15:19-23. Why these instructions about consecrating firstborn males of animals are placed here is not entirely clear. One explanation is that these instructions fit with the other legislation in this chapter. That is, when there is a release of either debts or servants after six years, some may think of the economic loss that may also occur with the consecration of the firstborn. There was to be no economic benefit in the use of the firstborn animal (you shall not work with the animal, v. 19) for a firstborn animal must be taken every year to the central sanctuary for sacrifice and then eaten by the family in a communal meal before the LORD (v. 20). However, no firstborn male animal with any sort of defect could be sacrificed. Such an animal could be eaten at home much as one would eat wild game, but the blood had to be properly poured out on the ground like water (vv. 21-23; see also 12:16, 23, 24).

16:1-8. While on the topic of bringing firstborn male animals to the central sanctuary, Moses discussed the major religious holidays (16:1-17) when they would be brought there. The first holiday was Passover … in the month of Abib (from mid-March to mid-April), for it was in that month that the Lord brought them out of Egypt (v. 1). New information in this passage is that the Passover animal must be sacrificed at the central sanctuary, whereas earlier (Lv 23:4-8; Nm 28:16-25) the place was not specified because it was observed in private homes (v. 2). Along with the Passover, the Israelites were instructed to eat unleavened bread for seven days as a reminder that they had to leave Egypt in haste and did not have the normal time to cook leavened bread (v. 3). For that weeklong period no leaven was to be stored anywhere they dwelt, and none of the meat left over from the Passover meal was to be kept overnight for consumption at a later time (v. 4). In Egypt they were expected to leave in haste the next morning so there was no time to prepare the leftover meat or to cook leavened bread before they had to flee. Moses emphasized again that the Passover was to be observed only at the central sanctuary and not in their communities (v. 5). They were to cook and eat it at night (sundown the night before, v. 6) and then in the morning to return to their temporary quarters near the central sanctuary (v. 7). Since this section expanded on the fourth commandment related to the Sabbath, Moses stressed that on the seventh day of the festival they were to do no work (v. 8)

16:9-12. The second festival that required a pilgrimage to the central sanctuary was the Feast of Weeks. Elsewhere it is called the Feast of the Harvest (Ex 23:16) or “the day of the first fruits” (Nm 28:26). Its date was calculated seven weeks after a sickle was first used on the standing grain, signaling the beginning of harvest in March/April and so was celebrated in May/June, 50 days after Passover. The focal point of this festival was to celebrate the bountiful crops of that year. Regardless of economic or social status, all were to celebrate before the LORD joyously while presenting a freewill offering. The reminder that they were once slaves in Egypt was enjoined again (Dt 5:15; 15:15), so that they would be more grateful.

16:13-15. The third pilgrimage festival to the central sanctuary was the Feast of Booths (Tabernacles). This was another seven-day festival and was held seven days after the grain and grape harvests in September/October. The earlier festival (Feast of Weeks) was celebrated after the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Booths was celebrated after most of the other grains were harvested and the orchards ripened. Again (cf. 16:11) this was to be observed by all within the community, not just the landowners.

16:16-17. Moses stated that three times … a year all … males were to appear before the LORD at the central sanctuary for the three annual festivals just mentioned. Males were required to attend, but women and children were invited to participate if they were able (vv. 11, 14). All three celebrations involved bringing tribute, whether firstborn animals or freewill offerings. Each person was to give as he was able, in accord with God’s blessings on him for that year.

16:18-20. This is the beginning of a new section that continues until 18:22. Moses had just appealed for compassion toward those in need and for worship of the LORD with rejoicing. Here he returned to the theme of chap. 13, which focused on the conduct of national and spiritual leaders. This passage deals with job descriptions for different officials within Israel. Having discussed commands dealing with covenant loyalty, Moses transitioned to human leaders who would have political and spiritual administrative responsibilities. The first officials to be discussed, because of their importance in maintaining justice, were the judges. Since Deuteronomy is a law code, it is fitting that Moses began with those who would arbitrate on legal matters. After the nation settled in the land, judges and officers were to be appointed for judging the people with righteous judgment. Earlier (1:9-18) Moses addressed the need for impartial judges to assist in administration, and here he gave additional instructions. Theses judges were in no way to distort justice, be partial, or take a bribe. Bribes were especially forbidden since they blind the eyes of the wise. Their main task was to pursue justice, because when justice characterized Israel they would remain alive and continue to possess the land … the LORD was giving them.

16:21-22. This section may seem out of place in an overall discussion of justice. Yet Moses may have been using the case of not setting up idols (16:1-2) and not sacrificing blemished animals (17:1) as a matter that judges (16:18-20) would need to watch over so that justice prevailed in the land. Besides overseeing civil matters judges were also tasked with supervising theological and religious issues and maintaining the Ten Commandments, especially the first two. Here the specific instruction was that no Asherah or any kind of tree was to be planted beside the altar of the LORD in the central sanctuary, or a sacred pillar anywhere. These were objects the Lord vehemently hated because they were associated with Canaanite fertility rites and were expressly forbidden by the first and second commandments.

17:1. This command prohibits the sacrificing of any defective or blemished animal. This could be seen as a further exposition of the third commandment, which prohibits taking the name of the Lord in vain. Sacrificing flawed animals would be seen as despising Him by offering Him unworthy gifts. Even though priests performed the sacrifices, it can be assumed, based on the context, that judges maintained authority to make sure there were no violations even over spiritual matters.

17:2-7. Judges were now commissioned to mete out capital punishment for covenant violators without distinction of gender (v. 2). Any man or … woman who does what is evil in the sight of the LORD was to be stoned, but only after the matter had been thoroughly investigated (v. 4) and only on the evidence of two or more witnesses (v. 6). One witness would not be enough to convict someone (19:15) because of the possibility of personal vendettas. To preserve the integrity of their statements in court, if the witnesses’ statements were enough to sentence someone to death, then the witnesses themselves were to be the first to pick up stones in the execution (v. 7). This was a preventive measure, for if a witness lied, that would have been a grave matter. But to then go further and commit murder would, it was hoped, give them pause against making a false accusation in the first place. The bottom line is that purity was to be maintained, even if it meant implementing capital punishment to purge the evil from their midst (v. 7).

17:8-13. If local courts could not render a decision because the case was too difficult, such as determining one kind of homicide or another, then the case was to be brought to either the Levitical priest or an appointed judge there (perhaps both in conjunction) who would adjudicate the case (vv. 8-9). The officials deciding the case were to give the reasons for their decision and thus teach those present in the law (v. 11). Anyone who did not abide by his or her decision was to be put to death because the person was acting presumptuously (v. 12). The death sentence applied in these cases would purge the evil from the land, and it would also serve as a deterrent for anyone else rebelling against the authority of the priests and judges. For 17:10, see the comments on Mt 23:3.

17:14-20. In these verses Moses addressed the guidelines for a future king (v. 14). In the ancient Near East kings were granted almost unlimited power and authority. But such was not the case with Israel. A king’s authority was severely regulated compared to neighbor nations. The Lord anticipated the nation’s request for a king so that they could be like all the nations … around them, so He gave explicit instructions regarding their conduct. Several qualifications needed to be in place even before a king was to begin ruling. First, he must be one whom the LORD your God chooses (v. 15a, b), not one selected by the people or appointed by someone else. Second, he must not be a foreigner (v. 15c); the king must be a native Israelite. Third, he must not multiply horses for himself (v. 16). Horses were considered a military asset, and the king must not seek to amass a mighty military arsenal. Acquiring horses meant that the king would have to form trade alliances to secure them, and Moses prohibited the king from going to others, especially Egypt, to multiply horses since the LORD has said … You shall never again return that way (v. 16). Fourth, the king must not multiply wives (v. 17). Marriages were often entered into to secure political alliances, so the Israelite king was not to seek to consolidate power by forming alliances. Another danger in having multiple wives is that they could turn the king’s heart away from the Lord, either because of their pagan religious background or because he was focused on meeting his own family needs over those of the nation. Fifth, the king must not multiply silver and gold for himself. The source of the nation’s power was their relationship with God, not its treasuries. One of the major reasons for Solomon’s later downfall was his failure to abide by these injunctions (1 Kg 10:14-15, 23, 26-28; 11:1-6).

Now that the kings’ background (Dt 17:15) and behavior (vv. 16-17) were noted, Moses addressed the king’s training. When any king came on the throne, he was to write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll (v. 18). His mind was to be filled with the content of this law (either the entire book of Deuteronomy or a subsection such as Dt 5–26). After having written a copy for himself, he was to keep it with him and read it all the days of his life (v. 19) so that these regulations would guide every decision he made. In the process he would learn to fear the LORD his God, and he would not be lifted up with pride above his countrymen (v. 20). If he observed all these stipulations without deviation, he and his sons would enjoy long, prosperous reigns.

18:1-8. Having discussed the political roles of the judges and the kings, Moses then focused on the spiritual duties of priests. Since the tribe of Levi had no tribal land allotment as did the other 11 tribes (v. 1), they were to receive provisions from the fire offerings brought to the Lord. The portions of the animal mentioned here (v. 3) differ somewhat from the legislation in Leviticus and Numbers (Lv 7:28-36; Nm 18:8-9). The previous legislation set aside the breast and the right thigh, whereas here the shoulder … two cheeks and … stomach were set aside. The difference may have been that the earlier passages dealt specifically with the peace offerings and other Levitical offerings, whereas Deuteronomy was dealing with other “freewill” or festival offerings. Also some modifications were made, and the overall thrust of this legislation was that Israel would adequately care for the Levitical tribe out of proceeds from the overall sacrificial system. The priests and Levites were also given a portion of the first fruits offerings of grain … wine … and oil as well as the first shearing of … sheep (v. 4). These provisions were to be granted to the Levites because the LORD your God has chosen him and his sons from all your tribes, to stand and serve in the name of the LORD forever (v. 5). Most of the Levitical priests would live near the sanctuary, but some Levites lived scattered throughout the nation (v. 6) in what would later become the Levitical cities (Jos 21). Such priests had equal standing with those who served at the central sanctuary and would receive equal portions, except that they could keep the proceeds from their fathers’ inheritance for themselves (vv. 7-8).

18:9-14. To maintain their spiritual uniqueness, the Israelites, on entering the land, were not to imitate the detestable things of those nations (v. 9). High on the list of forbidden practices was child sacrifice, in which children were made to pass through the fire (v. 10). This practice was probably done for determining or discerning the will of the gods. Moses also forbade the practice of divination of any kind, whether it be by witchcraft … omens, sorcery, spells, mediums, spiritists, or one who calls up the dead (vv. 10-11). These are detestable practices, which show no reliance on the Lord. So the Lord Himself will drive them out before them (v. 12). Under no circumstances would the Lord allow them to resort to any such divination practices, and by avoiding them they would be blameless before the LORD (vv. 13-14).

18:15-22. Instead of relying on diviners, the people could receive spiritual guidance from a prophet like Moses whom the LORD would raise up from their countrymen (v. 15). Some consider this to be a prediction of a future order of prophets (just as the previous sections established orders of priest/judges and kings, 17:8-20). Others understand this to be a progressive prophecy, beginning with the order of prophets and culminating in the final prophet, the Messiah. In both of these interpretations, the word “prophet” (nabi’) must be understood as a collective noun. However, Delitzsch notes that generally, if nabi’ is intended to be understood with a collective sense, it is common to interchange singular and plural forms within the passage, but this passage only uses the singular sense (F. Delitzsch, Messianic Prophecies in Historical Succession, trans. S. I. Curtis [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1891], 61).

