Forget the Channel

Before we look in detail at Paul’s use of the word “covenant”, it’s worth pausing briefly to review what we have learned about the use of the word “covenant” in the Old Testament, second-temple Jewish literature, and Greek sources. In particular, two important conclusions flow from our survey of the idea of “covenant” in the background to Paul’s thought.

Firstly, the concept of “covenant” takes many different shapes and sizes. While all covenants have the same basic nature (an elected, as opposed to natural, relationship of obligation under oath), there are various types of divine-human covenants in the documents we have examined:[1]

1. a covenant between God and Abram (and his seed), to make him into a geopolitical nation (Gen 15).
2. a related but distinct covenant between God and Abraham (and his seed), to bring about international blessing contingent upon his loyalty (Gen 17). This covenant involves the sign of circumcision (which seems to signify the restraint of the flesh), and is ratified by the sacrifice of his son.
3. a covenant of law with Israel, related to the covenant of Genesis 17. If Israel is obedient to God, they will be a source of international blessing (e.g. Exod. 19). This covenant is broken by Israel as soon as it is received.
4. a covenant of mediation between Moses and God, upon which the covenant with Israel becomes contingent (Exod 33-34).
5. a related covenant of mediation between God and the Levitical priesthood (Num 25:11-13, Neh 13:28, Jer 33:21, Mal 2:4). This involved offering sacrifices and teaching the law. This is emphasised as a covenant of great glory in Sirach 45.
6. the servant of Yahweh, who is “a covenant [for the] people” and (therefore) “a light [for the] nations” (Isa 42:6, 49:8).
7. a covenant between God and redeemed Israel, that they will minister to the nations (Isa 59-61). This also appears to be the expectation of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
8. the single, overarching covenant of human obligation expounded in Jubilees.
9. Philo’s allegorical interpretations of the covenants as “bequests”
10. the unique sociological view expounded by the Qumran “Community of Those Entering the New Covenant”, in which concepts such as “community”, “entry” and boundary markers begin to make an appearance. This kind of view of the meaning of “covenant” is also often assumed by proponents of the New Perspective on Paul, even though it is the one that is farthest removed from the Old Testament.

The task of identifying any “covenantal” background to Paul’s thought must take this pluriformity into consideration. We cannot simply speak of “the covenant”, as if it is an easily identifiable, monolithic entity. We must understand which covenant (or covenants), if any, Paul is speaking about in any given passage. This observation, of course, also follows from the fact that Paul himself tends to speak of a plurality of covenants.

Secondly, there is no indication in these documents that blessing for the nations is contingent upon their “entering into” any of these covenants. The fulfillment of the covenants by Israel does, indeed, bring salvific blessing to the nations, but there is no requirement that they must be a party to any of the covenants. A salvific relationship with God, therefore, is a much broader concept than the narrower category of “covenant”.

---

[1] In addition to covenants that we have not examined: e.g. the covenant with David in Psalm 89.

We asked, in our previous post in this series, whether we could detect a shift in the second temple literature away from the pervasive Old Testament understanding of the word “covenant” (“an elected relationship of obligation under oath”) towards a more sociological concept (akin to the New Perspective’s emphasis). The answer was “no” – apart from one exception. This post discusses the exception.

Of all the second-temple documents we have surveyed, the writings of the Qumran community are the most strikingly radical in their interpretations of the Old Testament “covenant” concept. At Qumran, covenantal vocabulary became inseparably bound up with sociological, sectarian concepts such as “community”, “entry” and boundary markers.[1] The history of the community helps us to explain this transformation: it seems that after being expelled by the Jerusalem priesthood, this community was established outside Jerusalem by its leader, the “Teacher of Righteousness”. They believed that the rest of Israel had committed apostasy. Their own community was the only true remnant of Israel, and therefore the unique locus of God’s covenant with Israel. The particular rules of the community (involving worship, calendar observance, etc.) were coterminous with the boundaries of the new (or renewed) covenant thus established: all other Jews were outside the covenant.[2]

