Again, the summary provided by Davies is apt and deserves a hearing:
\nIsrael\u2019s cult shares some common features with the sanctuary ideology of the ancient world. The tabernacle is a representation of an ideal or restored cosmos, where God and man meet in an environment which transcends the limitations of the mundane world. The priest, granted access to the sacred space, is a model of the ideal held out to Israel of the meaning of its collective priesthood and the access to the presence of God of which it speaks. The priests are the chosen and privileged ones who are granted a royal dignity and the right of access to this realm, even, in the case of the high priest, to that sacred space which is regarded as the throne-room of heaven, the innermost sanctum of an ideal cosmos.
\nPriests share characteristics of royalty in the prevailing ideology of priesthood in the ancient Near East. Israel had a collective memory of ancient priest-kings, and the descriptions of the garb of the Israelite priests preserve something of these royal associations. In their priests, the Israelites had a perpetual reminder of their own royal-priestly standing and privilege. The detailed literary portrayal of the priesthood of Aaron and his sons serves to flesh out for the reader something of what is meant by the image of Israel\u2019s corporate royal priesthood.
\nIn keeping with the expectation that sanctuary-building is the work of a chosen king, acting on instructions of a god and according to a divinely revealed pattern, it is suggested that Israel corporately functions as the royal sanctuary builder, according to Exodus, in keeping with the designation of Israel as a \u201croyal priesthood.\u201d<\/p>\n
In a work on biblical theology entitled Dominion and Dynasty, Stephen Dempster analyzes the phrase \u201ckingdom of priests\u201d in a way similar to the exposition given here:<\/p>\n
The final phrase designates Israel as a particular type of kingdom. Instead of being a kingdom of a particular king, it will be a kingdom marked by priesthood; that is, service of God on behalf of people and vice versa. It will be \u201ca kingdom run not by politicians depending upon strength and connivance but by priests depending upon faith in Yahweh, a servant nation instead of a ruling nation\u201d (Durham 263). Israel will thus redefine the meaning of dominion\u2014service. This will be its distinctive task, its distinguishing characteristic among the world of nations.<\/p>\n
In sum, the call of Israel to be a royal priesthood connects the Israelite covenant to the Abrahamic. Psalm 67 draws this out very well:<\/p>\n
May God be gracious to us and bless us
\nand make his face to shine upon us, Selah
\nthat your way may be known on earth,
\nyour saving power among all nations.
\nLet the peoples praise you, O God;
\nlet all the peoples praise you! (Ps. 67:1\u20133 ESV)<\/p>\n
In verse 1, we see Israel praying as a priest, since the nation as a whole is invoking the Aaronic blessing of Numbers 6. The goal or purpose of invoking this blessing is so that salvation may come to the nations. This is none other than the goal of the Abrahamic covenant.<\/p>\n
HOLY NATION<\/p>\n
The parallel phrase to \u201ckingdom of priests\u201d is \u201choly nation\u201d (Heb. g\u00f4y q\u0101d\u00f4\u0161). As already mentioned, this phrase is not necessarily identical in meaning to \u201ckingdom of priests,\u201d but both phrases function as a pair, like parallel lines in Hebrew poetry, to paint a three-dimensional picture in one\u2019s mind.
\nThe term g\u00f4y (\u201cnation\u201d) is the parallel term to kingdom. It is an economic, political, and social structure in which a final governmental headship operates. It therefore clearly reminds us of Genesis 12:2, as explained earlier. This is the city of God, the kingdom of God. In fulfillment of the promises to Abraham, Israel, by virtue of the Mosaic covenant, will provide under the direct rule of God a model of God\u2019s rule over human life, which is the divine aim for the entire world.
\n\u201cNation\u201d is modified by the adjective \u201choly.\u201d What is a \u201choly\u201d nation? Unfortunately, the term \u201choly\u201d is not very well understood by the church today. Definitions commonly given are \u201cpure\u201d or \u201cset apart.\u201d Such definitions are erroneous because the meaning is being determined by etymology rather than usage, and the etymology is completely speculative. The idea that \u201choly\u201d means \u201cset apart\u201d can be traced to the influence of W. W. Baudissin, who proposed in 1878 that the root of \u201choly\u201d in Hebrew (qd\u0161) is derived from qd-, \u201cto cut.\u201d Exhaustive research by a French evangelical scholar, Claude-Bernard Costecalde, has cast better light on the meaning of this term since his analysis is based on the way the word is used rather than on hypothetical origins. Costecalde\u2019s study examines all occurrences in the Old Testament and in ancient Near Eastern literature of the same time (e.g., Akkadian and Ugaritic). Not surprisingly, he discovered that the biblical meaning is similar to that in the languages of the cultures surrounding Israel. The basic meaning is not \u201cseparated\u201d but rather \u201cconsecrated to\u201d or \u201cdevoted to.\u201d This is also the basic meaning of \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, the counterpart in Greek.
\nNoteworthy is the passage in Exodus 3, where Moses encounters Yahweh in the burning bush and is asked to remove his sandals because he is standing on \u201choly ground.\u201d This is the first instance in the Old Testament of the root qd\u0161 in either an adjectival or a nominal form. In the narrative, Moses is commanded to stay away from the bush, that is, from the place from which God speaks, but he is not commanded to stay away from the holy ground. There is nothing inaccessible or set apart about the holy ground. Moreover, his fright and shock come from a revelation of God, not from the holiness of the place. The \u201choly ground\u201d (Ex. 3:5) encompasses a larger space than just the bush from which God speaks and is equivalent to \u201cthe mountain of God\u201d in 3:1. The act of removing one\u2019s sandals, like the act of the nearest relative in Ruth 4:7, is a ceremony or rite of depossession well known in the culture of that time. Moses must acknowledge that this ground belongs to God and must enter into an attitude of consecration. Thus, rather than marking an item as set apart, \u201choly\u201d ground is ground prepared, consecrated, or devoted to the meeting of God and man.
\nA holy nation, then, is one prepared and consecrated for fellowship with God and one completely devoted to him. Instructions in the Pentateuch are often supported by the statement from Yahweh, \u201cFor I am holy.\u201d Such statements show that complete devotion to God on the part of Israel would manifest itself in two ways: (1) identifying with his ethics and morality and (2) sharing his concern for the broken in the community. The commands and instructions in Leviticus 19 and 20 are bounded by the claim that Yahweh is holy (19:2; 20:26) and include concern against mistreating the alien and the poor, the blind and the deaf. In the \u201cJudgments\u201d of the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 19\u201324), some instructions relate to the oppression of orphans and widows (22:23). God was concerned about the rights of the slave (e.g., 21:2\u201311) and the disenfranchised in society. Over the past thirty years we have heard the strident voices of the feminist, of the antinuclear protest, and of the gay rights movement. But God hears the voice of those who are broken in body, in economy, and in spirit. If we are in covenant relationship with him, we must, like him, hear the voice that is too weak to cry out.
\nGod also jealously protects what is devoted to him. His anger flares when his holiness is violated, as in the case of Uzzah (2 Sam. 6:7), who extended his hand to touch the ark of the covenant. Also, in Psalm 2, when the kings and princes of the earth gather to touch the Anointed of the Lord, he flares out in anger to protect his King. Also, in the case of Paul in the New Testament, who in persecuting the church was reaching up to heaven, as it were, to shake his rebellious fist at Jesus, the Anointed One (i.e., the Christ), and slap him in the face, it resulted in his calling himself the chief of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15).
\nThis explanation of the terms \u201cpersonal treasure,\u201d \u201ckingdom of priests,\u201d and \u201choly nation,\u201d then, shows the goal and purpose of the Sinai covenant for Israel. Although the language is different from that of Genesis 1:26\u201328 and 12:1\u20133, we can clearly see that the covenant at Sinai achieves and administers in the Iron Age, through the nation as a whole, the purposes of the promises given to Abraham. God is establishing his kingdom through covenant. The covenant entails relationship with God on the one hand and relationship with the world on the other. Israel will model to the world what it means to have a relationship with God, what it means to treat each other in a genuinely human way, and what it means to be good stewards of the earth\u2019s resources. As priests, they will mediate the blessings of God to the world and will be used to bring the rest of the world to know God.
\nChristopher J. H. Wright observes that Exodus 19:5\u20136 has a chiastic structure as follows:<\/p>\n
Now then, if you really obey my voice and keep my covenant,<\/p>\n
a you will be for me a special personal possession
\nb among all the peoples;
\nb\u2032 for indeed to me belongs the whole earth
\na\u2032 but you, you will be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation.<\/p>\n
Wright says,<\/p>\n
After the initial conditional clause (the first line), there is a chiastic structure of four phrases, in which the two central lines portray God\u2019s universal ownership of the world and its nations, while the two outer lines express his particular role for Israel. This structure also makes clear that the double phrase \u201cpriestly kingdom and holy nation\u201d stands in apposition to \u201cpersonal possession.\u201d \u2026 The status is to be a special treasured possession. The role is to be a priestly and holy community in the midst of the nations.<\/p>\n
The literary structure as explained by Wright reinforces the exposition here of Israel\u2019s covenant relationship with God and with the world that takes up the sonship and kingship of the divine image in Genesis 1.
\nThe new covenant succeeds where the old covenant failed. The purposes of the Mosaic covenant are now being fulfilled in the church. The apostle Peter calls the church God\u2019s special treasure, a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation (1 Pet. 2:9\u201310). And God has forged both Jews and non-Jews into his new humanity [or Man, i.e., Adam], according to Ephesians 2:15.<\/p>\n
THE TEN WORDS (EXODUS 20)<\/p>\n
A brief explanation of the Ten Words will make plain our repeated claim that the Mosaic covenant entails a right relationship to God and social justice in human relationships. First, some general observations on the Ten Words are fundamental to a proper understanding of this covenant.
\nThe Ten Words form the heart of the covenant between God and Israel at Sinai. The Book of the Covenant, as we have seen, consists of the Ten Words and the Judgments. The former constitute the basic and fundamental requirements of the covenant. The latter are detailed stipulations based on the Ten Words, which apply them in practical ways to specific social situations and draw out and nuance their meaning in various contingencies and circumstances.
\nWe have already drawn attention to the fact that the earliest tradition in the biblical text refers to these requirements as the \u201cTen Words\u201d (Ex. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) and not as the \u201cTen Commandments,\u201d as we now know them. There is, in fact, a particular reason for this and for why there are precisely ten instructions. A connection is being made between the covenants at Sinai and creation. In the creation narrative, God creates the universe by simply speaking, that is, by his word. In the Hebrew text, the verb wayy\u014d\u2019mer, \u201cand he [i.e., God] said,\u201d occurs ten times. In a very real way, the entire creation depends or hangs on the word of God. Here the Book of the Covenant is what forges Israel into a nation. It is her national constitution, so to speak. And it is also the Ten Words that bring about the birth of the nation. Like the creation, Israel as a nation hangs for her very life on (the) ten words.
\nAlthough the biblical text explicitly tells us that there are ten words, the Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant traditions have differed in enumerating them. Differences in itemization are focused on commands one, two, and ten, and debate is based on issues of cantillation in the Masoretic Text, on issues of form, meaning, and style, and on the fact that the repetition of the Ten Words in Deuteronomy 5 entails some slight variations from the text in Exodus.
\nRecent research on the enumeration of the Ten Words by Jason DeRouchie, however, supports the Catholic-Lutheran analysis as follows:<\/p>\n
1. No other gods
\n2. No use of name deceitfully
\n3. Sabbath
\n4. Honor parents
\n5. No murder
\n6. No adultery
\n7. No theft
\n8. No false witness
\n9. No coveting wife
\n10. No desiring household members\/objects<\/p>\n
DeRouchie\u2019s analysis is convincing because it is based on discourse-grammar\/macrosyntax\/text-linguistic analysis. This area of linguistic study pays close attention to features in the language that are grammatical markers above or beyond the boundary of individual sentences in the text as a whole. In particular, in the version of the Ten Words in Deuteronomy 5:6\u201321, the enumeration is clarified because commands five through ten are joined by the conjunction waw (\u201cand\u201d) while commands one through four are set off from the last six by asyndeton (absence of the conjunction). Moreover, the fact that only one reason in both Exodus 20:3\u20136 and Deuteronomy 5:7\u201310 supports commands one and two\u2014according to the enumeration of the Protestant tradition\u2014provides further corroboration that they should be considered a single command.
\nThe command to obey parents belongs with the first three so that we should divide the ten commands into two sections: four and six. This is clear from the fact that the command to obey parents, like the first three commands and unlike the last six, includes the phrase \u201cYahweh, your God.\u201d Moreover, the first three commands are backed up by an explanation or reason, while the fourth is motivated by a promise. The last six have no explanation or motivation clause supporting them. The command to obey parents, then, shows that the covenant community of the family is the linchpin that connects loving God to loving others in human society and creation in general. It is the foundation of human society and the community where we should first learn covenant love.
\nIn the light of a correct enumeration of the Ten Words, the command \u201cYou shall have no other gods before me\u201d and the command \u201cYou shall not make for yourself images\/idols\u201d taken together constitute the first command, and \u201cYou shall not bear \/ lift up the name of the Lord your God in vain\u201d is now the second command.
\nThe discussion here of the first three commands is indebted to the treatment of John Walton, who follows the Protestant-Reformed tradition. To make this work, his first command will be referred to as command 1a herein and his second command will be referred to as command 1b.
\nThe Ten Words are divided into three commands defining Israel\u2019s relationship to Yahweh and six commands dealing with human interpersonal relationships within the covenant community. They define a genuinely human way to treat each other. At the center, in between our relationship to God and our relationship to others in society is a command that protects the family as the basic unit of human society. This is the only command supported by a blessing promised for obedience.
\nNote in particular that a reason or rationale is given for keeping the first three commands, introduced by k\u00ee (\u201cbecause\u201d or \u201cfor,\u201d 20:5, 6, 11). One reason is supplied after commands 1a and 1b, and one each after the second and third commands. This is a hint, structurally, to consider the first three commands in pairs.
\nNo reason or rationale is given for keeping the last six commands. These entail the basic and inalienable rights of every human and have been recognized by the customs and laws of every society. These \u201claws\u201d are paralleled in law codes from other societies in the ancient Near East, as shown in table 9.2:<\/p>\n
Table 9.2 Legal Treatises of the Ancient Near East
\nThe Laws of Ur-Nammu
\ntwenty-first century BC
\nThe Laws of Lipit-Ishtar
\nnineteenth century BC
\nThe Laws of Eshnunna
\neighteenth century BC
\nThe Code of Hammurabi
\neighteenth century BC
\nThe Middle Assyrian Laws
\ntwelfth century BC
\nThe Old Hittite Laws
\nseventeenth century BC<\/p>\n
Although the Ten Words express these laws negatively, they could also be expressed positively in terms of the inalienable rights of every human, as shown in table 9.3:<\/p>\n
Table 9.3 The Ten Words as Inalienable Human Rights
\nYou shall not murder
\n= the right of every person to his or her own life
\nYou shall not commit adultery
\n= the right of every person to his or her own home
\nYou shall not steal
\n= the right of every person to his or her own property
\nYou shall not bear false witness
\n= the right of every person to his or her own reputation<\/p>\n
No society can endure that does not respect the basic, inalienable rights of every person. Since the last six commands can be paralleled in the law codes of other societies in the ancient Near East and were well known to the Israelites, no rationale for keeping them need be supplied in the text. The first three commands, however, as Maurice Andrew and Johann Stamm have argued, are unparalleled in the ancient Near East. Certainly, the command to worship only one God, the command not to manufacture or worship idols, and the command to observe the Sabbath are absolutely unique. In fact, the seventh day in Mesopotamia was considered unlucky. These commands constitute a new revelation, and God graciously supplies a rationale for keeping them, so that Israel may grasp an adequate motivation for following a practice that was unprecedented.
\nThe question must also be raised as to why the commands are given as prohibitions and why they are formulated in the second-person singular. Why not express them positively as inalienable rights? Why not indicate by a second-person plural that they are addressed to all? The reason for this is simple: God wants each and every individual person to think first of the inalienable rights of the other person and not first about his or her own inalienable rights. This explains both the negative formulation and the second-person singular.
\nFrom the start and right throughout the entire history of Israel, attempts were made to boil down, digest, and summarize the instructions of the covenant\u2014both the Judgments that elaborate on the Ten Words in practical situations and the Ten Words themselves. For example, Leviticus 18\u201320 contains a collection of instructions that develops further in particular the last six of the Ten Words. It is interesting to note that at the mid- and end points of Leviticus 19 we find the instruction, \u201cYou shall love your neighbor as yourself\u201d (19:18, 34). Jesus and other rabbis of the first century demonstrated exegetical insight to observe that this was a summary statement of the various instructions in this section of Leviticus and indeed of the last portion of the Ten Words that they elaborate on. Later on, the prophets and poets used two pairs of words as summaries of the Torah. One is the pair \u201cloving-kindness and truth,\u201d and the other is \u201cjustice and righteousness.\u201d Each pair of words is a hendiadys\u2014communicating a single idea through two words. The first pair speaks of faithful, loyal love, and the second speaks of social justice. These are attempts to boil down the covenant stipulations into a single \u201csound bite.\u201d They are important because they show that the instructions represent faithful love as well as social justice in human interrelationships.
\nIn this brief treatment of the Mosaic covenant, space permits only a short explanation of each of the first three of the Ten Words, as these have been more troublesome for Christians to understand than the last seven.<\/p>\n
COMMAND 1A: NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME<\/p>\n
Some scholars and traditions have construed the first of the Ten Words as Exodus 20:2\u20133. Yet the fact that the covenant is broadly structured according to a Hittite treaty demonstrates plainly that verse 2, in which Yahweh says, \u201cI am the LORD your God, who brought you out from the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves,\u201d is, in fact, the historical prologue of the treaty, so that the first command begins in verse 3: \u201cYou shall have no other gods before me.\u201d In both Roman Catholic and Lutheran interpretive traditions, the command in verse 3 and the command in verse 4 (\u201cYou shall not make for yourself an idol\u201d) are counted as one command, while the command against coveting is separated into two: \u201cYou shall not covet your neighbor\u2019s wife,\u201d and \u201cYou shall not covet your neighbor\u2019s house.\u201d As Bruce Waltke notes, \u201cAccording to the latter construction, the first commandment condemns false worship and the tenth commandment distinguishes wife from property.\u201d We have seen that this analysis is supported by asyndeton, the phrase \u201cthe LORD, your God\u201d recurring in the first four commands, and by the fact that only the first four commands are supported by causal\/motivation clauses.
\nThe interpretation of the Reformers and the creeds following in this tradition construe the text to mean that we should not have any other gods before the Lord, that is, in preference to the Lord. Thus the prohibition is understood in terms of priorities. According to the Westminster Confession, God must be the highest priority in our attitudes, thoughts, words, and ways. Others have interpreted the prohibition philosophically and argued that the main point is to establish absolute monotheism and rule out the existence of other deities.
\nThe command, however, does appear to acknowledge the existence of other gods. In courses taught in the history of religion at universities in the Western world, the suggestion is frequently made that, at an earlier stage of the history of Israel, the people were henotheists\u2014that is, they believed in the existence of many gods but consciously chose to worship only one. At a later point in the development of Israel\u2019s religion, henotheism gave way to monotheism, the belief that there is only one god.
\nBruce Waltke seeks to alleviate this problem by distinguishing between religious commands and theological statements:<\/p>\n
For theological statements of whether other gods exist, we turn to Deuteronomy 4:39: \u201cAcknowledge and take to heart this day that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other.\u201d Furthermore, Deuteronomy 32:17\u201321 identifies idol worship as bowing down to demons. Verse 17 reads, \u201cThey sacrificed to demons, which are not God [l\u014d\u2019-\u2019el\u014dh\u00eem, \u2018no-God\u2019].\u201d These declarative sentences serve as foundations for theological beliefs and doctrines.
\nOn the other hand, religious commands deal with subjective reality. The truth is, regardless of the existence of other gods, human beings create and worship what is \u201cno-God\u201d (1 Cor. 8:4\u20138).\u2026 Calvin noted that the human heart is a perpetual idol factory. Thus, rather than tacitly assuming the existence of other gods, the commandment assumes the depravity of the human race to create and worship their own gods. The religious command reflects the reality of the human situation but does not serve as a theological statement. Other passages teach monotheism.<\/p>\n
This distinction is helpful but nonetheless assumes that the exegesis in terms of priorities is correct. Yet this exegesis is difficult to maintain. As John Walton notes,<\/p>\n
The focus on God as the highest priority is as far back as the LXX, which translated the Hebrew \u2018l pny (\u201cbefore me\u201d) with the Greek preposition pl\u0113n, \u201cexcept.\u201d However, if Hebrew meant to say \u201cexcept\u201d there were several ways to do this (e.g., \u2019ak or raq). Similarly, if the Hebrew had intended to express priority, it could have used language such as that found in Deut 4:12 or Isa 45:21.<\/p>\n
In an exhaustive study of the use of the preposition \u2018l pny- (\u201cbefore\u201d) plus personal object in the Hebrew Bible, Walton shows that the meaning is consistently spatial. The linguistic data, then, demand that a spatial sense be considered as the main option.
\nIn the past, students of the text have avoided this interpretation because they could not understand how it could make any sense. Data from the ancient Near Eastern culture now illuminate how a spatial sense is eminently suitable. In the culture of the ancient Near East at this time, the gods operated within a pantheon, a divine assembly. John Walton argues that the first commandment is distinguishing Yahweh from this common understanding of deity in the ancient world: \u201cWhen the first commandment prohibits other gods in the presence of Yahweh, it is ruling out the concept that He operates within a pantheon, a divine assembly, or with a consort.\u201d Walton\u2019s fuller analysis is enlightening and is discussed earlier, in chapter 6.
