In my journey towards earning a degree in Theology, each class has given me a chance to plunge deep into the Bible, with the help of centuries of scholarship, several types of critical approaches to hermeneutics (a fancy way of saying “interpretation”), and outstanding professors who show students how to navigate this often mind-numbing, twisting and turning, ever evolving discipline about ancient history.
A couple of weeks ago, I finished yet another class, this time in Hebrew Scriptures. And when I think of this class, the first day immediately comes to mind. Why? Because our professor gave us two pieces of well-founded wisdom — which not only helped my approach to the homework, but also helped boost my fascination with the Old Testament and why it is crucial to Christian belief:
1.) We were required to look at Scripture — as best as possible — through the lens of the Jewish people. We were not to use Christian goggles (so to speak), the Catechism of the Catholic Church, nor any other resource that assumes the Old Testament is a precursor to Jesus as as the Messiah. After all, because Jews do not believe Christ is the Messiah, it is necessary to understand why they have held to that belief and how their Scriptures — also known as the Tanakh — support it.
2.) If we use only the Jewish lens to read and interpret Scripture, that, by end of the course, we just may end up “mind blown” (my professor’s exact words) that the Old Testament does indeed point to the Messiah we Christians know as Jesus.
Sounds a bit contradictory, right? Or that it maybe lessens Jewish belief? Neither is meant to be the case. Instead, I think it could be just the solution — or part of a greater solution — for Christians who have lost their way in their faith; or who have left their belief altogether; or who think the “church needs to change with the times”; or who have trouble reconciling the often violent, disturbing stories in the Old Testament with the emphasis on love, forgiveness, and salvation in the New Testament.
Whichever the case, there is a word in Christian theology that, in my opinion, doesn’t get enough attention, yet it is right at the center of Christian belief. That word is covenant.
Think: When Christians talk about Christ, salvation, the Sacraments, or Bible passages, how often does the word covenant come up in conversation? Meanwhile, I don’t think I can stress enough why we must return to this word — why it could help fully restore the truth and solidarity of Christian belief from alternative worldviews, denominational divisions, and secular influences not rooted in Christian theology.
Am I being a bit utopian in thinking that a single world — covenant — could help re-transform Christianity into one body of believers, as what was intended with the founding of the Catholic Church? Possibly so. But stick with me here — because, to borrow the phrase from my instructor, you may just end “mind blown” about why covenant is key to Christian belief and ultimately our salvation.
In this first part of the series, we will explore the the history of covenant and how the world itself became widely popular, starting with ancient times in Mesopotamia. Let’s begin:
Introduction
In modern-day, Western society, which includes a wide array of perspectives, both secular and religious, how would the average person today answer the questions, “What is a covenant?”, and “What is a covenant according to the Bible?” Would the answer simply be, “It’s a contract between two parties”? Or “it’s basically a promise between two parties or entities”? Or “didn’t that Moses guy make a ‘pact’ with God and then received the 10 Commandments?”
Covenant History and Near-Eastern Influence
Learning the history of the term covenant starts with the Sumerians, an ancient, Mesopotamian culture that existed between 3000 and 2001 BC, a time known as the Bronze Age or 3rd millennium BC. Having inhabited their home, Sumer – eventually known as Babylonia – Sumerians were upwardly mobile, innovative people who, despite living in a desert climate with few resources for sustainable living, became well-known for their creative take on technology and inventions. These innovations would become so prevalent, they would have a major influence throughout the Near East. Example: For those who wonder how stone sculptures, the wagon wheel, engraving techniques, riveting, and even the sailboat, became popular fixtures in the world, Sumerians receive much of the credit (Kramer 3, 4).
In addition to being rather technologically savvy in ancient times, Sumerians were also known for keeping detailed records of their travels throughout Mesopotamia and dealings with other cultures within a vast region, stretching from Egypt to India, to most of the Mediterranean and parts of Central Asia. As such, Sumerians had extensive knowledge of the religious practices, politics, and social norms within the cultures they encountered (Kramer 284).
Sumerians were so astute in their interactions with other cultures, all while balancing progressive with pragmatic approaches to their own civilization, they believed they were a “chosen people” who had been blessed by their god, Enki, and were elite when compared to humankind overall (Kramer 286).
