The covenant
customs discussed on the main page,
Covenant: The Oneness of Covenant, are simple physical pictures that can help us
understand spiritual truths, especially the truth about our oneness with
our New Covenant Partner Christ Jesus. These truths are one's many of us
have known for years, but which we have never heretofore viewed through
the "eyes of covenant".
Co-Mingling of
Blood =
Sharing of Blood = Sharing of life = Two Become One
In America there is little comprehension of the solemn and serious
nature of the commitment
involved when one enters covenant be it with the marital partner (which
unfortunately explains to a large extent why divorce has become so
lightly regarded even among evangelicals) or the Lord Jesus Christ.
.
George Berry in his discussion of Covenant Among Men in
the OT covenant writes that...
In essence a covenant is an
agreement, but an agreement of a solemn and binding force. The
early Semitic idea of a covenant was doubtless that which prevailed
among the Arabs. (Berry goes on to explain that the covenant between the
Arabs) was primarily blood-brotherhood, in which two men
became brothers by drinking each other’s blood. Ordinarily this
meant that one was adopted into the clan of the other... In this early
idea, then, “primarily the covenant is not a special engagement to this
or that particular effect, but bond of troth (one’s pledged word)
and life-fellowship to all the effects for which kinsmen are
permanently bound together” (W. Robertson Smith, op. cit.,
315 f)... In later usage there were various substitutes for the drinking
of each other’s blood, namely, drinking together the sacrificial blood,
sprinkling it upon the parties, eating together the sacrificial meal,
etc.; but the same idea found expression in all, the community of life
resulting from the covenant.
Combining statements made in
different accounts, the following seem to be the principal elements
in a covenant between men. Some of the details, it is to be noted,
are not explicitly stated in reference to these covenants, but may be
inferred from those between God and men.
(1) A statement of the terms
agreed upon (Genesis 26:29; 31:50,52). This
was a modification of the earlier idea, which has been noted, in which a
covenant was all-inclusive.
(2) An oath by each party to
observe the terms, God being witness of the oath (Genesis 26:31;
31:48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53). The
oath was such a characteristic feature that sometimes the term "oath"
is used as the equivalent of "covenant" (see Ezekiel
17:13).
(3) A curse invoked by each
one upon himself in case disregard of the agreement. In a sense this
may be considered a part of the oath, adding emphasis to it. This
curse is not explicitly stated
in the case of human covenants, but may be inferred from the covenant
with God (Dt 27:15-26).
(4) The formal ratification of the
covenant by some solemn external act.
The different ceremonies for this purpose, such as
have already been mentioned, are to be regarded as the later equivalents
of the early act of drinking each other's blood. In the Old
Testament accounts it is not certain that such formal act is expressly
mentioned in relation to covenants between men. It seems probable,
however, that the sacrificial meal of Ge 31:54 included
Laban, in which case it was a covenant sacrifice. In any case, both
sacrificial meal and sprinkling of blood upon the two
parties, the altar representing Yahweh, are mentioned in Ex 24:4, 5, 6,
7, 8, with allusions elsewhere, in ratification of the covenant at Sinai
between Yahweh and Israel...
The immutability (unchangeable
nature) of a covenant is everywhere assumed, at least theoretically...
This is the case with the setting up of a stone,
or raising a heap of stones (Ge31:45,46)
(Ed note: These served as a memorial and so as a steadfast "witness"
that the covenant had been cut)...
Striking hands is a general expression of
an agreement made (Ezra 10:19; Ezek 17:18, etc.). (Orr,
J.: The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) 1915 -
Scroll down to "Principle Elements")
Commingling of the
blood (making a cut and mingling blood, making a cut or sacrifice and
drinking blood or other liquid from a common cup) of the partners who
cut covenant
signified that they were now "blood brothers" which resulted in a new relationship.
When the covenanting partners co-mingled blood either literally or
symbolically, the result was that two had become one.
The purpose of cuts in the flesh and co-mingling of blood
was to symbolize that two had become one and that now because of their
covenant (and covenant marks) their lives were intermingled or held in
common. Aristotle in his Ethics quoted one of the well-known proverbs of
friendship, "'One soul [in two bodies]'''
Trumbull writes,
All my thought is, to ascertain what new meaning, if any, is found in
the Bible teachings concerning the uses and the symbolism of blood,
through our better understanding of the prevailing idea, among the
peoples of the ancient world, that blood represents life; that the
giving of blood represents the giving of life; that the receiving of
blood represents the receiving of life; that the inter-commingling of
blood represents the inter-commingling of natures; and that a
divine-human inter-union through blood is the basis of a divine-human
inter-communion in the sharing of the flesh of the sacrificial offering
as sacred food. (H. Clay Trumbull,
The Blood Covenant: Impact Books,
1975)
Striking
Hands or Giving of
Hands
Evidence from various cultures indicates that when a covenant was cut in the hands or arms
of the participants, they would often clasp
hands or arms so their blood would mingle.
In 2 Kings there
is an event recorded in which we see an example of "giving of
hand" with an interesting comment in the Treasury of Scripture
Knowledge.