The Qumran community describes itself as “The Community of Those Entering the new covenant” (יחד באי הברית החדשה).[3] A person’s commitment is described in terms of “entry” (בוא) into the Covenant (1QS 2.12, 18; 5.8, 20; 6.15; CD 2.2; 3.10; 6.11, 19; 8.1; 9.3; 13.14; 15.5; 19.14; 20.25; 1QH^a 13.23; 21.9); “crossing over” (עבר) to the Covenant (1QS 1.16, 18, 20, 24; 2.10; CD 1.20; 16.12); and “holding fast to” (חזק) the Covenant (1QS 5.3; 1QSb 1.2; CD 20.27; 1QH^a 10.28; 12.39; 23.9).[4] It seems that the Qumran community had taken concepts that initially applied to the initiation of the covenant relationship between God and Israel, and has transformed them by speaking of an individual entering into an already established covenant. The verb עבר, which in Deut 29:11 refers to the whole community “crossing over” (the Jordan) into a covenant, is used in the initiation ceremony for an individual who is “inducted into” the covenant.[5] Food laws, in particular, served as important marks distinguishing between the Qumran covenant community and the Gentiles and other Jewish groups who were “outside” the covenant.[6]

Interestingly, while this sociological “grammar” of covenant appears to be unique to the Qumran sectarians in the Second Temple period, it finds many parallels in the covenantal grammar of the New Perspective.[7] Here is an example of this “sociological” use of covenantal grammar from Tom Wright, which is far more akin to the Qumran sectarians than to the use of the word ‘covenant’ in the Old Testament or other second-temple writings (italic emphasis original, bold emphasis mine):

The second element in justification is of course … that of the covenant. The question is … Who are the members of God’s single family, and how can you tell? … It is to recognize that this [covenantal theology] is part of the root meaning of the words Paul is using, that Torah itself was the covenant charter which left Israel with the puzzling question, how it could be fulfilled and thus do its job of designating God’s people and keeping them on track. ‘The works of Torah’ could not do it, partly because Israel failed lamentably to perform them (2:21-24) and partly because, to the extent that those “works” focused on the things which kept Jews separate from Gentiles, they would have prevented the establishment of the single family God always had in mind … But this “covenantal”, and hence “ecclesiological”, meaning of “justification” …[8]

For Wright, “covenantal theology” has sociological / ecclesiological distinctions at its heart. While this kind of strong association of sociological terms with the covenant is akin to the Qumran sectarians, it is quite different to the use of the word “covenant” in the Old Testament or in any of the other second temple texts we have examined. And, we shall argue, it is also quite different to Paul’s use of the word “covenant” as well.

---

[1] Craig A. Evans, “Covenant in the Qumran Literature”, 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), 55–80.

[2] Evans, “Qumran Literature”, 79-80.

[3] David N. Freedman and David Miano, “People of the New Covenant”, 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), 7–26 (22–23).

[4] Evans, “Qumran Literature”, 63.

[5] Martin G. Abegg, “The Covenant of the Qumran Sectarians”, 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), 81–97 (esp. 85–86); Evans, “Qumran Literature”, 63.

[6] Stephen A. Reed, “The Role of Food as Related to Covenant in Qumran Literature”, 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), 129–64.

[7] See also the quotations in Stephen Westerholm, “The ‘New Perspective’ at Twenty-Five”, in Justification and Variegated Nomism Volume 2: The Paradoxes of Paul (ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien and Mark A. Seifrid; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 1–38.

[8] Wright, Tom. Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (London: SPCK, 2009), 187-88.

