THE BUILDING OF THE “HOUSE OF DAVID” BY GOD

THE BUILDING OF THE “HOUSE OF DAVID” BY GOD,

AS A REWARD FOR THE PROPOSED BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE

IS THE FORMAL ESTABLISHMENT OF MESSIANISM

IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.

The King in Israel, as exemplified in David, was a charismatic leader, ruling vicariously for Israel's true monarch: Yahweh. As God's vicar, David has divine strength and wisdom since he had received Yahweh's spirit at his anointing (1 Sam 16,19). As he was the intermediary between Yahweh and the people, national prosperity depended upon his promises to God (2 Sam 24,1-25). In him the covenant promises were recapitulated and with each successive king of the Davidic line a new symbol arose that Yahweh's favor still rested with his people. Kingship originated in Israel because the Philistine threat would no longer be met by such occasional leader but soon became by popular acclamations, the anointed king. After God's rejection of Saul and David's anointing, the monarchy became more closely connected with the Messianic hopes.

 

I.          Nathan's Prophecy

      The oracle of Nathan in 2 Sam 7,5-16 is the most important text concerning royal Messianism and it is the formal establishment of Messianism in the Old Testament. Its essential elements are:

1. Yahweh refuses David's preferred house (temple).

2. He reviews the benefits that he has showered upon David and his nation.

   3. He instead will build for David's a permanent 'house' (dynasty), which He will treat as His son and uphold with his covenant's loyalty forever. 2 Sam 7 is called the dynastic oracle of Nathan. By this oracle Yahweh promised an eternal reign for the dynasty of David. Inasmuch as he was the Lord of the world, the glories of worldly kingdoms would be used to suggest the destiny; it was thus, that the 'court style' was justified, hence, there developed in Israel what is called 'royal messianism'. The royal psalms (and also the prophets Is 7,11) record this vision of the reigning king; he reigns not so much in and for himself, but insofar as he is a member of a fated dynasty, the vehicle of God's plans. There could be no exaggeration of his glory and power for they were guaranteed by Yahweh. Yahweh had made an eternal covenant with the Davidic dynasty to which this king belonged; through him will come the realization of God's kingdom.

 

II.        The Term 'Messiah'

    A. Etymology

  

   The English word is from Aramaic 'mesiha’, reflecting Hebrew 'masiah', 'anointed'; the Greek is 'Christos' whence 'Christ'. There are two distinctions: Messiah (capitalized) and messiahs (or salvific figures). The Old Testament and late Judaism knew of a gallery of salvific figures who were expected to appear at the time of God's definitive intervention on behalf of Israel e.g., Elijah, the prophet like Moses, perhaps the Suffering Servant, the Son of Man, the Anointed Priest, etc. These figures can loosely be called messianic. - But the capitalized Messiah is best confined to a precisely delineated concept, namely the anointed king of the Davidic dynasty who would establish in the world the definite reign of Yahweh.

    B. Development of the Notion of Messiah

      The expectation of the Messiah appears in post-exilic Judaism (although in the OT Messiah is not used as a title in the sense we are using it). From the frequency and spontaneity with which the question of the Messiah appears in the NT (Mk 8,29; 14,61; Jn.1,20; 4,25) and also from the evidence of post biblical Jewish writings we are safe in assuming that the expectation of the Messiah was very common in late intertestamental Judaism and could perhaps be called a national hope. However, not all Jews expected the Messiah. In the first century A.D. many lost faith in the Davidic dynasty, which had not ruled for 500 years; and there are late Jewish books that treat of eschatological questions without ever mentioning the Messiah. Moreover, even those who did hope for the Messiah did not necessarily confine their hopes to the Messiah. Often the expectation of the Messiah was accompanied by some of the other expectations mentioned above; at Qumran the sectarians awaited the coming of the Prophet, of the Davidic Messiah, and of the anointed Priest.

      Indeed there may have been an amalgamation of the figure of the Messiah with other salvific figures, e.g., the Suffering Servant, or the Son of Man, into one composite figure. Certainly, this happened in the Christian description of Jesus, but the evidence is quite uncertain for determining whether this happened in pre-Christian Judaism. In particular, the Christian must be warned that, while the late Jewish hope of the Messiah was highly idealized almost to the point of making the Messiah a figure of superhuman abilities, there was no expectation of a Divine Messiah in the sense in which Jesus is professed as Son of God.

    C. Development of Royal Messianism

      That God sent saviors to deliver His people (Moses, the Judges, Nehemiah, Ezra) is a commonplace in Israel's theological understanding of its history. But Messianism is involved with the salvific role of men in the framework of an institution, the monarchy.

