DEUa
Deuteronomy
Deuteronomy is an important book. In the OT it is pivotal: it concludes the Pentateuch (Genesis–Deuteronomy) and introduces the Deuteronomistic History (Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings). In the NT when Jesus is tempted by the devil three times, Jesus’s reply each time is, “It is written …,” followed by a citation from Deuteronomy (Matt 4:1–11). He was clearly well-versed in this important book.
Deuteronomy contains some of the Bible’s most beloved passages and some of its most disturbing. We hear the greatest commandment, endorsed by Jesus (Matt 12:28–34), along with affirmations of Yahweh’s love and devotion to his people.
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. (Deut 6:5, NRSV)
For you are a people holy to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on earth to be his people, his treasured possession. It was not because you were more numerous than any other people that the Lord set his heart on you and chose you—for you were the fewest of all peoples. It was because the Lord loved you … (Deut 7:6–8, NRSV)
Yet in some cases, these very verses provide a rationale for the imposition of “devoting” the Canaanites “to the ban” of annihilation (Deut 7:2–5, 16).
You shall devour all the peoples that the Lord your God is giving over to you, showing them no pity; you shall not serve their gods, for that would be a snare to you (Deut 7:16, NRSV).
But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded, (Deut 20:16–17, NRSV).
Juxtaposed with a law promoting evenhanded commercial transactions between people,
You shall not have in your bag two kinds of weights, large and small. You shall have only a full and honest weight; you shall have only a full and honest measure … (Deut 25:13, 15, NRSV)
is a law promoting genocide of a people group,
Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey out of Egypt, … you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; do not forget. (Deut 25:17–19, NRSV)
Deuteronomy will certainly prompt thoughtful readers to engage in critical interpretation, “rightly dividing the word of truth” (ὀρθοτομέω, 2 Tim 2:15, KJV), as we shall see below.
Contents: Structure and Redaction
1:1–4:43 Introduction for the Deuteronomistic History (Deut–Kings)
4:44–49 Original introduction to Deuteronomy
5–11 Preamble: Loyalty to the covenant revealed at Mount Sinai
12–26: Deuteronomic law code
27 Mt. Ebal: the altar and curses
28 Blessings and curses
29–30 New covenant in Moab
31–34 Appendices
31 Moses’ successor: Joshua
32 Song of Moses
33 Tribal Blessing of Moses
34 Death of Moses
A close reading of the contents and structure of the book reveals hints that the scroll had been updated because of its ongoing relevance for the people of God as they encountered new experiences and calamities (see further below). Deuteronomy 1:1–4:43 reiterates all of the historical and geographical references in Deuteronomy 4:44–49. Their opening lines are virtually identical.
These the words that Moses spoke to all Israel beyond the Jordan (Deut 1:1)
This is the law that Moses set before the Israelites … beyond the Jordan (Deut 4:44–46)
The longer introduction highlights events also found in Numbers 10–14, 20–21: the departure from Sinai, the appointment of leaders, the rebellion at Kadesh-barnea, and the Israelites’ travels in Transjordan, including the defeats of Sihon and Og. As a “second-telling” of Exodus’s “Book of the Covenant” (Exod 20–23), Deuteronomy’s expanded introduction offers a brief bridge explaining how the Israelites got from Sinai to their present location “beyond the Jordan.” The longer introduction was likely added when Deuteronomy became the introduction to the Deuteronomistic History (Deut–Kgs).
As most of Deuteronomy elaborates on the laws and revelations given at Mount Sinai, it seems somewhat incongruous that chapters 29–30 narrate the cutting of another covenant, using the same phrase found in Deuteronomy’s two introductions.
These are the words of the covenant that Yahweh commanded Moses to cut with the Israelites in the land of Moab, besides the covenant he cut with them at Horeb (= Sinai, Deut 29:1).
