"Covenant" in the O.T. as Defined by Contextual Analysis

Ted Manby

This is a study that looked at each usage of the term berit (covenant) in the Old Testament and charted the elements and distinctions found in each passage. This involved a number of hours of careful reflection. All the findings were discussed with Dr. Brian Beyer, an Old Testament and Hebrew professor at Columbia Bible College. This work has been redone and re-charted for this author’s Th. M. thesis.

The Hebrew word berit in the Old Testament is used primarily in two types of contexts.  Firstly, it is used in texts were there is a covenant between God and man. Likewise, under this category one should include the covenants between Man and God. This latter distinction does not deserve individual status because in every case the man is not instigating a new covenant with God, nor is the man administrating the covenant.  He is performing an act of formally and personally entering into the covenant, the one God has already made with a person or group of persons corporately which are in the line of a covenant head or representative.  In other words, certain men who were in the posterity of those whom God had instigated a covenant with (the individual and his posterity) in the past, chose in their lifetime to personally enter the covenant in a formal way. They were among the covenant people of God, but until this point, they had not personally or publicly entered the covenant for themselves.  In every era, each individual who is part of the "Remnant" of God, (God's elect) makes a personal covenant commitment and seeks to fulfill the responsibilities of the covenant while trusting in God to keep His part of the covenant.  God's part includes forgiveness, His protection or salvation, and His ongoing presence with His people.  This formal entrance into the covenant is often done corporately with the contemporary generation at that time. Therefore, the covenants between Man and God are not a separate category of berit, but merely a subordinate part of God's covenant with men and their posterity.

The second major use of berit is man to man. This is also demonstrated in two ways. The first use is a solemn accord between two individuals and is basically a strong binding agreement. The other use of this term is when a Man represents a Nation or a group and makes a covenant (treaty) with another representative of another Nation or group.  These covenants between men also involve the representative principle of one person being a proxy, emissary, and substitute for a group. Every person in the Nation or group enters the covenant through there representative. The duration of covenants between men and Nations vary in Scripture. Most, however, appear to last only as long as the covenant representative. Other contexts indicate that the covenant is binding also on the following generations. These man to man covenants reveal insight concerning the most important covenantal relationship, the one between God and man.

O. Palmer Robertson defines a covenant as a "bond in blood sovereignly administered" [p.4] (The Christ of the Covenants, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1985; also see Covenants:  God’s Way with His People, Great Commission Pub., 1987).  He correctly sees God as the instigator of all the covenants with man.  Also, his view is that there is a serious life and death pledge involved in each bond. Thomas McComiskey (The Covenants of Promise, Baker 1985) gives three definitions for berit:  "1) An oath apart from any condition; 2) the formal crystallization of terms of mutual agreement... [the most usual type] 3) a statement of unilateral intent which involves the stipulations of obedience by which that intent is formalized and facilitated." [62-3] He goes to great lengths to prove these distinctions in his excellent book. However, this author is not yet convinced of Robertson’s or McComiskey's particular definitions.

                                                                             

What then is a biblical covenant? A simple definition is: a solemn and lasting agreement that establishes and governs a relationship (for the first time or at a deeper level).  It often has long lasting promises that are granted based on obedience to the covenantal stipulations. The participants can be individuals, groups, or a representative for a group.  {There are no solely unconditional covenants in the Bible or the A. N. E. world.  Even the land grant was based on prior obedience and loyalty.}  Another way to view the term berit would be a sovereignly administered solemn agreement that is based on loyalty and obedience by the lesser party which results in the partaking of the everlasting promises offered by the greater party. Likewise, some view a berit as an agreement between God and a group and their descendants, where solemn oaths are made, conditions are set, promises, blessings or curses result for the people based on their response to the conditions. Old Testament covenants made with a representative (i.e. a father) are also made with the people the covenantal head represents (descendants or nation), yet this group must also each individually meet the conditions or bear the curses of the covenant.  The promises and blessings are not automatic because of someone’s bloodline. Last, berit can be viewed as an agreement in which both parties (and one for his posterity) make solemn oaths, yet the agreement is administered by God, conditions are set forth as well as promises and curses in regards to the keeping or breaking of the covenantal conditions, and it is instigated by a ritual and remembered by a sign(s).  There is an obedience aspect to every biblical covenant. Once the federal head or testor of the covenant obeys and passes the covenantal test, there is an unalterable part of the covenant that will continue in spite of future disobedience or covenant breaking by other individuals in his posterity. They, however, can exclude themselves from the covenant by continual disobedience and covenant breaking.

One of the major differences between the Mosaic covenant administration and the new covenant administration under Christ is the use of mediators.  No longer do the parents play the mediator role as Hebrew 8-9 shows in its contrast of the covenants and its explanation of Jeremiah 31.  In the new covenant, God does not have any grandchildren, only children.  He directly has a close covenant relationship with each individual new covenant believer.  This does not mean that God is unconcerned with the broader covenant community, which now are local particular churches. These also are made up of smaller units called families.  But as the book of Hebrews shows, one of the better aspects of the new covenant is the direct contact with God by each believer. Corporately, they make up the priesthood of believers.  Thus, the Levitical priesthood and the father’s roles as mediators in the older covenant is different in the new covenant. The father role changes to that of an intercessor and the one who invites his children and others to join the Father’s party (Luke 15).  Jesus is the only new covenant mediator. After the cross, and the setting-up of the Messiah’s covenantal administration (see the book of Acts and Heb 8-12) everyone in the new covenant has the same access to the Father, regardless of age and family distinction. The most basic thing of each of the covenants in the entire Bible is the promises.  The promise that is repeated in each of the covenants is “I will be their God, and they will be My people.”  All biblical covenants between God and man have this promise of a close relationship, special presence, and belonging to God in a unique way as the foundation. Based on this close relationship, God can set the standards for obedience that those in relationship loyally obey because they are motivated by a holy reverence and love. “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.”