The following was written by Scott Hafemann for students at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in his class Interpreting the New Testament. It is included in the famed “Beale Packet” which began as a series of handouts that Greg Beale used to give out to students in this class when he was a professor at GCTS. It is now available at Roy Ciampa‘s New Testament Resources site and is a required manual for most students who now take this class at GCTS. In the following, Hafemann assumes his students will be familiar with a method of close reading called “discourse analysis” that helps follow the flow of thought in a given text by tracing the connection of each proposition.

Once we have mastered the various logical relationships that can exist between propositions, we will be able to discover and determine which relationships actually do exist as the author’s argument unfolds. Therefore, our first task in exegesis will be to analyze the discourse by tracing the flow of the argument. Specifically, we will:

• Translate the passage from Greek into a literal English rendering.
• Go through the passage isolating the individual propositions. Remember that each proposition must contain both a subject and a predicate. If you deem it necessary to make a participial or prepositional phrase into a separate proposition, you must either convert the participle into a finite verb or supply one for the prepositional phrase.
• Next, attempt to relate each proposition to what precedes. Indicate your understanding of the argument by selecting a connecting word or phrase, which makes each relationship explicit. Whenever an author supplies such a connecting link (conjunction or phrase), remain faithful to it unless it seems absolutely impossible to do so!
• Finally, outline the argument in the margin by using the bracket method illustrated in class. When you are finished, you should be able to state the main point of the text and all of its supporting points.

But having paraphrased the text, we may be tricked into thinking that we understand what an author is up to (for after all, just to get this far is a major accomplishment!). Actually, we have just begun. We now have something to work with beyond just a vague feeling about the “meaning” of the passage. We now know what our author says, but if this is where we stop, all we have exercised is our memory and a few analytic skills. For in talking about the difference between memory and enlightenment, M.J. Adler writes:

To be informed is to know simply that something is the case. To be enlightened is to know, in addition, what it is all about: why it is the case,what its connections are with other facts, in what respects it is different, and so forth. This distinction is familiar in terms of the differences between being able to remember something and being able to explain it. Enlightenment is achieved only when, in addition to knowing what an author says you know what he means and why he says it. (How to Read a Book, 1972 ed., p.11)

How then do we move from memory to understanding or enlightenment? The answer is simple: ASKING QUESTIONS IS THE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING! This does not mean that the exegete has not already asked many, many questions in the process of analyzing the text. Discourse analysis demands that one ask questions of every individual proposition (See the separate hand-out, “Questions to ask yourself in the attempt to determine the logical relationship between propositions”). In the course of discourse analysis, perhaps six of the seven key observational questions will already have been asked (who?, what?, where?, when?, and why?). But even more specifically, all of the questions needed to come to grips with the argument will have been explored.

But now it is time to ask those questions that flow out of the seventh general category, “What is going on here?” In asking, “what is going on here” kinds of questions, we are not concerned with questions of significance (remember the key distinction between the “meaning” and “significance” of a text!). That will come last. At this point we are still working at the exegetical level. All of the questions we must now ask are questions that spring from the text and are to be answered from the same source.

And in asking and answering these questions, never go to a commentator until you have first allowed yourself the privilege of going to the author! And do not listen to gossip without a very suspecting ear. You will be able to tell if your questions and answers come from the text by whether or not they are phrased with and supported by ideas that have concrete expression in the text itself, the relevant historical background, or theological presuppositions used by the author (be careful with this last one, however, that what you think is presupposed is actually there).

“What is going on here” questions are questions that come about because one now understands what the author is saying, but what the author is saying seems to raise problems with what the author is saying! For as Dr. Daniel Fuller has rightly observed:

Whenever someone is imparting understanding, or insight, or a new way of looking at things, he will always say things which seem strange and, at the outset, incoherent with other things that he is saying.

Thus, for example, after analyzing Jesus’ words in Luke 12:1-7 one is troubled by the observation that Jesus commands his disciples to fear and not to fear God at the same time! How is it that Jesus can warn and comfort his “friends” at the same time? And how do Jesus’ words of comfort based on the comparison to the value of the birds hold up in view of the fact that God also throws people into hell? These are questions that flow out of the text and whose answers are essential to really understanding what is going on here! When we are done with our discourse analysis, it will be these “strange…incoherent…things” which will force us to think and understand our author.

