THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMYTh 117

The Book of Deuteronomy

1. The Covenant

1.1 The Nature of the Covenant. What then is this term “covenant” that it should be
so central to Israelite faith? The Hebrew word berit, which is used most often to express idea of a
covenant, originally meant a “shackle” or “chain”, but it came to be any form of binding
agreement. It expresses the solemn contract between Jacob and Laban in Gen. 31:44, or the
alliance of friendship between David and Jonathan in I Sam. 18:3. It describes the peace pact
made by Abraham with the whole tribe of Amorites in Gen. 14:13, and the bond of marriage in
Prov. 2:17 or Mal. 2:14. And it is a solemn treaty between kings, as in the case with Solomon
and Hiram of Tyre in I Kings 5, or with Ahab and Benhadad of Syria in I Kings 20:34. But most
often it is used of a special alliance between Yahweh and Israel.
Berit is a term so rich it captures the heart of Israel’s religious beliefs: a) They are bound
to an unbreakable covenant-union with their God; b) He has made known his love and his mercy
to them; c) He has given them commandments to guide their daily life; d) They owe him
worship, fidelity and obedience; e) They are marked by the sign of the covenant-blood. The
covenant created the unity of the nation Israel, based not on blood relationship but on the
submission to the divine will and the confession that he
alone is God. In turn God pledges himself to be Israel’s The Hebrew word berit, which is
protector and helper, not only against foreign enemies, but used most often to express idea
against sickness, disease, and chaos as well. Most of all, he of a covenant, originally meant a
will be present whether it is time of prosperity or of failure, “shackle” or “chain”, but it came
to be any form of binding
for he has laid claim to this people as his own. Yahweh is a
agreement.
personal God who demands personal loyalty.

1.2 Ancient Covenant Forms. We can learn much about Israel’s covenant with
Yahweh by comparing the OT descriptions with actual examples of covenants from other ancient
nations. We have two major passages about the covenant in the Pentateuch: Ex. 19-24 and the
Book of Deuteronomy. Luckily we also have two major sources of ancient Near Eastern
covenants: the Hittite treaties from the period 1400-1200 BC and a series of Assyrian treaties
from the 8th and 7th BC. Since so much time divides the Hittite from the Assyrian examples,
many differences can be found between the two groups. But we must also remember that nearly
six hundred years separate the events of Exodus from the time of Deuteronomy and that we will
find quite a number of differences in the biblical accounts as well.
1

Ancient treaties show two major types. One is a treaty between equal kings. This is
Page

generally called a parity treaty. We possess an excellent example of this kind of covenant in the
peace treaty made between King Rameses II of Egypt and the Hittite King Hattusilis to end their
war in Syria about 1290 BC. The second type is the vassal treaty, made between an overlord, a
major power, and the small nations that were either conquered by him or were forced to
cooperate lest he take them over. The two types of treaty differ in the kind of obligations that the
parties take on. In the parity treaty, each side agrees to mutual responsibilities because they have
equal status and neither can force the other to carry out their obligations. But in the vassal treaty,
the overlord usually does not bind himself to any
Ancient treaties show two major
particular duties beyond being kindly and protective of
types: the parity treaty and the
the vassal, but he does spell out series of demands for
vassal treaty. The two types of
the vassal to faithfully perform. This second type is the treaty differ in the kind of
more helpful in interpreting the Sinai covenant between obligations that the parties take on.
 THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMYTh 117
Yahweh, the divine overlord, and Israel, the mere creatures whom he has chosen. Let us look at
a sample of an early Hittite treaty form:
a) The Preamble in which the overlord, or great king, gives his name and title: “These are
the words of the Sun Mursillis, the great king, the king of Hatti-land, the valiant, the favorite of
the storm-god, the son of Suppiluliumas, the great king”.
b) The Historical Prologue in which the great king lists his past acts of kindness to the
vassal as the reason for the vassal king’s obligation to obey: “Aziras, your grandfather, and Du-
Teshub, your father remained loyal to me as their lord…Since your father had mentioned to me
your name with great praise, I sought after you… and put you in the place of your father.”
c) The Stipulations or Demands that the overlord binds the vassal to keep: “If anyone
utters a word unfriendly to the king or the Hatti-land before you, Duppi-Tessub, you shall not
withhold his name from the king.”
d) Deposit of the treaty in a temple and the public readings at set times: “ A duplicate of
this treaty has been deposited before the sun-goddess of Arinna… In the Mitanni land, a
duplicate has been deposited before Teshub … At regular intervals they shall read it in the
presence of the king of the Mittani land and in the presence of the sons of the Hurri land.”
e) The list of witnesses is important to any contract. But for a solemn state covenant, the
witnesses are the gods of the two lands: “ We have called the gods to be present, to listen, and to
serve as witnesses: the sun-goddess of Arinna… the sun-god, the lord of heaven, the storm-god,
the Lord of the Hatti-land…the mountains, the rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates, heaven, and
earth, the winds and clouds.”
f) The curses and blessings end the treaty. The divine beings are called on to maintain the
treaty in the divine courtroom by imposing rewards and penalties: “Should Duppi-Teshub not
honor these words of the treaty and oath, may these gods of the oath destroy Duppi-Teshub
together with his person, his wife, his son, his grandson, his house, his land… But if he honors
these words… may these gods of the oath protect him with his person, his wife, his son, his
grandson, his house and his country”.
The later Assyrian treaties show many of the same
parts, although they sometimes lack the elaborate The covenant described in Exodus
preamble and prologue of the Hittite types, while the list 19-24 is pictured very generally
of curses and exotic punishments increases dramatically, and does not match detail for
perhaps to serve as a scare tactic to make the vassal keep detail the exact format of either
the treaty. A fine example of an Assyrian vassal treaty is the Hittite or the Assyrian treaties,
the 7th BC agreement that King Esarhaddon forced on the although there are some points of
similarity with the Hittite structure.
small nations subject to Assyria that they would swear
2

support for his son Ashurbanipal as his successor, and not

Page

rebel when Esarhaddon died. It list all of gods who back up the oath first, and then contains
literally hundreds of different obligations covering all possible threats against the crown prince
and his right to become king. It can be found in ANET 534-541.
It would be very pleasant to discover that the early Hittite covenants matched the early
Israelite covenant at Mt. Sinai, and that the later description in Deuteronomy matched the
Assyrian treaties of the same period. But it doesn’t work out that way. The covenant described in
Exodus 19-24 is pictured very generally and does not match detail for detail the exact format of
either the Hittite or the Assyrian treaties, although there are some points of similarity with the
Hittite structure:
a) Preamble and prologue in which God gives his reasons for the covenant are seen in Ex.
19:3-6 and 20:2
b) The stipulations or demands are reflected in the 10 commandments (Ex. 20:3-17) and
in the following covenant law code (Ex. 20:22-23:19).
 THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMYTh 117
c) The deposit of the treaty and its public nature is understood in the use of the stone
tablets for a permanent record.
d) The curses and blessings and divine witnesses
are naturally missing since Israel’s faith made no room The Book of Deuteronomy reveals the
for other gods. But God himself backs up the obligation covenant forms much more clearly. It
to obey this covenant by the signs of his powerful is written so that it resembles a formal
presence in thunder, lightning, and dark clouds (Ex. treaty between God and Israel
through the speech of Moses.
19:16-19; 20:118-20).
The Book of Deuteronomy reveals the covenant
forms much more clearly. It is written so that it resembles a formal treaty between God and Israel
through the speech of Moses. It has all the elements of the classical Hittite treaties and yet shows
strong connections to the later interests of the Assyrian types as well in its stress on extended
blessings and curses (Dt. 27-28) and on the right of inheritance of the land by Israel.
Joshua 24, under the influence of Deuteronomy, describes a renewal of the Sinai
covenant under Joshua which is the closest parallel to a Hittite covenant in the OT. It even
includes the people as witnesses against themselves (Jos. 24:22) and a public writing and deposit
of the agreement in a sanctuary (Jos. 24:25-26). The only part missing is the list of curses and
blessings.
From another angle, the entire Pentateuch must have been influenced by the covenant
format. The “story” from Abraham to the escape through the Red Sea serves as a formal
preamble and prologue listing the overlord’s great deeds to the vassal before the giving of the
law on Sinai.
Because there were no common courts of law to decide cases between nations, ancient
treaties depended heavily on the power of the oath that each party took before the gods as
witnesses, and on the conviction that the gods would in fact act to punish offenders. As a result,
such treaty demanded some form of ceremony in order to ratify it, a ritual that made the point
clear. The most common form was cutting an animal in two. Thus in a Mari tablet from the 18 th
century we find a covenant sealed by cutting a donkey into two parts. Similarly, an 8 th century
treaty from Sefire in Syria records a number of animals cut into parts, with a curse attached to
each: “As this calf is cut into parts, may Mati’el be cut into two.” Even Jeremiah refers to this
custom when he condemns those who violated Yahweh’s covenant. (Jer. 34:18-19).
Even the usual Hebrew expression for making a covenant employs this idea: karat berith,
“to cut a covenant.” Gen. 15 may make reference to this ceremony when Abraham cuts the
animals in two and God passes through them in fire.
3

