Treaty of the Great King

SAVE OFFLINE

.\\ The Covenom Stmrcture of Deuteronomy Studics and Commcntary

N

.».

MãlkEwRTEiDhãxblekG. KLINE

\V¡pt'z¡r1d Stock Publishcrb l*)9 W Xth Avc. Suilc 3 Íjugcnq ()R 9740l Trcaty ufthc Circat King Thc ('uvcnanl Struclurc of Dculcmnomyz Studics and ('0mmcmary By Klum '\«¡1crcdith G ('opy_'nghtt' l9(›3 by Klinc. Mcrcdith (i, ISBN 132 97X-1-61097,-698~5 Publiumon daw l/3,320 l 2 Prcviously publishcd hy WnL B. lzcrdmans_ 1963

PREFACE The rediscovery of trcaties of thc great kíngs of Near Eastem antiquity has bcen widcly cxploited by biblical scholarship in thc last fcw ycars. It has bccn gcncrally recognízed that ccrtain adjustments are requircd in the negatítvc judgments which mntrol modern studics in the arca of Old Testament hlst'0ry and highcr críticxsm', but it does not yct secm to havc bccn apprcciatcd that in thesc treaties the modcm biblical critic has a tiger by thc tail. Thc significance of thc treaties for subjccts likc the bcginnings of the canon of ScriPture and thc authcnticíty of thc Pentateuch as well as the hístoncity of varíous covenams rccorded in the Biblc can hardly be overestímatcd. An attempt 1s' made here to trace thc relevancc of the rccovery of thc trcaty form for our understanding of the nature of the Decalogue and Deuteronomy, with Particular reference to thc Current phase of Old Tcstament hngher críticns'm. If not as much in the foreground as the apologetic desígn in the present volumc, the biblical theological aspects of thcse m'vestígau'ons ncvertheless occupy a more central posítion in thc m'terests of the author. It ls' intended that the studies should servc as a prelnn'inary probe, reparing for a more systematic cxPloration of the hlst'ory of e revelation of God's covenants Wlth man. Thc two chaptcrs of Part I ñrst appeared as articles in the Westminster Tbeological Ioumal m' thc issues of May, 1960 (Vol. XXIL No. 2) and November, 1960 (Vol. XXIII, No. l). Thc origm'al artícles have bcen somcwhat mod1fí'ed, particularly to takc account of important, morc rccent dcvelopmcnts. The brief commentary on Deuteronomy found m°°Part H 1s' substantíally that which I contributed to Tbe Wycliffe Bible Commcntary (Chicago: Mood ' Prcss. l962). The purposes and policics of that volume naturañy dctermm'cd the gencral nature and scopc of the treatment of the individual contributions, as wcll as matters hk'e the system of transliteration of chrcw and Grcck words and thc form of biblícal quotau'ons. Thc lattcr arc from thc Authorized Vcrsíon unlcss othcrwnse° noted. Althou h this combmation of materml's is somcwhat unusuaL it was fcí that the two parts saus'factonl'y supplcmented cach

7

8

PREFACE

other in thcir common unfolding of thc suzerainty trcatv pattcm as found ín thc Mosaic covenants. By means of the conHmentary the rcsults of the studies of Part I may be made morc serviceable to thc immediate needs of the preacher and tcachcr of the Bible; _vct_. becausc of the commentar_v's primary and constant concern wich qucstions of structure, whethcr the Pattem of thc treat_v as a whole or the arrangemcnt of matcrnals wíthín subordinatc sections likc the st1'pulan'ons, it ís hoped that it may Çin thís respcct at least serve those with more specializcd mterests. The oppormnínj is wclcomcd to acknowledgc with decp appreciation the generosity of the Moody Press and also thc kindncss of the editors of the íVestminster Tbeological joumal ranting republication privileges. My thanks are also duc in to ã›ixss' Doroth_v NewImk for her services in preparmg thc typcscript. And to the pubhs'hcrs, the Wm. B. Ecrdmans Publishing Company, belongs my sincere gratitudc for theü bravery m' accepting the work of a new author and for thc1r' many subsequent courtcsics. Withm' the month VVcscninster Thcologícal Seminary has suffcrcd great loss in the departure of Profcssor ch B. Stonehousc to bc at home with the Lord. VVe younger members of the faculty ñrst knew h1m' as teacher and when ít becamc our further privüege to servc with h1m' as colleagucs we continued to seek and treasurc his wisc counscl on many mattcrs, personal and profcssionaL How frcsh the memory of thc warm cncouragement which Dr. Stonchousc added to h¡s' advice

