PaulThomson said:
Bilateral. The text does not say whether they are conditional or not.
Rufus said:
Which logically means unilateral/unconditional. God is sovereignly decreeing what he will do under the terms of the covenant. There are no conditions nor any record of Israel or anyone else agreeing to obey the terms of NC, which differs greatly from the OC since there are plenty of "IF"'s stipulated throughout the covenant plus Israel agreed multiple time to abide by its terms.
PT reply:
No that is not the logical meaning. If the text does not indicate whether a covenant is conditional or not, it is not logical to infer it must be unconditional.
You might want to acquaint yourself with the logical fallacy known as an Argument From Silence. So, yes, to assume that silence means bilateral/conditional would be quite illogical. There's no sound reason to not take the passages I referred to earlier at face value. As stated earlier, if you want to see a conditional covenant, look no further than to the Old. There's an abundance of evidience.