Covenant in the Old Testament

COVENANT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT Corey Farr OT301: The Pentateuch Dr. Claude Mariottini October 26, 2015 Introduction The word covenant is nearly as broad as the study of theology itself. God’s relationship with the cosmos and, in particular, mankind is easily described as covenantal; because of this it is exceedingly difficult to proceed with just one understanding of such a foundational word. John Bright rightly identifies covenant as a core element of Israelite faith. John Bright, The Kingdom of God (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1980), 26–28. Walther Eichrodt made this the focus of his magisterial work by subsuming all Old Testament theology under it, but also points out the development of the theme and its diversity through many different epochs of Israelite history, each with a unique set of foci: election in the patriarchal narratives, law and cult in the Deuteronomic texts, divine monism and grace and even universality in the Priestly tradition, a critical approach that recast the term in a more relational light in the earlier prophets, renewal and eschatology in the later prophets, and timelessness in the post-exilic community. Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, Volume One (Westminster John Knox Press, 1961), 49–65. Despite this wide variation in the understanding of covenant, Walter Brueggemann maintains that “in Israel’s testimony Yahweh’s covenant with Israel is pervasive and definitional for Yahweh, if we keep to a broad theological characterization of covenant as an enduring relationship of fidelity and mutual responsibility.” Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012), 497. Although it is important to understand the contractual and binding nature of covenant, the Scriptures also include this idea of eternal, faithful, mutual relationship as an essential part of the term. The Universal Covenant The Hebrew word for covenant (berit) first appears in Genesis 6:18, just before the flood, and then occurs seven times in Genesis 9:9-9:17 where God establishes the Noahic covenant, which is interestingly “between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations.” (Gen 9:12 Unless otherwise indicated, all Bible references are from the New English Translation (NET). ) This covenant is indicated by a sign (the rainbow) and is clearly unilateral because it is a commitment made by God alone, but it also establishes a covenantal foundation for all humanity, to the point that Brueggemann can declare that all “human persons are covenant partners with Yahweh.” Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament, 733. In many ways, the flood is a reversal of the creation narrative, as the firmament that was established is broken and the world is brought back into formless chaos. In Genesis 8-9, creation is once again established in order. Although this recreation is still postlapsarian and thus is not called “very good,” God unconditionally commits Himself to refrain from destroying it again. Because the rest of covenantal thought in the Old Testament tends to be narrowly particularistic, this passage is intensely important because it reminds us that “the universal scope of this covenant implies that the blessing for which humanity was created and the creation that had been preserved through the flood will ultimately encompass not just one people or nation, but rather the whole earth.” P.R. Williamson, “Covenant,” ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, January 13, 2003), 141. This universal covenant, as it has been called, provides a hermeneutic for all Old Testament studies and is important keep in mind as a foundation as the study of covenant narrows with the patriarchs of Israel. The Patriarchal Covenant With the call of Abram in Genesis 12, the divine intentionality in covenant begins to be more clearly defined. God singles out one man for blessing and promises to make him great (Gen 12:2), but even here the universal is still in view, for the second half of this promise includes all the nations of the earth (12:3). God’s desire to bless Abram is a means to fulfilling his desire to bless all of mankind. The actual covenant with Abram occurs in two stages, found in Genesis 15 and 17. The former seems to focus on the first half of the promise to make him a great nation, and is entirely unilateral. God alone passes through the cut up animals to seal the covenant while Abram is asleep (Gen 15:12, 17-18a), and he unconditionally promises to bring a nation out of Abram’s offspring. This covenant is clearly defined in terms of chronology, seen in the 400 years of servitude (Gen 15:13), and geography, as the Promised Land is given definite borders for the first time here (Gen 15:18-21). The second stage of this covenant is introduced by the changing of Abram’s name to