Covenant and community in the post-exilic period
3. AFFIRMATION OF COVENANT FORMULA
God’s design reafirmed: the post-monarchy era Covenant and community in the post-exilic period
L O R D ’ S ” ’ (445). In yet another salvation oracle the assurance of God’s ownership of Israel is elaborated extensively and impressively in conjunc- tion with the ‘addressee’ section, ‘But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; you whom I took from the ends of the earth . . . saying to you, “You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off”’ (41:8-9). God’s willingness to continue with Israel is most impressive. A second type of salvation speech is the ‘announce- ment of salvation’. It is characterized among other features by a lament nuance. God, addressing the afflicted, announces his help and defines the re- lationship: ‘I the LORD will answer them, I the God oflsraelwill not forsake them’ (41:17).
Assertions of God’s readiness to continue his purpose with Israel occur also in conjunction with family-oriented language in which God is pictured as either a parent or a marriage partner. The parental attachment is high- lighted by Yahweh’s rhetorical question given in reply to Israel’s complaint:
‘But Zion said, “The LORD has forsaken me, my Lord has forgotten me.”
Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you’
(49: 14-15). ~
The same thought of God having forsaken his people is taken up in 50: 1, but now under the figure of a marriage relationship. ‘Where is your mother’s bill of divorce, with which I put her away?’ The expected answer is that it cannot be produced. Israel’s separation from God occurred because of her sin a;d not because of a divorce decree issued by her partner. The metaphor of matrimony surfaces again. As a youthful woman who is forsa- ken and grieving is recalled by her husband to be his wife, so the LO R D
recalls Israel into the relationship that once existed (54:6; cfi Zc. 10:6). And then as if to leave no doubt about God’s willingness to take Israel as his partner, the prophet declares,
For as a young man marries a virgin,. . . and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride,
so shall your God rejoice over you (62:s).
The parent will not disown the child. The bridegroom is not expected to disown the bride. So the LORD will not disown Israel.
In the second half of the book of Isaiah a double movement centres around the first covenant formula: ‘I will be your God.’ On the one hand it is necessary to articulate clearly ‘I am God.’ On the other hand it is not im- mediately self-evident that God will still identify himself with Israel follow- ing the exile and the brokenness of the covenant. Hence the many attempts to clarify the simple statement, ‘I will be your God.’
216
God’s design reaffirmed: the post-monarchy era
sorrow and sighing shall flee away’ (Is. 51: 11). The guarantee for the regathering is Yahweh, creator of the heaven and earth and of Israel. Just as the exodus from Egypt aimed at the formation of a people, a community (Ex. 6), so the regathering from the lands of the dispersion is aimed at com- munity. ‘I have . . . hid you in the shadow of my hand, stretching out the heavens and laying the foundations of the earth, and saying to Zion, “You are my people”’ (Is. 51: 16). God’s work of deliverance, whether of the exodus or the regathering, has a clearly stated objective: community.
b. ‘You shall be God’s people’
The post-exilic regathered community, like the earlier post-exodus com- munity, was to be a marked community, God’s people. The promise ‘You shall be my people’ contained a demand within it for a unique quality of people. The prophets, both during the exile and later, pressed home the re- ligious and ethical demands entailed in living as God’s people.
i To be God’s people-how often Israel had heard it-meant to have a single loyalty to Yahweh. Ezekiel, for instance, reminded his people, those in the land and those dispersed, that God would deal swiftly in judgment with any who set up idols and then came piously to inquire of the LO R D
through his prophet. The prophet and inquirer would bear the punishment of their iniquity ‘that the house of Israel may go no more astray from me, nor defile themselves any more with all their transgressions, but that they may be my people and I may be their God’ (Ezk. 14: 11).
’ Ethical behaviour for God’s people was not optional; it was mandatory because of who God was: ‘For I the LORD love justice, I hate robbery and wrong’ (61:8). Did Israel fast? Well and good. But Yahweh would not hear when the businessmen were driving hard all their workers (58:3). The acceptable fast, Israel must learn, is not without moral dimensions such as loving one’s neighbour; specifically, loosening the bonds of wickedness, dividing bread with the hungry, bringing the homeless poor into the house, and clothing the naked (58:6-7). To the returned Jews Zechariah (c. 518 BC) reiterates the teaching about the fast, correcting what seems continuous misunderstanding: ‘Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy each to his brother, do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor; and let none of you devise evil against his brother in your heart’ (Zc.
7:9-10). Zechariah, recognizing that a quality of life-style was appropriate to God’s people, told of the coming refinement in which Israel would be
‘refined as silver is refined.’ Israel’s purification, then, would anticipate the covenant. ‘They will call on my name, and I will answer them. I will say,
“They are my people”; and they will say, “The LORD is my God” ’ (Zc. 13 : 9;
CL 8:8).
