Progressive Revelation and the Suzerainty Treaty Framework

In a previous discussion, I touched on the concept of the biblical covenant but failed to fully highlight several key aspects that are essential for understanding its nature and development. In this post, I aim to clarify the principle of progressive revelation, the transformed role of blessings and curses in the New Covenant, the defining structure of a covenant as rooted in the ancient Near Eastern (ANE) Suzerainty treaty, and the importance of a biblical-theological approach to studying Scripture. Together, these elements offer a richer perspective on how God’s redemptive plan unfolds across the Bible.

Progressive Revelation: The Unfolding of God’s Covenant

At the heart of the biblical covenant is the principle of progressive revelation. This refers to the way God gradually reveals His redemptive plan through a series of covenants, each building upon and fulfilling its predecessors while introducing new elements (eg. Key Themes of the OT Chapter 9 and p 209). From the covenant with Adam to those with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and ultimately the New Covenant foretold in Jeremiah 31, we see both continuity (God’s unchanging commitment to His people) and discontinuity (new expressions of His plan). This dynamic is critical for understanding the covenant’s development from the Old Testament to the New Testament. For example, Jeremiah 31 points to a New Covenant that internalizes God’s law and fulfills earlier promises, yet it remains connected to the covenantal framework established in earlier Scriptures.

Blessings and Curses in the New Covenant: An Eschatological Fulfillment

One question that often arises is why Jeremiah 31’s description of the New Covenant omits the blessings and curses that are prominent in earlier covenants, such as the Mosaic Covenant (Deuteronomy 28). I propose that these elements are not absent but are transformed and fulfilled eschatologically. In Revelation 2–3, the letters to the seven churches reflect this continuity: blessings are promised for obedience (e.g., eternal life for the faithful), and warnings (functioning as curses) are issued for disobedience (e.g., removal of the lampstand). These passages serve as a prelude to the consummation of God’s kingdom, operating in an “already/not yet” framework. This suggests that the New Covenant retains covenantal accountability, but its expression is reshaped by Christ’s work—He became a curse for us (Galatians 3:13)—and the anticipation of future kingdom blessings. See further

Reconciling Royal Grants and Treaty Rhetoric: Blessings and Curses in Revelation’s New Covenant Oracles

The Suzerainty Treaty: The Defining Structure of a Covenant

In my dissertation, I argued that a biblical covenant is defined by its alignment with the structure of a Suzerainty treaty, a common ANE framework for agreements between a sovereign (suzerain) and a vassal. Unlike treaties between equal parties, which are not the scriptural model, the Suzerainty treaty typically includes a preamble (identifying the parties), a historical prologue (recounting their relationship), stipulations (obligations), blessings (for obedience), curses (for disobedience), and witnesses (divine or natural). These elements, found in various forms and orders in ANE literature and Scripture (e.g., Exodus 20, Deuteronomy), are what identify a treaty, oath, or agreement as a covenant.

God communicated with His people in a way that was culturally intelligible within their ANE context, using this familiar treaty framework. However, the Suzerainty treaty structure is not merely a cultural adaptation borrowed from neighbouring peoples like the Hittites. It embodies the essence of what constitutes a covenant, distinguishing it from other forms of agreements. Its presence in the Bible is natural because it reflects the divine-human relationship inherent in God’s covenantal dealings, highlighting the progressive development of His redemptive plan.

In other words, wherever you have a covenant you will find these structural elements because that is what makes it a covenant. This underscores a fundamental claim: the presence of specific structural components, derived from the ANE Suzerainty treaty framework, is what identifies an agreement in Scripture as a biblical covenant. These components are not incidental or optional; they are the very essence of what constitutes a covenant, distinguishing it from other forms of agreements, treaties, or oaths. This is true both in the broader ANE context and, more importantly, within the biblical narrative, where God employs this framework to communicate His relationship with His people.

