# God of Promise



## 5 Solas (Jul 28, 2006)

Just finished reading Michael Horton's book on God of Promise it was easy to read and very good.
He quoted Kline saying "It will emerge, we believe, that for purposes of reappraising the Old Testament canon, the most significant development in the last quarter-century has not been the Dead Sea scroll finds but discoveries made concerning the covenants of the Old Testament in the light of ancient Near Eastern treaty diplomacy."
Horton then goes on to explain the differences between the suzerainty treaty and the royal grant the former is conditional while the latter is an unconditional promise on the part of the suzerain.
Then shows similarities between ancient near eastern treaties and biblical covenants which is very interesting.

I do have a question though do majority of Reformed Theologians take seriously the ancient near eastern treatise whenever they are explaining the bilblical covenants.
For example if you were taking a class in OT in seminary would you be engage in ancient near eastern treatise to find these similiarities.
Recently I heard Richard Pratt online giving a lecture on the Kingdom of God and he referred alot to the ancient near treatise.
G.K. Beale shows alot of similarities in his book THE Temple and Church's Mission.

Last question has any one gone to far in Reformed literature in finding similarities in ancient near eastern treatises.

My next read is GOD, HEAVEN and HAR MAGEDON by Meredith G. Kline.

Thank you for responding.


----------



## MW (Jul 28, 2006)

These are appropriate questions to ask in light of modern literature on the subject. I noticed recently that Peter Golding's "Covenant Theology" attributes a great deal to modern discoveries also.

I do believe there has been an unhealthy reliance on extra-biblical material in order to discover the nature of covenant transactions in the Bible. Often the biblical material is made to fit into the "form" as dictated for example by Hittite treatises. Deuteronomy has probably suffered the most from this.

There is no doubt that the biblical documents share similarities with their ANE environment. But to squeeze the biblical transactions into these ANE moulds is to distort the facts. Sometimes God's covenant binds the recipient, as in suzerainty-vassal arrangements; while at other times God binds Himself as in covenants of grant. Sometimes the covenants appear to be unilateral; at other times bilateral. The elements as they appear in the biblical record do not give credence to one form or another, and so should not be contorted to fit the mould.

I find that most modern "reformed" writers are following Robertson in calling a covenant a bond in blood sovereignly administered. The ANE sacrificial ceremonies have given some credence to affirming the blood element of covenants. But I am yet to see how blood can be affirmed as an essential element of covenant while at the same time upholding a pre-lapsarian covenant of "life."


----------



## 5 Solas (Jul 29, 2006)

Thanks Matthew for your reply.

Just curious Horton mentions George E. Mendenhall's magisterial Law and Covenant in Israel and the ANE and Delbert Hillars are these the books were you find the similarities.
When and where were these ANE discovered. 

When you said "Often the biblical material is made to fit into the "form" as dictated for example by Hittite treatises. Deuteronomy has probably suffered the most from this."
Where you referring to Peter Golding's Covenant Theology book.
I'm thinking what are the guidelines of not going out of bounds in drawing these similarities.

Thanks for your reply


----------



## MW (Jul 29, 2006)

Ruben,

I am not sure when archaeology discovered the Hittite treaties. They were being compared to the Sinai covenant in the 30s. Mendenhall came a little later and pioneered it in the book you referred to. If I remember correctly he also wrote for the Encyclopedia Brittanica. It came into Reformed circles through Meredith Kline's Treaty of the Great King, and Deuteronomy has been subjected to vassalage ever since!

Golding's work was provided as an example of accommodation which I would regard as typical of those who adopt the suzerainty-vassal concept. In the Biblical use of covenant "lovingkindness" is placed in the foreground; to speak of vassalage in relation to covenant is derogatory to the grace of the covenant-maker.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 29, 2006)

Reuben,

Christian readers have been, consciously or not, recognizing similarities between Scripture and Ancient texts and patterns long before Mendenhall and Kline. 

One problem is that in the Modern, democratic, West there is greater discontinuity between the ancient feudal world and ours. Prior to Modernity, the notion of Suzerain-Vassal relations/treaties were a part of daily life for many people. They weren't foreign concepts as they've become.

Second, recognizing relations not only between the S-V treaties and Scripture but also "covenant grant" treaties is call historical-grammatical exegesis. Seeing the pattern doesn't necessarily determine the meaning. It is not mechanical. It's not as if one is saying, "There was pattern X and passage Y looks like pattern X, ergo it must determine the meaning of passage Y." Not at all. Kline and Mendenhall and others must do the exegetical work to show that the analogy holds within the context of Scripture itself. There are reasons _internal_ or intrinsic to Scripture itself for favoring the analogy.

Further, the two covenant patterns that Horton traces out, which varies a bit from MGK, do fit well what we confess about the history of redemption, that there is a covenant of works and a covenant of grace. The SV pattern = works; the Royal Grant patter = grace.

Remember, in our confession, covenant of life is synonomous with the covenant of works and the covenant of nature. Life refers to the goal, works to the terms, nature to the location. 

There are other examples of such borrowing in Scripture. Many scholars see a connection between the creation account and ANE narratives, except in this case Moses was repudiating and commenting (implicitly) on the rebellious, competing accounts (which themselves may have been corruptions of the true account). 

The Apostle John borrowed blatantly from Greek Philosophy by using the heavily laden term, Logos (John 1:1-3) and by radically re-defining it.

There are other examples. 

What are the objective controls on recognizing parallels? Scripture itself and our confessions. Any claimed parallel must submit to the analogy of Scripture and any derived interpretation must still pass the confessional test (analogia fidei). 

Our relative unfamiliarity with the ANE should not prevent us from stretching our horizons and learning to see what really are ANE texts (the Torah) in a new light, especially when doing so only strengthens our confession of the unity and integrity of Scripture. Kline's appeal to these ANE patterns have seriously undermined the claims of the critics re authorship of the Penteteuch and the theological results have only strengthened our conviction that the Reformed confession of covenant theology is correct.

rsc



> _Originally posted by Heidelberg_
> Just finished reading Michael Horton's book on God of Promise it was easy to read and very good.
> He quoted Kline saying "It will emerge, we believe, that for purposes of reappraising the Old Testament canon, the most significant development in the last quarter-century has not been the Dead Sea scroll finds but discoveries made concerning the covenants of the Old Testament in the light of ancient Near Eastern treaty diplomacy."
> Horton then goes on to explain the differences between the suzerainty treaty and the royal grant the former is conditional while the latter is an unconditional promise on the part of the suzerain.
> ...


----------



## 5 Solas (Jul 29, 2006)

Thank You Matthew and Dr. Clark for your response.


----------

