Patterns In The Old Testament Metanarrative: Human Attempts To Fulfill Divine Promises

By Nicholas P. Lunn

[Nicholas P. (Nick) Lunn is an Old Testament Consultant with Wycliffe Bible Translators UK: and a Hebrew Tutor for Wycliffe’s European Training Programme.]

I. The Patriarchal Promises

With the call of Abraham in ch. 12 the book of Genesis presents us with a new point of departure of the utmost significance. Christopher Wright goes so far as to say, “A new world, ultimately a new creation, begins in this text. . . . God’s mission of world redemption begins.”[1] The ultimate goal of the divine dealings with the patriarch was to bring blessing to all nations (12:3). In the purpose of God the first step towards the attainment of this goal was to make a number of specific promises to Abraham. It would be through the fulfillment of these promises that estranged mankind would eventually come to experience reconciliation with their Creator

There is some minor variety in the way the several promises have been itemized in the scholarly literature,[2] but the essential elements involved are clear. David Clines in his classic treatment of the theme of the Pentateuch categorizes the promises as “posterity” (or “seed”), “divine-human relationship,” and “land.”[3] He omits an obvious fourth, which is that of “kings.” Clines’s omission may have been due to a neglect of the final form of Genesis in keeping with the then current source and form critical methods.[4] Taking the book as given, however, this royal element is undeniably present. Abraham, we therefore conclude, was given four basic promises:

1. Seed. 2. Land. 3. Relationship. 4. Kings.

1. The promise that Abraham would have offspring (זרע) is implicit in the patriarch’s initial call. There God told him, “I will make you a great nation” (12:2), although at the time he was elderly and had no children because Sarah, his wife, was unable to bear (11:30). Following this the seed promise is reiterated both implicitly and explicitly at regular intervals (e.g., 12:7; 13:15-16; 15:5, 13; 17:6-7; 18:14). Once Isaac is born the promise is modified to become the multiplication of Abraham’s seed (22:17; 26:24; 28:3; 35:11).
2. The promised possession of land is first given immediately upon Abraham’s arrival in Canaan: “To your seed I will give this land” (12:7). Following this it is repeated several times to Abraham (13:15, 17; 15:7; 17:8; 22:17), to his son Isaac (26:3-4), and then to Jacob (28:13; 35:12; cf 48:4).
3. The promised relationship between God and the offspring of Abraham appears in Gen 17:7: “I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you,” adding in the following verse, “and I will be their God.” The divine-human relationship is seen as initiated by means of covenant. Abraham himself entered into this covenant with God as described in Gen 15 (and confirmed in ch. 17).
4. The promise of kings is plainly given in Gen 17. God tells Abraham, “Kings will come forth from you” (v. 6), which is then repeated with respect to Sarah (v. 16). Later the same promise is reiterated to Jacob, to whom God says, “Kings will come forth from your body” (35:11).

Clines goes on to relate the elements of the promises to the various portions of the Pentateuch. Genesis 12-50, the patriarchal history, focuses upon the posterity-seed, Exodus and Leviticus upon the divine-human relationship, and Numbers and Deuteronomy upon the land.[5] Since here, unlike Clines, we are not confining our scope of study to the Pentateuch we may add the book of Joshua as also concerned primarily with the land promise. Seeing that this book covers the conquest, division, and inheritance of Canaan, the place of the land is undoubtedly primary. With the inclusion of the fourth element in the promises, that of kings, we extend the list of books to incorporate the subsequent books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings as being those texts in which the idea of kingship is a prominent theme, whether explicitly or implicitly.[6] It can therefore be seen that successive groupings of canonical writings deal in succession with the respective promises, a fact strongly suggestive of literary design. Moreover it is evident that the theme of the patriarchal promises and their fulfillment dominates the entire pre-exilic narrative, comprising the bulk of the OT legal and historical literature.

The programmatic literary treatment of the outworking of the promises also serves to highlight the chronological dimension of their fulfillment. Abraham had to wait twenty-five years until Isaac, the first of his offspring,[7] was born, a long time for a man past seventy-five years of age. Taking the covenant and the giving of the law at Sinai as the formalization of the relationship between God and the descendants of Abraham,[8] that was an event coming several centuries after the promise. As regards the land more time still was yet to pass before Israel was to enter and occupy it. From Abraham to the first king of Israel was an interval of almost a millennium. It is plain that God, in his purpose, was not hurrying to fulfill what he had promised, at least in human terms.

