Covenant and Conscience:
Biblical Principles for Living
in Community Together1
Steven Schweitzer'
T JLhis article examines the biblical con-
cepts of covenant and conscience, provid-
ing a survey across the Old and New Testa-
ments. It divides into two main sections: the
first on covenant and the second on con-
science. In the former, an introduction to
the idea of covenant will be followed by an
overview of its appearances in the Bible. In
the latter, the focus will be on the function
of conscience in the New Testament fol-
lowed by examples from the history of the
Church of the Brethren, especially Annual
Conference statements, which recognize
conscience in the process of decision-mak-
ing. As will be seen, the biblical witness
demonstrates that the community of faith
exists together through covenant, while
allowing space for matters of conscience.
The affirmation of balance between the
covenant of the community and the impor-
tance of individual conscience is the faith-
ful heritage of both the New Testament and
the Church of the Brethren.
Part 1: Covenant in the Bible‫״‬
Covenant in the Old Testament:
Concept and Pattern.,
We begin with terminology. The Hebrew
word ‫( ברית‬berit) can be translated as:
agreement, treaty, covenant, testament, and
"last will and testament."2 The term origi-
nates in legal and contractual contexts, as
SPRING 2017
can be seen, both in the OT and in other
ancient Near Eastern texts that use the same
(or cognate) term. The word berit is used
over 300 times in the Hebrew Bible.
The concept of covenant in the Bible is
directly related to the idea of covenant in
the wider culture of the ancient Near East.
The Akkadian word biritu, which is the
older cognate term to the Hebrew berit,
means "bind" or "fetter", emphasizing the
seriousness and permanence of the agree-
ment being made. Throughout the ancient
Near East, many different cultures and sod-
eties used this same term to express their
contractual obligations to one another. The
most common form of a berit in ancient
Near East cultures occurred between a vas-
sal and a lord or ruler, made as a type of
treaty. In such an arrangement, the berit was
typically made between two unequal part-
ners. The more powerful one promised to
protect the less powerful one from enemies
in exchange for something from the latter,
often goods, produce, or a supply of men
for the former's army. Such an agreement
was thus mutually beneficial to each party.
One received protection while the other
received needed items or personnel. How-
ever, the power differential was also clear,
as such agreements tended to focus on the
obligations of the lesser party and the nega-
tive consequences that would result if the
stipulations of the covenant were not
upheld. Little accountability was typically
1
 placed on the more powerful entity to keep
that side of the covenant.1
3 2
The concept of covenant is widely attest-
ed across the ancient Near East, and the for-
mulaic structure on which such agreements
are patterned remained incredibly stable for
more than a millennium. For example, Hit-
TLittle accountability was
typically placed on the more
powerful entity to keep
that side of the covenant?
tite covenants from 2400-1300 BCE had the
same basic structure and sequence as the
Assyrian covenants from 1000-600 BCE.
This similarity illustrates how influential the
idea of covenant was across this broad geo-
graphical region for such a long period of
time. Covenant is a pervasive and stable
concept in the ancient Near East, and one
which the OT uses to communicate its
understanding of the relationship between
God and humanity in ways that are mean-
ingful for its ancient audience. God speaks
in terms and ideas that make sense for those
reading and hearing the Word. The concept
of covenant is one obvious example of the
Bible using a concept from the wider cultur-
al context to express truth about God.
Whether in its Hittite or Assyrian version,
there seems to be a standard, six-part for-
mula used in making covenants for over
1000 years in the ancient Near East. In his
classic treatment, Delbert Hillers identified
these six parts as:
1. Preamble: Who the major parties
involved are;
2. Historical Prologue: Why this is being
made, with some background and
more detail on the parties involved;
3. Stipulations: What each party agrees
to do;
2 BRETHREN LIFE 8c THOUGHT
4. Provisions for Deposit and Public
Reading: Where the record is kept and
when it is read openly;4
5. Divine Witnesses to Treaty: Which
gods are invoked to confirm this
agreement (typically various deities,
heavens, earth, mountains, rivers);5
6. Blessings and Curses: What happens if
promises are kept and if promises are
broken, particularly by the "lesser"
party.6
This formula is static, and examples are
immensely common, including the covenants
contained within the OT. The most striking
example is perhaps viewing the entire book
of Deuteronomy as an extended example of
this six-part covenant structure, as it serves
as a form of covenant renewal between
God and Israel:
• Lengthy Historical Prologue in chap-
ters 1-4. This section repeats the mate-
rial from Exodus and the Wilderness
Wanderings, naming the prior rela-
tionship between Israel and God.
• Lengthy Stipulations in chapters 5-26.
• Provision for Deposit and Public
Reading in chapter 27, and repeated
in 31/
• Blessings and Curses in chapters
28-30.
• Witnesses to the Treaty. This element is
out of order, and much less important,
as Deuteronomy is a monotheistic text
rather than a polytheistic one, with
multiple gods to be invoked. However,
we can see traces of this idea of exter-
nal witnesses in two verses in the
book: "I call upon heaven and earth
to witness against you today..."
(Deut 4:26); and "Give ear, O heavens,
and I will speak; let the earth hear the
words of my mouth" (Deut 32:1).8 As
with other treaties, the heavens and
earth stand as witnesses to this treaty
between God and Israel.9
 The six-part pattern illustrates the com-
mon features of most covenants in the
ancient Near East and the Bible. We now
turn to an overview of covenants in the OT
and NT.
Covenant in the Old Testament:
Five Major Covenants
There are five major covenants referenced
in the OT: Noah, Abraham, Moses, David,
and a future covenant in the Prophets. The
Mosaic and Davidic covenants typically
receive more attention in such discussions,
so we will focus our discussion on the other
major covenants here.
Noah.
The first covenant in the Bible is the one
made between God and Noah (Gen 6-9).10
The word berit first appears in Genesis 6:18,
as God promises to make a covenant with
Noah. This Noahide covenant is traditional-
ly regarded as the most universal of the OT
covenants, as in the narrative of the Genesis
account, it is made between God and all
humans alive after the Flood—Noah, his
wife, his three sons, and their wives—and
with all living creatures (Gen 9:8-17), as is
stated emphatically and repeatedly in these
verses. After the Flood, God makes a
covenant never again to destroy the earth
by water, as indicated by the sign of the
rainbow and with the promise that the sea-
sons and "day and night" will not cease.11
As a result of this covenant, humanity's
relationship with animals has changed: now
humans may eat animals for food, but not
eat the blood. Further, human life is deemed
especially valuable, so that capital punish-
ment is instituted for those who commit
murder of another human. Why? Because
humanity is made in God's image. Whatev-
er happens to humanity through the Fall in
Genesis 3 and the Flood in Genesis 6-9,
humanity continues to be made in the
image of God. This fact remains unchanged;
SPRING 2017
humanity is still made in the image of God
and, according to Genesis, human life is
precious.12
Jewish tradition saw in this covenant with
Noah the impetus for human government,
monotheism, dietary food laws, and other
regulations. The stipulations placed on Noah
CLhisfact remains
unchanged; humanity is
still made in the image
of God and, according
to Genesis, human life
is precious.
and his descendants were understood to
apply to all Gentiles while Jews were re-
qui red to keep the Mosaic Law. Gentiles who
sought to be righteous should keep these
covenant obligations placed on all of
humanity: "The children of Noah were com-
manded with seven commandments: [to
establish] laws, and [to prohibit] cursing
God, idolatry, illicit sexuality, bloodshed,
robbery, and eating flesh from a living ani-
mal" (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 56a).
It has long been noted that these stipula-
tions resemble the four stipulations placed
on Gentile Christians by the Jerusalem Coun-
cil in Acts 15. In order to include Gentiles
into the new community of faith without re-
quiring them to keep the entire Jewish Law,
the early Christians compromised on four
prohibitions for these Gentiles, three related
to food (Acts 1 5:19-20, 28-29): they should
not eat food sacrificed to idols, they should
not eat meat from strangled animals, they
should not eat blood, and they should not
practice sexual immorality (porneia in
Greek: a generic term for many kinds of illic-
it sexual activity). We will discuss this im-
portant passage from Acts 15 when we ex-
3
 amine Paul's comments about conscience
and food sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians
8 and 10 and the related subject in Romans
14 later in the article.