     

      1. The First Stage of Development

       In the first days of the Davidic monarchy in Judah every anointed king (messiah) was looked on as a savior sent by God to His people. There is no record in the OT of a similar sublimation of the kingship in northern Israel. It is altogether probable and generally agreed that the first literary record of the messianic character of the dynasty of David is found in the oracle of Nathan, preserved in three forms: 2 Sam 7; 1 Chr 17; Ps 89; Ps 132. The Royal Psalms (in particular Psalms 2; 72; 110; 35,15; 20,88) should be considered in the first stage of messianism. These psalms were compositions applicable to any Davidic monarch, and they have been recited on important occasions in the life of the monarch, like the coronation.

      2. The Second Stage of Development

       In the writings of the 8^th century, there is a development in royal messianism. Wicked and inept kings like Ahaz had dimmed the glory of the Davidic line and the optimistic hope that each king would be a savior of his people. Isaiah in particular, gives voice to a more nuance expectation: there would be an in break of the power of Yahweh that would revive the dynasty and insure its permanence. Yahweh would soon raise up a successor who would be worthy of the name of Davidic king; he would be an example of charismatic power, just as David had been when the royal line was instituted.

      3. The Third Stage of Development

       The post-exilic development of messianism is difficult to trace because of the lack of written evidence; in part, we must reconstruct its history from the end product, namely, the expectation of the Messiah in the latest pre-Christian period. The fact that the Davidic line no longer ruled after the exile made a profound difference in messianism. Before the exile, the ideal king who would restore the vigor of the Davidic line could always be thought of in terms of the next generation of a reigning dynasty. But now there could be no ideal king until the indefinite future when the Davidic throne would be restored. Thus, the expectations began to move toward the indefinite future; and rather than centering on one monarch in a continuing line of rulers, these expectations came to center on one supreme king who would represent Yahweh's definitive intervention to save his people. It is in this period that we may begin to speak of "the Messiah" in the strict sense.

      In summation, in the course of 1000 years Israelitic messianism developed to the point where the expectation of the Messiah embodied one of the principal hopes for Yahweh's intervention to save His people. While this king savior, almost by definition, would be a political savior, he would a savior in virtue of the charisma and power of Yahweh and so his saving acts would never be merely political. In his reign, the Messiah would bring to Israel the ideal rule of Yahweh, Himself. That the salvation mediated by the Messiah would have a scope outside Israel is less frequently mentioned and is often viewed chauvinistically. Yet granting that the origins of the concept of anointed king, we may be surprised that the wider view occurs as often as it does.

III.       2 Samuel 7:1l-16 (Exegesis)

The Birth of the nation Israel under Moses and the conquest of Canaan under Joshua did not assuage but increased Israel's expectations. As the kingdom of God on earth, whose king was God Himself, there was no limit to what Israel might expect. However, how she would become great is another question. In the late 11^th century, with the institution of the monarchy in Israel, it was thought that the answer was at hand - Israel would be great through her kings. God would rule Israel and extend his rule from Israel to the world through the kings. For 400 years and more (1000-587 B.C.), the theocratic nation experimented with the arrangement. The experiment failed and the failure was clear in 587, but out of the experiment, came something positive _ the assurance that someday God world raise up a successful king from the line of David and through Him, God would fulfill His plans for Israel and the world. The foundation for this belief is found already in Nathan's oracle to David.

The circumstances which the oracle was given are described in 2 Samuel 7. Considering it a disgrace that he should live in a place while the Ark of the Covenant is housed in a tent, David decides to build a temple and is encouraged by Nathan. Returning later and speaking under inspiration, Nathan tells David that he is not to build a temple (cf.1 Chr 22,7-8 for the reason). God, however, is not displeased with David. He has done much for David in the past and will do far more in the future.

The oracle that follows, God promises perpetuity to the house of David and adopts David as His son just as he has adopted Israel as His son at Sinai. In return for the material house David would have built for God, God promises to David a royal "house", i.e., a dynasty which will endure forever. That house and seed are to be taken in a collective sense including the successors of David is clear from the context: the emphasis on "forever" (vv 11d, 13b, 15-16, 19, 25, 29), and the contrast with the house of Saul (15-16). The full significance of the oracle, however, depends on the meaning of the term 'forever'. In Hebrew, "forever' (adh’olam) is ambiguous. It can mean a long time, indefinitely long but not forever (cf 1 Sam 1,23; 27,12) or forever in the full sense of without end. That the latter is the meaning of the oracle is clear from the emphasis on the term throughout from David's evident amazement and from the contrast expressed between the short-­lived dynasty of Saul and that to be David's, The same implication is present in the distinction between the conditional nature of the promise as applied to the individual kings and the absolute nature of the promise as applied to the dynasty.

It is now almost universally agreed among exegetes that the oracle of Nathan is the root and foundation of dynastic or royal messianism in Israel. The development of the expectations to which it gave rise can be seen in the Psalms 2, 44, 71, 88, 109, and in the royal messianism of the prophets especially Isaiah and Micah.