How does the OT narrative portray the reaction of the recipients of the promises in the face of such lengthy time frames? It is well known how the faith of Abraham and Sarah was challenged in this respect, resulting in the ugly and unfortunate Hagar incident, and this after only ten years of waiting.[9] If the great ancestors of Israel were tried by the relatively short passing of time with respect to the first promise, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the apparent delay in fulfillment of the other promises would be problematic for their descendants, leading to similar rash behavior.

It is put forward here that each of the four above-mentioned portions of the OT relating to one of the patriarchal promises contains within it an event that is essentially an attempt on the part of Abraham and his descendants to bring about the fulfillment of the promise by their own means. Seeing that these actions are initiated by men and not by God, the result in each instance is negative.

II. Producing The Seed: Genesis 16:1-16

We begin with the promise of the seed, as this is the best-known case. After this we shall depart from the order of the four promissory elements as listed above, saving the least obvious instance till last.

From Gen 16:3 we learn that the events described in the opening of that chapter took place some ten years after Abraham’s original call and the first utterance of the promise (cf. v. 16, which states that Abraham was eighty-six years old when Ishmael was born, compared to seventy-five years when called in 12:4). The contents of the chapter are widely recognized as portraying the tension created by delay in the fulfillment of the promise.[10]

Sarah acted as the prime mover of what was to unfold (v. 1). The chain of events are initiated by direct speech, introduced by ותאמר (“she said”), when Sarah said to her husband:

Now behold, the Lord has prevented me from giving birth. Please go in to my maid: perhaps I will obtain children through her. (v. 2)

These words are presented by the Hebrew attention-getting particle הנה (”behold”), giving the grounds for Sarah’s request,[11] which was her continued state of barrenness. The proposal itself is expressed by means of a volitional בא־נא (“enter, please”).[12] These details of language are significant when we come to consider passages concerning the other promises. Abraham complied with his wife’s wishes. He slept with the Egyptian maidservant and she conceived (v. 4).

Abraham and Sarah’s attempt to produce the promised offspring through their own devices resulted in serious consequences, both for the aging couple and for the eventual offspring. The friction that the event caused between Sarah and Hagar (vv. 4b-6) was just one unpleasant outcome. Of greater significance was the later conflict between the peoples descended from them.[13]

The Hagar debacle comes to the fore once more in ch. 21 of Genesis. Similar events again play themselves out, this time involving not only Sarah and Hagar but also their sons, Isaac and Ishmael (vv. 8-21).[14]

III. Entering The Land: Numbers 14:39-45

When Joshua led Israel into Canaan after the death of Moses this was not in fact the first attempt at conquering the land. There was a previous occasion recorded in the book of Numbers. Upon the report of the spies sent by Moses to reconnoiter the land, the people responded with rebellion. Although the report was of a land flowing with milk and honey (Num 13:27), they were daunted by the strength of its inhabitants (vv. 28, 31-33) and would rather choose a new leader and return to Egypt (14:1-4). Despite the entreaties of Moses and Aaron (vv. 5-9) the Israelites persisted in their rebellion with the result that God intervened and announced the punishment against them—that generation would wander in the wilderness for the next forty years and die there (vv. 10-35). Israel had already waited several hundred years for the possession of the land, and now on account of their disbelief there would be a further delay of another forty. It was upon hearing this from Moses (v. 39) that the people determined to go up to invade Canaan there and then. The Israelites initiated the attempt to conquer the land in this context through direct discourse, introduced by לאמר (“saying”):

Here we are, and we will go up to the place which the Lord has promised, for we have sinned, (v. 40)

The speech commences with the word הננו (literally “behold us”). This is followed by the weqatal verb ועלינו, which is rendered by the majority of modern English versions as “we will go up.” Although indicative in form the verb is clearly expressive of intention or resolve,[15] a sense typically associated with the volitional.[16]

Here the people of Israel give the grounds for their proposed action by means of a כי clause,[17] “for we have sinned.” This is plainly not the reason for going up against the land, which would make the ascent appear more as a punishment than the positive fulfillment of a promise. Rather the words are an expression of regret for their sin in which the Israelites showed a lack of willingness to go up and take the land promised them by God.[18]

This self-determined action of the Israelites ended in disaster, as Moses had warned (vv. 41-43). The conclusion to the narrative tells us that “the Amalekites and the Canaanites who lived in that hill country came down and defeated them, pursuing them as far as Hormah” (v. 45).

