|
|
FULL BACKGROUND
COVENANT — a contract or agreement between two parties. In the Old Testament the Hebrew word berith is always thus translated. Berith is derived from a root which means “to cut,” and hence a covenant is a “cutting,” with reference to the cutting or dividing of animals into two parts, and the contracting parties passing between them, in making a covenant (Gen. 15; Jer. 34:18, 19).
The corresponding word in the New Testament Greek is diatheke, which is, however, rendered “testament” generally in the Authorized Version. It ought to be rendered, just as the word berith of the Old Testament, “covenant.”
This word is used
(1.) of a covenant or compact between man and man (Gen. 21:32), or between tribes or nations (1 Sam. 11:1; Josh. 9:6, 15). In entering into a convenant, Jehovah was solemnly called on to witness the transaction (Gen. 31:50), and hence it was called a “covenant of the Lord” (1 Sam. 20:8). The marriage compact is called “the covenant of God” (Prov. 2:17), because the marriage was made in God’s name. Wicked men are spoken of as acting as if they had made a “covenant with death” not to destroy them, or with hell not to devour them (Isa. 28:15, 18).
(2.) The word is used with reference to God’s revelation of himself in the way of promise or of favour to men. Thus God’s promise to Noah after the Flood is called a covenant (Gen. 9; Jer. 33:20, “my covenant”). We have an account of God’s covernant with Abraham (Gen. 17, comp. Lev. 26:42), of the covenant of the priesthood (Num. 25:12, 13; Deut. 33:9; Neh. 13:29), and of the covenant of Sinai (Ex. 34:27, 28; Lev. 26:15), which was afterwards renewed at different times in the history of Israel (Deut. 29; Josh. 24; 2 Chr. 15; 23; 29; 34; Ezra 10; Neh. 9). In conformity with human custom, God’s covenant is said to be confirmed with an oath (Deut. 4:31; Ps. 89:3), and to be accompanied by a sign (Gen. 9; 17). Hence the covenant is called God’s “counsel,” “oath,” “promise” (Ps. 89:3, 4; 105:8–11; Heb. 6:13–20; Luke 1:68–75). God’s covenant consists wholly in the bestowal of blessing (Isa. 59:21; Jer. 31:33, 34).
The term covenant is also used to designate the regular succession of day and night (Jer. 33:20), the Sabbath (Ex. 31:16), circumcision (Gen. 17:9, 10), and in general any ordinance of God (Jer. 34:13, 14).
A “covenant of salt” signifies an everlasting covenant, in the sealing or ratifying of which salt, as an emblem of perpetuity, is used (Num. 18:19; Lev. 2:13; 2 Chr. 13:5).
Easton, M. G., M. A. D. D., Easton’s Bible Dictionary, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1996.
COVENANT
IV. Biblical covenants
(i) The covenant with the Lord. The idea of a covenant relationship between a god and a king or his people is well attested through the history of the ancient Near East. It occurs in various forms with a great diversity of material. This is not always expressly stated, but can be deduced from terminology used. The idea of such a covenant was thus not at all foreign to the Israelites. At the same time the treaty relationship was well known to them, as we have seen above. It is thus not surprising that the Lord used this form of relationship to give expression to his relation with his people. This could have started early, because such an idea was well known in the ancient Near East from well back in the 3rd millennium bc.
(ii) Early covenants. Biblical tradition mentions two covenants contracted between God and Noah (Gn. 6:18; Gn. 9:8-17). It is clearly called a covenant, with a certain obligation on Noah and certain promises from the Lord. This is a prelude to biblical covenants where the promise plays an important role.