THE COVENANT BETWEEN GOD AND ISRAEL AT MOUNT SINAI

THE COVENANT BETWEEN GOD AND ISRAEL

AT MOUNT SINAI (Exodus 19 - 24)

I.          Introduction

      The Old Testament Books revolve around the constant idea of choice, deliverance, assurance between Yahweh and the Jewish people. It is thus said that from among the different books of the Old Testament, Exodus stands out as the very center, for it is in this book that the Sinaitic Covenant is found. The Sinaitic Covenant is nothing more than the fundamental choice of the Jewish people for Yahweh as their God, "I will be your God and you will be my people". This fundamental option for God brings with it through strict compliance the blessings and protection for the people; and for Yahweh, sole worship arid due recognition as 'the God' of Israel.

 

II.        Nature

      The concept of covenant is understood as either 1) an agreement, or 2) as a contract. While there is implied the existence of two parties in both terms, the second, contract, brings with it the important concept of strict compliance.

      There are three types of covenant: 1) between two parties of equal status, i.e., between two tribes; 2) between a superior and his vassal, i.e., a sovereign and his subjects, and 3) by superior to himself for the benefit of the inferior, i.e., a self imposed obligation on the part of the sovereign for the benefit of the subjects. The Sinaitic covenant falls under the second category, because it concerns a sovereign: Yahweh and His vassal, the Jewish people.

 

III.       Historicity

      The text of Exodus 19-24 is proven by redaction criticism to have been written long after the occurrence of the event and by an author who could not have been present during the giving of the tablets, for only Moses was allowed on the mountain. There then exists a problem in the historicity of the text. G.E. Mendelhall poses a solution to the problem, which most biblical scholars accept nowadays. His solution is based on two aspects.                                                                                                              

­

1.  The discovery of a Hittite sovereign treaty dated contemporary to the probable time of occurrence of the Sinaitic covenant, gives the same basic structure and proves that such treaty existed and was prevalent during that time.

2.   The existence of an annual liturgical celebration which is the 're-enactment' of that basic choice of the Jewish people for Yahweh as their God. This implies that this celebration is merely the repetition of a historical event which this celebration takes as its source.

      From these two points, we can conclude that the full history of the Sinaitic event cannot be deduced from the Exodus, but only the historical aspect of it. By the historical, we mean that the text from Exodus is the theological interpretation of the hagiographer on the historical event in Sinai - the real confrontation between Yahweh and His people, Israel. This does not, however, insinuate that the event is not true.

 

IV.       Covenants

      In general, a covenant is a pact, a treaty or a treatment made by men as a sign of agreement among men or among nations, for the purpose of ensuring that rights are recognized and or obligations of both parties are established in a public or ceremonial manner. Even before the biblical revelation era, such pacts or alliances existed already so much so that in the second millennium B.C. the 'suzerainty treaty', referred to by Mendelhall (Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East, 1955) just like the Hittite alliances was generally employed in international relations of the period. This means to say that long before God made or entered into a covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai, men of the time were very familiar with the idea of pacts or alliances or covenants taken in the most general sense.

      However, the biblical usage of the term 'covenant' not only connotes a relationship among men, but a covenant which binds the divinity to man. The pagans of the ancient East knew nothing of such kind of 'divine covenant' though they knew that there are relations between man and his god. Nevertheless, such religious paganism as found in Babylon, Egypt, Syria, culminates in an ill-defined kinship where the god, brother, father, or mother, penetrates human life but does not really raise it to the level of divinity. Thus for Paganism, the union of god and man does not go beyond sharing in dominion over the earth and the divinized power of nature. In other words, since these ancient people identify the deity, any covenant, for that matter, would remain in the natural plane. This consideration of the conception of covenant is necessary for a proper conception of the same term in its biblical context.

   

    A. Divine Covenant

      In the Old Testament, we find Yahweh making repeated promises: to Abraham (Gen 21,27.32), to Isaac (Gen 26,28), and so on to David (2 Sam 5,3) - and at the same time laying down stipulations and directives. These, in fact, are treaties between men, with Yahweh as witness. For in those times, a covenant between men was originally a verbal agreement in a culture that did not keep written records. Mutual agreements and obligations were solemnly professed in the presence of witnesses and with imprecatory oaths and sacrificial rites. The fidelity of those who pledged the covenant was insured less by memory of witnesses (that substituted for the written document) than by the threat of vengeance by the deity invoked as a witness and by a belief in the power of the spoken word. Similarly, God took man's way of dealing with man and adapted it to the supernatural. Thus Yahweh entered into a supernatural covenant with Israel as a means to communicate His will—from being the God of one man to become the God of a clan, a nation, a Church.