Finally, in addition to being universal in
scope, the Noahide covenant is uncondi-
tional. Despite their proclivity toward evil,
*With the explicit'
introduction of obedience,
the requirement of
circumcision, and the
extreme exclusion
for those not circumcised,
the Abrahamic covenant
in Genesis 17 is definitely
conditional: Abraham
and his descendants may
break this covenant!
humanity cannot negate this covenant (Gen
8:21). God promises to keep the covenant
indefinitely (throughout all of time—refer-
ring to the perpetual cycle of the seasons).
This covenant made with all of humanity
and all of creation remains as long as "the
earth endures" (Gen 8:22).
Abraham,
The covenant with Abraham is a bit more
complicated than the covenant with Noah.
When God first encounters Abram (his name
at the time) in Genesis 12, God promises to
bless Abram, but the word berit is not used.
However, God later enacts a covenant with
Abram in Genesis 15 and again in chapter
17, using the term berit, and with differ-
enees in the details.
In Genesis 12, God promises several
things to Abram: "I will make you a great
nation...and make your name great" (v. 2);
"in you all the families of the earth will be
blessed / will bless themselves" (v. 3);13 and
"I will give this land to your seed" (v. 7).
Abram is only told to "go to the land I will
show you." While the blessings may imply
prior obedience, this is not explicit in the
chapter. God makes unconditional promis-
es to Abram in Genesis 12.
With Genesis 15, we see more promises
from God, with additional details, without
stipulations on Abram, and the use of the
word berit in the mysterious ritual that con-
eludes the passage. Abram cuts various ani-
mais in half and falls into a deep sleep. He
hears God speak and sees a "smoking fire
pot and a flaming torch" pass between the
pieces of the animals, symbolizing the mak-
ing of a covenant.14 God tells Abram that
his seed will be slaves in a "strange land"
for 400 years, until they are delivered; in
the fourth generation his descendants will
return to this land (v. 16), which is further
defined as "from the river of Egypt to the
river Euphrates," the land of the ten nations
(vv. 18-21). These blessings and promises
follow the statement that Abram believed
God, and it was "reckoned to him as right-
eousness" (v. 6). Abram is rewarded for his
belief, but this is without obedience to any
covenant stipulations.15
Finally, another covenant with Abraham
is recorded in Genesis 17. The focus here
shifts from promise to the stipulations on
Abram and his descendants. This covenant
with Abram requires that he "walk before
[God] and be blameless" and that he cir-
cumcise himself and all of the males in his
household, including all slaves (vv. 1, 10-13).
Any male who is not circumcised shall be
"cut off" (an appropriate pun) from the peo-
pie as "he has broken the covenant" (v. 14).
In response to Abram's obedience, the de-
tails of the previous promise and covenant
are clarified. God changes Abram's name to
BRETHREN LIFE Sc THOUGHT
Abraham (from "exalted father" to "father of
many"), promising that he will be the anees-
tor of many nations (vv. 4-5). Kings will
come from Abraham (v. 6), and the covenant
will be everlasting (v. 7). Abraham and his
descendants will receive "all the land of
Canaan for a perpetual holding" (v. 8). With
the explicit introduction of obedience, the
requirement of circumcision, and the
extreme exclusion for those not circum-
cised, the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis
17 is definitely conditional: Abraham and
his descendants may break this covenant.
This Abrahamic covenant is extended to
Isaac and to Jacob (Gen 26:1-5; 35:9-15;
Gen 50:24) and thus to the people of Israel.
It is referenced in 2 Kings 13:23 and as part
of historical reviews in 1 Chronicles 16:15-17
// Psalms 105:7-11 ; and Nehemiah 9:7-8.
Moses
The Mosaic covenant centers on the Law (the
Torah) given to the people of Israel through
Moses at Mount Sinai (Exodus 19-23) but is
understood to include all of Exodus, Leviti-
cus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. These
books contain the laws by which Israel is
supposed to live as the people of God.
However, it is clear that even at its incep-
tion as a people at Mount Sinai the nation
of Israel is called to keep God's covenant for
a purpose beyond themselves. God pro-
claims, "Now therefore, if you obey my
voice and keep my covenant, you shall be
my treasured possession out of all the peo-
pies. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but
you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and
a holy nation" (Exod 19:6). From this we see
that Israel is unique and set apart from other
nations, but for a purpose. They are to be a
"kingdom of priests." They do not simply
have priests among them, but the entire
nation is to serve as priests, as intercessors.
The question is then, priests for whom?
Israel is to serve as priests to the nations,
bringing other nations to God, so that they
may be included in this covenant relation­
SPRING 2017
ship. Such a mission for Israel is consistent
with the Abrahamic promise (Gen 12:3) and
finds echoes in the prophecy of Isaiah that
Israel will be a ‫״‬covenant and light to the
nations" (Isa 42:6; 49:6). Israel is holy so
that their witness may bring others into rela-
tionship with God. Israel's covenant is not
an end in itself, but was intended to be a
means of reconciling the world to God.16
Of course, the Mosaic covenant is a condi-
tional covenant. The people are required to
keep the stipulations of the Law, and they
are expected to do so: "Surely, this com-
mandment that I am commanding you
today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far
away...No, the word is very near to you; it
is in your mouth and in your heart for you
to observe" (Deut 30:11, 14). The Law was
meant to be obeyed; the covenant was
meant to be kept by the people.
As for God, it is precisely because God
remembers the covenant with the ancestors
(that is, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) that God
acts in raising up a deliverer to rescue the
people from slavery in Egypt (Exod 2:24;
6:4). The Exodus and the giving of the Law
are the response of a God who keeps
covenant.
DavicL
The texts (2 Sam 7 // 1 Chr 1 7) that record
the initial making of the covenant between
God and David do not actually use the
word berit. Other texts within the OT recog-
nize this event as a covenant and call it such
(2 Sam 23:5; 1 Kgs 8:24; 2 Chr 7:12-18;
21:7; Ps 89:3; 132:12; Isa 55:3; Jer
33:19-22). W hile the Davidic covenant ob-
viously applies to Solomon, the son of David
who builds the "house" for God (2 Sam
7:12-1 6 // 1 Chr 1 7:11-14), the permanen-
cy of the covenant is understood as apply-
ing to the line of Davidic monarchs who
will follow Solomon and rule over Israel.
When the Davidic heir no longer rules, but
the people are taken into exile, the Davidic
covenant becomes a source of hope for
 future restoration. Prophetic texts predict a
future king, often, but not always, a deseen-
dant of David. Unique is the prophecy of Isa-
iah 55:3, which reassigns the Davidic
covenant to the entire people of Israel: "I will
make with you [Israel] an everlasting
covenant, my steadfast, sure love [hesed]
<We see a prophetic hopefor
restoration of one or more
covenants to Israel, which
reuse earlier imagery and
indicate continuity between
the past and thefuture
for the people of God,
a God who remembers
and keeps covenants
for David. See, I made him [David] a witness
to the peoples...you [Israel] shall call nations
that you do not know." Israel's mission from
the Mosaic covenant as a light to the
nations seems to be merged with the
Davidic covenant in this verse.
Future Covenants
in the Prophets
The prophetic literature throughout Israel's
history, but particularly during the exilic
and postexilic periods, envisions a time
when God will make a new covenant with
the people. These texts use different terms
for the future covenants and have different
details, so I prefer to treat each one sepa-
rately rather than trying to collapse or har-
monize them into a singular covenant.
Some texts, as mentioned above, await the
renewal of the Davidic covenant with a new
Davidic ruler (Ps 132:8-18; Jer 33:19-22).
Others proclaim that a "covenant of peace
[berit shalom]" will not be removed from
Israel (Isa 54:10), but instead, such a
covenant will exist with a Davidic prince
(not a king) and a new sanctuary in the land
of Israel (Ezek 37:26). Jeremiah prophesies
that a "new covenant" will be made with
the people, within them, written on their
hearts, so that everyone will know God (Jer
31:31-34). An "everlasting covenant" will
be made with Israel (Isa 61:8), with those
who will have "one heart and one way" as
they return to Zion (Jer 32:40; 50:5). This
vision of unity extends even to the "wild
animals, the birds of the air, and the creep-
ing things of the ground," with whom God
will make a covenant removing weapons of
war and providing safety, using language
from the Creation account in Genesis 1
(Hos 2:16-23).17 Once again, humans and
animals will live in harmony, consistent
with other "peaceable kingdom" visions as
found in Isaiah 65:1 7-25 and the "groaning
of all creation" awaiting restoration in
Romans 8:18-25.