A more likely interpretation is that Dt 18 is predicting a future eschatological and messianic prophet (Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 456). The primary objection to this interpretation is that the discussion of the presumptuous prophet (18:20-22) is speaking generically and not of one particular false prophet. Hence, this contrast assumes that the prophet like Moses must also be a generic prophet and not one in particular. In response to this, first, the conjunction but (Hb. ‘ak, 18:20) is a mild adversative, short of a full antithesis. What is actually being contrasted is that the prophet like Moses will indeed speak in God’s name, while the presumptuous prophet will only presume to do so. Second, in vv. 15-19 the word “prophet,” when speaking of the one like Moses, does not have the definite article, but it does have the article when used of the presumptuous prophet. When used without the article (vv. 15-19) it is a simple singular defined by being “like Moses.” But when used with the article (vv. 20-22), it is a generic use of the article, referring to any false prophet. By this slight change of form, the text clearly distinguishes the two uses of prophet: there will a particular prophet one day, who is defined by being like Moses; there will also be generic prophets who speak in their own name and should be disregarded.

Two other passages in the Torah clarify the meaning of the prophet like Moses. First, Nm 12:6-8 indicates that Moses is unique among all prophets, speaking to God directly (“mouth to mouth”). Thus, a true prophet like Moses will practice direct communication with the Lord. Second, Dt 34:10, written much later and likely near the close of the canon (see comments there), states that “no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face.” This indicates that at the close of the Hebrew canon, the prediction of Dt 18:15-19 remained as yet unfulfilled and directed the reader to keep looking for that messianic Prophet like Moses. (For a full discussion of this messianic prediction, see Michael Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Messianic? [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2010], 56-64). Likely, this is the reason Ac 3:22-23 refers to Jesus as the direct fulfillment of this prophecy.

This is important contextually in that the nation was not to rely on divination of any sort (18:10). The nation was to execute any prophet who spoke presumptuously what the Lord had not revealed to him or who spoke in the name of other gods (v. 20). To speak presumptuously was to speak without authorization or to claim rights that are not legitimately possessed. In this passage it refers to a false prophet who espouses an attitude or behavior that rejects God’s authority. To determine whether a prophet spoke in the name of the Lord, people were to see if the prophet’s words came true. If they did not, then that prophet had spoken presumptuously, and the people were not to be afraid of what he predicted (vv. 21-22).

19:1-3. Previously Moses had designated three cities of refuge in the Transjordan area (4:31-43), and now he gave instructions regarding three cities of refuge in the land of Canaan in conjunction with earlier legislation (Nm 35:6-34). After the nation entered the land and dispossessed the nations there and they settled in their cities and in their houses, then they were to set aside three designated cities. The cities were to be accessible by good roads and evenly spaced out so that any manslayer could get to them readily. A manslayer was anyone who took someone’s life, whether intentionally or not. After the conquest under Joshua, the three cities were officially assigned (Jos 20:7-9).

19:4-7. If someone accidentally killed his friend (e.g., if an iron axe head slips off the handle and strikes his friend) and there was no malice between them beforehand, then the manslayer may flee to one of the designated cities and live. The cities of refuge offered protection to the manslayer. Otherwise the avenger of blood, typically a family member, could pursue the manslayer, catch up to him, and then kill him before the manslayer could reach one of the designated cities (even though the two had no previous animosity).

19:8-9. Moses gave further instructions about the possibility of needing to designate three additional cities of refuge if the Lord ever enlarged their territory and allowed them to occupy the full boundaries of what the Lord promised to give their forefathers. Additional cities would need to be established only if the nation practiced covenant loyalty by carefully walking in obedience to the commandments. Sadly, the nation was never completely faithful, and so three additional cities were never designated. Theoretically they could still be established when the Messiah sets up His kingdom on earth. For more discussion about the cities of refuge see the discussion at Nm 35.

19:10-13. Bloodshed was an important matter, and every case in which someone was killed had to be handled properly lest innocent blood be shed and bloodguilt applied to the nation. This explains the rationale for the next case study. Earlier (in vv. 4-7) Moses discussed a situation in which someone unintentionally killed a friend. But now Moses addressed the intentional killing of a fellow human being. If someone lay in wait for someone and struck him so that he die[d] and then ran to one of the cities of refuge for protection, the elders (presumably after an investigation with multiple witnesses; cf. vv. 15) were to send for him out of the city of refuge and hand him over to the avenger of blood for execution. No mercy was to be shown to that individual because the killing of an innocent life required that atonement would be made for the bloodguilt (v. 10) for the sake of the entire nation. Since the nation has been contaminated by death of an innocent individual, executing the murderer was required to purge the entire nation of that innocent blood.

19:14. This verse is connected to the previous context through the linkage of land and the respect of others. Not only were their neighbors’ lives important, but also their neighbors’ property. Boundary stones were often used to designate the corners of one’s legal land holdings. No one was to move them intentionally to gain more property for themselves. This verse is an example of a violation of the tenth commandment of coveting against a neighbor. Later a curse would be placed on all who violated this injunction (27:17).

19:15-21. These verses expand on the ninth commandment not to bear witness against one’s neighbor (5:20). Earlier, capital punishment cases were to be meted out only when there was more than one witness (17:6). Now that same principle is applied to any criminal case (v. 15). The new legislation here pertains to someone who intentionally bore false witness in a malicious manner. When that happened, both parties were to stand before the LORD (v. 17), presumably at the central sanctuary where the appointed priest and/or judge would investigate and adjudicate the matter (v. 18). If false malicious testimony was given, then the guilty one would be sentenced with the penalty he was seeking to have ruled against the other party (v. 19). In this way evil would be purged from the land, and this would deter others from bearing false witness in criminal matters (v. 20). Again no mercy (v. 13) was to be shown to the false accuser. Perjury was subject to the law of lex talionis: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot (v. 21). In other words the penalty had to fit the crime and not be excessive. These principles were to be implemented for the sake of the community within the promised land and thus were seen as judicial, not personal, punishment. Jesus later communicated that this principle need not be followed in interpersonal relationships (Mt 5:38-42).

20:1-9. This chapter includes the only legislation on the conduct of war. The chapter follows after instructions regarding homicide (chap. 19), so it relates to the subject of when it is appropriate to take a human life. This section also seeks to clarify further the sixth commandment (“you shall not kill” or “murder”). This passage does not provide any information regarding the circumstances that justify when war should be waged on foreign soil. The verses only provide some general guidelines to govern it when it does occur. Elsewhere the OT does acknowledge that there is “a time to kill” (Ec 3:3), and throughout their nation’s history, God commanded the Israelites to attack their enemies (i.e. 1Sm 23:4; 2Ch 20:15). Yet it was always with the recognition that peace (vv. 10-12) is the goal to be desired.

Moses began by stating that Israel was never to be afraid when doing battle, even if her enemies had more numbers and superior weaponry (v. 1). Since war was not just a military issue but also a religious and theological one, priests had a major part in preparing the people for war. Priests were employed to encourage the troops just before battle by strengthening their will to fight, reminding them that the LORD would come alongside to fight against Israel’s enemies and provide deliverance from them (vv. 2-4). The priest stood as a tangible reminder to the troops that the Lord was with them and that they could trust Him for a favorable outcome in battle.

To achieve high morale among the troops, officers were to inquire among the soldiers before battle if any of them had built a new house or planted a vineyard or had become engaged but were not yet married. If any of those situations applied, then those soldiers were dismissed so that they could enjoy for a little while those special events of life, and this practice would also help stabilize family units as well as the economy (vv. 5-7). The officers were also to inquire whether any soldiers experienced excessive fear to the point where it would affect the morale of those around them. If that was the case and the priest’s prior encouragement did not strengthen their resolve, then they too were to be sent home (v. 8). After it was determined that there was a faithful army, then the officers were to appoint commanders to lead the troops in actual battle (v. 9).

20:10-15. This section deals with wars on foreign soil because Israel was to eliminate any nation in the land of Canaan. So with any city that was very far from them, the Israelites were to offer them terms of peace (i.e., they were given the chance to become a vassal state). If that was agreeable then the people of that city would perform forced labor on their behalf (vv. 10-11). If a city did not abide by the terms of peace, then it was to be besieged so that when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, the entire male population was to be executed (vv. 12-15). The women, the children, the animals, and the spoil could all be appropriated as plunder.

20:16-18. However, within the boundaries of the promised land, as the conquest of the land progressed and the battles were fought with those who occupied the land, the Jewish people were to leave nothing alive (see discussion at 7:2-6 for an explanation as to why children would be included). The various nations within the land of Canaan (7:1) were all to be utterly destroyed in compliance with the Lord’s command. Complete eradication was necessary so that they would not have opportunity to teach you to do according to all their detestable things. If the nations were left alive, then they would have the ability to influence the Israelites to participate in idolatry, which would be a sin against the LORD your God.

20:19-20. Here Moses gave additional information about the rules of engagement when Israel was besieging a city, presumably whether inside or outside the promised land. Often armies were ruthless in seeking to conquer resistant cities, so that the entire area was laid waste. This was not to be the case with Israelite warfare. They were not to cut down any fruit trees when besieging a city. They could be a source of food for the soldiers during that time, and also it was considered too cruel and vindictive. The value of fruit trees is heightened by Moses’ question, for is the tree of the field a man, that it should be besieged by you? This may seem hypocritical for God to command that fruit trees be spared and children and infants be exterminated, but Moses earlier had raised the concern about assimilation (7:3) with the Canaanites, hence the need for total annihilation (men, women, and children) of these nations. However, with trees there is no danger of assimilation or cultural transference, so they can and should be spared. Respect for God’s creation was to be maintained even in a time of war. However, in times of war, non-fruit-bearing trees could legitimately be cut down and used as siegeworks.

21:1-9. Moses expanded his exposition of the sixth commandment, “You shall not murder,” by covering a number of issues meant to maintain order. These verses discuss a specific case law regarding an unsolved murder. If a slain person is found lying in the open country and it is not known who killed him, then elders and … judges are to arrive at the scene of the crime and determine which city is the closest to the scene (vv. 1-2). The elders of that city are then to be notified, and they are to take over by bringing an unbroken (never plowed or sown) heifer down to a valley with running water (vv. 3-4). Apparently the valley did not have to be adjacent to the crime scene because running water was necessary for the following ritual. In the valley the elders were to break the neck of the heifer (perhaps with an ax). This was not a sacrificial act because the blood was not to be poured out on the ground or manipulated in any way. Breaking the neck of the heifer symbolized that a capital crime had occurred and the guilty one, even though unknown at that time, was worthy of death. The priests, the Lord’s representatives in this matter, were to be summoned to the valley where they would wash their hands (with the running water nearby as a symbol of purity; v. 4) over the dead heifer and publicly announce, Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it. Forgive Your people Israel whom You have redeemed, O LORD, and do not place the guilt of innocent blood in the midst of Your people Israel (vv. 7-9). This ritual signifies the need for Israel to deal with all bloodguilt matters, even in cases where the perpetrator was not known. The land was to remain undefiled, and this ritual was the prescribed means of removing bloodguilt in unsolved murder cases.