Full bibliography

We have seen, in our series so far, the way that the word “covenant” is used in the Old Testament. A covenant is not a catch-all term for “relationship”, but it refers to a specific kind of relationship: “an elected relationship of obligation under oath”. Furthermore, although some of the covenants are made between God and a national entity (Israel, or Abraham’s seed), the word “covenant” itself is not a sociological term, and is not associated with sociological categories like “community”, “entry” or “boundary markers”. Hence the New Perspective’s emphasis on “covenant” as a “sociological” term is not supported by the Old Testament. Indeed, many of the important covenants are made with individuals rather than nations (e.g. Phineas and David). Can we detect a shift away from the Scriptural use of the word “covenant” towards a more sociological usage amongst Jews in the centuries around the writing of the New Testament? The answer is no, except for one rather striking example.

In this post we will look at the usages of the word “covenant” amongst second-temple Jews that conform closely to the Old Testament’s usage. In the next post we will look at the exception.

Many of the writings use διαθήκη in more or less the same way we find in the Old Testament, albeit with differing emphases. The close association between covenant and oath continues (e.g. Wis 18:22). The Psalms of Solomon refer to the covenant as a firm, binding promise made by God to the nation (Pss. Sol. 9:8–11, 10:4, 17:15). The books of the Maccabees concentrate on “the covenant of the fathers” (1 Macc 2:20, 2 Macc 8:15), which is associated particularly with circumcision (1 Macc 1:15) and the law (1 Macc 1:57, 63; 2:27, 50). Human loyalty to the covenant will be rewarded by divine loyalty in crushing Israel’s enemies (1 Macc 4:10). The “covenant of everlasting priesthood” with Phinehas is also mentioned (1 Macc 2:54), as a reward for Phineas’ ‘zeal’ (a key word in Maccabees). There are also references to non-divine covenants (e.g. Sir 11:20; Sir 14:12, 17; 1 Macc 1:11, 11:9).

The Wisdom of Ben Sira contains an extended treatise which mentions many of the covenants between God and glorious national heroes. Earlier in Sirach, διαθήκη refers mainly to the Mosaic law or commandments (Sir 24:23, 28:7, 39:8, 41:19, 42:2). But in chapters 44–45 there is a list of various “famous men” that are praised because “The Lord apportioned to them great glory” (Sir 44:1). The covenants with Noah (Sir 44:18), Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Sir 44:19–23), Aaron (Sir 45:6–22), Phinehas (Sir 45:23–24) and David (Sir 45:25–26) all get a notable mention. The covenantal ministries of Moses and Aaron, in particular, are depicted as ministries of fabulous God-given glory (Sir 45:2, 3, 7, 20) as they teach the law and offer sacrifices.

Jubilees (late 2^nd Century BC) sees the covenant in similar terms to Genesis—a commitment or obligations by or between God and men under oath.[1] However, Jubilees stresses the human commitments more than does Genesis.[2] Jubilees 6:1–38 transforms the unilateral covenant that God makes with Noah into a bilateral covenant where human obligations are given prominence, explicitly linking it to the Mosaic covenant.[3] The same trend can be seen with Jubilees’ interpretation of the patriarchal covenants. “The ultimate goal of Jubilees is to show that there is only a single covenant” in which human obligation is emphasised—in effect, Jubilees universalises the Sinai covenant.[4]

Philo uses covenantal concepts sparingly. “He has no choice but to deal with it because it is a part of the Septuagint text”.[5] He generally interprets the word according to its legal usage, “will”, using it as an allegorical symbol to describe the gracious bequest by God of certain graces: wisdom, law, word, justice, even himself (Sacrifices 57; Worse 67–68; Names 51–53, 58; Dreams 2.223–24, 2.237).[6] Nevertheless, Philo does share some of the concerns of the ot that we noted above. He discusses the question of the identity of the seed of Abraham, concluding that it is the wise man (Heir 313). He understands that the covenant with Abraham brings blessing to the nations, not by the nations joining the covenant, but by the nations learning from Israel’s wisdom (Names 263, cf. Deut 4:4–8).

