In Part II I have considered those things that Israel, in its unfolding history, experienced as Yahweh’s gifts. This approach was to a degree one- sided. Now we must turn our attention to what the faith of the Old Testament has to say about what God requires. It must be emphasized once more that this is not a second, additional element, over and above what God gives. In the association between Yahweh and Israel, which Israel recognizes as Yah- weh’s gracious gift, and in all the gifts that derive from this association, there is always a summons, a requirement on God’s side. Every gift implies an element of duty. But in the duty required and in the instruction on proper conduct, the faith of the Old Testament sees repeatedly God’s gracious guidance through the ambiguity of human life. Psalm 119 is a prodigious hymn in praise of this instruction, which is a “lamp to the feet” and a “light to the path.” (vs. 105)
The following pages will discuss the concrete form taken by this divine instruction in the law and its commandments.
5 11 The Location, Terminology, and Nature of the Commandments I have discussed in $6 how Israel, according to the account of the Pentateuch, encountered its God at the mountain of God immediately after its deliverance from Egypt. Here the freedom vouchsafed the people of Yahweh in the exodus is confirmed in a “covenant” with Yahweh. The very use of the “covenant” category shows clearly how close together are Yah- weh’s promise of salvation and the people’s promises of obedience.
A wealth of scholarship has demonstrated how many strata there are in the corpus of divine ordinances associated with the Sinai narrative and how many different historical stages it reflects. In the midst of all this variety, however, it is impossible to miss the fundamental principle maintained throughout: anything that is to have the status of a divine ordinance, at whatever period in Israel’s history, must be grounded in that initial event when Israel was summoned into the presence of its God. Deuteronomy was
110 Old Testament Theology in Outline
not the first document to enshrine this view. Except for the divine regulations proclaimed, according to P, in the covenants with Noah and Adam, only the material incorporated into the concluding vision in Ezekiel 40-48 and the ordinance of David governing the singing in the Temple found in the Chronicler’s history represent significant complexes of legal material placed in a different setting. Minor elements like the “law governing the king” cited by Samuel ( 1 Sam. 8: 11-17) and David’s ordinance governing division of booty (1 Sam. 30:24-25) need not be taken seriously into account.
1. In a late phase of redaction, the Decalogue in Exodus 20:2-17 was deliberately placed at the beginning of the commandments proclaimed by Yahweh at the mountain of God. In the preamble, Yahweh speaks in the first person, establishing that the legislation given in his name is his own. All
“responsibility” in Israel, this emphatic “I” at the beginning of the legislation means to say, must be a “response ” to this one God, whose initial act of deliverance is recalled in Yahweh’s introduction of himself.
Exodus 34:28 refers to the Ten Commandments as a group with the strikingly simple phrase
“the Ten Words” ( VlZyn lllby ‘&&et hnddbdrim). The group of ten commandments may have been assembled for catechetical purposes, so that they could be counted off on the fingers.
Formally, such a decalogue can be contrasted with the dodecalogue of twelve curses found in Deuteronomy 27: 15-26 (one for each of the twelve tribes of Israel?). Psalms 50 and 81 probably suggest that the Decalogue was proclaimed in liturgical ceremonies as a summary of God’s will. The eight prohibitions and two commandments in Exodus 20 have unmistakably been brought together with the intent of covering as many of the important areas of life as possible. The more disorganized series in Ezekiel 18:5-9 seems to reveal a similar outline of subject matter. Comparison of the Decalogue in Exodus 20:2-17 with that in Deuteronomy 56-21 gives an insight into two stages of interpretation and thus into the ongoing process of transmission out of which the Decalogue must have arisen. Formally, it is noteworthy that only the first two commandments (Exod. 20:2-b/Deut. 56-10) are given as having been spoken by Yahweh in the first person, clearly singling out these two commandments for special significance.
They will be discussed individually in § 12 and $13.
