫)עֵדּות‬, and statutes (‫ֻקּים‬ ִ ‫ח‬, i.e., Deut 6:17). 424.  See for example the discussions in von Rad’s Theology, 2:413–37; and Childs, Biblical, 532–37. 425. See Zimmerli’s influential thesis (Theology, 109–40) that the law has primarily a dialectical function. It functions both as promise and threat and thereby demands a decision, which results in either life or death. 426.  Mayes, Deuteronomy, 186; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 82.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

169

balance or a dialectical tension to the canonical sequence of Deuteronomy, by depicting the land as an undeserved gift. 427 It has become evident that Deut 9:1–10:11 uses the golden calf apostasy to illustrate and underline Israel’s rebellious tendency. In contrast to the Exodus account, Deuteronomy presents Israel’s sinfulness particularly in connection with the promised land. Israel is guilty and does not deserve to enter Canaan (Deut 9:6; cf. 27), nonetheless they will inherit the land. To put it differently, the sinful party which has no right to claim the divine promise will ultimately receive it. The opening verses of chap. 9 suggest that God turns toward rebellious Israel, who do not deserve divine loving attention. This turning toward Israel, in spite of their failure to maintain the covenant relationship, is Yhwh’s “righteousness” (‫)צ ָד ָקה‬. ְ God’s ‫ְצ ָד ָקה‬ is, according to Childs, an expansion of His covenant loyalty with which He bound Himself to Israel. 428 Barth, based on a wide variety of Old Testament passages, argues that one cannot separate God’s mercy from His righteousness. 429 In these verses, Moses already shows a profound awareness that human ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬is never sufficient to stand justified before God (cf. Ps 143:2). Humankind always depends on Yhwh’s mercy. What is implied in Deuteronomy 9:4–6 is later explicitly spelled out in Daniel’s prayer: “We do not present our supplication before you on the ground of our righteousness, but on the ground of your great mercies (Dan 9:18).” 430 Moses’ sermon also affirms divine mercy and grace and clearly refutes any human claims to move God on the basis of a self-attributed righteousness. Thereby, the sermon reflects a theological concern, which is central to the Old and New Testament alike. 431 That is to say, the people of God “owed all they were and all they possess to the grace and gift of God, and not in any way to their own merit.” 432 Braulik draws Moses’ message to a bold conclusion: 427.  Lohfink (Hauptgebot, 206) proposes that the writer of 9:1–7 discerned a danger of misunderstanding “the law” (“das gesetzliche”) and sought to critique it by emphasising that the land comes as an undeserved gift. 428.  Childs, Biblical, 489; cf. Levenson, Sinai, 75–80. 429.  Barth, Die Kirchliche Dogmatik 2.2:435: Eben als Gerechter erbarmt sich Gott, beugt er sich teilnehmend und helfend zu denen hernieder, die dessen ganz und gar bedürftig sind, die ohne das tatsächlich verloren wären. . . . daß er unsere Gerechtigkeit ist, daß er denen Recht schafft durch sich selber, die aus sich und in sich keine Gerechtigkeit haben, deren eigene Gerechtigkeit vielmehr durch ihn aufgedeckt wird als Ungerechtigkeit und die er nun doch nicht sich selbst überläßt, sondern denen er sich in seiner göttlichen Gerechtigkeit zu eigen gibt und so zu dem Grunde macht, auf dem sie—gegen ihr Verdienst und gegen ihre Würde, allein durch sein Verdienst und seine Würde . . . stehen und leben können. 430.  Cf. von Rad, Theologie, 1:395 431.  Cf. Romans 1–3 and Eph 2:8–9. 432.  Wright, Deuteronomy, 131. Cf. Miller, Deuteronomy, 105–6, 121ff. This sort of understanding stands in stark contrast to Koch’s thesis that, within the entire Old Testament, God never justifies the godless but only the righteous ones, those who are faithful to the

170

Chapter 3

What Israel’s self-righteousness could not achieve, God grants out of pure mercy to the people who live in guilt: The sinful, but unconditionally forgiven people are allowed to enter the wholesome sphere of the “good” land. (v. 5) 433

Although Braulik and other Christian interpreters express well the dynamics of these opening verses of Deuteronomy 9, it is at least surprising that none of those cited above, who underline God’s grace and mercy in these opening verses, fully grasps the importance that the narrative attributes to the intercession of Moses. The narrative states several times that God was going to destroy Israel (cf. Deut 9:8, 14, 19, 20). It was only through Moses’ sacrifical and persistent prayer that Yhwh showed mercy, changed His annihilative intensions, and renewed the covenant with them (Deut 9:19, 10:10; cf. Exod 32:10–14, Ps 106:23). Thus, the theology of this narrative seems to suggest that God’s grace and mercy must first be invoked and claimed in prayer (Exod 34:6–9). Not just by anyone, but by a faithful mediator. Moreover, it has been little appreciated that vv. 1–6 stand in the context of Deuteronomy 9–10. Those two chapters come clearly to a climax in Moses’ call to fear Yhwh and to keep His commandments (cf. Deut 10:12–13). We have seen that Moses’ intercessory activity enabled Israel to make a new start. But ultimately, it is the people’s choice that will determine their future (the same dynamic is found in Numbers 13–14, where after a temporary pardon, it is up to the new generation whether they want to follow Yhwh or not). 434 As faithful mediator, Moses stands in the breach before Yhwh in order to obtain pardon for them. He does not stop there, for with prophetic vigor equal to when he defended the people before God, Moses admonishes the people to change their sinful ways and recommit themselves to God and His ways (cf. Deut 10:12–20). This twofold ministry of representing the people before Yhwh and of representing Yhwh before the people is reminiscent of the later prophets. In fact, both aspects mark the genuine prophet (cf. 1 Sam 12:23; Jer 27:18; Ezek 13:5, 22:30). 435 In sum, we have attempted to show how the law/covenant, Yhwh’s grace/election, and intercessory prayer relate to each other in Deuteronmy 9–10 and its context. The law establishes the humbling fact that Israel is guilty and has no right to inherit the land. Only through the intercessor’s community. See K. Koch, “Rechtfertigung, im Alten Testament,” EKL 3:471–72. More recently, he restated his thesis: “eine ‘Rechtfertigung des Gottlosen,’ ist . . . im ganzen AT undenkbar.” THAT 2:520. 433.  My translation of Braulik, “Gesetz,” 149: “Was aber Israels Selbstgerechtigkeit nicht zu erreichen vermochte, das wird diesem in Schuld lebenden Volk aus dem reinen Erbarmen seines Gottes geschenkt: Es darf als sündiges, aber von Jahwe bedingungslos begnadigtes Volk den Heilsbereich des “guten” Landes (v. 5) betreten.” 434.  See my Moses, 311–28, for a fuller treatment. 435.  Jeremias, “Vollmacht,” 309.

Moses: Israel’s Archetypal Intercessor

171

sacrifical and persistent prayer does Yhwh show mercy, spare those who deserve death, and renew the covenant relationship with them (cf. Deut 9:7–8, 14, 9:18–20, 10:11–12). Thus, the theology of this narrative displays that the justified wrath of God has to be first overcome in an act of intercession. Intercession and God’s undeserved gift of pardon and land (“gospel”) go hand in hand. We could perhaps draw a typological analogy between the first Moses, laying prostrate in fear for the people’s destruction before a holy and just God who has the right to consume sinners, and Jesus, the second Moses, dying on behalf of sinners before a holy God in the ultimate act of intercession (Luke 23:34, 2 Cor 5:21). Both engage with God’s mercy and wrath. The cross could be seen as the place where the God of love and the God of justice “fight” with each other. 436 By invoking God’s mercy and promises against God’s justice, the intercessor participates in God’s “internal battle” (cf. Exod 34:6–9). In this sense, Moses’ intercessory prayer anticipates the cross. 437 436. M. Luther, Sämtliche Werke (Erlangen Ausgabe, 1934). T. Harnack, Luthers Theologie (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1927) 1:370, cited in Kitamori, The Pain of God, 21–22. 437. See pp. 516–531 for some further theological thoughts on the association between intercessory prayer and the cross.

Chapter 4

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor (1 Samuel 7, 12, 15) Introduction Judge, Prophet, and New Moses Samuel is Israel’s second legendary intercessor ( Jer 15:1, Ps 99:6–8). Not unlike Moses, the Bible portrays Samuel in a variety of biblical offices. 1 Samuel acts in the role of priest, prophet, judge (1 Sam 7:6, 15–17), seer, and “king-maker.” 2 In Samuel, it is for the last time that one person embodies all of these roles in the Old Testament. He is the last of Israel’s great judges as we know them primarily from the book of the Judges. 3 We read: “Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life” (1 Sam 7:15). Interestingly, according to later generations, Samuel’s role as prophet overshadows that of the judge. In Sirach, he is set apart from the judges as a beloved “prophet of the Lord (who) established the kingdom . . . and by his faithfulness he was proved to be a prophet (Sir 46:13–15).” Or in the New Testament, we read: “(God) gave them judges until Samuel the prophet” (Acts 13:20). As we shall see, it is primarily in the role of prophet, priest, and covenant me1.  It has of course long been noted in scholarly circles that most of Israel’s great mediators, starting with Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Josiah and among the prophets particularly Hosea and Jeremiah, are closely related to deuteronomic theology that centers on Torah obedience. 2.  Priest: Particularly the first three chapters portray Samuel as an aspiring priest serving under Eli at the sanctuary of Shiloh (1 Sam 2:11–18, 3:1). Later passages report Samuel performing sacrificial functions often associated with priests (cf. 1 Sam 7:9, 9:13). Prophet: 1 Sam 3:20 explicitly calls Samuel a prophet. This is the epithet that later tradition commonly used for him (cf. 2 Chr 35:18, 1 Esdr 1:20, Sir 46:13–20). Even in young age, Samuel becomes a messenger of judgment (1 Sam 3:11–14), in the way of so many of his successors in the prophetic tradition. Samuel delivers messages from the Lord employing the prophetic formula: “Thus says Yhwh” (cf. 1 Sam 10:18, 15:2). As we shall see in 1 Sam 7:8–9 and 12:23, Samuel serves in the prophetic function of the intercessor. Seer: The term “seer” (‫ )רֹאֶה‬appears only here in relation to Israel’s prophets. The biblical text adds an explanatory verse saying that “seer” is the old term for prophet (1 Sam 9:9). In other passages the role of the seer was limited to enquiring of the gods (cf. Numbers 22–24). King maker: In 1 Sam 9:1–10:16 and 16:1–13, Samuel acts in the role of king-designator in a fashion similar to Ahijah and Elijah (cf. 1 Kgs 11:29–39, 2 Kgs 9:1–12). 3.  The period of the Judges extends from the raising up of Othniel ( Judg 3:7) to the anointing of Saul as king (1 Samuel 12).

172

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

173

diator that Samuel emerges as the second legendary intercessor after Moses ( Jer 15:1). There are numerous parallels between the biblical portrayal of Moses and Samuel. In fact, some scholars suggest that Samuel is a kind of “new Moses.” 4 In both cases, the Bible reports in great detail the extraordinary circumstances of their birth. Both Moses and Samuel are given up by their mothers shortly after their birth (cf. 1 Sam 1:21–28, Exod 2). Both men respond to God’s calling with the well known “Here I am” (‫;הּנֵנִי‬ ִ 1 Sam 3:4, Exod 3:4). In summary fashion, it says, “As Samuel grew up, the Lord was with him and let none of his words fall to the ground” (1 Sam 3:19) and so “all Israel from Dan to Beer-sheba knew that Samuel was a trustworthy prophet of the Lord” (‫ָביא לַיהוָה‬ ִ ‫אמָן ְׁשמּואֵל ְלנ‬ ֱ ֶ‫ּכי נ‬, ִ 1 Sam 3:20). This wording clearly resonates with Num 12:7, where it says that “Moses is entrusted with all my house” (‫אמָן הּוא‬ ֱ ֶ‫ֵיתי נ‬ ִ ‫)ּבכָל־ּב‬. ְ Of course, in this passage, Moses is elevated above all prophets, but nevertheless Samuel is brought in close association with Israel’s archetypal prophet (cf. Deut 34:10). This is further underlined in the comment that God continued to reveal Himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the Lord (1 Sam 3:21). This brings Samuel close to the portrayal of the expected prophetic successor of Moses (cf. Deut 18:18–22). 5 Both prophets and men of God fight against Israel’s idolatry (1 Sam 7:3– 4; Exodus 32). 6 Both leaders, in the context of their intercessory ministries, manage to renew Israel’s covenant relationship with Yhwh (cf. Exod 32–34, 1 Sam 7:3–6) and in their speeches “set before the people the two ways of obedience and disobedience (Deut 28–30, 1 Sam 12).” 7 Allison summarizes the legacy of the two great leaders in the following way: Samuel, by anointing Saul and then David, “established the kingdom.” Hence Samuel closed one era and ushered in another. In that crucial respect he was very much like Moses, who broke the Egyptian bondage and inaugurated the age of Torah. This fact is so suggestive because the transition under Moses became paradigmatic: it was the prime example of history changing course, of one dispensation giving way to another. So just as it was natural to comprehend any great historical transition as another exodus, so too was it natural to liken to Moses men who altered the seasons and straddle epochs. 8

Both became known in Israel’s tradition as men of God whose prayers were answered (cf. Ps 99:6). According to 2 Enoch 48, a late text reads 4. Edmond Jacob, “Prophètes et intercesseurs,” in De la Torah au Messie: Meélanges Henri Cazelles (ed. J. Doreé, P. Grelot, and M. Carrez; Paris: Descleé, 1981) 209; Dale C. Allison, Jr., The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993) 31–33. 5. Rolf Rendtorff, Theologie des Alten Testaments: Ein Kanonischer Entwurf, vol. 1: Kanonische Grundlegung (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999) 94­–95. 6.  1 Sam 3:20, 9:6. 7.  Allison, The New Moses, 31. 8.  Ibid., 35. For further suggestive parallels, consult Allison.

174

Chapter 4

But when the Holy One, blessed be He, shall see that there is none righteous in that generation, none pious on the earth, no righteousness in men’s hands, no one like Moses, no intercessor like Samuel, who could entreat the Omnipresent One for salvation, for redemption . . . then the Holy One, blessed be he, will at once remember his own righteousness, merit, and grace, and for his own sake, will deliver his great arm, and his own righteousness will support him, as it is written, “He saw that there was no one”—like Moses, sought mercy many times for Israel in the wilderness and annulled the decree against them—“and he was astonished that there was no intercessor”—like Samuel, who interceded with the Holy One, blessed be he, and cried to him; and the Holy One answered him, and did what he wanted, even what was not foreordained, as it is written, “It is now wheat harvest, is it not? I will call on the Lord and he shall send thunder and rain.” Moreover, Samuel is linked with Moses, as it is written, “Moses and Aaron among his priests, and Samuel among those who invoke his name,” moreover, Scripture says, “Even if Moses and Samuel were standing in my presence.” 9

Given all these illuminating parallels between Israel’s two primary intercessors, it is striking that, in contrast to Moses, none of Samuel’s actual prayers are recorded in the canon. Nevertheless, we shall see that chaps. 7, 12, and 15 render rich insights into the Old Testament’s understanding of intercessory prayer. Let us briefly remind ourselves of the context of these chapters. A Man of God in the Making: Setting the Stage Samuel, the man of prayer, owes his life to the fervent prayers of his mother. Every year, Elkana took his two wives to the sanctuary in Shiloh to “worship and to sacrifice to the Lord of hosts” (1 Sam 1:3). Especially on these occasions, Penninah, Elkana’s second wife, provoked Hannah for not having any children. On one visit to the temple, after many years of barrenness, Hannah laments over her state before the Lord and swears a vow (1  Sam 1:11). When Eli, the priest of Shilo, hears about Hannah’s pain, he encourages her: “Go in peace; the God of Israel grant the petition you have made to him.” (1  Sam 1:17). On hearing the priest’s words of assurance, Hannah is no longer sad and worships before the Lord (1 Sam 1:18–19). Not only does Hannah give birth to Samuel a year later, in these opening verses of 1 Samuel we also see a specific example that foreshadows the dynamics of most psalms of lament. Many of these psalms move from lament, to petition, to new hope and praise of God. 10 9.  I am indebted to ibid., 34–35, for this reference, to 2 Enoch 48 A 5. See F. I. Andersen, “Enoch, Second Book of,” in ABD 2:516–22, for the background and classification of this pseudepigraphical text.. 10. Most psalms of lament display at least a threefold structure: (1) invocation, (2) lament, (3) petition. Moreover, many laments move from plight to praise (e.g., Psalms 13, 22). Some form critics have attempted to explain the sudden change of mood that characterizes many psalms of lament through a “fear not oracle” (Heilsorakel) delivered by a priest (such as Eli) or cultic prophet. See Claus Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1981) 165–213.

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

175

From a canonical perspective, Hannah plays a remarkable role in Israel’s history. Not only is Samuel born as the result of her prayer, but she also takes the initiative in dedicating the prospective prophet, judge, and “kingmaker” to the service of Yhwh and Israel (cf. 1 Sam 1:22, 28). In a song of praise, not unlike that of Mary, the mother of Jesus (cf. Luke 1:46–55), Hannah gives thanks to Yhwh for His mercy and for vindicating the barren, the poor, and vulnerable (1 Sam 2:2–8). Her prayer is also prophetic in the sense that it anticipates a new era that God will inaugurate through her son Samuel and those whom he will anoint to be kings (1 Sam 2:9–10). 11 Thus, not unlike Moses, Samuel becomes a great servant of God, through a joint venture of his mother’s dedication and God’s gracious intervention. 12 When Hannah finished weaning her son, Samuel is given into the service of Yhwh under the care of the ambivalent priest Eli. When the boy Samuel begins his service at Shiloh, he is contrasted with Eli’s two wicked sons (1 Sam 2:11–26). Hophni and Phinehas take advantage of their priestly roles in wrecklessly eating the portion of the sacrifices that are God’s and by abusing the pilgrims. Thereby, Eli’s descendants come to stand under God’s judgment (1 Sam 2:27–34), while Samuel grows in favor of God and the people (1 Sam 2:26). Chapter 3 contains the amusing account of God’s first call to young Samuel. Samuel has to learn to discern the voice of Yhwh (1  Sam 3:7). With the help of Eli, Samuel eventually learns to recognize God’s voice. 13 In prophetic fashion, Samuel is made privy to Yhwh’s forthcoming judgment on the house of Eli (1 Sam 3:11–14). It is interesting to note that the text introduces here prophetic rather than priestly categories. The time when God’s word was rarely revealed comes to an end with the emergence of Samuel (1 Sam 3:1). Yhwh reveals Himself anew to Samuel and His servant administers faithfully the words of God. Yhwh in turn would ensure that Samuel’s prophetic words would come to a fulfillment (1 Sam 3:19). Consequently, Samuel is acknowledged by all Israel as a trustworthy prophet of Yhwh (1 Sam 3:20). 14 One is reminded of the criterion of the true prophets, as set out in Deut 18:18–22. There, Israel is summoned to test the authenticity of the prophetic claims in simply checking whether their utterances come true. In other words, before Samuel becomes acknowledged as a trustworthy 11.  In the Jewish tradition, Hannah is regarded as one of the seven prophetess of the Hebrew Bible. Cf. Megilla 14a. 12.  According to 1 Sam 2:21, God took note of Hannah and blessed her (literally, visited her graciously) with three more sons and two daughters. 13.  Cf. R.  W.  L. Moberly, “To Hear the Master’s Voice: Revelation and Spiritual Discernment in the Call of Samuel,” SJT 48 (1995) 459, 465–66, points out that even a compromised and corrupt religious regime can still be instrumental in pointing to the truth. 14.  Jacob (“Prophetes,” 210) argues that, historically speaking, it was during Samuel’s time that the nature of the prophetic office changed. The prophet is no longer an ecstatic seer, but primarily a man of the word. The prophet is grabbed by God and becomes thereby a man of God to whom God speaks and who speaks on behalf of God.

176

Chapter 4

spokesman of God, Israel had to verify the truthfulness of his speech. It is noteworthy that Samuel is asked to proclaim God’s judgment from the outset of his ministry. As I have already discussed in chap. 3, the proclamation of judgment is only one side of the prophetic vocation. The representation of the sinful people in intercession before God constitutes the other side of the prophetic responsibility. It is particularly in chaps. 7, 12, and 15 that we shall see that Samuel fulfills the intercessory role of the prophetic vocation as well. In 1 Sam 7:5–9, in the context of a military crisis against the Philistines, Samuel intercedes on behalf of the repentant Israelites. It will become apparent in our treatment of Samuel’s intercessory activity in chap.  7 that a number of significant issues, such as the relation between repentance, prayer, and sacrifice come together and make this a rich chapter for the deepening of our understanding of the biblical view of intercessory prayer. Although Yhwh answers Samuel’s plea and threw the Philistines into fear and confusion, the military threat of the surrounding nations, particularly that of the Philistines, gives rise to Israel’s desire for a king who would be able to mobilize and organize Israel’s tribes against their hostile neighbors (1 Sam 4, 7, 8:4–5). In chap. 8, we find a conflation of interests. There are the elders who want a king, there is Samuel who sees in the request for a king a rejection of his own position, and then there is God, who assures Samuel that the elders’ request is primarily a rejection of Him as king. In spite of the fact that Israel’s demand for a king is perceived as an affront to Yhwh’s kingship, God grants Israel’s request and commissions Samuel to anoint Saul as Israel’s king. With the inauguration of Israel’s monarchy, there is no longer a principal place for Samuel in national matters. So at least it would seem. In a lengthy speech at Gilgal (1 Sam 12), sometimes called Samuel’s “farewell speech,” Samuel, as Gordon suggests, “redefines for himself a ministry of instruction and intercession that is replicated in the history of the prophets of later centuries.” 15 Although we shall see that the term farewell speech is misleading, I recognize the importance that the canon ascribes to chap. 12. 16 Besides wrestling with some of the challenges raised by the fundamental shift in Israel’s history from theocracy and covenant community to monarchy, it is certainly telling, as Seitz notes, “that much of this passage involves the prophet Samuel in an intercessory role (vv. 19–25).” 17 It will become evident that chap. 12 contains some of Scripture’s deepest insights into biblical intercessory prayer. 15. Robert Gordon, “Samuel,” NIDOTTE 4:1171. 16. See Martin Noth,  A History of Pentateuchal Traditions  (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981) 5; Walter Brueggemann (First and Second Samuel [IBC; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990] 89–90) notes that usually farewell speeches summarize the most important features of a departing figure’s ministry. 17.  Chris R. Seitz, “The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah,” ZAW 10 (1989) 8.

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

177

Chapter 15, among other things, illustrates what Samuel meant when he declared that he, as a prophet, considers it as sin (‫ )חטא‬against the Lord not to intercede for those entrusted to him (1 Sam 12:23). In characteristic fashion, the prophet is not only informed about Yhwh’s intention but is also commissioned to deliver the will of God (cf. Amos 3:7). In this case, Samuel is sent to inform Saul that God has rejected him as king because of his disobedience. In response to Yhwh’s strict words, Samuel spends the entire night in prayer with the Lord (1 Sam 15:11). Chapter 15 raises issues of great theological delicacy, such as the power and discernment of genuine repentance, election, and covenant obedience, divine mutability, and the limits of prophetic intercession. Having briefly outlined the context of our three prime passages, which tell of Samuel’s intercessory activity, we shall now turn to a closer reading of the passages in question.

Samuel the Prophet: Judge and Intercessor (1 Samuel 7) Israel’s Sin, the Philistine Threat, and Yhwh’s Sovereignty In the ancient Near East understanding, military superiority was intrinsically connected to the heavenly sphere. Military victory on earth was thought to be possible only because of the superiority of one god over another. 18 This, however, is not true for the Philistine victory over the Israelites as recorded in 1  Samuel 4–6. There, the defeat of Israel is clearly ascribed to the sins of Eli and his sons. They have misused the priestly institution (cf. 1 Sam 2:12–34), and Israel has committed idolatry (cf. 1 Sam 7:3). As a result of Israel’s defeat, the ark of the covenant was taken into captivity to Ashdod, where it was placed at the feet of Dagon, the god of the Philistine. That Israel’s defeat was a divine judgment is confirmed when we read that the statue of Dagon lay prostrate before Yhwh’s ark the next day (1 Sam 5:3). Moreover, Yhwh’s supremacy over Dagon is demonstrated by the plagues that afflicted the Philistines. This episode is reminiscent of the plagues of Egypt, where Yhwh defeated Pharaoh and his gods on their home turf. According to 1  Samuel, Dagon could not protect his people from the wrath of Yhwh either. It is interesting to note that the priests of the Philistines recognize Yhwh as superior to their god. This text, alongside many other in the Old Testament, clearly attributes to non-Israelites some discernment with regard to the supremacy of Yhwh (cf. Exod 8:19, 10:7). The Philistines know what happened to the Egyptians. Thus, their priests and diviners advise their people: “Why should you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh” (1 Sam 6:6)? They not only acknowledge the superiority of Israel’s God, but they also seek to pacify Yhwh’s wrath by 18.  See David A. Glatt-Gilad, “Yahweh’s Honour at Stake: A Divine Conundrum,” JSOT 98 (2002) 63–74.

178

Chapter 4

sending the ark back to Israel with some guilt offerings (1 Sam 6:5). The hope is that God will remove His heavy hand from among them and that they would be healed from their plagues. So Yhwh’s ark is returned to Beth-shemesh. The Israelites there, however, fail to show appropriate respect and were held accountable for their disrespectful behavior (1  Sam 6:19–20). Not only the Philistines or other nations experience God’s sovereign judgment but also Israel is subject to God’s holiness as the people from Beth-shemesh exclaim in fear: “Who is able to stand before the Lord, this holy God?” (1 Sam 6:20)? So they pass the ark on to the people in Kiriath-Jearim. There Eleazar is singled out and consecrated to administer the ark in an appropriate way. In Kiriath-Jearim, the ark remained for 20 years. The length of the duration is underlined by the narrator’s comment that a long time passed. It looks as if nobody dared, or was allowed, to collect Yhwh’s ark. Yhwh Himself has allowed the ark to be taken captive, and He Himself has freed the ark with the covenant tablets from the hands of the Philistines. Is the narrator perhaps suggesting that Yhwh does not yet want to return the ark to Israel? There is a sense that Israel cannot misuse the power of Yhwh for their purposes. God is sovereign and requires primarily the people’s obedience and service (cf. 1 Sam 15:22). 19 It seems as though during this long period Israel forgot their God and served foreign gods and goddesses (1 Sam 7:3). 20 “It took a long time for them to repent and come back to the Lord: for his part he waited patiently and silently for them to feel their spiritual hunger and return to him.” 21 By now, Samuel has become a fully mature servant of the Lord. The last mention of Samuel was in 3:21. Where has Israel’s judge been during all the struggles against the Philistines? Is the narrator suggesting, by not mentioning Samuel during Israel’s struggles against the Philistines, that it was a dark era of military uncertainties and idolatry? Ramsey comments on the long absence of Samuel in the following way: Instead of taking the absence of Samuel from 1 Samuel 4–6 as an indication that these chapters originated in a different socio-historical situation than the Samuel material, the literary critics read this as a deliberate authorial technique to help characterize Samuel. The non-mention of Samuel in connection with the events which proved so tragic for Israel is a narrative device to represent the difficulties which the nation experiences 19. Martin Buber, Der Glaube der Propheten (Gerlingen: Lambert Schneider, 1984) 92–93. 20.  According to David T. Tsumura, 1 Samuel (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007) 231–32, the phrase the Astartes with the article is used as a generalized term for “goddesses.” He draws attention to the Akkadian cognate ištaru (“goddess”), ištaratu (“goddesses”), which often appears in parallel with ilu (“god”). He concludes: “From the present context, the idiomatic expression ‘Baals and Astartes’ seem to stand for gods and goddesses in general.” 21.  Tsumura, First Book of Samuel, 229.

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

179

without the presence of Samuel (Willis 1979: 212; Polzin 1989: 58–60). This is underscored by the marvelous success which Israel enjoys vis-à-vis the Philistines as soon as Samuel reenters the narrative in 1 Samuel 7. 22

After Samuel disappeared from the biblical text for more than two chapters, he finally reappears in the narrative without introduction (1 Sam 7:3). Back on the scene, Samuel demands three things of Israel: (1) that they remove all foreign gods and turn radically from idolatry (2) that they renew their commitment to Yhwh (3) that they serve Yhwh alone (1 Sam 7:3). Samuel’s postulations echo Moses’ covenant faith as we find it expressed in Deuteronomy (cf. Deut 6:4–5, 10:12–22). Thus, Samuel affirms the core claim of Mosaic covenantal faith: 23 to turn (‫ )ׁשוב‬from idolatry and to recommit themselves wholeheartedly to Yhwh. Only then, God will deliver them from the oppression of the Philistines. Samuel the Judge and National Repentance Then Samuel said, “Gather all Israel at Mizpah, and I will pray to the Lord for you (‫ֶת ַּפּלֵל ַּבע ְַדכֶם אֶל־יְהוָה‬ ְ ‫)וא‬.” ְ So they gathered at Mizpah, and drew water and poured it out before the Lord (‫ִש ְּפכּו ִל ְפנֵי יְהוָה‬ ְׁ ‫ִשאֲבּו־ ַמיִם ַוּי‬ ְׁ ‫) ַוּי‬. They fasted that day (‫) ַוּיָּצּומּו ּבַּיֹום הַהּוא‬, and said, “We have sinned against the Lord.” And Samuel judged the people of Israel at Mizpah. (1 Sam 7:5–6)

Possibly as a result of Israel’s obedience, Samuel gathered Israel, with the intention to pray to Yhwh for the people (1 Sam 7:2, 5). 24 The text does not specify at this point in what way Samuel was going to pray for the people. Verse 3 provides possibly a hint that Philistine oppression is the cause behind Israel’s recommitment to the Lord (cf. 1 Sam 7:8–12). The verb to describe prayer here (‫)ה ְת ַּפּלֵל‬ ִ is the same one as used in Eli’s question to his corrupt sons: “If someone sins against the Lord, who can make intercession (‫ה ְת ַּפּלֵל‬, ִ 1 Sam 2:25)?” Samuel himself now seems to be the answer to that question. 25 Samuel’s intercession on behalf of the people takes place in the context of a ceremony of repentance. The following sequence of events is interesting. Israel drew water and poured it out before Yhwh and fasted on that day. Commentators continue to discuss the exact meaning of this water ritual. The circumstances suggest that it has something to do with the preparation for Samuel’s intercessory prayer for the people (cf. 1 Sam 7:8). 26 Moreover, it seems that in the present context “pouring” the water and “fasting” are connected. Gordon­ 22.  George W. Ramsey, “Samuel (person),” ABD 5:955. 23.  Brueggemann, First and Second, 49. 24.  Mizpah served before as a place of assembly for all Israel ( Judges 20–21; cf. 1 Sam 10:17–27). 25.  Bruce C. Birch, “First and Second Books of Samuel,” NIB 2:1016. 26.  Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, 234.

180

Chapter 4

understands­this as an act of “self-denial” as the participants solemnly proclaim their abstinence from even this necessity of life. 27 Perhaps the ritual connotes a deep sense of penitence or stands symbolically for earnest prayer. 28 The setting of a national repentance ceremony would support this. It is said of Hannah, Samuel’s mother that she had been pouring out her soul (‫ֶשפ ְֹּך אֶת־נ ְַפ ִׁשי ִל ְפנֵי יְהוָה‬ ְׁ ‫ָוא‬, 1 Sam 1:15) to the Lord. Pouring out one’s soul is obviously a vivid figure of speech for heartfelt prayer (cf. Pss 22:15, 42:4, 62:8). In Lamentations, Israel is summoned: “Arise, cry out in the night. . . . Pour out your heart like water before the presence of the Lord (‫ִׁש ְפ ִכי ַכ ַּמיִם ִלּב ְֵך‬ ‫ !)נֹכַח ְּפנֵי אֲדֹנָי‬Lift your hands to him” (Lam 2:19). Keil elaborates: They poured out their hearts like water in penitence before the Lord. This is evident from the figurative expressions, “poured out like water,” in Ps. 22:15, and “pour out thy heart like water,” in Lam. 2:19, which are used to denote inward dissolution through pain, misery, and distress (see 2 Sam 14:14). Hence the pouring out of water before God was a symbolical representation of the temporal and spiritual distress in which they were at the time,—a practical confession before God, “Behold, we are before Thee like water that has been poured out;” and as it was their own sin and rebellion against God that had brought this distress upon them, it was at the same time a confession of their misery, and an act of the deepest humiliation before the Lord. 29

Whatever the exact nuances of the ritual may be, the general meaning has to be in line with the act of fasting and the confession of sin. In other words, Israel gives expression to their penitence through fasting and confessing their sin that they have committed against Yhwh. Eichrodt confirms the understanding that the human-divine relationship can only be restored when a genuine turning to God takes place: Forgiveness cannot be thought of as God’s personal dealing with men for the restoration of fellowship unless man is personally committed to this action on the part of his God. . . . Man must be involved in his most inward self, if there is to be a real renewal of fellowship. Thus it was common knowledge in Israel at all periods that one could not merely hope and pray for pardon, but must humble oneself before God, acknowledge one’s unrighteousness, and have an earnest will to turn away from sin. . . . In the liturgy for the day of fasting, and in the sacrifical laws, penitence and confession of sin form the natural accompaniment to prayer for forgiveness. (1 Sam 7:5f., Joel 2:12–14, Lev 5:5; 16:21) 30

It is interesting to observe that, in comparison to the golden calf incident, as portrayed in the book of Deuteronomy, here it is the people themselves 27.  Gordon, 1 and 2 Samuel, 107. 28.  Is it a kind of water libation ritual that is associated with 2 Sam 23:16? 29.  C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Books of Samuel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973) 72–73. 30. Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (OTL; London: SCM, 1985) 2:465.

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

181

who initiate rites of fasting and repentance, while the mediator does not participate in them. 31 Samuel stands somewhat aloof, judging the people in Mizpah (1  Sam 7:6). In Deuteronomy 9–10, however, it is Moses, the mediator, who enters a prolonged period of fasting and confession of guilt on behalf of the people, before he prays for them (Deut 9:18–19). How do we account for these differences in their mediatory roles? An important distinction is that Israel at Sinai, though participating in the archetypal sin of idolatry and apostasy, did not recognize the gravity of their sin. There are hardly any signs of repentance on the side of the people. While the Israel of Samuel’s time felt the judgment of Yhwh for 20 years and eventually came to see that only a wholehearted return to Yhwh would bring deliverance from the Philistines (1 Sam 7:3). Samuel is not only the chosen mediator but also the judge between the sinful people and Yhwh. Perhaps it is also due to his role as judge that Samuel does not personally partake in the fasting and repentance ceremony. Samuel’s mediatory role has been authorized back in 3:19–21. Until now, the reader has known Samuel primarily in his role as prophet of the Lord (1  Sam 3:20, 4:1). Here for the first time Samuel’s role as judge is mentioned. There are four references in this chapter alone to him as “judging” Israel (cf. 1 Sam 7:6, 15, 16, 17). The title “judge” makes Samuel the clear successor to Eli, who was said to have judged Israel for 40 years (1 Sam 4:18). Samuel acting as judge is also reminiscent of Moses sitting as a magistrate over Israel after the victory over Amalek (cf. Exod 18:13). The following victory against the Philistines is the result of Samuel’s prayer for help (1 Sam 7:9). The language of subduing the enemy and subsequent peace in the land are reminiscent of Israel’s “major judges” such as Ehud, Gideon, and Jephtah ( Judg 3:30, 11:33) who were seized by the Spirit of God to deliver Israel from their hostile neighboring lords. 32 Scripture associates Samuel not only with the “major judges.” In 1 Sam 7:15, we read that “Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life.” This expression is found in the context of the so-called minor judges who are mentioned briefly in the book of Judges ( Judg 10:1–5, 12:7–15) and whose activity is usually assumed to have been primarily judicial. Interpreting covenant law and administering covenant justice is probably also what Samuel did when he traveled between Bethel, Gilgal, Mizpah, and his home Ramah (1 Sam 7:16–17). 33 The theological ethos of Samuel’s time was that of covenantal faith. In other words, divine favor and protection depended 31.  While in the book of Joel, the sinful people and the priests participate in a national ceremony of repentance. Besides the mediators interceding for the people, there is also mention of fasting, a wholehearted return to Yhwh, and a rending of hearts (cf. Joel 2:12–17). 32.  Besides, Samuel is mentioned in the same breath as Jerubbaal, Barak, and Jephthah, whom the Lord raised up as deliverers for Israel’s sake (cf. 1 Sam 12:11). 33.  These locations were all in central Israelite territory.

182

Chapter 4

on covenant obedience. Here in v. 6, the act of judging is complemented by Samuel leading Israel into repentance and confession of sin. The fact that Yhwh, the ultimate judge, answers Samuel’s intercession favorably, seems to confirm that the covenant mediator judged Israel rightly as newly pardoned people (1 Sam 7:9). Intercessory Prayer and Sacrifice When the Philistines hear of Israel’s assembly at Mizpah, their lords gather their forces to advance against Israel (cf. 1  Sam 7:7, 10). The text does not make their motives clear. Do the Philistines see in the gathering of Israel at Mizpah a sign of provocation, perhaps a threat as Israel is uniting themselves in a new way? A religious gathering seems like an opportune moment to take advantage. 34 In some sense, one is reminded of Amalek’s attack on Israel (Exod 17:8–16). We have seen, that there too, the enemies’ motives were ambiguous. One factor behind the Amalekite assault was Israel’s vulnerability on their journey out of Egypt (Deut 25:17–18). Another likely motive for the Amalek’s attack was a threat to their livelihood in the desert. Besides that, we have also considered whether the Amalek attack did not also come as a divine judgment against Israel. Equally in the context of 1 Samuel 7, one could consider whether behind the Philistine attack is not also God’s judgment; after all, Yhwh Himself has announced a sentence on the house of Eli (1 Sam 2:27–3:14) and used the Philistines to execute it (1 Sam 4). Not unlike in the Amalek attack, Israel’s mediator intercedes on behalf of the people of God (1 Sam 7:8). In the case of the Amalekite assault, Moses interceded for Israel on his own initiative (Exod 17:9). In contrast, when the Philistine lords gathered to attack, the Israelites beg Samuel to keep on praying to God for help. In both Moses and Samuel’s cases, persistency is an important mark of their intercession. Do not cease to cry out to Yhwh our God for us and pray (‫ִמּזְעֹק אֶל־יְהוָה‬ ‫ )אֱלֹהֵינּו‬that He may save us from the hands of the Philistines. (1 Sam 7:8)

Literally, the Hebrew text reads, “Do not be deaf toward us (‫חרֵׁש ִמּמֶּנּו‬ ֲ ַ‫)אַל־ּת‬, so as not to cry to Yhwh.” 35 There seems to be a sense of urgency, if not audacity in their request to Samuel not to neglect his responsibility. We know that Samuel himself considered it a sin against the Lord, if he would not intercede for Israel (1 Sam 12:23). Samuel promises the people, if they repent with all their heart, remove the foreign gods, and serve Yhwh only, then God will deliver them from the oppression of the Philistines (cf. 1 Sam 34.  There are some parallels in modern history, when Israel suffered a surprise attack by Egyptian troops when Israel gathered for the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) on the October 6, 1973. Four years later, like through a miracle, Israel and Egypt entered a peace treaty. See Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, Geschichte Israels bis Bar Kochba (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972) 229–30. 35. See Martin Buber’s translation: “Erschweige unserthalb nimmer im Schreien zu IHM unserem Gott.”

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

183

7:3). Praying for deliverance in a war context is a role frequently taken up by the prophets (e.g. Exod 17:8–16, Amos 7:7–9, Joel 2). McCarter rightly notes: “The intercessory role of the prophet and his special function in holy warfare were two important aspects of the prophetic view of leadership.” 36 What is less frequently attested in these situations is that intercessory prayer is accompanied by a sacrifice. This does not mean that this was uncommon practice. 37 In Numbers, for example, Moses’ intercessory prayer was accompanied by Aaron’s incense offering (Num 16:46–47 [MT 17:11– 12]). According to Milgrom, offering incense is a form of intercession (Num 17:6–15). 38 Here however, Samuel offers a “complete whole offering” to Yhwh. So Samuel took a sucking lamb and offered it as a whole burnt offering (‫ָליל‬ ִ ‫ )עֹולָה ּכ‬to the Lord; Samuel cried out to the Lord (‫שמּואֵל אֶל־יְהוָה‬ ְׁ ‫ַו ִּי ְזעַק‬ ׂ ְ ‫)ּבעַד י‬ ‫ִש ָראֵל‬ ְ for Israel, and the Lord answered him. (‫ ַוּיַעֲנֵהּו יְהוָה‬, 1 Sam 7:9)

A complete, whole offering would be completely burned, with no part reserved for consumption by the worshipers (cf. Lev 1, 6:22–23). It was an act of total dedication. 39 But what does Samuel seek to achieve through his sacrifice? A basic purpose of the whole burnt offering was to bring about atonement (cf. Lev 1:4). At first sight the context of the sacrifice, a public confession of sin and repentance, seems to support such an interpretation of the offering. Hesse sees in the accompanying sacrifice a means to ensure the greatest possibility for atonement of Israel’s sins. 40 Gordon too notes here a merging of the ideas of expiation and intercession (cf. 2 Sam 24:25, Job 42:8). 41 Hesse argues that both the atoning sacrifice and the atoning intercession have the same objective: the appeasement of the enraged God. 42 In time, these two religious acts were administered by priest and prophet. Although the biblical text never explicitly labels Samuel as priest, we can presume that being raised and mentored by Eli at Shiloh, Samuel had some training in priestly duties. Later passages describe Samuel performing sacrificial functions often associated with priests (cf. 1 Sam 9:13, 10:8, 16:1–5). It seems that here the roles of priest, judge, and prophet all merge in the person of Samuel. Having said this, we should note that chap. 7 neither speaks explicitly of making atonement of sin, nor does it mention divine wrath. Beyond the 36.  Kyle P. McCarter Jr., 1 Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB 8; Garden City: Doubleday, 1980) 149. 37.  E.g. Job 1:5, 42:7–9. 38. Jacob Milgrom (‫במדבר‬, Numbers [JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990] xxxiv–xlii) even argues for the superiority of priestly over prophetic intercession. According to him, offering incense (Num 17:6–15) and sacrifices (Num 15:22–29) are forms of intercession. This is obviously a matter of definition. 39.  Birch, First and Second Books of Samuel, 1017. 40. Franz Hesse, Die Fürbitte im Alten Testament (Hamburg: Erlangen, 1951) 37. 41.  Gordon, 1 and 2 Samuel, 107. 42.  Hesse, Die Fürbitte, 97.

184

Chapter 4

statement that Samuel would pray for Israel (1 Sam 7:5), the text leaves the purpose of the gathering at Mizpah rather vague. Verse 5 stands like a title over the subsequent religious activities, such as the water ritual, the fasting, and the confession. In other words, it appears that these religious acts serve here primarily to undergird the effectiveness of Samuel’s intercessory prayer. When Israel heard of the approaching Philistine army, they did not seek Yhwh’s forgiveness but urged Samuel all the more to pray for God’s deliverance from the enemy (1 Sam 7:8). In response to the people’s desperate plea for help, Samuel took a lamb and offered it to the Lord. Thus, it seems to me that the primary purpose of the mediator’s sacrifice was to intensify the effectiveness of his intercessory prayer. In other words, the whole burnt offering probably serves here primarily as a petitionary offering (cf. 1 Sam 13:9, 1 Kgs 3:4). Averbeck comments: It was the burning of the offering that made it a pleasing aroma to the Lord, which, in turn, caused it to have a certain effect on the Lord and his way of relating to the offerer(s). . . . it was a way of calling on the Lord to pay attention to the needs, requests, and entreaties of his worshipers.  43

Samuel’s intercessory prayer is emphasized by the comment that he cried out to Yhwh on behalf of Israel. This time, it is not the people who cry out in the face of danger (cf. 1 Sam 12:10, Ps 107), but their mediator. Here we find employed the most fundamental terminology to describe the dynamics of intercessory prayer: Israel urged Samuel not to cease to cry out to the Lord for them. Samuel cried out to Yhwh on behalf of Israel and Yhwh answered him (1 Sam 7:9). Miller argues that not only is the cry from trouble and suffering “one of the thematic threads of the Scriptures,” but so is the certainty that God will “hear and respond to that outcry.” 44 Brueggemann also sees in the pattern of cry-answer the core of biblical faith. It is in the character of this God to attend faithfully to the genuine need of faithful people. Israel’s great prayers (as in Ps. 107) are structured as a relation of crying and answering. This relation is distorted whenever Israel believes that prayer is futile; or when Israel concludes that God is not attentive. 45

Not just a distorted belief in prayer or God but perhaps more so not standing in a right relationship with God affects the divine answer. The importance of standing in a favorable relation with Yhwh comes strongly to expression in our passage. Samuel calls for a radical recommitment to Yhwh during the national repentance ceremony (1 Sam 7:3–5; cf. Joel 2, 43.  Cf. Richard E. Averbeck, “‫עֹלָה‬, ʿōlâ, Burnt Offering,” NIDOTTE 3:411. When Saul was offering up a burnt offering before he was leading his troops against the Philistines, the king was also seeking Yhwh’s favor (cf. 1 Sam 13:9–12). 44. Patrick D. Miller, They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 45, 269. 45.  Brueggemann, First and Second, 51.

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

185

Amos 7). Only under these conditions can Samuel assure Israel that Yhwh will faithfully attend to his/their cry for help. Although one would naturally expect to hear how God responded after the phrase and the Lord answered Samuel, the text leaves it open at first. In fact, the flow of the narrative discourse is interrupted by a suspense building comment that the Philistines drew near to attack Israel (1 Sam 7:10). Then, the main thrust of God’s answer is resumed by the next clause: “And the Lord thundered with a mighty voice that day against the Philistines” (1 Sam 7:10). How is one to understand this response? Does Yhwh respond to Samuel with a thunder-like sound? Or, did God use actual “timely” providential thunder against the Philistines? In either case, it describes Yhwh’s salvific intervention in a specific situation in response to Samuel’s intercession for help. The mediator’s prayer on behalf of Israel stands between the lost people and the advent of God’s salvation. We shall explore in the next section the theological challenges of a God who answers immediately to the prayer of His people with “thunder from heaven” against the enemy. McCarter comments, “the Israelites have nothing to do but to take up the pursuit of the Philistines as they rush precipitously into the hills.” 46 Tsumura rightly criticizes the one-sidedness of this observation. McCarter places too little weight on the responsibility of the Israelites. A close reading of the text describes not only the course of events, but also sheds some light on the complex issue of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. Yhwh does not act out of His own initiative, but responds to Samuel’s prayer and Israel’s recommitment to their covenant-God (1 Sam 7:9). Then, as a result of divine intervention (thunder and confusion), the men of Israel react in marching out against the attacker (they pursued and struck; cf. 1 Sam 7:10–11). In other words, the text makes it quite clear that human beings have the responsibility of “acting by trusting God’s actions at the right movement.” 47 We have already engaged in some depth with the biblical dynamics between God’s sovereign help and human involvement in the context of Israel’s battle against the Amalekites (cf. Exod 17:8–16). There we read how Joshua with his people engages in physical combat, while Moses engages in spiritual combat by interceding for divine support on the top of a hill. According to the account, Moses’ role was decisive for Israel’s victory, and yet Joshua was needed to lead the Israelites in physical battle. The parallels between the two accounts can be extended. Both mediators erect a sign to commemorate Yhwh’s decisive help in the victory (cf. Exod 17:15, 1 Sam 7:12). Samuel erects a stone between Mizpah and Jeshanah and named it Ebenezer (‫ ) ֶאבֶן ָה ָעזֶר‬and said “thus far Yhwh has helped us.” Moreover, both passages speak of Yhwh’s ongoing opposition against the enemy. 48 46.  McCarter, First Samuel, 146. 47.  Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, 238. 48.  “The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation” (Exod 17:16) “the hand of the Lord was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel” (1 Sam 7:13).

186

Chapter 4

In summary fashion, the passage concludes that this was a decisive defeat of the Philistines and that God protected Israel during the days of Samuel. Israel could even regain the lost cities and territory from the Philistines. There was also peace from the side of the Amorites (1 Sam 7:14). Gordon notes: The somewhat idealized picture of domestic stability and territorial integrity is manifestly intended to demonstrate the sufficiency of the old theocratic order which is about to be called into question. 49

In other words, the ending of chap. 7 puts the elders’ request for a king in the next chapter all the more into question. 50 Chapter 7 makes clear that there was peace not because of Israel’s military skill and superiority but because of Israel’s renewed trust in Yhwh and the prayerful protection of Samuel their mediator. Samuel’s role as effective mediator earned him a place in Israel’s later history as well. Before Judah Maccabee fought his decisive battle against the Greek garrison occupying Jerusalem, he gathered the people to Mizpah for prayer, because Mizpah was a place of prayer in antiquity in Israel (1 Macc 3:46). 51 Further Theological Reflections

“He Cried Out to the Lord:” The Essence of Petitionary Prayer It is particularly Miller who has shown in recent years that Old Testament prayers are in their most fundamental form a “cry for help.” 52 This is in tune with Barth’s understanding that prayer in its essence is petition. 53 By asking for help in prayer, humans not only express their dependence on God but also honor Him as God. Needless to say, intercessory prayer is essentially a petition on behalf of somebody else. Miller comments: Certainly the heart of the prayer for help is the petition that asks for just that—help, deliverance, rescue, salvation, redemption by God. The largest number of petitions fall into this category and encompass the whole of the vocabulary of words for help and deliverance. 54

The Old Testament records petitionary prayers of different kinds, such as prayers for divine direction, instruction, healing, divine favor and forgiveness, and as in our present case, help or deliverance from danger. 55 The Old 49.  Gordon, 1 and 2 Samuel, 108. 50.  The key phrase “all the days of” serves as another bridge between chaps. 7 and 8. It refers to Samuel’s old age. Tsumura, The First Book, 239, comments: “Such repetition prepares the audience for the next section where Samuel is already an old man.” 51. Yochanan Muffs, Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992) 25. 52.  Miller, They Cried, 4. 53. Karl Barth, Die Kirchliche Dogmatik: Die Lehre von der Schöpfung (vol. 3/4; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1951) 106, 117. 54.  Miller, They Cried, 104. 55. See ibid., 97–112, for a good overview of the various petitionary prayers that one finds in the Old Testament.

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

187

Testament often assumes a context of trouble and distress, of a personal or corporate threat that will endanger or even destroy the individual or the people of God, if God does not respond and intervene to help. 56 So when the people of Israel said to Samuel: “Do not cease to cry out to the Lord our God for us, and pray that he may save us from the hand of the Philistines” . . . Samuel cried out to the Lord for Israel, and the Lord answered him. (‫ִש ָׂראֵל‬ ְ ‫שמּואֵל אֶל־יְהוָה ְּבעַד י‬ ְׁ ‫ַו ִּי ְזעַק‬ ‫ ַו ּי ַעֲנֵהּו יְהוָה‬, 1 Sam 7:8–9)

Miller argues that not only is the cry from trouble and suffering “one of the thematic threads of the Scriptures,” but so too is the certainty that God will “hear and respond to that outcry.” 57 According to our narrative, Yhwh answers immediately and in perfect timing to Samuel’s prayer. Can we deduce from these observations some universal theological claims regarding prayer, and how God will answer? In contrast to Moses, for example, we are not told how Samuel was praying. Moses and other intercessors seek to persuade God in their prayers to act. In other words, they use various motivational arguments in order to convince God that their prayers are, for example, in line with Yhwh’s larger purposes, or that they pray for the honor of God, or they appeal to Yhwh’s grace and mercy. In the case of Samuel, however, we are not told how he prayed for the people except that he cried out to the Lord. Thus, a superficial reading of our text could lead to the assumption that prayer could be mechanical, simply a matter of asking for help and receiving it. Can we expect God to answer through thunder? What about the examples where God does not respond to the cry for help or pardon (e.g. Jer 7:16, Amos 7:1­–9)? Our experience certainly confirms that God does not always answer prayers for help. In the next section, we shall attempt to work towards some contextual scriptural criteria for why Yhwh answered Samuel’s prayer.

“And God Answered Him”: Some Contextual Criteria for Answered Prayer For a start, it is always good hermeneutical practice to attend carefully to the logic of the narrative framework in order to deduce abiding theological truth principles. Brueggemann reminds us helpfully that (Mizpah) is not just any religious meeting. This is a community of desperate covenanters in the face of a harsh set of overlords with superior technology and advanced political organization. 58 56.  So for example, Hezekiah prays in the face of the Assyrian threat: “So now, O Lord our God, save us, I pray you, from his hand” (2  Kgs 19:19). In a number of instances, usually embedded in narratives, we read, as in our account, that Yhwh helped: When “Jehoshaphat cried out, Yhwh helped him” (2 Chr 18:31; cf. 1 Chr 5:20). 57.  Miller, They Cried, 45, 269. 58.  Brueggemann, First and Second, 52.

188

Chapter 4

In other words, Samuel’s intercessory prayer ought to be seen within its sociopolitical context. Israel was under immediate threat by a military army far superior to its own. Chapter 13 provides interesting insights into Philistine-Israeli relations. The Philistines boasted an army with thousands of chariots and horsemen, while Israel’s weaponry consisted out of two swords, one for the king and one for his son (1 Sam 13:5–22). The Philistines would not allow any smith in Israel in order to prevent any secret armament. Birch writes: The Philistines are . . . the representatives of worldly, political, and technical power. They are organized, efficient, technologically superior in military might. Israel had been defeated by them twice, and they had captured the ark. Israel feared that the Philistines were the wave of the future, and they were afraid. (7:7) 59

In the first book of Samuel, the sea-people represent in some sense Israel’s fear. Thus, one of the central issues of chap. 7, as in so many other passages of the Old Testament, is the issue of trust. In whom does Israel put their trust? The foreign gods of a technologically more advanced people, a tangible symbol such as the ark, or their covenant God who delivered their fathers from Egypt? The reader knows from chaps. 4–6 that Philistine power rests on idolatrous loyalties that cannot save. Israel has little choice than to take refuge in Yhwh. Samuel’s intercession is in some sense detached from the world of warfare and politics, it is an act of obedience and courage in the face of a real danger and threat. Thus, a corollary, according to Brueggemann would be, Insofar as this text concerns war and national public power, it is, in our day, the marginal peoples who rely on strategies of thunder in the face of superior technology. This text may be an anticipation of and model for more recent cases in which oppressed communities have no chance for success, judged by military capacity, but from time to time receive surprises of new historical possibility. 60

Brueggemann comments also on the validity of some ongoing prayer principles in this chapter: Whether desperate people dare pray for the defeat of their enemies is, for an oppressed people, a luxurious question that cannot be afforded. One does pray so, and then leaves the answer in God’s hands. . . . Good exposition gives a yes to these theological issues, but it is a yes that resists magical formulations and rejects any mechanistic explanations. God is free and will not be coerced by manipulative ritual practices. The decisive answer of Yahweh to Samuel’s prayer is not an automatic reaction to a predictable religious gesture. The transformative response of Yahweh 59.  Birch, First and Second Books of Samuel, 1018. 60.  Brueggemann, First and Second, 53.

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

189

comes from Yahweh’s faithful sovereignty, not from a necessary ritual response. 61

In the context of Jeremiah’s prayers, we shall engage more fully with the dynamics of prayers against an enemy and explore the logic and the abiding witness of Israel’s imprecatory tradition. Here, we shall explore a little further Brueggemann’s comment that “God is free and will not be coerced by manipulative practices” and that Yhwh responds in faithful sovereignty to prayer. The wider narrative context of 1  Samuel 7 places considerable stress on Yhwh’s sovereignty. We note that Israel’s attempt to manipulate the ark for the sake of their own security led to disaster among both the Philistines and Israel. Yhwh decides when, where, and how His ark will be moved (cf. 1 Sam 6). God’s holy sovereignty is clearly expressed in the people of Beth-shemesh’s fearful exclamation: “Who is able to stand before the Lord, this holy God?” (1 Sam 6:20). Notwithstanding the wider context’s emphasis on divine sovereignty, I should also underline that chap. 7 portrays in exemplary ways how the Old Testament envisages covenantal relationship between Yhwh and His people. In other words, based on the following observations from the text, I would like to argue that the people of God can trust that the Lord will respond faithfully to their cry for help. True Repentance.  Chapter 7 portrays a people who come to their senses in the face of opposition. With the help of Samuel, the covenant mediator, Israel is readily willing to remove all their idols from their midst and put their trust anew in their covenant God only. As we have seen, the narrative reports in some details of their repentant hearts. Israel confesses their sins and put their entire trust in Yhwh and His mediator (1 Sam 7:6). In other words, it is not about manipulative or mechanical practises that seek to evoke Yhwh’s favor. Rather, the narrative paints a picture of genuine repentance, reorientation of trust, and allegiance. 62 Cry for Help.  God’s salvific intervention on behalf of Israel is mobilized by their outcry of distress. From the exodus onward, Israel’s God has been known as a God who responds to the cry of His people (e.g., Exod 2:23, 3:7). Prophetic Intercession on Behalf of the Repentant People.  Here in Mizpah, the people’s outcry is mediated and focused by the intercession of the chosen covenant mediator and substantiated by Israel’s repentance and trust in their God. Samuel’s prayer for help is not an empty religious gesture but an act of great courage in the face of real danger. Samuel’s cry for help is not opportunistic. Samuel’s intercession is not an isolated deed of piety but rather a self-giving act of one who counts it sin not to intercede for the people that God has entrusted to him (1 Sam 12:23). 61.  Ibid. 62. In the chapter on Joel’s intercession, we engage more fully with the effect that genuine repentance and recommitment has on Yhwh and His response.

190

Chapter 4

Prayer Enforced by Sacrifice.  Samuel’s intercession is enforced by a whole burnt offering. Although the text does not exactly specify the purpose of the whole burnt offering, in context it probably served as a petitionary offering (cf. 1 Sam 13:9, 1 Kgs 3:4). Of course, no sacrifice can enforce divine forgiveness or a response, but God will not ignore a genuine act of offering either. 63 Thus, it seems that Samuel seeks to evoke a favorable divine response, not just through petition itself, but also through other dimensions of prayer. Repentance, recommitment, prayer, and sacrifice, are expressions of genuine biblical piety that God will not disregard. Having made these four points, one could ask with Birch whether the victory of 1 Samuel 7 suggests that prayer can save. He answers: “No, it is God who saves. But is God responsive to prayer? Yes, but in God’s own time and way.” 64 Barth emphasizes that one of the central aspects of prayer is that the one praying ought to be certain of God’s answer (Erhörung). “Our prayers may be feeble and inadequate, but what matters is not the strength of our prayers but the fact that God hears them; that is why we pray.” 65 Samuel’s prayer is not only effective because of who God is (cf. Exod 34:6–7, Pss 99:6–9, 103), but also because Samuel is a servant who found favor before God and man (cf. 1 Sam 2:26). The mediator’s prayer at Mizpah is a brave prophetic expression of a man whose judgment is in tune with God’s (cf. 1 Sam 3:19–21). 66 Under the conditions portrayed in chap. 7, the people of God can trust that the Lord will respond to their cry for help. God is faithful. God is attentive. God answers the prayers of those who entrust themselves in penitence and faith. This is fundamental to biblical faith.

The Role of the Prophet Redefined (1 Samuel 12) The Nature and Importance of Chapter 12 Chapter 12, that is Samuel’s speech at Gilgal, is of outstanding importance in the narrative development of Israel’s history. It marks the historical shift from Israel’s period of the judges (of which Samuel was the last and the greatest) to Israel’s era of the monarchy. 67 Underlying this shift is probably the struggle between the old covenant understanding and the new monarchy. Thus, according to Brueggemann, one of the central issues of the chapter is the question: Can the categories of covenant be made pertinent and effective, even in the midst of the monarchy. This persistent question in ancient Israel receives its classic formulation here. 68 63.  Cf. Pss 51:19, 66:13–19; Isa 56:7, 1 Pet 2:5. 64.  Birch, First and Second Books of Samuel, 1017. 65. Karl Barth, Prayer and Preaching (London: SCM, 1964) 17. 66.  We shall see that there were also times when Samuel had to be reprimanded by God to adjust his prophetic ministry to the will of Yhwh (cf. 1 Sam 15:10–11). 67.  McCarter, 1 Samuel, 220. 68.  Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 89.

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

191

Chapter 12 comes in the form of a sermon with Samuel as the preacher­. 69 It has been argued that 1 Samuel 12, alongside other key speeches of seminal Old Testament characters, serves to unfold Deuteronomistic History (cf. Josh 24, 2 Sam 7, 1 Kgs 8). 70 For example, McCarter draws out several striking verbal and conceptual parallels between Joshua 24 and 1 Samuel 12. Both speeches aim to renew the covenant at critical times of transition, when Israel was entering a new historical paradigm. The first speech marks the juncture between the time of the conquest and the genesis of Israel’s life in the land. The second speech marks the end of the era of the judges and the beginning of life under a monarch. 71 In spite of numerous illuminating parallels, one should note that the purpose of chap. 12 is not only assuring that God’s covenant relationship continues into the new era of kingship (provided that the people and the king follow God) but it is also redefining Samuel’s role with the people. Chapter 12 has traditionally been referred to as Samuel’s “farewell speech.” 72 This is partially because of Samuel’s reference to his advanced age and the transition of leadership to the king (1 Sam 12:2). It will become evident, however, chap. 12 is not at all a retirement speech. Although in some sense Samuel sums up his life, doing so serves not to pass on the most important legacy of a departing figure but rather serves as declaration of innocence that prepares for his redefined role. Toward the end of chap. 12, Samuel promises that he will continue to intercede for Israel and teach them God’s ways (1 Sam 12:23). 73 The unfolding of the biblical narrative makes it absolutely plain that Samuel’s ministry is far from finished. Samuel still faces, what is possibly the greatest challenge of his ministry: the praying for, disciplining, and rejecting of the king that he has hesitantly appointed and anointed (cf. 1 Sam 13, 15). What is more, perhaps Samuel’s most enduring legacy is still to come: the making of David, Israel’s greatest king, remains an event of the future (cf. 1 Sam 16, 19). According to McCarter, the final form of chap. 12 in general, and v. 23 in particular, seems nothing less than “the formal initiation of the prophet’s new role in the era of the kingdom.” 74 Birch also emphasizes the shift in 69. Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg, 1 and 2  Samuel: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM, 1964) 97, speaks of “preached history, not unlike that of the book of the judges.” By this, he means that the real audience of Samuel’s sermon is not primarily the audience of his time, but the Israelites of a later period, the period in which the compiler of the traditions was living. In other words, this is similar to Moses’ sermons as we find them in Deuteronomy 6–11. For a recent full treatment of this important issue, see Jerry Hwang, The Rhetoric of Remembrance: An Investigation of the “Fathers” in Deuteronomy (Siphrut 8; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012). 70.  Noth, A History, 5. 71. See McCarter, 1 Samuel, 220. 72. Cf. Noth, A History, 5 73.  Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel (WBC 10; Waco: Word, 1984) 119, on the basis of Samuel’s ongoing prayer ministry, talks of a theological etiology for prophetic intercession rather than Samuel’s farewell. 74.  McCarter, 1 Samuel, 218.

192

Chapter 4

Samuel’s function: “It is well to take Samuel’s speech as a marker of transition in his role, but not as his farewell.” 75 Tsumura, however, cautions us not to put too much emphasis on the changing role of Samuel, first, because the chapter is primarily about a “change in political leadership in Israel from judgeship to kingship,” and second, because “Samuel will continue his role as prophet through intercession and instruction.” He only drops “his duties with respect to judgeship.” Samuel’s prophetic duties remain the same. 76 In any case, given the importance of chap. 12 in its immediate and wider canonical context, it is certainly telling and for our purposes highly interesting that much of this chapter is about Samuel the prophet in his intercessory role (1 Sam 12:19–25). 77 Before we look more closely at Samuel in his role as intercessor, let us briefly remind ourselves of the context. Tension between Theocracy and Monarchy Chapter 12 corresponds in many ways to chap.  8 where the elders of Israel approach the aging Samuel with the momentous request to “appoint a king like the other nations” (1  Sam 8:5). The ongoing military threat from Israel’s neighbors leads to the desire to have a monarch like the surrounding nations who would be able to unite Israel in battle. It is slightly puzzling that this request comes right after Samuel has helped Israel to win a decisive victory against the Philistines. Has Samuel not achieved peace in Israel (1 Sam 7:14)? Is there perhaps in the people’s request for a king an implicit critique against Samuel’s office as prophetic leader? Do these chapters witness to some degree a clash of expectations between a “covenant mediator administration” and the wish for a monarchy that stands, humanly speaking, for safety and prosperity? It would seem that the tension between church and state go back a long time in history. In this account, Samuel’s spiritual and political leadership is once again clearly visible. Although displeased by the people’s request for a king, Samuel consults God about this potentially paradigm-shifting demand (1  Sam 8:6–9). God’s response appears contradictory. On the one hand, the people’s­request for a king is heavily criticized, because it goes not only against Samuel’s leadership but more fundamentally against Yhwh’s kingship (1 Sam 8:7). In fact the people’s demand for a king is even compared to Israel’s idolatry in the past (v.  8). On the other hand, God grants the people’s wish. Samuel, however, is to warn Israel of the negative and demanding sides of a monarchy (1 Sam 8:9–18). 78 75.  Birch, First and Second Books, 1063. 76.  Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, 316. 77.  Seitz, “The Prophet,” 8. 78.  Hertzberg, 1 and 2 Samuel, 97, comments: “The attitude of the deuteronomic theology of history is thus quite clear. From a theological point of view the whole period of the kings was fundamentally a mistake.”

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

193

God then leads Samuel to appoint and to anoint Saul to become Israel’s first king (cf. 1  Sam 10:1, 17–25). Saul’s initial victory against the Amorites seemed to have strengthened the majority of Israel in their conviction that the monarchy was the right way forward. The positive tone of chap. 11 regarding a prospective monarch stands in an interesting tension with Samuel’s disputation at Gilgal. Thus, when we arrive in chap. 12, we find Samuel’s great speech where he appears to step down as Israel’s last judge and makes way for Israel’s first monarch, to lead Israel into a new dispensation. In the course of Samuel’s speech, however, it becomes clear that Samuel is far from stepping down from his responsibilities as a leader. Samuel redefines his role, and in clever ways reasserts himself with divine approval as Israel’s prophet of God. Samuel’s Speech In characteristic fashion, Samuel summons all Israel to Gilgal to renew the monarchy (1 Sam 11:14). This is necessary, as there has been still some opposition to Saul’s kingship (cf. 1  Sam 11:12). Not unlike the previous meetings in Mizpah (1  Sam 7:5, 10:17), Ramah (8:4), and Bethel (7:16), Samuel takes the initiative and the leadership role in these assemblies. As we have noted, this style of leadership is strongly reminiscent of Moses, who convened all Israel on a number of occasions to meetings of national importance (cf. Exod 19:7, 24, 34:31; Num 16:16; Deut 5:1). McCarter helpfully organizes Samuel’s speech into a threefold scheme in which (1) the prophet is contrasted to the king (2) the power of the prophet is demonstrated (3) the shape of the continuing office of the prophet is foretold. 79 The focus of our attention will fall particularly on the third section where the dynamics of the twofold role of the prophet comes well to expression.

Prophet versus King Samuel’s address begins in the form of a lawsuit, with a kind of legal rite whereby Samuel calls God, the newly anointed king, and the people to witness that he has judged Israel with integrity (1 Sam 12:1–5). 80 It would seem that Samuel wants to juxtapose his “nonprofitable” life and ministry with that of the forthcoming monarch. Samuel raises the question whether he has exploited economically his position by seizing cattle or taking bribes (v. 3). 81 Three of the five proposed charges use the verb “take” (‫)לָקַ ח‬. By using this verb, it is likely, as Brueggemann notes, that, “Samuel contrasts himself and his kind of leadership with the anticipated king of 1 Samuel 8:11–18, who will ‘take, take, take.’ The king ‘takes.’ Samuel has not taken.” 82 79.  McCarter, 1 Samuel, 218. 80.  Note that the opening section of 8:7 is repeated here in exactly the same words. 81.  Cf. Num 16:15. In the context of the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram, Moses has to justify himself before the people in ways reminiscent of Samuel (1 Sam 12:3): “I have not taken one donkey from them, and I have not harmed any one of them.” 82.  Brueggemann, First Samuel, 90.

194

Chapter 4

Does Samuel seek to vindicate himself? Or is he more interested in vindicating his kind of leadership (that is, that of the covenant mediator in the traditional sense) over against that of the prospective monarch? Then, Samuel proceeds to a historical overview in the form of a sermon (1 Sam 12:6–15). This time, the focus moves away from Samuel to God’s faithful guidance and deliverance. Samuel begins his brief review of Israel’s history right from the inception of Israel as Yhwh’s people to the present. There is again emphasis on the “cry-answer” motif (cf. 1 Sam 7:8). Israel in danger and oppression used to cry to their God for help and God sent His servants and judges such as Moses, Aaron, Jerubbaal, Barak, Jeftah and finally also Samuel to the rescue of his people (1 Sam 12:11). Two aspects need to be pointed out here. First, Yhwh has always been faithful and attentive to the needs of His people. He sent His judges and enabled His people to “dwell in safety” (1 Sam 12:11). Thus, Yhwh’s characteristic mode of rescue in times of crisis was by a judge being raised up. Samuel seems to imply that no other way of leadership is needed. Second, Israel has constantly been fickle and followed other gods. Israel’s desire for a king is presented in that light. It is a new form of the old apostasy. In spite of the fact that Yhwh has provided protection and security for His people, Israel demanded a king from Samuel with the advent of a new adversary: Nahash King of the Ammonites (1 Sam 12:12). It is noteworthy that Israel in the face of a new danger does not resort to the old approved “cry for Yhwh’s help” but demands a king instead. With the demand of an earthly king, Israel shows disregard for their true king: Yhwh. Thus, the people’s demand for a king not only reflects their lack of trust in Yhwh but also demonstrates their attitude of discontentment. It is interesting to note that Samuel in his disappointment agrees that Yhwh has given the king to the people’s request. 83 Samuel’s approval, however, comes with a carefully crafted admonition: If you will fear the Lord (‫יראּו ֶאת־יְהוָה‬ ְ ‫ם־ּת‬ ִ ‫)א‬ ִ and serve him (‫) ַועֲב ְַד ֶּתם אֹתֹו‬ and heed his voice (‫)ּושמ ְַע ֶּתם ְּבקֹלֹו‬ ְׁ and not rebel against the commandment of the Lord, and if both you and the king who reigns over you will follow the Lord your God, it will be well; but if you will not heed the voice of the Lord (‫)ו ִאם־לֹא ִת ְׁש ְמעּו ְּבקֹול יְהוָה‬, ְ but rebel against the commandment of the Lord, then the hand of the Lord will be against you and your king. (1 Sam 12:14–15)

Brueggemann suggests that we have in these two verses “some of the tightest, most carefully argued covenantal theology in biblical literature.” Samuel’s admonishment, in classical covenant fashion offers two options. Either you and your king (note that the king always appears seemingly as an appendix), will fear, serve, obey, and follow Yhwh, so it will be well with you; or you will disobey and rebel against the commandment of Yhwh and 83.  Hertzberg, 1 and 2 Samuel, 99.

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

195

so the hand of God will be against you and your king (1 Sam 12:15). 84 In Samuel’s summons to fear and serve Yhwh, he clearly subjects Israel’s human king to the ultimate kingship of Yhwh. Note the choice of language, especially the double usage of listen (‫)ׁשמע‬, is drawn from the covenantal tradition as we find it in the book of Deuteronomy (cf. Deut 4:1, 5:1, 6:4, 9:1). Israel should ensure that they obey the word of God that, according to Deut 18:18, is mediated through the mouth of the prophets (‫)ונָתַ ִּתי ְדבָרַ י ְּב ִפיו‬. ְ Samuel is coming close to implying that not listening to his voice is not listening to God’s voice. There are clearly some verbal and conceptual associations between these verses and Deut 18:15–18. 85 Everything depends on Israel’s listening or not listening. It has been suggested that behind Samuel’s double “if­-then” clause stands the blessing-cursing formulation as found in Deuteronomy 28 (cf. Josh 24:20). 86 The prophet warns Israel of the severe consequences of failing to obey God as their fathers did. In other words, Samuel’s speech not only reaches its first climax in vv. 14–15, but also his summons to fear and obey God or face the consequences serves also as a theological interpretation of Israel’s history from the time of Moses to the time of Samuel. 87

“Samuel Called upon the Lord and the Lord Sent Thunder and Rain” After Samuel’s solemn covenantal warning, the prophet proceeds to demonstrate the seriousness of Israel’s sin in having asked for a king. Now therefore take your stand and see this great thing that the Lord will do before your eyes. Is it not the wheat harvest today? I will call upon the Lord, that he may send thunder and rain; and you shall know and see that the wickedness that you have done in the sight of the Lord is great in demanding a king for yourselves.” So Samuel called upon the Lord (‫ִקרָא ְׁשמּואֵל אֶל־יְהוָה‬ ְ ‫) ַוּי‬, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day; and all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel. (1 Sam 12:16–18)

Samuel calls on Yhwh to authenticate his warning and to convict the people of their sin with a sign of thunder and rain. 88 Because a rainstorm in summer is practically unknown in Palestine, it would be a clear sign of Yhwh’s approval of Samuel’s covenant warning. Samuel’s prayer finds 84.  Brueggemann, First Samuel, 93. 85.  Note also the parallel between Deut 18:16 and 1 Sam 12:19. On both occasions, the people were afraid to die (‫ )מות‬as a result of Yhwh’s thunderous voice. 86.  McCarter, 1 Samuel, 221; Brueggemann, First Samuel, 94. 87.  Hertzberg, 1 and 2 Samuel, 100, notes: “It is worth remembering how the history of the kings is described from a similar point of view. Except for Hezekiah and Josiah, the kings responsible for reform, all fell short. Had they . . . made their conduct conform more closely to the first commandment, the events of 587 would not have taken place. . . . Samuel’s sermon reaches a long way over the ages.” 88.  Already at the assembly in Mizpah, Yhwh responded with a thunderous voice to Samuel’s prayer for help (1 Sam 7:10).

196

Chapter 4

again an immediate divine response (1 Sam 12:18; cf. 7:9). Yhwh’s thunder and rain has at least a twofold effect on the consciousness of the people. A storm during harvest was probably perceived as an ominous judgment because of the damage to the crop (Prov 26:1). 89 In fact, Longman argues convincingly that the thunderstorm in context is not so much a sign of divine omnipotence, but rather a powerful illustration of what a covenant curse might look like. 90 In the Old Testament, divine warnings come often in the form of a covenant curse that affects the harvest (cf. Deut 28:22–24). Given the season, in which the wheat is ready for gathering, a rainstorm would have jeopardized the harvest and could potentially lead to a famine. At this prospect, “all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel” and said, “pray to the Lord your God for your servants, so that we may not die” (1 Sam 12:18–19). The people were convicted of their sin in general and of their sin in choosing a monarch in particular. The thunderstorm, however, is not just a divine covenant warning, but probably also a demonstration of Samuel’s authority and status as a prophet of God. 91 Yhwh’s response to His prophet’s prayer adds the greatest possible force to Samuel’s summons to covenant obedience. The wilderness generation was also quick to forget the many miraculous provisions that Yhwh had brought through His servant Moses. On numerous occasions, the stiff-necked people challenged the legitimacy of Moses’ (and Aaron’s) leadership, and Yhwh needed to respond to Moses and Aaron’s prayer with signs of approval and vindication (cf. Num 12:1–10, 14:10, 16, 17:6–8). The motif of divine vindication is also found in the account of Elijah and the prophets of Baal praying for a sign of divine authentication (1 Kgs 18). 92 One of the signs of an authentic prophet is that his word comes true (Deut 18:20–22). According to 1 Sam 12:17–18, Yhwh responds immediately to the entreaty of His prophet by sending thunder and rain on the same day. In the face of this clear sign of divine warning “the people greatly feared Yhwh and Samuel.” Samuel’s authority as a man of God is reestablished. 93 The language and the situation remind us again of Moses. When 89.  In the normal course of events, there is no more thunder and rain after the end of May. Wheat harvest was probably due in April. 90. Tremper Longman III, “1 Sam 12:16–19: Divine Omnipotence or Covenant Curse?” WTJ 45 (1983) 171, argues that: “the context (covenant renewal ceremony), the text itself (wheat harvest and fear of death) and the explicit covenant curses in other parts of the Old Testament argue for our interpretation of 1 Sam 12:16–19 as the outworking of a covenant curse which motivates the Israelites to repent of their past sin and to keep the sanctions which had just been presented to them by Samuel.” 91.  See Samuel E. Balentine, Prayer in the Hebrew Bible: the Drama of Divine-Human Dialogue (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 50–56. 92.  The story of the drought in the days of Ahab, where Elijah says, “As Yhwh, the God of Israel, whom I serve, lives, there shall be no dew or rain these years except at my word!” (1 Kgs 17:1) bears also some resemblances to 1 Sam 12:16–19. 93.  Balentine, Prayer, 51.

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

197

Israel witnessed the wondrous exodus event, they stood in awe of Yhwh’s mighty acts and “they feared the Lord; and they believed in the Lord and his servants Moses” (Exod 14:31). Another incident was the awe-inspiring theophany at Sinai. When God appeared in thunder and lightning, the people feared for their lives and depended on Moses as their covenant mediator (cf. Exod 20:18–21, Deut 5:23–27, 18:16). These texts have one main point in common: the office of the prophetic mediator is unique in its privileges of communication with Yhwh. The prophet is Yhwh’s chosen servant and any attempt to undermine or reject the prophet of the Lord is equal to rejecting Yhwh Himself (Deut 18:18–19). One could argue that the text implies that true authority belongs to the prophet of God and not to the king. In other words, “this is not ‘a retirement ceremony’ for Samuel: his authority as prophet remains powerful.” 94 Everyone knows that Samuel (and the old order) continues to have decisive authority in Israel. The king can matter in the life of Israel only by being obedient. . . . Preeminent authority here belongs to Samuel and the Torah he advocates. 95

Excursus: Psalm 99, the Intercessors Call on the Name of the King Psalm 99 offers not only some rich inner-biblical associations with Samuel’s intercessory role, but also with Yhwh who answers in grace and justice as portrayed in 1 Samuel 7 and 12. 96 It is in this psalm that the “cry and answer” motif is directly associated with the mediatorship of Moses, Aaron, and Samuel (Ps 99:6–9; cf. 1 Sam 7:8–9, 12:6, 8). 97 Moreover, the psalm has several other conceptual associations with 1 Samuel 7–12. Three times, Psalm 99 states that Yhwh is holy (‫;קדֹוׁש הּוא‬ ָ Ps 99:3, 5, 9; cf. Isa 6:3). 1 Samuel 7 is also introduced by a statement about God’s holiness. The people of Beth-shemesh ask: “Who is able to stand before the Lord, this holy God?” (‫ה ַָּקדֹוׁש‬, 1 Sam 6:20). According to Psalm 99, Yhwh is holy as king. We have seen that one of the main themes of 1 Samuel 8–12 is Yhwh’s kingship over the human monarch (cf. 1 Sam 8, 12:12). Psalm 99 is a hymn praising Yhwh’s universal kingship in general and that over Zion in particular. The Lord is king; let the peoples tremble! He sits enthroned upon the cherubim; let the earth quake! The Lord is great in Zion; he is exalted over all the peoples . . . 94.  Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, 327; Birch, First and Second Books, 1063. 95.  Brueggemann, First Samuel, 94. 96.  For detailed treatment see Ruth Scoralick, Trishagion und Gottesherrschaft: Psalm 99 als Neuinterpretation von Tora und Propheten (SBS 138; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989). 97.  See the theological reflections on 1 Samuel 7 for some explorations into the central prayer motif of “cry and and answer.”

198

Chapter 4

Extol the Lord our God; worship at his footstool. Holy is he! (Ps 99:1–5)

Disclosed from the human eye in the sanctuary, God is enthroned in the Holy of Holies between the two cherubim while His feet rest on the footstool (cf. 1 Sam 4:4). In Psalm 99, one finds reference to both cherubim and to Yhwh’s footstool. Thus, one can infer that the writer has most likely the ark of the covenant in mind (cf. 1 Chr 28:2). Has not Yhwh asserted His superiority over the Philistines and their gods through the presence of His ark and thereby exalted Himself as king over the peoples (1 Sam 5–6, Ps 99:2)? When Yhwh inflicted the Philistines with plagues like the Egyptians, they trembled at the presence of His ark, sought to make atonement, and gave Yhwh the glory (cf. 1 Sam 5:11, 6:3–6; Ps 99:1ff.). From a canonical perspective, it could be argued that the theme of Yhwh’s kingship reaches a kind of climax in Psalm 99 within the collection of the enthronement psalms (Pss 93, 95–99). These psalms form the theological heart of the psalter and are perhaps “strategically placed to respond to the crisis articulated in Book III, especially Ps 89:38–51 and its lament over the failure of the Davidic covenant.” 98 This brings us to another point of contact between Psalm 99 and the Samuel narratives in question. I have identified a tension running through the chapters of 1  Samuel between the premonarchic covenant theocracy as initiated by Moses and the newly inaugurated monarchy. Book 4 of the psalms, as Clinton argues, responds to Book III by proclaiming God’s reign and by offering a preDavidic, Mosaic perspective—a reminder that Moses proclaimed the reign of God (Exod 15:18) before there was land, Temple, or monarchy. In this regard, it is crucial that Book IV begins with the only psalm attributed to Moses (Psalm 90), and it is significant that Psalm 99, the climactic enthronement psalm, explicitly mentions Moses and Aaron (v. 6; see also Pss 103:7; 105:26; 106:16, 23, 32), as well as Samuel, who opposed the formation of the monarchy on the grounds that only God could properly be considered Israel’s king. (see 1 Sam 8:1–18) 99

At the heart of this tension between the Mosaic theocratic and the monarchial paradigm is the theme of covenant obedience. We have noted that Samuel, like Moses and Joshua before him, summoned Israel to a renewed covenant commitment (1  Sam 7:3–6, 12:14–15, 24–25). 100 In Psalm 99, there are numerous covenant allusions. According to Anderson, vv.  4–5 and 7–8 most likely point to the renewal of the covenant. 101 Yhwh ex98. J. Clinton McCann Jr., “The Book of Psalms: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” NIB 4:1074. 99.  Ibid.; Bruce K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007) 160, makes a similar point. 100.  Both Moses’ and Joshua’s “farewell speeches” are connected with covenant renewal (cf. Deut 31, Josh 24). 101.  Arnold A. Anderson, Psalms, 1–72 (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992) 693.

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

199

ecutes justice and righteousness through His covenant law (Ps 99:4). The same should be true for His regent (cf. Ps 72:1–2, 2  Sam 8:15). Equally, Samuel summoned Saul to submit to the covenant (1 Sam 10:25, 12:12–14, 25). Just as Moses and Samuel “kept His testimonies,” so it is expected of the monarch. It is in their role as covenant mediators that Moses and Samuel instructed the people in the way of the Lord and interceded on their behalf. One could say that one way Yhwh exercises His kingship over Israel is through answering the prayers of His chosen mediators. Moses and Aaron were among his priests, Samuel also was among those who called on his name (‫שמֹו‬ ְׁ ‫)ּושמּואֵל ְּבק ְֹראֵי‬. ְׁ They cried to the Lord, and he answered them (‫)ק ִֹראים אֶל־יְהוָה ְוהּוא יַעֲנֵם‬. He spoke to them in the pillar of cloud; they kept his decrees, and the statutes that he gave them. O Lord our God, you answered them (‫ִיתם‬ ָ ‫ַּתה עֲנ‬ ָ ‫;)יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינּו א‬ you were a forgiving God to them (‫ִית ָלהֶם‬ ָ ‫שׂא ָהי‬ ֵ ֹ ‫)אֵל נ‬, but an avenger of their wrongdoings. (‫ילֹותם‬ ָ ‫ֲל‬ ִ ‫ ְ;ונֹקֵם עַל־ע‬Ps 99:6–8)

Although Moses and Aaron seem to be referred to as priests, one could perhaps argue that Moses is the original covenant mediator, and Aaron and Samuel are presented as prototypes of priests and prophets respec­tively. 102 Having said this, we have seen that Samuel also offered up sacrifices to enforce his prayers (cf. 1 Sam 7:9). In any case, it was the role of both priest and prophet to protect and instruct in matters of the law as well as to intercede for the people. Verse 8 could be construed to mean that the three mediators were the offenders who were forgiven (lit., “that God was enduring/carrying them”). Although the Old Testament narratives do not hide the weaknesses of these three mediators (cf. Exod 32:1­–6, Num 20:12, 1 Sam 8:1–3), this is unlikely to be the meaning of the psalm here. Rather it was the sinfulness of the people that necessitated their intercessions (cf. 1 Sam 7:5–9, 12:19–23). The three archetypal mediators intercede on several occasions of corporate sin (cf. Exod 17:1–11, 32:7–14; Num 16:20–22; 1 Sam 7:5–9). 103 In other words, both in Psalm 99 and our narratives in 1  Samuel 7, 12, 15, “crying out” refers primarily to the intercession of the mediator on behalf of the people. The people’s cry, according to these texts, reaches the divine king only through the cry of their representatives (cf. 1 Sam 7:8–9, 12:19–23). 104 102.  Ibid., 697. 103.  Anderson (ibid.) notes: “This verse may have been in the mind of the prophet in Jer 15:1 where the situation was so serious that even the great intercessors could not have turned away the impending doom.” 104.  This observation, that God can only be reached through the help of an appointed mediator, leads naturally into the New Testament understanding that Christians can relate to God only through Jesus Christ.

200

Chapter 4

Psalm 99 says that Samuel also called on Yhwh’s name (v. 6). Does this mean that he also appealed to God’s name as it was proclaimed first to Moses (that is, Exod 34:6–7)? Verse 8 seems to confirm that God’s gracious and yet righteous name is in view. 105 Literally v. 8 reads: “a God who carries/endures/forgives, you were to them, and one who avenges their deeds ֵׂ ֹ ‫)אֵל נ‬.” This reading reflects an interpretation that (‫ילֹותם‬ ָ ‫ֲל‬ ִ ‫ִית ָלהֶם ְונֹקֵם עַל־ע‬ ָ ‫שא ָהי‬ takes the second clause to qualify the preceding one. God forgave His mediators, but God also disciplined them when they sinned (cf. nrsv, esv). 106 Although Ps 99:8 omits any direct reference to any form of “guilt” in its refֵׂ ֹ ‫)נ‬, it still contains and maintains erence to Exod 34:7 (‫ַּטאָה ְונַ ֵקּה‬ ָ ‫ֶשע ְוח‬ ַ ׁ ‫שא עָֹון ָופ‬ the fundamental tension within Yhwh. That is, Yhwh answered His mediators in forgiveness without overlooking their and the people’s wrongdoings (Ps 99:8). We have already discussed in some depth that Yhwh’s name comes as an affirmation of divine love and covenant commitment without foregoing divine justice. How Yhwh can pardon Israel’s guilt and yet allow the people to bear the consequences of their sins is well expressed in Num 14:20–35. 107 In conclusion, I suggest that Ps 99, particularly the final verses, provide an intertextual enrichment on the dynamics of 1 Samuel 7 and 12. Yhwh’s kingship and holiness are not only defined by His sovereignity over the affairs of the nations, but also by His committment to His people. The foundation of His universal and national throne is justice and righteousness (Ps 99:4­–5). Yhwh is not a king who exists at the cost of His servants (in contrast to a human monarch who will “take, take, take”; cf. 1  Sam 8:11–18), but God has established a fundamental world order (justice) and is committed to act on it in righteousness. This is the theological foundation of the prophets’ proclamation of justice and righteousness (cf. Deut 10:12­–19; 1 Sam 12:23; Amos 5:24). 108 As righteous king, Yhwh listens and responds to the cry of His people, particularly through the prayers of His mediators. 109 The cry from trouble and suffering is not the only thematic thread of Scripture but so too is the certainty that God will hear and re105. Ruth Scoralick, Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn: Gottesprädikationen in Ex 34:6f und ihre intertextuellen Beziehungen zum Zwölfprophetenbuch (HBS 33; Freiburg: Herder, 2002) 52. 106.  Another translation option is to emend the participial form ‫“( נֹקֵם‬an avenger”) to ‫נ ָֹקם‬, a rare Qal participial form of ‫ָקה‬ ָ ‫“( נ‬purify”) with a suffixed pronoun. In this case one could translate, “and one who purified them from their (sinful) deeds” (cf. Erich Zenger, Psalmen Auslegung, vol. 2: Ich will die Morgenröte wecken [Freiburg: Herder, 2006] 82: “und ein ihre Taten ausgleichender Gott”; neb: “and held them innocent”). 107.  See pp. 95–99, or for a fuller treatment, see my Moses, 311–20. 108.  Zenger, Psalmen Auslegungen, 86. 109.  According to James L. Mays, Psalms (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1994) 316: “In the royal ideal of the ancient Near East, it belonged to the ethics of kingship that a king should respond to the petitions of the helpless. If the king heard their cry, he should answer.”

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

201

spond to the cry. 110 Yhwh answers the prayers of His servants and that answer involves both pardon and justice (cf. Ps 99:6, 8). As Yhwh’s name confirms, God is fundamentally committed in love to His people. For this reason Samuel can say: “fear not . . . for the Lord will not cast away his people, for His great name’s sake” (cf. 1 Sam 12:20–22). Nevertheless, Yhwh requires wholehearted loyalty and obedience from His covenant people (1 Sam 12:24; cf. Ps 99:8). Thus, the prospect of pardon and covenant loyalty is held together with Israel’s covenant obedience (cf. 1 Sam 12:20–24, Ps 103:8–18). The covenant is not a one-sided affair; it brings blessings on those who keep it, and curses on those who break it (cf. Ps 99:7–8, 1 Sam 12:14–15, 19–25). Psalm 99 illustrates well God’s fundamental challenge. That is, how to be both a loving God and an “avenger of their wrongdoings” (Ps 99:8). According to Psalm 99, Yhwh’s kingship and holiness are ultimately defined by divine willingness to bear Israel’s sin, without leaving the sinners unpunished. Yhwh does not avoid sinners and their wrongdoings, but is patiently willing to endure their sins. At the same time God ensures that justice is done. This portrayal is not only fundamentally rooted in Yhwh’s self-revelation as a God of love and justice (cf. Exod 34:6–7), but is also of central importance for our discussion of Samuel’s intercessory ministry as depicted in chaps. 12 and 15.

“Pray to the Lord Your God for Your Servants” (1 Samuel 12:19–22) All the people said to Samuel, “Pray to the Lord your God 111 for your servants (ָ‫)ה ְת ַּפּלֵל ְּבעַד־עֲבָדֶיך‬, ִ so that we may not die; for we have added to all our sins the evil of demanding a king for ourselves.” And Samuel said to the people, “Do not be afraid; you have done all this evil, yet do not turn aside from following the Lord, but serve the Lord with all your heart (‫ָל־לב ְַבכֶם‬ ְ ‫ ;) ַועֲב ְַד ֶּתם אֶת־יְהוָה ְּבכ‬and do not turn aside after useless things that cannot profit or save, for they are useless. 22 For the Lord will not cast away his people, for his great name’s sake (‫שמֹו ַהּגָדֹול‬ ְׁ ‫) ַּבעֲבּור‬, because it has pleased the Lord to make you a people for himself. (1 Sam 12:19–22)

The dramatic divine sign has authenticated Samuel as Yhwh’s true prophet and convicts the people of their guilt in demanding a human king. Like their ancestors at Mount Sinai, Israel fears now for their lives. Their initial reaction suggests that only Samuel’s intercession can protect them from the consequences of their sins. It looks like Samuel’s authority is reestablished and the people are again open to obeying their mediator (cf. Deut 5:23–27). They even refer to themselves as servants of Samuel, as if Israel still recognizes Samuel’s authority over that of the king (1 Sam 12:19). 110.  Miller, They Cried, 45, 269. 111.  In this instance, Israel refers to Yhwh as Samuel’s god (v. 19). This is probably a sign of their sense of guilt, as though they are not worthy of the covenant relationship.

202

Chapter 4

Just as their fathers confessed their sins and repented of their idolatry, so the present generation acknowledges their sins and that it was wrong and displeasing to Yhwh to request a human king (1 Sam 12:19). Samuel accepts their confession of sin and assures them with the well-known prophetic oracle of assurance: “Do not be afraid!” before he instructs them afresh to follow and serve Yhwh with all their heart. Samuel assures Israel that they can turn back to God and commit afresh to serve the Lord in spite of their sin (cf. 1 Sam 12:20). The summons to serve Yhwh with all their heart and to stay away from idols are central elements that we also find in a number of passages in Deuteronomy. In fact, Samuel’s speech contains in condensed form the central elements of Moses’ prophetic sermon to Israel at the border of the promised land (Deut 10:12–22). There, Israel was also summoned to renew their covenant commitment and serve Yhwh with all their heart. Besides, Israel was also reminded of their gracious election (cf. Deut 9:1–6) and that Yhwh chose them through an act of undeserved love (Deut 10:15). Samuel assures the people that Yhwh will not cast them away, not because of any virtues on their part, but because God has tied His great name (‫)שמֹו ַהּגָדֹול‬ ְׁ intrinsically to His people and because it has pleased Yhwh to make Israel His own. 112 Yhwh’s commitment to make Israel a people stems from His love for them and His fidelity to His oath to the patriarchs (Deut 7:6–8, 9:4–5, 1 Sam 12:22). Because v. 22 is phrased as part of the prophetic assurance, one could assume that Samuel prays in the sense of: “Lord, do not forsake your people for your great name’s sake.” This would be in line with Moses’ intercessory prayers (for example, Num 14:13–16), where appealing to Yhwh’s name is one major prayer motif and is often closely associated with reminding God of His reputation among the nations. If Yhwh allowed Israel’s enemies to triumph over His covenant people, that would harm Yhwh’s reputation as the God who made Himself a name by defeating Pharaoh and his gods (see Exod 15:11). Here, however, the context is not so much God’s reputation among the nations, nor is there a military threat in view as there is in 1 Sam 7:9. Rather, Samuel refers to Yhwh’s nature as a loving and loyal God who committed Himself in costly covenant love to His people. As the revelation of the Lord’s name confirms, God’s gracious election and covenant commitment do not necessarily preclude severe discipline, but they are characterized by a just love (Exod 34:6–7; cf. Deut 10:15–17, Jer 14:20–21). As for Samuel, he will continue to fulfill his twofold prophetic duty as prophetic intercessor and teacher of righteousness. 112. The Hebrew verb ‫( יאל ְל‬Hiphil) that is commonly translated with “pleased to” (or “to be keen on”) is not the strong characteristic term (‫חׁשק‬, Qal) that is used to express Yhwh’s passionate love that lies behind Israel’s election as we find it in Deut 7:7 and 10:15.

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

203

“Far Be It from Me That I Should Sin against the Lord by Ceasing to Pray for You”(1 Samuel 12:23) After Samuel assured Israel of the gracious nature of the Lord, he also guarantees the people of his unwavering commitment to them. as for me (‫)ּגַם אָנ ִֹכי‬, far be it from me that I should sin against the Lord by ceasing to pray for you (‫ ;) ֵמחֲטֹא לַיהוָה ֵמחֲדֹל ְל ִה ְת ַּפּלֵל ַּבע ְַדכֶם‬and I will instruct ְ ‫ֶתכֶם ְּב ֶדר‬ you in the good and the right way. (‫ְשרָה‬ ָׁ ‫ֶך הַּטֹובָה ְו ַהי‬ ְ ‫יתי א‬ ִ ֵ‫והֹור‬,ְ 1 Sam 12:23)

Although none of Samuel’s actual intercessory prayers are recorded in the Bible, the wording of v. 23 confirms that he often prayed for Israel. The “emphatic” pronouns ‫“( ּגַם אָנ ִֹכי‬as for me”) and ‫ֶתכֶם‬ ְ ‫“( א‬yourselves”) contrast two parties, the prophet and the people. For the people to ask for a king for themselves was “evil” (v. 20), whereas for the prophet to cease to pray for them would be a “sin” (v. 23). In what way would Samuel sin against the Lord (‫) ֵמחֲטֹא לַיהוָה‬, if he refrained from praying for the people? Would Samuel be betraying or “missing the mark” of his calling as a prophet and covenant mediator? It is unsupported by the text to say with Klein that: “(Samuel) called death down on himself if he failed to pray.” 113 But it is certainly true that Samuel assures the people in very strong words that he is committed to intercede for Israel and that he will instruct them in the ways of Yhwh. In context, Samuel’s assurance to pray for Israel comes as a surprise because Israel, though they plead for his intercession (1 Sam 12:19), do not deserve it, for they have rejected God as king and Samuel as their judge by asking for a human monarch (1 Sam 8:7, 12\:12–18). We expect in some sense Samuel’s protestation of his own righteousness and his warning of God’s displeasure with their demand for a monarch (cf. 1 Sam 12:1­–7). As McCarter points out, the real surprise is his promise to continue to serve. Justice does not require this, since a solemn warning was given (cf. 8:9), and though they plead for it, the people have no right to expect Samuel to “Intercede . . . with Yahweh . . . that we might not die!” Samuel’s pledge in v 23, therefore, is undeserved by its beneficiaries, the Israelites. It amounts to a special provision for the succor and preservation of the people, which comes on the very brink of disaster, and it is a God-given provision, inasmuch as it arises from the terms of Samuel’s prophetic relationship with Yahweh. To abandon the people even at this point would be to sin against Yahweh (v. 23a). 114

Verse 23 strongly suggests that intercession “is an inextricable part of the prophetic role.” 115 It seems as if Samuel is not at liberty to refuse Israel’s 113.  Klein, 1 Samuel, 119. 114.  McCarter, 1 Samuel, 219. 115.  Seitz, “The Prophet,” 8.

204

Chapter 4

request for advocacy before Yhwh. 116 We shall see in our reading of Isaiah’s, Jeremiah’s, and Amos’s intercessory prayers that their ministries were driven by a compulsion to defend the sinful party even against divine prohibition to pray for the people. Moses displays a similar commitment when he stands in the breach on behalf of sinful Israel: Alas, this people has sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold. But now, if you will only forgive their sin—but if not, blot me out of the book that you have written. (Exod 32:31–32) O Lord, I pray, let the Lord go with us. Because this is a stiff-necked people (‫שה־עֹרֶף‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ַם־ק‬ ְ ‫)ּכי ע‬, ִ pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for your inheritance. (Exod 34:9)

In other words, Samuel’s resolute commitment to advocate on behalf of an undeserving people finds strong canonical reverberations. Defending the sinful people in intercessory prayer before a loving and just God is the benchmark of the authentic prophet. Like Moses, Samuel is aware that Israel breached the covenant, and yet he could not but advocate for divine grace. In doing so, the prophet reflects in a sense the heart of Yhwh. Just as God could not cast away His repentant people in spite of their sins (cf. 1 Sam 12:22), so Samuel could not help but intercede for the undeserving. The fact that Yhwh kept on calling and commissioning prophets over the centuries reveals that God is fundamentally committed to His people in love and righteousness.

“I Will Instruct You” (1 Sam 12:23) In the context of Moses’ intercessory prayers, we have already pointed out that praying for the sinful party is only one essential part of the twofold prophetic ministry. The other is prophetic proclamation of the word of God (cf. Deut 10:12–22). Here in the present text, it is described as instrucְ ‫ֶתכֶם ְּב ֶדר‬ tion “in the good and upright way” (‫ְש ָרה‬ ָׁ ‫ֶך הַּטֹובָה ְו ַהי‬ ְ ‫ֵיתי א‬ ִ ‫והֹור‬,ְ 1 Sam  117 12:23). In other words, intercession and teaching are Samuel’s two major ongoing roles even after the inauguration of the monarchy. These are the irreducible aspects of the prophetic office (cf. Amos 7:2, Jer 20:9). 118 Reading from a canonical perspective, however, v. 23 does not so much foretell “the future of the prophetic office” or come as the inauguration of a “new role for the prophet in Israel,” 119 nor is v. 23, as Klein puts it, “a theological etiology for prophetic intercession.” 120 The canonical portrayal 116.  Scharbert, “Die Fürbitte,” 97, thinks that the Deuteronomistic theologians who may have been responsible for this portrayal of Samuel considered it as a sin for the prophet to cease to pray for the people. 117. Martin Holland, Das erste Buch Samuel (WSAT; Wuppertal: Brockhaus Verlag, 2002) 139, points to Acts 7, where the twofold ministry of prayer and preaching are also regarded by the apostles as the foundation of apostolic ministry. 118.  See pp. 11–13 for a fuller discussion. 119.  McCarter, 1 Samuel, 218–19. 120.  Klein, 1 Samuel, 119.

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

205

of Abraham already associates intercession with the prophet who is to instruct his children to keep the way of the Lord (Gen 18:19, 20:7). When one comes to the biblical depiction of Moses, the twofold prophetic role is firmly established. In the context of Samuel’s life and ministry, it is in this speech that Samuel defines his ongoing role as a spiritual leader in Israel. Up to now in the narrative, Samuel served in a wide variety of roles, primarily in the role of the judge. But now with a king in the making, Samuel’s duties are more focused in the sense of v. 23. In the context of Moses’ prayer, as recorded in Deuteronomy 9–10, there is good reason to argue that the efficacy of the intercessor’s prayer is dependent on the reception of the prophets’ instructions (cf. Deut 10:12–22). In other words, the response of the guilty party plays a decisive role in whether the mediator’s prayer is answered or not. Only if the sin is recognized and confessed, and one is committed to do so no more, is the mediator’s intercession likely to be effective long-term. 121 This dynamic of biblical intercession is further confirmed in the context of Jeremiah’s intercessory ministry.  122 Thus, it does not come as a surprise that Samuel’s speech ends in a warning that reminds of the covenant curses as we find them in the book of Deuteronomy: “you shall surely perish” (Deut 8:20, 27). 123 Only fear the Lord, and serve him faithfully with all your heart; for consider what great things he has done for you. But if you still do wickedly, you shall be swept away, both you and your king. (1 Sam 12:24–25)

Despite ongoing prophetic warnings, Israel was eventually swept away mainly due to disobedience and idolatry (cf. 2 Kgs 17:7–23). Even Jeremiah’s tireless mediatory efforts could not protect Israel from the divine judgment that they provoked through persistent disobedience (it even says that not even Moses’ and Samuel’s advocacy would have helped; cf. Jer 15:1). Thus, Samuel’s final summons to faithful service carries theological weight. Israel’s walk with their covenant God is not as much about certitude as fidelity: a genuine relationship in which everything can be gained or lost. Chapter 15 will show some of these dynamics coming into play in the judgment of Saul. Samuel lives up to his promise to intercede for the disobedient king. When divine judgment is about to come on Saul, Samuel cries all night for the monarch (1 Sam 15:11). Thus, in some important ways, Samuel’s speech in chap. 12 anticipates the unfolding of the narrative.

Concluding Summary In the face of Realpolitik with all its complexities, dangers, and compromises, 1 Samuel 12 invites us to take a theological perspective on things. 121.  Hesse, Die Fürbitte, 28. 122.  See my reading of Yhwh’s prohibiting to Jeremiah to pray ( Jer 7:16, 11:14, 14:11, 15:1). 123.  Brueggemann, First Samuel, 95.

206

Chapter 4

Chapter 12 witnesses to a paradigm shift in Israel’s history from the traditional mosaic covenant era to the time of the monarchy. Some see reflected in this chapter the perennial tension between church and state, or between the institution of prophecy and that of kingship. 124 Although Samuel is highly critical of the new monarchy and favors in many ways the old style of leadership, the logic of the text takes it for granted that the royal paradigm is inevitably establishing itself. Samuel has his own understanding of the old paradigm of covenantal theocracy, while Yhwh is ready to accommodate the people’s desire but orders strict obedience. In these chapters, a picture emerges of a God who can work out His purposes through compromise and who can integrate human failure into His wider plans. And so in God’s sovereignty, the office of the king with all its flaws became the antitype of the true righteous king: Jesus Christ. In other words, it is interesting to note that in time Israel started to formulate its eschatological hope not primarily in the category of the judge, but in those of the king and messiah, a righteous ruler. 125 Although Samuel struggles with the challenges of the monarchy, in many ways he stands over Saul as his divinely appointed monitor. As a representative of the “old covenantalism,” Samuel still enjoys full divine support. When Yhwh vindicates Samuel before all the people as God’s approved mediator, Israel responds in penitence. Samuel assures them full divine and personal support in spite of their failure. Thus, Yhwh is not only portrayed as accommodating, but also as a gracious and committed God. Yhwh and Samuel, however, are not only gracious, but they also appeal to the people for a new covenant commitment on their part. In fact, we have seen that a major concern of chap. 12 is to show that the new monarchy must still conform and submit to the “old” covenant ways (1 Sam 12:13–14). It is in this context that Samuel is able to mark the twofold prophetic ministry. That is, Samuel takes on himself the need of the sinful people and advocates before Yhwh in prayer. At the same time, the prophetic intercessor acts as the mouth of God, proclaiming the divine will and instructing them in the ways of the Lord. In Samuel, we have the last person in the Old Testament who embodies the role of prophet, priest, covenant mediator, and judge. All these central Old Testament offices shall only come together again and find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ: the prophetic and priestly heavenly intercessor who will come and judge the earth again. Having said that, subsequent prophets, such as the Isaianic servant, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Amos, will take up the twofold responsibility of the prophet as laid out in 1 Sam 12:23. By sending prophets such as Samuel to 124. Jörg Jeremias, Die Reue Gottes: Aspekte alttestamentlicher Gottesvorstellung (BThSt 31; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997) 30. 125.  Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (London: SCM, 1992) 151.

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

207

intercede for the people and to teach them the way, Yhwh reveals both His love and righteousness.

Saul’s Disobedience, Samuel’s Intercession, and Yhwh’s Judgment (1 Samuel 15) Introduction Theologically speaking, chap. 15 contains very challenging material with regard to Yhwh’s character. There are three references to God’s change of mind (cf. 1 Sam 15:11, 29, 35). As we have noted (Exod 32:10–14, Deut 9:14), the Hebrew Bible mentions God’s change of mind almost exclusively in the context of justified divine judgment, prophetic intercessory prayer, and pardon of sin. Although all three aspects are also present in 1 Samuel 15, the chapter is unique in the sense that God regrets that He has chosen Saul as king. This is the only place in the Old Testament where Yhwh expresses regret over a single person. The portrayal of God is further complicated by what appears to be a contradiction in the text. First, it says that Yhwh regretted (‫ )נחם‬that He ever made Saul king (1 Sam 15:11, 35), and then as the narrative progresses, Samuel warns Saul in a categorical statement that Yhwh does not change His mind (‫ )נחם‬like humans do (1 Sam 15:29). Related to the complex issue of Yhwh’s mutability and character is, for modern readers, the disturbing ancient practice of total dedication to God of an enemy by destruction (‫חרם‬, Hiphil). 126 The ancient archenemy Amalek reappears in this chapter (cf. Exod 17). The theme of enmity between Yhwh and Amalek extends from the outset to the end of the chapter (1 Sam 15:3, 33). The point or the question of the narrative is not so much whether Yhwh’s command to annihilate the Amalekites is morally justified but rather why Saul does not get another chance to serve his God after his half-hearted execution of the divine command. 127 After all, as we shall see, Saul acknowledges his disobedience to Yhwh and Samuel and seeks forgiveness for his confessed sin. The king begs for forgiveness, precisely so that he may “worship the Lord (1 Sam 15:24–25).” But both Yhwh and Samuel seem unmoved by the king’s regret and confession of sin. The final 126.  HALOT: ‫חרם‬, Hiphil: “to put under a ban, to devote to destruction.” See Philip D. Stern, “1 Samuel 15: Towards an Ancient View of the War-Herem,” UF (1990) 413–20, for a contextual reading of this, to modern readers, distant and shocking practice. For a widerranging discussion on ‫חרם‬, see Joel N. Lohr, Chosen and Unchosen: Conceptions of Election in the Pentateuch and Jewish-Christian Interpretation (Siphrut 2; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009) 208–26. 127.  On the hermeneutically challenging issue of holy war against a specific people, see Stephen B. Chapman, “Perpetual War: The Case of Amalek,” in The Bible and Spirituality: Exploratory Essays in Reading Scripture Spiritually (ed. J. G. McConville, A. T. Lincoln, and L. K. Pieterson; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2013) 1–19, for an exegetically and theologically engaging discussion.

208

Chapter 4

verdict of Samuel is, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day and has given it to a neighbor of yours who is better than you” (1 Sam 15:28). Brueggemann comments: Along with the fate of Saul, the narrative portrays Samuel as the uncompromising voice of the old covenant tradition. . . . Here . . . he [Samuel] appears in his hardest, most rigorous, most uncompromising posture. Indeed, Samuel’s passion for covenant requirements reaches ideological proportions, because he is unwilling (or unable) to relate his demands to the political realities with which Saul must struggle. 128

There is indeed a strong emphasis on Samuel’s authority in this chapter. He is Yhwh’s official spokesman (1 Sam 15:1, 24), and in the latter half of the chapter the prophet embodies seemingly the uncompromising voice of God. We shall see, however, that Brueggemann fails to give sufficient attention to the fact that prior to Samuel’s apparently callous judgment, the text witnesses to a complex spiritual battle going on between Yhwh and the prophet. Verse 11 speaks of Samuel’s anger. In fact, Samuel was so outraged that “he cried out to the Lord all night” (‫ ַו ִּיחַר ִל ְׁשמּואֵל ַו ִּי ְזעַק אֶל־יְהוָה ּכָל־ ַה ָּל ְילָה‬, 1 Sam 15:11). A brief overview of possible interpretations will show that there is little agreement over the meaning of Samuel’s reaction. Suggestions range from anger over Saul’s disobedience, via fear to confront Saul with the judgment of God, to frustration over his prophetic office, and anger with God’s plans. Although Scharbert doubts that we are dealing here with an intercessory prayer, I shall attempt to show that there is good reason to argue that Samuel is interceding here on behalf of Saul and that Samuel seeks to persuade Yhwh to change His mind with regard to His decision to unseat Israel’s first king. 129 As I seek to explore the possible dynamics of Samuel’s prayer, we will touch on the important and intrinsically related theme of Yhwh’s change of mind. God “Regrets” That He Has Made Saul King The chapter begins with Samuel commissioning Saul in the name of Yhwh Zebaoth to fulfill the long outstanding ban on the Amalekites (1 Sam 15:1–3). Ever since the Amalekites attacked Israel when they were vulnerable and weak in the wilderness on their way up from Egypt, God’s curse was on this nomadic people (cf. Exod 17:8–16, Deut 25:17­–19). 130 Besides, the Amalekites had a history of attacking and looting Israel during the period of the Judges. 131 Given this history, Saul is commissioned to execute 128.  Brueggemann, First Samuel, 108–9. 129. Joseph Scharbert, “Die Fürbitte in der Theologie des Alten Testaments,” Theologie und Glaube 50 (1960) 327. 130.  1 Sam 15:2 refers almost verbatim back to Deut 25:17. 131.  Cf. Judg 3:12; 6:3–5, 33; 7:12; 12:15.

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

209

the ban on the Amalekites and realize Yhwh’s ancient vow (Exod 17:14). Birch comments: It is important to note that the text of 1 Samuel 15:1 treats the command of holy war against the Amalekites as a legitimate command of the Lord. We may disagree that such a policy could ever be God’s will, but this is not questioned by Saul or by the storyteller. 132

Saul, however, fails to obey fully the word of God mediated through Samuel. He spares Agag, the Amalekite king, and, under pressure of the people, keeps the best animals as booty (1 Sam 15:24). The narrative logic of chap. 15 suggests that Saul’s sparing of Agag and the animals constitutes a grave sin of disobedience (1 Sam 15:19–23). 133 In characteristic fashion, Yhwh makes His concern known to His prophet Samuel. I regret (‫ ) ִנח ְַמ ִּתי‬that I made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me, and has not carried out my commands . . . (‫ֶת־דבָרַ י‬ ּ ְ ‫י־שב ֵמ ַאחֲרַ י ְוא‬ ָׁ ‫ּכ‬, ִ 1 Sam 15:11) 134

This pattern of informing the prophetic mediator is categorically spelled out in Amos 3:7: “Surely the Lord God does nothing, without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets.” Particularly in the case of Moses’ advocacy, I have argued that Yhwh does not just make the prophet privy to His intentions for information’s sake, but Yhwh does it because He seeks to elicit an intercessory response from the mediator (cf. Exod 32:10, Num 14:12, Deut 9:14). 135 Moses responds to what is most likely a concealed divine invitation to plead for mercy by imploring the Lord: “why does your wrath burn hot against your people. . . . Turn from your fierce wrath; change your mind (‫ )נחם‬and do not bring disaster on your people” (Exod 32:11–14). As a result of Moses’ prayer, Yhwh changed His mind (‫)נחם‬ about the intended judgment (Exod 32:15). So when we read in 1 Samuel 15 that “The Word of the Lord came to Samuel,” saying that God regretted (‫ )נחם‬that He made Saul king because of his disobedience, we are most likely to understand that Yhwh is not only informing Samuel in characteristic fashion about His plans, but also that God is inviting a response from His prophet. 132.  Birch, First Samuel, 1092. 133.  The issue of disobedience is also raised in Samuel’s posthumous response to Saul at Endor in 28:16–19: “Because you did not obey the Lord . . . the Lord has done this to you today” (v. 18). 134.  Tsumura, First Book of Samuel, 396: “The verbal phrase ‘I regret’ is a performative perfect . . . Yahweh expresses regret for his previous actions, his making Saul king (or his creation of man cf. Gen 6:7); the function of the language used here is thus emotive as well as performative.” 135.  See my reading of Deut 9:14 on pp. 132–138, on the apparent paradox that Yhwh’s command to be left alone to exercise His judgment contains actually a divine invitation to intercede for the sinful party.

210

Chapter 4

In the context of the golden calf incident, we noted not only that Israel’s disobedience provoked a divine response, but also that the anthropomorphic Hebrew description of Yhwh “regretting” (‫ )נחם‬reflects not a static or immutable portrayal of God and His dealings with His people, but rather a dynamic and interactive understanding. Just as Abraham and Moses were made privy to the divine will, we shall see in the context of Jeremiah and Amos’s intercessory ministry, that there is indeed a pattern of Yhwh informing His prophets and inviting them to respond and participate in the deliberation of the divine plan. Before we look at Samuel’s reply, I would like to revisit briefly the difficult notion that God is “capable” of “regretting” a previous decision. The general semantic domain of ‫ נחם‬in the Niphal usually involves that of regretting or repenting of something. If a person is the subject of the verb then the reason for repentance is usually human fickleness (cf. 1 Sam 15:29) or sinfulness (cf. Jer 31:19, Job 42:6). If Yhwh is the subject of ‫נחם‬, the situation becomes more complicated, because the idea of “repentance” has, as noted, moral undertones (it presupposes a wrongdoing of some kind). 136 Rather than detecting in the terminology the portrayal of a divine “culprit” (that is, Yhwh had evil intentions), one should bear in mind that Scripture is consistent in saying that Yhwh is fundamentally for His people (cf. Exod 34:6–7; Pss 103, 111) and does not commit any sin of which He needs to repent (cf. Lev 19:2, Num 23:19). Fretheim suggests: All of God’s actions are considered appropriate and justifiable. Divine repentance thus has reference to an activity for which the word is not commonly used in contemporary English. 137

This underlines the problem of an accurate English translation of the Hebrew term. Whatever the exact translation, the idea is of a change of mind over an earlier decision. While bearing in mind the challenge of an appropriate translation, we still need to address the bigger and perhaps more puzzling issue of a God who changes His mind over something He intended to do. 138 Jeremias gives voice to the conundrum: 136.  The fact that there are two passages, which categorically state that Yhwh does not “repent” like a human adds to the complexity (cf. Num 23:19, 1  Sam 15:29a). See R.  W.  L. Moberly, “‘God Is Not a Human That He Should Repent’: Numbers 23:19 and 1 Samuel 15:29,” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann (ed. T. Linafelt and T. K. Beal; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) 112–23. Otherwise, the idea of “divine repentance” is widely used in the Old Testament. Terence F. Fretheim, “The Repentance of God: A Key to Evaluating Old Testament God-talk,” HBT 10 (1988) 54–55, notes: “Divine repentance is . . . found within a variety of traditions, northern and southern, early and late . . . eightand seventh-century prophets; exilic and postexilic prophecy; psalmody.” It also found its way into some of Israel’s “creedal” forms (e.g., Ps 106:44–45, Joel 2:14, Jonah 4:2). 137. Fretheim, “The Repentance,” 51. For the challenge of finding an appropriate English rendering of the Hebrew term ‫נחם‬, see also Horacio Simian-Yofre, “‫נחם‬, nḥm.” TDOT 9:342–44; and R. W. L. Moberly, Old Testament Theology: Reading the Hebrew Bible as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013) 107–11 138.  See pp. 513–514 for an engagement with a theology of God’s mutability.

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

211

There is hardly another Old Testament statement about God that has been so offensive to the thinkers of all times, philosophers and theologians alike, as the sentence that God shows remorse/regret (Reue) over something that he has planned or already done. 139

If the notion of God changing His mind is read out of context, so argues Childs, it makes the God of Israel as arbitrary as Zeus, whereas if God’s ‫נחם‬ is read in its “full context, it epitomizes the essential paradox of the Hebrew faith: God is ‘merciful and gracious . . . but will not clear the guilty’ (Exod 34:7).” 140 In other words, rather than reading Yhwh’s response against the Hellenistic perception of an unchangeable divine being and through that against the background of a long-lasting Christian tradition of an immutable God, I seek to take the canonical witness and its dynamics at face value and work with the Hebrew understanding of a God of mercy and judgment. 141 It will become more and more evident that 1 Sam 15:11 witnesses to this relational and responsive dynamic between Yhwh, Saul, and Samuel. Just as Yhwh’s decision for judgment is revealed to Moses after the golden calf incident, so God informs Samuel of His plans for Saul. In the case of Moses, although the divine verdict had been pronounced (Exod 32:10), Yhwh’s intention was not irrevocable. Moses was given the chance to make his case and he was successful in changing Yhwh’s mind (cf. Exod 32:14). The divine openness to Moses’ response suggests that there is also a possibility other than the one announced to Samuel. Having compared Samuel with Moses, the question arises now: how will Samuel respond to the divine word of regret?

“Samuel Was Angry and Cried to the Lord All Night” (1 Samuel 15:11) Samuel was angry; and he cried to the Lord all night. (‫ַו ִּי ְזעַק אֶל־יְהוָה ּכָל־‬ ‫ ַה ָּל ְילָה‬, 1 Sam 15:11b)

Literally, the Hebrew reads that “it burned (to/in) Samuel” (‫) ַו ִּיחַר ִל ְׁשמּואֵל‬. 142 In fact, he was so outraged that he cried out, not just a spontaneous exclamation of disagreement, but a sustained heated dialogue that lasted all night. Muffs speaks of a “long and stormy war of words!” 143 Multiple reasons have been suggested for Samuel’s anger. (1) Is it an expression of personal distress? Although there is no further reference to an emotional 139.  My translation of Jeremias, Die Reue, 9: “Kaum eine andere alttestamentliche Aussage über Gott ist den Denkern aller Zeiten, Philosophen wie Theologen, derart anstößig erschienen wie der Satz, daß Gott über irgend etwas zuvor Geplantes oder sogar schon Vollbrachtes nachträglich Reue empfand und es zurücknahm.” Fretheim, “The Repentance,” 47, makes the same observation. 140.  Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus (OTL; Louisville: Westminster, 1976) 568. 141.  The discussion of ‫ נחם‬is slightly adapted from my Moses, 120–121. 142.  Cf. Gen 31:36. 143.  Muffs, Love and Joy, 26.

212

Chapter 4

outburst, in chap. 8 we read that Samuel was displeased (‫ )רעע‬when the elders said: “Give us a king.” There Samuel’s anger is also immediately followed by a reference to prayer to the Lord (1 Sam 8:6). (2) Is it an expression of fear? After all God commissions Samuel to the awful mission to annul Saul’s kingship. It may have taken tremendous courage to confront Saul with the divine decision. Boda speaks rightly of “one of the most powerful encounters­between a prophet and king in the Old Testament.” 144 (3) Others have seen here, not unlike the confessions of Jeremiah, an expression of reluctance and weariness with regard to the prophetic office. 145 (4) Another suggestion is that Samuel, as the prophet of the Lord, is enraged at Saul’s disobedience and thus feels God’s inner wrath, the divine pathos. 146 This sort of interpretation, however, does not fully satisfy either, because it fails to make sense of the wording that Samuel cried all night to the Lord, which seems a clear reference to prayer (1 Sam 7:8; 12:8, 10). The argument that Samuel in some sense feels or even embodies divine wrath might be better reflected in Samuel’s judgment speech (1 Sam 15:22–23) or the prophetic signs that give expression to God’s wrath (1 Sam 15:26–28). Moreover, the immediate context of v. 11 suggests that it is not so much Saul’s disobedience that is in view, but Yhwh’s change of mind with regard to Saul’s kingship. (5) So does it possibly mean “that Samuel was angry with Yahweh, as David was angry with Yahweh when Uzzah was struck for touching the ark (2 Sam 6:8; 1 Chr 13:11), and that he cried to Yahweh for deliverance, as Israel had often done in the period of the judges (cf. 1 Sam 7:9, 12:8)?” 147 The context does not require a prayer for deliverance. After all, Israel has just defeated the Amalekites. (6) Holland suggests that behind Samuel’s anger is the prophet’s worry that a divine change of mind could undermine Israel’s belief in Yhwh’s steadfastness. 148 However noble such a reading might be, there is little support in the text and the wider biblical witness that Israel’s belief in Yhwh’s steadfastness is at stake. In fact, we have argued that divine responsiveness does not undermine Israel’s belief, but is fundamental to the biblical portrayal of God. 149 (7) Döhling argues that Samuel’s prayer is primarily for Israel’s security. Thereby, he draws at144.  Mark J. Boda, A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament (Siphrut 1; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009) 154. 145. Fritz Stolz, Das erste und das zweite Buch Samuel (ZBK 9; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1981) 102. 146.  Heschel, The Prophets, 26, explains the experience of the prophet in Israel as “a fellowship with the feelings of God, a sympathy with the divine pathos, a communion with the divine consciousness which comes about through the prophet’s reflection of, or participation in, the divine pathos.” So also Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, 396. 147.  Klein, 1 Samuel, 151. 148.  Holland, Das Erste Buch Samuel, 171: “Reut Gott auch sein Rettungswerk? Kommt am Ende nicht doch eine zweite Sintflut? Verwirft er nicht doch noch sein Volk Israel?” 149.  We shall interact with the seeming tension between vv. 11 and 29 in the following pages.

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

213

tention to the fact that so far in the book of Samuel, Samuel’s crying to God has been in the context of Israel being in danger. Thus, according to Döhling, Samuel is wrestling all night with God on behalf of Israel whose security would be seriously endangered without the military leadership of a king. 150 This argument does not do full justice to the narrative development. As we shall attempt to show, Samuel is more concerned with Saul himself than with the people (cf. 1 Sam 15:11–35). Moreover, God has already informed Samuel of a “replacement” king, so Döhling’s concern for the survival of the people without a king is not fully warranted (cf. 1 Sam 13:14). (8) Muffs argues that Samuel became very angry because he had come to love Saul and now Yhwh’s anger and change of mind were directed against the king that he anointed. 151 Although Samuel initially opposed the people’s request to anoint Saul as their king, he eventually gave in to Israel’s request, not least because of Yhwh’s hesitant endorsement (1 Sam 8:7–9, 12:13). In other words, the prophet, in obedience to Yhwh, suppressed his personal opposition to the monarchy and gave in to the divine will. Now God requests Samuel to renounce the kingship of Saul. Judging from Samuel’s angry reaction, one could perhaps argue that he eventually made peace with the reality of a king in Israel. There are some hints in the text that seem to support the argument that behind Samuel’s harsh words is a sympathy for Saul. For example, we read: Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death, for Samuel mourned over Saul (‫ֶל־שאּול‬ ָׁ ‫)ה ְת ַאּבֵל ְׁשמּואֵל א‬, ִ even though the Lord had regretted that He had ever made Saul king over Israel. (1 Sam 15:35)

It seems as if Samuel was so depressed that only a divine reproach could awake him from his grief. The Lord said to Samuel, “How long will you grieve over Saul (‫עַד־מָתַ י‬ ‫ֶל־שאּול‬ ָׁ ‫ַּתה ִמ ְת ַאּבֵל א‬ ָ ‫ ?)א‬I have rejected him from being king over Israel. Fill your horn with oil and set out . . . for I have provided for myself a king.” (1 Sam 16:1)

Samuel replies to Yhwh’s reproach: “How can I go? If Saul hears of it, he will kill me!” “Samuel probably remembered another night when he had waited to tell another servant of God, old Eli, that his behavior was unacceptable to God.” 152 One cannot help thinking of Moses again who was also sent back to the king of Egypt to renounce him and his reign in the 150. Jan-Dirk Döhling (Der Bewegliche Gott: Eine Untersuchung des Motivs der Reue Gottes in der Hebräischen Bibel [HBS 61; Freiburg: Herder, 2009] 208–9) argues that the Hebrew root ‫ זעק‬in 1 Samuel has always the survival and salvation of Israel in mind (cf. 1 Sam 7:8–9, 9:16, 12:7–8). 151.  Muffs, Love and Joy, 26–27; see also Mary J. Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel (NIBC 6; Car­ lisle: Paternoster, 2000) 74. 152.  Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel, 74.

214

Chapter 4

name of Yhwh (cf. Exod 3–4). Muffs, however, might be correct when he sees here an insincere bluff on Samuel’s part. Even when Samuel is standing in the house of Jesse, ready to anoint a new king, the prophet still has in his mind the tall and handsome figure of Saul (cf. 1 Sam 16:6–7). Samuel has to announce what he did not want to announce. Muffs raises in this context the question: “How many inner psychic dislocations can a man suffer?” 153 The tension between his personal will and the will of the Lord brings about depression. 154 Muffs provides a suggestive reading of the text. Perhaps one could go even as far as proposing that Samuel interceded for Saul’s pardon in this long night of prayer. Obviously, there is no explicit reference in the text with regard to Samuel’s prayer content. It is more from a cumulative argument from silence that one can make a case for such a reading. We have seen that both previous references to Samuel’s intercessory prayers are also “only” indicated with common synonyms for prayer (“to cry to the Lord,” ‫זעק אֶל־יְהוָה‬, 1 Sam 7:8; and “to call upon the Lord,” ‫קרא אֶל־יְהוָה‬, 1 Sam 12:18). In neither case is Samuel’s actual prayer recorded. Both references to Samuel’s intercessions follow roughly the pattern: Israel sins against God; Samuel rebukes the sinful party; the sinful party confesses sin and repents; Samuel prays for deliverance/pardon; and Yhwh responds in forgiveness or deliverance (cf. 1 Sam 7:2–9, 12:12–23). These parallels and Samuel’s strong promise not to cease to intercede for Israel (1 Sam 12:23) suggest that the reference to Samuel’s “crying to the Lord all night” (‫זעק אֶל־יְהוָה ּכָל־ ַה ָּל ְילָה‬, 1 Sam 15:11) also refers to an intercessory prayer, here for the pardon of Saul. This is further supported by the observation that, after Samuel delivers the divine judgment to Saul, the king explicitly begs for pardon of sin (“I ָׂ ‫ ְ;וע ַָּתה‬cf. 1 Sam 15:25). pray, pardon my sin,” ‫אתי‬ ִ ‫ַּט‬ ָ ‫שא נָא אֶת־ח‬ Moreover, one can draw support for this sort of interpretation from other intercessory prayers in the Old Testament, where Yhwh announced judgment over the guilty party to His mediator in order to elicit a prophetic prayer that seeks to establish God’s mercy over justice (e.g. Exod 32:10–14, Num 14:11–20, Amos 7:1–3). Thus, at least in Samuel’s thinking, the divine announcement that God regretted that He had anointed Saul to be king (1 Sam 15:11) was not irrevocable, but open to change. Although Samuel’s prayer for Saul’s pardon is not successful, “the point is still made that God, through the announcement of his decision, had given Samuel the opportunity to respond to that decision before it became irrevocable.” 155 153.  Muffs, Love and Joy, 27. 154.  The Hebrew root ‫ אבל‬for “mourning” or “lamenting” is often found in the Hithpael. Often it appears in the context of divine judgment for transgression (cf. 1 Sam 6:19, Exod 33:4, Num 14:39). In the Pentateuch, the only instance of the term ‫ אבל‬in the Hithpael stem provides some helpful analogies. There, we read how Jacob mourned many days for Joseph (Gen 37:34–35). Though his children tried to encourage him (‫)נחם‬, he remained depressed. In this context, ‫ אבל‬depicts a prolonged psychological state of depression. 155.  Terence F. Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 51.

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

215

After a night of stormy opposition against Yhwh’s judgment, Samuel eventually submits to the divine will and delivers to Saul the divine verdict that was made known to him while wrestling with God (cf. 1 Sam 15:16– 26). In other words, the outcome of the “secret” prayer dialogue between God and His prophet is now presented to the king and the public. The emphasis of the divine message falls on disobedience to God’s commands. Foreshadowing the teaching of later prophets, Samuel said: “Surely, to obey is better than sacrifice. . . . For rebellion is no less a sin than divination. . . . Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king.” (1  Sam 15:22­–23; cf. Amos 5:21–25)

Saul responds to Samuel’s judgment oracle immediately with a confession of sin: “I have sinned (‫ָאתי‬ ִ ‫ ;) ָחט‬for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. Now therefore, I pray, pardon my sin (‫אתי‬ ִ ‫ַּט‬ ָ ‫שׂא נָא אֶת־ח‬ ָ ‫)וע ַָּתה‬, ְ and return with me, so that I may worship the Lord.” (1 Sam 15:24–25)

The king has stopped justifying his actions (1 Sam 15:20–21). Has Saul realized that Samuel has seen through his true motives? Thus, the king’s full confession of sin raises the question whether Yhwh may change His mind with regard to His regret over Saul. After all, Yhwh is known as a God who responds in grace and forgiveness to genuine repentance (cf. Ps 103:3–13, 1 John 1:9). 156 For example, Milgrom writes: The prophets taught that repentance (shuv) not only averts punishment (see Jer 18:7–11; Joel 2:13–14; Jon. 3:10) but also eradicates sin . . . Therefore, the person who has truly repented need not fear that he will ever face divine retribution for his sin. 157

Such a high view of the power of repentance seems confirmed a few chapter­ s later where we read about the Bathsheba and Uriah incident (2 Sam 12). There, not unlike Samuel, Nathan the prophet convicts David of his massive sin. Like Saul, David responds directly: “I have sinned against the Lord” (‫ָאתי לַיהוָה‬ ִ ‫ ָחט‬, 2 Sam 12:13). David does not, like Saul, appeal for forgiveness. Nevertheless, forgiveness is granted by the prophet. 158 In our present chapter, Saul seeks forgiveness for a confessed sin so that he may “worship the Lord” (1 Sam 15:25). Samuel, however, unlike Nathan, remains firm, reiterating Yhwh’s previous verdict: I will not return with you; for you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being king over Israel. (1 Sam 15:26) 156.  For a fuller discussion on the effect of repentance see pp. 449–454 on Joel. 157. Jacob Milgrom, ‫במדבר‬, Numbers ( JPS Torah Commentary; New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1990) 393. 158.  In the next chapter, on David, I shall explore further what characterizes David as a forgiven sinner and as a man after God’s heart.

216

Chapter 4

The contrast between Saul’s fate at the hands of Yhwh and that of David is at least at first sight surprising, if not disturbing. “Does his (Saul’s) sin justify a punishment so final and terrible as dismissal?” 159 And if yes, where is God’s mercy? Has Saul not repented? Brueggemann draws this conclusion: The narrative evidences no curiosity about why penitent Saul cannot be forgiven while David can. Of course the narrative is engaged in the larger matter of David’s kingship.  Nonetheless, these contrasts function as countertestimony concerning the character of Yahweh. They attest that Yahweh is not a consistent God of command and sanction, or, alternatively, of deed and consequence. Conversely, they attest that Yahweh is not a God who consistently forgives. 160

Before I attempt to evaluate Brueggemann’s reading of the text, I would like to pursue a little further whether there is not a decisive difference between the incidents. Yhwh’s stern and unyielding attitude toward Saul raises the question for the actual reason behind the king’s dismissal. Verse 10 gives expression to a severe breach of loyalty and obedience. But does this justify Yhwh’s decision? Döhling argues that one can only explain the question of appropriateness of the divine decision when one considers the theological role of the Amalekites. As I have attempted to show in our reading of Exodus 17, Amalek is, in Israel’s memory, its first enemy that nearly prevented them from becoming God’s people at Sinai, and thereby became the archetype for the enemy that seeks to destroy Israel. The fact that the Amalek threat spans across the entire chapter (from the commission to annihilate them to Samuel’s execution of Agag), would seem to support the proposition that the reason behind Yhwh’s unyielding judgment on Saul is God’s enmity with Amalek. Later in 1  Samuel 28:18, Yhwh’s regret over Saul’s kingship is once again justified in the king’s failure to execute the divine command to put Amalek to the ban. 161 Döhling, inspired by the work of Stern, argues that Amalek came to stand for a kind of mythological antitype to God’s faithfulness to Israel. Amalek came to embody the enemy of Israel that is fundamentally opposed to Yhwh and His redemptive work. 162 Thus, Döhling understands Yhwh’s commitment to Israel’s existence as the inner reason for Yhwh’s “regret and nonregret” (cf. 1 Sam 15:10, 29). 163 Seemingly no intercessory 159. Meir Sternberg, “The Bible’s Art of Persuasion: Ideology, Rhetoric and Poetics in Saul’s Fall,” in Beyond From Criticism: Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticism (ed. P. R. House; Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 2; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 246, cited in Döhling, Der Bewegliche Gott, 210. 160.  Brueggemann, Theology, 370–71. 161.  It may not by coinsidence that Saul dies by the hand of an Amalekite (cf. 2 Sam 1:13). 162.  Stern, “1 Samuel 15,” 417–20; see Döhling, Der Bewegliche Gott, 212. 163.  Döhling, (ibid., 235) comments: Die beiden Kernfragen an 1 Sam 15, nämlich die Frage nach der Härte der göttlichen Reue-Entscheidung gegen Saul einerseits und die nach dem formallogischen

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

217

effort, nor anything else, could reinstate the king because Saul’s disobedience to Yhwh’s command to annihilate Amalek endangered Israel’s future existence. It looks as though behind the holy war against Amalek is ultimately Yhwh’s concern for Israel’s existence and preservation. 164 This would not only provide a good reason that Yhwh could not give in to Samuel’s intercession, but it also could explain why Yhwh cannot compromise His protective commitment to His people. 165 Having said this, we should be careful not to read too much into the enmity between Yhwh and Amalek, as Stern and Döhling appear to do. If God were so fixed on destroying Amalek (1 Sam 15:2), why is it that only a couple of chapters later when David and his men raid successfully against the Amalekites in order to recover wives, children, and belongings, the total defeat of Amalek is no longer an urgent divine objective? In fact, David seems totally unconcerned with the destruction of the Amalekites. What is more, unlike Saul, David seizes Amalekite spoil without any restriction or any prophetic rebuke (cf. 1 Sam 30). Brueggemann draws the following conclusion: David is presented as bold, generous, and successful. . . . David can do anything he wants, because David is linked to Yahweh in modes of acceptance and affirmation heretofore unavailable in Israel and certainly unavailable to Saul. 166

This raises the question whether the reason for Yhwh’s regret over Saul and Samuel’s eventual resolve to dismiss the king is not at least partially related to David. This takes us to vv. 28 and 29, where Samuel has to tell Saul that God has given the kingdom to a “man according to His heart” (cf. 1 Sam 13:14). It is also in these verses that we encounter this seeming contradiction between Yhwh’s regret over Saul and a God who does not change His mind. Widerspruch der Reueaussage anderseits (V. 11.35.29), finden somit im Bezug der Reue— und Nichtreueaussagen zum Amalekthema einen gemeinsamen Perspektivpunkt. Dieser Perspektivpunkt ist Gottes konsequentes Festhalten an der Existenz Israels, die sich in der mythischen Rollenzuschreibung der Todfeindschaft mit dem Anti-Volk Amalek ausdrückt. Die Sorge um die Existenz Israels bildet also den inneren Grund für die Reue und die Nichtreue in 1 Sam 15. 164.  Ibid. 165.  In my reading of Exodus 17, I have already noted that Amalek came not only to stand for Israel’s archenemy, but as the enemy that opposes God and His purposes with Israel. This would explain God’s determination with destroying Amalek. By typological extension, we can see how Jesus, as the eschatological divine warrior, declares war on Satan and his demons, the ultimate enemy. Satan came to stand for any opposition to God’s redemptive purposes. Chapman (“Perpetual War,” 14–15) suggests that New Testament references to “rulers and powers” (Col 1:16, Eph 6:12) could be taken as further indicators of the same kind of primordial and spiritual power that resists God. How does such a reading of Amalek relate to our suggestion on pp. 72–75 that the Amalekite attack on Israel, as recorded in Exodus 17, is a divine punishment? Theologically speaking, it is not unheard of that God grants permission to Satan the enemy to sift His people (cf. Luke 22:31). 166.  Brueggemann, Theology, 370.