(iii) The patriarchal covenant. This transmitted to us in two traditions, viz. Gn. 15 and 17. The Lord has contracted this covenant with Abraham with strong emphasis on the promise (especially in Gn. 17). Two promises were made, viz. the multiplication of Abraham’s offspring and the inheritance of the *Promised Land. It is obvious, e.g. from the book of Exodus, that the promise of a large offspring is regarded as fulfilled (cf. Ex. 1:7-22). The description of the conquering of the Promised Land in Joshua points to the fulfilment of the promise of inheritance. The patriarchal covenant is thus mainly promissory. In this it is closely related to the Davidic covenant. The author of Exodus, although describing the forming of this new Sinaitic covenant, still emphasizes the importance or the patriarchal covenant. With the breaking of the Sinai covenant (Ex. 32) this author demonstrates that the patriarchal covenant was still in force (Ex. 33:1). It is thus to be noted that the Sinai covenant did not replace the patriarchal covenant, but co-existed with it.
(iv) The Sinai covenant. According to biblical tradition, this covenant was formed with Moses as mediator at Sinai after the Israelites were wonderfully saved by the Lord from their Egyptian bondage. In Ex. 24 the actual rite of the covenant-forming is described. This description has an ancient flavour. A sacrifice was made to the Lord. The blood of the sacrificial animals was divided in two parts, one of which was poured out against the altar. Mention is also made of the book of the covenant. Nothing is said of the contents of this book. Some scholars hold that this refers to the Decalogue and others that it refers to the preceding Covenant Code. We have here a new covenant in which the law is read, followed by the response of the people, sacrifice, sealing by oath and finally the covenant meal. It is clear that the author of Exodus has combined the covenant-forming with the stipulations of the Covenant Code. In Ex. 19 the theophany of the Lord is described; in Ex. 20 the policy of the Lord for his people is sketched (the Decalogue); in Ex. 21-23 the stipulations are given and in Ex. 24 the actual rite of the covenant is described. It is important to note that this covenant has a detailed description of stipulations. As we have seen from the Hittite vassal treaties, stipulations are part and parcel of the treaty form. But we must bear in mind that this is an Israelite covenant which could follow in certain aspects well-known treaty or covenant forms, but could deviate in other aspects from the restricted number of forms we know from the ancient Near East. The stipulations of the Covenant Code are totally different in content from what we know of treaty stipulations. Special circumstances and the different religious background should account for this. At the end of the Covenant Code as a kind of epilogue the promissory character is discernible. Here the reference to the Promised Land is again taken up.
(v) The Davidic covenant. This covenant is mainly promissory. We agree with various scholars who hold that this covenant is closely connected to the Sinai covenant. It is not to be regarded as a new covenant, but as a further extension of the Sinai covenant. The Davidic covenant became necessary with the development of a new historical situation. The Israelite king was now the mediator between the Lord and his people. A covenant with this king thus became a necessity. The latest research has shown that a close link also exists between the patriarchal and Davidic covenants. Both covenants are of the promissory type. The patriarchal promises were fulfilled with the growing of the Israelite population and with the inheritance of Palestine. It was thus necessary to make new promises in the new situation which developed. With the new promise to David of an eternal reign by his descendants, the patriarchal covenant was in a certain sense superseded by the new covenant. In 2 Sa. 7 the covenant is embedded in a narrative form, but certain terminology clearly points to the covenant background, e.g. God will be a father for David’s son and the king will be a son for God. The eternal throne of David’s descendants can be paralleled to the promise in the form of a blessing in the Hittite vassal treaties, viz. that the faithful vassal’s sons would reign eternally on his throne. The Davidic covenant, as it is clear from Pss. 2 and 110, had profound influence on later expectations in the OT and even in the NT.
