| Back to Home Page | Back to Book Index
|
Introduction
to Deuteronomy
This summary of the book of Deuteronomy provides information about
the title
author(s)
date of writing
chronology
theme
theology
outline
a
brief overview
and the chapters of the Book of Deuteronomy.
The Hebrew name of the book is
�elleh haddebarim ("These
are the words") or
more simply
debarim
("words"; see 1:1). The word "Deuteronomy" (meaning
"repetition of the law") arose from a mistranslation in the Septuagint
(the pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT) and the Latin Vulgate of a
phrase in Dt 17:18
which in Hebrew means "copy of
this law." The error is not serious
however
since Deuteronomy is
in a
certain sense
a "repetition of the law" (see Structure and Outline).
The book itself ascribes most of its content to Moses (see 1:1
5; 31:24 and notes). For that reason
the OT
elsewhere ascribes the bulk of Deuteronomy and other Pentateuchal legislation
to Moses (see
e.g.
Jos 1:7-8; 23:6;
1Ki 2:3; 8:53; Mal
4:4 and notes). Similarly Jesus attributed Dt 24:1 to Moses (Mt 19:7-8; Mk 10:3-5)
Peter attributed Dt 18:15
18-19 to Moses (Ac 3:22-23)
as did Stephen (see Ac 7:37-38 and notes)
and Paul attributed Dt 32:21 to Moses (Ro 10:19). See also Mt 22:24 and note; Mk 12:18-19; Lk 20:27-28. At the same time
it seems clear
that the narrative framework within which the Mosaic material is placed (e.g.
the preamble [1:1-5] and the conclusion [ch. 34]; see also 5:1; 27:1
9
11; 29:1-2; 31:1
7
9-10
14-25
30; 32:44-46
48-52; 33:1-2) comes from another -- and unknown --
hand. See Introduction to Genesis: Author and Date of Writing.
Deuteronomy locates Moses and the Israelites in the territory of
Moab in the area where the Jordan flows into the Dead Sea (1:5). As his final act at this important time of
transferring leadership to Joshua
Moses delivered his farewell addresses to
prepare the people for their entrance into Canaan. In them
Moses emphasized
the laws that were especially needed at such a time
and he presented them in a
way appropriate to the situation. In contrast to the matter-of-fact narratives
of Leviticus and Numbers
here the words of Moses come to us from his heart as
this servant of the Lord presses God's claims on his people Israel.
The trajectory of the story that unfolds in Genesis-Numbers seems
to call for an account of the conquest of Canaan as found in Joshua to bring
closure to the movement from promise to fulfillment (see Introduction to
Joshua: Title and Theme). But Deuteronomy intervenes as a massive interruption.
Here there is very little forward movement. At the end of Numbers
Israel is
"on the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho" (Nu 36:33) and at the end of Deuteronomy
the
people are still there (Dt 34:8) waiting to cross the Jordan (see Jos
1:2). All that has happened is the transition from the ministry of
Moses as God's spokesman and official representative to that of Joshua in his
place (Dt 34:9; see Jos 1:1-2). But Moses' final acts as the Lord's
appointed servant for dealing with Israel are so momentous that Deuteronomy's
account of them marks the conclusion to the Pentateuch
while the book of
Joshua
which narrates the initial fulfillment of the promises made to the
patriarchs and the conclusion to the mission on which Moses had been sent (see Nu 17:15-23; Jos 21:43-45)
serves as the introduction to the
Former Prophets.
So Deuteronomy creates a long pause in the advancement of the
story of redemption:
But in that long pause on the threshold of the promised land
Moses
in this renewal of the Sinaitic covenant
reminded Israel at length of
what the Lord required of them as his people if they were to cross the Jordan
take possession of the promised land and there enjoy the promised
"rest" in fellowship with him. It was a word that Israel needed to
hear over and over again. Upon reading the Pentateuch
Israel was brought ever
anew to the threshold of the promised land and its promised "rest" to
hear again this final word from God through his servant Moses (see also Ps 95:7b-22). For this reason
all the history
of Israel in Canaan as narrated in the Former Prophets is brought under the
judgment of this word.
The book of Deuteronomy was cast in the form of ancient Near
Eastern suzerainty-vassal treaties of the second millennium b.c. It contained
the Great King's pledge to be Israel's Suzerain and Protector if they would be
faithful to him as their covenant Lord and obedient to the covenant
stipulations as the vassal people of his kingdom. There would be blessings for
such obedience
but curses for disobedience (chs. 27 - 30). Deuteronomy's purpose was to prepare the
new generation of the Lord's chosen people to be his kingdom representatives in
the land he had unconditionally promised them in the Abrahamic covenant (see
Structure and Outline below; see also notes on 3:27; 17:14
18).
The love relationship of the Lord to his people
and that of the
people to the Lord as their sovereign God
pervade the whole book.
