A Contract with God
I. Introduction
After fleeing slavery in Egypt to freedom to worship their god, the Israelites wondered in the desert until reaching Mt. Sinai where they entered into a special bond with their god. This bond is The Ten Commandments and is often been viewed as a contract between the Hebrews and God[1]. This essay will explore this relationship.
II. Contract or Suzerainty Treaty[2]?
The Ten Commandments can be viewed either as a contract or as a Suzerainty Treaty.
Suzerainty Treaty[3]
A Suzerainty Treaty has the following elements:
Preamble: Identifies the parties involved in the treaty, especially the king;
Prologue: Lists the deeds already performed by the Suzerain on behalf of the vassal and often provides the foundation for the remainder of the document, specifically, it often describes the acts of benevolence by the suzerain for the vassal;
Stipulations: Terms to be upheld by the vassal for the life of the treaty, certainly, this portion of the treaty stipulates that the vassal may not enter alliances with other independent kings and must be a friend to the suzerain’s friends and an enemy to the suzerain’s enemies;
An instruction for the deposit of the document in a sacred place;
Provision for annual public reading: A copy of the treaty was to be read aloud annually in the vassal state for the purpose of renewal;
Divine witness to the treaty: These usually include the deities of both the Suzerain and the vassal
Blessings if the stipulations of the treaty are upheld and curses if the stipulations are not upheld, and curses identify the bad things that will happen if the treaty is not upheld;
Sacrificial Meal: Both parties would share a meal to show their participation in the treaty.
It appears that most of these elements are identified in Moses’s speech upon the Israelite arrival at Sinai (Ex 19:3-8) and are present in the exchange at Sinai:
Preamble: Identifies the parties involved in the treaty – Exodus 20:2
Prologue: Lists the deeds already performed by the Suzerain on behalf of the vassal – Exodus 20:2
Stipulations: Terms to be upheld by the vassal for the life of the treaty; the suzerain’s detailed demands regarding the vassal’s behavior in light of this treaty; one of those demands always is the undivided and exclusive fidelity of the vassal to this suzerain (to take no other lord besides this suzerain); – Exodus 20:3-20:17 as well as Exodus 21:1-24:18, Exodus 34:10-26 and Exodus 35:1-19
Deposit: the Decalogue is to be stored in the Ark of the Covenant (Deut 10:5) and in the Tabernacle Ex 35:1-19.
Provision for annual public reading: A copy of the treaty was to be read aloud annually in the vassal state for the purpose of renewal – Ex 24:7 as well as when the Ten Commandments are displayed in Synagogues, see also Deut 31:10-11 and 10:5.
Divine witness to the treaty: These usually include the deities of both the Suzerain and the vassal – this section seems to be self-fulfilling since one of the parties to the contract is the Devine Being, also, see Joshua 24 and Deut 32
Blessings if the stipulations of the treaty are upheld and curses if the stipulations are not upheld – this section might be found in Exodus 20:5-6[4] and in Exodus 20:12, and is most certainly found in the story of the Golden Calf where the consequences of violating the terms of the Covenant are graphically described in Exodus 32:19-29 (see the essay titled “The Golden Calf”), see also various places in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
Sacrificial Meal: Ex 24:8: “Moses took the blood and dashed it on the people and said ‘This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord now makes with you concerning all these commands.’” while this is not exactly a meal shared between the two parties, it serves the same purpose when one of the parties is God.
Thus, it appears that all of the elements of a Suzerainty Treaty can be viewed as being present in the agreement reached between the Jews and God at Mt. Sinai. The existence of the elements of a Suzerainty Treaty in the Decalogue supposedly given to the Jews at Mt. Sinai raises an interesting question. How did a group of slaves, bricklayers, know the elements of a Suzerainty Treaty? Going beyond the issue of who wrote or defined the treaty, one might query as to how the people would even know they were about to enter such a treaty without knowing something of the force and effect of such treaties. This leads back to the question of how would these people know anything of such documents or agreements? It is possible that one part of the question might be answered by saying that since Moses was a member of the Royal household, he would know and understand such treaties and could have explained it to the people either as its author or as the one chosen by God to bring it to the people. And in this case, God could have chosen this form of document as being familiar to Moses. Another answer of course is that the entire Exodus episode was written later by those who would know about such treaties[5].