Perhaps you are beginning to see how essential a part of reading it is to be perplexed and know it. Wonder is the beginning of wisdom in learning from books as well as from nature. If you never ask yourself any questions about the meaning of a passage, you cannot expect the book to give you any insight you do not already possess. (M.J. Adler, How to Read a Book, p.123)

These are profound words and they are certainly true of the book of books as well! When we come to the Bible, our goal is not to read our old, worn ideas back into the text, but to be brought along to new and deeper understandings of the inspired words of the biblical authors, This means that we will never be happy until we read the Scripture carefully enough to be troubled by what we read and then take the time to formulate our problems into questions to ponder and ultimately solve.

Reading = asking questions that you yourself must try to answer in the course of reading! Here are some general guidelines concerning formulating good questions that I have again taken with his permission from the unpublished work of Dr. Daniel P. Fuller, this time from a paper he wrote in 1977:

• Questions should evince troubledness. Ask questions which show, by the way they are stated and by their nature, that they arose from your being troubled by what you observed in the text as you analyzed its discourse. Experience proves that only when we are faced by a sharply focused question will our answers represent the sort of thinking that is worthy of studying the Holy Scriptures.
• Avoid asking a question whose answer is quite obvious or which makes others feel it is being asked primarily to provide an occasion for bringing out some insight that one thinks a verse or passage contains.
• Avoid vague, strange or abstract language in posing your question. When this kind of language is used, it constitutes evidence that the trouble or uneasiness one feels has not become sufficiently clarified. Remember, you are trying to pinpoint your problem with a question. Work for precision.
• Substantiate your troubledness where necessary, from inferences drawn from the text, not your own theological convictions or Christian experience. Primarily, we want to understand the biblical author better, not each other. Besides, you want everyone to feel your problem; otherwise no one will care about the answer. One of the best ways to both pinpoint a problem and evince to all your feeling of troubledness is to pose a question by asking which of two alternatives (both of which have some plausibility) is true.
• Avoid asking a question that involves some curiosity arising from something incidental to what is said in the text. If you have a hunch that others might think your question is trivial, when in fact it is vital for the way you see the authorÂ’s line of thought, then point out why it is indeed a vital question.

There are also good and bad ways to formulate your answers, either in papers or in the pulpit, or in your own quiet time when asking questions and answering is very important. Here are some criteria to keep in mind for having good answers:

• One part of the answer should be a direct affirmation answering the question. This often should be your first statement.
• Support your answer persuasively by arguments based on the data of the text, and/or some pertinent historical background information, and/or some axiom. Avoid arguing for answers by mere speculation. If we are going to persuade people, then we must base arguments logically on facts, and avoid so-called arguments that consist of speculative plausibility.
• Avoid verbosity in your question and answer. Confine your answer to the conclusion which answers the question and the arguments which support and lead to your conclusion. Many teachers and preachers loose their audience because they cannot keep to the point.

The Question of Significance

Of course, the final step in any exegesis done with an eye toward the Church is to ask “so what?” At this point we are now ready to span the centuries, with some help along the way (do not neglect the great theologians, commentators, and preachers through the ages!), by building the ties between the Bible and us.

Remember that here the key work is “correspondence”! Our significance will only be as good as the meaning upon which it is built and the analogies that bind our two times and problems together. But if we err, we usually do so at the exegetical end! Mining the meaning of the Bible is hard work. As Francis Bacon once said, “some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested.” There is no doubt which category the Scriptures fall into, or that they are worth our effort.

Let us set ourselves to the task with dedication and anticipation. We have much to learn and the Church has much to gain from it.

For reading is learning from one who is absent. If you ask a living teacher a question, he will probably answer you. If you are puzzled by what he says, you can save yourself the trouble of thinking by asking him what he means. If, however, you ask a book a question, you must answer it yourself when you question it, it answers you only to the extent that you do the work of thinking and analysis yourself. (Adler, How to Read a Book, p.15)

[googlevideo]5395083952125133994[/googlevideo]

Got this from http://www.wikihow.com/Ask-a-Question-Intelligently:

1. Define exactly what it is you want to know. This involves categorizing all the concepts in your head. Once you have the concept you are unsure of clearly in your head, then you can begin. Don’t ask a question just for the sake of it.
2. Never ask a question in an aggressive manner that indicates you are only asking the question to prove to the other person that you are right and they are wrong, unless they are wrong and refuse to admit it. Ask because you are genuinely interested.
3. Start off with something simple that lets them know that you are about to state your opinion, but realise it is not complete and you are hoping they can fill in some gaps.
4. Lay your concepts/ideas and assumptions on the table taking care to make sure that the other person is fully aware of exactly what your current thinking is, and why you think it.
5. Pleasantly ask for the gap in your knowledge to be filled, and if appropriate, ask them how they know this and what the general trend is that would short cut path to that knowledge. i.e. no use in asking “is that alive? is that alive?” to everything you see, when the general trend is “if it grows and/or moves independently, then it is. otherwise, you can take it as a given that it is not.”
6. Thank the person. Try and return the favor sometime.

Tips:

• Example: “well, up to now, i’ve always thought that classical music was awful music and not worth listening to. Maybe it’s because all my friends hated it. But if musicians and educated men and women enjoy it, there must be something to it. I know you like it, so can you tell me what there is to appreciate?”
• Incorporate the audience into the question. Invite them in with phrases such as- “did you think about..” or “Have you considered this question…”
• Try and read more so you have substance to what you are actually saying.
• Don’t use huge words. They’ll make you sound pretentious. Just tap into your intellectual but friendly side, and don’t worry too much about coming off as brilliant.

Warning:

Watch out for getting aggressive at the response you get if you don’t like the answers you get. If you’re not willing to receive any and all answers, don’t ask the question. Sometimes a person can answer aggressively to your innocent query. Don’t fret. They just think the question was beneath them, and that you are stupid to ask it. You’re not. They are just bitter and have forgotten what it’s like to search for answers. Basically they think they know everything. You know you don’t. You’re the tortoise. They are the hare.

The theme of covenant has been seldom explored beyond the context of covenant nomism in recent years. Covenant nomism was popularized by E.P. Sanders in his work, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Since its publication, many have sought to understand the relationship of the law in Paul to that of his contemporaries in Second Temple Judaism. The discussion has generally centered on the function of the “works of the law” with regards to justification and the nature of righteousness for those deemed justified. As these are extremely pertinent for a comprehensive understanding of Paul, it has behooved most to properly frame the Ancient Near Eastern context of the Mosaic covenant, as well as the covenantal contrast between the Mosaic and New Covenants. To be sure, covenantal nomism has kept the recent discussion attentive to many of the issues surrounding Covenantal theology, but it has overlooked the broader Old Testament context from which it is be illumined. Therefore, in this brief study we will review the elements of Late Bronze Suzerain-Vassal covenant forms present in the Old Testament/Mosaic Law, we will explore Paul’s understanding of contrast between the Mosaic and New Covenants, and we will peak into covenant traditions present in Paul.

George Mendenhall‘s groundbreaking work (“Covenant Forms in the Israelite Tradition,” Biblical Archaeologist 17 [1954]: 50-76) on the parallels of Ancient Near Eastern covenant forms in the Old Testament have greatly nuanced the way we understand the nature of God’s relationship to Israel. It has helped us to put Israel in a more precise historical context among contemporary nations, as well as to see how much differently Yahweh is from the gods of the other nations. Although the structure of Later Bronze Hittite covenants had already been present in Ancient Near Eastern studies, Mendenhall was the first to point out the similarities of structure to portions of the Old Testament. The structural features in which he observed these commonalities were: 1. Identification of a Covenant Giver, 2. An Historical Prologue, 3. The Stipulations, 4. Provision for Deposit and Public Reading, 5. A Listing of Treaty Witnesses, 6. The Blessings and Curses, 7. A Ratification Ceremony, 8. Imposition of the Curses. These are obvious features to observe in the Pentateuch/Torah, which is why there has been very little objection to Mendenhall’s findings. In fact, Meredith Kline has shown at great lengths that Deuteronomy itself fits this structure as exactly as any Late Bronze Suzerain-Vassal treaty. Essentially, a Suzerain-Vassal covenant is a binding oath between a larger ruler (suzerain) and protected nation (vassal) sometimes issued when the larger ruler/nation steps in to help the other in a military campaign (see 2 Kings 16:1-8). Upon the victory of that campaign, the vassal is bound to the stipulations of the treaty in order to maintain the continued support and protection promised by the suzerain. This was ratified by the sacrificing of an animal, as it was normally cut into halves and each party would walk between the halves, symbolically invoking death upon the disobedient party. There would be two copies of the official document drafted, one to be placed in the respective temple of each nation. The covenant at Sinai encapsulates all of these occurrences, and we get a snapshot of this in Ex. 19-24.