21:10-14. Moses legislated a number of family related laws, the first dealing with regulations regarding captive women. Earlier the law stated (20:14) that women and children from captured cities were to be spared. The possibility arose, as described here, that one of the soldiers might find one of the captive woman attractive enough for marriage. Caution was in order here because intermarriage was expressly forbidden with women from the Canaanite nations (7:3) and should not have been even possible if all the inhabitants, including the women, were put to death as the Lord had instructed. The background for this situation (although not explicitly stated) is that some of the captive women might wish to associate themselves with the God of Israel (like Rahab), and now the possibility of an Israelite marrying one of these women was an option. Several stipulations, however, were in order. She was to shave her head and trim her nails and get rid of her wardrobe (vv. 12-13). The purpose of these acts is not clear. Some think that if the only reason the woman was desirable in the first place was that she was physically beautiful, the removal of adornments would mean she would be less attractive. The most likely reason is that these acts demonstrate that she needed to remove anything pertaining to her former life and embrace life within the Israelite community. This would also remind her husband that he is no longer to treat her as an alien but as a wife. She was also given a full month to mourn her parents. Presumably her father and mother would be dead after the city was captured, so she would need time to grieve those losses. If those stipulations were met, then the soldier would be free to marry her, but if he was ever displeased with her, she was to be released from the marriage and she could go wherever she wishes (v. 14). Even though she was a foreigner, she had certain rights and was not to be sold for money or mistreated in anyway because she had been humbled (as a result of the divorce, and so he may not humiliate her further). While some of these regulations may affront modern sensibilities, these regulations were a far cry from the common way war captives were treated throughout other ancient Near Eastern nations of the time.

21:15-17. Genesis 2:22-24 states that monogamy is the standard for marriage, but this current stipulation seeks to regulate polygamy when it does occur in order to protect the family rights of the firstborn. The placement here after vv. 10-14 may suggest that she is the unfavored wife in a polygamous marriage. In a polygamous marriage, if each wife had borne … sons, then regardless of which wife was the more favored by the husband, the firstborn son was to receive a double portion of the father’s estate. Family order was to be maintained and was not to be manipulated to achieve a different outcome from what was clearly mandated. Polygamy (like divorce), although not ever expressly sanctioned by God, was practiced. It was typically entered into by men of wealth or power (Abraham, Elkaneh, David) and not by the common man. It was done either as a means of status or in some cases altruistically to benefit women who had no other means to support themselves. Even though it is mentioned as a practice within the OT it is best to follow the original mandate of one man and one woman (Gn 2:22-24) since polygamy often leads to difficult cases such as this one.

21:18-21. The case law in these verses expands the fifth commandment regarding honoring one’s parents. If a man had a stubborn and rebellious son who was grossly disobedient to his parents and did not respond to disciplinary measures, then his parents were to take him to the elders at their city gate. This situation applied when the son was completely incorrigible and willfully rebellious against any authority structure in his life. The parents were to attest to his rebelliousness and give specific examples of his behavior. In this case the parents attested that their son was a glutton and a drunkard. The former speaks of his lack of control regarding food and the latter of his inability to moderate consumption of alcohol. The parents did not have unilateral authority to assign the death penalty to their son, but if the elders were in agreement with the parents then the men of the city were to stone the son to death. The morality of individual families affects the moral and spiritual fabric of the nation. For this reason insubordination was an evil to be purged from the community.

21:22-23. Several times throughout Deuteronomy capital punishment was set forth for certain behavior (13:10; 17:5; 21:21), but no instructions were given in those passages regarding the disposition of the criminal’s corpse after execution. Here Moses presented a case study of what was to be done in those situations. If someone was executed and hung on a tree, the body was to be removed and buried before sundown on the same day as his execution. Hanging on a tree was not the means of execution (stoning was the typical means), but often the bodies of executed criminals were hoisted up on a stake as a demonstration of their death as well a deterrent for any who sought to emulate their behavior. The executed criminal was considered cursed by God, not because he was hung on a tree but because of the behavior that brought about his punishment. While there is a clear object lesson in these situations to warn people about the consequences of their behavior, the body of the criminal was still to be treated in such a way that Israelites did not defile their land. In Gl 3:13 Paul quoted this passage, stating that Christ’s death enabled believers to be redeemed from “the curse of the Law.”

Chapter 22 seems like disparate material, but subtle clues indicate that it is a unit. Repeated words (such as ox [vv. 1, 4, 10], donkey [vv. 3, 10], garment/clothing [vv. 3, 5, 12], and house [vv. 2, 8]) stitch these laws together. This section also transitions from the taking of life (21:18–22:8) to purity, including sexual purity (22:9-30).

22:1-4. The injunction here relates to lost property and the care and return of it. To demonstrate love to their neighbor and respect for life in general, the Israelites were to maintain high ethical standards in regard to other people’s possessions. Moses wrote of straying oxen or sheep and commanded that they be returned to their owner (vv. 1-2). This was then expanded to include all other possessions that could be lost or misplaced. Animals, especially oxen, were valuable pieces of property because of the work they performed. So returning them to their owner was the right thing to do, and it also allowed the owner to maintain a standard of living. This courtesy is to be extended to the owner to assist him in retrieving property, but it is also to be extended the animals themselves. If someone saw an animal in distress, he was to come to its aid.

22:5. Next, a law prohibiting cross-dressing and transvestite practices may seem out of place in the context, but Moses was slowly transitioning to purity laws and taboo mixtures or mixed messages. Some have suggested that cross-dressing was sometimes used in pagan fertility rituals, and the Israelites were to maintain their separateness from pagan practices at all times. Others see this legislation as seeking to discourage homosexuality. Whatever the background, the theme of purity and expected norms stands out. Wearing clothing of the opposite sex sends a mixed message, and thus is prohibited.

22:6-7. Scholars differ on the reason Moses gave this prohibition not to take the mother bird and her young or eggs at the same time. Most scholars see it as a tangible way for the Israelites to be taught reverence for life, especially in the animal kingdom, but since the life of the young is taken that seems unlikely. This may simply be a means of preserving the food source so as to secure a supply of food for the future. This was the same principle at work earlier when fruit trees were not to be cut down when besieging a city (20:19-20). Obedience to this injunction results in prosperity and prolonged days.

22:8. As another tangible expression of love toward a neighbor, parapets (or fences) were to be built around one’s roof deck. Since roofs were used as living space and a place for hospitality, it was a common courtesy to build safety measures for their guests’ protection while entertaining them. Human life was to be valued, and any means implemented to preserve and protect life was to be used to prevent bloodguilt.

22:9-11. Moses now listed injunctions against the mixing of different materials. Israelites were prohibited from mixing two kinds of seed while sowing, or plowing with two different kinds of animals, or wearing garments with mixed fabrics. There is nothing physically harmful in any of those mixtures, but since the outward demonstration of purity in these matters symbolized an internal spiritual purity that was to characterize the Israelites, anything that did not conform to a high standard of purity was forbidden.

22:12. Tassels were to be placed on the four corners of their garments, and while the explanation or reason is not stated here, it was earlier (Nm 15:37-41). The tassels were to serve as object lessons to help the Israelites remember the Lord’s commandments wherever they went.

22:13-21. The family was an important building block of the Israelite community, so it was important to maintain the highest sexual standards to maintain its purity. Moses now gave further exposition of the seventh commandment.

The first case study involves a husband who charges his wife with shameful deeds and publicly defames her because he claims she was not a virgin when he married her (vv. 13-14). First, Moses addressed what to do if it was a false charge, and then what to do if it was a valid accusation. In either case the parents of the wife were to bring evidence of the girl’s virginity to the elders (v. 15), announce the accusation, and present the evidence for inspection. The evidence of her virginity was the bloodstain on the bedsheet from the breaking of the hymen after the marriage was consummated. If the elders found the evidence compelling, then the husband was chastised (whipped) and fined 100 shekels of silver to be paid to the father (vv. 18-19). The penalty was twice the normal bride price (v. 29) that a groom paid the father. The husband was thus punished for publicly defaming a virgin, and he was unable to divorce her afterward (v. 19). The high fine and the public humiliation were measures to protect the wife from false accusations. But if she were not a virgin at the time of the marriage, then she was to be executed by stoning at the doorway of her father’s house (vv. 20-21). This was mandated because the parents did not help maintain their daughter’s virginity or were perhaps even complicit in making her appear to be a virgin to her potential husband when she was not.

22:22. Moses then set forth a clear injunction against adultery (the seventh commandment), specifying that the penalty was death for any man or woman caught lying with someone who was married. In this case there had to be clear proof of the infidelity and the manner of execution was presumably stoning (cf. vv. 21, 24).

22:23-27. A virgin engaged to a man was legally equivalent to a married woman, and so if she engaged in sex with another man while within the city, both she and the man were to be stoned to death (vv. 23-24). If she alleged that she was raped, but she did not cry out to prevent it from happening, she was judged as engaging in consensual sex and she was still to be executed for immorality. However, if the sexual act occurred in a field (away from people nearby), then only the man should be executed because it was presumed to be an act of rape. The girl was not to be punished because she did nothing wrong. This was a criminal act against her (vv. 25-27).

22:28-29. In another scenario if a man … seizes a virgin who was not yet engaged and lies with her, then the man shall pay the father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife and he will be unable to divorce her all his days (vv. 28-29). Some object to a law forcing a woman to marry the man who raped her. However, for several reasons, it is more likely that the verb “seized” (taphas) does not refer to rape but seduction leading to consensual premarital sex, rather than rape. (1) In the parallel law found in Ex 22:16-17, the verb used is not “seizes” (taphas) but “entice” (pathah) and then results in consensual sex. (2) The verb “seizes” (taphas), used here, is distinguished from the word “forces” (22:25, from the root chazak, meaning “overpower”) in the previous paragraph, referring to rape. (3) The verb “seizes” (taphas), while literally referring to physical capture, can also have a metaphorical sense, much like “to capture one’s heart” (cf. Ex 14:5), and much more in keeping with seduction. Hence, this law is dealing with a man who seduces a young virgin with words of love so that she lies with him. Afterward, this “seducer of an unbetrothed virgin was obliged to take her as wife, paying the customary bride price and forfeiting the right of divorce” (Meredith Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 111). While marrying a seducer may be an affront to modern sensibilities, there is some rationale behind this legislation. It was a means of protecting a woman’s honor. Also if a child were conceived from this illicit relationship, then the child would have a source of financial support. This law may have also provided a strong deterrent against seduction and premarital sex since divorce was not an option. The stability of the family unit and sexual purity were values held in high esteem over feelings in that culture.

22:30. A situation that could not be technically construed as adultery but was nevertheless prohibited was when a man married his stepmother after his father’s death. Such an act uncovered his father’s skirt (a euphemistic idiom describing the invasion of the privacy of sanctioned sexual relationships). This act violated the sanctity of his father’s marriage and was considered incestuous.

