Copyright © 1991 by Westminster
Theological Seminary, cited with permission;
digitally prepared
for use at
THE
MOSAIC LAW
AND THE THEOLOGY OF THE PENTATEUCH
JOHN H. SAILHAMER
I.
Introduction
THE
purpose of this article is to raise the question of the role of the
Mosaic Law in the theology of the Pentateuch. By "theology of
the
Pentateuch,"
I mean the major themes and purposes that lie behind its final
composition.
1. The Final Composition
of the Pentateuch
Much has been written in recent years about the
final composition of the
Pentateuch.1 In an earlier paper, I attempted to demonstrate
the influence
of prophetic hope and eschatology in its
composition.2 The Pentateuch, I
argued, represents an attempt to point to the same
hope as the later proph-
ets, namely, the New Covenant.3
"The narrative texts of past events are
presented as pointers to events that lie yet in
the future. Past events fore-
shadow the future."4 Along similar
lines, though working from quite differ-
ent assumptions, Hans-Christoph Schmitt has argued
that the Pentateuch
is the product of a unified compositional strategy
that lays great emphasis
on faith.5 According to Schmitt, the
same theme is found within the com-
position of the prophetic books, like Isaiah, and
ultimately can be traced
into the NT, e.g., the Book of Hebrews.
Schmitt's approach differs from many critical
approaches in that he
treats the Pentateuch as one would the later
historical books, that is, as the
1 Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (
Gruyter,
1990); Rolf E Knierim, "The Composition of the Pentateuch," in SBLSP
1985,
395-415;
Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte
(Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener
Verlag, 1984); RolfRendtorff, Das
Uberlieferungs-geschichtliche
Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW 147; Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 1977).
2 John H. Sailhamer, "The Canonical
Approach to the OT: Its Effect on Understanding
Prophecy,"
JETS 30 (1987) 307-15.
3 This does not necessarily imply that the
final composition of the Pentateuch is later than
that of the prophetic books. On the contrary, if the
composition of the Pentateuch were dated
before that of the prophetic books, it would help
explain the origin of the message of those
books. In the discussion which follows, the date of
the final composition of the Pentateuch as
such is taken to be Mosaic.
4 Sailhamer, "The Canonical
Approach," 311.
5 Hans-Christoph Schmitt, "Redaktion
des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie," VT 32
(1982) 170-89.
241
242
product of an intentional theological redaction
or composition. One must
start from the final form of the book and ask what
each part of the whole
contributes to its theological intention. Schmitt
argues that each major
unit6 of narrative in the
Pentateuch shows signs of a homogeneous theo-
logical redaction. A characteristic feature of
this redaction is the recurrence
of the terminology of "faith" (e.g. b
Nymxh).7
At crucial compositional seams
throughout the Pentateuch, Schmitt is able to find
convincing evidence of
a "faith theme," that is, a consistent
assessment of the narrative events in
light of the rule of "faith" (b
Nymxh).8
According to Schmitt, this redaction
represents the final stages in the composition of
the Pentateuch--later even
than the so-called priestly redaction. According to
Schmitt, it does not
reflect an emphasis on keeping the priestly law
codes (viz., the Mosaic Law)
but rather on preserving a sense of trust in God
and an expectation of his
work in the future. It is in light of this
eschatological expectation of God's
future work that the redaction lays great stress on
"faith."9
Schmitt's study goes a long way in demonstrating
an important part of
the theological intention and orientation of the
Pentateuch as a narrative text.
Put
simply, Schmitt shows that the Pentateuch is intended to teach "faith"
in God.10
An important question raised by Schmitt's study
is whether the concept
of "faith" in the Pentateuch is intended
to stand in opposition to the
6 The largest literary units (grosseren
Einheiten) which are linked in the final redaction of
the Pentateuch, according to Schmitt, are the
Primeval History, the Patriarchal Narratives,
the Exodus Narratives, the Sinai Narratives, and
the Wilderness Narratives. See Rendtorff,
Das Uberlieferungs-geschichtliche
Problem,
19ff.
7 It is important to note that, according
to Schmitt, the terminology of "faith" (b
Nymxh)
occurs only at the redactional seams. See n. 8.
8 The key texts of that redaction are Gen
15:6, "And Abraham believed in [b Nymxh] the
Lord
and he reckoned it to him for righteousness"; Exod 4:5, "In order
that they might believe
[vnymxy] that the Lord, the God of their fathers. . . has
appeared to you"; Exod
they
[the people] believed in b Nymxh] the Lord and in Moses his
servant"; Num
long
will they [the people] not believe in b Nymxh] me"; Num
Moses and Aaron, 'Because you did not believe in
b Nymxh] me.' " See also Deut
Schmitt
has not discussed Gen 45:26, the only occurrence of the term for
"faith" outside of
Schmitt's
redactional seams, because it does not show other signs of belonging to the
"Glaubens-Thematik."
9 "So steht am Ende der
Pentateuchentstehung nicht die Abschliessung in ein Ordnungs-
denken theokratischen Charakters. Vielmehr geht es
hier darum, in prophetischem Geiste die
Offenheit
fur ein neues Handeln Gottes zu wahren und in diesem Zusammenhang mit dem
aus der prophetischen Tradition entnommenen Begriff
des “Glaubens" eine Haltung heraus-
zustellen, die spater auch das Neue Testament als
fur das Gottesverhaltnis zentral ansieht"
(Schmitt, "Redaktion des Pentateuch,"
188-89).
10 It is important to note that such a
reading of the Pentateuch, as a lesson on faith, can
be found throughout the subsequent canonical
literature. Pss 78 and 106, two psalms that look
at the meaning of the whole of the Pentateuch,
both read the events of the Pentateuch as
evidence of the Israelites' faith or
faithlessness (cf. Ps 78:22, 32, 37; 106:12, 24). A similar
reading is found in Nehemiah 9, which is a
rehearsal of the pentateuchal narrative in its
present form (cf. Neh 9:8). The example of
Hebrews 11 has already been pointed out.
THE MOSAIC LAW 243
Mosaic
Law or whether this faith is to be understood simply as "keeping
the law."11 To say it another way,
can we find evidence in the composition
of the Pentateuch that the author is concerned
with the question of "faith
versus works of the law"?
It is well known that this issue surfaces a
number of times in other OT
texts. In Ps 51:18-19 (English vv. 16-17), for
example, David says, "For
thou hast no delight in sacrifice. . . . The
sacrifice acceptable to God is a
broken spirit" and in Mic 6:6-8 it says,
"With what shall I come before the
Lord.
. . Shall I come before him with burnt offerings? He has showed you,
O
man, what is good . . . to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk
humbly with your God?" Since such texts do, in
fact, exist within the OT,
we may, with some justification, look for similar
ideas within the theological
macrostructure of the Pentateuch.
In the present article, we will attempt to show
that the issue of "faith
versus works of the law" was, indeed, central to
the theological purpose of
the Pentateuch. Specifically, we will argue that,
among other things, the
Pentateuch
is an attempt to contrast the lives of two individuals, Abraham
and Moses. Abraham, who lived before the law (ante legem), is portrayed as
one who kept the law, whereas Moses, who lived
under the law (sub lege),
is portrayed as one who died in the wilderness
because he did not believe.
If
such a contrast between faith and works is, in fact, a part of the com-
positional strategy of the Pentateuch, then we may
rightfully conclude that
part of the purpose of the book was to show not
merely the way of faith, but
also the weakness of the law.
2. The Genre of the
Pentateuch
In a recent article, Rolf Knierim has focused
attention on the question of
the genre of the Pentateuch as a whole.12
Knierim has argued that the
Pentateuch
consists of two major generic sections: Genesis and Exodus-
Deuteronomy. According to him,
Genesis is to be taken as an introduction
to the whole of the Pentateuch. The genre of the
central section of the
Pentateuch,
Exodus-Deuteronomy, is not so much that of a narrative his-
tory of
its genre is that of a biography, specifically, a
biography of Moses.
