I am curious to know the difference in a covenant and a contract.
In the short time I have thought about this, I wonder if this is a fair assessment of the difference between them.
A contract means that my participation is dependant upon your participation. If you do not participate or uphold your end of the contract, then I am able to also break my end of the deal and the contract no longer exists. It is legal language for a legal situation.
A covenant might mean that I will keep my end of the covenant even if you do not keep your end of the covenant. If you or I break our part of the covenant, the covenant still exists. It is spiritual language for a spiritual situation.
It seems to me that some of the reason it is so much more painful when a covenant is violated is because there is a direct violation of a trust and faith in the other person. It is easy for one person to take advantage of the other person in a covenant because the other party will continue to uphold their end of the covenant even if you fail.
A contract is easily enforced and relies on a third party to mend the broken contract. There is no third party in a covenant. If it is broken, then it is on the participants of the covenant to reconcile themselves.
Perhaps this is why we feel much better with a contract than a covenant. Someone will save us (or side with us) if a contract is broken. A luxury we do not have in a covenant.
I am not sure about any of this and I feel this is difficult to talk about because there are so many victims of covenant violations and have hurt (marriage for example). I am just trying to understand the difference.
Perhaps that is what people of faith are called to to which is different from culture. We are called to be in covenant with others, which is much harder than to establish contracts.
In a covenant I must be vulnerable.
In the short time I have thought about this, I wonder if this is a fair assessment of the difference between them.
A contract means that my participation is dependant upon your participation. If you do not participate or uphold your end of the contract, then I am able to also break my end of the deal and the contract no longer exists. It is legal language for a legal situation.
A covenant might mean that I will keep my end of the covenant even if you do not keep your end of the covenant. If you or I break our part of the covenant, the covenant still exists. It is spiritual language for a spiritual situation.
It seems to me that some of the reason it is so much more painful when a covenant is violated is because there is a direct violation of a trust and faith in the other person. It is easy for one person to take advantage of the other person in a covenant because the other party will continue to uphold their end of the covenant even if you fail.
A contract is easily enforced and relies on a third party to mend the broken contract. There is no third party in a covenant. If it is broken, then it is on the participants of the covenant to reconcile themselves.
Perhaps this is why we feel much better with a contract than a covenant. Someone will save us (or side with us) if a contract is broken. A luxury we do not have in a covenant.
I am not sure about any of this and I feel this is difficult to talk about because there are so many victims of covenant violations and have hurt (marriage for example). I am just trying to understand the difference.
Perhaps that is what people of faith are called to to which is different from culture. We are called to be in covenant with others, which is much harder than to establish contracts.
In a covenant I must be vulnerable.