The prediction of a victorious king who is
humble, riding on a donkey, and bringing
peace to the nations (Zech 9:9-10) is fol-
lowed by a cryptic prophecy that "Because
of the blood of my covenant with you, I
[God] will set your prisoners free from the
waterless pit" (Zech 9:11 ). This final verse is
certainly odd in its context in Zechariah 9,
and the connection to its immediate context
and referent are not clear. However, the NT
follows this same sequence, in its use of the
former verses to explain Jesus' Triumphal
Entry into Jerusalem followed by his state-
ments at the Last Supper about "my blood
of the covenant" (Matt 26:28 // Mark
14:24), keeping the same order reflected in
the passage from Zechariah.
In each of these cases, we see a prophetic
hope for restoration of one or more covenants
to Israel, which reuse earlier imagery and
indicate continuity between the past and
the future for the people of God, a God who
remembers and keeps covenant.
BRETHREN LIFE Sc THOUGHT
Covenant in the Old Testament: the people of Israel made a covenant to
Other Covenants send away their wives and children who
were of foreign descent (Ezra 10:3, 44).
In addition to what I have termed "major"
They seem to violate the covenant of mar-
covenants in the OT, there are a few other
riage by making another covenant to re-
covenants mentioned that are worth briefly
claim their ethnic purity.
including in our survey. They can be placed
Three final examples conclude this part
into two categories: between God and
of the discussion: Job made a covenant with
humans, and among humans.
his eyes to not look on a virgin (Job 31:1);
In the former category, there are several ex-
Tyre violated a "covenant of kinship" with
amples. First, God gives Phineas a "covenant
other communities when they delivered
of peace" (berit shalom) and a "covenant of
them over to the nation of Edom, and the
perpetual priesthood" for murdering a sinful
prophet condemns them for this (Amos 1:9);
Israelite man and Midianite woman (Num
and Israel has made a covenant with Death
25). Second, God's covenant with the tribe
and Sheol (that is, the Hebrew place of the
of Levi and with the priests are referred to as
dead), which serves as a metaphor for their
something that God does or should remem-
political alliance with the Assyrians that will
ber (Neh 13:29; Jer 33:19-22; Mai 2). Third,
result in their own destruction (Isa
God promises in a covenant that prophecy
28:15-18).
through the Spirit will continue for the
prophet and the people (Isa 59:21). Fourth,
God proclaims that those eunuchs and for- Covenant in the New Testament1
eigners who keep covenant and keep the
The scope and importance of covenant in
Sabbath will be included among the wor-
the OT shifts as we move to the NT. In the
shipers and even serve as priests in the
NT, the Greek word διαθηκη (diatheke) is
future (Isa 56:1-8). This prophecy in Isaiah
used, with the same range of meaning and
is a statement of radical inclusion for groups
legal context as its Hebrew counterpart. The
of people who are explicitly excluded from
word diatheke appears thirty-five times in
the worshipping community according to
the NT, with nineteen of them in the Book
Deuteronomy 23:1-8, which itself is used
of Hebrews. Three main categories for
as the basis for such exclusion of all foreign-
covenant can be observed: reference to the
ers by the postexilic community in Nehemi-
Old Covenant(s); Jesus' New Covenant at
ah 13:1-3. In Isaiah 56, we see a vision of
the Last Supper; and A New and/or Better
a community that fits well with Israel's role
Covenant in Christ.
as covenant and light to the nations (Isa
The covenant with Abraham is referred to
42:6; 49:8).
three times in Luke-Acts (Luke 1:72; Acts
The second category of covenants among
3:25; 7:8). Paul notes that Israel has
humans has numerous examples. Often,
covenants (Rom 9:4—note the plural
this is between two individuals for mutual
instead of the singular). Citing Isaiah
benefit18; and between a leader and the
59:20-21, Paul connects the salvation of
people, typically as a form of covenant
"all Israel" with the covenant that God will
renewal.19 Marriage is proclaimed to be a
take away their sins (Rom 11:27). Paul
covenant twice in the OT: Proverbs 2:17;
claims that Abraham's covenant precedes
Malachi 2:14-16. Both strongly rebuke the
the giving of the Law (which it does in the
violation of the covenant of marriage. It is
narrative of the Torah), so this means that
somewhat ironic (and painful to read) with
the Law does not nullify that covenant with
this view of the covenant of marriage that
Abraham since it was older (Gal 3:1 7). Paul

SPRING 2017 7
 also notes that the "old covenant" is read by
Jews "to this very day" (2 Cor 3:14).
Hebrews explains that the first covenant
(that is, the Mosaic covenant) had regula-
tions for worship and sacrifice (9:1 ). Finally,
the ark of the covenant is located in God's
heavenly temple, referring to the same ob-
In each covenant, there is
the commitment to
relationship, built out of
faithfulness (both believing
and doing), loyalty/fidelity,
promise, trust, and hopo.
ject associated with the Mosaic tabernacle
and Solomonic temple (Rev 11:19).
The second category concerns the words
spoken by Jesus at the Last Supper. The
Gospels and Paul differ in the exact words,
but the association is clear: "this is my
blood of the covenant" (Matt 26:28 // Mark
14:24); "this cup that is poured out for you
is the new covenant in my blood" (Luke
22:20); and "this cup is the new covenant in
my blood" (1 Cor 11:25). As noted previ-
ously, this is likely connected to the strange
statement in Zechariah 9:11, as well as the
overall prophetic hope for a restored
covenant, now understood to be fulfilled
through Christ.
The third category builds on the second,
with further discussion about this new, or
better, covenant through Christ. Paul states
that God has made us "ministers of a new
covenant" (2 Cor 3:6). He uses an unex-
pected allegory concerning Hagar and
Sarah to discuss the nature of the two
covenants—the old one from Mount Sinai
and the new one from the "Jerusalem
above" (Gal 4:24-5:1). Ephesians proclaims
that, while now included among God's peo-
8 BRETHREN LIFE 8c THOUGHT
pie, the Gentiles were ‫״‬strangers to the
covenants of promise" before Christ (2:12—
again, note the plural rather than the singu-
lar). Finally, in more than half of the NT ref-
erences to "covenant" (19 out of 35 occur-
rences), the book of Hebrews explains at
great length the nature of the new and bet-
ter covenant through Jesus' blood and sacri-
fice in contrast to the "first" one, namely the
Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant (Heb 7:22;
8:6-10; 8:13; 9:1-20; 10:16, 29; 12:24;
13:20).20
Covenant: Conclusion;
Covenant is an important theme in the
Bible. This is especially true in the OT, and
it serves as one primary link in explaining
three connections: the NT and the OT
themselves; Jesus' life, death, resurrection
and the OT sacrificial system; and the mis-
sion of the Church and the mission of Israel.
In each case, we find a concern for rela-
tionships, for being "in covenant" between
various parties: God and creation; God and
all people; God and certain people; God
using certain people to reach all people;
individuals; an individual and group(s); one
group and another group(s).
In each covenant, there is the commit-
ment to relationship, built out of faithful-
ness (both believing and doing), loyalty/
fidelity, promise, trust, and hope. God is
faithful to keep covenant, even in times of
great distress and struggle. This character of
God is essential to the understanding of
covenant in the OT. God keeps covenant.
God creates something new, something bet-
ter, out of the failures to keep covenant.
Ultimately, this is understood in the NT as
the work of Jesus, who brings the better
and/or new covenant, from which the
Church is made ministers to all peoples.
Based on this survey, we can certainly
affirm "Goc/ speaks to us to create a
covenant with us. Of all the concepts which
shed light on the purpose of God's word,
none is more instructive than the concept of
covenant. The Bible does not present God
as one who utters timeless truths to satisfy
the speculative interests of theologians.
Rather, God speaks in order to draw us into
a covenant of steadfast love."21
Part 2: Conscience
Conscience in the Biblo
While the term "covenant" (bent) has a high
occurrence in the OT, there is no separate
Hebrew term for "conscience." The Hebrew
word ‫( לב‬lev) may be translated as "heart,
mind" and comes closest to this idea, but
Hebrew does not have a distinct notion of
or term for "conscience." In the NT, the
word συνε'ιδησις‫( ־‬syneidesis, "conscience")
is used about 29 times: almost entirely in
Paul (21 times); four times in Hebrews (9:9,
14; 10:22; 13:18); twice in Acts (23:1;
24:16); and twice in 1 Peter (3:15-16, 21).
