Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Corey Farr
OT301: The Pentateuch
Dr. Claude Mariottini
October 26, 2015
Introduction
The word covenant is nearly as broad as the study of theology itself. God’s relationship
with the cosmos and, in particular, mankind is easily described as covenantal; because of this it is
exceedingly difficult to proceed with just one understanding of such a foundational word. John
Bright rightly identifies covenant as a core element of Israelite faith.1 Walther Eichrodt made
this the focus of his magisterial work by subsuming all Old Testament theology under it, but also
points out the development of the theme and its diversity through many different epochs of
Israelite history, each with a unique set of foci: election in the patriarchal narratives, law and cult
in the Deuteronomic texts, divine monism and grace and even universality in the Priestly
tradition, a critical approach that recast the term in a more relational light in the earlier prophets,
renewal and eschatology in the later prophets, and timelessness in the post-exilic community.2
Despite this wide variation in the understanding of covenant, Walter Brueggemann maintains
that “in Israel’s testimony Yahweh’s covenant with Israel is pervasive and definitional for
contractual and binding nature of covenant, the Scriptures also include this idea of eternal,
The Hebrew word for covenant (berit) first appears in Genesis 6:18, just before the flood,
and then occurs seven times in Genesis 9:9-9:17 where God establishes the Noahic covenant,
which is interestingly “between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for
perpetual generations.” (Gen 9:124) This covenant is indicated by a sign (the rainbow) and is
clearly unilateral because it is a commitment made by God alone, but it also establishes a
covenantal foundation for all humanity, to the point that Brueggemann can declare that all
In many ways, the flood is a reversal of the creation narrative, as the firmament that was
established is broken and the world is brought back into formless chaos. In Genesis 8-9, creation
is once again established in order. Although this recreation is still postlapsarian and thus is not
called “very good,” God unconditionally commits Himself to refrain from destroying it again.
Because the rest of covenantal thought in the Old Testament tends to be narrowly particularistic,
this passage is intensely important because it reminds us that “the universal scope of this
covenant implies that the blessing for which humanity was created and the creation that had been
preserved through the flood will ultimately encompass not just one people or nation, but rather
the whole earth.”6 This universal covenant, as it has been called, provides a hermeneutic for all
Old Testament studies and is important keep in mind as a foundation as the study of covenant
With the call of Abram in Genesis 12, the divine intentionality in covenant begins to be
more clearly defined. God singles out one man for blessing and promises to make him great
(Gen 12:2), but even here the universal is still in view, for the second half of this promise
includes all the nations of the earth (12:3). God’s desire to bless Abram is a means to fulfilling
his desire to bless all of mankind. The actual covenant with Abram occurs in two stages, found
in Genesis 15 and 17. The former seems to focus on the first half of the promise to make him a
great nation, and is entirely unilateral. God alone passes through the cut up animals to seal the
covenant while Abram is asleep (Gen 15:12, 17-18a), and he unconditionally promises to bring a
nation out of Abram’s offspring. This covenant is clearly defined in terms of chronology, seen in
the 400 years of servitude (Gen 15:13), and geography, as the Promised Land is given definite
The second stage of this covenant is introduced by the changing of Abram’s name to
Abraham, which indicates the shift in perspective to the second half of the call, the blessing of
the nations. Because this covenant is introduced with a condition of holiness (Gen 17:1) and
confirmed by the ritual rite of circumcision (Gen 17:9-11), Williamson notes that “in contrast to
the unilateral framework of Genesis 15, the ‘eternal’ covenant of Genesis 17 is plainly
bilateral.”7 Although there is a particular focus on Abraham and Sarah’s descendants, the rest of
mankind is also in view as Abraham is to become the “father of a multitude of nations” (Gen
17:4-5) and Sarah is equally to become “a mother of nations. Kings of countries will come from
her!” (Gen 17:16). Additionally, the people of the covenant are not limited to descendants by
blood, but include those who are part of Abraham’s household, even slaves from foreign nations
(Gen 17:12-13) who are “not of thy seed” (asher lo mizzar`akha, Gen 17:12).
