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

By René A. López

[Doctoral Candidate, Dallas Theological Seminary]

Introduction to Part Two

In the first part of this article, the following conclusions were reached regarding the concept of the covenant: (1) Foundationally, berith (“covenant”) signifies a binding agreement between two parties. (2) The basic form of ancient Near Eastern covenants consists of six elements, which will be developed in this article in more detail. (3) The function of berith is basically that of an oath, commitment, or bond between two parties. (4) There existed two types of covenants in Israel, as well as in the ancient Near East. The promissory covenants bound the suzerain (master) to the vassal (servant) unconditionally. The obligatory covenants, also known as the suzerainty treaties, bound the vassal (servant) to be faithfully obedient to the suzerain (master). The historical implications of the similarities and differences between Israelite covenants and ancient Near Eastern covenants will be developed below.

The Parity as it is Related to the Obligatory Covenant

There are many other references to covenants[1] of different sorts in ancient Near East and the Scriptures. However, under the obligatory covenant there is yet another type called parity treaty. In a parity treaty “both parties are bound to obey identical stipulations,” while in the “suzerainty treaties. .. only the inferior [as already mentioned] is bound by an oath - the vassal is obligated to obey the commands stipulated by the Hittite king.”[2]

Besides both parties binding themselves to stipulations, both parties “commit themselves by oath to the covenant,”[3] as opposed to other covenants that are contingent on a unilateral response either from the suzerainty or the vassal. Mendenhall thinks that parity treaties can be “further subdivided as it was done by Thucydides long ago, into two classes: those in which specific obligations are imposed, and those which impose no obligation but to preserve the peace between two parties.”[4] Several examples of the latter type of covenant are seen between Abraham and Abimelech (21:21–32), and Isaac with Abimelech (26:27–31). An example of the former can be seen as kings entered into treaties with foreigners beginning from the time of Solomon and on (1 Kings 5:12; 15:19; 20:34).[5]

After defining the meaning of covenant as understood in light of the ancient Near Eastern context, one can see the close parallels that Israelite covenants share with their neighbors. Furthermore, upon further reflection of the two types of covenants found in the ancient Near East, again, one is hard-pressed to deny God’s freedom to use ancient Near Eastern covenant forms to create the Israelite covenants.[6] After looking at these over-arching themes, the next section will develop in a more detailed way the close proximities of the historical implications of Old Testament covenant settings.

Historical Implications of Old Testament Covenant Settings

As discoveries have shown, in the second millennium of the Mesopotamian and Hittite culture along with others found in the Neo-Assyrian period, there is an absolute similarity between the structures of these ancient Near East covenants and Israelite covenants.[7] Although there are “minor variations” that make-up numerous treaties,[8] scholars agree that the six elements mentioned in the previous article (in “the form of berith” section) form the basic treaty pattern used in the ancient Near East[9] and in the biblical covenants.

Similar Characteristics in Hittite and Israelite Covenants

Today abundant materials from the ancient Near East are readily available. Baltzer recognizes that “the Hittite Empire exhibited a much more highly developed [treaty] form” than the rest.[10] Furthermore, numerous conservative scholars have concluded that similar characteristics found in the Israelite covenants of Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Joshua 24 are patterned after the Hittite treaty form,[11] although a few scholars have challenged this position.[12] However, as Merrill points out, a “near consensus” seems to have been reached “about the [six] essential elements of standard Hittite treaty texts,” analogous to Israelite treaty forms, which will be developed below.[13]

Characteristics in Hittite and Israelite Treaty Covenants

Since Israelite grant covenants, are established chronologically before treaty covenants, one would assume that examining these covenants first would be the most logical order to follow. However, since grant covenants contain characteristics similar to the ones found between Hittite and Israelite treaty covenant forms, it seems best to examine the ancient Near Eastern pattern once in detail under this section instead of repeating the same material.

Caution is due before examining the ensuing six component parts that compose the standard “covenant form” in the ancient Near East after which Israelite covenants are patterned. Rogers acknowledges, as do McCarthy and Gerstenberger, the difficulty “of trying to ‘find’ or ‘fit’ this form into Scripture.”[14] Instead, Gerstenberger assesses that, “The Old Testament... does not contain drafts of treaties, but, at best, narratives and sermons about covenants.”[15] This, however, does not subvert the similarities that exist between ancient Near Eastern and Israelite covenants, as Rogers correctly concludes:

In the writing of a compact history, such as the Old Testament, it would hardly be necessary to reproduce a treaty text with all of its formal parts. This was not done in the extrabiblical historical texts, nor is it the common practice of modern historians.[16] In addition, it must also be remembered that underlying all treaties of practically every age there are general component parts which are in accord w ith the universal moral law. Any treaty has stipulations or promises to which both parties [or one as in the grant covenant] agree and pledge to keep. Generally there is also a sealing or ratifying ceremony which makes the treaty binding. Without denying or rejecting a ‘treaty form,’ it may be better to speak of ’component parts of a covenant’ when discussing the treaty as found in historical texts.[17]

Obviously, one will observe in this section that treaty forms found in Exodus, Deuteronomy and Joshua 24 are much closer to the ancient Near East covenant components than the components found in the Abrahamic and Davidic grant covenants.[18]

This section will examine the obligatory conditional covenant components that God made with Israel in the light of how ancient Near Eastern covenants reflect these characteristics.