Why These Elements Define a Covenant

In the ANE, a Suzerainty treaty was a formal agreement between a sovereign (suzerain) and a vassal, outlining the terms of their relationship. The structure of these treaties was standardized (not necessarily all present or in the same order) to ensure clarity, mutual understanding, and enforceability. Similarly, in Scripture, God uses this framework to establish covenants with His people (e.g., with Abraham, Moses, or Israel as a nation), adapting a culturally familiar form to convey divine truths. The presence of the preamble (identifying the parties, e.g., “I am the Lord your God” in Exodus 20:2), historical prologue (recounting past acts, e.g., God’s deliverance from Egypt), stipulations (commands or obligations, e.g., the Ten Commandments), blessings (promises for obedience, e.g., Deuteronomy 28:1–14), curses (consequences for disobedience, e.g., Deuteronomy 28:15–68), and witnesses (divine or natural entities, e.g., heaven and earth in Deuteronomy 30:19) signals that a covenant is in view.

These elements are not arbitrary; they reflect the relational and legal nature of a covenant. A covenant is not merely a casual promise or mutual agreement between equals (as in some ANE parity treaties, which are not the biblical model). Instead, it is a binding, hierarchical relationship initiated by a sovereign—God—toward His people, who are called to respond with loyalty and obedience. The structural elements ensure that this relationship is clearly defined: the preamble establishes authority, the prologue grounds the relationship in history, the stipulations outline responsibilities, the blessings and curses provide incentives and consequences, and the witnesses formalize the agreement. Without these components, an agreement lacks the formal, relational, and theological weight of a covenant.

Manifestation in Scripture

Wherever a covenant appears in Scripture, these structural elements are present, though they may vary in order, emphasis, or expression depending on the context. For example:

The Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 19–24, Deuteronomy): This is the clearest example, closely mirroring the ANE Suzerainty treaty. The preamble identifies God as the sovereign (“I am the Lord your God,” Exodus 20:2), the historical prologue recounts His deliverance of Israel from Egypt (Exodus 20:2), the stipulations include the Ten Commandments and other laws (Exodus 20–23), blessings and curses are outlined (Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28), and witnesses are invoked (e.g., the tablets of stone or heaven and earth in Deuteronomy 30:19).

The Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12, 15, 17): While less explicitly structured, the elements are still discernible. God identifies Himself as the initiator (preamble, Genesis 12:1), promises rooted in His prior faithfulness serve as a prologue (Genesis 15:7), stipulations include circumcision (Genesis 17:10–14), blessings are promised (e.g., land and offspring, Genesis 12:2–3), curses are implied for disobedience (e.g., Genesis 17:14), and the ritual of passing through the animals (Genesis 15:17) acts as a witness.

The New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31–34): Though presented prophetically, the covenant retains these elements in a transformed way. God is the initiator (preamble, “I will make,” Jeremiah 31:31), the historical prologue is implied in Israel’s unfaithfulness (Jeremiah 31:32), stipulations involve internal transformation (law written on hearts, Jeremiah 31:33), blessings include forgiveness and relationship with God (Jeremiah 31:34), and while curses are not explicit, their eschatological fulfillment appears in Revelation 2–3 (as discussed earlier). Witnesses are less overt but may be implied in the eternal nature of the promise and ministry of the Spirit.

In each case, the presence of these elements confirms that a covenant is being established. Their absence would suggest a different kind of agreement, such as a informal promise or a non-covenantal command.

The Essence of a Covenant, Not a Cultural Borrowing

While the Suzerainty treaty framework was common in the ANE (e.g., in Hittite or Assyrian treaties), its use in Scripture is not merely a cultural adaptation. The statement “wherever you have a covenant you will find these structural elements because that is what makes it a covenant” implies that these elements are intrinsic to the theological concept of a covenant, not just a borrowed convention. God chose this framework because it perfectly suited His purpose: to reveal Himself as the sovereign King who enters into a binding, relational, and redemptive agreement with His people. The structure reflects the nature of God’s covenantal dealings—His authority, faithfulness, expectations, and commitment to reward or judge.

