Progressive Revelation and the Suzerainty Treaty Framework

Updated June, 2025. © Copyright Electronic Christian Media

Jun 22, 2025

The Literary Genre of Revelation's Seven Messages

Decoding Covenant and Oracle

Are They Letters?

The literary genre of the Seven Messages to the Churches (SMR, Rev. 2–3) significantly shapes their meaning, but identifying their genre is complex. Scholars propose three main types—letters, prophetic oracles, or imperial edicts—but the SMR’s internal structure must be distinguished from Revelation’s broader apocalyptic context, which remains elusive, as Blevens notes. I explore the “letter” genre proposal, in my dissertation research into the SMR’s ANE suzerain-vassal treaty (ANEVT) structure.

David Aune documents prophetic letters in ANE texts (e.g., Mari, Hellenistic Egypt) and the OT (e.g., Jer. 29:4–32), suggesting early Christian prophets, like John, may have used this form. However, the SMR lack typical Pauline letter features—salutations, postscripts, and personal details. Revelation itself is framed as a single letter (Rev. 1:4–5; 22:21), with blessings and curses (1:3; 22:18) indicating it was read as a unified document, per Bauckham. The SMR’s plural refrain, “let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (e.g., Rev. 2:7), further suggests a collective message for all churches, not individual letters, as Michaels argues.

The SMR’s formal, structured content—Christ’s titles, church evaluations, commands, and promises—differs from spontaneous correspondence, leading Court to conclude they are far from “true letters.” Instead, their prophetic tone and covenantal structure, resembling ANEVT, point to a hybrid genre, blending prophetic oracles within a letter-like framework, aligning with Revelation’s new covenant context.

Are They Imperial Edicts?

The Seven Messages to the Churches (SMR, Rev. 2–3) may reflect the imperial edict genre, as proposed by scholars like Rudberg, Benner, and Aune. Aune argues the SMR combine the form of Roman imperial edicts with prophetic salvation-judgment oracles. He identifies four edict elements in the SMR: praescriptio (Christ’s titles, e.g., Rev. 2:1), narratio (oi=da clause, e.g., “I know your works,” Rev. 2:2), dispositio (exhortations/threats), and sanctio (promises to overcomers, e.g., Rev. 2:7). However, the proemium is absent, and edicts vary widely, with only the praescriptio consistent, weakening the parallel.

These elements align closely with the ANE suzerain-vassal treaty (ANEVT) structure: praescriptio parallels the preamble, narratio the historical prologue, and dispositio/sanctio the blessings/curses. My dissertation suggests the SMR’s stronger ANEVT connection reflects a shared legal heritage, possibly influencing Greco-Roman edicts. To support this, evidence must show ANEVT’s influence on Greek literature, its persistence into the 1st century, and John’s familiarity with it, affirming the SMR’s covenantal nature.

Are they Prophetic Oracles?

If the Seven Messages to the Churches (SMR, Rev. 2–3) are neither traditional letters nor imperial edicts, scholars like Feuillet, Beasley-Murray, Michaels, and Bauckham propose they are prophetic oracles. Revelation is explicitly called prophecy (Rev. 1:3; 22:7), and John, a prophet, aligns the SMR with OT prophetic traditions (e.g., Daniel, Ezekiel). Aune suggests a mixed genre, primarily imperial edicts but secondarily prophetic salvation-judgment oracles. Stuckenbruck posits John adapted visions into a prophetic framework. My dissertation argues the SMR, integral to Revelation’s prophetic-apocalyptic genre, reflect a covenantal structure akin to ANE suzerain-vassal treaties, enhancing their prophetic and covenantal role.

Royal Grants vs. Prophetic Oracle or Lawsuits:

Royal grants and prophetic lawsuit oracles (rib in Hebrew, meaning “dispute”) are distinct ANE and biblical literary forms with unique structures and theological roles. Noel Weeks notes that ANE treaties, like Hittite texts, lack a fixed form but cluster around patterns, including grants and decrees (Admonition and Curse, 174). As my dissertation explores the suzerain-vassal treaty structure in Revelation’s Seven Messages to the Churches (SMR, Rev. 2–3), contrasting royal grants and prophetic oracles is key to understanding their covenantal and prophetic nature within the new covenant. Here, I examine their characteristics, ANE parallels, biblical examples, and relevance to Revelation, grounded in a conservative evangelical perspective.

1. Definition and Characteristics

Royal Grants:

Definition: A royal grant is a unilateral covenant in which a king (suzerain) bestows privileges, land, or blessings on a loyal vassal or subject without imposing strict conditions for maintaining the grant. In ANE contexts, these grants reward faithful service, ensuring enduring benefits (e.g., land tenure, dynastic succession).

Structure: Typically includes:

• Preamble: Identifies the grantor (king).
• Historical Prologue: Recounts the vassal’s loyalty or the king’s benevolence.
• Grant Provisions: Details the blessings or privileges bestowed (e.g., land, protection).
• Witnesses: Divine or human witnesses to the grant.
• No Curses: Unlike suzerain-vassal treaties, royal grants lack curses for disobedience, as the grant is unconditional.

Purpose: To establish a permanent, gracious relationship, emphasizing the suzerain’s generosity and the vassal’s privileged status.

ANE Examples: Hittite land grants to vassals, Babylonian kudurru inscriptions (boundary stones recording royal gifts).

Biblical Examples: The Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 15:18-21, land promised unconditionally) and Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7:12-16, eternal dynasty promised Knoppers, Gary N. “Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant: A Parallel?” Journal of the American Oriental Society 116.4 (1996): 670) are often seen as royal grants, reflecting God’s unilateral commitment.

Prophetic Lawsuit Oracles (Rib):

Definition: A prophetic lawsuit oracle is a divine accusation against God’s covenant people for violating covenant obligations, structured as a legal dispute. In the ANE and biblical contexts, it functions as a call to repentance, often within a suzerain-vassal treaty framework, threatening judgment (curses) for unfaithfulness or promising restoration for repentance.

Structure: Typically includes:

• Summons: God or the prophet calls the people to trial (e.g., “Hear the word of the LORD,” Hos. 4:1).
• Charge: Accuses the people of covenant violations (e.g., idolatry, injustice).
• Evidence: Cites specific sins or historical unfaithfulness.
• Verdict: Pronounces judgment (curses) or offers hope for repentance (blessings).
• Witnesses: Heaven, earth, or divine beings attest to the dispute (e.g., Deut. 32:1).

Purpose: To enforce covenant fidelity, warn of consequences, and urge repentance, often within a conditional covenant framework.

