Episode Transcript
Carey Griffel: Welcome to Genesis Marks the Spot where we raid the ivory tower of biblical theology without ransacking our faith. My name is Carey Griffel and If you listened to my last episode, I told you that it was a bit of a bridge episode, and let's be honest, it might have felt like a swinging rope bridge over a chasm of systematic theology without any idea of how we were going to land back into the realm of biblical theology.
[00:00:36] But I hope it served its purpose which, as I think I explained, was to bridge the gap between the conversation on alcohol and wine and even the Lord's supper into a conversation about the topic of baptism because those two things are connected in Scripture. And for most of us, they are connected in our spiritual communities as sacraments.
[00:01:02] And then the question becomes, why are we talking about covenant? I know it might seem to some people to be disconnected from the conversation or maybe just another element, but that's exactly why we're looking at it, because we need to see this broader picture in order to understand what's going on with something like the Lord's Supper or baptism.
[00:01:24] We saw that drinking wine was a symbol, and not just a symbol, but a ritual act of fellowship. And that's one really good way to see what the basis of covenant is. But on the other hand, we might take that image and make it a little bit too loose.
[00:01:44] I don't want to say that covenant just equals relationship because there really is a lot more to it than that. There is a whole framework here. There's a system. There's a hierarchy of ideas. And so we need to understand relationship not in terms of like fuzzy feelings and feeling really nicely towards somebody. Relationship in covenant is much more than that.
[00:02:10] Plus the fact that what we need to look at in order to see the original context is not just this way that people related to one another, but the way that they wrote it down in their texts and recorded it. Those two things might actually not be the same thing at all because we all know today that writing is used to influence. Writing is used as rhetoric. Writing is used as propaganda. And we can't always know that what we see written down, especially in the form of royal documents, well they might not be perfectly and completely and literally accurate down to the letter.
[00:02:52] But written texts are the best way that we have to get into the ancient mindset. So that's what we're going to use.
[00:03:02] And yes, primarily we do use Scripture mostly, right? This is our revelation. This is the thing that we should be basing our truth ideas on and our ritual practices. But Scripture isn't all that disconnected from its ancient context. So we're going to be looking at general ancient near Eastern contexts, in covenant, in purification, in ritual, and all of these ideas that we're exploring here today.
[00:03:33] Now, as I said, Scripture deeply connects wine and water as well as many other things together in that matrix of ideas. But because Scripture connects these things, we can add in all kinds of other elements that track along these same lines and describe life and death. We can talk about food and famine. We can talk about plague and healing. It seems like there's a duality that contrasts salvation and destruction in many areas. Descriptions like wine and water are particularly potent because it seems like a paradox. It seems really strange to wrap up life and death into one single figurative item.
[00:04:17] But we all have to use water, right? We can't just not have water, even though water can produce death, but water is necessary for life. Wine seems like it's very much less necessary compared to water. But again, it's a cultural symbol and a cultural use of something that actually produces a result in the world. So it is more than just symbolism.
[00:04:43] When we say just symbolism, we tend to be thinking of like ideas. But when you are actually engaging in fellowship with another person over wine or over food, when you are actually washing yourself in a purification ritual, something real is actually happening in the world. So in order to get to the idea of baptism being similar to the cup as a layered world of covenant transformation, we first need to look at that overarching world and why these symbols are even here at all.
[00:05:21] Now, covenant is a really big topic. It's a really debated topic as well. There are a lot of different ideas from different people, different backgrounds, who are trying to understand what covenant is in Scripture, what it means, and especially why we have so many of them. How do those relate to one another?
[00:05:42] That's a bit of what we talked about last episode when we got into systematic covenant theology. So today we're gonna get back into biblical theology and we're going to try to wrap our minds around ancient covenant. Which is similar to things we have today, but it's not a one-to-one correspondence, which makes it really hard.
[00:06:07] When modern readers hear the word covenant, they think of really strict legal agreements or contracts. We have God who promises to do this if humanity does that. Or in a covenant of grace structure, we have God who promises to do things and we are off the hook of any conditions in order for that to happen. That's our typical evangelical systematic world.
[00:06:34] But in the biblical world, covenant is far more than just a legal contract. It is about identity. It is about representation. It is about belonging and a whole bunch of other things that we might not like all that much when we get into the military context of it.
[00:06:53] As I said, when we talk about covenants being relational and we talk about people fellowshipping over wine, we tend to really import that into our lives and think of it either as a vague, fuzzy kind of relationship where it's about being nice to one another and doing all of these relational, psychological things, right?
[00:07:15] But how do you mesh that with the idea of covenant being a formalized agreement? What do we do with the idea that we have things that look like stipulations and we need obedience to be part of this equation of covenant.
[00:07:30] I am sorry, but when you look at that systematic covenantal theology and they're really trying to make these hard lines and decide which covenant belongs to a covenant of works and which one belongs to a covenant of grace, then they are using that covenant theology lens in order to read Scripture instead of drawing out the meaning from its ancient context.
[00:07:54] So part of our conversation has to be how a covenant relates to a law code. Now, I'm going to suggest that they are not the same thing, but they do overlap. For those of you who have listened for a while, you probably have heard me talk about frame semantics. We're going to get into more of that as we talk about covenant.
[00:08:17] Frame semantics is going to allow us to compare covenant theology with different forms of ancient Near Eastern covenant. And I say different forms because number one, scholars don't agree. So we're going to explore the different options that scholars suggest is what's going on with these ancient covenants.
