Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Is the Referenced in Deuteronomy 4:31 the Abrahamic or the Sinai Covenant?

by Leave a Comment

Block argues for the Sinai covenant:

1. The distinction many make between the Abrahamic covenant as unconditional and the Israelite covenant as conditional is false. All covenants involve relationships, the health of which depends on the actions of each party vis-à-vis the other. As anticipated in Genesis 17:7, the Israelite covenant ratified at Sinai was the means by which the promise made within the Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled.

2. Although we read of God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, this covenant is never referred to elsewhere as “the covenant of your forefathers.”

3. Leviticus 26:45 explicitly associates the “covenant of the ancestors”(brit rišanim), used here, with those “whom brought out of Egypt in the sight of the nations to be their God.”

4. In this chapter (esp. vv. 9-31), the central issue has been the covenant that Yahweh made with Israel at Horeb and that is embodied in the Decalogue.

5. Moses’ reference to Yahweh’s remembering his covenant with the forefathers deliberately contrasts his fixed memory with the Israelite lapse of memory (cf. v. 23).

6. Since Moses is speaking of the distant future (v. 30) and specifically refers to when “you have had children and grandchildren” (v. 25), “your forefathers” could refer to the exodus generation or even to the present generation.

7. While some cite the absence of an oath at Horeb as evidence for the Abrahamic covenant, we should note first that in the ancient Near East covenants would rarely have been made without an oath. Moreover, later prophetic tradition actually speaks of Yahweh’s commitment on oath to this covenant. [Note 35: “See Ezek. 16.8 and 20:5. Cf. Daniel I. Block, Ezekiel Chapters 1-24 (NICOT, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1997), 625-26.”]

8. Finally, borrowing heavily from Deuteronomy, Jeremiah explicitly identifies the exodus generation as the forefathers with whom Yahweh made a covenant (34:13).

Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC, 134-35.

In response:

1. While all covenants include responsibilities for both parties, some covenants are unconditional while others are conditional. For instance, there are responsibilities for humans in the Noahic covenant, but their failure to keep those responsibilities does not  negate the promised blessing of the covenant. That blessing is unconditional. On the other hand, the Mosaic covenant conditions the covenant blessings on obedience and prescribes covenant curses for disobedience. The Mosaic covenant is a conditional covenant. The cutting of the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 15 shows it to be an unconditional covenant.

2.a. However, in Deuteronomy 4:37, the very next time אָב is used, “fathers” refers to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It refers to Yhwh choosing their seed and, as a result, Moses says Yhwh “brought you out of Egypt.”

2.b. What is more, the first occurrence of אָב in Deuteronomy defines the fathers: “Go in and take possession of the land that Yhwh swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give to them and to their seed after them.’” (Dt 1:8, ESV, alt.; cf. Dt. 1:35).

2.c. After Deuteronomy 1, Deuteronomy 4:1 contains the next occurrence of אָב. That verse refers back to Deuteronomy 1:8, 35 by connecting the giving of the land to Yhwh as “the God of your fathers.”

2.d. Though there is debate over the referent of fathers in Deuteronomy 5:3; 8:3, 16, 18, the proper referent is arguably Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. A contrast is being drawn between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants.

2.e. Throughout the rest of Deuteronomy, when fathers is used of the forefathers of this generation, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are in view.

2.f. Thus it is immaterial that the phrase is not used of the Abrahamic covenant elsewhere. (In fact, this precise phrase only occurs in this verse.)

3. Leviticus 26:45 speaks of a yet future generation. So their forefathers could include the very people that Moses is speaking to in Deuteronomy 4. It seems safest to define בְּרִ֣ית אֲבֹתֶ֔יךָ in Deuteronomy 4:31 by the usage of אָב in Deuteronomy rather than by בְּרִ֣ית רִאשֹׁנִ֑ים in Leviticus 26:45.

4. It is true that the making of the Mosaic covenant at Horeb is central to this passage, but throughout those verses Moses place the current generation in solidarity with the generation that came out of Egypt by using the second person singular to describe those events: “And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform” (Dt. 4:13; cf. vv. 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, 21, 23, 33, 36, 37). The use of the second person plural continues through Deuteronomy 4:29–31. The you in this chapter thus encompasses the first generation to leave Egypt. The fathers are distinct from both generations.

5. Israel is not to forget the Sinai covenant even as Yhwh will not forget the Abrahamic covenant. Verses 25–28 predict that Israel will forget the Sinai covenant and come under its covenant curses. Veress 20–31 notes that despite Isreal’s forgetfulness of the Sinai covenant, Yhwh will not forget the Abrahamic covenant. It would not make sense to refer to him not forgetting the Sinai covenant at this point; that is what verses 25–28 recount. Yhwh’s remembering the Sinai covenant means that he brings the curses of the covenant on Israel as a disobedient people. Yhwh’s remembering the Abrahamic covenant grounds the redemption of Israel.

