Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in the
biblical material that affects our understanding of God, his
relationship with his people (past, present, and future), and the
structure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is not
a unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of the
Scriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and the
function of covenant. This article highlights the covenant concept
and the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the major
biblical covenants.
Terminology
Defining
“covenant.”
What is a covenant (Heb. berit)? Most dictionaries refer to it as a
pact/compact or an agreement. Although there is some uncertainty
regarding the etymology of berit, the two most commonly suggested
etymological derivations are from the Akkadian burru, which refers to
the establishment of a legal situation by a testimony with an oath,
or the Akkadian bittu, often translated as “to bind, fetter.”
The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legal
disposition of personal goods.” Interestingly, this NT term is
used in reference to the initiative of one person who establishes the
terms and provisions of the relationship, which is in keeping with
unilateral OT covenants. Some OT dictionaries list the “covenant”
root with the root for the word “to eat,” perhaps
associating the covenant with a covenant meal.
If
the concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, then
the covenant is something that binds parties together or obligates
one party to the other. Although there are legal implications
associated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant should
not be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationship
with related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant that
establishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why God
chose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenant
metaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-human
relationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God and
people is uniquely developed in the biblical material.
Some
covenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties);
others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties),
between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife
(Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of society
implies a solemn commitment to a relationship. Hittite treaties
illustrate reports of covenant commitments that include a record of
negotiations, formulations of terms, a statement that the act of
covenant making actually happened, and a closure of negotiations with
solemn ratification of the terms.
The
most significant covenant relationship in the biblical material is
the one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’s
covenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surrounding
nations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. Although
Yahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for his
own personal care; he established a relationship with the nation
independent of and prior to the nation’s association with his
land. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counter
to the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities to
specific geographic territories first and was concerned with the
inhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OT
believers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimed
him as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.
40).
Other
key terms.
In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group,
several other key terms fill out our understanding of this important
concept.
“Oath”
is a term used synonymously with “covenant” and functions
at times to describe the making of a covenant. The oath emphasizes
the liability and obligation associated in the relationship (Deut.
29:19). The oath can be taken by both parties (Gen. 26:28) or by just
one party (Ezek. 17:13).
The
word “testimony” refers to the contents of the two
tablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at Mount
Sinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “ark
of the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimony
in the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed upon
the nation in covenant with Yahweh.
The
term “word” can be understood in connection with covenant
communication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) is
viewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). The
phrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and
“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideas
within the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of the
Lord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted with
worthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God
(Hos. 10:4).
Torah
is a Hebrew term related to covenant. The terms berit and torah are
found in parallel structure in Ps. 78:10. The binding arrangement
between God and his people is ultimately based upon and regulated by
the instructions of his word. The phrase “Book of the Law”
(2 Kings 22:8) has the same covenant implications as the phrase
“tablets of the Testimony” (Exod. 31:18 ESV, NASB). God
indicted the priesthood for misguiding the people and causing them to
stumble at the law (Mal. 2:5–8) and ultimately to be misguided
in their relationship with him.
Khesed
is another Hebrew term that is frequently used with relation to a
covenant. Defined as “steadfast covenant loyalty,” it is
also understood as grace, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness. Khesed is
that characteristic of God which causes him to act consistently and
faithfully regarding self-imposed obligations in covenant
relationships despite the failure or success of the other party. The
khesed of God will never cease (Lam. 3:19–21) because he keeps
covenant and mercy (Deut. 7:9, 12). The loyalty of God to David is
stated in 2 Sam. 7:14–15 and celebrated in Ps. 89:14, 24,
28, 33–34, 49. In contrast, the people are indicted for their
lack of loyalty (Hos. 4:1).
Common
phrases. The
most common covenant-making phrase is “to cut a covenant.”
Two possible practices lie behind this phrase. The first reflects a
practice in Mesopotamia and Syria, cutting a covenant into a tablet
with a stylus. This may be somewhat similar to what is found in Exod.
31:18, where it is said that the two tablets of stone were “inscribed
by the finger of God.” The second practice behind this phrase
is the cutting of sacrificial animals. The halving of animals was
part of the covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 15:9–18. In a
situation of covenant violation God tells Israel that he will treat
them like the calf they cut in covenant making (Jer. 34:17–19).
Covenant making is also described as establishing a covenant (2 Sam.
23:5), giving a covenant (Gen. 9:12), and erecting a covenant (Exod.
6:4).
Faithfulness
and loyalty to a covenant are expressed by several phrases. “Keep
a covenant” exhorts the covenant parties to watch, guard,
exercise faithfulness to the terms of the relationship established
(Exod. 34:7). “Observe a covenant” implies the
demonstration of covenant fidelity in observing and doing (Gen.
17:9–10; Exod. 19:5; NIV: “keep my covenant”). God
is obviously faithful in observing the covenant (Deut. 7:9–12).
“Remember a covenant” conveys more than just a mental
exercise, especially when God is the subject of the verbal action of
remembering. When God remembers a covenant, he acts with resolve and
intervention (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24).