Every reference to διαθήκη in Josephus is to a human will (Ant. 17.p, 17.53, 17.78, 17.146, 17.188, 17.195, 17.202, 17.224, 17.226, 17.228, 17.238, 17.244, 17.246, 17.249, 17.321, 17.322, 18.156; J.W. 1.451, 1.573, 1.588, 1.600, 1.625, 1.646, 1.664, 1.668, 1.669, 2.3, 2.20, 2.21, 2.31, 2.35, 2.38, 2.98, 2.99.). Mason observes that Josephus “systematically removed the stronger covenantal statements from his paraphrase of the Bible (Ant. 1.183–185, 191–193) in his attempt to avoid angering his Roman opponents (who, in fact, possessed the land along with their ‘gods’)”.[7] Hence “[t]he only advantage the Jews have is their association with Moses, who in his extreme sagacity discovered the truth about God and formulated laws in keeping with God’s will”.[8]

We have seen that none of these texts import sociological categories (such as “boundary markers” or “badges of membership” or “entry into a community”) into their use of the word “covenant”. This fact makes it less likely that we will find Paul himself using sociological categories when he used the word. However, there is one community in the second temple period which does use sociological categories in speaking of the “covenant”: the Qumran sectarians. We will look at the Qumran use of the word “covenant” in the next post.

---

[1] Jacques Van Ruiten, “The Covenant of Noah in Jubilees 6.1–38”, 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), 167–90.

[2] Van Ruiten, “Covenant of Noah”, 170.

[3] Van Ruiten, “Covenant of Noah”.

[4] Van Ruiten, “Covenant of Noah”, 190.

[5] Lester L. Grabbe, “Did All Jews Think Alike? ‘Covenant’ in Philo and Josephus in the Context of Second Temple Judaic Religion”, 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), 251–66 (256).

[6] Grabbe, “Philo and Josephus”, 257.

[7] Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992), 70.

[8] Paul Spilsbury, “Josephus”, 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), 241–60 (258).

Full bibliography

We have seen, in our series so far, the way that the word “covenant” is used in the Old Testament. How did the Hebrew word for covenant (בְּרִית) come to be translated by the Greek word διαθήκη? A good case can be made that there is a specific use of the Greek word διαθήκη that corresponds almost exactly with the definition of the word that we have confirmed by our study of the Old Testament: “an elected relationship of obligation under oath”. This usage of διαθήκη confirms our assertion that a biblical “covenant” is not just any kind of relationship, and nor is it inherently sociological or ecclesiological. Rather, a covenant a very specific kind of relationship between two well-defined parties.

A covenant is not just a ‘will’

The fact that translators of the LXX chose to translate בְּרִית with the Greek word διαθήκη is a little surprising given that by far the most common use of διαθήκη in the extant Greek literature is not a “covenant” in the Old Testament sense (“elected relationship of obligation under oath”), but a written document drawn up to distribute property after a person’s death, a “disposition”, “testament” or “will”.[1] Prior to the 3^rd century BC, there are about 240 instances of διαθήκη.[2] It occurs most abundantly in orators arguing legal cases and in Plato’s Laws (e.g. 922.c, 923.c, 923.e, 924.a, 926.b). Often the plural is used to refer to a will, since the various “dispositions” (διαθήκαι) collectively form a will (Isocrates, Aeginet. 1, 12, 15, 34; Isaeus, Cleonymus, 3). By contrast, the plural of διαθήκη never occurs in the Old Testament. The testator could make or leave a will (διατίθεμαι [Isaeus, Cleonymus 3, 11, 15, 20, 48], ποιέω [Isaeus, Cleonymus 10, 30–31], καταλείπω [Isocrates, Aeginet. 5, 15, 34]), confirm a will (βεβαίω [Isaeus, Cleonymus 18–19]), alter a will by codicil (ἐπανορθόω [Isaeus, Cleonymus 26]), and revoke a will (ἀναιρέω [Isaeus, Cleonymus 14, 18, 21; Philoctemon 30], λύω [Isaeus, Cleonymus 3, 18, 50]). After the death of the testator, a court could declare his will invalid (ποιέω ἄκυρον [Isocrates, Aeginet. 3, 15; Isaeus, Cleonymus 21, Philoctemon 4], καθίστημι ἄκυρον [Isaeus, Aristarchus 22]). By contrast, Old Testament covenants are “broken” (הֵפֵר, διασκεδάζω) by negligence or wilful disobedience (e.g. Gen 17:14; Lev 26:15; Deut 31:16, 20; Isa 24:5, 33:8; Jer 11:10, 31:32; Ezek 16:59), never simply invalidated.