Abraham, which indicates the shift in perspective to the second half of the call, the blessing of the nations. Because this covenant is introduced with a condition of holiness (Gen 17:1) and confirmed by the ritual rite of circumcision (Gen 17:9-11), Williamson notes that “in contrast to the unilateral framework of Genesis 15, the ‘eternal’ covenant of Genesis 17 is plainly bilateral.” Ibid., 147. Although there is a particular focus on Abraham and Sarah’s descendants, the rest of mankind is also in view as Abraham is to become the “father of a multitude of nations” (Gen 17:4-5) and Sarah is equally to become “a mother of nations. Kings of countries will come from her!” (Gen 17:16). Additionally, the people of the covenant are not limited to descendants by blood, but include those who are part of Abraham’s household, even slaves from foreign nations (Gen 17:12-13) who are “not of thy seed” (asher lo mizzar`akha, Gen 17:12). It is a matter of some debate whether two distinct covenants or two different narratives of a single covenant are in view. Williamson argues for the former position, both because of the thirteen years separating the two chapters and the fact that they are “manifestly different in both nature (temporal/eternal; unilateral/bilateral) and primary emphases (national/international).” Ibid., 147–148. Despite this division, they are also deeply connected by their relationship to the primary call of Abraham in Genesis 12. The two covenants unfold the two halves of the promise: to make out of Abraham a great nation, and through him to bless all the nations of the earth. Once again, even as the covenant begins to narrow, the universal remains in view. This narrowing of covenant is the primary theme of the rest of the Genesis narrative, as Isaac and Jacob become participants in the Abrahamic covenant, leading to its conclusion at Sinai with the nation of Israel. The Sinai Covenant: Framing Narratives The book of Exodus and the Sinai covenant are framed first by the patriarchal covenant. In fulfillment of the predictions in Genesis 15, the Israelites have migrated to Egypt, have grown into a great people (Exod 1:7), and have been in bondage for hundreds of years (Exod 1:11, 12:40). The link with the Patriarchs is explicitly made clear when “God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and Jacob.” (Exod 2:24) With this background in mind, the covenant at Sinai is about more than God simply choosing one people to establish a definite nation with geographical boundaries to complete the promises in Genesis 15. Rather, this narrative resonates equally loudly with the call in Genesis 12 and the covenant in Genesis 17 as this people is called to live in accordance with God’s moral standards (cf. Gen 17:1), to observe the signs of the covenant (cf. Gen 17:9-11), and to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:6) as a means of representing God and mediating his blessing to all the nations of the earth (cf. Gen 12:2-3). In this way, it can be said that “the goal of the Sinaitic covenant is the establishment of a special nation through whom Yahweh can make himself known to all the families of the earth” Ibid., 150. rather than to demonstrate an exclusive favoritism for the nation of Israel. It has been said that the calling of Israel was to be a missionary nation, though this was often misunderstood in their history. Despite the fact that the Pentateuch is narrowly focused on the covenant with Israel, the universal emphasis in both the Noahic and patriarchal covenants provides “the theological backbone supporting the national covenants [including Sinai] and against which they must be understood.” Ibid., 149. Eichrodt sees in these earlier covenants a counter to self-centered “misconceptions … of the covenant relationship. The God of the covenant is also the God of the whole world and his designs comprehend far more than just Israel.” Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, Volume One, 50. The second and more immediate framing narrative for the Sinai covenant is the Exodus event itself. Although much of the covenant emphasizes Israelite obligation and seems to be conditional in nature, the Exodus provides the foundational understanding that it is God alone who will carry to completion his promises and plans through his faithfulness, power, and righteous wrath. Aside from the implicit theological data in the Exodus, the fact of literal historical liberation served to establish what Eichrodt lists as one of the basic elements of covenant understanding in Israelite history: “a remarkably interior attitude to history.” Ibid., 41. Brueggemann identifies that the “core testimony” of Israel is primarily founded upon verbal sentences, in other words, statements which describe specifically what God has done in historical terms to accomplish his purpose. Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament, 249–357. This factual, narrative basis for Israel’s theology gives history “a value which it does not possess in the religions of ancient civilizations.” Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, Volume One, 41. In this way, John Bright identifies that God is totally separated from the deities of various pagan religions. John Bright, A History of Israel, 4th edition (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000), 161–162. The Israelites did not identify God with either forces or patterns in nature, but spoke of a personal and intentional divinity who was not only in control of those natural forces but acted in and through them. In contrast to the pagan gods, “Yahweh was no benign maintainer of the status quo to be ritually appeased, but a God who had called his people from the status quo of dire bondage into a new future. … Israel’s faith, thus grounded in historical events, alone in the ancient world had a keen sense of the divine purpose and calling in history.” Ibid., 162. The third and most indirect framing narrative which provides revelatory significance for the Sinai covenant is its similarity with other ancient covenant forms, most notably the suzerain-vassal treaty. This was essentially a feudal agreement between ancient Near-Eastern kings and their subjects, of which some of the essential features were the opening introduction of the king, a detailing of why the king is deserving of the subjects’ loyalty, a list of commandments demanding ultimate loyalty and cooperation, and finally a series of blessings and curses pronounced as a consequence for the keeping or breaking of the treaty. Ibid., 151–152. By reading critically and comparing the Biblical texts, each of these elements can be evidenced to some degree in the covenant narratives in Exodus, Joshua, and Deuteronomy. These comparisons shed light on the Israelite understanding of theocracy, in which they saw God as their true king in contrast to the petty rulers of the other nations. Whether these parallels were inherent in the original covenant tradition or were intentionally drawn out by later post-exilic redactions, they implicitly contain a strong critique of overzealous nationalism leading to an assumed identification of the Israelite state (which, of course, was not in existence at the time the covenant was ratified) with the rule of God. This theme will be explored in more detail in the section on the Davidic covenant. Despite similarities with suzerain treaties and ancient interpersonal covenants, which can shed much light through comparison and contrast with the Biblical passages, our understanding of covenant must be defined first by Scripture’s use of the term. Rather than equating the covenant with ancient rituals, Payne asserts, “it is only in the transformed usage of the term as it appears in God’s own historical revelation that its ultimate import is disclosed.” J. Barton Payne, Theology of the Older Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 79. Whether or not the Israelites used the suzerain treaty as a blueprint for their own covenantal depiction or later adapted their narrative to fit that form is not as important as what can be learned from the similarity itself. Clearly Israel viewed God as their king, demanding their ultimate loyalty and trust. In the words of Bright, “the notion of a people of God, called to live under the rule of God, begins just here [at Sinai], and with it the notion of the Kingdom of God.” Bright, The Kingdom of God, 28. Eichrodt also saw this, and draws the fascinating conclusion that the notion of a people of God, however embryonic at this point, existed long before the nation-state itself; therefore, the covenantal existence of the people of God long preceded and is in no way contingent upon the nation of Israel. Although the two overlap at many points, it is submission to the will of God that defines the people of the covenant, and his lordship extends over far more than the limited idea of the nation of Israel. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, Volume One, 39–41. Eichrodt summarizes profoundly that the latent idea of the Kingdom of God is about knowing and seeking his will: “[This] means, however, that the existence of the nation could not become an end in itself. From the start it had to remain subordinate to a higher purpose, an overriding conception, the achievement of the nation’s religious destiny. … It was for this reason that the expression of the new relationship with God in the form of a covenant between God and the people proved itself ideally suited to effecting an organic involvement of the new faith with the very existence of the nation, without bringing that faith into a false dependence on the people’s own will to power and survival.” Ibid., 41. The Sinai Covenant: Content and Purpose The Sinai covenant is frequently thought of solely in terms of law and commandment. The New Testament epistles often emphasize this train of thought, but it is important to note Brueggemann’s point that “commandment is always, in Israel’s faith, in the context of covenant, so that the commands of Yahweh are through and through covenantal commands.” Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament, 334. Because of their covenantal nature, the commands are fundamentally relational, continuing the liberation of the Exodus by allowing Israel to fulfill their desire to be connected to God and to reshape the world as it was meant to be. Brueggemann writes, “Both notions of (a) participation in a revolution and (b) embrace of intrinsic desire are chances whereby the caricature of command as legalism may be overcome. It is distorting to imagine command outside of covenant.” Ibid., 337. The commands of the Decalogue play upon the Israelite origin narratives; they are an attempt to restore the world to its original goodness by correcting the two-dimensional nature of sin: broken relationships with God and mankind. The prohibition against making images of God is perhaps to remind Israel that they are to be the image of God to the world, just as man was created in that image in the Genesis account. Henry Flanders, Robert Crapps, and David Smith, People of the Covenant: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 4th edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 102. The idea of covenant nomism in twentieth century Pauline studies may be hotly debated, but the way in which it demonstrates an essential link between covenant and command is in agreement with the assessment above. Though the content of the covenant at Sinai is primarily given and expanded in terms of commandments, its purpose is clearly more than legalism. Stuart Foster summarizes the purpose behind the covenant with Israel well when he describes it as “a radical innovation, a new system tightly organized around relationship with Yahweh. As creator God, he had power. But he also committed himself to relationship with his people.” Stuart J Foster, “The Missiology of Old Testament Covenant,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 34, no. 4 (October 2010): 206. The recognition that God is simultaneously sovereign and in solidarity by his own choice with his people is perhaps the most important revelation to be had in studying the covenant. Foster outlines this relationship in terms of exclusivity (distinguishing Israelite divine-human relations from pagan ones in terms of monotheism), security (highlighting the importance of God’s commitment and reliability by the use of the term covenant itself), accountability (recognizing that even unconditional relationships include expectations for both parties), and purpose (noting that the covenant is not atemporal, but “provided purpose in history, an overall narrative framework of life and meaning”). Ibid., 206–207. The Davidic Covenant The source for the Davidic covenant is 2 Samuel 7, which oddly does not use the word for covenant at all. However, the pattern of the chapter seems to follow other covenant forms, especially the suzerain-vassal treaty. It opens with a reminder of what God has done for David (7:8-9), continues into the immediate promises of establishing David’s name and keeping the people of Israel secure from enemy oppression (7:9-11), and ends with future promise of an eternal throne for David’s descendant, which is notably in the singular (7:12-16). Although not identified with the word in this chapter, David himself identified it as a covenant in his last words (2 Sm 23:5) and the belief persisted even when later kings failed to be faithful to the Lord (cf. 2 Chr 21:6-7). The Davidic covenant is the most particular covenant in the Hebrew Bible, and for this reason it is frequently misunderstood or simply dismissed from the modern Christian perspective. If one ignores the themes developed in the previous covenants – universality with Noah, blessing for all nations with Abraham, and relational dependency at Sinai – in which this particular covenant is rooted, it is easy to misconstrue the nature of God’s promises to David. Most Christians tend to read Davidic passages and arrive naively at Zionism or, through eisegesis, see them as vaguely foreshadowing Christ. Zionism is the more dangerous option, for it represents an unhealthy alignment of God’s kingdom with human nations. This option was evidently present even in early Israelite history, as can be seen in the critiques of all the prophets, especially Hosea. Narrow nationalism considered the particularity evident in the national covenants to be the end rather than the means of God’s operation. John Bright’s The Kingdom of God is in many ways an extended critique of this confusing of means (particularity) with end (universal covenant