Covenant [N] [E] [S]
The word "covenant, " infrequently heard in conversation, is quite commonly used in legal, social (marriage), and religious and theological contexts.
The Idea of Covenant. The term "covenant" is of Latin origin (con venire), meaning a coming together. It presupposes two or more parties who come together to make a contract, agreeing on promises, stipulations, privileges, and responsibilities. In religious and theological circles there has not been agreement on precisely what is to be understood by the biblical term. It is used variously in biblical contexts. In political situations, it can be translated treaty; in a social setting, it means a lifelong friendship agreement; or it can refer to a marriage.
The biblical words most often translated "covenant" are berit [tyir.B] in the Old Testament (appearing about 280 times) and diatheke [diaqhvkh] in the New Testament (at least 33 times). The origin of the Old Testament word has been debated; some have said it comes from a custom of eating together ( Gen 26:30 ; 31:54 ); others have emphasized the idea of cutting an animal (an animal was cut in half [ 15:18 ]); still others have seen the ideas of perceiving or determining as root concepts. The preferred meaning of this Old Testament word is bond; a covenant refers to two or more parties bound together. This idea of bond will be explicated more fully.
The New Testament word for covenant has usually been translated as covenant, but testimony and testament have also been used. This Greek word basically means to order or dispose for oneself or another. The though of the inequality of the parties is latent.
The generally accepted idea of binding or establishing a bond between two parties is supported by the use of the term berit [tyir.B]. When Abimelech and Isaac decided to settle their land dispute, they made a binding agreement, league, or covenant to live in peace. An oath confirmed it ( Gen 26:26-31 ). Joshua and the Gibeonites bound themselves, by oath, to live in peace together ( Joshua 9:15 ), although Yahweh commanded that Israel was not to bind themselves to the people living in the land of Canaan ( Deut 7:2 ; Judges 2:2 ). Solomon and Hiram made a binding agreement to live and work in peace together ( 1 Kings 5:12 ). A friendship bond was sealed by oath between David and Jonathan ( 1 Samuel 20:3 1 Samuel 20:16-17 ). Marriage is a bond (covenant) for life.
The covenants referred to above were between two equal parties; this means that the covenant relationship was bilateral. The bond was sealed by both parties vowing, often by oath, that each, having equal privileges and responsibilities, would carry out their assigned roles. Because a covenant confirmed between two human parties was bilateral, some scholars have concluded that the covenant Yahweh established with human beings is also bilateral. This is not the case. God initiated, determined the elements, and confirmed his covenant with humanity. It is unilateral. Persons are recipients, not contributors; they are not expected to offer elements to the bond; they are called to accept it as offered, to keep it as demanded, and to receive the results that God, by oath, assures will not be withheld.
Scholars have learned by studying tablets found by archaeologists that legal treaties between kings (suzerains) and subjects (vassals) existed during the time of the biblical patriarchs, Moses, Joshua, the judges, and the first kings of Israel. These treaties were written on tablets for the purpose of establishing a continuing relationship as determined and authorized by the suzerain. Once written, the covenants were not to be altered or annulled although parts could be explicated or elaborated. Did biblical writers borrow the idea of the covenant and its integral elements from pagan sources when the Old Testament was writtenelements such as a self-presentation of the suzerain and his activities, including those done on behalf of the vassals, statements of intent, stipulations, and assurances of well-being if obedient and of curses if disobedient? The legal covenants included provisions for continuity, with emphasis on the suzerain's claim to vassals' children, and were confirmed by an oath or a special ratification ceremony, like the cutting in half of an ox or cow or the sharing of a meal as the conclusion of the act of covenanting.
These nonbiblical covenants were intended to serve a number of purposes, two of which are especially important to understand. The suzerain stated that as victor and lord over the vassals he had spared them in battle, delivered them from extenuating circumstances, and placed them in situations of life and well-being. This was an undeserved favor. The suzerain's covenant was also intended to serve an administrative function. It informed the vassals how the king would govern them and what they were to do in obedient response to him. These two purposes, the reminder of deliverance and the information on administration of affairs in daily life, appear in Yahweh God's covenanting with his people but in radically different ways.
Covenants, neither suzerain-vassal nor biblical, were not made (nor did they function) in a vacuum. Covenants presupposed a king, a domain, a way of life, people, and often mediating servants. The covenant was an important administrative means within a kingdom.
