# Covenant question



## Greg (Oct 8, 2005)

I´m new to the study of Covenant Theology, so I have a couple of basic beginner´s questions. I have just finished reading Dr. McMahon´s book and I´m reviewing the material again, namely, what exactly a covenant is. He brought up the point that covenants are "˜cut´. What exactly does "˜cut´ mean in the context of covenants? Where is it shown in Scripture, and what exactly is "˜cutting´ a covenant supposed to illustrate or represent? Thanks.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 8, 2005)

H1285
×‘Ö¼×¨×™×ª
beriÌ‚yth
ber-eeth'
From H1262 (in the sense of cutting (like H1254)); a compact (because made by passing between pieces of flesh): - confederacy, [con-]feder[-ate], covenant, league.

Greg,
Read this:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/KlineMeredithOathOrdealPart1.htm


----------



## gwine (Oct 8, 2005)

> (Gen 15:6) And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.
> 
> (Gen 15:7) And he said to him, "I am the LORD who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess."
> 
> ...



Interesting parallel.


----------



## DTK (Oct 8, 2005)

> (Gen 15:18) On that day the LORD *made* a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates,



On that day the LORD *made* (tr;k', i.e., *Cut*) a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates...

The Hebrew word, tr;k', *karat* is where we get the English word "karat," which denotes a unit of fineness in diamonds or gold. As an aside, which many may already know, Israel is a center for one of the biggest (if not the biggest) diamond-cutting industries in the world.

DTK


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> > (Gen 15:6) And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.
> ...



Absolutely relevant!


----------



## Saiph (Oct 8, 2005)

> *Derivative Transliteration:* berit
> *Derivative Strong's Cross Reference:* 1285
> *Derivative Definition:* covenant (ASV and RSV); between nations: a treaty, alliance of friendship; between individuals a pledge or agreement; with obligation between a monarch and subjects: a constitution; between God and man: a covenant accompartied by signs, sacrifices, and a solemn oath that sealed the relationship with promises of blessing for keeping the covenant and curses for breaking it.
> 
> ...



[Edited on 10-9-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 8, 2005)

Sorry, wrong quote.

Here:




> Abram's question, "œWhereby shall I know that I shall take possession of it (the land)?" was not an expression of doubt, but of desire for the confirmation or sealing of a promise, which transcended human thought and conception. To gratify this desire, God commanded him to make preparation for the conclusion of a covenant. "œTake Me, He said, a heifer of three years old, and a she-goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtle-dove, and a young pigeon;" one of every species of the animals suitable for sacrifice. Abram took these, and "œdivided them in the midst," i.e., in half, "œand placed one half of each opposite to the other (every one its half, cf. Gen_42:25; Num_16:17); only the birds divided he not," just as in sacrifice the doves were not divided into pieces, but placed upon the fire whole (Lev_1:17). The animals chosen, as well as the fact that the doves were left whole, corresponded exactly to the ritual of sacrifice. Yet the transaction itself was not a real sacrifice, since there was neither sprinkling of blood nor offering upon an altar (oblatio), and no mention is made of the pieces being burned. The proceeding corresponded rather to the custom, prevalent in many ancient nations, of slaughtering animals when concluding a covenant, and after dividing them into pieces, of laying the pieces opposite to one another, that the persons making the covenant might pass between them. Thus Ephraem Syrus (1, 161) observes, that *God condescended to follow the custom of the Chaldeans, that He might in the most solemn manner confirm His oath to Abram the Chaldean. *





[Edited on 10-9-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 8, 2005)