One feature common to Old Testament covenants and some Greek wills is the creation of kinship bonds by “election”. A διαθήκη could be used to bestow legal rights upon people who naturally did not have these rights (e.g. Isaeus, Philoctemon 28). A διαθήκη was a possible means for adopting a son and thus allowing him to inherit property (Isaeus, Aristarchus 9; Astyphilus 5, cf. 10–11; Ciron 40). However, there is evidence that this process was fraught with complications. For example, “I was adopted by Menecles with the strictest possible legality, and [. . .] the form of adoption was not merely verbal or by will [διαθήκῃ] but by very act and deed” (Isaeus, Menecles 44 [Forster, LCL]; see also Isaeus, Hagnias 8–9). By contrast, an ot covenant is a much stronger means of creating kinship bonds.

A covenant is more than just a ‘pact’

The choice of διαθήκη is even more surprising when one considers that there was a Greek word for “pact”: συνθήκη.[3] Demosthenes (1 Steph. 41.9) mentions both συνθήκαι (articles of agreement) and διαθήκαι (articles of disposition) in parallel, showing that they are not synonyms. The translators of the LXX clearly knew the former word; they used it for political pacts between humans (1 Macc 10:26; 2 Macc 12:1, 13:25, 14:20, 14:26–27; Isa 30:1; Dan 11:6, 17) and metaphorical pacts between humans and “death” (Wis 1:16, Isa 28:15). Once, it is used of an agreement between God and humans (Wis 12:21). Nevertheless, 270 times, διαθήκη translates בְּרִית in the Septuagint.[4] Why did the Greek translators of the Old Testament consider the word commonly used for “will” to be more appropriate than the word for “pact” for translating the Old Testament word “covenant”?

The covenant in Cloudcuckooland

The answer, quite literally, may be found in Cloudcuckooland. The ancient comic Aristophanes (c. 445–385 bc), although familiar with the meaning “will” for διαθήκη (Wasps, 584, 589), and also with the word συνθήκη (“pact”, Peace, 1065; Lysistrata, 1268–69), uses διαθήκη in one passage in a way that is identical with our inductive definition of the OT word בְּרִית: “an elected, as opposed to natural, relationship of obligation under oath”.[5] In his fantastic play Birds the hero, Peisetaerus, wants to convince the bird community to establish a carefree hedonistic utopia called “Cloudcuckooland”. The birds gather and ask Peisetaerus to disclose his plan to them. But they are armed and look a little too dangerous, so Peisetaerus says (lines 438–42, my translation):

By Apollo! I will not / unless (and not otherwise) they make a covenant with me [διάθωνται, … διαθήκην ἐμοι] / the very same one that the ape made [διέθετο] with the woman[6] / (the knifemaker): that they neither bite me / nor yank [my] testicles nor dig…

After some brief innuendo, the play continues (lines 444–47, my translation):

Leader of the birds: I make [a covenant] [διατίθεμαι ’γώ]

Peisetaerus: “Now swear these things to me”

Leader of the birds: I swear to prevail in [the opinion of] these: all the judges / and all the spectators [. . .] But if I should transgress, to prevail in [the opinion of] one judge only.

