INTRODUCTION
Deuteronomy
is often dismissed as a bellicose, legalistic book, irrelevant to New Testament
theology. However, efforts must be made
to understand this book so often quoted by Jesus. A critical reading helps us enter the world
of the original audience, broadly accepted as 7th century Judah, but
perhaps a more ancient Hebrew people or later Jewish exiles. Thus, we may understand the message as it was
intended: as a gracious covenant treaty between YHWH and all Israel. While Deuteronomy contains preached law, it
is structured not as law code but as an Ancient Near Eastern (ANE)
suzerain-vassal treaty. I will attempt
here to ground this document in Israel’s history so as to understand its
message, in particular how the treaty genre is exploited to convey a theology
of astounding divine grace.
PART ONE: THE FORM AND
STRUCTURE OF DEUTERONOMY
Deuteronomy
is traditionally included in the Torah, but to what extent is it actually
law? Especially in chapters 12-26, there
are casuistic and apodictic laws (Thompson, 1964, 17). Deuteronomy heaps up synonyms like
commandments, statutes, and ordnances (Deut. 4, 1-2; Boadt, 2006, 146). Many laws corresponding to those in the Book
of the Covenant (Ex. 20-30) are updated for a more advanced, urban context
(ibid., 147; Kline, 1963, 33), possibly seventh century Judah. Neither abstract nor esoteric, the clear,
practical content is to be known by all Israel (Wright, 1996, 62; 85;
275). It conveys an ethos for a covenant
people, where human life is valued more than property (ibid., 82), and YHWH
demands unswerving loyalty. This law is
anchored in Israel’s history, and is an appropriate response to his grace
(ibid., 64; 261).
Kline
rightly claims that “the hortatory character [of Deuteronomy] exposes the
inaccuracy of speaking of a Deuteronomic law code” (1963, 32). Scholars concur that the urgent, sermonic
style aims to elicit a response of commitment and obedience (Boadt, 2006, 141; Thompson,
1974, 17). Homiletic devices include repetition,
imperatives, exhortations and emotive phraseology (Boadt, 2006, 144;
McConville, 2002, 19). A key verb in
Deuteronomy is ‘expound’ (Wright, 1996, 21).
Thompson describes the typical structure of apodictic laws, explained in
legal language but expounded homiletically (1964, 31). For example, in Deut. 15:1-11 on debt
remission, a command is given, then explained procedurally and applied
pastorally. The style and content of
Deuteronomy, as well as the structure if taken at face value, make clear that
this is preached law.
However,
covenant, not law, is at the heart of Deuteronomy (Boadt, 2006, 143; McConville,
2002, 20; 28). Scholarly consensus is that
the heuristic key to Deuteronomy lies with similarities to secular ANE
suzerain-vassal treaties (ibid., 1993, 31).
This view was suggested by Mendenhall (1955), and developed by Klein (1963)
for Deuteronomy in particular.
Typically, such treaties identify the Great King in a preamble before
recounting historical details. Then
follow stipulations of the treaty, first in general and then specifics. Suzerain-vassal treaties also detail in
further sections how the treaty was to be read publicly, gods were invoked as
witnesses, and finally curses and blessings were listed. Such treaties are exclusive and binding
(Wright, 1996, 110). See table 1 for the
way in which Boadt aligns Deuteronomy to the sections of a treaty.
McConville
aptly warns against taking the treaty structure too far. Firstly, Deuteronomy is unique and does not
follow the precise structure any one kind of treaty, Hittite or Assyrian (2002,
24; 59). Kline too stresses that the
structure is a “conceptual adaptation … of common formal media” (1963, 42),
with deliberate innovations such as the absence of gods as witnesses (Boadt, 2006,
143). In fact, altogether different
structures can be discerned, with Wright comparing the book to a “rich fruit
cake” that can be sliced in multiple ways (1996, 1). Deuteronomy is also a series of three
speeches, in the deathbed speech or fatherly wisdom traditions familiar in the
ANE (ibid., 2; Thompson, 1964, 21). There
is a concentric literary pattern, moving from an outer and inner frame towards
the core, and out again, with further examples of chiasmus embedded within
(Wright, 1996, 4). And within the book,
there is an approximate ordering of material according to themes of the
Decalogue (ibid., 5; 255). By recognizing
these structures also, a stereophonic message of law and grace for the covenant
people sounds out. But for whom, or by whom,
was it written?