> In this symbol, the passing of the Lord between the pieces meant something altogether different from the oath of the Lord by Himself in Gen_22:16, or by His life in Deu_32:40, or by His soul in Amo_6:8 and Jer_51:14. *It set before Abram the condescension of the Lord to his seed, in the fearful glory of His majesty as the judge of their foes. *Hence the pieces were not consumed by the fire; for the transaction had reference not to a sacrifice, which God accepted, and in which the soul of the offerer was to ascend in the smoke to God, but to a covenant in which God came down to man. From the nature of this covenant, it followed, however, that *God alone went through the pieces in a symbolical representation of Himself, and not Abram also. *For although a covenant always establishes a reciprocal relation between two individuals, yet in that covenant which God concluded with a man, the man did not stand on an equality with God, but God established the relation of fellowship by His promise and His gracious condescension to the man, who was at first purely a recipient, and was only qualified and bound to fulfil the obligations consequent upon the covenant by the reception of gifts of grace.


----------



## Greg (Oct 11, 2005)

Thanks everyone.


----------



## Greg (Oct 19, 2005)

In Genesis 15:17 we read, "When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces." 

What exactly does the smoking fire pot and the flaming torch represent or symbolize? I realize that this is a theophany of God Himself walking between the pieces, but why the fire pot and the flaming torch? Is there a symbolic significance with these?


----------



## BrianBowman (Oct 20, 2005)

From Keil & Delitzsch


Gen. 15:17. When the sun had gone down, and thick darkness had come on (_haya_ impersonal), "œbehold a smoking furnace, and (with) a fiery torch, which passed between those pieces," "”a description of what Abram saw in his deep prophetic sleep, corresponding to the mysterious character of the whole proceeding. _tannur_, a stove, is a cylindrical fire-pot, such as is used in the dwelling-houses of the East. The phenomenon, which passed through the pieces as they lay opposite to one another, resembled such a smoking stove, from which a fiery torch, i.e., a brilliant flame, was streaming forth. In this symbol Jehovah manifested Himself to Abram, just as He afterwards did to the people of Israel in the pillar of cloud and fire. Passing through the pieces, He ratified the covenant which He made with Abram. His glory was enveloped in fire and smoke, the produce of the consuming fire,"”both symbols of the wrath of God (cf. Ps. 18:9, and Hengstenberg in loc. ), whose fiery zeal consumes whatever opposes it (vid., Ex. 3:2)."”To establish and give reality to the covenant to be concluded with Abram, Jehovah would have to pass through the seed of Abram when oppressed by the Egyptians and threatened with destruction, and to execute judgment upon their oppressors (Ex. 7:4; 12:12). In this symbol, the passing of the Lord between the pieces meant something altogether different from the oath of the Lord by Himself in Gen. 22:16, or by His life in Deut. 32:40, or by His soul in Amos 6:8 and Jer. 51:14. It set before Abram the condescension of the Lord to his seed, in the fearful glory of His majesty as the judge of their foes. Hence the pieces were not consumed by the fire; for the transaction had reference not to a sacrifice, which God accepted, and in which the soul of the offerer was to ascend in the smoke to God, but to a covenant in which God came down to man. From the nature of this covenant, it followed, however, that God alone went through the pieces in a symbolical representation of Himself, and not Abram also. For although a covenant always establishes a reciprocal relation between two individuals, yet in that covenant which God concluded with a man, the man did not stand on an equality with God, but God established the relation of fellowship by His promise and His gracious condescension to the man, who was at first purely a recipient, and was only qualified and bound to fulfil the obligations consequent upon the covenant by the reception of gifts of grace.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> 
> 
> > From Keil & Delitzsch
> ...



Thank you Brian.

Does anyone know of any pictures of such a _tannur_?


----------



## pduggan (Oct 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> Does anyone know of any pictures of such a _tannur_?


