Skip to content

Some important features of Paul’s use of the word ‘covenant’

We’ve seen a couple of approaches to the task of detecting ‘covenant’ ideas in Paul. These approaches are, in the end, hopelessly subjective, because they start with an assumed definition of ‘covenant’ which is then read into Paul’s texts. A much better approach is to begin with Paul’s actual use of the word ‘covenant’ and see what he makes of it.

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

Here are some important features of Paul’s use of the word διαθήκη (Gal 3:15, 3:17, 4:24; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6, 14; Rom 9:4, 11:27; Eph 2:12).

Firstly, plurality is a significant feature in at least seven of the nine instances of διαθήκη in Paul. The plural form is used twice (Rom 9:4, Eph 2:12). In five of the instances, one covenant is compared or contrasted with another: a covenant ratified by God (Gal 3:15) has the same binding force as a human covenant (Gal 3:17); Sarah and Hagar are metaphorically two different covenants (Gal 4:24); Paul and Timothy are ministers of a new covenant (2 Cor 3:6), whereas there is a veil over the public reading of the old covenant (2 Cor 3:14). Furthermore, the word καινή (“new”) in reference to the covenant in Jesus’ blood (1 Cor 11:25) probably implies a previous covenant or covenants. Hence we should expect Paul’s concept of “covenant” to have some pluriformity.

Secondly, every instance of διαθήκη occurs in a context in which the Old Testament is unmistakeably on view. The Abraham narrative (Genesis 12–22) features prominently in ot citations in Galatians 3–4 (Gal 3:6 // Gen 15:6; Gal 3:8 // Gen 12:3, 18:18, 22:18, cf. 26:4; Gal 3:16 // Gen 13:15, 17:8; Gal 4:22 // Gen 16:15, 21:2; Gal 4:30 // Gen 21:10). Other relevant ot background includes the “covenant” of law given at Sinai (cf. Gal 4:24 with Exod 19:5), the stipulations and curses of this law (Gal 3:10 // Deut 27:26; Gal 3:12 // Lev 18:5; Gal 3:13 // Deut 21:23), the role of Moses as glorious mediator of the law (2 Cor 3:6–7, 14 // Exod 34:29–35), the covenant of priestly ministry (cf. 2 Cor 3:6 with Isa 61:5–9, Jer 33:20–22, Mal 2:4–9, Neh 13:29), the covenants of peace and redemption with the eschatological Israel / Jerusalem (Gal 4:26–27 // Isa 54:1, 10; Rom 11:27 // Isa 27:9, 59:21; cf. Isa 65–66), and the “new covenant” through which the law is written on the heart (2 Cor 3:6 // Jer 31:31–33, cf. 2 Cor 3:2–3). Also on view may be passages which describe a “covenant” in terms of blood or suffering (cf. 1 Cor 11:25 with Isa 49:7–8, Zech 9:11). More generally, the covenants are associated strongly with national Israel. The covenants belong to Israel “according to the flesh” (Rom 9:4) and are connected with “the commonwealth of Israel” (Eph 2:12).

Thirdly, Paul is particularly interested in the outcome of the covenants, especially insofar as they fulfil a promise or promises. There are covenants “of [the] promise” (Eph 2:12). An annulled covenant would invalidate the promise of inheritance (Gal 3:17–18). Two covenants are metaphorically mothers who “bear” children, either “into slavery” (Gal 4:24) or “of promise” (Gal 4:28). The ministry of the new covenant (2 Cor 3:6) results in life (verse 7) and righteousness (verse 9). Israel, who possesses the covenants (among other things) is the one from whom, according to the flesh, comes Christ who is God over all (Rom 9:4–5). The covenant with Israel results in salvation and the removal of sins (Rom 11:27). Negatively, being aliens with respect to the covenants of the promise means hopeless godlessness (Eph 2:12).

Fourthly, two of the instances associate covenants with Christ’s blood (i.e. his crucifixion). Jesus says that the cup is the new covenant “in my blood” (1 Cor 11:25, cf. Matt 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20). Those who were “aliens of the covenants of the promise” (Eph 2:12) are “brought near” by “Christ’s blood” (Eph 2:13) and are subsequently no longer “aliens” (Eph 2:19). This points to a connection between covenant and sacrifice.