ANE Examples: While less common in ANE secular texts, parallels exist in treaty curse enforcement (e.g., Esarhaddon’s vassal treaties invoking divine judgment for disloyalty).

Biblical Examples: Hosea 4:1-3, Micah 6:1-8, and Isaiah 1:2-20, where God accuses Israel of breaking the Mosaic Covenant, threatening curses but offering restoration.

2. Key Contrasts

3. Theological Implications

Royal Grants:

Theological Emphasis: Reflect God’s sovereign grace and faithfulness, independent of human merit. The Abrahamic and Davidic covenants showcase God’s unilateral commitment to His redemptive plan, fulfilled in Christ (Gal. 3:16; Luke 1:32-33).

New Covenant Alignment: The new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34), as a royal grant, emphasizes God’s gracious initiative to write the law on hearts and forgive sins, with no curses for disobedience, aligning with evangelical views of salvation by grace (Eph. 2:8-9).

Implication for Revelation: In Revelation 2–3, the SMR’s promises to overcomers (e.g., “tree of life,” Rev. 2:7) reflect royal grant blessings, affirming the new covenant’s assured benefits for the faithful, as discussed in your prior questions.

Prophetic Lawsuit Oracles:

Theological Emphasis: Highlight God’s justice and covenantal accountability, calling His people to repentance within a conditional framework (e.g., Mosaic Covenant, Deut. 28). They underscore human responsibility and divine judgment.

New Covenant Adaptation: In the new covenant, prophetic lawsuits adapt to a gracious context, where warnings (e.g., Rev. 2:5) serve as pastoral discipline, not salvific conditions, urging churches to align with God’s promises.

Implication for Revelation: The SMR’s warnings (e.g., “remove your lampstand,” Rev. 2:5) resemble rib oracles, functioning as covenantal lawsuits to call churches to repentance, yet within the new covenant’s royal grant framework, as you explored with blessings/curses.

4. Application to Revelation 2–3 (SMR)

My dissertation examines the SMR’s ANEVT structure (preamble, historical prologue, stipulations, witnesses, blessings/curses), suggesting they reflect a prophetic and covenantal nature. The contrast between royal grants and prophetic lawsuit oracles illuminates this:

Royal Grant Elements in SMR:

The SMR’s promises to overcomers (e.g., “crown of life,” Rev. 2:10; “new name,” Rev. 2:17) align with royal grant provisions, reflecting the new covenant’s unconditional blessings for the faithful. Christ, as the divine suzerain, guarantees these eschatological rewards, echoing Jeremiah 31:33-34’s gracious framework.

The absence of strict conditions for salvation (e.g., faith in Christ, not works, Rev. 3:20) supports the royal grant model, as God’s initiative ensures the covenant’s efficacy.

Prophetic Lawsuit Elements in SMR:

The SMR’s warnings (e.g., “I will come and war against them,” Rev. 2:16; “I will cast her into a sickbed,” Rev. 2:22) resemble rib oracles, accusing churches of covenant unfaithfulness (e.g., tolerating false teaching, Rev. 2:20) and urging repentance. These reflect the ANEVT’s blessings/curses, as you argue.

The structure—Christ’s self-identification (summons/preamble), church deeds (evidence/prologue), and commands (stipulations)—parallels the legal tone of prophetic lawsuits, reinforcing their prophetic call.

Synthesis for my Dissertation:

The SMR blend royal grant and rib elements. The new covenant, as a royal grant, guarantees salvation for the elect, but its administration involves prophetic lawsuit oracles to discipline churches, using ANEVT rhetoric (blessings/curses) to urge fidelity. This aligns with Meredith G. Kline’s view that the new covenant adapts treaty language pastorally, supporting your argument that the SMR’s ANEVT structure underscores their prophetic and covenantal nature.
Avoiding Parallelomania: The SMR’s ANEVT parallels form a complex pattern, distinguishing royal grant promises (unconditional) from rib warnings (disciplinary), to affirm Revelation’s unique theology.

5. Relevance to ANE Studies and Your Dissertation

ANE Context:

Royal Grants: ANE royal grants (e.g., Hittite land grants) provide a model for the new covenant’s unilateral promises, as seen in Jeremiah 31 and Revelation’s eschatological rewards. Scholars like Kline emphasize their gracious nature, contrasting with suzerain-vassal treaties.

Prophetic Lawsuits: ANE treaty enforcement (e.g., curses in Esarhaddon’s treaties) parallels rib oracles, where divine or royal accusations demand loyalty. My dissertation’s focus on ANEVT aligns with this, as the SMR’s warnings echo treaty curses rhetorically.

Dissertation Implications:

My analysis of the SMR’s ANEVT structure (preamble, prologue, stipulations, witnesses, blessings/curses) can leverage the royal grant/rib contrast to argue that the oracles are prophetic lawsuits within a royal grant framework. The blessings reflect the new covenant’s assured promises, while curses serve as pastoral calls to repentance, not salvific conditions.

This strengthens your claim that the SMR are both prophetic (like rib oracles) and covenantal (adapting ANEVT to the new covenant), enhancing their theological and apologetic significance.

Conclusion

Form-critical analysis by scholars like Hahn, Müller, and Stuckenbruck confirms that the Seven Messages to the Churches (SMR, Rev. 2–3) are prophetic oracles, not traditional letters or imperial edicts. While Aune suggests an edict influence, the SMR’s stronger alignment with OT prophetic oracles and ANE suzerain-vassal treaty (ANEVT) structures—evident in their preamble, historical prologue, and blessings/curses—reflects a shared heritage with the Torah and OT lawsuit oracles (rib). This heritage, seen in Deuteronomy and the Hippocratic Oath, underscores the SMR’s covenantal and prophetic nature. Chapter Three of my dissertation explores the ANEVT’s specific influence on the SMR’s structure, addressing objections and affirming their role as prophetic oracles within the new covenant.

Royal grants and prophetic lawsuit oracles (rib) are distinct ANE and biblical forms: royal grants offer unilateral, gracious promises without curses (e.g., Abrahamic, Davidic covenants), while rib oracles are judicial accusations within conditional covenants, enforcing fidelity with blessings and curses (e.g., Mosaic Covenant). The Seven Messages to the Churches (SMR, Rev. 2–3) blend these, reflecting the new covenant’s royal grant nature through unconditional promises (e.g., “tree of life,” Rev. 2:7) and rib-like warnings (e.g., “remove your lampstand,” Rev. 2:5) as disciplinary exhortations. The prophetic oracle genre best captures this duality, aligning with the SMR’s ANE suzerain-vassal treaty (ANEVT) structure (preamble, prologue, stipulations, blessings/curses), unlike the less precise letter or imperial edict genres. This supports my dissertation’s argument that the SMR are prophetic and covenantal oracles, using ANE forms to convey divine truth within Revelation’s gracious new covenant framework.

