COVENANT (r1+14; Sept. and N. T. aicti6j/07).
This term is applied in Scripture to—I. Contracts and alliances between men. Thus it is used of the paction existing between Abraham and the Amor ite chiefs (Gen. xiv. 13), and that made between him and Abimelech (Gen. xxi. 32) ; of the alliance proposed by the messengers of the Gibeonites be tween them and Joshua (Josh. ix. 6); of an agree ment between friends, such as that between David and Jonathan (I Sam. xviii. 3); of the contract between husband and wife (Mal. ii. 14).
In forming a covenant various rites were used. The simplest act was that of the parties joining hands, and thereby pledging faith to each other (Ezek. xvii. 18, comp. I Chron. xxix. 24). From the earliest times an oath was taken by those entering into the paction (Gen. xxi. 31, 32 ; xxvi. 28) ; and sometimes memorial stones, or heaps of stones, were set up as tokens of the mutual engagement (Gen. xxxi. 46). The parties seem also to have feasted together (Gen. xxvi. 30); and this has ap peared to some to have formed so essential a part of the transaction, as to have given its name to it from 113 to eat; see Lee, Lexicon in loc.) Others, however, derive the name from another ceremony frequently observed in the making of covenants, viz., the slaying of sacrificial victims, and the passing of the parties between the parts of the victims laid out for this purpose (Gen. xv. 8-ii; Jer. xxxiv. 18, 19). The meaning of this was pro bably, that they appealed to the Deity, to whom the victims were offered, in attestation of their sin cerity, and imprecated on themselves as utter de struction as had befallen the victims, should they prove unfaithful to their pledge. That there is an allusion to this in the phrase commonly used to denote the making of a covenant, rri: ni:, lite rally to cut a covenant (comp. Gr. Ilona riAtveep ; Lat. fcedus icere, percutere, ferire), can hardly be doubted ; but that the word itself is derived from this, is asserted without prooL The deriva tion from n10, to eat, is favoured by the use of the expression, 'a covenant of salt' (Num. xviii. 19 ; 2 Chron. xiii. 5). To say that this merely indicates perpetuity, is to say nothing ; for all covenants are designed to be perpetual so long as the relations of the parties last ; and though salt may be the means of preserving from decay, it is not simply in itself a symbol of perpetuity. The allusion is rather to the eating of salt by the parties as a sign or token of adherence to their engagement. This custom still subsists among the Arabs, with whom no engage ment is so strong as one over which the parties have eaten salt (Rosenmiiller, Mozgenland ii,, No. 299) ; and among the Greeks also, salt was the symbol of alliance and friendship (Eustath. ad i. 449 ; x. 648). The physical fact at the basis of
this, is probably the antiseptic quality of salt ; but it is not of this itself that the salt is the symbol, so much as of the effect thence resulting : as salt pre serves from decay, so shall the alliance or contract over which it is eaten be sacredly kept permanent. Hence the injunction, Lev. ii. 13.
II. God's gracious arrangements for man's be hoof Among other instances of anthropomorphic forms of speech employed in Scripture, is the use of the term covenant, to designate the divine deal ings with mankind, or with individuals of the race. In all such cases, the proper idea of a covenant or mutual contract between parties, each of which is bound to render certain benefits to the other, is obviotsly excluded, and one of a merely analogical nature substituted in its place. Where God is one of the parties, and man the other, in a covenant, all the benefits conferred must be on the part of the fanner, and all the obligations sustained on the part of the latter. Such a definition, therefore, of a divine covenant as would imply that both parties are under conditions to each other is obviously in correct, and incompatible with the relative position of the parties. Even such a definition as the fol lowing Fcedus Dci cum hominibus est pro missio bonorum corn conditione,' which is that given by Morns (Epitom. Theal. Christ. p. I6o), is objectionable, on the ground of its implying that the exercise of God's grace to man is dependent upon something which man has to render to God. We should prefer defining God's covenant with man as a gracious engagement on the part of God to communicate certain unmerited favours to men, in connection with a particular constitution or system, through means of which these favours are to be enjoyed. Hence in Scripture the covenant of God is called his `counsel,' his oath,' his promise' (Ps. lxxxix. 3, 4 ; cv. 8-11 ; Heb. vi. 13-2o; Luke i. 68-75 ; Gal. iii. 15-18, etc.) ; and it is described as consisting wholly in the gracious bestowal of blessing on men (Is. lix. 21 ; Jer. xxxi. 33, 34). Hence also the application of the term covenant to designate such fixed arrange ments, or laws of nature, as the regular succession of day and night (Jer. xxxiii. 20), and such reli gious institutions as the Sabbath (Exod. xxxi. 16); circumcision (Gen. xvii. 9, to); the Levitical insti tute (Lev. xxvi. 15); and in general any precept or ordinance of God ( Jer. xxxiv. 13, 14) ; all such appointments forming part of that system or ar rangement in connection with—which the blessings of God's grace were to be enjoyed. In accordance with this is the usage of the verbs n+pn, ;iv, and me, to denote the forming of a divine covenant with man, all of which indicate the perfect sove reignty of God in the matter.