Did biblical writers borrow from pagan sources when they wrote about Yahweh God's covenantal activities on behalf of and his relationships with his people? There is no reference of any kind in the Bible that this was done. There are marked similarities between biblical and the nonbiblical covenants. The most satisfactory and acceptable position is that Yahweh God is the source and originator of the entire covenant concept and phenomenon. He included the covenant relationship in his creation activity and handiwork. Covenant is germane to human life; it is God-implanted and -unfolded. Pagan kings gave concrete expression, in their proud and self-sufficient attitudes, to what Yahweh God had implanted and maintained within his created cosmos. This explanation calls for an answer to three important questions. When did Yahweh God first establish his covenant? What was the nature of that initial covenant? According to biblical revelation, did Yahweh God, after the initial one, establish any more covenants?
The Old Testament. The Hebrew word for covenant does not appear in Genesis 1-5. Some scholars say that this is evidence that there was no covenant in humankind's earliest history. Some say that the idea of covenant arose initially in the minds of the Israelites after they had been at Mount Sinai. To account for references to the covenant in the Noahic and patriarchal accounts, scholars have incorrectly said that later editors of Genesis inserted the idea of covenant to give historical evidence and credence to what Israel later believed. Other scholars, who accept Genesis as a record of Yahweh's revelation, also have difficulty accepting that God established his covenant when he created the cosmos mainly because of the lack of direct verbal reference to it.
Biblical testimony points to the fact that God covenanted when he created. Hosea ( 6:7 ) refers to Adam breaking the covenant. Jeremiah spoke of the covenant of the day and the night that no one can alter ( 33:19-20 ); this covenant is understood to have been initiated in creation when God separated light from darkness and gave the sun and moon their appointed place and role ( Genesis 1:3-5 Genesis 1:14 ). When Yahweh God first spoke to Noah, he said he was going to wipe humankind from the face of the earth ( Gen 6:7 ). But he assured Noah he would uphold and cause his covenant to continue. Hence Noah did not have to fear that God's plan for and method of administering his cosmic kingdom would be different after the flood. But why, if God covenanted when he created, is the word "covenant" not in Genesis 1-2? Those who wish to speak of only the covenant of grace, referred to briefly and indirectly in the Noahic account (Gen. 6-9), believe that some of the basic elements of the covenant of grace were enunciated when Yahweh God promised victory through the woman's seed ( Gen 3:14-16 ). When Yahweh God covenanted with David, according to 2 Samuel 7, the term "covenant" does not appear but when David referred to what Yahweh had said and done, he said, "Has he not made with me an everlasting covenant?" ( 2 Sam 23:5 ; cf. Psalm 89:3 ). As the elements included in covenant were present in the account of the covenanting with David ( 2 Sam 7 ), so the elements constituting covenant are recorded in Genesis 1-2.
The basic elements of a covenant are imbedded in the Genesis account. God, in his revelation of creation, presented himself as the Creator. The historical record of what he has done was outlined. He created his image-bearers by means of which he placed and kept man and woman in a close relationship with himself and had them mirror (reflect) and represent him within the created cosmos. Humanity was given stipulations or mandates. As image-bearers they were to maintain an intimate and obedient fellowship with their Creator; the Sabbath was to enhance this. Humanity was to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth; this was to be done by establishing families; a man was to leave his parents and cleave to his wife ( Gen 2:24 ). Becoming one flesh, they would have children. As families increased, community would be formed. This social mandate thus was an integral aspect of covenant. So was the cultural mandate; man and woman were to cultivate (subdue NIV) and rule over the creation. When God saw all that he had done, he confirmed, not by expressing an oath or performing a ratifying ceremony, but by declaring all to be very good ( Gen 1:31 ). This he confirmed by ceasing from creating activity and establishing the seventh day as a day of rest, sanctity, and blessing ( Gen 2:1-3 ).
