COVENANT (in the OLD TESTAMENT) (בְּרִית, H1382, LXX διαθήκη, G1347, agreement, testament). A legally binding obligation, esp. of God for man’s redemption.

Outline

I. Etymology. בְּרִית, H1382, is a Heb. noun (not an infinitive, TWNT, II:107) from the root ברה (ברו=); but the meaning to be derived from this etymology remains unclear. On the one hand, some have related baraya to the Akkad. barû, “to fetter,” from which comes the noun birîtu, “a fetter” (BDB, p. 136); cf. Ezekiel 20:37, מָסֹ֥רֶת, “the bond” of the b^erîṯ. Others have defined it, “to eat bread with, to keep the community of a meal with” (2 Sam 12:17; 13:6; KB, p. 152); cf. 2 Samuel 13:5, 7, 10, בִּרְיָ֔ה, or Psalm 69:21, בָּרוּת, H1362, “food.” From this etymology, the noun b^erîṯ would mean a “sharing of a meal,” and then, a “relation or connection (effected by the sharing of a meal),” and finally, an “alliance, mutual obligation, or arrangement.” The same author later departed from such a concept of pure mutuality, to the extent of recognizing the b’rith as an arrangement between two unequal parties, a “table fellowship, which a healthy person offers to a sick person” (Old Testament Theology, p. 62); and, actually, Biblical usage does not confirm the sense of “a meal.” Both of the above listed etymologies favor the concept of a “covenant,” a mutually binding agreement.

On the other hand, some derive b^erîṯ from the root baraya as it is used in 1 Samuel 17:8, meaning “to decide” or “allot to” (Gesenius-Buhl, Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das AT). Others then adduce the parallel to be found in the Hitt. “dynastic suzerainty covenant.” A vassal would enter into an oath of loyalty and trust toward his king and the king’s dynastic successors, out of gratitude for royal favors that already had been received (cf. G. von Rad, OT Theology, I:132). The benefits derived, moreover, gained their legal force with the death of the suzerain. As Meredith Kline has summarized it, “From the viewpoint of the subject people a treaty guaranteeing the suzerain’s dynastic succession is an expression of their covenantal relation to their overlord; but from the viewpoint of the royal son(s) of the suzerain the arrangement is testamentary...it is not in force while the testator lives” (WTJ, 23 [1960], p 13). These derivations point toward the giving of an inheritance and favor the meaning “testament.”

Basically, however, the meaning of the b’rith must be sought not in its etymology or significance as found in the pagan cultures that surrounded Israel. Only in the transformed usage of the term, as it appears in God’s own historical revelation, is its ultimate import disclosed.

II. Usage. In the OT the b’rith is a legally binding obligation. To insist upon further qualifying features would appear unwarranted. Vos, it is true, asserts that an obligation becomes a b’rith by the addition of a religious sanction (Biblical Theology, pp. 32, 33, 277); but, while at times the OT speaks of a b’rith as a “covenant of the Lord” (1 Sam 20:8) or “before the Lord” (23:18; as a witness, Gen 31:50), at other times it suggests no such qualification (1 Sam 18:3). M. Weinfeld stresses the variability of OT b’riths in this regard: how ritual meals or sacrifices (Gen 15:9; 26:30; 31:54; Exod 24:8-11) came to be replaced by verbal oaths in later contexts (JBL, 86 [1967], 255). Concerning this latter feature, the OT does at points use שְׁבוּעָה, H8652, “oath,” and b’rith interchangeably (Gen 26:28 or 2 Chron 15:15, cf. v. 12); but at other points the oath seems to be more of an addition to the b’rith (Josh 9:15, 20). Or again, oaths may appear where no b’rith is found at all (1 Sam 3:17; 25:34); and even G. Mendenhall, who states that covenants “usually had sanctions of a religious nature,” grants that the oath is lacking in both the Israelite and Hittite covenant forms (IDB, I: 417, 420). He would also propose an interchangeable usage of b’rith with עֵדוּת, H6343, “testimony” (cf. Exod 31:18, “the two tables of the testimony”); but the latter term connotes a “reminder” (KB, p. 683), is more specific than b’rith, and seems to refer rather to “the basic stipulations of the Sinai covenant, particularly the ‘ten commandments’” (K. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and OT, p. 108). The essence of the b’rith consists then of an obligation; it is a relationship under sanctions (M. Kline, WTJ, 27 [1964], 3), the particular nature of which is to be determined, as L. Berkhof has observed, on no other basis “but simply on the parties concerned” (Systematic Theology, p. 262).

Three usages of b’rith appear in the OT.

