Original Meaning
The Nature of the Test (6:10–19)
VERSES 10–12 are cast as one long sentence with the principal clause being delayed to the very end: “Be careful that you do not forget the LORD, who brought you out of Egypt.” Previously Moses had warned against forgetting the events at Horeb (4:9) or the covenant of Yahweh (4:23), but now he goes back one stage further, highlighting the importance of remembering Yahweh as the one who had brought Israel out of Egypt, the slave house (cf. 5:6).
Moses sets the stage for the warning in verse 12 by describing the context in which the temptation to forget Yahweh will arise: when Yahweh has brought them to the land that he swore to their ancestors (v. 10a), when they have eaten, and when they are full (end of v. 11).1 However, in verses 10–11 he devotes most of his attention to describing the place where the danger will lurk. To be sure it is the land that Yahweh had promised the ancestors,2 but it is occupied by a settled agrarian population, and symbols of human cultural achievements—fortified towns (NIV “cities”), houses, cisterns, vineyards, and olive groves—dominate its landscape.3 Yahweh will indeed deliver into the Israelites’ hands the fruits of Canaanite efforts, ready made for their enjoyment. However, Moses warns the people that instead of evoking praise to their divine Benefactor, prosperity may yield a lapse of memory, especially concerning the source of the gifts.
In verses 13–19 Moses describes how the Israelites should respond to prosperity. Expounding on the Shema, he begins with three emphatic positive statements: “Fear the LORD your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name.” These statements cover most of life.4 Fear (yârēʾ) denotes the fundamental disposition of holy reverence and submission before Yahweh demonstrated by obedience.5 Serving Yahweh involves accepting one’s role as his vassal, not only by performing religious duties but especially by walking in his ways. Swearing by his name alone involves invoking only his name to guarantee the truthfulness of one’s word. No other gods are to be invoked, even in oaths.6
The negative command of verse 14 presents the flip side of verse 13: Israel is not to walk after other gods. The idiom “to walk after a god” may derive from religious festivals in which devotees of a deity would follow in procession behind the image of the god. In Deuteronomy it is always used in a metaphorical sense of loyal devotion to Yahweh demonstrated by living in accordance with his revealed will and/or behaving as God himself does (10:18–19).
Verse 15 presents the basis for this prohibition in the form of three motive clauses. The positive motivation we have heard before: Yahweh is an impassionate God (ʾēl qannāʾ; NIV, “jealous God”), zealous for his honor and jealous toward his covenant partner.7 Thus, Moses adds, should Israel betray him by going after other gods, he will destroy them off the face of the earth (Num. 11:1–3, 33; cf. also 25:3–4; Deut. 9:22).8 In short, if Yahweh’s people behave like Canaanites, they may expect the fate of the Canaanites. The God in their midst prefers to act for their good, but by the terms of the covenant he is not obligated to those whose devotion is compromised.
The reference to Yahweh’s presence “among you” in verse 15 seems to have triggered in Moses’ mind an illustration from Israel’s own experience. In verse 16 he adds an unexpected imperative with a cross reference to Massah (Ex. 17:7), “place of testing.” Massah became notorious as the place where Israel challenged God to prove himself, to keep his word,9 even though in suzerain-vassal relationships it is inappropriate for the inferior to challenge the superior (cf. Num. 14:22). Ironically, at Massah Yahweh was in fact testing the spiritual mettle of the Israelites (cf. Deut. 8:2–3; Ps. 81:7[8]). However, they had twisted his test of them into their own test of Yahweh,10 demanding he prove his presence by indulging them with their physical desires and making his response a condition of following him.