契约精神是什么？
契约精神的基础是自由，平等，也就是说契约存在一个前提和预设，彼此的权力是独立的，权力的不可覆盖，不可重叠，不可替代性。 契约精神的表现形式 就是 诚实，守信，权力，责任与义务的平衡。
契约精神的本质，并不是签订契约， 或者退出契约本身。 并不意味着签订契约就是契约精神，而退出契约精神违背契约精神。 也就是说，无论是签订契约， 或者退出契约 都是契约精神的体现。 契约精神真正的，最重要的表现形式是 如果签订契约，就必须不折不扣地诚实的履行契约所规范的权力和责任，也就是说契约精神是一种被契约规范特定的行为准则和生活方式。 所以，并不是签订和退出契约本身。 然而，如果在契约的约定中而不履行，和执行责任和义务才是背离契约精神的。 例如，无论结婚，还是离婚都是契约精神的体现，并不是说离婚就是背信弃义。背叛契约精神是指在婚姻的约定中彼此欺骗，不履行婚姻规范的行为准则和生活方式。
再例如，伊朗和西方签订核协议，并且承诺只发展和平利用核能力，然而，他们并没有停止发展运载火箭的研究和开发。 中国加入世贸组织时许下13项目的改革承诺和中国全方位的市场化。 他们都愿意签约，也不退出契约。但是，只是在契约中选择性的利用对于自己有利的条款，这就是没有契约精神的体现。
（一）东西方文化价值观差异与比较
首先， 我们必须认识西方现代文明，与伊斯兰游牧文明，大中华农耕文明，非裔原始部落文明在意识形态，文化习惯和人文精神的最核心，最本质区别。
前面我已经讲了， 西方现代文明基础于三大基本精神：科学精神，工匠精神和契约精神，他们的价值观主要体现在：独立，自由，平等，博爱，民主，法治，公平，公正精神。
而大中华农耕文明相对应 也基础于三大基本精神：博弈精神，作坊精神与团结精神。 系统阴阳博弈（对立，平衡，转换，变化）之精神（整体性，不可分割精神） 对应于 西方的 科学精神（分门别类，实事求是，具体问题，具体分析，具体解决，逻辑理性，客观公正精神）。 这种精神决定人们对于， 事物的理解，立场，观点和方法。
东方作坊精神 对应于 西方工匠精神：东方的 家庭（家国）作坊精神，国之重器，祖传秘方，打仗亲兄弟，上阵父子兵， 任人唯亲 与西方文明的工匠精神: 认真，精益求精，一丝不苟，专注与创新相对应。
东方文化认人（敌与我，亲与疏，权威与势力，关系决定一切，），西方文化认真（真假，事实与真理，服理，一视同仁）， 东方强调传承，保守，守旧。西方文化强调 创新和发展。东方文化定性(什么人？ 什么立场，阶级，利益，权势分析），西方文化定量方面一丝不苟（功能，概念，定义，定律，定理）。
西方契约精神，通过法律，契约建立社会人与人之间的平等，互利的合作关系。所以，西方社会组织的团体与团体，团体与个人，个人与个人属于“权力（权利）有限” 关系，因此每一个个体，或者组织可以相对独立。这些个体，群体和组织权力（权利）限度通过法律和契约来严格规范（定量）和约束。所以，在契约精神支配和约束下，个人与个人，个人与团体都存在相对范围的自由度， 也称之为 西方文明的 自由精神。
东方讲团结通过权利（势力）的利害关系（等级支配制度）组织（团结精神，捆绑精神， 忠，义，孝精神）的集体主义，例如：家庭，作坊，帮派，国家。在这种团伙精神（伙 在一起吃饭，吃谁的饭，砸谁的锅问题）支配下，东方社会组织的团体与团体，团体与个人，个人与个人属于“无限权力（权利）” 关系（直属，隶属属关系）。君让臣死，臣不得不死！ 父叫子亡，子不得不亡。
因此，东方文化就演绎出来了：团结精神和捆绑精神支配下的无限权力和责任的 株连思维，连坐制度，保甲制度， 计划经济的国有企业制度。。。。等等。
在这种团结精神和捆绑精神支配的无限权力和责任制度下，就无所谓 公与私 的区别了。所以，公与私作为整体的不可分割性，东方文明的思维习惯是不可能构建真正的独立精神的“私有制”。