A. Parity covenants. When the parties concerned either have conceded, or are willing to concede to each other a generally equal standing, the b’rith is a true, dipleuric (twosided) covenant (cf. 1 Sam 23:18, made by שְׁנֵיהֶ֛ם, “the two of them”). Confessedly one party often takes the initiative and comes to terms with the other. The net result is still a “partnership,” an agreement voluntarily accepted by both parties (L. Köhler, OT Theology, p. 62). Such covenants could involve individuals (Ps 55:20), as David and Jonathan (1 Sam 18:3, 4); households, as Jacob and the brethren of Laban (Gen 31:54); groups, as Abraham and the Amorites of Hebron (14:13); or whole nations, as Edom and its confederates (Obad 7, cf. Hos 12:1). The marriage agreement is a b’rith (Mal 2:14; Prov 2:17), as is also an international trade agreement (1 Kings 20:34). Making a b’rith could involve bargaining (1 Sam 11:1), or simply concessions to the vanquished (1 Kings 20:34). Unusual fig. b’riths occur in Job 5:23; 31:1, and 41:4—on leviathan, the crocodile, with whom no such covenant can be made—or even a b’rith with death, to avoid it (Isa 28:15, 18).

A covenant was binding for as long a period as had been agreed upon, up to בְּרִ֣ית עﯴלָ֔ם, “a b’rith of perpetuity” (Gen 9:16; 17:7). The phrase, “a covenant of salt” (Num 18:19) indicates such permanent preservation (though TWNT, II:115, would relate this to the covenant meal). A man gave his hand as a specific pledge of fidelity (Ezek 17:18); or he might surrender certain intimate objects (1 Sam 18:4) to indicate a share, as it were, in his own person. The erection of a stone heap (Gen 31:45-48) or the acceptance of a token gift (21:27-30) could bear witness to a covenantal arrangement. The phrase כָּרַ֧ת בְּרִ֣ית, “to cut a covenant,” seems to arise from symbolical actions by which the parties concerned passed through “cut up” corpses of animals; cf. 1 Samuel 22:8, where the verb כָּרַת, H4162, “cut,” has come to mean, by itself, “to make a covenant.” It implied, not an “extension of blood brotherhood” (TWNT, II:115-117), but rather a threat of similar dismemberment for the one who violated the agreement (Jer 34:18-20 and parallel cases from ancient Mesopotamia, TWNT, II:118). Thus, for example, in the covenant of Ashur-nirari V and Mati-ilu, after a ram has been divided, the Assyrian king states: “This head is not the head of the ram, but the head of Mati-ilu, his sons, his nobles, and the people of his land. If Mati-ilu violates this oath, as the head of this ram is struck off...so will the head of Mati-ilu be struck off” (ANET, pp. 353, 354). Similar self-imprecations appear in the curses of Ruth 1:17; 1 Samuel 3:17, “God do so to you and more also if...” or in the identification in Ezekiel 17:13 of covenant making with being brought into an אָלָה֩, H460, “curse.” Whether the original motivation may have been of love (1 Sam 18:3) or of suspicion (Gen 31:49), John Murray concludes that “It is the promise of unreserved fidelity, of whole-souled commitment, that appears to constitute the essence of the covenant” (The Covenant of Grace, p. 10). The erection of a stone heap (31:45-48) or the acceptance of token gifts (21:27-30) could bear witness to a covenantal arrangement. The Heb. word that describes one’s loyalty to his covenant obligations is חֶ֫סֶד֮, H2876, KJV and ASV, “lovingkindness,” RSV, “steadfast love,” both of which fall somewhat wide of the mark (Ps 136:10); cf. rather 1 Samuel 20:8, “Thou hast brought thy servant into a covenant of the Lord with thee...”; therefore perform חֶ֫סֶד֮, H2876, &--;“fidelity.” The intended result then of חֶ֫סֶד֮, H2876, was שָׁלﯴם, H8934, “peace,” “prosperity” (Josh 9:15; Judg 4:17; 6:23, 24, contrast Ps 55:20). Still, the pagan nations broke their covenants, both with each other (Amos 1:9) and with Israel (Isa 33:8); and faithless Israelites could break their own covenants (Ezek 17:15, 16) and encourage others to do the same (1 Kings 15:19).

Men are not, however, on a standing of parity with God. Scripture contains no reference to God’s entering into a negotiated covenant with Israel. The clause in Psalm 50:5 which describes the saints as “Those that have made a covenant with me” reads literally, “Those that have cut [entered] my covenant,” that is, “the covenant already established by me”; cf. Moffatt’s rendering, “Who pledged their troth to me.” The contemporary pagans may indeed have had gods that entered into covenants of blood brotherhood or of kingship with men, as suggested by the Canaanitish “Baal-berith” of Judges (Judg 8:33) or the “El-berith” at Shechem (9:46). B’rith in this dipleuric sense concerns the true God only in the following ways: (1) Men may invoke God as a witness to their own covenant agreements. Phrases, therefore, such as are found in Ezekiel 17:19, “God’s covenant that Zedekiah hath broken,” refer to human covenants (v. 13), though perhaps sworn in the presence of God (cf. 2 Sam 5:3). It was for the purpose of calling God to witness that covenant oaths seem frequently to have been made in the house of Yahweh (2 Kings 11:4; 2 Chron 23:3; Jer 34:15). (2) Men may make a covenant among themselves to perform God’s service (2 Kings 11:17; 23:3b) or to maintain His standards (Jer 34:10; Neh 9:38; cf. 10:29). As an exactly opposite example, Psalm 83:5 speaks of a b’rith against God, that is, a league of Israel’s enemies against God’s people. (3) Certain of the Psalms (2:7, 8; 40:6-8) refer to the covenant of redemption between God the Father and Christ the Son, under which the latter would undertake redemption for mankind. But the actual term b’rith is not employed, nor are the contracting parties God and men.