But there is another irony in Moses’ addition of “as you did at Massah.” Whereas in the past Israel’s loyalty to Yahweh had been tested by deprivation, in the future they will be tested by being “satisifed” (v. 11). Crises of need tempt people to demand a response from Yahweh, but crises of prosperity tempt them to forget him and to become self-sufficient. For this reason, Moses charges his people to guard their conduct (v. 17). Faith and fidelity are not merely matters of the heart, religious service, and/or verbal declarations of allegiance (v. 13); they must be demonstrated in life, specifically in obedience to the revealed will of God.11
In verses 18–19 Moses pleads for loyalty to Yahweh one more time, though now he expresses the demand in most general terms: “Do what is right and good in the LORD’s sight.”12 The Hebrew article on both “right” and “good” suggests specific content is attached to “the right” and “the good,” namely, unqualified allegiance to Yahweh alone and loving him with one’s entire being as summarized in the Supreme Command and the Shema.13 This is a precondition to enjoying the benefits of covenant relationship. The last clause in verse 19 shifts attention momentarily to the external test of Israel’s commitment. As they do what is right in Yahweh’s sight, he will do what is right, namely, to drive out the Canaanites (Ex. 23:27–28; cf. Deut. 11:23–25).
Bridging Contexts
TESTING BY YAHWEH. MERIBAH and Massah became proverbial for Israel’s testing Yahweh and blatantly violating the rules governing suzerain-vassal relationships. The taboo on a vassal testing a superior forces us to reevaluate biblical characters like Gideon, who tested Yahweh repeatedly.20 But Gideon seems not to have realized that in testing Yahweh he was actually proving his own faithlessness.
The notion of Yahweh’s testing his people occurs frequently in the Old Testament.21 The purpose of his tests generally is either to prove people’s faith (cf. Gen. 22:1) or to refine their faith (Deut. 8).22 The former is illustrated by Jeremiah 17:10: “I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve.” The latter principle is described by Zechariah: “This third I will bring into the fire; I will refine them like silver, and test them like gold. They will call on my name and I will answer them; I will say, ‘They are my people,’ and they will say, ‘Yahweh is our God’ ” (Zech. 13:9; pers. trans.).23
Both dimensions of testing carry over into the New Testament. In Acts 5:9 Peter accuses Ananias and Sapphira of testing the Spirit of the Lord, and in Acts 15:10 he charges Christians with Pharisaic backgrounds with putting God to a test by imposing on Gentile converts the yoke of the Torah of Moses. The New Testament seems to transfer the taboo on testing Yahweh in the Old Testament to a taboo on testing Christ. The Gospels are replete with stories of people who test Jesus, oblivious to his status as Yahweh incarnate.24 Paul’s appeal to the Corinthians not to test Christ as the Israelites did in the desert is especially striking (1 Cor. 10:9).25 First Thessalonians 2:4 speaks expressly of God as testing the hearts of his own.26
Deuteronomy 6:20–25 is significant because it highlights the importance of deliberate strategies for transmitting the faith and the memory of the gospel of Yahweh’s saving actions from generation to generation. As Judges 2 testifies, with the loss of the memory of his saving grace, apostasy and the Canaanization of culture followed closely behind. When we move to the New Testament, we discover repeated exhortations for passing on the faith (2 Tim. 2:2). Jesus deliberately transformed the Passover as prescribed in Exodus 12–13 into the Lord’s Supper to keep alive the memory of his saving actions (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24).
Law and grace. Even more significant theologically, this passage teaches clearly the relationship between law and grace within the divine plan of salvation and sanctification. Moses hereby declares that when members of the covenant community conscientiously obey the whole command,27 Yahweh accepts their actions as evidence of righteousness.
In trying to understand this statement and the relationship between human works and righteousness, we must avoid two extremes. (1) We must reject the notion that Moses viewed obedience to the commands as the basis of covenantal relationship. He had just declared (vv. 21–23) that the Israelites’ position as the people of Yahweh rested entirely on his past saving actions, independently of any Israelite merit (cf. 9:1–24).28 (2) We must reject the notion that one may enjoy a relationship with God without obedience to his commands, as if status can exist without concrete evidence of the status. Genesis 15:6, which provides a close analogue to the present text, does not contradict this interpretation. Abraham’s faith was indeed accounted to him as righteousness, but even before this event the patriarch had demonstrated his faith and his righteousness with obvious acts of obedience. Moses’ point here is that when acts of obedience arise out of genuine faith and fear, Yahweh accepts them as proof of righteousness and responds with blessing and life. Conversely, it may be assumed that in the absence of obedience, faith is lacking and the covenant relationship rejected, to which Yahweh responds with the curse and death.29
The Scriptures are consistent in asserting that no one may perform works of righteousness sufficient to merit the saving favor of God.30 In the New Testament words of Paul, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). However, within the gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone, Yahweh graciously reveals the standard of righteousness by which his people may live and be confident of his approval. There is no conflict here between law and grace. The Torah is a gracious gift through which Yahweh provided his people with an ever-present reminder of his deliverance, power, covenant faithfulness, and the way of life and prosperity.
