Abram’s Understanding of the Lord’s Covenant

By John J. Mitchell

Roslyn, Pa.

“And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said to him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly” (Gen 17:1, 2).

So far as the biblical record shows, this is the first instance of God’s using the word “covenant” (בְִִּדית) in speaking to Abram.[1] What did this term mean to Abram when he heard it from the Lord’s mouth? Was it a new word whose meaning became clear only as the Lord gave it content in later revelations? Or was it a concept familiar to the man from Ur?

It is the thesis of this article that the idea of the covenant was well known to Abram, that the Lord made use of a concept and its related vocabulary that had been in common use throughout the cultural milieu of the patriarch. More to the point, if we can enter into Abram’s understanding of the Lord’s covenant with him, we can better appreciate the significance of the new covenant made in Christ Jesus with us.[2]

One who would study the divine covenants revealed in Scripture finds himself confronted with a number of problems. Concerning the covenant made with Abram, there is a voluminous literature from all ages of the church. Yet, much of this material lacks the insights into the nature of covenants that might be gained from careful study of the extra-biblical covenantal data of the ancient Near East. Several recent writers have endeavored to use knowledge of the international treaties, particularly those of the Hittite empire, to illuminate the Sinaitic covenant and its consequents.[3] Scarcely any attention, however, has been given to a similar application to the earlier biblical covenants.[4]

A second problem for the student is that of vocabulary. There simply is no agreed-upon definition of “covenant,” nor of the Hebrew בְּדִית and the Greek διαθήκη. Not to resolve all the disagreements, but to make clear the usage in this article, the present writer would define terms as follows: “Covenant” is used throughout to translate the Hebrew בְּדִית, and is understood to mean basically a firmly established relationship between two or more parties; it is a relationship beyond those existing in nature or in law, and includes some thought of amity between the parties expressed in such terms as “peace,” “brotherhood,” or even “love.” Thus, “covenant” is the general term to which modifiers should be attached if a more particular type is intended. One such variety is that of the international diplomatic pacts; these may be designated “treaty-covenants” or simply “treaties.” A “vassal treaty” was one between an overlord and his vassal; a “parity treaty” one between two sovereigns relatively equal. “Treaty-form” refers to the technical format used in drawing up many of the international treaties. Some writers have used “covenant-form” to indicate the parallel format in which the Deuteronomic covenant in particular was arranged. But to use “treaty” for international relationships and “covenant” for divine ones is confusing. The term “covenant” used as the general term will be found, it is believed, to be the most helpful and the closest to biblical usage.

Existence of the Covenant Concept Prior to the Hittites (to 1500 B.C.)

Until relatively recent times, little was known of covenants from before 1000 B.C. outside of the Bible itself.[5] What evidence did exist was not well understood. Now scholars have a large amount of data from ancient secular sources showing the prevalence of covenants during the period of the Old Testament patriarchs (c. 2100-1800 B.C.). The covenant concept was familiar to Abram’s contemporaries (and probably had been for generations earlier) and remained in common use for centuries afterwards.[6]

In the Hittite suzerainty treaties, or vassal treaties, an almost uniform pattern of formal elements was employed. So stereotyped a format may well have been the bureaucratic refinement of the Hittite “State Department” of a more flexible tradition found in use among the subjugated vassals.[7] That the treaty-covenant was known before the Hittite period is evidenced in several earlier documents.

Before 2000 B.C. As early as 2500 B.C., Eannatum of Lagash (a city known to the people of Ur) imposed a treaty on his defeated neighboring city of Umma. The treaty was recorded on what is now called the “Vulture Stele.” This document includes a record of the history between the two towns, particularly the recent victory of Eannatum, and declares that the vanquished will serve the victor. (Unfortunately, the stele is damaged and much of its detail is unknown.)[8]

About 2300 B.C., Naram-Sin of Aggade (who may have been a devotee of the same moon-god Sin worshiped as the chief deity of Haran) established his lordship over certain Elamites. In his treaty with them, Naram-Sin emphasizes the value to his vassals of maintaining the covenant friendship, promising them that “my friends are your friends.”[9]

Both of these treaty-covenants antedate Abram; both are found in the cultural environment from which the patriarch came and in which he continued to live most of his life.

Between 2000 and 1500 B.C. In the Mari archives, dating from the eighteenth century (just after Abraham’s time, but surely reflecting customs that prevailed in his lifetime), there are numerous references to covenantal arrangements. No complete treaty document has been found at Mari, but the vocabulary and relationships of treaty-covenants are of frequent mention in the Mari diplomatic records.[10] Normally Mari spoke from the position of superior military might, and most of these treaties appear to be peace treaties and mutual-aid alliances with lesser sovereign tribal groups and towns within Mari’s “sphere of influence.”

From the same period, but of more interest to the present study, is the treaty tablet found at Alalakh in Syria.[11] This treaty, between two men bearing Amorite names (of the same Semitic stock from which Abram came), is one of the most complete examples we have prior to those of the Hittites. In the treaty’s historical summary, Abba-AN, king of Yamkhad, relates his coming to avenge the rebellion of certain underlings of Yarimlim. Abba-AN reconquered the mutinous towns, destroyed some, and “as it pleased him” gave the city of Alalakh to Yarimlim as his vassal prince. Interestingly, the suzerain Abba-AN condescends so far toward his vassal as to bind himself by oath (and by the ritual killing of a sheep in what may have been a graphic form of self-maledictory oath; cf. Gen 15), solemnly promising to maintain the covenanted arrangements with his vassal. Though Yarimlim also swore to uphold the covenant, the major emphasis (so far as the partly broken tablet gives evidence) seems to have focused on the oath and ritual of the suzerain. Power being the corrupting influence it is, such examples of “grace” in human covenants are rare. Yet there is apparently nothing in the essential nature of covenants to preclude such condescension.[12]

If such a covenant could be made between men, even the wonder of God’s condescension to engage in covenant making with a man could not have been beyond all credibility to Abram.[13]

Even from so brief a survey of early covenants, it is evident that the covenant concept in the ancient Near East was capable of a variety of applications to suit the immediate circumstances. It might be imposed by a victorious overlord, established between sovereign states, or granted as a favor by a greater lord to a lesser. Yet, in all the variety, there must have been some common element. In each instance so far noted, the essence of the covenant is simply the fact of the establishment of a fixed relationship between the respective parties. This relationship might be constituted by means of an oath, a ritual, or by sovereign imposition; it might consist primarily of one-sided obligations, mutual alliance, or even unmerited bestowment. Yet the underlying common denominator is that of a bond-relationship established between the parties.

