Israelite Covenants Understood in the Light of Ancient Near East Covenants (Part 1 of 2)

By René A. López

[Doctoral Candidate, Dallas Theological Seminary]

Introduction

Everyone involved in Old and New Testament[1] studies is well aware that “the Bible in Christian tradition rests on the religious conception that the relationship between God and man is established by a covenant.”[2] Walther Eichrodt’s Old Testament volume points this out by emphasizing how the theme of covenant is the center in biblical studies.[3] He has not gone without criticism.[4] Nevertheless, even if his work has often been criticized as perhaps being too narrow in scope by stressing the center of covenant in Old Testament studies, “it is now generally admitted that his emphasis is not at all out of step with the Ancient Near Eastern world.”[5] William F. Albright admits his failure in his second edition of From the Stone Age to Christianity, “To recognize that the concept of ‘covenant’ dominates the entire religious life of Israel to such an extent that W. Eichrodt’s apparently extreme position is fully justified.”[6] Covenant is indeed the thread that binds the relationship between God and man, especially Israel.[7]

However, skepticism has been on the rise ever since the enlightenment period stemming from the Renaissance. These periods produced “humanistic studies that questioned the authority of the church and its traditions.”[8] This type of skepticism gave birth to modern higher criticism—which has questioned since its start the historical origin of the Israelite covenants. Julius Wellhausen, a well-known “high priest of the JEDP movement,”[9] postulated and maintained that the Old Testament religious concepts and covenants were formulated around the eighth and seventh century.[10] Along with Wellhausen, numerous other scholars have argued for the Documentary Hypothesis[11] to the detrimental conclusion of rejecting Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Popular notions suggest how one cannot be sure of an accurate interpretation because of the gap that exists between the writers of the Old Testament and today’s culture. Thus, it may be true in some cases that biblical exegesis (interpretation) becomes complicated based on scant historical information from a period,[12] but this may be the exception rather than the rule.

How should one answer such threats posed by learned individuals? The intent of this paper is not to be a polemic against liberal theologians, or an apologetic defense for conservative theologians. However, in the development of the thesis, ample evidence will appear to question the premise used by liberal scholarship that causes them to derive an evolutionary theory of the Old Testament corpus, and how God used contemporary means to communicate His divine plan so that misunderstanding would be minimized. This will take place by postulating the following thesis: Israelite covenants were patterned after ancient Near East covenants so that a proper meaning and relevance of the covenants can be understood in their context and today’s context.

Israelite Covenants in the Context of the Ancient Near East

Many discoveries have been made in the area of biblical archaeology. This has shed tremendous light on our understanding of Scripture. In addition, it has also contributed in the area of biblical criticism, “Not in the area of inspiration or revelation, but in historical accuracy and trustworthiness about the events that are recorded.”[13] Skepticism concerning the accuracy of the biblical period has subsided since the 1900s. To this subject, Albright correctly said that, “Archaeological discoveries since 1925 have changed all this [skepticism of the patriarchal period]. Aside from a few die-hards among older scholars, there is scarcely a single biblical historian who has not been impressed by the rapid accumulation of data supporting the substantial historicity of patriarchal tradition.”[14]

One of these archaeological discoveries revolutionized contemporary scholarship’s understanding of Old Testament covenants. Such discoveries showed how Israel’s covenants were patterned after ancient Near East covenants.[15] In fact, the Hittites,[16] one of the great powers confronting early Israel, was once held to be “a myth,” an “unreliable” historical account.[17] However, discoveries have proven skeptics wrong.[18] The Hittites have now become a truism since the mass discoveries.

As a result of the Hittite findings, one can now understand the elements involved within the major covenants that God made with Israel[19] (i.e., Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic Covenants). Due to today’s overwhelming evidence, most scholars believe that Israel’s covenants were patterned after the ancient Near East covenants.

The Meaning of Covenant

Before discussing the different types of covenants from the ancient Near East that are found in Scripture, their historical implications, and their meaning and relevance, one must determine the meaning of “covenant.” To establish its meaning, the foundation, form, and function of בירת and related terms will be developed in this section.[20]

The foundation of ברית

Because there are no crystal clear definitions of בירת provided in history,[21] discovering its root meaning has brought numerous explanations.[22] Various scholars, like Nathanael Schmidt, believe the origin and primary meaning to be “fetter,” which then took on the sense of “‘binding ordinance,’ ‘sentence’” in a judicial sense.[23] Close to Schmidt, Mendenhall, although admitting “the etymology of the term is uncertain,” asserts that most have accepted the “derivation from Akkadian birîtu, ‘fetter,’ or a cognate root.”[24] Moshe Weinfeld surveys ancient Near Eastern literature, the Septuagint equivalent διαθήκη of ברית, and concludes that the Hebrew term ברית, like her neighbors, also means “bond.”[25]