Contract
A contract has the following elements:
- An Offer
- An Acceptance in strict compliance with the terms of the offer
- Legal Purpose/Objective
- Mutuality of Obligation – also known as the “meeting of the minds”
- Consideration
- Competent Parties
Offer
An offer is defined as the manifestation of the “willingness to enter into a bargain so made as to justify another person in understanding that his assent to the bargain is invited and will conclude it[6].” This element seems to be satisfied by God’s actions in bringing the Hebrew slaves to freedom from Egypt with plagues visited upon Pharaoh – Exodus 6:2-9 and Exodus 7:14-11:10.
Acceptance
Acceptance of an offer can occur in several ways: Acceptance of an offer is a manifestation of assent to the terms thereof made by the offeree in a manner invited or required by the offer. An acceptance must not change the terms of an offer. If it does, the offer is rejected. A material change in a proposed contract constitutes a counteroffer, which must be accepted by the other party. This element seems to be satisfied by the Hebrew slaves willingly leaving Egypt to follow God Exodus 12:21-28 (especially Ex 12:28) and 12:29-39, 50-51.
Legal Purpose
The objective of the contract must be for a legal purpose. Certainly a contract with God would have a legal purpose and the exodus of the slaves from Egypt was consented to by Pharaoh (albeit under duress of the plagues); therefore it would seem that the purpose of this contract was legal.
Mutuality of Obligation
This element is also known as the “meeting of the minds”. Mutuality of obligation refers to the parties’ mutual understanding and assent to the expression of their agreement. The parties must agree to the same thing, in the same sense, at the same time. The determination of a meeting of their minds, and thus offer and acceptance, is based on the objective standard of what the parties said and did and not their subjective state of mind. Unexpressed subjective
intent is irrelevant. In determining whether mutual assent is present, one looks to the communications between the parties and to the acts and circumstances surrounding these communications. The offer must be clear and definite just as there must be a clear and definite acceptance of all terms contained in the offer. This element seems to be satisfied by the negotiations related in Exodus 6:2-9 and Exodus 7:14-11:10, Exodus 20:3-20:17, Exodus 21:1-24:18, Exodus 34:10-26 and Exodus 35:1-19 as well as Exodus 12:21-39.
To be enforceable, the parties must have agreed on the essential terms of the contract. However, parties may agree upon some contractual terms, understanding them to be an agreement and leave other contract terms to be made later. It is only when an essential term is left open for future negotiation that there is nothing more than an unenforceable agreement to agree. Such an agreement is void as a contract. This feature will be discussed in more detail below under the subject of changed conditions.
Another element of this portion of a contract is that each party must accept an obligation that he is not already required to fulfill. That is, to be adequate consideration, a party must agree to do something that he is not already obliged to do. This element may be somewhat troublesome in light of the obligations agreed to by both parties in Genesis (see, e.g., Gen 17:4 where God promises Abram that he shall be the father of a multitude of nations; and Gen 17:7 where God agrees to enter a covenant with Abraham (“I will maintain My covenant between Me and you, and your offspring to come, as an everlasting covenant throughout the ages, to be God to you and to your offspring to come.”); and further in Gen 17:8 where God promises land to Abraham: “I assign the land you sojourn in to you and your offspring to come, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting holding. I will be their God.”. It seems that God had already obligated Himself to the Israelites. Therefore, one wonders what new obligation did God undertake in order to support the contract or covenant at Sinai in order to make it a binding contract? But, see below in the section “Consideration.”
Certainty of Subject Matter
In general, a contract is legally binding only if its terms are sufficiently defined. The rules regarding indefiniteness of material terms of a contract are based on the concept that a party cannot accept an offer so as to form a contract unless the terms of that contract are reasonably certain. Thus, the material terms of a contract must be agreed upon before the contract is enforceable. The terms of this contract seem to be quite well defined in Exodus, see the sections cited above in Mutuality of Obligation.
Sometimes terms are omitted from contracts and assuming the omitted term is not an essential term, the omitted terms can be implied. The rules and laws set forth in both Exodus and Leviticus as well as Deuteronomy seem to fill in the blanks.
Consideration
Consideration is an essential element of any valid contract. Consideration consists of either a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee. It is a present exchange bargained for in return for a promise. It may consist of some right, interest, profit, or benefit that accrues to one party, or alternatively, of some forbearance, loss or responsibility that is undertaken or incurred by the other party. Certainly, both parties have provided consideration: the Hebrew slaves left their homes in Egypt and God broke Pharaoh, then both parties agreed to be bound by the terms of the contract.
