540 - Faithfulness in Action

Faithfulness in Action
By Katharine Doob Sakenfeld
Philadelphia, Fortress, 1985. 176 pp. $8.95.

Subtitled "Loyalty in Biblical Perspective," volume 16 in the Overtures to Biblical Theology surely ranks with the best in the series. "Loyalty" here stands for that most evocative Hebrew word that was the subject of Sakenfelds's Harvard dissertation, The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible. This new work is less technical and less comprehensive, but no less valuable. Here the approach is via biblical stories of human interdependence, juxtaposed with crises of mutuality and fidelity in late twentieth century society.

Where RSV, for example, consistently translated God's hesed as "steadfast love," and used a variety of terms (most often "kindness," mercy," "loyalty") for human hesed, Sakenfeld argues convincingly that "loyalty" will do justice to all but perhaps a handful of occurrences in the Hebrew Bible (for example, the man of Bethel in Judges I and the kings of Israel in I Kings 20).

Sakenfeld's descriptive method is one that allows an ancient perspective to function as a lens through which the problematics of twentieth century loyalties may be seen up close. Because all talk about God is anthropomorphic, a chapter on "Stories of Human Loyalty," where hesed figures explicitly, sets the parameters: stories of David (and

542 - Faithfulness in Action

Jonathan, Hanun, Barzillai, Hushai); other stories of political conflict (spies at Jericho and Bethel, Ahab and Ben-hadad); and stories of family relationships (Sarah and Abraham, Joseph and Jacob, Ruth and Naomi). Loyalty emerges from these stories as an attitude manifested in concrete action toward another person or persons in a situation of serious need, where the only presupposition of the action is a context of existing relationship. There are no societal legal sanctions for failure to show loyalty. Hesed, in other words, may be covenantally demonstrated, experienced, or strengthened, but it is not first of all covenantally based. The act of loyalty may, therefore, be seen as one of moral responsibility (moral commitment before God), but not one of formally legal obligation. The moral decision is one that can often be made in private, with no one the wiser in the event of default.

The problematics of ancient royalties are likewise put on display in this work, as in the story of Israelite kings well-known for their hesed (RSV "merciful," I Kings 20:31), which is followed immediately by condemnation of one of them (probably Ahab) for precisely such behavior (vv. 35-43). Good intentions don't, and didn't, suffice as ultimate standard. Some hesed stories involve an oath. Sakenfeld concludes that the oath "provides assurance which reinforces the underlying bond between those involved and serves to sustain the resolve of the oath taker."

ll this is background to a chapter on God's Covenant Loyalty which, by contrast, is renowned as permanent, "enduring forever." Sakenfeld gives a carefully balanced presentation of the Mosaic covenant tradition (promising God's loyalty to the obedient as background to a "Forgiving Loyalty," Exod. 34:6b-7 and elsewhere), and the Davidic covenant tradition (where at last God's commitment to the king is no longer even surprising, for example, Psalm 89). With these as memories, plus the reality of exile, Deutero-Isaiah alludes to a radically transformed perspective on loyalty (Isa. 55:3b-5 and 54:7-10).

Chapter 4 explores usage of hesed in the Psalms and confronts head-on the poets' dire hopes for "enemies," commending at least their honesty before God.

It is in the prophetic tradition (chap. 5) that loyalty, formerly a one-directional theological word (from God to Israel), is deliberately turned around (Mic. 6:8 and elsewhere). "Loyal living represents piety in the best and most positive sense of the word: devotion to God and active pursuit of justice and righteousness in the life of the community."

This is a fine book. One quibble: in view of the structural irony that pervades II Samuel 9-20, one may still wonder if David's desire to do hesed, twice frustrated at the outset, is not remembered by the narrator as politically motivated, or at least represents a double entendre.

Robert G. Boling
McCormick Theological Seminary
Chicago, Illinois