Exerted from "Dr. J.C. Matthews' Advanced Kingdom Teaching Program for Leaders -"Kingdom Gold" .
Did you know, from a Biblical perspective, there is a significant difference between a contract and a covenant? Did you also know, from a legal perspective, it is impossible to enter into a contract with God?
Both of these statements are true, but may appear to most believers to be of very little consequence; however they are essential for us to have a proper understanding of the basis upon which our relationship with God, the earth and others, from a Biblical standpoint, are established!
Being a student of the Bible and law, I understand the significance and impact of words. In the Kingdom, words are the primary means by which we act and exercise authority. From a legal standpoint, there are very important differences between a contract and a covenant. Understanding the difference between the two, especially from a Kingdom perspective, is of the utmost importance. While in law school we took classes on Contracts, Personal and Real Property, Land Use and Wills & Trusts, in which the concept of covenants, wills and testaments were major component of each course. While in law school I also entered the ministry and noticed that certain terms used in the Bible had specific meanings legally. For instance the Bible is divided into two sections: the Old and New Covenants or Testaments. These terms are often used religiously and interchangeably, as if there were no differences in their meaning. However, legally there is quite a difference. Legally, the word "covenant" communicates the idea of one "transferring interest in the use, possession or ownership of land". To use the word "testament", we are communicating the intent to transfer ownership of one's goods and personal property to another after the owner's death. Although the words religiously are used interchangeably for one another, we see now that they communicate two different purposes, which both relates to the restorative plan of God for His Kingdom in the earth.
God covenanted with man to transfer to him authority and rights over the earth. This is covenant activity – the transfer of interest or rights in land. God's testament concerned the grant of his personal property (the Fruits and Gifts of the Spirit, as well as the Spirit Himself, see John 16:7), to those who are identified as heirs, after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Because it is a “testament”, it could only become possessory after the death of Jesus. This is why Jesus had to die, so that the testament (or will) of God could be activated and bestow upon the identified heirs, i.e. the fruits, gifts and all the benefits of the indwelling of the Spirit of God. Hebrews 9:16, confirms this understanding, by stating: "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator". Therefore, the Covenant speaks of the Father's immediate grant of authority to His sons over the earth, while the testament speaks of the benefits and gifts He plans to give to those who are heirs, after His Son's death.
As I've had the opportunity to counsel and mentor pastors over the years, I have discovered the need to emphasize the importance of defining the words we use. As Ambassadors of God’s Kingdom, we are to say only what our King says! I must confess, that this article is a result of my frustration in hearing teachers unknowingly and irresponsibly substitute the word contract for covenant when teaching scripture. By doing this they introduce into a text a concept that is foreign to the way in which God relates to man, thereby altering the relationships and purpose within the text. God does not contract with men but covenant with them! We will see that it is impossible for man to contract with God, neither will God enter into a contractual arrangement with men.
By substituting the word contract for covenant we alter what God actually said, exchanging it for our understanding, which is based on our experiences and culture, which is world’s removed from the Biblical text. Think about it; what if you were in a relationship with some you loved, that happened to be from a different country and told them “I love you!”, and they respond to your statement by saying: “I like you too!” That is not what you said or meant. To be in love with someone is totally different than merely liking them. They are two distinct and different levels of relationship. To complicate matters worse, if someone over-heard their response to your statement, they might conclude that you never really loved the person but only liked them, which does not accurately reflect your sentiment at all! This is what happens when God speaks of His covenant with someone, or His people, and someone communicates while teaching that it is a contract instead of a Covenant.
THE CONTRACT MINDSET
Before diving into the mechanics of what constitutes a contract or covenant, I would like to establish a contextual basis for the necessity of maintaining a proper distinction between the two. As context, and generically speaking, a contract is:
A negotiated agreement (offer and acceptance) between at least two parties, which is supported by consideration, to fulfill a specific purpose, for which the law provides a remedy.
With this generic definition, it becomes evident, that a contract is ill suited to describe a relationship between a king and citizen, especially within the Kingdom of God. You don’t negotiate with kings, you obey them!