2. Deuteronomy—The Archimedean Point of the History of the Pentateuchal Literature

Page

2.1. Date of Deuteronomy. The existence of sources in the Pentateuch had been
established since J. Astruc in 1753, but no clue for the dates of the composition of the sources
had been found. The one who supplied the clue was W. M. L. de Wette in his work of 1805.
Trying to trace the historical circumstances underlying the book of Deuteronomy, de Wette
found a correspondence between the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah and the legislation of
Deuteronomy. Hezekiah was the first to centralize worship in Israel (2 Kgs 18:4, 22). Before the
time of Hezekiah, places of worship throughout the land were considered indispensable for the
religious life of Israel, so that, for Elijah, destroying altars of YHWH was tantamount to slaying
his prophets (1 Kgs 19:10, 14). On the other hand, in the
Trying to trace the historical legislative literature in Israel the demand for cult
circumstances underlying the book of centralization occurs for the first time in Deuteronomy.
Deuteronomy, de Wette found a This book would therefore be a model or inspiration, or a
correspondence between the reforms reflection of them, for reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah.
of Hezekiah and Josiah and the
legislation of Deuteronomy.
 THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMYTh 117
These reforms are reflected in Deuteronomy not only in the law
Theologically and stylistically
of centralization but also in: (1) the prohibition against pillars in Deuteronomy has become the
the worship of YHWH (16:22), which according to the older touchstone for dating the
sources is legitimate and even desirable (Gen 28:18; 35:14; sources in the Pentateuch and
Exod 24:4; Josh 24:26); (2) the references to “astral worship” the historical books of the Old
(Deut.4:19; 17:3), which is not mentioned in the earlier parts of Testament.
the Pentateuch and seems to have been introduced into Judah A new dimension has been
through Assyrian influence in the 8th century B.C.E. (Weinfeld added to the dating of
Deuteronomy by the discovery
1972b: 133–54); (3) the correspondence between the manner of
of the vassal treaties of
celebrating Passover in the days of Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 30) Essarhaddon (= VTE) of the
and Josiah (see below) and the prescription in Deut 16:1–8. year 672 B.C.E. Many affinities
According to 2 Kgs 23:22, Passover had not been celebrated in between VTE and the
such a manner since the times of the judges. Deuteronomic covenant have
No less important for the date of Deuteronomy is the been established (see C.
unique style of this book, both in its phraseology and manner of above) and these support the
discourse (rhetoric). Style such as that was not found in any of dating of Deuteronomy in the
7th century B.C.E.
the historical and prophetic traditions before the 7th century
B.C.E. Conversely, from the 7th century onward almost all of the historical and the prophetical
literature is permeated by this style. Theologically and stylistically Deuteronomy has become the
touchstone for dating the sources in the Pentateuch and the historical books of the Old
Testament. The legal codes which do not presuppose centralization of cult must therefore be
from pre-Hezekianic times. On the other hand, the editorial passages of Kings which evaluate the
kings of Judah in accordance with their observance of centralization of cult, and the passages in
Joshua and Judges which are styled in Deuteronomic phraseology, cannot be from before the
time of Hezekiah. An objective clue has thus been established for fixing the date of the editorial
part of the historic literature.
A new dimension has been added to the dating of Deuteronomy by the discovery of the
vassal treaties of Essarhaddon (= VTE) of the year 672 B.C.E. Many affinities between VTE and
the Deuteronomic covenant have been established (see C. above) and these support the dating of
Deuteronomy in the 7th century B.C.E.

2.2. The Book of Law (Torah). The term “Book of the Law” (seper hattorah) as a
sanctified authoritative work which contains all the divine law is encountered for the first time in
Israel’s history in the account of the reform of Josiah (2 Kings 22–23). In the Pentateuch the term
is attested only in Deuteronomy (17:19–20; 28:58; 29:19; 31:11–12) and from here it passed to
4

the Deuteronomistic editorial framework in the Former Prophets (Josh 1:8; 8:34; 23:6; 2 Kgs
Page

14:6). There it is also designated as “the book of law of Moses” (seper torat Mosheh Josh 8:31;
23:6; 2 Kgs 14:6). Deuteronomy is, in fact, the only book of the Pentateuch to be ascribed to
Moses (Deut 31:9) and the first book to have been sanctified publicly (2 Kgs 23:1–3). Only after
the other books were appended to Deuteronomy was the term “Torah” applied to the whole
Pentateuch. In the Tetrateuch the term “Torah” designates specific instructions such as “the
Torah of the burnt offering/meal offering/sin offering” (Lev 6:2; 7, 18), “the Torah of the guilt
offering/well-being offering” (Lev 7:1, 11), “the Torah
Deuteronomy is, in fact, the only book of the woman in confinement” (Lev 12:7), “the Torah of
of the Pentateuch to be ascribed to the leprosy/leper” (Lev 13:9; 14:2, 32, 54), “the Torah
Moses (Deut 31:9) and the first book to of jealousy” (Num 5:29), and “the Torah for the
have been sanctified publicly (2 Kgs Nazirite (Num 6:13, 21), cf. also the tôrôth as general
23:1–3). Only after the other books instructions in Gen 26:5; Exod 16:28; 18:20; Lev 26:46.
were appended to Deuteronomy was
The transition from Torah as a specific instruction to the
the term “Torah” applied to the whole
Pentateuch.
sacred “Book of the Torah” of the Josianic period
 THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMYTh 117
marked a turning point in Israel’s spiritual life. The ritual instructions which were kept in priestly
circles were written by scribes and wise men (Jer 8:8) and became part of the national lore. This
enabled the transfer of the Torah from the priest to the scribe and the sage, as was the case in the
Second Temple period. Indeed Ezra, who introduced the Book of Torah into Judah of the Second
Temple period, functioned as a scribe (soper) (Ezra 7:6, 11, 12; Neh 8:1, 4, etc.). In spite of
being a priest, he is named scribe and he performs his religious functions as such. But one should
keep in mind that Ezra’s function as “scribe of the Torah” (Ezra 7:6, 11) is not a new
phenomenon in Israel’s life, as H. N. Schaeder (1930) contends, but rather an intensification of
the process already started at the time of Josiah. It was the sanctification and publication of “the
Book of the Torah” in the time of Josiah that gave rise to scribes with the ability and competence
to handle Scripture.
There is a further analogy between Josiah and Ezra. Josiah enforced the law of the “Book
of the Torah” both by his royal authority and by means of a pledge taken by the people (2 Kgs
23:1–3). Likewise in the period of Ezra and Nehemiah “the law of Moses” was enforced both on
behalf of the Persian crown (Ezra 7:12–26) and on the authority of a pledge, to which the people
had agreed in a formal ceremony (amanah,Nehemiah 10).

2.3. The Discovery of the Book of the Torah. The discovery of ancient sacred
documents in a temple was always a thrilling event. Thus we read in the Hittite accounts of the
14th–13th centuries B.C.E. that King Muwatalli presents a prayer of confession for negligence in
observing the laws of divinity, as written in the law of covenant (ishiul) in the ancient scripture,
and promises to do his utmost to rediscover the written covenant of the gods, and to fulfill it:

Whatever I . . . now find from written records, this I shall carry out and [what] I have [not]
brought into correspondence with the ceremonial rites (saklai) of the gods, you, O storm-god, my lord,
know it. And whenever I shall examine (punusk) a venerable old man, as they remember a (certain) rite
and tell it, I shall also carry it out . . . I shall follow the (covenantal) bond (ishiul) of the gods that I am
rediscovering, and it shall be henceforth carried on.(KB xi, 1)

The written instructions of the gods which the king is to rediscover are defined here as
ishiul, which like Hebrew berit represents the covenantal law imposed on the people.
Furthermore, just as Josiah, king of Judah, in the 7th century B.C.E., when he rediscovers
the ancient law, promises to fulfill it and asks for forgiveness for the violations of the covenant
written in the rediscovered book (2 Kgs 22:13), so also does Muwatalli, saying “I ask for
forgiveness of the sin of the country.”
5

Very instructive from the point of view of comparison with Hebrew traditions is the
Page

king’s declaration that he will carry out whatever had been referred to him through the
recollection of a venerable old man. This corresponds to the tradition preserved in the Mishnah
tractate of Eduyyot concerning the collection of testimonies given by sages on legal matters and
not attested to in the conventional written lore.

