13

from other NE cultures. (Even the United States in slavery days had no laws protecting

slave rights; cf. Haley:Roots).

While the surviving law collections of these ancient NE cultures do have an

emphasis on justice for the widow and orphan, unlike Sinai law, they have no law

protecting the rights ofresident aliens--foreigners who in the ancient NE are often a

source for slaves (cf. Lev. 25:44-46). In general, Sinai and other biblical law tend to

emphasize human rights; in contrast, other NE law collections emphasize property

rights—that is, privileged “rights” for the upper classes, privilege which infringes upon

the rights of the lower classes. (Some have charged that the constitution of the United

States for the most part favors property rights above human rights, the rights of

propertied classes above the rights of the poor).

Hans Becker comments on Deuteronomy 15:12-15 (the law freeing the Hebrew

male or female slave after six years of service and providing them with a liberal bounty

from flock, threshing floor and wine press):

“Israel’s existence as a people freed from slavery demanded a different view of slavery

from that current elsewhere. It is particularly clear in the Deuteronomic slave law how

law in the Old Testament was interpreted and understood in an increasingly theological

way. The awareness that emerged in slave law also impinged on many other areas of life.

An essential feature of Deuteronomy is the theologization of older legal prescriptions.”

(underlining mine; quoted in Lind, Monotheism:67).

Summary and Prospect

According to the book of Exodus, Israel’s covenant law code is based upon its

particular experience of divine intervention--the exodus from Egypt and meeting with

Yahweh on the mountain. This intervention gives to Israel its revolutionary law. It

replaces NE empire law based on power politics and threat of retribution, for a law based

14

on covenant grace, infinite love and forgiveness, with extremely limited divine

retribution. Its equal justice accents “affirmative action”--preferential treatment for the

disadvantaged such as the slave, widow and orphan.

We will now examine the story of Elijah on the mountain, whose decisive action

and reflection lead the way in the historic struggle ofthe law and the prophets. In that

struggle, we will see how these principles of policy law—divine grace, infinite love and

forgiveness, so unlikethe NE kingship law of retribution--draw into tension the concept

of capital punishment which, likeNE law, still remains in technique lawwith its specific

laws of application (Covenant Code, Exod. 20:22-23:19).

ON THE MOUNTAIN WITH ELIJAH: THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS
Covenant Context and Policy Law transform Technique Law,1 Kings 19:1-18, Hosea 1-3

The Law and the Prophets

Jesus alludes to the Hebrew Scriptures as the law and the prophets (Matt. 22:40;

Luke 16:16). This title is in contradistinction to The Code of Hammurabi which, like

similar NE law codes, associates law primarily with kingship and its military services.

Hammurabi, supported by his military power, is called the king of justice (cf. ANET:163-

180; esp. 177-180). This NE reference is similar to our modern concept which associates

law with the police force and local, state/provincial, and national courts: “the law and the

police.”

The Bible differs from all extant NE literature in its overwhelming emphasis on

the prophets. While prophecies from the NE city of Mari, situated close to the traditional

place and time of Abraham, have many superficial characteristics ofbiblical prophecy,

they differ from the prophecies of the biblical canon in two major respects:First, they

predate the Moses’ revolution of law described above and therefore know only the power

15

oriented basis for law and city-state: “the law and the king.”Their prophetic concern is

directed toward the material well-being of the cult (temples, etc.) and of the kingship

state, rather than to the biblical prophetic concern, the communal and individual covenant

relationship of the people to divinity and to one another.

Second, unlike the prophets of the biblical canon, the oracles of these NE Mari

prophets were never gathered up and written down on a scroll to edify and give direction

to future generations who may meet up with similar situations. (cf. Jeremias:22-27; 104-

107). Evidently, their prophecies were not considered meaningful beyond the immediate

situation to which they prophesy. Nor were their prophets given a preeminent place in

their social and political order, as happened in Israel according to the biblical canon,

especially in the exile period and after.

The largest segment of the Hebrew Bible consists of the first (Joshua, Judges,

Samuel, Kings) and later prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Book of the

Twelve—our minor prophets). Even thebooks of Kings are classified as prophetic books

by the ancient Hebrews and Jesus. Though the literary structure of these books simply

follows the successive reigns of kings, their main concern is obedience to the word of

God as spoken through the prophets. These, and the gathered oracles of the later

prophets, were intended to give religious, social and politicaldirection for the moment in

which they were spoken. But beyond that, the oracles of the later prophets were gathered

up and written down, with appropriate editorial additions, to give direction for the people

of God in comparable situations of the future (cf. Jeremiah 36).

Beginning with Elijah, it is these two points of difference which concern us here:

1) The prophets’ reflective revaluation of Sinai law; 2) in their prophetic role as leaders

of Israel’s historic religious and political struggle against the Baal-like kingship gods of

the NE.