We live in a contract culture, which has for the most part, transformed the few vestiges of true covenants left, into contracts. One example is the covenant institution of marriage. From a Biblical perspective, marriage is a lifelong covenant relationship that is sealed with an oath before God. Overtime, the emphasis of marriage being a covenant has been minimized, and even replaced, with the creation and proliferation of such concepts as prenuptial agreements, no fault divorce and annulment rights; all of which stem from a contract mindset of marriage. All of these contractual creations have at their foundation that an expectation was not met within the relationship, and therefore their contract should be voided. This is impossible from a covenant perspective! A covenant from God’s perspective is for life, and often applies to the children’s children (or generations) of the one He covenants with. Covenants are not altered because of subsequent circumstantial changes encountered by a party. This is only possible in the contract concept of marriage, because in most cases God has been removed as a witness to the marriage, along with the oath: “for better or worse … till death do us part” – which is covenant language.
As information, a major difference between a contract and a covenant is:
1. Contracts generally involve the exchange of either goods or services; while
2. Covenants involve the exchange of the individual themselves, thereby creating a family bond and relationship between the parties.
With these distinctions in mind, let us apply them in two separate relational setting, and witness the impact it being characterized as a contract instead of a covenant has (1) on the relationship, and (2) our perception and understanding of the nature of the relationship.
First, let us consider the relationship between a man and a woman. By defining the relationship between a man and a woman as a “covenant”, it could be understood that we are speaking of a marriage relationship, which is a lifelong relationship, blessed and sanctioned by God. Remember, covenants involve the exchanging of the individual to the other for a lifelong and enduring relationship. If we view the relationship between a man and woman as a “contract” (which is used for the exchange of goods and services), instead of a covenant, the relationship can now be characterized as human trafficking, prostitution or both! Wow, what a difference this makes!
Let us now consider the relationship of a head of a household with a male that lives on his property. If the relationship is defined as a covenant, then relationship can be characterized as being one of father and son. Again, covenants create a family bond and are enduring. However, if we were to defined the relationship as a contract relationship (for the exchange of goods and services), then the son is transformed into a servant, or even worse a slave! \
As you can see, the impact of defining or characterizing a covenant as a contract can have significant impact upon what is communicated and what is understood.
WHY IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTRACT WITH GOD?
To begin to answer the question, “Why it’s impossible to contract with God”, let me begin by stating that the nature of contracts are repugnant to God’s character. Generally speaking, contracts are fundamentally established out of distrust of the other party and have incorporated within them an assumption that the agreement will be broken. This is why contracts, of any real substance, contain jurisdictional statements and remedies clauses. These items presuppose that there will be the need to resort to the legal means to remedy a breach. Think about it, the reason the bank does not accept your handshake, in place of the contract you signed, when you purchased your home or car, is because they don’t trust you! They included in your contract the process to follow in the event you fall behind on your obligation or default on it. On the contrary, God’s covenants do not presuppose man’s failure, but his success, even if He has to impute the requisite righteousness of one man to represent all men in order that His purpose for the covenant to be fulfilled.
Offer, Consideration and Acceptance
Legitimate and legally enforceable contract must possess, at a bare minimum, 3 things: (1) Offer, (2) Consideration, and (3) Acceptance. Although all 3 components are necessary to have a contract, we will spend the majority of our time on “Consideration” due to it being the most relevant in our addressing my statement that it is impossible to contract with God.
Offer
The key to any contract is the “offer” because it is the thing that creates the content and terms of the contract. The one making the offer is called the “offeror”. The one to whom the offer is made is called the “offeree”. What is important to our conversation is that the Offeror, in this instance, God establishes the terms upon which the offer is made. The life of the offeror’s offer rests in the power of the offeree, who can reject the offer outright or revise the offer to include terms that he finds more advantageous to himself. This is called a “counter offer”. Citizens within a kingdom do not have the right to revise or decide whether or not they will accept the king’s decree. It is on a take it or leave it basis. We cannot pick what we like, take out what we don’t, and replace what we don’t like with that which we deem more acceptable. We must accept the offer as present or forfeit the benefits of the offeror. An example of this would be if we took 2Chronicles 7:14, where God states:
“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14).