[00:08:38] And number two, covenants do not remain static over time. There's actually a really interesting difference that we get to when we look at covenants from the Late Bronze Age versus the Iron Age. And why does that matter? Well, that is our context for Scripture. And so if we're trying to set the Bible into its ancient context, we kind of need to know at least a little bit of what that context is, or at least we can look at the context in the ancient world and say, these are the places it fits here. These are maybe disconnects or maybe not.
[00:09:18] For now, we're basically just looking at the Old Testament. Whatever you think of the Mosaic authorship of the Torah, unless you want to say that the Bible was entirely written at a late date during the exile, then we need to wrestle with the fact that we have different pieces of Scripture that come from very, very different contexts. I do not claim that the Bible comes from the time of the exile, but I do think it's clear that the Bible was compiled and redacted during that time.
[00:09:52] So what we have are really ancient documents, some of which come from that Egyptian context with Moses. And then those documents were compiled or collected or preserved during the early years of the people being in the land. Then we have the context of the judges, we have the context of the monarchy, we have the context of the exile, and each of those times is different. If you think of the documents and the texts that people are going to have and hopefully preserve, during each of those times, they're gonna have specific things that they're worried about, specific things that they're thinking about. They're gonna give priority to certain ideas and texts and less priority to others.
[00:10:39] So because of that difference in context, if we can see that the covenants in Scripture, or at least some of it, stems from the Late Bronze Age, that actually really helps our case for an earlier writing and it helps date the context of the Torah.
[00:10:59] Now here's why this difference between the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age really matters. If what we can see in Scripture is a context that stems from or is set within the Late Bronze Age, well, that helps give some defense for that Mosaic core of the Torah because it's during the Iron Age that we have the exile.
[00:11:22] For those who need a brief reminder or an introduction to what frame semantics is, basically we're going to be comparing conceptual frameworks. Those conceptual frameworks of covenant are going to have similar elements within them, but those elements are going to differ between the different frames. That's what makes them different.
[00:11:46] So a covenant model constructs a different frame around how God relates to humanity and how people relate to each other, because covenants are a thing that people do with one another.
[00:11:59] And here are some of the common elements in a covenant. Now, each of these elements don't necessarily have to exist in every covenant, even within the same time period. But here's the general things that scholars will expect to see if they are looking at a covenant text.
[00:12:17] First of all, we have the giver and the receiver. This is the only information that each covenant actually requires.
[00:12:26] Sometimes a covenant is mediated by a third party, so we have a mediator.
[00:12:32] Sometimes a covenant is structured so that there is a beneficiary. We have individuals or groups who receive benefits from the covenant, and that is stated explicitly in the writing.
[00:12:46] Sometimes there is a visible sign that is attached to the covenant to affirm it.
[00:12:52] Sometimes there's a location that is stated where the covenant is made or is enacted.
[00:12:58] Sometimes there is a promise from either one party or both parties.
[00:13:03] Sometimes there is a condition or stipulations regarding the covenant.
[00:13:09] And on occasion there is a consequence that is stated. The results or actions taken if the covenant is broken.
[00:13:17] These are not the only elements that a covenant might have. There can be additional things that you'll see, but these are the basics. And again, they don't have to be in every covenant in order for a covenant to be a covenant.
[00:13:32] Okay, so let's look at the reformed covenant theology frame. Now, of course, for the covenant theologian, we have different covenants. We have covenants of works. And a covenant of works will often have all of those elements that I just mentioned. Then we have the idea of a covenant of grace.
[00:13:53] Lexham Survey of Theology says, quote, " The covenant of grace is a theologically discerned covenant between God and Christ, or between God and his people. For most covenant theologians, the covenant of grace and encompasses the Abrahamic Mosaic, Davidic, and new covenants. This is commonly described as one covenant under several administrations. Some covenant theologians identify the covenant of grace with the pre- temporal covenant of redemption. Others distinguish these as two distinct covenants." End quote.
[00:14:33] Now depending on who you're listening to, there is some debate whether there are any conditions at all attached to the covenant of grace. Sometimes there are occasionally a few conditions. A lot of times there are not.
[00:14:49] Lexham Survey of Theology goes on to say, quote, " The concept of the covenant of grace developed during the reformation in part due to the Anabaptist's challenge to infant baptism. By asserting the unity of the covenant of grace under different administrations, Zwingly and others were able to argue for continuity between the circumcision of covenant children under the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, and the baptism of covenant children under the new covenant. A unified covenant of grace also ensured that there is one way of salvation in every era of redemptive history.
[00:15:28] " Given its origins in the debate over subjects of baptism, it is of little surprise that Baptist covenant theologians developed a different conception of the covenant of grace. Instead of the covenant of grace encompassing the covenants from Abrahamic to New, Baptist covenant theologians have identified the covenant of grace with the new covenant alone. The Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants were, together, seen as the old covenant. The old covenant contained the promises of the new covenant, and in this way, the Baptists were also able to affirm one way of salvation throughout every area of redemptive history. By drawing a distinction between the old covenant and the new covenant of grace, however, they believe that they better account for passages that draw contrast between the new and the old covenants.
[00:16:20] " More recently, some interpreters have doubted the existence of a covenant of grace for exegetical reasons. They observe that the Bible presents several different covenants and that the New Testament refers to plural covenants, like in Ephesians two 12. They question the exegetical warrant for flattening the distinctive covenants into a single covenant of grace." End quote.
[00:16:46] From a covenantal theology perspective, these are the elements that they see in the covenant at the beginning in Genesis. We have God, who is the sovereign Lord. We have Adam, who is the covenant head, or the representative. This is very key to the idea. They draw a lot upon Romans five for this idea. Eden is the temple setting. The tree and the prohibition are the test and the stipulation. The blessing is continued life and presence in Eden. The curse is death and exile. And the consequence is if Adam disobeys, the covenant is broken.