Deuteronomy's spiritual emphasis and its call to total commitment to the Lord
in worship and obedience inspired references to its message throughout the rest
of Scripture. In particular
the division of the Hebrew Bible called the Former
Prophets (Joshua
Judges
Samuel
Kings) is thoroughly imbued with the style
themes and motifs of Deuteronomy. Among the Latter Prophets
Jeremiah also
reflects strong influence from this book.
Deuteronomy's literary structure supports its historical setting.
By its interpretive
repetitious
reminiscent and somewhat irregular style it
shows that it is a series of more or less extemporaneous addresses
sometimes
describing events in nonchronological order (see
e.g.
10:3). But it also bears in its structure clear
reflections of the suzerain-vassal treaties of the preceding and then-current
Near Eastern states
a structure that lends itself to the Biblical emphasis on
the covenant between the Lord and his people. In this sense Deuteronomy is a
covenant renewal document
as the following outline shows:
I.
Preamble (1:1-5)
1.
God's covenant Lordship (4:44;5:33)
B.
Supplementary Requirements (chs. 12-26)
IV.
Ratification; Curses and Blessings (chs. 27-30)
──《New International Version》
Introduction to Deuteronomy
This book repeats much of the history and of
the laws contained in the three foregoing books: Moses delivered it to Israel a
little before his death
both by word of mouth
that it might affect
and by
writing
that it might abide. The men of that generation to which the law was
first given were all dead
and a new generation was sprung up
to whom God
would have it repeated by Moses himself
now they were going to possess the
land of Canaan. The wonderful love of God to his church is set forth in this
book; how he ever preserved his church for his own mercies sake
and would
still have his name called upon among them. Such are the general outlines of
this book
the whole of which shows Moses' love for Israel
and marks him an
eminent type of the Lord Jesus Christ. Let us apply the exhortations and
persuasions to our own consciences
to excite our minds to a believing
grateful obedience to the commands of God.
── Matthew Henry《Concise Commentary on Deuteronomy》
00 Overview
DEUTERONOMY
INTRODUCTION
The name of the book
The ordinary name of the book is derived through the LXX ( δευτερονόμιον) and Vulgate (Deuteronomium)
from
the one sometimes employed by the Jews
mishneh hattorah
“repetition of
the law.” This name was probably suggested by the text Deuteronomy 17:18
in which the
expression rendered “a copy of this law” was anciently construed as referring
to Deuteronomy only. This is probably not the right sense of the phrase
but
the title borrowed from it indicates correctly enough the character and
contents of the book. From another point of view
some of the rabbinical
writers have styled Deuteronomy “the Book of Reproofs”; whilst others denoted
this
as they did the other Books of Scripture
by the first two Hebrew words
occurring in it. (T. E. Espin
D. D.
in “Speaker’s
Commentary.”)
The character of the book
The speeches exhibit a striking unity of style and character. They
are pervaded by the same vein of thought
the same tone and tenor of feeling
the same peculiarities of conception and expression. They exhibit matter which
is neither documentary nor traditional
but conveyed in the speaker’s own
words. Their aim is strictly hortatory; their style earnest
heart-searching
impressive
in passages sublime
but throughout rhetorical; they keep
constantly in view the circumstances then present
and the crisis to which the
fortunes of Israel had at last been brought. Moses had before him not the men
to whom by God’s command he delivered the law at Sinai
but the generation
following which had grown up in the wilderness. Large portions of the law
necessarily stood in abeyance during the years of wandering; and of his present
hearers many must have been strangers to various prescribed observances and
ordinances. Now
however
on their entry into settled homes in Canaan a
thorough discharge of the various obligations laid on them by the covenant
would become imperative; and it is to this state of things that Moses addresses
himself. He speaks to hearers neither wholly ignorant of the law
nor yet fully
versed in it. Much is assumed and taken for granted in his speeches; again
on
other matters he goes into detail
knowing that instruction in them was needed.
Sometimes
too
opportunity is taken of promulgating regulations which are
supplementary or auxiliary to those of the preceding books; some few
modifications arising out of different or altered circumstances are now made;
and the whole Mosaic system is completed by the addition of several enactments
(chaps. 12-26) of a social
civil
and political nature. These would have been
wholly superfluous during the nomadic life of the desert; but now
when the
permanent organisation of Israel as a nation was to be accomplished
they could
not be longer deferred. Accordingly the legislator
at the command of God
completes his great work by supplying them
Thus he provides civil institutions
for his people accredited by the same Divine sanctions as had been vouchsafed
to their religious rites. (T. E. Espin
D. D.
in “Speaker’s
Commentary.”)
I. The date and
authorship of the book.--The difficulties:--The difficulties in
the way of accepting the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy
contained in
Deuteronomy itself
are of two classes--
1. Those passages which plainly bear to have been written after the
time of Moses
and after the people had settled in Canaan.