Legally, this kind of offer is called a “Promise Subject to a Condition Precedent”. This simply means that the offeror is not obligated to perform his promise until all the terms of the offer are fully satisfied. Any alteration, deviation or failure to fulfill these terms results in the “non-acceptance” of the offer and the forfeiture of the promised benefits.
God’s offer in 2 Chronicles 7:14 states, those who are called by His Name must:
Only THEN, after these conditions have been met, is God obligated to:
The offeree cannot decide that they will only “pray”, but will not humble themselves, turn from their wicked ways or seek His face”, and still expect God to provided them the promised blessing. This may be possible in the world, and even some churches, but not the Kingdom!
Consideration
The element of consideration is the primary reason why it is impossible for men to contract with God. The reason for this is that it is impossible for man to satisfy the requirement of providing consideration to support a contract with God. Let me clarify.
To begin, consideration is a necessary element of any valid contract. Consideration is the “bargained for exchange” of value or “legal detriment” that is required to support the existence of a viable contract. Contracts that lack consideration are considered “illusory”, that is, they are an illusion, and not valid. Key characteristics of “consideration” that precludes men from contracting with God are the contractual requirements that the consideration:
Ownership
Consideration offered to support a contract cannot already belong to the offeror. It must be something that the recipient (offeror) sees as valuable, and does not already belong to him. Therefore, A cannot enter into an agreement with B and use B’s gold ring as consideration. B already owned what A tendered as consideration. Herein lay our problem in entering into a contract with God – He already owns everything. The Bible clearly states that God is the creator and owner of everything there is (De. 10:14, Ex. 19:5, Ps. 24:1, 1Cor. 10:26). Therefore, there is nothing we can offer God as consideration for a contract that He does not already own.
Detriment
The reason A could not uses B’s ring as consideration is because A suffered no detriment (loss) by tendering something that A did not own. Detriment is the requisite investment of a party to insure their sincerity and commitment to the agreement. It is called detriment because it must be something that diminishes the person in some form or fashion that the other person (offeror) considers valuable. Therefore, I could not promise to do something and you agree and it result in contract. There was no exchange of value to support it. You simply have a promise that I will do a thing. There may be other legal issues surrounding the concept of equity, but that is not our purpose here. The issue is: whether it is possible to offer God something that He does not already own to support the idea that we can enter into contract with God? The answer, must be in the negative.
Pre-Existing Duty
Any consideration must not be a pre-existing duty of the offeree. Therefore, A could not offer to cut B grass as consideration of a contract, if A was already obligated to do so (he would suffer no loss). This requirement ensures that the consideration truly contains the necessary quality of detriment and value to the offeror constitute true consideration. Many suggest that our worship and exercise of our free will could be considered consideration in a contract with God, since He does not own our free will and we have the ability to offer or withhold our worship from Him. This is true, but it does not change the fact that our worship and obedience to His commands are already a responsibility we owe. This is the essence of worship! Worship is due and premised upon that “God is”, and not upon what He can or promises to do for us.
As mentioned earlier, the premise of a contract is repugnant to God’s character, not only because it anticipates breach, but because it requires that one be diminished for the benefit of another (detriment). God needs nothing from us (Psalms 50:7-12) but covenants with us so that we can have that which could not be obtained any other way except through covenant with Him!
ENFORCEMENT
The final issue with considering God’s covenants contracts is found in enforcement. Contracts contain, explicitly or implicitly, a jurisdictional statement or grant that designate the form that has authority to enforce the provisions of the contract. This presents a unique problem, because there is no court or power that can impose its will upon God! Where would we go if God did not do what we expected Him to do? There is no Court of Appeal upon which man can turn to enforce His “right” against God (See Job 41:11). The contract would be unenforceable.
Did you know, from a Biblical perspective, there is a significant difference between a contract and a covenant? Did you also know, from a legal perspective, it is impossible to enter into a contract with God?