Yet the Sumerians were not the only culture establishing an influence in Mesopotamia: Semitic groups such as the Akkadians, and then the Babylonians (also known as Amorites), had also become prominent civilizations. This rivalry between Sumerians and Semites began as a cold war of sorts, with the Sumerians having critical views of the Semites — particularly the Akkadians — yet both cultures willingly influencing one another, though remaining somewhat divisive. This rivalry would lead to the Akkadians exercising more control over their neighboring Sumerians, followed by the Babylonians taking over much of Mesopotamia (Kramer 289).
Because of the sweeping changes in Mesopotamia, one would think the Sumerians’ influence would have been erased by other dominating cultures — except the near opposite happened: The Semites infused Sumerian ideas and practices into Semitic life, and the Greeks and Romans would later follow suit. (Kramer 289). This led to one of the major contributions from the Sumerians: the need to document laws and legal agreements. Or another way to put it: covenants.
This contribution would be so influential that, when examining the genealogical roots of Abraham, a central patriarch for the Hebrew people, Abraham was most likely born in Ur, an affluent city in Sumer. Therefore, it is highly possible that Abraham was familiar with Sumerian beliefs and customs – such as covenants / treaties – which were then woven into Hebrew culture. In fact, there is ample evidence that the Hebrews developed the Sumerian belief in a personal god, which evolved into the Hebrew, and then Israelite, focus on the one God, Yahweh (Kramer 294).
It is important to note, though, that Abraham’s genealogical roots were not well-unearthed until late into the 19th century, and modern scholars have debated whether Abraham (along with the other patriarchs) was a fictional character. However, with advances in archaeology during the 20th century, and now within the 21st century, it is still probable that Abraham did in fact exist and was directly influenced by Sumerian culture (Parrot “Abraham”).
Etymology of Berit and its Relationship to Near-Eastern Treaties
As for the term covenant itself, or its name in Hebrew, berit, the origin of the word is not entirely clear – possibly because berit, as it pertains to covenant, can be applied to different contexts (Lopez 103, 104). The Hebrews, who spawned out of Semitic cultures, applied some of the variations. What appears certain is the Sumerians — as well as other Near Eastern customs, beliefs, and values — affected the Hebrews, and which would also show up in parallels between Near Eastern literature and Hebrew Scripture: the belief in a personal god, the need for spiritual covenants, and subtle similarities between Sumerian and Hebrew stories, such as the flood story (Kramer 289, 291).
In general, however, the term berit refers to a “binding ordinance” or a judicial sentence. And though the etymology is not exactly clear, berit may traceback to the Akkadian word, “biritu”, which can mean to “fetter”, or to be part of a blood relative family / “cognate root” (Lopez 95). Berit may also have roots in the verb brh – meaning to “to eat” or “to feed” (Hayes and Kelle 150).
In Part 2, we will cover covenant influence of the Biblical Patriarchs. Stay tuned!
Works Cited
Bediako, Daniel Kwame, and Elijah Baidoo. “The Covenant of Abraham: Relationship between
Genesis 15 and 17.” Valley View University Journal of Theology, vol. 2, 2012, pp. 1–12.
Berlin, Adele, et al. The Jewish Study Bible. Oxford ; New York, New York, Oxford University
Press, 2014.
Boadt, Lawrence, et al. Reading the Old Testament : An Introduction. New York, Paulist
Press, 2012.
Hayes, John H, and Brad E Kelle. Interpreting Ancient Israelite History, Prophecy, and Law.
Cambridge, James Clarke, 2017.
Kramer, Samuel Noah. The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character. University of
Chicago Press, 1963
Lopez, Rene. Israelite Covenants in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants.
Parrot, André. “Abraham”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 13 Mar. 2021,
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Abraham.
Taggar-Cohen, Ada. “The Hebrew Biblical Bérit in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants
and Treaties.” Canon & Culture, vol. 14, no. 2, 2020, pp. 5–50.
Rodriguez, Angel Manuel. “Ancient Near Eastern Parallels to the Bible and the Question of
Revelation and Inspiration.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, vol. 12, no. 1, Spr
2001, pp. 43–64.
Routledge, Robin. “ḤESED as Obligation: A Re-Examination.” Tyndale Bulletin, 1 May 1995,
10.53751/001c.30408
Sommer, Benjamin D. Revelation and Authority : Sinai in Jewish Scripture and Tradition. Yale
University Press, 2015.