But how is this perspective to be reconciled with Paul’s outspoken statements regarding the death-dealing effect of the law in contrast to the life that comes by the Spirit?31 However we answer the question, we must keep in mind several important considerations. (1) Moses’ statement concerning the life-giving/sustaining effects of the law is consistent with his teaching in 30:15–20, and with the teaching of the Old Testament elsewhere (cf. Lev. 18:5; Ezek. 20:11, 13; Neh. 9:29). The Psalter begins with an ode to the life-giving nature of the Torah (NIV “law,” Ps. 1), and Psalm 119, by far the longest piece in this collection, is devoted entirely to the positive nature and function of the law. The psalmist does not hesitate at all to declare the relationship between keeping the law and life (vv. 17, 40, 77, 93, 116, 144, 156, 159, 175). Ezekiel offers an extended exposition of this notion in Ezekiel 18:1–23,32 presenting three cases in which the conduct of a person leads directly to pronouncements of life or the sentence of death. The prophet assumes that outward actions reflect a person’s inner spirit,33 on the basis of which a judgment concerning the spiritual state of the person may be made and the sentence of life or death rendered.
(2) In trying to reconcile Paul and Moses we need to recognize also that from a hermeneutical and theological perspective, later revelation cannot correct earlier revelation, as if there were some defect in it. Later revelation may be more precise and more nuanced, but it cannot be more true. Accordingly, Paul cannot be interpreted as correcting Moses, as if Moses’ teaching were erroneous. If Moses attributed a life-giving/sustaining function to the law (cf. Lev. 18:5), and Paul appears to have declared the opposite as a dogmatic assertion, then he would have failed the traditional and primary test of a true prophet: agreement with Moses (cf. Deut. 18:15–22). Paul’s statements must be interpreted not only in the light of Moses, but also as rhetorical assertions made in the context of particular arguments.
In both Romans and Galatians, Paul is responding to those who insist that salvation comes by the works of the law, as represented by circumcision. To those who represent this view, he replies that if one looks to the law as a way of salvation, it will lead to death, but if one looks to the law as a guide for those already saved, it yields life (cf. Gal. 5:13–25). Indeed, Paul himself recognizes that although believers enjoy the status of righteous persons through the work of Christ, he still anticipates a future time when, based on faith demonstrated in acts of love (covenant commitment), believers will stand before God and hear his words of approval: “You are righteous” (cf. Gal. 5:5–6). On this matter Moses and Paul agree. In fact, Paul himself says, “It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but those who obey the law who will be declared righteous” (Rom. 2:13). The notion of “the obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5 NASB)—that is, a faith demonstrated through acts of obedience—is common to Old and New Testaments.34 The same paradigm applies:
Yahweh’s gracious (i.e., unmerited) saving actions yield the fruit of a redeemed people.
A redeemed people produces the fruit of righteous deeds.
Righteous deeds yield the fruit of divine approval and blessing.
Contemporary Significance
MOSES WILL HAVE MORE to say on the subject of this short passage in chapter 8, but for the moment we may summarize several dimensions of the enduring relevance of its message. In our twisted thinking, we often turn moments of deprivation into daring challenges for God rather than into opportunities simply to cast ourselves on him in faith. However, if need can serve as a test of faith and loyalty, the same is true of excess. As Paul will eloquently declare in Romans 1:18–23, the wrath of God in the face of ungodliness and unrighteousness did not die with the turning of the ages. In Paul’s thinking, thanklessness is the essence of idolatry.
