Skip to content

How should you look for ‘covenantal’ ideas in Paul?

How do you look for ‘covenantal’ ideas in Paul when he only rarely uses the word ‘covenant’?

(This post is part of a series. See here for an introduction to the series.)

Of course, we must admit that “covenantal” concepts may be present in a Pauline passage without the word διαθήκη appearing. Porter, for example, suggests that a serious investigation of the “covenant” concept in Paul is needed. Such an investigation would go beyond naïve word studies and take account of the concept of “semantic domain”. A proper lexical study of “covenant” in Paul must take into account patterns of usage, synonyms, antonyms, syntactical patterns, literary types, situation and culture, etc.[1] Porter adopts a particular definition of covenant: “the salvific relationship between God and his people”.[2] On this basis, he suggests that we exclude instances where διαθήκη means “last will and testament” in the Hellenistic sense (Gal 3:15, possibly Gal 3:17; cf. Heb 9:15–17),[3] and then examine other words that may be related to the concept of covenant, such as “mediator” (μεσίτης, Gal 3:19, 20),[4] “promise” (ἐπαγγελ-, Gal 3, Rom 4:13, 16, 20, Rom 9:8, Eph 2:12),[5] and “ministry” or “service” (διακον-, 2 Cor 3).[6] Porter claims that the “righteousness” (δικ-) concept, too, overlaps significantly with the “covenant” concept by virtue of a shared concern with the relationship between God and people.[7]

Porter is correct in warning that theological concepts cannot be restricted to the use of an individual lexical item. However, there is some stability in the sense of words, especially technical words, and so any overlap between word and concept must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. In this case, as we shall see, there is a strong connection between the Old Testament term בְּרִית. (almost exclusively translated διαθήκη in the LXX)[8] and the biblical concept of the covenant, with which Paul would have been familiar.[9] We shall also see that every instance of διαθήκη in the New Testament (including Gal 3:15) corresponds very closely with the ot word term בְּרִית / διαθήκη rather than the Hellenistic “last will and testament”. Hence an investigation of the uses of διαθήκη in Paul, although incomplete in itself, is the most logical starting point for a broader investigation of the covenant concept in his thought.

Furthermore, semantic domain analysis needs strict controls, because it can easily become too dependent upon the subjective judgments of those who perform the semantic mappings. Porter’s article itself is subject to this criticism. He adopts an apriori definition of “covenant” (“the salvific relationship between God and his people”)[10] but shows no inclination to modify his definition in the light of his discoveries. Porter relies upon the Louw-Nida semantic domain lexicon, which groups the “covenantal” uses of διατίθεμαι (34.43) and διαθήκη (34.44) together with “justify” (δικαιόω 34.46), righteous (δίκαιος 34.47) and other words under the general topic “establish or confirm a relation” (34.42–34.49).[11] Louw-Nida also explicitly denies a forensic element in the δικαι-* word-group, regarding relational (covenantal) and legal categories as mutually exclusive (34.46).[12] But there are many questionable assumptions in these classifications. There are many different types of relationship. Just because covenants are “relational”, and righteousness is “relational”, it does not necessarily follow that righteousness is covenantal. Neither are forensic categories necessarily inimical to relationships. In fact, Seifrid’s careful analysis of the terminology suggests that “righteousness” is much more connected to “creational” categories of relationship than “covenantal”; that is, “righteousness” refers to a relationship with God as creator and judge, which implies both normative and forensic categories.[13] While the semantic fields of “righteousness” and “covenant” may overlap at times in the Old Testament, New Testament and intertestamental literature, “righteousness” is a concept fundamentally distinct from “covenant”.[14]. Hence Porter’s analysis collapses under the weight of his unexamined assumptions.

Dunn’s view of the covenant in Paul is even more subjective. He argues that every reference to the actual word διαθήκη in the Pauline corpus is incidental, even rhetorical. But because of Dunn’s prior convictions about the covenantal continuity between Christian believers and historical Israel, he insists that Paul’s whole discourse has an implicit underlying “covenant theology”.[15] He explains this discrepancy by positing that the covenantal relationship between God and his people was a basic uncontroversial assumption shared by Paul and his opponents, so Paul usually had no need to mention the word “covenant”.[16] This is not very helpful for those who do not share Dunn’s presuppositions.


[1] Porter, “Covenant in Paul”, 273.

[2] Porter, “Covenant in Paul”, 275.

[3] Porter, “Covenant in Paul”, 275–79.

[4] Porter, “Covenant in Paul”, 280–81; cf. J. Gurht, O. Becker, “Covenant, Guarantee, Mediator”, NIDNTT 1:365–76

[5] Porter, “Covenant in Paul”, 283–84.

[6] Porter, “Covenant in Paul”, 284.

[7] Porter, “Covenant in Paul”, 281–83.

[8] In Gen 14:13 בַּעַל בְּרִית (“covenant-partner’) is translated with συνωμότης (“confederate’). This is the only exception not due to textual variations (cf. Deut 9:15; 1 Sam 4:3-5; 1 Kgs 11:11, 19:10; 2 Kgs 17:15; Job 5:23; Jer 11:8; Ezek 20:37; 2 Chr 23:1).

[9] Moisés Silva, “Old Testament in Paul”, DPL 630–42.

[10] Porter, “Covenant in Paul”, 275.

[11] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene P. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (2 vols.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1988), 1:451–53.

[12] Porter, “Covenant in Paul”, 281–84.