[00:17:28] The emphasis here is that the covenant is conditional, it is focused on obedience, and relationship is upheld by Adam's perfection. That is what makes Adam a covenant head. When Adam fails, the covenant fails.
[00:17:45] All right, so now we're gonna talk about what I will call the traditional ancient Near Eastern covenant frame. This is the way that most scholars will talk about ancient near Eastern covenants. And it is data driven. It is exegetical.
[00:18:02] The study of ancient near Eastern covenants in relation to the Bible is a thing that has really only been happening for just over 50 years. So there's probably a lot that we can still adjust in this knowledge and understanding here. And the reason for that is because the ancient Near Eastern covenant texts don't give us a really in-depth explanation of exactly why they're doing what they're doing, or even what the point of the different elements in the text are. We kind of have to presume what's going on in at least some of this.
[00:18:39] As we continue our study in covenants, I'm gonna give you a few challenges to these ideas. And I'm not doing so because I think that we can necessarily fix all of the issues and come up with the perfect idea of this is what an ancient Near Eastern covenant was and did. But rather we need to look at all of the different options and hold them loosely.
[00:19:02] But even when we do that, we're gonna see some distinctive differences between this ancient Near Eastern context, which is the context of the Bible, and the presentation of Covenant in later systematic theology. None of that should be surprising to anyone because the people who are developing systematic theology don't have access to this ancient Near Eastern context. They're doing the best they can and they're trying to figure things out the best they can.
[00:19:34] But look, a lot of it is guesswork. A lot of it is just based on philosophical presupposition. It just is. That's what the problem with systematic theology is.
[00:19:46] I mean, I'm not gonna say that biblical theology isn't also based on modern philosophy either, because it obviously is. But biblical theology's philosophy is trying to get back to that ancient time. Modern systematic theology tends to be interacting on a more modern level.
[00:20:07] You know, a lot of covenant theology is like, what did Luther think? What did Calvin think? What did Charles Hodge think? What did John Owen think? It's like, well, maybe they have some good ideas, but kind of doesn't matter what they think. What matters more is what the Bible says and what the biblical authors were thinking.
[00:20:30] All right. So I am drawing upon various resources, including various papers and dissertations, but they all basically agree with what the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary says. So that's what I'm gonna be quoting from today in this conversation.
[00:20:46] The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary suggests a couple of different problems that we have when we look at covenant. One is the lack of the use of the word covenant today for us at all. It's kind of an old word that is not used in a modern context. Now, it presents this as a problem and it kind of is, but I also kind of like this problem because if we're like, we don't understand what a covenant even is, then that actually helps us to build from the ground up instead of presuming that we know what it is.
[00:21:22] Of course, I think an additional problem has been introduced by the explanations that we've had where people are now like, oh, I know what a covenant is. It's a contract between two people. I mean, yes, but also there's more to it than that.
[00:21:41] Another problem that Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary brings out is that we do have a potential problem between the text and the actual practice and thought of the ancient person. I mentioned this before because texts can be used for rhetoric, for propaganda, for putting forth the story that someone writing the text wants to say. This is a problem that we kind of have to live with because we don't have a time machine.
[00:22:11] But here's a couple of points we ought to be keeping in mind as we're thinking about this. For one, these texts could be actually recording socially enacted historical realities that were expected to bring about changes of behavior or keep people in line. That might be what actually was going on with these texts.
[00:22:36] Another option though, number two, is that covenants could have been more like formal or symbolic, ideas that were presented and made as objects of tradition and belief.
[00:22:53] Those are two very different things. The one is that these covenants were meant to affect behavior and keep people in line, kind of like what we have in our speed limit signs on the road. Those are meant to keep people within a speed limit. The speed limit signs are not just symbolic of this is the traditional speed that people go on this road. That is definitely not the case on the roads I've been on because you have what the sign says and you have what people actually do.
[00:23:29] So the question we might ask is whether or not these covenant texts are more like speed limit signs or more like that story that grandma always tells at Christmas and it changes every year?
[00:23:43] Well, for most of us, we really, really want the covenants in Scripture to be prescriptive. We want them to be recorded exactly as it happened. We want no changes in the text over time to indicate changes in tradition and belief of the people. We don't want them to be edited and redacted, but unfortunately it seems like they are. Now, that doesn't mean every bit of it was edited and redacted. I don't think that was the case because we have some weird elements that are like, why did they keep this in?
[00:24:21] But it is a suggestion that the Bible can be read through different lenses at different times, even within the formulation of it. That means we might have a bit of a mixed reality between the speed limit sign and a grandma's old stories.
[00:24:38] We look at history and we look at Scripture, even within itself, systematics is gonna struggle with that, and biblical theology is gonna struggle with it. Anyone should struggle with it, and it's okay to have this problem. I'm not saying you have to pick a time that is the correct time nor am I saying that the various times of interpretation are just wrong.
[00:25:03] Grandma's story this year might not match Grandma's story five years ago, but in each of those years, there's a reason she was telling it the way she was telling it. She had her own context. And understanding those different contexts and seeing the differences can actually tell us about grandma's life and the family's life.
[00:25:24] My suggestion is that understanding different contexts and times and interpretive lenses of scripture can help us to do this today and it can help us be better readers of Scripture.