The result of this sworn oath is that Peisetaerus now has a claim over the birds, and is able to order them to dispose of their arms. While the details of the oath are obscure, the meaning of διαθήκη is clear. The birds choose to enter into a new relationship with a human by oath, whereby they are obliged not to hurt him. While the covenantal obligation is unilateral, the covenant established a “truce” (τὰς σπονδάς, line 461), a relationship which enables Peisetaerus to get on with his original task of explaining his idea about Cloudcuckooland to the birds.[7]

The significance of this reference is that it shows a popular usage of διαθήκη, quite distinct from the legal usage, which overlaps significantly with the semantic range of the Hebrew word בְּרִית as we have defined it. This both strengthens our inductive definition of בְּרִית (not merely “pact” but “an elected relationship of obligation under oath”) and also enables us to allow that the Septuagint translators (who undoubtedly influenced Pauline usage of the term more than anyone else) could have easily had this concept in mind when they used διαθήκη.[8]

Although it is only one instance among hundreds, it is a much more significant instance than the statistics would appear to suggest. Firstly, the statistics are already skewed in favour of the legal usage, since there are far more extant legal texts than comic texts.[9] Secondly, Aristophanes himself was being critically studied and copied by scholars at around the same place and time as the Septuagint was being translated (i.e. Alexandria in the 3^rd and 2^nd century bc).[10] Hence there are good reasons to suppose that the translators of the Septuagint would have been familiar with the sort of usage we find here in Aristophanes. In any case, our definition of διαθήκη in the Septuagint, “elected relationship of obligation under oath”, has arisen from the inductive semantic study of Hugenberger and others and does not rely on Aristophanes’ usage. This instance in Aristophanes merely helps to confirm a definition arrived at independently.

---

[1] W. Danker, “διαθήκη”, BDAG 228–29;

[2] This is based on an exhaustive search of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. For details of the TLG see Luci Berkowitz and Karl A. Squitier, Thesaurus Linguae Graecae Canon of Greek Authors and Works (3rd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990).

[3] J. Behm and G. Quell, “διαθήκη”, TDNT 2:106–34 (126).

[4] John J. Hughes, “Hebrews IX 15ff. and Galatians III 15ff: A Study in Covenant Practice and Procedure”, Novum Testamentum 21 (1979): 27–96 (30).

[5] Hugenberger, Marriage, 11.

[6] “The various guesses in the scholia show that not even ancient scholars could explain this allusion” (Jeffrey Henderson, “Birds”, in Aristophanes [4 vols.; Loeb Classical Library 178, 488, 179, 180; Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1998–2002], 3:1–251 [3:77 fn 30]).

[7] William L. Lane, “Covenant: The Key to Paul’s Conflict with Corinth”, Tyndale Bulletin 33 (1982): 3–29 (22).

[8] See also the definition in Behm and Quell, TDNT 2:112: “a legal fellowship under sacral guarantees”.

[9] Henderson, “Introduction”, 1:33.

[10] Henderson, “Introduction”, 1:33.

Full bibliography

We have seen that the covenants with Abraham envisaged two distinct but related goals: nationhood for Abraham’s seed, followed by blessing for the world. The eighth-century prophets use the word “covenant” sparingly, but when they do this two-fold structure is also evident. The prophets never promise that the nations will be included in Israel’s covenants. Instead, they promise something else: that the special covenant with Israel will have benefits for the nations, without the nations being included in Israel’s covenants. In other words, “covenant” in the prophets is used to refer to Israel’s distinct role in relation to the world. “Covenant” is not a catch-all term to describe “salvific relationship with God”. This is consistent with use of the word “covenant” in the rest of the Bible, as we have seen and will see.

Except for Isaiah 40–66, the eighth century prophets tend not to refer explicitly to Yahweh’s covenant with Israel, even though their message seems to be premised on its existence (e.g. Hos 6:7, 8:1).[1] However, with the exile of national Israel, the prophets begin to refocus on God’s international purposes and look beyond the exile to the “last days”. Here the two-fold covenantal structure of God’s relationship with Israel (nationhood followed by international blessing) re-emerges in a familiar yet also strikingly new form.

