A correct interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant depends on a proper understanding of the structure or arrangement of the covenant. As a prologue to the discussion, William Barrick importantly explains that all biblical covenants were “promulgated by the divine Suzerain on behalf of His vassal-people.”^[1] In the culture of the ancient Near East, a victorious king would often formally declare a covenant with his new vassal. In the case of the Mosaic Covenant, the authority of the covenantal content rests with Yahweh. Furthermore, Barrick correctly explains that the Mosaic covenant’s structure, which aligned with the format of various suzerain-vassal treaties, was purposefully initiated by God so that the revelation was presented in a form that was familiar and understandable to the Israelites.^[2] The Hittite suzerain-vassal treaties are representative of those that parallel the format of the biblical covenants. Although the biblical accounts may not completely follow the secular counterparts, Victor Matthew and Don Benjamin provide a summary of the common components of the treaty form: (1) the credentials, (2) a history, (3) the terms, (4) the witnesses, (5) the blessings and curses, and (6) the recording provisions.^[3] Barrick applies the basic format to the Mosaic covenant as follows: (1) history (Exod 19:1-4), (2) preamble (Exod 19:5-6), (3) terms (Exod 20:3-23:19), blessings and curses (Exod 23:20-23), and (5) recording provisions (Exod 24:4-7).^[4] A couple of observations are worth noting. First, Cleon Rogers highlights the importance of the historical preparation section of the Egyptian version of the treaty between Hattusilis and Ramses II, which parallels Exodus 19.^[5] In the treaty between Egypt and Hatti, there is a date, a geographical setting, and the mediator of the covenant, and in the Mosaic Covenant there is a date, the third month (Exod 19:1), the geographical setting, the wilderness (Exod 19:2), and the mediator, Moses (Exod 19:3).^[6] Second, the most important part of the Mosaic Covenant is likely the conditional sentence, “If you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all people, for all the earth is mine” (Exod 19:5).^[7] The suzerain-vassal relationship is certainly evident within Yahweh’s promise.

As noted, the blessings and curses are a segment of the ancient Near Eastern treaty form. However, a formal list of blessings and curses do not exist in the book of Exodus, although punishments documented in the book may be encompassed in the broad scope of the concept (e.g. Exod 35:12). According to Rogers, the blessings and curses listed in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 ought to be considered incorporated into the Mosaic Covenant in the book of Exodus.^[8] Although the blessings and curses follow the ratification of the Mosaic Covenant, the incorporation is not unreasonable for it was common for covenants to be updated in the ancient Near East.^[9]

Exodus Volume 1: EP Study Commentary

Finally, it is difficult to ignore the emphasis that the blessings and curses place on the topic of land, which seems to not only look backwards, but also forward to a time of exile and also to a time of restoration in Christ (Deut 30:1-6). The section of the Mosaic Covenant that specifies the terms of the agreement is documented primarily in Exodus 21-23, which is called the Book of the Covenant or the Covenant Code. Three important ancient Near Eastern law-codes chronologically precede the Covenant Code and play a significant role in understanding it. According to John Currid, the Code of Hammurabi is the most popular law-code and is named after the King of the Babylonian Dynasty from around 1700 BC.^[10] The Lipit-Ishtar Code and Laws of Eshnunna are similar law-codes but date to the nineteenth-century BC.^[11] The importance of the ancient Near Eastern legal tradition to an understanding of the structure of the Mosaic Covenant pertains to the similarities between the Covenant Code and the Mesopotamian legal tradition. Joel Hamm, Bryan Babcock, and Justin Strong provide three structural characteristics of the Mesopotamian legal code that are reflected in the Covenant Code: (1) both codes are third person writings, (2) both codes are casuistic, and (3) both codes cover many of the same topics.^[12]

For example, the casuistic nature of the codes is evident in both Exodus 21:16 and the Legal Code of Hammurabi (LH) §14, if a man kidnaps, then he will die. The importance of the ancient Near Eastern legal codes to an understanding of the structure of the Covenant Code can also be explored from a broader perspective. Bruce Wells provides three additional connections: both codes address (1) similar legal issues, (2) similar legal reasoning, and (3) similar legal remedies.^[13] For example, both codes address the legal issues pertaining to parental abuse (Exod 21:15; LH §195), quarreling men (Exod 21:18-19; LH §206), and striking a pregnant woman (Exod 21:22-23; LH §209-212). Finally, dissimilarities between the ancient Near Eastern legal tradition and the biblical legal tradition are also important for understanding Scripture. Hamm, Babcock, and Strong point out that the purpose, benefit, and scope of the biblical account contrasts with the ancient culture’s perspective: The purpose of the biblical law was to produce a holy nation, the benefit was to image Yahweh, and the scope applied to all social classes, all of which were foreign to the Near Eastern traditions.^[14] In sum, knowledge of the ancient Near Eastern legal traditions provides an opportunity for the student or scholar to deepen an understanding of the biblical legal material by comparing and contrasting it with the shared culture of the ancient Near Eastern legal practices.

___________________________

[1] William D Barrick, “The Mosaic Covenant,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 10, no. 2 (1999): 215.

[2] Ibid., 220.

[3] Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East (New York: Paulist Press, 2016), 94.

[4] Barrick, “The Mosaic Covenant,” 221.

[5] Cleon L Jr Rogers, “The Covenant with Moses and Its Historical Setting,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 14, no. 3 (1971): 147.

[6] Ibid., 148.

[7] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).

[8] Rogers, “The Covenant with Moses and Its Historical Setting,” 154.

[9] Ibid.

[10] John D. Currid, A Study Commentary on Exodus: Exodus 19–40, vol. 2, EP Study Commentary (Carlisle, PA: Evangelical Press, 2001), 64.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Joel Hamme, Bryan C. Babcock, and Justin David Strong, “Code of Hammurabi,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

[13] Bruce Wells, “What Is Biblical Law?: A Look at Pentateuchal Rules and Near Eastern Practice,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 70, no. 2 (April 2008): 232.

[14] Hamme, Babcock, and Strong, “Code of Hammurabi.”

Bibliography

• Barrick, William D. “The Mosaic Covenant.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 10, no. 2 (1999): 213–232.
• Currid, John D. A Study Commentary on Exodus: Exodus 19–40. Vol. 2. EP Study Commentary. Carlisle, PA: Evangelical Press, 2001.
• Hamme, Joel, Bryan C. Babcock, and Justin David Strong. “Code of Hammurabi.” In The Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.
• Matthews, Victor H., and Don C. Benjamin. Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East. New York: Paulist Press, 2016.
• Rogers, Cleon L Jr. “The Covenant with Moses and Its Historical Setting.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 14, no. 3 (1971): 141–155.
• Wells, Bruce. “What Is Biblical Law?: A Look at Pentateuchal Rules and Near Eastern Practice.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 70, no. 2 (April 2008): 223–243.