The Purpose of God in the Covenants of the Pentateuch

So I made a bit of a mistake in this one by writing this essay in a systematic theology style rather than writing this as a historical survey of the topic from the Pentateuch. Some of my biblical referencing was inadequate. Still achieved a Distinction. Apparently one of only three in the class. Result was 80%.

Abstract

Each of the covenants within the Pentateuch (and indeed the later covenant with King David) relates back to the “first” covenant, the covenant of creation and Eden, where God walked with humankind in the joy of fellowship.  The key components of the purpose of God are Fellowship, Land and co-regency.  Each of the subsequent covenants, beginning with the promise made immediately after the fall and progressing through Noah, Abraham and Moses responds to the purpose of God to restore the fellowship between the Creator and the Created, encompass the world in the knowledge of the glory of God and restore humankind to co-regency with God.

The Edenic relationship between God and humankind demonstrates a number of key elements which are progressively elucidated in each of the covenants in the Torah to reveal the purpose of God in restoring creation to that relationship.

Introduction

At the core of the collection of books that we call the Old Testament is the idea of “Covenant”.[1]  There are covenants either overtly identified or implicitly suggested throughout the Torah.  The covenants create a framework for the redemption of humanity.[2]  Each covenant builds upon the foundation of earlier covenants revealing God’s redemptive purpose.  God’s redemptive purpose is marked by his desire for fellowship and community, that the knowledge of his glory fill the earth and that humankind represent him in co-regency.   The covenants progressively build relationships that further this purpose.  Cocceius[3] defines covenant as “nothing other than a divine declaration of the way of perceiving the love of God and of obtaining union and communion or friendship with him”.  Israel perceived the relationship as a journey signified by the continued use in Torah of the Hebrew nãsaʻ [4] (Ex 40:38[5]).[6]

God’s purpose with creation as revealed in the covenants in the Torah

Progressive Revelation

Progressive covenantalism is the idea that each covenant is a building block.  It argues that covenants progressively reveal God’s redemptive plan.[7]  Each covenant progressively sets a course of action to further his purpose.[8]

God’s redemptive purpose is progressive, occurring over time and fulfilled in Christ.[9]  The redemptive plan, progressively revealed is rooted in reconciliation, joining alienated humanity with God in friendship.[10]

The Creation Relationship

Whether creation itself is a covenant is a subject debated by scholars because the word covenant does not appear in the creation account.[11] [12] [13] [14]  Certainly, Jeremiah (33:20) [15] although confirming the covenant with David, references creation in covenantal terms as does Hosea (6:7).[16]  The word covenant (bĕrît[17]) does not appear in relation to the promise to David, but this promise is consistently referred to as a covenant (Ps 89:3, 28, 34, 39; 132:12).[18]

The Garden of Eden is a place in which Adam and Eve “walk with God” in a special sanctuary that is good (Gen 1:31) different to the “indwelling” God in the tabernacle of the later age.[19]  Therefore, God’s purpose in Creation is to create a community between humans and with him in love.[20]  The Psalmist (33:4-9) provides an insight into the Creator’s preferred relationship with humanity in creation.  The earth is full of the steadfast love (ḥêsêd)[21] of Yahweh.  Creation was a declaration of the love of Yahweh.[22]

The garden was a sanctuary, fenced off from the outside world and cared for.[23] [24]  What made the garden attractive was the presence of Yahweh in relationship with humanity.[25] [26]  It represented a place that was filled with the knowledge of God’s glory.

Humanity in Eden was created imago Dei,[27] clothed[28] [29] in God’s wisdom, righteousness and holiness.[30]   In the perfection of Eden, we have a demonstration of God’s purpose for humans as a community of beings like him and representing him on earth.  Imago Dei is the foundation of the relationship between God and humanity.[31]

Dumbrell asserts that Adam has a “pronounced priestly/kingly character”.[32] [33]  This indicates the position of Adam and Eve as co-regents (in proper relationship with Yahweh) in the Garden over creation.[34]  This co-regency is marked by servitude and effort.[35]

The tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil as a potentially disruptive influence yet indicates God’s influence over all things in creation whether good or evil.[36]  It indicates that God wants this relationship to be based on free will.[37]

So, the purpose of God inherent in creation is of community with God[38] (characterised by “walking with God”), humans created imago Dei and freely demonstrating God’s wisdom, righteousness and holiness (his “glory” ref Num 14:21) filling the earth (Gen 1:28), as co-regents with God over the earth where God reigns supreme.