218

Chapter 4

“God Is Not a Human That He Should Repent” (1 Samuel 15:29) And Samuel said to him, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this very day, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. Moreover the Glory of Israel will not recant or change his mind (‫ְש ֵקּר ְולֹא ִיּנָחֵם‬ ַ ׁ ‫ ;)לֹא י‬for he is not a mortal, that he should change his mind. (‫ָדם הּוא ְל ִהּנָחֵם‬ ָ ‫ּכי לֹא א‬, ִ 1 Sam 15:28–29)

The challenge surrounding Yhwh’s decision to unseat Saul is perhaps captured in the seeming tension between 1 Sam 15:11 and 29. First, the text states that God regretted that He made Saul king, and then later on we read that Yhwh does not go back on His word or change His mind, for He is not a human being that He should change His mind. What is going on in this chapter? Scholars frequently take v. 29 as a categorical statement regarding God’s nature that underlines Yhwh’s rejection of Saul as nonnegotiable. As Gordon comments, Too much can be made of the surface tension between the statements, in verses 11 and 29, concerning the possibility or impossibility of God’s repenting. When God issues a decree that is plainly intended as irrevocable, as in the rejection of Saul, then says our text, there is no possibility of that decree being rescinded. (cf. Num 23:19) 167

In other words, Gordon appeals to Yhwh’s sovereignty to resolve the tension and thus comes implicitly close to Brueggemann’s verdict that God is not consistent in His forgiving. 168 Before one starts to question the consistency or even reliability of Yhwh’s judgment, we should perhaps take another brief look at the flow of the narrative, Saul’s behavior, and the nature of his confession of sin. With regard to the latter, one could argue with Moberly that it is not genuine repentance that is in view. The king’s concern that Samuel should “honor” him publicly (v. 30) can readily be construed as self-seeking in a way that represents less than a genuine turning to God. Saul may be using correct religious language, but without the corresponding reality. If so, then the relational dynamic to enable a differing divine response remains lacking in Saul. 169

Already in chap. 13, King Saul acted out of pressure from the people (1 Sam 13:11–13), not unlike Aaron, who in the absence of Moses gave in to the people’s request for an idol (Exod 32:1–6). 170 When Saul is under direct indictment from Samuel, however, he tries to justify himself by saying that 167.  Gordon, 1 and 2 Samuel, 146. 168.  Holland’s reading (Das Erste Buch Samuel, 171) falls within the same category: “Diesen Widerspruch müssen wir hinnehmen, dass von Gott einmal gesagt wird: ‘Gott bereut nicht’ und das andere Mal: ‘Es gereute Gott.’ Das gehört zu Gottes Hoheit.” 169.  Moberly, “God Is Not a Human,” 119. 170.  It was also out of pressure and lack of faith that Saul rashly and presumptiously took on the role of a priest in order to seek God’s favor for the battle against the Philistines (cf. 1  Sam 13:7–14). Although Saul’s action in presenting the burnt offering himself is

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

219

the choicest animals were actually kept so that they can be offered to Yhwh (1 Sam 15:20–21). Judging from Samuel’s harsh verdict: “to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams,” it appears that the prophet sees through Saul’s pretense. If this is indeed a correct reading of Saul’s character as portrayed in these chapters, then Samuel’s prophetic hardline starts to make sense. Saul’s dismissal of God’s command and his insincere confession of sin contributed to God’s rejection of Saul as king. Samuel can no longer mediate between God and king (1 Sam 15:26). Shortly after that, the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord started to torment him (1  Sam 16:14). The book of Samuel paints increasingly a picture of a man who is growing into a person whose life is characterized by deceitfulness, disobedience, envy, and selfserving acts. 171 Related to Saul’s flawed character is Yhwh’s decision to give the kingdom to someone else. 172 In v.  28, Samuel tells Saul not only that Yhwh has torn away the royal power over Israel from him, but also that Yhwh “will give it to someone else who is preferable to you” (1 Sam 15:28). It is thus also in the light of that person’s election that we ought to understand Samuel’s categorical statement that Yhwh will not go back on His word or will change His mind (1 Sam 15:29). That person’s identity is disclosed to the reader in the following chapter (cf. 1 Sam 16:1–3). Moberly insightfully unpacks the meaning of v. 29 in context: God will give the kingship of Israel to David— that sets the context for v. 29 and explains why it is formulated as a general principle about God, that “God does not repent.” That which is not denied is not the responsive dynamics of divine “repentance” as consistently presupposed and expounded elsewhere in the story. Nor is it the concern as such to deny that God could “repent of his repentance” in the particular case of Saul. Rather, the text specifies the positive commitment of God to make David king over Israel. It is this on which God will not go back, as though it were in any way an equivocal or deceptive undertaking such as humans commonly make. . . . What is at stake in 1 Sam 15:29 is . . . the election of David. It is with reference to this that Samuel says that God does not “repent.” As God’s election of Israel is irrevocable, so is God’s election of David. Hence the axiomatic statement . . . God “does not repent.” 173

In the following section I shall reflect on some of the wider implications of my reading, both with regard to Yhwh’s character and our interpretation of Samuel’s prayer for Saul in v. 11. humanly speaking understandable, this act of disobedience constitutes the beginning of Saul’s apostasy from Yhwh and His ways. 171.  E.g. 1 Sam 18:6–11, 19:1, 22:16–17, 28:6–19. See Jeremias, Die Reue, 28, for more details on the portrayal of Saul. 172.  Jeremias (ibid., 32) argues that one must understand Yhwh’s regret over Saul in the light of the coming of a more worthy king (1 Sam 15:28). 173.  Moberly, “God Is Not a Human,” 120–21.

220

Chapter 4

Further Theological Reflections The Victory of Grace over Justice When one reads chap. 15 in its final form, Yhwh’s regret over the election of Saul cannot be seen in isolation from Yhwh’s gracious commitment to David (cf. 1 Sam 15:11, 29). In other words, one cannot talk about God punishing Saul without also mentioning that Yhwh elected David and committed Himself in enduring faithfulness to Israel’s second king. This is all the more remarkable, if one considers that David had committed equally grave, if not worse sins than Saul (e.g. 2  Sam 11–12). But nonetheless, Yhwh does not reject David as He did Saul. In fact, God swears David and his dynasty seemingly unconditional eternal support (cf. 2 Sam 7:12–16, Ps 132:11). These dynamics remind us of Yhwh’s post-flood commitment to humanity. First, God regretted that he created the human race because He saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry (‫ )נחם‬that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. (Gen 6:5–6)

Even though post-flood humanity remains evil from youth, Yhwh committed Himself never again to destroy every living creature in spite of the fact that the human heart continues to be fundamentally inclined toward evil (cf. Gen 8:21). Similarly, post-Saul kings continue to rebel against Yhwh, but even so, God will no longer withdraw His grace from the Davidic kings, but will only discipline them. I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. When he commits iniquity, I will punish him with a rod such as mortals use, with blows inflicted by human beings. But I will not take my steadfast love from him (‫)חסר‬, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. (2 Sam 7:14–15; cf. Ps 89:31–33)

Yhwh’s regret as expressed both in Genesis 6 and 1 Samuel 15 is caused by human rebellion. The reason that Yhwh binds Himself freely to humanity after the flood or to David and his dynasty remains hidden in God’s sovereign will. Jeremias thinks that the actual change in God does not take place where God regrets His initial just punishment (Gen 6:6, 1 Sam 15:11), but precisely there where He commits Himself freely in grace and mercy to a sinful humanity (Exod 34:6–7). Jeremias sees here a “victory of Yhwh’s salvific will over His righteous punitive judgment.” 174 This movement from just punishment to a gracious commitment to the people of God, in spite of their sinfulness, comes conceptually close to Yhwh’s change of mind in the aftermath of the golden calf apostasy (cf. 174.  My translation of Jeremias, Die Reue, 38: “Sieg des Heilswillens Jahwes über seine Strafgerechtigkeit.”

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

221

Exod 32:10–14). Moreover, for my purposes, it is highly interesting to note that these references to a divine change of mind also involve a divinely favored mediator (cf. Gen 6:8, Exod 33:13, 1 Sam 2:26, 3:19). After the flood, it was Noah’s burnt offering that evoked God’s gracious response (Gen 8:21). It was Moses’ intercessory prayer that “persuaded” Yhwh to spare the sinful people from total destruction and to maintain the covenant relationship with His people (Exod 32:10–14). In the case of Samuel, there is also a clear reference to a heartfelt prayer (1 Sam 15:11). Even though Saul was not pardoned, Yhwh committed Himself in grace to David and his royal successors. In every case, a righteous individual is closely associated with, if not instrumental in bringing about God’s undeserved grace. First to humanity, then to the people of God, and then also to the Davidic kings. This important biblical pattern, points ahead and anticipates the righteous one through whom God will overcome in grace and mercy the sins of humanity (cf. Rom 5:12–19). Paul illustrates from the Old Testament (he quotes numerous Psalms) that before God everybody is guilty (cf. Rom 1:18–3:20, esp. Ps 14). The law and the prophets, however, anticipate a righteous mediator, in whom God will reconcile a rebellious humanity to Himself. In other words, in and through Jesus, God provided a way to propitiate righteous wrath through the ultimate act of intercession (Rom 3:21–26, 2 Cor 5:18–21). Submission to God’s Will: Reflections on Election and Covenant I have attempted to argue that Samuel initially prayed for a change of Yhwh’s mind in favor of Saul (1 Sam 15:11). But the unfolding of the narrative suggests that Samuel not only had to learn the reality of Saul’s disobedience and superficial repentance but also that in God’s larger purposes Yhwh had already chosen David. God has graciously given in to the people’s request for a king and elected Saul, but God has also subjected the king to covenant obedience (cf. 1 Sam 12:14–15, 25). Moberly relates insightfully the theologoumenon of “God’s repentance” to the biblical tension of election and covenant. On the one hand, God acts on God’s own initiative, calling people with a call that is irrevocable precisely because it depends on God and not on the one called. On the other hand, the relationship thus initiated is a real one in which there is everything to be gained or lost according to how human beings live within that relationship with God. It depends on God, and it depends on human response. This is the dynamic tension at the heart of Israel’s Scripture. It is a tension never to be “resolved,” for it is definitional of what human life is and entails: a construal of humanity in relation to God that enlarges the scope and challenge and richness of what it means to be human. 175 175.  Moberly, “God Is Not a Human,” 121.

222

Chapter 4

Intercessory prayer operates at the center of this tension. Saul has lost his favor with the Lord and thus Yhwh has elected a new man according to His own heart (1 Sam 13:14). Samuel participates in prayer in this tension and has to submit eventually to God’s decision and plan. There is a vivid realism in Samuel’s nightlong prayer, which reminds us in some ways of Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane. Both mediators struggle with the will of God, but in the end they both surrender: “Not my will but yours” (cf. Luke 22:42). Both, after a night of wrestling with God, were firmly resolved to obey and to do God’s will so that the divine purposes in history come to fulfillment. The outcome of Samuel’s prayer (1 Sam 15:11) is already foreshadowed in the prophet’s warning that was voiced in the context of his commitment to pray for both people and king: “But if you still do wickedly, you shall be swept away, both you and your king” (1 Sam 12:25). We find the same dynamics in Deut 10:12–22. There intercessory prayer for pardon can only be effective in the long run, if the prayed-for party returns to Yhwh and His ways. In the case of Saul, we have seen that there are indicators that suggest that his repentance was not genuine. This understanding of intercessory prayer is strongly endorsed in Jeremiah’s intercessory activity. Jeremiah has to learn as well that there comes a time when intercessory prayer for the disobedient party is rendered ineffective and judgment takes over, if the party itself does not return to God (cf. Jer 15:1). In spite of the prophets’ persistent warnings and prayers, Israel persisted in their disobedience. The prophetic warning materialized in 721 and 587 b.c.e. The biblical “tension” between unmerited election and covenant accountability, between God’s love and justice, or between intercession for pardon and ongoing disobedience is not only fundamental to the divinehuman relationship as portrayed under the old covenant. It is clearly also there in the New Testament. For example, according to Jesus’ teaching, the gift of divine forgiveness is clearly subject to whether the recipients of God’s forgiveness extend forgiveness to their fellow humans (Matt 6:14–15; 18:21–35). Paul speaks of how presumption upon the goodness of God and lack of repentance transforms that goodness into wrath on the day of judgment (Rom 2:4–5); Paul’s language of God’s wrath (orgé) resonates strongly with the disaster (rāʿāh) that may be proclaimed, but also averted, in the Old Testament. His later discussion of the goodness and severity of God, which is inseparable from corresponding human responsiveness and so is variously encountered according to the response (Rom 11:19–23), is likewise using categories clearly recognizable from the Old Testament. 176

With regard to Samuel’s intercessory ministry in particular, we have seen that even one of the most outstanding servants of God in the Old Testa176.  Ibid., 123.

Samuel: Israel’s Second Legendary Intercessor

223

ment, in spite of his unique access to God, had to submit to the divine will. It did not suit Samuel at all that his ministry and the role of Yhwh would be undermined by an earthly king, but he submitted to and obeyed Yhwh’s will. 177 Praying for the protection and forgiveness of those who implicitly rejected him by demanding a king was, humanly speaking, going against his personal will. But Samuel demonstrated the greatness of a true intercessor by praying for something greater than himself. He understood that it would be sinful to refrain from his intercessory ministry for sinful Israel. In this, he sets a glorious example to all rulers, showing them that they should not be led astray by the ingratitude of their subordinates or subjects and on that account give up interest in their welfare; rather, rulers should persevere all the more in their anxiety for those they rule. 178 177.  Eichrodt (Theology, 449) emphasizes that even the greatest servant of God is always subject to the will of the divine majesty, and that the hearing of his/her prayer is strictly the gift of God’s free condescension. 178.  Berleb. Bible quoted by Keil, The Books of Samuel, 121.

Chapter 5

David: Repentant Sinner, Priestly Intercessor, and Yhwh’s Change of Mind (2 Samuel 24) Introduction The prophets speak on behalf of God to the people, while the kings are called to rule and judge wisely on behalf of the divine King. The prophets are called to stand in the breach on behalf of the sinful people, whereas the kings have the responsibility of protecting the people against earthly enemies (cf. Ps 72). Unlike the prophet, the king’s role is not primarily advocating for the people before the heavenly throne and speaking to the people on behalf of God. In fact, it is interesting to note that God communicates to a person as great and pious as King David through the prophets Nathan and Gad. Having said this, Israel’s kings also intercede occasionally for the people. In 2 Samuel 24, David prays that Yhwh will have mercy on the people and attempts to draw the divine judgment on himself and his house (2 Sam 24:17). The king intercedes here as a repentant sinner who is largely responsible for the severe divine punishment. This makes David’s prayer different from the other intercessory prayers that are treated in this book. What is more, the chapter starts with a mysterious note that it was Yhwh Himself who incited David to conduct a census of the people that leads eventually to a divine judgment. Chapter 24 raises some challenging questions with regard to the portrayal of Yhwh and lays important theological and geographical foundations for the Solomonic temple. In chap. 6, we shall look at Solomon’s extensive prayer at the inauguration of the Jerusalem sanctuary. There, Israel’s wisest king assumes the role of a priest as he prays for his people and surprisingly even intercedes for the non-Israelites. It will become evident that both David and Solomon play an important role in Israel’s cult (2 Sam 24, 1 Kgs 8). A Brief Canonical Portrait of David King David and Moses are the dominant figures in the Old Testament. Both were shepherds before they became Israel’s leaders. Both are called by Yhwh, “my servant” (‫ ;ע ְַב ִּדי‬Num 12:7, 2 Sam 7:5), a designation that indi-

224

David: Repentant Sinner

225

cates closeness to the Lord. From humble circumstances, David rose to be Israel’s greatest king. He was a man of many talents: Musician, poet, warrior, military leader, and politician. David is most remembered as a psalm writer and as Israel’s king par excellence. He became the standard for all later kings, and as such he became a messianic symbol. David has particularly influenced the development of Israel’s history and faith through the following achievements: (1) He captured the Jebusite citadel and established it as the neutral capital city Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:6– 9). (2) He united the nation and during his 40 year reign built an empire that stretched from Egypt to Mesopotamia. (3) He brought the Ark of the Covenant to the new capital city (2  Sam 6:2–4; cf. Ps 132) and prepared Jerusalem as Israel’s central sanctuary (cf. 1 Chr 22–29). (4) David’s most lasting legacy is perhaps the psalms. Thanks to David’s unwavering love for God and his extraordinary genius as poet and songwriter, we have now a “time and culture superseding prayer book” in the canonized psalter. 1 Just as Jewish tradition ascribes the five books of law to Moses, so it ascribes the five books of the psalms to David. His prayers have been composed, shaped, and refined in the joys and challenges of an extraordinary life. The author of Psalm 110 refers to David not only as king, but also as a priest “according to the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4). Melchizedek was very likely the Canaanite king of Jerusalem (that is, of Salem) and a “priest of God Most High” during the time of Abram (see Gen 14:18–20). It is possible that the twin offices of king and priest were transferred to David when he captured Jerusalem. 2 In 2 Samuel 24, David is acting both as king and priest. Although the Chronicler portrays David as the ideal king, the accounts in the two Samuel books do not hide David’s shortcomings. He accomplishes much and is greatly favored in spite of his many flaws. 3 David’s success, however, is to a large extent built on waging wars and much 1.  Not all psalms that bear the later added title “A Psalm of David” (‫)ל ָדִוד‬ ְ are authored by David. See, for example, Arnold A. Anderson, Psalms, 1–72 (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992) 43–45, for a concise discussion on Davidic authorship. Nevertheless, the author of 2 Chronicles ascribes to David not only the psalms, but also the arrangements of musical instruments for Israel’s worship (cf. 2 Chr 29:26, Neh 12:36). 2. Psalm 110 is one of the most difficult psalms. Verse 4 is usually regarded as a prophetic or priestly oracle addressing the king. See Arnold A. Anderson, Psalms 73–150 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992) 767. It is usually understood as a royal psalm, which assumed a messianic meaning. The prophet Zechariah seems to anticipate a merging of the royal and priestly office in the person of the Messiah (Zech 6:9–14). This is taken up by the author of Hebrews who refers to Ps 110 in order to explain why Jesus is both king and priest (see Heb 1:3, 5:5–6). 3.  See Eugene H. Peterson, The Jesus Way: A Conversation on the Ways That Jesus Is the Way (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007) 78–100, for an engaging account of David’s strength and weaknesses at the popular level. For a critical and provocative portrayal of David’s character and reign, see Steven L. McKenzie, King David: A Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

226

Chapter 5

bloodshed­. It is for this reason that God does not allow David to complete the building of the Jerusalem temple (cf. 1 Kgs 5:17, 1 Chr 22:7–11). Just as Moses was not allowed to lead Israel into the promised land because of divine displeasure (cf. Deut 4:21–22), so David has to leave the building of the temple to his son Solomon because of the extensive warfare during his reign. 2 Samuel 24 makes it clear, though, that David lays the foundation of the Jerusalem sanctuary through purchasing the land and building the altar (2 Sam 24:18–25). Thus, the temple is really a joint venture between David (altar) and his son Solomon (temple). In fact, one could argue that the designation of the temple site is even more important than the building itself.  4 Often in the Old Testament, like in the case of David, it is Yhwh Himself who chooses the locations of His sanctuaries (cf. 2 Sam 24:18, Gen 22:1, 35:1). It is interesting to note the striking parallels between the succession of David and Solomon and that of Moses and Joshua. Their commissioning speeches contain unmistakably similar elements. Both Moses and David (1) assure their successors that God would be with them (cf. Deut 31:8, Josh 1:5, 1 Chr 22:11), (2) charge them to keep the law (1 Chr 22:12, Josh 1:5), and (3) command them to be of good courage and not to be afraid or dismayed (Deut 31:7–8, Josh 1:8, 1 Chr 22:13). 5 On a typological level, one could say perhaps with Dillard, “the succession of Moses and Joshua (served) as a paradigm for that of David and Solomon.” 6 It is well known that Israel remembered Moses as their outstanding intercessor (cf. Jer 15:1, Ps 106:23). It is not so well known though that David too is remembered as one of Israel’s great intercessors (cf. 2 Esdr 7:106–10). The writer of second Esdras refers to 2 Samuel 24, where David pleads for the cessation of the destructive plague. He portrays David as an example of the righteous, praying for the ungodly (2 Esdr 7:111). Like Moses (cf. Exod 32:30–32; and Aaron, Num 16:22), the king seems to step into the breach to fend off the divine wrath on behalf of the people and intercedes in a self-sacrificial way. Scharbert thinks, however, that David’s supplication for the cessation of the plague is above all self-serving, because it is the king’s country that is at stake. Thus, he questions whether David’s prayer is an intercessory prayer at all. Moreover, Scharbert argues that the plague is not primarily a judgment of the people but a punishment directed against its ruler (Herrscherstrafe). 7 It is true that the king was initially praying only for the removal of his personal sin (2 Sam 24:10). However, when David was 4.  So Adrian Schenker, Der Mächtige im Schmelzofen des Mitleids: Eine Interpretation von 2 Sam 24 (OBO 42; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982) 15. 5.  Dale C. Allison Jr., The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993) 37. 6.  Raimond B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles (WBC 15; Waco: Word, 1987) 3. 7. Joseph Scharbert, “Die Fürbitte in der Theologie des Alten Testaments,” Theologie und Glaube 50 (1960) 328.

David: Repentant Sinner

227

confronted with the severity of the corporate divine judgment, the king comes to his senses, humbles himself before God, and pleads genuinely on behalf of the people. David is even prepared to draw Yhwh’s punishment on himself and his house (2 Sam 24:17). In contrast to Israel’s legendary intercessor Moses, David himself is burdened with guilt. We shall see that the king steps into the breach between the angel of destruction and the people as a repentant sinner who seemed largely responsible for causing this divine judgment. Against the advice of his leaders, David conducted a census that probably served to muster his army (2  Sam 24:1–4). The narrative, however, does not place all the guilt onto David’s lap only. In a mysterious way, the text suggests that Yhwh Himself has incited David against the people, because God was angry at Israel (cf. 2  Sam 24:1). Brueggemann notes in this reference that there is “something capricious, or at least hidden, about Yahweh’s action.” 8 The account raises indeed some complex theological issues about God using people to fulfill His judgments. The narrative bears witness to the interplay between corporate and individual sin, divine wrath and mercy, the intercessory prayer of a repentant king, a decisive cultic act of atonement at the place of Israel’s prospective temple, and how all of this stands under God’s providence. The Literary Context of David’s Prayer (2 Samuel 21–24) Chapter 24 is the last chapter of the second book of Samuel and is part of four chapters that stand structurally apart from the chronological development of David’s succession narrative (to be resumed in 1 Kgs 1). After numerous chapters have cast a shadow on the Davidic portrayal (cf. 2 Sam 11–20), these final chapters present David again as Israel’s exemplary king. These chapters, sometimes also called the epilogue of David’s reign, consist of six sections arranged in a loose chiastic structure. Youngblood illustrates the structure as follows: A. The Lord’s wrath against Israel (21:1–14)   B. David’s heroes (21:15–22)    C. David’s song of praise (22:1–51)    C′. David’s last words (23:1–7)   B′. David’s mighty men (23:8–39) A′. The Lord’s wrath against Israel (24:1–25) 9

According to Childs, these four final chapters “offer a highly reflective, theological interpretation of David’s whole career adumbrating the 8. Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1997) 372. 9. Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2  Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (ed. T. Longman III and D. E. Garland; 13 vols.; rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009) 3:558.

228

Chapter 5

messianic­ hope.” 10 The first and last sections are narratives of judgment and forgiveness. The first account deals with Israel’s sin, a drought lasting three years, and an act of royal intercession (2 Sam 21:1–14). The last account contains a description of Israel’s sin, a three-day plague, and David’s intercessory act (2 Sam 24:1–25). The second and fifth accounts are about David’s heroes (2 Sam 21:15–22, 23:8–39), and the two middle sections consist of two psalms of David (2 Sam 22:1–51, 23:1–7). Chapter 22 is almost identical with Psalm 18, a psalm of thanksgiving that “offers a theological commentary on the entire history of David,” 11 and chap.  23 contains the final words of the king (2 Sam 23:1–7). Also of interest is the fact that the second list of David’s mighty men ends with Uriah, whom David had killed. This stands as a reminder of one of David’s worst offenses against God and fellow humans. As a result, it effectively introduces another episode in which David sinned: the census (2  Samuel 24). 12 As we shall highlight, David repented in both incidents when he was confronted with his sin through a prophet. The last account (2  Samuel 24) comes as a climax to the David story, as it describes the events leading up to the purchase of the site on which David’s successor would establish the Jerusalem temple, the place where Israel’s sins would be atoned. As we have noted, the four chapters are framed by two intercessory acts of David. On both occasions, Israel came to stand under God’s wrath. In the former account, the divine judgment is expressed through three years of famine, and in the latter through a plague that lasted three days. Both calamities lead David to intercede for the well-being of the kingdom. Both occasions require a costly sacrifice, and both include a reference to a threeyear famine (2 Sam 21:1, 24:13) and the statement, “the Lord heeded his supplication for the land” (‫ ; ַו ּי ֵעָתֵ ר יְהוָה ָל ָארֶץ‬2 Sam 24:25, 21:14). 13 Similar to chap. 24, chap. 21 begins with a reference to Yhwh’s wrath against Israel. God’s wrath is manifested there in a severe famine. In the former account, David inquires of the Lord to learn of the cause of it. The king is told of Saul’s bloodshed against the Gibeonites in spite of Israel’s oath to spare them (2 Sam 21:1; cf. Josh 9:15, 20–21). David asks how he can make atonement for Israel’s bloodguilt so that the Gibeonites would mediate blessings rather than divine wrath on the heritage of the Lord (2 Sam 21:3). The Gibeonites require the death of seven of Saul’s sons and that their bodies be hanged on the mount in Gibeon before Yhwh to atone 10.  Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 275. 11.  Ibid., 274. 12.  The outstanding position of Uriah becomes particularly evident when compared with the parallel list in 1 Chr 11:26–47, which appears in a different context and adds some 16 additional names after Uriah’s. 13.  Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 604.

David: Repentant Sinner

229

for the sins of their father (2 Sam 21:6; cf. Deut 21:8). David complies with their demand. It is clear, however, that the writer seeks to demonstrate that David was not to blame for the execution of the Saulites. The guilt lies with the house of Saul, and according to the law it cannot be atoned for except by the blood of the one who shed it (cf. Num 35:33). The message of this account, according to Waltke, is that “God answers the king’s prayer but not apart from proprietary justice and mercy.” 14 We turn now to chap. 24 to look in some more detail at the dynamics of the other account of David’s intercessory act. Similar to chap. 21, guilt needs to be atoned, and Yhwh needs to be reconciled with the land (cf. 2 Sam 21:14, 24:25). In chap. 21, an act of atonement was required because of bloodguilt that Israel had incurred. In chap. 24, Yhwh’s wrath appears to originate in God’s sovereign will.

Yhwh Incites David to Sin: A Problematic Portrayal of God? Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, (‫ֶת־דִּוד ָּבהֶם‬ ָ ‫ ) ַו ּיָסֶת א‬saying, “Go, count (‫ )מנה‬the people of Israel and Judah.” (2 Sam 24:1)

From the immediate context, it is not entirely clear what Israel has done to provoke Yhwh’s wrath again. From a purely literary point of view, “again” seems to refer back to chap. 21, where one finds the last reference to Yhwh’s wrath. In chap. 21:1, Yhwh reveals to David the reason for the divine judgment (2 Sam 21:1–14). 15 Abrabanel argues that, this time, the divine anger goes back to chap. 20, where Israel supported the revolt against King David that was initiated by Sheba ben Bichri (2 Sam 20). Rashi simply states that he does not know the reason for Yhwh’s anger this time. 16 The reader is only told that Israel for some unknown reason aroused divine wrath and that God incited David against the people by conducting a census of Israel and Judah. Brueggemann comments on the portrayal of God: We are not told how Yahweh “incited” David, but Yahweh did so. That is, Yahweh works a “catch-22” upon David: Yahweh tempts David to an act, so that Yahweh may severely punish him for doing it. This is the one 14.  Bruce, K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007) 675. 15.  Note that 2 Sam 21:14 and 24:25 close with a similar concluding sentence: “And after that God responded to the plea for the land (‫) ַויּ ֵעָתֵ ר אֱל ִֹהים ָל ָארֶץ‬,” and “So the Lord responded to the plea for the land (‫) ַו ּי ֵעָתֵ ר יְהוָה ָל ָארֶץ‬, and the plague was averted from Israel.” (esv) 16.  I acknowledge dependence on Schenker, Der Mächtige, 50–51, for these two rabbinic references. He provides helpfully a survey of rabbinic interpretations. For Rashi, see R. Abraham J. Wertheimer, Commentary: Rabbi Isaiah da Trani the First on Prophets and Hagiographa ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1978) 77–78.

230

Chapter 5

from whom Yahweh will never remove hesed, as it was removed from Saul (2 Sam 7:15). . . . There is something capricious, or at least hidden, about Yahweh’s action. . . . At bottom, Israel’s countertestimony bespeaks something profoundly unreliable about Yahweh, even toward David, to whom Yahweh has pledged ultimate fidelity. 17

Brueggemann points rightly to the perplexing opening verses of chap. 24. It looks as though God did not lure David into sin so that He can only punish the king, but rather Yhwh uses David to punish Israel. After all, divine wrath was kindled against the people in the first place. Of course, this does not solve the problem of Yhwh’s character as portrayed in this narrative either. Is it morally justifiable to cause somebody to sin in order to fulfill one’s larger punitive purposes? The mystery of God’s conduct seems even intensified when one contrasts the statement that Yhwh incited David against Israel with scripture that states: No one, when tempted, should say, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one. But one is tempted by one’s own desire, being lured and enticed by it; then, when that desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and that sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death. ( Jas 1:13–15)

Brueggemann refers to the parallel account of 2 Samuel 24 in 1 Chronicles 21 that is perhaps the earliest interpretation of this difficult passage, which says that ׂ ְ ‫שטָן עַל־י‬ ָׂ ‫) ַו ּי ַעֲמֹד‬, and incited David to Satan stood up against Israel (‫ִש ָראֵל‬ ׂ ְ ‫ֶת־דִּויד ִל ְמנֹות אֶת־י‬ count the people of Israel. (‫ִש ָראֵל‬ ָ ‫ ַו ּיָסֶת א‬, 1 Chr 21:1)

According to the Chronicler, it is not direct divine wrath that burned against Israel, as stated in 2  Samuel 24, but it is Satan who assaults the people of God. Moreover, it is the angelic adversary who is responsible for inciting David, not God. Brueggemann continues: It is evident in 1 Chronicles 21 that Israel itself was belatedly aware of the oddity of assigning such an arbitrary action to Yahweh. The alternative of the Chronicler, to assign the capricious act to Satan, is not much more satisfactory, because we are to imagine Satan as a member of Yahweh’s royal court, who acts in the interest of the court and perhaps at its behest. Thus 1 Chronicles 21 gives us a distancing maneuver in Israel’s testimony, but no real resolution. 18

It is a time-honored hermeneutical practice to interpret difficult Scripture through other related Scripture. This is an attempt not to harmonize a difficult or even offensive passage but to shed light on it. Inner-biblical interpretation is not only illuminating and enriching but also seeks to provide a fuller canonical picture on complex issues. 17.  Brueggemann, Theology, 372. 18.  Ibid.

David: Repentant Sinner

231

Juxtaposing 2 Sam 24:1 and 1 Chr 21:1 renders a sense that Satan’s evil scheming is Yhwh’s means of carrying out His judgment. There are several passages in Scripture that assert that neither Satan’s malice nor human evil deeds happen outside Yhwh’s sovereign reign. With regard to Satan’s activities, this is well expressed in the heavenly courtroom scenario depicted in the opening chapters of the book of Job. According to the prologue to the book of Job, Satan needs God’s clearance to test the faith of Job (cf. Job 1:6– 12, 2:3–7). 19 Jesus confirms this when he reveals to Peter that Satan asked for permission to test him and the other disciples (“Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail.” Luke 22:31–32). In both passages, Satan’s activity takes place under the sovereign control of God. I shall argue that Israel has provoked Yhwh’s wrath for some unknown reason. Rather than executing the judgment immediately, Yhwh provides David with a chance to protect the people from the punishment. David, however, fails to pacify Yhwh’s anger, at least initially, and brings divine judgment on the people. 20 I shall attempt to substantiate this line of reasoning in the following pages. First, however, I would like to point out that there are several passages in the Bible that suggest that God can and sometimes does work out His purposes through morally ambiguous and rebellious characters. For example, God hardens hearts that were already in opposition to Him in the first place (cf. Exod 10:20, 27, Rom 9:18), or sends an evil spirit to work out His judgments (cf. 1 Sam 16:14, 18:10–11, 1 Kgs 22:19–22). In the Joseph narrative, we are told that God brings about His good purposes through the evil intentions of Joseph’s brothers (Gen 45:8; 50:20). Samson’s sinful desire was “of the Lord” ( Judg 14:1–4), as seemingly was David’s numbering of Israel (2 Sam 24:1). 21 Given these hermeneutically challenging passages, Israel’s faith is far from fatalistic. In fact, human choice and responsibility are absolutely central to Israel’s covenant relationship with Yhwh. Eichrodt offers some wise counsel on the delicate but fundamental biblical tension between human free will and God’s providence. It is not simply that God allows a man to think thus and not otherwise; he is himself also at work within these acts of personal freedom. He causes Absalom to reject the good counsel of Ahitophel, in order to bring evil upon him (2 Sam 17:14); he inspires Rehoboam to reject the petitions of the people (1 Kgs 12:15); he stirs up David to begin his disastrous census . . . he hardens the hearts of Pharaoh . . . and also of the Canaanites as a 19.  There are several passages that suggest that God is surrounded by a heavenly host of spirits that serve him and through whom God administers His affairs in the world (see Deut 32:8; Pss 82:1, 89:6; Dan 7:10). Satan is one of these “sons of God” who appears before God’s throne to accuse Job. 20.  So also Schenker, Der Mächtige, 19–23. 21. Terrance Tiessen, Providence and Prayer: How Does God Work in the World (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000) 146.

232

Chapter 5

whole ( Josh 11:20). Indeed, he even sends out his prophets with the explicit command: “Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed (Isa 6:10).” . . . One will never do justice to the profound grasp of the reality of God, which is evinced in these statements by trying to explain them in terms of God’s permissive will. . . . In the cases mentioned what is involved is a real act of God, in whose hand men are as clay in the hand of the potter ( Jer 18:6). . . . The remarkable thing, however, is that this never led to a flat determinism, depriving Man of the responsibility for his actions. . . . The whole ethical exhortation of the prophets is based on the conviction that decision is placed in the hands of men. But the Law, too setting before Man the choice of life or death, rests on this presupposition (cf. Exod 20:12, Lev 26, Deut 20:13f). The fundamental postulate of moral freedom is thus found in equal force alongside the religious conviction of God’s effective action in all things; and no attempt is made to create a harmonizing adjustment between them. It is testimony to the compelling power of the Old Testament experience of God that it was able to affirm both realities at once, and to endure the tension between them, without discounting anything of their unconditional validity. This state of affairs may, nevertheless, become somewhat easier to understand if we scrutinize more closely the precise instances in which divine causality is especially emphasized. If we do, we find first of all that it frequently implies no more than the power of evil to grow and spread, whereby it becomes ripe for judgment. . . . But it is not always possible to manage with this explanation. More than once an unbiased exegesis is unable to discover any fault on the part of men which could have decided Yahweh on his action (cf. 1 Sam 16:14ff.; 29:19; 2 Sam 24:1). Here there can be no doubt that the Israelites sees the reality more impartially for what it is than any theory of retribution can tolerate. For him the evil human action brought about by Yahweh comes under the heading of misfortune sent by God, something which cannot be explained on a rational basis, but must simply be reserved to God’s majesty. 22

Indeed, the opening of chap.  24 leaves several questions unanswered. One way of approaching the interrelation between divine “testing” and David’s conducting the census that has in some way kindled Yhwh’s wrath, is by analogy with the delicate balance between what has been called “prevenient grace” and human response. Humans can only respond to God’s invitation to love and trust Him when they are enabled by God’s Spirit without coercing them into a response. Similarly, it seems that God presents David with the option of responding appropriately to his advisors’ warning and thus not conducting a census with disastrous consequences. 23 22. Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (OTL; 2 vols.; London: SCM, 1985) 2:178–79. 23. See Tiessen, Providence and Prayer, 238–41.

David: Repentant Sinner

233

Does Yhwh overrule the decision making process because of David’s pride and Israel’s sin? One constructive way ahead to dig deeper into the complex concept of Yhwh’s inciting somebody to sin may be via 1 Samuel 26, where David is on the run from Saul. In the wilderness of Ziph, David has a second opportunity to kill Saul. He refuses though to lay hands on the Lord’s anointed. In his exchange with Saul, David envisages two possible reasons for Saul’s hostility against him. If it is the Lord who has stirred you up against me (‫יתךָ ִבי‬ ְ ‫ֱס‬ ִ ‫)אם־יְהוָה ה‬, ִ may he accept an offering (‫ ;)יָרַ ח ִמ ְנחָה‬but if it is mortals, may they be cursed before the Lord, for they have driven me out today from my share in the heritage of the Lord. (1 Sam 26:19)

The same expression “to stir up somebody / to incite somebody against” (‫ )סות‬is used similarly in 2 Sam 24:1. David acknowledges the possibility that God has stirred Saul against him. In other words, David conceives it possible that God wants to judge him through Saul’s evil deed (cf. 2 Sam 16:10, 24:1). Keil draws the following conclusion: The instigation of a sinner to evil is simply one peculiar way in which God, as a general rule, punishes sins through sinners; for God only instigates to evil actions such as have drawn down the wrath of God upon themselves in consequence of their sin. When David supposes the fact that Jehovah has instigated Saul against him, he acknowledges, implicitly at least, that he himself is a sinner, whom the Lord may be intending to punish, though without lessening Saul’s wrong by this indirect confession. 24

On both occasions, God seems to provide an opportunity for the sinner to acknowledge his/her evil ways and come to repentance about their sinful conduct and the resulting consequences. David invites Saul to offer a “reconciliation” offering to God (1 Sam 26:19), 25 while in chap. 24 Joab advises David not to conduct the census (v. 3). Having said all of this, chap. 24 does not tell us clearly why the census was such a terrible offense. It is possible though to pick up some clues as to what the offense was from the narrative and the wider canonical context? The Census In Old Testament times, counting the people is somehow regarded as dangerous because it could evoke a plague as a manifestation of Yhwh’s 24.  Carl Friedrich Keil, The Book of Samuel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980). 25.  Literally, “may He smell an offering (‫יָרַ ח ִמ ְנחָה‬, 1 Sam 26:19). “Smelling” a sacrifice is an anthropomorphic term, used to denote divine satisfaction (cf. Gen 8:21). The meaning of the expression, according to Keil, Samuel, is: “let Saul appease the wrath of God by the presentation of acceptable sacrifices.”

234

Chapter 5

wrath.  26 Does Joab sense this danger when he attempts to persuade the king not to undertake the census (2 Sam 24:3)? Interestingly, the Old Testament does not categorically prohibit a census of its people. In fact, Exod 30:11–16 provides divine instructions as to how to prevent incurring God’s wrath when a headcount is undertaken. 27 Every numbered adult Israelite (from the age of 20 and older) is to pay half a shekel ransom money for one’s life (‫ ;כּ ֹפֶר נפׁש‬Exod 30:14–16; Num 31:50). Brueggemann states confidently, “The intent of the instruction (in Exod 30) . . . is not difficult or obscure. Maintenance of cultic practice costs money.” 28 The ransom money, on the one hand, serves to cover the cost of the cultic requirements. On the other hand, the instructions underline that the money is also an offering to the Lord (Exod 30:13–16). In other words, census taking according to Exodus 30 is closely associated with a divinely ordained temple tax. Its actual beneficiary is ultimately Yhwh Himself. 29 It appears that taking a census of the people was the unique right of God. Not acknowledging this unique prerogative would result in divine punishment. The ransom money will shelter Israel from a plague. This plague would presumably be a divine punishment like in 2 Samuel 24. In other words, it looks as if the head tax is some kind of preventative offering. Is the payment propitiatory (pacifying divine wrath), expiatory (a favorable reminder before God; cf. Exod 30:16, Num 31:54), or rather ransom money (a recompense for God’s exclusive ownership of a person; cf. Exod 13:12–13; Num 18:16)? Given God’s instructions in Exodus 30, it appears that David’s census as such is not the problem; the problem is rather the fact that David failed to obtain Yhwh’s permission to do the count by paying the ransom money for his people. This line of reasoning finds support from a number of rabbinic interpreters who argue that David (2 Sam 24, 1 Chr 21) had disregarded the order of Exod 30:12–16 and thus had to bear the fatal consequences. 30 Similarly, McCarter understands the problem with David’s census to be due to a lack of atonement money that the king failed to pay according to the instructions in Exod 30:11–16. 31 David could have responded to Joab’s warning that he was aware of the danger, but by following the Exod 30 instructions, he would “shelter” (“cover/‫ )”כפר‬the people from divine wrath. While this interpretation of the census issue in 2 Samuel 24 makes quite good sense, a difficulty is that Exod 30:11–16 explicitly demands atone26. Christoph Dohmen, Exodus 19–40 (HThKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2004) 276. 27. Exodus 30 and 2 Samuel 24 have several verbal and conceptual parallels. Besides the reference to the taking of a census (‫ ;פקד‬Exod 30:12, 2 Sam 24:4), there is mention of an offering and of a “plague” (‫ ;נגף‬Exod 30:12; cf. 2 Sam 24:25). 28. Walter Brueggemann, “Exodus, The Book of,” The New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994) 918. 29.  Schenker, Der Mächtige, 16–17. 30. See ibid., 50–59, for an overview of rabbinic readings of 2 Samuel 24. 31.  P. Kyle McCarter Jr., 2 Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB 8; Garden City: Doubleday, 1984) 512–14.

David: Repentant Sinner

235

ment money from each adult Israelite. Regardless of status, an equal rate is demanded. A collective payment by the king would in some sense defeat the purpose of each individual having to pay a ransom for his/her life as a remembrance before Yhwh (Exod 30:16). So far, we have explored some of the background of the census. Moreover, we have noted that the king had a real choice to protect the people from Yhwh’s wrath when God incited him to conduct a census. In some sense, God’s stirring up David to do a headcount could be compared to Yhwh telling Moses to leave Him alone so that He could punish the sinful people (cf. Exod 32:10). On both occasions, Yhwh did not just go ahead to execute the judgment but offered Moses and David a chance to pacify His wrath and shield the people. What about David’s motive to count the people? What was the nature of the divine test? The Hebrew verb ‫ פקד‬that is used in 2 Sam 24:4 is often used to describe the process of counting men for battle and thus has been translated with “mustering.” 32 For example Joshua, Saul, and David “muster” their soldiers before entering battle (cf. Josh 8:10; 1 Sam 11:8, 13:15; 2 Sam 18:1). 33 According to Levine, the census lists in Numbers 1 and 26 should also be understood in this light. 34 Interestingly, in Numbers the command to count the fighting men came from God and not Moses (Num 1:1–3). Given the fact that a census is often serving as preparation for battle, it is possible to argue that David was planning to mobilize his army, or even to prepare for a war that was wrong in the eyes of the Lord. This would also explain Joab’s strong opposition to the census (cf. 2 Sam 24:3). Brueggemann comments: “a census can only serve ambitious human control through military draft or taxation.” 35 Has David given in to the temptations of a “power politician,” who seeks to lead his own wars rather than the wars of Yhwh (cf. 1 Sam 18:17)? Is the king tempted to trust more in numbers, military organization, and structure than in Yhwh’s power? Does an awareness of the number of the people replace Israel’s dependence on the Lord? Houtman asserts that counting the population is an encroachment of a divine privilege. He writes: A human who acquires this knowledge usurps a right that belongs to the deity and so infringes on the deity’s authority over those counted. Hence, holding a census is an expression of hubris, of unbridled lust for power, which is often accompanied by oppression. 36

Does David doubt Yhwh’s covenant promise to increase the descendants of Abraham like the sand of the sea (cf. Gen 13:16, 15:5)? The possibility that 32.  Zürich translation: “um das Volk, Israel, zu mustern.” 33.  Williams F. Tyler, “‫ פקד‬, pāqad,”NIDOTTE 3:656. 34. Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB 4A; New York: Doubleday, 1993) 134–35. 35.  Brueggemann, Theology, 371. 36. Cornelis Houtman, Exodus 20–40 (HCOT; Leuven: Peeters, 2000) 562–63.

236

Chapter 5

the size and power of David’s army is at issue, may be further supported by Joab’s wish: “May the Lord your God increase the number of the people a hundredfold” (2 Sam 24:3). If the desire for more people, more land, and power is behind David’s “mustering,” then it is interesting to note that David finds himself with 70,000 fewer people after the divine judgment. 37 To sum up, it remains a fact that the author of 2 Samuel 24 does not provide any explicit explanation as to why the census causes such a divine offense or what the exact motives behind David’s census are. Perhaps we are meant to leave it with these rich but somewhat vague scriptural reverberations. What is clear, however, is that David had the chance and the means either to listen to Joab’s warning and retract from his census ambition, or follow the required cultic requirements to prevent the outbreaking of a plague. But the king prevailed in his selfish way and failed in both regards, and he seemed to have known this. For when David receives report from Joab about the number of his army (2 Sam 24:9–10), the king is troubled in his heart and comes to his senses. David confesses his great sin and prays for the removal of his guilt.

David’s First Confession: Divine Judgment and Mercy (2 Samuel 24:10–15) David was stricken to the heart because he had numbered the people. David said to the Lord, “I have sinned (‫ָאתי‬ ִ ‫ ) ָחט‬greatly in what I have done. But now, O Lord, I pray you, take away the guilt of your servant; for I have done very foolishly.” (2 Sam 24:10)

After David was informed about the outcome of the census, the king was convicted of the folly that he had committed. From v. 11, we get the sense that the king had reflected on his failure during the night. 38 It certainly speaks for David that he still allows his conscience that is formed by the Torah to respond to God’s ways. David’s contrite reaction reminds us of the Bathsheba incident where the king confesses to God with the same words: “I have sinned against the Lord” (‫ָאתי לַיהוָה‬ ִ ‫ ָחט‬, 2 Sam 12:13). It is interesting to note that the Masoretic text in 2 Sam 12:13 inserts a break after David’s confession ‫ָאתי לַיהוָה‬ ִ ‫ ָחט‬, indicated by a ‫ס‬. This break may well be a Masoretic literary invitation “to insert” Psalm 51 that contains almost a verbatim confession: ָ‫ְלךָ [אֱל ִֹהים] ְלב ְַדּך‬ ‫ָאתי‬ ִ ‫“( ָחט‬Against you [God], you alone, have I sinned,” Ps 51:4 [MT 51:6]). 39 37.  Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 611. 38.  In v. 11, we read that the word of judgment came to Gad the prophet when David rose up in the morning. 39. Psalm 51 has traditionally been ascribed to David. It bears the midrashic title A Psalm of David, When the Prophet Nathan Came to Him, After He Had Gone in to Bathsheba. Although the authorship of the Psalms and the dates of the titles cannot be determined with certainty, Brevard S. Childs shows that the titles often represent a careful study of the psalms and provide valuable hermeneutical help. See his “Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis,” JSS 16 (1971) 137–50.

David: Repentant Sinner

237

Psalm 51 and other penitential psalms state assertively that for a sinner there is only one right response to a holy God: that of a broken and contrite heart (cf. Luke 18:10–13). 40 From the penitential psalms, one can see that confessing and repenting of one’s mistakes, whether these are sins against God or against fellow human beings, are the beginnings of a process toward healing and reconciliation (cf. Pss 32:4–11, 51). Prayers of confession in the Bible move from confession of sin to petition for forgiveness. David is no exception. He acknowledges the foolishness of his act and prays that God will take away his guilt (2 Sam 24:10). 41 Yhwh does not grant it yet. The author of Psalm 51 knows that confession of sin and prayer for the removal of guilt do not necessarily mean that there will be no punishment. “For I know my transgressions. . . . Against you, you alone, have I sinned . . . so that you are justified in your sentence” (cf. Ps 51:3–4 [MT 51:5–6]). On the next morning, Yhwh makes His judgment known to the king through His prophet Gad (2 Sam 24:11). Possibly as a result of the king’s first confession, the prophet offers the king a mitigation of divine judgment in the form of a choice of three possible punishments. The choice comprises the characteristic Old Testament triad of hardship: famine, war, and pestilence (cf. Jer 14:12, 15:2, 21:7). The duration of the judgment period is presented in decreasing duration and increasing intensity: three years of famine, 42 three months of military pursuit by the enemy, or three days of a plague in the land. David accepts Yhwh’s verdict and responds as follows to the prophetic judgment: I am in great distress; let us fall into the hand of the Lord, for his mercy is great (‫חמָו‬ ֲ ַ‫;)ּכי־רַ ִּבים ר‬ ִ but let me not fall into human hands. (2 Sam 24:14)

Brueggemann comments on David’s humble response to the divine verdict: “A lesser man—perhaps his son Solomon—would not have confessed but would have eliminated the prophet instead.” 43 Like so often in the psalms, David entrusts himself to Yhwh’s mercy (cf. Ps 51:1 [MT 51:3]). Divine mercy is one of the fundamental attributes that Yhwh has revealed to Moses in the aftermath of Israel’s archetypal sin, the golden calf (‫ ;רחם‬cf. Exod 34:6). Since then, Israel has invoked divine mercy, as one of the last resorts, like one who has nothing left to claim for oneself, but to throw oneself to the “womb pity” of God (‫ ;רחם‬cf. Dan 9:18). 44 Brueggemann may speak 40.  The “Masoretic connection” between 2 Sam 12:13 and Psalm 51 has been pointed out to me by Walter Moberly in a personal discussion. 41.  In prayers of confession, acknowledging the folly of one’s sin is a common motif (1 Sam 26:21). 42. The nrsv and esv adopt the Greek text that says three years of famine. The Masoretic text reads seven years. Instead of seven years of famine, we find also three years in 1 Chr 21:12. Three years seems also more in line with the three potential judgments, and each lasting a period of three divisions of time. 43. Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (IBC; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990) 282. 44.  The adjective ‫ֲמים‬ ִ ‫ רַ ח‬is closely associated with the noun ‫( רחם‬womb) and motherly affection toward a child.

238

Chapter 5

about Yhwh’s capriciousness in this passage, but for David it is clear: it is much better to fall into the hands of God than of men. David knows that Yhwh’s judgment is just and will eventually be overcome grace, covenant loyalty, and mercy (cf. ‫חנן‬, ‫חסד‬, ‫רחם‬, Pss 51:1 [MT 51:3], 103:8­–10). One could argue though that David chooses his judgment under a pious pretext. After all, a collective punishment would not affect him directly, while a war would most likely endanger him personally (“let me not fall into human hands”). 45 The rabbis ascribe more credit to David’s character by suggesting that the king reasoned as follows: “If I choose famine the people will say that I chose something which will affect them and not me, for I shall be well supplied with food; if I choose war, they will say that the king is well protected; let me choose pestilence, before which all are equal.” 46 In any case, David does not decide clearly on one of the judgment options. The king merely says that he does not want to fall into human hands. Thereby, David implies that he does not want to be judged through a military assault. Famine or plague would be a judgment that was more readily perceived as coming from the hands of God. Not falling into the hands of men means in this case that Yhwh sends a pestilence through His angel. The angel of destruction is sometimes understood as a kind of hypostases of Yhwh’s wrath. 47 Milgrom writes: Wrath is conceived as an independent entity, equivalent to the destroyer (Hebrew ha-mashhit; Exod. 12:23) who acts as God’s agent of destruction (2 Chron. 19:2). According to Rashi, the rabbis believed that this function was assumed by the angel of death, who is also called “the Anger before the Lord with authority to kill.” God’s destroyer, according to the rabbis, did not distinguish between the innocent and the wicked. Thus the divine wrath/plague/destroyer is regarded as an amoral force, which can be overcome only by blood, incense, or some other ritual. 48

Whether God’s angel of destruction distinguishes between the guilty and innocent is difficult to assess. According to chap. 24, 70,000 men died. Judg45.  The parallel account emphasizes that the second punishment would primarily affect David personally: “three months of devastation by your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtakes you” (1 Chr 21:12). 46.  Cited in Shalom Goldman, Samuel 1 and 2 (New York: Soncino, 1949) 345. 47.  For example, in 2 Sam 24:19 it says that Yhwh has told His prophet Gad to tell David that he should build an altar, while according to 1 Chr 21:18 it is the angel of the Lord (‫ )מ ְַלא ְַך יְהוָה‬who commanded Gad to tell David. The complexity of the relation between Yhwh and the angel of destruction (‫ַׁש ִחית‬ ְ ‫ ) ַהּמ‬is well known from the passover narrative. On the one hand, we read that Yhwh will pass through Egypt to strike the Egyptians, but on the other hand, within the same verse it says that God will not allow the destroyer (‫ַׁש ִחית‬ ְ ‫ ַהּמ‬, lit., “the one who destroys” or the “bringer of ruin”) to enter Israel’s houses (Exod 12:23; cf. 23:20–23). According to Exod 12:23, the Destroyer does the killing, while vv. 27 and 29 say that Yhwh does the destruction and the protection. See Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 610–11, for a constructive discussion on the angel of the Lord. 48. Jacob Milgrom, ‫במדבר‬, Numbers ( JPS Torah Commentary; New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1990) 142.

David: Repentant Sinner

239

ing from the geographical reference (from Dan to Beersheba), the angel followed the same route as the census did (cf. 2 Sam 24:5–7, 24:15). This may mean that the people who died where registered soldiers. 49 In the case of the final plague on Pharaoh, when the Destroyer (‫ַׁש ִחית‬ ְ ‫ ) ַהּמ‬passed through Egypt, it was not primarily a matter of the guilty versus the innocent, but it distinguished those who followed God’s instruction and covered their doorposts with the blood of the passover lamb from those who did not (Exod 12:21–23). Individuals were destroyed, but God’s people were protected. Perhaps closer to the dynamics of 2 Samuel 24 is Num 16:41–50, where Yhwh’s righteous anger is about to consume rebellious Israel in the form of a plague. Moses, not unlike the prophet Gad, ordered Aaron to make atonement for Israel by offering incense before Yhwh, for wrath had gone out from the Lord (Num 16:46). Similar to David’s case, the plague demanded several thousand casualties before it could be stopped through an act of atonement. The text states clearly that Israel rebelled against Moses and Aaron (Num 16:41), while in 2 Samuel 24 Israel has kindled Yhwh’s wrath again, and so God’s wrath, plague, and the angel of destruction cannot be regarded as an amoral force without further qualification. Miller reminds us helpfully of Yhwh’s justice that expresses itself often in righteous wrath. The notion of the wrath of God is not a pleasant one. Indeed the modern consciousness resists it mightily. Jonathan Edward’s sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is cited often, but only for negative and antiquarian reasons, that is, an example of a time and a theology that are long gone. Again, however, a dismissal of this notion may be simplistic and reflective of a tendency to cut the moral nerve of our theology. The wrath of God is a metaphor, an anthropomorphic figure, to express the conviction that there is in the universe a moral connection, that the love and mercy of God are not apart from or understandable without the justice of God. Sin is not finally, and in the Bible never actually, an abstract notion. . . . It is a breakdown in the nature of relationship, a moral breach that always has consequences . . . It is not a divine appetite that confession seeks to satisfy, but a divine nature that is just and insists that the universe reflect that justice. 50

Our narrative creates the impression that the angel of the Lord has already passed everywhere in the land apart from Jerusalem.

Yhwh’s Change of Mind and David’s Intercessory Prayer (2 Samuel 24:16–17) But when the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord relented concerning the evil (‫) ַו ִּיּנָחֶם יְהוָה אֶל־ ָה ָרעָה‬, and said to the angel who was bringing destruction among the people,“It is enough; now 49.  Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 610. 50. Patrick D. Miller, They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 247–48.

240

Chapter 5

stay your hand.” The angel of the Lord was then by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. When David saw the angel who was destroying the people, he said to the Lord,“I alone have sinned, and I alone have done wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done? Let your hand, I pray, be against me and against my father’s house.” (2 Sam 24:16–17)

These two verses are about God’s moral seriousness and sovereign grace and how the divine attributes justice and grace relate to the king’s response. David responds in prayer. In its wording, it is another confession, but in its intention it is an intercessory prayer on behalf of the people. 51 Before we turn to David’s prayer, let us first attend to the chronology of these verses and the question as to why Yhwh has relented (‫ )נחם‬concerning His punitive intentions. Several suggestions have been put forward. Possible Reasons for the Divine Change of Mind and Narrative Chronology Jeremias argues that Yhwh stopped the judgment out of consideration of the prospective temple place. The holy city, chosen by God Himself, cannot be touched. Not even when the king sins against God. Outside Jerusalem, so argues Jeremias, the judgment continued (cf. 2 Sam 24:17, 21, 25). 52 This line of reasoning, however, is challenged by Jeremiah’s temple sermon, where the prophet confronts the sinful people not to trust in the widespread belief that Yhwh would not permit that His temple would be destroyed. In fact, Jeremiah proclaims in the name of Yhwh that if Israel’s sins abound, Yhwh Himself would become the prime agent of destruction like in the Shiloh sanctuary that was in some sense Jerusalem’s predecessor ( Jer 7:14). Another attempt to explain the divine change of mind is that Yhwh commanded the angel to stop the punishment out of His great mercy and compassion. At the sight of 70,000 dead people, Yhwh had compassion on Israel after less than a day. 53 This could be taken as Yhwh’s already having decided to show mercy before David intercedes for the people (2 Sam 24:17). 54 Did God become lenient because enough people had died and it was time to show mercy (cf. Ps 103:8–10)? This would be in line with Birch’s understanding that “God’s mercy is not the result of David’s confession; it is the unexplained grace of God in which David trusted.” Later on, Birch submits that confession and prayer are the foundation for recognizing where God’s mercy is at work. . . . Prayer does not so much mobilize God’s mercy as articulate our own trust in 51.  Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 354. 52. Jörg Jeremias, Die Reue Gottes: Aspekte alttestamentlicher Gottesvorstellung (BThSt 31; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 19972) 66–69. 53.  In 2 Sam 24:15 we read, “from that morning until the appointed time” and then in v. 18 “that day Gad came.” 54.  Schenker, Der Mächtige, 8, argues that David’s intercession is not the cause of Yhwh’s mercy. Rather, David prays for what has already been the will of God.

David: Repentant Sinner

241

God’s mercy. God’s mercy is already at work, but our own trustful prayer makes the possibilities that grow from divine mercy more visible. Prayer changes the horizon of our vision to include discernment of what God is doing alongside our analysis of the human possibilities. 55

In other words, Birch seems to hold that David in prayerful confession recognizes his sin but trusts in God’s prevenient mercy. This is a possible reading of the narrative, but it seems to be in danger of understanding God’s mercy in a too-static way. Although Yhwh has revealed Himself as a God who is fundamentally merciful and gracious, He will also visit in judgment the sin of His people (Exod 34:6–7). Birch’s reading seems to lose this fundamental dynamic between divine mercy and justice. As we have seen, Old Testament petitionary and intercessory prayers are often caught up in the dynamic of the divine name (Exod 34:6–9, Num 14:18–38, Joel 2:17, etc.). This appears to be the case in 2 Sam 24:10–17 as well. So where does this leave us in our understanding of the interplay between Yhwh’s judgment and David’s prayer? On closer reading of the narrative flow we note that the angel was still in the process of executing the judgment, when David makes his second confession and pleads for divine mercy. “When David saw the angel who was destroying the people (‫ִּב ְראֹתֹו‬ ְ ‫)אֶת־ ַהּמ ְַלא‬, he said to the Lord, ‘I alone have sinned’” (2 Sam ‫ָך ַה ַּמ ֶכּה ָבעָם‬ 24:17). In the light of v. 16 this would either mean that the angel did not obey Yhwh’s command to stop with the destructive judgment, which is very unlikely given the inextricable relation between God and angel, or that the sequence of the narrative somehow does not coincide with the chronological order of the happenings. According to the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 21, the sword of judgment was hovering over Jerusalem from v. 16 to v. 27. 2 Sam 24:25 confirms that only at the end, after David’s prayer and the atoning sacrifice, “the Lord responded to the plea for the land, and the plague was averted from Israel.” Does this mean that vv. 15 and 16 provide a kind of summary or preview of the happenings, while vv. 17 onward tell the listener how the divine change of mind came about? This sort of reading would be in line with the normal sequence of events, that is, sin, divine offense and judgment, human/mediator’s response in the form of repentance/intercessory prayer/sacrifice, and finally God’s resolution (cf. Exodus 32–34, Numbers 14, 1 Samuel 12). This sort of understanding of the relationship between God’s change of mind and David’s repentance and intercessory acts (cf. 2 Sam 24:17–25) can be further supported by the following two observations: First, we have noted that the terminology of God changing His mind regarding the intended judgment (‫ )נחם‬appears frequently in the context of intercessory prayer. 56 In fact, we have seen that Yhwh makes His punitive 55.  Bruce C. Birch, “First and Second Books of Samuel,” NIB 2:1383. 56.  Cf. Exod 32:7–14, Num 14:12–20, Jer 26:19, Amos 7:1–6, Joel 2:12–14.

242

Chapter 5

intentions often subject to the intercessory efforts of His servants. Second, and related to the first point, we note some verbal and conceptual parallels with Exod 32:14. In Exodus 32, where Yhwh changed His mind concerning the calamity (‫ָרעָה‬ ָ ‫ ) ַוִ ּיּנָחֶם יְהוָה עַל־ה‬that He was planning to bring on idolatrous Israel, “divine repentance” comes also in the context of a restricted judgment (3,000 men fell by the sword of the Levites) and the intercession of Israel’s leader (cf. Exod 32:28, 35; 2 Sam 24:15). Both Moses and David show in their intercessory prayers tremendous solidarity with the people. On both occasions, the intercessors plead not only for the protection of the people but are also prepared to die (Exod 32:32, 2 Sam 24:17). Chronologically speaking, this would mean that God’s change of mind (v. 16) would either be happening at the time of David’s prayer (v. 17) or when the king offers his sacrifices (v. 25), or during the entire process of the atoning intercession (prayer and sacrifice). Thus, we conclude that the chronology of the narrative can be best explained in reading a shift from the heavenly scene (v. 16), as it were, to the earthly scene. There, the focus is on David’s response to the divine judgment. The king acknowledges his sin and selflessly seeks to direct the punishment onto himself and his family in order to protect the people. It seems as though the narrator suggests that what happens in the spiritual sphere (that is, God’s change of mind and withholding His angel from further destruction) is intrinsically related to what happens in the sphere of David. “Please Let Your Hand Be against Me”: David’s Repentance and Intercession One of the central arguments of this book is that “authoritative” intercessory prayer presupposes direct access to the council of God. Only then an intercessor can represent the needs of the people before God in a assertive manner. In spite of David’s intimate relationship with God, it is striking to note that the king does not enjoy direct access to Yhwh, but needs to consult God through the “Ephod” or Ebjatar the priest (cf. 1 Sam 23:9–12) or through prayer like any devout Israelite (2 Sam 7:18–19). Yhwh communicates His promises and admonitions to David via the prophets Nathan and Gad (2 Sam 7:5–16, 12:1–12, 24:12). God also pronounces His verdict to the king through the prophet (2 Sam 12:13). 57 These references confirm and underline the privileged position of the authentic prophet. Only when the intercessor has access to the will of Yhwh can he or she pray in tune with the will of God and confront the people with divine authority.  58 Does this disqualify David from being an “authoritative” intercessor? Is Scharbert right after all, when he asserts that we are dealing here not with an intercessory prayer but with a personal prayer of the king? 59 57. Jospeph Scharbert, Heilsmittler im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient (Quaestiones Disputatae 23/24; Freiburg: Herder, 1964) 124. 58.  Acts 2:30 refers to David as a prophet. 59.  Ibid., 328.

David: Repentant Sinner

243

Unlike in the case of the prophets, David’s prayer does not come as a response to a divine revelation in which the intercessor was informed by God about a forthcoming judgment on the sinful people (see Gen 18:17; Exod 32:7–10; Amos 3:7, 7:1–9). David sees that the angel of the Lord is already in the process of punishing the nation. When David discerns with his own (spiritual) eyes that he has caused the disaster, he humbles himself before God and confesses that he is guilty of having conducting an unauthorized census: I alone have sinned, and I alone have done wickedly (‫ָאתי ְואָנ ִֹכי‬ ִ ‫ִהּנֵה אָנ ִֹכי ָחט‬ ‫ֵיתי‬ ִ ‫ ;) ֶהעֱו‬but these sheep, what have they done? (2 Sam 24:17)

In other words, David takes sole responsibility for the transgression and judgment. The David who prays in v. 17 is, as Brueggemann puts it, a voice very different from the regal David of verse 2. David has been broken, or healed, or returned to his senses (cf. Luke 15:17). David is indeed the “man after God’s own heart” (1 Sam 13:14). 60

David, the shepherd of the people, is admitting guilt, while defending the flock before the judge. That is, at least as far as the sin of the census is concerned, for which they are being punished now. It is indeed one of the marks of authentic penitential prayer that the person praying acknowledges before the divine judge that he or she fully deserves the punishment without attempting to justify him or herself or appealing to possible complicity of others in order to moderate the sin and thus seek lenient punishment. Like in the first confession, David moves from confession to supplication. On the first occasion, the king pleads for personal forgiveness (“I pray you, take away the guilt of your servant” v.  10), while this time, David moves on to an intercessory prayer for the people: but these sheep, what have they done? Let your hand, I pray, be against me and against my father’s house. (2 Sam 24:17; cf. Amos 7:1–6)

The power politician becomes a selfless mediator like Moses, who pleads that the divine punishment would fall on him rather than the people (cf. Exod 32:11–14, 30–32; Isa 53:12; Rom 9:3). The difference between Moses’ and David’s prayer is, however, that in the case of the former, the innocent intercedes for the guilty party, while in the latter, the guilty prays on behalf of the innocent (at least as far as the census is concerned). In Moses’ second intercession after the golden calf incident, Moses prays that Yhwh should take his own life instead of destroying the guilty people (Exod 32:30–32). However, in David’s case, the guilty king is prepared to die by taking upon himself the divine judgment. Thus, Schenker is right when he says that David’s intercession arises from the king’s sense of justice. He refers to the prayer as an act of justice. Just as the king has brought down divine punishment on the land through his guilt, so he seeks to bring healing to the 60.  Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 355.

244

Chapter 5

people through his intercession. Thus, according to Schenker, David’s intercession is the exact reversal of his misconduct. 61 As we shall see, God only partially accepts David’s prayerful offer. Although David’s intercession is an honorable move and is in line with the greatest biblical intercessors such as Moses and the suffering servant, only David’s greatest descendant, the “Messiah,” can ultimately bear the divine wrath and punishment that is due to the sinful people. In this context, a brief comparison with 1 Samuel 15 is quite illuminating. Besides the reoccurrence of the expression of God’s change of mind concerning the punishment (‫ ;נחם‬cf. 1 Sam 15:29, 2 Sam 24:16), in both accounts we find reference to the sin of a king. In both instances, God sends a prophet in the morning to draw attention to the monarch’s transgression (cf. 1 Sam 15:12, 2 Sam 24:11). 62 This is followed on both occasions by a double royal confession of guilt (cf. 1 Sam 15:24, 30; 2 Sam 24:10, 17). Initially, however, Saul sought to justify his failure by blaming the people (1 Sam 15:14, 21), while David fully acknowledges his guilt and is eventually ready to take upon himself all the punishment (2 Sam 24:17). Saul is not even ready to accept his own judgment (1 Sam 15:24–25). In fact, Saul does not change much during the conflict with Samuel, while David acknowledges the divine word communicated through the prophet and thus repented genuinely. Authentic repentance of sin averts the wrath of God and often leads to the reestablishment of the divine-human relationship. 63 By praying that Yhwh would redirect the punishment onto himself, David appears to earn the right to pray for pardon for the people. David’s prayer was heard. Schenker catches the narrative development insightfully when he observes that from 2  Sam 24:3 onward, especially from v.  14 to v.  17, the account testifies to the transformation of the ruler. David’s conception of power does a 180-degree turn. At the outset of the narrative, the king is only concerned about personal power that is expressed through a numerically strong army. When the king’s seer confronts David with his guilt, David repents and attempts first to save himself (v. 14). As the extent of the disaster that David has caused becomes evident to him, the king prefers the downfall of himself and his family to that of the people (v. 17). Schenker observes, King David changes from a despot to a father of his country; he no longer exploits his people and his power, rather he offers himself and his family for the people. 64 61.  Schenker, Der Mächtige, 4–5. 62. Cf. Jan-Dirk Döhling, Der Bewegliche Gott: Eine Untersuchung des Motivs der Reue Gottes in der Hebräischen Bibel (HBS 61; Freiburg: Herder, 2009) 239. 63. Cf. Miller, They Cried, 249. See pp. 449–454 on Joel for a fuller discussion on the power of repentance. 64.  Schenker, Der Mächtige, 6. My translation of “Aus einem Despoten wurde König David ein Vater seines Landes; er beutet sein Volk nicht mehr für sich und seine Macht aus, sondern er gibt sich und seine Familie für es hin.”

David: Repentant Sinner

245

Only when David comes to stand in the right relationship to the power of a just ruler does he receive divine instructions to build an altar for himself and the people. 65

Divine Pardon for the People through Contrite Prayer and Sacrifice As often in the context of intercessory prayer, God’s reply immediately follows David’s prayer (2 Sam 24:17–18; cf. Num 14:19–20, Amos 7:2–3). In contrast to the prophetic intercessors, David receives God’s word through a third person, the prophet Gad: Go up and erect an altar to the Lord on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. (2 Sam 24:18)

In obedience to the mediated divine word, David approaches Araunah and even seeks to acquire the place for the altar. From David’s explanation to Araunah as to why he came to buy the threshing floor, we can infer that Yhwh’s judgment has not yet stopped at the time of building the altar. David says that the erection of the altar serves the termination of the plague (literally, “so that the plague may be brought to a halt among the people” [‫;]ותֵ ָעצַר ַה ַּמ ֵּגפָה ֵמעַל ָהעָם‬ ְ cf. 2 Sam 24:21). When David offered the sacrifices on the altar, the Lord answered the king’s supplications for the land and the plague was averted from Israel (2 Sam 24:25). The final verse seems to confirm the sequence of events. Only after David’s prayer for mercy and after presenting his sacrifices on the altar, Yhwh responds favorably to the king’s entire act of intercession (2 Sam 24:25). In other words, even though v. 16 already informs the reader of Yhwh’s change of mind concerning the calamity (‫ָרעָה‬ ָ ‫) ַו ִּיּנָחֶם יְהוָה עַל־ה‬, the narrative sequence makes it clear that the Lord only stopped the punishment as a result of the king’s contrite intercessory prayer and the sacrifices on the altar. We have noted in the case of Samuel’s prayer for the protection against the Philistines that intercessory prayer is sometimes accompanied by a sacrifice (‫עלה‬, 1 Sam 7:9). King David too, not only intercedes through prayer, but also through offering burnt and peace offerings (‫ עלה‬and ‫ ;ׁשלם‬2 Sam 24:25). A major difference between these two acts of sacrifice is that Samuel seems to have enforced his verbal prayer through a whole burnt offering, while David follows God’s instruction to build an altar. Then, the king presents offerings of atonement and reconciliation to God. 66 In other words, the Lord Himself provides here the means to make atonement as a result of David’s contrite intercession for the people. It is evident from Yhwh’s response that reconciliation is set into motion from both sides, the 65.  Ibid., 1, 28. 66.  Although the specific terminology for atonement. The word ‫ כפר‬is not used here, the context and other instances in the book of Samuel confirm that we are dealing in 24:18–25 also with an expiatory sacrifice (cf. 1 Sam 3:14, 26:19). See ibid.,10.

246

Chapter 5

one who sinned and the one who was sinned against (cf. 2 Sam 24:16, 18, 25). 67 The king performs here a priestly role and anticipates Solomon’s prayer and offering on the altar at the same place (cf. 1 Chr 22:1, 1 Kgs 8). Solomon will confirm David’s prayer experience by saying, “if you return to the Lord with a repentant heart He will hear your prayer and forgive you” (1  Kgs 8:33­–34). The narrative witnesses to the transformation of David. The king changes from an authoritarian and possibly power hungry ruler to a father-like figure who acknowledges his guilt and becomes willing to sacrifice himself for the nation. Interestingly, only when David came to stand in a right relationship with the Lord and regained a proper perspective on his role as king, God calls him to build an altar for the reestablishment of the divine-human relationship. In many ways, this account contributes to our understanding of the intricate relationship between individual and corporate guilt and judgment and pardon. From David’s supplication, one may infer that the pestilence came over Israel only because of the king’s sin: “I have done wickedly. But these sheep, what have they done?” (2 Sam 24:17). The reader knows, however, that Israel also sinned against the Lord (2 Sam 24:1) and that David was used as an instrument to bring about divine judgment on both himself and the people. Having said that, David had the chance to pay the prescribed atonement tax before conducting the census and thereby reconciling the people to God (cf. Exod 30:12, 16). Yhwh’s test of the census exposed the king’s rebellious heart and so it seems that God in His providence could execute His judgment on both the sinful people and king. When David came to his senses and assumed responsibility for his sin and for the people as God’s anointed leader, Yhwh was quick to show mercy and stop the plague already on its first day of what was announced to be a three-day judgment. 68 In sum, this narrative gives expression to the complexity of the dynamics between Israel’s corporate and individual sin, Yhwh’s judgment, the tension between David’s free-will and divine providence, and how repentance, intercessory prayer, and an act of atonement on the site of the prospective Jerusalem temple relate to the entire process of judgment and reconciliation.

Further Theological Reflections Intercessory Prayer and Atoning Sacrifice: Propitiation and Expiation According to 2 Samuel 24, David’s repentance and intercession are a response to God’s righteous wrath (‫ )אַף‬and punishment. We have noted that 67.  Miller, They Cried, 251. 68.  In v. 15, we read that “the Lord sent a pestilence on Israel from that morning until the appointed time.” In other words, the plague started on this day. The terrible events described in vv. 16–17 seem to happen all on the same day, while in v. 18 we read that David received God’s word on that day (‫ ַוּיָבֹא‬referring presumably to the same day as v. 15).

David: Repentant Sinner

247

Moses’ prayer in the aftermath of the golden calf apostasy seeks first of all to appease God’s anger: (“[God] said he would destroy them—had not Moses, his chosen one, stood in the breach before him, to turn away his wrath (‫ ) ֵחמָה‬from destroying them,” Ps 106:23; cf. Exod 32:10). Particularly in the context of Moses’ prayers, we have seen that intercessory prayer can appease divine wrath (‫ ) ָהאַף ְו ַה ֵחמָה‬and postpone or mitigate punishment (Deut 9:18–19). Intercessory prayer, however, rarely eradicates sin. Sin usually remains suspended over the sinners until divine judgment has been fulfilled (cf. Num 14:19–25, Jer 7:16) or until an act of atonement has been made (cf. Num 15:22–29). The same understanding seems to apply to David’s intercessory prayer and his subsequent sacrifice of atonement. Not unlike in the wilderness rebellion against Moses and Aaron, the people’s offence required both intercessory prayer (“they fell on their faces”) and Aaron’s cultic form of intercession (incense offering) to propitiate the divine wrath and to atone for the people’s sin. Only then the plague came to a halt (cf. Num 16:45–50, 2 Sam 24:18–25). the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: “Get away from this congregation, so that I may consume them in a moment.” And they fell on their faces. Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer, put fire on it from the altar and lay incense on it, and carry it quickly to the congregation and make atonement for them (‫)ו ַכּפֵר עֲלֵיהֶם‬. ְ For wrath (‫)ּקצֶף‬ ֶ has gone out from the Lord; the plague (‫ )נֶגֶף‬has begun.” . . . He put on the incense, and made atonement for the people (‫) ַו ְי ַכּפֵר עַל־ ָהעָם‬. . . . He stood between the dead and the living; and the plague was stopped. (Num 16:44–48 [MT 17:9–13])

Like Moses the prophet instructs Aaron the priest, so Gad the prophet instructs David how to make atonement for Israel’s sin (cf. 2 Sam 24:18–25). A number of summarizing observations can be made. First, this comparison underlines the importance of the prophet’s role in dealing with sin. Second, both accounts show that divine pardon may well include divine punishment. Third, intercessory prayer may pacify Yhwh’s wrath and mitigate the punishment, but sin is primarily overcome by an atoning sacrifice. Milgrom reminds the reader rightly that a sacrifice is not inherently efficacious; it must be accompanied by contrition and confession (for deliberate sins) and, even then, forgiveness is not assumed but is dependent on the grace of God. 69

Fourth, in line with the statement above, David’s “troubled heart” followed by a double confession of sin confirms the necessity of repentance in the process of forgiveness. 70 The strong association between human pride and 69.  Milgrom, Numbers, xxxix. 70.  See Mark J. Boda, A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament (Siphrut 1; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009) 162, for listing helpfully several biblical key motifs in the process from sin to divine pardon.

248

Chapter 5

divine wrath, human humility and divine mercy, comes further to expression in the prayer of another king. But Hezekiah did not respond according to the benefit done to him, for his heart was proud. Therefore wrath (‫ ) ֶקצֶף‬came upon him and upon Judah and Jerusalem. Then Hezekiah humbled himself for the pride of his heart, both he and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the wrath of the Lord (‫ ) ֶקצֶף יְהוָה‬did not come upon them in the days of Hezekiah. (2 Chr 32:25–26)

With these intertextually and conceptually related passages in the background, we can appreciate that David’s twofold confession of sin, his selfless intercessory prayer (2 Sam 24:10, 17; cf. Ps 51), and the atoning sacrifice are a humble act that sought to pacify Yhwh’s righteous wrath, overcome sin, and restore the broken relationship between God, David, and the people. In somewhat systematic fashion, one could say that, on the one hand, people’s offense against God and His ways is sin that alienates them from God. On the other hand, God is alienated from people by His personal reaction to sin, that is, by His righteous wrath. Because Yhwh is fundamentally gracious and merciful (Exod 34:6, 2 Sam 24:14), it is through repentance and prayer that people like David manage to pacify divine wrath. An inward transformation is required. But 2 Samuel 24 and other biblical passages suggest that this return to the original personal relationship with God is hindered by both an inability to achieve this and the strong sense that it is not permitted. Sin cannot be removed and guilt cannot be overcome, unless God Himself, the One who was sinned against, opens a way to reconciliation. An atoning sacrifice is necessary, an expiatory act such as a burnt offering that serves no purpose other than total surrender and dedication to God. A sacrifice of this nature acknowledges the personal relationship between God and humans. Although all these and other passages provide important insights into the dynamics of how the process of reconciliation between sinful humans and a holy God is envisaged, they also raise concerns with regard to the portrayal of an angry God. In our concluding chapter, we shall engage further with the theological conundrum of an angry God who seemingly needs first to be appeased through prayer and sacrifice before He can overlook and forgive the sins of people. Typological Associations The book of Samuel begins in the context of the Shiloh sanctuary. There, we find Hannah’s prayer and sacrifice, Eli’s mediation, and God’s gracious response (cf. 1  Sam 1–2). The book of Samuel ends with David’s prayer and sacrifice and God’s gracious response at the place where Israel’s main sanctuary was to be built. At the outset of the book of Samuel, one reads about the Shiloh sanctuary being under corrupt leadership (Eli’s sons), and at the end of the book we see that Israel’s greatest king was not immune to

David: Repentant Sinner

249

corruption either. In both instances, God, being true to His nature, judges in mercy and justice at His sanctuary. The authors of 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 underline the importance of Israel’s main sanctuary. It is the place where Yhwh acknowledges the sinner’s repentant heart, responds favorably to the anointed one’s intercessory prayer on behalf of the sinful people, and accepts sacrifices. 1 Chronicles 22 adds that David, seeing that his sacrifices were efficacious, announced, “The house of the Lord God is to be here, and also the altar of burnt offering for Israel” (1 Chr 22:1). In other words, all the central elements of the Jerusalem cultus are already foreshadowed in these two narratives. These accounts not only point forward to the Solomonic temple where the king and the priests would intercede and offer sacrifices on the altar (cf. Joel 2:17), but they also point back to the distant past (canonically speaking) to a place called Moriah where the angel of the Lord appeared to Abraham. In Genesis 22 as well, God seemed to push Abraham into a test that could have had fatal consequences. On both occasions, God’s purposes appear initially as incomprehensible and only viewed from the end can one discern the Lord’s providential will. Israel’s patriarch was prepared to offer his beloved son Isaac (Gen 22:2–19). On both occasions, the angel of the Lord stopped the work of destruction and animal offerings were presented to God (cf. Gen 22:13, 2 Sam 24:25). As for the place of sacrifice, according to 2  Chr 3:1, Mount Moriah is no other place than the site where Solomon’s temple was built several centuries later. Solomon began to build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah (‫ַּמֹוריָּה‬ ִ ‫)ּבהַר ה‬, ְ where the Lord had appeared to his father David, at the place that David had designated, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. (2 Chr 3:1)

Just as Abraham is told to go to the land of Moriah to offer his beloved son as a burnt offering on a mountain that God will show him (Gen 22:2, 9), so David follows the Lord’s instruction and goes up to the site of Araunah the Jebusite to offer up his burnt offerings (2 Sam 24:18–19, 25). The Hebrew meaning of Moriah (‫ַּמֹורּיָה‬ ִ ‫ )ה‬is likely associated with two key verbs ‫ ראה‬and ‫“( ירא‬seeing” and “fearing”). Not only for Abraham did Moriah become a “place of seeing and fearing” (Gen 22:12, 14) but also for David. When David saw the angel of God stretching out his hand toward Jerusalem, the king interceded in fear of Yhwh’s judgment (2 Sam 24:14–17). Moreover, Zion and Sinai are the two primary places in the Old Testament where it is said that God is seen (cf. Exod 24:9–11, 2 Sam 24:15–17, Isa 6:1) and feared. 71 Dillard points out some further canonical associations: 71. “Fearing” in the sense of worshiping Yhwh according to the law. See R.  W.  L. Moberly, The Bible, Theology, and Faith: A Study of Abraham and Jesus (Cambridge:

250

Chapter 5

At the place where Abraham once held a knife over his son (Gen. 22:1– 19), David sees the angel of the Lord with sword ready to plunge into Jerusalem. In both cases death is averted by sacrifice. The temple is established there as the place where Israel was perpetually reminded that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin (Heb. 2:22). Death for Isaac and for David’s Jerusalem was averted because the sword of divine justice would ultimately find its mark in the Son of God. ( Jn. 19:33) 72

There are further canonical typological associations. David expressed his willingness to die in the place of his sinful sheep; Jesus, the Messiah in the Davidic line, laid down his life for His sheep ( John 10:1–6). David, according to God’s will, obediently sheds the blood of sacrifice. He refuses the offer of Araunah, saying, “I will not offer burnt offerings to the Lord my God that cost me nothing” (2 Sam 24:24). The priestly king’s sacrifice of atonement finds its true fulfillment in Jesus Christ. The king of the Jews sheds his blood at the greatest possible cost on the same place so that we can be reconciled with God (cf. 2 Cor 5:20–21; John 3:16). Besides these typological associations, we can see that, in the cases of both David and Jesus, prayer and sacrifice merge into one intercessory act for the pardon of the sinner and the reconciliation with God. In the canonical sequence, it is Solomon’s prayer at the inauguration of the temple that brings intercession and sacrifice into close proximity. Boda remarks rightly that 2 Samuel 24 prepares the way for developments in the book of Kings. This close connection between sin and prayer at Jerusalem’s sacrificial altar lies at the core of the theology of the temple in Kings. 73 Cambridge­University Press, 2000) 111–12, for a more detailed discussion on the meaning of Moriah and its close association to “seeing and fearing” God. 72.  Raimond B. Dillard, “David’s Census: Perspectives on 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21,” in Through Christ’s Word: A Festschrift for Dr. P. E. Hughes (ed. W. R. Godfrey and J. L. Boyd; Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1985) 107. 73.  Boda, A Severe Mercy, 162.

Chapter 6

Solomon: Prayer of Dedication (1 Kings 8) Introduction: The King and the Temple Scripture associates the Torah with Moses, the Psalms with David, and wisdom with Solomon. King Solomon is a very different person from his father David. He is not a warrior king like his father, he concentrates much more on inner political issues and foreign diplomacy. Under Solomon’s reign, Israel experiences not only peace and unparalled prosperity, but also something like a cultural revolution (cf. 1 Kgs 10). Wisdom teaching and psalmody that were usually practiced at established royal courts of the ancient Near East came also to Jerusalem under the kingship of Solomon. 1 Solomon’s success and wisdom is rooted in a meeting with Yhwh in Gibeon (cf. 1 Kgs 3:4–15). While the king offered burnt offerings and incense at the central high place of the time, Yhwh appeared to Solomon for the first time in a dream with the divine offer, “Ask what I should give you” (1 Kgs 3:5). 2 Solomon in a humble prayer asks God not for riches, long life, and honor, but for a listening and understanding heart. Solomon emerges from his first encounter with God as one uniquely gifted with wisdom and equipped to fufill his royal duties. 3 One of Solomon’s major achievements was the expansion and establishment of Jerusalem as the royal citadel with a centralized sanctuary. According to tradition, David purchased the land for the temple (2 Sam 24:18–25), but was stopped from building the sanctuary (2 Sam 7:4–7). The privilege of building and dedicating the temple to Yhwh fell to his son Solomon (1 Kgs 8:18–19). Israel’s first temple was to dominate Israel’s religious life for some 400 years until it was destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 b.c. (2 Kgs 25:1–22). The importance of the temple is already underlined by the 1.  Cf. Prov 3:5–28, 5:9–14, 10:1–10. 2.  Like David, Solomon also assumes the role of a priest at times (cf. 2 Sam 6:17). Joseph Scharbert (Heilsmittler im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient [Quaestiones Disputatae 23/24; Freiburg: Herder, 1964] 128), referring to 1 Kgs 9:25 and other passages, argues that the king assumed the role of a cultic mediator at the main festivals while the priests were responsible during the rest of the year for service at the sanctuary (cf. 2 Sam 8:18). 3.  According to Scripture, God appeared to the king twice (1 Kgs 3:5–14, 9:1–9, 11:9). This special divine attention not only marks him out from all the other kings who only heard God’s words through the prophets, but also makes Solomon’s downfall all the more dramatic, especially because Yhwh explicitly warns of the severe consequences of idolatry (1 Kgs 9:6–9).

251

252

Chapter 6

fact that a large part of the 11 chapters that narrate Solomon’s reign are dedicated to a detailed description of the building of the Jerusalem sancturary and its cult (1 Kgs 5:16–9:9). Through the transfer of the ark of the covenant to the new temple, the Jerusalem sanctuary became “God’s dwelling place” among His people (1 Kgs 8:3–13). From that moment, Jerusalem and its temple became central elements of Israel’s faith. The primary function of the temple is to provide a meeting place between a holy God and a sinful people. As the book of Leviticus describes, the sanctuary is a place where atonement for the sins of the people can be made (cf. Lev 16), and as the psalms testify, the temple is also a place where the transcendent God meets with His people in worship and prayer (cf. Psalm 50). These aspects come also to expression in 1 Kings 8. For all its importance, the temple remained in many ways a contested aspect of Israel’s religion. On the one hand, there are passages that assert that God bound Himself eternally to the Jerusalem sanctuary and committed Himself to the Davidic dynasty forever (cf. 1 Kgs 8:14–26). On the other hand, we find critical prophetic voices such as Jeremiah’s famous “temple sermon” that warned that Jerusalem and its sanctuary are not immune to God’s judgment but stand or fall with Israel’s Torah obedience (cf. Jeremiah 7). This tension between God’s gracious election and covenant requirements expresses itself also in Solomon’s inaugural prayer. As we shall see, it is a very carefully crafted prayer that on a superficial level looks like a catalog of Israel’s needs. On closer inspection, however, it is a deeply reflective and theologically rich prayer that addresses the nature and central attributes of Yhwh and how they relate to Israel’s life before God. To put it differently, the prayer wrestles with the issue of how a God who transcends all human imagination and experience can be immanently present in the temple. Or how a holy and righteous God can live among a sinful people. Solomon’s prayer also raises the classical theological problem why a God who knows the hearts of every person needs to be told about our needs and sins. The king’s prayer reflects on the fundamental issue of why the people of God say prayers and what difference prayer may make. Clements helpfully highlights different shades of Solomon’s prayer: religion is first and foremost a revelation from God, yet also it is necessarily a seeking and a discovery on our part. In a remarkable way all of these contrasting features are touched upon and highlighted by the magnificient prayer of dedication for the temple of Jerusalem delivered by Solomon. In one sense it is very markedly a prayer about a very specific building and a very specific tradition associcated with it; yet it is also one of the most searchingly reflective prayers in the whole Bible regarding the nature of religion. It is very conscious of the physical and external side of religion. . . . It is aware that . . . devotion would become pointless and without meaning if the worship of the temple and even the knowledge of its mere existence did not evoke a truly inward and spiritual response in

Solomon: Prayer of Dedication

253

the hearts of men and women. It was to be a “house of prayer,” not only in the sense that prayers could be offered within it, but that it would be a constant reminder of the possibility and power of prayer.  4

In the following pages, we shall see that Solomon’s prayer gives voice to two themes that are central to biblical theology: (1) God’s transcendence and immanence—the highest heavens cannot contain/accommodate God (1  Kgs 8:27–30), and yet He chose to dwell in the Jerusalem temple in a special way (1 Kgs 8:12–13, 9:1–5). (2) Repentance and divine pardon, and how intercessory prayer relates to these—these central concerns of Israel’s faith are at the core of Solomon’s sevenfold intercessory prayer on behalf of Israel and the foreigners. The chapter concludes with exploring some of these essential biblical themes in relation to the one greater than Solomon. Before we engage with these pivotal theological themes, I would like to draw attention to several literary and theological features that underline the importance of Solomon’s prayer.

The Context of Solomon’s Prayer The Prayer at the Center: Some Literary and Theological Considerations There are several structural and theological indicators in the wider context that underline the gravity of Solomon’s prayer on behalf of Israel. For a start, we note that the Solomonic narrative flow slows down and focuses markedly on Solomon’s prayer. Chapters 3–7 cover a period of several years, while the entire 62 verses of chap. 8 cover only two weeks of the inauguration ceremony of the temple. This is comparable with the narrative development of the Gospels that allocate disproportionate narrative space to Jesus’ passion and the Golgotha event, because this is what the evangelists consider most important. We have already referred to Solomon’s first encounter with God and how the young king prayed for wisdom. This prayer pleased the Lord and endowed Solomon with a wise and understanding heart. Besides the requested wisdom, God blessed Solomon with royal gifts that he did not ask for, such as riches, honor, and, if he remained faithful to his God, also long life (1  Kgs 3:10; cf. Matt 6:33–34). The court case of the two prostitutes who fought over a child serves as an illustration of Solomon’s wise and fair judgment (1  Kgs 3:16–28). The following chapters illustrate further how Solomon’s wisdom helped him to administer his kingdom (1 Kgs 4:1–34) and determine his foreign policy (1  Kgs 5:1–18). Solomon’s wisdom also helped him to build the temple and his palace (1  Kgs 6:1–7:51). The account reaches its climax in the dedication of the temple with Solomon’s extensive prayer for Israel (1 Kgs 8:1–66) and God’s response (1 Kgs 9:1–9). As we can see from Solomon’s prayer for an understanding mind to rule 4.  Ronald E. Clements, The Prayers of the Bible (London: SCM, 1986) 105–6.

254

Chapter 6

the people wisely, the king is committed to the people and shows a keen consciousness of his responsibilities. Both these aspects come to expression in Solomon’s intercessory prayer for the people at the inauguration of the temple. 5 The exposition and theological exploration of both Solomon’s prayer and the divine response shall be the focus of this chapter. Chapters 3–11 contain a loose chiastic structure with Solomon’s prayer and Yhwh’s response at the centre (1 Kgs 8:1–9:9). The Solomonic narrative begins and ends with reference to the king’s political opponents (cf. 1 Kgs 2:13–46 / 11:14–27), the king’s wives (1 Kgs 3:1 / 11:1–13), great wisdom and wealth (1  Kgs 3:5­­–14, 5:1–14 / 10:14–29), the visits and tributes of foreign royals (1 Kgs 5:1–32 / 10:1–13), and Solomon’s building projects including the royal palace and a reference to Hiriam (1 Kgs 5:15–7 / 9:10–23). At the heart of this concentric structure stands Solomon’s inaugural prayer. The prayer is bracketed by the introductory and closing comments: Then Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, and spread out his hands to heaven. (1 Kgs 8:22) Now when Solomon finished offering all this prayer and this plea to the Lord, he arose from facing the altar of the Lord, where he had knelt with hands outstretched toward heaven. (1 Kgs 8:54)

As we shall see in some details, Solomon’s petitions and supplications (1 Kgs 8:31–53) are framed by an introduction of prayer of praise for the election of the Davidic dynasty and an ending that talks about the election of Israel (1 Kgs 8:22–30 / 54–61). The two sections are approximately the same length. In both the introductory and concluding speech of the prayer, Solomon pronounces a blessing on the entire people (cf. 1  Kgs 8:14–21, 54–61; cf. vv. 14, 55). Moreover, the celebration commences with the entrance of the ark of the covenant that symbolizes the “moving in of God” (1 Kgs 8:1–13) and ends with the actual dedication and consecration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:62–66). On both occasions, plenty of sacrifices are being offered (1 Kgs 8:5, 62–63). In sum, Solomon’s prayer is clearly embedded in a carefully crafted account that underlines its importance. Yhwh approves of His servant’s prayer and sacrifices. This is indicated both by the reference to God’s glory moving in and then by God’s response to Solomon in chap. 9. Supported by the chiastic structure of the Solomonic narrative, it is evident that the dedication of the temple is one of the outstanding moments in Israel’s history. 6 We have seen that within this epoch making event, Solomon’s prayer constitutes the heart of the inauguration of the Jerusalem temple. It is one of the longest recorded prayers in the Bible by Israel’s wisest king. The text underlines that Solomon’s wisdom is not merely a human wisdom, but a wisdom from above. From God’s mouth we learn: “I give you 5.  Scharbert, Heilsmittler im Alten Testament, 128. 6. Cf. Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) 32–45; Casimir Bernas, “Models for Prayer in the Book of Kings,” BiTod 18 (1980) 317–21.

Solomon: Prayer of Dedication

255

a wise and discerning mind; no one like you has been before you and no one like you shall arise after you” (1 Kgs 3:12). Later, when all Israel learned about Solomon’s discerning judgment, the narrator concludes chap. 3 by recording that the people: “Stood in awe of the king, because they perceived that the wisdom of God was in him, to execute justice” (1 Kgs 3:28). Chapter 4 enforces that with the following summary statement: God gave Solomon very great wisdom, discernment, and breadth of understanding . . . so that Solomon’s wisdom surpassed the wisdom of all the people of the east, and all the wisdom of Egypt. . . . People came from all the nations to hear the wisdom of Solomon; they came from all the kings of the earth who had heard of his wisdom. (1 Kgs 4:29–34)

The canonical portrayal of Solomon does not hide his weaknesses and selfserving ambitions. 7 In fact, Solomon’s prayer gives expression to a mature self-critical theology. 8 The Glory of Yhwh Moves into the Temple (1 Kings 8:1–13) The focus of chap. 8 is clearly on Solomon’s prayer. The immediate context of the inaugural prayer at the sanctuary is the historic transfer of the ark of the covenant from the tent of David into the newly erected temple 7. Similar to the case of his father, Scripture does not conceal from its readers the compromising nature of Israel’s two outstanding kings. In the first three years, Solomon established his reign with a harsh hand. Cold-bloodedly, he followed his dying father’s advice to deal with a number of potential insurrectionists that could have undermined Solomon’s reign in the future (cf. 1 Kgs 2). In spite of the narrator’s implicit criticism of Solomon’s ruthless Realpolitik (cf. 1 Kgs 2:46), Solomon is said to have loved Yhwh and walked in the statutes of his father David (1 Kgs 3:3). That is, at least for some of his reign. Solomon enslaved non-Israelites to complete his palace that took twice the building time of the temple (1 Kgs 6:38–7:1). In chaps. 11 and 12, we also learn that Solomon’s many foreign women brought foreign gods into the aging king’s heart (1 Kgs 11:1ff.). Solomon not only tolerated the gods of his wives but also served them by building places of worship for them and by offering incense and sacrifices to them (1 Kgs 11:5–8). The division of the kingdom is said to be a divine judgment for Solomon’s idolatry (1 Kgs 11:9–13). In short, in Solomon the reader sees both the glory and the tragedy of Israel’s kingship. The canonical portrayal of Solomon comes as a challenge to everyone to finish well one’s life journey with God. 8. Martin Noth (Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien [Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch­gesellschaft, 1943] 3–110), made a powerful case for the idea that the contribution of “D” (Deuteronomist) in Joshua–2 Kings was more than a random assortment of editorial glosses. Instead, Noth argues for a self-conscious theological historiographer who showed exiled Israel the divine justice behind the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile (587–539 b.c.). The Deuteronomist, according to Noth, often punctuates his narrative with formal speeches that provide a historical review at times of transition of some sort, for example, Joshua’s farewell ( Joshua 23), Samuel’s great address (1 Samuel 12), and Solomon’s temple dedication speech (see also the theological reflection on the fall of the Northern Kindgom in 2 Kings 17). See our discussion on 1 Sam 12 for a critique of the term “farewell-speech.” According to Noth, “farewell-speeches” and prayer proved to be particularly useful literary forms to communicate important theological messages by key people, at key times, in key places. Cf. Jon D. Levenson, “From Temple to Synagogue: 1 Kings 8,” in Traditions in Transformation (ed. B. Halpern and J. D. Levenson; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981) 148.

256

Chapter 6

(cf. 2 Samuel 6). The entire people, including all the tribal leaders and officials, are gathered in the temple yard (1  Kgs 8:1–2; cf. 6:36). Countless sacrifices are offered. Then the ark is brought into the inner sanctuary and placed under the wings of the cherubim. Then, the glory of Yhwh fills the temple (1 Kgs 8:1–11). This landmark event stands in typological relationship with the Sinai event and the erection of the tabernacle in the wilderness. In the latter, the glory of God also filled the tent as a visible sign of divine approval and God’s gracious presence. 9 Both in Moses’ time and at the time of the temple dedication, the priests could not enter the sanctuary because of God’s holy presence (cf. Exod 40:34–35). The glory of the Lord, which is like a consuming fire (Exod xxiv:17; Deut iv:24; ix:3), before which unholy man cannot stand, manifested itself in the cloud. This marvellous manifestation of the glory of God took place only at the dedication; after that the cloud was only visible in the Most Holy Place on the great day of atonement, when the high priest entered it. 10

The opening verses of 1 Kings 8 put great emphasis on the ark (‫)אֲרֹון‬. In the first 13 verses, the term ‫ אֲרֹון‬appears not fewer than 7 times. The ark is Israel’s great symbol of the Lord’s presence with His people and the place where the tablets of the law were kept (1 Kgs 8:9). The Decalogue is the foundational law of Israel’s covenant with Yhwh (cf. Deut 10:1–9, 24–26). The specific reference “ark of the covenant” (‫אֲרֹון ְּבִרית־יְהוָה‬, 1 Kgs 8:1, 6) anticipates one of the major themes of Solomon’s prayer, namely, that Yhwh’s relationship with Israel, His intervention in grace and judgment, are closely related to covenant obedience (cf. 1 Kgs 8:9, 23). No doubt, transferring the ark, along with the tent of meeting and all the holy vessels, denotes moving the God of the Exodus from a temporary to a permanent dwelling (cf. 2 Sam 7:6, 1 Kgs 8:13). The somewhat puzzling reference to the carrying poles of the ark in the temple may suggest though that the writer wanted to underline that God has not settled for good in the sanctuary but remains essentially a God of the journey (cf. 1 Kgs 8:7–8). A similar theological truth comes to expression in the tension that God moved into the sanctuary and yet not even heaven and the highest heavens can contain God (1  Kgs 8:27). The foundational biblical tension of Yhwh being with and among His people and yet God is an all transcending universal God, is a major motif that runs throughout Solomon’s prayer. Before the prayer, Solomon gives a speech that is characterized by the theme of dual election of Jerusalem and David (1 Kgs 8:16) and God’s faithfulness to His promises to David. 9.  The Chronicler’s parallel says even divine fire consumed the sacrifices (2 Chr 7:1). 10. Carl Friedrich Keil, The Books of the Kings (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973) 123. The Chronicles contain a long account of the playing and singing of the Levites at these solemnities (cf. 2 Chr 5:12–14).

Solomon: Prayer of Dedication

257

Solomon’s Dedication Speech and Opening Blessing (1 Kings 8:14–21) When David brought the ark to Jerusalem, we note a similar sequence of events. After the king offered sacrifices to God in his priestly ephod, David also blessed the people in the name of the Lord (cf. 2  Sam 6:14–18). In neither account are we told the content of the kings’ blessing (1 Kgs 8:14). From the closing blessing after Solomon’s prayer and his opening speech we can infer that the king blesses the congregation with the assurance that Yhwh upholds His promises made to Moses and David (cf. 1 Kgs 8:15–16, 54–60). The theme of Solomon’s speech is also on the continuity between God’s covenant with Israel at Sinai (1 Kgs 8:21) and with David, and how these promises have come to a fulfillment in Solomon and the Jerusalem temple. In Solomon, this dual election reaches a preliminary fulfillment. For it was divinely willed that David’s son shall not only continue the royal dynasty, but also erect a house for the Name of Yhwh. Although it has been said that Solomon exploits the divine instructions for his own political purposes, one cannot deny that Solomon’s speech and inauguration of the temple is based on divine instructions that his father has received (cf. 2 Sam 7:12–13). 11 For our purpose, I note three emerging themes. First is the emphasis on God’s faithfulness to His word—not one of the Lord’s good promises that He spoke to Moses and David has failed (cf. 1  Kgs 8:15, 20, 56–57). Second is the relationship between the Sinai covenant with its demands to covenant obedience and the Davidic covenant that is based on Yhwh’s gracious election. Third is that vv. 14–24 seem to shift the rhetoric from God’s actual presence in the temple (cf. 1 Kgs 8:10–13) to a strong emphasis that “only” God’s Name is attached to the temple (cf. 1 Kgs 8:16–19). These three themes pervade Solomon’s prayer. I shall attempt to develop them in the coming pages.

Solomon’s Prayer (1 Kings 8:22–61) Standing in front of the altar, Solomon begins his long prayer. This is probably the same location where David was asked to build an altar in order to stop the angel of destruction after he incited Yhwh’s wrath through the census (2 Sam 24). David’s son will not offer an intercessory prayer that seeks to pacify God’s wrath like his father. Solomon’s intercessory prayer is a prayer that seeks to ensure that God will attend to the petitions and supplications directed to the temple. The prayer resumes its two main themes, namely, divine transcendence and immanence and the prayer for divine forgiveness and covenant maintenance (cf. 1 Kgs 8:27–34). Here, the covenant relationship is defined by 11.  Levenson, “From Temple,” 153, provides a helpful section on the relation between Nathan’s promise and 1 Kgs 8:15­­­–21.

258

Chapter 6

divine loyalty to those who walk wholeheartedly in Yhwh’s ways (cf. Deut 7:9). Solomon’s confession of God’s greatness and covenant faithfulness (‫ ) ֶחסֶד‬provides the basis for the king’s confidence that his subsequent intercessory prayer will be answered. Solomon’s first main point and concern, however, is that God has kept and will keep the promises made to David. The emphasis is on God’s faithfulness and uniqueness. O Lord, God of Israel, there is no God like you (‫ )אֵין־ּכָמֹוךָ אֱל ִֹהים‬in heaven above or on earth beneath, keeping covenant and steadfast love (‫ׁש ֹמֵר‬ ‫ )ה ְַּבִרית ְו ַה ֶחסֶד‬for your servants who walk before you with all their heart, the covenant that you kept for your servant my father David as you declared to him; you promised with your mouth and have this day fulfilled with your hand. (1 Kgs 8:23–24)

Solomon reminds the people through his prayer that Yhwh has been working out the promises not only made to David but also those given to Moses (cf. 1 Kgs 8:56). In some sense, Solomon presents himself as a new Moses who brings the people the promised peace and uncovers God’s larger purposes (cf. Deut 12:8­–14), namely, that “all the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord is God; there is no other” (1 Kgs 8:60). This emphasis on Yhwh’s uniqueness and the wish that God will be known among the nations are also major motives in the book of Exodus (cf. Exod 9:14, 15:11). Before Solomon explains God’s universal plans, the king presents the Mosaic and the Davidic legacy in a fruitful tension. The Sinaiatic and Davidic Covenant (1 Kings 8:22–26) Before Solomon prays for the people, the king relates once again the Lord’s pledge to the Davidic house to himself (cf. 1  Kgs 8:15–21). He brings before God the Davidic covenant promise. David’s son and successor praises Yhwh for the fulfillment of the covenant promises. At this stage, one would perhaps have expected a self-serving royal prayer that refers to the unconditional and everlasting dimension of the Davidic promise as it comes to expression in Nathan’s oracle: I will raise up your offspring after you . . . and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. When he commits iniquity, I will punish him with a rod such as mortals use, with blows inflicted by human beings. But I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul. . . . Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever. (2 Sam 7:12–16)

According to Yhwh’s promise to David, as Levenson puts it, “any separation of the House of David from the throne of Israel must be a parenthesis in history, an aberration which cannot endure, since it defies God’s pledged

Solomon: Prayer of Dedication

259

word.” 12 Thus, it comes as no surprise that this Davidic monarchy supporting promise is reiterated again and again throughout the books of Kings. 13 Surprisingly, however, Solomon does not claim for himself the unconditional covenant promise that was uttered by the prophet to his father, at least not without important qualifications. Solomon qualifies the eternal pledge made to David with covenant obedience. Therefore, O Lord, God of Israel, keep for your servant my father David that which you promised him, saying, “There shall never fail you a successor before me to sit on the throne of Israel, if only your children look to their way, to walk before me as you have walked before me.” Therefore, O God of Israel, let your word be confirmed, which you promised to your servant my father David. (1 Kgs 8:25–26)

In other words, the prayer merges here the Davidic with the Sinai covenant. The Davidic covenant, not unlike the Abrahamic covenant, is primarily based on Yhwh’s unconditional gracious election (cf. Gen 17). 14 Associated with this tradition is also the understanding that God bound His name to the temple mount forever (cf. Pss 46, 132:13–14). The Sinaitic covenant, though based on Yhwh’s mercy and grace, also is conditional on the covenant partner’s obedience (Exod 19–24:14, Deut 28:1–15). Many scholars believe that this merging of these two different covenant understandings is due to the exilic historical background. To the Deuteronomistic theologian(s), to whom the final redaction of Solomon’s prayer is usually ascribed, the promise to David could no longer easily be taken as unconditional divine grace. 15 With Israel in exile and its King Jehoiachin under house arrest, the Davidic hope was severely tested (2 Kgs 24:10–12). It is sometimes speculated that under these difficult and fragile historical circumstances the redactor(s) of these chapters started to emphasize the Mosaic covenant over the Davidic covenant that underlines the importance of covenant obedience if Israel wants to survive. As Israel in 12.  Ibid., 146. 13.  Cf. 1 Kgs 11:12, 32–36, 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19; etc. 14.  This is not to deny that some passages clearly present God’s covenant with Abraham in relation to the patriarch’s obedience (cf. Gen 22:18, 26:3–5). According to the traditional documentary hypothesis, the Abrahamic covenant is ascribed to the Priestly writer and the Sinaitic/Mosaic covenant to the Deuteronomist. 15.  There is considerable consensus among commentators that chaps. 8–9 had reached their final shape in exilic times. For example: Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 70; Levenson, “From Temple to Synagogue: 1  Kings 8”; Henning Graf Reventlow, Gebet im Alten Testament (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986) 269–75; Balentine, Prayers, 86–88. There are scholars who allow for preexilic dating of much of Solomon’s prayer. Joseph Scharbert (“Die Fürbitte im Alten Testament,” in “Diener in eurer Mitte”: Festschrift für Dr. Antonius Hofmann, Bischof von Passau zum 75. Geburtstag [Passau: Passavia Universitätsverlag, 1984] 97), for example, is certain that Solomon’s prayer has a core text that goes back to a preDeuteronomistic Solomonic tradition. Scharbert argues that one finds only traces of a Deuteronomistic redaction at the beginning and at the end of the prayer.

260

Chapter 6

the wilderness­was confronted with the choice of blessing or curse, life or death, land or wilderness, so is exiled Israel. Perhaps there is a sense that the exilic writers, guided by God’s dealings with Israel in history, felt that Yhwh’s stunning promise to the Davidic monarchy could not stand on its own, for it disregards the Exodus-Sinai covenant. In the face of the exile, Yhwh’s eternal promise to David had to be balanced with the pledge that Israel would be blessed only if the people observed the commandments from Sinai (cf. Deut 28). Regardless of possible diachronic dimensions of the prayer, the received text gives voice to a merging of two major traditions in Israel. Thereby, the final form expresses the essential biblical tension between unconditional election and covenant obedience. 16 The “old” Sinai covenant with its emphasis on Torah obedience is carefully balanced against the seemingly unconditional divine commitment that Nathan delivers to David (2 Sam 7:11–16). We shall see that Yhwh’s response to Solomon’s prayer expresses the same fundamental scriptural tension in a distinct way (cf. 1 Kgs 9:1–9). In the light of Solomon’s extensive idolatry in the later years of his kingship (1  Kgs 11:4­–13), it is interesting to note that the prayer shows here clear awareness of the fact that the covenant is dependent on Israel’s walk before the Lord. Divine Immanence and Transcendence (1 Kings 8:27) In the opening speech, Solomon says that he has built a house for Yhwh to dwell (‫ )ׁשכן‬in forever, and then we read how God’s glory moved into the temple (1 Kgs 8:10–13). Thus, the temple stands in continuity with Israel’s encounter with God at Sinai and the subsequent divine word, “I will dwell (‫ )ׁשכן‬among the Israelites” (Exod 29:45). God’s gracious presence among His people lends itself to the understanding that Yhwh is close to protect and quick to answer Israel’s prayers for forgiveness and blessings. It seems that the people of God that are bound to time and space need a focal point of the divine. Only then can they be assured of God’s immanence. The verb ‫ ׁשכן‬in association with Yhwh’s glory eventually led to the Jewish concept of the Shekinah (‫)ׁש ִכינָה‬, ְ which is a sort of divine representative at the sanctuary. 17 Although the impression might arise that the temple and God’s immanence serves the political purposes of the royal dynasty, 18 it is clear from 16. See R.  W.  L. Moberly, “God Is Not a Human That He Should Repent (Numbers 23:19 & 1 Samuel 15:29),” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann (ed. T. Linafelt and T. K. Beal; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) 112–23, for an insightful discussion on the biblical tension between election and covenant. See also Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1987) 209–18. 17.  Gordon J. McConville, Deuteronomy (AOTC 5; Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 2002) 221. 18. Walter Brueggemann, 1 and 2 Kings (SHBC; Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2000) 115: “in the sacrifice Solomon holds nothing back as a liturgical gesture. This is what

Solomon: Prayer of Dedication

261

Solomon’s prayer that the king is aware that Yhwh cannot be domesticated and used to further human ambitions. Solomon’s prayer moves from the theme of election and covenant to another fundamental biblical tension, namely, that between divine immanence and transcendence. But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Even heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you, much less this house that I have built! (1 Kgs 8:27)

Solomon shows acute awareness that the creator of heaven and earth cannot be restricted to a particular place on earth. Thereby, the king’s prayer reminds of God’s words in Isaiah: Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is my resting place? (Isa 66:1)

The Old Testament is constantly reminding the people of God that the Lord is greater than the institutions that He has authorized. The opening verses of Solomon’s prayer emphasize God’s immanent presence in the temple (1 Kgs 8:10–13), while v. 27 clearly corrects any narrow understanding of divine presence. Together, they form a balanced statement about Yhwh being both immanent and transcendent. We noted a similar tension between divine immanence and transcendence in the long prayer dialogue between Yhwh and Moses (cf. Exod 33:7–34:9). Moses’ intimate relationship with Yhwh is summarized in the beautiful statement “The Lord used to speak with Moses face to face” (Exod 33:11). Later, however, when Moses makes the audacious request “Show me your glory” (Exod 33:18), Yhwh responds, “You cannot see my face, for no one can see me and live” (Exod 33:20). Similar to 1 Kings 8, scholars sometimes try to resolve this seeming contradiction by appealing to differing underlying literary sources that are said to reflect different theologies regarding divine presence. 19 The received form of the text, however, helps the reader to appreciate this tension as a fundamental expression of a God who is holy and far beyond His creation and yet at the same time intimately close to His people. The theology of divine presence regarding the temple is carefully nuanced. In this context, the biblical writer-theologian is able to affirm simultaneously the transcendence (remoteness) and immanence (nearness) of kings do in that ancient world; they exhibit both their immense piety and their equally immense success, for in royal circles, piety and success are easily conflated.” 19.  According to Gerhard von Rad (Studies in Deuteronomy [London: SCM, 1953] 37– 44), there is a change of conception of divine presence in these verses. The opening verses reflect a priestly emphasis on Zion and the ark, symbols for the divine presence. Whereas subsequent verses reflect the Deuteronomist’s view that only God’s name is placed on the temple. With the destruction of the temple in 586 b.c., this advocation of a “Name Theology,” as von Rad calls it, serves as one means of securing access to God even when the temple itself can no longer function as the place of worship.

262

Chapter 6

God. The deity is not enthroned in the temple per se, but divine presence is somehow represented by the Name of God in the temple. 20 On Mount Sinai, God shows Moses a heavenly model for the mobile sanctuary. Yhwh said, “Have them make me a sanctuary, so that I may dwell among them” (‫ְּתי ְּבתֹוכָם‬ ִ ‫ש ַכנ‬ ָׁ ‫ו‬,ְ Exod 25:8). Already in Moses’ time, “dwelling” is not intended as static. In the context of offering daily sacrifices, God says that this is “where I will meet with you, to speak to you there (Exod 29:42). Another clear indicator that God is not understood as living permanently in the tabernacle comes to expression in the reference that the cloud descended and ascended on the sanctuary and filled it with His glory (Exod 40:34, Num 9:15–23, 14:10, 16:19). In other words, we find also within what is usually ascribed to the Priestly writer a balance between God’s immanence and transcendence. The same divine characteristic is communicated in a slightly different way in 1 Kings 8, where we read again and again that it is God’s name and not God who dwells in the temple. It has been argued that this so-called Name theology asserts that Yhwh Himself dwells not in the sanctuary but in heaven, while the “name” is a kind of hypostasis of God representing Him in the temple. 21 Nevertheless, it is a place where God will be particularly responsive when His name is called. Israel’s prayers are heard not only when offered in the temple but also when directed toward the sanctuary. God hears the prayers offered via the temple and responds from heaven (1 Kgs 8:29–30). We have noted previously that Yhwh’s name contains within itself an irresolvable tension between God’s fundamental love and His demanding holiness. In other words, Yhwh’s sovereignty shines through both His name and the fact that God cannot be restricted to a particular place (1 Kgs 8:27). Hear the Prayers and Pleas of Your Servant (1 Kings 8:28–30) Bound up in this tension of a God who has graciously come intimately close to His people and yet can never be confined to a particular place and time is the gift of prayer. Prayer is the principal means whereby an individual or a group can enter into communion with the gracious, holy, and majestic God. Although the Lord is understood to be present and within “praying distance,” the sense is clearly that God transcends any place. 22 Similarly, God’s people can appeal to divine election and to God’s prom20.  Choon Leong Seow, “The First and Second Books of Kings,” in NIB 3:71. 21.  Similar to von Rad above, Moshe Weinfeld (Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 5; New York: Doubleday, 1991] 192–96) argues that the book of Deuteronomy and associated literature such as the present text reacts against a strong immanentist theology that is usually associated with priestly material such as the ark of the covenant and “God’s glory.” 22.  Hans Urs von Balthasar, Prayer (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1986) 23.

Solomon: Prayer of Dedication

263

ises, but Yhwh’s holiness and covenant requirements give room to God’s sovereignty in how He will answer prayers. In vv. 28–30, Solomon sets the tone and major objective of his intercessory prayer, namely, that God will favorably respond to the prayers (‫)ּת ִפּלָה‬ ְ and pleas (‫)ּת ִחּנָה‬ ְ that are directed to the temple where His name is present. Regard your servant’s prayer and his plea (‫ֶל־ּת ִחּנָתֹו‬ ְ ‫ֶל־ּת ִפּלַת ע ְַב ְדּךָ ְוא‬ ְ ‫ִית א‬ ָ ‫)ּו ָפנ‬, 23 O Lord my God, heeding the cry (‫ָרּנָה‬ ִ‫)ל ְׁשמ ֹ ַע אֶל־ה‬ ִ and the prayer that your servant prays to you today; that your eyes may be open night and day toward this house (‫)אֶל־ ַה ַּביִת ַהּזֶה‬, the place of which you said, ‘My name shall be there,’ that you may heed the prayer that your servant prays toward this place (‫)אֶל־ ַהּמָקֹום ַהּזֶה‬. Hear the plea of your servant and of your people Israel when they pray toward this place; O hear in heaven your dwelling place; heed and forgive. (‫ָח ָּת‬ ְ ‫שמ ְַע ָּת ְו ָסל‬ ָׁ ‫ו‬,ְ 1 Kgs 8:28–30)

In these three verses, we find an exceptional accumulation of pregnant words that will appear again and again in the following intercessory prayer. Solomon refers to himself not fewer than four times as a servant of Yhwh (‫ × עבד‬4), who brings prayer (‫ × ְּת ִפּלָה‬3) and supplications ‫ × ְּת ִחּנָה‬2) on behalf of the people at the temple/place (‫ × ַהּמָקֹום‬3). As the servant intercessor, Solomon prays that God will turn to (‫)פנה‬, heed, and hear (‫ × ׁשמע‬4) his prayers and the prayers of the people. The term Yhwh’s servant is underlined by Solomon’s humble posture. He is kneeling in front of the altar in the presence of the entire congregation (1 Kgs 8:54). Here, the altar is understood as the focal point of God’s presence. In other words, Solomon in some real sense is kneeling/standing before Yhwh. 24 This reminds us of Joel 2:17, where it says that the priests brought their supplications before God, being positioned between the vestibule and the altar. Standing before God, is one of the main Hebrew ways of referring to intercessory prayer. The great biblical intercessors are said to stand before God to intercede for divine favor (cf. Gen 18:22; Exod 34:9; Deut 5:27, 31; Jer 18:20). 25 Solomon acts here as priestly king and covenant mediator. It is in this role that he offers sacrifices and prays a model prayer for Israel and all the foreigners that seek to glorify and honor God at Jerusalem’s new sanctuary (1 Kgs 8:22–53, 2 Chr 6:12–42).  26 As we shall see later, Solomon in his role 23.  A better translation might be: “Turn to your servant’s prayer.” 24. At the outset, Solomon stands before the altar (1  Kgs 8:22), while according to v. 54, the king was kneeling. This suggests perhaps that Solomon fell on his knees when he came to place his intercessory pleas before God. His prayer posture seems to reflect the content of his prayer. Pleas and prayers of repentance require an appropriate physical posture. 25.  Standing in the council of God is another important metaphor that communicates that prayers made in the immediate presence of God are particularly weighty (cf. Jer 23:22, Rom 8:34). 26.  After the return from exile some of the central prerogatives of the king of preexilic times were transferred to the High Priest. The high priestly role came to combine royal and priestly functions and status (cf. Zech 3:1–7).

264

Chapter 6

as royal and priestly mediator and intercessor is of great typological importance in a biblical theology. It is particularly the letter to the Hebrews that develops this rich theological vein of the heavenly high priest interceding all the time for His people in the presence of God (cf. Heb 7:25, 9:24; Rom 8:34). Here, with arms raised to heaven, Solomon is pleading that Yhwh will constantly attend (“that your eyes may be open night and day”) to the intercessory prayers for divine pardon (‫ )סלח‬on behalf of the people (1 Kgs 8:22, 54). In vv. 28–30, the theme and the key words for Solomon’s subsequent long intercessory prayers are set out. That God who is in heaven will hear the prayers and supplications of the king and the people whenever they are offered toward this place/house (‫ אֶל־ ַהּמָקֹום ַהּזֶה‬/ ‫ )אֶל־ ַה ַּביִת ַהּזֶה‬that bears Yhwh’s name. The King’s Intercession (1 Kings 8:31–53) The heart of Solomon’s prayer consists of seven intercessory petitions. The king is acting as a mediator who is standing between the people and their God. Solomon prays exclusively in the “I” form and thereby distinguishes himself from the people. 27 It is also noteworthy that the king does not pray for himself, nor does he make concrete petitions on behalf of his people. Rather, Solomon entreats God to attend to any possible petition of the people in the future. Thus, we can affirm with Savran, What is most unusual about Solomon’s prayer is that it is not a petitionary response to a problem, an expression of thanksgiving, or praise for some moment of deliverance. It is, rather, a prayer about prayer. 28

Like the psalms, Solomon’s prayer is carefully structured. 29 Structurally and theologically, a number of features are outstanding in the prayer: (1) every petition contains reference to prayers offered in or toward the temple (‫אֶל־‬ ‫ביִת ַהּזֶה‬ ּ ַ ‫ אֶל־ ַה‬/ ‫ ) ַהּמָקֹום ַהּזֶה‬and being heard in heaven; (2) in almost all petition we find reference to Yhwh’s name and to the land; (3) in all but two petitions (cf. vv. 41–43, 44–45), the mediator prays that Yhwh will heed their prayers and forgive their sins (ָ‫)ו ָסל ְַח ָּת ְלחַּטַ את ע ְַּמך‬. ְ The rhetoric of the prayer clearly underlines Solomon’s primary concerns. First, God in heaven will hear and answer favorably the prayers and supplications offered in the temple or directed toward it. Second, God in heaven will reverse whatever disaster has come over the land, as it is Yhwh’s land and Israel’s inheritance. Third, Yhwh will hear Solomon’s intercessory prayer and forgive 27.  Scharbert, “Die Fürbitte,” 328. 28. George Savran, “1 and 2 Kings,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible (ed. R. Alter and F. Kermode; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987) 157. 29.  For arguments for the literary unity of Solomon’s prayer, see Arnold Gamper, “Die Heilsgeschichtliche Bedeutung des Salomonischen Tempelweihegebets,” ZKT 85 (1963) 55–61.

Solomon: Prayer of Dedication

265

and restore his people. These, as we shall see in the following petitions, are the leading themes of the prayer. Solomon’s intercession gives the impression that it seeks to cover every possible scenario. 30 It covers individual sin (vv.  31–32) and corporate sin (vv. 33–40), prayers that are offered within the sanctuary and from distant places (v.  46), prayers for help in war and for deliverance from captivity (vv. 33–34, 44–50), prayers that cover the well-known triad of natural disasters (drought, famine, and pestilence, vv.  35–40), and prayers offered by Israel and non-Israelites (vv.  41–43). The king’s sevenfold prayer does anticipate all possible situations that could come over the people. We turn now to the intercessory petitions one by one.

God the Righteous Judge If someone sins against a neighbor and is given an oath to swear, and comes and swears before your altar in this house (‫) ַּב ַּביִת ַהּזֶה‬, then hear in heaven (‫ַּׁש ַמיִם‬ ָ ‫ַּתה ִּת ְׁשמַע ה‬ ָ ‫)וא‬ ְ and act, and judge your servants, condemning the guilty by bringing their conduct on their own head, and vindicating the righteous by rewarding them according to their righteousness. (1 Kgs 8:31–32)

The first petition differs from subsequent supplications. Only here is Yhwh evoked as righteous judge. The following petitions are appeals not for justice but for divine grace and mercy. In the first plea, however, the divine judge is to vindicate the innocent and to bring the guilty to justice (cf. Ps 7:9). The scenario is that of an individual legal case that cannot be resolved because of lack of evidence. As a result, the suspect is to undergo a cleansing vow in front of the altar that is probably envisaged as the divine court. The suspect submits to God’s judgment by calling down a curse on him or herself, if he or she is guilty (cf. Exod 22:6–12, Num 5:11–31). Interestingly, the divine hearing happens in heaven. The implication is that one may deceive a fellow Israelite but not the all-knowing judge, for only He knows what is in every human heart (cf. 1 Kgs 8:39). It is not evident from Solomon’s prayer how the judgment in heaven is to be executed on earth. In the following petition, God’s judgment and pardon take tangible forms (drought for sin and rain as a sign of pardon; cf. 1 Kgs 8:35). We shall see that most of the following petitions have the curse lists of Leviticus and Deuteronomy in the background (cf. Lev 26, Deut 28). According to these records, Israel collectively and individually agrees that blessings or curses will come upon them according to their conduct. This first petition comes as a kind of introduction to the subsequent prayers. There is, however, a major shift from appealing for divine justice to pleading for divine mercy and pardon. In the sense of Daniel’s prayer, 30.  Given that the number seven conveys completeness in the Bible and the ancient Near East, Solomon’s prayer probably intends comprehensiveness.

266

Chapter 6

“Incline your ear, O my God, and hear. . . . We do not present our supplication before you on the ground of our righteousness, but on the ground of your great mercies” (Dan 9:18). In subsequent petitions, the divine court room (temple) where judgment is evenhandedly executed changes to a realm where the mediator pleads for grace and the pardoning benevolence of Yhwh.

Israel’s Defeat, Repentance, and Divine Pardon Solomon’s prayer moves to the theme of forgiveness, a theme that is expounded in vv. 34–52. When your people Israel, having sinned against you, are defeated before an enemy but turn again to you (ָ‫שבּו ֵאלֶיך‬ ָׁ ‫)ו‬, ְ confess your name (‫ְוהֹודּו אֶת־‬ ָ‫)שמֶך‬, ְׁ pray and plead with you (ָ‫)ו ִה ְתּפ ְַללּו ְו ִה ְת ַחּנְנּו ֵאלֶיך‬ ְ in this house (‫ַּב ַּביִת‬ ‫) ַהּזֶה‬, then hear in heaven, forgive the sin of your people (ָ‫)ו ָסל ְַח ָּת ְלחַּטַ את ע ְַּמך‬ ְ Israel, and bring them again to the land that you gave to their ancestors. (1 Kgs 8:33–34)

The second royal plea has a military defeat in view that is caused by Israel’s sinfulness against Yhwh (cf. Lev 26:17, Deut 28:25, Josh 7:4–12). The sequence of the four verbs that describe Israel’s process of turning back to Yhwh is noteworthy: turn to God; acknowledge Yhwh’s name; pray and plead with God in the temple. Divine pardon requires a genuine turning back to Yhwh on the part of the sinner. This is reenforced by an appeal to “confess God’s name.” That is a summons to acknowledge total loyalty, dependence, and devotion to the Lord in public naming of Yhwh. Another related aspect of confessing Yhwh’s name (ָ‫ֶת־שמֶך‬ ְׁ ‫)והֹודּו א‬ ְ is to acknowledge and submit to God’s name as Yhwh revealed Himself on Mount Sinai (Exod 34:6­–7). Interestingly, when the wilderness generation sinned against God, Moses confesses Yhwh’s name first by praying back the revealed name to God (Num 14:18). That is, Moses fully acknowledges who Yhwh is, a loving and holy God, and then prays for divine forgiveness of the people’s iniquity (‫סלַח־נָא ַלעֲֹון ָהעָם‬, ְ Num 14:19). There are further intertextual and conceptual affinities between Solomon and Moses’ final prayer after the golden calf apostasy. After Yhwh reavealed His name at the mountain sanctuary, Moses acknowledges it by bowing down and worshiping in the presence of God and then by praying for divine pardon of the recalcitrant people. And Moses quickly bowed his head toward the earth, and worshiped. He said, “If now I have found favor in your sight, O Lord, I pray, let the Lord go with us. Although/because (‫)ּכי‬ ִ this is a stiff-necked people, pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for your inheritance (‫ַּטאתֵ נּו‬ ָ ‫ּולח‬ ְ ‫ְו ָסל ְַח ָּת ַלעֲֹונֵנּו‬ ‫)ּו ְנח ְַל ָּתנּו‬.” (Exod 34:8–9)

Solomon also kneels before the altar in the presence of God bringing his intercessory petition for the forgiveness of Israel’s sin before God (‫ְו ָסל ְַח ָּת ְלחַּטַ את‬

Solomon: Prayer of Dedication

267

ָ‫ע ְַּמך‬, 1 Kgs 8:34, 8:54). Both intercessors acknowledge Israel’s perpetual sinfulness (1 Kgs 8:46) and pray that Yhwh would bring the people (again) into the land. A consistent theme of Solomon’s prayer, and indeed of many Old Testament intercessory prayers, is however that divine pardon cannot simply be evoked by the intercessor. Brueggemann notes that “Israel’s only way into the future is to reverse its course and reembrace Torah obedience.” 31 The dynamics and circumstances of Solomon’s second petition are also reminiscent of Samuel’s intercessory activity in Mizpah (cf. 1 Sam 7:3–10). There as well, in the face of a military threat, the people gathered at the sanctuary to confess their sins and to recommit themselves to covenant obedience. The covenant mediator intercedes for the repentant Israelites. Samuel’s prayers are also accompanied by burnt offerings (1 Sam 7:2–12). The logic of these passages seems to be that, unless the sinful party recommits to Torah obedience, the intercessor can only pacify God’s wrath for a certain time. Solomon prays for Yhwh’s gracious pardon that manifests itself not only in the forgiveness of sin but also in a tangible divine act. The return of captivated Israel to the promised land is not only a dominant theme in most of Solomon’s petitions but also a concrete sign of divine pardon (1 Kgs 8:34). We could say here that divine pardon reestablishes not only the divinehuman relationship but also Israel’s life in the promised land.

Drought, Repentance, and Divine Pardon When heaven is shut up and there is no rain because they have sinned against you, and then they pray toward this place (‫)ו ִה ְתּפ ְַללּו אֶל־ ַהּמָקֹום ַהּזֶה‬, ְ confess your name (ָ‫ֶת־ׁשמֶך‬ ְ ‫)והֹודּו א‬, ְ and turn from their sin (‫אתם יְׁשּובּון‬ ָ ‫ַּט‬ ָ ‫)ּו ֵמח‬, because you punish them (‫)ּכי תַ עֲנֵם‬, ִ  32 then hear in heaven, and forgive the sin of your servants, your people Israel, when you teach them the good ְ ‫ַדר‬ way (‫ֶך הַּטֹובָה‬ ּ ֶ ‫ )תֹורֵם אֶת־ה‬in which they should walk; and grant rain on your land, which you have given to your people as an inheritance. (1 Kgs 8:35–36)

Solomon’s third petition has also to be seen against the background of the lists of blessings and curses that are often attached to Israel’s covenant agreement. Depending on Israel’s faithfulness to the stipulations, Yhwh is free to bless or to punish. Here, Solomon addresses the challenge of drought. Like the defeat in battle, so the drought mentioned here is Yhwh’s punishment for Israel’s disobedience (cf. Lev 26:19, Deut 28:23). The king envisions again a repentant people (‫ )ׁשּוב‬who will come to their senses urged by the shortage of water and turn to Yhwh for help. Solomon not only appeals for a divine hearing and pardon (here demonstrated in 31.  Brueggemann, 1 and 2 Kings, 111. 32.  Perhaps better translated as: “because you humilate them.”

268

Chapter 6

the form of rain), but also for renewed instruction of the good way (‫אֶת־‬ ְ ‫ַדר‬ ‫ֶך הַּטֹובָה‬ ּ ֶ ‫)ה‬. One is once again reminded of Samuel’s prayer for Israel. In Gilgal, the intercessor and covenant mediator assures the people not only of his prayers, but also that he will instruct them in the good and right ְ ‫ּב ֶדר‬, way (‫ֶך הַּטֹובָה‬ ְ that is, in Torah obedience; cf. 1 Sam 12:23). In contrast to Samuel, Solomon envisages God Himself teaching Israel the right way. In the second of the seven penitential psalms, Israel is also summoned to acknowledge their sin in times of distress and to confess their transgression to God. Yhwh forgives the sin and invites the prayers of a repentant sinner (Ps 32:5–6). 33 Under these conditions, God Himself assumes the role of the ְ ‫)ּדר‬ teacher: “I will instruct you and teach you the way (‫ֶך‬ ֶ you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you” (Ps 32:8). In the context of Samuel’s prayer, Yhwh also manifests Himself as the one who has control over the created order (cf. 1  Sam 12:17–18, that is, thunder and rain). It is noteworthy that the land is affected by the people’s sin and consequently also drawn into the sphere of divine forgiveness. In other words, when Solomon pleads for rain on the dried up land, he acknowledges not only God’s sovereignty over the elements, but also sees rainfall as a concrete sign of divine pardon. Perhaps to enforce his prayer, Solomon emphasizes that it is Yhwh’s land that He has given to His people as an inheritance (1 Kgs 8:36). Thus, it is important to note that Solomon’s prayer is never, as Fretheim notes: simply for God to forgive sins, but are also for God to act in other ways to reverse the effects that their sins have had on various aspects of their lives. Salvation, therefore, is understood to comprehend more than forgiveness of sin; it includes also the amelioration of the consequence of sin that have reverberated out into the larger community, including the natural order. (vv. 35–37) 34

Disaster and God’s Gracious Help If there is famine in the land, if there is plague, blight, mildew, locust, or caterpillar; if their enemy besieges them in any of their cities; whatever plague, whatever sickness there is; whatever prayer, whatever plea there is from any individual or from all your people Israel, all knowing the afflictions of their own hearts so that they stretch out their hands toward this house; then hear in heaven your dwelling place, forgive, act, and render to all whose hearts you know—according to all their ways, for only you know what is in every human heart—so that they may fear you (‫ְל ַמעַן‬ ָ‫ )ִירָאּוך‬all the days that they live in the land that you gave to our ancestors. (1 Kgs 8:37–40) 33. Psalm 32 shows also similar theological concerns to the long prose penitential prayers found in Ezra 9, Nehemiah 9, and Daniel 9. Their objective is to teach the practice of penitence as an appropriate way of prayer to those devoted to the covenant. 34. Terence E. Fretheim, First and Second Kings (WBC; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999) 50.

Solomon: Prayer of Dedication

269

This petition addresses Israel’s life in the land. According to the covenant conditions agreed by Israel, all kinds of calamities (plague, blight, mildew, and vermin) will befall the land if Israel sins against God. Although in this petition there is no explicit mention of Israel’s sin as the cause of these disasters, Solomon’s prayer for forgiveness (1 Kgs 8:39) and the similar structure of the previous petition strongly suggest so. It is also noteworthy that these disasters mentioned here are not explicitly ascribed to Yhwh’s action (only explicit in the first and seventh petion). The punishment is perceived in the sense of “bringing their conduct on their own head” (1  Kgs 8:32, 39). Having said this, in the covenant curse lists in Leviticus (26:14–39) and Deuteronomy (28:15–68), “natural” disasters are means of divine judgments. In other words, Israel has agreed that divine judgment would be the consequence of breaching the covenant agreement. It is theologically important to note that every possible disaster can be used and is under God’s governance, as a means of either punishment or blessing. At the outset of this section, we have suggested that Solomon’s prayer seeks to include every possible scenario in order to give the temple an all encompassing spiritual base for Israel. This is further supported in this section by the inclusiveness of the terminology: “whatever plague, whatever sickness” (1 Kgs 8:37); “whatever prayer, whatever plea” (1 Kgs 8:38). Here in the middle of Solomon’s seven intercessory petitions, the king speaks of the heart as the human center of prayer (1 Kgs 8:39–40). As already hinted, in the first petition, only God knows what is in every human heart (cf. 1 Kgs 8:31–32, Ps 139). In other words, these verses provide an Old Testament basis for what became later the classical three divine attributes: as the one who knows every heart, God is omniscient; as the one who can control creation for blessing and punishment, God is omnipotent; and as the one who sees what happens in every city and hears the prayers both in the temple and heaven, God is omnipresent. Like Moses and Samuel before, Solomon’s ultimate prayer objective is that Israel will fear God all the days of their lives in the inherited land (cf. Deut 10:12, 20; 1 Sam 12:24). The fear of God here has two aspects: A reverent respect before the one who can govern nature and a sober and humble acknowledgment of all the good and gracious work that Yhwh has done for Israel inspite of their disobedience. 35

Israel’s God Is a Universal God: Solomon’s Prayer for the Foreigner Likewise when a foreigner (‫ָכִרי‬ ְ ‫)ּנ‬, who is not of your people Israel, comes from a distant land because of your name (ָ‫שמֶך‬ ְׁ ‫—)ל ַמעַן‬for ְ they shall hear of your great name, your mighty hand, and your outstretched arm—when a foreigner comes and prays toward this house, then hear in heaven your dwelling place, and do according to all that the foreigner calls to you, 35.  See our reading of Deuteronomy 10 for a more detailed treatment of the pivotal concept of the “fear of God.”

270

Chapter 6

so that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you (ָ‫לי ְִראָה א ְֹתך‬. . . ְ ‫)ל ַמעַן‬, ְ as do your people Israel, and so that they may know that your name has been invoked on this house that I have built. (1 Kgs 8:41–43; cf. vv. 60–61)

The fifth petition is different in at least two ways. It does not hypothetically speak of people’s sin and the need for repentance and forgiveness. Moreover, it is unusual in the sense that Solomon prays not for Israel, but on behalf of the foreigner (‫ָכִרי‬ ְ ‫)ּנ‬. 36 The fourth and fifth petition, however, are connected by a common prayer objective: “The fear of God” (cf. 1 Kgs 8:40, 43). The fear of Yhwh has a different nuance depending on whether it is related to Israel or to the foreigner. In the case of Israel, to fear Yhwh means above all complete devotion to God and His covenant (cf. 1 Kgs 8:58–61, Deut 6:2). While for the foreigner, fear of Yhwh probably connotes primarily awe of Israel’s God’s power and majesty and an acknowledgement that Yhwh is the only true God (cf. 1 Kgs 8:60). The foreigners that are envisaged are not primarily the merchants who made their way to Jerusalem for trading, but the non-Israelites who have heard of Yhwh’s reputation and set out to visit the temple city because of His name (ָ‫שמֶך‬ ְׁ ‫ל ַמעַן‬, ְ 1 Kgs 8:41). Moses also invited the foreigners living among the Israelites to offer sacrifices at the sanctuary (Num 15:14–16). Yhwh’s fame has spread through the great acts that He has done on behalf of Israel to the surrounding nations (Exod 15:14; Josh 5:1; Numbers 22). Jethro is a good illustration of one who has heard of Yhwh’s fame and came to God’s mountain sanctuary (Sinai) to offer sacrifices with Aaron (Exod 18:5, 12). 37 There the priest of Midian exclaimed: “Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods, because he delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians, when they dealt arrogantly with them.” And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, offered a burnt offering and sacrifices to God; and Aaron came with all the elders of Israel to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law before God. (Exod 18:11–12)

In closer narrative context, Solomon’s prayer for the foreigner can be related to the visit of the queen of Sheba. Although the foreign queen has not 36.  Scharbert (Heilsmittler, 128) notes the uniqueness of the fifth petition within Solomon’s intercessory prayer and thinks that it is surprising that the Deuteronomist, who is usually reserved toward the foreign nations, tolerated or even formulated Solomon’s prayer for the foreigners. Thus, Scharbert considers it likely that this part of the prayer may well go back to a Solomonic tradition. At the time of the so-called Solomonic enlightenment, Israel was open to learn from and embrace its foreign neighbors. 37.  Some scholars argue that the “Yahwistic religion” originated in Midian, because it is there that Yhwh first revealed Himself to Moses (cf. Exod 3:1). Moreover, Jethro, the priest of Midian, calls on the name of Yhwh and brings offering to Him (cf. Exod 18:1, 10–12). It should be noted, however, that Jethro traveled to meet Moses at the mountain of God (cf. Exod 18:5). In other words, the mountain of God does not seem to be a Midianite sanctuary. Jethro’s acknowledgement of Yhwh’s greatness does not necessarily mean that he had appropriated Yhwh as his God but could be a confession of awe similar to that of Pharaoh (cf. Exod 9:27).

