'1 nese two cases may be taken as types. In Gn OQ.sB. mention is made of the ' curse ' (n^ij). The word may also mean ' oath,' and was used just like ' oath ' as a general name for covenant (Ezk 17") ; in l)t29""and Neh 10-"' both words, 'oath' and ' curse,' are used, though the expressions may merely be cumulative to denote one thing (Ezk 17"). It may be supjiosed, however, that 'curse' was originally used in its literal sense. Very prob- ably, the ceremonies originally in use in conclud- ing covenants were in later times abridged or full into disuse. If the details of the two covenants just referred to were supplemented from the solemn ceremony described in Gn 15 of passinf; between the pieces of the victim, a ceremony still in use in Jeremiah's days (31'*), we might suppose a covenant concluded with all the rites to have consisted of three things— (1) the agreement on the terms;
(2) the positive oath (^V'^v') taken by each party to the other (Gn 26^') to perform tlitm ; and (3) the impiecation or curse (compare 'cursed,' 1 S 14-*, Dt 27"") 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.*
It is evident, tirst, that the essential thing in the covenant, distinguishing it from ordinary con- tracts or agreements, was the oath under the solemn and terrible rites in use — a covenant is an intensified oath, and in later times the teim ' oath ' is usual as synonym of covenant. And, secondly, as the consequence of these solemnities, that the covenant was an inviolable and immutable deed. Hence a frequent epithet applied to covenants ia ' eternal ' (2 S 23», Lv 24»). The penalty of break- ing the covenant was death through the curse taking effect. And this explains the terrible im- precation of David, 2 S 3^'-. The language is not that of mere psission, though there may be passion in it ; it is the invocation on Joab's nead of the ' curse ' due to his violating the covenant, and the safe-conduct granted to Abner.
Some other covenants of a similar kind are referred to in OT :
a covenant of Israel with the natives of Canaan (Ex 2332 3411 16, Dt 72, Jg 22). Such covenants would imply mutual commerce and intermarriage, but are forbidden. The covenant between Joshua and the Oibeonites (Jos 9), the conditions of which were that he should spare their lives, and that they should be servants to Israel. Though Israel found that it had been deceived, the sacredness of the ' oath ' was such that its terms, at least in the letter, were held binding. The story reposes on the supposition that Israel was putting the native population to the sword. A covenant between the people of Jabesh and king Nahash of Animon, with similar conaitionsn S lllff). A covenant between Jonathan and David (1 S 183 20^), the only one mentioned be- tween two persons, though 1 S 23i6ff-, if it referred to the same thing, might put a different complexion on the covenant. A covenant oetween Da\id and Abner (2 S 312), and between David and the elders of Israel (2 S 53); and some others, e.g. that between Nebuchadrezzar and Zedekiah (Ezk 17), and that between Zedekiah and the people to set free their slaves, ir conformity with the law, Ebi 212, Dt 1612 (Jer 348T) ; cf. 1 K W" Am 1», 1 K 161».
In all the above cases the covenant appears two- sided, there being two parties incurring mutual obligations. The terra bcrith is used, however, in some cases where only one of the parties accepts an obligation, while the other suggests or imposes it. No doubt in these cases the party imposing the obligation or line of conduct is already committed or commits himself to the same course, as, for example, Jehoiada is said to have taken the princes with him into the covenant (2 Ch '23'). In Jos 24 Joshua is said to have 'made a covenant with the people' (v.-*). The covenant is not one between the people and God, made by Joshua as mediator, but a solemn bond laid by Joshua on the people, or rather assumed by the people at hia suggestion, that they would 'serve J" their God.' Joshua had already announced his own resolution to serve J" (v."). It is added that Joshua set the people a statute and an ordinance in Shechem (v.-*) ; but this appears to be something additional to the covenant. An instance of a similar kiud is recorded in 2 K U*, where Jehoiada is said to have made a covenant with the centurions and chiefs of the guard. In explanation it is added that ' he made them swear,' and then sliowed them tlie young king. Again, in 2 K 23^ we read that Josiah ' stood by the pillar and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord and to keep his commandments.' This covenant was not made with the Lord, but before the Lord ; neither was it made with the people, although the peojjle afterward also entered into the covenant (v.').
• Liv. I. 24, 'tum illo die, Juppiter, populum Romanum 9.; ferito, ut ego hunc porcum hie hodie feriam, taiitoffue magta (erito qtianto magis potes pollesque.' The Heb. formula of oath, *God do so to me and more also,' may be connected with such ceremonies.