COVENANT

COVENANT . The translation of the Hebrew notion of bʿrît by covenant originates from its Latin rendering as foedus/pactum in Hieronymus's Vulgata. Although there is a controversy about the etymology of bʿrît, the linguistic link with the Accadian birītu(m) (string, tie) seems to be the most acceptable solution. The literary contexts of bʿrît confirm that the rendering in the Vulgata and thus the translation as covenant fits well. It depends on the particular context what is meant by this notion: Either two partners with equal rights mutually bind themselves (1 Kings 5:26; 15:19) or a stronger partner imposes unilateral claims upon a weaker one or the stronger partner voluntarily binds himself without any claims towards someone else (1 Kings 20:34; Hos. 12:2; Ezek. 17:13).

Contract, Treaty and Loyality Oath in the Ancient Near East

The legal order of the Middle East is based on laws of contract. As transfers of ownership (such as the sale of estates) and changes of marital status (marriage, adoption) are laid down in a written contract (Accadian riksātu[m]), mutual obligations are suable at a law court. Furthermore, in late Assyrian contracts breach of contract is identified with oath-breaking, for which divine sanction is effected by means of curse and penalty for the benefit of the temple. Laws of contract are also applied to settle international relations between states with equal rights as well as between a supreme power and vassal states (e.g. Hittite vassal treaties; Korošec). Opposite to private contracts, international contracts are loyalty obligations mutually or unilaterally affirmed upon by an oath. There are two distinctive types of these contracts: first, a western type of Hethite and Syrian contracts (Sfire; Lemaire, 1984) that include a section of blessings in addition to the curse; second, an eastern type of late Assyrian contracts (Parpola and Watanabe, 1988) in which only the curse can be found. This second type is different from late Assyrian loyalty oaths, such as that of King Esarhaddon (Watanabe, 1987). In these oaths, the officials of the Assyrian state and its tributary vassals—among them the king of Judea—swear unconditional loyalty to the Assyrian king and to the crown prince by the gods.

In the seventh century bce a new and special form of late Assyrian laws of contract emerges for the first time. Now the contracts are not only subject to divine protection, but the deity himself is a party to the contract. In a collection of prophetic oracles spoken on the occasion of Esarhaddon's accession to the throne (Parpola, 1992), the god Ashur enters in a covenant (Accadian, adê) with the king; the other gods of the pantheon join as well. Later, the citizens and vassals of Assyria ought to be reminded of this covenant by the oath ceremony of cultic water drinking. In return for the divine support against enemies the king has to engage in ritual duties.

Contract, Loyalty Oath, and Covenant in the Hebrew Bible

According to the practice in the Ancient Middle East, the Hebrew Bible also mentions contracts of sale (e.g. Jer. 32:10–11), rent (e.g. Gen. 29:15–20, Exod. 2:9) and marriage (Mal. 2:14, Prov. 2:17). In ancient Palestine the different lifestyles and interests of Nomads, shepherds, farmers, urban people, craftsmen, and Levites coexisted in a cramped space where economical and political relations had to be constituted across family borders (e.g. Gen. 21:22–34; 26:23–33; 31:44–53). Therefore laws of contract were of special significance in ancient Israel surpassing the rules for changes in ownership and marital status. With reference to William Robertson Smith, Max Weber marked the ancient idea of making a covenant between JHWH, the God of Israel, and his people as a starting point of Israelite history of religion; however, this idea was not introduced because of an "elective affinity" (Wahlverwandtschaft) of the federal structure prevalent in prenational Israel as confederacy of oath (Eidgenossenschaft) in the thirteenth through the tenth centuries bce.

