Judaism G-d Relationship with Israel

[Steven Jonaitis]

I would simply define it this way:  Covenant = quid pro quo.
 
Genesis, chapter 17, puts it into more detail, regarding what God will do for Abraham and his descendants in return for what God expects from Abraham and his descendants. 
 
I think we had a similar discussion involving this on the old forum.  Perhaps someone here will remember it?

I like that! 

So this is how I've came to understand the basic concept of the covenant relationship between G-d and Israel, this is almost entirely taken from a position paper by Micah and Samuel Renihan with some of my own personal edits, tell me what you think? 

It is defined by the Abrahamic Covenant, conditioned by the Mosaic Covenant, and focused by the Davidic Covenant. These three covenants establish the relationship between G-d and Israel. 

In the Abrahamic Covenant, G-d promises three things primarily: a land, a people, and kingship. In other words, Abraham's offspring would inherit the land of Canaan, grow into an innumerable people ruled by their own kings. Circumcision was the sign of these blessings, separating them from the rest of the world as the heirs of these promises. Abraham was the federal head of this covenant, because the promises were made to him and to his offspring. All those who were of Abraham, or in Abraham we might say, were heirs of the national promises; this defined the membership of the covenant.

One of the most distinctive features of this covenant was that G-d immutably promised to bring about these blessings apart from any merit on Abraham's part. 

The Mosaic Covenant was added and attached to the Abrahamic Covenant in such a way that it conditioned the enjoyment of the Abrahamic promises. G-d immutably promised Abraham that the covenant blessings would be realized. The extent to which those blessings would be enjoyed, however, depended upon the obedience of the people of Israel. To put it simply, in the Abrahamic, G-d promised Abraham a land, nation, and kingship, and in the Mosaic, G-d conditioned the enjoyment of those promises. The Mosaic covenant controlled tenure in the land, the boundaries of the nation, and the regulation of the kingship. These conditions were strong enough that although God would inevitably realize the promises, they could be [temporally] lost through disobedience. That the Mosaic covenant conditions the Abrahamic is evident not only by virtue of the fact that its obedience is directly tied to the enjoyment of the Abrahamic promises, but also by virtue of the fact that it was made specifically with the Abrahamic people. Since tenure in the land was what was in view of the Mosaic law, offenses against that covenant could be addressed within that covenant and sacrificial system. 

The Mosaic Covenant lacked a federal head until the kingship was established. The Abrahamic people (Israel) as a whole were judged on different levels, sometimes the individual, sometimes the family, sometimes the tribe, sometimes the nation. Everyone did was right in his own eyes, and there was no king in Israel (Judges 21:25).

The Davidic Covenant brings all of the Abrahamic promises to consummation and focuses the Mosaic Covenant into one person. It was under the line of David, specifically Solomon, that at last the nation of Israel reached the fulfillment of being the Abrahamic people ruling all of the Abrahamic land, under Abrahamic, specifically Judean, kings. The biblical authors were careful to record when these promises were fulfilled (Joshua 21:43-45 and 1 Kings 4:20). Under David and his line, the national people of Abraham enjoyed the blessings and benefits of the promised-land to the extent to which the Davidic king obeyed the Mosaic law. This is the concern of the records of the kings. They did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, or they did what was evil. Israel was blessed or cursed accordingly.

Is this a correct understanding of these biblical covenants and its relationship with Israel? What would you change, modify, or edit? If you want me to explain a little more about something, I would be happy to.