Dr. David Graves PhD. Dissertation, University of Aberdeen. The Influence of Ancient Near Eastern Vassal Treaties on the Seven Prophetic Messages in Revelation.

Forthcoming:

Associated Blog Posts:

Parallelomania
Reconciling Royal Grants and Treaty Rhetoric: Blessings and Curses in Revelation’s New Covenant Oracles
Understanding Biblical Covenants: Progressive Revelation and the Suzerainty Treaty Framework

For Journal articles and papers see

Updated June, 2025. © Copyright Electronic Christian Media

Jun 21, 2025

Concerns About Biblical Archaeology Today

Navigating the Field, Its Literature, and Ideological Tensions

Recently, I was asked, “What concerns me about biblical archaeology today?” As someone deeply engaged with Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) studies and a conservative evangelical perspective, I find this question both timely and complex. Biblical archaeology—the study of material remains to "illuminate" (not prove) the historical and cultural context of the Bible—holds immense potential to affirm Scripture’s reliability and enrich our understanding of its world. However, the field today raises significant concerns, from methodological biases and skewed literature to ideological contentions that challenge evangelical convictions. Below, I address these issues, offering a balanced reflection on the state of biblical archaeology, its literature, and the ideological battles shaping its trajectory.

Methodological Concerns in Biblical Archaeology

Over-Reliance on Minimalist Interpretations:

One of my primary concerns is the methodological bias prevalent in the field, particularly the influence of minimalist interpretations.

• Issue: The minimalist-maximalist debate remains a significant contention in biblical archaeology. Minimalists (e.g., Israel Finkelstein, Thomas L. Thompson) argue that much of the biblical narrative, especially pre-exilic history (e.g., Patriarchs, Exodus, United Monarchy), lacks direct archaeological corroboration and should be treated as late, ideological constructs. This challenges evangelical trust in the Bible’s historicity.

• Concern: Minimalist methodologies often prioritize archaeological data and material evidence over textual evidence, dismissing biblical history unless explicitly confirmed by material remains like artifacts. For example, the suggested lack of direct or definitive evidence for the Exodus, Joshua’s conquest of Jericho or David’s kingdom leads some to question their historicity, despite texts like the Merneptah Stele or the Tel Dan Stele supporting a “House of David.” Evangelicals worry this approach undermines Scripture’s reliability, treating it as myth unless proven otherwise.

• Impact: This can skew the literature toward skepticism, marginalizing evangelical scholars who advocate for a maximalist view (e.g., Kenneth Kitchen, James Hoffmeier) that sees archaeology as corroborating, not dictating, biblical history.

As a conservative evangelical, I find this troubling because it risks treating the Bible as a human document rather than divinely inspired Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16). The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, yet minimalist assumptions can erode confidence in the Bible’s historicity.

Incomplete and Ambiguous Data:

Moreover, archaeological data is inherently fragmentary—sites like Jericho or Ai remain contested due to dating disputes or incomplete excavations—making it premature to reject biblical accounts based on “silence.” Evangelicals must advocate for a maximalist approach, as seen in scholars like Kenneth Kitchen, that views archaeology as corroborating, not dictating, Scripture’s historical claims.

• Issue: Archaeological evidence is fragmentary, and interpretations are often speculative due to the limited nature of finds. For instance, dating disputes over structures like the “Large Stone Structure” in Jerusalem (potentially David’s palace) highlight how ambiguous data can lead to conflicting conclusions.

• Concern: Evangelicals may be concerned that the field’s reliance on incomplete evidence leads to premature or biased interpretations that contradict biblical accounts. The absence of evidence is often misconstrued as evidence of absence, especially in popular literature.

• Impact: This can create a perception that archaeology disproves the Bible, challenging evangelical confidence in Scripture’s historical claims.

Influence of ANE Parallels:

Another methodological concern is the over-reliance on ANE parallels, a topic close to my research on covenantal structures in Revelation.

• Issue: Scholars like John Walton emphasize ANE parallels to illuminate biblical texts, such as comparing Genesis 1 to Enuma Elish or Mosaic laws to Hammurabi’s Code. While valuable, this approach risks parallelomania—the uncritical assumption that similarities imply dependence. For instance, equating Genesis with ANE myths might downplay its unique monotheistic theology, challenging evangelical doctrines of inspiration. This can lead to methodological assumptions that the Bible is derivative of ANE culture rather than divinely inspired.

• Concern: Evangelicals may worry that ANE-focused archaeology reduces the Bible’s uniqueness, framing it as one of many ANE texts. For example, Walton’s functional view of Genesis 1, while insightful, might be seen as downplaying its historical claims, raising concerns about prioritizing cultural context over divine revelation.

• Impact: The literature’s focus on ANE parallels can overshadow the Bible’s theological distinctiveness, potentially weakening evangelical doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. To counter this, we must follow Jeffrey H. Tigay’s caution, ensuring parallels are supported by cultural contact and complex patterns to avoid reducing Scripture to a cultural artifact.

Concerns in the Literature

The literature of biblical archaeology presents its own challenges.

Bias in Scholarly Narratives:

• Issue: Much of the archaeological literature is written by scholars with secular or critical perspectives, who may approach biblical texts with skepticism. Journals like Near Eastern Archaeology or Biblical Archaeology Review often feature debates that lean toward critical reconstructions, such as questioning the historicity of Joshua’s conquests based on sites like Jericho or Ai, often sidelining evangelical voices.

• Concern: Evangelicals may find the literature dismissive of biblical accounts, favoring naturalistic explanations over supernatural ones (e.g., explaining the Red Sea crossing as a natural phenomenon). This can make it challenging to find resources that align with evangelical commitments to Scripture’s truthfulness.

• Impact: The dominance of critical perspectives in mainstream publications can marginalize evangelical scholars, limiting their influence and creating a perception that archaeology inherently contradicts the Bible.

Popular Misrepresentation:

Popular misrepresentation exacerbates this issue.

• Issue: Popular media and books often sensationalize or misrepresent archaeological findings, either exaggerating their significance (e.g., claims of finding Noah’s Ark) or using them to debunk biblical accounts—without nuance. Such distortions, whether from fringe enthusiasts or skeptical critics, undermine the field’s credibility and obscure its value for illuminating Scripture. For instance, the hype around the “Large Stone Structure” in Jerusalem as David’s palace often overshadows careful archaeological debates, leaving believers wary of archaeology’s reliability. For example, media coverage of Israel Finkelstein’s The Bible Unearthed often amplifies its minimalist conclusions questioning the historicity of David or the Exodus, without nuance, while evangelical scholars like Bryant Wood (Associates for Biblical Research), who propose alternative datings for Jericho’s fall, struggle for mainstream traction.