The small, often beleagered community, occupied with rebuilding the 218
Covenant and community in the post-exilic period
fallen Jerusalem walls and the temple, was encouraged toward appropriate ethical behaviour by leaders such as Ezra and Nehemiah. Both instructed the people in the statutes of Moses (Ne. 8:s; 13:l; cfi Ezr. 7:lO). In keeping with the Mosaic law various reforms were instituted: foreigners were excluded (Ne. 13:3); sales on sabbath were disallowed (Ne. 13: 15-22); and those who had married foreign women were asked to put them away (Ezr.
10:3ff.). The implementation of God’s demands by such hard action as the separation of marriage partners seems to us to border on legalism.‘What- ever we may think of this action, the fact remains that God had chosen a people, but this people had not chosen God, and therefore was but a sad exhibit of God’s people (Ne. 9).
c. An old formula with a new ring
Neither of theie emphases-a united people, and an upright people-was new to the exiles. But there were overtones for each in the prophets’ an- nouncements that were definitely different from and shattered earlier stereotypes. One fresh note added to the promise of a united people was that not all exiles but only a remnant would constitute the returned united Israel.
Another note, sounded more clearly than ever, was that Gentiles would be a part of God’s people. A third note in the triad added to the call for an upright people was that with the demands of the covenant there were now new re- sources available.
The new community of God’s people would contain an ethnic core of Jews, specifically a remnant. The direct teaching about a remnant is already found in Isaiah (4:3; 6:13; 17:6; cfi 30:17). Prior to the fall of Jerusalem Zephaniah, who had announced the day of God’s wrath against Judah, had predicted that only a remnant would later return to inhabit the land, and these would be the humble and lowly, those spiritually qualified (2:7, 9;
3: 12-13). Ezekiel, who ministered during the exile, made it clear, although he did not use the word ‘remnant,’ that not all of Israel would be restored to the land but only a small group (14:21-23; cfi 11:14-20). Ezekiel pictures an exodus of God’s people from the lands to which they were scattered, but states that before they are brought into the land they will be judged in the wilderness, and the rebels among them shall be purged (20:34-38).
Jeremiah, like Ezekiel, speaks of a spiritual renewal which will charac- terize the remnant. In the earlier passages in Jeremiah the repentance of the people apparently precedes the physical return to the land and their unifica- tion (3 1: 15-20). Other passages describe a spiritual renewal of the people after their physical return to the land (32:7ff.; 37:23). The post-exilic com- munity identified itself as the faithful minority, the remnant that remained (Hg. 1:12-14; 2:2; Zc. 8:6, 11-12; Ezr. 9:8, 14-15; Ne. 1:2-3). The remnant was not identical with the political or ethnic definition of Israel, a
219
God’s design reaffirmed: the post-monarchy era Covenant and community in the post-exilic period
point that the apostle Paul was later to stress (Rom. 2:28; 9:6).
Even more consequential for Israel’s understanding and life is a further new element, namely the announcement by the prophets, Isaiah especially, that Gentiles will be numbered among God’s people. The call, ‘turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth’ (Is. 45:22) was a repetition of earlier universal strands (cf. Gn. 12:1-3; Ps. 68:31). But God’s purpose with the Gentiles was more explicit, as Isaiah will describe. Israel, clearly bereaved of her children, as well as barren, now was to find herself in the land with many
‘children’. ‘Whence then have these come?’ she asks (49:21). Are these but dispersed Jews from an unexpected quarter, or is there a veiled hint that Yahweh is making a place among her for the Gentiles? Indeed, the associ- ation of other people with Israel is described: ‘Behold, you shall call nations that you know not, and nations that knew you not shall run to you’ (55:5).
related to the covenant: ‘and you shall be my people and 1 will be your God’
(Ezk. 36:28). J eremiah had likewise linked the newly promised provision of God’s grace-act, putting his law within man and writing it on their heart, with the covenant formula, which follows immediately: ‘I will be their God, and they shall be my people’ (Je. 3 1:33). God’s law put within man’s heart ensured that they would both know the LORD and follow him in obedience.
The frequent occurrence of the covenant formula in exilic and pre-exilic literature testifies to the anxiety about covenant, perhaps, but more import- ant, it testifies to the durability of God’s design, especially his eagerness to establish a fruitful relationship with a people. The earlier covenant had been broken. Beyond judgment, which that brokenness entailed, God now affirmed the covenant basics. He was God, ready still to be Israel’s God;
they in turn were to be uniquely his people.
Foreigners were not to be shunned, but to be welcomed. Yes, they did have ‘a place’:‘The foreigners who join themselves to the LORD . . . these I will bring to my holy mountain . . .for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. Thus says the Lord GOD who gathers the outcasts of Israel, I will gather yet others to him besides those already gathered’ (56:6- 8). Isolated Gentiles such as Rahab the Canaanite, Ruth the Moabite, and Ittai the Hittite, had joined Israel as God-fearers to be part of God’s people, and now the prospect was for a wave of non-Israelites to be incorporated into ‘my people’. Through a faith commitment expressed through obser- vance of sacrifice and other requirements foreigners would become members of the community in full standing. Isaiah is bold indeed when he tells of Egypt’s future when Yahweh will make himself known to Egypt, and the Egyptians will know Yahweh (19:21). Then Yahweh’s blessing will sound, ‘Blessed be Egypt my people. . .’ (19:25). The term ‘people of God’
is wider certainly than ethnic Israel.