Covenant Vocabulary in the Patriarchal Age

Not only did circumstances and resultant covenantal arrangements vary, but the vocabulary employed differed from one culture to another and frequently differed within a given culture. So flexible was this vocabulary that outside of the Hebrew בְּדִית there seems to have been no one word to designate the covenant itself.

In Accadian terminology, the treaty was called riksu u māmÞtu, meaning “stipulations and oath.” The document of record might be termed tuppi nÞs̆ ilānÞ, “the tablet of the oath of the gods”; tuppi riksi or tuppi adē (cf. Hebrew דוּת), both meaning “the tablet of the stipulations.”[14] These phrases, or a particular word in them by metonymy, could be used to indicate the covenant itself.

Covenant-making vocabulary was varied also. In the Abba-AN document, we read that “Abba-AN spoke the oath of the gods with Yarimlim and the throat of one sheep he cut” (Abba-AN ana Iarimlim nÞs̆ ilānÞ zakir l immeru itbuḥ). In Mari, “to kill an ass” (ḥaiārum qaṭālum) was the idiom for “to make a covenant.” To break the covenant was “to sin,” “to break by deceiving,” etc. Even “to belittle” the covenant (root: q-l-l) was to break it and call down the gods’ wrath on one’s head.[15] The treaty was said to be that of X and Y, X with Y, or some other indicator of conjunction was used. The relationship itself was frequently spoken of as friendship (root: s-l-m, or s̆-l-m), even while horrible curses were being threatened.[16]

The Hebrew word בְּרִית is scarcely known outside the Old Testament. In a late instance, Ramses III used the root b-r-t in speaking of his treaty with certain Libyans.[17] Otherwise, the only possible cognate is the Accadian-Assyrian word bÞrtu, biritu, “fetter,” “bond,” whose relation to בְּרִית has been doubtful. Recently, however, two tablets were found at Qaṭna in Syria (an Amorite town in the fourteenth century B. C. when the tablets were written), in which a close transliteration of בְּרִית occurs. In the introductory heading of each tablet the phrase TAR be-ri-ti is found. The tablets appear to be contracts of indenture. The word be-ri-ti could mean a bond in this case; but the total arrangement, including an oath, is very similar to that of treaty-covenants. Albright asserts that this is the first published occurrence of בְּרִית outside of the Bible.[18] If so, it provides a link with the Accadian-Assyrian term and suggests that בְּרִית has originally the connotation of bond. These tablets also provide evidence of covenant-making among private individuals.

Even this limited display of evidence is sufficient to show that the covenant concept was known to Abram’s contemporaries. The variety of form and vocabulary attests further the concept’s antiquity even then.[19]

Interhuman Covenants In Genesis 12 Through 25

Evidence to show Abram’s familiarity with covenant-making is not restricted to extra-biblical data. Besides God’s own covenant dealings with his friend, other examples in Gen 12 through 25 show the prevalence of covenanting between Abram and his immediate neighbors.[20]

The covenant of Abram with Mamre and his brothers. “Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner,…these were confederate with Abram” (Gen 14:13). More literally, “they were free-citizens [בַּעַל in the plural] of the covenant of Abram.”

The wording is unusual,[21] and the covenant arrangement here has been frequently misunderstood. It is “the covenant of Abram.” But what sort of genitive is this? We note that Abram is the one who apparently determined to pursue Chedorlaomer, who organized the battle itself, who led back the spoils, and who spoke for them all in the conversation with the king of Sodom (Gen 14:14–24). Do we not have here an alliance of freemen under one chieftain rather than a pure confederacy? To speak of a “parity treaty” here is to obscure the actual situation; although all the participants in this covenant enjoyed equal legal status as freemen, it is Abram who appears throughout as primus inter pares. In his capacity as primus, he alone gives his name to the covenant.[22]

The covenant of Abraham with Abimelech. The king of Gerar (probably no more than the leader of a relatively small community) sought out Abraham and asked for an alliance. Abimelech had noted that “God is with thee in all thou doest” (Gen 21:22; cf. 20:3–7), thus making Abraham a personage well worth cultivating. To press his petition, he pointed out his own past kindnesses to the patriarch (cf. 20:14–16). Now he begs Abraham to “swear unto me here by God” (literally, “be sworn to me in God”), to which Abraham agrees, saying, “I will swear” (literally, “be sworn”) (Gen 21:23, 24).

After clearing up the problem of the disputed well, concerning which Abimelech pleaded ignorance, Abraham gave his friend “sheep and oxen” for reasons not entirely understood but presumably as tokens of friendship. Then, “both of them made a covenant” (literally, “they two cut a covenant”) (verse 27, and similarly in verse 32). In addition, Abraham gave seven ewe lambs to Abimelech as a witness that the well was Abraham’s.

This covenant, too, has been frequently misinterpreted. What we see is one man petitioning another to grant him a formal bond of friendship. To call this a “parity treaty” is also misleading. Abraham obviously occupies a superior position (since “God is with thee”!), and it was condescension on his part to grant such an oath-bound alliance of peace. It was an act of graciousness by Abraham toward the king of Gerar.[23]

The oath by Abraham’s steward. Though the arrangement made by Abraham with his servant (Gen 24) is perhaps not strictly a covenant, we do note similarities. As the master, Abraham required his steward to give an oath to perform certain commands.

The oath was made when the steward “put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his lord and was sworn to him upon this matter” (verse 9). The oath, made by the servant, is called “my oath” (root: שׁבע) by Abraham in verse 8, and “my oath” (root: אלה) by Abraham also as he was quoted by the steward in verse 41. Though the servant swore the oath, the resultant commitment was said to be that of Abraham.