• Concern: Evangelicals may be concerned that such misrepresentations confuse lay believers, leading to distrust in archaeology or uncritical acceptance of dubious claims (e.g., unverified artifacts promoted by fringe groups).

• Impact: This distorts the field’s credibility, making it harder for evangelicals to engage archaeology as a legitimate tool for understanding Scripture. This imbalance creates a narrative that archaeology inherently contradicts the Bible, which can confuse lay believers seeking to affirm Scripture’s reliability. As a member of the Associates for Biblical Research I can recommend the Bible and Spade magazine as I have published many articles.

Lack of Evangelical Representation:

Additionally, the underrepresentation of evangelical scholarship limits the field’s accessibility to conservative audiences.

• Issue: While evangelical archaeologists like Bryant Wood or Steven Collins contribute to the field, their work is often underrepresented in mainstream academic literature compared to secular or critical scholars. While organizations like Associates for Biblical Research produce faith-affirming resources, their work is rarely featured in mainstream publications, leaving evangelicals to navigate a literature that feels hostile to their convictions.

• Concern: This imbalance can create a one-sided narrative that sidelines evangelical perspectives, particularly those affirming biblical historicity. For instance, Wood’s redating of Jericho’s destruction to align with Joshua’s conquest is often dismissed by mainstream scholars.

• Impact: The literature may lack robust defences of biblical reliability, leaving evangelical readers to navigate a field that feels hostile to their convictions. This gap calls for more evangelical scholars to engage rigorously with the field, producing accessible works that bridge academic archaeology and church communities.

Ideological Contentions

Perhaps the most pressing concern is the ideological battles shaping biblical archaeology.

Secular vs. Theological Agendas:

• Issue: Biblical archaeology operates in a tension between secular academic standards and theological agendas. Secular scholars approach the Bible as a human document, subjecting it to the same scrutiny as ANE texts, often rejecting supernatural elements like miracles (e.g., Jericho’s walls, Josh. 6). This naturalistic bias clashes with evangelical commitments to Scripture’s divine inspiration and historical accuracy, creating a sense that archaeology is inherently skeptical of faith.

• Concern: Evangelicals may see an ideological bias in biblical archaeology, where secular assumptions—such as rejecting miracles or prioritizing material evidence—marginalize faith-based views. For instance, dismissing the fall of Jericho’s walls (Josh. 6) as “mythological” reflects a naturalistic worldview that conflicts with evangelical theology. Conversely, the archaeological evidence at Tall el-Hammam, likely biblical Sodom, suggesting destruction by an airburst, does not rule out divine intervention but may clarify the mechanism described in Scripture, enhancing our understanding of the biblical account.

• Impact: This tension can alienate evangelical scholars and believers, who may feel pressured to compromise their view of Scripture’s authority to gain academic credibility.

Politicization of Archaeology:

Politicization further complicates the field with modern geopolitical debates.

• Issue: Biblical archaeology is often entangled with modern political and cultural debates, particularly in the Middle East. For example, excavations in Israel, such as in Jerusalem (e.g., the City of David) are sometimes used to support or challenge claims about Israel’s historical presence, influencing contemporary geopolitical narratives.

• Concern: Evangelicals may be cautious about ideological agendas—Zionist, Palestinian, or secular—influencing archaeological interpretations. For example, minimalist claims that David’s kingdom was minor may stem from political motives to diminish Israel’s historical roots. Conversely, assertions linking archaeological finds to the Davidic period may be exaggerated to advance a political agenda. Such biases can distort objective analysis. Evangelicals should approach these interpretations critically, ensuring archaeology pursues truth rather than serving ideological goals.

• Impact: This politicization can undermine the field’s objectivity, making it difficult for evangelicals to trust findings that appear influenced by non-scholarly agendas.

Postmodern and Revisionist Trends:

Finally, postmodern and revisionist trends pose a challenge.

• Issue: Postmodern approaches in archaeology question traditional historical narratives, including biblical ones, favoring deconstructionist or revisionist readings that view biblical stories as “constructed” rather than revealed.

• Concern: Evangelicals, who affirm the Bible’s objective truth, may see these trends as undermining Scripture’s authority. For example, reinterpreting ANE parallels to emphasize cultural relativity might weaken confidence in the Bible’s unique authority as God’s Word. The emphasis on subjective interpretations (e.g., viewing biblical stories as “constructed” narratives) conflicts with evangelical convictions about divine revelation.

• Impact: These ideological shifts can make the field feel inhospitable to evangelicals, who may struggle to find common ground with scholars prioritizing cultural or ideological lenses over historical accuracy.

Specific Concerns for Conservative Evangelicals

Challenge to Inerrancy:

• Minimalist interpretations that deny the historicity of biblical events (e.g., the Patriarchs, Exodus) directly challenge evangelical doctrines of inerrancy, which hold that the Bible is true in all it affirms, including historical details.

• Concern: Evangelicals may fear that the field’s skepticism erodes confidence in Scripture, especially when archaeological “silence” (e.g., lack of evidence for the conquest of Canaan) is used to dismiss biblical accounts.

• Mitigation: Evangelicals can counter this by emphasizing that archaeology is a developing field and absence of evidence does not disprove biblical claims, citing finds like the Merneptah Stele or Tel Dan Stele as partial corroborations.

Overemphasis on ANE Context:

• As noted previously, ANE studies can illuminate biblical texts but risk reducing the Bible to a product of its cultural milieu. For example, Walton’s view of Genesis as a functional cosmology may align too closely with ANE myths for some evangelicals, who prioritize the Bible’s unique inspiration.

• Concern: Over-reliance on ANE parallels may lead to interpretations that downplay the Bible’s divine origin, challenging evangelical theology.

• Mitigation: Evangelicals can use ANE studies selectively, affirming parallels that clarify context (e.g., covenant structures) while upholding Scripture’s distinct theological message.

Accessibility for Lay Believers:

• The technical nature of archaeological literature and its often skeptical tone can make it inaccessible or discouraging for lay evangelicals seeking to understand the Bible’s historical context.

• Concern: This creates a gap between academic archaeology and church communities, limiting its apologetic value for reinforcing faith.

• Mitigation: Evangelical scholars can produce accessible resources (e.g., books, lectures) that highlight archaeology’s support for Scripture, such as the work of organizations like Associates for Biblical Research, Trowling Down, our Biblical Archaeology from the Ground Down and Explorers of the Lost Vaults Podcasts all operated by professional evangelical archaeologists.