Fall and Redemption

Old Testament law teaches that sin is rebellion and disobedience before God and the need for the redemption of humanity.[39]  The test of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil with its subsequent failure and Adam and Eve’s fall leads to the judgement pronounced in Genesis (3:14-19) which is a combined curse and promise.[40] [41]  Routledge and others suggest that eating the fruit indicated a shedding of dependence on God disturbing the divinely instituted hierarchy of the world.[42] [43] [44]

The word “covenant” does not appear in Genesis 1-3, therefore including Genesis 3:14-19 in the progressive covenant revelation of God’s purpose must be approached with caution as previously discussed.  The effect of sin was far reaching and impacted all of creation in a continuing fashion.  Hosea (6:7) refers to Adam transgressing the covenant.  The transgression initiated ongoing rebellion and the destruction of relationship culminating in the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:1-9).[45]    The Genesis (3) promise of a seed and thus redemption forms the foundation for the following covenants and therefore cannot be overlooked.[46] 

The fall brought about a separation from the community that God had created.[47] [48]  The promise in Genesis 3:15 initiated God’s purpose to restore this community through the promised “offspring” by the elimination of the offspring (lethality) of the Serpent.[49]

Part of the sanctions initiated against Adam and Eve, was the separation from the Tree of Life.  Access to the Tree of Life could have allowed them to live outside of the curse of death, a circumvention of God’s redemptive purpose.[50]  Clearly, the fall meant that humans fell into disharmony with the divine community and their expulsion from the garden was a necessary act of grace so that they did not live forever in a fallen state.[51]  The covenant in Genesis 3 was the inauguration of a covenant of grace that would continue to its fulfillment in Jesus.[52] [53]

Destruction and the Rainbow

Noah was seen by Lamech, his father, as the one intended to reverse the curse of Genesis 3.  His name means “rest” in the sense of bringing relief[54] and Lamech said he would bring relief from work and toil (Gen 5:28-29).[55]  Perhaps this indicates the state of humanity, Lamech’s revulsion for it and desire to take action.  Perhaps, further this was an intended reversal of the curse on Adam (Gen 3:17-19).  Noah could be regarded as a new Adam.[56]  In a sense, Noah would rescue humanity from the lethality of the serpent-initiated cycle of sin and death (Gen 3:15).[57] 

Noah appears to have been unquestioningly obedient (Gen 6:22), in much the same way as Abram would obey (Gen 12:4).[58]   We have the election of God, noting that those who He elected were obedient.  This obedience of Noah and later Abraham, in “walking with God” (Gen 17:1)[59] fulfils God’s purpose to build a community that “walk with God” as in Eden.  The language of the Genesis record indicates relationship.  “Noah found favour in the eyes of Yahweh” (Gen 6:8-9).[60] [61]

In Genesis 6:18, God makes a covenant[62] with Noah for his personal salvation[63] in the Ark which he “remembers”[64] in Genesis 8:1.[65]  The covenant renewal[66] of Genesis 9 is to all humanity.[67] [68]  These promises are unconditional.[69]  God promises not to destroy “all flesh” in a flood nor to destroy the earth by flood (Gen 9:11).[70]  The sign of the rainbow accompanies the covenant.[71]

The language of Genesis 9:1-12 is very reminiscent of creation emphasising the purpose of God to return to Edenic conditions.[72]  God ordered heaven and earth out of the “chaotic deep” in both creation and the flood.  Each step of renewal mirrors in some detail, the steps recorded of creation in the two records including the injunction to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28; 9:1).[73]  This parallelism signals God’s grace-filled intent to restore what had been spoilt by the fall.[74]

The purpose of relationship and community (v6), land (renewed and refreshed post-flood v11) and glorifying God (v13) and co-regency (v2) is therefore visible in the Genesis 9 covenant.

The Abrahamic Cycle

The Abrahamic covenants in progressive revelation of Yahweh’s purpose features the election of Abram;[75] the first stage of a national election; a promise of land and God’s attitude to Gentiles.[76]  They arise against the backdrop of the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:9, 27-32) as the world again forgot their relationship with God.[77]  God introduces himself to Abram by his name (Gen 12:1).  Abram is the new Adam[78] as God elects him in his redemptive purpose similar to Noah previously[79].

There are four key points in the cycle:[80]

1. Giving the Promise: the call (Gen 12)
2. Making the Covenant: descendants and land (Gen 15)
3. Affirming the Covenant: Circumcision (Gen 17)
4. Obedience and confirmation (Gen 22)

Initiation (Gen 12:1-3; 13:14-17)

The initiation of the covenants with Abram is pivotal and marked by Abram’s immediate if only partial obedience (Gen 11:31).[81]  The call alludes to creation because this is a calling in the midst of possibly ten generations of silence.  Into silence, God speaks and starts to shape Abram.[82]  The blessing spoken by God expresses his favour and desired good, establishing it for both Abram and all nations.[83]  Abram is commanded to be a blessing (Gen 12:2), requiring active participation in the mechanism of blessing.