B. Suzerainty covenants. When the parties concerned are not equal, the b’rith may become a disposition, imposed (1 Sam 11:1; Ezek 17:13, 14), or guaranteed (Josh 9:6, 15; Hos 12:1) by the superior party. Negative critics of Scripture have been slow to recognize this frequent lack of “two-sidedness” (W. Eichrodt, Theology of the OT, I:37); but it lies in the very OT terminology: on the one hand, “to establish” or “to command” a given b’rith and, on the other, “to obey” or “to transgress” it (Josh 23:16; Jer 34:10). The initiator thus normally makes a b’rith ל, “to” or “for” the recipient, rather than עִם, H6640, אֵת֮, H907, “with” him TWNT, II:109). B’rith used in such a connotation becomes a synonym for חֹק, H2976, “statute” (Josh 24:25; G. von Rad, OT Theology, I:54, 63). Scripture often employs b’rith in this sense to describe the legal relationships that exist between God the Lord and man the servant. Although there may appear at times certain mutually binding conditions so that one calls the resultant arrangement a “covenant,” these conditions do not represent the essence of the b’rith. It is still a sovereignly imposed, monopleuric injunction. God seems therefore to have chosen the word b’rith as the most available term for a legally binding instrument, to describe what is His sovereign pleasure.

Most such divine suzerainty covenants also involve redemptive, promissory elements (see below, C); but there do exist two minor passages and one major situation that are specifically divine disposition-b’riths. For the former, Jeremiah 33:20, 25 refers to God’s covenanted “ordering of day and night”; and Zechariah 11:10 speaks of God’s breaking His b’rith which He “had made with all the people”; the contextually suggested meaning is that, while God used to order world history in favor of Israel (cf. Deut 32:8), now He has freed all peoples from this “covenant” obligation. The latter situation concerns God’s preredemptive arrangement with Adam. Scripture refers to it as a b’rith (Hos 6:7), and it is not inaptly styled the “covenant” of works. For though Eden exhibits no partnership of equals, and no voluntary mutual agreement was reached prior to God’s sovereign disposition, there yet existed a certain balance of obligations and benefits that were equally binding upon the two parties concerned. Never again has history witnessed such a situation, with the exception of the life of the man Christ Jesus, who was the representative last Adam and who fulfilled all righteousness (1 Cor 15:45).

C. Promissory covenants, or suzerainty testaments. The legally binding nature of a promise could be enforced by a covenant, e.g., to support a new king (2 Kings 11:4) or to release slaves (Jer 34:8). The recipient of the promise might be God Himself, e.g., Ezra 10:3, to “make a covenant with our God to put away all these [foreign] wives.” This is the case in 2 Kings 23:3a, where Josiah made a covenant to confirm the words of God’s b’rith that were written in the rediscovered Book; cf. 2 Chronicles 29:10, “It is in my heart to make a [not the] covenant with the Lord that his fierce anger may turn away from us.” More frequently, however, it is God who makes this b’rith, and thereby assures men of His promises (cf. Gen 15:18). Kline summarizes it by stating that when men swear to a binding obligation there arises a b’rith of law, but that when God does there arises a b’rith of grace (WTJ, 27).

Specifically, when the parties concerned are God in His grace and man in his sin, on whose behalf God acts, the b’rith becomes God’s self-imposed obligation for the deliverance of sinners, an instrument of inheritance for effectuating God’s elective love (Deut 7:6-8; Ps 89:3, 4). Through it He accomplishes the gracious promise that is found throughout Scripture, “I will be their God; they shall be my people.” John Murray thus defines this third divine b’rith as “a sovereign administration of grace and promise. It is not a ‘compact’ or ‘contract’ or ‘agreement’ that provides the constitutive or governing idea but that of ‘dispensation’ in the sense of disposition” (The Covenant of Grace, p. 31; cf. pp. 10-12, 14-16). The inheritance was not automatic. Though essentially monergistic, effectuated by “one worker” (God, not man and God), the b’rith required that men qualify for it; and, concretely, God’s holiness demanded a removal of sin. This removal, in turn, came about by atonement, the covering of sin’s guilt (q.v.). Atonement, then, demanded blood sacrifice, a substitutionary surrender of life (Lev 17:11). Furthermore, only God or His representative could make such atonement (Exod 15:13; cf. A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the OT, p. 321). As Genesis 15:17, 18 dramatically puts it, God committed Himself to the covenantal threat of self-dismemberment; and thus God saves “because of the blood of my b’rith” (Zech 9:11).