      This covenant is unequal contract, conceived on the lines of a treaty of vassalage, where the people bind itself by oath to carry the stipulations of Yahweh, its God. Such covenant goes beyond the association between Yahweh and the patriarchs; it reached Mount Sinai with the role of Moses as the intermediary, without such details, we see that the covenant of Sinai is presented above all as a sacred mean in the presence of God (Ex 24,1 ff. 9f), and that it is sanctioned by a decree of the Lord (Ex 34,10-28) in which like the kinds of the time, Yahweh regulated the worship, the sacrifices, and the annual fests at which the people came into His presence, to the 'house of Yahweh'.

      It is Moses who writes down the order of God which is the condition for the blessing given to His people. The covenant with Israel is not simply an alliance based on the bonds of blood as between kindred’s; it is a conditional alliance in which the people is bound to respect the demands made upon it in the moral and religious order. Moreover, although the covenant undoubtedly remains a pact in the nature of treaty or alliance, with stipulations, undertakings, blessings, and curses, and above all, it is a free act of Yahweh (Dt.7,7ff) founded on the promises made to the patriarchs.

   

    B. Characteristics of the Covenant

      1. Covenants are usually bilateral, i.e., with obligations on both parties. It is to be noted, however, that Israel and Yahweh by means of these covenants do not in any real sense meet on equal terms. God is 'bound' by His promise only because he makes it. He is bound to Himself because he cannot be false to His promises. It is in this sense that we speak of bilateral covenant between Yahweh and Israel.

      2. Sometimes, a penalty is laid down for breaking the covenant, i.e., death as a result of the sin of Adam. It is because, instead of letting the people perish by its sins, God is so faithful to the covenant that he takes responsibility for their misery and makes of it a chastisement to lead the people to repentance and penance.

      3. Covenants are always initiated by God. It is less a pact than a gracious act of God, the result of a positive action of Yahweh, which is often called 'election'.

      4. Covenants are initiated by God for the good of man, i.e., a share in the life of God. It is also for the guarantee of Yahweh's blessings, to sustain life, peace, God's saving acts, and to be constituted as God's people.

    C. The Suzerainty Treaty and the Sinai Covenant

      Mendelhall has shown that the Israelite covenant follows the form of the suzerainty treaty, which widely employed in the 'international relations' during the second millennium B.C., the argument for dating the origin of Sinai covenant. The suzerainty treaty is imposed upon a vassal by an overlord and is not bilateral. The vassal is obliged by the treaty; the overlord is not strictly obliged by the promises he makes.

 

Elements in the suzerainty treaty:

1.   Preamble - identifies the overlord and gives his genealogy and titulary.

2.  Historical Prologue - a recital of the benefits conferred upon the vassal by the overlord; here, the 'I-Thou' form of address is used.

3.  Stipulations imposed upon the vassal - prohibitions, observance of the law, fulfillment of obligations, full confidence in the overlord, no asylum to fugitives from the overlord, annual appearance before the overlord.

                  4.   Provision for the deposit of the treaty in the temple and for periodic public reading.

5.   Witness -list of gods who witnessed the treaty

6.   Curses and blessings for violation of the treaty

7.   Vassal's oath of obedience

8.   Solemn ceremony of oath

9.   Procedures against rebellious vassals

     

The elements of the treaty formula, however, are not to be found in a single specific account of the covenant in the Pentateuch. Rather, the elements are scattered through the covenant narratives of the Pentateuch.

            1.    Preamble - the enumeration of Yahweh's titles is illustrated in Exodus 34,6

2.  Historical Prologue - the recital of the saving deeds of Yahweh is common (Ex 19,14; 20,2; Jos.24,2-13). The entire composition of the Pentateuch sets the laws of Israel in a narrative framework that relates Yahweh's deliverance of Israel.

3. Stipulations are the laws themselves. They include the prohibition of the worship of other gods, and even of the cult of images.

4. Provision for the deposit - tradition speaks that the tablets of stones on which the Decalogue had been written were preserved in the Ark of the Covenant (I K 8,9).

5. Witness - it is Yahweh.

6. The relations between the vassals are parallel to the relations of the Israelite tribes with each other, and the exhortations to trust Yahweh correspond to the obligation of trust in the overlord.

7. The provision for regular reading of the covenant is not found explicitly but is assumed by most modern scholars even without reference to the treaty formula (cf Dt 27)

8. Blessings and curses appear in Lv 26 and Dt 27-28.

 

V.        Covenant Theology

The Sinai covenant between God and the Israelites was not only a landmark in the history of Israel but also a landmark in the history of religion. For the covenant became the principle of Israel's unity as a people. Initiated by Yahweh through an act of 'election', Israel became God's chosen people. By the saving acts of Yahweh, Israel was established as a people, with the identity and stability that the word 'people' denotes. But such an election made by Yahweh is an act of love of Yahweh, not because of the greatness of merits of Israel. And on account of this election that it imposes upon Israel the responsibility of recognizing Yahweh alone as God and of keeping his commandments.

