Covenant question

[Greg]

I´m new to the study of Covenant Theology, so I have a couple of basic beginner´s questions. I have just finished reading Dr. McMahon´s book and I´m reviewing the material again, namely, what exactly a covenant is. He brought up the point that covenants are "˜cut´. What exactly does "˜cut´ mean in the context of covenants? Where is it shown in Scripture, and what exactly is "˜cutting´ a covenant supposed to illustrate or represent? Thanks.

 

[Scott Bushey]

H1285
בּרית
berîyth
ber-eeth'
From H1262 (in the sense of cutting (like H1254)); a compact (because made by passing between pieces of flesh): - confederacy, [con-]feder[-ate], covenant, league.

Greg,
Read this:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/KlineMeredithOathOrdealPart1.htm

 

[gwine]

(Gen 15:6) And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

(Gen 15:7) And he said to him, "I am the LORD who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess."

(Gen 15:8) But he said, "O Lord GOD, how am I to know that I shall possess it?"

(Gen 15:9) He said to him, "Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon."

(Gen 15:10) And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half.

(Gen 15:11) And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away.

(Gen 15:12) As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him.

(Gen 15:13) Then the LORD said to Abram, "Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years.

(Gen 15:14) But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions.

(Gen 15:15) As for yourself, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age.

(Gen 15:16) And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."

(Gen 15:17) When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces.

(Gen 15:18) On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates,

Interesting parallel.

 

[DTK]

(Gen 15:18) On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates,

On that day the LORD made (tr;k', i.e., Cut) a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates...

The Hebrew word, tr;k', karat is where we get the English word "karat," which denotes a unit of fineness in diamonds or gold. As an aside, which many may already know, Israel is a center for one of the biggest (if not the biggest) diamond-cutting industries in the world.

DTK

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by gwine

(Gen 15:6) And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

(Gen 15:7) And he said to him, "I am the LORD who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess."

(Gen 15:8) But he said, "O Lord GOD, how am I to know that I shall possess it?"

(Gen 15:9) He said to him, "Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon."

(Gen 15:10) And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half.

(Gen 15:11) And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away.

(Gen 15:12) As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him.

(Gen 15:13) Then the LORD said to Abram, "Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years.

(Gen 15:14) But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions.

(Gen 15:15) As for yourself, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age.

(Gen 15:16) And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."

(Gen 15:17) When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces.

(Gen 15:18) On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates,

Interesting parallel.

Absolutely relevant!

 

[Saiph]

Derivative Transliteration: berit
Derivative Strong's Cross Reference: 1285
Derivative Definition: covenant (ASV and RSV); between nations: a treaty, alliance of friendship; between individuals a pledge or agreement; with obligation between a monarch and subjects: a constitution; between God and man: a covenant accompartied by signs, sacrifices, and a solemn oath that sealed the relationship with promises of blessing for keeping the covenant and curses for breaking it.

The etymology of the word is uncertain. It may be related to the Akkadian word burru which means "to establish a legal situation by testimony with an oath" (CAD baru, p. 125); but some (O. Loretz, VT 16: 239-41) tie it to the Akkadian word birtu "a fetter" which is a derivative of the word meaning "between." L. Kohler claims the word was related to the root brh which has to do with the food and eating involved in the covenant meal (JSS 1: 4-7). The root is nowhere used as a verb in the OT nor is any other derivative of this root used, but the action involving covenant making employs the idiom "to cut a covenant" (Gen_15:18; etc.), that is making a bloody sacrifice as part of the covenant ritual, Kohler then would have the animal eaten in the covenant meal.

The covenant as a treaty or agreement between nations or individuals should be understood on the basis of whether the parties are equal or one is superior to the other. In Gen_14:13 Abraham and the Amorites were equal parties to a treaty but this is not true of Israel (under Joshua) and the Gibeonites (Josh 9). Here the oath aspect of the covenant is shown to be most important. Even though the Gibeonite vassals were subject to a curse for having lied (Jos_9:22-23), Joshua and Israel were still obligated to provide protection for them. Much later when Saul failed in this sworn covenant obligation, his family suffered punishment (2Sam 21).

It was common practice to set up a stel a (stone) as a sign that a treaty had been established between two households or nations (cc Jacob and Laban, Gen_31:44-47). On both sides appeal is made to the deity as a witness showing that the covenant is unalterable. Moreover, as in the case at Sinai, Jacob and Laban offered a sacrifice in the mountain and shared a common meal (Gen_31:54-55). Other signs which sealed such a treaty were used, such as a marriage between two royal houses (1Ki_9:16). But the greatest tool for covenant making came to be the written document on which the words of the covenant, its terms in the form of promises and stipulations, were spelled out, witnessed to, signed and sealed. Such covenant documents abound (cl D. R. Hillers, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea, Baltimore, 1969). Behm concludes: "There is no firmer guarantee of legal security peace or personal loyalty than the covenant" (TDNT, II, p. 115; cf. Amo_1:9).