\nIn the progressive revealing and unfolding of God in history and Scripture, the completed canon shows that God has revealed himself completely and fully in Jesus Christ. Jesus said, \u201cAll authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.\u201d Our lives, our service and work, our worship must recognize his authority alone. This disenfranchises all gods and idols worshiped in our culture. There is no one else I am living my life for than Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n
COMMAND 1B: NO IMAGES\/IDOLS<\/p>\n
Command 1b of the Ten Words is as follows: \u201cYou shall not make for yourself an image and form that is in the heaven above and that is in the earth below and that is in the waters under the earth\u201d (Ex. 20:4). As John Walton notes, popular prohibition of images has been influenced significantly by four factors: (1) Jewish interpretation, (2) controversies over icons in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, (3) statues of saints in the Roman Catholic tradition, and (4) debate over what constitutes art from a Christian perspective. In classical Jewish and Muslim traditions, this command led to a prohibition of the representation of any living creature. Christian interpretation up to the nineteenth century was dominated by the idea that since God was invisible and transcendent, he could not be contained in an image. Others have spiritualized the text, reducing idols to anything to which we devote our energy, money, and worth as deity.
\nSuch misunderstandings of the second part of the first command are due to a couple of factors. First is ignorance of the ancient Near Eastern ideas concerning the nature and role of idols. Walton classifies ancient Near Eastern thinking about idols into three categories.
\nThe first category is the manufacture of images. In the ancient Near Eastern mindset, only the god could approve and initiate the manufacturing process. At the end of the process, special ceremonies and rituals, in particular the mouth-opening ritual, allowed the god to inhabit the image and permitted the image to drink, eat food, and smell incense.
\nThe second category concerns the use of the image. Walton notes that \u201cin the ancient world all formal and public worship revolved around the image.\u201d Thus the image involved mediation. It mediated revelation from the deity to the people and also mediated worship by the people to the deity as they brought clothes, drink, and food to honor it.
\nThe third category has to do with ancient Near Eastern perceptions concerning the function and nature of images. According to Walton,<\/p>\n
As a result of the induction ritual the material image was animated by the divine essence. Therefore, from now on it did not simply represent the deity but also manifested its presence. However, this does not mean that the image had thereby been deified. The deity was the reality that was embodied in the image.<\/p>\n
Misunderstanding of the second part of the first command is due not only to ignorance of the ancient Near Eastern culture and worldview but also to faulty analysis of the grammar of this text. Let us consider closely the exact text of this command in both Exodus and Deuteronomy. Below, the Hebrew text is provided along with the translations of the KJV and NIV.<\/p>\n
Exodus 20:4: \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 \u05ea\u05b7\u05e2\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d4\u05be\u05dc\u05b0\u05da\u05b8 \u05e4\u05b6\u05bc\u05e1\u05b8\u05dc \u05d5\u05b0\u05db\u05b8\u05dc\u05be\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4<\/p>\n
KJV: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing \u2026
\nNIV: You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything \u2026<\/p>\n
Deuteronomy 5:8: \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0\u05be\u05ea\u05b7\u05e2\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05d4\u05be\u05dc\u05b0\u05da\u05b8 \u05e4\u05b6\u05e1\u05b8\u05dc \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05be\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4<\/p>\n
KJV: Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing \u2026
\nNIV: You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything \u2026<\/p>\n
The translation of the KJV represents early Jewish rabbinic understanding, no doubt mediated through the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. This is the way orthodox Jews today understand the text and also the way in which Muslims have consistently understood the text.
\nThe original text in Hebrew actually conjoins the objects of the verb with waw, a copulative coordinating conjunction that always means \u201cand.\u201d A series of alternative clauses may be joined by waw, but this does not mean that waw has the same value as \u201cor\u201d in English. Hebrew does have a conjunction, \u201cor\u201d (\u2019\u00f4), and it could have been used here to designate the alternative possibility but was not. The text in Exodus 20:4 is difficult, but the early rabbinic understanding does not follow the rules of grammar in Hebrew. Note that the parallel text in Deuteronomy does not have the conjunction waw but employs instead a construct phrase, \u201ca carved image\/idol of any form.\u201d Certainly the rendering \u201cor\u201d is contrary to the syntax here. It seems that interpretive traditions have molded Deuteronomy 5:8 to suit their understanding of Exodus 20:4
\nIf we believe in the analogy of Scripture, however, where we interpret the unclear by the clear, the Jewish understanding cannot be the correct meaning of this text. Consider, for example, the art in the tabernacle and also in Solomon\u2019s temple. Artwork in the construction of Solomon\u2019s temple featured representation of the creation with images of bulls, cherubim, lions, palm trees, and pomegranates (1 Kings 7:18, 25, 36). Since the grammar of the text in Deuteronomy 5:8 is clear, a better approach is to use the clear text there to interpret the unclear in Exodus 20:4. The construction in Exodus 20:4 could be understood as a hendiadys, a common figure of speech in Hebrew literature where one idea is communicated by two nouns or verbs joined by \u201cand.\u201d The first notable example in the Bible is Genesis 3:16, which in the Hebrew reads, \u201cI will greatly increase your pain and your pregnancy.\u201d This does not mean an increase of pain on the one hand and pregnancy on the other. The next sentence goes on to explain, \u201cIn pain you will bring forth children.\u201d So the earlier expression must mean \u201cpain in pregnancy\u201d\u2014an example of a hendiadys. In Exodus 20:4, \u201ca carved image and any form\u201d must therefore in the light of Deuteronomy 5:8 mean \u201ca carved image\/idol in any form.\u201d This is the approach taken by the NIV, and it accurately follows the grammar of the Hebrew language and uses the clear meaning of one text to assist the interpretation of the other rather than imposing the faulty interpretation of Exodus on the clear text in Deuteronomy.
\nAccurate exegesis of command 1b, then, shows that this text has nothing to do with art or the representation of aspects of the created order with images. Rather, the command has to do with images used as mediators of the presence or revelation of deity from god to human, or mediation of the worship of people to the deity. As Walton observes, \u201cThe prohibition of images excluded in particular that sort of worship that understood cultic rituals to meet the needs of the deity through the image.\u201d<\/p>\n
SECOND COMMAND: DO NOT BEAR THE NAME OF GOD DECEITFULLY<\/p>\n
Popular misunderstanding also exists concerning the second of the Ten Words: \u201cYou shall not lift up the name of Yahweh your God worthlessly (la\u0161\u0161\u0101w\u2019)\u201d (Ex. 20:7). Once again, better knowledge of both cultural setting and linguistic data can improve our understanding of this text.
\nFirst, the basic import of this instruction is not related to the use of God\u2019s name idly in blasphemy, minced oaths, or profanity. This is certainly inappropriate, and respect and reverence for the divine name is enjoined in Deuteronomy 28:58.
\nSecond, the traditional view has focused on false oaths. As Bruce Waltke notes,<\/p>\n
The operative word is \u0161\u0101w\u2019 (KJV, \u201cin vain\u201d; cf. Lev. 24:15).\u2026 \u0160\u0101w\u2019 is used in biblical Hebrew in several ways: to denote to be false or deceitful with respect to speaking (Deut. 5:20 in reference to being a false witness against a neighbor; Exod 23:1 in reference to a false report or rumor); with respect to being false in worship (Isa. 1:13, which discusses a false tribute to God where the people hold to a form of worship, but their heart is not there); and with respect to being false in prophecy (Ezek. 13:3\u20137, which refers to false prophets who claim to have seen a vision, but there is no reality to what they have seen). Herbert Huffmon argues from both biblical and extrabiblical evidence that the commandment prohibits false or frivolous swearing. \u201cThe focus is on not making God an accomplice, as it were to one\u2019s falseness, whether of intent or of performance.\u201d<\/p>\n
Thus, according to analysis of the linguistic data, the command has to do with lifting up the name of God falsely or worthlessly. But this does not provide a full picture.
\nWalton argues that in order to get a valid understanding, the linguistic data must be set within the context of the ancient Near Eastern culture. This, he asserts, depends on a careful definition of magic, the world in which the false or proper use of names occurs. In the ancient Near East and also in the Graeco-Roman world, there was no demarcating line between religion and magic. Later, influence from the medieval church and the Enlightenment resulted in distinguishing the two. In the past, however, interpreters have not appreciated how names were used in the framework of magic and power.
\nG. Frantz-Szab\u00f3 offers a comprehensive and helpful definition of magic in the context of invoking supernatural powers:<\/p>\n
[Magic] is a reasoned system of techniques for influencing the gods and other supernatural powers that can be taught and learned.\u2026 Magic is a praxis, indeed a science, that through established and for the most part empirical means seeks to alter or maintain earthly circumstances, or even call them forth anew. Magic not only manipulates occult forces but also endeavors to master the higher supernatural power with which religion is concerned.<\/p>\n
The name of God represents and sums up his entire character and person. To use that name brings his person and his power into a particular situation. When we use his name for something that is contrary to who he is, contrary to his character, we lift it up to a lie. Walton observes that \u201cthe name is equivalent to the identity of the deity, and the divine identity can be commandeered for illicit use. The problem of identity theft is widely recognized today.\u201d In Psalm 139:19\u201322, David dissociates himself in the strongest of terms from fellow Israelites who want him to join them in a scheme to murder someone and are doing this using the name of Yahweh. Misusing the name of God occurs among Christians today when someone says, \u201cThe Lord led me to do such and such a thing,\u201d when we know from Scripture that the act violates the revealed will of God.
\nDaniel I. Block proposed a different interpretation for the second command than that provided by Walton. The traditional interpretations and translations in the English versions may \u201cmiss the central issue, namely, that of wearing the name of Yahweh as a badge or brand of ownership.\u201d The key to this injunction is the verb \u05e0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05d0, which does not mean \u201cto misuse\u201d or \u201cto pronounce\u201d or \u201cto take\u201d in this text since all these translations would require different idioms. Instead, here the normal sense \u201cto bear, carry\u201d is most suitable. The collocation of this verb with \u201cname\u201d occurs elsewhere only in Exodus 28:12 and 29, where it refers to Aaron, the high priest, bearing the names of the sons of Israel since they were inscribed on two onyx stones on the shoulder pieces of his ephod. In addition, Block notes,<\/p>\n
According to Numbers 6:27 in the future the Aaronic priests would \u201cput\u201d Yahweh\u2019s name on the Israelites by declaring for them what came to be known as \u201cthe Aaronic blessing.\u201d And because they bore the stamp of His name they were objects of His blessing. In Deuteronomy the expression \u05e7\u05b8\u05d3\u05b9\u05e9\u05c1 \u05dc\u05b7\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4, \u201choly belonging to Yahweh,\u201d is applied to Israel as a whole (Deut. 26:19; cf. 7:6; 14:2, 21). Like the Shema\u02bb, which was to be inscribed on houses and gates and on phylacteries on the forehead, to bear the name of God means to have His name branded on one\u2019s person as a mark of divine ownership.<\/p>\n
Several other passages may be briefly mentioned to support this view. The notion of branding (e.g., cattle) used metaphorically may underlie Isaiah 44:5:<\/p>\n
This one will say, \u201cI am the LORD\u2019s,\u201d
\nanother will call on the name of Jacob,
\nand another will write on his hand, \u201cThe LORD\u2019s,\u201d
\nand claim as honorific title the name of Israel.<\/p>\n
Further, Deuteronomy 28:9\u201310 clearly connects belonging to the Lord (i.e., holy to Yahweh) and bearing the name of the Lord:<\/p>\n
The LORD will establish you as a people holy to himself, as he has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in his ways. And all the peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they shall be afraid of you. (ESV)<\/p>\n
Finally, observe that when God judged his people in exile, he scattered them among the nations because they had desecrated his holy name (Ezek. 36:17\u201323). Conversely, in Daniel\u2019s famous prayer for the end of the exile and judgment, he asks God to act for his own sake, because your city and your people bear your name (Dan. 9:16\u201319).
\nWhat then would the clause \u201cbear the name\u201d mean when modified by the adverbial phrase la\u0161\u0161\u0101w\u2019 (KJV, \u201cin vain\u201d)? The comments cited earlier by Bruce Waltke are apt in spite of the fact that he is arguing for a traditional Jewish interpretation of this text. Although the noun can mean \u201cempty\u201d or \u201cworthless,\u201d as Waltke points out, it frequently has to do with what is deceitful or false. Isaiah 59:3, \u201cYour lips have spoken deceitfully,\u201d is a good example (cf. Isa. 5:18). Psalm 139:20 actually alludes to the second of the Ten Words, and the context clarifies the issue:<\/p>\n
They speak against you with malicious intent;
\nyour enemies take your name in vain. (ESV)<\/p>\n
Here David (according to the title of the psalm) is confronting men who plan to murder someone and want David to join them in this. This is bearing the name of Yahweh deceitfully, and David identifies them instead as the enemies of God because the act they intend under the umbrella of his name is contrary to who he is and what he represents.
\nOn the basis of the analysis of the second command given by Daniel I. Block, a further insight is possible concerning the first two commands. According to the numbering scheme of the Catholic-Lutheran tradition, the first command, \u201cno other gods,\u201d is identical to the claim \u201cI am your God,\u201d and the second command, \u201cno wearing his name deceitfully\/worthlessly,\u201d is identical to the claim \u201cYou are my people,\u201d since bearing the name indicated belonging to Yahweh\u2014that is, wearing his brand or mark as a badge of honor. In this way, as shown in table 9.4, the first two of the Ten Words may be seen as an exposition of the Covenant Formula (\u201cI will be your God, and you shall be my people\u201d).<\/p>\n
Table 9.4 The First Two of the Ten Words as an Exposition of the Covenant Formula
\nNo other gods before me
\n\u2192
\nI will be your God
\nNo bearing my name dishonorably
\n\u2192
\nYou will be my people<\/p>\n
The interpretation of command 1b suggested by Daniel I. Block has been investigated and supported by a full-length doctoral dissertation by Carmen J. Imes.
\nThe mention of \u2019el qanna\u2019 (KJV, \u201ca jealous God\u201d) in the first command adds support for this view since the Hebrew word qanna\u2019 refers to acting to protect one\u2019s property and the next command indicates that Israel belongs to Yahweh.
\nA proposal made recently by Stephen Dempster could be further explored. He suggests that the Ten Words are a further explication of the divine name, especially in light of the revelation of the divine name in Exodus 34:5\u20137. He notes that \u201cI am Yahweh your God\u201d (Ex. 20:2) is the first use of this formulation of divine identification in the Bible and is followed by what he understands as an explanatory gloss on the divine name\u2014\u201cwho brought you out of servitude to Egypt.\u201d He observes that the first command stresses Yahweh\u2019s uniqueness and therefore Israel\u2019s exclusive worship\u2014Yahweh is one. The second command (according to the enumeration in the Protestant tradition) stresses his incomparability in the material realm\u2014so much so that there cannot be any material duplicate. In particular, the motivation for keeping the command\u2014\u2019el qanna\u2019 (KJV, \u201ca jealous God\u201d)\u2014is clearly related to the divine identity (cf. Ex. 34:14). In the Ten Words there is punishment down to the third and fourth generation of \u201cthose who hate me\u201d versus \u1e25esed for the thousands of generations of \u201cthose who love me.\u201d In the revelation of the divine name in Exodus 34:5\u20137, this punishment is omitted. In the third command (according to the enumeration in the Protestant tradition), the divine name cannot be profaned because it is incomparable\u2014note that the guilty party will not be acquitted, and compare this to the revelation of the divine name in 34:6\u20137: \u201cHe will not acquit the guilty.\u201d This approach makes sense in the rest of the Ten Words as well, but explicit indications of it given there are lacking. Note as well that Exodus 22:26\u201327 (22:25\u201326 MT) is the first reference to \u05d7\u05b7\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05df (\u201cgracious,\u201d as in the revelation of the divine name in Ex. 34:6) in the Bible in the context of motivation for keeping a law. At any rate, central to the exodus is the revelation of the divine name (Exodus 3; 6; and now 20\u201324). Christopher Seitz has explained that God\u2019s name is the most personal revelation of God\u2019s own character. Therefore the Ten Words as a revelation of the divine name is at the same time a revelation of the character of Yahweh. No doubt the structure of the Ten Words is arranged with such skill that different analyses are possible at the same time.<\/p>\n
THIRD COMMAND: KEEP THE SABBATH<\/p>\n
The third of the Ten Words is a positive injunction to observe the Sabbath (Ex. 20:8\u201311). The importance of this injunction is indicated by its length\u2014it is the longest of the Ten Words.
\nFor several decades in the twentieth century, scholars attempted to find precursors to the Israelite Sabbath in the nations surrounding ancient Israel. This effort was entirely unsuccessful. The Hebrew \u0161abb\u0101t is not connected to the Babylonian \u0161abbatu, which is the fifteenth day of the month. Moreover the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days of certain months in the Babylonian calendar were considered unlucky. Nonetheless, the concept of divine rest is well attested in ancient Near Eastern texts, and the cultural context can cast great light on interpretation of the third command.
\nSix aspects of the notion of divine rest in the ancient Near East, drawn mainly from the great epics such as the Babylonian Enuma Elish, are delineated by Walton. These can be briefly summarized as follows: (1) in the ancient epics, divine rest was disturbed by rebellion; (2) divine rest was achieved after conflict; (3) divine rest was achieved after acts of creation, establishing order; (4) divine rest was achieved in the temple; (5) divine rest was characterized by ongoing rule and stability; and (6) divine rest was achieved by the gods creating people to do their work.
\nThere are both similarities and differences between the biblical command to observe the Sabbath and the cultural context of the ancient Near East. We need to attend carefully to the linguistic data in the relevant texts. In Exodus 20:8\u201311, the Israelites are commanded to remember the Sabbath day to consecrate it. In the Old Testament, the notion of remembering is not merely mental recall; it entails acts in space and time based on keeping something at the front of one\u2019s mind. Israel is to consecrate the Sabbath; it is a commemorative event that belongs to Yahweh and is to be devoted to him. Both humans\u2014free or slaves, citizens or resident aliens\u2014and animals are to cease from the business and labor ordinarily undertaken to provide for our own life and sustenance. It is an act of faith acknowledging Yahweh as the Creator and giver of life and as the one who rules our lives.
\nThe biblical viewpoint is fundamentally different from the ancient Near Eastern perspectives, in spite of many parallels on the surface. Walton says,<\/p>\n
In the Old Testament people work for their own benefit and provision, rather than to meet the needs of God or to do his work for him. When commanded to share the rest of God on the Sabbath, it is not to participate in it per se, but to recognize His work of bringing and maintaining order. God\u2019s rest symbolizes His control over the cosmos, which His people recognize whenever they yield to Him the day they could have used to provide for themselves.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, the parallel between the ancient Near Eastern building of temples for divine rest and the biblical creation narrative culminating in divine rest is valid. The framework of the account of creation in the Bible strongly suggests that the cosmos is constructed as a sanctuary\/temple in which God may take up his rest.
\nDiscussion of this command brings us right into the middle of the problem of the relationship between the old covenant and the new, a matter that cannot be adequately discussed in this chapter. Nonetheless, a few comments on the Sabbath are in order.
\nFirst, we must note that the Sabbath was the sign between Yahweh and Israel of the old covenant, as is clearly stated in Exodus 31:12\u201318. Covenants often have a physical sign associated with them. God gave the rainbow as a physical sign of the promise in his covenant with Noah. He commanded circumcision in the body of every male in Israel as a physical sign of God\u2019s covenant with Abraham. Similarly, the Sabbath is stipulated as a permanent sign between Yahweh and Israel that the God who created the world in six days and then rested has consecrated them to himself. Note that while the Mosaic covenant is not described as \u201ceverlasting\u201d in the Old Testament, the sign of it is, because Jesus has fulfilled the Sabbath for believers (Matt. 11:28).
\nSecond, as we compare the old covenant and the new covenant, we see that the self-identity of the people of the Lord in the old covenant was that of children, while the self-identity of the people of the Lord in the new covenant is that of mature adults (Gal. 3:24\u201325). The external forms and shadows of the old covenant have been done away now that the reality has come in Christ (Col. 2:16\u201317).
\nNow, of what does the Sabbath speak? Let us notice at once that, in the two texts in the Old Testament where we have the Ten Words, the reason given for the Sabbath in one text is different from the reason given in the other. In Exodus, the reason is given in 20:11. God\u2019s work of creation was complete. It was finished; no one could add anything to it. The people were invited to enter his rest and enjoy his work. Hebrews applies this notion to the work of Christ. We cannot do anything to add to the work of Jesus Christ. We are simply to enjoy it.
\nIn Deuteronomy 5:15, a different reason is given for the Sabbath. The people of Israel must remember that they were slaves in Egypt and that God brought them out of slavery, so they should give their slaves a chance to rest as they do on the Sabbath. Paul, in Colossians 1:12\u201314, speaks, as do many authors of the New Testament, of the work of the Lord Jesus as a new exodus. Egypt is a picture or symbol of the world, Pharaoh is a symbol of Satan, and slavery is a symbol of our enslavement to our passion and pride from which Christ has redeemed us in his death on the cross. Jesus is the new Joshua, who will lead those people connected to him by the new covenant to enter and enjoy God\u2019s Sabbath rest.
\nIt is important to note here that the Sabbath belongs to the Mosaic covenant and is not grounded in the covenant at creation. G. K. Beale attempts to ground the Sabbath as a creation command by citing Genesis 2:15, \u201cYahweh God \u2026 deposited\/placed him (i.e., the Man) in the garden.\u201d Beale\u2019s interpretation is based on an error in linguistic method. The verb \u201cdeposited\/placed him\u201d is \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05e0\u05b4\u05bc\u05d7\u05b5\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc in Hebrew. Beale claims that this means \u201cto cause to rest\u201d from the root \u05d7\u05d5\u05e0 (\u201cto rest\u201d). There are two different hiphil forms from \u05d7\u05d5\u05e0. The first, usually designated hiphil A (or 1) means \u201cto cause to rest.\u201d The second, designated hiphil B (or 2) has the meaning \u201cdeposit,\u201d \u201clay,\u201d \u201cleave,\u201d or even \u201cabandon.\u201d The two uses are carefully distinguished in form. Hiphil A always has an initial vowel that is long, while hiphil B has one that is short followed by a doubling of the n\u00fbn, as occurs in Genesis 2:15. It may be that in the distant past, hiphil B developed from hiphil A, but as far as the Hebrew writers are concerned, they function as two different verbs with different meanings. There is therefore no basis for the claim that the verb in Genesis 2:15 has anything to do with the Sabbath. The verb \u201cdeposited\/placed him\u201d (\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b7\u05bc\u05e0\u05b4\u05bc\u05d7\u05b5\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc) is simply a stylistic variant for \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05dd in 2:8.<\/p>\n
SUMMARY<\/p>\n
The first command in the Ten Words can be construed as a pair. John Walton\u2019s summary is helpful in grasping the pair\u2019s function and intent:<\/p>\n
Commandments 1a and 1b<\/p>\n
Yahweh\u2019s mode of operating in the two realms (divine and human):<\/p>\n
\u25cf Commandment 1a concerns how Yahweh was not to be perceived as operating in the divine realm\u2014no distribution of authority to other divinities.