Israel, though in exile, had a fresh word of hope. God would enter into covenant with her as he had in the past. But that new covenant would be unlike the covenant of the past. The new arrangement would include the Gentiles in a way more pronounced than before. The new community, though consisting of a spiritually vital Israelite remnant, would embrace more than token Gentiles. The new community would be distinguished by the resource of the Spirit of God, by which they would be enabled to be truly God’s people.
4.
S U M M A R YA further wrinkle in the covenant formula which, if not totally new, was definitely more prominent in the exile than earlier, was the promise for new resources. Through Ezekiel and Jeremiah God was offering a new covenanP, and offering also the resources of his Spirit, so that this time the covenant partner would remain faithful, would exhibit the loyalty essential to cove- nant. Loyalty is essential for covenant. Ezekiel put it graphically: the heart of stone would be removed from Israel, and by divine transplant a new heart and a new spirit would be supplied (Ezk. 36:24). ,The purpose for this radical spiritual surgery is to ‘cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances’ (Ezk. 36:27). That purpose in turn is directly’
6Books and articles are numerous. For the classic treatment of covenant see W. Eichrodt, Theology ofrhe Old Testament, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster; London: SCM Press, 1961, 1967). A conservative treatment of covenant according to rubrics drawn from ‘testament’ is found in J. Barton Payne, Theology of the OIder Testament. His comparative chart of covenants (p. 95) while provocative, represents a differently nuanced approach aiming at much greater precision than is given here.
The shifts in covenant content are most obvious in Jeremiah, who neverthe- less reaches back into history as he makes a contrast. Jeremiah contrasts the new covenant with the old, for the new covenant will be ‘not like the cove- nant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. . .’(Je. 31:32). With that statement Jeremiah points forward to the Christ event, as the author of Hebrews explains (Heb.
8:6-13). But in giving the promise, Jeremiah also harks back to the begin- nings of Israel’s story, to the covenant at Sinai.
Having come to the end of our Old Testament survey of the covenant strand in God’s purpose we may profitably look back and discern both the constants and the variables in the covenant relationships which God estab- lished with his people. The covenant, in a nutshell, is always ‘I will be your God, you will be my people’, whether that be with Israel at the exodus (Ex.
6:7) or with David in the monarchy period (2 Sa. 7: 14) or with the remnant in the exile (Ezk. 14: 1 l), or with the new covenant described by Jeremiah (Je. 3 1:3 l), or for that matter in the end time depicted by John the apostle;
‘He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them’ (Rev. 21:3). Always, whether implicit or expressly stated,
2 2 0 2 2 1
God’s design reaffirmed: the post-monarchy era
loyalty on the part of each covenant partner is central_, In the sense of a re- quirement of loyalty, every covenant is. conditional, whether it be with Abraham or David, or whether with the Levites or Israel. Each of the cove---.. - nants represents God’s initiative_ingrace. No_~ove~a~~.rec!~~~t caqboast of merit. Covenants, even those given to individuals, Abraham,..andRavid, aim predominantly at descendants, at peoplehood, at community--rxlot just any community but one in which the will of God is understood and obeyed
But the differences between the covenants should not go unmentioned.
Most obvious is the fact that a covenant is made at times with individuals such as Abraham or David and at other times with groups such as the Levites or Israel. Schematically one may think of the sequel to the Sinai covenant being both exclusive and inclusive@he covenant with David is a narrowing of the covenant to one person within Israel; the new covenantb contrast includes Israel but embraces those other-than-IsraeliOne interesting devel- opment is that the covenant with David is appropriated later by Israel (Is.
55:3). Certain covenants such as the Abrahamic and the Davidic are weigh- ted in favour of God’s promises, while others, such as the Sinaitic covenant,_._
are more detailed as to the stipulations. The new covenant, most striking of all, offers the promise of regenerated persons who will desire to do the will of God.
Covenant and community in the post-exilic period
/I’
Ii
I
222
13
The experience of God
One of the components of God’s design according to our pivotal text, Exodus 5:22-6:8, is that people may know God. Knowing God entails experiencing God. T,he often repeated phrase in Ezekiel, ‘Then you (they) shall know that I am the LORD’ is already sufficient evidence that God’s earlier design is reaffirmed. Yet within this reaffirmation fresh directions are discernible. In our initial discussion the knowledge of God was explored along the lines of cult, event, and the wider world. In the exilic/post-exilic period the same rubrics are appropriate.