All the essential elements of this account are repeated in some detail in Deut 1 (vv. 41-46), including the direct speech that initiated the failed conquest (v. 41).

IV. Obtaining A King: 1 Samuel 8:4-22

As noted above, the historical books from Judges to 2 Kings give prominent place to the matter of kingship. In the first of these books Abimelech, son of Gideon, set himself up as a local king over Shechem (Judg 9), a short-lived and unpromising reign not recognized by the majority of the nation.’[19] The book ends with the question of the need for a national king still hanging in the air (21:25).[20] Conflict with the Philistines as recorded in the opening chapters of 1 Samuel pressed the issue even further. Finally the elders of the tribes gathered to Samuel the prophet at Ramah to demand a king (1 Sam 8:4-5), an act that from the point of view of God’s plan for his people’s future kingship was somewhat premature.[21] The opening words that the elders said (ויאמרו) to Samuel were:

Behold, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations. (8:5)

Once more the particle הנה (“behold”) is used to present the grounds of the request, which is Samuel’s old age and the unsuitability of his sons to judge Israel after him.[22] On this occasion the grounds also are followed by a request in the form of a volitional verb שימה (“appoint”).

Samuel’s response to this request and the answer he receives from God are complex and not directly relevant to the present article.[23] Suffice it to say that neither God nor his prophet is pleased with the situation (vv. 6-8). God nevertheless consents to the people’s wishes, and a short while afterwards Saul is elected as king.

Despite a few military successes the outcome of Saul’s appointment to the kingship was largely negative. He was never able to deliver the decisive blow that would keep the Philistines from invading Israelite territory. More importantly from a spiritual point of view he was disobedient to the revealed will of God and was consequently afflicted by an evil spirit. When David was divinely chosen as his successor, Saul attempted to murder him. In the end we see him consulting a medium, forbidden by the law, rather than inquire of God (1 Sam 28). The story of Saul, the people’s king, was a tragic one.

Some time later, in his farewell speech, Samuel brings again before the minds of the Israelites their earlier rebellious act in demanding a king, rehearsing to them the words of their original request (12:12-25), which is there acknowledged as having been a “sin” (v. 19).

V. Making A God-People Relationship: Exodus 32:1-6

We now consider that tragedy of idol-worship committed by Israel at the foot of Sinai. This particular incident is being treated last and at greater length in that its connection with the patriarchal promises is, at first sight, the least noticeable. Closer examination, however, reveals that there is in fact such a connection.

Moses had been at the top of the mountain for forty days and nights, during which time he received instructions concerning the tabernacle and other related matters (Exod 24:18-31:17). At the end of this time he was given the two stone tablets (31:18). For the people down in the camp Moses’ prolonged absence provoked them to take matters into their own hands. They approached Aaron and said (ויאמרו):

Arise, make us a god who will go before us; for as for this Moses, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him. (32:1)

Here the people’s words begin with the volitional קום עשה (“Arise, make”). The grounds for their request is expressed through a כי clause to the effect that they did not know what had happened to Moses. In response to their demand Aaron told them to donate gold from which he cast an idol in the form of a calf (vv. 2-4).

On the surface the action of the Israelites seems like nothing other than a plain act of idolatry.[24] Yet at a deeper level it is more than that. It is here contended that the incident is to be interpreted in the same manner as the aforementioned incidents, that is, as a sinful human attempt at bringing about the fulfillment of one of the ancient promises. The promise here in question is that of the God-people relationship between Yahweh and Israel.