This is not the place to enter into a full
discussion of Knierim's descrip-
tion of the genre of the Pentateuch. It is enough to
say that his general
observations about the Pentateuch
are convincing. The Pentateuch devotes
11 There are indications in Schmitt's study
that the notion of faith in the Pentateuch is put
in opposition to that of "obedience to the
law." Schmitt has argued, for example, that the
"faith" seams overlay and reinterpret the narratives
which have stressed obedience to the law
(cf.
comments below on Num 20:12).
12 Knierim, "The Composition of the
Pentateuch," 395-415.
244
its attention more to the individual Moses than to
the nation of
Hence
its overall purpose in all likelihood should be understood in relation-
ship more to the life of Moses, per se, than to the
history of the nation. As
such it is reasonable to conclude that the
Pentateuch reads much like and
apparently aims to be a biography.
Since the purpose of a biography is the presentation
or conceptualization
of the work or life of an individual person, the
Pentateuch can well be
viewed generically as a presentation
(conceptualization) of the work of
Moses.
The events of the life of Moses (Vita
Mosis) are not told entirely for
their own sake but are intended as a narrative
explication of the nature of
a life lived within the context of the call of
God and the covenant at Sinai.
The
Pentateuch seeks to answer the question of how well Moses carried out
his calling, that is, his work under the Sinai
covenant. It seeks to tell how
well he performed his task.
There is room for doubt, however, whether
Knierim's description of the
whole of the Pentateuch as a biography of Moses is
entirely adequate. In the
first place, the whole of the collections of laws
which make up a major part
of the final composition of the Pentateuch do not
fit within the narrow limits
of a biography. However, according to Knierim's
reckoning, these laws,
e.g.,
the Sinai-pericope and Deuteronomy, make up 68.5 percent of the
total text of the Pentateuch. Although Knierim treats
these legal sections
as part of the Moses texts, they clearly are not
part of the Moses narratives
per se. The course of the narratives is
distinctively broken into and sus-
pended until these large collections of laws are
exhausted. It appears that
in the final stage of the composition, the focus
on Moses, the individual
lawgiver, has been intentionally expanded to
include a substantial portion
of the law itself. This state of affairs raises
the question of why, in light of
the genre of the Pentateuch, these laws were placed
in the midst of the
biography.
The traditional answer to this question has been
that they were put there
simply as legislation, that is, as laws which were to
be kept--thus the
Pentateuch's reputation as a "Book of the
law."
In this view the Pentateuch
is read as if it were a collection of laws
intended to guide the daily living
of its readers. This view of the purpose of the
laws in the Pentateuch is so
pervasive that it is often, if not always, merely
assumed in works dealing
with the problem of the law.
However, it is also possible that the Pentateuch
has intentionally in-
cluded this selection of laws for another purpose,
that is, to give the reader an
understanding of the nature of the Mosaic Law and God's purpose in giving
it to
tell the reader
how to live but rather to tell the reader how Moses was to live
under the law. To use an example from the Pentateuch
itself, it is clear to
all that the detailed instructions on the building
of the ark in Genesis 6 were
not given to
the reader so he or she could build an ark and load it with
animals, but those detailed instructions were
given to show what Noah was
THE MOSAIC LAW 245
to do in response to God's command. Competent
readers of the Pentateuch
easily understand that God's instructions to Noah in
the narrative is di-
rected only to Noah and not to the readers. These
instructions are included
as narrative information for the reader. The
message of the Pentateuch in
other words, is not that its readers should build an
ark like Noah.
The same may be true for the legal instructions
found in the Mosaic Law.
Though
the nature of the instructions to Noah and those to Moses (the
building of the tabernacle in Exodus 25ff., for
example) are similar in form
and narrative function, we often read them entirely
differently. We read the
instructions to Noah as given for the reader, and those to Moses as given
to
the reader.13 It is possible, however,
that the two sets of instructions within
the Pentateuch are intended to be read in the same
way. In other words,
to put it in the terms introduced into OT studies
by Mendenhall, the
inclusion of the selection of laws (viz., the
Mosaic Law) in the Pentateuch
was not so much intended to be a source for legal
action (technique) as
rather a statement of legal policy.14
This understanding of the purpose of the laws in
the Pentateuch is sup-
ported by the observation that the collections of laws
in the Pentateuch
appear to be incomplete and selective. The Pentateuch
as such is not de-
signed as a source of legal action. That the laws in
the Pentateuch are
incomplete is suggested by the fact that many
aspects of ordinary commu-
nity life are not covered in these laws. Moreover,
there is at least one
example in the Pentateuch where a "statute
given to Moses by the Lord"
is mentioned but not actually recorded in the
Pentateuch.15 The selective
13 "From the earliest days of the
church Christians have asked about the commands of the
Old
Testament: do they apply to us? The question, however, is ambiguous. It may be
a
question about authority, or it may be a question
about prescriptive claim. A prescription, we
said, instructs somebody to do, or not to do,
something. We may ask in each case who is
instructed and who instructs. If, as I walk down
the street, somebody in a blue coat says,
'Stop!', I shall have to ask, first, 'Is he speaking to me?’--the question of claim--and, then, 'Is
he a policeman?'--the question
of authority. And so it is with the commands of the Old
Testament:
we must ask, 'Do they purport to include people like us in their scope?'--the
question of claim--and, 'If so, ought we to heed
them?’--the question of authority. In the
patristic church, after the rejection of the
Gnostic temptation, especially in its Marcionite
form, the question of authority was not really open
for discussion; Old Testament commands
were evaluated entirely in terms of their claim. Our
own age, conversely, has been so dom-
inated by the question of authority that the question
of claim has been obscured and forgotten"
(O.
M. T. O'Donovan, "Towards an Interpretation of Biblical Ethics," TynBul 27 [1976]
58-59).
14 "That common body of what might be
called the sense of justice in a community we
shall call 'policy'. What happens in a law court,
however, is usually much more directly related to
the technical corpus of specialized legal acts and
tradition. These are 'techniques' " (George
E.
Mendenhall, "Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law," The Biblical Archaeologist Reader 3 [ed.
E. E Campbell and D. N. Freedman;
15 The "statute of the law that the
Lord gave Moses," referred to by Eleazar in Num 31:21,
is not found elsewhere in the Pentateuch, though a
part of what Eleazar commands (the water of
cleansing) was given in Numbers 19. This shows
either that the laws included in the
Pentateuch
are selective, that is, not every law given to Moses
was included, or that any law
246
nature of the laws included in the Pentateuch is
further illustrated both by
the fact that the number of laws (611) is the same
as the numerical equiv-
alent of the Hebrew title of the Pentateuch,
"Torah" (hrvt),16 and by the
fact that within the structure of the collections of
laws the number seven
and multiples of seven predominate. The listing of
42 (7 x 6) laws in the
Covenant
Code (Exod 21:1-23:12), for example, equals the numerical value
of the title of that section "And these (are
the judgments)." This is not to
suggest that secret numerical codes were
intended to conceal mysteries
within these texts. The use of the numerical values of
titles and catch
phrases was a common literary device at the time
of the composition of
Scripture. The same principle of numerical
selectivity may also be seen
within the Book of Proverbs, where the total number of
proverbs in chaps.
10:1-22:16
(375) equals the numerical value of the name "Solomon."17
This
suggests that, just as in the publication of law in the ancient Near
Eastern
world in general,18 the laws in the
Pentateuch were not intended
to be used in the administration of justice as a
collection of laws to be
enforced.
In his study of law codes in the ancient world, F.
R. Kraus19 has provided
a helpful analogy to the nature and purpose of
the laws included in the final
composition of the Pentateuch. According to Kraus,
literary works such as
the Code of Hammurapi were not intended to be used
in the actual adminis-
tration of law. They were not, in fact,
associated with the systems of justice
in the ancient world. According to Kraus, they
were rather intended to tell
us something about the lawgiver, viz., important
people like Hammurapi
himself.20 For example, when the
whole of the present shape of the docu-
given by a priest could have been called a
"statute of the law that the Lord gave Moses"
(cf.