Both of these statements are true, but may appear to most believers to be of very little consequence; however they are essential for us to have a proper understanding of the basis upon which our relationship with God, the earth and others, from a Biblical standpoint, are established!
Being a student of the Bible and law, I understand the significance and impact of words. In the Kingdom, words are the primary means by which we act and exercise authority. From a legal standpoint, there are very important differences between a contract and a covenant. Understanding the difference between the two, especially from a Kingdom perspective, is of the utmost importance. While in law school we took classes on Contracts, Personal and Real Property, Land Use and Wills & Trusts, in which the concept of covenants, wills and testaments were major component of each course. While in law school I also entered the ministry and noticed that certain terms used in the Bible had specific meanings legally. For instance the Bible is divided into two sections: the Old and New Covenants or Testaments. These terms are often used religiously and interchangeably, as if there were no differences in their meaning. However, legally there is quite a difference. Legally, the word "covenant" communicates the idea of one "transferring interest in the use, possession or ownership of land". To use the word "testament", we are communicating the intent to transfer ownership of one's goods and personal property to another after the owner's death. Although the words religiously are used interchangeably for one another, we see now that they communicate two different purposes, which both relates to the restorative plan of God for His Kingdom in the earth.
God covenanted with man to transfer to him authority and rights over the earth. This is covenant activity – the transfer of interest or rights in land. God's testament concerned the grant of his personal property (the Fruits and Gifts of the Spirit, as well as the Spirit Himself, see John 16:7), to those who are identified as heirs, after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Because it is a “testament”, it could only become possessory after the death of Jesus. This is why Jesus had to die, so that the testament (or will) of God could be activated and bestow upon the identified heirs, i.e. the fruits, gifts and all the benefits of the indwelling of the Spirit of God. Hebrews 9:16, confirms this understanding, by stating: "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator". Therefore, the Covenant speaks of the Father's immediate grant of authority to His sons over the earth, while the testament speaks of the benefits and gifts He plans to give to those who are heirs, after His Son's death.
As I've had the opportunity to counsel and mentor pastors over the years, I have discovered the need to emphasize the importance of defining the words we use. As Ambassadors of God’s Kingdom, we are to say only what our King says! I must confess, that this article is a result of my frustration in hearing teachers unknowingly and irresponsibly substitute the word contract for covenant when teaching scripture. By doing this they introduce into a text a concept that is foreign to the way in which God relates to man, thereby altering the relationships and purpose within the text. God does not contract with men but covenant with them! We will see that it is impossible for man to contract with God, neither will God enter into a contractual arrangement with men.
By substituting the word contract for covenant we alter what God actually said, exchanging it for our understanding, which is based on our experiences and culture, which is world’s removed from the Biblical text. Think about it; what if you were in a relationship with some you loved, that happened to be from a different country and told them “I love you!”, and they respond to your statement by saying: “I like you too!” That is not what you said or meant. To be in love with someone is totally different than merely liking them. They are two distinct and different levels of relationship. To complicate matters worse, if someone over-heard their response to your statement, they might conclude that you never really loved the person but only liked them, which does not accurately reflect your sentiment at all! This is what happens when God speaks of His covenant with someone, or His people, and someone communicates while teaching that it is a contract instead of a Covenant.
THE CONTRACT MINDSET
Before diving into the mechanics of what constitutes a contract or covenant, I would like to establish a contextual basis for the necessity of maintaining a proper distinction between the two. As context, and generically speaking, a contract is:
A negotiated agreement (offer and acceptance) between at least two parties, which is supported by consideration, to fulfill a specific purpose, for which the law provides a remedy.
With this generic definition, it becomes evident, that a contract is ill suited to describe a relationship between a king and citizen, especially within the Kingdom of God. You don’t negotiate with kings, you obey them!