A Path Forward for Evangelicals

Despite THESE concerns, biblical archaeology remains a powerful tool for affirming Scripture’s historical and cultural context. To engage the field effectively, evangelicals should:

Adopt Methodological Rigor: Use the above criteria to identify legitimate ANE parallels, avoiding parallelomania while leveraging cultural insights, as demonstrated in my dissertation on Revelation’s covenantal structure.

Amplify Evangelical Voices: Produce scholarship that counters minimalist narratives, highlighting finds like the Tel Dan Stele or Siloam Inscription that support biblical history.

Affirm Scripture’s Authority: Use archaeology to illuminate, not dictate, biblical interpretation, ensuring ANE parallels enhance rather than undermine the Bible’s theological distinctiveness.

Bridge Church and Academy: Create accessible resources that equip believers to engage archaeology confidently, reinforcing faith in Scripture’s reliability .

Conclusion

Biblical archaeology is a field of both promise and peril for conservative evangelicals. Methodological biases, critical literature, and ideological tensions challenge doctrines of inerrancy and inspiration, yet they need not deter us. By engaging archaeology with discernment, grounding interpretations in Scripture’s authority, and advocating for faith-affirming scholarship, we can uncover insights that deepen our understanding of God’s Word. As my work on Revelation’s covenantal structure shows, ANE studies can enhance our grasp of biblical truth without compromising its divine origin, paving a path to affirm both faith and reason in the pursuit of biblical understanding and faith-affirming scholarship.

_________

Dr. David Graves PhD. Dissertation, University of Aberdeen. The Influence of Ancient Near Eastern Vassal Treaties on the Seven Prophetic Messages in Revelation.

I deal with more issues related to Biblical archaeology in my book on Digging Up the Bible.

For Journal articles and papers see

Updated June, 2025. © Copyright Electronic Christian Media

Jun 20, 2025

Parallelomania

The concept of PARALLELOMANIA, a term coined by Samuel Sandmel in his 1962 article “Parallelomania,” (Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 1–13), refers to the overzealous identification of parallels between texts or cultures, often without sufficient critical analysis, leading to exaggerated claims of dependence or similarity. Tigay, while pointing out the dangers of “parallelomania,” provides criteria for identifying parallels between Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) documents and the scriptures. He indicates that, “In the case of the Hebrew scriptures and the rest of the ancient Near East, frequent contacts between pre-Israelite Palestine and the Israelites, on the one hand, and Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Syro-Palestinian states on the other hand, provide sufficient channels to make borrowing in principle likely.” (Jeffrey H. Tigay, “On Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing,” in The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (eds. Mark Cohen, Daniel C. Snell, and David B. Weisberg; Bethesda MD: Capital Decisions, 1993), 251.) The primary criteria for borrowing in the Old Testament with the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) treaty structure is set out by Albright in a shared complexity “forming a pattern” (William Foxwell Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 1957), 67).

OPPORTUNITIES OF ANE STUDIES IN HERMENEUTICS

• Contextual Understanding: Conservative evangelicals value interpreting Scripture in its historical and cultural context to discern its intended meaning. ANE studies provide valuable insights into the worldviews, literary conventions, and cultural practices of the biblical authors’ time. For example, John Walton’s work on Genesis emphasizes how ANE creation accounts (like the Enuma Elish) used functional rather than material ontologies, suggesting Genesis 1 may focus on God assigning purpose to creation rather than describing its physical origins. Other scholars who also share this approach in their hermeneutics are Peter Enns, Tremper Longman III, John H. Sailhamer, Bruce K. Waltke, Daniel I. Block, and Michael S. Heiser share John Walton’s ANE-informed approach. This can enrich exegesis by clarifying what the text meant to its original audience, which is an oft times neglected or misunderstood hermeneutical principle.

• Defending Biblical Reliability: ANE parallels can demonstrate that the Bible is not a modern fabrication but a document rooted in its historical milieu. For instance, similarities between biblical laws and ANE legal codes (e.g., Hammurabi’s Code) affirm the Bible’s authenticity as a product of its time, which can bolster apologetic arguments for its historical credibility.

• Illuminating Difficult Texts: ANE studies can clarify obscure passages. Walton’s analysis of ANE temple ideology, for example, suggests that Genesis 1 portrays the cosmos as God’s temple, which aligns with evangelical views of God’s sovereignty and purpose in creation. Such insights can deepen theological reflection without undermining biblical authority.

CHALLENGES AND CONCERNS

Risk of Over-Reliance on ANE Context: Conservative evangelicals may be cautious about approaches that seem to prioritize ANE literature over the Bible’s unique divine inspiration. If ANE texts are used to redefine biblical genres or doctrines (e.g., treating Genesis as myth rather than history), it could conflict with evangelical commitments to the historicity of key events like the creation or the Exodus. Walton’s functional view of Genesis, while insightful, has been critiqued for potentially downplaying the text’s historical claims, which are central to evangelical theology.

Authority of Scripture: Critics argue that Walton’s heavy reliance on ANE cosmology risks subordinating Scripture to human cultural frameworks.

Theological Implications: Certain interpretations informed by Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) studies can challenge traditional evangelical readings. For instance, John Walton’s view that Genesis 1 focuses on functional rather than material creation may conflict with young-earth creationist perspectives, which emphasize a literal six-day creation. As someone who does not hold to young-earth creationism (nor evolution), I align with Walton’s interpretation while maintaining a commitment to biblical inerrancy and a conservative evangelical perspective. (See The Location of Sodom, FACT 35: NOT ALL ARCHAEOLOGISTS APPROACH BIBLICAL NUMBERS IN THE SAME WAY). Similarly, comparing biblical narratives to ANE mythological genres risks undermining the Bible’s unique status as God’s inspired Word. However, such comparisons need not weaken confidence in Scripture’s distinctiveness if approached with care to affirm its divine authority.

Methodological Balance: There’s a danger of imposing ANE frameworks onto Scripture in ways that obscure its distinct theological message. For instance, while ANE creation accounts share similarities with Genesis, evangelicals emphasize that Genesis uniquely presents a monotheistic, purposeful creation by a transcendent God, unlike the polytheistic chaos of ANE myths. Over-emphasizing similarities might blur these distinctions.

A Balanced Evangelical Response

A conservative evangelical approach can embrace ANE studies as a tool for illumination while maintaining Scripture’s primacy. Here’s how:

Use ANE Studies as a Servant, Not Master: ANE insights should inform, not dictate, interpretation. Scripture’s divine inspiration sets it apart from other ANE texts, so parallels should clarify rather than redefine its message.