The Preamble as it Relates to Both Covenants [19]

Description of the term. The “preamble”[20] is also known as “introduction of the speaker”[21] or “titulary.”[22] This component describes, generally, the one who comprises the treaty. It may develop all or some of the following components: the suzerainty’s various titles, mighty attributes, or sometimes genealogy. As Walton declares, “This section emphasizes the suzerain’s greatness and his right to proclaim the treaty,”[23] and as a result the suzerain demanded the “vassal’s allegiance.”[24]

Ancient Near Eastern Type. The Hittite treaty between Mursilis and Duppi-Tessub exemplify the preamble: “These are the words of the Sun[25] Mursilis, the great king, the king of the Hatti land, the valiant, the favorite of the Storm-god, the son of Suppiluliumas, the great king, the king of the Hatti land, the valiant.”[26] Another Hittite treaty analogous to this one can be seen between Tudhaliya IV with Kurunta of Tarhuntassa.[27] One finds the king imposing his covenant on the vassal, which is “characteristic of Hittite royal edits.”[28]

Unlike the parity treaties, the suzerainty treaties are not between equals. Even if both are kings, they do not have equal status when it comes to the suzerainty treaty.[29]

Israelite Covenant Equivalent. Although Hillers recognizes the statement “I am Yahweh, your God” in Exodus 20:2b, as a brief “but not less impressive” than the preamble of the Hittite king,[30] Rogers thinks it is more “natural to take Exodus 20:1 [“And God spoke all these words, saying”] as the introduction,” because it appears in a number of treaty introductions.[31] However, after looking at all of the preambles in the Hittite treaties, it seems best to take Exodus 20:1–2b (e.g., “And God spoke all these words, saying: I am the LORD your God, ...”) as the preamble.[32] The phrase “these are the words” are found in Exodus and Hittite treaties and the titles of “Sun, the great king” and “I am the LORD your God” are also found in both. To pick one verse over the other would exclude a vital element of the preamble.

In Deuteronomy 1:1–5 and Joshua 24:1–2b, the same preamble elements form the covenant. For example, the preambles of Deuteronomy 1:1–5, “These are the words which Moses spoke ... saying,” and Joshua 24:1–2b, “Then Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to ... said to all the people, “Thus says the LORD God of Israel” are identical to the Hittite form shown above.[33]

The Historical Prologue as it Relates to Both Covenants

Description of the term. The “historical prologue” recounts the events and/or relationship between both parties leading up to the present moment before entering the covenant. Emphasis falls on the suzerain’s kind and/or beneficial acts toward the vassal. McCarthy identifies these suzerain’s acts as follows: “Sometimes the long arm of the Hittite military power. ... Sometimes it is the motive for gratitude [for] ... the vassal owes his throne to the king of Hatti.....This may turn into a discussion of rights: [that either forfeits the land to Hatti] ... Or it may be the good example of the vassal’s ancestors in their fidelity to Hatti,” which receives the most attention.[34] Thus, the historical prologue’s main emphasis, according to McCarthy, is to exhort the vassal toward good behavior, and should not be understood as merely an objective account of events.[35]

Ancient Near Eastern Type. The Hittite treaty between Tudhaliya and Sausgamuwa exemplify the historical prologue: “I, My Majesty, [have taken you], Sausgamuwa, [by the hand and] have made [you (my)] brother-in-law. ... [In the past] the land of Amurru had not been defeated by force of arms of the land of Hatti. ... Protect My Majesty as overlord, ... Because I have made you, Sausgamuwa, (my) brother-in-law, protect my majesty as overlord.”[36]

Here the Tudhaliya gives the relationship of the vassal to him (brother-in-law), recounts the past, and reasons why the vassal. Sausgamuwa, ought to remain faithful. As with this historical prologue and others in the ancient Near East, one must not stereotype all prologues to fit one pattern. All historical prologues are made to fit their particular context and situation.[37] Hence, one should not expect or impose on Israelite covenants, what is not evident in ancient Near Eastern covenants (i.e., one stereotyped form).

Israelite Covenant Equivalent. In Exodus 20:2b, the phrase, “... who brought you [singular] out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage”[38] serves the same purpose as the historical prologues of the ancient Near East.[39] The deliverance from Egypt provides the recounting of the past, basis for Yahweh’s relationship to Israel, and thus, the vassal assumes to reason why he is required to respond in obedience, which the following stipulations develop.[40]

McCarthy objects to seeing any historical prologue in the Exodus account.[41] However, as brief as it may be, Hillers says,”... One might say that it is nevertheless as long as Yahweh’s dealing with Israel. As in the Hittite treaty, this is history from a very particular point of view: the story of the relationship of two parties, told to justify the treaty now proposed, and Yahweh’s dealings with Israel begin with the Exodus. ... [The prologue] constitutes a genuine parallel to the international legal form.”[42]

Other Scripture passages that most would agree reflect the typical historical prologues of the ancient Near East are Deuteronomy 1:6–4:40[43] and Joshua 24:2–13.[44] Here the historical account, in an extensive manner than above, recounts the events leading to the renewing of the covenant.

