THE JEWISH COVENANT:

The diaspora Jews did not go through the dynamics of consent which Lowi sees as the function of the governmental process. They believe that they are a covenant people.⁽¹⁴⁹⁾ There is no question of what the values are. Their values were commanded by God to Moses. The paradigm which they use for the illumination and further understanding of these commandments is entirely legal and rational. Max Dimont observes that Judaism has been seriously challenged only three times; by Christianity, Karaism, and Kabalism.⁽¹⁵⁰⁾ Each of these was a paradigm challenge which would have allowed instantaneous revelation instead of the methodical application of the known values.

Christians have a known, gnostic God, but a dynamic, agnostic method. After Augustine, the Christian premise was scriptural, and the daily decisions were made through meditation and revelation. After Aquinas, there remained a premise of scriptural values, but daily decisions were made through observation and reason. Judaism has both a gnostic God and a gnostic - now Talmudic - system. S.E. Frost describes the Jewish system when he says:

"The ancients believed that their gods were the ultimate rulers of the state, and that those of their fellows who held power over them had received their authority directly from the gods. Further, they accepted without question the belief that all the laws by which they lived were given to their ancestors by the gods and therefore could not be changed even in the least.

"Illustrative of this position is the belief of the early Hebrews that Moses, their great lawgiver, received the laws written on tablets of stone from their god, Yahweh (Jehovah). The Ten Commandments, the basis of their law, was believed to have divine origin, and Yahweh was their only ruler. Moses and the others who ruled over them did not hold this position by their own power but as representatives of Yahweh. Punishment for breaking the laws was not man-given, but was inflicted by Yahweh."⁽¹⁵¹⁾

The concept of a covenant between God and the Jews⁽¹⁵²⁾ begins in Genesis when God unconditionally assures Abraham of heirs and of possession of the land.⁽¹⁵³⁾ He was given this covenant because of his faith.⁽¹⁵⁴⁾ The relationship changed at Mount Sinai from a covenant - "I shall..." - to a contract - "If you do .... then I will do ..."⁽¹⁵⁵⁾ After the law was given, God required obedience.

"The terms of the covenant were not the result of negotiation; they were imposed by the Lord;⁽¹⁵⁶⁾ and the covenant was inaugurated at the foot of the flaming mountain.⁽¹⁵⁷⁾ Israel in taking over the covenant idea ... made it the vehicle of their faith in the dependability of God. He was no capricious despot but a God of righteousness and order who respected human personality. He would not change; his favor was sure. But Israel would benefit by that favor only in so far as they were obedient to the divine will."⁽¹⁵⁸⁾

The Abramic covenant was ratified at Mount Sinai⁽¹⁵⁹⁾ as detailed in The Interpreters Bible.⁽¹⁶⁰⁾

"This historical occurrence (at the foot of Mount Sinai) is the cornerstone of Israel's existence as the people of God.

"Revelation has taken place in the Exodus, and joyful and spontaneous testimony is borne to the God who has made himself known. Sinai stands for the systematic interpretation and implementation of the faith which is the gift of revelation. Sinai symbolizes the establishment of Israel as the church. It is the locus for the covenant that sets forth the relationship in which Israel stands to the God of its deliverance, and for the laws and ordinances in which this relationship receives its concrete expression, both in society and cultus.

"Sinai stresses the organic and living relationship that exists between the social and religious institutions of Israel and the exodus revelation. It may well be, as has been held by many responsible scholars, that the section entitled "The Pilgrimage to Sinai"⁽¹⁶¹⁾ was originally an account of Israel's settlement at Kadesh and of its adoption there of cultic institutions of foreign origin. Certainly there can be no doubt that in cultic forms as well as in the forms of social institutions and laws Israel was a debtor to the wider environment in which it developed. We may take Kadesh as the symbol of this indebtedness. But Sinai is the symbol that Israel could assimilate cultural forms so as to transform their inner meaning. Forms might be of foreign origin and yet express the nature and will of Yahweh. Under "Sinai," whenever or wherever they may actually have been promulgated, the laws of common life and the ordinances for common worship are presented as the expression of Yahweh's will for his people, mediated directly through Moses.