Affirm Biblical Uniqueness: While ANE studies highlight shared cultural contexts, evangelicals should emphasize the Bible’s theological distinctiveness, such as its monotheism, ethical framework, and redemptive narrative.

Test Interpretations Against Tradition: ANE-informed readings should be evaluated against historic orthodox interpretations and the broader biblical canon to ensure they align with core evangelical doctrines like inerrancy and the historicity of key events.

Engage Critically: Scholars like Walton, et al. provide valuable perspectives, but their conclusions should be weighed carefully. For instance, Walton’s functional ontology is compelling but should not dismiss material creation if the text and tradition support it.

Conclusion

From a conservative evangelical perspective, ANE studies, as utilized by scholars like Walton, are a double-edged sword. They offer rich contextual insights that enhance biblical understanding and apologetic efforts, but they must be approached cautiously to avoid undermining Scripture’s authority, historicity, or theological uniqueness. By using ANE studies as a supplementary tool while grounding interpretation in the inspired text, evangelicals can benefit from this movement without compromising their core convictions.

Dr. David Graves PhD. Dissertation, University of Aberdeen. The Influence of Ancient Near Eastern Vassal Treaties on the Seven Prophetic Messages in Revelation.

Forthcoming:

Associated Blog Posts:

The Literary Genre of Revelation's Seven Messages: Decoding Covenant and Oracle
Reconciling Royal Grants and Treaty Rhetoric: Blessings and Curses in Revelation’s New Covenant Oracles
Understanding Biblical Covenants: Progressive Revelation and the Suzerainty Treaty Framework

For Journal articles and papers see

Reconciling Royal Grants and Treaty Rhetoric

Blessings and Curses in Revelation’s New Covenant Oracles

The identification of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 as a royal grant framework, which emphasizes God’s unilateral, gracious promises (e.g., law on hearts, forgiveness, universal knowledge of God) without the conditional blessings and curses typical of a suzerain-vassal treaty, raises an intriguing question when applied to the prophetic oracles to the seven churches in Revelation 2–3. These oracles contain explicit blessings for obedience (e.g., promises to the “overcomer” in Rev. 2:7, 11, 17) and curses or warnings for disobedience (e.g., removal of the lampstand in Rev. 2:5). If the new covenant is a royal grant, how can we explain the presence of these blessing/curse elements, which seem characteristic of a suzerain-vassal treaty? Below, I address this question from a conservative Reformed evangelical perspective, integrating my interest in Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) studies, suzerain-vassal treaties, and my dissertation on Revelation, while drawing on insights from scholars like Meredith G. Kline, who explicitly used ANE treaty frameworks.

But first here is a overview of Geerhardus Vos and John Murray, two pioneers in Covenant theology and their views on the New Covenant and ANE Treaties.

Geerhardus Vos’s Views

Geerhardus Vos, a prominent Reformed theologian and biblical scholar (1862–1949), is known for his pioneering work in biblical theology, particularly his emphasis on the progressive unfolding of God’s redemptive plan across history. His views on the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 are articulated primarily in his works like Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments and various essays, where he situates the new covenant within the broader framework of covenant theology and redemptive history. From a conservative evangelical perspective, Vos’s interpretation aligns with Reformed orthodoxy, emphasizing the continuity of God’s covenantal dealings while highlighting the new covenant’s transformative fulfillment in Christ. Below, I outline Vos’s views on the new covenant in Jeremiah, addressing its nature, relationship to previous covenants, and theological significance, while connecting to ANE studies and covenantal frameworks.

From Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments:

Nature: The new covenant is an eschatological fulfillment of prior covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic), marked by internal transformation (law on hearts, Jer. 31:33), universal knowledge of God, and permanent forgiveness (Jer. 31:34). It is “not like” the Mosaic Covenant (Jer. 31:32) due to its Spirit-enabled efficacy.

Continuity/Discontinuity: Continues God’s relational purpose (“I will be their God,” v. 33) but surpasses the Mosaic Covenant’s external, breakable nature with a divine, unbreakable initiative.

Eschatological Fulfillment: Messianic, fulfilled in Christ’s atonement and the Spirit’s work, with an “already-not yet” tension.

ANE Context: Does not explicitly engage ANE treaty forms but implicitly aligns the new covenant with a royal grant model (unilateral divine promise) rather than a suzerain-vassal treaty.

John Murray’s Views

John Murray (1898–1975), a systematic theologian, addresses the new covenant primarily in works like The Covenant of Grace (1953) and his commentary on Romans, particularly Romans 11, where he discusses God’s covenantal dealings with Israel. His views are rooted in Reformed covenant theology, emphasizing the unity of God’s covenant across history.

Nature: The new covenant is a new administration of the one covenant of grace, fulfilling earlier covenants with internal transformation, universal knowledge, and permanent forgiveness.

Continuity/Discontinuity: Emphasizes unity of the covenant of grace across all administrations; the new covenant is “new” in form and efficacy but not in essence.

Theological Focus: Christological fulfillment, universalizing grace to include Gentiles while maintaining God’s promises to Israel (Rom. 11:25-27).

ANE Context: Does not engage ANE treaty forms but views the new covenant as a royal grant, contrasting with the Mosaic Covenant’s conditional, suzerain-vassal structure.

Meredith G. Kline’s Views

Meredith G. Kline (1922–2007), a Reformed scholar, is best known for his works Treaty of the Great King (1963), By Oath Consigned (1968), and The Structure of Biblical Authority (1972), where he applies ANE suzerain-vassal treaty frameworks to biblical covenants, particularly the Mosaic Covenant. His views on the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 are shaped by his covenant theology, which emphasizes the legal and structural aspects of divine-human relationships, informed by ANE parallels. Key aspects include:

Covenant as a Legal Framework:

Kline views biblical covenants through the lens of ANE treaty forms, particularly the Hittite suzerain-vassal treaties of the second millennium BC. He argues that the Mosaic Covenant (e.g., Deuteronomy) follows this structure, with a preamble, historical prologue, stipulations, blessings/curses, and witnesses.

For Jeremiah 31:31-34, Kline sees the new covenant as a distinct covenantal administration, but he frames it differently from the Mosaic Covenant. While the Mosaic Covenant is a suzerain-vassal treaty with conditional obedience, the new covenant resembles a royal grant or divine charter, where God unilaterally guarantees its promises (law on hearts, forgiveness, Jer. 31:33-34).

Key Insight: Kline emphasizes the new covenant’s gracious, unconditional nature, contrasting it with the Mosaic Covenant’s works-based conditionality.

