Annotations for Deuteronomy

1:1 wilderness east of the Jordan. This area is in the Arabah, along the Jordan rift valley, bounded by the Dead Sea to the north and the Gulf of Aqaba to the south. The author’s list of geographic locations here seems to reflect an itinerary (see Nu 33 for a schematized itinerary), including locations where the words of Moses were delivered before, during, and after Sinai—words that are now to be expounded on the plains of Moab.

1:2 Kadesh. The name means “holy place.” It lay on the southern boundary of Canaan and later served as a southern boundary marker of Judah. It was about 50 miles (80 kilometers) southwest of Beersheba in the Desert of Zin, and about 170 miles or 275 kilometers (an 11-day journey) from Jebel Musa, the traditional site of Horeb. At least two significant trade routes ran through this area.

The Israelites did not encamp en masse at this spot for 40 years. They had been barred from the land of Canaan and sentenced to wander in this desert area. The archaeological evidence indicates that they would need to move about in this area in order to obtain sufficient sustenance to live. They probably returned often to Kadesh, using it as a base camp. The Israelites left no definitive evidence of their wanderings in the vicinity, but this is not surprising given their use of mobile tents instead of more permanent architecture.

1:3 In the fortieth year. Ancient chronology had no fixed points for dating purposes. Events were related to various key events (e.g., see Am 1:1 and the dating formula “before the earthquake”). The exodus marked the birth of the people of Israel as a nation and the proclamation of the Torah; these words in Deuteronomy took place in the 40th year after Israel came out of Egypt, whether in the fifteenth century or thirteenth century BC (see the article “The Timing of the Exodus”). eleventh month. Tebet in Israel’s calendar, which overlaps with our modern December-January.

1:4 Sihon . . . Og. See Nu 21:21–35.

1:7 the hill country of the Amorites. This description of Palestine recalls the description of the land given in Ge 15:18–21. Palestine divided into four longitudinal regions running north-south: (1) a coastal plain that stretched from beyond the northern city of Tyre south along the Mediterranean Sea to the Wadi of Egypt (Wadi el-Arish); (2) a central mountain range that ran north from the Negev beyond Upper Galilee into Lebanon and was crossed only by the Jezreel Valley near Megiddo; (3) a Jordan rift valley (Arabah) that ran from the southern end of the Sea of Galilee south to the Gulf of Aqaba; and (4) a Transjordanian mountain range that rose parallel to and east of the Jordan rift valley (see v. 25). At the time the Israelites entered Palestine, the Amorites occupied much of the Transjordanian mountain area just north of the Arnon River. Historically they had lived on both sides of the Jordan in the hill country (Nu 13:29). Thus, either the entire land of Canaan may be in mind here or only the Transjordanian hill country. the Arabah. Referred to the eastern edge of the Dead Sea and the Jordan rift valley that ran up to the Sea of Galilee. the mountains. Evidently referred to the central hill country running along the western side of the Jordan rift valley and up to the southern end of the Sea of Galilee and into Upper Galilee. the western foothills. The “Shephelah” were the low-lying areas of the central mountain range that extended down to the Mediterranean coastal plain. the Negev. Served as the southern border of Judah; it was essentially desert and extended east from Beersheba to the southern end of the Dead Sea and west to Gaza near the coast. Its southern extensions merged with the highlands of the Sinai peninsula and reached to the Gulf of Aqaba. Its eastern border was the Arabah, which ran from the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Aqaba. the land of the Canaanites. Stretched at various times from the Wadi of Egypt (Wadi el-Arish) to Lebo Hamath north of Damascus. Strong textual evidence indicates that there was both a geographic area called Canaan and a people there who were called “Canaanites,” earlier possessors of the geographic area (see the article “The Canaanites”). Lebanon. Ran parallel to the Phoenician coast; it indicates a northeast boundary of the land. The northwestern branch of the Euphrates River served as the northeastern border of the area. Similar clichés for boundary markers were common in the ancient Near East, e. g., “from the Euphrates to the great sea where the sun sets.”

1:16 judges. See note on Ex 18:22.

1:25 It is a good land that the LORD . . . is giving us. The land in general was well-endowed with agricultural potential, but it was not rich in natural resources, although the Dead Sea provided some salt and bitumen, and small amounts of iron have been found. Some turquoise is present in the Negev. Large desert areas were neither fruitful nor fertile. Certain regions were suited to produce wine, grain and olive oil in abundance (see 7:13; Ge 27:28); some regions, such as Gilead, were capable of sustaining cattle, flocks and herds in great numbers. The Mediterranean coastal area, the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River provided an abundance of fish. Other features of the land offered many challenges to its inhabitants. Drought, disease or locusts could destroy the produce of an entire year or more. The land featured a diversity of topography and climatic conditions that were, and are, hardly equaled anywhere else on earth. Agricultural activity varied with the seasons of the year, the geography of the land and the yearly rainfall. The central mountain regions favored pastoral pursuits; the lower, broader valleys and plains provided productive farming areas. Agrarian activity produced wheat and barley (April, June), fruits of various kinds (summer) and grapes and olives (late summer, early fall). From these raw materials bread, wine and oil were produced. Heavy summer dew made the cultivation of cucumbers, melons and grapes possible. Legumes such as lentils, fava beans and chickpeas were produced along with onions, leeks and garlic. The pastoralists raised cattle, sheep and goats, from which wool, hair, milk and meat came. Farmers terraced the narrow slopes of the mountainous regions and could cultivate trees (olive, date palms, pomegranates, fig and sycamore) and vines.

1:28 Anakites. See note on Nu 13:22.

1:33 fire . . . cloud. See note on Ex 13:21.

1:40 the Red Sea. See the article “The Red Sea.”

1:41 We have sinned. Israel’s collective confession of guilt here and in v. 45 (cf. Ex 33:6; Lev 16) is also found in the extra-Biblical world—especially in Mesopotamia, where laments reveal that people attributed the destruction of their cities to divine displeasure. Confession of sin and laments by individuals, including kings, are well represented, and there are analogues in lamentations, psalms and individual laments found in the OT.

The Hittite king Mursili II performs a confessional in which he presents not only his own sins but the sins of his people, of his father, and of his own court officials. At Ugarit, sacrifices were presented to regain one’s virtue or to atone for offensive behavior or words. Communal laments over Sumer and specific city-states such as Ur, Eridu, Nippur and Uruk were recorded, as were personal laments.

2:1 the wilderness along the route to the Red Sea . . . around the hill country of Seir. Israel’s retreat took them back through the Desert of Paran west of the Arabah leading down to the modern Gulf of Aqaba (here designated as the “Red Sea”). They traveled from the northwest area of the mountains in Seir southeast to the Gulf of Aqaba, and later ranged throughout the western and southern borders of Seir (Edom) for 38 years (cf. v. 7).

2:3 now turn north. Israel now traveled from Kadesh Barnea east across the Arabah into Seir by the Wadi Murra and Varb es-Sultan, where the Edomites lived. At Punon or Wadi Ghurveir they caught a road coming from the Gulf of Aqaba. They then turned northeast to complete their trek around central Edom and headed north on the eastern fringes of Edom and Moab.

2:6 pay them in silver for the food you eat. The Israelites had little that they could use for barter, but they were not supposed to just take food, so silver payment is mandated. silver. The preferred medium of payment also in the time of the divided monarchy. But the use of silver (usually), gold or electrum (alloy of gold and silver) goes back to the eighteenth century BC. The Late Bronze Age to Iron Age II (1400–600 BC) reveals silver as a medium of exchange. Often scrap pieces were weighed out in a balance pan and balanced by a stone weight(s) in another pan attached to a balance beam. Long before coins (silver ingots were used as coinage in some Neo-Hittite city-states in the eighth century BC), pieces of silver (or gold or copper) properly weighed served as payment for various commodities. These mediums of exchange existed alongside the standard means of exchange, such as bartering, in Canaan, Assyria, Babylonia and Egypt (cf. Ex 21:32; Jos 7:21). Weights were carefully monitored to prevent cheating (see note on Lev 19:35).

2:8 descendants of Esau. See note on Ge 36:9.

2:9 Moabites. See note on Ge 19:37–38. The kingdom of Moab, which featured a tribal organization rather than “statehood” per se, had a significant population and presence during the Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 BC), including scarce traces east of the Dead Sea. Moab is mentioned in Egyptian texts from the time of Rameses II (c. 1270 BC), and a Moabite king may be represented in a stele from the Late Bronze Age (the Balu‘a Stele from Wadi el-Mujib). Dibon, one of Moab’s capital cities, existed in 1270 BC. References from Ebla (twenty-fifth century BC) and from southern Moab (tenth to ninth century BC) mention the chief Moabite god Chemosh. The deity name also appears in the ritual texts at Ugarit (fourteenth century BC) and is present in Eblaite theophoric names, such as the city-name Carchemish (Kar-Kamish). Mesha, a Moabite king, is identified on the Mesha Stele/Moabite Stone (c. 830 BC) found at Dibon (cf. 2Ki 3). Babylon crippled Moab in 582–581 BC, but it seems to have limped into Hellenistic times. By the time of Rome, Ammon, Moab and Edom had dissolved. Ar. May refer to a city, an area or to all of Moab. Here and in v. 29 the word refers to a region or to the entire land of Moab.

2:10 Emites. Unknown outside the OT, they were physically huge in stature, much like the Rephaites (Rephaim) and Anakites (Anakim). Anakites. See note on Nu 13:22. They, like the Emites, were considered Rephaites (see next note). The Ammonites dispossessed the Rephaites, whom they named the Zamzummites (see note on v. 20). Hence, the basic stock of giants in these areas were called Emites by the Moabites (v. 11), but Zamzummites by the Ammonites (v. 20), and were all huge like the Anakites.

2:11 Rephaites. A race of giants, indigenous to Bashan, they were a powerful people at one time, but at the time Israel was entering Canaan there was only a remnant left. Og, a king of Bashan, was one of the last (Jos 12:4). The Rephaites also inhabited Moabite territory. While they originated as an ethnic group, they became a people and a nation that exercised power from Mount Hermon as far as Moab.

The term “Rephaim” also refers to spirits of the dead, especially spirits of kings and heroes of old, perhaps chariot warriors. Ugaritic literature indicates that certain rites were held for the Rephaim of the land (earth), and the term applies to heroes who were considered divine. The term “Rephaim” used for spirits of the elite dead is also found in Phoenician and Punic-Latin texts/inscriptions. The sarcophagus inscriptions of Tabnit use the term to describe the “shades/spirits” of the common person. The OT refers to the spirits of “the dead” as repaim (Ps 88:11–12; Isa 14:9; 26:14, 19; see also Pr 2:18; 9:18; 21:16).

2:12 Horites. Inhabited the territory of Seir. Some scholars have closely tied them to the Hurrians, a non-Semitic people, located in various places, such as Mitanni, Syria, Anatolia and Canaan. The Hurrians around Canaan spread there from territory east of the Tigris River in Mesopotamia. The identification of the Horites with the Hurrians is still held by some, but other scholars recently strongly disavow it, asserting that the resemblance of names is only incidental. The name “Horites” may be derived from Hebrew hor (“cave”) and, hence, may refer to mountainous cave dwellers in the regions of Seir. Both the geology and geography of the region would support this theory. See note on 7:1 (“Hivites”).

2:15 The LORD’s hand. See note on Ex 6:1.

2:19 Ammonites. Related to the Israelites through Lot (see Ge 19:38), so the Lord gave them territory in Transjordan, from the Arnon River to the Jabbok River, covering a north-south distance of about 39 miles (65 kilometers). Archaeological material from the Early Bronze (3100–2650 BC), Middle Bronze (1800–1650 BC), and Late Bronze (1500–1200 BC) Ages testify to the Ammonites as a people. The national god Molek is mentioned in texts at Ebla (twenty-fifth century BC) and also at Ugarit, where he is equated to the god Rapiu. Ugaritic texts and Egyptian texts mention the city of Ashtarot, an earlier cultic location for the worship of Molek/Rapiu. The capital city was Rabbah (modern Amman). There is sufficient evidence at Transjordanian sites to suggest that the Iron Age Ammonites were continuous from the Late Bronze Age people.

From the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III, the Neo-Assyrian annals refer to the Land of Benammanu and the House of Ammon. Ammonite kings are known from Assyrian records kept by kings, including Shalmaneser III (853 BC, Qarqar), Sennacherib (704–681 BC) and Esarhaddon (680–669 BC). The Ammonites, as a mini-power, ceased to exist in c. 582/581 BC, when the Babylonians defeated them. However, they continued to play minor but troublesome roles in Israel’s history into the second century BC.

2:20 Zamzummites. The same as “Zuzites” in Ge 14:5. Rephaites (shades, ghosts), Emim (frightful ones) and Zuzites all indicate dread or discomfort surrounding their appearance (see note on v. 11). The Septuagint, the pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT, renders “Zamzummites” as “mighty ones,” an even closer fit to the other two words.

2:23 Avvites. Lived south of the key Philistine city of Gaza, both before and after the conquest of Canaan (see Jos 13:3). It is possible that they were a part of the displaced Sea Peoples who landed in or migrated to this area. Some scholars tie the Avvites to the Hyksos settlements that were followed later by the Aegean Sea Peoples. villages. The dwellings (Hebrew hatserim) of the Avvites are understood to have been small unwalled villages or even seminomadic tent encampments. Caphtorites. May have been a part of the Philistines at an early stage (see Jer 47:4; Am 9:7). They came from Crete rather than Cyprus, as some have argued. Caphtor (Hebrew kaptor) is equivalent to ancient Kaptara (Crete), and was significant before the Philistines were in the region. Mari texts from the second millennium BC mention a king of Hagor who sent gifts to Kaptara. Egyptian texts mention kefl(i)u, a variant of Kaptara.

2:24 Arnon Gorge. A perennial stream that opens into the east side of the Dead Sea almost opposite En Gedi. It is about 30 miles (48 kilometers) long, with breathtaking canyon views. It once served as a heavily fortified border area of Ammon and of Moab (see 3:12, 16; Jdg 11:18–19). It also functioned as the southern border of the tribe of Reuben. Sihon . . . king of Heshbon. He was also king of the Amorites (see Nu 21:21–31). Nu 21:27 celebrates the takeover of Heshbon from Sihon and Israel’s subsequent rebuilding of it.

2:25 terror and fear of you. In Egyptian literature, the terror of Amun, god of Egypt, overwhelmed the enemy. Hittite, Assyrian and Babylonian texts feature divine warriors and armies who struck fear into the enemy. The king led the army in the Old Babylonian era, but he was amply supported by the gods, whose will was discerned through diviners. In the Middle Babylonian eras and throughout the Assyrian epochs, the divine hosts helped to overwhelm the enemy. These gods accompanied and supported their troops. A similar situation functioned in Hittite military activity.

2:34 completely destroyed them. This agrees with the mandate to devote things to destruction (Hebrew herem) in the OT, especially during times of war. To violate this mandate was a serious offense, punishable by death. Herem was practiced elsewhere in the ancient Near East; e.g., King Mesha of Moab seized the city of Nebo from Israel and devoted all in it to destruction in the name of his god, Ashtar-Chemosh. Hittite texts give evidence of conquered towns being totally obliterated, but also testify to the practice of designating them as sacred to a god, not by having a temple built, but by being treated as taboo.

3:1 Bashan. See note on Nu 21:33.

3:4 Argob. Refers to a confederation of cities within the larger Bashan area or to a region to the east of the Jordan.