"Sinai is also the symbol of the covenanted relationship in which Israel stands to Yahweh. It is the reminder that the whole of Israel's community life is organically and integrally conceived as the implementation of the exodus revelation. Its central meaning is neither a mystical fellowship nor a set of moral demands. It rests on the Exodus.⁽¹⁶²⁾ Later tendencies to treat law as revelation obscured this fact.

"The covenant is central in the implementation of the faith which constitutes Israel's response to the Exodus. It is the symbol that describes the relationship in which Yahweh and his people stand to one another. In various parts of the Old Testament different aspects of this relationship are stressed. Sometimes the covenant is seen mainly in the historic actuality of revelation at the Exodus and in the founding of Israel as the people of God. Sometimes the abiding and even the unbreakable character of the relationship is stressed. At still other times the demands conceived by Israel to be incumbent upon it in this relationship--the laws, the statutes, and ordinances--are made virtually synonymous with the covenant.⁽¹⁶³⁾ In general the prophets, when they utilize the metaphor to describe the relation of God to Israel, stress the theo-centric, dynamic, and personal aspects of the relationship. Legal and priestly movements, however, stress its institutional, statutory, and static aspects. The eighth-century prophets, with the possible exception of Hosea, do not utilize the concept at all, probably because the notion that Israel has a claim upon God, which they combated, was too closely associated with the idea of the covenant at that time.

"The Hebrew word for covenant, b'rith, has the significance of bond or agreement. The etymology of the word is not certain. The meanings of `cutting,' `binding,' and `eating'--all associated with covenant making--show the variety of opinions as to the primitive meaning of the word. For the religious purpose it served in Israel the term was borrowed from social usage. In social practice covenants were of two general kinds. There were covenants between equals, in which the obligations and privileges under the agreement were equally shared. It seems that under the foreign influence of the nature mysticism, so central in Canaanite religion, Israelites increasingly conceived of their covenant with Yahweh as such a covenant between equals, in which God was as dependent upon Israel as Israel was upon him. Thus in the covenant relationship Yahweh had in effect forfeited his own freedom. This was a growing assumption against which the prophets protested. But in social relationships there were also agreements, known as covenants, between partners not equal: for example, between a king and his subjects, or between a lord and his servants.⁽¹⁶⁴⁾ In such a covenant the core of the agreement is really a promise or gift made by the stronger party. This is, however, normally conditioned upon certain demands or obligations to be met by the weaker party. In any case, the promise, central in such a covenant, does not destroy the freedom of him who gives it. Such is the form of the covenant of Sinai. The essence of the covenant is the promise of God, backed by the gift of deliverance already given, that Israel will be his special possession and instrument. The promise depends on the faithfulness and obedience of Israel.

"The account of the theophony, the offer of the covenant to the people, and the final sealing of the agreement in a sacred meal is given in chapters 19 and 24. Two units of legal material break the continuity of this account: the Decalogue⁽¹⁶⁵⁾ and the Covenant Code.⁽¹⁶⁶⁾ The position of these two items seems to indicate that those who placed them in the middle of the account of the covenant-making ceremony intended that these laws be understood as the specific obligations laid upon Israel as a part of the covenant relationship. It is improbable that any of these items in their present form was the original statement of Israel's obligation in the relationship. Certainly it is virtually impossible that all could have been integrally a part of the covenant from the first. But their present position stresses the fact that it is characteristic of large sections of the Old Testament, notably the Deuteronomic, to conceive of the covenant as a law. Whether Israel's obligations under the covenant were specified from the first is disputed. Martin Buber,⁽¹⁶⁷⁾ for example, takes the view that, originally, stipulated conditions formed no part of the covenant at all. In any event, it becomes impossible to say with certainty what the first detailed form of Israel's obligation as a covenant member may have looked like. The ordinances for the regulation of the cultus, beginning at chapter 25, are presented as having been communicated to Moses, but stand outside the account of the forming of the covenant. This is characteristic of the P strand to which they belong. P seems to have thought of the Sinai covenant as only a renewal of the Abramic covenant. Further the law was not an integral part of the covenant but rather a sign of it and a means of entering into it. The so-called ritual decalogue,⁽¹⁶⁸⁾ though not placed in this major account of the sealing of the Sinai covenant, it nevertheless thought of as integral to it."

