Israel and the Nature of Covenant in the ancient Near East

A Paper

Submitted to Dr. Percy D. Johnson, Jr.

Of

Beulah Heights University

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Research Paper for the Course

Interpretation of the Old Testament
Bi601

Damon Richardson
April 29, 2012

Introduction Exodus chapter 20 is foundational for the proper understanding of the basis of ancient Israel’s relationship with YHWH and the significance of the covenant that YHWH made with them. Therefore the focus of this paper will be to provide the basic framework for viewing this important chapter not only from an exegetical standpoint but more contextually from its ancient Near Eastern cultural matrix in order to gain some perspective and understanding as to the meaning of this familiar text.

Genre of Exodus 20ff Over 50 years ago, George Mendenhall, wrote a series of articles centered on newly discovered documents from ancient Mesopotamia upon which he developed a six point formula from the examination of these fourteenth and thirteenth century Hittite treaties that shaped the way many later scholars came to understand the Biblical text in light of these ancient Hittite suzerainty-vassal covenants. Irvin A. Busenitz in his article Introduction to the Biblical Covenants wrote: The rise of the Documentary Hypothesis, fueled by the concept that religion in Israel developed along evolutionary lines, has in recent centuries suggested that the whole idea of covenants in Israel was a very late development. Following Julius Wellhausen’s anti-supernatural system, many modern scholars postulate that the covenant concept was foreign to Israelite society and religion until the late seventh century B.C. More recent contributions to covenant discussions, however, indicate an early origin of the covenant idea in Israel. In 1954, George Mendenhall became the first to note the parallels between some biblical covenants and the ancient Near-Eastern treaties, especially the Hittite treaties between overlords and vassals dating from the second millennium B.C.2 The parallels, especially with the Mosaic Covenant, are so numerous and compelling that one must conclude that “some of the covenant material in the Old Testament literature may very well be extremely early.”[1]

Mendenhall argued that the Decalogue became the basis for the laws of Exodus and further that both the Decalogue and the Covenant Code in Exodus 21-23 resembled the stipulations of the Hittite treaties. The bottom line of Mendenhall's supposition was that the covenant in Exodus had distinct similarities to both the Hittite vassal treaties and to the vassal treaties of the ancient Near East as well as the covenant in Deuteronomy and Joshua 24[2]. This paper will then look at Exodus 20 as a Near Eastern covenant genre rather than a law-code genre as we will demonstrate that the similarities between the former are much more convincing than those of the latter.

Historical Setting and Provenance
The biblical text indicates that it was in the third month after the exodus from Egypt, the Israelites having crossed the Red Sea and entering into the wilderness of Shur (Ex. 15:22), a journey which was characterized by several notable incidents such as the miracle of the water at Marah (v.25), followed by complaining, strife, rebellion, and the provision of manna and quail (16:1-36), the deliverance from the Amalekites (17:8-15), and Jethro’s visit (18:1-27). By the time of the third new moon, the tribes had come to the wilderness of Sinai where Moses was summonsed and later the entire congregation of Israel to the foot of the mountain to witness the theophany of God and hear what He had to say (Ex. 19:1-23). This places the events historically around 1440 B.C. Charles H. Talbert references several rabbinic and midrashic commentaries about the gathering of what became the first Shavuot:
Shabbat 88b- R. Johanan said: What is meant by the verse, The Lord giveth the word: They that publish the tidings are a great host? — Every single word that went forth from the Omnipotent was split up into seventy languages. The School of R. Ishmael taught: And like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces., just as a hammer is divided into many sparks, so every single word that went forth from the Holy One, blessed be He, split up into seventy languages (Quoting Ps. 68:11)

Shemot Rabbah 5:9 The Torah says, "And all the people saw the voices." Note that it does not say "the voice," but "the voices"; wherefore Rabbi Yochanan said that God's voice, as it was uttered, split into seventy voices, in seventy languages, so that all the nations should understand. (Shemot Rabbah 5:9 quoting Exodus 20:18)

Midrash Chazit- On the occasion of the Giving of Torah, the Children of Israel not only heard the Lord's voice, but actually saw the sound waves as they emerged from the Lord's mouth. They visualized them as fiery substance. Each commandment that left the Lord's mouth traveled around the entire camp and then came back to every Jew individually.