(vi) Covenant in the NT. In c. 600 bc a great upsurge of interest in the covenant occurred (e.g. in Jeremiah). The influence of the covenant idea was also strongly felt during the intertestamental period, as K. Baltzer and A. Jaubert have shown. The sect of Qumran can be regarded as a covenant community. It is to be expected that this would also be true in the NT. In the NT the word ‘covenant’ (diatheµkeµ as a Gk. translation of beréÆt_) is used in close connection with the *Lord’s Supper (cf. Mk 14:22-25; 1 Cor. 11:23-25). With the institution of the Holy Communion Jesus refers to his body as the bread and his blood as the wine. This is obviously a reference to Jesus as the paschal lamb which must be slaughtered with Passover and be eaten by his disciples. The paschal lamb became the covenant animal and the Holy Communion a covenant meal. Interesting is Christ’s reference to the new testament of his blood. Note the prominent role of blood in the covenant-forming at Sinai (Ex. 24:8). The killing of Jesus as the paschal lamb will take place at Golgotha the next day. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is the most important part of the forming of a new covenant. Paul correctly interpreted Christ’s crucifixion as taking on him the curses of the law in order to redeem mankind (Gal. 3:13). With the new covenant the curse of the old Sinaitic covenant is removed by Christ. He became the new Davidic King on the eternal throne. At once two old covenants were superseded: the curses of the Sinai covenant were removed and the promise of the Davidic covenant fulfilled.
(vii) Renewal and ratification of the covenant. The renewal of the covenant means that the covenant is broken and must be renewed to come into force again. The best example of this is in Ex. 32-34, where the Sinai covenant is broken by Aaron and the Israelites by making a golden bull for worship. When Moses came back, the curses of breaking the covenant were applied by killing a number of Israelites (Ex. 32:26-28). Moses acted as mediator to renew the broken covenant. He went back on the mountain to receive once more the stipulations for the renewed covenant (Ex. 34). Jeremiah regarded the covenant as so totally broken that it could be replaced only by a new covenant (Je. 31:31).
The ratification of the covenant is when a covenant is renewed without necessarily being broken. The best example of this is in Jos. 23-24. In Jos. 23 a description is given of Joshua’s final commandments to the Israelites in which they are requested to keep the covenant. According to Jos. 24, with a strong covenant background, the Israelites were gathered at Shechem to renew the covenant with the Lord. Some scholars think that the covenant communion was for the first time formed at Shechem because of the ancient tradition of covenant-forming at this place. We are following the biblical tradition and regard the meeting at Shechem as a ratification of the covenant.
V. The covenant and the prophets
The view of Wellhausen, still followed by many scholars, is that the covenant idea is foreign to the earlier prophets. The idea is only developed from the time of the Deuteronomist onwards (cf., e.g., the views of Kutsch and Perlitt). This view is mainly built on the assumption that nothing can be discovered of the covenant idea in the earlier prophets and that the usage of beréÆt_ is almost nonexistent. It is true that beréÆt_ is scarce in these writings, but it is a question whether we could ascribe the scarcity of a term to the non-existence of an institution or not. There might have been a reason for the avoidance of beréÆt_ e.g. a wrong conception could have existed amongst the readers and listeners of the real meaning of the term. Recent research has shown that the covenant idea pervades most of the writings of the prophets, if we use a wider approach and look for the different elements in the covenant, e.g. the curse and blessing and the breaking of the covenant by contravening the stipulations. What will happen when the stipulations are broken? Then a covenant lawsuit will follow. The connection between the prophetic office and law is clear from a close study of the prophetic writings. There is no difference in approach to the law between prophets like Hosea, Amos, Isaiah and Jeremiah. Why should Jeremiah be singled out as a protagonist of the covenant just because he has used beréÆt_ and the others not?
One of the main problems of the prophetic writings is the origin of the prophetic threat. Another problem is the combination of prophetic threat and blessing. A close study of the threats shows that many of them can be closely linked to roughly contemporary curses in vassal treaties, e.g., those of Esarhaddon and Sefire. The curse was, however, not only restricted to treaties, but used for a variety of purposes in the ancient Near East. It is to be observed that the treaty curse has certain characteristics which occur also in the prophetic threat. This makes it probable that the prophets regarded the covenant as broken and that as a result of this, certain curses would come into effect. This implies that the prophets were familiar with the covenant form. The fact that they have pronounced threats when the law (of the covenant) is broken, but blessing and prosperity when the law (of the covenant) is kept, shows their special knowledge of the covenant form. The whole problem of threat and blessing beside each other can then be explained by the breaking or the keeping of the covenant.
