I thought this might be interesting to share for others and @Mark Barnes - a conversation on covenant and ANE treaties. I wanted it honing in more on Hittites treaties as I was reading about that; its response was more general at first, but then it grasped the similarity. I expected a little more about why the Gerbushites were sometimes not listed as tribal land owners in the promised land, but when I suggested a couple of reasons I had read about, it found references. I threw a lot of questionsat him at first, maybe that was not optimal!
Six versus seven nations
> In various places of the Bible, God speaks that he is giving Moses and the Israelites the promised land of either 6 or 7 tribes (for example Caananites, Hittites, etc.) Why sometimes 6 vs. 7? What tribe is missing of the 6? Can you give me Bible references? Any significance to the number 6 or 7 used in this context?
The search results don’t directly address the specific question about why six versus seven nations appear in different biblical passages. However, I can clarify what the documents reveal about this variation.
Scripture presents the nations of Canaan in different configurations. Deuteronomy 7:1 lists seven nations: the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. In contrast, Exodus 3:8 and 3:17 omit the Girgashites, naming only six: the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Exod 3:17). The Girgashites are the tribe missing from the six-nation lists.
Other passages show similar variation. Exodus 23:23 lists six nations without the Girgashites, while Joshua 3:10 includes all seven, adding the Girgashites.
Regarding numerical significance, the search results indicate that seven represents the union of three and four and implies perfection[1], while six symbolizes earthly imperfection or secular completeness, with its concentrated power seen in 666—the number of Antichrist[2]. Additionally, six represents limitation, one short of seven, while seven is regarded as “the” sacred number denoting perfection and completeness[3].
The variation between six and seven nations likely reflects different theological emphases or textual traditions rather than historical inconsistency, though the search results don’t explain the specific rationale for these variations in the biblical texts themselves.
[1] Philip Schaff, ed., in A Dictionary of the Bible: Including Biography, Natural History, Geography, Topography, Archæology, and Literature (Philadelphia; New York; Chicago: American Sunday-School Union, 1880), 617.
[2] Revere F. Weidner, Annotations on the Revelation of St. John the Divine, ed. Henry Eyster Jacobs, The Lutheran Commentary (New York: The Christian Literature Co., 1898), 12:xxxviii.
[3] Stewart Custer, From Patmos to Paradise: A Commentary on Revelation (Greenville, SC: BJU Press, 2004), xxiv–xxv.
> Is there any research shedding light on the theories that the Girgashites were sometimes left out of the lists because they were absorbed into other tribes early, or that “the Caananites” included them and other small tribes?
Yes, the search results provide direct support for the theory you’re asking about. Scholars have conjectured that the Girgashites were part of the larger Hivite family, since they appear in only one out of every ten mentions of Canaanite nations, while the Hivites are omitted in those same passages where the Girgashites are included.[1] This inverse relationship strongly suggests absorption rather than separate existence.
The Girgashites are mentioned far less frequently than any other Canaanite nation, which scholars infer indicates they were a very small tribe.[2] Their minimal presence in the biblical record supports the absorption hypothesis—a small population would naturally be absorbed into larger neighboring groups over time.
Regarding the broader question of whether “Canaanites” functioned as an umbrella term: it is difficult to determine whether the word “Canaanite” in Genesis 10:19 should be understood as a general term encompassing the tribes mentioned in preceding verses, or as the name of a specific people.[3] This ambiguity suggests that “Canaanite” could indeed operate both as a specific ethnic designation and as a collective category.
The evidence also shows that when the Girgashites are added to the six-nation list, they create the “mystic number seven” (appearing in Deuteronomy 7:1, Joshua 3:10, and 24:11)[4]—suggesting the seven-nation formula may have been theologically constructed rather than reflecting consistent historical reality. The flexibility in these lists—sometimes including Girgashites, sometimes Hivites, sometimes neither—points toward a tradition that adapted the roster to fit theological or literary purposes rather than documenting a fixed political geography.
[1] John M’Clintock and James Strong, “Gir′gashite,” in Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1891), 3:877.
[2] Karl Friedrich Keil, Commentary on the Book of Joshua, trans. James Martin, Clark’s Foreign Theological Library (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: T&T Clark; Hamilton, Adams & Co.; Simpkin, Marshall, and Co.; John Robertson, and Hodges and Smith, 1857), 14:105.
[3] Samuel Clark and George Grove, The Bible Atlas of Maps and Plans (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1868), 6.
[4] John M’Clintock and James Strong, “Ca’naänite,” in Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1891), 2:64.
> When God gives the Israelites these lands in promise, how is the biblical language positively and negatively compared to Ancient Near Eastern treaty language, especially considering that God’s words here are covenant language?
