1. Cf. Deut. 17:18, where LXX misinterprets mišnēh hattôrâ (“a copy of the Torah”) as to deuteronomiom. Since the LXX was translated by Jews for Jews, not surprisingly, in Jewish tradition rabbis often referred to Deuteronomy as Mishneh Torah (“The Repetition of the Torah”). See J. H. Tigay, Deuteronomy (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: JPS, 1996), xi; M. Weinfeld, “Deuteronomy, Book of,” ABD, 2:168.

2. Cf. D. I. Block, “How Many Is God? An Investigation into the Meaning of Deuteronomy 6:4–5, ” JETS 47 (2004): 193–212; reprinted in D. I. Block, How I Love Your Torah, O LORD: Studies in the Book of Deuteronomy (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011), 73–97.

3. Cf. B. Lohse, Martin Luther’s Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 270–74.

4. J. Calvin, The Four Last Books of Moses (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 363.

5. At the end of a thorough study on how Deuteronomy presents itself as a written document, J.-P. Sonnet (The Book within the Book: Writing within Deuteronomy [BIS 14; Leiden: Brill, 1997], 262–67) dismisses all the attributions to Moses that he has explored as pseudepigraphic.

6. G. von Rad, Deuteronomy (trans. D. Barton; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), 23–27.

7. E. W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967), 58–82.

8. Weinfeld, “Deuteronomy, Book of,” 2:181–82; idem, Deuteronomy 1–11 (AB 5; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 62–65; idem, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 244–307 (hereafter referred to as DDS).

9. See further Weinfeld, “Deuteronomy, Book of,” 2:175–78; idem, Deuteronomy 1–11, 53–57; idem, DDS, 158–79.

10. See M. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: Univ. of Sheffield Press, 1981).

11. R. D. Nelson, Deuteronomy (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 4–9; cf. R. Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the OT Period, 2 vols. (OTL: Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 1:194–231. P. D. Miller (Deuteronomy [Interpretation; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990], 5–8) recognizes that the book contains prophetic, priestly, and scribal (wisdom) features, but he refuses to choose among these, let alone recognize that Moses was one of the few persons in the history of ancient Israel whose life and ministry bore the stamp of all three interest groups.

12. See also K. van der Toorn’s complex reconstruction of the composition of Deuteronomy in Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2007), 143–72.

13. For discussion see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 4–6. B. T. Arnold (“Deuteronomy as the Ipsissima Vox of Moses,” Journal of Theological Interpretation 4 [2010]: 53–74) argues that Deuteronomy preserves the voice (vox) of Moses, but not his words (verba). The book represented the culmination of the Mosaic legal tradition and is the result of a complex scribal history.

14. J. G. McConville, Deuteronomy (Apollos; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 34. Juha Pakkala (“The Date of the Oldest Edition of Deuteronomy,” ZAW 121 [2009]: 388–401) offers ten arguments for dating Deuteronomy in the Persian period. Most of his arguments fit more naturally in the premonarchic period than in the time he suggests.

15. For additional critiques of these critical views, see I. Wilson, Out of the Midst of the Fire: Divine Presence in Deuteronomy (SBLDS 151; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995); S. L. Richter, The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology: l^ešakkēn š^emô šâm in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (BZAW 318; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2002); P. Vogt, Deuteronomic Theology and the Significance of Torah: A Reappraisal (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006).

16. D. I. Block, “Recovering the Voice of Moses: The Genesis of Deuteronomy,” JETS 44 (2001): 385–408; reprinted in D. I. Block, The Gospel According to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflection on the Book of Deuteronomy (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011), 21–51.

17. See 1:1–5; 4:41–5:1a; 27:1–11; 29:1–2[28:69–29:1]; 31:1, 30; 32:44–52; 34:1–12.

18. See 33:1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24.

19. (a) Expressions like (lit.) “across the Jordan in the wilderness in the Arabah opposite Suph” (1:1), and “to this day” (2:22; 3:14; 10:8); (b) parenthetical historical notes (2:10–12; 2:20–23; 3:9, 11, 13b–14); (c) the use of the past tense in 2:12, “just as Israel did in the land the LORD gave them as their possession”; (d) the obituary of Moses (32:48–52; 34:1–12); (e) the reference to Dan as a northern extremity (34:1); (f) the use of Israelite tribal names for geographic regions of Canaan (34:1–3); (g) the observation that since the death of Moses no prophet like him has risen in Israel, that is, no one whom Yahweh knew face to face (34:10), which makes sense only if the narrator was aware of the historical significance of Moses’ own prediction concerning the prophetic institution in 18:15–22 and knew at least a few prophetic figures with whom Moses could be compared.

20. While the poems at the end (chs. 32 and 33) appear ancient, the speeches seem to be cast in classical Jerusalem dialect of Hebrew as represented by Jeremiah. On the evolution of the language, see G. J. Wenham, “The Date of Deuteronomy—The Linch-pin of OT Criticism,” Themelios 10/2 (1985): 18–19.

21. E.g., the use of the masculine third person singular pronoun hûʾ (“he”) for the feminine, on which see G. A. Rendsburg, “A New Look at Pentateuchal HWʾ,” Bib 63 (1982): 351–69.

22. Some argue the sermonic form of Deuteronomy antedates the poetic form of prophets like Amos and Hosea and has more in common with the utterances of Samuel and Elijah. See C. Rabin, “Discourse Analysis and the Dating of Deuteronomy,” in Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honour of E. I. J. Rosenthal (ed. J. A. Emerton and S. C. Reif; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982), 171–77.

23. On these names see the commentary below.

24. See K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 283–94; Markus Zehnder, “Building on Stone? Deuteronomy and Esarhaddon’s Loyalty Oaths (Part 1): Some Preliminary Observations,” BBR 19 (2009): 341–74; “(Part 2): Some Additional Observations,” BBR 19 (2009): 511–35.

25. See Nelson, as cited in n. 11 above.

26. David’s charge to Solomon at the end of his life in 1 Chron. 22:12–13 assumes a canonical Torah, and the description of his organization of the cultic personnel in chs. 23–26 seems to reflect some canonical awareness (cf. 23:31; 24:19; 28:1, 8), though clearly (see 28:9–19) the instructions for some of this was communicated by means of a new written document.

27. On this role of the relation of religious specialists and written religious literature, see J. Goody, The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society (Studies in Literacy, Family, Culture, and the State; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1986), 16–18. Goody observes, “Once the Holy Word has been written down in book form and institutionalized in a church, it becomes a profoundly conserving force, or better a force for continuity—its own continuity, not necessarily the state’s, despite changes in the polity or economy” (20).

28. Deut. 33:10; 2 Chron. 15:3; 19:8; Mal. 2:6, 9; cf. Jer. 18:18; Ezek. 7:26; Ezra 7:10.

29. Pss. 19:7–14[8–15]; 119; etc.

30. Isa. 1:10; 5:24; 8:20; 30:9; 51:7.

31. 1 Kings 2:2–4; 2 Kings 14:6; 22:11; 23:25.

32. Many of the embedded speeches sound like Deuteronomy. E.g., Josh. 23; 24; 1 Sam. 12; etc.

33. Cf. J. G. McConville, Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993).

34. Patrick Miller has rightly argued that when the Psalter refers to the Torah, it has in mind primarily Deuteronomy. See “Deuteronomy and the Psalms: Evoking a Conversation,” JBL 119 (1999): 3–18.

35. Cf. R. P. Knierim. The Task of Old Testament Theology: Substance, Method and Cases (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 355–59, 372–79.

36. Although Deuteronomy incorporates much prescriptive material deriving from the Sinai revelation, legal lists analogous to the forms of other ancient Near Eastern law codes tend to be concentrated in only seven chapters (chs. 19–25), but even these are punctuated by strong rhetorical appeals and a fundamental concern for righteousness rather than mere legal conformity.

37. Greek didachē is used to designate “teaching” in general (Mark 1:27; Acts 17:19; 1 Cor. 14:6; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:9; Heb. 6:2); Jesus’ teaching (Matt. 7:28; 22:33; Mark 1:22; 4:2; 11:18; 12:38; Luke 4:32; John 7:16–17; 18:19; Rev. 2:24); the apostles’ teaching (Acts 2:42; 5:28; 13:12; Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 14:26; 2 John 9–10); the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt. 16:12); and false teaching (Rev. 2:14–15). The Greek word didaskalia in the sense of “instruction, doctrine” is used of human teaching (Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7; Col. 2:22); of teaching in general or the apostles’ teaching (Rom. 12:7; Eph. 4:14; 1 Tim. 1:10; 4:6; 5:17; 6:1, 3; 2 Tim. 3:10; 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1, 7); of teaching about God (Titus 2:10); of the teaching of demons (1 Tim. 4:1); of the Old Testament Scriptures (Rom. 15:4; 2 Tim. 3:16); and of Timothy’s teaching (1 Tim. 4:13, 16).

38. Isa. 33:22 attributes this role (m^eḥôqēq) to Yahweh.

39. For full discussion, see D. I. Block, “Will the Real Moses Please Rise? An Exploration into the Role and Ministry of Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy,” in D. I. Block, The Gospel According to Moses, 68–103.

40. For a discussion of these issues see D. I. Block, “Preaching OT Law to NT Christians,” in D. I. Block, The Gospel According to Moses, 104–36; idem, “The Grace of Torah: The Mosaic Prescription for Life (Deut. 4:1–8; 6:20–25),” BSac 162 (2005): 3–22; reprinted in D. I. Block, How I Love Your Torah, O LORD, 1–20.

1. The narrator’s chronological marker is synchronized with the rest of the Pentateuch (cf. Ex. 16:1; 19:1; 40:17; Num. 1:1; 9:1; 12:11; 33:38).

2. Consistent with the common designations of the other biblical covenants (Abrahamic/patriarchal covenant, Noachian/cosmic covenant, Davidic covenant), throughout I will refer to this covenant as “the Israelite covenant.” The covenant made at Sinai was not made with Moses, but through him; Moses was not the covenant partner.

3. Hebrew bēʾēr is cognate to Akkadian burru, “to confirm,” that is, “to put a legal document in force”. Cf. CAD 2 (1965), 127.

4. The noun tôrâ derives from the verb hôrâ (“to teach”) (HALOT, 436–37). The word occurs twenty-two times in Deuteronomy: Deut. 1:5; 4:8, 44; 17:11, 18, 19; 27:3, 8, 26; 28:58, 61; 29:21[20]., 29[28].; 30:10; 31:9, 11, 12, 24, 26; 32:46; 33:4, 10.

5. Cf. 4:1; 5:1; 6:1; 11:1; 12:1; 26:17; 30:11. Note the sole application of the term to the Decalogue in Ex. 24:12.

1. Compare 1:30–33, 42; 2:7 and 4:9–14, 36–39.

2. Although chap. 2 casts a broader vision, declaring that Yahweh has allotted their respective lands to the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites (2:5, 9, 19), Israel’s title to the land is based on the election of the ancestors and the divine promise of land to them (1:8, 21, 35). The rescue of Israel from Egypt is the decisive proof of Israel’s elect status (1:27, 30; 3:24; 4:32–33).

3. In 1:19, 26–46 obedience means heading for and entering the land of Canaan; in chapter 4, obedience involves adherence to Yahweh’s will revealed at Horeb, especially the prohibition of idolatry (vv. 1–8, 15–24, 40).

4. Compare 1:7–8, 20, 36; 2:29; 3:20, 24–28; and 4:1–5, 21–26, 38–40. To these features we should add Moses’ expressed disposition toward his people (1:37; 3:26; 4:21).

5. Note the prevalence of verbs with Moses as the subject: “I commanded,” “I said,” “I charged,” “I acted,” etc.: 1:15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 29, 43; 2:26; 3:18, 21, 23.

