The Notion of Gods

Covenant
HIST134, 10/10/16
Gina Mahaz

THE NOTION OF GOD'S COVENANT

The notion that God forms a covenant with a chosen people is a central motif in the
Bible. In the biblical text, the concept of the covenant is partially developed through the
promises made by God to Noah, Abraham and David. In all of these cases, God undertakes
obligations but the human beings are not required to assume any corresponding obligation
(Hillers 134). An entirely different type of covenant with God is described in the narratives of
Exodus 20 (Moses at Sinai) and Joshua 24 (Joshua at Shechem). In these passages, the deity
undertook no specific obligation, but the human partners swore to abide by certain stipulations,
the penalty for disobedience being calamitous curses on the community and ultimately its exile
(Hillers 134). Biblical scholars refer to the first type of covenant, in which God assumes all or
most of the obligation, as a covenant of grant. By contrast, the second type of covenant, in
which human beings are obliged, is referred to as a covenant of obligation. The Ark of the
Covenant, a manmade gift containing the Ten Commandments, would fall under the latter.
Scholars have discovered some strong similarities between these forms of the covenant as
described in the biblical text and certain types of legal or political documents that existed in
ancient Near Eastern culture. As stated by Seltzer, these similarities indicate that the biblical
authors used ancient Near Eastern treaties as models for conceptualizing Israels covenantal
relationship to YHVH (67). For example, the covenant of grant, as seen in the cases of Noah,
Abraham and David, was apparently modeled on the royal grant which was often used by the
Assyrians as well as other ancient Near Eastern peoples (Weinfeld 1018). In the royal grant, a
lord or political leader made a promise or gave a gift to a subject. As noted by Weinfeld, this
type of grant was bestowed upon individuals who distinguished themselves in loyal service to
their masters (1018). Weinfeld further notes that Abrahams covenant with God arose because

of his obedience to God, and Davids covenant likewise came about because he was a loyal
servant of God. In addition, the terminology used in the biblical passages describing these
covenants is similar to that which was used in the ancient Near Eastern grants (Weinfeld 1018).
Scholars have determined that the other type of biblical covenant, the covenant of
obligation, was probably modeled on a type of political treaty that was often used by the Hittites.
In particular, a similarity can be seen in how the Hittite treaties were based on a five-part
structure. As stated by Hillers, the five parts are: (1) a preamble, giving the title of the king
granting the treaty; (2) a historical prologue, describing the past kindness of the king; (3) the
stipulations, which describe the obligations of the subject in return for the kindness of the king;
(4) a list of gods, who are the witnesses of the treaty and will enforce it; (5) a description of the
blessings that will be bestowed for the subjects obedience and the curses that will be bestowed
for disobedience (Hillers 135). Hillers also points out that the ancient Near Eastern treaties are
not only similar to the covenants of obligation in terms of structure, but also in terms of
emphases and intent. In both cases, the king (or God) makes the pact on the basis of his past
actions, but does not oblige himself to any future actions. By contrast, the human partners (or
royal subjects) are bound to specific obligations, and it is understood that failure to meet these
obligations will bring awful retribution (Hillers 135). Although the covenant of obligation is
most closely associated with the treaties of the Hittites, other similar treaties were also used by
other ancient Near Eastern groups as well (Weinfeld 1016). It is interesting to note that the
legalistic format of the biblical covenants between God and man was also reflected in the
prophetic literature of such books as Isaiah, Hosea and Micah. According to Weinfeld, the
speeches of the prophets often follow the style of a lawsuit (i.e., to sue the people of Israel for
not living up to their part of the covenantal agreements). Similar to the style of ancient Near

Eastern treaties, these prophetic speeches include passages where God sues the people of Israel
in the presence of witnesses such as heaven and earth, and mountain (Weinfeld 1020).
From these examples, it can be seen that there are ways in which the concept of the
biblical covenant grew out of ancient Near Eastern culture. However, there are also ways in
which the idea of the biblical covenant is unique from the elements contained in the ancient Near
Eastern documents. For example, as Kaufmann notes, the covenant at Sinai differs from other
ancient treaties because it involves the moral authority of a monotheistic God. Even though the
writings of ancient pagan culture also contained moral lessons, the pagan gods were essentially
mythological rather than moral. As a result, in contrast to the biblical account, pagan
justice and morality cannot derive from the sacred will of the gods to absolute good (Kaufmann
24). Another example can be found by comparing Gods covenant with Noah following the
flood with the blessing given by the god Enlil to Utnapishtim following the flood in the
Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh. As noted by Sarna, the Sumerian account differs from the biblical
one because it does not include any reassurances from the god, nor any promises for the future
(Understanding Genesis 57). Similarly, Sarna points out that the covenant with Israel described
in Exodus is based on rules relating to matters of private conscience. According to Sarna,
nothing of the kind is to be found in the extrabiblical legal collections (Exploring Exodus 174).
It can also be seen that the concept of the covenant had an impact on the biblical
conceptions of God and human beings. In particular, as Weinfeld claims, the covenant at Sinai
marks a point of departure for understanding Israels religion (1019). The Ark is a physical
manifestation of the divine brought down to the earthly world. Weinfeld notes that basic
phenomena like the kingship of God, revelation, the liberation from myth, the personal attitude
to God, etc. are to be explained against the background of the covenant (1019). With this

covenant, it was established that the chosen people of Israel have an obligation to obey the moral
law as established by God. Blessings or curses will follow, depending on the extent to which the
people adhere to Gods law. As Seltzer says in regard to this development, love of God is to be
the main motive of human action (97). Hillers agrees that the covenant formulations in Israel
create an obligation for the people to love God. According to Hillers, the love (meaning
submission and loyalty) for the overlord that was called for in ancient Near Eastern treaties has
been transformed in the biblical covenants as a command to love God, which consists in
walking in Gods ways and cleaving to him (135).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hillers, Delbert R. Covenant. Encyclopedia of Religion. Vol. 4. Mircea Eliade, ed. New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987, 133-137.
Kaufmann, Yehezkel. The Biblical Age. Great Ages and Ideas of the Jewish People. Leo W.
Schwarz, ed. New York: Random House, 1956, 1-92.
Sarna, Nahum M. Exploring Exodus: The Origins of Biblical Israel. New York: Schocken
Books, 1996.
Sarna, Nahum M. Understanding Genesis. New York: Schocken Books, 1970.
Seltzer, Robert M. Jewish People, Jewish Thought: The Jewish Experience in History. New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1980.
Weinfeld, Moshe. Covenant. Encyclopedia Judaica. Vol. 5. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing
House, 1971, 1012-1022.