The theological background of the Decalogue in its present form, in- cluding the interpretive expansions of the brief commandments, can be seen in the remarkable tension between Yahweh’s two descriptions of himself that frame the first two commandments. In the preamble (Exod. 20:2/Deut. 5:6), Yahweh introduces himself as the God of Israel, who, in an act of mercy, led the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt. This stands in contrast to a second self-characterization in Exodus 20:5&6/Deuteronomy 5:9b-10 in which Yahweh says: “I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God. I punish the children for the sins of the fathers to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me. But I keep faith with thousands among those who love me and keep my commandments. ” Exodus 34: 14 states the same thing even more bluntly immediately after the first commandment (prohibiting worship of other gods): “Yahweh, Jealous ( HIP kannd ) is his name, a jealous God (~23 5~
t?l kannk' ) is he.” Cf. also Deuteronomy 4:24: “Yahweh your God is a
Yahel!‘.s C‘onrnrandment 111
devouring fire, a jealous God”; Deuteronomy 6:15; and, in the form tcl~p 5H PI $a~&‘, Joshua 24: 19, where Joshua states: “You cannot worship Yahweh, for he is a holy God (l~‘rei?p ~+;~S~?l&irn qdG?m), a jealous God (Hlfp 5Htd kanno^')." Nahum 1:2 makes the same point with reference to Yahweh’s enemies: “Yahweh is a jealous God ( N123 7~ if &zno^’ ) and an avenger, an avenger is Yahweh and quick to anger ( Z~R ?y>t?a(al &mZ), Yahweh is an avenger against his adversaries.” The statement in the Deca- logue about vengeance on the third and fourth generations did not originally mean a series of punishments extending from one generation to the next, but a devastating blow that would annihilate a family in all its branches (Rost;
cf. “great-grandmother, grandmother, mother, and child assembled in a single room . . .” ). Such is the harshness of God’s vengeance on those who do not keep his commandments. The clause about “keeping faith with thou- sands” is not formally parallel; it was probably added in a later stage. This exuberant addition is meant to indicate that God’s benevolence far ex- ceeds his wrath and reveals God’s true desires. Nahum 1:3a represents a similar addition to 1:2. But in Yahweh’s wrath against those who “hate”
him, i. e. are not prepared to obey his commandments, there glimmers the sinister possibility that Yahweh’s commandments can have their deadly side.
The promise of long life in the land, in return for obedience to the commandment to honor one’s parents, leads into the realm of specifically deuteronomic ideas, which will be discussed later.
2. The Covenant Code begins with an introductory formula in Exodus 20:22 and concludes in 23:20-33 with a prospect of the entry into Canaan.
It does not exhibit the formal organization of the Decalogue. We find instead a major extension of Yahweh’s will, which includes many different subjects.
Exodus 2 1: 1 stands as a superscription to a complex of casuistic law extending, with sporadic interruption by other forms, to 22: 16; in form and subject matter it resembles the legal corpora of Mesopotamia and the Hittites. The superscription refers to the individual laws as
~‘Ubt& mi$i!im. These comprise a protasis in highly developed style that formulates a given set of legal circumstances and an apodosis that gives the appropriate decisions for both civil and criminal cases. With these are associated laws governing capital offences, which were probably at one time combined into series (21: 12, 15-l 7; 22: 18, 19 [?I), as well as apodictic command- ments and prohibitions governing human conduct (above all the protection of the weak), administration of justice, and worship. In contrast to the DV%tin miLi&i~im, these have no specific designation. The suggestion that we have such a term in pn h$, “statute,” is unlikely (Hentschke). In Exodus 15:25 (Moses at Marah), Joshua 24:25 (Joshua at Shechem), 1 Samuel 30:25 (David during the war with the Amalekites) we read that a t%tdDl gtl (Gk Ijrni?&i! was decreed. None of these passages, especially the last, can refer to two different forms of law. The Covenant Code therefore attests Yahweh’s wide-ranging claim over quite diverse areas of life and law, but does not provide any more profound theological penetration of its legal materials apart from the scattered accretions containing motivating clauses, in which Yahweh is said to he especially attentive to the weak (Exod. 22:22, 26) and Israel’s former alien status in Egypt is recalled (22:20; 23:9).
