Understanding Covenants

       To begin with, understanding the Bible requires that we recognize that the God of the Bible (YHWH) is not what the Greeks and pagan imagined - whimsical, mysterious magnified humans who ride roughshod over people’s lives, operate in the shadows,  and hide their will from mankind!  The gods of Greco-Roman paganism were thought of in terms of “power” rather than principle.  On the other hand, the Hebrews were dealing with the God who presented Himself as a faithful covenant maker/keeper, who reveals His will to mankind and then, being holy Himself, He holds His people accountable for their actions.

The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. (Deuteronomy 5:2)

 Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands. (Deuteronomy 7:9)

 "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.  It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 31:31,32)

 I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed: "O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands, (Daniel 9:4)

        The Bible records a number of covenants which God made with men: Noah (Genesis 6:19; expanded in 9:9-17); Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 15:18; 17:9-14) and descendants, Isaac (Genesis 17:19, 21; 26:1-4) and Jacob (Genesis 28:10-14); the Israelites through Moses (Exodus 19:5-8; 20-24:8; Deuteronomy 5:1-5); Phinehas (Numbers 25:10-13); David (2Samuel 7; 2Chronicles 21:7); and with all who will swear allegiance to Jesus (2Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 12:24).  The Old Testament also records a number of covenants which people made with other people.^[1]

Definition of Essential Terms

Covenant

       In the ancient Middle East and Biblical world, a "covenant" was a solemn, blood-sealed agreement between parties that both establishes and regulates a relationship between them and is made binding by an oath.  The standard Hebrew term, Berith, is translated by the New American Standard Bible in the following ways: "covenant" (275 times), league (2), treaty (4), allied/s (2).  The equally common New Testament term, diatheke, is the Greek term for "last will and testament" (Hebrews 9:16; Galatians 3:15) which was used in the Septuagint to translate berith. It was used in the LXX because it carries the essential idea of declaring one person's will (God's), rather than a negotiated agreement (suntheke).^[2]

Treaty Document

       This is a written, fixed, and preserved copy of covenant legislation.  The details of any important covenant were recorded, because "covenants" in the ancient world were not mystical, secret things without a tangible form.  The record was preserved on durable material (Exodus 31:18), kept in a safe place (Exodus 25:16), and proclaimed regularly (Deuteronomy 31:9-13). Similar to other ancient middle eastern covenant records, the terms of the Mosaic covenant were recorded in stone (Exodus 34:27,28), but the sincerity and personal commitment tied to the New Covenant is demonstrated by having the covenant recorded in each member's hearts (Jeremiah 31:33; 2Corinthians 3:3).

       A word of caution is in order concerning the New Covenant "Treaty Document."  The OT Scriptures are NOT the "Old Covenant," nor are the NT Scriptures the "New Covenant".  Although modern Bibles are often produced with a title page before Genesis saying "Old Testament" and before Matthew saying "New Testament," the totality of canonical Scripture do not equal the "treaty document!"  Nowhere in Scripture is the suggestion made that the 39 canonical books are the "Old Covenant", or that the 27 canonical books are the "New Covenant"!  The "Old Covenant," made at Sinai, was the "10 Commandments" written on two tablets of stone (Exodus 34:27,28; Deuteronomy 4:12,13; 5:1-22; 2Chronicles 6:11) and the "New Covenant" is written on human hearts (Jeremiah 31:33; 2Corinthians 3:3).  In the collection of canonical writings, you will find some history about the covenant people, songs and praise used in corporate worship by the covenant people, collected wisdom literature, prophetic warnings to the covenant people and surrounding nations, theologically-focused biography, and letters written to the New Covenant people in the first century - but the "covenant document" is not the same as the "canonical writings" which arose because of the covenant.  We need the additional writings to get the details involved in keeping a covenant and understanding the covenant better.  Historical accounts in the Scriptures (Exodus 1-19; 32; Numbers, Joshua, Judges, Samuel-Esther, Acts) show us how covenants were instituted and handled in given historical/cultural settings.  The Prophets and Epistles show the problems which arose in those ancient cultural settings and how they were handled.  From all of these we can gain much insight and help.  The "Old Covenant" was written on two stone tablets and the "New Covenant" is written in hearts - the Scriptures show us how covenants were instituted, what things were essential for a given covenant, and examples of how others have lived in relation to the covenant they were under.