The Stipulations in Relation to Both Covenants

Description of the term. The stipulation section simply specifies in general and specific terms the obligations imposed on the vassal, which the vassal must accept. Mendenhall summarizes the elements as follows:

They include typically, a. the prohibition of other foreign relationships outside the Hittite Empire; b. prohibition of any enmity against anything under sovereignty of the great king. ... c. The vassal must answer any calls to arms sent him by the king.... d. The vassal must hold lasting and unlimited trust in the King ... e. The vassal must not give asylum to refugees from any source ... f. The vassal must appear before the Hittite king once a year ... g. Controversies between vassals are unconditionally to be submitted to the king for judgment.[45]

Walton recognizes that these stipulations can also be introduced in various grammatical forms: “They may be formulated in the precative (‘Let no man do ...’), the imperative (Thou shalt not do ...’), or most commonly, it may be placed in a conditional phrase (‘If such and such occurs ...’).[46]

Ancient Near Eastern Type. The ancient Near Eastern stipulations sometimes come with historical accounts and are “the most clearly developed in the treaties written in the Hittite language.”[47] The treaty between Musili and Duppi-Tesub exemplifies this:

When I, My Majesty, took care of you according to the word of your father, and installed you in the place of your father, behold, I have made you swear an oath to the king of Hatti, ... You, Duppi-Tesub, protect in the future the king of Hatti, ... The tribute which was imposed upon your grandfather and upon your father - they delivered 300 shekels of refined gold of first-class quality by the weights of the land of Hatti - you shall deliver likewise. Do not turn your eyes towards another (land)! Your ancestors paid tribute to Egypt, [but] you [should not pay tribute to Egypt because Egypt has become an enemy [...][48] 

If [the king of Egypt (?) will become My Majesty’s friend, you too] should be his friend, [and] you may keep sending your messenger [to Egypt (?)]. 

But [if] you commit [trea]chery, and while the king of Egypt [is hos]tile to My Majesty you secretly [send] your messenger to him [and you become hosti]le to the king of Hatti, and [you cast] off the hand of the king of Hatti becoming (a subject) of the king of Egypt, [thereby] you, Duppi-Tesub, will break the oath. .. ,[49]

Actually, these stipulations above encompass further mandates to help the king in a time of war, summoning protection from the suzerainty, if the vassal is attacked, extradition is demanded of escaped prisoners and fugitives, remain faithful in the event of gossip, redirect strangers looking for refuge to the land of Hatti.[50]

Israelite Covenant Equivalent. It is correct to see the Decalogue as analogous to the Hittite stipulations.[51] McCarthy points out that the apodictic type “formulation using the second person singular imperative “you” (“OK”) parallel “the treaties not merely in isolated sentences, but also in a series of related commands.”[52] Interestingly, that is what is found in the Decalogue (20:3–17), not that McCarthy concurs. He does not agree,[53] but shows an element that would allow to further argue for interpreting the Decalogue as apodictic law covenant form that parallels the stipulations section of those found in the Hittite treaties.[54] Furthermore, the “I-you” formula of suzerainty-vassal dialogue parallel the Decalogue “I am Yahweh ... you shall not” formula typically found throughout the entire treaty of ancient Near East.[55]

The Decalogue in relations to the rest of other laws in Exodus has been understood in different ways,[56] but as Kitchen and Rogers suggest, “it may be best to view the Decalogue [20:3–17, 22–26] as the basic stipulation ... and the other commandments [21-23, 25–31] as the detailed stipulations.”[57] Stipulations along with coming with a past historical account, Baltzer also understands that basic stipulations are comprise “primarily general imperatives” that are repeated before specific stipulations are specified.[58] Hence, Baltzer’s analysis leads Rogers to conclude: “This is exactly the character of the Ten Commandments. They are a concise, compact statement of God’s will for his people Israel whom He had just delivered from Egypt.”[59]

Without delving into a detail analysis of all of the stipulations, the commandments can be divided into two parts: the first four commandments obligate man to honor God (20:3–11, as well as w 22–26), and the last six obligate man to treat man honorably and honestly (20:12–17).[60] Numerous stipulations to those of the Hittite pattern also occur in Leviticus 1–25,[61] Deuteronomy 5:1–11:32 (basic) and 12:1–26:15 (detailed),[62] and Joshua 24:14–15, which perhaps may be the “core of the stipulations, with 16–25 also containing the repetition of some of them.”[63] Stipulations are so much at the core of Scripture, that Jesus, actually, divided the entire Old Testament into two imperatival stipulations: “‘You shall love[64] the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 22:37b–40).

The Document as it Relates to Both Covenants

Description of the term. Provisions were made for depositing the treaty in a temple and periodic public reading of it.[65] This type of clause in treaties served two purpose as Mendenhall points out, “First, to familiarize the entire populace with the obligations to the great king; and second, to increase the respect for the vassal king by describing the close and warm relationship with the mighty and majestic Emperor which he enjoyed.”[66]