Expanding Weber's theory, Martin Noth put forward the statement of an alliance of tribes organized on the model of the ancient Greek amphictyony as Sitz im Leben of the covenant theology. He and George Mendenhall were aiming to corroborate this statement by an analogy between the structure of an early Israelite covenant schedule and Hethite vassal treaties from the second millennium bce. There was much argument against this early dating of the covenant between God and His people at the beginning of Israelite history of religion. On the one hand it is opposed to the covenant silence (Bundesschweigen) of the prophets in the eighth century bce. Thus in Hosea 2:4–15 and 3:1–4, where the relationship of the people and Israel towards JHWH is interpreted as a marriage, the covenant theology is merely prepared. On the other hand the covenant theology of the Sinai pericope (Exod. 19–24) is known to be a late creation of Israelite literary history. Therefore Lothar Perlitt, who refers to Julius Wellhausen, came to the conclusion that the covenant theology ensued from preexile prophesy, taking its rise in the time of crisis of the late Assyrian Empire, and thus dated in the seventh century bce.

Motifs of the late Assyrian royal ideology were partially accepted, but also partially rejected in Judah. In modern times this process—especially concerning the covenant theology—can be described in a more exact way (Otto) than in the previous centuries. In Judah they adopted the motif of a covenant with a divine partner from Ashur in the seventh century bce in order to legitimate the reign of kings (Ps. 89:4–5). The authors of preexile Deuteronomy accept the loyalty oath of the Assyrian king in a subversive way by transforming the demand for unconditional loyalty to this king into the demand of the same kind to JHWH (Deut. 13:2–10; 28:20–44). The claim of the state for absolute power was thereby set in bounds and the ground prepared for a reinterpretation of the idea of covenant. As a result, within the Deuteronomistic framework of Deuteronomy the entire people of Israel became a partner of the covenant with JHWH at Horeb, God's mount (Deut. 26:16–19), and in the land of Moab (Deut. 29:9–14).

In the time of exile the covenant with JHWH at Horeb replaced the king. As in Deuteronomy the law is linked to blessing and curse; it is not modeled upon the Assyrian tradition, but rather upon a Hethite type of contract that was transmitted to Israel via Syria. Thus JHWH gets the character of a Grand King and His vassal Israel owes Him loyalty of legal obedience. If the nation, by making the covenant, is to be held liable for the law of Deuteronomy, the authors of the Deuteronomistic Deuteronomy yet are aware of the possibility that the people may fail to keep the law due to disobedience (Deut. 9:9–10:5).

In the tale of Deuteronomy the authors let the people of Israel enter into the covenant after their failure, so they express their hope that God is willing to adhere to his covenant in spite of the people's failure to obey the law—that is, JHWH does not revoke His covenant even though Israel failed the law. In this way the Israelites overcome their experience of defeat against the Babylonians and their trauma of exile.

A second version of the origin of Israel

The Priestly Code dating from the time of Exile represents a second major version of the tale of Israel's origin and is the counterpart to the covenant theology in Deuteronomy. It deals with universal history and designs the final goal of creation and the world history of all peoples (Gen. 1–11). The underlying concept of the Priestly Code is the immanent presence of Israel's God in the tabernacle of the congregation, the establishment of the expiatory cult of offerings at the altar, and, along with the cult, the priest's office ministered by the Aaronites at Mount Sinai—God's mount (Exod. 29:42–46). Additionally, the Priestly Code aims to prove that since the Flood, mankind has overcome the former possibility to fail God's law once for all. After the Flood, God imposed the Noachian Laws on mankind, making a covenant with them in which he commits himself to guarantee the preservation of the earth and all humans (Gen. 9:1–17). Israel and mankind as a whole cannot fail the covenant by which JHWH made Israel stand out from the world of the other peoples.

The Priestly Code does not locate the covenant at Mount Sinai; further, it dates the Code back to the time of the patriarchs; here it is Abraham with whom God makes a covenant (Gen. 17). Thus the covenant is not linked any longer to binding laws, but instead represents a mere act of divine grace. This covenant comprises God's promise of numerous descendants and of the possession of the land of Canaan. Henceforth the nation of Israel is unable to fail the covenant. An individual Israelite may, however, fail if he refuses circumcision—the token of this covenant—and will consequently be excluded from the ethnic community. Scribes of postexilic times combine both programmatic texts, Deuteronomy, and the Priestly Code, thus forming a Hexateuch (Gen. 1–Josh. 24); its final goal is the making of a covenant between JHWH and Joshua, who acts on behalf of the people of Israel (Josh. 24:25–27).