3:5 All these cities were fortified. Fortified cities were a feature of the culture of Mesopotamia, Aram/Syria, Canaan and Egypt across the millennia in the ancient Near East. The multiplication of cities in ancient Mesopotamia created competition between them, and they became heavily fortified for protection and security purposes as early as 2800 BC, as siege warfare became ever more a part of life. Palaces housed the political and military machinery of the cities, and arsenals were located near city walls.

In the Levant, military fortifications developed rapidly (e.g., at Megiddo, Jericho, Taanach, Arad and Ai), and walls, buttresses, bastions, glacis, gates and towers proliferated. The same was true for Egypt, although archaeological remains are fewer. In the early and middle second millennium BC, powerful fortified cities appeared in Syria and Canaan. Moats were often a part of Middle Bronze Age fortifications (c. 1800–1550 BC). They appear in pictures and are mentioned in texts of the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age II. Ramparts were constructed on one or both sides of massive walls, perhaps to hinder an attacking enemy. City gates were constructed to serve as a vital part of these fortified cities.

3:11 bed. Huge objects such as this bedstead (sometimes translated “sarcophagus”) and the giant sword of Goliath were kept as memorials that recalled these ancient giants (1Sa 21:9), along with the victory the Lord gave Israel over them. The bed was not necessarily made of solid iron (iron was a precious metal in the Bronze Age), but might simply have been decorated or overlaid with it. The bed is the same size as Marduk’s bed in the temple Esagila at Babylon, and may have been used for reclining rather than sleeping. A Neo-Assyrian relief of Ashurbanipal pictures the king reclining on a magnificent couch.

3:14 Geshurites. Inhabited a tiny kingdom of Arameans north-northeast of the Sea of Kinnereth (i.e., Sea of Galilee). Gilead was at their southern border, Bashan was on their eastern boundary, and Mount Hermon was to the north of them (Jos 13:11). Their relationship to Israel was ambivalent. Some of their cities were taken by Manasseh, but later recovered (1Ch 2:22–33). David took a Geshurite wife, Maakah, from whom Absalom was born (2Sa 3:3). Maakathites. A small Aramean kingdom south of Mount Hermon whose land went to the half-tribe of Manasseh (Jos 12:5; 13:11). They lived north of the Geshurites, northeast of the Sea of Kinnereth (i.e., the Sea of Galilee), west of the Jordan rift valley. The Maakathites had a checkered relationship with King David, but eventually became his vassals (2Sa 10:6; 1Ch 19:7).

3:17 Kinnereth. Refers to the Sea of Galilee. The name indicates the shape of a lyre, a musical instrument, which the lake resembles. the Sea of the Arabah. Refers to the Dead (Salt) Sea.

4:1 the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. The basic stipulations in the Sinai covenant, as it forms the framework for Deuteronomy, are found in ch. 4 and fit into the ancient Near Eastern pattern of treaties between 1400–1200 BC (see the article “Decrees and Laws”). Ch. 4 introduces basic stipulations and accompanying exhortations. While the form of the covenant between Israel and their God has many ancient Near Eastern analogues, the enactment of a covenant between a god and that god’s people featuring divinely imparted laws in even subsequent promulgations and revisions has not, so far, been evidenced in detail (see the article “Ancient Law Codes and Leviticus”). The extent and depth to which covenant, history and law are combined is not matched in the ancient Near Eastern materials. the God of your ancestors. This is a key OT concept within Israel’s worldview (cf. 1:11, 21; Ex 3:13–16; see the article “Patriarchal Religion”). Similar terminology is also found in the Mari documents, and kings of the cities of Aleppo and Qatna use the phrase. The phrase implied that the god would be passed on from father to sons, sons to grandsons, and so on. Interestingly, the god named on a family seal served to identify the family rather than an individual person. The father’s seal passed on in the family bore the name of the father’s god. Family gods tended to stay in the family (e.g., Adad). This practice is traceable back to 2500 BC. This does not mean, however, that the power or jurisdiction of a family god was exclusive to the particular family. On the contrary, these gods were thought to be effective beyond the boundaries of the family, as was Israel’s God.

4:2 Do not add . . . do not subtract. This “canonical formula” (cf. 13:1–3) is common in ancient Near Eastern treaty literature. It is found especially in Egyptian scribal guidelines and in Assyrian literature from the reign of Esarhaddon as a warning against changing any part of a covenant/treaty. Hammurapi included this charge in his epilogue and called down curses on anyone who would change his laws, and the same language occurs in the prologue/epilogue of the Lipit-Ishtar law code.

4:3 Baal Peor. Both a geographic location and a major deity of the Moabites, Midianites and Ammonites. The name “Baal” as used here refers to a local manifestation of the Canaanite god Baal, a fertility/weather god (see note on Nu 25:3).

4:5 I have taught you decrees and laws . . . so that you may follow them. The creation and collection of law(s) in the ancient Near East was, as here, considered proof of wisdom in those collections and clearly stated as such. Hammurapi asserted that his laws would be an object of splendor to the wise man, and he threatened those who did not heed them with curses and with dispersion. The various laws of the different nations reflected their character and culture in some basic national worldviews (e.g., polytheism versus monotheism). Underlying axioms to some extent were imbedded and emphasized in the laws (see the article “Ancient Laws, Scripture and Modern Issues”).

4:10 Horeb. Refers to Sinai once in Deuteronomy (1:6), but elsewhere it refers to a desert region called Horeb. See the article “Mount Sinai,” for discussion as to the location of Horeb/Sinai.

4:13 two stone tablets. Judging from legal practices in the ancient world, Moses was probably given two copies, not one document spread over two tablets. Although probably larger than clay tablets would have been, a stone tablet could hold 15–20 lines and still fit in the palm of the hand.

4:15 no form. See notes on 5:8; Ex 20:4.

4:20 iron-smelting furnace. Modern cast iron is made in a blast furnace, which was unknown in the ancient world. Iron heated beyond 1100°C (2012°F) becomes soft and spongy, able to be forged. Carbon from the charcoal fuel assists the chemical process. While the furnace can be used as a symbol of oppression, here it is a creative force. As the smelting furnace transforms malleable ore into a hardened, usable product, so the exodus transformed Israel into God’s covenant people.

4:24 consuming fire. This designation of God (cf. Ex 24:17) indicates his propensity to consume that which is dross or unholy in his presence or to consume his enemies, as the phrase “like a fire consuming” is used in a ninth-century BC Phoenician text (where the beard and hand of the enemy were burned). Ancient Near Eastern gods were believed to rain down fire on the earth just as Yahweh had at Sodom and Gomorrah. The goddess Inanna destroyed covenant breakers during the time of Sargon I (2329–2274 BC). Foreign rebels were subdued by thunderbolts from a Hittite god or goddess, such as the sun-goddess of Arinna in the time of Mursili II (c. 1325 BC). In Akkadian texts, Assur sends biting flames, and a burning flame comes from Enlil. The Mesopotamian god Nergal, a warrior-god and god of plagues, carried a fiery-like glance that consumed enemies in battle. Ishkur, a storm-god in Mesopotamia, radiated lightning as a weapon. jealous God. In English, the adjective “jealous” usually indicates a petty form of envy (one of the deadly vices) and, in the context of a relationship, usually connotes paranoia and overbearing possessiveness. As such, some are inclined to think that this description contrasts with the Lord’s character as merciful and compassionate (cf. v. 31). However, the covenantal ceremonies have features of a marriage celebration, and the covenant itself entails an exclusive relationship reminiscent of marriage. The “jealous” attribute of Yahweh reflects a desire to protect and preserve that relationship. No similar description of other gods in the ancient Near East has been found. This makes sense because gods in the ancient Near East were not thought to establish the same sorts of relationships with people.

4:26 I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses. A “swearing of oaths by heaven and earth” occurs in the Eridu Genesis text (1600 BC). Some Akkadian political decrees from Ugarit called the heaven and earth as gods to be witnesses to treaties. An Aramaic treaty (c. 900 BC) employs this phraseology in the presence of both political deities and “Heaven and Earth the (Abysmal) Springs and Sources and Day and Night.” The invocation of the heaven and earth as witnesses was an ancient custom in covenants from Sefire and in Hittite treaties. The heavens and earth are called as witnesses against covenant offenders. This is a common feature paralleled in ancient Near Eastern treaties and covenants.

4:27 The LORD will scatter you among the peoples. Exile and dispersion was a reality for many peoples in the ancient Near East long before this assertion in Deuteronomy. This way of dealing with whole peoples occurred at Mari (1800/1700 BC), among the Hittites (sixteenth and fourteenth centuries BC) and in Egypt (fifteenth, thirteenth and twelfth centuries BC).

5:6–21 No concentrated collection of laws from the ancient Near East matches this crystallization of “ten words,” the Decalogue. These commands are apodictic (saying what one should and should not do) in form and state unequivocal prescriptions and proscriptions, but they do not define the penalties for breaking them. Ancient Near Eastern law collections do not feature this type of law, but rather use, like most Biblical law, case law (casuistic law, which says what the verdict will be when certain crimes are committed).

Covenantal and treaty stipulations, on the other hand, featured apodictic law, indicating that these “ten words” of instructions were to function as part of a covenant (see the article “Covenants”). Apodictic formulations are also found in the wisdom literature of the ancient Near East, and in Israel divinely given wisdom often centers around the instructions of the Ten Commandments and the larger Torah. Apodictic instruction is used in the Instructions of Shuruppak (2600–1100 BC): “Do not steal something; do not kill yourself”; in Instructions of Ur-Ninurta: The god-fearing man “keeps . . . swearing away from his house”; and in Egyptian literature: “Do not set your heart on wealth.”

5:6 I am the LORD your God, who brought you . . . out of the land of slavery. This assertion identifies Yahweh as the liberator of Israel. It parallels the preambles found in many ancient Near Eastern covenants and treaties, especially those involving the Hittites and their vassals (c. 1400–1200 BC). The Great King Suppiluliuma says in his preamble that he has “taken you, Aziru, as my subject” (cf. v. 9).

5:7 have no other gods before me. See note on Ex 20:3. The exclusivity of Yahweh is vaguely paralleled in other ancient Near Eastern treaty texts, but in the form of an allegiance of the human vassal to his human suzerain and the suzerain’s many gods—not to just one god, as in Israel.

5:8 You shall not make . . . an image in the form of anything. See note on Ex 20:4. The power of art forms to carry religious messages and to communicate ideology, class status, etc. was utilized abundantly in the ancient Near East. More relevantly, images often served a cultic function.

Yahweh’s form was never revealed to Israel (cf. 4:15). An Egyptian papyrus at Thebes from the close of the reign of Rameses II asserts that Amun’s real appearance was unknown even to the other gods, for Amun (meaning “hidden”) hid himself from them. Even though Yahweh’s form was likewise hidden from the Israelites, he revealed himself to them through words.

5:9 third and fourth generation. Though this extension of guilt applies primarily to the living generations of descendants (see note on Ex 20:5), examples also exist of ramifications continuing further in time. During the reign of the Hittite king Mursili II (1339–1306 BC), a devastating plague ravaged his land. The king believed that his father Suppiluliuma had “sinned” against the word of a storm-god, breaking covenant and angering the storm-god. The plague rendered divine retribution for that fault. Mursili II admits his own guilt as a result of his father’s failures, praying that the pestilence will cease: “It is only too true, however, that the father’s sin falls upon the son. So my father’s sin has fallen upon me.” In so acting Mursili both confesses his father’s sin and his own sin even though he had “not sinned in any respect.”

5:11 You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God. See note on Ex 20:7.

5:12 Observe the Sabbath day. See note on Ex 20:8.

5:16 Honor your father and your mother. See note on Ex 20:12. In Scripture, this is the first commandment with a promise: “so that you may live long” (here; cf. v. 33; 11:9; 17:20; 22:7). Among other ancient Near Eastern peoples, this reward was often connected to faithful service to a god or gods. Agbar, an Assyrian priest of the god Sin, asserts from his grave that because he did righteousness in life, demonstrating faithful service to Sakar, his god had prolonged his life, such that he lived to see the fourth generation of his descendants. In a vassal treaty of Esarhaddon (680–669 BC), old age was to be withheld from a covenant breaker.

In the ancient Near East the honor due to parents extended beyond their life through the ongoing care of the dead. In Israel, ancestor worship or cults were prohibited, but in most areas of the ancient Near East an honorable son, usually the oldest son, was to present regular offerings to the ancestors, especially his own father. After the death of a father, the oldest son became the head of the family. Daughters normally did not attain this position (see the article “Inheritance Rights and Birthrights”). In Israel, the honor due to parents has a definitively covenant context and pertains to accepting and passing on the Torah.

5:17 murder. See note on Ex 20:13.

5:18 adultery. See note on Ex 20:14.

5:19 steal. See note on Ex 20:15.

5:20 give false testimony. See note on Ex 20:16.

5:21 covet. See note on Ex 20:17. A treaty between Assyrians in that area and their Anatolian trading partners (early second millennium BC) imposes a number of obligations that include requirements to follow certain business practices, to hand over any persons responsible for the death of an Assyrian, and to compensate Assyrian merchants for any thefts they might suffer in Anatolian territory. The treaty goes on to state: “You shall not covet a fine house, a fine slave, a fine slave woman, a fine field, or a fine orchard belonging to any Assyrian, and you will not take any of these by force and hand them over to your own subjects/servants.” This treaty seems to confirm that it is not out of place for the issue of coveting to be included in a list of stipulations. It also points to the idea that the concern behind coveting is the illegal acts of confiscation that it can motivate. All of the items in the treaty—house, slave, slave woman and field—also appear in Deuteronomy, suggesting that the concerns of society in Israel were of the same sort that is evident throughout the ancient world.

5:22 two stone tablets. See note on 4:13.

5:24 we have heard his voice from the fire. See note on Ex 13:21.

5:27 tell us whatever the LORD our God tells you. On the one hand, Moses plays a typical ancient Near Eastern role as a covenant mediator, chosen by a god and/or a people. On the other hand, his role and the Lord’s role are uniquely adapted to the Lord’s covenant with his people. It was customary to seek out the proper sacred officials of the temple or other sacred precincts in the ancient Near East so that a relevant answer could be given to a concerned inquirer. The will of the deity was revealed in this way. Pharaoh Akhenaten was believed to be a mediator of his god’s will in a unique sense, one that approaches Moses’ position. We will listen and obey. In the ancient Near East, the people involved in covenant/treaty processes and ceremonies were to pledge and respond at the conclusion of the covenant or treaty ceremony. Responses were to be from the whole heart in words expressing a treaty commitment and conclusion. In an eighth-century BC Aramaic treaty made between Bar-gahdayah, king of KTK, and Matihdel of Arpad, the words “you do swear” appear; they also appear in vassal treaties of Esarhaddon. One of his treaties with a vassal includes a loyalty oath involving words, lips and heart. The same can be said of a Hittite text that contains ratification responses concerning Hatti and Hurrians represented by their king Kurtiwaza. Those pledging were to assert in essence, as the Israelites did at Sinai, “We will listen and obey.”

6:3 flowing with milk and honey. This phrase occurs often (e.g., 11:9; 26:9, 15; 27:3; 31:20; cf. Ex 3:8; Lev 20:24; Nu 13:27). It is closely paralleled in Ugaritic poetry: “The heavens fat did rain, / The wadis flow with honey!” Milk and fat are mentioned as a blessed feature of the world ordered by Enki, who determined Sumer’s destiny. This hyperbolic metaphoric phrase stresses both the richness of Canaan and the special favor God has bestowed on it as the dwelling place for his people.