Ancient Near Eastern Type. Locating this section in ancient Near Eastern texts and published literature is hard. Perhaps, it is hard to locate because, as Walton says, “Some of the treaties are broken at the point where this clause was originally present.”[67] Nevertheless, Hillers provides a good example of such a clause “between Mudsills’ grandfather, Sippiluliumas, and Mattiwaza of Mitanni, a kingdom on the North Euphrates.” He sites the treaty as saying, “A duplicate of this tablet has been deposited before the Sun-goddess of Arinna, because the Sun-goddess of Arinna regulates kingship and queenship. In the Mitanni land (a duplicate) has been deposited before Tessub, the lord of the kurinnu [a kind of shrine] of Kahat. At regular intervals shall they read it in the presence of the king of the Mitanni land and in the presence of the sons of the Hurri country.”[68] Here, one can see how the treaty is put in a shrine and must be read periodically[69] in the presence of his vassal-king and his regents. Furthermore, duplicates were dispersed. One document found abode in the suzerain’s shrine and the other in the vassal’s shrine. As the document became enshrined before the gods, the suzerainty and even the vassal’s gods (who “enlisted in the foreign service of the suzerainty” at this point) became witness and avengers of those who broke the oath.[70]

Israelite Covenant Equivalent. Exodus 25:16, 21; 40:20 and Deuteronomy 10:1–5 mention two tablets and the ark in which they were placed. In Deuteronomy 31:24–26, Moses commands the Levites to store the tablets in the ark that it may serve as a witness against the people’s past stubbornness. Since Yahweh was Israel’s Suzerainty who lived among them, both copies of the document were deposited in the same place, the sanctuary. Kline notices the specific location “of the documents as given in Hittite treaties can be rendered ‘under (the feet of)’ the god, which would then correspond strikingly to the arrangements in the Israelite holy of holies.”[71] However, this may not be the law Decalogue, for that was probably already stored, but perhaps, Moses’ account of the wilderness wanderings - which would in any case make-up part of the Pentateuch. Furthermore, analogous to Suppiluliuma and Mattiwaza’s treaty, in Deuteronomy 31:10–13, Moses commanded the Law be read “at the appointed time in the year of release, at the Feast of Tabernacles,” when all Israel comes before the LORD. The reason for reading Israel’s copy of the document was to encourage fear of the Lord, faithfulness and be a witness (Deut. 31:26) against covenant violators.[72]

The Gods as Witnesses as it Relates to Both Covenants.

Description of the term. In the form of the “ancient legal tradition,” witnesses were called. Typically, they were usually a long list of gods or the elements, mountains, rivers, spring, heaven and earth, sea, clouds, and the wind, which were probably considered gods.[73] As pointed out by Walton and Mendenhall, “if the need arose,” the gods were called to “enforce the covenant.”[74] Other than the gods, kings were sometimes called to witness.[75]

Ancient Near Eastern Type. Ancient Near Eastern texts amply attest to this part of the treaty. For example, the treaty between Tudhaliya IV with Kurunta of Tarhuntassa calls gods as witnesses as well as enforce the law, if need arose:

The Thousand Gods[76] have now been called to assembly for (attesting the contents of) of this treaty tablet that I have just executed for you. Let them see, hear, and be witnesses thereto -the sun-god of heaven, the sun-goddess of Arinna, the storm-god of heaven ... If you, Kurunta, fail to comply with these treaty clauses, and do not remain loyal to My Majesty ... then may these oath-deities destroy you together with your posterity. But if you, Kurunta, take to heart the words of this tablet... then may these same deities take good care of you, and may you grow old under the protection of My Majesty. ... Whoever causes trouble for him and takes something away from him may these oath-deities destroy together with that man’s posterity.[77]

Clearly, these gods act as witnesses as well as pay retribution if necessary.[78] The same elements shown here, except for the list of pagan gods,[79] appear in the Israelite covenant form.

Israelite Covenant Equivalent. Exodus 24:4, perhaps, may be taken as a witness verse if the pillars play the role of witnesses after Israel agreed to comply with all of the Yahweh’s commands (24:3). It is difficult to determine. Rogers may be correct in observing that, “Since ... the pillars of Exodus 24:4 are not mentioned as being witnesses and would remain in the desert when Israel left, it is better to view the stones as merely symbols of the presence of the twelve tribes.”[80] However, Joshua 24:27, where the reference clearly portrays “memorial-stones” as witnesses to Israel after the people also agreed to comply with the commands of the LORD (24:24), may serve to enlighten Exodus 24:4 since the contexts are so similar.[81] Within the same context, in Joshua 24:22, God actually calls Israel to be witnesses against themselves. To which they answered, “We are witnesses!”

In Deuteronomy 31:16–30, so that Israel would not falter and fall into idolatry, God instructs Moses to compose a song for Israel to serve as a witness against the people on God’s behalf. Within the same context, God also summons the “Book of the Law” (in v. 26) and “heaven and earth” (in v. 28) to be witnesses against Israel.[82] Walton and Kitchen even attribute the entire song in Deuteronomy 32 as a witness. Walton says, “The Song of Moses, which is recorded for us in Deuteronomy 32, fits into the witness category, for it affirms YHWH’s ability to enforce the terms of the covenant. Of particular significance are verses 39–43, in which YHWH takes an oath to exact vengeance on behalf of his people [which is analogous to the last two lines - in the quote above - of the treaty between Tudhaliya IV with Kurunta].”[83]

The Curses and Blessings in Relation to Both Covenants

Description of the term. All treaties have blessing and curses. Usually, the suzerain will specify details of what he will do to the vassal who disobeys the stipulations, or how blessings will come upon obedience. As already seen, the gods not only act as witnesses, but “act as guarantors that the stipulations of the treaty will be carried out, as ‘lords of the oath.’ They are to ‘pursue relentlessly’ all who break their oath, but reward those that adhere to the terms of the treaty. And so together with the list of gods goes the list of blessings.”[84]