This particular covenant, however, is not merely for the current generation but for the benefit of “whoever is not with us today” (Deut 29:14). The narrative laments that “Yahweh has not given you a heart to know and eyes to see and ears to hear to this day” (Deut 29:4) and foresees the exile and the fulfillment of all the covenant curses (Deut 29:20–28). But it also promises that Yahweh will regather the exiles (Deut 30:1-5).
Perhaps most striking is the development in the agent of who will “circumcise” the “heart” of the Israelites. Unlike the insistence of the rite of circumcision found in priestly literature (P, Gen 17:14; Exod 12:48), Deuteronomy’s sole mention is metaphorical.
Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn (Deut 10:16, ESV).
And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live (Deut 30:6, ESV).
According to the original Sinai covenant, the Israelites were obliged to do surgery on their own heart to rid themselves of the disease of stubbornness. But according to the Moab covenant, Yahweh himself will be the surgeon, so they could actually fulfill the greatest commandment of loving God. This revelation, where God himself is the agent of inner transformation, must be regarded as a breakthrough passage. Yahweh’s commandments remain, but it is understood that the people of God—by themselves—are incapable of fulfilling them. The Moab covenant (Deut 29–30) ranks with Jeremiah’s promise of a new covenant that Yahweh “will write on their heart” (Jer 31:31–34) and Ezekiel’s promise of divine surgery. Within his book Ezekiel similarly shifts the burden of personal transformation and foregrounds God’s agency.
Make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit (Ezek 18:31).
I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put my within you. I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. My Spirit I will put within you, and I will make you walk in my statutes, and my judgments you shall be careful to do (Ezek 36:26–27).
Both prophets delivered these promises after the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians to engender hope for the exiles. These affinities suggest an exilic date for Deuteronomy’s covenant in the land of Moab. (Other passages located at “seams” in Deuteronomy may also be exilic additions: Deut 4:25–31, 32–40; 28:47–68.)
These clues indicate the scroll’s ongoing relevance and application, as it resonated with later generations especially when historical events tested their faith. In these moments the scribes incorporated new perceptions of where Yahweh was leading his people in their faith. We might think of the scroll of Deuteronomy as an updated app for revealing God. “Deuteronomy 1.0” probably had its origins among the Levites in the northern kingdom (its theology is similar to the prophet Hosea’s). The scroll then traveled to Judah after the destruction of Samaria in 722 BCE.
Its teachings appear to have influenced Hezekiah’s religious reforms (2 Kgs 18:3–7) in the eighth century, when it was adapted to the southern kingdom of Judah (Deut 2.0?). The evil King Manasseh likely suppressed it until its discovery in Josiah’s reform in 622 BCE (2 Kgs 22–23). Here we may note the close similarities between the curses in Deuteronomy 28 and the Assyrian treaties (discussed below). The scroll then spawned the Deuteronomistic History, found in Deuteronomy–Kings (Deut 3.0?). The Deuteronomic covenant underwent a crisis during the Babylonian exile, when it was supplemented with promises of restoration and covenant renewal (Deut 4.0?).
Deuteronomy as “Second Law”
Within the Hebrew Bible, the book of Deuteronomy is named “the Book of the Law” (Deut 28:61; 29:20; 30:10; 31:26; Josh 1:8; 8:31, 34). Its rediscovery prompted Josiah’s reform in 622 BCE (2 Kgs 22:8, 11). Its more familiar name, Deutero-nomy means “second law,” as it is a retelling and revision of the older “Book of the Covenant” found in Exodus 20–23 (Exod 24:4, 7). The “Book of the Covenant” had been read publicly at Mount Sinai to the generation of the exodus (Exod 24:3, 7). Deuteronomy, “the Book of the Law,” present itself as a series of Mosaic sermons presented outside the promised land “beyond the Jordan” (Deut 1:1) to the second generation, as the first generation had perished in the wilderness (Num 14:28–35). But, as noted in Module 3, Deuteronomy does more than simply reiterate the Book of the Covenant; it also revises and updates many of its laws.