6. They were unwilling to go up (v. 26); they rebelled against the command of Yahweh (v. 26); they grumbled in their tents (v. 27); they accused Yahweh of hatred toward them and deliberately plotting to kill them (v. 27); they admitted their loss of heart (v. 28); they feared the Canaanites (v. 29); they did not trust Yahweh (v. 32); they were an evil generation (v. 35); they refused to listen (v. 43); they rebelled against Yahweh’s command (v. 43); and they acted presumptuously (v. 43).

7. Deut. 1:9, 16, 18; 2:34; 3:4, 8, 12, 18, 21, 23; 4:14. The expression occurs elsewhere in 5:5; 9:20; 10:1, 8.

8. Cf. N. Lohfink, “Narrative Analyse von Dtn 1, 6–3, 29, ” in Mincha: Festgabe für Rolf Rendtorff zum 75. Geburtstag (ed. E. Blum; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2000), 133.

9. The time needed to organize the camp, after Yahweh’s command to set out, which may have been given on the one-year anniversary of Israel’s departure from Egypt (cf. Ex. 12:2 and Num. 10:11).

10. Based on a two-week stopover at each of the twenty-one camps sites listed in Num. 33:16–37.

11. This number yields a total of one year from the command to leave Sinai to the fiasco at Kadesh Barnea. Adding this year to the year from the Exodus from Egypt to the command to leave Sinai and the thirty-eight years in the desert (2:14) yields a total of forty years (cf. 2:7).

12. Prior to the delivery of the addresses and the covenant renewal rituals implied in the book of Deuteronomy.

13. Šōṭ^erîm seems to be an archaic word, later replaced by sōp^erîm (“scribe”). In 16:18 the word is paired with šōp^eṭîm (“judges”) to create a hendiadys, “scribal judges.” The word appears in explicitly military contexts in Deut. 20:5; 1 Chron. 27:1; and 2 Chron. 26:11. Cf. HALOT, 1441.

14. W. Brueggemann (Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997], 130) defines righteousness as “Yahweh’s ready capacity to be present in situations of trouble and to intervene powerfully and decisively in the interest of rehabilitation, restoration, and well-being.”

15. Cf. D. J. A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup 10; Sheffield: JSOT, 1978), esp. 31–37.

16. In the exodus narratives (e.g., Ex. 3:12; 4:23) the verb ʿābad means generally “to serve [Yahweh] as his vassals.” At Sinai those who had formerly been slaves (ʿ ^abādîm) of the Egyptians became Yahweh’s privileged servants.

17. Cf. C. J. H. Wright, Deuteronomy (NIBC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 27.

1. The verb ḥāṭat means literally “to be shattered, broken to pieces” (cf. Isa. 7:8; Mal. 2:5), and in a derived sense (as here), “to be emotionally distraught.”

2. The expression “our brothers have made us lose heart [lit., ‘made our hearts melt’]” expresses the same effect that rumors of what Yahweh had done for the Israelites would have on the Canaanites (Josh. 2:11; 5:1).

3. The rhetorical question, “Where can we go?” (v. 28)—which expects a negative answer, “Nowhere”—answers to “the route we are to take” in v. 22.

4. According to Josh. 15:13 and 21:11, Anak was the son of Arba, who had founded Kiriath-Arba, that is, Hebron. Num. 13:33 suggests the Anakites were a subgroup of the Nephilim, the legendary giants whose name derives from the antediluvian offspring of the “sons of God” and earthly women (cf. Gen. 6:1–4). Num. 13:22 identifies by name three Anakites whom the scouts encountered in Hebron: Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai. Deut. 2:10–11 and 20–21 associates the Anakites with the Rephaites, referred to as the Emites and Zamzummites by the Moabites and Ammonites respectively.

5. This fact was recognized by the Egyptians themselves in Ex. 14:25 (cf. Moses’ promise in v. 14). The motif of Yahweh’s fighting for Israel is common in Deuteronomy and the literature influenced by this book. See Deut. 3:22; Josh. 10:14, 42; 23:3, 10.

6. In Num. 10:33–36 the ark is said to have gone before the people to seek out (tûr) a resting place for the people. Deuteronomy never portrays the ark as a symbol of Yahweh’s presence.

7. In verse 38 we encounter the root nḥl for the first time. Although elsewhere in the Old Testament the land of Israel and Zion are referred to as Yahweh’s naḥ^alâ, in Deuteronomy Moses calls Israel Yahweh’s naḥ^alâ and the land of Canaan Israel’s naḥ^alâ. While NIV follows longstanding tradition in translating the word with inheritance terminology, it is preferable to associate it with landed property, reflecting “the practice of giving loyal servants the utilization of land as a reward for past service—fundamentally military service is involved—and in expectation of future service” (H. O. Forshey, “The Hebrew Root NḤL and Its Semitic Cognates” [Th.D. diss., Harvard University, 1973], 233).

8. Of the two exceptions, Caleb presents the more interesting case. Identified elsewhere as “Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite” (Num. 32:12; Josh. 14:6, 14) and as a descendant of Kenaz a grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:11, 15, 42; cf. 1 Chron. 1:36, 53), apparently Caleb’s family were proselytes of Edomite descent. But Caleb was so thoroughly integrated into the faith and life of Israel that he represented the tribe of Judah and was one of only two who demonstrated total covenant loyalty to Yahweh (Num. 14:24; 32:11–12; Josh. 14:8–9, 14).

9. Cf. Jonah 4:11, where Yahweh characterizes the innocent of Nineveh as “those who cannnot tell their right hand from their left.”

10. The Hebrew zûd refers to “a presumputuous, premeditated offense against God and his religious and moral order” (S. Scharbert, “,” TDOT, 4:48.

11. The ethnic term Amorites is used indiscriminately for the inhabitants of Canaan. Num. 14:45 identifies them more precisely as Amalekites and Canaanites.

1. The narratives of Numbers suggest Yahweh had spoken to Moses on numerous occasions, issuing more constitutional directives, advising Moses on administrative matters, and responding to the people’s faithfulness.

2. For discussion of the ancient Near Eastern perceptions of the relationship between patron deities and national territory, see Daniel I. Block, The Gods of the Nations (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 75–111.

3. The verb yādaʿ (“to know”) often bears the sense, “to care for, to protect.” Cf. Gen. 39:6, 8; Job 9:21; 35:15; Pss. 1:6; 31:8[9]; Prov. 27:3.

4. “Forty” is a round number that includes the time spent traveling from Egypt to Sinai, the time at Horeb, and the wandering in the desert. Numbers 14:27–35 notes that the forty years represented one year of wandering for every day the scouts had been surveying the land of Canaan; this is how much time it would take to replace the faithless generation with a new one.

5. So also Barry J. Beitzel, Moody Atlas of Bible Lands (Chicago: Moody Press, 2009), 33.

6. Literally, “Then we crossed over away from our brothers, the sons of Esau who lived in Seir, away from the way of the Arabah, away from Eilat, and away from Ezion-Geber.”

7. On Chemosh as the god of Moab, see 1 Kings 11:33 and 2 Kings 23:13; on the Moabites as “the people of Chemosh,” see Num. 21:29.

8. The brook Zered is generally identified with modern Wadi Ḥasa, which in the rainy season flows into the Arabah Valley at the south end of the Dead Sea.

9. See Job 26:5; Ps. 88:10[11]; Prov. 2:18; Isa. 14:9; 26:14, 19. On the Rephaites, see H. Rouillard, “Rephaim,” DDD, 692–700.

10. Cf. Ex. 3:20; 7:4–5; 9:3, 15; 13:3, 9, 14, 16; 15:6, 9, 12; 18:10; 32:11. Ironically, this was precisely the fate the Israelites had requested in Ex. 16:3.

11. Num. 21:13 summarizes the trek around Moab with one simple sentence. The Israelites had several critical encounters with the Moabites, but these all transpired after the defeat of the Amorite kings while they were camped at Shittim on the plains of Moab opposite Jericho (Num. 22–25).

12. On Milkom, the patron deity of Bene Ammon, see E. Puech, “Milcom,” DDD, 575–76.

13. See Judg. 13–16; 1 Sam. 4–6; etc.

14. See the inscription on the renowned Cyrus cylinder in ANET, 315–16; COS, 2:314–316.

1. On Heshbon, see L. T. Geraty, “Heshbon,” ABD, 3:181–84.

2. Moses’ overtly theological interpretation of these events contrasts sharply with the Numbers account (Num. 21:21–32), which does not even mention the name of Yahweh.

3. Israel is commanded to do to Sihon what they were prohibited from doing to the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites. Note the use of the same verb, hitgârâ (“to provoke, “engage in battle”) as in vv. 5, 9, 19.

4. The promise reverses Israel’s accusation in 1:27 that Yahweh had given them into the hands of the Amorites.

5. Cf. Ex. 23:27, which has Yahweh sending out “my terror” as if it were a concrete object going ahead of Israel.

6. Josh. 13:18 locates Kedemoth in the territory of Reuben, suggesting that Moses had crossed the Arnon before he sent the envoys.

7. A malʾāk, whether human or angelic, is an officially authorized messenger commissioned by a superior to conduct business on his behalf.

8. Moses hereby contrasts the faithfulness of the people in this event with the infidelity and faithlessness of the previous generation at Kadesh Barnea. So also Tigay, Deuteronomy, 32.

9. Like Kedemoth this site was included in Reuben’s tribal allotment (Josh. 13:18) and later designated a Levitical city (Josh. 21:36), though later prophets (Isa. 15:4; Jer. 48:21, 34) agree with the indigenous Mesha inscription in locating Jahaz within Moabite territory. The location of Jahaz is unknown, but of the sites that have been proposed, Khirbet Medeiniyeh on the Wadi al Themed seems the most likely. See J. A. Dearman, “Jahaz,” ABD, 3:612.

10. The NIV reads “towns.” See the comment on 1:22 above.

11. The verb heḥ^erîm (the verb occurs only in the causative Hiphil and Hophal stems), rendered “completely destroyed” in the NIV (see NIV text note), involves a sacred act of irrevocable consecration to God and absolute proscription from human use. For further discussion of the concept of ḥērem and its ethical implications, see below on 7:2.

12. The addition of “we left no survivor” occurs especially in accounts of wars with the Canaanites. Cf. Deut. 3:3; Josh. 8:22; 10:28–40; 11:8; but see also 2 Kings 10:11.

13. Aroer is identified with Khirbet Araʿir, a strategic fortress a mile up the hill from the stream that guarded the King’s Highway at the southern checkpoint on the territorial border. “The town in the gorge” probably refers to a secondary fortress in the valley, perhaps guarding Aroer’s water supply. Technically the name Gilead derives from the range of hills running parallel to the Jordan from the Wadi Hesban to the Wadi Yarmuk.

14. Although for most of its course the Jabbok flows from east to west, the wadi begins northeast of Rabbath Ammon and arcs from south to north for a considerable distance near its source in the eastern highlands.

15. Archaeologists identify the site with modern Darʿa in southern Syria near the Jordanian border.

16. Modern Jebel al-Sheikh, “mountain of the chieftain,” which rises to a height of 9,323 feet at the south end of the Anti-Lebanon range. The name Hermon (ḥermôn) derives from the same root as ḥērem, probably because it was considered a “consecrated place.” See further R. Arav, “Hermon, Mount,” ABD, 3:158–60.

17. Both names recur in the Old Testament (1 Chron. 5:23; Ps. 29:6; Song 4:8; Ezek. 27:5–6) and are attested in extrabiblical writings.