This Greek word is used only once in the
entire Septuagint (the Greek OT) to translate
"thoughts" (Ecc 12:10). The word seems to
mean "inner knowledge" in Greek usage
during the Hellenistic period, as found in
the writings of Philo, Josephus, Plutarch,
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Diodorus Sicu-
lus, and others. Typically, the term also car-
ries with it a moral idea about what is right
and wrong and is usually connected with
the Greek philosophy of Stoicism. The NT
use of the word seems consistent with its
wider use in Hellenistic philosophy. Just as
the OT used the concept of covenant from
the wider ancient Near East culture without
needing to explain it, so the NT (especially
as it is repeatedly used by Paul) borrows the
concept of conscience so common in Hel-
lenistic culture without needing to explain
what it means to the ancient audience.
The occurrences of syneidesis in the NT
can be grouped into five main categories.
First, Paul speaks about having a "clear con-
science" himself. In speeches to the high
priest and the Roman governor, Paul claims
to have a "clear conscience" before God
SPRING 2017
(Acts 23:1) and before God and people
(Acts 24:16). This may indicate some claim
to telling the truth, which is clearly the
intention when Paul uses it in two instances
in his letters (Rom 9:1-2; 2 Cor 1:12). Paul
also claims to worship God with a ‫״‬clear
conscience" (2 Tim 1:3).
(Paul commends having
a clear or good conscience
in contrast to a seared
or corrupted ono.
Second, and somewhat related, Paul
commends having a clear or good con-
science in contrast to a seared or corrupted
one. Timothy is told "But the aim of such
instruction is love that comes from a pure
heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith"
(1 Tim 1:5, 19) and that deacons "must hold
fast to the mystery of faith with a clear con-
science" (1 Tim 3:9). In contrast, false teach-
ers have "minds and consciences corrupt-
ed" (Tit 1:15), and specifically, those who
"forbid marriage and demand abstinence
from foods" having their "consciences
seared with a hot iron" (1 Tim 4:1-4). We
will return to teachings about food and mar-
riage below. In his letters, Paul does not
seem to clarify how one's conscience is
seared or can be made clear, but Hebrews
suggests that in coming to Christ one can
now approach God "with a true heart in full
assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled
clean from an evil conscience and our bod-
ies washed with pure water" (10:22). In
Christ, consciences are no longer seared,
evil, or corrupt, but made clean. What ani-
mal sacrifices could not do for our con-
sciences (Heb 9:9), Christ's sacrifice does
(9:14).
Third, Paul connects conscience to civil
obedience. In Romans 13, Paul commands
Christians to obey the government (in his
9
 day, the Roman Empire), which is instituted
by God. Christians should do so, not to
avoid wrath, but because of conscience. For
the same reason, Christians should pay
taxes (Rom 13:1-7). This requirement likely
is connected either with conscience and
truth-telling (see above) or with the connec-
Œhe Gentiles do not have
the Law, hut they are still
guilty. Why? Because they
will he judged hy their
conscience, which reflects
the Law.
tion between conscience and public wit-
ness (the category below), or both.
Fourth, Paul claims that our actions will
be commended to the "conscience of
everyone" as a witness to others, as light
shining in the darkness (2 Cor 4:1-6). The
importance of our actions, our public wit-
ness, and having a clear conscience are
also explicitly connected in 1 Peter:
"Always be ready to make your defense to
anyone who demands from you an
accounting for the hope that is in you; yet
do it with gentleness and reverence. Keep
your conscience clear, so that when you are
maligned, those who abuse you for your
good conduct in Christ will be put to
shame" (3:15-16). Peter encourages his
audience to live uprightly even with the
threat of persecution. So too for us: a clear
conscience and good conduct are excellent
examples for Christ to the world around us,
if they are going to hear our message about
the hope that is in us. Our misconduct dam-
ages our witness. A few verses later, Peter
describes baptism "not as a removal of dirt,
but as an appeal to God for a good con-
science" (1 Pet 3:21). This seems to be con-
sistent with the idea in Hebrews noted
above that Christ's sacrifice cleanses our
consciences. Such a connection between 1
Peter and Hebrews also helps to connect
the request by the author(s) of Hebrews that
the audience should "Pray for us; we are
sure we have a clear conscience, desiring to
act honorably in all things" (13:18). A clear
conscience should naturally lead to honor-
able actions.
Fifth, Paul uses conscience as part of his
argument in Romans 1-3 about Jews, Gen-
tiles, and the necessity of the Gospel. In
Rom 1:18-2:16, Paul condemns the Gen-
tiles; in Rom 2:17-3:8, he condemns the
Jews. In Rom 3:9-20, he reiterates that all
are condemned; in Rom 3:21-31, he shows
that all are saved through Jesus. For Paul,
the Jews are guilty because they did not
keep the Law, but the Gentiles are guilty
because "what the law requires is written
on their hearts, to which their own con-
science also bears witness; and their con-
flicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps
excuse them on the day when, according to
my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will
judge the secret thoughts of all" (Rom
2:15-16). In other words, the Gentiles are
condemned by their conscience, and not
because they failed to keep the Law of
Moses. The Gentiles do not have the Law,
but they are still guilty. Why? Because they
will be judged by their conscience, which
reflects the Law. In doing this, Paul con-
demns everyone, so that everyone can be
saved. We often do not pause to consider
Paul's logic in these opening chapters of
Romans, but this is a crucial point: Gentiles
are accountable to their conscience, which
is related to and yet distinct from the Law.
Paul is not alone making this type of argu-
ment. We previously mentioned Jewish
interpretations making the Noahide
covenant binding on Gentiles, apart from
the Mosaic Law. Another example that often
goes unnoticed is the sequence of six
prophetic oracles against the nations in
BRETHREN LIFE 8c THOUGHT
Amos 1-2. In these chapters, multiple
charges are leveled against the nations sur-
rounding Israel and Judah, but never are
they accused of violating the Law. Instead,
they are charged with: threshing Gilead
with sledges of iron (Damascus in 1:3);
sending communities into exile and hand-
ing them over to Edom (Gaza in 1:6 and
Tyre in 1:9); not remembering the covenant
of kinship (Tyre in 1:9); pursuing relatives
with the sword and perpetual anger without
pity (Edom in 1:11); ripping open pregnant
women to enlarge their territory (Ammon in
1:13); and burning to lime the bones of the
king of Edom (Moab in 2:1). None of these
foreign nations are said to break the Law or
to violate God's covenant. Instead, they are
charged with what we might term "war
crimes" and "crimes against humanity."
These nations are held accountable to gen-
eral ly accepted moral principles (one does
not do these sort of things, even in war). In
the following verses (2:4-16), in contrast,
Judah and Israel are explicitly charged with
violating the Law, in extended detail. The
prophet Amos agrees with Paul that Jews are
accountable to the Law while Gentiles are
accountable to broader understandings of
right and wrong, which Paul labels "con-
science," drawing on his Hellenistic context
for such a concept.
The final two categories above are oper-
ating behind the logic of the extended dis-
cussion in which Paul invokes the concept
of conscience: the issue of food sacrificed
to idols in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10:14-11:1,
and the related passage in Romans 14.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul addresses many
issues within the congregation, and appar-
ently about which there was significant dis-
agreement and had prompted a letter from
them, to which Paul is now replying (1 Cor
7:1). The phrase first used here ("now con-
cerning") and then repeated in the chapters
that follow as the focus shifts from one issue
to the next (7:1; 7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12)
may suggest that these were the topics to
SPRING 2017
which he responds in writing. One of these
topics was the contentious issue of whether
Christians should or should not eat food
that had been sacrificed to idols.
While the issue seems completely irrele-
vant for most contemporary Christians, it
was one of the most divisive flashpoints in
the first century. Jews had a series of dietary
regulations, restricting and prohibiting
"unclean" animals (Lev 11; Deut 14:3-21).
But this concern went beyond purity laws.
