DEUTERONOMY (Δευτερονόμιον).
A. Introduction. The Eng. title of Deuteronomy, meaning “repetition of the law,” is derived from the LXX Δευτερονόμιον and the Vul. Deuteronomium. This inaccurate rendering is based on Deuteronomy 17:18 where the words “a copy of this law” (מִשְׁנֵ֨ה הַתּﯴרָ֤ה הַזֹּאת׃֙) are incorrectly tr. τὸ̀ Δευτερονόμιον τοῦτο as if the Heb. had been “this copy of the law” (מִשְׁנֵה הַתּﯴרָה הַזֶּה ). This title, however, is not inappropriate, for the book does include, along with much new matter, a repetition or reformulation of a large part of the laws. In Heb. lit. the book was known by a title taken from its opening words, “these are the words” (אֵ֣לֶּה הַדְּבָרִ֗ים), or simply, “words” (דְּבָרִ֗ים).
B. Content. Deuteronomy claims to consist almost entirely of the farewell speeches of Moses addressed to the new generation which had grown to manhood in the wilderness. The speeches are dated in the eleventh month of the forty years of wandering (1:3) and it is stated that Moses wrote as well as spoke them (31:9, 22, 24).
The three main discourses are preceded by a brief introduction (1:1-5) and followed by an epilogue (ch. 34) which narrates the death of Moses. The first discourse is chiefly historical and hortatory, reviewing the life of Israel in the wilderness from the mountain of Horeb or Sinai to the land of Moab (1:6-4:43). This discourse contains a brief statement about setting aside three cities of refuge on the other side of the Jordan (4:41-43) and announces the following exposition of the law by Moses under the triple heading of testimonies, statutes, and ordinances. The chief part of this discourse (chs. 5-26), opens with an exposition of the Ten Commandments and develops particularly the first comandment at great length (chs. 5-11). Next follow the laws which can be considered under the categories of ceremonial (12:1-16:17), civil (16:18-18:22), and criminal (19:1-21:9). This is followed by the miscellaneous laws pertaining to family and property (21:10-25:19).
The ceremonial laws treat place of worship (12:1-28); idolatry (12:29-13:18; 16:21-17:7); clean and unclean food (14:1-21); tithes (14:22-29); remittance or release (15:1-18); setting aside of firstlings as holy (15:19-23); holy seasons (16:1-17).
The civil ordinances treat appointment of judges (16:18-20; 17:8-13); election of a king (17:14-20); regulations concerning the rights and revenues of priests and Levites (18:1-8); and rules concerning prophets (18:9-22).
The criminal laws cover the manslayer and cities of refuge (19:1-14); false testimony (19:15-21); conduct of war (20:1-20); expiation of an undetected murder (21:1-9); and crime punishable by hanging (21:22, 23).
The collection of miscellaneous laws cover such a variety of subjects as marriage with a female captive (21:10-14); right of primogeniture (21:15-17); disobedient son (21:18-21); kindness to animals (22:1-4, 6-8); prohibition of various mixtures (22:5, 9-11); twisted cords on garments (22:12); punishment of unchastity (22:13-29); exclusion from the congregation (23:1-9); ritual cleanness in the camp (23:10-15); runaway slaves (23:16, 17); temple prostitutes (23:18, 19); exaction of interest (23:20, 21); vows (23:22-24); use of neighbor’s fruit and corn (23:25); remarriage after divorce (24:1-4); exemption of newly-married men from war service (24:5); pledge (24:6, 10-13, 17, 18); man-stealing (24:7); leprosy (24:8, 9); wages (24:14, 15); parents and children (24:16); treatment of strangers, orphans, and widows (24:17-22); excessive punishment (25:1-3); muzzling the laboring ox (25:4); Levirate marriage (25:5-10); indecent assault (25:11, 12); weights and measures (25:13-16); and the extermination of Amalek (25:17-19).
Chapters 26 and 27 present the didactic applications of these laws and ch. 28 is a declaration of the blessings and curses which will overtake the people if they observe or neglect the prescribed statutes and ordinances.
The third discourse (chs. 29, 30) consists of a supplementary address, exhorting the people to accept the terms of the new covenant and promising them forgiveness in case of sin, if attended by wholehearted repentance. These three addresses are followed by a collection of miscellaneous materials such as Moses’ farewell, his deliverance of the law to the priests, his commission to Joshua, the Song of Moses, and the Blessing of Moses (31-33).
