In part 1 (0-17:00), The guys quickly recap their conversation so far. Tim then dives into a third perspective on the Hebrew laws in the Old Testament.
The third perspective is that the laws embody and revolutionize ancient Eastern conceptions of justice. The laws are formulated in the language and categories of ancient Near Eastern law, so that Israel’s law was comprehensible to their neighbors while also representing an irreversible cultural revolution.
Tim notes that in all the other ancient covenant documents (Hittite, Assyrian) only one is between a king and a people, while dozens of others are between one king and another king. Covenants are agreements between kings. But the Biblical story depicts the laws as stipulations between God and all the Israelites: “I will be their God and they will be my people.” This is the same kind of language we find in the Song of Solomon, “I am my beloved’s and he is mine” (Song of Solomon 6:3). This is marriage covenant language.
Tim uses some quotes from Joshua Berman to make his points.
“In the ancient near east, various gods had consorts and goddess wives, while the common man was subject, a slave and servant of the king and the tribute-imposing class. For these cultures to conceive of the marriage between a god and a group of humans, would have been as unthinkable as for us to imagine the marital union of a human and a cat… The Bible’s most revolutionary idea… is the idea of God as a personality who seeks a relationship of mutuality with human agents. In the neighboring cultures of the ancient Near East, humans were merely slaves of the king. In the Bible, they are transformed into a servant king who is married to a generous sovereign, a wife in relation to her benefactor husband. When God seeks “love” from Israel, it involves both the political sense of loyalty between parties to a treaty as well as the kind of intimacy known in a faithful, intimate relationship between a man and woman.” (Berman, Created Equal, 46)
This concept of a human family married to God is founded on the concept of humanity in Genesis 1-2. All humanity, male and female, is the divine royal image over all creation. And while the Davidic king could be called the “son of God,” it was only as the representative of all Israel who is the “son of God” (Exodus 4:22). The king and all the Israelites are themselves equals under their “divine king” Yahweh. Tim again cites Joshua Berman:
“While in Egypt and Mesopotamia, the bridge figure between the divine and human was the king, deified (as in Egypt) or more of a demi-god (Mesopotamia). He was the top of the socio-religious structure with the economic elite, and this was mirrored by the hierarchy of the gods. NOT SO in biblical Israel. God’s covenant was with the entirety of Israel, focused on the “common man.” I maintain that it is in the covenant, properly conceived in in ancient Near Eastern setting, that we may discern a radically new understanding of the cosmic role of the common man within the thought systems of the ancient Near East, one that constituted the basis of an egalitarian order.” (Berman, Created Equal, 29)
In part 2 (17:00-25:15), Tim explains why Israel’s law codes consistently downgrades the role of the king in contrast to their neighbors. The king is not the sole, chief, divine authority; rather, Yahweh is king, and the human king is subservient to the Scriptures (Deuteronomy 17) and to prophets who speak on Yahweh’s behalf. He is a leader in war, but he is not the chief. He can participate in the temple, but he is not the high priest. He is subservient to the law, but he is not the lawgiver. This is all in contrast to Egypt and Babylon.
Tim also explains that the laws allowed Israel’s economy to be oriented toward landed families, which were called to include the immigrant, poor, and orphans. It is the first ancient example of “welfare society.” You can see examples of laws about not maximizing profit to allow work in the fields in Ruth chapters 2-