Topic: A Critical Survey on the themes Election and Covenant.

1. Introduction

Election and Covenant are two of the most important concepts or themes particularly in the Old
Testament. However the concept of election although used in the sky biblical texts, especially in
Old Testament, received less attention in the biblical scholarship. Sometimes, election is used
along with other themes like covenant, law, etc. Thus this presentation concentrates on the
concept of election and covenant separately in the Old Testament by bringing out also the
ancient West Asian background of these two distinctive concepts in order to find out whether
one can also try to figure out the connection between these two concepts in order to find out
whether one can blend these two themes into one and use them interchangeably or not.

2. Election
2.1.Definition

According to Jesurathnam, the most common word used for election in the Old Testament is
“bachar” which refers to the sense of a careful choice, selection in the light of certain criterion.
Further, this word is in the sense of Yahweh as the subject of election. The term election is also
widely used with variety of metaphorical usage. In their metaphor of marriage union prophets
Hosea (2:1-7), Jermiah (3:1122), Ezikel (chapter 16 and 23) and Isaiah (50:1; 54:5; 62:45) talks
about God’s election of Israel in greater significance. Just as in marriage the wife becomes the
“property” (as per the ancient Israelite understanding) of her husband who has purchased her for
money. Yahweh has taken possession of the people of Israel. Like a faithful husband he assures
them fertility and prosperity; the wife in turn owes obedience and faithfulness her identity would
be a refusal to acknowledge the grace of election.1

2.2.Election ideas in the Ancient West Asian tests

Jesurathnam states that in the ancient West Asian creation theology, particularly in the accounts
of the creation of human beings, it is made very clear that they are chosen for a particular

1
Kondasingu Jesurathnam, Old Testament Theology: History, Issues, and Perspectives (New Delhi: Christian World
Imprints, 2016), 234.

1
purpose, that is to carry out the task of serving the gods. It is argued by some scholar that the
idea of election in the Old Testament is borrowed from the ancient West Asian culture,
especially in the idea that a particular tribe was chosen by a patron deity. For instance, in one of
the Mesopotamian text of creation, it is evident that the human beings are chosen for the purpose
of their service being rendered to gods.2

S.G.F. Brandon clearly states that the test reads as follows: “create them Lullu (lu-lu-la-a: the
savage, the first man) and let him bear the yoke, the yoke he shall bear…the burden of creation
man shall bear.”3 Jesurathnam, furthermore, states that the human beings are created and chosen
to ease the burdens of gods. The text reads: “I will establish a savage, ‘man’ shall be his name,
verily savage man will I create, he shall be charged with the service of gods, that they might be
at ease.”4 Brandon argues that in another text it is made clear that human beings are created and
chosen by God in order that they might perform certain specific cultic functions. The reads: “The
Anunaki” who fix destinies, both (groups) of them, made answer to Enlil: In uzumma, the bond
of heaven and earth, let us slay (two) lagma gods, with their blood let us create mankind. The
service of God be their portion for all times… To increase the abundance in the land, o celebrate
the festival of the gods, to pour out cold water in the great house of god, which is to fit to be an
exalted sanctuary.5

2.3. Theology of Election in the Old Testament

2.3.1. Deuteronomy theology of election

Horst Dietrich Preuss argues that it is Deuteronomy which is the first text to emphasize and
present a well developed theology of election. Even so as the paraentic tests are able to
demonstrate (Deuteronomy 7:10), this theology was not newly contrived but rather already had
an existing prehistory. Deuteronomy 7:6-6 (in 7:1-11) is the classical passage for the idea of
election, though Deut. 9:1-6might also be held up for consideration. In the context of these
statement about election, it is not by accident that other, previously discussed expression for
election appear, including ‘holy people,’ Hahweh’s own people and inherited portion.’ The

2
Jesurathnam, Old Testament Theology: History, Issues, and Perspectives,232.
3
S. G. F. Brandon, Creation Legends of Ancient Near East (London: Holder & Stoughton, 1963), 110.
4
Jesurathnam, Old Testament Theology: History, Issues, and Perspectives,233.
5
Brandon, Creation Legends of Ancient Near East, 110.