\n\u25cf Commandment 1b concerns how Yahweh was not to be perceived as operating in the human realm\u2014no iconographic mediator of his presence, revelation, or worship.<\/p>\n
The second command clearly calls the human partner to full allegiance: we belong to Yahweh. We bear his name, and our actions must represent Yahweh appropriately. Together the first and second commands reinforce the Covenant Formula: \u201cI will be your God, and you will be my people.\u201d
\nThe third command concerns a covenant sign\u2014people were to symbolize the covenant by refraining from attempts to control their own lives on the Sabbath, that is, they were to symbolize belonging to Yahweh as King.<\/p>\n
THE JUDGMENTS (EX. 20:22\u201323:33)<\/p>\n
Following the Ten Words is a section entitled the Judgments. This section is an expansion on the Ten Words. Although parts of the section are in the form of apodictic or prescriptive statements (\u201cYou shall\/shall not\u201d; e.g., Ex. 22:18\u201323:10), large parts are in the form of conditional sentences, that is, case decisions or descriptive law or judicial precedents (e.g., 21:2\u201322:17). Like the Ten Words, provisions for cultic issues (i.e., festivals, 23:10\u201319) are mixed together with moral matters and issues of restitution and social justice. Davies observes that this section begins and ends with a warning of the dangers of worshiping other gods, and this inclusio characterizes the function of the section.
\nJohn Walton has devoted significant study to comparing and contrasting these materials with counterparts in ancient Near Eastern culture and society. Earlier, table 9.2 (p. 368) listed similar texts, such as the Laws of Ur-Nammu and the Code of Hammurabi. Walton draws on scholars who have devoted a lifetime to the study of such texts in Egypt and Mesopotamia, Israel\u2019s neighbors. The consensus is that the texts are not law codes as we who have a Graeco-Roman heritage think of them, because they are neither comprehensive nor prescriptive. The ancients loved to compile lists, and these are anthologies of examples that model judicial wisdom. Jean Bott\u00e9ro, an expert in ancient Near Eastern legal material says,<\/p>\n
In the eyes of its author the \u201cCode\u201d [of Hammurabi] was not at all intended to exercise by itself a univocal normative value in the legislative order. But it did have value as a model; it was instructive and educative in the judicial order. A law applies to details; a model inspires\u2014which is entirely different. In conclusion, we have here not a law code, nor the charter of a legal reform, but above all, in its own way, a treatise, with examples, on the exercise of judicial power.<\/p>\n
Bott\u00e9ro compares legal treatises to treatises for divination and medicine. They are similar in form and function. All three contain conditional statements and are intended to assist practitioners through cases that serve as models or paradigms. As Walton says,<\/p>\n
The medical treatises teach medical practitioners about diagnosis, the divinatory treatises teach the practitioners about prognostication through omens, and the legal treatises teach practitioners (whether future kings or court personnel) about judicial wisdom, all through multiplying examples through patterns.<\/p>\n
Bott\u00e9ro concludes,<\/p>\n
The cuneiform treatises are nothing else but types of paradigms or tables. It was by repetition and the variation of particular cases, of models to be considered in a spirit of analogy, that the substance of the discipline in question was assimilated, that the habit of scientific judgment was formed, that the sense of correct reasoning was acquired at the same time as the capacity to extend these same judgments and reasoning to all the material objects of the science in question, according to their eventual presentation.<\/p>\n
Thus, the ancient legal treatises were not law codes in the sense in which we think of them in the Western world, but they gave instruction in model justice through exemplary verdicts.
\nHammurabi compiled his list of exemplary verdicts to legitimize his reign and rule, showing that his skill in administrative justice was derived from the sun god Shamash. In this sense, there is a similarity between such legal texts and biblical Wisdom Literature.
\nIt is also important to note that Hammurabi\u2019s legal treatise was not considered the \u201claw of the land,\u201d and it imposed no obligations on the courts or society. In extensive research and study of court cases from the ancient Near East, never is there any direct reference or appeal to the six major legal treatises that have been frequently listed as \u201claw codes.\u201d
\nThe covenant at Sinai (Exodus 19\u201324) must be not only compared to the culture of the ancient Near East but contrasted as well. Walton provides a table that helps to show some of the differences (see table 9.5):<\/p>\n
Table 9.5 Literary Context of the Law in the Pentateuch and the Ancient Near East
\nExodus 19\u201324 \/ Deuteronomy
\nAncient Near Eastern Treatises
\nEssentially a self-revelation of deity
\nEssentially a self-glorification of the king
\nCovenant charter that synthesizes an entire detailed and organized vision of the \u201cright\u201d exercise of what it means to be a holy nation (Ex. 19:5\u20136; Deut. 26:19)
\nPolitical charter that synthesizes an entire detailed and organized vision of the \u201cright\u201d exercise of justice
\nStipulations of the covenant
\nTreatise on jurisprudence
\nPortrays the ideal covenant keeper
\nPortrays the ideal king
\nThe prime purpose of the biblical compilation is sanctification
\nThe prime purpose of the Mesopotamian compilations is justice<\/p>\n
Since the covenant in Exodus 20\u201323 entails covenant stipulations embodying the guidelines and Torah (i.e., instruction) of Yahweh for life in the land, the prescriptive statements were certainly intended to be obeyed. The covenant at Sinai is not just wisdom literature. Nonetheless, the case laws illustrate the righteousness of God in an Iron Age cultural setting and are bound by the psychology of that time. This aspect shows that the \u201claw\u201d is not eternal.
\nJeffrey Niehaus objects to the treatment of legal material provided by Walton. His lengthy objections can be cited in summary:<\/p>\n
The treatise hypothesis seems to fall short in light of the highly detailed nature of most of the laws contained in the ancient codes. A familiar example is the Code of Hammurapi [hereafter CH]. Hammurapi\u2019s laws address many different cases with a high degree of specificity and are laws in their own right, not just paradigms in a treatise (although, of course, they often provide models of judgment, just as the Mosaic laws, or for that matter, any secular laws can do, since we understand that no law code can anticipate all the details of every case that will arise). Furthermore, Hammurapi refers to himself as \u201cthe king of righteousness, to whom Shamash has given law\/justice\/truth (Akkadian k\u012bn\u0101tum)\u201d (CH xxvb.95\u201398)\u2014a claim that hardly seems refuted by the casuistic and list forms of the codex\u2019s contents (cf. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 288\u201391). Even if we understand k\u012bn\u0101tum as \u201cjustice\/truth\u201d rather than \u201claw,\u201d its historical usage indicates a state of being in alignment with divinely given standards of what is right (cf. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 8:383\u201384), and, again, it is given to the king by Shamash, the Mesopotamian god of laws and covenants. Moreover, this statement and statements by the king that he has given the land its law\/judgments (CH xxvb.60\u201374; cf. CH xxvb.80\u201384, \u201cThe procedure, the administration, and the law of the land, which I have given\u201d) stand in direct contradiction to Walton\u2019s statement, \u201cIn the ancient Near East we found that neither Shamash (the deity) nor Hammurabi (the king) could be considered a lawgiver\u201d (297).<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, Niehaus seems to miss the point made in the hypothesis that the legal materials are treatises. Two main issues are at stake. First, Niehaus confuses covenant and law. He says, \u201cAll covenants involve law, that is, stipulations that must be obeyed by one or both parties.\u201d This is a major confusion of categories. Covenant stipulations are not the same as laws in a legal code. Laws in a legal code are closer to requirements in a contract, not covenant stipulations. Second, Niehaus attempts to counter Walton by saying that the laws in the \u201claw codes\u201d are real precedents or precedents from real life. This completely misses the point of Walton\u2019s strong claim that the precedents in the \u201clegal treatises\u201d are never once appealed to in actual court cases in the many court records from Assyria and Babylonia. They may be real precedents in origin, but their purpose is to illustrate the justice and wisdom of the king, not to provide actual laws to be used in court (however real they may seem). Of course, the cases are specific; this is fundamental and natural for a model or paradigm. Moreover, Niehaus misrepresents Walton since he says that neither Shamash nor Hammurabi could be considered lawgivers. In an identical statement earlier, Walton puts \u201clawgivers\u201d in quotes to show that he does not mean lawgivers in the sense that we use the word in our Western society based on its Graeco-Roman heritage. At the end of our next chapter, on Deuteronomy, the issue of implications of the form of covenants and legal treatises will be carefully examined. Niehaus does not reflect on the fact that Exodus 19\u201324 and Deuteronomy may look like \u201claw codes\u201d in content but in fact are not in form and that they may look like a covenant in form but differ somewhat in content. Finally, Niehaus bolsters his view by employing \u201claw\u201d as an equivalent for Akkadian k\u012bn\u0101tum, but the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary to which he appeals gives only \u201ccorrect measure, justice, truth\u201d and never \u201claw\u201d as an equivalent. Even if in the genre of literature of which we are speaking the king administers justice as divinely given, this does not mean we have a law code as opposed to a treatise of the judicial wisdom of the king. Thus his appeal to the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary is weak.<\/p>\n
THE CEREMONY OF COVENANT RATIFICATION (EX. 24:1\u201311)<\/p>\n
Exodus 24 picks up the narrative after the Ten Words and the Judgments are recounted. Davies notes the close connection between chapters 24 and 19:<\/p>\n
In many ways Exod. 24:1\u201311 relates closely to the narrative of ch. 19, which it resumes after the suspension of movement by the recounting of the laws in chs. 20\u201323. Sarna has drawn attention to the perhaps deliberate use of \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 seven times in both chapters, and the sevenfold use of \u05d9\u05e8\u05d3 (\u201cdescend\u201d) in ch. 19, matched by a sevenfold use of \u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 (\u201cascend\u201d) in ch. 24. This is an extraordinary inclusio which would serve to bind the two chapters as anticipation and realization. In particular a close link is sometimes observed between the units 19:3b\u20138 and 24:3\u20138, units where the covenant is first proposed, then consummated.<\/p>\n
Two episodes dominate Exodus 24. The ceremony of covenant ratification is described in verses 1\u201311. In verses 12\u201318, Moses ascends Mount Sinai to receive instructions on how Israel is to worship God.
\nThe ceremony of covenant ratification is significant for our understanding of the Sinai covenant. First, Moses reports the Ten Words and the Judgments to the people, who, as in Exodus 19:7\u20138, agree to the covenant. Then Moses commits the Words and Judgments to writing in a document referred to in Exodus 24:7 as \u201cthe Book of the Covenant.\u201d Early in the morning he builds an altar and erects twelve pillars. Presumably, the altar represents Yahweh, for we are clearly told that the twelve-stone stelae represent the people, that is, the twelve tribes of Israel. Moses has assistants from the twelve tribes offer burnt offerings and fellowship\/peace offerings. Moses collects the blood from the bulls sacrificed and pours half on the altar. Next he reads the Book of the Covenant, and the people vow to obey and practice the covenant stipulations. Then he scatters\/tosses the other half of the blood on the people. In reality, he may have actually scattered the blood on the pillars that represented the people.
\nConcerning the blood tossed on the people, Bruce Waltke says, \u201cThe latter is called the \u2018blood of the covenant\u2019 because it effects the covenant relationship by cleansing the recipients from sin.\u201d This interpretation may appear plausible, but in this instance it is not sustained by all the evidence from the text. Fellowship offerings can be made to express thanksgiving or can be offered as the result of a vow, according to Leviticus 7:12\u201318. The latter is appropriate, since covenant making entails vows. The offering in Exodus 24 is not specified as a sin or reparation sacrifice, nor is the verb \u201csprinkled\u201d used, as is normal for offerings for sin. The blood is applied to the altar representing Yahweh as well as to the people, and certainly Yahweh does not need to be cleansed from sin. Instead, the ceremony indicates the meaning. Half of the blood is put on Yahweh, and half of the blood is put on the people. In between these two symbolic acts is the reading of the Book of the Covenant and the vow of the people to keep its stipulations. The symbolism is that the one blood joins the two parties. What is most similar to the ceremony of Exodus 24 is a wedding. Two people who are unrelated by blood are now, by virtue of the covenant of marriage, closer than any other kin relation. It is by virtue of the covenant at Sinai that Yahweh becomes the g\u014d\u2019\u0113l, the nearest relative, and that Israel becomes not just a nation but a \u201cpeople\u201d (\u05e2\u05dd), a kinship term specifying relationship to the Lord. This is clearly the interpretation of Jeremiah 31:32, where the new covenant \u201cis not like the covenant I made with their ancestors on the day I grasped them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, because they violated my covenant although I was a husband to them.\u201d Jeremiah\u2019s statement must be based on Exodus 24.
\nThis interpretation is confirmed by the fact that a party representing the people ascends the mountain and eats a meal. Examples of eating a communal meal to conclude a covenant are numerous. This ancient Near Eastern and biblical practice is the basis for banquets at weddings today.
\nDavies proposes an alternative interpretation to the covenant-ratification ceremony. He sees the rituals as a service for the ordination of Israel as a priest to God. At the conclusion, seventy elders who represent Israel have direct access to the divine presence. A chiasm is identified as support:<\/p>\n
a Expectation of nearness (Ex. 19:1\u201319)
\nb Unexpected warning to keep distance for fear of reprisal (Ex. 19:20\u201325)
\nc Revelation of the character expected of the people, followed by their fear and plea for mediation (Exodus 20)
\nb\u2032 Expectation of distance (Ex. 24:1\u20132)
\na\u2032 Unexpected nearness without reprisal (Ex. 24:9\u201311)<\/p>\n
Since access to the divine presence is at the heart of being a priest, the literary structure supports the arrival at this goal in the covenant-ratification ceremony.
\nDavies further supports his view by noting parallels between the covenant-ratification ceremony and the description of the service for ordaining the priests in Leviticus 8 as follows:<\/p>\n
There is a ritual washing and donning of clothing (Lev. 8:6\u20139; cf. Exod 19:10), sacrifices (Lev. 8:14\u201323; cf. Exod. 24:5), the application of blood to the altar (Lev. 8:15, 19, 24; cf. Exod. 24:6), the application of blood to the \u201cordinands\u201d (Lev. 8:23, 24, 30; cf. Exod. 24:8), followed by a meal before Yhwh (Lev. 8:31; cf. Exod. 24:11) and a period of time spent at the entrance to the tabernacle, that is, at the threshold of the replica of the heavenly sanctuary (Lev. 8:33, 35; cf. Exod. 24:10). There is the injunction [Hebrew] \u05d5\u05e9\u05c1\u05de\u05e8\u05ea\u05dd \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05de\u05e8\u05ea \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05d5 (\u201cYou are to keep Yhwh\u2019s charge, that you do not die,\u201d Lev. 8:35), and the chapter concludes with the note that \u201cAaron and his sons observed (\u05d5\u05d9\u05e2\u05e9\u05c2) all that Yhwh commanded through Moses\u201d (Lev. 8:36; cf. Exod. 24:3, 7).<\/p>\n
Davies\u2019s proposal that the ceremony in Exodus 24 \u201cordains\u201d Israel as a royal priest is confirmed in general terms by the movement from denial of access to the divine presence to unbelievable access to the divine presence. The parallels noted with Leviticus 8, however, are unpersuasive. What is significant is that the sacrifices in Leviticus 8 differ notably from those in Exodus 24. The ceremony in Leviticus 8 entails three sacrifices: (1) a bull for a sin offering \u05d7\u05d8\u05d0\u05ea), (2) a ram for a burnt offering (\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4), and (3) a second ram of ordination (\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd). The sacrifices in Exodus 24 are only two: (1) burnt offerings (\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4) and (2) peace or fellowship offerings (\u05d6\u05d1\u05d7 \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05dd), both of bulls (number of sacrifices unspecified). The two kinds of sacrifices in Exodus 24, \u201ctaken together,\u201d says Davies,<\/p>\n
have the characteristics of a rite for the removal of sin, that is, the movement from a state of unholiness to a state of holiness, the characteristic of God. They speak of reconciliation (atonement, Lev. 1:4), or the establishment of a communion with the deity, perhaps even a royal dignity, which would not otherwise be possible.<\/p>\n
Davies\u2019s explanation confuses the issue. The best brief and simple explanation of the meaning of Israel\u2019s sacrifices as described in Leviticus 1\u20137 can be found in the book A House for My Name, by Peter J. Leithart. Naturally, all the sacrifices have to do with humans, who are defiled and sinful, approaching God and being accepted by him. The burnt offerings, however, communicate the idea of consecration and devotion, and the fellowship or peace offerings focus on communion with God. The purification or sin offering is notably absent at the covenant-ratification ceremony in Exodus 24. Holiness has to do with being consecrated or devoted, but the focus here is not specifically on atonement or removal of sin.
\nThis assessment of the burnt offering and general interpretation of the sacrifices at the covenant ratification may be challenged by some. Concerning the burnt offering, Leviticus 1:4 states, \u201cHe shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him\u201d (ESV). In addition, Hebrews 9:11\u201328, which apparently cites Exodus 24:8, speaks of cleansing and forgiveness of sins.
\nLeviticus 1:4 does employ the term in Hebrew kipper rendered \u201cto make atonement for him.\u201d The meaning of this verb has been debated. A fresh semantic study has been made by Nobuyoshi Kiuchi. From careful and convincing handling of the data in Leviticus 1\u20134, he concludes that the verb means \u201cto make oneself (itself) k\u00f4per [ransom]\u201d and shows that the idea of appeasement or propitiation is entailed in the meaning. Although he calls this a \u201creflexive meaning,\u201d an explanation of the verb as a denominative Piel from k\u00f4per (\u201cransom\u201d) could mean \u201cto be\/do a k\u00f4per.\u201d This is intransitive instead of reflexive, although it can be explained as reflexive in English. What Hebrews 9:15\u201320 emphasizes is that the sacrifices represent the deaths of the covenant parties, and that is what brings the covenant into effect. The notion of purification arises in Hebrews 9 because he is summarizing the entire Levitical system, but it is not the focus of his treatment of Exodus 24. Thus the burnt offering is suitable for covenant making since this involves self-maledictory oaths and since only the death of a covenant party can appease the outrage or wrath of the party experiencing covenant violation. Such a challenge from Leviticus 1:4 or Hebrews 9, then, does not conflict in any way with the interpretation that Exodus 24 entails a marriage of the parties so that they are closer than kin.
\nDavies explores different options in an attempt to understand the significance of the meal in Exodus 24:<\/p>\n
Little is to be gained by insisting that the meal of Exod. 24:11 in and of itself be taken as constituting the definitive act of formal ratification of a covenant. In its literary setting, however, we cannot escape the observation that the meal follows close behind the references to \u201ccovenant\u201d (vv. 7, 8) and more generally brings to a certain climax the whole section (from ch. 19) which has had this relationship with Yhwh as its undergirding theme. While the word \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea may be lacking in the text right at this point, this fact of course is not determinative, as it is entirely lacking from 2 Samuel 7 as well, yet it is clear from such passages as Psalms 89 and 132 that the \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea or covenant of grant to David forms the substance of this chapter. Nicholson acknowledges that at a redactional level at least, the meal does function as closure to a covenant pericope. Some of the difficulty has been with some ill-founded assumptions about the nature of a covenant, and we must be wary of assuming that we have here something closely analogous to a suzerainty treaty (which is popularly regarded as the only viable covenant paradigm for the Sinai covenant). We must allow the text to speak for itself as to the nature of the \u201ccovenant\u201d with which this meal is associated, at least in the final form of the text.
\nIn line with the understanding presented here of the entire Sinai event as a recognition and affirmation of Israel\u2019s royal-priestly character, and hence favoured access to the presence of God, the meal may be regarded as a further demonstration of the substance of the declaration already made regarding Israel. That is, whatever else the meal may suggest, it is above all a clear indication of the unconstrained access enjoyed by Israel to the domain of God as his royal attendants, or priests.<\/p>\n
Certainly, Davies is on firm ground to assert that the meal represents favored access to God. But he misses much by not paying attention to the offerings and the one blood sprinkled on the two parties. Note Leithart\u2019s comments on Israel\u2019s offerings:<\/p>\n
At the tabernacle, Israel worships God mainly through bringing animals, killing them, and burning them on the altar. This kind of worship is often called \u201csacrifice,\u201d but this word is not exactly right. In the Bible, a \u201csacrifice\u201d is an offering that is followed by a meal. When there is no meal, the offering should not be called a \u201csacrifice.\u201d
\nTo understand Israel\u2019s worship, we need to understand two words that are used for all the animal offerings. The first word is the Hebrew word qorban (see Leviticus 1:2, 2:1; 3:1\u20132; 4:23; 5:11; 7:38). This word means a \u201cgift\u201d or \u201csomething brought near.\u201d For Israel, a gift is a very important thing. It is not just a \u201cpresent,\u201d like we might give on a birthday. When two people exchange gifts, they are forming a friendship or continuing a friendship. Exchanging gifts is one way of making a \u201ccovenant\u201d with someone, like a man and a woman who exchange rings at a wedding. At Sinai, God makes a covenant with Israel, so that Israel becomes His \u201cbride.\u201d Yahweh as the Husband of Israel promises many gifts, and to continue in the \u201cmarriage\u201d covenant, Israel is supposed to bring gifts.<\/p>\n
Note that the ordination in Leviticus 8 has no sacrifices; that is, no meal is involved in the ceremony. Leithart is on target to describe the covenant making at Sinai in terms of a marriage or wedding. Certainly, later prophets like Ezekiel and Hosea see it this way. And as Leithart goes on to point out, we eat to enjoy time with family and friends as well as to celebrate important events like birthdays, holidays, and weddings. The seventy elders, representing Israel, eat a meal with God because they are family and are celebrating a friendship\u2014they are celebrating marriage with God. Davies\u2019s interpretation, while not incorrect, is too narrow and restrictive, not considering the larger context of culture and the metanarrative of Scripture. The one blood is placed on the two parties to portray that their relationship is now as close as a blood or kin relationship. As the message of Hosea so loudly proclaims, it is the covenant at Sinai that makes Israel a people, a term showing that they are kin to Yahweh. Adultery, a violation of the marriage covenant, makes them \u201cnot my people\u201d (Hos. 1:9).<\/p>\n
THE COVENANT AT SINAI WITHIN THE LARGER STORY: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FORM<\/p>\n
Observing the form of the covenant as given in Exodus and Deuteronomy is important for properly understanding the Mosaic covenant and foundational for correlating the old covenant with the new. The form and literary structure in both Exodus and Deuteronomy show the following points:
\n1. The Ten Commandments are foundational to the ordinances, and conversely, the ordinances or case laws apply and extend the Ten Commandments in a practical way to all areas of life. Nonetheless, one cannot take the Ten Commandments as \u201ceternal\u201d and the ordinances as \u201ctemporal,\u201d for both sections together constitute the agreement or covenant made between God and Israel. It is one package: one cannot accept part of it and reject the other part.