Deut 33:10). The former alternative appears more likely because the text
expressly says "the
Lord
gave [it] to Moses," The omission of “to Moses" in the Samaritan
Pentateuch is evidence
that at an early period there was already a tendency
to read the laws of the Pentateuch as
complete.
16 The traditional number of laws in the
Pentateuch (613) is obtained by treating both
Deut
6:4 (the "Shema") and Exod 20:2 ("I am the Lord your God")
as "laws,"
17 Barry J. Beitzel, "Exodus
Trinity Journal 1 NS (1980) 6. See also J. M. Sasson,
"Wordplay in the OT," IDBSup,
968-70,
18 "Das grosse Gesetzgebungswerk des Konigs
our Representation geblieben und niemals
Rechtswirklichkeit
geworden sei" (W. Eilers, Rechtsvergleichende
Studien zur Gesetzgebung
Hammurapis [1917] 8, quoted in R.
E Kraus, "Ein zentrales Problem des altmesopotamischen
Rechtes:
Was It der Codex Hammu-rabi?" Genava 8 [1960] 283-96).
19 Kraus, "Ein
zentrales Problem."
20 "In seiner Selbstdarstellung sind
Gerechtigkeit und Klugheit die Eigenschaften, die er
sich, von den ublichen Cliches abweichend, immer
wieder zuschreibt, . . . emqum,
'klug', ist
ein typisches Pradikat des Schreibers. . . nur
Hammu-rabi, gleichzeitig gerechter Richter
und gelehrter Autor, hat seine Rechtsspruche
aufgezeichnet und der Welt zur Verfugung
gestellt genauso, wie die Autoren der
Eingeweideschaukompendien ihre Erfahrungen und
Erkenntnisse zu Nutz und Frommen der Welt in
ihren Werken niederlegen. Zu Nutz und
Frommen
der Welt hat auch Hammu-rabi seinen Codex verfasst und offentlich aufstellen
lassen" (Kraus, "Ein zentrales
Problem," 290-91).
THE MOSAIC LAW 247
ment, including the important but often overlooked
prologue of Hammu-
rapi's Code, is taken into consideration, it becomes
clear that a text such as
Hammurapi's
was not to be used to administer justice, but was rather
intended to promote the image of Hammurapi as a
wise and just king.21
What
Kraus has argued for the Code of Hammurapi suits the phenomenon
of law in the Pentateuch remarkably well. It
explains the existence of the
relatively large collections of laws strategically
placed throughout the penta-
teuchal narratives dealing with the life of
Moses. Applying the analogy of
the Code of Hammurapi helps confirm the judgment
that the selection of
laws in the Pentateuch is not there as a corpus of
laws as such (qua lex), but
was intended as a description of the nature of
divine wisdom and justice
revealed through Moses (qua institutio).
An inter-biblical example of this is found in
the Book of Proverbs, with
its prologue and selection of wise sayings of
Solomon. The Book of Proverbs
was not intended to be read as an exhaustive book
of right actions but as
a selective example of godly wisdom.
In the narratives of Exodus-Deuteronomy, then,
we are to see not only
a picture of Moses, but we are also to catch a
glimpse of the nature of the
law under which he lived and God's purpose for
giving it. Along with the
narrative portrait of Moses we see a selected
sample of his laws. Returning
to Knierim's thesis of the genre of the
Pentateuch, what emerges from a
genre analysis of the Pentateuch in its present shape
is that it is a biography
of Moses, albeit a modified one. It is a biography
of Moses, which portrays
him as a man who
lived under the law given at Sinai. It is a biography of Moses
sub lege.
A second difficulty in Knierim's assessment of
the genre of the Penta-
teuch is the fact that although Knierim treats
Genesis as an introduction to
the life of Moses, there are significant problems
in accounting for this sec-
tion of the Pentateuch within the genre of Biography
of Moses. According
to Knierim, Genesis adds the dimension of
"all of human history" to the
biography of Moses. But it is self-evidently clear
that not all of Genesis is
about "all of human history." It is only
the first eleven chapters of the book
which have all of humanity specifically in view.
Though the rest of Genesis
is, in fact, drawn into the scope of "all
humanity" by means of the reit-
erated promise that in the seed of Abraham ”all the
families of the land will
be blessed," the narratives in chaps. 12-50
focus specifically on the family
of Abraham. In fact, the three major sections of
Genesis 12-50 appear to
consist of genres nearly identical to that of
Knierim's view of the whole
21 "Eine Welt trennt diese sehr
deutlich formulierte Denkweise von der ungerer heutigen
Gesetzgeber
und unserer modernen Konzeption von der Geltung der Gesetze. Die Gultigkeit,
welche Hammu-rabi fur sein Werk erhofft, ist
grundstzlich anderer Natur als die unserer
Gesetze,
und seine Hoffnung ruht auf anderen Voraussetzungen als
der Geltungsanspruch
moderner Gesetzbucher. Seine sogenannten Gesetze sind Musterentscheidungen, Vorbilder
guter Rechtsprechung" (ibid., 291).
248
Pentateuch,
namely, biographies of Abraham (chaps. 12-26), Jacob (chaps.
27-36) and Joseph (chaps. 37-50).
Knierim rightly makes much of the fact that the
whole of Genesis, cover-
ing some 2000 years, takes up only about 25 percent
of the total text of the
Pentateuch,
whereas Exodus-Deuteronomy, which covers only the span of
the life of Moses, takes up the other 75 percent.
"The extent of material
allotted to each of the two time spans is
extremely disproportionate, a factor
that must be considered programmatic."22
However, when the Moses-
narratives (Exod 1-18 and Num
the laws (Deuteronomy and the Sinai-pericope), they
make up only about
20 percent of the whole of the Pentateuch. The material in Genesis
devoted
to the Patriarchs (Genesis 12-50) is also about 20
percent, making the
narratives about Moses and those about the
Patriarchs appear of equal
importance within the final text.
It thus is not satisfactory to group the
patriarchal narratives together
with Genesis 1-11 and consider them both as the
introduction to Moses'
biography. It appears more probable within the
framework of the whole of
the Pentateuch that the patriarchal material in
Genesis is intended on its
own to balance off the material in the Moses
narratives. The biographies
of the patriarchs are set over against the
biography of Moses.
The early chapters of Genesis (1-11) play their
own part in providing an
introduction to the whole of the
Pentateuch, stressing the context of "all
humanity" for both the patriarchal
narratives and those of Moses. The
Moses
material, for its part, has been expanded with voluminous selections
from the Sinai laws in order to show the reader the
nature of the law under
which Moses lived.
If this is an adequate description of the
Pentateuch, then its genre is not
simply that of a biography of Moses but rather it is a
series of biographies
similar perhaps to those in Kings or Samuel
where the life of Saul, for
example, is counterbalanced to that of David.
Within this series of biog-
raphies in the Pentateuch a further textual
strategy appears evident.
The chronological framework of Genesis
(periodization) and the virtual
freezing of time in Exodus-Deuteronomy (a single
period of time only, viz.,
the lifespan of Moses) suggests that there has been
a conscious effort to
contrast the time before and leading up to the
giving of the law (ante legem)
with the time of Moses under the law (sub lege).23 Abraham lived before the
giving of the law and Moses lived after it was given.
With this background to the compositional
strategy of the final shape of
the Pentateuch, we can now turn to its treatment of
Abraham and Moses.
22 Knierim, "The
Composition of the Pentateuch," 395.
23 Though it is not part of our immediate
concern, one could also note indications within
the final shape of the Pentateuch of a time
"after the law" (post legem).
Deuteronomy 30, for
example, looks to a future time quite distinct
from that of Moses' own day. There are close
affinities between this chapter and passages in the
prophetic literature which look to the time
of the New Covenant, e.g., Jer 31:31ff.; Ezek
36:22ff.
THE MOSAIC LAW 249
Specifically,
we wish to raise the question of what the Pentateuch
intends
to say about the lives of these two great men that
contributes to our under-
standing of faith and keeping the Mosaic Law?