Isaiah chapter 40ff speaks about Israel’s restoration, but the ultimate grounds of the restoration is God’s sovereignty as creator and judge (40:27–28)—Israel’s restoration as God’s “people” is both for the sake of God’s special relationship with her (e.g. Isa 43:1–7) and for the sake of the whole world being set to rights, idolatry judged, and “justice” being established in the nations (chapter 41). Historical Israel had not lived up to its calling—it had sinned, and so Israel as a geopolitical entity was blotted out (43:22–28). However, the hope for the nation of Israel and for the other nations comes through an enigmatic “servant” figure. He is given by God as “a covenant [for the] people, a light [for the] nations” (לִבְרִית עָם לְאוֹר גּוֹיִם, Isa 42:6). The two-fold structure of the Abrahamic covenants is evident here: the covenant with the one people will mean blessing and light for all nations.

The servant thus embodies the covenant and perpetuates it for the true “Israel”, who are to recognize that the covenant with whatever Israel may be on view in this context has its point of final reference in its wider application to the nations.[2]

In Isaiah 49:3, the servant is identified with Israel. Yet it is not the “Israel” that was originally called “Israel” (48:1), i.e. geopolitical Israel. The old geopolitical Israel has failed to obey God’s commands, forfeiting any claim to be heirs of the Abrahamic covenant (48:17–18). This new “Servant Israel” is one who will bring national Israel back to God. He will also fulfil the covenant of international blessing by being a “light to the nations”, bringing salvation to the ends of the earth (49:6). Although he will be despised and abhorred by the nation (49:7), God will make him “a covenant for the people”; one who will fulfil the Abrahamic covenant of land (Isa 49:8, cf. Gen 15). Here again we see the twofold structure of the Abrahamic covenants: the servant will fulfil the covenant of land (49:8) so that the promise of international blessing will come about (49:6).

However, there is no indication in Isaiah that the vast mass of saved and worshipping Gentiles are to be “included” in the covenant, or to “enter” the covenant.[3] They don’t need to be! The servant figure is depicted as the one who fulfils the covenants, who brings God’s purposes of nationhood and international blessing to completion. In Isaiah 52:13–53:12, the Servant becomes a vicarious sacrifice for the sins of the people. The outcome of the Servant’s sacrifice is that the covenantal promises associated with Noah, Abraham, Israel and David are fulfilled (Isa 54–55).[4]

Nevertheless, the new “Israel” has a further covenantal role to play in bringing about international blessing. Every individual member of Israel without exception is unrighteous, and must repent and trust in the LORD’s redeemer (Isa 56–59, esp. 59:16–21, cf. Rom 3:10–18). Once Israel is redeemed from this universal depravity, God makes an “everlasting covenant” of ministry with them (Isa 59:20, Isa 61:8). Israel and her seed will be God’s Spirit-empowered mouthpiece (Isa 59:20–21). Nations and kings will come to their light (Isa 60:2, cf. Gen 17:6). They will be a nation of priests, receiving the wealth of the nations as their payment (Isa 60:3–22; 61:6, 8, cf. Exod 19:5). These covenantal promises are ratified by a solemn oath (Isa 62:8–9). Israel’s “priestly” role, however, is now entirely declaratory. The reconstituted Israel does not bring salvation by teaching the law or by providing atonement, but by evangelism (Isa 61:1). Hence “[t]heir seed will be known in the nations and their descendants in the midst of the peoples; all who see them shall recognise that they are seed that YHWH has blessed” (Isa 61:9). Israel has a glorious ministry to the nations that exceeds the glory of Moses’ mediatorial ministry: Israel is “clothed with the garments of salvation” (Isa 61:10–11); they are a “crown of beauty in the hand of [their] God” (Isa 62:2–3). This is in stark contrast to the mediatorial ministry of Moses, who was clothed with a veil to hide God’s glory from the sinful people (Exod 34:33–35).