Midrash Tanchumah 26c- The Ten Commandments were promulgated with a single sound, yet it says, "All the people perceived the voices" (Exodus 20:18); this shows that when the voice went forth it was divided into seven voices and then went into seventy tongues, and every people received the law in their own language.[3]

What is a Covenant?
Eugene H. Merrill noted in his article Covenant and the Kingdom: M. Kline, in a publication entitled The Structure of Biblical Authority, has argued, on the basis of his own previous studies of biblical and ancient Near Eastern treaty and covenant forms, that the entire Bible is formulated on the model of an extensive and expansive covenant. That is, the Bible does not merely contain covenant records, but is itself and in its entirety a covenant text.[4]

Merrill defines a covenant as “a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action." The Hebrew word used to express "covenant" is brit a term that first occurs in Gen 6:18 and that appears about 285 times in the OT.[5] The scope of this paper will not permit me the space to go into greater detail about various types of covenants, other biblical covenants, and how covenants were enacted. Here we will work from Mendenhall’s argument that there were at least three types of covenants in the ancient Near East and in Israel, the parity covenant which was an agreement between two equal persons, the promissory covenant bound the suzerain (master/king) to the vassal (servant) unconditionally, also called a grant covenant and the obligatory covenant, also known as the suzerainty treaties, bound the vassal (servant) to be faithfully obedient to the suzerain (master/king).[6] Busenitz makes a similar argument for the difference between the basic two types however splitting hairs with the terminology:

When the covenant constitutes an obligation solely by the master to the servant, such as the Noahic, Abrahamic, Priestly, and Davidic covenants, Waltke understands it as a grant. Such terminology has the advantage of emphasizing the fact that God alone was obligated to keep the tenets of the covenant. In contrast, he views the Mosaic Covenant as a treaty, since it constitutes an obligation of the vassal to his master.[7]

Elements of the Suzerain-Vassal Treaties
The previously mentioned six elements of the Hittite Suzerain-Vassal Treaty are now well documented and accepted by many scholars today. Listed below are each of those elements explained utilizing both Mendenhall and Lopez’s explanation of each section of the document and subsequent historical examples from both the ancient Near East and ancient Israel.

Preamble
In the preamble also known as the identification of the speaker or the titulary, the author of the document is identified, giving his title, territory, attributes, and his genealogy. “This section emphasizes the suzerain’s greatness and his right to proclaim the treaty, and justifies his right to demand the vassal’s allegiance”.[8] Ancient Near Eastern Example (Hittite) - The preamble of a Hittite treaty between Muršilis and Duppi-Tešub illustrates this idea well: “These are the words of the Sun18 Muršilis, the great king, the king of the Hatti land, the valiant, the favorite of the Storm-god, the son of Šuppiluliumas, the great king, the king of the Hatti land, the valiant.”

Ancient Israelite Example – Exodus 20:1-2a (And God spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD, thy God) Deuteronomy 1:1-5 (These are the words which Moses spoke . . . saying) Joshua 24:1-2b (Then Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel . . . said to all the people, “Thus says the LORD God of Israel)[9]
Historical Prologue

In the historical prologue we find described in detail the circumstances of previously existing relationship between the suzerain and the vassal or the two parties. This section of the document emphasized the gracious acts and kindness of the suzerain toward the vassal where it is also stressed that the vassal is reciprocating future obedience for past benefits which were received without merit.[10] Ancient Near Eastern Example (Hittite) - The Hittite treaty between Tudhaliya and Šaušgamuwa contains a typical historical prologue:

I, My Majesty, [have taken you], Šaušgamuwa, [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, Šaušgamuwa, (my) brother-in-law, protect my majesty as overlord.

Ancient Israelite Example – Exodus 20:2b (which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Deuteronomy 1:6–4:40 and Joshua 24:2–13.