Referring to Deuteronomy, Joshua delivers a speech of admonition that precedes this covenant and points out the consequences of its breach if the ban on worship of foreign gods is violated. Thus he pursues the course that adds the liability for the law and the possibility of Israel's failure to the covenant theology of the Priestly Code based upon mere grace. Its sequel is realized by the extension of the Sinai pericope (Exod. 19–Num. 10) in the final form of the Pentateuch (Gen. 1–Deut. 34) that is structured by the sequence of making, breaking, and re-making the covenant (Exod. 19–34). God's will to adhere to His covenant with Israel, despite their failure to the law (Exod. 32), remains the main statement in the Pentateuch.

In contradiction to the author-scribes of the Pentateuch, prophetic circles in Jeremiah's tradition regard the Sinai covenant of old as being broken beyond repair. They instead hope for a new covenant between JHWH and His people. In their view it is this new covenant that Israel will finally not be able to break; JHWH will write the law straight into the human heart. Circles in Ezekiel's tradition expect, in a similar way, that JHWH will give Israel a new heart—as well as His spirit—so that they may comply with the law. The law itself should not be altered.

Covenant in Early Judaism and in the New Testament

The covenant theology has preserved its importance in post-canonical Judaism that picks up the thread of the Pentateuch theology. According to the Book of Sirach, the story of JHWH with Israel consists of a series of eternal covenants reaching from Noah to David (Sir. 44–45); the Mosaic Law—in its role as the "Book of the Covenant"—is the expression of the preexistent wisdom in this world. In the Book of Jubilees those who keep the covenant made with Abraham and who undergo circumcision will not come to grief (Jub. 15:25–28). The feast of Shavuot becomes the date of the covenant at Mount Sinai (Jub. 1:1) and of the covenants made with Noah and Abraham. Moreover, theologians of the Essenes refer to the prophetic expectation of a new covenant that they consider to be realized in their community. This is also the case when membership with the Essene community—that is, participation in the New Covenant—stands for compliance with the written Torah according to Essene exegesis, including the Manual of Discipline (Sektenregel). The new covenant also needs a regular renewal at Shavuot, and on this occasion the members of the Essene community receive the blessing, whereas those who do not participate in the New Covenant are cursed.

In the Septuagint—the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible—the notion bʿrît is rendered not by synthēkē or spondē (treaty/covenant), but by a term from the law of descent: diathēkē (testament/last will). It says that God's promise is staunch and unchangeable. Yet the Septuagint has overtones of the possibility that during his lifetime the testator can dispose of the estate bequest by will, despite the appointment of the heir. Thus JHWH is depicted as the giving father and Israel as the receiving son without God's sovereignty ever being restricted.

The New Testament continues the linguistic usage of the Septuagint. The saying on the cup (Becherwort) at the last supper (Mark 14:24, Mattt. 26:28) typologically resumes the verses in Exodus 24:8, 1 Corinthians 11:25, Luke 22:20, and Jeremiah 31: 31–34. God establishes the eschatological community of the New Covenant (Latin: novum testamentum ) on the basis of Jesus' expiatory death. It is the dedication of the last supper. In Galatians 3:15–18 Paul argues with the term diathēkē from the law of descent in order to institute his gospel, which is not tied to the condition of the law. Like a testament, the covenant with Abraham cannot subsequently be altered by the law, which was given later at Mount Sinai. In 2 Corinthians, 3:14, Paul calls the Torah read at the synagogue service "old covenant" and contrasts it with the New Covenant, which is not based on the letter of the law but on God's spirit. In Romans, chapters 9–11, Paul expresses his hope that Israel will likewise become part of the eschatological New Covenant and that in this way God's covenant with Israel will not be cancelled (Rom. 11:29). The Epistle of the Hebrews sets the obsolete "old covenant" of the Levitical Torah at Mount Sinai (Heb. 8:7–13; 10:15–18), understood as the "first covenant," against the New Covenant and thus continues the tradition of Jeremiah 31:31–34. The New Covenant is supposed to be the "better covenant" and the "eternal covenant" that belongs to the divine order of God's roaming people. By Christ's death on the cross this order was established as an antithesis to Exodus 24:8 (Heb. 9:11–22), but its final completion has yet to come (Heb. 8:6; 11:1–12:3).

