1:1 The location of Moses "beyond the Jordan" does not mean the author's viewpoint was from the region west of the Jordan (Canaan proper, known in scholarship as Cisjordan), and that hence he was not Moses. The term "beyond the Jordan" is equivalent to Transjordan, a name still in use (see Introduction).
1:5 Deuteronomy is in the form of a sermon by Moses, a sort of "farewell address," in which he undertakes to "explain this law" to the people who, under different leadership, will be occupying the promised land. It harks back, of course, to the laws given at Sinai a generation earlier, but differs from them in that—as might be expected when "preaching" the law—Moses frequently inserts a reminder of the proper motivation for keeping the Lord's instructions.
1:6 Horeb, the name of the sacred mountain in Dt, is an alternative designation of Sinai. Moses uses the name Horeb throughout Dt (except in 33:2) and both Sinai and Horeb elsewhere (Ex 16:1; 19:1,11,18,20; and 3:1; 17:6; 33:6 respectively).
1:10 "As the stars of the sky" is not to be taken literally but as hyperbole, an exaggerated comparison. This literary device emphasizes the amazing blessing of God upon the people of Israel. It anticipates the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham (Gn 15:5; 22:17).
1:28 The description of the Amorites' cities as "fortified to the heavens" is a hyperbole expressing the fear of the ten spies, intended to dissuade Moses from attempting to attack them.
1:30 The idea of God's fighting for Israel has to be understood against the backdrop of the conquest of Canaan, in which the Lord would annihilate the hopelessly unrepentant and irredeemable Canaanite nations so as to open the land to Israelite possession. This language of "holy war" does not contradict the idea that God loves all peoples and desires all to repent. Even the NT speaks of Jesus, God's love incarnate, coming in bloody wrath and judgment in the last days (Rv 19:11-16). God's love and grace never compromise His holiness and justice.
1:37 God's severe treatment of Moses for what seems a minor incident (cp. Nm 20:12) does not expose Him to a charge of unfairness or of capricious administration of His judgment. Moses was the most privileged of men. As such he bore the greatest responsibility for his sin of failed leadership. His punishment was in direct proportion to what God had rightfully expected of him.
2:12 The land the Lord had already given Israel was not the land of Canaan west of the Jordan, but the land of the Amorite kings whom Moses had already defeated and whose territories Israel already occupied (2:26–3:10; cp. Nm 21:21-35). This historical note is not, therefore, from a later hand; it was well within Moses' experience and ability to record.
2:21 God's destruction of various peoples was neither capricious nor without purpose. As an all-knowing One, He knew the various Canaanite and other neighboring peoples to be beyond repentance (2:30).
2:30 King Sihon's hardness of heart (or spirit) was indeed brought about by the Lord, but it must be understood as a divine result of a process already begun by Sihon himself. The pharaoh of the exodus illustrates the same process. He first hardened himself against the Lord (Ex 7:13,22; 8:15,19) then, when all hope of changing his mind was gone, the Lord hardened him for His own purpose (Ex 9:12; 10:1,27; cp. Rm 1:24,26,28).
2:34 The complete destruction of men, women, and children underscores the idea of corporate solidarity. All members of a community, or even of a family, are blessed or judged together (Nm 16:1-35; Jos 7:22-26). Yet, within that framework, each individual is ultimately responsible to God for his or her own destiny (Jr 31:29-30; Ezk 18:2,4). Moreover, were these nations to survive, Israel would be drawn away into idolatry (Dt 7:1-4).
3:11 Og's large bed (approximately 14 feet by 6 feet) was probably a sarcophagus, the outer casing of a casket. Its extra-large size was necessary to accommodate him as a gigantic man but it also testified to his power and greatness as a king.
3:14 The phrase "as it is today" suggests a time somewhat later than the setting of the narrative and therefore an author or editor besides Moses. There are a number of such instances in Dt (34:6) but taken altogether they hardly undermine the case for Mosaic authorship of the book as a whole. Such incidental explanations are the product of divine inspiration.
3:26 The Lord's refusal to permit Moses to enter the land of promise was not pettiness on His part nor had Moses committed an unpardonable sin. Rather, his punishment was severe because he had dishonored the Lord in the presence of the people (Nm 20:12). The principle is that to whom much is given, much is required (Lk 12:48). In any event, Moses did appear in the promised land in the company of the transfigured Jesus (Mt 17:3).
4:2 This statement supports the common biblical idea that all Scripture is inspired by God and none of it is of human origin only (12:32; Jr 36:28,32; 2 Tm 3:16-17; 2 Pt 1:20-21). No one, therefore, can add to or delete from it.
4:11 The burning of the mountain was likely associated with volcanic eruption, or it could be a supernatural manifestation of the presence of the Lord who is often seen in connection with clouds or fire (Ex 3:2; 13:21; 19:18).
4:19 The sun, moon, and stars were not created to be objects of worship. They were set in the heavens to benefit all peoples with their light and heat, and to regulate units of time (Gn 1:14-19).
4:20 The reference to iron is not out of keeping with an early (fifteenth century) date for Dt. Though the Iron Age proper did not begin in the Middle East until 1200 b.c., iron smelting was known much earlier.
4:24 God is jealous in the sense that he tolerates no rival claims to deity and sovereignty. He alone is God, and all else is His creation. To worship the creature, rather than the Creator, is to rob God of His uniqueness and incomparability (vv. 35,39; Ac 17:22-28; Rm 1:25). The Hebrew word translated "jealous" (qanna') also means "zealous." God's jealousy is an expression of His intense love and care for His people and His demand that they honor His unique and incomparable nature.
4:26 On heaven and earth as witnesses, see note on 30:19.
4:28 Mention of other gods by no means certifies that they indeed exist; the reference is to idols ("gods of wood and stone"). Yet the worship of idols can open a person to Satan's demonic influence, and the NT takes this possibility seriously (1 Co 10:20; 1 Jn 5:21). Idols represented the supposed qualities of their corresponding deities. Israel would worship these idols when in exile; even though the gods behind them were only figments of a depraved pagan imagination (cp. Is 40:18-20; 44:9-11; Jr 10:14-16).
4:34 God's selection of Israel as a special people to the exclusion of all others can be explained only on the basis of His grace and hidden purposes. There was nothing in Israel, or even the nation's founding ancestor Abraham, that commended them to the Lord. Merit or deserving qualities have nothing to do with God's sovereign choice of nations and individuals, out of all the options available to Him (7:6-9; cp. Ex 19:5-6). The vessel has no right to ask the potter why he has shaped him thus (Rm 9:14-26).
4:41 "Across the Jordan to the east" is a technical geographical term referring to what is now known as the kingdom of Jordan, or traditionally Transjordan (see 1:1).
5:2 On the name Horeb, see the Introduction and note on 1:6.
5:9 These words reflect the OT concept of the corporate nature of community and family life. All members are implicated in the blessing and judgment of even one member (2:34). It is well known that the sins of one generation have repercussions for generations to come (Ex 20:5). The impact of David's sin on his children is a classic case in point (2 Sm 12:10; 13:28). Also see note on 4:24.
5:14 The male and female servants mentioned here are not slaves in the sense of personal property. They were either hired persons or, more likely, bond-servants who had come under the control of a fellow Israelite to whom they owed a certain amount of service in exchange for a loan that rescued them from financial difficulty (Ex 21:1-6; Dt 15:12-18).
5:22 The subject of this statement is the Lord and not Moses. Elsewhere the OT speaks of God's writing the Ten Commandments with His own finger—an obvious figure of speech—underscoring the fact that God is the ultimate author of Scripture (Ex 32:15-16; 34:1). This wording is unique, however, for ordinarily God is said to write or speak through human beings (2 Pt 1:20-21).
