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 Exodus 15:22-27, the Mosaic Covenant, and the Gospel

by

I had a very stimulating conversation with a co-worker this morning about Exodus 15:22-27, and what follows are reflections from that conversation.

Exodus 15:1-21 marks the end of Israel’s redemption from Egypt. Exodus 15:22-27 thus marks the beginning of a transitional section between that redemption and the giving of the Mosaic covenant (a section that begins with chapter 19). This transitional section (15:22-18:27) begins with three pericopes in which the people are grumbling against Yhwh and against Moses regarding food and water. These three pericopes reveal that even though Israel was physically redeemed from Egypt, the Israelites were still in need of new hearts. They still needed redemption from sin.

At the end of the first of these grumbling pericopes, the text provides a brief preview of the Mosaic covenant: “There Yhwh made for them a statute and a rule, and there he tested them, saying, ‘If you will diligently listen to the voice of Yhwh your God, and do that which is right in his eyes, and give ear to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians, for I am Yhwh, your healer'” (ESV, adj.).

Note the conditional nature of the statement: If Israel keeps Yhwh’s law, then God will keep the judgments of Egypt from Israel. The implication is that if Israel does not keep Yhwh’s law they will receive the judgments of Egypt themselves. A case and point would be the locust plague Israel experienced as recorded in Joel 1.

Note also Yhwh’s identification of himself at the end of this statement, “for I am Yhwh, your healer.” This is given as a reason for why Yhwh will not bring the diseases of Egypt upon Israel. It is not a statement that Yhwh will heal Israel from these diseases. My coworker observed that an attentive listener to this statement from Yhwh would recognize that he is the one that needs to be healed so that he will be able to obey Yhwh’s law and not have these diseases come upon him.

The fact that this pericope is followed by two more in which Israel grumbles at Yhwh demonstrates that the nation did not come to Yhwh for healing. Israel’s rebellion at the golden calf incident and in Numbers shows that Israel remained in need of healing.

Significantly, Deuteronomy 28-29 describes at length the conditional nature of the Mosaic covenant. It describes the covenant blessings for obedience and the covenant curses for disobedience. Deuteronomy 29:4 reveals that Yhwh had not yet given the people new hearts, and 30:1 reveals that Israel will in the end come under the covenant curses. In this context Moses looks forward to the new covenant (30:5-10), and indicates that participation in this future new covenant could be theirs by faith right then (Dt 30:11-14; cf. Rom 10:6-9).

From the beginning it is clear that the Mosaic covenant is conditional and that this is bad news for sinners who will not be able to meet its condition. And from the beginning it is clear that the Mosiac covenant preaches the gospel to sinners by directing them to Yhwh, the only one who can heal them from their sins.

Tom Parr’s Backdrop for a Glorious Gospel

by

Tom Parr’s Backdrop for a Glorious Gospel: The Covenant of Works According to William Strong marries in its title two things that God has joined together that man should never rend asunder: deep theology and doxalogical application. Backdrop for a Glorious Gospel summarizes and explains a section of Puritan William Strong’s A Discourse of the Two Covenants.

Though I had not heard of Strong until Parr introduced him to me, his work of recovery is valuable. Strong’s covenant theology is exegetically deeper than any recent writing on the covenant of works that I’ve read. In addition to exegetical depth, Parr also brings out the rich applicational and devotional aspects of Strong’s work.

The extensive footnotes are a bonus feature. They compare and contrast Strong’s teaching with that of other Puritans. Thus, the reader is educated on the continuities and discontinuities of Puritan thought on the various topics under discussion. In this way the book is a broader entry into Puritan thought on the covenant of works.

Those holding dispensational or progressive covenantal positions may wonder if it is worth their while to read this treatise on the covenant of works. The answer is a clear, “yes.” First, though some dispensationalists reject the idea of a covenant of works, not all do. There is no systemic need for them to do so, and there are important theological reasons for them to affirm a covenant of works. Progressive covenantalists already hold to a creation covenant, and there are good theological reasons for them to view the creation covenant as a covenant of works. People from both systems will benefit from reading Strong’s case that the covenant of works is truly a necessary backdrop for the glorious gospel.

This is not to say that dispensationalists, progressive covenantalists, and even certain Baptist covenant theologians won’t find areas of disagreement, especially in the discussion of how the Mosaic law relates to the covenants of works and grace. However, Strong, as summarized by Parr, gives the best and most nuanced argument for the view that the Mosaic law is an administration of the covenant of grace that I’ve read. Though this is not my position, I think Strong’s argument is one that readers of every persuasion ought to reckon with.