The covenant lawsuit, which is well attested in the ancient Near East, as Harvey has shown, can be traced from an early source like Dt. 32 to the early and later prophets, e.g. Is. 1:2-3, 10-20; Je. 2:4-13; Mi. 6:1-8. In the lawsuit the Israelites are accused of idolatry. It means that they have violated one of the conditions of the covenant, viz. not to worship any other god. On this, judgment is pronounced in the form of threats or curses. It is striking that in certain lawsuits heaven and earth are called in as witnesses. The parallel with the much earlier Hittite vassal treaties, where heaven and earth are also regarded as witnesses, is most illuminating. This points to a close link with the treaty or covenant form.
VI. The covenant and theology
Eichrodt in his Theology of the Old Testament takes covenant as the central idea of the OT. Israelite religious thought was built up around this concept. From the discussion above it is clear how pervading and important the covenant idea was for the Israelites. It does not, however, exclude other modes of expressing relationship between the Lord and his people. The covenant with its stipulations opens up the possibility of transgression and sin, with the consequence of judgment and punishment. This is one of the main themes or the OT. Another important feature of the covenant is promise and expectation. The Davidic covenant with the promise of an eternal throne gave rise to the expectation of the glorious coming of the Messiah, Son of David. This forms the important link between OT and NT. The covenant is thus the most important link between the Testaments. With the new covenant of the NT a fresh expectation is given of the parousia of the Messiah. This shows that the covenant and the expectations which it creates, are also responsible for the main theme of eschatological expectation.
Bibliography. For a good bibliography up to 1977, cf. D. J. McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant2, 1978. The following is a selection from a vast literature: K. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary, 1971; W. Beyerlin, Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions, 1965; P. J. Calderone, Dynastic Oracle and Suzerainty Treaty, 1966; H. Cazelles, DBS, 7, 1964, pp. 736-858; R. E. Clements, Abraham and David, 1967; F. C. Fensham, ‘Covenant, Promise and Expectation’, TZ 23, 1967, pp. 305 322; idem, ‘Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties and Kudurru-inscriptions compared with Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah’, ZAW 75, 1963, pp. 155-175; idem, ‘The Treaty between the Israelites and the Tyrians’, VT Supp 17, 1969, pp. 78ff.; G. Fohrer, ‘AT-Amphiktyonie und Bund’, ThL 91, 1966, pp. 802-816, 893-904; J. Harvey, Le plaidoyer prophétique contre Israël après la rupture de l’alliance, 1967; D. R. Hillers, Treaty-curses and the Old Testament Prophets, 1964; idem, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea, 1968; H. B. Huffmon, ‘The Covenant Lawsuit and the Prophets’, JBL 78, 1959, pp. 286-295; A. Jaubert, La notion d’alliance dans le judaïsme aux abords de l’ére chrétienne, 1963; K. A. Kitchen, ‘Egypt, Ugarit, Qatna and Covenant’, Ugarit Forschungen 11 (1979), pp. 453-464;M. G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 1963; E. Kutsch, Verheissung und Gesetz, 1973; J. L’Hour, La morale de l’alliance, 1966; N. Lohfink, Die Landverheissung als Eid, 1967; D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 1963; G. E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East, 1955; J. Muilenburg, ‘The Form and Structure of the Covenantal Formulations’, VT 9, 1959, pp. 74-79; M. Noth, Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels, 1930; L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament, 1969; A. Phillips, Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law, 1970; H. Graf Reventlow, Gebobot und Predigt im Dekalog, 1962; L. Rost, ‘Sinaibund und Davidsbund’, ThL 72, 1947, pp. 129-134; W. Schottroff, Der Altisraelitische Fluchspruch, 1969; R. Smend, Die Bundesformel, 1963; G. E. Wright, ‘The Lawsuit of God: A Form-Critical Study of Deut. 32‘, In Honour of J. Muilenburg, 1962, pp. 26-27; W. Zimmerli, The Law and the Prophets, 1965.
The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.)
|
|