What has this to do with covenants? If we keep in mind that the ancient political treaties must surely have developed out of more limited compacts and agreements in use among private individuals, then we should have no difficulty in speaking of Abraham’s steward as being in a covenantal relationship to his master. That an oath might constitute a covenant is also seen in Gen 26:27ff, where Abimelech approaches Isaac saying, “Let there be an oath [אָלָה] between us…and let us cut a covenant with thee” (verse 28). Isaac agreed, and they “were sworn [root: שׁבע] each to his brother…and they departed from him in peace” (verse 31). In other words, if there was an oath, there was a covenant by common understanding.

Summary. In these human covenantal arrangements, we find Abraham in the role of superior in each case. With Mamre and his brothers, no oath is mentioned though a covenant exists. With Abimelech, it was Abraham who swore the oath (though Abimelech may also have done so). On the other hand, the steward, who is obviously the inferior party, made the oath. Why this variation? It would appear that the relative standing of the respective persons had no bearing on who might swear an oath. Rather it is the party who is committing himself to perform certain obligations, whether by way of condescension or by way of subservience, who was expected to swear the oath. (Where both parties undertook obligations, both might swear; so it is in the case of Abba-AN and Yarimlim, cf. also Isaac and Abimelech in Gen 26:27ff. Of course, a “great king” might do no more than make a verbal promise on committing himself to a vassal.)

Certainly the biblical evidence from these interhuman arrangements is sufficient to show that Abraham knew very well what a covenant was and what it involved. The concept was entirely familiar to him.

The Lord’s Covenant with Abram in Genesis 12 through 25

Much more data is given concerning the covenant of the Lord God with the man from Ur. Though unique in many ways, the formal elements and the vocabulary employed are similar to those found in the secular covenants already discussed.

References to the Lord’s covenant may be categorized as follows:

A. The making of the covenant:

i. “The Lord cut [כָּדַת] with Abram a covenant” (15:18).[24] 

ii. “I will give [נָתַן] my covenant between…(17:2). 

iii. “I will establish [הַקִים] my covenant…” (17:7, 19, 21).[25]

Also, “In me, I have been sworn [נִשְׁבַּע]…” (22:16) refers to the making of God’s covenant. In fact, every promise uttered by God is a solemn commitment on his part,[26] the firm establishment of a bond or covenant with those to whom the Lord spoke. The theophanic ritual in which the “smoking furnace and burning lamp” passed between the rows of dismembered animals is said to be the “cutting of a covenant” (15:17, 18).

B. The covenant relationship:

i. “With [אָת] Abram” (15:18, 17:4, 19, 21). 

ii. “Between [ין] me and between thee [et al.]” (17:2, 7, 10, 11).

C. The breaking of the covenant:

i. “He has broken-in-pieces [נהַפַּר, root: פָּרַר] my covenant” (17:14).

D. Preservation of the covenant:

i. “Thou shalt keep [שָׁמָר] my covenant” (17:9, 10).

E. The sign of the covenant:

i. “Every man child among you shall be circumcised” (17:10), spoken of as being the covenant itself.

F. The Lord’s covenant commitments:

i. “I will make of thee a great nation” (12:2, etc.). 

ii. “I will bless thee” (12:2, etc.). 

iii. “I will make thy name great” (12:2, etc.). 

iv. “I will bless them that bless thee” (12:3). 

v. “I will curse him that belittleth thee” (12:3).27

G. Obligations imposed on Abram:

i. “Get thee out [of Ur]…and go…” (12:1). 

ii. “Be thou a blessing” (12:2).[28] 

iii. “Walk thou before me and be thou perfect” (17:1). 

iv. “Thou shalt keep my covenant [i. e., circumcision]” (17:9ff). 

v. Take thy son…for a burnt offering” (22:1ff).

H. The essence of the covenant:

i. “I will be a God unto thee and to thy seed” (17:7, 8) 

ii. “I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward” (15:1). 

iii. “For I know [i. e., love] him…” (18:19). 

iv. “God remembered Abraham” (and therefore saved Lot!) (19:29). 

v. “God is with thee in all that thou doest” (21:22).[29]

Summary. In all places where a comparison can be made with the extrabiblical evidences, it is. clear that the Lord’s covenant with Abram, though on an infinitely higher plane, nevertheless employed concepts and vocabulary thoroughly familiar in that age.

The Covenant Oaths

Much of the recent discussion of treaties and covenants has focused on the so-called “ratificatory oath.” The evidence, both biblical and extrabiblical, attests to the usual custom of swearing an oath by one party to the covenant or both. The swearer may be the superior power, the inferior, or both simultaneously. But so closely connected were the oath and the covenant that the use of “‘to swear’ taken by itself is enough to imply a covenant.”[30]

It does not follow, however, either logically or from the existing evidence, that “to cut a covenant” necessarily implied the swearing of an oath. Granted that, by metonymy, “oath” became the practical synonym of “covenant,” it is not necessary to assume their identity. Even less is it necessary to suppose that a covenant could come into existence only by means of an oath.[31]

What then is the significance of the oath? However a covenant may be defined, or whatever elements are thought to be included in it, the basic purpose was to establish an interpersonal (or international) relationship either in addition to existing relationships or where no previous relationship between the parties existed by nature or by law.[32] This relationship was frequently described in terms of family relationships; words like “friendship,” “peace,” or “love” are used in connection with it.[33] It is certainly conceivable that where an individual’s spoken word is “his bond,” where oral promise is credible to the other party, no further affirmation was needed.[34] In some societies (and among small boys today), the mingling of the blood of both parties is a means of establishing what is considered to be a relationship by blood. Sharing a meal, as proof of the peace and friendship being established, has long been an accepted means of covenanting among the Bedouins.[35] But in the ancient Near East, the pervasive apprehension of the capriciousness of the gods, who constantly needed to be appeased, made an oath, i. e., a provisional self-curse, a matter of utmost seriousness. To call down, even provisionally, the all-too-ready wrath of the gods upon oneself was the maximum guarantee one could give as to his faithful commitment to another. In other words, the oath was the cement by which one bound himself to another in covenant.