Abram was immediately but only partially obedient.  Terah had to die (Gen 11:31-32) and ultimately, Abram had to trust God that Lot was not his heir before the covenant would be further articulated (Gen 13:14-17).

Abram demonstrates his ownership of the land in traversing the boundaries of Canaan.[84]  Canaan is a parallel of Eden for the Israelites (Deut 8:7-10; 11:8-17; Isa 51:3; Ezek 36:35) and is a divine space (Ex 15:17; Ps 78:54).[85]

The covenant initiated here has three elements: a land, a nation and global blessing.[86]

Descendants (Gen 15:1-7)

Abram feared Sarai’s barrenness and the implications for the “great nation” part of the covenant (Gen 12:2).  Abram wants to know that he will have “seed”, that they can be fruitful and multiply and become a great nation.[87]

God’s response to Abram’s fear is unequivocal.  “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great…”, and he corrects Abram’s thinking on the issue of childlessness (Gen 15:1, 4-5).

To Abram’s credit, we once again see immediate faith which God honours (Gen 15:6).[88]  In this aspect of the promise, we see Yahweh’s determination to fulfil his promise to Abram to be fruitful and multiply and to have Canaan as a new Eden.[89]

The fact that Abraham is asleep throughout the covenant ceremony, highlights that this covenant is Yahweh’s initiative.[90]  This covenant has a special focus on land and offspring including timing for the possession of the land.[91]

Isaac (Gen 17:1-22)

Genesis 17 sees the promise of the seed (Gen 3:15), become the focus of the everlasting[92] covenant.  It highlights God’s election, the determining factor in selecting Isaac over Ishmael.[93]  Lot, Eliezer and Ishmael were all rejected in favour of Isaac and to commemorate the birth of Isaac, Abram becomes Abraham – “Lofty Father” becomes “Father of a Multitude”.[94]

The covenant is ratified by Circumcision[95] which now becomes a generational requirement for participation.[96]  As a sign of covenant, the language is similar to that used of the rainbow (Gen 9:13).[97]  The covenant again emphasises offspring, possession of the land and the global blessing.[98]  The birth of Isaac (Gen 21) seems to bring to a conclusion the tension over the birth of an heir only for it to heighten again (Gen 22).

Obedience (Gen 22:15-18)

Genesis 22 provides a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of Jesus in the triumph of Yahweh’s will over death.[99] [100]  Where Abraham had failed with Ishmael, he now demonstrates his trust in God with the life of the covenant offspring, Isaac.[101]

The cycle of the Abrahamic covenants is reiterated with additional elements.  A multiplied offspring which hearkens to the abundance of the creation in Genesis 1 and a singular seed which would possess the gate of his enemies (cf Gen 3:15).[102]  Finally, the blessing of the nations is reiterated, reversing the curse on humankind.

Friendship

It is important to examine the relationship between God and Abraham because that relationship is a model of the relationship that underpins the redemptive purpose of God and can be seen in Trinity.[103] [104]

Abraham was described as the friend of God posthumously (Jas 2:23-24).  His obedience and response to God’s revelation of himself though sometimes slow in completion, was initiated immediately (Gen 11:31).[105]  As such, his faithfulness leading to immediate obedience became a key part of a later assessment of him (Heb 11:8-12) and reminds of God’s preferred state with man. 

God walked in the Garden, and but for humanities’ sin, they would have continued walking with him (Gen 3:8).  Whilst ever Adam and Eve lived within the Covenant of Creation, they were, “in a state of friendship, and of one Spirit, with God…”. [106]

The purpose of God

The Abrahamic cycle of promises again reflects the purpose of God.  Abraham built a community reflective of his relationship with God.  The blessing of the nations is indicative of God’s purpose to fill the earth with the knowledge of his glory.  Ultimately, the co-regency with God is reiterated in Genesis 22:17 in the dominance of Abraham’s seed.