\n2. It is common to categorize the laws as (a) moral, (b) civil, and (c) ceremonial, but this classification is foreign to the material and imposed on it from the outside rather than arising from the material and being clearly marked by the literary structure of the text. In fact, the ceremonial, civil, and moral laws are all mixed together, not only in the Judgments or ordinances but in the Ten Words as well (the keeping of the Sabbath may be properly classified as ceremonial). Those who claim the distinction between ceremonial, civil, and moral law do so because they want to affirm that the ceremonial (and in some cases, civil) laws no longer apply but that the moral laws are eternal. Unfortunately, John Frame in his magisterial work The Doctrine of the Christian Life and Bruce Waltke in his equally magisterial An Old Testament Theology perpetuate this tradition. This classification is an inaccurate representation of Scripture at this point. Exodus 24 clearly indicates that the Book of the Covenant consists of the Ten Words and the Judgments, and this is the covenant (both Ten Words and Judgments) that Jesus declares he has completely fulfilled (Matt. 5:17) and that Hebrews declares is now made obsolete by the new covenant (Heb. 8:13). What we can say to represent accurately the teaching of Scripture is that the righteousness of God codified, enshrined, and encapsulated in the old covenant has not changed, and that this same righteousness is now codified and enshrined in the new.
\n3. When one compares Exodus and Deuteronomy with contemporary documents from the ancient Near East in both content and form, two features are without parallel:<\/p>\n
a. In content, the biblical documents are identical to ancient Near Eastern law codes but do not have the form of a law code.
\nb. In form, the biblical documents are identical to ancient Near Eastern covenants or international treaties but not in content.<\/p>\n
This is extremely instructive. God desires to rule in the midst of his people as King. He wants to direct, guide, and instruct their lives and lifestyle. Yet he wants to do this in the context of a relationship of love, loyalty, and trust. This is completely different from Greek and Roman law codes or ancient Near Eastern law codes. They represent an impersonal code of conduct binding on all citizens and enforced by penalties from a controlling authority. We should always remember that Torah, by contrast, means personal \u201cinstruction\u201d from God as Father and King of his people rather than just \u201claw\u201d; thus a term like \u201ccovenantal instruction\u201d might be more useful.
\nOur view of the old covenant is enhanced by accurate exegesis that not only properly attends to the cultural context and language of the text but also allows the text to inform us of its own literary structure and considers the place of the text in the larger story. The biblical-theological framework is especially important because there we come to see the Ten Commandments not merely as fundamental requirements determining divine-human and human-human relationships as moral principles but as the foundation of true social justice and the basis of what it means to be a son or daughter of God, an Adamic figure\u2014that is, truly and genuinely human.
\nAs explored elsewhere, just as the righteousness of the old covenant can be summarized as \u201cfaithful, loyal love\u201d to God and fellow humans, so can the righteousness of the new covenant be summarized this same way. Differences exist between the old and new covenants in the detailed stipulations but not in the content of righteousness.<\/p>\n
10<\/p>\n
THE MOSAIC COVENANT<\/p>\n
Deuteronomy\/Moab<\/p>\n
The book of Deuteronomy brings us to the heart of the matter and also to the matter of the heart in relation to the Mosaic (or Israelite) covenant. In particular, Deuteronomy 6:4\u20139 is arguably the key text of the Old Testament. This is not stated for effect or to register my opinion as a scholar. Our Lord Jesus himself said so in his earthly instruction and teaching (Matt. 22:34\u201340). We must learn from Jesus and his apostles how to interpret the Old Testament as they did and discover how\/why they came to this conclusion.
\nIn John Bunyan\u2019s classic, The Pilgrim\u2019s Progress, Christian is living in the City of Destruction until he is instructed by Evangelist to flee the coming wrath and pursue the road to the Celestial City. Away over the bogs and fields he is pointed to a little wicket gate. When he passes through this gate, he will begin his journey to the Celestial City. We can say that Deuteronomy 6:4\u20139 is the wicket gate to the spiritual high road of the Old Testament.<\/p>\n
THE DATE OF DEUTERONOMY<\/p>\n
The consensus among scholars of the Old Testament is that the book of Deuteronomy was given its final form in the fifth century BC. This is unfortunate. The literary form\/structure of the text may be analyzed according to a variety of features and genres (i.e., homilies\/sermons vs. treaties) that are not mutually exclusive blended together in composite structure. According to markers in the text, the book can be divided into three major speeches or sermons given by Moses: (1) 1:1\u20134:43; (2) 4:44\u201328:68; (3) 29:1\u201330:20. Detailed discussion of the literary structure as a series of speeches will be given later. Alternatively, and not as a competing form but rather as a complementary structure, the book may be analyzed as having the form of a suzerain-vassal treaty of the type common among the Hittites in the fourteenth century BC. Neal Huddleston completed a dissertation of almost 1,200 pages in 2015 demonstrating that Deuteronomy has a composite structure, blending different discourse genres of preaching and treaty at the same time.
\nFirst, one example of scholars interpreting the literary structure according to the form of a suzerain-vassal treaty is the work of Kenneth. A. Kitchen in table 10.1:<\/p>\n
Table 10.1 Deuteronomy as a Suzerain-Vassal Treaty (Kitchen)
\n1. Title
\n1:1\u20135
\n2. Historical prologue
\n1:6\u20133:29
\n3. Stipulations
\na. Basic
\nb. Detailed
\n4\u201311
\n12\u201326
\n4a. Deposit of text
\n31:9, 24\u201326
\n4b. Public reading
\n31:10\u201313
\n5. Witnesses
\n31:16\u201330, 26; 32:1\u201347
\n6. Blessings and curses
\na. Blessings
\nb. Curses
\n28:1\u201314
\n28:15\u201368<\/p>\n
My own analysis of the text, however, influenced somewhat by Steven Guest and Norbert Lohfink, led me to recognize Deuteronomy 27 as corresponding to the document deposition and public reading and to conclude that the appeal to witnesses or god list section was absent. In addition, Deuteronomy 29\u201330 constitutes a formal ceremony where the parties make oaths or vows that solemnize the covenant. From a formal point of view, then, the pattern of the treaty structure would end at Deuteronomy 28:68. This analysis is displayed in table 10.2:<\/p>\n
Table 10.2 Deuteronomy as a Suzerain-Vassal Treaty (Gentry)
\n1. Preamble
\n1:1\u20135
\n2. Historical prologue
\n1:6\u20134:44
\n3. Stipulations
\na. General
\nb. Specific
\n4:45\u201311:32
\n12:1\u201326:19
\n4. Document clause
\n27:1\u201310
\n5. Appeal to witness
\n27:11\u201326
\n6. Blessings and curses
\n28:1\u201368
\n7. Solemn oath ceremony
\n29:1\u201330:20<\/p>\n
As a fundamental point, it must be noted that since no gods exist besides Yahweh, no appeal can be made to them, and therefore the appeal to witnesses section could not, by definition, be part of a covenant or treaty between Yahweh and Israel. So in Deuteronomy, the solemn oath ceremony is roughly equivalent to the appeal to witnesses in secular treaties. Nonetheless, as Daniel I. Block notes, \u201cIn the end, while the book has the broad structures and features of ANE treaties, homiletical and rhetorical concerns trump the treaty structure.\u201d
\nKitchen has extensively analyzed the form of treaties. What is interesting is that the literary form of the ancient Near Eastern treaties changes over time. This can be demonstrated quickly through tables. First, table 10.3 provides a comprehensive list of covenants\/treaties and legal treatises over three millennia in the ancient Near East.<\/p>\n
Table 10.3 Ancient Near East Covenants\/Treaties and Legal Treatises
\nPhase
\nDate
\nList of Documents
\nI. Archaic: Treaties
\nca. 2500\u20132300
\nA. East: Eannatum\/Umma; Naram-Sin\/Elam
\nB. West: Ebla; Abarsal
\nII. Early: Laws
\nca. 2100\u20131700
\nLate third millennium: Ur-Nammu
\nEarly second millennium: Lipit-Ishtar; Hammurabi
\nIII. Early: Treaties
\nca. 1800\u20131700
\nSeveral Mari and Tell Leilan treaties
\n2 Old Babylonian treaties
\nIV. Intermediate: Treaties
\nca. 1600\u20131400
\n2 North Syrian (Alalakh)
\n4 Hittite (Anatolia; Cilicia)
\nV. Middle: Treaties
\nca. 1400\u20131200
\n31+ treaties from the Hittites, Anatolia, Egypt, Syria
\nVI. Late: Treaties
\nca. 900\u2013650
\nA. East: 10 Mesopotamian treaties
\nB. West: 3 Sefir\u00e9 Aramaic treaties<\/p>\n
The literary structure of the early legal treatises can be displayed as shown in table 10.4:<\/p>\n
Table 10.4 Literary Structure of the Early Legal Treatises (Phase II)
\nPhase II
\nUr-Nammu
\nLipit-Ishtar
\nHammurabi
\n[1. Preamble (lost)]
\n1. Preamble
\n1. Preamble
\n2. Prologue: Theological Historical Ethical
\n2. Prologue: Theological
\n2. Prologue: Theological
\n3. Laws
\n3. Laws
\n3. Laws
\n(lost)
\n9. Epilogue
\n9. Epilogue
\n(lost)
\n6a. Blessings
\n6a. Blessings
\n(lost)
\n6b. Curses
\n6b. Curses<\/p>\n
Finally, tables 10.5 and 10.6 present the form and literary structure of the treaties from phases III through VI:<\/p>\n
Table 10.5 Phases III and IV
\nPhase III
\nPhase IV
\nMari\/Leilan
\nNorth Syria
\nHittites
\n5. Witness
\n7. Oaths
\n1. Title
\n1. Title
\n5. Witnesses
\n3. Stipulations
\n3. Stipulations
\n3. Stipulations
\n6b. Curses
\n6b. Curses
\n7. Oath
\n6b. Curses<\/p>\n
Table 10.6 Phases V and VI
\nPhase V
\nIsraelite Covenant
\nPhase VI: West
\nPhase VI: East
\nHittite Treaties
\nExodus 20 Deuteronomy
\nSefir\u00e9
\nAssyria
\n1. Title
\n1. Title
\n1. Title
\n1. Title
\n2. Historical prologue
\n2. Historical prologue
\n5. Witnesses
\n5. Witnesses
\n3. Stipulations
\n3. Stipulations
\n6b. Curses
\n3. Stipulations
\n4. Deposit of text \/ public reading
\n4. Deposit of text \/ public reading
\n3. Stipulations
\n6b. Curses
\n5. Witnesses
\n5. Witnesses
\n6b. Curses
\n6a. Blessings
\n6a. Blessings
\n6b. Curses<\/p>\n
Two major observations are obvious by considering the hard data. First, the form and literary structure of the treaties change over the centuries, and the form of Deuteronomy best matches only those of the fourteenth century BC. It does not match the forms of the earlier or later treaties.
\nSecond, while the form of Deuteronomy clearly follows that of the Hittite suzerain-vassal treaties of the fourteenth century, in actuality it represents an amalgam or confluence of the legal treatises and political treaties of its time, since the order of the blessings and curses matches that of the legal treatises, although the fact that there are few blessings and many curses corresponds to the suzerain-vassal treaties. Kitchen expresses it this way:<\/p>\n
Sinai is neither just law nor properly a treaty. It represents a confluence of these two, producing a further facet in group relationships, namely, social-political-religious covenant. Law, treaty, and covenant in this context are three parts of a triptych. Law regulates relations between members of a group within the group. Treaty regulates relations between members of two groups politically distinct (or, with vassals, originally so). Covenant in our context regulates relations between a group and its ruling deity. It is thus \u201creligious\u201d in serving its deity through worship; social in that the mandatory content of the covenant is rules for practical living (law); and political in that the deity has the role of exclusive sovereign over the group. The confluence shows up in three details in particular. First the overall framework format and main range of contents is drawn from the treaty format of the fourteenth\/thirteenth centuries; second the law content of the stipulations derives from law, not treaty, and the Sinai covenant\u2019s use of short blessings plus longer curses (not the roughly equal curses and blessings of the Hittites) goes back to the older law collections\u2019 usage; third, use of the interim epilogues before these final sanctions likewise goes back to the older law collections, not treaty.<\/p>\n
More will be said about this topic later, but the evidence from the ancient Near East strongly supports the book of Deuteronomy as coming from the time that the internal evidence of the text indicates: the era of Moses.<\/p>\n
DEUTERONOMY: THE CENTER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT<\/p>\n
The book of Deuteronomy is the center of the entire Old Testament, in terms of both metanarrative and theology.
\nFirst, Deuteronomy brings to a climax and conclusion the Pentateuch, or first five books of the Bible. According to the book of Genesis, God called Abraham to give him a land from which would emanate his blessing and salvation to the ends of the earth. In Deuteronomy, Abraham\u2019s family are now poised at the entrance to that land, and they are given instructions on how to live in the land, so that they might be a blessing and bring salvation to the ends of the earth.
\nThe book of Exodus narrates how God redeemed Israel out of Egypt so that they might come to a mountain and worship him and begin to live their lives in conformity with his word as a holy nation and royal priesthood. Further instructions for their worship of God and detailed guidelines on what devotion to the covenant Lord entails are given in the book of Leviticus. The book of Deuteronomy supplements the covenant thus given in Exodus and Leviticus; it completes it (Deut. 28:69 [29:1 EV]). Moreover, the wanderings through the wilderness that are the subject of the book of Numbers bring them to this very point. Thus, Deuteronomy is the climax of the Pentateuch.
\nThe historical books Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings (known in the Hebrew canon as the Former Prophets) present a history of Israel based on and evaluated from the point of view of the Israelite covenant, particularly as given in Deuteronomy. For example, Israel and Judah are evaluated on the basis of the command for the centralization of worship in Deuteronomy 12\u2014Israel for the centers established by Jeroboam and Judah for her high places. The history of the monarchy is evaluated according to Deuteronomy 17. And the efficacy of the prophetic word is evaluated on the basis of Deuteronomy 18 (e.g., 2 Kings 24:2). It is commonplace among scholars today to refer to Joshua through Kings as \u201cthe Deuteronomistic history\u201d since the perspective of the book of Deuteronomy provides the \u201chistoriographical method\/philosophy\u201d of the authors. Where scholars are entirely askew, however, is in dating the book of Deuteronomy to the sixth or fifth century BC. Deuteronomy was written first, and afterward, the history of Israel was written from the perspective of this central document in the canon of the Old Testament.
\nThe Mosaic covenant, especially the expression or form of the covenant as it is constituted in Deuteronomy, is also the basis and foundation for the Latter Prophets\u2014Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Prophets. The central concern of the prophets was to call the people back to the covenant. The people constantly violated the covenant by following idols and failing to fulfill the covenant stipulations. As demonstrated so ably by Claus Westermann in his book Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, both their promises and their threats, as well as even their sentences, are all based on the book of Deuteronomy. Just one example is the expression \u201cthe stubbornness of their (evil) heart\u201d\u2014an absolute favorite of the prophet Jeremiah. He uses it eight times (Jer. 3:17; 7:24; 9:13; 11:8; 13:10; 16:12; 18:12; 23:17). This expression is derived from Deuteronomy 29:18, and it occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Psalm 81:13 (81:12 EV).
\nWhen the Psalms speaks of the Torah of Yahweh\u2014\u201cOn his law he meditates day and night\u201d (Ps. 1:2)\u2014the psalmist is referring to the book of Deuteronomy. It is also what is celebrated in the longest Psalm\u2014Psalm 119.
\nBruce Waltke has shown that the book most closely connected to the theology of the book of Proverbs is the book of Deuteronomy. Proverbs contains the instruction that the king and queen together gave their son to raise him in the ways of the Lord. The Torah, or instruction, of the covenant (Deuteronomy) is presented as a beautiful woman to attract the son to follow this way. Failure to follow this way is not so much sin against the Lord as just plain folly and stupidity, bringing loss in every way in one\u2019s life. Similarly, Song of Songs presents the skillful way in marriage. And as far as Job is concerned, without the covenant and the related notion of the g\u014d\u2019\u0113l (kinsman-redeemer), its instruction on suffering would be emasculated. Precisely because Israel is married to Yahweh by virtue of the covenant making at Sinai and thus becomes \u201chis people,\u201d he is now her nearest relative, who will step in to lift her out of debt and suffering.
\nThe centrality of Deuteronomy to the rest of the Old Testament may perhaps be displayed as follows:<\/p>\n
Deuteronomy and Genesis: land promised, land entered
\nDeuteronomy and Exodus\u2013Leviticus: addition to covenant
\nDeuteronomy and Numbers: completes wanderings
\nDeuteronomy as basis of Joshua\u2013Kings (Deuteronomistic history)
\nDeuteronomy as basis of Prophets
\nDeuteronomy as basis of Wisdom texts<\/p>\n
DEUTERONOMY 6:4\u20135: THE CENTER OF THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY<\/p>\n
When the book of Deuteronomy is considered from the perspective of the suzerain-vassal-treaty form, the command in 6:5 (\u201cYou shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength\u201d) is placed immediately after the preamble and historical prologue in the section providing the general stipulation of the covenant. Within this section, it is, in fact, the first command given after material repeated from Exodus 19\u201324, and it is also the greatest command among all the covenant stipulations: to be completely devoted and loyal to Yahweh. This command is the foundation of all the requirements and stipulations of the covenant. In the section Deuteronomy 4:44\u201311:32, Moses is concerned to expound this one requirement as fully as possible.
\nViktor Koro\u0161ec, who pioneered analysis of the suzerain-vassal treaties, makes the following statement concerning this section of the treaty:<\/p>\n
What the description amounts to is this: that the vassal is obligated to perpetual gratitude toward the great king because of the benevolence, consideration, and favor which he has already received. Immediately following this, the devotion of the vassal to the great king is expressed as a logical consequence.<\/p>\n
Placing Deuteronomy 6:5 within the context of the literary structure demonstrates, as one might expect, that Jesus was right: this is both the first and the greatest command in the covenant: wholehearted devotion to the great King. From what has been said so far, it is therefore the key text of the Old Testament.<\/p>\n
WHAT IT MEANS TO LOVE GOD<\/p>\n
The central command to love God is modified by three prepositional phrases: (1) \u201cwith all your heart,\u201d (2) \u201cwith all your soul,\u201d and (3) \u201cwith all your strength.\u201d Each will be considered in turn.
\nIn Hebrew, the word \u201cheart\u201d refers to the core of who one is, the center of each person. It refers, in particular, to the place where we feel, where we think, and where we make decisions and plans, that is, to the emotions, mind, and will. This can be easily seen from the following illustrative passages:<\/p>\n
Feelings
\nA glad heart makes a cheerful face,
\nbut by sorrow of heart the spirit is crushed. (Prov. 15:13 ESV)<\/p>\n
A joyful heart is good medicine,
\nbut a crushed spirit dries up the bones. (Prov. 17:22 ESV)<\/p>\n
When these proverbs refer to a \u201cglad heart\u201d or a \u201cjoyful heart,\u201d they are clearly referring to one\u2019s emotions and feelings in terms of a healthy psyche.<\/p>\n
Reasoning
\nBut to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear. (Deut. 29:4 ESV)<\/p>\n
Make the heart of this people dull,
\nand their ears heavy,
\nand blind their eyes;
\nlest they see with their eyes,
\nand hear with their ears,
\nand understand with their hearts,
\nand turn and be healed. (Isa. 6:10 ESV)<\/p>\n
In both Deuteronomy 29:4 and Isaiah 6:10, one understands with the heart; surely, then, what is being referred to is what we normally call the mind. This is the place where we reason and think and understand.<\/p>\n
Will
\nThe heart of man plans his way,
\nbut the LORD establishes his steps. (Prov. 16:9 ESV)<\/p>\n
May he grant you your heart\u2019s desire
\nand fulfill all your plans! (Ps. 20:4 ESV)<\/p>\n
Proverbs 16:9 and Psalm 20:4 show that the \u201cheart\u201d makes plans and has desires; it is the place where we make decisions. Concerning the Hebrew word \u201cheart,\u201d H. W. Wolff says:<\/p>\n
In by far the greatest number of cases it is intellectual, rational functions that are ascribed to the heart\u2014i.e. precisely what we ascribe to the head and, more exactly, to the brain; cf. 1 Sam. 25:37.\u2026 We must guard against the false impression that biblical man is determined more by feeling than by reason.<\/p>\n
According to Hans W. Wolff, the Hebrew word \u201cheart\u201d refers to the mind in approximately 400 out of 814 passages speaking of the human heart. This supports his warning that \u201cwe must guard against the false impression that biblical man is determined more by feeling than by reason.\u201d
\nWe should note, then, that the biblical language differs markedly from our own in the Western world. For us, the heart is associated with emotions, feelings, love, and Valentine\u2019s Day. Conversely, for the Bible, the heart is where we reason and think and make decisions and plans. We can frequently speak of people who cannot bridge the eighteen-inch gap between the head and the heart. The ancient Hebrews knew no such gap. The heart is the center of one\u2019s being and the place where emotions, mind, and will operate in harmony and union.
