Deuteronomy: Word and Presence

INTRODUCTION

"THE FIFTH BOOK OF MOSES, CALLED DEUTERONOMY"

Such was the heading given Deuteronomy in older versions of the English Bible. Precritical tradition quite simply regarded Moses as the author, but modern research has shown that the matter is not so simple. The book itself does indeed state that Moses wrote the words of this law in a book (Deut. 31:9, 24), and that he spoke certain parts of the contents in the ears of all the assembly of Israel (1:5; 4:45; 31:30). But the framework as a whole is certainly from another hand. Moreover, there are clear indications that the material in general reflects a situation long after Moses’ time:

The account of Moses’ death (ch. 34) is obviously not from his hand.

The writer is clearly already living in Western Palestine. In 1:1 he describes Moses as speaking beyond the Jordan, meaning specifically the southeastern corner of the land (similarly 1:5; 3:8; 4:46).

For the writer, the Hebrew occupation of Palestine is already history (2:12).

The material of Deuteronomy represents a middle stage in the development of OT law. For example, the Deuteronomic regulation prescribing one only centralized place of sacrifice for all Israel (12:13) is more advanced than Exod. 20:24-25, which envisages a plurality of legitimate altar sites (Exod. 20:24-25 is from the earlier JE strand of the Pentateuch). On the other hand, Deut. 18:6-8, which grants rights of priesthood to all Levites, is a prior stage of development compared with Exod. 28:1, which limits priesthood to Aaron and his sons (Exod. 28:1 belongs to the later P strand of the Pentateuch). As the intermediate stage of a centuries-long development, then, the Deuteronomic legal material obviously locates itself long after the time of Moses.

The language style of Deuteronomy differs markedly from that of the earlier strands of the Pentateuch, but has strong affinities with seventh-century Hebrew (Jeremiah and the Lachish Letters).

The block of torah (law) in Exodus (the Book of the Covenant, Exod. 20:23–23:33) and the corresponding block in Deuteronomy (the Deuteronomic code, Deut. 12–26) both show concern for social justice. But the concern is much more developed in the Deuteronomic code. The same strong stress appears also in the preaching of the eighth-century prophets, and indeed strong links are apparent between their social concern and that expressed in Deuteronomy. This points to the conclusion that possibly the Book of the Covenant and certainly the Deuteronomic code were still in process of formation at the time when the eighth-century prophets were active.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY

As we shall see, the structure of Deuteronomy is complicated, but in broad outline it is as follows:

I. First Speech of Moses (1:1–4:43): An introduction to the exhortation section (6:1–11:32)

A. The speech proper, relating Israel’s journey from Mt. Horeb to the plains of Moab (1:1–3:29)

B. An addendum to the speech: plea for Israel to live faithful to the will of God as declared at Horeb (4:1-40)

C. Appended notes (4:41-43)

II. Second Speech of Moses (4:44–28:68)

A. Prelude to Second Speech of Moses (4:44–5:33): The theophany at Horeb. The Ten Commandments, given in the context of God’s self-revelation, are the kernel of God’s will for God’s people.

B. The speech proper (6:1–11:32): Exhortation material, consisting of sermon fragments: God’s people must love their LORD with all their heart, remembering the great love that their LORD has lavished on them

C. The Deuteronomic code (12:1–26:15): Continuation of Second Speech of Moses

D. The Solemnization of the Covenant (26:16–28:68)

1. The Formula of Covenant Solemnization (26:16-19): Doubles as the conclusion to Second Speech of Moses

2. Liturgy of Covenant Solemnization, with sanctions in the form of blessings on the obedient and curses on the covenant breakers (27:1-26)

3. Series of blesses and curses, which once formed the sanctions attached to a variant solemnization liturgy (28:1-68)

III. Third Speech of Moses (29:1–30:20): The stuff of the speech can also be viewed as material derived from a liturgy solemnizing a covenant renewal in the plains of Moab

