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.