when

I

sought

his judgment

on

thc publicatíon of

this my ñrst book. “So tcach us to numbcr our daY s, thac wc ma Y g et us a hcart of wxsd'om.”

-MEREDITH G. KLINE

Wesrminster Tbeological Seminary, December 15, 1962

r PART I THE TREA TY FORM OF THE DECALOG UE AND DEUTVERONOMY

._/b_4) e çJM Ã~1."E.~¡/~K_a, 1.

Thc Two Tables of thc Covcnam

“And hc dcclarcd unto you his covcnant, which hc com~ mandcd you to pcrform, cvcn tçn commandmcnts; and hc wrotc thcm upon two tablcs of stonc” (Dcut. 4:!3). It has bccn commonly assumcd that cach of thc stonc tablcs containcd but a part of thc total revclation proclaimcd by thc voicc of God out of thc ñcry thcophany on Sinai. Only the subordinatc qucstion of thc dividing point bctwccn thc “ñrst and sccond tablcs” has occasioncd disagrccmcntl A re~ cxnmination of thc biblical data, howcver, particularly in thc light of cxtra~biblical parallcls, suggcsts a radically ncw intcrPretation of thc formal naturc of the two stonc tablcs, thc unportancc of which will bc found to lic pnm'arily m' the frcsh pcrspcctivc it lcnds to our understandmg of the divm'c oraclc cngravcd upon thcm. Attention is bcing d1r'cctcd more and morc m' recent ycars to the rcmarkablc resemblancc bctwccn God's covcnant wíth Israel and the suzcrainty (also callcd vassal) type of intcrnational trcaty found in thc ancient Ncar Easn2 Snm°ilarities havc bcen l. Thc dominant opinion has bccn that thc “¡econd table” opcns wíth thc ñfth commandmem, but chs usually count the fifth commandment aa thc last ín the “ñrst tablc", ñlial rcverence bcing regarded as a rcligious duty. (Here and clacwhere in this chapter thc designation of apcciñc commandmcnts is baaed on thc common Protestant cnumcration.) For a different ancicnt Jewísh opíníon amícipating thc conclusíou of the prcaent study acc Midrash Rabbah, XLVIL 6. 2. Sec G. E. MendcnhalL “Covcnant Forms ín Israclíte Tradítion," The Bibtical Archaeologíst, XVII (1954) 3, pp. 50~76; this was republíshcd ín Law and Covenant in Isracl and the Ancient Near East, 1955. D. J. Wnscm'an had prcvíously rcad a papcr on aome of the parallels to thc Sodety for Old Testamcnt Studies Uam 1948) . See now K. Baltzer, Das Bundesformular. Scinc Urspnmg und seine Verwendung im AT (Wíss. Monogr. 2. A. und N.T., 4) , Neukírchen, 1960. Therc are rcferences to such íntcmational treatics in thc thírd millennium B.C. Actual treaty texts of the New Híttitc Empirc in thc full classic form of thc mid-sccond míllennium B.C. werc dnsco'vered almost forty ycars ago in the archíves of ancient Hattusa. Thc evidcnce for thns° pcríod has becn supplemcnted by a fcw treaty fragments found at Ugarít. Other reccnt ñnds bring the cvídcncc íor vaaal treaues° down ínto the ñrst half of thc ñrst millenníum B.C. Most aigniñcant arc the threc Aramaic inscriptíons from Señrch and the Auyrm trcatics of Euarhaddon found at Nimrud.

