Old Testament Theology

Reading the Hebrew Bible as Christian Scripture

R. W. L. Moberly

• Publisher: Baker Academic
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN:
  9780801097720
• eBook ISBN:
  9781441243096
• Topic: Teología y religión
• Subtopic: Crítica e interpretación bíblicas

A top Old Testament theologian known for his accessible and provocative writing probes what is necessary to understand and appropriate the Hebrew Bible as a fundamental resource for Christian theology and life today. This volume offers a creative example of theological interpretation, modeling a way of doing Old Testament theology that takes seriously both the nature of the biblical text as ancient text and also the questions and difficulties that arise as believers read this text in a contemporary context.

Walter Moberly offers an in-depth study of key Old Testament passages, highlighting enduring existential issues in the Hebrew Bible and discussing Jewish readings alongside Christian readings. The volume is representative of the content of Israel's Scripture rather than comprehensive, yet it discusses most of the major topics of Old Testament theology. Moberly demonstrates a Christian approach to reading and appropriating the Old Testament that holds together the priorities of both scholarship and faith.

1
A Love Supreme*

Where is a good place to begin if one wishes to hear the primary and most resonant voices of the Hebrew Bible? There are many possible starting points. One could certainly do worse than begin at the beginning with Genesis 1, since this majestic account of God’s creative work, together with its depiction of humanity as made “in the image of God,” introduces and frames all that follows in the canonical collection and continues to have enormous resonance. Nonetheless I propose that one can fruitfully start elsewhere, with one particular passage whose foundational and focal nature can readily be demonstrated—Deuteronomy 6:4–9, widely known by its Jewish name (derived from its first word in the Hebrew), the Shema.1

Introduction to the Shema

In the Shema, Moses, who is the speaking voice throughout Deuteronomy, says:

4Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.a 5You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. 6Keep these words that I am commanding you today in your heart. 7Recite them to your children and talk about them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you rise. 8Bind them as a sign on your hand, fix them as an emblem on your forehead, 9and write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

a Or, the LORD our God is one LORD; or, the LORD our God, the LORD is one; or, the LORD is our God, the LORD is one.

The primary importance of this paragraph is indicated in three interrelated ways. First and most broadly, its history of reception and use is enormous. Down the centuries countless Jews have recited these words morning and night (following the rabbinic construal of v. 7b), and many have used these words as their dying words, not least when they have been killed for being Jews. It is within this Jewish context that Jesus stands when he singles out 6:4–5 as the commandment that is “first of all,” that is, of supreme importance (Mark 12:28–30).

Second, the contextualization of these words within Deuteronomy means that they appear in the Old Testament’s most systematic account of the relationship between YHWH and Israel, whose perspectives inform substantial parts of the histories and the prophetic literature. Moreover, within Deuteronomy itself, these words are the keynote of Moses’s exposition of the covenant between YHWH and Israel. They are the first thing Moses says after being appointed as prophet/mediator between YHWH and Israel, which happens after YHWH’s direct address to Israel in the Ten Commandments is felt by Israel to be overwhelming (Deut. 5:22–33). The Shema follows a prefatory “Now this is the commandment . . . that the LORD your God charged me to teach you” (6:1).

Third, there is the straightforward implication of the wording of 6:4–9 in itself. First, YHWH, and YHWH alone, is presented as the appropriate recipient of Israel’s undivided allegiance (vv. 4–5). Then “these words” that Moses commands are of such importance that they are to be kept in mind, taught to the next generation, discussed constantly, displayed upon one’s person, and inscribed upon the entrances to both private and public spaces (vv. 6–9). It is hard to imagine greater emphasis than this being laid upon the significance of the Shema. Thus the history of its use and also its weighty contextual location are fully appropriate to the content of the Shema in itself.

One of the almost inescapable drawbacks of the regular use, or common knowledge, of famous biblical passages is that people can, through routine, become dulled as to the often-astonishing implications of the material. So it is worth trying to highlight the enormity of what the Shema says.

For some years my son and I have been regular supporters of one of the leading football (i.e., soccer) clubs in the North East of England, Sunderland AFC. The junior supporters’ club, of which he was a member while under sixteen, is called 24–7, the common contemporary idiom for “all the time.” The club magazine is called A Love Supreme. I confess that I note these names with a certain wry amusement and do not take them seriously; nor, I imagine, do numerous other Sunderland supporters (despite the passion with which many in the North East follow football), for we know what it is to live in a culture of linguistic inflation. And yet the idea of a love supreme that is for all the time is exactly that of which the Shema speaks; it is something that millions down the ages have taken with full seriousness. That is the content to which any worthwhile discussion must try to do justice.

Toward Establishing a Context for Interpreting the Shema

All attempts to discuss the Shema face two basic problems: translation and contextualization. Initially, therefore, it will be appropriate briefly to outline both these problems and the characteristic interpretations of the text to which they give rise.

The Problem of Translation

After the initial, and straightforward, invocation “Hear, O Israel,” there is more than one way of rendering the words that follow. Most modern translations, like the NRSV (cited above), offer in a margin/footnote at least three renderings other than that in the main text—though the various options tend to reduce to two main alternatives, in both of which it is clear that the final word ʾeḥād is in some way being predicated of Israel’s God.