blessing) and he is emphatic that “no political action can [make Israel God’s kingdom or restore her to her destiny as the people of God].” Bright, The Kingdom of God, 56. However, despite prophetic critique, the temptation to establish the Kingdom of God by means of an earthly kingdom continued through the Hasmonean era, Ibid., 185–186. and arguably continues to this day in modern Zionist movements. The other temptation for Christians is to see the Davidic covenant as merely a foreshadowing of Christ. This is a safer option and is largely true though it is also overly simplified and spiritualized. It is easy to arrive at this conclusion because the Davidic covenant includes the famous Christological phrase, “I will be his father, and he will be my son.” (2 Sm 7:14, NIV) Unfortunately, this simplification tends to underemphasize the importance of the narrative salvific work of God established in real covenants with real people at real times. Though it is ultimately fulfilled in Christ, to spiritualize the Davidic covenant is to miss the understanding that the Church is the expansion of Israel instead of its replacement. Eichrodt describes covenant as simultaneously offering “a remarkably interior attitude to history” Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, Volume One, 41. and yet “safeguard[ing] against an identification of religion with national interest.” Ibid., 42. Jeremiah 33 and Psalm 89 are two excellent perspectives of the tension between messianic hope and historical struggles of real covenant people in real history. Both Zionist and Christological interpretations of the Davidic covenant tend to encourage extreme theological imbalance; the former encourages dispensationalism and unhealthy eschatology, the latter encourages supercessionism and a lack of narrative structure to God’s work in history. Unilateral or Bilateral Covenant? It is a matter of some debate whether the covenants in the Old Testament are best described as unilateral or bilateral. Payne points out three uses of covenant in the Scriptures: (1) a covenant between two persons of equal standing, which is universally agreed to be bilateral (this includes both the covenant between David and Jonathan and other interpersonal or even international covenants), (2) a covenant between two unequal parties such as God and man, which he believes described legal and conditional relations that, though unilateral, are entirely conditional upon men’s response, and (3) a covenant (truly a “testament”) established by a perfect God for the redemption of fallen man to unilaterally save men by the death required for atonement. Payne, Theology of the Older Testament, 79–82. Payne’s thesis is that translating berit as “covenant” is inadequate, and it is better explained by the notion of “testament.” Though Payne may be right in stressing the sovereignty of God in the berit and his unqualified power to fulfill it, he seems to be more interested in defending Reformed doctrine than actually interacting with the texts. Ironically, he contradicts himself in explicating this third type of covenant, which “though essentially monergistic … required that men qualify.” Ibid., 81. Even in defending unilateral covenant, he is unable to escape bilateral terms. Ernst Kutsch follows a different approach, but equally avoids describing covenant in relational terms. For Kutsch, berit is a pledge, an obligation, or an oath and does not necessarily include relationship. Whether this is a divine oath or an obligation imposed on the subjects of God, the semantic range of berit is limited to the fulfillment of promises and excludes the concept of relationship. He comments on the covenant in Exodus, “if preserving and observing the berit of Yahweh is the prerequisite for this relationship [in Exodus 19:5], then the relationship itself cannot be indicated by the berit.” Ernst Kutsch, “Gesetz Und Gnade: Probleme Des Alttestamentlichen Bundesbegriffs,” Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 79, no. 1 (1967): 30. (Author’s translation) Eichrodt, on the other hand, does not have a problem with simultaneously affirming the bilateral nature of the relationship and the unequal standing of the parties involved. He writes, “the relationship is still essentially two-sided. The idea that in ancient Israel the berit was always and only thought of as Yahweh’s pledging of himself, to which human effort was required to make no kind of response, can therefore be proved to be erroneous.” Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, Volume One, 37. Jewish scholar Daniel Elazar arrived at the same conclusion but maintained the conviction that “a covenant requires that the partners to it be roughly equal or at least equal with regard to the task at hand for which the covenant is made.” Daniel Judah Elazar, “Covenant and Community,” Judaism 49, no. 4 (September 2000): 393. Instead of denying that covenant was possible because man and God cannot be equals, he saw in the covenant itself a condescension of God to make humans in some way equal with him in terms of having dominion over the earth. For Elazar, “the idea of covenant is that God … enters into a partnership with humans for the conduct of affairs on earth in this world.” Ibid. It is in hope of finding a solution to such a convoluted debate that we now turn to the Hebrew concept of hesed. Covenant and Hesed The problem with dualistic arguments like the one above is that the debate can never be resolved and imbalance is inherent in either option. To emphasize only the unilateral nature of the covenant invites apathy and fatalism/determinism; to emphasize the bilateral invites legalism and humanism. The solution to this imbalance lies in the Hebrew word hesed, a word that is notoriously difficult to translate and closely linked with the word berit throughout the Scriptures. The word hesed itself has been the subject of numerous studies, but it is beyond the scope of this paper to cover them all. However, it is important to demonstrate the importance of the word for an understanding of Biblical covenant. In his very influential study, Nelson Glueck first observes that hesed is defined as “conduct corresponding to a mutual relationship of rights and duties.” Nelson Glueck, Hesed in the Bible, trans. Alfred Gottschalk (Cincinnati Hebrew Union College Press, 1967), 38. In terms of human relationships he goes so far as to say that hesed is integrally related to covenant: “The obligations and rights acquired through a covenant are translated into corresponding actions through hesed. Hesed is the real essence of berith, and it can almost be said that it is its very content.” Ibid., 47. This is evident in covenants including friendships, such as David and Jonathan (1 Sm 20:8-15; 2 Sm 9:1-7), kings and subjects (2 Sm 3:8, 2 Chr 24:22), kings and their defeated enemies (1 Kgs 20:31-36), and even the implicit covenant between hosts and unfamiliar guests (Gen 19:19, 21:23, Jo 2:12-14). It is especially important to note that hesed is the means whereby covenant propositions are translated into covenant actions, which explains the extremely close link between hesed and `emet – truth/faithfulness. Glueck notes that hesed includes `emet and that the common phrase “hesed ve`emet is then to be regarded as a hendiadys in which `emet is an explanatory adjective.” Ibid., 55. However, though hesed necessarily includes faithfulness, it surpasses it in its relational character since it flows from an expression of love or sincerity. Although hesed is always obligatory, it is more than begrudgingly fulfilling one’s obligations. In fact, often true hesed goes beyond the strict propositional requirements of the covenant and displays remarkable devotion to the other party. Dumbrell points out that for Israel, this means “faithfulness to the spirit of the covenant, not merely to the letter. [For Yahweh, it means] willingness to go beyond the strict legalities of the relationship and to preserve it in spite of the fault of the erring partner.” William J. Dumbrell, The Faith of Israel: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2002), 175. Routledge has shown that hesed may exist outside of and thus may not be defined only in covenantal contexts; however, a covenant itself necessarily requires continuing acts of hesed. Robin L Routledge, “Ḥesed as Obligation: A Re-Examination,” Tyndale Bulletin 46, no. 1 (May 1995): 182–183. Thus, although the two are not equal, it is necessary to understand hesed for the interpretation of the covenants between God and his people. The inclusion of hesed in covenant theology defeats the apathy, fatalism, determinism, legalism, and humanism noted above. Glueck maintains that “hesed is the premise and effect of a berith; it constitutes the very essence of a berith but is not yet a berith, even though there can be no berith without hesed.” Glueck, Hesed in the Bible, 68. Hesed is more than an emotional response. In fact, it neither requires nor precludes emotion, but is made manifest in intentional action. Routledge, “Ḥesed as Obligation,” 185–186. It is a relational response that includes the entire being or, as Heath puts it, a “committed, familial love that is deeper than social expectations, duties, shifting emotions or what is deserved or earned by the recipient.” E.A. Heath, “Grace,” ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, January 13, 2003), 372. This relational response or familial love must necessarily take different forms depending on whether the object is God or one’s neighbor, both of which are included in covenant-honoring hesed in ways reminiscent of Jesus’ reduction of the Law to loving God and others. George Farr writes, “Towards God this hesed cannot be more than loyalty. … [Towards his