PART TWO: INTERPRETIVE HORIZONS
IN ISRAEL’S HISTORY
We now
turn our attention to an evaluation of the mainstream view linking Deuteronomy
with seventh century Judah, before considering Mosaic and exilic alternatives. A seventh century composition was proposed by
de Wette (1805) and developed by Wellhausen (1883) who suggests that an editor
compiled a core Deuteronomy, Urdt, just before the reforms of 2 Kgs 22 (Thompson,
1974, 57). If Deuteronomy is indeed the Book of Law discovered by Josiah, then its
context is Judah after the Fall of Samaria.
People feared a similar fate for the southern kingdom, and while some
saw political alliances as a solution, Josiah sought religious reform God (2 Kgs
22-23). Unfortunately, the reform was
short-lived and the pattern of evil monarchy and spiritual decline
followed. In this context, Deuteronomy
would have profound political and theological implications. Suzerain-vassal treaties were
certainly known to the scribes in Jerusalem, who perhaps wrote Deuteronomy to
assert politico-religious independence (ibid., 75). The covenantal theism of Deuteronomy is better
developed than pre-monarchic religious expressions (McConville, 2002, 22; ibid.,
1993, 16). As further evidence of a 7th
century composition, there are parallels with Wisdom literature and its
simplistic morality, and prophecy with its call to loyalty (ibid., 2002, 25;
44). Deuteronomy certainly advocates elements
of Josiah’s reform programme such as centralized worship, although Jerusalem is
not mentioned by name (McConville, 1993, 17).
For other historical parallels, see table 2.
The
volume of scholarship advocating Deuteronomy’s link with Josiah’s reform is
overwhelming, yet more recently the link has been weakened. While maintaining a seventh century date for
Deuteronomy, some advocate earlier, northern origins. Boadt (145; 2006) points out ambivalence to
monarchy (Deut. 17, 14ff), and parallels with Hosea (e.g. Deut. 32, 21). Moses, not David, is the key figure, and the
covenant is tied to Ebal and Gerazim (Deut. 27). These Sinaitic and amphictyonic traditions
may have been brought to Judah by refugees following Samaria’s fall in
722. Certainly, Hezekiah attempted
reform in the earlier part of the 7th century, himself witness to
the fate Samaria and Sennacherib’s failed siege on Jerusalem (2 Kgs 18-20). The whole of the 7th century was a
traumatic time of soul-searching, and a likely context for the emergence of
Deuteronomy.
Others
advocate a much earlier date. Thompson
synthesizes evidence for material stemming from the period of the judges (1974,
43). Perhaps the central sanctuary is
not Josiah’s Jerusalem at all, but a succession of resting places for the Ark
of the Covenant, such as Shechem, Bethel and Shiloh of the old Israelite
amphictony. Agricultural and patriarchal
laws reflect pre-monarchic society (ibid., 52).
Arguments against such an early date are easily countered. For example kingly material need not preclude
pre-monarchic origins, since kingship was familiar throughout the ANE (Deut. 2,
24-3, 11).
Perhaps,
after two centuries of biblical criticism set on a 7th century date, even a Mosaic
reading is again possible. Without insisting on Deuteronomy as Moses’ ipsissima verba, ancient voices can be
traced back to the second millennium, close to the time depicted in Deuteronomy
of a people entering Canaan (Wright, 1996, 7).
Second millennium Hittite treaties may be closer to Deuteronomy than
later Assyrian texts (Kline, 1963, 41).
It is in these earlier treaties that historical prologues feature most
strongly (Deut. 1-3; 4, 44-5, 3329, 1-8).