A short while prior to this occasion an event of major significance had transpired which clearly was connected to the relationship promise. This took place immediately before Moses’ ascent up the mountain, when he and the people had performed the covenant ritual and the covenant had been actuated as recorded in Exod 24 (especially note v. 8, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words”). The original terms of the promise did in fact speak of a “covenant” (Gen 17:7). This does not mean, however, that through the transactions of Exod 24 the relationship that the covenant intended to seal was immediately and wholly established. Much still remained to be done, concerning which it was required that Moses spend time on the mountain to receive further instructions from God. All these instructions (Exod 25-31) are oriented towards that relationship. First there was the matter of the tabernacle, a sanctuary for God to dwell in among his people.[25] Alongside this there was the investiture of the priests who would minister in the sanctuary and serve as mediators between God and the people. There was also the institution of the Sabbath as the sign of the covenant (31:12-17). Finally, there was the presentation to Moses of the two tablets of stone.[26] These were to be deposited in the sanctuary once it had been completed (cf 40:20).

This latter is comparable to what occurred in Ancient Near Eastern treaties and covenants in general.[27] It would only be after all these directions given to Moses by the Lord had been performed that Israel would be ready to receive their God among them.

It is among all these instructions that a most significant statement of the Lord is found, significant because it sets the tabernacle against the background of the Abrahamic promises. In Exod 29:45-46 we read the declared intention of God:

I will dwell among the Israelites [ושכנתי בתוך בני ישראל], and I will be their God [והייתי להם לאלהים]. And they shall know that I am the Lord their God, who brought them out of the land of Egypt that I might dwell among them [לשכני בתוכם].

Here is an unquestionable association between the patriarchal promise of the God-people relationship (Gen 17:7, והייתי להם לאלהים, “and I will be their God”), repeated here verbatim, and the tabernacle[28] as the place of divine indwelling among the people of Israel (Exod 25:8, ושכנתי בתוכם, “I will dwell among them”).[29] In the light of this it cannot be seriously doubted that the promise to Abraham was not to attain fulfillment solely through the ritual of making a covenant with Israel without the additional indwelling presence of the God of Israel in the sanctuary in their midst.

Yet having already made the covenant the people were not prepared to wait for any further preparations to be made. While Moses was on the mountain being informed of the arrangements for the sanctuary, the people took it upon themselves to bring to consummation the promised relationship with their God. We advocate here that the episode of Exod 32:1-6 is to be seen as combining both a celebration of the covenant and the actuation of the divine dwelling among the people. The longer two-stage process that should have transpired,[30] first the covenant ceremony, then the provision of a sanctuary for the divine presence, was beyond their patience.

A number of correspondences exist between the account in ch. 32 and that of the covenant in ch. 24, which point to seeing the events surrounding the golden calf also in covenant terms. On this latter occasion, however, the events are initiated wholly by the people themselves rather than by God. In this narrative, we see many of the same elements that had taken place in that earlier covenant-making ceremony, but also further elements that Moses, by divine direction, was yet to put into motion to fully establish the relationship. We observe the following:[31]

1. The formula “who brought. . . out of Egypt,” descriptive of the redemptive act, is prominent in both contexts. These were part of the very first words of the Sinaitic law (20:2), read by Moses at the covenant ceremony (24:3). On the second occasion this deliverance was attributed to the idol (32:4, 8).
2. As Moses had built an altar (ויבן מזבח) at the foot of the mountain on which the theophany appeared (24:4), so Aaron built an altar (ויבן מזבח) in the presence of the calf (32:5).
3. On the earlier occasion burnt-offerings and fellowship-offerings were sacrificed to God (24:45), so precisely the same kinds of offerings were made as part of the celebration before the calf (32:6).
4. Eating and drinking forms part of the proceedings in both scenarios. On the former occasion the chief men of Israel, representing the whole people, “ate and drank” in the presence of God (24:11). On the latter the people “sat down to eat and drink” (32:6). This was a common component of covenant ceremonies.[32]
5. The later narrative recalls the earlier by its use of the verb “rose early” (שכם) on the morning of the actual celebration (32:6; cf 24:4).