6:4 The claim that the Lord alone is God is sometimes used as evidence for the composition of Dt at a time long after that of Moses. OT monotheism, the argument runs, was a late development in the history of Israel's religion, perhaps as late as Amos (eighth century) and other writing prophets. This claim assumes an evolutionary view of how religions developed. This assumption runs counter to the biblical view that holds that idolatry and polytheism are corruptions of authentic worship of God (Rm 1:18-23). In addition, historical evidence can be brought to bear that runs counter to evolutionary accounts of how religions develop. There is no reason to deny monotheism to the Mosaic period, which was foundational for Israelite faith.
6:7 The expectation here is not that Scripture should be taught to children in every waking moment, to the exclusion of anything else. By means of a figure of speech Moses uses opposites—sitting and walking, lying down and rising up—to suggest that any time is appropriate for instruction in the ways of the Lord.
6:10-11 This information about what lies ahead in Canaan is not at variance with other instruction about destroying the cultures and peoples of that land. Those instructions avoid any reference to material facilities, such as houses and walls (7:1-5). The cities, cisterns and other features could be left standing to facilitate Israel's occupation.
6:15 On God's jealousy, see note on 4:24.
6:16 The words do not mean to test the Lord in the sense of tempting Him to do evil. The Hebrew verb(na-sâ) means to put to the test or challenge. This was what the Israelites had done in the desert (Ex 17:7) in their exasperation over lack of food and water. To test God is to manifest a lack of faith.
7:2 This is a directive for so-called "holy war," a conflict led by the Lord against hostile and irredeemable foes who have an implacable resistance to God and His people (1:30).
7:6 God, in His sovereign grace, makes decisions based upon His omniscient wisdom in line with plans and purposes known, and knowable, only to Him. What seems arbitrary and even unfair to us must be understood as the best possible action for God to take. This was true of His election (choice) of Israel, but one people out of the myriads from which He could have chosen. To impose human "standards" of fairness on a righteous and all wise God is the height of arrogance. He is answerable to no man (Rm 9:20; see Ex 19:5-6; Dt 4:34; 14:2; 26:18.)
7:7 In a covenant context such as this, love does not refer to the emotional or providential aspect of God's character. In those senses, He loves all people equally (cp. Mt 5:45; Jn 3:16). Here the term is synonymous with choice. The Lord is saying that He chose Israel simply because He chose her; His "love" is His loyalty to the covenant He has granted. This sheds light on the difficult statement "I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau" (Mal 1:2-3; cp. Rm 9:13). "Love" and "hate" do not signify emotions of attraction or revulsion, but are expressions of the presence or absence of a special bond of loyalty (cp. Lk 14:26).
7:16 In fulfillment of God's directive for holy war (v. 2) the Israelites must destroy the Canaanite peoples. The reason for such severe action is made clear when the command to destroy the wicked is followed immediately by the prohibition from worshiping their gods. To allow the Canaanites to survive would be to leave Israel vulnerable to idolatry (2:34).
7:20 The ability of hornets to drive away whole armies is understandable, given the devastation of Egypt wrought by plagues of gnats, flies, and locusts. On the other hand, hornets (Hb tsir'a) might more accurately be translated "panic" as suggested by Ex 23:27-28.
8:3 The assumption that all Israel had to eat for 40 years was manna is unfounded. On special occasions they ate quail (Nm 11:31-34) and since they were a pastoral people they obviously maintained and consumed sheep, cattle and other domesticated animals. We today have no idea of the nourishment value, or even the taste, of manna (but see Nm 11:7), and it may not have been as undesirable as some believe. The real issue, of course, is whether or not God could provide for His people in such a miraculous manner; that question is a matter not of science but of faith (cp. Jn 6:31).
8:15 Though, to this day, springs issuing pure and refreshing water from rocky crevices may be found in Sinai and the Negev, the reference here is clearly to a supernatural supply (cp. Ex 17:6; Nm 20:11). Like the manna (vv. 3,16), the provision of water is declared to be outside the normal course of nature.
8:19 If one worships another "false" god or an imaginary one, the result is the same: a departure from faith in the true and living God (4:28).
9:1 It is possible that the total population of the seven Canaanite nations, plus that of neighboring nations, exceeded that of Israel, despite the fact that Israel counted more than 600,000 men alone (Nm 2:32). On the other hand, the statement that the nations were greater and more numerous (Hb catsum) than the Israelites could be either a reflection of the misguided perception of the Israelites themselves (Nm 13:28,33), or Moses' use of dramatic exaggeration to emphasize the challenge they faced.
9:8 On the name Horeb, see note on 1:6.
9:10 The reference to the finger of God is an obvious anthropomorphism, or use of a human comparison to describe a divine activity. "God is Spirit" (Jn 4:24) and has no bodily parts. The figure is used to make the point that the Ten Commandments, at least, were composed by the Lord Himself and not by Moses (Dt 4:13; 5:22).
9:14 The Lord's threat to destroy wicked Israel appears to contradict His promise to the patriarchs that their descendants would endure forever (Gn 17:19). However, as one of those descendants Moses was qualified to be the Lord's instrument in establishing a new Israel if need be. It is clear from the passage that the Lord is testing Moses and would not, in fact, carry out the threat (Dt 9:25-29).
9:18 Moses' statement that he neither ate nor drank for 40 days presupposes supernatural sustenance, of the kind Jesus received when he, too, fasted 40 days in the Judean desert (Mt 4:1-11; cp. Dt 8:3). Those to whom God is a living reality do not find such claims impossible, but receive them by faith.
10:4 The Lord wrote the same words on the second set of tablets as on the first. This action attests the truth of "verbal plenary inspiration," the understanding that "the Scripture cannot be broken" (Jn 10:35)—its very words are inspired and inviolable in the original. It was not sufficient to replicate the ideas in the first tables of commandments. Their exact words mustbe repeated and faithfully recorded (see Jr 36:28, 32).
10:6 Numbers 20:28 implies that Aaron was buried on Mount Hor, though it does not explicitly say so. This passage locates the burial place at Moserah, but since the modern site has not been identified it is impossible to prove a contradiction. Quite likely Hor was located in a region called Moserah.
10:15 See notes on 4:34 and 7:6.
10:22 To describe Israel as being as numerous as the stars when its population was little more than 2 million is to employ hyperbole, a deliberate exaggeration designed to glorify God and affirm His faithfulness to His promises (Gn 15:5).
11:6 History records many instances of chasms opening up in the surface of the earth as a result of earthquakes, floods or other natural disasters. That such a thing could occur in the Sinai in Moses' time is not beyond belief. But the timing and precise location of the event are what is significant in the biblical record. If one believes in the God of the Bible there is nothing inherently problematic about the incident recorded of Dathan and Abiram (Nm 16:31-33).
11:9 Anyone who has traveled to the Holy Land might take issue with the description of it as "flowing with milk and honey," but that response overlooks the land's complete agricultural history. The term is a stock phrase that combines products derived from agriculture (milk) and those that are natural, that is, obtained apart from human labor (honey). As such, it illustrates the land's fruitfulness. Compared to the arid and bare deserts of the Sinai, Canaan was a virtual Eden. Archaeological research has revealed that the region was more cultivated and forested in ancient times than in recent centuries, due to elaborate systems of water retention and irrigation. Under Turkish occupation the land was stripped for lumber and became more arid, but reforestation by the Israelis has brought back much of the country's original character.
11:19 Taken literally, this passage would suggest that nothing was to occur in family life except the verbal communication of the law. But Moses' intention here is to impress upon parents that their very lifestyle as well as their words is to be instructive for their children (see 6:7).
11:24 To tread the foot on the land symbolized its domination and occupation. The meaning is not that Israelite territory would be limited to those areas in which the people actually walked. Rather, their claim to any part of it was sufficient to assert ownership of the whole (Gn 13:17; Jos 1:3).
11:26 The curse in view here is certainly not the use of profanity or anything of the kind but is the technical language of covenant relationship. Blessing comes by obedience and cursing by disobedience. Disobedience resulted in such things as illness, lack of rain, loss of harvest, deportation, or even death. Curses are not arbitrary and capricious acts of God but the penalty for violating a pledge made by the people themselves (cp. Ex 19:8; 24:3,7; Dt 28:1-68).