The first supplement to be added to the discussion provided in The Interpreter's Bible is that the Jews, to this day, view their covenant with God as the corporate responsibility of all Jews, whereas the Christians and the Confucians view their relationship as individual and personal. The sin of Achan resulted in Israel's defeat at the first battle of Ai.⁽¹⁶⁹⁾ So also Jonathan's taste of honey, in violation of an oath which Saul had taken in Jonathan's absence, resulted in a stay of Israel's pursuit of the Philistines until the sin was repented.⁽¹⁷⁰⁾ A King as pious as Josiah died at an early age because of the full weight of the sins of Judah⁽¹⁷¹⁾. This contrasts with the punishment of Ananias and Sapphira - individually - for their own sins. The new Christian community was not imputed with responsibility for their sins as individuals.⁽¹⁷²⁾

The second supplement is that the manifestation of the covenant has progressed through the development of Jewish history. After the Garden of Eden⁽¹⁷³⁾, the Tower of Babel enterprise⁽¹⁷⁴⁾, and Noah's Ark⁽¹⁷⁵⁾, YHWH began giving physical manifestations of His presence specifically to the Jews.⁽¹⁷⁶⁾ The physical manifestations began with the cloud of smoke and pillar of fire which led the people across the Reed Sea and through the desert⁽¹⁷⁷⁾. A cloud appeared again when Solomon dedicated the temple.⁽¹⁷⁸⁾

While the cloud of smoke and pillar of fire were still leading the people, they were given the Ark of the Covenant.⁽¹⁷⁹⁾ The New Oxford Annotated Bible discusses the purpose of the Ark of the Covenant by saying⁽¹⁸⁰⁾:

"Comparable to ancient Arabic palladia, the ark was a portable wooden chest which served to guide Israel in wanderings⁽¹⁸¹⁾, to lead in war⁽¹⁸²⁾, and to be a medium for oracles⁽¹⁸³⁾. It was regarded as a throne-seat above which the Lord was invisibly enthroned⁽¹⁸⁴⁾. In contrast to the tent of meeting⁽¹⁸⁵⁾, it signified divine nearness."

Ark of the Covenant provided the Jews with a physical manifestation of the presence of YHWH until the Temple became institutionalized.⁽¹⁸⁶⁾ When, for example, the Ark of the Covenant was captured by the Philistines - before the Temple was built - heroic efforts were made to retrieve it.⁽¹⁸⁷⁾

After the Temple was built the Ark of the Covenant was completely contained in it.⁽¹⁸⁸⁾ It is possible that a new Ark was made after the original was seized by Sheshonk,⁽¹⁸⁹⁾ but this Josiah Ark could not possibly have contained the tablets of the Commandments which had been placed in the original one.⁽¹⁹⁰⁾ The Josiah Ark may have served as an Ark of the Covenant, but could not have been the Ark of Testimony.⁽¹⁹¹⁾ The Temple, rather than the Ark, had become the center of worship and the manifestation of the presence of YHWH. No effort was made to build another Ark in the second Temple after the second Ark was captured by Nebuchadnezzar.⁽¹⁹²⁾

Solomon's Temple was made of the cedars of Lebanon, and then overlaid it with pure gold. It was garnished until the author of 1 Kings waxed eloquent.⁽¹⁹³⁾ Ezra's Temple was made of the cedars of Lebanon because they were the strongest timbers available to support a structure of that size.⁽¹⁹⁴⁾ Solomon completed the Temple, then dedicated it and began the rituals.⁽¹⁹⁵⁾ Jeshua and Zerubbabel put the alter in place and started the rituals before even the foundation of the Temple was completed.⁽¹⁹⁶⁾ The second Temple was so bland that "the priests and Levities and heads of father's houses, old men who had seen the first house, wept with a loud voice".⁽¹⁹⁷⁾ It remains that in both instances, the Temple was the physical manifestation of the presence of YHWH among Israel.⁽¹⁹⁸⁾