23:1-8. This section pertains to limiting those who had access to the assembly of the LORD (v. 1). That “assembly” is not explained, but the most prevalent view is that it was the central sanctuary. Again the notion of purity and symbolism is evident here, and this regulation was not necessarily making a moral judgment about those excluded. The first exclusion goes to individuals who were emasculated or had their male organ cut off. Now this emasculation could be due to genetics or an accident or intentional, but no matter the cause the result is still the same—they could not enter the assembly. This injunction was probably aimed at men who had been emasculated in dedication to foreign deities (and by extension to those who had official positions under foreign governments). “Wholeness” was important in the Israelite worship system, so anything that did not conform to the “perfect” template (in this case a complete male body) was excluded. With something missing from his body he was no longer representative of a man made fully in God’s image (Gn 1:27).

Another person who was excluded is one of illegitimate birth (v. 2). The word illegitimate is rare, and so it may refer to all who are illegitimate. But that is unlikely since unmarried individuals who had sexual intercourse were either put to death (22:20-22), or required to get married (22:28-29). It more likely refers to children of forbidden cross-cultural marriages or to children born to cult prostitutes who had been associated with pagan rituals. The prohibition of not being able to enter, even to the tenth generation, is an idiom meaning forever; it probably does not mean that a person of the eleventh generation could be included.

Ammonites or Moabites were excluded from the assembly (vv. 3-6) because they did not show hospitality to the Israelites after the exodus from Egypt and they attempted to curse the nation by hiring Balaam. They also may have been barred because they were the offspring of an incestuous relationship between Lot and his daughters (Gn 19:3-38). However, Balaam’s curse ultimately turned into a blessing … because the LORD loved Israel (Gn 12:3). The nation was never to seek their peace by ever entering into a peace agreement with them or to seek their prosperity by entering into trade agreements.

Edomites and Egyptians were to be treated differently from the Moabites and Ammonites (vv. 7-8). Edomites were considered brothers because they descended from Jacob’s brother Esau. Egyptians were not to be detested since the Israelites were aliens in their land and received hospitality, at least initially, when they sojourned there. The offspring of these two nations could enter into the Israelite assembly after the third generation. In other words, their grandchildren were granted full rights into Israel’s religious ceremonial worship system.

While these are the stated standards, what about obvious exceptions such as David, who descended from Ruth the Moabitess? The exclusion may be focused more on Moabite men than Israelites taking Moabite wives. However Ezra later interpreted it in an absolute way as forbidding all such intermarriage (Ezr 9:1-2). This also may be a statement that no unbelieving foreigner may participate in the ceremonial worship at the assembly, fitting the theme of purity. The simplest view is that we have here an example of “faith” trumping “law.” Ruth demonstrated great faith in the God of Israel, especially during the dark period of the judges, and was graciously allowed to be included into the Israelite community as well as the messianic line.

23:9-14. While vv. 1-8 deal with purity concerns for the assembly, vv. 9-14 deal with purity issues for the army as soldiers went to war. Soldiers were to keep themselves from every evil thing (v. 9). Specifically, if any man had a nocturnal emission, then he must leave the camp, wait until evening, bathe himself and then he may reenter the camp at sundown (vv. 10-11). Nothing is morally wrong here, but since he was ceremonially unclean (because his semen was not spilt in the “normative” way—that is in conjunction with sexual intercourse with one’s wife) and since war was seen as something theological (since God was a warrior in their midst), this was not just a military event. The same goes for the command to bury one’s excrement outside the camp (vv. 12-14). Since God is a warrior along with the Israelite troops, no impurity was to be anywhere in the camp. The camp was to be holy.

23:15-16. Runaway slaves from foreign nations were not to be returned to their masters. Instead they were to be allowed to live among the Israelites wherever they chose and without being harassed. This policy was vastly different from what was practiced throughout the ancient Near East. Slaves were often legally required to be extradited, and often a reward was paid to the one who returned the slave. Israel, however, was to be seen as a refuge where others could flee and find sanctuary. How this law fits the context of purity is not clear, but the same Hebrew word is used in both v. 14 (“deliver”) and v. 15 (“escaped”), so verbal linkage unites this material.

23:17-18. On the theme of purity no Israelite daughters or sons were to be employed as a cult prostitute, and no proceeds from prostitution were to be presented as a votive offering to the Lord. A dog is a pejorative term for a male prostitute. These practices associated with pagan fertility rites were an abomination to the LORD.

23:19-20. While on the topic of money, Moses wrote that no Israelite was ever to charge interest on a loan or any other legal borrowing agreement made to a fellow Israelite, but interest could be charged to a foreigner. Since the Lord was going to richly bless His obedient people in the land, plenty of funding would be available to assist each other. This also prevented the strong from preying on the weak in order to prosper.

23:21-23. Also on the topic of money, the next law demanded that worshipers not delay in paying their vows. A vow was an agreement with the LORD, so the worshiper was responsible to follow through on what he was verbally committed to do. This could be seen as an exposition of the third commandment not to take the Lord’s name in vain. It was better not to vow at all than to make a promise and not be able to follow through on it.

23:24-25. The law stated here protected the poor and allowed for brotherly love. People were allowed to eat grapes or grain from anyone’s vineyard or field so long as they ate it immediately and did not store any for later consumption. Again this allowance assumed that the Lord would abundantly bless His obedient people in the land and that such a provision would not interfere with the people’s overall prosperity.

Chapter 24 includes a number of laws on issues dealing primarily with purity, justice, and compassion for the poor. All these themes have been discussed earlier in the book.

24:1-4. (For this section, see also the comments on Mt 19:3-9.) Legislation concerning grounds for a divorce is not something overtly discussed in the law. Earlier in the book, divorce is assumed to happen in some situations except when it is clearly prohibited (22:19, 29). The situation described here has several conditions, so that it cannot be used as the basis for an overarching policy for divorce. The law here sought to regulate what had presumably already been happening in the nation. If a married man found no favor in his wife because of some indecency in her, then he could write her a certificate of divorce and send her away. Then if she became the wife of another man, who then subsequently wrote her a certificate of divorce or died, the woman was not free to remarry the first husband. Views differ on the meaning of the indecency that the first husband found in his wife. It probably does not refer to adultery or premarital unfaithfulness since the punishment for those was death (22:20-22). Perhaps the indecency was some other sexual impurity, but its real meaning is unknown. The important issue here is that remarriage to a spouse after an intervening marriage was not permissible because of defilement. Nor is it clear what caused the defilement. Perhaps this was because the first husband disgraced her when he sent her away. While this may not make much sense to modern-day readers, the issues of purity, expected norms, and the protection of the weak are paramount and guide many OT laws. In any case this law seeks to regulate divorce and perhaps even discourage its implementation within Israelite society. See the discussion at Ezr 9 for more information on divorce.

24:5. A very family-friendly law is instituted here that allows for a one-year military exemption for anyone who has just married. This not only allows the couple the opportunity to enjoy the experience of marriage but also the possibility of starting to raise up heirs for the next generation.

24:6. Since millstones were used every day to prepare food, it was unlawful to use them as collateral for loans because it would take away the means to sustain life or to earn money to pay back the debt.

24:7. This is an exposition of the eighth commandment or more particularly of manstealing. Kidnapping was often done in the ancient Near East not so much to secure a ransom but as a means to take someone and sell him as a slave for profit. Although the captured person did not die, he would be deprived of his freedom and as good as dead, especially if he was sold abroad and unable to participate in the covenant community and blessings. The penalty for kidnapping was capital punishment.

24:8-9. These verses show clear dependence on Lv 13–14 (see the comments there), where Moses had earlier instructed the priests on ways to deal with leprosy. He now resurfaced that information, urging the nation to be diligent to observe the leprosy laws. The mention of Miriam and what happened to her (Nm 12:9-16) serves as a graphic reminder to encourage strict obedience of the leprosy laws. It also serves as a warning of what the Lord can do to His covenant people if they fail to observe His commandments.

24:10-13. The issue of pledges had already been mentioned (v. 6), but now the topic is expanded, especially in relation to treating debtors with dignity. Creditors were prohibited from entering a debtor’s house, thus maintaining dignity and the privacy of his own home. If the debtor is destitute, the creditor must not take as collateral anything the debtor needs to secure a good night’s sleep. For instance a cloak, an outer garment used not only by day but also as a covering at night from the chilly air, could not be used as a pledge. If Israel was obedient in the land, then the Lord would bless creditors with righteousness because of their compassion on the poor.

24:14-15. Similar to the previous legislation, employers were to pay laborers each day before the workers went home. This way the poor had funds necessary to provide for their families who were living hand-to-mouth. If employers did not implement this policy, then the workers could cry out to the LORD, who would reckon the employer’s merciless action as sin.

24:16. Many previous law violations stipulated capital punishment. This particular legislation seeks to provide further guidance for its implementation. The law made no provision for voluntary substitutionary death for criminal acts. Fathers were not to be put to death for their sons’ behavior, and vice versa. This does not negate what was said earlier (5:9). There the context was dealing with a father’s sinful actions in the spiritual realm (not criminal realm) that had long-range consequences for his offspring. Contextually, this law in 24:16 is centrally located in this section and helps heighten the importance of individual responsibility.

24:17-18. Aliens, orphans, and widows were often easy targets for judicial and economic abuse and mistreatment. Israelites were not to pervert … justice at their expense or to use as collateral what little the underprivileged had and needed. The basis for compassionate behavior toward them was that Israel knew what it was like to be in that situation while they were enslaved in Egypt.

24:19-22. In continuing legislation that relates to the poor, further laws were stipulated about gleaning and reaping. Landowners were to leave some grain, olives, and grapes during the harvest for the alien, orphan, and widow (v. 19) to glean. This gave them direct involvement in a dignified way of providing for the poor. An example of this law in practice is in Ru 2. By following these laws for the poor they were modeling God’s gracious acts toward them while they were enslaved in Egypt (cf. Dt 24:18).

25:1-3. This legislation deals with corporal punishment, and it places limits on its use. Dignity is a theme that runs throughout many of the laws in this book, and another example is seen here. A guilty man was due his punishment, but it was not to be excessive, nor was it to degrade and insult him in the process. In this situation anyone who was to be beaten (flogged) could not be struck more than forty times. To avoid going over this amount, Jewish law later limited this punishment to only 39 stripes, lest the flogging inadvertently go over the limit (2 Co 11:24).

25:4. This next law is specific: You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing. In other words kindness must be shown to animals while they work for the farmers. Since few people owned oxen (because of their expense), it was common to borrow or rent someone else’s ox to help with threshing one’s harvest. In this case a person could not muzzle his own or someone else’s rented ox, while it was threshing his own grain, in order to maximize his profits. This would not be “neighborly” and could cause harm to the animal. Paul used this verse twice (1Co 9:9; 1 Tm 5:18) to illustrate that ministers should benefit materially from those to whom they minister.

25:5-10. Here is an example where values could be in tension, and so a law was needed to provide clarity as to how to handle the situation. One value was the desire for a husband to have male heirs to pass on his family name, and another value was to maintain high standards of sexual purity. If a husband died having not yet produced a male heir, how could an heir be provided in a legitimate fashion? A brother was not permitted to sleep with his sister-in-law (Lv 18:16), but here is an exception to that law if specific requirements were met. If brothers live together and one of them married but then passed away without producing an heir, then one of his brothers was allowed to take the deceased brother’s wife as his own wife to produce an heir who would assume the name of his dead brother. This is often called a Levirate marriage (vv. 5-6).

