The theme of covenant has been seldom explored beyond the context of covenant nomism in recent years. Covenant nomism was popularized by E.P. Sanders in his work, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Since its publication, many have sought to understand the relationship of the law in Paul to that of his contemporaries in Second Temple Judaism. The discussion has generally centered on the function of the “works of the law” with regards to justification and the nature of righteousness for those deemed justified. As these are extremely pertinent for a comprehensive understanding of Paul, it has behooved most to properly frame the Ancient Near Eastern context of the Mosaic covenant, as well as the covenantal contrast between the Mosaic and New Covenants. To be sure, covenantal nomism has kept the recent discussion attentive to many of the issues surrounding Covenantal theology, but it has overlooked the broader Old Testament context from which it is be illumined. Therefore, in this brief study we will review the elements of Late Bronze Suzerain-Vassal covenant forms present in the Old Testament/Mosaic Law, we will explore Paul’s understanding of contrast between the Mosaic and New Covenants, and we will peak into covenant traditions present in Paul.
George Mendenhall’s groundbreaking work (”Covenant Forms in the Israelite Tradition,” Biblical Archaeologist 17 [1954]: 50-76) on the parallels of Ancient Near Eastern covenant forms in the Old Testament have greatly nuanced the way we understand the nature of God’s relationship to Israel. It has helped us to put Israel in a more precise historical context among contemporary nations, as well as to see how much differently Yahweh is from the gods of the other nations. Although the structure of Later Bronze Hittite covenants had already been present in Ancient Near Eastern studies, Mendenhall was the first to point out the similarities of structure to portions of the Old Testament. The structural features in which he observed these commonalities were: 1. Identification of a Covenant Giver, 2. An Historical Prologue, 3. The Stipulations, 4. Provision for Deposit and Public Reading, 5. A Listing of Treaty Witnesses, 6. The Blessings and Curses, 7. A Ratification Ceremony, 8. Imposition of the Curses. These are obvious features to observe in the Pentateuch/Torah, which is why there has been very little objection to Mendenhall’s findings. In fact, Meredith Kline has shown at great lengths that Deuteronomy itself fits this structure as exactly as any Late Bronze Suzerain-Vassal treaty. Essentially, a Suzerain-Vassal covenant is a binding oath between a larger ruler (suzerain) and protected nation (vassal) sometimes issued when the larger ruler/nation steps in to help the other in a military campaign (see 2 Kings 16:1-8). Upon the victory of that campaign, the vassal is bound to the stipulations of the treaty in order to maintain the continued support and protection promised by the suzerain. This was ratified by the sacrificing of an animal, as it was normally cut into halves and each party would walk between the halves, symbolically invoking death upon the disobedient party. There would be two copies of the official document drafted, one to be placed in the respective temple of each nation. The covenant at Sinai encapsulates all of these occurrences, and we get a snapshot of this in Ex. 19-24.
Perhaps the reason why “covenant” slips under the radar in modern Pauline studies in the way we are describing may be the relatively few uses of the word diatheke, “covenant,” in his letters. He only employs it 9 times. This may be an indication to some of its de-emphasis because its Hebrew counterpart berit is used about 286 times in the Old Testament. However, we should be careful not to be guilty of the “Word-Thing” fallacy, assuming that just because a single word is not used often that a concept is not fully present. This is particularly relevant considering recent articulation of the phenomena of intertextuality that is littered throughout Paul’s epistles with the Old Testament. Paul was a burgeoning Pharisaic Rabbi before the Damascus Road experience, and he had devoted his life to study the Torah. So although he might not have used the word all that much in his writings, it cannot be overlooked that his entire framework for understanding the nature of theology and ministry was covenantal. We cannot escape this because the Mosaic Covenant/Old Testament had even created the theological terminology that he uses to describe what has taken place in Christ. Consider the following covenant words/themes found in Paul:
Surely we should be sensitive to the contemporary expression Paul had available to him the Greco-Roman world in which he lived. This serves to magnify the fact that Paul communicated with biblical/covenant language when crafting his more poignant theological dialogue, even to predominantly Gentile communities.
In two specific sections in his writings he discusses at length historical-redemptive covenant theology in 2 Cor.6:1-18 and Gal. 3-4. In these passages, he gives his rationale for why the Mosaic Law offers only death and how the New Covenant transcends by it offering life. In 2 Cor.6:1-18, he zeroes in on the Letter/Spirit contrast resident in the two covenants. He even goes as far as to label the Law of Moses as “the ministry of death” (vs.7) and “condemnation” (vs.9) as it was, written on tables of stone. He contends that this “letter” brings death, surely drawing from his argument in Rom.7:7-11:
What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment deceived me and through it killed me.