In the ancient world, including the OT, por-
tions of sacrifices were set aside to be eaten
by those making the sacrifice. Eating such
food was considered a means of connecting
with the divinity to whom the animal or
grains were offered. Fundamentally, this
represented communion with the god or
goddess. Often, these portions dedicated to
the deities were sold at a high price in the
marketplace as the best portions of meat. To
be offered sacrificed meat at table from a
host was a great honor, as it was both
expensive and brought those eating togeth-
er into contact with the gods, according to
their worldview. So, the Corinthians won-
dered in all seriousness if eating such food
is communion with other gods, should
Christians participate in this practice? Is this
not a form of idolatry? As good Christians,
should they not refuse to eat food sacrificed
to idols? It would seem that some within the
congregation believed that since there real-
ly only was one God, it meant the other
gods did not exist, so they should be permit-
ted to eat the food (1 Cor 8:4, 7-9). Others
contended that eating food not only rein-
forced the incorrect belief in these deities,
but it also made them "partners with
demons" (1 Cor 10:20). This is not simply
about actions or practices, but about the
beliefs that lie behind them and the reality
that each represents.
Paul takes what may be an unexpected
approach to this issue. I say unexpected
because he is writing this letter only a few
years after the Jerusalem Council recorded
11
 in Acts 15 at which time early Christian
leaders—including Paul—agreed that Gen-
tile Christians need to observe four prohibí-
tions: eating blood, eating strangled ani-
mais, eating food offered to idols, and sex-
ual immorality (porneia).22 Paul could have
simply repeated the decision of this Coun-
52s the Church became
much more Gentile and less
Jewish in composition
rather quickly‫׳‬, many of
these concerns shifted. Paul
certainly helped in pushing
his congregations in that
direction, based on his
priorities as reflected
in his writings.
cil, enforcing the restriction on the Corinthi-
ans. Paul, after all, according to Acts 15,
was present at this decision and agreed with
it. Yet, Paul does not simply repeat that
authoritative decision from the Council.
In fact, a survey of Paul's letters reveals
some interesting points related to these four
stipulations in Acts 15. First, Paul never
mentions the prohibitions about eating
blood and eating strangled animals. Sec-
ond, in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, he argues
for practices that do not follow the prohibí-
tion against eating food sacrificed to idols, a
position that he will repeat in Romans 14.
Third, throughout his letters, Paul does
enforce the fourth prohibition against sexu-
al immorality {porneia). Paul seems to have
ignored two stipulations, challenged one,
and emphasized another. Paul did not sim-
ply repeat the decision of the Jerusalem
Council in Acts 15, but moved the congre-
gâtions that he had connections with in a
direction with a particular understanding of
Christian belief and practice. Paul, in my
opinion, understood the Jerusalem Council
in Acts 15 for what it appears to be: a com-
promise between the extreme group that
wanted to enforce as much of the Law as
possible (especially circumcision)23 and the
extreme group that wanted no restrictions
to be placed at all. The four stipulations rep-
resent a compromise, likely drawing on the
Jewish understanding of the requirements of
the Noahide covenant applying to Gentiles.
As the Church became much more Gentile
and less Jewish in composition rather quick-
ly, many of these concerns shifted. Paul cer-
tainly helped in pushing his congregations
in that direction, based on his priorities as
reflected in his writings.
Instead of repeating the clear stipulations
from Acts 15, Paul explains that since "some
have become so accustomed" to idols, they
understand what they are doing in that light
and cannot eat the food because of a
"weak" conscience (1 Cor 8:7). Paul goes
on to contrast this with the "strong" who
believe they may appropriately eat any-
thing. Yet, Paul desires the strong to defer to
the weak when they are present together, so
as not to offend them. Paul does not say that
the strong should not eat, but only not eat in
the presence of the weak, calling such an
action "sin" in wounding the conscience of
the weak and therefore a "sin against
Christ" (1 Cor 8:12). Therefore, Paul says, he
(who seems to count himself among the
"strong") will never eat meat, so that he will
not cause one of the weak to fall (v. 13).
Paul continues to clarify his position on
this controversial issue in 1 Corinthians
10:14-11:1. Paul commands the Corinthi-
ans to "not seek your own advantage, but
that of the other" (v. 24). The Corinthians
should practice a "don't ask-don't tell" pol-
icy when eating food. When buying it in the
marketplace, do not ask if the food has been
BRETHREN LIFE Sc THOUGHT
sacrificed to the gods. Simply buy and eat
"without raising any question on the ground
of conscience" (v. 25). When invited to a
dinner by an "unbeliever" also eat without
asking questions (v. 27). Paul does not have
an issue with eating food offered idols (that
is, it is not sinful itself), otherwise, he would
have the believer ask about its origins.
However, if the host should make a point of
telling you, "this food was offered to Zeus,
or Aphrodite, or any of the gods," then
refuse to eat it "for the sake of conscience,
not your own, but the other's" (vv. 28-29).
Paul limits Christian freedom when the
actions have meaning to the other person,
in this instance, an unbeliever.
Paul concludes this section with a sum-
mary, "So, whether you eat or drink, or
whatever you do, do everything for the
glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to
Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try
to please everyone in everything I do, not
seeking my own advantage, but that of
many, so that they may be saved. Be imita-
tors of me, as I am of Christ" (10:31-11:1).
Paul has used this seemingly innocuous
action of eating meat to make a point about
Christian witness and action, both within
the Church and to the outside world. While
our conscience may allow us to eat meat
privately (Paul says so), he desires his read-
ers to limit their freedom when interacting
with both believers and unbelievers who
have a different view.
Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10
is consistent and expanded in his remarks in
Romans 14, written a few years after his let-
ter to Corinth.24 Paul begins by noting dis-
agreements in the congregations in Rome.
There are various opinions about whether
Christians may eat anything or should only
eat vegetables. Using the same language and
system about food sacrificed to idols from
1 Corinthians 8 and 10, Paul labels the lat-
ter, more restrictive, group as "weak" (v. 2).
Paul quickly states his position: let those
who eat not despise those who abstain, and
SPRING 2017
let those who abstain not pass judgment on
those who eat (v. 3), "for God has wel-
corned them/' and God alone will judge
(v. 4). But, Paul moves the issue beyond food.
He mentions that "some judge one day to
be better than another, while others judge
all days to be alike" (v. 5). The exact refer-
ent is unclear. It could refer to celebrating
festivals or to when the Sabbath should be
observed or if any "special" days should be
recognized at all by Christians. Whichever
may be intended, Paul applies the same
logic to this issue: all should be done or not
done in honor of God rather than for our-
selves and without judgment of one anoth-
er (vv. 6-12).
Paul continues to press this point, stating
that we should never put a stumbling block
or hindrance in someone else's way (v. 13).
Paul clarifies his own view that all food is
clean, but "it is unclean for anyone who
thinks it unclean" (v. 14).25 This is consistent
with his views in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10.
Instead of injuring one another, Paul in-
structs the Romans that "For the kingdom of
God is not food and drink but righteousness
and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit... Let
us then pursue what makes for peace and
for mutual upbuilding" (Rom 14: 17, 19).
Paul places the community of believers and
relationships with one another ahead of what
we would call individual rights. Instead,
Paul wants individuals to "be fully con-
vinced in their own minds" (v. 5) having
their faith "as your conviction before God"
(v. 22). Christians should embrace and
understand their own views about difficult
issues, but should not go to the extent that
it destroys "the work of God" in making a
"brother or sister stumble" (v. 20-21). As
with 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, Paul con-
eludes, "We who are strong ought to put up
with the failings of the weak, and not to
please ourselves. Each of us must please our
neighbor for the good purpose of building
up the neighbor" (Rom 15:1-2).
I find it important to stress that in both of
13
 these examples Paul does not advocate
splitting into different "camps" with whom
each group could agree. Paul also does not
condemn either group as being inferior
Christians or as being sinful as a result of
their beliefs or actions. Paul recognizes the
validity of each view as a "conviction
0?aul recognizes the validity
of each view as a ‘ conviction
before God” although ho
clearly places himsefwith
the “strong”
before God," although he clearly places
himself with the "strong." In doing this, Paul
affirms these members of the "new
covenant" in Christ who come together, but
who do not have to agree in all matters of
faith and practice.
