RECENT emphasis by Old Testament theologians on the covenant theme has brought to light much helpful and interesting material from extra- Biblical sources that helps us better understand the Old Testament covenant emphasis. Some theologians, such as Walther Eichrodt,1 have gone to the extreme of building a whole theology around the centrality of the covenant tradition to Biblical revelation. Eichrodt has considered the covenant as the unique unifying theme that binds the Old Testament with the New. But this would impose too great a limit upon the infinite variety of the Old Testament teachings. It is probably more accurate to view the covenant as one of the central unifying themes.
The covenant is a very ancient institution practiced by many nations under a variety of forms and applications. Some covenants, for ex ample, were made between equals, others between king and subject, but never in extra-Biblical sources do we find a covenant being made by a pagan god with one of his worshipers or with an entire nation. Only in Scripture do we find the Deity making a covenant with His subjects.
Nevertheless, the Biblical covenants do follow the customary and traditional forms of the times. This can be seen very clearly by comparison with extant Near-Eastern texts. One of the first known uses of covenant in non-Biblical sources is found in the Qatna documents.2 Two of fifteen cuneiform tablets bear the title TAR-biritu, the latter part of the term being the Akkadian cognate expression for the Hebrew covenant term berith.
The first of these two tablets contains a list of personal names of certain individuals who have agreed to enter by compact or covenant into another's service and to fulfill certain obligations. The second is a ration list and illustrates the nature of the covenant by naming certain specific rations the men were to receive in return for their services.
The interesting thing about these documents is that, according to Albright, they are to be dated not later than the fourteenth century B.C., which shows that the covenant tradition is very ancient. This evidence would seem to indicate that the Biblical idea of covenant is not to be isolated from the practices of other peoples from earliest times.
Then, too, there are the Hittite suzerain-vassal treaties. Some have tried to show that the Ten Commandments reveal this form, where the suzerain or lord makes a treaty or covenant with his vassal or lesser subject. Mendenhall has been one of the main proponents of the Ten Commandment theory, but the main problem is that the commandments do not harmonize exactly with the treaty format, which is divided into the six items listed below:
1. The preamble
2. The historical prologue
3. Stipulations concerning future relations
4. Regulations concerning the deposit of the agreement in the temple
5. Invocation of the gods as witnesses
6. Curses and blessings
It is possible that the Ten Commandments might conform to the first three conditions, but they themselves do not contain the last three (though it can be argued that the service in which they were accepted, might). The unique difference between the two institutions is to be found in the fact that the commandments were given by God and that Scripture uses the word covenant when speaking of them (Deut. 4:13). But there is no record of a suzerain-vassal treaty having been made by a Hittite god. We would expect that God in making His covenant with Israel would con descend to employ known tradition as far as possible in order to make His message meaningful and to present a new relationship implying certain well-defined obligations. But in this case it would not be possible to follow completely the treaty outline.
On the other hand, it is interesting to note that the book of Deuteronomy, a series of sermons delivered by Moses on the border of Canaan shortly before his death, follows the six-term Hittite treaty form. It is possible that Moses and the people of Israel could have known of this covenant tradition from commercial contacts between the Hittites and the Egyptians. On the basis of this parallel some scholars would now want to date the book of Deuteronomy well before the year 1,000 B.C. as against the later date in the time of the Prophets proposed by the adherents to the Documentary hypothesis.
But the most interesting confirmation of the covenant tradition from extra-Biblical sources comes from the time of Abraham. Well in advance of many of these fascinating discoveries, Ellen White had stated concerning the Abrahamic covenant that "the Lord condescended to enter into a covenant with His servant, employing such forms as were customary among men for the ratification of a solemn engagement." 3 When she penned these words there was no way of checking her statement from extra-Biblical sources, but such is not the case today. What she wrote many years ago has been recently confirmed by the discovery of the Surpu documents in the Akkadian language.
Weinfeld, of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, in an article entitled: "The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East," and in a lexical entry in a theological dictionary in German, has brought to light some valuable information, especially concerning the Abrahamic covenant.4 He points out that the Abrahamic covenant is a promissory type covenant as op posed to the obligatory Sinaitic type covenant, which is in the form of a suzerain-vassal treaty. However, it is probably more accurate to suggest that we can see both types in both covenants.
Weinfeld points out that it was customary for persons in authority to make a gift of land and dynasty to subjects who had shown loyalty and obedience. God employs this tradition in the Abrahamic promises of Genesis 15 and 17. The grant was always given without reference to merit and to protect the rights of the servant. This helps us to under stand the meaning of the everlasting covenant by means of which God offers us the new earth and a position as kings with Christ on the basis of fidelity to the covenant terms.
Weinfeld presents yet other aspects of the covenant of grant well known to ancient civilizations, such as adoption, election, et cetera, but one other reference must suffice. The divine covenant made with Abraham, as recorded in Genesis 15, was accompanied by an oath, a smoking oven and a blazing torch (Gen. 15:17). "In the Surpu documents we read about an oath taken by holding a torch, or about the oath of furnace, stove, et cetera." 5 In other words here we have the extra-Biblical evidence confirming what Ellen White had said many years before the discovery.
FOOTNOTES
1. Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 1, trans. by J. A. Baker (Philadelphia-. Westminster Press, 1961).
2. W. F. Albright, "The Hebrew Expression for 'Making a Covenant' in the Pre-lsraelite Documents," Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research, CXXI (1951), pp. 21, 22.
3. Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets (Pacific Press, 1913), p. 137.
4. M. Weinfeld, "The Covenant of Grant in the Ancient Near East," Journal of the American Oriental Society, XC (1970), pp. 184-203; G. ). Botterweck and Helmer Ringren, gen. eds., Theologisches Worterbuch zum Alten Testament, Berith, by M. Weinfeld (Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1972), pp. 781-808.
5. Weinfeld, "Covenant of Grant," JAOS, XC, p. 196.