Some modem writers on OT religion contend that these conceptions regarding J" im[ilied in the notion of covenant cannot have existed so early as the dates assigned to these various covenants. They argue that such covenants as those with Abram, David, and Levi, not to mention the Sinaitic covenant, the basis of which is the Moral Law, arc antedated, they all presuppose an established and permanent con- dition of things, and are merely a religious Wew taken of existing conditions. The covenant of J" with Abram to give his seed the land of Canaan is just the fact that Israel was now firmly in posses- sion of Canaan brought under the religious idea that all Israel's ble.ssiiigs were due to their God. And the covenant with David is merely a religious view of the fact that his dynasty, unlike those in the northern kingdom, was established and secure. J" is the author of all Israel's blessings. He is self- conscious, and foresees the end from the beginning, and therefore that which is seen to be established has been a determination of His from of old, and His determinations He communic^ates gracious'.y to those who are the subjects of them (Am 3'). But this mode of thinking regarding J", and this mode of interpreting institutions and facts that have historically arisen, are modes of thinking luil quite early in Israel's religious history. The re- lation of J" to Israel must originally have been similar to that of the gods of the hcallKn to their particular peoples ; the relation existed, but it was never formed; it was natural, and not the result of a conscious act or a historical transaction. Even admitting that from the earliest times some ethics' elements enteroi into the conception of J", tin. idea of a covenant with Israel implying, as it did, a concciition of a Divine Being entirely free and unconnected with Israel, and entering into volun- tary relation with that puo|ile, could not have arisen before the conception of J'' was couipletelv
512
COVENANT
COVENANT
ethicized and He was recognized as God over all. And such views of J", it is contended, are to be ob- served first among the canonical prophets, or at earliest in the sub-prophetic age, the times of Elijah and Elisha. — It is enough to state the question here (its discussion falls under other rubrics, DECALOGUE, GoD, Israel), though a reference to it was necessary in order to indicate what place the idea of covenant holds in the history of OT religion. The question of the covenant runs np into what is the main question of OT religious history, viz., To what date Is the conception of J* as an absolutely ethical Being to be assigned !
iii. History of the Divine Covenants. — 1. The passage Ex 19-34 (apart from 25'-31", assigned to P), givmg an account of the transactions at Sinai, is extremely, almost hopelessly, compli- cated (see Exodus). In Ex 34 (assigned to J) mention is made of a covenant which appears to be constituted on the basis of certain laws, partly moral and partly ritnal, and differing considerably from the ordinary Decalogue of Ex 20. Several scholars detect under this passage (Ex 34"*), now considerably retouched, the Decalogue as given by J (v.'*). The main parts of Ex 19 S. are usually assigned to E. As the passage now stands, no covenant is connected witn the simple Decalogue of Ex 20, but Dt (S"- 9'«') affirms that the cove- nant at Horeb was made on the basis of the Deca- logue written on the tables of stone (4" 5^). It also appears to say that no laws were promulgated at Horeb beyond the Decalogue (5") ; Moses re- ceived 'judgments' at Horeb (4'-" S^-e'), which he promulgated first in the plains of Moab (4'- ■•* 51. 11 J21). In Ex 24 mention is made of a covenant and a Book of the Covenant. This covenant seems made (or renewed) when Moses received the second tables of stone. The Book of the Covenant appears to be Ex 20-23, but the testimony of Dt makes it probable that E_ 21 ff. did not originally stand in connexion with the events at Horeb, but witli those in the plains of Moab. When Moses told the people the words of J" they answered with one voice, ' all the words which J" hath spoken will we do ' ; and the covenant thus formed was followed by a sacrifice and a ceremony with the blood, half of whi^h was sprinkled on the altar and the other hall on the people. This rite has been supposed to be an instance of the ancient way of making a covenant by both parties having communion in the same blood (W. K. Smith, JiS 461). This may be ; l)ut in the main the sacrifice, being an offering to J", was piacular, atoning for and consecrating the people on their entering upon their new rela- tion to J" (He Q"").* The words, ' I am J" thy (Jod ' (Ex 20-), form no part of the Decalogue, they rather express the one side of the covenant, the Decalogue proper expressing the other side. In brief, the covenant is, ' I am J' thy God, and thou art my people,' and the Decalogue (Ex 20^-") is the expression or the analysis of what this means.