3. Deuteronomy as Turning Point in Israelite Religion

Indeed the very purpose of the
The Josianic reform revolutionized all aspects of book of Deuteronomy was to
Israelite religion. The centralization of the cult was in itself a curtail and circumvent the cult
sweeping innovation in the history of the Israelite cult, but its and not to extend or enhance it.
It represents a turning point in
consequences were, as we shall see, decisively more
the evolution of the faith of
revolutionary in nature, in that they involved the collapse of Israel.
an entire system of concepts which for centuries had been
regarded as sacrosanct. The elimination of the provincial cult made possible the transformation
 THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMYTh 117
of Israel’s religion into a religion which minimized external expression. Indeed the very purpose
of the book of Deuteronomy was to curtail and circumvent the cult and not to extend or enhance
it. The Deuteronomic conception of cult is, as we shall show, vastly different from that reflected
in the Tetrateuchal sources. It represents a turning point in the evolution of the faith of Israel. Let
us start with the concept of the divine abode.
Deuteronomy defines the sanctuary as “the place where YHWH chose to cause his name
to dwell there.” It has been rightly observed (von Rad 1953: 38–39) that the expression “to cause
his name to dwell” (lskn smw) reflects a new theological conception of the Deity and that the
repeated consistent employment of this and similar expression (swm smw;hyh smw;qr
smw;bnh lsmw; hqdysû;lsmw) by the author of Deuteronomy and his followers is intended to
combat the ancient popular belief that the Deity actually dwelt within the sanctuary. The
Deuteronomic school used this “name” phraseology in a very consistent manner and never made
the slightest digression from it. There is not one example in the Deuteronomic literature of God’s
dwelling in the temple or the building of a house of God. The Temple is always the dwelling of
his name and the house is always built for his name. This consistency is seen most clearly when
a Deuteronomic text is interwoven with an earlier text which does not know the “name
theology.” Thus, for example, in the authentic part of Nathan’s prophecy the main issue is the
building of a house for God’s dwelling ( lsbtw 2 Sam 7:5, 7) while the Deuteronomist (v 13a)
(Driver 1913: 276 n. 1.; McCarter 2 Samuel AB, 205–6) speaks about building a house for his
name. Similarly the building account of the Temple and the ancient story of the dedication of the
Temple speak plainly about building a house for God (1 Kgs 6:1, 2; 8:13) while the
Deuteronomist, whenever he mentions the building, describes it as being built “for the name of
God” (1 Kings 3:2; 5:17, 19; 8:17, 18, 19, 20, 44, 48).
The most definite expression of this theology is to be found in the Deuteronomic litany of
Solomon in 1 Kings 8. According to the Deuteronomistic prayer (vv 14–69), the Temple is not
God’s place of habitation but serves only as a house of worship in which Israelites and foreigners
alike may deliver their prayers to the God who dwells in heaven. The idea that God’s habitation
is in heaven is here expressed most emphatically in order to eradicate the belief that the Deity sat
enthroned between the cherubim in the Temple. Whenever the expression “your dwelling place”
(mkwn sbtk) is employed, it is accompanied by the word “in heaven” (vv 30, 39, 43, 49). The
Deuteronomist is clearly disputing the view implied by the ancient song that opens the prayer (vv
12–13) and designates the Temple as God’s exalted house (byt zbl) and a dwelling place (mkn
sbt) forever. The Deuteronomist in the prayer ascribed to
Solomon appended consistently to the expression mkwn sbtk the
word “in heaven” (hsmym) in order to inform us that it is heaven
6

Deuteronomy defines the sanctuary which is meant here and not the Temple as the ancient song
Page

as “the place where YHWH chose to implies. In actual fact, however, the term “your dwelling place”
cause his name to dwell there.” It (mkwn sbtk) in early sources as well as in Solomon’s song (vv
has been rightly observed that the
12–13) denotes the sanctuary and it is the Deuteronomist who is
expression “to cause his name to
dwell” reflects a new theological here attempting to alter this meaning and thereby wrests the song
conception of the Deity and that from its original sense.
the repeated consistent The theological corrective, i.e. the addition of “heaven” to
employment of this and similar the phrase “holy habitation,” occurs in Deuteronomy itself. In
expression by the author of Deut 26:15 the Israelite in his prayer says: “Look down from
Deuteronomy and his followers is your holy habitation [m’wn qdsk], from heaven.” The words
intended to combat the ancient
“from heaven” seem to be an explanatory gloss intended to
popular belief that the Deity
actually dwelt within the sanctuary.
prevent misconstruing the expression “holy habitation” as
referring to the sanctuary. Indeed, the fact that the earlier,
prevailing conception was that God’s habitation was in Zion
may be inferred from Ps 76:3: “His abode has been established
 THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMYTh 117
in Šalem, his habitation in Zion.” This abstract view of the heavenly abode is also reflected in the
Deuteronomic account of the Sinaitic revelation. In contrast to the account in Exodus 19 of
God’s descent upon Mt. Sinai (19:11–20) we read in Deut 4:36 “Out of heaven he let you hear
his voice . . . and on the earth he let you see his great fire and you heard his words out of the
midst of the fire.” Deuteronomy has, furthermore, taken care to shift the center of gravity of the
theophany from the visual to the aural plane. In Exodus 19, the principal danger confronting the
people was the likelihood that they might “break through to the Lord to gaze” (v 21); it was to
prevent this that there was need to “set bounds for the people round about” (v 12) and to caution
them not to ascend the mountain. Indeed, the pre-Deuteronomic texts always invariably speak of
the danger of seeing the Deity: “For man shall not see me and live” (Exod 33:20) and similarly
in Gen 32:31: “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved” (cf. Judg 13:22;
Isa 6:5). The book of Deuteronomy, on the other hand, cannot conceive of the possibility of
seeing the Divinity. The Israelites saw only “his great fire” which symbolizes his essence and
qualities (4:24: “For YHWH your God himself remains in his heavenly abode”). The danger
threatening the people here, and the greatness of the miracle, is that of hearing the voice of the
Deity: “Did any people even hear the voice of a god speaking out of the midst of the fire as you
have heard, and survived?” (4:32; cf. 5:23).
This attempt to eliminate the inherent corporality of the traditional imagery also finds
expression in Deuteronomy’s conception of the ark. The specific and exclusive function of the
ark, according to the book of Deuteronomy, is to house the tablets of the covenant (10:1–5). No
mention is made of the ark cover (kprt) and the cherubim which endow the ark with the
semblance of a divine chariot or throne (cf. Exod 25:10–22 = P). The holiest vessel to the
Israelite cult, in the Deuteronomic view, performs nothing more than an educational function. It
houses the tablets upon which the words of God are engraved and at its side is laid the Book of
the Torah, from which one reads to the people so that they may learn to fear the Lord (Deut
31:26; cf. vv 12 and 13). The ark does not serve as God’s seat upon which he journeys forth to
disperse his enemies (Num 10:33–36), but only as the vessel in which the tablets of the covenant
are deposited. This becomes quite clear when we compare Deut 1:42–43 with Num 14:42–44, a
tradition on which the Deuteronomic account is based. In Num 14:44, we read that after the
sinful incident of the spies “the ark of the covenant of YHWH departed not out of the camp” and
this was the reason for the Israelites’ defeat in their subsequent battle with the Amalekites and
Canaanites. The Deuteronomic account, on the other hand, completely omits the detail of the ark
and ascribes the Israelite defeat to the fact that God was not in their midst without referring to the
whereabouts of the ark.
The author of Deuteronomy similarly relates that it was God who went before the people
7

to seek out new resting places (1:33), whereas the earlier source, upon which Deuteronomy
Page