Ancient Near Eastern Type. Basic and standard elements in all ancient Near East treaties are the list of curses and blessings. Although, Walton recognizes the “blessing” element in these treaties are “not so prevalent.”[85] Unlike the brief treatment of the “curse” segments found in the Hittite treaties, uniquely, the “curse” section found in the Assyrian and Syrian documents are much more elaborate.[86] Delbert R. Hillers’ work notes that these curses appear in various forms. Treaty forms of the third-millennium usually contained three elements: (1) the name of the deity, (2) epithet of the deity, (3) and the curse. Second-millennium treaties, in its most basic form, do not contain all of these characteristics (i.e., they exclude either the epithet or names of the gods, but only give a single god), although there are exceptions as noted by Hillers.[87]

Nevertheless, the Hittite treaties do contain ample evidence to show an analogous relationship between the curse and blessing section in their documents and those of Israel. Furthermore, although Hittite treaties do not necessarily name their gods in the curse section, they refer back to the witness section that usually has an elaborate list of these gods.[88] This is exemplified in the treaty between Mursili and Duppi-Tesub:

[Sun-god of Heaven, Sun-godess] of Arinna, Storm-god of Heaven, Storm-god of Hatti, [Seri (and) Hu]ri,... Let them be witnesses this treaty and to the oath!

All the words of the treaty and the oath which are written on this tablet - if Duppi-Tesub [does not keep these] words of the treaty and of the oath, then let these oath gods destroy Duppi-Tesub together with his head, his wife, his son, his grandson, his house, his city, his land and together with his possessions.

But if Duppi-Tesub observes these words of the treaty and of the oath which are written on this tablet, let these oath gods protect Duppi-Tesub together with his head, his wife, his son, his grandson, his city, his land, your (!) house, your (!) subjects [and together with his possessions!].[89]

The most common element in second-millennium treaty forms included curses and blessings. The curse was aimed at total destruction.[90] It was a serious thing to break a covenant with a suzerain.

Israelite Covenant Equivalent. Like the ancient Near Eastern treaties, blessings and curses were very much part of the Israelite covenants. However, Israelite covenant “curses” are not like the magical texts or incantations of the Hittites or other ancient Near Eastern treaties.[91]

Unlike the other books of the Law, Exodus does not develop an orderly and formal list that details the blessings and curses.[92] However, as Rogers points out, Exodus does show,”... The punishment given for disobedience to the Law {e.g., Ex. 22:19; 11:15, 17; 35:5; 21:12–14; 11:15–16, etc.) as well as the sprinkled blood (Exodus 24:6–8), are in reality parts of the covenant curses.”[93]

A more formal and extensive list of blessings and curses are located in Leviticus 26:3–13 (blessings), 14–20 (curses), and 21–33 (for continual disobedience).[94] Furthermore, in all Scripture, Deuteronomy 28:1–14 (blessings) and 15–68 (curses) is the best-known chapter and key to Israel’s future success[95] and blessings in the land.[96] Evidently, Israelite treaties, like their ancient Near Eastern neighbors, shared an extensive section of curses, above the section of blessings.[97]

One thing must be recognized about the purpose of the blessings and curses section: they were to encourage obedience.[98]

