Ii. The Idea Of Covenant In The Old Testament
I. INTRODUCTION
COVENANT IS ONE of the leading conceptions of the Old Testament, and thus it is not surprising that the early Christians sought to interpret the new faith, in part at least, along the lines of this conception, all the more so since some of the prophets had envisaged a day when there would be a new covenant to replace the old. Of the thirty-three occurrences of the word δ
αθή
η in the New Testament sixteen refer to the new covenant and a seventeenth speaks of ‘two covenants’ contrasting the old with the new (Gal. 4: 24). Of the sixteen, six refer to ‘the blood of the covenant’ (or similar phrase) (Mt. 26: 28; Mk. 14: 24; Lk. 22: 20; 1 Cor. II : 25; Heb. 9: 20; 10: 29), thus reminding us of the relevance of this subject to the discussion of the atonement, two refer to the new covenant as a ‘better covenant’ (Heb. 7: 22; 8: 6), four bring out the specific note of the fulfilment of prophecy in the new covenant (Rom. II : 27; Heb. 8: 8, 10; 10: 16), one is a baffling reference to ‘the ark of his covenant’ in heaven (Rev. II : 19), while the remaining three are more general (2 Cor. 3: 6; Herb. 9: 15; 12: 24).
αθήη in the New Testament sixteen refer to the new covenant and a seventeenth speaks of ‘two covenants’ contrasting the old with the new (Gal. 4: 24). Of the sixteen, six refer to ‘the blood of the covenant’ (or similar phrase) (Mt. 26: 28; Mk. 14: 24; Lk. 22: 20; 1 Cor. II : 25; Heb. 9: 20; 10: 29), thus reminding us of the relevance of this subject to the discussion of the atonement, two refer to the new covenant as a ‘better covenant’ (Heb. 7: 22; 8: 6), four bring out the specific note of the fulfilment of prophecy in the new covenant (Rom. II : 27; Heb. 8: 8, 10; 10: 16), one is a baffling reference to ‘the ark of his covenant’ in heaven (Rev. II : 19), while the remaining three are more general (2 Cor. 3: 6; Herb. 9: 15; 12: 24).It is of interest to notice that the covenant at Sinai seems to be alluded to eight times (including the ‘two covenants’ reference mentioned above) (2 Cor. 3 : 14; Gal. 4: 24; Heb. 8 : 9, 9; 9: 4, 4, 15, 20), and is probably included also in the plural ‘covenants’ in two other places (Rom. 9: 4; Eph. 2: 12); while the covenant with Abraham is spoken of four times (Lk. I: 72; Acts 3: 25; 7: 8; Gal. 3 : 17), and there are three allusions to ‘covenants of men’ (Gal. 3: 15; Heb. 9: 16, 17).
The writer to the Hebrews seems to have been specially interested in this aspect of things Christian, for he uses the term δαθήη seventeen times as against sixteen for the whole of the rest of the New Testament (which sixteen include four references to the words of institution of the Lord’s Supper), and he refers freely both to the Sinai covenant and to the new covenant although, interestingly enough, he does not mention the covenant with Abraham.
αθήη seventeen times as against sixteen for the whole of the rest of the New Testament (which sixteen include four references to the words of institution of the Lord’s Supper), and he refers freely both to the Sinai covenant and to the new covenant although, interestingly enough, he does not mention the covenant with Abraham.The verb δατίθεμα is found half a dozen times in the New Testament, but as it occurs in connection with the noun δαθήη in every case except Lk. 22: 29 (where it means ‘appoint’ rather than ‘make a covenant’), there seems to be no necessity for giving it separate consideration.121
ατίθεμα is found half a dozen times in the New Testament, but as it occurs in connection with the noun δαθήη in every case except Lk. 22: 29 (where it means ‘appoint’ rather than ‘make a covenant’), there seems to be no necessity for giving it separate consideration.121At the outset we notice that a big difficulty is posed by the fact that in the LXX the word δαθήη is used regularly to translate the Hebrew berîth, which is generally understood to signify ‘covenant’, whereas in non-biblical Greek δαθήη almost invariably denotes a last will and testament. It is not easy to see which meaning should be understood as the New Testament meaning and there have not been wanting advocates of varying points of view. Thus G. A. Deissmann can say: ‘no one in the Mediterranean world in the first century A.D. would have thought of finding in the word δαθήη the idea of “covenant.” St. Paul would not, and in fact did not.‘122 That this to him is a point of consequence appears from the statement which follows a little later: ‘This one point concerns more than the merely superficial question whether we are to write “New Testament” or “New Covenant” on the title-page of the sacred volume; it becomes ultimately the great question of all religious history: a religion of grace, or a religion of works?‘123 On the other hand J. B. Lightfoot says: ‘in the LXX it (i.e. δαθήη) is as universally used of a covenant.... Nor in the New Testament is it ever found in any other sense, with one exception. Even in this exceptional case, Heb. ix. 15-17, the sacred writer starts from the sense of a “covenant,” and glides into that of a “testament” .‘124 B. F. Westcott goes further, and argues that even this passage is to be understood of a covenant.125 It thus appears that the most widely divergent views of the meaning of the word in the New Testament are held, and held strongly.
