Page 14 - Advanced OT Survey Revised

its native usage in the Ancient Near East. Sandra L. Richter puts it is this way, “a covenant was much like
1
a contract… these contracts could be made at individual, tribal or national level.” In other words it was
a way of bringing agreement where there was disagreement. Sandra quotes Frank Cross who calls them,
“Legal mechanisms or devices.”
1

Fictive Kinship

More specifically the concept of covenant in the Near East is what nowadays we can term as fictive
kinship. Fictive kinship is the idea that a non-kin or someone who is not part of the household would be
1
considered part of the family upon agreement by oath. The concept was very important in the Near
East because of the patriarchal cultural system, especially concerning privileges and responsibility.
Privileges and responsibilities were only reserved for the members of the household/family. Thus, the
significance of kinship lies in its power to make it possible for an individual (non-kin) to establish a
relationship of privilege and responsibility to another household by means of an oath. It is this concept
that made the outsi to be considered and treated as part of the family. For example, widows and
orphans would greatly benefit because of this concept. Belonging to a family in this culture was very
cardinal because of the privileges and responsibility, but the opposite was not good.

Parity Treaties and Suzerain/Vassal Treaties

The concept of covenant as mentioned earlier was not just between families or tribes, but it was also
between kingdoms. The covenants between kingdoms can be categorized in two; the parity treaty and
the suzerain/vassal treaty. The parity treaty can also be called a “military alliance” because it was
1
basically between two superpowers or even between petty kingdoms who wanted to defend each other
in case of a war. The suzerain/vassal treaty on the other hand was between the weak and the strong
kingdoms. Often times the less powerful would seek help and sometimes be forced to submit by a
superpower (suzerain). This meant that the weaker (vassal) nation would submit and pay tribute to the
superpower in exchange for protection from enemies. The superpower was thus responsible for
protecting the vassal in case of a war. Rebellion from the vassal was considered as an act of treason and
punishable sometimes by wiping out the entire people group.

The amazing part of this concept is that God used this very concept to communicate to His people,
Israel. Israel in this case would be considered a vassal nation to God, and God as the Suzerain. The vassal
nation was supposed to submit to the suzerain nation. Thus, the nation of Israel was supposed to submit
to God after he rescued them from Egypt. God as the suzerain had the responsibility of watching over
His vassal. The beauty, however, about this story of God and the Nation of Israel is that God proved
himself better and different from the “suzerain” nations because he rescued Israel even before they
were obedient to him. Thus, Israel was supposed to be obedient because of what God had already done.
He still promised blessings if they continued to obey and curses if they disobeyed. The Biblical and the
Near East concepts of a covenant were always sealed by an oath and sacrifice.

The practice of making covenants was very common in Israel, especially when initiating and defining
international relations. Joshua’s relationship with the Gibeonites is an example of international
relations of covenant-making in the Near East. (Joshua 9:23-27 and 1 Kings 5:15) In this case, the
Gibeonites were a vassal nation to Israel. Israel would protect them when war broke out. As mentioned
earlier the covenant was always sealed by an oath and sacrifice. And oftentimes the one making an oath
would pass between the sacrificed animals while swearing, “May what has happened to these animals
happen to me if I do not keep this oath.”

12