Solomon: Prayer of Dedication

271

heard directly about Yhwh’s acts and glory but about Solomon’s, once she meets the king, she acknowledges: Blessed be the Lord your God, who has delighted in you and set you on the throne of Israel! Because the Lord loved Israel forever, he has made you king to execute justice and righteousness. (1 Kgs 10:9)

Solomon, perhaps more than most of Israel’s kings, was an ambassador for Yhwh among his neighboring countries (cf. 1 Kgs 5:15–26). According to tradition, he wrote Proverbs, a collection of wisdom sayings that were composed in interaction with Egyptian wisdom teaching. 38 In the long term, however, Solomon failed to protect the fine line between learning from other religions and cultures and becoming a servant to them (cf. 1 Kgs 11). In any case, Solomon’s prayer gives expression to a faith that is both wide and missional. He entreats Yhwh to do whatever the foreigners ask in prayer (1 Kgs 8:43). The king puts two reasons forward as to why Yhwh should be so generous with the non-Israelite. First, so that all the peoples of the earth may know and fear God’s name. Second, Solomon is concerned that the nations know that Yhwh’s name is particularly associated with the Jerusalem sanctuary. Especially with regard to the former concern, the account of Naaman’s healing comes to mind (2 Kgs 5). The commander of the Aramean army has heard of “Yhwh’s great name” from an Israelite slave girl. Presumably because Aram’s god Rimmon could not help Naaman, the commander humbled himself by moving from “a distant land” to enemy territory in order to ask for healing from Israel’s God. Naaman expected Elisha, the prophet of Israel’s God, to heal him by calling on the name of Yhwh on his behalf and by raising his hand towards the sanctuary (‫)אֶל־ ַהּמָקֹום‬. 39 After being healed by the “enemy’s God,” the confession of the foreign army officer is also impressive: “Now I know that there is no God in all the earth except in Israel” (2 Kgs 5:15). Naaman, however, foresees a religious conflict on his return to Aram. He no longer wants to bring sacrifices to the god Rimmon, but to Yhwh alone. The commander, however, is also aware of the difficulty that this will pose to his king and thus asks for Yhwh’s forgiveness for being obliged to observe certain religious etiquette in Aram. The point, however, is that this narrative account presents the kind of scenario that Solomon is praying for. A foreigner has heard about Yhwh’s reputation and thus turns toward Israel in order to pray for Yhwh’s healing. Israel’s God grants Naaman’s request through Elisha and thus answers the foreigner’s prayer (cf. 1 Kgs 8:43, 2 Kgs 5:10–14). Ephrem the Syrian notes that: 38.  For example, scholars have pointed out the association between parts of the book of Proverbs (see Prov 22:17–24:22) and the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemopet. See James L. Crenshaw, “Proverbs, Book of,” in ABD 5:516. 39.  The Luther translation interprets the Hebrew to refer not to the leprous spot but to the holy place/sanctuary (‫ו ֵהנִיף יָדֹו אֶל־ ַהּמָקֹום‬,ְ 2 Kgs 5:11).

272

Chapter 6

Solomon did not only pray for his people but also for the foreigners and the strangers who distrusted the nation of Israel and were often hostile to it, so that the son of David might show the God of David to everyone in general, by praying for his enemies and by speaking ahead of time for us those future words: “But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matt 5:44) 40

Solomon’s fifth petition gives voice to one of the most remarkable universal visions of the Old Testament. 41 It is perhaps even more remarkable because the prayer is voiced in the context of the inauguration ceremony of Israel’s most nationalistic symbol: the Jerusalem temple. Yet here, at its dedication, Solomon’s prayer envisions the blessing of foreigners and the spreading fame of Yhwh. . . . It is assumed that people from afar will be attracted to come and worship Israel’s God for themselves. The assumptions Solomon makes in pressing his request are revealing. . . . It is assumed that Israel’s God can and will hear the prayers of foreigners. All these assumptions are important theological foundations. 42

Not only are these fundamental theological foundations, some of which we will explore further, but it is also important to note that this prayer stands in close association with and in partial fulfillment of Yhwh’s promise to Abraham (cf. Gen 12:3). Just as Abraham interceded for divine favor for the pagan cities (cf. Gen 18:16–33), so Solomon prays now for Yhwh’s blessing on the foreigners. Solomon returns to this “missional theme” toward the end of his prayer (cf. 1 Kgs 8:60–61). As a Christian reader of this prayer, it is easy to follow some of the trajectories into the New Testament. Not unlike the Queen of Sheba, who once traveled to Jerusalem to visit the wise Solomon, the wise men (μάγοι) journeyed in Jesus’ days from the East to “worship” (προσκυνέω) at the feet of the one greater than Solomon (Matt 2:1–2, 12:42). Jesus initially confined his mission to the Israelites (Matt 15:24), and yet his fame spread to the Gentiles. One of the first encounters with a Gentile is that of the God-fearing centurion who came and pleaded with Jesus to heal his servant (cf. Matt 8:13). Because of the Roman soldier’s faith, Jesus granted him his prayer. Another example is Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophenician women in Tyre (Matt 15:21–28). Although Jesus refuses initially her prayer request, because of her unyielding faith in him and her acceptance of Is­rael’s privileged status, he eventually showed mercy and granted her request. Solomon entreats Yhwh to listen to the prayers of the foreigners and grant them the requests that are offered toward the temple where Yhwh’s 40.  “First Book of Kings,” 8.21:2, in Sancti Patris Nostri Ephraem Syri Opera Omnia. (ed. J. A. Assemani; 6 vols.; Rome, 1737) 1:463. 41.  Simon J. DeVries, 1 Kings (WBC 12; Waco: Word, 1985) 126. 42.  Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 2006) 229.

Solomon: Prayer of Dedication

273

name dwells (1 Kgs 8:43). In Jesus’ time, several Gentiles turned in faith to the “true spiritual temple” (cf. John 2:19–21) and placed their prayers at Jesus’ feet, and he granted their requests. 43

Israel at War If your people go out to battle against their enemy, by whatever way you ְ ‫דר‬ shall send them (‫ֲשר ִּת ְׁש ָלחֵם‬ ֶׁ ‫ֶך א‬ ּ ֶ ‫) ַּב‬, and they pray to the Lord toward the city that you have chosen and the house that I have built for your name, then hear in heaven their prayer and their plea, and maintain their cause. ׂ ִ ‫וע‬,ְ 1 Kgs 8:44–45) (‫ית ִמ ְׁש ָּפטָם‬ ָ ‫ָש‬

The sixth petition is again concerned with war. This time, however, it is a prayer for Israel’s outgoing army against its enemies. First, we should note that it is not merely a self-serving prayer for victory, but Solomon envisages a situation in which Israel engages in war by the command of God (“by whatever way You shall send them”). On the battlefield, Israel is to pray toward Jerusalem and temple, but help will come from heaven. In other words, we have a scenario in which war is issued either on God’s initiative, by that of a prophet, or in response to Israel’s inquiry through a prophet. The situation is different from the war practice of Israel’s earlier times where God was believed to be present with the army in the carrying of the ark (cf. Num 14:44, Josh 6:1–16). Von Rad in his monograph Holy War in Ancient Israel has studied war in the Old Testament at length. 44 Although Holy War is not a biblical word, von Rad demonstrates that the most important feature of Yhwh’s war was the requirement of faith in God’s saving help (cf. Isa 7:9). The element of faith comes also to expression in Solomon’s sixth petition. Israel has to turn to Yhwh’s temple in prayer so that God will maintain their cause (1  Kgs 8:44­– 45). Unfortunately the term Holy War gives the mistaken impression that this type of war was fought for the extension of one’s religion. This is neither true for the Old Testament at large nor for Solomon’s particular prayer. The Bible anticipates a time when other nations will acknowledge Yhwh’s superiority over other gods. This, however, will be a voluntary action of the nations as they hear of Yhwh’s great name (1 Kgs 8:43) or as they witness to God’s mighty acts in history (Exodus 7–15). In sum, Israel’s army here is perceived as an instrument of Yhwh. God, however, will only battle for Israel, if the people of God turn in prayer/faith to Yhwh and are in the right. Perhaps Solomon’s petition at the end of v. 45 (“maintain their cause”) ought to be translated “carry out their right” or “secure them justice” (‫ׂית ִמ ְׁש ָּפטָם‬ ָ ‫ָש‬ ִ ‫)וע‬. ְ  45 In other words, war is perceived as a means to bring God’s justice to the earth. 43.  After the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on Gentiles, Paul can assert that “there is no longer Jew or Greek . . . for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). 44.  Gerhard von Rad, Holy War in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991). 45.  See Deut 10:18 (“. . . who executes justice [‫שּפַט‬ ְׁ ‫שׂה ִמ‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ]ע‬for the orphan . . .”).

274

Chapter 6

Solomon’s sixth petition should not only be read in association with the seventh, where it says that Israel’s standing before God has clear implications in a war situation but also as a prayer for divine justice. 46

Israel’s Sinfulness, Exile, Repentance, and God’s Mercy ְ ‫ֶטאּו־ל‬ If they sin against you (‫ָך‬ ְ ‫—)ּכי יֶח‬for ִ there is no one who does not sin—and you are angry with them (‫)ו ָאנ ְַפ ָּת בָם‬ ְ and give them to an enemy, so that they are carried away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near; yet if they come to their senses in the land to which they have been taken captive, and repent, and plead with you in the land of their captors, saying, ‘We have sinned, and have done wrong; we have acted wickedly’; if they repent with all their heart and soul in the land of their enemies, who took them captive, and pray to you toward their land, which you gave to their ancestors, the city that you have chosen, and the house that I have built for your name; then hear in heaven your dwelling place ׂ ִ ‫)וע‬ their prayer and their plea, maintain their cause (‫ית ִמ ְׁש ָּפטָם‬ ָ ‫ָש‬ ְ and forgive ְ ‫ָטאּו־ל‬ your people who have sinned against you (‫ָך‬ ְ ‫ֲשר ח‬ ֶׁ ‫)ו ָסל ְַח ָּת ְלע ְַּמךָ א‬, ְ and all their transgressions that they have committed against you; and grant them compassion in the sight of their captors, so that they may have compassion on them (for they are your people and heritage, which you brought out of Egypt, from the midst of the iron-smelter). Let your eyes be open to the plea of your servant, and to the plea of your people Israel, listening to them whenever they call to you. For you have separated them from among all the peoples of the earth, to be your heritage, just as you promised through Moses, your servant, when you brought our ancestors out of Egypt, O Lord God. (1 Kgs 8:46–53)

The seventh plea for divine mercy and forgiveness is the longest and most detailed. This petition forms not only chronologically the end of the intercessory prayer, but also its detailed theological statements make it the climactic end of the prayer. The final petition addresses again the issue of defeat and exile. Given Israel’s propensity to sin, the prayer anticipates exile as a result of God’s 46.  The issue of war has presented the Church with very complex questions. Can a Christian ever support a just war in prayer or physically participate in it? The Bible does not conclusively settle this question. Although there is always the danger of simplifying the distinction between the Testaments, it is fair to say that the Old Testament differs in tone from the New Testament. The Old Testament records how God is commanding Israel to fight and how He is fighting with and for them. The New Testament presents Jesus as the bringer of peace (cf. Matt 5:38–45). Having said that, both parts of the Bible contain images of God’s final battle against the enemies of God and His people. Generally, the early church and Christian pacifism hold that Christians should not participate in war. Whereas, following Ambrose and Augustine, major traditions of the church believe that Christians may have the duty to use force to protect others. While war is seen as the last resort, the just-war tradition accepts the duty to maintain and strive for justice even if war is necessary. See A. F. Holmes, “Just-War Theory,” 521–23; D. J. E. Attwood, “War,” in New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology (ed. D. J. Atkinson and D. H. Field; Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1995) 885–88.

Solomon: Prayer of Dedication

275

wrath. As though to soften Yhwh’s potential anger, Solomon makes the categorical statement “There is no one who does not sin” (1 Kgs 8:46). In other words, this prayer asserts the universality of sin. In the psalms we find God’s sobering verdict: “They have all gone astray . . . there is no one who does good, no, not one” (Ps 14:3). Paul quotes Ps 14:1–3 as translated in the Septuagint in his letter to the Romans, concluding that “all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin” (Rom 3:9). In the context of Solomon’s prayer for divine mercy, the king seeks to include all possible sins against Yhwh. This is evident by the all encompassing usage of Israel’s terminology of sin: “We have sinned (‫) ָחטָאנּו‬, and have done wrong (‫ֱוינּו‬ ִ‫;)ו ֶהע‬ ְ we have acted wickedly” (‫ׁש ְענּו‬ ָ ‫ ָר‬, 1 Kgs 8:47). 47 It is noteworthy that Solomon includes himself here in the confession. The three phrases are all in the “we” form. So far, Solomon has prayed exclusively in the “I” form and thereby distinguished himself from the people. He has been acting as God’s mediator who is standing above the people and who prays that God would answer their prayers favorably. Here, however, Solomon includes himself among the confessors. 48 We have noted that previous intercessors such as Moses and Samuel usually do not include themselves in the confession of sin (Exod 34:8 is an exception). While in the long postexilic confessional prayers by Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, the intercessors include themselves in the confession. Solomon’s prayer also resembles these long penitential prayers in that the king uses three different phrases for confessing the sins. Thereby, Solomon underlines not only the comprehensive nature of Israel’s sin, but seems also to accentuate the urgency for the need of repentance (cf. Dan 9, Ezra 9, Neh 9). Again, wholehearted repentance (‫ )ׁשּוב‬is the necessary presupposition of Solomon’s prayer for divine forgiveness (1 Kgs 8:48). As far as sinful Israel is concerned, the recurring key verbs in Solomon’s prayer are “turn, confess, pray, and plead,” whereas the outstanding petitions directed toward God are “to hear and to pardon (‫)סלח‬.” Although Solomon’s intercession shows an acute awareness of Israel’s guilt (1 Kgs 8:47), the intercessor demonstrates a strong trust that Yhwh will be attentive to His people’s plea for pardon (1 Kgs 8:49–50). No cheap grace or easy pardon is in view. Solomon’s final petition on behalf of sinful Israel envisions Israel’s exile as a result of sin and transgression (1 Kgs 8:46–50). 49 In other words, there is a clear sense that divine mercy and pardon can only be anticipated after judgment, confession of sin, and 47.  Similar confessions of sin are found in Scripture elsewhere and give exhaustive expression of Israel’s deep consciousness of guilt (cf. Dan 9:5, Ps 106:6). The word ‫ חטא‬depicts sin as a wandering from right; ‫עוה‬, “to act perversely, as a conscious perversion of justice”; and ‫ רׁשע‬as a rebellion against God (cf. Isa 57:20). See my Moses, 189–91, for a discussion on the meaning of Israel’s three major terms of sin. 48.  Scharbert, “Die Fürbitte,” 97. 49.  Verses 46–53 are often taken as evidence that Solomon’s prayer (1 Kgs 8:23–53), or at least this section is exilic. See, for example, Balentine, Prayer, 84–88.

276

Chapter 6

a radical recommittment to Yhwh. One could say that confession of sin to God is confession of faith in God. Yhwh is a God of grace and mercy who will keep the covenant throughout the judgment. The king’s intercession appeals to God’s compassion in the form of Israel receiving compassion from their captors (1 Kgs 8:50). When Israel is in Babylonian captivity, Jeremiah advises the exiles to pray to Yhwh on behalf of the captors. If the Babylonians have peace and plenty, Israel too will find peace (‫ׁשלֹום‬, ָ Jer 29:7). Like Moses, Solomon backs his petition for pardon through the important motive of divine election. “For they are your people and heritage, which you brought out of Egypt” (‫ֵאת ִמ ִּמ ְצרַ יִם‬ ָ ‫ֲשר הֹוצ‬ ֶׁ ‫ָתךָ הֵם א‬ ְ ‫חל‬ ֲ ַ‫ּכי־ע ְַּמךָ ְונ‬, ִ 1 Kgs  50 8:51; cf. Deut. 9:26). The theme of election is reinforced in the final two verses of the prayer. Yhwh has selected Israel from among all the peoples to be His heritage (‫חלָה‬ ֲ ַ‫נ‬, 1 Kgs 8:53). Solomon finishes his prayer by refering back to Moses, the founder of Israel (cf. Exod 19:5–6). Solomon seems to imply that just as God in His faithfulness remembered His people in Egyptian captivity and delivered them from the iron smelter (cf. Deut 4:20), so will Yhwh deliver Israel from an anticipated future captivity (1 Kgs 8:53). Yhwh delivered Israel from Egypt, not because of the people’s obedience or even repentance but because of God’s promise to the patriarchs and because Yhwh wanted to establish His great name among the nations (Deut 9:27; cf. 1 Kgs 8:60). Like King Hezekiah in his intercession, Solomon refers to the larger divine purpose in history. “So that all the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord is God; there is no other” (1 Kgs 8:60; cf. Isa 37:20). I shall explore further some of the theological reverberation of Solomon’s prayer. Here, I summarize by saying that Yhwh is portrayed as a God who is enthroned in heaven and yet intimately close to His people through the temple. God hears the prayers in heaven that are mediated by the intercessor at the temple. He evaluates these prayers in the light of the people’s covenant obedience and responds in grace and justice, taking the divine promises and purposes into account. Solomon’s intercessory prayer is a model prayer, not least in that it takes into serious account all possible contingencies that the people of God may experience in their corporate and individual life situations.

God’s Response to the Prayer (1 Kings 9:1–9) After Solomon’s prayer and sacrifices, Yhwh appears to the king a second time. When God revealed Himself to Solomon for the first time in 50.  Compare: “I prayed to the Lord . . . do not destroy the people who are your very own possession (ָ‫ָתך‬ ְ ‫חל‬ ֲ ַ‫ )אַל־ּתַ ְׁשחֵת ע ְַּמךָ ְונ‬. . . whom you brought out of Egypt (‫ֵאת ִמ ִּמ ְצרַ יִם‬ ָ ‫”)הֹוצ‬ (Deut 9:26–29).

Solomon: Prayer of Dedication

277

Gibeon, the king receives the gift of wisdom (1  Kgs 3:4–15). Subsequent chapters show how the king put his wisdom to use. Above all, Solomon’s wisdom comes to expression in the building of the temple and his palace (1 Kgs 6:1–7:51). The climax to Solomon’s massive building project is the dedication of the sanctuary and his prayer (1 Kgs 8:1–66). In response, Yhwh appears to the king a second time. I have heard your prayer and your plea, which you made before me; I have consecrated this house that you have built, and put my name there forever; my eyes and my heart will be there for all time. As for you, if you will walk before me (‫ַּתה ִאם־ּתֵ ל ְֵך ְל ָפנַי‬ ָ ‫)וא‬, ְ as David your father walked, with integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I have commanded you, and keeping my statutes and my ordinances, then I will establish your royal throne over Israel forever, as I promised your father David, saying, “There shall not fail you a successor on the throne of Israel.” (1 Kgs 9:3–5)

Once again the divine response affirms that prayer is fundamentally perceived as a dialogue. 51 The divine response comes first as an assurance that God has heard Solomon’s prayer and supplications. Moreover, Yhwh approves of the temple that has been built for Him (cf. 2 Chr 7:12–22). Yhwh sanctifies His house. This happens visibly when the cloud filled the temple and God declares that there His name can be called upon in prayer (cf. Deut 12:11). Solomon prays that Yhwh’s “eyes may be open night and day toward this house” (1 Kgs 8:29, 52) and God replies, exceeding Solomon’s request by saying that not only His eyes, but also His heart will be open for all time (1 Kgs 9:4). As for the king’s plea to maintain the Davidic dynasty (1 Kgs 8:25–26), Yhwh reaffirms His commitment to the Davidic promise with a qualification. After Yhwh declares His perpetual commitment to the temple, there follows an abrupt “as for you, if” (‫ַּתה ִאם‬ ָ ‫)וא‬ ְ that distinguishes sharply between the temple and the king. 52 Yhwh who commits His heart requires His king to walk with integrity of heart before Him like David (1 Kgs 9:4). God will honor His promise made to David to establish his royal dynasty forever, provided that Solomon keeps the statutes and ordinances of the covenant. 53 In other words, the divine “forever” comes with two fundamental ifs: (1) “If you walk before me as David . . . then I will establish” (1 Kgs 9:4–5). (2) “If you or your children turn aside from following me . . . then I will cut Israel off from their God-given land and the temple I will 51.  The fact that Solomon does not respond to Yhwh’s answer lets the reader surmise that the divine-human relationship is growing tense. 52.  Brueggemann, 1 and 2 Kings, 121, sees in vv. 4–9 “the most complete and symmetrical statement of the Torah-conditioned theology of the Deuteronomists.” 53.  The “if” of Torah has already been voiced in 1 Sam 12:15, 25; 1 Kgs 3:4, 6:12, 8:47.

278

Chapter 6

cast out of my sight” (1 Kgs 9:6–8). 54 It is noteworthy that the conduct of the king and his descendants will affect deeply the future of the people. God places special emphasis on loyalty to Him and prohibits idolatry. The king and the people must not go and serve other gods (cf. 1 Kgs 9:6–9). Although these two conditions come with full divine authority, they are neither new to the Mosaic covenant faith nor new in the Solomonic narrative (1  Kings 1–11). Already in Yhwh’s first revelation, Solomon’s long reign and life was conditional on Torah obedience (cf. 1 Kgs 3:14). Here in the second divine revelation, however, the covenant conditions are given in more details and expanded to Solomon’s successors (1 Kgs 9:6–8). Brueggemann comments, The immediate effect of this freighted passage is that it fully and without qualification brings Solomon and the monarchy under Torah. Clearly the king will be tested by Torah criteria. 55

This has already been clearly voiced by the prophet Samuel at the inception of Israel’s monarchy (cf. 1 Sam 12:15, 25). 1 Kings 9:7 contains an unambiguous divine warning that is based on the Deuteronomic curse list (cf. Deut 28:37). 56 Yhwh is prepared to cut off Israel from the promised land and reduce His temple to a ruin, if Israel commits the archetypal sin and serves other gods (1 Kgs 9:6–9). Thereby, Yhwh qualifies Solomon’s plea to dwell in the temple forever (cf. 1 Kgs 8:13). We shall see that, in the time of Jeremiah, the people were so entrenched in the confidence that the templecity was eternally secure in Yhwh’s covenant with David that they became spiritually complacent. 57 Yhwh’s stern warning here anticipates and authorizes Jeremiah’s temple sermon (cf. Jer 7:1–15). Although most commentators argue that these verses here are written with hindsight of the actual destruction of the temple and Babylonian captivity, as we learn about in 2 Kings 24–25, the logic of the text is that exile is only a possibility. In other words, the final form of Yhwh’s response leaves a tension between the promise of v. 3 and a severe warning of judgment in vv. 6–9. Does 1 Kgs 8:48 present a solution? There Solomon prays that Yhwh will attend to the people’s pleas even when in the land of their captors, if they genuinely turn back to their God and direct their prayers toward Yhwh’s temple city. This prayer holds together Yhwh’s ongoing commitment to the temple and the probability of the destruction thereof. It provides a continuity, as Fretheim writes: 54.  In the Hebrew, the addressee shifts from the singular in 1 Kgs 8:4–5, referring to Solomon (“as for you” v. 4), to the plural in vv. 6–7, referring to all the Davidic kings (“you and your children” v. 6). The people of Israel as a whole are also affected (v. 9). 55.  Brueggemann, 1 and 2 Kings, 122–23. 56.  Verse 7 is based on Deut 28:37, 45, and 63, and the curse pronounced on Israel in Deut 29:23–26 is being transferred to the temple in vv. 8 and 9. 57.  Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 212.

Solomon: Prayer of Dedication

279

between the first temple and the second temple. But between the two temples stands a great gulf—Israel’s experience of divine judgment. The text does not back off from stating sharply that this God who has been so gracious and has stated promises so clearly can also judge, and this is judgment against the chosen. 58

Yhwh’s response closes with the ominous words that disobedience will lead to the loss of the promised land and the destruction of the temple. Israel’s fame and proverbial wisdom will be reduced to a proverb and a byword (1  Kgs 9:7–8). This play on words comes again directly from the deuteronomic curse list (Deut 28:37). The surrounding nations will be astonished and come to the conclusion that because they have forsaken the Lord their God, who brought their ancestors out of the land of Egypt, and embraced other gods, worshiping them and serving them; therefore the Lord has brought this disaster upon them. (1 Kgs 9:9)

Yhwh ascribes here notable discernment to the nations. The foreigners are here perceived to have knowledge and understanding of God and His ways. The outsider shows awareness of Yhwh’s redemptive work (Exodus) and of Yhwh’s call to loyalty. In other words, God’s judgment of the chosen people answers in a mysterious way Solomon’s prayer: “so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord is God” (1 Kgs 8:60, 42–43). In sum, just as the first revelation of Yhwh marked the beginning of Solomon’s rise to greatness (1 Kgs 3:4–15), so the second divine encounter marks in some aspects the end point of the king’s true glory and points ahead to judgment (cf. 2 Kings 17, 25). Moreover, we have noted that both Solomon’s prayer and God’s response are closely related to the Sinaiatic covenant conditions as recorded particularly in Deuteronomy. One could say that both prayer and divine response are based and ought to be understood within the framework of the covenant. In the context of the new covenant, Jesus makes a comparable statement with regard to the conditionality of God answering prayers. He says: Abide in me as I abide in you. . . . Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you” ( John 15:4–7).

If Solomon abides in God’s words and thereby remains within the boundaries of the covenant, then his prayer requests will all enjoy an affirmative divine yes. If he does not abide, his temple will be burned and go up in smoke (cf. 2 Kgs 25:9). 58.  Fretheim, First and Second Kings, 55–56.

280

Chapter 6

Further Theological Reflections Our understanding of God and His ways with the world begins when we pause to reflect on the reason for praying and what use this praying may have. Clements is convinced that “it is hard to find a more clearly presented argument for the necessity of theology than Solomon’s prayer.” He substantiates his claim with the discerning observation that, according to Solomon’s prayer, God is omnipresent and utterly transcendent to the visible world— “heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain him”; he is omniscient—“for thou, thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men”; he is utterly and impartially righteous—“condemning the guilty . . . vindicating the righteous.” We can find in this prayer most of the essential theological formulations concerning the being and attributes of God which are familiar from later and more systematic expositions. All of this is needful if we are to make any sense of prayer at all. 59

In this section, we shall attempt to draw together some of the main theological themes raised in 1  Kings 8 and 9 and explore how they relate to Solomon’s prayer. First, we note that Solomon’s prayer and Yhwh’s response shed considerable light on the nature of divine omniscience. Solomon prays in the conviction that Yhwh knows the hearts of all the people (1 Kgs 8:39) and yet the dynamic of these chapters suggest that God does not foreknow the future in detail. The vexed theological issue of whether God can know only all that is past and present and what He is committed to bring about, or whether God also foreknows the future in detail is illuminated by two main themes in these chapters. One is the dynamic between the king’s intercession for divine pardon and the response of sinful Israel. The other is related to the fundamental tension between God’s election and the demand for covenant obedience. Second, 1 Kings 8 also raises the issue of divine omnipresence. Chapter 8 gives voice to the tension between Yhwh’s transcendence and immanence. On the one hand, God’s glory filled the temple so that Solomon could say that he built an eternal dwelling place for Yhwh (1 Kgs 8:11–13). On the other hand, Solomon’s repeated statement that not even the highest heavens can contain God run like a refrain through the king’s prayer. As all these themes are of central importance in the New Testament as well, we shall explore some of the trajectories of these themes into the second part of the Bible and probe the abiding witness of Solomon’s prayer and God’s response in the light of the one greater than Solomon. Divine Foreknowledge versus Omniscience Provan provides a somber reading of God’s response to Solomon. According to him, 59.  Clements, Prayer, 110.

Solomon: Prayer of Dedication

281

to read 9:1–9 in the light of 8:22–53 is to see immediately then, the inevitability of disaster. . . . Obedience will inevitably give way to apostasy. If this is truly the basis of God’s dealings with Israel, there can be no other outcome but tears. A dark cloud now looms quite visibly over the Solomonic empire, for all the glory of 1 Kings 3–8. The temple is no sooner built than we hear of its inevitable end. 60

If one reads Yhwh’s response with the remaining part of the books of Kings in mind, one could easily arrive at a reading such as this. Or if one takes a diachronic approach that understands Yhwh’s response as an exilic composition, written with hindsight of the reality of Jerusalem’s destruction and exile, then one is likely to comment that no sooner the temple was built we hear of its inevitable end (first for the Northern Kingdom [cf. 2 Kgs 17:7–8] and then for the Southern Kingdom [cf. 2 Kgs 21:11–15]). If, however, one reads Yhwh’s response to Solomon’s prayer as the text leads, one cannot arrive at such a “fatalistic” reading. Yhwh presents the future to Solomon as an unwritten history. Everything can still be gained or lost, depending on the king’s and the people’s response to Yhwh’s covenant relationship. We have noted that much of Solomon’s prayer is composed against the covenant curses from Leviticus (26:33 and 44) and Deuteronomy (28:45–29:1). The divine conditions are phrased both in positive and negative terms (“if” and “if not,” cf. 1 Kgs 9:5, 7–9). In other words, if we allow any credibility to God’s response to the king’s prayer, both a positive and a negative future are possible (cf. Jer 22:1–5). According to the dynamics of Solomon’s prayer and God’s response, judgment has not been predetermined. Yhwh holds out the possibility of a blessed future (cf. 1  Kgs 9:5). This says something important about both God and Solomon/Israel with respect to the future. The way in which Solomon and Israel respond to God and His ways makes a difference with respect to the shape the future takes. By the logic of the narrative, both of these futures are genuine possibilities for Yhwh. If both a blessed and a cursed future is possible, then God has not determined the response of the people. It follows that God’s knowledge of human responses is not absolute. Solomon’s prayer does not call divine omniscience into question, only an understanding of divine foreknowledge as absolute. In other words, Yhwh knows all there is to know (omniscience), but there is a future that is not yet available for knowing, even for God. 61 This understanding can be supported by the fact that God became angry with Solomon because the king gave in to the temptation of idolatry (1 Kgs 11:1–11). If Yhwh knew for certain that Solomon would eventually breach the covenant of exclusive allegiance to Him, the Lord would not have needed to warn Solomon of the consequences of breaching the covenant, 60.  Iain W. Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (NIBC 7; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999) 83. 61.  Fretheim, First and Second Kings, 56–57.

282

Chapter 6

unless God was deceptive. Nor would God have become angry, but would have simply executed the inevitable punishment. The dynamics of these chapters suggest that free human decisions may be contrary to God’s will and that even God’s chosen one’s can hinder divine intentions. Of course, Yhwh is sovereign and omnipotent, and so He will ultimately achieve His objectives for humankind because He directs history (cf. Dan 2:21, Acts 1:7). Besides, He is capable of working for good in every situation (cf. Rom 8:28). However, one preliminary theological observation is that one ought to differentiate between divine foreknowledge and divine omniscience. God knows everything that can be known, but this does not necessarily include the immediate future, which contains various alternative possibilities, any one of which could be actualized. In other words, if we allow any integrity to the human response, we need to conclude, at least in the context of this narrative, that not even an omniscient God knows the unformed future for certain. As a God who knows the human heart and everything that has happened, He may have highly informed conjectures about its possible outcome and shape and thus can make alternative plans accordingly. For example, when Yhwh called Moses to go to Pharaoh and release Israel from slavery, God had a back up plan in case Moses would decline the mission (cf. Exod 4:13–17). God will not be caught by surprise because the Lord knows the human heart and He will not find Himself at a loss in any situation, because of His sovereignty and omnipotence. It means, however, that God needs to respond creatively to each new situation as it happens. 62 Swinburne comments that God’s omniscience concerns the past, which is causally unaffectable, and his omnipotence concerns the future, which is causally affectable. 63 Looking at the larger biblical narrative picture, God is on a mission to restore creation and His people to their original purpose. 64 In order to achieve His purposes (“macro-plan”), God is committed and has the means to do so. There is, however, also a “micro-history” that is to a certain extent open and created by humans. The biblical God has entered a living relationship with His creation and thus needs to respond creatively to people’s choices. Fretheim uses the analogy of a “heavenly chess player” who no doubt will win and can direct the game according to His purposes, but needs to respond creatively to each freely chosen minor move. 65 Our observations so far will be confirmed, when we look first at the tension between divine election and covenant obedience and then at the interrelation between intercessory prayer, repentance, and divine forgiveness. God’s dealing with His people in the immediate future is not already formed ahead. He is a living God who has entered into a covenant relation62.  Tiessen, Providence and Prayer, 85. 63. Richard Swinburne, The Christian God (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994) 134. 64.  Wright, The Mission of God, 188. 65.  Terence E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 45–59.

Solomon: Prayer of Dedication

283

ship with His people. He is a compassionate and gracious God who is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving wickedness, but who will also visit the iniquity of the parents on the children to the third and the fourth generation (Exod 34:6–7). These attributes only have integrity in a living relationship in which everything can be won or lost. The One Greater than Solomon: Election and Covenant We have seen that an important characteristic of chaps. 8 and 9 is the fundamental tension between God’s commitment to the Davidic monarchy and Torah obedience. Here, we attempt to outline briefly how these two central biblical themes find their fulfillment in the one greater than Solomon. 66 With regard to the Davidic pledge, the New Testament clearly identifies Jesus as the Son of David toward whom the promise is ultimately pointing. Although Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world ( John 18:28–40), Luke clearly sees the Davidic promise fulfilled in Jesus. God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end. (Luke 1:32–33; cf. Acts 2:29–36)

Having said this, Solomon, the successor and bearer of God’s promise to David, is a tragic example that illustrates that it is possible for a chosen individual to fail and eventually to fall away from following God’s ways. Looking at Solomon, we can say that God takes the side of those who take His side. As Solomon’s increasing idolatrous practices and Yhwh’s solemn warning confirms, it seems possible for individuals to loose divine favor (cf. 1 Kgs 11:11, 14, 1 Sam 15:10–35). While it is possible for an individual to loose divine approval, God has never given up on His people as a whole. Although it is clear from the entirety of the books of Kings that God has severely judged and punished the royal line and the chosen temple city, it is assuring to note that these texts never state that the Davidic covenant has been set aside. Romans 9–11, particularly the imagery of tree husbandry, gives expression to the same tension between divine election and covenant responsibility. 67 The Need for an Intercessor, Repentance, and Divine Pardon Solomon’s prayer is consistent with the intercessions of Moses, Samuel, and Jeremiah in the sense that they all agree that the sinful party needs 66. See Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (London: SCM, 1992) 413–47, for a helpful discussion on how the themes of covenant and election are developed in the New Testament and Christian theology. See also von Balthasar, Prayer, 221–40, on the tension between judgment and salvation. 67.  I will interact with this tension more fully in the context of Amos’s intercessory prayers.

284

Chapter 6

to acknowledge their sin and return to God in order for the intercession to have any positive longterm effect (cf. Deut 10:12–22; 1 Sam 12:19–24; Jeremiah 11–15). The only way to a steadfast hope for God’s gracious intervention and pardon leads through genuine repentance of the sinful party. This biblical truth comes to expression in Psalm 66, where the psalmist shows clear awareness that a favorable divine response depends on the petitioner’s standing with his God: “If I had cherished iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not have listened” (Ps 66:18). As we shall learn from Jeremiah, even the greatest intercessors cannot achieve divine forgiveness, if the party being prayed for remains in their sinful ways. As there is nobody who does not sin, Solomon anticipates in his prayer a future when the people need to turn consciously from their sin in order to attain divine forgiveness (cf. 1 Kgs 8:46). In other words, only if Israel turns from their evil ways and recommits to covenant obedience will Solomon’s intercession find a favorable hearing. The intercessor anticipates a scenario of exile and homecoming. The homecoming is based on the presumption of the exiles returning back to Yhwh and God graciously forgiving them. Divine pardon manifests itself in the restoration of the land lost by sin. Brueggemann makes an illuminating intertextual reference to Jesus’ parable of the lost son (Luke 15:11–32). In the parable of the wayward son, also, everything depends on repentance. In a far country, the son remembers “who he was and to whom and with whom he belonged.” He repents, he “came to himself” (Lk. 15:17). We find the same move in Solomon’s seventh petition, where the phrase Israel “came to their senses” comes as the crucial turning point for new possibilities with Yhwh (1 Kgs 8:47). The Hebrew, literally, is “return to their heart.” 68

Peterson writes with characteristic lucidity on the fundamental importance of confession of sin: the remedy for sin is not the extermination of sin . . . The only effective remedy for sin is the forgiveness of sin — and only God can forgive sin. If we refuse to deal with God, we are left dealing with sin by means of punishment or moral education . . . The way, the only way, is to get in on God’s forgiveness. And we do that by confession. No excuses, no rationalizations, no denial . . . only “I acknowledge my sin to thee . . . I said, ‘I will confess my transgression to the Lord’; then thou didst forgive the guilt of my sin.” (Ps. 32:5 rsv) 69

God accepts the sinner’s confession because He is essentially merciful and gracious. Although Solomon’s prayer does not explicitly give voice to Yhwh’s parental love for the rebellious “son,” the assumption of the in68.  Brueggemann, 1 and 2 Kings, 114. 69.  Eugene H. Peterson, The Jesus Way: A Conversation on the Ways That Jesus Is the Way (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007) 91–92.

Solomon: Prayer of Dedication

285

tercessor is that Israel will be forgiven and reconciled to their Creator and Savior in their land. In other words, Solomon draws a portrait of Yhwh who is ready to welcome a penitent Israel. This divine disposition comes to vibrant expression in Jesus’ parable where we read that “while he (the son) was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him (Luke 15:20).” Yhwh assures Solomon that His heart and eyes are constantly on the temple watching (1 Kgs 9:3). Solomon prays that his intercession be continually in the ears of God (day and night, 1 Kgs 8:29, 59). In sum, Israel’s pardon, reconciliation with their covenant God, and restoration to the land are always dependent on a fundamental “turning” back to covenant obedience and Yhwh’s compassion evoked by the intercessory prayer of the mediator. The public context of Solomon’s intercession suggests that the prayer partially aims to foster an understanding of the essential nature of repentance among the Israelites. According to classic Christian theology, Jesus’ intercessory act on the cross also demands a wholehearted response in the form of repentance of sin and trusting in the faithful love of God (cf. 1 John 1:8–2:2, Acts 2:37–38). In other words, the intercessor might be able to stand in the breach for a while, prolonging Yhwh’s just punishment from being implemented, but in the long term a breached relationship requires a wholehearted turning to God and a firm commitment to the covenant relationship by the lost wanderer. Origen reflects on Christ’s intercessory role and the need to repent: Jesus now stands “before the face of God interceding for us” (cf. Heb 9:24). He stands before the altar to offer a propitiation to God for us. As he was about to approach that altar, moreover, he was saying, “I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until I drink it anew with you” (Mt 26:29). Therefore, he expects us to be converted, to imitate his example, to follow his footsteps, that he may rejoice with us and “drink wine with us in his Father’s kingdom.” For now, because “the Lord is merciful and gracious,” he “weeps with those who weep and desires to rejoice with those who rejoice” (Rom 12:15) with greater feeling than this apostle. And how much more “this one mourns over many of those who sinned before and have not repented” (2 Cor 12:21). 70

Solomon and Jesus at Prayer: A Juxtaposition of 1 Kings 8 and John 17 King Solomon came to embody a biblical type that anticipates Jesus Christ and his role on several levels. For example, an important trajectory emerges from the tradition that regarded Solomon as Israel’s wisest king. The New Testament understands Jesus as the fulfillment and embodiment 70.  Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 7.2.3. Cited in “Hebrews” The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (ed. E. M. Heen and P. D. W. Krey; vol. 10; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005) 118.

286

Chapter 6

of wisdom. In fact, according to some New Testament witnesses, Jesus is the incarnation of wisdom that was present with the Father from the beginning of creation ( John 1:1–18, Col 1:15–20). There are also strong typological associations attached to Solomon’s priestly role. Solomon, like his father David, fulfills some priestly functions. The king blesses and prays for the people. 71 He is involved in offering sacrifices to God (1  Kgs 8:5, 14, 22, 63; cf. 2 Sam 24:25). 72 Solomon acts as priestly king and covenant mediator. It is in this role that he offers up prayers for Israel and for all the foreigners that seek to glorify and honor God at Jerusalem’s new sanctuary (1 Kgs 8:22–53, 2 Chr 6:12–42). 73 The role of the royal and priestly mediator and intercessor is of great typological importance in a biblical theology. According to 1 Kings 8, Solomon stands in the presence of God (in front of the altar), pleading that Yhwh will constantly attend (“that your eyes may be open night and day”) to his intercessory prayers for divine pardon (‫ )סלח‬on behalf of the people (1 Kgs 8:22, 54). One cannot help drawing the trajectory to the resurrected Christ, who fulfills the royal and high-priestly role as intercessor. The heavenly High Priest intercedes constantly for his people in the presence of God (cf. Rom 8:34; Heb 7:25, 9:24). 74 It is not a dead Christ on whom we depend, but a living. It is not only a living Christ, but a Christ enthroned, a Christ in power. It is not only a Christ in power, but a Christ of ever-active sympathy, constantly (if we may so speak) at the Father’s ear, and constantly pouring in intercession for His struggling people on earth. 75

In the following section, I would like to draw attention to some similarities between Solomon’s prayer and Jesus’ intercession as recorded in John 17. For a start, it is interesting that both prayers move from the personal (cf. 1 Kgs 8:24–26, John 17:1–6), via Israel/disciples (representatives of Israel; cf. 1 Kgs 8:30–42, John 17:11–19), to the world (1 Kgs 8:41–43, 60; John 17:20–23). It has been noted that on the Day of Atonement, the movement of the atoning ceremony is the same. First, the high priest makes atonement for himself (Lev 16:5), then for his house (the priesthood), and finally for the entire people of Israel (Lev 16:17). 76 71.  There are of course also the intercessions for the king by the people (cf. Psalms 20, 21, 72). 72. Rolf Rendtorff (Theologie des Alten Testaments: Ein Kanonischer Entwurf, vol. 2: Thematische Entfaltung [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001] 98–99) notes that Solomon is involved in most of the priestly roles. 73.  After the return from exile some of the central prerogatives of the king of preexilic times were transferred to the high priest. The high priestly role came to combine royal and priestly function and status (Zech 3:1–7). 74.  Particularly in postexilic times, the high priest takes increasingly the role of the intercessor/mediator between God and the people (cf. Zech 3:1–7). 75. William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902) 221. 76. Pope Benedict XVI (Jesus von Nazareth [2 vols.; Freiburg: Herder, 2011] 2:94–97) refers to the monograph by André Feuillet, Le sacerdoce du Christ et de ses ministres d’après

Solomon: Prayer of Dedication

287

Moreover, both intercessors start with a similar prayer gesture. Solomon “spreads his hands to heaven” while Jesus “looked up to heaven” (1 Kgs 8:22, John 17:1). At the outset of Solomon’s prayer, the king tells God that he has faithfully completed the work that David has started and entrusted to him (1 Kgs 8:15–18), while Jesus glorified God by “finishing the work” that he was commissioned to do ( John 17:4). An important objective of both prayers is that Israel and the world will come to know the God of Israel and the Father of Jesus as the only true God ( John 17:3) or, as Solomon puts it, “that all the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord is God and that there is no other” (1 Kgs 8:60). A pivotal part of Jesus’ mission is to make “God’s name known” to those God has entrusted to him ( John 17:6, 26). In some sense, Jesus introduces himself as the “new Moses” that completes what has started at the burning bush and reached an important intermediate stage in Solomon’s temple. First, God revealed His “name” to Moses. In other words, the Lord opened up a way through Moses for His people to call on Him in prayer and praise. So when God makes His name dwell in the temple, God is present among His people in a special way and can attend to their prayers. Only in the coming of Jesus did the Lord dwell amidst the people and reveal His name in an unprecedented way. After the opening part, both intercessors move on to pray on behalf of their people (1  Kgs 8:30, John 17:9). Both have a strong sense that they are to pray primarily for the people that have been entrusted to them. In fact, Israel’s election is the very reason for God’s special attentiveness to Solomon’s and Israel’s prayer (1 Kgs 8:52–53). One of the main themes of Jesus’ prayer is “eternal life.” “This is eternal life, that they may know you (God) . . . and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” ( John 17:3). Jesus refers not merely to the life after death but to life itself in all its fullness that is rooted in a relationship of trust with God. Jesus’ concern is for his disciples to grasp real life so that nothing and nobody can destroy it. Solomon’s prayer is also very much concerned that Israel’s life is firmly rooted in a healthy covenant relationship with the true God. Only then will God be with His people and grant them rest and a life of abundant blessing (cf. 1 Kgs 8:56–57). True understanding of God comes through His mediator. In the book of Exodus, Israel is summoned to believe in God and in Moses the sent one. In Solomon’s day, the king also has an important mediatory role. He mediated divine blessings such as a peaceful life and the people’s prayers. Eventually, God sent His Son so that his followers may have life abundantly ( John 10:10). Another of Jesus’ petitions is that the disciples will be protected in God’s name ( John 17:11). Solomon’s prayer is also greatly concerned with the protection of Israel. In the face of possible injustice, famine, war, exile, and la prière sacerdotale du quatrième évangile et plusieurs données parallèles du Nouveau Testament (Paris: Éditions de Paris, 1972).

288

Chapter 6

sin, the king intercedes for Israel’s divine protection from these “evils,” praying that the sinful people would confess and acknowledge God’s name (cf. 1 Kgs 8:33). Jesus asks God not to take his disciples out of the world but to protect them from evil ( John 17:15). Jesus prays that God would sanctify the disciples in the truth ( John 17:17). In other words, he prays that God would set apart a people that would be committed to Father and Son. Praying for the sanctification of the disciples serves the purpose of enabling them to participate in and extend Jesus’ priestly and prophetic role. Solomon also shows strong awareness that Israel has been set apart from the nations to fulfill their mission as a priestly nation among the peoples (1 Kgs 8:51–53, 60; cf. Exod 19:5–6). The king also intercedes for the sanctification of the people in the sense that they should cultivate a genuine awareness of their sinfulness and thus come to see the necessity of repentance and divine forgiveness (1 Kgs 8:46–50). Although both mediators intercede primarily for their own people, their prayers include outsiders. We have seen that one of the amazing characteristics of Solomon’s intercession is that he also prays for the foreigners who have heard about Yhwh’s great name (1 Kgs 8:42). Jesus, too, asks not only on behalf of his immediate followers but also on behalf of those who will believe in Jesus because they have heard of his name through his disciples ( John 17:20). Solomon’s inauguration of the temple and his prayer unites Israel (cf. 1 Kgs 8:1–5). Unity among all the believers is also one of the central themes of Jesus’ prayer ( John 17:21). Both intercessors pray that the people will turn to the God­-approved temple for divine favor (cf. John 2:19–21, 14:8–11). The Temple: A House of Sacrifice or Prayer? One of the main functions of the temple was to provide a place where Israel through the mediation of the priesthood brought their sacrificial offerings before God in order to ensure divine presence and favor (cf. Leviticus 1–7). Although Solomon’s prayer is framed by references to countless sacrifices in the temple (1 Kgs 8:5, 62–64), there is not a single mention of sacrifice in the long prayer. Instead, the repeated plea is that the prayers and supplications for divine pardon of Israel be heard. This fact is all the more striking, as Thompson writes, when we recall that although one of the purposes of the sacrificial system was to secure the divine forgiveness of sin, here in Solomon’s prayer, forgiveness (and four out of seven possible instances of prayer concern situations where forgiveness of sin is sought) is to be secured by prayer. In this prayer, it is prayer rather than sacrifice that is envisaged as the basic medium of communication between God’s people and their Lord, and also their means of seeking forgiveness. 77 77.  Michael E. W. Thompson, I Have Heard Your Prayer: The Old Testament and Prayer (Peterborough: Epworth, 1996) 189­–90.

Solomon: Prayer of Dedication

289

The king intercedes at the dedication of the temple in front of the altar of Yhwh, the heart of the sacrificial cult where legitimate sacrifices were offered (1 Kgs 8:22, 54). Given the occasion and the the location where the king offers up his prayer, it is all the more striking that the prayer does not so much speak of the temple as a place of animal sacrifice, but of a place of prayer. According to Balentine, Solomon’s prayer promotes a different view of the temple as merely the earthly conduit for God’s presence on earth, but it also suggests a different perception of the primary function of the temple. In contrast to the view that the temple is the center for sacrifice, here it is described as the centre for prayer. 78

Similarly with regard to divine presence, the prayer is framed with two references to Yhwh’s appearance. First, we read that the glory of God moved into Yhwh’s dwelling place and then after Solomon’s prayer, Yhwh appeared a second time to the king (1 Kgs 8:10–13, 9:2). Here as well, we have noted that Solomon’s prayer does not refer to the temple as a place where God manifests Himself physically. In fact, the prayer underlines that God is in heaven, and it is from above, as the refrain will not let us forget, that He hears our supplication (e.g. 1 Kgs 8:30). The temple is a place for prayer and supplication (‫)ה ְַּת ִפּלָה ְוה ְַּת ִחּנָה‬. The two Hebrew terms or their verbal counterparts appear throughout Solomon’s intercessory part. 79 In fact, the entire intercession is framed by and described as a “prayer and supplication.” Regard your servant’s prayer and his plea (‫ֶל־ּת ִחּנָתֹו‬ ְ ‫ֶל־ּת ִפּלַת ע ְַב ְדּךָ ְוא‬ ְ ‫ִית א‬ ָ ‫)ּו ָפנ‬, O Lord my God, heeding the cry and the prayer that your servant prays to you today . . . when Solomon finished offering all this prayer and this plea to the Lord (‫ )ּכָל־ה ְַּת ִפּלָה ְוה ְַּת ִחּנָה הַזֹּאת‬he arose from facing the altar of the Lord, where he had knelt with hands outstretched toward heaven. (1 Kgs 8:28, 54)

It is as though the author wants to emphasize the true and enduring nature of the sanctuary. Levenson, reacting against a widespread mistaken assumption, emphasizes that Judaism has moved on from the religion of the Old Testament. He comments, “Judaism is the tradition of the synagogue and the yeshiva, not of the Temple, the tradition of prayer and learning rather than of sacrifice.” This, however, does not mean that prayer has simply surpassed and replaced sacrifice; rather, prayer and learning were viewed as the temporary and imperfect continuation of the sacrifical practices once the destruction of the Temple rendered the latter incapable of literal fulfillment. Thus, in a Talmudic discussion of the correct times for certain prayers Rabbi Joshua ben Levi stated, “The obligatory prayers were instituted to correspond to the daily sacrifices” (b. Ber. 26b – tepilla or amida). What is more, prayer is not only the successor to sacrifice; prayer is sacrifice. . . . It is ominously implicit 78.  Balentine, Prayer, 85–86. 79.  1 Kgs 8:28, 29, 30, 33, 35, 38, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 52.

290

Chapter 6

in 1  Kings 8. The Temple which Solomon consecrated amidst sacrifice and prayer, is, once again, in a sense made real and its deepest purpose fulfilled when Jews pray. 80

Before we move on to an explicit Christian reading of the passage in question, we note that several scholars argue that Solomon’s prayer received a decisive editing during the Babylonian Exile. 81 In a time when the temple was reduced to ruins, the only function the Jerusalem sanctuary could serve was to provide a focus point toward which the exiles could direct their hopes, their prayers of confession, and pleas for restoration. It was most likely during the time of the Babylonian exile that the institution of the synagogue as a house of prayer and study developed. Regardless of the tentative diachronic dimensions of the text, the received form of the text maintains a tension between sacrifice and prayer. Brueggemann, in the context of a discussion on Priestly and Deuteronomistic notions of divine presence, comments on this biblical tension in the following way. The Priestly trajectory is what one might call “high church” and leads in a visual, artistic direction. . . . The Deuteronomic trajectory, by contrast, is “low church,” depending primarily on utterances, and issues in a “theology of the word” as is evident in “sermons” in the Deuteronomic history. . . . While any reader of the OT may prefer one of these exilic theologies of presence to the other, it is important that the canonizing process retained both, assigned both to Moses, and refused to choose between them. The compromise is a recognition that, in the end, “presence” is problematic, and any single settlement is likely to be partial and need an (ecumenical) correction. 82

One could make a similar case with regard to sacrifice and prayer. This is not to belittle the strong emphasis on prayer over sacrifice as noted above but is to say that the various voices have to be kept in appropriate balance to do justice to the canonical shape of the text. Like in the case of Samuel and David’s intercession, prayer is often presented in conjunction with sacrifice (1 Sam 7, 12; 2 Sam 24). Although Isaiah 56 is sometimes evoked as support for a (late) exilic redaction of Solomon’s prayer, we would like to point out that the temple is not only referred to as a house of prayer (‫ּבֵית־‬ ‫)ּת ִפּלָה‬, ְ but also a place where burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on Yhwh’s altar. And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the 80.  Levenson, “From Temple,” 165. 81. E.g. Reventlow, Gebet, 269–75; Balentine, Prayers, 86–88. 82.  Brueggemann (Theology, 673) notes further that the canonical testimony of Israel proves ample evidence for both a “Catholic” sacramentalism and a “Protestant” protest against a controlling sacramentalism.

Solomon: Prayer of Dedication

291

sabbath, and do not profane it, and hold fast my covenant—these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer (‫ֵית־ּת ִפּלָה‬ ְ ‫ ;)ּב‬their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. (Isa 56:6–7)

The Temple, Jesus, and the Body of Christ In chap. 8 of 1 Kings four aspects of the temple are held in balance. The sanctuary is where the glory of the Lord uniquely dwells and where God’s name is called on. The temple is where sacrifices and prayers are offered in order to seek divine forgiveness and restoration. According to the New Testament, these aspects find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ. By saying that Jesus came and “tabernacled among us” (ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν) and that “we have seen his glory,” John makes an amazing typological and theological connection between the tabernacle sanctuary (LXX: σκηνή) and Jesus. ( John 1:14; cf. Exod 25:8–9, 40:34, 1 Kgs 8:10–13). In the Old Testament, the tabernacle and the temple were filled with the divine glory, whenever God visited and dwelled (‫)ׁשכַן‬ ָ in His sanctuary. John starts his Gospel by saying that the Shekinah glory has now a human face and in Jesus was present among the people. 83 Thus, already at the outset of the Gospel of John the theme is set that God’s presence is not restricted to any building, but “fleshed out” in the living Word. On one occasion, Jesus promises Nathanael that he will “see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man” ( John 1:51). There, Jesus takes up the language used of Jacob’s vision in Gen 28:12, and so portrays himself as the new Bethel or house of God. On another occasion, Jesus relativizes the existence of the temple by predicting the destruction of it (Matt 24:1–2; Mark 13:1–12, 14:58; Luke 21:5–7) and saying that he can raise it in three days ( John 2:19). Thereby, the reader is told that Jesus was referring to his death and resurrection. In other words, the body of Christ is explicitly identified with the temple (cf. John 2:21–22). Numerous people approached Jesus, calling on his name and pleading for mercy (e.g. Luke 18:38). Jesus offered people who came to him “forgiveness of sins.” This blessing was normally obtained by going to the temple, or during the exile or while living in the diaspora, by praying toward the temple. Wright argues that “Jesus believed himself called to act as the new Temple. When people were in his presence, it was as if they were in the Temple.” Their sins were forgiven and the people had a face-to-face encounter with the glory of God. Wright continues, Jesus was claiming, at least implicitly, to be the place where, and the means by which, Israel’s God was at last personally present to and with 83.  N. T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus (London: SPCK, 2001) 89.

292

Chapter 6

his people. Jesus was taking the huge risk of acting as if he were the Shekinah in person, the presence of Yhwh tabernacling with his people. 84

The point is that the presence of God, in all aspects such as prayer, sacrifice, forgiveness, and salvation is no longer known in any architectural structure but is in Jesus. Thus, the real center for worship is now in and through Jesus Christ ( John 4:20–24). Barrett suggests that John goes even deeper than that and includes the conception of the body of Christ, the church, as in the Pauline metaphor of Rom 12:5 and Col 1:18. “In three days Christ raised up his human body . . . and with it the church, which through the Holy Spirit became the Temple of God, the true house of prayer for all nations.” 85 This brings us to a related New Testament usage of the temple imagery, namely, to the church as the body of Christ. Stephen, also in the context of an intercessory prayer, makes the statement in his anti-temple speech: “the Most High does not dwell in houses made with human hands . . . (Acts 7:48).” Although God’s name was uniquely present in the sanctuary, now Jesus Christ is uniquely present with those who call on his name (cf. Matt 18:20). “God’s presence in the temple is now fulfilled in the Holy Spirit’s presence in the church, individually and collectively.”  86 Paul refers to the church and the individual believer as part of the church “as the temple of the living God (e.g. 1 Cor. 6:19, 2 Cor. 6:16, Eph. 2:19–22), a temple that is ‘not made by man’ (cf. Mark 14:58, John 2:18–22), but is Christ’s own body.” 87 Von Balthasar provides further reflections on the individual believer as being a tabernacle/temple indwelled by the Holy Spirit and thus containing the presence of God. He comments, Man is the creature with a mystery in his heart that is bigger than himself. He is built like a tabernacle around a most sacred mystery. . . . To the never-ending joy and amazement of those who pray—man’s ineffable relationship to the word of God is always two things at once: an enteringin to the innermost “I”, and the turning-outward of this I to the highest “Thou”. To say that God is “Thou” does not mean that he is simply another “I” over against “me”. He is in the “I”, but he is also above it; since as the absolute “I”, he transcends it, he is in the human “I” as its deepest ground, more inward to me than I am to myself. 88

Von Balthasar’s profound thought gives voice to the same tension that we find in 1  Kgs 8:1–9:9, a tension between “God tabernacling among us” 84.  Ibid., 84. 85.  C. Kingsley Barrett, The Gospel according to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1978) 168. 86.  Bruce K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007) 742–43. 87.  Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 102. 88.  Cf. von Balthasar, Prayer, 22–23.

Solomon: Prayer of Dedication

293

and a God who cannot be contained by the highest heavens. But both are wonderfully joined in the act of prayerful dialogue. Not only God’s closeness and incomparability comes to expression in these images, but also the cluster of intercession, repentance, and divine forgiveness reach a new level of depth. Through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, God is intimately near. If we turn inward in repentance, prayer, and supplication, God will hear us and forgive us (cf. 1 John 1:9) not least because we have a royal priest in heaven, who like Solomon intercedes for His people that God will respond favorably to the prayers of His people. As in Solomon’s prayer, the writer of 1 John understands humanity as fundamentally sinful (“there is nobody who does not sin” 1 Kgs 8:46; “If we claim that we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar”). For this reason, we need an intercessor, “one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One” (1 John 1:10–2:1). It is intriguing that here as so often in the Old Testament, intercessory prayer and sacrifice are mentioned side by side. “( Jesus) is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). Jesus’ intercessory work encompasses both offering himself up as an atoning sacrifice and praying on behalf of sinners. His salvific work has not only his immediate followers in view, but the whole of humanity ( John 3:16, 17:20). We have seen that the universal scope is another point in common with Solomon’s intercession (1 Kgs 8:43). Thus, in conclusion, we can say that according to the teaching of the New Testament, both the temple and Solomon the royal priestly covenant mediator, have been fulfilled in and through Jesus Christ. Wherever fol­ lowers of Jesus gather to pray in Jesus’ name, there the temple is, in a sense, recreated. 89 Jesus is the true place of worship. Because of the tremendously rich Old Testament imagery, it is important to be familiar with these texts about the temple and its worship, if we are to understand fully what the New Testament says about Christ and his church. 89.  Levenson, “From Temple,” 164–65.

Chapter 7

The Suffering Servant: Substitutionary Atonement through Intercession (Isaiah 53) Introduction In many ways, the life and death of Jesus Christ can be understood in terms of intercession. Jesus met people in perfect love. He was carrying the burden of others. He healed the sick. He liberated the oppressed at the cost of his own liberty. Through his life and death, Jesus brought people before God so that they would be reconciled to their creator. Jesus Christ as intercessor, however, is only fully understandable when seen in the light of the Old Testament witness (Luke 24:27). Thereby, the witness of the so-called suffering servant has long been given a place of prime importance for the interpretation of Jesus’ life and death. There is good reason to think that already Jesus understood himself in the light of this somewhat enigmatic prophetic figure of Isaiah 53. 1 Thus, it should not come as a surprise that the fourth servant song is sometimes called the “Fifth Gospel.” 2 Hardly any other passage from the Old Testament has attracted more attention in the history of the church than Isaiah 53.  3 Isaiah 53 is not only one of the most important Old Testament texts for understanding Jesus and his work but also provides some of the deepest insights into the dynamics of intercession in Scripture. The servant’s intercession for the sins of the many is mentioned in v. 12 and forms the end of this remarkable passage. 1.  I will use “Isaiah 53” to refer to the entirety of Isa 52:13–53:12. Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments (vol. 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992) 130; or Peter Stuhlmacher, “Isaiah 53 in the Gospels and Acts,” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (ed. P. Stuhlmacher; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) 147­–62. 2.  Fourth servant song: Isa 52:13–53:12 is usually referred to as a song, because of its poetic characteristics. Some scholars argue that the genre is that of a psalm of thanksgiving. See Norman Whybray, Thanksgiving for a Liberated Prophet: Interpretation of Isaiah 53 (Sheffield: Continuum, 1978). Fifth Gospel: This designation goes back at least to Jerome. See John F. A. Sawyer, The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). 3.  See the compilation of essays in Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher, eds., Der Leidende Gottesknecht: Jesaja 53 und Seine Wirkungsgeschichte (FAT 14; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010).

294

Substitutionary Atonement through Intercession

295

Out of his anguish he shall see light; he shall find satisfaction through his knowledge. The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (ַ‫  ש ִעים י ְַפ ִּגיע‬ ְׁ ֹ ‫ולַּפ‬,ְ Isa 53:11–12)

Although most translations render the Hebrew in the sense of the nrsv above, some commentators, as we shall see, question the adequacy of this rendering for several reasons. 4 In fact, the fourth servant poem as a whole is one of the most debated Old Testament passages. Questions debated include: Who is the servant? What exactly is his mission? What is meant by “making intercession” in this context? For whom does he intercede? Adding to the intrigue, the portrayal of the suffering servant is unique in the Old Testament. Numerous scholars argue that the understanding of vicarious suffering reaches a new dimension and depth in the servant portrait, while others are not convinced that vicarious suffering is in fact in view in Isaiah 53 at all. 5 Any serious study of this passage has to address the issue of vicarious suffering. We shall argue that particularly the portrayal of Moses provides an important background for understanding the Isaianic prophet. Moreover, the tradition of Israel’s prophetic intercessors in general had prepared the ground for the account of the suffering servant. There is good reason to argue that at the root of the understanding of biblical substitution lies the act of advocating for divine favor or pleading for pardon on behalf of somebody who has fallen out of favor with God. It will become evident in our reading of the servant poem that cultic and legal metaphors are fused with prophetic intercession for the many, and therefore the biblical portrayal is preparing the way for the one whose entire life, ministry, and death was one entire act of intercession. I shall approach Isaiah 53 from several different angles. (1) I attempt to situate the fourth servant poem in the context of Isaiah 40–55 and address questions about the servant’s identity and mission. (2) I will look at the Isaianic servant in the light of aspects of the Mosaic portrayal. (3) An exegetical study of Isa 53:12 with focus on the servant’s intercession. (4) By looking at the canonical arrangement of chaps. 53 and 54, I seek to demonstrate that the servant’s intercessory ministry is presented as the key to the 4.  Recently, Fredrik Hägglund, Isaiah 53 in the Light of Homecoming after Exile (FAT 2/31, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 77–81. 5.  Whybray, Thanksgiving.

296

Chapter 7

grand vision of chaps. 54 and 55. (5) I shall engage with wider theological issues related to the intercession of the servant and its relation to Jesus Christ.

The Mission of God and His Servant The fourth servant poem appears within the larger textual unit of Isaiah 40–55. It has long been noted that these chapters exhibit a totally different style from the initial 39 and the succeeding 11 chapters of Isaiah. While chaps. 1–39 are clearly grounded in the preexilic time, though not necessarily composed in that time, chaps.  40–55 address an Israel that has already been in the Babylonian Exile for several decades. The reason for the Exile lies in God’s judgment against their sin (cf. Isa 42:18–22, 24). The second generation in exile, however, faces an elementary theological problem. Does the long-stading captivity indicate that Yhwh has finally given up on Israel? Has Israel’s salvation history that had come to an initial climax in deliverance from Egyptian slavery reached its end in Babylonian captivity? Have the sins of the fathers provoked Yhwh’s wrath to such a degree that God’s mercy and grace have been exhausted for good? Chapters 40–55 contain the prophet’s answers to Israel’s implicit questions of hopelessness. Through some of the Bible’s most vivid imagery, the prophet seeks to revive Israel’s hope and trust in Yhwh’s grace and love. Thus, one could perhaps summarize in a simplistic way that the first 39 chapters highlight Israel’s disobedience, leading up to destruction and deportation of the Northern Kingdom. The subsequent 15 chapters, however, contain primarily a message of hope and comfort that was originally addressed to the Israel who had survived the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 b.c. and was in Babylonian captivity. Yhwh, Lord of History Chapter 40 opens in the well-known words: “Comfort, O comfort my people, says your God” (Isa 40:1). Subsequently, the prophet speaks of a second exodus out of Babylonian captivity. The focus of the message is no longer on judgment, but on hope. The exiles have received their just measure of punishment and shall now be comforted and eventually led back to their land. Against all hope, the prophet encourages Israel that God has always loved His people and that after a moment of wrath, Yhwh will redeem them out of compassion (Isa 54:7–8) and that He is about to do something new and unprecedented (Isa 43:16–21, 48:6–8, 53:1). But how is God to accomplish His redemptive plans for His people? The prophet discerns in the rising Persian king the beginning of the end of the Babylonian Empire. He perceives in the political developments Yhwh’s hand. God is going to use the Persian conqueror Cyrus as His chosen instrument through whom God will bring not only judgment on Babylon but also deliverance to Israel (cf. Isa 44:28, 45:1–4, 47:1–15).

Substitutionary Atonement through Intercession

297

Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539. Under the Cyrus’ edict the Judean exiles were allowed to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple (Ezra 1:1–4). Perhaps because Cyrus ended the period of the Babylonian exile and ushered in the Second Temple period, he is called Yhwh’s Messiah and servant. 6 Israel discerned Yhwh’s sovereign rule in Cyrus’ conquest and resettlement policy. The Persian monarch, however, as far as we know did not understand himself as God’s instrument. In fact, on the so-called “Cyrus Cylinder,” the priests of Marduk recorded that Cyrus was chosen by their deported chief god Marduk to defeat Babylon and to reinstall himself as the head of the Babylonian pantheon. 7 In spite of conflicting interpretations of how the gods are involved in ANE political events, the Isaianic prophet discerned Yhwh’s hand behind Cyrus’ conquest and politics. More than in most other biblical books, Yhwh is portrayed as the Lord of history in Isaiah 40–55. Yhwh’s purposes, however, go deeper than Israel’s deliverance from Babylon. Israel is God’s servant and they have a mission to witness to Yhwh’s glory among the nations (cf. Isa 43:8–13, 44:6­­–8). Israel, however, has not fulfilled its mission. Isaiah speaks of a blind and deaf people (Isa 42:18–20, 43:8). The exiles need to be brought back to Yhwh both physically and spiritually. Cyrus will serve God’s geographical purposes of facilitating the new exodus back to Jerusalem (cf. Isa 45:1–2), while another servant is commissioned to restore Israel spiritually (cf. Isa 42:3, 7, 49:6). Identity and Mission of the Servant The identity of the servant of God has given rise to much debate. It is still contested as to who precisely is meant by this mysterious figure. 8 In chaps. 40–55 many of the references to the servant refer to the people of God (“Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen. . . . I have not rejected you” Isa 41:8–10). In general, Jewish exegetes have tended to argue that in the four servant songs (Isa 42:1–4, 49:1–6, 50:4–9, 52:13–53:12) the author, when speaking of the servant, has the Jewish nation in mind (or at least the remnant or ideal Israel; cf. Isa 49:3). 9 Some Christian scholars have argued along similar lines. During the exile, Israel was reckoned as an outcast of Yhwh. They were the object of unjust treatment at the hands of the Babylonians and the scorn among the nations. But by Yhwh’s intervening 6.  Isa 41:25; 42:6–7; 45:1–7, 13; 46:11; 48:14. 7.  See James B. Pritchard ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament  (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1969) 315–16. 8. See David J. A. Clines, “Selections from I, He, We, They: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53,” in The Theological Interpretation of Scripture (ed. S. E. Fowl; Oxford: Blackwell, 1997) 210–19. 9.  See S. Paul, “Servant of the Lord,” The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997) 622; B. D. Sommer, “Isaiah,” The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) 891.

298

Chapter 7

grace, the people hoped to be “resurrected” from their “nonexistence in exile” and be given the victor’s portion. Especially the second and third generations were suffering not primarily for their own sins, but for the sins of their fathers and the nations. Thus, in a sense, later generations were bearing the punishment of their fathers and thereby “making atonement” for their sins. In other words, the children of the sinful generations were counted among the transgressors, but they may have interceded for the older generation. 10 Others have maintained that the servant passages refer to a pious minority that suffered as a result of the sins committed by the Jewish nation at large. There is also a long tradition within Judaism that identifies the servant as an individual. Already Rabbi Saadia Gaon, a Talmudic scholar, pointed out the similarities between the language describing the servant and Jeremiah’s descriptions of himself (cf. Jer 10:18–24; 11:19) and argued that the text refers to Jeremiah. The Talmud also records the opinion that it describes Moses (b. Sot. 14a). Throughout church history, however, Christians have seen in Isaiah 53 a prophecy to the Messiah: that is to Jesus Christ (cf. Isa 49:6, 50:6, 53). 11 Thus, Christian exegetes, in general, have favored an individual over a collective interpretation. It has been argued that the servant songs speak of the servant’s commission, experiences, words, and feelings in such graphic terms that it is most likely that the writer has an individual figure in mind. Especially in the fourth song, it would seem somewhat odd, if Israel as a people gave its life as an offering for the sins of the nations and thereby make many righteous. For this reading to make sense, the following verses would need to be read as a kind of testimony of the nations who have come to acknowledge their sin in mistreating Israel (cf. Isa 52:15). Surely he [Israel?] has borne our [the nations’?] infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed. . . . and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isa 53:4–6)

There is hardly any textual evidence for such a reading, nor does it fit easily that “he/Israel” bore the sins of the nations and made intercession for the transgressors (Isa 53:10–12). Therefore, it seems more natural to 10.  See Jospeph B. Bernardin, The Intercession of Our Lord (New York: Columbia University Press, 1933) 135. Rolf Rendtorff (Theologie des Alten Testaments: Ein Kanonischer Entwurf, vol. 1: Kanonische Grundlegung [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999] 177) reaches a similar conclusion. Tod Linafelt, “Speech and Silence in the Servant Passages: Toward a Final-Form Reading of the Book of Isaiah,” in The Theological Interpretation of Scripture (ed. S. E. Fowl; Oxford: Blackwell, 1997) 199, interacts with the major suggestions regarding the identity of the servant. 11.  See Mark E. Elliott, Isaiah 40–66 (ACCS; Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 2009) 158–73.

Substitutionary Atonement through Intercession

299

read vv.  4–6 as a testimony of a group, such as the prophet’s disciples, or perhaps repentant Israel. In other words, it looks as though after the death of the servant a devoted group testifies in the fourth song that the prophet was abused, arrested, and finally killed in some sense on behalf of the people of God (Isa 53:3, 7–9). They speak on behalf of the “many” (v. 11–12). Having said this, we shall see below when we look at the mission of the servant that, if one reads the poems in their contexts, the servant is in some sense both the servant-prophet and Israel. On one level, they are clearly distinct and yet on another level they share a God given mission and fate. 12 At this stage, we acknowledge that the question of the servant’s identity in the servant Songs is puzzling. According to Acts 8:26–40, already the Ethiopian court official struggled to understand the complexity of the servant poems. “About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” (Acts 8:34). Scholars who understand the servant as an individual distinct from Israel have not reached any consensus as to who this individual might be. Virtually every important figure in the Bible (for example, Moses, Jeremiah, one of the prophets, or a Davidic king, Cyrus, or Second Isaiah himself) has been identified as the servant. 13 Westermann argues that the quest for the “identification” of the servant is misguided. 14 He observes, The veiled manner of speaking is intentional. . . . Exegesis must then be conscious of the limit thus imposed, and be careful to call a halt at those places where the distinctive nature of the songs demand this. . . . On principle, their exegesis must not be controlled by the question, “Who is the servant of God?” . . . Precisely this is what they neither tell nor intend to tell us. The questions which should control exegesis are: “What do the texts make known about what transpires, or is to transpire, between God, the servant, and those to whom his task pertains? 15

Clines affirms Wassermann’s observation and comments that the enigmas are part of what the poem must be in order to be itself. 16 Let us follow the texts’ lead and try to think not so much about the who but about what the passages say on the servant’s mission. We can notice five main aspects of the servant’s mission: (1) to announce Yhwh’s salvific plan, (2) to restore the servant Israel, (3) to extend Yhwh’s reign to the nations, (4) to endure 12.  Many of the things that are said of Israel as a people are also said of the individual. E.g. Both are chosen and upheld by God’s right hand (cf. Isa 42:1, 6). Both are called to be witnesses to God in the midst of the nations (cf. Isa 42:6, 43:10, 49:3, 6). This fusion of individual and corporate identity creates a sense of continuity and discontinuty between the servant and Israel. 13.  Cf. Colin K. Kruse, “The Servant Songs: Interpretative Trends,” SBTh 8 (1978) 3–27. 14. Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66 (OTL; London: SCM, 1985) 18. 15.  Ibid., 40–66, 93. Cf. Clines, “I, He, We,” 210–19. 16.  Ibid., “I, He, We,” 214.

300

Chapter 7

the suffering that God has laid on him on behalf of the many, (5) to intercede for the transgressors. 17

To Announce Yhwh’s Salvific Plan In comparison to Jeremiah and Ezekiel, there is hardly any calling and commissioning of the prophet recorded in chaps. 40–55. Perhaps the closest one gets to a “call-narrative” is Isa 40:6, which reads, “A voice says, ‘Cry out!’ And I said, ‘What shall I cry?’” The prophet is to announce a new exodus from Babylon. In the face of a seeming defeat of Yhwh by the Babylonian gods, the prophet is to remind Israel in the most memorable images that Yhwh alone is creator of heaven and earth (Isa 40:12–15, 43:16­–17). The prophet functions as Yhwh’s mouth piece to such a degree that his personal identity remains almost completely in the background so that the divine “I” is heard with full authority. Even at the beginning of the first servant poem where the servant receives full divine affirmation for his mission (Isa 42:1–5), Israel is immediately addressed with the divine “I” (Isa 42:5–9). So what is the central message of the prophet? Its content can perhaps be summarized in three points: (1) It aims to announce a new exodus from the new super-power Babylon. Yhwh is announced as pan-creator, and as such the Lord has without doubt also the power to deliver His people (Isa 48:12–13, 51:12–16). There are no gods that could stop Yhwh from executing His plans (cf. Isa 46–47). (2) Unlike anywhere else in the Old Testament, the prophet proclaims a message of God’s radical, everything overshadowing, grace. The prophet’s message flows out of Yhwh’s core attributes of grace, mercy, and love (Exod 34:6). Not only seems Yhwh’s attribute of justice to have receded into the background, but also divine wrath exhausted itself in Israel’s hardship in exile. For a brief moment I abandoned you, but with great compassion (‫ֲמים‬ ִ ‫ּוברַ ח‬ ְ ‫ )ּגְד ִֹלים‬I will gather you. In overflowing wrath for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love (‫)ּוב ֶחסֶד עֹולָם‬ ְ I will have compassion on ְ ‫)רח ְַמ ִּת‬, you (‫יך‬ ִ says the Lord, your Redeemer. (Isa 54:7–8; cf. 40:2)

(3) The reality of Israel’s deliverance from Babylon has an eschatological dimension. Yhwh’s act of salvation is announced in unprecedented ways. The prophet proclaims a covenant that is not only new but also eternal: “I will make with you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast, sure love for David” (Isa 55:3; cf. 54:10). In inspiring hyperbolic speech the prophet encourages the exiles in their miserable condition to 17.  For the following section, I acknowledge dependence on Christopher J. H. Wright, Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament: Rediscovering the Roots of Our Faith (London: Pickering, 1992); and Ulrich Wilckens, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, vol. 2: Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments als Grundlage kirchlicher Lehre, Teilband 1: Das Fundament (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007) 132–34.

Substitutionary Atonement through Intercession

301

break forth together into singing, you ruins of Jerusalem; for the Lord has comforted his people, he has redeemed Jerusalem. (Isa 52:9)

Needless to say, even after Israel’s return from exile the reality of poverty and hardship never matched the prophet’s grand vision. It is little wonder that the prophet’s prophecies for Israel became and remained an inspiring vision for the future, a vision that found partial fulfillment in Jesus and awaits fulfillment at the end of time (cf. Rev 21:1–5).

To Restore the Servant Israel to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself. (Isa 49:5)

Israel as a people was the servant of God, chosen with the purpose of being a light to the nations. This is similar to the original intention of the election of Abraham (cf. Gen 12:3, Isa 49:6, 51:4).Wright notes, however, that “Israel was failing in that role and mission. Israel as the servant of God was ‘blind and deaf’ and under God’s judgment (Isa 40:18­–25). The individual Servant is thus at one level distinct from Israel because he has a mission to Israel, to challenge them and to call them back to God.” 18 The divine call to restore Israel is anticipating chaps. 54 and 55. As we shall see, these two chapters testify to the fact that the servant will fulfill his mission. The prophet’s mission to bring back Israel is intrinsically related to God’s purposes for Israel and the nations (Isa 42:6–7, 49:6). It is perhaps for this reason, Wright reckons, that the individual servant is sometimes identified with Israel, and similar language is used for both of them. This appears to be because the servant fulfills and enables the original mission of Israel. In other words, Yhwh’s wider mission to the nations is intrinsically related to the servant’s mission to Israel. 19

To Extend Yhwh’s Reign to the Nations According to Isaiah 49, the servant faces apparent failure in his task to restore Israel: “I said, I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity.” Even though there is great difficulty and physical opposition (Isa 49:4, 50:6), God commissions the servant to widen up his ministry to the Gentiles. It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; also I will give you as a light to the nations (‫)ּונְתַ ִּתיךָ ְלאֹור ּגֹויִם ִל ְהיֹות‬,  20 that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth. (Isa 49:6; cf. Luke 2:32)

Ever since Abraham’s call and the exodus from Egypt, God’s wider mission has been to bring knowledge of Himself and salvation to the nations 18.  Wright, Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament, 162. 19.  Ibid. 20.  Note the word also; that is, the universal mission expands but does not replace the mission of restoring Israel.

302

Chapter 7

of the earth. This mission to the nations is already introduced in the first servant poem. I have put my spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations (‫יֹוציא‬ ִ ‫ׁשּפָט לַּגֹויִם‬ ְ ‫)מ‬. ִ . . . He will not grow faint or be crushed until he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his teaching. (‫ּולתֹורָתֹו ִאּיִים ְייַחֵילּו‬, ְ Isa 42:1–4)

The emphasis is clearly on bringing instructions (‫ )ּתֹורָה‬and justice (‫ׁשּפָט‬ ְ ‫)מ‬ ִ to the peoples. Abraham was also chosen to teach “righteousness and justice” (‫ְצ ָד ָקה‬ ‫ׁשּפָט‬ ְ ‫)ּומ‬ ִ to his offspring (Gen 18:19). In Isaiah 42, the word justice appears three times in four verses and refers to God’s ethical and social priorities, His just rule (Isa 42:6–7). In other words, Yhwh’s instructions, justice, and liberation will be extended to the nations. God’s universal reign is closely associated with the restoration of God’s people.

To Endure the Suffering that God Has Laid on Him on Behalf of the Many The servant is beaten, insulted, and shamed by those whom he seeks to sustain and comfort (Isa 50:4–6). Among his adversaries are those to whom he announces God’s word. The servant knows God’s help and hopes for vindication from above (Isa 50:7–8). It becomes increasingly clear in the fourth servant song that the suffering is imposed by God Himself. The servant was struck down by God. . . . the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . . it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain. (Isa 53:4–10)

Only with hindsight came the servant’s suffering and eventual death to be understood as somehow vicarious. Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases . . . he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed. (Isa 53:4–5)

It was Yhwh’s plan to inflict the servant with pain and make his life an offering for the sins of many (Isa 53:10, 12). Yhwh’s purposes are somehow accomplished through the servant. “As the righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous” (Isa 53:8–10). Many scholars agree that the portrayal of the suffering servant is unique in the Old Testament. Particularly the thought of vicarious suffering and carrying/enduring the sins of others reaches seemingly a new dimension and depth in the servant’s portrait. Spieckermann identifies five central criteria for the substitutionary understanding in Isaiah 53: (1) one person steps in for the sin of others; (2) the one who steps in for the sins of others is himself righteous and without sin; (3) the servant’s substitution is a one-

Substitutionary Atonement through Intercession

303

off event and is final; (4) one steps in for the sins of others out of his own will; (5) God wills and leads the substitution of the one for the sins of the others. God Himself takes the initiative that leads to the substitution of the one for the others. 21 There are particularly two Old Testament themes that have contributed to the development of the substitutionary conception as we find it in Isaiah 53. Both are intrinsically related to prophetic intercession. First, there is the mediatory role of the prophet, who stands in the breach before God in prayer on behalf of the guilty people. Second, there is the evolving experience of prophetic suffering. 22 As we have seen in our reading of Moses’ intercessory role in Deuteronomy and as we shall see in the portrayal of Jeremiah, the twofold prophetic role creates great anguish. Neither Moses nor Jeremiah understood their suffering as vicarious; their roles both as messengers of God’s word and as advocates of the guilty people prepare the way for the portrayal of the suffering servant.

He Made Intercessions for the Transgressors (Isaiah 53:12) Prophetic intercession and suffering go often hand in hand. In the suffering and death of the Isaianic servant, however, not only a substitutionary bearing of the punishment of the guilty party seems to be envisaged, but also an act of atonement (cf. Isa 53:5–6): The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. (Isa 53:11)

Up to now in the sequence of the Old Testament, divine punishment of a human was never perceived as substitutionary. Only pleas for mercy and prayers for pardon have been brought before God on behalf of a sinful third party. I shall argue that the Isaianic servant’s intercession reaches a new level of substitution in Israel’s understanding (Isa 53:12). As a way of rooting the servant’s mission deeper in the Old Testament, particularly his intercessory activity, I shall establish some parallels between the biblical portraits of Moses and the Isaianic servant. Aspects of Moses’ Prayer and the Suffering Servant It is one of the themes running through this book that most of the great biblical intercessors are presented in the light of Israel’s archetypal 21. Hermann Spieckermann, “Konzeption und Vorgeschichte des Stellvertretungsgedankens im Alten Testament,” Gottes Liebe zu Israel (FAT 33; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 146–47. 22. Hans-Jürgen Hermission, “Das vierte Gottesknechtslied im deuterojesajanischen Kontext,” in Der Leidende Gottesknecht: Jesaja 53 und Seine Wirkungsgeschichte (ed. B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher; FAT 14; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010) 21; Spieckermann, “Konzeption,” 147.

304

Chapter 7

prophetic intercessor: Moses. The suffering servant is no exception. The account is strongly colored by the Mosaic portrayal. I shall draw attention to some illuminating conceptual parallels. On a general level, we note that it is particularly in Isaiah 40–55 where we find second exodus echoes (cf. Isaiah 43). Like Israel’s first liberator, so the Isaianic servant is somewhat instrumental in bringing release to captivated Israel. According to the first three poems, the servant is first a prophet of Yhwh who proclaims a new law (cf. Isa 42:1–4). As such, the servant is also the mediator of a new covenant and giver of Torah (cf. Isa 55:3). Just like Moses’ prayers for Yhwh’s gracious covenant commitment (‫ ֶחסֶד‬, Num 14:19) brought a time of grace in the wilderness, so does Isaiah appeal to God’s steadfast love (‫ ) ֶחסֶד‬and compassion for the exiles (Isa 54:8). 23 Both of their ministries are united in God’s attributes as revealed in Exod 34:6–7. Seitz draws helpfully attention to some parallels between the Isaianic servant and the scout narrative (Num 13–14). In the latter, we read that God’s patience with the exodus generation comes to an end when Israel’s faith evaporated on hearing the spies’ report of the giants in the land. Nevertheless, as a result of Moses’ intercession for the people, Yhwh protected the covenant relationship with Israel and decreed that the little ones, a new generation, would be able to enter the promised land. We shall see in more detail that as a consequence of the suffering servant’s intercessory activity, the new generations of his time are also enabled to return to the “promised land.” In spite of their commitment to the people, both intercessors experienced strong opposition from the people. But even so, they advocated on behalf of sinful and rebellious Israel before God (Num 14:10–19, Isa 53:12). Moses, like the suffering servant, dies outside the promised land on account of the guilty party (cf. Isa 53:7–9, Deut 3:24–27). Thus, one could say that both had to endure and bear the sins of the people and suffer Yhwh’s judgment because of a rebellious generation. We shall now look a bit closer at how Moses and the Isaianic servant’s prayers have affected Israel’s pardon. Several commentators understand Moses’ prayer in the aftermath of the golden calf to be expiatory and substitutionary. The nrsv translates as follows: Moses said to the people, “You have sinned a great sin. But now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin (‫אכ ְַּפרָה ְּבעַד‬ ֲ ‫אתכֶם‬ ְ ַ‫)חַּט‬.” So Moses returned to the Lord and said, “Alas, this people has sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold. But now, if you will only forgive their sin—but if not, blot me out of the book that you have written.” (Exod 32:30–32) 23. James L. Mays (Psalms [Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1994] 329) shows how Psalm 103 brings these two servants of the Lord together conceptually. “The ways of the Lord revealed to Moses” are confirmed and renewed in the restoration from the exile.

Substitutionary Atonement through Intercession

305

Many scholars argue that Moses expresses here a willingness to die in the place of sinful Israel in order to obtain atonement for their sins, if Yhwh was unwilling to pardon their sins. 24 In other words, Moses’ offer to be blotted out of the heavenly book is understood as somehow functional for Israel’s pardon. Advocates of this line of interpretation frequently refer to Paul’s prayer on behalf of his fellow Jews as an interpretive help (Rom 9:3). 25 Keil, for example, suggests that Moses’ commitment to Israel is “just as deep and true as the wish expressed by the Apostle Paul in Rom 9:3, that he might be accursed from Christ for the sake of his brethren” 26 Or von Rad writes: “in order to save Israel, Moses declares that he is ready himself to become ἀνάθεμα on their behalf (Exod 32:32; cf. Rom 9:3).” 27 Noth suggests that Moses made an attempt “at atoning for the ‘great sin’ by offering himself as a vicarious sacrifice.” 28 Gese opposes cultic categories in Moses’ prayer but argues that he offers himself as a ransom to substitute his life for Israel. 29 Childs speaks of an “exchange” of Moses’ life for the forgiveness of Israel. 30 Among Jewish scholars, Jacob also argues that Moses intended a vicarious act. “He will offer himself as ‫ּכֹפֶר‬.” 31 Although the interpretations above vary in details, they all envision that Moses offers himself as a means to achieve vicarious atonement. 32 This sort of perception of Moses’ intention would seem to be close to Isaiah’s suffering servant (Isa 52:13–53:12). How is one to assess this line of interpretation? To state it right away, I have argued elsewhere in some detail that a close reading of Moses’ prayer suggests that vicarious atonement is not so much in view as Moses’ determination to share the same fate that Yhwh intended for Israel (that is, the eradication of their names from the divine record). 33 24.  E.g., Martin Noth, Exodus: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM, 1962) 252; Helmut Gese, “Die Sühne,” Zur biblischen Theologie: Alttestamentliche Vorträge (BEvTh 78; Munich: Chr. Kaiser and Güterloher Verlagshaus, 1977) 87–88; Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus (OTL; Louisville: Westminster, 1976) 571; John I. Durham, Exodus (WBC 3; Waco, TX: Word, 1987) 432. 25.  Calvin, Commentaries 3:360, refers to Rom9:3. 26.  Keil, Pentateuch, 2:231. 27. Von Rad, Theology, 1:295; cf. Wilhelm Vischer, The Witness of the Old Testament to Christ, vol. 1: The Pentateuch (London: Lutterworth, 1949) 209. 28.  Noth, Exodus, 206. 29.  Gese, “Die Sühne,” 88: “Mose will sühnen, bietet sich als kopaïr an, d.h. hier seine Existenz, daß er im Buch des Lebens aufgeschrieben ist. Es ist eine Lebensersatzleistung durch stellvertretende Totalhingabe.” 30.  Childs, Exodus, 571. 31. Benno Jacob, Das Buch Exodus (Stuttgart: Calver, 1997) 943; cf. Rashi, Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Prayers for Sabbath and Rashi’s Commentary (ed. and trans. M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann; London: Shapiro, Vallentine, 1946) 185. 32.  Cf. von Rad, Theologie, 1:307, 269–70, 286–87. 33.  Widmer, Moses, 126–33.

306

Chapter 7

We recall that in his previous prayer Moses did not respond to Yhwh’s offer to make him the seed of a new people (Exod 32:10–13) and thereby implicitly turned down the divine proposal. Here, however, Moses forcefully makes known his determination to be cut off from the elect people alongside Israel, if Yhwh will not bear their sins. It is as if he was saying: “You can cancel me from Your plan, if.” Davidson paraphrases as follows: If you are looking for a substitute to take the place of the people in your purposes, count me out: either you forgive them or you must think again about the future. 34

This would leave Yhwh with no option but to endure Israel’s sin (even if it is only temporarily). Given the nature of Moses’ former prayer, Exodus 32:32 should not so much be characterized as a “threat” or as an “ultimatum,” but rather as “loyal opposition.” Opposition because Moses in effect turns down Yhwh’s offer to make a new start through him. Loyal, not only because he exhibits solidarity with the offenders to the point of death, but also because Moses presses “what God has already decreed;” 35 that is, to maintain His covenant with Israel (cf. Exod 6:6–8). In other words, Moses’ suffering and prayer is probably not understood as a substitutionary act in the sense of offering to take Israel’s sins onto himself. We shall see in the next section, however, that the Isaianic servant takes the place of the transgressors. This is what it means to bear the sins of many and make intercession for the transgressors (Isa 53:10). This kind of intercession goes beyond what Moses, Samuel, and Jeremiah were called to do. We shall see that those who shaped the book of Jeremiah probably understood Jeremiah to be the “prophet like Moses” (cf. Deut 18:16 36). It is noteworthy, however, that Scripture in significant ways ascribes this elevated role also to the Isaianic servant. 37 Seitz concludes that the saving work of the servant as depicted in Isa 52:13–53:12 “has been clearly modeled on Moses. He not Jeremiah is the awaited ‘prophet like Moses.’ Unlike the death of Moses, however, the death of the servant is seen as atoning and bearing the sins in the most explicit sense.” The servant’s prayer, Seitz continues, “is but the utterance of his life itself, which is given up in obedience—like Moses before him. But his intercession, even though very similar to that of Moses, costs him his life, brings life to a whole new generation, and removes their iniquity—something Moses did not do.”  38 It is to the 34. Robert Davidson, Courage to Doubt: Exploring an Old Testament Theme (London: SCM, 1997) 73–74. 35.  Davidson, Courage, 74. 36.  Chris R. Seitz, “The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah,” ZAW 10 (1989) 3–27. 37.  Cf. von Rad, Theologie, 2:269–70. 38.  Chris R. Seitz, “Prayer in the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible,” Figured Out: Typology and Providence in Christian Scripture (Louisville: John Knox, 2001) 174–75.

Substitutionary Atonement through Intercession

307

servant’s intercessory prayer and its immediate context that we turn now in some more detail. Divine Vindication Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because (‫ֲשר‬ ֶׁ ‫ )ּתַ חַת א‬he poured out himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isa 53:12)

In many ways the whole song as we find it in Isa 52:13–53:12 is not only coming to a climax in the final verse, but also, as Brueggemann comments, “The entire transaction of the poem is here summarized.” 39 We shall see that v. 12 is indeed like a lens to the entire poem. The servant song comes to a close with a fourfold statement that provides the reasons why the servant will be exalted and rewarded. 40 The Hebrew introduces the fourfold reason for divine vindication with a strong causative (‫ֲשר‬ ֶׁ ‫ )ּתַ חַת א‬that has the force of “the fact that” (1) the servant poured out himself to death; (2) he was numbered with transgressors; (3) he bore the sin of many; (4) he made intercession for the transgressors. In the following sections we shall attempt to unpack these theologically rich assertions. Verse 12 forms part of Yhwh’s affirmative words to the servant that begin in v. 11. The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great and he shall divide the spoil with the strong. (Isa 53:11–12)

Thereby, the ending reaffirms Yhwh’s words of hope and exaltation that we find in what is generally considered the opening of the song: See, my servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. (Isa 52:13)

It seems as if the entire poem is framed by imagery of a heavenly court procedure. 41 At the beginning the person in the dock is called “my servant,” while in 53:11 the servant is referred to as “the righteous one, my servant.” The divine court has vindicated the suffering figure. The one who was despised and rejected and considered insignificant (Isa 53:3) and struck down by God with diseases, shame, and pain (Isa 53:4–6) will receive his reward. God Himself will vindicate him. The one who was humiliated and shamed will be justified, exalted, and honored. 39. Walter Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66 (WBC; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998) 149. 40.  As we shall see in our exegetical section, the intercessory activity of the servant in the wider sense of the word is portrayed also as the reason for Yhwh’s salvific purposes in history (that is, for the new covenant and by extension Yhwh’s eschatological reign). 41. Klaus Baltzer, Deutero–Jesaja (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001) 535.

308

Chapter 7

As a look at the commentaries confirms, the first half of v.  12 is in many ways a mysterious verdict that raises seemingly more questions than it solves. Do the references to reward perhaps point to the next chapter, where Yhwh announces a new era of grace, mercy, and peace (Isa 54:7)? Several key words such as seed, the many, righteous, and peace seem to suggest a continuation between the two chapters. The suffering prophet is promised a posterity and reward for his suffering. Because of him, many are accounted righteous (Isa 53:11). As Childs comments, the “suffering innocent one of chap. 53 is seen as having his life, in some way, extended and incorporated through his suffering by those who are now designated ‘the servants of the Lord.” 42 I shall explore a possible canonical reading of chaps. 53 and 54 in some more detail after having looked at the reasons for the servant’s exaltation. Here we want to point out that the movement from shame to vindication and glory, from death to life finds other scriptural echoes. For example, Joseph only rules after enslavement and imprisonment. The psalms of lament testify to the vindication of those who were ill, ostracized, and cut off from the living (e.g. Ps 22). Job was brought to the point of deepest humiliation and pain before he was restored and vindicated. However, there are two things that distinguish the Isaianic servant from other Old Testament figures. First, his suffering seemed to have ended in actual death. 43 Second, his suffering, humiliation, and death were understood as substitutionary for the many. Only of one other scriptural figure it is said that his life was offered for the redemption of others. According to Mark 10:45 the suffering “Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom (λύτρον) for many.” Goldingay notes: The word lutron can mean ransom or atonement as well as recompense or reparation, but Isaiah 53 lies in the background of Jesus’ words, and there, at least, recompense is a key idea. Isaiah 53 envisages a servant of God undergoing persecution and possible death. . . . The servant has the opportunity to turn his martyrdom into a kind of offering to God as well as a witness to other people. This offering might compensate for his people’s rebelliousness and thus make a key contribution to the restoring of the relationship between them and God. It will be as if the affliction he experiences takes the place of theirs. And it might stimulate a breakthrough in insight for them—not least through the vindication that will follow. 44 42.  Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 430. 43.  Whybray (Thanksgiving, 4) argues that the servant did not really die but that Isaiah 53 should be understood as a communal psalm of thanksgiving for the deliverance of the prophet from prison in Babylonia. In the following section, however, it will become clear that the most natural reading of the passage is that the servant died. 44. John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1: Israel’s Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003) 836.

Substitutionary Atonement through Intercession

309

Both Mark 10:45 and the Christ Hymn in Philippians (2:6–11) have strong conceptual associations with Isa 53:10–12. Only of the suffering servant and of Jesus it could be said that they conquer as they fall. Let us think a bit further about the four stated reasons as to why the servant was vindicated and justified many. Because the Servant Poured Out Himself to Death because he poured out himself to death (‫ֲשר ֶהעֱרָה ַל ָּמוֶת נ ְַפׁשֹו‬ ֶׁ ‫ּתַ חַת א‬, Isa 53:12)

Westermann argues that one could render the Hebrew as “because he poured out his blood (‫ )נפׁש‬to death.” ‫ נפׁש‬could be associated with lifeblood (cf. Deut 12:23, Lev 17:14) and thus the pouring out of it implies death. 45 Thereby, Westermann makes a connection with v. 10 where we read that God makes the servant’s life (‫ )נפׁש‬an offering for sin (‫ָׁשם‬ ָ ‫)א‬. In other words, Westermann sees here not only two indicators that an expiatory sacrifice is in view, but also an implicit explanation as to the meaning of the prophet’s ָ ‫ א‬are suffering and death. 46 As the exegetical issues surrounding the term ‫ָׁשם‬ complex, we shall discuss how best to interpret the servant’s suffering and possible death later in this chapter. In this section, however, I would like to think about the circumstances that led to the prophet’s pain and eventual death. Does he suffer primarily because of persecution or because he willingly chooses to pour out his life for his persecutors? Motyer comments: It was voluntary, he poured out his life/soul unto death. In Psalm 141:8, one faced with deadly danger cries out, ‘Do not pour out my soul’ (niv, ‘give me over to death’). . . . The Servant was both the agent and the substance of this outpouring. No-one took his life away from him, he laid it down on his own accord ( Jn. 10:18, Phil. 2:7). 47

The first impression of the poem is, however, that there is no room for the servant to lay down his life on his own accord. After all, he is despised and known for his sickness (Isa 53:3). He is struck down by God and oppressed and crushed by his persecutors (Isa 53:4, 7). Moreover, we note the passive tense. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter. 48 Thus, for Clines the most compelling aspect of these verses is that the servant “does nothing and says nothing but lets everything happen to him.” 49 Looking at the verbal pattern 45. John Goldingay and David Payne, Isaiah 40–55 (ICC; London: T. & T. Clark International, 2006) 329. 46.  Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 268. 47. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1994) 443. 48.  Interestingly, we find regular references to silence in the prophets (cf. Ezek 3:26, Isa 53:7). There is obviously an immense tension between proclaiming God’s will in judgment and the prophetic silence. We find the same tension in the court trial of Jesus (cf. Matt 27:12­–14). 49.  Clines, “I, He,” 217.

310

Chapter 7

of the poem, the suffering figure is acted on more often than he acts. And yet in a number of statements, the passive forms change to active ones and seem to express the willingness of the prophet. For example, in v. 4a we read, “Surely he lifted up our illnesses, he carried our pain.” Here, the servant is the acting one. Moreover, in vv. 4–5, it is evident that the bearing of suffering is his choice. The servant’s free will and intentionality in his vicarious suffering comes perhaps clearest to expression by the fact that the prophet intercedes on behalf of sinners (Isa 53:12). Considering the thrust of the passage and the alternating verb forms, the most natural reading is that the death of the servant was both the will of God and his own. One could say that there is a sharing of will and purpose. 50 This comes also to expression in the fact that many will be made righteous through the servant (‫צדק‬, Hiphil; Isa 53:11) and through God (‫צדקה‬, Isa 54:17). The Servant Let Himself Be Counted ְ ‫  ש ִעים נ‬ ְׁ ֹ ‫) ְואֶת־ּפ‬ with Rebels (‫ִמנָה‬ Motyer argues that the Hebrew here supports the intentionality of the servant’s identification with the sinners “was numbered is a tolerative niphal, ‘let himself be numbered.’” 51 Not just grammatically speaking, also in the context of the second half of v. 12 that speaks of the prophet carrying the sins of many and interceding for the transgressors, it makes good sense to see in this Niphal intentionality. What is more remarkable is that the servant not only laid down his life but also his good name. He, the chosen one in whom God delights (Isa 42:1), the righteous one, who had done no violence and in whose mouth there was no deceit (Isa 53:9, 11), allowed others to treat him like a criminal, one who rebelled against God (cf. Matt 27:38, Luke 22:37). We have seen before that particularly Moses identified with rebellious Israel to the point that he was prepared to share the consuming punishment with them as their loyal and innocent mediator (cf. Exod 32:30–32). The suffering servant, however, goes beyond identifying with the sin of the people, he bears the sins of many on their behalf.

ָ ‫ֵטא־רַ ִּבים נ‬ ְ ‫)ְוהּוא ח‬ The Servant Bears the Sins of Many (‫ָשׂא‬ Zimmerli wrote an influential essay in 1974 on the history of Isaiah 53, 52 in which his thesis was that there are two traditions behind the use of the Hebrew term ‫( נׂשא חטא‬carrying iniquities/sin; cf. Isa 53:4–6, 11–12) in Isaiah 53. First, there is the priestly tradition that understands atonement 50.  Spieckermann (“Konzeption,” 145) speaks of a “Willensgemeinschaft.” 51.  Motyer, Isaiah, 443. So also Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah 40–55, 329; and the new Zurich Translation: “sich den Übeltätern zurechnen liess.” See also HALOT: “to have oneself counted.” 52. Walther Zimmerli, “Zur Vorgeschichte von Jes. Liii,” in Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie und Prophetie (Munich: Kaiser, 1974) 213–22.

Substitutionary Atonement through Intercession

311

of guilt and punishment through substitution, as we find it in Leviticus (cf. Lev 10:17, 16:22). The second tradition behind Isaiah 53, according to Zimmerli, is prophetic. He refers particularly to Ezekiel’s symbolic act of laying sick for days bearing the guilt of Israel (Ezek 4:4–8). Both traditions, according to Zimmerli, have considerably influenced Isaiah 53. 53 At the same time, he maintains that the difference between the Isaianic servant and Ezekiel is unmistakable. In the book of Ezekiel, carrying the guilt of the people has no atoning effect. How about the Levitical background? Goldingay argues that the language behind v. 12 is that of Leviticus 5. . . . So whereas people normally have to bear responsibility for their own wrongdoing, this servant has taken responsibility for other people’s. He took up a role like that of a priest who bears the people’s sins when they minister (Lev 10:17), or like the goat in the Day of Atonement ritual that bears the people’s sins away (Lev 16:22). 54

Those who interpret ‫ נׂשא חטא‬against a priestly background, refer usually to the important but controversial term ‫ָׁשם‬ ָ ‫ א‬in v. 10. This term appears most frequently in the books of Leviticus and Numbers (cf. Lev 5:6–25, 6:10; Num 6:12). There it refers to the guilt offering or sacrifice for guilt and is often used in conjunction with ‫ עון‬/ ‫נׂשא חטא‬. According to Lev 10:17, the animal was sacrificed as a sin offering. It “bears” or “takes away” the guilt of the community. According to Lev 16:22, on the great Day of Atonement, the high priest placed the guilt of the community on the scapegoat. As the goat is chased out of Israel’s midst, it carried the sins of the people into the desert to Azazel (Lev 16:10). Traditionally, this sort of interpretation allowed a direct application of cultic concepts as we find them in Leviticus and Numbers to the Isaianic servant as both priestly and vicarious. We should note, however, that the servant is not referred to as a sacrificial goat, but as a lamb led to the slaughter (Isa 53:7). 55 We note a couple more things that point to the limits of a direct analogy: (1) Guilt offerings were made when accidental sins had been committed (cf. Leviticus 5–6). In Isaiah 53, however, Israel committed a deliberate offense. There was no remedy for this kind of offense in Israel’s offering system. (2) According to Isaiah 53, the suffering and death of the servant is a one-off event. Thus, the same would be true of the expiatory sacrifice that he offered. A once for all expiatory sacrifice in the Old Testament, however, is unheard of. (3) The servant is said to be despised and disfigured by suffering. Moreover, he was buried with the wicked. If the prophet’s death was to 53. Walter Zimmerli, Old Testament Theology in Outline (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994) 223–24. 54. John Goldingay, Isaiah (NIBC 13; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2001) 307. 55.  The lamb was the most common animal offered for sacrifice (e.g., Lev 4:32, 5:6; Num 6:12).

312

Chapter 7

be explained strictly speaking as an expiatory sacrifice, this would mean “a radical desacralization of sacrifice.” 56 Having drawn attention to certain limits of the analogy, one ought perhaps not push the correspondence between the servant’s death and a guilt offering to its logical conclusion. After all Paul (and indeed Jesus himself) had no problem in drawing analogies between the Old Testament sacrificial system and Jesus’ death on the cross (e.g. Matt 26:26–28, 1 Cor 5:7). 57 Without insisting on a direct analogy, the metaphor embodies a hermeneutical reality that points beyond itself. Having said this, there are a number of scholars that object to an analogy between the slain animal and the suffering servant on weightier grounds. Janowski argues that the concept of ‫ָׁשם‬ ָ ‫ א‬did not originally stem from the cult, but rather from a secular situation in which compensation for guilt was required (cf. Gen 26:10; 1 Sam 6:3–4, 8, 17). 58 Thus, it has been argued that the Hebrew term ‫ָׁשם‬ ָ ‫ א‬in Isa 53:10 should not be understood as guilt offering or atoning sacrifice, but rather as a redemption of debt or a compensation for guilt (Schuldtilgung). Israel, who is unable to pay back its debts or make restitution, must be freed from its debt by a form of recompense. 59 According to this reading, not a ritual obliteration of sin is envisaged, but a vicariously bearing/ enduring of the people’s guilt. Where does this leave us in our interpretation of the suffering and death of the servant? For a start, we should perhaps remind ourselves that no matter whether we read Isaiah 53 in the light of cultic or juridical categories, ‫ָׁשם‬ ָ ‫ א‬when applied to the servant is a metaphor. He was neither literally a sacrificial animal that carried the guilt of the sinners, nor was he literally a compensation for a misdeed. This helps us perhaps toward a balanced reading of these rich images. Seitz argues, to my mind rightly, that a sharp separation between the juridical and cultic realm is unhelpful. This text is sui generis as well as indebted to a previous religious history. The servant is not obliterating sin, in the conceptual world of Leviticus; he is carrying something off, lifting it, bearing it onto himself. But there 56.  Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 268. 57.  “Blood . . . poured out” is unmistakably sacrifical language, and the allusive phrase “for many” brings it in canonical relationship to the pouring out of the servant’s lifeblood “as an offering for sin” (Isa 53:10). Cf. Richard T. France, Matthew (TNTC; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986) 369. 58. Bernd Janowski, “Er trug unsere Sünden. Jes 53 und die Dramatik der Stellvertretung,” Der leidende Gottesknecht (FAT 14; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 27–48; cf. K. Knierim, Art. ‫ָׁשם‬ ָ ‫א‬, THAT 1 (1971) cols. 251–57. 59. Adrian Schenker, Die Anlässe zum Schuldopfer Ascham (FAT 3; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992). See Hermann Spieckermann, “Konzeption und Vorgeschichte des Stellvertretungsgedankens im Alten Testament,” in Gottes Liebe zu Israel (FAT 33; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 142: “Schuldsituation mit der sich daraus ergebenden Verpflichtung zur Schuldableistung”; Childs, Isaiah, 417.

Substitutionary Atonement through Intercession

313

is nothing automatic or intrinsic in the servant’s act that would result in forgiveness. 60

The righteous servant makes many righteous because he gave his life according to the plan of God (Isa 53:11). Here seems to lay the crux of the issue. As we have already noted, the suffering and death of the servant was willed by God and prophet. The anonymous figure took responsibility for the sin of his people and God accepted the obedient suffering of an innocent man who in some sense endures and embodies Israel’s guilt and glorifies the Lord (cf. Isa 49:3). Even if we do not advocate a literal reading of obliterating the people’s sin, there is clearly a sense that the servant is vicariously bearing the sins of many (v. 11). The point of the poem, as Childs comments: is that God himself took the initiative in accepting the servant’s life as the means of Israel’s forgiveness. In the first divine speech (52:13) the “success” of the servant is promised because of what God had done. This promise was hidden, never before told (v.  15), but Israel finally understood it as a revelation from “the arm of the Lord.” The role of the servant resulted in Israel’s forgiveness because of God’s acceptance of the servant’s obedient suffering. 61

Spieckermann also underlines God’s directive involvement in the forgiveness of Israel’s sins. He affirms that God Himself takes the initiative that leads to the substitution of the servant for the many. Twice we read that God found favor (“took delight,” ‫ ;חפץ‬v. 10) in the suffering of his servant. God is participating in the suffering of the prophet to the degree that “the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (nrsv). Perhaps a better translation would be: “the Lord caused the iniquity of all of us to attack him” (‫וַיהוָה‬ ‫יע ּבֹו אֵת עֲֹון ּכֻּלָנּו‬ ַ ‫ה ְפ ִּג‬, ִ Isa 53:6). 62 If one reads these statements in absense of the servant’s willingness to suffer and to lay down his life, one might get the impression that God takes pleasure in the suffering of an innocent one. The unity of intention between God and His servant, however, make it evident that not divine sadism, but a close communion of the will (Willensgemeinschaft) is in view. 63 The shared intention is to eradicate the guilt of the 60.  Chris R. Seitz, “Isaiah 40–66,” in NIB 6:148–49. 61.  Childs, Isaiah, 418. 62.  The Hebrew term ‫ פגע‬with preposition ‫ ְּב‬is also used to describe intercessory prayer (i.e., “‫ַע־ּבי‬ ִ ‫ַל־ּת ְפּג‬ ִ ‫וא‬,” ְ Jer 7:16). See our discussion on Isa 53:12 (“made intercession for the transgressors”) in the next section. Here, it looks as though the Hiphil is the causative of the normal Qal (“to fall on somebody; to press someone; to attack”). In Isa 53:6, as several translations have tried to express (e.g. net, Buber and Rosenzweig, Zürich 2007) the causative Hiphil has a double object—the Lord causes “sin” attack “the Servant.” The net Bible notes say: “In their sin the group was like sheep who had wandered from God’s path. They were vulnerable to attack; the guilt of their sin was ready to attack and destroy them. But then the servant stepped in and took the full force of the attack.” 63.  Spieckermann, “Stellvertretungsgedanke,” 146.

314

Chapter 7

people. This intimate agreement of will between Yhwh and the prophet to forgive the people is also central to the act of intercession. The Servant made Intercession for the Transgressors ( ‫ע‬ ַ ‫ ׁש ִעים י ְַפ ִּגי‬ ְ ֹ ‫)ְולַּפ‬ In this section, I shall engage with two questions: (1) does v. 12 refer to a ministry of intercession in the future (that is, after the servant’s vindication), or does it refer to an act during the prophet’s life of suffering? (2) What is the nature of the servant’s intercession? Is it a verbal entreaty, or more a comprehensive act of vicariously laying down his life on behalf of the guilty party? Regarding the first question, Blenkinsopp argues on the basis of the change of tense and the meaning of the verb ‫ פגע‬that the text speaks here of the servant’s intercession when he reaches a new position of glory. 64 He translates v. 12: “But he bears the crime of many and will intercede for the sinners.” 65 The notion of a “heavenly or exhalted human intercessors,” however, is only documented from the intertextual period onward. 66 Of course in the New Testament one finds several references to Christ’s heavenly intercessory activity (cf. Rom 8:34, Heb 7:25, 1 John 2:1–2). Moreover, structurally and conceptually it is unlikely that the author of Isaiah 53 refers to a time when the servant will be elevated. We have seen that v. 12 provides a fourfold reason for the vindication of the servant. Intercession is one of them. Delitzsch comments, “According to the cons. temporum, the reference is not to the intercession of the glorified One, but to that of the suffering One, on behalf of His foes. Every word stands here as if written beneath the cross on Golgotha.” 67 Below it shall become evident that the text talks about the servant’s intercessory activity during his life and in his death. There is also some debate about the exact meaning of the Hebrew term ‫( פגע‬Hiphil) in this context. Does it refer to verbal intercession (cf. Jer 15:11), or does the writer envisage an act of atoning intervention that includes the suffering and laying down of the servant’s life on behalf of the 64.  ‫( פגע‬Hiphil imperfect) with ‫ל‬, ְ “to intercede for.” Modern Hebrew grammarians recognize that it is an “aspectual” language. This means that the same form of a verb can be translated either past, present, or future, depending on the context and various grammatical cues. 65. John Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55 A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 19A; New York: Doubleday, 2002) 337. 66.  In 2 Macc 15:12–16, Jeremiah is referred to as praying in heaven for Jerusalem. Later on, it is especially the patriarchs and Enoch that were described as great heavenly intercessors for Israel in pseudepigraphical writings. See, for example the Apocalypse of Zephaniah (dated between 100 b.c. and 175 a.d.). See Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, 1:500– 501. For a helpful summary, consult David Crump, Jesus the Intercessor: Prayer and Christology in Luke–Acts (WUNT 2/49; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992) 210–20. 67. Franz Delitzsch, Jesaja (Giessen: Brunnen, 1984) 558.

Substitutionary Atonement through Intercession

315

transgressors? It is helpful to note that the same verbal form is used back in Isa 53:6. There, it carries its common causative force in the sense of Yhwh causing the iniquity of all to attack the servant. It has been argued, however, that in Isa 53:12 the Hiphil should not be taken as a causative but should be read with the intensive force of the Qal and thus be rendered in the sense to “entreat” or to “intercede” for the transgressors (with ‫)ל‬. ְ  68 The term appears once again in Isa 59:16, where Yhwh is appalled that there was no one to intervene on behalf of Israel (ַ‫)ּכי־אֵין מ ְַפ ִּגיע‬. ִ The writer of Isa 59:16, not unlike Ezek 22:30, expresses regret that no one intervenes on behalf of the sinful people to avert the divine wrath and judgment. On balance, the underlying meaning of ‫( פגע‬Hiphil) seems not incompatible with the semantic field of the Qal. After all, intercession could be described in the wider sense of the word with “attacking” or “urging” or even “pestering” someone with entreaties. 69 This may well be the underlying sense in Jer 7:16. Jeremiah’s intercession is described with the same root of the verb ‫( פגע‬Qal with ‫ ְל‬/ ‫)ּב‬. ְ There it conveys most likely Jeremiah’s persistency and audacity in prayer in spite of Yhwh’s prohibition to intercede for the sinful people. 70 In the next chapter, we shall see that Yhwh’s prohibition to intercede causes also a great deal of mental suffering to Jeremiah. Unlike Jeremiah’s case, the Isaianic servants’ prayers were not denied. Although both prophets suffered at the hands of their persecutors (cf. Isa 50:4–11, 53:6–7), the latter does not lament as Jeremiah did (cf. Jer 11–20). In fact, He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. (Isa 53:7)

The servant does not withdraw from his office as intercessor (Isa 53:12), but persists in his advocacy of his oppressors before the heavenly judge. Only with hindsight did the observers come to see that it was actually on their behalf that the servant carried their diseases and punishment. In something like a confession, they acknowledge, Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed. (Isa 53:4–5)

In other words, the servant not only advocates on behalf of his oppressors but he also stands in some way in their place. Because there is no actual prayer mentioned, the servant’s intercession on behalf of the sinners could 68.  Delitzsch, Jesaja, 558. 69.  Scharbert, “Die Fürbitte,” 323. 70.  See our discussion of Jer 7:16 on pp. 343–347.

316

Chapter 7

be taken as the representation of the sinners before God in a more comprehensive way as Westermann notes: The really miraculous thing about the Servant’s path in life, his suffering and his death, is this. The suffering which overtakes an ordinary man without priestly status, a man buffeted and despised, makes it possible for him to take the sins of others upon himself, and so to avert from them the consequences of these, punishment. In the final words–this is the second statement–this same thing is subsumed under the concept of representation or intercession. The hiphil of the pāga . . . means . . . with be (in a request) “to make entreaty”. . . . Used absolutely it means “to intervene”, as in Isa 59.16. . . . This does not mean, as some editors imagine, that he made prayers of intercession for them, but that with his life, his suffering and his death, he took their place and underwent their punishment in their stead. 71

Westermann points out rightly that the intercession of the servant takes here the form of substitutionary suffering and punishment. I shall argue, however, that verbal intercessory prayer and intercession in the sense of vicarious suffering and death are not exclusive categories but rather they are intrinsically connected in the ministry of the servant. We should remember that one fundamental Old Testament concept that led to the formation of the substitutionary understanding as we find it in Isaiah 53, is prophetic intercessory prayer. This view, as Spieckermann points out, is supported by the observation that the same Hebrew verb (‫)פגע‬ is used in Jeremiah and Isaiah ( Jer 7:16, Isa 53:12). The verb, according to Spieckermann, is an important link between the prohibited intercessory prayer of Jeremiah and the substitutionary thought in Isaiah 53. 72 Moreover, we have noted that the servant’s self-sacrifice of life is described as an ‫ָׁשם‬ ָ ‫א‬, a term that most likely reverberates cultic as well as juridical categories (that is, guilt offering and compensation of a debt). Thereby, the writer combines two major Old Testament strands that come together in the servant’s intercessory activity. In the suffering and death of the prophet, these central images and concepts become a living reality in the servant’s atoning intercession. The vicarious suffering of the righteous one that encompasses both physical as well as mental suffering became Yhwh’s means to make many righteous (Isa 53:11). Intercession according to Isaiah 53, is nothing less than the surrender of one’s own right to life in favor of God’s will. The servant accepts a ministry of nothing but contempt and misunderstanding, even to the point of dying the death of one branded as an evildoer. The servant’s ministry does not show any trace of self-seeking or self-exaltation. His intercession is a conscious surrender to God’s will and yet the servant does it out of his own 71.  Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 269. 72.  Spieckermann, “Konzeption,” 149.

Substitutionary Atonement through Intercession

317

free will. The servant identifies completely with the divine will. According to Eichrodt such intercession becomes powerful to atone for many, and results in the accomplishment of the “blessed exchange” of ‫ מּוסָר‬and ‫ׁשלֹום‬, ָ punishment and salvation, by which the sinners become righteous. Thus in the suffering of his servant God proffers the means of forgiveness, in which the atoning efficacy of sacrifice and of intercession are united at the deepest level of meaning, and brought to unique effectiveness. 73

According to Isa 53:1–6, a group of people express deep regret for their ignorance and rebellion. Through this communal penitential prayer, they acknowledge the servant’s self-giving ministry by faith. According to Eichrodt, it is in the combination of God willed intercessory activity and the confession of the guilty party that lies the atoning power. Thereby, Eichrodt brings out again the unity of will and purpose between God and servant and the penitential recognition of the guilty party. In sum, the servant completes the task of the mediator in the sense that he not only conveys God’s judgment but also takes it on himself. Thus, the servant is in the wider sense both the prophet who proclaims God’s judgment to the guilty party and intercedes on their behalf, and he is the priest who offers the sacrifice of atonement. Atoning intercession and atoning sacrifice are merging here in an unprecedented way. 74 Finally, we would like to address briefly the question of the identity of the recipients of the servant’s intercessory ministry. 75 Three times it is stated in vv. 11–12 that the “many” (‫ )רַ ִּבים‬benefit from the prophet’s suffering and death. “Many will be made righteous (v. 11b).” “He bore the sins of many (v. 12b).” He will have his portion among these same “many” (v. 12a). It is not entirely clear, however, who these many are. 76 The fact that v. 12 parallelizes the “many” with the “transgressors” suggests that the “many” are understood as a larger group than the one who testifies now in these verses. Does it refer to Israel as a whole who did not recognize the servant and his mission? 77 The context seems to suggest that not only Israel but also the nations are somehow drawn into the sphere of the 73. Walther Eichrodt (Theology of the Old Testament [OTL; 2 vols.; London: SCM, 1985] 2:452–53) brings together the various strings and provides a rich reading of the servant’s intercession. 74.  Moreover, because the servant offers himself, he is also in a sense the sacrifice that is being offered. Cf. Nils Johansson, Parakletoi: Vorstellungen von Fürsprechern für die Menschen vor Gott in der alttestamentlichen Religion, im Spätjudentum und Urchristentum (Lund: Gleerupska Universitetsbokhandeln, 1940). 75.  Seitz, “Isaiah,” 478. 76.  The text leaves the relation between the “many” and the “many peoples” as well as the “we-group” in a somewhat ambiguous relation. 77.  Jesus’ prayer from the cross: “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34) leaves the reader in a somewhat similar conundrum with regard to the identity of “them.”

318

Chapter 7

servant’s influence­. The three references to the “many” in vv. 11b–12 have their counterpart in the beginning of the poem where the introductory divine speech identifies the “many” with the nations. Just as there were many (‫ )רַ ִּבים‬who were astonished at him —so marred was his appearance, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of mortals— so he shall sprinkle many nations (‫ ;)יַּזֶה ּגֹויִם רַ ִּבים‬78 kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them they shall see, and that which they had not heard they shall contemplate. (Isa 52:14–15)

The peoples will witness the salvation of God. More than that, the nations will be sprinkled by the servant. It is not entierly clear though what sprinkling the nations means. Usually in other Old Testament passages the verb “‫( ”נזה‬Hiphil) describes the splashing of a liquid such as blood or water over objects or people in connection with dedication, cleansing, or making atonement. 79 Is the enigmatic reference to “springkling the nations” a literary allusion to a cleaning ritual by blood? One way of approaching this difficult passage is via its verbal and conceptual associations it has with the entire poem. The central section of the poem (Isa 53:4–6) is connected through a common vocabulary to the final two verses (Isa 53:12–13). The opening verses (Isa 52:13–15) share some conceptual links with the closing verses (for example, theme of humiliation and exaltation, and blessing of the many). These links suggest that the enigmatic opening verses also point toward the same interpretation of the servant’s death.  80 We have seen that the person and work of the servant are described in priestly categories (pouring out his life as a guilt offering). The servant shall sprinkle many nations. Isaiah’s vision is universal (cf. Isa 42:1–4). The “many” shall receive his priestly blessings.

Further Theological Reflections Yhwh’s Wrath and Love: Chapter 53 in Its Canonical Context Having explored some of the rich dynamics that are going on with regard to the servant’s intercessory ministry in the wider sense of the word, we take a step back as it were and consider the fourth poem in its canonical context. I have already attempted to locate the chapter within the larger narrative context. Chapter 53 is part of a lengthy prophetic account extending from chap. 40 that climaxes in chaps. 54 and 55 where God promises 78. The nrsv follows the LXX and translates: “he shall startle many nations.” See Motyer, Isaiah, 424–26, for a helpful evaluation of both translations. 79.  See Lev 16:14–19; Num 19:4, 18–19; Heb 9:13–14, 19–22. 80.  Waltke, Theology, 816–17.

Substitutionary Atonement through Intercession

319

to intervene and end the exile by ushering in His eschatological reign. 81 When the forth poem is seen in the light of the unfolding drama of God’s plan to redeem Israel in chaps. 40­–55, the vicarious role of the servant lies at the very heart of the prophetic message. In fact, following the logic of the canonical sequence, the fourth servant poem functions as a key to the working out of the divine drama as portrayed in Isaiah 40–55. In the central section of the song (Isa 53:1–11), a group confesses that the servant gives up his life for others: he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed. (Isa 53:5)

Isaiah 53 does not only testify to the prophet’s suffering, but it also provides the reason as to why God restores the covenant relationship with Israel. The righteous one, somehow vicariously takes on himself the sins of Israel (Isa 53:6), intercedes for them (Isa 53:12), and thereby makes many righteous (Isa 53:11). The main thrust of chap. 53 is that of the suffering and wounded healer that gives wholeness to the many. When we look at the immediate literary context, we can note a clear shift of tone between chaps. 52 and 54. Before Isaiah 53, the prophet still talks of the people’s guilt. The exiles are drunken with the cup of judgment and are full of Yhwh’s wrath (Isa 51:17–20). The time of divine judgment and hopelessness, however, is coming to an end. It is time to wake up and to leave the Babylonian captivity behind (Isa 51:17, 52:1). There is an expectation that Yhwh is resolved to intervene in a dramatic act of redemption. For thus says the Lord: You were sold for nothing, and you shall be redeemed without money. . . . Break forth together into singing, you ruins of Jerusalem; for the Lord has comforted his people, he has redeemed Jerusalem. The Lord has bared his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God. (Isa 52:3–10)

The fourth poem is followed by chap. 54, a chapter that replaces the relationship of God and His prophet with the relationship between God and Israel. There is a dramatic shift of images. Israel who was portrayed as a barren, adulterous women who was left by her husband, is now called to rejoice. Sing, O barren one who did not bear; burst into song and shout . . . For the children of the desolate woman will be more than the children of her that is married, says the Lord. (Isa 54:1) 81.  The prophet’s powerful hyperbolic speech transcended Israel’s actual experience in Babylon (cf. Isa 52:9–10, 55:5). Thereby, the prophet’s message assumes an eschatological character.

320

Chapter 7

Yhwh, the divine husband, turns in grace and love to his wayward “wife” Israel. Do not fear, for you will not be ashamed; do not be discouraged, for you will not suffer disgrace; for you will forget the shame of your youth, and the disgrace of your widowhood you will remember no more. For your Maker is your husband, the Lord of hosts is his name; the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called. For the Lord has called you like a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit, like the wife of a man’s youth when she is cast off, says your God. (Isa 54:4­­–6)

Hardly anywhere else in the Old Testament is Yhwh’s grace and love so emphasized as in the message of this prophet. Before the servant’s intercessory act, the prophet underlines that God is very much aware of Israel’s fundamental disloyalty “you have burdened me with your sins; you have wearied me with your iniquities” (cf. Isa 43:24; 48:1–11, 51:17–20). After chap. 53, the prophet emphasizes the divine attributes of mercy and covenant love, that come to expression in the first half of Yhwh’s Name (Exod 34:6–7) to such a degree that seems to suggest that divine justice and wrath were somehow overcome by divine love enabled by the servant’s vicarious suffering and intercessory act. For a brief moment I abandoned you, but with great compassion (‫ֲמים‬ ִ ‫ּוברַ ח‬ ְ ‫ )ּגְד ִֹלים‬I will gather you. In overflowing wrath for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love (‫)ּוב ֶחסֶד עֹולָם‬ ְ I will have compassion on ְ ‫)רח ְַמ ִּת‬, you (‫יך‬ ִ says the Lord, your Redeemer. . . . For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love (‫)וח ְַס ִּדי‬ ְ shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed, says the Lord, who has compassion (‫חמ ְֵך‬ ֲ ַ‫)מר‬ ְ on you. (Isa 54:7–10)

We note two things: First, that there are numerous verbal and conceptual parallels between Isaiah 54 and our key text in Exod 34:6–7. Yhwh revealed Himself as a God of compassion and of great love (‫ ְורַ ב־ ֶחסֶד‬. . . ‫אֵל רַ חּום‬, Exod 34:6). Here in the prophetic oracle, God’s compassion is confirmed in an emphatic way. 82 Moreover, Yhwh affirms His gracious covenant commitment (‫)ּוב ֶחסֶד עֹולָם‬. ְ Just like Israel’s faithlessness in the golden calf and the “scout” incidents (Exod 32–34, Num 14) could not annul Yhwh’s faithfulness to Israel, here too, the Lord’s faithful commitment to the covenant relationship with His people goes beyond Israel’s iniquities, a relationship Israel has effectively forfeited through all their rebellion leading up to the Babylonian exile. The same theological truth comes to expression in a pregnant way in the New Testament: “If we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself” (2 Tim 2:13). Second, Yhwh’s willingness to renew the covenant in grace and mercy is once again intrinsically connected with the mediation of one of God’s 82.  Of course, the good news of God’s love, compassion, and His willingness to forgive, is precisely what the exiles needed to hear (see vv. 9–13).

Substitutionary Atonement through Intercession

321

faithful servants. Chapter 53 is framed by the larger divine reality of God’s judgment and love. In and through chap. 53, a shift takes place from judgment and divine wrath to a new era that is characterized by divine mercy and an unprecedented commitment to the covenant relationship. 83 The shift of tone suggests strongly that the ministry and life of the suffering servant is somehow instrumental in Israel’s redemption and the renewal of the covenant. 84 Seitz comments, “There is every reason to believe that the servant of Isaiah 49–53, unlike Jeremiah, was one whose prayers were salvific because God was doing a truly new thing through him. Intercession was not denied the servant. 85” In sum, once again the canonical context underlines the biblical nexus of Israel’s rebellion and Yhwh’s judgment, the self-sacrificial intercessory ministry of a mediator, divine grace and mercy that leads to forgiveness and the renewal of the covenant relationship. In this process, God’s ultimate purposes are being outworked. The Suffering Servant and Jesus Christ Traditionally, as Childs reminds us, the church read Isaiah 53 as a messianic prediction of the future passion of Jesus Christ. However, with the rise of historical-critical readings (contextual approach) interpreter came to appreciate that the suffering servant poems are closely tied up with the historical experience of Israel in Babylonian exile and thereafter. 86 There is a prophetic call (Isa 49:1–6), the confession of at least part of Israel (Isa 53:4–6), and of course there is Israel’s redemption from the exile. Thus, the chapter is not simply a future prophecy or a timeless metaphor of Israel’s suffering and salvation, but refers to a salvific event in time, which enabled Israel’s redemption from exile. Thus, the complex question emerges how to interpret or categorize this redemptive event, and how is one best to understand the relationship between the Isaianic servant and God’s redemptive work in and through Jesus Christ? First, it became clear that the servant’s ministry and death are in continuity of main strands of Old Testament teaching and yet they point beyond the scope of known categories. The strong community of the will between the servant and God with regard to a mutual mission prepares the idea of God’s incarnation in the prophet. Of course the “monotheistic­” 83.  In fact, the prophet promises more than a new covenant. In Isa 55:3, we read that Yhwh is willing to enter an eternal covenant relationship analogous to His faithful commitment to David (“I will make with you an everlasting covenant [‫]ּבִרית עֹולָם‬, ְ my steadfast, sure love [‫א ָמנִים‬ ֱ ֶ‫ ]ח ְַסדֵ י ָדִוד ַה ּנ‬for David”). 84.  Childs, Isaiah, 431, comments on the important canonical function of chap. 53 in the following way. “Although many of the promises offered to Zion in chap. 54 had been given earlier, the special role of chap. 54 emerges when they are joined to the heritage of the servants of the Lord, which could only occur after chap. 53 within the continuing narrative.” 85.  Seitz, “Prayer,” 20. 86.  Childs, Isaiah, 422.

322

Chapter 7

understanding­of the Old Testament prevents a clear articulation toward this final step. This vision is then fulfilled in God’s incarnation in Jesus Christ who through his suffering and death achieves atonement for the many. 87 There are good reasons to argue that chap. 53 inspired Jesus’ selfunderstanding and mission. 88 Stuhlmacher concludes his detailed inquiry into Jesus’ likely self-understanding of his suffering and death as follows: “Jesus has knowingly and willingly approached his death. He understood his death as a vicarious atonement for ‘the many’ (i.e. Israel and the nations).” 89 Having said that, the fact that the crucifixion accounts in Matthew and Mark are composed in conjunction with Psalm 22 rather than with Isaiah 53 seems to suggest that even in New Testament times the church was wrestling with questions of appropriate hermeneutical categories to understand the passion and cross. 90 From a canonical perspective, both Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 provide important hermeneutical keys for the church to understand the suffering, death, and vindication of Jesus Christ. While both Psalm 22 and Isaiah provide categories of the righteous suffering servant/ king being vindicated and the nations coming into the sphere of God’s salvation (cf. Ps 22:27–28 [MT 28–29]), only Isaiah witnesses as to how an individual can become mediator and medium for God’s salvific purposes. In this sense Isaiah 53 is prophetic, not least because Isaiah 53 and the following two chapters contain powerful hyperbolic speeches that transcend Israel’s actual experience in Babylon. Thereby, the prophet’s message assumes an eschatological character that not only points to Jesus, but also beyond to its fulfillment at the consummation of time (Isa 54:11–13). 91 Second, on a “deeper” theological level the redemptive ministry of the Isaianic servant and the passion and death of Christ are bound together by ontological categories. They can be compared and interpreted on the level of being of and testifying to the self same theological reality. Childs, with reference to Calvin, argues: 87. Hermann Spieckermann, “God’s Steadfast Love: Towards a New Conception of Old Testament Theology,” Bib 80 (2000) 325. 88.  Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie, 129–30: “Er ( Jesus) sah sich berufen, als messianischer Gottesknecht für Israel in den Tod zu gehen.” Cf. I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) 801. 89.  Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie, 142. My translation of: “Jesus ist wissentlich und willentlich in den Tod gegangen. Er hat seinen Tod als stellvertretenden Sühnetod für “die Vielen” (d.h. Israel und die Völker) verstanden.” Stuhlmacher bases his conclusion on the examination of the following sayings that he ascribes to the historical Jesus: Luke 13:31–33; Mark 9:31 (Luke 9:44b); Mark 10:45, 14:22–26. See ibid., 125–43. 90. See Helmut Gese, “Psalm 22 und das Neue Testament: Der älteste Bericht vom Tode Jesu und die Entstehung des Herrenmahles,” ZThK 65 (1968) 1–22, shows that the crucifixion accounts are strongly colored and to a certain degree even structured by quotations from Psalm 22. 91. The vision of the Isaianic prophet provides the images for the depiction of the “heavenly Jerusalem” in Rev 21:18–21.

Substitutionary Atonement through Intercession

323

To use classic Christian theological terminology, the distinction is between the “economic” Trinity, God’s revelation in the continuum of Israel’s history, and the “immanent” Trinity, the ontological manifestation of the triune deity in its eternality. Thus for example, the epistles of Ephesians and Colossians argue that the creation of the universe cannot be understood apart from the active participation of Jesus Christ (Col. 1:15ff.). Or again, the book of Revelation speaks of the “the lamb slain before the foundation of the world” (13:8). In a word, in the suffering and death of the servant of Second Isaiah, the self-same reality of Jesus Christ was made manifest. The meaning of the Old Testament servant was thus understood theologically in terms of the one divine reality disclosed in Jesus Christ.  92

In the previous section, I have already attempted to point out the way that chap.  53 in context of Isaiah 40–55 contributes to the unfolding of God’s revelation in history. There we have also noted the limits of Israel’s history as a hermeneutical key because of the unprecedented nature of the servant’s death. Childs recognizes this and links the suffering servant theologically to the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Childs discerningly speaks of an ontological relationship, a theological association of substance. Childs goes on talking about the “morphological fit between Isaiah 53 and the passion of Jesus” that continues “to bear testimony to the common subject matter within the one divine economy. This morphological fit could perhaps be illustrated by what is sometimes called the “wondrous exchange.” 93 Paul, with reference to Isa 53:6, 11–12, makes the following awesome statement of reconciliation: in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. . . . For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Cor 5:19, 21)

This “wondrous exchange” between the trespasser and the one who knew no sin, is foreshadowed in the righteous servant who had done nothing wrong but was subjected to a violent death by the trespassers (cf. Isa 53:9). 94 In a union of the will with the servant, God loaded the guilt and iniquities of the trespassors on him so that many be made righteous (Isa 53:11). In an unheard way, the servant is reconciling “the many” with Yhwh, by taking on himself the role that was Christ’s to have. In the eternal economy of God, the ministry of the suffering servant and the Gospel of Jesus Christ are bound together in an ontological relationship of substance. 92.  Childs, Isaiah, 423. 93.  Ibid., 423. 94. See Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie, 296.

324

Chapter 7

Carrying Each Other’s Burdens in Intercession Can we deduce from Isaiah 53 any other underlying theological principles for widening our understanding of intercessory prayer? As we have seen, carrying the weaknesses and burdens on behalf of others and interceding for the sins of others are intrinsically linked in the ministry of the suffering servant (cf. Isa 53:12). According to Bonhoeffer, the entire work of Christ could be expressed in the phrase to carry. In Jesus, God bears and carries away the sin of the world (αἴρω, John 1:29). 95 As we have seen the terms to carry and to bear also characterizes the ministry and life of the suffering servant: Surely he has borne (‫ָׂשא‬ ָ ‫ )נ‬our infirmities and carried (‫ ) ָסבַל‬our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed. . . . and the Lord has laid on him (‫ )פגע ּבֹו‬the iniquity of us all. . . . yet he bore (‫ָׂשא‬ ָ ‫ )נ‬the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (‫פגע‬, Isa 53:4–6, 12)

Here we find love that willingly endures the hate, abuse, and curse of the hostile party and pleads for divine reconciliation. Moses and Stephen’s prayers come to mind. In the wilderness Moses endures the rebellious people who attempt to stone him and intercedes for their forgiveness according to God’s great love (Num 14:10–19). Stephen too prays: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit . . . do not hold this sin against them” (Acts 7:59–60), while his opponents stoned him to death. These prayers of total self-denial find their authoritative expression in Jesus’ teaching: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. (Luke 6:27–28)

Paul summons the Galatians to “Bear (βαστάζω) one another’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2). Are Christians denying to carry each other’s burdens so we deny the law of Christ. “To carry one’s cross” (cf. Luke 14:27, βαστάζω τὸν σταυρὸν) stands for enduring severe suffering, even to the point of death. The law of Christ was clearly foreshadowed in the suffering and death of the servant (Isa 53:8–9). Carrying one another’s weaknesses and sins in intercessory prayer falls under 95. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Gemeinsames Leben (Gütersloh: Güterloher Verlagshaus, 2006) 85–87.

Substitutionary Atonement through Intercession

325

the same law. Just as Christ graciously carries the iniquities of his people, so Christians are called to share in carrying and enduring each other’s sins in the body of Christ. We are called to carry each other’s sins and not to judge (Gal 6:1). In enduring and carrying the other’s sins in intercessory prayer God’s amazing grace becomes visible and is certainly a powerful expression of the two greatest commandments: to love God with all your heart and your neighbor as ourselves (Matt 22:36–38). Intercessory prayer in itself may not have atoning value (cf. Jer 15:1), if, however, the prayer is a reflection of God’s will and intention, it may. Thus, effective intercession is at its heart a prayer that seeks to be one with the will of God (cf. Isa 50:5, 53:10). In the case of the Isaianic servant, intercession is a complete turning to God, even to the point of self-sacrifice. To this kind of intercessory prayer God ascribes atoning power sufficient for the renewal of the covenant relationship. Eichrodt helpfully complements some of our observations. (Intercessory prayer) derives its meaning and its effective power from the fact that it is at bottom a reflection of God’s will in a human soul—which is the reason why, in the New Testament, prayer of this kind is ascribed to the operation of the Holy Spirit. Hence God himself can summon men to intercession, and promise to hear it. But even where he rejects the actual request he does not leave any doubt that the end, which it most deeply desires, the realization of God’s plan of salvation despite human sin, will be achieved. 96

Thus, we could say that the substance of the servant’s vicarious suffering and intercession do have their theological analogy in Golgotha and the cross.

Concluding Summary The context of the servant’s mission may have been along the following reconstruction. The destruction of both temple and Jerusalem and Israel’s deportation into exile raised the hard question whether Israel’s election as Yhwh’s special people was annulled. Has Yhwh’s righteous wrath eventually gained the upper hand over His forbearance and covenant commitment? This question became particularly pertinent for the second generation in exile who were not directly involved in the sins of their fathers that led to the deportation into Babylon. Into this climate of frustration and hopelessness, the Isaianic prophet proclaims that Yhwh in His compassion, faithfulness, and power will terminate the hegemony of Babylon through the Persian King Cyrus. In unprecedented superlatives with eschatological overtones the prophet proclaims that Yhwh will lead Israel in a second exodus out of Babylonian captivity. We have seen that the prophet himself is portrait against a Mosaic background. Images of the 96.  Eichrodt, Theology, 2:450.