6:4 the LORD is one. The claim that a deity is one or alone, as made by Enlil and Baal, relates to the supremacy of that god’s rule. In this sense, it may be a sociological more than a metaphysical statement. See the article “Monotheism, Monolatry and Henotheism.” Another possibility is that this statement demands a unified view of Yahweh, in contrast to the views of other ancient Near Eastern peoples who would have many different shrines celebrating or emphasizing a different perspective or aspect of their gods. For example, in Mesopotamia, Ishtar of Arbela was conceived quite differently from Ishtar of Uruk. This kind of division was not unknown in Israel, as inscriptions refer to “Yahweh of Samaria” and “Yahweh of Teman”; however, in the Bible, such divisions are condemned.

6:5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart. “Love” in the context of a treaty refers to amicable and loyal international relationships. The Great King, the suzerain, in a suzerain-vassal treaty in the ancient Near East expected his vassal to love him, not merely in a legal way, but with fervor and emotional commitment. Correspondence between the great kings of that era is replete with expressions of love toward one another. Kings of Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Hatti and Mitanni exude mutual brotherhood, loyalty and love to one another. In Hittite parlance the vassal and his lord were to love each other as they loved themselves. Love unto death, the greatest love, was expected toward the suzerain from the vassal. Furthermore, those surrounding the king (e.g., Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal) were to love the king as they loved their own lives. The vassal was to hate the enemy of his lord and the lord was to hate the enemy of his vassal. The subjects of the king were to love him.

There are rare instances when an individual is admonished to love a deity, but in general the gods of the ancient Near East did not expect love from their worshipers. The concept of the heart is central to the theological anthropology of the ancient Near East. In a hymn to Aten, the pharaoh says, “Thou art in my heart and there is no other that knows thee.” In Egypt the heart was nothing less than “the god who dwells in man.” The heart itself dwelt in its shrine. A righteous Egyptian worshiper was said “to hold Amun in his heart.”

Israel’s love for Yahweh, though not lacking in emotional commitment, was also an expression of loyalty and faithfulness. This provides a distinction from the ancient Near East since in a polytheistic system gods did not expect worshipers to be exclusively devoted to them.

6:6 on your hearts. The heart, as the seat of reason and cognitive functions, is by far the most important bodily organ mentioned in the OT. In Ugaritic literature the heart is often paired with the liver as the internal organs facilitating joy and laughter. In the Memphite theology of Egypt, the heart of the god Ptah functions both as a center of conceptual thinking and feeling through the senses. The heart is paired with the tongue and the control of all limbs. The heart gathers information from all of the senses, while the tongue repeats what the heart formulates.

Putting words on one’s heart and soul is expressed in loyalty oaths of the ancient Near East, as in Hittite treaties of Mursili II and oaths of allegiance to Assyrian king Esarhaddon. In an intimate didactic wisdom text (c. 900–500 BC), a father, Ka-nakht, instructs his son to give ear to his words, “to put them in their heart.” The heart of the pharaoh was the key to his thinking and behavior and is mentioned hundreds of time in ancient Egyptian literature.

6:7 Impress them on your children. The inculcation of moral principles and wisdom in youth was practiced widely in the ancient Near East. In Egypt, teaching and instruction were used from at least 2500 BC up until the time of the Ptolemies (c. 300 BC). Rules of conduct and learning were prepared for sons. From moral issues to royal protocol, children were trained in the home or in the king’s palace. Order, truth and justice were important.

In Mesopotamia, Sumerian literature includes the advice of a father to his son. Several famous works of a didactic nature come from Mesopotamia. Repetition by mouth, copying texts and strict discipline (the rod!) were the main pedagogical means of “impressing” a desired curriculum on a student or child. This was done both in the home and in any place of learning available.

Covenantal conditions and stipulations were passed on so that following generations would know and pursue them diligently—and, of course, for political purposes. Esarhaddon declared a curse on anyone who would not pass on the traditions and conditions of his vassal treaties: “If you . . . do not transmit it to your sons who will live after this treaty . . .” He continues, “May your sons and grandsons because of this fear, in the future, your god Assur and your lord, the crown prince designate Assurbanipal.”

6:8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Examples of symbols of power worn on the forehead can be seen as something as common as a pharaoh’s crown. The Egyptian pharaoh wore a uraeus, a protective serpent figurine, on his forehead, a symbol also worn by the Egyptian gods in artistic depictions. In Egypt, during the New Kingdom era, children wore cylindrical amulets containing strips of papyrus. Inscriptions on the tiny papyrus strips protected them from various dangers. No ambiance of magic surrounded an Israelite’s display of God’s law; this symbol reminded them to follow the covenant stipulations; nevertheless, it is reminiscent of practices known from the ancient world. Unfortunately, we have no evidence by which to suggest what the Israelite practice would have actually looked like.

6:9 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates. Doorposts or doorframes seem to be related to Akkadian manzazu (“stand, position, door, socket”). Silver plaques written in ancient Hebrew script have been unearthed (eighth or seventh century BC). All types of materials and writing surfaces were used to display important written materials, including silver amulets in Egypt. These amulets were fastened to a person’s arm, hand or neck, and bore important messages. Many people who wore them would not have been able to read them, but they were aware of the important information they contained.

Plastered walls and doorways, more germane to this Biblical text, were used at Kuntillet Ajrud (eighth century BC). Gates of cities also provided exposure for important notices. Papyrus, stone, copper, bronze, arrowheads, clay seals, waxed wood boards and leather—all of these were employed in writing. These materials and the inscriptions on them provided an opportunity to tie a person to a god who protected them and whom they wanted to constantly revere; they also served as a memorial sign in the presence of the deity.

6:10 large, flourishing cities. In many cases these “cities” were taken over, not built for the first time. This was common in the ancient Near East, where whole peoples and nations could be uprooted and their land and cities taken over by intruders or conquerors.

6:11 houses. A typical Israelite house may have featured (1) two, three or four rooms, (2) three rooms formed by rows of longitudinal pillars that created a central large room, and (3) a back room or broad room for storage. Small, open windows were left in the walls, and ceramic lamps or flax wicks (using olive oil for fuel) created artificial light in the house. The door pivoted in sockets, and the lintel over the doorframe was supported by two doorposts, with a single block of stone for the threshold. Wooden bolts and tumble locks were used in the doors of palaces, temples, granaries, storage facilities and domestic houses. Houses supported by pillars always had roofs. In some cases stairs led up to the roof. The “typical” four-room pillared Israelite house has been found outside of Israel and may have been simply a common Canaanite house, not an innovation by the Israelites. wells. Some translate this Hebrew word (borot) as “cisterns”—i.e., artificial reservoirs of water that were normally hewn out of bedrock. They were used from ancient times, as far back as the sixth millennium BC. Wells at Lachish, Tell Sheva, existed in Biblical times. Water shafts were connected to springs at Hazor, Megiddo, Gibeon and Jerusalem. Over 100 wells were located at the Philistine city of Ashkelon. Pools were constructed around wells for watering animals.

6:13 take your oaths in his name. Oaths were common in ancient Near Eastern treaties. This fact appears in the essentials of its literary form, namely, the promulgation of terms of the treaty or covenant and some adumbration of an oath in the list of gods invoked as witnesses or in the curses or blessings. The enactment of the curses or blessings was dependent on the fidelity or infidelity of the covenantal parties to the oath.

Oaths were a part of treaties and covenants from the earliest times in Sumer and Elam (third millennium BC), Mesopotamia, Ebla, Mari, Hatti, Syria (seventeenth century BC) and Assyria. Oaths were sworn in Akkadian to the life of the king or to the life of a god, also in Egypt, and in the Canaanite-Phoenician milieu. Soldiers took solemn oaths to serve the king, the nation and its gods. To break this oath could lead to death, abject humility and shaming.

Though Israel inherited the land and cities of the Canaanites, they were not to inherit their gods. One way to demonstrate rejection of these gods was to refuse to take oaths in their name, thus denying their power.

6:14 Do not follow . . . the gods of the peoples around you. All the nations around Israel had multiple gods, and Israel’s great sin was that she whored after the gods of Canaan (Jdg 2:17). El was the head of the Canaanite pantheon, and he had a consort, Asherah (Athirat). As father of the pantheon, he was perceived as rather distant from the common worshiper and even from the priests. The god Baal, however, was believed to be in touch with the people and the one through whom the forces of nature were controlled. He was recognized under other names, such as Hadad and Dagan, and he manifested himself in various locations, taking to himself the name of each location (e.g., Baal Peor, Baal Berith, Baal Zebul). Baal achieved hegemony among the other gods in Canaan, such as El, Yamm (Sea), Nahar (River), Mot (Death) and Anat (Baal’s sister). Rain was thought to be Baal’s semen, which “impregnated” the earth; Asherah, his wife, was the goddess of fertility.

The other neighbors of Israel delighted in their multiplicity of gods: Ammonites (Milkom, the chief god, plus nine others); Moabites (Chemosh/Kemosh and Ashtar-Chemosh, both mentioned in the Moabite Stone); Edom (Qaws, the chief god; Baa, Hadad, and an unnamed goddess); Byblos (Baal Shemayin, the chief deity; Baal Dor, Baal, Ba’alat gbl [“lady of Byblos”]); Sidon (Eshmun, Astarte, Resheph, Rehaim); Tyre (Melqart). The list goes on for Sarepta and Ugarit (at least three goddesses). A divine council of gods was thought to function in most areas. Chthonic deities (earth/underworld gods) were also common at Ebla, Ugarit and some Transjordanian areas.

7:1 Hittites. The New Kingdom of Hatti, a people who inhabited and ruled in the area of Anatolia and Syria, began under Tudhaliya I (c. 1430–1410 BC) and expanded until Hattusili III (c. 1239). They concluded a treaty with Egypt in the 21st year of Rameses II. The Hittite Empire lasted from about 1239 to 1180 BC. The Hittites vied with Egypt for rule over Canaan and southern Syria, especially the area around Kedesh on the Orontes. They immigrated throughout Syria, spread south into upper Canaan, and adapted to Canaanite life and culture. There is only circumstantial evidence for Hittites in Canaan in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1600–1200). The migration of the Sea Peoples undoubtedly swept many people along with it or before it into Canaan in about 1220–1200 BC or earlier, including Hittites, but this movement is later than the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. Tribes of Hittites could have been migrating into the region earlier, or alternatively, these Hittites could be related to those in Ge 23. Girgashites. A subgroup of Canaanites. They descended from Ham (Ge 10:15–16). At Ugarit the name Girgash and the phrase “son of Grgs” are present, suggesting that the name was at least known in early Israel. Some suggest they came from Asia Minor. Amorites. See notes on 1:7; Nu 13:29. Canaanites. See note on 1:7; see also the article “The Canaanites.” Perizzites. In the OT, the Perizzites are located in the hill country of northern Canaan (Jos 11:3). Additional references suggest other areas farther south and certain regions of Carmel. Archaeologists and philologists are divided over whether they were Hurrians or a subgroup of Amorites. The personal name Perissi or Perizzi (Hurrian) describes an envoy from the land of Mitanni (in northern Mesopotamia) in both cuneiform and Egyptian texts. Hivites. Some scholars connect the Hivites to the Luwians from the area of Cilicia; others identify the Hivites with the Horites/Hurrians (cf. 2:12, 22). They were found as far south as Edom/Seir. Jebusites. The Jebusites were located in the hill country of Canaan and inhabited Jerusalem in the twelfth to eleventh centuries BC. Their origin is obscure except for circumstantial Biblical evidence, which suggests (weakly) that they were from the land of the Hittites. Some scholars continue to tie them to the Hurrians and note the similarities between worship in Jerusalem and the rituals of the Hittites/Hurrians. The Amarna letters contain the name of a king of Jerusalem, Abdi-Hepa, who reasonably could have been a Jebusite. Only under David, who took over Jerusalem for Israel, were these people finally conquered.

7:2 destroy them totally. See note on 2:34.

7:5 altars . . . sacred stones . . . Asherah poles. Standing stones, altars and symbols (poles, trees, figures) of Asherah were part of the furnishings of the cults and rituals in Canaan from 1200 to 930 BC, as were idols/images. The Asherahs (sacred symbols) represented the female aspect of deity.

At Ugarit, the goddess Athirat is presented as the wife of El, head of the pantheon. In Mesopotamia (c. 1830–1531 BC) the female deity Ashratum seems to be equivalent to Ugaritic Athirat. The name of the goddess Asherah appears in kings’ names at Amurru. The word “Asherah” also denoted a symbolic tree or pole. In Egypt the goddess Qdsh parallels Asherah/Athirat/Ashratum, especially since this name for Asherah is found at Ugarit. Ashertu, a Hittite goddess, certainly represents Asherah of the Bible as well. From about 750 BC and 800 BC, respectively, we have references to “asherah of YHWH” from Kuntillet Ajrud (about 40 miles [65 kilometers] south of Kadesh Barnea) and from Khirbet el-Qom (nine miles [14 kilometers] west of Hebron).

7:6 treasured possession. The Hebrew word (segullah) used to describe Israel as God’s “treasured possession” is used eight times in the OT. This term occurs in the ancient Near East from the first part of the second millennium BC, with cognates in Akkadian and Ugaritic. This word and its cognates designate someone as a special personal possession of his god. In Hittite texts, the word refers to a special position of status for the king at Ugarit based upon a covenant relationship with Hatti. In the Bible, its meaning shades over into “beloved” and thus singles out Israel before Yahweh.

7:8 because the LORD loved you and kept the oath. The Lord’s love for Israel justifies her special place before him. This concept has some partial analogues in ancient Near Eastern literature. Whole cities such as Babylon fall within this purview, for the Babylonian creation account justifies and proclaims Babylon as the favored of Marduk. Individuals who were portrayed as enjoying a chosen status, among others, included Hattusili III of Hatti and Nabonidus of Babylon. But in Israel this relationship extends beyond the king or a city to a chosen people.

7:15 diseases. The sicknesses and medicines of Egypt were a part of Israel’s historical memory (cf. Ex 15:26). These diseases are described amply in many ancient Near Eastern texts (see the article “Disease Transmission in the Ancient World”). The etiology of disease in Egypt traced many illnesses to internal decay; hence, the use of purgatives and enemas was common. Defecation was a process and product that was watched carefully. Hygienic processes were prescribed and followed to thwart possible diseases. Diseases or conditions that were certainly present included dental problems (attrition and cavities), broken bones, bone cancer, arthritis, obesity, baldness and, less certainly, smallpox, polio and malaria. Epidemics occurred because of poor sanitation. From a study of Egyptian art, dwarfism, hunchback, clubfeet, hernias and emaciation were the result of poor health conditions in the ancient world. Persons rarely lived beyond 40 or 50 years. “Drugs” made from vegetables, animals and minerals constituted an Egyptian pharmacopoeia.

7:20 hornet. See note on Ex 23:28.

7:23–24 the LORD . . . will deliver them over to you . . . you will destroy them. The statement that Yahweh is giving Israel’s enemies into Israel’s power (“hand,” v. 24), often so that Israel can “wipe [them] out” (Hebrew abad, v. 24), occurs many times in Deuteronomy. This divine activity on behalf of Israel parallels other ancient Near Eastern literature. In the Amarna letters, a king of Mitanni tells Amenhotep III (c. 1403–1364 BC) that Teshub (a god of Mitanni) has given his enemies into his hand so that he may destroy them. Nebuchadnezzar asserts that Marduk has given many peoples into his hand and he has subdued them. The same divine activity in history is attributed to the sun-goddess of Arinna on behalf of a Hittite king, Mursili I (1330–1295 BC).