God’s covenant language regarding the land promise operates within a distinctive framework compared to standard Ancient Near Eastern treaty structures. While obligatory covenants functioned as treaties imposing duties on vassals, promissory covenants operated as grants where a ruler committed to rewarding a servant for past loyalty[1]. The land promises to Abraham and Israel fit this grant model rather than the suzerainty treaty pattern.
The critical distinction involves obligation direction. In suzerainty treaties, the vassal bore primary responsibility to obey stipulations; in royal grants, the suzerain’s obligation was to guarantee the grant to descendants, with the grant rewarding past loyalty rather than regulating future conduct through stipulations[2]. Weinfeld concluded that obligatory covenants were conditional whereas promissory covenants were unconditional[1].
However, recent scholarship has complicated this neat division. Knoppers challenged Weinfeld’s framework on three grounds: the inconsistent structure of land grants themselves, the presence of parallel language across multiple ancient Near Eastern text types, and the overstatement of unconditionality—monarchs typically preserved rights to redistribute land based on continuing vassal loyalty, even when not explicitly stated[2]. This suggests God’s covenant language, while formally resembling grant structures, may not be as unconditional as the idealized model suggests.
Ancient Near Eastern grant treaties, initiated as royal favor rewarding devoted service, nonetheless included expectations of continued loyalty[3]. The biblical land promises similarly presuppose loyalty without making it an explicit condition—a nuance that positions God’s covenant language between pure conditionality and pure unconditionality, reflecting a more complex theological reality than either treaty model fully captures.
[1] Nathan N. Hoff and Elliott Johnson, One Gospel: Paul’s Use of the Abraham Story in Romans 4: 1–25 (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2023). [See here, here.]
[2] J. J. M. Roberts, “Davidic Covenant,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books, ed. Bill T. Arnold and H. G. M. Williamson (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 209.
[3] John A. Davies, A Royal Priesthood: Literary and Intertextual Perspectives on an Image of Israel in Exodus 19:6(London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 178.
> Hittite treaties (c. 1400–1200 BC) typically included: 1. Identification of the suzerain (the great king) 2. Historical prologue (“I delivered you…”) 3. Stipulations (laws/requirements) 4. Blessings and curses 5. Witnesses 6. Land grants or territorial language
The biblical covenant language at Sinai demonstrates striking alignment with Hittite treaty structures, yet with theologically significant modifications that reframe the relationship between God and Israel.
The Mosaic covenant mirrors the essential components of Hittite suzerain-vassal treaties: God identifies himself (“I am Yahweh your God”), provides a historical prologue recounting deliverance from Egypt, establishes stipulations through the Ten Commandments, calls heaven and earth as witnesses, and pronounces blessings and curses contingent on obedience. Animal sacrifices ratified the agreement, paralleling the ceremonial sealing of political treaties.[1]
The structural parallels are remarkable. Deuteronomy contains all seven treaty elements: preamble, historical prologue, definition of relationship, stipulations, divine witnesses, blessings and curses, and document clauses.[2] By employing this familiar literary form, God communicated his covenant in language Israelites would have recognized, positioning himself as suzerain and expecting Israel to respond with vassal loyalty.[3]
However, a critical theological distinction emerges in the stipulations themselves. God’s covenant stipulations focus on the vassal’s character and worship rather than what the vassal supplies to the suzerain in tribute and military service.[1]This reorientation transforms a political arrangement into a moral and spiritual relationship. The Hebrew concept of ḥesed—“covenant faithfulness”—becomes the binding obligation, with violation resulting in loss of the land grant and exile.[4]
Additionally, God’s covenant with Israel is gracious, unearned and unmerited, flowing entirely from divine mercy. Even the blessings are offered as rewards for obedience rather than as compensation owed.[5] The covenant-treaty relationship provides the suzerain’s support and protection to the vassal in return for loyalty.[3] This reverses typical ancient Near Eastern power dynamics: the greater power commits to defend the weaker party, not exploit it. God adopts the treaty form his audience understood while infusing it with grace that transcends political calculation.
[1] Gregg Davidson and Kenneth J. Turner, The Manifold Beauty of Genesis One: A Multi-Layered Approach (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2021), 79–80.
[2] Douglas W. Kennard and Paul Wegner, Biblical Covenantalism (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2021), 181.
[3] John H. Walton and Andrew E. Hill, Old Testament Today, 2nd Edition: A Journey from Ancient Context to Contemporary Relevance (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2014), 60.
[4] Trent Casto, Deuteronomy, ed. Richard D. Phillips, Philip Graham Ryken, and Iain M. Duguid, Reformed Expository Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2025), 7.
[5] Robert H. Stein, A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 101.