Who should swear the oath? The more data one examines in the whole gamut of known covenantal arrangements, the more variation on this point one can find. The conclusion that seems most valid is that the oath was sworn by the party (or parties) who was committing himself to the greatest extent to the other. A sovereign need not swear in most cases since it was assumed that his commitment to the vassal was minimal, or could be taken for granted as standard modus operandi in the circumstances. But the vassal was required to swear, not merely to put the fear of the gods in him, but because he was extending himself the most beyond his natural inclinations; no one wants to serve another, nor would a vassal willingly do so unless some coercive element were present. Who swore depended on who made the greatest commitment.

The Lord’s oath to Abram. Certainly no oath could be demanded of God whose “word is his bond” to the uttermost. God’s covenant with Abram had existed from the first time he called out Terah’s son (Gen 12:1). That this was a covenant even then is evident in the fact that God never made any material additions to the provisions set forth at the first. God did give further explanations, spelling out the details of the promises and obligations. But nothing of substance was added. Gen 12:1–3 is the Lord’s covenant with Abram.

Nevertheless, the Lord God did swear an oath. “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee” (Heb 6:13–14; cf. Gen 22:15–18).

If Gen 12:1–3 is the Lord’s covenant with Abram in essence, then why does the Lord swear an oath later on? Surely the solemn word of the Lord is a sufficient guarantee? Yet “God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath” (Heb 6:17). Thus, “by two immutable things [i. e., promise and oath] in which it was impossible for God to lie, we…have a strong consolation” (verse 18).

The “two immutable things” are God’s original promise (Gen 12:1–3, and frequently reiterated) and his solemn oath on Mount Moriah (Gen 22:16–18).[36] What then of the theophanic oath-ritual of Gen 15? That this was a symbolic portrayal of a self-maledictory oath on God’s part seems indisputable.[37] Here is an earlier oath of God given to Abram; for what purpose was it enacted?

“On that day, the Lord cut a covenant with Abram…” (Gen 15:18). We are apparently to understand that the oath-ritual of the preceding verses, plus the spoken words of the Lord, constitute that covenant-cutting. But it does not follow that this is the inauguration of the covenant of God with Abram. Quite the contrary, the events of Gen 15 are entirely an outgrowth of the promises of Gen 12. Abram was concerned and cried out to the Lord, “What wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless?” (verse 2). What the Lord gave was a restatement of the earlier promises (verses 4, 5).

This Abram believed (verse 6). But to add further assurance to his friend, God condescended to the humiliation of the self-malediction (verses 9–17, in answer to Abram’s further plea for certainty). In other words, as the oath of Gen 22 is for the assurance of the “heirs of promise,” so the strange oath-ritual of Gen 15 was God’s gracious confirmation for Abram’s own assurance.

Covenant-making employed a wide variety of rubrics. In Gen 12:1–3, God’s solemn word of promise establishes the covenant relationship. But in Gen 15 (and 22), God adds the formal swearing of an oath, not to “cut” a new covenant, but to confirm the one already existing. Once more, the richness of covenant-making procedures is seen being adapted to the needs of the particular situation.

Abram’s oath to the Lord. Was Abram, deceitful sinner that he often proved himself to be, also required to swear an oath of loyalty in return? We have no record of any such requirement, at least not before the imposition of circumcision (Gen 17). In Abba-AN’s treaty with Yarimlim, we found a degree of parallelism to the Lord’s covenant with Abram. Abba-AN “graciously” granted the covenant, even condescended to swear an oath to maintain it. But in that case, Yarimlim was also required to swear. What equivalent, if any, was laid on Abram?

Though the Lord repeated his covenant promises many times in the early years (Gen 12:7, 8; 13:14–17; 15:4, 5, 18–21, et al.), Abram’s response seems to be limited to the building of altars and calling on the name of the Lord (Gen 12:8; 13:4; 13:18). Certainly these acts do indicate Abram’s believing awareness of the bond that existed between the Lord and himself.

But did Abram swear an oath? It is often overlooked, but Abram himself says that he did! In conversation with the king of Sodom, Abram declares, “I have lift up mine hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take from a thread to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich” (Gen 14:22, 23). What is this but a solemn oath on Abram’s part, an oath that recognizes the peculiar relation that exists between the almighty God and himself, an oath that expresses Abram’s confidence in the Lord’s ability and the Lord’s commitment to bless him in all things? It is the oath of a faithful servant in total commitment to his Lord.

Why should Abram swear an oath? There was no need to give assurance to the Lord who knew the heart of his friend better than Abram knew it himself. Rather, it would seem more to the point to understand this as done for Abram’s own assurance. It was a forceful reminder, an expression of his sense of commitment to the Lord, a reciprocal of his awareness of the Lord’s commitment to himself. (So, mutatis mutandis, a vassal was made to swear not for the suzerain’s assurance, but to impress upon the underling a deep sense of his commitment. A healthy fear of the gods invoked in the oath served to make that commitment immediate and personal.)

Abram did swear an oath, a fact that should be kept clearly in mind in any discussion of the Lord’s covenant with his friend. It was an oath, moreover, that clearly recognized the fact of the Lord’s gracious commitment to the man from Ur, even as it was expressed in terms of Abram’s own commitment to the Lord. Later on, the rite of circumcision was imposed, an oath-ritual of solemn commitment to the Lord. In circumcising himself and his household, Abram solemnly committed them all to the committed Lord. It was no anomaly for God to speak of circumcision as “my covenant,…between me and you and thy seed after thee” (Gen 17:10). From then on, “my covenant shall be in your flesh” (verse 13). Circumcision was the visible sign of commitment to the Lord, the response to the Lord’s commitment of himself in covenant to those who looked for Abram’s promised Seed.