8:3 feeding you with manna. See the note on Nu 11:7.

8:8–9 a land with wheat and barley, vines and fig trees . . . bread. The description of the land in these verses is the same sort of description typically used in ancient land grants. Certain political ancient Near Eastern covenants contained a land grant description with features as are found here, but it is also found in treaties. The essential difference between political treaties and land grant treaties was that in the latter the master obligated himself freely to the vassal or grantee. In the former the vassal was obligated to his master. The land grant is held in perpetuity even if the vassal breaks faith and the stipulations of the grant. His descendants retain the land/property granted. The historical prologues of political treaties could contain land grant features that included careful descriptions of the land in question. The land is described similarly in the Egyptian story of Sinuhe (c. 1960 BC), a fugitive from Egypt residing in the land of Canaan. He describes the land as “a good land” producing figs, grapes, abundance of wine, honey, olives, fruit trees, barley, and emmer, and it was full of cattle. The land flowed with an abundance of milk.

8:8 wheat and barley. A failure of barley and wheat was a major disaster in time of drought to an agricultural community. When this crop flourished, the god of the nation was given credit. In a good year wheat and barley were produced in abundance by the latter spring rains. A school boy’s writing exercise, the Gezer Calendar, contains a record of the months of barley and wheat planting.

8:9 a land where the rocks are iron . . . dig copper out of the hills. Copper and iron were found in the Arabah, especially from the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Aqaba and possibly in Transjordan. This expression reveals the author’s view of the geographic extent of the promised land. Copper was the first metal used in the ancient world and was mined deep in the ground in the Beersheba Valley as far back as the fourth millennium BC. Copper metallurgy was practiced in Arad, but most of the metal objects found there came from an earlier period. Copper ores were also used at Timna, on the eastern border of the Arabah. Tin (10 percent) and copper (80 percent) were combined to produce bronze. The ancient sources of tin are uncertain. Iron was, however, scarce in Canaan. Small amounts of surface iron ore deposits have been found north of the Jabbok River. Significant deposits of iron were found at several other places, such as the Ajlun Hills, and ironsmith shops were located in Tell Deir Allah (near where the Jabbok and Jordan Rivers meet) and Tell Qasile (near Tel Aviv). Because of the high temperature needed, it was not possible to produce cast iron in the period of the OT.

9:10 inscribed by the finger of God. This bold anthropomorphism is an example of synecdoche, which uses a part of something to stand for the whole. God was the author of the “ten words” (see note on Ex 34:28). This metaphor suggests that divine presence and power wrote the ten words. Most likely each tablet contained a full copy of the ten words. finger of God. See note on Ex 8:19. In Egyptian mythology the finger of the Egyptian god Seth had been used to damage the “Eye of Horus.” Until it was removed, Horus’s eye would not heal. The phrase “finger(s) of the god(s)” is also found in Mesopotamian texts. In two Babylonian texts the outstretched finger of the ritualist while sealing an oath is a sign, in that context, of danger or threat from the god.

9:28 Gods in the ancient Near East were not omnipotent, and could fail to accomplish something they set out to do. In addition, they were not seen to be friendly, predictable, reliable or forthright. An example from Mesopotamia is the god Ea telling the human Adapa that he will die from eating bread that would have made him immortal. Mortuary texts in Egypt are targeted against hostile deities. The Sumerian city laments feature gods who decide that it is simply time for a city to be destroyed. The gods were not characterized by foresight and they did not work according to long-range plans. In all of these areas, Yahweh was distinct in his consistency and his ultimate goodness.

10:3 ark. The ark of the covenant law was a wooden chest carried by poles inserted into rings attached to the corners of the chest. Similar construction patterns have been uncovered in Egypt from the tomb of Tutankhamun (1336–1327 BC). All of the features of the ark (portable shrine, carrying poles, priestly care for it, winged creatures, gilded wood) were present in Egypt (1479–1069 BC). acacia wood. A primary wood in Egypt for various kinds of carpentry. It grew in the Sinai area and was fairly common in the thirteenth century BC. It was relatively light, but strong and hard, making it ideal for furniture. The compound wooden bow made of this material was in use then and was bound together by smaller pieces of wood and glue. The strong gates at Lachish were made of acacia wood. Sources of acacia today are only a fraction of what was available in antiquity.

10:6–7 Itineraries similar to this one are known from Mesopotamia (e.g., the annals of Tukulti-Ninurta II, 890–884 BC). In fact, such itineraries and geography are found throughout antiquity in the ancient Near East: Old Babylonian itineraries of the eighteenth century BC, Mari itineraries and Egyptian itineraries constituting the military directions for New Kingdom pharaohs (sixteenth–fifteenth centuries BC), with some toponymn lists coming from the Late Bronze Age. This itinerary and others in the OT (e.g., Ge 14; Nu 33) were part and parcel of the ancient Near Eastern world.

10:6 Jaakan. The location of the Jaakanites is not certain, but the name possibly relates it to the family of Akan (see Ge 36:27). Moserah. Its location is still uncertain; it is likely near to or the same as Mount Hor.

10:7 Gudgodah . . . Jotbathah. Gudgodah is possibly Bir Taba, located on the west side of the Arabah and south of the Dead Sea. Jotbathah was in the same area as, but east of, Gudgodah. Both places were probably watering locations. The locations may have been, respectively, at Ain el-Gattar and Ain el-Weibah, on the east side of the Arabah about 20 miles (32 kilometers) south of the Dead Sea.

10:16 Circumcise your hearts. The metaphoric concept of the heart was and is central to Biblical anthropology, spirituality and theology (see notes on 6:5, 6). The heart was the focus of moral fortitude and character development and was considered a gift of the gods; hence, it was metaphorically referred to as a “god.” A circumcised heart responded, panting after the law of the Lord and his covenant. It trusted in the moral, ethical, religious and spiritual guidance of the covenant and the Torah. It communed within its chamber with the “law of the LORD” and his presence “day and night” (cf. Ps 1:2). Circumcise. See the article “Circumcision.” To circumcise one’s heart in order to become a part of the Lord’s covenant people was the internal equivalent of covenantal commitment to the Lord, observable by God, not a human being. Circumcised Israelites loved God from the inside out, and God sustained their trust in him.

10:17 God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome. This powerful language recalls the God of the exodus and urges the reader to make the connection (cf. vv. 20–21). Titles, especially royal titles, were popular in the ancient Near East. The title “Lord of kings” appears in a Philistine letter to Pharaoh and also is found as a title in Phoenician. The exact title “Lord of lords” is present in Assyrian texts, usually occurring before the late kings of Assyria. The “mighty and awesome” God is an epithet also at Ugarit (mlk rb). accepts no bribes. In ancient Near Eastern religion, gods could be manipulated because they had needs (see the article “Great Symbiosis”). By providing food, clothing and shelter for the god, an individual could win favor. Yahweh here makes it clear that he will not distort justice for personal gain.

10:18 He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow. This language is a mainstay in the laws and the prologues/epilogues in the ancient Near East (e.g., the Code of Hammurapi; also those found at Ugarit in the Aqhat Legend). Lipit-Ishtar’s prologue and epilogue (1934–1924 BC) imply this act of justice. The concern is expressed among the Hittite kings as well, as kings and gods gave special attention and protection to these groups of people. These ancient Near Eastern texts emphasize that, as socially vulnerable classes, widows and orphans must be protected with extra care. Using the terms “widow” and “fatherless” together may have been a way of designating disadvantaged classes in general. Groups other than true widows and orphans easily might have fallen into this category (see note on 15:7).

10:22 seventy. The number 70 has a rich use in the Bible and in the ancient Near East, primarily in the Northwest Semitic and Egyptian areas. The multiplication from 70 persons (literal) who migrated to Egypt into an unlimited host (metaphoric) describes Israel’s amazing multiplication into an innumerable number. The number 70 also expresses totality. Panammuwa slew 70 of his brothers (all of them) to become king of Sam‘al/Zinjirli. The number 70 also indicates potential (cf. Ex 1:1–7). Anatu slew an innumerable number of sacrificial animals for the god Baal in the Ugaritic Baal Cycle—70 at a time. The 70 sons (divine) of Athirat are mentioned in texts at Ugarit. In Egyptian literature the phrase “seventy kings in seventy days” may refer to the 70 “creative forces” in Heliopolitan cosmology. The Lord was Israel’s sole creative force, responsible for both creation and procreation.

11:4 horses and chariots. Chariots in the ancient Near East for millennia trumped cavalry. Until the Eighteenth or Nineteenth Dynasty (roughly the sixth to twelfth centuries BC), Egypt did not use cavalry except to serve the chariots in battle. In the time of Shalmaneser III (858–824 BC) and Tiglath-Pileser III (744–727 BC), cavalry began to play a greatly expanded role in warfare.

11:10 irrigated it by foot. In Egypt, agriculture depended on irrigation systems of some kind. By contrast, the land of Canaan soaked up the rain and produced crops over a large area and in many settings. Small channels dug by one’s foot watered the small ribbon of irrigated land in Egypt. Land not covered by the annual Nile flood had to be irrigated manually. Watering a plot of land was a constant chore in Egypt and is so depicted in the Egyptian Satire on the Trades. The gardener had to water the vegetables daily, or else they would fail: “In the morning he waters vegetables, the evening he spends with the herbs.” In the fertile land of Canaan, rain sent by the Lord watered the land, a condition attested by writings of the Egyptian fugitive Sinuhe.

Some scholars detect a bit of mockery in the phrase “irrigated it by foot” by taking the Hebrew phrase as a euphemistic idiom referring to urination (“waters of the feet”). In this case, the reference is to the purity of the water. In any case, the potential multiple resources for water in Canaan exceeded those in Egypt.

11:13–17 So if you faithfully obey . . . then I will send rain . . . Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away . . . Then the LORD’s anger will burn. In ancient Near Eastern treaties, the gods rewarded fealty to a treaty or covenant; failure to comply incurred the wrath of the gods who had been entreated to judge the participants of the document according to the oaths they had taken. Rain was absolutely necessary to the land of Canaan. The Lord would send both early and latter rains to prosper Israel’s crops, if the Israelites carefully kept the covenant stipulations.

The visitation of pestilence and drought were signs of the displeasure of the god(s), as in the time of a devastating drought in the reign of the Hittite King Mursili in Hatti (c. 1330–1295 BC) and in Israel in the days of Elijah (c. 870 BC). In Canaan, Baal could be the source of devastations. The Egyptian god Seth could create drought conditions in Hatti. The anger of Pharaoh Rameses II could keep rain from the Hittites. Threats to shut down rain were among the curses in Hittite treaties.

11:24 from the desert to Lebanon, and from the Euphrates River to the Mediterranean Sea. Hittite and Assyrian treaties have descriptive approaches for their territories similar to those here. The Assyrian king Adadnirari boasted that his conquered territory stretched “as far as the Great Sea of the Rising Sun (and) from the banks of the Euphrates.” The Euphrates River and Mount Lebanon were favorite ancient Near Eastern territorial markers.

11:26–28 Threats of blessings or curses were tied to covenant fealty in a prophetic utterance found at Mari. A theology of the heart was imbedded within its formal ancient Near Eastern covenant/treaty form. Likewise, Israel’s faithfulness to her covenant God determined whether she received a curse or a blessing.

11:29 Mount Gerizim . . . Mount Ebal. These mountains, situated on the main north-south road, and the valley between them form an east-west entrance into Canaan. The curses and blessings of the covenant could be recited antiphonally by the participants, positioned in the narrowest part of the valley, opposite each other (cf. 27:12–26).

The lower north slope of Mount Gerizim was excavated in 1968, uncovering a structure that served as a temple in the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1650–1540). This is earlier than Israel’s settlement in the land but indicates that the mountain has a history of serving as sacred space. On Mount Ebal are ruins of a structure dating to the Iron Age (just after the Israelite settlement) that most scholars consider to be an altar. No evidence connects it to the Israelites.

12:2 places on the high mountains, on the hills and under every spreading tree. Mountains and hills were recognized as prime spots for worship and ritual in ancient Near Eastern texts. The phrase “hilltop” is linked with sites featuring leafy green trees. Trees and mountains were often believed to be endowed with a sacred aura in the ancient Near East, both in Israel (Ge 2:9; 3:22, 24; Pr 3:18) and in other nations. Mount Hermon in Syria was considered a sacred mountain by many nations, and a mountain located near ancient Ugarit was the site of a shrine to Baal. In Hatti, the gods were thought to assemble under a hawthorn tree. A tree or group of trees could represent fertility goddesses. The “tree of life for the sunfolk” is mentioned in the Great Cairo Hymn of Praise to Amun-Re. The goddess Asherah was connected to a sacred tree or pole, a symbol of fertility and a place of worship.

Being in the supposed presence of a deity was an awe-inspiring experience (cf. Ex 3:5; 24:9–11), and the religious objects at these locations threatened Israel’s faithfulness to the Lord (see Dt 7:5). Israel was not to worship like the prior inhabitants of the land at the high hills and green trees. Hence, the Israelites were to erase the names of foreign deities at all these locations by destroying all of their objects (v. 3).

12:5 put his Name there. The names of gods were attached to the places where they appeared or were connected to a given location, such as a shrine. As a result of this practice, God instructs Israel that he will put his name at those places that he chooses to be recognized and worshiped. The name of a deity in the ancient Near East defined in an essential way the character and nature and function of a deity. Hence, when a god’s name was “placed” somewhere (e.g., Baal Peor), the god was there.

12:16 not eat the blood. See note on Lev 1:5.

12:31 They . . . burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods. Human sacrifice in the ancient Near East took various forms. In Mesopotamia, it was common to ritually kill the attendants to important people, as well as to place human sacrifices in the foundations of new buildings. In Syria and Canaan, expiatory sacrifices took place in times of crisis, as did propitiatory sacrifices on special occasions. There is good reason to believe that religious child sacrifice was practiced in Mesopotamia, but absolute proof is lacking. Human sacrifice in late texts at Carthage (Punic) is more likely but still not certain.

Alternatively, the evidence for cremation and strong involvement in rituals for the dead has been proven in Syria, Canaan and Mesopotamia, and this may be what is being condemned here.

13:1–18 This chapter treats the problem of disloyalty to Yahweh. Dreams (v. 1) were a means of obtaining knowledge/wisdom from the gods across the ancient Near East and were also recognized channels of revelation in Israel. However, no dream could supersede the covenantal laws given by the Lord at Sinai. Immorality and unfaithfulness to divine precepts were condemned by all wise men outside or inside Israel. See the article “Balaam,” and the article “Prophets and Prophecy.”

13:10 Stone them to death. Execution by stoning is prescribed in the Hadad Inscription to deal with a possible assassin or murderer, whether male or female. Hittite, Aramaic and Assyrian treaties deal openly and gravely with sedition and rebellion.

Esarhaddon’s succession treaty deals with the possibility of disloyalty to himself or his son Ashurbanipal. Disloyalty is treated severely by immediate and summary execution of a disloyal subject or anyone in the royal house when the king’s life is endangered by such an act. In this case even the relatives of a rebel were to be executed. This conclusion is further supported by the stipulations in the Zakatu Treaty. Hence, execution of a false prophet who foments disloyalty toward the Lord falls into place in its ancient Near Eastern setting.