18. “All the towns on the plateau” refers to the fortifications in the highlands between the Arnon and the Wadi Heshbon and the Jabbok (cf. 4:43; Josh. 13:9, 16, 17, 21; etc.); “all Gilead” refers to the uplands between the Wadi Heshbon and the Yarmuk River, divided in half by the Wadi Jabbok; and “all Bashan,” refers to the hill country north and east of the Yarmuk, the southern border being marked by Salecah and Edrei. On Edrei, see above on v. 1. Salecah is usually identified with modern Salkhad, a town on the southwest base of Mount Hauron.

19. On the Rephaites, see above on 2:10–11.

20. Similarly the “iron chariots” in Josh. 17:16 and Judg. 1:19; 4:3, 13. For discussion, see A. R. Millard, “King Og’s Bed and Other Ancient Ironmongery,” in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie (ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor; JSOTSup 67; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1988), 481–92. This interpretation is preferable to the older view that what is described as an iron bed was actually a sarcophagus made of basalt, whose color and metallic appearance remind an observer of iron. See A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 144.

21. How the bed found its way to Rabbah of Bene Ammon (modern Amman) we may only speculate. Perhaps the Ammonites claimed it as booty taken from the Israelites during the time of Jephthah (Judg. 10–12).

22. More will be said on the subject in the commentary on Deut. 7 and 20.

23. G. von Rad, in particular, has popularized the notion of “holy war.” He writes, “These wars were then holy wars, in which Jahweh himself fought in defence of his own people; they were sacral operations, before which men sanctified themselves—submitted, that is, to abstention from sexual intercourse—and whose termination was the ban (ḥrm), the assignment of the spoil to Yahweh.” G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1, The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 17. Cf. idem, Studies in Deuteronomy (trans. David Stalker; SBT 9; London: SCM, 1953), 45–59; idem, Holy War in Ancient Israel (trans. M. J. Dawn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 115–27.

24. So also T. Longman III, “Warfare,” New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (ed. T. D. Alexander et al.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 836.

25. For discussion, see M. Weinfeld, “Divine Intervention in War in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East,” in History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literature (eds. H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld; Jerusalem: Magnes and Hebrew Univ. Press, 1983), 124–31.

26. See also C. J. H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), 472–80; idem, The God I Don’t Understand: Reflections on Tough Questions of Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 76–108.

1. The reference being to the time of the allocation of the land to the two and a half tribes.

2. Verses 12–17, “I gave” (vv. 12, 13, 15, 16); verses 18–20, “I commanded” (v. 18); verses 21–22, “I commanded” (v. 21); verses 23–28, “I pleaded” (v. 23).

3. Even though Numbers 32 does not mention Moses consulting with Yahweh, the Reubenites and Gadites interpreted his permission to be the words of Yahweh (v. 32).

4. Since Pisgah always occurs with the article, this may actually be a common noun, meaning something like “the ridge,” perhaps the mountain ridge of which Nebo is the peak. Some argue that Pisgah is the lower of the two peaks of Jebel Shayhan, modern Ras es-Siyagha (G. Mattingly, “Pisgah,” ABD, 5:373–74).

5. The NIV glosses over the awkwardness of the Hebrew. We expect “from Aroer along the Wadi Arnon to the Jabbok” (cf. v. 16), but instead the Hebrew reads literally, “from Aroer along the Wadi Arnon and half the hill country of Gilead and its cities.”

6. Cf. 2:10–12, 20–23.

7. Geshur was a small Aramaean kingdom, located east of the Sea of Galilee on the western slopes of the southern Golan Heights. It seems to have resisted the power of Og of Bashan (Josh. 12:5) and retained its independence from the newly arrived Israelites (Josh. 13:13). Later David would marry Maacah, the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur, from which union Absalom was born (2 Sam. 3:3). On the Geshurites, see Z. Ma‘oz, “Geshur,” ABD, 2:996. Maacah was another Aramaean kingdom located north of Geshur between the Sea of Galilee and Mount Hermon. Later the Maacathites would join the Ammonites and the petty Aramaean territories of Beth Rehob, Zobah, and Tob in resisting David’s Transjordanian expansion (2 Sam. 10:6–8).

8. The parenthetical note suggests that by now these tribes have distinguished themselves by their wealth in livestock.

9. Along with his blaming the people for not being allowed to enter the Promised Land (1:37; 3:26; 4:21), the negative image of Moses argues for the authenticity of this passage.

10. For a helpful study of prayers in biblical narratives, see M. Greenberg, Biblical Prose Prayer as a Window to the Popular Religion of Ancient Israel (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983).

11. In prayers, “your servant” functions as more than a courtesy; it expresses humility and subjugation even as it reflects the hope that the “servant” will receive a measure of goodwill from his “master, lord.” See further H. Ringgren, “,” TDOT, 10:392.

12. While these statements sound like flattery, intended to gain a favorable hearing, to modern readers, we should interpret them as expressions of respect.

13. This expression “strong hand” (yād ḥ^azāqâ) occurs also in 4:34; 5:15; 6:21; 7:8, 19; 9:26; 11:2; 26:8; 34:12.

14. For discussion, see Beitzel, Moody Atlas of Bible Lands, 53–54.

15. Here the expression is strong, in effect, “Shut up!”

16. If Pisgah is modern Ras es-Siyagha, which rises 2,329 feet above sea level and projects westward from the tableland, it affords magnificent views of the country, from the Negeb in the south to Hermon in the north.

17. On the significance of the root nḥl, “to receive/deliver as a grant,” see on 1:38.

18. In 2:30 this same word had been used of Yahweh’s hardening Sihon’s heart, and in 15:7 it is used of people hardening their own hearts.

19. The place is named variously as “Baal Peor” (Num. 25:3, 5; Deut. 4:3; Ps. 106:28; Hos. 9:10), “Beth Peor” (Deut. 3:29; 4:46; 34:6; Josh. 13:20), or simply “Peor” (Num. 25:18; 31:16; Josh. 22:17). Peor was a mountain near Mount Nebo to which Balak took Balaam to have him curse Israel (Num. 23:28).

20. See Judg. 8 and 12.

21. It includes the highlands of Bashan and runs far north of Damascus, but excludes the southern Transjordan. For discussion see Block, Ezekiel Chapters 25–48 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 703–24.

22. As witnessed by the Amarna correspondence. See ANET, 483–90.

23. For bibliography and discussion see A. J. Heschel, Heavenly Torah: As Refracted through the Generations (ed. and trans. G. Tucker; New York: Continuum, 2007), 353–54.

1. See above, pp. 60–62.

2. On w^eʿattâ, “and now,” signaling a turning point, see also 10:12 and 1 Sam. 12:13.

3. Elsewhere in the book the imperative “Hear” (š^emaʿ) always opens new sections (5:1; 6:4; 9:1; 20:3; 27:9), though the phrase w^eʿattâ š^emaʿ, (lit.) “And now, hear,” never appears at the absolute beginning of a speech.

4. This issue is obscured in translation because English uses a common expression, “you,” for both singular and plural: vv. 1–8, plural, except for “Hear” (v. 1), the end of v. 3, the beginning of v. 5; vv. 9–10, singular; vv. 11–16, plural; v. 19, singular; vv. 20–28, plural, with exceptions in vv. 21, 23, 24, and 25; vv. 29–40, singular, with exceptions in the opening of v. 29, and two in v. 34.

5. On this issue, see esp. J. G. McConville, “Singular Address in the Deuteronomic Law and the Politics of Legal Administration,” JSOT 97 (2002): 19–36. Based on the alternation of singular and plural forms, many scholars argue that 4:1–40 is a patchwork of smaller pieces combined and inserted here during the exile to give hope to a spiritually despondent community. The reference to exile from the land in 4:27–30 is critical for the postexilic dating of this chapter. See, e.g., Jon D. Levenson, “Who Inserted the Book of the Torah,” HTR 68 (1975): 222. However, removing 4:1–40 creates an intolerably harsh transition from 3:29 to 4:41 and fails to recognize the rhetorical climactic function of this chapter.

6. Cf. J. Gordon McConville and J. G. Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy (JSOTSup 179; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1984), 42–43; J. G. Millar, Now Choose Life: Theology and Ethics in Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 77–78. For a discussion of the gnomic use of yôm, see S. J. de Vries, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: Time and History in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 45.

7. (1) Yahweh’s love for the ancestors/Israel (v. 37; cf. 7:7, 8, 13; 10:15, 18; 23:5[6]); (2) Yahweh’s gracious election of the ancestors/Israel (v. 20; cf. 7:6, 7; 10:15; 14:2; 26:18); (3) Yahweh’s establishment of Israel as his own people (v. 20; cf. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18; 27:9; 28:9; 29:13[12]); (4) Yahweh’s covenant relationship with Israel (vv. 13, 23, 31; cf., e.g., 5:2, 3; 7:2, 9, 12; 8:18); (5) Yahweh’s rescue of Israel from the clutches of another nation (vv. 20, 32–39; cf., e.g., 5:6, 15; 6:21–23; 7:8, 19; 8:14; 24:18; 26:6–8; 33:29); (6) Yahweh’s gracious presence (vv. 7, 10, 36; cf. 5:22–27; 7:21; 18:16; 23:14[15]; 31:6, 8, 23; 33:2–3, 5; contra 31:16–18); (7) Yahweh’s demand that Israel recognize him as the only God and love/fear him alone (vv. 15–24, 35, 39; cf., e.g., 5:7–8; 6:4–5; 10:12, 20; 11:1, 22; 13:2–5[3–6]); and (8) Yahweh’s demand that Israel demonstrate covenant fidelity through obedience to his revealed will (vv. 1, 5, 8, 14, 40; cf., e.g., v. 45; 5:1, 31; 6:1, 20, 25; 7:11; 10:12–13; 11:1, 31–32; 12:1; 26:16–18; 27:1, 10; 28:1, 15).

8. The pair of expressions “decrees and laws” (ḥuqqîm and mišpāṭîm) occurs repeatedly in this chapter (vv. 1, 5, 8, 14, 45) and nine times hereafter—especially at critical structural junctures (5:1; 11:32; 12:1; 26:16). They also appear in association with other expressions: “command[s]” (miṣwâ/miṣwôt, 5:31; 6:1; 7:11) and “stipulations” (ʿēdôt, 4:45; 6:20).

9. Some understand the pair to refer to the entire promulgation at Moab, including Moses’ paraenetic exhortations. See J. G. Millar, “Living at the Place of Decision,” in Time and Place in Deuteronomy (ed. J. G. McConville and J. G. Millar; JSOTSup 179; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1984), 35–42; idem, Now Choose Life, 75–80.

10. For eloquent discussions of these issues, see Millar, Now Choose Life, 55–66; C. J. H. Wright, Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 64–102.

11. These warnings follow a widespread ancient Near Eastern tradition of warnings (often curses) against altering documents. Rev. 22:18–19 echoes the wording of Deut. 4:2 (cf. 1 Macc. 8:30). See further, Weinfeld, DDS, 262.

12. See Num. 25:1–9. “Baal of Peor” identifies the local manifestation of Baal as worshiped by the Moabites at the place called Peor. Cf. comment on 3:29 above.

13. The verb dbq denotes decisive and irreversible commitment (cf. Gen. 2:24; Ruth 1:14). It recurs in 10:20; 11:22; 13:4[5]; and 30:20. This is the strongest biblical expression for “sticking together” (cf. Job 29:10) and answers to the action of the idolaters who had “yoked themselves” to Baal of Peor (Num. 25:3).

14. Cf. Deut. 33:26–29, where outsiders’ response to Israel’s privileged status is expressed with ʾašrêykā, usually translated “Blessed are you,” but better rendered, “O how privileged are you!” or even “Congratulations to you!”

15. Gen. 12:2; 18:18; 46:3.

16. Cf. also Pss. 22:11, 19–20[12, 20–22]; 34:15–18[16–19]; 145:18.

17. The ancient laws are conveniently gathered by M. Roth (Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (SBLWAW; Atlanta: Scholars, 1997), and COS, 2:332–68, 408–14.