A complete answer to this question cannot be
given within the scope of
this paper. We will limit ourselves to two strategically important penta-
teuchal texts from the standpoint of its final
composition, Gen 26:5 and
Num
20:12. Both texts are similar in that they offer a reflective look at the
lives of Abraham and Moses respectively and give an
evaluation that stems
from the final stages of the composition of the
Pentateuch. Furthermore,
both texts evaluate the lives of these two great men
from the perspective of
the theology of Deuteronomy. We will see that in
Gen 26:5 Abraham is
portrayed as one who "kept the law,"
whereas in Num
portrayed as one who "did not believe."
II. Abraham and the Mosaic Law (Gen 26:5)
In Gen 26:5, God says, "Abraham obeyed my
voice [ylqb. . . fmw] and
kept my charge [ytrmwm rmwyv], my commandments [ytvcm], my statutes
[ytvqH], and my laws [ytrvt]." Though on the face of
it, the meaning of this
verse is clear enough, it raises questions when
viewed within the larger
context of the book. How was it possible for
Abraham to obey the com-
mandments, statutes, and laws before they were
given? Why is Abraham
here credited with keeping the law when in the
previous narratives great
pains were taken to show him as one who lived by
faith (e.g., Gen 15:6)?
There
has been no mention of Abraham's having the law or keeping the law
previous to this passage. Why, now suddenly, does
the text say Abraham
had kept the law?
The verse is recognized as
"deuteronomic" by most biblical scholars,
both critical24 and conservative.25
Earlier biblical scholars went to great
lengths to explain the verse in view of its
inherent historical and theological
difficulties. For those who saw the
verse as a description of Abraham's legal
24 See Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergesckickte (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1984) 363, for a discussion
of the critical views.
25 F. Delitzsch says of the verse, for
example, "Undoubtedly verse 5 in this passage
is from the hand of the Deuteronomist" (A New Commentary on Genesis [
describe the Mosaic Law: "The piety of
Abraham is described in words that indicate a perfect
obedience to all the commands of God and therefore
frequently recur among the legal expressions
of a later date [in der spateren Gesetzessprache
]" (Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
[
verschiedensten Gebieten sein Leben
ahnlich den spateren Ordnungen des Gesetzes nach den
speziellen Weisungen Gottes, wie sie ihm erteilt
wurden oder er sie sich selbst erschliessen
mochte, eingerichtet hat" (Das erste Buck der Tora Genesis [Berlin: Schocken, 1934] 548).
Since,
throughout the Pentateuch and especially in
Deuteronomy, these terms denote the Mosaic
Law
(e.g., Deut 11:1; 26:17) this passage says, in no uncertain terms, that Abraham
kept the
Mosaic Law.
250
adherence to the law, the major problem was how
Abraham could have had
access to the Mosaic Law. Early rabbinical approaches,
for example, at-
tempted by word associations to identify each of
the terms used here with
a specific act of obedience of Abraham within the
patriarchal narratives. In
that way it could be demonstrated that Abraham knew
the Mosaic Law
and thus kept it.26 This approach,
however, did not gain wide acceptance
because, apart from a remote link to
circumcision, none of the terms in Gen
26:5
could be associated with events or actions of Abraham within the
biblical narratives.27
Another, and more common, rabbinical explanation
of 26:5 made use of
the Talmudic teaching of the "Noahic
laws."28 This approach was also
accepted among the early Protestant scholars.29
Thus the deuteronomic
terms for the law in Gen 26:5 were identified by some
as those general laws
given to all men since the time of Noah.30
However, because these specific
terms are, in fact, used later in the Pentateuch to
represent the whole of the
Mosaic
Law, it proved difficult to limit them only to the concept of the
Noahic laws. Thus for this
particular passage (Gen 26:5) the Talmud itself
rejected the notion of Noahic laws and took the
position that, in his own
lifetime, Abraham was given the whole of the
Mosaic Law.31
26 The terms ytrmwm and ytvcm, for example, were
related to Abraham's obedience in
circumcision since, according to Gen
17:9, Abraham was to "keep" (rmwt) God's covenant
in circumcision and 21:4 records that Abraham
circumcised Isaac ''as God had commanded
[hvc] him."
27 The terms ytvqH and ytrvt, for example, could not
otherwise be associated with
Abraham's
piety in the patriarchal narratives and no amount of midrashic attempts to do
so
proved successful. Another, but similar, attempt to
demonstrate that Abraham had the law of
Moses
is that of Walter Kaiser: "In spite of its marvelous succinctness, economy
of words, and
comprehensive vision, it must not be
thought that the Decalogue was inaugurated and promul-
gated at Sinai for the first time. All Ten
Commandments had been part of the law of God
previously written on hearts instead of stone, for
all ten appear, in one way or another, in Gen.
They
are: The first, Gen 35:2: 'Get rid of the forbidden gods.' The second, Gen
31:39: Laban
to Jacob: 'But why did you steal my gods?' The
third, Gen 24:3: 'I want you to swear by the
Lord'
" (Toward
Old Testament Ethics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983] 81-82).
28 The Talmud teaches that all descendants
of Noah who did not follow the practices of
idolatry were given seven divine laws. See Der babylonische Talmud (ed. L.
Godschmidt;
Judischer Verlag, 1930) 2.373.
29 ". . . observantia Sabbati et Circumcisionis, esus Sanguinis, cultus unius Dei, et
multa
hujusmodi" (Munster Sebastian [1489-1552], Critici sacri: annotata doctissimorum
virorum in
Vetus ac Novum Testamentum
[ed. J.
Pearson et al.;
cites Ibn Ezra's commentary on this passage).
30 E.g., Sefomo, Hn
ynb vvFcnw
(Torat Chaim Chumash [
Kook, 1987] 13).
31 Yoma
28b (Die babylonische Talmud 3.75).
See Str-B 3.204-5 for further examples.
Jacob
suggested that this Talmudic interpretation was an attempt to counter the
argument of Paul
in Gal 3: 17ff. (“polemisch gegen Paulus," Das erste Buch, 549). Andreas Rivetus
specifically
rejects this view as "false" (Opera theologica [
balah the laws mentioned in this verse are those of
the Decalogue because the verse contains
THE MOSAIC LAW 251
As to how Abraham would have known the law, the
assumption was that
God
had revealed it to him.32 It was also held by many that Abraham
derived the laws of Moses from his own
observations,33 or even from written
tradition, which could be traced back to Enoch.34
In Jub.
21:10, for ex-
ample, when explaining the various laws for
sacrifice, Abraham says, "for
thus I have found it written in the books of my
forefathers, and in the words
of Enoch, and in the words ofNoah."35
The tractate Nedarim 32a states that
Abraham
was three years old when he first began to obey the law. By means
of gematria, the rule that permits deriving
significance from the numerical
value of the consonants of a word, the first word, bqf, is read as the number
172
(years).36 Thus 26:5 was read as ifit said "For 172 [bqf] years Abraham
obeyed me." Since Abraham lived for 175 years, it
would have been at the
age of three years that he first began to obey
God's law.37
It is difficult to see in these early rabbinical
attempts a convincing explana-
tion of the Genesis passage. They are rather
attempts at harmonization. If, in
fact, to keep the "commandments, statutes and
laws" meant to keep the
saic Law as the rabbis had understood these terms in
Deuteronomy, then what
other explanation remained? Abraham must have known
the Mosaic Law.
As is always the case in the reading of a text,
their understanding of the
sense of the whole determined their interpretation of
this part. What was
clearly not open to these commentators was the
possibility that this verse
was intended as an interpretation of the life of
Abraham from another
perspective than that of the law.38
10
words and the Decalogue has 172 words, the same number as the Hebrew word bqf in Gen
26:5.
See Baal Hatturim, Chumash (New York:
Philipp Feldheim, 1967) 81.