11:30 Though the term "across the Jordan" is normally a technical way of referring to the Transjordan (1:1; 4:41), here it refers to Canaan which lies on the other side of the river from the speaker's point of view. The mention of the mountains Gerizim and Ebal makes this clear. The expression also verifies that Moses is in the Transjordan at the time he issues these instructions.
12:2-3 Moses reiterates the Lord's directive to destroy all non-Israelite places of worship. To modern ears such words are neither "politically correct" nor in the spirit of ecumenism. The elimination of pagan sanctuaries, however, was the logical and essential consequence of acknowledging Yahweh as the one and only God—One who spoke of Himself as a "jealous" God who would tolerate no rivals (5:4-5; 6:15).
12:5 The command to worship God in only one place seems to be at variance with Ex 20:24-26, which permits altars at many places, and with later practice in which prophets who were loyal to God offered sacrifice at authorized high places (e.g. 1 Sm 9:11-14; 1 Kg 18:30). What this passage mandates, however, is community worship, especially in connection with the annual festivals. It does not address the matter of local worship in Israel's towns and villages.
12:10 To move across the Jordan suggests a westerly direction from Moses' location, which in turn supports the view that Dt was composed in the Transjordan. This accords with the Mosaic authorship and early date of Dt but would be inconsistent with a late date and Palestinian setting for the book (1:1; 4:41).
12:16 The prohibition against eating blood is not merely a ritual or dietary taboo. Blood stands for life in the OT (cp. Gn 9:4-6; Lv 17:10-16; Dt 12:23), and life, whether animal or human, is sacred. As such, it belongs to the Lord and must be poured out upon the altar or the ground as a sign of its being returned to Him (Lv 3:2; Dt 12:24).
12:29 See Nm 31:13-24; Dt 1:30; 2:21; 7:16.
13:2 False prophets occasionally uttered prophecies that came to pass, as this instruction recognizes. This does not contradict the test of a true prophet propounded in 18:20-22. That test is a negative one; it states that if what a prophet predicts does not occur, Israel need not fear him. More importantly, this directive refers to prophets who would entice Israel to the worship of false gods. That, in any case, is the sign of a false prophet regardless of whether or not he is able to predict future events. Often mere common sense allows one accurately to gauge the outcome of current trends; it is no sure sign that a person is an authentic prophet of the Lord. The two passages dealing with criteria concerning false prophets are not inconsistent with one another.
13:5 The death penalty for these false prophets who arise from within Israel seems unduly harsh until we recognize that they are guilty of nothing less than high treason when they encourage the people to defect from the Lord and embrace other gods. Such measures cannot be entertained today, of course, but they were quite appropriate to the OT theocratic community.
13:15 To destroy a whole city because of the idolatry of a few may seem unfair and a miscarriage of justice. However, the modern dichotomy between the individual and his community was unknown in the world of ancient Israel. The sin of the few became the responsibility of all (Gn 18:22-33; Jos 7:10-26). Presumably the citizens of the city in question here had done nothing to expose or punish the sin of the idolatrous offenders.
14:18 Inclusion of the bat in the list of unclean birds, though not technically correct according to modern speciation or taxonomy, is consistent with the intent of the passage: to forbid the eating of large flying creatures. Establishing a second category with only one representative would have been unnecessary and confusing in a culture in which biological distinctions followed rules different from those of the modern world.
14:21 The permission given to foreigners to eat meat prohibited to Israelites was not because of a superior attitude on the part of the Israelites but because they were not allowed to come in contact with a corpse (Nm 9:6; 19:11-22). Foreigners, not governed by such restrictions, were free to eat.
15:3-4 In matters of loans and repayment, Israelites and foreigners were governed by different laws. If an Israelite were in debt to a fellow Israelite, he could work off his debt and at the end of seven years it would be declared paid in full, whether or not the amount of the loan had actually been compensated. A foreigner, however, would receive no such grace and must pay the creditor all that he owed him.
15:4 This is not a prophecy that there would be no poor, for elsewhere it is made very clear that there would always be poor people among them (v. 11; Mk 14:7). The idea is that there need not be any poor if the members of the community practiced the mutual charity that was their obligation under the Lord's covenant.
15:12 The only way a Hebrew was "sold" to another Hebrew was through his or her own volition. This passage has nothing to do with slavery or the ownership by one person of another. The law permitted one who had become financially destitute to work off his indebtedness by placing himself into an indentured position whereby his labor for the creditor paid off his financial obligations.
15:17 This treatment, painful as it must have been, was entirely voluntary on the part of the person submitting to it. Furthermore, it displays a level of commitment to service to the master that would not be undertaken lightly. In any event, the practice does not contradict prohibitions elsewhere regarding mutilation (cp. Lv 19:28; 1 Kg 18:28) since all those instances related to pagan ritual.
16:3,8 The contradiction relative to the number of days on which unleavened bread must be eaten (seven and six respectively) is only apparent. Clearly v. 8 refers to the six days leading up to the solemn assembly on the seventh, when unleavened bread also could not be eaten. This equals the seven days of v. 3.
16:16 The absence of reference to females does not mean they were disqualified from attending the festivals; it only indicates that they were not required to do so. In the patriarchal era of the OT, headship of the family was vested in the father. On festive occasions and other major community assemblies, fathers and other adult males represented their families (vv. 11,14).
16:22 The prohibition against setting up sacred stone pillars has to be understood in its context. Here these objects are associated with the rituals of pagan worship (v. 21). The pentateuchal narrative includes instances when such monuments were erected as memorials, and even as elements in Israel's worship of the Lord (Gn 28:18; 31:13,45; Ex 24:4). As with many apparent contradictions or discrepancies is Scripture, this one ceases to be such when its context is taken into consideration.
17:5 A pluralistic, inclusivist culture finds the religious intolerance exhibited here repulsive. It goes against the idea that each person should be permitted to worship any god he wishes (or none at all), and in any way he wishes. Israel's covenant community, however, recognized only one God and He was jealous (or zealous) about His uniqueness and His claim to exclusive worship (4:24; 5:9). To a holy God, the worship of other "gods" was a defiant act of rebellion that could not be tolerated (13:5).
17:15 Israel was commanded to permit itself no foreign rulers. This is a token of the fact that Israel was a people set apart by the Lord to be—through both declaration and example—His unique representative among the nations. To be ruled by a foreign king would open the door to contamination of Israel's faith through the influence of pagan religion. Ultimately it would lead to the dissipation of God's purpose in bringing salvation to all nations through a pure and separated people.
17:16-17 The command to avoid the amassing of horses and wives was clearly disobeyed by all the kings of Israel, beginning with David and epitomized by Solomon (1 Kg 4:26; 10:26-29; 11:3-4). This is not an example of contradiction in the Bible. It illustrates the discrepancy between God's ideal standards and the human incapacity or unwillingness to obey them. Scripture upholds no one as a perfect exemplar of obedience to God's command, except Jesus Christ (2 Co 5:21; Heb 4:14; 1 Pt 2:22).
18:2 The lack of inheritance for the Levites might be thought inconsistent with the provision granting them 48 cities throughout the land (Nm 35:1-8). The inheritance in view here, however, is that of territory. The Levites were not allocated a contiguous block of land, as were the other tribes. Their towns included only a limited agricultural perimeter (Nm 35:3-5), so they were almost totally dependent on the gifts of the people.
18:9 It is unfair to characterize Israel as narrow-minded for calling the religious practices of the Canaanites detestable. Both the Bible and archaeological evidence attest to the depravity of Canaanite worship, which incorporated temple prostitution, child sacrifice, mutilation and other inhumane features. But it was detestable chiefly because it pandered to nonexistent gods, in defiance of the one true God who reveals Himself through His word and actions, not through ritualistic practice.
