When we talk about Covenants, too often we treat them as if they were contracts, and if they only had one part — the terms of the contract. In reality, covenants have two parts. The first part of a covenant pertains to the rules. In a legal contract, we would call those rules the terms of the contract. In a covenant, they are the definition or oath. So there is that part. But there is more to a covenant than the rules or terms.
The second part of a covenant is that we are committed to engaging in a relationship. That is the connection or association part. What seperates a covenant from other things like a contract, is that a covenant is the commitment to a relationship.
When we talk of covenants, too often we focus on the 10% of the covenant that is on the surface and miss the 90% that is not. Our covenants are somewhat like icebergs. The 10% that we see is the contract. But the 90% relationship part that makes up the real substance of a covenant — we miss that 90%.
Not only is the relationship the largest part of what a covenant is about, it is the most important part because it is the reason for a covenant, especially a covenant with God. With God, everyone receives life and the resurrection. Everyone is prompted by the Spirit. Everyone can pray. With a covenant what we do is commit to a relationship with God. We commit to faithfulness with God.
To quote one dictionary on the term:
The Idea of Covenant. The term “covenant” is of Latin origin (con venire), meaning a coming together. It presupposes two or more parties who come together to make a contract, agreeing on promises, stipulations, privileges, and responsibilities. In religious and theological circles there has not been agreement on precisely what is to be understood by the biblical term. It is used variously in biblical contexts. In political situations, it can be translated treaty; in a social setting, it means a lifelong friendship agreement;
….
The biblical words most often translated “covenant” are berit [tyir.B] in the Old Testament (appearing about 280 times) and diatheke [diaqhvkh] in the New Testament (at least 33 times). The origin of the Old Testament word has been debated; some have said it comes from a custom of eating together ( Gen 26:30 ; 31:54 ); others have emphasized the idea of cutting an animal (an animal was cut in half [ 15:18 ]); still others have seen the ideas of perceiving or determining as root concepts. The preferred meaning of this Old Testament word is bond; a covenant refers to two or more parties bound together.
The key is that a covenant is the binding together of parties. Most generally, a covenant is the binding together of parties in a relationship that the ancients would think of as a patron-client relationship. The Bible is filled with this as a rich theme, and it is the core of much of what Paul states and the language he uses in the New Testament. When Paul speaks of covenants, and grace and faith, he is speaking in terms of the patron and client relationship that ran throughout the ancient world. The patron gave favors — acts of grace. The client owed faithfulness and respect.
deSilva and Crook show quite clearly that the relationship between God and men is described in the NT in terms of an ancient client-patron relationship. Crook in particular explores the terminology used by the NT and compares it to the language of patronage in secular and Jewish documents, showing a strong match. (Hence, note that although “client” and “patron” are terms used most often of Roman reciprocal relationships, the basic elements, such as reciprocity, are essentially the same.)
What patronage means, very simply, is that rich people give gifts and favor to the poor, and the poor were expected to be loyal (faithful) in return. God is the rich one (hence phrases referring to the “riches of his glory” [Rom. 9:23] have more meaning than we realize) and we are the poor folk.
The concepts were not limited to the Romans. Aristotle (Greek) stated that a patron should exhibit grace as “helpfulness toward someone in need, not in return for anything, nor for the advantage of the helper himself, but for that of the person helped” Christ talks of us doing the works of God (showing grace to others ourselves) to be the children of God. That is, we are to inherit the role as part of the covenant.
The patron-client relationship was part of the ancient world. To quote:
Ancient biblical societies functioned on a patron-client basis. As such, there was great inequality between the “Haves” and the “Have-nots.” The inequality existed in substance (possessions) and power and influence. As a result, the client needed the resources that the patron could offer. The patron needed (or found useful) the loyalty and honor that the client could give him.
… then speaking of first century Christians in this context …
They understood that God was honor-bound to support them, and especially so since He was love, and they were doing what He asked them to do. As Scripture says, “…God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6b). An obedient Christian can expect God’s grace. [3] As a loving patron, God will bless, and give grace to, those who support and obey Him. On the other hand, like any ancient patron, those who are proud and arrogant will not get the blessings from God they could have otherwise received
The relationship goes both ways. On the one hand, God gives us grace. On the other hand, we accept grace and give grace to others. The relationship is not one sided — it is not all taking or all giving. The relationship is not one of rights and demands, but one of respect and care and love. It is no fluke that when the Bible talks of Abraham and his covenant it then calls Abraham a friend of God. That is because Abraham had a relationship with God, not just a contract.
Thus when we enter into a covenant with God, we are agreeing to a relationship not a contract. The relationship is simple. We accept God’s love. We agree to be faithful to God and to learn how to love others. The difference between being part of the people referred to when the rain falls on the just and the unjust (to quote from the Bible) and someone who has become part of the covenant people is commitment to the relationship and to extending it through love. The Abrahamic Covenant is the promise that we will nurture a relationship with God and with others.
In thinking of covenants with God the takeaway lesson is that they are a matter of commitment to a relationship more than rules. To covenant with God is to enter into a relationship of honor and respect and love with God. To be faithful. The rules of the covenant are the smallest part. The largest and most significant part of the matter is commitment to the relationship we enter into. The rules, like tithes of mint and anise seed, are the smallest part.
Think about that next time someone brings up covenants.
Thank you for this! I particularly found the idea of the thing being brought together by a covenant is really people and not just a transaction.
I have to admit that “covenants” is a mild trigger for me in that being asked to sign before I was able to read the terms. Like Jason I like the thought of looking outside the “terms” and more to what the contract is trying to facilitate.