2. Other passages
which though not distinctly anachronisms
yet in
their natural meaning imply that a considerable time had elapsed between the
period at which the events happened and that at which they were recorded.
II. The
difficulties which we encounter in attempting to reconcile the law as given in
Deuteronomy with the law as given in Exodus
Leviticus
and Numbers are not in
themselves very serious matters. They are considerably more serious
however
in their combined
or cumulative
than in their individual aspect; and then
they are much less easily disposed of than the first class
because they are of
a more systematic character
and inhere in the substance of the work.
1. The chief differences in the legal provisions are almost all
connected with the priests and the Levites--their position with respect to each
other
and the tithes and dues or perquisites by which they were maintained.
2. The tone of the laws in Deuteronomy
it seems to be admitted on
all hands
is different from that of the laws in the previous books--being more
advanced
more humane
more merciful
more spiritual.
3. Then the style of Deuteronomy differs undoubtedly from the style
of the former books of the Pentateuch
in a way that gives the impression that
the book is the work of a different writer
and of a somewhat different age. It
is more rounded
more flowing and sustained
more cultivated
more
modern--displaying
if with reverence it may be spoken
more literary art. The
diction also
though not differing much from that of the previous books
is
nevertheless marked by certain frequently recurring phrases which are not to be
met with in those books. Explanations of all these discrepancies have been
offered. It cannot be said
however
that any one of them is altogether
satisfactory. Most of them are hypothetical or conjectural--drawn from what is
probable rather than from what is known.
1. With regard to the discrepancies in the legal provisions--
(A) It is argued generally that these are such as
from the nature of
the case
are likely to be found in a summary of the law delivered in a short
parting address. On such an occasion it was only to be expected that the great
lawgiver should overlook minute details and nice distinctions
and dwell only
on the leading provisions.
(B) It was natural also
for two obvious reasons
that Moses should at
the last opportunity make some alterations in the law and some additions to it.
(a) After forty years’ experience of their working some modifications
in the laws would suggest themselves.
(b) Then the entire change in the condition and circumstances of the
people consequent on the approaching change from the wilderness to Canaan would
almost necessitate some corresponding changes in the laws. What suited the one
condition would not suit the other.
2. A change in the tone of the laws was also most natural. The people
were being gradually educated up to a higher moral and spiritual level
and
forty years must have produced a considerable difference in their state.
3. As to style
there are two obvious reasons why the style of
Deuteronomy should differ from that of the previous books
though the whole
were written by Moses--
(a) The style of most writers changes with age and experience
and
that of Moses could hardly be the same at the close of his long career as it
had been in his earlier days. Certain improvements in the matter of ease and
flow
and strict accuracy of expression were almost inevitable.
(b) Further
the solemnity of the occasion--that of Moses’ final
address to the people at the close of their long wanderings
and on the eve of
his own death
could not fail to lend a colour and complexion to his style
imparting to it increased warmth and flow.
These reasons for a difference in the laws and in the style and
tone of Moses’ address seem so natural and probable that we are apt to take it
for granted that they are
of themselves
quite sufficient to account for any
apparent discrepancy or incongruity. But the critic takes nothing for granted.
He examines the different books with the exact methods
and the great and
ever-growing interpretative aids of the present day; and he inquires if the
apparent discrepancies are such as are likely to have been caused by the above
preconceived causes. His answer
in most cases
is in the negative.
1. As to the discrepancies in the Laws--
(A) The compression necessary in an abridgment would cause the
occasional omission of details
but not the substitution of one thing for
another. Nor can it be said that any space is saved by calling--
(a) The priests “sons of Levi
instead of “sons of Aaron”;
(b) Or by stating the priests’ portion of a peace offering as “the
shoulder
the two cheeks
and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3)
instead of as “the
breast and the right leg” (Leviticus 7:31-34);
(c) Or by enacting that the people should eat the firstlings in a
feast at the sanctuary (Deuteronomy 14:23; Deuteronomy 15:20)
instead of assigning
them entirely to the priests (Numbers 18:8). Such discrepancies cannot
be explained as omissions of unimportant details due to compression.
(B) Neither can they be accounted for as alterations of the laws or
additions thereto necessitated by the transition from the wilderness to Canaan.
(a) There is nothing in the nature of the discrepant provisions to
give colour to such an assumption.
(b) Neither is it consonant with the tenor of the history of the
legislation to expect that any changes should be made in the laws; those in the
middle books as well as those in Deuteronomy were given for the use of the
people when they entered Canaan; many of them
in fact
were incapable of being
put in force in the wilderness.
2. As to the different
the more humane and spiritual tone of
Deuteronomy
this
it is maintained
can hardly be accounted for on the
supposition that the interval between the writing of the books was so short
as
it must have been
if they were all written in the wilderness.