depends, relates that it was the ark which journeyed forth

This attempt to
before the people to seek out new resting places for them
eliminate the inherent corporality
of the traditional imagery also (Num 10:33). The absence of the ark is especially striking in
finds expression in the Deuteronomic law of warfare (23:15). One would expect
Deuteronomy’s conception of the a passage which speaks of the presence of the Divinity within
ark. the military encampment to make some mention of the ark
The holiest vessel to the which accompanies the warriors on their expeditions, as in 1
Israelite cult, in the Sam 4:6–7, “And when they learned that the ark of YHWH
Deuteronomic view, performs had come to the camp . . . they said, the gods have come into
nothing more than an
educational function.
the camp.” The Deuteronomic law, however, speaks of
The ark does not serve YHWH as moving about the camp (23:15), but does not
as God’s seat upon which he make the slightest allusion to the ark or the holy vessels.
journeys forth to disperse his A similar conception is encountered in the book of
enemies (Num 10:33–36), but Jeremiah, for instance at 3:16–17, “They shall say no more:
only as the vessel in which the
 THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMYTh 117
‘The ark of the covenant of YHWH.’ It shall not come to mind . . . At that time Jerusalem shall
be called the throne of YHWH.” In other words, the ark of the covenant shall no longer serve as
God’s seat, as the people were previously accustomed to believe, but all of Jerusalem shall be
“the seat of YHWH,” that is in a symbolic sense.
In another passage the prophet declares: “ ‘Do I not fill heaven and earth?’ says the
Lord” (23:24). This reminds one of the words of Deutero- (or Trito-) Isaiah when he expressly
repudiates the notion of the sanctuary as the place of God’s habitation: “Heaven is my throne
and the earth is my footstool, what is the house which you build for me? and what is the place of
my rest?” (66:1). This view is also met within the Deuteronomic prayer of Solomon: “Behold,
heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built”
(1 Kgs 8:27). The sanctuary is here conceived as a house of prayer and not as a cultic center.
This tendency to minimize the cult is manifest in the book of Deuteronomy and signifies a
religious turning point which occurred following the abolition of the high places and the
provincial sanctuaries.
The first thing that strikes our attention when The first thing that strikes our
endeavoring to grasp the significance of sacrifice in the attention when endeavoring to grasp
book of Deuteronomy is that we do not find sacrifice the significance of sacrifice in the book
practiced for its own sake. The Deity, in the of Deuteronomy is that we do not find
Deuteronomic view, has no need of the “pleasing odor,” sacrifice practiced for its own sake.
The author’s view seems to be
(ryh nyhh\) of sacrifices and no mention is made of the
that spiritual purification and
“food of God,” which is amply attested in the Priestly repentance—consisting of confession
Code (Lev 1:9, 13, 17; 21:6, 8, 17, 21). Neither is there and prayer—and not sacrificial offerings
any mention of the sin-and-guilt offerings designed to expiate sin.
atone for involuntary sins, ritual impurity, perjury, theft, Deuteronomic sacrifice
and deception (Leviticus 4–5). The author’s view seems consists primarily of offerings which are
to be that spiritual purification and repentance— consumed by the offerer in the
consisting of confession and prayer—and not sacrificial sanctuary and are designed to be
shared with the poor, the Levite, the
offerings expiate sin. The sole instance in which the
alien resident, the orphan, and the
book of Deuteronomy does mention a rite analogous in widow.
character to the sin-and-guilt offering is in the law of
unsolved murder (Deut 21:1–9). Yet interestingly enough it is precisely this law which reflects
Deuteronomy’s special attitude toward sacrifice. The rite conducted here does not consist of a
sacrificial offering complete with ceremonial slaughter and blood sprinkling, but calls only for
the breaking of the heifer’s neck in an uncultivated valley. The priests are present during this act,
not because they play any part in the execution of the ritual, for this is carried out entirely by the
8

elders, but merely to guarantee the religious aspect of the ceremony by presiding over it. The
Page

entire act has a symbolic value: the heifer’s neck is broken at the scene of the crime, as it were,
and the elders cleanse their hands only as a purificatory expression of their innocence (Pss 24:4;
26:6–10; 73:13; etc.). There is no laying of the hands on the heifer nor a transference of the sin to
it as in the case of the ritual scapegoat (Lev 16:21), because its beheading as such does not atone
for the sin; expiation is effected only by the confession and prayer uttered at the close of the
ceremony (vv 7–8). It is true, the custom itself originated in a rite of elimination (Wright 1987),
however, in the present formulation nothing is said about removal of impurity or sin by the priest
as in Lev 14:53, 16:22, or about transferring the evil to the open country as in Lev 16:22 and in
the Mesopotamian incantations (Wright 1987). In this rite, God absolves the sin himself without
recourse to any intermediary; whereas in P all expiatory sacrifices are executed by the priests,
whose mediation alone effects the expiation of the sin (cf. the common priestly expression in the
book of Leviticus: “and the priest shall make atonement for him”). In the Deuteronomic law,
atonement is possible only through the confession of the elders of the city, who, as
representatives of the guilty city, beseech absolution through prayers; in P expiation is effected
 THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMYTh 117
through ritual sacrifice and incense burning which are mostly not accompanied by prayer on the
part of the penitent.
Deuteronomic sacrifice consists primarily of offerings which are consumed by the offerer
in the sanctuary and are designed to be shared with the poor, the Levite, the alien resident, the
orphan, and the widow. The constant emphasis on the obligation to share the sacrificial repast
with indigent persons creates the impression that the principal purpose of the offering is to
provide nutriment for the destitute elements of Israelite society. The author of Deuteronomy
alludes to this himself when, after prescribing that the joyful nature of the festival be shared with
the personae miserabiles, he goes on to say: “You shall remember that you were a slave in
Egypt; and you shall be careful to observe these statutes” (16:22). It is indeed remarkable that
the very book which promulgates the law of centralized worship at the “chosen place” has not so
much as a word to say about the presentation of communal sacrifices (the daily and seasonal
offerings) which constituted the principal mode of worship at this exclusive sanctuary.
Sacrifice according to Deuteronomy is not an institutional practice but a personal one,
which has two principal objects: (a) a humanitarian—to share the sacrificial repast with the poor,
as noted above; (b) a private—to fulfill a religious obligation and express one’s gratitude to the
Deity by means of votive offerings (12:6, 11, 17, 26; 23:22–24). God has no need of the sacrifice
itself; it is only an expression of gratitude to the Deity, and this constitutes its entire significance.
We may perhaps note in passing that the expression slm ndr “to pay a vow,” found in Wisdom
Literature (Prov 7:14; Eccl 5:4) is not found in any book of the Pentateuch except Deuteronomy
(23:22).
The same attitude is revealed in the only passage in Deuteronomy (12:27) that describes
the manner in which the sacrifice is to be offered. The verse differentiates between non-burnt
offerings and burnt offerings (wlh), and ordains that the flesh and blood of the burnt offering be
offered up entirely on the altar, whereas the blood of the non-burnt is to be poured upon the altar
and the meat eaten. It is most surprising that the author makes no mention of the burning of the
suet, the fat piece which is set aside for God and which thus renders the meat permissible for
priestly and lay consumption (1 Sam 2:12–17).
Sacrifice, however, is not the only rite to be conceived Sacrifice according
differently by the book of Deuteronomy, for all laws pertaining to Deuteronomy is not an
to cult and ritual are here conceived more rationally than in the institutional practice but a
earlier sources. This is particularly evident in the laws personal one, which has two
contained in chaps. 12–19, laws which are a direct consequence principal objects: a
of the implementation of cult centralization and form the legal humanitarian and a private.
basis of the religious reformation. These laws clearly mirror the God has no need of
9

change in religious beliefs and attitudes which occurred in the the sacrifice itself; it is only
Page