13:16 gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town. This constitutes a typical ancient Near Eastern covenantal curse/threat. A city was burned so that it would not be rebuilt from the same materials. Ruin reflects the Hebrew word tel (Arabic tell), meaning a heap, ruin. This ultimate curse could befall a city—to become a ruin instead of a place of joyful habitation. The ancient city of Ur (c. 2000 BC) was laid waste and became a ruin by an act of the gods toward it. The Sefire Treaty inscription (c. 750 BC) between Bargahdah and Matihdel records curses against Matihdel, king of Arpad, if he breaks the covenant, including: “And may Arpad become a mound [ruin] to [house the desert animal] . . . May [this] city not be mentioned.”

Through time, these ruins became hills or huge mounds of successive layers of debris from the destruction of cities and villages across the centuries and millennia. In this case the city was to remain so permanently. The threat of a flood could likewise turn a city and its land into an uninhabitable ruin. The treaty of Ushshur-Nerari II with the Hittite king records a threat against the Hittites if they are disloyal: “Then may Assur, father of the gods, who grants kingship, turn your land into a battlefield, your people to devastation, your cities into mounds, and your houses into ruins.” In the Baal Myth at Ugarit, “two ruin-mounds” (mountains) seem to set off the land of the dead from the land of the living, thus making a plausible parallel between those mythological constructs and historical cities that lay dead in ruins.

14:1 Do not cut yourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead. See note on Lev 19:28.

14:8 The pig is . . . unclean. See note on Lev 11:7.

14:21 Do not eat anything you find already dead. Letting good meat go to waste would have been unthinkable in a protein-starved area such as Israel. However, Israelites were not permitted to eat it, because it contained blood. Nevertheless, they were allowed to distribute it to resident aliens or sell it to foreigners. in its mother’s milk. Early Jewish rabbis extrapolated from this law the custom—still current among observant practitioners of traditional Judaism—of not combining in one meal milk or milk by-products together with any form of meat (represented by the “kid”). The actual meaning of this prohibition remains speculative. One of the more popular notions in the mid-twentieth century was that this command was directed at a particular religious practice of nearby polytheistic societies. It is also possible that the prohibition may involve a nursing animal (which may have mother’s milk in its stomach), or the possibility that the milk might contain blood and would thus contaminate the meat.

15:1 every seven years . . . cancel debts. A cycle of seven years also occurs in the Ugaritic calendar, but the similarity likely only reflects literary convention. The Ugaritic cycle was tied to the agricultural year and agricultural prosperity, not to debt release, though debt release regulation was practically ubiquitous in the ancient Near East. Decrees releasing debts were promulgated by kings in many locations: Aleppo, Alalakh, Emar, Babylon and Assyria.

In the Old Babylonian period, e.g. (which had Sumerian antecedents), edicts issued by the kings canceled debts, released some hostages or slaves, and helped the oppressed and impoverished persons in Babylonian society. Land reverted to its original owners. The most outstanding example is the one issued by Ammisaduqa, the tenth king in the Dynasty of Hammurapi (c. 1646–1626 BC). These edicts were issued at fairly regular intervals at the word of a particular king. Some scholars argue that Israelites adapted this policy as the Sabbatical Year (vv. 1–4; Lev 25) for the covenantal community of Yahweh. However, there is more contrast between the relevant texts than comparison with Israel’s weekly Sabbath, Sabbatical Year and Year of Jubilee (see next note).

15:7 If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites. The homeless, powerless or disadvantaged in the ancient Near East were ideally defended and supported in various ways by righteous kings (see note on 10:18). In the Sumerian Nanshe Hymn, the goddess Nanshe is lifted up as a goddess who cares for and “knows” the widow, the poor, the orphan (Nanshe is a mother of the orphan), the oppressed debtor and the weak.

Justice and righteousness for these persons was the special task of the king. Concern for the poor, along with the alien and the widow, is emphasized in the prologues and/or epilogues of the collected legal sayings from Mesopotamia (e.g., Hammurapi, Ur-Nammu, Lipit-Ishtar of Isin). Hammurapi cared for the poor, as did the Babylonian kings Uruinimgina and Ur-Nammu in the third millennium BC. Sinuhe, an Egyptian having returned home from a journey through Canaan, exalts the pharaoh, saying, “You deliver the poor from harm.” Canaanite documents from Ugarit and Egyptian tomb inscriptions prescribe special care and concern for these persons.

15:12 Hebrew. A social, rather than ethnic designation; it refers to one who does not own land (see note on Ge 14:13). The individual in mind here is an Israelite, but one who has become destitute or returned from foreign lands. Non-Israelite slaves had no right of release. sell themselves to you. See note on Lev 25:39.

15:17 take an awl and push it through his earlobe into the door. An Akkadian parallel indicates that piercing the ear of a slave in Israel may have indicated a declaration of ownership of the slave in a public and permanent manner. The Akkadian ritual called for a “parallel” activity in which a peg was driven into the mouth of a small statue of the slave. This act symbolized the slave’s becoming the property of his new owner.

The Code of Hammurapi (sections 280; 282) mentions the slave who has disavowed his master by declaring, “You are not my master.” The master could bring charges and proofs against such a “rebellious” slave to prove that he was his slave. If the master successfully established his claim over the slave, he could cut off the slave’s ear, and the person became an unwilling slave for the rest of his life.

In Israel, the slave who desired to pledge perpetual love/obedience to his master, because he loved his master (or, more likely, because he wanted to preserve a family he established while in servitude; cf. Ex 21:5–6) is highlighted. The master happily “adopts” him forever. The mark on the Israelite’s ear was a sign of mutually desired ownership, a slave-master relationship forever.

15:18 This law concerns native Israelites and recognizes their superiority as God’s chosen people, contrasting the service received with that of a mere “hired hand.” The Code of Hammurapi treats native slaves, male or female, with respect to their native owners, more than for the slaves themselves and their well-being. A slave purchased in a foreign land by someone could be redeemed without cost to their former master(s), if the masters were both natives of the same country. The Biblical text rather says a word on behalf of the native Israelite slave.

16:1 month of Aviv. The OT contains certain month names that the Israelites shared with or borrowed from their Canaanite neighbors. Four are used as such: Aviv, the first month; Ziv, the second month; Ethanim, the seventh month; Bul, the eighth month. Aviv and Ziv have been found in Canaanite or Phoenician sources. In later centuries Israel borrowed Babylonian calendar names: Nisan (1), Sivan (3), Elul (6), Kislev (9), Tebet (10), Shebat (11), Adar (12). The Babylonian Nisannu is equivalent to Hebrew Nisan, which was equal to the older Canaanite Aviv, for the first month.

16:19 Do not pervert justice or show partiality. In Mesopotamia, a major part of the king’s mission was to establish justice and to liberate the oppressed—a high calling. Nevertheless, justice was elusive and almost inaccessible to the lower classes. The ideal of the king remained, even when only the upper classes benefited. Social reforms were put into place in Mesopotamia and Egypt to see that justice was rendered, especially with respect to the weak in society. In Mesopotamia, various legal collections and promulgations (Ur-Nammu, 2064–2046 BC; Lipit-Ishtar, 1875–1864 BC; Eshnunna, nineteenth century BC) were set forth to “establish justice” in the lands. Akkadian anthologies of jurisprudence were compiled by Hammurapi and Eshnunna. However, even in societies with three-tiered structures of persons these efforts tended to protect the less powerful and help the poor and others who were less fortunate.

This socio-theological activity was meant to enable the kings’ servants to serve the gods properly. The kings could issue special proclamations of mercy as needed. In Egypt the king, or pharaoh, likewise maintained maat—order and justice. The vizier, the second-in-command, and his secretary were to see that uprightness was carried out. This theme is carried through into the New Kingdom and beyond (1570–1070 BC). Even during the chaotic intermediate periods the attempt to preserve justice was important. Pharaoh Khety says, “[I did] what people love and gods praise: I gave bread to the hungry, clothes to the naked; I listened to the plea of the widow, I gave a home to the orphan.” In Canaan, the righteous legendary character Danel of Ugarit was described as pursuing justice for all.

17:1 defect or flaw. Neither the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions nor sacrificial instructions at Ugarit describe conditions of a sacrificial animal. Certain texts may imply a strong concern for a high quality of sacrificial animals, unblemished, in religious rituals. Gudea, a king of ancient Lagash (c. 2094–2047 BC), while praising his god Ningirsu, was careful to present only a perfect ox and a perfect he-goat. A Mesopotamian text depicts Anu of Uruk offering “fine, fattened, ritually pure sheep that had eaten barley for two years.” The purity of animals is praised in an imagined world by an Akkadian diviner. Hittite “Instructions to Priests and Temple Officials” likewise insists on a pure animal for sacrifice.

17:5 city gate. Where disputes and legal trials were handled by the elders of a village or city (cf. 21:19). The righteous Danel, a character in Ugaritic epic literature, processed justice and carried out judgment at the city gate. The problems and issues of the town were discussed and justice meted out at the city gate(s), where the elders of that city congregated. Cuneiform documents from Babylonia indicate that these classes of society, as in Israel, dealt with the administration of justice: the elders, the priests, and the king and his officials. See note on Ge 19:1.

17:6 two or three witnesses. Certain Middle Assyrian laws possibly required a minimum of two witnesses (sections A 12, 17, 40), but this is not certain. The law has a plural form for witnesses and does not limit them explicitly to two, and this seems to suggest what we have in this Mosaic text.

17:8 take them to the place the LORD your God will choose. In the second millennium BC, there were locations where cases were examined and judgments rendered, as well as specific places where judgments were enacted. In Egypt, certain persons were entitled “overseer of the law courts.” They served at the “six great houses” and could cite the laws issued by Pharaoh or his close attendant(s). A group called “the thirty” acted as “judges.” Judgment was pronounced at the gates or entrances of temples or palaces. The New Kingdom featured great courts where high-ranking members served and lesser courts functioned under them. The vizier oversaw both town and temple courts. Justice also was meted out at temple gates, palaces, porticos and forecourts.

In the Old Babylonian period, a mayor and elders governed a city and served as court functionaries. Wards were established in the city. The king was the highest court and the authority of final appeal. The palace functioned somewhat as a supreme court building. Similar structures and personnel operated in the Middle Babylonian, Middle Assyrian and Nuzi eras. The Hittites, as well as cities such as Emar, Alalakh and Ugarit, and much of Syria and Canaan, had many of these same features.

In Canaanite city-states, kings acted as judges, as did priests. The elders in Israel and at Ugarit pronounced judgments and took oaths. The elders were especially important in Israel, but also at Alalakh, Ugarit and in texts from El-Amarna. At Alalakh the elders were involved in international cases, as well as in local affairs. In an El-Amarna text, a city elder appeals to the pharaoh of Egypt. In Mesopotamia some elders engaged in areas of specialization and rendered decisions. In Israel, as in Mesopotamia, the temple and tabernacle were places where oaths were taken by various persons, including accusers, the accused, elders, priests and others (see note on Ex 18:22).

17:14 When you . . . say, “Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us.” Israel does ask for this king in 1Sa 8:4–5. Samuel sets before the people the political, military and economic reality they are asking for. The real cost of a king like the kings of the nations is enormous. The state machinery of a monarchy demands crops and personal property, to say nothing of “state enslavement” for cheap labor. Mari, Ugarit, Alalakh and later cities and mini-kingdoms should have made Israel aware of the cost of kingship. In times of war, oppression intensified beyond imagination. The model put forth in vv. 15–20 tries to control major abuses beforehand and to set Israel’s kingship within a Yahwistic covenantal framework that circumscribes its practice and ideology over against the current realpolitik and its abuses.

Models of kingship abound in the literature of the ancient world. In Egypt, the god-king-priest was central and was to imitate, control, guarantee and communicate the order of the cosmos and society, as well as to regulate religious, moral, political and military issues. In Mesopotamia, Assyrian and Babylonian kings ate the food of the gods and were to provide a paragon of rulership and virtue. Prior to human kings, gods had purportedly ruled, but then they had subsequently lowered kingship down to humans at Ur for finite periods of rulership.

17:15 a king the LORD . . . chooses. In the ancient Near East the king was invariably chosen by the chief god(s) of a nation, picked to lead the people and honor the god(s) who had chosen him. For a king to be successful, a legitimate chain of approval, including connections with the chief god and the people, was necessary. If no immediate link or legitimacy existed for the new king, it had to be created. The gods put the right king on the throne—which had to be the case. Hattusili III (1275–1245 BC) was chosen by the goddess Shaushga to be the Great King of the Hittites. Sargon, king of Agade (2296–2240 BC), was anointed and given kingship by Enlil and Anu (sky-god). Hammurapi was chosen by the sun-god Shamash and Marduk, Babylon’s patron god. Likewise, Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian and Persian kings were chosen by the gods. Do not place a foreigner over you. Neither Israel nor Judah ever had a foreign ruler until their respective exiles. Given the way foreign rulers tended to oppress the native populations in the ancient Near East, it was to Israel’s advantage, during the monarchy or during the divided kingdom, not to have had one.

Egypt suffered under the foreign rule of the Hyksos (shepherd-kings or possibly “rulers of foreign lands,” c. 1649–1540 BC). Their rule was oppressive in certain areas. The ancient historian of Egypt, Manetho, described this period: “A blast of god smote us.” The Egyptians finally cast off this foreign element under Pharaoh Ahmose (c. 1552–1527). A foreign ruler would most likely be an enemy of the god of the conquered land, as when the Elamites conquered Babylon, carried the god Enlil to Elam, and installed a ruler who was not of Babylonian descent. Because of Israel’s theocracy, it was imperative that her king be of Davidic descent (at least in Judah).

In Mesopotamia, Babylonian kings gave way to the Kassites, a people from the Zagros Mountains area, east of the Tigris River. They held power for about 400 years (c. 1530–1155 BC). Although they were relatively successful rulers, the Babylonians removed them and seized their own destiny. Both the Kassites and the Hyksos became acculturated to some extent in the countries they conquered. But they remained a foreign element, separate from the peoples they had subjugated. They powerfully influenced the culture and religion of those over whom they ruled. While they adopted the gods of the nations they controlled, they also changed and added to their pantheons. Such an action was strictly forbidden in Israel.

Assyrians ruled Babylon several times by placing an Assyrian on the throne, thus creating practically a dual monarchy. This empire greatly influenced the Babylonians, since the position of king included the charge to represent the people and the gods over whom he ruled.

17:17 not take many wives. In the present verse the prohibition was political and intended to keep Israel from striking covenants with foreign nations. This injunction forbids marriages for political purposes, for they might bring devastating religious consequences and were a means of filling the king’s harem. The history of the ancient Near East is replete with these arrangements between nations and royal dynasties. A few sample illustrations can be offered, but the point could be multiplied many times over. Each foreign wife represented a connection to a foreign god as well as to a pagan political entity. The king’s wives, in effect, made up a royal harem that had its own living quarters in or near the royal palace. Amenhotep III of Egypt (1403–1364 BC) offered to marry the daughter of Arzawa in a shrewd political move against the Hittites. He would recognize the gods of King Tarhumdaradu of Arzawa, and that king would reciprocate, thus sealing a religious-political-military coup by a treaty cemented through marriage. Amenhotep also married the daughter of Tushratta, Taduhepa of Mitanni. Similarly, the Great King of Hatti strengthened his relationship with his subjects by giving the subject rulers a female relation of the Great King as wife. A Mitannian princess married Thutmose IV to demonstrate both friendship and agreement between the two kings. Babylon and Assyria sealed their rapprochement by way of the daughter of Ashur-Uballit given to the son of Burnaburiash II. Elam and Babylon, Assyria and smaller states, secured their treaties and friendships with dynastic marriages. large amounts of silver and gold. The kings of the ancient Near East prided themselves in the accumulation of wealth. Solomon’s cache was actually modest compared to the claimed wealth of other kings in Egypt or the Midas of legendary fame. Solomon’s yearly 25 tons (23 metric tons) of gold (666 talents, 1Ki 10:14) was pocket change compared to the wealth of Pharaoh Osorkon I, who presented 383 tons (347 metric tons) of gold as offerings to the gods and temples of Egypt. Persian wealth of over 1,000 tons (900 metric tons) of gold was taken by Alexander the Great out of Susa alone.