The Bible actually states in many places that God brought the Israelites out of Egypt so they could be His chosen people. It should be noted that God’s actions in freeing the Hebrew slaves might be viewed as past consideration for the contract. Past consideration is generally not good and adequate consideration to support a contract. Except if the consideration (in this case, freeing the slaves from Egypt) was provided at the request of the other party. In this case, it is stated that God heard the cries of the Israelites (Ex 3:7-10). Therefore, it can be argued that the consideration, although past, is adequate to support the contract.
Competent Parties
Parties to a contract must be competent and authorized to enter into a contract. Certainly, God would have to be considered to be a competent and authorized party and the entire Hebrew nation including its elders would also have to be considered competent and authorized. Further, as discussed in the essay “The Golden Calf,” both parties re-iterated and re-affirmed their desire to enter into this contract after the episode of the Golden Calf.
Both parties have rights and liabilities
Under the covenant, God agreed to protect and bless the Israelites, the Israelites in turn agreed to obey God’s laws. Of course, whether God fulfilled His obligation to protect the Jews was called into question by the Pogroms, the expulsions and, of course, the Holocaust. However, as discussed in other essays (e.g., “Exodus and The Holocaust”), God’s responsibility is to protect the entire nation and because Jews were scattered throughout the world and not just in particular countries, particular areas or even Europe during WW II, the destruction of the Jewry in the pogroms, the expulsions, or European Jewry in the Holocaust did not destroy the entire nation. Thus it could be argued that, technically, in the pogroms and expulsions and Holocaust God did not fail to fulfill His obligations under the contract made at Sinai. Furthermore, as with any contract, the rights and obligations of the parties must be adapted for changing circumstances. Certainly, circumstances changed in the world and especially the world of the mid-twentieth Century, from the biblical world. Furthermore, how many times have the humans failed to live up to their obligations and God found a way to continue to honor the contract thereby allowing the breach by the humans to be corrected? Thus, it appears that the practice of carrying out the contract allows for each party to breach its obligations in some way or other and yet still have a binding contract. Clearly, the issue of breach of this contract is where the concept of repentance becomes important[7].
Thus, it appears that the Covenant at Sinai could also be considered a binding contract.
Conclusion regarding whether the Covenant is a Contract or Suzerainty Treaty
If only the basic elements are considered, the Covenant at Sinai seems to pass muster as either a Suzerainty Treaty or a contract.
II. The basic premise of the Covenant
There is a question as to the basic premise of this agreement: Can humans make a contract with God? There seems to be only two ways the story of the Covenant can be read: either the Covenant actually was between God and man with the commandments actually being given by God to man; or the Covenant was written by humans as though it were between God and humans with the commandments actually being written by men and merely being attributed to God in order to give them the force of sinning against God if violated. Problems arise and implications change depending on which view is taken.
Can humans make a contract with God?
The essay “God” concluded that we can view God as being either a transcendental, infinite entity (Ein Sof, the God of the Universe of Universes) or an imminent entity (Yahweh, the God of our universe). As also concluded in that essay, the infinite entity has nothing to do with humans and is separated from our universe by the singularity known as the Big Bang, and thus could not be a party to the covenant. Humans could simply not conclude a contract of any sort with an infinite, unknowable entity.
However, the imminent entity might be a party to such a contract as the very purpose of such an entity is to be a go-between between humans and Ein Sof as discussed in that essay. Accordingly, it might be possible that Yahweh did, in fact, consult with Moses at Sinai and did, in fact, present the Ten Commandments to Moses for a covenant with the Hebrews[8]. In such a case, under either view, Contract or Suzerainty Treaty, the covenant is binding.
Under the premise discussed in other essays, Yahweh does not know the future and thus the elements of contract revision based on changed conditions might be pertinent. As used herein, the term “changed conditions” means “previously unknown and unanticipated situations and circumstances that surface or are revealed after an agreement is finalized and which alter the original terms and conditions which form the basis of the agreement”. The concept of “changed conditions” is applicable to either the contract theory of the Covenant or to the Suzerainty Treaty theory of the Covenant.