The Levites. Before assessing some of these revisions, we should consider which social group in ancient Israel was likely behind these changes. The book of Deuteronomy puts a spotlight on the Levites. The Levitical priests were the ones entrusted with this very book (Deut 31:9). In Deuteronomistic literature (Deut–Kings), the priesthood is delegated to this tribe, some of the Levites residing at the central sanctuary but most residing in local villages (Deut 18:1–8). Unlike the other tribes, they “have no portion or inheritance with Israel,” that is, real estate to produce their own livelihood. Instead, the other Israelites were obliged to provide the Levites with portions of their agricultural offerings. Yahweh had “set apart the tribe of Levi … to stand before Yahweh to minister to him” (Deut 10:8; 18:5) and to serve as civil judges settling legal disputes (Deut 21: 5). In the tribal Blessing of Moses, the tribe of Levi is commissioned to become the teachers of Yahweh’s Torah to the Israelites and to receive the priestly Urim and Thummin (Deut 33:8–10, in contrast to Exod 28:30, where they are entrusted only to the Aaronic priests).
When Israelites offered ritual sacrifices, Deuteronomy reminds them to invite their local Levites along (Deut 12:12, 18–19; 16:11, 14), as this was their only means to put food on the table. Other groups meant to receive a special invitation are servants, sojourners, orphans, and widows. The Levites’ social location likely explains Deuteronomy’s heightened social concern for marginalized persons—among the various OT law codes.
From regional sanctuaries to one. One of the most drastic revisions that Deuteronomy/the Book of the Law applies to the Book of the Covenant in Exodus involves altars and places for worship. Exodus 20:22–26 explicitly allows for multiple altars for sacrifice and worship “in each place where I cause my name to be remembered.” This policy allows for regionalized worship centers, especially those sacred spaces attested by the ancestors’ encounters with God—all within the northern kingdom.
● Bethel (Gen 28:11–22; 35:7; Jdg 21:2–4; 1 Kgs 12:28–33)
● Gilgal (Josh 4:19–20; 5:2–10; 15:7; 1 Sam 7:16; 10:8; 11:15; 15:12)
● Shiloh (Josh 18:1; Judg 18:31; 21:19; 1 Sam 1:3)
● Shechem, between Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal (Gen 33:20; Deut 27:4-8; Josh 8:30-32; 24 25)
● Dan (Jdg 18:30; 1 Kgs 12:28–33)
But Deuteronomy 12 explicitly limits Israelite worship to a single altar (esp. Deut 12:3, 27) and place (Deut 12:2–5, 11, 13–14, 18, 21, 26), in effect federalizing worship to the capital in Jerusalem. As readers of the Bible centuries removed from everyday life “on the ground,” we must consider the enormous impact this policy had on worshipers in rural villages and consequently on their own sense of Yahweh’s nearness. Christians today may take for granted going to church each week, but we may wonder how Israelite farmers were meant to express their devotion to Yahweh on a regular basis. It is possible that village elders and Levites oversaw some kind of local worship and prayer, though Deuteronomistic literature gives little attention to the practical impact this federalizing policy had on pious Israelites living outside Jerusalem.
Info Box: High Places
When Samuel judged Israel he built an altar to Yahweh at Ramah, his hometown in the tribal territory of Benjamin (1 Sam 7:15–17), which is later identified as a legitimate “high place” where sacrifice takes place (1 Sam 9:6–25). His action is consistent with the Book of the Covenant in Exodus 20:22–26. Prior to the construction of the Solomonic temple, “high places” had some legitimacy: “The people were sacrificing at the high places because the house for Yahweh’s name had not been built” (1 Kgs 3:2). Even Solomon “was sacrificing at the high places.” When he sacrificed at Gibeon, “the great high place,” Yahweh “appeared to Solomon in a dream” and made him incomparable promises, clearly legitimizing this high place (1 Kgs 3:3–15). For the most part, however, they are condemned in 1–2 Kings, especially in the northern kingdom (1 Kgs 12:31–32; 13:2; 2 Kgs 17:9, etc.). Yet even among the early kings of Judah who “did what was right in Yahweh’s eyes,” they did “not remove the high places” (1 Kgs 15: 11, 14; 22:43; 2 Kgs 12:2–3, etc.). The first king to actually do so was Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:4, 22) and then, most famously, Josiah (2 Kgs 23:5–20)—the two kings known for enacting the Deuteronomic reforms. This centralization, or we might also say the federalization, of Israelite worship was clearly a policy promoted by the central government of the monarchy and one endorsed by the Deuteronomistic historians. But the general population in the outlying regions and villages nevertheless maintained worship at their local shrines/high places.