From these considerations, we can see that the relationship of Yahweh and Israel is unique in the religions of the world. Such a unique relationship is found it the analogy of the covenant. But we can only appreciate it by considering a number of analogies found in the Old Testament that describe Israel's relationship with Yahweh.

Father and son analogy - Yahweh is never called the physical progenitor of Israel: he 'begets' Israel by forming a people for himself. What constitute this relationship are the paternal and filial attitudes of love, devotion and obedience, and not the relations of carnal kinship. Therefore, the sonship of Israel is that of being adopted, the natural.

Marriage - this analogy highlights the aspect of Yahweh's initiative, just as in ancient marriages it was always the man who chose his wife. We see in Hosea and Jeremiah that this analogy on matrimony puts the emphasis on the relation of love: the fidelity of Israel is a work of love and her infidelity is a personal offense against God.

Shepherd and Flock - A shepherd is bound to his flock by a devotion to which corresponds the confidence of the sheep. The analogy is that Yahweh is the protector of Israel.

Kinsman - Yahweh is called the 'avenger' of Israel. In this analogy, Yahweh acts not as a proctor and the security of Israel but also a kinsman, albeit, the obligation of the avenger is freely assumed by the deliberate will of Yahweh.

King and Subject - more implied in the analogy of the covenant rather than being explicit. Where the title of king is given to Yahweh, it stresses His power and His will to save.

    A. A Covenant Theology

      During the period of the Judges and the monarchs, Israel as a people included a number of groups of diverse origins, most of which have not shared the experience of the Exodus and the settlement. These were joined to the original group of Israel by accepting the covenant of Yahweh with Israel. The traditions of Yahweh's saving acts became the traditions of the entire group; and the obligations of worshipping Yahweh alone, became the normative. Thus, Israel was primarily religious and not an ethnic unity.

      This point was described by M. Noth interpreting the covenant account as some kind of amphictyony. That is, a league of cities or tribes organized around a central shrine, they constitute an amphictyony. That was the situation at the time of Moses' successor Joshua who established Shechem as the meeting place of the tribes of Israel - where they renew their covenant every year, and where each tribe provides for the upkeep of the central shrine for one month.

      In the theology of the covenant, the establishment of the monarchy is of central importance. During the period of the Judges, the life of Israel was marked by infidelities to the covenant, chastisements, appeals to the mercy of Yahweh, and the regrouping of the people around the Ark of the Covenant. It was during the time of the Book of Samuel, that transition was made from amphictyony to the monarchy. With the change, a note of perpetuity, permanence, or rather stability into the covenant is manifested by the dynastic national sanctuary (of David). Thus even when the northern kingdom abandoned the dynasty after the death of Solomon, the Ark of the Covenant, along with the tablets of the law, made it possible for the faithful to find the true God (Is 8,14-18) the priestly group of Zadok and his sons were able to preserve the national tradition.

      At the decline of the monarchy, it fell on the prophets (Amos, Hosea, Elijah, Isaiah, Micah) the task of reminding Israel about the covenant. These propjets rarely used the term covenant; yet, the basic themes of the covenant theology pervaded their prophetic life (the sovereignty of Yahweh, their unique obligation to Him). At this stage in the history of Israel's covenanted people, a new dimension arises: The covenant has been broken but God will remember it and 'raise up' an eternal covenant in which 'Sodom and Samaria will share' (Ez.16,59-62). This eternal covenant is founded in God's 'steadfast love for David' (Is 54,3) in which the nations will share, the only condition being that men turn towards Yahweh, the God of Israel and abandon their evil ways (Is 54,3-7).' Consequently, fidelity becomes essentially a personal question for each man before God rather than a collective loyalty to the covenant on the part of the nation.

    B. Covenant: Old and New

      Saint Paul speaks of covenant in the Old Testament, each of which comprises a gift, a demand, and a sign (Rom 9, 4).

    OLD Testament­

1. Covenant between God and Noah - it is a covenant for all humanity. God continues to sustain life in spite of cosmic catastrophes, but only for those who do not shed blood. Sign: Rainbow

2. Covenant with Abraham - an eternal covenant under which God grants progeny. It calls for integrity of conduct before God. Sign: Circumcision

3. Covenant with Moses at Mt. Sinai - it makes of Israel a kingdom of priests and a holy nation by reason of the calling of Aaron and the institution of the priesthood and the sanctuary.

      By the covenant of Noah, the covenant was broadened to take in all nations; by that of Aaron, the covenant was given a greater depth of holiness and consecration. This divine covenant is a testamentary disposition of one's goods in favor of an heir, or the disposition of the written document in a shrine appears as a word which covers the whole will of God for man - the eternal covenant, the law of life, the divine commandment.