112 Old Testament Theology in Outline
3. Deuteronomy is a different matter. It purports to be a discourse delivered by Moses immediately before Israel crosses the Jordan, impressing on Israel the commandments of Yahweh made known to Moses at the moun- tain of God. Much of its subject matter follows the Covenant Code. But especially in the first half of the legal corpus proper and in the preliminary introductory discourses it exhibits infinitely more theological reflection.
In the terminology, we find once more the term “law” (abt&% mi@&) already noted in the Covenant Code. In 5:28; 6: 1; 7:ll it is coupled with
“ordinance” (gn&$) and “commandment” ( ?!?YD mip2); the latter term is clearly associated with the root that means “command” or “order.” That the law can actually be referred to by means of the word “covenant” (n?l &fit) was already mentioned in $6. A less common term for Yahweh’s command- ments found also in Deuteronomy is “admonition” ( ~17~ ‘&t). New in Deuteronomy is the use of “instruction” ( m1nto^ra) as a summary term.
What had been a term for an individual instruction, called “torah” above all in the priestly realm, has here become a comprehensive term for the (deuter- onomic) law in its entirety, to which the people must decide to hearken obediently.
The introductory discourses of Deuteronomy make it clear, further- more, that the multiplicity of individual commandments is meant to inculcate a proper overall attitude in Israel. To this attitude of love for Yahweh and proper fear of him we shall return in 5 16.
Deuteronomy switches the entire proclamation of the law from the beginning of the desert period to its end. This change has profound internal significance. It associates God’s law intimately with his gift of the land.
Possession of land means rest after the long period of wandering ( 129-10);
it means a blessing, it means life. At the threshold of this life the law is heard.
In this context its two aspects can be recognized. The law with its good and wise ordinances is part of the great blessing intended by Yahweh for his people. “What great nation has a god close at hand as Yahweh our God is close to us whenever we call to him? What great nation is there whose statutes and laws are just, as is all this law (illln t&d) which I am setting before you today?” (4:7-8) At the same time, however, this law calls on people to decide rightly. “I offer you the choice of life or death, blessing or curse: choose life.”
(30: 19) Even the scholar who feels compelled to assign the two aspects to the different situations of Israel before and during the exile (Perlitt) cannot fail to recognize this tension in Deuteronomy as it now stands.
Texts of treaties from the ancient Near East conclude with blessings on those who observe the treaty and curses on those who ignore it.
Deuteronomy follows this model. Josiah’s terror upon hearing the contents of the book that is brought to him (2 Kings 22) suggests that the “book of the law” he had before him was already cast in this form. Deuteronomy 27
Yahweh’s Commandment 113
-28 describe the blessings and curses associated with obedience and disobedience.
In this context an idea is suggested that perhaps attains full expression only in the exilic additions to the book: the notion that Israel’s disobedience to the torah of Yahweh could forfeit possession of the land. In many passages the admonitions have an almost conjuring air, suggesting that the life that the law is intended to provide (Lev. 18: 5; Ezek. 20: 11,2 1) might also be forfeit.
At the same time, Deuteronomy emphasizes that the law and obedience to it are not unattainably distant. In its original context, Deuteronomy 30: 11-14, which Paul cites in Romans 106-8 to illustrate the gospel, speaks of the “commandment” (i71~n mi&.?). This commandment is not far off, so that one would have to go up to heaven to obtain it. It is not beyond the sea, so that one would have to bring it thence. “The word is very near to you, upon your lips and in your heart ready to be kept.”
4. The authors of the Priestly legislation speak in a different manner. In the Holiness Code (Lev. 17-26) they have incorporated a complex that itself comprises distinct sections but must have been brought together as a unit before being included in the present structure of P.