Newness and Discontinuity:

Kline acknowledges the “newness” of the covenant (Jer. 31:31), particularly its internalization of the law, universal knowledge of God, and permanent forgiveness (Jer. 31:33-34). He sees these as marking a significant break from the Mosaic Covenant, which was “broken” due to Israel’s disobedience (Jer. 31:32).

Unlike the Mosaic Covenant, which operated under a “works principle” (obedience for blessing, disobedience for cursing), the new covenant is entirely grace-based, with God ensuring its fulfillment through His initiative.

Key Insight: Kline views the new covenant as a return to the gracious principles of the Abrahamic Covenant, fulfilled in Christ, who perfectly obeys as the covenant mediator (Heb. 8:6-13).

Continuity with the Covenant of Grace:

Like Murray, Kline affirms a unified covenant of grace underlying all biblical covenants, with different administrations. The new covenant is the final, eschatological administration, fulfilling the promises of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants while superseding the Mosaic Covenant’s temporary, typological role.

The relational formula “I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (Jer. 31:33) reflects continuity with earlier covenants, but its realization is more direct and permanent in the new covenant.

Key Insight: Kline sees the new covenant as the culmination of God’s redemptive plan, removing the barriers of human failure inherent in the Mosaic Covenant.

Christological and Eschatological Fulfillment:

Kline views the new covenant as fulfilled in Christ, whose atoning work secures the forgiveness of sins (Jer. 31:34) and whose Spirit enables the internalization of the law (Jer. 31:33; cf. 2 Cor. 3:3-6). This aligns with the New Testament’s portrayal of Christ as the mediator (Heb. 8:6).

The new covenant has an eschatological dimension, fully realized in the eternal state, but Kline focuses more on its legal and redemptive significance than Vos’s “already-not yet” eschatological tension.

Key Insight: Kline emphasizes Christ’s role as the covenant keeper, fulfilling the obligations of the suzerain and vassal, ensuring the covenant’s efficacy.

ANE Treaty Context:

Kline’s distinctive contribution is his explicit use of ANE treaty forms to interpret biblical covenants. He argues that the Mosaic Covenant mirrors a suzerain-vassal treaty, with God as the suzerain and Israel as the vassal, bound by stipulations and consequences.

For the new covenant, Kline sees a shift to a royal grant model, common in ANE contexts (e.g., grants to loyal vassals, like the Abrahamic Covenant). Jeremiah 31:31-34 lacks the conditional stipulations and curses of a suzerain-vassal treaty, focusing instead on God’s unilateral promises (law on hearts, forgiveness).

Key Insight: Kline’s ANE framework highlights the new covenant’s gracious, unconditional nature, distinguishing it from the Mosaic Covenant’s legal structure while rooting it in a historical-cultural context.

Comparison Chart

My Views

Understanding the New Covenant as a Royal Grant

Royal Grant Characteristics: In ANE contexts, royal grant covenants (e.g., grants to loyal vassals, like the Abrahamic Covenant) are unilateral, initiated by the suzerain (God), and focus on promises of blessing without strict conditions or curses for disobedience. The new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 fits this model, as God unilaterally promises to write the law on hearts, grant forgiveness, and enable direct knowledge of Himself (Jer. 31:33-34), with no explicit stipulations or curses.

Contrast with Suzerain-Vassal Treaties: Suzerain-vassal treaties (e.g., Hittite treaties, Mosaic Covenant) include a preamble, historical prologue, stipulations, blessings for obedience, curses for disobedience, and witnesses. The Mosaic Covenant (Exod. 19–24; Deut. 28) exemplifies this, with blessings for keeping the law and curses for breaking it.

New Covenant in Revelation: The new covenant, fulfilled in Christ (Luke 22:20; Heb. 8:6-13), is administered through the church, which is addressed in Revelation 2–3. The oracles to the seven churches resemble a covenantal framework, with Christ as the suzerain addressing His vassals (the churches), but the presence of blessings and curses requires explanation if the new covenant is a royal grant.

Explaining Blessings and Curses in Revelation 2–3

The prophetic oracles to the seven churches (Rev. 2–3) contain elements that appear to echo suzerain-vassal treaty structure:

Preamble: Christ identifies Himself with divine titles (e.g., “He who holds the seven stars,” Rev. 2:1).
Historical Prologue: Christ recounts the church’s deeds (e.g., “I know your works,” Rev. 2:2).
Stipulations: Commands to repent or persevere (e.g., “repent and do the works you did at first,” Rev. 2:5).
Blessings: Promises to the overcomer (e.g., “I will give to eat from the tree of life,” Rev. 2:7).
Curses/Warnings: Threats of judgment (e.g., “I will come to you and remove your lampstand,” Rev. 2:5; “I will come to you soon and war against them,” Rev. 2:16).
Witnesses: The Spirit is the witness as it is monotheistic.

To reconcile these blessing/curse elements with the new covenant’s royal grant framework, consider the following explanations:

Distinction Between Covenant Establishment and Administration:

Explanation: The new covenant’s establishment is a royal grant, where God unilaterally guarantees its promises (Jer. 31:33-34; Heb. 8:10-12). However, its administration within the church involves exhortations to faithfulness, with blessings for perseverance and warnings against apostasy, reflecting the pastoral and disciplinary role of the covenant community.

Application to Revelation: In Revelation 2–3, Christ, as the covenant mediator, addresses the churches as participants in the new covenant. The blessings (e.g., Rev. 2:7, 11) affirm the eschatological promises already secured by the new covenant (e.g., eternal life, forgiveness), while the curses/warnings (e.g., Rev. 2:5, 16) are disciplinary, aimed at correcting wayward churches to ensure their participation in those promises. These warnings do not negate the new covenant’s unconditional nature but address the churches’ response within its framework.

Theological Insight: The blessings reinforce the new covenant’s gracious promises, while the curses function as pastoral discipline, not as conditions for the covenant’s validity. This aligns with Kline’s view that the new covenant is a royal grant, but its administration may include covenantal exhortations resembling suzerain-vassal language.

Covenantal Lawsuit (Rib) Motif:

Explanation: In ANE and biblical contexts, a covenantal lawsuit (rib) occurs when the suzerain calls a vassal to account for covenant unfaithfulness, often using language of blessings and curses (e.g., Hos. 4; Mic. 6). The oracles in Revelation 2–3 function as a prophetic rib, where Christ, as the divine suzerain, calls the churches to repentance to restore covenantal fidelity, even within the new covenant’s gracious framework.