Ultimately then the b’rith is, as the NT declares (Heb 9:15-17), a testament: the last will of the dying God, bequeathing an inheritance of righteousness to Israel. The OT, per force, never verbalizes this conclusion, and for two reasons. (a) While the idea of an inheritance was familiar to the OT (Gen 27; Num 36), and while the practice of Hitt. kings, guaranteeing testamentary protection to those vassals who remained faithful to their successors, was evidently familiar to Moses, the concept of a personal will remained relatively foreign to Heb. thought until the days of the Herods (Jos. Antiq., 17. 3.2; War, 2.2.3). (b) The fact that God’s only Son would some day constitute the sufficient sacrificial ransom was not yet clearly revealed. It remained incomprehensible to OT saints that, to satisfy God, God’s Son must die, that men might inherit His divine life, and so be with God. Its knowledge was far too seminal, both of the Trinity and of the incarnation, and of the crucifixion followed by the resurrection (though cf. Isa 53:10, 11). Neither does the OT deny to God’s promissory b’rith the possibility of this testamentary interpretation, and actually all of its essential factors are present. The OT simply assigns to God’s legally binding, monergistic declaration of redemption the title b’rith; and for its subsequent theological explication, through the LXX and the Qumran community, into the Apostolic Church, see Covenant (in the New Testament).

In the light, however, of NT explanations, the testamentary significance of b’rith in the OT comes into clear focus. When referring to God’s promissory instrument for the reconciliation of men with Himself, this becomes apparent both by analogy and by the nature of the b’rith itself. For the former, since Hebrews 9:15 reads, “He is the mediator of a new covenant,” then by analogy v. 18 must read, “Wherefore even the first testament hath not been dedicated without blood” (ASV). The old, that is, must be in the same category as the new. For the latter, Franz Delitzsch has remarked concerning the inherent nature of God’s instrument: “The old covenant was...a testamentary disposition, insofar as God bound Himself by promise to bestow, on Israel continuing faithful, an ‘eternal inheritance.’...Being thus a testament, it is also not without such a death as a testament requires, albeit an inadequate foreshadowing of the death of the true διαθέμενος [testator]” Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, II:109, 110. The OT declares that God saves “because of the blood of the b’rith” (Zech 9:11); and, as Hebrews 9:15 explains, Christ “is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant” (ASV, cf. John 14:6). Though men’s faith in His death had to be anticipatory and veiled, yet from the first it was known that for the serpent’s head to be crushed the heel of the seed of woman would have to be bruised (Gen 3:15).

Even in the case of most of the OT’s statutory b’riths, or dispositions, of God with men (Part B, above) the designation suzerainty “testament” appears preferable to suzerainty “covenant” (KJV). This follows as a natural development from the concept of b’rith as a redemptive bequest. A last will carries requirements: an heir may break his testamental obligation, but by so doing he forfeits his inheritance; cf. Eichrodt’s stress upon the b’rith as being at once both grace and precept (Theology of the OT, I:37). Though the testament is truly a bestowal, it is, as Delitzsch noted, a bestowal “on Israel continuing faithful.” Here apply such vv. as Leviticus 24:8, where the preparation of the presence-bread, “shewbread,” is styled a perpetual b’rith; for the b’rith was more than a simple statute: the “shewbread” in this case stood as a symbol of God’s graciously redeeming presence; so that to make provision for it was to carry out an ordinance that contributed to man’s participation in divine salvation. Minor as it was, it expressed Israel’s faith in the gracious Testator. “To keep His b’rith” means, therefore, “to satisfy His testament” in its conditions for inheritance. Similar in nature are 2 Kings 11:17, “Jehoiada made [executed] the testament [not a covenant] that they should be the Lord’s people,” and 2 Chronicles 15:12, which speaks of entering into the testament. Indeed, all of God’s sovereignly imposed suzerainty b’riths are “testaments,” requirements for redemption that He graciously reveals to His own, so as to enable their reconciliation to Himself.

III. Features.

A. Unity and development. Covenantal restoration, according to the NT, occurs only through a man’s identification with the righteous life, substitutionary death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Matt 3:15; Phil 3:21; Col 1:27; 1 Pet 2:24; cf. John 14:6); and this fact applies equally to the saved of all ages, to those of the Old as well as of the NT (Heb 11:40). OT Israel stood quite literally under the blood (Exod 24:8; Heb 9:19), and the effectiveness of the blood lay not in bulls and goats (Heb 10:4) but in its anticipation of the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (v. 12). In essence therefore there can exist only one testament. It was this arrangement upon which the various patriarchs trusted (2 Kings 13:23; 1 Chron 16:16, 17), as did Israel at Sinai, “along with them” (Lev 26:42, 45). The Asaphite singers of the exile prayed God to “have respect unto the b’rith” (Ps 74:20), and it is impossible to tell which of its various testamentary revelations may have been intended. Josiah’s rediscovered law book, which prob. included the whole Pentateuch, is called simply “the book of the b’rith” (2 Kings 23:2). Ultimately, Matthew 26:28 records the words of our Lord, who said, “This is my blood of the testament [the adjective “new” is not present in the better MSS], which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (KJV).