Yet, others have derived the meaning of בירת (covenant) from the root כָּרַת (to cut) and give weight to the sacrifice performed in a ceremony and derive the meaning of “to cut a covenant.”[26] While maintaining the definition “to cut a covenant,” others assert that eating a meal, not just a sacrificial ceremony, is the Old Testament emphasis.[27] F. Charles Fensham also believed that in using “part of the sacral animal for a communal meal” the parties making the covenant would then add a “tangible” aspect to the covenant.[28]

Analogous to Fensham’s point, when Jesus instituted the New Covenant (Luke 22:19–20) with a meal and the symbolic elements by eating the bread (His body) and by drinking the wine (His blood), perhaps He was only following an ancient Near Eastern pattern.[29] That is, after covenant ratification (Christ’s death on the cross), those entering covenant would solidify the pact by eating the sacrificial offering as a meal (Christ’s body and blood represented by the elements). The nature of this act would imply entering and continuing into a bond of fellowship.[30]

As seen above, the origins of בירת are not clear, and locating a unanimous consensus among scholars as to its origin leads to an impasse. However, what does seem to be clear is that generally most scholars agree that בירת “came to signify a binding agreement between two parties”[31] at the very foundation of its meaning.

The Form of ברית

Usually one can speak of one basic form (i.e., a sole pattern) of בירת, although there are numerous nuances to this covenant form found in the ancient Near East.[32] Some have strongly argued for disunity in form between Assyrian treaties of the first millennium and the Hittite treaties of the second millennium BC.[33] However, others have argued for the unity.[34] Although diverse nuances are evident between Hittite and Assyrian treaty forms, besides the large gap of time separating both treaties, first millennium treaty forms seemed to have continued the Hittite treaty tradition.[35] Thus, as Rogers points out, “both Baltzer and McCarthy” acknowledge that one can “rightly speak of a set ‘form’ which was used in the ancient world.”[36] However, in spite of the differences that exist between Assyrian, Syrian, and Hittite treaties,[37] McCarthy acknowledges one form. He says, “… I believe, that in spite of more or less significant variations in the different manifestations of the treaty there was in fact one treaty form which was used for international agreements throughout most of the history of the pre-Hellenic near east.”[38]

Within this one form, there are six parts[39] that are generally agreed upon by most today which make up the one basic pattern of the ancient Near East. Korosec was the first to submit the following original six elements,[40] of course “with minor variations”:[41] (1) The preamble or “introduction of the speaker,”[42] (2) historical prologue, (3) stipulations, (4) the document[43] (5), the gods as witnesses, and (6) curses and blessings.

Another issue that should be addressed is whether “covenant” and “contract” are synonymous terms so far as their formatting is concerned. Gene M. Tucker has done an excellent job in his article, “Covenant Forms and Contract Forms,” by showing distinctions between the Old Testament covenant/oath forms and secular contract forms.[44] Some have used “covenant” and “contract” synonymously.[45] He criticizes McCarthy for not distinguishing between covenant and contract.[46] McCarthy since then has revised Treaty and Covenant, and now agrees with Tucker and says, “… Covenant is not a contract, it is a pledge, personal commitment.”[47]

Tucker defends his thesis by first showing how in the Old Testament and ancient Near Eastern texts the term for “covenant” can also be called “oath.”[48] Second, since the terms “covenant” and “oath” parallel each other, so their structure forms parallel each other.[49] Third, by examining ancient Near East Akkadian, Aramaic papyri from Elephantine, Old-Babylonian, and Old Testament contract documents and their perspective features, five elements surface. These are the essential elements to all contracts: (1) the names of both parties, (2) the descriptive transaction, (3) the specification of property in case of transfer, (4) the witnesses to the transaction, and (5) the date of the contract transaction.[50]

McCarthy lists four elements and leaves out the third element in Tucker’s list.[51] Fourth, although Tucker recognizes the difficulty in trying to reconstruct a contract from the Old Testament because of the lack of evidence,[52] he cites Jeremiah 32:10–12; Genesis 23; Ruth 4:9–11; 2 Samuel 24:18–25; 1 Chronicles 21:18–27. Concerning these passages he says, “This evidence occurs in the form of allusions to contracts as assorted examples of various parts of the contract scattered throughout the OT.” He concludes by naming the differences between covenant and contract.[53]

The “fundamental differences” section is where the crux of the issue lies. First, “covenant” and “contract” differ in their formulas. Covenant is based on an oath pattern, but a contract is not. Second, the covenant formula was observed by a conditional self-curse and did not require witnesses that would be essential in court matters. Conversely, contracts were not made by an oath, but by a document or oral agreement with witnesses, Tucker concludes.

