So I started reading The Christ of the Covenants, by O. Palmer Robertson last night, and within the first three pages of this well-respected classic, Robertson says right out what seems to be disputed and rejected as Federal Vision error these days:
"The contextual usage of the term ["covenant"] in Scripture points consistently to the concept of a 'bond,' or 'relationship.'" (page 5)
And in the footnote: "While the divine covenants invariably involve obligations, their ultimate purpose reaches beyond the guaranteed discharge of a duty. Instead, it is the personal interrelation of God with His people that is at the heart of the covenant."
I'm not denying the role of structure in covenant relationship, but want to keep it in its proper place. The structure is there to serve the purpose of making peace between people: between God and man. There is a way to so overemphasize the obligations and duties that it perversely gets in the way of relationship.