Pre-Sinai (Ex 3 and 6:1-8)

The opening paragraphs of Exodus allude to creation.  The people of Israel were fruitful and multiplied (Ex 1:7).  We see God moving purposely to fulfil his purpose.[107]

When Yahweh revealed himself to Moses in the events surrounding the burning bush, he links this revelation with his covenant relationship with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Ex 3:6; Jer 11:2-5).[108]  This episode forms part of the previous covenant relationship with the patriarchs ratified by circumcision (Ex 4:24-26) and leads into the ratified covenant of Sinai (Ex 24:3-8).  Yahweh’s election and adoption (Ex 4:22) of Israel as a possession and vehicle for his purpose (Deut 7:6-10) is a further step in the fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant, which was a vital step in fulfilling the purpose revealed in Creation, to expand the community of Trinity.[109]

The revelation of hãyâ[110] ʼăsher[111] hãyâ¹¹⁰ or Yahweh (YHWH)[112] (whether or not previously revealed) must be emphasised for its foundational importance to relationship.[113]  The use of YHWH as a means of bringing to “remembrance” in Ex 3:15 indicates that it is to be used to actualise the covenant.[114]

Moses, though he almost lost his life in the infraction surrounding circumcision (Ex 4:24-26), was elected by God to lead Israel out of Egypt.  The relationship between God and Man continues.[115]  Whilst Yahweh was about to initiate a “covenant of law”, this did not nullify the continuity of the “covenant of grace” (initiated in Gen 3:15).[116]

The Covenant at Sinai

The Westminster Confession of Faith maintains that the Mosaic covenant is part of the one covenant of grace and unifies with the overall purpose of God in Jesus throughout redemptive history.[117]  The Mosaic covenant or “book of the Covenant”[118] (Ex 24:7) administers the overarching covenant of grace, having an external form of a covenant of law with an internal substance of grace.[119]  Whilst, it is acknowledged that the new covenant is better (Heb 8), we must acknowledge the substantial unity of the Bible in overall redemptive grace.[120]

Yahweh reveals himself to Moses (Ex 3:6, 14), declares his adoption of Israel (Ex 4:22-23) and then once again ratifies the covenant relationship linking Abraham, through Moses to a nation, Israel (Ex 24:3-8).[121]  The offer of community with Trinity (Gen 1:27-31) spurned by humanity (Gen 3:1-8), is now extended again in the consecration of a group of people (Ex 19:5-6) and witnessed by Yahweh himself (Ex 24:17).[122] [123]  Israel responds with a pledge (Ex 24:7) and the blood of the covenant (Heb 9:15-22) creates a means of “fellowship with God”.[124] [125]  Central is the concept of Sabbath (Ex 31:13, 17) as a “sign forever”.[126]  This Mosaic covenant is renewed at Moab with a new generation of Israelites (Deut 29) and again in the Land (Josh 24)[127]. 

The covenant stipulations are covered in Exodus 20-23, with the “ten words” of the decalogue in Chapter 20 and “the judgements” contained in Chapters 21-23.  Chapters 19 and 24 are in a sense, bookends.[128] 

The purpose of this covenant was that Israel become a “treasured possession among all peoples… a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Ex 19:5-6).  The people’s response was to affirm agreement to this covenant (verse 8).  The deliverance of the oppressed people was the gracious initiative of God.[129]  This grace of God leads to a relationship with the community marked by a faithful response.[130]  Torah was a gift of a divine revelation about the shape of life together in covenant community.[131]  The narrative of the first half of Exodus provides the context to this covenant relationship.[132]  The latter half of Exodus focuses on the “cultic” matters central to the life of the community shaped by a relationship with Yahweh.[133]

God had promised Israel the greatest of Gifts, to be his representatives on earth (Ex 19:5-6) and they had entered into a relationship with God on this basis (Ex 24: 3-8).[134]  Instead, they constructed a golden calf and ascribed to it all the wonders that God had wrought in bringing them out of Egypt (Ex 32:4).[135]  As a result, God had Moses pitch the tabernacle outside the camp (Ex 33:3 cf v7).[136]  The tent of meeting where God would commune with his people was indicative that there would be points of separation (including via the priesthood) between God and the people (Ex 33:7-15).[137]

The construction of the Tabernacle, including the crafting of the Ark leads to the detailed ceremonial law and related regulations for this newly covenanted community.[138]  The ceremonial law in particular, revealed Sin, especially through the sacrificial system and the mediatorial role of the priesthood.[139]  The laws that shaped the covenant community enabled God to tabernacle with Israel, to journey with them in a relationship mediated by the priestly ministrations of the Levitical priesthood and of course Moses who spoke with God face to face (Ex 33:7-16).[140] [141] [142]

Deuteronomy and the Purpose of God

The key elements of the purpose of God in the addresses of Moses at the end of his life are addressed in great detail.

Deuteronomy 4 is bookended by the return to a land that reflects Eden where God would be glorified.  Whilst ever God is glorified by the keeping of his promises (the knowledge of his glory), possession of the land would be maintained.

