Although witnesses are not usually charged with covenant, treaty or contract enforcement, they are expected to be honest brokers, as in, “Yes, your honor, I did see these two parties promise to do X, Y and Z in exchange for A, B and C.”
But who is to witness a Suzerainty covenant between God and God’s people? In the Sinai covenant situation, we would not look to a third party, such as lesser gods or unchosen people. The natural assumption is that the more powerful partner, the Suzerain, will decide whether the contract is being kept.
Although there are no defined witnesses as part of God’s covenant with the Jews under Moses, there are witnesses during Joshua’s renewal ceremony.
In Joshua 24.22, we read, “Then Joshua said to the people, ‘You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen the LORD, to serve him.’ And they said, ‘We are witnesses.’” Placing responsibility directly on the people for monitoring contract adherence must have been hugely empowering for the people. This particular topic deserves further exploration. When juxtaposed against the chronic rejoinder that God decides everything, this act of empowering the populous could have tremendous theological implications.
Ironically (and disappointingly), we read just a few lines later, “Joshua said to all the people, ‘See, this stone shall be a witness against us; for it has heard all the words of the LORD that he spoke to us; therefore it shall be a witness against you, if you deal falsely with your God.’” The use of stones as witnesses is not unprecedented, as we read in Genesis 43.48.
I am mystified as to why the power of witness was given to the people, then taken away, so quickly, unless the intent was to say that the witness of the people should be as permanent and immovable as the stone upon which the laws were written.
It is interesting to note that this same passage from Joshua seems to confirm the existence of other gods if not a divine counsel. We read that God is jealous of foreign gods, but these gods are not called upon to play witness, probably because the nature of the contract itself calls for the people to ignore them.
.jpg)
You make an interesting point here. It is curious as to why Joshua would proclaim two different sources to be witnesses in such close proximity. I suppose it could be a source issue like those repetitions in Genesis, but placed together, it makes for a curious juxtaposition. Joshua's use of "this stone," too seems trivial and I wonder if it is meant to represent the natural Earth as witness in a more specific way.
ReplyDeleteHmm, I guess I see the references to the people as witnesses and the stone as a witness to be complementary rather than contradictory. Who is to say that there can be only one witness to a covenant? People can certainly be witnesses to one another, holding one another accountable for keeping up their end of the agreement. At the same time, people are forgetful and can thus benefit from visual reminders, kind of like the symbol of the wedding ring in a contemporary marriage ceremony.
ReplyDelete