Conscience in the Bible: Conclusion
and Connection to Covenant-1
In summary, Paul champions an under-
standing of the roles of conscience in the
NT: telling the truth, having a clear con-
science before God and humans, civil obe-
dience and public witness, and affirming
matters of conscience in diverse beliefs and
practices among the early Christian com-
munities. Paul's understanding of con-
science as a means of witness and as a
means of allowing variation in belief and
practice is consistent with his desire for
believers to continue in covenant with one
another in Christ. Relationships—between
people and between God and people—are
affirmed as a priority. Paul understands
exercising conscience as a way of maintain-
ing Christian unity even in the context of
divergent opinions on a range of con-
tentious issues. The OT concept of covenant
and the NT concept of conscience work
together, even in a dynamic tension, as bib-
lical principles for living together in com-
munity.
Conscience in the Bible: Some
Questions and Limits
While one can (and I think should) embrace
the biblical model of Paul's use of con-
science in the midst of community, some
questions could be raised that deserve a re-
sponse. For example: Conscience is clearly
a New Testament principle, but what types
of things are biblically "matters of con-
science"? Are some things not "matters of
conscience"? How do we know when some-
thing is and is not an issue of conscience?
Should we keep covenant in all circum-
stances (obviously, we have not)? When
should we not be in covenant with others?
What are the limits of being in covenant? In
this section, we will attempt to answer some
of these questions by looking again at the
Bible, and especially the NT, in terms of
what beliefs or practices are considered "out
of bounds" for the community of faith and
require separation, indicating that they are
not allowable as "matters of conscience" in
divergent beliefs and practices.
It should be stated that there is no single
list in the NT, either positively or negatively,
of things considered "matters of con-
science" or acceptable practices and
beliefs. Instead, various texts in the NT
identify particular beliefs and practices as
not compatible with Christian faith and
practice.
To begin, we have already reviewed the
primary "matters of conscience" explicitly
named in the NT: food sacrificed to idols
(1 Corinthians 8 and 10), eating any food or
only vegetables (Romans 14), and obser-
vanee of one day over others (Romans 14).
This is a very short list. The question
becomes whether we are only bound to
these precise issues that were once contro-
versial in the context of the first century but
are no longer (at least not in the same way),
BRETHREN LIFE Sc THOUGHT
or if the principles that can be observed in
each situation may still be applied to pres-
ent circumstances with new controversial
topics in our own day. The fact that Paul's
advice in both 1 Corinthians and Romans
seems at odds with the decisions in Acts 15
and even the words and actions of Jesus
about clean food in the Gospels shows that
this is more complicated than one may
assume at first.
The list of beliefs and practices that are
explicitly named as reasons to separate or
even banish individuals from the commun¡-
ty of faith is also surprisingly short. First,
those who claim Christ has returned should
not be believed (Matt 24:11, 23-26 // Mark
13:6, 21-23 // Luke 21:8). Second, those
who profess a deficient Christology, namely
those who deny the humanity of Jesus (that
Jesus "came in the flesh"), are the spirit of
anti-Christ (1 John 2:18-22; 1 John 4:1-3;
2 John 7; possibly 2 Pet 2:1). The earliest
recognized heresy in the NT is that Jesus
was not human, and those who hold such a
view are to be ignored.
Third, Paul specifically states that those
who advocate two things, forbidding mar-
riage and requiring abstinence from foods,
have "seared consciences" and are promot-
ing "teachings of demons" (1 Tim 4:1-5).26
Paul, of course, contends with such teach-
ers against marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 and
his view on abstaining from foods can be
seen in our discussion above. Here, Paul
seems to have lost patience (put nicely) with
those still advocating for food restrictions.
The view of toleration for the "weak" pos¡‫־‬
tion in Romans 14 is now less charitable in
1 Timothy. Those who teach this view, says
the apostle, promote the "teachings of
demons." The "strong" view is now being
affirmed as normative.
Fourth, 1 Corinthians 5 and 6 provide two
lists of individuals whose actions will cause
them to not "inherit the kingdom of God":
fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male pros-
titutes (malakoi), sodomites (arsenokoitai),
SPRING 2017
thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, and
robbers (1 Cor 6:9-10).27 Christians should
not even eat with fellow believers who are
sexually immoral (porneia), greedy, idol-
aters, revilers, drunkards, or robbers (1 Cor
5:9-13). While Paul counsels against asso-
ciating with believers who act in such ways,
The question becomes
whether we are only hound
to these precise issues that
were once controversial
in the context of thefirst
century hut are no longer
(at least not in the same
way)y or if the principles
that can he observed
in each situation may still
he applied to present
circumstances with new
controversial topics
in our own day.
it is only the individual guilty of incest
(sleeping with his father's wife) that Paul sin-
gles out in instructing them to hand "over to
Satan for the destruction of his flesh" (1 Cor
5:1-5). Here, we see a series of specific
actions being denounced, including but not
limited to various sexual sins, and especial-
ly incest. Logically, it would be difficult to
make a case to enforce one or some of the
restrictions named in the list rather than its
entirety—which is complicated in defining
not only certain sexual acts but what const¡-
15
 tutes "greed" and being a "rev¡ 1er."
Fifth, Paul notes that differences and fac-
tions among believers are not always good;
at some unspecified time "those who are
genuine" will become clear (1 Cor
1 1:17-20).28 This warning comes just prior
to Paul's commands about celebrating the
1 would conclude that the
NT seems more concerned
about keeping covenant
and the preservation of the
community than in dfining
the limits offaithfulness
that could arise out offear
from threats of heresy
and corrupt practices.
Lord's supper, which includes the requirement
to "examine yourselves" (v. 28) so as not to
partake in an "unworthy manner" (v. 27).
This fits well with Paul's advice elsewhere
that we should judge ourselves rather than
others, as in Romans 14. Finally, despite
these examples of such exclusionary Ian-
guage, there is still a call to seek restoration
for sinners who stray but who can be
brought back Games 5:19-20; Jude 22-23);
even the infamous man from 1 Corinthians
5 seems to have been restored to the church
at Corinth (2 Cor 2:5-8).
The list of beliefs and practices to be
excluded from the community of faith is
also not extensive. There seems to be room
for diverse practices and beliefs among
Christians in many areas of faith and prac-
tice, and early Church writings in the first
several centuries—including the NT—con-
firm that reality. I would conclude that the
NT seems more concerned about keeping
16
covenant and the preservation of the com-
munity than in defining the limits of faithful-
ness that could arise out of fear from threats
of heresy and corrupt practices. In my opin-
ion, over the centuries, the Church has
focused more on the latter than on the for-
mer, to its own peril, often resulting in a
negative witness to the world.
Conscience in the Church
of the Brethren.,
Moving from the Bible to the history of the
Church of the Brethren, we can see that Breth-
ren have a strong heritage of affirming the im-
portance of conscience while maintaining
unity in covenant together, even in the con-
text of contentious issues. A few examples
from Annual Meeting/Conference statements
illustrate the role of conscience in our past.29
• 1781: Paying the war tax. During the
American Revolution, the question
was raised as to whether Brethren
should pay the war tax, which funded
the army. The response restates the
position that Brethren should not pay
for others to fight in their place in
order to "take no part in war or blood-
shedding" and continues "in order to
avoid offense, we might follow the
example of Christ (Matt. 1 7:24-27),
yet if one does not see it so, and
thinks, perhaps, he for his conscience'
sake could not pay it, but bear with
others who pay, in patience, we
would willingly leave it over, inas-
much we deem the overruling of the
conscience as wrong." [emphasis
mine]30 This clear statement affirming
the importance of individual con-
science is worth noting.
• 1790: Participating in war and taking
oaths. Annual Meeting rejected the
idea that Brethren could fight for the
government or take oaths of alle-
giance, disallowing it as a matter of
conscience. They stated,
BRETHREN LIFE & THOUGHT
 [We must] withdraw ourselves from
every such brother who will justify
swearing of oaths and warfare. It is
impossible for us to break the bread
of communion with such a brother,
even if he would allege that the
powers that be require us to do so.
For our rulers could not do it, if
they would, because we must obey
God more than men...But now,
thanks to God, we have such a gov-
ernment that will not require of us
such contrary to (the dictates of)
our conscience. But if there should
be some one among us that had
such a conscience, that he could
fight and swear oaths, such a one
would not be of us.31
This view would be affirmed in 1932.
• 1948: Position on war. However, this
position on war and conscience was
reversed in the extended statement on
military service after World War II. In-
dividual conscience was invoked as a
reason for conscientious objection to
participation in the government's war.