The Knowledge of God

       A covenant was a basic type of commitment relationship in the ancient world and was applied to numerous types of relationship (marital, political, and religious).  Accordingly, there were various words that took on meanings closely associated with covenant relationships.  One of these was the Hebrew word yada, which was often applied to intimate knowledge or relationship.  There were parallels of "intimacy" between a man "knowing" his wife sexually (Genesis 4:1, KJV) and a people "knowing" (being loyal and faithful) their God intimately in a covenant relationship (Hosea 4:1,6; 6:3,6; Amos 3:2; Jeremiah 9:24).

Covenant Formulary: The Primary Elements

       Covenant "formulary" has to do with essential elements by which any covenant can be identified and its basic nature understood.  Here we are concerned with such things as identifying "who" is involved in a covenant, what ongoing duties are required of covenant members, the benefits or penalties associated with the covenant, and the means by which one enters into a covenant relationship.  Every ancient middle Eastern covenant had a similar basic format.  Modern archaeologists have found the ancient Hittite treaty to be fairly characteristic of ancient treaties (Biblical parallels are in parenthesis).

       First came the Preamble, which gave the name and titles of the great king who offered the treaty (Genesis 17:1; Exodus 3:13-16; 6:2,3; 34:6,7).  Second, there was often a Historical Prologue listing the past benefits conferred by the sovereign upon the vassal (Exodus 19:4; Deuteronomy 1-3; 8:1-5).  Thirdly, there were Stipulations or "terms" which were the obligations or duties required of the vassal in return for the sovereign's continued blessings (Mosaic Covenant terms are summarized in the Decalogue, the 10 Commandments, and scattered throughout Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy - 613 by Jewish count).  Fourth, there were Provisions for the preservation and public proclamation of the covenant document - usually in some valuable/durable substance like metal, clay, or stone.^[3]  Fifth, there was usually a listing of the Witnesses to the covenant (Deuteronomy 4:26; 30:19; 31: 19,28) - ancient treaties often called gods and natural features (mountains, rivers, springs, seas, winds, clouds, and heaven and earth) as witnesses to a covenant.  Sixth, there were Blessings/Curses tied to the vassal's fulfilling or violation/ abandonment of the covenant (Deuteronomy 11:26-28; 28; 29:15-20).  Last, there was the Covenant Oath, which was the act of acceptance by which parties contacted “covenant blood” and then the agreement was binding on both parties (Genesis 15:8-18; Exodus 24:3-8).^[4]

Parties

       The "parties" are those formally involved in the Covenant.^[5]  As such, they are both clearly named in the covenant document and there should be no question as to who is/is not involved in the arrangement.  Business contracts demonstrate this feature by naming all the involved parties and what their relationship to the agreement is.

Terms

       Defined above under the title "stipulations," these are the ongoing duties or responsibilities of the covenant that are to be faithfully completed by the vassal or inferior party.^[6]  Such "terms" are usually identified in Scripture in connection with such words as "perform/do/keep/obey."

Promises/Curses

       Also mentioned earlier in this chapter, these are the rewards for keeping the covenant (Genesis 17:2; Leviticus 26:3-12; Deuteronomy 28:1-14; Matthew 10:32; Revelation 2:10; 3:12; etc.) and the penalties for violating or abandoning it (Leviticus 26:14-39; Deuteronomy 28:15-68; Matthew 10: 33; Hebrews 6:4-8; 2Peter 2:20-22).

Oath-Swearing

       No matter what the content of the arrangement, it did not become "active, binding, or in force" until both parties swore the oath.  This was the "signing on the dotted line" that bound the vassal to the contract and put him in line for the blessings or curses, depending on his performance of the terms.

