Covenants-What are They?
Many people understand a covenant as similar to a modern-day contractual relationship: I do this, you do this and if one of us doesn’t perform our duties, then the contract is broken and we walk our separate ways, thus ending the relationship.
This definition, however, is the exact opposite of how a covenant is depicted throughout the Bible.
A biblical covenant is initiated and maintained until the death of one of the parties. Disobedience of the covenant invokes “curses” and obedience invites “blessings,” yet neither voids nor invalidates the covenant. There are several examples of this throughout the Bible, but first we will look at Exodus 19:3-6:
19:3 while Moses went up to God. The LORD called to him out of the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel:
19:4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself (Covenant Initiated).
19:5 Now therefore (Human Response), if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples (Covenant Blessing), for all the earth is mine;
19:6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Covenant Responsibility). These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”
These verses are central to Israel’s identity. It is at Mount Sinai that God establishes Israel as a nation, and gives the nation its purpose. We must view the nation of Israel through this lens to properly comprehend God’s future interactions with it. As verse 4 shows, God initiated this covenant relationship, without Israel’s ‘good works’ as a prerequisite.
Yet Israel’s response to the Lord’s covenant does matter. Verse 5 clearly states that Israel’s response to this covenant determines what sort of blessing it is to the nations. There is much at stake by Israel’s covenant obedience, as verse 6 indicates. As the Lord’s favored people, Israel is intended to be priests on behalf of the nations. The entire nation of Israel is intended to lead the people of the world into true worship of the one living God, YHWH. Relationship with the living God is after all, true blessing. If, however, Israel disobeys the Lord’s established covenant, it is no longer a willing participant in God’s plan to bless the nations. Yet the covenant remains.
Exodus 19 shows that God chose Israel to be His messengers to the world. What the rest of the Bible reports is Israel carrying the message of the living God to the world in several covenant contexts: its obedience or rebellion, and in the Lord’s favor, or in the Lord’s judgment.
I will unpack those concepts in the next two posts, first addressing God blessing the nations through Israel in its obedience or rebellion, the next addressing God blessing the nations through Israel delivering a message of the Lord’s favor, or His curse. Stay tuned!
Posts
haha! It’s like karma.
What is like karma?
” A biblical covenant is initiated and maintained until the death of one of the parties. Disobedience of the covenant invokes ‘curses’ and obedience invites ‘blessings,’ yet neither voids nor invalidates the covenant. ”
That’s a concept similar to karma. I mean, I’m not sure about the official idea of karma. I mean more like what we, in our Western societies, call karma.
Ahh gotcha. The difference would be that Karma is a very impersonal thing, meaning there is no person in control of the Karmic force (other than yourself by your own actions). Covenant is by definition interpersonal because the maker of the Covenant is the very one whom we offend or delight.
“I mean more like what we, in our Western societies, call karma.” (Kyle)
I think you’re right, and we usually call it “fate.” Karma is the cosmic law of cause and effect, impersonal as Mike noted, the ultimate balance driven by the cycle of endless birth and rebirth (reincarnation).
Karma in this sense can be utilized by humanity in a good way - the sense of responsibility that comes from knowing that your future lives are determined by your actions. However, some have criticized karmic law because of its impersonal nature, as inflexible and deterministic - in other words, the flip-side of the coin is that one might be deluded into thinking that humanity isn’t as dynamic as it truly is - that we can change significantly, etc… Ultimately I think the concept of karma has been instructive and encouraging for the majority of the millions who really practice Eastern religion.
But Mike is making a profound point in noting that covenant is by definition interpersonal. A myriad of viewpoints will be stated distinctly, showing the variety of beliefs about our relation to deity, of course. But in some sense, I think it is a given that Christians confess to an interpersonal, and indeed, mutually dynamic relationship with God.
(Inevitably the questions: Can we change God’s Mind? or Is God moved by creation? should be raised)
And these questions take us deeper than karmic responsibility into a mystery altogether transcendent: prayer.
Why don’t we just simplify the language of covenant - since even kids are supposed to understand these teachings - and call it what it is - COMMITTMENT.
That there’s a word I hear very little in churches - yet it what i Have found the essence of this faith in God to be all about.
(Agreeing and tipping hat to Societyvs)
It does come down to commitment and discipline. I was taught that the root of God’s unfailing love (chesed) could have originally been something close to “striving with loyalty.”
Thanks Chris, I am guessing you where a top hat and a monacle like the Monopoly guy (lol).
I think faith is a personal choice people choose to make and committment is just par for the course.
SocietyVs,
Yes, the term Commitment is related to the term Covenant, however Covenant is a specific kind of Commitment that has unique features. Kind of like all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.
This means teaching children Commitment in place of Covenant would actually do them a disservice. If Commitment is the term you use to build up to an understanding of Covenant, then by all means.
Commitment is a fuzzy word though, because it can indicate two meanings:
1) A relationship in which both parties are united regardless of circumstance.
2) A relationship whose status is dependent on my actions.
Obviously this is tricky because the one meaning falls in line with the definition of Covenant as described by Exodus 19:3-6, but the other is antithetical to the definition. Thats why I lean towards the usage of Covenant and then taking the time to explain its meaning.
This is weird to me, because I’m remembering hearing the phrase “renewing our covenant” in church all the time in relationship to partaking of the sacrament (similar to the Eucharist w/ catholicism). Does renewing just mean reminding of the permanently existing covernant?
Kyle,
Great question. It honestly depends on who is saying it, and whether or not they have a biblical understanding of a Covenant.
For instance, if someone believes that the Covenant is something that they break and must renew or they lose their salvation, they are sadly mistaken as to the biblical outlook regarding Covenant.
However, if someone looks at Covenant renewal in the light you have described, as “reminding [them] of the permanently existing covernant,” then yes, that would be an appropriate understanding of Covenant. It would be a calling for the people of God to return to obedience in God’s Covenant, and therefore to experience His blessing. This is always a good thing, and it is what we see the Prophets doing throughout the Old Testament. Perhaps the most vivid example of this is found in the book of Hosea.
Does that help?
yes, it does. It must have been a renewal in the light of remembrance, not real renewal. thanks.