Covenant in Postbiblical Christianity

In the second century ce the antagonism between the old and the new covenant gains even more severity. In postcanonical texts like the letter of Barnabas (9:1–5) and in the dialogue of Justin with Tryphon the Jew, the old covenant—intended for the Jews—was replaced by the new covenant of the Christian church. Yet in the third century the church had to contend against Gnostic and Marcionitic heresies that, with reference to the Old Testament, considered the Creator in a theologically negative way. The covenants of the Old Testament again gained in importance; they were part of the permanent salvation acts (Heilsökonomie) of God. Ireneus of Lyon substantiated the unity of both Testaments as belonging to the one Christian canon. Only in the combination of both, God's plan of salvation, consisting of the laws from Mount Sinai as well as the redemption through Christ, could be carried out.

Theologians of the Reformation, proceeding from Ireneus's thought, developed a federal covenant theology (Föderaltheologie). Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575), a reformer from Zurich, Switzerland, was the first to project a Protestant federal covenant theology. To him the history of salvation from Abraham to Christ represented one single covenant with two aspects: the first concerning law and ritual in the Old Testament, the second concerning a covenant of divine grace in the New Testament.

In the seventeenth century ce the covenant theology of orthodox Calvinism reached its climax in the Netherlands, especially due to Johannes Coccejus (1603–1669). He developed his dogmatics by going beyond Aristotelian notions, preferring to elaborate a system of the history of salvation according to which, step by step, the covenant of works (foedus operum ) with Adam will be replaced by the covenant of grace (foedus gratiae ). This process is said to prepare mankind for the coming of God's kingdom.

From the eighteenth to the twentieth centuries, theologians in different countries were influenced by reformist covenant theology: Thomas Boston (1676–1732) in Scotland, Charles Hodge (1797–1878) in America, as well as the Swiss theologians Karl Barth (1886–1968) and Walther Eichrodt (1890–1978). Eichrodt was a reformist scholar of Old Testament studies and developed Old Testament theology based on the patterns of covenant terminology.

Covenant in Rabbinic Judaism and in Islam

Rabbinic Judaism interprets the Biblical bʿrît in particular with "law/commandment" in the contents of which the sign of covenant—that is, the circumcision—is meant (compare Gen. 17:10) first of all. In accordance with that meaning the Israelites may be called bʿnê bʿrît (sons of circumcision). Referring to Exodus 34:27, the commitment to the law including oral traditions can be qualified as bʿrît, as well. In the Middle Ages the explicit idea of bʿrît only plays a minor role in Jewish theological thought. In Maimonides (c. 1135–1204), the covenant describes the union of Moses and the biblical patriarchs with God, a union directed at acquiring cognition, the goal of which is to have the insights transmitted to all women and men.

The biblical covenants are a main subject for apology in order to either reject Christian theory about the replacement of God's old covenant with Israel by Christ's salvation work, or to reject the Islamic claim that the revelation of the Prophet Muhammad exceeds the biblical covenants. Modern Jewish philosophy and theology again attaches more importance to the notion of covenant; it serves as an expression of ethic autonomy based on mutual obligations between God and mankind, or on a dialogic behavior between both of them as explained in Martin Buber (1878–1965).