Furthermore, contrary to the popular assumption that “covenant” is a corporate or ecclesiological word, Paul never uses διαθήκη as a designation for the people of God.[1] He prefers terms such as “assembly” (e.g. 1 Cor 1:2, 2 Cor 1:1, Gal 1:2, Eph 1:22, 1 Thess 1:1, 2 Thess 1:1), “brothers” (Rom 1:13, 1 Cor 1:10, 2 Cor 1:8, Gal 1:11, Phil 1:12, Col 1:2, 1 Thess 1:4, 2 Thess 1:3, 1 Tim 4:6) and “saints” (Rom 1:7, 1 Cor 1:2, 2 Cor 1:1, Eph 1:1, Phil 1:1, Col 1:2, 1 Tim 5:10).


[1] Ellen J. Christiansen, The Covenant in Judaism & Paul: A Study of Ritual Boundaries as Identity Markers (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 27; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), 270.

Full bibliography

Published inCovenant

Publications by Lionel Windsor:

  • Lift Your Eyes: Reflections on Ephesians

Recent blog posts

  • Photo by Ben White on UnsplashThe gospel for criminals (Ephesians 4:28)
    Paul preaches the gospel to thieves. God’s grace gives us a new identity. That means we have work to do: not so we can take, but so we can give.
  • Sun setting on ruinsGrace and anger (Ephesians 4:26–27)
    Whether our anger is right or wrong, we can’t deny it’s there. But because we belong to Christ, we must make it a priority to deal with anger. How?
  • Is God Green? By Lionel WindsorIs God Green? Audio/video links
    Here are some links to audio and video for events I've spoken at recently based on my book: Is God Green?
  • Donald Robinson Selected Works volumes 3 and 4Donald Robinson on the Origins of the Anglican Church League
    History matters. It makes us question things we take for granted, it helps us to understand who we are, and it gives us a broader perspective on the issues we face today. One example – relevant for evangelical Anglicans, especially in Sydney – is an essay in Donald Robinson Selected Works, volume 4 (recently published by the Australian Church Record and Moore College). The essay is called “The Origins of the Anglican Church League” (pp. 125–52). It’s a republication of a paper given in 1976 by Donald Robinson (1922–2018), former Moore College Vice-Principal and later Archbishop of Sydney. In the paper, Robinson traces some of the currents and issues that led to the formation of the Anglican Church League in the early twentieth century. The essay is classic Donald Robinson: full of surprises, yet definitely still worth reading today to help us gain perspective on issues for evangelical Anglicans past and present.
  • Busts with shadowsTelling the truth (Ephesians 4:25)
    Truth is a rare commodity in our world. But Christians are people of the truth. The gospel of Christ demands that we value and speak the truth in every situation.
  • Boy reaching for the sky. Photo by Samuel Zeller on UnsplashBecome who you are (Ephesians 4:22–24)
    The gospel teaches us to change—to put off the old and put on the new. This change doesn’t save us, but it matters. It’s all about becoming who we are.
  • Ducks learning in a circleLearning Christ (Ephesians 4:20–21)
    Christian communities are places of learning and teaching. This isn’t just about transmitting information: Christians are people who “learn Christ”.
  • Ampelmann, BerlinTurn around and walk the other way (Ephesians 4:17–19)
    Darkness, futility, and desire: this is the way the world walks. Paul doesn’t write these things so that we can gloat or judge. He writes so we can repent, and live.
  • Photo by Kira auf der Heide on UnsplashPlaying your part (Ephesians 4:16)
    Paul’s vision for Christ’s body is unity in diversity. It’s not just flat uniformity, nor is it just diversity for the sake of diversity. It’s diversity for a common purpose.
  • Photo by Ben White on UnsplashThe truth in love: A key principle for church growth (Ephesians 4:14–15)
    Paul’s principle for the growth of Christ’s body isn’t about presentation or organisation. It’s more fundamental: “speaking the truth in love”.

On this site

All content copyright Lionel Windsor