wake of the reform. an expression of gratitude to

the Deity, and this
Chapter 12 promulgates the law of centralized worship
constitutes its entire
at the chosen place, but alongside this law or as a result of it, we
significance.
find the authorization permitting non-sacrificial slaughter.
Whereas before the reform all slaughter—except that of game animals—was deemed to be a
sacral act and was prohibited even for non-sacrificial purposes unless the blood was sprinkled
upon the altar (Lev 17:1–7; cf. 1 Sam 14:32–35), it was now permissible to perform non-
sacrificial slaughter without being obliged to sprinkle the blood upon an altar (Deut 12:15, 16,
20–24). It need hardly be said that the sanctioning of profane slaughter freed a significant aspect
of Israelite daily life from its ties to the cultus. The more crucial import of the law, however, is
that by sanctioning non-sacrificial slaughter it repudiates the hallowed Israelite dogma which
ascribed a sacral quality to the blood and prohibited one from pouring it upon the ground.
According to the Priestly Document or, to be more precise, the Holiness Code, the blood of
slaughtered animals potentially valid for sacrifice must be sprinkled upon the altar, whereas the
 THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMYTh 117
blood of game animals—which are invalid for sacrifice
—must be covered with dust (Lev 17:13): for all spilt The book of Deuteronomy also
blood, even of fowl and beasts of prey, cries out for contains a less sacral conception of
vengeance and satisfaction, and if the shedding of blood the tithes than the other
cannot be atoned by offering it upon the altar, then it Pentateuchal sources. The sanctity
must be covered up. Uncovered blood begs, as it were, of the tithe is not conceived as an
for an avenger (Job 16:18, “O earth, cover not my blood . inherent quality of the grain or
. .” cf. Is. 26:21; Ezek 24:7–8), a role which, in the case animal, as in the Priestly Document
of homicide, is assumed by the Deity. The author of (Lev 27:30–33); for it is man who
consecrates it and may, if he
Deuteronomy, on the other hand, declares that the blood
wishes, secularize it through
of all animals slaughtered for non-sacrificial purposes
may be poured upon the ground like water (12:16 and 24), thereby asserting that blood has no
more a sacral value than water has. He does, to be sure, retain the interdiction on the eating of
blood (cf. Deut 12:23 with Gen 9:4; Lev 17:11), but he absolutely repudiates the concept that the
spilt blood of animals requires satisfaction.
The book of Deuteronomy also contains a less sacral conception of the tithes than the
other Pentateuchal sources. The tithe, which the Priestly Document designates as “holy to the
Lord” (Lev 27:30–33), and which according to a second tradition accrues to the Levites (Num
18:21–32), remains by Deuteronomic legislation the property of the original owner (14:22–27).
Furthermore, it may be secularized and employed for profane purposes on payment of its
equivalent monetary value (without the addition of the fifth part required by P [Lev 27:31]). This
provision seems to be yet another expression of the liberation of the cultus from its intimate ties
to nature. The sanctity of the tithe is not conceived as an inherent quality of the grain or animal,
as in the Priestly Document (Lev 27:30–33); for it is man who consecrates it and may, if he
wishes, secularize it through redemption. In the Deuteronomic view, sanctity is not a taboo that
inheres in things which by nature belong to the divine realm but is rather a consequence of the
religious intentions of the person who consecrates it.
Like the tithe, the firstling is also taken from the possession of the priest and is restored to
the owner. According to JE (Exod 22:29; 34:19) and P (Num 18:15–17) the firstling is “holy to
YHWH” whether it is given to the Lord (Exod 22:29) or presented to his servants (i.e., the
priests, according to P, Num 18:17–18), while according to Deuteronomy it remains in the
possession of its original owner, although he is obliged to consume it at the chosen place. Indeed,
it is the law of the firstlings which informs us of the author’s negative attitude toward holy taboo.
In the earlier laws the regulations pertaining to the redemption of the firstlings of clean animals
are always accompanied by regulations concerning the firstborn of humans and the firstlings of
10

unclean animals (Exod 13:2, 12, 15; 22:28–29; 34:19–20; Lev 27:26–27; Num 18:15–18). The
book of Deuteronomy, however, omits the laws of the
Page

human firstborn and the firstlings of unclean animals, Like the tithe, the firstling is also
because these regulations in no way advance its taken from the possession of the
humanitarian purposes (the participation of the priest and is restored to the owner.
personae miserabiles in the consumption of the Indeed, it is the law of the firstlings
firstlings), and because they are based on mythical and which informs us of the author’s
negative attitude toward holy taboo.
magical conception which the author of Deuteronomy
does not share.
The severance of these laws from the realm of myth and magic finds its clearest
expression in the Deuteronomic ordinances concerning the paschal sacrifice. According to the JE
and P documents, the paschal sacrifice is a domestic celebration accompanied by apotropaic rites
of an animistic nature: the paschal blood is daubed upon the lintel and doorposts (Exod 12:7 [=
P], 22 [= JE]), the animal must be roasted together with its head, legs, and inner parts (Exod
12:11). In the Deuteronomic law, however, not the slightest reminiscence of these magical
 THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMYTh 117
prescriptions has been preserved. The paschal ritual has instead been converted into a communal
sacrifice which must be offered up at the central sanctuary like all other sacrifices. The paschal
offering—which is the most ancient sacrifice in Israel’s tradition and which apparently originates
from the tribes’ former nomadic life—succeeded in preserving its early primitive character until
it was here divested of its original import and recast in a form more consistent with the spirit of
the times. Even the earliest features of the sacrifice, such as the requirement that it be selected
only from sheep or goats, or that it be roasted by fire—which attest to the nomadic origin of the
ritual—have been completely obscured by the Deuteronomic law. The new provision allows the
Israelite to select the animal from cattle as well as sheep and goats (Deut 16:2) and permits it to
be cooked like any other ordinary sacrifice (v 7).

4. The National Renaissance at the Times of Hezekiah and Josiah

After the fall of Samaria, Hezekiah, king of Judah, made efforts to draw the northern
population toward Jerusalem, as may be learned from 2 Chronicles 30. Although the book of
Chronicles is a tendentious work we have no right to see the events themselves as fiction. The
flow of northerners to Jerusalem in those days is now attested archaeologically. At the end of the
8th century B.C.E., Jerusalem underwent an expansion
At the end of the 8th century B.C.E.,
never encountered before; the same applies to the
Jerusalem underwent an expansion
territory of Judah. As shown by Avigad (1980: 23ff.),
never encountered before; the same
Jerusalem of that time included the western hill of the
applies to the territory of Judah.
city, now the Jewish quarter. By the same token, the
The only explanation for this
settlement of Judah grew immensely at this period and
situation is that after the fall of the
the population doubled (Kochavi 1972: 20–21). The N kingdom Israelites began to
only explanation for this situation is that after the fall of migrate to the S to the territories
the N kingdom Israelites began to migrate to the S to the under the control of their brethren.
territories under the control of their brethren (Broshi
1974: 23–26). People from the N were attached after the fall of the N kingdom to Jerusalem and
its cult. This appears evident from the fact that after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem,
people from Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria made pilgrimages to the Temple site (Jer 41:5). It
seems that in this period, the hatred between Judah and Israel vanished and some kind of
symbiosis of the sister nations was established. This is reflected perhaps in Isaiah’s consolation
oracle of this time:
Ephraim’s jealousy shall vanish and Judah’s enmity shall end,
Ephraim shall not envy Judah and Judah shall not harass Ephraim. (11:13)
11

In the continuation of this oracle we read about the expansion of Israel and Judah toward
Page

the Philistine territory in the W on the one hand and Ammon, Moab, and Edom in the E on the
other (v 14). The period of Hezekiah was indeed a period of great expansion. In 2 Kgs 18:8 we
hear about Hezekiah overrunning Philistia as far as Gaza and, from 1 Chr 4:41–43, we learn
about his incursion toward Seir in the S. It is this period that “the remnant of Israel . . . and the
house of Jacob” return to the Lord and to “mighty God” (‘l gbwr)  this equals “Hezek-iah” and
seems to allude to King Hezekiah (Isa 10:20–21). As has been recently seen by H. Cazelles
(1982), the remnant which returns (sr yswb) represents the Israelites from the N who join Judah
and accept the authority of Hezekiah, styled—among other things—“El Gibbor” (cf. Is. 9:5). The
same imagery is found in Micah 5:1. Micah speaks about the youngest of the clans of Judah, who
will rule Israel (5:1–2). This rectifies the earlier situation when Judah was cut off from the other
tribes (Deut 33:7: “Hear, O Lord, the voice of Judah and bring him back to his people”). Micah
goes on to say that the leader of Judah “will stand and shepherd by the might of YHWH . . .
 THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMYTh 117
Assyria with the sword” (vv 4–6). This suits Hezekiah, who rebelled against the king of Assyria
and expanded the territory of his kingdom (before the invasion of Sennacherib).
This period of national revival may explain the nationalistic and patriotic atmosphere
prevailing in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic literature. The book of Deuteronomy abounds
with military speeches aimed at strengthening the people in their future wars with their enemies
(Weinfeld 1972a: 45–59). These in fact reflect the national fervor of the times of Hezekiah-
Josiah. Remarks such as “be strong and courageous” \ “no man shall be able to stand against
you”, “every spot on which your foot treads shall be yours,” and “YHWH your God will put the
dread and the fear on you over the land in which you set foot” (11:24–25) seem to express the
national enthusiasm of the period of Hezekiah-Josiah. I refer to the Hezekianic or Josianic period
because it is very hard to date the various layers of Deuteronomic literature. Since the book of
Deuteronomy was discovered in the days of Josiah (622 B.C.E.) we must suppose that the main
layout of the book was existent long before that time—that is, at the time of Hezekiah. However,
we still do not know what belongs to later Josianic elaboration and what existed before.
The idea of the ban on all Canaanite population also seems to have crystallized at this
time. According to the book of Deuteronomy, the Israelites are commanded to exterminate all the
Canaanites and not to leave a soul of them living (Deut 7:1–2; 20:16–17). Such a policy, obliging
the extermination of the whole population of the land whether fighting or passive, is utopian and
is indeed unheard of in the historical accounts of Israel. On the contrary, from 1 Kgs 9:21 we
learn that the Israelites were unable to annihilate the inhabitants of Canaan, and Solomon
subjected them to corvée labor. The command of ban (herem) of all the Canaanites in
Deuteronomy is a utopian program which reflects the bitter struggle with the Canaanite religion
and culture ongoing from the time of Elijah until the time of Josiah. Indeed the reason for the
annihilation of the Canaanites in Deut 20:18 is one of Kulturkampf: “lest they [the Canaanites]
lead you into doing all the abominable things that they have done for their gods and you shall be
sinful to YHWH your God.” One should acknowledge that the herem as such was practiced in
ancient Israel as elsewhere in the ancient world. It is found in connection with Jericho (Josh
6:17), Amalek (1 Samuel 15) and is also applied to apostate or treacherous cities within Israel
such as the city condemned for idolatry in Deut 13:16 and the cities of Benjamin which were
banned because of the sin of Gibeah (Judg 20:40, 48). It seems that Deuteronomy adopted the
ancient doctrine of herem from the North (cf. also 1 Kgs 20:42) and applied it theoretically
toward the seven nations of the land of Canaan. The original herem referred to hostile cities,
banned by means of votive proclamations (Josh 6:17; Num 21:2–3), whereas Deuteronomy
conceived herem as an automatic decree which applied to a whole country and its inhabitants.
This sort of herem is not dependent on any vow or dedication, but is an a priori decree which
12