Deuteronomy 5 and 6 both contain strong echoes of relationship and community with God (5:3-4 and 6:4-5) and election and co-regency (7:6-10).

Therefore, the purpose of God in its three core elements is represented throughout this summing up of Moses.  We have fellowship and community (eg. 4:7; 10:12-13; 30:20), the land echoing with the knowledge of God’s glory (eg. 4:5-6; 12:4-7) and a people representing God to the world around them with rule over it (eg. 1:39; 4:1,40).

The Foreshadowing of Jesus – Application for Christians Today

Where Adam failed in fulfilling God’s purpose of relationship, Jesus of course facilitated the divine purpose by paving the way for true fellowship and community with God (Heb 4:15-16).[143]  The first element of the purpose of God in relationship is demonstrated in the incarnation of Jesus.

The ceremonial law of Leviticus pointed to the sacrifice of Messiah, supporting the contention that the internal substance of the Mosaic covenant was grace.[144]  In this respect, the old and new covenants are unified, and this should not be ignored nor the old covenant disregarded.[145]  The fact that the promises in Torah are generally referenced as “everlasting” (Gen 9:12; 13:15; 17:7, 13, 19; 48:4; and implied in Ex 12:14, 17, 24; 19:9; 27:21; 28:43), indicates that the grace of the old covenant flows into the new.[146]  The grace at the heart of the old covenant springs fully formed into being in the incarnation of Jesus.[147] In Jesus, the knowledge of the glory of God was able to be seen in the earth (1 Jn 1:1-5) and through him Christians became elect as God’s co-regents (1 Pet 2:4-10)

Conclusion

The fundamental purpose of God progressively revealed in the covenants of the Torah was redemptive in nature, encompassing the reconciliation of humanity with God in friendship. 

The principal covenantal relationship was established in Creation but broken in the fall.  This covenant of works was replaced by a covenant of grace progressively revealed in stages.  The creation covenant had a number of features including the establishment of a garden where Adam and Eve ruled as representatives of God with an obligation to “be fruitful and multiply”.  The place of the covenant is a special sanctuary made special by the fact that God dwells with humanity in a community that reflects the glory of God.

The Torah progressively articulates God’s purpose through the covenants and characterised by the accompanying frailty of humans.  Ultimately, the covenants of the Torah demonstrate God’s unfailing desire for relationship and community with his elect people.  This desire and purpose persists today as God continues to call out a people to represent his name.

Bibliography

Bellinger Jr., W. H. Introducing Old Testament Theology: Creation, Covenant, and Prophecy in the Divine-Human Relationship. Grand Rapids, UNITED STATES: Baker Academic, 2022. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bst/detail.action?docID=6963897.

Burger, Hans. “The Story of God’s Covenants: A Biblical-Theological Investigation with Systematic Consequences.” Calvin Theol. J. 54.2 (2019): 267–99.

Busenitz, Irvin A. “Introduction to the Biblical Covenants; the Noahic Covenant and the Priestly Covenant.” Masters Semin. J. 10.2 (1999): 173–89.

Chalmers, Aaron. “The Importance of the Noahic Covenant to Biblical Theology.” Tyndale Bull. 60.2 (2009): 207–16.

Dumbrell, William J. Covenant and Creation: An Old Testament Covenant Theology. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2013.

Duvall, J. Scott, and J. Daniel Hays. God’s Relational Presence : The Cohesive Center of Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids, UNITED STATES: Baker Academic, 2019. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bst/detail.action?docID=5966823.

Edersheim, Alfred. Bible History Old Testament. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1995.

Essex, Keith. “The Abrahamic Covenant.” Masters Semin. J. 10.2 (1999): 191–212.

Gentry, Peter J., and Stephen J Wellum. Kingdom Through Covenant (Second Edition): A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants. Second. Wheaton: Crossway, 2018. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.theoref.idm.oclc.org/lib/bst/detail.action?docID=6232710.

Harris, Robert Laird, Gleason Leonard Archer, and Bruce K Waltke. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Vol. Volume 2. Chicago, Il: Moody Press, 1980.

———. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Vol. Volume 1. Chicago, Il: Moody Press, 1980.

Hill, Andrew E., and John H. Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament. 3rd Edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2009.

Jeon, Jeong Koo, and Steven Baugh. Biblical Theology: Covenants and the Kingdom of God in Redemptive History. Eugene, United States: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2017. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dtl/detail.action?docID=4831926.

McDowell, Josh, and Sean McDowell. Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Sceptical World. Milton Keynes, UK: Authentic Media Ltd., 2017.