2 Kings 10:15 Now when he
(Jehu) had departed from there, he met Jehonadab the son of Rechab coming to meet him; and he greeted him and
said to him, "Is your heart right (yashar = uprightness as manner of life),
as my heart is with your heart?" And Jehonadab answered, "It is." Jehu
said, "If it is, give me your hand. (nathan
yad)" And he gave him his hand, and he
took him up to him into the chariot.
The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
has an interesting comment on the symbolism of "give me your hand"
in this passage writing that...
"Jehu asked for the hand of
Jehonadab not merely for the purpose of assisting him into the chariot,
but that he might give him an assurance that he would assist him in the
prosecution of his desires; for “giving the hand” is considered as a
pledge of friendship and fidelity, or a form of entering into a
contract, among all nations.
Mr. Bruce relates (Travels, vol. I. p.
148), that when he entreated the protection of a sheikh, the great
people who were assembled came,
“and
after joining hands, repeated
a kind of prayer, of about two minutes long; by which they declared
themselves and their children accursed, if ever they lifted their hands
against me in the tell (or field), in the desert, or on the river; or,
in case that I, or mine, should fly to them for refuge, if they did not
protect us at the risk of their lives, their families, and their
fortunes, or, as they emphatically expressed it, to the death of the
last male child among them.”
Another striking instance occurs
in Ockley’s History of the Saracens (vol. i. p. 36). Telha, just before
he died, asked one of Ali’s men if he belonged to the emperor of the
faithful; and being informed that he did,
“Give me then,” said he, “your
hand, that I may put mine in it, and by this action renew the oath of
fidelity which I have already made to Ali.”
Trumbull tells of a picture
in Florence that depicts the practice of blood covenanting.
In the Pitti Palace, in Florence, there is a famous painting of the
conspiracy of Catiline, by Salvator Rosa; it is, indeed, Salvator Rosa's
masterpiece, in the line of historical painting. This painting
represents the covenanting by blood. Two conspirators stand face to
face, their right hands clasped above a votive altar. The bared right
arm of each is incised, a little below the elbow. The blood is streaming
from the arm of one, into a cup which he holds, with his left hand, to
receive it; while the dripping arm of the other conspirator shows that
his blood has already flowed into the commingling cup. The uplifted hand
of the daysman between the conspirators seems to indicate the
imprecatory vows which the two are assuming, in the presence of the
gods, and of the witnesses who stand about the altar. This is a clear
indication of the traditional form of covenanting between Catiline and
his fellow conspirators." (Trumbull, H C: The
Blood Covenant. Impact
Books)
The practice of
cutting flesh and co-mingling blood between men is not specifically
found in the Old Testament but as alluded to in the text from 2 Kings
(above) their are examples of a similar practice in which the
participants strike hands or give hands to one another. The ISBE notes
that this practice of "Striking hands is a general expression of
an agreement made." Let's look at several other Biblical examples of
striking or giving hands in which the purpose was to make a pledge or
ratify an agreement or covenant.
In
Job 17:3
we find Job boldly addressing God asking Him to
"Lay down, now, a
pledge (Hebrew
`arab
= mingle, join in with, to
put up a security; give an
object or personal security in an agreement to ensure that an agreed
future event in fact happens) for me with Thyself.
Job is forced to ask God Himself
to be the pledge (a person who binds himself, as by becoming bail
or surety for another) of Job's innocence because his counselors were
not convinced of his innocence and he could not count on them to come to
his aid, which prompts his question...
Who is there that
will be my guarantor? (guarantor = one that undertakes to answer
for the payment of a debt or the performance of a duty of another in
case of the other’s default or miscarriage)
Literally Job is asking
Who will strike hands with me?
In other words there seems to be
none left on earth who will put up security or any guarantee of Job’s
innocence.
In his Expository Notes on the
Bible Constable has a lengthy quote explaining the background for
Job's request writing that...
Evidently in legal cases of this sort
each litigant would give the judge a bond (money or some personal
possession) before the trial. This bond would guarantee that the
litigant would be fair and honest during the trial. If one of the
litigants was not, the judge would not return his bond to him at the
trial’s end. Job called on God to lay down His pledge (as the
prosecutor) with Himself (the judge; Job 17:3a). The guarantor
(17:3b) was one who provided the bond if the person on trial could not.
Job’s supportive friends would normally have provided his bond, but they
had turned against him. Job lay the ultimate responsibility for his
friends’ blindness and rejection at God’s feet because God had withheld
understanding from them. Consequently he believed God would not lift
them up (Job 17:4). Job may have believed part of his friends’ motive in not
helping him was that they could obtain a portion of his property when he
died (Job 17:5). However since verse 5 is a proverb, he may have only been
reminding his friends of the serious consequences of slander. (Tom
Constable's Expository Notes on the Bible)
The Pulpit Commentary explains the
transaction as follows..
"Lay down now; or, give now
a pledge. The terms used in this verse are law terms.
Job calls upon God to go into court with him, and, first of all, to
deposit the caution-money which the court will require before it
undertakes the investigation of the case. Next, he goes on to say, put
me in a surety (surety = one who has become legally liable for
the debt, default, or failure in duty of another) with thee; or rather
(as in the Revised Version), be surety for me with thyself’ which is
either the same thing with giving a pledge, or a further legal
requirement.