Stipulations
These were the basic and or detailed obligations imposed upon the vassal or inferior party to the treaty. [11] These stipulations were varied and based upon the whim of the suzerain, and the situation of the vassal nation. George Mendenhall discovered the exact nature of those stipulations that were often found in the documents. These included: 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. The parity between the vassals, created by the Hittite king, must not be changed. One cannot be a slave or dependent of another. Every hostile action against a co-vassal is hostility against the king himself, and the king promises to take the part of the oppressed. c. The vassal must answer any call to arms sent him by the king. To fail to respond is breach of covenant (Cf. Judg 21:8 ff.). d. The vassal must hold lasting and unlimited trust in the King; he must not entertain malicious rumors that the King is acting disloyally toward the vassal ("since man is depraved"), nor must he permit any evil words against the King, for this is the beginning of rebellion. e. The vassal must not give asylum to refugees from any source (there are many variations in detail concerning refugees, but this was evidently treated as a very serious problem). f. The vassal must appear before the Hittite king once a year, probably on the occasion of annual tribute (Cf. Ex. 23:17). (Later treaties lack the personal appearance stipulation - the interest seemed to shift primarily to the tribute). g. Controversies between vassals are unconditionally to be submitted to the king for judgment.[12]

Ancient Near Eastern Example- The treaty between Musili and Duppi-Tesub:

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-Tešub, 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 E]gypt has become an enemy.[13]

Ancient Israelite Example – Exodus 20:3-17, 22-26 (Basic stipulations) 21-23, 25-31 (Detailed stipulations)

Deut. 5:7-21; 12-26; Josh. 24:14

Provision for deposition and periodic reading of the covenant

This is almost self explanatory. Since it was not only the vassal king, but his entire state which was bound by the treaty, periodic public reading served a double purpose: 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. Since the treaty itself was under the protection of the deity, it was deposited as a sacred thing in the sanctuary of the vassal state - perhaps also, to indicate that the local deity or deities would not and could not aid in breach of covenant.[14]

Ancient Near Eastern Example - Šuppiluliumas and Mattiwaza of Mitanni, citing the following section:

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

Ancient Israelite Example- 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 they may serve as a witness against the people’s past stubbornness. [15]

The list of gods as witnesses
Just as legal contracts were witnessed by a number of people in the community, so the gods acted as witnesses to the international covenants. In the written text, this section enumerates the deities who were invoked, usually a considerable number. Included are of course the gods of the Hittite state, but the pantheon of the vassal state is also included. In other words, the gods of the vassal themselves enforce the covenant, (Cf. Ezek 17:12-21). Most interesting for the purposes of this paper, however, is the inclusion of the (deified) mountains, rivers, springs, sea, heaven and earth, the winds and the clouds. (Cf. Dt32:1; Isaiah 1:2).[16] Ancient Near Eastern Examples- The gods, people and the elements were considered witnesses to the treaty.

Ancient Israelite Example- Exodus 24:4; Joshua 24:22, 27; Deuteronomy 31:16-30

Curses and Blessings

Both curses and blessings would be invoked for disobedience/obedience to the stipulations of the treaty. Mendenhall wrote: In some ways this is the most interesting feature of the covenant. The treaty stands wholly within the realm of sacred law, so to speak, for the only sanctions for the covenant are religious ones. It goes without saying that in case of breach, the Hittite king would proceed against the vassal with military forces, possibly as the agent by which the divine curse is brought down upon the vassal, but of this there is no word in the treaties. The curses and blessings in the texts are treated, on the other hand, as the actions of the gods, and enumerate much the same sort of things as those to be found in Deut 28.[17]

Ancient Near Eastern Example- [Sun-god of Heaven, Sun-goddess] 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-Tešub [does not keep these] words of the treaty and of the oath, then let these oath gods destroy Duppi-Tešub together with his head, his wife, his son, his grandson, his house, his city, his land and together with his possessions. But if Duppi-Tešub observes these words of the treaty and of the oath which are written on this tablet, let these oath gods protect Duppi- Tešub together with his head, his wife, his son, his grandson, his city, his land, your house, your subjects [and together with his possessions!].[18]

Lopez noted that the blessing in Hittite treaties or any other ancient Near Eastern treaty was not typical of what you would find. Curses were a basic and standard element of those treaties. Ancient Israelite Example - Exodus 22:19; 11:15, 17; 35:5; 21:12–14; 11:15–16 Deut. 27-30; Lev. 26:3-45