18:15-19 Moses relates the Lord's promise that He would raise up a (true) prophet like him. This is not arrogant self-promotion. One hallmark of the inspiration of Scripture is the fact that authors sometimes speak favorably of themselves, something they would not be likely to do unless compelled by God's Spirit (cp. Nm 12:3,7; Dt 34:10). Considering the hardships and opposition Moses had endured, and his foundational role in establishing Israel's covenantal faith, it is understandable that the Lord would hold him up as a model for future occupants of the prophetic office.
18:20 See note on 13:5.
18:22 The test of fulfilled prophecy must obviously be effective only for a prediction made in the near future, during the lifetime of the prophet himself and those who heard him. Not one long-range OT prophecy has ever been shown not to have been fulfilled, even if the fulfillment took a form that was unexpected (e.g., the prophecies of Messiah that were fulfilled in the crucified, risen and ascended Christ, and not in the appearance of a political or military leader).
19:1 The Lord's destruction of the nations of Canaan and Israel's appropriation of their properties might appear arbitrary and unfair. But these nations were living in the land previously promised to the descendants of Abraham (Gn 12:1; 13:17; 15:18-21), and their possession of it was illegitimate according to the plan of God. Secondly, the Canaanites were a people who had placed themselves beyond redemption through their implacable defiance of God, persisting in their abominable social and religious practices (see notes on Dt 1:30; 2:21,34; 7:2; Rm 1:22-28).
19:6 Under the system of blood vengeance, a family member of a person whose life was taken by another could pursue and execute the murderer. This was not the random act of a vigilante, for the community had procedures by which it regulated the process (vv. 15-20). Underlying this system was the sense of corporate solidarity, in which every member of a family was considered to be part of the body. That which injures one member injures all. In the modern Western world, in which the individual has come to be regarded as sovereign, the concept of community solidarity is not well appreciated.
19:9-10 The addition of three cities of refuge to the original six attests to the mercy and justice of the Lord, Who ensures that an accused felon would have reasonable access to one of them. Again, it must be noted that the avenger had to follow due process. One unable to flee the avenger quickly must not suffer vengeance without an opportunity for a fair hearing before the court (v. 15).
19:13 Lack of pity, in this instruction, does not mean lack of human compassion and sensitivity. The idea is that the criminal should not be allowed to evade justice because of the sympathy of the community. Painful as it may be, the punishment must fit the crime and be fully carried out.
19:21 The measure-for-measure justice this directive advocates, known as lex talionis, need not be taken to mean, for example, that if a person should blind another person his or her eye should be blinded in turn. The principle is that a punishment must always be commensurate with a crime. It should neither exceed, nor be less than, the gravity of the offense (Lv 24:19-20). In the context of surrounding cultures where vengeance had no limits, lex talionis, was a standard far more just.
20:1 The Lord's presence with his people in their warfare does not mean He sanctions every war or takes an active role in it. The passage is describing "holy war" (sometimes called "Yahweh war"), a conflict initiated by the Lord, empowered by Him, and resulting in His appropriation of its spoils. Such warfare was undertaken to destroy peoples who were irretrievably beyond redemption and who were likely to contaminate Israel's faith with their idolatrous practices (see 1:30; 7:2,16; 19:1).
20:5-8 These various exemptions from military service may seem unfair to other fighters, but they are in the interest of the whole army. Any soldier distracted by thoughts of home, occupation and family is unable to give full attention to his military duties, and can become more of a liability than an asset to the cause. The mention of houses and fields is an indication that the complete conquest of Canaan would not be instantaneous, but would occupy a period of time during which some Israelites would be able to establish themselves in the land; the book of Joshua reveals this to be the case. It is interesting that these exemptions are similar to the excuses offered by those who, in Jesus' parable, did not come to the master's banquet (Lk 14:18-20), with the implication that receiving the kingdom of God was a parallel to the conquest of the promised land.
20:11 Cities outside Canaan were granted a certain leniency because they were not among the nations under God's "ban" (mandate of total destruction). Apparently, unlike the Canaanites proper, they were not considered irredeemably hardened against the Lord and his people. If they surrendered they would not be exterminated but would become vassals (subservient peoples) of Israel. This was a way of asserting the Lord's proper and deserved sovereignty as God of all the earth (cp. Jos 9:22-27).
20:16-17 The destiny of the various Canaanite peoples was complete annihilation. They were to be placed under the ban (Hb cherem), the wrath of God enacted against persons beyond redemption (see 1:30; 12:2).
20:19 The anomaly of trees being spared while human beings were slaughtered lies precisely in the fact that human beings sin and therefore are culpable whereas trees, not being sentient, are "innocent." This underscores the awfulness of sin and explains God's abhorrence of it and need to punish it.
21:3-4 This means of addressing the crime of homicide operates on the basis of circumstantial evidence. When a perpetrator is not known, the assumption is that he is from the town nearest to the scene of the crime. The whole town is therefore implicated and its presumed guilt must be atoned for by appropriate sacrifices (v. 6). No sin is guiltless before God, and it must be dealt with even in anonymous cases. Again, the principle of corporate solidarity is at work (see notes on 5:9; 19:6).
21:11-14 In warfare against non-Canaanite nations, the Israelites could take prisoners (cp. 20:11), including young women as wives. This is not a requirement of the Law, or an action the Lord necessarily endorsed; it was a permission granted to make more tolerable a practice common at the time. A captive wife would surely live under conditions more favorable than those for a woman not so chosen. If her captor later rejected her as wife, she could not be made a slave.
21:15 Polygamy, while tolerated by the Law, was certainly never prescribed nor sanctioned. Monogamy is the standard to which God's people were to conform. This is clear in both the OT (Gn 2:24) and NT (Mt 19:4-6). As is often the case, the instruction was designed not to prescribe a cultural norm but to regulate existing practice in a more humane way.
21:16 The wife who is "hated" (Hb text) is not the object of her husband's loathing disdain. The verb expresses the idea of being secondary in his affections. Jacob's preference for Rachel over Leah (Gn 29:18,30) and Elkanah's favor toward Hannah rather than Peninnah(1 Sm 1:5) are examples. (On the meaning of "hate" in this sense, see note on Dt 7:7.)
21:17 The child of the less-loved but first wife must be granted the double portion that fell to the first-born son. This is a prime example of the principle of fair treatment in human relationships that distinguishes Israel's social practice from that of surrounding cultures. Israel's faith raised its family and community life to a higher plane than that of its neighbors.
21:21 The execution of a wayward and incorrigible son is inconceivable in modern secular society, which lacks the standards of a theocratic (ruled by God) community. The possibility described here dramatizes the heavy responsibility borne by Israelite parents to see that their offspring held to the standards demanded of the people of God. Parents were expected to be God's agents of authority and discipline at the family level, ensuring that no dysfunctional and destructive influences entered the community of faith on their account.
21:23 The hanging on a tree here was not crucifixion, nor was it even the cause of death (v. 22). Its purpose was to put to shame a person who had committed a capital offense, both because of the heinousness of his crime and to serve as a deterrent to others. Such an individual was the special object of God's curse, the focus of His wrath that otherwise would be poured out on the community as a whole (cp. 2 Sm 4:12; 21:9; Gl 3:13).
22:1-4 The elevated level of OT law and ethics, as compared to that of the ancient Near East in general, abhors not only aggressive wrongdoing but also passive indifference in the face of opportunities to do good. This is in line with James' injunction that "for the person who knows to do good and doesn't do it, it is a sin" (Jms 4:17).
22:5 Cross dressing, considered by some of little consequence today, was strictly forbidden in Israel because it obliterated the lines of distinction inherent in God's creation of man and woman.
22:9-11 The purpose of this passage as a whole is to establish the principle of separation, in light of the possibility that Israel might permit a mixture of Canaanite religious and cultural practice to assimilate with the faith of Yahweh. Subsequent biblical history records that Israel failed to keep itself from such corruption, and so came under judgment. Paul cites this text in his argument against a Christian's marriage with unbelievers (2 Co 6:14).