Liturgical Calendar. Another notable revision and update to Israel’s religion lay in the liturgical calendar. The earlier calendars (Exod 23:14–17, E; 34:18–23, J) identify the three annual pilgrimage festivals by their agricultural names: Unleavened Bread, Harvest, and Ingathering. But Deuteronomy’s liturgical calendar names the first and the last after historical saving events: Passover, which commemorates the exodus, and Booths, which commemorates the wilderness journey (Deut 16:1–17). This observation likely indicates that the three pilgrimage festivals had their origins in the celebration of the harvest: first the barley harvest, then the wheat harvest, and then the harvest of fruit and olives. But their significance was later transformed to commemorate the great saving acts of Yahweh.
The Ten Words: Sabbath and the Status of Women. Perhaps the most surprising revisions occur in the transmission of the Ten Words, which were “written with the finger of God” (Exod 31:18). The most significant occur in the Sabbath command and the last forbidding coveting. Both codes provide an expanded rationale for the observance of Sabbath. Exodus bases it in creation (Exod 20:8–11), and Deuteronomy in the exodus from Egyptian slavery (Deut 5:12–15).
Among the items one should not covet, the wife is listed second among the husband’s property in the Covenant Code (Exod 20:17). But in Deuteronomy the wife is listed first within a complete sentence, followed by another sentence with a different verb listing the husband’s property (with the addition of “his field,” thus reflecting a post-settlement perspective, Deut 5:21). These slight grammatical changes appear to reflect dramatic changes in the status of women. This is confirmed in their respective renderings of the Hebrew slaves laws. In the original Covenant Code male slaves serve a maximum tenure of six years, but female slaves must remain in the master’s possession (Exod 21:2–11). Deuteronomy, however, grants the same civil rights to female slaves as to male slaves and adds the provision that all released slaves are to be granted a generous severance package (Deut 15:12–18). As noted, Deuteronomy reflects a more humanitarian perspective among the OT’s law codes. We would be remiss if we did not observe that in Hammurabi’s earlier law code of the 18th century BCE the maximum tenure for debt slavery was three years, irrespective of gender:
If an obligation is outstanding against a man and he sells or gives into debt service his wife, his son, or his daughter, they shall perform service in the house of their buyer or of the one who holds them in debt service for three years; their release shall be secured in the fourth year (Hammurabi 117, COS 2.131, p. 343).
Info Box: Rape
Among the OT law codes, the book of Deuteronomy appears to reflect a more egalitarian and humanitarian perspective. But we must note that this perspective was not necessarily applied to all legal cases. In the case of rape of an unbetrothed virgin, both law codes prescribe that the victim should marry her rapist (Exod 22:16–17; Deut 22:28–29)! No doubt, our modern sensibilities are offended by this law. But in ancient societies the woman’s chances of marriage were slight after rape. Implicit in the law appears to be the assumption that the would-be rapist should be mindful that, if prosecuted, he is obliged to look after this woman’s welfare the rest of his life. The Covenant Code is ambiguous about mutual consent (“if a man seduces a virgin … and lies with her”), but Deuteronomy is clear about forcible rape (“seizes her and lies with her”).