326

Chapter 7

promised land are evoked (a land flowing with milk and honey). Israel is to live in Yhwh’s kingdom that is marked by life in its fullness (Exod 3:7–8, Isa 55:1–2). The people of God will live in a new and eternal covenant relationship that is characterized by an all-encompassing peace (cf. Isa 54–55). The prophet’s visionary words are nothing less than the very words of Yhwh Himself. 97 It looks, however, as though the prophet’s addressees not only questioned the reliability of these words, they were also hostile toward the man of God. As a result, the prophet has to endure hatred, contempt, and violence (cf. Isa 50:4–6, 53:3). Probably only after Israel’s amazing homecoming, did they discern that the prophet, his mission and message was truly from God. Isaiah 53 contains a confession of guilt and ignorance that gives expression to the sentiments of a remnant that came to recognize the prophet for who he was. Thus, in a sense, God has eventually vindicated the prophet and his message. Israel came to recognize that the suffering servant was God’s chosen means to bring salvation to many sinners. The prophet had a dual mission. First, he had a mission to restore Israel. The prophet does this through word and deed. The servant speaks words of encouragement and warning to the people. Deeds, in the sense of praying and enduring abuse even onto death on behalf of the sinful people. Second, the servant has indirectly and directly a mission to the nations; indirectly, in the sense that the restoration of Israel will equip the people of God to fulfill their original calling to be a blessing to the nations (cf. Isa 42:1–4, 55:4–5, Gen 12:3, Jer 4:1–2), and directly in the sense that the servant’s vicarious suffering and death somehow encompass the “many” nations. Perhaps we could say with Seitz: The servant’s suffering and death are his own, on behalf of Israel. At the same time, the servant’s suffering and death are Israel’s, on behalf of the nations. These two distinct themes are here woven together so tightly as to refuse disentanglement; and in this joining consists the servant as “Israel” glorified before the nations. 98

The unprecedented truth is that the servant not only shares in Yhwh’s judgment that was pronounced over the sinful people, but takes it on himself. The prophet endures the hatred and violence of his oppressors willingly and accepts it as God’s will (Isa 50:5–6, 53:10). By willingly enduring the suffering afflicted by the guilty ones, he atones for the sins of many. The righteous makes the unrighteous righteous by vicariously bearing the punishment that was due to them. Spieckermann comments: The substitution of the Servant’s suffering and death effecting the salvation of the many touches the theological limits of the Old Testament 97.  Israel recorded in the book of Isaiah a vision that went far beyond the poor reality of the postexilic generation pointing via the Easter event to the consumation of time. 98.  Seitz, “Prayer,” 462.

Substitutionary Atonement through Intercession

327

as it is one of its fundamental presupposition that God alone is able to rescue—nobody else. Men—kings and priests—can convey salvation by virtue of their special tasks, but certainly not by their own suffering and death. 99

On the one hand, the servant’s unprecedented act of vicarious suffering and death moves beyond the conception of traditional prophetic intercession. On the other hand, we have seen that prophetic prayer is also described as standing in the breach on behalf of the guilty party. Thereby, intercessory prayer is perceived as a shield against God’s righteous wrath (cf. Deut 3:26–27, 9:20, Ezek 22:30). Therefore he said he would destroy them—had not Moses, his chosen one, stood in the breach before him, to turn away his wrath from destroying them. (Ps 106:23)

The metaphor of “standing in the breach” points to a prayer commitment that goes beyond pleading for mercy and covenant renewal. It signals that intercession may include absorbing God’s righteous wrath on behalf of others. Thus, the image prepares the ground for the servant’s substitutionary act of salvation. According to Isaiah 53, intercession involves vicariously enduring the people’s sin and death so that they can be reconciled with God. The death of the servant is described with images taken from both the sacrificial and judicial systems (that is, guilt offering and compensation for a misdeed). As far as the image of the guilt offering goes, atoning intercessory prayer and atoning “sacrifice” become one in the servant. The connection between intercessory prayer and sacrifice can be further illuminated. “The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities” (Isa 53:11). The portrayal of the suffering servant foreshadows what Paul describes as God’s act of reconciliation through Jesus who though without sin, became sin for many and makes them righteous in the eyes of God (2 Cor 5:20–21). In the servant’s self-sacrifical act of intercession this “glorious exchange in Christ” is anticipated. Although theologically of the same substance, only in the Passion and Easter event, the suffering and death of the servant find their fulfillment. This substitutionary act of fulfilling the guilt and debt of many, however, should not be primarily understood as a sacrifice that pacifies the divine wrath, nor as an act of divine satisfaction for the dishonor caused by the sins of Israel, rather it is the Lord’s gracious gift that enables a wholesome life before God through the person and work of Christ. 100 “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” ( John 1:29). So we come full circle back to our opening statement, that the entire work of Christ can be understood in terms of intercession. He has been 99.  Spieckermann, “God’s Steadfast Love,” 322. 100. Cf. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie, 1:130.

328

Chapter 7

carrying­the burdens of others. He has liberated people at the cost of his own liberty. “The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). Through shedding his blood, Jesus enables many to be forgiven and reconciled to their creator (Matt 26:28). Jesus’ speech about the good shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep ( John 10:11) echoes also Isa 53:6–10. Just as the people at the foot of the cross had no idea of what was transpiring there, so Israel and the pious remnant of Isaiah’s time were like ignorant sheep. A further point of contact between the Isaianic servant and Jesus’ death is their intercession for those who ignorantly mistreated them. The servant allowed himself to be counted with the sinners, willingly allowed the Lord to cause the iniquity of many to fall on him, and made intercession for them (Isa 53:6, 11–12). While Jesus prayed from the cross: “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34). Jesus’ life and death are an act of intercession that is fundamentally illuminated through and anticipated by Isaiah 53.

Chapter 8

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment Introduction: Prophet and Intercessor Jeremiah was born into a priestly family from the tribe of Benjamin in Anathoth ( Jer 1:1). Anathoth is located near Jerusalem and was assigned to Israel’s priests and Levites (cf. Josh 21:18). Jeremiah was still young when the word of God reached him regarding his appointment as a prophet to the nations. In fact, Jeremiah’s destiny was already sealed before he was conceived. Before I formed you in the womb I knew you (ָ‫)יְדַ ְע ִּתיך‬, and before you were born I consecrated you (ָ‫ׁש ִּתיך‬ ְ ַ‫;)ה ְקּד‬ ִ I appointed you a prophet to the nations. ( Jer 1:5)

The two pregnant Hebrew concepts of being known and consecrated by God point toward an intimate personal relationship that only few people enjoyed in the Old Testament. Besides Jeremiah, only of Abraham (Gen 18:19), Moses (Exod 33:12, 17), and David (2 Sam 7:20) is it said that they were known by God. When the verb ‫ ידע‬is used with God as subject, it can also be rendered with being chosen (‫)בחר‬. 1 This is reinforced by the use of the verb ‫( קדׁש‬Hithpael, “to be singled out, to be consecrated for”). When God consecrates someone, He calls them out of their usual context to become closer to Himself. God singled out the Levites from Israel for Himself (‫)ה ְקדַ ְּׁש ִּתי ִלי‬ ִ and said: “The Levites shall be mine” (Num 3:12–13). Jeremiah is singled out from his Levitical linage before he was conceived. The biblical text underlines that Jeremiah will become God’s servant in a special way. 2 It is through Baruch that we know that Jeremiah was appreciated as the most influential advocate of his time ( Jer 37:3). Scripture portrays Jeremiah as one of the great biblical intercessors ( Jer 15:1, 37:17). This is further underlined and attested in 2 Macc 15:12–14, where Jeremiah is remembered not only as a great intercessor of Israel, but also as a kind of “heavenly advocate.” 3 Both kings and common people consulted the prophet and approached him to intercede for them before Yhwh (cf. Jer 21:2, 37:3, 42:1–4). 1. William McKane Jeremiah 1–25 (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986) 6. 2. Georg Fischer, Jeremia 1–25 (HTKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2005) 134. 3.  2 Macc 15:12–14 contains the first reference to the belief that the prayers of the deceased righteous still have a good influence on the living.

329

330

Chapter 8

Jeremiah’s prophetic vocation outlasted the reign of five kings. It covered the last 40 years of Judah’s kingdom. Thus, the prophet experienced the collapse of the Assyrian Empire and the rise of the Neo-Babylonian Empire that eventually, under king Nebuchadnezzar, destroyed Jerusalem. The prophet was commissioned “to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant.” 4 Correspondingly, we shall see that Jeremiah’s intercessory activities express both God’s grace and mercy, and also Yhwh’s wrath. As Yhwh’s prophet, who has access to the divine council, Jeremiah is intimately familiar with God’s perception and plans (cf. Jer 42:4–18). As a mark of Jeremiah’s intimacy with God’s will, the biblical text often merges the voice of God with the voice of Jeremiah. More than that, Jeremiah is so rooted in God and His ways that his prayers often reflect the pathos of the Lord. The book as a whole testifies that, no matter how severe the divine judgment will be, the ultimate divine purpose is the redemption of the people of God (cf. Jeremiah 30–33). This dual theme of grace and wrath and the dual commission of destroying and building also come to expression in the prophet’s prayers. On the one hand, his intercessions seek to build up Israel, while on the other hand, Jeremiah also prayed for the destruction of his adversaries. In this chapter, I shall interact with these two forms of intercessory prayers. Those that seek to build up Israel and protect the people from God’s judgment and those that seek the downfall of Jeremiah’s enemies. In its most basic definition, intercessory prayer is a petition for a third party. At certain times, however, Jeremiah’s prayers for blessing, turned into pleas for revenge and destruction. 5 In the first part of this chapter, I provide a close reading of some of Jeremiah’s intercessory prayers. Of particular interest is the fact that Yhwh persistently prohibits His prophet to pray on behalf of the people ( Jer 7:16, 11:14, 14:11). Why does God forbid His prophet to intercede? After all, advocating on behalf of the people before the Lord belongs intrinsically to the prophetic role. Why does Jeremiah disobey God’s command and continue to intercede on behalf of Judah? Jeremiah’s prayers offer a particularly rich feast of spiritual honesty, candor, and insight into the nature and ways of God. It will become evident that Jeremiah’s dialogues with Yhwh are in many ways models of depth of intimacy and honesty. In the second part of this chapter, we shall have a closer look at the dynamics of Jeremiah’s prayer against his enemies. The prophet’s prayers often arise out of tragedy, personal persecution, suffering, and despair. Intense hardship and injustice gave rise to some of the most disturbing prayers in Scripture: 4. Jeremiah’s role is echoed several times in Yhwh’s speeches (cf. Jer 18:5ff., 24:6, 31:28, 42:10). 5. John Goldingay, “The Logic of Intercession,” 264, comments: “Blessing and curses are relatives of prayers of intercession. They are part of the way we are involved in running the world on God’s behalf.”

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

331

give their children over to famine; hurl them out to the power of the sword, let their wives become childless and widowed. May their men meet death by pestilence, their youths be slain by the sword in battle. ( Jer 18:21)

Strong complaints against God and calls for vengeance on his human opponents characterize a number of Jeremiah’s prayers (cf. Jer 11:20, 15:15, 17:18). As the prophet’s imprecatory prayers raise particularly difficult hermeneutical challenges, we shall not only seek to understand the intrinsic logic of these seemingly vengeful prayers, but also wrestle with their abiding significance for the contemporary faith communities that call these texts Scripture. Both Jesus’ command “to love one’s enemies” and his prayers for his adversaries that reach their climax in his death on the cross seem to underline the enormous theological shift between these two prophets. We shall look at some hermeneutical approaches to imprecatory prayers before we attempt to advance a particular Christian rereading of these prayers. Jeremiah in Context The words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, of the priests who were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin, to whom the word of the Lord came in the days of King Josiah son of Amon of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign. ( Jer 1:1–2)

It is unlikely that Jeremiah’s father, Hilkiah, is the well-known high priest that served at the time when the law scroll was discovered in the temple (2 Kgs 22:14). Nevertheless, the identical name underlines at least that Jeremiah received his call to become a prophet during the reign of Judah’s famous reformer king ( Jer 1:2). 6 Given the all-pervasiveness of Joshia’s reform, it is quite likely that Jeremiah’s call and self-understanding as Yhwh’s prophet is influenced by the radical reform program to purify Jewish religious practice in Jerusalem as laid out in the book of Deuteronomy. Holladay summarizes some of the main objectives of Joshiah’s reform and draws some plausible implications the reform program might have had on Jeremiah: The Passover was reinstituted after having been neglected for so long, and worship was reorganized and centralized in Jerusalem. In all this flurry of reform the figure of Moses loomed forth as the great mediator between God and Israel, and Moses would have been very much in the mind of the boy Jeremiah. . . . Jeremiah would have been keenly struck by the promise given to Moses that a new prophet, like Moses, would be called 6.  Gerda de Villiers (“Where Did She Come From, and Where Did She Go To? (The Queen of Heaven in Jeremiah 7 and 44),” OTEs 15 [2002] 620–21) suggests that Jeremiah’s father is the high priest Hilkiah. This cannot be ruled out. However, most commentators find it difficult to reconcile the fact that this connection is never explicitly mentioned in the book of Jeremiah. See Fischer, Jeremia, 97–98, for a discussion of the issues involved.

332

Chapter 8

by God from among the Israelites (Deut 18:18), and the notion would have crossed his mind that the one whom God had intended might well be he. 7

Of course, these are only possible reconstructions that Holladay offers here. In this chapter, however, we shall see again and again the close canonical affiliations between Moses and Jeremiah that make the reconstruction heuristically valuable. Josiah’s reform of Israel’s worship reawakened the nation to the importance of Moses and the Sinai covenant. Initially, Josiah’s reform to new Torah obedience gave rise to new hope. But the people’s aspirations to new prosperity and independence were shattered when king Josiah tragically died as Judah was attempting to hinder Egypt’s passage through Judah’s territory (2  Kgs 23:31, 2 Chr 35:20–24). After the death of the reformer king, Judah’s restoration program collapsed. As Babylon was growing in power, they increasingly imposed their will on Judah and its kings. The period leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem is characterized by confusion and instability. Jeremiah became more and more aware of Judah’s deep-rooted sins. The theme of idolatry, moral corruption, and unrepentant Israel comes to a first climax in Jeremiah’s temple sermon in chap. 7. This time also gave rise to many false prophets who spread false hopes of freedom and independence (cf. Jer 14:13­–15, 23, 28:10–11). Although Israel’s traditions speak of the inviolability of Mount Zion and an everlasting covenant between Yhwh and the Davidic kings, 8 Jeremiah became increasingly certain that God would punish His people and he contested the widely held convictions that Jerusalem and its temple sanctuary is under God’s protection. We shall see that the temple sermon was a kind of watershed in the prophet’s understanding of Israel’s future. Announcing the forthcoming destruction of temple and city and criticizing the religious leaders, one does not make oneself popular ( Jer 7:1–15). By declaring that the society is unacceptable to God, Jeremiah was not accepted by Israel. The prophet soon realized that hardship ( Jer 11:21, 20:2) and alienation ( Jeremiah15–16) was the inevitable cost of his prophetic ministry. Numerous references confirm that Jeremiah was a man of great suffering. Chapter 11 brings Jeremiah in close association with the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. The canonical portrayal of Jeremiah raises the question of what sustained and enabled the prophet to endure all the physical and spiritual hardship over the long years of his prophetic vocation. Jeremiah’s profound joy in the words of the Lord may have helped. The prophet ate them and they “became a joy and a delight of his heart” ( Jer 15:16). In absolute obedience 7. William L. Holladay, “The Background of Jeremiah’s Self-Understanding: Moses, Samuel, and Psalm 22,” JBL 83 (1964) 161. 8. Robert Davidson, Courage to Doubt: Exploring an Old Testament Theme (London: SCM, 1997) 124.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

333

to God’s words, to the point of death ( Jer 26:14–15), Jeremiah proclaims what God had entrusted to him. 9 As we shall see, prayer, a close relationship with his God is another, possibly even more important, source for Jeremiah’s perseverance and inner strength. Reading Jeremiah’s Prayers The language of prayer is found on the lips of Jeremiah more frequently than anywhere else in Scripture. 10 It is particularly in chaps. 11–20, in what came to be called Jeremiah’s Confessions, that we find some of the most intimate and searching prayers in the entire Old Testament. 11 According to von Rad, the Confessions belong right at the center of every interpretation of Jeremiah. 12 More than this, he also suggests that they should be read in close association with Jeremiah’s prophetic office. 13 In other words, his prophetic role and mission gave rise to intensive laments and complaints. With the rise of form-criticism, numerous scholars have come to argue that the dramatic human-divine dialogues we find primarily in chaps. 11– 20 are later additions and are liturgical in nature and form. 14 Others are more positive with regard to the authenticity of the material and insist that however much these dialogues may follow conventional forms of prayer speech, such as we find in the psalms of lament, “we are forced to see behind the conventional forms a prophetic individual persecuted because of the word, suffering mental and physical anguish, and lashing out at his persecutors–and God.” 15 It has been suggested that Jeremiah modeled his self-understanding as “a prophet like Moses” (Deut 18:15) on the biblical (Deuteronomistic) portrayal of Moses. 16 Moreover, one could argue that Jeremiah “was so thoroughly saturated with the psalter and its liturgical use that he readily and naturally employs the speech convention.” 17 In a 9.  Fischer, Jeremia, 100. 10. Franz Hesse, Die Fürbitte im Alten Testament (Hamburg: Erlangen, 1951) 54, shows that the language of intercession and the more general terminology of prayer are found on the lips of Jeremiah more frequently than anywhere else. Cf. Samuel E. Balentine, “The Prophet as Intercessor: A Reassessment,” JBL 103 (1984) 163, 169. 11.  Jer 11:18–23, 12:1–6, 15:10–21, 17:12–18, 18:18–23, 20:7–18. Terence F. Fretheim (The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective [OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984] 157) prefers to describe Jeremiah’s prayers as lament-accusations, because these prayers often give expression to the prophet’s pain. 12.  Gerhard von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments, vol. 2: Die Theologie der prophetischen Überlierferungen Israel (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1993) 211. 13.  Gerhard von Rad, “The Confession of Jeremiah,” in A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in Jeremiah Studies (ed. L. G. Perdue and B. W. Kovacs; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1984) 339–47. 14. Cf. Henning Graf Reventlow, Gebet im Alten Testament (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986) 250–60. 15. John Bright, “Jeremiah’s Complaints: Liturgy or Expressions of Personal Distress,” in Proclamation and Presence (ed. J. I. Durham and J. R. Porter; London: SCM, 1970) 190. 16. See Holladay, “The Background,” 152–64. 17. Walter Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming (Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1998) 115. Scholars have long been debating the relationship of Jeremiah’s­

334

Chapter 8

canonical reading, as advocated in this book, the biblical portrayal of Jeremiah is taken with full imaginative seriousness “without being too quickly pressed into historical categories of one kind or an other.” 18 Only in doing so is the careful reader able to do full justice to the received form of Israel’s testimony. Jeremiah’s intimate prayer dialogues were not canonized merely in order to preserve the prophet’s personal prayer life. If Jeremiah’s prayers were ever (auto)biographical, they are no longer only about him. In the canonical process they have become Scripture through which the reader can hear the voice of God. 19 Jeremiah’s prayers were canonized because these human-divine dialogues have paradigmatic character and became important means for the instruction and edification of subsequent generations. Jeremiah’s confessions provide important insights into some of the most intense prayers in the Old Testament. Thus, one major objective of this chapter is to tease out the dynamics of Jeremiah’s prayers and from a position of deeper appreciation of these prayers assess the abiding witness of them for the church. I hope that it will become evident that Jeremiah’s prayers have compelling relevance in matters of spirituality and offer penetrating insights into God’s character. A Prophet Like Moses The canonical portrayals of Jeremiah and Moses exhibit striking similarities right from the beginning of their callings into Yhwh’s service. There are numerous verbal and conceptual parallels between Jer 1:4–10 and Exodus 3–4. 20 Initially, both Moses and Jeremiah show themselves to be reluctant to the divine commission to speak on Yhwh’s behalf: Moses said to the Lord, “O my Lord, I have never been eloquent (‫ָרים‬ ִ‫דב‬ ּ ְ ‫ )אֲדֹנָי לֹא ִאיׁש‬neither in the past nor even now that you have spoken to your servant; but I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.” Jeremiah similarly responds: “Then I said, “Ah, Lord God! Truly I do not know how to speak (‫ לֹא־יָדַ ְע ִּתי דַ ּּבֵר‬. . . ‫)אֲדֹנָי‬, for I am only a boy” (Exod 4:10, 7:2; Jer 1:6). God assured both prophets of His prayers to the psalms of lament. Has the prophet been so steeped in Israel’s psalms that his prayers naturally reflect Israel’s liturgy, or have the prayers that are recorded in the book of Jeremiah been intentionally crafted to reflect Israel’s liturgy? Moshe Greenberg (Biblical Prose Prayer: As a Window to the Popular Religion of Ancient Israel [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983]) helpfully approaches prose prayers as “patterned prayer-speech:” compositions of existing elements and context specific utterances of the one praying. 18.  Cf. R. W. L. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 16. 19. Terence F. Fretheim, Jeremiah (SHBC; Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002) 189, comments: “The laments have clearly been shaped by conventional forms of lament such as are found in the Psalter, yet that dependence may be due to the prophet’s personal immersion in the lament tradition. At the same time, redactors have worked through these texts, placed their own stamp upon them, and set them in their present literary contexts for communal consideration and usage.” 20. Cf. Holladay, “The Background,” 152–64, Dale C. Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993) 53–62; Seitz, “The Prophet,” 3–27.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

335

accompanying presence (Exod 3:12, Jer 1:8). What is more, Yhwh Himself will put His words into their mouths and they “shall speak whatever Yhwh commands them” (cf. Exod 7:2, Jer 1:7–9). This wording comes close to Deut 18:18, where it refers to a coming prophet like Moses. Jeremiah’s call narrative, particularly 1:7, 9, and 17, should be seen not only in relation to Deut 18:18 but also as a (partial) fulfillment to God’s promise that He would send a Moses-like prophet to Israel. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet (‫)ונָתַ ִּתי ְדבָרַ י ְּב ִפיו‬, ְ who shall speak to them everything that I command. (‫ֲשר‬ ֶׁ ‫אלֵיהֶם אֵת ּכָל־א‬ ֲ ‫ְו ִדּבֶר‬ ‫א ַצוֶּּנּו‬ ֲ , Deut 18:18) the Lord said to me, “Do not say, ‘I am only a boy’; for you shall go to all to whom I send you, and you shall speak whatever I command you (‫ִּכי‬ ‫אצְַוּךָ ְּתדַ ּבֵר‬ ֲ ‫ֲשר‬ ֶׁ ‫ֶש ָלחֲךָ ּתֵ ל ְֵך ְואֵת ּכָל־א‬ ְׁ ‫ֲשר א‬ ֶׁ ‫)עַל־ּכָל־א‬. . . . Then the Lord put out his hand and touched my mouth and the Lord said to me, “Now I have put my words in your mouth. (ָ‫הּנֵה נָתַ ִּתי ְדבָרַ י ְּב ִפיך‬, ִ Jer 1:7–9)

Although the phrase “put (God’s) word in the mouth” of a prophet appears frequently in the Old Testament, the rare verbal correspondence between the two passages under discussion strongly suggests that Jeremiah is portrayed as the promised prophet. 21 Although we are primarily concerned with the canonical portrayal of the two prophets, Holladay’s historical reconstruction of Jeremiah’s call once again provides helpful possible background information: Jeremiah would have been still a young man when Josiah the reformer king was killed. With the death of Josiah “hope for Israel’s faithfulness to Yahweh diminished alarmingly.” . . . “Since the word of Moses in Deuteronomy was no longer a novelty to the nation, who could step forth as speaker of God’s word to his people?” Jeremiah’s mind would have crystallized in the conviction that the promised prophet was indeed he, frightened though he was both because of his youth and because of his uneasiness that enemies would pursue him. His very hesitation, however, would have reinforced in him the conviction that he was God’s prophet, for had not Moses also begged off, feeling himself unsuitable for God’s purposes? So Jeremiah said yes to God, overcome by the wonder of God’s providence in having set him apart from his very birth, even as Moses and Samuel had been, and overcome also by uneasiness at the life lay before him. 22 21.  Holladay (“The Background,” 155) comments: “Though the phrase ‘put (God’s) words in the mouth (of a prophet)’ is rather common in the OT, the verb usually is ‫( ׂשום‬ten times), while the verb in Jer 1:9 is ‫נתן‬, a verb occurring in this phrase only twice otherwise in the OT: Jer 5:14 . . . and Deut 18:18.” 22.  Ibid., 162. According to Erik Aurelius, Der Fürbitter Israels: Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament (CBOT 27; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1988) 206–7, the painful experiences of the Gerichtspropheten, particularly those of Jeremiah, are read back into Moses’ time.

336

Chapter 8

The close canonical associations between Jeremiah and (the deuteronomic portrayal of) Moses have long been recognized. Ginzberg provides a helpful summary of the rich rabbinic tradition: The Haggadah maintains that Jeremiah was meant in the promise made by God to Moses that He will raise up a prophet ‘like unto thee’ (Deut 18.18), and although there ‘hath not arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses’ (Deut 34.10), the lives of these two prophets show so many striking resemblances, that the description of Jeremiah as ‘a prophet like unto Moses’ is well justified. Moses prophesied for forty years, so did Jeremiah. Moses prophesied concerning Judah and Israel, so did Jeremiah; Moses was attacked by members of his own tribe (i.e. the Levite Korah), so was Jeremiah (comp. 20.1). 23

To some degree, persecution and suffering appear to be the fate of every authentic prophet (cf. Matt 5:11–12). It is interesting to note, yet again, the relatedness between Moses’ and Jeremiah’s despair when the burden of their ministries intensified. Jeremiah laments over the day of his birth ( Jer 15:10), while Moses pleads to be put to death (Num 11:15). Moses’ first prayer for Israel arises partially out of uncertainty over his calling and Yhwh’s involvement in his mission (Exod 5:22–23). Similarly, Jeremiah, when confronted with the cruel and puzzling reality, expresses on a number of occasions the need for divine reassurance regarding his calling and mission ( Jer 11:18–12:4, 14:19–15:1, 18; cf. Exod 33:12­–17). When it comes to the audacity in talking back to God only Jeremiah seems to match the tone of Israel’s archetypal prophet. Why have you treated your servant so badly? Why have I not found favour in your sight, that you lay the burden of all this people on me? . . . If this is the way you are going to treat me, put me to death at once. (Num 11:11–15)

This is precisely the kind of tone that we find in Jeremiah’s prayers. 24 We shall see, however, that Jeremiah’s suffering and loneliness goes beyond that of Moses and other Old Testament prophets. Despite all the hardship and difficulties they encounter at the hands of an ignorant and stubborn people, both prophets show a strong sense of trust in God and responsibility for their mission (Num 13–14, Jer 18:20). Under severe testing, the words of God that were given to them were destroyed before their eyes: Now, after the king had burned the scroll with the words which Baruch wrote at Jeremiah’s dictation, the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: “Take another scroll and write on it all the former words that were in the first scroll.” ( Jer 36:27–28) 23. Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (vol. 6; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1954) 385–86. 24.  Holladay, “The Background,” 163.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

337

After an extensive time of intercession in the aftermath of the golden calf incident we read: The Lord said to Moses, “Cut two tablets of stone like the first; and I will write upon the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.” (Exod 34:1)

Eventually, they both shared in the joy of proclaiming a renewed (Exod 34:10) and new covenant ( Jer 31:32), respectively. 25 In light of this, the idea of a new covenant in Jeremiah is unprecedented in the sense that Jeremiah anticipates that covenant obedience is based on an inward orientation to God and His will (cf. Jer 31:31–34). Holladay comments: Jeremiah taught that the old covenant which God had made at the time of the exodus of Egypt had been broken so completely by the people that God had no choice but to draw up a new covenant without the loopholes of the old. May it not be that it was Jeremiah’s understanding of himself as the prophet like Moses which led him to the formulation of the new covenant idea? . . . The conclusion seems clear that Jeremiah dared to announce a new covenant for the people of God because of the work of Moses before him. 26

Interestingly, just as their lives and ministries as prophets exhibit numerous parallels, so do their deaths. They both share the pain of dying outside the “promised land” (cf. Deut 34:1–4, Jer 43:4–7). 27 In the words of Deuteronomy, Moses is judged not for his own disobedience but because of his disobedient people. “Even with me the Lord was angry on your account, saying, ‘You also shall not enter there’” (Deut 1:37; cf. 3:26). Similarly Jeremiah suffers innocently the consequences of Israel’s corporate guilt (cf. Jer 42–43). Like Moses, he will not be able to (re)enter the promised land. Like Moses, however, Jeremiah will see it from afar as though in a dream (cf. Jer 31:26). 28 There is one significant point with regard to their ministries that requires further reflection. Hesse argues that the prophetic responsibility to represent and defend Israel before God was the most important aspect of Moses’ and Jeremiah’s ministries. 29 Ironically, it is precisely also their roles as intercessor that divides them. “The prophet like Moses” in important ways cannot be like Moses. In the course of his ministry, God insistently prohibited Jeremiah to stand in the breach for the sinful people. Like Moses, Jeremiah appears at least at first not deterred by the divine prohibition to intercede for the people and he continues to pray for the postponement of the divine judgment. 25. Cf. Allison, The New Moses, 59. 26.  Holladay, “The Background of Jeremiah,” 163, draws further parallels between Jer 31:2–6 and Exod 33:12–17. 27.  Although the text does not explicitly say so, it is likely that Jeremiah died in Egypt. 28.  Seitz, “The Prophet,” 11–12. 29. So Hesse, Die Fürbitte, 47.

338

Chapter 8

Thus, one important objective of this chapter is to explore the reason for the divine prohibitions and how to understand it in relation to the prophet’s prayers, the people’s conduct, and the divine will. Under what circumstances can a prophet hope to change the divine mind and under what circumstances does the pray-er have to fall in line with God’s judgment? What kind of picture of God and His relationship with Israel emerges through Jeremiah’s intensive prayer dialogues? 30

“Do Not Pray for This People!” As we have seen in previous chapters, intercession, alongside speaking on behalf of the Lord are the primary responsibilities of the prophet. Jeremiah knew well that intercession is one of the marks of an authentic prophet and that refraining from intercession is thought to be a mark of a false prophet (cf. Jer 27:18). Samuel could even say that not to intercede for the disobedient people would be sinful for the prophet (1 Sam 12:23). In Jeremiah’s case, however, Yhwh prohibits the prophet four times from interceding on behalf of Israel ( Jer 7:16, 11:14, 14:11, 15:1). Moses was also told not to pray on behalf of sinful Israel after the golden calf incident, and yet he disobeyed God and succeeded in pacifying Yhwh’s righteous wrath and achieved divine pardon and the restoration of the covenant relationship for the sinful people (Exod 32:10–13, Deut 9:14). Amos as well, in spite of God’s intended judgment, pressed ahead in his intercessory efforts (Amos 7:1–6). This raises an issue of discernment. When is it permissible to disobey Yhwh’s command to refrain from prayer and persist in knocking on heaven’s door, and when does the prophet need to desist from prayer? Is there a biblical principle that indicates how far the prophet can push Yhwh to show mercy? Interestingly, all but one of the four references to God’s restraint on intercession appear within chaps. 11–20. These chapters contain several laments of the prophet that give expression to the suffering that was evoked through Jeremiah’s calling as a prophet. One could almost argue that the fourfold command not to intercede is matched by the fourfold lament of the prophet ( Jer 11:18–12:6, 15:10–20, 18:18–23, 20:7–18). Strictly speaking, Jer 15:1 is not an explicit divine ban on intercession. Nevertheless, it is instructive to observe the interweaving of the references to God’s restraint on intercession and the prophet’s laments. It looks as though God’s prohibition to intercede violates the very core of Jeremiah’s prophetic self-­ understanding and thereby gives rise to great pain and confusion. I shall look at the interplay of the four divine prohibitions to intercede and Jer30.  In much of what I am going to say in this chapter, I shall build on previous findings. In particular the revelation of Yhwh’s Name to Moses in Exod 34:6–7 and the chapters on Moses’ intercessory ministry shall be constantly in the background of the following discussion.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

339

emiah’s laments in their literary contexts. What do these juxtapositions tell us about Jeremiah’s intercessory role? The first prohibition to intercede comes in the context of what is often called Jeremiah’s temple sermon ( Jeremiah 7). 31 Jeremiah’s Temple Sermon The temple sermon introduces the wider theme of the literary unit that encompasses chaps. 7–10. The guiding concern of these four chapters could be summarized in the question “What or who provides true protection?” 32 In chap.  10, where one reads about the polemic confrontation between Yhwh and other gods, this question finds a clear answer: the Lord is the true God; he is the living God and the everlasting King. At his wrath the earth quakes, and the nations cannot endure his indignation. The gods who did not make the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens. ( Jer 10:10–11)

The notion of Yhwh as the one and only source of hope and protection is clearly underlying the temple sermon. Before we take a closer look at the content of Jeremiah’s sermon in chap. 7, we note that the speech and thus Yhwh’s first prohibition to intercede come against the canonical background of five chapters of prophetic condemnation of Judah’s idolatrous religion and corrupt society (cf. Jeremiah 2–6). Unfaithful and adulterous Israel has been warned ( Jer 2–3:10) and has been offered a chance to repent and return to her covenant God and divine husband ( Jer 3:11–14, 21–4:4). But Israel would not listen to Jeremiah’s persistent warning of Yhwh’s approaching judgment ( Jer 4:5–8, 6:1–8). It will become evident that the reason for Yhwh’s prohibition to intercede for Israel is closely related to the people’s false worship, idolatry, and misconceived trust in Yhwh’s help. In the temple sermon ( Jeremiah 7), Jeremiah challenges the popular understanding that Yhwh, regardless of Israel’s disobedience and moral standing, is committed to His temple sanctuary. In fact, Jeremiah’s speech addresses two continuing and interrelated challenges found in the prophetic writings, (1) the inconsistency between religious convictions and moral conduct, and (2) erroneous trust in the unconditional divine presence­ 31. See Balentine, Prayer, 279 for a nuanced statement regarding the nature of the text. Major commentators disagree over the question whether Jeremianic prose texts such as this are authentically Jeremianic or the product of editorial expansion (usually ascribed to Deuteronomistic editors). Robert Carroll (Jeremiah [OTL; Philadelphia Westminster, 1986] 206–12) interprets the sermon as Deuteronomistic, while William L. Holladay (Jeremiah [Hermenia; Philadelphia: Augsburg Fortress, 1986] 240), argues that the rhetoric of the sermon is Jeremianic. McKane, Jeremiah, 164–65, identifies a corpus within the sermon that he attributes to Jeremiah ( Jer 7:4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14). See also p. 333–334. As I am working with the canonical shape of the text, I simply acknowledge the ambiguity with regard to the diachronic dimensions of the text and take the logic of the final form with full seriousness. 32.  Rudolph, Jeremia, 53. Taken up by Fischer, Jeremia, 287.

340

Chapter 8

and protection of the temple. Thus, in a sense Jeremiah’s sermon adds to the fundamental biblical tension between the deuteronomic teaching that focuses on radical Torah obedience and the royal tradition that retains the hope of an unconditional divine presence in Jerusalem and particularly in the temple. 33 Jeremiah’s attack on Israel’s idolatry and lax moral standing is recorded twice within the book ( Jeremiah 7 and 26). Yhwh’s prohibition to intercede appears only in the former, the focus of the following section will fall on chap. 7. The setting of Jeremiah’s sermon is possibly one of the three annual festivals to which the entire people make pilgrimage to Jerusalem (cf. Deuteronomy 12; 16:16). The prophet is commissioned by God to place himself at the temple entrance and speak against the multitude of corruption and sin in Jerusalem. This position obviously allows for the greatest effect as Jeremiah’s words cut to the heart of the worshipers. Stand in the gate of the Lord’s house, and proclaim there this word, and say, Hear the word of the Lord, all you people of Judah, you that enter these gates to worship the Lord. . . . Amend your ways (‫ֵיטיבּו דַ ְרכֵיכֶם‬ ִ ‫ )ה‬and your doings, and let me dwell with you in this place. ( Jer 7:2–3)

This appeal is stated in the Hebrew imperative and as we shall see is in line with Jeremiah’s prime call to turn to Torah obedience. Possibly because of the memory of Yhwh’s miraculous intervention in the Assyrian crisis on behalf of Israel, Jeremiah’s contemporaries were under the illusion that God will not allow that His holy mount would be violated (cf. 2 Kgs 19:35–37). 34 The assumption of divine protection comes to expression in v. 4, where Jeremiah mockingly quotes, “This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord.” This assertion brings Psalm 46 to mind, which also celebrates Yhwh’s saving presence in Zion. Jeremiah, however, warns of misguided trust in the Lord’s protecting presence (“Do not trust in these deceptive words,” v. 4). Jeremiah is not denying that the temple is dedicated to Yhwh or that God is in some special way present in Israel’s sanctuary, but the prophet is saying that these intrinsically true words have become, in the mouths of a disobedient people, words of deception and hypocrisy. It is partially the priests and false prophets that lure the gullible worshipers into a misguided understanding (cf. Jer 5:30–31, 6:13, 8:10). In the following verses, Jeremiah makes it clear that worship in the presence of God must go hand in hand with obedience to Torah justice. In vv. 5–6 Jeremiah expands v. 3 by spelling out in what way Yhwh demands acts of justice. 33.  See Pss 46, 89; 132:6–7; Isa 37:35. 34. According to 2 Chr 32:20–21 Yhwh’s victorious intervention is particularly ascribed to the intercessory prayers of Hezekiah and Isaiah: “Then King Hezekiah and the prophet Isaiah . . . prayed because of this and cried to heaven. And the Lord sent an angel.”

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

341

For if you truly amend your ways and your doings, if you truly act justly one with another, if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods. ( Jer 7:5–6)

The prophet confronts the people of Judah with a whole catalog of social and theological offences such as oppressing the weak and vulnerable in society, stealing, and murdering. Israel is also guilty of going after other gods ( Jer 7:6). According to the prophet, it is only under the condition that the people amend radically their ways of living before Yhwh that God will continue to dwell in Jerusalem. As Judah is continuing on her path of abomination, they are far from being safe from the enemy of the north. Thus, Jeremiah’s summons to Torah obedience comes as a wake up call to Israel. In these verses, the prophet addresses fundamental principles that govern the covenant life of the people of God (cf. Deut 10:12–22, Isa 1:16–17, Mic 6:8). Jeremiah’s conditional appeal is in line with Mosaic teaching. In fact, vv.  5–7 come in many ways as an antithesis to Deuteronomy 10, where Moses spells out what Yhwh demands of His people. fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways . . . For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords . . . who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and who loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing. . . . You shall fear the Lord your God; him alone you shall worship; to him you shall hold fast, and by his name you shall swear. (Deut 10:12–20)

In Jer 7:8–11, Israel’s hypocrisy is further exposed. Jeremiah draws attention to Israel’s double standards. Here you are, trusting in deceptive words to no avail. Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, “We are safe!”—only to go on doing all these abominations? ( Jer 7:8–10)

On the one hand, the people are guilty of a whole list of offenses, while on the other hand, Israel is under the impression that they are safe in the house of God. “Thus, Jeremiah spells out a basic contradiction between corrupt living and the expectations of God’s protection.” 35 Judah, who violates the Torah, appears to have no shame in entering the temple and claiming the Lord’s protection. Yhwh, however, is not some kind of corrupt robber who is providing shelter to his fellow robbers (v. 11). As Miller perceptively writes, the temple of old, like the temple or church sanctuary of the present, is a powerful symbol of divine presence and security. Such symbols are rendered meaningless­ 35. R. W. L. Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment (CSCD 14; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) 61.

342

Chapter 8

when their adherents have violated the divine instruction and have used their economic and other powers for personal gain at the expense of others. This text is a critique of religious sloganeering—“the temple of the Lord,” “I have been baptized,” or “justification by faith”—and of an easiness in Zion that assumes living the good life is not finally dependent upon living a good life. 36

Living as the people of God and worshiping God cannot be separated. It is essential to Jeremiah’s sermon that ethics and worship are intrinsically linked. With regard to being safe in the temple, Yhwh challenges Israel through His prophet to look at Shiloh. God’s name used to dwell in the pre-­ Jerusalem sanctuary near Bethel ( Jer 7:12). The corruption of the Northern­ Kingdom, however, led to the destruction of Shiloh. This incident is recorded in 1  Samuel 4, where the Philistines captured the ark and won a victory against Israel. 37 Moberly insightfully draws out some theological parallels between the two accounts. Like Jeremiah’s contemporaries, the Israelites of Samuel’s time exhibited a complacent, indeed, superstitious attitude by believing that the presence of the ark will guarantee victory over the Philistines. Israel’s misconceived assumption, “Let us bring the ark of the covenant of the Lord here from Shiloh, so that he may come among us and save us from the power of our enemies” (1 Sam 4:3), comes close to the functional meaning of “this is the temple of Yhwh” and “we are safe” ( Jer 7:4, 10). 38 Jeremiah warns that the Jerusalem temple is no more privileged than the temple in Shiloh. Both are answerable for the demands of the Torah. Just as the persistent wickedness of Israel led to the destruction of the Northern sanctuary, so too will Yhwh bring about disaster on Judah and their temple in Jerusalem. You did not listen, and when I called you, you did not answer, therefore I will do to the house that is called by my name, in which you trust, and to the place that I gave to you and to your ancestors, just what I did to Shiloh. And I will cast you out of my sight, just as I cast out all your kinsfolk, all the offspring of Ephraim. ( Jer 7:13–15)

It becomes evident, therefore, that Jeremiah’s sermon makes at least two main points. First, corrupt and self-serving living make worship and devotion to Yhwh meaningless, if not abhorrent. Judah’s failure to display moral and spiritual integrity will end in destruction and exile. The second point seems to be that the very divine presence that Israel put their misguided hope in for protection will become the decisive factor for their captivity and destruction. Moberly comments: “Complacency and corruption can transform the divine presence from blessing to bane.” 39 For our 36.  Patrick D. Miller, “The Book of Jeremiah,” in NIB 6:641. 37.  The destruction of Shiloh is not explicitly mentioned. 38.  Moberly, Prophecy, 62. 39.  Ibid. Nebuchadnezzar, so says Jeremiah, is the agent of Yhwh’s wrath and judgment ( Jer 4:6, 6:23).

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

343

purposes, it is important to highlight that the temple sermon provides the immediate context for Yhwh’s prohibition to intercede. The tone of the sermon suggests that there is little hope of changing either God’s resolve, nor the people’s hearts. First Prohibition to Pray (Jeremiah 7:16) Jer 7:16 contains the first of three similarly phrased divine prohibitions to intercede (cf. Jer 11:14, 14:11). The reasons for the interdict vary, but Yhwh’s resolve remains the same: He will not listen to Jeremiah’s prayers. As for you (‫ַּתה‬ ָ ‫)וא‬, ְ do not pray for this people (‫ַל־ּת ְת ַּפּלֵל ְּבעַד־ ָהעָם ַהּזֶה‬ ִ ‫)א‬, do not raise a cry or prayer on their behalf (‫ּות ִפּלָה‬ ְ ‫ֲדם ִרּנָה‬ ָ ‫ּׂשא ַבע‬ ָ ‫ַל־ּת‬ ִ ‫)וא‬, ְ and do not intercede with me (‫ַע־ּבי‬ ִ ‫ַל־ּת ְפּג‬ ִ ‫)וא‬, ְ for I will not hear you. (ַ‫ִּכי־אֵינֶּנִי ׁש ֹ ֵמע‬ ‫א ָֹת ְך‬, Jer 7:16)

The Hebrew conjunction ‫ַּתה‬ ָ ‫“( ְוא‬as for you”) marks a sudden shift of addressee away from the “temple audience” that is under judgment to the prophet himself (cf. Jer 7:16–20). Jeremiah is instructed with a threefold negative command not to pray for the people. The divine prohibition to intercede in v. 16 introduces the reader of the book of Jeremiah for the first time to the second intrinsic role of the prophet: that of the intercessor. Thus, the divine prohibition comes initially as a surprise because it is as much part of the prophetic office to intercede on behalf of the sinful party as it is to convey Yhwh’s word to them. In the light of the immanent disaster that is awaiting Judah ( Jer 7:14–15), one would expect the prophet to advocate on behalf of the sinful people and stand in the breach to protect the people from Yhwh’s forthcoming judgment (cf. Ezek 13:5, 22:30–31). After all, seeking to pacify the righteous anger of Yhwh and to plead for mercy and patience is one of the main roles of the intercessor. 40 However, it seems it is precisely this defining aspect of the prophetic ministry that is denied to Jeremiah. Let us have a closer look at the terminology of Yhwh’s prohibition to intercede. Three major Hebrew terms for prayer are employed. The first and probably most prevalent term to describe intercessory activity in the Old Testament is ‫( פלל ְּבעַד‬Hithpael). The same verb is found in the context of Israel’s two other major intercessors when divine judgment is at hand. The Lord was so angry with Aaron that he was ready to destroy him, but I interceded also on behalf of Aaron (‫ַם־ּבעַד‬ ְ ‫ֶת ַּפּלֵל ּג‬ ְ ‫ )ָוא‬at that same time. (Deut 9:20; cf. Num 21:7) All the people said to Samuel, “Pray to the Lord your God for your servants (ָ‫)ה ְת ַּפּלֵל ְּבעַד־עֲ ָבדֶיךָ אֶל־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיך‬, ִ so that we may not die” . . . Moreover as for me, far be it from me that I should sin against the Lord by ceasing to pray for you (‫;ל ִה ְת ַּפּלֵל ַּבע ְַדכֶם‬ ְ 1 Sam 12:19–23, 7:5; cf. Gen 20:7) 40.  Compare Exod 32:10–14, 1 Sam 7:8–9, Jer 26:19, Amos 7:1–6.

344

Chapter 8

Though the etymology of ‫ פלל ְּבעַד‬is debated, it is probably best translated with “to pray,” “intercede,” “or intervene.” 41 The second imperative, “do not raise (‫ֲדם‬ ָ ‫ּׂשא ַבע‬ ָ ‫ַל־ּת‬ ִ ‫)וא‬ ְ a cry (of lament, ‫)רּנָה‬ ִ or a prayer (‫)ּת ִפּלָה‬ ְ on their behalf” has no verbal parallel in the Old Testament. The word pair “plea and prayer” finds a positive counterpart in Solomon’s prayer at the inauguration of the temple. Regard your servant’s prayer and his plea, O Lord my God, heeding the cry and the prayer (‫ָרּנָה ְואֶל־ה ְַּת ִפּלָה‬ ִ‫)ל ְׁשמ ֹ ַע אֶל־ה‬ ִ that your servant prays to you today. (1 Kgs 8:28)

Usually, the Hebrew verb ‫ צעק‬is used to express a heartfelt cry to Yhwh. In Jer 7:16 (and 11:14, 14:12), however, the noun ‫ ִרּנָה‬is used in conjunction with the verb ‫“( נׂשא‬to raise, to lift”). Often Israel appeals for divine help, or for mercy and justice, through a cry toward heaven. 42 Jeremiah’s cry of lament on behalf of the people in 10:19–25 not only exemplifies the expression in question but also shows that the prophet disregarded Yhwh’s initial prohibition to raise a crying prayer on behalf of the people. Woe is me because of my hurt! My wound is severe. But I said, “Truly this is my punishment, and I must bear it. . . . pour out your wrath on the nations . . . for they have devoured Jacob; they have devoured him and consumed him, and have laid waste his habitation.” ( Jer 10:19–25)

The third prohibition to Jeremiah, ‫ַע־ּבי‬ ִ ‫ַל־ּת ְפּג‬ ִ ‫א‬, is often translated as “do not intercede with me.” This, however, seems a rather weak rendering of this graphic expression. According to Scharbert, ‫ ב‬+ ‫ פגע‬connotes the wider sense of “falling upon somebody,” “assaulting them with punches.” 43 McKane­detects in the verb ‫ פגע‬the idea of “lobbying.” 44 A good illustration would be Ruth’s plea to Naomi to stop sending her away (“Do not press me [‫י־בי‬ ִ ‫ְע‬ ִ ‫ַל־ּת ְפּג‬ ִ ‫ ]א‬to leave you” Ruth 1:16). 45 Thus, the verb ‫ ב‬+ ‫( פגע‬both Qal and Hiphil; Jer 15:11, 36:25) could perhaps be best rendered in the context of intercessory prayer with “pushing or even pestering somebody with requests.” 46 Perhaps the choice of verb suggests that Jeremiah’s incessant prayers have been ringing in Yhwh’s ears more than they should have. Persistence in prayer to the degree of pestering somebody for justice brings to mind Jesus’ parable of the persistent widow and the unjust judge (cf. Luke 18:1–8). As we shall see, persistence is certainly a characteristic of Jeremiah’s 41.  This sort of rendering is endorsed by the LXX. In the LXX, ‫ פלל‬Hithpael is usually translated with εὔχομαι and sometimes with προσεύχομαι. Both are standard expressions for prayers. 42.  Cf. Pss 61:1 [MT 2], 88:2[3], 142:6 [7]. 43.  Scharbert, “Die Fürbitte in der Theologie,” 323. 44.  McKane, Jeremiah, 169. 45.  Fischer, Jeremiah, 305. 46.  This is also the line of interpretation taken by two main German Bible translations: The Einheitsübersetzung and the Zürcher Bibel (2007): “dränge mich nicht.”

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

345

prayer ministry. Several times, Jeremiah perseveres in prayer for Israel in spite of the divine prohibition to intercede (cf. Jer 10:23–24, 14:7–9, 19–22). This brief excursion into Hebrew prayer terminology graphically illustrates some of the characteristics of biblical intercession. As we have noted, Yhwh’s first prohibition appears in the context of the temple sermon that exposes a whole catalog of sin. Divine judgment is pronounced on Israel’s abuse of the foreigners, orphans, widows and on the people’s idolatry ( Jer 7:6–9). Verse 9 on its own highlights that Israel has breached five of the ten commandments, including the first, which demands radical loyalty to the covenant God. Idolatry is expanded in the immediate context of v. 16. Idol worship is not just happening on the level of Israel’s religious leaders; it encompasses the private and personal sphere as well ( Jer 7:17–20). Entire families participate in acts of blatant idolatry. Yhwh reminds His prophet that the children collect the wood, the fathers make the sticks into a fire, and the women prepare dough for the cakes that are eaten in honor of the “queen of heaven” ( Jer 7:18). 47 The narrative flow raises the question of whether Jeremiah is not fully aware of the extent of the people’s sins that are being committed in the towns of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem ( Jer 7:17). The implicit logic of Yhwh’s question seems to imply that, if Jeremiah really appreciated the enormity of the people’s sin, he would not persist in prayer. 48 Berrigan describes Israel’s sin in this way: “We have the socializing of sin . . . the normalization of the abnormal . . . the formerly abhorrent has become the norm.” 49 As a result of Israel’s idolatry, God’s wrath comes over not only the people but the entire creation ( Jer 7:20; cf. Rom 8:19–22). Yhwh’s judgment is preceded by six chapters of divine/prophetic warning ( Jer 2:1–3:5, 4:5–8, 6:1–8). The divine patience comes to expression once again in a later chapter where Jeremiah says: For twenty-three years, from the thirteenth year of Josiah the son of Amon, king of Judah, to this day, the word of the Lord has come to me, and I have spoken persistently to you, but you have not listened. ( Jer 25:3)

Israel has been offered the chance to repent several times ( Jer 3:12–14, 4:1–2). In other words, the canonical arrangement of the previous chapters led naturally to this prohibition to intercede ( Jer 7:16). From our passage, we can deduce that prayer, even the intercession of a godly person, is intrinsically linked to the moral and spiritual standing 47.  However, other activities of worship described in the rest of the chapter contribute to the inevitability of the divine judgment. See Clements, Jeremiah, 46–49, for a discussion on the possible identity of the “Queen of Heaven.” 48.  This underlines the importance of knowing the people and the situation one is praying for—the discerning prayer is well informed. 49. Daniel Berrigan, Jeremiah: The World, the Wound of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999) 43.

346

Chapter 8

of the third party that stands under immediate judgment. According to Jeremiah 7, people who “masquerade” as God’s pious people, who have the Lord “near their mouth yet far from their hearts” ( Jer 12:2), seriously jeopardize the divine-human relationship (e.g. Jer 7:16, 11:11). 50 Thus, one of the main lessons of this chapter is that prayer, even the intercessions of a mediator, has to be seen as part of a larger divine-human relationship. In other words, if the relationship is healthy by the standards of Torah obedience, then prayer is effective. If, however, the divine-human relationship is tainted by consistent ethical misconduct and disobedience, then God’s gracious responsiveness to prophetic intercession is not guaranteed. Tiemeyer understands Yhwh’s ban on Jeremiah’s intercession as a kind of safeguard against its persuasive power. She adds exegetical support for her interpretation by arguing that God’s prohibition is portrayed as urgent, temporal, and emotional. 51 She substantiates this as follows: (1) God’s threefold prohibition is phrased in the imperative (“do not pray”). This suggests urgency. (2) The imperative also introduces a temporal aspect. 52 Jeremiah is prohibited to pray for the moment but will be free to pray at a later stage. Tiemeyer points rightly to the prophet’s prayer after the fall of Jerusalem (e.g. Jer 37:1–10, 42:1–17). Thereby, she argues that the “temporal aspect underscores that the very purpose of the ban is to enable God to execute His punitive plans undisturbed.” (3) The choice of the Hebrew verb ‫“( פגע‬to press”) suggests that Jeremiah is “pressing” God “more than he should.” 53 Taking other passages into consideration as well, Tiemeyer suggests that God is banning intercession because He is aware of his compassionate predisposition and therefore seeks to safe-guard his own punitive decisions. . . . God renders his prophets defunct; that is he removes the built-in advocators of leniency from his decision-making. 54

Tiemeyer helpfully underlines the temporary and urgent aspect of the divine prohibition. As for the divine motives behind the prohibition, I do not want to draw any premature conclusions. For the moment, I would like to add another interpretive aspect to the divine “no” to prophetic intercession. From the Mosaic tradition, the 50.  Cf. Ps 66:18, Jer 14:11–12, Mic 3:4. 51. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, “God’s Hidden Compassion,” TB 57 (2006) 191–213. 52.  The choice of the negative Hebrew particle supports this. Often the particle ‫“( אל‬do not”) has an immediate, emotive, and specific negative force, as opposed to ‫לא‬, which carries durative and not specific negative force (e.g., the Decalogue). 53.  Tiemeyer, “God’s Hidden,” 203. 54.  Ibid., 194–195, comments further: it was assumed that God would let justice rule his decisions, but, at the same time, that he would delegate to the prophet the task of reminding him about his compassion. In this way, God kept the door open to change if the prophet, as the people’s advocate, presented a convincing-enough case, then God would uphold his right to change his mind.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

347

reader, and possibly also Jeremiah, knows that Yhwh answered graciously Moses’ intercessory prayer in spite of initially prohibiting Moses to intervene in prayer (“Let me alone that I may destroy them” cf. Exod 32:10, Deut 9:14). Moberly observes: the shape of the book as a whole conveys the message that national disaster for Judah is inevitable. Thus, for example, the prime section of the temple sermon (7:1–15), which seems to envisage as a real possibility both amendment and aversion of destruction, is directly followed by material which emphasizes the inevitability of coming judgement upon an unresponsive people, for whom Jeremiah is forbidden to intercede (7:16– 8:3). Interestingly most commentators are inclined to take this prohibition at face value, even though they are equally inclined to take Yhwh’s prohibition to Moses in Exod 32:10 in the opposite way as, in effect, an invitation to intercede. 55

Bringing the second shorter version of Jeremiah’s temple sermon ( Jeremiah 26) into the interpretive equation supports a reading that allows divine openness and possibly even the interpretation of an implicit divine invitation to keep on advocating for sinful Israel. In chap. 26, Yhwh expresses the hope that Jeremiah’s sermon might result in Judah’s repentance. If the people turned back to God, Yhwh declares Himself willing to reconsider His punitive intentions and change His plans (‫)נחם‬. It may be (‫ )אּולַי‬that they will listen, all of them, and will turn from their evil way, that I may change my mind (‫)ו ִנח ְַמ ִּתי‬ ְ about the disaster that I intend to bring on them because of their evil doings. ( Jer 26:3)

Interestingly, Jeremiah echoes the possibility of a divine change of mind, provided that the people mend their ways and listen to God (‫נחם‬, Jer 26:13). The two versions of the same event create, as Tiemeyer writes, “a poignant picture of the power of intercession and of God’s attitude towards a change of heart.” Chapter 26 “bears witness to the tremendous prophetic power of bringing about change in people’s hearts, and subsequently a change in God’s plans (26:19).” 56 Reading chap. 7 and 26 side by side as well as considering the close intertextuality between the portrayal of Moses and Jeremiah provides a biblical context within which it comes not so much as a surprise that we find Jeremiah disobeying God’s prohibition to intercede. In chap. 10 the prophet raises cries and prayers to God on behalf of the sinful people. Total Identification with the Sinners in Prayer (Jeremiah 10:19–25) Jeremiah’s intercessory prayer comes at the end of a polemic juxtaposition between the gods and idols of the nations and the incomparability of 55.  Moberly, Prophecy, 95. 56.  Tiemeyer, “God’s Hidden,” 205.

348

Chapter 8

God ( Jer 10:1–16). The gods are portrayed as powerless and mere humanmade images. The fact that such an elaborate polemic treatment is necessary, however, suggests that the gods of the nations are everything else but powerless. Although these gods cannot save ( Jer 10:5), they excercise seductive power over Israel. 57 Jeremiah’s polemic makes it evident that the temptation to commit idolatry has been a real problem for Israel (cf. Jer 7:16–20). In fact, the prevalence of idolatry is the main factor that leads eventually to the collapse and exile of Israel ( Jer 1:16, 7:16–20, 10\:1–18). The point of Jeremiah’s polemic presentation is not to provide an objective description of Canaanite deities but to win Israel back to an exclusive and committed relationship with their covenant God. Yhwh is not only Israel’s covenant God; He is also the living and eternal King of all peoples ( Jer 10:7, 10). As Jeremiah’s prophetic judgment makes evident, Israel’s privileged position does not make Jacob immune to Yhwh’s righteous wrath. God says that He is going to eject Israel from the land ( Jer 10:17–18). This judgment oracle is followed by vv. 19–25, a unit that has engendered a lot of discussion among commentators regarding who speaks when and with regard to its meaning. 58 I shall argue that vv. 19–25 are best understood as Jeremiah’s response to Yhwh’s judgment words. Woe is me because of my hurt! My wound is severe. But I said, “Truly this is my punishment, and I must bear it.” My tent is destroyed, and all my cords are broken; my children have gone from me, and they are no more; there is no one to spread my tent again, and to set up my curtains. For 57.  Polemical discrediting of other gods as in Jeremiah 10 is a fairly late component in Israel’s “monotheism.” Jon D. Levenson (Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible [San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1985] 56­–70) identifies three aspects of Israel’s “monotheism:” (1) Yhwh’s incomparability, (2) prohibition of the worship of other gods, and (3) polemical identification of the gods and their icons. One could add to Israel’s understanding of “monotheism” categories of “exclusive loyalty to Yhwh” (cf. Deut 10:10–22) and biblical passages that make soteriological rather than ontological claims. For example: “I am Yhwh and besides me there is no savior” (Isa 43:11, Hos 13:4). See Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism (FAT 2/1; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). According to Christopher J. H. Wright (The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative [Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 2006] 162), gods and idols may be gateways to the demonic; the overwhelming verdict of Scripture is that they are the product of our hands and rebellious imaginations. In this sense, gods and idols are something in the world, but they are nothing in comparison to God. 58.  Some commentators suggest that vv. 19–20 constitute a communal lament that is raised up in a collective singular as “mother” Israel (cf. Fischer, Jeremia, 390). This is followed by vv. 21–22 spoken either by Jeremiah or by the people. Verses 23–25 are spoken by Jeremiah to God (cf. Rudolph, Jeremia). Others hold that it is best to consider the entire segment as spoken by Jeremiah, who quotes others, including God (v.  18) and people (vv.  19–20; cf. Fretheim, Jeremiah, 172). Brueggemann, Jeremiah, 107–8, prefers to speak of the poet moving back and forth “between public calamity and personal, grieved reflection”). Although some interpreters understand vv. 23–24 as the people’s prayer phrased in a collective “I” (i.e., “mother Israel”; cf. Fischer, Jeremia, 393), others agree that the last verses of chap. 10 contain a prayer of Jeremiah (cf. McKane, Jeremiah, 1–25, 233).

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

349

the shepherds are stupid, and do not inquire of the Lord; therefore they have not prospered, and all their flock is scattered. Hear, a noise! Listen, it is coming— a great commotion from the land of the north to make the cities of Judah a desolation, a lair of jackals. I know, O Lord, that the way of human beings is not in their control, that mortals as they walk cannot direct their steps. Correct me, O Lord, but in just measure (‫ׁשּפָט‬ ְ ‫;)ּב ִמ‬ ְ not in your anger, or you will bring me to nothing. Pour out your wrath on the nations that do not know you, and on the peoples that do not call on your name; for they have devoured Jacob; they have devoured him and consumed him, and have laid waste his habitation. ( Jer 10:19–25)

The structure and content of this pericope clearly contains some ambiguities; nevertheless, there are, I believe, good reasons to argue that in these verses Jeremiah represents the people before God in prayer. First, considering the strong possibility that Jeremiah’s two subsequent intercessory prayers also contain communal laments (that is, the prophet assumes the pain of the people cf. Jer 14:7–9, 19–22), it appears most plausible to argue that we encounter the same dynamics in Jeremiah 10:19–25. Second, Yhwh prohibits Jeremiah from interceding for the first time in chap. 7:16. The next divine prohibition to intercede appears in 11:14. For the second, almost identically phrased prohibition to make any sense, Jeremiah must have disobeyed the first divine interdict and continued to pray for Israel. I suggest that the second prohibition refers back to Jer 10:19–25. Third, the content and dynamic of these verses, as I shall argue below, suggest that Jeremiah, who prophetically castigates the people for their rebellion against Yhwh, laments and prays here on behalf of the people. In other words, in these verses the twofold prophetic mediatory role (that is, acting as the mouth of God and as the mouth of the people) comes to expression with clarity. McKane recognizes the complexity of the passage but asserts confidently: we can say that only an individual who made the community’s brokenness his own could have spoken like this, and that at this level of appreciation the distinction between the voice of Jeremiah and the voice of the community must disappear . . . Calvin touches on this in his comment on v. 19, “We must then bear in mind that the prophet speaks here not according to feeling which the people had, for they were so stupefied that they felt nothing, but that he speaks of what they ought to have felt.” 59

In other words, it looks as though Jeremiah, like Moses before him, represents the people in prayerful lament when he approaches Yhwh as their representative. The first person singular form is perhaps indicative of the prophet’s identification with his community. 60 Jeremiah seems to identify 59.  McKane, Jeremiah 1–25, 235. 60.  Scharbert (“Die Fürbitte,” 102) points out that the wording of Jeremiah’s intercessory prayer is often in the “we-form” and thus, according to Scharbert, suggests that the prophet understands himself as part of the guilty party (cf. Jer 14:7–9, 19–22). It seems that

350

Chapter 8

with the sinful people to the degree that the prophet assumes before God the reaction that would be expected of the sinful people. As Jeremiah says, “Truly this is my punishment, and I must bear it” ( Jer 10:19). Jeremiah raises his heartfelt cry on behalf of the people in the form of an individual lament. The tone of the prayer already clearly anticipates chaps.  11–20, chapters that are strongly characterized by Jeremiah’s personal and corporate laments. Here, Israel is portrayed as a desolate mother in pain over the loss of her children ( Jer 10:19–20). The prophet is so bound up with the inevitable suffering and despair of Israel that he experiences it not only as his own pain but also as his punishment that he must bear. As McKane observes: there is a sense of “no escape” from this time of suffering and despair . . . and what is then indicated is a tragic acceptance of the inevitable. The sickness of the community is unto death and the prophet feels it as his sickness. There is nothing to be done except to endure it. 61

It goes without saying that from a Christian perspective Jeremiah’s prayer anticipates here a theology of the cross. As we have noted, it is particularly the deuteronomic account of Moses’ intercessory activity in the aftermath of the golden calf incident that portrays Moses as standing in great solidarity with the sinful people. In contrast to the Exodus account, the deuteronomic parallel underlines that Moses spent forty days and nights in fasting before the enraged God because of the people’s sin (Deut 9:18–19). There the extensive fasting is quite likely an act of penitence on behalf of the sinful people. Interestingly, there is no mention of penitence and repentance in Jeremiah 10. These two accounts share, however, the portrayal of a prophetic intercessor that totally identifies with the sinful people. In some sense, both Moses and Jeremiah make the people’s sin their own when they seek to pacify God’s wrath. God’s judgment is ascribed to the fault of an ignorant leadership ( Jer 10:21). The king and the religious leaders have failed to inquire of the Lord. This is perhaps an implicit criticism that the leadership did not consult the Lord’s prophet for direction (cf. Jer 21:1–2). Verse 22 appears to refer back to Jeremiah’s calling ( Jer 1:14) and speaks of a swiftly approaching enemy from the north. As a result, v. 22 functions as a transition from Jeremiah’s lament on behalf of Israel to his intercessory prayer for the people ( Jer 10:23–25). The tone of the prayer changes in v. 23. The lamenting ceases. Jeremiah’s prayer becomes calmer and more deliberate. The prophet’s prayer thus reflects the dynamic flow of many psalms of lament that move from expressing pain, complaint, and fear to voicing concrete petitions. The prophet here in vv. 22–24 there is even an intensification of solidarity as this prayer is not only phrased in the “we-form” but in a collective “I-form.” 61.  McKane, Jeremiah, 231.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

351

turns to God for wisdom. After the first divine prohibition to pray ( Jer 7:16) and the announcement of a forthcoming judgment ( Jer 10:17–18), one would probably expect that Jeremiah’s prayer for the people would take the audacious bargaining tone of Abraham’s prayer (cf. Gen 18:16–33). Instead, the prayer contains an acknowledgement of Israel’s sinful ways and the necessity of divine punishment. Jeremiah seems to downplay human responsibility and acknowledges that the destiny of the people is ultimately in God’s hands. Jeremiah implicitly concedes that the historical process is governed by God only (cf. Prov 16:9). The prophet recognizes that some form of judgment needs to follow. “Correct me . . . but in justice (‫ׁשּפָט‬ ְ ‫;)ּב ִמ‬ ְ not in your anger, or you will bring me to nothing” ( Jer 10:24). Miller sees an irony in this petition for correction. He comments: The irony that the people now ask to be corrected in the light of their regular resistance to correction (see 2:30; 5:3; 7:28; 17:23) should not be missed. While the plea is legitimate, it comes in the face of a judgment that is so overwhelming that correction now looks good. 62

Following my line of thought, however, it is not the people that are coming to their senses in prayer but it is the prophet who prays here on behalf of an ignorant people. Jeremiah acknowledges in prayer the necessity of divine discipline but he also pleads for leniency. Calvin draws attention to a general truth by pointing to the necessity of the people’s repentance as well: “the real character and nature of repentance is, to submit to God’s judgment and to suffer with a resigned mind his chastisement, provided it be paternal.” 63 In other words, the intercessor urges Yhwh not to judge Israel in the heat of His justified wrath or nothing will be left of His people. The text makes a clear distinction between discipline in anger that would destroy the obstinate sinner and a discipline according to justice (‫ׁשּפָט‬ ְ ‫)ּב ִמ‬ ְ that will eventually lead to repentance and renewal. Here divine justice has the connotation of grace and mercy. Jeremiah does not plead for cheap grace. He clearly speaks of Israel’s guilt and its need for discipline, but he prays for a calm and well reflected judgment that would not endanger the future of the people of God (“. . . lest you would bring everything to nothing,” Jer 10:24; cf. Ps. 6:1). When Yhwh’s anger burns hot in the immediate aftermath of the calf apostasy, Moses also sought to pacify God: O Lord, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt. . . . Turn from your fierce wrath; change your mind and do not bring disaster on your people. (Exod 32:11–12)

In both cases, the intercessors seek to appease Yhwh’s justified wrath and appeal for moderate judgment. Moses prays for a change of God’s mind and that He would not destroy His people. In both cases, the intercessors 62.  Miller, Jeremiah, 664. 63.  Calvin, Jeremiah, 10:24.

352

Chapter 8

implicitly appeal for the preservation of the covenant. Much later, Jeremiah’s prayer, though first denied ( Jer 11:14), finds the assurance that God will protect the covenant relationship. Nevertheless, there will be a punishment. Mercy and judgment stand side by side (cf. Exod 34:6–7): For I am with you, says the Lord, to save you; I will make an end of all the nations among which I scattered you, but of you I will not make an end. I will chastise you in just measure (‫ׁשּפָט‬ ְ ‫)ל ִַּמ‬, and I will by no means leave you unpunished. ( Jer 30:11)

Jeremiah’s intercession concludes not with a prayer for Israel, but against the nations ( Jer 10:25). In doing so, the prayer takes up one of the Leitwörter of this chapter (cf. Jer 10:2–3, 7, 10). Though the force of Jeremiah’s imprecation comes somewhat as a surprise, the logic of the prayer seems to suggest that Yhwh should vent His wrath not on Israel, but on the nations. 64 At this stage, we note two things. First, the prophet provides a threefold reason for his harsh petitions against the idolatrous nations. The nations have “devoured Jacob, they have consumed him, and they have laid waste his habitation” ( Jer 10:25). They have made themselves guilty by acting disproportionally harshly. Yhwh may use the nations as instruments of divine wrath, but their brutality knew no limits as some of the psalms of lament from that time graphically describe (cf. Pss 79:6–7, 137). 65 As so often with the authentic prophetic intercessor, Jeremiah’s anger conforms to Yhwh’s wrath (cf. Jer 9:24, 25:12–38, 30:16). Later, one reads that divine judgment against the nations is implemented (cf. Jer 25, 46– 51). Second, it comes somewhat as a relief that Jer 11:14 seems to say that such a prayer has no binding effect on God: “for I will not listen when they call to me in the time of their trouble.” 66 In fact, later in a letter to the exiles, Jeremiah instructs them to pray for Babylon! In other words, Israel is to pray for the enemies and to seek their shalom (cf. Jer 29:7). This summons stands obviously in tension with Jeremiah’s imprecatory prayer against the nation here. We shall look in detail at the dynamics and the nature of Jeremiah’s imprecatory prayers later in this chapter. If this interpretation of these verses as the prophet’s intercessory prayer on behalf of Israel is along the right lines, then this prayer portrays Jeremiah as an intercessor who shows more than solidarity with the sinful people. He is someone who identified with the people’s sins to the degree that he made their sinful ways his prayer. Second Prohibition to Intercede (Jeremiah 11:14) Jeremiah’s prayer ( Jer 10:19–25) is immediately followed by a divine response ( Jer 11:11–14). It is in the context of a prolonged divine human 64.  The setting of the prayer appears to be after the destruction of Jerusalem. According to v. 25b, the nations have already destroyed Jacob. 65.  Since the Christian persecution of the Jews in the middle ages, Jer 10:25 has been recited during the Passover Seder as an expression of hope for divine justice in the world. 66.  Miller, They Cried, 168.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

353

dialogue concerning Judah’s breach of covenant that we encounter anew Yhwh’s prohibition to the prophet to intercede for the people: Do not pray for this people, or lift up a cry or prayer on their behalf, for I will not listen when they call to me in the time of their trouble ( Jer 11:14).

The theologically difficult charge not to intercede as it was already voiced in 7:16 is repeated in near-verbatim fashion. Besides the divine prohibition to pray for the people, there are several other verbal and conceptual parallels between chaps.  7 and 11. Both chapters are introduced in the same way: “The word that came to Jeremiah from Yhwh” ( Jer 7:1, 11:1). The chapters speak of the people’s misguided belief that vows and sacrifices can avert their guilt in spite of persistent evil conduct ( Jer 11:15; cf. 7:1–15, 21– 23). Related to this is the common theme of “crying for help and not being heard” (cf. Jer 7:13–14, 11:11–14). Both chapters are saying clearly that Israel’s conduct will determine whether Yhwh will listen to their prayers or not. In contrast to the chapter of Jeremiah’s temple sermon, here we can see insightfully how the prophet’s sermon is being born in the ongoing dialogue with his God (cf. Jer 11:5­–6, 9). 67 Verse 14 testifies to how passionately Jeremiah was involved in this dialogue. After all, the prophet is not just receptor of divine instructions, but also advocate of the people. Once again, however, Jeremiah is being told to stop interceding for the people.

“They Have Broken the Covenant” (Jeremiah 11:1–17) The immediate literary context of the second divine prohibition to pray is a prose account of Israel’s covenant relationship with Yhwh. Only here it is explicitly said that Israel has broken the covenant ( Jer 11:10). Thus, the underlying question pertains to God. Has Yhwh also given up on the covenant relationship? To answer this question, the reader has to wait for 20 chapters before one finds concrete signs of hope in the well-known references to the new and everlasting covenant ( Jer 31:31–34, 32:40). Besides chap. 31, chap. 11 is perhaps the main covenantal text of the book of Jeremiah. 68 The divine “no” to Jeremiah’s prayer is preceded by three sections that all share a similar theme: The prophetic call to obey “the words of this covenant” ( Jer 11:1–5, 6–8, 9–13). 69 Thus, the approaching disaster and exile are due not to divine arbitrariness but to the consequences of a well-­ documented breach of covenant loyalty. Verses 1–5 confirm that the covenant in question is the Sinaitic covenant that was established at the Mount of God (cf. Exod 19–24, Deut 5). Jeremiah is to reiterate to the people the outcome of breaching the covenant. “Cursed (‫ )אָרּור‬be anyone who does 67.  Schneider, Der Prophet Jeremia, 100. 68.  Fischer, Jeremia, 425. 69.  All three sections begin with a reference to the Lord speaking to Jeremiah (cf. Jer 11:1, 6, 9). The first five verses are Yhwh’s words directed to Jeremiah personally, while the second and third section are a divine word to the prophet to convey to Judah.

354

Chapter 8

not heed the words of this covenant” ( Jer 11:3). Here, the close association of the books of Jeremiah and Deuteronomy is strongly felt. 70 The extensive curse sections in Deuteronomy are structured around the words “Cursed be” (‫ )אָרּור‬and the people’s confirming “amen” (cf. Deut 28:15–29:28). This is precisely what Jeremiah affirms at the end of Yhwh’s first address: Listen to my voice, and do all that I command you. So shall you be my people, and I will be your God that I may perform the oath that I swore to your ancestors, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey, as at this day. Then I answered, “So be it, Lord.” (‫וָאֹמַר ָאמֵן יְהוָה‬, Jer 11:4–5)

Just like Moses stood before God on the Mount, so also does Jeremiah now stand before God. Just like Moses, Jeremiah acknowledges the people’s covenant obligations and his own twofold prophetic duty to call the people back to Torah obedience and to intercede for them (Deuteronomy 9–10). Verses 6–8 contain Jeremiah’s commissioning to preach the words of the covenant to the inhabitants of Judah. As is common in Hebrew thinking, the past events are called to memory in order to learn a vital lesson for the present. Israel has a long history of failing to listen to Yhwh. From the time of the exodus to the day of Jeremiah, God has been patiently and graciously warning Israel through His servants. Just like the stubborn Sinai generation was once sentenced to 40 years of “exile” in the wilderness because they did not listen to Yhwh’s voice, so once again exile is looming over the current stubborn generation because of disobedience (‫ש ְמעּו‬ ָׁ ‫ְולֹא‬ ִׁ Jer 11:7). ‫קֹולי‬ ִ ‫ּב‬, ְ Num 14:22; ‫קֹולי‬ ִ ‫ש ְמעּו ְּב‬, In the final section before Yhwh’s renewed prohibition to intercede, Yhwh speaks a third time to Jeremiah ( Jer 11:9–14). It is clear that the sins of the fathers have caught up with the contemporaries of Jeremiah. The prophet is commissioned to charge Israel with “conspiracy” (‫ׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ ֶק‬, Jer 11:9). 71 The nature of the conspiracy is further spelled out in the following verses. Judah recounts the sins of their fathers who refused to heed God’s word and yet again committed the cardinal sin of serving/worshiping other gods. In doing so they broke the first and fundamental commandment of the covenant: complete and uncompromising allegiance to Yhwh (‫ֵהפֵרּו אֶת־‬ ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ּבִר‬, ְ Jer 11:10; cf. Exod 20:1, Deut 5:7). It is then in v. 14 that we encounter Yhwh’s reminder that Jeremiah is not to cry out or offer any prayers on behalf of Israel. 72 Having looked at the context, it is clear that Yhwh’s renewed prohibition to intercede in 70.  Many commentators link this text with king Josiah’s covenantal reform (cf. 2 Kgs 22–23). The issue of historical connections, however, is complex and unsettled. Cf. Harold H. Rowley, “The Prophet Jeremiah and the Book of Deuteronomy,” in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950) 157–74; and McKane, Jeremiah, lxxxviii–xcii. 71.  The metaphor “conspiracy” is taken from the political treaty model between suzerain and vassal. Just like a disloyal vassal rebels against its overlord by siding with the enemy, so Judah provoked the anger of Yhwh, by changing allegiance to other gods. 72.  See comments on Jer 7:16. Note that ‫ַע־ּבי‬ ִ ‫ַל־ּת ְפּג‬ ִ ‫“( ְוא‬do not intercede/push me on behalf”) is not repeated in Yhwh’s second prohibition.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

355

v. 14 does not come out of a vacuum. It was to be expected. It comes as a divine reenforcement to Yhwh’s resolve not to listen to any of their cries for help ( Jer 11:14; cf. 11:11). The theme of crying and not listening (‫זעק‬, ‫קרא‬, ‫ )ׁשמע‬and God’s forthcoming disaster (‫)רעָה‬ ָ run through these verses. Therefore, thus says the Lord, assuredly I am going to bring disaster (‫)רעָה‬ ָ upon them that they cannot escape; though they cry out to me, I will not listen to them (‫אלֵיהֶם‬ ֲ ‫ֶשמַע‬ ְׁ ‫)וזָעֲקּו ֵאלַי ְולֹא א‬. ְ Then the cities of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem will go and cry out to the gods (‫)וזָעֲקּו אֶל־ ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬ ְ to whom they make offerings but they will never save them in their time of trouble (‫ָתם‬ ָ ‫)ּבעֵת ָרע‬. ְ . . . As for you, do not pray for this people, or lift up a cry or prayer on their behalf, for I will not listen when they call to me (‫ִכּי‬ ‫ )אֵינֶּנִי ׁש ֹמ ֵַע ְּבעֵת ָק ְראָם ֵאלַי‬in the time of their trouble. (‫ָתם‬ ָ ‫ּבעֵת ָרע‬, ְ Jer 11:11–14)

As agreed, the consequences of a breached covenant are judgment ( Jer 11:1–5). And when the hardship leads to renewed prayer to God (“when they cry out to Yhwh,” Jer 11:11), the Lord will not listen (just as Israel did not listen, Jer 7:13–16). As Miller has helpfully documented, the cry motif is prevalent throughout the Old Testament (cf. Exod 2:23–24, Deut 26:6­–8, Ps 107). It arises not only out of trouble and suffering, but it also presupposes that God hears and can help. 73 Jer 11:12–14, however, comes as a kind of qualification to the notion that Yhwh will always listen to the cry of His people. Prayer and its divine hearing is conditioned by one’s standing with God (cf. Matt 5:23–24, Jas 5:16). Carroll comments: “The community which serves other gods puts itself beyond the reach of prayer.” 74 On the one hand, it looks very much as if under the current circumstances prayers will have no effect on God. Even Jeremiah’s intercession will be of no avail. On the other hand, the question remains as to why Yhwh needs to reinforce His prohibition on intercessory prayer. Is there not a sense that God needs to put a ban on Jeremiah’s prayer, precisely because prophetic intercession is highly effective?

The Power of Prophetic Intercession It is of course not the first time that Israel has severely breached their covenant with God. Perhaps of particular interest would be a brief comparison with Exodus 32–34 (cf. Deuteronomy 9–10). In Exodus 32, the erection and worship of the golden calf seriously endanger the covenant relationship. At the sight of the golden calf image Yhwh intends to bring a disaster (‫)רעָה‬ ָ on the sinful people and, not unlike what happens in Jer 7:16 and 11:14, Yhwh urges Moses to leave Him alone so that He can execute the intended judgment (Exod 32:10, Deut 9:14). Having been told in the clearest possible way not to interfere with Yhwh’s decision, Moses not only disobeys and challenges the divine injunction, but he also asks Yhwh to turn from His burning anger and change His destructive intentions 73.  Miller, They Cried, 45, 269. 74.  Carroll, Jeremiah, 271.

356

Chapter 8

(Exod 32:12). 75 Moses succeeds in preventing Yhwh from destroying the entire people (though 3000 Israelites were judged on the spot). Exod 32:14 explicitly speaks of a change of God’s mind (‫ )נחם‬and after further insistent prayer Yhwh renews the broken covenant relationship (Exod 34:8–10). The Exodus account records not less than four prayers of great commitment and persuasive power, while the deuteronomic parallel account highlights the demanding nature of Moses’ intercessory activity by telling us that Moses spent 40 days fasting and praying for the sinful party (Deut 9:18). The Sinai covenant was not easily restored. This brief comparison with Moses’ intercessory ministry provides an explanation as to why Jeremiah pushes ahead in prayer for Israel in spite of Yhwh’s prohibition to intercede (cf. Jer 14:7–9). It is noteworthy, however, that in the case of the golden calf apostasy there is only one divine interdict to intercede (Exod 32:10), 76 while in the book of Jeremiah this is already the second out of three explicit prohibitions to pray ( Jer 7:16, 11:14, 14:11; cf. 15:1). This fact, combined with Yhwh’s insistent resolution: “I am going to bring disaster (‫)רעָה‬ ָ upon them that they cannot escape; though they cry out to me, I will not listen to them” ( Jer 11:11), suggests that the divine patience is reaching its limit. Not only is Exodus 32–34 in the conceptual background of Jer 11:1–14, but so too is Numbers 13–14. In the scout narrative, Yhwh’s patience was also stretched to the limit. Has God not worked miracle after miracle in order to sustain and protect Israel in the wilderness (Exodus 16, 17, Numbers 11–14)? But the people would neither listen to God nor put their trust in Him. Persistent murmuring, disobedience, and lack of trust eventually provoked Yhwh’s anger in Kadesh. Although Moses’ intercession would secure the covenant relationship with God, the disobedient generation was denied entry into the promised land (Num 14:10­–38). This people was sentenced to 40 years in the wilderness. Similarly, it seems that in Jeremiah’s days Israel’s persistent wickedness has gone on for too long for the prophet’s prayers to attain pardon. Judgment is inevitable. Miller writes: There comes a time . . . when the resistance is such that it is no longer possible to hold back the judgment. In the vision reports of Amos 7–8, twice the prophet intercedes and the Lord relents. But the last two visions of judgment do not elicit a plea from the prophet. When things have gotten so bad in the human community, when the structure of the relationship embodied in the metaphor of covenant is broken, it may no longer be capable of repair. So the prayers are not heard by God. 77

In Jer 11:15–17, Yhwh not only substantiates the reason for the prohibition to pray, but also resumes one of the main themes of Jeremiah’s temple 75.  Widmer, Moses, 94–103. 76.  In my reading of Deut 9:14 I discuss the complexity of Yhwh’s command to Moses to leave Him alone. 77.  Miller, Jeremiah, 670.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

357

sermon, namely, that the temple will not provide any protection, nor will any amount of sacrifices or religious activities make up for Israel’s social injustice and idolatry. Having said this, these verses also contain a divine lament and, as such they witness to the pathos of God. Judah’s judgment clearly does not come easily to God. Yhwh still refers to the sinful people as “my beloved.” In other words, the text gives expression to both divine anger and divine love. Yhwh’s prohibition to intercede stands between these somewhat ambiguous divine emotions: On the one hand, God loves His people, and on the other hand, they need divine discipline. Tiemeyer concludes: This display of God’s conflicting feelings makes it again unlikely that his ban against intercession is a mere statement of its futility. On the contrary, it is God’s (only) way of making sure that nothing can come between him and his destructive plan. 78

Jeremiah’s Imprecatory Laments and God’s Response Chapters 11–20 witness to the highly demanding role of the prophet. A series of accounts reveal Jeremiah’s tormented life of prayer in vivid detail. These chapters are also known as Jeremiah’s lamentations or confessions (cf. Jer 11:18–12:6, 15:10–21, 17:14–18, 18:18–23, 20:7–18). They witness not only to his frustration and anger against a stubborn and hostile people, but also against God who makes him carry out such a difficult task. The prophet discerns that the insistent will of God is that Jerusalem will be destroyed. This is a hard message for him to pass on, not least because his message of doom regarding the false temple ideology causes strong opposition. In the following verses and chapters, one gets a sense that Jeremiah has powerful enemies. The people of his home town Anathoth want to silence his attacks on Judah’s two-faced religious life ( Jer 11:18­–19). In other words, on the one hand, Jeremiah suffers at the hands of his people who persecute him for his unpopular prophetic warnings, and on the other hand, Jeremiah grieves over the coming misfortune of the people in faithful intercession. On top of this, the prophet wrestles with God over his calling, his role, and the divine will. Jeremiah’s exceedingly difficult ministry context finds expression in a number of stormy conversations with Yhwh. Like the psalms of lament, Jeremiah’s prayers are intense and uncompromising in their voicing of complaints against God and his fellow Israelites. In many ways, they are models for unrestrained honesty that is characteristic of genuine prayer. In fact, one important feature of Jeremiah’s prayers as they are presented in chaps. 11–20 is that they are almost all followed by a divine response. This structural presentation comes not only as a 78.  Tiemeyer, “God’s Hidden,” 206.

358

Chapter 8

stark reminder­that prayer is essentially a dialogue but also that Jeremiah’s prayers ought to be read in conjunction with the divine response. 79 Within the context of the “Confessions” that give particular expression to Jeremiah’s mental and physical hardship, we encounter a number of prayers on the lips of Jeremiah that contain not only laments and accusations against God but also calls for vengeance on his human opponents. These prayers escalate from brief cries for revenge such as “let me see your retribution upon them” ( Jer 11:20, 15:15, 17:18) to long vehement curses (cf. Jer 18:21–23). These prayers seem to give voice to the hatred of the prophet without shame and restrictions. Jeremiah’s prayers against his enemies stand in the same tradition as the imprecatory psalms. These prayers for revenge confuse the reader of the book of Jeremiah. Avioz raises the question, “How can we reconcile these prayers for vengeance with Jeremiah’s own testimony that he had prayed to God for the sake of Israel (cf. Jer 15:11, 18:20)?” 80 Moreover, for modern ears, these cries for vengeance and destruction are difficult to understand, if not an embarrassment for faith communities. Before we attempt to understand Jeremiah’s imprecatory prayers against the wider teaching of the Christian canon, we might ask ourselves whether Old Testament piety may have opened up such emotions or even made them necessary under certain circumstances. Only in doing so are we in a position to form an opinion as to whether these prayers of retribution still hold any spiritual significance and authority for the believer today. In the following sections, we will look closer at a selection of three of Jeremiah’s prayers that include laments and pleas for vengeance against his opponents (that is, Jer 11:18–20, 15:10, 15–18, 18:18–23) and God’s response that follows these prayers (cf. Jer 11:21–23, 12:5–17, 15:19–21). “Let Me See Your Vengeance”: Appeal to the Divine Judge (Jeremiah 11:18–23) Jeremiah’s first prayer against his enemies is recorded at the beginning of the “Confessions.” The immediate context and concern of the prayer is Jeremiah’s hostile home town Anathoth. His fellow people seek to silence the prophet’s sermons against Judah’s hypocrisy ( Jer 11:15­–19). The basic structure of Jeremiah’s first prayer unit consists of an imprecatory lament by the prophet ( Jer 11:18–20) and a response by God ( Jer 11:21–23). As mentioned, Jeremiah’s prayers strongly resemble the psalms of lament in tone and wording. They also often follow the same basic structure of complaint (cf. Jer 11:18–19), petition (v. 20), and divine response (vv. 21–23). Moreover, as we shall see these prayer dialogues often reflect 79.  Sheldon H. Blank, “The Confession of Jeremiah and the Meaning of Prayer,” HUCA 21 (1948) 331–33. 80. Michael Avioz, “The Call for Revenge in Jeremiah’s Complaints ( Jer XI–XX),” VT 55 (2005) 430.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

359

law court imagery. Blank helpfully outlines an analogy between the law court and Jeremiah’s prayer dialogues. In the confessions we observe a man claiming the right to appear before a higher authority and present his case. We see this man in that presence condemning his adversaries and protesting his innocence. He pleads and challenges, and demands justice. Then he appears to await the verdict, which, for the most part, is forthcoming. . . . Not the form of the confessions only, but the language also suggests the law-court. Jeremiah addresses God as a ‫—שופט צדיק‬a righteous judge. He refers to his affair as a ‫—ריב‬a case at law. He refers to his adversaries not merely as his persecutors (‫ ;רדפי‬cf. 15:15; 17:18) but more pointedly as his antagonists, here employing the word ‫( יריבי‬18:19) which has unmistakably juridical connotations, . . . Jeremiah in his prayer appears as the defendant. And he argues his own case before God even as he does before the princes and people when defending against the accusation of sedition in 26:12– 15. Perhaps the clearest analogy is with the situation described in Deut 19:16–19a.—the procedure in a case where a man is called upon to defend himself in court against the accusations of false witnesses. Just as there the penalty which would have met the accused had the case gone against him, so in the confession in Chapter 11 God the judge decrees death for the men of Anathoth who with their accusations were contriving the death of Jeremiah. 81

As we look at Jeremiah’s prayers, we shall see that these analogies between the confessions and the law court are indeed illuminating. Blank, himself, however, admits to the limits of the court analogies. The setting of Jeremiah’s prayers is not an actual human law court. These are prayer dialogues informed by court language and concepts. 82 We are told that Jeremiah’s fellow inhabitants of his home-town Anathoth plot to kill him (cf. Jer 1:1, 11:21). Plots against the prophet are a common theme that recurs in chaps.  18, 26, and 36. Fellow Israelites, friends, and family that turn into enemies are a common scenario in the psalms of lament and are a sign of the breakdown of God’s people. 83 But the Lord has revealed the evil scheme to His prophet. It was the Lord who made it known to me, and I knew; then you showed me their evil deeds. But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter. And I did not know it was against me that they devised schemes, saying, “Let us destroy the tree with its fruit, let us cut him off from the land of the living, so that his name will no longer be remembered!” But you, O Lord of hosts, who judge righteously, who try the heart and the mind, let me 81.  Blank, “The Confessions,” 332. 82.  Ibid., 332–33. Greenberg (Prose Prayer, 20–45) develops the thesis that Israel’s prayer practice has been informed and shaped by numerous human speech patterns (e.g., respectful address, petitionary statement with confession and motivation, and so on) and social interaction (e.g., the law court). He calls it “patterned prayer speech.” 83.  Cf. Psalms 69, 73.

360

Chapter 8

see your retribution upon them (‫ָתךָ ֵמהֶם‬ ְ ‫ִקמ‬ ְ ‫ֶראֶה נ‬ ְ ‫)א‬, for to you I have committed my cause. ( Jer 11:18­–20) 84

Ever since Noah and Abraham (cf. Gen 6:13–14, 18:17), God has been informing His servants in advance of forthcoming danger and judgment (cf. Amos 3:7). Being made privy to Yhwh’s plans brings the prophetic responsibility of interpreting God’s will and then to take appropriate action in making it known to the people and praying about it. Here, however, Yhwh informs His prophet primarily to warn him and thereby to keep His promise to be with His servant and to deliver him from danger (cf. Jer 1:8). The fact that Yhwh informs His servant first about the conspiracy and not vice versa is important for pointing out the limits of the law court imagery. Unlike a human judge, the divine judge is aware in advance of the evil sceeming against His prophet before Jeremiah brings his prayer before the Lord ( Jer 11:18–20). “It was the Lord who made it known to me . . . you showed me their evil deeds” ( Jer 11:18). In other words, Jeremiah is not presenting new information to God, as though he were providing new evidence in court, but rather the prophet seems more concerned to remind God of what He already knows (cf. Jer 12:3, 17:16, 18:20). It is probably at this point that the court imagery should not be pushed too far. After all, we are dealing in this case not with a human court procedure, but with a prayer appeal to the judge of all the earth. Here we encounter a tension that is intrinsic to biblical prayer: we present our petitions to an omniscient God (cf. Matt 6:8). Jeremiah’s prayer confirms once again that petitionary prayer does not so much seek to inform as to persuade God on the basis of revealed truth. When Yhwh informs His prophet of the evil plot, it comes as a surprise to Jeremiah. In language reminiscient of the Isaianic servant, Jeremiah perceives himself as a “gentle lamb led to the slaughter,” “cut off from the land of the living” ( Jer 11:18–20; cf. Isa 53:7–8). We have seen that this image in Isaiah 53 gives expression to the servant’s “willing” submission, whereas here it is rather an expression of evil surprise (“I did not know it was against me”). Although they both suffer innocently at the hands of evil men, Jeremiah does not understand his suffering in any way as vicarious. 85 As we shall see, like many psalmists, Jeremiah prays for the retribution of his enemies (cf. Jer 11:20). Here also, Jeremiah and the servant differ. The latter intercedes for the transgressors, bearing their sins (Isa 53:12), while Jeremiah prays that Yhwh will bring about judgment. At first sight, it might appear as though Jeremiah seeks to portray a sorry picture of himself (“like a gentle lamb that is not aware of its fate”), in order­ 84.  The motif of praying for divine vengeance can be identified by the root ‫( נקם‬usually rendered “revenge”). Cf. Jer 11:20, 15:15, 20:12. The same motif appears in other prayers as well without using the same terminology. Cf. Jer 12:3, 17:18, 18:21–23. 85.  Fretheim, Jeremiah, 190.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

361

to mobilize God’s compassion and move him to action (cf. Jer 11:18). 86 Although this is a common motif in numerous psalms of lament, it seems more likely that Jeremiah seeks to present his case here in a manner that is appealing to a righteous judge from whom no secrets are hidden ( Jer 11:20). By juxtaposing his innocence, faithfulness, and trust (“to you I have committed my cause”) with the enemy’s injustice and unrighteousness (“evil deeds”), the prophet seeks to establish a case in his favor and gives God reason to act as a righteous judge. 87 An important theme of this book is that many of the Old Testament intercessors appeal to the nature of God as revealed to Moses in Exod 34:6–7. Here in Jer 11:20, the prophet appeals not to divine mercy and grace but to God’s justice and righteousness (cf. Gen 18:25). 88 Yhwh is entreated in His role as righteous judge (‫ )ׁשֹופֵט צ ִַדּיק‬and as such He thus has a duty to intervene on behalf of the innocent. Jeremiah is not shy in evoking Yhwh as the one who tests and knows the true motives of people. In doing so, Jeremiah presents himself not only as an innocent victim who was not aware of the conspiracy, but also as a righteous man who has committed his cause to Yhwh and has nothing to hide before the divine judge. Protestation of innocence by the petitioner is a fairly common feature in the psalms. “Hear a just cause, O Lord.” The following verses of Psalm 17 sound like Jer 11:19 and 12:3 “If you try my heart . . . if you test me, you will find no wickedness in me” (Ps 17:3–5). When Jeremiah or the psalmists understand themselves to be innocent and righteous, we hear not the voice of the rigidly self-righteous but that of the Old Testament believer who suffers for Yhwh’s sake and who gratefully takes the gift of righteousness bestowed by God through the priest. Thus, if Jeremiah or the psalmist speaks of human righteousness, it is a mixture of Israel’s achieved holiness through keeping the law and God’s undeserved and unearned gift. It is both a gift and a commandment. 89 So when Jeremiah commits his conscience to Yhwh by praying: “O Lord, know me; You see me and test me—my heart is with you” ( Jer 12:3; cf. Ps 69:6), it is not so much a confession but a protestation of his innocence. A prayer that is probably designed to justify Yhwh’s protecting intervention (cf. Ps 139:1b–24). As the innocent, wronged righteous sufferer­, 86. Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (vol. 1; New York: Abingdon, 1962) 204: “it (lament) seeks to rouse the pity of Yahweh, and thereby make him interfere and help.” 87.  Patrick D. Miller, “Prayer as Persuasion: The Rhetoric and Intention of Prayer,” in Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays ( JSOTSup 267; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000) 338. The plea for divine justice and Yhwh’s intervention against the enemies is a common theme in the psalms of lament (e.g., Psalms 22, 69). 88.  See the following psalms in which God is evoked on the grounds of His justice and righteousness: Pss 5:12; 31:1; 35:24; 71:2; 143:1, 11. 89.  Cf. Walter Zimmerli, Old Testament Theology in Outline (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994) 142–44.

362

Chapter 8

Jeremiah expects Yhwh to intervene and vindicate him (“let me see your retribution”). In other words, what may have looked initially like a cry for personal vengeance is actually an appeal for divine justice against the injustice in the situation. Brueggemann draws out the court imagery well: The petition addressed to Yahweh seeks positively for acquittal and negatively for a countersuit against the offender. When the juridical language is recognized, the plea for “vengeance” is not a request for blind capricious retaliation, but for the implementation of a just legal claim and Yahweh’s justice. . . . This is the court petition of one unjustly treated, addressed to a reliable judge against the unjust perpetrators. 90

Because Jeremiah’s appeal to divine justice is based not only on a core divine attribute but also on God’s promise to deliver the prophet, it is likely that Jeremiah receives a fair hearing. Divine Response (Jeremiah 11:21–23) It is noteworthy that God responds directly to Jeremiah’s prayer, a clear indicator that the heavenly court has acknowledged the case. The divine response is introduced with a “therefore” (‫) ָלכֵן‬. This is a common Hebrew pattern of speech that indicates often, as in this case, that the following divine verdict comes as a direct response to Jeremiah’s prayer. Yhwh will visit the inhabitants of Anathoth in severe judgment (by sword and famine, Jer 11:22–23). In other words, the heavenly judge has acknowledged the guilt of the offenders. There is no direct evidence of the implementation of the sentence, but it is clear that Jeremiah is vindicated before the heavenly court. 91 However, the subsequent dialogue between Jeremiah and God indicates that the prophet still has some concerns ( Jer 12:1–6). There are numerous literary and conceptual connections with Jer 11:18–23 that strongly suggest that the two passages belong together. In the first four verses, Jeremiah continues to seek retribution against his opponents. Is Jeremiah not content with Yhwh’s verdict? You will be in the right, O Lord, when I lay charges against you; but let me put my case to you. Why does the way of the guilty prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive? ( Jer 12:1)

In a memorable way, Jeremiah reopens the case (cf. Gen 18:25). The prophet acknowledges that the righteous judge will do what is right and yet the reader detects in the twofold “why question” an implicit accusation against the heavenly court (“Why does the wicked prosper?” Cf. Ps 73:2–12). Is this question perhaps an indicator that Jeremiah did not see the divine verdict from 11:21–23 implemented? In any case, in v. 3, the prophet takes up the same verb and idea as in 11:20: 90.  Brueggemann, Jeremiah, 116. 91.  Ibid., 117.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

363

But you, O Lord, know me; You see me and test me—my heart is with you. Pull them out like sheep for the slaughter, and set them apart for the day of slaughter. ( Jer 12:3)

In lex talion manner, Jeremiah expresses his wish that their intentions will be held against them. The combination of petition against one’s enemies and the appeal to search the heart of the supplicant should be kept in mind as we shall attempt to understand Jeremiah’s prayer of retribution against the wider Old Testament background and the Christian canon. Following the canonical sequence, however, I shall first examine two more of Jeremiah’s intercessory prayers. Although Yhwh’s verdict to send the house of Judah into exile (“pluck them up”), is considerably softened by God’s promise to have compassion on them and return them to their land ( Jer 12:15). This comes as another confirmation that wrath and judgment are never Yhwh’s final word to His covenant people. It is signs of divine grace and mercy such as these that must have spurred Jeremiah on in his intercessory attempts. As a severe drought grips the land, the prophet continues to pray for the people ( Jer 14:1–22).

Jeremiah’s Intercessory Prayers “Nowhere in the book of Jeremiah is the intercessory function of the prophet’s office better attested than here.” 92 So states Polk with regard to Jer 14:1–15:9. There is no doubt that this whole section revolves around two prayers rich in theology. These prayers address the ongoing painful question of whether God is going to visit His people in definite judgment or in mercy. Running through the entire section is the tension of whether Jeremiah, like Moses before him, manages to pacify Yhwh’s wrath and sway the judgment in favor for Israel. Jer 14:1–15:9 consists of several related parts, which are about Judah’s sin, Jeremiah’s prophetic role among the people, and Yhwh’s judgment. Verses 1–10 describe a drought (vv. 1–6) followed by a prayer of lamentation (vv. 7–9) and divine response (v. 10). This is followed by a dialogue between Yhwh and Jeremiah, containing a third prohibition to intercede ( Jer 14:11) and a controversy over the (false) prophets (vv. 12–16). Subsequent verses entail a divine lament (vv. 17–18) that is accompanied by an intercessory prayer (vv. 19–22). Chapter 15 commences with Yhwh’s response to Jeremiah’s prayer and a lament over Judah’s sin ( Jer 15:1–9). It shall become evident that these sections seek to explore the nature of Judah’s fate and Jeremiah’s role as God’s spokesmen and intercessor in the face of a severe drought and false prophets. The major concern of the text is probably to demonstrate that Judah’s sin is beyond the reach of Jeremiah’s intercessory prayer (cf. Jer 14:11, 15:1). If so, this section in some sense 92. Timothy Polk, The Prophetic Persona: Jeremiah and the Language of the Self ( JSOTSup 32; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1985) 75.

364

Chapter 8

reinforces­what has already been said in our commentary on chaps. 11 and continues to testify to the drama between God and his prophets. 93 Twice already Jeremiah has been prohibited to intercede. Nevertheless, God keeps on signaling to Jeremiah that He is emotionally attached and committed to His house and beloved (cf. Jer 12:7, 15). Thus, the prophet continues to probe the grace and mercy of God with amazing faithfulness in advocating on behalf of the people. In other words, Jer 14:1–15:9 testifies to the complex nexus of a God of grace and justice, a rebellious people, God’s overruling purposes for Israel, and the intercessory efforts of His chosen prophet. Drought in Judah and Confessionary Petition (Jeremiah 14:1–6) The word of the Lord that came to Jeremiah concerning the drought: Judah mourns. ( Jer 14:1)

The first verse of this section is important for two reasons. It sets the theme and context for the entire section, and it makes clear that it is God who talks to Jeremiah. Yhwh very graphically describes a severe national drought to His prophet, one that endangers the livelihood of people and animals in Judah ( Jer 14:2–6). The reason for the drought has already been given: Israel’s stubborn and rebellious hearts have closed the heavens. Persistent sinning forecloses God’s manifold blessings and affects the entire creation (cf. Jer 14:5–6). Like in the times of Elijah, Yhwh has closed the heavens. Neither rain nor prayers can penetrate the heavenly firmament. It is thus quite likely that the severe shortage of water gave rise to the following prayer. 94 Verse 7 marks a transition from Yhwh’s description of the drought to a petitionary lament to act (vv. 7–9). The dialogue changes from Yhwh’s words to a response phrased in the plural (“our iniquities testify against us”). The response contains a remarkable confession of sin, combined with a number of challenging “why questions,” as one finds them in the lament tradition. The first question that has to be addressed is who is responding to God here? Are we dealing here with Israel’s lament, as some scholars suggest, or with Jeremiah’s prayer on behalf of the sinful people? Brueggemann, for example, ascribes this prayer to Judah. “According to this prayer, Judah is willing to accept that drought comes from sin.” 95 Fretheim, in contrast, argues that it is still God speaking in vv. 7–9. He holds that it is the people’s prayer quoted by God to Jeremiah. “That God quotes the people’s prayers is a witness that God has indeed heard them and passes them on to the prophet.” 96 What are we to make of these suggestions? 93. Jeremiah 13 contains four loosely related sections that all have one theme in common: Israel has become incapable of changing their sinful ways, and thus judgment seems inevitable (cf. Jer 13:9–10, 14, 17, 23–24). 94. Cf. Reventlow, Gebet, 251. 95.  Brueggemann, Jeremiah, 135. 96.  Fretheim, Jeremiah, 219.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

365

Although there is no clear textual marker in v. 7 to indicate the beginning of the prayer, there are a number of other indications that suggest we are dealing in Jer 14:7–9 with Jeremiah’s prayer. (1) In both vv. 1 and 10, we find an introduction to Yhwh’s speech (“Thus, says the Lord concerning this people,” v. 10). It seems most natural to read v. 10 as a response to the prophet’s prayer for the people (that is, Jer 14:7–9). This is further supported by v. 11, where Yhwh tells Jeremiah anew to cease his intercession for the people. The most natural reading of Yhwh’s prohibition would be as a direct response to Jeremiah’s prayer. Indeed we have observed the same dialogical pattern in chap. 11:19–20. The prophet’s prayer is immediately followed by Yhwh’s response (cf. Jer 11: 21–23). 97 (2) With regard to the plural form, we have already observed and argued, in the context of Moses’ prayer for Israel in Exod 34:9, that Israel’s covenant mediators sometimes include themselves in a communal confession of sin and thereby phrase their prayers in the plural form. Just like in the prayer in Jer 14:19–22, it is most likely that the prophet identifies himself in vv. 7–9 with his people. 98 As a fellow Israelite, the prophet shares in the collective guilt to some degree. Although Jeremiah prayed against the inhabitants of Anathoth who conspired against him ( Jer 11:19–12:4), he does not detach himself from Israel as a whole; rather, he identifies with the people’s sins and prays on their behalf for divine mercy (cf. Jer 18:20) (3) There is no explicit indication that these verses contain the people’s prayer. With these thoughts we turn to vv. 7–9 and see whether the content of the prayer provides further hints. “Act, O Lord, for Your Name’s Sake” (Jeremiah 14:7–9) Although our iniquities (‫ )עֲֹונֵינּו‬testify against us, act, O Lord, for your name’s sake; our apostasies (‫)מׁשּובֹתֵ ינּו‬ ְ indeed are many, and we have sinned (‫ ) ָחטָאנּו‬against you. O hope of Israel, its savior in time of trouble, why should you be like a stranger in the land, like a traveler turning aside for the night? Why should you be like someone confused, like a mighty warrior who cannot give help? Yet you, O Lord, are in the midst of us, and we are called by your name; do not forsake us! ( Jer 14:7–9)

The prophet shows acute awareness of Israel’s sin. He confesses and identifies with Israel’s iniquities, apostasies, and sins. Judging from the fact that most major Hebrew terms for sin are employed in v. 7, Jeremiah appears to give expression to all conceivable sins against Yhwh. The confession of sin is coupled with an appeal to Yhwh to act. Presumably the prayer takes this form in order to bring an end to the drought. This is not because Israel deserved the Lord’s gracious intervention but because God’s own name is at stake. Ever since Moses’ paradigmatic intercessory prayers, appealing 97.  Cf. Jer 12:1–4, 5–6. 98.  McKane, Jeremiah I–XXV, 319.

366

Chapter 8

to Yhwh’s name is one of Israel’s prime motives in petitionary prayers (cf. Exod 32:12, Num 14:13–17, Deut 9:28, Jer 14:21). When Yhwh delivered Israel from Egypt, Yhwh established a reputation as Israel’s savior in times of trouble (cf. Exod 18:11). How Yhwh treats Israel and how Israel stands among its neighbors are naturally taken as indicators of how powerful or reliable God is. Ezek 36:22–32 makes the point clearly. It is not for your sake, o house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my Holy Name which you have profaned among the nations. (Ezek 36:22)

Judah has reached a stage where they seem to have lost any other ground to appeal for Yhwh’s help other than to appeal to Yhwh’s reputation among the nations. In this sense, Jeremiah’s prayer also shows several points of contact with the elaborate prayers of confession of Ezra, Nehemiah, and of Daniel (cf. Ezra 9, Nehemiah 9, Daniel 9). In particular, Daniel’s prayer exhibits some interesting parallels when he intercedes on behalf of the sinful exiled people. Daniel’s penitential prayer is also based on a substitutionary confession of sin (“We have sinned . . . acted wickedly and rebelled,” Dan 9:4–5). The prophet acknowledges that the judgment has come on exiled Israel according to the curses written in the law of Moses (Dan 9:11). Stronger than Jeremiah, Daniel reiterates that he comes with empty hands before God. He has nothing to appeal to apart from Yhwh’s great mercies (Dan 9:18–19). 99 Like Daniel, Jeremiah knows well that Israel’s source of hope is that Yhwh would act for the sake of His holy name (cf. Dan 9:17, 19). In v. 8, Jeremiah’s collective confession of sin is coupled with a profession of hope and faith in Israel’s savior God (cf. Jer 17:3). “O hope of Israel” is an invocation that testifies to Yhwh’s history of salvation. God is called “hope” precisely because God has proved Himself to be Israel’s savior in times of distress (‫)צָרָה‬. 100 It is noteworthy that Jeremiah does not appeal for divine pardon as one might expect in the light of other intercessory prayers and confessions of sins (cf. Exod 34:9, Num 14:19, Dan 9:19). The prayer focuses instead on divine deliverance from the present hardship. Yhwh’s land is devastated by drought and Yhwh behaves like a foreigner on the move. In two accusing questions, the prophet implicitly appeals to Yhwh’s helping presence ( Jer 14:8–9): “Why should you be like a stranger in the land, like a traveler turning aside for the night?” Has God abandoned His dwelling place? Like in the psalms of lament, the “why questions” are accusatory and rhetorical (cf. Psalms 22, 26, 74, 79). As is often the case in the psalms, Jeremiah does not expect a concrete answer. Nevertheless, the 99.  James A. Montgomery, Daniel (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927) 368, notes: “on the basis of verses 18b–19 Daniel’s pleas for mercy has been compared with the Christian ‘Kyrie Eleison:’ Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy, and has indeed been called the Old Testament’s ‘Kyrie Eleison.’” 100.  Fretheim, Jeremiah, 221.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

367

complaint in Israel’s lament tradition is often undergirded by an unbroken trust in the saving presence of Yhwh, even when the situation looks hopeless. Although Yhwh may appear like a stranger and traveler in Judah, Jeremiah alludes to the fact that the land is Yhwh’s possession and that it is in God’s power to water it and make it bountiful again (cf. Deut 11:11–12, Ezek 36:29–30). The second “why question” in v. 9 seeks to mobilize Yhwh through reference to His apparent divine impotence. He essentially says: “You bear the title of a mighty warrior, but you appear to be powerless” (lit., “a weak or frightened man,” ‫ִדהָם‬ ְ ‫)כ ִּאיׁש נ‬. ְ Some Jewish authorities were embarrassed by this bold anthropomorphism and changed the Masoretic Text by transferring the image to Israel instead. 101 The implicit reference to divine impotence, however, is also common in Israel’s “repertoire” of prayer strategies, and is obviously closely linked to the appeal to divine reputation. We have already seen in the context of Moses’ intercessory prayers that, since the exodus, Yhwh’s reputation is closely tied up with the fate of Israel (Num 14:15). Whatever happens to the people of God will naturally be associated with Yhwh’s power and trustworthiness. It appears that Jeremiah alludes here not only to the people of God, but to Zion, God’s chosen temple city, the dwelling place of His name (cf. Jer 14:19). 102 Is the prophet appealing to the very royal theology that he had sharply criticized back in chap. 7 (cf. Jer 7:3)? This would not necessarily be a contradiction in Jeremiah’s thinking, but rather illustrates the difference between a prophetic warning to the people and prophetic intercession to God. Thus, it seems that Jeremiah seeks the Lord’s assurance that He is still dwelling in Zion. Yhwh is reminded that Israel is still God’s special people. They bear His name. In other words, the prayer closes with a final appeal to the compassion of Israel’s covenant God: “Do not abandon us” in our troubles ( Jer 14:9). The big question remains, however: after countless breaches of the covenant relationship, how will God resolve the tenuous nexus of divine reputation and compassion without compromising His holy and moral nature? Overall, this is an exceptionally audacious prayer because Jeremiah implicitly accuses Yhwh of not fulfilling His role. God’s presence should secure safety and a plentiful life. The prayer borders on impertinence, because Israel has no moral ground to bring their appeal before the throne— only an appeal to the divine name remains. Divine Response (Jeremiah 14:10–18) Typical of the pattern of chaps. 11–20, the divine response follows immediately after the prophet’s prayer. Note that Yhwh speaks in the third 101.  Such bold and offensive anthropomorphic depictions were unacceptable to both Targum Onqelos and Jonathan. Cf. McKane, Jeremiah, 321. 102.  Reventlow (Gebet, 251–60) argues that in “our midst” here refers to Yhwh’s cultic presence in the temple. Cf. Deut 12:11, 1 Kgs 8:29.

368

Chapter 8

person singular to the people. This has led some commentators to conclude that Yhwh cannot be the speaker in v. 10. 103 Others suggest that the third person is an expression of distance on Yhwh’s part. This would be further supported by Yhwh’s indifferent reference to “this” people (cf. Exod 32:7, 9). This comes as a particularly stark contrast to Jeremiah’s previous remark about Israel being called by Yhwh’s name ( Jer 14:9). Following the logic of the received form, a more natural reading suggests itself, which I will attempt to tease out. We have argued that the previous prayer was brought before Yhwh by Jeremiah on behalf of the people. Here, the divine response comes to Jeremiah who receives it on behalf of the people. In other words, Yhwh’s response is phrased in a form that is suitable to the ears of the people. 104

“God Will Visit Their Iniquity in Judgment” Thus says the Lord concerning this people: Truly they have loved to wander, they have not restrained their feet; therefore the Lord does not accept them, now he will remember their iniquity and punish their sins. The Lord said to me: Do not pray for the welfare of this people (‫ַל־ּת ְת ַּפּלֵל‬ ִ ‫א‬ ‫)ּבעַד־ ָהעָם ַהּזֶה ְלטֹובָה‬. ְ Although they fast, I do not hear their cry, and although they offer burnt offering and grain offering, I do not accept them; but by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence I consume them. ( Jer 14:10–12)

There is no hint of mercy in Yhwh’s answer to Jeremiah’s prayer. The divine judge announces His verdict and His spokesman is to pronounce it to Judah: Israel has failed to follow Yhwh. They have departed from God’s ways and followed other gods. The expression “wander” gives expression to Israel’s syncretistic religious outlook (cf. Jer 3:21–25, 13:20–27). Consequently, Israel lost their favor before the Lord: “Yhwh will remember their iniquities and visit their sins in judgment” (‫אתם‬ ָ ֹ ‫ִפק ֹד חַּט‬ ְ ‫ִיזְּכֹר עֲֹונָם ְוי‬, Jer 14:10). The divine sentence flows from the demanding nature of Yhwh who by “no means clears the guilty, but visits the iniquities of the parents upon the children” (‫ונַ ֵקּה לֹא ְינ ֶַקּה ּפ ֹקֵד עֲֹון אָבֹות עַל־ ָּבנִים‬,ְ Exod 34:7). Jeremiah may have hoped that God will bear or forgive their iniquities for His name’s sake. After all, on previous intercessory occasions, the divine response brought a word of pardon (Exod 34:9, Num 14:20) or a change of mind (Exod 32:14). Later, in Israel’s exile, God could even tell His sinful people that He will blot out their transgressions for His own sake and that He will not remember their sins (‫אתיךָ לֹא ֶאזְּכֹר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫שעֶיךָ ְל ַמעֲנִי ְוחַּט‬ ָׁ ‫הּוא מֹחֶה ְפ‬, Isa 43:25). Here, however, it is not the gracious side of Yhwh that responds (Exod 34:6), but the demanding side that speaks of visitation of Israel’s sins (Exod 34:7). 103.  A widespread view is that Jeremiah acts here in a public, cultic intercessory function that delivers a salvation oracle. Cf. McKane, Jeremiah, 321–23. 104.  Polk, Persona, 90.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

369

On several occasions in Israel’s history of apostasy, either prophetic intercessory prayer or fasting accompanied by various offerings and confession of sin (or a combination of these), evoked Yhwh’s gracious intervention (cf. 1 Sam 7:1–10, Joel 2:12–19). These references confirm that Israel’s mediums of seeking God’s pardon and help can be effective. For example, when Israel was suffering from another drought and the Day of the Lord was approaching in severe judgment, Joel calls for a national repentance ceremony and summons the priests to pacify Yhwh’s wrath through crying, offering sacrifices, and prayers (cf. Joel 1:5–9, 12, 2:12). 105 Yhwh accepted their prayers and answered in blessing and protection. According to Jeremiah 14, however, not even the synergetic effort of all the cultic means that Israel has at its disposal is to gain a favorable hearing from Yhwh ( Jer 14:11–12). 106 Ever since Jeremiah’s temple sermon, it is clear that Israel had the tendency to profess God’s saving presence without obeying Him as the only Lord. Not only is Yhwh like “a traveler turning aside for the night” ( Jer 14:8), but Israel seems to call on Yhwh whenever it served their purposes. They not only pay lip service to God through superficial penitential prayers when in desperate need but they also chased after other gods (cf. Jer 11:11–13, 13:26–27). Elijah’s sharp question to the syncretistic Israel of his days seems to apply also to the situation under discussion: “How long will you go limping with two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him” (1 Kgs 18:21). 107 It seems that a point in Israel’s history has arrived when not only will their prayers no longer be heard, but worse, prophetic intercession can no longer save the people.

Third Prohibition to Intercede and Jeremiah’s Attempt to Plea for Divine Leniency on the Basis of Being Misled by False Prophets (Jeremiah 14:11–16) Yhwh prohibits Jeremiah to pray for the welfare of this people a third time ( Jer 14:11; cf. 11:14, 7:16). In doing so, God reinforces His earlier prohibition to intercede for the people and thereby implicitly asks Jeremiah to accept the divine plan to bring judgment on Israel in the form of sword, famine, and pestilence ( Jer 14:12). However, in “loyal” opposition to Yhwh’s prohibition and in tenacious fidelity to his people, Jeremiah does not give up his advocacy yet. At this point in the dialogue, Jeremiah attempts to ascribe at least some of the blame to the prophets who assured Israel in the name of God that there will be no war nor famine in Judah (cf. Jer 14:13–16). 105.  Reventlow, Gebet, 252–53. See pp. 447–454 on Joel 2 for a more detailed discussion. 106.  On fasting and prayer, see our discussions on Deut 9, 1 Sam 7, and Joel 2, pp. 138– 143, 180–182, and 447–449. 107.  Schneider, Jeremia, 117.

370

Chapter 8

By transferring the blame to the prophets, Jeremiah seeks to soften the offense of the people’s apostasy. His exclamation “Ah, Lord God!” is like an implicit plea for leniency because of mitigating circumstances. The prophets have contradicted Jeremiah’s discernment of God’s judgment by assuring divine shalom over Judah. Thus, Jeremiah raises implicitly the question of why the people should listen to him. After all, he is virtually alone (except perhaps Uriah, Jer 26:20–23) against a clear majority of “professional” prophets that were closely associated with the temple and the religious establishment (cf. Jer 23:27–29). Moreover, it would have been possible to construct a prophetic message of peace and security on the basis of a royal-Zion theology as found in foundational texts such as 2 Sam 7:10–16. Thus, from the people’s perspective, one could perhaps raise the question whether it is really possible that all of the “official” prophets could be wrong and Jeremiah alone be right. Discerning between true and false prophets is an old and complex issue. 108 You may say to yourself, “How can we recognize a word that the Lord has not spoken?” If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it. (Deut 18:21–22)

What if the fulfillment of the word of God is not immediately evident? It is not entirely clear from when Jeremiah has started to predict the downfall of Jerusalem. What, however, if the people had genuinely turned from their evil and idolatrous ways and God would have spared Judah from exile? Would this have made Jeremiah a false prophet? Certainly not; after all, an important function of the prophet was to warn of a potential disaster if the people continued in their wicked ways ( Jer 7:4–7, 18:7–10). The book of Jeremiah contains a long divine oracle that helps one to discern between false and true prophets further (cf. Jer 23:9–40). A mark of false prophets is that they tolerate or promote other gods besides Yhwh, or even prophecy in their names (cf. Jer 23:13, Deut 13:1–5). Spiritual adultery begins with ungodly spiritual leaders who lead the people astray. Thus, Yhwh is testing loyalty to Himself by seemingly allowing false prophets to appear among his people. Moreover, there is the important criterion of moral living (cf. Jer 23:9). False prophets commit adultery, walk in lies, and strengthen the hands of evildoers. Instead of turning Israel from their evil ways, they spread vain hopes and visions ( Jer 23:14–16). In chap. 27, Jeremiah warns the priests not to listen to the false prophets. They spread false hopes by saying that the deported sacred vessels will be brought back. If the “false prophets” had true insight into the situation, 108.  Moberly (Prophecy) addresses this important and intricate question, how one can know for certain that prophetic speech is really from God. He looks at biblical criteria in the book of Jeremiah and elsewhere.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

371

says Jeremiah, they would pray for the safety of the remaining vessels. It is in the context of Jeremiah’s dispute with the false prophets that it is once again asserted that intercession is not only a fundamental responsibility of the genuine prophet, but it is also the benchmark of the true prophet ( Jer 27:18). According to Jeremiah, authentic prophets would not neglect their duty to intercede (‫)פגע‬. 109 On the basis of these criteria, it should have been plain to Israel who the authentic prophet of Yhwh is and who the false prophets are. Thus, God is not moved by Jeremiah’s sophisticated argument and says to His prophet that the people have no excuse.  110 These prophets were not sent by God and they have certainly not stood in the divine council. Their false message will become their own punishment: By sword and famine, those prophets shall be consumed ( Jer 14:15), while Yhwh will redirect the people’s own wickedness back onto them ( Jer 14:16). In other words, God’s judgment is not some kind of external punishment but is simply the consequence and fruit of Israel’s very own wickedness (cf. Jer 6:19).

The Tears of God: Yhwh Grieves over His People (Jeremiah 14:17–18) You shall say to them this word: Let my eyes run down with tears night and day, and let them not cease, for the virgin daughter—my people—is struck down with a crushing blow, with a very grievous wound. If I go out into the field, look—those killed by the sword! And if I enter the city, look—those sick with famine! For both prophet and priest ply their trade throughout the land, and have no knowledge. ( Jer 14:17–18)

After Yhwh has informed His prophet of the forthcoming judgment on the false prophets and Judah ( Jer 14:14–16), God wants Jeremiah to convey a kind of divine lament to the people. In other words, the prophet is not only to proclaim divine judgment on Judah but also is to let the people know that Yhwh is not indifferent to the sentence but is deeply disturbed over all the forthcoming suffering that will overcome the people. Jeremiah is to lament on behalf of Yhwh in order to express the divine pathos. Yhwh weeps day and night over His people who have moved beyond healing ( Jer 14:17, 13:23). O’Connor, in an essay on the “tears of God,” comments: “The tears of God are part of the imaginative literary enterprise that ruptures theological language.” 111 Some commentators have a problem with ascribing the lament to Yhwh. It not only appears unreasonable for God to grieve over His own judgment, but also the notion of a crying Yhwh seems too 109.  Hesse, Die Fürbitte, 47. 110. Yochanan Muffs, Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992) 30. 111. Kathleen M. O’Connor, “The Tears of God and Divine Character in Jeremiah 2–9,” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann (ed. T. Linafelt and T. K. Beal; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) 184.

372

Chapter 8

anthropomorphic­a picture of God. 112 According to O’Connor, the problem is that biblical scholarship resists “the poetic characterization of God as a weeping deity” because “such a deity appears too vulnerable, powerless . . . to accord with the jealous husband and angry warrior from the book’s earlier poetry.” 113 We shall engage with the notion of a weeping God in a moment; here, we would like to raise some concerns with regard to O’Connor’s handling of the intrinsic logic of the biblical text. She describes the tears of God as an “imaginative literary enterprise,” a “poetic characterization of God.” In other words, the “tears of God” are an anthropomorphic human projection. We have already noticed similar rhetoric from Brueggemann’s pen when he submits that the very character of God depends on the “courage and imagination of those who speak about God.” 114 It is undisputed that the tears or the pain of God should be taken metaphorically. However, rather than devaluing this divine speech as imaginative poetry or anthropomorphic human projections, the biblical interpreter ought to take this figurative language seriously and as “reality depicting.” 115 This does not mean that Yhwh weeps and becomes angry in exactly the same way as humans do. There is a fine line between referring to God and defining Him. Moreover, one should also make a distinction between Israel’s words about God and God’s words to Israel (here to Jeremiah). Thus, one may want to be careful of not preempting the text of its ontological claim to divine reality. In other words, from the perspective of Scripture, God’s revelation of His nature is the ultimate reality, whereas the human response is only secondary. To put it differently, in our view, the God of the Old Testament is not a human projection but a “living God” who actively entered into Israel’s history. This, as von Rad observes, has strong implications for how we talk about God: Actually, Israel conceived even Jahweh himself as having human form. But the way of putting it which we use runs in precisely the wrong direction according to Old Testament ideas, for, according to the ideas of Jahwism, it cannot be said that Israel regarded God anthropomorphically, but the reverse, that she considered man as theomorphic. . . . It has been rightly said that Ezek 1. 26 is the theological prelude to the locus classicus for the imago doctrine in Gen 1. 26. 116 112.  Thus it has been suggested to take vv. 17–18 as a divine command to Jeremiah to lament with the people. See Schneider, Jeremia, 118–19. McKane (Jeremiah, 331) argues also that vv. 17–18 describe not Yhwh’s pain but the grief awakened in the prophet. Above, I discussed the logic of the text and the notion of a God in pain. 113.  O’Connor, “The Tears,” 184. 114.  Brueggemann, Theology, 65, 216. Brueggemann (Jeremiah, 139) speaks of “prophetic imagination.” 115.  See Anthony C. Thiselton, “Language Religious,” in Modern Christian Thought (ed. A. E. Mcgrath; Oxford: Blackwell, 1996) 315; Fretheim, The Suffering, 7. 116. Von Rad, Old Testament Theology 1, 147. Heschel (The Prophets, 51–52) makes the same point: “God’s unconditional concern for justice is not an anthropomorphism. Rather, man’s concern for justice is a theomorphism.”

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

373

Thus, biblical language which depicts Yhwh in human terms is not mere anthropomorphism, but, as Childs writes, “a truthful reflection of the free decision of God to identify with his creation in human form and yet to remain God.” 117 With these thoughts in mind we return to vv. 17 and 18 and examine “God’s tears” or Yhwh’s pathos more closely. It is not entirely clear whether the divine oracle is meant to be a depiction of the time or whether it is forward looking to a disaster yet to come. Judging by the narrative logic (the prophet still standing before Yhwh on behalf of Israel; cf. Jer 14:19–22, 15:1), Jerusalem has not been besieged and devastated yet—thus, it is more likely that it refers to events unfolding in the immanent future. The divine lament is no longer concerned with the drought alone ( Jer 14:1–6, 7–9), but with a much wider crisis. The employed images speak of a lost battle with countless dead and a severe famine in the city (probably under siege). In the light of the forthcoming war, the previous depiction of the drought comes as a forerunner to a greater divine judgment (cf. Joel 1–2). Depending on one’s translation of the final clause of v. 18, the religious leaders too will be deported to a land they do not know, or they go about their business without understanding the seriousness of the situation. 118 Perhaps in the context of the indictment of the false prophets, the second translation seems preferable. In other words, if the religious leaders have no understanding of Yhwh and His ways with Judah, there is “no capacity for covenant, no inclination for obedience, no attention to Torah. Such a total failure can only lead to death.” 119 Jer 14:17–18 gives us an interesting insight into the prophetic role of Jeremiah. The prophet is to convey to Israel the divine pathos: the inner life of God into which Yhwh granted him an insight. As Heschel writes: “Israel’s desertion was not merely an injury to man; it was an insult to God. This was the voice of God Who felt shunned, pained, and offended.” 120 Jeremiah is to lament in the name of Israel’s God over the coming doom. It will become increasingly evident that Jeremiah is not merely to express the divine lament, but to some degree to incarnate the divine pain. Calvin contends that God’s tears are intending to shame the Israelites because of their carelessness. 121 It seems, however, that the divine tears reach deeper than to evoke a sense of guilt and shame. O’Connor ascribes a crucial theological role to God’s tears in the unfolding of the book. 122 117.  Childs, Biblical Theology, 358. 118. The meaning is unclear, as the varying translations indicate. The nrsv and esv suggest that the religious leaders go about their business without comprehending or acknowledging God, while the niv suggests that the prophets and the priests will be deported to a foreign land (cf. Jer 23:11–12). 119.  Brueggemann, Jeremiah, 139. 120.  Heschel, The Prophets, 112. 121.  Calvin, Jeremiah, 14:17. 122.  Jeremiah depicts the dramatic tension in the inner life of God in other places (cf. Jer 5:7–9, 28–29, 9:8–9 [MT 9:7–8]).

374

Chapter 8

God’s weeping recalls the brokenhearted husband (cf. Jer 2:1–4:2) and introduces alternative language to that of the wrathful judge. God’s tears are an expression of His unceasing love for Israel. The recurrence of the terms virgin daughter and my people underline God’s attachment to His people ( Jer 14:17). Fretheim sees the purpose of Yhwh’s revelation of the divine pathos as providing readers with a “glimpse of the inner-divine side of wrath.” He writes, The God who judges is also the God who weeps. This God is not punitive or uncaring with respect to what the people have had to endure. . . . This God is genuinely caught up in what has happened and mourns over the disaster experienced by the “virgin daughter,” responding like any good parent would. There is hope for the future with this kind of God. 123

Following the logic of the text, Yhwh does not reveal the dramatic tension of His inner life primarily for the benefit of the readers, though with the canonization of these oracles this obviously became a central purpose of the text. God’s tears also introduce anew a note of hope for Jeremiah. They witness to a deeply involved God and to the changing nature of divine inner­life. Divine tears raise the possibility of forgiveness and healing. 124 In other words, taking the flow of the narrative seriously, it looks as if the divine tears encourage Jeremiah to persist in his intercessory prayer effort on behalf of the people (cf. Jer 14:19–22). Perhaps no other book of the Bible witnesses so clearly to the divine tension between love and wrath. Together, love and wrath cause divine pain, something that comes to powerful expression in these verses. 125 Immediately after God’s lament ( Jer 14:17–18), Jeremiah launches his most comprehensive prayer on behalf of sinful Israel. Jeremiah Intercedes (Jeremiah 14:19–22) Have you completely rejected Judah? Does your heart loathe Zion? Why have you struck us down so that there is no healing for us? We look for peace, but find no good; for a time of healing, but there is terror instead. We acknowledge our wickedness, O Lord, the iniquity of our ancestors, for we have sinned against you. Do not spurn us, for your name’s sake; do not dishonor your glorious throne, remember and do not break your covenant with us. Can any idols of the nations bring rain? Or can the heavens give showers? Is it not you, O Lord our God? We set our hope on you, for it is you who do all this. ( Jer 14:19–22)

Like his previous prayer in vv. 7–9, there is no textual marker that establishes unambiguously who the speaker of the following prayer is. Fretheim 123.  Fretheim, Jeremiah, 224. 124.  O’Connor, “The Tears,” 183: “God’s tears mean . . . healing may be possible because God draws near, abandons fury, leaves aside honor, and joins the people’s suffering.” 125.  On the pain of God, see “God of Love and Wrath” on pp. 519–523.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

375

continues to argue what the text envisages here is Israel’s lament and not Jeremiah’s: Again, there is no good reason to suppose that Jeremiah speaks this lament (note the first person plural and see v. 11). Their lament includes invocations (“our God”, v. 22), reproachful questions, confessions of sin and of faith, and petitions for deliverance from a God in whom they hope (vv. 19–22 . . . all these elements are typical for Israel’s lament. 126

With regard to the plural form, I have already shown that it is not unusual for the prophetic intercessor to identify with the people and thereby speak in the inclusive “we” form. 127 Perhaps a more pertinent reason to challenge Fretheim’s reading is the intrinsic logic of the narrative flow. First, we shall see in our reading of the second prayer ( Jer 14:19–22) that it is linguistically and conceptually referring back to the previous dialogue between Yhwh and Jeremiah (cf. Jer 14:10–14). Second, since chap. 11:18, the narrative setting has been a dialogue between Yhwh and His prophet. Although the prophet has been instructed to proclaim certain specified messages to the people, he is still standing in the council of God and has not been discharged yet (cf. Jer 18:2). Moreover, Fretheim draws attention to the fact that Yhwh has prohibited the prophet to intercede on behalf of Israel back in v. 11. Presumably because of Yhwh’s prohibition to pray, Fretheim cannot conceive that vv.  19–22 contain another prayer. It seems to me, however, that this is precisely part of the narrative dynamic in that Yhwh, by this stage of the narrative evolvement, has already voiced His disapproval of Jeremiah’s intercessory activity three times. Jeremiah, however, in mosaic fashion, loyally opposes the divine request and perseveres in his battle of words on behalf of sinful Israel. After all, Yhwh, in making known His grief and love for the doomed people (vv. 17­–18), has just provided an implicit incentive to Jeremiah to persist in his prayer for mercy for Israel. Given all of these indications, the most natural reading seems that vv. 19–22 contain Jeremiah’s prayer on behalf of the sinful people. One of the characteristics of chap. 14 is the lively interchange between Yhwh and His prophet. The people are not directly involved in this dialogue. Thus, the following exposition of the text assumes that vv. 19–22 are presented as the words of the prophet before the Lord. 126.  Fretheim, Jeremiah, 225. 127. This is not unlike contemporary public intercessory prayers, where the prayer leader would normally offer her/his prayer in the plural on behalf of the congregation. Scharbert (“Die Fürbitte in der Theologie,” 321–38) argues that in “old times” the covenant mediators prayed in the “I” form, whereas since the time of Jeremiah one increasingly finds confessions of sins on behalf of the people included in prophetic intercessory prayers. In postexilic times, it is common to offer prayers in the “we-form” including confessions of “our” sins and that of “our fathers” (cf. 2 Chr 20:5–12, Ezra 9:3–15). For a summary of Scharbert’s reconstruction of Israel’s historical development of intercessory understanding, see my Moses, 40–42.

376

Chapter 8

First and Second Prayer Jeremiah does not yield to Yhwh’s prohibition to intercede for Israel and he persists in his office as advocate of the people. As it will become clear, the content and motives of Jeremiah’s intercession show some similarities with his previous prayer (cf. Jer 14:7–9). A brief comparison shows that the prophet has adjusted his intercession to the unfolding of the divine-human dialogue ( Jer 14:10–12). Although “why questions” mark both prayers (cf. Jer 14:8–9/19), the prayer has now intensified in emotion and accusation (from “why should you be like a stranger in the land” [v. 8], to “why have you struck us down?” [v. 19]). The tone of the entire second prayer is characterized by anguish and thereby clearly reflects Yhwh’s resolve to bring severe judgment ( Jer 14:17–18). The prophet reinforces his confession of sin ( Jer 14:7, 20). This time, however, Jeremiah not only includes his own sin, but also the sins of the fathers as well. After the prophet’s inclusive confession of sin, he moves on to a renewed appeal to Yhwh’s reputation ( Jer 14:7, 21). In this prayer, it comes as a last resort when everything else has seemingly failed. In his first prayer, Jeremiah could still conclude with a bold plea: “do not forsake us!” (v. 9), while this time the intercession comes to an end in a kind of doxology that contains a subtle and implicit petition for rain (v. 22). Another new element in Jeremiah’s prayer is his entreaty to maintain the covenant relationship with Judah (v. 21). Overall, both prayers echo the audacious tone and some of the arguments that we find on the lips of Moses (cf. Exod 32:11–12, Num 14:13–16 [“why questions” and appeal to divine reputation], Exod 32:31, 34:8–9 [confession of sin, the latter also inclusive, and an appeal to covenant]. But of course these are only conceptual parallels that find context specific applications.

Lament, Petition, and Doxology: The Content of the Prayer In response to Yhwh’s tearful forecast of Judah’s forthcoming disaster ( Jer 14:17–18), Jeremiah voices a number of questions that reflect the seriousness of the divine judgment. These also seem designed to evoke divine pathos: “Have you completely rejected Judah? Does your heart loathe Zion?” The tacit divine response would be “yes and no.” These emotional reproaches have to be read in direct response to Yhwh’s painful inner struggle between being a God of love and justice ( Jer 14:17–18). It seems almost as though Jeremiah seeks to provoke God’s pain on purpose. Do you despise your people? Although the prophet does not explicitly mention the covenant relationship yet, he implicitly raises the question of divine commitment to Zion, the temple city. It is clear that Jeremiah takes Yhwh’s depiction of the forthcoming disaster with absolute seriousness, for God has shown him that the people will be struck down with a crushing blow ( Jer 14:17–18). “Why have you struck us down so that there is no healing for us (‫”?)ואֵין לָנּו מ ְַרּפֵא‬ ְ Does the prophet hereby refer to an ancient divine saying: “I am the Lord who heals you”

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

377

(ָ‫אנִי יְהוָה ר ְֹפאֶך‬ ֲ ‫ּכי‬, ִ Exod 15:26; cf. Jer 8:22)? However, in the exodus context divine healing is clearly conditioned on Israel’s covenant obedience. In Jeremiah’s time, on the other hand, Israel has breached the covenant, and thus no healing and no peace can be expected, only judgment. The reference to peace thus echoes the false promise of the false prophets ( Jer 14:13). Perhaps encouraged by the show of divine pathos, the prophet dares to prevail in prayer by once again initiating a confession of guilt ( Jer 14:20; cf. v.  7). This time, it is a transgenerational confession, including Israel’s ancestors as well. We acknowledge our wickedness, O Lord, the iniquity of our ancestors ְ ‫ּכי ָחטָאנּו ל‬, (‫)עֲֹון אֲבֹותֵ ינּו‬, for we have sinned against you. (‫ָך‬ ִ Jer 14:20)

This development seems to take Yhwh’s response in v.  10 into account. There God provides the reason for the drought: persistent idolatry. Truly, they have loved to wander, they have not restrained their feet; therefore the Lord does not accept them, now he will remember their iniquity and punish their sins. (‫אתם‬ ָ ֹ ‫ִפק ֹד חַּט‬ ְ ‫ע ַָּתה ִיזְּכֹר עֲֹונָם ְוי‬, Jer 14:10)

Therefore, the people have lost their divine favor and provoked Yhwh’s visitation of their iniquity. Jeremiah is painfully aware that his contemporaries’ iniquities have in many ways grown out of the sins of their fathers. The prophet also knows from the traditions that Yhwh will be “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children” (‫פּ ֹקֵד‬ ‫ ;עֲֹון אָבֹות עַל־ ָּבנִים‬Exod 34:7, Deut 5:9­­). We have already looked at the issue of transgenerational sin in the context of the scout narrative (cf. Num 14:18– 35). Here it is sufficient to note that it comes as a substitutionary confession that acknowledges that Israel has no merits, nor any other qualities that they could hold onto in order to appeal to Yhwh. They are unworthy of the Lord’s grace and mercy. Thus, Jeremiah’s all-embracing confession of sin leads naturally into a renewed appeal to Yhwh’s name. As Calvin shows, whenever the saints pray to be heard for the sake of God’s name, they cast aside every confidence in their own worthiness and righteousness. Whosoever then pleads God’s name, in order to obtain what he asks, renounces all other things, and fully confesses that he is unworthy to find God propitious to him. 128

When all hope for divine protection on covenantal grounds fail, the prophet always has a last trump card up his sleeve, as it were, that is an appeal to Yhwh’s self-interest (cf. Jer 14:7, 9). Thus, the full force of the appeal, as Brueggemann notes, “no longer rests on Judah’s guilt or on Judah’s merit, or even on God’s commitment to Judah. The force of the appeal is the enhancement of Yahweh and Yahweh’s throne.” 129 128.  Calvin, Jeremiah 14:20. 129.  Brueggemann, Jeremiah, 140.