32 "God disclosed to him the new
teachings which He expounded daily in the heavenly
academy" (Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of The Jews [
of
obselvationes, praesertim circa
divinum cultum ex speciali Dei revelatione, et majorum qui ea
acceperant imitatione, ut de mundis animalibus
offerendis et talia, praeter circumcisionem, et
alios mandatos ritus" (Opera theologica 1.457). According to rabbinic teaching God himself
was
guided by the Torah in creating the world, but he hid
the Torah from mankind until the time of
Abraham:
"bqf rmxnw Mhrbx dmfw df hrvth tx h”bqh
Npc Mlvfh xrbn xlw
ylvqb
Mhrbx fmw rwx (Yalkut Shemoni [Jerusalem, 1960] 972).
33 Str-B 3.205.
34 Ibid., 205-6.
35 APOT 2.44.
36 The number 172 is derived from f = 70; q = 100; and b = 2. See Wilhelm
Bacher, Die
exegetische Temzinologie der judischen Taditionsliteratur (Hildesheim: Georg Olms,
1965) 127.
37 Midrash
Rabbah (
apparently to deal with the problem of idolatry in
Terah's household (Josh 24:2.). If Abraham
had received the Mosaic Law already at age three,
he could not have been influenced by his
father's idolatry.
38 Although Calvin is not clear in his
comments on this passage, he appears to follow the
same line of interpretation as that reflected in the
rabbis. He writes, “And although laws,
statutes, rites, precepts and ceremonies, had not
yet been written [nondum erant scriptae],
Moses
used these terms, that he might the more clearly show how sedulously Abraham
reg-
252
The view of the later medieval Jewish
commentaries, on the other hand,
was that these' 'laws" were merely a form of
general revelation of moral
and ethical precepts.39 A similar
interpretation is found in many Christian
commentaries.40 The difficulty with
such an interpretation is not merely the
fact that elsewhere in the Pentateuch each of these
terms is used specifically
ulated his life according to the will of God alone--how
carefully he abstained from all the
impurities of the heathen" (Commentaries on the First Book of Moses
Called Genesis [trans. John
King;
interpretation, ". . . under
these three particulars, the whole charge
or custody forespoken of, is
comprehended; as afterward by Moses
God gave the ten Commandements, or morall preceps,
Exod 20. Judgements, or judicial lawes for punishing transgressors, Exod. 21, &c. and
statutes,
or rules, ordinances and decrees for the service
of God, Lev. 3.17. and 6.18.22. Exod.
12.24. &
27.31. & 29.9. &
30.21. All which Abraham observed, and is commended of God
therefore"
(Annotations upon the Five Bookes of Moses, The Booke of the Psalmes, and the Song of
Songs, or Canticles [
39 Jacob, Das erste Buck, 549. Rashi, for example,
says, " 'my commandments' are those
things which even if they had not been written [in the
Law] it is evident [Nyvxr] that they are
commanded [tvvFchl], such as stealing and
murder" (Torat Chaim Chumask,
13). Regarding
the last two terms, however, "my
statutes" and "my laws," Rashi held that they were unobtain-
able by reason alone but were given as a command
from God.
40 The Belgic Confession (1561), for
example, takes the tvcm here to be the moral law
(praecepta), the tvrvt as doctrine (leges) necessary to be believed, and the
MyFqwm
as political
law (judicia). Thomas Cartwright (1535-1603)
follows Nicholas of Lyra (1270-1340), who
follows Rashi, "Lyra ait, ea esse, quae sunt de dictamine rationis rectae et
servanda etiamsi nulla
lex esset posita" (Critici sacri, 632). Lyra, however, did
not follow Rashi on the last two terms, much
to Cartwright's surprise, " . . . a quo mirum
est Lyram dissentire." Lyra understood these
terms as follows: "tvqH cerimonias, seu
statuta, ea esse, quae pertinent ad modum colendi Dei;
trvt leges esse ista, quae
non obligant, nisi quia sunt a Deo, vel homine instituta, vel prae-
cepta" (ibid.). Ultimately the dependency on
Rashi and innovations (see previous note) go
back to Lyra, "cerimonias meas, seu statuta
mea, et leges meas," and the Vulgate, "praecepta
et mandata mea et caerimonias legesque."
Johannes Drusius (1550-1616) defined these terms
thus: "[ytrmwm] quaecunque mandavi ut
custodiret . . . [ytvcm] praecepta moralia quae post
decalogo comprehensa sunt . . . [ytrvt] forenses, sive quae ad
judicia pertinent" (Critici sacri,
622).
Johannes Mercerus distinguishes sharply between each of the five terms: (1) the
first term
refers generally to Abraham's obedience in such cases
as the command to leave
Chaldeans
and the binding of Isaac; (2) the second term refers to general religious
practice
which Abraham carried out diligently as God had
prescribed; (3) the third term refers to
general moral principles, such as the Decalogue,
and are posited in the natural mind; (4) the
fourth term refers to rituals by which God is
worshiped as well as statutes whose rationale is
not immediately obvious, such as the red heifer;
and (5) the fifth term refers to documents by
which one is instructed in doctrine. "Sic Dei
voluntatem partitur Moses hoc loco, ut postea
in Lege tradenda divisa est [but the Jewish view
that Abraham had the whole of the Mosaic
Law
is to be rejected]. . . . Non est quidem dubium quin
ante Legem multa seruarint, quae
postea in Legem sunt redacta, ut de mundis animalibus
immolandis, aut edendis, et alia. Sed
non sunt minutiis astringendi. . . . Sed nondum
haec in legem certam abierant, ut postea sub
Mose,
ubi sacerdotium certa familia, et certis ritibus est
institutum, etc. . . . Cum ergo hic
Moses
in Abrahamo, hac legis in suas partes distributione utitur, significat eum
absolutissime
Dei
voluntati paruisse, et per omnia morigerum fuisse, ut
nihil omiserit eorum quae tunc
praescripserat Dominus agenda aut
seruanda" (In Genesin Primum Mosis
Librum, sic a Graecis
Appellatum, Commentarius [Genevae, 1598] 458).
THE MOSAIC LAW 253
to describe an aspect of the Mosaic Law, but, more
importantly, elsewhere
in the Pentateuch the same list of terms denotes
the whole of the Mosaic
Law.41
Thus there seems little room for doubt that this passage is referring
to the Mosaic Law.
Literary critics, on the other hand, are
virtually unanimous in assigning
the verses to a "deuteronomic redaction."42
Gunkel assigned it to a later
(more legalistic) period, though he agreed that the terms are
deuteronomis-
tisch.43 Westennannassociated
the verse with the "post-deuteronomic" inter-
pretation of
(Gesetzesgehorsam).44
Though such responses are predictable of
critical methodology, they
serve better as illustrations of the nature of the
problem than they do its
solution. What critical scholarship is unanimous
in affirming is that at some
point in the composition of the Pentateuch, this
statement about Abra-
ham's piety was inserted to show that he kept the
Mosaic Law. Critical
scholarship has also affirmed that the verse stems
from the same process of
composition that resulted in the addition of
Deuteronomy to the Pentateuch.45
Ultimately, we should attempt to find the
meaning of this verse in the
larger strategy and purpose of the Pentateuch.46
Did the author of the
Pentateuch
intend to depict Abraham as a model of faith or as a model of
obedience to the law? Curiously enough, the
overwhelming majority of
biblical scholars have read this passage as if
the verse intended to show
Abraham's life as an example of obedience to the
law (Gesetzesgehorsam).
However, several considerations make this
assumption unlikely. The first
is the fact that the final shape of the Abrahamic
narratives is closely aligned
with the faith theme that forms the larger structure
of the Pentateuch. This
same faith theme is also part and parcel with the
"deuteronomic compo-
sition" of Gen 26:5. That being the case, it is
unlikely that the same author
would want to stress "faith" at the expense
of law at one point in the
composition of the Pentateuch and law at the expense
of "faith" at another.
41 E.g., Deut 11:1.
42 H. Holzinger, Einleitung in den Hexateuch (
1893)
3, Tabellen uber die Quellenscheidung; Otto Procksch, Die Genesis ubersetzt und erklart
(Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1913) 151.
43 "The thought that Abraham had
fulfilled so many commandments does not suit the
spirit of the ancient narratives [Sage], but betrays that of a later (legalistic) piety" (Hermann
Gunkel,
Genesis [
44 Claus Westermann, Genesis (BKAT 2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981)
518.