Summary. Abram would have had no occasion to swear any oath to the Lord unless he knew that a bond already existed between himself and God. Yet Abram swore such an oath even before the Lord’s oath-ritual in Gen 15. It was precisely because the promises of God in Gen 12 constituted a covenant and did commit God to a relation of personal benevolence and gracious blessing to his friend, that Abram could swear to take neither thread nor shoestring. He needed nothing; the Lord God Almighty was in covenant with him. This Abram knew from the very beginning.

The Essence: “God is with Thee”

What understanding did Abram have of the covenant the Lord God had made with him? Both the extra-biblical evidence, the significance of the vocabulary employed, and the evidence of Abraham’s covenantal dealings with his contemporaries, makes it abundantly clear that the patriarch understood that the Lord had extended to him a personal relationship, friend to friend.

From the time that God first spoke to him in Ur, Abram proceeded as a man who knew he had an established personal relationship with Almighty God. Not since the day of Enoch and later of Noah had any man enjoyed so great a privilege. To be sure, Abram strayed from that trust in God that should have accompanied such a relationship. But he lived as a man of faith, confident of the unchanging faithfulness of his Friend. All of his experience only confirmed that trust.

The Lord protected his servant despite the lies he told to Pharaoh in hiding his true relationship to Sarai (Gen 12:10–20). The Lord gave him the victory over Chedorlaomer, a fact Abram readily admitted (Gen 14:13–24). God talked with his friend at frequent intervals, even permitting Abraham to examine him at length concerning the nature of his justice in dealing with Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:23–33). When Abraham lied a second time about Sarah, the Lord again saved him and even recognized him as a prophet (Gen 20). Despite his age and that of Sarah, despite Abraham’s unbelieving attempt to raise up seed through Hagar, the Lord continued to bless his friend and finally gave him the long-awaited son (Gen 21:1–8).

At no time did Abraham have reason to doubt the reality of a solemn bond of union between God and himself. The heart of that bond may be seen in God’s own words, “I will be a God to thee and to thy seed” (Gen 17:7). So too the Lord’s previous words: “Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward” (Gen 15:1). The fulfillment of that covenant, the perfecting of that bond of union between the Lord and Abram and all of Abram’s faithful seed, is found in The Seed, the Son of Abraham. How much Abram understood of the future outworkings of the Lord’s covenant with him is hard to determine. Surely he understood as much as did pagan Abimelech, who saw clearly that “God is with thee” (Gen 21:22). And this was the understanding Abram had had from the beginning.

Toward Further Definition of “Covenant”

Those readers who have studied the recent discussions of the covenant as compared to the secular covenants known from the ancient Near East (e. g., those of Mendenhall, McCarthy, and Kline, in particular, whose works have been cited earlier), will have noted the presence of some confusion in the basic definition of “covenant.” On the one hand, these writers have found themselves confronted by evidence sufficient to show that earlier definitions were inexact.[38] They have also come to conclusions, on the basis of evidence available to them all, that differ noticeably.[39] Perhaps a further note on this matter of definition will serve to clarify the situation and, hopefully, encourage others to pursue the subject to a more satisfactory conclusion.

Basically, this function of defining is partly a process of stripping away. Every word carries with it in common parlance certain modifiers more or less regularly attached to it. At times such a modifier becomes so firmly attached as to alter the basic meaning of the original word.[40] In other cases, the original word may keep its first significance even while a parallel development of it evolves into something quite different.[41] It is possible that בְּרִית may have developed more than one discrete sense; in that case, we should have two words to define. On the other hand, we may find that the peeling away of adjectival concomitants will reveal a common core of meaning, a root concept that applies to all the multiplicity of widely varying usages. Even if our concern is to focus primarily on one such usage (e.g., the usage of בְּרִית where God was the author of it), it is still to the point to find the essence of the word if that is possible.

It is the failure to perform this process of abstracting consistently that has led to the variations in definition that we find. This failure (in recent writers, at least) appears to be due to a preoccupation with the “covenant-form.” Since God has composed his revelation to man in a variety of literary forms, the study of such forms is not only legitimate but necessary for our better understanding of the revelation. And, since it seems evident that some of God’s revelation concerning his covenant-making with men has been structured according to a formal pattern having striking parallels to the patterns employed in ancient international treaties, this “covenant-form” is of concern to the student of Scripture. But there is a distinction to be made between “treaty-form” and the treaty in essence; the one is the instrument by which the other is established.[42] So too with the covenants of God in Scripture. There may be a “covenant-form,” a pattern of elements that accompanied the making of a covenant; but, except by synecdoche (which the Scripture itself employs occasionally), the word “covenant” ought not to be used indiscriminately to mean “covenant-form.”

Both in the “treaty-form” followed by the makers of international treaties and in the “covenant-form” sometimes followed by God in revealing his covenant to men there are elements present that are not of the essence of the covenant itself. These concomitants include such frequently occurring factors as the oaths or oath-rituals, the promises or commands as the case may be, and the curses and blessings appended. These elements are closely related to the covenant, may even be necessary for the establishment of a covenant; but they should be distinguished from the covenant (in logic at least, if not in literary usages).

It is not possible here to inquire into all the usages to which the word “covenant” has been put. Neither is it expedient to catalog all the covenant-related data in the Old Testament. Let the focus of attention be on the use of בְּרִית within the compass of Gen 12 through 25. If the root concept of the word as it is employed in the record of Abraham’s life can be determined, then we have a working definition that can be of great value throughout in interpreting the Scriptures. Particularly in connection with the Lord’s covenant with Abram, any improved understanding will be of help elsewhere.[43]

It should be noted at the outset that the etymological roots of בְּרִית have yet to be clearly discerned. But even a casual survey of the usage of the term in Gen 12–25 should reveal one common feature; namely, these covenants are repeatedly spoken of as being made by one party with another, or as existing between one party and another. In other words, a covenant is a two-sided affair. This reciprocal element is present even when the parties are “naturally” separated by an immense gulf, as in the case of God and any sinful man. Nor does the initiation of a covenant by the sovereign will of God acting in total independence of the man and in full authority over him, with no prior claim or even movement on the man’s part toward God—even this tremendous disparity between the parties does not negate the two-sidedness of the resultant covenant. It is properly called the covenant of God, but it is always the covenant of God with some other party. There is not one instance of בְּרִית in these chapters (or anywhere else in Scripture) where the idea of relationship is absent. Any definition of covenant must begin with the basic concept of a relationship between two or more parties.

