pilgrim people

Abe & Moe. What's the Difference?

If the Abrahamic Covenant is a covenant of grace, what is the Mosaic Covenant and how is it different? In his letter to the Galatians, Paul explains that these two covenants are very different. In fact, he figuratively speaks of them as two different mothers: Sarah and Hagar. For the apostle, it was critical that we rightly distinguish these two covenants. To fail in this regard is to confuse law and gospel. This is precisely what laid at the heart of the Galatian heresy.

In a sense, both covenants have the same goal, promise the same blessings, and threaten the same curses. The difference, however, is that according to one (i.e. the Abrahamic) the blessing is bestowed on God's people as an inheritance, and in the other (i.e. the Mosaic) is obtained through their obedience.

In the Abrahamic covenant, it is God taking the blood-oath, calling down curses upon himself if he fails to meet the conditions. In the Mosaic covenant, however, it is quite different. This covenant was made over 400 years after the Abrahamic covenant. The physical offspring of Abraham are brought out of Egypt as the Lord promised, but brought to Mt. Sinai where they are constituted a holy, theocratic, geo-political nation. In Exodus 19, we read of the people swearing, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do." In the next several chapters, the law is given to Israel, not only as an expression of God's righteousness, but as a particular treaty document for that holy nation.

In Exodus 24, the terms of this covenant were stipulated and the people ratified it by agreeing to fulfill the conditions. Notice vv.3-8 in particular. This is quite different from the covenant made 400 years earlier between the Lord and Abraham and his descendents. The people are taking the oath in this covenant.

In the rest of Exodus and into Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the Lord fills out the laws Israel is to keep in this covenant. Notice carefully, however, what the Lord says in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. These are important passages for our understanding of the nature of the Mosaic covenant. There were covenant blessings to the nation for their obedience, and covenant cursings for disobedience. In other words, there was a strong principle of works in the Mosaic covenant: "Do this and you shall live."

Whereas the Abrahamic covenant came in the form of a royal grant to Abraham and his offspring (due to the Suzerain himself taking the oath and placing himself under the conditions and sanctions of that covenant), the Mosaic covenant did not. The Mosaic covenant was a suzerainty treaty to the fullest: Israel, the vassal, took the covenant vows and promised to fulfill the conditions. If she was not obedient, the covenant sanctions would fall upon her.

What is a Suzerainty Treaty?

One of the most remarkable examples of God's providence is the rise of the international suzerain-vassal treaty. Before a single word of the Bible was penned, the ancient Near East already had in place a secular version of the covenant idea in the form of its suzerain-vassal treaties. One great example of this are the treaties archaeologists have discovered from the Hittite civilization. Allow me elaborate a little...

A successful empire of significant magnitude, the Hittites had been at home in southern Palestine for centuries before the Israelite monarchy: between 1400 and 1200 BC, with some evidence suggesting their existence as early as 2000 BC. These Indo-European-speakers of Canaanite names appear frequently in the OT, turning up for the first time in the list of the inhabitants of the land God promised to Abram and his descendents (Gen 15:18-21).

Until the early twentieth century, however, much of the literature and writings of the Hittites was unknown. Discovery of ancient texts provided the scholarly world with great insight into the Hittite culture and civilization. Excavations of Bogazkoy, Turkey in 1906 under Hugo Winckler and Theodore Makridi revealed over ten thousand clay tablets from the Hittite palace administration complex and temple library.

Amid the wide variety of literary genre found at Bogazkoy were treaty documents, providing scholars with the outlines of what may be considered the typical form of treaties of the late second millennium BC. Many of these treaties were drawn up between kings of equal standing, which formed agreements to respect each other's boundaries and uphold trade relations. Also preserved in these collections are treaties drafted between the Hittites and their inferior vassal states. It is these suzerain-vassal treaty documents that have been instrumental in understanding the Pentateuch and consequently, the Historical Books of the OT.

While the Hittite suzerainty treaty established a relationship between two parties, it was essentially unilateral in form. The stipulations of the covenant were binding only on the vassal-king who was inferior to the suzerain-king. The suzerain might make promises of future aid for the vassal, but he was not legally bound to any obligations. Scholars, such as George Mendenhall and, subsequently, Meredith Kline, identified six essential elements as the core of the Hittite suzerain-vassal treaty:

1. Preamble. The suzerain, or “great king,” is identified as the author of the treaty in terms to arouse awe and fear. The suzerain’s titles and attributes are listed as well as a note that he confers this relationship upon a vassal.

2. Historical Prologue. The previous relations of the two parties, especially the benevolent past acts of the suzerain toward the vassal, are listed in “I-thou” language.

3. Stipulations. Obligations are imposed upon and accepted by the vassal, with a thorough commitment stated for the vassal to respect the suzerain and render him sole allegiance.

4. Document Deposition and Periodic Reading of Treaty. In order for all the people of the vassal to understand their corporate vassalage, the document was to be deposited for all to see in the vassal’s temple. This was especially appropriate since the gods of each party were guardians and protectors of the treaty.

5. Witnesses. The gods of each party were listed as witnesses who protect the treaty and enforce its stipulations. Sometimes elements of nature also listed as witnesses.

6. Curses/blessings. The pronouncing of imprecations and benedictions, which the suzerain was to execute as the tool of the gods for divine judgment, though the gods themselves are named as the agents who bring forth blessing or curse.

In the mid-20^th century, Mendenhall wrote about the Hittite treaties and their close relation to the Pentateuch. Mendenhall argued that the suzerainty treaty is the literary device that best explains biblical covenants in the texts of Exodus and Deuteronomy. Since these treaties were in all probability used by a number of nations (including Egypt!) in the late second millennium BC, they were most likely common knowledge to Israel. Thus, the parallels between the key elements of the suzerainty treaty and the biblical covenants should be of no surprise. Of particular note are the striking congruencies between the suzerainty treaties and the book of Deuteronomy, which the following table illustrates:

Suzerain-vassal treaty                                      Deuteronomy

As Mendenhall and Kline effectively demonstrated, the concept of the suzerainty treaty of the ancient Near East has important bearing on our understanding of Deuteronomy. Because it is essentially to be interpreted as a covenant document, Deuteronomy has the structure from which covenant theology is to be expressed.

What this also tells us is that the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of LAW, not grace. It had an organic relation to the covenant of grace (CoG) made with Abraham, but, in itself, it was a separate covenant superimposed upon the CoG. This is why Paul draws such a sharp contrast between them, calling them two different mothers.

More to come...

Enclosure