Notes

1. Mendenhall points out that the Scriptures preserve for us a number of references to covenants of all sorts. Furthermore, and a very important detail to acknowledge, is that the Hebrew term for covenant “occurs more than 200 times in the Bible, but there are many references to covenant relationships where this particular term is not used,” yet covenant is still in focus. George E. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” The Biblical Archaeologist 17 (1954): 62.
2. Mendenhall, 55, 56. In reality the basic form of both treaties is the suzerainty treaty, “since the parity treaties are in effect two treaties in opposite directions, i.e., each king binds the other to identical obligations. The famous treaty between the Hittites and Egypt during the reign of Ramses II is the classical example.”
3. 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), 8.
4. Mendenhall, “Covenant,” 716. C. Dennis J. McCarthy, “Covenant in the Old Testament: The Present State of Inquiry,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 27 (October 1965): 59-60, finds three basic types of covenants. He categorizes parity as a separate treaty.
5. Mendenhall, “Covenant,” 716–17.
6. Meredith G. Kline, “Law Covenant,” The Westminster Theological Journal 27 (May 1965): 6.
7. Moshe Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on the West,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 90 (1970): 185.
8. In the “form of berith” section, Rogers, McCarthy, and Baltzer all agree that although various elements appear to fluctuate, yet one uniform pattern seems to be used for treaties in the ancient Near East.
9. Klaus Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary: In Old Testament, Jewish and Early Christian Writings, trans. David E. Green (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 10.
10. Ibid., 9.
11. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 50–76; Gordon J. Wenham, “The Structure and Date of Deuteronomy: A Consideration of Aspects of the History of Deuteronomy Criticism and Re-examination of the Question of Structure and Date in the Light of that History and of the Near Eastern Treaties” (Ph. D. diss., University of London, 1969), 182–216; Herbert B. Huffmon, “Covenant Lawsuit in Prophets,” Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (December 1959): 295; Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963); 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; K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Chicago: InterVarity Press, 1966), 91; idem, The Bible in Its World: The Bible and Archaeology Today (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1977), 79–85.
12. Dennis J. 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), 122–40; Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary; Delbert R. Hillers, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1969); Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972); R. Frankena, “The Vassal-treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy,” Oudtestamnetische Studien 14 (1965): 122-54.
13. Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, The American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of the Holy Scripture, ed. E. Ray Clendenen, vol. 4 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 29–30.
14. Cleon L. Rogers, Jr., “The Covenant with Abraham and Its Historical Setting,” Bibliotheca Sacra 127 (July 1970): 250. See Erhard Gerstenberger, “Review of Treaty and Covenant by D. J. McCarthy,” Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (June 1964): 198-99. Gerstenberger writes, “But as soon as the writer tries to reconstruct the treaty form ‘with sufficient fullness’ (109) from the OT text, he stumbles. The passage of his choice Deuteronomy 4:46–26:68, as a whole and in a few of its subdivisions, is made to yield a structure roughly resembling the treaty form. To be sure, McCarthy does not claim a perfect identity” (Ibid., 198).
15. Gerstenberger, “Review of Treaty and Covenant by D. J. McCarthy,” 199. Italics are his.
16. James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3 ed., with supplement (New Jersey: Princeton University Press,! 969), 227–322. Credit is due to Rogers for pointing this out.
17. Rogers, “The Covenant with Abraham,” 251.
18. For a simple but not simplistic comparison of both, see the following: For treaty covenant, see Rogers, “The Covenant with Moses,” 141–56. For grant covenant, see 242–56.
19. Although not identical, the following subdivisions of the treaty components were derived from John H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context: A Survey of Parallels Between Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 2nd ed., Library of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1989), 101–9.
20. “Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary, 11.
21. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context, 101.
22. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 51.
23. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context, 101.
24. Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 50.
25. Sun is a title for the Hittite king. Kline suggest that “Sun-god” should be the literal understanding (Ibid., 29).
26. Pritchard, ed., ANET, 203. One can also see another preamble similar to this one, between Rea-mashesha mai Amana and Hatusilis (202).
27. Harry A. Hoffher, Jr., “The Treaty of Tudhaliya IV with Kurunta of Tarhuntassa on the Bronze Tablet Found in Hatrusa,” in The Context of Scripture: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World, ed. William W. Hallo, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 100.
28. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 52.
29. Hillers, Covenant, 29–30.
30. Ibid., 49. Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 14, also sees “1 am the Lord thy God” as equal to the preamble to the suzerainty treaties. Furthermore, objecting to the brevity of the covenant and inscription written on two stone tablets poses no problems. Kline finds entire ancient Near Eastern treaties written on a single stone tablet (Ibid., 18). Although many scholars (like Mendenhall, Kitchen, Walton, and Bright) argue for parallel forms between the Mosaic covenant and the ancient Near Eastern covenant of the Hittites, not all agree (McCarthy, Kalluveettil, Baltzer, Weinfeld). For various opinions on this issue see McCarthy, “Covenant in the OT,” 68-78.
31. Rogers, “The Covenant with Moses,” 150.
32. Obviously, chapter and verse divisions are not in the original; therefore, one should fight the temptation in trying to make a clear-cut division based on that criteria, especially when it goes against the context.
33. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context, 102. See also Peter C. Craigie, “Covenant” in Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Walter A. Elwell, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988), 535. Kline also sees the preamble component in Deuteronomy 1:1–5 as analogous to the introductory formulas of the extra-biblical treaties; see Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 50.
34. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 53.
35. Ibid.
36. William W. Hallo, and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., ed. The Context of Scripture: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World, ed. William W. Hallo, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 98–99.