6. This is a fair observation. However, note the continuity of the second person you throughout this passage. Further, this observation does not overturn the arguments made in responses 1–5.

7. I agree with Block on this point; I would not deploy the argument he is countering.

8. Jeremiah 34:13 is not the only place where a covenant with the fathers refers to the Sinai covenant. See also 1 Kings 8:21; 2 Kings 17:15; Jer 11:10; 31:32. However, this is beside the point. To be sure the Sinai covenant was a covenant made with the fathers of subsequent generations. Block is treating this phraseology as if it were a technical term with a unified referent whereas the referent needs to be determined contextually.

Thoughts on the Translation of Leviticus 26:40–42

by

The ESV provides a typical translation of Leviticus 26:40–42:

But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery that they committed against me, and also in walking contrary to me, so that I walked contrary to them and brought them into the land of their enemies—if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land.

Since the KJV, English translations have tended to translate these verses as conditionals (“but if they”), and since the RSV, English translations have tended to translate a key phrase in verse 41, “and they make amends for their iniquity,” or some variant of the same.

A better translation is as follows. Here I use the CSB as main translation, but the bold text is brought over from the NKJV:

40 “But when they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their ancestors—their unfaithfulness that they practiced against me, and how they acted with hostility toward me, 41 and I acted with hostility toward them and brought them into the land of their enemies—and when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they accept their guilt, 42 then I will remember my covenant with Jacob. I will also remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land.

The CSB, along with the Geneva Bible and the NET Bible, rightly recognize that there is no conditional particle in the Hebrew (as there is earlier in the chapter when the blessings and curses of the Mosaic covenant are outlined). Thus, it is best to translate, as the CSB does, “But when they confess their iniquity” and “when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled.”

Regarding the contested phrase in verse 42, the key verb in the sentence (רצה), translated “make amends” by the ESV and “accept” by the NKJV,” is commonly understood be from one of two identically spelled roots. The first means “to be pleased with, to enjoy, to accept.” The second means “to pay for, to restore.” However, I wonder if the second root with its meaning is necessary to posit. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew cites texts in support of this sense the verse under consideration (Lev 26:41) as well as earlier verses in Leviticus 26 which state (in common translation) that the land will “enjoy its Sabbaths.” In fact, the few other verses cited in support of the second root could be translated in line with the first root and its senses.

In addition, the Hebrew word translated by the ESV as “iniquity” can also be understood to indicate “guilt” (as in the NKJV) or “punishment.” Thus, the translation of the NKJV, “and they accept their guilt.”

The UBS Handbook on Leviticus advocates the same translation I’m advocating in this post:

 Make amends for their iniquity: this phrase presents difficulties with regard to the understanding of both the verb, make amends, and the noun, rendered iniquity in RSV, and consequently for the interpretation of the whole. A number of versions have adopted essentially the same interpretation as RSV (NIV, NJV, and NAB). But the noun used here may mean either “guilt” or “punishment for guilt.” The idea of punishment seems more probable in this context, as in 5:1, 7; 10:17; and 16:22; as well as Gen 4:13. The verb translated make amends in RSV is sometimes used in the sense of “accept.” An example of this in Leviticus is God’s accepting a sacrifice in 1:4. MFT translates the whole phrase “submit to be punished for their sins,” while NEB has “accept their punishment in full,” leaving the idea of guilt implicit. It is especially significant that, while JB (1966) rendered the whole phrase “atone for their sins,” the more recent NJB (1985) has “accept the punishment for their guilt.” The latter interpretation is therefore recommended to translators.

René Péter-Contesse and John Ellington, A Handbook on Leviticus, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1992), 420.

What is the theological significance of these translation differences? Leviticus 26 (much like Deuteronomy 28) outlines the covenant blessings and curses of the Mosaic covenant. If Israel kept the covenant, it would enjoy the blessings of the covenant (26:1–13). If Israel spurned and loathed the covenant, and if Israel thus broke the Mosaic covenant and its laws, then all the covenant curses would come upon Israel (26:14–39). But Leviticus 26:40–45 (like Deuteronomy 30) looks ahead to the new covenant. These verses predict Israel’s repentance. Someday Israelites will confess its guilt and the guilt of their fathers, and they will accept their guilt. At that point God will bring to pass the promises of the Abrahamic covenant.