Skip to content

What’s the precise meaning of the word ‘covenant’ in the Old Testament?

The word “covenant” in the Old Testament has a precise and consistent meaning. It doesn’t just mean ‘relationship’, as is commonly assumed today. Rather, “covenant” refers to a very specific type of relationship. The best definition of the word, which accounts for all of its uses in the Bible, is as follows:

Covenant = an elected, as opposed to natural, relationship of obligation under oath.

Here is a brief summary of some scholarly work on the definition of the word.

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

For more than a century, there has been a scholarly debate over the precise meaning of the Hebrew word בְּרִית (“covenant”). We can summarise the discussion according to four axes: “obligation”, “solemnity”, “relationship” and (more recently) “election”.[1] Each of these axes has been emphasised to a greater or lesser extent in the scholarship under review here.

Earlier understandings tended to play the first three axes off against each other. Wellhausen, Kittel and Gressman viewed a covenant as essentially a set of obligations (usually reciprocal).[2] For Kraetzschmar (1896), it was a means of solemnising such obligations.[3] Pedersen (1914) saw the covenant more as a relationship, with ensuing obligations.[4] This view became somewhat influential, but was seriously challenged by Kutsch’s Verheißung und Gesetz (1973). Kutsch argued that בְּרִית always means “obligation” or “duty”, and does not denote the making of a relationship as such.[5] While בְּרִית can mean “treaty” when used of covenants among humans (i.e. a bilateral acceptance of obligations),[6] when used of Yahweh, בְּרִית never means “agreement” but only unilateral obligation, either self-imposed by Yahweh (a covenant of grace), or imposed by Yahweh on the people (a covenant of law).[7] Kutsch’s view influenced Weinfeld,[8] although Weinfeld also highlights the significance of the common hendiadys between “covenant” and “oath” (i.e. solemnisation).[9]

Barr sought to bring some order to the discussion by calling for the application of functional semantics. For Barr, בְּרִית can be used for a wide range of concepts (expressed in English by various words such as “agreement”, “treaty”, “contract”, “promise”, “obligation”), with solemnity perhaps being the common factor.[10] However, בְּרִית is remarkably restricted in the contexts in which it may occur.[11] A בְּרִית may be made, kept, broken, left, remembered or forgotten; it has certain material or visible signs such as the ark, the book, the tablets and the blood; and it is usually “forever”. That is about all the Biblical writers do with the word.[12] Nobody ever counts or numbers covenants. Nobody ever loves, meditates upon or rejoices in a covenant (except in the later Qumran literature). Nobody ever recounts or retells a covenant, as they do God’s other mighty acts and words. In the light of the New Perspective, we might add here that nobody in the Bible ever “gets in” or “stays in” a covenant either.[13]

Dumbrell, returning to an older view but modifying it somewhat, sees the relational factor in a covenant as foundational and pervasive. He argues that a covenant does not initiate a relationship. Rather “[w]hat the covenant does is formalize and give concrete expression to a set of existing arrangements [. . . T]he covenant will give firm quasi-legal backing to an arrangement which is already in existence”.[14] In other words, a covenant ceremony adds obligation and solemnity to a pre-existing “covenantal” relationship. He cites the various “human” covenants (Gen 21:22–32, 26:26–33; Josh 9; 1 Sam 11:1–3, 18:3; 2 Sam 3:12–21, 5:1–3; 1 Kgs 20:31–34; 2 Kgs 11:17) as examples. On this basis he posits a “covenant with creation” that exists prior to its formalisation with Noah.[15] This would seem to provide a licence for Dumbrell to conceive the whole of reality in covenantal terms.

The problem with Dumbrell’s view is that it replaces the specific biblical usage of the word “covenant” with a more wide-ranging meaning that could, in theory, cover any kind of relationship. It cannot, of course, be disputed that when a covenant is made between two parties, there is some prior “relationship” between these two parties (how or why would two complete strangers spontaneously make a covenant?). However, covenants achieve much more than merely “legalising” existing sets of relationships. For example, the covenant between Joshua and the Gibeonites (Josh 9:15–20) does not merely formalise a pre-existing relationship, it creates a new relationship of peace where previously there had been enmity, even if that enmity was hidden when the covenant was made. Hence “covenant” is not simply synonymous with “relationship”; a covenant is a specific type of relationship.