A. Exhortation (29:1-15)

B. Series of curses (29:16-28)

C. Exhortation (29:29–30:20)

IV. Addenda (31:1–34:12)

A. Successor to Moses

1. Joshua designated and appointed (31:1-8, 14-15, 23)

2. Torah document entrusted to the Levites, to be kept alongside the ark of the covenant and read periodically at the great festivals (31:9-13, 24-29)

B. Song of Moses

1. Introduction (31:16-22, 30)

2. Song of Moses (32:1-43)

3. Conclusion (32:44-47)

C. Moses blesses Israel (33:1-29)

D. Moses’ death

1. Foretelling Moses’ death (32:48-52)

2. Moses’ death (34:1-12)

Examination of the outline above confirms the impression that the structure of Deuteronomy is by no means simple. Indeed, it can be said that in the process of its development the book of Deuteronomy has successively been presented in several different formats and frameworks. All of these successive stages and structures have left their trace behind them, so that the present stage of the book constitutes a composite structure of great complexity.

As an aid, then, to the study of the book, let us distinguish these elements in the composite structure:

Deuteronomy as a code, or collection, of laws and regulations

Deuteronomy as a Covenant Document

Deuteronomy as Moses’ Farewell Speech

Deuteronomy as the final volume of the Pentateuch (The Five Books)

Deuteronomy as a Legal Code

Research has shown that the Deuteronomic code (or block of torah), Deut. 12–26, is closely related to the so-called Book of the Covenant, Exod. 20:23–23:19. In fact, a careful comparison of the two reveals that (apart from one long section, Exod. 21:18–22:15, which has its own separate history) only four short sentences in the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:26; 22:28, 29b, 31) are not reflected or expanded in the Deuteronomic code. So in practical terms, the Deuteronomic code may be said to be an expanded edition of the Book of the Covenant.

The Deuteronomic code, then, is rooted in the Book of the Covenant. But let us go back a step further and ask where the Book of the Covenant came from.

In its present context within the book of Exodus, the Book of the Covenant is put forward as a summary of Moses’ conversation with God on Mt. Horeb (= Sinai). The content of that conversation was reported to the people (Exod. 24:3), then written down (v. 4) to become the Book of the Covenant (vv. 7-8). But it would be very difficult to maintain that the entire content of this book was literally conveyed directly to Moses on Horeb. Why? The regulations contained in the book generally assume an agrarian background, and that not in a predictive kind of way (this is how your descendants are to behave when eventually they occupy their God-promised homeland). On the contrary, the impression is that those agrarian conditions are current actuality for the original hearers. In other words, Israel is already living in Palestine.

There is more. Many points of similarity emerge when the contents of the Book of the Covenant are compared with other ancient Near Eastern legal codes. Indeed, it can be said that every single provision in the Book of the Covenant is paralleled in one or other of the ancient Near Eastern codes. Certainly it can be pointed out that Israel is part of the Semitic linguistic grouping and therefore shares in the common cultural heritage of the Semites. On that basis, it could very well be that some of the ancient Semitic laws were already known before Moses’ time, by the tribes which eventually came together to form Israel.

It is noteworthy, however, that the points of similarity noted above are not confined to the content of individual sentences, but extend to the arrangement and sequence of the sentences within paragraphs and chapters. It is therefore more convincing to conclude that much of the Book of the Covenant’s content was taken over from the Canaanites (inheritors of the ancient Babylonian and Assyrian culture), after Israel entered Palestine.

Most OT scholars believe that the Book of the Covenant is part of the Elohist (E) source and therefore belongs to the tradition developed in northern Israel, united with the southern or Yahwist (J) strand only about the 6th cent. B.C. As to its development within northern Israel, it may be assumed that from the time of Israel’s settling in Palestine, the great core events of the nation’s birth—liberation from Egypt, meeting with God at Horeb, occupation of the land—were periodically commemorated and celebrated in festivals at the worship centers of Shechem, Bethel, and so forth. In the ceremonial or liturgy of those recurrent commemorations, the proclamation of torah played an important role. Those torah sentences were presented as the content of the divine voice once heard on Horeb and now echoing in the contemporary liturgy.