Dangers of wealth and excess. With the wealth and excess we in the Western world enjoy, it is easy to forget that everything we have is a gracious gift of God. Sadly, too many of us fail the test of fidelity and faith that prosperity represents. We become like the rich farmer of Jesus’ parable (Luke 12:14–21)—smug and self-sufficient in our excess but paupers toward God. But the principle extends beyond personal, material, or physical well-being to the health of the church as well. Difficult days for a congregation test the faith of God’s people, but so do times of growth and apparent effectiveness. When our buildings are large and our congregations huge, then more than ever we must guard ourselves so that our commitment extends beyond glib confessions of love for God, or regurgitation of creedal affirmations, or emotional passion in cultic worship, to the daily obedience of faith. Jesus said, “If you love me, you will obey my commands” (John 14:15).
The significance of God’s commands. If we ask the question today, “What is the significance of the stipulations, the ordinances, and laws that God commanded the Israelites to observe?” the responses we receive vary greatly. Some shake their heads in bewilderment and wonder seriously whether there is any point to many of these laws, such as the food laws in Deuteronomy 14. Some feel sorry for the Israelites because they were saddled with a burden that no one can bear, for no one can keep the laws perfectly. Some, with cultural and antiquarian interests, find in these laws a helpful window into the society of ancient Israel, especially when compared with other ancient Near Eastern legal traditions, like those found in the Law Code of Hammurabi, king of Babylon in the nineteenth century BC.
However, at the popular level, especially in contemporary Western evangelicalism, some view the law as the way of salvation for ancient Israel. That is, whereas in the New Testament people are saved by grace, under the old covenant people were saved by keeping the law.35 Others have the opposite disposition to the law. For Israel, the law was not a way of salvation, but the way of death (Rom. 4:15; 7:6; Gal. 3:10–13, 23–24; 4:21–31). The significance of the law lies in its power to bind those who are under the law, to subject them to the curse and the wrath of God, and to demonstrate their desperate need of a Savior. While on the surface this seems to be the way the New Testament perceives the law, it raises serious questions concerning both the justice and mercy of God. How and why would God rescue the Israelites from the burdensome and death-dealing slavery of Egypt (cf. Ex. 20:2) only to impose on them an even heavier burden of the law, which they in any case were unable to keep, and which would sentence them to an even more horrible fate—damnation under his own wrath? When you look at the exodus this way, it turns out not to be such a good deal after all.
The Reformers spoke of three functions of the moral law: (1) to exhibit the righteousness of God and convict and finally condemn humans; (2) to guide civil authorities in curbing unrighteousness and lawlessness; and (3) to offer believers a guide for life in conformity with the will of God.36 While Luther paid little attention to the last, in truth, this is the only function of the law that Deuteronomy knows. In fact Deuteronomy 6:20–25 emphasizes that the law is a gracious gift for the redeemed, that they might have a clear view of the Lord’s expectations. Unlike other nations, the Israelites did not need to resort to guesswork or experimentation to learn the will of God. He revealed it to them directly in order that, motivated by gratitude and reverent awe, they might obey, as a result of which Yahweh would bless them with well-being, life, and his declaration of righteousness.