The nations, then, are called, not to “get in” to the covenant as if they, too, could bring about international blessing, but rather to partake in the blessing that has already been won by the servant’s fulfilment of the covenants, proclaimed by the Spirit-enabled covenant ministers. The nations are to be ruled by Israel’s king (Isa 55:4) and drawn to Israel’s glory (60:1–4). This international blessing is spoken of in the grandest cosmic terms in Isaiah 65–66. There will be a “new heavens and a new earth” in which a new Jerusalem is the centre of a new creation (65:17–25). This new Jerusalem is a woman who brings forth children (66:8), the glory of the nations flows to her (66:12) and God’s glorious name is proclaimed among the nations (66:19). The result is that all flesh will come and worship before the LORD in the new Jerusalem (66:23).

Jeremiah, too, looks forward to an eschatological covenant with Israel with international implications. The book of Jeremiah as a whole is set in the context of international blessing and judgment (1:5, 3:14–18).[5] Jeremiah censures the people for breaking Yahweh’s sworn covenant with their fathers (Jer 11:2–10).[6] In chapters 1–20 Judah has lost her distinction from the nations, standing with the nations under God’s judgment (9:25–26, 18:5–12).[7] Israel is no longer a kingdom of priests or a holy nation (Exod 19:6). The question of how God will bring about international blessing through Abraham’s seed is answered, however, by the new covenant that God will make “after those days” (Jer 31:31–34). God promises here that he will once again write his law on Israel’s hearts (cf. Deut 30:11–14); that he will once again be their God and they his people (cf. Deut 29:13); that knowledge of God will be universal amongst his people; and that he will forgive their sins. International blessing is implicitly linked to the hope of the restored Israel (Jer 31:10).[8] The associated covenants of kingship and ministry also continue (Jer 33:20–22). Once again, however, it would be misleading to speak of the nations being “included” in the covenant.[9] What the Gentiles receive in Jeremiah is not “inclusion” in the covenant, but all the blessings of salvation and forgiveness (via repentance) that flow to them because God has fulfilled his covenant with Israel.

Ezekiel, too, looks forward to a time when God’s covenant with Israel will be renewed, resulting in international blessing. The re-establishment of national unity (Ezek 37:15–22), obedience (Ezek 37:23) and kingship (Ezek 37:24) leads to a “covenant of peace” with Israel which (like Genesis 15) involves land, numerous descendants and Israel’s designation as “God’s people” (Ezek 37:25–27). This leads to knowledge of Yahweh in the nations (Ezek 37:28), first through judgment (Ezek 38–39) and then (more implicitly) in glorious blessing (Ezek 47:8–12, cf. Rev 22:1–2).

Hence the two-fold covenantal structure of God’s relationship with Israel is affirmed, not collapsed, by the prophets. The new covenants that the prophets look forward to are new “elected relationships of obligation under oath” between God and a reconstituted Israel, in which Israel’s obedience to specific obligations will result in blessing for all the nations. Isaiah, in particular, spells out Servant Israel’s obligations in detail: suffering sacrifice (e.g. Isa 49:7–8) and gospel proclamation (e.g. Isa 59:21).

---

[1] Nicholson, God and his People, 115.

[2] Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 193.

^[3] There are, admittedly, proselytes and eunuchs (“outcasts of Israel”, Isa 56:8a) who will gain full access to the Sinai covenant in its historical form (Isa 56:1–8). Luke seems to see this fulfilled in the cleansed Samaritan lepers (Luke 17:11–19) and the temple-worshipping Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:27–40). But this inclusion of physical outcasts into the historical structures of national Israel, while significant, is only the historical precursor to a greater event: the blessing of the Gentiles apart from the historical structures of Israel (Acts 10–11, cf. Isa 56:8b).

[4] Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 194–96.

[5] Andrew G. Shead, “The New Covenant and Pauline Hermeneutics”, in The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission (ed. Peter Bolt & Mark Thompson; Leicester: Apollos, 2000), 33–49 (34).

[6] Weinfeld, TDOT 2:277.

[7] Shead, “New Covenant”, 35.

[8] Shead, “New Covenant”, 43.

[9] Pace Shead, “New Covenant”, 42–43.