Covenant

archive

Home Category : Covenant

Exemple

“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” — P. J. O’Rourke LINK (Brainy Quote)

               Our educational system directs the flow of billions of dollars each year to not only schools, but to the myriad of services connected to schools averaging $17,013 per pupil nationally 2019-20 (NCES).  Mark Lieberman reported in Education Week that in 2019-2020 our combined state and federal governments spent a total of $795 billion on direct education expenses amounting to 7% of the federal budget (Lieberman 2022).  According to the Sycamore Institute, Tennessee receives 1.1 billion from the Federal government for K-12 funding through over 12 programs (Spears 2023).  Between all these direct and indirect expenditures, testing companies, textbook companies, consultants, and bureaucrats reap significant dividends and salaries based on decisions made in the halls of our state and federal governments.  With that amount of money, no one should be surprised that large sums of money are also spent on swaying the positions and votes of our politicians.  Ninety million dollars was reported in 2022 for the entire U.S. for lobbying in education. 

               Long before Bill Lee became governor of Tennessee, educational reform foundations began their work in Tennessee.  These foundations are funded by other foundations – often run by billionaires living and working outside of Tennessee. The visionaries and advocacy groups behind these education reform movements have been working hard behind the scenes, some taking credit for directing the changes taking place over the last few years and some taking credit for influencing elections across the state through money spent for or against candidates – See “Election Influences” in Bibliography. 

               Now that Governor Lee has made the announcement about his Education Freedom legislation concerning school vouchers, the organizations and political action committee’s (PAC’s) working behind the scenes may see their decades long work paying off if Universal School vouchers come to Tennessee.  These entities have been hard at work positioning their legislators with funding for years.  One would expect groups like teacher’s unions to be constantly trying to influence votes, but they are not alone.  These pro-“school choice” groups have been consistently donating money to influence elections. Given the influence of money on one’s inclinations on an issue, one must ask how unbiased the politician may be after those larger donations along with other monetary influences to be described further below have become the norm for over a decade. 

               Now, before you dismiss five to ten thousand dollar donations as a drop in the bucket of a political campaign, some perspective is in order to gain a fuller picture of the influence of his money.  First, although there are dollar limits on how much money one person or one PAC can donate, the combination of several PAC’s working together can add up to much more than an individual donation.  Examples of this can be found in resources mentioned further below.  Second, for some state legislators whose total campaign donations are in the 100,000 to 200,000 dollar range, a total of $20,000 can be a sizable chunk.   Third, not all money is listed in campaign finances thanks to something known as “independent expenditures” which don’t have to be reported in the donations.  These expenditures can include a group covering the mailing cost for a candidate’s flyers or simply paying for ads against the competition.  Either way, thousands can and have been spent to help elect an official who will of course remain unbiased by such help when it comes time to vote (sarcasm).  Independent Expenditures can be seen here on this TABLE.  

               Fourth, and finally, we come to lobbying and lobbyists.  Tom Humphrey published in the Knox News Sentinel online edition in 2018 about this issue.  Even back then, he notes that three of the above pro-school choice PAC’s reported 1.2 million dollars in July 2018 disclosures.  He describes how this money was used in a variety of ways.  Some was spent on lobbyist direct work.  Some was spent on “independent expenditures” as noted in the prior paragraph.  Some of this money was spent on attack advertising in school board elections.  The full article linked below contains more details.

               With these various potential influxes of influential dollars into our legislators’ campaign pockets, we should ask who might these influences be and do we agree with them.  You could look at a state campaign finance website to wade through vast and confusing data hoping to make sense of it, or you can look at a few websites where others have done the arduous work for you.  By looking at these more understandable user interfaces, you will first see that Big Medicine influences our state government with a lot of money (this is a story for another day).  Then if you know the names to look for, you will see a number of education related groups beyond the Tennessee Education Association (TEA – teachers union) doing the same forms of influencing. 