Hugenberger provides a comprehensive and integrated inductive definition of בְּרִית in his defence of the “covenantal” nature of Old Testament marriage. Decrying “the now discredited notion that ‘covenant [בְּרִית]’ is essentially a synonym for ‘relationship’”,[16] Hugenberger maintains that there is now a “substantial scholarly consensus” about “the major elements which typically comprise a covenant”. His working definition of a בְּרִית in its normal sense is “an elected, as opposed to natural, relationship of obligation under oath”.[17] This definition of “covenant” is not apriori, but comes from a careful examination of the occurrences of the word in their ot context. We have good reason, therefore, to adopt it as our working definition.

A covenant is elected because it is always entered into by choice rather than necessity. Hence “בְּרִית is nowhere employed of naturally occurring relationships and the ordinary obligations which attend them, such as those which exist between parents and a child”.[18] A covenant is relational because it always involves two parties.[19] This explains the common use of familial terminology to describe a covenant, even though the parties previously had no kinship bond.[20] But a covenant is not just any type of relationship; it is specifically a relationship of obligation, because it always binds one or both of the parties to certain specified duties.[21] Finally, a covenant is always solemnified by an oath or oath-sign (e.g. a solemn rite).[22] In fact, בְּרִית may be used as a shorthand for אוֹת בְּרִית, “covenantal sign” (e.g. circumcision, Gen 17:9–14).[23]

[1] Based on Gordon P. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law & Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (Vetus Testamentum Supplements; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), 11.

[2] Ernest W. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), 13.

[3] Nicholson, God and his People, 16.

[4] Nicholson, God and his People, 18–20.

[5] Nicholson, God and his People, 90.

[6] Nicholson, God and his People, 91–92.

[7] Nicholson, God and his People, 106–8.

[8] M. Weinfeld, בְּרִית”, TDOT 2:253–79 (esp. 255). See also H. Hegermann, “διαθήκη”, EDNT 1:299.

[9] Weinfeld, TDOT 2:256.

[10] James Barr, “Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant”, in Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 23–38 (31).

[11] Barr, “Semantic Notes”, 33.

[12] Barr, “Semantic Notes”, 34.

[13] This language comes from Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 17.

[14] William J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: An Old Testament Covenantal Theology (Exeter: Paternoster, 1984), 16–20.

[15] Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 22–26. Dumbrell also employs a semantic argument, distinguishing the perpetuation (הֵקִים) of a covenant relationship from its establishment (כָּרַת). The appropriateness of this distinction had earlier been questioned by Barr, “Semantic Notes”, 33. Paul R. Williamson, “Covenant”, in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (ed. T. Desmond Alexander, David W. Baker; Downers Grove: IVP, 2003), 139–55 (142–43) demonstrates the semantic weakness of Dumbrell’s case.

[16] Hugenberger, Marriage, 4.

[17] Hugenberger, Marriage, 11, emphasis mine.

[18] Hugenberger, Marriage, 180; see also Nicholson, God and his People, 215–16.

[19] Hugenberger, Marriage, 176.

[20] Hugenberger, Marriage, 177–79.

[21] Hugenberger, Marriage, 181. According to Hugenberger, there is some debate about whether a covenant can be entirely “unilateral”, such that only one of the two parties is under obligation; but Hugenberger’s own case is not affected by this debate because he is interested in marriage, which is always bilateral.

[22] Hugenberger, Marriage, 182–83.

[23] Hugenberger, Marriage, 173–74.