At least three elements—historical, legislative, didactic—can be traced through the book. The references to history are usually with a didactic aim. The legislative element tends directly to secure the national well-being.
The tone of exhortation which runs through the earlier and later addresses pervades also the legislative portion. The laws are not systematically stated but are ethically expounded in order to set forth their relation to the theocratic principles laid down in chs. 5-11. The author’s purpose is primarily hortatory; he is not a historian or jurist as much as he is a religious teacher.
The author wrote under a keen sense of idolatry and was deeply concerned to guard Israel against this, by insisting earnestly on the debt of gratitude and obedience it owed to its sovereign Lord. Therefore, the truths on which he dwells are the godhead of the Lord, His spirituality (Deut 4), His choice of Israel, and the love and faithfulness He has manifested toward it. From this is then deduced the need for Israel’s loving devotion to Him, an absolute repudiation of all false gods, a warm and spontaneous obedience to His will, and a generous attitude toward men.
Throughout Exodus-Numbers the Lord speaks to Moses; through Deuteronomy Moses speaks to the people. Here Israel’s redemptive history is tr. into living principles; Deuteronomy is more commentary than history. The purpose is to arouse Israel’s loyalty to the Lord and His revealed law.
Deuteronomy clearly teaches that the relation of God to His people is more than law. The thought of the love of Israel toward her God, which is indeed laid down in the words of the Decalogue (Exod 20:6; Deut 5:10), is not required elsewhere in the Pentateuch, but in Deuteronomy is earnestly insisted upon (10:12; 12:1, 13, 22; 13:3; 19:9; 30:6, 16, 20). Appeals made to Israel to keep the commandments often are based on the recollection of God’s might and of His terrible visitation, awe, fear; but the highest appeal is to the consciousness of His own free love (Deut 7:7, 8; 8:17; 9:4-6). Love indicating the people’s affection and devotion to the Lord is again and again insisted upon as the true spring of all human action (5:10; 6:5; 7:8; 10:12, 15; 11:1, 13, 22; 13:8; 19:9; 30:16, 20).
The idea of Israel as “son” and the Lord as “father” is set forth in Deuteronomy. The loving God had given Israel life by redemption from Egypt; He had reared and educated Israel in the wilderness (Deut 8:2, 3, 16; 14:2). These new Israelites, born and trained in the desert, were to inherit the blessings promised to their fathers. This intimacy emphasizes the demand that Israel should cleave to the Lord (11:22; 13:4) and not follow “other gods” (6:14, 15; 7:4; 8:19, 20; 11:16, 17, 20; 30:17, 18). Because Israel was holy, she was not to join other gods (7:6). This spirit of holiness was also expressed by observing love toward neighbor, and charity toward poor, widow, orphan, Levite, stranger (10:18, 19; 24:17-21).
By means of the covenant, the Israelites became heirs of all the promises given to their fathers the patriarchs (4:31; 7:12; 8:18; 29:13). Israel was considered holy and peculiar, and esp. loved by the Lord (7:6; 14:2, 21; 26:18, 19; 28:9). They were indeed disciplined for their own good (8:2, 3, 5, 16), but also to be established as a special people, as the Lord’s peculiar lot and inheritance (32:6, 9; 4:7).
The chief thought of Deuteronomy is the unique relation which the Lord, as a unique God, sustains to Israel as a unique people. The monotheism of Deuteronomy is very explicit: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” The Lord is the only God, “There is none else besides him” (4:35, 39; 6:4; 32:39), “He is God of gods, and Lord of lords” (10:17), “the living God” (5:26), “the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments” (7:9), who despises graven images and every species of idolatry (7:25, 26; 12:31; 13:14; 18:12; 20:18; 27:15), to whom belong the heavens and the earth (10:14), who rules over all the nations (7:19), whose relation to Israel is near and personal (28:58). Being such a God, He is jealous of all rivals (7:4; 29:24-26; 31:16, 17), and therefore all temptations to idolatry must be removed from the land, the Canaanites must be destroyed, along with their altars and images (7:1-5, 16; 12:2, 3; 20:16-18).