Covenant
infidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”
(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “not
faithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”
(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”
(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).
The
Covenant Genre
We
now turn to the form, content, and function of a covenant, or the
covenant genre. There is evidence of a common treaty form used by
ancient Near Eastern peoples to govern relationships between nations
and tribes. This evidence dates back to the third millennium BC and
is derived from literary texts discovered in the ancient Near East.
The most helpful contributions to this discussion come from the
Hittites (1400–1200 BC), the Assyrians (800–600 BC), and
the Babylonians. From this evidence, we are able to identify four
ancient Near Eastern arrangements.
1. The
intertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clans
for various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, or
peaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format were
equally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is the
arrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 or
the arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.
2.
The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princes
who were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involved
mutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationship
established between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings
5:1–12.
3.
The suzerainty treaty was established between two parties, one
inferior and one superior. The distinctive emphasis of the treaty was
on the superior party, the suzerain. In this arrangement the suzerain
agrees to make certain provisions for the vassal. He agrees to defend
the vassal in the case of attack, along with permitting the existence
of the vassal nation. In addition, the suzerain has the right to take
tribute from the vassal at any time. The vassal, for his part, agrees
to a position of servanthood but not slavery. Vassals honor the
suzerain with tribute and material goods.
There
are six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholars
believe that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structure
of the book of Deuteronomy.
(a) The
treaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’s
author/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).
(b) The
second part is the prologue, which contains a review of the past
relationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an
“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;
4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previous
acts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.
The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instill
some measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. In
Hittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology that
characterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal for
obedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation for
conquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing them
limited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic that
motivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and even
death. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace of
redemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and the
privilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).
(c) The
stipulations are the third part of the treaty form. These are the
expectations of the suzerain for the vassal (cf. Deut. 4:1–23;
6:4–7:2; 10:12–22; 12–26). The stipulations call
for the vassal to be loyal in war, to loyally return political
refugees, and to not murmur against the suzerain and his kingdom. The
heart of the stipulation in Deuteronomy is the appeal to “love
the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with
all your strength” (6:5), one of the most important verses of
the OT.
(d) The
deposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. This
section instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary and
directs the vassal to publicly read the document from one to four
times per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regular
reading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal in
order to nurture respect for the suzerain.
(e) In
the next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon to
observe the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut.
30:19–20).
(f) The
final part of the treaty is a section of blessing and curse. This
section contains a list of potential rewards for faithfulness and
terrifying possibilities of retribution for covenant violations (cf.
Deut. 28–29).
4.
The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,
is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctive
difference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassal
but rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. In
this format the curse is directed against any third party that would
oppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfully
against the vassal.
Covenants
in the Bible
Types
of covenants. The
material on covenant form, content, and structure comes into play
when attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded in
the Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initial
discussions usually revolve around whether these covenants are
conditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to this
discussion, covenants should also be understood in light of which
party is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, the
obligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill the
expectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation is
placed upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to the
vassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality in
both treaty forms.
On
this basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in light
of the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinai
established Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended to
create a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.
Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate his
relationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciously
redeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelite
life. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’s
transgressions were considered covenant violations.
The
Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In the
Abrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel with
land, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animals
in Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in which
Yahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,
obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidic
covenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provide
David and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant is
first referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed more
extensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate the
nature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Some
define it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, while
others view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenant
anticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimately
facilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happening
in connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a future
time.
Covenant
leadership positions. In
addition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God in
the OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, God
established three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:
prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection with
the covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and function
are detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.
God
provided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that it
would not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surrounding
nations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people and
established the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded
(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit a
Moses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwriting
prophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did this
by using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thus
establishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case made
by God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,
jury, and lawyer.
The
priest (Deut. 17:8–13; 18:1–8; 33:8–11) had a
threefold function within the covenant community. He was a mediator
of people before God and of God before people. This particular
function of the priesthood was broad and encompassed much of its
work. The priest was a teacher who sought from the Torah resolution
to disagreements between parties (cf. Jer. 18:18). It is also worth
noting that the teaching of the priest preceded sacrifice. Finally,
he was a minister of sacrifice. The priest led Israel in worship and
sacrifice, giving instruction concerning what was clean and unclean
(Lev. 13–15).
The
king was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship was
not a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)
but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed to
Abraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.
35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of the
kingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.
Prov. 29:4, 14).
Covenant
in the Old Testament.
Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structure
of the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase
“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblical
literature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.
It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives of
the OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrative
shares a covenant perspective, the individual books within the
narrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to various
aspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50
develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a number
of subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on the
other hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tension
between the promise of land occupation and the responsibility of
Israel to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realistic
presentation of the tensions associated with the covenant
relationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.
Finally,
the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenant
worship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenant
terms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath,
judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by the
covenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.
Covenant
in the New Testament. Although
the covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christological
significance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianic
role of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the new
covenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor.
3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that the
shed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The new
covenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death,
burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the book
of Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functions
in contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains that
Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7).
Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of the
new covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).