13

14

zlmnrArY nr THE (a“nr.xr Kum

duwovcrcd ín thc arcas nÍ thc dUCUIHCnYS. thc Ccmmlmícs of rauticamm, thc nuulcs of adrmmmrauum antL num báSimlly gf çuumm thc mvcraínmstrvant rclalímmhip imlf Un thc hibiiclj sidc rhc rcscmhlancc is most apparcm in thc accnuntâ of ght thcucrativ cnvenant as institutcd thmugh thc mcdiatnrshjp Of Mmrcs ar Sinai and as latcr rcncwcd undcr t._›oth Mrm and jushtm ()f most imcrcst fnr thc s_uh¡'ccr of tlus chaptcr à thc fact that thc pattcrn of thc suzcramty trcaty can hc rraccd m' miniamrcl in rhc rcvclatinn writtcn on rhc twn tablcs by the ñn cr nf (;nd. *I am thc l.ord thy God," thc opcning words of thc Sinaitk proclamation (Ex. 20z2a), corryspond to thc prçamblc of dm zuzcram°ry trcatica›,' which idennñcd thç z'uzcram, or “gnat king." and that in tcrms calculatcd m gnspxrc a_wc and fcan For cxamplc, the trcaty of Mursihs' with hlS vassal Duppi~Tcsmb of Amurru bcginsz “'l*hcsc arc the words nf thc Sun Mursms"' thc grcat king, thc king of thc Hatti lan_d, ic valm'nt, thc favoritc of thc Storm~god, thc wn of Suppnlullumas, etc.”' Such trcatics continucd in an “1-thou" stylc with an h15t'onc'a[ prologuc, survcying thc grcat km'g's prcvious rc_lations widL and cspccíally híe bcncfactions to, thc vassal_ kmg. In çhc trcaty just refcrred to, Mursilis rcminds Dupp1-Tcssub of thc vassal stntus of hxs° fathcr and grandfather, of thcir loyalty and enjoymcnt of Nlursilis' just ovcrsight, and climacticalíxíl thcrc 1s° narratcd how Mursüis, tru.c to hxs' promxse' to Duppi- cssub's fathcr, sccurcd the dynastic succession for Duppi~Tcssub, sm'k and amng though he was. Jn the Decaloguc, thc hxst'orical prologuc 1$' found m° thc furthcr words of thc Lord: “whích havc brought thcc out of the land of Egypg out of thc housc of bondagc” (Ex. 20.-2b). Thxs' element m° thc covcnant doc~ umcnt was clcarly desígned to msp'1r'c conñdcncc and grau'tudc m' thc vassal and thereby to disposc him to attcnd to thc covenant obligations, which constitutc the th1r°d elcmcnt m' both Exodus 20 and thc international trcatics. There arc many m'tcrcsting parallels to specnñ°c bíblical rcqu1r'emcnts among the trcaty stipulat1'ons_¡ but to mcntion only the most prominent, the fundamental dernand ls' always for thorough commitmcnt to the suzerain to the exclusion of all 3. Translatíon of A. Goctze in ed. James B. Pritchardz Ancíent Near Eastem Texts, Pn'nccton, 1950, p. 203. Cf. V. Koroãeç Hethítüchc Stcats~