The Covenant Code, however, gives the virgin’s father the right of refusal, while still allowing the father to receive the appropriate bride-price. But the location of this law in the Covenant Code among laws concerning property law, theft, and economic restitution (Exod 21:33–22:17) implies the chief legal concern here is the economic rights of “the house of the father” over the victim’s personal rights. Deuteronomy stipulates the bride-price as 50 shekels and forbids the man from ever divorcing the woman. In Deuteronomy, this law about unbetrothed virgins has been relocated from property law to family law. Unlike the Covenant Code, it includes cases of women married or betrothed (Deut 22:13–27). (Although the Covenant Code forbids “adultery” among the Ten Words, its case laws include no stipulations for its violation.)
The Middle Assyrian Laws (A §55, COS 2.132, p. 359) are similar to both OT law codes. The violated daughter is given “into the protection of the household of her fornicator,” and the father is given the right of refusal, in which case he receives triple the bride-price. If the rapist is married, however, then the daughter’s father takes the wife of the fornicator to be raped and never returned to her husband. (See also the Hittite Laws §197, COS 2.19, p. 118.)
Info Box: OT Laws and God’s Values
So what are Jews and Christians living in the 21st century to make of this? Do these laws in any way reveal God’s values and prescriptions? First, we must recognize there are variations and developing versions of OT law. And each has a context: a particular group in Israelite society formulated the laws for the people of God living in particular historical situations and cultural norms.
In other words, these laws are not permanently fixed words of God; they are legal collections that develop with the progress of Israelite society and God’s unfolding revelation. For example, both of these law codes operate within the assumed societal structure of “the house of the father” (Exod 22:17; Deut 22:29 and 16, 21). Here the woman’s status is defined by whether or not she is “betrothed,” that is, whether or not her bride-price has been arranged with the father (e.g., 2 Sam 3:14). But we shall see, as Israel’s societal norms flex with changing political pressures, that the norms of “the house of the father” disintegrate and morph into an increasing individual identity and responsibility (see Ezekiel module on Israel’s changing sociology). So if the economics of “the house of the father” are no longer assumed, then these rape laws cannot simply be applied as the people of God grow in their understanding of women as persons sharing equally in the image of God.
Second, God’s values were to be read not merely from law codes, but also from biblical narratives—Yahweh’s Torah/Teaching includes both genres. For example, in Genesis when Abraham sends his servant to find a wife for his son, Isaac, Rebekah’s family insists that Rebekah herself first be consulted for her consent (Gen 24:54–59). So, this section of Yahweh’s Torah teaches that women should be empowered to make their own decisions and that their opinion should be respected.
As complicated as it may seem, this means of interpretation is precisely the one that Jesus practiced on the issues of Sabbath observance and divorce. Although the Sabbath law is clear and one of God’s top 10 Commandments, Jesus tempers its legal force by referring to a narrative where David was hungry, as his disciples were on the Sabbath, and was given “the bread of the Presence” to eat, even though biblical law is clear that only priests may eat it (Matt 12:1–8; Lev 24 :5–9). On the question of divorce (Mark 10:1–9; Matt 19:1–9), the Pharisees took their lead from Deuteronomic law (Deut 24:1–4), but Jesus from the narrative accounts of creation (Gen 1:27; 2:24). According to Jesus, some biblical commandments are actually geared to accommodate human “hardness of heart” (Mark 10:5), showing what may be “permissible” (ἐπιτρέπω, Matt 19:8) given the human condition, but not God’s ideal will.
While interpreting the Bible, disciples of Rabbi Jesus must sometimes distinguish what the Bible says on a topic—within a passage—and what the Bible teaches—within the canonical library. If one is interested in what is biblically “lawful/permitted,” like the Pharisees (Mark 10:2), then one’s answer may be very different from one interested in “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27), where God’s values can be discerned (Mark 10:6–9). If believers wish to find God and God’s will in the Scriptures, then they should look not merely at the threads (verses or sources) but also at the entire tapestry (the canonical library).
Deuteronomy as a Covenant
Deuteronomy’s distinctive theology can be summed up as one God, one sanctuary, and one covenant. But this oneness all stems from the covenant—a metaphor that forms the framework for the book. For many readers, covenant has become a general catchword for Israel’s relationship with God. But its actual OT usage is not comprehensive but specific.