It is a matter of some debate whether two distinct covenants or two different narratives of
a single covenant are in view. Williamson argues for the former position, both because of the
thirteen years separating the two chapters and the fact that they are “manifestly different in both
Despite this division, they are also deeply connected by their relationship to the primary call of
Abraham in Genesis 12. The two covenants unfold the two halves of the promise: to make out of
Abraham a great nation, and through him to bless all the nations of the earth. Once again, even
as the covenant begins to narrow, the universal remains in view. This narrowing of covenant is
the primary theme of the rest of the Genesis narrative, as Isaac and Jacob become participants in
the Abrahamic covenant, leading to its conclusion at Sinai with the nation of Israel.
The book of Exodus and the Sinai covenant are framed first by the patriarchal covenant.
In fulfillment of the predictions in Genesis 15, the Israelites have migrated to Egypt, have grown
into a great people (Exod 1:7), and have been in bondage for hundreds of years (Exod 1:11,
12:40). The link with the Patriarchs is explicitly made clear when “God remembered his
covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and Jacob.” (Exod 2:24) With this background in mind, the
covenant at Sinai is about more than God simply choosing one people to establish a definite
nation with geographical boundaries to complete the promises in Genesis 15. Rather, this
narrative resonates equally loudly with the call in Genesis 12 and the covenant in Genesis 17 as
this people is called to live in accordance with God’s moral standards (cf. Gen 17:1), to observe
the signs of the covenant (cf. Gen 17:9-11), and to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”
(Exod 19:6) as a means of representing God and mediating his blessing to all the nations of the
In this way, it can be said that “the goal of the Sinaitic covenant is the establishment of a
special nation through whom Yahweh can make himself known to all the families of the earth”9
rather than to demonstrate an exclusive favoritism for the nation of Israel. It has been said that
the calling of Israel was to be a missionary nation, though this was often misunderstood in their
history. Despite the fact that the Pentateuch is narrowly focused on the covenant with Israel, the
universal emphasis in both the Noahic and patriarchal covenants provides “the theological
backbone supporting the national covenants [including Sinai] and against which they must be
understood.”10 Eichrodt sees in these earlier covenants a counter to self-centered
“misconceptions … of the covenant relationship. The God of the covenant is also the God of the
whole world and his designs comprehend far more than just Israel.”11
The second and more immediate framing narrative for the Sinai covenant is the Exodus
event itself. Although much of the covenant emphasizes Israelite obligation and seems to be
conditional in nature, the Exodus provides the foundational understanding that it is God alone
who will carry to completion his promises and plans through his faithfulness, power, and
righteous wrath. Aside from the implicit theological data in the Exodus, the fact of literal
historical liberation served to establish what Eichrodt lists as one of the basic elements of
Brueggemann identifies that the “core testimony” of Israel is primarily founded upon verbal
sentences, in other words, statements which describe specifically what God has done in historical
terms to accomplish his purpose.13 This factual, narrative basis for Israel’s theology gives
history “a value which it does not possess in the religions of ancient civilizations.”14 In this way,
John Bright identifies that God is totally separated from the deities of various pagan religions.15
The Israelites did not identify God with either forces or patterns in nature, but spoke of a
personal and intentional divinity who was not only in control of those natural forces but acted in
“Yahweh was no benign maintainer of the status quo to be ritually appeased, but a God
who had called his people from the status quo of dire bondage into a new future. …
Israel’s faith, thus grounded in historical events, alone in the ancient world had a keen
sense of the divine purpose and calling in history.”16
The third and most indirect framing narrative which provides revelatory significance for
the Sinai covenant is its similarity with other ancient covenant forms, most notably the suzerain-
vassal treaty. This was essentially a feudal agreement between ancient Near-Eastern kings and
their subjects, of which some of the essential features were the opening introduction of the king,
a detailing of why the king is deserving of the subjects’ loyalty, a list of commandments
demanding ultimate loyalty and cooperation, and finally a series of blessings and curses
pronounced as a consequence for the keeping or breaking of the treaty.17 By reading critically
and comparing the Biblical texts, each of these elements can be evidenced to some degree in the
covenant narratives in Exodus, Joshua, and Deuteronomy. These comparisons shed light on the
Israelite understanding of theocracy, in which they saw God as their true king in contrast to the
petty rulers of the other nations. Whether these parallels were inherent in the original covenant
tradition or were intentionally drawn out by later post-exilic redactions, they implicitly contain a
state (which, of course, was not in existence at the time the covenant was ratified) with the rule
of God. This theme will be explored in more detail in the section on the Davidic covenant.