               Some of the most noticeable pro-charter school, pro-education reform foundations and advocacy groups influencing legislation through legislators in Tennessee include the national entity 50CAN in Tennessee known as TennCAN (Tennesseans for Putting Students First (PAC)), Tennesseans for Student Success (Team Kid PAC), the national entity known as the  American Federation for Children (or Tennessee Federation for Children(, and the Great Public Schools PAC (also sometimes listed as Campaign for Great Public Schools/City Fund/Public School Allies.  (see Bibliography for “Organization Links”).

               Each of these groups deserve much deeper descriptions than this article can provide. However, I can give you enough of an overview through portions of their history, their founders, their operators, their stated goals, their past work, and their own financial sources to see that we as parents should be concerned about their influences.

               50 CAN:  Mark Magee started 50CAN as CONCAN in Connecticut and then expanded to national work.  This founder has a B.A. from Georgetown and a Ph.D. from Duke in sociology and desires to create local advocacy for reimagining schools through vouchers and accountability.  He was a founding member of the Progressive founding director of the Center for Civic Enterprise at the Progressive Policy Institute which worked toward influencing the “New” democratic party (Magee FutureEd and Fordham Institute).  He focuses on science based political advocacy at the local level and education reform through Choice options which include accountability as a core tenant. The organization began working in TN in 2011.  They take credit in their work for many of the education reforms in TN in recent years and they have a strategic plan for the state laid out in their Annual Updates and scoring of TN educational laws (2022 Tennessee Report Card).  This organization played a significant role in passing the TISA (Tennessee Investment in Student Achievement Act) educational reform in 2022.  Reading their site would initially make one think that their motives are well-intentioned for the good of children, but the complexities of how that is worked out deserves attention in a separate article to come.  For now, considering the sources of their funding one might be more hesitant to trust their stated goals.  Their donors include the Bill Gates Foundation and The Walton Foundation as noted on Influence Watch.  Tennessee CAN or TennCAN is simply the Tennessee chapter of 50CAN. Tennesseans for Putting Students First PAC appears to be the Political Action Committee arm of 50CAN and Tennessee, but I could be wrong as the campaign reports are confusing on this matter. Student Firsts was another pro-school choice organization initially operating in Tennessee but merged with 50CAN in 2016. 

               Tennessee Federation for Children (chapter of American Federation for Children (AFC)):  William Oberndorf partnered with the late John Walton in the early 1990s to form what today is known as the American Federation for Children.  Mr. Oberndorf still serves as Chairman. The AFC is reportedly an offshoot of the defunct All Children Matters organization connected with the DeVos family (Vogel 2016). See the Vogel site for their explanation of funding sources as their own site does not list funding sources. The focus of the Foundation is on K–12 education, mental health initiatives, and the environment. He is a life trustee of the University of California San Francisco where he chairs the Neuroscience Academy.

               Tennesseans for Student Success (and their TeamKid PAC) seems to be run by Tennesseans across middle and east Tennessee but their funding sources are not clear.  Of the two sources that are listed one is the Campaign for Great Public Schools which also has their own PAC.  Other funding sources are unknown.  Like the other entities, the website talks about innovation in education and charter schools as a means of choice (Friedman 2023 “27.1 million”).

               Great Public Schools PAC appears to be run by the democratic ex-mayor of Indianapolis, Indiana who now runs charter schools.  It is a pro-charter school PAC with two billionaire donors- one from California (the founder of Netflix) and one from Texas.  The PAC makes donations to both Tennessee legislators and to the other foundations such as Tennesseans for Student Success.

               For further insights and financial facts on how much these groups spent on various races in Tennessee, you can read the articles on the Tennessee Lookout by Friedman in the bibliography.  For even further nitty-gritty details you can compare and contrast database compilations for campaign contributions from both sides of the political fence.  On one side you can look at Legislative Report Card’s Contribution Dashboard.  On other side you can dig into the Cash For Clout site.  Their links are below.