Within the basic unity of the testamentary relationship, however, there exists a real historical development. Its primary gradation arises between the older and the newer testaments as is marked by the division of the Bible into “Old Testament” and “New Testament” (so Vos, PTR, 14 [1912], 4-6). Jeremiah, for example, recognized that he was living under a b’rith relationship which God had established with the fathers of Israel of old (Jer 31:32). He also looked forward to a new testament that God would yet reveal; cf. even Mosaic anticipations of a future, more internal work of God (Deut 30:6; cf. Jer 3:16). The NT speaks explicitly of pre-Christians as having lived under the “first” testament (Heb 9:15, 18) and of the reading of the “old” testament (2 Cor 3:14). It states that Christ has also become the Mediator of a better “second” testament (Heb 8:6, 7), and it identifies His apostles as ministers of a “new” testament (2 Cor 3:6). Believing Christians are indeed reckoned to be the heirs of the promises of the older testament (Gal 3:29; see below, [http://biblegateway/wiki/IV. God’s covenant with Israel. COVENANT, THE NEW, IV]), and the old ceremonies are appreciated as foreshadowing what Christ would do in the newer (Col 2:16, 17). There is still a factor of distinction that marks these eras as two major dispensations or administrations within redemptive history—the older mediated salvation by anticipatory faith in redemption yet to come (Heb 8:5); and the newer, by commemorative faith in redemption once-for-all accomplished (9:12; 10:10).

On the basis of Hebrews 9’s applicability to both OT and NT, one may define b’rith as a “legal disposition by which qualified heirs are bequeathed an inheritance through the death of the testator.” Five major aspects to the testamental arrangement appear: the testator, who gives and is styled “the mediator” (Heb 9:15); the heirs, who receive and are also referred to as “the called” (9:15); the method of effectuation, namely, by a gracious bequest that is executed upon the death of the testator (9:16); the conditions, by which the heir qualifies for the gift, for as Hebrews 9:28 KJV puts it, the testament is “to them that look for him” (cf. its being “commanded,” 9:20 RSV); and the inheritance which is given, namely, “eternal inheritance” (9:15, 28).

The Mediator is God the Son (Heb 9:15), the divine-human Messiah, long before predicted by David (Pss 2:7; 110:1). He is changeless in His perfection (Heb 13:8). The heir then is man, or more precisely that elect portion of the human race with which God has chosen to deal in each of the successive periods of history (Gen 17:7; Exod 19:5; John 6:37a). The remaining three aspects, however, while possessing an inner unity, due to their nature as related ultimately to the changeless Christ, yet at the same time exhibit marked differences of representation in the successive historical periods. The “effectuation” and the “inheritance” may be considered together as objective features of the b’rith, signifying those historical arrangements that are accomplished by God for man’s redemption. The “conditions,” however, are to be seen as subjective features, which, while determined by God, consist of responses that are made by men (cf. John 6:37b).

B. Objective features. The former, objective side of the covenant may be appreciated under five leading features. (1) The most outstanding is monergism, or accomplishment by “one worker.” It is God the designator and not man the beneficiary who makes the testament (Eph 2:8, 9; cf. Isa 63:3, 5); it is Christ, the “Son of man” of Daniel 7:13 (cf. Mark 14:61, 62), with whom alone the saints must be identified (Dan 7:22, 27).

(2) A feature that is by nature essential to the effectuation of a testament is the death of the testator (Heb 9:16, 17; cf. 7:27). Specifically, Christ’s sacrifice served a twofold aim: that men might stand in His righteousness, and He in their condemnation (Isa 45:24; 53:11; 2 Cor 5:21; 1 Pet 2:24). This feature of the Savior’s death is marked by a progressive clarification during the unfolding of God’s revelations concerning the b’rith. Its earlier expressions were simply but dramatically pictorial, emphasizing that without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sins (Gen 8:21; Exod 24:8; Heb 9:22). Its later expressions, however, as they developed in reference to the Messiah (Dan 9:26) and the Son of man (7:13; cf. v. 21) became increasingly direct.