[00:25:38] All right, so let's really dive deeply into the traditional ancient Near Eastern covenant idea. Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary defines covenant as, quote, " An agreement enacted between two parties, in which one or both make promises under oath to perform or refrain from certain actions stipulated in advance. As indicated by the designation of the two sections of the Christian Bible, the Old Testament or covenant and the New Testament or covenant in the Bible is a major metaphor used to describe the relation between God and Israel, the people of God. As such, covenant is the instrument constituting the rule or kingdom of God, and therefore it is a valuable lens through which one can recognize and appreciate the biblical ideal of religious community." End quote.
[00:26:40] Okay, so a few points here. A question we really might want to ask, and I'm not trying to answer here, is this idea of the Old Testament versus the New Testament. And yes, testament is a word that kind of encompasses covenant. My question is, are we taking this Testament's idea and reading it back into what we see in Scripture? Because we want to be careful not to do that. I think we can't deny that this is a major way to describe God's relationship with his people. That's why we're talking about covenant and really emphasizing it here. But we did develop the Old Testament New Testament framework later, and we shouldn't presuppose that our systematic theology is what the Bible is doing.
[00:27:27] I also want you to note that this definition really still seems to be landing the idea of covenant into the realm of the speed limit sign. The covenant and the sign are stipulations of behavior. And it's between two parties. If you're driving on the road and you go over the speed limit, then the cop on the side of the road might pull you over for that action.
[00:27:55] So the traditional, and I'm using the word traditional for myself because we're going to be nuancing this in later conversations, the traditional idea of ancient Near Eastern covenant is not far away from how a covenant theologian would define covenant. There's gonna be some added elements and a little bit of differences though.
[00:28:18] Now in the ancient Near East, there are different types of covenants and loyalty oaths and all kinds of things like that. But what we're primarily looking at here is called a suzerain vassel model.
[00:28:32] We're gonna be talking about both Late Bronze Age suzerain treaties, and then we're gonna talk about Iron Age loyalty oaths, which as I said are different, but they have similar elements. So the suzerain vassal model is you have the suzerain, who is the higher partner in the covenant. The suzerain is the provider, the protector. And most people will say that it's the suzerain who is instigating the covenant.
[00:29:02] The vassal in this model is the one who is under the suzerain. He's the one receiving protection, salvation, provision from the suzerain.
[00:29:13] So let's go back to Eden and the Garden. If we're reading that story in this framework, here's the elements that we have.
[00:29:22] We have Yahweh Elohim. He is the suzerain, the sovereign, and the witness and enforcer of the covenant. So he has several roles, actually.
[00:29:34] Adam is the vassal. He receives life. He receives a task, to keep and tend the garden, and a command to not eat from the tree.
[00:29:45] The garden is what we might call the covenant grant. This is property that Adam was granted and he's going to lose it when he breaks covenant.
[00:29:56] The command of do not eat is the written stipulation that when that is crossed, it will break the covenant. Just like if you're going over the speed limit, you have broken the speed limit.
[00:30:10] We have a blessing and a curse. The blessing is life and presence in the garden. The curse clause is that you shall surely die.
[00:30:20] The consequence is exile. This is what happened directly upon breaking the stipulation.
[00:30:27] It is a little bit strange that we have two different things going on here though, right? The curse clause talks about death and the consequence is that they're kicked out of the garden. Now, of course, we've talked a lot about that and there's a lot of overlap between death and exile in the Bible. Lots you can kind of think about for that. Are they the same? Are they different? A lot of people will think that exile happens and death follows from that exile. Other people will think that they're basically the same idea.
[00:31:02] There are some more things that we can add to these elements, but we don't understand those elements yet, so I'm not gonna bring them in. What I want you to see is how this model aligns very closely with the reformed covenantal frame. Both of them emphasize obedience to stipulations, a legal structure, and a covenant that can be broken. And when that covenant is broken, there is a legal consequence.
[00:31:30] Now it does seem like reformed theology extends this a bit. Because it's talking about Adam as a federal head, and it really leans into the idea that the stipulation defines covenantal integrity. Once you really dig into the ancient Near Eastern mindset of covenant, there are some differences though. So let's look at the late Bronze Age.
[00:31:55] Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary says, quote, " For some periods, especially the Syro- Hitite Late Bronze Age, these treaties constitute a major source of our knowledge of the ancient history of the region. As instruments for the creation and regulation of relationships between different social groups, they seem to have been universal in the ancient world. Even the Greek historian Herodotus regarded the forms by which a society established binding covenants as an important element in the description of that culture.
[00:32:29] " By their very nature, covenants are complex enactments. As complex acts, they combine, one, historical events that create relationships, usually though not necessarily between unequal partners.
[00:32:47] " Two, customary ways of thinking, characteristic of both parties, especially common religious ideas associated with deities.
[00:32:57] " Three, descriptions of norms for future behavior, which are often confused with laws.
[00:33:04] " Four, literary or oral forms in which the agreement is couched.
[00:33:10] " And five, almost always some ritual act that is regarded as essential to the ratification of the binding promise.
[00:33:19] " It follows that a covenant cannot be understood merely by regarding it as a rigid literary form, nor can it be understood by reducing it to a literary law code, a ritual act, or a theological or political idea or concept. Thus, most studies of Old Testament covenant in the past quarter century that have been liminated by one or another of such concepts have largely generated a great deal of unnecessary confusion." End quote.
[00:33:50] Okay, so I've been talking about this idea of the stipulation and the breaking of the covenant. What I just read suggests that we should not be confusing that with law code. Now, that doesn't mean it can't function similarly to a law code, as a lot of people are supposing, but to equate the two is probably not what we should be doing. They quite likely have different functions, but they also overlap.