Apart from blood ties the covenant was the way people of the ancient world formed wider relationships with each other (Treaty and Covenant, D. J. Mccarthy, Rome, 1963, p. 175). The accounts of the relationship between David and Jonathan are the only unequivocal mention of a compact between two individuals in the OT (1Sa_18:3; 1Sa_20:8; 1Sa_23:18). It is spoken of as "a covenant of the Lord" because the Lord witnessed the transaction and protected the legal order.

In Israel's monarchy the covenant relationship between the people and the king provided a kind of limited constitutional monarchy which was unique in the world in that early age (2Sa_3:21; 2Sa_5:3; 1Ch_11:3). .

All of this covenant procedure provides the cultural setting in which God's relationship with his people is formulated. Modern studies on the meaning and the form of "covenant" in biblical theology have been vigorous since the appearance of George Mendenhall's Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh, 1955; see also BA 17.27-46, 49-76 and Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions, D. J. Mccarthy, Richmond, 1972). Mccarthy includes an excellent bibliography of covenant studies, pp. 90-108. For an evangelical theological treatment of this subject based on the source materials see the volumes entitled Treaty of the Great King (Grand Rapids, 1963) and By Oath Consigned (Grand Rapids, 1967) by M. G. Kline. Here Kline shows the suzerainty treaty found in the ancient near east is the key to understanding the form of God's covenant with ancient Israel. He maintains the Ten Commandments and the entire book of Deuteronomy and such sections as Joshua 24 are all based on a covenant pattern which has: 1. A preamble in which the suzerain is identified, 2. An historical prologue describing previous relations between the parties, 3. Stipulations and demands of the suzerain, 4. Swearing of allegiance with curses and blessings, that is Covenant Ratification, 5. Witnesses and directions for carrying out the treaty (see Treaty of the Great King, pp. 14, 28). In addition to the stipulations there may be a clause providing for the preservation and regular re-reading of the covenant. .

The notion that a covenant between God and man did not exist in the formative stages of Israelite history as presented in Genesis and Exodus cannot be taken seriously any longer. Yahweh as a tribal deity in early Israel bound to his people by natural but not ethical ties, as a covenant relationship implies, is also a fading viewpoint.

D. J. Mccarthy warns that the covenant concept in the OT presents a very rich and complex tradition and that the covenant is not primarily legalistic or moralistic but cultic, that is, tied to religious practice. He sees other analogies besides the treaty form as important, especially the family analogy-the father and son relationship in the Davidic Covenant (2Sam 7) and the husband and wife relationship as in Hosea. Covenant theology which puts all biblical revelation in the covenant framework now has the support of OT specialists like W. Eichrodt who make the covenant concept the central and unifying theme of the OT (Theology of the Old Testament, London, 1967, cf. also J. Barton Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament). Eichrodt finds that the covenant concept proves Israel's religion was historical, that is, not the imagination of later generations. It also gave Israel great assurance of a beneficent God at a time when the deities were considered arbitrary originators of evil. Some scholars hold that the berit was sometimes monergistic, that is a one-sided unconditional promise. This view is opposed by Eichrodt and Kline, although espoused by J. Begrich, ZAW 60: 1-11 and Murray, The Covenant of Grace, London, 1954. Kline maintains that all divine-human covenants in the OT involve sanction-sealed commitment to obey. The law and promise aspects of God's covenant relationship with his people do not violate each other. Deu_29:13-14 shows the Sinaitic Covenant was an extension of the Abrahamic Covenant, both of which are called here "a sworn covenant." The Sinai renewal merely stressed man's responsibility where the Abrahamic Covenant emphasized God's promise. Many agree with Hillers (covenant, pp. 129-31) that the covenant (treaty) tradition is carried into the writings of the prophets in the so-called lawsuit (rib) pattern. The prophets indict the people as covenant breakers, sometimes relating this to the covenant pattern by calling heaven and earth to witness (cf. Isa_1:2-3, Isa_1:10-20; Jer_2:4-12; Mic_6:1-8; Psa 50).

The Priestly Covenant of Num_25:12-13, the Davidic Covenant of 2Sam 7 and the New Covenant of Jer_31:31 are all administrative aspects of the same covenant, God's Covenant of Grace. This covenant reaches its climax at the Incarnation where Christ representing his people fulfilled all the stipulations of the covenant and bore the curse they deserved for breaking it (cf. F. C. Fensham, "Covenant, Promise and Expectation in the Bible," Theologische Zeitschrift 23:305-22).

[Edited on 10-9-2005 by Saiph]

 

[Saiph]

Sorry, wrong quote.