所以，只有在西方现代文明的科学精神，工匠精神和契约精神 的 支配和指导下 ，在“有限权力”思维和意识中，才可能构建 独立，自由，平等，博爱，法治，规则，秩序， 公平和公正的现代文明社会和秩序。
然而，今天西方文明遭遇到了前所未有的挑战和破坏。 这种挑战和破坏性力量正是来源于西方文明内部的自由派力量。 这些自由派思想的律师，法官，新闻媒体人，中小学教师，大学教授，和一些政治人物。他们大幅度的增加个体的自由，人权，女权主义，同性恋，而无限度地扩大政府，团体，集体的权力和责任。
把西方现代文明的 有限权力 和有限责任的公司，有限权力与责任政府 构建成为 东方意识形态下， 无限权力和无限责任的政府。 而极大程度的缩小个人权力，可选择性与之相应的责任和义务。甚至于在这种左倾意识形态主导下，权力自由与责任义务分离（这就是东方威权主义精神，而背离西方文明的契约精神），所以，他们认为的人权，就是 权力和自由属于个人，责任与义务则属于社会，责任与义务属于集体和政府（也就是 个人主义）。
（二）东西方文化与权力构架之间差别和关系
在西方现代文明的契约文化精神中，权力与自由是通过契约被约束和紧密联系在一起的。 因为契约条款的规范和定义，所有在契约中的权力和责任都是在契约特定规范的范畴存在效力，所以，凡是通过契约所规范的权力，都是有限权力。 几乎西方现代文明所有的社会团体，集体，公司，国家和政府都是通过契约规范的组织和机构。 国家也是通过“宪法”所规范的组织，而每一个国家领导人都是通过“国家宪法”赋予他们权力。他们所有的权力与责任都全部是“有限权力”和“有限责任”。根本不存在“无限权力”和“绝对权力”，所以，他们不能够为所欲为，无法无天，而且，他们的权力与责任必须受到约束和监督。
在这种西方文明的权力构架中，各个权力疆域不重叠，不干预，不冲突。 因此，就是“国王，总统，或者其他行政人员”都不可以 直接干预 “私权”，企业或者公司的商业经营权。最著名的话语就是“我的破房子，风可以进来，雨也可以进来，但是国王不可以进来！”
而与之相反，在东方的威权主义的无限权力（绝对权力）的权力构架中，权力是重叠的，可直接干预的。其重叠和可干预程度完全取决于 权力的大小，和掌权者的自由意志和意愿。 就是说“官大一级压死人”， 个人服从组织，全党服从中央！普天之下，莫非王土；率土之滨，莫非王臣。 在这种权力构架的社会中，就注定人们必须要学习讨好，迎奉权势。 从而获得瞬息万变的自由和生存空间，小孩从童年和幼年就要学习做乖乖女，察言观色，讨好和迎合父母的喜好和口味，以满足父母的期待值，不辜负他们的“爱”和重望。最近，网上流传三个美国小女孩的故事. 认为三个小女孩让中国教育界集体沉默。事实上，不仅仅是教育界的事情，而是整个东方文化，社会和家庭环境的结果。这就是我前面阐述的东方文化的系统精神，不可分割的捆绑精神，集体主义，团结（团伙）精神。在这种集体主义精神的社会文化中集体主义理念把社会各个组成成员不可分割的捆绑在一起，成为一个整体 的家庭，组织，党派，公司或者国家。所谓的“一荣俱荣一损俱损”！他们不可能分别实现 各自独立和自由，他们只能够实现一个所谓共同的自由。 这个所谓“一个共同体”的共同自由，往往是不可能存在的。因为，即使一个在家庭的父母自己的年龄，性别，饮食，爱好，思想和观点，都不可能与不同时代的孩子相一致。 大多数情况都是 父母牺牲自己，成全子女，或者子女牺牲自我，而成全父母的愿望。而且，即使是父母两个人各自的自由都很困难形成一个完全的共同体，相爱容易，相处困难， 否则为什么有那么闹离婚的，家庭冲突和矛盾的。如果是一个大家庭就更加困难了。所以，在东方文明中，人们所表达的“爱”与西方文化中“博爱”是存在差别的。 东方的所谓“爱”源头来源于人性的“爱”。这些爱只能够基础于从部分人对于自由的牺牲，奉献和付出。这种爱不能够使得每一个人都能够获得独立的自由。