\nNotice how the text of Deuteronomy 6:5 is quoted in the Gospels:<\/p>\n
Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: \u201cTeacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?\u201d
\nJesus replied: \u201c \u2018Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.\u2019 This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: \u2018Love your neighbor as yourself.\u2019 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.\u201d (Matt. 22:34\u201340 NIV)<\/p>\n
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, \u201cOf all the commandments, which is the most important?\u201d
\n\u201cThe most important one,\u201d answered Jesus, \u201cis this: \u2018Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.\u2019 The second is this: \u2018Love your neighbor as yourself.\u2019 There is no commandment greater than these.\u201d
\n\u201cWell said, teacher,\u201d the man replied. \u201cYou are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.\u201d When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, \u201cYou are not far from the kingdom of God.\u201d And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions. (Mark 12:28\u201334 NIV)<\/p>\n
He answered: \u201c \u2018Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind\u2019; and, \u2018Love your neighbor as yourself.\u2019 \u201d (Luke 10:27 NIV)<\/p>\n
In the Gospel of Matthew, the command is cited as loving God with all your \u201cheart\u201d (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1), \u201csoul\u201d (\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae), and \u201cmind\u201d (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1). In the Gospel of Mark the command is cited as loving God with all your \u201cheart\u201d (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1), \u201csoul\u201d (\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae), \u201cmind\u201d (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1), and \u201cstrength\u201d (\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03c2), which the response of the scribe shortens to with all your \u201cheart\u201d (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1), \u201cunderstanding\u201d (\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), and \u201cstrength\u201d (\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03c2). And in the Gospel of Luke the command is cited as loving God with all your \u201cheart\u201d (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1), \u201csoul\u201d (\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae), \u201cstrength\u201d (\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03c2), and \u201cmind\u201d (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1). In Matthew \u201cstrength\u201d is omitted while \u201cmind\u201d is added; in Mark and in Luke \u201cmind\u201d is added and nothing is omitted\u2014four things are mentioned. In the scribe\u2019s shortened version, \u201csoul\u201d is omitted and \u201cunderstanding\u201d is added. Central to all citations in the Gospels is the addition of mind or understanding. The reason for this is that the Greek word \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1 (\u201cheart\u201d) does not sufficiently convey to the audience of the first century the fact that reasoning and thinking are included in the functions of the heart in Hebrew.
\nWe should not think that merely intellectual pursuits are equivalent to loving God. According to the context, loving God has to do with fearing him, obeying his commands, and passing on his instructions to another generation.
\nSecond in the command in Deuteronomy 6:5 is to love the Lord \u201cwith all your soul.\u201d \u201cSoul\u201d renders the Hebrew word nepesh (\u05e0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1). One of the best discussions of this term is by Wolff. The original meaning is \u201cthroat,\u201d and hence, by extension it can refer to our \u201cdesire\u201d or \u201clonging.\u201d The soul thus designates the organ of \u201cdesires\u201d or of \u201cvital needs\u201d that have to be satisfied if man is to go on living. In this way the term comes to mean \u201csoul\u201d or \u201clife.\u201d Our entire life in terms of our desires and needs is to be devoted to the Lord.
\nThird, we are to love the Lord with all our \u201cstrength.\u201d This translation renders the Hebrew word \u05de\u05b0\u05d0\u05b9\u05d3, normally an adverb meaning \u201cexceedingly\u201d or \u201cgreatly.\u201d The lexicons give the meaning \u201cpower\u201d or \u201cstrength\u201d for \u05de\u05b0\u05d0\u05b9\u05d3 as a noun only for Deuteronomy 6:5 and 2 Kings 23:25 amid the approximately three hundred instances in the Hebrew Bible. Possibly the word ought to be construed as functioning as an adverb here as well. The meaning would be, \u201cYou shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul\u2014and that to the fullest extent.\u201d<\/p>\n
THE COVENANT FORMULA IN DEUTERONOMY<\/p>\n
In our analysis of Genesis 17, we noted the first instance of the Covenant Formula (\u201cI will be their God,\u201d 17:8; cf. 17:7). Rendtorff, in a major study, identified three variants of this formula. He designates them \u201cFormula A,\u201d \u201cI will be God for you [\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05dc\u05da\u05b8 \u05dc\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd]\u201d (occurring sixteen times); \u201cFormula B,\u201d \u201cYou shall be a people for him [\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9 \u05dc\u05e2\u05dd]\u201d (occurring ten times); and \u201cFormula C,\u201d a combination of the two formulae (occurring twelve times).
\nMore recently, Steven Guest completed a doctoral dissertation devoted to the study of the Covenant Formula in Deuteronomy. The main points of his research are summarized as follows. He notes that the Covenant Formula is found precisely seven times in the book of Deuteronomy as a whole (Deut. 26:17\u201318 is counted as one instance):<\/p>\n
1. Deuteronomy 4:20<\/p>\n
\u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05b0\u05db\u05b6\u05dd \u05dc\u05b8\u05e7\u05b7\u05d7 \u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e6\u05b4\u05d0 \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05b0\u05db\u05b6\u05dd \u05de\u05b4\u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d6\u05b6\u05dc \u05de\u05b4\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05e6\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd
\n\u05dc\u05b4\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9 \u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b7\u05dd \u05e0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b2\u05dc\u05b8\u05d4 \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd \u05d4\u05b7\u05d6\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4\u05c3<\/p>\n
But as for you, the LORD took you and brought you out of the iron-smelting furnace, out of Egypt, to be the people of his inheritance, as you now are. (NIV)<\/p>\n
2. Deuteronomy 7:6<\/p>\n
\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05e2\u05b7\u05dd \u05e7\u05b8\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d0\u05b7\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05dc\u05b7\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b6\u05d9\u05da\u05b8 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05da\u05b8 \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u05e8 \u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b6\u05d9\u05da\u05b8
\n\u05dc\u05b4\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05dc\u05b9\u05d5 \u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b7\u05dd \u05e1\u05b0\u05d2\u05bb\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05de\u05b4\u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05dc \u05d4\u05b8\u05e2\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u05be\u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u05c3<\/p>\n
For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. (NIV)<\/p>\n
3. Deuteronomy 14:2<\/p>\n
\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05e2\u05b7\u05dd \u05e7\u05b8\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d0\u05b7\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05dc\u05b7\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b6\u05d9\u05da\u05b8 \u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b0\u05da\u05b8 \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d7\u05b7\u05e8 \u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4
\n\u05dc\u05b4\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9 \u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b7\u05dd \u05e1\u05b0\u05d2\u05bb\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05de\u05b4\u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05dc \u05d4\u05b8\u05e2\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u05be\u05e4\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b2\u05d3\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05d4\u05c3<\/p>\n
For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the LORD has chosen you to be his treasured possession. (NIV)<\/p>\n
4a. Deuteronomy 26:17<\/p>\n
\u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d4\u05b6\u05d0\u05b1\u05de\u05b7\u05e8\u05b0\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc \u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd \u05dc\u05b4\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05dc\u05b0\u05da\u05b8 \u05dc\u05b5\u05d0\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/p>\n
You have declared this day that the LORD is your God. (NIV)<\/p>\n
4b. Deuteronomy 26:18<\/p>\n
\u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d4\u05b6\u05d0\u05b1\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05e8\u05b0\u05da\u05b8 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd \u05dc\u05b4\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9 \u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b7\u05dd \u05e1\u05b0\u05d2\u05bb\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05e8\u05be\u05dc\u05b8\u05da\u05b0<\/p>\n
And the LORD has declared this day that you are his people, his treasured possession as he promised. (NIV)<\/p>\n
5. Deuteronomy 27:9<\/p>\n
\u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd \u05d4\u05b7\u05d6\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4 \u05e0\u05b4\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05b5\u05d9\u05ea\u05b8 \u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05dd \u05dc\u05b7\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b6\u05d9\u05da\u05b8\u05c3<\/p>\n
You have now become the people of the LORD your God. (NIV)<\/p>\n
6. Deuteronomy 28:9<\/p>\n
\u05d9\u05b0\u05e7\u05b4\u05d9\u05de\u05b0\u05da\u05b8 \u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9 \u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b7\u05dd \u05e7\u05b8\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05e9\u05c1 \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05e0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05e2\u05be\u05dc\u05b8\u05da\u05b0<\/p>\n
The LORD will establish you as his holy people, as he promised you on oath. (NIV)<\/p>\n
7. Deuteronomy 29:13<\/p>\n
\u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05df \u05d4\u05b8\u05e7\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\u05be\u05d0\u05b9\u05ea\u05b0\u05da\u05b8 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9 \u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05dd \u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05b4\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05b6\u05d4\u05be\u05dc\u05b0\u05bc\u05da\u05b8 \u05dc\u05b5\u05d0\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd<\/p>\n
\u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05e8\u05be\u05dc\u05b8\u05da\u05b0<\/p>\n
\u2026 to confirm you this day as his people, that he may be your God as he promised you. (NIV)<\/p>\n
Not only is the Covenant Formula found seven times in Deuteronomy, but also the Covenant Formula occurs in each of the main sections of the book (not counting the preamble) as divided according to the literary structure of Hittite treaties from the fourteenth century BC (see table 10.7).<\/p>\n
Table 10.7 The Covenant Relationship Formula (CRF) in the Literary Sections of Deuteronomy
\nHittite Treaty Formulary
\nRepresented in Deuteronomy
\nCRF Used (Reference)
\n1. Preamble
\n1:1\u20135
\nNone
\n2. Historical prologue
\n1:6\u20134:44
\nFormula B (4:20)
\n3a. General stipulation
\n4:45\u201311:32
\nFormula B (7:6)
\n3b. Specific stipulations
\n12:1\u201326:15
\nFormula B (14:2)
\n26:16\u201319
\nFormula C (26:17\u201319)
\n4. Document clause
\n27:1\u20138
\nNone
\n27:9\u201310
\nFormula B (27:9)
\n5. Appeal to witness
\n27:11\u201326
\nNone
\n6. Blessings and curses
\n28:1\u201369 [Eng 29:1]
\nFormula B (28:9)
\n7. Solemn oath ceremony
\n29:1 [Eng 29:2]\u201330:20
\nFormula C (29:12)<\/p>\n
Not only is the Covenant Formula found in each of the major sections, it also occurs at a key point in the literary structure of each section. Two examples may suffice.
\nThe literary structure of Deuteronomy 4:15\u201324 may be represented by the following chiasm:<\/p>\n
a Watch yourselves (4:15)
\nb Don\u2019t act corruptly (4:16\u201319)
\nc Covenant relationship formula (4:20)
\nb\u2032 I acted corruptly (4:21\u201322)
\na\u2032 Watch yourselves (4:23\u201324)<\/p>\n
Note how the Covenant Formula appears at the center of the section according to its chiastic structure.
\nThe blessings in Deuteronomy 28:7\u201314 are also arranged in a chiastic pattern:<\/p>\n
a Blessing against enemies (28:7)
\nb Blessing in the land (28:8)
\nc Blessing in relationship (28:9\u201310)
\nb\u2032 Blessing on the land (28:11\u201312)
\na\u2032 Blessing over all (28:13\u201314)<\/p>\n
Once again, the covenantal formula occurs in verse 9, at the center of this literary structure.
\nGuest likens the double version of the Covenant Formula in Deuteronomy 26:17\u201319 to the keystone of a bridge (made of stone) and provides support for this claim by demonstrating the centrality of 26:17\u201319 in the chiastic macrostructure of the book as a whole:<\/p>\n
a Blessing and curse in a covenant renewal under Moses (11:26\u201328)
\nb Blessing and curse in a covenant renewal at Shechem (11:29\u201332)
\nc Mutual commitments made between Yahweh and Israel (26:16\u201319)
\nb\u2032 Blessing and curse in a covenant renewal at Shechem (27:1\u201316)
\na\u2032 Blessing and curse in a covenant renewal under Moses (28:1\u201369)<\/p>\n
The text of Deuteronomy 26:16\u201319 is difficult because of the hiphil forms of the verb \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 (\u201cto say\u201d), found only here in the Hebrew Bible. A literal translation could read as follows:<\/p>\n
You have caused the LORD to say today to be your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes and his commandments and his ordinances, and to obey his voice. And the LORD has caused you to say today to be to him a people of special treasure, just as he promised you, and to keep all his commandments, and to set you high above all the nations which he has made for praise and for fame and for honor, and to be a holy people to the LORD your God, just as he promised.<\/p>\n
Each partner is \u201ccaused to say\u201d four phrases (expressed in infinitives in Hebrew). The partner obligations are as shown in table 10.8:<\/p>\n
Table 10.8 Treaty Obligations in Their Infinitival Forms
\nSpeaker
\nSpeaker Obligation
\nPartner Obligation
\nYahweh
\n(26:17)
\n\u05dc\u05b4\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05dc\u05b0\u05da\u05b8 \u05dc\u05b5\u05d0\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd
\n\u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05dc\u05b6\u05db\u05b6\u05ea \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d3\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05db\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5
\n\u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b9\u05e8 \u05d7\u05bb\u05e7\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d8\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5
\n\u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b9\u05e2\u05b7 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e7\u05b9\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9
\nIsrael
\n(26:18\u201319)
\n\u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b9\u05e8 \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05be\u05de\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5
\n\u05dc\u05b4\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9 \u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b7\u05dd \u05e1\u05b0\u05d2\u05bb\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05e8\u05be\u05dc\u05b8\u05da\u05b0
\n\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05da\u05b8 \u05e2\u05b6\u05dc\u05b0\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05df \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05b7\u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8
\n\u05e2\u05b8\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05d4 \u05dc\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dd \u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05e4\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05ea
\n\u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b4\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05b9\u05ea\u05b0\u05da\u05b8 \u05e2\u05b7\u05dd\u05be\u05e7\u05b8\u05d3\u05b9\u05e9\u05c1 \u05dc\u05b7\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b6\u05d9\u05da\u05b8
\n\u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8<\/p>\n
The first phrase in the first set of four is the commitment of Yahweh, and the last three are Israel\u2019s. The second phrase in the second set of four is the commitment of Israel, and the first one and last two phrases are Yahweh\u2019s. Guest diagrams the commitments as follows (table 10.9):<\/p>\n
Table 10.9 Mutual Covenant Commitments (Deut. 26:16\u201319)
\nYahweh Speaks
\nIsrael Speaks
\nCommitment
\n\u05dc\u05b4\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05dc\u05b0\u05da\u05b8 \u05dc\u05b5\u05d0\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd
\n\u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b9\u05e8 \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05be\u05de\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5
\nCommitment
\nThe terms
\n\u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05dc\u05b6\u05db\u05b6\u05ea \u05d1\u05b4\u05bc\u05d3\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05db\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5
\n\u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b9\u05e8 \u05d7\u05bb\u05e7\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d8\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5
\n\u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b9\u05e2\u05b7 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e7\u05b9\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9
\n\u05dc\u05b4\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05dc\u05d5\u05b9 \u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05b7\u05dd \u05e1\u05b0\u05d2\u05bb\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05e8\u05be\u05dc\u05b8\u05da\u05b0
\n\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05bc\u05da\u05b8 \u05e2\u05b6\u05dc\u05b0\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05df \u05e2\u05b7\u05dc \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05b7\u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05e2\u05b8\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05d4
\n\u05dc\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05d4\u05b4\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05dd \u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05e4\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05ea
\n\u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b4\u05d4\u05b0\u05d9\u05b9\u05ea\u05b0\u05da\u05b8 \u05e2\u05b7\u05dd\u05be\u05e7\u05b8\u05d3\u05b9\u05e9\u05c1 \u05dc\u05b7\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b6\u05d9\u05da\u05b8
\n\u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05d3\u05b4\u05bc\u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05e8
\nThe benefits<\/p>\n
Thus the subjects of the infinitives could be filled out as follows:<\/p>\n
a I shall be your God
\nb You shall walk in my ways
\nYou shall keep my statutes and my commandments and my ordinances
\nYou shall listen to my voice
\nb\u2032 We shall keep all your commandments
\na\u2032 You shall make us your people of special possession
\nYou shall set us high above all the nations you have made
\nYou shall make us a holy people<\/p>\n
In this diagram the first four phrases (a and b lines) are spoken by Yahweh, and the final four phrases (b\u2032 and a\u2032 lines) are spoken by Israel. Nonetheless, the arrangement is given an interlocking structure for rhetorical effect.
\nGuest comments on the difficulty of the hiphil forms as follows:<\/p>\n
The difficulty arises \u2026 that the English language does not have a functional equivalent to \u201cX caused Y to say\u201d that can capture the juridical nature of the exchange. It may be that the best one can offer is a periphrastic translation that maintains the integrity of the identities of the corresponding partners and their statements of the obligations accepted upon themselves and the corollary stipulations expected from the other. The relational component of the covenant must be fronted in both expressions to highlight the priority given to the relationship by Yahweh.<\/p>\n
Guest then supplies an idiomatic rendering:<\/p>\n
Today, you have ratified the declaration of the LORD: that he would be your God, that you will walk in his ways, and that you will keep his statutes, his commandments, and his ordinances, and that you will listen to his voice. Today, the LORD has ratified your declaration: that you would be to him a people of special possession, just as he promised you, and that you will keep all his commandments, and that he will set you high above all the nations which he has made for praise and for fame and for honor, and that you will be a holy people to the LORD your God, just as he promised.<\/p>\n
The narrative that undergirds these verses is the covenant oath exchanged between Yahweh and Israel on the plains of Moab, articulated in relational terms. The statements of mutual obligation and stipulations are declared and ratified by both partners. As Guest puts it,<\/p>\n
It is at this moment that the suzerain Yahweh steps forward, and\u2014as anticipated by and as required by this solemn and sacred ceremony\u2014makes his gracious and awesome offer: \u201cI will be your God.\u201d But his declaration does not stop there. He continues by asserting fully the stipulations commensurate with the obligation which he has assumed: \u201cYou will walk in my ways, you will keep my statutes, my commandments, and my ordinances, and you will listen to (obey) my voice.\u201d
\nIn response\u2014recognizing the incredible privilege of having Yahweh as their God\u2014vassal Israel acknowledges its unique relationship that is the result of Yahweh\u2019s ancient oath to the patriarchs and states, \u201cWe are your people of special possession, just as you promised us; we will keep all your commandments. You will set us on high above all the nations you have made\u2014for your praise and fame and honor; and we will be a people holy to Yahweh our God, just as you promised.
\nThus this text reveals that Yahweh initiates the covenant by committing himself to be Israel\u2019s God and by reiterating the attending stipulations of that covenant.<\/p>\n
Deuteronomy 26, in which the double Covenant Formula is found, is devoted to three ceremonies: (1) a ceremony of confession for the first-fruits tithe (26:1\u201311), (2) a ceremony of confession for the triennial tithe (26:12\u201315), and (3) a ceremony of confession for covenant ratification (26:16\u201319). Guest observes interesting parallels hitherto unnoticed in form, offering, confession, and grace between all three of these ceremonies:<\/p>\n
Yahweh\u2014instead of giving gifts of land, produce, or even deliverance from slavery, as in the first two ceremonies\u2014offers himself to Israel to be their God. And in a strikingly parallel manner, Israel responds to Yahweh\u2019s gracious gift by offering themselves back to Yahweh to be his people of special possession and a people holy to Yahweh. In this instance, the \u201ctoken\u201d of Israel\u2019s grateful response and pledge of continual faithfulness is neither a first fruit nor a tithe but rather a commitment to covenant loyalty as expressed in the wholehearted keeping of all his commandments (\u05d5\u05b0\u05dc\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05b9\u05e8 \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05be\u05de\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea\u05b8\u05d9\u05d5).<\/p>\n
As Guest claims, the Covenant Formula is central to tying the literary structure together:<\/p>\n
Once the alternative schema for the covenantal framework of Deuteronomy was established, the observation that the covenant relationship formula was employed a single time in each of the components of the covenantal framework reinforced the notion that there was a literary, if not theological, significance to the formula.<\/p>\n
Guest concludes that the Covenant Formula in 26:16\u201319,<\/p>\n
like the keystone in the old stone bridge, serves as the focal point which defines, unifies, and bears the weight of the covenantal framework of Deuteronomy. In turn this affirms Rendtorff\u2019s observation that the \u201ccovenant formula is an element of theological language which is introduced in a highly conscious manner.\u201d<\/p>\n
THE RELATIONSHIP OF DEUTERONOMY TO EARLIER COVENANTS<\/p>\n
R. N. Whybray describes as common ground among the critics the view that in relation to Genesis through Numbers, the book of Deuteronomy is \u201can alien block of material.\u201d What are we to make of this claim? An important question is the relationship between the book of Deuteronomy and Exodus 19\u201324, designated in Exodus 24:7 as \u201cthe Book of the Covenant.\u201d
\nIn broad strokes there are two or three major views of the relation of the book of Deuteronomy to the earlier material: (1) that it is an expansion and renewal of the Sinai covenant (covenant\/Reformed theologians), (2) that is an expansion and renewal of the Abrahamic covenant (dispensational theologians), and (3) that it is a completely new covenant (some medieval Jewish exegetes).
\nIn passing we may note that the name Deuteronomy (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) comes from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament made around 280 BC. This term is derived from two words: \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, meaning \u201csecond,\u201d and \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, meaning \u201ccustom\u201d or \u201claw\u201d\u2014that is, a \u201csecond law.\u201d The translators in the third century BC used this word as a mistranslation of the \u201ccopy of the law\u201d that the king was to write out for himself in Deuteronomy 17:18. What is relevant, however, is not explaining our tradition but understanding what Scripture actually says about the relation of these two sections of the Torah. As Columbanus stated, \u201cThe truth which drives out error is older than every tradition.\u201d
\nOur initial research failed to consider adequately the relation of Deuteronomy to Exodus 19\u201324. Moreover, one of the first reviewers, Douglas Moo, wondered why the expression k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet, \u201ccut a covenant,\u201d was used of the book of Deuteronomy when the Mosaic covenant was already inaugurated at Sinai in Exodus 19\u201324.