22:21 Loss of virginity was tantamount to adultery in the case of betrothal, implied here. It was considered nothing short of harlotry, a sin that brought disrepute upon the whole community. Physical whoredom was analogous to spiritual unfaithfulness to the Lord, and was therefore deemed deserving of death (Hs 4:1-19)—as severe as this sanction may appear by today's "standards."
22:25-27 This situation well illustrates the common-sense approach of biblical law. A woman raped outside a settlement is presumed innocent of consensual sex, as presumably she had protested the assault but was too far away for her cries to be heard. Of course, she could have gone voluntarily to the field to effect a liaison; but in Israelite culture the penalty for such a prearranged encounter, if found out, would normally deter such a plan (v. 21).
22:30 The father's wife, in this case, would be the subject's foster mother and not his own, considering that incest is covered elsewhere in the Law (Lv 18:7). The stated reason for the prohibition is that, in committing this act, the man is "uncovering his father's skirt." That is, he is intruding into an area reserved for his father alone. The law thus protects the authority of the father and teaches filial respect for him.
23:1 This apparent discrimination is based on theprinciple that a physical defect is analogous to spiritual imperfection (cp. Lv 21:16-23). The defect, in this instance, has to do with reproductive capacity, the lack of which was considered to be a curse. Jesus spoke of "eunuchs who have made themselves that way because of the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 19:12), removing the traditional religious stigma from those who lack reproductive capability or who refrain from utilizing it (depending on whether or not one takes His expression in the literal sense). Christianity's first recorded non-Jewish convert was such a person (Ac 8:26-38).
23:2 The exclusion of an illegitimate child from the assembly is related to the previous instructions having to do with irregular sexual matters. The denial of full fellowship has nothing to do with the personal spirituality of the individual; it is the community as a whole that is in view. The prohibition illustrates the uncompromising standards of the Lord affecting how, and under what conditions, persons may enter His presence. Physical traits reflecting what is normal and proper are symbolic of the required spiritual state.
23:3 Ammonites and Moabites were barred from the assembly of the Lord because they had failed to provide Israel needed supplies en route to Canaan, and had also tried to curse Israel. Their refusal was especially odious because Ammon and Moab were related to Abraham through Lot (cp. Gn 19:30-38). Additionally, they were children of incest and so fell into the category of the previous verse. The case of Ruth, a Moabite, raises an issue, especially since she became the great-grandmother of King David and an ancestor of Jesus. God sovereignly allows for exceptions to general principles, much as Rahab was an exception in the destruction of Jericho (Jos 6:25). But the exclusion in Dt 23:3 is from "the Lord's assembly," not the community in general, and there is no record that Ruth attended any of the annual festival gatherings.
23:7-8 Edomites and Egyptians, because of their brotherhood with Israel and hospitality respectively, could enter the assembly but only after the second generation. The point here and in v. 3 is that, though redemption is at the Lord's initiative and by His grace, privileges such as access to the assembly were determined by how one related to the Lord and to His people.
23:13 The proper disposal of excrement and other impurities (vv. 10-11), especially in the context of holy war (as here), relates to the notion of ritual purity and not hygiene in general. Since God is holy—that is, pure—anyone or anything in His presence, indeed the entire camp, must be rendered holy by following proper procedure. This instruction is a reminder that spiritual "refuse" has no place within the community of faith.
23:15 The OT never explicitly condemns slavery, but neither does it sanction or justify it. Nevertheless, this directive ameliorates the slave's condition in a manner unknown elsewhere in the ancient Near East. He must not be returned to his master but can remain with whoever has found him, and must be treated well.
23:17 This is not a blanket condemnation of prostitution or homosexuality (though such prohibitions are found elsewhere; cp. Lv 18:22; 20:13) but a prohibition of the kinds of perverse sexual activities that were common in Canaanite religious rites.
23:20 The law clearly allows for treating Israelites differently from foreigners in financial matters. Israelites may not exact interest on loans from their fellow Israelites, but may levy it against others. Discrimination of this kind illustrates at least two themes: (1) Members of the covenant community must not profit from one another's distress. (2) Being a member of that community entails certain privileges.
23:24-25 Lack of a governmental welfare system made it necessary for the poor to have access to essentials for survival. Thus, they might help themselves freely to a neighbor's crops as they casually walked through their fields. Here it is clear that being poor was not the only qualification for helping one's self; anyone could pluck grain or grapes as he wished. Under the covenantal principle of corporate solidarity, the community cannot view itself as a mere collection of independent individuals. What one has is, within limits, the property of all.
24:1-4 Divorce is never authorized in the OT, though it is permitted (as here). The ideal was for one man to marry one woman for life (cp. 21:15; Gn 2:24). Moses allowed divorce, Jesus said, because of the hardness of people's hearts (Mt 19:8). As so often in the OT law, the practice of divorce was to be strictly regulated, and remarriage—the real issue here—even more so. To take back a former wife who had married another in the interim would, in effect, make her an adulteress.
24:6 This law manifests a humane quality seldom found in secular law codes of the ancient Near East. To take and keep a millstone as collateral on a loan was todeprive the borrower of what he needed in the preparation of his meals—in other words, for his day-to-day survival.
24:9 The harsh treatment of Miriam was a reminder to her, and others, that rebellion against divinely authorized spiritual leadership is, in effect, rebellion against God Himself.
24:16 This verse teaches personal responsibility for one's own sin and its consequences. This seems to contradict passages elsewhere that suggest that the sins of parents have repercussions for many generations to come (cp. 2:34; 5:9). There is a difference, however, between the transmission of guilt and accountability on the one hand, and the aftereffects of sin on the other. For example, David's children were not held responsible for his adultery and murder, but they paid the price as members of the dysfunctional family his sin produced (2 Sm 12:10).
24:19-22 These examples of the care and generosity to be extended to the poor illustrate the elevated ethic of the OT as compared to that of surrounding nations. Those who try to make a case for a "sub-Christian" social attitude in the Law are ignoring texts such as these.
25:2 Physical punishment and public humiliation may appear barbaric to the modern "enlightened" mind, but their deterrent effect can hardly be denied. With prisons unavailable, especially for a people on the move, incarceration for crime was virtually non-existent in ancient Israel. This left few options for the application of justice. The criminal who was beaten would not be kept at public expense, and would be able to continue to work to provide for his family.
25:3 The leavening of justice with mercy is witness to an OT concern even for persons deserving of punishment. In the ancient world this attitude is virtually unique to the OT. Later Jewish custom restricted the blows to 39, as insurance against miscounting and accidentally administering more than the permitted 40 (2 Co 11:24).
25:4 The significance of this apparently trivial instruction is not simply to call attention to the need for humane treatment of animals. It is also an analogy to the human scene. If an ox is to be treated with such consideration, allowed to benefit from the results of its labor, how much more should human beings be so treated. That is certainly the way the apostle Paul took this instruction (1 Co 9:9; 1 Tm 5:18).
25:5 The custom described here (the so-called "levirate marriage") must be understood in terms of a number of qualifications. First, the marriage to a widow was expected but not mandatory (v. 7; Ru 4:5-6). Then, since monogamy was the only sanctioned form of marriage, the surviving brothers must not be married in order to fulfill the obligation. Finally, the purpose was to preserve the deceased brother's name and by this means to guarantee his ongoing identity (Dt 25:6) in a culture which had, as yet, no view of the resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees (who also had no such belief) tried to trip Jesus up on this question with a fictitious example of the "levirate marriage," but He saw through their ploy (Mt 22:23-32).
25:9 To spit in the face may strike one as repulsive behavior, yet each society has its gestures that would seem crude to people of other cultures. This act of disdain or refusal was (and is) common in Middle Eastern societies and must be judged, as to its propriety, against that cultural environment. The loosening of the sandal suggests that the reluctant brother is abandoning all claim to the widow's property (cp. Nm 12:14; Ru 4:7-8).