2
election faith in Deuteronomy is the basis for everything else: theocracy, exclusivity (even to the
point of particularly), the concentration of worship in Jerusalem, and the rigorous demand that
the entire personal and national life be dedicated to God.6

2.3.2. Deutero-Isaiah theology of election

Preuss also states that after Deuteronomy, the second emphasis on election theology is set forth
in Deutro-Isaiah with its promise of salvation (Isa. 41:8f; 43:20f; 44:1f). that often speak of
Yahweh’s ‘election’ of his people (Isa. 41:8-10; 43:10, 44:1f). as is the case in Deuteronomy, the
word ‘love’ appears several times in close proximity to acts of election (Isa. 41:8 and 43:4),
Including statements about the ancestors (Isa. 41:8; 44:2). Yahweh has chosen, not rejected (Isa
41:9; Jer. 33:22-26). Election in Deutero-Isaiah is first of all an affirmation about God and then,
On the basis of this, an affirmation about Israel. In addition, election appears here in connection
with Israel’s servant hood (Isa. 43:10), an idea that also comes to expression in speaking of the
relationship of the chosen people with the nations. As Israel is the people who, through
Yahweh’s election, is both the servant of God and witness (Isa. 43:10 and 45:4), so it is the
individual servant of the Lord in the so-called Songs of Servant (Isa. 42:1; 49:6).7

2.3.3. Promise of election materializing in Exodus event

Preuss opines that election in the OT refers not to some kind of supra-temporal or primeval
divine decree but rather to a historical action of Yahweh. Through means of the exodus out of
Egypt, Israel became Yahweh’s sanctuary and dominion. Yahweh’s activity of election leading
to his relationship with Israel and its connection to him had both a beginning and an intrinsic
grounding. The OT knows of such an activity of Yahweh’s election in several spheres, namely,
the exodus, the ancestors, the king, the Zion and the Priesthood, and arranges these acts of
election in a series in which the exodus clearly had a position of priority. The belief in the reality
of election, the awareness of election, and the origin of community between God and the people
within history are fundamental for the faith of the OT. Election entails a setting apart for the
purposes of both community and possession, and thereby, being destined for salvation.

6
Horst Dietrich Preuss, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 33.
7
Horst Dietrich Preuss, Old Testament Theology, 33-34.

3
Accordingly, election is also the promise that awaits fulfillment and the basis for continuing, new
hope.8

2.3.4. Prophets’ understand of election

R. L. Hnuni states that Israel had the exclusive claim that God loved them over against other
nations and that they were elected among all other nations. They used that claim to despise other
nations and they did not bother about other nations. However, the prophets criticized the
Israelites exclusive claim of being elected by Yahweh and their failure to live by the covenant
obligation (Amos 3:2). Hosea mourned for Israel’s breaking the covenant laws as they
consecrated themselves to foreign gods and goddesses (Hosea 4:10). That Israel rejected Yahweh
and had forgotten the covenant law is manifested by their devotion to Baal and practiced
divination which Yahweh abhor (Hosea 4: 12-14). Israel did not understand that their election is
to become instruments for God and that God also equally loved the other nations. Israel was
chosen from their ancestor Abraham to be channel of blessings to the nations (Gen. 12: 2-3) and
to be light to the nations (Isa. 49:6; Jonah 4). The prophets understanding is that Yahweh’s
election involved obedience to the covenant stipulations which should culminate in becoming
instruments to let all nations know God.9

2.4. The Purpose of election

Robin Routledge argues that the election of Israel was a partial fulfillment of God’s promise to
Abram. The character of Israel’s special calling is seen in the two expressions: kingdom of
priests and holy nation. Holy, here, means ‘set apart, consecrated to God’s own use’. Israel was
to be set apart for service to God. The nature of this service is seen in the former expression,
kingdom of priests. The priest in Israel was an intermediary, representing God to the people, and
the people to God. He was consecrated in the service of God, and granted special access into the
divine presence. There he offered sacrifices, both for himself and on behalf of the people, and
presented to God the prayers and petitions of the nation. He also brought God’s word to the
people. The priest was a man of the Law, who passes on and interpreted God’s teaching (Deut.
33:10)

8
Horst Dietrich Preuss, Old Testament Theology, 37.
9
R. L. Hnuni, Vision and Mission of the Prophets (Aizawl: Academy of Integrated Christian Studies,
2010), 43-44.