Finally, he asks the question, Who
is he that will strike hands with me? meaning, “Who else is there
but thyself, to whom I can look to be my surety, and by striking hands
with me to accept the legal responsibility?” (Pulpit Commentary:
Expository Notes on Job)
Expositor's Bible Commentary
translates Job 17:3 and then explains Job's request as follows...
"Consider (this O God), become my
guarantee [go surely for me] with Yourself. For who else is there that
is prepared to strike [shake] my hand." Handshaking was a way to
ratify a pledge."
What pledge or guarantee was Job
asking for? The translation of verse 3 is difficult. The following
paraphrase may help clarify the meaning:
"Give attention (O God) to becoming
my guarantor (that I am right) with you, for who else will shake my hand
to prove it?"
If God put up such a guarantee for
Job, it would not only silence his mockers (the counselors, v2) but
would prove they were guilty of false accusation and deserve the
sanctions and punishment they had implied Job deserved. (Expositor's
Bible Commentary, Notes on Job 17:3) (Expositor's Bible Commentary)
The Pulpit Commentary
(homily) explains Job 17:3 as a "bold request"...
Turning from his friends and
confronting death, Job entreats with a sublimely daring faith, which
rises clear above the mists of despondency and the hurricanes of passion
that alternately fill his breast, that God himself would strike hands
with him, and engage to be Surety for his innocence against himself (Job
17:3). It is a by no means dim anticipation of the fundamental notion of
the gospel, that, for the answering of all that God, as a righteous
Lawgiver, can lay to the charge of man, God has himself become the
Sponsor or Bondsman. What Job’s faith, standing as it were on the
headlands of human thought, and looking out with prophetic eye into the
vast terrain incognitam that spread out before him, craved for himself,
that God would undertake the task of replying for him, not alone to the
aspersions of his human calumniators, but also to the accusations and
charges preferred against him by his Divine assailant, viz. God himself
— this astounding entreaty on the part of poor, feeble, sinful humanity,
as represented by Job, has been answered by the gospel of Jesus Christ,
who came in the fulness of the times as God incarnate to champion the
cause of lost man, and vindicate, not his innocence, but his
righteousness before God. (Homiletics in Pulpit Commentary)
E Green in his Homily in
the Pulpit Commentary adds this comment on Job 17:3 declaring...
As none among men will give the
promise and take upon him to vindicate Job’s innocence after death, will
God be bound as Surety for him, and undertake this duty? Thus once more
we see how the extremity of suffering forces Job upon his deepest faith,
can never force him from it. And he is bound to exchange his darker
thoughts of God for these truer ones, apparently unconscious that they
are inconsistent with one another. (Homily by E Green in Pulpit
Commentary)
In short and in summary, literally
Job is asking "Who is he that strikes hands with me?". A negative
answer is implied, which explains why he resorted to God, the only One
Who serve as his guarantor. As one paraphrase puts it Job is saying in
essence...
"Please guarantee my bail yourself.
Who else will guarantee it." (GWT)
Strike hands is a Hebrew
idiom which symbolizes the making of an agreement. The idiom is composed
of the Hebrew word of "hand" (yad)
and the Hebrew verb for "strike" is
taqa`
which conveys the basic idea of to
thrust or as in the present context to clasp hands as a sign of
agreement (Job 17:3; Pr 11:15 ; Pr 17:18).
Thus in this
Hebrew idiom, "strike hands" reminds one of our modern day handshake
which for example is supposed to signify the pledging of oneself to the
terms agreed upon in a business arrangement. Unfortunately if indeed the
Biblical practice of "striking hands" is the origin for
our handshake, there has been a marked distortion of the original
intent as we have witnessed a decrement in personal integrity in
interpersonal relationships, be they business or otherwise.
Let's look at another Biblical
example of the giving of hands to one another as a symbolism of a
commitment to fulfill covenant obligations. In Ezra 10 the Israelites
had returned to Jerusalem from Babylonian exile under the leadership of
Ezra and had married foreign wives. Spurred on by Ezra's prayer and
confession, the Israelite men also were led to confess their
disobedience to God's law and proceeded to cut a covenant to put away
their foreign wives.
Ezra 10:3
"So now let us make a covenant (cut a covenant =
Karath
beriyth) with our God to put away all the
wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of
those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done
according to the law.
In Ezra 10:19 the
sons of the priests reaffirm the solemnity of their covenant agreement,
symbolizing their commitment by "pledging" or by literally by "giving
their hands" as a sign of obedience to their covenant vow. The idiom
"give hands" is composed of the Hebrew verb for give
(nathan) and hand (yad) which although different from the idiom "strike
hands" (taqa = strike + yad = hand) in Job 17:3, nevertheless also
symbolizes that the participants have come to a mutual agreement.
Ezra 10:19 And they (the sons of the
priests) pledged (gave hands) to put away their
wives, and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their
offense.
The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
has a note on
Ezra 10:19 regarding "giving hands" writing that...
"They bound themselves in the
most solemn manner to do as the rest of the delinquents had done
(put away their wives),
and make and acknowledgment to God of their iniquity, by offering each a
ram for a trespass offering."
Proverbs gives an instruction
regarding becoming entangled in financial matters...