Summary

               As I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Democrat politicians on opposing School Choice (although for very different reasons), I appreciate one more quote:

“It’s an issue that Democrats and Republicans seem to come together on, the over-influence of money in politics and in power.” — Andrew Gillum – LINK (AZ Quotes)

               We clearly have good reason to question the neutrality of many legislators on the issue of choice after seeing the dollar amounts they have received from these groups.  These groups, on the surface, sound well-intentioned and agreeable, but the further you dig, the more concerning their worldviews and agenda become. Their donations and independent expenditures assisted in multiple re-election or opposition efforts across our state.  Politicians know who they need to please when the next election cycle comes around and do not forget who got them there in the first place.

               This same list of pro-“school choice” and public accountability organizations will likely be around for the next election cycle.  This list will help keep them there if they want to get re-elected.  Given the stakes in the decisions to be considered regarding education policy in Tennessee, we must hold our leaders accountable to the voters more than to these nationally funded advocacy foundations.  Our children and the future of our state are affected by the votes on Capitol Hill.  Take this issue seriously and return to learn more as we share more about why we believe School Choice or its Tennessee rebranded name “Education Freedom” is false advertising.  The people and groups behind this movement do not deserve our trust.  When you are ready, tell your Representative or Senator what you think and why you believe that way.  Reach out to me if you want to know more. 

Election Influences:

50 Can . (n.d.). Our results. 50CAN National. https://50can.org/our-approach/our-results. Accessed 12/10/2023.

About Tennesseans for student success. SuccessCard. (2020, June 17). https://tnsuccesscard.com/about-tennesseans-for-student-success/#12/10/2023.  Accessed 12/10/2023.

Friedman, A.  T. L. N. 30. (2023, December 3). The $27.1 million clash between Education Reform and Public School advocates. Tennessee Lookout. https://tennesseelookout.com/2023/11/30/the-27-1-million-clash-between-education-reform-and-public-school-advocates/. Accessed 12/10/23.

Williams, P. (2023, November 20). Revealed: Confidential documents describe secret effort to elect lawmakers for school privatization. News Channel 5 Nashville (WTVF). https://www.newschannel5.com/news/newschannel-5-investigates/revealed/revealed-confidential-documents-describe-secret-effort-to-elect-lawmakers-for-school-privatization. accessed 12/10/23.

Winning candidates in competitive legislative primaries were rewarded for putting students first. Tennesseans for Student Success. (2022, August 5). https://tnsuccess.org/winning-candidates-in-competitive-legislative-primaries-were-rewarded-for-putting-students-first. Accessed 12/10/23.

Organization Links:

               50CAN  https://50can.org/ 

               TennesseeCAN  https://tn-can.org/

               American Federation for Children https://www.federationforchildren.org/

               Tennessee Federation for Children https://www.schoolchoicetn.com/about/

               Tennesseans for Student Success https://tnsuccess.org/

               Great Public Schools PAC- no website found- 2 billionaires give money (Smith 2022)

               Casey Smith, I. C. C. O. 31. (2022, October 31). PAC led by former Indy mayor Bart Peterson gives                big to pro-charter School candidates. Indiana Capital Chronicle. https://indianacapitalchronicle.com/2022/10/31/pac-led-by-former-indy-mayor-bart-peterson-gives-big-to-pro-charter-school-candidates/


Bibliography:

2022 Tennessee Policy Report Card. TennesseeCAN. (2022, November). https://tn-can.org/research-and-resources/research/

50CAN. Influence Watch. (2020, January 2). https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/50can-inc/#:~:text=50CAN%20has%20received%20grants%20over,the%20Silicon%20Valley%20Community%20Foundation.

