The concept of the divine covenant isn't modified based on the types of Near East treaties. It only generates confusion when Suzzerein Vassal and Royal Grant treaties are applied to the primary covenants in the Old Testament: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, or King David. My concern regarding this approach is that it is typically used to shape the covenant of works and grace. I believe this happens in 1689 Federalism along with Progressive Covenentalism Theological Frameworks.
My understanding of its application is that the Royal Grant becomes the Covenant of Grace & the Suzzerein Vassal Treaty becomes the Covenant of Works. The problem is that neither can be distinctly applied to the covenants found in the Old Testament for the following reasons:
- The primary covenants can be argued to be a Royal Grant and, at the same time, a Suzzerein Vassal. They typically include characteristics from both styles.
- The Covenants in the Old Testament are unique because they are between God and Man, not Man and Man.
I agree that God may have condescended and utilized familiar treaty forms. But the styles and application of those treaty forms shouldn't be used to reinterpret scripture. It's a helpful cliff note.
For example, the Mosaic Covenant is targeted by applying the Suzzerein Vassal treaty. This is one of the reasons that Progressive Covenentlists argue that the fourth commandment is no longer applicable since it's fulfilled in Christ. They also argue that the tripartite division of the law is not valid since all commands are moral commands in the Old Testament.
At its core, I believe it is ultimately what informs their hermeneutic. Here is a more clear example which is borrowed from Meredith Kline (which I recognize wasn't a baptist). 1689 Federalists repackage this into their own Covenant Theology along with the Progressive Covenentlists.
O Palmer Robinson says, "
The presence of provisions in the ancient Near Eastern treaty forms relating to succession arrangements does not provide adequate basis for imposing a “testamentary” idea on the biblical concept of covenant." Meaning that the application of SV and RG to each covenant cannot be used to generate a covenantal divide between testaments.
O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980), 13.
A subnote says:
...
In making his case for viewing Deut. as a testamentary document, Kline cites a particular Assyrian treaty in which the entire purpose of the document is to assure the security of Ashurbanipal’s regal authority over vassal nations after the death of Esarhaddon (see D. J. Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon (London, 1958), pp. i, ii; 4, 5ff.; 30ff.). It does not seem quite appropriate to employ this specialized document as a means for interpreting a single provision within the book of Deut. A provision for succession within a covenantal framework simply is not the same thing as a testamentary document.
Kline also attempts to interpret the difficult passage in Heb. 9:16, 17 by reference to this supposed testamentary disposition related to dynastic succession (p. 41). The subject of Heb. 9:15–20, however, is not dynastic succession but covenant inauguration. It is the blood associated with the covenant inauguration ceremony, not the blood of a testator’s death, that is in view in these verses. Heb. 9:16, 17 do not stand bracketed in a context of covenant inauguration as a “parenthetical allusion” to the dynastic testamentary aspect of the ancient suzerainty covenants. Instead, these verses rehearse vividly the principle that a “covenant” is “made firm” “over dead bodies,”
O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980).