Proverbs 6:1 My son,
if you have become surety for your neighbor, have given a pledge
for a stranger
"Given a pledge" =
taqa`
kaph
= literally "struck palms" which obligated one to become
“security” for the other in the sense that they took on the other
person’s obligations as their own, as when one co-signs a note. The
"striking of palms" in view here was foolish because the debtor was a
stranger who was not well known.
Proverbs 17:18 A man
lacking in sense pledges (
taqa`
kaph) ,
and becomes surety in the presence of his neighbor.
1Chr 29:24 And all the officials, the mighty men, and also all the
sons of King David pledged (nathan yad
= literally "give hand") allegiance to King Solomon.
Ezekiel 17:18 'Now he (King Zedekiah of Judah) despised (disdained, held in
contempt) the oath by
breaking the covenant, and
behold, he pledged his allegiance (nathan
yad = give
hand), yet did all these things; he shall not escape.'"
19 Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD, "As I live, surely My oath which
he despised and
My covenant
which he broke, (Note that
even though Nebuchadnezzar cut the covenant, here God takes ownership of
the covenant, so that Zedekiah did not just break covenant with Babylon
but more seriously with God Himself, this being the third time in this
short section the break of covenant is mentioned for emphasis - this was
a very significant issue) I will inflict on his head.
20 "And I will spread My net over him, and he will be caught in My
snare. Then I will bring him to Babylon and enter into judgment with him
there regarding the
unfaithful act (breaking
the covenant with the king of Babylon) which he has committed against
Me.
21 "And all the choice men in all his troops will fall by the sword, and
the survivors will be scattered to every wind; and you will know that I,
the LORD, have spoken."
This "slapping of hands" is most likely the origin of the modern
handshake which even today is a ritual that occurs after an agreement
has been reached or signed, symbolizing that the agreement is settled
and that they have entered into the arrangement in good faith.
Covenant Sealed with a Scar
The incision was scarified into a permanent scar which would serve as
a constant reminder of the covenant promise between the partners
Trumbull brings out this practice of scarification in his book,
The Blood Covenant
writing that
Commander Cameron, who, while in charge of the Livingstone Search
Expedition .. . gives several illustrations of the observance of this
rite.... "The first operation consisted of making an incision on each of
their right wrists, just sufficient to draw blood; a little of which was
scraped off and smeared on the other's cut; after which gunpowder was
rubbed in [thereby securing a permanent token on the arm]." (The
Blood Covenant:
Impact Books)
Click
one of 3 sermons by
Spurgeon on Isaiah 49:16
1)
Neither Forsaken Nor Forgotten
2)
A Precious Drop of Honey
3)
God's Memorial of His People
Spurgeon comments on Isaiah
49:16 writing that...
"Behold is a word of
wonder; it is intended to excite admiration. Wherever you see it hung
out in Scripture, it is like an ancient sign-board, signifying that
there are rich wares within, or like the hands which solid readers have
observed in the margin of the older Puritanic books, drawing attention
to something particularly worthy of observation." (Reference)
Spurgeon comments "I have graven
thee."
does not say, "Thy name. " The
name is there, but that is not all: "I have graven thee. " See the
fulness of this! I have graven thy person, thine image, thy case, thy
circumstances, thy sins, thy temptations, thy weaknesses, thy wants, thy
works; I have graven thee, everything about thee, all that concerns
thee; I have put thee altogether there. Wilt thou ever say again that
thy God hath forsaken thee when he has graven thee upon his own palms?
J Vernon McGee comments...
What beautiful assurance God gives
them that they are not forsaken of Him! Israel may forsake Him—as they
are doing yet today—but God will never forsake them. My friend, if you
still have doubts that God will restore Israel, I submit this section to
you for your careful study. (McGee, J. V. Thru the Bible
Commentary. Vol. 3, Page 303. Nashville: Thomas Nelson)
A
Debtor to Mercy Alone
A debtor to mercy alone,
of covenant
mercy I sing;
Nor fear, with Thy righteousness on,
My person and off’ring to bring.
The terrors of law and of God
With me can have nothing to do;
My Savior’s obedience and blood
Hide all my transgressions from view.
The work which His goodness began,
The arm of His strength will complete;
His promise is Yea and Amen,
And never was forfeited yet.
Things future, nor things that are now,
Nor all things below or above,
Can make Him His purpose forgo,
Or sever my soul from His love.
My name from the palms of His hands
Eternity will not erase;
Impressed on His heart it remains,
In marks of indelible grace.
Yes, I to the end shall endure
As sure as the earnest is giv’n;
More happy, but not more secure,
The glorified spirits in Heav’n.
--Augustus Toplady (Play
hymn)
Spurgeon also wrote that what the
Lord in essence is saying by engraving Zion's name on the palm of His
hand is...
“I cannot work,
I cannot even open the palm of my hand without seeing the memorials of
my chosen people: ’I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands.’”
Where they must be seen, and where he can do nothing without touching
his people while doing it. When a name is engraven on the hand with
which a man works, that name goes into his work, and leaves its impress
on the work. Jerusalem, the very Jerusalem that is in Palestine,
shall be rebuilt (See
God's Plan for Jerusalem) God
will remember her walls, and the Church of God in Israel shall yet rise
from that sad low estate in which it has been these many centuries; and
all God’s cast-down ones shall be comforted, and his churches, that seem
to be left to die, shall be raised up again, for our God is no
changeling. His heart does not come and go towards the sons of men.