He likens the Law to the glory that was on Moses face which needed to be concealed to Israel by a veil over his face (vs.7). Even then, there was a veil over their hearts every time they read the Law (vs.15) because their hearts were hardened by it (vs.14). However, the glory of the New Covenant revealed in Christ is infinitely superior because it does not fade and has no end (vs.11). It is written not on a tablets of stone, but on the tablet of the heart (vs.3), drawing on Ezek.36:26 and Jer.31:33. Since this covenant is imparted directly by the Spirit on the heart with no outside mediator, those in it are now with “unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord and being transformed into the same image” (vs.18). So we can summarize by saying that the Letter/Spirit contrast is about the difference in the nature of the Mosaic and New Covenants.
In Galatians 3-4, Paul focuses on the purpose of the Mosaic Covenant in light of the New Covenant. He is trying to remind the Galatians very forcefully that no one will be justified by the works of the Law (3:11). In other words, no one can please God escatologically by trying to execute their duties as prescribed by the Law of Moses. The reasons for this are because no one is truly able to execute this covenant so we are cursed in trying to do so (3:10), and the purpose of the Law was to make transgression fully visible and never to offer eternal life (3:18-19). This covenant came to bring us into slavery and imprisonment so that we could be rescued by Christ (vs.23-24). So Paul is setting up two different covenantal strands that find their culmination in the allegory of Hagar and Sarah in 4:21-31. Hagar corresponds to the slavery that exists under the Mosaic Law and is demonstrated in the contemporary Judaism that is visible in Jerusalem (vs.25). Sarah corresponds to the freedom that exists under the New Covenant and is demonstrated in the promises God offers His people in the New (spiritual) Jerusalem (vs.26-28). So the Mosaic Covenant existed to serve as a physical template that would anticipate the spiritual realities to come in the new age that has been inaugurated in the death and resurrection of Christ. Thus, in order to partake of this inaugurated Covenant, we need to believe in what Christ accomplished on our behalf and so cast out the “slave woman” (the Mosaic Covenant) (vs.29-31).
One of the New Covenant symbols we carry forward in this inaugurated age is the Lord’s Supper. We don’t often think about it in covenantal terms, but it is very clear in 1 Cor.10:1-11 that it is a covenantal oath-sign. In 10:1-11, we are typologically linked to Israel as they came under the Sinai covenant through Moses in the desert. He points to the way they “ate and drank” and rose up to idolatry (vs.7). Paul’s use of “eating” and “drinking” together in light of the context inextricably link to the Lord’s Supper. This sacrament is brought to light at the start of the next section in 10:16 (”cup of blessing,” “bread which we break”) for the purpose of demonstrating to the Corinthians that there is a spiritual connection between God and his people as expressed in eating and drinking (10:16-22). The tie that may, perhaps, bind the picture of “food and drink” in Israel’s Exodus with the Lord’s Supper is the concept of covenant. “Eating and drinking” was a common oath-sign in Ancient Near Eastern covenant forms, and Israel partook of such “communion meals” during the Exodus period. Paul uses “eating and drinking” this way in 10:7, as quoted from Ex.32:6 where Israel, offered sacrifices and had a “feast to the LORD” (Ex.32:5) after ratifying their covenant with God (Ex.24:7-8). This squares with the Lord’s Supper as the proclamation of the New Covenant death of Christ (11:23-26), and accounts for the severe penalty for eating and drinking unworthily (invoking curse; 11:27-32). Paul argues on both sides of our passage that one is a “sharer,” or “partaker” of the sacrifices from which they eat (9:13; 10:17,18,20). It is the partaking of sacrifices that bind people to their gods/God covenantally, which is why he is so adamant that they should not knowingly eat what is sacrificed to idols (10:22).
So we have provided an orientation for grasping how the concept of covenant was understood and adapted by Paul. This, of course, is short in nature, but perhaps may help percolate thought on further studies for this in his writings.
For Further Study:
Beale, G.K. (ed.). The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts: Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994
Dunn, James. “Did Paul Have a Covenant Theology? Reflections on Romans 9:4 and 11:27.” The Concept of Covenant in the Second Temple Period. ed. By Stanley Porter & Jacqueline C.R. de Roo. Supplements of the Journal for the Study of Judaism Vol.71. Leiden: Brill, 2003
Gallant, Tim. “Paul and Torah-An Introductory Overview.” forthcoming chapter in his book These are Two Covenants: The Mosaic Law in Paul’s Thought. Monroe, LA: Athanasius
Hafemann, Scott J. Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Series 2 Volume 81. Tubingen: J.C.B.Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995
Hahn, Scott. “Covenant in Old and New Testaments: Some Current Research (1994-2004).” Currents in Biblical Research 3.2 (2005): 263-292
Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989
Hugenberger, Gordon. Marriage as a Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as Developed from Malachi. Biblical Studies Library. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998
Kline, Meredith G. The Structure of Biblical Authority. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975
——–. Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview. Overland Park, KS: Two Age Press, 2000
Mendenhall, George E. & Herion, Gary A. “Covenant.” Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol.1. ed. by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992
Porter, Stanley E. “The Concept of Covenant in Paul.” The Concept of Covenant in the Second Temple Period. ed. By Stanley Porter & Jacqueline C.R. de Roo. Supplements of the Journal for the Study of Judaism Vol.71. Leiden: Brill, 2003
Wright, N.T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991