\nTo describe the proper relationship between Deuteronomy and Exodus 19\u201324, we will, first, examine the use of k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet for covenant renewal ceremonies and, second, reanalyze the literary structure of Deuteronomy, showing the structural significance of Deuteronomy 29:1\u201330:20 for understanding the book as a whole.<\/p>\n
K\u0100RAT B\u0114R\u00ceT IN COVENANT RENEWALS<\/p>\n
A key passage is Deuteronomy 28:69 (29:1 EV), where the same standard terminology (k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet) is employed with direct and specific reference to the book of Deuteronomy itself as a covenant:<\/p>\n
\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d3\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8\u05be\u05e6\u05b4\u05d5\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05de\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05d4
\n\u05dc\u05b4\u05db\u05b0\u05e8\u05b9\u05ea \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e0\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05e5 \u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05d0\u05b8\u05d1 \u05de\u05b4\u05dc\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05b7\u05d3 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05b7\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8\u05be\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05b7\u05ea \u05d0\u05b4\u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d7\u05b9\u05e8\u05b5\u05d1<\/p>\n
These are the words of the covenant that the LORD commanded Moses to make with the people of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant that he had made with them at Horeb.<\/p>\n
Whether this verse begins a new section or ends the previous section will be determined later. For now, note that Deuteronomy constitutes a covenant made (i.e., \u201ccut\u201d) with the people in the land of Moab before they enter Canaan. The preposition \u201cbeside\u201d (\u05de\u05b4\u05dc\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05b7\u05d3) is crucial in this text. The meaning of this preposition is \u201cbeside,\u201d \u201cbesides,\u201d or \u201cin addition to.\u201d This text clearly states that the book of Deuteronomy is a covenant in its own right, made with the people, besides the Book of the Covenant in Exodus 19\u201324 with its expansions in Leviticus and Numbers. Deuteronomy is thus an addition or supplement to the covenant at Sinai. It is a bit like a codicil added to a will (though here the codicil is larger than the will itself).
\nWe know that God made a covenant with Israel at Sinai. We know that the people of Israel violated the covenant in the middle of the proceedings\u2014while it was being inaugurated. We know that the relationship between God and Israel was maintained only by forgiveness on the part of Yahweh. The book of Deuteronomy appears to be a reaffirmation and restatement of the covenant instruction (t\u00f4r\u00e2) just before entering the land of Canaan. Why, then, is the expression \u201cto cut a covenant\u201d used in Deuteronomy 29:1 (28:69 MT)?
\nBefore turning to consider the evidence in Deuteronomy in a fresh way, it ought to be noted that the expression k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet, \u201ccut a covenant,\u201d can be used in covenant renewal ceremonies. Quite a number of scholars who have commented on the expressions in Hebrew are confused about how this works. Let us look briefly at Joshua 23\u201324 as an example.<\/p>\n
COVENANT RENEWAL IN JOSHUA 23\u201324<\/p>\n
Joshua 23 reports that toward the end of Joshua\u2019s life, he summoned all the tribes of Israel to Shechem. He notes that Yahweh has kept his promises. Some land remains to be taken, but the Lord will continue to drive out the Canaanites if the Israelites continue to be faithful to the covenant and do not mix with the Canaanites or serve and worship their gods. According to 23:16, serving and worshiping the gods of Canaan is equivalent to transgressing the covenant of Yahweh. This must be a reference to the covenant made at Sinai and renewed in Deuteronomy.
\nIn chapter 24, Joshua summons Israel to a covenant renewal at Shechem. Verses 1\u201313 describe the faithfulness and grace of Yahweh toward Israel in bringing them to Canaan and giving them the land. Then in a challenge answered by the people of Israel that Joshua repeats twice, he stresses that choosing to serve Yahweh means excising all idols and removing all worship of alternative deities. We pick up the thread in 24:24:<\/p>\n
And the people said to Joshua, \u201cYahweh our God we will serve, and his voice we will obey.\u201d So Joshua made a covenant for the people that day, and put in place a decree and a judgment for them at Shechem. And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the Torah of God. And he took a large stone and set it up there under the terebinth that was by the sanctuary of the LORD. And Joshua said to all the people, \u201cBehold, this stone shall be a witness against us, for it has heard all the words of the LORD that he spoke to us. Therefore it shall be a witness against you, lest you deal falsely with your God.\u201d So Joshua sent the people away, every man to his inheritance. (Josh. 24:24\u201328)<\/p>\n
What is actually happening here is that the people are making a covenant in order to keep the covenant at Sinai. Their commitment to Yahweh is divided. They need to put away the idols and give complete devotion to Yahweh alone. They are renewing their original commitment and solemnizing this renewal as a covenant. So, in fact, they are making a covenant to keep an earlier covenant. This is different from verbally affirming a covenant or acting to fulfill an obligation specified in an earlier agreement, and it fully justifies the expression \u201cto cut a covenant.\u201d Linguistically, then, \u201ccut a covenant\u201d is always used of making a covenant (for the first time) but can be used of covenant renewals since people make (new) covenants to keep earlier covenants.
\nThis past summer close friends of my wife\u2019s and mine in Germany celebrated their silver wedding anniversary. It was a service of worship in the local church with family and friends, exactly as on their wedding day. This is a covenant renewal in the sense that they make an agreement to keep the original agreement. Such is the human condition that we constantly fall away from our position of complete loyalty so that a solemnizing of a renewed commitment is possible.
\nScholars have confused the matter by attempting to correlate the expressions k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet (\u201cto cut a covenant\u201d) and h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet (\u201cto affirm\/uphold a covenant\u201d) with covenant making and covenant renewal. This is not how these expressions are used. The expression k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet (\u201cto cut a covenant\u201d) is normally used for making a covenant and in a few instances for renewing a covenant. The reason why k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet (\u201cto cut a covenant\u201d) is used for covenant renewals is that humans tend to lag in their loyalty over time. Then they realize that they have lost something of their original commitment and devotion, and they make a covenant, a promise, a vow, or simply a statement that they intend to keep the original covenant. This is not the same thing as a person who has never lagged in his or her commitment and loyalty verbally affirming a previous commitment or acting at some time after the original covenant making to uphold their commitment or obligation. The expression h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet (\u201cto uphold a covenant\u201d) is used for affirming a previous covenant or stepping into the situation to fulfill a commitment and is never used for a covenant renewal in Scripture.
\nSomething else is noteworthy in Joshua 24:26. The words of this agreement to renew commitment in terms of exclusive and total loyalty to the original covenant are written in the book of the t\u00f4r\u00e2 of God. If I am correctly grasping the meaning of the text, it seems that the renewed commitment becomes part of the declaration in the original covenant, like a codicil added to a will.<\/p>\n
THE LITERARY STRUCTURE OF DEUTERONOMY<\/p>\n
When I coauthored Kingdom through Covenant with Stephen Wellum, I devoted an entire chapter to the book of Deuteronomy as I attempted to come to grips with what this book represents and what the nature of its relationship is to the covenant at Sinai. Naturally, I did some work on the literary structure, but my attention was restricted to chapters 1\u201328. I have realized since that this was an error. I ought to have paid more attention to the structure of the whole book. I had never grasped properly the function of chapters 29\u201330 to the covenantal structure and never analyzed properly the literary structure in terms of sermons or speeches by Moses.
\nGuest sees Deuteronomy 29\u201330 as a covenant ratification ceremony, and I believe he is right. The difference between his literary structure and mine seemed slight in 2012 when the first edition of Kingdom through Covenant was published, but it has greater significance than at first glance. Let us briefly look at the evidence together.
\nFirst of all, although the book of Deuteronomy is structured as a suzerain-vassal treaty, in reality the book consists of a series of four speeches or sermons given by Moses. This can be determined by noting, first, that the narrator sections (versus speeches) are extremely limited\u2014most of the book is, in fact, direct speech; and, second, that the speeches are marked by four headings.<\/p>\n
Verses Bearing Narrative Sections (in Deuteronomy)<\/p>\n
1:3\u20135
\n5:1
\n27:1, 9, 11
\n29:2 (29:1 MT)
\n31:1, 7, 9\u201310, 14\u201316, 22\u201325, 30
\n32:44\u201346, 48
\n33:2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24
\n34:1\u201312<\/p>\n
Remarkably, third-person narration is sparse; the book consists entirely of direct discourse and speeches. From the narrative sections, five headings are clearly visible because they are narratorial cleft-sentence formulae: three display an asyndetic and plural demonstrative element, while two exhibit the conjunction waw and the singular demonstrative. All are verbless clauses followed by modifying relative clauses.<\/p>\n
1. Deuteronomy 1:1: \u201cThese are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel beyond the Jordan.\u201d
\n2. Deuteronomy 4:44: \u201cAnd this is the Torah that he placed before the sons of Israel.\u201d
\n3. Deuteronomy 6:1: \u201cAnd this is the command, the decrees, and the judgments which Yahweh your God commanded to teach you to do in the land where you are going over to possess.\u201d
\n4. Deuteronomy 29:1 (28:69 MT): \u201cThese are the words of the covenant that Yahweh commanded Moses to cut with the sons of Israel in the land of Moab in addition to the covenant which he cut with them at Horeb.\u201d
\n5. Deuteronomy 33:1: \u201cAnd this is the Blessing with which Moses, the man of God blessed the sons of Israel before he died.\u201d<\/p>\n
The heading marked by 6:1 is different from the rest because it is part of a speech and not narratorial. The formula calls attention to the centrality of 6:4\u20139. So four headings remain. Not all scholars observe these headings. A major problem is 29:1 (28:69 MT). What is debated is whether Deuteronomy 29:1 is a superscript for what follows or a subscript for what precedes. Does it open a new section or close the previous one? Indeed, there are scholars who attempt to have it both ways and speak of it as a hinge verse.<\/p>\n
Deuteronomy 29:1 (28:69 MT) Subscript or Superscript?<\/p>\n
Today, a majority of scholars argue that Deuteronomy 29:1 (28:69 MT) is a conclusion or subscript to chapters 1\u201328. The arguments provided by Jeffrey Tigay represent this position well:<\/p>\n
This subscription concludes the covenant made in the land of Moab, whose terms and consequences are presented in 4:44\u201326:19 and chapter 28. It is comparable to the subscriptions in Leviticus 27:34; Numbers 36:13, and elsewhere. Abravanel and some modern scholars argue that the verse is really an introduction to the third discourse (chaps. 29\u201330), in which Moses prepares the people to enter the covenant and warns them about violating it. However, the phrase \u201cterms of the covenant\u201d refers to specific legal obligations and their stated consequences, and applies to the laws, blessings, and curses of the preceding chapters much more readily than it does to the exhortations of chapters 29\u201330. Literarily, too, this verse belongs with the second discourse, since it echoes Moses\u2019 opening words there (5:2); together the two passages form a frame around that discourse (see introductory Comment to 4:44\u201328:69). The Masoretic and Samaritan parashah divisions agree that this verse refers to what precedes it.<\/p>\n
Tigay summarizes well the arguments of a major study by H. van Rooy in 1988 in which he sought to prove that Deuteronomy 29:1 was a concluding statement to chapter 28. Nonetheless, Norbert Lohfink provided a convincing response to van Rooy that is not as well known. Lohfink\u2019s arguments deal with the literary features and structures of the text. The four main points of his response can be briefly summarized as follows.
\nFirst, Deuteronomy 29:1 (28:69 MT) belongs to the system of four titles that divide the book of Deuteronomy as narrated sections (i.e., they are employed to identify the literary structure of the book). Note that there is a pattern to these headings in terms of sentence structure:<\/p>\n
a These are the words
\n1:1
\nb And this is the Torah
\n4:44
\na\u2032 These are the words
\n29:1
\nb\u2032 And this is the blessing
\n33:1<\/p>\n
Thus, Deuteronomy 29:1 belongs to a group of headings that have a definite pattern of sentence structures. It may be true that in the majority of occurrences in the Old Testament, the expression \u201cthe words of the covenant\u201d refers to covenant stipulations, but here it is a reference pointing forward to the ceremonial or ritual words of a covenant conclusion or ratification ceremony and cannot be disregarded as such.
\nIn Deuteronomy 29:1, the covenant is carefully described to identify it precisely and to distinguish it from the Horeb (i.e., Sinai) covenant. Now in Deuteronomy, all instances of the word \u201ccovenant\u201d referring to relationship with God before Deuteronomy 29:1\u2014viewed from the perspective of the patriarchal promises\u2014refer concretely to the covenant at Sinai: to the Decalogue, or first offer. A Moab covenant does not occur, nor is referred to before Deuteronomy 29:1. By contrast, the covenant \u201cin the land of Moab\u201d is explained by \u201ccovenant\u201d in 29:12 and 29:14 as current and unconsummated. The parallel with \u201coath\u201d (\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4; \u201csworn covenant,\u201d ESV) in both places may be observed. So in respect to the use of the word, the term \u201ccovenant\u201d in reference to a Moab covenant concluded by Moses, occurs in Deuteronomy only after and not before Deuteronomy 29:1 in the sermon(s).
\nSecond, another observation strengthens the argument. Deuteronomy 29:10\u201315 is in no way, as van Rooy thinks, merely an admonition. Here we have more than just an admonition \u201cto keep the covenant.\u201d What we have is mainly performative speech that will define the community that concludes the covenant\u2014note the address, the participial forms, and the purpose clauses. Twice in chapter 29 (29:12, 14) we have this participial construction: \u201cI am cutting\/making this covenant.\u201d The participial construction (which occurs only four times in the Old Testament: Ex. 34:10; Deut. 29:12, 14; Neh. 10:1) always marks the present tense and speaks of a ceremony or ritual in progress. Indeed, we do not have a narration of covenant conclusion. Deuteronomy 29:1 announces, in fact, not a narrative but rather \u201cwords\u201d of a covenant. Also, this verse mentions the place, Moab, where Moses concludes the covenant actually stated. So Deuteronomy 29:10\u201315 is not simply an exhortation. If it is not a closing ceremony, then there is none. This must be the concluding ceremony of the Moab covenant of which Deuteronomy 29:1 speaks. In other words, what we have in Deuteronomy 29:10\u201315 are not the words of a parent admonishing a child but rather the words of a couple saying their vows in a wedding ceremony. The words \u201cI do\u201d and \u201cI will\u201d constitute performative speech that creates the marriage covenant or constitutes the vows.
\nThird, further observations may be added about the arrangement of the words. In the laws in Exodus through Numbers, and also in Deuteronomy 12\u201326, occurrences of \u201ccovenant\u201d (\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea) are quite rare. There is, de facto, only one single instance in Deuteronomy 12\u201326: 17:2. Throughout Deuteronomy 27\u201328, there is absolutely no instance. On the contrary, instances of the word \u201ccovenant\u201d in Deuteronomy 29 are frequent: 29:1a, 1b, 9, 12, 14, 21, 25. This directs our attention to a larger pattern of speech arrangement: the marking of catch phrases and words. Frequently in the literature of the Old Testament, repeating important words is what binds material together. Variation of references as well as of meaning between the repeated words are thereby given eloquence and significance. In our case, the declaration of Deuteronomy 29:1, mentioning \u201ccovenant\u201d twice clearly points forward to the fivefold repetition of the word \u201ccovenant\u201d (\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea), which previously occurred so seldom.
\nThis becomes even more clearly marked by the fact that \u201ccovenant\u201d occurs precisely seven times: 29:1a, 1b, 9, 12, 14, 21, 25. The center of this series makes 29:12 the hub of the matter. In Deuteronomy, a count of seven often binds together things that belong together. Georg Braulik describes several patterns of seven. As examples, the expression \u201cthe statutes and the rules\u201d (\u05d4\u05b7\u05bd\u05d7\u05bb\u05e7\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05b0\u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd) occurs precisely seven times (5:1, 31; 6:1, 20; 7:11; 11:32; 12:1), and the word \u201ccommand\u201d (\u05de\u05b4\u05e6\u05b0\u05d5\u05b8\u05d4) in the singular fourteen times, or two sets of seven (5:31; 6:1, 25; 7:11; 8:1; 11:8, 22; 15:5; 17:20; 19:9; 26:13; 27:1; 30:11; 31:5). The word \u201ccovenant\u201d is consciously used in Deuteronomy 1\u201330 so that it occurs precisely twenty-one times, or three sets of seven; the division between the first two groups of seven is marked by the rare compound expression \u201ccovenant and \u1e25esed\u201d occurring twice (7:9, 12).
\nFourth, and finally, another terminal marker apparently occurs before Deuteronomy 29:1, pointing to the matter that the expression \u201cthe words of the covenant\u201d (\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea) in 29:1 refers to (and here I agree fully with van Rooy): \u201cthe words of this t\u00f4r\u00e2\u201d (\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d4\u05d6\u05d0\u05ea, 17:19; 27:3, 8, 26; 28:58). This expression also sweeps on from the end of chapter 29 afresh (29:29; 31:12, 24; 32:46). In 29:9, instead of the common terminal marker \u201cthe words of this t\u00f4r\u00e2,\u201d the phrase \u201cthe words of the covenant\u201d is used; was this expression perhaps inserted only because in this section a seven-count incidence marks off a covenant conclusion ceremony? That one actually ought to expect \u201cthe words of this t\u00f4r\u00e2\u201d in 29:9 is shown by 17:19; 28:58; 31:12; and 32:46, where likewise both the verbs \u201cto keep\u201d (\u05e9\u05de\u05e8) and \u201cto do\u201d (\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4) are found. The expression \u201cthe words of the covenant,\u201d however, is located in 29:9 only to arrive at the count of seven. Thus it is clearer that 29:1, with its two instances of \u201ccovenant,\u201d is aligned with the subsequent section.
\nTo argue, as we have, that Deuteronomy 29:1 is a heading for what follows and not an ending to Deuteronomy 28 does not contradict the fact that the ritual words of the covenant conclusion in Deuteronomy 29\u201330 constantly allude back to Deuteronomy 5\u201328, the covenant text proper: cf. 29:9, 21, 27, 29; 30:1, 2, 7, 10, 11 (16). The ceremonial or ritual text of Deuteronomy 29\u201330 as such can in no way be spoken if the covenant text itself is not also reported in the same ceremony. Various other allusions to the covenant text of Deuteronomy 5\u201328 can be found in the concluding ceremony of Deuteronomy 29\u201330. Only the allusion to the Covenant Formula in Deuteronomy 29:13 (cf. 26:17\u201319; 27:9; 28:9) and to the circumcision of the heart in 30:6 (cf. 10:16) need be given as examples. Thus Lohfink\u2019s four observations on the function of 29:1 show that in all probability it is a heading and not a colophon, as van Rooy and other scholars suspect.<\/p>\n
Literary Structure Summarized<\/p>\n
Once the role of Deuteronomy 29:1 is clearly grasped as a heading for Deuteronomy 29\u201330, and 29\u201330 is understood as a covenant conclusion or ratification ceremony, we can focus attention on the literary structure of the whole work\u2014including chapters 29\u201330, which were not accounted for in the first edition of Kingdom through Covenant.
\nWe return to the fact that there are four headings, which divide the book into four parts as follows:<\/p>\n
a These are the words
\n1:1
\n1:1\u20134:43
\nb And this is the Torah that
\n4:44
\n4:44\u201328:68
\na\u2032 These are the words
\n29:1
\n29:1\u201332:52
\nb\u2032 And this is the blessing that
\n33:1
\n33:1\u201334:12<\/p>\n
Note further that the third section is divided into three parts by the narrative statements (31:1, 7, 9\u201310, 14\u201316, 22\u201325, 30; 32:44\u201346, 48) as follows:<\/p>\n
1. Covenant oath and solemn ceremony: 29:1\u201330:20
\n2. Appointment of Joshua as Moses\u2019s successor: 31:1\u201330
\n3. Song of Moses: 32:1\u201352<\/p>\n
Thus the narration in the third person clearly sets off chapters 29\u201330 from chapters 31\u201332. The analysis of the literary structure just provided is supported by additional arguments from discourse grammar by Neal Huddleston.<\/p>\n
THE FUNCTION OF DEUTERONOMY 29\u201330: WHY THE MOAB COVENANT WAS \u201cCUT\u201d<\/p>\n
Now that we have a better grasp on the literary structure of Deuteronomy 1\u201330 as the three sermons of Moses, some exposition of chapters 29\u201330 is relevant to discuss the relationship of this material to Exodus 19\u201324. This may seem to be a fool\u2019s errand since R. N. Whybray averred, \u201cThe significance of, and the necessity for, this second covenant has never been satisfactorily explained,\u201d but we will give it a try.<\/p>\n
The Literary Structure of Deuteronomy 29\u201330<\/p>\n
Let us first lay out the literary structure of Deuteronomy 29\u201330.<\/p>\n
A. Heading
\n29:1 (28:69 MT)
\nB. Narrative Introduction
\n29:2a (29:1 MT)
\nC. Third Sermon
\n29:2b\u201330:20
\n1. Past \u1e25esed and \u2019\u0115met of Yahweh
\n29:2b\u20139
\n2. Covenant-inauguration ritual language
\n29:10\u201315
\n3. Reminder of curses for covenant disloyalty
\n29:16\u201328
\n4. Secret things\u2014revealed things
\n29:29
\n5. Future curse followed by blessing
\n30:1\u201310
\n6. Circumcised heart: reason for future blessing
\n30:11\u201314
\n7. Final warning regarding life and death
\n30:15\u201320<\/p>\n
The proposed outline divides this section into seven paragraphs based on grammatical markers in the text. These ought to be noted briefly as follows.
\nDeuteronomy 29:1 (28:69 MT) is a verbless clause introduced by asyndeton\u2014that is, there is no clause connector or conjunction. This macrosyntactic pattern either marks the beginning of a section or a comment on the previous sentence. Here it marks the beginning of a new section. Deuteronomy 29:2a begins with a waw-consecutive imperfect, but this is narration as opposed to direct speech. Deuteronomy 29:2b, \u201cYou have seen,\u201d commences the direct speech. This first paragraph is concluded by a waw-consecutive perfect functioning as a command, which might be rendered \u201cSo therefore keep the words of this covenant.\u201d Asyndeton in the midst of 29:5 denotes an aside or comment, and the waw-consecutive imperfect in 29:7 resumes the speech from this aside.
\nNote that Deuteronomy 29:10 also commences with asyndeton and is a verbless clause. This marks the beginning of the second paragraph. The causal conjunction k\u00ee in 29:16 marks the beginning of the third paragraph. Deuteronomy 29:29 again begins with asyndeton and is another verbless clause. This not only sets off this one verse as a paragraph by itself but marks this statement as a metacomment, or explanatory summation, that directly addresses the major tension in the flow of thought in these two chapters. We will come back to this in a moment.
