@Victor_Emmanuel @SuperLutheran >They are less so. An even lesser version would be slavery.
Ok.. this is just simply not the normal definition of transaction. So it sounds like we're just using different definitions of the word and don't particularly disagree.
>If a transaction was merely an agreement then there would be nothing distinguishing it from a covenant
Sure there would. A covenant is merely an agreement. A transaction require each side provide something, a covenant can be transactional, or it can require something from only one side. Or from neither. An armistice would be an example of the latter.