Clearly, Tucker exhibits well the different nuances that exist between covenant and contract, and there are unique elements to both. However, he may be overstating the case. The first objection comes by way of a definition. Covenant is parallel to oath—and many times is used in place of covenant (488–90). Then, if covenant-oath means “a binding agreement between two parties,”[54] then how can this be much different than the basis in which a contract is established, since a contract by definition is “an agreement between two or more persons or parties to do or not to do something?”[55] All the biblical references that Tucker cites have either two or more people involved in binding themselves to an agreement, which is exactly what appears in the ancient Near East contracts cited by Tucker.

Thus, if part of defining a word is through usage, it seems he has failed to show a difference in meaning due to the same basic use both terms share. McCarthy recognizes the error in making such a sharp distinction at the core in defining covenant and contract. He says, “Of course, a treaty or a covenant must always be a contract in the generic sense of ‘a binding agreement between two or more parties.’”[56] Hesitantly, it seems, Tucker must agree as he says at the end of his article, “Covenants and contracts thus have little in common beyond the very general fact that both are agreements.”[57]

The second objection comes by way of form. Tucker takes issue with making an oath part of Old Testament sale contracts. However, if oaths are parallels or can at times be synonymous to covenant, how is that different from an “oral agreement,” which is a contract? Just as an oath is binding in a sale (Gen. 25:29–34), oral agreements are also binding.[58] Tucker sees oath as an essential part of a covenant that actually sealed it, but not in a contract. He says, “When parties swore in concluding a contract their oath supported a secondary clause of future non-interference; this oath was not intended to validate the contract itself.”[59]

At this point, the question is raised, “What if one of the parties does not want to swear?” Would the contract still be operative? If not, then swearing in that case must be as a signature is to a legal contract - conclusive. Therefore, swearing is what seals a contract, and swearing is defined by Tucker himself as being a “promise with an oath” (491) that is essential to a covenant, would not this be also essential, in this case, to a contract? It seems that there are more similarities than differences. Furthermore, to state that an oath is essential to the form of a covenant and not to a contract, because not all contracts have oaths, it may only show that some “sale” contracts did not need it. However, since some did have it, the burden of proof to show that covenants and contracts are so much different is on Tucker.

Tucker agrees that the “closest parallel between the contract formulae and the covenant forms is the similarities between the witnesses formulae in the former and calling of God as witness in the latter.”[60]

Different nuances in form do exist between covenants and contracts like the names, operative part, and date. However, as contracts have names and dates, it seems that the prologue and the historical section of a covenant seem to have this common form also in a broad sense. The Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants all mention the names of both parties of the covenant (Gen. 12:1–3; 15:1–18; Exod. 19:1–10; 2 Sam. 7:8–18) and date either of present establishment or future fulfillment (Exod. 19:1; 2 Sam. 7:8–18; 2 Kgs. 11:4; 17:1). However, there are no exact parallels, but the similarities are there.

The pendulum has swung too far in stressing the distinctions at the cost of overlooking the similarities. The way it stands now, it seems that there are more similarities in form between a covenant and a contract than differences.

The Function of ברית and Related Terms

How בירת functions in the Bible becomes somewhat complex as one surveys the biblical data:[61] When used between men, it could mean “treaty” (as with Jacob and Laban in Gen. 31:44), “constitution” between official and subject (as with David and Abner in 2 Sam. 3:12, 13, 21), “pledge” (as with Jehoiada and captains in 2 Kgs. 11:4), “alliance of friendship” (as with David and Jonathan in 1 Sam. 18:3), “alliance of marriage” (as in Mal. 2:14). When used between God and man, it could mean “alliance of friendship” (as in Ps. 25:14), “covenant, as a divine constitution or ordinance with signs or pledges” (as in Gen. 9:9–17; Exod. 19:5).[62] Also there are cases where God makes a בירת with stones, beast of the field (Job 5:23), Leviathan (40:28), and Isaiah even speaks of a בירת with death.[63]

The term בירת occurs 289 times,[64] but both Mendenhall and Paul Kalluveettil recognize that even where the word does not appear the covenant concept may be present.[65] Kalluveettil has demonstrated in his dissertation (turned book) how ancient Near East terms employ synonyms in place of where the technical word for treaty is expected.