A brother had the option of not agreeing to this, but in that case he would have to go through a humiliating ceremony to get out of it. The dead brother’s wife would go before the elders of the city and remove the surviving brother’s sandal and then spit in his face (vv. 7-9). From then on he would be known as The house of him whose sandal is removed (v. 10). The symbolism behind removing the sandal is not clear, but it certainly demonstrated that he had relinquished any claim to his dead brother’s estate, as happened in the account of Ruth (Ru 4:7). Spitting in his face would mean that he would be ceremonially unclean for at least seven days (Nm 12:14). Strong social pressure ensured compliance in this situation because it was important for each clan of each tribe to continue having offspring to inherit all of God’s promises to Israel.

25:11-12. The concern about the ability to raise up offspring seems to be behind the rationale for this next law. If two men are in a physical struggle and one of the wives seized the other man by his genitals to assist her husband in the struggle, then her hand was to be cut off with no mercy or pity shown. Two values were at play here. One is an overall concern for modesty, but the stronger value here, especially coming right after another law dealing with posterity, is that the woman by her act may be putting the attacker’s virility in jeopardy by her actions. This is the only example in the law code of physical mutilation as a punishment for violating a law.

25:13-16. Moving to laws regarding commerce, Moses commanded that Israelites were to be completely honest in their business transactions. They must not have two sets of measuring standards to manipulate trade in their favor. Integrity in this area ensures a long prosperous stay in the promised land, for the people’s obedience would enable them to avoid God’s judgment.

25:17-19. The Amalekites are singled out in the Pentateuch as the Canaanite archenemy of Israel. Two earlier battles with them had been mentioned earlier (Ex 17:8-16; Nm 14:39-45), but here Moses revealed even more information about their actions against Israel. During Israel’s exodus from Egypt the Amalekites purposely killed the weak and the stragglers at the rear of the Israelite march (cf. 1Sm 15:2). This is especially egregious not just because they killed Israelites but because they killed the faint and weary. Care for the weak is an important theme in Deuteronomy, and the Amalekites intentionally violated a value that is dear to God’s heart. As a result the Israelites were to blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven after they successfully occupied and settled in the promised land. Sadly they were not able to do so, as the Amalekites were still a force to be reckoned with later (2Sm 1:1; cf. 1Sm 15:20).

C. Ceremonial Fulfillment of the Law (26:1-19)

26:1-11. Moses here closed off an extended exposition on specific legislation that began in chap. 12. Chapter 26 also serves as a transition to the next major section of the book, which begins in chap. 27. This chapter forms a bracket with Dt 12, the beginning of the major section of “statutes and judgments” (12:1) in the book. Deuteronomy 12:6 anticipated the bringing of special offerings after the nation possessed the promised land, and Moses closed this section (in chap. 26) with instructions regarding special tithes and offerings.

The focus on the opening and closing passages of this key section of Deuteronomy has been on injunctions regarding appropriate worship—a key theological message of the book. This may explain why the first fruits offering was not mentioned in the list of holidays in Dt 16, in order to heighten its role here in this section of Deuteronomy. This offering in 26:1-11 and the special tithe mentioned next (vv. 12-15) were to be presented soon after they entered the land. This provided a smooth transition to another act of worship at Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim (chaps. 27–28), to be performed after they entered the land. They were to take some of the first of all the produce of the ground … in a basket and take it to the central sanctuary (v. 2). Apparently this was a one-time offering for the first generation, since much of the wording here would apply only to the special audience Moses was addressing on the plains of Moab. When the worshiper arrived at the central sanctuary, he was to make a public statement to the priest proclaiming, I declare this day to the LORD my God that I have entered the land which the LORD swore to our fathers to give us (v. 3). Then the priest was to take the basket of produce and set it before the altar (v. 4).

Then a second longer credo-like statement was to be said in rehearsing the nation’s pilgrimage and the Lord’s faithfulness. In this second declaration the worshiper was to say, My father was a wandering Aramean (v. 5). The father is Jacob since he was the one who went down to Egypt … few in number but came out a mighty nation. The word wandering refers to the unsettled nomadic nature of Jacob’s family. Aramean surfaces the geographical association of Jacob with northern Mesopotamia (Paddan-aram, 400 miles northeast of Jerusalem, Gn 24:4, 10; 25:20). This confession frequently mentions the Lord’s faithfulness in delivering them out of Egypt and in providing a fruitful land inheritance (vv. 6-9). This is the only time in the book where the worshiper spoke. By bringing this first fruit offering to the Lord at the central sanctuary, the worshiper was offering thanksgiving to the Lord, which is a catalyst for him, the Levites, and the foreigners living in their midst to rejoice in the Lord’s goodness.

26:12-15. This special tithe offering, like the one before it (vv. 1-11), was to be presented in the third full year after the nation entered the land. It was not to be presented at the central sanctuary but was to be distributed to the Levites, strangers, orphans, and widows in their towns so that they may eat and be satisfied. Each individual worshiper was to share God’s blessings with the wider community. This tithe was to be accompanied by a public statement that this tithe was being presented in direct obedience to God’s specific guidelines. The worshiper also entreated the Lord to bless both the people of Israel, and the land given to them as a bountiful gift. Heaven is declared here for the first time to be God’s specific dwelling place (habitation).

26:16-19. Moses concluded this major section that began in 12:1 with an appeal to obey all these statutes and ordinances … with all their heart and … soul. The immediacy of this appeal is heightened for this first generation entering the land by the use of the words this day and today. Moses’ statement that they had declared the LORD to be their God and that they would walk in His ways and keep His statutes, His commandments and His ordinances, and listen to His voice functioned as a formal ratification of this Moab edition of the Sinai covenant. By agreeing to these laws, the LORD had declared Israel to be His people, a treasured possession. They would be an exalted nation in terms of praise, fame, and honor and a people consecrated (holy) to the Lord. Consecrated is the Hebrew word normally translated “holy” (qados) and in this passage means “set apart” or sanctified for the Lord’s purposes.

IV.  Moses’ Third Address: Blessings and Curses (27:1–28:68)

A. Renewal of the Covenant Commanded (27:1-26)

27:1-8. Moses now appeared with the elders of Israel to motivate the people to keep all the commandments (v. 1) in preparation for a covenant ratification ceremony. The elders served to verify that Moses had been faithful as God’s mediator in giving God’s law. Also the elders began to function in this role of providing spiritual and national leadership for the nation, since Moses would soon die and they would be the ones to facilitate the blessing and cursing ceremony. This chapter is part of a structural bookend surrounding the main body of laws in the book (Dt 12–26) as shown in the chiasm below.

Structure of Deuteronomy 11:26–28:15

A  Blessings or curses are a choice (11:26)

B  Promised blessings recited at Gerizim; Promised curses recited at Ebal (11:29)

C  Obey the commands (11:32)

D  The commands to be obeyed (chaps. 12–26)

C’ Obey the commands (26:16)

B’ Promised blessings recited at Gerizim; Promised curses recited at Ebal (27:12-13)

A’ Blessings or curses are a choice (28:2, 15)

The overall effect of this structure is to bracket the middle section containing the body of legal material (i.e., “the statutes and the judgments” 12:1) in the context of blessing, worship, and obedience.

After arriving in the land the nation was to erect on Mount Ebal large stones and to coat them with lime (v. 2). This was so that these stones would have a proper surface on which to write all the words of this law (v. 3). Scholars debate what constitutes “the words of this law.” Because of the length of the entire Pentateuch or even the book of Deuteronomy some have suggested that it refers to the book of the covenant, that is, Dt 12–26, or even just the Ten Commandments (Dt 5:7-21). If these stones were erected out of doors, the intention may have been for this inscription to be used solely for this ceremony, since rain and other weather elements would quickly wash the plaster away. This inscription was to be a graphic reminder of the nation’s need to live by God’s laws. In addition to the plastered inscribed stones, the Israelites were to build an altar of uncut stones for making burnt and peace offerings (vv. 5-8). The stones were to be uncut, either to emphasize that the Israelites were not to depend on the technology of pagan craftsmen in building such an altar, or simply because the use of any tool would profane an altar dedicated to the Lord (Ex 20:25-26). Possibly the Mount Ebal/Mount Gerizim area (near Shechem) was to be considered the central sanctuary. But since what is described here is a one-time ceremony, it is better to assume that Jerusalem was the ultimate intended central sanctuary, because in later passages God’s name is said repeatedly to dwell there.

27:9-10. As Moses stood earlier with the elders (v. 1) he now stood with the Levitical priests who would also be instrumental in maintaining the nation spiritually after his death. By his public association with them Moses was transferring his authority to the elders and the priests. The priests also repeated the injunction to the nation for them to obey the LORD their God and to obey His commandments. Thus the priests immediately exercised spiritual authority over the Israelites.

27:11-14. After the stones were inscribed and the altar built, the nation was to be divided into two groups with six tribes standing on Mount Gerizim to pronounce God’s blessings upon the people and six tribes standing on Mount Ebal pronouncing the curses. No reasons are given as to why certain tribes announced the blessings and others recited the curses. The tribes that represent the blessings were all born of Leah and Rachel (Ephraim and Manasseh being combined under Joseph), and the tribes announcing the curses were born of the handmaids, in addition to Reuben and Zebulun, sons of Leah. Reuben, though the eldest, was probably selected to announce the curses because of his having defiled his father’s bed by sleeping with Bilhah (Gn 35:22; 49:3-4). Zebulun was listed with the tribes that pronounced the curses probably because he was the youngest of the sons of Leah and six tribes were needed for each grouping. Although certain tribes announced the curses does not mean that God had cursed their tribe. The Levites of v. 14 were probably Levitical priests (cf. Jos 8:33) since the rest of the tribe of Levi was standing on Mount Gerizim.

27:15-26. Of the twelve curses, as many as eight can be traced specifically to a violation of one of the Ten Commandments, as can be seen in the chart below.

After the Levites recited each of the curses, the people on both slopes would respond with Amen, signifying their assent to each curse and agreement to what was stipulated. Many of these violations could be done in secret (vv. 15, 24), and thus even if there were no witnesses the violations would bring a curse on the one committing the act. The curses relate to various domains: those that relate to God (v. 15), to family (v. 16), to neighbors (v. 17, 24), to those less fortunate (v. 25), to sexual violations (vv. 20, 22, 23), and to murder (i.e. premeditated killing of a neighbor). The last violation: cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them (v. 26) is unlike the others in that it is not a violation of a specific commandment but a general catchall violation of the entire body of laws contained in Deuteronomy. While the curses are listed in chap. 27, the formalized recitation of the blessings is not stated. Explanations for their absence could include: (1) it was expected that Israel as a nation would not be obedient to the covenant and hence would not receive the blessings; or (2) this could simply be a structural device on Moses’ part since the next chapter (Dt 28) begins with a listing of blessings, and they serve as the literary counterpoint to the curses.

The Warnings about Curses Delivered on Mount Ebal and the Ten Commandments

B. Blessings and Curses (28:1-68)

28:1-14. Moses addressed the nation and linked additional information about blessings and curses after the instructions for the ceremony to be performed on Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim (Dt 27). Blessing and cursing go all the way back to the opening chapters of the Pentateuch (Gn 1:22; 3:17), and the mentions there and here of those topics serve as bookends for the entire book of Moses (from Genesis to Deuteronomy). The conditional element of this covenant is evident here in that the blessings depend on Israel’s diligent and careful obedience to the Lord’s commandments. If followed, these commands would result in Israel being exalted above all the nations of the earth (v. 1). These blessings extend to all areas of their lives in the land, whether in the home or in times of war. Merchants in the city as well as farmers in the country would all experience material prosperity. Verses 3-6 sound as if they could have been used as part of the communal blessing ceremony at Shechem (27:9-26), since the blessings part of the ceremony is absent there.

