In 2 Samuel 21 and Exodus 32-34 we find two examples of Broken Covenants being restored. Viewing the TOW as a covenant between the Tangata Whel1Ua (Maori) and Tauiwi (non-Maori) as a broken covenant, it is in the scriptures that we best find how to restore the Treaty.

A lot of talking is done on the concept of partnership that the TOW intends between Maori and Tauiwi. While this concept of partnership is exciting and encouraging, we must first make restitution if reconciliation partnership is to happen. I will not go into the different abuses and injustices Maori have put up with since 1840, as they are well chronicled and discussed elsewhere, except to say that no thinking person would dispute that these have occurred. The question on everyone's mind is how best to face the future with the history we have.

In 2 Samuel 21 we read how Israel faced a famine and David sought the Lord as to the cause. "It is on account of Saul and his blood-stained house, it is because he put the Gibeonites to death" (vs 1). In Joshua 9 we read how Israel made a 'Treaty of Peace with the Gibeonites' (vs 15). This treaty is the one Saul had broken by invading the Gibeonites and therefore broke the covenant. It is this that had angered the Lord.

David chose to restore the covenant with the Gibeonites in vs 3 by saying "What shall I do for you? How shall I make amends so that you will bless the Lords inheritance". In this statement we find how we, the Tauiwi, can have the covenant (TOW) restored (restitution) which will then enable us to work in partnership with Maori. We must say to Maori "How shall we make

amends so that you will bless the Tauiwi?"

In stating this there are 5 main arguments given by Tauiwi that we must address before seeking restoration of the TOW:

1. 'I didn't sign the Treaty and it was over 150 years ago so let's leave it behind'. David had not signed the treaty either and it was made several hundred years before he was born. In fact the treaty had been made in disobedience to God as the Israelites were commanded to drive them out, and the Gibeonites had been deceptive in getting Israel to agree. Even with this history to that treaty God saw it as a covenant that stood, was valid, and was as binding to David as it was to Joshua when he made it. Time does not negate a covenant unless both parties agree to end it or a time limit is put on the covenant when made. Neither of these are true with the TOW. Although we today did not sign the TOW, nor that it was made over 150 years ago changes the fact that it is as valid today as it

was in 1840. We cannot leave it in the past as God sees it coming into the future with us.

            2. 'I didn't break it so why should 1 pay the restitution'.

Neither did David! His predecessor, Saul, had broken it and Saul had ended up an Evil King in disobedience to God. A Covenant, however, is binding through the ages. The fact that David had not been the offending party did not excuse him from having to pay restitution. Saul represented the half of the treaty that David also represented.

            3. 'Aren't we all one people today and the Treaty separates us?'

The Gibeonites had lived in relative harmony with the Israelites for hundreds of years, presumably trading, traveling, living with, and even marrying Israelites. This harmony did not, however, stop the Gibeonites being Gibeonites. The concept of 'one people' does not take away from the concept of distinct identities. To be a New Zealander does not mean that one stops being Maori. As long as Maori choose to define themselves as Maori (and may they always do so) they are Maori. We should rejoice in our distinct cultures and characteristics and not see this distinctness as 'separateness'. In matters of faith and Christianity the title of Lloyd Martins book 'One Faith, Two People' best sums up how we should view the situation.

        4. 'But won't the Maori want too much?'

An interesting point on this is that we assume the worst (perhaps a reflection of our own hearts and minds) and yet right through history the price asked by offended groups has been far less than it could have been. Personally, I think we can trust Maori to be fair and honest. Remember they have never broken the treaty. Many of the so-called outrage­ous claims made are a reaction to the power we insist on holding on to. When the final decision is theirs I believe many fears will be put to rest. The price is not negotiated by both parties but stated by the offended party.

5. 'Where does this leave us? Will this go on forever?'

Once a covenant is restored both parties are then able to live within its terms. Maori and Tauiwi will be able to do work together in partnership once things are restored. The pain involved in the restoration will be quickly made up in the reconciliation and the future partnership. Maori will move out of the grievance mode and Tauiwi will be able to stop being defensive and threatened. The dream of 'One New Zealand' can begin to be realized.