45 On the “deuteronomic redaction of the
Pentateuch," see Rolf Rendtorff, Das
uberlieferungs
-geschichtliche Problem, 164; Erhard Blum, Die Kompositim der Vatergeschichte, 362ff.; C.
Brekehnans,
"Die sogenannten deuteronomischen Elemente in Gen.-Num. Ein Beitrag zur
Vorgeschichte
des Deuteronomiums," in Volume du Congres. Geneve 1965 (VTSupp 15; Leiden: Brill, 1966) 90-96.
46 Such an approach follows from the
observation that, on most reckonings, the verse
belongs to the work of the author in shaping the
final form of the Pentateuch.
254
The chronological setting of the patriarchal
narratives offers further evi-
dence that this text (Gen 26:5) intends to teach
Abraham's faith and not
his obedience to the law as such. It is well known
that the early chapters
of the Pentateuch are governed by an all-embracing
chronological scheme.
This
scheme runs throughout the patriarchal narratives up to the time of
the giving of the law at Sinai. At that point, the
linear chronology broadens
out into a literary present. Thus the events of the
Pentateuch are divided
between those events before and those events
during the giving of the law.
Within
this scheme, then, the patriarchs are necessarily portrayed as those
who lived before the law (ante legem). They are chronologically separated47
from those who lived under the law (sub lege). Thus any statement about
Abraham
would likely be intended as a contrast to life under the law. Further-
more, the very existence of such a wide range of
"explanations" of Abra-
ham's "living under the law" (sub lege), so common in rabbinical and
Christian
exegesis, testifies to the difficulties of reading Gen 26:5 as a state-
ment about Abraham's obedience to the Mosaic Law.48
It appears reasonable to conclude, therefore,
that the importance of Gen
26:5
lies in what it tells us about the meaning of the deuteronomic terms it
uses. It is as if the author of the Pentateuch has
seized on the Abrahamic
narratives as a way to explain his concept of
"keeping the law." The author
uses the life of Abraham, not Moses, to illustrate
that one can fulfill the
righteous requirement of the law. In choosing
Abraham and not Moses, the
author shows that' 'keeping the law" means “believing
in God," just as
Abraham
believed God and was counted righteous (Gen 15:6). In effect the
author of the Pentateuch says, "Be like Abraham.
Live a life of faith and
it can be said that you are keeping the law."
We turn now to a consideration of the
Pentateuch's portrayal of Moses.
We
will not attempt a survey of the whole of the life of Moses, but rather,
we will look only at the assessment of Moses that
lies within the composi-
tional seams.
III. Moses and the Faith of Abraham (Num 20:1-13)
According to Schmitt, Numbers 20 contains an
original account of the
rebellion of Moses and Aaron that has been
secondarily reworked into the
47 For "change of time" as a
segmentation marker in narrative, see Elisabeth Gulich and
Wolfgang
Raible, "Uberlegungen zu einer makrostrukturellen Textanalyse: J. Thurber,
The
Lover
and His Lass,"in Untersuchungen in
Texttheorie (
1977) 132-75.
48 Moreover, the
"Glaubens-Thematik," which is central to the Abrahamic narratives, is
also related to the assessment of the life of Moses.
The Pentateuch tells us that at the end of
his life, Moses died in the wilderness, not
entering into the good land, because he "did not
believe" God (Num
Moses as "faithlessness." Within such a scheme it
would follow that the Pentateuch would also
view Abraham's "faith" as obedience to the
law.
THE MOSAIC LAW 255
faith theme. He argues that the narrative of Num
20:1-13 was originally a
self-contained unit which, apart from
v. 12, formed a coherent whole. Verse
12,
however, intrudes into this original narrative and gives it a specific
theological interpretation
("Glaubens-Thematic"). The original theme of
the passage was the rebellion of the people. This
theme, however, was
replaced in v. 12 by a focus on faith--an idea
that had not hitherto played
a part in the narrative.49 As chapter
20 opens, the Israelites were encamped
at Kadesh (20:1) but had begun to contend (bryv) with Moses on account
of the lack of food and water. When the Lord told
Moses to take a rod and
speak to the rock to bring forth water, he did “as
[the Lord] commanded
him" (20:9). This statement gives an initial
impression that Moses and
Aaron
were obediently following the Lord's commands. At least so far.
Then
Moses, saying to
the rock twice and water came out for both the
people and their animals
(20:11).
Though in popular exposition the nature of
Moses' sin is emphasized, it
is not, in fact, immediately clear from the text
why the Lord says Moses
(and Aaron) "did not
believe" (
are retained in the narrative.51
Nevertheless attempts to find the error of
Moses
and Aaron and relate it to their lack of faith are numerous.52
Moses'
sin has generally been related to three aspects of
the narrative, (1) his
striking the rock with the rod (
(
(1) There are those who argue that Moses' lack
of faith is exhibited in his
striking the rock rather than merely speaking to
it. However, as the nar-
rative presents it, the Lord certainly intended Moses
to use the rod in some
way since it was the Lord who told Moses to get the
rod and, according to
49 In Deut
rebellion of the people--an idea consistent with
Num 20:10-11, 13. The presence of the theme
of rebellion underlying the present text is
betrayed by several wordplays throughout the
narrative between the people's rebellion (e.g., bryv, Myrmh, vbr) and the place name
Meribah
(hbyrm). Also, the fact that later allusions to the Meribah
incident (Num
32:51)
speak of the people's rebellion there and not the "unfaithfulness of Moses
and Aaron,"
further supports Schmitt's argument that
originally that was the central theme of the story.
See
below.
50 The difficulty of determining the nature
of Moses' sin because of the brevity of the
narrative was already acknowledged by early
biblical scholars. Regarding this problem Mun-
ster said, "Et quidem verba Mose sunt tam
succincta ut nemo facile ex illis advertere possit
in quo peccaverit" (Critici sacri 2.323).
51 At the conclusion of the story the place
of the waters is called Meribah (hbyrm), which
is linked by means of a wordplay to the
Israelite's rebellion (vbr) in 20:3. The last statement,
20:
13b, "and he was sanctified [wdqyv] among them,"
links the narrative to the location of the
people at the beginning of the story, Kadesh (wdq), and to the next
section (
location is again Kadesh.
52 Drusius, "De peccato Mosis variae
sunt interpretum opiniones, quas omnes recensere
longum esset" (Critici sacri 2.328).
256
the narrative, Moses is commended for doing ''as he
commanded" (20:9).
The
narrative, however, does not recount the Lord's instructions concern-
ing how or why Moses was to use the rod. Keil, like
many, thus supposed
that the Lord's instructions to "speak to the
rock" meant that Moses was
merely to hold the rod in his hand while he spoke to
the rock.53 In this way
it is inferred from the narrative that Moses erred
in striking the rock.54
That such a meaning is not likely a part of the
author's intention is clear
from other narratives where Moses was explicitly
commanded to strike
(hch) an object with his rod to work a sign demonstrating God's
power. In
Exod
17:6, for example, the Lord told Moses, "I will stand before you there
on the rock at Horeb; and you shall strike [tykhv] the rock, and water
shall
come out of it, that the people may drink."
Moreover this explanation has
frequently met with the additional argument that if
God told them to take
the rod, what else would have been expected but to
use it to strike the
stone?55 In response, some have argued that the
rod was the budding rod
of Aaron and hence should not have been used for
striking.56 This, for
example, was the position of Jamieson who argued
that the error of Moses
consisted of his striking the rock "twice in
his impetuosity, thus endangering
the blossoms of the rod."57 Some
have laid stress merely on the fact that
Moses
struck the rock twice.58
(2) Another line of explanation of Moses'
faithlessness in Num 20:7-13
focuses on what
he said when he struck the rock. The Septuagint translators
apparently attempted to resolve the problem by
translating Moses' words
53 Keil, Biblical Commentary 3.130.
54 This, for example, is the interpretation
of the passage given by Rashi. Rashi states,
"God
did not command him to strike the rock but to speak to it."