Contributions dashboard. The Legislative Report Card. (2023, November 14). https://tnreportcard.org/contributions-dashboard/

Fordham Institute. By the company it keeps: Marc Porter Magee. The Thomas B. Fordham Institute. https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/company-it-keeps-marc-porter-magee

Friedman, A. (2023, July 24). Cash for clout: Who’s funding Tennessee’s politics? Tennessee Lookout. https://tennesseelookout.com/2023/07/24/cash-for-clout-whos-funding-tennessees-politics/

Friedman, A. (2023, November 28). Independent spending by pro-charter groups. Flourish. https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/15928805/

Humphrey, T. (2016, October 16). Tennessee pro-charter School Pacs’ spending up. Knoxville News Sentinel. https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/2016/10/16/tennessee-pro-charter-school-pacs-spending-up/92055016/

Leading lobbying industries U.S. 2022. Statista. (2023, November 3). https://www.statista.com/statistics/257364/top-lobbying-industries-in-the-us/

Lieberman, M. (2022, May 11). What America spends on K-12: The latest federal snapshot. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/what-america-spends-on-k-12-the-latest-federal-snapshot/2022/05

Marc Porter Magee. FutureEd. (2023, February 8). https://www.future-ed.org/team/marc-porter-magee/

NCES Fast Facts.  National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Home Page, a part of the U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

Spears, M. (2023, November 9). Federal funding for K-12 education in Tennessee. The Sycamore Institute. https://www.sycamoreinstitutetn.org/tn-federal-k12-funding/#:~:text=Programs%20and%20Requirements-,Tennessee%20typically%20receives%20about%20%241.1%20billion%20annually%20in%20federal%20K,federal%20requirements%20(Figure%202)

Vogel, W. by P. (2016, April 27). Here are the corporations and right-wing funders backing the Education Reform Movement. Media Matters for America. https://www.mediamatters.org/daily-caller/here-are-corporations-and-right-wing-funders-backing-education-reform-movement#ascafc

Read More →
Exemple

By Jennifer Potter

              In Psalm 11 David laments, “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3)- a sentiment which fits well within the context of our current cultural dissolution, a dissolution resulting in part from cultural adherence to ideology over relationship, covenantal relationship.  When we base the principles underlying our thinking upon an ideology, we forfeit the stability of foundational covenantal principles in both the society and the individual …”for as [a man] thinketh in his heart, so is he (Proverbs 23:7 KJV)[E1] .” Therefore, let believers practice covenantal thinking, rejecting ideological influence, that a stable foundation may be put into place for both the individual and for the larger society. 

              In order to reject an ideological influence, we must be able to recognize its presence.  The word ideology originated with Enlightenment thinkers of the French Revolution who were looking to create a new science which would be useful in developing new truths to replace the old foundations of society. Simply put, ideology was the study of man’s ideas or sense perceptions.  This study was to form the new enlightened or rational societal foundation, one without need for transcendence. Man was to be the center of this endeavor. While ideology as a science did not persist, in the 1800s, a focus upon man and his own perceptions took hold of thinkers who were still searching for ways to alter the foundations of society and produce a man centered utopia.  Men more readily practiced eisegesis in their formulation of truth reading into their studies that which their own senses preferred.  This eisegesis resulted in myriads of thought systems such as the communism of Karl Marx revolutionizing cultures even into the present.

              Today, ideology as a term is used to describe a system of thought developed through man’s eisegetical study which proscribes acceptable thought and behavior centered around abstract premises with little care about their rationality. As they have moved into popular culture[E2] , the ongoing revolutionary fervor of man’s ideologies has eroded previous cultural foundations; now force is used to apply ever-morphing ideologies upon masses of people.

              While the practice of forcing others to fit into a narrow and evolving ideology seems to have conquered our present culture, believers need not be ensnared. Through covenantal thinking we can reject ideological absurdities. Our thinking, when based upon exegetical truth keeps us within the context of the covenantal relationships established by God. Understanding, developed from exegesis of the Word, means our lives can be defined by relational rootedness with the Creator and with one another. Paul tells the Ephesian church to “…try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord” in the context of their relationship to Him as His children (5:10 ESV).  In Ephesians 4, Paul encourages them to remember that “…they are members of one another” bounded by the covenant and the relationships it creates (4:25 ESV).  Covenantal relationship bounded by broad stipulations forms the foundation upon which we can return stability to our own lives and the life of our culture.  Ideologies tear down but covenantal relationship builds up.

              So, what do the righteous do when the foundations have crumbled?  According to Psalm 11, first remember that God is on his throne watching the children of man and testing the righteous until such time as the wicked and their false ideologies will be destroyed holding to the promise that ” …the upright shall behold His face (Ps. 11:7).”  In the interval, the time of testing, we live based upon covenantal thinking rejecting vain philosophies and ideologies (Colossians 2:8) and rightly exegeting the Truth of God found in the Bible. Embracing the covenantal relationship bounded by the Creator’s stipulations keeps us from falling for the narrow eisegesis of man centered ideologies thereby rebuilding the crumbling foundations and offering the stability of Truth. 

Further Study:

https://www.biblegateway.com. English Standard Version (ESV). Accessed September 4.2023.

https://www.biblegateway.com. King James Version (KJV). Accessed September 4, 2023.

Kennedy, E. (1989). A cultural history of the French Revolution (p. 20). New Haven: Yale University Press.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Antoine-Louis-Claude-Comte-Destutt-de-Tracy[E3] ,

Cranston, M. (2023, June 17). ideology. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/ideology-society. Accessed June 17, 2023.

Sypnowich, Christine, “Law and Ideology”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/law-ideology/>. Accessed June 17, 2023.

Uzgalis, William, “John Locke”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/locke/>.  Accessed June 17, 2023.

Harper, D. (n.d.). Etymology of ideology. Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved July 15, 2023, from https://www.etymonline.com/word/ideology


 [E3](Britannica, Antoine Louis; Kennedy, 56)

Read More →
Exemple

By Jennifer Potter

              Before subsequently interweaving throughout the covenants, marriage and by extension family, find their inauguration within the Creation Account.  Over the course of the first two chapters in Genesis, covenant relationship defines not only God’s providential relationship to His creatures, but He also establishes covenant relationship as the means by which His image bearers are connected to one another.  In man’s brief period of innocence, their beneficent Creator provides for them the most fundamental of human social relationships – covenantal marriage- establishing from their union the plan of covenant family as the means by which humanity fills the earth. Commentator Matthew Henry observed that “marriage is one of only…two ordinances instituted in [man’s] innocency” (1). Highlighting the significance of covenantal ties between humanity, God establishes the fundamental social institutions of covenantal marriage and by extension the covenantal family as a part of His “very good” creational order establishing for all time the norms by which society best functions.

              In studying the social structures instituted at Creation, Biblical standards for marriage and family emerge in their covenantal context. In general, the first chapter in Genesis gives an overview of the Creation week when on the final day of creative activity, God determines to form His image bearer giving humans a crowning significance as the Psalmist declares, “You have made him [mankind] a little lower than the heavenly beings, and crowned him with glory and honor” (ESV, Psalm 8:5).   Upon his image bearers, the Creator declares blessing using language common in biblical covenantal structures, the ‘is-ought’ blessing, meaning an assured promise is stated but a responsibility requiring active participation also is presented.  This blessed responsibility reads, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion “…over every living thing that moves on the earth,” giving covenantal responsibility to the man and woman to fill the earth with other image bearers that they may care for the Creation as their Creator cares for them (ESV, Genesis 1:28).  Through God’s explicit design and blessing, the covenantal family is made the primary means of both filling the earth and caring for it.  By the end of the chapter, the fundamental relationships of marriage and family have been established as part of a covenantal and well-managed created order.  