Perhaps the reason why “covenant” slips under the radar in modern Pauline studies in the way we are describing may be the relatively few uses of the word diatheke, “covenant,” in his letters. He only employs it 9 times. This may be an indication to some of its de-emphasis because its Hebrew counterpart berit is used about 286 times in the Old Testament. However, we should be careful not to be guilty of the “Word-Thing” fallacy, assuming that just because a single word is not used often that a concept is not fully present. This is particularly relevant considering recent articulation of the phenomena of intertextuality that is littered throughout Paul’s epistles with the Old Testament. Paul was a burgeoning Pharisaic Rabbi before the Damascus Road experience, and he had devoted his life to study the Torah. So although he might not have used the word all that much in his writings, it cannot be overlooked that his entire framework for understanding the nature of theology and ministry was covenantal. We cannot escape this because the Mosaic Covenant/Old Testament had even created the theological terminology that he uses to describe what has taken place in Christ. Consider the following covenant words/themes found in Paul:

•  mediator (1 Tim.2:5)
• minister/servant (Rom.15:8,16; Eph.3:7)
• law (Rom.2:12; 3:19; Gal.2:16)
• commandment (Rom.7:13)
• bless/curse (Rom.12:14; Gal.3:10)
• righteousness (Rom.4:3: 2 Cor.3:9)
• eat/drink (1 Cor.10:3-4; 11:23-26)
• Father/Son (Rom.1:3-4; Phil.1:2; Col.1:2)
• sin/transgression/iniquity (Rom.3:23; Gal.6:1; 1 Thes.4:6)
• atonement/propitiation (Rom.3:25)
• temple (1 Cor.6:19; Eph.2:21)
• Sabbath (Rom.14:4; Col.2:16)
• kingdom (1 Cor.6:9; 15:24; 2 Tim.4:18)
• heir/sonship/adoption (Rom.4:13; Gal.4:7; Eph.1:5)
• redeem/redemption (Gal.4:5; Tit.2:14)
• witness (2 Cor.1:23; Phil.1:8)
• offering/sacrifice (Eph.5:2; Phil.2:17)
• know/knowledge (Phil.3:10; 2 Thes.1:8)

Surely we should be sensitive to the contemporary expression Paul had available to him the Greco-Roman world in which he lived. This serves to magnify the fact that Paul communicated with biblical/covenant language when crafting his more poignant theological dialogue, even to predominantly Gentile communities.

In two specific sections in his writings he discusses at length historical-redemptive covenant theology in 2 Cor.6:1-18 and Gal. 3-4. In these passages, he gives his rationale for why the Mosaic Law offers only death and how the New Covenant transcends by it offering life. In 2 Cor.6:1-18, he zeroes in on the Letter/Spirit contrast resident in the two covenants. He even goes as far as to label the Law of Moses as “the ministry of death” (vs.7) and “condemnation” (vs.9) as it was, written on tables of stone. He contends that this “letter” brings death, surely drawing from his argument in Rom.7:7-11:

What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment deceived me and through it killed me.

He likens the Law to the glory that was on Moses face which needed to be concealed to Israel by a veil over his face (vs.7). Even then, there was a veil over their hearts every time they read the Law (vs.15) because their hearts were hardened by it (vs.14). However, the glory of the New Covenant revealed in Christ is infinitely superior because it does not fade and has no end (vs.11). It is written not on a tablets of stone, but on the tablet of the heart (vs.3), drawing on Ezek.36:26 and Jer.31:33. Since this covenant is imparted directly by the Spirit on the heart with no outside mediator, those in it are now with “unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord and being transformed into the same image” (vs.18). So we can summarize by saying that the Letter/Spirit contrast is about the difference in the nature of the Mosaic and New Covenants.