The other nations feared their gods but Israel was expected not only to fear the Lord but also to love Him and cleave to Him (4:10; 5:29; 6:5; 10:12, 20; 11:1, 13, 22; 13:3, 4; 17:19; 19:9; 28:58; 30:6, 16, 20; 31:12, 13). Israel was destined to enjoy the highest privileges because the people were partakers of covenant blessings; all others were strangers and foreigners, except when admitted into Israel by special permission (23:1-8).
C. Analysis. In recent years scholars have compared the extra-Biblical covenant (suzerain—vassal) treaties of the ancient Near E with the Biblical material and some have concluded that Deuteronomy, to a great extent, follows the classic covenant pattern consisting of the following sections: preamble, historical prologue, stipulations, curses and blessings, invocation of oath deities, direction for deposit of duplicate treaty documents in sanctuaries, and periodic proclamation of the treaty of the vassal people. M. Kline (Treaty of the Great King) has made a detailed comparison of Deuteronomy with this classic treaty structure and made the following outline of Deuteronomy: I. Preamble: Covenant Mediator (1:1-5); II. Historical Prologue: Covenant History (1:6-4:49); III. Stipulations: Covenant Life (chs. 5-26); IV. Curses and Blessings: Covenant Ratification (chs. 27-30); V. Dynastic Disposition: Covenant Continuity (chs. 31-34).
Stylistically, this comparison of the pattern of the international suzerainty treaty is noteworthy. Deuteronomy is an exposition of the covenant concept and reveals that God’s covenant with His people is a proclamation of His sovereignty and an instrument for binding His elect to Himself in a commitment of absolute allegiance. Ancient suzerainty treaties began with a preamble in which the speaker, the one who was declaring his lordship and demanding the vassals’ allegiance, identified himself. The Deuteronomy preamble identifies the speaker as Moses (v. 1), but Moses, however, as the earthly, mediatorial representative of the Lord (v. 3), the heavenly Suzerain and ultimate Lord of this covenant. Following the preamble in the international suzerainty treaties there was a historical section, written in the I-thou style, which surveyed the previous relationships of lord and vassal. Benefits conferred by the lord upon the vassal were cited with a view to grounding the vassal’s allegiance in a sense of gratitude and fear. All these features characterize Deuteronomy 1:6-4:49.
Following the historical section were the stipulations which constituted the long and crucial central section of the covenant. When suzerainty treaties were renewed, these stipulations were repeated but with modifications, esp. such as were necessary to meet the changing situation. So, in these Deuteronomy stipulations (5:1-26:19) Moses rehearses and reformulates the requirements promulgated in the Sinaitic Covenant. Also just as treaty stipulations customarily began with the fundamental and general demand for the vassal’s absolute allegiance to the suzerain and then proceeded to various specific requirements, so Moses confronts Israel with the primary demand for consecration to the Lord (chs. 5-11) and then with the ancillary stipulations of covenant life (12:26).
The fourth standard division in the Near Eastern suzerainty treaties included the curses and blessings. In Deuteronomy this section is found in chs. 27-30. The final section of the covenant document has as its unifying theme the perpetuation of the covenant relationship. This succession is provided for by the appointment and commissioning of Joshua as dynastic heir to Moses in the office of mediatorial representative of the Lord (ch. 31). Included are two other standard elements in the international treaties. One is the invocation of covenant witnesses, here represented chiefly by the Song of Witness (ch. 32). The other is the direction for the disposition of the treaty document after the ceremony (31:9-13). By way of notarizing the document, an account of the death of Moses is affixed at the end (ch. 34).
The implications of this comparative evidence for the questions of the antiquity and authenticity of Deuteronomy are far-reaching. This kind of document with which Deuteronomy has been compared did not originate in some recurring ritual situations. Where, either in monarchic or pre-monarchic times, except in the very occasion to which Deuteronomy traces itself, can a historical situation be found in which such a treaty document is most appropriate?
This literary structure of Deuteronomy also has important implications for the way in which, having once been produced, this document would have been transmitted to subsequent generations. By their very nature treaties like Deuteronomy were inviolable. They were sealed legal documents; in fact, it was a practice to deposit such treaties in sanctuaries under the eye of the oath deities. There are examples in some of the extinct texts of specific curses pronounced against anyone who would in any way violate the treaty inscrs. Corresponding to these special stele curses is an injunction (Deut 4:2a): “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it.”