4
As a priestly kingdom, Israel too was set apart. Israel was taken from the nations to be an
intermediary: to be God’s representative to the nations and to stand before God on their behalf.
Israel was called to bring the nations closer to God and, by sharing the light of God’s revelation
and the good news of his salvation, to bring God closer to the nations. Israel’s role in this was to
be mainly passive. They were called to be holy and distinctive: a people among whom God’s
presence would be seen, and to whom other nations would be drawn-seeking to share Israel’s
relationship with God. The effectiveness of Israel’s witness depended on her distinctiveness.10

3. Covenant
3.1.Definition

Routledge describes that a ‘covenant’ is an agreement enacted between two parties in which one
or both makes promises under oath to perform or refrain from certain actions stipulated in
advance.11 A covenant was not just an agreement or contract; it was a solemn bond established
between two or more parties and involved a firm commitment to the relationship established by
the covenant and to its obligations. The word ‘Berit” is used in the OT to refer to treaties
between national powers on the relationship between a king and his subjects. Each had a part to
play in the successful functioning of the socio-religio-political life of the kingdom, and a ruler
should be as aware of his obligation to the people as they are of their duty to him.12

3.2.Covenant in the ancient West Asian texts

William A. Dryness argues that beginning a generation ago the vast field of Oriental law and
covenants was studied with a view to finding to context for the OT understating of covenant.13
Jesurathnam also opines that in the Hittite treaties, which are derived from the early
Mesopotamian context, are basically two kinds of treaties are noticed. They are parity and
suzerain-vassal treaties. In the case of the parity treaty, it is a treaty made between two equal
partners. For instance, there was a treaty made between a Hittite king Hattiusilis III and the

10
Robin Routledge, Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach (lllinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2008), 172.
11
George E. Mendenhall and Gary A. Herion, “Covenant,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. I, edited by David
Noel Freedman and David F. Graf, eds., (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1179.
12
Routledge, Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach, 163.
13
William A. Dyrness, Themes in Old Testament Theology (Illionois: Inter Varsity Press, 1977), 113.

5
Egyptian king Ramses II. This type of treaty normally fosters the mutual bond of strengthening
each other, and they always work for establishment of good and peace with each other.14

Dryness believes that they reflected a long and varied tradition of ancient law, G.E. Mendenhall
studied Hittite suzerainty treaties from the late Bronze Age (1400-1200 BCE) as a way of
throwing light on the biblical idea of covenant. A suzerainty treaty was the formal basis of the
empire. It spelled out the terms of relationship between the Hittite state and the vassals (lesser
groups of people) which gave allegiance to the empire. The king would offer to protect a people
in exchange for their support and tribute. This was the only choice for many people who were
caught between larger powers, and it provided for them a means of security amid troubled
times.15

3.3. Context of Covenant in Old Testament

Dryness argues that the OT scholars are generally agreed that this AWA’s treaty form lies behind
the OT understanding of the covenant. At the very least, scholars are now more open to the idea
that the covenant concept goes back early into history; indeed, the covenant is now recognized as
one way of accounting for the unity that this nomadic people was able to achieve so early.
Conservative scholar Meredith G. Kline has drawn out the implication of this in terms of
understanding the whole OT as a treaty document, and thus recognizing its inherent authority.16

3.4.Historical dating of the idea of covenant

Dryness also states that from the time of Julius Wellhausen – about one hundred years ago – it
has been believed by all but a few scholars of the Old Testament that the covenant idea came late
into Israel’s consciousness. The early relationship between God and his people was held to be a
‘natural’ one. Basic to this line of thinking is the idea of development so dear to the nineteenth
century.17

Routledge argues that many modern scholars claim that the idea of covenant developed late in
Israel’s history. It is often associated with the ‘Deuteronomic movement’ which dates from the

14
Jesurathnam, Old Testament Theology: History, Issues and Perspectives, 218.
15
Dyrness, Themes in Old Testament Theology, 114.
16
Dyrness, Themes in Old Testament Theology, 114-115.
17
Dyrness, Themes in Old Testament Theology, 113.