αθήη is used regularly to translate the Hebrew berîth, which is generally understood to signify ‘covenant’, whereas in non-biblical Greek δαθήη almost invariably denotes a last will and testament. It is not easy to see which meaning should be understood as the New Testament meaning and there have not been wanting advocates of varying points of view. Thus G. A. Deissmann can say: ‘no one in the Mediterranean world in the first century A.D. would have thought of finding in the word δαθήη the idea of “covenant.” St. Paul would not, and in fact did not.‘122 That this to him is a point of consequence appears from the statement which follows a little later: ‘This one point concerns more than the merely superficial question whether we are to write “New Testament” or “New Covenant” on the title-page of the sacred volume; it becomes ultimately the great question of all religious history: a religion of grace, or a religion of works?‘123 On the other hand J. B. Lightfoot says: ‘in the LXX it (i.e. δαθήη) is as universally used of a covenant.... Nor in the New Testament is it ever found in any other sense, with one exception. Even in this exceptional case, Heb. ix. 15-17, the sacred writer starts from the sense of a “covenant,” and glides into that of a “testament” .‘124 B. F. Westcott goes further, and argues that even this passage is to be understood of a covenant.125 It thus appears that the most widely divergent views of the meaning of the word in the New Testament are held, and held strongly.II. THE IDEA OF COVENANT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
a. The derivation of berîth
Our first task will be to examine the idea in the Hebrew term berîth. The derivation of the term is still rather obscure despite the optimistic statement of Henry S. Gehman: ‘The etymology of the word in Hebrew is apparently quite clear: Akkadian barū, “to bind,” “to fetter” and birītu “fettering,” “fetters” suggest that Hebrew berith contains the sense of a binding or a bond.‘126 This is no doubt an attractive derivation, but it is not the only one in the field. Thus E. Kautsch says: ‘After the thoroughgoing investigations of J. P. Valeton and R. Kraetzschmar, there can be no doubt that bĕrîth belongs primarily to the secular vocabulary, and means “cutting in pieces,” namely, of one or more sacrificial victims ...‘127 Again, the form of the noun berîth is that of a feminine from the root bry which directs our attention to bārâh, a verb which actually occurs in the sense ‘to eat’, as does the noun biryâh ‘food’, and also the form bārûth. The derivation suggested by this root would make the sacred meal the important feature of covenant. There are other suggested derivations, but the whole subject is so obscure that not much can be made of it. Accordingly we must turn to the usage of the term for our information as to its significance.
b. The meaning of kārath berîth
The word occurs frequently in conjunction with the verb kārath in the expression ‘to cut a covenant’. This would fit in with the derivation suggested by Kautsch, but it raises the question why a verb from another root is used, so not much weight can be laid on this. The thought of cutting is associated by H. Clay Trumbull with the rite of blood brotherhood among primitive men and he says, ‘the primitive rite of blood-covenanting was by cutting into the flesh in order to the tasting of the blood’.128 On this view to speak of ‘cutting a covenant’ was to use an archaic form of expression referring to a rite which had in earlier days been universally practised at the making of a covenant, but which no longer was in use. This is possible; but on the whole it seems better to associate the expression with the cutting of sacrificial victims in pieces (Gn. 15: 9f.; Je. 34: 18). This seems to have been an integral part of the making of a covenant, even though it is not often mentioned in the Old Testament. As G. Quell puts it: ‘To cut something with the result that a berîth appears, is concisely expressed by the formula “cut a berîth”.‘129
That the cutting of an animal in pieces was necessary to the making of a covenant seems clear enough (from Je. 34: 18 it would seem that also the passing of the partners between the pieces was required). Why this should be thought necessary is not so certain, for the ceremony is never explained. We are left to draw our conclusion from the fact that such an action did take place. Some writers talk of the action symbolizing the entrance of the partners into the mystical life of the victim.130 But this is very difficult to accept. One wonders what meaning this would have to men like Laban or Abimelech (or for that matter to most men of today), and why this should solemnly seal the covenant. It is not sufficient to say that they thereby enter a common life, for the point is that, even if they do, it does not appear why being together in the life of an animal should consummate such a far-reaching compact as the berîth evidently was.
The cutting of the animals in pieces seems more intelligible as an invocation of the same fate upon the partners should they be guilty of breaking their compact. A. B. Davidson supports this point of view when he says that a necessary element in the making of the covenant was ‘the imprecation or curse ... invoked by each party on himself in case of failure, this curse being, at the same time, symbolically expressed by passing between the pieces of the slaughtered animal’.131 E. Kautsch views the matter in a similar light,132 and both men proceed to note that the Hebrew form of oath ‘God do so to me and more also’ probably connects with such ceremonies. This is probably supported also by the threat of Yahweh, ’And the men who transgressed my covenant ... I will make like the calf which they cut in two’ (Je. 34: 18, RSV; the Hebrew is not completely clear).
This is explicit in the account of a Babylonian covenant, which mentions the sacrificing of a goat, and proceeds: ’ “This head is not the head of the goat ... it is the head of Mati’-ilu.... If Mati‘ilu (breaks) this oath, as the head of this goat is cut off... so shall the head of Mati’-ilu be cut off.... This loin is not the loin of the goat, it is the loin of Mati’-ilu,” and so on.‘133 We could hardly have a more explicit statement as to the purpose of the cutting up of the animal, and this must be regarded as of importance, coming as it does from a land which had contact with the Hebrews at many points over centuries. Other rites could be cited from various lands to emphasize the same point, as is done for example by Trumbull.134 The natural interpretation of the rite as described in the Bible, coupled with explicit interpretations of similar rites in non-Hebrew spheres, seems to show beyond reasonable doubt what the significance of the division of the animals is.