Brethren also recognized the diversity
of belief concerning war, as a matter
of conscience, while affirming the
church's historical position against war:
Inasmuch as the church believes in
the right of individual conscience,
it recognizes that various positions
on war and military service will be
taken by its members. Some feel
compelled by their Christian con-
viciions to refuse to register with
the government under a draft act.
Some believe it to be their Christian
obligation to render full or limited
military service. Others feel it to be
their Christian duty to register with
the government as conscientious
objectors to military training or
service and to express their willing­
SPRING 2017
ness to engage in constructive civil-
ian service. The church seeks to
maintain a fellowship of all who sin-
cerely follow the guidance of con-
science. It does, however, recom-
mend that as a matter of Christian
conviction and practice, its mem-
bership support the historic position
of the church, namely—nonpartici-
pation in military training and serv-
ice and the war system in general.
The church pledges its full moral
strength and offers spiritual nurture
and a fellowship of prayer and of
material aid to all who struggle and
suffer for a fuller understanding of,
and obedience to the divine will,
[emphasis mine]32
• 1862: Facial hair on men. The con-
cern in the query is not really about
beards and mustaches, but on what
one's facial hair represents in the
midst of the American Civil War—
whether one appears to be in the mili-
tary or promoting war, given the styles
of the day. "How is it considered for
brethren to wear the beard on the
upper lip, they being conscientious in
doing so? If a brother does not shave
any, we would leave it with his con-
science; but if he lets it stand on his
upper lip only, we consider it
wrong."33 So, a beard and mustache
are fine (as a matter of conscience),
but only a mustache is not viewed
positively.
• 1880: The mode of feetwashing.
Which mode of feetwashing is pre-
ferred for Brethren? The response:
"...we cannot condemn either mode
[of Feet-washing] as being invalid.
And inasmuch as former decisions
have failed to settle the question to the
satisfaction of all, we advise more for-
bearance and liberty to the con-
science of our brethren in this matter,
17
 because both have been practiced
among us and the best way to stop the
agitation of this question, is to allow
the same liberty of conscience for our
brethren that we ask for ourselves."34
Notice the appeal to mutual
allowance of conscience for both
(The role of conscience is
meant to allow differences
of opinion while affirming
the importance of
remaining in covenant
relationship; with the goal
positions as a means of promoting
unity and limiting conflict. This advice
would seem to be consistent with
Paul's advice in 1 Corinthians 8 and
10 and Romans 14.
• 1835 and 1875: White members are
being hesitant to offer the holy kiss to
black members. Black members
should be received as members, with
baptism, but the query came asking
about extending the holy kiss—the tra-
ditional sign of receiving someone
into membership (at that time). Prior
to the American Civil War, the
response was: "But inasmuch we
receive our fellow members with the
holy kiss, and there is a repugnance in
some of our white members to salute
colored persons in this manner, the
colored members should bear with
that weakness, and not offer the kiss
to such weak members until they
become stronger, and make the first
offer, etc. Otherwise, if they (the col-
ored members) prove faithful, they
should be considered on an equality
of full membership."35 Four decades
later (ten years after the war), a new
query and response:
Since the Annual Meeting has left it
optional with brethren whether or
not to salute colored brethren with
the holy kiss, designing men are
making capital of it against us. To
obviate this, let the Annual Meeting
reconsider that decision, and say
that we make no difference on
account of race or color; and this
district-meeting asks the Annual
Meeting to make no difference on
account of race or color. Answer:
We grant the request, but should
have regard to the former minutes
of Annual Meetings upon the sub-
ject, and advise the brethren to
bear with one another.36
These statements are difficult to read.
Black members are told to bear with
the "weak" white members who can-
not return the holy kiss until they
become "stronger." Notice the use of
the language of "weak" and "strong,"
as in Paul, and who is who according
to the statement. Forty years later, the
advice is continued forbearance while
seeking to maintain unity.
From these examples over the centuries,37
we see Brethren affirming various beliefs
and practices as matters of conscience, and
reversing positions on controversial topics as
circumstances change, but striving toward
unity in maintaining their covenant togeth-
er—drawing upon the biblical basis and
language for both covenant and conscience
within the community of faith. The role of
conscience is meant to allow differences of
opinion while affirming the importance of
remaining in covenant relationship, with
the goal of Christian unity.
 As stated at the beginning of this article,
the biblical witness demonstrates that the
community of faith exists together through
covenant, while allowing space for matters
of conscience. The affirmation of balance
between the covenant of the community
and the importance of individual con-
science is the faithful heritage of both the
New Testament and the Church of the
Brethren. May we learn from our biblical
foundation and our history as we look to
our future together. ♦
Steven Schweitzer is Academic Dean and Pro-
fessor at Bethany Theological Seminary, where
he teaches courses in Old Testament. He has
published on various biblical topics, especially
the book of Chronicles. Steve has made numer-
ous presentations at Annual Conference, dis-
trict conferences, and other continuing educa-
tion events around the denomination.
(Bibliography
Campbell, W. S. "Covenant and New Covenant,"
in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. G.
Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, and D. G. Reid,
179-83. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1993.
Grant, J. A. "Wisdom and Covenant," in Diction-
ary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry,
and Writings, ed. T. Longman and P. En ns,
858-63. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2008.
Gundry-Volf, J. M. "Conscience," in Dictionary
of Paul and His Letters, ed. G. Hawthorne,
R. P. Martin, and D. G. Reid, 153-56.
Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1993.
Hillers, Delbert. Covenant: The History of a Bib-
Heal Idea. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1969.
Marietta, Don. "Conscience in Greek Stoicism."
Numen 17 (1970): 176-87.
McCartney, D. G. "Conscience," in Dictionary of
the Later New Testament and Its Develop-
ment, ed. R. P. Martin and P. H. Davids,
241-43. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1997.
Newman, C. C. "Covenant, New Covenant," in
Dictionary of the Later New Testament and
Its Development, ed. R. P. Martin and P. H.
Davids, 245-50. Downers Grove, IL: IVP,
1997.
Rata, Tiberius. "Covenant," in Dictionary of the
Old Testament: Prophets, ed. M. Boda and J.
G. McConville, 99-105. Downers Grove, IL:
IVP, 2012.
Roberts, J. J. M. "Davidic Covenant," in Diction-
ary of the Old Testament: Historical Books,
ed. B. T. Arnold and H. G. M. Williamson,
206-10. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2005.
Selby, Gary. "The Meaning and Function of
Συνείδησή [syneidesis] in Hebrews 9 and
10." Restoration Quarterly 28 (1985): 145-54.
Williamson, Paul. "Covenant," in Dictionary of
the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. T. D.
Alexander and D. Baker, 139-55. Downers
Grove, IL: IVP, 2003.

1. This article originated as two Bible studies presented at the beginning of business sessions at the Church
of the Brethren Annual Conference 2015 in Tampa, at the request of the Moderator, David Steele. Earli-
er that year, I had been asked by the Council of District Executives to discuss these two biblical themes
with them in an extended study session at their January meeting. Versions of this presentation have also
been shared at the South/Central Indiana and Michigan District Conferences and with individual con-
gregations. I am thankful for the gracious interactions and questions that have arisen along the way,
which have helped to inform the version published here.
2. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds. ‫ברית״‬.'‫ ׳‬A Hebrew Lexicon of the Old Testa-
ment (Oxford: Clarendon, 1906). Reprint, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1985), 136-37.
3. This example provides a clear contrast with the depiction in the Old Testament of God, who keeps
covenant even when the people break it. God, as the more powerful entity, repeatedly upholds that side
of the covenant, so that God is faithful even when the people are faithless.
4. The provision for deposit and reading in public is especially important in an illiterate society, where the
people need to be reminded of the agreements made between themselves and others. With an extreme-
ly high percentage of an illiterate local population, the public deposit and reading serve as the mecha-
nisms for ongoing recognition of the covenant.
5. In polytheistic cultures, it was common to invoke the gods and goddesses of both sides of the covenant.
The deities were then understood to bring punishment if the covenant was not kept. As the heavens,
earth, mountains, and rivers were believed to be ancient and to last forever (or at least longer than the
lifespan of anyone making the covenant), they were invoked to show the permanence of the agreement.
6. Delbert Hillers, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press,
1969), 29-42 (29).
