Understanding the Word ‘Covenant’

Throughout Scripture, the word ‘covenant’ is used often. There are several covenants recorded for us; most important are the ones between God and humans.

Several covenants are recorded between humans, and these are relevant in setting the context for various portions of Scripture. But they are secondary in significance when compared those covenants which God authors between Himself and humans.

It is worth noting that there are no covenants authored by humans between themselves and God.

Among the covenants in Scripture are one with Noah, one with Abraham, one at Sinai, and the New Covenant through Jesus.

Many scholars note a particular form in these covenants, a form from the Ancient Near East called the ‘suzerain’ form. A suzerain is, according to at least one dictionary, “a sovereign or state having some control over another state that is internally autonomous.”

A suzerain covenant is a contract between unequals, one proposed, or more probably imposed, by the superior upon the inferior. This model is a logical model for God to use when making an agreement with humans.

The covenant at Sinai most clearly reflects the patterns of suzerainty covenants in the Ancient Near East (ANE). It follows a six-part model: (a) a statement of what the superior power has already done for the inferior, (b) what the inferior power is asked now to do, (c) a statement of witnesses, (d) penalties for violation of the contract and rewards for its fulfillment, (e) the identity and credential of the superior issuing the covenant, and (f) the preservation and promulgation of the text of the covenant.

It is seen, then, that covenants are written in accord with a strict legal form, which was used for business agreements between government officials at that time.

In addition the suzerainty pattern, there are other patterns of covenant in Scripture. In the case of Abraham, there is a form of covenant which was used in business deals of the time – a sort of ‘private sector,’ in contrast to the suzerainty form.

In Genesis (15:17), the narrative includes “a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch” passing between the halves of animals. It was, in fact, a standard way to confirm a contract among the businessmen of the ANE to split an animal in half, and walk between the halves.

God, being Himself invisible, issued visible symbols of His presence in the forms of the fire-pot and of the torch, and caused them to pass between the halves. God was using a standard business contract form, one which Abraham would recognize.

It’s worth noting that “a deep sleep fell on Abram.” Even more, a “dreadful and great darkness fell upon him.” Abraham is disabled, made utterly passive, and God does the work here.

Another odd narrative is when (Genesis 24:2) Abraham tells his servant, “Put your hand under my thigh.” The language here is euphemistic. The meaning is that the servant should make an oath, not only to Abraham, but also to Abraham’s descendents, symbolized here by the location of the servant’s hand. The servant would thus be answerable and responsible to those descendents in the event of Abraham’s death.

The servants complies. Why? Because this was a recognized and common way of concluded a business agreement in the ANE:

So the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master and swore to him concerning this matter.

The question remaining, then, is about the word itself: what is a ‘covenant’?

The Hebrew word underlying the English text can be rendered a number of ways, including ‘deal’ or ‘agreement’ or ‘binding agreement’ or ‘contract.’

It may seem too worldly to reduce ‘covenant’ to ‘a deal, contract, agreement, binding agreement,’ or a similar term, but by placing the text in its historical context, we see that God is using the forms used by governments and by businessmen in the ANE.

To describe the Scriptural covenants as ‘contracts’ is not to denigrate them, but rather to honor them, by phrasing them in meaningful and impactful terms. These are the terms which form daily life.

To understand further, one must remember that there are various types of contracts, including unilateral contracts and imposed contracts.

God has explained His relationship to humans, not in an ambiguous and mushy sea of emotions, but in the rigorous legal terms of contract law. This is not a cold and distancing view, but rather one which encourages us to rely all the more on God’s generosity.

God’s contract with us is predicated on the fact that He’s saved us. Salvation is the beginning point, not the culmination, of the contract.

Personal Or Private?

Is your faith a personal matter, or a private one? Too often, these words are not carefully distinguished from each other; yet there are significant differences between them.

Something which is ‘personal,’ in the sense of the word which is here relevant, is unique to an individual, or has a unique relation to a particular individual. We speak of a wealthy individual as having a ‘personal’ fortune, or a celebrity making a ‘personal’ appearance. In those examples, the fortune is peculiar to the individual, and nobody else could have made a ‘personal’ appearance for the celebrity.

By contrast, ‘private,’ in the meaning here pertinent, refers to something which is confidential, secret, or undisclosed.

Our faith is always personal, but never private. God calls us to live in a community.

Each of us has a unique relationship to God. Each of us lives out our faith in a unique way. God calls each of us to unique tasks.

But this uniqueness occurs in the context of fellowship. We often pray alone, but sometimes corporately. We often study Scripture alone, but sometimes together. We worship both individually and as a group.

This is reflected in the language of Scripture.

In older English translations, we encounter the word ‘thou’ and in fact, this word has become, in some circles, the hallmark of classic or traditional religious discourse, for good or for ill.

But in those historic translations, the word ‘thou’ is used alongside the word ‘you’ – in, e.g., the King James Version, also called the Authorized Version.

The difference is significant. ‘You’ is plural; ‘thou’ is singular.