The continuing repetition of the liturgy at successive festivals would result in a polishing and expansion of the torah sentences that were read. It was a natural process that legal sentences and formulations from the surrounding Canaanite culture were adopted and worked into this constantly repeated celebration torah.

The Book of the Covenant is the product of this expansion process at a certain stage. The Deuteronomic code represents a later stage in the same process.

If it is true that much of this torah material was taken over from outside in the course of a long development, is it appropriate to say that the Book of the Covenant (and the Deuteronomic code in turn) is the direct speech of God heard by Moses on Mt. Horeb and painstakingly recorded (Exod. 24:3-4)? Is it appropriate that the writer of Deuteronomy should claim (Deut. 31:9) that Moses wrote this law?

We miss the point when we interpret these words with bald literalism. Let us not stick at the surface meaning but penetrate to the thrilling theological intent of these formulations. It should be remembered that in the ancient Near East every legal code was regarded as a divine gift. Statutes were not simply promulgated as the decrees of this or that Great King, but as the demands of the god under whose mandate the Great King ruled. For example, the law code of the eighteenth-century Babylonian king Hammurabi was regarded as a revelation from the sun-god Shamash, who had entrusted his laws to the administration of Hammurabi. For Israel to state, therefore, that the Book of the Covenant (cf. the Deuteronomic code) was received as a totality from God at Horeb was to make a twofold confession.

First, this expressed the conviction that all wholesome law in Israel was a gift from Yahweh their God—even though in fact a large proportion of that law came to Israel through the mediation of their Canaanite neighbors. Second, Israel was convinced that Yahweh’s self-revelation on Horeb in the time of Moses was the foundation event which determined all their subsequent history as the people of God.

So, on the basis of these two convictions, Israel reached the conclusion that the whole body of law (which in fact was the end product of a centuries-long development) had been given in embryo in the few short sentences which were indeed revealed to Moses by Yahweh on that historic occasion at Horeb–Sinai. For that reason also the totality of Israelite law came to be bound up with the name of Moses. It was he who mediated the original covenant at Horeb in the 13th century. So he came to be regarded as the human source of every sentence which in process became incorporated in the body of law constituting the covenant conditions.

Deuteronomy as the Text of a Treaty

We have already noted that the laws and regulations of Deuteronomy were not originally exclusive to Israel, but exhibited points of similarity with the common store of ancient Near Eastern law. We noted also that in its process of development the Deuteronomic code was greatly influenced by Israel’s international setting.

Now we note another point of comparison with ancient Near Eastern traditions. At a certain stage in its development, a treaty text structure was imposed on Deuteronomy. This structure was common to international treaties throughout the ancient Near East, in particular those between the Great Kings and their vassals.

Building on the pioneering work of George E. Mendenhall (Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East), scholars have adduced a convincing parallel between the structure of a typical ancient Near Eastern vassal treaty and that of Deuteronomy.

Preamble introducing the Great King by his name and titles (Deut. 5:1-2)

Previous history, tracing the background relationship between Great King and vassal up till the moment of treaty making (5:2-6)

Covenant Stipulations constituting the core of the treaty (5:7-33)

a. Basic principles (chs. 6:1–11:32)

b. Detailed stipulations (12:1–26:15)

Provisions for ratification of the treaty (26:16-19)

Requirement that the treaty text be kept safe and reread periodically (31:9-13, 26)

Citing of witnesses to the treaty (30:19-20)

Treaty sanctions: curses on violation and blessings on faithful keeping of the treaty (27:1–30:18)

The closeness of the parallel is convincing evidence that the Deuteronomic material has been deliberately conformed to the ancient pattern. A parallel also exists between the vassal treaty pattern and the structure of Exod. 19–24 (the Book of the Covenant and its setting), but the parallel with Deuteronomy is much more marked and complete. Why should this be so?