Besides these echoes of the earlier covenant ritual there are also elements of the calf episode that point in the direction of the tabernacle. The requested donation of precious materials was necessary in the one case for the construction of the tabernacle (25:1-7), in the other for the casting of the idol (32:2-3). The basic element of gold used in molding the idol is prominent in the construction of the ark and other internal furniture of the sanctuary. Although the instructions regarding the making of the ark of the covenant had not yet been delivered to the people as a whole, a probable physical and conceptual association exists between the ark and the calf idol. It is more specifically the golden cherubim upon the lid of the ark (Exod 25:17-22) that may be related to the calf. There is some biblical evidence for a visual likeness between these in the visionary experiences of Ezekiel. In the first chapter of his book the prophet saw a vision of the glory of God, which included four living creatures. Each one had four wings and the feet of a calf (vv. 6-7). Each had four faces, listed (v. 10) as that of a man, a lion, an ox (LXX: μόσχος “calf”[33]), and an eagle. In a later occurrence of the same vision, the four creatures are designated “cherubim” (10:1-9). On this occasion when the faces are described they are that of a cherub, a man, a lion, and an eagle (v. 14). The original “ox” has been replaced by “cherub,” yet the vision is clearly intended to be identical to the earlier one.[34] There is some justification, therefore, in concluding that the general appearance of cherubim was of bovine creatures with wings. But whether the physical resemblance is actual or not, a connection may be perceived between the calf and the ark/cherubim at a functional level. This has been recognized by a number of OT scholars. Alter takes it beyond a matter of mere physical similarity when he remarks that

the golden icon was conceived as the terrestrial throne or platform for the deity . . . having precisely the same function as the cherubim over the Ark. The Golden Calf is thus a kind of anti-Tabernacle or anti-Ark, meant for the same end of making the divine dwell among the people but doing it in a prohibited fashion.[35]

A similar comment is made by Cassuto:

He [Aaron] made the calf in order to satisfy the need of the multitude to see at least a tangible symbol of the Deity’s presence, the same need that the Torah sought to gratify when it permitted the cherubim and even enjoined their construction.[36]

From the foregoing it may be concluded that the events of Exod 32:1-6 are to be interpreted in the light of the patriarchal divine-relationship promise. In the course of its fulfillment this was to consist of both covenant and indwelling. Though the former had by this stage been performed, the uncertainty of the latter due to Moses’ prolonged absence provoked Israel into re-enacting the covenant, this time with their god already in their midst. The people thus not only combine the two stages into a single event but also reverse the divinely instituted order. First they create the symbolic divine presence and then enact covenant ceremonies. The entire affair was of the people’s own initiation, their own design, and their own timing.

Taken as a whole, therefore, the affair of Exod 32 ought not to be considered as a blatant disregard for the covenant, but more precisely as a replacement of the earlier covenant ceremony. Since that previous transaction had not yet resulted in any tangible divine presence among the people, the very matter concerning which Moses was then being instructed, the Israelites made their own representation of indwelling deity and ratified the covenant with it. In this way, they expected the relationship promised in Gen 17:7 to be consummated.

This incident, like the others previously mentioned, had a calamitous outcome. As a consequence of their idolatry Moses’ initial response was to send armed Levites through the camp who put to death some 3,000 of the people (32:28). Following this many more perished through a plague sent from God (v. 35).

Some forty years later Moses reminded the Israelites of their great sin in the matter of the golden calf (Deut 9:7-21).

VI. The Common Pattern

In each of the foregoing accounts regarding the attempted human fulfillment of original divine promises, the same basic elements are to be found. These may be summarized as:

1. The incitement is presented through direct speech (introduced by the verb אמר).
2. Use is made of an expressly volitional verb or implicitly volitional sense of the verb.
3. There is a juxtaposed statement of grounds (with the particles הנה or כי).
4. The action results in a negative outcome.
5. There is a recalling or reiteration of the incident in a later text.

The common thematic relation of the four passages discussed to the patriarchal promises together with the commonality of these above features enables us to group these passages together as a distinct category of narrative episode, not unlike the “type-scene” identified by Robert Alter.[37] Though their frequency and the number of common elements might not be sufficient to warrant for these episodes Alter’s particular designation, it is nevertheless helpful to assign them a common label, such as, “Man’s attempt to fulfill a divine promise.”

