The link between royalty and covenant has been sketched; we need now to
‘Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms, p. 168.
“John Bright’s contrast between the Sinaitic and Davidic covenants is too sharply drawn (Covenant and Promise, Philadelphia: Westmmster Press, 1976; London: SCM Press, 1977). The tension between stipula- tion and promise is a tension found within each covenant.
148
,, ,. ,,“,,
The covenant community and the new functionaries: kings, prophets elucidate the prophets’ relation to covenant. The rise of prophets in Israel coincides with the rise of the monarchy. While Moses is called a prophet (Dt. 18:18), as is Abraham (Gn. 20:7), their role as prophet is not particu- larly differentiated. A distinct office of a prophet is accorded first to Samuel.
During his time, Israel was at a crisis point because of the external threat from the Philistines and the internal agitation for a realignment of leader- ship roles. In that unsettling time, Saul became king. One way of seeing the two roles of prophet and king is to see them as differentiations of roles for- merly combined into one person, the judge. The judges were charismatic;
they were leaders in the struggle for deliverance. The prophets perpetuate the charismatic quality associated with the judges; the kings perpetuate the military role. Such differentiation soon raises the question of the way in which the prophets related to kings and for that matter to other leadership personnel, such as priests.
a. The role of the prophets
Before entering upon the discussion of the prophets’ relation to covenant, preliminary remarks situating the prophet within Israel’s religious life are in order. Samuel, the first prophet, is a convenient covenant figure on whom to focus, while being aware of the line of prophets beyond him. As spokesmen for God, prophets addressed the king, who was the political power figure but the instrument also for executing God’s rule over God’s people. The theocracy was not displaced by the monarchy. The prophet, more nearly representing God than did the king, stood above the king on the hierarchical ladder. As the charismatic messenger from God, the prophet installed the ruler. Samuel anoints Saul and David; Ahijah anoints Jeroboam; the prophet Jehu anoints Baasha; and Elisha’s representative anoints King Jehu (2 Ki. 9:1-10). The prophets also announced the rejection of kings.
Samuel addresses Saul; Elijah confronts Ahab. Moreover the prophets directed kings through oracles, as Micaiah ben Imlah did for Ahab and Jehoshaphat (1 Ki. 22), and as did Isaiah for King Ahaz (Is. 7). The proph- ets confronted kings with demands for personal righteous conduct: two most dramatic examples are Nathan’s rebuke to David for the murder of Uriah (2 Sa. 12: l), and Elijah’s denunciation of Ahab for the appropriation of Naboth’s vineyard (1 Ki. 21). Indeed Jeremiah’s writings about kings illustrates the prophets’ summons to kings and other public officials to exer- cise righteous rule. Jeremiah’s report of God’s call defines this prophet’s mission: ‘I have set you this day over nations and over kingdoms. . .’ (Je.
1: 10). A full discussion of the intersection between prophets and kings, while intriguing and illuminating, is not essential here, but it would show to what extent the prophet’s mission took him, like Samuel, into the presence of the king.
‘ 4 9
God’s design tested: the era of the monarchy
The prophet Samuel also illustrates the ministry of a prophet directed to the populace. Samuel made his circuits year by year from Bethel to Gilgal, to Mizpah, to Ramah (1 Sa. 7: 16-17). Though ‘to judge’ means to render de- cisions, it means also ‘to act as leader’. This leadership function is depicted in his farewell address in which he rehearses God’s activity for his people and rebukes Israel for its action. He instructs them after their repentance to serve Yahweh (1 Sa. 12:20). This call to the populace to alignitself fully with Yahweh is clearly sounded by Elijah in the contest with the 400 prophets of Baa1 at Carmel: ‘How long will you go limping with two different opin- ions?’ (1 Ki. 18:21). Jeremiah, among others, calls on the whole of Israel:
‘Hear the word of the LORD, 0 house of Jacob, and all the families of the house of Israel’ (Je. 2:4). While the prophets’ address is made with surpris- ing frequency to community leaders, including kings, it is also to the people as a whole that they direct their words in the name of Yahweh.
The prophet shared with the priests the responsibility for the spiritual well-being of the community. Samuel, functioning as a priest, performed sacrifices; but the performance of the ritual duties was later the virtual prerogative of the priest. Since the prophets in several instances spoke disap- provingly of sacrifices (Is. 1; Je. 7; Am. S), some have suggested that a hos- tility existed between prophet and priest. It is true that the prophets did not hesitate to denounce the priests for corruption, such as drunkenness (Is.