               These fundamental relationships are further expounded upon in the extended retelling of man’s creation in Genesis 2.  This account gives more details on the covenantal nature of the relationship between the man and the woman.  In summary, God creates the first man Adam giving him substance formed out of the dust, existence through His breath, residence in the garden, blessings through provisions and beauty, employment through garden keeping and animal classification, relationship with Himself through covenant, and covenantal sacraments in the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Having situated man in a perfect garden, God relates to Adam, who as Matthew Henry asserts dwelt in an easy and honorable state, placing this man under the Covenant of Works and giving him full ability to carry out his responsibilities in paradise (2,3).

              However, even in these ideal conditions, God saw that Adam needed a helper of like substance for to be alone was not good (ESV, Genesis 2: 18). In Hebrew the word helper literally means “one who helps” with the Greek Septuagint equivalent translating directly as “a helper” (4,5).  This helper was not to be a subordinate being but one able to provide for the man that which God Himself recognized as needful even in His good Creation.  Of note, the Greek word for helper used in this account is also used in the New Testament referring to God Himself as Helper suggesting the strong positive role man’s helpmeet was given.  Hebrews 13:6 reads: “The Lord is my helper; I will not fear” [italics mine] (ESV). So, God planned to provide man with relationship not only to Himself but also to a strong helper equal in honor to the man and indeed both distinct and yet a part of man; for God does not again use the dust of the earth to fashion this helper. Rather, He uses the body of the man.  Taking the flesh of the man by using a rib from his side God creates one equal in significance, one to be beloved and protected at his side (1).  In a very real sense, they are of one flesh.  Word study is again valuable here. This word flesh is from the Hebrew word meaning “flesh or blood relations” with the Greek Septuagint equivalent meaning “flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts” (6,7). These words shed light on the deep relational connection established by the Creator’s hand between His image bearers. In the account, following the formation of man’s help meet, the Lord leads the woman in presentation to the man almost as if He is “the officiating minister” joining the two together by sovereign appointment (8). Here, in the fresh beauty of the garden, the Creator positioned Adam and his wife under the marriage covenant which in a sense fits or at least reflects the definition of covenants God initiates between Himself and humankind: “a bond-in-blood sovereignly administered” (9). This similarity in covenantal elements emphasizes the inter-relationship between the vertical covenant and the horizontal covenant established at creation. In this first horizontal covenant, the Sovereign Creator initiated, arranged, and oversaw the structure establishing it at the dawn of humanity’s existence placing marriage under man’s covenantal responsibilities to Himself while providing for man’s needs.

              After the presentation of the newly formed covenantal helper, the man responds in joyful acknowledgment of God’s provision in this one woman declaring her “…. bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (ESV, Genesis 2:23) acknowledging God’s masterful answer to his need for companionship and succor.  Matthew Henry comments in “…designing Adam a help meet for him, he made him one wife…And wherefore did he make but one woman for one man?  It was that he might seek a godly seed- a seed of God…a seed that she bear the image of God , be employed in the service of God, and be devoted to his glory and honor” (10)  In this, the second chapter of Genesis, God establishes the marriage covenant between one man and one woman, a creational ordinance acknowledged by Christ in the New Testament and tied to the one flesh union between the man and woman who are given the responsibility to have children instituting the covenant family for as Henry also concludes “the raising up of godly seed…is one of the great ends of the institution of marriage” (10). Therefore, after the creation of the woman, God directly inaugurates not only the marriage covenant but also the family lines by which man’s ongoing covenantal responsibilities will move forward. Through the marriage covenant and this end of bearing seed, Adam and his wife will carry out the blessed responsibility of being fruitful, filling the earth, and having dominion.

              Being established prior to the Fall, covenantal marriage, with the resulting family, stands out as the first horizontal covenant inaugurated in Scripture.  Adam, as the representative head of humanity (11) and the woman as his help meet are covenanted together by God’s explicit design that together they may obey the stipulations of the covenant with their God and fulfill their responsibilities toward one another participating in the blessing of filling the earth with godly seed who will care for the creation.  God as covenant initiator, sets forth in the creation account the pattern for man’s first covenant with woman in marriage.