The particular elements involved in these incidents prevent confusion with one of the well-defined biblical type-scenes—that of complaint in the wilderness. Various incidents are found in the Pentateuch which do bear some superficial resemblance to those we are dealing with, yet more detailed analysis leads to the conclusion that these belong to quite a different category. These episodes are the waters of Marah (Exod 15:22-25), the manna and quail (16:1-36), water from the rock (17:1 -7), complaint about hardships (Num 11:1 -3), craving meat (11:4-35), opposition to Moses (12:1-15), the report of the spies (14:1-35), the contention of Korah (16:1-35), the people’s response to Korah’s punishment (16:41-50), and the waters of Meribah (20:1-13). There are ten in total, three in Exodus and seven in Numbers. These are characterized by the occurrence of the verbs “grumble” (לון and אנן) or “contend” (ריב). The grounds for the complaint are generally expressed in the narrative part of the text rather than in direct speech.[38] The speech of the antagonists is typically expressed as an exclamation (“If only . . . !”) or a question (“Why . . . ?”/”What. . . ?”). Several of the incidents do result in negative outcomes.[39] Interestingly these are the whole group of seven found in Numbers, but none of those in Exodus.[40] Despite this particular similarity none of the foregoing complaint scenes has more than two elements in common with the type of episode under discussion in this article.

Thematically also the two are distinct. None of the complaint episodes relates directly to the ancient divine promises, but rather are concerned with the situation of Israel under Moses in the wilderness. Clearly in view of the foregoing we are looking at two distinct scenarios.

Finally, the presence of the pattern receives confirmation by the relationship of each individual episode to the literary corpus in which it is located, as mentioned at the close of section I above. Each of the major sections covering various parts of the metanarrative contains within it just one of these incidents, and it is the incident relating to the fulfillment of the promise with which that block of literature is primarily concerned. This is hardly coincidental.

From the above we may conclude with some conviction that there was not only deliberate authorial association of these passages through the common elements appearing in each, but that there was also conscious literary design in the inclusion of these passages in the places where they occur.

VII. Conclusion

The foregoing has demonstrated the presence of a pattern in the OT history relating to the outworking of each of the patriarchal promises—the offspring, the divine-human relationship, the land, and the king. The pattern has been established by thematic, structural, and verbal means. Yet merely to have identified an interrelated group of narrative episodes would be an inadequate conclusion to this article. Beneath the pattern discerned lies a particular trait of human nature—how man consistently refuses to trust in the divine word and sovereign grace, and insists on bringing about the divine blessing through his own efforts.

It would appear that the works-oriented false teachers who made their presence felt during the apostolic period, together with their adherents, were a further manifestation of this same negative spiritual characteristic. These sought to achieve the ultimate divine blessing of eternal salvation through their own endeavors. As is well known, it is chiefly in the epistles to the Romans and Galatians that the apostle Paul treats this issue. In the former Paul speaks of those who were “seeking to establish their own righteousness” (Rom 10:3), rather than receive the righteousness that God gives to those who believe. In the case of the Galatians, who were being diverted from true faith towards a works-based religion, Paul writes, “After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal[41] by human effort [lit. σαρκί ‘by flesh’]?” (Gal 3:3 NIV). As one argument in his attempt to combat this false teaching, Paul enlists the allegory of 4:21-31.[42] It is surely no coincidence that in this passage the apostle references one of the four OT incidents dealt with in this study, that concerning Hagar and Ishmael. This, we recall, was Abraham and Sarah’s own attempt to bring to fulfillment the divine promise that they would have a son. In his interpretation of these events Paul uses the same Spirit-flesh contrast as applied to the erring Galatians in 3:3 to speak of the manner of birth of the two sons. One is “born according to the flesh” and the other “according to the Spirit” (4:29), or, as he also says, “through the promise” (v. 23). From this description of the two sons the apostle draws an implicit analogy between those advocating justification by works of law and those accounted righteous by faith, the former corresponding to Ishmael in the manner of his birth (that is, “according to the flesh”), and the latter to Isaac, whose birth (“according to the Spirit”) related to the outworking of the divine promise. We see then that the underlying principle, here termed “the flesh,” involved in the physical conception and birth of Ishmael is identical to that motivating the works-based legalism threatening the Galatians. Paul’s use of this OT narrative, questioned by some modern scholars, is therefore seen to be exegetically valid. Both situations concern the same fundamental issue of men trying to attain what God has promised through their own self-effort, as contrasted with receiving the blessing through faith.