6
seventh century BCE. However, covenants in the form of international treaties were well known
in the fourteenth/thirteenth centuries BCE in an article published in C.E. 1954, Mendenhall noted
significant parallels between the Sinaitic covenant and second-millennium Hittite vassal treaties,
where a king made a treaty with a subject power, offering protection in return for loyalty and
obedience. These parallels have strengthened the arguments in favor of an early dating of
Deuteronomy. Comparisons are also made with ninth-seventh century BCE. Assyrian treaties,
which are taken to support the later date, though Kenneth A. Kitchen’s analysis shows a much
closer correspondence to the earlier treaty forms, and he takes this to affirm that the Sinai
covenant really was instituted and renewed in the thirteenth century BCE.18

Peter C. Craigie argues that though they may not prove an early date for the Deuteronomy and
covenant concept, they do support it, and he notes that this form of covenant was particularly
appropriate at the time of exodus. Craigie observes, ‘the form of the book and the religious
significance of that form make it not unreasonable to assume that the book comes from the time
of Moses or shortly thereafter.19

Stephen L. Cook argues in favor of an early dating for the covenant idea, which brought cultural
practices and social institutions under Yahweh’s authority. Eichrodt also supports the idea that
the covenant concept arose early in Israel’s history: he maintains that ‘the safest starting point for
the critical examination of Israel’s relationship with God is still the plain impression given by the
Old Testament itself that Moses, taking over a concept of long standing in secular life, based his
worship of Yahweh on a covenant agreement.20

3.5.Theology of divine covenant in the Old Testament

3.5.1. Adamic Covenant (Gen.1:26,2:17)

Laiu Fachhai states that the term ‘covenat per se is not employed for the Adamic covenant. But
the words of God and the nature of the test qualify in it to be a covenant. There are at least four
stipulations in the Adamic covenant: Adam must work for Garden: take care of it; he must not
eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; he and his wife must exclusively worship

18
Routledge, Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach, 161-162.
19
Routledge, Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach, 162.
20
Routledge, Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach, 162-163.

7
Yahweh. The last one is an implied one, base on Gen.3:8 and from the advent fall and
subsequent expulsion from the presence of God.21

3.5.2. Noahic covenant

Dryness argues the covenant idea does not appear before God’s promise to Noah. Even before
the flood God says to Noah: “I will establish my covenant with you…” (Gen.6:18). Then as if to
define the covenant, God tells him that he and his family are to come into the ark. Here the basis
of the covenant as a solemn promise is apparent for God takes the initiative to promise to Noah
and his family deliverance. The covenant is then sealed after the flood (Gen. 9:117). God comes
to Noah and his sons and announces that God’s promise te rainbow becomes symbolic of the
covenant between God and the earth.22

3.5.3. Abrahamic covenant

Dennis F. Finlaw and John N. Oswant that Abraham received the promise in Haran. When God
appeared to him, and said, “I will give you progeny, I will make you a great nation , and I will let
you be a means of blessing to the world.” Now in the end of chapter 12, God speaks more
specifically and identifies the land that God is to give to him. He was in Canaan and God said,
“This land I will give to you.”23

Routledge expounds that the Abrahamic covenant includes four key promises. First God
promises that Abraham, at the time childless, will become the father of great nation (Gen 12:2),
with descendants outnumbering the stars in the sky (Gen. 15:5) and the grains of sand on the
seashore (Gen. 22:17), and that the promises and blessing of the covenant will be extended to
those descendants and confirmed to successive generations (Gen. 17: 19). Second, as part of this,
God promises to give the land of Canaan to the nation descended from Abraham (Gen. 17:8).
The third promise, and the central feature of the covenant relationship, is the divine promise ‘I
will be their God’ (Gen. 17:8). God has choses this man and this nation to belong to God in a
way other do not. All who are in covenant relationship with God are expected to live in a way
that pleases him. For Abraham in particular, as the father of this people, his exemplary faith must

