Basic HTML Version
250
Man in the Covenant of Grace
I. Name and Concept of the Covenant
A. THE NAME.
1. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.
The Hebrew word for covenant is always berith, a word of
uncertain derivation. The most general opinion is that it is derived from the Hebrew verb barah,
to cut, and therefore contains a reminder of the ceremony mentioned in Gen. 15:17. Some,
however, prefer to think that it is derived from the Assyrian word beritu, meaning “to bind.”
This would at once point to the covenant as a bond. The question of the derivation is of no
great importance for the construction of the doctrine. The word berith may denote a mutual
voluntary agreement (dipleuric), but also a disposition or arrangement imposed by one party on
another (monopleuric). Its exact meaning does not depend on the etymology of the word, nor
on the historical development of the concept, but simply on the parties concerned. In the
measure in which one of the parties is subordinate and has less to say, the covenant acquires
the character of a disposition or arrangement imposed by one party on the other. Berith then
becomes synonymous with choq (appointed statute or ordinance), Ex. 34:10; Isa. 59:21; Jer.
31:36; 33:20; 34:13. Hence we also find that karath berith (to cut a covenant) is construed not
only with the prepositions ’am and ben (with), but also with lamedh (to), Jos. 9:6; Isa. 55:3;
61:8; Jer. 32:40. Naturally, when God establishes a covenant with man, this monopleuric
character is very much in evidence, for God and man are not equal parties. God is the Sovereign
who imposes His ordinances upon His creatures.
2. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
In the Septuagint the word berith is rendered diatheke in every
passage where it occurs with the exception of Deut. 9:15 (marturion) and I Kings 11:11 (entole).
The word diatheke is confined to this usage, except in four passages. This use of the word
seems rather peculiar in view of the fact that it is not the usual Greek word for covenant, but
really denotes a disposition, and consequently also a testament. The ordinary word for
covenant is suntheke. Did the translators intend to substitute another idea for the covenant
idea? Evidently not, for in Isa. 28:15 they use the two words synonymously, and there diatheke
evidently means a pact or an agreement. Hence there is no doubt about it that they ascribe this
meaning to diatheke. But the question remains, Why did they so generally avoid the use of
suntheke and substitute for it a word which denotes a disposition rather than an agreement? In
all probability the reason lies in the fact that in the Greek world the covenant idea expressed by
suntheke was based to such an extent on the legal equality of the parties, that it could not,
without considerable modification, be incorporated in the Scriptural system of thought. The
idea that the priority belongs to God in the establishment of the covenant, and that He
sovereignly imposes His covenant on man was absent from the usual Greek word. Hence the