3. The difference of style
again
is such as to infer not only a
much greater difference of time
but also a difference of writer. The last
chapters of Numbers date from the same place (the plains of Moab)
and within a
few weeks of the same time as Deuteronomy.
(a) The style of these chapters differs as much from the style of
Deuteronomy as does that of any other part of the middle books
and agrees with
the latter rather than with the former.
(b) But again
it is denied that in point of fact the style of
Deuteronomy does differ from the style of the middle books
as the style of an
old man differs from the style of the same man when young
or as the style of
the same man differs on an ordinary and on a solemn and affecting occasion. On
the contrary
it differs rather as the style of one man differs from the style
of another man of a different cast of mind
of a different degree of culture
and also of a different and probably a somewhat later age.
III. Difficulties
which arise from the books which follow Deuteronomy in the canon. The argument
here falls naturally under two heads--
1. The books which
so far as they refer to the law as given in
Deuteronomy
appear to agree with the hypothesis that Moses was the giver of
that law
and delivered it much as we now have it
to Israel at the close of
the forty years’ wanderings.
2. The books following Deuteronomy in the canon
and which do not
exhibit an agreement with it
are the historical books
which give account of
the affairs of the people from the period of their settlement in Canaan by
Joshua till the time of Josiah
and also the prophetical books which date from
the same period. The difficulty is that the practice of Israel
as seen even in
its leading men
its prophets
priests
judges
kings
does not accord with the
precepts laid down in Deuteronomy
either in ecclesiastical or in civil
matters. If the Deuteronomic law was known at all
it appears to have been
almost entirely ignored in practice.
(i) Instead of there being only one altar for the nation
the people
continued to offer sacrifice as they had done all along at a multitude of
shrines--such as Shechem
Mizpeh
Bethel
Gilgal
Hebron
Bethlehem
Beersheba
Kadesh
etc.
and all this while there was a central sanctuary at Shiloh
afterwards at Nob
and finally at Mount Zion.
(ii) And the
offering of sacrifice
instead of being confined to the Levite priests
appears
to have been practised almost indiscriminately by men of all the tribes--by
kings
by leaders
by judges
by fathers of families. Separate answers are
given by the upholders of the old views to each of the critical objections.
Most of these answers
however
are purely hypothetical
based chiefly on the
state of unsettlement and confusion which prevailed in Israel during great part
of the period in question. As to the use of a plurality of sanctuaries
Keil
and writers of his school refuse to admit the alleged fact
explaining away the
instances which are cited in proof--some of them as being doubtful
others as
being exceptional
“justified by the appearance of an angel of God”; but
Principal Douglas
one of the very latest writers on that side
does not
dispute the fact
though he explains it in a way which is not altogether
satisfactory. He maintains that this sacrificing at a number of the old
patriarchal shrines was an irregular expedient
to which Samuel and other pious
men were driven by the necessities of the times
in order to prevent the total
cessation of all public worship--a temporary falling back on the old law
when
the new law had
by the fall of Shiloh and the captivity of the ark
become
impracticable. It is possible that this explanation may be the true one; but it
is altogether hypothetical. There is nothing in the history to afford it any
distinct countenance or support. As to the offering of sacrifices by men not
belonging to the Levitical priesthood
the natural impression which the history
leaves on the mind is that this was the case. There are two general arguments
however
which to some minds appear sufficient to dispose of most of the cases
in point.
(a) When a king or a prophet is said to offer sacrifice
this may mean
no more than that he did so through the regular Levitical priest.
(b) Again
the greater includes the less.
Prophets like Samuel
Elijah
and even David--men inspired by God
and in continual direct communication with Him--were more than priests
and
were exempt from ceremonial laws which bound ordinary men. They might at any
moment obtain the Almighty’s direct Command or permission to offer sacrifice
or perform any sacred rite. The Almighty can at any time dispense with His own
laws. There are
of course
some cases which do not come distinctly under
either of the above heads
such as that of the sons of David
who are called
priests (2 Samuel 8:18)
and who performed
sacrifice. Probably
however
the main defect in the evidence for the
prevalence at this period of a knowledge and practice of the Deuteronomic law
lies here
as under the last head
in the absence of all indication in the
sacred text that there was in any of the cases referred to the slightest
departure from law or ordinary practice.
(iii) The permission
given (Deuteronomy 12:15) to kill and eat
animals without first offering them in sacrifice. It is inferred from what
Hosea says (Deuteronomy 9:3; Deuteronomy 4:1-49) that that prophet had
no knowledge of any such permission. Thus far as’ to the disagreements in these
books
between the ceremonial practice of the people and the ceremonial law
laid down in Deuteronomy 3:1-29. In civil matters the
only very important disagreement regards the law of the kingdom
which appears
to have been altogether unknown. The law in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 17:14) not only sanctions the
appointment of a king by the people of God
but lays down rules to regulate the
appointment. Yet when
in course of time
the people demand to have a king
appointed
the demand is treated as an unheard of thing
and a grievous insult
to the majesty of Jehovah
who is regarded as the proper king of His people.