Here we do not find the inclusive term r'llln t&d. We usually hear instead of nl~n&$& and P’bbt& mi?,b&im from Yahweh ( 18:4, etc.), and less frequently of l7lYDmi&?t, “commandments” (22:3 1, etc.). The “cove- nant” is mentioned in 26:15; 18:30 uses the very general term ~VX&
miymeret; and and 26:46 the plural &ln t&t.
This collection of laws also leads up to alternative perspectives on the future: the gracious gift of all life has to offer if obedience is chosen, ruin and loss of everything if disobedience is chosen. The words “blessing” and
“curse” are not used, but substantially they represent the choice. Some of the statements in Leviticus 26 also clearly assume the experience of the exile. The possibility of repentance, return to Yahweh, and his renewed favor is fully described in 26:4Off., a later addition.
Within the nucleus of the legal materials in H, however, other elements emerge (Lev. 18-20). The framework of chapter 18 (vss. 24-30, as well as 20:22) considers the former inhabitants of the land and comes to the conclu- sion that the land spewed them out because they were unclean. This example is held up before Israel as a warning. Here we see how the perspective of cultic purity or “holiness” takes a dominant position. Here, in this legislation shifted back to Sinai, there is no trace of a people standing on the threshold of a land to be occupied by crossing the Jordan. There is instead a striking emphasis on Yahweh’s pronouncing of his name to underline his command- ments. When Yahweh’s specific demands are made known to the people, who are called to be holy, we repeatedly hear the phrase “I am Yahweh”
(WV ~3k!Za'niyahweh), in which Yahweh speaks his name to his people and
114 Old Testament Theology in Outline
expects them to keep his commandments in recognition of his name. Along- side the terse mention of Yahweh’s name without further addition (Elliger’s
“sovereignty formula”) we find the expression “I am Yahweh your God”
(Elliger’s “allegiance formula”). There is no reference here to the totality of God’s law, evoking fear and love, as in Deuteronomy. Here the immediate emergence of the Holy One in his holy name is intended to move Yahweh’s people to obey his commands.
5. P then goes in detail into the cultic regulations surrounding the tent of meeting, sacrifice, and ritual purity. All of these regulations, down to the proper organization of the camp and the correct marching order, are set down on the basis of faith in Yahweh’s presence in the midst of his people.
They are therefore not “laws, ” valid quite apart from Yahweh’s gracious gift of his presence, but regulations intended to uphold the proper way of treat- ing this gracious gift. In this context it can also be stated that improper familiarity with holy things can lead to mortal peril (cf. Lev. 10). But the community of Israel as a whole is vouchsafed this presence of Yahweh.
Occupation of the land has been totally lost sight of. In the terminology we find a frequent use of the word “admonition” (nl7y '&t) for Yahweh’s law.
The ark containing the tables of the law is called nllryn f\yH a’&~ ha’edh; the tent of meeting can also be called nlyyn ??RJJ &el Midfit or ~llr)X'i t3tiCip mis%an ha~dfit. The use of the term n?~y?~ na’lbpdriket hi’idzit for the veil hiding the ark is already found in Leviticus 24:3 (Holiness Code).
6. Here it is also appropriate to cite the scheme outlined in Ezekiel 40-48, which antedates the final form of P. There is no mention of any law given at Sinai, of Moses as legislator, or of Aaron his brother as high priest. The liturgical life of the community is regulated within the context of the proclamation of God’s eschatological presence in the new sanctu- ary seen by the prophet in his divine vision. This explains the close rela- tionship to the legislation of P. The major difference is that here, in the post-Ezekiel concluding section, we find a new distribution of the land, meant to do full justice to the presence of Yahweh in the land and striv- ing to honor the Holy One who dwells in the midst of the land by dis- tributing it properly.