378

Chapter 8

The motif of appealing to God’s name comes to expression even clearer in Daniel’s long and theologically rich penitential intercessory prayer (cf. Daniel 9). Although it reflects a post-judgment perspective, it shows some striking parallels to Jeremiah’s prayer and offers some helpful commentary on the motive clause “for your name’s sake.” Both intercessors confess the sin on behalf of the people, acknowledge their guilt, and put forward the motivational clause that helping the sinful people would be in the best interest of God’s established name and honor. As Daniel prays: (W)e have sinned and done wrong, acted wickedly and rebelled, turning aside from your commandments and ordinances. We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, . . . and our ancestors, and to all the people of the land .. . . Just as it is written in the law of Moses, all this calamity has come upon us, . . . Indeed, the Lord our God is right in all that he has done; for we have disobeyed his voice. “And now, O Lord our God, who brought your people out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand and made your name renowned even to this day—we have sinned, we have done wickedly. O Lord, in view of all your righteous acts, let your anger and wrath, we pray, turn away from your city Jerusalem, your holy mountain; because of our sins and the iniquities of our ancestors, Jerusalem and your people have become a disgrace among all our neighbors. Now therefore, O our God, listen to the prayer of your servant and to his supplication, and for your own sake, Lord, let your face shine upon your desolated sanctuary. Incline your ear, O my God, and hear. Open your eyes and look at our desolation and the city that bears your name. We do not present our supplication before you on the ground of our righteousness, but on the ground of your great mercies. O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, listen and act and do not delay! For your own sake, O my God, because your city and your people bear your name!” (Dan 9:5–19)

After an extensive confession of guilt, Daniel goes into a long petition for God’s mercy. It is based on the name that God has made for Himself in delivering Israel from Egypt. Through the exodus, Yhwh became known among the peoples (cf. Exod 15:14–16, Josh 2:10–11). Defeat of Yhwh’s city and misery of the people is a disgrace not only for the people but also for Yhwh, whose name is intrinsically linked to Zion (Dan 9:16). Jeremiah also calls Yhwh to act in a way that conforms to His nature, a way demonstrated from the revelation of the name in the exodus until now (cf. Pss 79:9, 106:6–8). In other words, both intercessors seek to persuade God that pardoning sinful Israel, would not only be helpful, but eventually necessary for God’s own reputation among the peoples (cf. Dan 9:19). 130 God’s glorious throne and thus His name as the undominable protector of Zion is at stake ( Jer 14:21; cf. Pss 46; 47:9). Weiser argues that the ark 130. See Miller, “Prayer as Persuasion,” 339–40.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

379

and cherubim throne are in mind, while others have identified the throne with Jerusalem (cf. Jer 3:17). As Keil suggests, it is probably not necessary to separate the two: The throne of the glory of God is the temple, where Jahveh sits enthroned over the ark of the covenant in the holy of holies, Exod 25:22, etc. The destruction of Jerusalem would, by the sack of the temple, dishonour the throne of the Lord. 131

Jeremiah’s appeal to divine reputation that is primarily visible in the Jerusalem temple is coupled with an appeal to remember and uphold the covenant relationship with Israel ( Jer 14:21). This twofold appeal to divine reputation and covenant raises considerable problems. To begin, the prophet’s appeal to remember the covenant is a dangerous one in this context. God, as Brueggemann writes, might just do that and remember the covenant with its “terrible sanctions for disobedience by the people (cf. Jer 14:10).” 132 This is, of course, unless Jeremiah does not appeal to the Mosaic covenant that was underlying King Josiah’s covenant renewal (cf. 2  Kgs 23:2) but to the Davidic covenant. McKane puts forward a number of arguments in favor of the latter: On general, contextual grounds we would expect the allusion to be to the Davidic covenant . . . Attention is concentrated on an appeal to Yahweh not to abrogate his covenant, whereas in 2 Kgs 23:2f. the emphasis is rather on the duty of human response: only if this response is adequate will the covenant be effective and operational. A more weighty consideration is the occurrence of ‫ ברית‬in Ps. 89:34 and Jer 33:21 in connection with the stability and permanence of the Davidic covenant. 133

If it is the Davidic covenant which is often understood as an everlasting and unconditional assurance of Davidic rule and Yhwh’s presence in the Zion sanctuary, 134 then Jeremiah seems in danger of making the same mistake in his prayer as the Israelites that he criticized in his “temple sermon” for assuming that Yhwh will never forsake His temple (cf. Jer 7:4). Thus, McKane draws the conclusion that vv. 19–21 cannot possibly be ascribed to Jeremiah because their logic seems to go against the prophet’s teaching: A more specific reason for denying vv.  19–21 to the prophet Jeremiah is that these verses contain an appeal to Jerusalem or to the temple as Yahweh’s dwelling-place, and we have reason to believe that Jeremiah regarded this as a doctrine which blinded the people to the truth of their condition. 135 131.  Keil, Jeremiah, 251. 132.  Brueggemann, Jeremiah, 140. 133.  McKane, Jeremiah, 1:334. 134.  See 2 Sam 7:14; cf. Jer 33:21, Ps 89:31–34. 135.  McKane, Jeremiah 1, 333.

380

Chapter 8

This does not necessarily mean that Jeremiah contradicts himself or even worse that he acts as a hypocrite (first condemning the people in his temple sermon for putting their trust in the Davidic covenant and then appearing to appeal to the royal covenant that he previously questioned). There is biblical warrant to suggest that in certain circumstances it is legitimate to highlight one side of a biblical truth in order to maintain balance. For example, several central biblical truths are expressed in unresolvable constructive tensions: There is the tension between election and covenant (unconditional vs. conditional relationship), prophet and priest (proclaiming divine justice and warning of judgment vs. administering divine forgiveness and atonement through the cultus), or, as we have noted in some detail, God’s character as being both gracious and just. Depending on the context, it seems natural to emphasize one or the other side in order to maintain or correct the fundamental tension. There is good biblical support that Israel often appeals to the gracious, merciful, and forgiving attributes of Yhwh, over the divine attributes of justice when under judgment (cf. Ps 103:8–13, Jonah 4:2, Joel 2:13). 136 So it makes good sense for Jeremiah to highlight the demanding side of Torah (radical obedience and conditionality) to a wayward, lax, and disobedient people, while in prayer he appeals to the enduring and unconditional dimension of the Davidic covenant (divine election and sonship). Jeremiah concludes his prayer for Yhwh’s help and covenant maintenance in the form of three rhetorical questions that affirm Yhwh’s supremacy over the gods of the nations. Can any idols of the nations (‫)ּבה ְַבלֵי הַּגֹויִם‬ ְ bring rain? Or can the heavens give showers? Is it not you, O Lord our God? We set our hope on you, for it is you who do all this. ( Jer 14:22)

Jeremiah returns to the theme of rain, or the lack of it, that gave rise to the first prayer ( Jer 14:1–6, 7–9). This time Yhwh is brought into direct contrast with the false gods of the nations, those, as the Hebrew suggests, that do not really exist (‫ָלים‬ ִ ‫הב‬ ֲ ). Neither the idols nor the heavens (probably astral deities are in mind) can bring rain. Yhwh, the creator of heaven and earth, the one who made everything is the only one who can bring about life. Jeremiah’s prayer reminds us here once again of the Mount Carmel scenario where Baal and his prophets proved useless, while Yhwh responded to Elijah’s prayer for rain (cf. 1 Kings 18). It remains disputed among interpreters, however, whether v. 22 really contains a specific reference to the drought that gave rise to the first prayer ( Jer 14:1–2, 7–9). 137 McKane, for example, contests the view that Jeremiah’s 136. See Milgrom, Numbers, 392–94, for a biblical overview of how in petitionary prayer the divine attributes of grace are emphasized over the attributes of justice. 137.  Reventlow (Das Gebet, 259) sees a reference here to the ongoing conflict for supremacy between the Canaanite gods and Yhwh in the land.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

381

prayer assumes a background of drought. He thus points to the immediate context of Yhwh’s forecast of invasion, siege, and military defeat (cf. Jer 14:17–18). Moreover, McKane holds that there is a transition from drought to sword and famine in vv.  11–16. With regard to v.  22, he takes it as a concrete expression of faith in Yhwh’s control over the order of nature. 138 Duhm, on the other hand, argues that v.  19 refers to distress caused by drought and he suggests that behind the appeal to divine reputation in v. 21 is the concern that Judah will be reduced to a laughing-stock in the eyes of the world, because of Yhwh’s failure to make it rain. 139 Where do these thoughts leave us in our reading of the text? There seems to be little doubt that the text holds that a great drought ( Jer 14:1–6) gave rise to the first prayer ( Jer 14:7–9). In vv.  11–18, the divine judgment is expanded from a drought to sword, pestilence, and famine. Famine seems to be a clear consequence of the drought. Throughout the divine-human dialogue, sword and famine is one of the leading themes (cf. Jer 14:12, 13, 15, 16, 18). We have already suggested that the distressing questions in v. 19 are evoked and intensified by Yhwh’s depiction of the forthcoming disaster. Thus, the most natural reading of the text is that the drought is a fore­ runner to a more severe judgment: famine, pestilence, and war. In other words, Jeremiah’s second prayer is best read against the entire background. It is noteworthy that the tone of the prayer here, like many of the psalms of laments, shifts from complaint and petition to a confession of trust in Yhwh. Jeremiah’s prayer ends in a kind of doxology that implicitly seeks to persuade Yhwh to open the heavens for rain. Brueggemann observes, “It is doxology, but not disinterested doxology. Verse 22 is an act of praise that summons God to do what God characteristically and faithfully does.” Brueggemann is quick to note, however, that the doxology has a hollow sound in the light of Israel’s sin ( Jer 14:7, 10, 20). “Israel cannot endlessly disobey and expect all to be set right by an act of praise (see 7:10). The covenant is more serious than that.” 140 However, I have argued that this is not Isael’s prayer but Jeremiah’s. Yhwh’s reply follows immediately Jeremiah’s prayer for God’s intervention for the sake of His name and for undeserved covenant loyalty. “Even Though Moses and Samuel Stood before Me” (Jeremiah 15:1) The divine reply brings further clarification with regard to the delicate issue: When is Yhwh’s “no” to intercessory prayer a definite “no” and 138.  McKane, Jeremiah, 1:332. 139. Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia (KHKAT 9; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1901) 131. 140.  Brueggemann (Jeremiah, 140–41) points also to Barth (Church Dogmatics 3/3, 265– 88), who asserts that praise is the beginning and end of prayer, but petition is “the factual order and essence of prayer” (p. 267).

382

Chapter 8

when is there room to challenge the divine judgment on grounds of mercy, covenant loyalty, and divine honor? In response to Jeremiah’s prayer, we find the last and most forceful prohibition to intercede (cf. Jer 7:16, 11:14, 14:11): Then the Lord said to me: Even though 141 Moses and Samuel stood before me (‫ּושמּואֵל ְל ָפנַי אֵין נ ְַפ ִׁשי אֶל־ ָהעָם ַהּזֶה‬ ְׁ ‫ שה‬ ֶׁ ֹ ‫)אם־יַעֲמֹד מ‬, ִ yet my heart would not turn toward this people. Send them out of my sight, and let them go! ( Jer 15:1)

This verse once again brings Jeremiah in close association with the two foremost intercessors and covenant mediators of the Hebrew Bible. For several reasons, this is a very interesting and important verse for any treatment of intercessory prayer, as we will see. First, it is important because it uses one of the main “technical” terms to describe the role of the prophetic intercessor. The prophet was traditionally a mediator between Yhwh and the people (Deut 18:15–22). The prophets were responsible to pass on the words of God to the people and to “stand before the Lord” (‫ ) ָעמַד ִל ְפנֵי‬in prayer on behalf of the sinful people. The expression “standing before the Lord” on behalf of the people is also used by Jeremiah to describe his intercessory activity (cf. Jer 18:20), and it goes all the way back to Abraham’s prayer on behalf of Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. Gen 18:22–23, 19:27). Elijah introduces himself as the prophet of Yhwh, “before whom I stand” (1 Kgs 17:1; 18:15). God raises up prophets to serve him (“to stand before him,” Deut 18:5) as advocates and messengers (Deut 4:10). The imagery perhaps has its roots in political negotiations, where the supplicants send an advocate to negotiate on their behalf before a great king while they await the outcome of the negotiations in the “outer hall” (cf. Jer 23:18, Dan 1:4). Others have emphasized the cultic connotations of “standing before Yhwh” and argue that it refers to a cultic functionary who mediates between Yhwh and His people in the temple. 142 Is Jeremiah possibly commanded to drive the people out of the temple literally (“send them out of my sight” Jer 15:1)? 143 Because there is no immediate reference as to where the divine-human dialogue takes place, it is hard to assess this claim (cf. Jeremiah 7). The narrative logic suggests a long, ongoing dialogue between Yhwh and His prophet over the future of Israel (cf. Exod 32–34). Second, Jer 15:1 establishes a kind of biblical hierarchy as to who were the most influential mediators in the Old Testament. Moses and Samuel are Israel’s two great prophetic intercessors of the past. They have reached 141.  The conjunction ‫ ִאם‬here is concessive and should probably be translated “even though” (cf. HALOT). The conjunction doubtless has alternative force (cf. Gen 26:11), and the singular verb reinforces the impression. See Holladay, Jeremiah, 439. 142.  Priests and Levites are also acknowledged ministers before the Lord (Deut 10:8, 18:7) who “perform their service” (1 Kgs 8:11). In the heavenly court, hosts are at God’s right and left hand (2 Chr 18:18). 143.  Reventlow, Das Gebet, 260.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

383

a proverbial status in the mindset of the Israelites (cf. Ps 99:6). 144 We have seen in some detail how Moses and Samuel have managed to pacify Yhwh’s wrath and succeeded to preserve the covenant relationship. 145 This time, however, there appears to be no room left for concessions. The fact that even Israel’s two outstanding intercessors could not achieve divine pardon for Israel anymore suggests that Israel’s relationship with Yhwh has reached an unprecedented low point. Third, Jer 15:1 confirms that God usually takes prophetic intercessory prayers into account and is prepared to show mercy over justice. This verse clearly assumes an understanding of prayer whereby the prophet is able to influence God’s decision making of the future. Yhwh is a relational God who is open to be persuaded by human petition to take a different course of action with regard to pardon and judgment. Fourth, God’s response in v. 1 shows that Israel’s sin and Yhwh’s resolve to execute judgment can and have reached a state in which no intercessory activity can overrule them anymore. The main focus of the verse is clearly on the severity of Israel’s sin. Israel has consistently ignored Yhwh’s warnings. The people have a terrible track record of sins: lying, apostasy, idolatry, adultery, and oppression of the poor. In fact, just like the Ethiopians cannot change the color of their skin or leopards their spots, so too can Israel no longer do any good (cf. Jer 13:23). In the face of Israel’s persistent and unrelenting sins, God’s heart hardened. Israel’s refusal to “turn” is so persistent (cf. Jer 2:30, 3:10, 5:3, 15:7) that a divine “turning” is no longer possible. 146 Yhwh has turned from His people. It is simply too late. 147 The New Testament also knows about a limit of intercessory prayer (cf. 1 John 5:16). In a sermon, Luther makes the same theological point. The Reformer laments over the sinful state of the Germany of his time and says that even if 10 Moseses would rise to intercede for the German people, God would not listen. Luther comments: When I was praying for my beloved Germany, I sensed that my prayers rebounded and could not penetrate the heavens as they usually do when I pray for other things.  148

It is probably in this light that one has to understand Yhwh’s final word on the issue for the moment. Jeremiah is not only to “send them out of 144.  It is interesting to note that Moses is mentioned only five times in the prophets (Isa 63:11, 12; Jer 15:1; Mic 6:4; Mal 3:22; see also the roles ascribed to Noah, Daniel, and Job in Ezek 14:14, 16) and Samuel apart from here not at all. In the LXX, Aaron is mentioned instead of Samuel. In Ps 99:6, all three are mentioned. For more details, see my discussion of Psalm 99, pp. 197–201. 145.  For example, Exod 32:11–14, Num 14:13–19, 1 Sam 7:8–9, 12:19. 146.  Miller, Jeremiah, 692. 147.  Fretheim, Jeremiah, 226. 148.  “Predigt, dass man Kinder zur Schule halten soll,” 1530 (WA 30.2) 585. Cited in Hesse, Fürbitte, 53. See also Helmut Thielicke, “Grenzen der Fürbitte,” Theologie der Anfechtung (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1949) 169.

384

Chapter 8

Yhwh’s sight and let them go,” but vv. 3–4 make it evident that God will be actively involved in executing the punishment. The covenant curses will be implemented. Yhwh will visit Israel with plague, sword, dogs, and the beasts of the fields. This graphic description of the judgment is a fourfold summary of the curses listed in Deut 28:25–68 that would be implemented if Israel’s disobedience persisted. “There is now nothing to deter or to alter Yahweh’s resolve.” 149 Verses 5–9 make it evident that Yhwh’s resolve to execute severe judgment on Jerusalem does not come easy to God. The base line is that Yhwh is a God of great patience, but now He is exhausted and the “hand of Yhwh” turns from being a means of rescue to a means of wrath (cf. Deut 26:8, 15:6). Yhwh’s active involvement in the outworking of divine justice and punishment highlights one of the most central aspects of a theology of prayer: the relationship between God’s mercy, wrath, and intercessory prayer. 150

The Prophet’s Inner Conflict and God’s Renewed Calling (Jeremiah 15:10–21) Interestingly, Yhwh’s final and strongest prohibition to advocate on behalf of the idolatrous and disobedient people, coupled with God’s firm resolve to punish His people, is once again followed by a lament. We have already noted that all but one of the four divine interdictions to intercede appear in the context of Jeremiah’s “confessions” (cf. Jer 11:14, 18– 20, 12:1–6). By prohibiting Jeremiah from standing in the breach for the people, God is in effect denying the full prophetic role to Jeremiah. It remains to be tested in the following prophetic lament whether the divine ban on intercessory prayer lies possibly at the root of Jeremiah’s complaint ( Jer 15:10–21). Before we can look at the content of the prophet’s lament and God’s response, here is a word about some textual ambiguities. The Hebrew in vv. 11–14 is ambiguous, and v. 11 is especially open to multiple interpretations. Because of textual difficulties in the MT, some translations follow the LXX and regard vv. 11–14 to be a continuation of Jeremiah’s lament. 151 The nrsv and niv, by contrast, take vv.  11–14 as God’s response to Jeremiah’s lament in v. 10. The discussion is complex, and any meaningful engagement with the textual issues would require too much space in a study of this sort. 152 One major reading of v. 11 (reflected in the nrsv), is that God responds to Jeremiah’s lament (v. 10), saying that He has intervened in Jeremiah’s life for good, and yet Yhwh acknowledges that His word has created hardship 149.  Brueggemann, Jeremiah, 141. 150.  See the section “Concluding Theological Reflections,” pp. 519–527. 151. E.g., rsv, jb, Buber. See the textual apparatus of the BHS for a choice of possible readings. 152. See McKane, Jeremiah, 343–50; and Fischer, Jeremia, 501–6, for a detailed discussion of the textual and interpretive issues involved.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

385

for the prophet. The tension between blessing and hardship in Jeremiah’s life is of course central in these verses. I prefer, however, to read v. 11 as part of the prophet’s lament. Mainly on contextual grounds, it makes better sense to read v. 11 as Jeremiah’s protest that he has served Yhwh to the best of his ability as intercessor, even to the extent of praying for his enemies when they were caught up in distress and afflictions. 153 In a later profession of innocence, Jeremiah reminds Yhwh once again of how he stood before God on behalf of his enemies (cf. Jer 18:20). Thus, I suggest the following structure: Jeremiah’s lament ( Jer 15:10– 11), divine response (vv.  12–14), 154 Jeremiah’s lament (vv.  15–18), divine response (vv. 19–21). We have observed a similar dialogical pattern in Jeremiah’s previous laments in 11:18–23 (cf. Jer 12:1–4, 5–6). “Woe Is Me”: The Pain of the Faithful Intercessor (Jeremiah 15:10–11) Woe is me, my mother, that you ever bore me, a man of strife and contention to the whole land! I have not lent, nor have I borrowed, yet all of them curse me. Truly O Lord (‫) ָאמֵן יְהוָה‬, 155 if I have not served you for their good (ָ‫)ׁשֵרַ ִּתיך‬, if I have not interceded with you for the enemy in the time of trouble and in the time of distress (‫ אֶת־ ָהאֹי ֵב‬. . . ָ‫אם־לֹוא ִה ְפּג ְַע ִּתי ְבך‬, ִ Jer 15:10–11)  156

It appears that Jeremiah’s pain and inner conflict is caused by the nature of his twofold ministry to proclaim God’s words of judgment and to advocate the cause of the people in the divine council. In v. 10, the prophet expresses regret that he was ever born. 157 The “woe is me” (‫)אֹוי־לי‬ ִ is an expression of a self-imposed curse (cf. Jer 20:14). This 153.  This line of interpretation is also taken by Wilhelm Rudolph, Jeremia (HAT 12, Tübingen: Mohr Seibeck, 1968) 105–6; Weiser, Jeremia, 130­–31; Werner H. Schmidt, Das Buch Jeremia: Kapitel 1–20 (ATD 20; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008) 275; and it comes also to expression in Buber’s translation and the rsv. See McKane, Jeremiah, for some difficulties with this interpretation. 154.  These verses are difficult to integrate in its context. They look like a doublet of Jer 17:3–4. 155.  The MT reads: ‫“( ָאמַר יְהוָה‬the Lord said”). The translation above follows the suggested reading of the BHS that follows the LXX (γένοιτο could be translated “may it happen”). See also Rudolph, Jeremia, 104. 156.  The text and the meaning of the word (ָ‫ותך‬ ִ ‫ׁשִֵר‬, sherivtikha) are debated. The translation above follows the LXX (cf. rsv), which has Jeremiah supporting his complaint that he has been faithful. In this case, the conjectural reading of the verb ָ‫ותך‬ ִ ‫ ׁשִֵר‬is taken to mean “I have served you” (ָ‫ )ׁשֵרַ ִּתיך‬from the root ‫ׁשרת‬, and the parallel verb reads “I have made intercession for my enemies.” So, e.g., BHS and Rudolph, Jeremia, 104. Those who try to make sense of the MT suppose that God is speaking and is promising Jeremiah deliverance from his enemies. In this case, the ambiguous verb ָ‫ותך‬ ִ ‫ ׁשִֵר‬is taken to mean “deliver” (‫ )ׁשרה‬or “strengthen” (cf. BDB). The parallel verb is then taken to mean “I will cause your enemies to entreat you,” a meaning it has nowhere else. See Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 446–47, for a more detailed discussion. 157.  Cf. Jer 20:14–18 and Job 3:3–4.

386

Chapter 8

reverberates back not only to Jeremiah’s call narrative, where it says that he was already called to be a prophet in his mother’s womb ( Jer 1:5), but it also has strong resonances with Moses’ moments of despair (cf. Num 11:11­–15). In effect, Jeremiah seems to be saying that he wishes that he were never called to be Yhwh’s prophet. Jeremiah seems to have acquired quite a reputation in the land and the prophetic role proves to be just too much to bear. Everyone seems to fight and curse him (v. 10). His obedience to God’s mission has made the prophet a social outcast in the entire land (cf. Jer 15:16, 16:1–9). In some sense, Jeremiah’s lament reflects the pain of God. Just as the people have rejected the prophet, so too have they rejected God. The rebellion of the people causes laments and complaint both on the lips of God and the prophet (cf. Jer 11:7–13). Verse 11 seems to give further expression to the prophet’s inner conflict. On the one hand, Jeremiah has to endure the social consequences of being faithful to God’s message. For the sake of God and his people, Jeremiah cannot help but speak up for God’s justice in the face of Israel’s ethical corruption and blatant idolatry. 158 On the other hand, Jeremiah was called to be the people’s intercessor. After all, being an intercessor is an essential part of his prophethood. The people, however, totally disregard the fact that Jeremiah has been faithfully standing in the breach against God’s wrath on their behalf. They repay him with mockery, conspiracy, persecution, and curses. Thus, the prophet’s complaint here seems to come as a kind of renewed self-justification before the heavenly judge. Jeremiah appears to want to make sure that at least Yhwh knows that he meant well with Judah even though they curse him (cf. Jer 18:20). To make the prophet’s inner turmoil worse, the Lord has told him four times to refrain from prayer at this point. In other words, his prophetic self-understanding is seriously challenged. Clements provides some helpful reflections on the prophet’s inner pain: We may begin to see the consequences of this conflict forcing Jeremiah into a new awareness of the nature and ambivalences of the prophetic office. To be the people’s spokesman before God and, responsively, God’s spokesman to the people had been conceived as that of intermediary and messagebearer. He was the go-between for God and nation. Now his gobetween status was rising into a position where his mind, heart, and will were caught up in the tension the relationship between God and people had brought. The people could no longer bear him, and he in turn found that he could no longer bear to fulfill the tasks and duties of his ministry of the divine word entailed. He was becoming a prophet without an audience—an object of mockery . . . Verses 10–12 reflect this situation by giving vent to some of the most poignant words in the entire book. It is the Kierkegaardian situation of despair. By totally abandoning the desire and will to live, he discovers his deepest sense of personal identity 158.  See Jer 9:2–3, 20:8–9.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

387

(Kierkegaard, pp.  42ff). By reaching the point of rejecting his life and despairing of it, he became compelled to reconsider what his life and prophetic office truly meant. 159

According to Clements, Jeremiah’s inner turmoil foreshadows the agony that will overtake the people in the conquest. Jeremiah is experiencing and sharing the pain that will hit Judah in 587 b.c. Clements brings the dynamics of these verses in connection with Heb 2:18: “For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.” Divine Response (Jeremiah 15:12–14) As already indicated, the exegetes disagree over the meaning of vv. 12– 14. Does God’s reply come as an oracle of comfort and encouragement? 160 Verses 13–14 overlap largely with 17:3–4. There, however, the verses clearly indicate a divine judgment directed at rebellious Israel. While here they seem to be Yhwh’s response to Jeremiah’s lament. 161 In other words, these verses appear to come as a further confirmation that judgment against Judah is near and that God is resolved to bring it about. This seems to be supported by Jeremiah’s subsequent words of protest and complaint ( Jer 15:15–18). If this is the sense of these verses, this would not only suggest that Yhwh is once again implicitly saying that Jeremiah’s intercessions cannot change the divine will anymore, but also that Jeremiah’s lament ( Jer 15:10–11) is somewhat overruled by God’s decision to punish Jerusalem and the land. All of Judah’s treasures are about to be given to Babylon by Yhwh. Allowing for the harsh possibility that Yhwh’s reply does not contain any encouragement to or vindication of Jeremiah, it makes good sense that the prophet continues to complain and lament. 162 In light of these uncertainties, any responsible interpreter of these verses needs to be cautious about putting forward a definite reading of this passage. 163 Prayer for Vindication and Accusation (Jeremiah 15:15­–18) Whatever the exact force of God’s reply in vv. 12–14, it has provoked Jeremiah to a fervent response ( Jer 15:15–18). On a structural level, Jeremiah’s prayer moves from four petitions (“remember, visit, bring down retribution, do not take me away,” v. 15ab), via a protestation of innocence (vv. 15c–17), to complaint (v. 18). 164 159.  Ronald E. Clements, Jeremiah (IBC; Atlanta: John Knox, 1988) 97­–98. 160.  Fischer, Jeremiah, 504–5. 161.  Clements, Jeremiah, 98. 162.  Brueggemann, Jeremiah, 145. 163. See Fretheim, Jeremiah, 236, for a brief overview of different interpretations of these difficult verses. 164.  Jeremiah’s prayer in vv. 15–18 contains the typical elements of a lament: invocation (v. 15a), petition (v. 15b), protestation of innocence (vv. 16–17), lament (v. 18).

388

Chapter 8

O Lord, you know! (‫ַּתה יָדַ ְע ָּת‬ ָ ‫ )א‬165 Remember me and visit me, and bring down retribution for me on my persecutors (‫ָקם ִלי מֵר ְֹדפַי‬ ֶ ‫)ו ִהּנ‬. ְ In your forְ ‫ַל־ל ֶאר‬ bearance (ָ‫ֶך א ְַּפך‬ ְ ‫ )א‬do not take me away; know that on your account I suffer insult. Your words were found, and I ate them, and your words became to me a joy and the delight of my heart; for I am called by your name, O Lord, God of hosts. I did not sit in the company of merrymakers, nor did I rejoice; under the weight of your hand I sat alone, for you had filled me with indignation. Why is my pain unceasing, my wound incurable, refusing to be healed? Truly, you are to me like a deceitful brook, like waters that fail. ( Jer 15:15–18)

After a brief invocation of Yhwh’s name, Jeremiah’s opening expression “You know!” comes without any qualifying object. Is it a confession of trust in the One who has known the prophet since before he was formed in his mother’s womb ( Jer 1:5)? Or is it an implicit reproach to Yhwh who knows and yet does not intervene on behalf of the one who suffers innocently on account of God? 166 Although at the heart of prayer there is often a somewhat paradoxical tension between confessing belief in an omniscient God and telling God everything, 167 judging from Jeremiah’s emphatic and somewhat abrupt profession of Yhwh’s intimate knowledge of him and his circumstances, it sounds like the prophet blames God for not acting. The prophet asks to be remembered and pleads for a divine visitation. These petitions appear to come as a confession of innocence. The prophet is obviously confident that a divine visitation (‫ )פקד‬would result in his vindication before his persecutors. Jeremiah’s experience is that his adversaries treat him like a social outcast and traitor (cf. Jer 15:10, 11:19). Because of the injustice and evil that the prophet suffers at the hands of his persecutors, Jeremiah pleads for divine retribution (‫)ו ִהּנָקֶם ִלי מֵר ְֹדפַי‬. ְ Interestingly, the same prophet who has just reminded God of how faithfully he has interceded on behalf of the enemy (cf. Jer 15:11), now prays for divine punishment ( Jer 15:15). Both prayers for blessings and for curses are, in a wider sense, intercessory prayers. Does this shift in Jeremiah’s attitude and prayer indicate that his patience and forebearance with the people, like God, has reached its limit? Does this shift of prayer objective reflect God’s evolving purposes? It seems that here we have a mixture of Jeremiah in his indignation getting personal and praying specifically against his fellow town people who have attempted to kill him (cf. Jer 11:18–19), and Jeremiah praying back to Yhwh what God has already announced to His prophet. Namely, the divine resolve that He will visit (‫ )פקד‬Anathoth in judgment ( Jer 11:22). It is important to note, that unlike his enemies, Jeremiah does not take vengeance into his own hands, but prays to the heavenly judge who judges 165.  The exclamation mark serves to highlight the arrangement of the MT. 166.  Brueggemann, Jeremiah, 146. 167.  Cf. Matt 6:8, 32; 7:7.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

389

righteously (cf. Jer 11:20). We shall return to this tension of praying for and against one’s enemy in my reading of chap. 18, where we find a fuller imprecatory prayer on Jeremiah’s lips. In spite of Jeremiah’s innocence, Yhwh does not intervene immediately. Thus, Jeremiah urges God to refrain from His great patience and to come ְ ‫ַל־ל ֶאר‬ to his speedy salvation. The expression “in your forbearance (ָ‫ֶך א ְַּפך‬ ְ ‫)א‬ do not take me away” is an appeal to the very character of God as Israel knows and confesses: “Yhwh, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger” ְ ‫ ֶאר‬, Exod 34:6). Here, however, Jeremiah wants Yhwh not to delay in (‫ֶך ַא ַּפיִם‬ holding back the judgment. In fact, in praying for Yhwh’s visitation (‫)פקד‬ the prophet seems to appeal implicitly to the second part of Yhwh’s name, where God says that He will not clear the guilty, but visit the iniquity of the sinners (‫ונַ ֵקּה לֹא ְינ ֶַקּה ּפ ֹקֵד עֲֹון אָבֹות‬,ְ Exod 34:7). Jeremiah hopes that his adversaries will not be left unpunished, but subjected to divne retribution (‫ָקם ִלי מֵר ְֹדפַי‬ ֶ ‫ ְ;ו ִהּנ‬Jer 15:15, 11:22), By being lenient with his enemies, Yhwh prolongs Jeremiah’s suffering and thus endangers the prophet’s life (“do not take me away”). 168 In Jeremiah’s days, Israel had very likely no developed understanding of life after death. 169 For this reason, the innocent sufferer needed to know on whose side divine justice was within one’s lifetime. This plea for divine vindication is enforced by Jeremiah’s complaint: “Know that for your sake I bear ׂ ְ ‫דַ ּע‬, Jer 15:15). In other words, Jeremiah summons reproach” (‫ֶרּפָה‬ ְ ‫שא ִֵתי ָעלֶיךָ ח‬ Yhwh anew to recognise (imperative) that he endures all this hardship on account of the One who has commissioned him to preach against Jerusalem and the temple (cf. Jer 1:7; 2:1, 7). The expression and concept of bearing reproach for the sake of God finds an insightful intertextual parallel in Ps 69:7 (MT: v. 8, ‫ׂאתי‬ ִ ‫ָש‬ ָ ‫ִּכי־ ָעלֶיךָ נ‬ ‫ֶרּפָה‬ ְ ‫)ח‬, where the psalmist makes the same accusation against God: “It is for your sake that I have borne reproach.” As we shall see, the conceptual parallels between Jeremiah and the figure of Psalm 69 go considerably further and are worthy of extra exploration.

Excursus on Psalm 69: “For Your Sake I Have Borne Reproach” (Psalm 69:7) The psalmist refers to himself as a servant of the Lord whose loyal service to God results in his mistreatment. From v. 4 (MT 5) 170 we can deduce that many enemies work to bring about the psalmist’s suffering and destruction. The psalmist, however, claims to be falsely attacked and accused by his enemies. He insists on his innocence and claims to be a faithful servant of God. In Ps 69:6, in a short confession of sin, he commits his 168.  The verb ‫ לקח‬is used in the same way here as in Ps 73:24 and is a synonym for dying. Cf. Fischer, Jeremia, 507. 169.  We shall return to some of the implications of Jeremiah’s limited world view later in the chapter. 170.  In the rest of the excursus, I will refer to the English versification of Psalm 69.

390

Chapter 8

conscience to Yhwh (cf. Jer 11:20, 15:15). The confession, as in Jeremiah’s case, not only serves as a protestation of his innocence, but also seems to provide the basis for an effective prayer (cf. Ps 139:1b–24). 171 Another point of contact between Jeremiah and the psalmist is that the servant’s zeal for the house of God has consumed him (Ps 69:9). Jeremiah’s fervent devotion to God’s word, as for example expressed in his temple sermon, also burned within him (cf. Jeremiah 7; 20:9). Just as the psalmist became the target of his own social group (Ps 69:8), so too Jeremiah suffered the verbal and physical abuse of the people from his home town (cf. Jer 11:18–19). In both cases, their mistreatments resulted in a series of vengeful prayers against the opposition. 172 We shall return to the logic of the imprecatory prayer and its ongoing hermeneutical challenges in greater detail later on in this chapter. Here I would like to draw attention to the principle of “measure for measure” that is most likely behind the imprecations of Psalm 69 and some of Jeremiah’s prayers for vengeance. In Hebrew literature one frequently encounters a correspondence between offence and punishment and this appears to be the case here too. The psalm contains a number of fierce curses, which correspond to the pain and humiliation that the psalmist experienced. For example, the psalmist prays: “Let their table be a trap for them” (Ps 69:22). This is probably a reversal of the poisoned food and the vinegar drink that the enemies gave to the psalmist (Ps 69:21), while the petition to blind their eyes seems to reflect v. 4, where the psalmist laments that his eyes grow dim. Furthermore, the imprecation of v. 24, to handicap their loins, appears to allude to the psalmist’s losing of ground in v. 3. 173 The petition for the annihilation of the family of the enemies (Ps 69:26) might again reflect an intensification of the psalmist’s alienation from his family (Ps 69:9). 174 Jeremiah’s call for retaliation also shows some correspondence between his enemies’ offense against him and his prayers against them. For example, the men of Anatoth attempted to kill Jeremiah (“you will die by our hand”): eventually, they and their sons will die (“the young men shall die . . . their sons and their daughters shall die,” Jer 11:18–23). The lex talion principle is also visible when Jeremiah describes himself as a “lamb led to the slaughter” ( Jer 11:19) and is seen in his prayer: “Pull them out like sheep for the slaughter” ( Jer 12:3). 175 In other words, both sets of imprecations are not mere emotional wishes for revenge, but also appeals to divine justice. Although the identity of the psalmist can no longer be established with any certainty, the psalm clearly belongs to the exilic/postexilic period (cf. Ps 171.  Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51–100 (WBC 20; Dallas: Word, 1990) 196. 172.  Cf. Ps 69:23–29; Jer 11:20, 15:15, 18:18–23. 173.  Lesslie C. Allen, Psalms 101–150 (WBC 21; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002) 580. 174.  Idem, “The Value of Rhetorical Criticism in Psalm 69,” JBL 105 (1986) 580. 175.  Avioz, “The Call for Revenge,” 436.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

391

69:35–36). 176 The psalm sketches a liturgical-theological portrayal of someone who shows a remarkable resemblance to Jeremiah. Indeed, in the history of psalms interpretation, Jeremiah has often been identified with the psalmist of Psalm 69. Mays summarizes some of the conceptual parallels: The Jeremiah of “the confessions” suffered reproach for the sake of the Lord, was alienated from family and peers, cried out to God about his affliction, and prayed for God to vindicate him and punish his persecutors ( Jer 11:18–20; 15:15–18; 17:14–18). He was zealous for the integrity of the Lord’s house ( Jer 7:1–15) and was literally thrown into “deep mire” at the bottom of a cistern. ( Jer 38:6) 177

Both Jeremiah and the psalmist suffer as loyal and zealous servants of Yhwh, both bearing pain and humiliation caused by their enemies because of their zeal for God (cf. Jer 17:15). Thus, they are not presented only as suffering servants but as suffering for the sake of God (Ps 69:6–7, Jer 15:15). 178 Kraus rightly emphasizes the significance of v. 6, where the petitioner perceives himself to be suffering as an example: Do not let those who hope in you be put to shame because of me, O Lord God of hosts; do not let those who seek you be dishonored because of me, O God of Israel. (Ps 69:6)

The psalmist not only pleads for his own life, but he also intercedes for all those who trust in Yhwh and whose faith in God’s faithfulness is on the line because the psalmist’s innocent suffering. Kraus notes that Psalm 69 points here beyond itself and comes close to the concept of vicarious suffering. 179 The psalmist draws attention in his prayer that God’s salvific intervention in his life would be a great testimony to divine faithfulness. 180 In other words, the trust of those who hope in God and seek Him is at issue in the psalmist’s predicament. If the innocent sufferer is not finally vindicated, those who hope in Israel’s God will be dishonored and shamed. Of course, from a canonical perspective, both Jeremiah’s suffering and that portrayed in Psalm 69 correspond in many ways to the life of Jesus. Alongside Psalm 22, 69 is frequently used in the New Testament for 176.  See William L. Holladay, The Psalms through Three Thousand Years: Prayerbook of a Cloud of Witnesses (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 57–59. 177.  James L. Mays, Psalms (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1994) 232. 178.  This is elaborated in vv. 8 and 10 where the servant, in a somewhat enigmatic way, understands his pain and shame as to be borne for the sake of Yhwh. 179. Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen 60–150 (BKAT 15/2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978) 643. 180.  The understanding of innocent suffering probably goes back to the communal laments (cf. Pss 44:18–27, 74:18–19), where Israel believed that at times they were not suffering on account of their trespasses but because it was the will of Yhwh. This understanding most likely developed during the exile, where the prophets increasingly emphasized the role of the individual innocent sufferer.

392

Chapter 8

theological­purposes. Both Psalms provide a hermeneutical context for reflecting on Jesus’ rejection by his own people (cf. John 15:25) and his driving out the merchants from the temple yard (cf. John 3:17). They experience bitter treatment instead of pity (cf. Matt 27:34, Luke 23:36, John 19:19). As Mays states, Even the harsh prayer against the persecutors (Ps. 69:22–28), which seemed appropriate in the mouth of Jeremiah but not for Jesus, took on meaning. Luke saw in it the prayer for vindication answered in the fate of Judas (Acts 1:20). . . . For the prophet of Revelation, it pointed to the eschatological outpouring of wrath against the foes of the coming kingdom of God. (Rev. 16:1) 181

Later in this chapter, I shall engage further with the hermeneutical question of how to understand and appropriate imprecatory prayers.

“Your Words Were Found, and I Ate Them. . . . You Are to Me Like a Deceitful Brook” (Jeremiah 15:16–18) It looks very much as though, besides prayer, the other source that has sustained Jeremiah in his life and ministry is the power of God’s words. 182 In v. 16, Jeremiah gives voice, perhaps with biblical unparalleled intensity, to his great delight in the divine words that were entrusted to him until they became his hardship. In spite of initial hesitations of fear and inadequacy, Jeremiah obeyed Yhwh and consumed the divine words at the time of his calling (cf. Jer 1:6–9; cf. Ezek 2:8–3:3). Your words were found (ָ‫ִמ ְצאּו ְד ָברֶיך‬ ְ ‫)נ‬, and I ate them, and your words became to me a joy and the delight of my heart; for I am called by your name, O Lord, God of hosts. (‫יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי ְצבָאֹות‬, Jer 15:16)

Only here do we find that a prophet (or a single person) is called by the divine name. So far the expression appeared twice in the book of Jeremiah. Once it is used in association with the temple ( Jer 7:10), and the second time with the people ( Jer 14:9). In both cases, being called by Yhwh’s name connotes divine closeness. Sometimes being called by someone’s name indicates a marriage relationship (Isa 4:1). In Jeremiah’s case, the intimate relationship with God is enforced by the following reverential invocation of Yhwh’s name and the address “God of hosts.” Fretheim insightfully probes some of the implications of v. 16 in its context: The words God had placed in Jeremiah’s mouth had become an integral part of his identity; he was now an embodied word of God. He now bore the name of Yahweh in his very self! This statement is more than a play on his name . . . its a claim regarding a new identity . . . God’s word has so shaped his life that the call was not simply a joyful occasion, but a selfdefining moment. 183 181.  Mays, The Psalms, 232–33. 182.  Fischer, Jeremia, 101. 183.  Fretheim, Jeremiah, 238.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

393

One could perhaps even say that in his best moments, when Jeremiah remains true to the divine word, even when it endangers his life (cf. Jer 26:12–15, 38:1–3), the divine word became flesh. In those moments of absolute obedience to God, Jeremiah embodies the ideal messenger of God. Of course, as the following prayer reveals, this was not always the case. 184 I did not sit in the company of merrymakers, nor did I rejoice; under the weight of your hand I sat alone, for you had filled me with indignation. Why is my pain unceasing, my wound incurable, refusing to be healed? Truly, you are to me like a deceitful brook, like waters that fail. ( Jer 15:17–18)

There is a gradual change of tone in Jeremiah’s prayer from pitiful selfreflections on his circumstances to some of the sharpest accusations against God in the entire Bible. Because Jeremiah does not compromise his call and does not establish relationships with the covenant breakers, he is lonely and socially isolated. 185 Yhwh’s “heavy hand” is probably a metaphor for the pressure that the divine word fostered in the prophet. Jeremiah’s message is one of divine pathos and wrath ( Jer 12:7–13, 14:17–18, 15:2–4). In the course of Jeremiah’s ministry, he has come to see things through Yhwh’s eyes as it were. God has filled Jeremiah with divine indignation about all the evil around him (v. 17). As the dialogue with God progresses, Jeremiah gives more and more expression to the tension of the mediator. On the one hand, he loves the people and intercedes for them, but on the other hand, the prophet sees their many blatant sins and thus he is weary with holding back the wrath of God that he came to embody ( Jer 6:11, 20:9). Jeremiah’s inner struggle over the fate of Judah reflects in many ways God’s mercy and wrath (Exod 34:6–7). As mediator, Jeremiah stands between God and the people, he represents both sides to the other party, and he embodies the suffering, the uncertainty, the wrath, and the hopes of both sides at the same time. This time, the prophet has reached a moment of being filled with the wrath of God and is weary of holding it back. After having put forward a number of reasons why God should intervene on his behalf, Jeremiah’s argument now takes on an emotional tone of complaint. From the psalms of lament, the reader knows that complaint in the lament tradition contains 184.  Another, not-incompatible reading of the “words” (‫ָרים‬ ִ‫)דב‬ ּ ְ is that they refer back to the discovery (“found,” ‫[ מצא‬Niphal], 2 Kgs 22:8) of the “Book of the Law” (“the words of this book,” ‫ִמצָא ַהּזֶה‬ ְ ‫ד ְּברֵי ַה ֵ ּספֶר ַהּנ‬, ִ 2 Kgs 22:13) in the temple during Josiah’s reign. It is debated to what “The Book of the Law (‫ ”) ֵספֶר הַּתֹורָה‬refers. In 2 Kgs 23:2, it is called the “Book of the Covenant” (‫) ֵספֶר ה ְַּבִרית‬. Most scholars think that a part of Deuteronomy, possibly only the law sections, were discovered. It cannot be verified whether Jeremiah refers to the written words of the “Book of the Covenant” in v. 16 or to God’s spoken words. Given the close connection between the prophet and Josiah’s reform, it is possible that the prophet refers here to the “Book of Covenant.” See Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 458; Fischer, Jeremia, 508. 185.  Jeremiah’s profession of innocence in the face of sinful merrymakers finds many parallels in the psalms of lament (cf. Pss 22:6–8, 69:9–12).

394

Chapter 8

intentionality­. It expresses the hardship of the speaker in intense and emotional language in order to evoke Yhwh’s response. 186 Like Moses and numerous psalmists before him, Jeremiah’s plea for vindication is not answered, at least not immediately. According to Israel’s tradition, there is an outlet for unanswered prayers and pain. If God does not answer, then the praying person can at least give voice to his/her distress in lament and accusation. By v. 18, the prophet cannot take it any longer and for a moment breaks down and accuses God in forceful language: “Why is my pain unceasing, my wound incurable, refusing to be healed?” ( Jer 15:18). 187 The force of the penetrating “why question” that is so characteristic of the psalms of lament is accusatory (cf. Ps 22:1). As is often the case in the psalms, the references to suffering and wounds are vague, and thus it seems useless to speculate on the details of the agony. The nature of Jeremiah may be physical or psychological: the nature of his prophetic calling certainly invited both aspects of suffering. The genuine prophetic mediator embodies not only the divine word but, to some degree, the divine pathos as well. In Jeremiah’s loneliness, God filled him with anger. 188 It is probably against this mixed background of pain, anger, and disappointment that the prophet voices in bewilderment a sharp accusation against Yhwh: “Truly, you are to me like a deceitful brook, like waters that fail” ( Jer 15:18). 189 The “fountain of living water” ( Jer 2:13) has become for Jeremiah like a wadi in the wilderness that attracts herds and thirsty nomads, only to be dried up after a short while. Both images are unique in the Bible. “Deceitful brook” contains the Hebrew root ‫כזב‬, “to lie,” an attribute that is explicitly denied of God (Num 23:19). 190 The parallel accusation “waters that cannot be trusted” (‫ַמיִם לֹא‬ ‫אמָנּו‬ ֱ ֶ‫ )נ‬goes equally against a core attribute of Yhwh “abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” (‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ֶ‫ ;ו‬cf. Exod 34:6). In other words, Jeremiah charges Yhwh with not being true to His being. In a moment of despair, Jeremiah seems to question Yhwh’s reliability. Does Jeremiah’s sharp accusation reflect the loneliness of a mediator? On the one hand, his fellow people curse and conspire against him. On the other hand, it is Yhwh who, according to the prophet’s understanding, is far too slow to intervene at this moment. It is particularly to the credit of Holladay that the links between Jeremiah’s “Confession” and Psalm 22 become apparent. 191 There are several 186. See Greenberg, Biblical Prose Prayer, 11–14, on the intentionality in biblical prayer. 187.  Muffs, Love and Joy, 30. 188.  Jer 15:17–18; cf. Jer 8:18–9:1, 14:17. 189. In Jeremiah’s subsequent prayer, the prophet continues, even intensifies, the charges against God of not being reliable and even being deceptive (cf. Jer 17:12–18). See Balentine, Prayer, 164. 190.  See R. W. L. Moberly, “God Is Not a Human That He Should Repent (Numbers 23:19 and 1 Samuel 15:29),” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann (ed. T. Linafelt and T. K. Beal; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) 112–27. 191. See Holladay, “The Background,” 152–64.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

395

strong verbal links between this lament and Jeremiah’s call narrative. Moreover, a reading of the first part of Psalm 22 reveals several conceptual parallels to Jeremiah’s lament and self-understanding. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer; and by night, but find no rest. . . . In you our ancestors trusted; they trusted, and you delivered them. To you they cried, and were saved; in you they trusted, and were not put to shame. But I am a worm, and not human; scorned by others, and despised by the people. All who see me mock at me; they make mouths at me, they shake their heads; “Commit your cause to the Lord; let him deliver— let him rescue the one in whom he delights!” Yet it was you who took me from the womb; you kept me safe on my mother’s breast. On you I was cast from my birth, and since my mother bore me you have been my God. Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no one to help. (Ps 22:1–11)

It is common within the lament tradition that the faithful, when under great trials and suffering, reproach Yhwh. They often seek to persuade their covenant God to live up to the promises and come to their rescue (cf. Ps 22:1–5). 192 As I have already mentioned, Jeremiah’s prayer also contains the essential elements of the lament: invocation (v. 15a), petition (v. 15b), protestation of innocence (vv. 16–17), lament/accusation (v. 18). In response to these cries for help, Yhwh would sometimes respond with an oracle of assurance (cf. Ps 32:8, 1 Sam 1:17) that would help the person in trouble to reorient him or herself to God’s perspective. 193 God’s reply in Jer 15:19–21 probably ought to be understood against this common pattern of Israel’s lament tradition. Here, however, God’s reply first contains a reproach before help is promised (cf. Jer 11: 21–23 and 12:5–6). 192.  Perhaps the most noticeable difference between Jeremiah’s lament and Psalm 22 is the absence of a transition from lament to thanksgiving and praise that characterizes many psalms of lament. The psalmist can testify in the great congregation that God heard his cry, vindicated him, and came to his deliverance (Ps 22:24, 31). The conventional answer of the lament form is an assurance of divine presence, compassion, and deliverance. 193. Von Rad, Theologie 2, 209.

396

Chapter 8

Divine Discipline and Faithfulness (Jeremiah 15:19–21) Therefore thus says the Lord (‫) ָלכֵן ּכֹה־ ָאמַר יְהוָה‬: “If you turn back (‫ם־ּתׁשּוב‬ ָ ‫)א‬, ִ I will take you back (ָ‫יבך‬ ְ ‫ֲׁש‬ ִ ‫) ַוא‬, and you shall stand before me (‫)ל ָפנַי ּתַ עֲמֹד‬. ְ If you utter what is precious, and not what is worthless, you shall serve as my mouth. It is they who will turn (‫ )יָׁשֻבּו‬to you, not you who will turn to them.” (‫אלֵיהֶם‬ ֲ ‫א־תׁשּוב‬ ָ ֹ ‫ל‬, Jer 15:19)

The opening term “therefore” connects God’s response to Jeremiah’s previous lament accusation. God puts forward two conditions to His prophet that contain a promise at the same time. Verse 19 is carefully crafted. The important Hebrew verb ‫ׁשּוב‬, which means literally “to turn back or to return” (though often rendered “to repent”) is employed not fewer than four times in v. 19. 194 Interestingly, just as Jeremiah urged wayward Judah to turn back to their covenant God (cf. Jer 3:1–4:4), so Yhwh calls His prophet here to a kind of “repentance.” If Jeremiah stops speaking carelessly in God’s name and turns unequivocally to God, he will be reinstated as a prophetic intercessor (“you shall stand before me”). The same Hebrew term is used to describe Moses’ and Samuel’s intercessory office (‫ּושמּואֵל‬ ְׁ ‫ שה‬ ֶׁ ֹ ‫ִאם־יַעֲמֹד מ‬ ‫ל ָפנַי‬, ְ cf. Jer 15:1). In other words, Yhwh’s offer to the prophet to stand anew in the divine council on behalf of Israel is a real possibility that is conditioned by Jeremiah turning back to his God. Being faithful to the prophetic calling also means that Jeremiah must uncompromisingly speak the words of God. The theme of acting as God’s mouth (piece) is found in all three call narratives of the major prophets. Through a divine touch of his mouth, Jeremiah was prepared for his prophetic ministry ( Jer 1:9). At the time of Isaiah’s calling, his mouth had to be cleansed (Isa 6:7), while Ezekiel is said to have consumed the scroll that was presented to him (Ezek 3:2–4). 195 In various ways, Scripture underlines the great prophetic privilege of speaking on behalf of God. Thus, to utter what is “worthless” and speak “foolishly” is not only a divine affront but it disqualifies the prophet from being the mouth of God. Rather, the authentic prophet speaks precious words (‫)יָקַ ר‬, for people live by every word that come from the mouth of the Lord (cf. Deut 8:3). 196 Thus, in v. 19, we once again find reference to the twofold role of the authentic prophet: one who stands before Yhwh in prayer on behalf of the sinful party and serves as Yhwh’s mouthpiece to the people. It is hard to avoid the impression from v. 19 that Jeremiah has crossed the boundaries of his prophetic role and thus is being disciplined for betray194.  Brueggemann, Jeremiah, 148, translates: “If you will return, I will return to you . . . they will turn to you, but you shall not turn to them” ( Jer 15:19). 195.  Fischer, Jeremia, 512. 196.  Holladay, Jeremiah, 462, points helpfully to the verbal parallels between Jer 15:19 and Deut 8:3 (especially “bring forth” [‫ ]יצא‬and “mouth” [‫)]ּפֶה‬.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

397

ing his high calling. God, however, is not only disciplining His prophet, He is also offering Jeremiah a new chance to turn back to his original prophetic vocation. It sounds as though God is answering Jeremiah’s earlier prayer: “Correct me, O Lord, but in just measure; not in your anger, or you will bring me to nothing” ( Jer 10:24). In reaffirming His earlier promise (cf. Jer 1:18–19), God lives up to His name of being gracious, faithful, and slow to anger ( Jer 15:15): And I will make you to this people a fortified wall of bronze; they will fight against you, but they shall not prevail over you, for I am with you to ִׁ ‫אנִי ְל‬ save you (ָ‫הֹושיעֲך‬ ֲ ָ‫י־א ְּתך‬ ִ ‫)ּכ‬ ִ and deliver you, says the Lord. I will deliver you out of the hand of the wicked, and redeem you from the grasp of the ruthless. ( Jer 15:20–21)

The basic meaning of Yhwh’s assurance comes in the words of the well-known: “I am with you.” Yhwh is faithful to His promise that He pronounced over Jeremiah at his commission (cf. Jer 1:19). The divine assurance of God’s protective presence has been with the faithful since Jacob and Moses (cf. Gen 26:24, Exod 33:12–17). 197 Here with Jeremiah, it is further elaborated through four verbs of salvation: “save” (‫)יׁשע‬, “deliver” (‫)נצל‬, “deliver” (‫)נצל‬, and “redeem” (‫)פדה‬. These verbs of delivery and the image of the inaccessible wall acknowledge the fierce opposition Jeremiah is experiencing ( Jer 11:18–19, 15:10). It is within the context of hostility that Yhwh assures in the strongest possible way that He will protect and deliver His prophet from the hands of the enemy, provided Jeremiah returns wholeheartedly to God. 198 If Jeremiah will speak truthfully on behalf of God, then sinful Israel will turn to the prophet for help and orientation (cf. Jer 21:1–10, 37:1–10, 42:1–22). The prophet, however, is not to turn to the people, as seems implied in v. 17. If the prophet reorients himself on Yhwh, if he is rooted in the divine will, God will make him into that promised indomitable wall of bronze ( Jer 15:20; cf. 1:18). The force of the divine word is that it contains both rebuke and faithfulness. Much is at stake, both for Jeremiah and God. Yhwh risks that His purposes will be misrepresented and thus His name dishonored, while Jeremiah’s life and identity as a true prophet of God are at stake. God’s reply has occasioned differing interpretations. One way of categorizing the different approaches to Yhwh’s response in these verses is by speaking of a (1) form-critical, (2) psychological, or (3) canonical reading. We will examine each briefly in turn. (1) We have seen that “Jeremiah’s Confessions” are largely presented as divine-human dialogues, or more specificly as personal laments and divine responses (e.g. Jer 15:15–18, 19). This structure, some form-critics 197.  Cf. Gen 12:2–3; Isa 41:10, 43:5; Matt 28:20. 198.  Interestingly, the same conditional divine promise comes to the vulnerable remnant that turn to Jeremiah for prayer and divine guidance (cf. Jer 42:10–12).

398

Chapter 8

argue, has been imposed secondarily to reflect cultic liturgy. 199 According to Gerstenberger and Reventlow, God’s reply is a liturgically announced divine answer that demands an act of repentance by “Jeremiah.” This he cannot do without Yhwh’s help (v. 19). The divine rebuke is not only for the prophet, but also for the exilic community whose attitudes Jeremiah represents. In other word, the divine reproach and assurance comes to the exiled community via the portrayal of Jeremiah. Just as Jeremiah laments and accuses God, so the exilic community is invited to pour out their pain. Just as Jeremiah is summoned to turn from careless talk about God to obedience, so the community is called to recommit their ways to their God. Although a form-critical reading illuminates the closeness between Jeremiah and Yhwh’s dialogue and the psalms of lament, a cultic reading of Jeremiah’s prayer is hypothetical and goes against the intrinsic logic of the received form of the text. Moreover, we shall see that the divine response makes only sense if directed to the prophet (that is, standing before God and acting as Yhwh’s mouthpiece). (2) Other exegetes see in these verses a reflection of Jeremiah’s internal struggle to grow in his self-understanding. Bright, for example, imagines that, after the divine rebuke, Jeremiah repented and purged himself of idle talk, as though Jeremiah were saying, In my weakness I spoke so; but I know that I sinned in doing so, for God rebuked me. And when he rebuked me, I repented, for as you can see from my book, I continued in the prophetic office till the end. 200

Bright speaks of a second call experience. Along similar lines, Muffs holds that in reproaching God ( Jer 15:17–18), Jeremiah has forfeited his prophetic status: At this moment the prophet stops being a prophet . . . for some time the prophet had forfeited his prophetic status, . . . “If you repent . . . the implication is that the prophet has sinned.” “I will restore you . . . and you shall serve Me”—this indicates that for some time the prophet had forfeited his prophetic status. “You shall be My mouthpiece again.” . . . The prophet curses and blasphemes the Lord, and in spite of this, God restores him to his original position. 201

From an exegetical perspective, it is difficult to dispute that the divine reply contains a rebuke for uttering words that are condemned as “worthless.” 199. Erhard Gerstenberger (“Jeremiah’s Complaints: Observations on Jer 15:10–21,” JBL 82 [1963] 393–408) argues that Jeremiah’s original prayers have been reworked by a Deuteronomistic editor so that they became a word of assurance to the community in exile. Henning Graf Reventlow (Liturgie und prophetisches Ich bei Jeremia [Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1963] 228) argues on form-critical grounds for a cultic Sitz im Leben where the text serves to renew Jeremiah’s vocation in the community regularly. 200. John Bright, “A Prophet’s Lament and Its Answer: Jeremiah 15:10–21,” Int 28 (1974) 74. 201.  Muffs, Love and Joy, 30.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

399

Muffs appears to say, like Bright, that Jeremiah underwent some kind of repentance and turned back to Yhwh. Thereupon, Jeremiah was reinstalled as God’s prophet. Against a psychologizing reading of vv. 19–21, one might argue that God’s reply is presented as a “genuine revelation” and that Jeremiah has to learn to resubmit to it. A further problem with this line of argument is that there is no reference to Jeremiah’s repentance. Moreover, as Balentine argues on the ground of the received form, if Jeremiah had repented of carelessly speaking against God, one would expect that the prophet refrained at least in the immediate future from audacious accusations of the kind one finds in v. 18. However, quite the opposite is true. As the account evolves, there is a clear sense that the intensity of Jeremiah’s lament is actually increasing over the subsequent chapters (cf. Jer 18:18–23, 20:12–18). Balentine offers some helpful reflections: The essential message of these prayers is that despite God’s rebuke Jeremiah refuses to acquiesce to silent suffering. In subsequent prayers the prophet continues to lament and protest, to question and to petition God, in the hope of securing relief. One ought to be cautious about suggesting definite lines of progression or chronological sequencing in successive complaints; nevertheless, they are in a sequence of steadily increasing intensity. 202

Alongside the prophet’s continuing complaints against God are Jeremiah’s ongoing prayers against his human adversaries. As we shall see in the following section, these prayers are gaining momentum and intensity as well. What started as brief calls of justice and vengeance in chaps.  11:20 and 15:15 persist in 17:18 and escalate into a prolonged imprecatory prayer in chap.  18:21–23 (cf. Jer 20:14–18). Balentine concludes that these prayers offer no evidence that Jeremiah repented as a result of the divine rebuke. Rather, he reckons, “the cumulative witness of these prayers is that while the speaker may stand to forfeit the prophetic mantle, he is not prepared to give up his voice in the divine-human dialogue.” 203 How then are we to read the dynamics of Jeremiah’s ongoing lament accusations and Yhwh’s response in Jeremiah 15:19–21? (3) Given the canonical observations above and the fact that the biblical lament is upheld as a valuable form of expressing oneself in times of hardship, it seems unlikely that it is the sharp “why questions” (or even the imprecations!) that are challenged by Yhwh in these verses. As Jeremiah’s subsequent audacious prayers seem to indicate, God does not appear to oppose “prophetic interdependence that expresses itself in stormy prayer”; 204 rather, what seems to be condemned as “worthless talk” is the blasphemous accusation that God is unreliable. It is when Yhwh is accused of 202.  Balentine, Prayer, 161. 203.  Ibid. 204.  Muffs, Love and Joy, 30.

400

Chapter 8

being unreliable­and even capricious (cf. Jer 12:1, 15:15–18a), and thereby in effect is put alongside the false and powerless gods, that Jeremiah is reprimanded ( Jer 15:18b). 205 On a more positive note, it is thanks to Jeremiah’s audacious and offensive dialogue that we find further clarification in Yhwh’s response on the core calling of the prophet ( Jer 15:19–21). Like the people, God’s prophet is equally expected to orient himself constantly on Yhwh and His ways. Only then can one speak what is “precious” and truly of the Lord. It has become clear that the prophet is called to “embody” not only God’s words but in some senes also the essential divine tension of being a God of love and justice. Jeremiah’s love and commitment for the people is reflected in his persistent intercessions, while his prayers against the sinners mirror God’s justice.

“Remember How I Stood before You” (Jeremiah 18:18–23) Yet again, we learn of a plot against the life of Jeremiah. From chap. 11 through the end of chap. 20, we read repeatedly of how Jeremiah’s enemies are the cause for his suffering and laments. While the inhabitants of his hometown conspire against him with wicked deeds (cf. Jer 11:18–20), the opposition here in chap.  18 seeks to lure Jeremiah into self-condemning words that can be used as false testimony against him. Whoever exactly Jeremiah’s opponents are, they seem to represent the establishment. Brueggemann writes: The triad mentioned (priest, wise, prophet) represents the power structure, the knowledge industry, and the religious authority of the establishment. That triad is matched by the three modes of authority that ordered the community: Torah, counsel, word. 206

This triad attempts to bring false charges against Jeremiah, possibly in a court setting (cf. Jer 26). This reminds of the “Jesus’ trial” when the religious leaders also tried to catch him out and use his words in a twisted way against him (cf. Matt 22:15–21). Jeremiah has to endure mockery and the viciousness of his opponents. As a result Jeremiah laments over his predicaments and entrusts his enemies in seemingly unrestrained anger to God’s justice: Therefore give their children over to famine; hurl them out to the power of the sword, let their wives become childless and widowed. May their men meet death by pestilence, their youths be slain by the sword in battle. May a cry be heard from their houses, when you bring the marauder suddenly upon them! For they have dug a pit to catch me, and laid snares for my feet. ( Jer 18:21–23; cf. Ps 69:25–26). 205.  Fischer, Jeremia, 516. 206.  Brueggemann, Jeremiah, 171.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

401

Without doubt, among all of Jeremiah’s prayers, it is here that we find some of his harshest petitions against his opposition. Rudolph describes it as Jeremiah’s most gruesome prayer of vengeance.  207 Weiser comments that all of Jeremiah’s compassion has been suffocated in hatred. 208 It will become soon evident, however, that Jeremiah’s intercessions against his enemies are not primarily vengeful prayers. I shall attempt not only to deepen our understanding of the logic of Old Testament imprecatory prayers but also to discover that chap. 18 offers some important insights into the dynamics of intercessory prayer. Jeremiah’s prayer has to be seen against the background of the parable of the potter ( Jer 18:1–12). It is through the potter illustration that a picture, not only of a sovereign but also of a highly responsive God emerges. 209 Yhwh by nature responds to any kind of development and incorporates it in the shaping of the future, for better or for worse. At one moment I may declare concerning a nation . . . that I will . . . destroy it, but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. . . . Now, therefore, say to the people of Judah. . . . Thus says the Lord: Look, I am a potter shaping evil against you and devising a plan against you. Turn now, all of you from your evil way. ( Jer 18:7–11)

In this parable the responsive dynamic of prophecy is clearly expressed. Through Jeremiah, Yhwh launches His final invitation to sinful Israel to turn from evil. But Israel ignored the final call to obtain Yhwh’s grace and mercy by following their own idolatrous heart ( Jer 18:13–16). Jeremiah’s harsh imprecatory prayer has to be read against Yhwh’s gracious willingness to turn from judgment and respond to a repentant people. Moreover, it has to be read against Judah’s obduracy and their willful denial of the prophet’s final call to turn back to Yhwh ( Jer 18:11). 210 According to chap. 18, the religious leaders gather against the prophet by bringing “false” charges against him ( Jer 18:18). 211 As before when the men of Anathoth conspired against Jeremiah (cf. Jer 11:18–20), the prophet summons God to listen what the opposition says: Give heed to me, O Lord, and listen to what my adversaries say! Is evil a recompense for good? Yet they have dug a pit for my life. Remember how I stood before you to speak good for them (‫ָמ ִדי ְל ָפנֶיךָ ְלדַ ּבֵר עֲלֵיהֶם‬ ְ ‫)זְכֹר ע‬, ִׁ ‫לה‬, to turn away your wrath from them. (‫ָתךָ ֵמהֶם‬ ְ ‫חמ‬ ֲ ‫ָשיב אֶת־‬ ְ Jer 18:19–20) 207.  Rudolph, Jeremia, 125 (“das schauerlichste Rachegebet”). 208.  Weiser, Jeremia, 158 (“alles Mitleid erstickt im Hass”). 209.  Moberly, “Does God,” 8; Patrick D. Miller, “Jeremiah,” in NIB 6:717. 210.  Thus the setting of Jeremiah’s prayer here is similar to that of the prophet’s lament in 11:18–20 and 15:15. 211.  Brueggemann, Jeremiah, 171.

402

Chapter 8

Jeremiah’s plea to remember is frequently found in prayers in the Old Testament and is above else an appeal to Yhwh’s faithfulness to those who abide to the covenant relationship. 212 The fundamental point of Jeremiah’s prayer revolves around the issue of justice. “Is evil a recompense for good” ( Jer 18:20)? 213 What is the “good” in question? Nothing less than Jeremiah’s intercessory ministry on behalf of those who seek him harm. Jeremiah’s attempted to do good (‫ )טֹובָה‬for them by shielding the sinful people from God’s deserved wrath. As a “reward,” Jeremiah earns their attempts to do evil (‫)רעָה‬. ָ McKane describes the underlying dynamics of v. 20: As a prophet he has endeavored to shield his community from Yahweh’s anger, to plead in mitigation of their offences with all the strength of his soul, to engage all his sympathy for them in this task of intercession and to win from Yahweh a continuance of his forbearance. Jeremiah, fully aware of the enormity of their offences against Yahweh, has, nevertheless, made out the best possible case for them (‫)לדבר עליהם טובה‬, but his magnanimity of spirit and intensity of prophetic concern have earned only active hostility, even to the extent of designs against his life. 214

In v.  20, one of the main objectives of intercessory prayer comes clearly to expression. To turn away or deflect Yhwh’s deserved wrath. This sort of intercession, as we have seen particularly in the context of the golden calf, belongs to the prophetic office (cf. Exod 32:11–13). Psalm 106 also describes Moses’ intercessory activity with the same terminology. 215 Therefore, he (Yhwh) said he would destroy them—had not Moses, his ִׁ ‫ְלה‬ chosen one, stood in the breach before him, to turn away his wrath (‫ָשיב‬ ‫חמָתֹו‬ ֲ ) from destroying them. (Ps 106:23)

Here, intercession is explained through the graphic image of a breached wall that stands vulnerable to the intruding enemy. Idolatrous and ethically corrupt Israel, whose “moral wall” is severely fractured, stands unprotected as it were. Israel’s sins have not only breached the wall, they have also provoked the wrath of Yhwh and thus have made Him an “enemy.” Yhwh’s wrath, metaphorically speaking, penetrates through the cracked wall. Thus, the intercessor, like a brave warrior, has to protect the sinful city by standing in the breach to fight off the wrath of God (cf. Ezek 13:5, 22:30). Jeremiah speaks of pacifying God as something Yhwh expects and approves (“Remember how I stood before you . . . to turn away your wrath”; cf. 1  Sam 12:23, Ezek 22:30). 216 Once again, intercessory prayer could be 212.  Miller, They Cried, 111. 213. Questions of protestation of innocence are a common feature in the lament prayers. 214.  McKane, Jeremiah, 438–39. 215.  See also Num 25:11. Phinehas’s radical behavior is said to have pacified Yhwh’s wrath as well. 216.  Muffs, Love and Joy, 30.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

403

described as “faithful opposition.” Of course, here in Jeremiah’s prayer, prophetic protection against God’s anger has ceased. In fact, Jeremiah has eventually aligned himself with Yhwh’s decision to bring about judgment. “Do Not Forgive Their Iniquity”: Prayer against the Enemies (Jeremiah 18:21–23) The prophet stands clear of the breach to make way for Yhwh’s wrath, as it were, by praying: give their children over to famine hurl them out to the power of the sword . . . let their wives become childless and widowed. May their men meet death by pestilence. ( Jer 18:21)

Famine, sword, and pestilence: this is what Yhwh has said Judah will experience (cf. Jer 15:2). Does Jeremiah release Judah for Yhwh’s judgment? There are some indications that the prophet seeks to ensure that his personal enemies in particular receive the punishment they deserve. Jeremiah makes sure that God knows about their evil plans against him. O Lord, know all their plotting to kill me. Do not forgive their iniquity (‫אַל־‬ ‫)ּת ַכּפֵר עַל־עֲֹונָם‬, ְ do not blot out their sin from your sight (‫ַל־ּת ְמ ִחי‬ ֶ ‫אתם ִמ ְּל ָפנֶיךָ א‬ ָ ‫ַּט‬ ָ ‫)וח‬. ְ Let them be tripped up before you; deal with them while you are angry. ( Jer 18:23)

Here, Jeremiah sounds almost like Jonah, who could not stand the thought that Yhwh may extend His grace and mercy to Nineveh ( Jonah 4:2). In this case, however, Jeremiah prays against his personal enemies who conspired to kill him. Interestingly, Jeremiah’s intercession is reversed here. While the prophet usually seeks to side with the God of mercy and grace who is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, who forgives iniquities and transgression and sin (cf. Exod 34:6–7a), he now fights on the side of the God who will visit the iniquity of the parents on the third and fourth generation (Exod 34:7b). Jeremiah’s final plea expresses the hope that Yhwh will intervene in His anger. This is unusual because the prophetic intercessor usually seeks to pacify God’s anger and to deflect it; here, however, Jeremiah prays the opposite, namely, that God will act when He is angry. Jeremiah knows that Yhwh’s wrath does not last long ( Jer 3:12; cf. Isa 54:6–8). So the sense is, if “Jeremiah does not get the Lord’s attention in the time of wrath and judgment, the moment may pass.” 217 Jeremiah’s prayer that God should not cover (‫ )כפר‬their iniquity and not blot out their sin (‫ תמה‬218) raises some pertinent questions about the effect of prophetic intercession. Jeremiah employs two terms that are usually closely associated with Israel’s cultus, namely, “‫( ”כפר‬Piel, “to cover sin”) 217.  Miller, Jeremiah, 717. 218.  Keil (Jeremiah, 303) explains the unusual form ‫ תמחי‬on the basis of the Aramaic form ‫התמח‬.

404

Chapter 8

and “‫( ”מחה‬Hiphil, “to wipe away sin/record of guilt”). 219 Does Jeremiah’s use of these terms suggest that God, in favorable times, brings about atonement through prophetic intercession? 220 Spieckermann considers it to be a real possibility. In doing so, he points to the fact that the same term is employed in Moses’ second intercessory prayer after the golden calf incident (Exod 32:30). 221 As we have seen in our treatment of Exod 32:30 and Isaiah 53:12, numerous interpreters postulate that there Moses offers himself as a means (that is, ransom or sacrifice) to achieve vicarious atonement for sinful Israel. 222 I have argued, however, that Moses does not perceive himself as a ransom or a sacrifice (‫)ּכֹפֶר‬. Perhaps I can make atonement for your sin (‫אתכֶם‬ ְ ַ‫אכ ְַּפרָה ְּבעַד חַּט‬ ֲ ). So Moses returned to the Lord and said. . . . But now, if you will only bear their sin (‫אתם‬ ָ ‫ַּט‬ ָ ‫ּׂשא ח‬ ָ ‫ם־ּת‬ ִ ‫—)א‬but ִ if not, blot me out (‫)מ ֵחנִי נָא‬ ְ of the book that you have written.” (Exod 32:30–32) 223

Moses does not so much have forgiveness in the sense of expiation of sin in mind but prays that God should bear or endure their sin (‫)נׂשא חטאתם‬. He is in effect enforcing his previous attempt of pacifying Yhwh’s wrath (Exod 32:12). 224 According to Jer 18:20, this appears also to be the objective of the prophet’s intercessory prayers. I would suggest that another more likely interpretation of Jeremiah’s use of the cultic terms ‫ כפר‬and ‫ מחה‬is that the prophet prays that Yhwh will refuse or not recognize the cultic acts of expiation in the temple by which his opponents sought to cover themselves or cleanse themselves from sin. 225 This line of interpretation would be in line with Jeremiah’s temple sermon where the prophet proclaims the ineffectiveness of all atonement procedures at the temple because of Israel’s persistent sinfulness (cf. Jer 7:20, 26:12). It is interesting to note how Jeremiah’s attitude toward intercessory prayer has changed. The prophet has persistently and loyally opposed 219.  Eichrodt, Theology, 2:457. Although strictly speaking ‫ כפר‬and ‫ מחה‬express two contradictory images of pardoning guilt (i.e., “to cover it” and “to wipe it away”), the argument points in the same direction. Namely, Israel’s guilt may remain unatoned and their guilt continues to work against them. 220.  The verb ‫ כפר‬is usually employed in the context of cultic forgiveness (e.g., Lev 4:20, 26, 31; 16:6, 10; etc.). 221. Hermann Spieckermann, “Konzeption und Vorgeschichte des Stellvertretungsgedankens im Alten Testament,” in Gottes Liebe zu Israel (FAT 33; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 148. He further suggests that Isa 53:10 and its use of ‫ָׁשם‬ ָ ‫ א‬needs to be brought into the intertextual dialogue. See our discussion on pp. 310–313. 222.  So, for example, Martin Noth, Exodus: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM, 1962) 206; Helmut Gese, “Die Sühne,” Zur biblischen Theologie: Alttestamentliche Vorträge (BEvTh 78; Munich: Chr. Kaiser and Güterloher Verlagshaus, 1977) 88. 223.  Interestingly, not only ‫כפר‬, but also ‫ מחה‬appears in Moses’ intercessory prayer. 224.  See my Moses, 130–34 for a fuller discussion. 225.  See also Eichrodt, Theology, 2:448.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

405

Yhwh’s interdiction to pray on behalf of Judah. Now, at last, God no longer needs to prohibit Jeremiah from interceding. The prophet withdraws from his protective intercessory position in the breach as it were, and leaves Israel in an unprotected place. The Hirschberg Bible puts it as follows: It is no prayer of carnal vengeance against those that hated him, vers. 18, 23 . . . but as God had commanded him to desist (xiv. 11, 12) from the prayers he had frequently made for them, ver. 20, and as they themselves could not endure these prayers, ver. 18, he leaves them to God’s judgment which he had been already compelled to predict to them, xi 22, xiv. 12, 16, without any longer resisting with his entreaties, Luke xiii 9, 2 Tim. Iv. 14. 226

In fact, not only does Jeremiah leave his enemies to Yhwh’s judgment, but the prophet now prays actively for the fulfillment of the divine judgment and thereby aligns himself (at last) with Yhwh’s intentions. 227 God replies immediately to Jeremiah’s prayer. Divine Response (Jeremiah 19) The divine response with its definite verdict has to be seen against the context of chaps. 11–20 and particularly as the irreversible conclusion to chap. 18. After numerous calls to turn back, Yhwh speaks through the prophetic action of the shattering of the vessel. What used to be a shapeable clay vessel in chap. 18 has become a fired jar. The prophet is commissioned to shatter what is now backed and beyond remolding. The symbolic act indicates that the judgment and Judah’s punishment are irrevocable because Judah’s hearts have hardened beyond molding and repair ( Jer 18:12). The principal reason for the divine judgment remains the same: Judah is a stiff-necked people who are refusing to listen and return to God (‫קׁשה‬ ‫את ערף‬, Jer 19:15; cf. 17:23, 7:26). 228 At Sinai and in the wilderness, Israel provoked Yhwh’s wrath because of its recalcitrant condition (‫;קׁשה את ערף‬ cf. Exod 32:9, Num 14:27). 229 We have learned that, after Moses’ intercessory prayer in the aftermath of the insurrection at the border of the promised land, God pronounced His judgment in a divine oath: “As I live,” says the Lord, “I will do to you the very things I heard you say” (Num 14:28). Here in Jer 19:12, the divine verdict is introduced in a comparable manner: “Thus, will I do to this place, says the Lord, and to its inhabitants, making this city like Topheth.” The place outside Jerusalem where the 226.  Hirschberg Bibel, quoted in Keil, Jeremiah, 304. 227.  Fischer, Jeremia, 589. 228.  Brueggemann, Jeremiah, 178: “The climactic indictment is ‘You did not listen.’ Everthing depends on listening. . . . Out of the tradition of Deuteronomy, not listening is the fundamental act of autonomy and bad faith.” 229.  See R. W. L. Moberly, At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34 ( JSOTSup 22; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983) 89–90, for a helpful exposition of this pregnant Hebrew term.

406

Chapter 8

horrific­death rituals have taken place (cf. Jer 19:1–5) becomes Judah’s own place of slaughter and devastation. These verses portray a horrific connection with the consequences of breach of covenant (cf. Deut 28:53–57). The idolatrous Judahites who hoped to gain a blessing of fertility by sacrificing their firstborn to Baal will be forced to devour their own children due to war. 230 It is important to recognize that this verdict, after a prolonged period of divine forbearance and grace, is ultimately determined by the Sinaitic covenant. 231 Having looked at some of Jeremiah’s imprecatory laments, we have gained some understanding and sympathy for the prophet. However, we still lack the wider theological framework of Old Testament belief in order to gain a clearer grasp of the concept of praying against an enemy.

The Logic of Imprecatory Prayers in the Context of the Old Testament In this section we shall look at the logic of imprecatory prayers from the perspectives of Yhwh the righteous judge and vindicator of the innocent, cursing an enemy and covenant loyalty, and the limited world view of Jeremiah and his contemporaries. Yhwh, the Righteous Judge and Vindicator of the Innocent In Jeremiah’s perspective, he suffered innocently and is exposed to a great deal of injustice. This would be equally true for the psalmists who pray for retribution. Thus, Yhwh is invoked against the opposition in His role as righteous judge ( Jer 11:20, 18:19–23). 232 Yhwh’s judgment is due to a breach of the covenant relation. In other words, disloyalty, rebellion, and not living up to Yhwh’s demands of righteousness and justice are in view (cf. Jer 2–3, 7:1–10). In this sense, the enemies could well be described as breakers of the covenant, and therefore Jeremiah simply asks God to take evildoers at their word. After all, the Israelites accepted and agreed that divine judgment will be implemented if they do not keep the stipulations (cf. Num 26, Deut 27–28, 2 Kgs 22–23). The enemies have transgressed and must be disciplined for their evil. It is important to stress the fact that Jeremiah does not initiate vengeance on his own, nor does he ask for the authority and power to take the 230.  See Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993) 3–17, on child sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible. 231.  Brueggemann, Jeremiah, 177, comments: Jeremiah is utterly a child of the tradition of Moses. He takes to its conclusion what has been implicit all through the tradition. Since Exod 19:5–6 the whole of Israel’s life with Yahweh has been governed by this uncompromising ‘if.’ 232.  Cf. Pss 58:12, 82:8, 109:1.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

407

punishment of the enemies into his own hands. 233 Rather, the prophet in his prayers against his enemies commits his cause to God. O Lord of hosts, who judge righteously, who try the heart and the mind, let me see your retribution (ָ‫ָתך‬ ְ ‫ִקמ‬ ְ ‫ )נ‬upon them for to you I have committed my cause.” ( Jer 11:20)

That is, Jeremiah hands the matter over to God for action ( Jer 5:9). God is summoned to judge and punish, for He explicitly commands: “Vengeance is mine!” (‫ָקם‬ ָ ‫;לי נ‬ ִ cf. Deut 32:35, Rom 12:19). 234 From Jeremiah’s prayers and the psalms of the lament it is clear that Yhwh alone is understood as the vindicator and protector of the oppressed ( Jer 11:20–23, Ps 94:1–3). 235 In the comparison of Psalm 69 and Jeremiah, I drew attention to the “measure for measure” principle that underlies some of the imprecations. This strongly suggests that these prayers are not only emotional cries for vengeance, but also appeals to divine justice. Jeremiah leaves it to God to do with his prayer as needs to be done. We have seen that Jeremiah has persistently attempted to prevent the judgment on Israel to come through his intercessory efforts (cf. Jer 18:20). Eventually, Israel’s advocate has withdrawn from defending his people in front of the heavenly judge and in effect leaves them now to the judgment of God. As for Jeremiah’s personal interests in his prayers against his enemies, we have noted how the prophet reminds Yhwh often of his faithfulness and innocence. 236 In the psalms of lament, one frequently finds a confession of innocence. 237 Just like the psalmists, Jeremiah contrasts himself with the enemies and portrays himself as a victim of injustice. His prayers provide a window into what evoked his strong prayers against his oppressors. These persecutors gave false testimony against him, they ostracized him from his fellow people, they beat him, and they plotted to kill him. Treatment of this sort evokes rage. It can hardly be suppressed. From the traditions, Jeremiah knows a priori that Yhwh is a righteous judge who will save and vindicate the innocent (cf. Jer 20:13, Gen 18:25). So for example, when Passhur, the head overseer of the temple, struck Jeremiah for announcing in the name of God a forthcoming disaster on Jerusalem, Jeremiah expects God to avenge not him primarily, but the blasphemy of 233.  Tate, Psalms 51–100, 88. 234.  The English word vengeance is misleading because it has negative connotations and suppresses the important nuance of vindication and rescue. The verb ‫ נקם‬is a covenant term, which carries the meaning of legitimate force and judicial retribution; see George E. Mendenhall, “The Vengeance of Yahweh,” in The Tenth Generation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973) 69–104. 235.  The word ‫ נקם‬is the sole prerogative of God to which the psalmists appeal (Pss 79:10, 94:1–2, 99:8, 149:7). Cf. G. Sauer, “‫ נקם‬rächen,” THAT 1:108–9. 236.  Cf. Jer 11:18­–20, 12:1–3, 15:17, 17:15–18. 237.  Cf. Pss 26, 69:5–10, 139:23–24.

408

Chapter 8

Yhwh’s name ( Jer 20:11–12). Naturally, the vindication of Jeremiah is at the same time vindication of God’s credibility and justice. Thus, by the logic of the Old Testament, Jeremiah’s prayers for judgment are consistent with the way of God as it seeks something that is consistent with who Yhwh is, and what God is doing in the world. 238 Praying against an Enemy and Covenant Loyalty On many important ancient Near Eastern treaties, law codes, or covenants one finds appended an extensive set of curses. These curses function as a kind of “divine safeguard” against breaking the agreement. The general understanding of the ancient Near Eastern religions was that these curses became efficacious by breaching the covenant stipulations in an almost mechanical magical manner. Van der Toorn comments: one gains the impression that it (the curse) acts quite independently of the relationship between the individual and his gods. The many symbolic actions connected with the oath could, much more than in Israel, also be understood as magical manipulation to render the curses automatically efficacious. 239

There is, however, hardly any evidence for such a reading in the Old Testament. There might still be traces of magical manipulation in Israel’s traditions, though the curse formula has been converted into prayers to God for retribution. In other words, the whole concern is placed into Yhwh’s domain. 240 So for example, Jeremiah prays, “let me see your retribution (ָ‫ָתך‬ ְ ‫ִקמ‬ ְ ‫ )נ‬upon them” ( Jer 11:20; cf. 20:12). It is up to God’s sovereignty whether He is going to execute punishment on the transgressor or whether He is going to show mercy. 241 Although we do not find an extensive curse “appendix” to the covenant formulation in the book of Exodus, they are certainly there in the books of Numbers (chap. 26) and Deuteronomy (chaps. 27–28). Fensham links Exod 23:22 (“if you listen attentively to his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and a foe to your foes”) to the vassal treaties of the Hittites. He comments: The safety and the welfare of the country of the great king must be guarded. To obtain this goal the vassal is bound by oath to report a rebellious word or act by a foreign nation and to take immediate measure against a rebel. 242 238. See Miller, The Cried, 108–10; and Avioz, “The Call for Revenge,” 435. 239. Karel van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia: A Comparative Study (Studia Semitica Neerlandicam 22; Assen: van Gorcum, 1985) 53. Cited from Mary J. Evans, “‘A Plague on Both your Houses’: Cursing and Blessing Reviewed,” VE 24 (1994) 80. 240. Claus Westermann, A Thousand Years and a Day (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1962) 31–32. 241. Helmer Ringgren, The Faith of the Psalmists (London: SCM, 1963) 31–32. 242.  F. Charles Fensham, “Clauses of Protection in Hittite Vassal-Treaties and the Old Testament,” VT 13 (1963) 135–42.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

409

By extension, one can infer that, as long as the Israelites fulfill the covenant demands, Yhwh would fight their enemies. They could count on God’s commitment, and if Yhwh did not meet the covenant conditions, Israel was entitled to claim their right (cf. Jer 12:1, Ps 83:3). By contrast, to violate the covenant is to rebel against Yhwh’s rule; to trespass the covenant rule is to hinder the advance of Yhwh’s reign and to disturb the shalom of the community. Therefore, trespassers have to be disciplined or eliminated (cf. Psalm 58). Although the Old Testament picture of Yhwh’s enemies is complex, the reality is that God really does have enemies. So, if Jeremiah’s imprecatory prayers appear at first sight like vicious selfish prayers, they often reflect the prophet’s concern for divine justice and his covenant duty to report to Yhwh about the state of the godless ( Jer 12:1–3, 15:15). To stop Jeremiah from proclaiming divine judgment is in effect opposition to the Lord and what God is doing. We have seen that Jeremiah sought to oppose Yhwh’s judgment in prayer for a long time, until the prophet eventually aligned his prayers with Yhwh’s verdict to judge Israel. On the basis of Yhwh’s covenantal will, it becomes clear that Jeremiah’s imprecatory prayers have to be heard against the background of the blessing-cursing rhetoric of the Old Testament covenant. 243 Recognizing this background helps us to see that not just anything goes in Jeremiah’s prayers, but that the prophet’s harsh curses “are petitions for the justice of God, for the vindication of God’s righteous nature and purposes.” 244 The Limited World View of Jeremiah An important reason for the urgency of Jeremiah’s petitions for God’s intervention lies in the fact that the prophet (and the psalmists) did not have a clear concept of life after death. Overall, one can say that the Old Testament views death as the end of life. 245 Hence, in the eyes of the unjustly oppressed, justice, and vindication could only be found in this world. 246 “The dead do not praise God” (Ps 88:10–11). It had to be evident on whose side 243.  Arnold A. Anderson, Psalms, 1–72 (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992) 500. Cf. Jer 18:18–23; cf. Lev 26:1–39; Deut 27:15–26, 28:15–68. 244.  Miller, They Cried, 93. 245. When the breath (‫ )רוח‬departs and the person dies, the Old Testament speaks of being “gathered to one’s people” (cf. Gen 49:33) or about “descending into Sheol” (Ps 139:8). Sheol is understood as a gray and vague place in the earth where the dead abide in a lifeless state. From the netherworld there is no chance of return; they do not even have enough energy to praise God (cf. Pss 30:9, 88:10–12). According to most scholars, only in a few late texts does the Old Testament envisage resurrection as a real possibility (cf. Isa 25:6–9, Dan 12:1–3, Ps 73:26). This view possibly developed because of the theological tension between the notion of a just God and the undeserved death of faithful individuals. Jon D. Levenson (Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006]), however, has made an interesting case against the standard scholarly view that the resurrection of the dead is a Second Temple innovation, arguing that the concept of life after death is deeply rooted in Hebrew Scripture. 246.  Hendrik A. Brongers, “Die Rache- und Fluchpsalmen im AT,” OTS 13 (1963) 35.

410

Chapter 8

Yhwh stood, and it had to be seen in this life (“let me see your retribution upon them” Jer 11:20). Hence, if God was just, He had to intervene in this life either for the pious or against the enemies ( Jer 12:1–4). O Lord, you God of vengeance, you God of vengeance, shine forth! Rise up, O judge of the earth; give to the proud what they deserve!” (Ps 94:1–2)

It was simply unbearable to descend to Sheol without having seen justice being done (cf. Pss 58:11­­–12, 73:1–13). Thus, one awaited impatiently the day of vindication, the day when one gave testimony in the large congregation (Pss 22:26–27, 69:31). In the light of innocent suffering, Jeremiah argues with God for his covenant right to be implemented—now. The reader should remember though that before Jeremiah resorted to pray against his opponents and aligned his prayer with the will of the righteous judge, he self-sacrificially and patiently prayed for Israel’s change of heart and protection.

Further Hermeneutical Reflections Imprecatory Prayers and Christian Spirituality It is one thing to understand Jeremiah’s prayers for divine justice by their own logic and terms; it is quite another challenge to test their relevance in a new covenant Christian setting. Praying against one’s enemies is not the way Jesus taught his followers. This raises the immediate question of whether there is a way to reconcile the imprecatory prayers with Jesus’ message of love for one’s enemies (Matt 5:44, Luke 6:27–29). 247 Zenger illustrates that the Church and Christian Old Testament scholars have frequently relegated Old Testament imprecatory prayers to a pre- and sub-Christian status. 248 Although some commend these prayers for their humane and honest spirituality, the widespread sense among commentators is that in the end these prayers testify to an ethos that is clearly superseded by the Sermon of the Mount. For example, Weiser, in his commentary on the psalms, writes that humanly speaking one can understand the prayer for vengeance on one’s enemies. At the same time, Weiser clearly thinks that these prayers reveal the limits of Old Testament spirituality and need to be judged by the standard of the New Testament. 249 Bright argues similarly that these hateful sentiments belong to a pre-Christian perspective. Although they belong to the history of Israel’s religion, none of these prayers for retribution is integral to the structure of Old Testament theology. The authority of these prayers, and the Old Testament in general, ac247.  See also Rom 12:14–21. 248. Erich Zenger, Psalmen Auslegung: Ein Gott der Rache? Feindpsalmen verstehen (vol. 4; Freiburg: Herder, 2006) 43–66. 249. Arthur Weiser, Die  Psalmen (ATD 14; 8th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973) 233.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

411

cording to Bright, lies in its theology, not in the particular expressions of its time. Bright thus concludes that these prayers are clearly sub-Christian. 250 Kittel affirms the view that parts of the Old Testament witness are commendable to Christians, while the imprecatory prayers are clearly not: Let us openly acknowledge the limitation . . . and the shortsightedness of individual believers. Let us only remember that the piety of Israel and the Old Testament is not thereby exhausted, and that, thank God, we can also hear quite different tones there. 251

Do we need to conclude then that Jeremiah’s prayers of retribution and the imprecatory psalms are mere relics of the past that give us valuable insights into the history of development of Judean-Christian spirituality, but in terms of religious authority, they have to be declared as sub-­Christian? This seems to be the current position of the Roman Catholic Church. The Liturgy of the Hours, a liturgy that intends to cover the entire psalter, excludes either single verses or entire sections from 19 psalms that call for retribution or destruction of the enemy. Psalms 58, 83, and 109 are omitted altogether from the Liturgy of the Hours. Pope Paul VI comments on the Liturgy, “in this arrangement of the psalms some few of the psalms and verses which are somewhat harsh in tone have been omitted, especially because of the difficulties that were foreseen from their use in vernacular celebration.” 252 John Wesley also regarded Old Testament imprecatory prayers as unfit for the church. 253 Although these prayers appear to be an obstacle and embarrassment for the Church, Christians cannot ignore the fact that the imprecatory elements form a significant part of the Old Testament. 254 Just as there has been a persistent line of interpretation since Marcion that rejected the imprecatory psalms as sub-Christian, there has been an ongoing attempt to raise to the hermeneutical challenge and make these prayers fruitful for the faith and ministry of the Church. The Medieval Church, when confronted with the same problem, came up with the theory of the fourfold senses of Scripture, 255 a hermeneutical 250. John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament (London: SCM, 1967) 146–47, 238–40. 251.  Cited from Franz Hesse, “The Evaluation and Authority of Old Testament Texts,” in Claus Westermann ed., Essays on Old Testament Hermeneutics (Richmond: John Knox, 1963) 285. 252.  Pope Paul VI, “Apostolic Constitution, Promulgation, the Divine Office” (Nov. 1, 1970) §4, in Christian Prayer: The Liturgy of the Hours (ed. Daughters of St. Paul; Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, St. Paul Editions 1976) 15. Cited in Holladay, The Psalms, 304–16. Holladay also discusses the omission of the 19 psalms. 253.  See John Day, Psalms (OTG; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990) 135. 254.  Besides Jeremiah’s prayers ( Jer 12:3, 15:15, 18:21–23, 20:11; and Lam 1:22, 3:64– 66, 4:21–22), there are around 40 imperative petitions in the psalter, which ask for injury or destruction of the enemies. E.g., Pss 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 21, 28, 31, 44, 58, 59, 68, 69, 73, 83, 94, 109, 137, 139, 143. 255. (1) Literal meaning, (2) spiritual senses, (3) allegorical senses, (4) tropological senses. Cf. David C. Steinmetz, “The Superiority of Precritical Exegesis,” in A Guide to

412

Chapter 8

device which enabled it to read metaphorically culture-bound Scripture. Applying this sort of hermeneutic, a horrific psalm such as Psalm 137 became a lament of those who long for the establishment of God’s kingdom and who are trapped in this disordered and troubled world. They seek the new Jerusalem—the Church. The curses against the Edomites and the Babylonians are transformed into condemnations of the world, the flesh, and the devil. 256 Thus, the Medieval Church found a way round the contextual limits of these prayers. Another ancient approach to these prayers, revived by Bonhoeffer, suggests that the imprecations were the intercessory petitions of Christ on behalf of the poor and needy. Jesus Christ, who has known all human limits and weaknesses, is the representative of humanity. Thus, it is the prayer of human nature assumed by him, which comes before God. Bonhoeffer does not reject these prayers as being sub-Christian; rather, he believes they are “fulfilled in the crucified Lord.” 257 Calvin contends that Jeremiah’s imprecations are engendered by human indignation. He stresses, however, again and again, that the prophet was moved by the Spirit of God to pronounce these imprecations against his enemies. Jeremiah could not have been excused on the ground that indignation often transgresses the bounds of patience, for the children of God ought to bear all injuries to the utmost; . . . the Prophet here has announced nothing rashly, nor did he allow himself to wish as of himself, but obediently proclaimed what the Holy Spirit dictated, as his faithful instrument. 258

We may wish to take issue with Calvin over whether Jeremiah’s prayer are really as detached from self-interest and emotions as the reformer suggests. In any case, Calvin seems to suggest three criteria to check one’s motives in prayer. First, when we pray against someone, we must always seek to ensure that no self-interests are involved. Second, imprecatory prayers need to be based on a wisdom that can clearly distinguish between the elect and the reprobate. As we cannot know for certain what has been decreed in heaven, Calvin hastens to add, we ought not imitate indiscriminately the prophet in praying to God to destroy and scatter ungodly people. Third, prayers of this kind must be prompted and guided by the Spirit. According to Calvin, Jeremiah knew for certain, by the Spirit, that his enemies were rejected by God and doomed for destruction. Because Jeremiah was led by the Spirit, Contemporary Hermeneutics: Major Trends in Biblical Interpretation (ed. D. K. McKim; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) 76. See also Wilkens, Theologie, 2/1:68–84. 256.  Apparently, the early church already established a tradition of opposing the devil, sin, and death with the imprecatory psalms. Cf. James Mays, The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook to the Psalms (Louisville: John Knox, 1994) 38. 257. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “Bonhoeffer Sermon: Sermon on a Psalm of Vengeance by Dietrich Bonhoeffer,” TT 38 (1982) 465–71. 258. John Calvin, Commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations (on Jer 18:25).

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

413

these prayers are not to be condemned. Calvin warns however, that Jeremiah’s prayers against the enemies serve not as model prayers. They grew out of a unique prophetic insight that his oppressors were under divine judgment. 259 Calvin is also aware that God is fundamentally merciful and that His anger lasts only for a moment (cf. Ps 103:8). This theological foundation comes as a great caution to anyone seeking to pray with Jeremiah against an enemy. The bottom line for Calvin’s reading of Jeremiah’s imprecatory prayers is that the prophet was shown by the Spirit of God who was already doomed to severe judgment by the eternal purposes of God. In sum, Calvin warns Christians to be conscious of their motivation to pray against someone. He stresses again and again the necessity of the Spirit’s guidance and the absolute certainty of having no self-interest in praying these prayers. 260 Thus, two patterns have emerged. On the one side, we have those who want to exclude these prayers from the functioning Christian canon, because of their time and culture-bound characteristics, while, on the other side, are those who tend to reinterpret or spiritualize the material in order to maintain its abiding witness for the Church. Traditionally, the Church expects that the Bible in its full complexity has relevance for its contemporary readers. This is what gives the Bible its vitality. Moberly represents our concern pointedly: the great attraction of studying the Bible according to the agenda of the ancient historian was that it enabled scholars to escape from hoary old theological disputes and find a new common ground on which scholars of different persuasions could engage in fruitful discourse without being subject to odium theologicum. Yet this major strength is precisely the major weakness, for scholarship achieves safety only at the expense of removing the Bible from pressing contemporary concerns about which people feel strongly, which is precisely where the Bible has traditionally functioned, and where most Christians today still want it to function. 261

Guided by the fundamental hermeneutical statement in 2 Tim 3:16 that all of Scripture (that is, the OT) is useful for “teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” I shall attempt to read Jeremiah’s 259.  Calvin, Jeremiah ( Jer 18:21): In short, whosoever is disposed, after the example of Jeremiah, to pray a curse on his enemies, must be ruled by the same spirit, according to what Christ said to his disciples; for as God destroyed the wicked at the request of Elijah, the Apostles wished Christ to do the same by fire from heaven; but he said: “Ye know not by what spirit ye are, ruled” (Luke 9:55). They were unlike Elijah, and yet; wished like apes to imitate what he did. 260.  Ibid. (on Jer 18:22–23). There are some parallels in Acts 13:9, where Paul is filled with the Holy Spirit as he curses Bar Jesus. 261. R. W. L. Moberly, “The Nature of Christian Biblical Theology,” in From Eden to Golgotha: Essays in Biblical Theology (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992) 146–47.

414

Chapter 8

imprecatory prayers against a new covenant setting and probe their value for public reading, praying, and preaching. Jeremiah, Jesus, and Imprecatory Prayers There are striking similarities not only between the biblical portrayal of Jeremiah and Moses but also between Jeremiah and Jesus. Both prophets faithfully made the will of God known to the people and interceded on their behalf. In spite of their obedience to the divine calling and their sacrificial intercessory ministry, both were persecuted by the religious leadership of their time. The same triad consisting of the priests, the wise, and the prophets, took counsel against Jeremiah and Jesus and eventually reached the same verdict: they misused the name of God and thus deserved death (cf. Jer 26:8, Matt 26:66). Jeremiah warns his audience: “If you put me to death, you will be bringing innocent blood upon yourselves and upon this city” ( Jer 26:15), while in the case of Jesus’ trial the people responded to Pilate, “His blood be on us and on our children!” (Matt 27:25) Their teaching was considered blasphemous and their activities were regarded as a disruption and threat to the Jerusalem establishment (cf. temple sermon). 262 They both suffered innocently at the hands of their adversaries and took their reproach for God’s sake ( Jer 15:15). While alive, one could say that both Jeremiah and Jesus failed in their mission. Only after their death, did their teaching, ministry, and person grow in importance and stature. Jeremiah’s teaching of the “new covenant” not only made him the father of Judaism, a religion primarily of the heart, but also prepared the way for the ratification of the new covenant in Jesus Christ. Jeremiah’s suffering probably also influenced the portrayal of the suffering servant (Isaiah 53). In Jeremiah’s passion and submission to God’s mission, the way of the cross is foreshadowed. Jesus’ cry of dereliction on the cross was not a one-off quotation from a psalm of lament. Both Jeremiah and Jesus were remembered as servants of God who “offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death” (Heb 5:7; cf. Jer 17:14). 263 When under persecution, however, we notice a first major difference. Jeremiah’s laments frequently move toward prayers against the enemies, while Jesus put his teaching on “love your enemies” into practice by interceding for them. 264 Moreover, at no point in Jeremiah’s ministry, as far as I can tell, does it occur to the prophet that his mediatory suffering before God serves any deeper purpose. 265 In the case of Jesus, however, there is good reason to believe that he understood his suffering as being vicarious. Jesus says that 262.  Brueggemann, Jeremiah, 171. 263.  Jeremiah’s “confessions” and Israel’s laments remind us that Jesus’ suffering and self-sacrifical way of life has a very long tradition in Jewish spirituality. 264.  Cf. Luke 23:34, 13:6–9. 265. Von Rad, Theologie, 2:214.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

415

he came to “give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). Between the death of Jesus and the suffering of Jeremiah stands the poem of the suffering servant. We have seen that Isaiah 53 in particular gives expression to something unprecedented in the Old Testament: the enabling of healing and new life through the substitutionary suffering of another. 266 It is widely agreed that Jesus understood his forthcoming death in the light of the suffering servant (cf. Isa 53:10–12). 267 The New Testament offers a rich variety of interpretations of Jesus’ death. 268 According to 1 Peter, Jesus “bore our sins in his body on the tree (ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον), so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed (v. 24).” We note two things. First, 1 Peter 2:22–24 clearly echoes Isaiah 53. “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. (1 Pet 2:22–23)

These verses allude back to Isa 53:7–9. A juxtaposition of 1 Peter and Jeremiah reveals how common it is to long for retribution in the face of unjust treatment. Nevertheless, Jesus did not wish for retaliation. Instead, he entrusted both himself and his abusers to God, knowing that the Lord is just. We have noted that Isa 52:13­–53:12 as a whole expresses that the suffering servant bears the iniquities and dies as a substitute to remove the sins of the people. Second, the “tree” stands as a synonym for “cross” and probably refers back to Deut 21:22­–23. There, we read about God’s curse on the one who hangs on the “tree” (LXX, ξύλον). According to Paul, on the cross Jesus took on himself the curse of the violated covenant in order to release his people from the law’s curse. “Jesus became a curse for us” (Gal 3:13). From a canonical perspective, 266. Claus Westermann, Die Theologie des Alten Testaments in Grundzügen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985) 197; Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, vol. 1: Grundlegung Von Jesus zu Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992) 128. 267.  I. Howard Marshall (Commentary on Luke [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986] 801) states confidently: “There is certainly nothing in the sayings that cannot go back to Jesus who viewed his ministry in terms of the suffering Servant.” See also Ulrich Wilckens, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, vol. 2: Die Theologie des Neuene Testaments als Grundlage kirchlicher Lehre, Teilband 1: Das Fundament (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007) 16–18. Edward Schweizer (Das Evangelium nach Markus [NTD; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983] 118) does not think that Mark 10:45 goes back to Jesus himself but contends that the Hellenistic Jewish-Christians developed the parallel between Isa 53 and Mark 10:45 (cf. Acts 8:32). 268.  See Joel B. Green and Mark D. Backer, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in the New Testament and Contemporary Contexts (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), for a helpful overview of the various NT models for understanding the inexhaustable meaning of the cross.

416

Chapter 8

Deut 21:22–23 prepares and anticipates Christ’s curse bearing on the cross. The corpse of the covenant breaker is hung “on the tree” as a gruesome sign that he is an object of curse. 269 Paul argues that Christ hung “on the tree” in Israel’s place, bearing the curse of the violated covenant and turning away God’s wrath from his people by redeeming them out from under the law’s curse. 270 Although this is not the central model for Jesus’ atonement, according to this interpretation of atonement, God’s holy anger is directed to and absorbed in Jesus. 271 So one could say that just as the blood of the godless had been the joy and victory of the righteous psalmist under the old covenant (Ps 58:10 [MT 11]), so the Christ, who bled and died for sinners, is subjected to God’s wrath, and is salvation for those under the new covenant. Through the death and resurrection of Jesus, salvation takes on an eternal dimension. The people of God are no longer “saved” through the destruction of their enemies. 272 This radical shift in understanding salvation undoubtedly has important ramifications for the Church’s understanding of the imprecatory prayers. God’s justice is no longer primarily displayed in the punishment of the wicked, but in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This obviously raises the question of usefulness of these prayers for the Christian. Westermann comments: Although petition against enemies is out of the question for Christians, the passages in the psalms where we meet such petitions remind us what had to happen before God’s congregation could cease to be a group ranged against other groups and become a community of all humanity. 273

Are we therefore to conclude with Westermann that the imprecatory prayers have no other function than helping us to understand and appreciate salvation history better? Although there has certainly been a radical shift in the church’s understanding of salvation, it remains a fact that Jesus’ death and resurrection did not eradicate injustice, vicious acts, and pain, which dominate many parts of this world. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that when the early Church was subject to persecution and unbearable suffering, we find the same cry for vindication: they cried out with a loud voice, “Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long will it be before you judge and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?” (Rev 6:10) 269. Ardel Caneday, “Redeemed from the Curse of the Law: The Use of Deut 21:22–23 in Gal 3:13,” TrinJ 10 (1989) 208. 270.  Caneday, “Redeemed,” 208–9. 271. The meaning of Jesus’ atoning death probably receives its fullest treatment in Rom 3:25 and its context (cf. Rom 1:18–3:25). See Wilckens, Theologie, 2/1:234. 272.  Westermann, Theologie, 200. 273.  Idem, The Living Psalms (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989) 300.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

417

In the light of this and other passages, Christians should not exaggerate the completeness of the New Testament. 274 Brongers goes even so far as to say that the cry for vindication sounds as loud in the New as it does in the Old Testament, while Goldingay points us to the fact that in the New Testament world, hopes are still unrealized, justice is not yet reigning, and salvation history is unfinished. 275 Jesus himself teaches his disciples to pray for deliverance from evil (“ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ,” Matt 6:13). For our purpose, it does not matter whether we take πονηροῦ as neuter, referring to evil in general, or as masculine, referring to the supreme enemy, Satan. 276 What is important, however, is the fact that Jesus acknowledges the radical nature of evil in our world. The Enemies of God and His People Jeremiah’s prayers show an acute awareness of the reality of evil. In other words, if one were to stop Jeremiah from praying against the enemies, one would in a sense also oppose God’s judgment and thereby implicitly tolerate injustice and evil. We notice though that Jeremiah locates evil exclusively among his enemies who are often fellow Israelites (cf. Jer 11:19–20, 12:3). 277 It might be striking to the Christian shaped by the New Testament concept of evil that Jeremiah’s conscience seems often clear and that he usually locates evil outside himself. 278 Paul, drawing from Psalm 14, speaks of the universality of sin. “There is no one who is righteous, not even one” (Rom 3:10). Thus, a more nuanced approach to the enemies in the imprecatory prayers would be an affirmation of the corruption and dignity of all people, which was declared in the act of creation and reaffirmed in the theology of the incarnation. Such a basis helps the individual Christian to acknowledge that the evil seen in other people also resides within oneself. This is true for the community as well as for the individual. This understanding of evil and corruption warns us against delusion and offers us a realistic perspective in our analysis of the “modern enemies.” On the basis of this awareness, the Christian user of these prayers must find ways to handle the reality of evil in these prayers in a way, which locates the evil and the enemy within ourselves as well as 274.  Cf. Matt 25:41, Luke 18:1–8. See Kraus, Theologie, 82. 275.  Brongers, “Fluchpsalmen,” 32; see John Goldingay, Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990) 32, for further New Testament references that emphasize God’s judgment. See also idem, Approaches, 32. 276.  See Jan M. Lochman, The Lord’s Prayer (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 149–50 for a detailed discussion. 277.  There are also occasions when the prophet prays against the nations ( Jer 10:25). See also the oracles against the nations ( Jer 46–51). 278.  Hans W. Wolff, Anthropologie des Alten Testaments (Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser, 1994) 165–68.

418

Chapter 8

outside ourselves. 279 Apart from this, the New Testament cosmology adds a further dimension to the enemies of God. Opposition to God’s kingdom is also encountered in the spiritual realm. In the New Testament, in particular in the ministry of Jesus, Satan and the demons are described as the principal enemies of God’s rule (Mark 3:22– 27, Luke 11:14–23). 280 Jesus does everything to defeat demons; he wishes to see them dead in order to see God’s righteous rule being established. In many ways, Jesus’ radical stand against the spiritual enemies of God comes as a typological fulfillment to the divine warrior motif in the Old Testament. 281 The exorcisms of demons and the fall of Satan (Luke 10:18) can be understood as a partial execution of the eschatological judgment. 282 Belief in Satan and his demons as opposing forces to God and his angels, however, is foreign to Jeremiah. It is only in later Jewish literature that one encounters references to evil spiritual forces acting behind Israel’s physical enemies. 283 This world view is likely influenced by Hellenistic thinking. 284 In other words, the interpreter is confronted with two different cosmologies. How are we to deal with these discrepancies? To make the matter even more complex, we must consider that the New Testament’s world view is not only different from that of Jeremiah but also poses some difficulties for Christians living in a scientific age. Thus, modern scholars often tend to find rational explanations for these records of exorcism. 285 Today, a person possessed by a demon would most likely be understood as suffering from mental illness. Although there is some warrant in such a diagnosis, it still does not explain the fact that some of the demoniacs also possessed a supernatural knowledge of Jesus’ identity (Mark 5:6–7, Luke 8:28). Thus, Marshall comments: The presence of an evil, supernatural power cannot be rationalised away, and, just as theologians speak of the “concursive” action of the Holy Spirit in men, so we may perhaps argue for a like action by evil spirits. 286 279.  Holladay, Psalms, 347. 280. W. Foerster, “δαιμόνιον,” TDNT 2:18. Archie T. Wright (The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6:1–4 in Early Jewish Literature [WUNT 198; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005]) examines the trajectory of the origin of evil spirits in early Jewish literature. His work traces the development of the concept of evil spirits from the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 6) through postbiblical Jewish literature. 281. Tremper Longman III and Daniel G. Reid, God Is a Warrior (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995). Cf. J. McIntyre, The Shape of Soteriology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995) 42–44. 282. Christian Stettler, Das Letzte Gericht: Studien zur Endgerichtserwartung von den Schriftpropheten bis Jesus (WUNT 2/299; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) 208. 283.  E.g., 1Q4, 1 Enoch 54:4–5, T. Dan 5:10–13. Cf. Longman and Reid, Warrior, 102. 284.  Holladay, Psalms, 349. 285.  The Gerasene demonic (Mark 5:1–20, Luke 8:26–39), for example, has been understood to have suffered from manic-depressive psychosis, or the whole narrative has been taken as a Märchen or superstition. Cf. Schweizer, Markus, 57, 102. 286.  I. Howard Marshall, “Luke,” in New Bible Commentary (ed. D. Guthrie, J. A. Motyer, A. M. Stibbs, and D. J. Wisemann; Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1993) 896.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

419

The New Testament does not provide us with a fully developed demonology or Satanology, but it does point clearly to supernatural powers, which are beyond our comprehension. 287 Therefore, I suggest that instead of rationalizing and demythologizing religious language and concepts, we should take the descriptions of demons and Satan as powerful metaphorical language. 288 Metaphors are cognitive mechanisms that permit us to talk about realities, which are beyond the structures of our human mind. 289 By describing the reality of evil in terms of Satan and demons, I use figures of speech, which are “reality depicting, without claim to direct knowledge.” 290 I shall explore the implication of a metaphorical understanding of demons and Satan in regard to the imprecatory prayers in the next section. For the moment, it is important to note that Jeremiah did not share the New Testament world view, and many modern Christians feel uneasy about it. Having tested the imprecatory prayers against the New Testament, a number of hermeneutical obstacles have emerged that prevent Christians from appropriating these prayers directly. This enormous theological shift confirms, in a way, the uncertainties, that Christians have about the use of imprecatory prayers. This leaves the modern Church with two options. Either Christians exclude these prayers from their functioning canon because they have been superseded by the New Testament understanding of God, salvation, and evil, or Christians attempt to work out a theological resolution to these predicaments. Being guided by Scripture’s paradigm to reread older traditions in the light of a subsequent Christian understanding of God, it seems to be a worthwhile task to probe whether a Christological rereading of the imprecatory prayers could contribute to aspects of Christian spirituality. It has to be restated that this is exclusively a Christian approach to the imprecatory prayers. It seeks to serve the piety and spirituality of the Church. A Christological Rereading of the Imprecatory Prayers The guiding hermeneutical question becomes, in what ways does a Christological rereading of the imprecatory prayers help the Church in “teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2  Tim 3:16)? The answer must take the following observations into account. (1) It has to include a New Testament understanding of salvation (and new identity in Christ) and the continuing reality of evil among us. (2) It must acknowledge the universality of human corrupt nature. (3) It must incorporate the spiritual realm of God’s enemies. 287. W. Foerster, “σατανᾶς,” TDNT 7:160. 288.  Holladay, Psalms, 350. 289. George Lakoff, “Metaphors and Semantics,” in International Encyclopaedia of Linguistics (ed. W. Bright; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992) 419. 290.  Janet M. Soskice, Metaphors and Religious Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) 140.

420

Chapter 8

What is the theological significance of the imprecatory prayers when they are read in the light of Jesus? This, as I have already pointed out, is a legitimate question not least because of Jesus’ close association with Jeremiah (and the psalms). Both suffered mental and physical persecution for being obedient to their commission. Moreover, Jesus used the psalms of lament on various occasions. This raises the question, how did he understand and handle the imprecatory elements? When James and John, like Elijah, wanted to pray down a heavenly judgment on an inhospitable Samaritan village, Jesus rebuked them, saying that his lordship is of a different kind (Luke 9:52–55; cf. 2 Kgs 1:10–12). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus teaches love for one’s enemies (Matt 5:44) and put this idea into practice by praying for the forgiveness of his adversaries from the cross (Luke 23:34). Thus, the only one who was, strictly speaking, entitled to pray against his human enemies prayed for their forgiveness. 291 I have already pointed out that Jesus’ principal enemies are Satan and his demons. This raises the question whether Jesus, when using the imprecatory psalms, reread the petition against Satan and his demons. Unfortunately, we do not know. Jesus teaches that all demonic powers are reserved for judgment (Matt 8:29, 25:41). In other words, it seems theologically sound to suggest that the harshest words against Jeremiah’s or the psalmist’s enemies appear to be appropriate against Satan and his demons. 292 Even though Jeremiah’s enemies are always humans, in the imprecatory psalms the enemies are often described using mythical metaphors, which point beyond human evil (cf. Ps 22:12–13 [MT 13–14]). Therefore, I suggest that it is appropriate to make use of these open-ended metaphors and read Jesus’ stance toward evil into these prayers. Thus, this sort of reading is not only theologically sound within the context of the whole Christian canon but it is also endorsed linguistically. Thus, far I have proposed that one can read the imprecatory prayers as Jesus’ prayers against Satan and demons. Christians pray “in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means, among other things, that Christians identify with Jesus and trust him as their mediator. Christians rely on him who understands evil in a much more profound way and who had been subject to suffering, pain, and temptation like no one else. In other words, Jesus’ praying of the imprecatory prayers can deepen our praying of them. Thus, I affirm the tradition of the Church that prays with and in Christ the imprecatory psalms against Satan and demons. Modern Christians often feel uncomfortable with the terms “Satan and demons.” Thus, it might be helpful to identify the enemies of modern Christians more closely. 291.  Only the one who is without sin and bore the wrath of God himself can pray the imprecatory psalms safely. This is taken from a Bonhoeffer sermon on Ps 58, cited in Horst D. Preuß, Das Alte Testament in christlicher Predigt (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1984) 88. 292.  Cf. Jer 18:21–23, Ps 55:24; Holladay, Psalms, 350.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

421

Christians can no longer point at enemies without realizing that evil and corruption also reside within ourselves. Nevertheless, we can point to external evil, manifest in all the atrocities happening in our world. There is still a persecuted Church, people suffer under extremely corrupt governments, and minority people groups are subject to ethnic cleansing, to name but a few. Although these are undoubtedly wicked acts, Christians must remember that most perpetrators of evil grow out of their specific social and political contexts. Therefore, Christians should beware of judging criminals superficially. No one can be certain that he or she would not act similarly being born and living under similar circumstances, subject to crippling and brainwashing power structures. According to Paul, we are all corrupt (Rom 3:10–19) and have the potential to commit evil deeds. These horrific acts often exceed human imagination and seem therefore to point beyond humanity. New Testament authors are convinced that behind the human agents are demonic forces. 293 In the Gospels people are said to be ruled by demons (Mark 8:33, Luke 22:3). They do not merely enter people, but are believed to act through them or drive them to self-destruction (Mark 5:5, John 13:27; cf. Luke 22:31–32). 294 Whatever exactly this culture-conditioned and mystical language means, the New Testament understood evil forces at work behind human adversaries and some diseases (Luke 13:16). Although the references to Satan and his demons are rather unsystematic and seem to represent the popular world view of their time, the data are sufficiently clear to show that the New Testament authors understood a supernatural power to be working toward a specific objective, namely, a separation from God and the destruction of humanity. 295 I have suggested that the references to “Satan and demons” should be taken metaphorically, because they are beyond the structures of our mind. This does not deny their reality, but it is not concerned with their exact nature. The important point is not whether “Satan and demons” are literally true, but whether the metaphor allows us to interact with the reality of evil successfully or not. 296 Thus, I propose that “Satan and demons,” at least in regard to a rereading of the imprecatory prayers, are helpful concepts for all forces that work against God and His people. It is exactly these evil forces, operating behind humans, that the Christian is called to battle 293.  Cf. 2 Thess 2:9; Eph 2:2, 6:10–20; Col 2:10, 15. 294.  Foerster, “δαιμόνιον,” 19. 295.  Idem, “σατανᾶς,” 160. 296.  There are realities in this universe that are too complex for the human mind. But they are real, such as the transcendent God. Thus, the biblical authors describe God in metaphors such as father, judge, king, fortress, and so on. No metaphor, especially in relation to complex concepts such as God and Satan, claims to express all aspects of reality. Otherwise, theology is in danger of naivete and idolatry and is destructive to the reality. In relation to God, any attempt to define him, beyond the biblical metaphors, is to make him an object of human thought and thereby transpose His transcendence into idolatrous projection. Thiselton, “Language,” 315–19.

422

Chapter 8

against. I submit that the biblical imprecatory prayers provide us with the vehicle to do this. Evil is not just “out there,” but it is also very much part of our own physical make-up (cf. Rom 3:10–12, 7:23). Every human has the potential to give in to evil. Jesus prayed for his disciples not to submit to Satan’s temptations (Luke 22:31–32). Paul talks about his internal battle against sin and the flesh (Rom 7:23). Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions. (Gal 5:19–20)

What Paul regards as the “works of the flesh,” could also be understood as a kind of “internal enemy” that hinders people from being obedient to God and entering His kingdom (Gal 5:21). Holladay puts a more modern face on these “internal enemies.” He proposes that unresolved anger, depression, addiction, boredom, wrong desire for power, and so on, if not dealt with appropriately, are all causes that are fundamentally opposed to God’s will and prevent us from being obedient to Him. Holladay holds that imprecatory prayers could also be used in devotional reading as a means of battling against one’s “internal enemies.” Boredom or depression might not sound particularly demonic, but both have the potential to hinder us from following God and entering His kingdom. Holladay concludes: Could we in prayer confront the demons that beset us (taking demons as a metaphor for any force which is opposed to God), face them down, hurl imprecations at them roundly and wholeheartedly in the words of the psalmists used against their enemies of old? I suggest it is an enterprise worth pursuing. 297

Following such a reading strategy, biblical imprecatory prayers invite Christians to pray against any thought, word, or deed, that is opposed to God and His kingdom. Thus, if the imprecatory psalms are read as the prayers of Jesus against the enemies of God’s kingdom and the Church, one is, firstly, reminded of Jesus’ severe attitude towards evil and, secondly, one reaffirms the fact that Jesus overcame evil. Thus, Christians, in reading these prayers, should develop a serious respect for evil, but at the same time, they can rest in assurance that the “major battle” against evil is won. 298 Thus, I suggest that these prayers, if read christologically, still embody a viable means to combat any form of opposition to God in modern times and help the Church to interact with the reality of evil in helpful ways. Again, Holladay states things clearly: 297.  Holladay, Psalms, 356; words in brackets are mine. 298.  Cf. Matt 25:41, Rom 8:38, 1 Cor 15:24–27, Col 2:15, 2 Pet 2:4.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

423

We can listen for Jesus’ voice psalm by psalm . . . we can be aroused to the ways of the demons in our own lives and in our world, and even more by the strength God manifests in destroying the power of those demons, in our own lives and in the world. 299

The Imprecatory Prayers as a Paradigm for Church Discipline We have seen that Jeremiah prays for the expulsion of the godless from the covenant people. Paul seems to take up the concept of “cursed are the enemies of the covenant people” in a typological manner. 300 Paul, although he does not use the word curse, seems to have the concept of cursing in mind when he passes a man over to Satan (1 Cor 5:5; cf. Deut 27:20). 301 The apostle is concerned to keep the new covenant community pure and free of God’s enemies. 302 This comes to expression even more clearly in 1 Cor 11:27–32, where Paul warns, in curse-type language, that those who take the covenant meal in an unworthy manner “eat and drink judgment against themselves.” Evans argues that Paul is not putting those who take communion in an unworthy manner under an automatic curse; rather, Paul acknowledges the state in which they already find themselves, namely, outside the covenant relation and therefore in opposition to God. 303 Paul warns those who are hostile to God of His coming wrath. On the day of judgment, Jesus is to be “revealed from heaven in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance” on the enemies of the Gospel (2 Thess 1:8). Although in the New Testament the wrath of God primarily becomes an eschatological concept, 304 one could say that the essence or the concept behind the imprecatory prayers is still operating under the new covenant. The enemies of Christ are subject to severe judgment. Manson reminds us that The ideas of a Judgement, of the elimination of evil from the world, and of a blessed immortality for those who are loyal to God in this life—these ideas are necessary corollaries to the central idea of the Kingdom. . . . If there is no final victory of good over evil, the Kingdom of God becomes an empty dream. If there is no inheritance for the saints in light, the Fatherhood of God is a vain delusion. 305 299.  Ibid., 357–58. 300.  Cf. Acts 13:10, Gal 1:8, 1 Cor 16:22. 301.  Evans, “Plague,” 85; cf. 1 Tim 1:20. 302. According to Deut 27:20, anyone who lies with his father’s wife is cursed. See Hanna Stettler, Heiligung bei Paulus: Ein Beitrag aus biblisch-theologischer Sicht (WUNT 2/368; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 342–58, for a careful reading of 1 Cor 5 against its OT background. 303.  Ibid., 86. 304.  George E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 407. 305.  Thomas W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of Its Form and Content (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967) 284. I am indebted to this reference to Stettler, Das letzte Gericht, 205.

424

Chapter 8

Paul does not rebuke the Corinthian “trouble-maker” on a purely emotional basis; Paul’s motive to expel this man from the congregation is for the benefit of the church. Acknowledging that human anger contains elements of self-interest, the expulsion of church-goers does not belong in the hands of individuals but should always be made a community affair. A church as a whole is more likely able to express righteous anger toward individual people and institutions than individuals. 306 All of this suggests that imprecatory prayers can still embody a paradigm for church discipline. They express a concern that is foundational for biblical faith, namely, that it is morally valid to assume that deeds have corresponding consequences. 307 The imprecatory prayers bear witness to Yhwh’s justice and righteousness in the physical and spiritual realm, and when administered appropriately these prayers are effective tools to combat any internal and external forces that hinder the advance of God’s reign. Aspects of Jeremiah’s Spirituality Perhaps nowhere else is the reader given a deeper insight into the spirituality of a prophet than in the canonical portrayal of Jeremiah. 308 The prophet brings to our attention what we might call the “inner world” of struggle. Without appearing to hold anything back from his God, the prophet lists his despair, pain, and loneliness and gives uninhibited verbal expression to his complaints. We have seen that God’s fourfold prohibition to intercede is matched by four laments of the prophet. 309 Jeremiah, the “prophet like Moses,” is not allowed, at least for a long time, to be an intercessor like Moses. The loss of his intercessory role meant that Jeremiah’s ministry became strongly dominated by prophetic judgment preaching. This in turn gave drastic rise to personal persecution and suffering ( Jer 20:8). The result was a series of personal laments. The prophet’s laments are a unique mixture of anguish over the fact that he was prohibited to intercede on behalf of his fellow people, 310 and the pain of increasing viciousness and persecution at the hands of his people. The prayer of lament and protest seem to govern Jeremiah’s spiritual life for a long time. Although there were times when Yhwh had to discipline Jeremiah for his rash accusations (cf. Jer 15:18­), there is little hint that lamentations and prayers of protest had no place in an “Old Testament spirituality.” On the contrary, the “big lamenters” of the Old Testament, such as Jeremiah and 306. Deryck Sheriffs, The Friendship of the Lord: An Old Testament Spirituality (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1996) 242–43. 307. Cf. Klaus Koch, “Is there a doctrine of retribution in the Old Testament?” in Theodicy in the Old Testament (ed. James L. Crenshaw; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 57–87. 308.  Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 348. 309.  Cf. Jer 11:18–12:6, 15:10–20, 18:18–23, 20:7–18. 310.  Seitz (“The Prophet,” 10–12) suggests that we do not see extensive laments in the Moses traditions because the intercessory role is never withdrawn from the first prophet as it is with Jeremiah.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

425

Job, are presented as models of Old Testament piety. Furthermore, based on the fact that a major part of the canonized psalms are laments, one may deduce that emotional and confrontational language was an acceptable way of relating to God. A quick glance through contemporary hymn books, the liturgies, the divine offices of the “established churches” (or state churches), and the prayer practices of the “free churches” reveal that Christianity has largely removed the lament tradition from their spirituality. In other words, the honest and confrontational language of the lament has mostly disappeared from contemporary prayers. Instead, the theme of repentance and confession of sin seems to have gained importance. This might be related to Paul’s understanding of sinfulness as being part of the human condition. 311 Moreover, Paul’s summons to bear one’s suffering with patience and humble self-resignation (Rom 12:12, 2 Cor 1:6) suggests a radical shift in spirituality. Has the lament been replaced by repentance and confession of sin in the Christian Church? Are Christians to bear their sufferings patiently and not to complain? Or have we largely lost an important aspect of biblical spirituality? Once again, we have to ask ourselves what difference Jesus makes to our reading of the laments.

Jeremiah, Jesus, and Prayers of Lament and Protest Jeremiah and Jesus are figures of extreme suffering. Even in their greatest despair, God often remained incomprehensible, but both continued to speak to their Lord. Even in the most desperate moments, when the divine resolution remains seemingly absent, they did not let themselves be driven away from dialogue with their God (cf. Jer 12:1). It remains Jeremiah’s secret how he, in a seemingly supernatural way, obediently followed God’s path into godforsakenness. At no point in time does it occur to Jeremiah that his mediatory suffering could serve a larger purpose in God’s plans. It remains God’s secret how He could lead Jeremiah, one of His most faithful servants, into such a horrific and incomprehensible darkness and most likely allowed that Jeremiah would be consumed there. 312 Similarly, during his earthly ministry Jesus shared the painful “why- and how long–questions.” He fully identified with Israel’s lament tradition, seen in the text of Hebrews: In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death. (Heb 5:7)

Most notably in his cry of dereliction from the cross, Jesus makes the suffering and loneliness that is expressed in Psalm 22 his own. With the psalmist, Jesus descends into the depths of godforsakenness of which Jeremiah and 311. Claus Westermann, “The Role of the Lament in the Theology of the Old Testament,” Int 28 (1974) 33. 312. Von Rad, Theologie, 2:214.

426

Chapter 8

many psalms of lament speak. Therefore, Jesus’ cry from the cross is firmly rooted in the history of lament as it runs and develops through the whole of the Old Testament. 313 On a general level, we can say that Jeremiah and Jesus belong to the same history of the afflicted, who in their laments laid their suffering before God that He might take it away. Thus, on the one hand, Jesus’ cry belongs to Israel’s public worship. He identifies himself with all generations of Israelites who suffered in faith and experienced God’s desolation. On the other hand, at the same time Jesus fulfills in his suffering and death all suffering in taking it on himself. 314 The resurrection is proof that Jesus’ cry had been heard. He emerges as the righteous vindicated sufferer of Psalm 22. Nevertheless, the New Testament does not suggest that faith in Christ excludes prayers of lament and protest from a relationship with God. 315 Jesus’ ministry is characterized by compassion to those who cried out to him for help. He never ignored the cry of the distressed and the afflicted. After all, Jesus’ work of salvation has to do with the forgiveness of sins and with eternal life; it does not deal, however, with ending human suffering. 316

Thus, one could say that God may not preserve His faithful servants from suffering, but like in the case of Jeremiah and Job, He preserved them in their suffering. Having seen that expressing one’s suffering and concerns freely in prayer has good biblical support, one should keep one point in mind. Not unlike the case of appropriating the imprecatory prayers, Christians ought to be constantly aware that evil and injustice are not only out there, but also reside within every human heart (“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” 1 John 1:8). In other words, Jeremiah’s professions of innocence should remind us of our own sinfulness and the negative effects that our words and deeds have on the Triune God and His kingdom. 317

Prayer of Protest: An Honest Inquiry into the Truth Karl Marx, and many more since him, charged the Judeo-Christian faith, alongside other religions with being idealistic, subjective projections of wishful thinking. I believe that the biblical lament is a vital witness that this is not the case. The reality of injustice, social evil, war, exile, and disease can correct and purify idealism. The Bible bears many marks of realism. There are Qohelet’s honest inquiries into the realities of life, 318 and of 313.  Westermann, “Role,” 20–38. 314.  Kraus, Theologie, 238–39. 315. Cf. Schweizer, Markus, 170. 316.  Westermann, “Role,” 38. 317.  Fretheim, Jeremiah, 242–43. 318.  Sheriffs (Friendship, 205) calls Qohelet an iconoclast.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

427

course there are numerous prayers of protest that testify to Israel’s continuous quest for truth and justice. Thus, one could say that Jeremiah and the lament tradition witness to a theology of realism (cf. Ps 88). Ideology often disappears in the light of honest dialogue. 319 The prayers recorded in Jeremiah 11–20 are indeed searching dialogues with God (cf. Jer 15:10–21). Brueggemann commends Jeremiah’s prayers of lament as “models for the depth of honesty that is appropriate in prayer.” 320 Jeremiah opens his heart to the reader as no other prophet does. He voices all his bitterness and his struggles in an unrestricted way and at times quarrels­with God over his ministry and divine justice. Again and again the canonical arrangement makes it clear that the prophet’s prayer and divine response belong together (e.g. Jer 15:18–21). Prayer is fundamentally a dialogue. After stating his case and presenting his plea, Jeremiah awaits Yhwh’s response. Jeremiah’s laments often emerge from injustice. At times, Jeremiah even confronts God about divine justice: You will be in the right, O Lord, when I lay charges against you; but let me put my case to you. Why does the way of the guilty prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive? ( Jer 12:1)

As I have discussed, the contemporary church provides little to no cultic means to deal with the reality of pain and injustice. 321 But what is the cost when concerns of divine justice are not addressed in prayer? Based on Westermann’s work, Balentine remarks that the loss of these prayers forfeits honest covenant interaction and would eventually lead to a “monopoly of divine power.” 322 Thus, Balentine understands these conversational prayers as an “important vehicle for addressing the concerns of the theodicy.” 323 We have seen particularly in the prayers of Abraham and Jeremiah that faith develops and becomes meaningful in honest and critical dialogue with God (cf. Gen 18:16–32). In a relationship of reciprocity, God and humans negotiate the relationship between sin, suffering, and justice. 324 Thus, the many prayers of protest and lament contribute to the authenticity of the Christian faith. 319. Walter Brueggemann (“Psalms and the Life of Faith: A Suggested Typology of Function,” in The Psalms and the Life of Faith [ed. P. D. Miller; Augsburg: Fortress, 1995] 3–33) builds on Ricoeur’s hermeneutic of suspicion and resymbolization and relates it to the psalms of lament. Suspicion is applied when the old belief does not appear to make sense any more and the old language is no longer adequate. In other words, the lament or the prayers of protest offer a biblical warrant to test the reliability or even the credibility of the old orientation and the conventional understanding of God. 320.  Brueggemann, Jeremiah, 114. 321.  Idem, The Psalms, 67–68. 322.  Balentine, Prayer, 197. Brueggemann (The Psalms, 102) argues that the absence of lament denies “genuine covenant interaction,” because the second party is rendered voiceless or is only allowed to praise and worship.  323.  Balentine, Prayer, 122. 324.  Heschel, The Prophets, 67.

428

Chapter 8

Prayers of Lament and the Mystery of Theodicy Based on our investigation into the importance of the biblical tradition of the lament, Christian spirituality too ought to give more speech to the reality of pain and injustice in this world. Failure to do so endangers the authenticity of our faith. This failure may also develop into a practice of pretense and a naive romanticism. A failure to express one’s complaint and suffering may lead to an artificial relationship with the Lord or even alienation from God, whereas honest articulation of one’s anger to God becomes an affirmation of His existence and one’s need for Him. 325 To suppress one’s unexpressed emotions might be of value in some instances. However, in most cases it remains unhelpful advice to those who are actually confronted with pain. I do not want to deny the value of philosophical attempts to resolve the problem of pain and evil, as long as one realizes that in the grip of pain one does not theologize—one simply hurts and cries out for help. Theodicies come from those who, like Job’s friends, have the luxury of looking on from a distance and abstracting from someone else’s grief rational theories and propositions. Perhaps is is inevitable therefore that most theories of suffering tend to fall far short of genuine appreciation for the truly tragic, the evil, dimension of a broken life. 326

Therefore, the laments, which provide us with a paradigm of how to handle pain, must remain an essential part of the Church’s spirituality in a world that has not yet been relieved of pain. In the light of the biblical data and realities such as the Holocaust, Küng is convinced that meaningless suffering cannot be understood theoretically, but can only be lived through with an almost desperate hope, protest, and prayer. 327 Thus, it seems that theologians who attempt to get beyond the mystery of innocent suffering and solve the mystery of God, will only discover their own “little” theologies at the end of the day. 328 Therefore, one corollary of this would be that theology should be at least as much concerned with ways of how to cope with the problem of suffering as with trying to solve it. 329 325.  Sheriffs, Friendship, 211. 326.  Balentine, Prayer, 192–93. 327. Hans Küng, Judaism: The Religious Situation of Our Time (London: SCM, 1992) 593–609. 328. Cf. Balentine, Prayer, 192. Elie Wiesel (“Eine Quelle für die Hoffnung finden,” Süddeutsche Zeitung 28–29 [1989]), in contemplating God after Auschwitz, remarks, “I do not believe that we can speak about God; we can only—as Kafka puts it—speak to God” (cited in Küng, Judaism, 605). 329.  Küng (Judaism, 603) writes that the theodicy question is so complex that it cannot be resolved satisfactorily in this life. “Having been constantly preoccupied for decades with all the attempts at theodicy . . . I can confidently say quite bluntly that there seems to me no theoretical answer whatsoever to the theodicy problem.”

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

429

Concluding Theological Reflections The book of Jeremiah is heavy on suffering and on warnings of a forthcoming judgment. However, when one looks at the message of the book as a whole, it is evident that the fundamental aim of the book of Jeremiah is to establish a theology of hope. To be sure, it is a hope that arises from the ashes of pain, judgment, and death. Thus, in a real sense the theological movement of the book anticipates the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ. Jeremiah provides insights into some of the most daring and honest prayers in the entire Bible and into some of the deepest perceptions of the nature and will of God. Just as God’s love and God’s justice meet in a mysterious way at the cross, so the message of Jeremiah is a complex accumulation of a prophetic proclamation of Yhwh’s judgment and grace. This tension between divine wrath and love is combined with prophetic intercessory activity and personal suffering. In this final section, I hope to demonstrate that God’s dealings with Israel and His prophet is in profound continuation with Yhwh’s self-­ revelation on Sinai (Exod 34:6–7). Moreover, I shall attempt to show in summary form that Jeremiah’s intercessory prayers, both those that sought to protect the people of God’s righteous wrath and those that actively demand Yhwh’s justice, can be understood against the notion of divine grace and divine justice. God of Love and Judgment A reading of Jeremiah 1–15 shows that Yhwh has been living up to His name of being slow to anger (Exod 34:6). Consistently, God warned Judah through His spokesman of a forthcoming judgment. Particularly in chaps. 2–9, Jeremiah preaches again and again on the subject of Yhwh’s judgment and calls for a turning back to God. 330 The idolatrous people have ignored the prophet’s warning year after year. Especially in the parable of the potter, we have seen that Yhwh is not only sovereignly reigning over Israel but also is fundamentally responsive to Israel’s behavior (cf. Jer 18:1–11). If the sinful party repents and turns back to God, Yhwh is willing to change His mind regarding the punishment that He intended to bring on the disobedient and idolatrous generation. In other words, divine attributes of patience and responsiveness that are motivated by love come to expression. The people, however, remain stiff-necked and refuse to turn back ( Jer 18:12). After more than two decades, Jeremiah looks back on the first half of his ministry: For twenty-three years, from the thirteenth year of Josiah the son of Amon, king of Judah, to this day, the word of the Lord has come to me, 330.  Chapters 2–3 were primarily about the people’s unfaithfulness to Yhwh, while chap. 5 is about Judah’s moral failures.