How that gracious assurance should comfort the little handful, the
“remnant weak and small” (Ed note:
click notes on "the remnant")) of God’s
people among the Jews! How it should also comfort any of God’s servants
who are under a cloud, and who have lost for a while the enjoyment of
his presence!
I may illustrate this by our Savior's
hands. What are these wounds in thy hands, these sacred stigmata, these
ensigns of suffering? The graver's tool was the nail, backed by the
hammer. He must be fastened to the cross, that his people might be truly
graven on the palms of his hands. There is much consolation here. We
know that what a man has won with great pain he will keep with great
tenacity. Child of God, you cost Christ too much for him to forget you.
How appropriately Christ can say this
when He looks on the nail-prints, “I have graven thee upon the palms of
my hands”! As I said, this morning, Jesus can give nothing, he can take
nothing, he can do nothing, he can hold nothing, without remembering his
people: “I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands.”
Covenant Mark
Trumbull writes that Stanley relates
one of his times of entering into covenant while exploring Africa.
"Bula Matari and Mata Bwyki are one to-day. We have joined hands. Hurt
not Bula Matari's people; steal not from them; offend them not. Bring
food and sell to him at a fair price, gently, kindly, and in peace; for
he is my brother."
Henry M. Stanley who went to Africa in pursuit of Livingstone in 1871,
entered into a covenant, blood covenant, or a strong friendship with
Mirambo, a great chieftain and warrior whom Stanley referred to as the
Mars of Africa. Covenant was entered into by making cuts on each of
their right legs and exchanging the blood and then pronouncing a curse
if that covenant were broken.
They were friends and brothers in a sacred covenant; life for life. At
the conclusion of the covenant, they exchanged gifts; as the customary
ratification, or accompaniment, of the compact. They even vied with each
other in proofs of their unselfish fidelity, in this new covenant of
friendship.
To this day many of the Syrian Arabs swear, as a final and a most sacred
oath, by their own blood — as their own life; and in making the covenant
of blood-friendship they draw the blood from the upper arm, because, as
they explain it, the arm is their strength. The cry of the Egyptian soul
to his god, in his resting on the covenant of blood, was, "Give me your
arm; I am made as ye." . . . It is by no means improbable, indeed, that
the universal custom of lifting up the arm to God in a solemn oath was a
suggestion of swearing by one's blood, by proffering it in its strength,
as in the inviolable covenant of sacred friendship with God. So, again,
in the "striking hands" as a form of sacred covenanting; the clasping of
hands, in blood. (Trumbull:
The Blood Covenant)
Wayne Barber explains that "mark"
on both Old and New Testament believers was not external but internal:.
There was something in the heart of
the people that was wrong and the mark that God always expected,
both in the OT and the NT, was not just something external, but a
heart willing and wanting to obey God...that is the mark of
the person who has entered into agreement with the Lord God...this led
to the promise of the New Covenant...you see in the Old Covenant, the
people did not have a heart that wanted to obey God...that was what the
Law did. It exposed the fact that they did not have a heart, so
therefore God had to promise a new one.
Jer 24:7 'And I will give them a
heart to know Me, for I am the Lord; and they will be My people, and I
will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart.
It is an attitude that God looks
for--an inward, internal attitude of wanting to obey God which marks
a person as being in Covenant agreement with the living God, not just
one act of obedience (circumcision), but a heart attitude of wanting to
obey God.
Kay Arthur exhorts us in view of that we as believers have
come...
"to our God and Father through the rent veil of
the flesh of the Lamb of God, having walked into death losing our life
for His, may we never forget that we are now bone of His bone, flesh of
His flesh, one with Him in covenant forever. Amen and Amen."
(Bolding added)
Sharing Possessions
Since two have become one in covenant they now share a common life and
are responsible to share their blessings with one
another should the need arise. Trumbull records the following
description of Indians in Brazil who had a rite of brotherhood writing
that...
They who called each other by this name, had all things in common; the
tie was held to be as sacred as that of consanguinity, and one could not
marry the daughter or sister of the other.
In his History of Madagascar, the
Rev. William Ellis, tells of this rite as he observed it in that island,
and as he learned of it from Borneo. He says :
"Another popular engagement in use
among the Malagasy is that of forming brotherhoods, which though not
peculiar to them, is one of the most remarkable usages of the
country...Its object is to cement two individuals in the bonds of most
sacred friendship...It is called fatrida, i.e., 'dead blood'
either because the oath is taken over the blood of a fowl killed for the
occasion or because a small portion of
blood
is drawn from each individual, when thus pledging friendship, and
drunk by those to whom friendship is pledged, with execrations of
vengeance on each other in case of violating the sacred oath. To obtain
the blood, a slight incision is made in the skin covering the centre of
the bosom, significantly called ambavafo, `the mouth of the
heart.'...and we do it for the purpose of assisting one another with our
families, if lost in slavery, by whatever property either of us may
possess; for our wives are as one to us, and each other's children as
his own,' and our riches as
common property.