18. This is the only place in the OT where the form ṣaddîq/ṣaddîqîm describes anything other than a person (as in 16:19).

19. As translated by B. R. Foster, From Distant Days: Myths, Tales, and Poetry of Ancient Mesopotamia (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1995), 269–71. While this “prayer, confession, lament, and concluding supplication, could be used for any deity” (p. 269), it also exposes the fundamental problem with any religion not grounded on revelation.

20. That is, he offered it all to his gods in vain.

1. In each case the call for self-watch is followed by motive clauses, both negative (introduced with “so that . . . not,” pen, vv. 9b, 16, 19, 23) and positive (introduced with “for,” kî, vv. 15, 24, 25[?]).

2. The double appeal is framed by two strong particles, raq, “only, above all,” and m^eʾôd, “closely, diligently.”

3. In Hebrew the word lēb represents both the heart and the mind.

4. Yahweh, their God (8:11, 19); Yahweh, who gave birth to Israel (32:18); how Yahweh rescued Israel from the slavery of Egypt (5:15; 6:12; 7:18; 8:14; 15:15; 16:3, 12; 24:18, 22); the revelation of Yahweh at Horeb (4:9); the covenant at Horeb (4:23); Yahweh’s provision in the desert (8:2); what Amalek did to Israel (25:17) and Yahweh’s victory over Amalek (25:19); the commands (26:13); what Yahweh did to Miriam (24:9); that Yahweh is the source of Israel’s power and wealth (8:18); the nation’s national anthem (31:21); Israel’s own sin in the desert (9:7); and the past in general (32:7). In 24:19 Moses refers to the mundane matter of remembering a sheaf left out in the field.

5. The NIV solves the problem by inserting “Remember” in v. 10, which is lacking in the Hebrew.

6. Deut. 9:3, but see esp. 2 Sam. 22:8–16.

7. Deut. 4:11–12, 15, 33, 36; 5:4–5, 22–26; 9:10, 15, 21; 10:4; 18:16.

8. Deut. 4:10; 5:29; 6:2, 13, 24; 8:6; 10:12–13, 20; 13:4[5]; 14:23; 17:19; 28:58; 31:12–13.

9. Against the views of some, Moses’ view of Israel’s appearance and response before Yahweh is entirely positive.

10. Cf. W. J. Dumbrell, Creation and Covenant: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants (Nashville: Nelson, 1984), 16.

11. Here LXX translates ta deka rhēmata; in 10:4 and Ex. 34:28 LXX translates tous deka logous. For further discussion, see D. I. Block, “Reading the Decalogue Right to Left: The Ten Principles of Covenant Relationship in the Hebrew Bible,” in How I Love Your Torah, O LORD, 24–25.

12. Based on discourse and syntactical features of the Decalogue I follow the Catholic and Lutheran, rather than the Reformed, numbering. For discussion, see Block, ibid., 56–60.

13. NIV treats “the Ten Commandments” as appositional to “covenant,” but verse 13 consists of two clauses. The first declares the principal idea and the second clarifies it: “Then he declared to you his covenant, that is, he commanded you to do the Ten Words.” Grammatically “the Ten Words” is the object of the infinitive “to do.” For discussion, see most recently J. Hwang,“The Rhetoric of Remembrance: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation into the ‘Fathers’ in Deuteronomy” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Wheaton College, 2009), 292–98. The expression “to declare [higgîd] a covenant” occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament.

14. A longstanding Jewish tradition assumes the ten words were distributed five on each tablet (Josephus, Ant. 3.5.8) but this means that the first tablet has 146 words and the second only 26. In Christian tradition the first tablet is associated with the vertical commands (##1–4 in Calvin’s numbering), and the second with the horizontal (##5–10). However, this approach has no contextual merit. See further, Block, “Reading the Decalogue Right to Left,” 35–36.

15. Thus Gary M. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (Atlanta: Scholars, 1996), 3. He cites specific examples on pp. 46–47 and 91.

16. Not counting ʾet, the marker of a definite direct object, vv. 15–19 contain 75 words, vv. 20–24 contain 74.

17. This warning highlights the fundamental difference between the aniconism of Israelite religion and the forms of worship that prevailed among Israel’s neighbors. On the nature and history of aniconism in Israel against its ancient Near Eastern cultural background, see T. Mettinger, No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context (ConBOT 42; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995).

18. See further D. I. Block, “Other Religions in Old Testament Theology,” in Biblical Faith and Other Religions: An Evangelical Assessment (ed. D. W. Baker; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 60–74; reprinted in The Gospel According to Moses, 200–236.

19. Cf. 32:8. The verb used here is used of apportioning the land of Canaan among the tribes of Israel (Josh. 14:1; 18:2) or distributing the spoils of battle (Josh. 22:8). See further, M. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” BSac 158 (2001): 71; idem, “Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible,” BBR 18/1 (2008): 4–13.

20. By frontloading the object and choosing verbs for their assonantal effect, Moses contrasts Yahweh’s indirect management of the rest of the world with his direct involvement with Israel. Note the word play: the verb lāqaḥ, “he took,” here, and ḥālaq, “he apportioned,” at the end of verse 19, contain the same consonants and vowels.

21. The purpose clause at the end of verse 20 adapts the covenant formula, “I will be your God, and you shall be my people.” See Deut. 29:10–13[9–12]. Also Ex. 6:7; Lev. 26:12; Jer. 7:23; 11:4; 30:22; Ezek. 36:28.

22. The exclusion of Moses is a dark theme running through Deuteronomy (cf. Millar, Now Choose Life, 97). D. T. Olsen’s interpretation of Moses as “a paradigm for the vocation of sacrificial giving” (Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading [OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994], 17–22) is unnecessarily idealistic.

23. Like most translations, the NIV treats both predicates as adjectives. However the pattern of verbless clauses in the Pentateuch suggests the second element in both functions as a proper noun. See F. I. Andersen, The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch (SBLMS 14; Nashville/New York, Abingdon, 1970). Elsewhere ʾēl qannāʾ may mean “a jealous/passionate God” (Ex. 34:14b; Deut. 6:15; Josh. 24:19; Nah. 1:2), but Ex. 34:14a explicitly identifies Qanna’ as a proper title for God. So also J. Hoftijzer, “The Nominal Clause Reconsidered,” VT 23 (1973): 494.

24. See P. A. Kruger, “A Cognitive Interpretation of the Emotion of Anger in the Hebrew Bible,” JNWSL 26 (2000): 181–93, esp. 189.

25. Though the Hebrew word may be used of envy (Gen. 26:14; Ezek. 31:9).

26. “The evil” is picked up in the sevenfold refrain of the book of Judges: 3:7, 12 [2x]; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1.

27. The act of calling witnesses is drawn from ancient Near Eastern custom, which often included long lists of divine witnesses in treaty documents. See, e.g., Esarhaddon’s succession treaty, ANET, 534–41. For discussion, see S. Parpola and K. Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (Helsinki: Helsinki Univ. Press, 1988), xxxvii. Given Moses’ strict monotheism and the nature of his warnings, “heaven and earth” is a merismic expression for “all creation” (Gen. 1:1; Deut. 32:1; Isa. 1:2; cf. Jer. 6:19; Mic. 1:2) substituting for the gods.

28. As in v. 9, hadd^ebārîm may refer to events or Moses’ words. NIV’s “things” obscures the emphasis on Moses’ utterance and the certain fulfillment of his predictions.

29. This phrase does not mean the eschatological end of time (as in Isa. 2:2) but a point in the distant future, i.e., “ultimately.” So also Tigay, Deuteronomy, 54; Peter C. Craigie, Deuteronomy (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 141.

30. “To seek” (bqš) Yahweh does not mean to look for him as if he were lost, but to seek him out, to approach him humbly with renewed devotion, and plead for return of his favor.

31. Chapter 28 provides exposition and expansion of Deut. 4:26–28.

32. It derives from the same root as reḥem, the word for “womb” (Isa. 49:15; Jer. 20:17). Cf. HALOT, 1216–18.

33. (1) In previous occurrences of the expression, “which he swore to X,” in Deuteronomy, the clause has referred to Yahweh’s covenant promise of land to the patriarchs (1:8, 35). This contrasts with the narratives dealing with the covenant ratification ceremony at Sinai, which never speak of Yahweh’s “swearing” to Israel to keep the covenant. (2) Biblical narratives often refer to the covenant with the patriarchs as God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ex. 2:24; cf. 6:4; Lev. 26:42; 2 Kings 13:23; 1 Chron. 16:15–18 = Ps. 105:8–11). (3) The covenant curses in Leviticus 26 base Israel’s hope for renewal on God’s covenant with the patriarchs. See further Eugene Merrill, Deuteronomy (NAC; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 129.

34. Weinfeld notes (TDOT, 2:256) that oaths were essential to give covenants their binding validity.

35. See Ezek. 16:8 and 20:5. Cf. Daniel I. Block, Ezekiel Chapters 1–24 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 625–26.

36. Cf. the references to the “land” as that which he swore to the ancestors in 1:8, 35; 6:10; 7:13; 10:11; 11:9, 21; 26:3; 28:11; 30:20; 31:20.

37. In 4:37a Moses notes that Yahweh chose the ancestors’ descendants “after them.” This phrase occurs five times in Gen. 17:7–10.

38. References to the covenant “that Yahweh swore with the forefathers” (pers. trans.) recur in Deut. 7:12 and 8:18. The identity of the ancestors in each case must be determined according to the evidence of each context.

39. As argued convincingly by Hwang, “Rhetoric of Remembrance,” 302–8.

40. On the eternality of God’s covenant with Israel, see Ex. 31:16–17; Lev. 24:8; Judg. 2:1; Ps. 111:2–9; Isa. 54:4–10.

41. Cf. Heb. 13:20–21.

42. Jer. 31:33–34; cf. Heb. 8:8–13; 9:15.

43. The lyrics are widely available on the Internet; e.g., www.worshipmap.com/lyrics/immortal.html.

44. Some attribute the sermon to the great African American preacher S. M. Lockeridge. See http://blessingsforlife.com/favforwards/everydayisablessing.htm (accessed February 4, 2009).

45. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. J. T. McNeill and trans. F. L. Battles (LCC 20; London: SCM, 1960), 1:108.

46. For an eloquent discussion of this issue, see Tim Keller, Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the Only Hope That Matters (New York: Penguin, 2009).

1. On the discourse significance of kî (first word in v. 32) see C. M. Follingstad, Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text: A Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Analysis of the Particle kî (Dallas: SIL International, 2001).

2. “From the day God created man on the earth” specifies the chronological scope; “from one end of the heavens to the other” specifies the geographic scope.

3. Contra NIV, the question is not whether an event as great as this has happened, but whether a great event like this has happened before. So also Wright, Deuteronomy, 55.

4. Underlying this question is the biblical notion that no one can see God and live; the radiation of divine glory is lethal. Cf. Ex. 3:6; 24:10–11; 33:20–23; Judg. 6:22–23; 13:22; Isa. 6:5.

5. NIV’s “tried” (v. 34) misconstrues this merely as an attempt. Cf. the reference to “great trials” in 7:19 and 29:3[2], which in context signify acts of “daring-do.”

6. The wording of “you were shown” is both emphatic (note the addition of an explicit subject with a passive verb) and enigmatic (shown what?).

7. For full discussion of the real presence of Yahweh in Deuteronomy, see I. Wilson, Out of the Midst of the Fire: Divine Presence in Deuteronomy (SBLDS 151; Atlanta: Scholars, 1995), esp. 66–73.