belongs more to theory than to practice.

The national patriotic attitude of Deuteronomy may
Page

also be recognized in its conception of the extent of the This period of national revival
promised land. According to the ancient sources of the may explain the nationalistic and
Pentateuch and, especially, the list of boundaries in Num patriotic atmosphere prevailing
34:1–15, Transjordan was not part of the land of Israel. The in Deuteronomy and
request of the Gadites and Reubenites to settle in Deuteronomic literature. The
Transjordan was considered by Moses as a sin (Num 32:14), book of Deuteronomy abounds
and from Josh 22:19 we may deduce that Transjordan was with military speeches aimed at
strengthening the people in their
considered “impure land.” The stories of the Conquest in
future wars with their enemies.
Joshua 2–9 also make it clear that the Conquest started with
the crossing of the Jordan. The passage of the Jordan and
the erecting of the stones at Gilgal actually commemorate the entrance into the promised land
(Josh 3:10; 5:1 etc.). This old conception about the Jordan being the border of the land was not
accepted by Deuteronomy. According to Deuteronomy 1–3, the Conquest of the land started with
 THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMYTh 117
the crossing of the river Arnon (Deut 2:24) at the border between Moab and the Mishor, the
territory of King Sihon. In accordance with this view, the Israelites apply the law of herem to
these territories (2:34; 3:6) just as they are commanded to do to the peoples of the western side of
the Jordan (Deut 20:16–17). The conquered territories of the eastern side of the Jordan are
divided among the tribes as are the other parts of the Promised Land, and are not just a gift on
condition as in Numbers 32. The author of Deuteronomy accepted the ideal borders of Gen
15:18, which reflected the borders of the Davidic kingdom, as binding borders (Deut 1:7; 11:24);
for him, therefore, Transjordan was an integral part of the land (Deut 34:1). In this manner, the
author of Deuteronomy affords Transjordan a status equal with that of Cisjordan; this looks like
an endeavor to restore Israel to its ideal borders of the Davidic-Salomonic period (Weinfeld
1983).
The national resurgence of the period of Hezekiah and Josiah explains the feelings of
superiority expressed in Deuteronomy. Israel is promised exaltation above all nations of the earth
(26:19), to be always at the top and never at the bottom (28:13); people who hear the laws of
Israel will say: “That great nation is a wise and understanding people” (4:6); “Israel will rule
many nations but they will not rule it” (15:6). The book of
Deuteronomy depicts Israel as a proud nation unfearful but The national resurgence of the
feared. In accordance with this, it changes and reworks old period of Hezekiah and Josiah
sources. In Numbers, the Israelites asked permission from explains the feelings of
Edom to cross its territory. The Edomites refused and went superiority expressed in
out against the Israelites in force (Num 20:14–21). In the Deuteronomy. The national
book of Deuteronomy, the opposite happens: not only do the pride prevailing in Deuteronomy
Israelites pass Edom and buy food there (2:6, 29), but the comes to bold expression in the
Edomites fear the Israelites and the Israelites are asked not to account of Moses’ appointing
exploit this fact in order to provoke the Edomites (2:4–5) officers for judging the people.
(Weinfeld 1967).
The national pride prevailing in Deuteronomy comes to bold expression in the account of
Moses’ appointing officers for judging the people. According to Exodus 18 the appointment
arose from the advice of Jethro the priest of Midian. In Deut 1:13–17, Moses appoints the
officers on his own initiative. Jethro is not mentioned at all because, as A. B. Ehrlich says in
regard to Deut 1:9: “in the Deuteronomist’s days it was not glorious to tell the people that a
foreigner contrived such a plan” (1908–14).

5. The Land in Deuteronomy

13

The gift of the land to Israel, according to the old sources, is a perpetual, unconditional
gift (Gen 13:15; 17:8; 48:4). Similarly David was given a dynasty forever (2 Sam 7:13, 16; 23:5;
Page

Ps 89:30, etc.) because he served God with loyalty (1 Kgs 3:6; 9:4; 11:4, etc.). The promises to
Abraham and to David belong to the type of “grant” to royal servants who devoted themselves to
their master, the king. These “grant” documents were common in the ANE from the middle of
the second millennium onward, and like the biblical promises (Gen 17:8; 48:4) contained the
phrase: “I grant it to you for your descendants after you throughout the generation” (Gen 17:7–8)
or “for your descendants forever” (Gen 13:15); compare Deut 1:8 (for these legal formulae in
Alalakh, Ugarit, and Elephantine, see Weinfeld 1970). In contrast to the vassal treaty, which
constitutes an obligation of the vassal to his sovereign, the royal “grant” constitutes an obligation
of the sovereign to his vassal.
However, following the fall of the N kingdom an explanation was sought for the failure
of the promise and the explanation given was that the realization of the promise to the patriarchs
was conditioned a priori by the fulfillment of the obligatory covenant of the Israelites at Sinai in
which they committed themselves to keep the laws of God. Two covenants which existed
 THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMYTh 117
separately—the covenant of God with the patriarchs on land
The whole Deuteronomic
(grant type) and the covenant of Israel with God on law
corpus actually revolves around
(vassal type)—were thus combined and were seen as
the fate of the land of Israel.
dependent on one another (4:25–27; 8:19–20; 11:8–10, 13–
The promised land and the
17, 22–25; 28:63; 29:24–27; 30:17–18). The same thing occupation of the land is
happened with the Davidic covenant. After the fall of dependent upon the
Jerusalem the divine promise for an eternal dynasty to observance of the law (4:26;
David which was originally unconditioned (2 Sam 7:13–15) 11:17; 28:63; 30:19). The aim of
was understood as conditional by the fulfillment of the the Deuteronomic
Sinaitic covenant (1 Kgs 2:3–4; 8:23–25). historiography is to describe the
Although the loss of land is a punishment for the fate of the land of Israel
violation of the covenant, which means abrogation of the following the sins of the
law in general, principal sins are specified for which the
people will go into exile. Thus, according to the Holiness Code, the land will be desolate and the
people will go into exile because of not keeping the laws of land release (Lev 26:34–35).
Deuteronomy, however, specifies idolatry as the principal sin for losing the land: “Beware lest
your heart be seduced and you turn away to serve other gods . . . for YHWH’s anger will flame
up against you and he will shut up the skies and there will be no rain and the land will not yield
its produce and you will perish from the good land that YHWH is giving you” (11:16–17, cf.
4:25–28; 29:23–27; 30:17–18).
Going in exile and desolation of the land are also specified as punishment for betrayal in
the vassal treaties. Thus we read in VTE lines 538–44: “may your seed and the seed [of your
sons] and daughters perish from the land (if you violate the treaty)” (Weinfeld 1972a: 133).
Similar threats occur in the Hittite treaties with their vassals: “may they break you like reeds,
may your name and your seed . . . perish from the land” (Weidner 1923: 34–35, lines 64–66).
The latter two curses: “breaking like a reed” and “perishing from the land” are found both
together in Deuteronomic historiography: “YHWH will strike Israel . . . like a reed in water and
will uproot Israel from this good land which he gave to their fathers” (1 Kgs 14:16).
The whole Deuteronomic corpus actually revolves around the fate of the land of Israel.
As has been indicated above, the Deuteronomic law is given to the people for its observance
after the entrance into the land (Deut 12:1). The promised land and the occupation of the land is
dependent upon the observance of the law (4:26; 11:17; 28:63; 30:19). The aim of the
Deuteronomic historiography is to describe the fate of the land of Israel following the sins of the
nations. The sins of the period of the judges caused the curtailment of the land in its ideal
borders. The “remaining land” i.e., the coastal area and the Lebanon (Josh 13:2–5; Judg 3:3) was
14