(Trumbull:
The Blood Covenant)
Sharing Names
When men entered into covenant with one another, they often exchanged
names; or to put it another way, they took on one of their covenant
partner's names. Once again, this testified to the oneness of covenant!
H. Clay Trumbull notes that...
"To exchange names, therefore, is to establish some participation in one
another's being." Hence, as we may suppose, came the well-nigh universal
Oriental practice of inter-weaving the name of one's Deity with one's
name, as a symbolic evidence of one's covenant-union with the Deity.
The blood-covenant, or the blood-union, idea is at the bottom of
this."...
"In this New South Wales ceremonial...a white stone, or a quartz crystal,
called mundie, is given to each novitiate in manhood, at the time he
receives his new name. This stone is counted a gift from deity and is
held peculiarly sacred. A test of the young man's moral stamina is made
by the old men's trying, by all sorts of persuasion, to induce him to
surrender this possession, when first he has received it. (Trumbull:
The Blood Covenant)
Covenant Meal
Trumbull
explains this ritual among pagan tribes writing that...
Among the Araucanian, of South America, the custom of making
brothers,
or brothers-friends, is called Lacu. It includes the killing of a lamb
and dividing it — "cutting" it — between the two covenanting parties;
and each party must eat his half of the lamb — either by himself or by
such assistance as he chooses to call in. None of it must be left
uneaten. Gifts also pass between the parties; and the two friends
exchange names. "The giving [the exchanging] of a name [with this
people] establishes between the namesakes a species of relationship
which is considered almost as sacred as that of blood, and obliges them
to render to each other certain services, and that consideration which
naturally belongs to relatives " (Trumbull:
The Blood Covenant)
In another note
Trumbull remarks that...
"if they exchanged names, there would
be a covenant meal. Usually in this covenant meal they would feed each
other bread, saying, "You are eating me." Then they would drink
from the same cup and say, "You are drinking me." Sometimes the
drink in the cup was mingled with blood. (Trumbull:
The Blood Covenant)
(This helps us understand Jesus' otherwise enigmatic call to eat His
flesh and drink His blood in John 6:53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 66)
Friend Is A Covenant
Term (See ISBE
article on
Friend, friendship)
Trumbull alludes to the concept of friend
He who has entered into this compact with another, counts himself the
possessor of a double life; for his friend, whose blood he has shared,
is ready to lay down his life with him, or for him. Hence the leathern
case, or Bayt hejab, "House of the amulet," containing the record of the
covenant ('uhdah), is counted a proud badge of honor by one who
possesses it; and he has an added sense of security, because he will not
be alone when he falleth...
Travelers in the heart of Africa,
also, report the covenant of "blood brotherhood" or of"
strong-friendship," as in vogue among various African tribes,
although naturally retaining less of primitive sacredness there than
among Semites. The rite is, in some cases, observed after the manner of
the Syrians, by the contracting parties tasting each other's blood;
while, in other cases, it is performed by the inter-transfusion of blood
between the two.
And whenever one decides to be a friend, we [who would join in the
covenant] make the greatest of all oaths, to live with one another, and
to die, if need be, the one for the other. And this is the manner of it:
Thereupon, cutting our fingers, all simultaneously, we let the blood
drop into a vessel, and having dipped the points of our swords into it,
both [of us] holding them together, we drink it. There is nothing which
can loose us from one another after that. (The
Blood Covenant)
The Dictionary of New Testament
Background has some interesting statements in the topic "Friendship"
which are reminiscent of truths we have studied in covenant...
In one of its most common uses in
ancient literature, “friendship” could apply to alliances, cooperation
or nonaggression treaties among peoples.
As Plutarch notes, friends share not
only secrets but, ideally, everything they possess (e.g., Plutarch
Flatterer 24, Mor. 65AB). That friends shared all things in common
becomes a common phrase in the literature of Greco-Roman antiquity..."
Loyalty to friends and treating
friends as one’s own equals, as another self, might require dying for
them...Thus Greeks or Romans would readily grasp the early Christian
concept that Jesus died on their behalf, even if they lacked exposure to
atonement in the levitical system. (Porter, S. E., & Evans, C. A.
Dictionary of New Testament Background. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press)
The Evangelical Dictionary of
Biblical Theology has a helpful note on understanding the term "friend"
noting that...
"In both Testaments the ideas of
friend and friendship involve three components: association, loyalty,
and affection. There are also three levels of meaning: friendship as
association only; friendship as association plus loyalty; and friendship
as association plus loyalty plus affection. At the lowest level a friend
is simply an associate or “the other fellow”...Jesus addresses Judas in
this way in the garden: “Friend, do what you came for” (Mt 26:50). At
a higher and theologically more interesting level the idea of friendship
contains not only the component of association but also that of
loyalty... Hiram of Tyre’s “friendship” with David (1Kings 5:1) is
actually a political alliance that may have little to do with affection
but everything to do with treaty obligations. The “friend who sticks
closer than a brother” (Pr. 18:24) shows loyalty. When the Jews accuse
Pilate of not being “a friend of Caesar” (John 19:12), they are
questioning his loyalty to the emperor. The highest level of friendship
contains the components of association and loyalty along with affection.