Despite similarities with suzerain treaties and ancient interpersonal covenants, which can
shed much light through comparison and contrast with the Biblical passages, our understanding
of covenant must be defined first by Scripture’s use of the term. Rather than equating the
covenant with ancient rituals, Payne asserts, “it is only in the transformed usage of the term as it
appears in God’s own historical revelation that its ultimate import is disclosed.”18 Whether or
not the Israelites used the suzerain treaty as a blueprint for their own covenantal depiction or
later adapted their narrative to fit that form is not as important as what can be learned from the
similarity itself. Clearly Israel viewed God as their king, demanding their ultimate loyalty and
trust. In the words of Bright, “the notion of a people of God, called to live under the rule of God,
begins just here [at Sinai], and with it the notion of the Kingdom of God.”19 Eichrodt also saw
this, and draws the fascinating conclusion that the notion of a people of God, however embryonic
at this point, existed long before the nation-state itself; therefore, the covenantal existence of the
people of God long preceded and is in no way contingent upon the nation of Israel. Although the
two overlap at many points, it is submission to the will of God that defines the people of the
covenant, and his lordship extends over far more than the limited idea of the nation of Israel.20
Eichrodt summarizes profoundly that the latent idea of the Kingdom of God is about knowing
“[This] means, however, that the existence of the nation could not become an end in
itself. From the start it had to remain subordinate to a higher purpose, an overriding
conception, the achievement of the nation’s religious destiny. … It was for this reason
that the expression of the new relationship with God in the form of a covenant between
God and the people proved itself ideally suited to effecting an organic involvement of the
new faith with the very existence of the nation, without bringing that faith into a false
dependence on the people’s own will to power and survival.”21
The Sinai covenant is frequently thought of solely in terms of law and commandment.
The New Testament epistles often emphasize this train of thought, but it is important to note
Brueggemann’s point that “commandment is always, in Israel’s faith, in the context of covenant,
so that the commands of Yahweh are through and through covenantal commands.”22 Because of
their covenantal nature, the commands are fundamentally relational, continuing the liberation of
the Exodus by allowing Israel to fulfill their desire to be connected to God and to reshape the
world as it was meant to be. Brueggemann writes, “Both notions of (a) participation in a
revolution and (b) embrace of intrinsic desire are chances whereby the caricature of command as
commands of the Decalogue play upon the Israelite origin narratives; they are an attempt to
restore the world to its original goodness by correcting the two-dimensional nature of sin: broken
relationships with God and mankind. The prohibition against making images of God is perhaps
to remind Israel that they are to be the image of God to the world, just as man was created in that
image in the Genesis account.24 The idea of covenant nomism in twentieth century Pauline
studies may be hotly debated, but the way in which it demonstrates an essential link between
Though the content of the covenant at Sinai is primarily given and expanded in terms of
commandments, its purpose is clearly more than legalism. Stuart Foster summarizes the purpose
behind the covenant with Israel well when he describes it as “a radical innovation, a new system
tightly organized around relationship with Yahweh. As creator God, he had power. But he also
committed himself to relationship with his people.”25 The recognition that God is simultaneously
sovereign and in solidarity by his own choice with his people is perhaps the most important
revelation to be had in studying the covenant. Foster outlines this relationship in terms of
monotheism), security (highlighting the importance of God’s commitment and reliability by the
use of the term covenant itself), accountability (recognizing that even unconditional relationships
include expectations for both parties), and purpose (noting that the covenant is not atemporal, but
The source for the Davidic covenant is 2 Samuel 7, which oddly does not use the word
for covenant at all. However, the pattern of the chapter seems to follow other covenant forms,
especially the suzerain-vassal treaty. It opens with a reminder of what God has done for David
(7:8-9), continues into the immediate promises of establishing David’s name and keeping the
people of Israel secure from enemy oppression (7:9-11), and ends with future promise of an
eternal throne for David’s descendant, which is notably in the singular (7:12-16). Although not
identified with the word in this chapter, David himself identified it as a covenant in his last
words (2 Sm 23:5) and the belief persisted even when later kings failed to be faithful to the Lord
The Davidic covenant is the most particular covenant in the Hebrew Bible, and for this
perspective. If one ignores the themes developed in the previous covenants – universality with
Noah, blessing for all nations with Abraham, and relational dependency at Sinai – in which this
particular covenant is rooted, it is easy to misconstrue the nature of God’s promises to David.