55 "Quorsum virga sumenda erat, nisi
ut percuterent (T. Malvenda, Commentaria
in
sacram Scripturam una
cum nova de verbo ad verbum ex hebraeo translatione, variisque
lectionibus, 1650, quoted in M.
Pol, Synopsis criticorum [
56 Franziscus Junius, 1587, quoted in Pol, Synopsis 1.689, "At
erat ad percutiendum vel imperata, vel
commoda." Also Johannes Drusius (1550-1616), "Sed
si verba educenda erat aqua, cur jussus est
accipere virgam?
res transigi debebat" (Critici sacri 2.328).
57 Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and
David Brown, A Commentary Critical, Experimental
and Practical on the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1945) 564. 58 Also
Ainsworth,
"the doubling of his stroke shewed also the heat of his anger" (Anno-
tations, 127). Jamieson writes, "Hence some
writers consider that his hasty smiting of the rock
twice was an act of distrust-that such a rebellious
rabble would be relieved by a miracle; and
that as the water did not gush out immediately, his
distrust rose into unbelief, a confirmed
persuasion that they would get none" (Commentary, 564). Keil turns Moses'
striking the rock
into an evidence of lack of faith by suggesting that
striking the rock was an exercise of human
works rather than trust in God: "He then struck
the rock twice with the rod, 'as if it depended
upon human exertion, and not upon the power of God
alone,' or as if the promise of God
'would not have been fulfilled without all the smiting on his
part' " (Biblical Commentary,
131).
Rashi
suggested that the first time Moses struck the rock only a few drops (NypF) came out
because God had told him to speak to it.
THE MOSAIC LAW 257
to the people (v. 10) by "Hear me, you
faithless ones [oi[ a]peiqei?j]."59
This
was a convenient solution to the passage in Greek
because it took advantage
of the semantic range of the Greek word a]peiqei?n, used elsewhere in the
Pentateuch
to render the Hebrew word "to rebel" (hrm).60 The
Greek
a]peiqh<j can mean either
"disobedient" or "unbelieving."61
For some the sin of Moses consisted simply of
his speaking to the people
rather than to the rock.62 Some have argued
that the source of Moses' error
lay rather in the harsh words he spoke to the
people. Rather than speaking
to the rock, as the Lord had commanded, Moses
spoke harshly to the people.63
Some
have read the Hebrew hrvm (Num
and thus said Moses sinned in calling God's people
fools.65 According to
Jamieson,
"his speech conveyed the impression that it was by some power
or virtue inherent in him or in the rod that the
miracle was wrought."66
Jamieson
is apparently dependent on Sebastian Castellio (1515-1563) who
understood the sin of Moses and Aaron to consist of
their saying “shall we
draw water?" Such words, according to
Castellio, showed that they were
taking credit for doing that which only God could do.67
Others have argued
that when Moses struck the rock the first time no
water came out and at
that point the people began to murmur and doubt that
God would give
them water. Thus Moses called the people "you
rebellious ones" and struck
the rock a second time.68 Several early biblical
scholars69 have read the
interrogative in flsh
Nmh in the
sense of "whether" (num )70
and hence
rendered Moses' words as "Are we really able
to bring water out for you?"
59 The Vulgate follows the Septuagint with
the conflated rebelles et
increduli.
60 Deut 1:26; 9:7, 23, 24.
61 LSJ 182. It is also possible
that an attempt has been made to associate the word hrm
with hRS or RRS, which was translated
with a]peiqh<j in Deut
variant in the Vorlage of the Septuagint, but that is less likely in this case.
The history of the
difficulty in interpretation in this passage argues
against an unintended variant.
62 Paul Fagius, Critici sacri 2.324. According to Fagius, this was a view known inter Hebraeos.
63 "Instead of speaking to the rock
with the rod of God in his hand, as God directed him,
he spoke to the congregation, and in these
inconsiderate words. . . . which, if they did not
express any doubt in the help of the Lord, were
certainly fitted to strengthen the people in their
unbelief, and are therefore described in Ps.
cvi.33 as prating (speaking unadvisedly) with the
lips" (Keil, Biblical Commentary, 130-31).
64 Matching the Hebrew consonants m",
to their Greek equivalents, m = m, v = w, and r =
r, with the nominative
ending oj.
65 Critici sacri 2.323.
66 Jamieson, Commentary, 564.
67 "In eo peccatum est quod dixerunt, Eliciamus, quod Dei erat, sibi tribuentes"
(Critici
sacri 2.326).
68 See Drusius, Critici sacri 2.328. Drusius was probably referring to Rashi when
he attributed this view to the antiquissimi Ebraei.
69 Fagius, Vatablus, Drusius, Grotius (Critici sacri 2.324ff.), and Cornelius a
Lapide
(1567-1637). See Pol, Synopsis 1.689.
70 Following the Vulgate.
258
In
so doing, they are able to show Moses' words to be an expression of
doubt. An equally ingenious solution noted by
Drusius, though hardly
possible, was that the verb Mtrbd (rbd) in v. 8, "you
shall speak [to the
rock]," was to be derived from the noun rbd, "pestilence,
plague," and
hence should be translated' 'you shall destroy [the
rock]."71
(3) Finally, the sparsity of the narrative itself, that is the lacunae,
has
provided the occasion for various explanations of
Moses' error. Jamieson,
for example, suggested that there were perhaps
circumstances “unrecorded
which led to so severe a chastisement as exclusion
from the promised
land."72
one particular rock and Moses wanted to give them
water from a different
rock, saying, "We are not able to give water
from that rock are we?" Thus,
Munster
argued, Moses caused the people to think that God could give
them water from some rocks but not others.73
Lightfoot argued that the
miracle of the water from the rock, having been
given already at the be-
ginning of the wilderness wanderings, implied to
Moses that a still longer
time of waiting m the desert was to follow. The sin
of Moses, then, lay in
“discrediting God's promise to lead the people into
Another major element of uncertainty in the
story is the nature of the sin
of Aaron. Because the story itself is silent about
the actions of Aaron, the
common, but implausible, explanation is that he sinned
in remaining silent
and not correcting Moses.75
These many and varied attempts at explaining v.
12 illustrate that which
is already obvious from the text itself, that is,
the passage does not explicitly
tell us the nature of Moses' (or Aaron’s) lack of
faith.76 Judging from the
passage alone, the faithlessness of Moses does
not appear to have consisted
in his striking the rock or in his harsh words but
rather lies just out of reach
somewhere in the numerous "gaps"77
of the story. We should stress that this
71 Critici sacri 2.328. Drusius rejected the view because the verb did
not have a direct
object with tx but rather an object
with lx.
72 Jamieson, Commentary, 565.
73 Critici sacri 2.323.
74 See Jamieson, Commentary, 565.
75 Pol, Synopsis 1.689.
76 Gray's comment has merit, "The sin
which excluded Moses and Aaron from
described in v.12 as unbelief, in v.24
[and] 2714 as rebellion. But in v.8-11, as they now
stand,
neither unbelief nor rebellion on the part of
Moses and Aaron is recorded; either the one or
the other has often been read into the verses, but
neither is there" (George Buchanan Gray,
A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on Numbers [ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1903] 261).
