The Narrow Path Ministries

Is there a difference?

I know in our western world we are really into contracts which seem centered on protecting our self-interest in the event the other party fails to live up to their end. Is this the same idea as a covenant?

As a lawyer, I'm intrigued by how this question is typically addressed in Christian circles. I'm looking forward to the responses. As a thought-tickler, consider whether you think there is anything immoral or unethical in breaching a contract. Is a Christian duty bound to fulfill the requirements of a contract? (note, I didn't say live up to his commitments).

I have heard scholars say that a covenant is only the same thing as a contract. I don't know if this is actually true or not. It has always seemed to me that there is a shade of difference. If someone knows better than I about this, I am eager to learn more.

A contract is a legal agreement that, I think, can be legitimately annulled by mutual agreement of the contracting parties. It binds both parties unless both parties decide they want to be out of it, and can be dissolved at the wishes of both parties.

A covenant is like a contract, involving promises and obligations placed upon both parties, but it also was believed to include a somewhat sacred obligation. There is the assumption that neither party is really free to beg-out, even if both parties think it preferable, because of the witness of an interested higher power to the original transaction.

A covenant can be broken by one party, thus freeing the other, but not without moral violation. Thus, a married couple, because of their covenant, cannot mutually agree to dissolve their marriage covenant (as they could a business contract) without incurring moral guilt. Yet, if the covenant is broken by one party (incurring grievous guilt), the violated party may opt out as well.

I may be wrong, but I think a covenant is based upon the assumption of both parties' good character and integrity, whereas a contract is entered upon the presupposition that people can't necessarily be trusted without the presence of a legally binding and enforceable instrument. These differences may not be inherent in the definitions of the two words, but in the biblical and modern usages, respectively, there seems to be this distinction.

Thanks Steve,

That's kind of where I was leaning.

The best I could come up with in my head was a covenant is a moral commitment while a contract is a legal commitment. The violation of one being a moral issue, and the violation of the other being a legal issue.

While the violation of one or the other could violate both legality and morality at times.

Its a thought. I am also eager to learn more if anybody can add to this.

steve wrote:I may be wrong, but I think a covenant is based upon the assumption of both parties' good character and integrity, whereas a contract is entered upon the presupposition that people can't necessarily be trusted without the presence of a legally binding and enforceable instrument. These differences may not be inherent in the definitions of the two words, but in the biblical and modern usages, respectively, there seems to be this distinction.

This idea is the most clarifying to me if it can stand up to scrutiny.

jaydam wrote:Is there a difference?

I know in our western world we are really into contracts which seem centered on protecting our self-interest in the event the other party fails to live up to their end. Is this the same idea as a covenant?

Hi Jaydam,

Here's a good read on the matter that may help:

http://internetbiblecollege.net/Lessons/COVENANTS.pdf

God Bless!

robbyyoung wrote: Hi Jaydam,

Here's a good read on the matter that may help:

http://internetbiblecollege.net/Lessons/COVENANTS.pdf

God Bless!

Thanks. That's what I was looking for. Something that could give me an idea about the Greek and Hebrew behind the terms.

This excerpt from the article you linked seems to now explain it the best:

"When discussing the usages in the New Testament of the word “covenant”, Archer says
that the New Testament writers do not use the Greek word “syntheke” which is their normal
word for “contract” because “syntheke” implied equality on the part of the two parties making
the contract."

So a covenant infers one can either accept and reject preset and already finalized terms, and that's it. A contract is the idea of reaching an agreement, which involves both parties negotiating as equal parties.

Given this starting point, I've now been doing some further reading on this idea, and it seems to be the best supported by the evidence.

I think a covenant can be unconditional with one party simply promising to do something with no consideration from the other party. I think (not sure) a contract has to have consideration from both parties.

For example i sometimes watch Perry Mason and occasionally he takes on a client for a dollar.

Hi Jaydam,

Yes. I always find it best to start with the original language and it's usage in context as a starting point. It's not always easy and speculations is sometimes all your left with. But I think this one is fairly easy to breakdown. God Bless and I'm glad it was of some assistance to you.

My understanding is that the term "covenant" is just not all that special or highfalutin' (at least in the way preachers like to convey). I also don't think it is distinguished in any way based on the character or integrity of the one making it. It's simply another word for "promise." Nothing more, nothing less. I don't think it now implies or necessarily ever has historically implied anything about the "seriousness" of the promise or the binding effect or consequences (or the integrity of the promiser). A promise (or covenant) differs from a contract only in that it is generally one side. In my understanding, a two-sided covenant is simply another word for a contract. They can be conditional or non-conditional. If conditioned on something the other party can point to as definite/provable (in hind-sight), then it's enforceable -- if not, then it's illusory and not enforceable.

If I agree to do something if the sun comes up tomorrow (with nothing more), my word is my bond -- if I fail to do it, I think it's immoral. If someone relies on my promise to their detriment, it's also remediable. If (on the other hand) I commit to do something, but also agree that if I don't I will pay you $200, then it's no longer immoral to fail to do it (we've bargained for me to have the choice), but you get the $200. If I then fail to pay the $200, it's immoral and remittable (for $200 plus anything else it cost you because I failed to do so earlier).