8. See P. J. J. S. Els, “,” NIDOTTE, 1:277–99.

9. For discussion of the notion of “love” as the basis of ancient Near Eastern treaty relationships, see William L. Moran, “Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 (1965): 77–87. The Amarna letters speak of allied princes “loving” each other, of vassals loving the pharaoh, and the pharaoh loving the vassal. Cf. A. O. Haldar, “,” TDOT, 1:101.

10. Cf. Deut. 5:29; 6:24; 11:1; 14:23; 18:5; 19:9; 28:29–33.

11. Deut. 6:22; 7:19; 11:3; 13:2[3]; 26:8; 29:3[2]; 34:11.

12. See Neh. 9:9–11; Pss. 78:43–53; 105:26–45; 135:8–9; 136:10–15.

13. Drawing esp. on Isaiah. See R. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark (WUNT 2/88; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1997); idem, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000); D. W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, (WUNT 2/130; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2000); idem, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002).

14. Acts 2:19, 22, 43; 4:30; 5:12; 6:8; 7:36; 14:3; 15:12.

1. It is preferable to render Hebrew ʿîr as “town” rather than NIV’s “city.” In English “city” is misleadingly associated with large population centers. In the OT an ʿîr was by definition a settlement with defensive walls and gate structures—irrespective of size. These were necessary features for a site to function as a place of refuge.

2. On the nature and function of cities of refuge, see J. R. Spencer, “Refuge, Cities of,” ABD, 5:657–58.

1. I interpret 29:1[28:69] as the conclusion to this address, not the introduction to the third. See further below. Chapter 27 interrupts the smooth flow from 26:19 to 28:1.

2. Deut. 5:1, 31; 6:1, 20; 7:11; 11:32; 12:1; 26:16, 17.

3. Verses 46–49 contain little new information. The parenthetical note identifying Mount Siyon with Hermon recalls the note in 3:9, which reminds readers that Sidonians and Amorites refer to Mount Hermon as Mount Siryon and Mount Senir, respectively. Siyon may refer to a particular peak or section of Siryon. Thus Y. Ikeda, “Hermon, Sirion, and Senir,” AJSL 4 (1978): 44, n. 58.

4. Critical scholars tend to isolate the paraenetic materials as later deuteronomistic insertions. However, these are vital in determining the genre of the book and are much more extensive in chaps. 12–28 than is generally recognized.

5. By word count these sections increase progressively in length: Deut. 5:1b–6:3 consists of approximately 570 words; 6:4–8:20, approximately 830 words; and 9:1–11:32, approximately 1,150 words.

6. Cf. the structure based on text-linguistic considerations identified by J. DeRouchie, A Call to Covenant Love: Text Grammar and Literary Structure in Deuteronomy 5–11 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2007), 229.

7. The second-millennium BC vassal treaty that Muwattalli III of Hatti imposed on Alaksandu of Wilusa includes this clause: “Furthermore, this tablet which I have made for you, Alaksandu, shall be read out before you three times yearly, and you, Alaksandu, shall know it. These words are by no means reciprocal. They issue from Hatti.” As translated by Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 91.

8. The construction, šāmar laʿ ^aśôt (“keep by doing”), contrasts with 4:6, which used finite verbs for both, “keep and do.” This form occurs often in the book (5:29; 6:3, 25; etc.), and is reminiscent of Gen. 18:19, where Yahweh calls on Abraham’s descendants to “keep [šāmar] the way of Yahweh by doing [laʿ ^aśôt] justice and righteousness.” On this gerundive use of the infinitive construct, see WO Š36.2.3e; Joüon Š124o.

9. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 237–39.

10. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 61.

11. Interpreting lōʾ . . . kî, which is usually rendered “not . . . but,” as “correlative,” rather than “absolute” negation: “not only . . . but also.” Cf. Wright, Deuteronomy, 62.

12. Similarly, Millar, Now Choose Life, 82; idem, “Time and Place,” 57–58.

13. Both first and third person forms of the “word event formula” occur in Jeremiah: 1:2; 28:12; etc. In Ezekiel the formula is always in first person (3:16; etc.).

14. Ezek. 17:24; 22:14; 24:14; 36:36; 37:14.

1. Before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, the Nash papyrus, a liturgical fragment from the Maccabean period containing the Decalogue and the Shema (Deut. 6:4–5), was the oldest witness to the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Cf. E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 118.

2. Note his addition of “as the LORD your God has commanded you” in vv. 12 and 16.

3. R. Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period (trans. John Bowden; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 214–16.

4. Comparing the Decalogue to the American Constitution, P. D. Miller rightly observes that it provides the basis for later specification of the laws in the Book of the Covenant, the Holiness Code and the so-called Deuteronomic Code. See “The Place of the Decalogue in the Old Testament and Its Law,” in The Way of the Lord: Essays on Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 3–16.

5. For discussion, see Block, “Reading the Decalogue Right to Left,” 56–60.

6. D. J. A. Clines, “The Ten Commandments, Reading from Left to Right,” in Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 205; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 26–45; C. S. Rodd, Glimpses of a Strange Land: Studies in Old Testament Ethics (OTS; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001), 87–89.

7. See further D. I. Block, “Reading the Decalogue from Right to Left,” 36–42; idem, “ ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife,’ ” in The Gospel According to Moses, 137–68.

8. Though we agree in general with W. Harrelson, The Ten Commandments and Human Rights (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 186–93, who treats this document as a “charter of human freedom.”

9. According to the Exodus version the Sabbath command expresses a divine right; Yahweh has the right to the Israelites’ time and trust (Ex. 20:8–11).

10. This is a recurrent theme in Deuteronomy: 5:17; 6:14; 7:4; 8:19; 11:16, 28; 13:2[3], 6[7], 13[14]; 17:3; 18:20; 28:14, 36, 64; 29:26[25]; 30:17; 31:18, 20.

11. See further, J. H. Walton, “Interpreting the Bible as an Ancient Near Eastern Document,” in Israel—Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention (ed. D. I. Block; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2008), 305–9.

12. For the significance of this expression, see comments on 4:24.

13. The divine intervention is expressed by pqd, which may be either positive (Ruth 1:6) or negative. “To visit the guilt of fathers on children” occurs elsewhere in Ex. 20:5; 34:7; Num. 14:18.

14. This principle is illustrated by the execution of Achan and his entire household in Josh. 7:16–26.

15. On the word see D. A. Baer and R. P. Gordon, NIDOTTE, 2:211–18.

16. Cf. the use of this expression in Ex. 34:6–7; also Jer. 9:23.

17. See Tigay, Deuteronomy, 67.

18. See Walton, “Interpreting the Bible as an Ancient Near Eastern Document,” 313–18.

19. See further D. I. Block, “Bearing the Name of the LORD with Honor,” in How I Love Your Torah, O LORD! 61–72.

20. Compare the New Testament application of this principle in 2 Tim. 2:14–26 and 1 Peter 4:12–19.

21. The 60+ words compares with 50 devoted to the first command.

22. The verb “observe” (“keep”) replaces “remember” in Ex. 20:8.

23. Preparing food (Ex. 16:23–30), working the fields (Ex. 34:21; Neh. 13:15–21), lighting fires (Ex. 35:3), gathering wood (Num. 15:32–36), hauling goods (Jer. 17:21–22), and engaging in commerce (Amos 8:5). The ban did not include emergency situations. Note Jesus’ response to the Pharisees in Matthew 12:9–14 and Luke 14:1–6.

24. For other laws calling for humane treatment of animals, see Ex. 22:30[29]; Lev. 22:27–28; Deut. 22:6–7, 10; 25:4.

25. (1) It addressed the utilitarian need of all for regular rest from the stress of everyday work. (2) By patterning the rhythm of life after the creative work of God himself, the weekly Sabbath offered an opportunity for Israelites to declare their fundamentally theological perspective on life. (3) Like the rainbow in relationship to the covenant God made with Noah and the cosmos (Gen. 9:12, 13, 17), the Sabbath served as a “sign” of Yahweh’s eternal covenant with Israel (Ex. 31:16–17). The construction is emphatic: to ignore the Sabbath is to renounce one’s membership in the covenant community and cut oneself off from the grace of God—hence the treatment of Sabbath violation as a capital crime (see Ex. 31:14–15; 35:2; Num. 15:32–36). (4) It offered Israelites a means of regularly commemorating Yahweh’s mighty acts of liberation and celebrating their privilege of being the vassals of Yahweh rather than the slaves of Pharaoh. (5) It provided a context for free Israelites to declare their identification with the marginalized and economically vulnerable, reflecting Deuteronomy’s general concern for the alien (cf. 10:18–19; 16:11; 26:11). (6) It provided a means whereby Israelites could declare that all of life is sacred (cf. Lev. 19:1). As Yahweh had set Israel apart as his holy people (Ex. 19:5; Deut. 10:14–15), so he had sanctified the seventh day, for every day in which Yahweh is involved is a holy day. By “guarding” (šāmar) the Sabbath as the holiest day of all, Israelites reminded themselves and the world that all of life is holy.

26. The revelation of the seventh-day Sabbath ordinance is separated from and antedates the revelation of all other cultic observances. Later texts associate a Sabbath with visits to the prophets (2 Kings 4:23), special assemblies (Isa. 1:13), prostration before Yahweh (Isa. 66:23), enthusiastic thanksgiving (Ps. 92), and celebration (Isa. 58:13; Hos. 2:11[13]; Lam. 2:6), but these probably involved monthly or annual festivals rather than the weekly Sabbath. Cf. the link of Sabbaths (plural) with New Moon festivals in Isa. 1:13; 66:23; Hos. 2:11[13].

27. Although Gen. 2:1–4a does not use the word nûaḥ (“to rest”) of God, this verb occurs in Ex. 20:11 with God as the subject. Exodus 31:17 uses an even stronger anthropomorphic expression: yinnāpaš (“to catch one’s breath”).

28. The piel verb means “to ascribe weight to”; it is usually used in the sense of “to treat with respect,” the way one treats a master (Mal. 1:6), an envoy of Yahweh (Judg. 13:7), or God himself (1 Sam. 2:30; Ps. 50:15). Its opposite is represented by the verb qallēl (“to treat with contempt, to denigrate” (Ex. 21:17; Lev. 20:9), often translated as “to curse.” Echoes of this command are heard in 2 Sam. 10:3 (=1 Chron. 19:3) and Mal. 1:6.

29. Num. 35:16–34; Hos. 4:2; Jer. 7:9; 1 Kings 21:19. The common rendering, “You shall not kill,” is too broad, suggesting a prohibition on slaughtering animals, capital punishment, engagement in war, or cutting down trees.

30. Extramarital relations of a married man were only considered adulterous if the woman involved was married. See Tigay, Deuteronomy, 71. This ordinance does not condone extramarital sexual relations, though the present concern is to protect the integrity of marriage.

31. On adultery in the OT, see E. A. Goodfriend, “Adultery,” ABD, 1:82–86. On this “great sin/crime” in Ugaritic and Egyptian texts (ANET, 24), see W. L. Moran, “The Scandal of the ‘Great Sin’ at Ugarit,” JNES 18 (1956): 280–81.

32. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 314–15.

33. In the modern American context it could involve pleading the Fifth Amendment to protect oneself, when one knows this will not promote the cause of justice, or trivial preoccupation with semantics, as in President Clinton’s comment, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

34. Since ḥāmad (“to covet”) may be used of healthy desires (DCH, 3:247–48), the word is not intrinsically negative.

35. For detailed study see Block, “ ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife,’ ” in The Gospel According to Moses, 137–68.

36. Cf. Isa. 32:6; 59:13; Matt. 5:27–28; 12:34; 15:18; Eph. 6:6. In Eph. 5:5 and Col. 3:5, Paul links this last principle with the first two claiming that in essence covetousness and greed are idolatry.

37. Elsewhere we read that at the top of the mountain, Yahweh handed Moses the two stone covenant tablets “inscribed by the finger of God” (Ex. 31:18; cf. 32:15–16; Deut. 5:22).