77 "From the viewpoint of what is
directly given in the language, the literary work consists
of bits and fragments to be linked and pieced
together in the process of reading: it establishes a
system of gaps that must be filled in. This
gap-filling ranges from simple linkages of elements,
which the reader performs automatically, to intricate
networks that are figured out con-
sciously, laboriously, hesitantly, and with
constant modifications in the light of additional
information disclosed in later stages of the reading"
(Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical
Narrative [
THE MOSAIC LAW 259
is not a result of a deficiency in the story.78
It rather appears to be part of
the story's design. It is just at the point of
recounting the nature of their sin
that the author abbreviates the narrative and moves
on to the divine speech
(Num
20:12). Moreover, it is just this divine speech that "fills the gap” with
the word about faith, giving the story a sense far
larger than that of its own
immediate concerns. Thus Schmitt concludes, the
reason the exact nature
of the error of Moses is not immediately clear
from the passage is because
the author has
deliberately suppressed it in order to stress the divine
pronouncement of Moses' lack of faith.79 Though we may not want to
follow
Schmitt's
line of
78 Critical scholarship
shows little patience with the story as it now stands. "The truth is,
the story is mutilated" (Gray, Numbers, 262). The classic critical
study of Num 20:1-13 is that
of Hugo Gressmann in Mose und seine Zeit. Ein Kommentar zu den Mose-Sagen (
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913) 150-54. Gressmann
divided the account into two separate
stories. One, the Elohist, is an
"Ortssage" explaining the abundant oasis at Kadesh. The
other, the later Priesterkodex, is only partially
preserved and attempts to explain why Moses
and Aaron did not go into the land. Cornill treated
Num 20:1-13 as an original unity but saw
it largely "mutilated" (verstummelt) by
a later redactor (see H. Holzinger, Einleitung
in den
Hexateuch [
79 The importance of the divine word about
Moses' lack of faith in Num 20:12 can be
seen all the more in the fact that it abruptly
breaks into a narrative that appears to be primarily
concerned with
be seen "in the fact that at the close of the
chapter (
recounted, there is a back-reference to the
earlier failure of Moses and Aaron. Surprisingly,
according to the narrative of
entering into the land, as in
ence to their rebellion (Mtyrm) in
waters, "Waters of Meribah" (hbyrm). Then again, later in
the book, as the death of Moses
approached and he was reminded that he could not
enter the land with the people (Num
27:14), there is another back-reference to Num
20:1-13.
It is recalled that Moses could not
enter the land because, the Lord said, "You
rebelled [Mtyrm]
to sanctify me [ynwydqhl] . . . at
the waters of Meribah [tbyrm]." Similarly, in
Deut 32:51 the Lord states that Moses (and
Aaron)
"acted treacherously [Mtlfm] with me not
sanctifying me [Mtwdq xl] in the midst of
the Israelites at the waters of Meribah [tbyrm]." In each case
the Numbers 20 passage is read
without reference to the lack of faith of Moses
and Aaron (
here of the reading in Psalm 95 which also does not
make reference to their "lack of faith" at
Meribah. This, however, is probably due to the
fact that the primary text for Psalm 95 was the
similar passage in Exodus 17 rather than Numbers
20. When the allusions to the Meribah passage
in Numbers 20 are compared with the text in its
present state, one can see quite easily, Schmitt
argues, that the terms for rebellion (e.g., Mtyrm, 27:14; Mtlfm, Deut 32:51) have been
inter-
preted by the term “faith" (Mtnmxh
xl) in Num
of faith forms the motif of the completed version
of the Pentateuch, the account of the rebellion
of Moses and Aaron at the waters of Meribah has
become an example of the theme of faith
found throughout the Pentateuch. A similar type of
interpretation can be seen in the reading
of Psalm 95 in Heb 3:7-18. After an extensive
quotation of the psalm, which does not make
reference to the faithlessness of Moses, the
writer of Hebrews proceeds to interpret the psalm
in light of the theme of faith. The crucial
statement in Psalm 95 is v. 10, "They always go
astray in their hearts" (Mh
bbl yft).
It is just this statement that the writer of Hebrews then
interprets as, "Take care, brethren, lest
there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving [a]pisti<aj]
heart, leading you to fall away from the living
God."
260
argument fully,80 we believe his analysis
points the way to the central
message of the narrative. The rebellion of Moses
and Aaron (Mtyrm,
which appears at some point to have been an important
feature of the narra-
tive, has been replaced with the focus on their
faithlessness (Mtnmxh xl,
in the narrative to a higher level of theological
reflection--the issue of faith
versus obedience to the law.81 Their
actions epitomize the negative side of
the message of faith. Moses and Aaron, who held
high positions under the
law, did not enjoy God's gift of the land. They
died in the wilderness
because they did not believe.82
IV. Conclusion
The narrative strategy of the Pentateuch
contrasts Abraham, who kept
the law, and Moses, whose faith was weakened under
the law. This suggests
a conscious effort on the part of the author of
the Pentateuch to distinguish
between a life of faith before the law (ante legem) and a lack of faith under
the law (sub
lege). This is accomplished by showing that the life of God's
people before the giving of the law was characterized
by faith and trust in
God,
but after the giving of the law their lives were characterized by
faithlessness and failure. Abraham
lived by faith (Gen 15:6), in
Israelites
lived by faith (Exod 4), they came out of
after the giving of the law, no longer was the life
of God's people marked
by faith.83 Even their leaders, Moses and
Aaron, failed to believe in God
after the coming of the law.
80 We need not, however, work from
Schmitt's premise regarding the priestly material or
draw the same conclusion regarding the time of this
redaction. Verse 12, in fact, is linked to
the rest of the narrative by means of the
repetition of the notion of “sanctifying God," ynwydqhl
(
Illegitimacy
of a Literary Tool," in Scripture
and Truth (ed. D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge;
81 Schmitt has argued that this
"Glaubens-Thematik" can be traced to the influence of
Deuteronomy. This is not without
significance for those who hold to a Mosaic authorship of
the Pentateuch. Given the fact that in Deuteronomy
it is Moses who is the speaker, Schmitt's
"Glaubens-Thematik"
is, narratively at least, Mosaic in origin. In Deut 9:23, for example,
Moses
tells the Israelites, "And when the LORD sent you from Kadesh-barnea, . . . you
rebelled [vrmtv] against the
commandment of the LORD your God and did not believe
[Mtnmxh
xlv] him or
obey [Mtfmw xlv] his voice." The view which Moses expresses
here
in Deuteronomy is precisely that of the Glaubens-Thematik.
82 An identical interpretation can be found
in Num
rebellion (ddm, v. 9) of the people,
"how long will this people despise me? And how long will
they not believe [vnymxy xl] me?"
83 This strategy of the author of the
Pentateuch can be seen clearly in the vocabulary of
faith (Nymxh) which he employs in
the Pentateuch. For example, throughout the Pentateuch,
each use of the word "faith" as part of
the "Glaubens-Thematik" before the giving of the law
at Sinai is positive: Abraham believed,
THE MOSAIC LAW 261
If we have accurately described this aspect of
the compositional strategy
of the Pentateuch, then we have uncovered an
initial and clear indication
of the Pentateuch's view of the Mosaic Law. The view
is, in fact, remark-
bly similar to that of Jer 31:31ff. Just as
Jeremiah looked back at the failure
of the Sinai covenant and the Mosaic Law which the
Israelites had failed
to keep, so the author of the Pentateuch already
held little hope for blessing
sub lege. Jeremiah looked forward to a time when the Torah would be
internalized, not written on tablets
of stone (cf. Ezek 36:26) but written on
their heart (Jer 31:33). In the same way the
Pentateuch holds up the ex-
ample of Abraham, a model of faith, one who did not
have the tablets of
stone but who nevertheless kept the law by living a
life of faith. At the same
time it offers the warning of the life of Moses, who
died in the wilderness
because of his lack of faith. In this respect it
seems fair to conclude that the
view of the Mosaic Law found in the Pentateuch is
essentially that of the
New
Covenant passages in the prophets.84
2065
Half Day Rd.
however, the positive statements of faith
disappear. The statements about
negative, that is, after
believe." Thus, standing between the
narratives that stress the faith of God's people and those
that stress their faithlessness is the account of
the giving of the law at Sinai. The last positive
statement of faith in the Pentateuch is Exod
19:9a, the prelude to the giving of the law. It is
significant that in Heb
he ends his examples from the Pentateuch with the
crossing of the
immediately to the Book of Joshua. He is clearly
following here the line of argument of the
"Glaubens-Thematik" in the Pentateuch.
84 This view of the nature of the
Pentateuch and its view of the law is similar to that of
Walther
Eichrodt who argued that in the Pentateuch the law is presented in such a way
that
it is "impressed on the heart and conscience.
Application to individual concrete instances is
then left in many cases to a healthy feeling for
justice" (Theology of the Old Testament
[2 vols.;
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
2960
www.wts.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu