Between “I” and “We”: The Anthropology of the Hebrew Bible ...theological implications of...

Bulletin for Biblical Research

19.3 (2009) 319–339

Between “I” and “We”: The Anthropology of the Hebrew Bible and Its Importance

for a 21st-Century Ecclesiology

gerald a. klingbeil

andrews university

Individualism

and

collectivism

are categories employed by sociologists to de-scribe the characteristics of a particular people or culture. These elements andtheir importance depend heavily upon the culture’s particular world view. Thisstudy examines these extremes—particularly in the context of the NT metaphorof the church as a body.

1

In light of the fact that the data of the Hebrew Bible areoften ignored, in this study I will review five controversial passages from the He-brew Bible that are relevant to the topic (i.e., Abraham’s household and the bless-ing of the covenant, the commandment language, divine transgenerationalretribution, and individual responsibility) and will probe their significance for aScripture-based ecclesiology.

Key Words: individualism, collectivism, biblical theology, anthropology, worldview, ecclesiology

1. The body metaphor is very important in Paul’s ecclesiological masterpiece, the Epistleto the Ephesians. In an earlier study, I have attempted to “draw” a metaphor map of Ephe-sians, which underlines the importance of the metaphor. However, it must be kept in mindthat Paul is also using other relevant metaphors, such as family and household, that seem torepresent a theological development and continuation of the important Hebrew Bible conceptof Israel as a significant part of the family of God (note:

a significant part

, not

the significant part,

although it is considered the firstborn [Exod 4:22–23] of Y

hwh

). See my “Metaphors andPragmatics: An Introduction to the Hermeneutics of Metaphors in the Epistle to the Ephe-sians,”

BBR

16 (2006): 273–93. A thorough discussion of Israel as Y

hwh

’s firstborn and thetheological implications of this concept can be found in Merling Alomía, “El motivo del

r/kB}

en el libro de Exodo,” in

Inicios, fundamentos y paradigmas: Estudios teológicos y exegéticos en elPentateuco

(ed. Gerald A. Klingbeil; Serie monográfica de estudios bíblicos y teológicos de laUniversidad Adventista del Plata 1; Libertador San Martín: Editorial Universidad Adventistadel Plata, 2004), 191–227.

The present study is a significantly revised and updated version of an earlier paper pre-sented at the Fourth South American Biblical-Theological Symposium in October 2001 at RiverPlate Adventist University, Argentina, and has purposefully retained some of the style of anoral presentation. The original presentation was subsequently published in my “Entre indi-vidualismo y colectivismo: Hacia una perspectiva bíblica de la naturaleza de la iglesia,” in

Pen-sar la iglesia hoy: Hacia una eclesiología adventista. Estudios teológicos presentados durante el IVSimposio Bíblico-Teológico Sudamericano en honor a Raoul Dederen

(ed. Gerald A. Klingbeil et al.;Libertador San Martín, Argentina: Editorial Universidad Adventista del Plata, 2002), 3–22.

Bulletin for Biblical Research 19.3

320

Introduction

Living at the beginning of the 21st century is not always easy. While it is apleasure to enjoy running clean water (though still often limited to thewestern hemisphere), electricity, an improved health care system, andhigher life expectancy, profound world view changes have taken place overthe past century or two. We live more isolated than we did 200 years agowhen the next-door neighbor lived one or two kilometers down the road.

2

We do not know the ones living next to us—and sometimes we simply donot care. This change is not an accidental change. It is the subtle result ofa changed paradigm of roles involving myself, my family (or clan), thecommunity I live in, the country whose passport I hold, and the church Ibelong to (if I belong at all!). Sociology has provided some helpful criteriafor describing culture.

3

Individualism versus collectivism is one of thesecriteria, on which I would like to focus in this study and which also seemsto be useful when considering the anthropology of the Hebrew Bible. Abrief look at U.S. culture in the 21st century clearly suggests a strong em-phasis on the individualistic side of this continuum. Furthermore, due tothe dominant political, economic, and technological position of the U.S. inthe international context, one can note a strong cultural influence in mostareas of daily life that goes beyond New York, Los Angeles, or WashingtonDC, reaching New Delhi, Manila, Buenos Aires, Berlin, and Capetown.

4

In this article, I will endeavor to do the following:

First

, I will de-scribe the tension between the two extremes as influencing the contem-porary Christian church, which does not and cannot subscribe to a singlecultural system.

Second

, due to the general lack of integrating evidencefrom the Hebrew Bible into a Scripture-based ecclesiology involving theindividualism-collectivism continuum, I will focus predominantly upon

2. A good description of American individualism can be found in David W. Henderson,

Culture Shift: Communicating God’s Truth to Our Changing World

(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998),96–102.

3. See here the work of Geert Hofstede,

Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind

(rev. ed.; New York: McGraw Hill, 1997), 3–138. Hofstede studied different cultures in the con-text of business organizational structures as part of a large research team financed by IBM.Hofstede has suggested four relevant “bi-polar” dimensions of culture: (1) power versus lackof power, (2) collectivism versus individualism, (3) feminine versus masculine, and (4) cer-tainty versus uncertainty (ibid., 14). I would like to thank my colleague and friend Ronald Vyh-meister for pointing me to Hofstede’s work.

4. This influence is seen in all aspects of life (politics, economy, cultural expressions, mu-sic, language, etc.). However, it should be noted that this influence is a two-way street, thatis, U.S. culture is also influenced by nontraditional or non-Western forces, though to a lesserdegree. See, for some recent discussions, David A. Lake, “American Hegemony and the Futureof East-West Relations,”

International Studies Perspective

7/1 (2006): 23–30; Gordon Mace andHugo Loiseau, “Cooperative Hegemony and Summitry in the Americas,”

Latin American Pol-itics and Society

47/4 (2005): 107–34; Mark Beeson, “U.S. Hegemony and Southeast Asia,”

Crit-ical Asian Studies

36 (2004): 445–62; Julia Galeota, “Cultural Imperialism: An AmericanTradition,”

Humanist

64/3 (2004): 22–46; Richard De Zoysa and Otto Newman, “Globalization,Soft Power and the Challenge of Hollywood,” Contemporary Politics 8/3 (2002): 185–202; andHenry Jenkins, “Culture Goes Global,” Technology Review 104/6 (2001): 89.

Klingbeil: Between “I” and “We” 321

this part of Scripture, with a brief look toward the NT.5 This will lead tothe formulation of a number of important principles that may help our un-derstanding of the issue in the context of the “metaculture” of the churchat the beginning of the 21st century.

Tension of the Individualism-Collectivism

Continuum Visible in the 21st-Century Church

Modernism and postmodernism both have significantly influenced theindividualism-collectivism continuum and seem to have tipped the scaletoward individualism.6 This individualism has different expressions, as canbe seen in its economical, philosophical, political, and—most relevant forthis research—religious dimensions.7 The Christian church in Africa, or inCentral and South America and—increasingly—in Asia, come down at dif-ferent points on the individualism-collectivism continuum. African, His-panic, and Asian cultures emphasize corporate development and groupaccountability.8 On the other hand, the face of the Western church—obvi-ously not immune to the surrounding prevailing culture of individualism,

5. I have shown elsewhere the unfortunate neglect of the Hebrew Bible in the systematicstudy of the church in current ecclesiological thinking. See my “ ‘Church’ in the Old Testa-ment: Basic Concepts and Historical Development,” Journal of Asia Adventist Seminary 9 (2006):3–23. This focus on the Hebrew Bible is due, first, to the limited space of a journal article and,second, to my personal field of specialization and interest.

6. See here Theodore A. Turnau III, “Speaking in a Broken Tongue: Postmodernism, Prin-cipled Pluralism, and the Rehabilitation of Public Moral Discourse,” WTJ 56 (1994): 355–56.Not everybody agrees on this point, as can be seen in the following quotation: “In reaction tomodernism’s radical individualism and lack of emphasis on group identities, the recent rise ofpostmodernism has helped to regain an appreciation for both the corporate dimension of theself and the influence of one’s group or interpretive community on the interpretive process”(Walt Russell, “Insights from Postmodernism’s Emphasis on Interpretive Communities in theInterpretation of Romans 7,” JETS 37 [1994]: 511). However, Russell’s opinion is a minorityviewpoint. It seems to me that postmodernism is not a complete break with modernity butcould be described as “hypermodernism” or the ultimate modernity. Compare here DennisE. Johnson, “Between Two Wor(l)ds: Worldview and Observation in the Use of General Rev-elation to Interpret Scripture, and Vice Versa,” JETS 41 (1998): 71–72.

7. Turnau, “Speaking in a Broken Tongue,” 355, summarizes four distinct concepts in thereligious sphere that should be noted. First, there is the concept of covenant, whereby the in-dividual’s existence is independent of and prior to his inclusion in the covenanted group. Eachis to pursue his own spiritual interests. The community is a collection of people with like in-terests. Second, there is a doctrine of subjective conversion, whereby the genuineness of anyindividual’s faith is not open to challenge from other members of the group. One’s salvationis independent of community inspection and authority. Third, there is the insistence on the in-dependence of each congregation from the authority of other congregations. Fourth, there isthe doctrine of temporal calling, wherein each is to pursue his own worldly interests as hepursues his spiritual interests.

8. Compare here the pertinent remarks found in P. J. Jonas, “Collectivism and Mission ina South African Context,” Missionalia 24 (1996): 78–90, concerning the South African context.Bao-Jane Yuan and Jianping Shen, “Moral Values Held by Early Adolescents in Taiwan andMainland China,” Journal of Moral Education 27 (1998): 191–207, have provided a very helpfuldiscussion of different values of people of Chinese descent, living in both China mainland andTaiwan. Their results show regional differences in terms of the value of collectivism. Chinese


self-reliance, and independence—is rather different. Leadership style is an-other area where these cultural differences appear. Whereas North Ameri-can or European leadership styles are characterized by participatory,(more) democratic features and an emphasis upon accountability and effi-ciency, African and Hispanic leadership tends to be more direct. Otherareas where differences are glaringly obvious include practical church life,the standing of pastors, and the issue of how decisions are to be made.

I submit that these differences are based on different world views thatresult in distinct value systems and do not always function on the cogni-tive level, that is, the underlying reasons for doing what is being done arenot always clear. In this context, it might be useful to define the term worldview as utilized in this study. I am basing it here on the work of Ronald A.Simkins:

Worldview encompasses the mental functioning that directs humanactions. It is the cognitive basis [the emphasis should be on the basisand not so much on cognitive] for human interaction with the socialand physical environments. . . . It is a view of the world, a way oflooking at reality. . . . A people’s worldview shapes and is shaped bytheir social and physical environments.9

World view is dynamic. It is not just something that our parents instilledin us during the first month of our lives, but it is shaped by our personalexperiences and subject to both internal and external factors. This makesglobalization an all-encompassing topic in basically any field of research.10

Figure 1 depicts a model of world view dynamics, stressing the strategicrole that world view plays in the dynamics.11

Possible Tension of the Individualism-Collectivism

Continuum Visible in the Hebrew Bible

Recent literature concerning the basic sociology or anthropology of theBible, involving particularly the dimension of individual/corporal respon-

9. Ronald A. Simkins, Creator and Creation: Nature in the Worldview of Ancient Israel (Pea-body, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 23–24.

10. Globalization affects how we read Scripture and thus shapes hermeneutics. See, forexample, Craig L. Blomberg, “The Globalization Of Hermeneutics,” JETS 38 (1995): 581–93,from a more conservative perspective. Other important contributions can be found in HeikkiRäisänen et al., eds., Reading the Bible in the Global Village: Helsinki (Atlanta: Society of BiblicalLiterature, 2000), with sometimes-contradictory (or at least complementary) positions. Com-pare also Musa W. Dube, “Villagizing, Globalizing, and Biblical Studies,” in Reading the Biblein the Global Village: Cape Town (ed. Justin S. Ukpong et al.; Global Perspectives on BiblicalScholarship 3; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 41–63, and some of the other con-tributions to this volume.

11. Figure 1 was taken from Michael Kearney, World View (Novato: Chandler & Sharp,1984), 120.

from mainland China prefer task-oriented collectivity values that focus upon service to so-ciety and country at large, while Taiwanese Chinese emphasize more the family-related val-ues of collectivism.


sibility in both Old and New Testaments, is growing rapidly.12 While mostauthors seem to be aware of the difficult issue involved in the existence ofboth viewpoints in Scripture, some opt for explanations (such as the

12. A good way to start is looking at Joel S. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the He-brew Bible (JSOTSup 196; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), and idem, “The Sins of theFathers,” Judaism 46 (1997): 319–32. The issue of the interaction between the “I” and the “we”involves issues of Israelite anthropology that have recently been discussed by Bernd Janowski,“Der Mensch im alten Israel: Grundfragen alttestamentlicher Anthropologie,” ZTK 102 (2005):143–75. Compare also Richard A. Freund, “Individual vs. Collective Responsibility: From theAncient Near East and the Bible to the Greco-Roman World,” SJOT 11 (1997): 279–304; JohnJ. Pilch, “A Window into the Biblical World: Individuals? Or Stereotypes?” The Bible Today 39(2001): 170–76; K. C. Hanson, “Sin, Purification, and Group Process,” in Problems in Biblical The-ology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim (ed. Henry T. C. Sun et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1997), 167–91; John W. Rogerson, “The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality: A Re-examination,” in Anthropological Approaches to the Old Testament (ed. Bernhard Lang; IRT 8;Philadelphia: Fortress / London: SPCK, 1985), 43–59; J. Andrew Dearman, Religion and Culturein Ancient Israel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), 129–34; Victor H. Matthews and Don C.Benjamin, Social World of Ancient Israel: 1250–587 bce (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), xiii–xxiii, esp. pp. xvii–xviii; Jerome H. Neygry, “Dyadism,” in Biblical Social Values and Their Mean-ing (ed. John J. Pilch and Bruce J. Malina; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 49–52; John J.Pilch, “Cooperativeness,” in Biblical Social Values and Their Meaning (ed. John J. Pilch and BruceJ. Malina; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 33–36; Joze Krasovec, “Is There a Doctrine of‘Collective Retribution’ in the Hebrew Bible?” HUCA 65 (1994): 35–89; Rainer Kessler, “Daskollektive Schuldbekenntnis im Alten Testament,” EvT 56 (1996): 29–43; and Walter C. KaiserJr., Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 67–72. Other helpful studiesthat do not deal directly with the issue of the individual/collective (or corporate, as Kaminskyprefers to call it) but involve issues of personal freedom in the ANE or orientation and thoughtpatterns include Manfred Dietrich, “Die Frage nach der persönlichen Freiheit im Alten Ori-ent,” in Mesopotamica—Ugaritica—Biblica: Festschrift für Kurt Bergerhof zur Vollendung seines 70.Lebensjahres am 7. Mai 1992 (ed. Manfred Dietrich and Oswald Loretz; AOAT 232; Kevelaer:Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1992), 45–58; Nicolas Wyatt,“The Vocabulary and Neurology of Orientation: The Ugaritic and Hebrew Evidence,” in

Figure 1. World View Dynamics


omnipresent concept of evolution) that are less than satisfying.13 Interest-ingly, Wolfhart Pannenberg has included an important discussion of thequestion of the individual and the faith community in the context of so-teriology.14 However, before any integration of scriptural data into somekind of systematic model can be made, Scripture itself needs to be scruti-nized and understood. In the following, I will discuss five key referencesinvolving aspects of the individualism-collectivism continuum in ancientIsraelite society and religion. This, in turn, may provide significant datafor a Christian understanding of the church.15 A number of the observa-tions that I include in the discussion of the five key references from theHebrew Bible have been made before and I do not claim originality here.However, it seems to me that their integration into a more holistic per-spective of a biblical ecclesiology involving the tension between “I” and“we” has not yet been undertaken.

Abraham and His Household

The important story of the call of Abraham (Gen 12:1–3) stands at the be-ginning of a new era of Yhwh’s dealing with humankind after the floodnarrative (Gen 6–9) with its accompanying genealogies. The tower of Babelstory in Gen 11 functions as some type of connection, bridging the gulf be-tween general (“humanity”) and individual (“Abraham and Sarah”) his-tory.16 It is interesting to note that Abraham’s call is written in the

13. See here, for example, Freund, “Individual vs. Collective Responsibility,” 299–300,and Eric C. Rust, “The Destiny of the Individual in the Thought of the OT,” RevExp 58 (1961):296–311.

14. Compare Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol. 3: Church and Consummation(trans. G. W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), who discusses this question in the con-text of the largest chapter of his systematic theology, entitled “The Messianic Community andIndividuals.” Compare also the important review of Pannenberg’s work by Richard Rice,“Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Crowning Achievement: A Review of His Systematic Theology,” AUSS37 (1999): 55–72.

15. Full exegetical treatment of the references will be impossible and can easily bechecked in the standard commentaries. It should also be noted that I am following a thematicorder of the texts (beginning with transgenerational blessings [Gen 12, Exod 20, Deut 5], fol-lowed by transgenerational retribution [Josh 7], and ending with individual responsibilityDeut 24:16, Jer 31:29–30, and Ezek 18:1–4]), and I have no hidden diachronic agenda as to theiroccurrence in Israelite thought and texts.

16. Compare my observations in “Historical Criticism,” in Dictionary of the Pentateuch (ed.David W. Baker and T. Desmond Alexander; Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 404–6.

Ugarit, Religion and Culture: Proceedings of the International Conference on Ugarit, Religion and Cul-ture, Edinburgh, July 1994. Essays Presented in Honour of Professor John C. L. Gibson (ed. NicolasWyatt, Wilfred G. E. Watson and J. B. Lloyd; UBL 12; Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 1996), 351–80.Izak Cornelius, “The Visual Representation of the World of the Ancient Near East and the He-brew Bible,” JNSL 20 (1994): 193–218, has provided an interesting discussion of the influenceof world view upon the visual representations of the world of the ancients. Compare also thepertinent remarks in Cornelis Houtman, Der Himmel im Alten Testament: Israels Weltbild undWeltanschauung (OtSt 30; Leiden: Brill, 1993), 283–317.


singular.17 It does not call Abraham and Sarah, but it is only Abraham whois addressed. This pattern continues in the following patriarchal narratives(Gen 13:14–17; 15:1–6, 18–21; 17:1–2), with the only exception being God’sspecific promise of motherhood to Sarah (Gen 17:15–16, 19; 18:10–15), al-though it must be noted that even then Sarah is addressed not directly butvia her husband.18 In Gen 21:1, the MT is ambiguous about who receivedthe promise and reads rm:a: rv≤a“K" hr;c…Ata< dq"P: hw;hyw', “and Yhwh visited Sa-rah, as he had said (earlier).” While it is possible that the reference is to Sa-rah individually, Gen 21:2 seems to challenge this interpretation becausethe MT reads μyhIløa” /taø rB<DiArv≤a“ d[E/Ml", “at the time/moment, that God hadpromised/spoken to him.”19 Once circumcision is established as the sign ofthe covenant between God and Abraham (Gen 17:10–14), Abraham de-crees that all male members of his large household are to be circumcised(Gen 17:23–27). This was not a voluntary decision made by the membersof his household but the result of a divine order given to Abraham.

Individual freedom—an important and indispensable ingredient ofindividualism—is not as important in the societies of the ancient NearEast. Manfred Dietrich has correctly pointed out that personal freedom inthe ANE is living within the known limitations and spaces provided bythe creator-deity.20 Independence and self-realization were not vital top-

17. The main verbal form found in Abraham’s call is an emphatic imperative Qal 2ms,Úl}A˚‘l<, “go, you!” Furthermore, all the references to country (Úx}r]a"mE, “from your country”), kin-dred folk (ÚT}d]l"/mmIW, “and from your kindred”), and father’s house (ÚybIa: tyBEmIW, “and from thehouse of your father”) include a pronominal suffix, 2ms. The promises of nationhood and aname in Gen 12:2–3 continue with this pattern.

18. Carol L. Meyers (Rediscovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context [New York: Ox-ford University Press, 1988], 169–70) suggests the notion of balanced responsibilities amongmales and females in ancient Israel. Phyllis A. Bird (Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities:Women and Gender in Ancient Israel [OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997], 81–102), suggests thatwomen in the Israelite religious sphere—a notion that in itself is difficult, because there wereso many distinct historical contexts!—had a similar position in everyday life, namely, lesserauthority, sanctity, and honor. Judith Romney Wegner (“ ‘Coming Before the Lord’: The Exclu-sion of Women from the Public Domain of the Israelite Priestly Cult,” in The Book of Leviticus:Composition and Reception [ed. Rolf Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler; VTSup 93; Formation andInterpretation of Old Testament Literature 3; Leiden: Brill, 2003], 451–65) and Georg Braulik(“Were Women, too, Allowed to Offer Sacrifices in Israel? Observations on the Meaning andFestive Form of Sacrifice in Deuteronomy,” HvTSt 55 [1999]: 909–42) discuss the role of womenin the Israelite cult, coming to quite-different conclusions.

19. The direct pronoun “him” in English is expressed by a direct object marker with apronominal suffix, 3ms, clearly referring to Abraham.

20. Dietrich, “Die Frage nach der persönlichen Freiheit,” 49–58. His discussion of specificAkkadian and Sumerian terminology such as anduraru, “freedom, exemption, release fromslavery,” and subarrû, “exemption, to institute an amnesty, to confirm/increase freedom”(cf. Jeremy Black et al., eds., A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian [SANTAG: Arbeiten und Unter-suchungen zur Keilschriftkunde 5; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000], 17, 379) should rather beconsidered introductory and needs to be expanded. Regarding the limitations of the creator-deity, Dietrich (“Die Frage nach der persönlichen Freiheit,” 57) writes: “Deterministisch sahsie der Bewohner des Alten Mesopotamien durch Geburt—d.h. konkret: kraft des Ins-Leben-gerufen-Seins durch seinen Schöpfergott—in eine gottgewollte Ordnung gestellt. Diese Ord-nung war für ihn der Kosmos. . . . Hier war der Platz, an dem er frei entscheidend, sich frei


ics, nor were they considered essential for the religious or philosophicaldiscussion.21 In the case of Abraham, his leadership—both in the religiousand political realm—of his household or clan points to the underlying in-tegrated and interconnected world view. It is noteworthy that the circum-cision sign is only connected to the male members of the family/clan/people, but included women and children as partakers of the covenantblessings.22 It is not a private individual ceremony but rather a publicstatement that focuses upon Yhwh’s grace toward Abraham and the freeand servant members of his household. Ishmael, who although not part ofthe future people that God is raising still is Abraham’s son, partakes in thecommunal blessing. Thus, in this context, collectivism in the OT is a meansof extending grace and sharing blessings.23

Commandment Language (Exodus 20:5, 34:7; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 5:9)

Important individualism/collectivism terminology can be found in thecommandment sections of the Hebrew Bible, involving the phrase ˆ/[“ dqePø

tboa: “visiting (participle, referring to Yhwh as the acting agent introducedby Úyh<løa” hw;hy] ykIna: ‘I am Yhwh, your God’ in Exod 20:2) the guilt (or iniq-uity) of the fathers.“24 It is important to note the reference to three/fourgenerations in all of these verses, pointing to the future referents of thepunishment to be dealt out by one of the covenant partners. Hebrew po-etry and prose is full of numerical devices, among which the x / x + 1device is known as a graded numerical sequence or a type of parallelism.25

John Davis proposes the meaning of intensification and/or progression and

21. Ibid., 57–58.22. Compare Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17 (NICOT; Grand Rap-

ids: Eerdmans, 1990), 470, 480.23. It should be noted that the patriarchal texts often contain highly abbreviated

statements that require deciphering. A good example for this can be found in the crucialaltar-construction texts that suggest a ritual that is important for the entire clan, although itis only referring to the clan leader Abraham. See here my detailed discussion in “Altars, Rit-ual and Theology: Preliminary Thoughts on the Importance of Cult and Ritual for a Theologyof the Hebrew Scriptures,” VT 54 (2004): 495–515.

24. See Exod 20:5, 34:7; Num 14:18; and Deut 5:9. A more inclusive translation of“fathers” should be “parents.” The discussion concerning the so-called Urtext appears to befortuitous. The sections under consideration often repeat—not always with the same details—the main legal focus of the Ten Commandments.

25. Cf. Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques (JSOTSup26; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 144–49. The specific meaning is not always clear and the tech-nique can also be used as a reference to a specific number. Compare also Robert B. ChisholmJr., “ ‘For Three Sins . . . Even for Four’: The Numerical Sayings in Amos,” BSac 147 (1990): 188–97, and R. H. O’Connell (“Telescoping N + 1 Patterns in the Book of Amos,” VT 46 [1996]: 56–73), who discuss the well-known 3 / 3 + 1 oracular sayings in Amos 1–2.

bewegend und frei handelnd wirken konnte, an dem er, soweit es das Miteinander zuliess, mitanderen Worten persönlich frei war.”


dismisses the actual numbers utilized.26 The phrase is marked by covenantterminology and should be classified as legal language.27 Yhwh extendshis covenant to his people and lays down the conditions. He does so em-ploying 2ms verbal forms, which emphasize the individual responsibilityof each member of the covenant people. He expects “undiluted loyalty”and promises ds<j<, “loving kindness,” to a thousand (generations) of thosewho “love me and keep my commandments” (Exod 20:6).28 The contrastbetween three or four generations and a thousand is marked and deliber-ate, emphasizing the unlimited response of Yhwh to those who love himbut the limited punishment of those who disobey, reaching to the third andfourth generation.29

Harrison has included an interesting observation, based upon thefamily structure of ancient Israel. It is most probable that three or fourgenerations lived together under the same roof and were thus affected bydivine punishment.30 This proposal coincides with the archaeological dataof Iron Age Palestine, where nuclear-family dwellings (of 4–5 persons)and multiple-family compounds (of 10–15 persons) that included three-generation multiple families were commonplace.31 This would mean that

26. John J. Davis, Biblical Numerology: A Basic Study of the Use of Numerals in the Bible(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), 93–94. However, Davis does not include a detailed discussion ofthe phrase and references under discussion.

27. A good introduction to general principles of extrabiblical law can be found in RussVerSteeg, Early Mesopotamian Law (Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2000). Important studieson biblical law include Pietro Bovati, Re-establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts and Proceduresin the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 105; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994); Gershon Brin, Studies in BiblicalLaw: From the Hebrew Bible to the Dead Sea Scrolls (JSOTSup 176; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994); Ber-nard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press, 1997); and Bernard M. Levinson, ed., Theory and Method in Biblical and CuneiformLaw: Revision, Interpolation and Development (JSOTSup 181; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994).

28. “Undiluted loyalty”: See here John I. Durham, Exodus (WBC 3; Waco, TX: Word,1987), 287, and compare also the introduction of the Ten Commandments, which reads: ykInoa:

y'n;P:Al[" μyrijEa“ μyhIløa” Úl}Ahy,h}yi alø Úyh<løa” hw;hy], “I am Yhwh, your God . . . you shall not have foryourselves other gods before me” (Exod 20:2–3). A thousand (generations): Although the He-brew does not read “generations” (r/D), most commentators would understand it implic-itly. See also the parallel verse in Deut 7:9, where “thousand” is connected with “generation.”Compare Christopher J. H. Wright, Deuteronomy (NIBCOT 4; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,1996), 72, and Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy (NAC 4; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994),148. R. Dennis Cole (Numbers [NAC 3b; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000], 231) includesa similar observation concerning Num 14:18.

29. See the discussion of Freund, “Individual vs. Collective Responsibility,” 281–88, of thehistory of interpretation and the interrelatedness of the four Pentateuchal references. Freundseems to adhere to standard historical-critical presuppositions and solutions that do not providea satisfying solution to the issue. It should be noted that all four references are not exact copies,but rather seem to connect to the main spirit of the laws. Examples for this include the lack ofthe reference to the “children of the children” found in Exod 34:7. Furthermore, Num 14:18–19does not contain the reference to the thousand generations that will receive Yhwh’s mercy.

30. R. K. Harrison, Numbers (Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary; Grand Rapids: Baker,1990), 214.

31. Lawrence E. Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel,” BASOR 260(1985): 1–35, esp. pp. 17–23. A good discussion of the three/four-room type house of IA


divine retribution is concerned rather with immediate contamination ofthose living together in the larger family unit and not necessarily withvindictive judgment covering three or four subsequent and nonparallelfamily generations. Furthermore, the marked quantitative opposition withthe thousand generations’ future blessing emphasizes theologically themerciful character of Yhwh. This does not resolve the tension between in-dividualism and collectivism, but it helps to understand the true weighingof the concept in biblical theology.

Divine Transgenerational Retribution (Joshua 7)

Joshua 7 is the classical locus of transgenerational retribution.32 Joshua 7:1describes the problem with the μr,jE, “devoted things,” as affecting the entirepeople of Israel. The verse states μr,jIB" l["m" laEr;c‘yiAyneb} Wl[“m}Yiw', “now the sonsof Israel acted unfaithfully [plural], full of unfaithfulness concerning thedevoted things.”33 Theologically, the tone is set and it is plural or collective.Achan, being a member of the people of Israel, brings upon the entire

32. See here the important contributions of Christa Schäfer-Lichtenberger, “Bedeutungund Funktion von ̇ erem in biblisch-hebräischen Texten,” BZ 38 (1994): 270–75; Richard S. Hess,Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 42–46,143–57; Marten H. Woudstra, The Book of Joshua (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 120–32; David M. Howard Jr., Joshua (NAC 5; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998), 180–99, esp.pp. 193–94; Gwilym H. Jones, “The Concept of Holy War,” in The World of Ancient Israel: Socio-logical, Anthropological and Political Perspectives (ed. Ronald E. Clements; Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press, 1991), 299–321. Kaiser (Toward Old Testament Ethics, 67–72) and othersutilize the term corporate solidarity instead of the more meaning-laden corporate personality, in-troduced into OT studies by H. Wheeler Robinson in 1911. Also relevant is Philip D. Stern, TheBiblical ˙erem: A Window on Israel’s Religious Experience (BJS 211; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991),19–88, which includes a rather large section of comparative material from the ANE. More re-cently, Michaël Guichard (“Les Aspects Religieux de la Guerre a Mari,” RA 93 [1999]: 27–48)has provided a useful reworking of the data from Mari, a project initiated by Abraham Mala-mat, Mari and the Early Israelite Experience (Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1984; Ox-ford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 70–79. See also Allan Bornapé, “El problema del ˙erem enel Pentateuco y su dimensión ritual,” DavarLogos 4 (2005): 1–16, which looks at the larger ritualdimensions of the ˙erem, which is often overlooked in the discussion of the ˙erem.

33. A similar perspective is visible in Josh 7:11, which states ytIyriB}Ata< Wrb}[: μg"w] laEr;c‘yi af:j:,“Israel has sinned [sg., referring to the people as a whole], and they [pl.] have also transgressedmy covenant.”