7. In a unique passage Chronicles accounts for David’s new organization of music in the Temple. There is no mention here of any divine revelation bidding David to impose this organization. Instead, the theory is propounded that in this undertaking David is not fundamentally laying down a new law but merely adapting the previously promulgated law of Yahweh to a new situation. According to P (Num. 4; cf. also Deut. 10:8), the Levites were entrusted with the task of carrying the sanctuary while the Israelites were traveling through the desert. When the people and the ark of Yahweh came to a final halt, this service lapsed. David, already mentioned in Amos 6:5 as the great musician, thereupon undertook his great adaptation of the Levites
Y‘lhll~eb > Cu?tlmLltuJrtlrllr 115
to the worship of the Temple: since they would be “out of work” after the ark was brought into the temple he had planned, he gave them a new “job”
in honor of the Holy One. Only in this limited sense is David described as the author of new sacred ordinances governing the people of Yahweh. Thus even Chronicles with its apparently innovative basis for the law reveals once more how everything that is right and proper within the people of Yahweh must ultimately be grounded in the “law of Moses.” In fact, Chronicles refers especially often to the torah of Moses.
A survey of the world of Old Testament law reveals the many different perspectives from which God’s commandments could be viewed with the passage of time, and the extensive domain within which Israel considered itself subject to the imperatives of its God.
We must now turn our attention to the particular aspects of the divine imperative in Yahweh’s law.
Alt, Albrecht. Die Urspriinge des israelitischen Rechts. Berichte iiber die Verhandlungen der SIchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften tu Leipzig; Philologisch-historische Klasse, vol. 86, pr. 1. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1934. Reprinted in his Kleine ScbrifiPn zur Gesrhirhte des Volkes Israel, vol.
1, pp. 278-332. Munich: Beck, 1953. English: “The Origins of Israelite Law.” In his Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, pp. 79-132. Translated by R. A. Wilson. Oxford: Blackwell, 1966.-Noth, Martin. Die Gesetze im Pentateuch. Schriften der Kijnigsberger Gelehrten Gesell- schaft, Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse, vol. 17, pt. 2. Halle (Saale): Niemeyer, 1940. Reprinted in his Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, pp. 9-14 1. Theologische Biicherei, vol. 6. Munich:
Kaiser, 1957. English: “The Laws in the Pentateuch.” In his The Laws in the Pentateurh and Other Studies, pp. l-107. Translated by D. R. Ap-Thomas. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966.-Stamm, JohannJakob. Der Dekalog im Licbte der neueren Forscbung. Bern: Haupt, 1962. English: The Ten
Commandments in Recent Research. Translated by M. E. Andrews. Studies in Biblical Theology, 2d series, vol. 2. Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1967.- Rest, Leonhard. “Die Schuld der Vlter.”
In Solange es “beute” beisst (Festschrift Rudolf Hermann), pp. 229-233. Edited by Paul Althaus.
Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1957. Reprinted in his Studien zum Ahen Testament, pp.
66-7 1. Beitriige zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament, 6th series, vol. 1. Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1974.-Zimmerli, Walther. Das Gesetz und die Propheten. 2d ed. Gattingen: Van- denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969. English: The Law and the Prophets. Translated by R. E. Clements.
James Sprunt Lectures, 1963. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965.-Schulz, Hermann. Das Todesrecbt i m Alten Testament. Beihefte tur Zeitschrift fiir die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. 114. Berlin:
Tapelmann, 1969.-Hentschke, Richard. Satzung und Setzender. Beitrgge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament, 5th series, vol. 3. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1963.-Kilian, Rudolf.
Literarkritiscbeundformgescbicbtlicbe Untersucbungdes Heiligkeitsgesetzes (with bibliography). Bonn- er biblische Beitrige, vol. 19. Bonn: Hanstein, !963 .-Merendino, Rosario Pius. Das Deuterono- miscbe Gesetz (with bibliography). Bonner biblische Beitrtige, vol. 3 1. Bonn: Hanstein, 1969.
-Rendtorff, Rolf. Die Gesetze in der Priesterscbrift. Forschungen zur Religion and Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, vol. 62. Gattingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954.-Cf. also the bibliographies to $1 and 56.
$12 The First Commandment
At the head of the apodictic commandments of the Decalogue stands Yahweh’s prohibition in Exodus 2013 ( = Deut. 5:7), which, literally trans- lated, reads: “There shall not be for you other gods over against me” (Noth.