The Christ of the Covenants

O. Palmer Robertson

• Publisher: P Publishing
• Year: 1987
• Print ISBN: 9780875524184
• eBook ISBN: 9781629954349
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Systematic Theology & Ethics

Robertson presents the richness of a covenantal approach to understanding the Bible. He treats the Old Testament covenants from a "successive" standpoint—that each covenant builds on the previous one.

PART ONE

INTRODUCTION TO THE DIVINE COVENANTS

1

The Nature of the Divine Covenants

WHAT is a covenant?

Asking for a definition of “covenant” is something like asking for a definition of “mother.”

A mother may be defined as the person who brought you into the world. That definition may be correct formally. But who would be satisfied with such a definition?

Scripture clearly testifies to the significance of the divine covenants. God has entered repeatedly into covenantal relationships with particular men. Explicit references may be found to a divine covenant established with Noah (Gen. 6:18), Abraham (Gen. 15:18), Israel (Exod. 24:8), and David (Ps. 89:3). Israel’s prophets anticipated the coming of the days of the “new” covenant (Jer. 31:31), and Christ himself spoke of the last supper in covenantal language (Luke 22:20).

But what is a covenant?

Some would discourage any effort to present a single definition of “covenant” which would embrace all the varied usages of the term in Scripture. They would suggest that the many different contexts in which the word appears imply many different meanings.¹

Clearly any definition of the term “covenant” must allow for as broad a latitude as the data of Scripture demands. Yet the very wholeness of the biblical history in being determined by God’s covenants suggests an overarching oneness in the concept of the covenant.

What then is a covenant? How do you define the covenantal relation of God to his people?²

A covenant is a bond in blood sovereignly administered. When God enters into a covenantal relationship with men, he sovereignly institutes a life-and-death bond. A covenant is a bond in blood, or a bond of life and death, sovereignly administered.

Three aspects of this definition of the divine covenants must be considered more closely.

A COVENANT IS A BOND

In its most essential aspect, a covenant is that which binds people together. Nothing lies closer to the heart of the biblical concept of the covenant than the imagery of a bond inviolable.

Extensive investigations into the etymology of the Old Testament term for “covenant” (

) have proven inconclusive in determining the meaning of the word.³ Yet the contextual usage of the term in Scripture points rather consistently to the concept of a “bond” or “relationship.”⁴ 1t is always a person, either God or man, who makes a covenant. Still further it is another person who stands as the other party of the covenant with few exceptions.⁵ The result of a covenant commitment is the establishment of a relationship “in connection with,” “with” or “between” people.⁶

The formalizing element essential for the establishing of all divine covenants in Scripture is a verbalized declaration of the character of the bond being established. God speaks to establish his covenant. He speaks graciously to commit himself to his creatures, and to declare the basis on which he shall relate to his creation.

The prominence of oaths and signs in the divine covenants underlines the fact that a covenant in its essence is a bond. A covenant commits people to one another.⁷

A binding oath of the covenant might take on a variety of forms. At one point a verbal oath could be involved (Gen. 21:23,24,26, 31; 31:53; Exod. 6:8; 19:8; 24:3, 7; Deut. 7:8, 12; 29:13; Ezek. 16:8). At another point some symbolic action could be attached to the verbal commitment, such as the granting of a gift (Gen. 21:28-32), the eating of a meal (Gen. 26:28-30; 31:54; Exod. 24:11), the setting up of a memorial (Gen. 31:44f.; Josh. 24:27), the sprinkling of blood (Exod. 24:8), the offering of sacrifice (Ps. 50:5), the passing under the rod (Ezek. 20:37), or the dividing of animals (Gen. 15:10, 18). In several passages of Scripture the integral relation of the oath to the covenant is brought out most clearly by a parallelism of construction (Deut. 29:12; II Kings 11:4; I Chron. 16:16; Ps. 105:9; 89:3, 4; Ezek. 17:19). In these cases, the oath interchanges with the covenant, and the covenant with the oath.

This closeness of relationship between oath and covenant emphasizes that a covenant in its essence is a bond. By the covenant, persons become committed to one another.

The presence of signs in many of the biblical covenants also emphasizes that the divine covenants bind people together. The token of the rainbow, the seal of circumcision, the sign of the Sabbath-these covenantal signs enforce the binding character of the covenant. An interpersonal commitment which may be guaranteed has come into effect by way of the covenantal bond. Just as bride and groom interchange rings as “token and pledge” of their “constant faith and abiding love,” so the signs of the covenant symbolize the permanence of the bond between God and his people.

A COVENANT IS A BOND IN BLOOD

The phrase “bond-in-blood” or bond of life and death expresses the ultimacy of the commitment between God and man in the covenantal context. By initiating covenants, God never enters into a casual or informal relationship with man. Instead, the implications of his bonds extend to the ultimate issues of life and death.

The basic terminology describing the inauguration of a covenantal relationship vivifies the life-and-death intensity of the divine covenants. The phrase translated “to make a covenant” in the Old Testament literally reads “to cut a covenant.”

This phrase “to cut a covenant” does not appear just at one stage in the history of the biblical covenants. Much to the contrary, it occurs prominently across the entire spread of the Old Testament. The law,⁸ the prophets,⁹ and the writings¹⁰ all contain the phrase repeatedly.