Notes

1. Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Nottingham: InterVarsity, 2006), 199-200.
2. When in the Abrahamic promises the term “nation(s)” is used respecting the future (Gen 12:2; 17:5-6), it is evidently part and parcel of the “seed” promise, seeing that the seed would multiply to become as numerous as the stars (15:5; 22:17). Similarly, the promise that Abraham’s seed would “possess the gates of his enemies” (22:17) is an added dimension of the “land” promise, the same Hebrew verb (ירש“possess”) being used in connection with both. Such elements therefore fall under the broader categories mentioned.
3. David J. A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (Sheffield: JSOT, 1978), 29.
4. As suggested by T. Desmond Alexander in From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch (Carlisle, U.K.: Paternoster, 2002), 85. This royal aspect is included in the more recent treatment of Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 63- 64.
5. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch, 29.
6. While more obvious in the books of Samuel and Kings the matter of kingship is nevertheless an important consideration in the book of Judges. Four times the author points out that “there was no king in Israel” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25), a contributing cause of the moral and spiritual degradation of the nation depicted in the book; cf. Daniel I. Block, Judges, Ruth (NAC; Nashville: Broad-man & Holman, 1999), 515, 583.
7. Excluding Ishmael, who was not the son of the promise (cf. Gen 17:19-21).
8. Cf. Glines (The Theme of the Pentateuch, 49): “What is happening at Sinai is primarily the establishment of the relationship of God and Israel (which is a fulfilment of the divine promise).”
9. See section II below.
10. See, for example, George Van Pelt Campbell, “Rushing Ahead of God: An Exposition of Genesis 16:1-16,” BSac 163 (2006): 276.
11. For this specific use of the particle, see Donald Slager, “The Use of ‘Behold’ in the Old Testament,” Occasional Papers in Translation and Text linguistics 3 (1989): 61-66.
12. By “volitional” is meant those verb forms expressing or appealing to the will, that is, basically in Hebrew the imperative, jussive, and cohortative; Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 564-65. The term “directive” is also sometimes employed with similar meaning; e.g., Christo H.J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naude, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 151-52.
13. Cf Bruce K. Waltke with Cathi J. Fredericks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 248, 256, 297.
14. Several correspondences exist between the two chapters (16 and 21). In both Sarah is hostile towards her handmaid, resulting in Hagar being expelled into the desert, where a well/spring of water is located. In both the desert is the place of an angelic encounter in which Hagar is told of her son’s future. Such similarities have even led some source-critics to see 21:8-21 as a doublet to ch. 16: but see Gordon J Wenham, Genesis 16-50 (WBC; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1994), 79.
15. Robert Alter describes this as a “resolution”; The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary (New York: W. W. Norton, 2004), 754. J. G. McGonville, Deuteronomy (Apollos Old Testament Commentary; Leicester: InterVarsity, 2002), 72, commenting on the parallel verse in Deut 1:41, also terms it a resolution. An expression of resolution may be said to be closer to a volitional sense [involving the determination of the will) rather than an indicative. The Contemporary English Version translates the clause in Num 14:40 by the overtly volitional, “Let’s go . . .”
16. For the plain prefix verb-form (yqtl) used in a volitional sense, including the cohortative, see E. Kautzsch and A. E. Cowley, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), §107ra.
17. This use of the particle כי to present grounds is more common than הנה. According to Slager (“The Use of ‘Behold’ in the Old Testament,” 63-64), the latter is more emphatic.
18. Cf Yisraell. Z. Herczeg The Torah with Rashi’s Commentary, vol.4, Bamidbar/Numbers (New York: Mesorah, 1999), 173.
19. Kaiser, The Promise-Plan of God, 112-13.
20. John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, vol 1: Israel’s Gospel (Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity 2003), 544-45.
21. Kaiser, The Promise-Plan of God, 114.
22. The need for a king to lead Israel into battle was also later expressed (8:20).
23. A detailed discussion of the issues may be found in V Philips Long, The Reign and Rejection of King Saul: A Case for Literary and Theological Coherence (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989).
24. Idolatry, not apostasy—the festivities around the calf-idol were performed “to the Lord” (32:5). Cf. 1 Cor 10:7.