（三）东西方文化权力构架的起源：
西方现代文明的权力构架和契约精神起源于 《圣经》。 也就是起源于造物主，上帝。上帝创造了人并且赋予人们 自由意志，自由选择和责任 。从伊甸园开始 上帝就赋予人们选择犯罪，叛逆造物主的自由和权力。诺亚方舟上帝就与诺亚立约，以后在亚伯拉罕时代，再到摩西的《旧约》，到耶稣的《新约》。 所有这些契约精神都赋予人们神圣不可侵犯的自由意志，平等选择的权力，以及与之相对应的责任。造物主在赋予人类这些权力和自由中，规范了这种权力的不重叠，不干预性（除非来自于人的祷告，而且提出具体要求），并且与之责与权完整相对应。 这种神与人，平等，双向自由选择的权力，树立了西方现代契约精神的榜样和基础。
无论是西方自由派的个人主义，还是东方集体主义的威权思想 都是根本是背离 契约精神主导下的 权力与责任，自由与义务相结合的精神，违背这种被契约约定的有限权力与有限责任相一致完整对应的关系。 这两者都是破坏和颠覆西方现代文明价值观体系，契约精神的极端思想。 都应该值得我们批判和警惕。
在东方的价值体系里面，政府和个体的权力构架 是建立 威信， 权威，也就是“面子”，
而在现代人类文明体系，权力是构架在 诚信基础上的，诚信也就是 真信，实信，确信。
契约精神 的基础 是 平等，也就是 权力的 不可覆盖，不可重叠，不可替代性，也就是个体的独立性基础。根据威权思维，树立威信构架的权力 是一种超稳定权力结构。 这种权力体系本质上是一种泡沫化的金字塔。在这一座金字塔的每一个个体，都没有真正的安全感。因为，他们的权力随时随地都可以被覆盖，被重叠，被替换。而基础于诚信，平等公正，客观，理性和契约精神的权力体系是一个平面结构，在权力不可重复，不可替换，不可覆盖，所有权力均有限，并且受到约束，管理和监督。 所有权力都存在 边界， 和独立的范畴。所以，在契约精神支配下，的权力是平等的。 这种权力构架 才是真实可信，经得起时间和历史的考验。而基础于契约精神，在权力不可重复，不可替换，不可覆盖，所有权力均有限，并且受到公开，公平，公正的约束，管理和监督。这种权力支配下的社会结构中，权力和资源分配和社会结构 是稳定的。其中的每一个个体，团体和集体也都是安全的，有保障的。
（四）对科学精神的叛逆，导致政治正确与恐怖主义意识形态
最近很多年在西方普遍流行一些冠冕堂皇的口号，主义和极端思想，这些思想普遍背离西方现代文明起源的科学精神，既实事求是，逻辑理性，客观公正, 怀疑的基本思考和精神。例如，目前流行一种多元文化主义，这种极端多元文化主义 价值观，不分辨，不区别地纵容，包庇一些特殊文化，认为与人人平等一样，文化没有优劣和比较之分，应该一视同仁，一律平等，所有宗教一律自由，甚至赋予一些特殊宗教，绝对自由到高于所在地国家律法的地位。
进而，一些宗教和主义，利用西方现代文明社会的开放和包容，大行其道，肆无忌惮的行事和扩张。从而导致欧洲，美国和加拿大恐怖活动频繁发生，恐怖犯罪分子猖狂，嚣张到在所谓人权宪章的保护下，可以居然在加拿大获得政府保护和奖励。
我们说所谓多元文化，应该必须是经过 彻底的政教分离以后的开放，彼此包容或者宽容，能够自由思想，自由交流，公开市场的一种共享关系的文化。而单方面的包容，宽容，而包庇，纵容那些封闭，暴力，政教合一中世纪文化，本身就是对于西方现代文明传统的多元文化的破坏，和釜底抽薪。因为，这种单方面的宽容与包容 一定是不可持续的，而且必然最终导致西方现代文明的多元文化的终结。这些高唱的多元文化主义者，事实上是破坏和终结人类现代文明的罪魁祸首，他们对于今天欧洲，美国和加拿大日益增长的恐怖主义，有不可推卸的责任。
