It seems that the concept of covenant goes overlook in mainstream Christianity. This is problematic. When we overlook the concept of covenant in our thinking about salvation and our faith, our theology can go awry (and become quite unbiblical). It was the very intention of the early church to center salvation around the concept of covenant (as they properly interpreted the cross) by naming the Christian Canon the Old and New Testaments. Testament just means covenant, or agreement.
The very name of the Bible itself suggests that covenant is essential for our thinking about Christ and the cross (especially during the Easter season).
In the Hebrew tradition, the Old Testament isn’t called the “Old Testament.” it’s simply called the “TANAK”, or “The Bible”. TANAK is an acronym for Torah (Law), Nevi’im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings). The concept of covenant never even enters the picture concerning the Hebrew Bible’s titling.
At the same time, the concept of covenant is crucial to the Old Testament, especially its theology. Not only this, but the concept of covenant that gets fleshed out throughout the Scriptures finds its origins in the Old Testament and its ancient Near Eastern context.
The Hebrew word for covenant is b’rith and it originates with the concept of fictive kinship of ancient Near Eastern patriarchal culture and society. In the ancient world, family members’ legal and economic connection to society (and thereby wellbeing) came through the oldest living male of the family—the patriarch. The patriarch was breadwinner and judge—life-giver and defender. Without a patriarch, individuals were cut-off from a life that was so heavily dependent on the larger network of families and tribes (especially for the bedouin of the ancient Near East).
This is why there is much concern for the orphans and widows in the Scriptures—they have no patriarch. This means that they have no one to connect them legally or economically to society, which in turn means that they have very little hope for survival.
In this sort of a situation, a fictive kinship could be forged through adoption or marriage. The institutions of adoption and marriage allow for individuals who are not blood relatives to enter into a relationship in which they would act as if they were, in fact, blood relatives. This fictive kinship was made possible through a covenant (non unlike the marriage and adoption today).
It begins to become clear, then, what it means when God appears to Abraham and says, “I wish to create a covenant with you.” In much the same way, we gain a certain depth of understanding when we read that God created a covenant with the people of Israel at Sinai. Further still, when Jesus says, “this is the blood of the new covenant,” we can understand that this is something familial happening.
Hence we have the symbol of blood in covenant making. The blood symbolizes that even though the individuals do not share the same blood, they will behave as if they did. Furthermore, the blood of the covenant symbolizes that death is the consequence for violating the covenant. Once again, without the patriarch, one faces death. Failure to obey the patriarch and violation of his ethic means being cut-off from the source of life for the individual.
In short, when we enter into the covenant via faith, we’re becoming members of the family of God—more specifically, God becomes our Great Patriarch, our breadwinner and judge, defender and life-giver. Implicit in this metaphor for salvation is the idea that members of the family of God conform to the very image of the patriarch and the firstborn son.
What I’m saying is that one cannot enter into a fictive kinship with and through Jesus, drink his blood and eat his body, and fail to be conformed to his image. The entire purpose of the covenant is to share the heart of Christ in the believer. The purpose of the covenant is nothing less than holiness.