In the ancient Near East context, there are numerous of other related terms to covenant that evolved to actually stand for treaty[66] by employing another principle of called synecdoche (i.e., a part of an element comes to stand for the whole). On the same lines, the Old Testament also used other related terms for בירת that came to stand for treaty which are closely paralleled with ancient Near East texts. Again, Kalluveettil’s superb analysis need not be repeated here.

However, one brief example taken from one of Kalluveettil’s four exhaustive categories of all Old Testament synonymous terms[67] will serve to show how related terms for בירת also “evolved on the same lines as the ANE terms for treaty.”

One term that stands for בירת is חָזַק כָּנָף, which can be translated “to take hold of the robe.”[68] This phrase appears twice in the Old Testament (1 Sam. 15:27, Zech. 8:23). In Zechariah 8:23, Gentile men began to make covenants by taking “firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe” (NIV), because their privileged position given by God would assure a safe pilgrimage to Jerusalem.[69]

So can there be a common denominator that defines “covenant” which everyone can agree upon? Moshe Weinfeld says the word “covenant” in the ancient Near East has four essential elements involved in its meaning, “oath and commitment” and “grace and friendship.”[70] These sets of expressions are hendiadys.[71] Weinfeld recognizes how ambiguous these sets of hendiadys can be, so he clarifies by saying, “This terminology may be easily explained by the fact that any settlement between to parties must be based on: (1) some kind of mutual understanding which enables the conclusion of an agreement, (2) a pledge or formal commitment to keep the agreement.”[72]

Finally, after examining the foundation, form, and function of בירת and its related terms in search for the meaning of “covenant,” there are three elements that one can safely conclude delineates a covenant: “(1) an agreement which binds the two together; (2) the form or component parts of the agreement; (3) the concluding ceremony.”[73]

Two Types of Covenants in Israel and the Ancient Near East

There are two types of covenants exhibited in the ancient Near East which parallel the Israelite covenants in the Old Testament.[74] Promissory and obligatory are the names of these two types of covenants.

Weinfeld acknowledges that these two ancient Near East covenants are indeed reflective of two types of covenants found in the Old Testament: “The obligatory type reflected in the Covenant of God with Israel [that could also be understood as Mosaic] and the promissory type reflected in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants.”

Promissory “Unconditional” Covenants

Unlike the Mosaic covenant, the promissory covenant is unconditional and the exact opposite of the obligatory covenant.[75] Weinfeld elucidates the “promissory” type between the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants by showing and explaining the over- whelming similarities that contemporary and patriarchal covenants have in common,[76] and sheds a great deal of light on our current understanding of the elements of these covenants.

Two subsets can be found under the heading of “Promissory ‘Unconditional’ Covenants.” The promissory unconditional covenant can also be known as “grant.” Furthermore, the “patron” covenant can also be found, which is not highly publicized, to be a subset of the promissory unconditional covenant.

Obligatory “Conditional” Covenants

Unlike the Abrahamic and Davidic covenant, the obligatory covenant is conditional and the exact opposite of the promissory covenant.

Two subsets can also be found under the heading of “Obligatory ‘Conditional’ Covenants.” The obligatory conditional covenant can also be known as “treaty.” Another, covenant that must also be placed under the “obligatory” type is the “parity” covenant. Only the former will be discussed here.

An obligatory covenant involved “the suzerainty treaty[77] by which a great king bound his vassals to faithfulness and obedience to himself.”[78] The superior would bind the “inferior to certain obligations defined by the superior”[79] (e.g., 1 Sam. 11:1; Ezek. 17:13). One can render “treaty” as being analogous to the “obligatory” covenant. However, technically, it seems more precise to speak of “treaty” as also dominating characteristics within the major type of ancient Near Eastern and biblical obligatory covenants.

Instituted in the ancient Near East, the nature of the suzerainty treaty involved conditional elements by which the vassal must respond to the suzerainty’s demands for the good of society and for the vassal to qualify and enjoy the suzerainty’s benefits.[80]

However, the suzerainty treaty’s primary purpose was to establish a solid relationship based on mutual support between both of the parties involved, “(especially military support), in which the interests of the Hittite sovereign [in this case] were of primary and ultimate concern. It established a relationship between the two, but in its form it is unilateral.”[81] That is, the unilateral stipulations of the treaty are binding only upon the vassal since only the vassal took an oath to obey.[82] This is what constituted a suzerainty treaty.