The reason is probably to be found in the political situation of the times. During the 8th cent. the power of Assyria peaked, then declined during the 7th century. It is precisely in this period that the book of Deuteronomy was taking definitive shape. Faced with the power and decline of Assyria, the Great King’s treaty demands and guarantees would be very much in the minds of the smaller powers throughout the ancient Near East. To cast the emergent book of Deuteronomy therefore in the form of such a treaty would be to make a powerful theological statement; whatever the ebb and flow of international politics, the truly definitive guidelines for Israel are the guarantees and demands of the nation’s Great King, Yahweh. Faithfulness to this treaty covenant is the only and sufficient ultimate security.

Deuteronomy as the Farewell Speech of Moses

As well as exhibiting the structure of a legal code and a treaty text, Deuteronomy also presents itself as a series of three speeches spoken by Moses in the plain of Moab shortly before his death. This speech structure seems to have been imposed on Deuteronomy at a rather late stage in the development of the material.

In general, OT scholars have adopted Martin Noth’s suggestion that about the middle of the 6th cent. Deut. 5–31, already in the form of a treaty text, was taken over and integrated into a longer historical work which Noth calls the Deuteronomistic history. According to Noth, Deut. 1–31; Josh. 1–23; Judges; and 1 Sam. 1–2 Kgs. 25 originally formed a single composition which was only subsequently divided into the books as we have them in our present canon. The original method of dividing the material into blocks was by means of speeches. The end of each significant period was marked by a speech, usually delivered by the outstanding figure of that period. The list of speeches is as follows:

It is worth noting that this speech element is in fact not foreign to the vassal treaty tradition described in the previous section. The connection has been spelled out by Klaus Baltzer in his book The Covenant Formulary. According to Baltzer, the people of God were presented with the text of the Yahweh-Israel covenant on three types of occasions:

The text was read periodically (in shorter or longer form) in the context of worship at Israel’s festivals.

It was read in times of covenant renewal, after the nation’s faithlessness had caused a cancellation of the covenant.

At the death of the nation’s leader, the covenant was renewed, to signify that the new leader pledged obedience to its requirements and was confirmed in the role of covenant mediator.

It is clear that the speeches in the Deuteronomic history belong to Baltzer’s third category. The covenant mediator, as he lays down office, reviews his period of service and urges both the people and his successor to remain faithful for the future.

We should note too that in the ancient Near East the death of the Great King automatically cancelled the treaties made with his vassals, so that they would need to enter into a fresh agreement with his successor. Similarly, the death and replacement of a vassal required the renewal of the treaty.

It is interesting that whereas Joshua, Samuel, David, and Solomon each make a single speech, Moses makes three. Perhaps this is connected with the Hebrew custom that words of particular importance are uttered three times, to give them their due weight. Thus Moses is portrayed as delivering a three-in-one speech of farewell to stress that the torah mediated by Moses is the all-important foundation of Israel’s existence. Because of that, the person of Moses, as the first purveyor and interpreter of that all-important torah, deserves to be highlighted in this special way.

Deuteronomy as the Closing Volume of the Pentateuch

In the final stages of its development, the book of Deuteronomy, which had been incorporated as the opening volume of the Deuteronomic (Deuteronomistic) history (see the preceding section), was detached from that work and united with what scholars call the Tetrateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers). Thus was formed the Pentateuch (five books) which Jews regard as hattorah, the word of God par excellence.

At the time of Deuteronomy’s incorporation into the Pentateuch, Deut. 31:16-22 and 31:30–34:12 were added. This additional material includes the Song of Moses, Moses’ blessing on Israel, and the death of Moses. The function of these three additions is to strengthen the ties between Deuteronomy and the Tetrateuch.

The Song of Moses in Deut. 32 forms a parallel with the Song of Moses in Exod. 15. The difference between the two is that the Song of Exod. 15 is optimistic in tone, whereas Deut. 32 is in a somewhat minor key. This contrast reflects the different sociopolitical climates in which the two were composed. Exodus 15 (probably 12th or 11th cent.) represents a period of Israel’s growing strength, whereas Deut. 32 is from the period of collapse (possibly even exilic).

In the theology of the Deuteronomic school, strength and prosperity are Yahweh’s blessings on obedience, whereas decline and collapse are Yahweh’s curse on disobedience. Together then, the two songs form a poignant frame for the exposition of the law: blessings if Israel obeys, disaster if Israel turns away.