The question of course is what would constitute a change in conditions with regard to Yahweh’s obligations to maintain the Jewish Nation as His chosen people or the Jews’ obligation to abide by the terms of the Ten Commandments? Would the Holocaust qualify as a situation which neither God nor the Jews at Sinai could foresee and over which neither God nor the Jews have control and as such be a “changed condition” permitting either God or the Jews to exit the Covenant? As discussed in the essay “Exodus and the Holocaust,” God could not interfere with the events of the Holocaust as that would mean the God was interfering with man’s exercise of his free will. Therefore under this assumption and the assumption that God could not have foreseen this event, the condition of the extermination of European Jewry was unforeseen and beyond God’s control. Clearly, the conditions of the Holocaust were beyond the control of the Jews. Therefore, does the Holocaust present a condition which is unforeseen and which is beyond the control of either party to the Covenant alter the terms which form the basis of the Covenant at Sinai? As discussed above, the terms of the Covenant were that in return for freedom from Egypt the Jews would abide by the dictates of the Commandments and God would view the Jewish Nation as His chosen people. The only term that appears to qualify here is God’s view of the Jewish Nation as His chosen people since God’s other duty was already fulfilled.
As discussed in the essay “Exodus and the Holocaust,” because Jews were located in areas outside the reach of the Nazi death machine, at least some Jews would likely survive the Holocaust (a “remnant”). Thus, even though it was a catastrophe for European Jewry, the Jewish Nation would survive and although diminished could still qualify as God’s chosen people. Thus, even though the Holocaust was a catastrophe, it appears that the Covenant will remain viable from God’s point of view.
Is the contract still viable today?
Jews living today were not privy to the agreement made between the people and God at Sinai. Therefore, are we still bound by that agreement?
With regard to privity of contract, we are certainly free to ratify it. And we do, every time they recite the Sh’Ma[9]. Certainly there is precedent for this type of ratification. This precedent is found directly in the Exodus story itself. In Gen 50:25, Joseph extracted a promise from the Jews: “When God has taken notice of you, you shall carry up my bones from here.” In Exodus 13:19, Moses honored this promise: ”And Moses took with him the bones of Joseph,…” This event occurred many generations after the initial promise and was carried out by people who were not privy to the original agreement. Thus, there is precedent for those Jews who were not privy to the initial agreement to honor that agreement. Thus, by reciting the Sh’Ma, Jews of today can ratify the agreement between the Jews and God made at Sinai even though Jews of today live long after that agreement.
With regard to the Jewish people, the question of the viability of the Covenant due to the changed conditions caused by the Holocaust was rendered moot because the Jews of Europe and indeed the Jews of the world did and continue to ratify the Covenant every time they recite the Sh’Ma.
Thus, it can be concluded that if the Covenant was written by God, it remains a viable Covenant today. Recitation of the Sh’Ma ratifies that agreement.
What if the Covenant was written by humans?
If, as many scholars believe (and as discussed in several other essays in this collection), the Bible was written by men and not by God, then how does this affect the Covenant? This discussion also assumes that God exists and has responsibilities. If it is assumed that God did not did not participate in the events related in Exodus and the Covenant is totally man made, then the Covenant has no force and effect at all and this discussion is moot.
The story of Job appears to be applicable to this discussion. Job’s friends tried to discover the reason for Job’s affliction by God. They looked for something that Job had done, either knowingly or unknowingly, that would violate the terms of conduct set forth in the Bible and as interpreted by elders, prophets and religious leaders. Of course, they found none and were baffled. Job insisted that he had done nothing wrong, nothing that is that was wrong according to the teachings of humans who interpreted the Bible. Job requested and was granted a direct meeting with God. In that meeting God stated in verses 38-39:
Who is this who darkens counsel,
Speaking without knowledge?
…..
Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundations?
….
Do you know who fixed its dimensions or who measured it with a line, onto what were its bases sunk?
Who set its cornerstone….
…
Have you ever commanded the day to break, assigned the dawn its place…
…
Would you impugn My justice? Would you condemn Me that you may be right?
God is clearly telling Job, and hence mankind, that humans have absolutely no right to tell God how to conduct His business. As was discussed in the essay “Partners,” God has His duties and humans have their duties, and neither one should interfere with the duties of the other.
The moral of the story of Job is that merely because men state that certain conduct is favored by God (even if that conduct is expressed in the Bible because, under the assumption of this discussion, the Bible was written by human beings), God is under no obligation to reward the human following that conduct. Nor is God obligated to punish a human being for violating that conduct which has been promulgated by men. Human beings cannot dictate to God what He should and should not do.