However, there are numerous relationships that are not in the category of covenants. There is blood relationship, the relationship of common citizenship under a common law, and many others. What makes a covenant in distinction from relationships in general? Again, the evidence would seem to indicate clearly enough that covenants are relationships that go beyond those obtaining between the two parties in nature or under law. Thus, marriage is the epitome of the covenant made between two human beings; it is a relating of two distinct persons in a closeness far more intimate than any other existing between two individuals. Marriage, in fact, serves as a most apt analogy to the covenant God has made with his people, and the Scriptures frequently employ it (cf. Hosea). In other words, a covenant is a relationship between two parties in addition to any relationship they may have had in nature or under law.[44] It was precisely to extend the relation of sovereign to subject that the bulk of the secular treaties were devised. So too, God’s covenant with his people is a relationship to them beyond that of the Creator to a creature.

But God’s covenant with his people also goes beyond the “natural” relationship of the absolute Master and mere slaves. The relation of a master to a slave is never spoken of as a covenant; but the relation of a master to a servant might be so designated. What difference is there here? It is a difference in attitudes on the part of each. Every covenant was a relationship that was colored by love. A true servant loved his lord, and a true lord loved his faithful servant; this imagery of loving concern between master and servant pervades many of the secular treaties. In other words, a covenant is a relationship of peace, friendship, brotherhood, or even love. The closeness of the relationship between a prisoner and his keeper is well beyond the natural or that of fellow-citizens; it is a painful relation. But Paul can delight in the fact that he is not a chattel-slave but a bond-servant of Christ Jesus; there is a covenant between his Lord and himself, a covenant suffused with love.

One further factor should be noted, one not always explicit but certainly implied. That factor is the quality of permanence that is inherent in all covenants. To be sure, Benhadad readily broke his covenant with Baasha in order to enter a covenant with Asa; this only points up the depravity of men even to the most solemn obligations, while the fact that Benhadad was obliged to break the previous covenant shows the permanent character that the relationship was intended to have. Despite the fact that men repeatedly broke their covenants, every covenant was theoretically permanent (even to the binding of future generations in some cases). A covenant was not a sort of contract for a temporary purpose; it had a permanent aspect. Of course, only the sovereign God could guarantee that permanence, and the everlasting quality of his covenants is one of their distinctive features in comparison with the covenants of men with men.

What then of those concomitant elements of frequent occurrence in the “covenant-form,” in the complex of factors that combined to make a covenant? What is the place of such elements as oaths sworn, promises made, laws imposed, curses/blessings pronounced? None of these is of the essence of a covenant; all of them are, more or less uniformly, adjectivally related to the covenant. That is not to say they were unimportant. The solemn word, oath, oath-ritual, handclasp, or common meal served as the cement by which the bond-relationship was made. The promises made or the obligations imposed were the very important definitions of the relationship being established. Their particulars were determined by the respective positions occupied by the parties involved and by the nature of the relationship that was being established. God’s promises to Abram may be called his covenant, but only because they detail the obligations God took upon himself; they are the description of the relationship on God’s part. The commands given to Abram, imposed on him by the sovereign Lord, are not the covenant itself but the description of the relationship so far as Abram was concerned. The covenant of God with Abram cannot, therefore, properly be defined as essentially promise or law.[45] So too, the curses and blessings pronounced in connection with the covenant are not to be included in the covenant itself. On the contrary, they are the fruits respectively of infidelity to the bond of fellowship established or of faithful adherence to it. Much more needs to be examined in relation to these covenant-related factors; but that will have to await another occasion.

So far as the Lord’s covenant with Abram is concerned, we would repeat what was said earlier. This covenant, initiated, established, defined in promises and commands, and even guaranteed to be everlasting, by the sole sovereignty of the Lord God Almighty, is nevertheless a union of God with his people. It is the same union that comes to expression in the New Testament phrase “in Christ.” This is the essence of the covenant concept, the essence of all true religion. The covenant God made with the man from Ur is the union God has established with his own in Christ Jesus, himself the epitome of covenant as the incarnate God-and-man, Immanuel. There is no more glorious concept given to men than this: God with us!