The demand is so treated not only by the leaders of the people--Samuel and
Gideon--but also by Jehovah Himself (Judges 8:23; 1 Samuel 8:7).
Unlocked for agreements
Thus far as to the disagreements that are met with in the
subsequent books where agreements are looked for. The agreements that are met
with
where not agreements but rather disagreements or contrasts are looked
for
are the following--
1. Style. The style of Deuteronomy
instead of differing from the
style of these later books
agrees wonderfully with the style of certain of
them that date seven or eight hundred years after
or about the time of the
captivity
especially with the style of Jeremiah
and the Books of Kings. It is
the lofty
impressive poetical style of Jeremiah.
2. Diction and phraseology. There is a striking resemblance between
the diction and phraseology of Deuteronomy and those of these books. The number
of phrases and images common to both sets of books may be seen at full length
(with chapter and verse) in several critical works (Davidson
Coleuso)
.
3. Then apart from laws--The subjects on which Moses dwells by
precept and prophecy and warning seems to indicate that many of the events in
the history of the kingdom of Israel and Judah bad already happened
and were
known to the writer as facts--such as
for example--
(a) “The reference to the danger likely to arise to the state from the
king multiplying to himself ‘wives’ and ‘silver and gold and horses.’” This
warning
it is thought
was suggested by the case of Solomon.
(b) The reference to “the worship of the sun and moon and the host of
heaven.” This again is believed to have been suggested by the idolatries of
Manasseh s reign.
(c) Then Deuteronomy 4:25-28 is thought too
distinct a reference to the captivity of the ten tribes to have been written
before that event. The ten tribes were then “scattered among the nations
and
left few in number among the heathen
” &c.
Explanations
These alleged agreements are thus explained by the critics
on the other side.
1 and 2. The agreement
between the style
diction
and phraseology of Jeremiah and Deuteronomy arises
merely from imitation. The Book of Deuteronomy had been rescued from its long
neglect by Hilkiah when Jeremiah was a comparatively young man. It doubtless
made a great impression upon him
as it did upon others
and nothing was more
natural than that he should seek to form his style in every way upon such an
excellent model.
3. As to the apparent references to events in the history of the
kingdoms
they are simply prophecies. Moses
as an inspired prophet
saw into
the future
and knew what transgressions the people would fall into
and warned
them beforehand of the consequences.
Rejoinders
1 and 2. To these
answers the critics rejoin that if Jeremiah was so great aa imitator of
Deuteronomy
it is strange that he makes no direct reference to the book--a
fact which
however
would be very natural on the supposition that he was
himself the writer of it.
3. As to the explanation of the historical allusions by prophecy
it
is maintained that it is contrary to prophetic practice to predict with any
circumstantiality of detail things which are yet in the womb of the far future.
“A prophecy springs out of
or directs itself to meet
the circumstances of the
time.”
The theories
1. The Interpolation theory. This theory assumes that Moses is
the original author of Deuteronomy
and also of the other four books of the
Pentateuch
yet the books have undergone many and great alterations since they
left his hand; other inspired men having at different times introduced
additions and modifications of the laws
to adapt them to changed times. This
theory has probably been seldom carried beyond the stage of suggestion
and
some of those who suggest it would apparently shrink from admitting its
applicability to the explanation of any particular discrepancies. It is
difficult to see how interpolation can be denied
except by the admission of
the much more radical alternative of late authorship. Interpolation must
in
fact
form part of any adequate theory that may be devised; but of itself
interpolation cannot explain some of the difficulties
such as the discrepancy
between the style of Deuteronomy and that of the foregoing books
and the
discrepancy between the precepts of Deuteronomy and the practice of the
following books. The theory of interpolation may
however
be supplemented by
what may be called--
2. The late Codification theory
generally known as the theory of
Delitzsch
though in substance it was suggested two hundred years ago by
Witsius. This theory assumes that Moses spoke and wrote down the Deuteronomic
law
as in Deuteronomy he is represented to have done
but maintains that he
did not write down the law as given in the foregoing books
having only
delivered it orally to the priests
who
as several passages show (Deuteronomy 17:11; Deuteronomy 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:10; Leviticus 10:11; Leviticus 15:31)
were bound to keep up
and communicate to the people a knowledge of the law. The priests either
committed the laws to memory
or took notes of them. In whatever way the laws
were preserved
however
they were not fully written out
or reduced to a
system
or “codified
” till some time after the people were settled in
Canaan--perhaps “ages after.” Before the time for codification came
a number
of changes may have been made in the laws by Divine authority; and thus there
is shown a probable cause for the difference both of style and of law between
Deuteronomy and the previous books. There are two facts which lend great
probability to the chief assumption on which this theory rests
namely
that
Moses did not himself write the law in Exodus
Leviticus
and Numbers.