The Bible uses many metaphors to describe God’s relationship to his people: king, judge, warrior, savior/rescuer, redeemer, shepherd, father, husband, etc. Covenant-partner is simply one among the many to illustrate God’s varied roles. Deuteronomy stages Yahweh’s relationship with his people through the lens of a contractual relationship. As such, the relationship is a transactional one, involving an exchange of services. Although Israel’s relationship may be defined by their loyalty to Yahweh, they are motivated to do so as a form of “interested righteousness,” whereby they do good with an interest in obtaining blessing and avoiding the curse. With this in mind we must observe that the metaphor of Yahweh as covenant partner is complemented by others that transcend legal obligations, such as savior, redeemer, and parent, where Yahweh’s grace is often highlighted.
“Covenant” = treaty, enforced by curses. The Hebrew word translated “covenant” (בְּרִית, berit) is, in fact, applied most often in a theological sense to describe Yahweh’s contract with his people. But this theological usage stems from its prior use as a social/economic “contract” between persons (e.g., Gen 21:27, 32; 1 Sam 18:3) and to a political “treaty” between nations (1 Kgs 5:26; 15:19; 20:34). Covenants are always “cut” in the Hebrew Bible, an image obscured by most English translations, which generically describe them as “made.” The covenant was not simply a piece of paper, but included a ceremonial ritual symbolizing its life-and-death import.
And the men who transgressed my covenant and did not keep the terms of the covenant that they made before me, I will make them like the calf that they cut in two and passed between its parts (Jer 34:18, ESV).
The party on whom the covenant is imposed must dissect a sacrificial animal and walk between its pieces, thus invoking a curse upon themselves should they default (cf. the remarkable account in Gen 15: 9–18). In fact, a term often associated with “covenant” is “oath,” which essentially means “curse” (see esp. in reference to the covenant in Moab, Deut 29:12, 14, 19–21). Covenants inevitably involve curses and deities because they were the assumed enforcers of any breach of treaty. This feature distinguishes covenants from law codes, where human administration enforces the laws.
Covenant as an ANE phenomenon. Our understanding of biblical covenants has been enhanced considerably since archaeologists have discovered treaties/covenants of the ANE. Those discovered thus far center around the Hittite Empire of the 14th-13th centuries BCE (in modern-day Turkey) and the Assyrian Empire of the 8th-7th centuries BCE. The Assyrian treaties are much closer to Deuteronomy’s formation, both geographically and chronologically. Hittite influence extended from Asia Minor only into the northern Levant/Syria and northern Mesopotamia. But the Assyrian Empire embraced the entire Fertile Crescent, including Israel and Judah.
Hittite. The Hittite suzerainty treaties generally follow this outline.
(1) Preamble, (2) Review of Mutual Loyalty, (3) Stipulations, (4) Deposit and Public Reading (in only ¼ of the treaties), (5) Witnesses, (6) Curses and Blessings
The treaty witnesses were generally the gods of the respective states, but also included features of the natural world.
… the gods and goddesses of the Hatti [Hittite] land, the gods and goddesses of Amurru [Amorite] land, all the olden gods
… the mountains, the rivers, the springs, the great Sea, heaven and earth, the winds (and) the clouds—let these be witnesses to this treaty and to the oath (ANET, p. 205)
Only a few lines are devoted to the Curses and Blessings in each treaty, unlike the greatly expanded 14 verses of blessings and 54 (!) verses of curses in Deuteronomy 28.
Info Box: Does Deuteronomy contain a historical review?