       The Hebrew word for "covenant oath" is alah, the root meaning of which meant "to bind together" and, in its covenant context, it negatively involved a self-curse for failure to keep the covenant.  It referred to the formal act of entering a covenant with a ceremonial pledge.  Hence, to "perform your oath" was to keep the covenant.^[7]  Another common Hebrew term used was shebuah, which comes from the root word shabah.  The Greek terminology for such an oath was horkos/horkomosia.^[8]  In our time, the nearest common parallel would be signing our name at the bottom of a contract or written agreement by which it becomes legally binding.

       Ordinarily, the solemn nature of the covenant was emphasized by the method of sealing it - an animal was sacrificed, split in two, and both parties walked through the blood.  When you contacted covenant blood, from then on you were in covenant relationship.  The "walking between the halves" (Genesis 15:9,10,17,18; Exodus 24:1-8) was the OT form of oath-swearing, when the "blood of the Covenant" (Exodus 24:8; Matthew 26:28; Acts 2:38; Hebrews 10:26-29; Revelation 19:13) was contacted and the covenant was sealed.  The split animal also represented a "self-curse" in that it pictured what should happen to you if you didn't keep the covenant (Joshua 2:14,19; Hebrews 6:4-8; 10:26-31; 2Peter 2:20f).  As the Babylonian exile approached, Jeremiah referred to this as the fulfillment of the "oath-curse" (Jeremiah 34:18-20) for abandoning the Sinaitic covenant.  This was also what Jesus was referring to when he spoke of an unfaithful servant being "cut in two" (Matthew 24:51).

       The Mosaic/Sinaitic Covenant - At Sinai, Israel heard the terms explained three times (Exodus 19:1-7; 24:3,7) and they agreed to/accepted the obligations of the covenant (Exodus 19:8; 24:3,7).  When they contacted the "blood of the covenant" (Exodus 24:8; Hebrews 9:18-22) they were in a "covenant-relationship" with God! 

       The New Covenant - God, through Jeremiah, promised to someday inaugurate a “New Covenant” (Jeremiah 31:31-34) that would focus on the forgiveness of sins.  Thus, Jesus described His approaching death as providing both atonement/forgiveness blood (shed “for forgiveness of sins”) as well as “covenant blood” (Matthew 26:28).  According to Apostolic teaching, Christ’s atonement/covenant blood is contacted by faith (Romans 3:25) when we repent and submit to Christian baptism (“for forgiveness of sins” - Acts 2:37-41) and this is when/where we make our conscientious covenant response/pledge to God (eperotema - 1Peter 3:21).

Basic Covenant Types

       A covenant/treaty can also be defined according to two major characteristics, having to do with the nature of the covenant's formulation and the relationship of the parties.  A covenant/treaty could be negotiated, if hammered out by equal/semi-equal parties bargaining with each other to arrive at the terms, or non-negotiated if the terms are determined and offered by a superior to an inferior (suzerainty-vassal).

       Another major distinction involves whether the covenant is unconditional, which would be a unilateral "promise" with no responsive conditions required of the receiving party, or conditional whereby the benefits or penalties depend on the responses of the receiving party to stipulations laid down by the offering party (cf. Genesis 12:1-3; 17:1,2,14; Exodus 19:5,6; Deuteronomy 28; 30:15-20).  The evidence indicates that the major Biblical covenants between God and men are non-negotiated and conditional.  One of the most serious theological errors occurs when "covenant", in general, is mistaken for "promise" (where one side does everything and the other does nothing - evangelical theology).

Distinguishing Covenants

       When you are aware of the elements that define a covenant, it is much easier to recognize the different major covenants that have been arranged as God developed His plan.

God's Covenant with Abraham

 God's Covenant with Moses and Israel 

 The “New Covenant”

 The Unity of Covenant Elements

        Every term/promise/command/blessing-curse is limited to the Covenant of which it was a part.  The three are a unit and stand/fall together (Hebrews 7:12).  When a covenant ends, like writing a new "last will and testament," it all ends and any "new" covenant will define its own parties, terms, promises and curses, and form of oath-swearing!  Mixing and matching elements from different covenants has created a great deal of confusion.  Many in our time want to claim for themselves OT material promises and NT forgiveness while ignoring the distinct definitions and limitations of parties and oath-swearing!  A good deal of the theological confusion that exists in Christendom arises from confusion over how to handle the Biblical covenants.

