Two texts in Deuteronomy have given me pause over the years, even puzzled me. They are Deut. 5:2-3 and 29:1. And the pause and puzzlement surround this question: Are two covenants to be understood, or one? Often it is stated that what we see here is covenant renewal. So the covenant "besides the covenant . . . made with [Israel] at Horeb" (29:1) is not a different covenant, but the same, only refreshed, as it were. This may be true, but I'm not sure yet. I'm not convinced. The language sounds stronger than that of renewal. And, look closely, the text does not call the covenant made with the present generation a renewed covenant. It almost sounds like old versus new covenant language.
So what's going on here? I'm not sure yet, but I raise this question. And wait for light from above. It seems that there are already—here in Deuteronomy—intimations of the inadequacy and impermanence of the old covenant and the expectation of a new. This should not surprise anyone either. For, after all, the law-covenant does not nullify the covenant promise to Abraham. Paul points this up in Galations 3 as immensely important. But, as I said, I wait for more light. And I acknowledge that the standard view may well be right.
No comments:
Post a Comment