[13] Mark A. Seifrid, “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism”, in Justification and Variegated Nomism Volume 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien and Mark A. Seifrid; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen, 2001), 415–42; Seifrid, “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language”. Porter “Covenant in Paul”, 282, quotes Seifrid, but confesses ignorance of Seifrid’s understanding of the connection (or lack thereof) between righteousness and covenant.

[14] Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 286–96.

[15] James D. G. Dunn, “Did Paul Have a Covenant Theology?: Reflections on Romans 9.4 and 11.27”, in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C. R. de Roo; Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 71; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 287–307.

[16] See also E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of the Patterns of Religion (London: SCM, 1977), 420–21.

Full bibliography

Published inCovenant

Publications by Lionel Windsor:

  • Lift Your Eyes: Reflections on Ephesians

Recent blog posts

  • The Shambles, York, UKBuilt together (Ephesians 2:20–22)
    Is every church on its own? How are Christian believers connected with other believers with whom we don’t meet regularly: in our region, nation, and world?
  • “Do not weep for me, weep for yourselves…” (Luke 23:28)
    Why do Christians lament? Sometimes we lament out of sympathy, but sometimes we weep for ourselves. This is the kind of lament that Jesus calls for here.
  • Busts in Vatican Museum, RomeNo second-class Christians (Ephesians 2:19)
    Even if we don’t say it out loud, we can often act as if there are different classes of Christians. But the gospel teaches us there are no second-class Christians.
  • Photo by Larm Rmah on UnsplashChrist the missionary (Ephesians 2:17–18)
    Christ is a missionary. Christ does stranger evangelism. Christ preaches to the choir. Christ crosses cultures. Christ brings peace. So says the Apostle Paul. What does he mean?
  • Fragment of the Berlin WallChrist the wall breaker (Ephesians 2:14–16)
    In this broken and rebellious world, our healthy boundaries often become hostile walls. But the cross of Christ breaks down walls and brings reconciliation.
  • Photo by John Tyson on UnsplashThe blood that brings us close (Ephesians 2:11–13)
    Despite our best desires and efforts, we humans are not very good at living up close with others. This has become devastatingly obvious in the recent Christchurch shootings. Yet in his letter to the Ephesians, Paul talks about a conflict that really was healed. This passage is about a real closeness that all believers in Christ must remember: a closeness that is fundamental to our identity.
  • Photo by foundinbklyn on Flickr (CC BY 2.0)Good works and salvation: What’s the connection? (Ephesians 2:8–10)
    A joke letter from an Australian church offering its financial donors priority access to heaven raises questions for all of us. Do our good deeds give us access to heaven? Or are our good deeds irrelevant? Where do our good deeds fit when it comes to salvation?
  • Security Threat. Photo by Andrew Neel on UnsplashA question of security (Ephesians 2:6–7)
    As I write this, New Zealand is shocked and grieving. My own nation Australia is shocked and grieving too, along with them. But news stories about terror attacks and shootings in our world are far too common, aren’t they? And whenever we hear of them, they bring to mind all sorts of questions. One of them is the question of security. As we grieve for the victims, we also think a little about ourselves. We wonder whether some day we too might be in the wrong place at the wrong time when a seemingly random attack happens. It’s unsettling. It’s not just a matter of national security; it’s also a matter of our own personal security. Paul is talking in Ephesians 2:6–7 about a security that belongs to everyone who believes in Jesus Christ. It’s not a guarantee of perfect national security or job security or financial security or security in relationships and health. Nor is it a guarantee that we will always feel perfectly secure. But it is still a real security, more unshakeable and deep-rooted than any other kind of security could be. So what is this security, and where does it come from?
  • Walking past a telephone booth in OxfordThis love (Ephesians 2:4–5)
    “God loves you”: if I say just those three words, you may not hear what I want you to hear. This is because of a communication problem that arises whenever Christians try to talk about biblical concept of God’s “love”. When we say “love” we mean one thing—something wonderful and life-changing. But the word means quite different things to many English speakers. For example, the word “love” often means “strong desire”. So if I say “God loves you” then it might sound like I’m saying “God has strong feelings for you”. Another, increasingly common, understanding of “love” is the idea of “unconditional approval”. In this view, the way to “love” somebody is to affirm and approve of everything they do. So if I don’t approve of your actions and actively affirm everything you do, then by definition I’m not “loving” you (in fact, by definition I’m “hating” you). On this common definition of “love”, if I say “God loves you” then it might sound like I’m saying “God affirms everything about you and your actions”. But that’s not what the Bible means by God’s “love” either. Given this communication problem, how can I best explain the idea of God’s “love”? Well, it’s not actually that hard. The best way is to see how the word works when the Bible uses it. In Ephesians 2:4–5, Paul uses the word “love”. But he doesn’t just say “God loves you”. He explains and spells out what that love means. And he helps us to see what God’s love really means, and how amazing it is.
  • Entering a tomb in PompeiiWe too: the offenders (Ephesians 2:3)
    Judgmentalism. It’s a bigger problem than we think. Judgmentalism is certainly a danger for God’s people. That’s because God’s people have God’s word. God’s word helps God’s people to see how wonderful God is, and how terrible humanity is in comparison. But Ephesians 2:3 contains two highly significant, emphatic words: “we too”. We too, says Paul, were the offenders. We, too, were the disobedient. These words aren’t talking about all those horrible people “out there”. They’re talking about God’s people. And it’s something we, too, need to hear. These words tell us something incredibly important—something that we ignore at our peril.

On this site

All content copyright Lionel Windsor