\nDeuteronomy 30:1 begins with a temporal clause after the metacomment in Deuteronomy 29:29. The beginning of a second paragraph is signaled in Deuteronomy 30:15 by an imperative introduced by asyndeton. Another causal-conjunction k\u00ee marks off the beginning of the last paragraph just as the conjunction k\u00ee marked the beginning of the last paragraph in the first set of three paragraphs.<\/p>\n
Exposition of Deuteronomy 29\u201330<\/p>\n
Deuteronomy 29\u201330 contains six paragraphs arranged in two sets of three with an additional paragraph at the center containing a metacomment. The significance of this will become plain shortly. There is a clear flow of thought throughout the six paragraphs.
\nThe first paragraph bases the commitment of the people on the grace of Yahweh in his dealings with them in the past. This idea is identical to what we see in Exodus 19:4. Then comes the oath or vow, a performative speech act that actually creates the covenant on the human side. After these ritual words, the third paragraph is a warning about covenant disloyalty\u2014much like the sermon in a wedding after the vows.
\nThe first paragraph in the second set of three deals with the distant future. Those who see this as referring to the present fail to allow Paul to guide them in their exegesis of the Old Testament. Moses assumes covenant disloyalty on the part of the people and subsequent exile as Yahweh is true to his Word in bringing the covenant curses on Israel. The second paragraph deals with the gift of a circumcised heart in the future as an act of divine grace. The people will then keep the covenant and be blessed. Finally, the third paragraph in the second set, like that in the first, ends with a warning to maintain covenant loyalty. The covenant sets before Israel the offer of life or death.
\nThere is not sufficient space here for a full discussion and explanation of this significant text. For our purposes, it is important to actually cite Deuteronomy 29:1\u201315 before we make a few brief observations regarding the text.<\/p>\n
These are the words of the covenant that the LORD commanded Moses to make with the people of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant that he had made with them at Horeb.
\nAnd Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: \u201cYou have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders. But to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear. I have led you forty years in the wilderness. Your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandals have not worn off your feet. You have not eaten bread, and you have not drunk wine or strong drink, that you may know that I am the LORD your God. And when you came to this place, Sihon the king of Heshbon and Og the king of Bashan came out against us to battle, but we defeated them. We took their land and gave it for an inheritance to the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of the Manassites. Therefore keep the words of this covenant and do them, that you may prosper in all that you do.
\n\u201cYou are standing today, all of you, before the LORD your God: the heads of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and the sojourner who is in your camp, from the one who chops your wood to the one who draws your water, so that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the LORD your God, which the LORD your God is making with you today, that he may establish you today as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you, and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. It is not with you alone that I am making this sworn covenant, but with whoever is standing here with us today before the LORD our God, and with whoever is not here with us today. (ESV)<\/p>\n
TWO PARALLEL SECTIONS. The key to understanding Hebrew literature is grasping the function and role of repetition. An author will go around a topic at least twice, each time discussing that topic from a different angle or perspective so that hearing in succession the two treatments is like listening to the left and right speakers of a stereo system playing music. This gives the hearer a \u201cwell-rounded idea,\u201d similar to a 3-D image or Dolby surround sound. Therefore, statements made in a fuller treatment of a topic may be referred to by means of abbreviated statements in a parallel or repeated section (or sometimes vice versa). Much of what is treated in chapters 29\u201330 is developed at greater length in chapters 4:45\u201311:32. Here I borrow an outline of 4:45\u201311:32 from John Meade to show that the flow of thought there is identical to the flow of thought in chapters 29\u201330.<\/p>\n
General Stipulation: 4:45\u201311:32
\nA. Basic principle of covenant relationship
\n4:45\u20136:3
\nB. Measures for maintaining covenant relationship
\n6:4\u201325
\nC. Implications of covenant relationship
\n7:1\u201326
\nD. Warnings against forgetting covenant relationship
\n8:1\u201320
\nE. Failures in covenant relationship
\n9:1\u201310:11
\nF. Restoration to covenant relationship
\n10:12\u201322
\nG. Choices required by covenant relationship
\n11:1\u201332<\/p>\n
The basic stipulation in the covenant is complete devotion and loyalty to Yahweh, Israel\u2019s covenant Lord and suzerain, as expounded in Deuteronomy 6:5\u20139 and demanded in the oath taking in 29:10\u201315. This central command (see above on the occurrences of \u201ccommand\u201d in the singular in Deuteronomy) is supported by both the means and the implications of covenant relationship in sections B and C of Meade\u2019s outline. Then in D, exactly as in chapters 29\u201330, comes the warning against disloyalty and unfaithfulness creeping into the relationship, followed by the assumption in E that this will happen and hence a prediction of eventual restoration in F. Then both 4:45\u201311:32 and chapters 29\u201330 end with the choices provided by the covenant relationship. Interestingly enough, the only two instances in the book that refer to the \u201ccircumcision of the heart\u201d are in 10:16 and 30:6, both at exactly the same location in the flow of thought in these parallel sections\u2014namely, at the point noting eventual covenant violation and the future gift from God of a circumcised heart that will make possible human faithfulness and restoration in the covenant relationship.
\nThe observation that Deuteronomy 4:45\u201311:32 and 29:1\u201330:20 are parallel sequences in treating the same topic along with a grasp of how Hebrew literature works can help us to interpret ambiguous statements in Deuteronomy 29:1\u201330:20 correctly.<\/p>\n
DEUTERONOMY 29\u201330 AND THE CIRCUMCISION OF THE HEART. Deuteronomy 29:1b\u20132 begins with noting the fact that those hearing Moses\u2019s sermon actually heard and saw the miracles and tests that resulted in the exodus. This is hyperbolic since those in the audience hearing Moses at this point who actually remembered these things would include only those over fifty years old. Observe that a similar point is made in 4:33; 5:3b\u20135; and 11:1\u20137. This is a rhetorical device to help the generation listening to Moses identify with the Israel that entered the covenant at Sinai and commit to its renewal in the covenant at Moab. Notice that in Deuteronomy 29:14\u201315, Moses affirms that the human party committing to the covenant at Moab includes those there that day and those not there that day. The folks listening to Moses could say, \u201cWell, we were just kids back when the covenant at Sinai was made. That covenant was made with our parents and not with us. We are not responsible for this covenant at all.\u201d Moses wants not only to close the door to this argument concerning the covenant at Sinai but also to prevent any and all future generations in Israel from making such an argument in regard to the covenant at Moab.
\nAfter affirming that the people standing with Moses to enter the covenant at Moab had observed and seen \u201cthe great testings and those great signs and wonders,\u201d he contrasts this with the fact that Yahweh has not to this point given them a heart to know, eyes to see, and ears to hear (29:4). On a crassly literal level of interpretation, this could mean that the testings (i.e., the plagues that determined the difference between Yahweh and the gods of Egypt) and the signs and wonders (i.e., the miracles occurring to deliver Israel as a nation from slavery in Egypt and bring her through the desert) had not been properly understood by the people\u2014these miracles were like the signs in the Gospel of John, but the people had not grasped the message. This, however, is an entirely shallow interpretation. Instead, the statement is, according to the normal pattern of Hebrew literature, an alternative way of referring to \u201cthe circumcision of the heart\u201d in Deuteronomy 10:16 and 30:6.
\nWhat Moses is saying is this: incredible displays of supernatural power in miracles and physical deliverance from slavery were insufficient to bring the hearts of the people to being completely devoted and loyal to Yahweh. God rescued them from Egypt, but the moment he arranged to solemnize an agreement of loyalty between them\u2014that is, a covenant\u2014they were faithless, fickle, and treacherous, engaging in idolatry.
\nAs a matter of fact, Isaiah makes the same point in Isaiah 29:14. During the crisis created by the rise of Assyrian power and the pressure put on Judah by the anti-Assyrian coalition of Syria and the northern kingdom of Israel, both king and people wanted to make deals with the Assyrians or the Egyptians and not to believe the word of Yahweh given to Isaiah. In rejecting the prophetic message calling them back to covenant loyalty, God confirms them in their rejection by pouring on them a spiritual blindness and stupor. So when Isaiah says in 29:14, \u201cTherefore I shall deal with them in completely extraordinary\/supernatural ways,\u201d this does not mean simply that Yahweh will bring physical rescue by killing 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in one night. Admittedly, this is an extraordinary act, but it means far more than this. It means that unless God acts supernaturally to circumcise the people\u2019s hearts, Israel as a community\/nation will not give their full loyalty and trust to Yahweh. The miraculous deliverance from Assyria in Hezekiah\u2019s time cannot of itself engender covenant loyalty. An \u201cextraordinary act of extreme extraordinariness\u201d (so Isa. 29:14) is needed to generate trust in the Lord that represents covenant loyalty.
\nIn Deuteronomy 29:5\u20136, Moses draws attention (in an explanatory note marked by asyndeton) to the miracles in the desert journey: the people\u2019s clothes and shoes did not wear out. He adds in 29:6, \u201cBread you did not eat and wine and beer you did not drink in order that you may know that I am Yahweh your God.\u201d This correlates with the longer parallel passage in Deuteronomy 8:1\u201310, which explains more fully the purpose clause \u201cthat you may know that I am Yahweh your God\u201d in 29:6. In Deuteronomy 8:3, it says, \u201cHe gave you manna to eat, which you and your fathers had not known, so that you might learn that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD\u201d (HCSB). So the miracles in the desert are designed to bring the people to complete trust in the word of Yahweh\u2014exactly what happens in a covenant relationship. Yet the miracles by and large do not achieve this goal: the hearts of the people remain uncircumcised.
\nWe are now in a position to appreciate the major tension in the plot structure of chapters 29\u201330, and in fact of the entire book of Deuteronomy: on the one hand, Moses is laying out for the people the direction or instruction\u2014that is, the t\u00f4r\u00e2\u2014encoded in a covenant made at Moab that is separate from but considered an addition to and expansion of the covenant at Sinai (29:1). Note how 30:10 brings to a conclusion the opening statement in 1:5, \u201cMoses began to explain this t\u00f4r\u00e2.\u201d Within chapters 1\u201330, there are fourteen (or two sets of seven) instances of t\u00f4r\u00e2 (1:5; 4:8, 44; 17:11, 18, 19; 27:3, 8, 26; 28:58, 61; 29:20, 28; 30:10). At the end of the exhortation to be completely devoted and loyal (4:45\u201311:32), the summary in 11:26\u201332 claims that this revelation sets blessing and cursing before the people. The parallel section in Deuteronomy 29\u201330 ends with exactly the same theme: blessing and cursing leading, respectively, either to life and prosperity or to adversity and death (30:15\u201320). Indeed, the end of the covenant text is 28:1\u201368, which puts blessings and curses before the people. In great tension with this is the fact that Yahweh has not given them a circumcised heart (29:4). In both sections, Deuteronomy 4:45\u201311:32 and 29:1\u201330:20, at the exact same spot in the flow of thought, circumcision of the heart is actually mentioned and described as a future event. This tension is described by the metacomment on the whole section in Deuteronomy 29:29: \u201cThe hidden things belong to the LORD our God, but the revealed things belong to us and our children forever, so that we may follow all the words of this t\u00f4r\u00e2.\u201d According to this metacomment, there is a tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Israel is called to absolute loyalty to Yahweh in the covenant, but the plot structure to this point in the Old Testament shows that the human partner is incapable of faithfulness, something that will be given by divine grace at a future time. Here Moses sums up his entire ministry.<\/p>\n
PINPOINTING THE TIME OF DEUTERONOMY 30:11\u201314. A major part of correctly grasping the tension in the plot structure is interpreting the time of Deuteronomy 30:11\u201314. Is it present or future?<\/p>\n
For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, \u201cWho will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?\u201d Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, \u201cWho will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?\u201d But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it. (ESV)<\/p>\n
Frequently commentators view it as present. The most obvious pointer to this is the expression \u201cI am commanding you today\u201d (participle plus \u05d4\u05b7\u05d9\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd). Nonetheless, all the clauses or sentences in these verses (11\u201314) are verbless clauses and have no explicit tense. Steven Coxhead has argued that Deuteronomy 30:11\u201314 refers solely to the future. He considers the fact that there is no finite verb in the text and that as a result the tense is determined by the previous text in 30:1\u201310. Both positions are anchored in the data of the text. How do we decide?
\nThe ancient Near Eastern epic of Gilgamesh relates how in the face of the death of his closest friend he sought answers to the issues of death and life by going across the ocean. Moses, by contrast, is saying that the issues of death and life are not that far away. The issues of death and life entail two matters: divine instruction and the loyalty of the heart. In the covenant at Moab, the divine instruction has already been given to them. The only issue preventing blessing and life is the loyalty of the human heart. So the answer is not very far away: it is in our own hearts. The answer is not out there; it is in us. According to Deuteronomy 30:1\u201310, Israel will obtain a circumcised heart at a future time, and that is why 30:11\u201314 ultimately refers to the future, in spite of Moses\u2019s appeal in the present. Paul in his exposition in Romans 10 was right. Yet when is that future time? In God\u2019s providence, Moses thinks it might be today, that is, his present, and hence the force of his appeal for the present. Let us remember Deuteronomy 29:29, the metacomment and the tension in this text: there is a tension in chapters 29\u201330 between divine sovereignty\u2014that is, the secret things, when God will give the circumcised heart at a future time\u2014and human responsibility\u2014that is, the revealed things, and therefore Moses\u2019s urging in his present, hence today. This, in fact, turns out to be the tension of his entire ministry.<\/p>\n
NEW RESEARCH ON B\u0114R\u00ceT. Before summing up the argument, let us briefly review the use of the word b\u0115r\u00eet, or \u201ccovenant,\u201d in the book of Deuteronomy. New research requires a minor revision of the exposition given in the first edition of Kingdom through Covenant.
\nThe analysis of Lohfink is easy to verify: all instances of \u201ccovenant\u201d (b\u0115r\u00eet) before Deuteronomy 29:1b (aside from a foreign treaty in 7:2) refer to the covenant at Sinai (4:13, 23; 5:2, 3; 7:9; 9:9, 11, 15; 10:8; 17:2; 29:1a) or the Abrahamic covenant on which it is based (4:31; 7:12; 8:18). All the instances of covenant after 29:1a in chapters 29\u201330 refer to the covenant at Moab (29:1b, 9, 12, 14, 21, 25). After chapters 1\u201330, we find six occurrences of covenant: the instances in 33:9 and in the phrase \u201cthe ark of the covenant\u201d refer to the covenant at Sinai (31:9, 25, 26). Note carefully that in 31:25\u201326 the book of Deuteronomy (chapters 1\u201330) is written as a single text and placed beside the ark of the covenant, just as Deuteronomy 29:1 specifies that it is a covenant beside the covenant at Sinai. Finally, the two instances in Deuteronomy 31:16 and 20 are clearly passages where the covenant at Sinai and the covenant at Moab are fused as one in the author\u2019s mind.
\nIs Deuteronomy 5:1\u20136 also a passage where the covenant at Sinai and the covenant at Moab are fused as one in the author\u2019s mind? When I wrote my portion of the first edition of Kingdom through Covenant, I struggled to find a correct interpretation of this significant text and concluded that the covenant at Sinai and the covenant at Moab may have been fused as one in the author\u2019s mind in 5:1\u20136. Now a better interpretation may be suggested of this text:<\/p>\n
And Moses summoned all Israel and said to them, \u201cHear, O Israel, the statutes and the rules that I speak in your hearing today, and you shall learn them and be careful to do them. The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Not with our fathers did the LORD make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today. The LORD spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the midst of the fire, while I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD. For you were afraid because of the fire, and you did not go up into the mountain. He said:
\n\u201c \u2018I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.\u2019 \u201d (ESV)<\/p>\n
This passage reviews the covenant material from Exodus 19\u201324 before presenting the main stipulation of the covenant (Deut. 6:5) followed by the detailed stipulations. Deuteronomy 5:2 says, \u201cThe LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb\u201d (ESV), and employs the standard terminology, k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet, \u201ccut a covenant.\u201d This is a clear reference to the Israelite covenant made at Sinai (Exodus 19\u201324). Then Moses says, \u201cNot with our fathers did the LORD make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today.\u201d The question arises here, what does he mean by \u201cour fathers\u201d? Does this refer to the generation at Sinai that has now passed away, or is it a specific reference to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob\u2014a normal referent for \u201cfathers\u201d in Deuteronomy? Part of the problem is also the referent of \u201cthis covenant\u201d in the same sentence, which has been construed to refer to the book of Deuteronomy, apparently reinforced by the statement at the end of Deuteronomy 5:3, \u201cbut with us, who are all of us here alive today.\u201d
\nIf we bear in mind the general usage of the word \u201ccovenant\u201d in the book as a whole and the literary structure, a simple solution may be found: The \u201cfathers\u201d in 5:3 are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The covenant referred to in 5:3 is the covenant at Sinai, which is being distinguished from the Abrahamic covenant. The language at the end of 5:3 is part of the rhetorical device in the book where Moses seeks to connect the people listening to him at Moab with the events in Egypt and at Sinai, even though they were children (under twenty) at the time. This cuts the Gordian knot of this verse satisfactorily, at least to my mind.
\nThe previous generation violated the covenant and died in the wilderness, and now the covenant needs to be renewed with a new Israel. Peter Leithart expresses this reality well:<\/p>\n
The Pentateuch ends with Israel camped in the plains of Moab, east of Canaan. They are still \u201ceast of Eden,\u201d but they are now preparing to cross the Jordan to receive their land. While they are camped in Moab, Moses preaches to them, and his sermons make up the book of Deuteronomy. Since this is a new Israel, the covenant that God made at Sinai is renewed.<\/p>\n
In fact, Deuteronomy, rather than Exodus 34, should be viewed and understood as the covenant renewal. Editorial headings in modern English versions frequently label Exodus 34:10\u201327 as \u201cThe Covenant Renewal.\u201d There is, however, no real basis for such a description in the text itself. Granted, the chronological sequence of events in Exodus 19\u201340 is not always abundantly clear. Nonetheless, the rehearsal of these events in Deuteronomy 9:9\u201329 aids in clarifying the narrative in Exodus.
\nIt seems that after the covenant ratification in Exodus 24, Moses is called to ascend farther up the mountain. We read in Exodus 24:12, \u201cThe LORD said to Moses, \u2018Come up to me on the mountain and wait there, that I may give you the tablets of stone, with the law and the commandment, which I have written for their instruction\u2019 \u201d (ESV). While Moses has written the Book of the Covenant (Ten Words and Judgments) given orally, God will give him the stone tablets and the instruction (Torah) and the commandment that he has personally written to instruct them. So when Moses went up the mountain, the cloud, that is, the glory of Yahweh, covered the mountain for six days, and on the seventh, Moses was summoned and enveloped by the cloud and was on the mountain forty days and forty nights (24:15\u201318). At the end of this time, Moses descended the mountain in anger because the people had broken the first of the Ten Words and thus violated the covenant (32:15\u201320). No doubt Moses\u2019s breaking of the tablets symbolized the broken covenant.
\nThen Moses interceded for the people and was on the mountain another forty days and forty nights (34:27\u201328). During this time God revealed himself to Moses as compassionate and forgiving. Moses appealed immediately to the character of God newly revealed. It is in this context that God makes the following statement:<\/p>\n
And he said, \u201cBehold, I am making a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels, such as have not been created in all the earth or in any nation. And all the people among whom you are shall see the work of the LORD, for it is an awesome thing that I will do with you.\u201d (34:10 ESV)<\/p>\n
Note particularly in verse 10 the use of the active participle, \u201cI am making a covenant\u201d (\u05d0\u05b8\u05e0\u05b9\u05db\u05b4\u05d9 \u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05e8\u05b5\u05ea). Whether the action is construed as imminent or as nonperfective, the context indicates that God is in the midst of covenant making. First the Ten Words were given verbally; then they were written. The covenant was violated before the stone tablets were given to the people. God forgave Israel at Moses\u2019s request and carried on with his covenant making in writing another set of stone tablets to give to the people. There is no indication that Exodus 34 entails a \u201ccovenant renewal\u201d apart from the people being given a rewritten set of stone tablets.
\nIn the end, the generation entering the covenant at Sinai died in the wilderness, and another generation arose. Deuteronomy is a renewal of the covenant with them as well as a covenant made for the first time as a supplement to the covenant at Sinai. There are only three other constructions in the Hebrew Bible where the participle is employed in the standard terminology (k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet): Deuteronomy 29:11 and 13 and, analogously, Nehemiah 9:38 (10:1 MT). In each case the participle corresponds to the present tense in English and refers to something in the making that is in the process of being completed.<\/p>\n
CONCLUSION<\/p>\n
We are now in a position to conclude. The question before us is this: why was an addition (codicil?) to the covenant at Sinai necessary, and why was the expression \u201ccut a covenant\u201d employed for this addition?
\nFirst, an addition to the covenant at Sinai was necessary because the directions or instruction (t\u00f4r\u00e2) encoded in the covenant at Moab cover more adequately the situations of life in Canaan than the directions or instruction (t\u00f4r\u00e2) encoded in the covenant at Sinai. Thus the instruction in Deuteronomy reshapes the covenant at Sinai for life in the land. There is a whole new context and situation even though it is the same covenant.
\nSecond, we must put the covenant making at Moab in perspective with what comes before and what comes after. In referring to the covenants that precede it, I shall not appeal, as does David Andrew Dean, to terminology imposed externally, such as covenant obligations versus regulations, conditional versus unconditional, or bilateral versus unilateral covenants. Rather, we can grasp the important points from the metanarrative and from sensitivity to the statements in the biblical text.
\nThe first point to note is that creation entails a covenant between God and man on the one hand and between man and the world on the other. Though the humans violate the covenant by failing to show \u1e25esed and \u2019\u0115met and disobey the command in the garden, the commitment of the Creator to his creation is affirmed\/upheld in the covenant with Noah.
\nThe second point to note concerns the covenant that God makes with Abraham (Genesis 15). This entails commitments and promises to Abraham and requires Abraham to be an obedient son and servant-king. Though Abraham is less than a satisfactory ambassador and agent for Yahweh, God affirms\/upholds his covenant in Genesis 17.