37. Hillers, Covenant, 30–31. Hillers examines another prologue (between Mursulis and Duppi-Tessub of Amurru, in Prichard, ed., ANET, 203) and concludes that with any prologue, “It tells a story fitted to the particular partners involved. The treaty form was not a standard contract fonn in which you needed only to fill in the proper names and sign on the line.”
38. Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 52. Kline interprets the historical prologue here to begin in Exodus 20:2b, contrary to Rogers who takes also the phrase “I am Yahweh, your God” to be part of the prologue. See also Hillers, Covenant, 49.
39. Rogers, “The Covenant with Moses,” 150. Rogers, influenced by Francis I. Andersen, The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch, Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series, 14 (Nashville, 1970), 40, says that Andersen,”... explains this type of verbless clause as one of’self-identification,’ especially the ‘self-identification of a speaker at the beginning ... of a pronouncement’”(Ibid., fn 65).
40. Ibid.
41. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 261.
42. Hillers, Covenant, 49–50.
43. Not everyone agrees on how far this section extends. Kitchen and Walton group it from 1:6–3:29. Merrill classifies it from 1:6–4:40. Kline sees it from 1:6–4:49, while Craigie views it from 1:7–4:49. Since God’s retribution begins in 1:34 and seems to continue to 4:34 (as mentioned by Merrill), this would, at least by subject matter, rule against ending in 3:29. However, it seems harder to choose between the section ending at 4:40 or extending to 4:49. Since 4:45 continues to mentions “the statues” which are “His statues” in 4:40, one might argue for the continuation of the same subject matter. On the other hand, Merrill may be correct in understanding 4:40–49 to introduce the following material. For example, the cities of refuge subject matter in vv. 41–43 is greatly magnified in 19:2–13, and the covenant “statues” can be viewed to fit the stipulations statues that follows from 5:1–28:68, better than what precedes it. For the latter view see Merrill, Deuteronomy, 135. Hence, ending the prologue at 4:40 seems to be the best option.
44. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, 96; Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context, 102. Conversely, McCarthy (280–81) views the Joshua 24:2–13 historical prologue, which he calls “historical credo,” late and sees it as religious theological construction which cannot be validly viewed as an “ancient liturgical confession.”
45. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 59.
46. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context, 103. See Walton’s chapter on law, and for a good treatment of the use of the apodictic law as covenant stipulations see Rogers, “The Covenant with Moses,” 141–46. Also for a discussion of imperatives in relations with apodictic statements and their geographical location see McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 82–83.
47. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary, 12.
48. Singer, here, mentions in a footnote that about four lines are lost.
49. Hallo, ed., The Context of Scripture, 2:96.
50. Ibid., 97.
51. Hillers, Covenant, 50. He recognizes that, “The Ten Commandments constitute an obvious parallel to the stipulations of the suzerainty treaty. Our familiarity with the Commandments make it a bit strange, perhaps, to think of them in this light, but the basic likeness is there.” See also Rogers, “The Covenant with Moses,” 150.
52. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 61, 63. He says, “The most notable example is surely that from the treaty of Mursilis II with Manapa-Dattas and composed in Hittite ... [e.g.,] ...thou shalt seize all the captives and thou shalt send them here to me! Thou shalt not leave any man there! Thou shalt not let anyone get way from thy country ...”
53. Ibid., 250-56.. This is also denied by Gerstenberger, “Covenant and Commandment,” 47-51.
54. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context, 230. For a defense of this view see Rogers, “The Covenant with Moses,” 141–46. See also Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 15.
55. John Bright, A History of Israel, 4th ed. (Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000), Israel, 151. See also Kline, “Law Covenant,” 14–15; Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 67.
56. See Albrecht Alt, Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, trans. R. A. Wilson (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1967), 79–171; Hillers, Covenant, 88–97.
57. Rogers, “The Covenant with Moses,” 150–51; Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, 97.
58. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary, 13.
59. Rogers, “The Covenant with Moses,” 151.
60. Rogers also sees it this way.
61. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, 97.
62. Ibid. Kitchen even sees stipulations in Deuteronomy 29:9-31:8. To the distinction between basic and specific, Merrill says, “Despite these disclaimers there can be little doubt about the essential correctness of the view that Deuteronomy 12:1-26:15 is a more specific and detailed exposition of the general principles of the relationship and behavior addressed in 5:1-11:32” (Merrill, Deuteronomy, 31).
63. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context, 103.
64. The future active indicative of Αγαπησεὶ “You shall love,” is “sometimes used for a command, almost always in OT quotations (due to a literal translation of the Hebrew).” Wallace categorizes it as such. See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 718–19.
65. All of the following scholars describe this term as shown above. Hillers, Covenant, 35; Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, 97; Mendenhall, “Covenant,” 715; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 52. However, Rogers, in his article “The Covenant with Abraham ...,” 246, names this term “document,” but in “The Covenant with Moses ...,” 151, he sees the fourth element as “covenant ratification.” Kline in Treaty of the Great King, 121, also terms the fourth element “covenant ratification.”
66. Mendenhall, “Law and Covenant,” 60.
67. “Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context, 103.
68. Pritchard, ed., ANET, 205, as cited by Hillers, Covenant, 35.
69. Hillers, Covenant, 64, recognizes that “many scholars believe that repeated reading of the covenant formed part of the year’s religious ceremonies at Shechem.” See Bright, A History of Israel, 152.
70. Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 19.
71. Ibid., 20.
72. Ibid.. 21-22.
73. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary, 14; Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 60.
74. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context, 104. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 60.
75. Pritchard, ed., ANET, 200–1.
76. Hoffner notes that this is the “official term for the Hittite pantheon.”
77. Hallo, ed., “The Context of Scripture,” 2:105–6.
78. As with all witness lists, an extensive citation of strange names of gods may leave on wondering, “Why elaborate extensively on these names?” Hillers suggest, “Since the population of the Hatti land was extremely mixed, and since the ruling class was both tolerant of old cults and hospitable to new ones, the list of the Hittite gods is very long, the most important deities being placed first. The intention is that the overlord’s gods should be aware of the vassal’s oath, especially in case he should break it, when they as the most powerful of all gods would be expected to wreak vengeance, see Hillers, Covenant, 36–37.
79. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, 97.
80. Rogers, “The Covenant with Moses,” 153.
81. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, 97. Kitchen also mentions it in The Bible in Its World, 82. Kitchen interprets both of these verses as “memorial-stones” that are used as witnesses.
82. Huffmon explains that in ancient Near East treaties these, and other, natural elements were summons as witnesses not because they belonged to the divine assembly, but “because the curses and blessings - part of the covenant -involved these natural phenomena. “However, the meaning of such for Israel is not clear. It may follow the meaning of the ancient Near Eastern treaties use. Huffmon suggest, “...That heaven and earth served as judges, for Yahweh is the plaintiff and Israel the accursed. Heaven and earth as judges may be a literary fiction, but it would be more appropriate if the judge could serve as the executor of the sentence in actual court practice (as is suggested by Deut. 25:1–3), since the natural world served to carry out the curses and blessings,” see Huffmon, “Covenant Lawsuit,” 292–93.
83. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context, 105.
84. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary, 14–15, 24.
85. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context, 104. See also Hillers, Covenant, 38.
86. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 121. McCarthy points out that, “... There is a point which characterizes the Assyrian documents. This is the curse. It is long, emphatic, colorful, of a spirit far different from the sober Hittite tradition. Yet here it is still simply a question of development of a feature always found in the treaties, and not of a pure innovation. ... It is a baroque elaboration of the substitution ritual mentioned in a Syrian treaty text of the second millennium B.C. and found in covenant-making ceremonies among many Semitic peoples.” See also Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context, 105. See as well Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary, 15.
87. Hillers, Treaty-Curses, 13–14. Hillers mentions one such exception published by Heinrich Otten’s work on the fragment of Kashka’s treaty that cites individual gods by names.
88. The treaty between Mursili and Duppi-Tesub exemplifies this. Such a list is to elaborate to quote here, but the list in its entirety is exhibited in William W. Hallo, ed., The Context of Scripture: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, vol. 1 (NY: Brill,’ 1997), 2:97–98.
89. Ibid.
90. Unlike today’s world that fits the punishment to the crime, in the ancient Near Eastern world the laws were severe. Hillers describes the reasons why these curses were so severe: “In a different formulation some jurist foresees that a man might try to escape the curse on his wife and children by taking a second wife after the oath was sworn, so a curse is pronounced to cover that contingency as well. The curse is not limited to the vassal king but is spread, in widening circles, over his wife and children, to the third generation, his possessions and his country.” See Hillers, Covenant, 38.
91. See Hillers, Treaty-Curses, 20–29.
92. Kline finds the blessings and curses in Exodus 20 to be “interspersed among the stipulations” (cf. w. 5–7, 11–12). See Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 16.
93. Rogers, “The Covenant with Moses,” 154. See also Hillers, Covenant, 53. He says, “Exodus 20 then has only a brief counterpart to the blessings and curses of the treaty, ... [and] in Exodus 24, [as well] the covenant with Yahweh is at best implied in the ritual sprinkling of the blood of the covenant.” However, Hillers recognizes that brief accounts or allusions do not do justice to the extent to which the Scriptures link blessings and curses to the covenant. McCarthy does not believe the “sprinkling with blood” in Exodus 24:6, 8 is “connected with some sort of curse ritual” {Treaty and Covenant, 255, m 22).
94. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, 97. As seen above, the curse section of the Hittite treaties have close parallels to those of Israel. However, there are similar parallels between the curses found in the Esarhaddon treaties and those of Deuteronomy, see Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology,” 190–99.
95. Dwight J. Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come: Tracing God’s Kingdom Program and Covenant Promises Throughout History- (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1995), 92. Pentecost interprets Deuteronomy 28 as the predominant principle of how God dealt with His covenant people. He goes on to illustrate the outworking of this principle throughout all of Israel’s different periods (see pp. 91, 92, 107, 110, 111, 112, 118, 124, 127–28, 134, 149, 151, 159, 161, 163, 179, 195, 196). It seems Deuteronomy 28 appears more frequently quoted in his volume than any other part of Scripture. Pentecost seems to feel that one’s understanding of Israel’s success or failure is keyed to Deuteronomy 28.
96. Rogers, “The Covenant with Moses,” 154. Rogers believes that the blessings and curses mentioned in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 have a close association with Israel’s success in the land, as Pentecost above. See also Rogers, “The Covenant with Abraham,” 247–48.
97. Pritchard, ed., ANET 161. This writer is indebted to Kitchen for pointing out how in this law code one finds only three “blessing-clauses” as oppose to the fragmented eight or possible nine curses out of more that are not available. The same can be said of Hammurapi’s laws. See idem, ANET, 178–80; Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, 97–98. McCarthy understands the dominant feature of curses over blessings found in Deuteronomy 28 to be analogous to Syrian and Assyrian treaties, but not Hittite, see McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 144, 173. He is correct (as his chart on 173 shows), but as he shows (in 148) the text of Sippiluliuma-Kurtiwaza treaty is an exception. In any case, Hillers point along with Kitchen’s may provide the answer. Hillers is not surprised to find a dominant feature of curses in later treaties, because he reasons: “They are the most effective guarantee that the oath will be kept. No one will refrain from rebellion just because he does not want to miss some future blessings; he may refrain if he is terrified at the thought of the curses of the gods” (Covenant, 38). Kitchen also reasons: “The motive of additional deterrent may inspire the inclusion of more curses than blessings” (Ancient Orient and Old Testament, 98, fh 41). In fact, McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 74 (fn 72), may believe and cites a reference from an ancient Near East text (Goetze, ANET, 400, IV I Off.) that may prove the belief that certain men might have been “more sensible to fear than promises.” Thus, this does not prove Israel’s covenant is late. What it may prove is that what took the nations a while to learn, Yahweh knew all along and incorporated it into His covenant
98. Hillers, Covenant, 54.