According to the Qurʾān (sūrah 7:134–135), which adopted the biblical conception of bʿrît, Moses' covenant (Arabic: ʿahd mūsā ) with God enables Moses to intercede with God and to receive the tables of testimony (sūrah 7:144–145). Moreover, God made a covenant with the prophets (sūrah 3:81; 33:7), and in particular with the Israelites at Mount Sinai, as he had previously done with Moses. The Israelites, however, broke this covenant (e.g. sūrah 2:63–66). After all, God had entered into a covenant with all women and men, calling upon all people to adhere to the revealed laws and to accept the reign of the one God (sūrah 7:171–172). Islamic traditional exegesis of these Qurʾanic verses links God's granting humans the ability to speak to the following demand of the covenant on Adamite mankind: They have to accept God as the single One and at the time of resurrection nobody can claim ignorance of the conditions of the covenant in order to exculpate himself.

See Also

Biblical Literature, article on Hebrew Scriptures; God, article on God in Postbiblical Christianity.

Bibliography

Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament (1933–1939). 2 vols. London, 1961–1967. Organizes Old Testament thought around the idea of a covenant.

Jobert, Anni. La notion d'Alliance dans le Judaisme aux abords de l'ère chretienne. Paris, 1963. Basic study of early Jewish covenant theology.

Kalluveettil, Paul. Declaration and Covenant: A Comprehensive Review of Covenant Formulae from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East. Rome, 1982. A form-critical study of language and form of contracts in the ancient Near East and the Bible.

Korošec, Viktor. Hethitische Staatsverträge: Ein Beitrag zu ihrer juristischen Wertung. Leipzig, 1931. Legal interpretation of Hittite international treaties.

Lemaire, André Durand. Les inscriptions araméennes de Sfiré et l'Assyrie de Shamshi-Ilu. Geneva, 1984. Text, translation, and commentary of the Syrian Sfire-treaty.

McCarthy, Dennis. Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament. 2d ed. Rome, 1978. Reliable interpretation of key-texts of ancient Near East treaties and biblical covenants.

Mendenhall, George. Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pittsburgh, 1955. A pioneer study that initiated much discussion of the relations between the Hittite vassal treaties and the Hebrew Bible.

Noth, Martin. Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels. Stuttgart, Germany, 1930. Important study of the "setting in life" of early Israelite covenant theology.

Otto, Eckart. Das Deuteronomium: Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien. Berlin, 1999. Study of the reception of neo-Assyrian loyality oaths and covenant motifs in Judah.

Otto, Eckart. Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Tübingen, Germany, 2000. Study of the postexilic pentateuch and covenant theology.

Parpola, Simon. Assyrian Prophecies. Helsinki, 1997. Transliteration and translation of neo-Assyrian prophecies that include motifs of a covenant between the god Ashur and the Assyrian king.

Parpola, Simon, and Watanabe, Kazuko. Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. Helsinki, 1988. Transliteration and translation of neo-Assyrian treaties and loyality oaths.

Perlitt, Lothar. Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany, 1969. Basic study of the origin of biblical covenant theology.

Robertson Smith, William. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites: The Fundamental Institutions. 2d ed. London, 1894. Study of covenant motifs in early biblical and Arabic thought.

Tucker, Gene M. Contracts in the Old Testament. Ph.D. diss. Yale University, 1963. Study of profane contracts in Israel.

Watanabe, Kazuko. Die adê-Vereidigung anläßlich der Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons. Berlin, 1987. Text and translation of Esarhaddon's loyality oath.

Weber, Max. Die Wirtschaftsethik der Weltreligionen: Das antike Judentum (1920). Edited by Eckart Otto. Tübingen, Germany, 2004. Translated by Hans H. Gerth and Don Martindale as Ancient Judaism. Glencoe, Ill., 1952. Study of the economic contexts of biblical covenant theology.

Eckart Otto (2005)