Palestine can be found in Ehud Netzer, “Domestic Architecture in the Iron Age,” in The Ar-chitecture of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Period (ed. Aharon Kempinski andRonny Reich; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1992), 193–201. Similar family structures,including the “house-of-the-father” type, have been found in Mesopotamian literature andarchaeology. See here Karen R. Nemet-Nejat, Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia (Daily LifeThrough History; Westport: Greenwood, 1998), 126–27. Compare also the recent discussion ofBunimovitz and Faust connecting living space with particular sociological and economical re-alities: Shlomo Bunimovitz and Avraham Faust, “Building Identity: The Four-Room Houseand the Israelite Mind,” in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel,and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palestina (ed. William G. Dever andSeymour Gitin; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 411–23.


people disgrace and divine punishment. The army unit34 sent off to con-quer Ai comes back defeated (Josh 7:4–5), and, as a result, the entire mo-mentum of the conquest appears to be fading away. The MT here readsliterally μyim:l} yhIy]w' μ[:h:Abb"l} sM"Yiw', “and the heart of the people melted away sothat it became water.”35 Earlier in Joshua’s account, Israel’s enemies suf-fered the melting syndrome (Josh 2:11—inhabitants of Jericho; Josh 5:1—Amorite and Canaanite kings), but now Israel itself experiences this terri-fying state. In the raid, 36 people die—a significant number if one under-stands the reference in Josh 7:4 to be three fighting companies.36 Joshuaand the elders of Israel mourn the loss graphically; perhaps they fear the“first blood” omen, a well-known ANE belief that the result of the firstbattle is taken as an omen for the remainder of the military campaign.37

God’s response is precise and calls for a major assembly: “Israel hassinned.” By means of lots,38 first the tribe and then the clan and finally thefamily is “taken.” Achan is the fourth link in the chain and confesses hisdeed (Josh 7:20–21), but only after being confronted by Joshua. The stolenconsecrated war spoil is recovered from beneath Achan’s tent. Joshua 7:24is crucial in our discussion of the nature of collectivism or corporate soli-darity. Those taken to the Valley Achor include Achan, the stolen conse-crated items, his sons (wyn;B:Ata<w]), his daughters (wyt:noB}Ata<w]), his animals,39 his

34. The question of how many Israelites went up to fight Ai must still be considered open.The MT reads μypIl:a“ tv ≤løv‘KI, which could be either translated as “something like 3,000” or“something like 3 companies.” Hess (Joshua, 146–47) makes a convincing case for understand-ing the term μypIl:a“ as a fighting unit or company. Similar usage of the term can be found in Josh22:24, Judg 6:15, 1 Sam 10:19–21, and elsewhere.

35. The verb ss"m:, “melt, dissolve,” is only utilized 20x in the Hebrew Bible. It appears inExod 16:21, describing the miraculous melting of the heavenly bread once the sun grows hot.In Deut 1:28, the refusal to enter the land of Canaan for the first time is described with thesame idiomatic expression. The verb is often associated with military action and those whofear it (Deut 20:8, 2 Sam 17:10). During the conquest, it is twice used to describe the emotionalreaction of Israel’s enemies (Josh 2:11—Jericho; Josh 5:1—Amorite and Canaanite kings). Thephrase is used frequently in poetic contexts in Israel’s hymnbook (Pss 22:15, 68:3, 97:5, 112:10).

36. It is possible that each company had between 12 and 20 combatants, which wouldmake the loss of 36 a huge number.

37. See here David Merling Sr., The Book of Joshua: Its Theme and Role in Archaeological Dis-cussions (Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series 23; Berrien Springs: An-drews University Press, 1997), 186–88.

38. It should be noted that the text does not specifically mention the technical term in-volving Urim and Thummim as the means of the lot ceremony. The verb used to denote God’schoice is dk"l:, “to seize, capture, take.” Cf. Cornelis Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim: A Meansof Revelation in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 202 n. 38. The technicalterm for “lot” is lr;/G, which appears 77x in the OT (Lev 16:8, 9, 10; Num 26:55, 56; 33:54; 34:13;36:2, 3; Josh 14:2; 15:1; 16:1; 17:1, 14; 17:17; 18:6, 8, 10, 11; 19:1, 10, 17, 24, 32, 40, 51; 21:4, 5, 6,8, 10, 20, 40; Judg 1:3; 20:9; 1 Chr 6:39, 46, 48, 50; 24:5, 7, 31; 25:8, 9; 26:13, 14; Neh 10:35, 11:1;Esth 3:7, 9:24; Pss 16:5, 22:19, 25:3; Prov 1:14, 16:33, 18:18; Isa 17:14, 34:17, 57:6; Jer 13:25; Ezek24:6; Dan 12:13; Joel 4:3; Obad 1:11; Jonah 1:7; Mic 2:5; Nah 3:10).

39. Including oxen, donkeys, sheep, and goats.

spread one pica short


tent, and all his belongings. Israel stones him (and supposedly his familyand belongings),40 and then everything is burned. The act of burning issignificant. It appears to be an act of purification, associated with total de-struction, and was also closely linked to ritual performance.41 It representsone of the most severe forms of punishment.42 The inclusion of animals isalso significant. Animals belong to the creation order established by Yhwh

and thus had to suffer the consequence of the fall, the flood, and other in-dividual disasters.43 They are an integral part of the larger household—aconcept challenging the 21st-century church living in societies that oftenhave a highly utilitarian world view, in which animals are only “useful.”The human members of Achan’s household affected by his abominable actincluded sons and daughters, which in Hebrew usage might even includegrandchildren or great grandchildren. No specific mention is made ofAchan’s wife, which may be because women were embedded in the familyidentity.44 Interestingly, Achan is introduced as the “son of Serach” (Josh7:18, 24; 22:20), but the biblical text does not suggest the execution of hisparents. Most probably, this is due to the fact that Achan had alreadyformed his own household and his sin affected only his household. Thereason for the severe punishment involves three significant elements: (1)direct and willful contradiction of the stipulations of Yhwh’s covenant, (2)contamination of other Israelites (specifically his household) by Achan’ssin, and (3) the specific nature of the μr,jE ban. As a result of Achan’s sin, hislarger community suffered, including his immediate family, his animals,his tribe, and the confederacy of tribes, representing Israel as a people.

40. The Hebrew here reads vaEB: μt:aø Wpr]c‘Yiw', “and they burned them with fire.” The indi-rect object marker indicates a plural point of reference.

41. Gerald A. Klingbeil, A Comparative Study of the Ritual of Ordination as found in Leviticus8 and Emar 369 (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1998), 273, concerning the use of the phrase vaEB:,“through fire/by means of fire,” in sacrificial contexts. The noun is often used with the verbπr'v…, “to burn” in ritual contexts (ibid, 205–6). In Lev 13:52, 55, 57, every item of clothing orother thing that had contact with leprosy (or whatever skin disease t["r'x: may represent) hadto be burned.

42. A similar series of destructive acts as a means of punishment can be found at Ugarit.Compare Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus (JPS Torah Commentary 2; Philadelphia: Jewish Publica-tion Society, 1991), 207.

43. Compare here also the following works: Hermann-Josef Stipp, “ ‘Alles Fleisch hatteseinen Wandel auf der Erde verdorben’ (Gen 6,12): Die Mitverantwortung der Tierwelt an derSintflut nach der Priesterschrift,” ZAW 111 (1999): 167–86; Simkins, Creator and Creation, 15–40.The basis for this close relationship is rooted both in the creation of the world and in God’scovenant with his people. Writes Simkins (Yahweh’s Activity in History and Nature in the Book ofJoel [Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 10; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1991], 71), “Thecovenant again demonstrates the fusion of human and natural history in the history of cre-ation from the fact that Israel’s historical deeds have ramifications in the natural world. More-over, according to the dogma of the covenant, Israel’s actions in human history have effects, byinner necessity, in all creation.”

44. This can also be seen in the Sabbath commandment in the context of the Ten Com-mandments, in which the wife does not appear while other members of the household are ex-plicitly mentioned.