430

Chapter 8

and I have spoken persistently to you, but you have not listened. ( Jer 25:3)

It becomes evident that there comes a time when divine forbearance and grace are suspended and punishment will follow (cf. Jer 3:12–14, 19:15). 331 From the perspective of Judah, the Babylonian siege, conquest, and exile was a time of doom, great suffering, and death. From God’s perspective, so the witness of the book of Jeremiah seems to suggest, it was a time of suspended love ( Jer 30:18–22). Arguably, the overall dynamic of the prophet’s intercession and Judah’s ongoing sin finds an illuminating parallel in Numbers 13–14. Due to Israel’s persistent rebellion and lack of faith at the border of the promised land, the rebellious and unbelieving generation is condemned to die in the wilderness. In his intercessory prayer, Moses appeals to Yhwh’s nature as revealed on Sinai and succeeds in saving Israel from immediate destruction (cf. Num 14:18–20). Instead, they are to be “exiled” for 40 years in the desert without being able to enter the promised land. This divine sentence can be understood as a commentary on the nature of God as revealed in Exod 34:6–7 in general and as commentary on the complex concept of visiting the iniquity of the fathers on children up to the fourth generation in particular (cf. Num 14:18, Exod 34:7, Jer 32:18–19). One could argue that the wilderness generation, similar to the children of the exiles, experienced what it means to bear the consequences of Yhwh’s opposition for up to four generations. 332 Jeremiah’s estimate that the punishment of exile will not last longer than 70 years (cf. Jer 29:10–11, 25:11) is quite possibly related to the statement that Yhwh’s judgment will last up to four generations. After a time of judgment, however, the prophet expects God’s mercy and grace to resume in a tangible way. In a prayer of hope, Jeremiah reflects on the nature of Yhwh: You show steadfast love to the thousandth generation, but repay the guilt ֶׂ ֹ ‫ )ע‬of their chilof parents into the laps (‫שּלֵם עֲֹון אָבֹות אֶל־חֵיק‬ ַ ׁ ‫ּומ‬ ְ ‫ָפים‬ ִ ‫אל‬ ֲ ‫שה ֶחסֶד ַל‬ dren after them, O great and mighty God whose name is the Lord of hosts . . . whose eyes are open to all the ways of mortals, rewarding all according to their ways and according to the fruit of their doings. ( Jer 32:18–19)

This prayer clearly expresses the fundamental relationship between a God of love and a God of justice (Exod 34:6–7). Although there is a fresh emphasis on individual accountability in Jeremiah’s prayer, the situation of the second generation exiles is arguably similar to that of the children of 331.  Seitz, “The Prophet,” 8. 332.  During Israel’s exile, the children became acutely aware that their misery is caused by the sins of their fathers. The cynical proverb “the parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge” gives expression to this frustration (cf. Lam 5:7, Jer 31:28).

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

431

the rebellious wilderness generation (cf. Jer 31:30–31). Both parties have to bear the sociological and theological consequences of their parents’ guilt. Nevertheless, in both cases, Yhwh’s underlying mercy and faithfulness eventually provides a new chance for the new generation to turn back to God and (re)settle in the promised land (cf. Num 32:6–15, Jer 31:18–22). 333 The vision of a new forgiven generation becomes the prominent theme in chaps. 21–36 of the book of Jeremiah. After 70 years in exile ( Jer 29:10– 14) and the emergence of a new generation, there is eventually hope on the horizon. In particular, chaps. 30–33 speak of restoration, healing, and a new covenant. The Lord announces: “I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more” ( Jer 31:34). Based on a radical renewal of the divine-human relationship, a theology of hope is emerging from the book of Jeremiah. 334 The book makes it absolutely evident, though, that divine grace is not cheap and that sin is not passed over easily. 335 Israel must go through judgment in order to bring about a new beginning. In other words, a theology crucis becomes visible at the horizon. The path to redemption leads through the pain and death of judgment.  336 It took many years of persecution, suffering, and eventually destruction, before Jeremiah dared to proclaim Yhwh’s unshakable covenant commitment once again ( Jer 30–32). So the final word of the book of Jeremiah is not judgment and death but hope. Through the darkest hours that the Old Testament records, it becomes clear that no disaster, suffering, or judgment would ultimately cut off Israel from their covenant God. After the third and fourth generation has been visited in judgment, Yhwh’s gracious covenant commitment gains again the upper hand. Refined and purified by the fire of judgment and exile, Jeremiah is absolutely convinced that Yhwh remains committed to His people. After all, this is how Yhwh has revealed Himself: As a God who keeps His steadfast love (‫ ) ֶחסֶד‬to the thousandth generation, yet by no means clearing the guilty (cf. Exod 34:6–7). God revealed Himself anew as the One who: loved Israel with an everlasting love, and who continued to be faithful (‫ ) ֶחסֶד‬to Israel ( Jer 31:3). It is this loving commitment (‫ ) ֶחסֶד‬to the covenant relationship that is the foundation of all prophetic hope and prayer. 337 It is evident, however, that Yhwh chastises His people in just measure, and He will ensure that they not remain unpunished ( Jer 30:11). Brueggemann reflects theologically on the correlation between judgment and hope. 333. Cf. my Moses, 320–28. 334. See Ronald E. Clements, “Patterns in the Prophetic Canon,” in Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology (ed. G. W. Coats and B. O. Long; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 42–55. 335.  Patrick D. Miller, “Jeremiah,” in NIB 6:694. 336.  Hesse, Die Fürbitte, 128. 337.  Numerous biblical passages suggest that ‫ ֶחסֶד‬, when referring to Yhwh, is primarily a covenant word. Cf. 1 Sam 20:8, Ps 89:29.

432

Chapter 8

Lawsuit judgment and promissory hope come in sequence, divided by the fissure of exile. Thus hope can come only after judgment. Understood theologically, however, judgment and hope are not to be understood sequentially, but as expressions of twin aspects of Yahweh, who is present to Israel in faithful sovereignty and in sovereign fidelity. Promise does not cancel lawsuit, but surely opens for Israel yet another season in its life with Yahweh. 338

Brueggemann helpfully takes us from the plane of human experience to a theological vantage point. In doing so, Brueggemann sees the origin of judgment and hope rooted in the twin aspects of Yhwh as a God of love and wrath. We have already expressed our concern with the view that at the very center of God is a disjunction, an unresolvable tension of divine attributes. 339 Kitamori also engages with the seeming tension of a God of love and wrath. To him, the result of this tension within God is divine pathos, or “pain,” as he prefers to say. He draws attention to the fact that right from the outset of the book of Jeremiah the reader picks up signals of Yhwh’s underlying, but often wounded, love for Israel ( Jer 2:1–3). During judgment, the tormented voice of God’s pathos is audible: Is Ephraim my dear son? Is he the child I delight in? As often as I speak against him, I still remember him. Therefore I am deeply moved for him (‫ ;)עַל־ּכֵן הָמּו ַמעַי לֹו‬I will surely have mercy on him, says the Lord. ( Jer 31:20) 340

This verse provided the spark for Kitamori’s original work on the Pain of God. 341 For the Japanese theologian, it is evident that the divine lament and tears reflect God’s wounded love and His will to love the “object” of His wrath and judgment. Kitamori writes: “God did not repulse those who should be repulsed. God embraced them.” He points to the painful tension between “God in his will of wrath and God in his will of love.” 342 Kitamori is strongly influenced by Luther’s powerful and memorable formulation on the dynamics of the cross: “At Golgotha God is fighting with God.” 343 This formulation of Luther, the head-on conflict between the wrath of God and 338.  Brueggemann, Theology, 639. 339.  Cf. Terence E. Fretheim, “Some Reflections on Brueggemann’s God,” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann (ed. T. Linafelt and T. K. Beal; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) 30. See also my Moses, 180–83. 340. Kazoh Kitamori, Theology of the Pain of God (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005) 21, renders: “Therefore my heart yearns” (‫)עַל־ּכֵן הָמּו ֵמעַי לֹו‬. Luther translation: “darum bricht mir mein Herz, dass ich mich seiner erbarmen muss.” 341.  Jer 31:20 and Isa 63:15 are two fundamental texts for Kitamori’s theology. See The Pain of God, 151–62, for Kitamori’s exegetical exposition. 342. Theodosius Harnack, Luthers Theologie (vol. 2; Munich: Chr. Kaiser 1927) 253, cited by Kitamori, Theology, 45. 343. Martin Luther, Sämtliche Werke (vol. 45; Weimar: Weimarer Ausgabe 1883) 370, cited by Kitamori, Theology, 21.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

433

the love of God within one God, has supplied the fundamental theological framework for Kitamori’s theology of the pain of God. “The fact that this fighting God is not two different gods but the same God causes pain. Here heart is opposed to heart within God.” 344 While Brueggemann sees the origin of judgment and hope in the twin aspects of Yhwh as a God of mercy and wrath, Kitamori emphasizes divine pain resulting from this tension between a God of love and wrath. 345 While I do not want to belittle the importance of this fundamental tension within God and the divine pathos or pain resulting from it, my concern is to see divine wrath in its proper biblical relation to the divine attributes of grace, mercy, covenant loyalty, and forbearance. According to Yhwh’s self-revelation, the seriousness of divine wrath should never be neglected in any portrayal of God, but it must be seen in its proportion to His attributes of love (“thousand to four,” cf. Exod 34:6–7). 346 The inexhaustible depth of divine love also comes to expression in divine statements such as “I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have ְ ‫ש ְכ ִּת‬ ְ ‫אה ְַב ִּת‬ continued my faithfulness to you” (‫יך ָחסֶד‬ ַ ׁ ‫יך עַל־ּכֵן ְמ‬ ֲ ‫הבַת עֹולָם‬ ֲ ‫ו ַא‬,ְ Jer 31:3). Moreover, it is important to highlight as Heschel does that divine anger is not an attribute of God. Rather it is “a mood, a state of mind.” He comments: In both its origin and duration, anger is distinguished from mercy. It is never a spontaneous outburst, but rather is a state which is conditioned by man. . . . What is often proclaimed about love—For the Lord is good, for His steadfast love endures for ever ( Jer 33:11, Ps. 100:5 . . .)—is not said about anger. . . . The normal and original pathos is love or mercy. Anger is preceded as well as followed by compassion. (cf. Jer 12:15, 33:26) 347

Both the fact that Yhwh led the children of the wilderness generation into the promised land and that Israel was led back from exile illustrates that divine grace and mercy fundamentally control the divine purposes. Heschel helpfully characterizes God’s anger as “suspended love, as mercy withheld, as mercy in concealment. . . . It is as if compassion were waiting to resume (. . . cf. Jer 12:14–15).” Heschel continues: “For punishment to be imposed upon the people, God’s ‘love and steadfast mercy’ must be suppressed ( Jer 16:5).” 348 This temporary suppression of divine love has important implications for our understanding of prophetic intercessory prayer, in particular for our understanding of the persistent divine prohibition thereof. Having 344.  Kitamori, Theology, 21. 345. See How Chuang Chua, Japanese Perspectives on the Death of Christ: A Study in Contextualized Christology (Ph.D. diss., Trinity International University, 2007) 151–74, for a detailed exposition and evaluation of Kitamori’s work in context. 346.  See “The Love and Wrath of God,” pp. 519–523. 347.  Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets (Peabody, MA: Prince, 1999) 77. 348.  Ibid.

434

Chapter 8

provided some theological ruminations on the message of Jeremiah and having ventured a few reflections into the heart of God, I would like to return to the question how Jeremiah’s intercessory activity fits into the larger nexus of God’s nature and purposes, Israel’s sin, and prophetic warnings. Agent of Grace and Judgment Jeremiah’s prophetic commission was both “to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant” ( Jer 1:10). This dual role is not just manifested in his prophetic speeches but continues to be reflected in Jeremiah’s prayer ministry as well. Like in the case of Amos, Jeremiah’s intercessory ministry develops. The divine prohibitions to pray for the people suggests that Jeremiah often interceded on behalf of the people ( Jer 14:11). The prophet, though, had to change sides, from defending the people in intercession to praying for divine justice. We have seen how Jeremiah’s prayers for divine mercy eventually gave way to God’s righteous wrath to “destroy and overthrow” sinful Israel. In this final section, I take up the question of how to interpret the divine restriction on intercessory prayer. Following the sequence of the received text, we shall also see how Jeremiah will be reinstalled as Yhwh’s prophetic intercessor.

Interpreting Yhwh’s Persistent Prohibition to Intercede Historical critics tend to argue that God’s restriction to pray is a later inserted literary device to acquit the prophet of the “sin” of not having interceded for divine mercy and protection (cf. 1 Sam 12:23). In order to vindicate Jeremiah from an apparent failure to persuade Yhwh to spare the sinners, numerous interpreters argue that God’s restriction to pray was inserted after the destruction of Jerusalem. 349 Such a reading of the text goes obviously against the logic of the received form. Following the text, Jeremiah’s persistent intercessions make it evident that the fall of Jerusalem and the deportation into exile cannot be ascribed to a lack of intercession on the prophet’s part. Thus, one of the main lessons from Jeremiah’s prayer is that not even the intercessions of the chosen prophet guarantee that God will always respond graciously. 350 Jeremiah’s failure to prevent disaster­from coming over Israel most likely has to do with the ongoing divine prohibition to intercede. Basically, two lines of interpretation of Yhwh’s ban on Jeremiah’s prayer have been suggested. God prohibited His prophet to intercede because (1) Israel has sinned itself beyond a point of return and (2) Yhwh had to protect Himself and the way of justice from ongoing appeals to mercy and forgiveness. Let me attempt to summarize our previous findings. First, the divine ban on Jeremiah’s prayer could be taken as a sign that 349.  According to Duhm (Jeremia, 127–29), only Jer 14:2–10 within 14:1–15:2 go back to the historical prophet. Jer 14:11–16 and 14:19–15:4 are later exilic additions. See also Reventlow, Gebet, 251–60. 350.  Fretheim, Jeremiah, 13.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

435

the sins of the people have become too great and thus forgiveness could no longer be granted through the medium of intercession. So, for example, Thompson notes: Jeremiah’s command from the Lord that he must not pray for his sinful people is a reflection upon the depth of sin into which they have sunk. It is not that prophetic intercession is at an end, is found waiting, or is no longer effective. It may in this instance be ineffective, but that is because the sin is so great! 351

Although we have seen again and again that there is indeed a fundamental link between the sins of the party that is being prayed for and the effectiveness of intercessory prayer, in our treatment of the texts the question arose as to why Yhwh needed to prohibit Jeremiah persistently and urgently from praying for this people. If it were simply a matter of the people’s sin outweighing the power of prayer, there would be no need for an urgent ongoing ban on intercession. The prophet’s prayers would simply prove ineffective, suffocated by the people’s sin. Therefore, it seems that the underlying logic of the prohibition is not just about the extent of Israel’s sin but also because prophetic intercession has an effect on Yhwh’s judgment. The second line of interpretation acknowledges that prophetic intercession is highly effective in God’s outworking of His plans. Precisely because of its power on swaying the divine mind, Yhwh has to prohibit His prophet to intercede in order to execute His judgment. By implication, this sort of reading would suggest that even when the people’s sins are as great and many as in Jeremiah’s days, the prophetic intercessor could hope to pacify the justified wrath of God and persuade Yhwh to show leniency and to withhold punishment from the sinful party. Miller comments: The openness of the Lord to the prophet’s prayers for the people, an openness that is so strong that God actually has to forbid such intercession when judgment is called for (see 11:14), is a signal of the power of prayer to persuade the Lord to respond. 352

Acknowledging divine openness with regard to showing mercy and ascribing effectiveness to prophetic intercession even for a people that has broken the covenant is in line with the intercessory activities of Moses. Moses managed to withhold Yhwh’s destructive punishment in the aftermath of the golden calf and the rebellion at Kadesh (Exod 32:7–14, Num 14:13–19). Moses’ prayers were taken into account in spite of the people’s archetypal act of idolatry and unbelief. In these examples, the element of persuasion in prayer is strong. Moses puts forward arguments in prayer that are either based on God’s own character, promises or arguments that are in the best interest of Yhwh’s larger purposes. We have seen that God builds into the outworking of His purposes an openness to prophetic negotiation and 351.  Thompson, I have heard, 115–16. 352.  Miller, “Jeremiah,” 691.

436

Chapter 8

that at times a ban on intercession is required if God is to execute His judgment. 353 We have seen that Tiemeyer understands Yhwh’s prohibition as a safeguard against its persuasive power. Her exegesis shows that God’s ban on Jeremiah’s intercession is an urgent, temporal, and emotionally burdened decision. According to Tiemeyer God is portrayed as having to protect Himself from the weighty arguments of the intercessors, because God cannot be sure that He will not be swayed by them.  354 How do we evaluate these two broad lines of interpretations of God’s prohibition on intercessory prayer? Let us first note that until now the biblical witness has made it evident that God expects His prophets to intercede on behalf of the sinful people. In God’s providence, He invites prophetic intercession and builds it into the decision making process. Sometimes this invitation to pray comes by provoking the prophet to refrain from prayer (cf. Exod 32:7–14, Deut 9:14). If, however, the divine-human covenant relationship is undermined by ongoing ethical misconduct and idolatry, then God’s gracious responsiveness is no longer guaranteed. Thus, we have seen both in our treatment of Moses’ and Jeremiah’s prayers that effectiveness of intercessory prayer goes hand in hand with the responsiveness of the party that is being prayed for (cf. Deut 10:12–20, Jer 18:1–12). In spite of numerous prophetic summons to turn back to God, Israel in Jeremiah’s day would not turn back to Yhwh. In other words, there is a clear sense that the divine prohibition is strongly related to an unresponsive generation. Just like Moses, Jeremiah is initially not deterred by the divine prohibition to intercede for the people. The prophet continues to pray for the postponement of the divine judgment until he comes to realize that Israel is beyond help on the path to punishment (“Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people” Jer 15:1). It is at this point that Jeremiah’s intercessory prayers turn into ongoing laments and change to prayers for judgment. In doing so, the prophet continues to mirror Yhwh’s will and pathos in his prayers. I have suggested that through His prohibitions Yhwh seeks to bring Jeremiah’s proclamation and prayer into line with the divine will. Although Jeremiah was initially wrestling in prayer for a “counterbalance” to Yhwh’s justice,  355 the prophet came to realize that the time had come to withdraw his intercession. God revealed to His prophet several times that judgment is inevitable (cf. Jer 1:13–16, 5:15–19, 14:10–12). As a prophet who regularly stands in the council of the Lord (cf. Jer 23:18–22), Jeremiah was persuaded to embody the divine will to judge in his proclamation, prayer, and acts. In other words, by insisting to abstain from intercession, Yhwh sought to ensure that the prophet is in tune with the outworking of the divine purposes. 353.  Ibid., 670. 354. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, “God’s Hidden Compassion,” TB 57 (2006) 194–95. 355.  Hesse, Die Fürbitte, 102–8.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

437

Granted that Jeremiah’s ministry context was complex and eventually called for divine judgment, the question remains as to whether Jeremiah failed in his role as prophetic intercessor. After all, it was his twofold prophetic duty to warn Israel of the coming judgment and to intercede on behalf of the sinful people before God so that they might be spared from Yhwh’s judgment and be pardoned. As in the case of Abraham, in spite of his prayer for Sodom, divine punishment came over the sinful cities. Jeremiah could not stop Judea from going into exile and failed to prevent the destruction of the temple. When viewed from within the wider unfolding of Israel’s salvation history, God not only preserved a remnant through whom a new beginning would eventually emerge but also graciously maintained His covenant relationship with Israel. 356 Thus, the divine prohibitions to intercede have to be seen within the larger framework of God’s outworking of His ways with Israel. To be sure, there was severe punishment that looked like the end of God’s relationship with Israel, but the unshakable foundation of God’s dealings with His people was always His covenant loyalty and love for them ( Jer 31:3). The time of the exile will come eventually to an end: For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope. Then when you call upon me and come and pray to me, I will hear you. When you search for me, you will find me; if you seek me with all your heart, I will let you find me, says the Lord, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, says the Lord, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile. ( Jer 29:11­–14)

Praying for the Enemy In the chapters that witness to the happenings after the fall of Jerusalem, there are signs that the time of “tearing down” has come to an end and a time of “building up” has begun. After Judah had been deported to Babylon, Jeremiah writes a letter to the exiles. The context of the letter is in some sense already anticipated in Solomon’s inauguration prayer: If they (Israel) sin against you . . . and you are angry with them and give them to an enemy, so that they are carried away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near; yet if they come to their senses . . . if they repent . . . in the land of their enemies, who took them captive, and pray to you . . . grant them compassion in the sight of their captors, so that they may have compassion on them. (1 Kgs 8:46–50)

It seems clear that what is phrased as a possibility in Solomon’s prayer has become harsh reality: Israel is in exile. In other words, Jeremiah’s warnings have come true. Interestingly, Israel still seems to hold onto the hope of a swift return from Babylon as propagated by some false prophets 356.  Scharbert, “Die Fürbitte in der Theologie,” 331.

438

Chapter 8

( Jer 29:8–9). So Jeremiah sends a message in the name of God to the deportees. He warns them against the message of the exiled prophets but also seeks to give hope and sober instructions. to all the exiles whom I (God of Israel) have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: build houses and live in them; plant gardens. . . . Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city (‫ֶת־שלֹום‬ ְׁ ‫ְו ִד ְרׁשּו א‬ ‫ָעיר‬ ִ ‫ )ה‬where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. (‫שלֹומָּה‬ ְׁ ‫ֲדּה אֶל־יְהוָה ִּכי ִב‬ ָ ‫ְו ִה ְתּפ ְַללּו ַבע‬ ‫שלֹום‬ ָׁ ‫ִהיֶה ָלכֶם‬ ְ ‫י‬, Jer 29:4–7)

Jeremiah’s letter seems to have several objectives. First, the prophet addresses the needs of the exiles and encourages them to accept their fate as God-given (learn to accept that this is a time of punishment). In other words, Jeremiah summons them to make peace with their situation and trust God that He is working out His purposes. Second, Jeremiah warns the exiles of the danger of listening to the false prophets. They create false hopes of a swift return to Israel. Third, Jeremiah provides down-to-earth advice with regard to Israel’s future in Babylonian captivity. Jeremiah’s sober prophetic advice reminds us of similar words of advice to the people of God who do not live in their home country in the New Testament: First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity. This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior. (1 Tim 2:1–3)

The letter of Timothy also contains a summons to pray for the well-being of the host culture and its authorities. The reason is similar, namely, that the people of God can lead a quiet and peaceable life before God (cf. Rom 13:1–7, 1 Pet 2:11–17). Von Rad describes the tone of Jeremiah’s letter as follows: The words are an unexampled exhortation to sober thinking and an attack on fervent high hopes fostered by religion. The exiles were obviously quite unable to appreciate the real seriousness of the situation, and therefore Jeremiah counseled them to do what lay to hand and prepare to settle down. This meant, of course, a change in the deportees’ attitude to Babylon. She is no longer the enemy. She carries the people of God upon her bosom, and therefore it was fitting for prayer to be made for her. Times had changed. 357

The exiles are no longer to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, as the psalmist commends them to do, but for the peace of Babylon. Miller writes: 357.  Cf. Von Rad, Theology, 2:211.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

439

Psalm 122 gives us some idea of what sort of praying is envisioned: “May they prosper who love you. Peace be within your walls, and security within your towers.” . . . Strangest of all is the prayer for the enemy capital that brought about Judah’s downfall. 358

Of course, one could argue that these prayers for Babylon were not primarily meant for the physical and spiritual welfare of the captors. Rather, these prayers served indirectly the well-being of the deportees. Acknowledging the strong possibility that Jeremiah’s summon to pray for Babylon had a pragmatic self-interest, the prophet’s instructions obviously stand in stark contrast to Jeremiah’s earlier prayers against the enemy. To pray for the peace of those who have killed your kin, destroyed your home, and given your land to others comes as a huge challenge, even if the prayer eventually serves your own well-being. Thus, Jer 29:7, as Wright observes, provides chapter and verse for the hard teaching of Jesus: “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you” (Luke 6:27–28). 359 Interceding for those who hate you and persecute you is the way of the kingdom of God, says Jesus (cf. Matt 5:44). For the people of God, according to Miller, this praying began in Babylon. 360 We have seen though that the seeds of Jesus’ majestic teaching on loving one’s enemy go back to Abraham’s prayer for Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:16–33).

Jeremiah Is Reinstalled as Intercessor Not only did Jeremiah encourage the exiles to pray for the Babylonians, but he himself could resume his intercessory role. After the conquest, a vulnerable remnant of Judeans, under the leadership of Johanan, sought God’s guidance through Jeremiah ( Jer 42:1–6). The survivors appear to acknowledge Jeremiah’s prophetic role by bringing their plea for mercy before him: “Be good enough to listen to our plea, and pray to the Lord (‫ְו ִה ְת ַּפּלֵל ַּבעֲדֵ נּו‬ ‫ )אֶל־יְהוָה‬your God for us—for all this remnant. For there are only a few of us left out of many, as your eyes can see. Let the Lord your God show us where we should go and what we should do.” ( Jer 42:2–3)

Given Yhwh’s persistent “no” to Jeremiah’s intercession up to the destruction of Jerusalem, it is interesting to note that neither God nor the prophet declines the people’s request. It looks as if the ban on intercession has been lifted after or during the judgment. 361 God gives the people a new chance. 358.  Miller, “Jeremiah,” 792. 359. Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010) 255. 360.  Miller, “Jeremiah,” 796. Here we see a further outworking of God’s promise to Abraham to make him and his seed a blessing to the nations (cf. Gen 12:3). 361.  Schmidt, Jeremia, 267. Compare Jer 37:3–10, where King Zedekiah commissions two of his officials to ask Jeremiah to “pray for us to the Lord our God” ( Jer 37:3) and to “inquire” ( Jer 37:7) in the face of Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest, whether Yhwh would not

440

Chapter 8

Like Samuel before him, Jeremiah responds favorably: “I will pray to the Lord your God according to your request, and whatever the Lord answers you I will tell you” ( Jer 42:4; cf. 1  Sam 7:8). The people assure Jeremiah unconditional obedience to the word of God. After 10 days the prophet receives God’s answer to the prayer for guidance ( Jer 42:6–7). Even a prophet like Jeremiah apparently has to wait patiently and watch for the word of God. 362 The divine response comes first as a great promise: If you will only remain in this land, then I will build you up and not pull you down; I will plant you, and not pluck you up; for I am sorry for the disaster that I have brought upon you (‫ׂיתי ָלכֶם‬ ִ ‫ָש‬ ִ ‫ֲשר ע‬ ֶׁ ‫ָרעָה א‬ ָ ‫)ּכי ִנח ְַמ ִּתי אֶל־ה‬. ִ Do not be afraid of the king of Babylon, as you have been . . . says the Lord, for I am with you, to save you and to rescue you from his hand. I will grant you mercy, and he will have mercy on you (‫ֲמים ְוִרחַם‬ ִ ‫ְואֶּתֵ ן ָלכֶם רַ ח‬ ‫ֶתכֶם‬ ְ ‫ )א‬and restore you to your native soil. ( Jer 42:10­–12; cf. 1 Kgs 8:50, ‫ֲמים‬ ִ ‫)ּונְתַ ָּתם ְלרַ ח‬

Judging from the divine response, Jeremiah is reinstalled as prophetic intercessor. Presumably, intercession is possible again because Israel has been sufficiently punished and has returned to God. Not unlike other occasions of prophetic intercession, here too we find reference to God changing His mind regarding the judgment (‫ָרעָה‬ ָ ‫ ;נחם עַל־ה‬cf. Exod 32:14, Amos 7:1–6, Joel 2:14). God has “returned” from His thoughts of judgment and is ready to make a new start with the people. In mercy He will ensure that Judah will be replanted in the land and live under Yhwh’s protection. The divine offer, however, requires a step of trust. The remaining people feared Nebuchadnezzar’s wrath over the killing of his newly appointed governor Gedaliah and were planning on escaping to Egypt (cf. Jer 41:17). So Yhwh’s response comes with a solemn warning: “If you are determined to enter Egypt and go to settle there, then the sword that you fear shall overtake you there, in the land of Egypt” ( Jer 42:13). In other words, the people are presented with a choice. Either they make themselves firm in God’s promise of protection, as delivered by Jeremiah, or they will face the wrath of the Chaldeans (cf. Isa 7:9). The temptation to repeat the same offense of distrust in God’s protection, as the wilderness generation committed before they entered the promised land, presents itself anew to the remnant in Judah. Like the wilderness generation, they too gave in to their fear and decided to flee to Egypt. Although the Judeans have approached Jeremiah to pray for mercy and divine guidance, they still doubted that God would really speak to His prophets. In their fear, they started to blame Jeremiah for having conveyed Baruch’s words, not God’s ( Jer 43:3). So the remaining Judeans decided to flee to Egypt and take Jeremiah and his scribe intervene on behalf of Judah. In contrast to Jer 42, Jeremiah proclaims God’s resolve to bring punishment on Israel. 362. Von Rad, Theologie, 2:78.

Jeremiah: Agent of Grace and Judgment

441

with them. On their first stop in Egypt, the word of the Lord came anew to Jeremiah, saying that king Nebuchadnezzar will come down to Egypt and will execute divine judgment. And so he did ( Jer 43:8–13). Jeremiah, like so often before, does not proclaim this judgment from a safe distance. He himself is fully part of and affected by the consequences of the people’s disobedience to God. Also in this sense, he is a clear forerunner of Jesus, who also was drawn into the judgment of the people’s sin. Jesus, in contrast to Jeremiah, was not only the victim of the people’s scheming, but was also vindicated through his resurrection. As far as we can guess, Jeremiah died a lonely death in Egypt.

Chapter 9

Joel: The People’s Repentance, Priestly Intercession, and God’s Gracious Return (Joel 2) Introduction The Day of the Lord (‫ )יֹום יְהוָה‬is the main theme in the book of Joel. Although it is a day of reckoning, it is also a day of salvation for all those who call on the name of the Lord (cf. Joel 2:32). The book witnesses to an eschatological dialectic of judgment and salvation. Interestingly, this dialectic is also reflected in the portrayal of God. Yhwh is heading the army of the enemy that is attacking Zion and at the same time, Yhwh is Israel’s God who lives in Zion ( Joel 2:11, 3:17, 21). The Lord’s visitation of Israel means either destruction or salvation. It is against this theological background of life and death that one needs to read the prophetic summons to radical repentance and Joel’s urgent instruction to the priests to intercede for divine mercy. Spare your people, O Lord, and do not make your heritage a mockery, a byword among the nations. Why should it be said among the peoples, “Where is their God?”( Joel 2:17)

This intercessory prayer for compassion and the appeal to Yhwh’s reputation among the nations forms the watershed between divine judgment and destruction of Jerusalem on the one side ( Joel 1:4–2:11) and Yhwh’s elaborate salvific promises on the other ( Joel 2:18–3:1). 1 The book of Joel testifies to how Yhwh, the holy God, visits His people in fierce judgment and thereby allows Himself to be changed to a God who visits Israel in grace and mercy. At the center of this divine change from wrath to compassion stands a twofold prophetic summons: (1) Joel calls all the people to return to God and (2) the prophet charges the priests to intercede for divine compassion ( Joel 2:12­–17). It is interesting to note that the priests are not only told by the prophet to intercede, but are also instructed how 1.  The Hebrew verse reference in the book of Joel differs from that of most English translations (based on the LXX). For the readers’ convenience, we will follow the standard English reference system.

442

Joel: The People’s Repentance

443

to pray for the people ( Joel 2:17). This raises the question of the relation between the priest and the prophet with regard to their mediatory role. Besides the theme of the Day of the Lord, repentance is another major theme of the book of Joel. The detailed account of the divine and prophetic call to return to God with an undivided heart, with fasting, and weeping ( Joel 2:15) appears both in the Haftarah for Shabbat Shuvah (the Sabbath that precedes Yom Kippur) and in some church lectionaries for Ash Wednesday. Thereby, both faith communities signal rightly the timeless message of Joel that needs to be passed on from generation to generation ( Joel 1:3). The prophetic call to repentance is indeed so strong in the book of Joel that some scholars argue that the text witnesses here to a shift in Israel’s understanding of how God’s anger can be averted and how the covenant relationship can be restored. 2 This shift, so goes the argument, is from the intercessory efforts of the powerful covenant mediators of Israel’s past to the later times when communal repentance gained increasing weight in the process of divine-human reconciliation (cf. Nehemiah 9; Jonah 3:4–10). 3 In this chapter, I shall attempt to address the relation between repentance, intercession, and divine pardon in dialogue with the book of Jonah, as well as with Exodus 32–34. Both accounts contain important intertextual associations to Joel’s call to repentance, prayer, and Yhwh’s response. Another theological feature of the book of Joel that is of great interest to our study and is indeed central to this book, is the fact that both the prophetic call to return to God and the appeal to divine mercy are both only possible because of who Yhwh is, a God “gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, who relents from punishing” ( Joel 2:13). We shall see that Joel’s clear reference to Yhwh’s revelation of His name (Exod 34:6–7) is not the only intertextual link to the intercessory dialogue between Moses and God in Exodus 32–34. The prayer that Joel puts into the mouth of the priests echoes in significant ways the dynamics of Moses’ initial prayer after Israel’s archetypal idolatry on Sinai (cf. Exod 32:14, Deut 9:26–29). I shall conclude this chapter with offering some further biblical theological observations regarding the connection between prophetic instructions and mediated prayer, and venture a few suggestions as to how this is related to Jesus Christ and the “Spirit of prophecy.” Moreover, I shall attempt to explore some of the rich biblical associations of prayers that are based and rooted in God’s name and how they anticipate and are being fulfilled in Jesus Christ. 2.  Joel is of course not the only prophet who teaches that returning to Yhwh’s ways can prevent divine punishment (cf. Jer 18:5–8, 26:3). 3. So for example Franz Hesse, Die Fürbitte im Alten Testament (Hamburg: Erlangen, 1951) 142. On pp. 449–454, we shall interact particularly with Y. Kaufmann and J. Milgrom’s understanding of the power of repentance.

444

Chapter 9

The Narrative Context of the Priestly Intercession The intercessory prayer in the book of Joel is sandwiched between a divine judgment and God’s response. To be more specific, on the one side, there is a locust plague, which is discerned as Yhwh’s judgment on Israel, and a prophetic summons to a national repentance ceremony ( Joel 2:1–11, 12–14). On the other side of the priestly prayer ( Joel 2:17), we find Yhwh’s promise to restore the land and the reputation of His people ( Joel 2:18–27). God also pledges to be present among the people through pouring out His Spirit ( Joel 2:28–32). In other words, the prayer occurs at a turning point between Yhwh’s judgment and His gracious response. In the context of the entire account of Joel, the intercession comes as the climax of the first part of the book ( Joel 1:1–2:17). In fact, the first part of the book records two prophetic callings to a national lament (cf. Joel 1:5–20, 2:1–17). Both sections contain a national and a priestly lament and finish with a prayer for help. The first cry for help comes from Joel himself ( Joel 1:19) and the second prayer is a priestly intercession ( Joel 2:17). 4 In the face of a consuming locust plague the prophet summons the people to a national ceremony of lament and repentance. The locust swarms are described as an impending army of warriors and are messengers of the Day of the Lord ( Joel 2:1–11). On this day, God will come in judgment. Interestingly, it is the same God who announces through His prophet that it is not too late for Israel to return to their God ( Joel 2:12–13). In an urgent call, Joel proclaims the possibility that the Lord may show compassion and terminate the plague even in the last moment ( Joel 2:12–14; cf. Amos 5:15, Jonah 3:9). The priestly intercession on behalf of the people is part of the national act of repentance ( Joel 2:17). In the second major part of the book, Yhwh responds in grace and mercy to the priestly appeal for compassion ( Joel 2:18–27). Yhwh will drive away the locusts and restore the fertility of the land. In the third part of the book, we find the well-known announcement that God will pour out His Spirit on all flesh ( Joel 2:28­–29). The final part of the book of Joel describes God’s eschatological universal judgment of the nations ( Joel 3:2). This divine judgment is accompanied by cosmic signs ( Joel 3:15–16) and promises that Judah will be restored to an Eden like state ( Joel 3:18). Having set the prayer in the wider context of the book, we will zoom in in the first part and consider in some more detail the dynamics of the prophetic summons to a national repentance gathering ( Joel 2:1–17). The Locust Plague and the Day of the Lord The prophetic call to repentance should be read in the context of the build-up of tension in 2:1–11. The people of God face the terror of an allconsuming locust population. In the vision of the prophet, the locusts turn 4. Erich Zenger, “Das Buch Joel,” in Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008) 530.

Joel: The People’s Repentance

445

into an eerie and invisible army that is threatening to invade the land. What is more, the army is under Yhwh’s command ( Joel 2:11). Little is known about the historical circumstances connected with the prophet Joel. All that can be inferred with any certainty from the text is that the prophet lived in Judah, is closely associated with the temple and priestly circles (cf. Joel 1:9, 13, 2:14–17), and in all probability prophesied in Jerusalem (cf. Joel 1:14, 2:16). Increasingly, scholarship has come to understand that the theological dimension of the book of Joel is misunderstood when it is based on a historical critical attempt to date the book according to an absolute chronology. 5 There is a new appreciation, not only of the literary arrangement of the book of Joel, but also in how it relates to the 12 books of the Minor Prophets in their final form. 6 Thus, for example, it has been argued that the main theme of the book, the Day of the Lord, is of central importance to the entire book of the Twelve. 7 Yet there is no other Old Testament voice that treats this theme so extensively as Joel does. 8 The Day of the Lord is also a major theme in the preceding book of Hosea and the following book of Amos. Scoralick, who works not only with the received form of the text but also examines Joel in its canonical context, argues that the subject of the Day of the Lord in both Hosea and Amos provides a concrete context to the seemingly ahistorical treatment of Joel. 9 The canonical context of Hosea and Amos has also been taken into consideration in the quest for what Israel’s sin is in the book of Joel. One can understand though Barker’s concern when he cautions us that reading Joel “canonically,” that is drawing interpretive help from Hosea and Amos, undermines reading Joel as its own discrete literary unity. 10 Having said this, there is hardly any historical reference in Joel, nor is there much indication as to what exactly caused the divine judgment. This lack of evidence of sin 5.  The suggested dates of the prophet’s ministry range within 500 years. It has long been noted that the book of Joel cannot be dated with any certainty. See ibid., 530–33. 6.  Willem S. Prinsloo (The Theology of the Book of Joel [BZAW 163; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1985]) emphasizes the continuities and interrelatedness of book of Joel. Joel Barker (From the Depths of Despair to the Promise of Presence: A Rhetorical Reading of the Book of Joel [Siphrut 11; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014]) also demonstrates that the book of Joel is a unified work. He examines the received form of the book from the perspective of its rhetorical persuasive structures and strategy. Barker shows how the implied audience is guided from utter anguish to the hope of restoration. 7.  See Rolf Rendtorff, Theologie des Alten Testaments: Ein kanonischer Entwurf, vol. 1: Kanonische Grundlage (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999) 245­–91, for a discussion on the unity, the intentional shaping, and the rich intertextuality of the Book of the Twelve. 8.  Hans W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton, vol. 2: Joel und Amos (BKAT 14/2; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 14, speaks of Joel’s Generalthema. 9. Ruth Scoralick, Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn: Gottesprädikationen in Ex 34:6f und ihre intertextuellen Beziehungen zum Zwölfprophetenbuch (HBS 33; Freiburg: Herder, 2002) 170. 10. See Barker, From the Depths, 144–51, for a helpful overview and evaluation of all the main suggestions as to what Israel’s guilt is.

446

Chapter 9

led some scholars to conclude that Judah and Jerusalem were subject to a mysterious divine attack and see in it some kind of purifying judgment. 11 Wolff argues that a radical return to Yhwh was necessary because the people of God, in their self-sufficient cultic piety, could no longer hear the prophetic message of the coming of the Day of the Lord. For this reason, the prophetic call is to rend hearts and not cloth ( Joel 2:13). 12 Others argue that the book of Joel presupposes a general consciousness of sinfulness. 13 Allen sees in the lack of reference to any concrete sin a literary strategy to draw the people into self-reflection to recognize where they had erred. 14 In the light of Yhwh’s call to return to Him (‫)ׁשּובּו אֶל־יְהוָה‬, it seems preferable to see Israel’s waywardness behind the judgment. This would be supported by Hosea and Amos, where we find the same call to repentance (‫ׁשּובּו אֶל־‬ ‫ )יְהוָה‬in connection to concrete offenses (cf. Hos 14:2, Amos 4:6–11). Another important text that can be drawn into the intertextual conversation is Solomon’s prayer. We have seen that the king’s petition addresses the possibility of plague, blight, mildew, vermin, and enemy invasion (1 Kgs 8:37–39). According to the covenant agreement, these disasters could all be means of divine judgment when Israel sins against its covenant God (cf. Deut 28:15–68). The book of Joel depicts how these calamities have come true. Interestingly, King Solomon employs similar language in his prayer to Joel 2:12 when it comes to prescribing an appropriate response to divine judgment (cf. 1 Kgs 8:48). “If they sin against you—for there is no one who does not sin—and you are angry with them and give them to an enemy. . . . if they repent with all their heart and soul (‫ָל־ל ָבבָם‬ ְ ‫שבּו ֵאלֶיךָ ְּבכ‬ ָׁ ‫)ו‬ ְ in the land of their enemies, then hear . . . their prayer and their plea, maintain their cause and forgive your people who have sinned against you, and all their transgressions that they have committed against you; and grant them compassion. (1 Kgs 8:46–50)

In both Solomon’s prayer and Joel’s instructions, the recurring key verbs are: “turn, confess, pray, and plead.” Both accounts are driven by the strong hope and possibility of divine compassion and restoration. All this seems to strengthen the case that Israel in Joel’s days has in some ways breached the covenant relation. Whatever the exact nature of Israel’s sin was, one thing is clear, Israel is facing God’s severe judgment. It is the mysterious locust plague that gives 11.  James L. Crenshaw (“Who Knows What Yhwh Will Do? The Character of God in the Book of Joel,” in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday [ed. A. B. Beck; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995] 189) speaks of an “ambiguity within the divine character.” 12.  Wolff, Joel, 14. 13. Jörg Jeremias, Die Reue Gottes: Aspekte alttestamentlicher Gottesvorstellung (BThSt 31; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997) 91. 14. Leslie Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976) 79.

Joel: The People’s Repentance

447

rise to the expectation that the Day of Lord is immanent. This brings us to another well-known knotty interpretive issue, namely, how one is to interpret the rich imagery in the book of Joel. A lot of energy has been invested in determining whether the imagery of the locusts refers to a natural or a military threat. At the beginning of the book, the references point seemingly to a natural disaster caused by locusts and famine that are depicted through imagery from the military sphere. Toward the end of the book, the portrayal of a final battle is interwoven through agricultural images (cf. Joel 3:9–12). 15 Regardless of how one is going to interpret the locust imagery, Yhwh is in command of the calamity. The earth quakes before them, the heavens tremble. The sun and the moon are darkened, and the stars withdraw their shining. The Lord utters his voice at the head of his army; how vast is his host! Numberless are those who obey his command. ( Joel 2:10­–11)

The judgment day is described in graphic language that reminds us of Is­ rael’s initial encounter with Yhwh at Mt Sinai (cf. Exod 19:16–22, Deut 5:22–26). The Day of the Lord hangs like a dark threatening cloud over Israel. The threat of Yhwh’s judgment can neither be ignored nor escaped, for as Yhwh proclaims, “Truly the day of the Lord is great; terrible indeed—who can endure it?” It is into this context of inescapable divine reckoning that God Himself proclaims that even now there is still room for the possibility of reverting the calamity ( Joel 2:12–14). Thus, the Lord’s visitation brings potentially either Israel’s destruction or pardon. 16

The Divine Call to Repentance (Joel 2:12–14) Just as God has revealed Himself at Mount Sinai as a God of judgment and as a God of love (Exod 20:5–6), so here Yhwh’s fundamental attributes of grace and justice become visible. There is a chance for survival for those who submit to the divine word ( Joel 2:12–13). In other words, Yhwh 15.  Not unlike in the case of the Day of the Lord, the text seems to avoid intentionally historical references so as to create a timeless message that can be passed on from generation to generation (cf. Joel 1:3). The prophetic word is actualized by retelling Joel’s message. Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 394, includes some of the diachronic findings and comments on the final form in the following way: Joel’s original prophecy in ch 1 grew out of the devastation from the locust plague which the prophet saw as a sign of the coming divine judgment. The Day of Yahweh was not one of salvation, but of doom, dread, and darkness. . . . One of the important sections in Wolff’s interpretation involves handling 2:1–17. He holds that a sharp distinction should be made between the oracles in ch 1 and ch 2. In ch 1 the locust plague lies in the past, whereas in ch 2 the threat is of an invading army and is future oriented. . . . there is a tension in chs 1 and 2 between past and future, between a this-worldy plague and cosmological threat, and between local and universal judgment. 16. Jörg Jeremias, “Joel/Joelbuch,” TRE 17 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988) 94.

448

Chapter 9

reveals­Himself not only as the one who is warning Israel of the coming day of judgment ( Joel 2:1, 11) and as the one who is leading the attack on Zion ( Joel 2:9–11) but also as the one who “even now,” in the middle of the divine attack seeks Israel’s repentance ( Joel 2:12). 17 Flowing from God’s grace and mercy comes the divine invitation to return to Yhwh. Yet even now (‫)וגַם־ע ַָּתה‬, ְ says the Lord (‫) ְנאֻם־יְהוָה‬, return to me with all your heart (‫ָל־לב ְַבכֶם‬ ְ ‫) ֻׁשבּו עָדַ י ְּבכ‬, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning; rend your hearts and not your clothing. Return to the Lord . . . (‫ְוׁשּובּו אֶל־‬ ‫יְהוָה‬, Joel 2:12–13)

The two imperatives “to return” (‫ )ׁשּוב‬dominate these two verses. The first call comes from the Lord Himself. It is not entirely clear whether Yhwh is still speaking in v. 13a or whether the prophet already speaks on behalf of God. 18 In any case, the second call to repentance in v. 13b (“Return to the Lord”) is clearly ascribed to the prophet. In other words, Joel repeats and reinforces God’s words to Israel and summons the people to return in the hope that Yhwh would change His punitive intentions. 19 The twofold call to “turn around” (‫ )ׁשּוב‬is a clear indicator that Israel has wandered off from God’s way. The verb ‫ ׁשּוב‬in covenantal contexts seeks the renewal of the divine human relationship. 20 Although it is not clear from “what” Israel is to turn, the theme of repentance is very strong in the book of Joel. The Lord calls for a series of outward demonstrations (fasting, weeping, lamenting) that give expression to the inner disposition of the heart. The wording to repent with “all your heart” reminds not only of Deuteronomy where Moses exhorts Israel to love and obey Yhwh with all their hearts (cf. Deut 6:6, 10:12–16; Jer 4:4), but also of Samuel’s urgent call to Israel to turn away from the foreign gods and return to Yhwh with “all their heart” (1 Sam 7:3). 21 There the prophetic call also comes in the face of a hostile army attack and is combined with a day of fasting (1 Sam 7:6). 22 The emphasis on the heart suggests that the divine summons reacts against false religious practices, like Amos and Jeremiah warn of untrue religiosity (cf. Jer 3:10, 7, Amos 5:21–23). Does Joel face the challenge of a congrega17.  ‫“( ְוגַם־ע ַָּתה‬yet even now,” Joel 2:12) relates directly to the preceding threat (cf. Joel 2:1–11). 18.  Only in vv. 12 one finds the prophetic formula “says the Lord” in the book of Joel. 19.  Particularly in our reading of Jeremiah’s prophecies we have noticed that fusing the voice of the prophet with that of God is a widespread feature in prophetic literature (see pp. 371–374). 20. See Barker, From the Depths, 152, with reference to W. Holladay, The Root ‫ ׁשּוב‬in the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1958) 147. 21. Elizabeth Achtemeier, “Joel: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” NIB 7:318–19, reminds us: “The heart in Hebrew idiom symbolizes what the brain symbolizes in language today.” So if the heart was understood as the seat of will and intellect, Yhwh asks for a deliberate act of will. 22.  Moreover, Samuel also offers both intercessory prayers and sacrifices on behalf of the people (1 Sam 7:8–9).

Joel: The People’s Repentance

449

tion that follows all the prescribed religious rituals without the heart being in it? Perhaps a religiosity that no longer really believes that the Day of the Lord will be a moment of true encounter with the great and awesome God who will do fearsome things? 23 Although, the Day of the Lord is the main theme of the book, repentance is the central kerygma that relates directly to the main theme. 24 As Israel’s history has evolved, so it is argued, increasingly more weight has been attributed to the power of repentance (cf. Joel 2:12–13, Jonah 3:4–10). 25 It has been stated that intercession became only a secondary means in the process of pacifying Yhwh’s anger and the restoration of the covenant, while genuine repentance became the determining factor in the process of reconciliation between God and the people. 26 When we compare Joel’s approach to restoring the divine-human relationship with that of Moses, we note that the latter did not really urge the people to turn back to Yhwh and repent. How do we account for the silence of repentance after the golden calf apostasy and the rebellion at Kadesh? Although Israel often showed remorse when faced with divine judgment in the wilderness (cf. Exod 33:4–6, Num 14:39–40), this is quite different from an explicit prophetic summons to total repentance and a genuine change of heart as demanded here (cf. 1  Sam 7:3, Jer 4:1). One possible reason is that Moses’ prime concern was to intercede for the preservation of the covenant. The covenant mediator pleads for divine mercy in the hope that the Lord would turn from His righteous wrath and renew the covenant relation with His stiff-necked people. 27 Does this shift of emphasis suggest that the people in Joel’s days became more aware of their responsibility before God? Is there a sense of development of Israel’s self-understanding before their Lord? As there are several close intertextual parallels between the book of Joel and the wider Old Testament witness, we shall explore this phenomenon particularly in dialogue with Moses’ prayers and the book of Jonah. The Power of Repentance and God’s Nature Joel bases his call to repentance on Yhwh’s nature. Like Moses, (Num 14:18–19), Joel refers back to Yhwh’s gracious and merciful nature as revealed on Mount Sinai (Exod 34:6–7), as the principal hope for pardon. Return to the Lord, your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love (‫)ורַ ב־ ֶחסֶד‬, ְ and relents from punishin­g 23.  Jeremias, Reue, 92. 24.  Wolff, Joel, 14. 25. Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960) 284–285. 26.  Hesse, Die Fürbitte, 142. 27.  Exod 32:11–14, Num 14:16–19. See also Abraham (Gen 18:23–33), Elijah (1  Kgs 17:17–23), and Elisha (2 Kgs 4:33, 6:15–20).

450

Chapter 9

(‫)ו ִנחָם עַל־ ָה ָרעָה‬. ְ Who knows whether he will not turn and relent. (ַ‫ִמי יֹודֵ ע‬ ‫יָׁשּוב ְו ִנחָם‬, Joel 2:13–14)

In context, it looked as if Yhwh’s forbearance has reached its limit in the approaching Day of the Lord ( Joel 2:1–11). Joel knows, however that Yhwh’s patience is great and that God’s covenant loyalty (‫ ) ֶחסֶד‬is abounding with grace and mercy. ‫ ֶחסֶד‬is the attribute that is unique to the Lord and gives expression to God’s gracious covenant commitment, that is, Yhwh’s loving and costly solidarity to His people. In other words, the prophet clearly appeals to the revealed nature of Yhwh as the foundation and reason for the call to repentance.  28 Boda observes insightfully, Because of Yahweh’s gracious character, there is hope that the return (‫ )ׁשּוב‬of the people will prompt Yahweh to turn (‫ )ׁשּוב‬and change (‫ )נחם‬his threatened course of calamity (‫ ) ָרעָה‬and instead “leave a blessing” (‫)ּב ָרכָה‬. ְ  29

In other words, Joel effectively says that a genuine “turning” of the wayward people would create the strong possibility that Yhwh Himself will “turn” in response to His divine character. 30 In contrast to Yhwh’s revelation on Sinai, we note a few changes (cf. Exod 34:6–7). First, the order of the first two adjectives “gracious” and “merciful” is reversed. 31 Second, Joel omits reference to God’s faithfulness/ trustworthiness (‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ) in his quotation of Yhwh’s name. Third, and more pertinently, Joel omits any reference to the morally demanding side of Yhwh’s nature. Instead, Joel adds a clause about Yhwh’s willingness to repent (‫ָרעָה‬ ָ ‫)ו ִנחָם עַל־ה‬. ְ This brings Joel’s prayer conceptually and intertextually close to Moses’ plea for a divine change of mind when Israel was at the brink of being consumed by Yhwh’s wrath (‫ ַו ִּיּנָחֶם יְהוָה עַל־ ָה ָרעָה‬, Exod 32:14). 32 The difference is, however, that Moses prays that Yhwh will turn from His fierce wrath and change His punitive intentions (Exod 32:12), while Joel appears to say that “relenting from punishing” (‫ ְו ִנחָם עַל־ ָה ָרעָה‬33) is part of Yhwh’s character ( Joel 2:13). Thus, at first sight, it looks as though Joel bends Yhwh’s original revelation by omitting reference to the divine attributes of justice (“but by no means clearing the guilty”; cf. Exod 34:7b). What is more, Joel’s appeal that stresses primarily the gracious and lov28.  Besides Joel 2:13, there are eight other references to the nature of Yhwh in association to Exodus 34:6–7. Cf. Num 14:8; Neh 9:17; Pss 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Jonah 4:2; Nah 1:3. See also chap. 3 for a fuller discussion of the divine attributes. 29.  Mark J. Boda, A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament (Siphrut 1, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009) 307. 30.  See also Barker, From the Depths, 157, who also notes this effective play on the word “‫ׁשּוב‬.” 31.  The reversal of Yhwh’s attributes signals possibly a quotation to the reader. See Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Inverted quotations in the Bible: A neglected stylistic pattern,” Bibl 63 (1982) 506–523. 32.  The root ‫ נחם‬is used 12 times in the Minor Prophets (cf. Hos 11:8; Joel 2:13, 14; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:9, 10; 4:2; and so on). 33.  Literally, Yhwh is one “who lets Himself be sorry concerning the calamity.”

Joel: The People’s Repentance

451

ing aspects of Yhwh’s nature is also found in the book of Jonah in nearverbatim fashion. For I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and ready to relent from punishing. (‫ַּתה‬ ָ ‫ִּכי א‬ ְ ‫אֵל־חַּנּון ְורַ חּום ֶאר‬, Jonah 4:2) ‫ֶך ַא ַּפיִם ְורַ ב־ ֶחסֶד ְו ִנחָם עַל־ ָה ָרעָה‬ Return to the Lord your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and relents from punishing. (‫ִּכי־חַּנּון‬ ְ ‫ורַ חּום הּוא ֶאר‬,ְ Joel 2:13) ‫ֶך ַא ַּפיִם ְורַ ב־ ֶחסֶד ְו ִנחָם עַל־ ָה ָרעָה‬

Besides the verbal correspondence, there are further interesting parallels between the larger contexts of these two verses. For example, both prophets are sent to proclaim a message of warning. Joel is commissioned to announce the Day of the Lord that will bring destruction to Judah, whereas Jonah is sent to Nineveh to proclaim the imminent destruction of the city ( Joel 2:1, 11; Jonah 1:2, 3:1–2, 9). Moreover, both the people of Judah and Nineveh are summoned to repent and change their hearts ( Joel 2:13, Jonah 3:8). The prophetic summons to turn from one’s rebellion and sin is central not only to Joel and Jonah’s message, but to the Old Testament prophets in general. Some Jewish scholars, based on biblical texts but also guided by rabbinic traditions, have keenly highlighted the force of repentance. Milgrom writes: The prophets taught that repentance . . . not only averts punishment (see Jer 18:7–11; Joel 2:13–14; Jon. 3:10) but also eradicates sin . . . Therefore, the person who has truly repented need not fear that he will ever face divine retribution for his sin (contrast Exod. 32:34–35, Num. 14:28–35), since his sin no longer exists. It has been expunged from his “book of life (see Exod. 32:32) such that he starts out life afresh, newborn. Indeed repentance generates such power that God Himself is overcome by it. If He is determined to punish, He must commission His prophet to stop the people from repenting lest it “save itself.” (Isa 6:10) 34

Milgrom develops his argument in saying that if repentance “can overwhelm God’s justice so that only His mercy remains to be activated,” prophets such as Joel and Jonah are justified to omit God’s attribute of retribution when appealing to His mercy. How is one to evaluate such a high view of the effects of repentance? Before we assess Milgrom’s understanding of repentance, let us listen to another prominent Jewish scholar. Kaufmann argues his case from the book of Jonah, which he regards as the “classic statement of the Israelite idea of repentance.” To appreciate the achievement of Jonah, it must be borne in mind that the earliest biblical stories give no place to repentance. The generations of the Flood and the tower of Babel, the men of Sodom, and the Canaanites 34. Jacob Milgrom, ‫במדבר‬, Numbers ( JPS Torah Commentary, New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1990) 393.

452

Chapter 9

are not called upon to repent. Nor does Moses avert God’s wrath from Israel by rousing them to repentance; he intercedes on their behalf, invoking God’s promise to the patriarchs, and the glory of his name (Exod 32:11ff.; Num. 14:13ff.; Deut 9:26ff.). . . . The Israelite concept of repentance receives its full expression in the book of Jonah. Nineveh is another Sodom, a city of wickedness whose doom has been sealed. Jonah is sent to announce this doom, but as a result of his prophecy the people repent and God annuls his decree. . . . a change of heart and action is itself capable of atoning for sin. The wicked man who turns is forgiven by God as an act of mercy; there is no need for any other sort of expiation. Repentance is the greatest triumph of good over evil; moving men to repent is the highest achievement of the prophet. 35

Like Milgrom, Kaufmann attributes a force to repentance unknown in Israel’s earlier periods. Both of them ascribe to a genuine act of repentance an irresistible power that is capable of pacifying divine wrath and atoning sin. This understanding of repentance, so they argue, has developed over a long period of time and led eventually to a revised perception of Yhwh’s nature. The road to this idea was long. Anciently it was said: “A merciful and gracious God . . . but who will by no means clear the guilty” (Exod. 34:6f.); Jonah’s formulation is “A merciful and gracious God . . . who repents of evil” (4:2). Two diverse concepts of sin are here expressed, the latter truer to Israelite thought unable to oust the former throughout the biblical period. 36

What is one to make of this understanding of repentance and divine forgiveness of sin? For a start, I want to challenge Kaufmann’s statement that Jonah 4:2 embodies a more mature and therefore “truer” expression of God’s nature and His dealing with sin than God’s self-revelation at Sinai (Exod 34:6–7). Kaufmann appears to assess maturity partially on the basis of historical antiquity. Thus, he seems to ignore the historical multilayerd nature of the Sinai tradition and the fact that the canonical form of the Pentateuch embodies a mature expression of Yahwism. Moreover, canonically speaking, the canon attributes a place of pivotal importance to the Sinai revelation. 37 Thus, it requires a more careful look at the theology of Jonah 4:2, Joel 2:13, and Exod 34:6–7 than Kaufmann allows, before one can dismiss the latter as overhauled by a “truer” form of Israelite theology. Although at first sight Jonah 4:2 and Joel 2:13 give the impression that they have a new emphasis on God’s mercy and grace, a closer look will reveal that in both accounts, the same tension between divine grace and justice is mentioned. In Joel and Jonah, this tension is expressed with a prophetic caution, whether Yhwh will “relent” from His punitive intentions 35.  Kaufmann, The Religion, 284. 36.  Ibid., 285. 37.  See my Moses, 169–70, on the importance of the canonical position of Exodus 34:5–7.

Joel: The People’s Repentance

453

or not. Joel, in almost the same breath as reminding Judah of Yhwh’s grace and mercy, cautions the people, “Who knows whether he will not turn and relent” (‫מי יֹודֵ ַע יָׁשּוב ְו ִנחָם‬, ִ Joel 2:14). The same note of caution is expressed in Jonah 3:9 on the lips of the king. There is a genuine sense of openness and caution regarding Yhwh’s handling of Israel’s sin. This note of caution resonates well with Moses’ prayer in Exod 32:11–14, which leads to Yhwh’s self-revelation in chap. 34. In the face of Yhwh’s destructive anger, Moses seeks to pacify God’s righteous wrath and to dissuade the Lord from executing His announced disciplinary measures. Turn (‫ )ׁשּוב‬from your fierce wrath; change your mind and do not bring disaster on your people (‫)ו ִהּנָחֵם עַל־ ָה ָרעָה‬. ְ . . . And the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people. (‫ַו ִּיּנָחֶם יְהוָה‬ ‫עַל־ ָה ָרעָה‬, Exod 32:12–14)

Although it is said that Yhwh changed His mind regarding His intended judgment, there is no indication whether Israel is pardoned or not. Instead, Moses is left wondering about the exact effect of his prayer. This uncertainty comes to expression when Moses cautions Israel about whether atonement for their sin can be attained or not (‫אתכֶם‬ ְ ַ‫אכ ְַּפ ָרה ְּבעַד חַּט‬ ֲ ‫אּולַי‬, Exod 32:30). Thus, two important links emerge. First, Jonah’s and Joel’s exposition of Yhwh’s revealed name, with regard to Yhwh’s ability to relent from intended punishment, is fully consistent with Moses’ prayer. We have seen in our treatment of Exodus 32–34 that it is only because of Yhwh’s ability and willingness to “adjust” His judgment that Israel survived and that the covenant was eventually renewed. Dozeman comments: the very structure of the narrative (Exod 32–34) suggests that the divine ability to avert justified destruction and to prolong life is inextricably related to the gracious character of Yahweh. The bringing together of these qualities into a single confession in Joel 2:13ab–b and Jonah 4:2 simply states more explicitly what is already implied in the very structure of the initial account of covenant renewal. 38

In sum, we conclude with Dozeman that Jonah 4:2 and Joel 2:13, with their explicit reference to Yhwh’s ability to “repent,” are not a more mature and “truer” expression of Yhwh’s nature (pace Kaufmann), but are congruous with the Sinai revelation. Second, regardless of human repentance, the sovereign freedom of Yhwh to bring pardon or judgment is maintained in all three accounts (Exod 32–34/Num 14:18 Joel 2:1–17, Jonah 3:1–4:1). Stuart comments: The rhetorical “Who knows . . . show compassion” is a terse formulation (‫ )מי יודע ישוב ונחם‬perhaps widely used (e.g. Jonah 3:9) to indicated the freedom and sovereignty of God (cf. 2 Sam 12:22). Human repentance does not control God. People cannot force God to show them his forgiveness. 38. Thomas B. Dozeman, “Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Yahweh’s Gracious and Compassionate Character,” JBL 108 (1989) 207–23.

454

Chapter 9

They can appeal to him for mercy. . . . They may hope for his compassion, but they cannot command it. (Zeph 2:3, Lam 3:29) 39

That Yhwh remains sovereign finds characteristic expression in Exod 33:19: “Yhwh will be gracious to whomever God chooses to be gracious; God will show mercy to whomever God will show mercy” (Exod 33:19; cf. Rom 9:15, 11:33). In other words, human repentance does not necessarily “generate such a power that God is overcome by it,” as Milgrom suggests. In the case of Joel’s account, this is further underlined in chap. 2:17, where after the appeal to repentance the prophet also summons the priests to intercede for the people. The priests’ prayer would obviously not have been necessary, if repentance has the effect Milgrom and Kaufmann ascribe to it. In other words, neither Joel nor Jonah’s account endorses fully the confidence of Milgrom and Kaufmann that repentance will result in cancellation of sin and divine forgiveness.

Priestly and Prophetic Mediation In the face of the impending divine judgment, the prophet Joel summons the priests to blow afresh the trumpet. This time, it is not so much to raise alarm against the approaching ominous enemy (cf. Joel 2:1–2) but rather to summon the congregation to prepare themselves for their encounter with God ( Joel 2:15). The priests are to lead Israel in a solemn fasting ritual. Some of the imagery, procedures, and terminology (for example, holy mountain, earthquake, thunder, the awesome appearance of Yhwh) reminds us of Israel’s initial encounter with Yhwh at Mt Sinai, where the entire people also had to sanctify themselves before God revealed Himself to them (“Call a holy meeting of the congregation,” cf. Exod 19:10–15). 40 When Israel’s new King appeared, the sound of trumpets demanded everybody’s attention. In the book of Joel, it is even more clearly spelled out that no one is exempt from appearing before God ( Joel 2:16). This underlines the seriousness of the occasion. On the Day of the Lord, when the entire congregation is called to judgment “no age, no rank, is to stay away, because no one, not even the suckling, is free from sin; but all, without exception, are exposed to the judgment.” 41 As part of the all-nationencompassing repentance ritual, Joel calls the priests to intercede (cf. Joel 1:13–14, 2:17). In our study of intercessory prayer, we have noted that it is primarily the prophets who pray for mercy and pardon in the face of divine judgment. 39. Douglas Stuart, Hosea–Jonah (WBC 31; Dallas: Word, 1987) 252. 40. “Sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly”(‫קַ ְדּׁשּו־צֹום ִק ְראּו עֲצָרָה‬, Joel 1:14) has the meaning of being set apart for an encounter with God and for being used for His purposes. Not only the people have to prepare themselves for their encounter with God, but also in the Pentateuch we read how Aaron and his sons were purified, anointed, and consecrated (‫קדׁש‬, Piel) before they could minister in the sanctuary without being consumed by divine holiness. 41.  Keil, Joel, 197.

Joel: The People’s Repentance

455

This raises a twofold question. First, why does Joel not himself intercede for mercy on behalf of the people as his prophetic predecessors did? 42 Second, what scriptural precedent is there for the priests’ offering intercessory prayer on behalf of Israel? If we limit intercession to verbal prayer, there are only a few passages such as the one here that tell us that the priests interceded on behalf of the people. 43 The Old Testament portrayal of the priesthood is diverse and complex, the primary responsibilities of the priest include service at the altar, leading of the services at the sanctuary, and the teaching of legal and ritual matters (cf. Deut 17:8–11, Neh 8:1–9, Jer 18:18). Jenson summarizes it as follows. Perhaps the central concept of priesthood is mediation between the sphere of the divine and the ordinary world. A priest through his ritual actions and his words facilitates communication across the boundary separating the holy from the profane. The priests represented God to the people in the splendor of their clothing, in their behavior, and in oracles and instruction, while in sacrifice and intercession they represented the people to God. 44

When we go back to the canonical archetype of the prophet and the priest, we note that the priestly role includes intercessory responsibilities. 45 For example, in Numbers 16 when Yhwh is about to consume the sinful congregation, Moses and Aaron fall on their faces and intercede for the people (cf. Num 16:20–22). Later in the chapter, the two leaders intercede not so much in words, but they seek to pacify Yhwh’s wrath through a cultic act: Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer, put fire on it from the altar and lay incense on it, and carry it quickly to the congregation and make atonement for them. For wrath has gone out from the Lord; the plague has begun.” So Aaron took it as Moses had ordered, and ran into the middle of the assembly, where the plague had already begun among the people. He put on the incense, and made atonement for the people. (Num 16:46–47)

Milgrom, though fully acknowledging the efficacy of prophetic intercessory prayer, argues that a prophet, even a Moses can only avert punishment; he cannot expunge the sin. Sin remains suspended over the heads of the sinners, capable of exacting retribution at a future date. Thus Moses’ intercession mitigates or postpones the punishment, but does not abolish it. . . . On the other hand, not only can a priest intercede, but can win absolution as well. Aaron stems the plague by offering incense. . . . More typically, however, the priest obtains forgiveness­ 42.  Back in 1:19, we find reference to Joel crying out to the Lord. There, the prayer bears more the mark of a lament. Joel’s cry for relief does not record any content. 43.  We have noted that Solomon offers up a prayer on behalf of his people in the role of a royal priest (cf. 1 Kgs 8). There, the setting is the inauguration of the temple and not God’s judgment. 44.  Philip P. Jenson, “‫ּכֹהֵן‬,” NIDOTTE 2:592; cf. Milgrom, Numbers, xl. 45.  Ps 99:6 connects Moses and Aaron both with the role of the priest and intercession.

456

Chapter 9

by means of sacrifice (see Num 15:22–29). To be sure, sacrifice is not inherently efficacious: it must be accompanied by contrition and confession (for deliberated sins) and, even then, forgiveness is not assured but is dependent on the grace of God. Still, the impact of repentance and sacrifice in tandem is total: The sin is erased from the divine record. 46

Where do these reflections leave us with our interpretation of Joel 2:17? First, we acknowledge that Milgrom does not have the scenario in Joel in mind. His arguments are based on the book of Numbers. Nevertheless, Milgrom’s distinction between prophetic and priestly intercession provides a possible explanation as to why the priests rather than Joel entreat Yhwh on behalf of the people. Before we turn back to our question, I would like to make a few observations with regard to some differences between the interceding priest and a prophet. Milgrom helpfully describes the prophet’s role as defending the people before the divine judge. With regard to the effectiveness of prophetic intercession, Milgrom uses terms such as “averting,” “mitigating,” and “postponing the punishment.” Unlike the priestly intercession, the prophetic intercession cannot abolish punishment, expunge sin, or win absolution. This distinction between prophetic and priestly intercession, however, strikes me as too black and white. For example, when Milgrom refers to Aaron and how he stems the plague by offering incense (Num 16:46–50 [MT 17:11–15]), he notes in his exegesis of the same passage that Aaron’s incense does not so much achieve atonement but “served to appease and soothe divine wrath.” 47 This is precisely the effect that is ascribed to Moses’ intercessory prayer on another occasions (cf. Exod 32:14, Ps 106:23). Moreover, we note that 14,700 Israelites died on that day in spite of Aaron’s incense offering (Num 16:49). In other words, the priestly offering could not completely prevent the divine punishment. This is not the place to interact with the complexity of Israel’s understanding of the various sacrifices, not least because in our passage in Joel, the priests lack any means to offer a gift or a libation offering due to the famine ( Joel 2:14, 1:13). 48 Joel reminds us that any sacrifice that hopes to be effective has to be accompanied by repentance and a turning back to God. Even then, forgiveness depends ultimately on the grace of God (“who knows whether,” Joel 2:12–14). In other words, although we read in the Old Testament about elaborate cleansing rituals that the priests have to undergo in order to perform their mediatory role before a holy God (cf. Exod 19:22, Lev 1–8), the atoning efficacy depends on several important factors, such as the sacrifice, 46.  Milgrom (ibid., xxxix) notes that “priestly teaching predates the subsequent prophetic doctrine that repentance alone can eradicate sin.” 47.  Milgrom (ibid., 142) notes, “The verb kipper in this context carries the connotation of ‘make appeasement.’ In the cults of the ancient Near East, incense served to appease and soothe divine wrath.” 48.  See Gary A. Anderson, “Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings,” in ABD 5:880–81.

Joel: The People’s Repentance

457

the ritual, the attitude of the sinner, and above all, God’s gracious willingness to respond favorably to the plea for mercy and forgiveness. As mentioned before, some scholars see in Joel 2 a shift from prophetic to priestly intercession. 49 It is true that in the postexilic prophetic texts intercession is scarcely mentioned. The writer of Isa 59:16, not unlike Ezek 22:30, expresses regret that no one intervenes on behalf of the sinful people to avert the divine judgment. In the Second Temple period, when the main prophetic movement grew quieter, the priesthood, as seen here in Joel, appears to gain in religious influence. Given these broad observations, it is interesting to note that in both Moses’ and Joel’s time, the priests mediate at the direction of the prophetic leader. Although Aaron was with Moses when Yhwh visited in judgment, it appears that only Moses heard God’s voice (Num 16:44–46 [MT 17:9–11]). In the book of Joel, the prophet even provides the words to pray for the priests ( Joel 2:15; cf. Exod 7:1–2). Not surprisingly, the divine response comes also via Joel and not the priests ( Joel 2:19). In the next section, we shall see that the priests’ intercession resembles Moses’ prayer in several ways. In other words, the priests in the book of Joel pray in the “spirit of the prophet.”

The Priestly Intercessory Prayer (Joel 2:17) Between the vestibule and the altar (ַ‫ )ּבֵין הָאּולָם ְול ִַּמ ְז ֵּבח‬let the priests, the ministers of the Lord, weep. Let them say, “Spare your people (‫חּוסָה יְהוָה‬ ָ‫)עַל־ ַעּמֶך‬, O Lord, and do not make your heritage a mockery, a byword among the nations. Why should it be said among the peoples, ‘Where is their God?’”( Joel 2:17)

Already in our study of Solomon’s temple inauguration prayer, we have seen that it was customary on certain occasions that the entire congregation assembled in the space between the gate of the inner court (1 Kgs 6:3; 7:21) and the altar of burnt offerings (1 Kgs 8:22). In Joel’s day, the priests are commanded to take their intermediary position between God and the people (see Ezek 8:16). In the same ways as in Solomon’s priestly prayer, the priests’ supplications are directed toward the throne of God, toward the Holy One who alone can pardon. There in the place for priestly intercession, between the vestibule and the great altar for burnt offerings (cf. 1 Kgs 8:64), the priests were to appeal for divine mercy. This way of doing things at the sanctuary reflects the biblical archetype of mediatorship. When Yhwh appeared to Israel at the “mountain sanctuary” for the first time, Moses had to mediate between the people and God (cf. Exod 19:3 20:18–21). According to Deuteronomy 5, the people were afraid to get too close to the awesome presence of God. It became clear 49.  Hesse, Die Fürbitte, 73. Cf. Lukas Vischer, Fürbitte (Frankfurt am Main: Knecht, 1979) 32–34.

458

Chapter 9

to Israel that they could not offer any sacrifices or prayer to God except through a God approved mediator (cf. Deut 5:23–27). Before we look at the content of the prayer recorded in Joel 2:17, we note that the intercessory supplications that Joel puts into the mouths of the priests are fairly typical of the communal laments (cf. Ps 79:4, 8–10). In the face of the Lord’s judgment, the priests are called to lead the people in a national lament ( Joel 1:13–14, 2:12–17). As Joel underlines, however, it is not just a matter of outward expression of grief (that is, “weeping and tearing of cloth”), but also of an inner conviction of guilt (“rending the heart and not the clothing,” Joel 2:13). The priests are not only to weep on behalf of the people, but first they have to mourn over their own sins. Back in chap. 1, the prophet commands the priests: Put on sackcloth and lament, you priests; wail, you ministers of the altar. Come, pass the night in sackcloth, you ministers of my God (‫ ( !)אֱלֹהָי‬Joel 1:13)

The prophet refers to the priests as ministers of my God. The priests serve the God whose prophet Joel is. As the prophet of Yhwh, Joel can assure the priests a divine hearing (cf. Joel. 2:12–14). It is not that the prophet leaves all the interceding to the priests, but he too cries to the Lord ( Joel 1:19). At the sanctuary, however, the priests are, at the direction of the prophet, to plead for divine compassion on behalf of the people ( Joel 2:17; cf. 1:14). The intercessory prayer contains two appeals for divine mercy and closes with a rhetorical question that raises with the second petition the concern of Yhwh’s honor. “Spare Your People”: Appeal to Divine Mercy and to Israel’s Special Status The prophet instructs the priests to entreat God for pity: “Spare (‫)חּוס‬ your people.” The Hebrew term ‫ חּוס‬appears often with the “eye” as its subject. 50 Thus, the plea probably has the sense “look compassionately on your people.” 51 In a prayer of Nehemiah, we find the same plea. There the petition is based on the greatness of Yhwh’s covenant loyalty. “O my God . . . spare (‫ )חּוס‬me according to the greatness of your steadfast love” (‫ְוחּוסָה ָעלַי‬ ָ‫כּרֹב ח ְַס ֶדּך‬, ְ Neh 13:22). Although it is not explicitly articulated in Joel 2:17, the prophet obviously knows that Yhwh is abounding in steadfast love (‫ ֶחסֶד‬, Joel 2:13). Joel knows too that it is Yhwh’s nature to have compassion on the repentant sinner and that the Lord may change His mind and withhold His judgment ( Joel 2:13–14). There is, however, no divine obligation to do so, as Joel rightly cautions the people ( Joel 2:14). The people under threat are Yhwh’s people (ָ‫ ַעּמֶך‬, Joel 2:17). The clear reference back to the Sinai revelation (cf. Joel 2:13, Exod 34:6) suggests that the covenant makְ ‫א־תחֹוס עֵינִי ָע ַלי‬ 50.  For example: “My eye will not spare you, I will have no pity” (‫ִך‬ ָ ֹ ‫ול‬,ְ Ezek. 7:4, 9). 51. See HALOT 286: “The eyes (over)flow because of compassion.”

Joel: The People’s Repentance

459

ing at the Mountain of God reverberates in the phrase “your people.” At Sinai, Yhwh entered a covenant with Israel and thereby bound Himself to this people (cf. Exod 19:5–6). The notion of God’s people and covenant commitment is further expanded in the second plea. The priests are to entreat Yhwh not to give up on the people of “His possession” (ָ‫ָתך‬ ְ ‫חל‬ ֲ ַ‫ַל־ּתּתֵ ן נ‬ ִ ‫ ְ;וא‬cf. Deut 9:26, 29; 1 Kgs 8:51–53). We find reference to the same two terms in Moses’ intercessory prayer for Israel in the aftermath of the golden calf incident (ָ‫ָתך‬ ֶ ‫חל‬ ֲ ַ‫נ‬/ָ‫ע ְַּמך‬, Deut 9:26). I prayed to the Lord and said, “Lord God, do not destroy the people who are your very own possession (ָ‫ָתך‬ ְ ‫חל‬ ֲ ַ‫)ונ‬, ְ whom you redeemed in your greatness, whom you brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand. . . . For they are the people of your very own possession (ָ‫ָתך‬ ֶ ‫חל‬ ֲ ַ‫)והֵם ע ְַּמךָ ְונ‬, ְ whom you brought out by your great power and by your outstretched arm.” (Deut 9:26–29)

In both Joel 2:17 and Moses’ prayer, ‫חלָה‬ ֲ ַ‫“( נ‬possession”) is used parallel to ‫ עַם‬and qualifies thus the status of the people (cf. Deut 4:20–21, 9:26, 29). 52 The word ‫חלָה‬ ֲ ַ‫ נ‬in these prayers underlines the enduring and permanent dimension of one’s hereditary property (cf. 1 Kgs 21:3). Barker comments, “By paralleling ָ‫ ע ְַּמך‬with ָ‫ָתך‬ ֶ ‫חל‬ ֲ ַ‫נ‬, the prophet employs covenant terminology to stress the intimate relationship among Yhwh, the community, and the land promised to their forefathers.” 53 In other words, the petition in Joel 2:17 seeks to imply that Yhwh could not just abandon His “people heritage.” Although the focus is on the people, in the wider context of the famine and plague, the plea “not to make ָ‫ָתך‬ ֶ ‫חל‬ ֲ ַ‫ נ‬a mockery” carries meaningful perlocutionary force to restore Yhwh’s land. This twofold emphasis is maintained and confirmed in God’s response: “the Lord became jealous for His land and had pity on His people” ( Joel 2:18). By pleading with God not to consume His own people, the intercession challenges God’s covenant relationship with Israel in the land. This is reinforced in Joel’s petition: “O Lord, do not make your heritage (ָ‫ָתך‬ ְ ‫חל‬ ֲ ַ‫ )נ‬a mockery.” There is a shift of emphasis from Yhwh’s ownership of Israel and the land to the consequences the destruction of Israel would have for Yhwh’s reputation. “Do Not Make Your Heritage a Mockery”: Appeal to Divine Reputation Do not make your heritage a mockery (‫ֶרּפָה‬ ְ ‫ָתךָ ְלח‬ ְ ‫חל‬ ֲ ַ‫ַל־ּתּתֵ ן נ‬ ִ ‫)וא‬, ְ a byword among the nations (‫של־ּבָם ּגֹויִם‬ ָׁ ‫)ל ְמ‬. ִ Why should it be said among the peoples, “Where is their God?” (‫אמרּו ָבע ִַּמים ַאיֵּה אֱלֹהֵיהֶם‬ ְ ֹ ‫ ָלּמָה י‬, Joel 2:17) 52. Often translated as: “possession” or “hereditary property.” See pp. 147–153 on Deut 9:26–29. 53.  Barker, From the Depths, 161, with reference to Prinsloo, The Theology, 56.

460

Chapter 9

In contrast to the first intercessory plea (“Spare your people”), the second is phrased in a negative imperative (“do not make”). The second petition highlights that appealing to Yhwh’s reputation among the nations is the dominant prayer motif of v. 17. This is confirmed by the use of the two terms ‫ֶרּפָה‬ ְ ‫ ח‬and ‫מׁשל‬. The first word is often found in the context of somebody experiencing shame, disgrace, or reproach. This could be due to numerous causes and situations, here the famine and defeat by an enemy brings reproach to the people (cf. Ps 74:10, Neh 4:4, 5:9). The second term, ‫ׁשל‬ ָ ‫ל ְמ‬, ִ is an infinitive construct that is probably a synonym to ‫ֶרּפָה‬ ְ ‫ ח‬and could be translated “that the nations will not make fun of them.” Joel 2:17 does not specify in what way God’s people would become a byword (‫ָׁשל‬ ָ ‫)מ‬ among the nations. It depends largely on one’s interpretation of the immediate context (war and captivity versus pestilence and famine). 54 God’s response seems at first glance to suggest that Israel’s shame is closely associated with lack of food (cf. Joel 2:19, 25–26). A rich harvest would be a sign of Yhwh’s favorable presence and thus would remove any shame before the nations. We shall see, however, that the divine response is subtler than this. Achtemeier points rightly to the multilayered images and allusions: Although in v. 25, the locusts are identified with God’s “great army,” the enemy of the North appears to be more than the locust plague. Similarly to vv. 1–11 the imagery goes beyond the natural disaster and points to a mysterious foe. The imagery is similar to Jeremiah mysterious enemy from the north ( Jer 1:14–15; 4:6; 6:1, 22) and to Ezekiel’s eschatological Gog (Ezek 38:6, 14–15; 39:1–2). This enemy seems to surpass historical categories, but stands for God’s timeless instrument of wrath. But now Yhwh will remove the judgment from His people. In other words, God promises to restore the fertility of the country to the covenant people and to save them on the day of final judgment. 55

The closing rhetorical question (“Why should it be said among the peoples [‫אמרּו ָבע ִַּמים‬ ְ ֹ ‫] ָלּמָה י‬, ‘Where is their God?’” Joel 2:17) flows from the second petition. This prayer motif is also found in Moses’ intercession after Yhwh informed him that He intends to consume the sinful people. In that context, Moses raises the question “Why should the Egyptians say (‫ָלּמָה‬ ‫אמרּו ִמ ְצרַ יִם‬ ְ ֹ ‫)י‬. ‘It was with evil intent that . . .’? Turn from your fierce wrath” (Exod 32:12; cf. Num 14:16–17). The relation between the two prayers is further underlined by the fact that the terms ‫אמרּו‬ ְ ֹ ‫ י‬and ‫ ָלּמָה‬together appear only four times in the Hebrew Scriptures. 56 Not only is the wording closely 54.  Compare Deut 28:37–38, 40–42, where not only does Moses threaten the people with transportation to another land for their apostasy and thereby they shall become “a proverb (‫ָׁשל‬ ָ ‫)מ‬, and a byword” among all nations (‫)ו ִל ְׁשנִינָה ְּבכֹל ָהע ִַּמים‬, ְ but he also warns them of the devastation of their harvest by locusts. 55.  Achtemeier, “Joel,” 32. 56.  See Exod 32:12; Joel 2:17; Pss 79:10, 115:2.

Joel: The People’s Repentance

461

related but also the logic behind the appeal. 57 The prayers caution Yhwh to consider the outcome and consequences a severe divine judgment would have on His reputation as a powerful and reliable God. Judah’s destruction would reflect on God’s character and (seeming lack of) power. Israel’s neighbors would conclude that Yhwh was unable to save His people and thereby eventually Himself become a mockery among the nations (cf. Num 14:16; Pss 42:10; 89:41, 50). In other words, this prayer seeks to make the point that there is as much at stake for Yhwh as there is for sinful Israel. Thus, the closing question comes as a subtle challenge to Yhwh to show His power in grace and mercy. The appeal to divine reputation contains possibly the strongest persuasive force to act in grace. A reproach of Yhwh’s name by the nations goes fundamentally against God’s purpose to make Himself known as King of kings among the nations (cf. Exod 7–15). With Israel’s destruction or misfortune, dishonor falls on Yhwh’s name. A severe punishment, no matter how justified, would potentially harm Yhwh’s reputation and purposes. The appeal to God’s reputation among the nations finds a fuller treatment in Ezekiel 36–39. Because Ezekiel’s account exhibits several interesting conceptual parallels to the book of Joel, it is worth exploring this prayer motive a bit further in conjunction with Ezekiel and draw out some similarities and differences. 58 According to both accounts, Israel has sinned against Yhwh. In the case of Ezekiel, Israel has provoked the wrath of God by defiling the land with their bloodshed and idolatry (cf. Ezek 36:16–18). So Yhwh judged Israel according to their deeds by scattering them among the nations. Not unlike in the book of Joel, the Lord’s judgment is closely connected with Israel becoming a reproach among the nations. The nations might interpret the fate of God’s people as evidence of Yhwh’s weakness. As a consequence, God’s name would be profaned (cf. Joel 2:17, Ezek 36:20–21). So Ezekiel is to tell sinful Israel that Yhwh will restore Israel back to their country, not because they deserve it in any way, nor primarily because of God’s grace or pity, but first of all because of Yhwh’s concern for His holy name. Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came (Ezek 36:22)

Both Ezekiel and Joel tell us that Yhwh acts on behalf of Israel because the Lord became jealous for His land and name (‫ ;קנא‬Joel 2:18, Ezek 39:29). In both accounts, God assures Israel that He will restore the harvest as a sign of divine blessing and promises that Israel will no longer be a reproach (‫ֶרּפָה‬ ְ ‫ )ח‬among the nations. 57.  In the context of Num 14:13–16, the thought of divine inability is fundamentally opposed to Yhwh’s international reputation as an incomparable and victorious God (cf. Deut 4:34; Exod 9:14–15, 15:11). There, Moses implicitly calls Yhwh to act and live up to His name as established in the Exodus. 58.  Wolff (Joel, 14) refers to Joel as a “thematic student” of Ezekiel.

462

Chapter 9

I will make the fruit of the tree and the produce of the field abundant, so that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations. (‫ֶרּפַת ָרעָב ּבַּגֹויִם‬ ְ ‫ עֹוד ח‬. . . Ezek 36:30) I am sending you grain, wine, and oil, and you will be satisfied; and I will no more make you a mockery among the nations. (‫ֶרּפָה ּבַּגֹויִם‬ ְ ‫עֹוד ח‬, Joel 2:19)

Both prophets use Eden-type imagery when it comes to their end-time visions (cf. Joel 3:17–18, Ezek 36:28–30, 35–36). There is one more interesting parallel that is closely associated with the vision. Ezekiel, like Joel, anticipates an unprecedented outpouring of the Spirit (‫;ׁשפ ְַך‬ ָ cf. Ezek 39:29, Joel 2:28). The giving of the Spirit will prevent the dispersion of the people among the nations, because the Lord will enable Israel by the Spirit to walk in His statutes and to keep the divine ordinances. 59 The emphasis in Ezekiel is that Yhwh’s Spirit will cause (‫ָׂשה‬ ָ ‫ )ע‬Israel to obey the divine statutes (Ezek 36:26–27). In doing so, the people will bring honor to God’s name. Besides these noticeable parallels, there are also significant differences between the two prophetic accounts. As we shall see, the gift of the Spirit, according to Joel, is not primarily given for the keeping and obeying of the law or for moral transformation (cf. Ezek 36:26–27). Instead, Joel states that the Spirit will be given so that all people can prophecy, receive dreams, and have visions ( Joel 2:28–29). In other words, Joel seems to envisage a future where every member of the community can hear first hand from God. Moreover, in the book of Joel Yhwh’s salvific intervention on behalf of Israel is clearly linked to a combination of the people’s radical repentance and the priestly advocacy. Whereas in Ezekiel’s message, God’s help seems to be primarily motivated by Yhwh’s own concern to restore His holy name among the nations. In spite of these different accents, for our purposes here, it is significant to note that Yhwh has a strong self-interest in protecting, restoring, and vindicating His people before the nations. This undeserved divine grace, according to Ezekiel, will evoke repentance and humility in Israel (cf. Ezek 36:30–31). According to the book of Joel, God’s salvation is related to a union of a penitant people, intercessory prayer, and God’s jealousy for His land. Both accounts share a common objective though: “So that you will know that I am God” (cf. Ezek 36:36, 39, Joel 3:17). To sum up, the prayer in the book of Joel contains an appeal to divine mercy, covenant loyalty (the people and the land are permanent divine family property), and above all to divine reputation. Israel’s pardon and restoration would be a means to uphold Yhwh’s name among the nations. “You shall know that . . . I, the Lord, am your God and there is no other” ( Joel 2:27). Thus, this prayer provides several strong incentives to motivate Yhwh to intervene. Although the prayer in Joel 2:17 is primarily interested in the pardon and restoration of Israel, it effectively raises the wider theological issue that is at stake: Yhwh’s standing among the nations. 59. Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 2:247–48.

Joel: The People’s Repentance

463

Because the intercession is fundamentally in tune with Yhwh’s character and His concerns, the prayer will likely find a favorable divine response. The underlying theological motive comes very close to the plea “for your glory’s sake” or “for your name’s sake.” It anticipates the opening petition of the Lord’s Prayer, “Hallowed be Your name” (Matt 6:9), and the theological point that every prayer request ought to be subordinated to God’s sovereignty and honor as the opening verses of Psalm 115 express well: Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name give glory, for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness. Why should the nations say, “Where is their God?” Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases. (Ps 115:1–3)

God’s Response On the basis of who Yhwh is, the prophet makes a twofold summons: He calls the guilty people to return to God ( Joel 2:12–14) and he commands the priests to intercede ( Joel 2:17). This twofold order is rooted in the hope that Yhwh would return to His people, intervene for His name’s sake and deliver the people from their shame (‫ֶרּפָה‬ ְ ‫)ח‬. The next thing that we are told is that Yhwh became jealous for His land, had pity on His people (‫ ָחמַל‬, Joel 2:18), and promises that He will no longer make them a mockery among the nations (‫ֶרּפָה ּבַּגֹויִם‬ ְ ‫ח‬, Joel 2:18–20). Then the Lord became jealous for his land (‫) ַויְקַ ּנֵא יְהוָה ְלא ְַרצֹו‬, and had pity on his people (‫) ַוי ַ ְּחמֹל עַל־עַּמֹו‬. 60 In response to his people the Lord said (‫) ַו ּי ַעַן יְהוָה וַיֹּאמֶר ְלעַּמֹו‬: I am sending you grain, wine, and oil, and you will be satisfied; and I will no more make you a mockery among the nations. (‫ֶרּפָה ּבַּגֹויִם‬ ְ ‫ח‬, Joel 2:18–19)

Yhwh’s response follows immediately the priestly intercession and marks a decisive shift in the book of Joel from divine judgment to divine restoration. We can note the immediate verbal and conceptual correspondence between the priestly prayer and God’s response. The restoration of Israel’s honor among the nations and the blessing of rain for an abundant harvest will be followed by a “higher” blessing through the outpouring of the Spirit of God ( Joel 2:28–29) and universal judgment ( Joel 3). We will attend to the content of Yhwh’s response, especially to the theologically not unproblematic notion of divine jealousy (‫ )קנא‬in a moment. Before that, we need to clarify an exegetical issue with regard to the timeframe of the people’s repentance, the priests’ prayer, and God’s response. “Became Jealous” or “Will Be Jealous”: The Shift between Verses 17 and 18 Basically, there is uncertainty about whether the text says that God became jealous and had pity on the people (nrsv), or whether God’s favorable 60.  In Joel 2:18, the Hebrew narrative tense appears for the first time in the book.

464

Chapter 9

response is still only a possibility in the future, depending on the people’s response and subject to the priests’ prayer on behalf of the guilty people. Such a reading comes to expression in the niv translation (i.e. “Then the Lord will be jealous for his land and take pity on his people. The Lord will reply to them: I am sending you grain” Joel 2:18, niv). The Hebrew verb forms used here are preterits with waw consecutive and are most naturally understood as describing a past situation. However, according to some commentators, the context requires a future reference, and the four verbs employed in Joel 2:18 should be taken as what is sometimes called prophetic perfects. As such, these verb forms could describe a future fulfillment with a past tense. 61 Translations such as the niv and Luther (1984) suggest that both the response of God and the people are only a possibility at this stage. According this line of thought, the prophet called the Judahite community to turn back to Yhwh and the priests to pray ( Joel 2:15–17), but the reader is still not told how the people and consequently Yhwh will respond. In other words, Yhwh’s favorable response in vv. 18–19 is conditional on whether the people turn back to Yhwh or not. Achtemeier adds, Certainly what follows in the rest of the book is mostly future tense action. Hence, the niv’s translation is to be preferred. Joel is working out a scenario here of what God will do in order to respond to the people’s desperate need. On the basis of that promise of God’s future action, the whole book centers on the need for repentance and return to God. 62

A reading such as this of the niv that expresses confidence that Yhwh will take pity and will intervene if the people repent stands somewhat in tension with Joel 2:14 (“who knows whether God will show favor”). Moreover, from a strictly syntactical point of view, it appears more natural to take the verbs in vv. 18–19 in the normal past sense of the preterits. 63 An interpretation that reads the verbs in their past tense requires a perspective that is post-repentance and post-priestly intercession. In other words, if the verbs are read in their natural past tense, the divine reply conveys a sense that Yhwh is already restoring the land to its former productivity (cf. Joel 2:21, 25) and thus suggests that the guilty party has already followed the divine and prophetic invitation to turn back to Yhwh. Verse 20 and onward, however, show that God’s promise to restore the land awaits still full realization. 61.  See Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1993) §112h n.1. 62.  Achtemeier, “Joel,” 32. 63. Keil, Joel, 133: “The grammar requires that we should take the imperfects with Vav consec. in these clauses, as statements of what actually occurred. The passages in which imperfects with Vav cons. are either really or apparently used in a prophetic announcement of the future, are of a different kind; e.g., in v. 23, where we find one in a subordinate clause preceded by perfects.” The LXX also employs past tense. See Wolff, Joel, 65.

Joel: The People’s Repentance

465

Barker comments on the shift between vv. 17 and 18 from the perspective of its rhetorical effect within its narrative context: The most fascinating element in the discussion of rhetorical effectiveness is the conceptual gap between Joel 2:17 and 2:18, where the text transitions from the prophet’s articulation of how the community should cry out to Yhwh to declarations of Yhwh intention to restore. Use of a conceptual gap can be an effective rhetorical technique since it requires its audiences to engage the world of the text and provide the necessary transition to the following rhetorical unit. … In the space between these two verses, it appears that the text requires its reading and hearing audiences to enter into the fray and posit that the implied audience heeded the prophetic call to return to Yhwh. 64

Barker takes the preterites with future reference (“Yhwh’s intention to restore”) but helpfully notes the tension the text creates for its audience. Childs, also commenting on the effect of the received text, has made a persuasive case that the writer of the book of Joel has intentionally left a tension between past and future, between a this-worldly plague and a cosmological threat, and between a local and universal judgment. This tension, Childs argues, should not be resolved. Although the Day of Yahweh had been prefigured in the sign of the locust, judgment lay still in the future. . . . Yet just as in the past God’s mercy was extended to Israel because of repentance, once again the same word of salvation was held out for the future. “All who call upon the name of Yahweh shall be delivered” ( Joel 3.5; EVV 2.32). The community of the future would stand before the same imperatives as did the people of the past. Neither the final judgment nor the ultimate salvation had yet occurred. 65

In other words, the book of Joel in its final form testifies to the ongoing need of genuine repentance and mediation based on divine mercy, grace, and honor. Moreover, it witnesses to the abiding divine commitment of God dwelling among His people. These fundamental aspects of biblical faith await actualization in every generation in a fresh and dynamic way ( Joel 1:3, 2:27). The Lord’s Compassion and Zeal It is fascinating to observe how Yhwh’s response corresponds and reverts the entire judgment as depicted in 1:2–2:17. 66 The soil and vegetation 64. Barker, From the Depths, 265. 65.  Childs (Scripture, 392), builds on Wolff’s interpretation. 66.  Ibid., 389. In Childs’ judgment: Wolff has been highly successful in showing the literary unity of the book which is characterized by its striking symmetry. The lament (1.4–20) parallels the promise (2.21–27), the announcement of a catastrophe (2.1–11) matches the promise of better days (4.1–3, 9–17) and the summons to repentance (2.12–17) is set over

466

Chapter 9

are restored ( Joel 1:10, 2:21–22). The “fear not” oracle is extended to the animals of the field. They are fed on lush pastures ( Joel 1:20, 2:22). Famine and drought will be no more. Nature will once again yield a rich harvest because God will again give the early rain ( Joel 1:10, 12, 18–20; 2:23). As a result, joy will return to the people of God ( Joel 1:16, 2:23). Not only over the bountiful harvest shall there be joy but also over the restoration of Israel’s covenant relationship ( Joel 2:27). These material blessings are all covenant blessings that Yhwh will restore to a repentant and newly oriented people (cf. Deut 11:13–17; 28:3–5, 11–12). Being forgiven in the Old Testament expresses itself often in concrete blessings. God’s rich provision will expel any sense of shame and cause the people to worship God. This promise comes as a clear answer to the prayer that Yhwh would not expose His covenant people to the mockery of the nations (cf. Joel 2:17). Moreover, the nations will no longer be able to scorn Israel with the words “Where is their God?” (v. 17), for God promises that you shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I, the Lord, am your God and there is no other. And my people shall never again be put to shame. ( Joel 2:27)

Thereby, Yhwh reaffirms the ancient promise that lies at the heart of Old Testament faith and eschatological expectations (Exod 6:7, 29:45; Lev 26:11). 67 As we have noted, Yhwh responds not merely out of His compassion for His people. Judging from the fact that the reference to Yhwh’s zeal follows immediately the priestly concern for divine honor, power, and reputation ( Joel 2:17–18), suggests strongly that the prayer has awoken jealousy/ zeal within God (‫) ַויְקַ ּנֵא יְהוָה‬. Divine zeal provides an important reason for God’s passionate intervention on behalf of Israel’s well being. The Lord will strive for His land and His people and will not submit it to the forces of destruction. On Mt Sinai, after Moses has attained the renewal of the covenant relationship through persistent intercessory prayer, Yhwh has revealed Himself not only as gracious, merciful, and just (Exod 34:6–7), but also as the one whose name is jealous (‫שמֹו אֵל קַ ּנָא הּוא‬, ְׁ Exod 34:14). Given the fact that Joel has already made clear reference to Yhwh’s name as recorded in Exod 34:6 (cf. Joel 2:13), it seems likely that the reference to Yhwh’s jealousy in the divine response echoes the same Exodus background. 68 The term ‫ קנא‬appears against the promise of the spirit (3.1ff). Such obvious paralleled expressions in 2.27 and 4.17 (Evv 3.17) speaks against sharply separating the first two chapters from the last. 67.  Achtemeier, “Joel,” 324­­–25. 68.  John R. Strazicich (Joel’s Use of Scripture And the Scripture’s Use of Joel: Appropriation and Resignification in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity [BIS 82; Leiden: Brill, 2007] 167–68) argues that Joel’s use of Exod 34:6 strengthens the possibility that Exod 20:3–5 (that is, the reference to divine jealousy in the Decalogue) is also in the background to Joel 2:18. I am indebted to Barker, From the Depths, 174, for this reference.

Joel: The People’s Repentance

467

earlier in the book of Exodus in one of Israel’s most defining accounts, the Decalogue. There, Yhwh describes Himself as “a jealous God (‫ ”)אֵל קַ ּנָא‬who will punish those who bow down to other gods (Exod 20:5, Deut 5:9). As the one and only God, Yhwh demands exclusive loyalty from His covenant partners (cf. Exod 20:3–5, 34:14–16; Deut 4:24). In other words, in the Exodus context, divine jealousy indicates that Yhwh will not tolerate any rival deities besides Himself. Joel 2:27 also asserts that only Yhwh is in the midst of Israel and that there is no other god. Because jealousy can only arise over someone or something dearly treasured and/or possessed, one can assume from Yhwh’s reply in Joel 2:18 that God still (or again) regards Israel as His treasured possession (‫חלָה‬ ֲ ַ‫נ‬, Joel 2:17). Weinfeld comments: Love causes jealousy, and jealousy brings anger that burns like fire (Deut 4:22; 32:21–22). There is, then, a possibility that the term ‫ אֵל קַ ּנָא‬refers not only to the clause of punishment, but also to the clause of divine grace. 69

All these textual and conceptual parallels between Exodus 34 and Joel 2 underline the strong intertextual associations between these two accounts. In light of this, there is no explicit reference to Israel’s idolatry in the book of Joel. Thus, it seems that Yhwh’s jealousy refers here primarily to His passionate commitment to the land, the people, and to His name. God would not allow any nation that is hostile to His covenant people to go unpunished (cf. Joel 3:1–3, Ezek 39:2), nor would Yhwh allow that His name will be mocked. According to Ezek 36:5–6, Yhwh reacts in His zeal for Israel against the nations. I am speaking in my hot jealousy (‫ָתי‬ ִ ‫)ּבאֵׁש ִק ְנא‬ ְ against the rest of the nations . . . who, with wholehearted joy and utter contempt, took my land as their possession. . . . Thus says the Lord God: I am speaking in my jealous wrath (‫ָתי ִדּּב ְַר ִּתי‬ ִ ‫חמ‬ ֲ ‫ָתי ּו ַב‬ ִ ‫)ב ִק ְנא‬, ְ because you have suffered the insults of the nations. (Ezek 36:5–6)

Brueggemann points out that even if Yhwh’s jealousy benefits Israel and creates a defense, ultimately it is in the service of Yhwh’s self-regard (cf. Ezek 36:22–32, 39:25–29).  70 In the case of Joel, this would be true in so far as Yhwh’s zealous intervention on behalf of Israel results in praising and acknowledging the name of Yhwh ( Joel 2:26­–27; cf. 3:17). It seems that God’s jealous wrath is mainly evoked when (1) Israel commits idolatrous sin against Yhwh (Exod 20:5, 34:14), (2) the nations sin against Israel and mock them and their God ( Joel 2:17–18, Ezek 36:5–6), (3) Yhwh’s name is at stake (cf. Joel 2:17–18, Ezek 39:25–29), and (4) Yhwh’s passion for Israel is kindled when grace and mercy are invoked by repentant prayer ( Joel 2:12–18). All these aspects are an intricate and related part 69. Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 5; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 296. 70.  Brueggemann, Theology, 293–96. On other occasions, in the Old Testament seemingly the same divine passion can work against Israel (e.g., Josh 24:19–20).

468

Chapter 9

of the unique covenant relationship between Yhwh and His people. 71 In the case of Joel, the prophet makes particular use of the account of Yhwh’s self-revelation (Exod 34:6–7) in order to motivate the wayward people to return to a gracious and compassionate God. At the same time, the priests under prophetic instructions appeal implicitly to Yhwh’s jealousy in order to persuade God to intervene and restore the land, the people, and His holy name.

Concluding Summary We have seen that Joel in a sense assumes the role of a “watchman” standing on a city wall in the face of an attacking enemy. Like Ezekiel, Joel is to warn Israel about the approaching divine judgment (cf. Joel 2:11, 15–17; Ezek 3:16–21; 33:1–9). The image is a conquering king who calls the city either to submit to his lordship or to die in the conquest (cf. Isa 36). Before the final decisive battle, “Israel’s conquering enemy” summons the people in the city to reorient their allegiance to Him or to be consumed in the attack. 72 Everything depends on the gracious disposition of the suzerain and the response of Israel ( Joel 2:11–17). It is a matter of life or death. Interestingly, the approaching “enemy” and the one who commissions the prophet to the role of the watchman are identical. Moreover, the crucial passage in Joel 2:12–17 shows the close association between the human and divine act and their interrelatedness. In v. 12, Yhwh Himself invites the human action (“return to me”), while this human response is motivated by the hope that their action is required by God (v. 13). In other words, God’s change of judgment presupposes a human response that is rooted in Yhwh’s willingness to change. 73 The divine change of mind does not happen automatically, nor can it be presumed on, but comes with a prophetic caution: “Who knows whether God will have pity” (‫נחם‬, Joel 2:14). Yhwh is sovereign. This does not mean, however, that the divine decision will be arbitrary. Joel refers back to Yhwh’s revealed nature (“The Lord is gracious and merciful” Joel 2:13). There are conceptual parallels to Exodus 32, where Moses prays for a divine change of mind when Israel was at the brink of being consumed by Yhwh. Moses too stood in the “breached wall,” fending off the divine attack in intercessory prayer (Ps 106:23). Unlike in Moses’ time, Joel sees Israel’s return as an essential requirement for Yhwh’s return to His original covenant commitment to Israel. 71.  Nahum M. Sarna (‫ שמות‬Exodus [JPS Torah Commentary; New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1991] 110) asserts that this anthropomorphic epithet has to be seen in the context of the covenant as a marriage bond. 72.  Of course, the image of the suzerain and vassal cannot be pushed too far. In the case of Joel, Israel’s (and Yhwh’s) return should be understood as a return to the original divine-human relationship. 73. Jan-Dirk Döhling, Der Bewegliche Gott: Eine Untersuchung des Motivs der Reue Gottes in der Hebräischen Bibel (HBS 61; Freiburg: Herder, 2009) 381.

Joel: The People’s Repentance

469

Because all hope for a favorable divine change of mind rests ultimately on the gracious and merciful God who is “attacking” in judgment, the people are to repent of their disloyalty to God and the priests are called to pray for divine mercy and point out that Yhwh’s honor among the nations would be at stake if God consumed His inheritance ( Joel 2:17). To sum up, Joel envisions a return of the people to their God, a return that is in itself rooted in a divine invitation to return to the Lord ( Joel 2:12). The prophet hopes to persuade the Lord to turn back to His people, based on the people’s radical turning to God and the priestly prayer for Yhwh’s intervention that is also based on divine compassion and zeal for His name ( Joel 2:17).

Further Theological Reflections The Call to Repentance and Intercession: A Reflection of God’s Heart In view of the forthcoming Day of the Lord, the priests, under prophetic instruction lead the people of God in repentance and prayer. From other parts of the Old Testament we know that the priests themselves need to undergo prolonged rituals of cleansing and atonement in order to be fit for mediating between a holy God and a sinful people (cf. Exodus 28, Leviticus 16). What is of great interest to us is that the priests in the book of Joel act under instruction of the prophet. Even the priests do not know how to pray. 74 Joel has to teach them how to intercede under these challenging circumstances. In the Old Testament, it is usually only the prophet who has access to “the council of the Lord” and so is familiar with the divine will (cf. Amos 3:7). 75 Authoritative and effective intercessory prayer require an intimate knowledge of the divine will (cf. Exod 32:7–14). Once again, we notice that the persuasive power of prophetic prayer is based on the simple fact that it engages with God’s nature and revealed purposes ( Joel 2:13–14, Exod 34:6–7). Following the canonical trajectory of authoritative prayer that is based on the divine word into the New Testament, I would like to make two observations. First, it is interesting to note a similar dynamic between Jesus and his disciples. In the Gospel of Luke, for example, we read how the disciples approach Jesus with the request “Lord, teach us to pray.” Luke tells us that, before Jesus teaches his disciples the Lord’s Prayer, he himself had spent time in prayer (cf. Luke 11:1–4). 76 In other words, like an Old Testament prophet, Jesus “stood in the heavenly council” before he gives 74. Martin Holland, Die Propheten Joel, Amos und Obadja (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1991) 50. 75.  Cf. 2 Sam 24:11–12, Neh 9:30, Heb 1:1. 76.  The Gospel of Luke shows a particular interest in Jesus’ prayer life. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke I–IX: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary (AB 28; Garden City, Doubleday, 1981) 244–47. More than any other New Testament author, Luke shows again and again that prayer played a fundamental part in

470

Chapter 9

the disciples a prayer that is in profound tune with the will and purposes of God. Second, we have noted that in the Old Testament it is almost exclusively the prophet who is endowed with the “Spirit of prophecy” (cf. Num 11:25–29; 1 Sam 10:6, 19:20). In the New Testament, the same “Spirit of prophecy” 77 will intercede for the people of God and will transform our weak and often misguided words into authoritative prayers that are in tune with God’s will “for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit of God intercedes with sighs too deep for words” (cf. Rom 8:26–27). 78 Returning to the book of Joel, it is certainly interesting to note that not only intercessory prayer is initiated and authorized by the prophetic word, but also the call to repentance ( Joel 2:17, 12–16). We have seen that the prophetic summons to return to Yhwh does not originate in the prophet’s mind either, but comes from God Himself. On the one hand, the Lord reveals Himself as the One who is warning Israel of the coming day of judgment ( Joel 2:1–11); on the other hand, Yhwh is the One who “even now,” in the middle of the divine attack, seeks Israel’s repentance. Although the speaker seems to change from Yhwh to the prophet in v. 13b (“Return to the Lord”), this does not change the fact that it is Yhwh Himself who initiates the call to repentance. In fact, the change of speaker may just be a way of saying that Joel’s call to repentance is truly of divine origin and thus comes with full authority. Thus, one could infer from this that both the summons to repentance and the priestly intercessory prayer are in fact a reflection of God’s gracious will. Although human repentance is an essential aspect in the process of reconciliation, the book of Joel makes it clear that the process is initiated by God. The prophet underlines though that human repentance does not guarantee divine forgiveness. Yhwh cannot be coerced into a favorable response ( Joel 2:14; cf. Amos 5:15, Jonah 3:9). Achtemeier notes: Repentance is not a meritorious work that compels God to accept us. When we have done all that is required of us, we are still unworthy servants (see Luke 17:10), and the truly repentant know that they have no goodness of their own to claim, but depend solely on the mercy of God. As the saying goes, the true saint is one who knows that he or she is a sinner. 79

The reality is that the covenant relationship, at anytime in the history of the people of God, has been preserved by God. From the beginning, Israel, Judaism, and Christianity have been forgiven and are restored communiJesus’ life and ministry (cf. Luke 3:21; 6:12; 9:18, 28–29; 11:1). See David Crump, Jesus the Intercessor (WUNT 2/49, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992). 77. Max Turner, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts in the New Testament Church and Today (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005) 2–20. 78.  Compare also Rom 15:30, Phil 1:19, Eph 6:18–19; Eichrodt, Theology, 2:450. 79.  Achtemeier, “Joel,” 319–20.

Joel: The People’s Repentance

471

ties (cf. Gen 8:21, Exod 34:9, Luke 15:11–24). There was a covenant and a new covenant, but only because it has been graciously initiated and maintained from God’s side. Anticipating the Outpouring of the Promised Spirit and Its Fulfillment in Jesus Christ The central theme of the Day of the Lord is not only closely associated with the call to return to the Lord, but also with various “heavenly” signs among which divine pardon and the outpouring of the Spirit are central. In the Old Testament, the outpouring of the Spirit of God is limited (with few exceptions) to the leaders and particularly to the prophets. It is through these Spirit anointed leaders that Yhwh often speaks, directs, and intervenes on behalf of the people (e.g., Deut 34:9; Judg 3:10, 6:34; 1 Sam 16:13; Neh 9:30; isa 42:1; Ezek 2:2). Joel, however, anticipates a time when all Israel would share in the Spirit of prophecy and know the Lord personally ( Joel 2:28–32; cf. Jer 31:34). Philip notes that “for Joel, prophecy, visions and dreams appear to be characteristic of an intimacy with Yhwh, made possible by the outpouring of the Spirit.” 80 The prophet seems to envisage a corporate gift of prophecy that will enable every member of the community one day to stand “among Yhwh’s council and (hear) his word at first hand ( Jer 23:18).” 81 In other words, Joel’s vision anticipates a prophetic community that will hear from and speak directly to God. Already Moses yearned for the day when all the house of Israel will be gifted with the enabling presence of God’s Spirit (cf. Num 11:25–29). Joel anticipates the fulfillment of Moses’ hope. Each will know God in an unmediated way through the Spirit ( Joel 2:28–29). If Yhwh will pour out the Spirit even on children and slaves, the question arises whether only Israel is in view or the nations as well? 82 Joel speaks ְ ‫ֶש‬ about the outpouring of the Spirit on “all flesh” (‫ָשׂר‬ ָ ‫ֶת־רּוחי עַל־ּכָל־ּב‬ ִ ‫ּפֹוך א‬ ְׁ ‫א‬,  83 Joel 2:28). The immediately preceding verse seems to limit it to Israel. If Joel 2:28–32 is taken as referring primarily to Israel in its immediate context, one can still argue that the Spirit of God will be given as a fulfillment to Moses’ hope that Israel will become a people of prophets (Num 11:29) and as such they will mediate God’s ways to the nations and be a light to them (cf. Isa 2, 49:6). 84 80. Finny Philip, The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology (WUNT 2/194; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005) 67. 81.  Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (NICOT; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1978) 99. 82. Cf. Scoralick, Gottes Güte, 172–74. 83.  In some places, “all flesh” includes not only all humans, but also the animals (cf. Isa 40:5, 49:26; Gen 6:12–13). 84. Cf. Rendtorff, Theologie des Alten Testaments, 257, relates the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit also to Isaiah, the prophet to the nations, who according to chap. 2 mediates Torah from Jerusalem to the nations.

472

Chapter 9

When Peter bases his Pentecost sermon on Joel 2:28–29, the apostle clearly expands the meaning of “all flesh” to the non-Jews who confess the name of Jesus (cf. Acts 2:39). This is confirmed in later accounts in the book of Acts where one reads how the Spirit of God came on the Gentiles (Acts 10:44–46; cf. Rom 10:12–13). Peter summons his audience to repent and to be baptized so that their sins will be forgiven and that they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Peter’s quotation from Joel ends with the key verse, which assures the believer that “everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord (κύριος) shall be saved” ( Joel 3:5 [2:32 MT], Acts 2:21). 85 Behind the word κύριος stands the Hebrew name “Yhwh” (‫)יְהוָה‬, which has been regularly rendered out of reverence with the designation “Lord” (‫)אָדֹון‬. This overlap of Greek and Hebrew meaning made it possible for the Early Church to apply the title “κύριος” to Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 2:36, Phil 2:11). 86 In other words, Peter not only ascribes to Jesus Christ the eschatological judgment of which Joel speaks (cf. Joel 2:28–32, Acts 2:20, 17:31) but also holds that it is through Jesus that God shows grace and mercy (cf. Acts 2:36–40, Rom 10:13). Especially the Gospel of Luke underlines that everything that is written in the law of Moses, and the prophets must be fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The resurrected Christ commissions his disciples to proclaim repentance and forgiveness of sins in his name to all nations (Luke 24:44–47). From a canonical perspective, the salvation of which Joel speaks comes to a fulfillment not in the death and resurrection of the Messiah but with the proclamation of God’s salvation among all the peoples (cf. Joel 2:32). This global mission cannot be achieved with human strength alone. It requires “power from on high.” Jesus himself says: “I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49). This is a remarkable claim because it is no other than Yhwh Himself who promises to “pour out His Spirit on all flesh” ( Joel 2:28–32). This is precisely what Peter in his Pentecost speech claims on behalf of Jesus (cf. Acts 2:17–21). Turner draws the following christological conclusion: Not “God has poured out this which you see and hear”; but, having received executive power to administer Joel’s promise, Jesus “has poured out this which you see and hear.” This implies nothing less than that Jesus has become in some sense “Lord of the Spirit” . . . it appears that the Spirit is the self-manifestation and empowering presence of both the Father and the Son . . . In christological terms, Luke virtually identifies Jesus as one “Lord” with the Lord God of Joel 2:28–32. 87 85.  LXX: “καὶ ἔσται πᾶς, ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου, σωθήσεται” ( Joel 3:5; cf. Acts 2:21). 86.  Applying the Old Testament title “Lord” (‫אָדֹון‬/κύριος) to Jesus Christ was an important step in the development of Trinitarian understanding. 87.  Turner, The Holy Spirit, 170.

Joel: The People’s Repentance

473

To put it differently, the fact that the enthroned Messiah is able to send the Spirit of God is not just a demonstration of His amazing authority but is one of the “most important roots of divine christology in the New Testament” (cf. John 14:16, 15:26, 16:7). 88 Calling on the Name of the Lord: Prayer Based on God’s Name Since the beginning, people have been calling on the name of Yhwh (‫שם יְהוָה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ק ָרא ְּב‬, ָ Gen 4:26). God’s name is usually evoked in worship through prayer and sacrifice at holy places and is closely associated with altars (cf. Gen 12:8, 21:33, 26:25). The foundation for calling on the name of God is the Lord’s self-revelation (cf. Exod 3:14, 6:2–8). 89 In Exod 20:24, it says that on every altar where offerings are presented to God, there Yhwh will cause His name to be remembered and there the Lord will visit the people in blessing (cf. Joel 2:14). The priests in Joel’s time are also calling on the name of Yhwh at the altar in the hope that God will reveal Himself as “merciful and gracious” ( Joel 2:13). For this is the name of Yhwh, as He revealed Himself when Moses called on His name (‫שם יְהוָה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫;ק ָרא ְּב‬ ָ cf. Exod 33:19, 34:5). Just as Moses called on the name of Yhwh at the “mountain sanctuary,” so the servants of God in Joel’s days are to offer penitential prayers, appealing to the compassionate name of Yhwh on behalf of the people ( Joel 2:17). Moses was the first to appeal to the revealed name of Yhwh when Israel was in need of divine grace and mercy and the covenant relationship was at stake (cf. Num 14:18–19). Israel’s archetypal prophet prays back the divine name as God had revealed it to him in the aftermath of the golden calf incident (cf. Exod 34:6–7). In doing so, Moses calls on the name of the Lord and entreats Yhwh to be as He said He would be and act in a way that conforms to His self-revelation. Thereby, Moses starts an important biblical prayer paradigm. 90 Among several other biblical figures, Joel follows Moses’ example and refers back to Yhwh’s Sinai-revelation (Exod 34:6–7) as the foundation for his hope that the Lord will respond to the people’s repentance and the priestly intercessory prayer ( Joel 2:13b–14). We could say that Moses, as well as the priests in the book of Joel, call on the name of the Lord, and their prayers are answered because God is true to Himself. Following this trajectory into the New Testament, we note that, when the Word became flesh and lived among the people, the Son reflects the 88.  Turner (ibid., 169) states further: “God alone can act through his Spirit, because his Spirit is himself in action” (p. 170). 89.  See R. W. L. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 36–78, for a discerning discussion on the anachronistic usage of “Yhwh” in a pre-Exodus 3 context. 90. Walter Brueggemann, The Psalms and the Life of Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 43–49, illustrates convincingly that the paradigm initiated by Moses is followed by various psalms (cf. Pss 25, 86, 103, 145) and other Old Testament passages (e.g. Neh 9, Jonah 4).

474

Chapter 9

glorious name of the Father. Jesus too is full of “grace and truth” ( John 1:14–16). Behind the Greek terms χάρις and ἀλήθεια are the divine attributes of “steadfast love” (‫ ) ֶחסֶד‬and “faithfulness” (‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ) from Exod 34:6 (cf. Exod 33:18–19). 91 In other words, John claims that Jesus embodies Yhwh’s name. Thus, when people like the blind beggar or Stephen call on Jesus’ name (Luke 18:38, Acts 7:59), they stand in a sense in the long biblical tradition of calling on the gracious and merciful name of the Lord in order to the healed and forgiven. On the Day of the Lord, “Everyone Who Calls on the Name of the Lord Shall Be Saved”: The Interplay between Repentance, Confession, and Intercession On the Day of the Lord, the Spirit of God will be poured out in grace on all those who call on the name of the Lord, while judgment will be poured out on the enemies (cf. Joel 2:32–3:2). The prophet pronounces judgment on the nations for the crimes that they have committed against the people of God (cf. Joel 3:1–3). Especially the final chapter of the book of Joel gives expression to Yhwh’s authority over all nations ( Joel 3:1–21). One could say that the Day of the Lord reflects the mercy, grace, and justice of God (cf. Joel 2:13, 3:21). From a New Testament perspective, the Day of the Lord will be fulfilled when the Son of God will reappear as the judge of the world. In the days of Joel, the prophet had already discerned signs that indicate that the coming of the Day of the Lord had started and yet he proclaimed it also as an event in the future. Similarly, the Day of Pentecost has inaugurated the Day of the Lord and the church is now in the dispensation of the Spirit, moving toward its fulfillment. Between the arrival of Jesus Christ and the time of his return, there is a time of divine patience and grace that invites both Israel and the nations to a return to the creator and savior (cf. Acts 3:20–21, Rom 13:1). Joel urges the priests to intercede for divine mercy and for God’s gracious intervention for the sake of His name as long as there is time. On that day, there will be no distinction between Jews and Greek. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Rom 10:9– 13, Joel 2:32). On that day, every knee must bow and every tongue confess the lordship of Jesus (cf. Phil 2:10–11). It is to him that God has entrusted the final judgment (Acts 17:31), and it is through him that God will be merciful and gracious (Acts 2:36–40, John 1:14–16). Just like Israel under the old covenant was called to prepare themselves for the appearance of God, so people in the dispensation of the Spirit must entrust themselves to the lordship of Jesus in order to stand at the final judgment (cf. Rom 10:13). Joel’s instruction to the priests to intercede for the guilty people in the 91. Ulrich Wilckens, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (NTD 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000) 34.

Joel: The People’s Repentance

475

wake of the Day of the Lord is related to God’s original plan for His people and comes with a biblical mandate. God’s original intention for His people was to make them a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (LXX: βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα καὶ ἔθνος ἅγιον, Exod 19:6). As a royal priesthood, Israel was “to mediate the knowledge and the blessing of the holy God to other peoples (cf. Exod 19:5–6; Lev 20:22– 26).” 92 Building on God’s original plan, Peter calls followers of Christ, the church, a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation (βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον), God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of [God]. (1 Pet 2:9)

Reflecting on that high calling, Foster writes that: “One of the most challenging teachings in the New Testament is the universal priesthood of all Christians. As priests, appointed and anointed by God, we have the honor of going before the Most High on behalf of others.” 93 Christians are called to minister under the headship of the heavenly High Priest for the sanctification of the church and indeed the well-being and salvation of the world (cf. 1 Tim 2:1–7). Christians can only offer their prayers through the prophetic and priestly mediatorship of Christ. This is a fundamental aspect of praying in Jesus’ name. The risen Christ validates our prayers. In fact, Christian prayer is always through Christ’s mediatorship. 94 Not unlike Israel’s high priests who mediated between God and people in the earthly sanctuary (Leviticus 16), so Jesus the heavenly High Priest intercedes between God and His people in the heavenly sanctuary (cf. Rom 8:34, 1 John 2:1). Particularly the letter to the Hebrews emphasizes that Jesus intercedes as the High Priest at the right hand of God, preparing His church for the Day of the Lord (Heb 7:25). Joel recognizes the seriousness of the Day of the Lord: “Truly the day of the Lord is great; terrible indeed—who can endure it?” ( Joel 2:11). According to the prophet those who can endure it are those who repent with all their heart and trust in God’s grace and mercy claimed in intercessory prayer ( Joel 2:12–17). In the light of the entire canon, Joel’s question finds an implicit answer in Paul’s rhetorical question, when the apostle reflects on Jesus’ intercessory work, both on the cross and in eternity: Who will bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us. (Rom 8:33–34)

Paul is aware that major trials may await God’s people, but he is convinced that not even death can separate Christians from the love of God in Christ 92.  Jenson, “‫ּכֹהֵן‬,” NIDOTTE 2:592. 93.  Richard J. Foster, Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home (San Francisco: Harper, 1992) 191. 94. Karl Barth, Prayer and Preaching (London: SCM, 1964) 17.

476

Chapter 9

(Rom 8:33–39). After famine and war, Joel too anticipates eventually peace for Zion and that God will restore the fertility of the land to an “Eden-like” state ( Joel 3:17–18), so on the Day of the Lord, God’s kingdom will be established and creation will be redeemed (cf. Rev 19–22).

Chapter 10

Amos: The Logic of Intercessory Prayer (Amos 7) Introduction Amos was an 8th-century prophet from Judah who was sent on a divine mission to the Northern Kingdom of Israel. As far as we can tell, he was the earliest among the so-called writing prophets. 1 Obviously, the canonical order of the twelve minor prophets is not primarily concerned with chronology. In recent years, scholarship has turned to the canonical shape of the twelve and has discovered important theological intentions and intertextual associations. 2 We shall look at some of these canonical relationships between Joel and Amos, especially with regard to Amos’s visions and intercessory prayers. The book of Amos contains two explicit references to prophetic intercessory prayers (Amos 7:1–6). They both appear in the context of five visions of divine judgment (Amos 7–9). In Amos 7, the prophet cries out, “O Lord God, forgive, I beg you! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!” (Amos 7:2)

This brief and yet very intense prayer seeks to move God to change His punitive intentions. Yhwh relents concerning His judgment plans (Amos 7:3). As we shall see, the dynamics of Amos’s prayers bring them verbally and theologically close to Moses’ intercessory dialogue (cf. Exod 32:7–14). In response to a second vision about a consuming fire, Amos prays anew. This time as well, his prayer is heard in the sense that Yhwh does not bring about the announced judgment (Amos 7:4–6). Scholars have discussed the possible reasons why there are no further prayers recorded after the third, fourth and fifth vision. After all, God has 1. Wilhelm Rudolph, Joel—Amos—Obadja—Jona (KAT 13/2; Mohn: Gütersloher 1971) 95; Bruce E. Willoughby, “Amos, the book of,” in ABD 1:203. 2. Rolf Rendtorff, “Alas for the Day! The ‘Day of the Lord’ in the Book of the Twelve,” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann (ed. T. Linafelt and T. K. Beal; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) 186–97; Ruth Scoralick, Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn: Die Gottesprädikationen in Ex 34,6f und ihre intertextuellen Beziehungen zum Zwölfprophetenbuch (Freiburg: Herder, 2002); Christoph R. Seitz, Prophecy and Hermeneutics: Toward a New Introduction to the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007).

477

478

Chapter 10

answered favorably Amos’s first two prayers and has withdrawn the intended judgment. Judging by the subsequent visions of judgment, it seems as though Amos’s ongoing prayer was sorely needed. Scharbert argues, from a form-critical perspective, that the absence of any further recorded prayers does not prove that Amos did not continue to pray. 3 We will be less concerned with the speculation of how frequently Amos was engaging in intercessory prayer than with the task of trying to understand the logic of the final form of the text. The book of Amos is also important for our purposes because it illustrates in illuminating ways the dynamics of the divine council. Not only are we shown through Amos’s vision experiences what it means to be made privy to Yhwh’s will and purposes, but also how prophetic intercessory prayer and prophetic proclamation relate to each other. Thereby, the reader gains an important insight into a biblical understanding of what it means to speak on behalf of God expressed often in the Old Testament by the phrase “Thus, says the Lord God (‫ְהוה‬ ִ ‫”)כֹה ָאמַר אֲדֹנָי י‬ Related to these dynamics is the pertinent issue of how to discern God’s will in intercessory prayers. Amos, as he is pleading for divine forgiveness for a sinful people, has to learn the limits of divine patience. I shall conclude this chapter by examining Amos’s prayer insights from a Christian point of view. In other words, I shall attempt to let Amos speak to the Christian church and thereby underline aspects of the abiding witness of the 8th-century prophet. Before we turn to these issues, we shall familiarize ourselves with the biblical portrayal of Amos the prophet and his message and how Amos relates to Israel’s archetypal prophet and intercessor.

Canonical Context Amos the Prophet Unlike some of the great writing prophets, Amos did not come from a priestly family like Jeremiah and Ezekiel, or even from a royal house like Isaiah, but he came from a farming background. He was a sheep breeder from Tekoa in Judah (Amos 7:14). It is not entirely clear where and how Amos received his calling to prophecy in the Northern Kingdom because we have no first-person account of his call, such as we do, for example, with Jeremiah. Rather than simply speculating, I tend to agree with von Rad, who observes, “The only reason why a man of solid peasant stock came to join the ranks of the prophets was a very remarkable call from 3. Joseph Scharbert (Heilsmittler im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient [QD 23/24; Freiburg: Herder, 1964] 163) suggests that it would be equally difficult to argue that, because there is hardly any reference to Isaiah’s intercessory activity, he also did not pray (cf. Isa 37:4). Moreover, Scharbert draws attention to the fact that Amos’s visions three to five have a different structure. Thus, according to him, these visions do not provide the form for an intercessory prayer.

Amos: The Logic of Intercessory Prayer

479

Jahweh. . . . Amos’s call is almost certainly to be connected with the reception of the five visions.” 4 In Amos 7:10–17, we find a dialogue between Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, and Amos that provides us with important information regarding Amos’s background, role, and self-understanding. Judging from Amaziah’s harsh words to Amos, the prophet caused some disturbances among the establishment of the Northern Kingdom and particularly at Israel’s chief sanctuary in Bethel. As a result, the priest seeks to ban the prophet from the South from preaching at the Northern sanctuary (Amos 7:12–13). Interestingly, Amaziah does not accuse Amos of being a false prophet. 5 The priest does not deny that Amos preaches the truth. It is just that his message is not welcomed in Bethel. Amaziah tells Amos: “O seer, go, flee away to the land of Judah, earn your bread there, and prophesy there” (Amos 7:12). 6 Amos was not popular, to say the least. He was a “missionary to a foreign land” and if that was not already hard enough, he had to proclaim “bad news” to a prosperous and thus seemingly blessed Israel. The priest, however, tries in vain to prohibit Amos from further preaching at Bethel and to dispel him from the royal sanctuary. Has Amaziah misjudged Amos by assuming that he is a religious professional who belongs to a prophetic guild? 7 It was common at that time to employ cult prophets alongside the priests at the sanctuaries. As the monarchy developed, there were probably also prophetic schools that trained prophets to anoint kings and provide “divine” council. These religious functionaries were most likely supported from the royal treasury (cf. 1 Kgs 22:5–7). Needless to say, these prophets were often in danger of paying lip service to their paymaster (cf. 1 Kgs 22:6). 8 Amos, though, is different. He refers to himself as a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore trees who was called by Yhwh to prophesy to Israel (Amos 7:15). In other words, Amos is independent, unlike the cult prophets or the priests whose livelihood depends on the monarchy or the people. He does not feel responsible to any human, but to God alone. Thus, Amos instructs the priest that he is of a different category: The Lord took me from following the flock, and the Lord said to me, “Go, prophesy to my people Israel.” (Amos 7:15) 4. Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology (2 vols.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 2:131. 5.  Donald E. Gowan, “The Book of Amos,” in NIB 7:410. 6.  The term “seer” (‫ )חֹזֶה‬probably refers to Amos’s visions. Other prophets also received visions, and so it is probably a synonym for ‫ָביא‬ ִ ‫נ‬. The term ‫רֹאֶה‬, “public seer,” is not used here and may be yet another way of saying that Amos was not a religious professional. The nrsv’s rendering of the unique Hebrew expression “eat bread there” (‫ָל־שם ֶלחֶם‬ ָׁ ‫אכ‬ ֱ ֶ‫ו‬ ‫שם ִּתּנָבֵא‬ ָׁ ‫)ו‬ ְ is probably correct. 7.  Scholars agree that the term ‫ָביא‬ ִ ‫בֶן־נ‬, “son of a prophet,” refers to a member of a prophetic guild who were usually working for a monarch (cf. 1 Kgs 20:35; 2 Kgs 2:3; 4:1, 38). 8. See R.  W.  L. Moberly, “Does God Lie to His Prophets? The Story of Micaiah ben Imlah As a Test Case,” HTR 96 (2003) 1–23, for an engaging discussion on the subject of speaking truthfully for God.

480

Chapter 10

The prophetic call, as Amos experienced it, came with such a force that he felt he had no option but to obey his divine commissioner. He describes his call in the language of cause and effect. The lion has roared; who will not fear? The Lord God has spoken; who can but prophesy?” (Amos 3:8)

This background is important for our purpose because it underlines our earlier finding that intercessory prayer goes not only hand in hand with the prophetic office, but also happens often in the Bible when the prophet is invited into the divine presence. Amos articulates it in the well-known verse: Surely the Lord God does nothing, without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets. (Amos 3:7)

We shall see that it is often precisely when Yhwh reveals His will and purposes (in the divine council) that He engages His prophets in a dialogue (“Amos, what do you see?” Amos 7:8) and invites them to participate in the making of the divine plans. It is in the context of five visions that we find Amos interceding for Israel (Amos 7:2, 5). Although initially the prophet succeeds in averting disaster, it becomes increasingly clear to him that Israel has sinned to a point beyond the reach of prophetic intercession. Nothing seems left to do, but to describe the consequences of what he has seen and to proclaim a message of judgment. The Message of Amos Amos’s messages are possibly among the darkest of all the prophets. Message after message underlines Israel’s sinfulness and Yhwh’s judgment. But what exactly is the matter? After all, the Israelites of Amos’s time are showing a great religious zeal. They go on pilgrimages to their sanctuaries in Bethel, Gilgal and Beersheba. There, they bring freewill and thanksgiving offerings and tithes, and they participate in vibrant festivals (Amos 4:4–5, 5:21–24). The prosperity and peace that Israel enjoyed at that time was probably taken as evidence of divine favor and validated, in a sense, their life styles as the chosen people of God. Amos, however, exposes their hollow behavior by pointing to their self-serving ignorance and attacks primarily three major areas of sin: social injustice, corruption (Amos 2:6–8), and idolatry (Amos 5:26). Thus says the Lord: For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment; because they sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals—they who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth, and push the afflicted out of the way; father and son go in to the same girl, so that my holy name is profaned; they lay themselves down beside every altar on garments taken in pledge; and in the house of their God they drink wine bought with fines they imposed. (Amos 2:6–8)

Amos: The Logic of Intercessory Prayer

481

Amos discerns Israel’s sin above all in the exploitative relation between the wealthy and the poor, the influential and the weak (Amos 4:1–3, 6:1–7). Moreover, the prophet draws a picture of a thoughtless and religious upper class. They are complacent about their material prosperity. The women live wasteful lives at the expense of the poor (Amos 4:1–2), while the men are involved in bribery and dishonesty in business (Amos 5:7–12, 8:5). In the face of these social evils, Amos cries, “Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream” (Amos 5:24). In the light of all this social corruption, cultic participation is to Amos a sheer provocation of Yhwh and a dishonoring of His name. In other words, Amos, like most of the other Old Testament prophets, confronts Israel’s cultic as well as social sin. 9 As a double punishment, Yhwh will exile the Israelites from their land and then redistribute it among foreigners (Amos 7:17). As the aristocrats cheat the poor of their lands, so Yhwh will take it from them (Amos 2:6–7, 3:10, 5:7, 6:4–7). Amos understands Yhwh as the God of the nations who will judge them according to some kind of universal law/ethics. Israel, however, having been chosen and given Yhwh’s law, is judged by stricter standards. Von Rad sees Israel’s election as absolutely central to Amos’s preaching. It is the “nerve of a great part of his message.” 10 Part of the problem is that the Israel of Amos’s day knew full well their privileged status as the chosen people of Yhwh. With national peace came probably also the temptation to think, as we hear in Amos’s judgment speeches to the nations, that on the “Day of Yhwh” all the enemies would be destroyed. They were convinced that, as the chosen ones, salvation was guaranteed. It seems never have occurred to them, however, that their chosenness has brought them also much closer into the light of Yhwh’s holiness (Amos 3:2). Like Joel, Amos announces the Day of the Lord and warns Israel in the same breath that this is not a day of joy and salvation for Israel, as they have traditionally believed (cf. Jos. 10:10–14), but a day of judgment (Amos 5:18­–20). The Day of the Lord is a time when the people of God have to face Yhwh as He truly is in His holiness, not the wishful projection of an ever-gracious Yhwh as worshiped in Bethel and other sanctuaries. No, the Yhwh of Amos’s proclamation is the Yhwh as He revealed Himself in the five visions to the prophet. 11 He is a holy and patient God, who again and again sought to shake His people to their senses through natural disasters (failure of harvest, drought, and famine) and defeat in war. But they paid no attention (cf. Amos 4:6–12). The time of warning and divine patience, has now reached an end, and Israel must brace itself to meet its God 9.  Cultic as well as social sin have the same root: Jacob’s pride (Amos 6:8). 10. Von Rad, Old Testament Theology 2:133. 11.  Amos’s judgment oracles against the nations reflect quite clearly the imagery of the five visions. See Jörg Jeremias, Der Prophet Amos (ATD; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995) xvi.

482

Chapter 10

(Amos  4:12). In a number of judgment speeches, Yhwh confronts Israel through His prophet: “I will take you into exile” (Amos 5:27); “I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword” (Amos 7:9); “I will destroy it from the face of the earth” (Amos 9:8)! Amos’s prophecy of the future can be summarized by saying that Israel is to suffer a terrible military defeat and be taken into exile (Amos 3:11, 6:14, 7:9, 8:3, 9:10). 12 Only at the end of the book of Amos shines a ray of hope. 13 It is as though restoration of the house of David only happens through judgment and destruction (cf. Amos 9:11–12). The prophet looks beyond Israel’s exile to a time when the fallen house and the devastated vineyard will be rebuilt and restored. In spite of severe judgment and discipline, Yhwh will re­ member His covenant relationship with Israel and will not utterly blot out what He once built. One of the guiding questions that runs through this chapter is concerned with the relationship between Amos’s messages of judgment and the visions that he received from Yhwh. It raises issues of chronology, and of the connection between standing in the divine council, interceding on behalf of the people, and speaking truthfully for God. Moses and Amos: Prophets and Intercessors Moses is Israel’s archetypal prophet and covenant mediator. According to Deut 18:15–22, Yhwh will call and equip prophets like Moses. 14 In other words, each of Israel’s subsequent prophets, their roles, and their teachings are measured against Moses. The Mosaic affinity comes primarily to expression in the prophets understanding of God and how Yhwh expects His people to relate to Him (in theology, prayer, and ethics). 15 Moses’ teaching and the traditions that are ascribed to him are characterized by a strong insistence on justice and righteousness (Exodus 20; Deut 10:12–20, 27:19). 16 It is interesting to note that many of the social defects in Amos’s days are as if measured against what is commonly called the Book of the Covenant (Exod 21:1­­–23:1; cf. 24:7). Willoughby observes, Israel had profaned the true tradition upon which the nation was founded, the Book of the Covenant. The ancient prohibitions against sexual abuse (Exod 21:7–9), debt slavery (22:24), charging interest to the poor (22:25), the misappropriation of collateral (22:26–27), the corruption of the legal 12. Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2:134. 13.  Although Amos’s message of doom is unmistakable, there seem to be some moments when the prophet entertained a glimmer of hope in his proclamation and preached a tentative “perhaps” (cf. Amos 5:15). Was Amos talking only to a remnant or to the entire house of Israel? 14.  See p. 11 for the meaning of Deut 11:15–22. 15.  Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 157–66, engages with the claim that the prophets are “like Moses.” 16.  An accent that has already been implanted in the role of Israel’s patriarch (Gen 18:19).

Amos: The Logic of Intercessory Prayer

483

process (23:6–8), and fraudulent weights and measures (Deut 25:13–16) were ignored (Amos 2:7; 2:6; 5:11; 2:8; 5:10, 12; and 8:5, respectively) in the greedy race for more wealth. 17

As noted above, in the face of all this social corruption and superficial cultic activity, Amos invokes justice and righteousness (Amos 5:24). In fact, later prophets continually make justice and righteousness the key to the wellbeing of the people of God (cf. Amos 5:7, 6:12; Jer 7:5–7, 22:3; Isa 56:1; etc.). Brueggemann comments, Mosaic ethic, as practised by prophetic mediation, is broadly based on covenantal communitarianism, in which justice and righteousness assure that individual good is a subset of communal well-being. . . . Prophetic mediation of Yahweh, rooted deep in covenantalism, strikes a profound blow against all individualism that assumes that private gifts from Yahweh can be had at the expense of the community. 18

Amos directs his judgment messages often against a self-indulgent individualism of the upper class of his time. Thereby, Amos and other prophets basically do what Moses did. That is, they seek to enable Israel in their time and context to live faithfully as Yhwh’s covenant people. There are points of contact not only in a common “community ethics” but also with regard to their intercessory ministries. Let me start by drawing attention to the conflict between Amos and Amaziah. In this confrontation one can discern an ongoing biblical tension between the prophet and the institutionalized cult, a tension that is already foreshadowed in Moses and Aaron and their handling of the golden calf incident. Aaron, Barth observes, is not a charismatic figure like Moses, but the archetype of the institutionalized priesthood. Although Aaron is, as the “administrator” of the tent of meeting indispensable, he seems not to have an independent relationship to God, as do Moses and Amos (Exod 7:1–2, Amos 7:15). Aaron and Amaziah are men of the “established church” 19 They listen to the people’s voice. Moses and Amos, in contrast, are prophets. It is to them that God speaks directly, and thus they can intercede authoritatively with God on behalf of the sinful people and pass on the Lord’s word to Israel (Num 12:6–8, Amos 3:7). This contrast and tension comes also to expression in Jeremiah’s temple sermon ( Jeremiah 7) and reaches a dramatic climax in Jesus’ conflict with the temple establishment (cf. Matt 26:57–68). 17.  Willoughby, “The Book of Amos,” 206. 18. Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1997) 633. 19. Karl Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik (vol. 4/1; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1953) 475– 79, offers an engaging, but contextually biased reading of Exodus 32. The “Swiss Protestant prophet” implicitly criticizes the established church of his time through the golden calf incident.

