There are two instances where Jesus seems to fail in the niatter of co iites> — m Hi re] ly to His mother, ' Woman 1 at 1 i^ e I to lo itli thee (.In 2*), and in Hi i il\ to tl e Jsyro fh enitian woman, ' Let the d Idren In t be I He 1 toi it 1 not meet to take tl e ( bil hen s 1 rea 1 an I to ta t it unto the dogs' (Mt 15 " Mk " ) It is only in appearance, howe\ ei tl at He offends against courtesy in these in tance The st idy of the ])assages with the ai I of a „ood commentary a\ ill clear up any difficulty attacl in^ to them
LiTERATnRB._Van Len ei B Me La ids tie Mode 11 C 8 loim ; G. M. Mackie, B le Ma e a dC isUs Ge k e Holy Land o»id the Bible Rot n o B h al Re earches Pale tine [contains passim personal e per en es »h ch throw 1 eht on the tedious courtes es of the tast] Marten en Chnst a i'Mtcs, L 202ff. ;T. Bnne S r? la t de
in the Chriatian Charac e j Iff f
Common Life, p. 107 ff E^pu 0 1 If
. COVENANT. -Ii or lei t
sioii of the term covenant a v o u
i-ey of the OT
Loril in the Gospels, a brief usage is necessary.
The covenant conception is of frequent occurrence in the OT. Used at first in connexion with single transactions and partial aspects of the relitfious intercourse between God and man, it later becomes the formula designating- the entire structure and content of the reliirionof Israel in its most comprehensive sense. This latter representation occui-s as early as Gn 1711^, Ex 195 24"- 8, and often in Deuteronomy. The earlier covenants be- longing to the time of Noah and Abraham (Gn 618 98-17 15I8) do not yet possess this comprehensive character, but appear as solemn religious rites whereby some particular promise of God is made sure. Whether the word b'rlth (n'13) originally meant 'enactment,' 'appointment,' 'law,' a meaning which it un- doubtedly has in several instances, or did from the beginning signify a two-sided agreement, cannot be determined with certainty. It seems easier to conceive of the fomier sense as developed out of tlie latter than the reverse. At any rate, the comprehensive signification in whi'-li it slands for the whole religious relationship betwtcn i;."! ainl [-t:u-l, rests on the idea of the covenant as a twu-^i'lr.l ,,- 1 ■ - im nt. It should be re- membered, however, that. iIm i v\m -iiinhi, ,^ never extends so far that God and Israel aii]i. u . u m ,,|;!:,l f.-oting in the de- terniinntinn of tlv -■n\i'i,;.ni I I,- ].' innitij and proposing of
IS strongly empha- I lie covenant idea . historically origin-
Deity and the 1
head after a deistic fashion is so far removed from the c
as to render ti ue comn union mipossible and w here the relation
between a nat onal od and his worshippers is not a mattei of
choice but of ne e siti on both sides
probabh not
ever, foi den> I o\eiait cept o
its comprehei I thi^ „i i 1 to all in
question the ^ei at l 1 the o\c
nantideaolta 111 11 Besides
the emphasis tl tl till i 1 1 1 1 lei of
Israels religio i t tl tr i t t ir \\ tt h them
selves to the tern \ art) d el i it I tl e i i i iple just
stated On the or e hai d the o ei i t 1 a 1 e^ i s to express the coiitin iit\ of God a dealn ^swith II s people as it is a bond freel.\ established so it is the fruit of desi(,ii and the fountain of further h stor\ it has a prospectiv e reference and makes Israel s religion a growing thing in a word the LO\eiiant idea gathers around itself the thoughts we have in mind when speaking of a history of redemption and revelation. On the other hand, inasmuch as God is the originator of the covenant and has solemnly bound Himself not merely to fulfil His promises to Israel, but also to carry out His own purposes contemplated in the covenant, the same bond which originally expresses the freedom of the relation between God and Israel can also be- come the pledge of the absolute certaint\-, that God will not finally break with His peojile, Israel's iiiHdeiity notwithstanding. In Isaiah 40-66, and especially in Jeremiah, the covenant thus stands to express the continuity and sureness of the accomplish- ment of the Divine purpose with reference to Israel. Out of the combination of these two ideas arises the Messianic or eschatological significance which the covenant idea obtains in both these prophets. In Isaiah 40-66 it is more than once introduced to emphasize the infallible character of the Divine promise given of old (Is 54'-'- 10 .O-'jit 59'-i 61**). In two passages (426 and 498) the serv.aiit of Jehovah is designated as C^ n'"!?, a somewhat obscure phrase, of which the two most plausible terp etat o s a e e ther that tl e r a t w II I e the nstr ent of eal z n^ th f ture ovena t bet een God and Israel or pla t tl e pi as s o D;; tl at he 11 be the n cans of