Most Christians tend to read Davidic passages and arrive naively at Zionism or, through
Zionism is the more dangerous option, for it represents an unhealthy alignment of God’s
kingdom with human nations. This option was evidently present even in early Israelite history,
as can be seen in the critiques of all the prophets, especially Hosea. Narrow nationalism
considered the particularity evident in the national covenants to be the end rather than the means
of God’s operation. John Bright’s The Kingdom of God is in many ways an extended critique of
this confusing of means (particularity) with end (universal covenant blessing) and he is emphatic
that “no political action can [make Israel God’s kingdom or restore her to her destiny as the
people of God].”27 However, despite prophetic critique, the temptation to establish the Kingdom
of God by means of an earthly kingdom continued through the Hasmonean era,28 and arguably
The other temptation for Christians is to see the Davidic covenant as merely a
foreshadowing of Christ. This is a safer option and is largely true though it is also overly
simplified and spiritualized. It is easy to arrive at this conclusion because the Davidic covenant
includes the famous Christological phrase, “I will be his father, and he will be my son.” (2 Sm
7:14, NIV) Unfortunately, this simplification tends to underemphasize the importance of the
narrative salvific work of God established in real covenants with real people at real times.
Though it is ultimately fulfilled in Christ, to spiritualize the Davidic covenant is to miss the
understanding that the Church is the expansion of Israel instead of its replacement.
history”29 and yet “safeguard[ing] against an identification of religion with national interest.”30
Jeremiah 33 and Psalm 89 are two excellent perspectives of the tension between messianic hope
and historical struggles of real covenant people in real history. Both Zionist and Christological
interpretations of the Davidic covenant tend to encourage extreme theological imbalance; the
It is a matter of some debate whether the covenants in the Old Testament are best
described as unilateral or bilateral. Payne points out three uses of covenant in the Scriptures: (1)
a covenant between two persons of equal standing, which is universally agreed to be bilateral
(this includes both the covenant between David and Jonathan and other interpersonal or even
international covenants), (2) a covenant between two unequal parties such as God and man,
which he believes described legal and conditional relations that, though unilateral, are entirely
conditional upon men’s response, and (3) a covenant (truly a “testament”) established by a
perfect God for the redemption of fallen man to unilaterally save men by the death required for
atonement.31 Payne’s thesis is that translating berit as “covenant” is inadequate, and it is better
explained by the notion of “testament.” Though Payne may be right in stressing the sovereignty
of God in the berit and his unqualified power to fulfill it, he seems to be more interested in
defending Reformed doctrine than actually interacting with the texts. Ironically, he contradicts
himself in explicating this third type of covenant, which “though essentially monergistic …
required that men qualify.”32 Even in defending unilateral covenant, he is unable to escape
bilateral terms.
