Pl. בְּרִיתוֹת, a formal pact, treaty or alliance—a form of חוֹזֶה, not a unilateral promise nor an informal הֶסְכֵּם
The theme of a contract between mortals and the Meta-world that we read relative to
What separated the religion of
The theme of a negotiated pact evolved from Egyptian and Mesopotamian mythology into Hellenist Roman mythology as pax deorum.
A בְּרִית, then, is a חוֹזֶה, which entails:
specific terms, breach of any one of which annuls the contract
between two or more persons or entities (offeror & offeree)
in which there is a promise on the part of each party to do something in return for a valuable benefit (the consideration).
failure of either party to deliver their consideration is a breach of contract, rendering the contract void—and unenforceable.
As a kind of contract, a בְּרִית is only valid and in force when certain factual elements are present and satisfied.
(The elements of a valid contract are counted differently depending upon how the concepts are dissected. The following is based on my decades of business experience, my B.S.B.A. (UF '68), including courses in business law and contract law, and e-law.bc.ca.)
Offer (Shᵊm•otꞋ 20.1—23.33; Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 6.4-9; 11:13-21; bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 15:37–41; Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 27.1—29.8; 30.11-20)
Acceptance of the offer which results in a meeting of the minds (Shᵊm•otꞋ 24.3)
There can be no contract without competency, which includes reasonably informed consent.
Relative to the בְּרִית תּוֹרָה, if you are born a Jew then you in an "opt out" status while gentiles are in an "opt in" mode. What this means is that those born into the בְּרִית תּוֹרָה remain in the בְּרִית תּוֹרָה unless they breach it, by violating its terms—transgressing בְּרִית תּוֹרָה
Gentiles, by contrast, are born a non-party to this בְּרִית and, therefore, must develop a working knowledge of the terms of this contract before they can make an informed—competent—consent. To become party to this בְּרִית, gentiles must agree to its all of its terms, by performance (not mere words of assent), in order to "opt in" to the בְּרִית. Gentiles – born a non-party to this contract – who simply presume themselves in the בְּרִית תּוֹרָה are in immediate breach by not satisfying the terms of this בְּרִית, which require obtaining recognition from the Biblically-ordained Beit-Din system.
Agreement is essential to any contract.
Before there can be a contract, there must be a consensus ad idem: that is, there must be a meeting of the minds… [T]here must be an offer by one side and an acceptance of the offer by the person to whom the offer was made. Without both an offer and an acceptance, there can be no consensus ad idem or a meeting of the minds which is essential to form a contract… Acceptance is simply some indication by the person receiving the offer that the offer is accepted. The acceptance must be clear and absolute and [Christians note] without conditions attached… No conditions can be attached to the acceptance and the terms of the offer can not be changed. If conditions are attached or terms are changed, the parties are merely negotiating… there is no contract. You have made a counter offer…
There is no such thing as acceptance of part of the terms of a contract. In such case, that is simply no agreement and no contract.
The terms of the בְּרִית is Tor•âhꞋ shë-bi•khᵊtâvꞋ complemented by Tor•âhꞋ shë-bᵊ•alꞋ pëh. In a nutshell: "the person must demonstrate his or her exclusive fealty to
Promise to Perform The contract constitutes a bargain. The acceptance of the offer is the bargain the parties have struck (Shᵊm•otꞋ 24.7)
Valuable Consideration (which can be a promise or payment in some form),
When an exchange of a promise for a promise or act has been made this is consideration, which makes the contract binding.
Consideration is some benefit or advantage to the person making the offer and a corresponding cost or prejudice to the person accepting the offer… It is left to the parties to determine whether or not the consideration is adequate; only the parties can judge whether or not it is a good bargain. The law only requires that there be sufficient consideration; something of value must be given. The consideration can not be something given or promised in the past. To be valid, the consideration must be a new promise or some fresh benefit exchanged for the offer.
The Divine side of consideration is provision of ki•purꞋ and hâ-o•lâmꞋ ha-bâꞋ.
The human side of the consideration is our performance—doing our utmost to live according to Tor•âhꞋ (loosely based on e-law.bc.ca).