If I did, i'm not sure I should show you one


> The sins forbidden in the second commandment are...the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever


----------



## pduggan (Oct 20, 2005)

One writer (ok, me) says:

The furnace is a sign of God's glory shining through in the midst of darkness and terror. The glory passes between the pieces in the form of a furnace, prophetic of the furnace of affliction which Israel will experience (1 Kings 8:51). God's burning glory is a promise of resurrection. Commentators take note that no indication that the animals are consumed by the fire is given, so we may understand this as parallel with the burning bush, symbolizing God's personal presence with Israel as a purifying fire that does not consume or destroy. Here with Abram, God's glory is comes to meet the need of separated dead animals, and is predominantly promissory of re-creation and resurrection. The prophetic aspects of the passage (which are not dwelt on by Robertson) can help us to interpret the rite. God is providing two co-relative revelations, one verbal, the other pictorial. This is what is indicated in Hebrews 6:18 about the promise God makes to Abram two immutable things, God's verbal promise and the covenant oath He makes. 

Deep sleep is the time in which God reveals oracles to men, and in this vision God predicts in detail the future history of Abram's descendants, that they will be oppressed in Egypt for 400 years, but that they will come out again and will return to the land. 

These animals do not primarily represent God and what will happen to Him, but rather Abram's seed and the land they are to inherit. The five animals specified are those used in the sacrificial system of Leviticus. These animals were to be used as substitutes by the Israelites, each animal symbolizing a different stratum of society. The bull was for the priests, sheep and goats for most of the people, and doves ane very poor (Leviticus 4-5). 

The division of the animals points to the alienation of man from the land. Man is created from the soil, having been originally divided off from it by God's own word. With the advent of sin, a curse is on the land, and man is estranged from it. What should have been distinct but united, are threatened by external oppressors (the birds) and lie dead and severed in horrible darkness. 

Abram is alienated and estranged from the land of promise, though God has said that he will inherit it. God says that this alienation continues for a time: Abram's seed will sojourn in a strange land for many years. In the end they will return and enter the land, and God's personal presence will bring them in. His own glory will be the binding agent between Abram and the Land, granting him "resurrection" out of darkness and deep sleep (John 11:9-11). As one writer says:


> In the context of Genesis 1 and 6-8 we can see God again de-creating and re-creating the world Just as the Flood returned the world to a condition of formlessness and emptiness, which God refilled, so in the vision of Abram the world returns to the primeval darkness of Genesis 1:2, before God established the covenantal separation-union of day and night. Abram himself is in "deep sleep," the same condition as Adam was in Genesis 2:21 when God separated Eve from him and established a covenant separation-union between the man and the woman. Here the purpose is to reestablish the connection between man and the 'erets [land]. The false and perverted relationship between man and land, which came in with the fall, is undone by de-creation; but before the birds can descend to destroy matters utterly, the covenant order is re-created by God Himself becoming the unbreakable binding force connecting the two. Abram is as likely not to posses the land as God is likely to perish.



Commonly there is a claim that the covenant represents a self-maledictory oath, in keeping with contemporanous covenant rituals. My examination of the literature called this into question:

O. Palmer Robertson cites parallels from other ancient near east documents to indicate that what is going on is a form of self-maledictory oath. But the parallels are not particularly strong. The Syrian text concerning Abba-AN and Yarimlim makes no explicit mention of division of the sheep in two, nor does it mention passing between the pieces. The 18th century B.C. Mari text that he cites also does not indicate any self-malediction in the context of the rite, nor is passing through the divided halves mentioned. 

Victor P. Hamilton cites the Mari text as well, noting that the text makes explicit that the slaughter was to reconcile the two parties, not to call a curse on one or the other party. He also indicates that self-malediction may not even be indicated by the Abba-AN text, depending on the translation. Hamilton does find an indication of a Hittite rite involving passing between animal halves, but this is not a covenant-making rite, rather a pagan warfare-ritual with magical overtones. 

Kline cites these parallels as well, asserting that they are informative of the context of the Abramic rite, even though they do not involve the required elements. He does find some rites of the 7th and 8th century B.C. that involved both self-malediction and animal dividing, but these are too late in date to be informative on the Genesis 15 situation.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pduggan_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> ...



I am not sure if you are joking or not. But I would like to know what the cylindrical fire-pots, such as those used in the dwelling-houses of the East look like.


----------