25:12 The woman's harsh punishment is due to the fact that her impetuous act might result in the man's emasculation, depriving him of the ability to procreate. The result would be the same as that envisioned in vv. 5-10—he would die without progeny, and his name would forever be lost in Israel. As is often the case in OT law, the instruction's ramifications extend beyond the surface reading of the text.
25:16 Even modern moral relativism has not erased the public's disgust with duplicity or cheating in business practice (vv. 13-15). Dishonest dealings are an abomination to the Lord, as well. Such behavior is not just an abuse of another individual; it impacts the ethical equilibrium of the whole community. To rob one's neighbor is, in a sense, to rob God, for He is the One who dispenses economic blessing as He sees fit.
25:17 The injunction to forgive and forget, while clearly a biblical principle, does not apply in cases where God's honor or that of His people has been violated without subsequent remorse and repentance. The attack of the Amalekites against the weakest of the Israelites was an attack on the Lord, who cares for just such people (v. 18). Saul's later failure to carry out the mandate for Amalek's complete annihilation resulted in the termination of his dynasty (1 Sm 15:26).
26:1-11 This section about the presentation of the firstfruits illustrates the biblical pattern of worship, which incorporates the narrative of what God has done for His people. The recitation in Christian worship of the Apostles' Creed, which is at heart the story of God's action in Christ, is based on this OT pattern.
26:5 The father referred to here is not Abraham, a native of Ur, but Jacob. He was an Aramean in the sense that he had lived in Aram (Syria) for 20 years, gained a family there, and left for Egypt shortly after he had returned to Canaan.
26:9 See note on 11:9.
26:12 The law here is not in conflict with the law that asserts that the tithes are to be given to the Lord (cp. Lv 27:30). That was the general principle, but every third year a tithe must also be given to support the Levites and other dependents. When God's people give to others they are thereby giving to the Lord as well, a point Jesus made (Mt 10:42).
26:19 See notes on 4:34; 7:6.
27:2 See note on 1:1.
27:3 The instruction to write upon one monument "all the words of this law" has seemed impossible to many critics. However, the size of the stele (inscribed monument) is not mentioned, nor is "law" clearly defined. It is unlikely that the entire Torah is in view, but perhaps the reference is to more than the Ten Commandments. "This law" refers to Dt, Moses' summary of the Sinai covenant. Though lengthy, it is not much longer than the Code of Hammurabi whose prologue, epilogue, and 282 laws are all inscribed on one stone monument.
27:4 The Samaritan Pentateuch (version of the Torah used by the Samaritan sect) reads Gerizim rather than Ebal, and thereby locates the monument at the place where the Samaritans eventually built a temple. It was there when Jesus spoke to the woman at the well, and it was to Gerizim that the woman pointed when she spoke of her place of worship (Jn 4:20). The Hebrew text preserves the original reading, which the Samaritans altered to justify their practice. Jesus pointed beyond both geographical locations, the Samaritan Gerizim and the Jewish Jerusalem, to the true worship of the Father (Jn 4:21-24).
27:5 The command to build an altar of unhewn stones is not at variance with the instructions Moses received about the altar of the tabernacle fashioned of wood and bronze (Ex 27:1-8). That was the altar of the central sanctuary (cp. Dt 12:5), whereas this is an altar of a local shrine. Contrasting with the masonry of Canaanite altars, local Israelite altars were to be built of field stones which preserved the manner in which the Lord, Himself, had shaped them (Ex 20:25; cp. 1 Kg 18:31-32).
27:9 The assembly became the people of the Lord that very day, in the sense that they had assembled in order to reaffirm their commitment to Him. This was not their initial relationship with Him, for that had taken place at Sinai (Ex 24:3-8). By renewing the covenant they became the Lord's people in a new and fresh way; as though they themselves had been present at the original events.
27:12-13 Though the mountains are large it is doubtful that all the people of Israel could stand on them at one time. Probably tribal leaders did so on their behalf.
27:15-26 The solemn, ceremonial pronouncement of a curse upon those who would disregard the principles of God's Law is part of Israel's covenant structure, and illustrates the power of the spoken word in the biblical world view. The curse will take effect, should the instruction be abrogated through unfaithful behavior. It does not require a special act of God to bring about its effect; the disobedient deeds themselves will incur their consequences. The NT also includes some instances of the pronouncement of curse (1 Co 16:22; Gl 1:8-9; cp. Rv 22:18-19).
27:16 In the Lord's structure of authority the parent stood in God's place; lack of respect for the parent was tantamount to lack of respect for God (see 5:16).
27:17 All properties in the promised land were God's and were allocated to tribes, clans, and families as best suited Him. To encroach on a neighbor's property is to reveal dissatisfaction with one's own share, and thus to question the Lord's wisdom and sovereignty over all of life. It is also comparable to a business deception (25:16). Such self-serving actions violate a person's solidarity with others who share in the Lord's covenant, and thus come under the curse.
27:20 See note on 22:30.
27:21 Besides being intuitively abhorrent, sexual relations with an animal (bestiality) breaks down the division between two of God's creatures, one of which (mankind) was to rule the other (animals). Such an act (perturbatio naturarum) upsets the creative order and thus evidences dissatisfaction with, and lack of respect for, God's perfect plan of governance for what He has brought into being.
28:1 This verse appears to suggest that Israel's place of preeminence in God's program depends on obedience to Him, whereas other texts (cp. 4:34; 7:6; 10:15) make it unconditional. The apparent discrepancy disappears when it is recognized that, though the Lord's choice of Israel as His covenant partner was an act of His love and grace alone (7:7-8; cp. Hs 11:1), but her ability to be blessed and to prosper in that relationship depended on loyal obedience.
28:12 The promise that Israel will lend but not borrow is not in the form of a commandment or prohibition; it is a promise of Israel's future prosperity through obedience to God, whose blessing will make Israel the envy of the nations of the world.
28:15-68 Moses returns to the curse element of the covenant declaration, which is considerably longer than the blessing section. Israel's obedience was a critical matter, and the consequences of disloyalty to the Lord needed to be clearly spelled out.
28:19 The coming in and going out is a figure of speech suggesting the fullness of activity and life. The curse for covenant disobedience will be so severe and comprehensive that it will negatively impact all aspects of national life.
28:20 The perishing of Israel must be understood in terms of her removal from the land (as is clear from v. 21), not a final and ultimate annihilation. That would contradict God's covenant promises elsewhere (Gn 17:7, 13; Ps 105:9-10).
28:23 The bronze and iron are metaphors describing the lack of rain and the consequent hardness of the soil respectively. Such figures should not be taken as evidence that the OT as a whole speaks in figurative language. A passage's context always contains clues that make it clear when figures are being employed.
28:26 The curses listed here and in the following verses are stated in graphic and, no doubt, hyperbolic terms to emphasize the enormity of Israel's sin and the punishment that must ensue, should she prove unfaithful. These punishments did not all take place, nor did they occur at all times, though the Bible records many examples of their fulfillment. They are representative of the kinds of judgments Israel could expect if she were to be disobedient to God's covenant.
28:30 These curses are, in part, the reversal of what would befall the corrupt Canaanites in Israel's occupation of the land (30:19). That curses such as these would befall the guilty by no means justifies their propriety, morally or legally. These are not reflections of the character of God, but reveal what can occur when He permits such human actions as instruments of His judgment.
28:36 The reference to a king does not prove that Dt was written in the period of the monarchy, as the critical view holds. It affirms prophetically what God had already promised to the patriarchs, that a line of kings would issue from them (Gn 17:6,16).
28:46 An everlasting curse on Israel would appear contrary to the promise elsewhere that Israel would enjoy unending blessing (cp. Gn 17:7,13; Ps 105:9-10). The Hebrew phrase a.d. 'olam, however, need not be understood to mean "forever" in the cosmic sense. It can be understood as a "rhetorical Hebraism," with the sense of "a long period of time."