Students of the Hebrew Scriptures can now more fully understand how the covenants found therein conform to the practices of the day.

Notes

1. The abbreviations OT and NT will be used from here on, but only in parenthetical referencing or footnotes.
2. George E. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” The Biblical Archaeologist 17 (1954): 50.
3. Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), 13–14.
4. Dennis J. McCarthy, “Covenant in the Old Testament: the Present State of Inquiry,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 27 (October 1965): 219, acknowledges that Eichrodt has developed a “very successful treatment of covenant,” and how he “defines covenant in terms of its theological meaning and sees it as the central theme of OT as a theological book.” However, McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament, 2 ed., Analecta Bibica: Investigationes Scientificae in Biblicas (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), 3, shows that it has not gone without criticism. McCarthy’s lengthy work, versus the shorter form that appeared in Catholic Biblical Quarterly cited above, in idem, Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1972), 5–6, himself, intensively critiques Eichrodt’s emphasis of the covenant theme in the Old Testament.
5. Cleon L. Rogers, Jr., “The Covenant with Abraham and Its Historical Setting,” Bibliotheca Sacra 127 (July 1970): 242. He has an excellent discussion here. See also David Noel Freedman, “Divine Commitment and Human Obligation,” Interpretation 18 (October 1964): 419. Freedman says, “Of the central importance of the covenant theme in the Old Testament there can no longer be any doubt. When Walther Eichrodt published his Theology of the Old Testament, which was constructed entirely around the covenant theme, there was widespread skepticism among scholars as to the validity of this approach. But a significant body of archaeological data illuminating the covenant-making procedures of the ancient world—and brilliantly interpreted in special studies by G. E. Mendenhall and K. Baltzer—has demonstrated that Eichrodt’s tour de force was not a falsification or even an exaggeration of the biblical situation.”
6. William Foxwell Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process, 2 ed. (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1940; reprint, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1957), 16. Albright further stresses that, “We cannot understand Israelite religion, political organization, or the institution of the Prophets without recognizing the importance of the ‘covenant.’”
7. Freedman, “Divine Commitment and Human Obligation,” 419. He affirms that, “… the covenant principle is intrinsic to the biblical material and that it defines the relationship of God to his people. Further, the term ‘covenant’ itself was consciously applied by the Israelites to their relationship with Yahweh, from the earliest times.”
8. Eugene H. Merrill, “An Outline of OT Source Criticism,” in unpublished class notes Old Testament Introduction (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1996), 1.
9. Ibid., 1-2. In Merrill’s class notes, the JEDP theory and its origin is explained in a succinct manner that is worth quoting: “1. J Astruc, following earlier suggestions (e.g., Spinoza, 1670), proposed (in 1753) that Moses used two documents in writing Genesis and that these employed different divine names (Elohim and Jahweh). 2. J. G. Eichhorn traced this through the entire Pentateuch and adduced other criteria such as style, vocabulary, repetitions, doublets, etc. (1780) and later denied Mosaic authorship. 3. E became known as the largest and oldest document—the foundation; J was later and supplementary. 4. D (Deuteronomy) identified by DeWette (1805) as the ‘Book of the Law of the Temple’ (II K. 22) of Josiah’s era (625 B.C.). 5. Hupfeld (1853) divided E into E and P (Priestly) documents on linguistic and theological bases. 6. Graf (1869) dated part of P last (under Ezra), that having to do with cult—P1JEDP2. 7. Wellhausen (1879) rearranged to JEDP1 the order still accepted. 8. The combination and editing of these documents was the work of redactors (R) to whom we owe the finished product.”
10. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” 50, acknowledges, “There is no agreement among scholars concerning the origin of the concept, some assigning it to the work of Moses, and others maintaining that it was the product of the prophetic religious thought in the eight and seventh centuries.”
11. Along with Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, trans. J. S. Black and A. Menzies (Edinburgh: no pulisher, 1885), 417, who claimed that the theocratic covenant did not exist from the time of Moses (as mentioned above), though afterwards that was a favorite way of relating to it, others followed. Herbert M. Wolf, An Introduction to the Old Testament Pentateuch (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991), 66, notices how favorable and quickly it was accepted within biblical scholarship. He says, “The documentary hypothesis as explained by Wellhausen took the scholarly world by storm, receiving the enthusiastic support of many theologians.” Some of the scholars that favored Wellhausen’s theory—at least the basic concept—are H. Cornhill, C. Steuernagel, William Robertson Smith, S. R. Driver, Charles Augustus Briggs, etal. In fact, the well known Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon of the Old Testament (known as BDB), published in 1906 favors this view. However, not all scholars, such as E. D. Hengstenberg, Moritz Drechsler, Gerhaardus Vos. A. H. Sayce, and C. F. Keil, accepted the JEDP theory.