vertra"ge, Lcípzig, 195-l, pp. 361

Tmz Two TABLES or Tmc COVENANT

15

alicn allianccs.,' Thus. Mursiüs insnsts': “But you, I)uppi-Tcssub, rcmain loyal toward thc king of thc Hatti land, thc Hattâ lzmd, my sons (and) my grandsons forevcr . . . . Do not turn your çycs to anyonc clsc!"° And Yahwch commands hls' scrvantz “Thou shalt havc no othcr gods bcforc mc” (le*. 20:3; cf. vv. 4, 5). Stylistically, thc apodictic form of thc Dccaloguc apparcndy ñnds íts only parallcl in the trcatics, which contam catc orical 1m'Perativcs and prolúbitions and a conditional typc of lgormw latxon cquivalent to thc apodictic cursc (cf. Dcut. 27:15-26), both bcing dircctly orientcd to covcmnt oaths and sanctions. Thc Íbgislation in the cxtant lcgal codcs, on thc other hand, ¡s' uniformly of thc casuxsu"c typc. Two other standard featurcs of thc classic suzcrainty trcaty wcrc thc ínvocation of thc ods of thc suzcraín and (in thc Hittitc sphcrc) thc gods of t c vassal ns witncsscs of thc oath and the pronouncing of 1m'prccations and bcncdictions, which thc oath dcitics wcrc to cxccute according to thc vassaPs dcscrts. vaiously in thc casc of God's covcnant with Isracl thcre conld bc no thour ht of a rcalistic invocatíon of a tlur°d party as divm'e witncss. Indecd, it ls' un'plicit in the th1r'd word of thc Dccaloguc that all IsracPs oaths must bc swom by the name of Yahwch (Ex. 20:7). Thc 1mm'ediate contextual apph°ca~ tíon of thls' commandment 1s' that thc Israclite must remam true to the oath hc was about to take at Sm'ai m' accordance with the standard procedure m' ceremonics of covenant ranñ'cation (cf. Ex. 24). NIendenhall7 ñnds no rcfcrence to an oath as thc foundation of thc Smax"tic covenant; he does, however, allow that the oath may havc taken thc form of a symbolic act rathcr than a vcrbal formula. But surely a solemn affirmation of consccration to God madc in the prcsencc of God to hls' mediator-reprcsentative and m° rcsponse to divm'c dcmand, sanctioned by divme threats 4. Cf. furthcr. Koroãcç op. cit., pp. õôff.; D. ]. Wiseman, The Vassal~ Treatics of Esarhaddon, Londom 1958. pp. 235.; McndenhalL op. cit., p. 59. 5. Ancient Near Eastem Texts, p. 204. 6. Thcre is a formal litcrary approxímation to the m'vocation ot thc oath witnesacs ín DcuL 4:26; 30:19; and 31z28 where by the rhetorícal dcvíce of apostrophc God calls heaven and carth to be wimcsscs of h13' Hcavcn and carth are alao m°voked along with oovenant with IsraeL and rivcn, etc., at thc closc of this acction in thc trcau'ea. thc mountaíns Cf. MatL 5:34, 35; 23:16~22. 7. Op. cit., p. 66.

16

Tnmrv or THE mer KlNG

against thc rcbellious, is tantamoum to an oath. Moremcrs Isracl's eating and drinking in thc pcrsons of hcr rcprescmativcg on thc mount of God (I'.x. 24.~ll) was a recogmzcd symbouc

method hy which pcoplc sworc trcatics.” Thc curses and blcssings arc prcscnt m Exodus 20, though

not as a separatc scctiom They are rathcr intcrsgdcrscd among orcovez, an thc stipulations (scc vv. 5, ó, 7, ll. and 12). adaptation of thc customary form of thc curses and blcssings to thc divine naturc of the Suzcrain who herc pronounccd thcm was neccssary. Thusg thc usual invocativc form has yieldcd to thc dcclarativc, and that in thc stylc of the motivc clausc. whjch Ls' charactcristic of Old Teatament legislation and which xs' illu.strztivc of what may bc called thc reasonablcncss of Isracl's Lord.” There is one ñnal point of matcríal correspondcncc betwccn Exodus 20 and thc secular treatie$. It provides thc kcy to thc nature of the two tables of stone and to this' wc shall prescntlv retum. Thc parallclísmx alrcady notcd, howevcr, is suffícicnt to' demonstrate that the revelation committcd to thc two tablcs was rather a suzerainty trcaty or cnvenant than a lcgal codc. Thc customary exclusive use of “Dccalogue” to desigmte th¡s' rcvclation, biblical terminology though it is (cf. “thc tcn words,”1° Ex. 34:28; DcuL 4:l3; 10:4), has unfortunatcly scrved to obscurc thc wholc truth of thc matten That th15'