    NEW Testament ­

      In the New Testament, it is the Letter to the Hebrews with its interest in the liturgy, which frequently speaks of the covenant. Jesus of Nazareth is the mediator of the new covenant (Heb 9,15); 'By the blood of the eternal covenant' (Heb 13,20). By his death which has redeemed the transgressions of the first covenant, he has given the promise of eternal inheritance to those who are called (Heb 9,15-16). This covenant has been promised by God and the Letter to the Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31,31 (Heb 8,8), while at the same time, recalls the blood of the covenant at Sinai (9,20). Finally, the great instrument of the establishment of the new covenant was the Lord's Supper: 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this in memory of me.' (1 Cor 11,25).

VI.       The Sinaitic Covenant

In Sinai God fulfills His promise to Abraham (Gen 12,13), extending His covenant to the Israelites, amplifying laws and obligations, taking the Israelites to Himself as His covenanted nation (Ex 19,24), and promising them His blessing, protection, prosperity and peace. His greatest promise is one of intimate familiarity: "I will make my dwelling among you; I will not reject you. But I will walk among you as surely as I am your God: I will be your God and you will be my people" (cf. Lv. 23,3-13)

The Sinaitic covenant may be summarized as follows:

1. It is bilateral. On the part of God, the promises made to Abraham are extended to the whole nation of Israel; on the part of Israel, what was required of Abraham is not required of Israel plus obedience to the Mosaic Law (Ex 20,23).
2. It is conditional. De facto, it is broken by the Israelites and repudiated by God.
3. Circumcision is continued as the external sign of those who enter the covenant.
4. There is extraordinary familiarity. God Himself dwells in the midst of the nation in the Tabernacle above the Ark of the Covenant.

      Other notable circumstances of the Sinaitic covenant are:

1.      the providential preparation and vocation of Moses as mediator and prophet (Ex 2,6)

2.      the miraculous liberation of the Israelites from the Egyptian slavery

3.      the inauguration of the covenant with a great and memorable theophany

4.      the ratification of the covenant by the people as a group

5.      and lastly, a special book of laws known as the 'The Book of the Covenant'

    A. The Covenant and the Kingdom of God

      As a result of the Sinai covenant, the Israelites became immediate subjects and constitute a unique theocratic nation. In the theocratic kingdom of Israel, God Himself becomes both religious and civil ruler of His people. He makes Himself king, lawgiver and judge of Israel. He gives her a political constitution not like that of other nations and exercises judgment either directly of indirectly, i.e., through His appointed vicars (Moses at first, later the charismatic judges and the Davidic kings). He remains King of Israel until the moment when the scepter passes from the human vicar-kings to the hands of Him to whom it belongs pre-eminently - Christ the King - King not only by the Israelites but of all men and all nations. (cf 1 Cor 15,22-28; Ep 5,24-33; Heb 12,18ff; Gal 3-4)

      In God's providential design, the Church - nation instituted at Mt. Sinai was meant to grow and find true spiritual fulfillment. Eventually, therefore, the alliance between Church and nation will have to be dissolved. The dissolution will take place during the Apostolic Age. In the years between 50 and 75 A.D., due principally to the persistence of St. Paul in dissociating the true Israel of God from the outmoded form and laws of the dispossessed Sinaitic covenant, the Old Testament Church-nation will break its nationalistic bonds and become universal in the Church founded by Christ Jesus.

St. Thomas’ Analysis of the Nature and Kinds of Law

St. Thomas’ Analysis of the Nature and Kinds of Law

I.          Essence and Nature of Law

    A. Definition: law is an ordinance of reason for the common good and promulgated by the person who has care for the community

    B. Elements:

        1. Ordinance of reason (formal cause): this means the law must be based on the insight of reason into the value. It must be reasonable.

        2. For the common good (final cause): It must have as its goal the value lying in the good of the community upon which it is imposed.

        3. By the person who has the care of the community (efficient cause): only those ordinances have the force of law which are imposed by competent or legitimate authority

        4. Promulgated: that is, the law must be known or promulgated

II.        Division of Law

1.      In respect to the author, law is either divine or human depending whether it is instituted by God or by man. Divine law if further divided into eternal, natural and positive.

2.      In respect to the object, law is either affirmative or negative, in so far as it is either enjoins or forbids some actions.

III.       Divine Law

1.      Eternal Law: The existence of eternal law is deduced from the fact that the world is ruled by divine providence. The plan of providence rest upon eternal, universal principles existing eternally in God for the direction of all actions and movements to their proper end. This comprises the eternal. This law is eternal because it exist in the mind of God. This plan, therefore, is truly law.