              This covenantal pattern continues as a fundamental aspect of subsequent covenants after man’s fall into sin such that the marriage covenant and the family born from it place covenantal responsibilities upon all mankind. Such subsequently repeated covenantal responsibilities apply not only to a man and woman in a marriage covenant but also to any group of men and women as a church or society in regards to honoring and protecting this marriage covenant. In the New Testament, Jesus[LP1]  places this responsibility upon humanity in general: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (ESV, Matthew 19: 6b).  A society’s repudiation of God’s fundamental covenantal design puts them at odds with the Creator of the Universe- a very precarious place indeed.

  1. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202&version=NIV, Accessed July 9,2023.
  2. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202&version=NIV, Accessed July 9, 2023
  3. Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter VII:II. and IX:II. Trinity Hymnal (2021), (p. 852 & 854). 20th Edition. Great Commission Publications.
  4. Old Testament Hebrew Lexical Dictionary developed by Jeff Garrison for StudyLight.org. Copyright 1999-2023. All Rights Reserved, Jeff Garrison, Gdansk, Poland. https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/05828.html, Accessed July 11, 2023.
  5. Old / New Testament Greek Lexical Dictionary developed by Jeff Garrison for StudyLight.org. Copyright 1999-2023. All Rights Reserved, Jeff Garrison, Gdansk, Poland.   https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/greek/998.html,  Accessed July 11, 2023.
  6. Old / New Testament Greek Lexical Dictionary developed by Jeff Garrison for StudyLight.org.  Copyright 1999-2023. All Rights Reserved, Jeff Garrison, Gdansk, Poland. https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/greek/4561.html, Accessed July 9, 2023.
  7. Old Testament Hebrew Lexical Dictionary developed by Jeff Garrison for StudyLight.org. Copyright 1999-2023. All Rights Reserved, Jeff Garrison, Gdansk, Poland.  https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/01320.html, July 10, 2023.
  8. Edith, D. (1963). Family Living in the Bible (p. 5). Harper and Row Publishers.
  9. Robertson, O. P. (1980). The Christ of the Covenants (p. 15). Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.
  10. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%202&version=NIV, accessed July 9, 2023
  11. Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. 16. Trinity Hymnal (2021), (870). 20th Edition. Great Commission Publications.
Read More →
Exemple

Covenant Defines Relationships

By Jennifer Potter

              “The people shouted with a great shout when they praised the Lord because the foundation of the house of the Lord was laid” (Ezra 3:11b, ESV). God’s people celebrated when the foundation of the temple was restored after their long captivity.  In like fashion, we earnestly desire to restore our foundations (Is. 58:12), particularly the institution of the family.  In order to meet this challenge, we must return to explicit covenantal thinking.  We have to our own detriment oft neglected to nurture covenantal thinking; we have ignored the inherent covenantal structure of God’s created order. This failure has led to the significant erosion of foundational truths. Because covenants define relationships in Scripture between the Godhead, between God and creation, between God and man, and between man and man, reestablishing the covenantal foundations in our thinking must undergird any successful return to Biblical cultural foundations. 

               At the most essential level, a covenant is that which binds the parties involved into a relationship (1, p 6).  Samuel Rutherford takes the concept a step further when he asserts, “A covenant speaks something of giving and taking, work and renewal, and mutual engagements between parties…” (2, p 49).  In other words, the covenantal created order involves duties and obligations between parties. While a variety of covenantal relationships exist in Scripture, God has set forth the principles and obligations of those relationships in His Word.   By adhering to the covenantal structures inherent in the created order, we begin the process of renewal so desperately needed and like Paul become “the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing” (II Corinthians 2:15-16, ESV).

