Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:31:46.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Of Metaphors and Analogies: Legal Language and Covenant Theology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2009

Francis Lyall
Francis Lyall
Affiliation:
Department of Public LawUniversity of Aberdeen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For some years I have been interested in exploring the use made of legal language by Paul and other New Testament writers. Recently, however, I have been reading a fair amount of Covenant Theology, and have become increasingly aware of the problems that arise from the application of ‘covenant’ terminology and related metaphors. Accordingly, in this article I want first to consider the general nature and function of metaphors and analogies as I see their role in the transmission of the truths of Christianity, and then to apply these generalities to the field of Covenant Theology. It seems to me that much discussion in that field comes down to argument about the content of the metaphoric language involved, and that some of the argument arises from an improper approach to metaphor. However, as I am aware that my reading has been limited and patchy, and that, as a lawyer, I am intruding into another discipline, I will refrain from attempting the scholarly citation of precise examples from theological writing, in the hope that ideas from my discipline will not be dismissed merely on grounds of error of example.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , February 1979 , pp. 1 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 2 note 1 cf. Bannerman, J.Analogy, considered as a Guide to Truth, and applied as an Aid to Faith. Edinburgh, 1864Google Scholar; BishopButler, Joseph, The Analogy of Religion to the Constitution and Course of Nature. 1736Google Scholar, Introduction—the Nature and Application of Analogical Reasoning; Bevan, E., Symbolism and Belief. London, 1938, esp. ch. 13, ‘Pragmatism and Analogy’, pp. 297–317Google Scholar; Palmer, H., Analogy. London, 1971Google Scholar; J. Bunyan, The Pilgrim's Progress, Author's Introduction; Barry, B., ‘On Analogy’, Political Studies 23 (1975), pp. 208–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shideler, M. McD., ‘Philosophies and Fairy Tales’, Theology Today 30 (1973), pp. 14–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 3 note 1 Square, A., (E. A. Abbott), Flatland. A Romance of Many Dimensions. London 1884, (rep. Dover, New York, 1968).Google Scholar

page 5 note 1 cf. Barr, J., The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford, 1961, p. 109.Google Scholar

page 6 note 1 Lewis, C. S., The Pilgrim's Regress. Bles, 1933Google Scholar; 1947, pp. 170–1; rep. Fount, Collins, 1977, p. 217.

page 6 note 2 ibid., 1947, p. 13; 1977, p. 19.

page 6 note 3 1977 reprint, pp. 87–96.

page 7 note 1 cf. Lewis, C. S., ‘Transposition’, in Screwtape proposes a Toast, and Other Pieces. Fontana, 1965Google Scholar; or in Transposition and Other Addresses. Bles, 1949; and note the question in the previous paragraph about the ‘copy’ and the ‘original’ cited from The Pilgrim's Regress.

page 9 note 1 Holdsworth, W. S., A History of English Law. 3rd ed., London, 1923, vol. 2, pp. 82–87Google Scholar; vol. 3, pp. 412–54; Simpson, A. W. B., A History of the Common Law of Contract. Oxford, 1973, pp. 9–52Google Scholar; Cheshire, G. C. and Fifoot, C. H. S., The Law of Contract. 7th ed., London, 1969, pp. 3–6Google Scholar; Arnold, M. S., ‘Fourteenth Century Promises’, Cambridge L.J. 35 (1976), pp. 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 9 note 2 Horowitz, G., The Spirit of Jewish Law. New York, 1963, pp. 445–453Google Scholar (cf. the formalities of the contracts in Gen. 15.8–21; 26.18–31 and 31.44–8, and the vassal treaties of the ancient Near-East); Jolowicz, H. F. and Nicholas, B., Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law. 3rd ed., Cambridge, 1972, pp.: 59–64, 279–304, 408–11Google Scholar; Buckland, W. W., A Textbook of Roman Law. 3rd ed., rev. by Stein, P.. Cambridge, 1963, pp. 412–415Google Scholar; Schulz, F., History of Roman Legal Science. Oxford, 1946 and 1967, pp. 24–29, 75–80, 132–4, 293–5.Google Scholar

page 10 note 1 cf. MacCormack, G. D., ‘Grotius and Stair on Promises’, American Journal of Jurisprudence (1977), pp. 160–7Google Scholar, and ‘A Note on Stair's Use of the Term Pollicitatio’, Juridical Review (Edinburgh) (1976), pp. 121–6; Walker, D. M., Principles of Scottish Private Law. 2nd ed., Oxford, 1975Google Scholar; Gloag, W. M., A Treatise on the Principles of Contract in the Law of Scotland. 2nd ed., Edinburgh, 1929Google Scholar; Scottish Law Commission, Memorandum No. 35, Constitution andProof of Voluntary Obligations: Unilateral Promises. Edinburgh, 1977 (cited hereafter as ‘Memorandum’). Memoranda nos. 34–9 all have some relevance, and together form a full discussion of the general topic of Voluntary Obligations.

page 11 note 1 Walker, pp. 522–3; Memorandum pp. 2–8, 23–4 (paras. 2–7; 27).

page 11 note 2 Walker, pp. 553–4.

page 11 note 3 Cocceius, Johannes (1603–69), Summa Doctrina defoedere et testamento Dei. Leiden, 1648Google Scholar, and the continental reformers, wrote from a civil law context.

page 12 note 1 Memorandum pp. 2, 5–6 (paras. 2 and 7). Cf. also Scot. Law Coram. Memorandum No. 36: Formation of Contract, pp. 4–5 (para. 5) and Cross, D. G. Asbton, ‘Bare Promise in Scots Law’, Juridical Review (1957), pp. 138–50.Google Scholar

page 13 note 1 cf. Scot. Law Comm. Memorandum No. 39: Formalities of Constitution and Restrictions on Proof (of Voluntary Obligations).

page 14 note 1 Gloag (cited above), p. 272; cf. Memorandum, pp. 9–13 (paras. 11–14).

page 15 note 1 cf. Hodge, A. A., The Confession of Faith. Rep. London, 1958, pp. 124–126.Google Scholar

page 17 note 1 Anon, E. G.., ‘A Lawyer Looks at Hebrews 9.15, 17’, Ev. Quart. 40 (1968), pp. 151–6.Google Scholar

page 17 note 2 e.g. Campbell, K. M., God's Covenant. U.S.A., 1973Google Scholar, and ‘Covenant or Testament? Heb. 9.16, 17 Reconsidered’, Ev. Quart. 44 (1972), pp. 107–11. Ronald Knox's Catholic translation solves the problem by restricting ‘testament’ as a further example, not integral to the covenant metaphor.