Mermelstein, Ari. “When History Repeats Itself: The Theological Significance of the Abrahamic Covenant in Early Jewish Writings.” J. Study Pseudepigr. 27.2 (2017): 113–42.

Parker, Brent E., and Richard J. (Eds.) Lucas. Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies : Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture. ProQuest Ebook Central. Westmont: InterVarsity Press, 2022.

Routledge, Robin. Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach. La Vergne, United States: IVP, 2020. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bst/detail.action?docID=6201837.

Schreiner, Thomas R. Covenant and God’s Purpose for the World. Wheaton: Crossway, 2017. https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtfXzE1NjEyMTdfX0FO0?sid=5bde4e15-f604-4dbf-8fa1-39f0a7413f69@redis&vid=7&format=EK&rid=5.

Seufert, Michael J. “A Walk They Remembered: Covenant Relationship as Journey in the Deuteronomistic History.” Biblic. Interpret. 25.2 (2017): 149–71. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685152-00250A06.

Van Asselt, Willem J. “Covenant Theology: An Invitation to Friendship.” NTT J. Theol. Study Relig. 64.1 (2010): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5117/NTT2010.64.001.ASSE, http://dx.doi.org/10.5117/NTT2010.64.001.ASSE.

Vander Hart, Mark D. “Creation and Covenant: A Survey of the Dominion Mandate in the Noahic and Abrahamic Covenants.” -Am. J. Theol. 6.1 (1990): 3–18.

Viola, Frank. From Eternity to Here: Rediscovering the Ageless Purpose of God. Colorado Springs, Co: David C Cooke, 2009.

Waters, Guy Prentiss, Richard Belcher, J. Nicholas Reid, John R. Muether, Ligon Duncan, Kevin DeYoung, Miles V. Van Pelt, John D. Wilson, Michael J. Kruger, et al. Covenant Theology : Biblical, Theological, and Historical Perspectives. Wheaton, United States: Crossway, 2020. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dtl/detail.action?docID=6362031.

---

[1] Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 3rd Edition. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2009), 25.

[2] Hans Burger, “The Story of God’s Covenants: A Biblical-Theological Investigation with Systematic Consequences,” Calvin Theol. J. 54.2 (2019): 271.

[3] Quoted in Willem J Van Asselt, “Covenant Theology: An Invitation to Friendship,” NTT J. Theol. Study Relig. 64.1 (2010): 6, https://doi.org/10.5117/NTT2010.64.001.ASSE, http://dx.doi.org/10.5117/NTT2010.64.001.ASSE.

[4] Prim. Root to pull up (as a tent peg at the start of the journey) Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer, and Bruce K Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, Il: Moody Press, 1980), Volume 2:583–84.

[5] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The ESV Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version) copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.  Used by permission.  All rights reserved

[6] Michael J. Seufert, “A Walk They Remembered: Covenant Relationship as Journey in the Deuteronomistic History,” Biblic. Interpret. 25.2 (2017): 169, https://doi.org/10.1163/15685152-00250A06.

[7] In addition to Torah, a further covenant can be identified relating to David with a subset in Solomon. Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant (Second Edition): A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants, Second. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2018), 30, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.theoref.idm.oclc.org/lib/bst/detail.action?docID=6232710.

[8] Hill and Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 25.

[9] Brent E. Parker and Richard J. (Eds.) Lucas, Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies : Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture., ProQuest Ebook Central. (Westmont: InterVarsity Press, 2022), 75.

[10] Van Asselt, “Covenant Theology,” 8.

[11] eg Dumbrell’s debate with Williamson in William J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: An Old Testament Covenant Theology (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2013), 13.

[12] Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 166–69.

[13] Thomas R. Schreiner, Covenant and God’s Purpose for the World (Wheaton: Crossway, 2017), 21, https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtfXzE1NjEyMTdfX0FO0?sid=5bde4e15-f604-4dbf-8fa1-39f0a7413f69@redis&vid=7&format=EK&rid=5.

[14] Jeong Koo Jeon and Steven Baugh, Biblical Theology: Covenants and the Kingdom of God in Redemptive History (Eugene, United States: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2017), 10, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dtl/detail.action?docID=4831926.

[15] Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 199–200.

[16] Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 197–98.

[17] Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer, and Bruce K Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, Il: Moody Press, 1980), Volume 1:128–30.

[18] Schreiner, Covenant, 21.

[19] Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 39.

[20] W. H. Bellinger Jr., Introducing Old Testament Theology: Creation, Covenant, and Prophecy in the Divine-Human Relationship (Grand Rapids, UNITED STATES: Baker Academic, 2022), 56, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bst/detail.action?docID=6963897.