See also Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 11.26ff; 28.1-69; but especially Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 30.16 elucidated by Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ 13.19; 18.9,13,17,19,21-23,28; 33.11-13,15-16,19; 37.5-6,14; Khav•a•quqꞋ 2.4 (the tza•diqꞋ shall live by his ë•mun•âhꞋ); Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ Shᵊlom•ohꞋ 4.4; 7.2.
Time or Event when performance must be made (meet commitments), during one's lifetime;
Terms and Conditions for Performance, including fulfilling promises, see citations above;
Performance—living according to the mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ Tor•âhꞋ.
New idea: A Contract, a deal, between a deity and a people"The idea of a [בְּרִית] between a deity and a people is unknown from other religious and cultures. It seems that the [בְּרִית] idea was a special feature of the religion of Israel, the only one to demand exclusive loyalty and preclude the possibility of dual or multiple loyalties; so the stipulation in political treaties demanding exclusive fealty to one king corresponds strikingly with the religious belief in one single, exclusive deity."
"The prophets, especially [Ho•sheiꞋa, Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu and Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ], expressed this idea of exclusive loyalty by speaking of the relationship between
During the era of
"The idea of a [בְּרִית] between a deity and a people is unknown from other religious and cultures. It seems that the [בְּרִית] idea was a special feature of the religion of Israel, the only one to demand exclusive loyalty and preclude the possibility of dual or multiple loyalties; so the stipulation in political treaties demanding exclusive fealty to one king corresponds strikingly with the religious belief in one single, exclusive deity."
"As the relationship between the suzerain and the vassal has to be based on a written document, i.e., a treaty, so the relationship between [Ël•oh•imꞋ] and [Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ] had to be expressed in written form. It is not surprising, therefore, that the tablets of the [בְּרִית] played so important a role in the religion of [Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ]. As already noted, the tablets had to be deposited in the sanctuary at the feet of the deity, a procedure known from the Hittite treaties. Moreover, it appears that, as in the judicial sphere, the written document expresses the validity of the given relationship. When the [בְּרִית] is no longer in force the document must be destroyed. Thus the worship of the golden calf[mask], which signifies the breaking of the [בְּרִית], is followed by the breaking of the tablets by [Mosh•ëhꞋ], the mediator of the [בְּרִית] (Shᵊm•otꞋ 32). Indeed, the term for canceling a contract in Babylonian legal literature is ''to break the tablet'' (tuppam hepu). Following the judicial pattern, the renewal of the relationship must be effected by writing new tablets, which explains why new ones had to be written after the sin of the golden calf[mask], and why the ritual decologue was repeated in Shᵊm•otꞋ 34.17-26 (cf. Shᵊm•otꞋ 23.10-29). Renewal of the [בְּרִית] with a vassal—after a break in the relationship—by means of writing new tablets is an attested fact in Hittite political life" (Ency. Jud., 1019-20).
"The prophets, especially [Ho•sheiꞋa, Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu and Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ], expressed this idea of exclusive loyalty by speaking of the relationship between
Countless words have been written about the בְּרִית. Yet, without recognition that a בְּרִית is a pact—a contract, one cannot understand how to become a legitimate party to the בְּרִית.
Without a basic understanding of the concept of a legal contract, none truly grasp its import. Lacking the fundamental understanding of the בְּרִית, one cannot recognize the terms, obligations, conditions, performances or consideratons of the contractual relationship with י--ה defined and imposed by the בְּרִית. Yet, the בְּרִית between Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ with the Singularity is the core contribution of Tor•âhꞋ to the world and the core definition of any possible relationship between man and Singularity. Nothing is more important to understand than the בְּרִית.
"The high points of the sacrificial service were the two daily offerings constituting the תָּמִיד, one at daybreak [זֶבַח] and the other in the afternoon [מִנְחָה], which began and concluded each day's sacrifices. All other individual and public sacrifices were brought in between them… The offering of individual sacrifices was completed by half past the eighth hour of daylight, and the sacrifice of the concluding afternoon תָּמִיד then took place. It was slaughtered and offered up an hour later (Ma•sëkꞋët Pᵊsâkh•imꞋ 5.1)." (Sacrifice, Ency. Jud., 14.608-10).