25. On this significance of the tabernacle as a divine dwelling, see James R. Hamilton, God’s Indwelling Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Old and Mew Testaments (NAC Studies in Bible and Theology: Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2006), 35.
26. Exod 31:18 calls them “the two tablets of the testimony.” The Deuteronomic parallel, however, refers to them as “the tablets of the covenant” (9:9, 11, 15), suggesting they are closely linked to the earlier covenant ceremony. While these covenant documents remained on the mountain, it is hard to conceive that the covenant relationship was yet fully in effect.
27. Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 121-22: cf. John D. Currid, A Study Commentary on Exodus, vol. 2: Chapters 19—40 (Darlington, U.K.: Evangelical Press, 2001), 153.
28. Association of the divine residence in the tabernacle with the God—people relationship is also found in Lev 26:11-12.
29. In addition to this is the mention of the redemptive act of deliverance from Egypt which appears in the account of the golden calf (32:4).
30. It is to be observed that the divine covenant with Abraham also consisted of distinct stages over a period of time. The inaugural ceremony is recorded in Gen 15, while the moral response required and the covenant sign are introduced in Gen 17. It is noteworthy that the paragraph concerning circumcision as the sign of the covenant with Abraham (17:9-14) is replete with verbal similarities to that regarding the Sabbath as the corresponding sign of the Sinaitic covenant (Exod 31:12-17). Both of these are separated in time from the original covenant transaction.
31. Peter Enns notes several of these correspondences; Exodus (NIV Application Commentary: Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 571.
32. Gf. Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus (NAG; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2006), 557; cf. Gen 26:30; 31:46.
33. As appears in the related apocalyptic vision of Rev 4:7.
34. On the essential likeness of the two visions, see Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 1-24 (NIGOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 324-25.
35. Alter, The Five Books of Moses, 494.
36. Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997), 408. Cf. also Enns, Exodus, 569; Thomas W. Mann, The Book of the Torah: The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988), 106-7.
37. For the designation “type-scene” and its application to the Hebrew Bible, see Robert Alter. The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 50-62- A type-scene is basically a recurrent narrative episode having a common theme and following a fixed pattern. Some frequently occurring OT type-scenes are the birth annunciation, meeting the future bride at the well, and the divine epiphany.
38. Clauses expressing grounds with הנה or כי are entirely absent from the dialogue in these episodes.
39. A case could be made for taking the consequences of human action in “the-attempt-to-fulfill-the-divine-promise” episode as differing in kind from those in the complaint type-scene. The latter seven are all instances of direct divine judgment. In the former on the other hand it could be argued that the negative outcome is largely due to a direct consequence of the action of those involved. This is evidently the case with Abraham and Hagar. God does not intervene to punish. Rather Abraham and Sarah are left to suffer the rivalry and conflict resulting from the birth of Ishmael. In the attempt to take the land it is the Canaanites themselves at whose hands the Hebrews suffer. The same may be said for Israel’s demand for a king. God lets the nation experience what it is like to be ruled by a man such as Saul, who is unable to deliver them from the Philistines. In the events of Exod 32 such a direct result might be thought absent. Here, however, on the analogy of the law of suspected adultery in Num 5, some association might be established between the drinking of the powdered idol (32:20) and the plague that was to break out upon the people (v. 35).
40. While the earlier accounts in Exodus are of the same type-scene, containing complaints very similar to those of the later incidents concerning the lack of food and water, it cannot be merely coincidental that none of these first three has a negative result. Clearly God was more tolerant of the grumblings of Israel during the first days of their wilderness experience. It is only later, when the same complaints are repeated, even after witnessing the previous instances of divine provision, that God responds with judgment.
41. The verb ἐπιτελεῖσθε may also mean “are you being perfected?” (as NASB, ESV).
42. For a discussion of Paul’s use of the term “allegory” in this passage, see Moises Silva, “Galatians,” in New Bible Commentary (ed. D. A. Carson et al.; 4th ed.; Leicester: InterVarsity 1994), 1217. More accurately today, says Silva, this manner of handling the OT text would be described as “typology.”