We live in a contract culture, which has for the most part, transformed the few vestiges of true covenants left, into contracts. One example is the covenant institution of marriage. From a Biblical perspective, marriage is a lifelong covenant relationship that is sealed with an oath before God. Overtime, the emphasis of marriage being a covenant has been minimized, and even replaced, with the creation and proliferation of such concepts as prenuptial agreements, no fault divorce and annulment rights; all of which stem from a contract mindset of marriage. All of these contractual creations have at their foundation that an expectation was not met within the relationship, and therefore their contract should be voided. This is impossible from a covenant perspective! A covenant from God’s perspective is for life, and often applies to the children’s children (or generations) of the one He covenants with. Covenants are not altered because of subsequent circumstantial changes encountered by a party. This is only possible in the contract concept of marriage, because in most cases God has been removed as a witness to the marriage, along with the oath: “for better or worse … till death do us part” – which is covenant language.
As information, a major difference between a contract and a covenant is:
1. Contracts generally involve the exchange of either goods or services; while
2. Covenants involve the exchange of the individual themselves, thereby creating a family bond and relationship between the parties.
With these distinctions in mind, let us apply them in two separate relational setting, and witness the impact it being characterized as a contract instead of a covenant has (1) on the relationship, and (2) our perception and understanding of the nature of the relationship.
First, let us consider the relationship between a man and a woman. By defining the relationship between a man and a woman as a “covenant”, it could be understood that we are speaking of a marriage relationship, which is a lifelong relationship, blessed and sanctioned by God. Remember, covenants involve the exchanging of the individual to the other for a lifelong and enduring relationship. If we view the relationship between a man and woman as a “contract” (which is used for the exchange of goods and services), instead of a covenant, the relationship can now be characterized as human trafficking, prostitution or both! Wow, what a difference this makes!
Let us now consider the relationship of a head of a household with a male that lives on his property. If the relationship is defined as a covenant, then relationship can be characterized as being one of father and son. Again, covenants create a family bond and are enduring. However, if we were to defined the relationship as a contract relationship (for the exchange of goods and services), then the son is transformed into a servant, or even worse a slave! \
As you can see, the impact of defining or characterizing a covenant as a contract can have significant impact upon what is communicated and what is understood.
WHY IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTRACT WITH GOD?
To begin to answer the question, “Why it’s impossible to contract with God”, let me begin by stating that the nature of contracts are repugnant to God’s character. Generally speaking, contracts are fundamentally established out of distrust of the other party and have incorporated within them an assumption that the agreement will be broken. This is why contracts, of any real substance, contain jurisdictional statements and remedies clauses. These items presuppose that there will be the need to resort to the legal means to remedy a breach. Think about it, the reason the bank does not accept your handshake, in place of the contract you signed, when you purchased your home or car, is because they don’t trust you! They included in your contract the process to follow in the event you fall behind on your obligation or default on it. On the contrary, God’s covenants do not presuppose man’s failure, but his success, even if He has to impute the requisite righteousness of one man to represent all men in order that His purpose for the covenant to be fulfilled.
Offer, Consideration and Acceptance
Legitimate and legally enforceable contract must possess, at a bare minimum, 3 things: (1) Offer, (2) Consideration, and (3) Acceptance. Although all 3 components are necessary to have a contract, we will spend the majority of our time on “Consideration” due to it being the most relevant in our addressing my statement that it is impossible to contract with God.
Offer
The key to any contract is the “offer” because it is the thing that creates the content and terms of the contract. The one making the offer is called the “offeror”. The one to whom the offer is made is called the “offeree”. What is important to our conversation is that the Offeror, in this instance, God establishes the terms upon which the offer is made. The life of the offeror’s offer rests in the power of the offeree, who can reject the offer outright or revise the offer to include terms that he finds more advantageous to himself. This is called a “counter offer”. Citizens within a kingdom do not have the right to revise or decide whether or not they will accept the king’s decree. It is on a take it or leave it basis. We cannot pick what we like, take out what we don’t, and replace what we don’t like with that which we deem more acceptable. We must accept the offer as present or forfeit the benefits of the offeror. An example of this would be if we took 2Chronicles 7:14, where God states:
“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14).