This extra-Biblical evidence confirms and illuminates not isolated data in Deuteronomy but the Deuteronomy treaty in its very structure; this information argues against a long evolutionary process being required to produce a book like Deuteronomy.
D. Authorship
1. Critical views. The traditional critical view (the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis) claims that Deuteronomy (at least chs. 12-26) was first published in 621 b.c. when Hilkiah found “the book of the law” in the Temple during the eighteenth year of King Josiah (2 Kings 22:8). This book was written, so the critics claim, for the express purpose of promoting a religious reform, to include the abolition of the “high places,” or local sanctuaries, supposed to have been perfectly legitimate up to that time, and to concentrate on the people’s worship in Jerusalem. As a 7th cent. b.c. literary creation reflecting the teaching of the 8th cent. b.c. “ethical” prophets, Deuteronomy was accorded a position late in the evolutionary process which led, in Wellhausen’s thought, from the primitive religion of the patriarchs through the henotheism of later times to the exalted monotheism of Deutero-Isaiah and the lit. of the exilic and postexilic period. If, however, as the critics claimed, the author was a prophet whose object was a religious reformation, and his aim was to abolish the “high places,” why does he not mention them? If he wanted to centralize worship in Jerusalem, why not make it clear? Jerusalem is not even mentioned. Moreover, would a prophet of such oratorical and spiritual power as reflected in this book be afraid to proclaim his message openly, or prefer to remain unknown, write it in a book, and hide it in the Temple?
Many cogent arguments have been raised against the critical view which would date the book in the 7th cent. b.c., and connect it with Josiah’s reformation. The law book discovered by Hilkiah was recognized immediately as an ancient code (2 Kings 22:13). Were they all deceived? Even Jeremiah (Jer 11:3, 4)? There were many persons who would have strong motives for exposing such a forgery. Also one wonders why such a code formulated in Josiah’s time would include such archaic and anachronistic references as the command to exterminate the Canaanites (Deut 7:16, 22), and to blot out Amalek (25:17-19), the last remnants of which were completely destroyed in Hezekiah’s time (1 Chron 4:41-43). It is esp. remarkable that if the document was composed shortly before the reign of Josiah, there should be no anachronisms in it betraying a post-Mosaic origin. There are no allusions to schism between Israel and Judah, no hint of Assyrian oppression through exaction of tribute, nor any threat of Israel’s exile to Assyria or Babylon, but rather to Egypt (Deut 28:68). From a literary point of view it is well nigh impossible for a writer to conceal all traces of his age and circumstances, yet no Egyptologist has ever detected an anachronism in Deuteronomy.
Of course, the traditional critical view of the origin of Deuteronomy is an integral part of the documentary hypothesis; indeed, one might say that the question of Deuteronomy is the cornerstone of the documentary hypothesis. So the approach of the critics to the Book of Deuteronomy is based on their attitude toward the origin and nature of the Pentateuch itself, as well as to the whole question of the development of Israelite religion. The classical critical approach to Deuteronomy has been altered in various ways in recent years so that at the present time the origin of the Book of Deuteronomy is among the most controversial problems with the critics. Serious problems raised by late date theories have caused the critics to make various modifications which confuse and cancel each other. Almost every period has been advanced as the age in which the book was composed, while its authorship has been ascribed variously to Moses himself, Samuel or, less specifically to prophetic, priestly, and other circles. As to its origin, it has been associated with such sanctuaries as Jerusalem, Shechem and Bethel or, less precisely, to northern Israel or Judah. A convenient survey of the evolution of these differing and conflicting theories of the critics may be found in E. W. Nicholson’s Deuteronomy and Tradition (1967).
2. Traditional view. The traditional view of the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy is based on the teaching of the Bible itself and Jewish and Christian tradition which was in full accord until the advent of higher criticism.
Deuteronomy is represented as emanating from Moses. Nearly forty times his name occurs, and in the majority of cases as the authoritative author of the subject matter. The first person is sometimes used (1:16, 18; 3:21; 29:5). It is expressly stated that Moses taught Israel these statutes and judgments in order that they should obey them in the land which they were about to enter (4:5, 14; 5:31). The book bears the message of one who is interested in Israel’s political and religious future. A paternal mood runs throughout which marks it as Mosaic.