2.      Definition: According to St. Thomas. Eternal law is the plan flowing from God’s wisdom directing all actions and movements. According to St. Augustine, eternal law is the divine reason and /or will of God Himself commanding the preservation of the natural law and forbidding its disturbance.

3.      The eternal has all the elements of a true law:

a.      It is eternal and unchangeable as the author Himself, God. As part of the divine plan, eternal law existing from all eternity in the mind of God even before the creation of the universe.

b.     It is absolutely universal for its rules all things and actions, either free, contingent or necessary.

IV.       Natural Law

1.      Existence:

a.      As biblical proof, Rom. 2:14-16 clearly enunciates:

                                i.     That the pagans who had no Mosaic law knew and observed certain precepts of the natural law;

                              ii.     That this law is written in the heart of each and every man;

                             iii.     That on the Day of Judgment God will judge according to this law.

b.     According to the church Magisterium, Leo XIII in his encyclical Praestantissimum (Jun 20, 1888) states that such is the supreme law of all, the natural law which is imprinted and engraved on the heart of all men.”

2.      Definition: St. Thomas – natural law is nothing else than the rational creatures’ participation in the eternal law. This definition of natural law includes all the elements pertaining to the definition of law in general. This participation as produced by God is natural objectively considered; as known by man it is natural law subjectively received. It is termed natural law because:

a.      Man is subject to it from the moment of his birth;

b.     It contains only those precepts which are derived from the very nature of man;

c.      It can be grasped by the natural light of man’s reason without the aid of divine or human authority.

3.      Concept of Natural Law

a.      Natural law is that moral order which is knowable by sound human reason without the aid of supernatural revelation.

4.      Subjects of Natural Law

a.      All men are subjects of natural law, no matter when or where they live. Therefore even the children and insane are subjects of natural law and in consequence it is wrong entice them t trespass it.

5.      Object of Natural law

a.      The object of natural; law is the moral order as known by human reason and which has to be observed by man.

6.      The Precepts of Natural law

There are three types of precepts in the natural law

a.      Primary precepts: are those which promote the principle ends of nature either by imposing acts which attain them, e.g. since bodily health is a primary goal of nature, the excess both of gluttony or starvation is prohibited by a primary precept of the natural law; they obstruct the primary goal of nature. They are the most universal precepts.

b.     Secondary precepts: either promote the subordinate goals of nature or facilitate the attainment of its primary goals. Thus, gluttony and starvation with a man’s capacity to work properly which is a subordinate goal of natural. They are easily recognized by all men.

c.      Remote conclusion: deduced by man’s reason with varying degree of difficulty from the primary and the secondary precepts, e.g. direct abortion is always forbidden. The basic precept of the natural law, “Do good and avoid evil”, is the root which is definite precepts and prohibition grow as a person advances in awareness of things and recognizes their goal or their end. The natural law embraces all these directives. The natural indicates and directs man’s inclination to act in accordance with reason. Hence, since all virtues are in accord with reason, we may say that all virtues are prescribed by the natural law.

7.      Properties of Natural Law

a.      It is Universal: The natural law is one and the same to all men of all times and places.

b.     It is obligatory: fro it imposes upon man the moral obligation to follow it as a necessary condition to attain the last end or happiness.

c.      It is recognizable: for it cannot fail to be known and it cannot be forgotten by man, for it is impressed in his reason.

d.     It is immutable or unchangeable: for it shares in the immutability of the eternal law. The natural law cannot be abrogated, dispensed or given a mandatory interpretation. But there cases of physical or moral impossibility in which non-observance of the law excuses from guilt.

8.      Ignorance of the law

a.      In respect to the primary precepts, ignorance is impossible in an man who in complete use of reason, since these principles are abundantly clear.

b.     In respect to the remote conclusions, ignorance is impossible not only in uneducated person but also in the learned, so it is possible to be ignorant that natural law forbids the dissolution of all through marriages

V.        Effects of law

1.      Moral goodness – the proper effect of law is to lead it subjects to their proper virtue; and since virtue is that which makes its subject good, it follows that the proper effect of law is to make those to whom it is given good.

2.      Moral Obligation – the precepts of law are concerned with human acts in which the law directs. These acts are either good generally, as for example, acts of virtue, and in respect of the acts of the law is a precept of command, for the law commands all acts of virtue. Some are evil generically, as for example, acts of vice and in respect of these, the law forbids. All acts that are either distinctively good or not distinctively bad may be called indifferent. And it is in the fear of punishment that law makes use of in order to ensure obedience in which respect punishment is an effect of law.