\nThen at Sinai Yahweh offers to the nation the role of kingdom of priests and holy nation. The people will be bound to Yahweh by covenant and will act as obedient son and servant-king in the world. Israel\u2019s disloyalty and treachery in worshiping the golden calf violate this covenant. Here there is a difference from the earlier covenants: the fulfillment of the covenant rests on the human partner\u2019s loyalty. Although God forgave Israel in Exodus 33\u201334, that entire generation\u2014that is, that entire Israel\u2014was wiped out in the desert as a judgment for their unbelief in Numbers 14. The covenant needs to be renewed, but the expression h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet\u2014literally, \u201cto affirm or uphold a covenant\u201d\u2014is entirely inappropriate. God has made no commitment to uphold that which he has not already upheld. And the human partner that made the covenant is dead. It is a brand new Israel that has replaced the earlier one that needs to affirm loyalty to Yahweh in the face of earlier faithlessness and covenant violation. The expression h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet is never used in a situation where a partner fails and now needs to affirm a commitment made previously. No, Israel needs to renew the covenant by making a covenant to keep the earlier one, just as we see in Joshua 23\u201324. Then the content or instruction of this covenant can be added to the earlier one and can be kept beside the ark of the covenant.
\nEarlier we saw that Joshua 23\u201324 indicates a continuity between the book of Joshua and the Pentateuch. Deuteronomy 29\u201330 indicates that in the book of Deuteronomy, Moses is adding something in continuity with the covenant at Sinai. Moses is making a covenant to keep the covenant at Sinai. This is why the expression k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet, \u201cto cut a covenant,\u201d is the only one appropriate for this situation. And this time the covenant is made not only with the Israel present but with all future generations of Israel so that the children cannot argue that the covenant at Sinai was with their parents and not with them.
\nDeuteronomy is best seen as a renewal and expansion of the Sinai covenant. The exposition given here of Deuteronomy 30:11\u201314 coheres completely with Deuteronomy 4:25\u201331 and Leviticus 26:39\u201345, where even the ideas of an uncircumcised heart and repentance in exile are found.
\nThis, then, best explains the relation of Deuteronomy 1\u201330 to Exodus 19\u201324 and the terminology used to describe that relationship. It is clear from this analysis that there is no such thing as a Palestinian covenant in Deuteronomy 29\u201330 as proclaimed by dispensationalists. This is a complete misunderstanding of the literary structure and the function of chapters 29\u201330 as a covenant conclusion ceremony and of the relationship of the Moab covenant to that of Sinai.
\nJohn H. Sailhamer also sees Deuteronomy 29 as a separate covenant\u2014without stipulations\u2014related to the covenant promised in the Prophets and not related to any part of the book of Deuteronomy preceding chapter 29. This is largely due to a failure to observe the literary structure of the text and the function of chapters 29\u201330 as the actual ceremony of covenant making.
\nFinally, a brief comment on Deuteronomy 4:29\u201331 is necessary. When Moses reviews the history of past relationship with Yahweh in the historical prologue section of the covenant\/treaty, covenant breaking and faithlessness are duly noted. In 4:1\u201314, Moses commands obedience, and in verses 15\u201331, he warns them of the danger of covenant violation and idolatry in the future, leading to curse, exile, and death. Nonetheless, when they are exiled, even then the Lord will not destroy his people or forget the covenant with \u201cyour fathers\u201d:<\/p>\n
But from there you will seek the LORD your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul. When you are in tribulation, and all these things come upon you in the latter days, you will return to the LORD your God and obey his voice. For the LORD your God is a merciful God. He will not leave you or destroy you or forget the covenant with your fathers that he swore to them. (4:29\u201331 ESV)<\/p>\n
The long shadow of Sinai looms over the people. Dempster details how events before and after Sinai are similar, but those after are judged more severely. The possibility of a faithful human partner to this point in the narrative plot structure is bleak. Thus, this factor explains the need for chapter 30 after chapters 28 and 29 and also 32:34\u201343 within the song of Moses\u2014though the word b\u0115r\u00eet does not occur here. Both Deuteronomy 30 and 32:34\u201343 foresee the faithlessness and future judgment of Israel. Deuteronomy 4:29\u201331 also underscores the relationship between the Israelite covenant and the Abrahamic: because of the Abrahamic covenant, violation of the Israelite covenant by Israel does not mean the end of God\u2019s purposes for the family of Abraham.<\/p>\n
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FORM<\/p>\n
Earlier we discussed the significance of the form of the Book of the Covenant and included Deuteronomy in that discussion. Analysis of the book of Deuteronomy requires reinforcement of one or two things.
\nJust as in Exodus 19\u201324 the Ten Words are foundational to the Judgments and, conversely, the Judgments applied and extended the Ten Words in a practical way to all areas of life, so in Deuteronomy the specific stipulations in chapters 12\u201326 illustrate the application and extension of the basic requirement of loyalty and the review of the Ten Words to various areas of life (in an Iron Age culture).
\nOnce again, the classification of the laws as moral, civil, and ceremonial is foreign to the literary structure of the text. In fact, the ceremonial, civil, and moral laws are all mixed together.
\nComparing Deuteronomy with contemporary documents from the ancient Near East in both content and form reveals that the book, in relation to other treaties, belongs to the fourteenth century BC (see figure 10.1, where columns 1 and 2 belong to the fourteenth century BC, while columns 3 and 4 belong to the seventh century BC).
\nThe Israelite covenant, as found in the book of Deuteronomy, is without parallel in the ancient Near East in terms of content and form taken together: (1) in content, Deuteronomy is most similar to ancient Near Eastern legal treatises, but it does not have the form of a law treatise; (2) in form, Deuteronomy is most similar to ancient Near Eastern treaties but not in content. This is obvious from figure 10.2. God desires to direct and instruct the lives\/lifestyle of his people, yet he wants to do this in the context of a family relationship characterized by love, loyalty, and trust. This is completely different from Greek and Roman law codes or ancient Near Eastern legal treaties. We should always remember that Torah means \u201cinstruction\u201d rather than \u201claw.\u201d It might be better for Christians to simply speak of the \u201cinstruction\u201d in the covenant.<\/p>\n
Figure 10.1 Comparison of Ancient Near Eastern Treaty Forms<\/p>\n
10.2 Comparison of Ancient Near Eastern Laws\/Treatises and Deuteronomy<\/p>\n
THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE ISRAELITE COVENANT TO THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT<\/p>\n
In order to construct a metanarrative that is true to the biblical text, we must not only accurately determine the meaning of the foundational texts, we must also listen to what the text says about interrelationships between two or more covenants.
\nTwo main points are made in the text concerning the relationship of the Israelite covenant to the Abrahamic covenant. First, the exodus from Egypt is a fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham (Ex. 2:24; Deut. 7:7\u20139; 9:5; Jer. 11:2\u20134). In Genesis 15, when God made the covenant with Abraham, he predicted that Abraham\u2019s descendants would be enslaved and mistreated in a country not their own for four hundred years but afterward would come out with great possessions. Among the several texts that refer to this, we can cite Deuteronomy 7:7\u20139 as an example:<\/p>\n
The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments. (NIV)<\/p>\n
Here, deliverance from enslavement in Egypt is attributed to the Lord keeping his covenant of love. This is a clear reference to his promise to Abraham in Genesis 15.
\nSecond, Exodus 19:5\u20136 shows that by means of the Israelite covenant, God intends for the nation to fulfill the Adamic role reassigned to Abraham. Through covenant, God will bring his blessing and establish his rule in the lives of his people and, through them, in the rest of the world.<\/p>\n
11<\/p>\n
THE DAVIDIC COVENANT<\/p>\n
Another key point in the narrative plot structure of Scripture is the agreement or covenant that God initiated with David, king of Israel. As a convenient and short title we shall call this agreement the Davidic covenant, observing the language of the biblical text.
\nAs we shall see, the Davidic covenant functions in the larger story in a number of significant ways. In the history of the people of Israel, it inaugurates a divinely designed model of kingship for the nation. Furthermore, it implements the kingship of Yahweh among his people at a deeper and higher level. In addition to addressing concerns and problems of the developing nation of Israel, the Davidic covenant carries forward in specific ways the intentions and purposes of God expressed in the Sinai covenant and, even further back, in the covenant with Abraham.
\nFirst, we shall look at the context and historical situation in which kingship was inaugurated. Then, we shall examine the main passages on the covenant with David and also look at how this was appropriated and understood by later texts of the Old Testament, particularly Isaiah 55. Finally, we shall briefly describe the connections and relations between the Davidic covenant and the Sinai covenant and the covenant with Abraham.<\/p>\n
JOSHUA<\/p>\n
Joshua was a leader like Moses. He led the people into the land of Canaan, the land promised to the patriarchs in the covenant with Abraham. The book of Joshua is divided into two parts: the first half describes the conquest of the land; the second half describes the division of the land among the twelve tribes of Israel according to their \u201cclans\u201d (\u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d7\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea). This result was a clear fulfillment of the Israelite covenant, but it also led Israel to a higher level of commitment, as we see when the book ends with a ceremony of covenant renewal (Josh. 24:25).
\nThe expression employed for this ceremony is k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet, \u201cto cut a covenant.\u201d Some scholars have falsely assumed from such texts that the expression k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet does not always refer to covenant initiation but can be used for covenant renewal. This is an erroneous conclusion. What in fact happened is that Joshua made a covenant with the people to keep the covenant\u2014the Israelite covenant inaugurated through Moses at Sinai and Moab. So technically, from a linguistic point of view, k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet refers only to covenant initiation.
\nAnother example, precisely similar to Joshua 24, is 2 Kings 23:2\u20133:<\/p>\n
And the king went up to the house of the LORD, and with him all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the priests and the prophets, all the people, both small and great. And he read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant that had been found in the house of the LORD. And the king stood by the pillar and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people joined in the covenant. (ESV)<\/p>\n
Here King Josiah makes a covenant (k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet) to keep a covenant, that is, \u201cto perform the words of this covenant\u201d (h\u0113q\u00eem-eth dibr\u00ea habb\u0115r\u00eet hazz\u014d\u2019t).<\/p>\n
JUDGES<\/p>\n
The next period is dark in every way. The nation of Israel is constantly breaking the covenant at this time. The writer of the book of Judges portrays recurring cycles in which (1) the people break the covenant and sin against Yahweh; (2) Yahweh disciplines them by allowing foreign nations to oppress and harass Israel; (3) the people are called to repentance and cry out for help; and (4) Yahweh raises up a hero or deliverer, called a judge, who rescues the people from their enemies and rules them for a time.
\nAt the end of this book, the author comments, \u201cIn those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes\u201d (Judg. 21:25). Here the author is really referring to the condition of the people and how the covenant would be preserved. He is saying that despite the lack of human support that might have preserved a political or religious ideal and in spite of the fact that there was no king and that each person followed his own standard, Yahweh, by direct intervention through the judge or savior figures, preserved the covenant with Israel at this time. The book of Judges, then, suggests that, in any age, the people of Israel would not owe their existence to political constitutions devised by themselves, such as the monarchy. It would owe it to the faithfulness of its covenant partner, who would never defect from his obligations to which he was bound by oath and promise.<\/p>\n
SAMUEL AND THE BEGINNING OF THE MONARCHY<\/p>\n
When the book of Samuel opens, the worship of God is debased among the people of Israel. Eli, the high priest, is primarily responsible because he was not able to discipline his sons, Hophni and Phineas. God prepares Samuel as the man to rescue his people from this crisis.
\nIn 1 Samuel 8, the elders of Israel ask Samuel to appoint a king to lead them, like the nations surrounding them. This request reveals a number of issues confused in the minds of the people. First, Samuel was a judge. Normally, Yahweh appointed the judges by his Spirit. It was not an office that was passed to one\u2019s natural sons as in a dynasty. Second, they wanted a king like the nations surrounding them. Here the problem was not in wanting a king per se. God had planned for this from the start. Man was created as the divine image in order to \u201crule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground\u201d (Gen. 1:26\u201328). He was placed in the garden in Eden to exercise sovereignty over it and over all things. Later, when God made his last new start, he told Abraham and Sarah that kings would come from them (Gen. 17:6, 16), and this promise was reaffirmed to Jacob (Gen. 35:11). Jacob\u2019s blessing on the tribes, given at the time of his death, announced that \u201cthe scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler\u2019s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his\u201d (Gen. 49:10). Even Balaam, in his second oracle, says, \u201cThe shout of a king is among them\u201d (Num. 23:21), and in his fourth oracle, \u201cA star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel\u201d (Num. 24:17). Finally, in Deuteronomy 17:14\u201320, Moses lays down provisions and regulations for a monarchy brought about according to God\u2019s choice and God\u2019s timing. The king must be the man of Yahweh\u2019s choice (17:15) and must govern the people according to the principles of the Israelite covenant (17:18\u201320). The problem was not, then, in wanting a king. It was in wanting one like the nations. Kingship in Canaan at this time was centralized, was absolute, and contained the potential abuse of power. In addition, there was a danger that through alliances, compacts, and treaties, the Israelites would depend on others and not on the Lord. Moreover, since kings would come to the throne by dynasty and not by direct intervention from the Lord, God\u2019s direct rule of the people could be thwarted.<\/p>\n
SAUL: 2 SAMUEL 6<\/p>\n
The book of Samuel relates that, because of the degeneration of worship and disobedience of the people under King Saul\u2019s reign, God allowed the Philistines to capture the ark. Symbolically, this indicated that Yahweh had departed from his people and gone into a self-imposed exile. The return of the ark in 2 Samuel 6 and the choosing of a site for the temple indicate that Yahweh is returning to live in the midst of his people as king. The fact that 2 Samuel 6 precedes 2 Samuel 7 shows that only when the kingship of Yahweh is firmly established can the issue of kingship in Israel be discussed. A sanctuary for the Lord comes before the monarchy.
\nAnother significant factor is the emergence of the office of prophet in Israel at this time. Samuel is the beginning of the prophets. The office of prophet also comes directly from the Israelite covenant (Num. 12:6\u20139; Deut. 18:15\u201322). And it arises at this time because it provides a check against the absolute rule of the king and makes sure that Yahweh\u2014that God\u2014is ruling the people through the king of Israel. For every David there must also be a Nathan who can come directly into the king\u2019s presence and confront his decisions and actions by the authority of the word of God.<\/p>\n
DAVID: 2 SAMUEL 7<\/p>\n
The main passages in the Old Testament dealing with the Davidic covenant are 2 Samuel 7 (with its parallel text in 1 Chronicles 17) and Psalm 89 (esp. 89:3\u20134, 19\u201337). While 2 Samuel 7 does not specifically call the arrangement a covenant, the term b\u0115r\u00eet is in fact used in 2 Samuel 23:5; Psalms 89:3, 28, 34, 39; 132:11; and 2 Chronicles 13:5. Moreover, \u1e25esed, the term used of the Davidic covenant in Isaiah 55:3, is used in 2 Samuel 7:15.<\/p>\n
LITERARY STRUCTURE<\/p>\n
Let us begin by carefully determining the literary structure of the text so that we can observe how this communication is shaped.<\/p>\n
Outline of 2 Samuel 7
\nI. God\u2019s Promise to David
\n7:1\u201317
\nA. David\u2019s plan (David proposes to build a house for Yahweh)
\n7:1\u20133
\nB. God\u2019s promise
\n7:4\u201317
\n1. Will you build a house for me?
\n7:4\u20137
\n2. I will build a house for you!
\n7:8\u201317
\na. Promises to be realized during David\u2019s lifetime
\n7:8\u201311a
\nb. Promises to be realized after David\u2019s death
\n7:11b\u201316
\ni. The covenant promises: Yahweh\u2019s part
\n(1) Seed
\n(2) Kingdom
\n(3) Throne (eternal)
\n7:11b\u201313
\nii. The covenant relationship: The king\u2019s part (obedience in a father-son relationship)
\n7:14\u201315
\niii. Summary of the covenant promises
\n(1) An eternal seed
\n(2) An eternal kingdom
\n(3) An eternal throne
\n7:16
\nII. David\u2019s Prayer to God
\n7:18\u201329
\nA. David\u2019s praise and worship
\n7:18\u201324
\n1. Wonder
\n7:18\u201320
\n2. Praise
\n7:21\u201324
\nB. David\u2019s requests
\n7:25\u201329
\n1. David asks God to confirm his word
\n7:25\u201327
\n2. David expresses trust in God\u2019s word
\n7:28
\n3. David asks God to bless his house
\n7:29<\/p>\n
The passage is divided in half, with the first half narrating the revelation of divine promises given to David and the second half recording David\u2019s response in worship. When it says in 2 Samuel 7:18 that \u201cKing David went in and sat before the LORD,\u201d it means that he entered the sanctuary to reflect, worship, and pray.
\nAgain, the first half is divided into two parts: in the first part David proposes to build a grander sanctuary of cedar paneling than the present temporary tent. In response, God promises to build a house for David. There is a play on the word \u201chouse\u201d (\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05b4\u05ea). The \u201chouse\u201d that David wants to build for Yahweh is a sanctuary or temple. The \u201chouse\u201d that Yahweh will build for David is a dynasty or royal family line. This play on words is taken up again and again in both the Old and New Testaments. For example, in Amos 9 the prophet predicts a future time when the sorry state of the Davidic dynasty, a \u201cfallen hut,\u201d will be rebuilt. Since the context also refers to bringing down the temple (9:1), which had become devoted to corrupt worship, both dynasty and temple are involved in the reference to the \u201cfallen hut\u201d of David (9:11).
\nDavid\u2019s initial plan is approved by the prophet Nathan and then revoked when Nathan is given a divine revelation by dream or vision in the night. This is significant because it is part of a theme in 2 Samuel that kingship in Israel must be subservient to Yahweh, the Great King.
\nIn 2 Samuel 7:8\u201316, the section detailing the divine gift and promises to David, several key markers of the literary structure need to be observed. First, the shift from perfect and waw-consecutive imperfect verb forms marking past time in 7:8\u20139a to waw-consecutive perfect forms marking future time in the middle of 7:9 clearly marks the break between past blessings and future promises. Second, the messenger formula that opens 7:8 (\u05db\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e6\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea) is repeated in 7:11b, albeit in a different form (\u05d5\u05d4\u05d2\u05d9\u05d3 \u05dc\u05da \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4). This is a clear marker in the text, along with the temporal clause beginning 7:12 and the reference to a time after David\u2019s death, to separate the promises to be fulfilled during David\u2019s life from the promises to be fulfilled after David\u2019s death.
\nThe covenant clearly demarcates both divine and human obligations. The divine obligations or promises are divided by the literary structure into promises to be fulfilled during David\u2019s lifetime and promises to be fulfilled after David\u2019s death. The former are listed in 7:8\u201311a: (1) a great name, (2) a firm place for Israel as the people of God, and (3) rest for David from his enemies. The latter are listed in 7:11b\u201313 and 16. Here what Yahweh promises David is a lasting dynasty, kingdom, and throne. The promises are given initially in 7:11b\u201313 and are repeated in 7:16. At the center of this a\u2013b\u2013a\u2032 chiastic structure is the covenant between Yahweh and David, defined as a father-son relationship. This stresses the need for obedience to Yahweh on the part of the king. Traditionally, theologians have viewed the Davidic covenant as unconditional. It is true that the content of the covenant consists in the mighty promises made by Yahweh. Nonetheless, as 7:14\u201315 shows, faithfulness is expected of the king, and these verses foreshadow the possibility of disloyalty on the part of the king, which will require discipline by Yahweh. In effect, 7:14\u201315 is saying that the covenant will be fulfilled not only by a faithful father alone (i.e., Yahweh keeping his promises) but also by a faithful son (i.e., the obedience of the king to Yahweh\u2019s Torah). The chiastic literary structure actually portrays in a visual manner the nature of the covenant: faithfulness and obedience in the father-son relationship is crucial, but it is supported on both sides by the faithfulness and sure promises of Yahweh to David of descendants, kingdom, and throne (the order is the same before and after the chiastic center). This same chiastic literary structure is observed in Psalm 132:11b\u201312, a later commentary on the Davidic covenant. Second Samuel 7:11a and 12b emphasize the promises of God, and 7:12a speaks of the need for an obedient son. Thus once more, the promises of God undergird and support on both sides the need for a faithful, obedient son.<\/p>\n
YAHWEH AND THE DAVIDIC KING<\/p>\n
The consideration given by later texts to both divine and human obligations in the covenant will be noted shortly. First, however, what it means to describe the relationship between Yahweh and the Davidic king as \u201cfather\u201d and \u201cson\u201d must be fully explained. Factors involved in this include the use of the word \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05df in Hebrew, the cultural context of kingship in Canaan and in the ancient Near East, the use of familial language in treaties, and the canonical context of the passage.
\nA literal, physical family relationship is clearly contrary to the context. Nonetheless, \u05d1\u05b5\u05bc\u05df, the term for \u201cson\u201d in Hebrew, has a much broader field of meaning than son in English. In an agrarian, preindustrial economy and society, trades were normally transmitted within a family setting. In this way, sons customarily did what their fathers did in addition to displaying common characteristics passed on from family setting, genetics, and upbringing. Thus the term \u201cson\u201d can be used to mean \u201cpossessing the characteristics\u201d of something. In the parable of the vineyard in Isaiah 5:1, the beloved has a vineyard (\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e7\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05df \u05d1\u05b6\u05bc\u05df\u05be\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05de\u05b6\u05df, lit. \u201con a horn, the son of fatness\u201d). The horn, that is, a hillside or terrace on a mountain spur or slope, is \u201ca son of fatness,\u201d that is, characterized by abundant produce. An idiomatic English translation would be \u201ca fertile hillside.\u201d
\nThe ancient Near Eastern and Canaanite cultural context is significant. In Egypt, from at least 1650 BC onward, people perceived the king as the image of god because he was the son of god. The emphasis was not on physical appearance. For example, a male king could be the image of a female goddess. What is stressed is that the behavior of the king reflects the behavior of the god. The king as the image of god reflects the characteristics and essential notions of the god.
\nSo, for example, from Ugarit we have the story of King Keret, who is described as the son of El. His excellent health must indicate his divine origin.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Again, the summary provided by Davies is apt and deserves a hearing: Israel\u2019s cult shares some common features with the sanctuary ideology of the ancient world. The tabernacle is a representation of an ideal or restored cosmos, where God and man meet in an environment which transcends the limitations of the mundane world. The priest, … <\/p>\n