(3) It is the inheritance aspect of the testament that suggests its third objective feature: the promise that is made, namely, salvation, in terms of reconciliation with God. From the first book of the Bible to the last, moreover, one statement in particular is employed to characterize the reconciled heirs of the b’rith (cf. Gen 17:7; Rev 21:3). As John Murray states, “Its constant refrain is the assurance, ‘I will be your God, and you shall be My people’” (The Covenant of Grace, p. 32); “This is the promise of grace upon which rests the communion of the people of God in all ages” (Christian Baptism, p. 47). Out of zeal to guard against an anthropocentric religion and to safeguard the ultimate sovereignty of God, some evangelicals tend currently to minimize this promissory element. On the one hand, certain covenant theologians have defined b’rith as simply “a sovereign administration of the Kingdom of God...an administration of God’s lordship, consecrating a people to himself under the sanctions of divine law” (M. Kline, “Law Covenant,” WTJ, 27 [1964], 17). While rightly stressing the priority of law and obedience in God’s original covenant of works with Adam (see conclusion of II-B, above), they have neglected the fact that in every subsequent b’rith, it is the redemption by divine grace that becomes central. On the other hand, certain dispensational theologians, while rightly subordinating man’s redemption to God’s final glory, have tended to minimize the pervasiveness of the salvation theme in Scripture (cf. J. Walvoord, BS, 103 [1946], 3) and gone on to assume a replacement of God’s unconditional promise, e.g., to Abraham, by subsequent law, e.g., the Mosaic (cf. D. Pentecost, Things to Come, p. 68). As Eichrodt has well pointed out, “The Hebrew b^erīt has to cover two lines of thought:...‘legal system’...and ‘decree of salvation’...which can yet only in conjunction render the whole content of that divine activity covered by the term b^erīt” (Theology of the OT, I:66; cf. Gal 3:17).

(4) Another objective feature, which likewise relates to the aspect of heirship, is the eternity of the inheritance (John 3:16; 10:27-29). Leviticus 2:13 speaks pictorially of “the salt [eternal preservation] of the b’rith of thy God”; 1 Chronicles 16:15 and Psalm 105:8-10 talk directly of the fact that God “is mindful of his covenant forever.” Then the prophecy of Daniel 7 climaxes in the universal and everlasting dominion that is to be received by the saints (vv. 14, 27).

(5) Finally, along with these four, is the always present feature of the confirmatory sign, some visible demonstration of God’s ability to perform what He has promised. The ultimate such sign is Christ’s victory over the grave, which serves as a pledge of His deity (Rom 1:4), of justification (4:25), and of immortality and resurrection (1 Cor 15:20-22). Other signs, however, have been introduced with each historical revelation of the b’rith (see IV chart, below). Certain of these were somewhat modified at Christ’s first coming, but God has never repealed His earlier signs.

C. Subjective features. Redemption under the b’rith, though monergistic, yet requires a human response, a meeting of the conditions that God has laid down for inheritance. These, in turn, may be summarized by the term “commitment.” The one great requirement for status under the Hitt. suzerainty covenants was that of loyalty to the king; so on the higher plane, reception into God’s kingdom comes about only as men turn to Him in repentance (Ezek 18:30, 31; Luke 13:1-3) and accept His deliverance (Ps 27:14; John 1:12). God keeps the b’rith with those who are faithful and remember Him (Deut 7:12; 8:18; Dan 9:4). Analysis discloses three major subjective features: (1) the most basic, changeless in every manifestation of the b’rith, is faith (Gen 15:6; Acts 16:31). It is true that faith, with repentance, is God’s own gift (Deut 30:6; Acts 11:18); but without it men cannot please Him (Heb 11:6).

Faith, if it is genuine, must be demonstrated by works of obedience (Matt 7:24; James 2:14-26). So Daniel 2:44 speaks of Christ’s incarnation to set up a kingdom, and Ezekiel 20:37 describes “the bond of the b’rith.” Obedience, in turn, is seen in two component features: (2) moral obedience is the response of men to God’s revealed standards of ethics. These, moreover, because of their origin in God’s own moral perfection, are inherently changeless, though progressively revealed because of man’s limited capacity to receive and obey. They culminate in the teachings (John 1:18) and personal example of Christ (1 Pet 2:21; 1 John 2:6; cf. Jer 31:34), but the more restricted moral legislation of Moses remains binding upon God’s people (Mark 10:19; Rom 3:9).

(3) Ceremonial obedience pictorially describes the work of Christ, in which the sinner trusts as a substitution for his own life of failure. It shows a marked augmentation from stage to stage in the revelations of the older testament. With its realization in the newer dispensation of the church, many of its rites were fulfilled and ceased to be observed (Col 2:16, 17; Heb 9:8, 9). The veil of ceremony was rent (Matt 27:51). Some of its rituals were maintained, though in a transmuted form (Luke 22:15-20; Col 2:11, 12), as sacramental seals of righteousness by faith (Rom 4:11). Their performance therefore continues, as a commemoration of Christ’s past work, as a witness of His present salvation, and as an anticipation of His future redemptive activity (1 Cor 11:23-26). Whether by augmentation, transmutation, or abrogation, the ceremonies of Scripture exhibit clearly marked changes from one stage of God’s dealings with men to the next; and a sub-dispensation in His redemptive revelation may thus be defined as a period within which faith in Christ is manifested by a distinctive form of ceremonial obedience. The testamentary features remain the same in all stages. The later revelations of the b’rith are clarifications and extensions of the earlier. As John Murray, for example, has pointed out, “The church in the NT is founded upon the covenant made with Abraham. The specific covenant administration under which the NT church operates is the extension and unfolding of the Abrahamic covenant” (Christian Baptism, p. 46; cf. Gal 3:9, 14, 17).