The friendship of David and Jonathan (1Samuel 18:1, 2, 3, 4; 20:14, 15,
16, 17) has all
three components (Ed note: Reflecting the fact that they had cut
covenant)...Ruth’s stubborn loyalty to her mother-in-law Naomi
stands as another display of human friendship at its highest (Ed note:
and in context she undoubtedly entered into the Abrahamic Covenant)...As one
can be a friend to another person, so one can be a friend of God or of
God’s Son. Abraham gains the title “friend of God” by his faith and
obedience (2Chr 20:7; Is 41:8; James 2:23). Those who keep God’s
covenant are called his friends (Ps 25:14). By contrast, one can be a
friend of the world, which excludes the possibility of friendship with
God (James 4:4; 1John 2:15)...
Jesus shows...divine-human friendship
by addressing His disciples as friends (Luke 12:4), by letting them
know the inner meaning of his life and ministry (John 15:15), and, most
clearly, by dying on the cross as the sacrifice for sin (John 15:13).
When Jesus tells his disciples, “You are my friends if you do what I
command” (John 15:14), the components of association, loyalty, and
affection all appear. If one can be a friend of God or of God’s Son,
this friendship can extend as well to others who are also friends of
God. Christian friendship finds its basis in the friendship between each
believer and God. When John refers to fellow believers simply as “the
friends” (3Jn 15), he implies the loyalty and affection for one
another that spring from loyalty and love for God. (Elwell, W. A.,
& Elwell, W. A. Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House -
click for entire article)
Harper's Bible Dictionary in
the discussion of "Friend" notes that...
Where the covenant concept prevails
(between friends),
natural attraction and personal preference appear to be less important
than covenant obligations as the bases of relationships between persons.
(Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature.
1985. Harper's Bible dictionary. Includes index. San Francisco: Harper &
Row)
Memorials As
Reminders of Covenant
Turnbull writes that...
Herodotus, who goes back well-nigh two-thirds of the way to Abraham,
says, that when the Arabians would covenant together, a third man,
standing between the two, cuts, with a sharp stone, the inside of the
hands of both, and lets the blood there from drop on seven stones which
are between the two parties.
In the primitive rite of blood-covenanting, as it is practiced in some
parts of the East, to the present time, in addition to other symbolic
witnesses of the rite, a tree is planted by the covenanting parties,
"which remains and grows as a witness of their contract." So it was, in
the days of Abraham. "And Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba,
and called there on the name of the Everlasting God." (Trumbull:
The Blood Covenant)
PHYLACTERIES IN THE
OLD TESTAMENT
Although the word "phylacteries"
is not found in
Exodus 13:9,
this verse apparently marks the initiation of this practice for God
said...
"And it (speaking of the feast of
unleavened bread) shall serve as a sign to you on your hand (we
don't know what this sign was), and as a reminder on your
forehead (a memorial - again we don't know what this memorial
consisted of - was it just a mark? Scripture is silent) that the
law of the LORD may be in your mouth (which implies it is in their heart
for what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart); for with a
powerful hand the LORD brought you out of Egypt. (Exodus 13:9)
So the "sign" on the hand and
the "reminder" on the forehead were to cause them to live in
constant awareness (law in their mouth) of God's Word that they might
obey it and God's deliverance from (Egyptian) bondage (the Passover) that they might be motivated
to obey out of grateful hearts not of of legalism. You see, God has
always desired internal obedience from the heart, not an external
obedience by the letter of the Law. Most of Israel missed this profound
truth and as discussed below turned God's call for a reminder into a
empty ritual, devoid of an understanding of God's original intent.
The word "phylacteries"
(always plural) is found a few verses later
in
Exodus 13:16
which says...
"So it shall serve as a sign
(Hebrew
'owth
= visible mark or object
intended to convey a clear message or to serve as assurance and as a
reminder) on your hand, and as phylacteries on your forehead, for with a
powerful hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt."
The Hebrew word for phylacteries (towphaphah)
means bands, frontlets, marks, symbolic ornaments, signs, bands worn as
a remembrance to a past fact, a non-verbal communication.
Towphaphah
specifically as used in the OT
denoted a mark or sign placed on the forehead between the eyes as a
memorial (see
Ex 13:16).
What the sign or mark was the Scripture does not make clear. In that
regard it is notable that the only 3 uses of phylacteries (towphaphah)
in the Hebrew Old Testament (Exodus 13:16, Deut 6:8, Deut 11:18) are
translated in the
Septuagint (LXX)
by
the Greek word
asaleutos
which literally means immovable and
figuratively implies that which is firm or enduring. The Greek phrase is
identical in all 3 Old Testament --"asaleuton pro ophthalon humon"
-- and literally means "fixed before your eyes". The point is
that what is before one's eyes will not be quickly forgotten and will guide
one's steps accordingly.
To reiterate, the external mark or sign was not
to be simply a "legalistic" response or
external obedience to the Law. God is always looking internal
obedience, motivated by love and originating in a heart which has been "circumcised" or
changed, as clearly explained by Paul in
Romans 2:28-29...