12. For example, attempting to understand some passages from Genesis 1–11 becomes complicated because of the lack of historical information from that period. Another complex issue to interpret, that is currently being debated today tries to define what 1st century Judaism believed at Paul’s time. Since we have scant information—other then Josephus—from the 1st century, again, it becomes complex to decipher (see E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977)).
13. Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith, vol. 2 (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, 1975), 20.
14. William F. Albright, The Biblical Period From Abraham to Ezra (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 1.
15. Eugene H. Merrill, “A Theology of the Pentateuch,” in A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, ed. Eugene H. Merrill (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991), 26, acknowledges that “most scholars recognize” the significant contribution that such discoveries make in understanding biblical covenants.
16. The term “Hittites” appears 21 times (Gen 15:20; Exod 3:8, 17; 13:5; 23:23; Num 13:29; Deut 7:1; Josh 1:4; 3:10; 24:11; Judg 1:26; 3:5; 1 Kgs 9: 20; 10:29; 11:1; 2 Kgs 7:6; 2 Chr 1:17; 2 Chr 8:7; Ezra 9:1; Neh 9:8) throughout the Hebrew canon. Hence, the discovery that validates the existence of the Hittite people would of necessity validate the veracity and authenticity of biblical history since the term appears from the beginning to the end of the Hebrew canon. Of course, this is not a conclusive argument, but it certainly builds confidence, along with destroying skeptic barriers that are commonly used to invalidate biblical accounts as true history.
17. As seen above, the Bible mentions the Hittite people many times. However, since no ancient writings were ever discovered that mentioned them, scholars doubted their existence only until recent discoveries. John Elder, Prophets, Idols, and Diggers (New York: Grand Rapids, 1960), 75, says, “One of the striking confirmations of the Bible history to come from science of archeology is the ‘recovery’ of the Hittites people and their empires. Here is a people whose name appears again and again in the Old Testament, but who in secular history had been completely forgotten and whose existence was considered to be extremely doubtful.” For a good analysis of the Hittites people see both of the following articles: M. B. Stearns, “Biblical Archeology and the Higher Critics,” Bibliotheca Sacra 96 (July 1939): 307-18. See also Merrill F. Unger, “Archaeological Discoveries and Their Bearing on Old Testament,” Bibliotheca Sacra 112 (April 1955): 137-42. See also Delbert R. Hillers, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1969), 23.
18. J. Barton Payne, “Hittites,” in The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, ed. Tenney C. Merrill (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963), 356. This important discovery showed that the dominance of such people at the time was overwhelming. Such a discovery was “first substantiated by the discoveries at Carchemish on the Euphrates in 1987 and totally vindicated by Hugo Winckler’s excavations at Khattusa (Boghazkoy) in Turkey, 1906–7. Ten thousands tablets from this ancient Hittite capital served to confirm Joshua’s description of the entire western Fertile Crescent as the ‘land of the Hittites’” (Ibid).
19. The purpose of using well-known patterns like the Hittites’ fifteenth and fourteenth centuries model to formulate the biblical covenants will be discussed in section two. Thus, we need not repeat the material here.
20. This writer is indebted for the three fold idea in this section to Rogers, “The Covenant with Abraham,” 244–50.
21. Klaus Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary: In Old Testament, Jewish and Early Christian Writings, trans. David E. Green (Philadelphia: Fortress press, 1971), 1–8. As to this problem, Baltzer presents concisely Wellhausen’s, Kraetzschmar’s and Begrich’s evolutionary late development view of the concept of בירת (8th or 7th century), conversely to that of Pedersen’s and Köhler’s view who argue for an “early period” for the origin and “covenant” concept of בירת.
22. Rogers, “The Covenant with Abraham,” 242–49. See George E. Mendenhall, “Covenant,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1962), 714–16; Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 36–45; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 17–24; Paul DeWitt Lowery, “Covenant Implication for Old Testament Exposition: An Overview of Some Pertinent Themes” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979), 25–28.
23. Nathanael Schmidt, “Covenant,” in Encyclopedia Biblica: A Critical Dictionary of the Literary Political and Religious History the Archaeology Geography and Natural History of the Bible, ed. T. K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black (New York: MacMillan Company, 1899), 928–29.
24. Mendenhall, “Covenant,” 715.
25. Moshe Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on the West,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 90 (1970): 190.