Note the various, between the plural and singular second person in, e.g., the early chapters of Deuteronomy (‘thou’ and ‘you’). Is God, through Moses, talking to each individual, or to the whole community?

Hebrews, Israelites, or Jews?

Abraham, his father Terah, and his descendants were known as “Hebrews,” which identified them by their language, genealogy, and culture. The word ‘Hebrew’ occurs less than forty times in the Old Testament.

The word ‘Hebrew’ occurs first in the book of Genesis (14:13). It occurs several other times in that book. It’s also found in Exodus, Deuteronomy, I Samuel, II Kings, II Chronicles, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Jonah.

After they left Egypt, they became known as the “Israelites,” which was a nationalistic identification. The word ‘Israelite’ occurs more frequently than either ‘Hebrew’ or ‘Jew’ and is found more than 700 times in the Hebrew text.

The covenant made at Sinai is understood as being made with the Israelites, not with the Hebrews and not with the Jews.

After the Israelites were taken captive and later released from Babylon, they became known as “Jews,” which identified them with a spiritual re-awakening which was the result of their captivity. The word ‘Jew’ is relatively rare in the Hebrew text (II Kings 25:25, Daniel 3:8 and 3:12, Zechariah 8:32, and multiple references in Nehemiah, Ezra, Esther, and Jeremiah).

The words ‘Israeli’ and ‘Israelis’ refer only to the twentieth and twenty-first century. Do not confuse ‘Israelite’ with ‘Israeli’!

To speak of Jews any time prior to the Babylonian captivity, i.e., anytime prior to approximately 586 B.C., is a retrojection and historically incorrect.

Discerning a cutoff date for the use of ‘Israelite’ is somewhat less clear. In some instances, the translation either into ‘Israelite’ or into simply ‘Israel’ is ambiguous, inasmuch as ‘Israel’ is sometimes simply a name for the man called ‘Jacob,’ but other times is a collective singular for his descendants.

The cutoff date for ‘Israelite’ could be as early as Jacob’s arrival in Egypt, around 1800 B.C., or as late as the writing of the covenant at Sinai, around 1,400 B.C.

Because of this ambiguity, some English translations have over 700 occurrences of ‘Israelite’ in the Tanakh, while others have only several dozen.

The Apocrypha: Should We Read It?

The collection of texts called the Apocrypha presents challenges to the ordinary layman. Are these useful for personal growth, and worth reading? Or are they superstitious fables, to be avoided?

The layman’s uncertainty only grows in the face of institutional silence on the subject.

The standard Apocrypha, also called the Deuterocanonical books in some traditions, consists mostly of additions or appendices to the canonical books of the Hebrew Testament.

Outside of the Apocrypha, there are other texts, many of them additions to the Greek Testament, which are labeled ‘apocryphal.’

The Apocrypha is a defined set of documents, while there is no sharp delineation to the amorphous collection of writings which can be called, in one sense or another, ‘apocryphal’.

If God wanted us to read and study the Apocrypha, then the New Testament would encourage us to do so as much as it encourages us to the read the Old Testament. By its silence about the Apocrypha, the New Testament is placing the Tanakh in a superior position, and the Apocrypha in a lesser position.

If God wanted us to avoid the Apocrypha, then the New Testament would warn us away from it. By not issuing such warnings, the New Testament is permitting the study of the Apocrypha.

Study of these texts is neither obligatory nor forbidden: the New Testament does neither. Luther concludes that the Apocrypha is not “to be held equal with the Bible,” but is nonetheless “profitable for study.”

The Apocrypha has a place in church history. Traditional German Lutheran hymns, such as “Now Thank We All Our God” and those written by Paul Gerhardt, make use of verses taken from the Apocrypha. Luther preached on Apocryphal texts, as did C.F.W. Walther (one of the founders of the Missouri Synod).

It is worth noting the printing history: The Apocrypha was included in all Bibles until the late 1800s. It was part of all English translations, including the King James; it was in Luther's German translations. Luther's view, as mentioned above, was that these books “are not equal to Scripture, but are profitable and good study.” It was included by the Missouri Synod in its printed Bibles until the switch to English in the 1930s and 1940s. It was included in seminary training and sermons until then as well.

In the late 1800s, an anti-Semitic movement began in England to remove the Apocrypha. From that time on, Bibles in the English language have been generally printed without the Apocrypha. This trend is relatively recent in church history, and centers in the English-speaking world.

We can formulate about the Apocrypha two extreme views and a middle ground:

One extreme is to say that the Apocrypha is worthless and perhaps even dangerous, and that it should not be studied or read by Christians.

The other extreme is to say that the Apocrypha is an important part of the Bible, which Christians should study as much as the rest of the Bible.

A more calm view expresses that the Apocrypha is an interesting set of books which contain information which can help us better understand the people, times, and places of the Bible.

The New Testament often uses the phrases “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven” to refer to the church, i.e., to the collection of Jesus followers on earth. The Old Testament does not use this phrase in this way. We see that this phrase come into use in the time between the testaments.