Therefore, if the agreement stated in the book of Exodus as being reached at Mt. Sinai was actually written by humans, then God is under no obligation whatsoever to honor the terms of the agreement. This applies no matter what the humans do as fulfilling an obligation that they have defined as being desired by God. Humans can do all the good works in the world (good works being defined by humans of course) and it will in no way obligate God to reward those humans for those “good works” (and vice versa for “evil deeds”, with “evil deeds” being defined by humans).
This concept is beautifully illustrated in the wonderful story “A Contract With God” by Will Eisner (New York, NY W.W. Norton & Company 2006, paperback)[10]. In this story, the protagonist, Frimme Hersh, abides by the conduct which Jews believed to be “good”. He helped the poor, was honest, “devoted himself to good works,” and the like. He was told “God will reward you.” He was told that God is “just” thereby implying that what is “just” can be defined by man for God. He had a conversation with Reb Libshitz “Rebbe…is God just?” and “If I am good will God know it?” and he was answered, “Why not? does it not say that God is all-knowing?” by the Rebbe. Therefore, Frimme wrote a contract with God, and he “faithfully and piously…adhered to the terms of his contract with God.” These terms were written by Frimme. After many years of good and pious works, Frimme receives a gift: an orphan girl suddenly appears on his doorstep. Could this be a signal from God that He had accepted the terms of Frimme’s contract? Fremme raised the child. After many years, Frimme suffered a disaster when his adopted daughter dies. Frimme’s response was “No! Not to me…You can’t do this…we have a contract.” Frimme decides that the contract is worthless because God violated its terms and moves into a life of evil. He becomes a slum lord and prospers financially and socially. Thus, it appears that the good Frimme was punished while the evil Frimme is rewarded.
A point appears to be that Frimme dictated what God should do. If Frimme acted according to the precepts of what Frimme and the other humans said, than God was required to act according to what Frimme and the other humans said. They were dictating to God. Then, Frimme defined God’s acceptance (the sudden appearance on his doorstep of the child). As the story shows, that did not work. Also it illustrates the problem with defining what is”good” and what is “evil” with regard to the results of actions. What humans define as desirable results may not be what God defines as desirable results. It is not for humans to make these definitions for God. It further is not for humans to define what God considers to be “good” and what God considers to be “evil”. We humans can only do that regarding events occurring in our own universe and which have consequences that directly or at least proximately affect the person making the value judgment. Thus, “bad” things happening to “good” people and “good” things happening to “bad” people have no meaning when it is humans trying to make those determinations for God.
Frimme’s actions illustrate yet another facet of this concept. Whenever a human being tries to control events contrary to the natural order (see the essay “God’s Ground Rules”), then it will be futile at best, and dangerous at worst. The Greek Gods were continually punishing men for trying to defy them. In this regard, “evil” might be defined as trying to violate the ground rules, while “good” could be defined as living within the dictates of the ground rules, see the essay “Good and Evil”.
Concomitant with the concept that man cannot dictate terms to God, is the concept that prayers of request cannot be answered by God. As discussed in the essay “Forgiveness,” prayers such as Prayers of Petition and Intercession often state that if the human being does something that is considered good by other humans (charity, good deeds, etc), then God could reward the human with an act or thing that humans define as good, or remove an act or thing that humans define as evil. This follows the line of reasoning just discussed in relation to “A Contract With God.” As was discussed in the essay “Forgiveness,” God cannot change events that happen normally according to the rules in the Ground Rules that govern the actions of both God and humans. Thus, as discussed in the essays “God’s Ground Rules” and “Free Will and Predestination,” if probability dictates a certain outcome for a particular action, God cannot interfere to change that outcome. Thus, such prayers are useless at best and counterproductive at worst as they may delude the supplicant into believing that if, like Frimme, he does what he considers his part, then God will be obligated to do what the human says is God’s part (“No! Not to me…You can’t do this…we have a contract”).
In view of the above discussion, if the commandments associated with the Covenant were written by men, then God is not bound to maintain the Jewish Nation as His chosen people. Thus, merely because Jews adhered to the rules and laws associated with the Covenant, does not mean that God is obligated to prevent things which are defined by the Jews as being evil from happening to them, even something as evil as the Holocaust. Nor does adhering to man-made rules obligate God to reward the Jews with things that they define as good. Men cannot dictate to God, no matter how it is phrased.