The Hittite treaties begin with a brief review of the recent relations between the two parties, illustrating how the Hittites have shown favors to the vassal or spared them the punishment they deserved—all to underscore why they should remain loyal. It might appear that Deuteronomy shares a similar historical review of Yahweh’s gracious relations with Israel. But although Deuteronomy’s original introduction mentions Israel’s defeat of Sihon and Og in Transjordan, it makes no reference to Yahweh’s providence (Deut 4:44–49). The later, expanded introduction (Deut 1:1–4:43) omits any mention of Yahweh’s deliverance out of Egypt or his providence in the wilderness, but instead merely summarizes events also found in Numbers 10–14, 20–21. These include the departure from Sinai, the appointment of leaders, the rebellion at Kadesh-barnea, and the Israelites’ travels in Transjordan, including the defeats of Sihon and Og. In fact, the rebellion at Kadesh-barnea illustrates Yahweh’s unmitigated punishment, including his withdrawal from his people and his death penalty on an entire generation (Deut 1:35, 42). Hence, the narratives in Deuteronomy’s supplementary introduction do not appear to mimic a review of the parties’ mutual loyalty. In this respect, the final form of Deuteronomy appears to have been shaped as a second-telling whose narrative picks up where the scroll of Exodus left off, namely the departure from Sinai.
Assyrian. The most prominent of the Assyrian treaties are the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon (VTE), which might more accurately be labeled as succession treaties, which ensure the smooth transfer of power to the king’s son.
“When Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, departs from the living, you will seat the crown prince designate Ashurbanipal upon the royal throne …” (ANET, 535).
Archaeologists have discovered a copy of this treaty at a temple in Tell Tayinat in the Levant, constructed in the late 8th/early 7th century. This find likely reflects a practice of the neo-Assyrian Empire when treaties were “published” in the administrative capitals of their vassal provinces. As Jerusalem was the capital of the Assyrian province of Judah, it would have had its own copy. Their outline differs from the Hittite exemplars.
(1) Preamble, (2) Divine Witnesses, (3) Stipulations, (4) Curses
The literary form of the stipulations and curses is also different. The stipulations are phrased as a list of “If …” clauses containing prohibitions.
If you do not serve the crown prince designate Ashurbanipal, whom Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, has presented to you and ordered you (to serve), on behalf of whom he has made this binding treaty with you, if you sin against him … (ANET, p. 535).
The curses follow with a series of “…then …” clauses.
May Ashur, king of the gods, who determines the fates, decree for you an evil, unpropitious fate, and not grant you fatherhood, old age (ANET, 538).
Among the parallels between Deuteronomy and ANE treaties, the closest appear among the expanded Assyrian curse formulas. Here are a few of the many examples.
Blindness
The Lord will strike you with madness and blindness and confusion of mind, and you shall grope at noonday, as the blind grope in darkness (Deut 28:28–29).
… may he [Shamash] take away your eyesight; walk about in darkness (ANET, 538).
Cannibalism
And you shall eat the fruit of your womb, the flesh of your sons and daughters, whom the Lord your God has given you, in the siege (Deut 28:53).
… may you eat in your hunger the flesh of your children, may, through want and famine (ANET, 538).
Heavens and earth as metal
And the heavens over your head shall be bronze, and the earth under you shall be iron (Deut 28:23).
May all the gods … turn your soil into iron, so that no one may cut a furrow in it.
64. (530) Just as rain does not fall from a copper sky, so may there come neither rain nor dew upon your fields and meadows (ANET, 539).
The Assyrian treaty also shares with Deuteronomy phrases asserting that the covenant is nonnegotiable and cannot be altered.
You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it … (Deut 4:2, ESV).
“Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it (Deut 12:32, ESV).
“… if you change or let anyone change the decree of Esarhaddon …” (¶ 4, ANET, 535)
“He who changes, neglects, transgresses, erases the words of this tablet …” (¶ 35, ANET, 538).
Hittite, Assyrian, and biblical documents all insist that “loyalty” (Heb. hesed) is a key virtue essential to a covenant (Deut 5:10; 7:9, 12).
Hittite overlord: “just as I shall be loyal toward you, even so shall I be loyal toward your son. But you, Duppi-Tessub, remain loyal toward the king of the Hatti land, the Hatti land, my sons (and) my grandsons forever!” (Hittite treaty, ANET, 204).
