For a number of decades now, Old Testament scholars across the theological spectrum have drawn upon ancient texts to clarify the nature of biblical covenants. A number of reformed theologians have built on these comparative studies in ways that have the potential of confusing many sincere believers. So, I have felt compelled to speak to some aspects of the matter.

In recent years, it has become increasingly apparent that contemporary reformed theologians are taking different stances on whether the covenants God made with Abraham and David were conditional or unconditional. This is not to say that we have enjoyed complete unanimity on this and related matters in past centuries. Covenant theology has always been riddled with varying opinions. Yet, in our day, differences on this particular issue have so impacted other theological and practical dimensions of the Christian faith that they should no longer be ignored.

Details notwithstanding, two tendencies have emerged. On the one side, some theologians in our circles have argued that the covenants with Abraham and David were unconditional. That is to say, these covenants guaranteed future blessings unconditionally to Abraham and David.

On the other side, other theologians in our circles have argued that the covenants with Abraham and David were conditional. In this view, the future blessings of these covenants were gracious but in some ways dependent upon the condition of human loyalty.

In large measure, this difference of opinion has risen from comparisons made between biblical covenants and an assortment of ancient Near Eastern texts. For a number of decades now, Old Testament scholars across the theological spectrum have drawn upon ancient texts to clarify the nature of biblical covenants. A number of reformed theologians have built on these comparative studies in ways that have the potential of confusing many sincere believers. So, I have felt compelled to speak to some aspects of the matter.

I. Early Research

What concerns us here specifically is how parallels have been proposed between biblical covenants and two types of ancient Near Eastern texts: Suzerain-Vassal Treaties and Royal Land Grants. 1 In a word, Suzerain-Vassal Treaties were formally ratified international arrangements between greater kings and lesser kings in the ancient Near East. Royal Land Grants were legal declarations in which kings granted properties, usually to priests and other high-ranking officials, as rewards for faithful service. A number of scholars have argued that the covenant with Moses should be closely associated with Suzerain-Vassal Treaties and that the covenants with Abraham and David should be closely associated with Royal Land Grants. These associations provide important frames of reference out of which they describe the dynamics of these biblical covenants.

A. Suzerain-Vassal Treaties

On the one hand, similarities between the Mosaic covenant and Suzerain-Vassal Treaties have come into view. Broadly speaking, these treaties were bi-lateral, at least implicitly obligating both Suzerains and vassals to observe their respective duties. They stipulated that loyalty from the vassal would result in further benevolences and that disloyalty would result in a variety of punishments, usually from the gods. Correspondingly, the Mosaic covenant has been characterized as a bi-lateral, conditional or obligatory covenant. It stipulated that after Sinai Israel’s loyalty would result in divine blessings and that Israel’s disloyalty would result in divine curses.

There can be little doubt that these outlooks are fundamentally correct. By now, most students of the Old Testament are familiar with the ways Suzerain-Vassal treaties compare with the covenant with Moses. Suzerain-Vassal Treaties focused on royal benevolences, vassal obligations and the consequences of blessing and cursing. Time and again, Scriptures associated with the Mosaic covenant rehearse God’s benevolences to Israel, Israel’s obligation to obey the covenant law of Moses and the conditional consequences of blessing and cursing from God. It would be difficult to deny these basic similarities.

B. Royal Land Grants

In the second place, Royal Land Grants of the ancient Near East have been viewed as unconditional or promissory declarations. In line with this analysis, a number of reformed theologians have argued that the divine covenants with Abraham and David reflected these qualities as well. In this view, in covenant with Abraham, God himself fully guaranteed future fulfillment of the blessings promised in this covenant. Similarly, the blessings of the Davidic covenant were also secured by an unconditional covenant that reflected Royal Land Grants. In this sense, the Mosaic covenant was an interlude, a covenant of obligation situated between the unconditional covenants of promise in Abraham and David.

II. Recent Research

Without a doubt there are positive correlations between the divine covenants with Abraham and David and ancient Near Eastern Royal Land Grants. These connections should be explored even further. But it is precisely here that past assessments run into difficulties. Most reflection in our circles on these matters is based on early research into Royal Land Grants. In more recent decades, Old Testament scholars have more fully assessed their content and function in the ancient Near East.