28:53 The allegation that resorting to cannibalism reflects a primitive ethic not worthy of a "high religion" or a "cultured people" fails to understand that this gruesome practice is hardly being sanctioned here. The point is exactly the opposite; consuming one's offspring is so out of keeping with civilized behavior that it provides a shocking example of the result of covenant disobedience. In the reign of Jehoram, a faithless king of Israel, an incident of this kind did occur during a famine brought about by siege (2 Kg 6:25-29).
28:56 As in the previous examples of horrible cursings, this one is no indicator of ancient Israelite practice. Rather, it underscores the desperation of people when pushed beyond the limits of endurance.
28:62 The threat that disobedient Israel will be left few in number does not contradict verses 61 and 63 which appear to teach that the nation will suffer total destruction. The language is that of hyperbole, intentional overstatement designed to drive home a point. The end of verse 63 makes clear that the destruction is removal from the land into exile.
28:64 "From one end of the earth to the other" must not be understood in modern terms, that is, worldwide. The idea has to be seen in the historical and geographical context of the time of the text when the known world was essentially the eastern Mediterranean, northern Egypt, and Mesopotamia. Moreover, the Hebrew word 'erets more properly means "land," not the "earth" (the globe). In these terms, the curse was fulfilled in the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles.
28:68 There is no historical record of Israelites going back to Egypt on a mass scale. The passage is referring to the future exiles, a reverse exodus as it were, that would place God's people in bondage once more—this time to the Assyrians and Babylonians.
29:1 This is a clear statement attesting to Moses' authorship of Dt.
29:4 The apparent contradiction between this verse, which says the people could not see, and verse 3, which says they did see is easily resolved by recognizing that v. 3 is speaking of physical sight and verse 4 of spiritual insight. It is possible to look without seeing, to hear without listening (cp. Is 6:10; Jn 9:40-41).
29:7 King Sihon and King Og did not both encounter Israel in the plains of Moab. In fact, Og did battle with them at Edrei, near the Sea of Galilee (Nm 21:33). "This place," then, refers to the Transjordan as a whole, an area embracing the territories of both Sihon and Og.
29:13 To be established as the people of the Lord, on this occasion, does not mean that Moses purports to be presiding over the initial establishment of the covenant. That had been undertaken 40 years earlier at Sinai (Ex 19:4-8). Deuteronomy as a whole is a covenant renewal document, so what is being done here is a reaffirmation of that relationship.
29:15 The ones not there were not absentees from the ceremony but the unborn generations yet to come. The covenant could be made with them, in the sense that Israel as a covenant community consisted of both its ancestors and its descendants. Future generations, as it were, already lived in the loins of Moses' generation (cp. Heb 7:10). The covenant is not with an aggregate of individuals at any given time, but with an ongoing historical community. The Christian concept of the "communion of saints" reflects this idea.
29:20 The reason for the harshness of God's judgment here is to be found in the nature of the offense being punished, idolatry (v. 18). Such an act was not only intrinsically evil because of the depravity of pagan religions. In the context of the covenant with Yahweh it was nothing short of high treason, the worst of all possible offenses. To worship other "gods" is to deny God His very existence and His sovereignty.
29:28 "Where they are today" refers to a future time when Israel would be in exile, not to the time of the speaking or writing of the text. Moses is quoting what people would say later on if Israel abandoned the covenant. These words cannot therefore be used in support of a case for a late date of the book.
30:6 Skeptics sometimes consider such ideas as circumcising the heart absurd, since they fail to understand the use of figurative language in religious or theological contexts. The idea here is that, just as physical circumcision identified one as belonging to the Abrahamic covenant, spiritual circumcision would be the hallmark of membership in the new covenant (Gn 17:13-14; cp. Rm 2:28-29).
30:19 To call heaven and earth as witnesses is not to suggest that they somehow represent living and sentient beings. This is a literary device (an "apostrophe") the purpose of which is to provide an element in covenant making, namely, witnesses to the mutual pledges made by each party. God is here swearing to act upon the decisions Israel is required to make. In treaties outside Israel, the "gods" of the partners are invoked as witnesses. Since there is only one true God, He invokes His creation ("the heavens and the earth," Gn 2:1) as His two witnesses.
31:2 Those who question Moses' life span of 120 years do so on the grounds that such an age is virtually unheard of in modern times. However, one should never gauge the past by the present. God had specially blessed and preserved Moses so that he could accomplish the tasks to which he had been called.
31:2 It appears unfair for the Lord to deny Moses access to the promised land for one intemperate outburst (1:37; cp. Nm 20:12). But Moses, the recipient of special privilege, was also charged with special responsibility. To fail to execute his responsibility completely was to cast both himself and his God in a bad light. For that reason, he could not enter the land with the new generation.
31:9 This verse clearly attests to the Mosaic authorship of at least Dt, if not the entire Pentateuch. Those who argue that late pre-exilic or even exilic editors inserted statements like this, in order to give a late composition Mosaic authority, do so only on the base of a previous assumption that Moses could not have written these texts. Such unwarranted assumptions may arise from a desire to divest the Pentateuch, and the Bible as a whole, of any moral credibility.
31:11 Some have objected that the public reading of the Law would require more time than an assembled crowd could endure. Deuteronomy alone is in view here, and an unhurried reading of this book could be easily done in two and a half hours. Later biblical history records that Ezra "read out of the book of the law of God" to the people in its entirety, over an eight-day period (Neh 8:18). People can do difficult things when they consider them important.
31:15 The fact that the Lord appeared in a pillar of cloud does not contradict the idea that no one has seen God at any time (Jn 1:18). The pillar of cloud represents the presence of God (Ex 13:21-22; 14:19,24; 33:9-10), though His presence is not the "shape" of His person. In that sense whoever saw the cloud saw God Himself. The same is true of the pillar of fire, the burning bush, and other "theophanies" or appearances of the Lord.
31:24 Like v. 9, this provides evidence of the Mosaic authorship of the book of Dt. In fact, the reading literally is, "until their completion," that is, until all the words of the book had been written. There can be no doubt that the intent of the statement is to assert single authorship of the whole.
31:28 See note on 30:19.
32:1 Here begins a poetic passage sometimes called the "Song of Moses." On heaven and earth as witnesses, see note on 30:19.
32:8 Of a variety of readings it seems best to translate "people of Israel" here. Were the passage a human creation by an Israelite writer alone, its tone would indeed be arrogant. However, the centrality of Israel in the God's program of world redemption is part of His own plan; Israel's role is one not of her making but of comes at God's initiative (Ex 19:4-6; Dt 7:6-11).
32:10 This poetic text is not intended to reproduce the actual course of history. God had, in fact, brought His son Israel out of Egypt into the wilderness and had not first found him there (cp. Ex 4:22-23; Hs 11:1). The point is that Israel was helpless in the desert and would surely have perished without divine intervention. The nation was found to be in a needy condition and thus dependent on God's grace.
32:12 The reference to a foreign god is not a tacit admission that such gods exist. Rather, it reflects the pagan viewpoint that their gods had something to do with Israel's safety in the desert, a misapprehension that Moses is quick to correct.
32:13 Neither honey nor oil (olive oil, the kind in view here) comes from rock. Poetry is rich in figures of speech that must be appreciated for what they are. Bees nest in the crevices of cliffs and, as is well known, olive trees grow in stony soils on terraced hillsides. But the figure is not based totally on these facts; it is a symbolic statement of the Lord's provision for His people in a barren area.
32:16 See note on 4:24.
32:22 The description of anger this intense raises questions in the minds of some as to the nature of God. How can He be a God of love, mercy, and grace and yet pour out His wrath in such harsh and devastating ways? The answer lies in a full understanding of the character of God, central to which is His holiness. For God to tolerate wickedness would contradict His separation from all that is profane, degenerate and unjust. It would, therefore, cheapen His other attributes, such as dependability and compassion, that are more palatable to the modern mind.