[21] In context, whilst bound up in covenantal relationship, the word suggests a freedom based loyalty to a covenantal relationship Harris, Archer, and Waltke, Theological Wordbook, Volume 1:305–7 .

[22] Jeon and Baugh, Biblical Theology, 4.

[23] Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 38–39.

[24] Robin Routledge, Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach (La Vergne, United States: IVP, 2020), 117, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bst/detail.action?docID=6201837.

[25] Schreiner, Covenant, 25.

[26] Routledge, Old Testament Theology, 123.

[27] As an avatar for all of humanity and as an image bearer of God Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Sceptical World (Milton Keynes, UK: Authentic Media Ltd., 2017), 425.

[28] NB not the original, but rather a reflection. Bellinger Jr., Introducing Old Testament Theology, 53.

[29] Routledge, Old Testament Theology, 124.

[30] Jeon and Baugh, Biblical Theology, 2.

[31] Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 173.

[32] Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 41.

[33] ref Ezek 28:13-14 cp Ex 28:17-20 and the allusion of Ezek 28:11-19 to Adamic themes and the promise of Ex 19:5-6

[34] Bellinger Jr., Introducing Old Testament Theology, 53.

[35] Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 43.

[36] Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 42.

[37] Routledge, Old Testament Theology, 130–31.

[38] Frank Viola, From Eternity to Here: Rediscovering the Ageless Purpose of God (Colorado Springs, Co: David C Cooke, 2009), 284.

[39] Hill and Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, 71.

[40] Alfred Edersheim, Bible History Old Testament (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1995), 13–14.

[41] Guy Prentiss Waters et al., Covenant Theology : Biblical, Theological, and Historical Perspectives (Wheaton, United States: Crossway, 2020), 110, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dtl/detail.action?docID=6362031.

[42] Routledge, Old Testament Theology, 132.

[43] A view echoed in Schreiner, Covenant, 26.

[44] Note also Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 56.

[45] Routledge, Old Testament Theology, 100.

[46] Parker and Lucas, Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies, 14.

[47] Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 51.

[48] Note the juxtaposition of Gen 2:19, 22 cp 3:8-10

[49] Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 52.

[50] Jeon and Baugh, Biblical Theology, 16–17.

[51] Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 55.

[52] Jeon and Baugh, Biblical Theology, 87.

[53] Waters et al., Covenant Theology, 167.

[54] Harris, Archer, and Waltke, Theological Wordbook, Volume 2:563.

[55] Waters et al., Covenant Theology, 123.

[56] Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 269.

[57] cp 1 Pet 3:18-22

[58] Waters et al., Covenant Theology, 149.

[59] God commands Abraham to walk before me and be blameless.

[60] Schreiner, Covenant, 30.

[61] Waters et al., Covenant Theology, 126.

[62] (hqm brt) not necessarily an inauguration – possibly a continuation ref Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 13.

[63] Waters et al., Covenant Theology, 128.

[64] “Remembers” is a covenantal formula by which one calls to mind a previous promise rather than the English “remember” which signifies an original forgetting.

[65] Waters et al., Covenant Theology, 129.

[66] Schreiner, Covenant, 31.

[67] Waters et al., Covenant Theology, 128.

[68] Schreiner, Covenant, 29, 32.

[69] Aaron Chalmers, “The Importance of the Noahic Covenant to Biblical Theology,” Tyndale Bull. 60.2 (2009): 210.

[70] Irvin A Busenitz, “Introduction to the Biblical Covenants; the Noahic Covenant and the Priestly Covenant,” Masters Semin. J. 10.2 (1999): 185.

[71] Chalmers, “The Importance of the Noahic Covenant to Biblical Theology,” 210.

[72] Chalmers, “The Importance of the Noahic Covenant to Biblical Theology,” 213.

[73] Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 151–52.

[74] Routledge, Old Testament Theology, 145.

[75] Schreiner, Covenant, 37.

[76] Ari Mermelstein, “When History Repeats Itself: The Theological Significance of the Abrahamic Covenant in Early Jewish Writings,” J. Study Pseudepigr. 27.2 (2017): 115.

[77] Waters et al., Covenant Theology, 147.

[78] Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 223.

[79] Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 269.

[80] Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 223.

[81] note that Gen 12:1-3 appears to be the second commandment if the first recorded.

[82] Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 66–67.

[83] Keith Essex, “The Abrahamic Covenant,” Masters Semin. J. 10.2 (1999): 196.

[84] Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 81 cp Gen 13:14.

[85] Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 39.

[86] Waters et al., Covenant Theology, 149.