(a) In the text of those books Moses is only said to have written
small specified portions of them (Exodus 24:4-7; Exodus 34:27; Exodus 17:14; Numbers 33:2).
(b) The very fact of his delivering to the people and writing down the
law in considerable detail on the eve of his death
seems to imply that he had
not written it down before.
The only serious difficulties which this theory does not account
for are the discrepancies between Deuteronomy and the subsequent books
namely
the want of agreement between the practice of the people and the precepts of
Deuteronomy
and the want of contrast between the style of Deuteronomy and that
of the subsequent books. The two sets of discrepancies pointing in the same
direction
the latter set is regarded as corroborative of the former; and the
united witness of the two is held by a large proportion of critics to be
conclusive as to the late composition and authorship of Deuteronomy. This
conclusion
it is admitted
is at first sight undoubtedly startling and
unsettling. To deny that Moses is the author of a book
great part of which
consists professedly of verbatim reports of Moses’ speeches
written down by
Moses himself
is apparently to offer a flat contradiction to the plain
testimony of the book itself. It is maintained
however
that this difficulty
is
in reality
much less serious than at first sight it appears
and that in
judging of it we are too apt to be misled by our modern notions and traditional
prejudices. The difficulty is capable
it is argued
of an explanation which is
in no way derogatory to the authority or the inspiration of Scripture. The mode
of this explanation constitutes--
3. The literary expedient
or literary fiction theory. According to this
theory
the chief part of Deuteronomy is put into the mouth of Moses--not
because Moses actually spoke or wrote it
but because the laws are
substantially the laws of Moses--laws for which “Moses left the materials
” and
which it was expedient to continue to publish under the name of Moses. Some
prophet (probably Jeremiah) was commissioned by the Almighty to prepare this
new edition; and of course he was authorised and instructed to make certain
alterations in the laws to adapt them to the changed times. Now ancient
writers
in expounding a man’s ideas or principles
naturally threw their
exposition into the form of a speech delivered by the man himself. Hence the
many eloquent speeches in Livy and other ancient historians
which are plainly
the composition of the historian himself
no report having ever been preserved
of them. Again
ancient writers had no idea of the modern expedients of notes
and appendices; and hence an editor simply interwove his corrections and
additions with the text of his author
just as the author would have done had
he re-published his work himself. Thus the modern prophet or editor re-cast the
laws of Moses much as Moses himself would have re-cast them had it fallen to
him to publish a new edition of them during his own lifetime; and the editor
wrote them in Moses’ name
both because Moses was
under God
the real author
of the laws
and because Moses’ name would carry greater weight than his own.
If we have difficulty in accepting this view
it is because we are “guilty of the
mistaken practice of taking our modern notions of literary form and propriety
and thrusting them back into the simplicity of early times.” No doubt there is
much force in this reasoning. Yet this theory is so opposed to our modern
notions of fitness and propriety
that only the most rigorous and conclusive
demonstration of its truth will ever secure for it general acceptance by the
Church. In the opinion of the writer the time has not yet come for pronouncing
with any confidence on the comparative merits and claims of these three
theories
far less for deciding that any one of them supplies a full and
adequate explanation for all the complex facts.
1. It may
however
be safely assumed that the first or Interpolation
theory will never be generally accepted as entirely adequate by itself.
2. The late Codification theory of Delitzsch
as accounting
for a large proportion of the facts without any startling assumptions or
bewildering reversal of established beliefs
commends itself naturally to all
candid and earnest men who have weighed carefully the difficulties of the
question. To see this theory established by irrefragable proofs would afford
undoubted satisfaction to many anxious inquiring minds.
3. It must not be concealed
however
that the third or literary
expedient theory is by far the more popular amongst critics. With them the
Deuteronomic question becomes merged in the general question of the origin of
the whole historical books. The writer of Deuteronomy
according to these
authorities
was only one of at least four or five writers
who at different
periods
as original writers or as supplementers
took part in the composition
of the historical books
and he
like the others
can be tracked by
peculiarities of style
diction
and phraseology through most of the books
from the commencement till near the period of the captivity. This theory is of
a more sweeping character than any of those which have been framed for the
solution of the Deuteronomic difficulty; but in reality it cannot be said to
involve much if any additional difficulty. It is of comparatively small
importance to what author or authors we are
under the guidance of the Spirit
indebted for the composition of those books which claim for themselves no
particular author
one inspired writer being
for purposes of revelation
as
good as another. Then as to the composite nature of the books--the alleged fact
that different parts have been written by different prophets and at different
times--this fact
keeping inspiration in view
can in no wise detract from the
authority of the books; while it helps greatly to explain apparent anomalies
and contradictions. In short
it is rather in its wider divergence from
traditional belief than in any necessary consequences which are involved in it
that the alarming feature of this theory consists. (W. Walker
LL. D.)
The contents of the book.--
(a) A title (Deuteronomy 1:1-5 inclusive). This title
is twofold
and states
in the eleventh
month of the fortieth year
immediately before they actually entered the
country
and after Sihon and Og had already been overcome.