Some years ago, when our children were still home, at the supper table we were having a rather warm conversation over ethical issues and how we as Christians respond to them. In frustration my teenage son blurted out, “Why do we have to be such a prehistoric family?” While the tone of his voice left something to be desired, his question was profound. How do we respond when our children ask these questions? Do we say simply, “This is how we have always done it,” or “This is what the church teaches,” or “This is how we are obligated as Christians to live”? Such responses border on legalism at worst and moralism at best. Or do we take these as glorious opportunities to declare the gospel—how God has lavished on us his grace in our salvation from the power of sin, our hope of eternal life, and the privilege of knowing his will and gratefully living to please him. The Eucharist certainly offers Christians both an opportunity to keep awareness of Christ’s sacrifice fresh in their own minds and an occasion for curious questions by outsiders and children. Perhaps when such questions arise, we might respond with a recast version of this semicreedal statement of Deuteronomy 6:20–25:
When our children ask us in days to come, what is the meaning of the ordinances and customs that we observe, then we will say: “We were slaves to sin, but the Lord rescued us from the kingdom of darkness and ushered us into his glorious kingdom of light, with a strong hand, and great signs and wonders. He has brought us out in fulfillment of his promises and in accordance with his glorious plan of salvation, conceived before the foundation of the world. So the Lord commanded us to demonstrate our fear and love for him by keeping his commands for our good always and as expressions of our covenant relationship with him, as it is this day. And it will be righteousness for us before him if we are careful to show that we love God with all our hearts by doing all that he commanded us. Then we too will hear him say, “Well done, good and faithful servant. Enter into the joy of your Lord.”
Original Meaning
The Response to the Test (6:20–25)
HERE WE WITNESS MOSES at his pastoral best, instructing his congregation on the importance of passing the faith on to succeeding generations.14 This short paragraph consists of a child’s question (v. 20) and the adult’s prescribed response (vv. 21–25). Moses assumes that when faced with the challenge of competing cultures, children will ask their parents for an explanation of their way of life.15 The question the child asks concerns the stipulations, decrees, and laws that Yahweh commanded Israel (cf. 4:45). Whether the question arises out of ignorance, curiosity, or cynicism, the child is in effect asking, “Why are we governed by this set of regulations?”
The answer Moses prescribes for this question has been interpreted as a “family catechism.”16 Instead of getting straight to the point and talking about the laws, Moses offers a four-sentence exposition of the prologue to the Decalogue (vv. 21–23). In so doing he declares that Israelites’ lives were to be driven not primarily by a system of rules but by a knowledge of Yahweh, particularly his saving acts on their behalf and their special relationship with him. By highlighting four critical moments in the nation’s history, the confession declares in a nutshell the essential elements of Old Testament theology.
1. The history of Israel as a nation began with the people’s need of salvation: They were slaves of Pharaoh in the land of Egypt (v. 21a).
2. Yahweh rescued the Israelites from their desperate situation with a mighty hand (v. 21b; cf. 4:32–34).
3. Yahweh performed great and devastating signs and wonders in Egypt in the sight of the Israelites (v. 22; cf. 4:34).
4. Yahweh had brought Israel out of that land, in order to bring them into the land he had promised on oath to the ancestors (v. 23).
Taken as a whole, Yahweh’s rescue of the Israelites was a judicial act whereby he freed them from slavery to Egypt and claimed them as his own vassals—a status symbolized by the stipulations, decrees, and laws he had revealed to them.
In verses 24–25 Moses finally addresses the question raised in verse 20. In his mind Yahweh had revealed the stipulations, decrees, and laws for four purposes: (1) to govern Israel’s conduct (“to obey all these decrees”); (2) to instill in them reverent awe for their God (“to fear the LORD”); (3) to ensure Israel’s well-being in perpetuity (“so that we might always prosper”; cf. 28:1–14); (4) to maintain/sustain Israel’s life. The emphatic construction of verse 25 signals the climax of this semicreedal statement: “And righteousness it will be for us if . . .” [pers. trans.].
As noted earlier, in Deuteronomy “righteousness” (ṣedāqâ) denotes behavior that conforms to norms established in the stipulations of Yahweh’s covenant (cf. 33:21).17 The Hebrew word order suggests righteousness will be credited to faithful Israelites when Yahweh observes their scrupulous obedience to the Supreme Command (hammiṣwâ, “this law”).18 To those who do so, Yahweh will announce, “You are righteous” (cf. 24:13).19 Herein lies the significance of the statutes and ordinances: In his mercy Yahweh rescued Israel from Egypt and revealed to his people the appropriate response to grace that they might fear and obey him. If they do, they will not only live and prosper, but they will also hear his approval, “Well done, good and faithful servant [vassal]. . . . Enter into the joy of your master [suzerain].”