taken away from the Israelites forever because of their sins after the Conquest (Josh 23:12; Judg
2:21–29). By the same token, the sin of the northern Israelites caused the loss of the territories of
Page

the north (2 Kgs 17:7–23) while the fall of Jerusalem and the exile of Judah was caused by the
sins of Judah (2 Kgs 21:12–15; Weinfeld 1984: 120–22). It is this consciousness of sin of the
Israelites from the Conquest to the Exile that motivated the writing of the Deuteronomic
historiography.
It should be remarked, however, that the loss of land is not presented in Deuteronomy as
final. If Israel returns to God in the Exile God will recall the promise to the patriarchs and will
bring them back to their land (Deut 4:27–31; 30:1–10). It is true that these are late texts (see
above) but the idea itself may be of early origin (Hos 13:2–8).
In Deuteronomy the land is depicted not just as “a land of milk and honey” as in the
previous sources (Exod 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:3; Lev 20:24; Num 13:27; 14:8) but as a rich land in
every respect: a land of grain, wines, and all sorts of fruits and also of natural resources as iron
and copper (8:7–9). Unlike Egypt, which is flat, rainless with only the Nile incessantly flowing
through a monotonous landscape, the promised land has a nice variegated landscape: “hills and
 THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMYTh 117
valleys” through which brooks spring forth (8:7), soaking water from heaven (11:11). The
comparison is a theological and not an empirical one: the rain from heaven expresses divine
providence. The Egyptians developed a theology of opposite nature. According to their view, the
barbarians and the animals depend on the water from heaven, whereas for the Egyptians the
water comes from the underground (see notes to 11:10–12 in Deuteronomy AB). Moreover,
Deuteronomy’s view on Egypt stands in opposition to the other sources of the Pentateuch where
Egypt is represented as a most fertile land: “as the garden of YHWH” (Gen 13:10, cf. Exod 16:3;
Num 16:13; 20:5).

6. The Idea of the Election of Israel

The particularity of Israel was expressed in the ancient Israelite sources by expressions
such as “knew” (yd<) and “separated” (hbdyl). Thus Abraham was “known” by God, which
means “singled out” in order that his descendants will keep justice and righteousness (Gen
18:19). The same expression is found in Amos 3:2: “you alone have I known [= singled out]
from all the families of the earth.” In the Holiness Code the particularity of Israel is expressed by
the phrases “separate”/“set apart” (hbdyl): “I have set you apart from other peoples to be mine”
(Lev 20:26). In Deuteronomy this idea is for the first time expressed by the verb “elect” (bhr).
This is linked here (7:6; 14:2; 26:18) to the idea of segullah (“special possession,” sigiltu in
Akkadian) which is rooted in the ANE political sphere where the sovereign singles out his vassal
by giving him a status of sglt (PRU V No. 60:7–12, see note to 7:6) which means peculium,
“special property.” Theologically, the peculiar status of the people was defined as “holy people”
( mqdws Deut 7:6; 14:1, 21). In Exod 19:5–6 the segullah is
linked to goy qdws “holy nation,” but there the special status The particularity of Israel was
of the people serves as reward for being loyal to the expressed in the ancient Israelite
sources by expressions such as
covenant (19:5a) while in Deuteronomy the election serves
“knew” (yd<) and “separated”
as a motivation for observing the laws and especially laws of
(hbdyl). In Deuteronomy this idea
purity and rejection of pagan practices: “You shall not eat
is for the first time expressed by
nebelah . . . because you are a holy people to YHWH your
the verb “elect” (bhr).
God” (14:21; cf. 14:1–2 against self-mutilation and 7:1–5
against idolatry).
A distinction should also be made between the Holiness Code concept of holiness and the
Deuteronomic one. While the Holiness Code urges the people to sanctify themselves and to be
holy: “you shall be holy” (Lev 19:2) or “you shall be holy to me” (Lev 20:26), “you shall
sanctify yourselves and be holy” (Lev 11:44)—hence not to contaminate their souls with
15

impurity, Deuteronomy reverses the order and urges the people not to contaminate themselves
because they are holy to God by virtue of their election “because you are holy people to YHWH
Page

your God” (7:6; 14:1, 21). In the Holiness Code holiness depends on observing purity (Exod
22:30: “You shall be holy to me, you should not eat flesh torn by beasts . . .”), whereas according
to Deuteronomy observance of purity is bound to the holiness of the people which is an
established fact. It is true, from the point of view of piety, that the concept of holiness in the
Holiness Code is more intense: Israel has to deserve to be holy and is not holy automatically
(Milgrom 1973: 158), whereas in Deuteronomy the holiness is inherent in the people and is not
conditioned by preserving purity. One should admit, however, that in both cases the privilege of
being holy involves obligation: noblesse oblige. This applies also to Gen 18:19 and Amos 3:2
where the singling out of the people means responsibility and self-perfection.
It should be added here that there was awareness of the moral danger that the election
might involve. The consciousness of election is apt to foster a superiority complex and therefore
the author of Deuteronomy, when speaking about election, is eager to add that it is not the virtue
 THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMYTh 117
and strength of the nation that caused the election, but that the love of God to the patriarchs is the
main reason for choosing their descendants (Deut 7:7–8; 9:4–5).
In the Second Temple period the election of Israel was interpreted as God’s giving of
Torah and Sabbath to Israel. God’s bestowal of Torah and Sabbath upon Israel was seen as a
graceful act and a sign of election (Neh 9:7–14). This is also attested in a passage from the book
of Jubilees of liturgical nature (2:31–33) and constitutes an important element in the festive
prayers of Qumran (4Q503:24–25 in Baillet 1982) and in the conventional Jewish liturgy for
Sabbaths and festivals (Kosmala 1959: 339; Weinfeld 1988b).

7. Deuteronomy 5:8 Veneration of the Sacred Images

7.1. In the Text. Deut. 5:8 demands careful reading for it is susceptible to
misinterpretation especially when it is taken out of context and in isolation. It will be helpful to
quote the text in conjunction with the preceding and following verses and to delineate the whole
text in a metrical structure so that all the elements are clearly distinguished.
6 a I am the LORD your God,
b who brought you out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of slavery;
7 you shall have no other gods before me.
8 a You shall not make for yourself an idol,
whether in the form of anything
b that is in heaven above,
or that is on the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth.
9 a You shall not bow down to them or worship them;
for I the LORD your God am a jealous God,
b punishing children for the iniquity of parents,
to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me,
10 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation
of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7.2. A Textual Problem. There is evidence of a great deal of redactional work in Deut.
5:8-10. The first four words (in Hebrew) appear to be the only original portion of the text.
Loh taaseh lika pesel: You shall not make for yourself an idol.
Pesel originally meant an image carved from wood or stone. In other texts (Ex. 34:17;
16