Moses’ blessing on Israel in Deut. 33 obviously constitutes a companion piece to Jacob’s blessing on the tribes, Gen. 49. Jacob’s blessing on the twelve tribes is at the time when they have just left the promised land and commenced their stay in Egypt. Moses’ blessing, on the other hand, is given after they have left Egypt and are about to reenter the promised land. So the pairing of these two blessings links together the opening and closing volumes of the Pentateuch.

By describing the death of the mediator, the account of Moses’ death in Deut. 34 rounds off the story of the giving of the torah which began in Exod. 19.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF DEUTERONOMY’S MATERIAL

Having examined the structure of Deuteronomy, we turn now to its contents.

In discussing Deuteronomy as a legal code (see above, 4-7), we stressed the close connection between the Deuteronomic code (Deut. 12–26) and the Book of Covenant (Exod. 20–23). Almost everything in the Book of the Covenant is repeated and expanded in the Deuteronomic code.

From another angle, our understanding of Deuteronomy is enhanced if we examine the Deuteronomic material which is not found in the Book of the Covenant. This material falls into two categories:

(1) Material which, though not in the Book of the Covenant, is nevertheless paralleled in the ancient Near Eastern legal codes. For example: Deut. 21:18-21 is paralleled in CH 168-69; Deut. 22:13-27 is paralleled in CH 127-131.

We assume that this material had long been widely known in the ancient Near East, hence probably in Israel as well (whether in oral or written form), and only at a relatively late date incorporated into the legal copies by the Deuteronomic school and adapted to their theology.

(2) Material in the Deuteronomic code for which there is no extant parallel, either in the Book of the Covenant or in the ancient Near Eastern legal codes. Gerhard von Rad suggests (Deuteronomy, 15-23) that it is precisely in examining this uniquely Deuteronomic material that we shall gain our clearest insights into the theology of Deuteronomy and into the sources of its tradition.

This specific material is as follows:

Exhortations to Israel to cleave to the LORD and love him with all the heart.

Regulations designed to preserve the status and welfare of the Levites.

Rules regulating the role of prophecy in Israel.

Emphasis on social justice.

Regulations concerning the holy war or Yahweh’s war.

Regulations defining the office of kingship.

Insistence that there is only one legitimate shrine where Israel may worship Yahweh.

Let us consider these points in turn.

Cleave to the Lord

Both in the Deuteronomic code (Deut. 12–26) and in the preceding exhortation section (chs. 6–11), the primary law of loving the LORD your God with all your heart is continually stressed. Indeed, this love is not simply a matter of command, but rather a theme of exhortation, reflection, and homily.

Examples of this from the Deuteronomic code are Deut. 13:1-4, 10; 14:1-2; 26:1-11. Examples from the exhortation section are 6:4; 7:6-16; 8:5-6.

Who are these preachers who persuade and exhort their people with such urgency? In seeking to answer this question, Gerhard von Rad (Studies in Deuteronomy, 13-14) cites Neh. 8:1-9:

Ezra read from the book of the law of Moses … and … the Levites helped the people to understand the law. They read from the book … clearly (RSV mg with interpretation); and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.

The implication seems to be that Ezra read the classical Hebrew text while the Levites paraphrased, expanded, and expounded it in the common Aramaic. Von Rad acknowledges that the time gap between Ezra (5th-4th cent.) and the period when the Deuteronomic material was being shaped (9th-7th cent.) is a large one. Nevertheless, he is attracted by the possibility that the preaching task which the Levites obviously fulfill in Ezra 8:1-9 had for centuries previously already been part of their role. Thus, von Rad concludes there is a strong possibility that it is the voice of the Levites which we hear in the exhortatory sections of Deuteronomy.

Concern for the Status and Welfare of the Levites

The suggestion just outlined becomes stronger when we consider the clear concern of Deuteronomy for the well-being of the Levites (cf. Deut. 12:18b-19; 14:27-29a; 18:1-8).