Here:

Abram's question, "œWhereby shall I know that I shall take possession of it (the land)?" was not an expression of doubt, but of desire for the confirmation or sealing of a promise, which transcended human thought and conception. To gratify this desire, God commanded him to make preparation for the conclusion of a covenant. "œTake Me, He said, a heifer of three years old, and a she-goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtle-dove, and a young pigeon;" one of every species of the animals suitable for sacrifice. Abram took these, and "œdivided them in the midst," i.e., in half, "œand placed one half of each opposite to the other (every one its half, cf. Gen_42:25; Num_16:17); only the birds divided he not," just as in sacrifice the doves were not divided into pieces, but placed upon the fire whole (Lev_1:17). The animals chosen, as well as the fact that the doves were left whole, corresponded exactly to the ritual of sacrifice. Yet the transaction itself was not a real sacrifice, since there was neither sprinkling of blood nor offering upon an altar (oblatio), and no mention is made of the pieces being burned. The proceeding corresponded rather to the custom, prevalent in many ancient nations, of slaughtering animals when concluding a covenant, and after dividing them into pieces, of laying the pieces opposite to one another, that the persons making the covenant might pass between them. Thus Ephraem Syrus (1, 161) observes, that God condescended to follow the custom of the Chaldeans, that He might in the most solemn manner confirm His oath to Abram the Chaldean.

[Edited on 10-9-2005 by Saiph]

 

[Saiph]

In this symbol, the passing of the Lord between the pieces meant something altogether different from the oath of the Lord by Himself in Gen_22:16, or by His life in Deu_32:40, or by His soul in Amo_6:8 and Jer_51:14. It set before Abram the condescension of the Lord to his seed, in the fearful glory of His majesty as the judge of their foes. Hence the pieces were not consumed by the fire; for the transaction had reference not to a sacrifice, which God accepted, and in which the soul of the offerer was to ascend in the smoke to God, but to a covenant in which God came down to man. From the nature of this covenant, it followed, however, that God alone went through the pieces in a symbolical representation of Himself, and not Abram also. For although a covenant always establishes a reciprocal relation between two individuals, yet in that covenant which God concluded with a man, the man did not stand on an equality with God, but God established the relation of fellowship by His promise and His gracious condescension to the man, who was at first purely a recipient, and was only qualified and bound to fulfil the obligations consequent upon the covenant by the reception of gifts of grace.

 

[Greg]

Thanks everyone.

 

[Greg]

In Genesis 15:17 we read, "When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces."

What exactly does the smoking fire pot and the flaming torch represent or symbolize? I realize that this is a theophany of God Himself walking between the pieces, but why the fire pot and the flaming torch? Is there a symbolic significance with these?

 

[BrianBowman]

From Keil & Delitzsch


Gen. 15:17. When the sun had gone down, and thick darkness had come on (haya impersonal), "œbehold a smoking furnace, and (with) a fiery torch, which passed between those pieces," "”a description of what Abram saw in his deep prophetic sleep, corresponding to the mysterious character of the whole proceeding. tannur, a stove, is a cylindrical fire-pot, such as is used in the dwelling-houses of the East. The phenomenon, which passed through the pieces as they lay opposite to one another, resembled such a smoking stove, from which a fiery torch, i.e., a brilliant flame, was streaming forth. In this symbol Jehovah manifested Himself to Abram, just as He afterwards did to the people of Israel in the pillar of cloud and fire. Passing through the pieces, He ratified the covenant which He made with Abram. His glory was enveloped in fire and smoke, the produce of the consuming fire,"”both symbols of the wrath of God (cf. Ps. 18:9, and Hengstenberg in loc. ), whose fiery zeal consumes whatever opposes it (vid., Ex. 3:2)."”To establish and give reality to the covenant to be concluded with Abram, Jehovah would have to pass through the seed of Abram when oppressed by the Egyptians and threatened with destruction, and to execute judgment upon their oppressors (Ex. 7:4; 12:12). In this symbol, the passing of the Lord between the pieces meant something altogether different from the oath of the Lord by Himself in Gen. 22:16, or by His life in Deut. 32:40, or by His soul in Amos 6:8 and Jer. 51:14. It set before Abram the condescension of the Lord to his seed, in the fearful glory of His majesty as the judge of their foes. Hence the pieces were not consumed by the fire; for the transaction had reference not to a sacrifice, which God accepted, and in which the soul of the offerer was to ascend in the smoke to God, but to a covenant in which God came down to man. From the nature of this covenant, it followed, however, that God alone went through the pieces in a symbolical representation of Himself, and not Abram also. For although a covenant always establishes a reciprocal relation between two individuals, yet in that covenant which God concluded with a man, the man did not stand on an equality with God, but God established the relation of fellowship by His promise and His gracious condescension to the man, who was at first purely a recipient, and was only qualified and bound to fulfil the obligations consequent upon the covenant by the reception of gifts of grace.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by BrianBowman

From Keil & Delitzsch


...tannur, a stove, is a cylindrical fire-pot, such as is used in the dwelling-houses of the East.