Great post, thank you for sharing. I don’t know if it’s just me, but I’ve noticed a gradual shift in the Church to more and more of a contractual understanding of covenants. I worry that this is the new direction our leaders may be taking us. I think you make a great point that these are more about relationships, loyalty and commitment than obedience to the fine print. The contractual framing is problematic for a number of reasons. I’ve noticed a tendency to lump a lot of the obedience to rules requirements lumped into baptismal covenants. “When you were 8 years old, you promised that you would obey all the rules, including doing family history work and hometeaching” Then we ratchet that up a whole bunch of notches with temple covenants. Sam Young makes a good point that we place so much emphasis on these covenants but do not discuss what they mean. In the temple recommend interview we have questions that make people think they’ve made covenants to wear their garments during the day and night and not wear them when mowing the lawn, when people have made no such agreements. I don’t think this legalistic approach will appeal to many people in the long run and will probably turn a lot of people off, especially when our system is set up, like Happy Hubby said, to have people sign before they are allowed to read the terms.
Wonderful thoughts, Stephen. I particularly enjoyed that you brought up Paul and that this concept was a strong current in his thoughts. There were obligations on the part of Israel within their covenant relationship, just as there were for God. Paul points out that Israel failed in their obligations while Jesus, born an Israelite, took their place and fulfilled their end of the covenant. And, since Jesus was the Son of God, his work of redemption upheld God’s part of the covenant, which is what Paul is referring to when he says Jesus “revealed the righteousness of God”. It all comes together in the person of Jesus.
One of the central stories in the Bible is about how God’s people do not keep their covenants–even the most basic one “I will be your God and you will be my people”–so God becomes human to keep them for us.
We are not faithful. We are whores. We are Gomer. Only God is faithful.
“Covenant Path” is going to come up more and more. I like this perspective.
Nice discussion, Stephen. Lately, talks by leadership seem to be trying to tie an expanding notion of obedience to the idea of covenants. Generally the formal contract doesn’t get pulled out and quoted unless a disagreement develops between the parties. What disagreement is causing leaders to pull out the contract/covenant? I think it is the whole gay marriage challenge and this strange notion that many members seem to be expressing that the Church as an institution ought to be supporting vulnerable or struggling persons rather than targeting them or disciplining them or using them as scapegoats.
So the very fact that covenant/contract rhetoric is so suddenly visible in leadership discourse is a sign there are serious problems in the leadership/membership relationship.
I had no idea the “covenant/contract rhetoric [was] suddenly visible.” I’ve been hearing it for decades — every time I experienced a PrH or SS lesson on any kind of covenant. Has there in fact been an increase in that rhetoric from SLC? If it was sudden, when did it happen?
I too really liked this post. I think I’m guilty of thinking of covenants a little bit more in terms of contracts, and I like the idea of emphasizing that the relationship is the objective. But when I read the comments here, I can’t help but think that the contract shows intent. If there is no intent to fulfill the contract, then there is evidently no intent to pursue the relationship. In other words, if church leaders are emphasizing obedience, I don’t think that necessarily means they’re reducing the contract to legalese. They could just as easily be warning that we need to demonstrate the intent or we can’t expect the relationship.
I like your take on this word that so often and freely use and sometimes misuse in the church (That word, I don’t think it means what you think it means!) The idea of a relationship (the spirit of the law) is much more resonant with me and something to think about. We talk about being a covenant people, walking the covenant path, yet are so often beat about the head and shoulders with a pharisaical list of all the many, many covenants made that perhaps we were unaware of. My biggest concern about covenants, as we discuss and describe in the church is that what we call a “covenant” is really more of an “implied” list of what people interpret as to what the “covenant” actually is. We interpret “keep His commandments” as everything from don’t commit adultery to don’t wear more than one pair of earrings, when I believe, as you pointed out, it’s not so much the actual T’s & C’s, but the relationship that you are working for. I think that we often jump the shark on this point of what is the actual covenant. The legalistic point of view sometimes feels stifling, and when I hear DHO speak, I feel that I’m getting a legal brief and not a sermon of love.
Felix! YES! I mean in what universe is it OK to ask people to covenant to something before they are even read the T’s & C’s if you will. Think Temple. Before I bought my home in an HOA, believe me, I got a copy of the covenants and read them thoroughly so I knew what I was getting into. I also agree with your comments on baptism at 8 covenant. What 8 year old even understands a small portion of what it even means? And how is an 8 year old minor child able to make a complete lifetime commitment. Besides, baptism is unto repentance, and I thought I understood that children before age 8 do not sin as they are unaccountable. Anyway, I digress on another rant.
Interesting thoughts on this post all!
“A new commandment I give unto you”
If a child is not held to account before the age of eight for any infringements of commandments that it cannot understand, how can it be possible to hold to account those over eight who do not yet understand what their responsibilities are? Seems to me I am in a a constant process of better understanding what needs to be corrected in my life and when I look back over the years it’s clear to me I didn’t know then what I know now. I don’t think for one moment a perfect Heavenly Father will condemn me for what I don’t at present know.
I much appreciate the original posting. Thank you.
Regarding the mint and anise seed, Jesus said “not leaving the other undone.” Both the terms and the relationship are important — but a person who has progressed far enough to fully embrace the relationship probably would obey the commandments even if they weren’t spelled out. The terms help people approach the relationship, and vice versa.
I know talk of baptismal covenants is ever present in our discourse, but I don’t speak in those terms. Baptism is an invitation and a gift — no covenant is made, as I see it. We make covenants later in our journey. I realize I differ from others in this perspective.
JL—excellent point.
Handlewithcare—the scriptures constantly state that we are judged only by the light and knowledge we have.
Martin—that is well said.
Dave—interesting question. I’m not sure about the premise though. You and Felix seem to be on the same page.
Cody—thanks. Your points should have been in my essay.
Thank you to everyone for the comments.
Stephen: no sweat. And I think your essay is great as-is.