Moreover, the Suzerainty treaty structure is not unique to one ANE culture (e.g., the Hittites) but appears in various forms across the region, suggesting it was a widely understood model. God’s use of this framework ensured that His people, immersed in an ANE context, could grasp the significance of His covenants. Yet, its presence in Scripture is “natural” because it aligns with the divine-human relationship at the heart of biblical theology. The covenant is not a Suzerainty treaty because it mimics Hittite documents; it is a covenant because it embodies these structural elements, which God ordained as the form for His redemptive agreements.

Implications for Biblical Interpretation

Recognizing that these structural elements define a covenant has significant implications for interpreting Scripture. When studying a passage that involves a divine-human agreement, we must look for these components to confirm whether a covenant is in view. For example, identifying a preamble or blessings and curses can help us distinguish a covenant from a general promise or command. This approach also guards against misinterpreting texts by imposing modern notions of contracts or agreements onto the biblical concept of covenant.

Furthermore, this understanding reinforces the progressive revelation discussed earlier. As God’s covenants unfold across Scripture, the Suzerainty treaty structure adapts to new contexts (e.g., the internalization of the law in the New Covenant), but the core elements remain, ensuring continuity in God’s covenantal dealings. By tracing these elements, we can better appreciate how each covenant builds toward the eschatological fulfillment in Christ and the kingdom.

Conclusion

In summary, the structural elements of the Suzerainty treaty—preamble, historical prologue, stipulations, blessings, curses, and witnesses—are what make a covenant a covenant in Scripture. Wherever these elements appear, they signal that God is establishing a formal, relational, and redemptive agreement with His people. This structure is not a mere cultural artifact but a divinely chosen framework that reflects the essence of the covenantal relationship. By recognizing these elements, we gain a clearer understanding of God’s covenants, their continuity and discontinuity across Scripture, and their ultimate fulfillment in the redemptive plan revealed through progressive revelation.

Avoiding Proof-Texting: The Need for a Biblical-Theological Approach

A common interpretive pitfall is proof-texting, where verses from disparate parts of Scripture (e.g., the Pentateuch, Prophets, Gospels, and Pauline Epistles) are combined without regard for their historical or covenantal context. This approach flattens the biblical narrative into a static framework, obscuring the progressive revelation of the covenant. For example, pulling verses from Leviticus, Isaiah, and Romans to construct a doctrine without tracing their covenantal connections risks missing the organic development of God’s plan.

Instead, I advocate for a biblical-theological methodology, as exemplified by Geerhardus Vos. This approach traces the organic, historical unfolding of God’s redemptive plan through Scripture, emphasizing themes like covenant, kingdom, and redemption (see my Key Themes of the OT and NT). It contrasts with a systematic-theological approach, such as that of John Murray, which prioritizes logical categorization of doctrines over historical progression. By adopting a biblical-theological perspective, we preserve the covenant’s dynamic nature and its eschatological fulfillment, allowing us to see how each covenant points forward to Christ and the ultimate consummation of God’s kingdom.

Conclusion: A Cohesive View of the Covenant

The biblical covenant is a profound expression of God’s relationship with His people, shaped by progressive revelation, structured by the Suzerainty treaty framework, and fulfilled eschatologically in Christ. By avoiding proof-texting and embracing a biblical-theological approach, we can better appreciate the covenant’s unfolding nature across Scripture. From the promises of Jeremiah 31 to the warnings and blessings of Revelation 2–3, the covenant reveals a God who speaks to His people in their context, holds them accountable, and faithfully guides them toward the fullness of His kingdom. Let us study this covenant with care, tracing its development through Scripture to see the beauty of God’s redemptive plan.

__________

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

Forthcoming:

Graves, David E. “The Hittite Suzerainty Treaty: Evaluating Its Structure and Influence on Biblical Studies.” In Scripture in Its Material and Literary Context: Historical, Archaeological, and Cultural Correlations: Edwin Yamauchi Festschrift, edited by Mark A. Hassler, Clyde E. Billington, and D. Scott Stripling, Chapter 2, 24–48. (New York: T & T Clark, 2027).