Bridging Contexts
TESTING BY YAHWEH. MERIBAH and Massah became proverbial for Israel’s testing Yahweh and blatantly violating the rules governing suzerain-vassal relationships. The taboo on a vassal testing a superior forces us to reevaluate biblical characters like Gideon, who tested Yahweh repeatedly.20 But Gideon seems not to have realized that in testing Yahweh he was actually proving his own faithlessness.
The notion of Yahweh’s testing his people occurs frequently in the Old Testament.21 The purpose of his tests generally is either to prove people’s faith (cf. Gen. 22:1) or to refine their faith (Deut. 8).22 The former is illustrated by Jeremiah 17:10: “I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve.” The latter principle is described by Zechariah: “This third I will bring into the fire; I will refine them like silver, and test them like gold. They will call on my name and I will answer them; I will say, ‘They are my people,’ and they will say, ‘Yahweh is our God’ ” (Zech. 13:9; pers. trans.).23
Both dimensions of testing carry over into the New Testament. In Acts 5:9 Peter accuses Ananias and Sapphira of testing the Spirit of the Lord, and in Acts 15:10 he charges Christians with Pharisaic backgrounds with putting God to a test by imposing on Gentile converts the yoke of the Torah of Moses. The New Testament seems to transfer the taboo on testing Yahweh in the Old Testament to a taboo on testing Christ. The Gospels are replete with stories of people who test Jesus, oblivious to his status as Yahweh incarnate.24 Paul’s appeal to the Corinthians not to test Christ as the Israelites did in the desert is especially striking (1 Cor. 10:9).25 First Thessalonians 2:4 speaks expressly of God as testing the hearts of his own.26
Deuteronomy 6:20–25 is significant because it highlights the importance of deliberate strategies for transmitting the faith and the memory of the gospel of Yahweh’s saving actions from generation to generation. As Judges 2 testifies, with the loss of the memory of his saving grace, apostasy and the Canaanization of culture followed closely behind. When we move to the New Testament, we discover repeated exhortations for passing on the faith (2 Tim. 2:2). Jesus deliberately transformed the Passover as prescribed in Exodus 12–13 into the Lord’s Supper to keep alive the memory of his saving actions (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24).
Law and grace. Even more significant theologically, this passage teaches clearly the relationship between law and grace within the divine plan of salvation and sanctification. Moses hereby declares that when members of the covenant community conscientiously obey the whole command,27 Yahweh accepts their actions as evidence of righteousness.
In trying to understand this statement and the relationship between human works and righteousness, we must avoid two extremes. (1) We must reject the notion that Moses viewed obedience to the commands as the basis of covenantal relationship. He had just declared (vv. 21–23) that the Israelites’ position as the people of Yahweh rested entirely on his past saving actions, independently of any Israelite merit (cf. 9:1–24).28 (2) We must reject the notion that one may enjoy a relationship with God without obedience to his commands, as if status can exist without concrete evidence of the status. Genesis 15:6, which provides a close analogue to the present text, does not contradict this interpretation. Abraham’s faith was indeed accounted to him as righteousness, but even before this event the patriarch had demonstrated his faith and his righteousness with obvious acts of obedience. Moses’ point here is that when acts of obedience arise out of genuine faith and fear, Yahweh accepts them as proof of righteousness and responds with blessing and life. Conversely, it may be assumed that in the absence of obedience, faith is lacking and the covenant relationship rejected, to which Yahweh responds with the curse and death.29
The Scriptures are consistent in asserting that no one may perform works of righteousness sufficient to merit the saving favor of God.30 In the New Testament words of Paul, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). However, within the gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone, Yahweh graciously reveals the standard of righteousness by which his people may live and be confident of his approval. There is no conflict here between law and grace. The Torah is a gracious gift through which Yahweh provided his people with an ever-present reminder of his deliverance, power, covenant faithfulness, and the way of life and prosperity.