Thus, זֶבַח וּמִנְחָה is a metonym specifying the entirety—the "A-Z"—of the symbolic performance of a בְּרִית.
The בְּרִית Tor•âhꞋ / בְּרִית Har Sin•aiꞋ (Shᵊm•otꞋ 24.1-11) is a bilateral – 2-way – contract: a contract in which each party promises to pay, or give other consideration, in return for actual performance, a בְּרִית tâ•midꞋ validated by ha-Tâ•midꞋ. Reaching agreement on a בְּרִית occasioned a qâ•doshꞋ Banquet, which entailed the prerequisite qâ•doshꞋ sacrifice for its main course. Since the destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ, this בְּרִית tâ•midꞋ validation was, necessarily, transferred, without sacrifice (unless one accepts the symbolism of the
The Promise of consideration: a portion in hâ-o•lâmꞋ ha-bâꞋ for actual performance: you to do your utmost to live according to My mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ Tor•âhꞋ
Duration of contract: until your physical expiration date.
The Performance: doing your utmost to live according to My mi•tzᵊw•otꞋ Tor•âhꞋ Duration of contract until your physical expiration date.
Like any contract, to be valid a בְּרִית, must set forth—and all parties must agree to and perform all terms, conditions, obligations, considerations and performances (referred to metonymically in the Bible as "זֶבַח וּמִנְחָה") of all parties to the contract. Rejection, or failure to perform, any term of the contract breaches, and annuls, the contract. "Selective observance" – non-selection of one or more terms of the בְּרִית – constitutes breach of contract, annulling the contract.
בְּרִית is a term that Christians have loaded with erroneous connotations deriving from the Hellenist (Greek) διαθηκη, the corresponding term from the LXX.
Commenting on the Hebrew term, Vines Expository Dictionary of NT Words, for example, is contradicted by A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language For Readers of English. Vine asserts that διαθηκη "is the rendering of a Hebrew word meaning a covenant or agreement (from a verb signifying to cut or divide, in allusion to a sacrificial custom in connection with covenant-making."
"In contradistinction to the English word 'covenant' (lit. a coming together), which signifies a mutual undertaking between two parties or more, each binding himself to fulfill obligations, it does not in itself contain the idea of joint obligation, it mostly signifies an obligation undertaken by a single person." The Hellenist Greek term, yes. With respect to the Hebrew term, however, this is just plain wrong:
First, Klein notes the two most accepted derivations of בְּרִית: "[Of uncertain etymology. Meyer derives it from בָּרָה I (= to eat bread); it would have been so called because in ancient times it was customary for those concluding a treaty or alliance to partake of a meal. Several scholars, with less probability, derive the noun בְּרִית from בָּרָה II (= to choose) … Prob. a secondary form of בָּרַר.]"
Contrary to Vine, neither potential derivative verb means "cut or divide."
Second, בְּרִית means treaty, alliance, pact or covenant; definitely implying "mutual and joint obligations." בְּרִית just happens to contradict the Christian idea of unilateral "salvation by grace" that has nothing to do with observing Tor•âh′, so the historical definitions had to be distorted like the NT texts.
The Yi•sᵊr•â•eil′i-Egyptian and Yi•sᵊr•â•eil′i-Jordanian peace treaties are בְּרִיתוֹת.
When translated into Hebrew, the United States, bound together by the Constitution, is translated as אַרְצוֹת הַבְּרִית. Certainly, Iran could not unilaterally self-proclaim itself the 51st U.S. state according to its own interpretation and proclamation' as Vine's definition would imply. (Similarly, non-Jews cannot unilaterally self-proclaim themselves Jews or Nᵊtzâr•im′.)
Finally, Vine seems to have mistaken the בּ in בְּרִית with the כּ in an unrelated verb, כָּרַת, to confuse it with כָּרֵית.
The term was later Hellenized / de-Judaized to "covenant" in order to dilute and divert attention from the Biblical terms and conditions of performance.
 |
 |
 |