In 28:7-14 Moses expanded on those blessings of vv. 3-6 by giving greater detail. The blessings pertain to three domains: (1) All their military endeavors would be victorious (v. 7). (2) All their families would experience material prosperity (v. 8), in terms of flocks and crops (vv. 11-12). (3) Their standing among the nations would be exalted, with Israel being the head and not the tail if they listened to the commandments and carefully observed them without deviation (vv. 13-14). Note that while these blessings include the promise of prosperity for God’s people, they are written to Israel and accrue to the people as they obey the Mosaic covenant. Christians cannot claim these because they are not under the Mosaic covenant (see the comments on Rm 6:14; 7:1-4; Gl 3:23-4:7).

28:15-19. Obedience would result in blessing, but disobedience would result in experiencing the curses. The curses are much more expansive than the blessings, indicating that Israel would struggle to keep her end of the covenant and needed the warnings about the curses to be much more explicit. The four curses in vv. 16-19 are the exact opposite of the four blessings in vv. 3-6, but not in the same order since numbers two and three are reversed. This may signal that the consequences of disobedience may not always be predicted since one of the results of the curse is confusion (v. 20).

28:20-24. Just as Moses expanded on the blessings in vv. 7-14, so here he expounded on the implications of the curses. When Israel forsook the Lord and committed evil deeds, the nation would experience painful physical maladies until they perished, and nothing they attempted to do would succeed. The Lord would send drought so that nothing could grow.

28:25-37. Not only would the curses affect their bodies and the land; in addition, any military undertaking would result in defeat so horrendous that no one would be left to bury the slain, and their carcasses would be food to all birds … and to the beasts (vv. 25-26). The nation would be under God’s judgment, so much so that He would inflict on Israel the boils He inflicted on Egypt during the ten plagues (v. 27; see Ex 9:8-12). Mentally and physically they would be so afflicted that they would not be able to accomplish anything they set out to do (vv. 28-29). Instead they would be the victims of various oppressors. Even the common celebrations of life, such as marriage and enjoying a newly built home and harvesting a vineyard’s first crops, would elude them (v. 30). They would not be able to eat meat from their own flock, and their own children would be taken away as slaves because they would have no power to stop their enemies from plundering them (vv. 31-33). All of this hopelessness, despair, and disease would drive them mad (v. 34). Ultimately the nation along with their king would be taken away in exile to be employed in the service of gods of wood and stone. Instead of being exalted among the nations (v. 36; see Dt 28:10, 13), they would be the source of ridicule wherever they were exiled (v. 37).

28:38-48. A significant area where the curse will be evident is in agriculture. The yield of their crops, vineyards, and orchards will either wither or be consumed by locusts, worms, or crickets (vv. 38-40; 42). The next generation will be led by foreigners in their midst because their own sons and daughters will be led away in captivity (v. 41). They will be victimized by predatory lenders and lose stature (v. 43). Moses assumed that the nation would experience these curses, as indicated by his statement all these curses shall come on you and pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed (v. 45). The judgment that was to ensue would be a legendary reminder for future descendants (v. 46) and directly attributable to their failure to obey the Lord or serve Him with joy and a glad heart (v. 47). Instead of blessings they would endure hunger … thirst and nakedness and be under an iron yoke of their enemies (v. 48).

28:49-57. Moses painted a graphic picture of a military siege, one of the severe consequences of disobedience. Foreign nations would swoop down on Israel (v. 49) and show contempt for the normal cultural values such as respect for the elderly (v. 50). All their produce would be utterly consumed by the enemy (v. 51), and all of their city defenses would be torn down (v.52). It would be so dire during sieges that even dignified men and refined women would be hostile toward other family members so that they would even eat their own offspring or the afterbirth in secret without having to share (vv. 53-57). Historical examples of this are found in later Israelite history (2Kg 6:24-29; Lm 2:20; 4:10). Moses was predicting the depth of depravity to which they would sink as a result of their disobedience to the law. These prophecies came true, especially in connection with the Babylonian exile.

28:58-68. Moses warned the people once again to be careful to observe all the words of this law and to fear the Lord’s honored and awesome name (v. 58), for if they did not, the nation would suffer extraordinary plagues and diseases like the ones God had inflicted on Egypt (vv. 59-61). Whatever blessings God planned for them would be completely reversed. Instead of being as numerous as the stars of heaven (Gn 22:17), they will be few in number (v. 62). Whereas the Lord delighted to prosper them, their disobedience would cause Him to delight in destroying them (v. 63). The notion that God delights in destroying them is troubling to many. Yet when His people intentionally disobey and spurn God’s grace, the same passion that delights when His people obey will be turned against them in their disobedience. Instead of peace and rest in the land they will experience fear, despair, doubt, and dread (vv. 64-66). They will long each morning for it to be evening, and they will long, when evening begins, for it to already be the next morning (v. 67)—a stark picture of hopelessness because no relief is forthcoming. There will be a reverse exodus, but with a bizarre twist (v. 68). They will willingly offer themselves as slaves to the Egyptians, who will not even be willing to purchase them for slave labor. Moses was saying that there is something even worse than enslavement: sinking so low that those willing to be sold into slavery will find no one willing to pay the low purchase price.

V.  Moses’ Fourth Address: Exhortation to Obedience (29:1–30:20)

A. An Appeal for Covenant Faithfulness (29:1-29)

29:1. The superscription here, these are the words of the covenant, signals another major section of the book, just as it did earlier in the book (1:1; 4:44; 6:1; 12:1). This superscription actually functions here as a fitting conclusion to the legal core of the book that began in 12:1. But it also is a transition to Moses’ focus on his present audience and what he needed to say to them before he passed off the scene. Moses had effectively blended the covenant that the Lord made with the nation’s first generation at Horeb with the words of this covenant, which Moses gave to the second generation in the land of Moab.

29:2-8. Like an effective speaker, Moses reviewed the main historical events that led them to this point, mainly the exodus from Egypt, accompanied by great signs and wonders (v. 3), as well as God’s guidance and provision for the nation during their forty years in the wilderness (v. 5). Moses also recounted the victories over Sihon (Nm 21:23-26 and Og (Nm 21:33-35) and the parceling out of their land to the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh (Nm 32:33). Despite these benefits, Moses surprisingly warns, yet to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear. This may seem to be stating that the Israelites simply lacked insight because of their constant refusal to trust God, as evidenced at Kadesh (9:22-24). But it is more likely that the Lord was responsible for the nation’s faithlessness because He did not grant them spiritual perception to His ways (see discussion at Rm 9). Whatever the case, still Moses seemed to be laying out hope for the nation. The words yet to this day at the beginning of v. 4 imply that things were about to change. Moses was laying the groundwork for a future work by God when He would circumcise their hearts and allow them to love Him with all their hearts (30:6). This indicates that God had to do a work first in their hearts so that they would have the capacity for faith and love for God as they should. Paul referred to this passage in Rm 11:8 in the context of the need for God’s grace for salvation (see the comments there and on Rm 9:6-23). Israel needed grace to appropriately respond to God just as NT believers do.

29:9-15. Prosperity for the nation depended on the nation keeping the words of this covenant (v. 9). Moses was stressing the present with the repetition of words like today (vv. 10, 12, 13, 15) and the need for all the groups standing before the LORD from the chiefs (v. 10) down to the lowest of servants, to engage in a formalized commitment ceremony. The Lord was keeping His promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (v. 13) by renewing this covenant not just with those standing before Moses but also with those not present at that time (v. 15), that is, all future Israelites.

29:16-21. Moses reminded the nation once again of the importance of abstaining from idolatry as they saw it being practiced by the Egyptians. They had been mostly isolated from idolatry during the wilderness wandering, and they could easily become susceptible to following the idolatrous ways of the Canaanites as they entered the land of Canaan. So this warning was particularly pertinent. Israel must not allow even one person to serve any pagan god lest a root (v. 18) take hold and spread into greater apostasy. Such an idolater would never be forgiven by the LORD. Instead he would incur all the curses previously mentioned in this book, and his name would be blotted out from under heaven (v. 20).

29:22-28. Continuing his perspective on the future, Moses addressed the consequences that disobedience would have on the physical properties of the land. Future offspring and even foreigners would attest to the devastation the Lord was to inflict on the land (v. 22). This is graphically illustrated with an allusion to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 23; cf. Gn 19). The desolation and destruction will be attributed to the Israelites forsaking the covenant (v. 25) and following idolatrous ways. The land will be cursed, and the Lord will uproot the people and cast them away into exile because of His great wrath (v. 28).

29:29. This final statement (the secret things belong to the LORD … the things revealed belong to us …) can taken in a number of ways. Some maintain that the secret things (v. 29) are the hidden sins of individuals. In this case, the verse is saying that God will punish a person’s private sins, but the nation was responsible for rooting out the things revealed (i.e., open, observable sins) so that the nation could faithfully observe the law. A better view is that the “secret things” refer to God’s knowledge and future plans that He has intentionally not revealed to Israel. This better fits the context because it is more in line with the corporate national focus of this passage than the behavior of private individuals. Israel was not to concern itself with trying to ascertain all the mysteries of God’s ways. Instead they were to concentrate on adhering to the great body of material He had already revealed to them (e.g., “the words of the covenant,” v. 1 and “this book,” v. 27). Obedience would lead to God’s continued blessings, but to try to determine His ways was not a privilege He would grant them.

B. The Call to Decision: Life and Blessing or Death and Cursing (30:1-20)

30:1-10. Moses anticipated a time when the nation would fall into disobedience and experience exile as part of the curses of the covenant. Apostasy would be inevitable. Yet he also injected hope: while they were banished they would have the opportunity to repent and return to the LORD and subsequently be restored from captivity back into the land (v. 3). Their repentance while in exile would trigger God’s compassion so that He would then actively bring the outcasts (v. 4) back into the land and prosper them even more than He did with previous generations. The LORD (v. 6) would even circumcise their hearts (cf. 10:16), enabling them to love the LORD their God wholeheartedly. This is the foundation for Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s concept of a new covenant (Jr 31:31-34; Ezk 36:24-32).

As a result of their future repentance, the Lord would once again uphold a core element of the Abrahamic covenant (Gn 12:3) in that He will inflict … curses … on those who hate and who persecuted Israel (v. 7). All the blessings that would have been withheld because of disobedience would be reinstated. Still, once again these future blessings would depend on Israel’s obedience to the Lord and their relating to Him with their whole heart and soul (v. 10).

30:11-14. Moses stated that the Israelites could comprehend and attain the commandments, and that no one has to go up to heaven (v. 12) or cross the sea (v. 13) to retrieve them because the commands are already nearby. They are so close to them that they could speak of them (in your mouth) and internalize them deeply (in your heart, v. 14). Paul quoted vv. 12-14 in Rm 10:6-8 (see the comments there). The Jewish people could not say that the law was too obtuse or inaccessible to them in Moses’ day and thereafter. God made every provision to make it readily available to them. Paul’s point in citing this text was to draw a parallel with the gospel of Jesus Christ. God, through Paul and the other apostles, had made the gospel available and accessible. The problem was not that God had not done enough; the problem was (and remains) the refusal of people to embrace Jesus as their Messiah.