But how is this perspective to be reconciled with Paul’s outspoken statements regarding the death-dealing effect of the law in contrast to the life that comes by the Spirit?31 However we answer the question, we must keep in mind several important considerations. (1) Moses’ statement concerning the life-giving/sustaining effects of the law is consistent with his teaching in 30:15–20, and with the teaching of the Old Testament elsewhere (cf. Lev. 18:5; Ezek. 20:11, 13; Neh. 9:29). The Psalter begins with an ode to the life-giving nature of the Torah (NIV “law,” Ps. 1), and Psalm 119, by far the longest piece in this collection, is devoted entirely to the positive nature and function of the law. The psalmist does not hesitate at all to declare the relationship between keeping the law and life (vv. 17, 40, 77, 93, 116, 144, 156, 159, 175). Ezekiel offers an extended exposition of this notion in Ezekiel 18:1–23,32 presenting three cases in which the conduct of a person leads directly to pronouncements of life or the sentence of death. The prophet assumes that outward actions reflect a person’s inner spirit,33 on the basis of which a judgment concerning the spiritual state of the person may be made and the sentence of life or death rendered.
(2) In trying to reconcile Paul and Moses we need to recognize also that from a hermeneutical and theological perspective, later revelation cannot correct earlier revelation, as if there were some defect in it. Later revelation may be more precise and more nuanced, but it cannot be more true. Accordingly, Paul cannot be interpreted as correcting Moses, as if Moses’ teaching were erroneous. If Moses attributed a life-giving/sustaining function to the law (cf. Lev. 18:5), and Paul appears to have declared the opposite as a dogmatic assertion, then he would have failed the traditional and primary test of a true prophet: agreement with Moses (cf. Deut. 18:15–22). Paul’s statements must be interpreted not only in the light of Moses, but also as rhetorical assertions made in the context of particular arguments.
In both Romans and Galatians, Paul is responding to those who insist that salvation comes by the works of the law, as represented by circumcision. To those who represent this view, he replies that if one looks to the law as a way of salvation, it will lead to death, but if one looks to the law as a guide for those already saved, it yields life (cf. Gal. 5:13–25). Indeed, Paul himself recognizes that although believers enjoy the status of righteous persons through the work of Christ, he still anticipates a future time when, based on faith demonstrated in acts of love (covenant commitment), believers will stand before God and hear his words of approval: “You are righteous” (cf. Gal. 5:5–6). On this matter Moses and Paul agree. In fact, Paul himself says, “It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but those who obey the law who will be declared righteous” (Rom. 2:13). The notion of “the obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5 NASB)—that is, a faith demonstrated through acts of obedience—is common to Old and New Testaments.34 The same paradigm applies:
Yahweh’s gracious (i.e., unmerited) saving actions yield the fruit of a redeemed people.
A redeemed people produces the fruit of righteous deeds.
Righteous deeds yield the fruit of divine approval and blessing.
Contemporary Significance
MOSES WILL HAVE MORE to say on the subject of this short passage in chapter 8, but for the moment we may summarize several dimensions of the enduring relevance of its message. In our twisted thinking, we often turn moments of deprivation into daring challenges for God rather than into opportunities simply to cast ourselves on him in faith. However, if need can serve as a test of faith and loyalty, the same is true of excess. As Paul will eloquently declare in Romans 1:18–23, the wrath of God in the face of ungodliness and unrighteousness did not die with the turning of the ages. In Paul’s thinking, thanklessness is the essence of idolatry.
Dangers of wealth and excess. With the wealth and excess we in the Western world enjoy, it is easy to forget that everything we have is a gracious gift of God. Sadly, too many of us fail the test of fidelity and faith that prosperity represents. We become like the rich farmer of Jesus’ parable (Luke 12:14–21)—smug and self-sufficient in our excess but paupers toward God. But the principle extends beyond personal, material, or physical well-being to the health of the church as well. Difficult days for a congregation test the faith of God’s people, but so do times of growth and apparent effectiveness. When our buildings are large and our congregations huge, then more than ever we must guard ourselves so that our commitment extends beyond glib confessions of love for God, or regurgitation of creedal affirmations, or emotional passion in cultic worship, to the daily obedience of faith. Jesus said, “If you love me, you will obey my commands” (John 14:15).