这些极端多元文化主义者，事实上叛逆了西方现代文明的实事求是，逻辑理性，客观公正质疑的科学精神。 他们往往掩盖事实真相，回避社会矛盾和问题，不理性客观分析 各种宗教主义和文化的起源，差别和历史渊源与局限性。他们完全不接受一切对他们思想和口号的质疑。他们禁止实事求是的公开讨论，与争辩。 一旦提出反对意见，他们就是大帽子：种族主义，歧视。。等等。根本不经过逻辑，理性思考和推理地大唱包容, 博爱之歌。一厢情愿的想象一种各种文化的大一统的和谐社会，而枉顾发生在伦敦，巴黎，布鲁塞尔，阿姆斯特丹，斯德哥尔摩，纽约，的各式各样恐怖袭击。
(五)对契约精神的叛逆 导致泡沫经济与次贷危机
小布什主持美国政府期间，提出了建设一个“所有者社会”的口号和行动，更有通过向没有偿还债务能力的人提供银行贷款，鼓励人人拥有住房。一时间美国的房地产业和房价就像坐上火箭一冲飞天, 这种行为本来就是违背价值规律和市场规律的。银行为了获得更多的人贷款，弄虚作假诱使大量不具备还款能力的消费者纷纷通过按揭手段，借钱涌入住房市场。利用这个机会华尔街投机者钻制度的空子，弄虚作假，欺骗大众，违背诚实守信的契约精神，把盈利装入自己口袋，把风险和危机转嫁祸社会大众。
如法炮制，在全球化的浪潮中华尔街和这些银行大佬，投机取巧，强取豪夺者利用中国政府官商奸商，钻第三世界和落后地区法律和制度的空子大赚特赚,获取暴利。把对于环境资源的掠夺破坏，对于当地社会人文环境的破坏留给了中国，等等落后国家和地区人民和老百姓，把贸易赤字，美国国债留转嫁给美国的纳税人。
本来股票市场的初衷是根据契约精神，筹集社会资金，分担风险和责任，为市场和实体经济服务。但是，现在华尔街和银行大佬利用流动性在商业链的最顶部特点，成为了他们投机取巧，强取豪夺，欺骗大众的最有效工具。华尔街已经成为破坏和瓦解西方现代文明契约精神的大本营！ 好莱坞成为攻击和毁灭西方现代文明最基础的意识形态价值观的基础---科学精神精英们的集散地！而很多美国媒体就成为他们的帮凶和吹鼓手。
==========
这是你的初级认识而已。
这些极端多元文化主义者，事实上叛逆了西方现代文明的实事求是，逻辑理性，客观公正的科学精神。 他们往往掩盖事实真相，回避社会矛盾和问题，不理性客观分析 各种宗教主义和文化的起源，差别和历史渊源与局限性。根本不经过逻辑，理性思考和推理地大唱包容, 博爱之歌。一厢情愿的想象一种各种文化的大一统的和谐社会，而枉顾发生在伦敦，巴黎，布鲁塞尔，阿姆斯特丹，斯德哥尔摩，纽约，的各式各样恐怖袭击。
西方的每个人都是的私，和每个人都有的公，大家观念统一，而东方无数个体，团体和阶层的私的概念是纷繁的，而且没有公的概念。
因此西方社会井井有条，东方社会人心骚动。
唯一商榷的是一点，即你提到的西方的自由派的涌现，并无大碍，仍在契约框架中。即使以反恐名义下的联邦执法，仍属于反恐的小框架中，不会扩大影响范围的。
但是，在婚约，至少在上帝面前誓言的时候。 必须是诚实的，双方存在誓言宣誓的想法和愿望。但是，如果时过境迁，情况发生变化，是应该允许改变婚约。
例如：但也有特殊情况。新约指出，在某种特殊情况下可以离婚：即一方不忠，犯淫乱（参太19:9)，因信仰不同，不信方自愿离去（参林前7：15）等等。因此，婚姻关系中出现复杂情况，不加分析地一概不准离婚，是不负责任的解决办法，可能会产生新的矛盾，导致更多痛苦。
但是，不负责任的婚姻，和离婚 虽然是人的自由，但是，也必须受到最后的审判。 自己必须担负起自己犯罪的后果。 除非通过耶稣基督得到上帝的饶恕。
尊重契约中 自由和平等精神， 也是可以退出契约的。 只要存在合理理由
事实上，某一方面已经就违反了婚约。
那为什么离婚不算违反契约精神？是因为离婚者都能找到对方先违反契约的借口？