Thompson explains that references to settled life could stem from
captivity in Goshen (1974, 55), and warns that scholars should not summarily dismiss
references to Moses’ writing (ibid., 56).
McConville too sees an ancient basis to Deuteronomy (2002, 38). Difficulties such as the narrative of Moses’
death could be considered as editorial additions to a ‘substantially Mosaic
legacy’ (Wright, 1996, 7).
One
significant alternative deserves consideration, namely a utopian exilic or
post-exilic composition. Deuteronomy has
parallels with late writings including Malachi and Nehemiah (Thompson, 1974, 78). The main argument for such a late composition
is the warning of exile (Deut. 4, 27) and the promise of restoration (Deut. 4,
31), as well as a generally pessimistic tone.
Simultaneously, Deuteronomy is idealistic in its social standards, and
contains themes relevant to returning exiles, e.g. anti-cultic theology of the
heart, entering the land, and having a second chance. McConville (2002, 42) successfully integrates
this (post-) exilic relevance within his early dating of Deuteronomy by
suggesting that there are late glosses, but that even in Moses’ day the people
were notoriously disobedient. Therefore,
the exile remains a valid interpretive horizon even supposing a primarily second
millennium composition.
PART THREE: DEUTERONOMY’S THEOLOGY OF GRACE
So far,
we have established that Deuteronomy follows a suzerain-vassal covenant treaty
structure rather than law code. We have
also considered various dates as interpretive horizons. Now we arrive at theological content. Many avenues could be explored, such as the
nature of sin, or ethics. However, the undergirding
theme of this book is in fact divine grace.
Here we look at four aspects of grace, namely election, rescue, land,
and unconditional promise including the hope of restoration.
While
Hittite and Assyrian kings made treaties with multiple vassals for their own
political expediency, YHWH chooses only one people. God binds himself to Israel as his treasured
possession (Deut. 7, 6; 14, 2; 26, 18).
Thompson (1964, 35) and López (2004) demonstrate how the vocabulary of
Deuteronomy, full of love and heart language, is different to secular treaties,
especially in the unique use of chesed. Israel is reminded that she was neither
bigger nor better than other nations (Deut. 7, 6-8; 9, 4-6). Election is not based on merit, nor on any quid pro quo, but out of sheer grace,
‘because I loved you’ (Deut. 7:8; Thompson, 1963, 6).
The
repeated rehearsals of OT Heilsgeschichte
are another feature of grace. Unlike
earthly kings, YHWH does not act in history to conquer, tax and exploit, but to
redeem and bless (Wright, 1996, 55).
Deuteronomy emphasizes the exodus tradition, rooting laws and community
identity in historical experiences. God
reminds Israel of his provision and protection in the wilderness (Deut. 8,
2-4), and promises to fight the Canaanites on their behalf (Deut. 9, 1-3). While an historical prologue is expected in a
Hittite treaty, Deuteronomy’s sheer amount of reiteration of history is striking.
As
with other OT covenants, land is God’s tangible gift (cf Gen. 12; 17; Ex. 19). Wright discerns that the land is both God’s gift
to Israel, yet also his to take back (1996, 280). This apparent tension can be understood thus. The land, like election, is not merited by
obeying the law; it is a gift. However,
the land can only be enjoyed when living God’s way, or to use Wright’s word,
appropriated. God’s preferred plan for
his people is prosperity, not in the distorted ‘prosperity gospel’ sense, but
through social justice and reflecting God’s character in their lives. References to early apostasy (Deut. 1, 26; 9,
7) ensure that Israel consider the land as gift, not reward.
How
can this message of grace be squared with the curses of punishment and
exile? Is grace conditional? No, for punishment does not mean the covenant
is annulled. Although Assyria crushed
Jerusalem in 722 CE for Jehoiakim’s non-payment of tribute to Nebuchadnezzar
and his pro-Egyptian agreement (2 Kgs, 24), God’s treaty with Israel stands
forever. The message of chapter 30 is
that the prescribed curses will pass and Israel can return to God as well as to
the land. Thompson (1974, 38) locates
the first biblical mentions of (re)turning in Deuteronomy (e.g. 4, 30). Deuteronomy contributes to OT theology that
God’s covenant relationship is eternal and, although punishment may be
necessary, repentance and restoration are always possible (McConville, 2002,
42).