A wisdom text (Wisdom 10:10) in the Apocrypha uses the phrase: “When the righteous fled from his brother's wrath, she guided him in right paths, showed him the kingdom of God, and gave him knowledge of holy things, made him rich in his travels, and multiplied the fruit of his labors.”

The Old Testament uses the phrase “son of man” often, but never “son of God” (with a possible ambiguous exception in Daniel 3:25). The New Testament messianic phrase finds an early appearance in two Apocrypha texts: (II Esdras 2:47) “So he answered me and said to me, 'it is the Son of God, whom they have confessed in the world.' Then I began to commend them greatly that stood so stiffly for the name of the Lord.” (Wisdom 2:18) “For if the just man be the Son of God, he will help him, and deliver him from the hand of his enemies.”

The phrase “son of man" finds continued use: (Judith 8:16) “Do not bind the counsels of the Lord our God: for God is not a man, that he may be threatened; neither is He as the son of man, that he should be wavering.” (Sirach 17:30) "For all things cannot be in men, since a son of man is not immortal."

An important Hebrew idiom for generosity is found both in the Old and New Testaments; the Apocrypha attests the continuity of that idiom between the two. The Hebrew expression for ‘generous,' found in Proverbs (22:9 and 28:22) and used by Jesus Himself (Matthew 6:22 and Luke 11:34), is used: (Sirach 35:8) “Give the Lord honor with a good eye, and diminish not the first fruits of your hands.”

Idle Chatter

What is “idle chatter,” and is it a sin?

The exact phrase will vary, depending on which translation of the Hebrew and Greek phrases one reads. In the book of Proverbs, this passage can be translated as dealing with idle chatter, although the phrase itself does not appear in the text:

The wise in heart accept commands,
but a chattering fool comes to ruin.

Whoever walks in integrity walks securely,
but whoever takes crooked paths will be found out.

Whoever winks maliciously causes grief,
and a chattering fool comes to ruin.

Analysis of the passage reveals that ‘chattering’ means, first, that one is not ‘accepting commands,’ i.e., the “chattering fool” would rather talk than listen, and because he is talking, misses the command, or talks in order that he might miss the command.

Second, ‘chattering’ is malicious. The act of winking can undermine another person, or be a signal for some type of foul play, or be seductive. In any case, the outcome is bad. Winking as such, in general, is not forbidden by the text, but rather such winking as causes sorrow or trouble.

Finally, a ‘chattering fool’ is contrasted with ‘the wise in heart.’

‘Chattering’ is an adjective. The emphasis is on ‘fool.’ There might be other types of fool. The problem is primarily foolishness.

The Hebrew word rendered as ‘chattering’ has also been translated as ‘prating’ or ‘talkative.’ While 10:8 is relatively unproblematic, some scholars read 10:10 differently. Instead of the repetitive parallelism of the LXX, in which two negative personalities receive the consequences of their action, it is possible, looking more to the Masoretic text, to see the second half of the couplet as contrasting a positive personality to the flaw identified in the first half:

He who winks the eye causes trouble,
but he who boldly reproves makes peace.

In any case, there is no textual evidence in Proverbs for a prohibition against all socializing, which some have attempted to find in this passage.

There are sects which would impose a rule that one may speak either only of ‘purely spiritual’ matters, or may speak when the practicalities of life require it, e.g., ask where to find water.

Proverbs does not provide any justification for such a legalistic burden. The stricture also deconstructs itself, inasmuch as the recognition that Jesus is Lord over all aspects of life does not allow the division of conversation into ‘purely spiritual’ and other matters.

Although the phrase ‘idle chatter’ has entered ordinary discourse, it is not found in Scripture. The word ‘chatter’ and the word ‘idle’ do appear in the text, but not together.

Surprisingly, the phrase ‘idle chatter’ is common in certain Buddhist texts.

The New Testament uses the phrase ‘godless chatter’ twice. In Paul’s first letter to Timothy, he concludes with a final exhortation:

Guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have departed from the faith.

In this context, ‘godless chatter’ is that which opposes the doctrine which has been ‘entrusted’ to the believer’s ‘care.’ This ‘godless chatter’ is condemned precisely because of its spiritual content.

In Paul’s second letter to Timothy, he repeats the phrase in a variant of his first admonition:

Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene.

Again the phrase refers to the ‘teaching,’ i.e., to the spiritual or doctrinal content of the speech.

In the New Testament, then, ‘chatter’ does not refer to casual socializing, but instead to false spiritual teachings.

Although the phrase ‘idle chatter’ has entered common usage in modern English, and although it carries for some listeners a moralizing connotation which some may vaguely associate with the cultural aura of Jesus and His followers, the phrase actually finds its origin and home in Buddhist thought.

Among commonly-used English translations, the NKJV alone uses the phrase, in Proverbs 14:23. The NKJV was composed between 1975 and 1980, and so after the point in time at which ‘idle chatter’ had entered common usage. The inclusion of the phrase in the NKJV is, then, a retrojection and does not reflect the Vorlage, i.e., the original Hebrew MSS.

The followers of Jesus are not prohibited from casual social speech, i.e., talking about everyday events and cultural topics.