[00:34:20] I like what Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary says here. Quote, " It is highly probable that these instruments for the regularization of public relationships between sovereigns developed in prehistoric times from customary forms used for making behavior predictable between private persons. One such occasion for private agreements would be marriage contracts. And it is significant that marriage is one of the most pervasive and constant types of covenant throughout history." End quote.
[00:34:53] Now that's interesting, isn't it? Because I mean, if you really think about it, most of us will say, well, obviously a marriage is a covenant. and yet in so many Bible studies and Sunday school classes, when people ask, what is a covenant? The answer is, it's a contract. And we'll move over to the idea of marriage and yes, that's a contract. We sign an agreement with one another, but we also fundamentally know that marriage is so much more than that.
[00:35:27] And depending on who you're talking to, some people kind of want a little bit more fuzziness between the contract and the relationship idea, don't we? I mean, most of us don't want to boil our marriages down into legal requirements and stipulations. We don't wanna just say that obeying the letter of the law is perfectly fine, and that's all you need to do in a marriage.
[00:35:52] So anyway, I'm just bringing that out because it kind of shows a little bit of our fuzzy thinking here, especially in our desires of how we want to read what a covenant is and what it means. And that doesn't mean that we're wrong to read more into it than the legal function. And even if the stipulations are not strict things that are going to break the covenant by themselves, we still need to kind of navigate through these fuzzy waters. It's also highly interesting how often the Bible compares God's relationship with his people to a marriage.
[00:36:30] Okay, here's a quote that I'm going to push back on. Again from Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, quote, " Since covenants are typically enacted between parties to create relationships that did not previously exist, both the substance and the form of covenants must be valid and meaningful to both." End quote.
[00:36:52] Okay, so it depends on what we mean here by creating a relationship that didn't previously exist. We're gonna ask when a covenant begins? Does it begin only at the covenant enactment ritual? Does it begin when the covenant is written down? Or does it begin before that?
[00:37:14] The point I'm gonna push back on here is the idea that the relationship did not previously exist. Now, there might be a formalization that did not previously exist, but I think that we will see as we look at covenants, that a relationship did indeed begin far before the covenant did.
[00:37:36] And this matters to the idea of the stipulations. Because if a covenant begins at a certain time with the enactment or the writing or the giving of the stipulation, then it makes sense that the breaking of the stipulation would break the covenant.
[00:37:54] But if covenant can kind of be pushed back a little bit into a relationship that existed prior to the writing down or prior to the enactment, then we might see that the stipulation is not necessarily breaking the covenant itself. Which is an important element that we need to look at, especially when we're looking at modern ideas of covenant theology and also especially when we're looking at the work of Jesus and what he did and why.
[00:38:27] Another point to bring up here for your consideration is that we tend to think that covenant is written by one party or it is instigated by the more powerful party.
[00:38:40] There's a couple of points there actually as to who instigates the covenant and what is the suzerain doing when he writes the covenant down? That's a really important question and one that I don't really see asked always and that has a few different answers.
[00:38:59] All right, so looking at the Bronze Age, there's no reason to think that the Hittites originated this treaty form, but it seems to have been the most highly developed structure with them. But across the board, what we can see is that the same thought processes and ideas were just common across the ancient and it shouldn't surprise us that these are within the Bible itself.
[00:39:25] You might be wondering when the late Bronze Age even was. Most scholars date it to around 1550 BC to 1200 bc. This is a time period at the height of the Egyptian new kingdom's power. For example, we have the reign of Ramseys II. We have here, obviously, the flourishing of the Hittite Empire. We have widespread international diplomacy and trade. This is the setting of proposed dates for the Exodus. So those who want to argue for Mosaic authorship, or at least a Mosaic core, really need to look at the Late Bronze Age and its context.
[00:40:07] It really wasn't until the mid 1950s that people started to connect the Old Testament traditions with the late Bronze Age covenants. So, like I said, it's pretty darn recent that we're still looking at this stuff.
[00:40:22] Now let's look at the different elements of the Bronze Age Hittite treaty. Again, these don't have to show up in every single one, but these are actual elements that we see written down in the text itself.
[00:40:37] At least as long as the text is complete, we will always see the identification of the covenant giver. Again, we're talking about suzerain vassal treaties, and so the great and powerful king is bestowing a gracious relationship upon an inferior.
[00:40:53] Anchor Yale Bible dictionary says, quote, " It followed then that the relationship of the vassal to the overlord had to be an exclusive one. The vassal could not engage in treaty or other relationships with other independent monarchs without being guilty of treason and therefore becoming subject to the death penalty." End quote.
[00:41:17] So the vassal is giving allegiance and alliance to the suzerain, and if they give allegiance and alliance to another monarch, then they're breaking the covenant. There is also a sense that it is the giver of the covenant who has control.
[00:41:32] A very interesting aspect of these Bronze Age covenants is the historical prologue. I'll go ahead and read this from Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. It says, quote, " This section in which the Hittite king recounted his past deeds of benefit to the vassal is frequently so detailed and extensive as to constitute a major source for our knowledge of ancient Near Eastern history in this period. The motivation for this section was obviously not an academic interest in the past for its own sake, but rather to have that past serve as the foundation for the present obligation of the vassal to be obedient to the stipulations of the covenant. The implications of this element of the covenant structure are far reaching, but it is difficult, if not impossible to prove what these implications might have been.