CONCLUSION
That
Deuteronomy is a covenant between God and Israel, based on secular suzerain-vassal
treaties of the ANE, seems beyond doubt.
This treaty form has been used flexibly, with repeated historical
rehearsals and disallowing other gods as witnesses. It is difficult to tie Deuteronomy to one
date, for while it was most probably used in Josiah’s reform, there is likely
much material originating far earlier in the second millennium. Deuteronomy has
been reinterpreted and related to generations throughout Israel’s history. An early form probably did inspire the
occupation of Canaan under Joshua, perhaps as oral tradition. The same story became the story of Israelites
and Judahites struggling to resist idolatry and injustice in the eighth and
seventh centuries. And the message of
urgent choice, total commitment and the curses brought about by apostasy would
have spoken bitterly to the exiles, as well as those returning to a land with
no king or temple in the late sixth century BCE. The very difficulty in dating Deuteronomy is
surely the reason for its enduring significance, that its message of grace is
relevant to God’s people in every generation.
Table 1: Parallels between Josiah’s Reform and the
message of Deuteronomy (adapted from
Boadt, 2002, 145)
|
||
Reference in 2 Kgs
|
Reform
|
Reference in Deut.
|
23, 4;
6; 7; 14
|
Abolition
of the asherim
|
7,5;
12,3; 16, 21
|
23, 4f
|
Destroy
the host of heaven
|
17, 3
|
23, 5;
11
|
End
worship of the sun and moon
|
17, 3
|
23, 7
|
Stop
sacred prostitution
|
23, 18
|
23, 10
|
End the
cult of Molech
|
12, 31;
18, 10
|
23, 13
|
Tear
down heathen high places
|
7, 5;
12, 2f
|
23, 13
|
Remove
foreign gods
|
12,
1-32
|
23, 14
|
Destroy
‘the pillars’
|
7, 5;
12, 2f
|
23, 21f
|
Passover
to be observed only in Jerusalem
|
16, 1-8
|
23, 24
|
Forbid
necromancy
|
18, 11
|
Table 2: Treaty structure of Deut. 1-30
(adapted from Boadt, 2002, 143)
|
|
|
Great King’s self-identification
|
1,1
|
|
Historical prologue
|
1,2 – 4,
43
|
|
Laws binding on the vassal: introduction
|
4, 44 –
11, 32
|
|
Laws binding on the vassal: detailed law code
|
12, 1—26,
19
|
|
Provisions for reading the law aloud
|
27, 8
|
|
Witness of the gods
|
None
|
|
Curses and blessings
|
27, 1 –
28, 68
|
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Collins, J.J. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kline,
M.G. (1963) Treaty
of the Great King. Eugene, Oregon:
Wipf and Stock.
López,
R. (2004) ‘Israelite Covenants in the Light of Ancient
Near Eastern
Covenants.’ In Chafer
Theological Seminary Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1,
Spring 2004. Accessed online at
2012]
Mendenhall,
G.E. (1955) Law and Covenant
in Israel and the Ancient Near East.
Pittsburgh: Biblical
Colloquium.
McConville,
J.G. (2002) Deuteronomy. Downers Grove, Illinois : Intervarsity
Press.
McConville,
J.G. (1993) Grace
in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.
Thompson, J.A.
(1963) ‘The Significance of the Ancient
Near Eastern Treaty Pattern.’
In
Tyndale Bulletin 13, pp 1-6.
Thompson, J.A.
(1964) The Ancient Near Eastern Treaties and the Old Testament.
London:
Tyndale Press.
Thompson,
J.A. (1974) Deuteronomy. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press.
Wright,
C.J.H. (1996) Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.
No comments:
Post a Comment