(b) An introductory discourse (Deuteronomy 1:6; Deuteronomy 4:40 inclusive)
followed by
the appointment of three cities of refuge on the eastern side of Jordan
in the
territory conquered by Moses. In this discourse Moses reviews Israel’s journey
from Sinai to the banks of Jordan
for the purpose of exhortation
dwelling
upon those points only which bear directly on the enterprise in prospect--the
passage of Jordan
the conquest of the seven nations
and the position of the
chosen people in the promised land.
(c) The Deuteronomy proper
or repetition of the law (Deuteronomy 4:44 to end of 18). This
contains--
(a) generally
as creating a certain relation between the people of
Israel and their God
who had given them this law (chaps. 6 to 11);
(b) particularly
in relation to the land which God was giving them.
This land is considered--
(c) As the seat of the worship of Jehovah (Deuteronomy 12:1-32; Deuteronomy 13:1-18; Deuteronomy 14:1-29; Deuteronomy 15:1-23; Deuteronomy 16:1-17).
(ii) As the seat of His kingdom (Deuteronomy 16:18 to end of 18).
(iii) As the sphere of operation of certain particular rules of person
property
society
and behaviour (chap. 19 to end of 26).
(a) The second covenant
which is to follow the Sinaitic covenant
and
to redeem Israel from its curse
“the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses
to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab
beside the covenant
which He made with them in Horeb” (chaps. 29
30).
(b) Conclusion. Moses’ resignation of his charge to Joshua. Delivery
of the law to the priest and elders
and of the book to the Levites (chap. 31).
Moses’ last song (chap. 32)
blessing (chap. 33)
and death (chap. 34). (C.
H. Waller
M. A.)
Gospel hints in the book
Hastily reading the whole book
it may be described as a Book of
Law
and little else; yet
reading it more attentively
it will be found that
even in Deuteronomy there are evangelical lines full of the very love and
tenderness of God. The cities of refuge may be described as Gospel cities; the
protection of the birthright as an interposition of mercy; the very battlement
upon the house is the law respecting the neighbour exemplified rather than
merely uttered in words; the protection of the dam is full of evangelical
suggestion; and the measuring of stripes
so as not to exceed forty
shows that
the law was restrained by wisdom and mercy. Unquestionably
the curses
pronounced upon disobedience in the twenty-eighth chapter are like a very storm
poured down from the heights of heaven; but in the same chapter the blessings
pronounced upon obedience show that high above all law there reigns the spirit
of love and pity. In the thirty-first and following chapters Moses prepares to
give up his leadership
and
in doing so
he tenderly encourages the people to
persevere
and in paternal tones cheers the heart of Joshua in view of the
tremendous task about to be assigned him. (J. Parker
D. D.)
The book viewed in connection with the personal character of Moses
No examination of this latest portion of the Pentateuch can
possibly be satisfactory which omits to view it in the closest connection with
the character of Moses himself The personality of the great lawgiver is never
absent from the pages of his work; and that personality is
with one only
exception
the grandest in all history. Those rarest of characters among men
who appear at the great crises of human action--Noah
Abraham
Moses
St.