[00:42:26] " It can at least be suggested that certain concepts were presupposed as present in the minds of both parties to the covenant. The historical prologue is inseparable from the concept of reciprocity that is so prevalent in pre-modern cultures. The narration of the past history emphasized very strongly the benefits that the great king had already bestowed upon the vassal in the past. The implication is, of course, that the common decency of gratitude would place the vassal under obligation to comply with the wishes of his benefactor." End quote.
[00:43:04] Now for those who are theologically minded, this is probably ringing a whole lot of bells in your head. Like, wait a second, covenant had obligation? That might either really excite you or really dismay you.
[00:43:19] You might also notice some of these ideas that suggest there already was a relationship between the suzerain and vassal. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean that the relationship changed upon the giving of the covenant. But it might be the case that the giving of the covenant and the formalization of the covenant was something that just happened after the actual relationship and covenant began previously.
[00:43:46] And I'm pointing that out several times because this is going to be a point that we will be looping back to in future episodes, no doubt.
[00:43:57] This also is going to be a bit of a struggle for us to try and reconcile covenant of works, covenant of grace, this ancient Near Eastern covenant. Is there ever really a covenant of grace? Of course, what I'm talking about here right now is Late Bronze Age covenants. A Late Bronze Age covenant is going to speak into the context of the Bible and explain things in the Bible and how the Bible is presenting covenants.
[00:44:28] But like I said, we have the Bible that is written and redacted and used through time. And even though we probably have a lot of elements of the Late Bronze Age covenant ideas in Scripture that perpetuate into the New Testament and beyond, we can also say that this is a unique time and that we shouldn't just lift everything up that this context is talking about and plop it down into another context. We need to be careful not to do that.
[00:45:01] I know it's not something that a lot of people like because they want to make these really overarching and really expansive connections. No, there are no Freemasons before the flood I'm sorry. Anyway, that's another topic.
[00:45:18] But my point is that really good scholarship and really good study and really good contextual understanding is going to understand that there are going to be connections and associations that are very firm when you are either close in time or geography or there's some other direct relationship between the original source and your secondary source.
[00:45:42] But when you distance yourself either through time or geography, then you cannot make those same connections as firmly. You just can't do it. What people are talking about over here in the Middle East is not gonna be the same thing that people are thinking about in the Far East or in South America or in Antarctica with the penguins. I don't know. Good scholarship requires careful thinking and not over conflating ideas.
[00:46:15] Anyway, so the third thing that we have here in the Bronze Age treaties are what we call stipulations. These describe how the vassal is bound to protect and obey the suzerain when he calls upon him. And interestingly, in these covenants, there is a distinctive difference between public and private concerns.
[00:46:38] So in the relationship between the suzerain and vassal, the suzerain isn't really gonna care about what's going on inside the vassals own area. It's like you can make your own laws, you can do your own thing. It doesn't really matter unless it enters the public sphere of my relationship with you. So the suzerain wasn't telling the vassal what kind of laws they had to have, what kind of culture they needed to do. They were only concerned if it disrupted the relationship between them or if it impacted the suzerain's nation and interests.
[00:47:14] Fourth element was the provision for deposit and periodic public reading of the covenant. The deposit of the covenant is putting it in a temple or on public display. And what that did was create a witness for the deity or the people to understand what was going on and to see the covenant and relationship publicly. So really the covenant was a sacred act and a sacred object.
[00:47:44] Another element that we have is the list of witnesses to the treaty. I am going to read this part in Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary because this is really interesting. It says, quote, " These treaties also typically listed those third parties who had witnessed the enactment of the treaty. It is of a special interest that the witnesses were exclusively deities or deified elements of the natural world.
[00:48:12] " The list of deities was frequently so lengthy as to justify the conclusion that it was intended to be exhaustive. All gods relevant to both parties were called upon as witnesses so that there was no god left that the vassel could appeal to for protection if he wanted to violate his solemn oath. It is especially amusing that often the apiru gods, the gods of the renegade, rebel bands, were included in the list of witnesses.
[00:48:42] " The witnesses also included the heavens and the earth and mountains and rivers. A fact of particular significance because the motif continues in the poetic and prophetic traditions of the Bible. But there is little, if any trace of it in any other extra Biblical Iron Age covenant texts and ideologies centuries later. The witnesses were those entities that were called upon to observe the behavior of the party under oath and to carry out the appropriate rewards and punishments, the blessings and cursings connected with the treaty. The fact that these enforcers are all supernatural beings reflects the underlying idea that in this covenant ideology, strenuous, if not pretentious efforts were made to place the entire covenant complex outside the realm of political and military coercive force, and into the realm of a voluntary acceptance of commonality of interest between suzerain and vassal.
[00:49:45] " In other words, there is expressed here the hope that the vassal's obedience will be self-policing, ie, based upon a conscientious regard for higher principles, the gods, than simply upon the fear of superior military force." End quote.
[00:50:06] Okay, so a couple of things to point out from that section is the idea of the witnesses and how those were about divine witnesses. And it is the divine elements of the cosmos that are going to enforce the treaty. In other words, in these Bronze Age treaties, as opposed to the Iron Age ones, there is no description of military consequence. If the vassel breaks the covenant with the suzerain, there's no description that the suzerain is then going to go attack them with force.
[00:50:42] There is a presumption here that the consequence is going to be happening because of divine interaction and not military force. Now, that doesn't actually mean that that's actually what happened. We're not suggesting that the suzerain didn't then go and attack the vassal when they broke the covenant because that probably did happen.
[00:51:06] This is why we're kind of thinking about covenant in the form of rhetoric, politics, propaganda. There is a reason that these were made the way that they were. And because we could see them as political elements or perhaps religious ones, then, the text itself is forming a kind of a witness. It does not necessarily encompass the entire relationship and covenant itself.