VI.       Positive law in moral Perspective

1.      Law in sacred scriptures

a.      Law in the Old Testament

                                i.          In general: law is closely connected with O.T. themes (main): covenant/alliance with God. The framework of the Jewish law are concretized in:

1.      Decalogue

2.      Code of Covenant

3.      Ritual of dialogue

4.      Deuteronomic code

5.      Code of holiness

                              ii.        Content – Three kinds of law:

1.      Moral law: they essentially constitute the revelation of natural law. They are moral laws summed up in the new Decalogue. Its binding force rest in the nature of man who has reason and can grasp these laws

2.      Ritual or ceremonial laws: They regulated the cult and worship of the people of Israel. These were abolished when Christ came.

3.      Juridical: regulated the interpersonal social relations which are ordered to the realization of justice. These were also replaced by the law of Christ.

                             iii.          Obligations: O.T. laws did not oblige because they were just preparatory for the coming of Christ. They did not have unconditional validity as in the toleration of the Sabbath. He gave little importance in the external purity. Ritual and juridical laws lost its obligation in Christ coming. Man now becomes an absolute value in the Christian community. The center of morality lies in the hearts of man and not on the law.

b.     Law in the New Testament

                                i.          Jesus and law: simplified into three propositions:

1.      Jesus rejects the precepts of man and the tradition of man.

2.      He did not abolish the law taken as a whole, but brings it into perfection

3.      He supplants the law through his mediatorship

                              ii.          St. Paul and the New Law

1.      St. Paul declares null and void the Old Law with regard to salvation. Salvation comes only through Christ.

2.      He admits that the old law is good in itself but it could not save man by itself.

3.      It can be a teacher or guide. It is a help to go to Christ-pedagogy.

4.      The frameworks of Paul’s teachings is the cross of Christ. The cross of Christ is the authentic fulfillment of the law.

5.      It must be observed because to refuse obedience to the law is to be hostile to God.

c.      The New Law: The law of Christ – the law of the Spirit of Christ.

                           i.     Ontologically: grace making us children of God.

                         ii.     Ethically: indwelling of the Holy Spirit to any soul baptized.

                        iii.     The new law entails the imitation in the concrete and central aspect of charity. Love is the nucleus of the new law. It does not annul the validity of all other virtues.

2.      Theological Reflection of the New Law

a.      Nature of the law:

                                i.          It is primarily a valid law of grace. Promulgated by Christ, contained radically in the New Testament and in tradition, and it demands a radical obligation as a consequence of baptism.

                              ii.          It is grace of the Holy Spirit given to us through Christ. As a grace, it justifies man but as written, it does not justify, although it helps. The gospel itself does not give grace, it is grace as a gift.

b.     Contents of the new law

                                i.          The main content is that some human acts are commanded

                              ii.          Some are forbidden

                             iii.          The interior life is regulated by the gospel

                             iv.          The life of grace manifest the work of love.

c.      Counsel and precepts: the former is left to the choice of the one to whom it is given. The latter implies the command. Old Laws-these there are counsel. The precepts of the law are those things necessary to attain the end. They are required while counsels are not obligatory. They are just for the better ways whereby man can attain his end. We need the laws to guide, direct us to the law of the spirit.

3.      Sense and Characteristics

a.      The new law is the law of grace of the Spirit, hence, it is an internal

obligation. Therefore, the significance of external laws and their meaning are always evaluated according to internal law. If they lead to the law of the Spirit, they are good. We are sinners therefore, we need laws.

Pedagogy of the Spirit: The law leads us to freedom of the spirit. It is a teacher, an explicitation of the law of the Spirit.

Required to guarantee the new law of the community. It helps to live according to the new Laws.

b.     Characteristics of the New Law as external Law:

                                i.          These laws has secondary characteristic ( primary grace and Spirit of Christ)

                              ii.          They must be expressions of moral norms and values

                             iii.          There should be a tendency not to prescribe many things

                             iv.          These laws has to be practiced from the interior of the person

VII. Natural law in Moral Theology

      St. Thomas holds that natural law is an internal law. It is within us not as something external.

1.      The natural law is part of the vision of Christian realism which is opposed to legalism’s subjectivism. It involves the capacity to listen and to learn in dialogue with others, with a vivid sense of the continuity of life. This attitude fits easily into the great dimensions of the history of salvation and revelation.

2.      The situation of the person does not change the thing nor the external law but judge as wrong or right because it is attuned to our personal or historical experiences

3.      We must be extremely careful about our own identity as Christians. Not thought, no word, and no theory must disown our faith that God has reveled Himself fuller in Jesus Christ. Everything God has created is created in that Word who in the fullness of time has taken our human nature. And there is something specific in the history of Israel by which God has prepared humanity for this fullness of revelation that comes in Jesus Christ alone.

4.      What is most needed today is a distinctively Christian vision of the natural law-one that is seen within the law of Christ. This Christian vision is needed also in view of the Church’s dialogue with the modern world, where the first necessity is our Christian identity.

Reference: UST-STB Comprehensive Examination Reviewer