Most OT scholars agree that the position of the Levites must have deteriorated following the centralization of Israel’s worship at the one shrine (King Josiah’s reform inaugurated ca. 621). Before the centralization, the Levites had constituted the priesthood at the local shrines. But with the abolition of this plurality of worship centers, many local Levites became redundant. So to relieve the suffering of these unemployed, Deuteronomy provides for them to share in the proceeds of the harvest offering and so forth.

This concern for the Levites suggests that the compilers of Deuteronomy had close connections with the Levite class.

Rules Concerning Prophecy

Besides the Levites, the prophets also attract special attention in Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 18:14-15 is pivotal:

For these nations, which you are about to dispossess, give heed to soothsayers and to diviners; but as for you, the LORD your God has not allowed you so to do. The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren—him you shall heed. …

Every form of soothsaying is a human effort to prize open the divine secrets. God forbids such efforts by God’s people precisely because God’s self has opened up the true way of access to such divine secrets as may legitimately be known by humankind. That way is the revelation of God’s own will in the torah, while the torah in turn is clarified by the prophetic word. When God gave the torah on Horeb, God also instituted the office of mediator in Israel, so that the mediator might explain and apply the torah in all developing situations which Israel would encounter down the generations. Moses himself was appointed first mediator, so that every authentic prophet down the generations becomes the successor of Moses.

Thus according to Deuteronomy, the role of the prophets is twofold. On the one hand, the prophet is subservient to the torah. He or she is charged with explaining the torah, and the prophet’s total message and behavior are to be measured and assessed against the torah as standard (13:1-5).

On the other hand, the prophet also has an active and dynamic role. The task is not limited to a bald repetition of already-existent sentences of torah, but also includes the apprehension of new words from God (18:18-20).

In principle, then, the Deuteronomic school regards prophecy as the extension of the mediator role first occupied by Moses. It is noteworthy that of all the collections of law in the OT, it is only the Deuteronomic code that is concerned to lay down guidelines regarding the role of prophecy.

Emphasis on Social Justice

As mentioned above, the emphasis on social justice, already apparent in the Book of the Covenant, is highly characteristic of Deuteronomy. The same emphasis is found also in the eighth-century prophets. Indeed, we get the impression that the Deuteronomic school and the preexilic writing prophets breathe the same atmosphere and have exerted a mutual influence. The rights of those at risk (the poor, foreigners, widows, orphans, women) are of common concern to the Book of the Covenant and the Deuteronomic code, on the one hand, and the prophets Amos, Micah, Hosea, and Isaiah, on the other. Similarly, the concern that the processes of the judiciary should be impartial, humane, and free from extortion and corruption is shared by both.

From these four points so far discussed, then, we draw the conclusion that the Deuteronomic school had strong ties both with the Levites and with those who highly regarded the prophets. This prophetic-levitic combination, interestingly enough, does not appear as the background of Deuteronomy alone, but also of the prophet Hosea. Hans Walter Wolff’s suggestion (Hoseas geistige Heimat) is apposite here, that during the 8th cent. in northern Israel it was an underground levitic-prophetic alliance which preserved authentic Yahwism, at a time when the official cultus had been adulterated with paganism. (We will pick up the northern Israelite connections of the Deuteronomic school later.)

Regulations Concerning the Holy War or War of Yahweh

The following passages reflect the holy war tradition:

The older sources embodied in Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, and Judges indicate that the war of Yahweh had its historical setting in the period from the Exodus until (basically) the end of the Conquest.

As the term implies, Israel believed that it was Yahweh’s self who subdued their opponents and gave the promised land into their power. Israel’s role was confined to that of humble obedience to Yahweh’s instructions.

The forces involved were very much a people’s army, zealous volunteers banding together to become the instrument of Yahweh’s victory. In its historical setting, the action was at the local level. But as the tradition passed into literature, the scope of the action widened to embrace all Israel. Yahweh’s war was an important factor through the period of the Judges. But during the reigns of David and Solomon volunteers were increasingly replaced by hired, professional militia, and the ancient tradition fell into disuse.

Why then does