26. J. Barton Payne, “Covenant (in the Old Testament),” in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 1002; H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942), 488; W. F. Albright, “The Hebrew Expression for ‘Making a Covenant’ in Pre-Israelite Documents,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 121 (February 1951): 22. See also Hillers, Covenant, 41; idem, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, Biblica Et Orientalia (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964), 20.
27. F. Charles Fensham, “Did a Treaty Between the Israelites and the Kenites Exist?,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 175 (October 1964): 54. See also Albright, “The Hebrew Expression for ‘Making a Covenant’ in Pre-Israelite Documents,” 22. Albright’s article mentions the findings of two extra-biblical tablets that are most important in discovering a correct meaning. Since God’s relationship with Israel is based on covenant, the content of these tablets are very enlightening since they are “the first published extra-biblical occurrence of the word [בירת] from early times—not later than the first third of the fourteenth century.”
28. Fensham, “Israelites and the Kenites Treaty,” 54. See also McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 253–54; Dennis J. McCarthy, “Three Covenants in Genesis,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 26 (April 1964): 184-85. McCarthy notices the connection of “covenant and sacrificial meal.” He takes notice of Isaac feeding Abimelek in Gen 26:30, and Jacob and Laban eat together in 31:46. He says, “This custom of forming a union by taking bread together is widespread; doubtless it is based on the idea that it is the family group which eats together so that admission to the meal implies admission to the family. The practice is attested in ancient non-Biblical texts as well as among Semitic nomads” (Ibid., 185).
29. Christ’s use of a contemporary custom of the day in no way diminishes the importance of the New Covenant, but would, in fact, enhance understanding and meaning by showing in a “tangible” way the seriousness of participating in the New Covenant. Perhaps, improper participation of the elements brings “tangible” consequences (physical death) by showing the seriousness of the violation, which Paul may have thought when writing 1 Corinthians 11:27–30. Mendenhall, “Covenant,” 714, understands that “oath (verbal or symbolic)” may have been the element that solidified and bound the covenant. Although he says, “It is possible that other formal actions, such as a common meal, did not involve an appeal to the divine world to punish violation of the promise” (Ibid).
30. Paul Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant: A Comprehensive Review of Covenant Formulae from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East, Analecta Biblica: Investigationes Scientificae in Biblicas (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1982), 89–90. He also understands that rejoicing before God almost always happens in connection with sacred meals (Ibid., 61, fn. 191).
31. Rogers, “The Covenant with Abraham,” 243. See also McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 20. McCarthy goes on to say that בירת “always involved bilateral obligations, whether these were stated or not.”
32. McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant, 4, 41. See also Mendenhall, “Covenant,” 714; John Bright, A History of Israel, 4th ed. (Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000), 150–51.
33. George E. Mendehall, “Law and Covenant in Israel and Ancient Near East,” The Biblical Archaeologist 17 (1954): 30; Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, 16.
34. Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology,” 93, 190–99. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 122–40.
35. Moshe Weinfeld, “Covenant Making in Anatolia and Mesopotamia,” Journal of the Ancient Near East Society 22 (1993): 135. See also idem, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 59–60.
36. Rogers, “The Covenant with Abraham,” 246.
37. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 141–53.
38. Ibid., 7. Contextually, McCarthy goes on to say that, “Hence the occurrence of the form does not by itself offer an adequate criterion for dating a document or an event.” McCarthy probably means that one should not use Hittite treaty form in order to show that the covenants found in Exodus and Deuteronomy were patterned after them, and therefore defend an early date (i.e., no later, at least, than 1300) for both covenants which would also strengthen Mosaic authorship all the more. This writer does not agree with McCarthy here and will show the converse in section two.
39. Gerstenberger sees a covenant as having three main elements that can be expressed in various ways: (1) mutual agreement (declaration), (2) the stipulations, (3) and curse invocation. See Erhard Gerstenberger, “Covenant and Commandment,” Journal of Biblical Literature 84 (March 1965): 45.
40. Viktor Korosec, Hethitische Staatsverträge, ein Beitrag zu ihrer juristischen Wertung, Leipziger rechtswissenschaftliche Studien, Heft 60 (Leipzig: Weicher, 1931), 12–14. See also the following.
41. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary, 10.
42. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 1. McCarthy may use this term for clarity. Section two will discuss the preamble in details.
43. Some scholars (Baltzer and Merrill) understand element three as general stipulations (as in Deut. 5:1–11:32) and element four as specific stipulations (as in Deut 12:1–26:15). However, others (Hillers, Kitchen, Kline, McCarthy, Mendenhall, Rogers, and Walton) couple general and specific stipulations under element three, while understanding element four as the “provisions for depositing the treaty in the temple and for public reading” (Mendenhall’s definition, in Covenant Forms and Israelite Traditions, 60). Kline and Rogers, while categorizing all of the stipulations under element three, see element four as “covenant ratification.” Although some unify general and specific stipulations under one category, it does not mean some (like Kitchen, Mendenhall and Walton) have not made the distinction between general and specific stipulations.
44. Gene M. Tucker, “Covenant Forms and Contract Forms,” Vetus Testamentum 15 (October 1965): 487-503.
45. Tucker points this out in his first footnote of his article. Some of these names are Aage Bentzen in Introduction to the Old Testament, vol. 1, p. 210, Arthur Weiser in The Old Testament: Its Formation and Development, p. 55, Max Weber, in Ancient Judaism, p. 78–79.
46. Tucker, “Covenant Forms and Contract Forms,” 487.
47. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 17.
48. Tucker, “Covenant Forms and Contract Forms,” 488–92.
49. Ibid., 492-97.
50. Ibid., 497-99.
51. McCarthy, “Covenant in the OT,” 34.
52. Tucker, “Covenant Forms and Contract Forms,” 501.
53. Ibid., 500-503.
54. See “The Foundation of בירת “ section where this definition was established. James B. Torrance, “Covenant or Contract? A Study of the Theological Background of Worship in Seventh-Century Scotland,” Scottish Journal of Theology 23 (February 1970): 54. Although still holding to Tucker’s thesis that a “covenant [is] so different from a contract,” Torrance agrees with this definition and says, “Theologically speaking a covenant is a promise binding two people or two parties to love one another unconditionally“ (Italics his).
55. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged, ed. Philip Babcock Gove and the Merriam-Webster editorial staff (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Inc., 1986), 494. The term “covenant” is also one of the synonyms found in the same line that Webster assigns to “contract.” Torrance, “Covenant or Contract?,” 54, says, “A contract is a legal relationship in which two people or two parties bind themselves together on mutual conditions to effect some further results.”
56. McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant, 34.
57. Tucker, “Covenant Forms and Contract Forms,” 501.
58. Ibid. Tucker acknowledges that Gen. 25:29–34 is one example of an oath acting in a sale contract, yet he finds this to be “hardly a typical contract.”
59. Tucker, “Covenant Forms and Contract Forms,” 501. Interestingly, he acknowledges that, “It has been seen that the oath is found in certain extra-biblical contracts (see also p. 490), but there is a basic difference between such oaths and the covenant oath. The difference is that the oath was essential to the covenant and the oath form was the heart of the covenant form.”
60. Ibid.
61. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 7–8.
62. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1979), 136.
63. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 7–16.
64. Gramcord Analytical Computer Concordance Ver. (Accordance 4.5) (Altamonte Springs, FL: OakTree Software). Mendenhall, “Covenant,” 715, counts 286 times (sic).
65. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 20–56. Mendenhall, “Covenant,” 715.
66. Such other terms that were “pact-ratifying rites” which came to stand for treaty are the following: napistam lapâtum “to touch the throat,” hayaran qatalum “to kill an ass,” sissiktam rakâsum “to bind the hem of the garment,” etc.,). See Kalluveettil for a complete list of these terms from pp. 17-56.
67. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 19.
68. Kalluveettil’s translation, 26.
69. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 27
70. Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology,” 190.
71. A hendiadys is the expression of an idea by two nouns connected by the conjunction “and.”
72. Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology,” 190.
73. Rogers, “The Covenant with Abraham,” 244. Rogers here summarizes and synthesizes “the definitions offered” by Pedersen, Buhl, with works from Mendenhall, Baltzer, and McCarthy and develops the above definition, which this writer must agree with after surveying the evidence.
74. Moshe Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 90 (1970): 185.
75. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” 62. Disobedience cannot dissolve this covenant. It is “pure grace,” see McCarthy, “Covenant in the OT,” 54, 58.
76. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant,” 184.
77. One may also call this the suzerainty covenant, as in Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 8.
78. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” 52.
79. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 8.
80. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” 56.
81. Ibid.
82. Ibid.