During the repairs of the first Temple, Hilkiah found the book of the law.⁽¹⁹⁹⁾ This discovery of the Book of Deuteronomy⁽²⁰⁰⁾ appears to be the beginning of the fourth manifestation. This was first thought of as "the law of Moses",⁽²⁰¹⁾ then as "the law and the prophets",⁽²⁰²⁾ then it was brought to focus as the Pentateuch or Torah.⁽²⁰³⁾ The development of the book is discussed in The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha:

"The Pentateuch embraces a great diversity of material which reflects Israel's pilgrimage from the time of Abraham to the Exile. The whole tradition, however, has been shaped by basic themes found essentially in the confession of faith preserved in Deuteronomy 26:5-10.⁽²⁰⁴⁾ The Pentateuch may be regarded as an elaboration of this creedal statement, according to the interests and insights of various circles of tradition. In the early monarchy⁽²⁰⁵⁾ a traditionist from Judah (J) first organized the traditions into a written epic. Sometime later⁽²⁰⁶⁾ a traditionist from North Israel of Ephraim (E) presented another version of the sacred story. In the seventh century B.C. Deuteronomy (D) was published,⁽²⁰⁷⁾ although this version rests upon old traditions. And finally, about the time of the Exile, Priestly writers (P) rounded out the expanded tradition with materials preserved by them by the Jerusalem priesthood."⁽²⁰⁸⁾

Some scholars identify the hands of as many as 12 editors in the Old Testament,⁽²⁰⁹⁾ but soon after 400 B.C. "the Law had reached its full stature".⁽²¹⁰⁾ Lowi would say that the new system was now legitimized;⁽²¹¹⁾ both the values and the mechanisms had been reduced to an agreed, written form. Most of the 12 editors were JE efforts to reconcile the northern and southern versions of the histories and psalms. Two appear to have been moralizing efforts by Deuteronomists, and the last are the detailing by the Priests. This is a classic example of Lowi's point that most changes are done through custom and practice, so the basic documents are amended only occasionally⁽²¹²⁾ The basic documents were the J history, the E history and the writings of the prophets. The J editors supplement each other.⁽²¹³⁾ The JE editors focused on reconciling the two primary sources just like the Connecticut Compromise was essential to reconciling the colonial factions⁽²¹⁴⁾. D1 and D2 were basically pre and post-exilic efforts to edit the basic documents for a moral purpose. Much of Jeremiah's prophecy focused on the original covenant as given by Moses in opposition to the Deuteronomic covenant provided by Hilkiah⁽²¹⁵⁾. He could be viewed as a reactionary, or a neo-classicist. He could also be viewed as Charles Pinckney or Jefferson Davis. The manifestation of the presence of YHWH among Israel had begun to shift from the Temple to the Torah.⁽²¹⁶⁾

The application of the Torah among Jews throughout the world began through oral law.⁽²¹⁷⁾ This oral law grew into the Midrash, Mishna, Gemeras, Saboraim, Rashi, Tosaphot, Alfasi, Mishna Torah, and Shulchan Aruch and into the Talmud.⁽²¹⁸⁾ By the time Maimonides died in 1204 "The Talmud was referred to more often than the Torah as a source of knowledge - the deduction was venerated more than the source."⁽²¹⁹⁾ This Talmud has also been tempted by the Kabala,⁽²²⁰⁾ but stands as the doctrine of law, the manifestation of the covenant from YHWH to the Jews throughout the world.

The change in the physical manifestation of the covenant is more than just adaptation to changing conditions. Each previous manifestation continued until the new one was institutionalized. In the instance of the Ark and the Temple, a shell was built to provide a continuity to the new manifestation. But there is a larger point. Each manifestation was more abstract than its predecessor. The pillar was a physical presence which both showed the way, and closed the sea over enemies. The Ark did not have quite the same capabilities. The Temple was given over to human administration. Jews were not struck dead for touching it, and Philistines did not suffer plagues when they captured it. Jews even desecrated it. For a short while Jerusalem and the remnant were construed as physical manifestations of the covenant.⁽²²¹⁾ The Torah was identified by humans, and then canonized. The Talmud was applied by humans through the interpretation of the Torah and of the Talmud. By the end of the 11th Century Talmudic Jews had "learned to think in abstract terms, to apply obsolete laws to nonexistent situations, to deal with imagination in concrete terms."⁽²²²⁾

(next)