ANE Suzerian-Vassal Treaties, The Creation Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3), and the Adamic Covenant

These are just some recent thoughts as they relate to a class I’m taking this semester on the theology of the Pentateuch. My prof., Dr. Niehaus, has done quite a bit of work with ANE themes in the OT, and his studies have lead to the material that I would like to share with you now.

Within certain Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) systems you begin with a god as a Great King (GK). The technical term for such a king is Suzerain, which would also mean emperor. The Suzerain is the king of kings, and everyone under him is in a vassal state. These foundational principals are very important for our (Christian) study of the Bible when we see the creation account as it parallels to an ANE treaty.

The form most relevant for us was used by the Hittites in the 2^nd millennium BC. They had treaties of two sorts. One was a Parity treaties, which would have been give to an equal rivaling country, such as Egypt. The other is the one most important for our study and my thesis: Creation as a Suzerain-vassal treaty.

This form begins with a title that identifies a GK, and the treaty is interestingly enough the words of the GK. On a side note, this can be quite significant for our biblical studies as we see God creating by his words. The next element of the treat is an Historical Proloque, which tells of the good things that the king has done. The treaty then speaks of certain stipulations; namely, if I (one of their pagan gods) have done something, then you must do something. There is a deposition of the treaty that is then placed in the temple and there is a regular reading of treaty by the kings. It seems to have been placed in the temple because their gods were in charge of it, and there was a regular reading of the treaty done by the king so that he would not forget its elements as he lead and often functioned as a representative for the people. Lastly, there are witnesses of the treaty, which seemed to be normally deities, and there were blessings and curses for the vassals if they obeyed or disobeyed.

Now how might any of this be important for our study of creation as it fits into the plans and purpose as God would have wished to use such things in order to structure the world in such a way as it relates to him as such? Well, like I’ve alluded to, I do see a pattern of these elements of a Hittite Suzerain-vassal treaty communicated in Gen 1:1-2:3. I’ll list them below.

I.                   We see God identified in Gen 1:1

II.                Historical Prologue in vv.2-29

III.             Stipulations in 1:28 [2:16-17a]-the later is not particular to our passages, but it is germane to it.

IV.             There is neither a deposition nor regular reading because we don’t have a written treaty; however, I think one could quite easily make the case for Eden being the temple, and Adam and Eve functioning as the rulers and representatives of creation (for when they fell all of creation fell). Therefore, all of these speculations seem to make some case for Adam and Eve failed to regularly remind themselves of the Historical Prologue, stipulations, blessings and cursing of God’s treaty with creation.

V.                Witnesses in 1:31 [2:1]

VI.             Blessings in 1:28; 2:3

VII.          Curses in [2:17b]

I would like to begin to conclude that the notion that Gen. 1:1-2:3 represents and provides proof for support of the existence of an Adamic Covenant. Many people use the words treaty and covenant interchangeably, but my point is that the elements that one would attribute to another covenant in the bible are paralleled and used here is Genesis. Another biblical covenant most clearly paralleled with the Adamic is the Noahic Covenant. Some have label the Adamic as a Covenant of Works and Noahic as a Common Grace Covenant; however, I would insist on labeling both of them as Common Grace Covenants as they are given to everyone who are born under these same arrangements. On a side note, the differences between the first two covenants I’ve mentioned and all the other Covenants of Grace or Special Grace Covenants is that the later group was given to or established with certain people (God’s chosen elect).

Lastly, the support I finds for proof that the Adamic and Noahic Covenant are similar (and thus the former truly being a covenant) can be found in comparison between Gen 1:28 and Gen 9:1-3. In both texts God blessed the human representatives and commands them to be fruitful and multiply. Moreover, I find that the Noahic is a renewal of the Adamic, and thus making the Adamic and Noahic one legal package and finally I find it helpful (canonically and theologically) to understand them has having such a relationship. Now these parallels do not mean that there are no differences between the two, but the diversity does not mean that there is no unity between them. A great example of parallels and close relationships between other covenants is the Sinai and the Moab Covenant (Dt 29:1). Together, they form one legal package. In other words, the later is a renewal or restatement of the former. I think then you could say that both of these, taken together, form the Old Covenant.