Thus, Josh 7—as opposed to Abraham’s story or even the command-ment language—illustrates graphically the interaction of individual deci-sion and collective responsibility. Similar examples can be found in the OTrecord, such as David’s sin that results in death of his first child from Bath-sheba and his subsequent family problems (2 Sam 12:14–20).45 There is alsothe account of the ill-advised census of David, resulting in the plague thatkilled 70,000 people in Israel (2 Sam 24). In this case, however, there maybe some textual markers in the chapter, suggesting that the punishment ofthe people was the result of previous sins.46 Joel Kaminsky includes addi-tional examples, such as Num 16:1–17:15,47 where the wrath of God strikesdown 14,700 Israelites who where unhappy with the divine judgment exe-cuted upon Korah, Dothan, Abiram, their followers, and all their house-holds.48 In his discussion, Kaminisky focuses upon three central ideasconnected with transgenerational retribution: divine wrath, holiness vio-lation, and bloodguilt.49

Individual Responsibility, Part 1 (Deuteronomy 24:16)

One of the most important declarations focusing upon individual respon-sibility can be found in Deut 24:16.The MT reads as follows: t/ba: Wtm}WyAalø

Wtm:Wy /af}j<B} vyaI t/ba:Al[" Wtm}WyAalø μynib:W μyniB:Al[", “the fathers shall not diebecause of the sons, nor shall the sons die because of the fathers; a per-son shall die [or “be put to death”] for his/her sin.”50 Most modernexegetes would explain this verse as an indication of theological maturing

45. 2 Samuel 12:10 indicates one of the less immediate results of David’s sin: rWst:Aalø

μl:/[Ad[" Út}yBEmI br,j<, “the sword shall not depart from your house for eternity.” The debacle ofDavid’s family life (Amnon’s rape of Tamar, his half-sister [2 Sam 13]; the subsequent mur-derous plot of Absalom to avenge his sister Tamar [2 Sam 13:20–39]; Absalom’s rebellion anddeath [2 Sam 15–18]; Adonijah’s rebellion and later death [1 Kgs 1–2]) is a possible fulfillmentof this judgment. See here Robert P. Gordon, I & II Samuel: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zon-dervan, 1986), 260.

46. 2 Samuel 24:1 reads laIr;c‘yiB} t/rj“l" hw;hy]Aπa" πs<Yow', “and the anger of Yhwh again wasadded to burn against Israel.” Only after this introduction is David’s action described. See Gor-don, I & II Samuel, 317.

47. This is the numbering of the MT; the numbering in the English versions is slightlydifferent.

48. Numbers 16:27 again includes the wives, their children [lit. “sons”], and their littleones. Numbers 16:32–33 indicates that the divine punishment included their households, allthe men with Korah, and all their possessions.

49. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility, 55–113. A good example for bloodguilt can befound in 2 Sam 21:1–14, where David—in response to a persistent famine of three years—con-sults with the Gibeonites and, as a response to their request, hands over seven descendents ofKing Saul to be executed so that bloodguilt can be avenged. 2 Samuel 21:14 summarizes theproceedings with the following words: ˆkEAyrej“a" ≈r,a:l: μyhIløa” rtE[:Yew', “and God let himself be sup-plicated for the land after that.”

50. Note that the last phrase seems to indicate a collective, because the verb is plural. Thesubject and the verb, however, are singular. For similar occurrences in Biblical Hebrew, seeBruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN:Eisenbrauns, 1990), 113–15, involving both collectives and class nouns.


in Israel’s religious literature.51 This is based upon the philosophicalpresuppositions of traditional historical criticism, which suggest a concep-tual growth and a wide-ranging editorial process for the literature of theOT that is, however, very distinct from its internal evidence, which placesDeuteronomy in a period prior to the settlement of Canaan and the mon-archy and should not be ignored.52 In the particular case of Deuteronomy,the situation is even more complex, because the entire covenant focus of thebook presupposes a collective or communal perspective of responsibility,thus invalidating the evolutionary perspective of historical criticism, whichgenerally argues for a development from the corporal to the individual.Some important references to the corporal or collective perspective of thebook include Deut 5:1, where the appeal to heed the following laws, whichgovern the covenant between Israel and Yhwh, is directed not to the indi-vidual Israelite but rather to the people as a whole.53 Deuteronomy 17:2–7emphasizes the communal responsibility of isolating and cleansing evildo-ers from the midst of Israel. A similar emphasis on the responsibility of theindividual for the benefit of the entire people can be found in Deut 13:7–12.In Deut 23:10–15, the legislation for keeping the army camp pure indicatesthat a lack of complying with these regulations will result in God’s turningaway from the entire camp. This, in turn, would result in disaster.54

Returning to Deut 24:16, it is interesting to note the specific context ofthis regulation. Deuteronomy 24:6–25:4 is a collection of miscellaneouslaws and leads to legislation concerning a hired man. Verses 17–22 empha-size the rights of the foreigner, the orphan, and the widow. The refrain ofthese laws is: treat other people (especially those with lesser social and eco-nomical clout) justly and even compassionately. Verse 16 takes on crucial

51. See here the many examples provided by Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility, 116–20.Compare Freund, “Individual vs. Collective Responsibility,” 288–91.

52. This is not the place to provide an introduction to the basic issues of historical criti-cism, but some basic bibliography may provide a helpful starting point for the interestedreader: Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology andHistorical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995); Eta Lin-nemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990). Ihave questioned the validity of the arguments of traditional historical-critical source criticism(and dating) of the Pentateuch: “Historical Criticism,” 401–20. Compare also other reviews ofthis crucial issue, from a variety of perspectives: David M. Carr, “Controversy and Conver-gence in Recent Studies of the Formation of the Pentateuch,” RSR 23/1 (1997): 22–31; RolfRendtorff, “Directions in Pentateuchal Studies,” CurBS 5 (1997): 43–65; Bodo Seidel, “Entwick-lungslinien der neueren Pentateuchforschung im 20. Jahrhundert,” ZAW 106 (1994): 476–85;Moises Silva, “ ‘Can Two Walk Together Unless They Be Agreed?’ Evangelical Theology andBiblical Scholarship,” JETS 41 (1998): 3–16; Gordon J. Wenham, “Pondering the Pentateuch:The Search for a New Paradigm,” in The Face of Old Testament Studies. A Survey of ContemporaryApproaches (ed. David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold; Grand Rapids: Baker / Leicester: Apollos,1999), 116–44.

53. Moses addresses laEr;c‘yiAlK:Ala<, “to all of Israel.” The verbs at the end of the verse arealso kept in plural.

54. Deut 23:15 reads Úyr,j“a"mE bv…w] rb:D: tw'r][< Úb} ha<r]yiAaløw] v/dq; Úyn,j“m" hy;h:w], “and your campshall be holy, so that nothing shameful (or, literally, “naked”) shall be found in it, and thus hewill turn away from amongst you.”


importance, because it emphasizes the individual responsibility of those inpositions of power. From this perspective, it should not be construed as alegislative principle designed to counteract the well-established principleof collective solidarity/responsibility but rather seems to function as animportant reminder that collective responsibility does not lead to a jurid-ical collective, in which one could hide and not individually comply withthese issues of social justice.55 Writes Christopher Wright:

This law must be seen in its proper context—namely, the administra-tion of criminal law in human courts. Deuteronomy elsewhere ex-presses a deep understanding of corporate solidarity of the people ofGod, through the covenant that spans the generations. . . . The law fitsin the present context because, like the surrounding laws, it is con-cerned to protect the vulnerable—in this case the relatives of onefound guilty of a capital offense, who, though personally innocent,might be exposed to community anger or vengeance.56

Jacob Milgrom, studying the foundations of biblical dietary laws inthe so-called Priestly texts (P), suggests that fundamentally there are tworealms—the supernatural, divine realm and the human realm. Both oper-ate by distinct principles. While God punishes collectively (from the per-spective of the divine realm), only the individual guilty party may bepunished by humans.57 While not agreeing with his perspective of the lit-erary development of the Pentateuch, the Hebrew Bible fundamentallypoints to the two realms, including references to the heavenly sanctuary(Exod 25:9), which was the “pattern, figure, Urbild” of the earthly sanctu-ary.58 Job 1–2 also provide a view of the heavenly reality, as can be foundin other prophetic literature of both Old and New Testaments. However,

55. Concerning the importance of social justice in Deuteronomy, see Jeffries M. Hamilton,Social Justice and Deuteronomy: The Case of Deuteronomy 15 (SBLDS 136; Atlanta: Scholars Press,1992). Several important principles connected to social justice include inclusion (to be part ofthe established group) and obligation (of those who have the means and power to do justice.Deuteronomy 24:16 seems to fall more into the category of obligation. See also more recentlythe important study by Joel S. Kaminsky, “Did Election Imply the Mistreatment of Non-Israelites?” HTR 96 (2003): 397–425, which discusses the theological interaction of divine elec-tion of Israel and the laws governing the treatment of foreigners in ancient Israel.