30:15-20. Moses presented a choice, in stark contrast, before the people. They could either choose life and prosperity or death and adversity (v. 15). To enjoy their relationship with God, Moses reminded them of their fundamental responsibilities: to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments (v. 16). If they followed those injunctions, then they would live and multiply. But if they would not obey, then they would surely perish (v. 18) and their days would be short in the land. Moses summoned heaven and earth as witnesses (v. 19) to the choice set before them, and he urged them to choose life so that they and their descendants would prosper under the blessing of God. Parents who lovingly and obediently dedicated themselves to the Lord, as Moses urged them to do, would have a long-lasting impact on future generations.

VI.  Conclusion (31:1–34:12)

A. Deposition of the Law and Appointment of Joshua (31:1-29)

31:1-8. To prepare for his approaching death, Moses had previously associated himself in public settings with the elders (27:1) and the priests (27:9), and now he would confer the leadership on Joshua. Moses reminded the people that he was 120 years old and no longer able to come and go (v. 2). At the time of his death, “his eye was not dim, nor his vigor abated” (34:7). So even at his advanced age he still had full use of his faculties—although he did not have the physical stamina to lead the people in the military conquest of Canaan. In addition, because of his unbelief (Nm 20:12) the Lord forbade him from crossing over the Jordan (v. 2). As important as a human leader was, the LORD would be the one who would cross ahead (v. 3) of them to destroy the nations. Nevertheless, Joshua was the human figure God approved as their leader (cf. 3:28) in the conquest. The Lord would vanquish their enemies in Canaan just as He did with Sihon and Og (Nm 32:33; Dt 1:4), but the Israelites were responsible to follow the rules of engagement set forth earlier (7:1-5). Moses charged the people to be strong and courageous (vv. 6-7), for the Lord was with them (v. 8), and He would be faithful so that they need not be afraid. Moses then gave the same message to Joshua. The Lord later repeated these same words Himself to Joshua, just before the nation crossed the Jordan River (Jos 1:6-9).

31:9-13. To ensure its continuity, Moses wrote down this law and safeguarded it with the priests, who carried the ark of the covenant, the sacred possession of the Israelites. This law (v. 9) refers either to the entire book of Deuteronomy or to the body of laws in chaps. 6–28. Moses gave instructions that this law was to be read publicly every seven years … at the Feast of Booths (v. 10) at the central sanctuary. This public reading of Deuteronomy was not just for the men but also for the women and children, as well as any foreigners in their midst (v. 12). All people were to have access to this law so that they might not only hear it but also learn through it to fear the Lord and carefully observe God’s law.

31:14-22. Since the death of Moses was now imminent, God told him to appear privately at the tent of meeting along with Joshua, so that the Lord could commission his replacement (v. 14). This is the only mention of the tent of meeting in the entire book of Deuteronomy. The Lord’s presence was signaled by the appearance of the pillar of cloud … at the doorway of the tent (v. 15). Moses had earlier anticipated the nation’s future apostasy (30:1), but now God told him directly that the Israelites will arise and play the harlot (v. 16) with strange gods, thereby forsaking the Lord and His covenant. Their disobedience would unleash the Lord’s anger, and He would then forsake them. As a result, many evils and troubles (v. 17) would come upon them so that they would be forced to acknowledge publicly that their calamity was tied to God … not being among them. Moses was now instructed to write a song and teach it (v. 19) to the nation so that it would be a constant witness and reminder of the consequences of disobedience. If they would not remember the commandments, they would remember the words of this song for it shall not be forgotten from the lips of their descendants (v. 21). The Lord already knew of their intent not to obey Him even before He brought them into the promised land. So Moses wrote this song (Dt 32) that very day and began to teach it to the Israelites (v. 22).

31:23-29. Moses and Joshua were earlier summoned to the tent of meeting for Joshua’s commissioning (v. 14), and now it officially took place. The commissioning of Joshua is a structural bookend around a section (31:16-22) that stressed Israel’s future apostasy. As Moses was unable to prevent the nation from becoming disobedient, Joshua also would not be successful in keeping the nation from going astray. Nevertheless Joshua was to be strong and courageous (v. 23) since God’s presence would be with him as he led the conquest of Canaan.

When Moses finished writing out the words of this law, he commanded that his copy be placed beside the ark of the covenant (v. 26) so that it may remain there as a witness. The Sinai covenant was memorialized by the placing of the two stone tablets of the Ten Commandments inside the ark of the covenant. And now the covenant, as reiterated here in the region of Moab, was memorialized by the placing of a copy of the book of Deuteronomy beside the ark of the covenant. Moses’ words here to the priests reflected his assessment of their rebellion and stubbornness. He predicted that the priests would only increase their disobedience after his death (v. 27). He then called for the elders and officers to assemble (v. 28) to hear his negative assessment of their future prospects after his death. Then Moses widened the circle even more by speaking to the entire nation the words of this song (chap. 32).

Several witnesses were being summoned here. The copy of Deuteronomy beside the ark (v. 26) was a witness against the priests. The heavens and the earth would witness against the elders and officers (v. 28), and now the Song of Moses would be a witness against the entire nation (v. 21). Moses mustered these three witnesses to testify against the future apostasy of the nation: a book, nature itself, and a song. That is what Moses would leave with them after he was gone. What Moses was saying in vv. 28-29 had a forward-looking emphasis as it related to the latter days. Moses used similar language to introduce all the major poetical material in the Pentateuch. Major poems that contain key messianic prophecies are included after long narrative sections, and they shape the overall structure of the books of Moses. (See the chart “Pentateuch” in “Numbers,” p. 250, which looks at four poetic sections and four narratives.)

Moses used the major poems of the Pentateuch (Gn 49; Ex 15; Nm 22–24; Dt 32–33) not only to summarize long narratives but also to stop, pause, and insert key information about the coming Messiah within those songs. Moses crafted the Pentateuch with these forward-looking poetic pieces to provide an emphasis on the future Messiah (whom he also hinted at in Dt 18:15, “God will raise up for you a prophet like me”). Deuteronomy adds to this emphasis by actually concluding the Pentateuch with not just one major poem, but with two (i.e., “The Song of Moses,” chap. 32 and “The Blessing of Moses,” chap. 33).

B. The Song of Moses (31:30–32:43)

The book of Deuteronomy concludes with two songs: the Song of Moses (chap. 32) and the Blessing of Moses (chap. 33). Moses in psalm-like fashion poetically crafted the words as a memorial to Israel’s future generations. He invoked heaven and earth (v. 1) to pay attention to what was being communicated because they would be eyewitnesses to verify what they saw Israel do while in the land. Moses desired that his lyrics would be like refreshing rain on fresh grass (v. 2). With these words Moses proclaimed the Lord’s name and His greatness. For the first time in the Scriptures the Lord is described as a Rock (v. 4), suggesting His constancy and permanence. His actions are perfect and just, compared to the often-capricious actions of other ancient Near Eastern deities. He is faithful and treats everyone without injustice.

32:5-14. In sharp contrast to the Lord’s righteousness, the nation of Israel acted corruptly toward Him (v. 5). They bore no likeness to their father but instead were a perverse and crooked generation (v. 5). Sadly, the nation responded foolishly and unwisely to their Creator (v. 6). Their fathers and elders could testify of the Lord’s gracious actions when He separated (elected) them out as His inheritance (vv. 8-9). The elders could also testify of God’s great deliverance in the exodus when He protected them like an eagle that hovers over its young and He carried them on His pinions (v. 11). The LORD … guided them through the wilderness where in the Transjordan they enjoyed the finest of produce of the field and flock (vv. 13-14).

32:15-18. In spite of all that prosperity the nation grew fat and forsook God who created them and scorned the Rock who delivered them (v. 15). Israel is ironically referred to as Jeshurun (cf. 33:5, 26), meaning “upright one,” even though they were anything but righteous. Their apostasy extended to worshiping idols and sacrificing to strange gods (v. 16). They were so perverse that they were involved in sacrificing to demons (v. 17; cf. Lv 17:7). They preferred new deities to the One who actually begot them (v. 18). God is portrayed both as the One who fathered them and the mother who gave them birth (v. 18).

32:19-27. The Lord then responded to their provocation by spurning them (v. 19). He would withdraw from them and see how they fared (v. 20). Since they had made Him angry by their idolatry, He would likewise provoke them to anger by using foreign nations (v. 21). God’s fierce anger knows no limits, extending even to the depths of Sheol, referring here to the grave (v. 22). The Lord would heap all sorts of misfortunes on them so that they would be laid waste and consumed (v. 23). They would be destroyed by big beasts as well as by tiny bugs (v. 24). Outside their homes the sword would bereave them of their loved ones, and terror would reign inside their hearts (v. 25). The effects of this destruction would be felt by those in their prime as well as those very young and very old. Their future was in serious jeopardy, to the point that the memory of them could have been eradicated from the earth (v. 26). The only reason God did not totally cut them to pieces is that if He had done so, Israel’s enemies would have misjudged the Lord’s power and assumed in their pride that Israel’s destruction was their own doing (v. 27).

32:28-33. What made matters worse for the nation was that Israel lacked perspective on what God was doing, as if they were unable to discern that all of this destruction was sent by God to get their attention. They failed to perceive God’s discipline because there was no understanding in them (vv. 28-29). They should have been able to conclude that one enemy soldier could not chase a thousand of them away unless their God (the Rock) had caused it (v. 30). Even enemy troops would not be able to explain their success because it was so uncharacteristic of their gods to grant such ability (v. 31). These enemies would be worse than Sodom and … Gomorrah (v. 32), yet God unhesitatingly would use the poison of vile nations to discipline His wayward children (v. 33).

32:34-43. The tone now changed drastically to one of hope. Though God would use enemies to judge Israel, He would let them go only so far before He turned the tables and held them accountable for their actions. The LORD would once again vindicate His people and express compassion on Israel once He saw that their strength was gone (v. 36). In other words, He would come to their aid only when they had exhausted their own efforts and when they renounced the gods in whom they sought refuge (v. 37).

God’s discipline was never intended to destroy the nation but only to get them to recognize that there is no god besides Him (v. 39). He alone has the power to put to death and to give life. The Lord wounded them, but He also desired now to heal them. Once Israel recognized this, God would then take vengeance on Israel’s adversaries (v. 41). This was to be a cause for rejoicing not just among His people but also among all nations because the Lord will execute justice on the earth and will atone for His land and His people (v. 43). Even though the song of Moses contains a negative warning about the consequences of apostasy, it ends on a positive note extolling God’s justice and atoning ability.

C. Preparation for Moses’ Death (32:44-52)

32:44-47. After Moses and Joshua taught the song (v. 44), Moses again challenged the nation to take to heart all the words of his warning and to command their children to observe all the words of this law carefully (v. 46). These lyrics could be preventive medicine if they would only heed its message. These were not just idle words; they were the source of life to Israel, and by observing them the people would prolong [their] days in the land (v. 47).