484

Chapter 10

Both Moses and Amos were called out of a shepherding background to become Yhwh’s prophetic mouthpiece (cf. Exod 3:1–4; Amos 1:1, 7:15). Another interesting parallel is that, in the context of their intercessory ministries, a major aspect of Israel’s sin is not only referred to as idolatry, but specifically as images that the people made for themselves (cf. Exod 32:4, 31; Amos 5:26). When Yhwh announces severe judgment on sinful Israel, both Moses and Amos plead for divine mercy. Both advocates manage to change Yhwh’s punitive intentions (cf. Exod 32:10–14, Amos 7:1–4). As we shall see, it is particularly the concept and terminology of Yhwh’s change of mind (‫ )נחם‬in the context of their intercessory prayers that connects Moses and Amos in a unique way. What is more, both intercessors are acutely aware of Israel’s guilt, and thus all they can do is place their hope in God’s sovereign mercy that expresses itself in the “divine perhaps.” Moses said to the people, “You have sinned a great sin. But now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps (‫ )אּולַי‬I can make atonement for your sin.” (Exod 32:30) It may be (‫ )אּולַי‬that the Lord, the God of hosts, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph. (Amos 5:15)

The well-known “perhaps” (‫ )אּולַי‬ensures that God remains sovereign in His gracious decision making and thus will not allow Himself to be coerced by His people (cf. Jonah 3:9, Zeph 2:3). Intercessory prayer engages often with this sovereign mercy (cf. Joel 2:14). 20 Both intercessors could only pray meaningfully because Yhwh informed the prophets of His intentions (cf. Exod 32:7–14; Amos 3:7, 7:1–6). We shall explore this dynamic more fully in chapter 11. 21 Moreover, when we have the nature of God in mind, as revealed to Moses in the context of an intercessory prayer (Exod 34:6–7), then we discern more clearly the divine patience behind Amos’s ongoing prophetic warnings (cf. Amos 4:6–12). God, who is merciful in His innermost being, gracious and slow to anger, is eventually forced to protect justice and respond in judgment against His disobedient and rebellious people. As the rebellious wilderness generation could no longer be pardoned (‫ )סלח‬and be protected from divine justice (Num 14:18–23), so the Israel of Amos’s day could no longer be forgiven (‫סלח‬, Amos 7:2–8). Although the covenant promise is maintained, the possibility of a new beginning lies only beyond judgment (cf. Num 14:31, Amos 9:8–15). It is also interesting to note that Yhwh conveys His judgment in the third and fourth vision in a way that is conceptually and textually related to Exod 34:6–7. In Amos 7:8 and 8:2, Yhwh says, “I will never again pass 20. Edmond Jacob, “Prophètes et intercesseurs,” in De la Torah au Messie: Meélanges Henri Cazelles (ed. J. Doreé, P. Grelot, and M. Carrez; Paris: Desclée, 1981) 210–11. 21.  See pp. 511–515.

Amos: The Logic of Intercessory Prayer

485

ֹ ‫)ל‬, while in Exod 34:6, before Yhwh reveals them by” (‫א־אֹוסיף עֹוד עֲבֹור לֹו‬ ִ His innermost nature to Moses, Yhwh also passes Moses by (‫ַו ּי ַעֲבֹר יְהוָה עַל־‬ ‫) ָּפנָיו‬. At first sight, this syntactical parallel of divine subject + the verb ‫עבר‬ + personal object may look rather far fetched. However, considering the following intertextual allusions, the deliberate relationship between God’s nature and Moses’ prayer as we find it in Exod 34:6–9 and Amos’s vision accounts seems more likely. Like Moses, Amos addresses God as “Lord” (‫)אֲדֹנָי‬ and pleads for divine forgiveness (‫ ;סלח‬Exod 34:9, Amos 7:2). Moses prays for Yhwh’s presence among the people; the divine presence is also at issue in Amos’s third vision (‫ ;בקרב‬Exod 34:9; Amos 7:8, 10). In both contexts, Yhwh’s presence is a presence of judgment (Exod 34:10, Amos 7:6, 8:2). 22 Thus, we can infer that Amos, like Moses, stands in the breach between Yhwh and Israel and manages to move God to change His mind and “pass Israel” in compassion and patience. In contrast to Moses, however, Amos stops to mediate in intercession. Evaluating the divine dynamic behind Amos’s prophetic ministry, we shall see that Amos moves Yhwh from His punitive intentions to mercy. As the prophetic word in Israel is banned (Amos 7:13), Yhwh returns to His initial will to visit Israel in judgment. Thereby, the prophet stands between the divine attributes of mercy and justice and embodies to some degree Yhwh’s tendency. In our main section on Amos’s intercession, we shall explore these dynamics in some more detail. Joel and Amos: Intertextual Intercessory Associations The canonical sequence of Joel to Amos also deserves some reflection. It is not enough to note that both prophets refer to the Lord roaring from Zion ( Joel 4:6, Amos 1:2) and announce the Day of the Lord (cf. Joel 1:15, Amos 5:18–20). Recent years have seen a number of publications attending to the question of intertexuality between the Twelve. In the following section, I seek to highlight a few intertextual associations between Joel and Amos that are interesting for our purposes. Naturally, our focus will fall on Amos’s vision experiences as they provide the context for his intercessory prayers. Amos’s prayers and visions show several points of contact with the book of Joel. Amos’s first vision is about the forthcoming threat of locusts (Amos 7:1–3). We have noted in the previous chapter, on Joel, that the divine word that came to Joel was also about a forthcoming plague of locusts that endangered Israel’s future (cf. Joel 1:1–7). In the prophecies of Joel, the threat of the locusts, the imagery of a consuming fire and a conquering army that will destroy the harvest and the city are all intertwined ( Joel 2:3–11). 23 Amos’s second vision is also 22. Jam-Dirk Döhling, Der Bewegliche Gott: Eine Untersuchung des Motivs der Reue Gottes in der Hebräischen Bibel (HBS 61; Freiburg: Herder, 2009) 426–27. 23. The threat of natural infertility is indeed a relentless theme in Joel. It looks as though the threat of natural destruction and infertility in Hosea (Hos 9:16) takes a concrete­

486

Chapter 10

about Yhwh’s fire that will consume the great deep and turn the soil into unusable rock. In the face of the relentless drought, both prophets voice a similar prayer: This is what the Lord God showed me: the Lord God was calling for a shower of fire, and it devoured the great deep and was eating up the land. Then I said, “O Lord God, cease, I beg you! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!” (Amos 7:4–5) To you, O Lord, I cry. For fire has devoured the pastures of the wilderness, and flames have burned all the trees of the field. Even the wild animals cry to you because the watercourses are dried up, and fire has devoured the pastures of the wilderness. ( Joel 1:19–20)

Although it is not an explicit intercessory prayer, Joel’s cry of help seeks nothing but divine mercy for the people. 24 What is more, both prophets ascribe this natural calamity to the judgment of Yhwh and proclaim it as the Day of Lord ( Joel 2:11). We have seen that the entire message of Joel revolves around the theme of the Day of the Lord, a future expectation that will become central to the people of God. The Day of Yhwh is also an important theme in the messages of Amos. The prophet of Tekoa was probably the first who proclaimed the Day of the Lord, counter to common expectation, not as a day of salvation but as a day of divine judgment (“Alas for you who desire the day of the Lord!” Amos 5:18). In response to the forthcoming divine judgment Amos cries out to God, “O Lord Yhwh, forgive! How can Jacob survive? He is so small!,” while Joel urges the people to rend their hearts, and return to Yhwh “for He is gracious and compassionate” ( Joel 2:12–13). Thereby, Joel refers back to the divine attributes as uttered by God Himself (cf. Exod 34:6–7). Although Amos does not refer explicitly to Exod 34:6–7 in his intercession, both prophets base their hope for God’s mercy on the “divine perhaps” (ַ‫מי־יֹודֵ ע‬, ִ Joel 2:14; cf. Jonah 3:9; and ‫ ;אּולַי‬Amos 5:15; cf. Zeph 2:3). 25 In other words, both Joel and Amos recognize that the people are guilty, but they know that Yhwh is gracious and merciful and thus in His sovereignty may show Himself once again compassionate and have pity on His people. It is one of the central objectives of this book to explore how speeches of judgment and of hope correlate with prayers that are rooted in the nature of Yhwh as revealed to Moses (Exod 34:6–7). form in Joel. It would, however, go beyond the horizon of this study to draw Hosea into the sphere of our comparison. See Scoralick, Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn, 145–82. 24. Jospeph Scharbert, Heilsmittler im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient (QD 23/24; Freiburg: Herder, 1964) 164. 25.  Although different words are used, their meanings are very similar. See Jörg Jeremias, Die Reue Gottes: Aspekte alttestamentlicher Gottesvorstellung (BThSt 31; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997) 87.

Amos: The Logic of Intercessory Prayer

487

In both the book of Joel and Amos, prophet and priest meet each other in the face of Yhwh’s imminent judgment. Interestingly, when we juxtapose the two accounts, the encounters between prophet and priest look very different. In the book of Joel, we get a sense of collaboration. Joel not only summons the priests to lead the national repentance ritual at the temple but also calls the priests to intercede for the people. It looks as though the priests followed the prophetic instructions and placed themselves between the altar of burnt offering and the porch to bring their prayers before God on behalf of the people (cf. Joel 1:13–14, 2:15–17). In the book of Amos, the prophet also meets a priest at the national sanctuary. In stark contrast to the book of Joel, there is a conflict between the prophet and the priest. Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, seeks to ban Amos from preaching a day of divine reckoning (cf. Amos 7:12–17). Interestingly, in the book of Joel the repentance ceremony and the priestly intercession mark the shift from judgment to divine mercy and restoration ( Joel 2:17–18), whereas in the book of Amos the shift from divine mercy to divine judgment is marked by the priest’s prohibition on prophesy. We shall see that, by silencing the prophet, the priest also brought an end to Amos’s intercessory prayer and Yhwh’s patience. Thus, one could say that God’s patience ends where the state, represented by the priest, tries to decide when and where God may speak through the prophet. Reading in canonical order, Joel signals that the Lord is willing to relent if the people turn back to God ( Joel 2:12–14). Although Amos does not explicitly call for repentance, he believes that God was hoping that His people would repent (Amos 4:6–12, 5:15). Why does Amos not summon Israel to repent? Has it to do with what God has revealed to him in His five visions?

Amos’s Intercessory Prayers The Five Visions Before we look at the content of the visions, first will be a word regarding their position in the book of Amos. At first sight, it appears rather odd that Amos’s visionary experiences are reported only at the end of the book. This is particularly the case if we consider that the content of the visions (that is, Israel’s grave sin) and the outcome of Yhwh’s decision are already disclosed in previous chapters and thus presupposed. 26 The repetitive divine speeches against the nations (“Thus, says the Lord: For three transgressions of . . . and for four, I will not revoke the punishment. . . . I will send a fire,” Amos 2:6) seem to presuppose and reflect the visions. 27 26.  If the beginning of Amos’s prophetic role goes back to the five visions, which is quite possible (von Rad), this would underline the unusual position of the visions in the book (cf. Isa 6, Ezek 3, 1 Sam 3, Exod 3). 27.  Jeremias, Amos, 97.

488

Chapter 10

Chapters 3–6 report in great detail Israel’s corruption and thus reenforce the truth that their end is sealed (cf. Amos 8:2, 9:1–4). So what is the possible reason for placing Amos’s visions at the end of the book? Is it possible that Israel’s sin first needed articulation before the reader is ready to hear Yhwh’s decision to punish Israel? 28 This may be comparable with Abraham’s prayer over the fate of Sodom (Gen 18:18–33). There too, the reader is first granted insight into the sinfulness of Sodom and Gomorrah, via the dialogue between Yhwh and Abraham, before the divine judgment is exercised in chap. 19. Both Sodom and Israel have sinned themselves beyond the reach of prophetic intercession. Moreover, when we look at Amos’s visions, we shall see that none of them contain any explicit divine instruction to proclaim what he was shown. It seems that the visions are primarily for Amos’s personal understanding of Yhwh and His will for Israel. Thus, the question arises as to the connection between the visions and Amos’s messages. Does Amos provide us with any clues as to how the “prophetic process” works from seeing and hearing from Yhwh to the actual prophetic proclamation? Finally, another question that I would like to keep in the back of the mind is the relationship between the visions and the prophetic intercessions. Given that Amos’s recorded intercessory prayers are in response to only the first and second vision, what does this tell us about listening to God? So let us turn to the visions. Yhwh shows (‫ראה‬, Hiphil) the prophet five visions. It is likely that the designation “seer,” as the priest calls Amos (‫חֹזֶה‬, Amos 7:12), provides some insight. One of the characteristics of the biblical prophets is their visionary experiences (cf. Num 12:6). Samuel is also called a seer in the context of being shown the whereabouts of the lost asses (1 Sam 9:5–10). 29 Other more dramatic visionary experiences happen to Isaiah and Ezekiel when they behold God’s presence and holiness in the temple (Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 3). Although Amos also sees God standing on the wall (Amos 7:7), the vision is concerned not with God’s appearance, but with divine judgment. This leads Keil to the conclusion that Amos’s visions are “inward intuitions, produced by the Spirit of God.” 30 It seems as if Amos had seen these visions over a period of some time, as the different seasons alluded to in them seem to indicate (spring, summer, and autumn 31), and yet they were composed as one literary piece. In other 28.  Ibid. 29.  Here, a different Hebrew word for “seer” is used: ‫רֹאֶה‬. The meaning, however, is barely distinguishable from ‫חֹזֶה‬. Cf. THAT 2:697–98. 30.  Keil, Amos, 220. The verb probably denotes seeing with the eyes of the mind. 31. The late crops were probably planted in late January–early March and sprouted with the spring rains (March–April). The “showers of fire” may be an allusion to Sodom and Gomorrah, but it may also be just a poetic way of refering to a severe drought caused by the hot southeastern winds that occur in summer, while the ripe fruits point to autumn. For a discussion of the ancient Israelite agricultural calendar, see Oded Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009) 31–44.

Amos: The Logic of Intercessory Prayer

489

words, these vision experiences are consciously crafted and intended to be interpreted in sequence as a unit. The first four visions are presented as two pairs, each pair showing the same result. As we shall see in more detail, in the first two visions Yhwh changes His mind regarding the intended punitive judgment (cf. Amos 7:3, 6). In the second pair, Yhwh tells His prophet that He can no longer overlook Israel’s sin (lit., “pass over him,” Amos 7:8, 8:2). The first four visions are all introduced with the same formula: “This is what the Lord God showed me” (‫ְהוה‬ ִ ‫ ;ּכֹה ִה ְר ַאנִי אֲדֹנָי י‬Amos 7:1, 4, 7; 8:1). The final vision forms the climax of the visionary series. Amos sees Yhwh standing on the altar, presumably in Bethel, the royal sanctuary (Amos 9:1). Instead of bringing blessing to Israel, Yhwh, like a warrior, brings destruction to the temple and to the people. There will be no escape (Amos 9:1–4). As we have already indicated, Amos’s visions should probably be interpreted as a process by which God has guided His prophet to understand the evolving situation. 32 Reading the five visions as a process that develops from divine mercy and patience to a resolute judgment has also important implications for the interpretation of Amos’s prayers. The intercessions occur at the beginning of the process in which Israel’s future was seemingly still open (Amos 7:1–6). So let us look at the visions individually, especially the first two in which the intercessions occur. The First Vision: “O Lord God, Forgive, I Beg You!” (Amos 7:1–3) This is what the Lord God showed me: he was forming locusts at the time the latter growth began to sprout (it was the latter growth after the king’s mowings). When they had finished eating the grass of the land ֶׂ ‫ם־ּכּלָה ֶלאֱכֹול אֶת־ע‬ (‫ֵשב ָה ָארֶץ‬ ִ ‫)ו ָהיָה ִא‬, ְ I said, “O Lord God, forgive, I beg you (‫ְהוה ְסלַח־נָא‬ ִ ‫ !)אֲדֹנָי י‬How can Jacob stand? He is so small! (‫”)ּכי ָקטֹן הּוא‬ ִ The Lord relented concerning this (‫) ִנחַם יְהוָה עַל־זֹאת‬: “It shall not be,” said the Lord. (Amos 7:1–3)

From a literary perspective Amos’s first vision is constructed in parallel to the second, and thus they should be interpreted together. Both visions move from God’s intended judgment to a divine change of mind (Amos 7:3, 6). At first sight the content of the visions differ, while Amos’s intercession and Yhwh’s reaction seem almost identical. As we shall see, however, there is a significant development from the first to the second vision. In the first vision, Amos sees God forming locusts (‫ )יֹוצֵר ּגֹבַי‬that would devour the second harvest. In other words, the text is clear that God intentionally creates insects to bring about His punishment through what looks to the undiscerning human eye like a natural disaster. 33 There is some discussion about the timing of Amos’s prayer. Some commentators argue that 32.  Jeremias, Amos, 96. 33.  The same verb (‫ )יצר‬is used when God creates the animals (cf. Gen 2:19).

490

Chapter 10

Amos’s intercessory prayer came too late because all the grass of the land has already been destroyed (cf. nrsv). The MT in v. 2 is difficult to translate. It could be rendered, “It was as if he was to eat the grass of the land completely, when I said,” or “When he was about to eat the grass completely.” 34 Because the events are visions and not real, it seems that we need not speculate when and how Amos managed to stop the locust plague. Rather, the prophet, especially with his farming background, knew God was disclosing to him that Israel’s future looked potentially bleak and devastated. In a surge of pity, the prophet intercedes on behalf of sinful Israel, asking God to pardon Israel. “Forgive, I beg you!” (‫)סלַח־נָא‬. ְ Several Hebrew terms are used to talk about divine and human forgiveness. The word ‫סלח‬, however, is always used with God as the subject (that is, it is a theological verb). In other words, only Yhwh can grant ‫ס ִליחָה‬. ְ In the Old Testament, however, we encounter a whole range of shades of forgiveness. Does Amos seek complete cancellation of Israel’s sin? 35 Or does the prophet hope that Yhwh will postpone the punishment and thereby preserve the covenant relationship? 36 For a start, we note that Amos’s appeal for divine ‫ְס ִליחָה‬ shows some verbal parallels to Moses’ fourth prayer for divine pardon after Israel’s golden calf idolatry and Moses’ prayer for forgiveness in Kadesh after­Israel’s rebellion. Not only does the same verb appear there similarly in the context of an intercessory prayer, but these are also the first two instances of the verb ‫ סלח‬in the Old Testament. O Lord, I pray, let the Lord go with us. Because it is a stiff-necked people (‫שה־עֹרֶף הּוא‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ַם־ק‬ ְ ‫)ּכי ע‬, ִ pardon our iniquity (‫)ו ָסל ְַח ָּת ַלעֲֹונֵנּו‬ ְ and our sin, and take us for your inheritance. (Exod 34:9) 37 Forgive the iniquity of this people (‫)סלַח־נָא ַלעֲֹון ָהעָם‬ ְ according to the greatness of your steadfast love, just as you have pardoned this people, from Egypt even until now. (Num 14:19)

On both occasions, Moses explicitly acknowledges the people’s sinfulness and makes a passionate plea for their pardon (cf. Exod 32:31). One could argue that Amos, by praying for Israel’s forgiveness, also implicitly ac34. MT: ‫ֵשׂב ָה ָארֶץ‬ ֶ ‫ם־כּלָה ֶלאֱכֹול אֶת־ע‬ ּ ִ ‫ו ָהיָה ִא‬.ְ The verbal form ‫ ְו ָהיָה‬is often rendered with a future tense, and yet the meaning of the verb ‫( כלה‬Piel) is “complete.” See Jeremias, Amos, 94. 35.  Because there is no mention of any atoning means, Hesse (Die Fürbitte, 43) argues that one can assume that Amos still perceived his intercession to have atoning power on its own, and that he operated with full prophetic authority. According to J. Stamm (THAT 2:152), ‫ סלח‬is a parallel expression to ‫( נקה‬Piel, “to declare innocent”), ‫“( נׂשא‬to nullify” [aufheben]), ‫( כפר‬Piel, “to atone” [entsündigen]). All verbs are concerned with aspects of forgiveness/pardon. 36.  See my Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer: A Study of Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 13–14 (FAT 2/8; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 316–18, for the meaning of Moses’ plea for ‫ ְס ִליחָה‬in the context of Exodus 34 and Numbers 14. 37.  My translation. See ibid., 208, for a fuller discussion on why the particle ‫ ִּכי‬should be ascribed causative force.

Amos: The Logic of Intercessory Prayer

491

knowledges the people’s guilt. As Israel’s guilt calls for punishment, Amos also begs for divine forgiveness (‫ְהוה ְסלַח־נָא‬ ִ ‫אֲדֹנָי י‬, Amos 7:2). Interestingly, neither Moses nor Amos calls the people to repentance; instead, they hold up Israel’s weakness before God. There is good reason to argue that Moses bases his plea for forgiveness precisely on the fact that Israel is stiffnecked (Exod 34:9). In other words, Moses not only acknowledges Israel’s stiffneckedness, but he appears to promote Israel’s hopeless state as the principal reason for Yhwh’s pardon for the people. 38 Amos also holds up Israel’s vulnerability before God. “How can Jacob stand? He is so small!” (‫מי יָקּום יַעֲק ֹב ִּכי ָקטֹן הּוא‬, ִ Amos 7:2). The name Jacob combined with the adjective little illuminates the intercessory prayer of Amos in a number of ways. First, by avoiding the term Israel and choosing the name Jacob, Amos is possibly alluding to the patriarch, the founder of the Bethel sanctuary (cf. Gen 28:10–22). At this very location, God appeared to “little” Jacob, not in a vision but in a dream, and reassured to the one who betrayed his brother and thus had “no legal right” that the promises made to Abraham and Isaac—namely, the gift of the land and the increase of descendants, is still valid. Moreover, God assured “little” Jacob, Know that I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you. (Gen 28:15)

It seems likely that Amos, by choosing the name Jacob, seeks to evoke Yhwh’s parental mercy. After all, God Himself brought about the miracle of birth to Isaac and Rebecca in order to protect His promise of building a people to Himself (cf. Gen 25:21, 12:2). Should the divine promise made to Abraham really come to an end in Amos’s time (Amos 6:8–9)? Interestingly, Amos does not directly appeal to Yhwh’s promises to the patriarchs, as we find it in other prayers, where there is little ground to appeal to Yhwh’s covenant obligation (cf. Exod 32:13). By referring to “smallness,” Amos may well allude both to Jacob’s vulnerability and Israel’s helplessness. Amos knows that the God of Israel is particularly committed to the small and vulnerable (cf. Gen 28:15, Exod 22:21–24, Deut 7:7). The prophet’s plea also resonates with the proverbial caution: “Do not rob the vulnerable because they are vulnerable” (‫דַ ּל‬, Prov 22:22). 39 Brueggemann draws attention to a number of texts that emphasize Israel’s “smallness.” 40 He concludes that these references underline two 38.  See also R. W. L. Moberly, At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34 ( JSOTSup 22; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983) 88. 39.  Hans Walter Wolff, Dodekapropheton, vol. 2: Joel und Amos (BKAT 14/2; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969) 343. The Schlachter (1951) and Zürcher (2007) translations convey the same meaning. 40. Walter Brueggemann, “Amos’ Intercessory Formula,” VT 19 (1969) 43–44. Cf. Gen 29:16, 18; 1 Sam 9:21.

492

Chapter 10

dimensions of “smallness”: (1) they describe the person who lacks legal credentials to make a claim for himself, and (2) they describe a person who is totally dependent on another for his position or power that is not his right but a gift granted to him. 41 Both aspects would apply to Jacob. First, he betrayed both his father and older brother and thus forfeited his legal rights. Second, when Jacob meets Esau on his return, his vulnerability and dependence on God come clearly to expression in his prayer, as recorded in Genesis 32. And Jacob said, “O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, O Lord who said to me, ‘Return to your country and to your kindred, and I will do you good,’ I am not worthy of the least of all the steadfast love and all the faithfulness that you have shown to your servant (ָ‫ׂית אֶת־ע ְַב ֶדּך‬ ָ ‫ָש‬ ִ ‫ֲשר ע‬ ֶׁ ‫אמֶת א‬ ֱ ‫ּומּכָל־ ָה‬ ִ ‫ָדים‬ ִ ‫חס‬ ֲ ‫ְּתי ִמּכֹל ַה‬ ִ ‫)קטֹנ‬, ָ for with only my staff I crossed this Jordan; and now I have become two companies. Deliver me, please, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau, for I am afraid of him; he may come and kill us all, the mothers with the children. (Gen 32:9–11[MT 32:10–12]).

In this prayer Jacob highlights his vulnerability (‫ְּתי‬ ִ ‫)קטֹנ‬ ָ and helplessness with regard to Esau. His brother has, strictly speaking, the legal right to punish the deceiver. Thus, Jacob is not worthy of God’s covenant loyalty and faithfulness (‫אמֶת‬ ֱ and ‫) ֶחסֶד‬. When we return to Amos with these scriptural reverberations in the background, Brueggemann argues that Amos, as Israel’s covenant mediator, can and does appeal to Yhwh’s obligation to maintain the covenant in the light of the promise tradition. 42 It seems, however, that we need to be careful about reading too much covenant theology into Amos’s prayer. 43 We must recognize that, as Israel’s eventual punishment confirms, the people of God have actually lost their “legal” claim to divine protection and the land. As Amos’s messages underline again and again, Israel acts corruptly, they exploit the vulnerable, and they take Yhwh’s name in vain. Thus, it seems more likely that Amos appeals here not so much to Yhwh’s covenant loyalty but to divine grace and mercy. The prophet knows that Israel, like Jacob, depends totally on Yhwh’s grace. Thus, in affirming that Jacob is “little” (in contrast to Edom; cf. Amos 1:6, 9, 2:1–2), Amos acknowledges that Jacob’s history has been totally dependent on Yhwh’s grace and mercy. Thus, he can do nothing but pray for divine forgiveness. With regard to the question “How can Jacob stand” (‫)מי יָקּום יַעֲקֹב‬, ִ Brueggemann draws an interesting parallel to the psalms of lament (e.g. “Who rises up for me [‫]מי־יָקּום ִלי‬ ִ against the wicked, who stands up for me,” Ps 94:16). Israel usually voices its laments when the covenant relation is not 41. Cf. ibid., 42–46. 42.  Ibid., 44. 43. Wilhelm Rudolph, Joel, Amos, Obadja, Jona (KAT 13; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1971) 231.

Amos: The Logic of Intercessory Prayer

493

functioning properly anymore. When that happens, it must be determined who has breached the covenant. If the people acknowledge their guilt, then they can confess and repent. When Israel claims innocence, it must somehow make Yhwh responsible for the disruption. Thus, the psalms of lament often vacillate between lament and accusation. According to Brueggemann, Amos’s question “how can Jacob stand” in Amos 7:2, 5 reflects the form of a lament. Both prayers are attempts to get Yhwh to act for His covenant people. 44 Here, the same argument as before must be upheld against Brueggemann. Amos has no grounds on which he could appeal to Yhwh’s covenant obligation. Yhwh’s patience and covenant fidelity has been tested long enough (cf. Amos 4:6–13, 5:4). Amos’s prayer for divine pardon is purely based on the merciful and gracious character of God. 45 The God of the Bible is slow to anger and allows His prophet to affect a postponement of the intended punishment. 46 It is important to note though that Yhwh does not explicitly forgive Israel’s guilt for which Amos has seemingly prayed. In other words, Israel is granted a period of grace. Yhwh cannot bring Himself to execute the well-deserved punishment yet. Following the first vision, the second is introduced with precisely the same wording as the first. The Second Vision: “O Lord God, Cease, I Beg You!” (Amos 7:4–6) This is what the Lord God showed me: the Lord God was calling for a shower of fire (‫ְהוה‬ ִ ‫ָרב ָּבאֵׁש אֲדֹנָי י‬ ִ‫)ו ִהּנֵה קֹרֵא ל‬, ְ and it devoured the great deep (‫)ּתהֹום רַ ּבָה‬ ְ and was eating up the land. Then I said, “O Lord God, cease, I beg you! How can Jacob stand? (‫ )חֲדַ ל־נָא ִמי יָקּום יַעֲק ֹב‬He is so small!” (‫ִּכי ָקטֹן‬ ‫ )הּוא‬The Lord relented concerning this (‫“ ;) ִנחַם יְהוָה עַל־זֹאת‬This also shall not be,” said the Lord God. (Amos 7:4–6)

The Lord reveals anew to His prophet His intentions. This time, God plans to execute His judgment through fire (Amos 7:4). The exact meaning of the vision, however, is not quite clear. Not only is the Hebrew syntax complicated 47 but the content of the vision is not easy to interpret either. What does the great deep (‫)ּתהֹום רַ ּבָה‬ ְ refer to that is about to be consumed by the divine fire? Amos speaks several times of Yhwh’s fire (Amos 1:4, 7, 10, 12, 44.  Brueggemann, “Amos,” 50. 45. In the context of Moses’ prayers for divine pardon, we have seen that the plea includes the preservation of the covenant relationship (Exod 34:9, Num 14:18–20). 46. We have discussed the important theological concept of God’s mutability (expressed through the term ‫ )נחם‬in considerable depth in the context of Moses’ first prayer after the golden calf incident (i.e., Exod 32:10–14). 47.  Probably a better translation would be, “Behold, the Lord God is calling to contend with fire.” But both renderings are problematic syntactically. Thus, some commentators emend the text to ‫רבבל אׁש‬, “(calling) for a shower of fire.” The nrsv opts for this interpretation. Cf. Francis I. Andersen and David N. Freedman, Amos (AB 24A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1989) 746–47.

494

Chapter 10

14; 2:2; 5:6). But what is the point of consuming the great deep or the cosmic ocean as it is sometimes called (cf. Gen 1:2, 7:11, 8:2)? Keil argues that we are dealing here with a “figurative representation of the judgment of destruction.” According to him, the “great deep” is not the ocean but the heathen world, the great sea of nations, in their rebellion against the kingdom of God. Keil points out that the world of nature in a state of agitation is a frequent symbol in the Scriptures for the agitated heathen world (e.g. Pss 46, 93). He comments: The stormy sea is a figurative representation of the whole heathen world, in its estrangement from God, and enmity against Him, or the human race outside the true church of God; . . . This symbolism lies at the foundation of the vision seen by the prophet. . . . The world of nations, in its rebellion against Jehovah, the Lord and King of the world, appears as a great flood, like the chaos at the beginning of the creation, or the flood which poured out its waves upon the globe in the time of Noah. Upon this flood of nations does fire from the Lord fall down and consume them; and after consuming them, it begins to devour the inheritance of Jehovah, the nation of Israel also. 48

It is correct that in Amos’s speeches against the nations, we read that God will send His fire of judgment on the peoples who have breached His standards (e.g., Amos 1:4). Moreover, the nations are frequently referred to as raging oceans and chaos water. Nowhere, however, does the “big deep” directly correspond to the nations. So it is probably more likely that the “great deep” refers to the cosmic ocean that belonged to the ancient cosmology and that feeds the earth and all its springs from below (cf. Gen 7:11, 49:25). 49 The book of Joel may provide some interpretive help. The prophet writes about an actual drought that is caused by critical heat. This drought is also referred to figuratively as “fire” (cf. Joel 1:19–20, 2:3). Given the many parallels between the two books, it makes good sense to interpret Amos’s judgment fire also as fierce heat that evaporates the groundwater levels, thereby making the soil unusable. 50 This would be the end of farming livelihood in Palestine. When we turn to Amos’s actual prayer, we notice that he no longer prays for forgiveness (‫)סלַח־נָא‬, ְ but cries only for a halt (‫ ;חֲדַ ל־נָא‬cf. Amos 7:2, 5). The similarity of wording and Yhwh’s response underline the difference of the petition all the more. Why does Amos not pray for forgiveness as the first time anymore, but only cries “Please stop”? Is the second vision revealing a more severe judgment and thus requires a more urgent prayer? It seems more likely that Amos has realized in the light of the second vision that Yhwh had not granted forgiveness after his first intercessory prayer. God merely relented with regard to the intended punishment. In other 48.  Keil, Amos, 222. 49.  Wolff, Amos, 344; Jeremias, Amos, 100. 50.  Rudolph, Amos, 233.

Amos: The Logic of Intercessory Prayer

495

words, what is hoped for here is not an annulment of Israel’s guilt but an annulment of Yhwh’s punitive intentions. To be more precise, the logic of the text development shows that God has not annulled the judgment but deferred it to a later point in time in a different form. If this understanding is close to the logic of the text, it makes sense that Amos no longer prays for divine forgiveness but “merely” for a halt to the forthcoming judgment. Thus, we could infer from this development that the prophet has learned to listen to God and thus has adjusted his intercession. He does not pray for divine forgiveness anymore but for divine patience. The divine response is phrased in the same way: “The Lord relented concerning this” (‫) ִנחַם יְהוָה עַל־זֹאת‬, that is, regarding the judgment. “This also shall not be,” said the Lord God (Amos 7:6, 3). Again, Yhwh allows Himself to be persuaded by the one He has informed about His plans. God endures Israel’s guilt and withdraws from His plan out of compassion towards “little Jacob.” As we have noted in the context of Moses’ prayer, the word ‫ נחם‬does not mean that God repents, as though Yhwh was going to do something morally wrong (cf. Exod 32:14). Rather, the term, when it is used with Yhwh as its subject, should be rendered with relenting, in the sense of changing the mind regarding a justified punishment. 51 Usually when God changes His mind, it is a gracious response, either to an intercessory prayer or because people turn back (‫ )ׁשּוב‬to Him in repentance (cf. Jer 18:8–10). Thus, we conclude with Jeremias that the change of Yhwh’s mind is intrinsically connected with (1) the divine punitive intentions (2) the prophetic intercession, and (3) the postponement or the annulment of the divine judgment. In other words, divine mutability, according to the first two visions, presupposes God’s intention to punish Israel, a prophetic plea for mercy, and God’s willingness to show grace and mercy. A close conceptual parallel to the dynamics of the first two intercessory prayers is possible in Hos 11:8. There, we find the semantically related ‫ֻמים‬ ִ ‫ְנח‬ (“compassion”) that gives expression to the divine pathos as Yhwh wrestles over the possibility of giving up Israel because of her many sins: How can I give you up, O Ephraim. . . . My heart is changed within me; all my compassion is aroused (‫ִכ ְמרּו נִחּומָי‬ ְ ‫ֶהּפ ְַך ָעלַי ִל ִּבי יַחַד נ‬ ְ ‫)נ‬. I will not execute my fierce anger. (Hos 11:8–9, NIV)

There are verbal and conceptual parallels between Hosea and our passage. It must remain open, however, to what degree Hosea 11 can comment on God’s change of will in Amos 7. In the context of Amos’s intercession, one could say though that God allowed Himself to be softened. Jeremias speaks of divine self-control and divine self-overcoming. 52 After Yhwh has 51.  Cf. Terence E. Fretheim, “The Repentance of God: A Key to Evaluating Old Testament God-Talk,” HBT (1988) 47–70; Jeremias, Die Reue, 40­– 48. 52.  Jeremias, Die Reue, 46, speaks of “sich erweichen, sich umstimmen lassen” and of divine “Selbstbeherschung and Selbstüberwindung.”

496

Chapter 10

allowed Himself to postpone His justified judgment again, Amos is shown a third and fourth vision. The Third and Fourth Vision: “The Time Is Ripe!”(Amos 7:7–8:3) Just like the first pair of visions, so the second pair needs to be interpreted together. As in the first two visions, so here too the basis of the visionary experience is a dialogue between Yhwh and the prophet. However, the tone is fundamentally different. While the first two testify to the prophet’s persuasive intercessory prayers before God, the second pair shows that Israel’s fate is now seemingly beyond any intercessory influence. ְ ‫אנ‬ The Lord was standing beside a wall built with a plumb line (‫ָך‬ ֲ ), with a plumb line in his hand. And the Lord said to me, “Amos, what do you see?” And I said, “A plumb line.” Then the Lord said, “See, I am setting a plumb line in the midst of my people Israel; I will never again pass them ֹ ‫ ;)ל‬the high places of Isaac shall be made desolate, by (‫א־אֹוסיף עֹוד עֲבֹור לֹו‬ ִ and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste, and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword.” (Amos 7:7–9)

ְ ‫אנ‬ The term ‫ָך‬ ֲ appears not fewer than four times in two verses. It is clearly the key term of the third vision. The problem is that this term appears only here in the Hebrew Bible and it is not entirely clear what it actually means. 53 Since the Middle Ages, it has been rendered as “plumb line.” 54 According to this interpretation, the plumb line symbolizes God’s moral standards, His righteousness, by which Yhwh will assess Israel’s wall. Are they a straight or a crooked wall? 55 Although the image of the plumb line has become one of the favorite terms borrowed from the book of Amos, it is not certain that ְ ‫אנ‬ ‫ָך‬ ֲ means “plumb line.” From the second part of the third vision and the content of the fourth, we can infer that the vision is probably saying that Israel’s moral wall is so crooked that it can no longer be repaired and thus 53. Benno Landsberger (“Tin and Lead,” JNES 24 [1965] 285–296) has made a strong case that behind the Hebrew is an Akkadian cognate and probably means “tin.” Jeremias (Amos, 95–96) translates thus that “Yhwh stands on a wall made of tin and in his hand was tin” (Amos 7:7). What would be the meaning of a wall built with tin? The tin wall of the vision, if it symbolizes Israel, may suggest weakness and vulnerability to judgment. Thus, when Yhwh holds tin and places it among the people, it would probably mean that God makes them weak and vulnerable. The LXX is of little interpretive help as it renders the Hebrew with ἀδάμας, likely referring to hardened metal, probably steel. It has also been ְ ‫אנ‬ argued that the term ‫ָך‬ ֲ in v. 8b is a homonym meaning “grief” (this term is attested in ְ ‫אנ‬ postbiblical Hebrew). In this case, there is a wordplay, the ‫ָך‬ ֲ (“tin”) of the vision suggestְ ing the ‫אנָך‬ ֲ (“grief”) that judgment will bring on the land. See Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 759. ְ ‫אנ‬ 54.  The traditional interpretation of the term (reflected in most translations) ‫ָך‬ ֲ was “lead,” and by extension, “plumb line.” This interpretation appeared for the first time ְ ‫אנ‬ as a guess in the medieval commentators Ibn Ezra and Rashi. HALOT still renders ‫ָך‬ ֲ as “plumb line.” 55. See Hugh G. M. Williamson, “The Prophet and the Plumb-Line: A Redaction-­ Critical Study of Amos vii,” OTS 26 (1990) 101–21.

Amos: The Logic of Intercessory Prayer

497

needs to be pulled down. This would be confirmed by judgment speeches against Israel’s cultic places (Amos 7:9) and the one about the basket of fruit (Amos 8:1–3). The latter contains a memorable play on words in the Hebrew.  56 Just as fruit is ripe for harvesting, so is Israel ripe for judgment. Perhaps further interpretive help comes from the book of Joel. In our previous section, I drew attention to the parallel sequence of locusts and fire in Joel and Amos. If after the locusts and the fire follows the vision about the wall in Amos, then perhaps we should associate Joel’s reference to the army of Yhwh that is about to invade the city ( Joel 2:9–11) also with Amos’s third vision. 57 According to the third vision, the target of Yhwh’s wrath are not only Israel’s idolatrous high places (cf. 1  Kgs 3:2) and the sanctuaries at Bethel, Dan, and Gilgal (Amos 4:4) but also the royal house of Jeroboam. In other words, as in the book of Joel, Yhwh comes as a divine warrior to execute His judgment: “I [Yhwh] will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword” (Amos 7:8–9). It is precisely this part of the vision that the priest Amaziah brings to the attention of Jeroboam (“Amos has said, ‘Jeroboam shall die by the sword,’” Amos 7:11). As a result, the priest attempts to silence the prophet: “O seer, go, flee away to the land of Judah, earn your bread there, and prophesy there; but never again prophesy at Bethel, for it is the king’s sanctuary, and it is a temple of the kingdom.” (Amos 7:12–13)

Amos replies to the priest that the Lord Himself has commissioned him to: “Go, prophesy to my people Israel.” (Amos 7:15)

These verses witness to more than the seemingly perpetual tension between established religion and the independent prophetic faith; they are also about whether God’s word will come to a fulfillment or not. Rendtorff puts it as follows: Official Israel rejects here the offer of the prophetic admonition and direction and thereby loses the last opportunity, to delay the “end” of which the fourth vision speaks (8:1). 58

This connection between the third vision and the narrative illustrates well how the dynamics between standing in the divine council, intercession, and prophetic proclamation works. The prophet is made privy of God’s intention and purposes. Then Amos has to consolidate his experience at Bethel with what he has learned and seen in his previous visions and respond then in prayer and/or in a judgment speech. Here, Amos declares fierce punishment on Amaziah and his house because the priest rejected 56. The niv seeks to give expression to the wordplay between ‫( קיץ‬summer fruit) and ‫( קֵץ‬end) by rendering it: “The time is ripe for my people Israel.” 57.  Scoralick, Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn, 181. 58. Rolf Rendtorff, Theologie des Alten Testaments: Ein Kanonischer Entwurf, vol. 1: Kanon­ ische Grundlegung (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999) 266 (my translation).

498

Chapter 10

the word of the Lord (Amos 7:16–17). The divine judgment is confirmed in the fourth vision (cf. Amos 8:3). For our purposes, it is noteworthy that Amos no longer intercedes from the third vision onward. Is there something definite in the vision that keeps Amos from praying on behalf of vulnerable Israel? Is it Yhwh’s firm resolve to punish Israel’s cult and monarchy? In v. 8, we read that God will never again “pass over” Israel (in mercy), in the sense that God will no longer overlook their sin and guilt. One could deduce from the development of the account that the prophet is being instructed by Yhwh how to respond. In the first two visions, God reveals His punitive intentions and thereby opens Himself to prophetic advocacy. In the third and fourth vision, however, Yhwh asks Amos what he sees, as though to make the prophet realize for himself how grave Israel’s situation has become. Following the narrative sequence, Amos experiences the seriousness of Israel’s sin for himself in his encounter with Israel’s religious establishment (Amos 7:10–17). Yhwh then uses Amos’s observation as the basis for the final divine verdict: “I will spare them no longer” (niv; cf. Amos 7:8, 8:2). These visions happened only between Yhwh and Amos. In solitude, perhaps like in Abraham’s case, Yhwh not only reveals His intentions but also invites prophetic participation in leading Amos into the realization that Israel has sinned themselves beyond the reach of prophetic intercession. From Amos’s two intercessions, we know that the prophet was fully committed to Israel, even if they could not bear him (cf. Amos 7:10). The overruling theological message of these visions is that when God’s word is consistently rejected, there comes eventually a time when the divine punishment can no longer be postponed. Like Abraham, Amos too is being taught by God about the meaning of divine mercy and justice (Gen 18:16–33). In contrast to Abraham, Amos is called to become a messenger of judgment and doom. This process, as we have seen, is also central to the intercessory ministry of Jeremiah. There too, the sinfulness of the people reached a level at which Yhwh had to prohibit his prophet from praying for his people (cf. Jer 7:16, 11:14, 14:11, 15:1).

Concluding Summary The first four visions come in two pairs (locusts and fire in 7:1–3 and 7:4–6; plumb line and ripe fruit in 7:7–8 and 8:1–3). We have seen that these four visions are characterized by literary symmetry and a process of thought that demonstrates why Yhwh brought about His judgment on Israel. In response to the first two visions Amos cries out on behalf of Israel. As a result, God shows mercy and changes His punitive intentions. The first intercession aims at Israel’s forgiveness. It looks as though Amos alludes to “little Jacob” in the hope that Yhwh would remember His gracious involvement in the life of Israel’s eponymous patriarch and thereby would show once again grace to guilty and vulnerable “Jacob.” However, there is no

Amos: The Logic of Intercessory Prayer

499

mention of forgiveness of sins. The prayer is “only” successful in the sense that Yhwh changed His mind with regard to the announced punishment. In response to the second intercession, Amos no longer prays for divine forgiveness but aims only at the cessation of the announced rain of fire. The difference between these two prayers suggests a subtle but deeper meaning, namely, Amos seems to have realized that Yhwh did not grant the requested forgiveness. After all, God has just revealed to him that He intends to bring another punishment on Israel. In other words, Amos’s first prayer achieved divine patience, not forgiveness. As a result, the prophet appears to have adjusted his prayer for the people in line with Yhwh’s further revelation. Thus, as Wolff observes, it is simplistic to say that God granted Amos’s prayer twice, but no longer after that. 59 The careful reader recognizes that already, between the first and second vision, there is a growing awareness in the prophet that Yhwh’s patience is coming to an end and that God would no longer forgive his people. We have seen, particularly in the context of Moses’ prayers, that Yhwh’s forbearance, His willingness to bear with sinners, waiting for them to change, is a central attribute of who God is in relation to His people (cf. Num 14:18). By the third and fourth vision it is absolutely clear that the divine patience has finally reached its limit. The picture of the divine plumb line has shown that the moral wall of Israel can no longer stand before Yhwh. It needs to be pulled down. This decision is reinforced by the fact that both priest and king have rejected the divine word (Amos 7:10–17) and then confirmed in the fourth vision of the basket of fruit: “the end has come upon my people” (Amos 8:2). The judgment is then sealed in the final vision that makes clear that Yhwh will not allow a single person to go unpunished (Amos 9:1–4). It seems to me that the sequence of these visions suggests a learning process on Amos’s part. Yhwh leads and instructs His servant step by step as he did with Abraham (Gen 18:16–33), before Amos fully realized the inevitable end of his generation. 60 Thus, one could say that the sequence of these visions could be taken as a commentary on Amos 3:7. “Surely the Lord God does nothing, without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets.” This, as we have pointed out again and again in this book, has key implications for a correct understanding of prophetic intercessory prayer and how it relates to prophetic speech. Goldingay makes this clear, Intercession belongs to the prophet’s role for the same reason that prophecy belongs to it. Prophets belong to Yhwh’s cabinet ( Jeremiah 23:18). They thus know the cabinet’s decisions and are in a position to prophecy, but are also in a position to take part in its actual deliberations, and in 59.  Wolff, Joel und Amos, 350. 60. Jörg Jeremias, “The interrelationship between Amos and Hosea,” in Forming Prophetic Literature (ed. J. W. Watts and P. R. House; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 179.

500

Chapter 10

particular to question plans announced by Yhwh. Prophets urge God to take mercy seriously as they urge people to take wrath seriously. 61

So when Amos pronounces divine judgment on guilty Israel, on the Bethel sancturary, and its priest, it is because Yhwh had revealed His verdict to His prophet (Amos 3:7, 7:9). Likewise, when Amos pleads for divine mercy on behalf of Israel, he could do this because he was made privy to Israel’s forthcoming judgment. 62 Just as Abraham could only intercede for Sodom and Gomorrah after God had revealed to him His intentions (Gen 18:17), and Moses could only pacify Yhwh on his way down from Sinai because Yhwh did not hide His wrath and destructive plans from His servant (Exod 32:7–14). Participating in the divine council, or being shown visions, is in all likelihood a synonym for standing in the presence of God. 63

Further Theological Reflections The Logic and Authority of Prophetic Intercession and Proclamation Let us think a bit more about the relation between God’s visions and Amos’s actual proclamations. This interplay raises important issues about speaking for God (truthfully or falsely) and inspiration. Gowan writes that to have experienced visions today does not put a person in the same league as Amos or Isaiah. It was not the paranormal experience, but the content of the message they received through those experiences that gave their work lasting importance. Their descriptions of visions bring us as close as we can get to the “process” of divine inspiration, however, and that is not very close. There has been much speculation about the way the authors of Scripture achieved their insights, ranging from assuming it was a purely human process to theories of divine dictation that bypassed the human mind completely. 64

Divine speeches in the Old Testament are often introduced with “Thus, says the Lord” (‫)ּכֹה־ ָאמַר יְהוָה‬. It is less clear, however, whether these prophetic messages were directly given to the prophets through certain visions 61. John Goldingay, “The Logic of Intercession,” Theology 101 (1998) 266; Jacob, “Prophètes,” 207–8 reinforces the same point: Il [prophet] est le seul à vraiment connaître Dieu, à avoir pénétré dans son entourage et dans ses intentions, car “Le Seigneur Dieu ne fait rien sans révéler son secret à ses serviteurs les prophète” (Am 3,7). Aussi le prophète peut-il, en connaissance de cause pour ainsi dire, s’adresser à Dieu pour amener éventuellement à modifier ses desseins. On pensait même que Dieu ne pouvait pas ne pas être sensible à la presence interpellante du prophète: “Pourrais-je cacher à Abraham ce que je vais faire?” (Gen 18:17) 62. Cf. Jeremias, Amos, 96–100. 63.  See Patrick D. Miller, “Prayer and Divine Action,” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann (ed. T. Linafelt and T. K. Beal; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) 229–32, for some reflections on the complex imagery of the divine council and its relation to prayer. 64.  Gowan, Amos, 407–8.

Amos: The Logic of Intercessory Prayer

501

or auditory experiences. For example, when the priest Amaziah attempts to ban Amos from prophesying at Bethel, Amos responds, “The Lord took me from following the flock, and the Lord said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to my people Israel’” (Amos 7:15). The conflict between the priest and the prophet climaxes in a “thus says the Lord: ‘Your wife shall become a prostitute in the city, and your sons and your daughters shall fall by the sword’” (Amos 7:17). Jacob holds that the prophet’s appearance is almost equivalent to a theophany, for with his proclamation comes the full force of God’s word and all the mysteries of God are concretely embodied in his speeches. 65 Gowan further points out that to this day people claim as justification for their actions, “God spoke to me.” Sometimes those claims are clearly condemned by the actions themselves, which are cruel or immoral. It is not always that clear, however, but for Christians there is a standard by which to judge every claim to authority: Is the claim in accordance with the clear teaching of Scripture? 66

When we compare Amos’s visions and his actual proclamations we gain an important insight into how Scripture envisages the dynamics of “divine speech.” For example, it is interesting to note that Amos’s proclamations contain only a fairly loose connection with his visions. Israel’s exile that is mentioned in unmistakable terms in Amos’s proclamations does not find any clear mention in the prophet’s visions (Amos 5:27, 7:17). What Amos saw and perceived in his visions was the bare fact of divine judgment that would result in Israel’s end. As far as we can tell, Amos did not receive any details as to how and when Yhwh’s judgment would overcome Israel. Nor did Yhwh point out to His prophet what Israel’s actual offenses were. It is left to the prophet to discern and interpret on the basis of the received Mosaic tradition (particularly, the Book of Covenant). 67 In other words, the composition of the prophetic speeches required a prayerful and critical interpretation and application of the divine visions, the received law, and the socioreligious context of the time. Amos, as von Rad observes, “went about amongst a people who had been condemned to death; and as a result his environment at once assumed a different appearance and he became acutely aware of the abuses around him.” This explains why Amos is “particularly engaged in the task of giving convincing reasons for the coming disaster. . . . No doubt fresh oracles kept coming to him and inspiring him, but the contribution made by his own alert mind must not be underrated.” 68 65.  Jacob, Prophètes, 207. 66.  Gowan, Amos, 408. In an age when fundamentalists of both the Christian and the Muslim camps seek to justify increasingly their acts in the name of God, issues of discernment of authentic “God-talk” seem as relevant and pressing as ever. On this topic, see particularly R. W. L. Moberly, Discernment and Prophecy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 67. Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2:134. 68.  Ibid., 2:132.

502

Chapter 10

We do not know about the exact “mechanics” of these visionary experiences, but they seem to have occurred only between Yhwh and His prophet. 69 The visions were God’s way of communicating to Amos His will and purposes for Israel (cf. Amos 3:7). The genuine prophet is made privy to Yhwh’s plans and responds faithfully in prayer and proclamation. This quality distinguishes the authentic prophet from the false (cf. Jer 23:18). How precisely the prophet interprets and translates the divine revelation into a prophetic message (or a prayer) seems left to the individual. It appears that a similar dynamic had been at work in the making of Scripture as fully God’s inspired word, but written in human words. 70 Allowing Amos to Speak to the 21st-Century Church Having pondered some aspects of Amos’s message and how these relate to a merciful and just God, we would like to offer a few final reflections on the abiding witness of the book of Amos for the church. For the Christian, Jesus is the hermeneutical key to the Old Testament in matters of authority. 71 Like Amos, Jesus also showed a tremendous solidarity with the poor and exploited, and showed an acute awareness of social injustice and religious hypocrisy (cf. Matthew 23; Luke 4:18–21, 10:25–37). Moreover, Jesus’ conflict with the temple authorities reflects in many ways Amos’s conflict with the priesthood at Bethel (cf. Luke 19:45–47). Throughout history, the “established church” has been in danger of protecting its own worldly interests at the exclusion of the prophetic voice. In every age, the priesthood and (false) prophets are susceptible to teaching a “gospel” that the king and the people want to hear (cf. 1 Kgs 22:6–29, Jer 7:4–7, Matthew 23). Bonhoeffer warns famously of a doctrine of grace that does not take God’s justice into account. A church in which only grace is being preached not only reminds us of the temple cult in Amos’s day (cf. Amos 5:21–23) but is a place where sins are easily covered. It is a place where people do not repent of their wrongdoing and certainly do not wish to be freed from their sins (why should they, if God forgives them anyway?). “Cheap grace is justification of the sins and not the sinner.” 72 Ignorance, sloth, or a selfserving theology are clear symptoms of a theology of cheap grace. 69.  For example, Gen 18:16–33; Exod 32:10–14; 1 Kgs 19:11–18; Luke 4:42, 11:1. 70.  For example, see Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994) 206–7, for a concise overview of theories of inspiration and how the divine and the human elements relate to each other. 71.  See R. W. L. Moberly, “Christ as the Key to Scripture: Genesis 22 Reconsidered,” in He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes from Gen 12–50 (ed. R. S. Hess, G. J. Wenham, P. E. Satterthwaite; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994) 143–73. 72.  My translation of “Billige Gnade heisst Rechtfertigung der Sünde und nicht des Sünders.” By Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “Nachfolge,” in Dietrich Bonhoeffer Auswahl Band 3 Ent­

Amos: The Logic of Intercessory Prayer

503

Of course, when reading Amos’s message from a postcross perspective, we recognize that Jesus did not only preach against corruption and hypocrisy and intercede for the sinner (Luke 23:34) but also took their place on the cross (Rom 5:8, 2 Cor 5:21). How does the cross affect our application of Amos’s harsh message of judgment? It seems to us that a one-sided focus on God’s grace and Christ’s achievement on the cross, at the cost of discipleship and God’s righteousness, is still in danger of “cheap grace.” Bonhoeffer warns, Cheap grace is a sermon of forgiveness without a call to repentance, it is baptism without church discipline, it is the Lord’s Supper without a confession of sin . . . cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross. 73

Although the writer to the Hebrews has a high Christology ( Jesus as the true high priest, heavenly intercessor, and the atoning sacrifice for the sins of many, Heb 4:14–15, 7:25, 9:28), he is keenly aware of the danger and challenge of apostatizing from the Christian faith. In spite of Jesus’ work on the cross and His ongoing intercessory ministry, the writer to the Hebrews warns in words not too dissimilar from Amos. For if we willfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. (Heb 10:26–31; cf. 6:3–8)

It is not only the writer to the Hebrews who speaks of a sin that is unforgivable; in the first letter of John, in the context of an intercessory prayer, the author warns also of a mortal sin. If you see your brother or sister committing what is not a mortal sin, you will ask, and God will give life to such a one—to those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin that is mortal; I do not say that you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not mortal. (1  John 5:16–17)

Although it is not entirely clear what this mortal sin refers to, from v. 21 one can infer that idolatry (apostasy from belief in Jesus) is in view. Deliberate apostasy from the Christian faith is probably also what is meant by “willfully persisting in sin” (cf. Heb 6:4–8, 10:26). In other words, like in the ministry of Amos (and Jeremiah), even in the New Testament, there appears to be a sin that is beyond prayer for forgiveness. The challenge for the intercessor is to exercise spiritual discernment like Amos, to know scheidungen 1936–1939 (ed. C. Gremmels and W. Huber, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlags­ haus, 2006) 110. 73.  Bonhoeffer, “Nachfolge,” 110. My translation of “Billige Gnade ist Predigt der Vergebung ohne Busse, ist Taufe ohne Gemeindezucht, ist Abendmahl ohne Bekenntnis der Sünden. . . . Billige Gnade ist Gnade ohne Nachfolge, Gnade ohne Kreuz.”

504

Chapter 10

when and how long one is to persist in intercession for a particular person or situation. Seeing a brother or sister committing sin, should not lead automatically to a judgmental attitude but, like Amos, to prayer. Like many of the Old Testament intercessors, Amos too was driven by the conviction that Yhwh is fundamentally gracious and merciful (Exod 34:6–7; cf. Amos 7:2, Joel 2:13, Dan 9:18­–19). Amos has learned, however, that divine forbearance knows a limit and that there must be a time when God visits His people in judgment; but this should never paralyze the post-Easter intercessor in his or her fundamental hope that prayers that are offered in the name of the great high priest will find a gracious hearing before the heavenly throne (cf. Heb 4:14–16). Christians are to intercede for one another in confidence that God will judge the sinner in the person of Jesus Christ (Ps 103:10–12; 1 John 2:1–2). For God does not want the death of a sinner. 74 Finally, we would like to allow Amos to speak to the contemporary church from a related, but slightly different perspective on the matter of election and God’s covenant relationship with His people. As von Rad writes, We have no understanding of Amos’s preaching at all unless we note the way in which he over and over again comes to grips with the election concept, and how it was the nerve of a great part of his message. 75

As a Judean, Amos probably ascribed special theological significance to David and Zion. Thus, it must have been particularly painful to wrestle with the tension of Israel’s election and Yhwh’s imminent judgment (cf. Amos 3:2). At the end of the book of Amos, the prophet looks beyond the time of judgment to a time when God will restore the fallen house of David and repair its breaches (Amos 9:11). Does the prophet anticipate a reunion of South and North? The restored covenant relationship between God and His people is described with vivid metaphors from agriculture: the vine, being replanted under the care of the divine gardener in a fertile vineyard (Amos 9:11–15). These are stock symbols of Israel in the Old Testament and reflect images of the Garden of Eden (cf. Gen 3:17–19, Joel 3:18). In Romans 11, we find an important extension of the imagery. There, Paul is also reflecting theologically on the concept of election using the related image of the olive tree (Rom 11:1–36). 76 Like Amos, as a Judean, so Paul, as a Christian, wrestles with the complex relationship between ethnic Israel and the people of God. Building on his fundamental understanding of the Gospel, namely, that in Jesus Christ God’s righteousness has been revealed to all who believe, Paul faces the inevitable question of 74.  Cf. Ezek 18:23, 32; Luke 15:7; 23:34. 75. Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2:133. 76.  For an engaging discussion of Romans 9–11, see N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991) 231–57; Bruce K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007) 321–32.

Amos: The Logic of Intercessory Prayer

505

God’s righteousness and faithfulness toward Israel. Not only has ethnic Israel often been unfaithful to its covenant God, they have also largely rejected Jesus as the Messiah. 77 Salvation history shows that the tree’s natural branches (Abraham’s descendants) have turned persistently against God and His prophets and thus were subjected to divine judgment. 78 While the Jews have mostly rejected Jesus Christ, “wild branches” (the Gentiles who follow Jesus) have been grafted into the original olive tree that is rooted in the covenant of Abraham. Through this image, Paul underlines both the continuity of the people of God and God’s faithfulness to His covenant promises. The apostle to the Gentiles warns the new branches, however, against becoming proud and complacent. They (ethnic Israel) were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you. (Rom 11:20–21) 79

In other words, Paul applies here the same critical standard of his doctrine of justification by faith to the Gentile Christians as he does to the Jews (Rom 11:19–22; cf. Rom 9:30–32). Paul warns in particular against spiritual pride. Waltke prophetically draws attention to some of the worrisome developments in many Western churches. Although God will never cut down the cultivated tree rooted firmly in his covenants and oaths to the patriarchs, he cuts off and grafts in branches, both natural and wild, appropriate to his righteous wisdom and mercy. Like Israel of old, the church continues to have both true believers and nominal believers. . . . The tragic history of national Israel thus serves as a sober warning to the nominal church. Throughout church history God has sternly cut off wild branches and mercifully grafted in new ones, always preserving a few of the natural branches. The churches that formerly inhabited Turkey were warned in the letters of the Apocalypse that their lampstands would be removed (e.g. Rev. 2:5). . . . Today God is in the process of cutting off branches in Western civilization, as he implicitly threatens in Romans—“you also will be cut off” (11:22)—and replacing them with branches in the developing nations. 80 77.  See Joel N. Lohr, Chosen and Unchosen: Conceptions of Election in the Pentateuch and Jewish-Christian Interpretation (Siphrut 2; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009) for a careful discussion on this delicate issue. Though Lohr’s work is written from a Christian perspective, he makes a great effort in interacting with both Jewish and Christian scholars on the topic of election and nonelection. 78.  See 2 Kgs 17:7–23 for a prophetic evaluation of Israel’s history up to the exile in Assyria. 79.  According to Amos 6:8, the root of Israel’s sin was also pride. 80.  Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, 328–30. See also Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) for a well-researched documentation of the fall and rise of global Christianity.

Chapter 11

Summary of Theological Findings and Some Implications The study of several of the main intercessory prayers recorded in the Old Testament has yielded a rich and diverse theological landscape. Despite the manifold witnesses among the prayers, strong common themes have emerged. To avoid repetition, I will not summarize here the main characteristics of each individual prayer that I have examined. Instead, I will provide an overview of the main theological findings that are characteristic of most of the prayers we have studied. Moreover, I shall attempt to draw out some of the wider implications of our discoveries for a biblical theology of prayer. It is obvious that intercessory prayer is primarily an engagement with God on behalf of a third party. What we have seen again and again, though, is the explicit and implicit reference to God’s character as most fully expressed in Exod 34:6–7. It is in the context of engaging with a loving and holy God that the phenomenon of divine mutability must be understood. A further thread of this study has been the strong conceptual and theological associations between the biblical portrayal of Moses’ intercessory prayers and subsequent interceding prophets. Following these trajectories and the time-honored ecclesiastical tradition to read the Old Testament Scriptures with view to knowing Christ more deeply, I have drawn attention to strong typological connections between the intercessors of the Old Testament and Jesus’ life and ministry. Having focused on the twofold role of the mediator, we have seen how fundamentally Jesus’ life and work are related to the role of the prophetic intercessor. In fact, the exegetical findings show that the mediatory role of Jesus Christ and the meaning of the cross can be significantly illuminated through the rich witness of the intercessory ministry of the Old Testament prophets.

The Hermeneutical Spiral and Jesus’ Archetypal Mediatory Role On the road to Emmaus, the “resurrected one” started to expound “the things about himself in all the Scriptures” starting with “Moses and all the prophets” (Luke 24:27). At the outset of this book, I have attempted to follow the lead of Jesus’ approach to the Scriptures. Thereby, I have argued that a Christian reading of the Old Testament is fundamentally a twofold hermeneutical process. First, it recognizes that Jesus cannot be understood in his full biblical depth apart from the Jewish Scriptures. Second, Scripture

506

Summary of Theological Findings and Some Implications

507

cannot be fully understood apart from Jesus. Throughout this book, I have attempted to work with this twofold hermeneutics. That is, I have endeavored to point out not only how the Old Testament witnesses anticipate Jesus Christ and God’s work through His Son but also how the New Testament portrayal of Jesus informs and enriches a reading of the Old Testament prayers. In this hermeneutical-spiral approach, my understanding of intercession has grown. Guided by the long-established Christian approach to knowing Christ through the witness of the Old Testament (cf. Heb 1:1–2), I have highlighted aspects of the Old Testament intercessory role that point beyond themselves to the archetypal mediator and intercessor (cf. 1 Tim 2:5–6). To put it differently, the dynamics, logic, and objective of Christ’s intercession can only be fully understood if read against the rich biblical witness of Old Testament mediation. Although there are still numerous important intercessory prayer records in the Hebrew Scripture that I was not able to treat in any substantial way in this book, it has become evident hopefully that the theme of prophetic intercession runs through the Old Testament and is pivotal for understanding Jesus and his work. 1 The hermeneutical spiral prompted us to work the other way as well. Theologically speaking, all Old Testament intercession has its origin in Christ Himself. Jesus Christ is ultimately the archetypal intercessor and advocate in the divine council (cf. John 1:1–3, 14; Eph 1:4–7; Col 1:15–22). In other words, one could say that the essential meaning of Old Testament intercession can only be understood in its full depth and width when read from the perspective of Jesus’ mediatory role.

The Mosaic Prayer Paradigm The Mosaic portrayal provides a prime, if not the most important, typological category for understanding Jesus Christ and his intercessory work. Each Old Testament covenant mediator or prophetic intercessor that I have examined in this study showed strong associations with Moses. Although the canon ascribes to Moses a unique mediatory role (cf. Num 12:6–8, Deut 34:10), it also speaks of successors that will follow in the footsteps of Israel’s archetypal prophet (cf. Deut 18:15). In each chapter, I have attempted to draw out typological associations between Moses and subsequent intercessors. Thereby, I spoke of an “intercessor family resemblance.” Of course, depending on the context of the prayer, the emphasis and specific objectives vary and yet the style of prayer remains largely the same. Many prophetic intercessory prayers are characterized by an intimate “humble audacity.” 1.  Other important Old Testament intercessory records that would have substantiated and enriched our findings are in Josh 7:6–9, 1 Kgs 17:17–24, 2 Kgs 19:15–19, Ezra 9:3–15, Nehemiah 9, Ezek 9:8, 11:13, 13:4–7, 22:30, Dan 9:4–19, Zechariah 3.

508

Chapter 11

Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! . . . Abraham answered, “Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes . . . (Gen 18:25–27) Moses quickly bowed his head toward the earth, and worshiped. He said, “If now I have found favor in your sight, O Lord, I pray, let the Lord go with us because (‫)ּכי‬ ִ this is a stiff-necked people, pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for your inheritance.” (Exod 34:8–9) Although our iniquities testify against us, act, O Lord, for your name’s sake; . . . Why should you be like someone confused, like a mighty warrior who cannot give help? ( Jer 14:7–9)

The larger theological framework of Old Testament intercessory prayer is the covenant relationship. The intercessor brings the needs of the rebellious and/or ethically corrupt Israel before a holy covenant God. If there are no grounds to appeal to covenant right or divine promise, the mediator still has the choice of appealing to divine mercy and reputation (e.g., Num 14:13–19, Jer 14:21–22). Almost all intercessors appeal in one way or another to Yhwh’s mercy, grace, covenant loyalty, and name. We do not present our supplication before you on the ground of our righteousness, but on the ground of your great mercies. O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, listen and act and do not delay! For your own sake, O my God, because your city and your people bear your name!” (Dan 9:18–19)

It is theologically important to note that God Himself appoints mediators to intercede for the party that has breached the covenant relationship. In other words, God Himself makes the arrangement to ensure that the covenant relationship will be protected and maintained (cf. 1 Sam 12:23, Jer 1:5, Ezek 22:30). Given Yhwh’s larger purposes with and through Israel (e.g., Gen 12:1­­–3, Isa 42:1–4), intercession is an indispensable part of God’s larger salvific purposes. In fact, we have seen that God makes the realization of His judgments often dependent on the intercessions of His chosen servants (Exod 32–34, Ps 106:23). It is for this reason that God needs to “silence” the intercessor first, before the way to judgment is cleared (e.g., Exod 32:7, Jer 7:16). With intercessory prayer, the covenant mediator has been entrusted with a “means” to maintain or at least to protect the covenant relationship, to shield the sinful people from divine judgment, and to secure divine pardon (e.g. Exod 32:7–14, Ezek 22:30). It is in the context of Moses’ persistent intercessory efforts after the golden calf incident that Yhwh reveals Himself in the fullest way to Moses and teaches him through the divine attributes of grace, covenant solidarity, and holiness the boundaries of meaningful intercessory engagement (cf. Exod 34:6–7). The Sinai revelation became in many ways the theological foundation for all subsequent intercession. Moses understood this and appealed to Yhwh’s revealed nature in Num 14:18–19 and thereby created a paradigm of praying back the divine attributes of grace, mercy, and cov-

Summary of Theological Findings and Some Implications

509

enant love in the face of divine judgment. By revealing in unparalleled clarity the meaning of the divine name, Yhwh provides the theological framework within which further (intercessory) prayer dialogue can take place (e.g., Num 14:18–19, Neh 9:17, Ps 99:6–8, Jer 14:7, Joel 2:13). Lohfink probes some of the theological implications of God teaching Moses, and through Moses every believer in the Mosaic tradition, how to pray in providing the divine name as a prayer foundation. It means, Lohfink suggests, that we cannot truly pray ourselves. What is more, we do not know what to pray for, if our prayer is to be a true prayer. God Himself must teach us about prayer and more so, the Lord Himself must pray in us (God Himself provides the words for prayer; cf. Exod 34:5–7; Joel 2:17). In this way we are allowed to tune into His praying in a manner that is worthy of Himself. 2 A prayer that is in essence a reflection of God’s will in a human soul, Paul ascribes to the work of the Holy Spirit. 3 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words. And God, who searches the heart, knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. (Rom 8:26–27)

Prayer and the Unfolding of God’s Nature and Purposes God often uses intercessory prayers as means of revelation. 4 As the intercessor “negotiates” with God over the future of the sinful party, the Lord teaches about His nature and His ways with Israel and the nations. This important aspect of intercessory prayer has become particularly evident in our reading of the prayers of Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah, and Amos (cf. Gen 18:16–33; Exod 32–34; Jeremiah 7–15; Amos 7:1–9). We have seen that with every round of prayer exchange the intercessor not only grows in his understanding of God and His ways, but often also adjusts his way of praying. For example, as Abraham wrestles with God over the destiny of Sodom, God teaches the patriarch about divine grace, patience, and holiness. Thereby, God trains Abraham to become a teacher of righteousness and justice to his descendants (Gen 18:19–33). That theology in its purest form often evolves from prayer dialogue is further confirmed by Moses’ persistent intercessory prayer for sinful Israel. Being prompted and implicitly invited by God to stand in the breach for Israel, Moses manages to pacify Yhwh’s wrath and secure God’s presence 2. Gerhard Lohfink, Beten schenkt Heimat (Freiburg: Herder, 2010) 25. 3. Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (vol. 2; OTL; London: SCM, 1985) 450. 4. Ulrich Wilckens (Theologie des Neuen Testaments, vol. 2: Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments als Grundlage kirchlicher Lehre, Teilband 1: Das Fundament [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007] vi) notes that the self-revelation of God’s name comes in steps (cf. Exod 3:14, 20:5–6, 34:6–7) and reaches its fulfillment in the appearance of Jesus ( John 1:14).

510

Chapter 11

among the people (cf. Exod 32:10–33:17). Moses’ prayer reaches a climax in the audacious plea “Show me Your glory” (Exod 33:18), whereupon Yhwh responds, I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim before you the name, ‘The Lord’; and I will be “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.” (Exod 33:19)

In his dialogue Moses’ grows in his understanding of Yhwh and yet there is also a sense that the more Moses knows about God the more he becomes aware of God’s sovereignty (Exod 33:20). Vischer perceptively comments on Moses’ third prayer dialogue (Exod 33:12–23): Curtain after curtain drops and the final secret seems to be unveiling and yet precisely then when the secret is unveiling, it is recognized as the secret of God that can never be fully known and penetrated, because it is unfathomably concealed in the depth of the godhead.  5

As promised, Yhwh passes before Moses in all His goodness and reveals the meaning of the divine name in an unprecedented way before His mediator (cf. Exod 3:14, 20:5–6, 33:19, 34:6–7). Exod 34:6­–7 is central to a biblical theology not only because it gives expression to the divine attributes in an unparalleled way but also because these two pivotal verses demonstrate that theology and prayer stand in a mutually enriching relation to each other. We have seen again and again that biblical intercessory prayer is inseparably associated with Yhwh’s name as revealed to Moses on Sinai. Yhwh reveals Himself as a God of grace and mercy who is firmly committed to His covenant relationship with Israel. This understanding reaches a further climax in Moses’ final petition for the pardon of Israel’s sin (Exod 34:9); it is climactic because Moses makes Israel’s sinfulness the basis for his plea for divine forgiveness (“Forgive their iniquity because it is a stiffnecked people”). In other words, Moses, in an audacious yet profound way, makes Israel’s hopeless state the principal reason for his appeal to divine grace and forgiveness. Moberly discerns here an unparalleled theology of grace in the Old Testament. 6 Though divine grace and patience are immense and will eventually overrule God’s wrath, the revelation of the divine name makes it clear that God’s nature cannot simply be summarized as gracious and loving. God is also just and holy. If necessary, God will visit His people and the nations in judgment. It is a judgment though that flows from love. This is not least evident in the fact that God in His wrath looks for intercessors 5. Wilhelm Vischer, Das Christuszeugnis des Alten Testaments, vol. 1: Das Gesetz (Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1943) 253. My translation of “Vorhang um Vorhang fällt und das letzte Geheimnis enthüllt sich und wird gerade dann, wenn es enthüllt, erkannt als das Geheimnis Gottes, das niemals eingesehen und durchschaut werden kann, das unergründlich verborgen ist in den Tiefen der Gottheit.” 6. R. W. L. Moberly, At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34 ( JSOTSup 22; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983) 90.

Summary of Theological Findings and Some Implications

511

to stand in the breach “and build a protective wall” around sinful Israel (cf. Ezek 22:30). Interceding for mercy is in effect engaging in a dialogue within God. It is like being invited to the divine council in order to present one’s case and to listen to the viewpoint of the heavenly judge. A different but related dynamic became evident in Jeremiah’s ongoing prayer efforts for rebellious and corrupt Israel. Four times, the prophet is told by Yhwh to refrain from interceding for the sinful people (cf. Jer 7:16, 11:14, 14:11, 15:1). The meaning of each divine prohibition needed further clarification in prayer until Jeremiah understood more about God’s holiness and the seriousness of Israel’s sin. Moses was also told not to pray on behalf of sinful Israel after the golden calf incident, and yet he disobeyed God and succeeded in pacifying Yhwh’s righteous wrath and achieved divine pardon and the restoration of the covenant relationship for the sinful people (Exod 32:10–14; cf. Num 14:12–20). Amos as well, in spite of God’s intended judgment, pressed ahead in his intercessory efforts (Amos 7:1–6). All three intercessory prayers raise the issue of discernment. When is it permissible to disobey and “faithfully oppose” Yhwh’s command to refrain from prayer and to persist in knocking on heaven’s door, and when does the prophet need to desist from prayer? The issue of discernment in intercessory prayers for divine forgiveness is complex and deserves further investigation, but here what I like to highlight is that understanding and participating in God’s judgment is a process that evolves in persistent engagement with the mercy and holiness of God on the one hand and the prophet’s observation of the sinful people’s responsiveness to the situation on the other (cf. Amos 7:1–9). 7 Indeed, intrinsically connected to revealing the divine will is the twofold prophetic role of being the mouth of God to the people and an advocate of the sinful party before God (cf. Ezek 13:5–7, Amos 3:7).

“For the Lord God Does Nothing without Revealing His Secrets to His Servants the Prophets” In the Old Testament, we find kings, such as David, Solomon, and Hezekiah, and priests entreating God for mercy and forgiveness on behalf of the people (2 Sam 24:17, 1 Kgs 8:46–51, Joel 2:17). Overall, however, prayers for divine pardon and covenant maintenance are primarily ascribed to the prophets. This is evident, for example, in the book of Joel where the priests intercede for divine mercy under the instruction of the prophet himself ( Joel 2:17). The fact that the prophet is the main channel of God’s word is further confirmed in the portrayal of Israel’s archetypal prophet and priest, Moses and Aaron, respectively (cf. Exod 7:1–2), and further supported by the fact that both kings and priests seek divine council from genuine prophets (e.g. 1 Kgs 22:5–28, Isa 37:1–7, Jer 37:3–10). 7.  One can observe a similar dynamic at work in Gethsemane when Jesus’ wrestles in prayer over his Father’s will.

512

Chapter 11

The main responsibility of the prophets is commonly understood to be that of proclaiming the word of God (cf. Deut 5:23–27, 18:15–18). Acting as Yhwh’s mouthpiece, however, is only one side of the prophet’s role. The prophetic ministry is by its very nature twofold. It includes making known God’s will to the people as well as advocating for the guilty party before the divine judge. This can be well illustrated from Moses’ mediatory role between Pharaoh and Yhwh. Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord: Let my people go, so that they may worship me. If you refuse to let them go, I will plague your whole country with frogs. (Exod 8:1–2) Then Pharaoh called Moses and Aaron, and said, “Pray to the Lord to take away the frogs from me and my people, and I will let the people go to sacrifice to the Lord.” . . . Then Moses and Aaron went out from Pharaoh; and Moses cried out to the Lord concerning the frogs that he had brought upon Pharaoh. And the Lord did as Moses requested. (Exod 8:8–13)

Our exegesis has shown that both authoritative prophetic proclamation and effective prayer require an intimate understanding and knowledge of God’s immediate and larger purposes. Moses, the commissioned one (‫)ׁשלַח‬, ָ is informed in advance about the details of his mission, even to the degree that Yhwh makes him privy to all the forthcoming power struggles with Pharaoh and the need to persevere in his calling (cf. Exod 3:13–22). 8 As the battle for redemption from Egypt evolves, Moses wrestles in prayer on behalf of a frustrated people (Exod 5:22–23) and the Lord keeps on assuring and instructing His prophet how to speak to Israel and Pharaoh (cf. Exod 6:1–8, 7:1–13). Among all the Old Testament offices, it is particularly that of the prophet that allows a privileged insight into the nature and will of God. In other words, only when the intercessor is granted access to the council of God (‫)ּבסֹוד יְהוָה‬ ְ can he or she hope to participate and influence the divine decision making process in meaningful ways and speak to the people with divine authority. 9 For who has stood in the council of the Lord (‫)ּבסֹוד יְהוָה‬ ְ so as to see and to hear his word? Who has given heed to his word so as to proclaim it? . . . I did not send the prophets (‫ְב ִאים‬ ִ ‫א־של ְַח ִּתי אֶת־ ַהּנ‬ ָׁ ֹ ‫)ל‬, yet they ran; I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in my council, then they would have proclaimed my words to my people, and they would have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings. ( Jer 23:18–22) 8.  The word ‫ׁשלַח‬ ָ (“to send”) is usually employed to designate a prophetic commission (cf. Isa 6:8, Jer 1:7, Ezek 2:3). 9.  E.g. Gen 18:17, 20:7; Exod 32:7–14; Deut 10:10–22; Ezek 13:5–7; Amos 3:7.

Summary of Theological Findings and Some Implications

513

The prophetic word comes often in the form of divine warnings and judgment oracles. Later, Jeremiah warns the priests not to listen to the false prophets who spread false hopes that the deported vessels will be brought back to the temple. If the false prophets had stood in the divine council, they would have known that Judah stands under Yhwh’s judgment and that the remaining temple articles will also go to Babylon ( Jer 27:22). If indeed they are prophets, and if the word of the Lord is with them, then let them intercede with the Lord of hosts, that the vessels left in the house of the Lord, in the house of the king of Judah, and in Jerusalem may not go to Babylon. ( Jer 27:18)

Both authoritative intercession and speaking truly on behalf of God are intrinsically connected with the prophet’s privilege of having access to the divine council. The twofold role of the prophet finds its fulfillment in Jesus. In prophetic manner, Jesus inaugurates his ministry by announcing the coming of the kingdom and the need for repentance (Mark 1:14). The Old Testament prophets stood in the divine council and spoke on behalf of God. Jesus too does not speak on his own authority but by the authority of the Father who dwells in him ( John 14:10–11). He does not only proclaim the word of God; in Jesus, the “word became flesh.” The Son not only embodies the divine word, but like His Father, Jesus is also “full of grace and truth” ( John 1:14; cf. Exod 34:6). Just as the Son and the Father are one, Jesus’ prophetic utterance and his intercessory ministry have divine authority. To demonstrate fully how the twofold role of the Old Testament prophet is being fulfilled in the life, ministry, and death of Jesus and what implication that has for our understanding of Jesus’ ongoing heavenly mediation (in spite of his work on the cross), the nature of salvation and the Trinity would go far beyond this study. These are core questions for a biblical Christology and soteriology and would naturally flow from our findings here. It would be good to see a serious study take up these important issues.

Prophetic Intercession and God’s Holy Mutability Scripture witnesses on numerous occasions to a change of God’s intentions. At first sight, the portrayal of a God who proclaims to act in a particular way and then decides to act in another appears problematic (e.g., 1 Sam 15:10, 29). According to Jeremias, there is hardly another statement in the Old Testament about God that has been more offensive than the notion that God can feel “regret” over something that He has previously planned or already executed. 10 The notion of divine “repentance” or change of mind could, at worst, convey the impression of capriciousness on God’s part, or at minimum, stands in tension with His steadfastness and integrity. 10. Jörg Jeremias, Die Reue Gottes: Aspekte alttestamentlicher Gottesvorstellung (BThSt 31; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997) 9.

514

Chapter 11

A few factors need to be taken into consideration as I attempt to summarize constructively this theologoumenon. (1) The Hebrew verb ‫ נחם‬with God as its subject should not be translated “repentance” without any qualification, but should be used in the more neutral sense, “change of heart.” 11 (2) One should note that the expression and concept of God’s change of intention appears only in association with divine judgment and pardon. (3) The phenomenon of “holy mutability” is often found in the context of a prophetic intercessory prayer that seeks the reversal of God’s will to punish. In other words, the concept of ‫ נחם‬does not connote unreliability but communicates Yhwh’s willingness to show grace over justice. God allows Himself at times to be persuaded to show clemency, defer punishment, or renew the covenant relationship. Miller observes that the will of God “is always open to a transcending appeal to the divine will to mercy and compassion.” 12 (4) I suggest that all biblical passages that speak of a divine change of intention can be understood in the light of Yhwh being gracious and just or loving and holy (cf. Exod 34:6–7). God’s character enables Him to respond to any prayer and human response and incorporate it in the making of the future. Heschel notes: This is the mysterious paradox of Hebrew faith: The all–wise and Almighty may change a word that He proclaims. Man has the power to modify His design . . . God is greater than His decisions. 13

One of the main responsibilities of the prophet is to call people back to the Lord and His ways in this sense: Amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God, and the Lord will change his mind about the disaster (‫ְוִיּנָחֵם יְהוָה אֶל־‬ ‫ ) ָה ָרעָה‬that he has pronounced against you ( Jer 26:13, 18:1–12).

The people of God incur again and again divine wrath through their rebellion, idolatry, and moral corruption. Although the Old Testament shows that God is more likely to answer favorably the prayers of a genuine prophetic intercessor, there are times when not even the greatest intercessor can turn away God’s judgment anymore ( Jer 15:1). If all arguments fail, if all pleas for mercy are exhausted, the intercessor has one last “trump card,” as it were: appealing to God’s reputation among the nations (cf. Isa 48:8; Joel 2:17). A destructive judgment of God’s people could easily be misunderstood by Israel’s neighbors as divine weakness, unreliability, or wickedness (cf. Num 14:13­–16, Isa 37:15–20). Thus, the intercessors often seek to persuade God to stop or at least to suspend His intention to punish 11.  This is because the idea of “repentance” presupposes a wrongdoing of some sort. Scripture, however, is consistent in stating that God does not commit any sin of which He needed to repent (cf. Lev 19:2, Num 23:19). 12.  Patrick D. Miller, “Prayer and Divine Action,” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann (ed. T. Linafelt and T. K. Beal; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) 221. 13.  Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets (vol. 2; Peabody, MA: Prince, 1999) 66.

Summary of Theological Findings and Some Implications

515

and grant the people another chance to repent for the sake of the divine name (Dan 9:19). A postponement of divine judgment is a “heavenly” opportunity for the sinful people to return to the Lord and His ways. Studying passages such as Numbers 14 and Joel 2 shows, however, that no matter how influential the mediator, God’s response to the pleas for mercy and the people’s repentance is never forced (cf. Joel 2:14). The renewal or maintenance of the covenant relationship and the pardon of sins are always a gracious divine gift. In fact, the divine response reflects both God’s love and holiness. God’s reply to Moses’ prayer for pardon in the context of the spy narrative is a good example of this. Although God changes His punitive intentions and pardons Israel, the divine verdict contains both divine grace and judgment (Num 14:12, 14:20–35). In fact, I have argued that Yhwh’s decision that the next generation receives a new chance to enter the promised land after 40 years in the wilderness is an enactment of the divine name as revealed on Sinai (Exod 34:6–7). 14 Complete divine forgiveness presupposes human repentance and a return to Yhwh and His ways. This has been demonstrated particularly in our study of the prayers of Solomon, Joel, and Amos. The sinful party’s response to the prophetic ultimatum and summons to repent is often an important element in understanding the reason for God’s change of mind. This phenomenon comes well to expression in the parable of the potter in the book of Jeremiah. At one moment I may declare concerning a nation . . . that I will . . . destroy it, but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it (‫ָש ְב ִּתי ַלעֲׂשֹות לֹו‬ ַ ׁ ‫ֲשר ח‬ ֶׁ ‫)ו ִנח ְַמ ִּתי עַל־ ָה ָרעָה א‬. ְ ( Jer 18:7–10)

This passage underlines that the divine-human relationship is a dynamic relationship in which everything can be won or lost. Having studied some of the main intercessory prayers has yielded a picture of a God who genuinely responds to the prayers of His servants and the behavior of the people. Thus, God’s mutability is far from being an alarming theologoumenon; rather, it witnesses to a living God who in His power can and in His grace does incorporate the prayers of His people in the outworking of His immediate and larger purposes. 15

Intercession and Suffering in the Prophets One of the core metaphors to describe the role of the prophet is that of a watchman (cf. Jer 6:17, Ezek 33:1–20). If the people deviate from God’s ways, the prophet is to call the rebellious people back to the Lord and at the same time acts as an advocate for them before the heavenly judge. But 14.  See especially pp. 98–99. 15. See Karl Barth, Die Kirchliche Dogmatik (vol. 3/4; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1951) 119–20.

516

Chapter 11

what if the people ignore the prophetic warning and call to repentance, or what if they even lash out on the prophet in anger (cf. Num 16, Isa 53:3–12, Jer 18:11, 20)? Confronting the sinful party with their sins and reminding them of their covenant obligations often results in strong criticism and personal persecution. Under circumstances such as these, the prophet is vulnerable to personal vindictive emotions. Standing in solidarity with a hostile people that rebels against both intercessors and God demands an immense sense of commitment to the sinful party. It has become evident that prophetic intercession and prophetic suffering belong together. 16 The wilderness generation attempts to stone Moses and Aaron, and yet they intercede for the pardon of their adversaries (cf. Num 14:10–19). Jeremiah is commissioned to confront a corrupt and idolatrous generation (e.g., Jeremiah 7, 26). His judgment speeches eventually result in persecution and imprisonment (cf. Jer 11:18–23, 38:1–6). Although Jeremiah appeals to divine justice on numerous occasions, he prays for his enemies ( Jer 18:20) and even “faithfully disagrees” with God’s prohibition to intercede for them. The fact that interceding for a sinful party often brings a tremendous amount of physical and spiritual suffering comes nowhere clearer to expression than in the life, ministry, and death of the Isaianic servant. I have argued that a biblical understanding of substitutionary suffering has evolved primarily from the ministry of prophetic intercession. The study of Moses, Jeremiah, and the Isaianic servant have shown that their twofold prophetic ministry has caused a great amount of hardship. They all suffered innocently as they endeavored to protect the sinful people from Yhwh’s justified wrath. Eventually they probably all died outside the promised land on account of sinful Israel (cf. Deut 3:23–28, 4:21–27; Jer 43:1–7; Isa 53:12). Several commentators understand Moses’ offer to have himself blotted out of the book of life if Yhwh would not bear the sin of the apostates (Exod 32:32) as expiatory. Although I have argued that intended substitutionary suffering is not yet in view in the context of Moses’ prayer for Israel, looking back from a New Testament faith, the theme of substitutionary suffering has started to emerge in Moses’ intercessory ministry. In the context of Moses, it is still primarily an expression of costly solidarity. This solidarity between innocent intercessor and sinful party develops and reaches a new depth in the ministry of Jeremiah. Yhwh’s ongoing prohibition to intercede for the guilty people causes a great deal of internal pain in Jeremiah. In view of the thought development that led to the understanding of substitutionary suffering and eventually to substitutionary atonement, the divine prohibition to intercede in Jer 7:16 is noteworthy. Jeremiah is told ‫ַע־ּבי‬ ִ ‫ַל־ּת ְפּג‬ ִ ‫וא‬.ְ This prohibition carries the connotation “do 16. Herrmann Spieckermann, “Konzeption und Vorgeschichte des Stellvertretungsgedanken im Alten Testament,” in Gottes Liebe zu Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Alten Testamentes (FAT 33; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001) 148.

Summary of Theological Findings and Some Implications

517

not attack or penetrate into Me with your prayers.” 17 The same verb (‫ )פגע‬is important in the fourth servant song. There, we read that “the Lord caused our iniquity to ‘attack/penetrate’ the prophet” (‫יע ּבֹו אֵת עֲֹון כֻּּלָנּו‬ ַ ‫וַיהוָה ִה ְפ ִּג‬, Isa 53:6). Even so, the servant “bore the sin [‫ ]נׂשא‬of many, and made intercession for the transgressors (ַ‫ולַפ ֹ ְּׁש ִעים י ְַפ ִּגיע‬,ְ Isa 53:12). 18 By using the Hebrew verb ‫ פגע‬again to describe prayer, the author underlines that the intercession can be perceived as attacking God verbally on behalf of the sinner. Moreover, the verb ‫ נׂשא‬links Isaiah 53 to Moses’ prayer to “bear” Israel’s sin (cf. Num 14:19). In Numbers 14 God is entreated to “bear/endure”Israel’s sin, whereas in Isa 53:12, the servant is “bearing the sins of many” (‫)נׂשא‬. In other words, the passage points to an unprecedented human substitutionary dimension. The servant’s act of intercession goes beyond what Moses and Jeremiah were called to do. The Isaianic servant in some sense takes the place of God and the transgressors. His death is seen as atoning. The servant’s prayer is “the utterance of his life, which is given up in obedience.” 19 In obedience to his calling, the intercessor embodies a costly solidarity with the people who are often hostile to him. Thus, there is good reason to argue that at the root of biblical substitution is the act of pleading for divine favor on behalf of a guilty and antagonistic party. 20 Related to the theme of substitutionary suffering and intercessory prayer is the key metaphor of “standing in the breach” for the sinful party.

“Standing in the Breach”: Between Divine Mercy and Wrath “Standing in the breach” is perhaps the most comprehensive metaphor for understanding the dynamics of prophetic intercessory prayer. 21 The metaphor probably originated in a war context. In ancient times, massive walls sought to ensure the protection of a city from unwanted intruders. Obviously, once the protecting wall was damaged, the security of the city was endangered and exposed to the attacks from the enemy. Needless to say, in the case an assault, the opening in the wall needed special attention and protection. Everything depended on the person who was placed to protect the breach. An undertaking that was extremely dangerous, it required total commitment to the people and could easily end in death. The prophet Ezekiel applies the image of a breached wall to a corrupt Israel, whose “moral wall” is critically damaged (cf. Ezek 13:4–5; 22:6; 23– 29). Following the logic of the metaphor, Yhwh becomes Israel’s “enemy” 17.  ‫ פגע‬with ‫ ְּב‬carries also the sense of falling upon someone, confronting or assaulting someone. See HALOT. 18.  My translations to underline the connections between the passages. 19.  Chris R. Seitz, “Prayer in the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible,” Figured Out: Typology and Providence in Christian Scripture (Louisville: John Knox, 2001) 174–75. 20.  So also Spieckermann, “Konzeption und Vorgeschichte,” 147. 21. Christoph Schroeder, “Standing in the Breach,” Int 52 (1998) 16–23.

518

Chapter 11

who seeks to make His way into the city to destroy it (cf. Isa 5:5, Joel 2:7– 11). 22 The only hope of the city rests on the one who stands in the “moral breach” to protect the sinful people from divine judgment. It is little wonder that, in such demanding situations, none of the false prophets showed any sacrificial commitment to Israel (Ezek 13:5). Although the phrase “standing in the breach” (‫ ) ָעמַד ַּב ֶּפרֶץ‬appears only in a few passages (cf. Ps 106:23; Isa 58:12; Ezek 13:5, 22:30), the concept applies to most prophetic intercessions. For example, it would be fitting to describe Abraham’s intercessory efforts as “standing in the breach.” As God sets out to visit in judgment the morally corrupt cities in the plain, the patriarch attempts to prevent God from going ahead to consume Sodom by “blocking” the way through intercession as it were (cf. Gen 18:22–33). Moreover, Moses’ prayers could well be, and in fact have been, described with the metaphor of “standing in the breach.” 23 Also, in the cases of Samuel, Joel, and Amos, the metaphor could be used as they implore Yhwh to protect the sinful people from the invading enemy (cf. 1 Sam 4:3, 7:3–11; Joel 2:7–17; Amos 7:1–11). According to all three passages, the army of the enemy is an agent of Yhwh’s judgment. 24 The analogy between “standing in the breach” and intercessory prayer obviously breaks down at a certain point because God is not only the “conquering enemy” but also the One who expects and appoints mediators to stand in the breach and to restore the damaged “covenant-wall” (Ezek 22:30). Exploring the depth and limits of this metaphor theologically, one enters the realm of dialectic theology. In other words, the intercessor battles on behalf of God against God. Or differently expressed, the intercessor engages with the love and wrath of God at the same time. We shall attempt to explore the relation between intercessory prayer and God’s love and wrath in a moment. Before that, I would like to draw attention to another important dimension of the prophetic intercessory ministry that comes to expression through the metaphor of the “breached wall,” namely, the notion that the intercessor can only protect temporarily the breached covenant relationship. Just as the breach in the wall needs to be repaired to make the city a safe place in the long term, so intercessory prayer can only pacify divine anger temporarily. 25 Persistent offense will eventually result in a divine prohibition to intercede and lead to severe punishment (e.g. Isa 58:10–12; Jer 22.  The analogy and dynamics of a disloyal vassal state that provoked the wrath and punishment of the suzerain would also apply here. 23.  See Num 11:1–2, 12:13, 14:12–19, 16:21–22; Ps 106:23. 24.  The same would be true for David’s intercessory act to avert the divine judgment (plague) when he builds an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite (cf. 2 Sam 24:10–25). 25. The temporal aspect of intercessory prayer comes also to expression when the prophet pleads for a new chance or a postponement of punishment (cf. Numbers 14, Deuteronomy 9–10).

Summary of Theological Findings and Some Implications

519

15:1; Amos 7). In other words, in the long term the rebellious people need to return to Yhwh and recommit to the covenant stipulations to make the divine-human relationship whole again (cf. Deut 9:18–19, 25–29, 10:12– 22). Understanding this dynamic confirms that the ministry of the prophet is essentially twofold: (1) “standing in the breach” in “defensive prayer” and (2) “repairing the breached wall” through calling a wayward people back to Yhwh and teaching the way of God (e.g., 1 Sam 12:23). 26

The Love and Wrath of God Spieckermann reminds us that the “wrath and mercy of gods are among the most significant divine features of any religion in antiquity.” 27 The Old Testament image of “standing in the breach” appears to indicate that this applies to Yhwh as well. According to this important metaphor, God on the one hand becomes Israel’s “enemy” if they persist in their sin, and yet, on the other hand it is Yhwh Himself who in His mercy seeks for prophetic intercessors to “stand in the breach” on behalf of the people (cf. Ezek 22:30). Following the logic of the metaphor, the objective of intercessory prayer could be described as seeking to outweigh the God of wrath against the God of mercy. Hesse writes: Through listing up counter arguments, intercession has the function of showing that God’s wrath is counter-productive. The intercessor appeals against the angry God to the God of the promises. He knows that God has to battle out a fight with Himself. The intercessor participates in this fight. . . . He sides entirely with the God of promise that he has to play off, as it were, against the God of wrath. 28

This sort of analysis of intercessory prayer dynamics is helpful inasmuch as it shows that the mediator is asked to participate in an “inner divine dialogue.” The intercessor is invited to appeal to God’s promises and grace, and by doing so the prophet has the potential to persuade Yhwh to show mercy rather than justice. Theologically speaking, this construal could render a picture of a God of love and wrath at the same time. This kind of portrayal of God has evoked some criticism. Hanson, for example, rejects the idea that “God is somehow 26.  I believe that understanding this dynamic of the intercessory ministry can shed considerable light on the old problem of why the New Testament still speaks of the need of a heavenly intercessor in a post-cross setting. 27. Hermann Spieckermann, “Wrath and Mercy as Crucial Terms of Theological Hermeneutics,” in Divine Wrath and Divine Mercy in the World of Antiquity (ed. R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann; FAT 2/33, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 3. See also Matthias Franz, Der barmherzige und gnädige Gott: Die Gnadenrede vom Sinai (Exodus 34:6–7) und ihre Parallelen im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt (BWANT 160; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003) 43–93, for an overview of the understanding of grace among the gods of Israel’s neighbors. 28. Franz Hesse, Die Fürbitte im Alten Testament (Hamburg: Erlangen, 1951) 112–13 (my translation).

520

Chapter 11

loving and angry at the same time” on the grounds that wrath is not an attitude or characteristic of God. 29 Should we think of Yhwh’s love and wrath as attributes that somehow need to be reconciled to one another? Some scholars argue that the portrayal of a God of love and wrath is reflected in the divine name as presented in Exod 34:6–7. For example, Brueggemann maintains that according to these two verses there is a fundamental “incongruity” within the nature of God. On the one hand, God graciously turns to Israel, and on the other hand, Yhwh is fiercely for Himself. According to Brueggemann, the negative statement that gives expression to Yhwh’s wrath and punishment must be seen as a parallel affirmation to the positive adjectives that give expression to Yhwh’s gracious solidarity. 30 Brueggemann concludes that the tension within God cannot or should not be resolved or harmonized. 31 This sort of reading of the name of God renders a portrayal of God who is both gracious and merciless, forgiving and unforgiving. It is true that, according to the Old and New Testament, God acts both in wrath and judgment and in mercy and forgiveness. There is a duality in God’s dealings with humanity. We have seen, however, that divine wrath and judgment are always circumstantial and temporary. The scriptures consistently underline that Yhwh’s love and covenant loyalty lasts forever. Nowhere does it say though that divine anger goes on forever. 32 The proportion that God keeps His steadfast love (‫ ) ֶחסֶד‬for thousands of generations, but visits the iniquity of the guilty to the fourth generation confirms this. That wrath cannot overrule Yhwh’s faithfulness and love in the long run is further confirmed by Isa 54:6–10, a passage that stands in an interesting intertextual relation to Exod 34:6–7. There, the relation between divine wrath and love is expressed as follows: For a brief moment I abandoned you, but with great compassion (‫ֲמים‬ ִ ‫ּוברַ ח‬ ְ ‫ )ּגְד ִֹלים‬I will gather you. In overflowing wrath (‫)קצֶף‬ ֶ for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love I will have compassion on ְ ‫)ּוב ֶחסֶד עֹולָם ִרח ְַמ ִּת‬, you (‫יך‬ ְ says the Lord, your Redeemer. . . . For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed (‫ְוח ְַס ִדּי‬ ‫לֹומי לֹא ָתמּוט‬ ִ ‫ּובִרית ְׁש‬ ְ ‫)מ ִֵאּתֵ ְך לֹא־יָמּוׁש‬, says the Lord, who has compassion on you. (Isa 54:7–10)

Yhwh’s wrath lasts only a brief moment; after the intercessory act of the suffering servant (Isaiah 53), God will return to Israel with His compassionate love that outlasts the mountains. I do not need to go into the details of 29.  R. Patrick C. Hanson, God: Creator, Savior, Spirit (London: SCM, 1960) 47. 30. Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1997) 268–72. 31.  Ibid., 217, 268, 272. 32.  For example, Exod 34:6–7; Isa 54:6–10; Jer 33:11; Pss 100:5, 106:1, 107:1, 118:1–4, 136:1–26.

Summary of Theological Findings and Some Implications

521

these rich verses to notice that there is no doubt about the predominance of Yhwh’s covenant love over His wrath. The brief moment of divine wrath is contrasted by His “everlasting love.” Interestingly, both here and in Exodus, Yhwh expresses His willingness to turn from His wrath and to renew the covenant in mercy and steadfast love after the intercessions of His servants (cf. Exod 32–34:9, Isaiah 53–54). With regard to Exod 34:6–7a, we have concluded that these verses give expression to God’s fundamental nature (gracious, merciful, and loving), whereas v.  7b gives expression to divine action if Israel’s offense persists (that is, anger and judgment are acts and not essential attributes). Heschel comments, Anger is by no means regarded as an attribute, as a basic disposition, as a quality inherent in the nature of God, but rather a mood, a state of mind or soul. . . . There is a biblical belief in divine grace, in a mercy which is bestowed upon man to a degree greater than he deserves. There is no belief in divine arbitrariness, in an anger which consumes and afflicts without moral justification.  33

Moreover, divine anger is qualified. The Lord is “long-suffering in anger” ְ ‫) ֶאר‬, precisely because God is “merciful” (‫)רַ חּום‬, “gracious” (‫)חַּנּון‬, and (‫ֶך ַא ַּפיִם‬ abundant in “covenant loyalty” (‫ ) ֶחסֶד‬and “faithfulness” (‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ). These qualifications make it evident that God’s anger is an exception to His love. Furthermore, the expression “long-suffering in anger” underlines God’s reluctance rather than inclination toward wrath. 34 Heschel confirms that it is impossible to understand the meaning of divine anger without pondering the meaning of divine patience or forbearance. . . . The patience of God means His restraint of justifiable anger. 35

A different aspect of divine wrath is that it can also be subject to God’s will and purposes: “For my name’s sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you, so that I may not cut you off” (Isa 48:9). The intercessors frequently underscore in their prayers for mercy that Yhwh’s name would be at stake if God should execute His judgment on Israel in an unrestrained way (cf. Num 14:13­–16, Josh 7:9). Nevertheless, sin cannot but produce a negative reaction from Yhwh if God is to remain loving and just at the same time. 36 “The Lord is longsuffering, compassionate, loving and faithful, but He is also demanding, insistent, terrible, and dangerous.” 37 It cannot be denied that there is a certain dialectic inherent in the divine name. This dialectic, however, is 33.  Heschel, The Prophets, 77. 34.  Spieckermann, “Wrath and Mercy,” 9. 35.  Heschel, The Prophets, 65. 36.  See also Emil Brunner, The Mediator, A Study of The Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith (London: Lutherworth Press, 1934; repr., 2002) 478. 37.  Heschel, The Prophets, 65.

522

Chapter 11

not between a loving and a wrathful God but is between a loving and a holy God. Brunner in his classic work The Mediator notes, “the Nature of God cannot be exhaustively stated in one single word.” In particular, the holiness of God must not be suppressed. 38 Exod 34:6–7 shows that the tension between divine love and holiness cannot be reduced to one attribute, without at the same time distorting the biblical portrayal of God. In other words, as a careful reading of the divine name demands, God’s fundamental attitude toward His creation is that of mercy and grace; nevertheless, sinners experience this love as wrath. Lane adds that “it is mistaken to divide the attributes by suggesting that wrath is the manifestation of holiness or justice, but not of love. It is equally mistaken to suggest that mercy is the manifestation of love, but not of holiness or justice.” 39 One way of holding love and wrath together is to view them as two sides of the same coin. Brunner writes, The wrath of God under which the idolatrous, sinfully perverted man stands is simply the divine love, which has become a force opposed to him who has turned against God. The wrath of God is the love of God, in the form in which the man who has turned away from God and turned against God, experiences it, as indeed, thanks to the holiness of God, he must and ought to experience it. 40

In other words, as Lane perceptively argues, there is no love of God that is not holy, and no holiness of God that is not loving. Likewise, God’s love and His justice are united in His essential nature. But “the holy, loving God acts differently toward His people in different circumstances. In his holy, loving wrath he judges us for our sins. In his holy, loving mercy he forgives our sins.” 41 Lane proposes convincingly that God’s wrath should be seen as an aspect and a consequence of His love. That divine wrath is a consequence of Yhwh’s fundamental love comes to expression in Moses’ retelling of the golden calf incident. He reports, “I was afraid that the anger that the Lord bore against you was so fierce that he would destroy you. But the Lord listened to me that time also” (Deut 9:19). Divine wrath, for all its intensity, may be averted by intercessory prayer. Why? By divine love, Moses was seemingly paradoxically invited to enter the divine judgment process at a time when God’s just wrath was roused (cf. Exod 32:10, Deut 9:14). The intercessor is called to enter into the dialogue within God Himself. The advocate appeals to God’s larger purposes or divine reputation that would be endangered by fierce judgment. Also, if the intercessor can pray 38.  Brunner, The Mediator, 281–82. 39. Tony Lane, “The Wrath of God as an Aspect of the Love of God,” in Nothing Greater Nothing Better: Theological Essays on the Love of God (ed. K. J. Vanhoozer; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001) 163. 40. Emil Brunner, Man in Revolt: A Christian Anthropology (London: Lutterworth Press, 1947) 187. 41.  Lane, “The Wrath,” 163. 

Summary of Theological Findings and Some Implications

523

back to God a divine promise or appeal to Yhwh’s revealed gracious name, the prayer is likely to pacify God’s wrath and receive a favorable divine hearing.

An Angry God Who Needs to Be Appeased: Crude Theology or the Heart of the Gospel? In this section, I would like to address what is sometimes perceived as a problematic or primitive portrayal of God, namely, the portrayal of an angry God who needs to be appeased through prayer or with the blood of sacrifices before He can overlook and forgive the sins of the people (e.g., 2 Sam 24:18–25). For example, in the context of the Sinai apostasy, we have seen that Moses needs first to pacify Yhwh, who was about to consume the idolatrous covenant breakers, before the intercessor can move on to his main prayer objectives, such as securing God’s presence with the people, renewal of covenant, and the pardon of their iniquity (cf. Exod 33:15–17, 34:8). O Lord, why does your wrath burn hot against your people. . . . Turn from your fierce wrath (ָ‫ ;)ׁשּוב ֵמחֲרֹון ַאּפֶך‬change your mind and do not bring disaster (‫)ו ִהּנָחֵם עַל־ ָה ָרעָה‬ ְ on your people. (Exod 32:11–12)

The psalmist summarizes Moses’ intercessory engagement on Sinai in the following way: “(God) said he would destroy them—had not Moses, his chosen one, stood in the breach before him, to turn away his wrath (‫ָׁשיב‬ ִ ‫ְלה‬ ‫חמָתֹו‬ ֲ ) from destroying them” (Ps 106:23). In response to Moses’ prayer, Yhwh “changed His mind about the disaster that He planned to bring on his people” (Exod 32:14). The portrayal of an angry God who needs to be pacified through prayer and sacrifice has been regarded as crude and pagan in many circles at least since Marcion. 42 Criticisms and concerns about the wrath of God are directed not only against the Old Testament but also against New Testament passages that present Jesus’ death as a propitiatory sacrifice. God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. . . . now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God. (ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς, Rom 5:8–9)

Here one discerns certain similarities with the dialectic that we have encountered in several intercessory prayers. On the one hand, sinners provoke God’s righteous wrath, but on the other hand, God sent Jesus out of love to save a sinful humanity from God’s wrath by dying for us. Jesus’ death, like prophetic intercessory prayer, can be construed as having a propitiatory effect on God. 43 The author of 1 John writes, “He [Jesus] is the 42. See Lane, “The Wrath,” for a helpful discussion on the topic. 43. John McIntyre, The Shape of Soteriology (Edinburgh: T.  &  T. Clark, 1995) 26–52, notes not fewer than 13 different New Testament models for understanding the profundity of the cross.

524

Chapter 11

propitiation for our sins (ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν), and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2, esv). 44 Most modern Bible translations have removed the term propitiation and replaced it with a more neutral expression such as atoning sacrifice. According to McIntyre this is largely because the original associations of the term appear to be too harsh and unacceptable, suggesting as they do, the angry God whose wrath has to be placated before he can overlook the wrongdoings of sinners, and to achieve this end exacts the blood of the innocent victim. There is then created, so it is thought, a rather intractable problem in apologetics, namely, of reconciling the love of God with his wrath. 45

As I have argued in our previous section, God’s wrath is not a divine attribute, but an aspect of God’s love. Like divine jealousy, so God’s wrath is a consequence of His love. As the revealed name of Yhwh shows, grace and mercy are fundamental divine attributes, while wrath is an inevitable outcome of Yhwh’s holy love that was betrayed. For grace and love to have any substance and meaning, sinners cannot but experience this love as wrath. Their sin cannot but produce a negative reaction from God if God is to remain loving and just at the same time. Brunner comments: The existential danger of a broken relationship between God and man is the presupposition of the expiatory sacrifice. It is felt that something must “happen” if harm is not to come upon man, a disaster which comes from God Himself. For the fact that the relation has been broken means that God is angry. 46

It is those who cannot come to terms with any concept of divine wrath who reject any concept of propitiation. Divine wrath and propitiation (appeasing of wrath) obviously go together. The relation between divine love and divine wrath can further be illuminated by pointing to the fact that God Himself initiates the process leading to propitiation and forgiveness. In the Old Testament, one may get the impression that it is humans who seek to avert God’s wrath by various penitential rituals and prayers, and by offering sacrifices. In the case of Moses’ intercessory prayer, we have noted though that it is no other than Yhwh Himself who implicitly invited Moses to appease the divine wrath through prayer arguments that are in the interest of God Himself (Exod 32:10; Deut 9:14, 19). Similarly, when violence and idolatry abounded in Jerusalem during the time of Ezekiel, Yhwh’s wrath was kindled against Israel. Instead of consuming them in anger, Yhwh sought again for a prophet who would repair the damaged “moral wall” and would stand in the “breach before Yhwh.” 44.  The word ἱλασμός here refers most likely to a sacrifice that bears God’s wrath and turns it to favor (cf. 1 John 4:10, Rom 3:25). 45.  McIntyre, The Shape, 35. 46.  Brunner, The Mediator, 477. See pp. 478–89 for the fuller discussion.

Summary of Theological Findings and Some Implications

525

To be more specific, in Ezekiel’s time as well, God took the initiative of looking for a mediator who would, metaphorically speaking, defend the sinful city from divine wrath that was “penetrating the cracked wall” and causing destruction (Ezek 22:30–31). When we think of the Old Testament sacrificial system, it also becomes clear that it is nothing but a divine gift in order that God might act graciously toward His sinful people. “I have given it to you,” God said of the sacrificial blood to make atonement (‫)כפר‬ for yourselves on the altar (Lev 17:11). Also when God’s anger is stirred because of David’s census, Yhwh Himself instructs the king via His prophet to build an altar in order to stop the divinely appointed plague (2 Sam 24:18–25). This brief overview strongly suggests that the initiative to bring about propitiation and atonement comes from God Himself. The divine initiative in the process of reconciliation is further confirmed in Paul’s letter to the Romans. 47 There, the apostle develops the argument that God’s wrath is being revealed righteously against all people, because all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. The Lord’s wrath, according to Paul, is primarily directed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness (Rom 1:18, 21–32; 4:15). As humanity is imprisoned by sin and thus vulnerably exposed to God’s righteous wrath, God reveals His righteousness in sending Jesus Christ whom God put forward as a ἱλαστήριον by his blood, to be received by faith” (ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ [τῆς] πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι, Rom 3:25, esv).

This is a notoriously complicated verse, and its exact meaning is heavily debated. It is possible that Paul refers here to the cover place where sins are forgiven (traditionally rendered as the “mercy seat”; LXX, ἱλαστήριον) on the top of the Ark of the Covenant. This is where every year on the Day of Atonement the high priest would sprinkle some of the blood of the sin offerings as an act of a substitutionary atonement on behalf of himself, his house, and the entire nation (Lev 16:14–16). 48 Cranefield, after carefully weighing up various possible interpretations of the complex term ἱλαστήριον, concludes, We take it that what Paul’s statement that God purposed Christ as a propitiatory victim means is that God, because in His mercy He willed to forgive sinful men and, being truly merciful, willed to forgive them righteously, that is, without in any way condoning their sin, purposed to direct against His own very Self in the person of His Son the full weight of that righteous wrath which they deserved. 49 47.  Paul offers in his letter to the Romans the fullest and most systematic treatment of God’s wrath in the New Testament. 48.  See John Ziesler, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (PTI; London: SCM, 1993) 112–14, for a concise and clear exposition of the main interpretative options. 49.  Charles E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans (vol. 1; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994) 217; see pp. 214–18 for a thorough discussion on the complex term ἱλαστήριον.

526

Chapter 11

In other words, it is a righteousness that encompasses both His wrath and grace. In Jesus, God makes known His righteousness and exposes at the same time the unrighteousness of humanity. In Jesus, God informs the world, like He used to through the prophets, that it stands under divine wrath. At the same time, God tells the world in His Son that His righteousness is available to those who put their trust in Jesus Christ. Through this revelation, humanity is confronted with an inevitable choice. Either people remain as “vessels of God’s wrath” (Rom 9:22, Eph 2:3­–5­­­) or people turn to Jesus Christ and are saved by him from the wrath of God (cf. Rom 5:9). God Himself “presented” Jesus as a “propitiatory sacrifice” (ἱλαστήριον; cf. Rom 3:25). Here as well, God’s reconciliation flows from divine initiative ( John 3:16). It is not that we loved God but that He loved us first and sent His Son as a “propitiatory sacrifice” for our sins (ἱλασμός; cf. 1 John 4:10). God’s love and salvific will is already clearly foreshadowed in the revealed name (Exod 34:6–7) and the appointment of prophetic intercessors. It cannot be emphasized too strongly, Stott asserts, “that God’s love is the source, not the consequence, of the atonement.” 50 The coming of Jesus Christ, however, does not mean “cheap grace” for everyone, as Bultmann perceptively observes: God remains the judge and the Christian faith and the grace of God do not consist of the conviction that there is no wrath of God and that there will not be any threat of judgment (2 Cor. 5:10), rather they consist of the conviction to be saved from the wrath of God. 51

The fact that God’s love is not overcome by His wrath is demonstrated in the divine decision to initiate the reconciliation, rather than the annihilation, of the sinner. The death of Christ effects both the appeasement of the wrath of God and the redemption of sinners. Packer underlines the importance of understanding divine wrath: it is vital, he insists, that we face the truth concerning His wrath, however unfashionable it may be. . . . Otherwise, we shall not understand the gospel of salvation from wrath, nor the propitiatory achievement of the cross, nor the wonder of the redeeming love of God. 52

Critics often raise the question whether it is not a cruel God who demands atonement. 53 As we have already seen in our treatment of the intercession 50.  John R. W. Stott, The Cross of Christ (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1995) 174. Cf. John 3:16. 51. Rudolf Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966) 288. My translation of “Gott bleibt der Richter, und der christliche Glaube and die Gnade Gottes besteht nicht in der Überzeugung, dass es keinen Zorn Gottes gibt and dass kein Gericht drohend bevorsteht (2 Kor 5,10), sondern in der Überzeugung, vor dem Zorne Gottes errettet zu werden.” 52.  James I. Packer, Knowing God (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1973) 174. 53. Pope Benedict XVI (Jesus von Nazareth [2 vols.; Freiburg: Herder, 2011] 2:256–64) also engages with the modern notion that a doctrine of atonement is outdated.

Summary of Theological Findings and Some Implications

527

of the suffering servant, Yhwh is directly involved in the intercessory work of the servant (cf. Isa 53:6). The Lord is not only participating in the suffering of His servant but there is also a deep unity of intention (Isa 53:7, 10). This shared intention to bring about atonement, as Stott helpfully underlines, is fulfilled in Father and Son: It is God himself who in holy wrath needs to be propitiated, God himself who in holy love undertook to do the propitiating, and God himself who in the person of his Son died for the propitiation of our sins. Thus God took his own loving initiative to appease his own righteous anger by bearing it his own self in his own Son when he took our place and died for us. There is no crudity here to evoke ridicule, only the profundity of holy love to evoke our worship. 54

Just as Jesus Christ is the bearer of the divine retribution, so the prophetic intercessor, as he stands in the breach, suffers, bears, and averts the righteous wrath of God. The divine election of both the Old Testament prophets and Christ derives from the same divine love for God’s people. In other words, it is the same divine will that is behind the call of the Old Testament prophets to protect and save the sinful people from God’s righteous wrath, as is behind the sending of the ultimate intercessor, who through his death on the cross committed the ultimate act of intercession. There are good reasons to argue that the scriptural roots of a propitiatory atonement lies in the Old Testament intercessory ministry that culminated in the substitutionary suffering and death of the Isaianic servant (Isaiah 53).

Christian Intercessory Prayer Is Cruciform An essential characteristic of the Old Testament intercessory prayer is that the mediator stands in a good relationship with God. Even though the intercessors include themselves at times in their pleas for divine pardon that does not mean that they share in the guilt of the people (e.g., Moses: “pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for your inheritance,” Exod 34:8). Rather, it means that the intercessors include themselves in a confessionary manner in solidarity with the people (cf. Nehemiah 9, Daniel 9). We have seen that this solidarity with the guilty party is an important aspect of biblical intercessory prayer. It is a solidarity that is characterized by love for the sinful people and reflects a corporate identity. Moses demonstrates in his prayer that genuine solidarity can be very costly: “if you will only forgive their sin—but if not, blot me out of the book that you have written” (Exod 32:32). In a sense, here the mediator’s solidarity with the people supersedes the guilt of the people. It is because of this bond of solidarity and Israel’s recognition of the genuineness of the prophet that the people often sought the help and counsel of the acknowledged servants of God. 55 The intercessory responsibility­ 54.  Stott, The Cross, 175. 55.  E.g., Exod 33:7–11; 1 Kgs 22:5–8; Jer 21:1–10, 37:3­–10, 42:1–22.

528

Chapter 11

increase­s seemingly with the status of the mediator. Moses and Samuel were entrusted with the protection of the entire people (cf. Num 12:7, 1  Sam 12). Jer 15:1 suggests that the Old Testament recognizes different degrees of spiritual authority. The hope of a perfect salvific mediator is only fulfilled in Jesus Christ (Heb 1:1–2, 3:1­–6, 4:14–16, 7:23–28). Since Christ’s mediatory act on the cross, no Christian can intercede anymore from an “I and you” position, in the sense that the intercessor prays from a position of spiritual superiority. Particularly in our reading of Jeremiah’s imprecatory prayers, I have argued that Christians can no longer pray against sinners, as though they were guiltless themselves. People under the new covenant recognize their own need for a “heavenly intercessor” (Rom 3:9–20). Although the intercessors under the new covenant can no longer intercede as though they were on moral high ground, contemporary intercessors unite themselves with Jesus Christ. The Church is called to submit and participate in the intercessory ministry of its High Priest (cf. Heb 4:14–16, 8:1–7). It is important to reinforce the point that the Church has a priestly but not a high priestly office. Ambrose reminds us that it is only through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus and through his redemptive mediation that we can bring our petitions before God. The Bishop of Milan writes that “unless he ( Jesus) intercedes, there is no intercourse with God either for us or for all the saints.” 56 Our intercessory prayers are not primarily an expression of human piety but first and fundamentally an expression of being in Christ. The prayers of Christians on behalf of others are a continuation and extension of Jesus’ intercessory ministry. The entire life, ministry, and death of Jesus Christ can be described as an act of intercession. Jesus related to people in perfect love, he delivered people from all forms of captivities at the cost of his own freedom. His prophetic summon to return to God and his teaching aim at bringing people back to their creator and at the advancement of the kingdom of God. In other words, through his life and death, Jesus brought people before God so that they could be reconciled and included in the new covenant relationship with God. Jesus made intercessions for his own disciples that their faith would remain strong in the face of temptation (Luke 22:31–32), that they might be one and that they might be kept from evil ( John 17:9–15). Jesus also prayed for those who, through his disciples would come to believe, that they too might enter into the unity of Father, Son and Spirit ( John 17:20–21). On the cross, Jesus interceded for those who persecuted him, that they might be forgiven (Luke 23:34, 19:10), and gave his life on the cross as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). Jesus’ entire work on earth climaxes in his ultimate act of intercession on the cross and thus anticipates his heavenly intercessory ministry. “Christ Jesus, who died, yes who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us” 56. Ambrose of Milan, On Isaac or the Soul 8.75. Cited in Donald G. Bloesch, The Struggle of Prayer (Colorado Springs: Helmers & Howard, 1988) 35.

Summary of Theological Findings and Some Implications

529

(Rom 8:34). The writer to the Hebrews discerns Jesus as an eternal priest after the order of Melchizedek “who always lives to make intercession” (Heb 7:25). The letter to the Hebrews emphasizes that Christians can rest assured that they have an intercessor who not only understands their human weaknesses, but who is also entirely committed to them (Heb 2:14–18, 5:7; cf. 1 John 2:1–2). In correspondence with the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, the petitions of the Christians will be primarily intercessory. 57 Intercessory prayers are the most Christ-like prayers as these prayers put the needs of others before our own. Miller confirms this when he writes that intercession now takes precedence over prayer of petition in the dialogue of faith. The prayer for the suffering of others is the paradigm of faithful prayer.  58

In other words, intercessory prayer ought to be shaped by a theology of the cross. The cross, among many other things, is about Jesus’ self-sacrificial concern for others (cf. Mark 10:45, Isa 53:10–12). Growing in Christlikeness means growing as an intercessor. This is exemplified in the prayer of dying Steven as he follows Jesus’ example and intercedes for those who were killing him (cf. Acts 7:60, Luke 23:34). We have seen that the essentially cruciform nature of intercessory prayer is anticipated by the ministry and suffering of the Old Testament prophets. In the chapter on Jeremiah, I have argued that the lament still holds an important place in Christian spirituality. Nevertheless, Christians must recognize that suffering is not necessarily something from which they need deliverance. The way of Jesus Christ is the way of the cross. Carrying one another’s burdens, suffering for other people, friend or foe, is part of being transformed in the image of Christ (cf. Gal 6:2). Intercessory prayer is not an option for the believer; rather it is an essential mark of Christ’s followers. 57. Karl Barth, Prayer and Preaching (London: SCM, 1964) 99–100. 58. Patrick D. Miller, They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 324.

Bibliography Achtemeier, Elizabeth. “Joel: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” Pp. 299–336 in volume 7 of The New Interpreter’s Bible. 12 volumes. Edited by Leander E. Keck et al. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996. Albertz, Rainer. “Gebet im Alten Testament.” Pp. 34–42 in volume 12 of Theo­ logische Realenzyklopädie. 36 volumes. Edited by Gerhard Müller and Gerhard Krause. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984.    . “‫עתר‬, ʿtr, beten.” Pp. 385–386 in volume 2 of Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. 2 volumes. Edited by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser, 1995.    . “‫צעק‬, ṣʿq, schreien.” Pp. 568–575 in volume 2 of Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. 2 volumes. Edited by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser, 1995. Alexander, Desmond D. From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002. Allen, Leslie C. The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah. New International Commentary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.    .  “The Value of Rhetorical Criticism in Psalm 69.” Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (1986): 577–598.    .  “Book of Life, of Remembrance, of Truth.” Pp. 446–447 in volume 4 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 volumes. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997.    .  Psalms  101–150. Word Biblical Commentary 21. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002. Allison, Dale C., Jr. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Edinburgh: T.  &  T. Clark, 1993. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1981. Anderson, Arnold A. Psalms, 1–72. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.    .  Psalms, 73–150. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Anderson, Gary A. “Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings.” Pp. 870–886 in volume 5 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 volumes. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Ap-Thomas, Dafydd R. “Notes on Some Terms Relating to Prayer.” Vetus Testamentum 6 (1956): 225–241. Ashley, Timothy R. The Book of Numbers. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Aurelius, Erik. Der Fürbitter Israels: Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament. Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament 27. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1988. Averbeck, Richard E. “‫עֹלָה‬, ʿōlâ, Burnt Offering.” Pp. 403–413 in volume 3 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 volumes. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997.

530

Bibliography

531

Avioz, Michael. “The Call for Revenge in Jeremiah’s Complaints” ( Jer. XI–XX). Vetus Testamentum 4 (2005): 429–438. Baker, David L. “Typology and the Christian Use of the Old Testament.” Scottish Journal of Theology 29 (1976): 137–157. Balentine, Samuel E. “Jeremiah Prophet of Prayer.” Review and Expository 78 (1981): 331–344.    .  “The Prophet as Intercessor: A Reassessment.” Journal of Biblical Literature 103 (1984): 161–173.    .  “Prayer in the Wilderness Traditions: In Pursuit of Divine Justice.” Hebrew Annual Review 9 (1985): 53–74.    . “Prayers for Justice in the Old Testament: Theodicy and Theology.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51 (1989): 597–616.    .  Prayer in the Hebrew Bible: the Drama of Divine-Human Dialogue. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Balthasar, Hans Urs von. Prayer. Translated by G. Harrison. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1986 (Das Betrachtende Gebet. Einsiedeln: Johannes Verlag, 1955).    .  The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics, Theology of the Old Covenant. Volume 6. Translated by B. McNeil and E. Leiva-Merikakis. San Francisco: Ignatus, 1991 (Herrlichkeit: Eine theologische Ästhetik, Alter Bund 3/2. Einsiedeln: Johannes, 1967). Baltzer, Klaus. Das Bundesformular. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 4. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960.    .  Deutero-Jesaja. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001. Barker, Joel. From the Depths of Despair to the Promise of Presence: A Rhetorical Reading of the Book of Joel. Siphrut 11. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014. Barr, James. “The Interpretation of Scripture. II: Revelation through History in the Old Testament and in Modern Theology.” Interpretation 17 (1963): 193–205.    .  Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority and Criticism. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983.    .  The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective. London: SCM, 1999. Barth, Christoph. “Moses, Knecht Gottes.” Pp. 68–81 in Festschrift Karl Barth. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1966. Barth, Karl. Die Kirchliche Dogmatik: Die Lehre vom Worte Gottes, Prolegomena zur Kirchlichen Dogmatik 1/1. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1932.    .  Die Kirchliche Dogmatik: Die Lehre von Gott 2/2. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1942 (ET: Church Dogmatics, Doctrine of God 2/2. Translated by T. H. L. Parker, W. B. Johnston, H. Knight, and J. L. M. Haire. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1957).    .  Die Kirchliche Dogmatik: Die Lehre von der Schöpfung, 3/4. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1951 (ET: Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Creation, 3/4. Translated by A. T. Mackay, T. H. L. Parker, H. Knight, H. A. Kennedy, and J. Marks. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1961.)    .  Die Kirchliche Dogmatik: Die Lehre von der Versöhnung, 4/1. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1953 (ET: Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Reconciliation, 4/1. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1961.)    .  Prayer and Preaching. London: SCM, 1964.

532

Bibliography

Barrett, C. Kingsley. The Gospel according to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1978. Becker, Uwe. “Der Prophet als Fürbitter: Zum Literarhistorischen Ort der AmosVisionen.” Vetus Testamentum 51 (2001): 141–165. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Inverted quotations in the Bible: A Neglected Stylistic Pattern.” Biblica 63 (1982): 506–523. Begg, Christopher T. “The Destruction of the Calf (Ex 32,20/Deut 9,21).” Pp. 24–48 in Das Deuteronomium. Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft. Edited by N. Lohfink. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 68. Louvain: Peeters, 1985. Ben Zwi, Ehud. “The Dialogue Between Abraham and Yhwh in Gen 18:23–32. A Historical Critical Analysis.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 53 (1992): 27–46. Bernardin, Joseph B. The Intercession of Our Lord. New York: Columbia University Press, 1933. Bernas, Casimir. “Models for Prayer in the Book of Kings.” Bible Today 18 (1980): 317–321. Berrigan, Daniel. Jeremiah: The World, the Wound of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999. Bertholet, Alfred. Deuteronomium. Kurzer Hand-Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1899. Birch, Bruce C. “The First and Second Books of Samuel: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” Pp. 947–1383 in volume 2 of The New Interpreter’s Bible. 12 volumes. Edited by Leander E. Keck et al. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. Blank, Sheldon H. “The Confession of Jeremiah and the Meaning of Prayer.” Hebrew Union College Annual 21 (1948): 331–354. Blenkinsopp, John. Isaiah 40–55 A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 19A. New York: Doubleday, 2002. Bloesch, Donald G. The Struggle for Prayer. Colorado Springs: Helmers & Howard, 1988. Blum, Erhard. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 189. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990. Blumenthal, David R. “Confronting the Character of God: Text and Praxis.” Pp.  38–51 in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann. Edited by: T. Linafelt and T. K. Beal. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Boda, Mark J. A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament. Siphrut 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. “A Bonhoeffer Sermon: On a Psalm of Vengeance (Psalm 58, 1937).” Translated by D. Bloesch. Theology Today 38/4 (1982): 465–471.    . “Nachfolge,” in Dietrich Bonhoeffer Auswahl Band 3 Entscheidungen 1936–1939. Edited by C. Gremmels and W. Huber. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2006.    .  Gemeinsames Leben. Gütersloh: Güterloher Verlagshaus, 2006.    .  Gesammelte Schriften Band 3. Edited by E. Bethge. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1966. Boorer, Suzanne. The Promise of the Land as Oath: A Key to the Formation of the Pentateuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 205. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992.

Bibliography

533

Bornkamm, Heinrich. Luther und das Alte Testament. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1948. Borowski, Oded. Agriculture in Iron Age Israel. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Bostok, David. Portrayal of Trust, The Theme of Faith in the Hezekiah Narratives. Paternoster, 2006. Braulik, Georg. “Gesetz als Evangelium. Rechtfertigung und Begnadigung nach der deuteronomischen Tora.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 79 (1982): 127–160. Bright, John. Jeremiah. Anchor Bible 21. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965.    .  The Authority of the Old Testament. London: SCM, 1967.    . “Jeremiah’s Complaints: Liturgy or Expressions of Personal Distress.” Pp.  189–214 in Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honor of Gwynne Henton Davies. Edited by J. I. Durham and J. R. Porter. London: SCM, 1970.    .  “A Prophet’s Lament and Its Answer: Jeremiah 15:10–21.” Interpretation 28 (1974): 59–74.    .  A History of Israel. London: SCM, 1991. Brisman, Leslie. “Sacred Butchery: Exodus 32:25–29.” Pp. 162–181 in Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Brevard S. Childs. Edited by C. R. Seitz and K. Greene–Mccreight. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Brongers, Hendrik A. “Die Rache- und Fluchpsalmen im AT.” Oudtestamentische Studiën 13 (1963): 21–42.    .  “Fasting in Israel in Biblical and Post–Biblical Times.” Oudtestamentische Studiën 20 (1977): 1–21. Broyles, Craig C. The Conflict of Faith and Experience in the Psalms: A Form-Critical and Theological Study. Journal for the Study of Old Testament Supplement 52. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Bruce, Frederick F. The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Brueggemann, Walter. “Amos’ Intercessory Formula.” Vetus Testamentum 19 (1969): 385–399.    .  Genesis. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982.    .  First and Second Samuel. Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990.    .  “A Shape for Old Testament Theology, II: Embrace of Pain.” Pp. 22–45 in Old Testament Theology: Essays on Structure, Theme and Text. Edited by P. D. Miller. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.    .  “Exodus, The Book of.” Pp. 677–981 in volume 1 of The New Interpreter’s Bible. 12 volumes. Edited by Leander E. Keck et al. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994.    . “Psalms and the Life of Faith: A Suggested Typology of Function.” Pp. 3–32 in The Psalms and the Life of Faith. Edited by P. D. Miller. Augsburg: Fortress, 1995.    .  “The Psalms as Prayer.” Pp. 33–67 in The Psalms and the Life of Faith. Edited by P. D. Miller. Augsburg: Fortress, 1995.    .  “The Costly Loss of Lament.” Pp. 98–111 in The Psalms and the Life of Faith. Edited by P. D. Miller. Augsburg: Fortress, 1995.

534

Bibliography

   .  “Wondrous Solidarity, Devastating Starchiness (Exodus 33:18–34:10).” Pp. 30–38 in The Threat of Life. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.    .  Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1997.    .  Isaiah 40–66. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: John Knox, 1998.    .  A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.    .  1 and 2 Kings. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2000.    .  Great Prayers of the Old Testament. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008. Brunner, Emil. The Mediator, A Study of The Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith. Translated by O. Wyon. Cambridge: Lutterworth, 1934 (Der Mittler: Zur Besinnung über den Christusglauben. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1927).    .  Man in Revolt: A Christian Anthropology. Translated by O. Wyon. London: Lutterworth, 1947 (Der Mensch im Widerspruch. Zürich: Zwingli, 1937). Buber, Martin. “The Election of Israel: A Biblical Inquiry (Exodus 3 and 19, Deuteronomy).” Pp. 80–93 in Biblical Humanism. New York: Schocken, 1968.    .  Der Glaube der Propheten. Gerlingen: Schneider, 1984.    .  Moses. Gerlingen: Schneider, 1994. Bultmann, Rudolf. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966. Caird, George. The Language and Image of the Bible: With a New Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Calvin, Jean. Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses: Arranged in the Form of a Harmony. vol. 3. Translated by C. W. Bingham. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1854.    .  Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses: Arranged in the Form of a Harmony. vol. 4. Translated by C. W. Bingham. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1855.    .  Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559 ed.). Translated by H. Beveridge. Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 1994. Caneday, Ardel. “Redeemed from the Curse of the Law: The Use of Deut. 21:22– 23 in Gal. 3:13.” Trinity Journal 10 (1989): 185–209. Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary of the Book of Exodus. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967. Chapman, Stephen B. The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000.    .  “Perpetual War: The Case of Amalek.” Pp. 1–19 in The Bible and Spirituality: Exploratory Essays in Reading Scripture Spiritually. Edited by J. G. McConville, A. T. Lincoln, and L. K. Pieterson. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2013. Chase, Steven. The Tree of Life: Models of Christian Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Chester, Timothy. The Message of Prayer. The Bible Speaks Today. Leicester: InterVarsity, 2003. Childs, Brevard S. “Interpretation in Faith: The Theological Responsibility of an Old Testament Commentary.” Interpretation 18 (1964): 432–449.

Bibliography

535

   . “Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis.” Journal of Semitic Studies 16 (1971): 137–150.    .  The Book of Exodus. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster, 1976.    .  Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.    .  Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. London: SCM, 1985.    .  Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. London: SCM, 1992.    .  Isaiah. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001.    .  The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Chua, How Chuang. Japanese Perspectives on the Death of Christ: A Study in Contextualized Christology. Ph.D. diss., Trinity International University, 2007. Clements, Ronald E. “Patterns in the Prophetic Canon.” Pp. 42–55 in Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology. Edited by George W. Coats and Bruce O. Long. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.    .  The Prayers of the Bible. London: SCM, 1986.    .  Jeremiah. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox, 1988.    . “Deuteronomy, The Book of.” Pp.  269–538 in volume 2 of The New Interpreter’s Bible. 12 volumes. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. Clines, David J. A. The Theme of the Pentateuch. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978.    . “Selections from I, He, We, They: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53.” Pp. 210–218 in The Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Classic and Contemporary Reading. Edited by S. E. Fowl. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997. Clowney, Edmund P. “A Biblical Theology of Prayer.” Pp. 136–176 in Teach Us to Pray: Prayer in the Bible and the World. Edited by D. A. Carson. Wipf & Stock, 2002. Coats, George W. “Moses Versus Amalek: Aetiology and Legend in Exod. Xvii 8–16.” Pp. 29–41 in Vetus Testamentum Supplements 28. Leiden: Brill, 1975.    .  “The King’s Loyal Opposition: Obedience and Authority in Exodus 32– 34.” Pp. 91–109 in Canon and Authority. Edited by G. W. Coats, and B. O. Long. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977.    .  Moses: Heroic Man, Man of God. Journal for the Study of Old Testament Supplement 57. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. Corvin, Jack. A Stylistic and Functional Study of the Prose Prayers in the Historical Narratives of the Old Testament. Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1972. Cotterell, Peter. and Turner, Max. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1989. Cranfield, Charles E. B. The Epistle to the Romans. Volume 2. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994. Crawford, Timothy G., Kelly, Page H. and Mynatt, Daniel S. The Masorah of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Crenshaw, James L. Seduction and Rape: The Confession of Jeremiah, in A Whirlpool of Torment: Israelite Traditions of God as an Oppressive Presence. Overtures of Biblical Theology 12. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1984.    .  “Proverbs, Book of.” Pp. 513–519 in volume 5 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 volumes. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1990.

536

Bibliography

   .  “Who Knows What Yhwh Will Do? The Character of God in the Book of Joel.” Pp. 185–196 in Fortunate Eyes That See. Edited by A. B. Beck. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Cromer, Gerald. “Amalek as Other, Other as Amalek: Interpreting a Violent Biblical Narrative.” Qualitative Sociology 24/2 (2001): 191–202. Crump, David. Jesus the Intercessor: Prayer and Christology in Luke–Acts. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/49. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992.    .  Knocking on Heaven’s Door: A New Testament Theology of Petitionary Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. Cullmann, Oscar. Das Gebet im Neuen Testament. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Davies, Dale R. “Rebellion, Presence and Covenant: Study in Exodus 32–34.” Westminster Theological Journal 44 (1982): 71–82. Davies, Eryl W. Numbers. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Davidson, Robert. Courage to Doubt: Exploring an Old Testament Theme. London: SCM, 1997. Day, John. Psalms. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Delitzsch, Franz. Jesaja. Giessen: Brunnen, 1984. Dennis, Trevor. Face to Face with God. London: SPCK, 1999. Dentan, Robert C. “The Literary Affinities of Ex. 34:6f.” Vetus Testamentum 13 (1963): 34–51. DeVries, Simon J. 1 Kings. Word Biblical Commentary 1). Waco, TX: Word, 1985. Dietrich, Walter, and Christian Link. Die Dunkeln Seiten Gottes: Willkür und Gewalt. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997. Dharamraj, Havilah. A Prophet Like Moses? A Narrative-Theological Reading of the Elijah Stories. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2011. Dillard, Raimond B. “David’s Census: Perspectives on 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21.” Pp.  94–107 in Through Christ’s Word: A Festschrift for Dr. P. E. Hughes. Edited by W. R. Godfrey and J. L. Boyd. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1985.    .  2 Chronicles. Word Biblical Commentary 15. Waco, TX: Word, 1987. Dohmen, Christoph. Das Bildverbot: Seine Entstehung und seine Entwicklung im Alten Testament. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 62. Althenaum: Hanstein, 1987.    . Exodus 19–40. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 2004. Dohmen, Christoph, and G. Sternberger. Hermeneutik der Jüdischen Bibel und des Alten Testaments. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1996. Döhling, Jan-Dirk. Der Bewegliche Gott: Eine Untersuchung des Motivs der Reue Gottes in der Hebräischen Bibel. Herders Biblische Studien 61. Freiburg: Herder, 2009. Dozeman, Thomas B. “Moses: Divine Servant and Israelite Hero.” Hebrew Annual Review 8 (1984): 45–61.    .  “Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Yahweh’s Gracious and Compassionate Character.” Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 207–223.    . “Review of Der Fürbitter Israels. Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament by E. Aurelius.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (1990): 106–8.