56. Wright, Deuteronomy, 259–60. Peter C. Craigie (The Book of Deuteronomy [NICOT;Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976], 310) argues for a careful balance between the individual em-phasis espoused in Deut 24:16 and the collective viewpoint visible in Deut 5:9. He understandsthe effects of three or four generations as suffering from the repercussions of the act of theguilty of his household, clan or even people.

57. Jacob Milgrom, “Ethics and Ritual: The Foundations of the Biblical Dietary Laws,” inReligion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives (ed. Edwin B. Firmage, Bernard G.Weiss, and John W. Welch; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 159–92, esp. p. 190.

58. The crucial term in this context is tynib}T", which appears 20x in the OT (see Exod 25:9,40; Deut 4:16, 17, 18; Josh 22:28; 2 Kgs 16:10; 1 Chr 28:11, 12, 18, 19; Pss 106:20, 144:12; Isa 44:13;Ezek 8:3, 10; 10:8). In Deut 4:16, the text prohibits making—either in masculine or in feminineform—any model that may be used as an idol. In 2 Kgs 16:10, King Ahaz, after having visitedthe Assyrian king in Damascus, sends a model of an Assyrian altar to be constructed in thetemple court. Isa 44:13 describes the futility of the carpenter making an idol according to the


I am not sure that one could argue theologically that they operate on dis-tinct principles.

Individual Responsibility, Part 2 (Jeremiah 31:29–30 and Ezekiel 18:1–4)

Historically, Jeremiah and Ezekiel were contemporaries, working in twodistinct geographical spheres. Whereas Jeremiah’s ministry was predom-inantly concerned with the time before the final destruction of Jerusalemby Nebuchadnezzar in 586 b.c., Ezekiel’s ministry only began in 593 b.c.and continued well into the Exilic Period.59 It seems that both prophetsmake reference to the same proverb, although Ezekiel expands on it inmore detail.60

Jer 31:29. hn;yh<q}TI μynib: yNev¥w] rs<bø Wlk}a: t/ba: d/[ Wrm}ayoAalø μhEh: μymIY;B", “Inthose days it will be said [intransitive] no longer: the fathers ate thesour [unripe] grapes, but the teeth of the sons will be blunt.”

Jer 31:30. wyN;v¥ hn;yh<q}TI rs<Bøh" lkEaøh: μd;a:h:AlK: tWmy; /n/[“B" vyaIAμaI yKI, “be-cause everyone will die for his [own] sin; every person who eats sourgrapes will blunt his own teeth.”

The spotlight of the theological discussion concerning the exile and itscause focused upon collective or corporal responsibility. Both Jeremiah’saudience in Judah and Ezekiel’s audience in Babylon wrestled with similarissues and tried to come to grips with crucial questions of guilt and thecause of the unthinkable—the conquest and destruction of Jerusalem. GarySmith has argued that both prophets attempted to correct an incorrect re-construction of reality by means of citing and correcting a false statement.61

The use of the proverb seems to indicate an unbalanced interpretation ofcollective/corporal solidarity, which was convenient, because it removedindividual responsibility. Both prophets—to their respective audiences—indicate that personal sins were at the root of individual suffering. Theirstatements emphasized a principle elaborated and known in Israelite his-

59. Compare here some standard commentaries: Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20 (AB 22;New York: Doubleday, 1983), 12–17; L. Eugene Cooper Sr., Ezekiel (NAC 17; Nashville: Broad-man & Holman, 1994), 28–37; Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24 (NICOT; GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1997), Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20 (AB 21a; New York: Doubleday, 1999),107–20; F. B. Huey Jr., Jeremiah, Lamentations (NAC 16; Nashville: Broadman, 1993), 26–29; JohnArthur Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 33–50.

60. Note also the difference in verbal mood. Jeremiah has Wlk}a:, “they have eaten” (per-fect), and Ezekiel employs Wlk}ayo, “they eat” (imperfect). “This should be interpreted as an in-tentional adaptation of the proverb by Jeremiah to highlight the anteriority of the father’sactions. Ezekiel’s form, which represents true proverbial style, emphasizes the habitual anddurative nature of the action.” Compare Block, Book of Ezekiel, 560.

61. Gary V. Smith, “The Application of Principles from the Sociology of Knowledge forUnderstanding the Setting, Tradition and Theology of the Prophets,” JETS 32 (1989): 155.

“form” or “model” of a human being. Ezek 8:3 refers to something that has the form of some-thing known. Finally, in 1 Chr 28:19 once again one finds a reference to the details of the modelor plan for the construction of the temple.


tory that had to be balanced with the other guiding principle of collec-tive/corporal solidarity. Furthermore, it also appears that both prophetscombat a “fatalistic view of life engendered by self-pity and a one-sidedemphasis of moral collectivism.”62 It is enlightening to look at the specificcontext of Jeremiah. Following the quotation and correction of the popularproverb, Jeremiah focuses upon the new covenant. He draws deeply fromDeuteronomy, which—as seen above—emphasizes both collective and in-dividual concepts concerning responsibility and community. In Jer 31:31,the object of the new covenant is hd;Why] tyBEAta<w] laEr;c‘yi tyBEAta<, “the house ofIsrael and the house of Judah” (cf. 31:33, 34)—not the individual Israelite.This community is a community before Yhwh, μN;f"q}mIl} ytI/a W[d]ye μL:WkAyKI

μl:/dG}Ad["w], “because all will know me, from their [pl.] smallest to their [pl.]biggest (31:34).” To be sure, both Jeremiah and Ezekiel had preached col-lective solidarity (Jer 2:30, 3:25, 16:10–13, 18:21–23, etc.; Ezek 16) before andwere not on an ideological war path to contextualize worn-out theology.Rather, they both fight fatalism, resignation, and an invalid theology thatdoes not accept responsibility.

Ezekiel presents a powerful counter thesis to the one promulgated bythe popular proverb and declares in 18:4: vp<n,k}W ba:h: vp<n,K} hN;hE ylI t/vp:N]h"AlK: ˆhE

tWmt: ayhI tafEjøh" vp<N,h" hIN;hIAylI ˆBEh", “Behold! Look out! All living beings aremine. Behold! The soul of the father, as well as the soul of the son they aremine. Behold! The soul of the one who sins, he shall die.” This is a signif-icant verse that includes three powerful interjections. The main point ofEzekiel in the context of chap. 18 has to do with creation theology. Basedupon the doctrine of creation, all creatures belong to Yhwh and are thussubject to his judgment.63 Creation theology actually anchors both the in-dividual and the collective/corporal perspective, because it emphasizesthe doctrine of man created in the image of God (which involves the abil-ity to choose) and reminds us that humanity was created for community.

Conclusions of Biblical Evidence Gleaned from Five Critical Passages of the Hebrew Bible

It is clear that a short article cannot do justice to all of the biblical data con-cerning the issue of collectivism/individualism. However, the above dis-cussion has provided sufficient data to draw some general conclusions.

1. When utilizing a synchronic (versus diachronic) approach to Scripture,64 accepting its historicity and inspiration, it becomes

62. Kaiser, Toward Old Testament Ethics, 70. Thompson (Jeremiah, 579) seems to evaluate theprinciple of collective responsibility/solidarity as inferior to individual responsibility.

63. Similar thoughts can be found in Num 16:22; Isa 42:5; Job 12:10, 27:3, 34:4–15; and Ps104:29–30.

64. Compare here the essays in Johannes C. de Moor, ed., Synchronic or Diachronic? A De-bate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis: Papers Read at the Ninth Joint Meeting of Het Oudtesta-mentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en Belgie and The Society for Old Testament Study (OtSt 34;Leiden: Brill, 1995).


clear that the concepts of both collectivism (or corporal solidarity, as Kaiser would want to call it) and individualism are firmly established in Scripture.

2. Both concepts form the matrix of the texture of Israelite anthropology and society and need to be appreciated for what they are and not necessarily evaluated with a 21st-century bias.