38. References to “two” tablets occur often in the Old Testament: Ex. 31:18; 32:15; 34:1, 4a, 4b, 29; Deut. 4:13; 5:22; 9:10, 11, 15, 17; 10:1, 3; 1 Kings 8:9; 2 Chron. 5:10; cf. additional plural references without specifying “two”: Ex. 24:12; 32:1, 19, 28, 29; Deut. 9:9; 10:2, 4, 5.

39. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.8.11 (pp. 376, 377). The tradition dates as far back as Philo, who wrote, “We find that He divided the ten into two sets of five which he engraved on two tables, and the first five obtained the first place, while the other was awarded the second” (Decalogue, 12.50). Similarly Josephus, Ant. 3.5.8; 3.6.5.

40. See further, M. G. Kline, “The Two Tables of the Covenant,” WTJ 22 [1960]: 138–46. According to Hittite custom, each party deposited his copy of the treaty in the temple of the deity, where they would be overseen by the respective gods, but from where they could be retrieved and read aloud at prescribed intervals. For an example, see the treaty between Suppiluliuma I of Hatti and Shattiwaza of Mittani in Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 6A Š13, pp. 46–47.

41. So also F. Crüsemann, The Torah (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 356–57.

42. The notion that the Decalogue is the source of all laws dates back as far as Philo, who wrote, “Never forget this, that the ten words are the sources of the laws which are recorded in appearance before the entire legislation in the sacred books” (Philo, Decalogue, 29.154).

43. S. Kaufmann’s attempt (“The Structure of the Deuteronomic Law,” Maarav 1/2 [1978]: 105–58) to see the structure of the Decalogue reflected in the structure of this “Code” is forced.

44. Thus S. Mowinckel, Le décalogue (Paris: Félix Alcan, 1927), 141ff.

45. M. Weinfeld (Deuteronomy 1–11, 262, 267–75; idem, “The Decalogue in Israel’s Tradition,” in Religion and Law: Biblical and Judaic-Islamic Perspectives (ed. E. B. Firmage [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990], 38–39) proposes that the Decalogue was read at the Feast of Weeks (Shebuot), on the fifteenth of Sivan, three months after the exodus (Ex. 18:1). The day the Decalogue was heard is known as “the day of the assembly” (Deut. 9:10; 10:4; 18:16; cf. 4:10–14). Weinfeld suggests that the original event was regularly dramatized in a ritual by which the people took the Decalogue upon themselves by covenant and oath.

46. See G. Vermes, “Pre-Mishnaic Jewish Worship and the Phylacteries from the Dead Sea,” VT 9 (1959): 65–72.

47. On the use of the Decalogue in early Judaism, see F. E. Vokes, “The Ten Commandments in the New Testament and in First Century Judaism,” StEv 5 (ed. F. L. Cross; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1968): 146–54.

48. Vokes (p. 153) observes that for Paul, “The Law as law passes away, but as an ethical norm it still remains.”

49. In this he agrees with Jer. 31:31–34. But this internal aspect of the new covenant is not new absolutely. Every element of the new covenant cited by Jeremiah was operative in the hearts of true believers under the prior covenant.

50. Note the similar evaluation of J. J. Stamm (The Ten Commandments in Recent Research [trans. M. E. Andrew; SBT 2nd series; London: SCM, 1967], 114): “The Decalogue was the charter of freedom which Yahweh had presented to his people delivered from Egypt. The people received it not as a burden, but as a gift, which was seen as a privilege and as an occasion for thanks.”

51. To cite Hebrews 4:9 as evidence of the end of the Sabbath rest in Christ is to misunderstand metaphors; the use of the seventh-day Sabbath as a picture of rest we enjoy in Christ does not affect the reality on which it is based.

52. Though Sunday was not the official day of rest until it was decreed so on March 7, AD 321, by Constantine I.

53. In Russian, the word for “Sunday,” Voskresenie, means “Resurrection day.”

54. It seems that behind the expression “on the Lord’s day” in Rev. 1:10 lies the Hebrew phrase, “a day belonging to Yahweh,” perhaps an abbreviation of “the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God” (Ex. 20:10). In that case John applies the old covenant expression to a new covenant reality. Elsewhere we read of the first day as the day for corporate worship and receiving donations for the poor (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2).

55. P. D. Miller, The Ten Commandments (Interpretation; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 6.

1. Hebrew bāśār (NIV “mortals”) may be used of living creatures (Gen. 6:17, 19; Num. 18:15) but usually refers to humankind (Gen. 6:12, 13; Isa. 40:5, 6; etc.).

2. This idiom recurs in 28:67; variations appear in Ex. 16:3; Num. 11:29; Job 6:8; 11:5; 13:5; 14:3; 19:23; 23:3.

3. Deut. 6:1, 25; 7:11; 8:1; 11:8, 22; 30:11.

4. So also Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 326; Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot; eine Unterschung literarischer Einleitungstragen zu Dtn 5–11 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963), 55–56.

5. On the construction “keep by doing,” see above on 5:1. While the concern here is to keep alive the memory of God’s revelation at Sinai, the emphasis on “guarding oneself” recalls 4:9, 15, 23.

6. Appeals to hear occur esp. in teaching contexts (Prov. 1:8; 4:1, 10; 8:32; cf. 4:20; 5:1; 7:24. See further Weinfeld, DDS, 305–6.

7. This idiom, describing the richness of the land of Palestine, will recur in Deuteronomy (11:9; 26:9, 15; 27:3; 31:20) and elsewhere in the Old Testament (Ex. 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:3; Lev. 20:24; Num. 13:27; 14:8; 16:13, 14; Josh. 5:6; Jer. 11:5; 32:22; Ezek. 20:6, 15). On this expression and the nature of the Palestinian landscape in ancient times, see S. D. Waterhouse, “A Land Flowing with Milk and Honey,” AUSS 1 (1963): 152–66.

8. For a comparable early second-millennium BC Egyptian’s description of northern Palestine, see COS, 1:38 (p. 79).

1. This theme is captured in the title of J. DeRouchie’s work, A Call to Covenant Love: Text Grammar and Literary Structure in Deuteronomy 5–11 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2007).

2. Its significance in ancient Judaism is reflected by its inclusion after the Decalogue in the Nash papyrus, a second century BC liturgical text (Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992], 118); and in a first century AD phylactery text from Cave 8 at Qumran, in which the Shema is written in a rectangle and surrounded by other texts (published by M. Baillet, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 3 [1962]: 149–51).

3. Thereby taking “the yoke of the kingdom,” that is, placing themselves under kingship of Yahweh. For discussions of the Shema in early Judaism, see L. Jacobs. “Shema, Reading of,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica (rev. ed.; New York: Macmillan, 2007), 18:453–56; S. D. McBride, “The Yoke of the Kingdom: An Exposition of Deut. 6:4–5, ” Int 27 (1973): 273–306, esp. 275–79.

4. This is clearly how LXX understood it: akoue Israēl kyrios ho theos hēmôn kyrios heis estin. For discussion, see J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy (Atlanta: Scholars, 1995), 114. So also the Nash papyrus, which adds a pleonastic hûʾ at the end of v. 4.

5. Josh. 22:20; 2 Sam. 7:23 (// 1 Chron. 17:21); 1 Chron. 29:1; Job 23:13; 31:15; Song 6:9; Zech. 14:9. Cf. the similar use of l^ebaddô in 2 Kings 19:19; Isa. 2:11, 17. The ambiguity of the Hebrew text of the Shema is resolved in this direction also in a fourth-century AD Samaritan inscription, which adds an appositional ldbw, “he alone,” to the Shema. See G. Davies, “A Samaritan Inscription with an Expanded Text of the Shema,” PEQ 131 (1999): 3–19.

6. For a detailed discussion of the Shema and a defense of the interpretation represented here, see D. I. Block, “How Many Is God? An Investigation into the Meaning of Deuteronomy 6:4–5, ” in How I Love Your Torah, O LORD! 73–97. Cf. Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of ‘Monotheism’ (FAT 2/1; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003).

7. McBride, “The Yoke of the Kingdom,” 273–306.

8. Which explains why, in Mark’s citation of Jesus’ quotation of this verse, he uses four Greek words for Deuteronomy’s three: kardia (= Heb. lēb), psychē (= Heb. nepeš), dianoia (= Heb. lēb), and ischys (= Heb. m^eʾōd).

9. Cognate adjectival expressions occur in both Ugaritic (mad/mid, “great, strong, much”; Kirta 1.ii.35 [Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 15]; Baal Cycle 10.v.15 [Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 130]), and Akkadian mâdum, “many, numerous,” and maʾdu, “quantity, fullness,” from the verb mâdum, “to become numerous,” AHw, 573. Cf. HALOT, 2:538.

10. Just as “iniquity, rebellion, and sin” in Ex. 34:7 refer to “every conceivable sin,” so here “inner being, person, and resources” function superlatively for every part of a person.

11. On the actual internalization of the will of God in the hearts of believers, see Pss. 37:31; 40:8[9], 119:11; Isa. 51:7.

12. The verb šinnēn, “to repeat, to inculcate by repetition,” occurs only here in the Old Testament. It has traditionally been thought of as deriving from a root šānan, “to whet, sharpen” (BDB, 1042; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 332–33). However, in the light of Ugaritic texts, which use the cognate tnn, “to repeat, to do twice,” the word is better interpreted as a denominative of the numeral šēnî/š^enayim, “two.” Cf. Craigie, Deuteronomy, 170, n. 17.

13. Contra the NIV, dibbēr . . . b^e does not mean “to speak about,” but to recite the text itself. See E. Talstra, “Texts for Recitation, Deuteronomy 6:7; 11:19, ” Unless Someone Guide Me . . . Festschrift for Karel A. Deurloo (ed. J. W. Dyk et al.; ACEBTSup 2; Maastricht: Shaker, 2001), 67–76.

14. Whether left or right hand is intended is unclear. Since most people are right-handed, it would be more convenient to bind them on the left hand, in which case the sign is intended primarily for the person wearing it. Thus B. Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus (trans. W. Jacob; Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1992), 369. But since the right hand was generally recognized to be more important than the left (cf. Rev. 13:16) and was used in greeting and oaths, this would fit better in this context.

15. For a literal interpretation also of Ex. 13:9 and 16, see Ibn Ezra, Commentary on the Pentateuch: Exodus (Shemot) (trans. H. N. Strickman and A. M. Silver; New York: Menorah, 1996), 262.

16. So also C. Houtman, Exodus, 3 vols; vol. 2, Chapters 7:14–19:25 (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Kampen: Kok, 1996), 218–20. For further discussion, see O. Keel, “Zeichen der Verbundenheit: Zur Vorgeschichte und Bedeuting der Forderungen von Deuteronomium 6:8f. und Par,” in Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy (OBO 38; Freiburg/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 212–15.

17. For documentation, see J. Gamberoni, TDOT, 5:319–21; Jeffrey H. Tigay, “On the Meaning of ṭ(w)ṭpt,” JBL 101 (1983): 328–30; Keel, “Zeichen der Verbundenheit,” 212–15.

18. For discussion, see G. Barkay, Ketef Hinnom: A Treasure Facing Jerusalem’s Walls (Jerusalem: The Israel Museum, 1986), 29–31; idem, “The Priestly Benediction on the Ketef Hinnom Plaques,” Cathedra 52 (1989): 37–76 [Hebrew]. Cf. Tov, Textual Criticism, 118 and plate 1. These plaques have holes for the string that was used to attach them to the body.

19. These t^efillîn were small cubical boxes of leather attached to the wrist or the forehead with leather strips. Inside the boxes were small pieces of parchment inscribed with biblical texts from the Decalogue, Ex. 13:1–16, and Deut. 6:4–9; 11:13–21. Cf. Matt. 23:5. For discussion and documentation of the Qumran phylacteries, see L. H. Schiffman, “Phylacteries and Mezuzot,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000), 2:675–77.