Bibliography

537

   .  Exodus. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Driver, Samuel R. A Treatise on the Use of Tenses in Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon, 1892.    .  The Book of Exodus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911. Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jeremia. Kurzer Hand-Kommentar zum Alten Testament 9. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1901.    .  Israels Propheten. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1916. Dunlop, L. The Intercession of Moses: A Study of the Pentateuchal Traditions. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970. Dunn, James D. G. Romans. Word Biblical Commentary 38a. Waco, TX: Word, 1988. Durham, John I. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary 3. Waco, TX: Word, 1987. Eagleton, Terry J. L. “Austin and the Book of Jonah.” Pp. 231–236 in The Book and the Text: The Bible and Literary Theory. Edited by R. M. Schwartz. Oxford, Blackwell, 1990. Ebeling, Gerhard. “Das Gebet.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche (1973): 206–225.    .  Dogmatik des christlichen Glaubens 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979. Eichrodt, Walther. “Faith in Providence and Theodicy in the Old Testament.” Pp.  17–41 in Theodicy in the Old Testament. Edited by J. L. Crenshaw. Translated by L. L. Welborn. London: SPCK / Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983 (“Vorsehungsglaube und Theodizee im Alten Testament.” Edited by A. Alt and F.  Baumgärtel. Pp.  45–70 in Festschrift O. Procksch. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1934).    .  Theology of the Old Testament Volume 1. Translated by J. A. Baker. Old Testament Library. London: SCM, 1961 (Theologie des Alten Testaments, part 1. Stuttgart: E. Klotz Verlag, 1959).    .  Theology of the Old Testament. Volume 2. Translated by J. A. Baker. Old Testament Library. London: SCM, 1985 (Theologie des Alten Testaments, Teil 2/3. Stuttgart: E. Klotz Verlag, 1964).    . Ezekiel. Old Testament Library. Translated by C. Quin. London: SCM, 1996 (Der Prophet Hesekiel. Altes Testament Deutsch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965–66). Elliott, Mark E. Isaiah 40–66. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, OT 11. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 2009. Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994. Evagrius, P. The Praktikos Chapters on Prayer. Translated by J. E. Bamberger. Kala­ mazoo: Cistercian, 1981. Evans, Mary J. “A Plague on Both Your Houses: Cursing and Blessing Reviewed.” Vox Evangelica 24 (1994): 77–89.    .  1 and 2 Samuel. New International Biblical Commentary 6. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000. Fabry, H–J. “‫לֵב‬, lēb; ‫ ֵלבָב‬, lēbāb.” Pp. 399–437 in volume 7 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Feldkämper, Ludwig. Der betende Jesus als Heilsmittler nach Lukas. Veröffent­ lichungen des Missionspriesterseminars St. Augustin bei Bonn 29. Bonn: Steyler, 1978.

538

Bibliography

Fensham, F. Charles. “Clauses of Protection in Hittite Vassal-Treaties and the Old Testament.” Vetus Testamentum 13 (1963): 133–143. Feuillet, André. Le sacerdoce du Christ et de ses ministres d’après la prière sacerdotale du quatrième évangile et plusieurs données parallèles du Nouveau Testament. Paris: Éditions de Paris, 1972. Filson, Floyd O. “Petition and Intercession.” Interpretation 8 (1954): 21–34. Fischer, Georg. Jeremia 1–25. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 2005. Fischer, Georg, and Dominik Markl. Das Buch Exodus. Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar Altes Testament. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985.    .  Sacred Attunement: A Jewish Theology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel according to Luke I–IX. Anchor Bible 28. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981. Foster, Richard J. Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home. San Francisco: Harper, 1992. Foulkes, Francis. The Acts of God: A Study of the Basis of Typology in the Old Testament. London: Tyndale, 1958. France, Richard T. Matthew. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986. Franz, Matthias. Der barmherzige und gnädige Gott: Die Gnadenrede vom Sinai (Exodus 34:6–7) und ihre Parallelen im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 160. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003. Freedman, Davie Noel. “The Name of the God of Moses.” Journal of Biblical Literature 79 (1960): 152–155. Fretheim, Terence F. The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.    . “Divine Foreknowledge, Divine Constituency, and the Rejection of Saul’s Kingship.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47 (1987): 595–602.    . “The Repentance of God: A Key to Evaluating Old Testament GodTalk.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 10 (1988): 47–70.    .  Exodus. Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991.    . “Genesis.” Pp.  319–673 in volume 1 of The New Interpreter’s Bible. 12 volumes. Edited by Leander E. Keck et al. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994.    .  “The Will of God in the Old Testament.” Pp. 914–920 in volume 6 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 volumes. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.    .  “Yahweh.” Pp. 1295–1300 in volume 5 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 volumes. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids: Zondervan / Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997.    . “Some Reflections on Brueggemann’s God.” Pp.  24–37 in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann. Edited by T. Linafelft and T. K. Beal. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998.    .  First and Second Kings. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999.

Bibliography

539

   .  Jeremiah. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Hewlys, 2002. Furst, W. “Moses as Intercessor.” Pp.  5–19 in Scripture and Prayer. Edited by C. Osiek and D. Senior. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1988. Gamper, Arnold. “Die Heilsgeschichtliche Bedeutung des Salomonischen Tempel-­weihegebets.” Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie 85 (1963): 55–61. Gerstenberger, Erhard. “Jeremiah’s Complaints: Observations on Jer. 15:10–21.” Journal for Biblical Literature 82 (1963): 393–408. Gese, Helmut. “Psalm 22 und das Neue Testament: Der älteste Bericht vom Tode Jesu und die Entstehung des Herrenmahles.” Die Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 65 (1968): 1–22.    . “Die Sühne.” Pp.  85–106 in Zur biblischen Theologie: Alttestamentliche Vorträge 78. Munich: Chr. Kaiser and Güterloher Verlagshaus, 1977.    . “Bemerkungen zur Sinaitradition.” Pp.  49–62 in Vom Sinai zum Zion; Alttestamentliche Beiträge zur biblischen Theologie 64. Munich: Chr. Kaiser and Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1990. Gesenius, Wilhelm, and Kautzsch E. Translated by A. E. Cowley. Hebrew Grammar, Oxford: Clarendon, 1910. Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews. Volume 3. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1954. Glatt-Gilad, David A. “Yahweh’s Honour at Stake: A Divine Conundrum.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 98 (2002): 63–74. Glueck, Nelson. Das Wort hesed im alttestamentlichen Sprachgebrauche als menschliche und göttliche gemeinschaftgemäße Verhaltungsweise. Beihefte für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 47. Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1927. Goldingay, John. God’s Prophet, God’s Servant: A Study in Jeremiah and Isaiah 40– 55. Exeter: Paternoster, 1984.    .  Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: Inter­ Varsity, 1990.    .  “The Logic of Intercession.” Theology 101 (1998): 262–270.    .  Isaiah. New International Biblical Commentary 13. Carlisle: Pater­ noster, 2001. ­   .  Old Testament Theology. Volume 1: Israel’s Gospel. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003. Goldingay, John, and David Payne. Isaiah 40–55. Volume 2. International Critical Commentary. London: T. & T. Clark, 2006. Goldman, Shalom. Samuel 1 and 2. New York: Soncino, 1949. Gordon, Robert P. 1 and 2 Samuel. Exeter: Paternoster, 1986.    .  “Samuel.” Pp. 1165–74 in volume 4 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 volumes. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997. Gowan, Donald. E. Theology in Exodus: Biblical Theology in the Form of a Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994.    .  “The Book of Amos.” Pp. 337–431 in volume 7 of New Interpreter’s Bible. 12 volumes. Edited by Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996. Gray, George B. Numbers. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912. Greenberg, Moshe. “On the Refinement of the Conception of Prayer in Hebrew Scriptures.” American Journal of Sociology 1 (1976): 57–99.

540

Bibliography

   .  “Moses’ Intercessory Prayer, Ex. 32:11–13, 31–32, Deut. 9:26–29.” Ecumenical Institute Tantur Yearbook (1977–78): 21–36.    .  Biblical Prose Prayer: As a Window to the Popular Religion of Ancient Israel. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.    .  “Review of Prayer in the Hebrew Bible, by S. L. Balentine.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 115 (1995): 320–321. Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses. Translated by A. Malherbe and E. Ferguson. New York: Paulist, 1978. Green, Joel B. and Mark D. Backer. Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in the New Testament and Contemporary Contexts. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Greene-McCreight, K. “Selections from John Calvin’s Sermons on Isaiah.” Pp. 186–197 in The Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Classic and Contemporary Readings. Edited by S. E. Fowl. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. Gressmann, Hugo. Mose und seine Zeit: Ein Kommentar zu den Mose–Sagen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913. Grüneberg, Keith N. Abraham, Blessing and the Nations: A Philological and Exegetical Study of Genesis 12:3 in Its Narrative Context. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 332. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Gunn, David M. “The ‘Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart’: Plot, Character and Theology in Exodus 1–14.” Pp. 72–96 in Act and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature. Edited by D. J. Cline, D. M. Gunn, and A. J. Hauser. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982. Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. Geschichte Israels bis Bar Kochba. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972. Hägglund, Fredrik. Isaiah 53 in the Light of Homecoming after Exile. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/31. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Häring, Bernhard. Gebet in einer weltlichen Welt. Munich: Ars Sacra, 1972. Hamilton, Victor P. “‫נׂשא‬, nāśāʾ.” Pp. 160–163 in volume 3 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 volumes. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997. Hanson, A. “John 1:14–18 and Exodus 34.” New Testament Studies 23 (1977): 90–101. Hanson, Richard P. C. God: Creator, Saviour, Spirit. London: SCM, 1960. Harnack, Theodosius. Luthers Theologie: Mit besonderer Beziehung auf seine Versöhnungs- und Erlösungslehre. Neue Ausgabe 2. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1927. Hausmann, J. “‫ ָסלַח‬, sālaḥ; ‫ ַס ָלּח‬, sallāḥ; ‫ס ִליחָה‬, ְ selı̂ḥâ.” Pp. 258–265 in volume 10 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Hays, Christine. “Golden Calf Stories: The Relationship of Ex 32 and Deuteteronomy 9–10.” Pp.  45–94 in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation. Edited by H. Najman and J. H. Newman. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Hebblethwaite, Brian. L. “Some Reflections on Predestination, Providence and Divine Foreknowledge.” Religious Studies 15 (1979): 433–448. Heiler, Friedrich. Prayer: A Study in the History and Psychology of Religion. Translated and edited by S. McComb. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1932 (Das Gebet: Eine Religionsgeschichtliche und Religions-psychologische Untersuchung. Munich: Reinhardt, 1919).

Bibliography

541

Helfmeyer, F. J. “‫אֹות‬, ʾôt.” Pp. 167–188 in volume 1 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. Hempel, Johannes. Gebet und Frömmigkeit im Alten Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922. Hermission, Hans-Jürgen. “Das vierte Gottesknechtslied im deuterojesajanischen Kontext.” Pp.  1–25 in Der Leidende Gottesknecht: Jesaja 53 und Seine Wirkungsgeschichte. Edited by B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm. 1 and 2  Samuel: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. London: SCM, 1964.    .  “Sind die Propheten Fürbitter?” Pp. 63–74 in Tradition und Situation: Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie. Edited by E. Würthwein and O. Kaiser. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963. Heschel, Abraham J. The Prophets. Peabody, MA: Prince, 1999. Hesse, Franz. Die Fürbitte im Alten Testament. Hamburg: Erlangen, 1951.    .  “The Evaluation and Authority of Old Testament Texts.” Pp. 285–313 in Essays on Old Testament Hermeneutics. Edited by Claus Westermann. Richmond: John Knox, 1963. Holladay, William L. “The Background of Jeremiah’s Self-Understanding: Moses, Samuel, Ps. 22.” Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1964): 152–164.    .  “Jeremiah and Moses: Further Observations.” Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1966): 17–27.    .  Jeremiah 1. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.    .  The Psalms through Three Thousand Years: Prayerbook of a Cloud of Witnesses. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Holland, Martin. Das erste Buch Samuel. Wuppertaler Studienbibel. Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 2002. Hornung, Erik. Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many. Translated by J. Baines. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996 (Der Eine und die Vielen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1971). Houston, Walter. “What Did the Prophets Think They Were Doing? Speech Acts and Prophetic Discourse in the Old Testament.” Biblical Interpretation 1 (1993): 167–188. Houtman, Cornelis. Exodus 1–7:13. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Translated by S. Woudstra. Kampen: KOK, 1993.    .  Exodus 7:14–19:25. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Translated by S. Woudstra. Kampen: KOK, 1996.    .  Exodus 20–40. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Translated by S. Woudstra. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. Hwang, Jerry. The Rhetoric of Remembrance: An Investigation of the “Fathers” in Deuteronomy. Siphrut 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012.    . “The Rhetoric of Theophany: An Imaginative Depiction of Horeb in Deuteronomy 9–10.” Pp. 145–164 in For Our God Always: Essays on Deuteronomy’s Message and Influence. Edited by J. DeRouchie, J. Gile, and K. Turner. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Hyatt, James P. Exodus. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

542

Bibliography

Irwin, Wiliam H. “The Course of the Dialogue between Moses and Yhwh in Exodus 33:12–17.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59 (1997): 629–638. Jacob, Benno. Das Erste Buch der Tora: Genesis. Berlin: Schocken, 1934.    .  Das Buch Exodus. Stuttgart: Calver, 1997. Jacob, Edmond. “Prophètes et Intercesseurs.” Pp.  205–217 in De la Torah au Messie: Meélanges Henri Cazelles. Edited by J. Doreé, P. Grelot, and M. Carrez. Paris: Desclée, 1981. Janowski, Bernd. Sühne als Heilsgeschehen; Studien zur Sühnetheologie der Priesterschrift und zur Wurzel KPR im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 55. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982.    .  “Er trug unsere Sünden. Jes 53 und die Dramatik der Stellvertretung.” Pp. 27–48 in Der leidende Gottesknecht. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996.    .  Stellvertretung: Alttestamentliche Studien Zu Einem Theologischen Grundbegriff. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 165. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1997. Janowski, Bernd, and Stuhlmacher, Peter. Der leidende Gottesknecht: Jesaja 53 und seine Wirkungsgeschichte mit einer Bibliographie zu Jesaja 53. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Janzen, J. Gerald. “Metaphor and Reality in Hosea 11.” Semeia 24 (1982): 7–45.    .  “The Character of the Calf and Its Cult in Exodus 32.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (1990): 597–607.    .  Exodus. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Jenkins, Philip. The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.    .  Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can’t Ignore The Bible’s Violent Verses. New York: Harper Collins, 2011. Jenson, Philip. “‫( ָּכהַן‬kāhan), pi. perform the duties of a priest; ‫( ּכֹהֵן‬kōhēn), nom. priest; ‫( ְּכ ֻהּנָה‬kehunnâ), nom. Priesthood.” Pp. 592–597 in volume 2 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 volumes. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997. Jeremias, Jörg. Kultprophetie und Gerichtsverkündigung in der späten Königszeit Israels. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 35. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970.    .  “Die Vollmacht des Propheten im Alten Testament,” Evangelische Theologie 31 (1971): 305–322.    . “Joel / Joelbuch.” Pp.  91–97 in volume 17 of Theologische Realenzyklopädie. 36 volumes. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988.    .  Der Prophet Amos. Das Alte Testament Deutsch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995.    . “The Interrelationship between Amos and Hosea.” Pp.  171–186 in Forming Prophetic Literature. Edited by J. W. Watts and P. R. House. Sheffield: Sheffield: Academic Press, 1996.    .  Die Reue Gottes: Aspekte alttestamentlicher Gottesvorstellung. Biblisch-­ Theologische Studien 31. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997. Johansson, Nils. Parakletoi: Vorstellungen von Fürsprechern für die Menschen vor Gott in der alttestamentlichen Religion, im Spätjudentum und Urchristentum. Lund: Gleerupska Universitetsbokhandeln, 1940.

Bibliography

543

Jones, Bruce W. “The Prayer in Daniel IX.” Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968): 488–493. Joüon, Paul, and Takamitsu Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1993. Kaminsky, Joel S. Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 196. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1995.    . “The Sins of the Fathers: A Theological Investigation of the Biblical Tension between Corporate and Individualized Retribution.” Judaism 46 (1997): 319–332. Kant, Immanuel. Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason and other Writings. Translated and edited by A. Wood and G. Di Giovani. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Kaufman, Gordon. “On the Meaning of ‘Act of God.’” Pp. 119–147 in God the Problem. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972. Kaufmann, Yehezkel. The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginning to the Babylonian Exile. London: Allen & Unwin, 1960. Keil, Carl Friedrich. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, The Pentateuch. Volumes 2 and 3. Translated by J. Martin. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1864. Keil, Carl Friedrich, and Delitzsch Franz. Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, vol. 2: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I and II Samuel. Translated by J. Martin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973.    .  Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, vol. 3: The Books of the Kings. Translated by J. Martin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971. Kelley, Page H., Daniel S. Mynatt, and Timothy G. Crawford. The Masorah of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Kidner, Derek. Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Leicester: InterVarsity, 1967. Kitamori, Kazoh. Theology of the Pain of God. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2005. Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi. Leviticus. Apollos Old Testament Commentary. Leicester: InterVarsity and Apollos, 2007. Klein, Ralph W. 1 Samuel. Word Biblical Commentary 10. Waco, TX: Word, 1984. Knierim, Rolf. Die Hauptbegriffe für Sünde im Alten Testament. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1965. Koch, Klaus. “Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament.”Pp. 57– 88 in Theodicy in the Old Testament. Edited by J. L. Crenshaw. Translated by T. H. Trapp. Philadelphia: Fortress, London: SPCK, 1983 (“Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament?” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 52 [1955]: 1–42).    .  The Prophets: The Babylonian and Persian Period. Volume 2. Translated by M. Kohl. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984 (Die Profeten: Babilonisch–persische Zeit, Bd. 2. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1980). Köhler, Ludwig. Old Testament Theology. Translated by A. S. Todd. London: Lutterworth 1957 (Theologie des Alten Testaments. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966). Kraus, Hans-Joachim. “Calvin’s Exegetical Principles.” Interpretation 31 (1977): 8–18.

544

Bibliography

   .  Psalmen 60–150. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament 15/2. Neukirchen-­Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978.    .  Theologie der Psalmen. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament 15/3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989. Kruse, Colin G. “The Servant Songs: Interpretative Trends.” Studies in Biblical Theology 8 (1978): 3–27. Küng, Hans. Judaism: The Religious Situation of Our Time. Translated by J. Bowden. London: SCM, 1992 (Das Judentum: Wesen und Geschichte. Munich: Piper, 1991). Kutsch, E. “‫ּבִרית‬, ְ berı̂t, Verpflichtung.” Pp. 339–352 in volume 1 of Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. 2 volumes. Edited by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1994. Lacocque, André. “The Liturgical Prayer in Daniel 9.” Hebrew Union College Annual 47 (1976): 119–142. Ladd, George E. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Lakoff, George. “Metaphors and Semantics.” International Encyclopaedia of Linguistics. Edited by W. Bright. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Landsberger, Benno. “Tin and Lead.” Journal of Near Eatern Studies 24 (1965): 285–296. Lane, Tony. “The Wrath of God as an Aspect of the Love of God.” Pp. 138–167 in Nothing Greater Nothing Better: Theological Essays on the Love of God. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.  Lang, B. “‫ּכ ֶפּר‬, ִ kipper; ‫ ַכ ּּפ ֹרֶת‬, kappōret; ‫כ ֹפֶר‬, ּ kōper; ‫ּכ ֻפִּרים‬, ִ kippurîrm.” Pp. 288–303 in volume 7 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Lash, Nicholas. “What Might Martyrdom Mean?” Theology on the Way to Emmaus. London: SCM, 1986, 75–92. Law, Jeremy T. “Prayer: Problem or Possibility.” Expository Times 107 (1995): 4–10. Lee, Won W. “The Transition from the Old Generation to the New Generation in the Book of Numbers: A Response to Dennis Olson.” Pp.  201–220 in Reading the Hebrew Bible for a New Millennium: Form, Concept, and Theological Perspective. Volume 2, Edited by W. Kim, D. Ellens, M. Floyd, and M. A. Sweeney. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000.    .  Punishment and Forgiveness in Israel’s Migratory Campaign. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Leeuwen, Raymond C. van “‫נקה‬, nqh ni. schuldlos sein.” Pp. 101–6 in volume 2 of Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by E. Jenni and C. Westermann. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser and Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1995. Lefevre, Perry. Understandings of Prayer. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981. Levenson, Jon D. “From Temple to Synagogue: 1 Kings 8.” Pp. 143–166 in Traditions in Transformation. Edited by B. Halpern and J. D. Levenson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981.    .  Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1985.    . “The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism.” Pp. 1–32 in The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament and Historical Criticism. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993.

Bibliography

545

   .  “Exodus and Liberation.” Pp. 127–160 in The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament and Historical Criticism. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993.    .  The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993.    .  Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006. Levin, Christoph. Der Jahwist. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 157. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Levine, Baruch A. Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 4A. New York: Double Day, 1993. Levinson, Bernard. “The Hermeneutics of Tradition in Deuteronomy,” Journal of Biblical Literature 119 (2000): 269–286. Linafelt, Tod. “Speech and Silence in the Servant Passages: Towards a Final– Form Reading of the Book of Isaiah.” Pp. 199–209 in The Theological Interpretation of Scripture. Edited by S. E. Fowl. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997. Lindblom, Johannes. Prophecy in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1962. Lochman, Jan M. The Lord’s Prayer. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Lohfink, Gerhard. Beten schenkt Heimat: Theologie und Praxis des christlichen Gebets. Freiburg: Herder, 2010. Lohfink, Norbert. “Darstellungskunst und Theologie in Dtn 1,6–3,29,” Biblica 41 (1960): 105–134.    .  Das Hauptgebot: Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn. 5–11. Analecta Biblica 20. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963.    .  “Exodus 32,7–11. 13–14 (24 Sonntag des Jahres).” Pp. 47–60 in Die alttestamentlichen Lesungen der Sonn-und Festtage. Auslegung und Verkündung 20 Sonntag des Jahres bis Christkönig. Edited by J. Schreiner. Würzburg: Echter, 1971.    .  “Der Fürbitter Israels. Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament, von Erik Aurelius.” Revue Biblique 97 (1990): 85–111.    . “Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11 und Exodus 32–34; Zu Endtextstrucktur, Intertextualität, Schichtung und Abhänglikeiten.” Pp. 41–88 in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10. Edited by M. Köckert and E. Blum. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser and Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001. Lohr, Joel N. Chosen and Unchosen: Conceptions of Election in the Pentateuch and Jewish-Christian Interpretation. Siphrut 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Longman, Tremper, III. “1  Sam 12:16–19: Divine Omnipotence or Covenant Curse?” Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983): 168–171. Longman, Tremper, III, and Daniel G. Reid. God Is a Warrior. Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995. Louth, Andrew. Theology and Spirituality. Fairacres Publications 55. Oxford: SLG, 1985. Lundbom, Jack R. “God’s Use of the Idem per Idem to Terminate the Debate.” Harvard Theological Review 71 (1978): 193–201. Luther, Martin. “How Christians Should Regard Moses.” Pp.  155–174 in: Luther’s Works. Volume 35J. Translated by E. T. Bachmann. Edited by Pelikan. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976.

546

Bibliography

Maass, F. “‫כפר‬, kpr pi. Sühnen.” Pp. 842–857 in volume 1 of Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by E. Jenni and C. Westermann. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1994. MacDonald, Nathan. Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.    .  “Listening to Abraham–Listening to Yhwh: Justice and Mercy in Genesis 18.16–33.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66 (2004): 25–43.    . “Anticipations of Horeb: Exodus 17 as Inner-Biblical Commentary.” Pp.  7–19 in Studies on the Text and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in Honour Robert Gordon. Edited by D. Lipton and G. Khan. Leiden: Brill, 2012. MacQuarrie, John. “Truth, Concepts of.” Pp.  647–650 in Modern Christian Thought. Edited by A. McGrath. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996. Maimonides, Moses. The Guide for the Perplexed. Translated by M. Friedländer. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1904. Manson, Thomas W. The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of Its Form and Content. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Marshall, I, Howard. Commentary on Luke. New International Greek Testament Commentary Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.    .  “Luke.” in New Bible Commentary. Edited by D. Guthrie, J. A. Motyer, A. M. Stibbs, and D. J. Wisemann. Leicester: InterVarsity, 1993.    .  New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel. Illinois: Inter­ Varsity, 2004. Mauchline, John. “Jesus Christ as Intercessor,” Expository Times 64 (1952–53): 355–360. Mays, James L. Psalms. Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994.    .  The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook to the Psalms. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. McCann, J. Clinton Jr. “The Book of Psalms: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” Pp.  639–1280 in volume 4 of The New Interpreter’s Bible. 12 volumes. Edited by Leander E. Keck et al. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. McCarter Jr., P. Kyle. 1  Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. Anchor Bible 8. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980.    .  2  Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. Anchor Bible 9. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984. McCarthy, Carmel. The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis (OBO 36). Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg, 1981. McConville, J. Gordon. Deuteronomy. Apollos Old Testament Commentary 5. Leicester: InterVarsity, 2002. McFague, Sallie. Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language. London: SCM, 1982. Mcintyre, John. The Shape of Soteriology. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995. McKane, William. Jeremiah 1–25. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986. McKenzie, Steven L. King David: A Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Mendenhall, George E. “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition.” Biblical Archaelogist 17 (1954): 50–76.

Bibliography

547

   .  “The Vengeance of Yahweh.” Pp. 69–104 in The Tenth Generation. Baltimore: John Hopkins University, 1973. Michaels, J. Ramsey. “Finding Yourself and Intercessor: New Testament Prayer from Hebrews to Jude.” Pp. 228–251 in Into God’s Presence: Prayer in the New Testament. Edited by R. N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Milgrom, Jacob. ‫במדבר‬, Numbers. JPS Torah Commentary. New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1990. Miller, Patrick D. “God the Warrior: A Problem in Biblical Interpretation and Apologetics.” Interpretation 19 (1965): 39–46.    .  “Moses My Servant; The Deuteronomic Portrait of Moses,” Interpretation 41 (1987): 245–255.    .  Deuteronomy. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 1990.    .  They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.    .  “Prayer and Divine Action.” Pp. 211–233 in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann. Edited by T. Linafelt and T. K. Beal. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998.    .  “Prayer as Persuasion: The Rhetoric and Intention of Prayer.” Pp. 337– 445 in Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 267. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.    . “The Book of Jeremiah.” Pp.  553–926 in volume 6 of The New Inter­ preter’s Bible. 12 volumes. Edited by Leander E. Keck et al. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001. Moberly, R. Walter L. At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 22. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983.    .  “The Nature of Christian Biblical Theology.” Pp. 147–157 in From Eden to Golgotha: Essays in Biblical Theology. Studies in the History of Judaism 52. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.    .  The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism. Overtures of Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.    .  “Christ as the Key to Scripture: Genesis 22 Reconsidered.” Pp. 143–173 in He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes from Gen. 12–50. Edited by R. S. Hess, G. J. Wenham, and P. E. Satterthwaite. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.    .  Genesis 12–50. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.    . “‫ ָאמַן‬, ʾāman.” Pp. 421–427 in volume 1 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 volumes. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997.    . “God Is Not a Human That He Should Repent’: Numbers 23:19 and 1 Samuel 15:29.” Pp. 112–123 in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann. Edited by T. Linafelt and T. K. Beal. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998.    .  “Theology of the Old Testament.” Pp. 452–478 in The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches. Edited by D. W. Baker and B. T. Arnold. Leicester: Apollos, 1999.    . “Towards an Interpretation of the Shema.” Pp.  124–144 in Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs. Edited by C. Seitz and K. Greene-McCreight Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

548

Bibliography

   .  The Bible, Theology, and Faith: A Study of Abraham and Jesus. Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.    .  “How May We Speak of God? A Reconsideration of the Nature of Biblical Theology.” Tyndale Bulletin 53 (2002): 177–202.    .  “Does God Lie to His Prophets? The Story of Micaiah ben Imlah As a Test Case.” Harward Theological Review 96 (2003): 1–23.    .  “The Canon of the Old Testament: Some Historical and Hermeneutical Reflections from a Western Perspective.” Pp. 239–257 in Das Alte Testament als christliche Bibel in orthodoxer und westlicher Sicht. Edited by I. Z. Dimitrov, J. D. G. Dunn, U. Luz, and K-W. Niebuhr. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.    .  Prophecy and Discernment. Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine 14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.    .  The Theology of the Book of Genesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.    .  Old Testament Theology: Reading the Hebrew Bible as Christian Scripture. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. Moo, Douglas J. “The Problem of Sensus Plenior.” Pp. 179–211 in Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon. Edited by D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986. Montgomery, James A. Daniel. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927. Motyer, Alec. The Prophecy of Isaiah. Leicester: InterVarsity, 1994. Mowinckel, Sigmund. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. 2 volumes. Translated by D. R. Ap-Thomas. New York: Abingdon, 1962. Mauchline, John. “Jesus Christ as Intercessor,” Expository Times (1953): 355–360. Muffs, Yochanan. Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992. Muilenburg, James. “The Intercession of the Covenant Mediator: Exodus 33:1a, 12–17.” Pp.  159–181 in Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to D. W. Thomas. Edited by P. R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Müller, Gerhard L. “Dogmatische Probleme gegenwärtiger Gebetstheologie.” Pp. 84–94 in volume 8 of Theologische Realenzyklopädie. 36 volumes. Edited by G. Müller and G. Krause. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984. Newbigin Lesslie. The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society. London: SPCK, 1989. Newing, Edward G. “The Rhetoric Altercation in Numbers 14.” Pp. 211–228 in Perspectives on Language and Text. Edited by E. W. Conrad and E. G. Newing. Winona Lake: Eisenbraun, 1987. Noth, Martin. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Translated by B. W. Anderson. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981 (Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948).    .  Exodus: A Commentary. Translated by J. S. Bowden. Old Testament Library. London: SCM, 1962 (Das zweite Buch Mose, Exodus. Das Alte Testament Deutsch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959).    .  Das vierte Buch Mose, Numeri. Das Alte Testament Deutsch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966.

Bibliography

549

Nouwen, Henri J. M. In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership. New York: Crossword, 1989. Obeng, Emmanuel A. “The Origins of the Spirit Intercession Motif in Romans.” New Testament Studies 32 (1986): 621–632. O’Connor, Kathleen M. “The Tears of God and Divine Character in Jeremiah 2–9.” Pp. 172–195 in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann. Edited by T. Linafelt and T. K. Beal. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Olson, Dennis T. The Death of the Old and The Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch. Brown Judaic Studies 71. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985.    .  Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading. Overtures in Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1994.    .  Numbers. Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Olley, John W. “The Many: How Is Isa 53, 12a to Be Understood.” Biblica 68 (1987): 330–356. Ott, Heinrich. “Theologie als Gebet und als Wissenschaft.” Theologische Zeitschrift 14 (1958): 120–132. Packer, James, I. Knowing God. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1973. Payne, Robin. “The Prophet Jonah: Reluctant Messenger and Intercessor.” Expository Times 105 (1993–94): 233–236. Peterson, Eugene H. The Jesus Way: A Conversation on the Ways That Jesus Is the Way. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Perlitt, Lothar. Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 36. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969.    .  “Mose als Prophet,” Evangelische Theologie 31 (1971): 588–608. Peckham, Brian. “The Composition of Deuteronomy 9:1–10:11.” Pp.  3–59 in Word and Spirit. Edited by J. Plenvik. Ontario: Regis College Press, 1975. Philip, Finny. The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/194. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Philo. Moses, De Vita Mosis. Translated by F. H. Colson. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966. Polk, Timothy. The Prophetic Persona: Jeremiah and the Language of the Self. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 32. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1984. Polzin, Robert. Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History, 1: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges. New York: Seabury, 1980. Preuß, Horst D. Das Alte Testament in christlicher Predigt. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1984.    .  Theologie des Alten Testaments 1: Jhwhs erwählendes und verpflichtendes Handeln. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991.    .  Theologie des Alten Testaments 2: Israels Weg mit Jhwh. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992. Prichard, John. The Intercession Handbook. London: SPCK, 2011. Prinsloo, Willem S. The Theology of the Book of Joel. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 163. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1985. Propp, William H. Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 2. New York: Doubleday, 1999.

550

Bibliography

Provan, Iain W. “Canons to the Left of Him: Brevard Childs, His Critics, and the Future of Old Testament Theology.” Scottish Journal of Theology 50 (1997): 1–38.    .  1 and 2 Kings. New International Biblical Commentary 7. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999. Rad, Gerhard von. “Die falschen Propheten.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 51 (1933): 109–122.    .  “The Confession of Jeremiah.” Evangelische Theologie 3 (1936): 265–276.    .  “Deuteronomy and the Holy War” in Studies in Deuteronomy, London: SCM, 1953.    .  Holy War in Ancient Israel. Translated and edited by M. J. Dawn, introduction by B. C. Ollenburger. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991 (Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel. AThANT 20. Zürich: Zwingli, 1951).    .  Moses. World Christian Books 32. London: Lutterworth, 1960.    . “Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament.” Translated by J. Bright. Pp. 17–39 in Essays in Old Testament Hermeneutics. Edited by C. Westermann. Louisvile: John Knox, 1963.    . “Verheißenes Land und Jahwes Land im Hexateuch.” Pp.  87–100 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971.    .  Genesis. Translated by J. H. Marks. London: SCM, 1979 (Das erste Buch Mose, Genesis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972).    .  Das fünfte Buch Mose, Deuteronomium. Alte Testament Deutsch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983.    .  Theologie des Alten Testaments, vol. 1: Die Theologie der geschichtlichen Überlie­ferungen Israels. Munich: Chr. Kaiser 1992 (ET: Old Testament Theology. Volume 1. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001.)    .  Theologie des Alten Testaments, vol. 2: Die Theologie der prophetischen Überlierferungen Israel, Munich: Chr. Kaiser 1993 (ET: Old Testament Theology. Volume 2. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001.) Raitt, Thomas M. “Why Does God Forgive?” Horizons in Biblical Theology 13 (1991): 38–58. Rashi. Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Prayers for Sabbath and Rashi’s Commentary. Translated and annotated by M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann. London: Shapiro, Vallentine, 1946.    .  Rashi’s Commentary on the Psalms 1–89, with English Translation, Introduction and Notes by Mayer I. Gruber. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Ratzinger, Joseph (Pope Benedict XVI). Jesus von Nazareth II. Freiburg: Herder, 2007. Renaud, Bernard. L’Alliance, un Mystère de Miséricorde: Une Lecture de Exode 32– 34. Lectio Divina 169. Paris: du Cerf, 1998. Rendtorff, Rolf. “Mose als Religionsstifter?” Theologische Blätter 57 (1975): 152–171.    .  “Die Offenbarungsvorstellung im Alten Israel.” Pp.  21–41 in Offenbarung als Geschichte. Edited by W. Pannenberg. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982.    .  “Covenant As a Structuring Concept in Genesis and Exodus.” Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 385–393    .  “Samuel the Prophet: A Link between Moses and the Kings.” Pp. 27–36 in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in

Bibliography

551

Honour of James A. Sanders. Edited by C. A. Evans and S. Talmon. Leiden: Brill, 1997.    .  Theologie des Alten Testaments: Ein Kanonischer Entwurf, vol. 1: Kanonische Grundlegung. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999.    .  Theologie des Alten Testaments; Ein Kanonischer Entwurf, vol. 2: Thematische Entfaltung. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001. Reventlow, Henning Graf. Liturgie und prophetisches Ich bei Jeremia. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1963.    .  Gebet im Alten Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986. Ringgren, Helmer. The Faith of the Psalmists. London: SCM, 1963. Rohde, Michael. “Fürbitte (AT).” Das Wissenschaftliche Bibellexikon im Internet. Online: www.bibilex.de. Roscher, Wilhelm H. Die Zahl 40 im Glauben, Brauch und Schriften der Semiten. Leibzig: Teubner, 1909. Rose, Martin. 5 Mose, part 2: 5. Mose 1–11 und 26–34 Rahmenstücke zum Gesetzeskorpus. Zürcher Bibel Kommentare Altes Testament. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1994. Rossier, Francois. L’ intercession entre les hommes dans la bible hébraïque: L’ intercession entre les hommes aux origines de l’intercession auprès de Dieu. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 152. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. Rost, Leonhard. “Die Schuld der Väter.” Pp. 229–233 in Solange es “heute” heisst. Edited by P. Althaus. Berlin: Evangelische Verlags­anstalt, 1957. Rowley, Harold H. “The Prophet Jeremiah and the Book of Deuteronomy.” Pp. 157–174 in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy Presented to T. H. Robinson. Edited by H. H. Rowley. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950. Rudolph, Wilhelm. Jeremia. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 12. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968.    .  Joel, Amos, Obadja, Jona. Kommentar zum Alten Testament 13. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus and Gerd Mohn, 1971. Ryrie, Alexander. Wonderful Exchange: An Exploration of Silent Prayer. Norwich: Canterbury, 2003. Sailhamer, John P. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. Sakenfeld, Katharina D. “The Problem of Divine Forgiveness in Numbers 14.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 37 (1975): 317–330.    .  Faithfulness in Action: Loyalty in Biblical Perspective. Overtures of Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.    .  Journing with God: A Commentary on the Book of Numbers. International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam. The Epistle to the Romans. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902. Sarna, Nahum M. ‫בראשית‬, Genesis. JPS Torah Commentary. New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1989.    .  ‫שמות‬, Exodus. JPS Torah Commentary. New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1991. Savran George. “1 and 2 Kings.” Pp. 146–164 in The Literary Guide to the Bible. Edited by R. Alter and F. Kermode. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987.

552

Bibliography

Sawyer, John F. A. The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Scharbert, Joseph. “Formgeschichte und Exegese von Ex. 34:6f.” Biblica 38 (1957): 130–150.    .  Solidarität in Segen und Fluch im Alten Testament und in seiner Umwelt. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 1. Bonn: Hanstein, 1958.    .  “Das Verbum pqd in der Theologie des Alten Testaments.” Biblische Zeitschrift 4 (1960): 209–26.    . “Die Fürbitte in der Theologie des Alten Testaments.” Theologie und Glaube 50 (1960): 321–338.    .  Heilsmittler im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient. Quaestiones Disputatae 23/24. Freiburg: Herder, 1964.    .  “Die Fürbitte im Alten Testament.” Pp. 91–109 in Diener in Eurer Mitte: Festschrift A. Hofmann. Berlin: Passau, 1984.    .  Exodus. Die Neue Echter Bibel. Würzburg: Echter, 1989.    . Numeri. Die Neue Echter Bibel. Würzburg: Echter, 1992. Schenker, Adrian. Der Mächtige im Schmelzofen des Mitleids: Eine Interpretation von 2 Sam 24. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 42. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982.    .  Die Anlässe zum Schuldopfer Ascham. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 3. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Schmid, Konrad. “Israel am Sinai: Etappen der Forschungsgeschichte zu Ex 32– 34 in seinen Kontexten.” Pp. 9–41 in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10. Edited by M. Köckert and E. Blum. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser and Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001.    .  Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible. Translated by J. D. Nogalski. Siphrut 3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010. (Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschictsbücher des Alten Testaments. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 81. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999). Schmidt, Werner H. Das Buch Jeremia: Kapitel 1–20. Alte Testament Deutsch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Schmidt, Ludwig. “De Deo”: Studien zur Literaturkritik und Theologie des Buches Jona, des Gesprächs zwischen Abraham und Jahwe in Gen 18,22ff. und von Hi 1. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 143. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976.    . “Die Kundschaftererzählung in Num 13–14 und Dtn 1,19–46.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 114 (2001): 40–58. Schmitt, Hans-Christoph. “Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie.” Vetus Testamentum 32 (1982): 170–189.    .  “Die Geschichte vom Sieg über die Amalekiter Ex 17,8–16 als theologische Lehrerzählung.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 102 (1990): 335–344. Schottroff, Willy. “‫פקד‬, pqd, heimsuchen.” Pp. 466–486 in volume 2 of Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by E. Jenni and C. Westermann. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser and Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1995. Schroeder, Christoph. “Standing in the Breach.” Interpretation 52 (1998): 16–23.

Bibliography

553

Schweizer, Harald. “Das seltsame Gespräch von Abraham und Jahwe (Gen 18:22–33).” Theologische Quartalschrift 164 (1984): 121–139. Schwienhorst, Ludger. “‫ ָמרָה‬, mārâ, ‫מִרי‬, ְ merı̂.” Pp. 5–10 in volume 9 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Scoralick, Ruth. Trishagion und Gottesherrschaft: Psalm 99 als Neuinterpretation von Tora und Propheten. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 138. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989.    . “Jhwh, Jhwh, ein gnädiger und barmherziger Gott . . .” (Ex. 34,6): Die Gottesprädikationen aus Ex 34,6f. in ihrem Kontext in Kapitel 32–34.” Pp. 141–157 in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10. Edited by M. Köckert and E. Blum. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser and Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001.    .  Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn: Gottesprädikationen in Ex 34:6f und ihre intertextuellen Beziehungen zum Zwölfprophetenbuch. Herders Biblische Studien 33. Freiburg: Herder, 2002. Seebass, Horst. Numeri. Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament 4/1. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993.    .  Numeri. Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament 4/2. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995.    .  Genesis II/2: Vätergeschichte I (11:27–22:24). Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997. Seitz, Chris R. “The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 10 (1989): 3–27.    .  Isaiah 1–39. Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993.    .  “The Divine Name in Christian Scripture.” Pp. 251–262 in Word without End: The Old Testament as Abiding Theological Witness. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.    .  “The Call of Moses and the ‘Revelation’ of the Divine Name.” Pp. 229– 247 in Word without End: The Old Testament as Abiding Theological Witness. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.    .  “Prayer in the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible.” Pp. 159–176 in Figured Out: Typology and Providence in Christian Scripture. Louisville: John Knox, 2001.    . “Isaiah 40–66.” Pp.  301–557 in volume 6 of New Interpreter’s Bible 12 volumes. Edited by Leander E. Keck et al. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001.    .  Prophecy and Hermeneutics: Toward a New Introduction to the Prophets. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Seitz, Gottfried. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Deuteronomium. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 13. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971. Sénéchal, Vincent. Rétribution et intercession dans le Deutéronome. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 408. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Seow, Choon Leong. “The First and Second Books of Kings.” Pp. 1–295 in volume 3 of New Interpreter’s Bible. 12 volumes. Edited by Leander E. Keck et al. Nashville: Abingdon, 2002. Seybold, Klaus. “Reverenz und Gebet. Erwägungen zu der Wendung hilla panîm.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 88 (1976): 2–16.

554

Bibliography

Sheriffs, Deryck. The Friendship of the Lord: An Old Testament Spirituality. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1996. Simian-Yofre, Horacio. “‫נחם‬, nḥm.” Pp. 340–355 in volume 9 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Simon, Uriel. Jonah ‫יונה‬. JPS Bible Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1999. Smend, Rolf. Das Mosebild von Heinrich Ewald bis Martin Noth, Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese 3. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1959. Sölle, Dorothee. “Gebet.” Pp. 115–124 in Atheistisch an Gott glauben. Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1994. Soskice, Janet M. Metaphors and Religious Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Spencer, Michael D. “Moses as Intercessor,” Scripture Bulletin 29 (1999): 79–86. Spieckermann, Hermann. “Barmherzig und gnädig ist der Herr.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 102 (1990): 1–18.    . “God’s Steadfast Love: Towards a New Conception of Old Testament Theology.” Biblica 80 (2000): 305–327.    .  “Konzeption und Vorgeschichte des Stellvertretungsgedankens im Alten Testament.” Pp.  141–156 in Gottes Liebe zu Israel. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 33. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.    . “Wrath and Mercy as Crucial Terms of Theological Hermeneutics.” Pp. 3–16 in Divine Wrath and Divine Mercy in the World of Antiquity. Edited by R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/33. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Stähli, H-P. “‫חוה‬, ḥwh, sich niederwerfen.” Pp. 530–533 in volume 1 of Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by E. Jenni and C. Westermann. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser and Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1994.    . “‫פלל‬, pll, hitp. beten.” Pp. 427–432 in volume 2 of Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by E. Jenni and C. Westermann. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser and Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1995. Stamm, J. J. “‫סלח‬, slḥ, vergeben.” Pp. 150–160 in volume 2 of Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by E. Jenni and C. Westermann. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser and Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1995. Staudt, Edwin. Prayer and the People in the Deuteronomist. Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1980. Steinmetz, David C. “The Superiority of Pre-critical Exegesis.” Theology Today, 37 (1980): 27–38. Stern, Philip D. “1  Samuel 15: Towards an Ancient View of the War-Herem.” Ugarit Forschungen 21 (1989): 414–420. Sternberg, Meir. “The Bible’s Art of Persuasion: Ideology. Rhetoric and Poetics in Saul’s Fall.” Pp. 234–271 in Beyond Form Criticism: Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticism. Edited by P. R. House. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Stettler, Christian. Das Letzte Gericht: Studien zur Endgerichtserwartung von den Schriftpropheten bis Jesus. WUNT 2/299. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Stettler, Hanna. Heiligung bei Paulus: Ein Beitrag aus biblisch-theologischer Sicht WUNT 2/368. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014.

Bibliography

555

Stoebe, H. J. “‫ ֶחסֶד‬, ḥesed, Güte.” Pp. 600–620 in volume 1 of Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by E. Jenni and C. Westermann. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser and Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1994. Stolz, F. “‫ָׂשא‬ ָ ‫נ‬, nāśāʾ, aufheben, tragen.” Pp. 109–117 in volume 2 of Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by E. Jenni and C. Westermann. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser and Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1995. Stott, John R. W. The Cross of Christ. Leicester: InterVarsity, 1995. Strazicich, John R. Joel’s Use of Scripture and the Scripture’s Use of Joel: Appropriation and Resignification in Second Temple Judaism And Early Christianity. Biblical Interpretation 82. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Stuart, Douglas. Hosea–Jonah. Word Biblical Commentary 31. Dallas: Word, 1987. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, vol. 1: Grundlegung Von Jesus zu Paulus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992.    .  “Isaiah 53 in the Gospels and Acts.” Pp. 147­–162 in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources. Edited by P. Stuhlmacher. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Stuhlmacher, Peter, and Bernd Janowski. Der leidende Gottesknecht. Jesaja 53 und seine Wirkungsgeschichte mit einer Bibliographie zu Jesaja 53. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Swinburne, Richard. The Christian God. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Talstra, Eep.  Solomon’s Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of 1 Kings 8:14–61. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993.    . “Deuteronomy 9 and 10: Synchronic and Diachronic Observations.” Pp. 187–211 in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis. Edited by J. C. de Moor. Leiden: Brill 1995. Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 51–100. Word Biblical Commentary 20. Dallas: Word, 1990. Terrien, Samuel L. Elusive Presence toward a New Biblical Theology. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978. Thielicke, Helmut. “Grenzen der Fürbitte.” Theologie der Anfechtung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1949. Thiselton, Anthony C. New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading. Glasgow: Harper Collins, 1992.    .  “Language Religious.” Pp. 315–319 in Modern Christian Thought. Edited by A. E. Mcgrath. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996. Thompson, John A. Jeremiah. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Thompson, Michael E. W. “Amos: A Prophet of Hope?” Expository Times 104 (1992–93): 71–75.    .  I Have Heard Your Prayer: The Old Testament and Prayer. Peterborough: Epworth, 1996. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. “God’s Hidden Compassion,” Tyndale Bulletin 57 (2006): 191–213.    . “Ezekiel: A Compromised Prophet in Reduced Circumstances.” Pp. 175–196 in Constructs of Prophecy in the Former and Latter Prophets and other Texts. Edited by L. L. Grabbe and M. Nissinen. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011.

556

Bibliography

Tiessen, Terrance. Providence and Prayer: How Does God Work in the World. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Tigay, Jeffrey H. ‫דברים‬, Deuteronomy. JPS Torah Commentary. New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Toorn, Karel van der. Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia: A Comparative Study. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 22. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985. Trible, Phyllis. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Overtures in Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. Tsumura, David T. 1 Samuel. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Turner, Max. The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts: in the New Testament Church and Today. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005. Tyler, Williams F. “‫פקד‬, pāqad.” Pp. 655–660 in volume 3 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 volumes. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997. Van Seters, John. The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Vaulx de, Jules. Les Nombres. Paris: Sources Bibliques, 1972. Verhoef, Pieter A. “Prayer.” Pp. 1060–67 in volume 5 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 volumes. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997. Villiers, de Gerda. “Where Did She Come from, and Where Did She Go To? (The Queen of Heaven in Jeremiah 7 and 44).” Oudtestamentische Studiën 15 (2002): 620–627. Vischer, Lukas. Fürbitte. Frankfurt am Main: Knecht, 1979. Vischer, Wilhelm. Das Christuszeugnis des Alten Testaments: vol. 1, Das Gesetz. Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1943 (ET: The Witness of the Old Testament to Christ, vol. 1: The Pentateuch. Translated by A. B. Crabtree. London: Lutterworth, 1949). Vriezen, Theodorus C. Die Erwählung Israels nach dem Alten Testament. Abhand­ lungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 24. Zürich: Zwingli, 1953. Waltke, Bruce K. An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007. Walkenhorst, Karl-Heinz. “Warum beeilte sich Mose niederzufallen? Zur literarischen Einheit von Ex. 34,8f.” Biblische Zeitschrift 28 (1984): 185–213. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972.    . “‫בִּרית‬, ְ berı̂ʾth.” Pp. 253–279 in volume 2 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.    .  Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991.    . “‫ ָכּבֹוד‬, kābôd.” Pp. 22–38 in volume 8 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Weiser, Artur. Die Psalmen. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 14. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973.

Bibliography

557

   .  Das Buch Jeremia: Kapitel 1–25, 14. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 20. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Welker, Michael. “Angels in the Biblical Traditions: An Impressive Logic and the Imposing Problem of Their Hypercomplex Reality.” Theology Today 51 (1994): 367–380. Wellhausen, Julius. Die Composition des Hexateuch und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963.    .  Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001. Wendel, Adolf. Das freie Laiengebet im vorexilischen Israel. Leipzig: Eduard Pfeiffer, 1931. Wenham, Gorden J. The Book of Leviticus. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.    .  Numbers. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Leicester: Inter-­ Varsity, 1993.    .  Genesis 1–15. Word Biblical Commentary 1. Waco, TX: Word, 1987.    .  Genesis 16–50. Word Biblical Commentary 2. Dallas: Word, 1994.    .  “Pondering the Pentateuch: The Search for a New Paradigm.” Pp. 116– 144 in The Face of Old Testament Studies. Edited by D. W. Baker and B. T. Arnold. Leicester: Apollos, 1999. Werline, Rodney A. Pray Like This: Understanding Prayer in the Bible. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2007. Westermann, Claus. Praise and Lament in the Psalms. Translated by K. R. Crim and R. N. Soulen. Edinburgh: T.  &  T. Clark, 1981 (Lob und Klage in den Psalmen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983).    .  “Die Herrlichkeit Gottes in der Priesterschrift.” Pp. 227–249 in Wort— Gebot—Glaube, Festschrift W. Eichrodt. AThANT 59. Zürich: Zwingli, 1970.    .  “The Role of the Lament in the Theology of the Old Testament.” Translated by R. N. Soulen. Interpretation 28 (1974): 20–38.    .  “Die Begriffe für Fragen und Suchen im Alten Testament.” Pp. 162–190 in Forschung am Alten Testament II. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1974.    .  Die Theologie des Alten Testaments in Grundzügen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985.    .  Isaiah 40–66. Old Testament Library. Translated by D. M. G Stalker. London: SCM, 1985(Das Buch Jesia 40–66. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 19. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966).    .  Genesis 12–36. Translated by S. J. Scullion. London: SPCK, 1986 (Genesis 12–36. Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981).    .  Prophetic Oracles of Salvation in the Old Testament. Translated by K. Crim. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991 (Prophetische Heilsworte im Alten Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht, 1987).    .  The Living Psalms. Translated by J. R. Porter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989 (Ausgewählte Psalmen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984). Whybray, Norman. Thanksgiving for a Liberated Prophet: Interpretation of Isaiah 53. Sheffield: Continuum, 1978. Widmer, Michael. Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer: A Study of Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 13–14. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/8). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.

558

Bibliography

Wiesel, Elie. “Eine Quelle für die Hoffnung finden.” Süddeutsche Zeitung 248 (1989) 28–29. Wiles, Gordon P. Paul’s Intercessory Prayers: The Significance of the Intercessory Prayer Passages in the Letters of St Paul. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph 24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Wilckens, Ulrich. Theologie des Neuen Testaments, vol. 2: Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments als Grundlage kirchlicher Lehre, Teilband 1: Das Fundament. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007. Williamson, Hugh G. M. Ezra, Nehemiah. Word Biblical Commentary 16. Waco, TX: Word, 1985.    .  “The Prophet and the Plumb-Line: A Redaction–Critical Study of Amos vii.” Oudtestamentische Studiën 26 (1990): 101–121. Willis, John T. “‘The ‘Repentance’ of God in the Books of Samuel, Jeremiah, and Jonah.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 16 (1994): 156–175. Willoughby, Bruce E. “Amos, Book of.” Pp. 203–212 in volume 1 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992. Wilson, Robert R. Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Wolff, Hans W. “The Hermeneutics of the Old Testament.” Pp. 160–199 in  Essays on Old Testament Hermeneutics. Edited by C. Westermann. Richmond: John Knox, 1963.    .  Hosea, Dodekapropheton I. Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament 14/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965.    .  Joel und Amos, Dodekapropheton II. Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament 14/2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969. Wright, Archie T. The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6:1–4 in Early Jewish Literature. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 198. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Wright, Christopher J. H. Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament: Rediscovering the Roots of our Faith. London: Pickering, 1992.    . Deuteronomy. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998.    .  The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Leicester: Inter­ Varsity, 2006.    .  The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Wright, G. Ernest, God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital. London: SCM, 1952. Wright, N. T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991.    .  Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Youngblood, Ronald F. “1, 2 Samuel.” Pp. 21–614 in volume 3 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Revised Edition. 13 volumes. Edited by Tremper Longmann III and David E. Garland. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009. Zenger, Erich. Das Buch Exodus, Geistliche Schriftlesung. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1987.    .  Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008.

Bibliography

559

   .  Psalmen Auslegungen 2: Ich will die Morgenröte wecken. Freiburg: Herder, 2006. Ziesler, John. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. New Testament Commentaries. London: SCM, 1993. Zimmerli, Walther. “Ich bin Jahwe.” Pp. 11–40 in Gottes Offenbarung. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1963.    .  “Das Zweite Gebot.” Pp. 234–248 in Gottes Offenbarung. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1963.    . “Zur Vorgeschichte von Jes. Liii.” Pp.  213–222 in Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie und Prophetie. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1974.    .  “Der ‘Prophet’ im Pentateuch.” Pp. 197–211 in Studien zum Pentateuch, Festschrift W. Kornfeld. Edited by G. Braulik. Wien: Herder, 1977.    .  Ezechiel. Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament 13. Neukirchen-­Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979.    .  Old Testament Theology in Outline. Translated by D. E. Green. Edinburgh: T.  &  T. Clark, 1994 (Grundriß der alttestamentlichen Theologie. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972). Zorn, Reinhard. Die Fürbitte im Spätjudentum und im Neuen Testament. Dissertation, Göttingen: 1957. Zvi, Ehud ben. “The Dialogue between Abraham and Yhwh in Gen. 18:23–32: A Historical Analysis.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 53 (1992): 27–46.

Index of Authors Achtemeier, E.  448, 460, 464, 466, 470 Allen, L. C.  390, 446, 471 Allison, D. C., Jr.  11, 15, 173, 174, 226, 334, 337 Andersen, F. I.  174, 493, 496 Anderson, A. A.  198, 199, 225, 409 Anderson, G. A.  456 Attwood, D. J. E.  274 Aurelius, E.  7, 20, 21, 102, 104, 105, 113, 114, 121, 154, 335 Averbeck, R. E.  184 Avioz, M.  358, 390, 408 Backer, M. D.  415 Baker, D. L.  18 Balentine, S. E.  6, 24, 167, 196, 259, 275, 289, 290, 333, 339, 394, 399, 427, 428 Balthasar, H. U. von  27, 90, 262, 283, 292 Baltzer, K.  307 Barker, J.  445, 448, 450, 459, 466 Barrett, C. K.  292 Barr, J.  13 Barth, K.  5, 15, 17, 26, 27, 42, 76, 100, 169, 186, 190, 475, 483, 515, 529 Becker, U.  12 Beentjes, P. C.  450 Begg, C. T.  117 Benedict, XVI  286, 526 Ben Zvi, E.  28 Bernardin, J. B.  298 Bernas, C.  254 Berrigan, D.  345 Bertholet, A.  144 Birch, B. C.  179, 183, 188, 190, 191, 192, 197, 209, 240, 241 Blank, S. H.  358, 359 Blenkinsopp, J.  314 Bloesch, D. G.  528 Blum, E.  102, 113, 117, 119, 146

Blumenthal, D. R.  156, 157 Boda, M. J.  12, 212, 247, 250, 450 Bonfils, J.  21 Bonhoeffer, D.  6, 324, 412, 420, 502, 503 Boorer, S.  20, 113, 114, 115, 117, 129, 146 Bornkamm, H.  16 Borowski, O.  488 Braulik, G.  110, 116, 117, 125, 169, 170 Bright, J.  333, 398, 399, 410, 411, 419 Brongers, H. A.  409, 417 Bruce, F. F.  11 Brueggemann, W.  6, 8, 13, 31, 36, 38, 43, 46, 48, 49, 54, 78, 80, 96, 97, 100, 150, 152, 166, 176, 179, 184, 187, 188, 189, 190, 193, 194, 195, 197, 205, 207, 208, 215, 216, 217, 218, 227, 229, 230, 234, 235, 237, 238, 243, 260, 267, 277, 278, 284, 290, 307, 333, 348, 362, 364, 371, 372, 373, 374, 377, 379, 381, 384, 387, 388, 394, 396, 400, 401, 405, 406, 414, 427, 428, 431, 432, 433, 467, 473, 477, 483, 491, 492, 493, 500, 514, 520 Brunner, E.  521, 522, 524 Buber, M.  10, 21, 79, 152, 178, 182, 384, 385 Bultmann, R.  526 Calvin, J.  5, 16, 26, 72, 74, 76, 82, 87, 96, 97, 135, 305, 322, 349, 351, 373, 377, 412, 413 Caneday, A.  416 Carroll, R.  339, 355 Cassuto, U.  61, 67, 88 Chapman, S. B.  10, 58, 77, 78, 141, 207, 217

561

562

Index of Authors

Childs, B. S.  2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 22, 32, 61, 63, 69, 76, 77, 82, 88, 107, 111, 112, 133, 135, 143, 150, 152, 153, 156, 168, 169, 206, 211, 227, 228, 236, 237, 283, 305, 308, 312, 313, 320, 321, 322, 323, 373, 424, 447, 465 Chua, H.-C.  433 Clements, R. E.  6, 8, 9, 41, 48, 52, 54, 57, 119, 165, 252, 253, 280, 345, 386, 387, 431 Clines, D. J. A.  23, 29, 297, 299, 309 Coats, G. W.  58, 65, 142 Craigie, P. C.  113, 125, 126, 147 Cranfield, C. E. B.  525 Crawford, T. G.  38 Crenshaw, J. L.  271, 424, 446 Crump, D.  314, 470 Cullmann, O.  8

Fabry, H.-J.  104, 165 Fensham, F. C.  408 Feuillet, A.  286 Fischer, G.  77, 329, 331, 333, 339, 344, 348, 353, 384, 387, 389, 392, 393, 396, 400, 405 Fishbane, M.  111, 112 Fitzmyer, J. A.  469 Foerster, W.  418, 419, 421 Foster, R. J.  475 Foulkes, F.  18 France, R. T.  312 Franz, M.  97 Freedman, D. N.  493, 496 Fretheim, T. F.  37, 38, 39, 41, 45, 55, 60, 67, 94, 136, 139, 140, 210, 211, 214, 268, 278, 279, 281, 282, 333, 334, 348, 360, 364, 366, 372, 374, 375, 376, 383, 387, 392, 426, 432, 434, 495

Danielou, J.  82 Davidson, R.  132, 133, 135, 306, 332 Day, J.  411 Delitzsch, F.  180, 314, 315 Dentan, R. C.  13 DeVries, S. J.  272 Dharamraj, H.  11 Dietrich, W.  73, 78 Dillard, R. B.  226, 249, 250 Döhling, J.-D.  83, 212, 213, 216, 217, 244, 468, 485 Dohmen, C.  88, 91, 130, 234 Dozeman, T. B.  58, 63, 453 Drazin, I.  133 Driver, S. R.  113, 133, 144

Gamper, A.  264 Gerstenberger, E.  398 Gese, H.  88, 305, 322, 404 Gibson, J.  123, 128 Ginzberg, L.  74, 336 Glatt-Gilad, D. A.  81, 177 Goldingay, J.  50, 51, 54, 141, 308, 309, 310, 311, 330, 417, 499, 500 Gordon, R.  176, 179, 180, 183, 186, 218, 260 Gowan, D. E.  479, 500, 501 Greenberg, M.  6, 148, 153, 155, 334, 359, 394 Green, J. B.  415 Gressmann, H.  64 Grüneberg, K. N.  29 Gunneweg, A. H. J.  182

Eagleton, T. J. L.  85 Ebeling, G.  8 Eichrodt, W.  52, 70, 87, 149, 150, 151, 157, 161, 162, 163, 180, 223, 231, 232, 317, 325, 404, 470, 509 Elliott, M. F.  298 Erickson, M. J.  502 Evans, M. J.  213, 408, 423

Hägglund, F.  295 Hall, J.  77 Hanson, R. P. C.  519, 520 Häring, B.  2 Harnack, T.  15, 171, 432 Hays, C.  117 Headlam, A. C.  286 Heiler, F.  10, 11

Index of Authors Hermission, H.-J.  303 Hertzberg, H. W.  191, 192, 194, 195 Heschel, A. J.  83, 93, 212, 372, 373, 427, 433, 514, 521 Hesse, F.  6, 12, 63, 86, 143, 183, 205, 333, 337, 371, 383, 411, 431, 436, 443, 449, 457, 490, 519 Hobbs, T. R.  123 Holladay, W. L.  23, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 339, 382, 385, 386, 393, 394, 395, 396, 411, 418, 419, 420, 422, 423, 448 Holland, M.  204, 212, 218, 469 Holmes, A. F.  274 Houtman, C.  58, 62, 63, 64, 72, 73, 81, 82, 235 Hwang, J.  102, 109, 112, 191 Jackson, P. K.  123 Jacob, B.  14, 35, 37, 38, 39, 44, 45, 55, 72, 73, 91, 92, 133, 134, 135, 143, 305 Jacob, E.  173, 484, 501 Janowski, B.  294, 303, 312 Janzen, J. G.  80 Jenkins, P.  58 Jenson, P. P.  455, 475 Jeremias, J.  12, 137, 166, 167, 170, 206, 210, 211, 219, 220, 240, 446, 447, 449, 481, 486, 487, 488, 490, 494, 495, 496, 499, 500, 513 Jochanan 91 Johansson, N.  317 Joüon, P.  464 Kant, I.  8, 99 Kaufman, G.  101 Kaufmann, Y.  443, 449, 451, 452, 453, 454 Keil, C. F.  92, 113, 120, 148, 161, 180, 223, 233, 379, 403, 405, 454, 488, 494 Keil, F.  256, 305 Kelley, P. H.  38 Kidner, D.  44

563

Kitamori, K.  171, 432, 433 Klein, R. W.  191, 203, 204, 212 Koch, K.  169, 170, 424 Kraus, H.-J.  16, 391, 417, 426 Kruse, C. K.  299 Küng, H.  53, 428 Kuschel, K.-J.  29 Ladd, G. E.  423 Lakoff, G.  419 Landsberger, B.  496 Lane, T.  522, 523 Lash, N.  7, 25 Levenson, J. D.  21, 40, 79, 80, 81, 84, 107, 109, 127, 128, 149, 150, 157, 158, 169, 255, 257, 258, 259, 260, 278, 289, 290, 293, 348, 406, 409 Levine, B. A.  235 Levinson, B.  109 Lincoln, A. T.  207 Link, C.  73 Lochman, J. M.  417 Lohfink, G.  509 Lohfink, N.  102, 103, 104, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 123, 128, 145, 164 Lohr, J. N.  207, 505 Longman, T., III  80, 196, 418 Louth, A.  92 Luther, M.  171, 383, 432, 464 MacDonald, N.  43, 44, 49, 58, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 74 Manson, T. W.  423 Markl, D.  77 Marshall, I. H.  415, 418 Mauchline, J.  4 Mayer, R.  132 Mayes, A.  107, 114, 115, 116, 117, 151, 168 Mays, J. L.  200, 304, 391, 392, 412 McCann, J. C., Jr.  198 McCarter, K. P., Jr.  183, 185, 190, 191, 193, 195, 203, 204, 234 McConville, J. G.  58, 138, 144, 207 McIntyre, J.  418, 523, 524

564

Index of Authors

McKane, W.  329, 339, 344, 348, 349, 350, 354, 365, 367, 368, 372, 379, 380, 381, 384, 385, 402 McKenzie, S. L.  225 Mendenhall, G. E.  407 Milgrom, J.  183, 215, 238, 247, 380, 443, 451, 452, 454, 455, 456 Miller, P. D.  6, 8, 39, 48, 100, 103, 109, 111, 117, 123, 124, 125, 127, 130, 137, 147, 164, 166, 167, 169, 184, 186, 187, 200, 201, 239, 244, 246, 341, 342, 351, 352, 355, 356, 361, 378, 383, 401, 402, 403, 408, 409, 427, 431, 435, 439, 440, 500, 514, 529 Mirkin, M. A.  134 Moberly, R. W. L.  5, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 29, 31, 32, 33, 67, 77, 90, 92, 106, 111, 128, 136, 140, 142, 153, 156, 157, 158, 159, 163, 175, 210, 218, 219, 221, 222, 237, 249, 260, 334, 341, 342, 347, 370, 394, 395, 401, 405, 413, 473, 479, 491, 501, 502, 510 Montgomery, J. A.  366 Moo, D. J.  25 Motyer, A.  309, 310, 318, 418 Motyer, S.  79 Mowinckel, S.  142, 361 Muffs, Y.  63, 134, 137, 143, 155, 156, 158, 159, 160, 186, 211, 213, 214, 371, 394, 398, 399, 402 Muraoka, T.  464 Mynatt, D. S.  38 Neufeld, E.  124 Newbigin, L.  53 Noth, M.  41, 88, 176, 191, 255, 259, 305, 404 Nouwen, H. J. M.  2, 27 O’Connor, K. M.  371, 372, 373, 374 Oettli, S.  138, 144 Olson, D. T.  95, 98, 104, 105, 139

Origen  58, 81, 285 Ott, H.  2 Packer, J. I.  16, 526 Paul, S.  297 Payne, D.  309, 310 Peckham, B.  113, 114, 122 Perlitt, L.  20, 128 Peterson, E. H.  225, 284 Philip, F.  471 Plaut, W. G.  62 Polk, T.  363, 368 Polzin, R.  145, 179 Ponticus, E.  2 Preuß, H. D.  78, 149, 420 Prichard, J.  4 Prinsloo, W. S.  445, 459 Pritchard, J. B.  297 Provan, I. W.  280, 281, 292 Rad, G. von  11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 32, 35, 44, 99, 102, 104, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 128, 129, 139, 140, 141, 156, 163, 164, 165, 168, 169, 261, 262, 273, 305, 306, 333, 372, 395, 414, 425, 438, 440, 478, 479, 481, 482, 487, 501, 502, 504 Ramsey, G. W.  178, 179 Rashi  38, 74, 91, 305 Reid, D. G.  80, 418 Rendtorff, R.  5, 57, 103, 173, 286, 298, 445, 471, 477, 497 Reventlow, H. G.  6, 8, 99, 145, 259, 290, 333, 364, 367, 369, 380, 382, 398, 434 Ringgren, H.  408 Rohde, M.  3 Rose, M.  119, 120, 122, 133, 143, 149, 160, 164, 165 Rosenzweig, F.  21 Rossier, F.  3 Rowley, H. H.  354 Rudolph, W.  339, 348, 349, 385, 386, 401, 477, 492, 494

Index of Authors Sanday, W.  286 Sarna, N. M.  37, 38, 41, 45, 59, 61, 64, 72, 468 Savran, G.  264 Sawyer, J. F. A.  294 Scharbert, J.  3, 6, 43, 99, 132, 204, 208, 226, 242, 251, 254, 259, 264, 270, 275, 315, 344, 349, 375, 437, 478, 486 Schenker, A.  226, 229, 231, 234, 240, 241, 243, 244, 245, 312 Schleiermacher, F.  99 Schmid, K.  21, 32 Schmidt, W. H.  385, 439 Schmitt, H.-C.  65, 79 Schneider, D.  353, 369, 372 Schroeder, C.  517 Schweizer, E.  415, 418, 426 Schweizer, H.  39 Scoralick, R.  13, 83, 197, 200, 445, 471, 477, 486, 497 Seebass, H.  37, 39, 41, 55 Seitz, C. R.  32, 33, 96, 176, 192, 203, 304, 306, 312, 313, 317, 321, 326, 334, 337, 424, 430, 517 Seitz, G.  113, 114 Sénéchal, V.  7, 21, 102 Seow, C. L.  262 Sheriffs, D.  424, 426, 428 Smend, R.  148 Sommer, B. D.  297 Soskice, J. M.  419 Spieckermann, H.  13, 17, 19, 302, 303, 310, 312, 313, 316, 322, 326, 327, 404, 516, 517, 519, 521 Stamm, J.  490 Steinmetz, D. C.  16, 411 Sternberg, M.  216 Stern, P. D.  207, 216, 217 Stettler, C.  418 Stettler, H.  423 Steuernagel, C.  113, 120 Stolz, F.  212 Stott, J. R. W.  526, 527 Strazicich, J. R.  466

565

Stuart, D.  453, 454 Stuhlmacher, P.  294, 303, 322, 323, 327, 415 Swinburne, R.  282 Tate, M. E.  390, 407 Thielicke, H.  383 Thiselton, A. C.  99, 372, 421 Thompson, M. E. W.  45, 47, 288, 435 Tiemeyer, L.-S.  346, 347, 357, 436 Tiessen, T.  231, 232, 282 Tigay, J.  110, 113, 116, 127, 130, 144, 147, 149, 151, 155, 156, 158, 159, 161, 162, 164, 165, 168 Toorn, K. van der  408 Tsumura, D. T.  178, 179, 185, 186, 192, 197, 209, 212 Turner, M.  26, 27, 470, 472, 473 Tyler, W. F.  235 Villiers, G. de  331 Vischer, W.  510 Vriezen, T. C.  150 Waltke, B. K.  198, 229, 292, 318, 504, 505, Weinfeld, M.  36, 104, 105, 111, 113, 114, 116, 117, 120, 122, 130, 133, 143, 150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 164, 165, 254, 262, 467 Weiser, A.  378, 385, 401, 410 Wellhausen, J.  21 Wenham, G. J.  1, 22, 35, 36, 158, 502 Wertheimer, R. A. J.  229 Westermann, C.  1, 19, 35, 45, 46, 47, 70, 174, 299, 308, 309, 311, 312, 315, 316, 408, 411, 415, 416, 426, 427 Whybray, N.  294, 295, 308 Widmer, M.  2, 5, 6, 7, 13, 21, 24, 51, 52, 59, 70, 73, 87, 88, 94, 98, 132, 154, 160, 167, 170, 200, 209, 211, 217, 220, 244, 261, 305, 356, 398, 404, 431, 452, 490, 502, 503, 510, 517, 526

566

Index of Authors

Wilckens, U.  10, 13, 415, 416, 474, 509 Williamson, H. G. M.  141, 142, 496 Willoughby, B. E.  477, 482, 483 Wilson, R. R.  11, 482 Wolff, H. W.  19, 20, 156, 417, 445, 446, 447, 449, 461, 465, 491, 494, 499 Wright, A. T.  418 Wright, C. J. H.  53, 101, 126, 143, 152, 169, 272, 282, 300, 301, 348, 439

Wright, G. E.  13 Wright, N. T.  291, 292, 504 Youngblood, R. F.  227, 228, 236, 238, 239 Zenger, E.  59, 63, 64, 71, 110, 200, 410, 444 Ziesler, J.  525 Zimmerli, W.  130, 139, 140, 150, 168, 310, 311, 361, 462

Index of Scripture Genesis 1 372 1–11 32 1–15 1 1:2 494 2:19 489 3:17–19 504 4:26  1, 473 6  220, 418 6–8 28 6:1–4 418 6:5  38, 73 6:5–6 220 6:5–8 35 6:6  54, 220 6:7  73, 209 6:8 221 6:12–13  35, 471 6:13–14 360 7:11 494 8:1 36 8:2 494 8:21  220, 221, 233, 471 9:20 36 11:5 37 11:5–9 28 12 28 12–36  35, 45, 46, 47 12–50  20, 22, 32, 502 12:1 508 12:1–3  29, 30, 34, 54, 157, 158 12:2  135, 491 12:2–3 397 12:3  28, 29, 36, 156, 272, 301, 326, 439 12:6 21 12:8 473 12:10  29, 30

Genesis (cont.) 13:10 37 13:13 37 13:16 235 14 49 14:18 32 14:18–20 225 15:2 147 15:5 235 15:6 29 15:16–20 126 16–50  35, 36, 158 17 259 17:1  29, 32 17:1–10 33 17:5 28 17:7 35 17:9 158 17:10–14 165 18  23, 29, 33, 34, 44, 46, 47, 50, 53, 55 18–19 55 18:1 34 18:1–15 34 18:9 30 18:10 34 18:16 49 18:16–32  46, 427 18:16–33  29, 46, 90, 272, 351, 439, 499, 502, 509 18:17  28, 35, 52, 55, 100, 243, 360, 500, 512 18:17–19 34 18:17–33  31, 33, 34 18:18  34, 53 18:18–33 488 18:19  30, 33, 52, 158, 159, 205, 302, 329, 482 18:19–33 509

567

Genesis (cont.) 18:20 37 18:20–22 36 18:21  36, 42 18:22  38, 39, 47, 52, 263 18:22–23 382 18:22–33  39, 48, 518 18:23  39, 46, 47 18:23–24 47 18:23–25  40, 49 18:23–32  28, 40 18:23–33 449 18:24 41 18:25  45, 361, 362, 407 18:25–27 508 18:26–33 43 18:28 43 18:32–33 34 19:1 38 19:13 35 19:26 55 19:27 382 19:29  36, 45, 49, 55 19:30 36 20 29 20:1–18 29 20:3–7 30 20:7  30, 35, 55, 205, 343, 512 20:17 30 21:33 473 22  20, 22, 135, 157, 249, 502 22:1  20, 226, 250 22:1–18 29 22:2  20, 249 22:2–19 249 22:12 249 22:13 249 22:15 158

568 Genesis (cont.) 22:15–18  156, 157, 158 22:18  36, 259 25:21  3, 157, 491 26:2 157 26:3 259 26:4  36, 156 26:5  156, 158 26:10 312 26:11 382 26:24  156, 397 26:25 473 28:10–22 491 28:12 291 28:13 157 28:15 491 29:16 491 30:22 157 31:36 211 32 492 32:9–11 492 32:26 39 35:1 226 36 61 36:9–12 72 37:34–35 214 44:18  39, 40 44:33 40 45:8 231 49:25 494 49:33 409 50:20 231 Exodus 1–20 33 2 173 2:23 189 2:23–24 355 2:23–25  81, 149, 158 3  9, 32, 152, 473, 487 3–4  214, 334 3:1 270 3:1–4 484 3:1–10 9 3:4 173 3:6 9 3:7  37, 189

Index of Scripture Exodus (cont.) 3:7–8 326 3:7–9 38 3:10–15 26 3:11–4:17 10 3:12 335 3:13–22 512 3:14  2, 10, 33, 473, 509 4:8–9 37 4:10 334 4:13–17 282 4:17 62 4:21–23  149, 158 4:23 149 5:22–23  336, 512 6:1–8  33, 512 6:2 473 6:2–3  20, 32 6:2–8 2 6:3 33 6:6 149 6:6–8 306 6:7  148, 466 7–15  273, 461 7:1 512 7:1–2  457, 483, 511 7:2  60, 334, 335 7:14–19 58 7:16 81 7:20 62 8:1 12 8:1–2 512 8:5–8 63 8:8 12 8:8–13 512 8:15 130 8:16 81 8:19 177 9:14  160, 258 9:14–15 461 9:14–16 159 9:16 96 9:22 62 9:27 270 9:28 12 10:1 159 10:7 177 10:16–17 12

Exodus (cont.) 10:20 231 12:21–23 239 12:23  55, 238 12:25–27 36 12:37 72 14 33 14:4 73 14:9 161 14:14 76 14:31  59, 60, 147, 197 15:3 79 15:11  160, 202, 461 15:14 270 15:14–16 378 15:17 149 15:18 198 15:22 59 15:22–18 59 15:22–27 59 15:24 60 15:25 75 15:26 377 16 356 16:1–36 59 16:2 60 16:26 55 17  58, 59, 60, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 74, 79, 207, 216, 217 17:1  59, 60, 61 17:1–7  59, 60, 65, 145 17:1–11 199 17:2  60, 70 17:2–3 70 17:2–4 70 17:3  60, 66, 68, 70 17:4  60, 70, 75 17:5  60, 67 17:5–6 66 17:6  60, 61, 64, 67, 75 17:7  60, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 77, 81 17:8  61, 68 17:8–9 77 17:8–13  73, 75

Index of Scripture Exodus (cont.) 17:8–16  58, 59, 61, 64, 65, 67, 71, 72, 76, 81, 124, 182, 183, 185, 208 17:9  64, 70, 182 17:9–10 62 17:9–12 74 17:9–13 71 17:10–13 71 17:11  62, 63, 75 17:11–12  64, 65 17:11–13  75, 76 17:12  62, 63, 75 17:13 62 17:14  73, 77, 78, 79, 209 17:14–16  73, 79 17:15  64, 65, 67, 185 17:16  64, 78, 185 18:1 270 18:5  75, 270 18:11 366 18:11–12 270 18:13 181 18:13–27 76 18:19 12 18:27 59 19  53, 123 19–24  259, 353 19–40 234 19:3  87, 457 19:5–6  276, 288, 406, 459, 475 19:6  53, 475 19:7 193 19:8 152 19:10–15 454 19:11 66 19:16–22 447 19:22 456 20 482 20–24 31 20–40 235 20:1 354 20:2 33 20:3–5  466, 467 20:4  130, 131

Exodus (cont.) 20:5  467, 509 20:5–6  92, 447 20:12 232 20:18 457 20:18–21 197 20:24 473 21:1 482 21:7–9 482 22:6–12 265 22:21–23 37 22:21–24 491 22:22 165 22:24 482 22:25 482 22:26 482 23:6 483 23:7 165 23:20 238 23:22 408 23:27 124 24  65, 67, 82 24:1 87 24:2 39 24:2–4 168 24:3 152 24:4 67 24:7 482 24:9–11  67, 249 24:12 85 24:13–14 67 25:8 262 25:8–9 291 25:22 379 28 469 28:1 120 28:12 62 28:15–30 62 28:29 144 29 144 29:42 262 29:42–46 24 29:45  260, 466 30 234 30:11–16 234 30:12  234, 246 30:12–16 234 30:13–16 234 30:14–16 234

569 Exodus (cont.) 30:16  234, 235 31:18 130 32  9, 67, 68, 75, 131, 173, 242, 355, 468, 483 32–34  9, 20, 21, 23, 31, 35, 52, 57, 58, 67, 69, 82, 83, 84, 95, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 117, 128, 173, 241, 320, 355, 356, 382, 405, 443, 453, 490, 491, 508, 509, 510, 521 32:1  66, 67, 199 32:1–6  68, 218 32:1–14 24 32:2–5 143 32:4 484 32:6 66 32:7  199, 368, 508 32:7–8 130 32:7–10  33, 85, 243 32:7–14  153, 241, 435, 436, 469, 477, 484, 500, 508, 512 32:8 130 32:9  38, 127, 128, 405 32:9–10 85 32:9–14  38, 102 32:10  9, 39, 68, 73, 84, 96, 101, 132, 133, 134, 136, 143, 209, 211, 235, 247, 347, 355, 356, 522, 524 32:10–13  69, 88, 306, 338 32:10–14  83, 85, 86, 89, 136, 170, 207, 214, 221, 343, 484, 493, 502, 511

570 Exodus (cont.) 32:10–30 143 32:10–33 510 32:11  75, 102, 133, 452 32:11–12  75, 96, 133, 351, 376, 523 32:11–13  69, 75, 81, 84, 86, 87, 133, 148, 153, 402 32:11–14  138, 147, 209, 243, 383, 449, 453 32:12  4, 73, 159, 160, 356, 366, 404, 450, 460 32:12–14 453 32:13  75, 135, 153, 156, 491 32:13–14 133 32:14  9, 25, 86, 87, 89, 138, 211, 242, 356, 368, 440, 443, 450, 456, 495, 523 32:15 209 32:17 61 32:19 116 32:20  67, 74, 116 32:25–29  102, 120 32:26–29  87, 120 32:28 242 32:30  84, 404, 453, 484 32:30–31 159 32:30–32  87, 226, 243, 304, 310, 404 32:30–33 89 32:30–34 87 32:31  136, 153, 376, 490 32:31–32 204 32:32  40, 41, 94, 242, 305, 306, 451, 516, 527 32:33  89, 90

Index of Scripture Exodus (cont.) 32:34  89, 95, 451 33:1–6 95 33:1–11 69 33:3  66, 82, 127, 128 33:4 214 33:4–6 449 33:7–11 527 33:7–34 261 33:11  10, 23, 61, 90, 261 33:12  69, 84, 102, 329, 336 33:12–17  337, 397 33:12–19 44 33:12–23  89, 510 33:12–34 66 33:12–34:9 2 33:13  70, 90, 94, 221 33:14–18 69 33:15–17 523 33:17 510 33:17–34:7 51 33:18  90, 261, 510 33:18–19  2, 10, 13, 14, 474 33:18–24 90 33:19  67, 91, 92, 454, 473, 510 33:20  261, 510 33:21 67 34  467, 490 34:1 337 34:1–5 91 34:2 67 34:4–5 91 34:5  14, 64, 473 34:5–7  89, 98, 452, 509 34:6  10, 13, 14, 15, 41, 83, 91, 92, 93, 99, 237, 248, 266, 300, 320, 368, 389, 394, 429, 452, 458, 466, 474, 485, 509, 510, 513

Exodus (cont.) 34:6–7  2, 10, 13, 33, 46, 50, 54, 74, 83, 84, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 162, 190, 200, 201, 202, 210, 220, 241, 283, 304, 320, 338, 352, 361, 393, 403, 429, 430, 431, 433, 443, 449, 450, 452, 466, 468, 469, 473, 484, 486, 504, 506, 508, 514, 515, 519, 520, 521, 522, 526 34:6–9  14, 170, 171, 241, 485 34:7  93, 97, 98, 200, 211, 368, 377, 389, 403, 430, 450 34:8  69, 275, 376, 523, 527 34:8–9  83, 94, 266, 508 34:8–10  98, 356 34:9  66, 81, 84, 94, 102, 127, 128, 136, 141, 153, 204, 263, 365, 366, 368, 471, 485, 490, 491, 493, 510 34:9–10 9 34:10  84, 94, 337, 485 34:10–28 164 34:11 106 34:14  466, 467 34:31 193 35 83 40:34  262, 291 40:34–35 256

Index of Scripture Leviticus 1 183 1–7 288 1–8 456 1:4 183 4:20 404 4:32 311 5 311 5–6 311 5:5 180 5:6 311 5:6–25 311 6:10 311 6:22 183 10:17 311 11:45 89 16  252, 469, 475 16:5 286 16:6 404 16:10 311 16:14–16 525 16:14–19 318 16:17 286 16:21  139, 140, 180 16:22 311 17:11 525 17:14 309 18 126 18:24–27 126 18:25 126 18:28 126 19:2  166, 210, 514 19:34 165 20:13 37 20:22–26 475 23:32 141 25:25 149 26  232, 265 26:1–39 409 26:11 466 26:14 269 26:17 266 26:19 267 26:33 281 Numbers 1 235 1–2 77

Numbers (cont.) 1–20 235 1:1–3 235 3:12–13 329 5:11–31 265 6:12 311 6:25 3 9:15–23 262 10:11–36 59 11–14 356 11:1–2 518 11:1–3 145 11:2  75, 144 11:4–35 145 11:11–15 336 11:15 336 11:25–29  470, 471 11:29 471 12:1–10 196 12:3 142 12:6 488 12:6–8  10, 95, 483, 507 12:7  173, 224, 528 12:7–8  147, 156 12:13  75, 518 13  61, 160 13–14  57, 70, 84, 95, 100, 105, 125, 170, 304, 336, 356, 430, 490 13:22 122 13:28 122 13:28–29 122 13:32–33 123 13:33  122, 123 14  23, 31, 66, 70, 74, 82, 83, 95, 98, 99, 241, 320, 490, 515, 518 14:1–12 24 14:2 70 14:2–10 71 14:5 143 14:6 61 14:8 450 14:9 125

571 Numbers (cont.) 14:10  70, 73, 196, 262, 304, 356 14:10–19  324, 516 14:11  77, 106, 123, 124, 129 14:11–12 95 14:11–20  38, 214 14:11–35 83 14:12  85, 96, 134, 136, 209, 515, 518 14:12–16 71 14:12–20  241, 511 14:13  144, 452, 514, 521 14:13–16  96, 159, 160, 202, 376, 461 14:13–17 366 14:13–19  13, 383, 435, 508 14:14  71, 77 14:14–15 81 14:14–16 73 14:15  72, 367 14:15–16 75 14:16  160, 461 14:16–17 460 14:16–19 449 14:17–19  83, 96 14:18  92, 93, 162, 266, 430, 453, 499 14:18–19  10, 14, 33, 83, 95, 96, 449, 473, 508, 509 14:18–20  75, 430, 493 14:18–23 484 14:18–35  83, 377 14:18–38 241 14:19  33, 94, 97, 167, 266, 304, 366, 490, 517 14:19–20 245 14:19–25 247

572 Numbers (cont.) 14:20  368, 515 14:20–23 97 14:20–32 25 14:20–35  94, 98, 144, 200 14:22  70, 71, 354 14:27 405 14:28  405, 451 14:29–33 108 14:30–31 98 14:31 484 14:36–37 98 14:39 214 14:39–40 449 14:39–45 71 14:40 71 14:42–43 66 14:43 71 14:43–45 73 14:44  71, 273 15:14–16 270 15:22–29  183, 247, 456 16  455, 516 16:15 193 16:16 193 16:19 262 16:20–22  199, 455 16:21 518 16:22  143, 226 16:41 239 16:41–50 239 16:44–48 247 16:45–50 247 16:46 239 16:46–47  183, 455 16:49 456 17:6 196 17:6–15 183 17:9 143 17:9–11 457 17:25 129 19:4 318 20:1–13 59 20:6 143 20:10 129 20:12 199

Index of Scripture Numbers (cont.) 20:33 120 21:7  75, 144, 343 21:9 64 21:14 78 22  63, 270 22–24 172 23:19  210, 218, 260, 394, 514 25:11 402 26 406 26:64 108 31:18 85 31:50 234 31:54 234 32 98 32:6–15  98, 431 33 120 33:38  144, 145 35:33 229 Deuteronomy 1 108 1–11  104, 262, 467 1:1 103 1:2 66 1:5 103 1:8  121, 122, 157 1:19–45 106 1:19–46  99, 103 1:26 129 1:27 160 1:28  106, 122 1:29 124 1:29–30  106, 124, 125 1:29–33 106 1:30  106, 124 1:31 151 1:32  106, 124 1:35 144 1:37  144, 145, 337 1:42 124 1:43 129 2 122 2:7 103 2:10–11 122 2:11 122

Deuteronomy (cont.) 2:14–16 103 3:1 66 3:23 139 3:23–28 516 3:24 147 3:24–27 304 3:26  134, 135, 337 3:26–27 327 4 130 4:1  122, 164, 168, 195 4:1–40 148 4:9–32 110 4:10  164, 382 4:11 130 4:11–12 130 4:12 130 4:13 108 4:15 108 4:15–19 131 4:19 110 4:20  148, 149, 153, 276 4:20–21 459 4:21  139, 145, 149, 516 4:21–22 226 4:22 467 4:24  123, 152, 467 4:24–31 93 4:26  108, 131 4:33 130 4:34  151, 160, 461 4:37  157, 158 4:40 152 5  103, 353, 457 5–11  103, 121, 127 5:1  108, 122, 164, 193, 195 5:2–3 107 5:3 109 5:4 130 5:6 130 5:6–10 103 5:7  127, 354 5:7–8 131 5:8  130, 138

Index of Scripture Deuteronomy (cont.) 5:9  377, 467 5:10 156 5:14 142 5:22–26 447 5:23–27  197, 201, 458, 512 5:25 123 5:27  152, 168, 263 5:28–31 10 5:32–32 108 6 168 6–11  103, 104, 165, 191 6:1–2 127 6:1–3 36 6:1–9 104 6:2 270 6:3 153 6:4  122, 127, 164, 165, 195 6:4–5  103, 179 6:4–9 164 6:5 164 6:6 448 6:10  103, 106, 157 6:15 131 6:17 168 6:21–25 109 6:24–25 158 7 125 7:1  104, 122, 164 7:1–26 104 7:2  106, 107 7:2–3 107 7:4 131 7:5  107, 131 7:6  153, 154, 158 7:6–8  107, 202 7:7  103, 105, 202, 491 7:7–8  107, 150 7:8  150, 157, 158 7:9  152, 156, 159, 258 7:12 168 7:13 106 7:17  104, 105

Deuteronomy (cont.) 7:17–18  104, 105 7:17–19 121 7:18  124, 125 7:18–21 105 7:20 124 7:21  124, 125 7:22 106 7:24 154 8:1  104, 168 8:1–20 105 8:2  104, 105 8:2–3  141, 142 8:2–4  99, 108 8:3 396 8:5 151 8:6 164 8:7 121 8:7–9 149 8:12–14 110 8:17  104, 105, 125 8:17–18 104 8:18 105 8:19 131 8:20 205 9  74, 107, 116, 117, 122, 131, 170, 369 9–10  57, 84, 101, 102, 103, 107, 112, 137, 166, 167, 170, 181, 205, 354, 355, 518 9:1  103, 106, 109, 114, 121, 122, 124, 160, 161, 195 9:1–2 122 9:1–4 154 9:1–6  106, 107, 202 9:1–7  114, 116, 118 9:1–10  105, 112, 113, 114, 169 9:1–10:11 104 9:2 122 9:3  106, 123, 124, 126, 130, 160

573 Deuteronomy (cont.) 9:4  104, 107, 125, 126, 127, 168, 202 9:4–6  108, 146, 150, 169 9:5  107, 128, 155, 156, 157 9:5–6  128, 154 9:6  119, 125, 165, 169 9:6–7 127 9:7  104, 109, 119, 127, 128, 129, 161 9:7–8  109, 128, 129, 171 9:7–9 109 9:7–10  128, 134, 164 9:7–24 146 9:8  66, 109, 118, 129, 146, 163, 170 9:8–10  114, 117 9:8–21 145 9:8–24 121 9:9  112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 139, 140 9:9–10 115 9:9–11 115 9:9–19  114, 117 9:10  115, 130 9:11  108, 115, 116 9:12  147, 148, 162 9:12–13 152 9:14  103, 118, 119, 129, 130, 132, 133, 136, 137, 154, 162, 207, 209, 338, 347, 355, 356, 436, 522, 524 9:15  133, 137, 138, 166 9:16  116, 119, 130, 158 9:16–17  113, 138, 154 9:16–18 138

574 Deuteronomy (cont.) 9:17  116, 138 9:18  115, 116, 117, 138, 139, 171, 356 9:18–19  102, 138, 146, 168, 181, 247, 350, 519 9:18–20  112, 113, 117, 154 9:19  118, 137, 142, 144, 146, 166, 170, 522 9:19–20  112, 139, 143 9:20  102, 114, 115, 118, 119, 143, 145, 327, 343 9:21  113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 131, 144 9:22  60, 74, 114 9:22–24  112, 118, 128, 129, 145, 146, 165 9:23  106, 109, 119, 124, 129, 163 9:24  129, 167 9:25  112, 115, 116, 119, 146, 154, 155 9:25–29  102, 108, 115, 121, 141, 146, 160 9:26  30, 133, 134, 147, 148, 150, 276, 452, 459 9:26–29  148, 276, 443, 459 9:27  105, 116, 153, 154, 155, 157, 159, 162, 276 9:28  133, 157, 159, 163, 366 10  269, 341 10:1  114, 117, 121, 163

Index of Scripture Deuteronomy (cont.) 10:1–5 121 10:1–9 256 10:1–11 163 10:3  112, 113 10:4  130, 131 10:5  113, 115 10:6  112, 114, 118, 119, 120, 144 10:6–7 144 10:6–9  113, 119 10:8  108, 119, 120, 121, 382 10:8–9 120 10:10  112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 144, 163, 170 10:10–11  102, 113, 121, 137, 166 10:10–22  348, 512 10:11  104, 105, 112, 113, 121, 146, 154, 155, 163, 164, 167, 168 10:12  108, 152, 158, 163, 164, 179, 200, 269, 448, 519 10:12–11 121 10:12–13  152, 164, 170 10:12–20  127, 170, 341, 436, 482 10:12–22  122, 137, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168, 202, 204, 205, 222, 284, 341 10:14  103, 153 10:14–15 150 10:15  150, 155, 157, 158, 159, 165, 202 10:15–17 202 10:16  127, 165 10:17–18 165 10:17–19 166 10:18 273

Deuteronomy (cont.) 10:18–19 166 11:1  127, 151 11:10 149 11:11–12 367 11:13–17 466 11:26–31 167 11:28 110 12 340 12:1 168 12:2 110 12:8 258 12:9 149 12:11  277, 367 12:23 309 13:1–5  10, 370 13:6 150 14 151 14:1 152 14:1–2 151 14:4 149 15:6 384 15:15 150 16:16 340 16:22 110 17:8–11 455 17:14–20  11, 110 17:18 168 18 336 18:1–6 120 18:1–8 120 18:5 382 18:7 382 18:9–12 126 18:15  11, 333, 507, 512 18:15–18 195 18:15–22  382, 482 18:16  195, 197, 306 18:18  11, 144, 195, 332, 335 18:18–19 197 18:18–22  173, 175 18:20 10 18:20–22 196 18:21–22 370 19:9 127 19:10 149

575

Index of Scripture Deuteronomy (cont.) 19:16–19 359 20:1–9 124 20:13 232 21:8  150, 229 21:22 415 21:22–23 416 24:1 150 24:4 149 25:13–16 483 25:17 208 25:17–18 182 25:17–19  64, 72, 78 25:18 79 25:19 73 26–30 152 26:5 109 26:6 355 26:7  81, 149, 158 26:8 384 26:17 109 27–28 406 27:9  109, 120 27:15–26 409 27:19 482 27:20 423 28  167, 195, 260, 265 28–30 173 28:1–15 259 28:3 466 28:15  269, 409 28:15–29 354 28:15–68 446 28:22–24 196 28:23 267 28:25 266 28:25–68 384 28:37  278, 279 28:37–38 460 28:45 281 28:53–57 406 29:9–14 109 29:13 157 29:22–27 55 29:23–26 278 29:28 354 30:2 111

Deuteronomy (cont.) 30:16 127 30:20 157 31 198 31:7–8 226 31:8 226 31:9  120, 121 31:9–13 111 31:27 129 32:1 148 32:1–9 151 32:6–10 151 32:8 231 32:8–9 151 32:21 467 32:35 407 34 336 34:1–4 337 34:4 157 34:5 156 34:10  10, 12, 173, 507 Joshua 1–11 107 1:2 147 1:5 226 1:8 226 2:10–11 378 5:1 270 6:1–16 273 7:4–12 266 7:6–9  141, 507 7:7 147 7:9  161, 521 8:10 235 9:15 228 10:10 481 11:20 232 11:22 122 13–17 106 14:15 122 15:13–14 122 21:18 329 23 255 24  167, 191, 198 24:2 28 24:12 124

Joshua (cont.) 24:14 164 24:19–20 467 24:20 195 Judges 1 106 1–11  107, 123 3:1 106 3:7 172 3:10 471 3:12 208 3:30 181 6:3 208 6:34 471 7:2 124 7:12 208 10:1–5 181 11:33 181 12:7 181 12:15 208 14:1–4 231 20–21 179 20:26 141 1 Samuel 1–2 248 1:3 174 1:11 174 1:15 180 1:17  174, 395 1:18–19 174 1:21–28 173 1:22 175 2:2–8 175 2:9–10 175 2:11–18 172 2:11–26 175 2:12–34 177 2:21 175 2:25 179 2:26  175, 190, 221 2:27–3:147 182 2:27–34 175 3 487 3:1  172, 175 3:4 173 3:7 175

576 1 Samuel (cont.) 3:11–14  172, 175 3:14 245 3:19  173, 181, 220, 221 3:19–21 190 3:20  172, 173, 175, 181 3:21  173, 178 4  176, 182, 342 4–6  177, 178 4:1 181 4:3  342, 518 4:4 198 4:18 181 5–6 198 5:3 177 5:11 198 6 189 6:3 198 6:3–4 312 6:5 178 6:6 177 6:19 214 6:19–20 178 6:20  178, 189, 197 7  65, 179, 182, 189, 190, 197, 199, 200, 290, 369 7–12 197 7:1–10 369 7:2 179 7:2–9 214 7:2–12 267 7:2–13 64 7:3  177, 178, 179, 181, 183, 448, 449, 518 7:3–4 173 7:3–5 184 7:3–6  173, 198 7:3–10 267 7:5  30, 176, 180, 184, 193, 343 7:5–6 179 7:5–9 199 7:6  64, 172, 181, 189, 448 7:7  182, 188

Index of Scripture 1 Samuel (cont.) 7:7–8 65 7:8  81, 179, 182, 184, 194, 212, 214, 440 7:8–9  3, 172, 187, 197, 199, 213, 343, 383, 448 7:8–12 179 7:8–13 64 7:9  172, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 196, 199, 202, 212, 245 7:10  185, 195 7:10–11 185 7:12  65, 185 7:13 185 7:14  186, 192 7:15  172, 181 7:16 193 7:16–17 181 8 197 8–12 197 8:1–3 199 8:1–18 198 8:4  176, 193 8:5 192 8:6 212 8:6–9 192 8:7  192, 193, 203 8:7–9 213 8:9 203 8:9–18 192 8:11–18  193, 200 9:1–10 172 9:5–10 488 9:6 173 9:9 172 9:13  172, 183 9:16 213 9:21 491 10:1 193 10:6 470 10:8 183 10:17 193 10:17–27 179 10:18 172 10:25 199

1 Samuel (cont.) 11:8 235 11:12 193 11:14 193 12  35, 172, 173, 176, 191, 205, 241, 255, 528 12:1 203 12:1–5 193 12:2 191 12:3 193 12:6 197 12:6–15 194 12:7 213 12:8 212 12:10 184 12:11  181, 194 12:12  194, 197, 199, 203, 214 12:13  164, 213 12:13–14 206 12:14 198 12:14–15  194, 201, 221 12:15  195, 277, 278 12:16–18 195 12:16–19 196 12:17–18  196, 268 12:18  196, 214 12:18–19 196 12:19  195, 199, 201, 202, 203, 383 12:19–22 201 12:19–23 343 12:19–24 284 12:19–25 192 12:20 202 12:20–22 201 12:20–24 201 12:22  202, 204 12:23  142, 168, 170, 172, 177, 182, 189, 191, 200, 203, 204, 206, 214, 268, 338, 402, 434, 508, 519 12:24  201, 269 12:24–25 205

Index of Scripture 1 Samuel (cont.) 12:25 222 13 191 13:5–22 188 13:7–14 218 13:9  184, 190 13:9–12 184 13:11–13 218 13:14  213, 217, 222, 243 14:24 141 15  79, 107, 123, 207, 209, 216, 217, 220, 244 15:1  208, 209 15:1–3 208 15:2  172, 208, 217 15:2–3 79 15:3 207 15:10  216, 513 15:10–11 190 15:10–35 283 15:11  177, 205, 207, 208, 209, 211, 214, 218, 220, 221, 222 15:11–35 213 15:12 244 15:14 244 15:16–26 215 15:19–23 209 15:20–21  215, 219 15:22  178, 215 15:22–23 212 15:24  209, 244 15:24–25  207, 215, 244 15:25  214, 215 15:26  215, 219 15:26–28 212 15:28  208, 219 15:28–29 218 15:29  207, 210, 218, 219, 244, 260, 394 15:32–33 79 15:35 213 16 191 16:1  172, 183, 213

1 Samuel (cont.) 16:1–3 219 16:6–7 214 16:14  219, 231, 232 17 124 17:4 122 18:6–11 219 18:10 231 18:17 235 19:1 219 19:20 470 20:8 431 20:13 3 22:16 219 23:9–12 242 25:12–35 3 25:23–35 147 26 233 26:19  233, 245, 246 26:21 237 28:6 219 28:16 209 28:18 216 29:19 232 30 217 2 Samuel 1:12 141 1:13 216 3:31 141 5:6–9 225 6 256 6:2–4 225 6:8 212 6:14–18 257 6:17 251 7 191 7:4–7 251 7:5 224 7:5–16 242 7:6 256 7:10–16 370 7:11–16 260 7:12–13 257 7:12–16  220, 258 7:14 379 7:14–15 220 7:15 230 7:18 147

577 2 Samuel (cont.) 7:18–19 242 7:19 147 7:20 329 8:15 199 8:18 251 11–12 220 11–20 227 12 215 12:1 242 12:13  215, 236, 237, 242 12:15 141 12:22 453 13:15 235 14:14 180 14:17 3 16:10 233 17:14 231 18:1 235 20 229 21–24 227 21:1  227, 228, 229 21:1–14  228, 229 21:3 228 21:6 229 21:14  228, 229 21:15 227 21:15–22 228 21:22 122 22:1 227 22:1–51 228 23:1  227, 228 23:1–7 228 23:8  227, 228 23:16 180 24  224, 225, 226, 228, 230, 234, 236, 239, 246, 248, 249, 250, 257, 290 24:1  227, 229, 231, 232, 233, 246 24:1–4 227 24:1–25 228 24:3  234, 235, 236, 244 24:4  234, 235 24:5–7 239

578 2 Samuel (cont.) 24:9–10 236 24:10  226, 236, 237, 244, 248 24:10–15 236 24:10–17 241 24:10–25 518 24:11  237, 244 24:11–12 469 24:12 242 24:13 228 24:14  237, 248 24:14–17 249 24:15  239, 240, 242 24:15–17 249 24:16  244, 246 24:16–17  239, 240 24:17  224, 227, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 246, 511 24:17–18 245 24:17–25 241 24:18  226, 245, 246 24:18–19 249 24:18–25  226, 247, 251, 523, 525 24:19 238 24:21 245 24:24 250 24:25  183, 228, 229, 234, 241, 245, 249, 286 1 Kings 1 227 1–11 278 2 255 2:13–46 254 2:46 255 3–8 281 3:1 254 3:2 497 3:3 255 3:4  184, 190, 277 3:4–15  251, 277, 279 3:5  251, 254 3:5–14 251 3:6 127

Index of Scripture 1 Kings (cont.) 3:10 253 3:12 255 3:14 278 3:16–28 253 3:28 255 4:1–34 253 4:29–34 255 5:1 254 5:1–18 253 5:1–32 254 5:15–7 254 5:15–26 271 5:16–9 252 5:17 226 6:1–7  253, 277 6:3 457 6:12 277 6:36 256 6:38–7 255 7:21 457 8  3, 191, 224, 246, 252, 255, 256, 261, 262, 280, 286, 290, 455 8:1 256 8:1–2 256 8:1–5 288 8:1–9  254, 292 8:1–11 256 8:1–13  254, 255 8:1–66  253, 277 8:3–13 252 8:4–5 278 8:5  254, 286, 288 8:7–8 256 8:9 256 8:10–13  257, 260, 261, 289, 291 8:11 382 8:11–13 280 8:12–13 253 8:13  256, 278 8:14 257 8:14–21  254, 257 8:14–26 252 8:15 257 8:15–16 257

1 Kings (cont.) 8:15–18 287 8:15–21 258 8:16 256 8:16–19 257 8:18–19 251 8:21 257 8:22  64, 76, 254, 263, 280, 281, 286, 287, 289, 457 8:22–26 258 8:22–30 254 8:22–53  263, 286 8:22–61 257 8:23–24 258 8:23–53 275 8:24–26 286 8:25–26  259, 277 8:27  256, 260, 261, 262 8:27–30 253 8:27–34 257 8:28  289, 344 8:28–30  262, 263 8:29  277, 285, 367 8:29–30 262 8:30  287, 289 8:30–42 286 8:31–32  265, 269 8:31–53  254, 264 8:32  41, 269 8:33  246, 288 8:33–34 266 8:34 267 8:35 265 8:35–36 267 8:35–40 3 8:36 268 8:37 269 8:37–39 446 8:37–40 268 8:38 269 8:39  265, 269, 280 8:39–40 269 8:40 270 8:41 270 8:41–43  270, 286 8:42 288

Index of Scripture 1 Kings (cont.) 8:43  271, 273, 293 8:44 273 8:44–45 273 8:46  267, 275, 284, 293 8:46–50  275, 288, 437, 446 8:46–51 511 8:46–53 274 8:47  275, 277, 284 8:48  275, 278, 446 8:49–50 275 8:50 276 8:51 276 8:51–53  151, 288, 459 8:52–53 287 8:53 276 8:54  254, 266, 267 8:56  156, 258 8:56–57 287 8:58–61 270 8:60  258, 270, 276, 279, 287 8:60–61 272 8:62–66 254 8:64 457 9:1  251, 253, 281 9:1–9  253, 260, 276 9:2 289 9:3 285 9:3–5 277 9:4  127, 277 9:4–5 277 9:5 281 9:6–8 278 9:6–9  251, 278 9:7 278 9:7–8 279 9:9 279 9:10 254 9:25 251 10 251 10:1 254 10:9 271 10:14 254 11  106, 271

1 Kings (cont.) 11:1  254, 255 11:1–11 281 11:4 260 11:5–8 255 11:9 251 11:9–13 255 11:11 283 11:12 259 11:14 254 11:29–39 172 12:15 231 15:4 259 17:1  196, 382 17:17–23 449 17:17–24 507 18  196, 380 18:15 382 18:21 369 19:11–18 502 20:35 479 21:2 272 21:2–4 149 21:3 459 22:5–7 479 22:5–8 527 22:5–28 511 22:6 479 22:6–29 502 22:19–22 231 2 Kings 1:10–12 420 2:3 479 4:1 479 4:33 449 5 271 5:10–14 271 5:11 271 5:15 271 6:15 449 8:19 259 9:1–12 172 17  255, 279 17:7–8 281 17:7–18 126 17:7–23  205, 505 18:4 110

579 2 Kings (cont.) 19:15–19 507 19:19 187 19:35–37 340 21:11–15 281 22–23  110, 354, 406 22:8 393 22:13 393 22:14 331 23:2  379, 393 23:6 110 23:25 110 23:31 332 24–25 278 24:10–12 259 25:1–22 251 25:9 279 Isaiah 1:16–17 341 1:19–20 129 2 471 4:1 392 5:5 518 5:7 36 6  487, 488 6:1 249 6:3 197 6:7 396 6:8  26, 512 6:9–10 135 6:10  232, 451 7:9  124, 273, 440 7:39 106 19:24 54 25:6–9 409 36 468 37:1–7 511 37:4 478 37:15–20  3, 514 37:20 276 37:35 340 40–55  295, 296, 297, 304, 309, 310, 314, 319, 323 40–66  298, 299, 309, 312, 313 40:1 296

580 Isaiah (cont.) 40:2 300 40:5 471 40:6 300 40:12–15 300 40:18 301 41:1 39 41:8 29 41:8–10 297 41:10 397 41:25 297 42 302 42:1  299, 310 42:1–4  52, 297, 302, 304, 318, 326, 508 42:1–5 300 42:3 297 42:5–9 300 42:6  297, 299 42:6–7  301, 302 42:18–20 297 42:18–22 296 43 304 43:5 397 43:8 297 43:8–13 297 43:10 299 43:11 348 43:16 300 43:16–21  18, 296 43:24 320 43:25 368 44:6 297 44:10 130 44:28 296 45:1  296, 297 45:1–2 297 46–47 300 46:11 297 47:1 296 48:1 320 48:4 161 48:6 296 48:9  161, 514, 521 48:9–11 161 48:12–13 300 48:14 297

Index of Scripture Isaiah (cont.) 49 301 49–53 321 49:1 297 49:1–6 321 49:3  297, 299, 313 49:4 301 49:5 301 49:6  53, 297, 298, 301, 471 49:26 471 50:4 297 50:4–6  302, 326 50:4–11 315 50:5 325 50:5–6 326 50:6  298, 301 50:7–8 302 50:8 39 51:4 301 51:12 300 51:17  319, 320 51:17–20 319 52:1 319 52:3–10 319 52:5–6 162 52:9 301 52:9–10 319 52:11 18 52:13  297, 312, 313, 415 52:13–15 318 52:13–53  294, 305, 306, 307 52:14–15 318 52:15 298 53  19, 46, 294, 295, 297, 298, 303, 308, 310, 311, 312, 314, 316, 319, 321, 322, 323, 324, 326, 327, 328, 332, 360, 414, 415, 517, 520, 527 53–54 521 53:1 296 53:1–6 317

Isaiah (cont.) 53:1–11 319 53:3  299, 307, 325, 326 53:3–12  60, 516 53:4 309 53:4–5  302, 315 53:4–6  298, 307, 310, 318, 321, 324 53:4–10 302 53:5  41, 319 53:5–6 303 53:6  313, 314, 315, 319, 323, 328, 517, 527 53:6–10 328 53:7  309, 311, 315, 527 53:7–8 360 53:7–9  304, 415 53:8–9 324 53:8–10 302 53:9  310, 323 53:10  306, 312, 324, 325, 326, 404 53:10–12  298, 309, 415, 529 53:11  303, 307, 308, 310, 313, 316, 319, 323, 327 53:11–12  295, 307 53:12  147, 243, 295, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 313, 315, 316, 319, 324, 360, 404, 516, 517 53:12–13 318 54 320 54–55 326 54:1 319 54:4 320 54:6–8 403 54:6–10 520 54:7 308 54:7–8  296, 300 54:7–10  320, 520

Index of Scripture Isaiah (cont.) 54:8  93, 304 54:10 300 54:11–13 322 54:17 310 55:1–2 326 55:3  300, 304, 321 55:4 326 55:5 319 56 290 56:1 483 56:6–7 291 56:7 190 57:16 93 57:20 275 58:10 137 58:10–12  166, 518 58:12  137, 166, 518 59 316 59:16  315, 457 60:16 149 63:10 129 63:11 383 63:15 432 66:1 261 Jeremiah 1–15 429 1–25 329 1:1  329, 359 1:1–2 331 1:2 331 1:4–10 334 1:5  329, 386, 388, 508 1:6 334 1:6–9 392 1:7  26, 335, 389, 512 1:7–9 335 1:8  335, 360 1:9  335, 396 1:10 434 1:13–16 436 1:14 350 1:14–15 460 1:16 348 1:18 397 1:18–19 397

Jeremiah (cont.) 1:19 397 2–3  339, 406 2–6 339 2–9 371 2:1 389 2:1–3  345, 432 2:1–4 374 2:2 155 2:13 394 2:30  351, 383 3:1–4 396 3:5 93 3:10  383, 448 3:11–14 339 3:12 403 3:12–14  345, 430 3:17 379 3:21–25 368 4:1  345, 449 4:1–2 326 4:4 448 4:5 345 4:5–8 339 4:6  342, 460 5:1 46 5:3  351, 383 5:7–9 373 5:9 407 5:14 335 5:15 436 5:30–31 340 6:1  339, 345, 460 6:11 393 6:13 340 6:17 515 6:19 371 6:23 342 7  252, 331, 339, 340, 346, 382, 390, 483, 516 7:1  347, 353, 406, 407 7:1–15  278, 332, 391 7:2–3 340 7:3 367 7:4  339, 342, 379 7:4–7  370, 502

581 Jeremiah (cont.) 7:5 42 7:5–6 341 7:5–7 483 7:6 341 7:6–9 345 7:8–10 341 7:8–11 341 7:10  381, 392 7:12 342 7:13–14 353 7:13–15 342 7:13–16 355 7:14 240 7:14–15 343 7–15 509 7:16  30, 134, 187, 205, 247, 313, 315, 316, 330, 338, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 353, 354, 355, 369, 370, 382, 498, 508, 511, 516 7:16–20  343, 348 7:17 345 7:17–20 345 7:18 345 7:20  345, 404 7:26 405 7:28 351 8:3 347 8:10 340 8:18–9 394 8:22 377 9:2–3 386 9:8 373 9:24 352 10  348, 350 10:1 348 10:1–16 348 10:2–3 352 10:5 348 10:7 348 10:10–11 339 10:17–18  348, 351 10:18–24 298

582 Jeremiah (cont.) 10:19  344, 350 10:19–20 350 10:19–25  344, 347, 349, 352 10:21 350 10:23–24 345 10:23–25 350 10:24  4, 351, 397 10:25  352, 417 11–15 284 11:1 353 11:1–5  353, 355 11:1–14 356 11:1–17 353 11:3 354 11:4 47 11:4–5 354 11:5 353 11:7 354 11:7–13 386 11:9 354 11:9–14 354 11:10  353, 354 11:11  346, 353, 355, 356, 386 11:11–13 369 11:11–14 352 11:12–14 355 11:14  205, 330, 338, 343, 344, 349, 352, 353, 355, 356, 369, 384, 435, 436, 498, 511 11:15  358, 359 11:15–17 356 11:18  357, 360, 375, 376, 385, 386, 401, 407 11:18–12  336, 338, 357, 424 11:18–19  358, 388, 390, 397 11:18–20  358, 360, 391, 400, 401 11:18–23  333, 358, 362, 390, 516

Index of Scripture Jeremiah (cont.) 11:19  298, 361, 388, 389, 390 11:19–12 365 11:19–20 417 11–20  315, 427 11:20  331, 358, 360, 361, 362, 363, 389, 390, 399, 406, 407, 408, 410 11:20–23 407 11:21  359, 360, 362 11:21–23  358, 362 11:22  388, 389 11:22–23 362 12:1  333, 362, 384, 400, 407, 409, 425, 427 12:1–3 409 12:1–4  365, 385, 410 12:1–6 362 12:2 346 12:3  361, 362, 390, 411, 417, 418 12:5  358, 395 12:7 364 12:7–13 393 12:14–15 433 12:15  363, 433 13 364 13:2 383 13:9–10 364 13:20 368 13:23 371 13:26 369 14 369 14:1  434, 435 14:1–2 380 14:1–6  364, 373, 380, 381 14:1–15:9  363, 364 14:1–22 363 14:2–6 364 14:2–10 434 14:5–6 364 14:7  345, 376, 377, 381, 509

Jeremiah (cont.) 14:7–9  161, 349, 356, 365, 376, 381, 508 14:8 369 14:8–9  366, 376 14:9  367, 368, 392 14:10  368, 377, 379, 436 14:10–12  368, 376 14:10–14 375 14:10–18 367 14:11  205, 330, 338, 343, 356, 363, 369, 370, 434, 498, 511 14:11–12  346, 369 14:11–16  369, 434 14:12  237, 344, 369, 381 14:13  332, 377 14:13–16 369 14:14–16 371 14:15 371 14:16 371 14:17  371, 393, 394, 395 14:17–18  371, 373, 374, 376, 381 14:19  336, 367, 434 14:19–22  4, 365, 373, 374, 375 14:20 377 14:20–21 202 14:21  366, 378, 379 14:21–22 508 14:22 380 15:1  172, 173, 199, 205, 222, 226, 325, 336, 338, 339, 356, 363, 373, 381, 382, 383, 396, 436, 498, 511, 514, 519, 528 15:1–9 363 15:2  237, 393, 403 15:7 383

Index of Scripture Jeremiah (cont.) 15:10  333, 338, 339, 357, 358, 388, 397, 424 15:10–11  385, 387 15:10–21  384, 398, 427 15:11  314, 344, 358, 388 15:12–14 387 15:15  93, 331, 358, 359, 360, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 399, 400, 401, 402, 411, 412, 414 15:15–18  387, 388, 397 15:16  332, 386, 392 15:16–18 392 15:17 407 15:17–18  393, 394, 398 15:18  394, 395, 424, 425 15:18–21 427 15:19  358, 396 15:19–21  395, 396, 399, 400 15:20 397 15:20–21 397 16:1 386 16:5 433 16:7 141 17:3  366, 387 17:3–4 385 17:12 333 17:12–18 394 17:14  357, 391, 414 17:15  391, 407 17:16 360 17:18  331, 358, 359, 360, 399 17:23  351, 405 18:1  359, 514 18:1–11 429 18:1–12  100, 136, 401, 436 18:2 375

Jeremiah (cont.) 18:5 330 18:5–8 443 18:6 232 18:7 370 18:7–10 515 18:7–11  215, 401, 451 18:8–10 495 18:11  401, 516 18:12  405, 429 18:13–16 401 18:18  333, 338, 357, 358, 390, 401, 424, 455 18:18–23  399, 400, 409 18:19 406 18:19–20 401 18:20  263, 336, 337, 360, 365, 382, 385, 386, 402, 404, 407, 516 18:21  331, 360, 399, 400, 411, 413 18:21–23  81, 358, 400, 403, 420 18:22–23 413 18:23 403 18:25 412 19:1–5 406 19:12 405 19:15  405, 406 20:2 332 20:7  333, 338, 357, 424 20:7–9 22 20:8  386, 424 20:9  204, 390, 393 20:11 411 20:11–12 408 20:12  360, 399, 408 20:13 407 20:14 385 20:14–18  385, 399 21:1–2 350 21:1–10  397, 527 21:2 329 21:7 237

583 Jeremiah (cont.) 22:1–5 281 22:3  36, 483 22:4–5 37 23:9 370 23:9–40 370 23:11–12 373 23:13 370 23:14 37 23:14–16 370 23:18  35, 382, 471, 499, 502 23:18–22  436, 512 23:22 263 23:27–29 370 24:6 330 25 352 25:3  345, 430 25:11 430 25:12 352 26  347, 400 26:3  347, 443 26:8 414 26:12  359, 404 26:12–15 393 26:13  347, 514 26:14–15 333 26:15 414 26:19  241, 347, 348 26:20–23 370 27:18  12, 168, 170, 338, 371, 513 27:22 513 28:10 332 29 53 29:4–7 438 29:7  3, 53, 276, 352, 439 29:8–9 438 29:10–11 430 29:10–14 431 29:11 437 30–32 431 30–33 330 30:11  352, 431 30:16 352 30:18–22 430 31:2–6 337 31:3  431, 433, 437

584 Jeremiah (cont.) 31:7–9 152 31:18–22 431 31:19 210 31:20 432 31:26 337 31:28  330, 430 31:30–31 431 31:31–34  337, 353 31:32 337 31:34  431, 471 31:35–37 93 32:18–19 430 32:40 353 33:11  433, 520 33:21 379 33:26 433 36:25 344 36:27–28 336 37:1 397 37:1–10 346 37:3  329, 439, 527 37:3–10  439, 511 37:7 439 37:17 329 38:1  393, 516 38:6 391 41:17 440 42 440 42:1  329, 346, 397, 527 42:1–6 439 42:2–3 439 42:4 440 42:4–18 330 42:6–7 440 42:10  330, 440 42:10–12 397 42:13 440 42–43 337 43:1–7 516 43:3 440 43:4–7 337 43:8–13 441 46–51 417 51:47 130 Ezekiel 1 372

Index of Scripture Ezekiel (cont.) 2:3  26, 512 2:8–3 392 3  487, 488 3:1–4 22 3:2–4 396 3:16–21 468 3:26 309 4:1–3 140 4:4  139, 140 4:4–8 311 13  12, 137 13:4–5 517 13:5  101, 137, 168, 170, 343, 402, 518 13:5–7  511, 512 14:13 144 14:14 383 16:44–58 54 16:48 37 18:5 36 18:8 42 18:23 504 18:32 50 20:9  161, 162 22:6 517 22:30  25, 46, 86, 137, 168, 169, 170, 171, 315, 327, 343, 402, 457, 507, 508, 511, 518, 519 22:30–31  101, 525 24:17 141 33 136 33:1 468 33:1–9 136 33:1–20 515 33:11 86 36–39 461 36:5–6 467 36:16–18 461 36:20–21 461 36:22  366, 461 36:22–32  366, 467 36:26–27 462 36:28–30 462 36:29–30 367

Ezekiel (cont.) 36:30 462 36:30–31 462 36:36 462 38:6 460 39:1 460 39:2 467 39:25 467 39:25–29 467 39:29  461, 462 Hosea 3:1 151 4:13 110 9:15 151 9:16 485 11:1–9 152 11:8  48, 450, 495 11:8–9 495 12:10 18 13:4  110, 348 13:6 110 13:14 149 14:2 446 14:5 151 Joel 1–2 373 1:1–2 444 1:1–7 485 1:2 465 1:3  443, 447 1:4–2:11 442 1:5–9 369 1:5–20 444 1:9 445 1:10 466 1:13  456, 458 1:13–14  454, 458, 487 1:14  445, 454, 458 1:15 485 1:16 466 1:19  444, 455, 458 1:19–20  486, 494 1:20 466 2  183, 184, 369, 457, 467, 515

Index of Scripture Joel (cont.) 2:1  444, 447, 448, 451 2:1–2 454 2:1–11  444, 448, 450, 470 2:1–17  444, 453 2:3 494 2:3–11 485 2:7–11 518 2:9–11  448, 497 2:10 447 2:11  442, 445, 468, 475, 486 2:11–17 468 2:12  369, 442, 446, 448, 458, 469 2:12–13  444, 447, 448, 449, 486 2:12–14  180, 241, 444, 447, 456, 463, 487 2:12–17  181, 468, 475 2:12–18 467 2:12–19 369 2:13  10, 14, 83, 93, 380, 443, 446, 450, 451, 452, 453, 458, 466, 468, 469, 473, 474, 504, 509 2:13–14  215, 450, 451, 458, 469 2:14  210, 440, 445, 453, 456, 458, 468, 470, 473, 484, 486, 515 2:15  443, 454, 457, 487 2:15–17 464 2:16  445, 454 2:17  161, 241, 249, 263, 442, 443, 444, 454, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 462, 463, 465, 466, 467, 469, 470, 473, 511

Joel (cont.) 2:17–18  466, 467, 487 2:18  459, 461, 463, 464, 466, 467 2:18–3:1 442 2:18–19 463 2:18–20 463 2:18–27 444 2:19  457, 460, 462 2:21 466 2:22 466 2:23 466 2:26 467 2:27  462, 466, 467 2:28  444, 462, 471 2:28–29  462, 463, 471, 472 2:28–32  444, 471, 472 2:32  442, 472, 474 2:32–3:2 474 3 463 3:1 451 3:1–3  467, 474 3:1–21 474 3:2 444 3:5 472 3:9–12 447 3:15–16 444 3:17  442, 467, 468 3:17–18  462, 476 3:18  444, 504 3:21 474 4:6 485 Amos 1:1 484 1:2 485 1:4  493, 494 1:6 492 2:1 492 2:2 494 2:6  483, 487 2:6–7 481 2:6–8 480 2:7 483 2:8 483 3:2  481, 504

585 Amos (cont.) 3:7  13, 31, 33, 35, 55, 101, 177, 209, 243, 360, 469, 480, 483, 484, 499, 500, 502, 511, 512 3:7–8 22 3:8 480 3:10 481 3:11 482 4:1–2 481 4:1–3 481 4:4 497 4:4–5 480 4:6–11 446 4:6–12  481, 484, 487 4:6–13 493 4:12 482 5:4 493 5:6 494 5:7  481, 483 5:7–12 481 5:10 483 5:11 483 5:15  444, 470, 482, 484, 486, 487 5:18  481, 486 5:18–20 485 5:21 480 5:21–23  448, 502 5:21–25 215 5:24  200, 481, 483 5:26  480, 484 5:27  482, 501 6:1 481 6:4 481 6:8  481, 505 6:8–9 491 6:12 483 6:14 482 7  35, 185, 477, 495, 519 7–8 356 7–9 477 7:1  187, 243, 484, 489, 498 7:1–3  214, 485, 489 7:1–4 484

586 Amos (cont.) 7:1–6  241, 243, 338, 343, 440, 477, 489, 511 7:1–9  509, 511 7:1–11 518 7:2  204, 477, 480, 485, 491, 493, 494, 504 7:2–3 245 7:2–8 484 7:3  450, 477, 489 7:4  493, 498 7:4–5 486 7:4–6  477, 493 7:6  485, 495 7:7  488, 496, 498 7:7–8 496 7:7–9  183, 496 7:8  480, 484, 485, 489, 498 7:8–9  73, 497 7:9  482, 497 7:10 498 7:10–17  479, 498, 499 7:11 497 7:12  479, 488 7:12–13  479, 497 7:12–17 487 7:13 485 7:14 478 7:15  479, 480, 483, 484, 497, 501 7:16–17 498 7:17  481, 501 8:1  489, 497, 498 8:1–3 497 8:2  484, 485, 488, 489, 498, 499 8:3  482, 498 8:5  481, 483 9:1  488, 489 9:1–4  489, 499 9:8 482 9:8–15 484 9:10 482 9:11 504

Index of Scripture Amos (cont.) 9:11–12 482 9:11–15 504 Jonah 1:2 451 3:1–4:1 453 3:1–10 136 3:4–10  443, 449 3:8 451 3:9  444, 450, 453, 470, 484, 486 4 473 4:1–3 97 4:2  33, 83, 210, 380, 403, 450, 451, 452, 453 Micah 3:4 346 6:4 383 6:8  36, 164, 341 Nahum 1:3 450 Zephaniah 2:3  454, 484, 486 Zechariah 3 507 3:1–7  263, 286 6:9–14 225 8:13 54 Malachi 3:22 383 Psalms 2 411 5:12 361 6:1 351 6:7 141 7:9  127, 265 8:4 130 14  221, 417 14:1–3 275 14:3 275

Psalms (cont.) 17  174, 361 17:3–5 361 18 228 20 286 22  308, 322, 332, 366, 367, 391, 392, 394, 395, 425, 426 22:1 394 22:1–5 395 22:1–11 395 22:6–8 393 22:12–13 420 22:15 180 22:24 395 22:26–27 410 22:27–28 322 23:3 161 25  97, 473 25:7 155 25:11 161 26 407 30:5 93 30:9 409 30:12 141 31:1 361 32 268 32:4–11 237 32:5 284 32:5–6 268 32:8  268, 395 35:13 141 35:24 361 42:4 180 42:10 461 44:18–27 391 46  259, 340, 378, 379, 494 47:9 378 51  236, 237, 248 51–100 407 51:1  237, 238 51:3–4 237 51:4 236 51:19 190 55:18 141 55:24 420

Index of Scripture Psalms (cont.) 58  409, 411, 420 58:10 416 58:11 410 58:12 406 61:1 344 62:8 180 66 284 66:13 190 66:18  284, 346 69  3, 359, 389, 390, 391, 392, 407 69:5 407 69:6  361, 389, 391 69:6–7 391 69:7 389 69:8 390 69:9  390, 393, 394 69:21 390 69:22  390, 391 69:23–29 390 69:25–26 400 69:26 390 69:29 88 69:31 410 69:35–36 391 71:2 361 72 224 72:1–2 199 73–150 225 73:1 410 73:2–12 362 73:24 389 73:26 409 74:10 460 74:18 391 76:9 142 78:8 129 78:38–40 93 79:1 149 79:4 458 79:6–7 352 79:9  161, 378 79:10  407, 460 81:8 60 82:1 231 82:8 406 83:3 409

Psalms (cont.) 86 97 86:15  14, 83, 92, 450 88 427 88:2 344 88:10 409 88:10–11 409 89:6 231 89:29  93, 431 89:31–33 220 89:31–34 379 89:34 379 89:38–51 198 89:41 461 90 198 93 198 94:1 407 94:1–2 410 94:1–3 407 94:16 492 95  69, 74, 77 95:6 141 95:8  60, 74 95:8–9  70, 74 95:9 81 95:11 73 99  197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 383 99:1 198 99:1–5 198 99:2 198 99:3 197 99:4  198, 199 99:6  173, 201, 383, 455 99:6–8  172, 199, 509 99:6–9  190, 197 99:7–8 201 99:8  200, 201, 407 100:5  433, 520 101–150 390 103  33, 97, 210, 304 103:3–13 215 103:6  33, 36 103:7  33, 198 103:8  14, 33, 83, 92, 238, 413, 450 103:8–10  34, 240

587 Psalms (cont.) 103:8–13 380 103:8–18 201 105:6 29 105:26  147, 198 106  86, 402 106:1 520 106:6  275, 378 106:7 129 106:16 198 106:19 66 106:23  136, 137, 170, 226, 247, 327, 402, 456, 468, 508, 518, 523 106:44–45 210 107  184, 355 107:1 520 109:1 406 110 225 110:4 225 111–12  166, 167 115 463 115:1 161 115:1–3 463 115:2 460 118:1 520 119:14 128 121:7 3 122 439 128:5 3 131 142 132 225 132:1 155 132:6 340 132:11 220 132:13 259 135:4 151 136:1 520 136:22 155 137 412 139 269 139:1  361, 390 139:8 409 139:21 80 139:23 407 141:2  64, 76

588 Psalms (cont.) 141:8 309 142:6 344 143:1 361 143:2 169 145 97 145:8  83, 450 147:6 142 149 142 149:4 142 149:7 407 Job 1:5 183 1:6–12 231 1:20 141 2:3 231 3:3–4 385 23:11 158 30:19 44 31 48 42:6  44, 210 42:7 183 42:8 183 Proverbs 3:5–28 251 5:9 251 10:1 251 16:9 351 22:17–24 271 22:22 491 26:1 196 29:25 106 Ruth 1:16 344 Lamentations 1:22 411 2:19 180 3:22–23 93 3:29 454 3:64 411 4:21 411 5:7 430

Index of Scripture Esther 3:10 78 4:16 141 5:6–8 3 7:2 3 Daniel 1:4 382 2:21 282 7:10 231 9  268, 275, 366, 378, 527 9:4–5 366 9:4–19 507 9:5 275 9:5–19 378 9:11  156, 366 9:16 378 9:17 366 9:18  33, 169, 237, 266, 504 9:18–19  366, 508 9:19  366, 378 9:20 143 12:1–2 88 12:1–3 409 Ezra 1:1–4 297 8:21–23 141 9  268, 275, 366 9:1–15 141 9:3 143 9:3–15  375, 507 9:5 142 Nehemiah   507, 527 4:4 460 5:9 460 8 120 8:1–9 455 8:7–8 120 9  268, 275, 366, 443, 473 9:1 141

Nehemiah (cont.) 9:4 147 9:17  14, 450, 509 9:30  469, 471 10:29 156 12:36 225 13:14 88 13:22 458 1 Chronicles 5:20 187 11:26–47 228 13:11 212 21  230, 234, 241, 249, 250 21:1  230, 231 21:12  237, 238 21:18 238 22 249 22–29 225 22:1  246, 249 22:7–11 226 22:11 226 22:12 226 22:13 226 28:2 198 2 Chronicles 3:1  20, 249 5:12–14 256 6:12–42  263, 286 7:1 256 7:12–22 277 18:18 382 18:31 187 19:2 238 20:5–12 375 29:26 225 32:20–21 340 32:25–26 248 35:18 172 35:20–24 332

Index of Scripture

589

New Testament Matthew 2:1–2 272 3:9 29 5:11–12 336 5:21–22 168 5:23–24 355 5:38–45 274 5:44  272, 410, 420, 439 5:44–47 53 6:8  360, 388 6:9 463 6:13 417 6:14–15 222 6:33–34 253 7:7 388 8:13 272 8:29 420 10:14 37 12:28 80 12:42 272 15:21–28 272 15:24 272 18:20 292 18:21 222 22:15–21 400 22:36–38 325 22:37–39 27 22:38  104, 164 23 502 24:1–2 291 25:41  420, 421, 422 26:26–28 312 26:28 328 26:29 285 26:57–68 483 26:66 414 27:12 309 27:25 414 27:34 392 27:38 310 28:19–20 77 28:20 397

Mark 1:14 513 3:22–27  80, 418 5:1–20 418 5:5 421 5:6–7 418 8:33 421 9:7 11 9:31 322 10:45  308, 309, 322, 328, 415, 528, 529 13:1–12 291 14:22 322 14:58  291, 292 Luke 1:32–33 283 1:46–55 175 2:32 301 3:21 470 4:18–21 502 4:42 502 6:12 470 6:27–28  6, 324, 439 6:27–29 410 8:26–39 418 8:28 418 9:18 470 9:44 322 9:52–55 420 9:55 413 10:17 77 10:18 418 10:25 502 11:1  470, 502 11:1–4 469 11:14–23  80, 418 11:20 80 13:6 414 13:16 421 13:31–33 322 14:27 324 15:7 504 15:11–24 471

Luke (cont.) 15:11–32 284 15:17  243, 284 15:20 285 17:10 470 18:1–7 86 18:1–8  344, 417 18:10–13 237 18:38  291, 474 19:10 528 19:45–47 502 21:5–7 291 22:3 421 22:31 217 22:31–32  231, 421, 422, 528 22:37 310 22:42 222 23:34  171, 317, 328, 414, 420, 503, 504, 528, 529 23:36 392 24:13–35 17 24:25 17 24:25–26 24 24:25–27 5 24:27  15, 17, 294, 506 24:30–35 17 24:31 17 24:32 17 24:44–47 472 24:49 472 John 1:1–3 507 1:1–18 286 1:14  15, 24, 291, 509, 513 1:14–16 474 1:21 11 1:29  324, 327 1:51 291 2:18–22 292 2:19 291

590 John (cont.) 2:19–21  273, 288 2:21–22 291 3:10  215, 451 3:16  250, 293, 526 3:17 392 4:20–24 292 5:19  31, 168 6:14 11 7:40 11 8:44 79 10:1–6 250 10:10 287 10:11 328 10:18 309 12:49 168 13:27 421 14:8 288 14:10–11 513 14:16 473 15:4–7 279 15:7 15 15:25 392 15:26 473 16:7 473 16:33 80 17  15, 168, 286 17:1 287 17:1–6 286 17:3 287 17:4 287 17:6 287 17:8 168 17:9 287 17:9–15 528 17:11 287 17:11–19 286 17:15  81, 288 17:17 288 17:18 26 17:20  77, 288, 293 17:20–21 528 17:20–23 286 17:21 288 18:28–40 283 18:33 80 19:19 392 19:33 250 20:21–23 26

Index of Scripture Acts 1:7 282 1:20 392 2:17–21 472 2:20 472 2:21 472 2:29–36 283 2:30 242 2:36 472 2:36–40  472, 474 2:37–38 285 2:38 472 2:39 472 3:20–21 474 3:22–24 11 7 204 7:37 11 7:48 292 7:59 474 7:59–60 324 7:60 529 8:26–40 299 8:32 415 8:34 299 10:44–46 472 13:9 413 13:10 423 13:20 172 17:31  472, 474 Romans 1–3 169 1:18 525 1:18–3 416 1:18–3:18 4 1:18–3:20 221 2:4–5 222 3:9 275 3:9–20 528 3:10 417 3:10–12 422 3:10–19 421 3:21–26 221 3:25  416, 524, 525, 526 4:3 29 4:15 525 5:8 503 5:8–9 523

Romans (cont.) 5:9 526 5:12–19 221 7:23 422 8:19–22 345 8:26–27  470, 509 8:28 282 8:33–34 475 8:33–39 476 8:34  4, 15, 263, 264, 286, 314, 475, 529 8:38 422 9–11  152, 283, 504 9:3  243, 305 9:15 454 9:18 231 9:22 526 9:30–32 505 10:9–13 474 10:12–13 472 10:13  472, 474 11 504 11:1–36 504 11:19–22 505 11:19–23 222 11:20–21 505 11:22  152, 505 11:33 454 12:5 292 12:12  51, 425 12:14 410 12:15 285 12:19 407 13:1 474 13:1–7 438 15:30 470 1 Corinthians 5 423 5:5 423 5:7 312 6:19 292 11:27–32 423 15:24–27 422 16:22 423

591

Index of Scripture 2 Corinthians 1:6 425 5:10 526 5:18–21 221 5:19 323 5:20–21  250, 327 5:21  171, 503 6:16 292 12:21 285 Galatians 1:8 423 3:13  415, 416 3:28 273 5:19–20 422 5:21 422 6:1 325 6:2  324, 529 Ephesians 1:4–7  26, 507 2:2 421 2:3 526 2:8–9 169 2:19 292 6:10 421 6:12 217 6:18–19 470 Philippians 1:19 470 2:4 6 2:6 309 2:7 309 2:10–11 474 2:11 472 Colossians 1:15 323 1:15–20 286 1:15–22 507 1:16 217 1:18 292 2:10 421 2:15 422 4:2 51 13:8 323

1 Thessalonians 1:10 4 2 Thessalonians 1:8 423 2:9 421 1 Timothy 1:20 423 2:1–3 438 2:1–4 53 2:1–5 26 2:1–7 475 2:5–6  15, 507 2 Timothy 2:13 320 3:16  22, 413, 419 Hebrews 1:1 469 1:1–2  5, 507, 528 1:3 225 2:14–18 529 2:18 387 2:22 250 3:1 528 4:14 528 4:14–5:10 16 4:14–15 503 4:14–16  15, 26, 528 4:15 168 5:5 225 5:7  414, 425, 529 6:3 503 6:4–8 503 7:23 528 7:25  4, 15, 264, 286, 314, 475, 503, 529 8:1 528 9:13–14 318 9:24  264, 285, 286 9:28 503 10:26 503 10:26–31 503 11:17–19 29

James 1:13–15 230 2:21–24 29 5:14–16 6 5:16  48, 89, 355 1 Peter 2:5 190 2:5–9 26 2:5–10 15 2:9  53, 475 2:11–17 438 2:22–23 415 2:22–24 415 3:12 89 2 Peter 1:12 22 1:21 22 2:4 422 2:5 35 2:6 55 1 John 1:1–2 24 1:8 426 1:8–2 285 1:9  215, 293 1:10–2 293 2:1 475 2:1–2  314, 529 2:2  293, 524 4:10  524, 526 5:16 383 5:16–17 503 Jude 7 37 Revelation 2:5 505 6:10 416 16:1 392 19–22 476 21:1–5 301 21:18–21 322

592

Index of Scripture

Deuterocanonical Literature 1 Esdras 1:20 172 7:106 226 2 Esdras 7:111 226

1 Maccabees 3:46 186 2 Maccabees 15:12–14 329 15:12–16 314

Sirach 46:13–15 172 46:13–20 172