IV. History. The above-listed eight features (III, B-C) of God’s OT promissory covenant, or testament, stand in marked contrast with those of His suzerainty covenant of works with Adam (see above, II, conclusion of B) which preceded it. Certain of its features appear also in the Adamic covenant: e.g., both arangements reflect the same fundamental situation of divine justice—that man’s chief end is to glorify God (Isa 43:7; Rom 11:36); and that as it was originally in Genesis 2, so at the final judgment, all men will be judged on the basis of works (Gen 3:11; Rev 20:12). Under the promissory testament, however, it is Christ who provides the justifying works, not man himself (Phil 3:9; cf. Isa 45:24, 25).

A. Edenic. Even in the first revelation of God’s promissory b’rith (Gen 3:15), the aforementioned testamentary features are truly present, though in rudimentary form. Genesis 3:15 is, in fact, not even called a b’rith; but it is necessarily assumed to be so (cf. L. Alonso-Schökel, Biblica, 43 [1962], 295-315, and M. Kline, WTJ, 27 [1964], 9; contra C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, p. 86), both because of the presence of the eight features and because of the development of all subsequent redemptive b’riths from it. The following tabulation presents both its similarities and its contrasts with the earlier covenant:

B. Noachian. The record of God’s dealings with Noah contains the first appearance in the OT of the actual term b’rith (Gen 6:18; 9:9). The Noachian b’rith was, moreover, specifically testamentary (despite G. Vos, Biblical Theology, p. 62): it was preceded by bloody sacrifice (Gen 8:20-22), a “type” (q.v.), or acted prophecy of Christ’s death; and its redemptive significance is indicated by its purpose of preserving seed (9:9), which included that of the woman, through whom mankind’s deliverance would some day arise (3:15). The Noachian testament, moreover, demonstrates more clearly than any other OT revelation the essential priority of the objective features of the b’rith over the subjective. Its basic explanation is that Noah found חֵ֖ן, “grace,” in the eyes of the Lord (6:8); and it was made with all the living and their posterity, including animals (9:10), so that even an understanding on the part of the beneficiaries would not appear to be required for its validity. From this, however, it must not be assumed that the moral character of the one to whom grace is disclosed is irrelevant, once it has had the opportunity to display itself; for 6:9 notes that the b’rith was given to Noah in his integrity. This, and the other basic features as they appear in the successive Biblical revelations of the b’rith, may be outlined as shown on the next page.

C. Abrahamic. While negative critics once used to deny any concept of the covenant made by Yahweh prior to the time of Josiah (R.H. Pfeiffer, Religion in the OT, p. 163), or to denominate its origin as “unclear in the OT tradition” (TWNT, II:121), more recent writers have come to recognize the reality of even the patriarchal b’riths, that “It is impossible to account for the invention of this [Abrahamic covenant] narrative in post-Mosaic times” (IDB, I:718). First described in Genesis 15 and 17, the Abrahamic b’rith was later repeated to Isaac (Gen 26:3, 24) and to Jacob (28:15; 35:12). It was marked by particularism: God’s choice of this one Heb. family as the recipients of His redemption and as the medium for its eventual communication to “all the nations of the earth” (22:18). Accompanying material promises included a numerous seed (12:2; 13:16), through whom would come the future Messianic testator (22:18), and the land of Canaan (12:7; 13:15). The Abrahamic testament was specifically conditional, in contrast with the Edenic and Noachian: only as God’s children did justice would God bring upon them what He had spoken (18:19).

D. Sinaitic. In the summer of 1446 b.c., following its miraculous exodus from Egypt, Israel was granted the fourth of God’s testamentary revelations in history; cf. an increasing modern recognition of Mosaic historicity (IDB, I:719). The particularism of the Sinaitic b’rith now embraced their entire nation rather than a mere family (Exod 19:5, 6, vv. that affect all subsequent formulations of the b’rith, J. Muilenburg, VT, 9 [1939], 352). The large group involved, over two million people, thus accounts for the detailed Mosaic legislation that follows: both the moral requirements of the testament (Neh 9:13, 14) and the forms of ceremonial obedience that make up the ritual of the Tabernacle, which became the testamental sanctuary. Deuteronomy 7:7, 8 and 9:4-6 base the b’rith on God’s love, His free grace. This graciousness of the testament was unique to the faith of Israel, preserving humility on the part of the inheritors and checking tendencies toward legalistic distortions or toward any necessary equating of God with the national interests (cf. G. E. Wright, The OT Against Its Environment, ch. 11). Sinai therefore was not essentially a conditional covenant of works (cf. Murray, NBD, p. 266; or, The Covenant of Grace, pp. 20-22), despite the objection of Mendenhall (IDB, I:718), who would view Sinai as opposed to the other b’riths in this regard.