21
Laiu Fachhai, The Land must be Distributed Equally (New Delhi: ISPCK, 2009),40.
22
Dyrness, Themes in Old Testament Theology, 116-117.
23
Dennis F. Kinlaw and John N. Oswalt, Lectures in the Old Testament Theology (Indiana: Francis Asbury Press,
2010), 138.

8
be worked out in exemplary obedience. The fourth lifts the covenant out of what might be seen
as a purely nationalistic context, and promises universal blessing: all people on earth will be
blessed through you (Gen. 12:3). God promises to bless Abraham so that he and the nation that
come from him in turn be the means by which divine blessing will extend to the whole world.24

3.5.4. Mosaic covenant

Jesurathnam states that the covenant during Mosaic period is very crucial one since it is believed
that through the Sinai covenant God entered into special relationship with the people of Israel
and also the people know Yahweh in a special way. Mosaic covenant is also understood in the
context of commandments. Two thing can be stated on this point: first, Israel has encountered a
unique experience with a holy God; second, the covenant or agreement however is made on the
basis of Israel’s total obedience and surrender to divine grace. In Exo. 34: 10-28 we find the
details regarding the covenant renewal ceremony. The renewal of the covenant with God is
necessary for the Israelites because of their apostasy and thus they need to restore their
relationship with God once again.25

3.5.5. Deuteronomic Covenant

W. J. Dumbrell is of the view that in the plains of Moab and thus recorded in the book of
Deuteronomy, the covenant was not only renewed but expounded in the interests of the
expression of a total national commitment in a promised land shortly to be entered. The book of
Deuteronomy is structured around three major addresses of Moses, (1:6- 4:43; 5-28; 29), all of
which are covenant based and all of which have as their aim the commendation and explanation
of the Siani covenant in terms of fulfillment of what had been promised to the patriarchs as well
as admonition of Israel to maintain a life-style appropriate to an elected people.26

Jesurathnam states that the main idea of covenant in Deuteronomy is that it is not because of the
merits of the people but because of Yahweh’s grace God entered into a special relationship with
the people of Israel. Moreover, this covenant is valid only in so far as the people’s total
obedience to Yahweh (Deut. 7:7-18). On the one hand the Deuteronomic covenant affirms God’s

24
Routledge, Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach, 166-167.
25
Jesurathnam, Old Testament Theology: History, Issues and Perspectives, 220-221.
26
W. J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants (Oregon: Wipf and Stock
Publishers, 2009), 114.

9
relationship with the people from the past, that is from the time of patriarchs, on the other hand it
talks about the present and enduring relationship between Yahweh and the people in a new and
renewed way (Deu. 7; 1 Kg. 8:23, etc). Another significant aspect of covenant theology in
Deuteronomy is to be understood in the context of the land. Deuteronomy derives this land
theology from the older covenant traditions of Abraham and David, the land and dynasty as
objects of the covenant respectively. In its original setting of Abrahamic and Davidic covenants
of the land was not attached with any conditions (Gen. 18:19ff), but Deuteronomy makes this
unconditional grant of land, and dynasty as conditional and these will be granted according to
Deuteronomy only when the law is observed (Deu. 4:1, 25-26, 40; 6:14-18, etc.). Thus, the land
theology is closely connected with the idea of covenant in Deuteronomy.27