The Bible clearly indicates, “And Moses wrote this law, and gave it to the priests the sons of Levi....When Moses had finished writing the words of this law in a book, to the very end, Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, ‘Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against you’” (Deut 31:9, 24-26). Here it is distinctly and emphatically stated that “Moses wrote this law.” The simplest explanation is that Moses “wrote” the legislation itself, namely chs. 12-26. An unbroken line of tradition assigns authorship to Moses; this was accepted by the Lord Himself (Matt 19:8) and generally by the NT writers. The record of Moses’ death is not as serious as some would claim. It is not out of order, even today, for an editor to furnish addenda to an autobiography, giving an account of the author’s death. It will be noticed that the Book of Joshua is closed in the same way. This appendix may have been attached to the document soon after the death of Moses, or it may be, as some suppose, that what is now the end of Deuteronomy was once the beginning of Joshua. The author of the appendix could have been Joshua, the intimate friend of the great lawgiver and his successor as the leader of Israel. He was the one above all others who should have pronounced the eulogy upon his master after his death. Notice the expressions “Moses the servant of the Lord,” and “Moses, the man of God.” Neither of these phrases is found in the preceding part of the Pentateuch and it does not appear that Moses even assumed such titles for himself. It was a favorite method with Joshua, however, in speaking of his dead friend and leader. The words “Moses the servant of the Lord,” occur more than a dozen times in the Book of Joshua, and are found in both the narrative matter and the speeches attributed to the author. The other expression also was known in his day for Caleb referred to “Moses, the man of God,” in addressing him.
E. Background
1. Personal element. The content of Deuteronomy contains what one would expect to find from the hand of Moses; the background reflects a Mosaic character. References to experiences which must have deeply stirred Moses’ feelings crop up unexpectedly, such as “the house of bondage” (5:6), the recalling of the attack by the Amalekites (25:17), the burden of judgment (1:9-18), the murmurings of the people (9:22-24), the material of which the Ark was made (10:3), the enemies they had overcome. The references to Aaron (9:20ff.; 10:6ff.; 32:50) and Miriam (24:9) spring naturally from Moses but appear strange if merely inventions of a 7th cent. b.c. prophet.
Throughout chs. 12-26 Moses’ name is absent, yet it is clearly assumed that he is the speaker. This is the more striking since his name is repeated no fewer than thirty-eight times in the narrative portions. His personality shines through by the intrusion here and there of the first person, esp. in the phrase, “I command thee,” sometimes with the addition of “this day.” This is particularly the case in the remarkable passage 18:15-18, with its reference to the people’s memory of Horeb in v. 16. One can well imagine this intrusion with its promise coming from the mouth of Moses; but otherwise it loses much of its point. It is not easy to conceive of it as a device of a reformer, or to see how it could serve his purpose.
The personal element again appears, quite unexpectedly in 24:8, “Take heed, in an attack of leprosy, to be very careful to do according to all that the Levitical priests shall direct you; as I commanded them.” The emergence of the first person in this verse is uncalled for, if not Mosaic. Then comes, “Remember what the Lord your God did to Miriam, on the way as you came forth out of Egypt.” How natural for Moses to call to mind his own sister’s folly and punishment; how strange if simply used by one intent on the reform of the cult!
Other incidents which must have deeply impressed Moses unexpectedly intrude into the law, such as the attack of the Amalekites (25:17), and the hiring of Balaam to curse (23:4).
The number and character of reminiscences is a striking feature. The mode of their occurrence is frequently quite incidental, such as the frequent references to Egypt and the reference to Miriam. They convey the impression that they issue from an old man who rebuked the people for disobedience as if they were children, and to display his anxiety that these younger hearers should “remember” and “not forget” his words, when he should be no longer there to guide (4:9-6:7).
There are also signs that the speaker has known the responsibility of leadership. He remembers the “ways” by which they traveled, the turnings, the treatment they received, the difficult crossings, and the places where water was attainable for the cattle.