              From the beginning, God has related to His creation – even the night and the day – through covenantal structure (Genesis 9:10, 12, 17; Hosea 2:18; Jeremiah 33:25).  Rutherford acknowledges that God makes a kind of covenant with not only day and night but also the beasts, urging that they fulfill His commands faithfully (2, p. 53) In addition, God from the beginning related to His image bearers through formal covenant. “By initiating covenants, God never enters into a casual or informal relationship with man” (1, p.7-8).  In fact, all mankind, whether they acknowledge it or not, are in a relationship with their Creator under a covenantal framework. Rutherford asserts that “for God to walk among a people and be their God is to be a Covenanting God to them…” (2, p. 314). Of the Christian, Paul writes in II Corinthians 6:16 that “we are the temple of the living God.” He goes on in this chapter to use the language of Leviticus 26:11-12 for the blessings of the covenant and the language of Jeremiah 31:33 and 32:28 in regards to the New Covenant promises. Covenant defines God’s relationship to man in both Old and New Testaments. 

              Furthermore, the Bible subsumes covenants between men under the Creator-man covenantal relationship, connecting all relationships to Himself.  One such example can be found in coordinating Ezekiel 17 and Chronicles 32.  In these passages, King Zedekiah makes a covenant with King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon agreeing to be a vassal ruler under him and swearing to the God of Israel to keep this covenant.  However, eventually he breaks his covenant agreement by secretly turning to Pharaoh in Egypt for help against his overlord. Through Ezekiel God declares, “I will spread my net over him [Zedekiah], and he shall be taken in my snare, and I will bring him to Babylon and enter into judgment with him there for the treachery he has committed against me” (Ezekiel 17:20). Here we see that in breaking the man-to-man (horizontal) covenant, Zedekiah is guilty of treachery against God Himself.  Horizontal covenants are encompassed as subordinate elements in the Creator-man covenant.  

              Additionally, at creation we see instituted the first horizontal covenant, that of marriage-the most fundamental of communal ties. Amid the Creation account, the relationship between the man and his wife is established in covenantal terms with duties and obligations set forth by the Creator (Genesis 1-2).  “…The man and the woman, according to God’s own stated intention for them, were created in a just and holy relationship in order that they might mirror the Creator God to his creation,” (3, p 448). Together, in their creaturely perfection, they were a correspondent reflection of the Triune character of God Himself (p. 448) and their duties to their Creator included the duties to one another (3, p.429).  While their relationship is established before the Fall, it is also confirmed after the Fall (Genesis 1-3; Matthew 19:4-7).  Further, in these first chapters of Genesis, we see the covenantal ties of family established: God commands Adam and Eve to ‘”be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). Herein covenantal obligations of this relationship exist and are fleshed out more specifically over the course of God’s revealed Word in passages such as Deuteronomy 6:6-7, Exodus 12:26-27, Psalm 78:5-6, Ephesians 6:1-4, and Colossians 3:20-21. Because God has established His relationship with man via covenant, man’s inter-relational covenants in all their interactions depend upon the covenantal stipulations of the relationship man has with his Creator.

              Because of this created dependence, we must begin the work of rebuilding a correct outworking of family relationships within God’s created order by returning to covenantal thinking – both God-ward and man-ward.  A foundation of covenantal thinking will help us to frame the positive vision for the family and to combat the negative attacks on this God ordained institution.  In doing so, may we be found stewards of the Word of God, able “to discern what is pleasing to the Lord” (Eph 5:10), faithfully understanding and applying truth so that the foundations of covenantal family life may be restored leading to a renewed culture.

Bibliography:

  1. Robertson, O. P. (1980). The Christ of the Covenants. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.
  2. Rutherford, S. (2005). The Covenant of Life Opened (D. C. M. McMahon, Ed.). Puritan Publications.
  3. Reymond, D. R. L. (1998). A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (2nd ed.). Thomas Nelson Publishers.
  4. Bible Translation, English Standard Version.
Read More →