Legally, this kind of offer is called a “Promise Subject to a Condition Precedent”. This simply means that the offeror is not obligated to perform his promise until all the terms of the offer are fully satisfied. Any alteration, deviation or failure to fulfill these terms results in the “non-acceptance” of the offer and the forfeiture of the promised benefits.
God’s offer in 2 Chronicles 7:14 states, those who are called by His Name must:
- Humble themselves
- Pray
- Seek His face, and
- Turn from their wicked ways,
Only THEN, after these conditions have been met, is God obligated to:
- Hear from heaven
- Forgive their sin
- Heal their land.
The offeree cannot decide that they will only “pray”, but will not humble themselves, turn from their wicked ways or seek His face”, and still expect God to provided them the promised blessing. This may be possible in the world, and even some churches, but not the Kingdom!
Consideration
The element of consideration is the primary reason why it is impossible for men to contract with God. The reason for this is that it is impossible for man to satisfy the requirement of providing consideration to support a contract with God. Let me clarify.
To begin, consideration is a necessary element of any valid contract. Consideration is the “bargained for exchange” of value or “legal detriment” that is required to support the existence of a viable contract. Contracts that lack consideration are considered “illusory”, that is, they are an illusion, and not valid. Key characteristics of “consideration” that precludes men from contracting with God are the contractual requirements that the consideration:
- Not Already Be Owned By the Offeror
- Cause the Offerer Legal Detriment
- Not be a Pre-Existing Duty Already Owed the Offeror
Ownership
Consideration offered to support a contract cannot already belong to the offeror. It must be something that the recipient (offeror) sees as valuable, and does not already belong to him. Therefore, A cannot enter into an agreement with B and use B’s gold ring as consideration. B already owned what A tendered as consideration. Herein lay our problem in entering into a contract with God – He already owns everything. The Bible clearly states that God is the creator and owner of everything there is (De. 10:14, Ex. 19:5, Ps. 24:1, 1Cor. 10:26). Therefore, there is nothing we can offer God as consideration for a contract that He does not already own.
Detriment
The reason A could not uses B’s ring as consideration is because A suffered no detriment (loss) by tendering something that A did not own. Detriment is the requisite investment of a party to insure their sincerity and commitment to the agreement. It is called detriment because it must be something that diminishes the person in some form or fashion that the other person (offeror) considers valuable. Therefore, I could not promise to do something and you agree and it result in contract. There was no exchange of value to support it. You simply have a promise that I will do a thing. There may be other legal issues surrounding the concept of equity, but that is not our purpose here. The issue is: whether it is possible to offer God something that He does not already own to support the idea that we can enter into contract with God? The answer, must be in the negative.
Pre-Existing Duty
Any consideration must not be a pre-existing duty of the offeree. Therefore, A could not offer to cut B grass as consideration of a contract, if A was already obligated to do so (he would suffer no loss). This requirement ensures that the consideration truly contains the necessary quality of detriment and value to the offeror constitute true consideration. Many suggest that our worship and exercise of our free will could be considered consideration in a contract with God, since He does not own our free will and we have the ability to offer or withhold our worship from Him. This is true, but it does not change the fact that our worship and obedience to His commands are already a responsibility we owe. This is the essence of worship! Worship is due and premised upon that “God is”, and not upon what He can or promises to do for us.
As mentioned earlier, the premise of a contract is repugnant to God’s character, not only because it anticipates breach, but because it requires that one be diminished for the benefit of another (detriment). God needs nothing from us (Psalms 50:7-12) but covenants with us so that we can have that which could not be obtained any other way except through covenant with Him!
ENFORCEMENT
The final issue with considering God’s covenants contracts is found in enforcement. Contracts contain, explicitly or implicitly, a jurisdictional statement or grant that designate the form that has authority to enforce the provisions of the contract. This presents a unique problem, because there is no court or power that can impose its will upon God! Where would we go if God did not do what we expected Him to do? There is no Court of Appeal upon which man can turn to enforce His “right” against God (See Job 41:11). The contract would be unenforceable.
RSS Feed