In Part 1 of this series, we covered the history of covenant agreements, tracing back to the Sumerians in ancient Mesopotamia and widely adopted among neighboring cultures, including the Semites. We also briefly covered the origins of the word berit, the Hebrew equivalent to covenant. Keeping this in mind, let’s now explore the types of covenants used in the ancient Near Eastern and Hebrew cultures, as well their influence on the Biblical Patriarchs.
Despite the concept of covenant having already existed in the Near East, the specific word – covenant — is not readily apparent in many Near Eastern texts. For example, the Akkadians used the expression, “risku u mamitu” – meaning, bond and oath – to denote a treaty. Moreover, because the Akkadians promoted the binding nature of treaties, the stipulations and a general format within the treaties are a precursor to the Hebrews’ later approach to forming covenants (Lopez 104).
Along with the Akkadians, the Assyrians and Hittites also incorporated legally binding treaties into their social practices. From that, two types of treaties became commonplace in the Near East: parity and vassal. In a parity treaty, kings from opposing cultures engaged in conflict or all-out war, or who had a history of divisiveness and instability, entered into a covenant agreement to create and sustain mutual peace and responsibilities — including accepting that neither would impose responsibilities on the other. For example, to end their war in Syria in 1290 BC, Hittite King, Hattusills, and Egyptian King, Ramesses II, established a parity treaty. (Boadt et al. 148).
The second type of treaty, vassal – also known as a suzerain treaty – was instituted when a reigning authority in one nation or region had power over other nations or regions, and the authority needed to ensure the subordinate societies would comply with the law of the land. In the terms outlined in the vassal treaty, and unlike the parity treaty, the authority/overlord did not take on certain responsibilities. However, the subordinate societies were promised peace and a friendly authority, as long as the subordinates/vassals fulfilled the demands in the treaty (Boadt et al. 148).
These two types of treaties shed some light on how they influenced the covenants explained in the Torah, though scholars have debated whether there is a clear link between God’s covenants with the Hebrews / Israelites and how Near Eastern treaties were formed. For instance, when comparing components of the Hittite and Assyrian treaties to Hebrew/Israelite covenants, both have an introductory statement, a set of stipulations, and a deposit of the treaty (Boadt et al. 152). Yet they have their differences as well.
One key difference is that the Near Eastern treaties are polytheistic in nature — they mention gods as witnesses who curse anyone who does not abide by the treaty — whereas in the flagship covenants between God and the patriarchs (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David), as described in the Torah, the single, supreme God not only provides the covenant, he also gives signs of his power to reinforce the covenant. Furthermore, God is not described as only a witness, and curses are not detailed (Boadt et al. 152).
Although there is not an exact, one-to-one relationship between covenant structure in the Torah versus Near Eastern treaties, the similarities stand out, nonetheless. In general, scholars accept that standard types of covenants existed throughout the Near East, and that the Hebrews then applied those standards as central to the relationship with their *king* — God. Consequently, the relationship between Hebrews / Israelites and God far transcended the political dealings between humans (Rodriguez 56, 57).
As a side bar, because covenants in ancient times were like how contracts were implemented (Lopez 98), it is necessary to distinguish between the two: A covenant was considered a solid oath, and it did not require human witnesses, as the Near Eastern civilizations considered their gods the official witnesses. A contract, however, was not bound to an oath, yet it did require human witnesses (Lopez 99).
Overall, knowing the two main types of Near Eastern treaties, parity and vassal, as well as the similarities and differences to covenants in the Torah, gives a primer to the various ways berit is used in the Torah. Namely, whether berit signifies a friendship alliance between David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 18:3, a pledge between Jehoiada and his captains in 2 Kings 11:4, the terms of marriage explained in Malachi 2:14, a treaty between Jacob and Laban in Genesis 31:44, or God’s pledge to the Israelites to be a chosen people in Exodus 19:5, berit represents a variety of binding oaths (Lopez 103).
Still, this variety, and as it relates to the parity and vassal treaties of the Near East, can be further translated into two, primary forms of covenants in the Torah: conditional and promissory (generally unconditional). What may seem confusing here is that both types of covenants require some form of obligation — except that not all are exclusively one-way or two-way obligations. In Genesis 17:1, for example, God commands circumcision as a conditional, one-way obligation that Abraham must keep with God; while in Exodus 34:10, God and the Hebrews have obligations to each other in the conditional covenant at Sinai. (Hayes and Kelle 150).
Conversely, a promissory covenant is generally unconditional, and it often involves gifts or blessings from God, independent of obligatory/conditional covenants, though it still requires vassal obedience. For instance, Abrahams’ faithfulness leads to a promissory covenant in which God blesses Abraham with land in Genesis 22:16 (Lopez 107).
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.