32:26-27 What appears to be a petty and self-serving reaction by the Lord to the taunts and misunderstandings of His enemies must be seen against a human backdrop in which His people Israel take center stage. For God to destroy His covenant nation would open Him and Israel to the charge that He was unreliable. It was His people, not He, that would suffer the brunt of ridicule should it appear that He had abandoned them. Out of concern for them the Lord must keep His word.
32:30 This is hyperbole, a deliberate exaggeration designed to show that Israel's defeat at the hands of much less powerful foes can be explained only as an act of judgment by the Lord because of Israel's sins. It harks back to the curses of 28:15-68.
32:37 The reference to other "gods" is a piece of sarcasm, not an admission that they are real. They are real only to those who imagine they worship them, even apostate Israel. Verse 39 proclaims the truth: there is only one God, the God of Israel (cp. 6:4-5; 32:16).
32:40 For God to take an oath is a way of declaring, with a human analogy, that Israel could rely on Him to be true to His word. The ancient gesture of oath taking, still in use today, was to lift the hand. The imagery of the Lord's raising His hand to pledge His fidelity would be a powerful expression of His reliability (cp. 31:28; 32:1).
32:44 The reference to Joshua as Hoshea (Hb text) by no means suggests multiple sources in the composition of Dt. Both names derive from a verb meaning "to save" (Hb yashah) and are used interchangeably (cp. Nm 13:8,16). Hoshea/Joshua was a common biblical name in is, in fact, equivalent to Jesus in the NT.
32:51 Why did God punish Moses so severely for what seems to be a minor offence, his striking the rock at Meribah (Nm 20:11-12)? That incident can be understood two ways. God told Moses to "speak to the rock" (Nm 20:8); instead, he struck it with Aaron's rod. Alternatively, the words "speak to the rock" can be taken to mean "address the rock," using the rod (the Hb verb dabar can have that sense); but instead of beating it vigorously Moses only tapped it twice. In either case, Moses had been given an awesome responsibility as God's chosen leader, and his obedience had to be total. Perhaps this incident is background for Jesus' statement that "much will be required of everyone who has been given much" (Lk 12:48), and James' admonition, "Not many should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive a stricter judgment" (Jms 3:1).
33:1 The reference to Moses' death has raised questions about his authorship of at least this passage. It is possible that someone else (Joshua has often been suggested) inserted this verse, but this need not imply different authorship for the rest of the chapter. Since Moses had just been told again that he would soon die (32:48-50), it would not be surprising if he made reference to that fact even as he introduced his final address.
33:2 Again Moses speaks poetically in what is sometimes called the "Blessing of Moses," and one need not expect places and events to conform to normal chronological and geographical sequence. Sinai, Seir, and Paran were places where the Lord manifested His power and glory (Nm 10:12; 13:3,26). In this context of holy war what matters is not a strict adherence to an itinerary but attention to God's mighty acts on behalf of His people.
33:6 Historically Reuben disappeared as a tribal entity, though no doubt it was absorbed into other Transjordanian peoples and continued to live through them. On the other hand, these are blessings and not necessarily solid promises. The hope is that Reuben, despite the curse pronounced on him by his father Jacob (Gn 49:2-4), might survive after all even if only few in number.
33:9 What seems like insensitivity toward other Israelites on the part of the tribe of Levi is only so in comparison to the Levites' zeal for the Lord (cp. Ex 32:27-29) and the worship of the sanctuary. Moses' expression has nothing to do with ordinary and expected behavior of an individual toward his or her loved ones. The same thought occurs in Jesus' teaching that unless one leaves his family for the sake of the gospel, he is an unworthy disciple (Mt 10:37-38).
33:16 On how God "appeared" in the bush, see note on 31:15.
33:17 The figures here ("ten thousands" and "thousands") is not a population estimate or a claim that Ephraim was 10 times greater than Manasseh. Hebrew poetry employs parallelism, a device in which the second line of a couplet (as here) matches the first, or at least approximates it. Since there is no synonym for "ten thousands," the word for "thousands" was chosen to parallel it. The same parallel appears in the victory song of the women of Israel, crediting Saul with thousands and David with tens of thousands (1 Sm 18:7-8), but the jealous Saul chose to take it in the wrong way.
33:19 Critics have noted that the promise that Zebulun and Issachar would offer sacrifices on a certain mountain appears to contradict the clear commandment of 12:5 and elsewhere that worship be carried out in only one place, namely, where the Lord placed His holy name. However, the latter pertains to worship by the nation as a whole. Worship at local shrines by villages and even individuals was allowed (cp. 1 Sm 9:11-14;1 Kg 18:30).
33:21 When the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and part of Manasseh asked Moses for permission to settle in the Transjordan (Nm 32:1-5) they did so because they found the land there to be most suitable to their pastoral lifestyle. That the Gadites wanted the best for themselves is not sanctioned here, but neither is it condemned. The Bible often records events or actions simply because they occurred, even where those things might cast aspersions on the people involved. This realistic recording of events is a token of the Bible's reliability as a historical record.
33:26-27 Jeshurun is a fond name for Israel. God's command to destroy the enemy does not reflect a sub-Christian and primitive ethic, as some assert. In the OT context of holy war, as well as in the NT picture of the vindication of God's people in the final outworking of God's purpose (esp. the Revelation to John), it is essential that God's holiness (and that of His people) be upheld in the face of whatever would detract from it. Those who will not repent and believe in the one true God must expect nothing but certain destruction (cp. Ps 9:16-17).
33:29 To tread on the back of an enemy is figurative language to express his complete and total submission (Hab 3:19). While this is not always to be taken literally, there are examples in the OT of a conqueror placing his foot on the neck of a defeated foe (Jos 10:24).
34:1-2 The reference to the territory of Dan and the other tribes appears to be anachronistic for the time of Moses and therefore indicative of a later time of composition. The place name Dan may be a later editor's substitution for the city's original name (perhaps Laish; cp. Gn 14:14; Jdg 18:29), but this is by no means is evidence that someone other than Moses composed the greater part of this narrative.
34:5-12 The common critical view that Moses could not have written Dt because it records his own death carries no weight, except in the case of the last eight verses of the book. Someone else (Joshua, according to the Talmud) could have appended the account of Moses' death without undermining the tradition of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. If one accepts the biblical role of the prophet as including the gift to discern events to come, Moses could even have composed his own obituary.
34:6 The phrase "to this day" suggests a reflection back on an event from a later perspective. As with the account of Moses' death in general, there is good reason to believe that Joshua or someone else wrote these words, perhaps as much as 40 or 50 years later.
34:7 The great age of Moses at his death has been a problem for critics who think in uniformitarian terms; that is that phenomena we observe today are as they have always been. How is it that his lifespan should exceed that of others of his generation (if that is the case), and how likely is it that it was divided into three segments of 40 years each (cp. 31:2; Ac 7:23,30)? Were life and history governed solely by chance or by human machination, such things would be incredible. But if God's activity is brought into the equation, nothing remains beyond belief.
34:10 Like the phrase "to this day" in verse 6, the statement that "no prophet has arisen again in Israel like Moses" suggests, to some, a post-Mosaic source—indeed, one from a considerably later time. Incidental glosses (editorial adjustments and insertions), such as this might be, do not overthrow the ancient tradition of Moses as the inspired composer of the Torah. The phrase in question, in fact, is a biblical idiom for something of great significance; to say that a person or event is unlike anything before or after it is a way of stressing their gravity (cp. Ex 10:14; Ezk 16:16; Mt 24:21). Use of the expression here need not be an indication of a later perspective. But Moses, indeed, has no equal in later biblical history except for Jesus Christ, who was more than a prophet. Of all figures in Scripture, it is Moses who is mentioned together with Christ in the worship of the Revelation to John, "The song of God's servant Moses, and the song of the Lamb" (Rv 15:3).
4:10 To know God face to face is not in conflict with the idea that no one can look on the Lord's face and live (Ex 33:20). This is an idiomatic expression of intimate relationship, having nothing to do with the physical face (cp. Nm 12:8).