designation is intcnded as only pars pro toto ís conñrmcd by the fact that “covenant” (bcrít,- Deut. 4:l3) and “thc words of thc covenant” (Ex. 34:28) arc altcmate biblical tcrnu'nology. So, too, 15° “testimony” (*êdüt; Ex. 25:16, 21; 40220,- cf. II Kg& 17:15), which characterizes thc stipulations as oath-bound obh'gations or as a covenant order of lífc:.11 Consequently, thc two 8. Cf. Wiscrnan, op. cit., p. 84 and líncs 154-156 of thc anatm tch 9. Cf. B. Gemscn “Thc un°portance of the motívc claunc in Old Tcstamcnt law." Supplemcnts to Vctus Testamentum, I (1953), pp. 50-66. lt must bc bomc in mind that the Dccaloguc docs not scand alonc as mc total rcvclation of thc covcnant at Sm'ai. For curscs znd blcssings scc aluo thc conclusion of thc Book of the Covcnant (Ex. 23z20-33) and cspecíaliy Deuteronomy 27~$0. lO. The contcnu of

thc

trcaties

are

also

callcd

lhc “words" of Lhe

suzcrain. ll. 'êdút ís mlated to thc Akkadian adê, which is used as a gcnml appellaWíscman (op. cit., p. 81). tion Eor thc conccnu of auzcrainty trcatícs. dcñncs adü (sm'g.) as “a law or commandment solcmnly impoacd m' the

prcncncc of divíne wítncsscs by a suzcrain upon an íudivíduzl or pcoplc who haVC no option but acocptancc of the tcrms. lt 1m'plics a 'aolcnm

THE Two TABLES or THE CDVENANT

17

tablcs arc called “thc tables of thc covcnant” (Deut. 9:9, ll, 15) and “the tables of thc tcstxm'ony" (Ex. 31:18; 32:15; 34:29),~ thc ark, as thc dcpository of thc tablcs, “thc ark of the covcnant” or “of thc tcstimony"; and the tabcrnacle, where the ark was locatcd, “the tabcrnaclc of the testimonty .” Thc two stone tables arc not1 thcre orc, tO bc likcned to a stclc containing one of the half~dozcn or so known lcgal codes carlier than or roughly contcmporary with Moscs as though God had engravcd on thcsc tables a corpus of lanz Thc revclatíon they contain is nothing Iess than an cpitomc of thc covenant granted by Yahweh, thc sovercign Lord of heaven and carth, to his clcct and redccmcd servant, IsraeL Not law, but covcnann That must be atfirmed when we are seeking a category comprehcnsivc ennugh to do justice to thls' revelation in its t(›taliqr. At the samc time, the promincnce of the su'pulat1'ons, reflectcd in thc fact rhat “the ten words” are the clement uscd as pars pro tot0, signalizes thc ccntrality of law in this type of covenant. rrhcre is probably no clearcr dkcction añordcd the biblical theologian for dcñning with biblical emphasis the type of covenant God adopted to formalizc h15' rclatíonship to his peoplc than that given in thc covcnant he gavc Israel to perform, evcn “the ten commandments.” Such a covcnant is a dcclaration of God's lordship, consecrating a Ênoplc tO hímself in a sovcrcignly dictated order of life. _what now is the signiñcancc of the fact that the covenant _was recordcd not on one but on two stone tablcs? Apart from the dubious symbolic propriety of bisccting a treaty for distríbution over two separate documents, all the chargc or undcrtakíng on oath' (accordíng to the vicw of the suzerain or vassan l2. Thcre docs appcar to bc some lítcrary rclationship betwcen thc legal codes and thc suzerainty trcaties. ]. Muílcnburg ("The form and struo ture of the covcnantal formulan'ons," Vetus Tcstamentum, IX (Oct. 1959) 4. pp. 347E.) classiñes both under "the royal mcssagc.” Hammumpi in his code, which is stíll the most complctc of the extant ancient Oricntal codes, íntroduccs himaelf in the prologuc with a rccital of his incomparable qualiñcations for thc promulgation of laws, thcn preutnts the laws. and in the cpilogue pronounces cunes and blessíngs on futurc kings as they ignorc or honor his code. Thc ídemity of the Decalogue with thc suzcrainty treaties over against such law codcs is cvidcnced by features hk'c thc covenant terminology, thc adê charactcr of the stipulations, thc "I-Lhou" formulatiom and thc purpose of the wholc as manífcsted both in thc contents and the historical occasion, i.e., Lhe catablu'hment of a covcnant rclationship betwcen two parúcs.