7. Note the requirements to set up engraved memorial stones (Deut 27:1-8), to read the Law publicly
every seven years at the festival of Booths (Deut 31:9-13), and to put the book of the Law beside the
ark of the covenant as a witness (Deut 31:24-26).

SPRING 2017 19
 8. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture translations are taken from the NRSV.
9. We see a similar remnant of this witness language in the lawsuit imagery used in Micah to express
God's judgment on the people for breaking the covenant: "Rise, plead your case before the mountains,
and let the hills hear your voice. Hear, you mountains, the controversy of the LORD, and you enduring
foundations of the earth; for the LORD has a controversy with his people, and he will contend with
Israel" (Mic 6:1-2). The mountains and the earth are invoked as witness and judge as God brings
charges against the people, consistent with the language used in Deuteronomy.
10. While some interpreters have attempted to see a covenant with Adam at various places in Genesis 1-3,
the word berit is first used in Genesis 6 in connection with Noah.
11. The reference to a covenant with "day and night" in Jer 33:19-22 likely refers to the Noahide covenant.
12. However one deals with the issue of capital punishment, it is worth noting the claim of the passage in
Genesis: human life has value because humans were and are made in God's image.
13. The Hebrew verb here for "bless" occurs in the Niphal stem, which can be appropriately translated
either as passive ("be blessed") or reflexive ("bless themselves"). Either is grammatically correct.
14. The Hebrew phrase for making a covenant is literally "to cut a covenant," which may show some con-
nection to this type of "cutting" ritual. Texts from the ancient cities of Mari and Qatna in ancient Syria,
from around the time of Abraham (ca. 2000 BCE), reflect similar rituals in "cutting" covenants. The
implication may be a warning that the parties will become like the "cut" animals if they fail to keep the
covenant.
15. Rau I capitalizes on this narrative sequence in Genesis in his theological arguments in Gal 3:15-18 and
Rom 4:1-25.
16. The New Testament uses the language from this verse to describe the Church, according to 1 Pet 2:5-9.
The mission of Israel as a witness to the nations is now understood as the mission of the Church.
1 7. In discussions about the redemption of creation or God's concern for all living creatures, this passage in
Hosea 2 should not be missed.
18. For example: Abraham and Abimelech (Gen 21); David and Jonathan (1 Sam 18; 20; 23); David and
Abner (2 Sam 3).
19. For example: Joshua and the people (Josh 24:25); David and Israel (2 Sam 5 // 1 Chr 11); Jehoiada and
the people (2 Kgs 11 // 2 Chr 23); Zedekiah and the people (Jer 34:8); Asa and the people "to seek
God" (2 Chr 15:12); Hezekiah and the people "with God" (2 Chr 29:10); Josiah and the people "to fol-
low the LORD" (2 Kgs 23:3 // 2 Chr 34:30-32).
20. Hebrews seems largely unconcerned with the earlier Noahide and Abrahamic covenants, instead focus-
ing almost exclusively on the sacrificial system of the Mosaic covenant, with the exception of
Melchizedek's priesthood that plays an important role in the book's argument.
21. Annual Conference of the Church of the Brethren, "Biblical Inspiration and Authority," (1979). Accessed
January 5, 2017. http://www.brethren.org/ac/statements/1979biblicalinspirationauthority.html.
22. While Pauline chronology is complicated, the events in Acts 15 must have transpired before Paul writes
1 Corinthians, given the relative timeline of his journeys. The Jerusalem Council is traditionally dated to
49 CE, while Paul is believed to have written 1 Corinthians approximately 51-55 CE; see L. Alexander,
"Chronology of Paul," in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. G. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, and D. G.
Reid (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1993), 115-23.
23. As we noted earlier, the Law in Genesis 17 states that all the males of Abraham's household, including
his slaves (who are not necessarily of his bloodline), must be circumcised as a sign of the covenant, or
they will be "cut off" from the people for "breaking God's covenant" (17:9-14). This text seems quite
clear about the requirement of circumcision for inclusion in God's people. However, the Jerusalem
Council did not enforce Genesis 1 7 in light of what they could see God doing among the Gentiles
(Acts 15).
24. J. Dunn, "Romans, Letter to the," in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. G. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin,
and D. G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1993), 838-50.
25. In addition to the stipulations enforced by the Jerusalem Council, it is interesting that Paul also does not
cite Jesus' actions and words about eating any food and the Gospel writers' explicit point to clarify its
meaning (Mark 7:14-23 // Matt 15:10-20) or Peter's vision of sheet of unclean animals (Acts 10), which
also affirms all food as clean and the "cleanness" (acceptability) of the Gentiles. There is certainly a tra-
dition that goes back to Jesus on this issue of eating food, but Paul does not reflect it in his writings.
26. This assumes Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy and its composition subsequent to Romans. If Paul is not
the author, the contrast between 1 Timothy 4 and Romans 14 still remains.
27. Note the list includes a variety of sins, not only those sexual in nature. As is well known, the precise
meanings and connotations of the two Greek words connected with homosexual practices in this verse
are intensely debated, and I will not address the interpretative issues here.
28. There may be an allusion to Jesus' "Parable of the Sheep and Goats" (Matt 25:31-46), in which some
who believe they are followers of Christ are excluded because they did not act toward others in com-

20 BRETHREN LIFE 8c THOUGHT

 passionate ways; this group is ultimately shown to be disingenuous, but only in a final judgment scene
in the future Kingdom of God.
29. Special thanks to Denise Kettering-Lane, associate professor of Brethren Studies at Bethany Theological
Seminary, for her assistance in finding and understanding these examples from Annual Meeting/Confer-
ence statements.
30. General Mission Board, Minutes of the Annual Meetings of the Church of the Brethren: Containing All
Available from 1778 to 1909 (Elgin, IL: Brethren Publishing House, 1909), 7.
31. Minutes of the Annual Meetings, 14.
32. Minutes of the 162nd Recorded Annual Conference of the Church of the Brethren (Elgin, IL: Brethren
Publishing House, 1948), 63.
33. Minutes of the Annual Meetings, 207.
34. Minutes of the Annual Meetings, 383.
35. Minutes of the Annual Meetings, 60.
36. Minutes of the Annual Meetings, 327-28.
37. These are a few of the more interesting examples of conscience in Annual Conference statements; there
are other occurrences. In doing research, I noticed that recent ‫״‬major" statements do not explicitly use
the term "conscience"; for example: Biblical Inspiration and Authority, 1979; Human Sexuality from a
Christian Perspective, 1983; The New Testament as Our Rule of Faith and Practice, 1998; Congregation-
al Disagreement with Annual Conference Decisions, 2004; Doing Church Business, 2007; Resolution
Urging Forbearance, 2008; Vision Statement, 2012; Revision of Special Response Process, 2014.
However, throughout these statements, a commitment to continue together in covenant is strong
and consistent, as illustrated by one that explicitly cites Romans 14: "that we commit ourselves to for-
bearance which recognizes and respects differences of opinion and differing degrees of spiritual insight.
We will show deference in disputable matters (Romans 14:1) while practicing prayerful study and con-
versation in core beliefs" (Annual Conference Statement, Resolution Urging Forbearance, 2008). Why
this language of conscience seems to have dropped out of use in such Church of the Brethren Annual
Conference statements in recent decades is worthy of its own study.

SPRING 2017 21
 License and Permissible Use Notice

These materials are provided to you by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) in
accordance with the terms of ATLA's agreements with the copyright holder or authorized distributor of
the materials, as applicable. In some cases, ATLA may be the copyright holder of these materials.

You may download, print, and share these materials for your individual use as may be permitted by the
applicable agreements among the copyright holder, distributors, licensors, licensees, and users of these
materials (including, for example, any agreements entered into by the institution or other organization
from which you obtained these materials) and in accordance with the fair use principles of United States
and international copyright and other applicable laws. You may not, for example, copy or email these
materials to multiple web sites or publicly post, distribute for commercial purposes, modify, or create
derivative works of these materials without the copyright holder's express prior written permission.

Please contact the copyright holder if you would like to request permission to use these materials, or
any part of these materials, in any manner or for any use not permitted by the agreements described
above or the fair use provisions of United States and international copyright and other applicable laws.
For information regarding the identity of the copyright holder, refer to the copyright information in
these materials, if available, or contact ATLA at products@atla.com.

Except as otherwise specified, Copyright © 2016 American Theological Library Association.