More recent research has indicated that Land Grants were by no means unconditional. 2 They were not promissory in the sense that perpetual possession of properties was unconditionally guaranteed. On the contrary, when ancient kings made Land Grants, they did so conditionally. This historical reality calls into question the use of Land Grants as frameworks for understanding the covenants with Abraham and David as unconditional.

A. General Cultural Realities

Before we point to explicit textual evidence in favor of this re-assessment, we should mention how counter-intuitive it is to believe that ancient Near Eastern kings of stature granted anything to anyone under their authority unconditionally. In the nations surrounding Israel, obligation to the throne and the certainty of consequences for disloyalty were the sine qua non of society. We may even go so far as to say that the requirement of loyalty to the king was so basic to ancient Near Eastern societies that it was not necessary to state it explicitly in every ceremonial and legal document. As modern governments do not repeat warnings about the consequences of treason every time they enact policies toward their citizens, the requirement of loyalty to the throne was not explicitly repeated in every context in the ancient Near East. Nevertheless, recipients of royal gifts in the ancient world were always obligated to serve their benefactors faithfully or to face the consequences.

In much the same way, when we draw parallels from Royal Land Grants to the covenants with Abraham and David, we must remind ourselves that these covenants were made in the context of Yahweh’s imperial rule. Abraham and David were citizens of God’s Kingdom and were always obligated to remain loyal to their divine king. Contrary to what we might think, it was not necessary for God to state this obligation explicitly every time he enacted policies in his kingdom. The broader scope of the biblical record makes it crystal clear that Yahweh’s servants were always obligated to remain loyal to him or to face the severe consequences of his judgment.

B. Evidence of Ancient Texts

In addition to this general cultural reality, it has become evident from ancient texts themselves that obligations of future loyalty applied even to Royal Land Grants. To see how this was true we will look at a number of relevant texts from several nations surrounding Israel.

1. Ugaritic

In Ugaritic texts from the second millennium we have records of royal gifts of various properties. Texts dealing with these kinds of gifts explicitly cite the requirement of continued loyalty. For instance, `Ammittamru gave land to Abdimilku, but also explicitly required allegiance from him in this way.

Abdimilku and his sons will render service due to the sons of the queen in perpetuity.

This text illustrates what we already expect to find in an ancient Near Eastern society. Gifts of property were not simply rewards for past service; they also obligated their recipients to future loyalty. In fact, the very act of receiving a grant intensified the requirement of future loyalty.

2. Hittite

A number of Hittite royal grants are mentioned in materials from 1400-1200 BC. As far as current research has indicated, these texts do not contain explicit conditions within them. The absence of explicit conditions led earlier scholars to infer that such grants were in fact unconditional. Yet, in Hittite society, priests and high ranking officials who received Land Grants were still under obligation to their royal benefactors. The so-called “Instructions” of the Hittite King for those who had received many benevolences from him explicitly required oaths of loyalty, enumerated crimes that would be considered treasonous and threatened the vengeance of the gods against violators. Loyalty was required of all who were under the authority of the king, especially those to whom he had given much.

3. Babylonian

Evidence for the conditional nature of Royal Land Grants also appears in Babylonian kuddurus. Kuddurus were boundary markers, not Land Grants per se, but they give some insights into the ways grants functioned in society. Kuddurus threatened severe curses on those who took property granted by a king to another. These threats led some earlier scholars to believe that the grants were permanent and irreversible. Yet, it is important to note that the threat of curses in these texts was never applied to the king himself. Instead, they enumerated what might happen to people other than the king who violated a grant. In this sense, kuddurus were designed to uphold the authority of the king’s grant over the actions of others, not to limit the freedom of the king himself. Had kings lost their rights to reverse their grants, we would expect them to be listed among those threatened with curses. The absence of divine threats against the king, strongly suggests, as we should expect in the ancient world, that kings did not give up their prerogative to confiscate land from those who later rebelled against them.

Read More