Notes

1. בִּדִית first occurs in Gen 6:18, and again in Gen 9:9–17, in denominating the covenants made with Noah. It next occurs in Gen 15:18 at the end of the narrative of the theophanic oath-ritual; but here it is not part of the quoted words of the Lord to Abram.
2. The fundamental importance of the covenant with Abraham should never be overlooked. “God has never made any other covenant than that He made formerly with Abraham and at length confirmed by the hand of Moses” (Calvin, Commentaries on…Jeremiah and Lamentations, tr. J. Owen, IV, 127).
3. Recent renewal of interest in the covenants began with G. E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh, 1955). The author notes the striking parallels in form between the treaties of the Hittites and the covenants with Israel from Sinai on, basing much of his discussion on the monumental work of V. Koros̆ec, Hethitische StaatsvertrÄge (Leipzig, 1931). Enlarging the scope of study by including several non-Hittite treaties, D. J. McCarthy adds much of interest in his Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and the Old Testament (Rome, 1963). M. G. Kline, in The Treaty of the Great King (Grand Rapids, 1963), notes the treaty-form in the structure of Deuteronomy, giving a new means of defense of the traditional date and unity of the book, and providing a tool for exegesis also. In By Oath Consigned (Grand Rapids, 1968), Kline examines the place of the oath in covenant-making, distinguishes “law-covenants” from “promise-covenants” in Scripture, and applies the fruits of his study to the understanding of circumcision and baptism. E. A. Kitchen provides a concise summary of much of the treaty material in Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Chicago, 1966), pp. 90–102. Other writers have developed the study in various ways, but the works cited above contain the bulk of the background material for this article.
4. “Considering the theological importance of the patriarchal covenant, it is remarkable that the resurgent interest in covenants and insights into their nature has not produced more new study of the covenant with the fathers” (McCarthy, “Covenant in the Old Testament: The Present State of Inquiry,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 27 [1965], 236, note 44). McCarthy himself has, however, given some attention to the earlier inter-human covenants in Genesis in “Three Covenants in Genesis” [i. e., Genesis 21:22–24; 26:26–33; 31:49–54], CBQ, 26 (1964), 179–189. The author devotes an inordinate amount of space to the supposed differences in covenant understanding between “source J” and “source E,” but otherwise provides many valuable insights.
5. Hence, the error of the “Wellhausen school” in assigning the development of lsrael’s covenant concept to a late stage in her religious evolution (dated usually to Josiah’s time) was due in part to ignorance of these secular treaties from before the Assyrian ascendancy. Cf.: “Every mention of the covenant of Jehovah with Israel in the Bible is later than 621; Moses knew nothing of such a covenant…” (Robert H. Pfeiffer, Religion in the Old Testament, New York, 1961, p. 55). This is certainly an example of scholarly blindness to any evidence contrary to one’s bias!
6. “Reference to international (i. e., inter-city-state) covenants occurs already in old Sumerian texts of the third millennium B.C., and it would seem likely that covenants upheld by oath must go back many centuries if not millennia before” (Mendenhall, op. cit., pp 26f).
7. The prevalent form of Hittite treaty usually had the following elements: Preamble, in which the suzerain is identified in glorious terms; Historical Prologue, reciting past relations of the parties; Stipulations, the “meat” of the treaty, setting forth obligations being imposed on the vassal and thus defining the treaty relationship; Treaty-preservation Proviso, a special stipulation requiring the depositing of a copy of the treaty in the vassal’s temple and its periodic reading before the vassal people; Witness List, primarily of deities invoked as treaty guardians; Curses, to fall on the vassal if he breaks the covenant, and blessings (usually quite perfunctory!), to attend his keeping of it.
8. See McCarthy’s discussion of this treaty in Treaty and Covenant, pp. 15f. For translation and transliteration, see F. Thureau-Dangin, Sumerische-Akkadische KÖnigsinschriften, pp. 10ff.
9. McCarthy, op. cit., pp. 18f; 32, note 24. See also V. Scheil, MÉmoirs de la dÉlÉgation en Perse, XI, 1.
10. For a brief text containing Mari covenant vocabulary, see W. F. Albright’s translation in Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 482.
11. See McCarthy, op. cit., pp. 185f, for a translation, and pp. 52 and 125 for his discussion of it. See also D. J. Wiseman, Journal of Cuneiform Studies, XII, 124ff, and A. Draffkorn, JCS, XIII, 94ff.
12. Whether Abba-AN’s motives were purely “gracious,” or hypocritically self-seeking, is beside the point. Ostensibly his covenant bestows unmerited benefits on his vassal and does so by an oath the suzerain himself swore. Hints of “grace” appear in a few other instances; but this treaty of Abba-AN is the most striking example.
13. Cf. Gen 15 and 22:16.
14. McCarthy, op. cit., pp. 53f, 96ff, et al. Cf. לוּחת הַבְּרית in Deut 9:9, 11, 15.
15. Cf. Gen 12:3, where God threatens to “curse them that belittle” Abram. See also note 27 below.
16. McCarthy, op. cit., pp. 53f; 92, note 45; 96ff, el al.
17. Ibid., p. 105.
18. W. F. Albright, “The Hebrew Expression for ‘Making a Covenant’ Pre-Israelite Documents,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 121 (Feb. 1951), 21f. Albright believes that TAR represents a cognate of the Hebrew k-r-t, “to cut,” so that TAR be-ri-ti would be equivalent to Hebrew בְּרִת בְּרִית, “cut (i. e., make) a covenant.”
19. See note 5.
20. See also the further examples from the patriarchal period discussed by McCarthy in “Three Covenants in Genesis” (op. cit., in note 4).
21. בַּעַל here refers to a freeman in distinction from a slave; by extension, it denoted a lord or master. The phrase בֳּעֲי בְןית־אַבְןִם is unusual, but not entirely unique in Scripture. In Neh 6:18 the phrase שְׁבוּעָה לוֹ בּעֲלַי refers to those nobles of Judah who allied themselves to Tobiah of Samaria. The context shows that the Judean nobles had given their oath as freemen; yet it is also clear that Tobiah is recognized as the chieftain. This was not strictly a “parity treaty,” but a voluntary allying of weaker freemen with a more powerful overlord.
22. After all, a man who could field 318 armed warriors “born in his own house” (Gen 14:14) was a leader with whom it might pay to be allied! Note also that in the extra-biblical data, “the covenant of X” normally implied that X was the superior party in the covenant.
23. Cf. McCarthy, “Three Covenants in Genesis,” CBQ, 26, 181f.
24. כַּדַת literally, “to cut.” How a verb whose primary meaning was to cut asunder could have come to imply a drawing together is a puzzle; the English word “cleave” has the same contradictory significances (though here they are due to derivation from two distinct roots). It is generally supposed that the practice of cutting an animal in symbolic oath-ritual at the making of covenant is the explanation of the phenomenon. So, e. g., McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, pp. 53–57; Kline, By Oath Consigned, p. 43; Gesenius’ Hebrew and English Lexicon (Brown, Driver, and Briggs), in loco. Despite the weight of these and other authorities, it would seem best to agree with John Murray that “there is not sufficient evidence for a conclusive judgment in favour of this widely-held interpretation. We shall probably have to wait for light which may yet be derived from other sources” (The Covenant of Grace, p. 16, note 19). Perhaps we may find yet that the original significance is that of cutting a covenant through various barriers to the other party; cf. the etymological root significance of diathēkē.