[00:51:36] Again, these points seem like just data points, but when we move into the New Testament and the church and our ideas of sacrament, these things ought to impact our thinking much more than the ideas of, say, John Calvin.
[00:51:55] Okay, we are not done with all of the elements of the treaty. We also have the blessings and curses that are enumerated in these texts. Because they're connected to supernatural influence and divinity, the blessings and curses are usually beyond human ability to predict or control. So we have things like health, fertility of fields and flocks and women, and then also peace, freedom from violence.
[00:52:25] Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary says, quote, " It is important to observe that the Late Bronze Age treaty formulas included not only punitive threats to be carried out by supernatural powers, but also positive rewards of similar origin. This aspect of international treaties was normal in the Late Bronze Age, but later Iron Age treaties typically contained nothing but the curses." End quote.
[00:52:55] That's going to be important when we look at the Torah.
[00:52:59] Okay, another element that we have is the ratification ceremony. This could be a whole episode just by itself, but I will go ahead and read what Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary has to say. Quote, " It would be extremely naive to think that the mere writing of a treaty text brought into existence the treaty and the relationship it stipulated. Even today, a treaty must be signed, ratified, or otherwise formally accepted before it can become binding.
[00:53:32] " In antiquity, the formal ritual by which a covenant came into force had such a variety of forms and procedures that no generalization can be made. These formal rituals are the customs that Herodotus specified for the societies that he described. There is no reason to believe, therefore, that some specified rigid formality was always carried out. Indeed, it would be unthinkable in view of the variety of cultures and societies that are involved in the dozens of treaties preserved.
[00:54:04] " One observation, however, is probably valid. The ratification of the covenant was frequently associated with the sacrifice of an animal. The significance of animal sacrifice in general is a complex and intractable subject, and the problem becomes even more complex when it takes place within the framework of covenant relationships. An Iron Age Assyrian treaty, however, makes perfectly clear that at that time and place, in north Syria, the sacrificed animal represented and was identified with the vassal who is being placed under oath. Just as the animal was slaughtered, so would the vassal and his dependents be slaughtered if he violated his oath.
[00:54:53] " The same concept is attested for the earliest Roman covenant traditions. So we may safely assume that this sacrificial identification was widespread in both time and space. Once the animal was killed, the vassal could expect the same fate if he violated his oath. Perhaps associated with sacrificial ritual as an enactment ceremony is the well attested fact that covenants were often officially ratified by a common meal." End quote.
[00:55:26] Okay, so here is a really, really big topic of sacrifice. Now, we've talked before, sometimes at length about sacrifice being a meal, and we do have that in this context. What about this idea of the sacrificial animal representing the person in the covenant?
[00:55:48] Okay, I know I'm just kind of dropping a bomb on you here, but what I'm going to suggest is that what we have in this sacrificial meal with covenant ratification is not the same as everything that we see in Leviticus. It's not the same.
[00:56:06] We are going to explore this idea some more about covenant versus purification, which is why we're talking about covenant first. We first have to understand covenant because it really seems in history as well that covenant ceremony and covenant sacrifice preceded the idea of purification sacrifice.
[00:56:31] They are related, but they are not the same thing. And they develop along different tracks. They're not the same, even though they might superficially look the same. Again, this is why time and place and historical development matter to things. Just because you're using blood in something doesn't mean that that blood is going to symbolize or mean the same thing in every element at every time in different circumstances.
[00:57:07] I know we wish it was that simple, but it's not. So here, let's look at this covenant idea and the idea of the sacrificial meal in a covenant ceremony. This isn't hard for us to actually imagine in our minds, right? We have some context for this. You get the two parties together. They're enjoying their wine, they're enjoying their bread. They slaughter the animal in order to eat the animal together.
[00:57:35] The animal who is slaughtered. I think that what we do have in these contexts is that the sacrificial animal is representing the person involved. I talked about this in my amazing episode about donkeys. A donkey would be a better animal for a king to sacrifice as a symbol to represent himself than a sheep or a goat would.
[00:57:59] But here's our question now. What does that have to do with substitutionary atonement? Well, again, too big of a topic right now, but the word atonement is very intimately connected with the idea of purification. What we have going on in a covenant ritual is not purification. As I said, they are different ideas. They develop on different paths.
[00:58:29] So we'll set aside the idea of substitutionary atonement for later, and we'll get to that at some point, I promise. But here we have substitution in the form of an animal representing a covenant partner.
[00:58:44] I would suggest that substitution is a really bad way of looking at that actually, because it's not really substitution, it's representation, which is a different idea entirely, really.
[00:59:00] I mean, think about it. Think about playing Monopoly, for instance. You are literally playing the game. You are involved in the game, and you have the little piece that moves around the board, right? You have the little dog or the little hat, or the little horseshoe. It's moving around the board, and that game piece represents you.
[00:59:23] You might say that it's a substitute for you, but that's just because if you stood upon the board, first of all, you're not gonna fit. Second of all, you're gonna break the board. So you have a piece that is going to represent you. It's kind of like it's substituting for you, but not really, because what happens to that piece on the board is what happens to you.
[00:59:48] The idea of substitution would be replacement. If the game piece on the board in Monopoly is a replacement for you, then it has nothing to do with you. When the game piece loses money, you are not losing your money. But that's not actually what we have going on in a game and in representation. When your game piece lands on a property, it's like you yourself are there.
[01:00:16] So the animal isn't substituting the person, it's representing the person, and that's a distinctive difference because substitution is replacement where the person is not getting any actual consequence. But representation is a suggestion that the person being represented is going to actually gain a real consequence.