20. Similarly, Houtman, Exodus Chapters 7:14–19:25, 2:219. It seems likely that these ornaments would have been worn on special occasions, perhaps the Sabbath, or during Passover and Unleavened Bread (Ex. 13:9, 16).

21. On sacred inscriptions on doorposts of houses in ancient Egypt, see Keel, “Zeichen der Verbundenheit,” 183–92.

22. Cf. the NJPS, footnote, “i.e., the LORD alone shall be worshiped and shall be invoked by his true name.”

23. On Paul’s reformulation of the Shema in 1 Corinthians 8, see N. T. Wright, “Monotheism, Christology and Ethics: 1 Corinthians 8, ” in The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 120–36; L. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (London: SCM, 1988), 97–100.

24. N. T. Wright, “Monotheism, Christology and Ethics: 1 Corinthians 8, ” 129. This compares with the application of the title, “God of gods and Lord of lords,” taken from Deut. 10:17, to the Lamb in Rev. 17:14.

25. So also R. W. L. Moberly, “Toward an Interpretation of the Shema,” in Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard A. Childs (ed. C. Seitz and K. Greene-McCreight; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 142.

26. Moses reiterates the command in various forms in 10:12; 11:1, 13; 13:3[4], and speaks of obedience to them “by loving” Yahweh (11:22; 19:9; 30:16, 20). Cf. similar injunctions to “love” in Josh. 22:5; 23:11; Ps 31:23[24].

27. References and appeals for “wholehearted” devotion to Yahweh are common in the Old Testament: with “all one’s heart”: 1 Kings 8:23 = 2 Chron. 6:14; etc.; with “a wholesome heart”: 2 Kings 20:3 = Isa. 38:3; 1 Chron. 28:9; 29:9; with, “one/a single heart”: Jer. 32:39; Ezek. 11:19.

28. Solomon may be the exception that proves the rule: “Solomon showed his love (ʾâhab) for the LORD, walking according to the statutes of his father David, except that he offered sacrifices and burned incense on the high places” (1 Kings 3:3). Does the narrator anticipate his latter-day apostasy (1 Kings 11)? Cf. J. D. Hays, “Has the Narrator Come to Praise Solomon or to Bury Him? Narrative Subtlety in 1 Kings 1–11, ” JSOT 28 (2003): 149–74.

29. See esp. 2 Kings 23:25, where we hear a clear echo of Deut. 6:5: Josiah “turned [sûb] to the Lord . . . with all his heart [lēb] and with all his soul [nepeš] and with all his strength [m^eʾôd], in accordance with the Law of Moses.” Hezekiah claims to have walked before Yahweh with a whole heart (2 Kings 20:3 = Isa. 38:3).

30. Ps. 18:12[13] deliberately avoids ʾāhab, reading rāḥam, “to feel compassion,” which is odd, since typically the greater feels compassion toward a needed lesser person. The psalmist’s discomfort with the notion may be reflected in his use of the Qal; elsewhere the verb always appears in the Piel or Pual stem. Ps. 116:1 translates literally, “I love because Yahweh has heard my voice and my supplications.” This compares with 1 John 4:19, “We love, because he first loved us.”

31. For recent defense of this interpretation, see D. Shepherd, “ ‘Do You Love Me?’ A Narrative-Critical Reappraisal of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in John 21:15–17, ” JBL 129 (2010): 777–92. Whether or not there is any etymological relationship between Hebrew ʾāhab, “to love,” and Greek agapaō, “to love,” the assonantal links are striking, facilitating the translation of the former with the latter in the LXX.

1. Deuteronomy uses the expression “to eat and be satisfied” in both positive (8:10; 14:29; 26:12) and negative senses; in the latter it leads to self-sufficiency or idolatry (6:11; 8:12; 11:15; 31:20).

2. The statement echoes 1:8, as well as Yahweh’s promise to Moses in Ex. 6:2–8 and Ex. 13:11. As in 9:5; 29:13[12]; and 30:20, he lists the ancestors by name: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (cf. also 9:27).

3. For a comparable description see Josh. 24:13. For a poetic exposition of this description, see Neh. 9:24–25.

4. Cf. 10:20; 13:4[5].

5. Deut. 5:29; 6:2, 24; 10:12; 13:4[5]; 17:19; 31:12–13.

6. Cf. Ps. 63:11[12]; Isa. 48:1; 65:16; Jer. 4:2; 5:2; 12:16–17.

7. In contrast to 4:24, this clause clearly uses the description attributively rather than as a title.

8. On this combination of divine anger and destruction of the people, see 7:4; 11:17; 29:20, 23, 27[19, 22, 26]; 31:17; 32:22.

9. Cf. Deut. 9:22 and 33:8. The name recurs also in Ps. 95:8–9.

10. Cf. Ps. 78, esp. vv. 18, 41, 56; Ps. 106, esp. v. 14. Mal. 3:10–12 is the exception that proves the rule.

11. On the meaning “commands,” “stipulations,” and “decrees,” see comments on 4:1–2, 45.

12. The root ṭwb/yṭb is a key word in this chapter. Cf. “good” cities and houses full of “good” things in v. 10; the “good” land, doing “good,” and experiencing “good” in v. 18. Deuteronomy 28:1–14 fleshes out what “good” means in terms of the covenant blessings.

13. The expression, recurs in Deut. 12:25; 13:18[19]; and 21:9. The opposite idiom is “doing what is [the] evil in the eyes of the LORD” (4:25; 9:18; 17:2; 31:29), or “do what is [the] right in one’s own eyes” (cf. 12:8).

14. For fuller discussion of 6:20–25, see D. I. Block, “The Grace of Torah: The Mosaic Prescription for Life (Deut. 4:1–8; 6:20–25),” in How I Love Your Torah, O LORD! 11–17.

15. The forms of the question and the answer are also found in Ex. 12:26–27; Josh. 4:6–7, and 21–23.

16. G. Braulik, “Gesetz als Evangelium: Rechtfertigung und Begnadigung nach der deuteronomischen Tora,” in Studien zur Theologie des Deuteronomiums (SBA 2; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988), 135.

17. See comments on 4:8.

18. Thus Braulik, “Gesetz als Evangelium,” 140.

19. Similarly Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 337.

20. Note the explicit reference in Judg. 6:39.

21. See Gen. 22:1; Ex. 15:25; 20:20; Pss. 17:3; 66:10; 81:7[8]; 105:19; Prov. 27:21 (implied); Zech. 13:9.

22. See further, G. S. Smith, “The Testing of Our Faith: A Pentateuchal Theology of Testing” (Ph.D. dissertation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, 2005), esp. 56–95.

23. Cf. 1 Cor. 3:13; 1 Pet. 4:12.

24. Matt. 16:1; 22:18, 35; Mark 8:11; 10:2; 12:15; Luke 10:25; 11:16; John 8:6.

25. Most manuscripts read kyrios, but for the textual evidence for Christos as the preferred reading see B. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Society, 1971), 560.

26. See also 1 Chron. 29:17; 2 Chron. 32:31; Ps. 26:2; Jer. 12:3.

27. It is not clear whether the singular “all this law” (v. 25) refers to all the stipulations, decrees, and laws of v. 20 as a collective, or the Supreme Command particularly. See comments on 5:28.

28. This is even clearer in Ex. 19:4–5; Yahweh took care of the Egyptians and brought Israel to himself before he revealed to them his commands. Braulik (“Gesetz als Evangelium,” 148) speaks of a repudiation of a “works piety” (Werkfrömmigkeit), that is, a legal claim before God based on one’s own righteousness

29. See further Ps. 24:1–5; Ezek. 18:1–23; Hab. 2:4.

30. Pss. 14:1, 4; 51:4–5[6–7]; 53:1, 3 [2, 4]; Isa. 64:6[5].

31. Rom. 2:12–13; 4:13–15; 7:8–9; 8:2–4; 10:4–5; 2 Cor. 3:6; Gal. 3:12–13, 21–24; 5:18.

32. For detailed discussion of this chapter, see Block, Ezekiel Chapters 1–24, 554–90.

33. This principle is operative also in Jesus’ teaching (Matt. 7:15–23).

34. For a helpful discussion of these and related issues from the New Testament perspective, see S. J. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3 (WUNT 81; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995).

35. Despite Paul’s arguments to the contrary, particularly his reference to Abraham as an illustration of salvation by faith alone (Rom. 4; Gal. 3:1–12).

36. This is the order we find in John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion 2.7.6–12. This compares with the Lutheran view, as expressed in the The Formula of Concord, Article VI: (1) that “thereby outward discipline might be maintained against wild, disobedient men [and that wild and intractable men might be restrained, as though by certain bars]”; (2) that “men thereby may be led to the knowledge of their sins”; and (3) that “after they are regenerate . . . they might . . . have a fixed rule according to which they are to regulate and direct their whole life” See Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (ed. and trans. F. Bente and W. H. T. Dau; St. Louis: Concordia, 1921), Epitome VI.1.

1. Like the Mesha Inscription from Moab. ANET, 320–21; COS, 2:23. For discussion of this text, see P. D. Stern, The Biblical Herem: A Window on Israel’s Religious Experience (BJS 211; Atlanta: Scholars, 1991), 19–56. Stern also discusses additional ancient Near Eastern texts that potentially involve similar institutions (see pp. 57–87).

2. J. Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975 [reprint of 1967 edition]), 246–51; L. E. Toombs, “War, Holy,” IDB, 4:796–801.

3. Moberly, “Toward an Interpretation of the Shema,” 136.

4. For discussion of the evidence see V. P. Long, A Biblical History of Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 173–83.

5. W. Crump (“Deuteronomy 7: A Covenant Sermon,” ResQ 17 [1974]: 224) observes that its contents include “encouragement, warning, promise, remembrance, and admonition.”

6. Moberly, “Toward an Interpretation of the Shema,” 135–37.

7. Cf. the scheme of Wright, Deuteronomy, 108–09.

8. Ex. 23:20–33 comprises approximately 150 words in Hebrew, Deut. 7 has 350.

9. The narratives of Joshua prove the issue to be devotion to Yahweh rather than ethnicity. Cf. L. D. Hawk, “Conquest Reconfigured: Recasting Warfare in the Redaction of Joshua,” in Writing and Reading War: Rhetoric, Gender, and Ethics in Biblical and Modern Contexts (ed. B. E. Kelle and F. R. Ames; SBL Symposium Series 42; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 145–60.

10. The relatively rare verb nāšal occurs again in verse 22. As in 2 Kings 16:6, it is a military term, referring to clearing a conquered territory or city of its population.

11. For the meaning of this term, see below.

12. The expression “holy war” rightly recognizes the sacral character of the campaign for the land of Canaan, but the phrase is too closely associated with Islamic jihad and other radical movements, and it should be abandoned. See B. C. Ollenburger, “Gerhard von Rad’s Theory of Holy War,” in his introduction to the English edition of von Rad’s work, Holy War in Ancient Israel, 22–33.

13. For discussion of the identities of these peoples, see Merrill, Deuteronomy, 177–79; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 84–85.

14. Josh. 6:17–25 presents a case study of this policy. Everything in the city was subject to ḥērem, which should have meant that everything would be destroyed. However, the silver and gold were reserved for Yahweh and placed in the tabernacle treasury. The root ḥrm was fairly widespread among Semitic languages, but the biblical usage involving “consecration to destruction” is attested only in Moabite and possibly Ugaritic. See Stern, Biblical Herem, 16.

