This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disambiguation This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles Law High‑importance This page is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles High This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ihcoyc, the religious info regarding Covenant wasn't "inexplicably deleted" — it was moved to its own page at covenant (theological term). Your restore has removed all references to the new disambiguation page, all pages linked from that disambiguation page that were not mentioned in the original article, and all edits to the new theological-term page since the split. The split happened because there were simply too many senses being referred to at once; if you came to the link from another article expecting to find the theological info, the proper thing to do was correct the inbound links — and not to revert. I'm reverting your revert. - Korpios 17:34, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Update — actually, it was Stevertigo's fault in removing the link to the disambiguation page. Sorry to blame you for that part, but the page still needs to be reverted. - Korpios 17:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I gathered that something of the sort had happened, but I couldn't figure out what it was from the history or the comments, so it struck me as odd. No problem; I just didn't want there not to be a page on the theology part. Smerdis of Tlön 18:26, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Understandable; again, sorry to blame you, but I at first couldn't understand why you did what you did, until I went back through the revisions one-by-one and realized that you were seeing a page without the {alternateuses} link. - Korpios 18:45, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would like to put up a request to clean up the covenant page and the covenant disambiguation page by merging them and shortening the descriptions that accompany newly merged page. Since i am new, I hesitate to add the /attention/ flag at the top of the directly linking covenant page

adendum to previous post Ramius V. Schweitzer 21:48, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Aren't there also a few of the Southern US states that have created a second type of marriage called a covenant marriage? A quick Google search find that there are currently three states (Arkansas, Arizona and Louisiana) that currently have covenant marriage laws, and a few other states where they have been proposed. There is also non-governmental movement for a form of covenant marriage. (see [1]) [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 12:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What categories should this article be under? --Randolph 00:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it should stay as is

Can someone find a referance for Covenant, as a hate group? Gflores^Talk 00:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The Covenant" shouldn't automatically forward to the Halo article. The 2006 movie generates far more hits on Google and is more widely-known in general.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.35.125.183 (talk • contribs) .

You do have to consider that Halo has been around a lot longer than the film.--Drat (Talk) 11:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The definition of covenant listed here is fundamentally flawed. Covenant relationships are most definitely two-way and are essentially contracts. Both parties must agree to the terms of the covenant and be willing participants. What makes covenantial relationships different from others is that they are unbreakable. Many covenants were "to the death" in that the parties entering into covenant agreed that they would rather die than forsake the terms of the covenant. Today, we see a growth in what's called Covenant Marriages (very much a two-way relationship) where the parties agree to make their vows intentially hard to break. Both parties are most definitely bound by the terms of the covenant.

Biblically, the word covenant comes from the Hebrew word "Berith". The greek word is "diatheke". It was the translation of "diatheke" as "testament" instead of covenant (I believe it was in the King James Verson of the Bible) that has caused many to believe that this is much like a "Last Will and Testament" or a one-way agreement. Most translations today, correctly translate this word as "covenant" giving it an intirely different (and appropriate) conotation from testament.

I can go on since I find this subject fascinating, butt for now, let's update the definition to reflect correctly that covenant is two-way and is unique among other contracts in that it was binding.--Taratime 02:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I changed "a covenant can also be made could also refer to the unconditional promises made to humanity by God" to "covenants have been made by God with humanity". Heptazane 20:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current definition of covenant is just flat-out wrong. This one-way idea is just bogus. It's been a year and a half, and still no one defends it. I'm changing it within the next few days.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 12:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am trying to move the covenants legal section to an article covenant that can keep all the info in one place. I removed most of the information from this page seems it seems to be a random mishmosh of specific legal covenants, but got an automatic reversion. Not enterirely sure why? This information seems a little rough. I have also added covenant to the disambiguation page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontheinternets (talk • contribs) 17:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should probably create a separate link for covenant theology, as a specific hermeneutical framework for interpreting the Bible, particularly popular among Presbyterians and other Reformed.

Should also probably create a separate link for the concept of covenant expressed in such documents as the Solemn League and Covenant, and for the concept of covenant in Judaism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edonovan (talk • contribs) 01:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I see that almost 10 months later a dubious definition of religious covenant is still in place. Every text I've read does not limit the meaning the way this article does. 24.6.65.83 23:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. The definition of religious covenant is also wrong. I'm changing it within the next few days, too.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 12:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should we also put that into "law and government" section somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagy (talk • contribs) 14:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The basic definition of covenant is disputed on its talk page. When that is resolved, this one-liner definition should be updated, if required. Mark Hurd (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this page should be split. It currently discusses three largely distinct topics:

• Covenants, as a religious concept
• Covenants, as a legal concept
• Covenants, as a historical term for "treaty" or "agreement"

The only thing these three have in common is the dictionary definition of "covenant".

I would propose:

• The section on in a religious context can be moved to Covenant (biblical). The concept has a broader religious application than the Bible alone, since this article talks about its presence in Islam and Indo-Iranian religions such as Zoroastrianism, and it also exists in Bahaism (see Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh). But maybe we can cater for that still in one article, by renaming Covenant (biblical) to e.g. Covenant (religion)? Or else, a separate Covenant (religion) for the transreligious aspects, and then the specifically Judaeo-Christian in Covenant (biblical)? But, since this concept is much more important in Judaism and Christianity than in other religions, there is inevitably going to be much more meat in Covenant (biblical) than any Covenant (religion), so that argues for having just one article
• We already have Covenant (law), I don't see why the legal content of this page can't be merged into that
• There's not much more to Covenant in history than there is to Covenant (disambiguation). Maybe this content could just be moved to this page?
• Finally, redirect this page to Covenant (disambiguation).

What do people think? --SJK (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, no one else responded, so I went ahead and did it. I have split the article into Covenant (law), Covenant (religion), and Covenant (historical). I am not sure if the later two articles really should exist - maybe Covenant (religion) should merge with Covenant (biblical), and Covenant (historical) could just go away? But anyway, I have kept them for now. --SJK (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are now 400+ deleted edits for this page. I was going to just merge them into the history of the disambiguation page, but I'm not sure if that would create a bigger mess. Anyone have more experience with the results of a split like the one done here? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are they deleted? I see that some of my edits (the second and third paragraphs that I added at covenant (law)) are no longer reflected in this history, and I don't really like that. They should be restored to this page's history. 15:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Should this page not instead be considering the religous sense of the word, and also have a disambiguation page linked at the beginning of the page? This instead of merely having an actual article as a disimbiguation page. Pastaguy12 (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]