28:7ff.) or for yielding to bribery (Mi. 3:ll). But then, it must also be remarked, the prophets in the same breath spoke harshly against their corrupt pee,r prophets. Jeremiah is energetic in taking to task prophets who prophesy falsely, live unrighteously and, chameleon-like, give to the people what the people want to hear (Je, 23:9ff.). Both the prophets and the priests were engaged in making the will of God known to the people, but with this fundamental difference: the priests were teachers, transmitting the teaching which was found in the law (Dt. 33:7-l 1); the prophets were persons who received a clear and immediate message from God to take, as messengers, to king or people. This message was primarily directed to the immediate situ- ation of the community, and might be a judgment oracle, a salvation oracle, a word to other nations, or even directives to an individual. The message was bound up with the contemporary scene. Within these prophetic speeches, prediction of future events could be a part, but the intention even of prediction was to influence the immediate course of action of the listener.
The predictions were often conditional and so acted as incentives toward right action (e.g. Je. 18).
Although the prophet can be sociologically placed, it is not easy to deter- mine whether the prophets were understood as reformers or as revolution- aries. They challenged their hearers with the demands of God. They spoke about the coming day of Yahweh. They were firm in their belief about God’s
ISo
The covenant community and the new functionaries: kings, prophets freedom, convinced that he would bring about something new for Israel.
Thus they were not unlike revolutionaries. Reformers also look for change but call their hearers to earlier values, and proceed methodologically in ways that are less threatening. If one is to regard the prophets’ ministry as reformatory in nature, then their stance to the covenant particularly needs clarification.
b. The prophets’ use of covenant
Did the prophetic message revolve around the covenant, or attach itself loosely to covenant notions, or proceed quite apart from covenant? The question is important in order to determine the connections of the prophet with Israel’s former beliefs (some have maintained that the prophets preached novel doctrines), to provide clues on how to understand the prophetic ministry within Israel, and, from our standpoint, to follow the fortunes of covenant in Israel’s history.
Judging by the occurrences of the word covenant ( ber$) the prophets were not much preoccupied with past covenants. While a word count for the term ber2 as used by the prophets shows substantial occurrence (more than eighty times), an investigation of the specific contexts will show that references to the historic covenants of Sinai, Abraham or David are remark- ably infrequent. There is talk of a future covenant of peace (Ezk. 34:25), of a covenant with day and night (Je. 33:20), of a covenant with the Levitical priesthood (Je. 33:20). The Sinai covenant may be in view in Jeremiah 11:3.
The covenant with David receives brief mention (Je, 32:30; 33:25; Is. 55).
But the infrequency of the word covenant to describe God’s relationship with Israel need not be conclusive proof that the prophets shunned covenant notions. One can speak about values of democracy, such as equality and freedom, and not use the word democracy.
Scholars have amassed considerable evidence to try to show that the pro- clamation of the prophet must be understood in the context of God’s past covenant with Israel. For instance, the covenant formula, ‘You will be my people; I will be your God’ is well represented in Jeremiah (24:7; 30:22;
31:33), and occurs also in Ezekiel (37:27) and Hosea (2:23). Other words such as ‘know’ and even ‘love’ are technical vocabulary in the ancient Near East within covenant language. Expressions such as ‘Holy One of Israel’
have strong overtones of covenant-community. More of the prophetic literature might be oriented to covenant than first appears.’
More important than terms or formulae are the theological connections.
The prophets held out an ideal for life in the community which corresponds
‘For a detailed essay see W. Eichrodt, ‘Prophet and Covenant; Observations on the Exegesis of Isaiah’, in J. 1. Durham and J. R. Porter, eds., Proclamation and Presence (London: SCM Press, 1970), pp. 167-188.
(16 R. E. Clements, Prophecy and Covenant (London: SCM Press, 1965).
‘5’
God’s design tested: the era of the monarchy
with the covenant ideal; In this ideal Yahweh is acknowledged as God, the only God to whom Israel gives allegiance. Heathen gods such as Baa1 are no longer rivals. Indeed, Hosea says, ‘They shall be mentioned (remembered) by name no more’ (2:17). Such language is in accord with the covenant, notably the first commandment: ‘You shall have no other gods before me’
(Ex. 20:3), or as formulated in the legal material: ‘You shall love the LORD
your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your might’
(Dt. 6:5).JThe prophets also hold out the ideal of harmony among men achieved on the basis of ‘righteousness’ and ‘under God.’ Isaiah describes a future time when nations shall not learn war any more.*Their weapons have been converted into peace-time implements for they have been taught the way of Yahweh at Mount Zion (Is. 2: l-4). Elsewhere, elaborating on the character of the coming ruler, Isaiah says, ‘Righteousness shall be the girdle of his waist, and faithfulness the girdle of his loins’ (Is. 115). Such a vision is at least in keeping with ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’ (Lv.