17:18 write for himself on a scroll. Some kings in the ancient Near East could write, and writing was highly developed in Alalakh, Emar and Ugarit. Much further back, Shulgi (2094–2047 BC), king during the Third Dynasty of Ur, claimed to be a superb writer of tablets and boasted that he had attended “the tablet-house” for training. Kings received praise in ancient Near Eastern texts for their skill in writing.

17:19 read it all the days of his life. In the ancient Near East, instructions for future kings or leaders were recorded in various works of wisdom literature. In Egypt, Ptahhotep instructed his son about how to be a successful vizier over Egypt. Pharaoh Amenemhet I (c. 1960 BC), the first pharaoh of the Twelfth Dynasty, left written instructions for his son and successor to read and study. More words of instruction for a successor come from a pharaoh of the Twenty-Second Dynasty. Among other things he enjoins the future king to “advance the great men, so that they may carry out thy laws,” and further to “copy thy fathers and thy ancestors.” According to ancient Sumerian wisdom, the king who implemented justice in his land and faithfully observed the worship of his gods would enjoy long life.

17:20 not . . . turn from the law. In Mesopotamia, the king was not technically “above the law,” but there was no means to bring him to justice; he was accountable only to the gods. This may have also been true in Israel, though the prophets, as spokesmen for the Lord, could hold the king accountable.

18:10 sorcery. The OT refers to a variety of practices that can all be placed under the rubric of divination and incantation, including activities such as hexing and necromancy (see also v. 11). It is difficult to determine the precise nature of these activities. Some might be included in what is sometimes referred to as “magic,” but that realm of activity cannot easily be distinguished from the realm of “religion” in the ancient world. Activities included identifying future events through dreams, consultation with the dead, and probably the observation and interpretation of physical phenomena (e.g., stars, animal behavior). The activity of a sorceress likely involved the casting of spells or curses (see note on v. 11).

18:11 casts spells. The use of curses in general was not forbidden in ancient Israel. Joshua issued a curse on anyone who might try to rebuild the city of Jericho (Jos 6:26). Nu 5:16–28 imposes potential curses on a woman suspected of adultery. Even Yahweh himself is spoken of as bringing curses on the Israelites if they are disobedient (Dt 28:15–68). In ancient Israel, some curses were legitimate; others were not.

This was also the case in other ancient Near Eastern societies. The clearest evidence comes from Mesopotamia, where different terms were used for legitimate and illegitimate practitioners. Some practices that are counted among divination practices were legitimate. As high priest, Aaron carried special paraphernalia (the Urim and Thummim, see the article “Urim and Thummim”), which were the “means of making decisions for the Israelites” (Ex 28:30) and which, presumably, gave him access to special communications from Yahweh. The casting of lots, another activity whose details are rather obscure, was also practiced. Such activities were condoned, encouraged and even commanded (e.g., Lev 16:8). Moses performed wonders with what mere observers might take for a magical staff (Ex 7–11).

18:22 If God, who hates deception, was the source of prophecy, then prophecy had to be true and sound (with rare exceptions in particular circumstances, cf. Eze 14:9). In Mari, this principle was recognized; prophecies were “tested” to evaluate their validity by getting another opinion. Royal written records were kept about prophecies in order to check their fulfillment or nonfulfillment. This practice was followed in Nineveh as well. In this way prophecies could be tested over a long period of time if necessary.

False prophecy often confirmed a shrewd political maneuver. In Egypt, Amenemhet I (1990–1960 BC), founder of the Egyptian Twelfth Dynasty, was supported by a vaticana ex eventu (“prophecy after the event”), the prophecy of Neferti. This prophecy was given an artificial setting in the time of Snefru, Fourth Dynasty (2600 BC); it predicted Amenemhet I as a redeemer figure for the current era. Similarly, false prophecy is found in “Tales of the Magicians.”

19:6 the avenger of blood. Because of the kin-based social structure of Israel, the relative designated as the “avenger of blood” (goel haddam) of a slain person was authorized to avenge/reclaim the blood of his relative. To control this volatile situation, Israel set up a unique institution in the ancient Near East: cities of refuge. These cities provided protection for the person who had accidentally slain another person.

Cities of refuge were not paralleled in Babylon or Assyria at the familial level on account of various social, political, religious and economic factors. The Sefire Treaty (3.9–14) calls for the assassination of a ruler or any relative to be avenged by a treaty partner. The ruler would avenge a slain fellow ruler, a grandson would avenge a slain grandson of the ruler, and so on. Surprisingly, the “slayer” or guilty party to be slain could be a city as well as an individual.

The Babylonian king Burnaburiash (fourteenth century BC) demanded that the Egyptian pharaoh Amenhotep IV apprehend and slay certain murderers who had killed Babylonians in Egypt on business. Outside of Israel, a “lord of blood” (bel dame), referring to both the slayer and the representative from the family of the slain person, seems to have operated among the royal families. In a proclamation the Hittite king Telipinu, in order to ensure proper dynastic succession, declares that the “lord of the blood” would determine whether any guilty person would live or die, except that a person who had slain a king would die without recourse.

In the laws of Mesopotamia, the formal jurisdiction of the state dealt with homicide, and blood feuds and the families of both the slain and the slayer were involved. Thus, cities of refuge were not needed. In this milieu, Biblical and Mesopotamian law (and the rest of the ancient Near East) differed greatly. In Mesopotamia there were no “blood avengers,” for state institutions, including the king or other judges, remedied certain homicide cases. Assyria permitted a role for both the family of the slayer and the victim.

19:11 lies in wait, assaults and kills. Killing a person with prior intent defined murder, as reflected in the Mesopotamian laws of Ur-Nammu and in some Hittite laws. In the Hittite laws, there is an assumption of intent to kill a person even though it is during a quarrel. There is a clear concern for intent here. In the Old Babylonian period, premeditated killing was punished by death. Regarding Israelite law, in the case of premeditation the guilty person could not find asylum by fleeing to a city of refuge like the person who had committed manslaughter, a crime committed without prior intent (see note on Nu 35:22–28).

19:14 boundary stone. Stones often marked boundaries and they were not to be moved under threat of heavy penalties. The movement of a boundary marker was worthy of a curse (27:17). The wisdom saying in chapter 6 of the Egyptian work of Amenemope, who determined the boundaries of the land, forbade carrying off landmarks of arable land or encroachment. Some boundary stones (called kudurrus) in the ancient Near East bore inscriptions that appealed to divine sanction and divine protection for the owner’s rights. The first such stones are found after the time of Hammurapi (c. 1600 BC). They appear in the eleventh and tenth centuries BC in Babylon. Some features of these stones reflect Israel’s covenantal forms/content.

Some Hittite laws of the Old Kingdom (1650–1500 BC) concern boundaries and property rights (e.g., Law 168). They assert that the one who takes even a furrow of another’s field will, as a penalty, pay a fine and lose a section of his own field to the owner of the field he has violated. In Law 169 a violator confesses his guilt and presents an offering to the sun-god or storm-god. A Babylonian inscription (c. 893 BC), similar to a kudurru stone, engraved on a hard black stone, records a royal grant of land and income to a priest.

19:16 a malicious witness. See note on Ex 20:16.

19:21 eye for eye. See note on Lev 24:20.

20:1 When you go to war against your enemies. In the ancient Near East war at the command of a god was common. Divination priests sought the signs that indicated whether a nation should go to war, using various methods (e.g., divination, omens, oracles, dreams and magic). A frequently sought formulaic answer was “god X delivers the enemy into the hand of king X.” The king in the ancient Near East performed as leader of the army and often as priest. Scribes were in the vanguard of ancient Near Eastern armies to render encouragement to the troops, to record battles and to serve as experts on the technicalities of military procedure.

The god was the divine warrior (cf. Ex 15:3), and war was part of the divine plan, especially according to Egyptian thinking. A pharaoh engaged in war by divine commission only. Divine warriors in Mesopotamia and Hatti included the gods Ninurta or Teshub, respectively. Among Hittites and Assyrians war could be a lawsuit with the god serving as judge-warrior. The gods in the ancient Near Eastern worldviews were invoked to participate in warfare and even the battle itself in Egypt and Mesopotamia from the earliest ages (c. 2500 BC). The Hittite king won battles only with the aid of his divine warrior god.

The conquered enemy became the property of the god, the divine warrior. Among the Hittites, as in Israel, they were at times subject to herem (“total destruction”). Victory was always attributed to the divine warrior gods, never to the king alone, and the enemies engaged were ultimately the enemies of the gods. Divine wars and victories were then remembered in cult rituals and were recorded in the annals of the state.

20:5–9 Military officers also announced acceptable conditions under which some soldiers could refrain from going to battle. Gilgamesh, the great Sumerian hero, finds 50 men to help him accomplish his journey to the distant land of the living. He allows only single males to accompany him; those who have a house or a mother can go to their house or mother. He requests that only soldiers stout of heart accompany him against Kish.

As many as seven ranks of officers were used in the Hittite army, and the highest level of officers was even allowed to function in place of the king to direct military operations. Officers also kept rituals that bolstered the morale of the Hittite army when needed.

20:14 take these as plunder. Warfare was endemic in the ancient Near East. Hittite military procedures illustrate this devastating horror. In general, a conquered city was looted and torched. The leaders may have been spared, but usually they were executed while only the common people were more likely to be spared. Sometimes the Hittites respected the deities of a conquered city to the extent that they were moved to spare the city. Normally various valuables, herds and people were collected and used to augment the wealth and strength of the conquering nations. Some of these persons ended up as slaves, some as new faithful subjects of their conquerors. Others ended up serving on the estates of the deities of the Hittites.

The site of the destroyed city might be sown with fennel weeds to erase its previous existence. Certain conquered cities could be offered treaties that would be confirmed by oracles. Tribute was imposed on defeated peoples and their cities. This basic scenario played out repeatedly in Egypt, Syria, Canaan and Mesopotamia.

20:19 do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them. The flora in the land of Canaan was vital to the survival of its inhabitants. Over 15 species of trees are mentioned in Scripture. Nearly every part of a date palm tree (34:3) was used in daily life. Pomegranate trees, fig trees, grape vines, sycamore trees, almond trees and pistachio trees were crucial to life.

The Lord did not instruct Israel to follow a scorched-earth policy. Egypt’s warrior king, Thutmose III (1490–1436 BC) often pursued just such a policy, cutting down all kinds of trees in his Asiatic campaigns. In the Barkal Stele he records that he cut down all the fruitful groves: “I took away the very sources of life, for I cut down their grain and felled all their groves and their pleasant trees.” He used the wood to construct siege equipment. It is clear that in the first millennium BC the Assyrians cut down fruit trees. The Assyrian Shalmaneser attacked Hazael of Damascus and in his annals records: “I cut down his orchards.”

21:1 If someone is found slain. In Old Kingdom Hittite laws, if a dead person was found in a field in the open country, designated persons (village elders, councils, civil officials, priests, local judges, etc.) measured out a radius of three miles (4.8 kilometers) in every direction. The villages that fell within that radius were forced to present payments to the heir of the dead person. If no village lay within that area the heir forfeited his claim. In the case of robbery, the city and governors in whose territory the robbery took place made up the lost property or paid one mina to the relative(s) of a person who was killed. Blood spilled on the ground at Ugarit threatened the fertility of the ground. In the Ugaritic Aqhat Legend, Danel locates the place where his son was murdered and curses the unknown murderer and the cities near the crime. At Nuzi, likewise, the nearest town was held responsible for any unsolved crime.

21:4 break the heifer’s neck. The purpose of killing the heifer was to atone for the death of the victim beside a “flowing stream” and at an area of land not cultivated. This served to eliminate the bloodguilt created by the crime from the community, while killing a cow reenacted the murder as well. Both Hittite and Mesopotamian texts seem to suggest likewise. These rites “remove pollution from the community or inhabited area to an area uninhabited or separate from the community’s concerns.”

Hittite rituals disposed of impurity in seas, rivers, enemy lands, mountains and open country (e.g., the Ambazzi ritual and the Tunnavi ritual) (see the article “Azazel”). A female ritualistic priestess would throw combs used to cull evil from a patient into a river nearby. In Mesopotamia, the Akitu festival and the Shurpu rituals contained rites that removed evil from a person by taking it into open country. A priest decapitated a ram and eventually threw its carcass in the river. The same was done with the ram’s head. Before this slaughter the room was wiped with the carcass of the dead ram and incantations of exorcism were carried out.

21:7 Our hands did not shed this blood. A similar exculpatory oath is found in Ugarit, concerning a woman whose husband was murdered in the city of Arzigana. The local leaders must declare, “We did not kill the husband of the woman . . . in the city. We do not know who killed him.” See the article “Divine Verdict.”

21:10–14 The Mari texts also instruct that clothing and jobs be provided to captive women. The rights given to the former captive are similar to those of Israelite women and demonstrate that there was no reduction of her status if divorce were to occur. Similar concerns are reflected in Assyrian laws, in which married former captives are required to dress like ordinary Assyrian women of that social class.

21:16 rights of the firstborn. See the article “Inheritance Rights and Birthrights.”

21:18 a stubborn and rebellious son. In the West Semitic Hadad inscription from near Zinjirli, death by stoning was administered to persons, male or female, who had committed an assassination—an understandable penalty for such a crime. Rebellion against established authority was the major issue, whether against the royal house of King Panammuwa I of Sam’al or the parental line of authority set up by God in Israel. The Code of Hammurapi discusses a son who commits a grave offense against his parents and sets forth the penalty as disinheritance. Penalties elsewhere involved enslavement, mutilation or disinheritance.

The parallel law in Ex 21:15 requires the death penalty for a son who strikes his parents, an act that is probably included in the rebelliousness in mind in this passage. In Israel rebellion against one’s parents was equivalent to rebellion against the Lord. In the ancient Near East it was basically a societal issue, but still was a grave offense.

21:23 you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. The burial of the dead was important for several reasons in the ancient Near East, and improper burial was a catastrophe as far back as ancient Sumer. Improper burial could lead to baneful consequences involving ghosts, demons and other evils. The Assyrians used the practice of hanging an enemy on a pole in a time of war instead of burying them so that birds would eat the corpse. The dead bodies of the enemy were also mutilated, fed to animals, and finally removed. The threat of not being buried continued into the Persian era and even later.

In Babylonian anthropological thinking the physical body provided the habitation for the dead person’s ghost (etemmu) to be received by the community of the dead. The body was to be buried, because burial of the body maintained the identity of the deceased. Rites that would feed and renew the memory of them then provided for the dead. Destroying a person’s corpse deprived the person of a future identity among the dead. Burning, mutilation or the consumption of a body by animals also destroyed the person’s identity and future life. Those whose bodies were not buried had a gruesome chaotic existence to face.

At the city of Emar the dead were referred to as divine beings or “gods.” According to certain Sumerian texts the dead should be buried within “the shade of one’s house,” so that they would enjoy their new lives among the dead in this vicinity. Within this religious and cognitive kind of thinking it is easy to see why in Israel a dead body desecrated the Lord’s land, both literally and symbolically.