Paul--are all characters of slow growth and late ripeness; and
which is
remarkable
they are at their best at the very last. The slow growth gives
toughness of mental fibre
just as the oak requires a century to attain its
maturity
but then may last for five hundred years or more
whilst the quickly
growing pine as quickly decays. So it is with men. The smaller and shallower
the nature
the more quickly and easily it reaches its best. Rapid
precocious
facile
the performances of such are the wonder of their contemporaries. But in
a few years
when the perfervidus vigor of youth
and the restless impulse
which it gives
is spent
they subside into very ordinary specimens of human
nature; whilst the larger and deeper nature goes on with added power and
accelerating force till it reaches the confines of the end. Of such
it may be
emphatically said
was Moses. His training had been long and various. He was
“learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians
” and shared doubtless every
advantage of that hieratic culture of which modern research has come upon so
many traces of late. The rich and varied life of the governing class in
Egypt--the most highly cultured
probably
then existing throughout the
world--in which he had luxuriated for forty years
must have drawn out and
stimulated his faculties as the heat of the forcing house does flowers. His
nature must have been fully developed by the end of this period. Nursed by
indulgence and popularity and splendour into its fullest growth as it was
it
says a good deal for its essential nobility that it bore without sourness or
permanent distortion the piercing blast of adversity. Two shocks came upon him
one after another--the utter and instant failure of his attempt to unite Israel
under himself as their leader; and then the compulsory exchange of wealth and
rank in Egypt for the solitary life and the humble labour of a shepherd
wandering from oasis to oasis in the Arabian desert at the back of Midian. The
one had developed
the other braced
his powers. And after this came to him the
cares of leadership--the endurance of that vast strain of anxiety and care
which attends the re-shaping of a nation. Such responsibilities make men grey
before their time
and by this consideration we may judge in some degree of the
magnificent elasticity and vital force of the nature of the man who was called
by God to bear all this for forty years
and even then have it recorded of him
that “his eye was not dim
nor his natural force abated.” It is the outcome of
all this long and arduous experience that we are to see in the addresses which
make up the Book of Deuteronomy. The patriot
the legislator
the founder
speaks there in almost every line no less than the bearer of the law and
messenger of Jehovah. The reminiscences of experience common to the speaker and
his hearers; the quorum pars magna fuimus
which form the burden of
almost every chapter
are characteristic--too characteristic to be overlooked
too natural and persistent to have been invented. The book forms unconsciously
the eloge of the speaker. And therefore
let us say in passing
it is
that we feel small sympathy with those who find in the supposed inability of
Moses at the outset of his mission to speak to Pharaoh
the proof that
these lengthy and rhetorical discourses cannot be his. It is not Moses the
fugitive
the adventurer
it is not Moses the untried
or rather the unsuccessful
whom we have set before us in the opening words of Deuteronomy; it is Moses the
aged
the tried in war and peace
the ruler over Israel for forty years--a king
in all but name. Such responsibilities as he had borne crush feeble natures
indeed
but they ennoble strong ones. And therefore
even had it been the case
that Moses was originally a man of slow and hesitating speech (Exodus 4:10)
we must look upon that
weakness as having been eradicated by the slow lapse of years
by the habit of
command
and the steady growth of all his powers The Book of Deuteronomy may be
called a popular digest of the Mosaic Law. It includes a good many details
and
all the great principles upon which that law is constructed. It is plain
simple
popular
not showing continual repetitions
because its author knew the
exceeding density and “slowness of heart” of the people with whom he had to
deal. If we compare one of the earliest of the Mosaic institutes
the Ten
Commandments
with the “curses” in Deuteronomy 27:15-26
which are one of
the latest
and are obviously modelled upon them
we shall see how great was
Moses’ skill in statecraft
and how much he appreciated the advantages of
perfect plainness
teaching by concrete instances and continual repetition. It
is a further proof of this practical wisdom that the book is directed to be
read aloud once every seven years at the Feast of Tabernacles before the
assembled tribes (Deuteronomy 31:10-11)
i.e. in the
Sabbatical year
when the usual culture of the land was intermitted
and the
Israelites had leisure to assemble for the purpose. We cannot
indeed
suppose
that this far-seeing intention of the lawgiver was carried out. This beneficent
provision also
like so many parts of the Law
probably remained inoperative.
But that such an expedient should have been enjoined is sufficient of itself to
constitute an extremely strong prejudicium in favour of the early date
of the book. Quite other modes of publication were in vogue by the time
e.g.
of the captivity; the Sabbatical years themselves had ceased to be
observed; and we may ask what conceivable forger would have invented a mode of
publication of the Law of which no one (on the rationalistic hypothesis) had
ever heard
and which would strike him as altogether inadequate to the
requirements of a great
and by that time widespread
population? Similarly
the requirements to be fulfilled by a king of Israel
which are often quoted as
a proof of the lateness of the date at which it was composed
seem to us
on
the contrary
a proof of its antiquity. For in what age could such a list of
postulanda have originated if not in the Mosaic? In the days of the early
kings? But it is the exact point of the rationalistic case that the Law was
then entirely unknown; and we presume no one would seriously maintain that a
forger would compile the book with such great care and skill
and then put it
by for a hundred and fifty years to mellow and get aged
as sham antiques are
buried
with the intent that it should come out
say a hundred years later
after the writer himself was dead
to deceive every one into the belief that it
was authentic. Nor could it well have originated under the later kings
who
for the most part
violated in their ascent to power and in their lives every
one of its prescriptions. It would hardly have been a safe undertaking during
those times of sudden and illegal violence
when the royal power was literally
(like the Turkish power has always been) without any check save that of
superior force
to have been known to have thrown a sort of doubt over the
royal title in a book to appear during the life of the writer. If it did not
appear at once
then motive would
as in the former ease
be wanting; and
besides
we come upon admitted historical notice of the book by that time. And
thus one line of investigation after another leads us back to the earlier date
which the book itself claims. (Church Quarterly Review.)
──《The Biblical Illustrator》