This article is an example of how a historical understanding of the Bible helps us further develop our theology:
When modern scholarship got
underway, critical thinkers began to look at the various historical evidences
and determined that the idea of covenant did not exist until well after the
time of Abraham. It was thus determined that the Pentateuch’s reference to
covenant before Moses, who lived in a time when the world was certainly using
covenants, was anachronistic, a literary tool to help the primary audience
understand what was going on. Therefore, it was assumed that any covenantal
references seen with creation, Adam, Noah, or Abraham must be a way of telling
the reader that God had an agreement with these entities much like the reader
would have understood covenant, but no real covenant was made.
The idea of anachronism in Scripture
is not particularly threatening to Biblical inerrancy and faith. For example,
the city of Dan is referred to as Dan in the Genesis account (11:28, 31), but
according to the Bible itself, Dan was not called Dan at the time. It was Laish
until it was renamed in the Judges Era. This simply indicates an updating so
that the reader understands what the author is talking about in more “modern”
terms. Remember the ancients considered themselves as moderns and those before
them ancients. They too benefited from the study of history, and often helped
their reader to understand outdated terms.
On the other hand, critical
scholars have become too comfortable to relocate every reference to an idea
that they only have later evidence for to the realm of anachronism. For
example, it was believed for a long time that Abraham did not have camels as
the Genesis account says he does, because the only evidence we had at the time
was for a later domestication of camels, but newer evidence shows that there is
indeed reason to believe that Abraham could have had domesticated camels.
Moreover, while the earliest
covenants with Adam (perhaps creation) Noah and the like do not have tremendous
theological implications if the writer was simply trying to convey a message
that God is faithful and made some sort of promise, the Abrahamic covenant has
bearing throughout the Bible and carries with it much theological import. If it
did not happen as the Bible reports, if it was not an actual historic event, then
all our talk about God keeping His covenant becomes strained.
There are a few things that could
be said at this point. First, who is to say that God himself did not create the
idea of covenant and every other ANE form is a reflection or remnant from the
first covenants between God and man? On the other hand, the assumption that ANE
political covenants, as seems to be reflected in form of the covenant cut with
Abraham, is not at all harmed by the thought that such covenants were human
inventions. All the more, this is a testimony that God meets us where we are.
He comes to us in forms we can understand. Thus, if the practice of covenant
existed at least in one primitive form or another at the time of Abraham, it
would make complete sense that God would use such social norms to begin His
social interactions with Abraham. In other words, He would be coming to Abraham
in forms that Abraham would understand (and He would redefine those terms to
teach about Himself, and He indeed does so with covenant. While it looks like
other ANE forms, its deepest understandings are far from that of the ANE For
the ANE, the actual ritual was more important than the ethical obligations, but
to God, the covenant ritual—sacrifice—is subordinate to the heart of the
matter, the ethical reasons to sacrifice).
Again, however, some critical
scholars were claiming that such secular covenantal understandings did not
exist in Abraham’s time. If we read the account of the covenant between God and
Abraham, Abraham seems to know exactly what to do with the animal sacrifice for
the covenant without much instruction. The Bible leads us to think that Abraham
knew what was going on. He was in fact asking for a covenant with God. So, how
did he know about covenant if it did not exist? The scholar once claimed that the
story is full of anachronism. It was just literary fiction meant to teach a
lesson. But, the Bible is important, mainly because it is historical. If it is
not historical, God’s promises have no real eternal impact as the Bible
suggests they do.
But, time has a way of making us
look foolish. We should not be too dogmatic to write off Biblical claims just
because our limited understanding of the ancient times do not line up with what
the Bible claims (this author would much rather believe the Bible, but that
could be considered bias….oh well). In fact, new evidence shows that a
neighboring group, the Hittites, were using covenant at the time of Abraham,
and Abraham, being a very well to do man, would more than likely know of such
practices.
The particular covenantal form of
the Hittites was a suzerainty covenant. This would be a covenant made between
two kings of varying influence. The greater king, known as the suzerain, would
be seeking to expand his empire by making agreements with lesser kings, known
as vassals, who were looking to be protected. The suzerain could require
tribute from the vassal, and the vassal could ask for protection of the
suzerain from any other invading peoples. In order to establish this
relationship, a covenant would be made. Covenants over time develop very complex
forms and ideas, but at this time, the early suzerainty covenant is pretty
straightforward:
The greater king would take his
seat above the vassal. The vassal would split animals in two. Then, the vassal
would walk between the bloody sacrifices. This act was symbolic of the vassal
saying to the greater king, “If I break my covenantal obligations, may I be
split in two like these animals. While the Abrahamic covenant is lacking some
similarities with the Hittite covenant form, the real similarities that do
exist show us some surprising things that Abraham would have known and would
have been in awe of.
Look at the scene in Genesis 15
now with an ancient understanding of covenant. The High King is supposed to
watch the weaker place himself under the oath unto death. Abraham would have
thought that He was to be the one to promise His loyalty to God. He would be
the one saying, “I promise to pay tribute for your protection and blessing.” But
what happens? Abraham watches the smoking pot and the flaming torch, which
represent YHWH pass through the sacrifice. In other words, God is saying, “If I
be a liar, may I be like these animals.” Wow! God willingly stoops down and
submits Himself, at least in this instance, to the needs of Abraham. He is a
serving God, and He does not see His power as something to be exploited, but as
something to bless us with. God is saying that He is willing to die for His
promise. The amazing thing is that He does, when Christ hangs on the cross for us.