3.5.6. Davidic covenant

Jesurathnam is of the view that in the Davidic covenant God made a promise to David that his
dynasty would continue on the throne of Judah and that promise is a divine gift to David (2 Sam.
7: 1-17; 1 Chron. 17:1-15) without imposing any specific obligations. This is called a grant type
of covenant because of the reason that ‘the grant par excellence is an act of royal benevolence
arising from the king’s desire to reward his royal servant.’ Apart from the fact that both
Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are promissory types of covenants, there is also a close
relationship between them because of the reason that 2 Sam. 7:18-29, with its notion of the
Davidic covenant as humanity’s character, provided for the future of the race under the
leadership of Davidic house. Even when the prophets talked about the downfall of Israel and
Judah, they recalled the fall of the physical dynasty of King David, yet a remnant was promised
in the midst of terrible downfall.28

3.5.7. Covenant in the post-exilic period

Jesurathnam also states that the Priestly writer blends the earlier covenant ideas in a more vivid
fashion, especially in the context of universal creative action of God in the history. Until the time
of Moses beginning from creation two universal covenants are presented (i.e. in Noah and
Abraham) and then the Siani covenant. Priestly writer views these two in different light. The

27
Jesurathnam, Old Testament Theology: History, Issues and Perspectives, 220.
28
Jesurathnam, Old Testament Theology: History, Issues and Perspectives, 220.

10
former (Noah and Abraham) are like grant type without any obligations and the later one (Sinai
covenant) is seen as obligatory type. Priestly writer uses the phrase ‘natan berit’ translated as
“establishing the covenant as referred in Gen. 9:12; 17:2 and Num. 25:12. And this covenant for
‘P’ comes only by the grace and mercy of God. For priestly writer this covenant has universal
implications, that is, Yahweh will establish his covenant for the entire world. By presenting this
type of covenant with universal implication brings two poles together, that is the poles of
creation and eschatology are brought together in the sense that God has entered into covenant not
only with Abraham, Noah, but to the entire world till the end. Chronicler talks about God’s
covenant in the post-exilic period in the light of God’s grace. The covenant for chronicler is that
which purifies the religion of the people (2 Chro. 15:12; 23:3, 16;29:10; 34:31).29

4. Election and Covenant

Jesurathnam rightly put it that in the covenant theology the idea of election is explicitly
presented. In Deut. 26:17-18, election is explained in terms of covenant which is reciprocal, that
is, God’s choice of Israel and Israel’s choice of God. Here in this context, election and covenant
are used in synonymous terms. As a result of God’s election Israel should be loyal to God’s
covenant and this loyalty is essential to the continuance of election. In the context of election,
covenant is made dynamic in the OT. In a way covenant is a visible and dynamic manifestation
of election. It is because that the people of Israel are chosen for the specific task to perform, to
begin with task is confirmed in the intimate relationship between God and people of Israel. Three
important concerns can be noted in talking about the relationship between covenant and election.
Firstly, covenant is election that is, God chose only Israel from among many nations (Amos 3:2).
Secondly, since covenant is election it is also a bond that is, people will be united in Yahweh in a
close relationship and thirdly, because Yahweh has chosen Israel and entered into a covenant
with them, Israel in turn will be obedient to the will of Yahweh as the subjects are obedient to
their king, the people of Israel shall follow the guidance and leadership of Yahweh (Exo. 15:18;
Num. 23:21; Deut. 33:5; Judg. 8:23). There is a sense in which we say that the covenant and
election are parallel and even they are identical, because both these concepts talk about the
reciprocal relationship: Yahweh choosing Israel and Israel choosing Yahweh. In this reciprocal
relationship Yahweh promises Israel that he will be their God (Exo. 6:7) which means Yahweh

29
Jesurathnam, Old Testament Theology: History, Issues and Perspectives, 222-223.

11
intervene in all situations of Israel whenever they are need that is, Yahweh is their helper (1 Sam
7:12). In turns it is the duty of Israel to be faithful to Yahweh to Yahweh’s covenant and election
with them (Deut. 4:1, 9, 15, 5:33; 6:2).30

In Deutero- Isaiah we find that both covenant and election ideas are blended together. In Isa.
44:1-2 the idea of election of patriarchs is emphasized and through this the prophet wanted to
affirm the same election-covenant act of God continues even now and in fact the old act is
foreshadowed by new creative act by which Yahweh will intervene and manifest in a dynamic
way in the history of Israel (Isa. 44:3-5 and 34-38).