The Covenant as a Guideline
Having examined the covenant at Sinai first as an agreement made between man and God and drafted by God and second as an “agreement” between man and God but drafted by men as though it were an agreement drafted by God, it might helpful to view the covenant as reported in the Bible as being a guideline drafted by humans with the intent that other humans understand the agreement was drafted by humans. In this last case, the God of the agreement is a metaphor and the agreement does not have the force of God behind it, so violation of any of the guidelines is not a sin but merely a violation of the guidelines. As such, violation of the guidelines will not doom a human’s soul or have any implications on Judgment Day. Accordingly, following or violating the guidelines will be a judgment by each individual based on his or her estimation of the consequences associated with the act. This would seem to be an exercise in unfettered free will, with only the consequences being the parameters of interest. As discussed in the essay “Heaven and Hell,” a person will be in “Heaven” or “Hell” according to how his or her life is remembered. Therefore, the “judgment” portion of the Covenant or guidelines is left to human beings, again an act of free will. In the case being considered, “God” would be a metaphor for later human beings and consequences associated with actions.
Accordingly, viewing the Covenant as
a guideline drafted by humans with the object that the guidelines be viewed as
being drafted by humans and not as an agreement drafted by God leaves human
free will more free than if the Covenant is viewed as an agreement drafted by
God. Ethics and morality are not a matter of God’s commandments and obedience
to those commandments, but a matter of free will and choice. Such a view places
much more responsibility and accountability on humans than a view in which God
is the drafter of the agreement.
A CONTRACT WITH GOD
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Why did the Bible feel that it was necessary for the Jewish nation to enter into an express covenant with God? Other people simply considered themselves associated with a particular god or gods, or had a certain god as their patron god (such as Athena was the patron goddess of Athens).
2. By entering into a covenant with their god, the Jewish people elevated themselves to a level sufficient to covenant or contract with their god. Why did the Bible do this?
3. The people in Biblical times could not understand what caused weather, floods, and the like and needed a higher power to explain why such things happened. With science today, we can explain many of these things. How has our view of God changed? Has God changed, or has it been our view of God that has changed? If God changed, is it the same entity that we entered into a covenant with? If not, is the covenant still viable?
4. The Jews at Mt. Sinai had been persuaded to leave their homes, their land and the protection of the most powerful nation in the world. They were now in the desert where food, water, safety were quite tenuous. To many of these people it must have appeared that following this now god was certainly a step down. Now they were severely punished for what had to appear to them as a minor infraction of building an idol. What do you think was going through their minds at this moment? What would you think?
5. What do
you think the people thought about this new form of God/man relationship? How
binding did they think it was? How binding to them? How binding to God?
[1] It should also be noted that there have been comparisons between the Mosiac codes in the Pentateuch and various cuneiform law codes, Egyptian codes, Hittite codes, the Hammurabi Code as well as others.
[2] It should be observed that the very concept of a negotiation between humans and a god surely is a sea change in thought. Most, if not all, gods in ancient times simply demanded obedience and ruthlessly punished any human who did not obey. On the contrary, the Hebrew god entered into an agreement with the people which they were free to reject.
[3] A thorough discussion of treaties between a suzerain and a vassal is presented by Christine Hayes in “Introduction to the Bible (New Haven, CT Yale University Press, 2012, paperback) pages 119-123.
[4] See also the section on Punishment of Innocents in the essay “Sodom and Gomorrah” for yet another view of this situation.
[5] See the essay “Thoughts on Exodus”.
[6] Black’s Law Dictionary (West Publishing Co, St. Paul, MN, 1968)
[7] For example, it might be argued that when God destroys a person or an entire city, such as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, God is annulling the contract with respect to the destroyed people. In the case of repentance however, it can be argued that the repenting party cured the breach and thus the contract is sustained.
[8] Note: God made a contract with Abram/Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3 promising to make him into a great nation and guard him if Abram would follow His instructions. The difference at Sinai is that God made a contract with an entire nation as opposed to a contract with a single individual. The contract at Sinai superseded the contract with Abram and formed the basis for the remainder of the Bible story.
[9] “Sh’ma Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai ecad” “Hear O Israel, the Eternal is our God, the Eternal is One!” (Deuteronomy 6:4).
[10] Do not be fooled into thinking that this story is shallow because it is a graphic story, the story is deep and many layered.