The difficulty of translation arises from two factors. One is the fact that the Hebrew text is a noun clause consisting of four words with no verb: yhwh ʾĕlōhēnū yhwh ʾeḥād. It is regular Hebrew idiom to dispense with the verb if the clause in question is a subject-predicate clause in which the implied verb is some form of the verb “to be” (“A is B”). So almost all translators assume, surely rightly, that 6:4 presents such a subject-predicate clause. The problem is that it is not fully clear what is the subject and what is the predicate, a difficulty not helped by the fact that in Hebrew word order the predicate may either precede or follow the subject. All the translation variants arise from differing decisions as to subject and predicate. Nonetheless, despite differences, almost all interpreters agree that the final term, ʾeḥād, is in some way being predicated of Israel’s deity.2

The other difficulty is the sense to be ascribed to the final word, ʾeḥād. Should it have its common numerical sense, “one,” or does the context require it to have a different sense, such as “alone”?3 Views differ as to which of these senses should be chosen.4 Historically, the rendering “one” has predominated. For example, the LXX renders ʾeḥād by heis (one): kyrios ho theos hēmōn kyrios heis estin. Elsewhere it expresses “You are God/Lord alone” with monos (alone): sy ei ho theos/kyrios monos (Ps. 85:10 [86:10 ET]; 4 Regnorum 19:15 [2 Kings 19:15]).

Of the two main alternatives, one is “The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.”5 The other is “The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” The apparent difference in meaning is that the sense of the former concerns the relationship between YHWH and Israel. The point is that their relationship is to be exclusive, which is a primary and recurrent concern in Deuteronomy; in such a formulation, however, it is compatible with recognition of a plurality of deities (“whatever other deities there may be, Israel must adhere to YHWH alone”). In the latter rendering the text is saying something about YHWH Himself. The point is that He is “one”; whatever precisely that may mean, it has regularly been taken to be a locus classicus for biblical monotheism6—and correspondingly, the denial of the existence of any other deity.7 Thus the difference between the translations is apparently weighty.

The Problem of Contextualization (1): Living Tradition as Context for Interpretation

The basic problem of understanding that is focused in translation is compounded by another basic problem: what is considered to be the appropriate context for interpreting the passage? To try to clarify some of the issues at stake, I will outline three differing approaches.

One of the fundamental rules that we learn in biblical studies, as in the humanities generally, is “Interpret a text in its context.” This simple-sounding principle, however, obscures the difficulty that there is more than one context for most significant texts, especially biblical texts.8 In the case of the Shema in particular, the question “Which context?” is both weighty and contested.

For much of Jewish and Christian history, a common working assumption has been that the biblical canon as a whole, within the life and worship of an observant/believing community, provides the context for any particular verse; moreover, this context can include theological understandings and formulations that have arisen in post-biblical discussions. There is a long history of theological and philosophical reflection on what is entailed by God’s being “one” and on the nature of the “love” that should be directed to Him.

For Jews, unsurprisingly, the wording of the Shema has acquired its own existence in life and liturgy. It is, as Gunther Plaut puts it, “an example of original text and later tradition coalescing and impinging upon each other to a remarkable degree.” Plaut goes on to speak of the Shema as richly meaningful:

The Shema thus came to be like a precious gem, in that the light of faith made its words sparkle with rich brilliance of varied colors. Negatively, it underscored the Jew’s opposition to polytheism and pagan ethics, to the dualism of the Zoroastrians, the pantheism of the Greeks, and the trinitarianism of the Christians. Positively, the One God was seen to imply one humanity and therefore demanded the brotherhood of all; it spoke of the world as the stage for the ethical life and linked monotheism and morality. It meant that God undergirded all laws for nature and for mankind; hence heaven and earth as well as human history were His domain. . . . These principles were seen by generations of Jews as rays shining forth from the Shema, as from a diamond set into a crown of faith and proven true and enduring in human history.9

Time-honored issues (Jewish resistance to polytheism, pantheism, or trinitarianism) and contemporary concerns (affirmation of monotheism and morality) come together in this jewel of great and enduring value.

Somewhat comparably, Michael Fishbane concludes the introductory chapter to his recent Jewish Theology thus:

When we think of Jewish theology and its various components, we are put in mind of its most central statement of principle. This is stated in scripture and has been repeatedly interpreted over the ages. [Citation of Deut. 6:4–9 follows.]

Such is the theological charge: to affirm God in one’s life, through mind and heart and deed, through teaching and interpretation everywhere; and to cultivate a mindfulness of this duty through signs and symbols, so that one will always be reminded of the sanctity of the body and its actions—in the home (as the domain of one’s family and future generations) and in the city (as the domain of society and the sphere of interpersonal values). A modern Jewish theology will do this in its own distinctive way, resonant with our contemporary sensibilities and mind-set.10

The Shema still functions today as a fundamental articulation of the responsibilities of Jewish life and thought.

In a Christian frame of reference, one cannot find sentiments comparable to those of Plaut or Fishbane. Historic Christian use of the Shema has been both less in extent and more complexly refracted than Jewish use; and perhaps most important, the Shema has not featured in the practices of everyday C...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1. A Love Supreme
• 2. A Chosen People
• 3. Daily Bread
• 4. Does God Change?
• 5. Isaiah and Jesus
• 6. Educating Jonah
• 7. Faith and Perplexity
• 8. Where Is Wisdom?
• Epilogue
• Bibliography
• Author Index
• Subject Index
• Scripture Index
• Notes
• Back Cover