Thank you Brian.

Does anyone know of any pictures of such a tannur?

 

[pduggan]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
Does anyone know of any pictures of such a tannur?

If I did, i'm not sure I should show you one

The sins forbidden in the second commandment are...the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever

 

[pduggan]

One writer (ok, me) says:

The furnace is a sign of God's glory shining through in the midst of darkness and terror. The glory passes between the pieces in the form of a furnace, prophetic of the furnace of affliction which Israel will experience (1 Kings 8:51). God's burning glory is a promise of resurrection. Commentators take note that no indication that the animals are consumed by the fire is given, so we may understand this as parallel with the burning bush, symbolizing God's personal presence with Israel as a purifying fire that does not consume or destroy. Here with Abram, God's glory is comes to meet the need of separated dead animals, and is predominantly promissory of re-creation and resurrection. The prophetic aspects of the passage (which are not dwelt on by Robertson) can help us to interpret the rite. God is providing two co-relative revelations, one verbal, the other pictorial. This is what is indicated in Hebrews 6:18 about the promise God makes to Abram two immutable things, God's verbal promise and the covenant oath He makes.

Deep sleep is the time in which God reveals oracles to men, and in this vision God predicts in detail the future history of Abram's descendants, that they will be oppressed in Egypt for 400 years, but that they will come out again and will return to the land.

These animals do not primarily represent God and what will happen to Him, but rather Abram's seed and the land they are to inherit. The five animals specified are those used in the sacrificial system of Leviticus. These animals were to be used as substitutes by the Israelites, each animal symbolizing a different stratum of society. The bull was for the priests, sheep and goats for most of the people, and doves ane very poor (Leviticus 4-5).

The division of the animals points to the alienation of man from the land. Man is created from the soil, having been originally divided off from it by God's own word. With the advent of sin, a curse is on the land, and man is estranged from it. What should have been distinct but united, are threatened by external oppressors (the birds) and lie dead and severed in horrible darkness.

Abram is alienated and estranged from the land of promise, though God has said that he will inherit it. God says that this alienation continues for a time: Abram's seed will sojourn in a strange land for many years. In the end they will return and enter the land, and God's personal presence will bring them in. His own glory will be the binding agent between Abram and the Land, granting him "resurrection" out of darkness and deep sleep (John 11:9-11). As one writer says:

In the context of Genesis 1 and 6-8 we can see God again de-creating and re-creating the world Just as the Flood returned the world to a condition of formlessness and emptiness, which God refilled, so in the vision of Abram the world returns to the primeval darkness of Genesis 1:2, before God established the covenantal separation-union of day and night. Abram himself is in "deep sleep," the same condition as Adam was in Genesis 2:21 when God separated Eve from him and established a covenant separation-union between the man and the woman. Here the purpose is to reestablish the connection between man and the 'erets [land]. The false and perverted relationship between man and land, which came in with the fall, is undone by de-creation; but before the birds can descend to destroy matters utterly, the covenant order is re-created by God Himself becoming the unbreakable binding force connecting the two. Abram is as likely not to posses the land as God is likely to perish.

Commonly there is a claim that the covenant represents a self-maledictory oath, in keeping with contemporanous covenant rituals. My examination of the literature called this into question:

O. Palmer Robertson cites parallels from other ancient near east documents to indicate that what is going on is a form of self-maledictory oath. But the parallels are not particularly strong. The Syrian text concerning Abba-AN and Yarimlim makes no explicit mention of division of the sheep in two, nor does it mention passing between the pieces. The 18th century B.C. Mari text that he cites also does not indicate any self-malediction in the context of the rite, nor is passing through the divided halves mentioned.

Victor P. Hamilton cites the Mari text as well, noting that the text makes explicit that the slaughter was to reconcile the two parties, not to call a curse on one or the other party. He also indicates that self-malediction may not even be indicated by the Abba-AN text, depending on the translation. Hamilton does find an indication of a Hittite rite involving passing between animal halves, but this is not a covenant-making rite, rather a pagan warfare-ritual with magical overtones.

Kline cites these parallels as well, asserting that they are informative of the context of the Abramic rite, even though they do not involve the required elements. He does find some rites of the 7th and 8th century B.C. that involved both self-malediction and animal dividing, but these are too late in date to be informative on the Genesis 15 situation.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by pduggan

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
Does anyone know of any pictures of such a tannur?

If I did, i'm not sure I should show you one

I am not sure if you are joking or not. But I would like to know what the cylindrical fire-pots, such as those used in the dwelling-houses of the East look like.