Covenant Class, Lesson 2

The Covenant Relationship Lesson Two

Discovering the meaning of “covenant”.

John Bright makes an important observation:    “Apart from the Old Testament, indeed, it is impossible to understand the significance of our Lord’s work as the New Testament writers saw it.  Likewise, the New Testament tells of the making of the new covenant and understands the relationship of the believer to his Lord and to his fellow believers as a covenantal one; yet it nowhere troubles to explain what a covenant is.  But, again, why should it?  Is it not sufficiently clear from the Old Testament?”

Our primary source must be the OT.  However, there is no one passage that defines covenant, nor are there many “proof-texts” which can be strung together.  Walther Eichrodt insists instead that the OT contains “the characteristic description of a living process.”  In other words, we have to fashion our understanding by observing what partners (both human and Divine) do when they relate covenantally and synthesize the results into a working definition.  We can also use observations from other ancient cultures (such as Syrian and Hittite) to strengthen the limited OT material.

Stronger than blood!

In future lessons, we will look closely at the OT.  For now, notice that the powerful effect of covenant is its ability to bring strangers into a relationship that is as strong—or even stronger—than blood kinship!  Covenant partners become brothers or sisters.  To achieve this, the covenant combines legal requirements (expressed in laws, obligations, or vows) with Divine oversight. 

Levels of formality.

Whether very informal or highly formal, the inner workings of covenants are the same.  Even basic human interactions are somewhat covenantal.  We share an understanding of “common courtesy” that binds one and all in expectations of social behavior.  Thus, we frown on line-cutters and tellers of lies, even when we are complete strangers with no formal relationship.  We expect faithfulness in honesty and fair play, and this is also part of covenant relating.  Notice this chart:

Type of Relationship	Level of formality	Means of expression
Basic human interaction	Low	Implicit, unspoken
Ordinary covenants	Medium	Spoken to partner
Formal treaties	High	Written, oath and witnesses

 

 

The most basic human relationships have expectations that are unspoken.  These are the least formal.  Ordinary covenants between people are more formal in that the mutual obligations are declared verbally, and often in private.  The most formal covenants are legal treaties and the covenants by which God designates His people.  These are put down in writing in a public record.  When looking at how covenants work, the level of formality is unimportant.

Here are the essential features of the covenant relationship:

·        a bilateral partnership:  essentially two-sided.  It is a joining of partners in a relationship that fully intends mutual benefit and so requires mutual participation.  Walther Eichrodt writes, “…[covenant]…was always regarded as a bilateral relationship; for even though the burden is most unequally distributed between the two contracting parties, this makes no difference to the fact that the relationship is still essentially two-sided.  The idea that in ancient Israel the [covenant] was always and only thought of as Yahweh’s pledging of himself, to which human effort was required to make no kind of response…, can therefore be proved to be erroneous.”

·        often unequal:  equal or unequal obligations.  In parity (equality) partnerships, partners would mutually agree to the same obligations.  In a suzerainty/vassal arrangement, the “lord” (or “suzerain”) would set down the list of obligations (similar to terms of surrender) and his “servant” (or “vassal”) would swear an oath to abide by them.  The issue of equality may be thought of as part of the “outer structure”, while the inner dynamics of relating (such as love and faithfulness) would be essentially the same in both equal and unequal relationships.

·        religious:  God is witness and enforcer, and perhaps actual covenant partner.  Even in covenants in which God (or gods) was not an actual partner, God (or gods) served as witness and enforcer who brought about the blessings or curses.  The text of a formal covenant, or treaty, was often stored in a temple.

·        legal:  obligations in laws or vows.  It is understood that each partner must accept obligations if the covenant is to achieve the success of mutual benefit.  Eichrodt writes, “The covenant becomes an expression of the fact that God and the people have been thrown together and that neither can well survive without the other.”  Often these obligations are formally expressed through “vows” which are sworn-to with an “oath”.

·        requires total personal commitment and faithfulness.  Eichrodt writes, “The covenant lays claim to the whole man and calls him to surrender with no reservations.”  The solemn nature is shown in the association with animal sacrifice with its implicit threat to the partners.  In ancient Mari, the phrase “to kill an ass” is equivalent to “make a covenant” (and, to “kill an ass of peace” the equivalent of the Biblical “make a covenant of peace”).

·        specific.  The obligations attached to a covenant pertain only to those bound by the covenant.

·        often exclusive towards competing interests.  One covenant partner is often forbidden to allow a third party to acquire a portion of the benefit that might be a rightful expectation of the other partner.  Thus, a husband and wife can share sexuality only with each other, and sharing with others is a breach of covenant.  A failure in covenant is called “sin.”

·        conditional:  may result either in blessings or curses.  When one partner honors the other and their relationship, the appropriate response is “blessings.”  Otherwise, the response is punitive through “curses.”

·        remedial:  After a partner sins, the covenant is often “gracious” and makes reasonable opportunity for a remedial course of action.  Some failures or sins are understood to not undermine the essential love and faithfulness required of partners; that foundation can still sustain the partnership.  Other failures are so egregious and damaging that the foundation is understood to have been broken, and forgiveness becomes impossible.