The Covenant "Attitude"

Because you did not serve the LORD your God joyfully and gladly in the time of prosperity, therefore in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and dire poverty, you will serve the enemies the LORD sends against you. He will put an iron yoke on your neck until he has destroyed you. (Deuteronomy 28:47,48)

 Hear the word of the LORD, you Israelites, because the LORD has a charge to bring against you who live in the land: "There is no faithfulness, no love (chesed), no acknowledgment of God in the land. (Hosea 4:1)

 For I desire mercy (chesed), not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.  (Hosea 6:6)

       For those who wonder how a loving, compassionate God could persistently "love" Israel for centuries, but also turn them over to the ravages of Assyrian and Babylonian conquest, Moses and Hosea contain the answer - Israel did not return God's covenant love and they received the curses of the covenant.  Behind every action there is an attitude and Biblical covenant-keeping was designed to function best in a climate of concern for the other party's welfare.  While possibly not a "technical" term for "covenant faithfulness," this notion was at least a part of the meaning of chesed.  This is a self-proclaimed characteristic of God and He connected with covenant-keeping (Exodus 34:6,7; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 7:9).  Although the Hebrew term disappears and is replaced by the Greek word eleos (mercy, compassion, pity, clemency) as we move from the Septuagint into the Greek New Testament, the concept is foundational to the New Covenant.  Let's begin with some conceptual background for understanding the concept in the ancient world.

       Chesed could be tied to three inter-related concepts.  To begin with, man, because he was created in God's image, knows he should return good for good received.  This is why kindness to enemies does sometimes work - it taps into our true "primal nature" of divine "image" character.  The Gospel is based on this: since Christ did us a tremendous good on the cross, we should respond to Him.^[9]  Secondly, the term could represent any reciprocal relationship duty, such as respect for parents, care for children, or hosts providing for guests and guests respecting hosts.  Along with the Septuagint's choice to render chesed by the term eleos, Mont Smith suggests that the KJV employed the English word "mercy" because of the 16th century French influence and the term "merci" (thank you) was the polite response for kindness rendered to you.  Thirdly, the ramifications of covenant usage carried with it the idea of coming to the aid of a covenant partner.  Covenant-keeping" and chesed are often used in OT parallel, because "loyal, covenant love" is keeping the covenant so that the other partner benefits.  God's major complaint against Israel in Hosea 4:1 is the lack of chesed in those whom God has done great good for - He has loved them and acted in the best interests of Israel, but they have not returned this kind of love and action!  In the NT, the notion of "loyal, covenant love" is the root motivation behind Christians looking out for the best interests of others (Galatians 6:2; Ephesians 5:21-30; Philippians 2:3,4), including God (Matthew 5:16; Philippians 2:19-22).  In covenant chesed, both covenant partners are supposed to do everything they can to help one another succeed.  In the business/banking community, this attitude is present when there is a willingness to make some alterations and "work with you" for mutual success.  The realization is that if my covenant partner fails, it is my failure too!

       Our problem with this concept is that western culture has come to generally lack chesed.  In contemporary America, the "contract" is something which usually lacks "loyalty and covenant love" in favor of a selfish and ruthless "business is business" attitude - "If I can catch the other guy failing in some way, then I am free of legal obligation and can even sue him."  Although some might say it is "simplistic," I am convinced that much of modern America's sociological problems would disappear if the majority of husbands/wives, parents/children, management/workers, citizens/public officials, and merchants/customers relationships would return to the "supporting partner" concept necessary for covenant-keeping!

------------------------------------------------------------

Charles E. McCoy

2006/01/03

A Ministry of Severn Christian Church (Severn, Maryland)

Unless otherwise noted, all material produced by Charles E. McCoy

All Scripture citations/quotations from New American Standard Bible

To send a question to Chuck: chuck@severnchristian.org