It might be supposed that the passage of time would have dulled the vivid imagery of “cutting a covenant.” Yet the evidence of an abiding awareness of the full import of the phrase appears in some of Scripture’s most ancient texts as well as in passages associated with the very end of Israel’s presence in the land of Palestine. The original record of the inauguration of the Abrahamic covenant, laden as it is with internal signs of antiquity, first introduces the concept of “cutting a covenant” to the biblical reader (cf. Gen. 15). At the other extremity of Israel’s history, Jeremiah’s prophetic warning to Zedekiah at the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s seige of Jerusalem literally bristles with allusions to a “cut-covenant” theology (cf. Jer. 34).

A further indication of the permeating significance of this phrase is found in the fact that it is related to all three of the basic covenantal types. It is employed to describe covenants inaugurated by man with man,¹¹ covenants inaugurated by God with man,¹² and covenants inaugurated by man with God. ¹³

Particularly striking is the fact that the verb “to cut” may stand by itself and still clearly mean “to cut a covenant.”¹⁴ This usage indicates just how essentially the concept of “cutting” had come to be related to the covenant idea in Scripture.

This relating of a “cutting” process to the establishment of a covenant manifests itself throughout the ancient languages and cultures of the Middle East. Not only in Israel, but in many of the surrounding cultures, the binding character of a covenant is related to a terminology of “cutting.”¹⁵

Not only the terminology, but the rituals commonly associated with the establishment of covenants reflect quite dramatically a “cutting” process. As the covenant is made, animals are “cut” in ritual ceremony. The most obvious example of this procedure in Scripture is found in Genesis 15, at the time of the making of the Abrahamic covenant. First Abraham divides a series of animals and lays the pieces over against one another. Then a symbolic representation of God passes between the divided pieces of animals. The result is the “making” or “cutting” of a covenant.

What is the meaning of this division of animals at the point of covenantal inauguration? Both biblical and extra-biblical evidence combine to confirm a specific significance for this ritual. The animal-division symbolizes a “pledge to the death” at the point of covenant commitment. The dismembered animals represent the curse that the covenant-maker calls down on himself if he should violate the commitment which he has made.

This interpretation finds strong support in the words of the prophet Jeremiah. As he recalls Israel’s disloyalty to their covenant commitments, he reminds them of the ritual by which they “passed between the parts of the calf” (Jer. 34:18). By their transgression, they have called down on themselves the curses of the covenant. Therefore they may expect dismemberment of their own bodies. Their carcasses “shall be food for the birds of the sky and the beasts of the earth” (Jer. 34:20).

It is in this context of covenant inauguration that the biblical phrase “to cut a covenant” is to be understood.¹⁶ Integral to the very terminology which describes the establishment of a covenantal relationship is the concept of a pledge to life and death. A covenant is indeed a “bond-in-blood,” or a bond of life and death.¹⁷

This phrase “bond in blood” accords ideally with the biblical emphasis that “apart from shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). Blood is of significance in Scripture because it represents life, not because it is crude or bloody. The life is in the blood (Lev. 17:11) and so the shedding of blood represents a judgment on life.

The biblical imagery of blood-sacrifice emphasizes the interrelation of life and blood. The pouring out of life-blood signifies the only way of relief from covenant-obligations once incurred. A covenant is a “bond-in-blood,” committing the participants to loyalty on pain of death. Once the covenant relationship has been entered, nothing less than the shedding of blood may relieve the obligations incurred in the event of covenantal violation.

It is just at this point that the effort to relate the “covenant” idea in Israel’s life and experience to the concept of a “last will and testament” must be rejected. It is simply impossible to do justice to the biblical concept of “covenant” and at the same time to introduce an idea of “last will and testament.”¹⁸

The major point of confusion in these two concepts of “covenant” and “testament” arises from the fact that both a “covenant” and a “testament” relate to “death.” Death is essential both to activate a last will and testament and to inaugurate a covenant. Because of this similarity, the two concepts have been confused.

However, the two ideas of covenant and testament actually diverge radically in their significance. The similarity is only formal in nature. Both “covenant” and “testament” relate closely to “death.” But death stands in relationship to each of these concepts in two very different manners.

In the case of a “covenant,” death stands at the beginning of a relationship between two parties, symbolizing the potential curse-factor in the covenant. In the case of a “testament,” death stands at the end of a relationship between two parties, actualizing an inheritance.

The death of the covenant-maker appears in two distinct stages. First it appears in the form of a symbolic representation of the curse, anticipating possible covenantal violation. Later the party who violates the covenant actually experiences death as a consequence of his earlier commitment.

The death of the testator does not come in two stages. No symbolic representation of death accompanies the making of a will. The testator does not die as a consequence of the violation of his last will and testament.

The provisions of the “last will and testament” inherently presume death to be inevitable, and all its stipulations build on that fact. But the provisions of a covenant offer the options of life or death. The representation of death is essential to the inauguration of a covenant. The consecrating animal must be slain to effect a covenant. But it is not at all necessary that a party to the covenant actually die. Only in the event of covenant violation does actual death of the covenant-maker occur.

It is in the context of covenantal death, not testamentary death, that the death of Jesus Christ is to be understood. Christ’s death was a substitutionary sacrifice. Christ died as a substitute for the covenant-breaker. Substitution is essential for the understanding of the death of Christ.

Yet death in substitution for another has no place whatsoever in the making of a last will and testament. The testator dies in his own place, not in the place of another. No other death may substitute for the death of the testator himself.

But Christ died...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• Part One: Introduction to the Divine Covenants
• Part Two:
• Part Three: The Covenant of Redemption