There are names of events, all of which stirred Moses’ feelings deeply, the tempting (Massah), striving (Meribah), destruction (Hormah), the burning (Taberah), the graves of lust (Kibroth-hattaavah) and the chastisement (Mosera). Is this combination of words pure accident, or is it not probable that these are the names which Moses himself attached to the events? It is significant that Moses is never praised until after his death (34:10).
It should also be noted that these reminiscences found in Deuteronomy cover the whole period of Moses’ life but never transgress that limit. The author remembers the “garden of vegetables” artificially watered (11:10), the plagues which fell on Pharaoh (7:18), his household (6:22), and his land (29:2). He also recalls the Passover instituted in the month of Abib (16:1), the departure “in haste” and “at even” (16:3, 6 KJV), and the destruction of Pharaoh’s army in the Red Sea “to this day” (11:4), the proving at Massah (6:16; 8:3, 16; 9:22), and the attack by Amalek (25:17-19). Also remembered are the covenant in Horeb, the ten “words” and the “ark of acacia wood” (10:1-3), and Moses’ prayer for Aaron (9:20). The words, “stamped it,” and “the brook that descended from the mount” are peculiar to Deuteronomy. Also specific reference is made to the forty years in the wilderness (8:2, 19; 11:5), “great and terrible” (1:19), where were “fiery serpents and scorpions” (8:15), the manna (8:3, 16), the water from the “rock of flint” (8:15 ASV), the divine care (2:7; 8:3), and the judgment on Dathan and Abiram (11:6). Also recalled are the stay in Kadesh-barnea (1:19-46), the pillar of fire, the pitching of the tents, the mission of the twelve spies, and the long journey around Edom, Moab, and Ammon. Note also the reference “unto this place” (9:7-11:5) as the long wilderness journey terminated.
This is a formidable list when compared to the few references found in the prophetic writings. There is nothing to compare with this amount of detail in any of the speeches recorded in the historical books and much less than this would have sufficed to provide the law with a “Mosaic” setting. These reminiscences contribute nothing to the alleged program of reform attempted at a late date.
In Exodus it is related that Moses prayed for the people, but nothing is said about his prayer for Aaron. But in Deuteronomy 9:20 we read “the Lord was so angry with Aaron that he was ready to destroy him; and I prayed for Aaron also at the same time.” Why should a late writer introduce this? Yet nothing could be more true if Moses were the author. Another reference (32:50) records Aaron’s death, an event which must have left an indelible impression on his brother’s mind, since they were both involved in the same trespass.
Could all these personal Mosaic features have been introduced by some reformer, priest, prophet, or Levite, in order to invest his collection of laws with a Mosaic dress? Is it probable that such an author would have succeeded in establishing a correspondence so natural, so close in manifold and minute particulars, and so profound? Or is it more reasonable to think that this result proceeds from a true historical connection between the book of the law and the man whose name it has always borne? On every hand if Deuteronomy is acknowledged to be a great book which exerted great influence, should it not also have a great author? Who can fill that place so worthily as the old and tried leader who brought the Israelites out of Egypt, shared their experiences and laid the foundations of their faith?
2. Historical setting. The time for these discourses in Deuteronomy is plainly stated; it was the eleventh month of the forty years of wandering which were imposed upon the people for their unbelief (1:3, 35; 2:14). If one endeavors to picture the author living in monarchic or later days he meets on every side baffling paradoxes; if, however, the author is speaking to Israel as they approach the Promised Land and are about to settle, the language is precisely what one would expect. The aim of the author is to protect the Israelite community against Canaanite influence. This is viewed as a future danger and not as in Hosea where the people are already entangled with many lovers. Deuteronomy speaks of “other gods, which you have not known” (13:2, 3), even of “new gods that had come in of late” (32:17). This is not the language of one addressing a degenerate Israel of a later age; it is language connected with entry into the land.
The historical setting, moreover, is explicit in “when you go over the Jordan” (12:10), and “when you come into the land” (18:9), and implicit throughout. The campaign against the former inhabitants had still to be fought (20:17). The remembrance of the bondage in Egypt recurs frequently, and is treated as a recent experience in the living memory of some. Close connection with the immediate past is reflected in “Remember what Amalek did to you on the way...” (25:17); and also the exclusion of the Ammonite and the Moabite from membership in the congregation “because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way” (23:4).