In Galatians 3-4, Paul focuses on the purpose of the Mosaic Covenant in light of the New Covenant. He is trying to remind the Galatians very forcefully that no one will be justified by the works of the Law (3:11). In other words, no one can please God escatologically by trying to execute their duties as prescribed by the Law of Moses. The reasons for this are because no one is truly able to execute this covenant so we are cursed in trying to do so (3:10), and the purpose of the Law was to make transgression fully visible and never to offer eternal life (3:18-19). This covenant came to bring us into slavery and imprisonment so that we could be rescued by Christ (vs.23-24). So Paul is setting up two different covenantal strands that find their culmination in the allegory of Hagar and Sarah in 4:21-31. Hagar corresponds to the slavery that exists under the Mosaic Law and is demonstrated in the contemporary Judaism that is visible in Jerusalem (vs.25). Sarah corresponds to the freedom that exists under the New Covenant and is demonstrated in the promises God offers His people in the New (spiritual) Jerusalem (vs.26-28). So the Mosaic Covenant existed to serve as a physical template that would anticipate the spiritual realities to come in the new age that has been inaugurated in the death and resurrection of Christ. Thus, in order to partake of this inaugurated Covenant, we need to believe in what Christ accomplished on our behalf and so cast out the “slave woman” (the Mosaic Covenant) (vs.29-31).

One of the New Covenant symbols we carry forward in this inaugurated age is the Lord’s Supper. We don’t often think about it in covenantal terms, but it is very clear in 1 Cor.10:1-11 that it is a covenantal oath-sign. In 10:1-11, we are typologically linked to Israel as they came under the Sinai covenant through Moses in the desert. He points to the way they “ate and drank” and rose up to idolatry (vs.7). Paul’s use of “eating” and “drinking” together in light of the context inextricably link to the Lord’s Supper. This sacrament is brought to light at the start of the next section in 10:16 (“cup of blessing,” “bread which we break”) for the purpose of demonstrating to the Corinthians that there is a spiritual connection between God and his people as expressed in eating and drinking (10:16-22). The tie that may, perhaps, bind the picture of “food and drink” in Israel’s Exodus with the Lord’s Supper is the concept of covenant. “Eating and drinking” was a common oath-sign in Ancient Near Eastern covenant forms, and Israel partook of such “communion meals” during the Exodus period. Paul uses “eating and drinking” this way in 10:7, as quoted from Ex.32:6 where Israel, offered sacrifices and had a “feast to the LORD” (Ex.32:5) after ratifying their covenant with God (Ex.24:7-8). This squares with the Lord’s Supper as the proclamation of the New Covenant death of Christ (11:23-26), and accounts for the severe penalty for eating and drinking unworthily (invoking curse; 11:27-32). Paul argues on both sides of our passage that one is a “sharer,” or “partaker” of the sacrifices from which they eat (9:13; 10:17,18,20). It is the partaking of sacrifices that bind people to their gods/God covenantally, which is why he is so adamant that they should not knowingly eat what is sacrificed to idols (10:22).

So we have provided an orientation for grasping how the concept of covenant was understood and adapted by Paul. This, of course, is short in nature, but perhaps may help percolate thought on further studies for this in his writings.

For Further Study:

Beale, G.K. (ed.). The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts: Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994

Dunn, James. “Did Paul Have a Covenant Theology? Reflections on Romans 9:4 and 11:27.” The Concept of Covenant in the Second Temple Period. ed. By Stanley Porter & Jacqueline C.R. de Roo. Supplements of the Journal for the Study of Judaism Vol.71. Leiden: Brill, 2003

Gallant, Tim. “Paul and Torah-An Introductory Overview.” forthcoming chapter in his book These are Two Covenants: The Mosaic Law in Paul’s Thought. Monroe, LA: Athanasius

Hafemann, Scott J. Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Series 2 Volume 81. Tubingen: J.C.B.Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995

Hahn, Scott. “Covenant in Old and New Testaments: Some Current Research (1994-2004).” Currents in Biblical Research 3.2 (2005): 263-292

Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989

Hugenberger, Gordon. Marriage as a Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as Developed from Malachi. Biblical Studies Library. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998

Kline, Meredith G. The Structure of Biblical Authority. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975

——–. Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview. Overland Park, KS: Two Age Press, 2000

Mendenhall, George E. & Herion, Gary A. “Covenant.” Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol.1. ed. by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992

Porter, Stanley E. “The Concept of Covenant in Paul.” The Concept of Covenant in the Second Temple Period. ed. By Stanley Porter & Jacqueline C.R. de Roo. Supplements of the Journal for the Study of Judaism Vol.71. Leiden: Brill, 2003

Wright, N.T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991