Mendenhall then goes on to name three other factors in the Covenant which are also listed in virtually every reference to his work by comparative and biblical scholars. He argued, “All told, we then have nine different elements involved in the complex covenant relationship familiar throughout the Mediterranean coastal lands in the period before the time of Moses. It must be emphasized again, that this particular structure of covenants is not attested for any other subsequent period. Though it is to be expected that survival of the form outlasted the Hittite Empire, it is perfectly clear that the home of this form is in the second millennium B.C. and cannot be proven (outside Israel) to have survived elsewhere”.[19]
Oaths by which the vassal pledges obedience to the treaty
Oaths were meant to imply acceptance of the terms of the treaty. However by covenant, an oath was usually implied and therefore not always necessary.
Exodus 24:3; Joshua 24:24
Solemn ceremony for formalizing the treaty
Lopez notes that the sacrifice made was not for the gods but as a sign of what would happen to covenant violators[20]
Exodus 24:3-8
Procedure for initiating sanctions against a rebel vassal
Exodus 20:3-17 and Deuteronomy 5:7-21
Thus was the nature of covenant in the ancient Near East and in Israel from the perspective of Suzerain-Vassal treaties which was the focus of this research paper, as opposed to the Royal Grant treaties which also find comparative parallels between Israel and its Near Eastern neighbors.

Bibliography

Busenitz, Irvin. “Introduction to the Biblical Covenants; The Noahic Covenant and the Priestly Covenant.” The Master's Seminary Journal 10, no. 2 (Fall 1999): 173-89.

Lopez, Rene. “Israelite Covenants in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants.” Chafer Theological Seminary 10 (Spring 2004): 72-103.

Talbert, Charles H., A Literary and Theological Commentary Revised Edition. Georgia: Smith & Helwys Publishing, Inc., 2005

Merrill, Eugene. “Covenant and the Kingdom: Genesis 1-3 as Foundation For Biblical Theology.” Criswell Theologica Review 1, no. 2 (1987): 295-308.

Clayton, Jerome Ross. The History of Ancient Israel and Judah: A Compilation. Pittsburgh: Dorrance Publishing Co., Inc. 2003

Mendenhall, George. Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East Pittsburgh: The Biblical Colloquium, 1955

Other sources not cited
Wilson, Marvin R. Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989.

Gottwald, Norman K. The Politics of Ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

Fischer, John Dr. The Enduring Paradox: Exploratory Essays in Messianic Judaism. Baltimore: Lederer, 2000.

Berkowitz, Ariel & D’vorah. Torah Rediscovered. Hampton: Shoreshim Publishing, Inc., 1996.

Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

-----------------------
[1] Irvin Busenitz, “Introduction to the Biblical Covenants; The Noahic Covenant and the Priestly Covenant,” The Master's Seminary Journal 10, no. 2 (Fall 1999): 173-174.

[2] Rene Lopez, “Israelite Covenants in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants,” Chafer Theological Seminary 10 (Spring 2004): 72.

[3] Charles H. Talbert, A Literary and Theological Commentary Revised Edition (Macon, Georgia: Smith & Helwys Publishing, Inc., 2005), 24.

[4] Eugene Merrill, “Covenant and the Kingdom: Genesis 1-3 as Foundation For Biblical Theology,” Criswell Theologica Review 1, no. 2 (1987): 295.

[5] Ibid., 296.

[6] Rene Lopez, “Israelite Covenants in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants,” Chafer Theological Seminary 10 (Spring 2004): 72.

[7] Irvin Busenitz, “Introduction to the Biblical Covenants; The Noahic Covenant and the Priestly Covenant,” The Master's Seminary Journal 10, no. 2 (Fall 1999): 176.

[8] Rene Lopez, “Israelite Covenants in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants,” Chafer Theological Seminary 10 (Spring 2004): 74.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid., 76.

[11] Jerome Clayton Ross, The History of Ancient Israel and Judah: A Compilation (Pittsburgh: Dorrance Publishing Co., Inc. 2003), 28.

[12] George E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East Pittsburgh: The Biblical Colloquium, 1955

[13] Rene Lopez, “Israelite Covenants in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants,” Chafer Theological Seminary 10 (Spring 2004): 78.

[14] George E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East Pittsburgh: The Biblical Colloquium, 1955

[15] Rene Lopez, “Israelite Covenants in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants,” Chafer Theological Seminary 10 (Spring 2004): 80-81.

[16] George E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East Pittsburgh: The Biblical Colloquium, 1955

[17] Ibid.

[18] Rene Lopez, “Israelite Covenants in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants,” Chafer Theological Seminary 10 (Spring 2004): 85.

[19] George E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East Pittsburgh: The Biblical Colloquium, 1955

[20] Rene Lopez, “Israelite Covenants in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants,” Chafer Theological Seminary 10 (Spring 2004): 89.