32:48-52. The very day the Song of Moses was composed (v. 48), Moses was summoned (v. 49) to ascend Mount Nebo … in the land of Moab (a mountain situated eight miles east of the Jordan River at the northeast corner of the Dead Sea) and from a distance (v. 52), to take one last look at the land of Canaan that the Lord was giving to the Israelites. Then Moses would die there and be gathered to his people, just as happened to Aaron on Mount Hor. The Lord said again that Moses was not permitted to enter the promised land because he broke faith (v. 51) with the Lord in the midst of the people at Meribah-kadesh and did not treat the Lord as holy (see comments at Nm 20:1-13). There are two different locations named Meribah. This one is near Kadesh-barnea, about 90 miles southeast of Jerusalem. God would permit Moses a panoramic view of the land from a distance, but Moses had relinquished his authority to lead the people personally into the promised land.

D. The Blessing of Moses on the Tribes (33:1-29)

33:1-5. The Song of Moses (chap. 32) is followed by the Blessing of Moses. The Pentateuch comes to an end with a twofold poetic flourish. Within the books of Moses poetic pieces often close out major sections (Gn 49; Ex 15; Nm 22–24; Dt 32–33). This poem was obviously added to the Pentateuch sometime later because the introduction to it states that Moses would bless the nation with these words before his death. Hence, this begins the section of Deuteronomy that was added after Moses died and continues to the end of chap. 34.

The blessing here is a kind of last will and testament of Moses similar to the one Jacob made at the end of his life that bestowed a blessing on each of the tribes. The structural constraint of keeping the listing of tribes at 12 meant that one of the tribes would be left out. In this passage Levi is included and Simeon is left out. Why Simeon was left out is not clear. Later on in Joshua’s day the tribal allotment of Simeon was totally included in the territory of Judah (Jos 19:1-9) and eventually was absorbed into the tribe of Judah. So the lack of mention of Simeon in Dt 33 may be a foreshadowing of decline for that tribe.

Moses began with an introduction that extolled the Lord as a divine warrior, having come from Sinai, since that is where He visibly met with Israel to give them the law. The Lord loves the people, and the holy ones (angels) were escorting him on this occasion when God revealed Himself through words. Moses was the human mediator in delivering the law and was called the king in Jeshurun.

These last two chapters of Deuteronomy present an interesting portrayal of Moses. He pronounced a blessing on the tribes similar to what a priest would do (33:1), he was called king in Jeshurun (33:5; cf. 32:15) because he exercised royal-like power over Israel, and the next chapter states that no prophet had risen in Israel like Moses (34:10). The NASB capitalizes the pronoun “He” in v. 5, signaling that the translators of that version take the pronoun to refer to God and not to Moses. It is better to take the pronoun as a reference to Moses since he is the closest antecedent (v. 4). The phrase in v. 26 “God of Jeshurun” would appear to rule out that God is one and the same with Jeshurun. So embodied in the person of Moses were the offices of priest, king, and prophet, that Moses was a pattern of the coming Messiah.

33:6-25. Now Moses began to give a blessing for the 12 tribes of Israel. His desire for Reuben (v. 6), the firstborn son of Jacob, was that his offspring would not die out. The next line, Nor his men be few, could be translated “Let his men be few,” matching the negative assessment Jacob had of Reuben in Gn 49:3-4. That there are no other negative statements of any other tribe in this blessing, coupled with the Septuagint understanding it in a positive sense, weighs in favor of the notion that this is a prayer that Reuben’s numbers not dwindle. Judah (v. 7) was the prominent tribe and the first to set out whenever the nation moved. So Moses desired that they enjoy God’s help in military battles in that initial position.

With Levi (v. 8) Moses specifically mentioned the Thummim and Urim as the possessions of the priestly tribe. Evidently these were some type of precious stones used in the casting of lots to determine God’s will. No description explains them, but they may have been stones or lights that when consulted revealed responses to yes-or-no-type questions. Moses desired that they remain under the control of godly men who were devoted fully to God. The word Urim means “lights” and provides a clue as to how these precious stones might have functioned. They may have supernaturally glowed when used as God intended. In a time before the completed canon God implemented such a device to reveal His clear will. Since we now have the full revelation of God’s Word there is no need for believers to possess such a device. The specific historical reference to which Moses alluded demonstrates that tribe’s loyalty to God in that they were willing to kill their own countrymen who had committed idolatry in the golden calf incident (Ex 32:25-29). The Levites received the important role of teachers of the law for the nation. Moses prayed that their tasks be blessed and that any of their adversaries be thwarted.

Benjamin (v. 12) was to receive peace and security and be shielded between the Lord’s shoulders as His beloved. The phrase between His shoulders is unclear. It can mean that Benjamin lay safely between the shoulders (arms) of the Lord or that Benjamin was carried on the Lord’s shoulders as a father might carry his son—an image used earlier in Deuteronomy (1:31). It most likely is not referring to where Benjamin dwelt but to where the Lord dwells—that is among the “shoulders” (i.e., hills) of the tribe of Benjamin. The verb “dwell” was used earlier (12:11) in reference to the sanctuary—ultimately this will become Jerusalem. In the book of Joshua, the sanctuary was regarded as being located within the tribal allotment of Benjamin (Jos 15:8; 18:28). Joseph (v. 13), representative of both Ephraim and Manasseh, received the longest blessing of all the tribes. They were to receive great material prosperity by receiving the choicest of goods as well as military strength (represented by the ox). Even though Manasseh was the oldest son, Ephraim is credited with more numbers (ten thousands), as Jacob foretold (Gn 48:17-20).

Zebulun and Issachar (v. 18) are paired as they were in Jacob’s blessing (Gn 49:13-15). They were to rejoice in their daily activities and in what they would draw out of the abundance of the seas. Gad (v. 20) was blessed with a large territory in the Transjordan and was pictured as a ferocious lion in executing the justice of the Lord, presumably in the conquest of Canaan.

Dan (v. 22) is said to be a lion’s whelp, which was earlier said of Judah (Gn 49:9). Dan had the strength of a young lion and prowess to leap into action. Naphtali (v. 23) was full of the blessing of the LORD and was to take possession of the sea (probably the Sea of Galilee). Asher (v. 24) was to be favored more than the other tribes and to enjoy material prosperity, symbolized by his dipping his feet in olive oil.

33:26-29. The mention of Jeshurun (v. 26) here bookends the blessing of Moses (v. 5), and this section mirrors the theme of vv. 1-5. The incomparable divine warrior image is used to portray God as One who rides the heavens to come to their aid. God is eternal and a dwelling place, and the nation would be secure from whatever foes were against them because the everlasting arms were underneath them, bearing them up. Just as God is incomparable (v. 26), Israel was incomparable in terms of receiving God’s blessings. Israel would be victorious before their enemies only because the Lord had been their shield (v. 29) to protect them defensively and their sword to fight for them offensively.

E. Death of Moses (34:1-12)

34:1-12. Now that Moses had written the words of the book of the law (31:24), taught them the Song of Moses (32:24), and pronounced his blessing on the tribes of Israel (33:1), he ascended Mount Nebo (v. 1) as he was previously instructed to do (32:48-50). The LORD supernaturally showed him a panoramic view of the promised land starting in the north and proceeding to the south. The western sea (the Mediterranean Sea) was not visible from Mount Nebo unless the Lord specifically opened his eyes to see it. The Lord’s promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are mentioned (v. 4) to demonstrate God’s faithfulness to His word to the patriarchs. The reason Moses was not able to cross over into the promised land is not stated here, as it was earlier in the book (32:51-52). Yet because Moses was a faithful servant of the Lord, he was granted a gracious view of the land. Moses then died … in the land of Moab (v. 5), and was buried in an unmarked grave, presumably by the Lord Himself (Jd 9) in a valley opposite Beth-peor.

Clear support exists for the view that the human author of the entire Pentateuch was Moses. But several clues indicate that this specific account of Moses’ death was added later by someone other than Moses. First, Moses would have had to write down details prophetically regarding his burial spot even before he died. Another clue is that the mention of Dan (34:1) in the northern part of Israel would signal at least an editorial updating sometime after the tribe of Dan migrated northward to Laish (Jdg 18). The last clue is the phrase “to this day” (34:6), signaling that some time had passed between the time of Moses’ actual death and the time when that comment was added to the account. Moses’ eyes were not dim nor was his vigor (v. 7) (physical or possibly even sexual potency) abated, so the cause of death was not the result of any physical weakness or disease.

The nation mourned for Moses 30 days (v. 8), much longer than the usual seven-day period (Gn 50:10). Joshua was then filled with the spirit of wisdom (v. 9), attributed to the laying-on-of-hands ceremony that Moses performed earlier (Nm 27:23; cf. Dt 31:23). Joshua was now the established leader of the nation, and the sons of Israel listened to him.

Some debate surrounds the statement, Since that time no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face. Although many suggest that Joshua was the author of the final section of Deuteronomy (chaps. 33–34), for several reasons, it is more likely that it was added significantly later, near the close of the Hebrew canon. First, in Dt 33:1, Moses is called “the man of God,” whereas throughout the rest of the Pentateuch he was called “the servant of the LORD.” The phrase “man of God” is not used anywhere else in the Pentateuch but is an exilic term for a prophet of God. Second, no one remembered where Moses was buried (34:5-6), indicating that a great deal of time had elapsed. Third, the clause no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses assumes that the time of prophecy in Israel had ceased. Therefore, it seems likely that Dt 33–34 serve as a postexilic inspired appendix to the original Mosaic composition (See Michael Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic?, 62–63).

The significance of this postexilic addition to the Pentateuch is that at the time of Ezra, when the words no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses were added, the writer would have been able to look back at all the OT prophets and not find one as great as Moses. Therefore, the prediction of a prophet like Moses (Dt 18:15-19) remained unfulfilled, and the reader was being reminded to keep looking for its future fulfillment in the Messiah.

Thus the book of Deuteronomy and the entire Pentateuch concludes with the prediction that at some point in the future (cf. 18:15-19) a prophet (the Messiah) would arise in Israel to rival Moses. Moses experienced an intimate face to face (v. 10) relationship with the Lord, unique among all prophets (Nm 12:6-8), that was never matched in the entire OT period. Furthermore, no nation had ever seen, nor had any prophet performed, such mighty signs and wonders as Moses did. Consequently, the Pentateuch ends with a hopeful expectation that someday the messianic prophet, greater in word and deed than Moses, would arise on behalf of the nation of Israel. The Pentateuch closes with this look forward, and the NT writers rightly see Jesus of Nazareth as the fulfillment of this prophecy (see the comments on Dt 18:15-19; Ac 3:22; 7:37).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976.

Deere, Jack S. “Deuteronomy.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, 259-324. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985; reprint, Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 1996.

Kline, Meredith G. Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963.

McConville, J. G. Deuteronomy. Apollos Old Testament Commentary. Leicester: Apollos, 2002.

Merrill, Eugene H. Deuteronomy. The New American Commentary, vol. 4. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994.

Merrill, Eugene H. “Deuteronomy.” In Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, vol. 2, edited by Philip W. Comfort, 445-679. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2009.

Olson, D.T. Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.

Sailhamer, John H. The Pentateuch as Narrative. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992.

Thompson, J. A. Deuteronomy: An Introduction and Commentary. The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1974.