The significance of God’s commands. If we ask the question today, “What is the significance of the stipulations, the ordinances, and laws that God commanded the Israelites to observe?” the responses we receive vary greatly. Some shake their heads in bewilderment and wonder seriously whether there is any point to many of these laws, such as the food laws in Deuteronomy 14. Some feel sorry for the Israelites because they were saddled with a burden that no one can bear, for no one can keep the laws perfectly. Some, with cultural and antiquarian interests, find in these laws a helpful window into the society of ancient Israel, especially when compared with other ancient Near Eastern legal traditions, like those found in the Law Code of Hammurabi, king of Babylon in the nineteenth century BC.
However, at the popular level, especially in contemporary Western evangelicalism, some view the law as the way of salvation for ancient Israel. That is, whereas in the New Testament people are saved by grace, under the old covenant people were saved by keeping the law.35 Others have the opposite disposition to the law. For Israel, the law was not a way of salvation, but the way of death (Rom. 4:15; 7:6; Gal. 3:10–13, 23–24; 4:21–31). The significance of the law lies in its power to bind those who are under the law, to subject them to the curse and the wrath of God, and to demonstrate their desperate need of a Savior. While on the surface this seems to be the way the New Testament perceives the law, it raises serious questions concerning both the justice and mercy of God. How and why would God rescue the Israelites from the burdensome and death-dealing slavery of Egypt (cf. Ex. 20:2) only to impose on them an even heavier burden of the law, which they in any case were unable to keep, and which would sentence them to an even more horrible fate—damnation under his own wrath? When you look at the exodus this way, it turns out not to be such a good deal after all.
The Reformers spoke of three functions of the moral law: (1) to exhibit the righteousness of God and convict and finally condemn humans; (2) to guide civil authorities in curbing unrighteousness and lawlessness; and (3) to offer believers a guide for life in conformity with the will of God.36 While Luther paid little attention to the last, in truth, this is the only function of the law that Deuteronomy knows. In fact Deuteronomy 6:20–25 emphasizes that the law is a gracious gift for the redeemed, that they might have a clear view of the Lord’s expectations. Unlike other nations, the Israelites did not need to resort to guesswork or experimentation to learn the will of God. He revealed it to them directly in order that, motivated by gratitude and reverent awe, they might obey, as a result of which Yahweh would bless them with well-being, life, and his declaration of righteousness.
Some years ago, when our children were still home, at the supper table we were having a rather warm conversation over ethical issues and how we as Christians respond to them. In frustration my teenage son blurted out, “Why do we have to be such a prehistoric family?” While the tone of his voice left something to be desired, his question was profound. How do we respond when our children ask these questions? Do we say simply, “This is how we have always done it,” or “This is what the church teaches,” or “This is how we are obligated as Christians to live”? Such responses border on legalism at worst and moralism at best. Or do we take these as glorious opportunities to declare the gospel—how God has lavished on us his grace in our salvation from the power of sin, our hope of eternal life, and the privilege of knowing his will and gratefully living to please him. The Eucharist certainly offers Christians both an opportunity to keep awareness of Christ’s sacrifice fresh in their own minds and an occasion for curious questions by outsiders and children. Perhaps when such questions arise, we might respond with a recast version of this semicreedal statement of Deuteronomy 6:20–25:
When our children ask us in days to come, what is the meaning of the ordinances and customs that we observe, then we will say: “We were slaves to sin, but the Lord rescued us from the kingdom of darkness and ushered us into his glorious kingdom of light, with a strong hand, and great signs and wonders. He has brought us out in fulfillment of his promises and in accordance with his glorious plan of salvation, conceived before the foundation of the world. So the Lord commanded us to demonstrate our fear and love for him by keeping his commands for our good always and as expressions of our covenant relationship with him, as it is this day. And it will be righteousness for us before him if we are careful to show that we love God with all our hearts by doing all that he commanded us. Then we too will hear him say, “Well done, good and faithful servant. Enter into the joy of your Lord.”