Two of the most frequent phrases in the book are “go in and possess” (thirty-five times), and “the land which the Lord giveth thee” (thirty-four times). The occupation of the land by the Israelites had a primary place in the mind of the author. The language of promised blessings was for a people about to settle in a new land; not those settled for ages. The gods of the Canaanites are described as those of “the nations whom you shall dispossess” (12:2, 29, 30). This language is in striking contrast to Ezekiel, Haggai, or Ezra!
Where “tribes” are mentioned in Deuteronomy, they are separate entities but included in one whole; nothing to indicate a breach between N and S; Judah and Ephraim are not two kingdoms, and in fact are named only once, which is in the Blessing (33:7-17). The consistent address to “all Israel” assumes the unity of the nation; the people were addressed as a whole. For the period of the divided kingdom this was neither appropriate nor significant.
In Deuteronomy the election of Israel and the covenant at Horeb are always referred to as past events, but the inheritance of the land is always regarded as future. There is a national consciousness and a national religion, but as yet there was no central political organization. The contents are precisely suitable to the time and place (Deut 4:44-49). Anachronisms and discrepancies are not present in the text to reflect a “late” author.
It should also be noted that the primitive nature of the laws is suitable for a time when Israel first became a nation, but insufficient if viewed in relation to the needs of the 7th cent. b.c. These laws were to be executed by judges (16:18), priests (17:9), and elders or “men of the city” (21:21) not by the king (contrast 2 Kings 15:3, 4). In this book the Lord Himself lead the people to battle as in the days of Joshua.
These laws were issued with a tone of authority which seems to proceed from a great leader. The prophets plead, but this author commands. This colors the whole legislation, and is explicit in the repeated phrase, “which I command you this day” (13:18; 19:9; 27:1).
The theology of the Deuteronomic legislation is simple and unsophisticated; it shows no advance upon that of Moses and no difference from it. The same cannot be said of the theological outlook of Isaiah or his successors. Deuteronomy reflects the optimism of the Mosaic era; the promise of the fathers, the wonders in Egypt, the people’s deliverance and the covenant at Horeb. Such a combination of qualities can scarcely be due to accident, nor does it wear the appearance of design. The laws laid down in chs. 12-26 exactly correspond to the background of the Mosaic era and not to any other.
3. Geographical features. An analysis of the background data contained in Deuteronomy reveals geographical references too accurate for a Mosaic setting to be accidental. The account of the journeyings (chs. 1-3) is altogether realistic and quite unlike an introduction later prefixed to a collection of old laws. The views described and the features of the Moabite country reproduced reflect an eyewitness account. There is much geographical detail recorded, esp. in the opening and closing chapters, but Pal. is always viewed from the outside. The minute accuracy of the description of the land of Moab and the journey to it is esp. a striking feature (chs. 2 and 3). In contrast, Deuteronomy knows nothing of Zion or David and even these omissions are significant. If Deuteronomy comes from a late period as critics have persistently asserted, why is there no mention of Jerusalem, or even Shiloh where the Tabernacle came to rest?
Deuteronomy contains numerous notices concerning nations with whom the Israelites had then come in contact, but who, after the Mosaic period, entirely disappeared from the pages of history, such as the accounts of the residences of the kings of Bashan (1:4). The observation is made (2:10) that the Emim had formerly dwelt in the plain of Moab and that they were a great people, equal to the Anakim; this observation accords with Genesis 14:5. Deuteronomy gives a detailed account (2:12) concerning the Horites and their relations to the Edomites. An account of the Zamzummim (2:20, 21), one of the earliest races of Canaan, is given though mentioned nowhere else; the author apparently had some interest in them. All of this is most strange if viewed from a “late” period, but exactly what one would expect from Moses.
Deuteronomy uses the appellation of “hill country of the Amorites” (1:7, 19, 20, 44), but even in the Book of Joshua, soon after the conquest of the land, the name is already exchanged for “hill country of Judah” (Josh 11:16, 21).
The Book of Deuteronomy clearly reflects the personality of Moses, the historical setting of his age, and the geographical data one would expect.
F. Later influence. The influence of Deuteronomy upon the later writings and history of Israel is great. Of all the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy has been most used by the prophets, simply because it is best calculated to serve as a model for prophetic declarations.