However, from the time when Israelites settled in the land of Canaan, covenant was merely
reduced to some cultic practices under the influence of Baalism. Although the prophets of eight
century did not explicitly made any reference to covenant, they affirmed that it is because Israel
is chosen and in covenant with Yahweh they are in particular are subjected to punishment than
all other nations (Amos 3:2). Thus, Israel has special obligations not to forego this covenant
bond between them and God because they are the chosen ones of God.31

Davidson is of the view that the motive to the formation of this covenant on Yahweh’s part was
his love. It is important to notice that the idea of a covenant is a moral one; the formation of it
implies free action on the part of Yahweh, and the motive is a moral one – love. The relation of
Yahweh to Israel is not a natural one. 32

5. Evaluation and Conclusion

According to Jesurathnam, the following observations and evaluations can be made: first,
throughout the Old Testament one notice that covenant is seen as dynamic concept that it is
through this covenant God-human-creation dynamics are unfolded. Through a historical decisive
moment God enters into covenant with the people and thereafter operates on how the human
beings respond to what God as done in one decisive moment. Second, covenant in the context of
God’s election of the people of Israel creates and opens up a wider possibility for them to be

30
Jesurathnam, Old Testament Theology: History, Issues and Perspectives, 223-224.
31
Jesurathnam, Old Testament Theology: History, Issues and Perspectives, 223-224.

32
A. B. Davidson, International Theological Library: The Theology of the Old Testament, edited by Stewart D.F.
Salmond and Charles A. Briggs (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1904), 247.

12
accommodative to other nations. In other words, God’s elect should not be proud even one
moment because God also elects other nations and they are well within the universal plan of
God’s covenant. Deutero-Isaiah particularly emphasizes this aspect of covenant in 42:1-9; 49: 1-
6; 53:1-10; 55:35.33

In the OT election and covenant are used interchangeably. In fact, election and covenant go hand
in hand and inseparable under all circumstances. To be precise, the chosen people are also
covenanted people. However, both the concepts had their background in the AWA context as
clearly discussed earlier. Concerning the historical dating of covenant, scholars are divided on
this issue. So, this area is subjected to further investigation. Notably, election and covenant is
used in the context of people of Israel, termed as the people of God because Yahweh has chosen
them for a particular purpose. Interestingly, the concept of covenant in the OT is universalistic in
its outlook. It is evident that the understanding of covenant has three important elements: first,
covenant is a gift which was given by Yahweh to his people; second, it is a bond of communion
between Yahweh and his people; third, covenant is an obligation both on the part of the one who
initiates and the one who receives it.

Bibliography

Brandon, S. G. F. Creation Legends of Ancient Near East. London: Holder & Stoughton, 1963.

Davidson, A. B. International Theological Library: The Theology of the Old Testament. edited
by Stewart D.F. Salmond and Charles A. Briggs. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1904.

Dumbrell, W. J. Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants. Oregon: Wipf
and Stock Publishers, 2009.

Dyrness, William A. Themes in Old Testament Theology. Illionois: Inter Varsity Press, 1977.

Fachhai, Laiu. The Land must be Distributed Equally. New Delhi: ISPCK, 2009.

Hnuni, R. L. Vision and Mission of the Prophets. Aizawl: Academy of Integrated Christian
Studies, 2010.

33
Jesurathnam, Old Testament Theology: History, Issues and Perspectives, 231.

13
Jesurathnam, Kondasingu. Old Testament Theology: History, Issues, and Perspectives. New
Delhi: Christian World Imprints, 2016.

Kinlaw, Dennis F. and John N. Oswalt. Lectures in the Old Testament Theology. Indiana: Francis
Asbury Press, 2010.

Mendenhal, George E. l and Gary A. Herion. “Covenant,” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol.
I. edited by David Noel Freedman and David F. Graf, eds. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Preuss, Horst Dietrich. Old Testament Theology. vol. 1. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991.

Routledge, Robin. Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach. lllinois: Inter Varsity Press,
2008.

14