Israel, however, did not keep the testament (Ps 78:10, 37; Neh 9:17). Forty years later God commanded Moses to make a renewal of the b’rith, on the Plains of Moab just prior to the entrance of the new generation into Canaan (Deut 29:1). Such repetitions and renewals were characteristic of the Hitt. suzerainty treaties of the “New Empire,” this period of 1400-1200 b.c. Indeed, just as the Decalogue with its “I-thee” form of address and allusions to past benefits bestowed (Exod 20:2; cf. BA, 17 [1954], 63, 64) closely parallels the suzerainty treaties, so the whole present Book of Deuteronomy corresponds to the six basic sections of the Hitt. covenants: 1. Preamble (Deut 1:1-5); 2. Historical prologue (1:6-4:49); 3. Stipulations (5-26); 4. Curses and blessings of ratification (27-30); 5. Enlisting of witnesses (31:19-22, 28-32:45); and 6. Succession arrangements (32:46-34:12, plus parts of 31), including directions for the disposition and public reading of the text (31:9-13, 24-27; cf. ch. 27). K. A. Kitchen thus insists that it “must be classed with the late-second-millennium covenants” (Ancient Orient and OT, p. 99) and sharply criticizes D. J. McCarthy’s “astonishing assumption [Treaty and Covenant, p. 154] that the casual combination of [later, Wellhausenist] sources should just happen to produce a direct correspondence with a covenant-form half a millennium obsolete!” (op. cit., p. 101).

E. Levitical. Anticipated in Numbers 18:19, when Aaron and his family were granted certain offerings as “a covenant of salt,” the Levitical testament arose out of the heroic action of Phinehas, grandson of Aaron, against national apostasy and immorality (Num 25:8). The promise of the Levitical b’rith lay specifically in God’s bestowal of the priestly office on this particular group of Levites (v. 13) and in the resultant reconciliation that they experienced with God (cf. Mal 2:6). It possessed also a broader redemptive significance, for it was through the priesthood that God’s wrath was turned away from Israel as a whole (Num 25:11). It was ultimately anticipatory of Christ’s testamental work of divine propitiation (Heb 7:11, 19).

F. Davidic. Four centuries of temptation to Baalism and frequent apostasy followed upon Israel’s entry into Canaan. After the judges and Saul, midway in the reign of David (c. 995 b.c.), God decreed the sixth and last aspect of the older testament, the Davidic (2 Sam 7:12-16; cf. its designation as a b’rith in 23:5; Ps 89:3; 132:12). Its essence lay in God’s promise of salvation mediated through the kingdom of David. The Davidic b’rith had an immediate, contemporary application; but it contained elements that spoke of the continuance of David’s dynasty after him (2 Sam 7:16, 19) and of its particular culmination in that greater Son who would be also the Son of God (v. 14; Heb 1:5). One must incline his ear and hear, or have faith, if he is to participate in the sure mercies of David (Isa 55:3). Many at that time may not have distinguished clearly between the Zion present and the Zion future, or between the earthly and the heavenly Jerusalem. When a man qualified for inheritance under the Davidic b’rith, he was blessed with divine reconciliation and guidance in this life (Ps 32:8), with reception to glory at death (73:24), and with participation in the kingdom of Zion when the “horn for David” should bud forth (132:17). David’s b’rith thus began to anticipate the two stages of God’s newer testament.

G. The new B’rith; and

H. The B’rith of Peace. Commencing with the latter days of Solomon, and culminating under such rulers of the divided kingdoms as Ahab and Jezebel in Ephraim or Manasseh in Judah, apostasy once again threatened Israel. The goal of the great prophets from the 8th cent. b.c. and onward was therefore to reactivate national commitment to the “covenant stipulations” (R. E. Clemens, Prophecy and Covenant, pp. 69-71; cf. Amos 3:2 or J. Muilenberg’s analysis of Jer 7:2-7 as a development of Exod 10:5, 6, VT, 9 [1959], 354, 355). Among the seven 8th cent. prophets (Hosea-Micah, plus Isaiah), only Isaiah makes consistent reference to the b’rith concept. They knew of it (Hos 6:7; 8:1); but they may have feared a possible perversion of its judicial character into an externalized or legalistic religion (cf. Mic 3:11). They therefore defined God’s relationship to Israel in terms of a husband or a father (Hos 2:4, 19) rather than of a testator; or, commencing with Hosea 2:18, and developed in Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 37 into, respectively, the “new B’rith” and the “B’rith of peace,” they were led of the Spirit to reveal God’s yet future New Covenant (q.v.).

THE SUCCESSIVE REVELATIONS OF THE TESTAMENT\ Objective Featur