19: 18). Indeed that which Jesus identified as the two greatest command- ments is also intrinsic to the prophet’s message.
Related to those ideals but approached from another angle is the indict- ment of the prophets against Israel, an indictment hardly explicable except for the covenant.Thus the demand of the people’s loyalty, so well represent- ed in the covenant, is the presupposition for the pointed accusations that Israel has departed from Yahweh. Hosea ends his list of indictments with
‘and forgot me, says the LORD’ (Ho. 2: 13). In this he is followed by Ezekiel, who charges that ‘you have despised my holy things. . . who slander to shed blood. . .one commits abomination with his neighbour’s wife.. . men take bribes.. .’ (Ezk. 22:8-12), and concludes with what, as a gross evil, is father to all evils, ‘You have forgotten me’ (Ezk. 22:12). In even stronger language Jeremiah castigates his listeners: ‘For my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns, that can hold no water’ (Je.
2: 13). Their actions of departure from Yahweh are deliberate and wicked:
‘She has rebelled against me’ (Je. 4: 17). Another set of indictments directed against the evils that exist among members of the community presupposes a people set apart: ‘You shall be to me . . . a kingdom of priests and a holy nation’ (Ex. 19:6). Against this demand, quite contrary to it, are the politi- cal manoeuvres in which in unpriestly fashion Israel trots off to Egypt for political alliances (Is. 30: l-5). Contrary to the demand for holiness are the social behaviours of inhumane actions (Am. 2:6ff.). Also contrary to the covenant summons for righteous living are such practices as bribery (Mi.
3:8-ll), extortion (Is. 58:3f.), avarice (Am. 8:5-6), and deceit (Ho. 12:7- 9a).
The prophets did more than charge Israel with failure. They told of judg- rs*
The covenant community and the new functionaries: kings, prophets ment to come. These prophetic judgment speeches, to be described as to their form in the next chapter, are associated with the covenant in two wa>s.
First, as in Hosea’s judgment speech, the specifics of the charge are formula- ted, beyond question, to recall the Ten Words of the Sinaitic covenant.
‘There is swearing, lying, killing, stealing, and committing adultery. . .’
(Ho. 4:2). Secondly, the announcement of threat, a part of the judgment speeches, is in keeping with covenant curses, an element identified as inte- gral to ancient Near Eastern covenants and also found in the biblical material (Dt. 27-28; Lv. 26). The threat of God’s judgment which was to fall on the covenant breakers is announced by the prophets in their judg- ment speeches.
-The judgment is exacting, especially in view of the covenant. Amos says,
‘You only have I known (a covenant word) of all the families of the earth;
therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities’ (Am. 3:2). Indeed it has been argued that the reason the oracles of Amos are included in the Bible is that his position concerning Israel was so drastic, namely that the covenant relationship was terminated because of Israel’s sin (Am. 7: l-8:3). The his- torical verification through the exile of Amos’ threatened judgment would be additional reason why his writing would be preserved and highly regard- ed. But at the time of Amos’ speech, since it was delivered at a time of national prosperity, any statement about the end of God’s covenant with Israel would have been received with disbelief. Not only did the prosperity of the moment make it appear as most unlikely, but the people’s understand- ing of the covenant did not really include such a possibility. By their empha- sis on a people’s loyalty to Yahweh and the announcement of judgment in the offing, these men of God were reinterpreters of the covenant.
Prophets are often regarded in stereotyped fashion as predictors, both of judgment and future salvation events. Such a stereotype only partially cor- responds with facts. Prophets were spokesmen of God who grappled with their historical situation. Yet it is true, they did foretell future events. From where has this eschatalogical aspect sprung? Various answers have been given, but among them is the pointer, quite believable and convincing, that promise of the future, like threats of judgment, were anchored in the cove- nant. For if God’s promise was believable, then it augured good, even if that good was postponed and even if it was preceded by judgment. Among the announcements for the future is indeed a distinctly covenantal-oriented one. Jeremiah, recalling the old covenant, holds out a promise of the new covenant, one in which men will not any longer teach one another to know Yahweh but each shall know him (Je. 31:31-32).
If the covenants of God with Israel inform the prophets to the degree that has been suggested above, it remains a curious thing that they should be hesitant to employ the term or to refer more directly to separate covenants.
