The use of the verb "to know" in Old Testament scripture has relevance to both the Sinai covenant--as well as the connotation of sexual intimacy in a marriage, according to biblical scholar Michael Coogan. On the one hand, the verb is as technical term used in ancient treaties for mutual recognition by both parties of their obligations to each other, and on the other hand is can demonstrate literally or metaphorically that the relationship between the two parties is one of love. This use of the verb, “to know” is used throughout the Bible, according to Coogan, from Deuteronomy 9.24 and 2 Samuel 7.20, to 1 Kings 5.1 where Hiram, the king of Tyre, “loves” David, the king of Israel who is his treaty partner.
The marriage covenant was another analogue used by the biblical writers to describe the relationship between Yahweh, the husband, and Israel, the wife. Thus, the use of the terms contract (berit), love, and knowledge all become interchangeable metaphors as if they were part of an Algebra equation. Love is a contract and a contract implies love. Love implies sexual knowledge of a spouse, and sexual knowledge implies love. A contract implies a sexual relationship and a sexual relationship implies a contract.
The sexual aspects of a covenant relationship are exemplified in prophetic works like Hosea where Yahweh knew Israel as a covenant partner (suzerain) or spouse. In Hosea 6.6 Yahweh complains about Israel’s failure to live up to its obligations, “I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.” Steadfast love translates as hesed, which is the mutual love of parties in a married relationship or treaty relationship. Thus, as a covenant relationship, Yahweh expected love and knowledge from Israel, and this love was enduring despite Israel’s repeated infidelities by worshiping other gods.
This metaphor of Yahweh having a marriage covenant with Israel is also illustrated in other sections of the Old Testament like Proverbs 2.17, Malachi 2.14, Jeremiah 2.2; 3.1-5, Isaiah 5.1-7; 62.5, and Ezekiel. In Ezekiel 16 and 23 the metaphor of Jerusalem as an unfaithful wife is illustrated, similar to how it is used in Hosea. “How sick is your heart, says the Lord God, that you did all these things, the deeds of a brazen whore; building your platform at the head of every street, and making your lofty place in every square!” (Ezekiel 16.30). The naming of Jerusalem as an unfaithful wife and whore reflects the patriarchal society in which women were property, and where violence against adulterous women was acceptable. Thus, Yahweh is jealous, possessive husband who sees Jerusalem as a wayward wife who must be punished. “I will satisfy my fury upon you, and my jealousy shall turn away from you; I will be calm, and will be angry no longer.” (Ezekiel 16.42).
In Amos 3.1-2, the prophet passes judgment on Israel in the name of Yahweh, saying, “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” Yahweh knew Israel as a covenant partner and spouse (or suzerain), thus, Israel had a unique obligation to Yahweh, especially after being rescued from slavery in Egypt. The “love” relationship of this covenant is demonstrated in Deuteronomy 6.4 when the Moses says, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. Keep these words that I am commanding you today in your heart. “
The meaning of this marriage covenant in Amos includes not only the obligation to love and worship Yahweh, but also to love of fellow Israelites. By breaking this primary covenant with God, the curses attached to the covenant will be executed, “Woe to those who are ease in Zion. And to those who feel secure on Mount Samaria … See, the Lord commands and the great house shall be shattered to bits, and the little house to pieces” (Amos 6.1, 6.11).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Interesting comments. But is a contract really the same thing as a covenant? As I learned through another IPS professor and have subsequently taught to my RCIA candidates, there is an important distinction between the two.
A contract is a mutual exchanges of goods or services. For example, a father may give his daughter's hand in marriage, and in return he would get three oxen, two sheep and a donkey. Or in a more modern example, a couple may give their own hands in marriage expecting to get something in return (undying romance, financial security, a green card, or whatever). If those conditions are not met, the contract may be broken.
A covenant, on the other hand, is a commitment of one's future based upon what is currently known, i.e., "Based upon what I know about you right now, I am willing to risk my future for a shared life with you," without conditions.
What do you think? Does this distinction have any place in your arguments?
I hope both of you will keep these questions in mind: we will be addressing "covenant" in a lecture and in our reading, when we get into the Pentateuch.
Post a Comment