"he is not a Jew who is one
outwardly; neither is
circumcision that which is outward
in the flesh but he is a Jew who is one inwardly;
and
circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by
the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God." (hold
pointer over the related cross references in Lev 26:41-42, Deut 10:16 ,
Deut 30:6, Jer 4:4, Col 2:11, 12 which
together help understand God real desire has always been for a heart
that was circumcised by grace through faith, as especially emphasized by
Paul in Colossians 2 -
click
for in depth discussion of Col
2:11-note,
Col 2:12-note)
(click here
for an in depth discussion of
circumcision)
So even in the Old Testament although
God had commanded the external sign of
circumcision, it was an internal
circumcision of their heart that He desired. This internal "circumcision"
has always by grace through faith even as Abram's heart was
"circumcised" in
Genesis 15:6
when the "the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles
by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE
NATIONS SHALL BE BLESSED IN YOU." (Galatians
3:8).
In summary, in
Exodus 13:16
the phylacteries were
some type of mark on the forehead that were to serve as
"memorials", continually reminding the Israelites that Jehovah had
delivered them with a great Passover from Egyptian slavery.
In Deuteronomy, the second
giving of the Law, we encounter the last 2 uses of the Hebrew word for
phylacteries, translated "frontals" in the NAS...
"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our
God, the LORD is one! 5 "And you shall love the LORD your God with all
your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 And these
words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart
(implying memorization, see
Memorizing His Word);
7 and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of
them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when
you lie down and when you rise up. 8 And you shall bind them as
a
sign
on your hand and they shall be
as
frontals
(phylacteries) on your forehead. (Deut
6:4-8)
"You shall therefore impress these
words of mine on your heart and on your soul; and you shall bind them as
a
sign
on your hand, and they shall be
as
frontals
(phylacteries) on your forehead." (Deut
11:18)
In Deuteronomy 6 the "frontals"
(phylacteries) were to help Israel remember the words of the covenant (note
the phrase "on
your heart" in verse 5). The external (on their hand and forehead) was to simply be
a reminder of the internal (on their heart).
PHYLACTERIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
By historical accounts when the Jews
returned from 70 years of exile in Babylon, at some point they began to
apply the Lord's instructions in Exodus 13:16, Deuteronomy 6:8,
Deuteronomy 11:18 literally making these "memorials" into external trappings
in the form of leather bands on their arms with a box of Scriptures and
a similar box attached to a band around their forehead.
Jesus without condemning the practice
per se, did condemn their intent declaring that the ostentatious
Pharisees...
"do all their deeds to be noticed
(Greek theaomai - to be looked at closely and the root of our English
"theatrical" describing a "spectacular performance"!) by men; for they
broaden their phylacteries, and lengthen the tassels of their
garments..." (Mt 23.5)...
"outwardly (appearing) righteous to men, but inwardly...full
of hypocrisy and lawlessness." (Mt 23.28)
This verse represents the only New
Testament use of the Greek word
phulakterion
(from the verb
phulasso meaning to keep, guard or
preserve) which at that time described a small leather case containing
several OT Scripture passages (Ex 13:2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15, 16, 17; Dt 6:4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; 13:22) and worn on the arm and
forehead by Jews especially when they were praying.
It is interesting to note that the
secular use of
phulakterion
both before and during NT times referred to
an object which was used as a means of protection from evil forces (cf
the root verb phulasso = to guard).
Phulakterion
therefore actually was a kind of amulet
which is a charm as an ornament often inscribed with a magic incantation
or symbol and thereby considered as possessing the power to protect the
wearer against evil as disease or witchcraft. In Matthew 23.5
phulakterion is
used as a reference to
what was called in Aramaic tephillin, meaning ‘prayers.’
In Jesus' day there were two
phylacteries, one worn on the head and the other on the left arm,
both being
bound on during daily morning prayers. In
Matthew 23.5, Jesus does not condemn the use of
such phylacteries per se, but he does denounce their ostentatious use.
As discussed above, the Jews were not only to retain
the commands of God in their hearts, and to confess them with the mouth,
but to fulfill them with the hand, in act and in deed. But as discussed
above, the Jews,
after their return from Babylonian captivity, construed God's injunction literally
and had portions of the law written out and worn as badges upon their
persons. They practiced the letter of the law but missed the true
intent of the law here as in so many of their other rituals that were
all external with no internal transformation, no
circumcision of their hearts.
Phylacteries are still worn by modern day orthodox Jews and consist of strips of
parchment with Scripture which are rolled, tied with the white
hairs of a calf’s or a cow’s tail and placed in one of the compartments
of a small box. During prayer these phylacteries are worn by the male
Israelites firmly attached with leather straps to their forehead between
the eyebrows, and on the left arm so as to be near the heart. The boxes
for the head phylactery and for the arm were ordinarily 1.5 inches
square; the former having on the outside to the right the three-pronged
letter "shin", which is designed as an abbreviation of the divine name
"Shaddai, the Almighty," whereas on the left side it had a four-pronged
"shin", the two constituting the sacred number "seven".
See also ISBE article
Phylactery.
Trumbull describes the parallel pagan practice writing...
It will be remembered that in the primitive rite of blood-friendship
a blood-stained record of the covenant is preserved in a small leathern
case, to be worn as an amulet upon the arm, or about the neck, by him
who has won a friend forever in this sacred rite.... (Trumbull:
The Blood Covenant)