Ernst Kutsch follows a different approach, but equally avoids describing covenant in
relational terms. For Kutsch, berit is a pledge, an obligation, or an oath and does not necessarily
include relationship. Whether this is a divine oath or an obligation imposed on the subjects of
God, the semantic range of berit is limited to the fulfillment of promises and excludes the
concept of relationship. He comments on the covenant in Exodus, “if preserving and observing
the berit of Yahweh is the prerequisite for this relationship [in Exodus 19:5], then the
Eichrodt, on the other hand, does not have a problem with simultaneously affirming the
bilateral nature of the relationship and the unequal standing of the parties involved. He writes,
“the relationship is still essentially two-sided. The idea that in ancient Israel the berit was
always and only thought of as Yahweh’s pledging of himself, to which human effort was
required to make no kind of response, can therefore be proved to be erroneous.”34 Jewish scholar
Daniel Elazar arrived at the same conclusion but maintained the conviction that “a covenant
requires that the partners to it be roughly equal or at least equal with regard to the task at hand
for which the covenant is made.”35 Instead of denying that covenant was possible because man
and God cannot be equals, he saw in the covenant itself a condescension of God to make humans
in some way equal with him in terms of having dominion over the earth. For Elazar, “the idea of
covenant is that God … enters into a partnership with humans for the conduct of affairs on earth
in this world.”36 It is in hope of finding a solution to such a convoluted debate that we now turn
The problem with dualistic arguments like the one above is that the debate can never be
resolved and imbalance is inherent in either option. To emphasize only the unilateral nature of
the covenant invites apathy and fatalism/determinism; to emphasize the bilateral invites legalism
and humanism. The solution to this imbalance lies in the Hebrew word hesed, a word that is
notoriously difficult to translate and closely linked with the word berit throughout the Scriptures.
The word hesed itself has been the subject of numerous studies, but it is beyond the scope of this
paper to cover them all. However, it is important to demonstrate the importance of the word for
In his very influential study, Nelson Glueck first observes that hesed is defined as
relationships he goes so far as to say that hesed is integrally related to covenant: “The obligations
and rights acquired through a covenant are translated into corresponding actions through hesed.
Hesed is the real essence of berith, and it can almost be said that it is its very content.”38 This is
9:1-7), kings and subjects (2 Sm 3:8, 2 Chr 24:22), kings and their defeated enemies (1 Kgs
20:31-36), and even the implicit covenant between hosts and unfamiliar guests (Gen 19:19,
21:23, Jo 2:12-14).
It is especially important to note that hesed is the means whereby covenant propositions
are translated into covenant actions, which explains the extremely close link between hesed and
`emet – truth/faithfulness. Glueck notes that hesed includes `emet and that the common phrase
relational character since it flows from an expression of love or sincerity. Although hesed is
always obligatory, it is more than begrudgingly fulfilling one’s obligations. In fact, often true
hesed goes beyond the strict propositional requirements of the covenant and displays remarkable
devotion to the other party. Dumbrell points out that for Israel, this means “faithfulness to the
spirit of the covenant, not merely to the letter. [For Yahweh, it means] willingness to go beyond
the strict legalities of the relationship and to preserve it in spite of the fault of the erring
partner.”40
Routledge has shown that hesed may exist outside of and thus may not be defined only in
covenantal contexts; however, a covenant itself necessarily requires continuing acts of hesed.41
Thus, although the two are not equal, it is necessary to understand hesed for the interpretation of
the covenants between God and his people. The inclusion of hesed in covenant theology defeats
the apathy, fatalism, determinism, legalism, and humanism noted above. Glueck maintains that
“hesed is the premise and effect of a berith; it constitutes the very essence of a berith but is not
yet a berith, even though there can be no berith without hesed.”42 Hesed is more than an
emotional response. In fact, it neither requires nor precludes emotion, but is made manifest in
intentional action.43 It is a relational response that includes the entire being or, as Heath puts it, a
“committed, familial love that is deeper than social expectations, duties, shifting emotions or
what is deserved or earned by the recipient.”44 This relational response or familial love must
necessarily take different forms depending on whether the object is God or one’s neighbor, both
of which are included in covenant-honoring hesed in ways reminiscent of Jesus’ reduction of the
Law to loving God and others. George Farr writes, “Towards God this hesed cannot be more
than loyalty. … [Towards his fellow-man] at least it must be loyalty; at most it must approximate
to the pardoning grace of God which He has shown to men.”45 Those who live in the covenant
live out of loyalty to God and subsequently do their best to replicate his love towards others. In
this way, God has sometimes been identified as the only true agent behind all acts of hesed, or as
Clark writes, hesed is “a characteristic of God rather than human beings; it is rooted in the divine
nature.”46
Many have sought to define hesed purely in terms of obligation and missed out on this
relational aspect, just as many have done the same with covenant itself. Others have sought to
restrict the definition of hesed to God’s acts alone which man can only imitate, which may be
partially true but entirely misses the implications of obligation and faithfulness. It is only with a
relational engagement that one can agree with John Bright’s brilliant statement: “The covenant
concluded at Sinai could, then, be understood in Hebrew theology only as a response to grace:
man’s hesed for God’s hesed. The Old Testament covenant was thus always properly viewed …
as a covenant of grace.”47 This is illuminated by the idea of covenant nomism discussed above.