fellow-man] at least it must be loyalty; at most it must approximate to the pardoning grace of God which He has shown to men.” George Farr, “The Concept of Grace in the Book of Hosea,” Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 70, no. 1–2 (1958): 105. Those who live in the covenant live out of loyalty to God and subsequently do their best to replicate his love towards others. In this way, God has sometimes been identified as the only true agent behind all acts of hesed, or as Clark writes, hesed is “a characteristic of God rather than human beings; it is rooted in the divine nature.” Gordon Clark, The Word “Hesed” in the Hebrew Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 267. Many have sought to define hesed purely in terms of obligation and missed out on this relational aspect, just as many have done the same with covenant itself. Others have sought to restrict the definition of hesed to God’s acts alone which man can only imitate, which may be partially true but entirely misses the implications of obligation and faithfulness. It is only with a well-rounded definition of the word as including loyalty/faithfulness, obligation/obedience, and relational engagement that one can agree with John Bright’s brilliant statement: “The covenant concluded at Sinai could, then, be understood in Hebrew theology only as a response to grace: man’s hesed for God’s hesed. The Old Testament covenant was thus always properly viewed … as a covenant of grace.” Bright, The Kingdom of God, 28. This is illuminated by the idea of covenant nomism discussed above. Though it is possible to speak of covenant without hesed and vice versa in terms of linguistics, it is theologically fruitless if such discussion does not lead one to see how integrally related the two are. Conclusion It is difficult to conclude such a broad study of covenant, yet some important principles can and should be drawn out for all in Christian ministry. First, God’s purposes have been demonstrated to have a universal aim in spite of using particular means. Second, God is clearly shown as working both in and through history in an unfolding narrative; with this understanding one can find value in the theological concept of progressive revelation without being tempted to devalue the earlier parts of the story by simply skipping to the end. Third, God’s covenant may be simultaneously described with two paradoxical pairings: legal contract/intimate relationship and unilateral/bilateral – the word hesed is the key to understanding these tensions. Finally, the various linked covenants found in the Hebrew Bible are not simply an extended prologue to the New Covenant in Christ; rather, they provide layer after layer of foundation upon which Christian theology must be based. Though the obligation to seek such understanding may not be laid upon all individual members of the Body of Christ, there is a great need for some – especially leaders within the Church – to responsibly understand and be able to preach Old Testament theology as a foundation for New Testament understanding.   BIBLIOGRAPHY Bright, John. A History of Israel. 4th edition. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000. ———. The Kingdom of God. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1980. Brueggemann, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012. Clark, Gordon. The Word “Hesed” in the Hebrew Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Dumbrell, William J. The Faith of Israel: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2002. Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament, Volume One. Westminster John Knox Press, 1961. Elazar, Daniel Judah. “Covenant and Community.” Judaism 49, no. 4 (September 2000): 387–98. Farr, George. “The Concept of Grace in the Book of Hosea.” Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 70, no. 1–2 (1958): 98–107. Flanders, Henry, Robert Crapps, and David Smith. People of the Covenant: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. 4th edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Foster, Stuart J. “The Missiology of Old Testament Covenant.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 34, no. 4 (October 2010): 205–8. Glueck, Nelson. Hesed in the Bible. Translated by Alfred Gottschalk. Cincinnati Hebrew Union College Press, 1967. Heath, E.A. “Grace.” Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, January 13, 2003. Kutsch, Ernst. “Gesetz Und Gnade: Probleme Des Alttestamentlichen Bundesbegriffs.” Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 79, no. 1 (1967): 18–35. Payne, J. Barton. Theology of the Older Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980. Routledge, Robin L. “Ḥesed as Obligation: A Re-Examination.” Tyndale Bulletin 46, no. 1 (May 1995): 179–96. Williamson, P.R. “Covenant.” Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, January 13, 2003.