IS3
God’s design tested: the era of the monarchy
One reason for their reticence may be that the covenants had lulled Israel into a false security. Preoccupied with the gracious promise of God, they would not have ‘heard’ the prophet’s message had these prophets in more direct fashion spoken about covenant. For them covenant spelled safety, k.but the prophet’s message was coming dissolution. The infrequency of
mention of covenant is therefore deliberate.
But if they were reluctant to employ the term ‘covenant’, they were insist- ent upon the intent of covenant. Whatever stresses new structures imposed, the covenant dimension was not forgotten. Samuel had declared, ‘The LORD has been pleased to make you a people for himself’ (1 Sa. 12:22).
3.
THEOLOGICAL REFLECTIONSThe foregoing descriptions about a covenant community, viewed in the light of current agenda, evoke several reflections. The theology of com- munity addresses every age with a word about world community generally and Christian community specifically.
The primary concern which arises out of the covenant formula, is that a select community will rightfully bear the designation, people of God. But the concept of solidarity of all peoples is broadly presuppositional to the notion of a ‘chosen’ people. The geneaologies, to use one piece of evidence from an earlier chapter, point to the solidarity of the human family. Current language about a world community or about a global village is recognition of the, oneness of the human race. Technology has finally forced a realiza- tion of a fact propounded theologically millennia ago. If in ancient Israel it was held that the actions of a few could impact the ‘many’, how much more is that insight evident in a technological society in which the threat of nuclear destruction is brought about by the fear of what one person or a few persons might do in an emergency. The fortunes of the groupings within the human race are interlocked more today than ever before.
Racial discrimination, too commonplace even in the twentieth century, is essentially a denial that the human family stands together in solidarity. If persons are set aside from candidacy for positions solely on the basis of race, or, worse, treated as less than human beings, then the biblical teaching of one human family is cancelled out in practice even should it be preached theoretically. The solidarity of the human race is established biblically. Rec- ognition of this fact, and certainly expression of this fact, is sure to bring healing in a world often divided because of discrimination.
If world community has been hindered through discrimination, Chris- tian community has been thwarted through individualism. The cultural progress claimed in the last 200 years can be traced in part to the freedom extended to the individual to ‘be himself ‘. And God’s people, unconsciously IS4
The covenant community and the new functionaries: kings, prophets caught up in the move to independence, have stressed the importance of the individual, often to the neglect of the significance of the group. To be sure, salvation from sin is a personal matter. Yet God frees from sin in order that the person might be free of his egotism and take his or her rightful place in the church, God’s community. Any position which says either through atti- tude or action that the church community is unimportant is hardly express- ive of the biblical principles. The summons to conversion and discipleship is a summons to participation in the life of God’s people, the church. Such a focus is important for the church and its leadership to maintain. Given the penchant for individualism and personal success, evangelists, and ministers in Christian mass media, radio or television, can easily become more con- cerned with developing a clientele than with building a community of God’s
people.
The covenant formula, ‘You shall be my people,’ is a call for a particular kind of people. In the wilderness setting and later in the promised land, God was at work shaping a godly community. Jesus called persons to himself whom he made disciples and who, through his teaching and shaping, came to be persons more and more in his image. Spiritual formation follows a de- cision to yield to Christ. Spiritual formation occurs in the context of Chris- tian community. To be part of God’s community is to experience the support of that community and also the admonitions of that community.
Christian brothers and sisters are often God’s agents of change. A willing- ness by the individual to grow is presupposed in Christian community. For the individual as for the group that growth is in the context of God’s promise: ‘I will be your God.’ It is that promise, not unlike Christ’s ‘I will build my church’, that not only provides a basis for optimism in the Chris- tian community, but remains as a forceful reminder that it is a Christ- characterized community that is being shaped.
Stress on the community, while an antidote for individualism, is unfortu- nately not a safeguard for all possible evils. Israel’s story shows how a com- munity can seize upon a theological symbol such as the temple, and theologize upon it to the point of bringing blindness on themselves. Isaiah had spoken about the invincibility of Zion. With God present among his people, they need not fear an enemy. That word of comfort was taken by the people to be eternally true. Thus, more than 100 years later in quite another religious and social situation, the people were reinforcing their sense of se- curity with the chant, ‘the temple of the LORD; the temple of the LORD; the temple of the LORD' (Je. 7:4). Jeremiah’s task was to uproot and destroy a tradition now no longer valid. He pointed to the moral disarray, as well as to the historical destruction of Shiloh centuries earlier, to underscore the flim- siness of the people’s security in this time-worn doctrine. Jeremiah exhorted his hearers not to become spiritually numbed with orthodox belief. He said:
rss