COVENAOT"
COVENANT
511
The covenant was an en^jjeraent or bond assumed by Josiah, and dill'ers little in idea from a vow ; and this sen.ie is even clearer when Hezekiah says, ' It is in min«> heart to make a covenant with J' the God of Israel ' (2 Ch 29'», cf. Ezr 10»). From these passaces it appears that hirith is used, not only wnen the engajjement or obligation is mutual, but also when it is imposed on one party by another, or when one assumes it on himself.
ii. God's Covenants with Men. — Some points are common to covenants in general — (I) Every covenant implies two parties, and that the parties are free moral agents, and that, wliether the en- gagement be mutual or not, both parties acquiesce. (2) Every covenant is made in bonum ; the relation formed is always friendly, and for the benefit at least of one of the parties. (3) A covenant creates a new relation between the parties, not existing previously. (4) A covenant creates also a jun or right on the side of each party against the other. These general points belong also to divine cove- nants, though the introduction of God as one of the parties may cause some modification. For example, God always initiates the covenant ; and the evil conscience of Israel, a-s reflected in the prophets, restrains it from claiming the protection of J' as a right. It does go .so far as to plead that it is His people (Is 64"), and for that reason it claims to be treated diflerently from the nations, and chastened in measure and with restraint of His anger (Jer 10**). But it usually finds its |jleas, not in itself, but in God. It beseeches Him to remember His covenant and His grace, and to deal with it for His name's sake — His name of God alone, already begun to be revealed to the world in the great acts of Israel's redemptive history. If in later times Israel pleads its ' righteousness,' »nd invokes God's righteousness in its behalf, this is not a plea of moral righteousness, but of being in the right as against the world — a plea that it has In it the true religion, and represents the cause of God.
In Gn 15 (cf. 22'»* 26") J" makes a covenant with Abram. The passage, though perhaps com- posite, is sufficiently connected, v.'"' having refer- ence to the question who should be Abram s heir, and v."- to the question what the inheritance should be. The covenant lias reference to the in- heritance, the important verses beinjj *'"• "• ". The pas-sage is strongly anthropomorphic, though what occurred may have been of the nature of a vision. Certain animals were slain and divided into their parts, the corresponding parts being placed opposite each other with a space between. At night-fall there passed between the pieces a smoke as of a furnace and a flaming torch. The smoke and flame was a syaboj of the Divine Being. The explanation follows : ' In that day J " made a covenant with Abram, saying. Unto thy .seed have I given this land' (cf. 13''). Now this covenant is a promise on the part of J". The promi.se has the form of an oath or curse symbolized by the act of passing between the ])iecesof the victims. Among men this would have meant the most solemn invoca- tion of J " as guardian of the covenant, but here it Is J" Himself who performs the rite — bicause He could swear by no greater, He swarc by Himself.
Two other covenants of a siiiiil.ar nature are mentioned — the covenant with David, constituting his seed perpetual rulers of the kingdom of God, and that with Levi, bestowing inalienably the priesthood on that family. In 2 S 7 David, be- cau.se of his purpo.se to build an li(>\ise to the Lord, receives throuL'h Nathan the pniinisr that J" will build him a liou.se, i.e. establish his dynasty as periietual rulers in Israel. In 2 S 2:i' tliis inoniise is spoken of as 'a covenant ordered in all things,' i.e. constituted with all the due and solemn rites, and
therefore ' sure ' (cf. Gal 3"- ", He 6"- "). In 23' it is called ' eternal ' (cf. 7"). In later writings this covenant is referred to as an oath (I's 89*- " 132"), and spoken of as the ' sure mercies of David ' (Is 55'). But it appears to be alluded to as early as Is 16°, and the idea of it is what gives meaning to the whole Messianic passage. Is 7'-9'. The setting apart of the tribe of Levi for priestly functions is several times alluded to. Ex 32^, Dt 10" 18" (cf. Nu 25'^"); and elsewhere this appointment is called a covenant, Dt 33», Jer 33=S Mai ^"'•.
These three covenants bear upon three great facts or institutions in OT religious history — the inalienable right of Israel to the possession of Canaan, the perpetual monarchy in the house of David, and the perpetual priesthood in the family of Levi. In the mind of one standing far down in the history of Israel in the midst of these estab- lished institutions, and conceiving of them as due to covenants made in the distant past by J", one main conception in covenant must have appeared its immutability. This idea of unchangeableness be- longs so much to the conception of covenant that any established custom, such as the e.vhibition of the shewbread. is called 'an everlasting covenant' (Lv 24"). Similarly, the observance of the Sabbath is so called (Ex SI"- "), and Jer 33-" applies the term covenant to the laws of nature, speaking of J"'8 covenant with the day and with the night ; and the covenants with David and Levi have the same security as this law of nature. But the conception of J " implied in the idea of such covenants is re- markable. J" is conceived of as a free moral Being, having power to dispose of the world to whom He will (Gn 15), and to select among men whom He wills for His ends (2 S 7), standing above men and the world, but entering graciously into their history, and initiatin" consciously great movements that are to govern all the future.