3. Individuals and groups can be blessed because of the initiative or faithfulness of one person. Examples of this include Abraham’s household, Lot and his family, Rahab’s family during the conquest, the people of Israel on numerous occasions (with Moses as their mediator), Israel as an entity (during the reign of faithful kings), and, finally, the larger Christian community. Clearly, Christ’s sacrifice for humanity has similar effects and is thus based upon the ideal of collective/corporal solidarity, where one person can change and affect an entire group. Paul puts it in the following words: “Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all” (Rom 5:18).

4. Divine retribution can reach entire households and groups. The reason for these acts of divine justice include prevention of contamination in the face of God’s holiness—a concept of utmost importance to both OT and NT authors. It might be helpful, especially in cases of divine acts of retribution, to introduce the concept of foreshadowed final judgment. God knows the heart and decision of the group/individuals and already executes what will only be realized at the eschaton for most of us.

5. Creation theology can be positioned as the basis for both collectivism and individualism. God creates individuals and endows them with the ability to choose and act and make decisions. However, God created humanity with the need to live in community—Adam needed a partner, children need their parents, families need the larger clan, and so on. Thus, built into humanity was a finely tuned balance between the collective and the individual. The scriptural data pertaining to the fall (Genesis 3) suggests that this finely tuned balance has been destroyed by sin, and since then humanity swings between two major extremes—collective fatalism and extreme individuality.

Contribution of the Sociology of Ancient Cultures

Sociology and anthropology can provide important windows to under-standing ancient and present-day realities. It is clear that the results haveto be carefully weighed and cautiously integrated into the biblical ac-count—and not the other way around. However, these disciplines can makesignificant contributions to our understanding of Scripture and the culture


in which Scripture originated.65 Contemporary anthropology has longabandoned theories based upon the distinction introduced by Lévy-Bruhl(such as “prelogical thinking” and the notion of “primitive mentalities”). Inits place, researchers are beginning to understand the nature of the dyadicpersonality of ancient Mediterranean cultures.66 A dyadic personality isdefined as a specific group or unit set in relation to other groups or unitsand set within a given social and natural background. “Every individual isperceived as embedded in some other, in a sequence of embeddedness so tosay.”67 A comparison taken from the realm of computer technology wouldbe the interconnectedness of servers on the internet. Each server has its ownfunction, but rules and particular specifications exist on how it may com-municate with other servers. As a matter of fact, they are interconnectedand embedded.

The table below provides some of the marked distinctions betweenWestern culture and a dyadic (Mediterranean) culture based on Hanson’stable.

65. Clearly, this does not negate the special revelation and inspiration subscribed toby conservative Christian theology. For a concise discussion of problems, strengths, andchallenges of sociology/anthropology for biblical studies, see Gerald A. Klingbeil and Mar-tin G. Klingbeil, “La lectura de la Biblia desde una perspectiva hermenéutica multidiscipli-naria (I). Consideraciones teóricas preliminarias,” in Entender la Palabra: HermenéuticaAdventista para el Nuevo Siglo (ed. Merling Alomía et al.; Cochabamba: Universidad Adven-tista de Bolivia, 2000), 158–62.

66. Compare Hanson, “Sin, Purification, and Group Process,” 170–71.67. Ibid., 171.

Western Culture Dyadic Culture• Emphasis on autonomy and individualism • Emphasis on sociality and group orientation• Emphasis on rights and the right to experi-ment and change individually and socially

• Emphasis on duty and loyalty with the obli-gation to remain in one’s group(s) and abideby its decision

• Preference for majoritarian decision mak-ing, with the willingness to abide by the will ofthe majority

• Preference for consensual decision making,with dissatisfaction should one be omittedfrom the consensual process of one’s peers

• Respect for efficiency, ability, success • Respect for hierarchy, seniority, family• Quality of life assessed in terms of individu-al success, achievement, self-actualization,self-respect

• Quality of life assessed in terms of family/group success, achievement, respect of othersfor the group

• Quality of work life judged by a task’s chal-lenge to the individual and the intrinsic needsof the individual that it meets

• Quality of work life judged by degree towhich a job allows the individual to fulfill ob-ligations to the family/groups

• Avoiding guilt, either internalized or ap-plied by another for some infraction, is a fun-damental concern

• Avoiding being shamed by others, and thusmaintaining one’s family’s/group’s honor, is afundamental concern

• Preserving self-respect is basic • Preserving face, i.e., respect from one’s refer-ence groups, is basic

• Children learn to think of themselves as “I” • Children learn to think of themselves as“we”

spread one pica short


Conclusions

It is clear that the culture of the Hebrew Bible and the NT was much closerto a dyadic culture (embedded and interrelated culture) than to thepresent-day dominant Western cultural world view in both theory andpractice. This challenges 21st-century Christians to renegotiate their cul-turalization. But given the fact that culture and world view both generatevalues and depend on values, is this possible?68 There is a need for a bib-lically based value system. This value system could perhaps even functionas a kind of biblical “metaculture.” Metaculture is definitely not a specific“authorized” culture whereby we need to “take off” our native culture and“redress” in the new culture with new forms, practices, actions, and val-ues. Rather, a biblical metaculture would function as a type of roof, underwhich 21st-century Christians can come together and understand eachother and appreciate the diversity of practice and upbringing, becausethey all share in the same important divinely inspired values. The 21st-century Western emphasis on individualism and its accompanying valuesand lifestyle choices need to be questioned on the basis of the overall bib-lical value system. While it is true that individual liberty, efficiency, andtask orientation are important values and benefits of the 21st century, re-sponsibility toward a larger whole, to the “we” mentality, the desire forconsensus, respect for hierarchy and family structures, and the overalllarger picture should not be forgotten. It is obvious that the recognition ofthese issues and their underlying world view provides a much broaderbase to solve the perceived conflict between individualism and collectiv-ism in the context of the 21st-century church based upon principles dis-covered in Scripture.

Taking the clue from creation theology, both aspects of individualismand collective solidarity can be found in Scripture, because they are bothpresent in the account of the beginning. The principle of responsibility to-ward the next generation(s) can be found in the basic legal code given byGod to Israel (and through Israel to humanity), and as a result life must beunderstood as an interconnected affair in which my lifestyle and choices af-fect my family and their families in a decisive manner. However, this is bal-anced by a gracious God who shows his mercy to a thousand generations,thus promising to be able to overcome our wrong choices. Another relevantbiblical concept concerns God’s holiness. Holiness violation demands jus-tice, and the examples of collective retribution from the Hebrew Bible needto be understood in terms of a foreshadowed final judgment. This is a so-

• A person-based culture: there are relativelyoverlapping social roles for males and females,with no explicit sexual division of labor. How-ever, dominant values are those of males

• A gender-based culture: a sexual division oflabor with no overlapping roles. Dominantvalues are those of males with females embed-ded in males

68. See the model of dynamic world view interaction by Kearney, p. 323 above.

Western Culture Dyadic Culture


bering thought, because it reminds us as a church that we are responsibleto a holy and gracious but real God who will one day ask for explanations.

Understanding the intricate relationship between collective and in-dividual responsibility helps us to overcome the increasing perception ofisolation that eats up entire communities in the Western world. We arenot alone, but are part of something bigger. This is a concept that needsto be emphasized. Community is not an option, but a must in order tosurvive the crisis lying before us. In this context, it is important to notethat the last book of the NT, describing scenes both on earth and in heaven,mostly utilizes group imagery, thus emphasizing the existing concept ofcollective/corporal solidarity.69

Finally, the blessing aspect of corporal solidarity needs to stressed.Humanity was designed to live in community. Both as a church and as in-dividuals, we can be a blessing. In Abraham, all nations were blessed.Through Christ, the second Adam, all humanity can find the way back tothe Father. Through our lives and work in different cultures, these culturescan be blessed—or can deteriorate. It is a choice we need to make, both in-dividually and collectively as the church.

69. Compare the description of the churches (Rev 1–3), the group of 24 elders (4:4), the144,000 and the great multitude (7:4, 9; 14:1), those who overcame (15:2), the great multitudein heaven (19:1, 6), and so on.

Date post:	24-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Between “I” and “We”: The Anthropology of the Hebrew Bible ...theological implications of...

Documents