25. קוּם in the Hifʿ'îl may suggest either initial establishment or continuing maintenance. Either meaning is appropriate here.
26. See the “two immutable things” in Heb 6:18.
27. The root q-l-l is used in the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic to mean the breaking of a covenant. To despise one’s oath is to belittle (qullulu) the gods (cf.: “Thou shalt not lift up the Lord’s name to vanity.”), thus calling down the covenant curse on one’s head. Apparently, to belittle Abram, in whom the promised Seed exists, and with whom the Lord has a covenant, is to belittle God himself and thus call down God’s wrath on the belittler.
28. This is a promise as well as a command. But it must be recognized as an imperative. Like “Be thou perfect,” it can be fulfilled by Abram only in Christ, the promised Seed.
29. These words from the pagan king Abimelech are perhaps the most pertinent commentary on the Lord’s covenant with Abram. It is the union of God with Abraham that is the essence Of the covenant. To this agrees James’ remark that Abraham was “called the friend of God” (James 2:23; cf. Ex 33:11).
30. McCarthy, “Three Covenants in Genesis,” CBQ, 26, 181.
31. The statements in this paragraph are by no means universally accepted. E. g., Mendenhall, “Since a covenant is essentially a promissory oath, it is only in this way that a social group could be made responsible to new obligations” (op. cit., p. 5; emphases mine). Cf. also Mendenhall’s definition in “Covenant” in the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. McCarthy charges Mendenhall with a priori argumentation here, and notes that “the ancients knew of many another kind of covenant-making technique” besides the one based on oath (Treaty and Covenant, p. 5). Kline (in By Oath Consigned), while not as absolute in his statements as Mendenhall, does give a primary significance to the oath; in concentrating on the significance of the oath, he frequently fails to appreciate the essential character of the covenant as a relationship established. That covenants could exist apart from any oath is evidenced in the case of Jonathan and David (1 Sam 18:3; but cf. 1 Sam 20:1ff, where there is mention of oaths). Suffice it to say that whatever was acceptable to the parties involved, be it an oath or simply a handclasp, could be employed to constitute a covenant.
32. “Covenants may be between parties of different socio-political groups, in which case the covenant creates a relationship [better, the covenant is the relationship] between them regulated by the terms of the covenant; or a covenant may take place within a legal community, in which case obligations are assumed which the law does not provide for—i. e., it makes new obligations binding” (Mendenhall, “Covenant,” Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible).
33. See McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, pp. 47, 96, and examples cited from the treaties, pp. 18–21.
34. Certainly this is true of God, for whom it is “impossible to lie” (Heb 6:18).
35. “An exchange of gifts, the shaking of hands, the eating of something together, oath, and a host of other things, could be used to form covenantal relationships. Apparently even ceremonies with oil could produce a covenant, an alliance between nations” (McCarthy, “Covenant in the Old Testament,” CBQ, 27 [1965], 239).
36. The second “immutable thing” cannot be identified with the theophanic ritual of Gen 15 (as Kline seems to be doing in By Oath Consigned, pp. 16f). The references in Heb 6 are to the events at Mount Moriah (Gen 22). Grammatically, God’s words in Gen 22:16a, “by myself have I sworn,” might be taken to refer to some earlier oath-taking such as that of Gen 15. But the rest of the verse makes it clear that this is a new oath sworn by God consequent to Abraham’s act of obedient faith in offering up Isaac. This is not to say that the theophanic ritual is not an “immutable thing”; it simply is not one that the writer of Hebrews had in mind.
37. Descriptions of acted-out curses exist in some of the ancient treaties. For examples, see the two treaties made with Mati’el of Arpad (who obviously switched allegiances despite these acted-out curses!), translations of which are given by McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, pp. 189–197. E. g., “[and just as] this calf is cut to pieces, so may Mati’el be cut to pieces….”
38. E. g., in By Oath Consigned (pp. 15f, notes 5, 6; cf. p. 18, note 10), Kline sets forth his view of the divine covenant in distinction from that of John Murray, his former teacher. Professor Murray’s own definition of the divine covenant as a “sovereign administration of grace and of promise” (The Covenant of Grace, p. 31; cf. the article “Covenant” in The New Bible Dictionary) was expounded in sharp distinction from even earlier definitions that characterized the covenants as mutual compacts or agreements.
39. E. g., McCarthy, who criticizes Mendenhall’s definition (see note 31 for citations).
40. The word “prevent” originally meant “go before”; through frequent usage with the added thought of “going before in order to keep a thing from happening,” the word now is used almost solely to mean “keep a thing from happening.”
41. The word “forge” meant originally, and still means, “fabricate, produce”; a parallel development of the same root has been so modified as to carry the quite pejorative sense of to “counterfeit.”
42. McCarthy notes the necessity of such a distinction between treaty and treaty-form (“Covenant in the Old Testament,” CBQ, 27, 220f, note 8). However, in usage, McCarthy tends to define “treaty” as the complex of elements used to establish an international relationship, and “treaty-form” as the particular arrangement of elements exemplified in the Hittite documents. Somewhat confusingly, he defines “covenant” as the complex of factors establishing any new relationship, but “covenant-form” is reserved for the covenant pattern found in God’s covenant-making with Israel.
43. As noted earlier (see the quotation from Calvin in note 2), the covenant with Abram is THE covenant God has made with fallen men. The covenant with Noah is a prelude, a preparation of the stage so that the basic covenant may be established. The covenants that follow are all the outgrowths in time of the original covenant with Abraham.
44. Cf. again Mendenhall’s definition as given in note 32 above.
45. Murray, impressed with the condescension of God in making a covenant with man, has so overemphasized the presence of promise that it becomes an essential part of his definition (see note 38 above). Kline, on the other hand, is so impressed with the presence of law in covenant-making (due partly to the emphatic place the imposition of obligations had in the international suzerainty treaties, which treaties show the strongest parallelism to those covenants God made with men) that he would “define covenant generically in the terms of law administration” (By Oath Consigned, p. 33). Both of these definitions have incorporated a concomitant factor into the concept of the covenant itself. Certainly it is not incorrect to include the divine covenants in a category that might be defined as “sovereign administrations of grace, or promise, or law, or all three.” But such a category is broader than that of covenant and includes factors that are not an essential part of the genus “covenant,” even when that is restricted to the covenants originated by God.