Though it is possible to speak of covenant without hesed and vice versa in terms of linguistics, it
is theologically fruitless if such discussion does not lead one to see how integrally related the
two are.
Conclusion
It is difficult to conclude such a broad study of covenant, yet some important principles
can and should be drawn out for all in Christian ministry. First, God’s purposes have been
demonstrated to have a universal aim in spite of using particular means. Second, God is clearly
shown as working both in and through history in an unfolding narrative; with this understanding
one can find value in the theological concept of progressive revelation without being tempted to
devalue the earlier parts of the story by simply skipping to the end. Third, God’s covenant may
and unilateral/bilateral – the word hesed is the key to understanding these tensions. Finally, the
various linked covenants found in the Hebrew Bible are not simply an extended prologue to the
New Covenant in Christ; rather, they provide layer after layer of foundation upon which
Christian theology must be based. Though the obligation to seek such understanding may not be
laid upon all individual members of the Body of Christ, there is a great need for some –
especially leaders within the Church – to responsibly understand and be able to preach Old
Bright, John. A History of Israel. 4th edition. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press,
2000.
Clark, Gordon. The Word “Hesed” in the Hebrew Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1993.
Dumbrell, William J. The Faith of Israel: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament. 2nd ed.
Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2002.
Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament, Volume One. Westminster John Knox Press,
1961.
Elazar, Daniel Judah. “Covenant and Community.” Judaism 49, no. 4 (September 2000): 387–
98.
Farr, George. “The Concept of Grace in the Book of Hosea.” Zeitschrift Für Die
Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 70, no. 1–2 (1958): 98–107.
Flanders, Henry, Robert Crapps, and David Smith. People of the Covenant: An Introduction to
the Hebrew Bible. 4th edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Glueck, Nelson. Hesed in the Bible. Translated by Alfred Gottschalk. Cincinnati Hebrew Union
College Press, 1967.
Heath, E.A. “Grace.” Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Dictionary of the
Old Testament: Pentateuch. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, January 13, 2003.
Routledge, Robin L. “Ḥesed as Obligation: A Re-Examination.” Tyndale Bulletin 46, no. 1 (May
1995): 179–96.
John Bright, A History of Israel, 4th edition (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000),
15
161–162.
16
Ibid., 162.
17
Ibid., 151–152.
18
J. Barton Payne, Theology of the Older Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 79.
19
Bright, The Kingdom of God, 28.
20
Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, Volume One, 39–41.
21
Ibid., 41.
22
Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament, 334.
23
Ibid., 337.
Henry Flanders, Robert Crapps, and David Smith, People of the Covenant: An Introduction to the
24
Hebrew Bible, 4th edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 102.
Stuart J Foster, “The Missiology of Old Testament Covenant,” International Bulletin of Missionary
25
Ernst Kutsch, “Gesetz Und Gnade: Probleme Des Alttestamentlichen Bundesbegriffs,” Zeitschrift
33
William J. Dumbrell, The Faith of Israel: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand
40
Robin L Routledge, “Ḥesed as Obligation: A Re-Examination,” Tyndale Bulletin 46, no. 1 (May
41
1995): 182–183.
42
Glueck, Hesed in the Bible, 68.
43
Routledge, “Ḥesed as Obligation,” 185–186.
E.A. Heath, “Grace,” ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, Dictionary of the Old
44
Testament: Pentateuch (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, January 13, 2003), 372.
George Farr, “The Concept of Grace in the Book of Hosea,” Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche
45
267.
47
Bright, The Kingdom of God, 28.