22:1–4 Rather than permitting the Israelites to envy the property of their neighbors, the Lord instructs them to be their brother’s helpers and keepers. Israelite houses had a stable area on the ground floor where animals were kept and cared for. A lost animal was to be treated as one’s own. The Hittite laws of the Old Kingdom (c. 1650–1500 BC) instructed a person who found a stray animal (ox, horse, mule) to take it to the gate of the king or to the elders of the nearest town. The finder could use the animal until the owner happened to locate it with the finder. The finder would be considered a thief if he were not to then turn the animal over to the owner. The Code of Hammurapi has near parallels, but they are in a different context and the issue is more clearly theft by the finder.

22:5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing. In Mesopotamian literature the goddess Ishtar is androgynous (both psychologically and physiologically), marginal and ambiguous. She shatters the boundaries of male/female, war/love, divine/human and more. Known also as Inanna-Ishtar, she breaks all gender and socioeconomic distinctions. Some scholars suggest that Israel’s reaction to this type of description/perversion was to prohibit its occurrence in Israel. Hittite texts also report the use of gender-related clothes and objects (mirror and distaff for women, weapons for men) in magical rituals used to influence one’s sexual status or to alter the gender status of an adversary. Most instances that mention cross-dressing are religious or legal in nature.

Hittite texts illuminate the larger issue of gender confusion as abnormal and depict it as a shaming technique in certain circumstances. In the Ritual and Prayer to Ishtar of Nineveh, males captured by the Hittites have their manhood shamefully insulted and removed by being dressed to look like women. A scarf worn by women was placed on them, and they were forced to do women’s work with a distaff and spindle in their hand. This was an act of shaming punished soldiers who broke an oath of allegiance to the king.

22:8 make a parapet around your roof. An Israelite is to fulfill his responsibilities toward the safety of others when they are on his property. Law 58 of the Laws of Eshnunna indicates that when a wall collapses and causes the death of a free man, it is a capital offense and must be brought before the highest legal authority in the land, the king. One scholar notes that a specific punishment is not set here in Deuteronomy, but he suggests that “the guilt of bloodshed” may refer to polluting the building or making it unclean, or to actually bringing bloodguilt on the household. The penalty for the latter could be execution. In Hittite Law 6, a general case refers to a fine of a portion of the owner’s property.

22:9–11 See note on Lev 19:19.

22:12 tassels. See note on Nu 15:38.

22:13–19 A man could take a wife and subsequently divorce her, but not without being challenged in many instances. He could not slander or impugn her. A Babylonian dossier from the reign of Samsu-iluna (c. 1749–1712 BC) touches on a provision in the Code of Hammurapi involving a charge of the Ama-sukkal against his bride of not being a virgin when he married her. His charge was not sustained. Charges against a virgin in the laws of Lipit-Ishtar also failed. It was of great value to a woman, her father and her family for her to be a virgin at marriage. Cases at Mari and Nippur indicate that a betrothed woman who was penetrated before marriage had broken her vow and could be divorced.

22:21 the men of her town shall stone her to death. This penalty is not paralleled in the ancient Near East if the sexual activity was understood to have taken place before a betrothal. This legal equality between a married woman and a betrothed woman is mirrored in various laws of the ancient Near East. In the Laws of Eshnunna (Law 26), a man who rapes a betrothed daughter is executed. The woman’s death by stoning demonstrated that this was not a “sacrificial” act.

22:22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife. The laws in vv. 22–29 treat in three scenarios sexual sins that can dissolve a marriage or betrothal covenant or pledge. Adultery was termed the “great sin” in various documents in Egypt and Ugarit and in the ancient Near East in general. The Code of Hammurapi (Law 129) parallels v. 22 and assigns the penalty for both of the persons involved; they were to be bound and drowned. The husband could show mercy to his wife; if so, then the guilty man could be set free also.

Hittite laws and Middle Assyrian laws recognize these same conditions. In Hittite laws the manner of execution is not given. In Egypt, adultery was prominent in legal cases, but there was evidently no officially enforced death penalty. Adulterers were rebuked or possibly beaten, sometimes in public. A betrayed husband was urged to get a new wife. In a famous list of sins confessed by persons before they died, they asserted that they did not commit adultery.

Extramarital activities by the husband were not punishable offenses in ancient Mesopotamia, but an adulterous wife was put to death. Drowning and impalement were vicious punishments, but forgiveness from the husband was possible, and both the offending wife and her paramour could go free. In the case of adultery by the wife, the sins and accusations set forth in the case invariably involved more than adultery: sorcery, deceit and slander were included in the charges. There is little from Ugarit on adultery. In Israel it appears that adultery was considered a religious crime against the Lord. See the article “Penalties for Sexual Offenses in Biblical and Mesopotamian Law.”

22:23–24 The circumstances of rape/adultery helped determine blame and penalty in each case in Israel and in the ancient Near East (see the article “Penalties for Sexual Offenses in Biblical and Mesopotamian Law”). This text discusses a betrothed virgin (fiancée). Similar conditions for a married woman are noted in Hittite laws, where the woman is culpable if the rape is in a populated area and she does not cry out. The Code of Hammurapi (Law 150) describes a situation in which a man clearly overpowers and holds down a betrothed virgin who is still living in her father’s household. The rapist is executed; she is set free and is not considered guilty.

In the Laws of Ur-Nammu, the “violation” of a betrothed “virgin wife” resulted in the criminal’s execution. According to Middle Assyrian Law 55 (fifteenth century BC), the father could have the rapist’s wife ravished (see note on Ex 21:31) and could even take her to himself as an additional wife. But a father could allow his daughter to marry the one who raped her. The rapist must pay the father a dowry of the price of a virgin, and he could not divorce her. Alternatively, the father could keep the money and marry his daughter to whomever he desired (see note on Ex 22:16). According to the Laws of Eshnunna (c. 1766 BC), in the case of a man who brings a bride’s offering to obtain a man’s daughter without her parents’ consent, then abducts and ravishes her, the one who abducted her is executed.

22:25–27 In this case a betrothed woman has clearly been subjected to forced rape. The man, as in other ancient Near Eastern law codes, is to be executed. The Code of Hammurapi prescribed death for the man alone. A woman seized and raped in the mountains of the land of Hatti was likewise allowed to go free, and her attacker was executed.

22:29 fifty shekels. The amount of money paid equaled the mohar (“bride-price”). In the Sumerian Laws of Ur-Nammu, if a man divorced his wife of first rank, he had to pay a penalty of 60 shekels. Silver was weighed out since coins were not minted. In this case the daughter was not yet pledged in marriage (v. 28), but this law protected her and any possible child from being abandoned without support. In some school-text laws it is recorded that a man who had deflowered a virgin daughter in the city, whose parents were free citizens and who did not know that she was “in the street,” could be forced to marry their daughter whom he had raped.

22:30 A man is not to marry his father’s wife. This prohibition is common among the sexual taboos of the ancient Near East. The Code of Hammurapi prohibits this relationship, as do the Hittite laws. In Babylonian documents the penalty is the death of both persons by burning. Such deviant acts involving a person’s mother or daughter, or a father with his own son, were capital crimes. In case a father was already dead, a son cohabiting with his stepmother was disinherited only.

23:1 emasculated. In certain cases of adultery or sodomy in the Middle Assyrian era, the guilty parties were turned into eunuchs by having their testicles crushed. Hittite texts attest to the presence of eunuchs in the “house of the king,” indicating that eunuchs played a major role in the royal structure of the ancient Near East and in Hittite administration, but they did not serve in the military. Anuwanze, a eunuch, served as supervisor over the scribes who wrote/copied a Hittite New Kingdom text concerning the founding of a new temple. In contrast, the presence of eunuchs as elite military troops at Mari is well attested.

In Assyria, eunuchs were disqualified from serving as priests, but they served in lower capacities. They could serve as a treasurer of the temple or (rarely) as a temple administrator. The Chief Eunuch was a high-ranking military leader, and eunuchs held other high military positions. Eunuchs were normally made, not born. At an early age a child was castrated or their testicles were crushed. Captives from war or persons given in tribute were the main source for eunuchs. The mother goddess Ninmah created some from birth, according to ancient Sumerian tradition. In Israel, emasculation disqualified a priest from serving and from offering animals for sacrifice (Lev 21:20–21; 22:24).

23:4 Balaam. See the article “Balaam.”

23:9 keep away from everything impure. This prohibition included physical cleanliness that crossed over into religious spheres according to Israel’s worldview.

23:12–14 To let human excrement remain uncovered was an “abomination” and “indecent” in the Lord’s eyes.

23:13 something to dig with. The tool used to cover human excrement is referred to in Hebrew as a yated—a dibble (similar to a gardener’s pointed tool for planting seeds) or trowel.

23:15–25 This series of miscellaneous laws reveals both contrast and positive comparison between Israel’s laws and those of her ancient Near Eastern neighbors. Verses 15–17 show that Israel, in contrast to the rest of the ancient Near East, was to provide refuge for a fugitive slave. Israel’s fugitive status in Egypt and in Canaan sensitized her toward such humane issues. Harboring a runaway slave was a capital offense in Babylonia (the Code of Hammurapi, Laws 15–20).

Treaties between Hatti and Egypt and Hatti and Amurru mandate the mutual extradition of slaves. If the policy was not followed, the treaty was considered broken. In treaties from Alalakh, fugitive slaves had to be returned to the land of their owner(s). If the elders of a city or country where slaves were found misrepresented the situation and harbored a fugitive slave, their hands were cut off and a fine of 6,000 shekels exacted.

23:17–18 If religious prostitution did function in Israel, this legislation would have cut off a significant source of income for the temple in Israel; the activity was possibly approved in some ancient Near Eastern cultic activities in Mesopotamia. Some scholars conclude that OT evidence and ancient Near Eastern evidence does not establish the long-held assumption of religious prostitution. Religious prostitution indicates an activity fostered officially by the religious and state authorities in the sanctuary or its vicinity in order to support the sanctuary itself and to carry out effective religious rituals and ceremonies.

Prostitution in general was legally and socially tolerated in the ancient Near East, although it was ridiculed. Its religious function was prohibited in Israel. However, internal textual Biblical arguments do suggest that those referred to in Hebrew as the qedeshim in Israel did perform sexual rituals (here; Ge 38; see note on Ge 38:15) The holy persons, male or female (Hebrew qadesh, qedeshah), while considered holy outside Israel, were not recognized in official Yahwism. Although similar “holy” personnel (qdshm) were active in Babylonian religion in some nonofficial way, men scoffed at them as unsuitable to marry. These functionaries were outlawed in Israel, whatever their real roles were.

23:19–20 Interest was charged regularly and widely in the ancient Near East. The Laws of Eshnunna and the Code of Hammurapi were the first law codes to provide for interest. Rates of interest were sometimes expressed; the rate charged was normally 20 percent for most loans, but 33 1/3 percent for grain crops. However, “excessive” interest was frowned upon. Israel condemned taking interest from a fellow Israelite by virtue of the ideal of covenantal compassion.

Loans at high rates of interest were extended throughout the ancient Near East, and temples were often the most-used creditors. In some cases interest could be forfeited, such as if a catastrophe struck the debtor. Since the purpose of a loan was to help the poor or someone in a crisis situation, it was unjust to exact interest from the debtor. The excessive rates charged reached 25 percent or more a year, with additional demands tacked on. Certain Assyrian Aramaic inscriptions (c. 650 BC) had this provision.

Especially in a time of need or crisis among the people of Israel, interest was not to be placed on fellow Israelites, but Israelites could charge interest to foreigners. In Ugarit, class-conscious free men did not charge each other interest. Persons could stand in pledge and serve as laborers in place of interest. Surety for debt was firmly exacted.

24:1–4 According to the OT, a husband could divorce his wife simply for personal reasons or for economic purposes. The husband could declare, “You are not my wife,” in an appropriate legal setting. By contrast, it was difficult for the wife to divorce her husband or leave a marriage. A wife does not appear to have had a right to divorce her husband in Mesopotamia.

All of the grandiose rituals performed during a marriage ceremony were reversed in the divorce proceedings. The husband cut the hem of his wife’s clothing, thus separating them and making it possible for them to remarry. The wife could lose her dowry in this process, depending on the reason for the divorce. In the case of a blameless wife, her dowry might be returned. A husband could divorce his wife if she could not bear children or simply because he wanted to end a marriage relationship and start a new one. In serious cases where the wife had committed an egregious offense, she could be stripped naked and forced out of her house. Divorce became more complex once children were born. The husband became liable to stiffer penalties to help curb divorce and to protect the wife and offspring economically.

Hittite law permitted a husband to divorce a wife and sell her for 12 shekels of silver. Because part of the text is missing, what she may have done to merit her husband’s action is not clear. In a Late Bronze Age text from Alalakh, a prenuptial agreement states reasons for a divorce: If the wife does not bear children within seven years, a second wife may be taken, and abuse by a husband may be grounds for divorce. The first husband is not permitted to remarry his ex-wife. This may be a restriction placed on a practice that had been taking place in Israel.

What God sees as “detestable” (v. 4; cf. 23:18) in the actions of the husband is that the husband’s actions would come perilously close to mirroring adultery, according to many commentators and legal experts. The act of taking a wife back under these circumstances unfairly humiliates the woman who declared her deficiency publicly (Hebrew huttammaah, “she has been made to declare herself unclean,” NIV “defiled”). A similar concept of what God finds “detestable” is inscribed in coffin texts of Tabneh, priest of Astoreth and king of Sidon. The ritual abominations extended to sexual relations.

24:5 recently married. The joy of a new marriage is respected and adulated. The possibility of producing a child and heir in the family was highest during the first year of marriage in the cultural milieu and age spans of the ancient Near East. Note that a military exemption could be suspended in unusual circumstances. This custom was observed at Ugarit, but it was waived in the case of war undertaken on behalf of King Keret in the Ugaritic epic texts.

24:6 pair of millstones. Necessary for a household to produce groats, meal or flour for cooking and food preparation, usually operated by women, slaves or servants (cf. Ex 11:5 [“handmill”]; Isa 47:2). Two stones were used, so that to take one as a pledge or guarantee removed a family’s means of sustenance and livelihood. This insensitive seizing of property was an exception to what the creditor could normally do with property of a debtor.

Millstones were used in homes, and the officials of the state in milling houses used large millstones. The millhouse existed as a part of Mesopotamian culture. Two stone slabs were used, one concave lower stone and an upper stone shaped like a loaf. Grain was placed on the lower stone to be ground. The upper stone was moved up and down by hand on the lower stone to grind the grain between them. Sixteen grindstones have been found in place at Ebla.

24:7 kidnapping. A form of theft and murder, because removing a person from the community cut off a fellow Israelite from the community of God’s people and from the promised covenant land itself. Kidnapping dealt with persons as if they were merchandise. The Code of Hammurapi (Law 14) says that the person who kidnapped a young man must be executed. In the Old Babylonian period, kidnapping slaves and free persons for enslavement was common.

In Hittite laws, kidnapping did not carry a death penalty. Depending on who the abductor was and who was abducted, the abductor was subject to various penalties: The abductor’s house could be taken, six persons in place of the abducted person as restitution might be exacted, 12 shekels of silver paid, or the abducted male slave returned with no further penalty. The purpose of kidnapping in Deuteronomy was probably to enslave the victim or to reap a monetary gain. In ancient law codes, even a betrothed woman could be kidnapped and then married to her kidnapper, who then paid to the previously promised groom any expenses he had paid out before the kidnapping (e.g., Hittite Law 28). Outright “eloping” occurred with subsequent marriage (Law 37); however, this act was illegal.