18

Tmunr or THE GREAT ch

mditional suggcstions as to how thc division should bc madc arc liablc to thc ohjcction that thcy do violcncc to thc formal and logical struccurc of thxs' trcary. Thc rcsults of thc traditíomj rypc of clcavagc arc not two rcawnably balanccd sc'ts of laws but onc tablc containintg almost all of thrcc of thc four trcaty clcmcnts plus a part o thc fourth, i.e., thc stipulation3, and a sccond table with only a fraction of thc stípulations and possíbly a blcssing formula. The prcamblc and h1$'torícal prologue must bc ncithcr rm'mm'izcd nor ignorcd bccansc of thcir brcviry for thls' 1s' a covcnant m' rm'ma'turc. In companso'n with the fulJscalc versiom thc stipulatíons arc proportionatcly as greatly rcduccd as are thc prcamble and thc h¡s'ton'cal rologuc. That would bc cvcn clcarcr if thc additional strand o thc curses and blcssmgs wcrc not intcrwov cn with thc commandmcnts. Ccrtnml'y.. t00. thcrc was no physical ncccssity for d1$t1"1'buun'g thc xnatcrhl over two stom One tablc of such a snz'c that Moscs could carry, and thc ark contain, a pair of thcm would offcr no problcm of spatial lmn"tations tO prcvcnt engraving the cnnr'c tcxt upon it. cspccially sincc thc wriung' covcred borh In facg K SCCms unreaobvcrsc and rcversc (Ex. 32:15). sonablc, iudging from thc appcarancc of comparablc stonc m'scriptions from antiquity, to supposc that all thc arca on both

sxd'cs of two tablcs would be dcvoted to so fcw wnzda Thcrc 1s', morcovcr, thc comparative evidcncc of thc cxtra-

biblical trcatícs. Covcnants, such as Exodus 20:2-l7 has bccn shovvn to bc, are found writtcn in the1r° cnur'cty on onc tablc and indccd, likc the Sinaitic tablcs, on both its sídcs.u As a furthcr dctail in thc parallclisrn of external appcarance it 15' tcmptm'g to scc m° thc sabbath sign prcsented m' thc núdst of thc tcn words thc cquivalcnt of thc suzcram"s dynastic seal found m' the midst of the obvcrsc of thc intcmational trcaty documcnts.1* Sincc m' the casc of thc Dccaloguc thc suzcmm as' Yahwch1 thcrc wm bc no represcntation of h1m' on hls' scaL but thc sabbath xs' dcclarcd to be h.1$' “sngn' of thc covcmnt” (Ex. 3l.-13-17). By means of hxs° sabbath-kccpm'g, thc 1ma'gc13. Cf., e.g., Wue'man, op. cit., plates I and IX. 14. The closíng paragnph of thc Egyptían tcxx of thc parity tmty of Hauusilít III and Ramocs II u' a deacription of Lhc sca1, caucd “Wlut u' in the middlc of Lhe cablet of nl'vcr” (Ancze'nt Near Eastern Text:, p. 201). For thc Mitannian pracucc' of plaan'g thc Ieal on the nrvenq ci. D. j. Wuc'ma.n, The Alalakh Tabicts, London, 1953, platcs VII and VIIL uam 13 and l4.

THE Two TABLES or THE OovaANT

19

bcarcr of God imagcs thc pattern of that divinc act of crcatíon which proclaims God's absolutc sovcrcignty ovcr man. and thcrcby he plcdgcs his covcnant comsccration to his Makcr. Thc Crcator has stampcd on world history thc sign of thc sabbath as his scal of ownership and authority. That ¡s' precxsc'ly what thc picturcs on thc dynastic