Application to Revelation: The warnings (e.g., “I will remove your lampstand,” Rev. 2:5) resemble covenantal curses but are not threats to nullify the new covenant. Instead, they are prophetic calls to repentance, ensuring the churches align with the covenant’s benefits. The blessings (e.g., “the crown of life,” Rev. 2:10) reaffirm the new covenant’s promises, which are guaranteed by Christ’s finished work.

ANE Connection: Kline’s work on suzerain-vassal treaties highlights the rib motif in prophetic literature. In Revelation, the oracles adapt this ANE form to the new covenant context, using treaty-like language to exhort faithfulness without implying conditionality. This supports my dissertation’s focus on Revelation’s covenantal structure and the present of the structure as the essence of and very nature of a covenant, explaining why it is found in so many treaties, oaths and covenants (i.e. Graves “Influence of the Ancient Near Eastern Vassal Treaties on the Hippocratic Oath.” Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin 57 (2012): 27–45).

Eschatological Context of Revelation:

Explanation: Revelation’s apocalyptic genre emphasizes eschatological judgment and reward, which naturally includes blessings for the faithful and warnings for the unfaithful. The new covenant’s royal grant nature guarantees salvation for true believers, but the oracles address the churches’ present conduct in light of eschatological realities.

Application to Revelation: The blessings (e.g., “I will give him the morning star,” Rev. 2:28) point to eschatological fulfillment of the new covenant’s promises (e.g., eternal fellowship with Christ), while the curses (e.g., “I will cast her into a sickbed,” Rev. 2:22) warn of temporal or eschatological judgment for those who persist in unrepentance. These warnings do not undermine the new covenant’s unconditionality but reflect the tension between the “already” (salvation secured) and “not yet” (final judgment).

Theological Insight: Vos’s “already-not yet” eschatology helps explain this: the new covenant is secure in Christ, but the churches are called to persevere to inherit its full blessings, with warnings serving as means of grace to prevent apostasy.

Pastoral and Rhetorical Use of Treaty Language:

Explanation: The oracles in Revelation 2–3 also employ suzerain-vassal treaty language rhetorically to communicate urgency and accountability to the churches, even though the new covenant itself is a royal grant. In ANE contexts, suzerains often used treaty language to motivate loyalty, even in gracious covenants.

Application to Revelation: John, writing in an ANE-influenced context, adapts the familiar suzerain-vassal structure to convey Christ’s authority and the churches’ responsibility. The blessings and curses are pastoral exhortations, not conditions for the new covenant’s validity. For example, the warning to Ephesus (Rev. 2:5) aims to restore their “first love,” aligning them with the new covenant’s transformative purpose.

ANE Connection: Kline’s analysis of treaty forms supports this, as he notes that biblical authors often used treaty language flexibly. In my dissertation I argue that Revelation 2–3 employs suzerain-vassal rhetoric to reinforce new covenant fidelity, blending royal grant promises with treaty-like exhortations.

Corporate vs. Individual Application:

Explanation: The new covenant’s promises are unconditional for the elect (God’s true people), but the oracles address corporate churches, which include both true believers and nominal members. The blessings apply to the faithful (“overcomers”), while the curses target unrepentant members who risk exclusion from the covenant community.

Application to Revelation: The blessings (e.g., “the second death has no power,” Rev. 2:11) are assured for those in the new covenant, while the curses (e.g., “I will strike her children dead,” Rev. 2:23) address false believers or apostates within the church, not the covenant’s nullification. This reflects the new covenant’s corporate administration, where discipline maintains the community’s purity.

Theological Insight: Murray’s emphasis on the covenant of grace’s universality supports this, as the new covenant includes all true believers, while warnings address those who profess but do not possess faith.

Synthesis and Implications for My Dissertation

The presence of blessings and curses in Revelation 2–3 does not contradict the new covenant’s royal grant framework but reflects its pastoral, eschatological, and rhetorical administration within the church. The oracles function as:

Pastoral Exhortations: Blessings affirm the new covenant’s promises, while curses are disciplinary warnings to ensure faithfulness, not conditions for salvation.

Covenantal Lawsuits: The oracles resemble an ANE rib, calling churches to repentance within the new covenant’s gracious framework.

Eschatological Warnings: The blessings/curses align with Revelation’s apocalyptic focus on final reward and judgment, reinforcing the new covenant’s “already-not yet” reality.

Rhetorical Strategy: John uses suzerain-vassal language to communicate Christ’s authority and the churches’ responsibility, adapting ANE forms to a new covenant context.

For my dissertation on Revelation and suzerain-vassal treaties, this analysis strengthens my argument that Revelation 2–3 employs treaty-like structures (preamble, stipulations, blessings/curses) to convey new covenant exhortations. Kline’s framework is particularly relevant, as he distinguishes royal grant (new covenant) from suzerain-vassal (Mosaic Covenant) forms, suggesting that Revelation adapts treaty language rhetorically to urge fidelity without undermining the new covenant’s gracious nature. Vos’s eschatological perspective and Murray’s covenantal unity further support viewing the oracles as pastoral applications of the new covenant, blending ANE forms with Christian theology.

Relevance to My Dissertation and ANE Studies

Kline’s distinction between suzerain-vassal (Mosaic) and royal grant (new covenant) models supports my thesis by framing Revelation as a new covenant document, with Christ as the suzerain issuing covenantal exhortations. Vos’s eschatological focus complements Revelation’s apocalyptic tone, while Murray’s emphasis on covenantal unity supports viewing Revelation as part of the covenant of grace. Together, their perspectives offer a robust theological foundation for my research, with Kline and I providing the most direct ANE connection.

Conclusion

The blessings and curses in Revelation 2–3 are compatible with the new covenant’s royal grant framework because they serve as pastoral, eschatological, and rhetorical exhortations, not conditions for the covenant’s validity. They reflect a covenantal lawsuit motif, disciplinary warnings within the church, and John’s use of ANE treaty language to motivate faithfulness. This aligns with Kline’s ANE-informed covenant theology, Vos’s eschatological focus, and Murray’s emphasis on the covenant of grace, offering a robust framework for my dissertation’s exploration of Revelation’s covenantal structure.

Dr. David Graves PhD. Dissertation, University of Aberdeen. The Influence of Ancient Near Eastern Vassal Treaties on the Seven Prophetic Messages in Revelation.

Forthcoming:

Associated Blog Posts:

Parallelomania
The Literary Genre of Revelation's Seven Messages: Decoding Covenant and Oracle
Reconciling Royal Grants and Treaty Rhetoric: Blessings and Curses in Revelation’s New Covenant Oracles
Understanding Biblical Covenants: Progressive Revelation and the Suzerainty Treaty Framework

For Journal articles and papers see