24:8 defiling skin diseases. See note on Ex 4:6.

24:13 Return their cloak. The confiscation of a worker’s garment in texts from Ugarit is reported. The action was hotly contested by the owner of the clothing, a farm worker. A duly registered complaint written in Biblical Hebrew (ninth century BC) on an ostracon records a field hand’s vehement charge that his garment had been unjustly seized. Allegedly it was taken because he failed to meet his expected quota of grain. He sought reparation through the military governor, Hoshaiah, attempting to have his garment returned. A similar incident involving the return of a cloak is reported in some Syrian Semitic texts. Keeping these garments humiliated the owner.

24:14 Do not take advantage of a hired worker. The Code of Hammurapi records the pay of a hired man who received a daily ration of six barleycorns of silver (0.01 ounces or 0.279 grams) for the first five months of the year and five barleycorns of silver (0.008 ounces or 0.233 grams) for the remaining seven months of the year. In Mesopotamia a shekel was equal to about 0.3 ounces (8.4 grams). One shekel equaled 180 barleycorns (one barleycorn = 1/180 of a shekel). A worker received, therefore, less than 0.93 of a shekel per month for five months (0.01 ounces [0.279 grams] x 28 days) and only 0.75 of a shekel per month for seven months (0.008 ounces [0.233 grams] x 28 days)—totaling nine shekels of silver per year.

Weighing procedures in ancient Mesopotamia allowed for a margin of error of 3 percent or more, and the absolute value of an ancient shekel is not certain (see the article “Weights and Measures”). Skilled craftsmen were hired at a rate of four to five barleycorns of silver per day, but they probably worked fewer hours. The hired man depended on his daily wage to survive and to care for his family.

24:16 Parents are not to be put to death for their children. But see note on Ex 21:31.

24:17 foreigner . . . fatherless . . . widow. This powerful injunction of social justice is widespread and found in documents at Ugarit, in Akkadian texts and in texts from Nuzi. A common social and legal concern for persons in these situations was part of the ancient Near Eastern culture, but nowhere as it was in Israel. Four classes of persons outside the normal safety nets of these ancient societies are highlighted: widow, orphan, foreigner (Hebrew ger) and the poor. All four groups were vulnerable and subject to abuse. foreigner. Not mentioned along with the other three in the law collections outside Israel. The Moabite Stone records the death of “grn” and “grt,” male and female sojourners, among those whom Mesha, the king of Moab, killed in his war against Israel. Israel had experienced firsthand what it was to be a foreigner in a strange land and culture (v. 18), and thus the foreigner was specifically written into her laws. Showing hospitality to the stranger was far from providing for them in the laws of a nation. These foreigners were residents in various countries but did not enjoy citizenship; hence, they were denied significant legal rights. Israel’s God heard their cry. fatherless . . . widow. See notes on 10:18; 15:7.

25:2–3 flogged in his presence . . . not impose more than forty lashes. This law seeks to protect a guilty party from being destroyed emotionally and spiritually by excessive humiliation. The Code of Hammurapi (Law 202) limits the number of lashes to 60 for insubordination. Note also the NT, where 39 lashes were prescribed to ensure that the law not be broken (2Co 11:24). The “lashes” were likely administered with something like a rod (cf. Ex 21:20). In the Code of Hammurapi an oxtail whip was used in public to administer punishment. In the Middle Assyrian Laws flogging normally entailed from 30 to 100 lashes. The most often prescribed penalty was 50 lashes, though the total range was from 5 to 100.

Tablet A (57) of the Middle Assyrian Laws instructs the punishment to be done “in the presence of the judges.” This provision guaranteed that the penalty was administered and was delivered as prescribed. According to the status of the guilty person and what the offense had been, an appropriate penalty was framed. A harlot who was spotted in the street wearing a veil to disguise herself was flogged 50 times with staves or rods, and hot pitch was poured on her head.

25:4 In Israel work animals were to be treated with compassion (cf. 5:14, 21). The ox was an immensely important piece of property and an invaluable work animal throughout the ancient Near East (cf. Ex 21:28–32, 35–36). It was the primary work animal in agriculture. Oxen pulled sledges that had been outfitted with studs of flint or basalt embedded into wooden boards. They pulled these across the grain to loosen the grain from the stalks. The lack of muzzle allowed the animal to eat a portion of the grain as its “wage.” An Egyptian relief pictures an ox that has stopped to eat grain, and it has no muzzle on its snout.

25:5 duty of a brother-in-law. See note on Ge 38:8; see also the article “Levirate Marriage.”

25:10 The Family of the Unsandaled. Sandals of various types were worn in Canaan, Syria and Mesopotamia from the most ancient times. They could be used in a symbolic way at Nuzi, perhaps as token payments. At Nuzi the seller removed his foot from a piece of land he was selling and placed the buyer’s foot in its place. Then shoes were transferred. A pair of shoes and garments are presented as a fictitious payment to “accommodate” some unusual transactions. The brother-in-law (here) who refused to honor his dead brother by preserving his seed and inheritance brought shame on himself and his house. Honor, shame and covenant relations were central concerns in the ancient Near East.

25:11–12 The harshness of the penalty in this law is surprising. In the Middle Assyrian Laws, if in a fight between two men, a woman intervenes and crushes a testicle of one of them, one of her fingers is cut off. If the man suffers the damage or loss of the other testicle because of complications, then the woman’s eyes were torn out (or, possibly, both nipples were ripped off). In the second case, in both Deuteronomy and the Middle Assyrian Laws, the penalty approaches lex talionis (the law of retaliation, where the punishment matches the offense), and the offender suffers punishment according to her deed.

25:13 differing weights. In the ancient Near East, the king was especially responsible to see that the weights used in business or personal transactions were fair and that everyone used the same set of weights. Unfortunately a uniform universal system of weights was not adopted in ancient times, but whatever system was used to begin a transaction had to be used to complete it. A lender could potentially sell using one set of weights, but receive payment using another set. In the Laws of Ur-Nammu (2112–2095 BC), a faltering attempt was made to standardize weights and measures.

In the Egyptian “Instruction of Amenemope,” the falsification of weights was prohibited, as well as “leaning” on them. Measuring devices were not to be tampered with, and the god Thoth was believed to have a sacred ape (or baboon) that watched constantly over the system of scales in use. In the document relating the “negative confession of sins,” the confessor asserts that he has not “added to . . . the balance” or “tampered with . . . plummet of the scales.” The “Eloquent Peasant” in Egypt mentions the evil practice of “tipping the scales” in one’s favor.

In Mesopotamia, a specific provision in a contract could stipulate that a certain standard be employed, such as the mina of Shamash (i.e., the system of balances employed in transactions in the temple of Shamash). A cheating merchant, if caught, could forfeit everything due to him. In a hymn to the god Shamash, it is asserted that Shamash was especially wary of a misuse of honest weights and measures.

25:19 Amalek. The Amalekites were nomadic/seminomadic people and were descendants of Esau. Israel was not the only nation that at the command of her God blotted out memories of whole peoples, such as Amalek (Ex 17:14–16), who had, in fact, first tried to destroy Israel at the nation’s birth at the exodus. Pharaoh Merneptah (1209 BC) laid down his claim that he had stamped out the seed of Israel—“its seed is not.” The irony of the claim is that it is, in fact, presently the only major ancient Near Eastern unequivocal witness to the existence of Israel’s “seed” in the land of Canaan at this early date.

26:5 wandering Aramean. The Arameans are attested as early as the fourteenth century BC (Amenhotep III, 1380 BC; Merneptah, 1200 BC) on the west bend of the Euphrates River. They then appear in Syria, to the west and south. The Israelites clearly recognized a biological and geographic connection between themselves and the Arameans. Nahor, Bethuel and Laban had remained in Aram as Arameans. Wives of Isaac and Jacob came from this Aramaic branch of the family (see Ge 24:15, 29). Hence, this verse seems justified, as an assertion of origin for Israel, as a particular branch of the much larger classification of people known as Arameans (cf. Ge 10:22–23). Some scholars prefer to see “Aramean” as primarily a geographic term rather than an ethnic term.

26:12 a tenth of all your produce in the third year. See note on Nu 18:21.

26:13–14 After a positive affirmative of obedience to protocol, a negative confession in v. 14 disavows any sacrifice to the dead. In this instruction it is possible to see a reference to giving a part of one’s tithe to Baal, the “Dead One,” who, however, was purportedly resurrected again and again in the spring according to the fertility rites recorded in the Ugaritic Baal Cycle. This is also, of course, a reference to the fact that a funerary cult was to be avoided that involved feeding, nourishing and communicating with the dead of a family. Such tasks were passed on within the family at Nuzi, Emar and perhaps Ugarit. Mari and Ebla seem to have lacked these practices. This negative confession formula was also spoken in Egypt, and the confessor specifically disavowed ever having been guilty of any sins with respect to the temple, gods or other holy things, including foods.

26:17–18 You have declared this day. . . . And the LORD has declared this day. Assyrian kings and their vassals exchanged oaths. Various ancient Near Eastern treaties/covenants reflect this clearly. Later Assyrian treaties include the assertions by the vassal that the vassal “does swear” to the terms of the treaty; later vassal treaties include actions by word and ceremony that were to effect the treaty. Earlier Hittite treaties/covenants featured this as well. Extensive ratification rites are included in the Hittite treaty between Kurtiwaza and Suppiluliuma. In the expanded covenant/treaty of Deuteronomy these vv. 16–19 connect the material in chs. 26–28. Even the gods were thought to exchange oaths in marriage, as when Dumuzi and Inanna were married.

27:2 set up some large stones and coat them with plaster. Some Syrian and Canaanite treaty/covenant sections provided engraved blessings and cursings. These stones were whitewashed with an application of lime plaster, and then laws were written on them (cf. Da 5:5). Several such inscriptions are known at Sukkoth and Kuntillet Ajrud. Many other stone inscriptions are well known from the ancient Near East. This method and type of writing and this peculiar preparation reflects Egyptian influence (cf. Jos 24:27). In Egypt black ink was used, especially for decorative flourishes or headings. Red ocher or red oxide was substituted for the carbon. In Egypt, Syria and Canaan, stone was used for permanence and for public display. Plaster was used to improve the writing quality of the stone.

27:5 altar. This altar was not intended to be a permanent installation (another reason to use fieldstones) but was set up for the purposes of the celebration ceremonies of this occasion. It is specifically burnt offerings and fellowship offerings that are offered here (v. 7)—no purification or reparation offerings generally associate with purifying a sanctuary (v. 7). Do not use any iron tool. The use of unhewn stone distinguishes it from the (carved) stone altars found in sanctuaries, though it is not clear why one sort was used over another.

27:12–13 to bless . . . to pronounce curses. These introductory verses and the ceremony reciting key curses (vv. 15–26) constitute a ritual that Israel was to carry out when the people entered the land. The list of curses and blessings of the renewal of the Sinai covenant is contained in Dt 28. The presence of blessings and curses argues strongly for a Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 BC) origin for the treaty form of Deuteronomy itself; there are (1) ancient Near Eastern parallels for nearly every curse in Dt 28, and (2) most parallels (about 30 treaties dated before 1200 BC) link up to the second millennium BC much better than to the seventh century BC.

27:18 leads the blind astray. The blind were to be treated with care and compassion. Blindness was relatively common in the ancient Near East (cf. 10:18; 24:17 and notes). The Egyptian “Instruction of Amenemope” (c. 1300 BC) prohibits laughing at a blind person or a dwarf, or doing injury to a lame person. Blindness could, however, be visited on a mortal who had offended a god in some way. In the myth of Enki, the god of wisdom, and Ninmah, the mother goddess, various kinds of persons with disabilities are created. Enki gave them appropriate roles. The one born blind was placed before the king in a place of honor as the chief musician. Each person with disabilities is placed appropriately.

27:20–23 The accursed sexual behaviors mentioned in these verses are condemned in several ancient law codes. A plethora of punishments was meted out to the persons involved, such as banishment, drowning, monetary restitution, loss of dowry and potential daughter-in-law, burning or disinheritance. Hittite laws considered sexual relations with one’s mother, daughter or son to be a capital crime, but the king could spare the offender’s life. Having sexual relations with a living brother’s wife was a capital crime. Bestiality was permitted with certain animals, especially in the Hittite laws. The penalty for lying carnally with cattle, pigs, dogs or sheep was death, but, strangely, not so with a horse or mule (no punishment, but see note on Lev 22:3–9). Nevertheless, the king could spare the guilty person’s life.

27:24 kills their neighbor. Murder of whatever kind was usually punishable by blood revenge or compensation. In Assyria, both options were available in all the periods for which we have texts. Interestingly, among the Hittites only compensatory penalties were in place, except for the case of a royal murder, which was still able to be settled by compensation or blood revenge. In Babylonia, evidence suggests that the death penalty was an option, at least for wives and their accomplices who were involved in murdering husbands.

27:25 bribe. It is unclear whether this refers to the payment of an assassin or a bribe made to a judge or witness in order to condemn an innocent man to death. The one who took a bribe was usually a judge or official of some kind (cf. 16:18–20), so it is probable that a judge is in mind here. In the Code of Hammurapi, if a judge who has officially decided a case and rendered a sealed judgment changes his decision, that judge is condemned and ejected from the assembly and his place of judgment permanently. Bribery may have blinded him to act perversely.

A text found in Assurbanipal’s library (668–663 BC), but which undoubtedly has a much earlier origin, praises the universal sun-god, Shamash. Shamash punished a person who accepted bribes, because he was perverting justice. This text notes that a person who rejects bribes would likewise intercede for the weak, who could be innocent victims.

28:1–2 These verses state the conditions under which the following blessings (vv. 3–14) will be received, a feature common to other ancient Near Eastern lists of blessing. However, in other similar lists it is typically the king whose honor is primary, not the honor of the particular god involved, as is the case in Israel. The king implores that those who observe his laws and respect his inscriptions may receive the pleasure and blessing of a god or gods; e.g., Lipit-Ishtar, king of the First Dynasty of Isin (1934–1924 BC), offers these blessings for the one who respects his laws, promotes his stele, and does not place his name over the king’s (pseudepigraphy was strongly condemned centuries before the intertestamental period): “May he be granted life and breath of long days; may he raise his neck to heaven in the Ekur temple; may the god Enlil’s brilliant countenance be turned upon him from above.”

Hammurapi implores that those who follow his laws may have their reign lengthened and may shepherd their people with justice by the help of Shamash, god of justice. The kings of Egypt and Hatti wished goodwill on those who kept their treaty/covenant. Hundreds are called upon to bless any Egyptian or Hittite who keeps the Hittite treaty.

28:3–6 The far-ranging blessings of these verses are covered in a summary way in a treaty hoping for peace, health, happiness and success on persons and their country in Hittite and Egyptian treaties. The higher echelons of society and government receive special emphasis. Suppiluliuma 1 (1370–1330 BC) implores that Kurtiwaza may return to its high place among the nations that it had before, and that it may prosper and expand.

However, mixed with the blessings for Israel from her God is a clear recognition and realization that she is his holy people, if they keep his covenantal laws. This overarching theological concept is not paralleled in the blessings of other ancient Near Eastern treaties. To breach or break a covenant or treaty, which was, in fact, an act of unfaithfulness by a covenant partner, brought down terrible curses on an offending party. The Hittite king Mursili II (c. 1330–1295 BC) attributed a terrible plague upon his people during his reign to the peoples’ failure and the failure of Suppiluliuma I (c. 1370–1330) to keep a treaty with the Egyptians even though it had been enacted under a previous king.