It is the Assyrian treaty that shares a feature for which Deuteronomy is famous: loving the covenant overlord with the whole heart.
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might (Deut 6:4–5, ESV).
“If you do not love the crown prince designate Ashurbanipal, son of your lord Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, as you do your own lives …” (¶ 24, ANET, 537).
“If you, as you stand on the soil where this oath (is sworn), swear the oath with words and lips (only), do not swear with your entire heart, do not transmit it to your sons who will live after this treaty …” (¶ 34, ANET, 538).
Sefire. The closest analogue to Deuteronomy—geographically, chronologically, and linguistically—was discovered at Sefire in modern-day Syria. Its language is Aramaic (a West Semitic language very similar to Hebrew) and dates from the mid-eighth century. The identity of the overlord, “Bargayah, king of KTK,” remains uncertain, but he may have been a neo-Assyrian governor. The vassal king, Matiʿel, was the king of Arpad (e.g., 2 Kgs 18:34). Its outline includes features of both the Hittite and Assyrian models.
(1) Preamble, (2) Divine Witnesses, (3) Curses and Rituals, (4) a Treaty of the gods (to be published at the regional sanctuaries, lit. ’asherah), (5) Stipulations, (6) Blessings and Curses.
One of the rituals illustrates the curse and the “cutting” of a covenant.
“[Just as] this calf is cut in two, so may Matiʿel be cut in two, and may his nobles be cut in two” (COS 2.214).
Significance of the ANE parallels. So the book of Deuteronomy appears to mimic the literary form of international treaties in the ancient world, especially those of the neo-Assyrian period in the 8th-7th centuries BCE. So what? This timeframe aligns with the rediscovery and “publication” of the book of Deuteronomy in Josiah’s reform in 622 BCE. Josiah reigned during a brief window of Judahite independence, after the fall of the Neo-Assyrian Empire and before the rise of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.
In this light, Deuteronomy presents itself as protest literature, a counter-covenant to the Assyrian models. It mimics an ANE treaty, only to subvert its cultural expectations. It asserts that Judah’s covenant is with Yahweh. To him belongs their allegiance, not to an Assyrian overlord. This political claim entails a very important theological claim: Judah’s loyalty is to Yahweh alone. While other ancient peoples may serve one supreme deity while acknowledging other gods and divine beings, Israel’s alliance was with Yahweh alone. Hence, the Shema.
Hear [Heb. Shema], O Israel: Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one. And you shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might (Deut 6:4–5).
Although “love” was part of political discourse in ancient international relations, in Deuteronomy it became personalized. This is evidenced especially in Yahweh’s peculiar love for Israel, which Israel was meant to reciprocate.
“For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations (Deut 7:6–9, ESV).
Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it. Yet the Lord set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their offspring after them, you above all peoples, as you are this day (Deut 10:14–15, ESV).
As the Bible seeks to describe the indescribable, to reveal the transcendent God to the finitude of human comprehension, it uses the best tool that human language can offer: metaphor. God in his activity can be likened to this and that. In the Bible, as masterful communicator, Yahweh uses a familiar literary form to reveal an extraordinary transaction with a human party. What is most unprecedented about Deuteronomy’s covenant is the parties engaged in the contract. Much unlike ANE covenants and ANE gods, Yahweh contracts himself to Israel and signs on the dotted line. In most ANE myths, humans are either troublesome or voices offstage to the gods. Where they do show any alliance with humans, it is with kings and states. But in Deuteronomy Yahweh signed a contract with a politically insignificant people, who moreover—by the book’s own admission—are characterized as “stiff-necked” (Deut 9:4–6).
By employing this covenant metaphor, the book of Deuteronomy makes clear that Yahweh is their sole sovereign and his covenant is nonnegotiable. He did not offer a seat at the negotiating table to Moses and the elders. Deuteronomy also clarifies the nature of Israel’s freedom. While they were liberated from being vassals to Pharaoh, they “gotta serve” as Yahweh’s vassals.