In the Books of Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings there are sufficient references to reveal that Deuteronomy was known and observed. When Jericho was taken, the city and its spoil were “devoted” (Josh 6:17, 18) in keeping with Deuteronomy 13:15ff. (cf. Josh 10:40; 11:12, 15 with Deut 7:2; 20:16, 17). When Achan trespassed, he and his household were stoned, and burned with fire (Josh 7:25. Cf. Deut 13:10; 17:5). When Ai was captured, “only the cattle and the spoil” did Israel take (Josh 8:27 and Deut 20:14); also note that the body of the king of Ai was taken down before nightfall from the tree on which he had been hanged (Josh 8:29), which was required (Deut 21:23; cf. Josh 10:26, 27). Joshua built an altar on Mt. Ebal (8:30, 31), “as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded” (v. 31) and he wrote thereon a copy of the law (Josh 8:32), as Moses instructed (Deut 27:3, 8). Especially notice that the elders and officers and judges stood on either side of the Ark of the covenant between Ebal and Gerizim (Josh 8:33), as directed in Deuteronomy 11:29; 27:12, 13, and Joshua read to all the congregation of Israel all the words of the law, the blessings, and the cursings (Josh 8:34, 35), in strict accord with Moses’ orders (Deut 31:11, 12). Other references make it quite clear that Deuteronomy was known in the days of Joshua.
The Book of Judges has references to Deuteronomy. The complete destruction of Zephath (Judg 1:17) may be compared to Deuteronomy 7:2; 20:16ff. Gideon’s elimination of the fearful and faint-hearted from his army (Judg 7:1-7) should be compared to Deuteronomy 20:1-9. The case of Micah, who congratulated himself that the Lord would do him good seeing he had a Levite for a priest, is clear evidence that Deuteronomy was known in the days of the Judges (Judg 17:13; cf. Deut 10:8; 18:1-8; 33:8-11).
The prophets of the 8th cent. were certainly aware of the book. Hosea alludes to striving with priests (Hos 4:4; cf. Deut 17:12), removing landmarks (Hos 5:10; cf. Deut 19:14), returning to Egypt (Hos 8:13; 9:3; cf. Deut 28:68), and of the Lord’s tender dealing with Ephraim (Hos 11:3; cf. Deut 1:31; 32:10). Amos also appears to have been familiar with the contents of Deuteronomy (cf. Amos 3:2 with Deut 7:6; 9:12). Amos condemns Israel’s inhumanity and adultery in the name of religion, and complains of their retaining overnight pledges wrested from the poor, which was distinctly forbidden (cf. Amos 2:6-8 with Deut 24:12-15; 23:17).
The NT contains several references to, and some citations from the Book of Deuteronomy, and in these its Mosaic authorship and divine authority are generally assumed. In Hebrews 10:28 the words of Deuteronomy 17:6 are quoted as “Moses’ law.” Paul quoted Deuteronomy 27:26 and 21:23 with the introduction: “It is written” (Gal 3:10, 13), and similarly parts of the Decalogue (Rom 7:7; 13:9; Eph 6:2). In another passage (Rom 10:6-9) he equated the words in Deuteronomy 30:12-14 with the “word of faith” which he preached.
Jesus, in the hour of His temptation, three times quoted the words of Deuteronomy as authoritative (Matt 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13). He called Deuteronomy 6:4, 5 the “great and first commandment” (Matt 22:38), and described the Decalogue as “the commandment(s) of God” (Mark 7:9-12; 10:17-19) or as “the word of God” (Mark 7:13). In response to the question of the Pharisees concerning divorce, He described the permission for divorce under certain conditions given by Moses (Deut 24:1) as the precept which Moses “wrote” (Mark 10:5). See Law in the Old Testament
Bibliography J. Reider, “The Origin of Deuteronomy,” JQR, N.S. 27 (1936-1937), 349-371; G. T. Manley, “The Moabite Background of Deuteronomy,” EQ. XXI (1949), 81-92; G. E. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” BA, XVII (1954), 50-76; G. T. Manley, The Book of the Law (1957); J. Muilenburg, “The Form and Structure of the Covenantal Formulations,” VT, IX (1959), 347ff.; M. G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King (1963); D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (1963); D. R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (1964); O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (1965); E. W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition (1967).