[01:00:43] And like I said, the idea of covenant ritual seems to have happened earlier in time than the idea of purification ritual, which also makes sense because purification happens when you have a sacred space to purify . But like I said, if all of that is blowing your mind and confusing you, we will get into much more detail later. But this is something I gotta throw out for you.
[01:01:10] A few more elements in the Bronze Age covenant. We have the curses. In the late Bronze Age context, aside from the covenant ritual enactment, which we might kind of say is what's going on here, there is no evidence for ritual forms that impose the specific curses of the covenant. You might say that the ritual enactment kind of covers that with the death of the animal, but it really doesn't because you would expect to see covenant curses enacted for each of the elements that are listed. The threat of death is related to things like losing your crops or having a lack of fertility. But it's not the exact same thing.
[01:01:56] And like I said, there is no element where the suzerain is going to attack the vassal if he breaks the covenant. That's in the realm of the Assyrians and the exile. So there's no provision for punitive action, is what I'm saying. The covenants presuppose that the agents of vengeance are the gods themselves, not the suzerain.
[01:02:19] Before we end, I'm going to lay out the differences between the Bronze Age covenants and the Iron Age covenants. And then I'm going to leave the discussion for next time where we will expand these ideas.
[01:02:32] The Iron Age is broken up into three separate parts. Iron Age one occurs from 1200 to about a thousand BC. Iron Age two is from a thousand BC to 5 86 bc. This covers the united monarchy, the divided kingdoms, and ends with the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. Iron Age three is from 5 86 to 3 32 bc. This is where we have Babylonian rule, Persian rule, and it ends with Alexander the Great's conquest.
[01:03:08] In these covenants, we almost never have a historical prologue. Many of the sophisticated and elaborate elements of the treaty forms are now gone. Usually there are no more blessings, but only cursings. A promise to obey is imposed by the military force directly. These differences are why scholars call these loyalty oaths.
[01:03:35] The structure of these has a preamble, which gives the name and titles of the Assyrian King and the vassals who are placed under oath. It often names a successor to that king. It does invoke the deities who are also the witnesses. It defines how a vassal is going to be cursed if they do certain things, and the curses tend to be very elaborate and distinctive and detailed.
[01:04:04] Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary says, quote, "Compared with the treaties of the Late Bronze Age, these of the Assyrian period are simplistic, and one might say almost brutal. Although the text emphasizes the various ills to be brought upon the disloyal by the panoply of gods, the fate of the disobedient vassal is depicted quite tangibly by the Assyrian annals themselves." End quote.
[01:04:32] So these treaties bring in brute military force, and they describe it in ways that scholars even call it sadistic.
[01:04:40] A last paragraph from Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. It says, quote, " In conclusion, the Late Bronze Age international treaties exhibit a sophistication and elaboration of concepts that were very largely lost during the Iron Age. In comparison, the treaties of the Iron Age seem to have been based mostly on mere military power, reinforced by superstition.
[01:05:04] " It must be observed however, that the political instruments of the Hittite Empire were precisely that, political instruments. They were devised and adapted from the age old common property of ancient cultures in the vain hope that they could bring about the voluntary subservience of people who in fact had been subjected by military force.
[01:05:26] " Although the Late Bronze Age covenant ideology certainly represented an admirable attempt to place cross-cultural relationships on a basis of something other than sheer military superiority, the brute facts of historical evidence lead inevitably to the conclusion that Hitite foreign policy was exclusively military.
[01:05:46] " The treaties, in other words, were imposed relationships in which the vassal had freedom to choose either capitulation under the covenant or annihilation. Thus, the Late Bronze Age treaties were instruments of propaganda, not of practical reality. Nevertheless, as instruments of propaganda, they appealed to a different matrix of ideas than did the equally propagandistic loyalty oaths of the Iron Age." End quote.
[01:06:16] All right, that is a lot of information that I have dropped on you for today. We're gonna pick it back up next week and get into the biblical context and maybe kind of nuance some of these ideas. I know last week I kind of left you with this idea that relationship and covenant was this fuzzy, kumbaya kind of reality where we're all holding hands and being friends. The reality of ancient Near Eastern covenants is much more bloody, but it's very distinctive in interesting difference that we have between the Bronze Age covenants and the Iron Age ones.
[01:06:54] So next week we're gonna look at the difference between these things and the biblical text and see what we can see in the Bible as far as where it's stemming this covenant idea from. We will be seeing how all of this is going to end up in relation to the Lord's Supper and baptism. And we also need to look at how all of this is stemming from what we have in both early Genesis as well as the flood narrative.
[01:07:25] Alright, I hope that you guys enjoyed this episode. I hope that you took some notes.
[01:07:30] There is a lot to talk about with the idea of covenant in relationship to God and how we can see God and how we can understand his nature. So I hope you guys are all looking forward to that.
[01:07:44] I have a lot of other things going on in the background that I hope I can talk about pretty soon as I work out some details and some possibilities.
[01:07:53] But until then, I would highly recommend that you sign up to my newsletter, which you can do at genesis marks the spot.com. It's got a little window right on the front page that gives a place where you can put your name and your email. I don't do anything with those emails other than send you newsletters, and those have been going out weekly. And along with those newsletters, you will get links to my current blog posts. So that's a really good way to stay up to date on what I'm currently writing about, at least for public consumption.
[01:08:28] At any rate, thank you guys for your support. Thanks especially to my Patreon and PayPal supporters. You guys rock, and I hope you all have a blessed week and we will see you later.