Full bibliography

Published inCovenant

Publications by Lionel Windsor:

  • The Named Jew and the Name of God: A new reading of Romans 2:17–29

All posts

Recent blog posts

  • Yes no“Paul within Judaism” and Romans 2:17–29
    My article on Romans 2:17–29 supports one key feature of the "Paul within Judaism" perspective, but undermines another common feature.
  • Photo by Engin Akyurt on UnsplashThe goals of Bible teaching (1 Timothy 1:1–11)
    In gospel ministry and Bible teaching, if you’re not committed to the right goal, or if you have the wrong goal, it’s not just a matter of being ineffective: you’ll be downright dangerous. So what is that goal? What are you seeking to achieve in your gospel ministry and Bible teaching - now and in the future? And how would you know if you’d done it right? This passage in 1 Timothy 1:1–11 speaks to this issue of the goals of ministry and teaching. It challenges us to think about our own aims in teaching, and to see how important it is to get it right. A sermon preached at Moore College Men's Chapel on 14 July, 2021.
  • Slow-burn crazy-making behaviours. Photo by Vadim Sadovski on UnsplashSlow-burn crazy-making behaviours: recognising and responding
    Do you know someone who seems to have drama and problems constantly appear around them? Whenever you relate to this person, perhaps you find yourself feeling vaguely guilty, or uncomfortable, or put down, or obligated to affirm them? Do you often feel like you’re questioning yourself and your actions because of what they say and do? You don’t feel the same way around other people; it’s just this individual who seems to attract these dramas and give rise to these feelings in you. If that’s the case, the chances are it’s not you who is the problem. It’s quite possible that the person you’re thinking of is exhibiting a pattern of behaviours that can be significantly detrimental to you and to others. This pattern of behaviours is hard to pin down; it doesn’t seem too serious in the short term, and indeed it might appear quite normal to a casual acquaintance. However, over the long term, it can cause serious problems for you and others. That’s especially true in close-knit communities, like families, churches and other Christian ministries.
  • Romans Crash CourseRomans Crash Course (video)
    A 75 minute video course in the Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans designed for church members and leaders.
  • The Mistranslation "Call Yourself a Jew" in Romans 2:17: A Mythbusting StoryThe mistranslation “call yourself a Jew”: A myth-busting story (Romans 2:17)
    This is a story about a scholarly myth and how I had the chance to bust it. I’m talking here about a small but significant 20th century biblical translation: “call yourself” instead of “are called” in Romans 2:17.
  • Breaking news: Religious Scandal in RomeThe named Jew and the name of God: A new reading of Romans 2:17–29
    I've just had an article published in the journal Novum Testamentum. In it, I provide a detailed defense of my new reading of Romans 2:17–29. This passage is not primarily about Jewish salvation - rather it's primarily about Jewish teaching and God's glory.
  • Photo by Joseph d'Mello on UnsplashPreaching the Pastoral Epistles
    A one-hour audio seminar with principles and ideas for preaching the biblical books 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus ("Pastoral Epistles")
  • A Crash Course in Romans: Livestream
    Here's a <90 minute "Crash Course in Romans" I'm running on Monday evening 1 Feb 2021. It's aimed at leaders and any interested members of my church St Augustine's Neutral Bay and Church by the Bridge Kirribilli. Anyone is welcome to watch the livestream.
  • Photo by Dmitry Ratushny on UnsplashWhat’s wrong with the world? Is there hope? (Ephesians)
    Guilt, weakness, spiritual slavery, prejudice, arrogance, tribalism, conflict, war, victimhood, persecution, pain, suffering, futility, ignorance, lying, deceit, anger, theft, greed, pornography, sexual sin, darkness, fear, drunkenness, substance abuse, domestic abuse, workplace abuse, spiritual powers... In Paul's letter to the Ephesians, he says many things about the problems we face in this world. He also gives us wonderful reasons to find life, hope and healing in Jesus Christ. Along the way, he provides practical teachings about how to respond and live together.
  • What does Ephesians say about reconciliation?
    We humans are not very good at living up close with others. This is especially true when we have a history of conflict with those others. Reconciliation isn't easy. No matter how much you might want healing, it’s hardly ever a matter of just everybody getting on and pretending the hurts didn’t happen. In Paul's letter to the Ephesians, he says some very important, fundamental things about peace and reconciliation, and gives many other very practical teachings about how to live together in light of these truths.

On this site

All content copyright Lionel Windsor