So, let’s move right into looking at the most violated principles, instead of going through them all by the numbers, first of which, is the Covenant Principle.
The Covenant Principle
Particular to the Historical-Cultural analysis and principles, is that of the Covenant Principle. As far as I know, this is a relatively new concept to most because mainline denominations have decided not to apply them to their already codified Statements of Faith; but those who study the ancient near eastern (ANE) covenanting cultures and societies, understand that without application of covenant consideration, we cannot hope to accurately come to God’s intended meaning in much of the Scriptures that have to do with doctrine. This is especially true when it comes to the NT and the New Covenant in Christ – because, in actuality, it is not a testament…it is, in fact, a covenant…
The principle of the covenant is an essential element in any interpretation of the Bible. [[1]]
One’s ability to understand the Bible in particular, and God’s dealings with humanity in general, depends on how well he/she understands the biblical covenants. [[2]]
This principle states that since both the old and new sections of our Bible are actually ancient near eastern covenants, and not just letters or historical writings, we must read them through the lens of interpretation as covenants. Covenants were ancient juris prudence of the Biblical world, and understanding Biblical covenants is one of the most important keys to understanding exactly what God has said and done in salvation history. To fail to do so, is an inexcusable failure to take into consideration perhaps the most important historical/cultural principles directly affecting our interpretation efforts of the Scriptures.
Part and parcel of understanding ANE covenants is their principles of operation, and there are six of them:
1. A covenant was not in force until after both parties agreed to all the elements, terms, stipulations, promises, blessings, benefits, gifts and obligations of the covenant agreement, and the covenant relationship was inaugurated (which took place at the beginning of the process) and then ratified (at the end of the process in the covenant meal). At that point all elements of the covenant were legally binding upon all parties involved. This principle did not apply in suzerain-vassal type covenants, as the suzerain dictated all the stipulations of the covenant to his vassal, who (as the conquered king) had no say in the matter.
2. Once the covenant had been entered into by both parties, no alteration could take place unless both parties agreed to such an alteration, usually in response to some unforeseen variable at the time of the inauguration of the covenant.
3. Entering into covenant established not only a binding legal relationship between both parties, but was also recognized as the establishment of such a strong personal, familial relationship, that most covenantal cultures considered it more binding than blood relationships.
4. The terms, stipulations, promises, blessings, benefits, and gifts of the covenant are only applicable to those who are participants in that specific covenant. If a covenant partner for some reason ceased to keep his covenant obligations, thus terminating his covenant relationship with the other, then he forfeited all covenant rights, terms, stipulations, promises, blessings, benefits, and gifts accorded to him in, and by, the covenant.
5. All of the elements of the covenant in question, whether terms, stipulations, promises, benefits, and gifts, or obligations, are to be interpreted solely from within the context of the covenant from which they originated, the covenant itself laying out the guidelines for its implementation.
6. None of the obligations of the covenant were legally binding upon the participants until after the covenant had been ratified, bringing the covenant partners into personal union with one another, through the eating of the same flesh in the covenant meal of the covenant sacrifice (if there was one). If there was no covenant sacrifice, then the covenant was ratified and sealed by the drinking of wine from the same cup, such as in ancient near eastern marriage ceremony (which also was a covenant).
When we fail to interpret Scripture as covenant, then we come away from our “study” of Scripture with flawed and skewed interpretations and doctrines, because the covenant - much like modern contracts - set the boundaries for interpretating itself. This is where we get the slogan, “Scripture interprets Scripture,” which many people outright reject because applying this to their doctrines demonstrates that many of them are false.
For example, we have numerous passages of Scripture that, when taken part from the whole of all the passages addressing that particular doctrine (like, for example, unmerited eternal security), rather than taking all of the passages that address the doctrine, it looks viable. But when we apply the Topical principle, the Harmony principle, and the Contradiction principle, to name a few, it becomes quite clear that such a doctrine is false.
Blessings.
[1] The Basis for Hope: The Principle of the Covenant as a Biblical Basis of a Philosophy of History; Paul E. Brown; Interpretation – Journal of Bible and Theology, Vol. 9, No. 1 (December 1955): pg. 35 (emphasis mine).
[2] Introduction to the Biblical Covenants: The Noahic Covenant and the Priestly Covenant; Irvin Busenitz, The Master’s Seminary Journal 10/2 (Fall 1999), pg. 189 (emphasis mine).