Deut. 27:15) massekah (molten image) is used. There is a suggestion therefore that the present
text might have originated from a period in which it was customary to make wood or stone rather
Page

than molten images. But one should be aware that there are instances in which pesel is used with
a general meaning, that is, without necessarily referring to wood or stone images but to images in
general.
A much more important question is: which images are forbidden? Those of Yahweh, or
those of other gods? If the ban on images refers only to foreign gods, then the second
commandment is no more than a kind of consequence of the first: “You shall have no other gods
to set against me,” hence “you shall not make a carved image [of these gods] for yourself…”
If the prohibition refers to the images of Yahweh, then the second commandment is
something quite new, and along with the first commandment, it distinguishes Israel from all
other religions of the ancient Near East.
To settle the problem one can concentrate on the pronoun “them” (lahem) in Deut 5:9:
“You shall not bow to them or serve them…” To what does this third person pronoun in the
plural form refer? Since the carved image mentioned in verse 8 is in the singular form, some
 THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMYTh 117
scholars argue that it refers to other gods (which is in the plural) mentioned in the preceding
commandment (Deut. 5:7). There is a further reason to believe this since the expressions in verse
9 never refer to images as such, but to gods. In other words, one does not really bow to nor serve
images but rather the gods which these images represent. If one accepts this interpretation, verse
9 could be seen as a later addition to the original text referring in particular to verse 7.
But against this, one can in fact regard verse 9 as referring to verse 8 as indeed it appears
in the text. In this case, the third person pronoun in verse 9 could be seen as a constructio ad
sensum in which case it could be referring to the different forms of images (of other gods)
mentioned in verse 8. Some may see no reason why these images should not refer to the
representations of Yahweh. Just the same, one cannot rule out that these images include the
images of the other gods.
If one were to insist that what is forbidden by the commandments is the images of
Yahweh, one has to with a difficulty. Why should it be prohibited? Is it idolatrous to worship
Yahweh as He is represented in images of His own? If indeed such images are forbidden, what is
the meaning of such prohibition? It is difficult to find a distinct explanation in the OT itself.
Deut. 4:10 seems to give a historical explanation. Namely, at Sinai and at Horeb, the people did
not see any form but they only heard a voice. But as it is it does not explain the reason behind the
commandment. If this commandment refers to the images of Yahweh, there must have been the
reason for a belief in this commandment. One may for instance presuppose that Yahweh and his
people had a special relationship and that this special relationship cannot be shown in images.
Furthermore, one might argue that in Israel, God was perceived as a spirit, a being totally distinct
from the visible world, a God therefore who need and should not be represented in images of any
sort. But all this is difficult to prove as it is conjectural and modern to the text. All that can be
said, given this interpretation, is that the commandment is something special and peculiar to the
religion of Israel.

7.3. Arguments in Favor of the Catholic Interpretation. Using the wholistic and
contextual method of redaction criticism, there are valid reasons why the Catholic interpretation
of the present text in question should be maintained.
First, the text as it is structured, has for its central theme the prohibition of worship
accorded to other gods in order to affirm the exclusiveness of Yahweh as the God of Israel. It
does not seem to make sense to include here a prohibition of Yahweh’s images since this does
not necessarily repudiate the exclusiveness of Yahweh as the God of Israel. A prohibition of
Yahweh’s images therefore seems remote to the whole context of the text inasmuch as the
unique interest of the text is to show and emphasize the opposition between Yahweh and the
17

other gods (their symbols included).

Second, if verse 8 refers to the images of Yahweh, such prohibition would be misplaced
Page

for as such it interrupts verses 7 and 9, the content of which is clearly in reference to other gods.
If verse 8 would have to fit into the structure of the text, then it should complement the theme in
verses 7 and 9 on the prohibition of worship accorded to other gods and their symbols.
Third, the appositives mentioned in verse 8b, namely “… in the heavens above or on the
earth below or in the waters under the earth…” would not make much sense if they were to refer
to images of Yahweh. All these expressions clearly allude to the polytheistic atmosphere
surrounding the religion of Israel. The triple plan of the heavens, the earth and the water under
the earth was believed to constitute the respective dominions of the gods of other religions.
Fourth, in the OT, Israel has frequently been accused of accepting and worshipping other
gods. One might therefore ask, when was Israel ever accused and reprimanded for having made
and venerated the images of Yahweh? If Israel indeed had the propensity to make and venerate
the images of Yahweh, the inclusion of a prohibition of these images in the Decalogue would
make sense. There was the offense, hence the prohibition; there would have been no prohibition
 THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMYTh 117
had there been no offense in the first place. The point is, Israel may not have had images of
Yahweh, but this does not necessarily establish the fact that these images were actually
prohibited. For one thing, If Israel could afford to worship other gods, Israel would not have
found it difficult to worship the “images” of Yahweh as though these were also gods. Then
indeed the prohibition to make and venerate the images of Yahweh becomes understandable.
Finally, if we analyze the numerous texts which prohibit the fabrication of images, one
will discover that this prohibition always refer to the images of other gods and never to the
images of Yahweh. One can look to other texts comparable to Deut. 5:8-10. For example, in a
context similar to that of the Decalogue, we find reference to the first commandment in Exodus
34:14ff. and to the second in Exodus 34:17. This is not an isolated passage. One can’t further
refer to Exodus 20:23; Lev. 19:4 and Deut. 27:15. In some way, one can cite Lev. 17-26 to prove
the point.
The story of the golden calf (Ex. 32) and the story of the calves of Jeroboam made after
the separation of the northern and the southern kingdoms (I Kings 12:28ff) might seem to
contradict all these. But on close inspection, in both stories, the people, and Jeroboam for that
matter, were rebuked not so much because of the images, not because they have made
representation of Yahweh, but because they have transgressed the law.

7.4. The Symbols of the Presence of Yahweh. Still, one can discredit all these
arguments by insisting on the fact that it was not after all Israel’s custom and practice to make
and venerate images of Yahweh. Be that as it may, one should not forget that the people of
Israel had symbols to remind them of Yahweh’s presence in their midst. One of these is the Ark
of the covenant (Ex. 25:18-21). According to tradition, the Ark was carried by the Israelites from
the time of the exodus into the land of Canaan. It was profoundly revered as holy so that it was
considered a sacrilege and a crime punishable by death for an unauthorized person to touch it.
The tablets of the Law which the Ark contained is another symbol of Yahweh’s presence.
Mention should also be made of the burning bush in which the angel of Yahweh appeared to
Moses in a flame. There Yahweh told Moses, “Yes, I am here.” (Ex. 3:2-4).

7.5. Conclusion. God communicates to man only mediately. Man has no immediate
experience of God for God speaks to him through signs and symbols. Therefore, the
communicative relationship between God and man cannot but be sacramental. Thus, if man were
to communicate with God, he can only do so meaningfully within the context of sacramentality.
The Catholic practice of venerating images as symbols of the divinity should be seen in this
light. These symbols are not the object of worship – otherwise would indeed be idolatry – but
18

rather objects that remind man of his dependence on God and fulfill his yearning to feel God’s
presence. There is no outright evidence in Sacred Scriptures particularly in the OT, pointing to a
Page

prohibition of this mode of communicative relationship. The stern prohibition is rather depicted
to the worship of false gods and their representations.

Functions of Pentateuch

A. Historical Function
How Pentateuch served in the History of the people? The compilation of the Pentateuch
was during the time of the exile.
Its purpose is to keep the identity of the people. Secondly, to keep the hope of the
fulfillment of God’s promises. Just as the people at the end of Deuteronomy has God behind
them and its fulfillment so also for the people of the exile.
 THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMYTh 117
This is true for the Jews of today because they are still hoping for the coming of the
Messiah. Pentateuch provides them hope. In Jewish liturgy one can hear always the following:
Next year, we shall celebrate the Passover in Jerusalem.”
Judaism is a religion of hope as Mohammedanism is a religion of faith.

B. Theological Function
Pentateuch essentially is narrative were laws (2/3) are placed within the narrative. In fact,
Torah is the outstanding religious story in world literature.
We want to get the function of Pentateuch that transcends time. To do this, we must
consider it as story.
A story presents a new world. It is understood only in as much as we enter into the world
of the story. It can be real or fantasy. It’s just like being entirely engrossed by the world of the
movie.
So, if we read the Pentateuch often, its values may become our own.
a) The story of the Pentateuch has a sense of mystery. It is a mysterious story because
you could never predict the freedom of God and man. For instance, it is unthinkable to consider
the Jews as the chosen people. It is very mysterious to see how man can rebel against God. Are
we also able to accept a sense of mystery in our life?
b) The stories have a tension between the promise and the fulfillment. In the same way,
are we ready to accept life with the promises and fulfillment?
c) A story moves through time. But Pentateuch is different. It has beginning and body but
the end is open. Do we accept stories of life that remains incomplete? Do we accept people in the
process of development or we only accept people who are already developed?
d) Life is a constant journey: Pentateuch as a travelogue. Most people love travel stories
since there is a desire in us to travel, to see places. There is a desire in us to move from one place
to another, and when in another place, there is a longing to return. Pentateuch represents a people
who has always on the move. A people who was in search for a home, for a homecoming to a
place that is not even a home, but only promised to be one.
The journey from Egypt to Canaan is a story of escape from a home that was not a home
in order to make for a home that had never been a home. The journey neither starts from a home
nor arrives at home. The Pentateuch opens us to a world where you never reach the Promised
Land, you only march toward it.
19Page