The Federal Vision speaks of covenants as covenants which form relationships. One might say “doh” but what kind of relationship.

FV says it is all about relationship. Marriage is the dominant relationship in scripture. Therefore, ANE background is argued to be irrelevant. God loves us and we love God. Mutual love. But relationships in the ANE did not give the woman a choice. The dad said “you will marry him.” The husband is then Lord. This is not to say that there is no love in the ANE marriage, but it is not a marriage based on equal grounds of choice as we experience today.

Deuteronomy a treaty-like document.

via Paul Gardner on covenant theology (part 1) | Transforming Grace.

Well, first of all, Jim Jordan and I and Jeff Meyers and virtually everyone else have taught Kline’s structural ideas about Deuteronomy and the five-fold sequence. This is not an accurate description of anything.

But about marriage:

They said, “Let us call the young woman and ask her.” And they called Rebekah and said to her, “Will you go with this man?” She said, “I will go.” So they sent away Rebekah their sister and her nurse, and Abraham’s servant and his men.

I don’t see anywhere that the father simply decides for the girl. Women may have been sensible enough to think more about the gold the guy could give than what he looked like (Wise, wise Rebekah!). But still. I don’t see it.

And again, what does it matter? The point of the marriage analogy is the relationship, not how it started. FV people typically believe in infant baptism. They don’t see covenant as a relationship you voluntarily enter, just one you voluntarily enjoy and continue in.