[87] Mark D Vander Hart, “Creation and Covenant: A Survey of the Dominion Mandate in the Noahic and Abrahamic Covenants,” -Am. J. Theol. 6.1 (1990): 16 Note Gen 15:2.

[88] cp Heb 11:8-12

[89] Vander Hart, “Creation and Covenant,” 16.

[90] Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 81–82.

[91] Waters et al., Covenant Theology, 149.

[92] The only other reference prior to this of an everlasting (olam) covenant was in Gen 13:15 “…to your seed forever”, however note Ezek 16:60 and Isa 24:5.  Everlasting is only possible for God in the sense that it has no beginning or end.

[93] Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 83.

[94] Harris, Archer, and Waltke, Theological Wordbook, Volume 1:6.

[95] Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 82.

[96] Waters et al., Covenant Theology, 157.

[97] Routledge, Old Testament Theology, 147.

[98] Waters et al., Covenant Theology, 149.

[99] Essex, “The Abrahamic Covenant,” 205.

[100] Jeon and Baugh, Biblical Theology, 79.

[101] Waters et al., Covenant Theology, 150.

[102] Essex, “The Abrahamic Covenant,” 205.

[103] Van Asselt, “Covenant Theology,” 7.

[104] J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, God’s Relational Presence : The Cohesive Center of Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, UNITED STATES: Baker Academic, 2019), 35–36, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bst/detail.action?docID=5966823.

[105] cp 12:1-4

[106] Van Asselt, “Covenant Theology,” 7.

[107] Bellinger Jr., Introducing Old Testament Theology, 60.

[108] Schreiner, Covenant, 53.

[109] Viola, From Eternity to Here, 284.

[110] Possibly best translated as “I am he who is” or “I am he who exists” Harris, Archer, and Waltke, Theological Wordbook, Volume 1:213–14.

[111] Harris, Archer, and Waltke, Theological Wordbook, Volume 1:82.

[112] According to Harris et al, the etymology of the name given by the Tetragrammaton is questionable though different from the phrase translated I AM THAT I AM. Nevertheless, YHWH has become the covenant name by which the Old Testament writers referred to the eternal spirit Harris, Archer, and Waltke, Theological Wordbook, Volume 1:211.

[113] Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 107–8.

[114] Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 109. Note for comparison Gen 8:1.

[115] Waters et al., Covenant Theology, 149.

[116] Jeon and Baugh, Biblical Theology, 87.

[117] Waters et al., Covenant Theology, 167.

[118] Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 271.

[119] Jeon and Baugh, Biblical Theology, 88.

[120] Waters et al., Covenant Theology, 167.

[121] Routledge, Old Testament Theology, 149.

[122] Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 111.

[123] Jeon and Baugh, Biblical Theology, 94.

[124] Schreiner, Covenant, 57.

[125] Jeon and Baugh, Biblical Theology, 90.

[126] Schreiner, Covenant, 58.

[127] Schreiner, Covenant, 55.

[128] Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 273.

[129] Bellinger Jr., Introducing Old Testament Theology, 63.

[130] Duvall and Hays, God’s Relational Presence : The Cohesive Center of Biblical Theology, 35–36.

[131] Bellinger Jr., Introducing Old Testament Theology, 63.

[132] Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 62.

[133] Bellinger Jr., Introducing Old Testament Theology, 63.

[134] Duvall and Hays, God’s Relational Presence : The Cohesive Center of Biblical Theology, 42–43.

[135] Bellinger Jr., Introducing Old Testament Theology, 45–46.

[136] Note that Duvall and Hays state that God’s NAME would dwell in the presence of Israel but that it was closely related throughout this period with the Tabernacle – and that Tabernacle was pitched outside the camp. Duvall and Hays, God’s Relational Presence : The Cohesive Center of Biblical Theology, 53.

[137] Jeon and Baugh, Biblical Theology, 102.

[138] Jeon and Baugh, Biblical Theology, 95.

[139] Waters et al., Covenant Theology, 173.

[140] Bellinger Jr., Introducing Old Testament Theology, 70.

[141] Jeon and Baugh, Biblical Theology, 102.

[142] Duvall and Hays, God’s Relational Presence : The Cohesive Center of Biblical Theology, 53.

[143] Duvall and Hays, God’s Relational Presence : The Cohesive Center of Biblical Theology, 173.

[144] Jeon and Baugh, Biblical Theology, 92.

[145] Schreiner, Covenant, 77.

[146] Schreiner, Covenant, 77.

[147] Duvall and Hays, God’s Relational Presence : The Cohesive Center of Biblical Theology, 152.