15. For the Hittite practice, see the autobiographical reports of Muršili II (ca. 1321–1295 B.C.), in H. Roszkowska-Mutschler, “ ‘ . . . and on its site I sowed cress . . .’: Some Remarks on the Execration of Defeated Enemy Cities by the Hittite Kings,” Journal of Ancient Civilizations 7 (1992): 6; G. F. Del Monte, “The Hittite Ḥērem,” in Babel und Bibel 2: Memoriae Igor M. Diakonof, Annual of Ancient Near Eastern, Old Testament, and Semitic Studies (ed. L. Kogan; Orientalia et Classica 8; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 25. Compare the reconstruction of events by Roszkowska-Mutschler, “Some Remarks,” 11–12. For the ritual text, which includes offerings to the gods of the targeted town to ensure the god’s favor toward the conqueror, see Del Monte, “The Hittite Ḥērem,” 40–43.

16. So also Mal. 2:10–11, which speaks of intermarriage as marrying “the daughters of a foreign god,” and views this as an act of treason/treachery against the covenant community.

17. By opening each clause with the object, Moses focuses on the symbols themselves. The verse echoes Ex. 34:13.

18. Cf. Ezek. 39:17–20; 41:22; 44:16; Mal. 1:7, 12.

19. The verb is associated with the demolition of altars in Ex. 34:13; Judg. 2:2; 6:30–32 (Gideon); 2 Kings 23:12, 15 (Josiah); of high places in 2 Kings 23:8; and of the sacred pillar and temple of Baal in 2 Kings 10:27.

20. The Authorized Version rendered this word as “groves.” However, in the light of abundant extrabiblical evidence that surfaced in the last century, Asherah is now known to have been a prominent goddess in Canaanite mythology, the wife of the high god El and mother of seventy gods. The seductive power of the Asherah cult is attested by several Hebrew inscriptions from the period of the monarchy that speak of “Yahweh and his Asherah.” See further, J. M. Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000); N. Wyatt, “Asherah,” DDD, 99–105; J. Day, “Asherah,” ABD, 1:483–87.

21. On biblical polemics against idolatry, see Block, “Other Religions in Old Testament Theology,” in The Gospel According to Moses, 200–236.

22. See D. I. Block, “Nation, Nationality,” ISBE (rev. ed.), 3:492–96; idem, “Nations/ Nationality,” NIDOTTE, 4:966–72.

23. On the meaning of the root qdš, see W. Kornfeld, TDOT, 12:521–30.

24. Ex. 19:5; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18; Ps. 135:4; Mal. 3:17.

25. The Authorized Version’s “peculiar people” is based on the sense of the underlying Latin, peculium, “personal/private property,” and has nothing to do with “odd, weird.” The Septuagint reads periousion (a people “of his possession”), which undertranslates the word. See also Titus 2:14; Eph. 1:14; and 1 Peter 2:9.

26. On the verb bāḥar, see comments on 4:37; cf. also 10:15; 14:2.

27. On pādâ as a metaphor for Yahweh’s salvation of Israel from the bondage of Egypt, see Deut. 9:26; 13:5[6]; 15:15; 21:8; 24:18; 2 Sam. 7:23 = 1 Chron. 17:21; Neh. 1:10; Ps. 78:42; Mic. 6:4.

28. Gāʾal is used metaphorically of Yahweh’s act of salvation outside Deuteronomy in Ex. 6:6; 15:13; Pss. 74:2; 77:15[16]; 78:35; 106:10.

29. For a discussion of the functions of a gōʾēl and further literature, see Block, Judges, Ruth, 674–75; R. Hubbard, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:578–82.

30. Often in combination with other words: El El Olam (Gen. 21:33), El Roi (16:13), El Elyon (14:18–22), and El Shadday (17:1; 28:3; 35:11).

31. On the relationship between the names El Shadday and Yahweh, see G. J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1994); xxx–xxxv; idem, “The Religion of the Patriarchs,” in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives (eds. A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman; Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980), 157–88; R. W. L. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosiac Yahwism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 85–87.

32. For the meaning of this word see comments on 5:10. In 2 Sam. 7:15, the word functions as a virtual substitute for b^erît, that is, “the covenant promises.”

33. A hendiadys. So also Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 370.

34. Cf. Gen. 17:2; 22:17; 26:4, 24; 28:3; 32:12[13]; 35:11; 48:4; Ex. 32:13; Lev 26:9.

35. Reflected in the place name, “Beth-Dagon” (“house of Dagon”), attested in Judah (Josh. 15:41) and Asher in the north (Josh. 19:27). On this deity, see L. Feliu, The God Dagan in Bronze Age Syria, trans. W. G. E. Watson (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 19; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 278–88.

36. See further J. F. Healey, “Tirash,” DDD, 871–72.

37. Cf. N. Wyatt, “Oil,” DDD, 640.

38. Sheger apparently refers to the deity of the full moon, which was commonly thought to influence conception and birth. For further information on Sheger/Shaggar, see K. van der Toorn, “Sheger,” DDD, 760–62.

39. On Ishtar in the Near Eastern religion, see T. Abusch, “Ishtar,” DDD, 452–56; on Astarte, see N. Wyatt, “Astarte,” DDD, 109–14. See ANEP ##464, 465.

40. The sequence of grain, wine, cattle, and sheep is found in the blessings in the Phoenician inscription by Azatiwada (early seventh century BC). For the text, see COS, 2:31, iii.2–11 (p. 150). Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 373.

41. On Israel’s supreme economic standing among the nations as a reward for scrupulous obedience to the covenant, see 15:5–6; 26:16–19; 28:12–14.

42. The expression, which also occurs in 28:60, derives from a root meaning “to be faint, ill.” The diseases would include malaria, dysentery, elephantiasis, etc. On diseases in ancient Egypt, see Pliny, Natural History 26.1.5.

43. This idiom is especially prominent in Ezekiel, where it is used of God or his agent: 5:11; 7:4, 9; 8:18; 9:5, 10; 20:17; 24:14. For discussion of the idiom, see S. Wagner, “,” TDOT, 4:271–77.

44. Whereas Ex. 23:33 looks forward to the future, the present verbless clause treats the issue as a real and present danger. The word translated “snare” denotes a fowler’s net used to catch birds. For illustrations, see O. Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (trans. T. J. Hallett; New York: Seabury, 1978), 89–94.

45. For a discussion of these terms, see comments on 4:34.

46. Hornets are not mentioned either in Num. 21 or Deut. 2:26–3:11, but, quoting Yahweh, in Josh. 24:12 Joshua attributes the defeat of Sihon and Og to the hornet (singular) that God had sent against them.

47. See comment on 10:17.

48. The verb hûm means, “to make noise, create a din.” Combined with its cognate noun, m^ehûmâ, “din, noise,” and the adjective g^edōlâ, the image recalls the pandemonium involved in Gideon’s attack on the Midianites (Judg. 7:19–22).

49. See 1 Sam. 24:21[22]; 2 Sam. 14:7. To prevent this, Absalom set up a memorial for himself because he had no children to proclaim his name after his death (2 Sam. 18:18). See also Ps. 37:28; Isa. 14:20–21.

50. The same verb is used of Achan’s sin in Josh. 7:21.

51. In v. 16 Moses had warned that the service of the gods would be a “snare” to the Israelites; now he says they will be “ensnared” (same root, yqš) by silver and gold with which they were plated.

52. The word derives from a root tʿb (“to abhor, to reject as utterly disgusting”).

53. See above pp. 95–97.

54. See below on Deut. 26:19.

55. Forms of the root ḥrm occur eight times in Josh. 7:1–15 (vv. 1, 11, 12, 13, 15).

56. Josh. 5:1; 9:1; 10:1–12:24.

57. The verb hitḥattēn (“to intermarry”) occurs especially in contexts involving intermarriage with Canaanites: Gen. 34:9; Deut. 7:3; Josh. 23:12; cf. also Ezra 9:14.

58. Isa. 63:18 (lit., “people of your holiness”) and Dan. 12:7 (“holy people”) are exceptions.

59. This notion has its roots in Ex. 19:6.

60. See above, pp. 95–97.

1. Note (1) Moses’ positive charges to “remember” (vv. 2, 18); (2) his appeals for scrupulous guarding of oneself with a negative purpose clause, “lest you forget” (vv. 11, 14); (3) his warning against spiritual amnesia, “if you ever forget” (v. 19).

2. Compare the views of the structure of this text in Wright, Deuteronomy, 121; R. O’Connell, “Deuteronomy VIII 1–20: Asymmetrical Concentricity and the Rhetoric of Providence,” VT 40 (1990): 437–52.

3. Deut. 8:2–5 lacks a counterpart in 6:10–15.

4. For a similar pedagogical pattern see comments on 4:32–40 (esp. vv. 35, 39) and 7:8–10.

5. So also 5:33; 9:12, 16; 10:12; 11:22, 28; 13:5[6]; 19:9; 26:17; 28:9; 30:16; 31:29.

6. Cf. Ezekiel’s use of the metaphor as a description of judgment, rather than refinement in 22:17–22.

7. Jesus’ allusion to the Decalogue in Matt. 15:18–19 suggests that such behavior proves the words of the covenant have not been written on the heart.

8. J. Crenshaw, A Whirlpool of Torment (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 2; Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament, 202; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 92.

9. Cf. Moberly, Abraham and God in Genesis 22, 106–8. Commenting on Gen. 22:12, Wenham (Genesis 16–50, 110) speaks of “confirming his [God’s] knowledge.”

10. The Baal Peor incident reported in 4:1–5 is never called a test, but it had the same effect. The dross was destroyed, but those who held fast to Yahweh survived.

11. Cf. S. R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1896), 107–8.

12. Thus von Rad, Deuteronomy, 72. See 30:15 and 32:47.

13. For a different perspective, see J. T. Willis, “Man Does Not Live by Bread Alone (Deut. 9:3 and Mt. 4:4),” Restoration Quarterly 16 (1973): 145–47.

14. Thus O’Connell, “Deuteronomy VIII 1–20, ” 450, following Willis, with some modification. Cf. Tigay’s comment (Deuteronomy, 92), “Man does not live on natural foods alone but on whatever God decrees to be nourishing.”

15. On this construction, see the comments on 5:1.

16. The NIV omits translating one of the occurrences of ʾereṣ at the end of v. 8 (“[a land] of olive oil and honey”).

17. The Hebrew word denotes the subterranean waters, but as used here it refers to the fountains from which the subterranean waters gush forth. See further, D. T. Tsumura, Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory in the Old Testament (rev. ed.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 50.

18. On these grains, see Oded Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 87–92; Michael Zohary, Plants of the Bible: A Complete Handbook (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982), 74–76.

19. On viticulture in Palestine, see Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, 102–14; Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 54–56. For a fuller study, see C. E. Walsh, The Fruit of the Vine: Viticulture in Ancient Israel (HSM 60; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000).

20. Pomegranates were also valued as symbols of fertility (Song 4:13; 6:11; 7:12) and as motifs in religious art. For tabernacle (Ex. 28:33–34; 39:24–26) and temple decoration (1 Kings 7:18, 42) and for the head of the priest’s mace, see A. Lemaire, “Probable Head of Priestly Scepter from Solomon’s Temple Surfaces in Jerusalem, BAR 10/1 (1984): 24–29. On the importance of pomegranates in the ancient economy, Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, 116–17; Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 62.

21. Cf. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, 117–26; Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 56–57.

22. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, 126–28; Zohary, Plants of the Bible, 60–61; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 435–36.

23. The NIV translates “and you settle down,” but this should probably be interpreted as an abbreviated variant of “to live in/on the land” (cf. 11:31; 12:10, 19, 29; 17:14; 26:1; 30:20).

24. The idiom rûm lēb, “the heart is lifted up” (NIV “become proud”), recurs in 17:20 (cf. Ezek. 31:10; Dan. 5:20; Hos. 13:4–6).

25. Cf. Ex. 17:6; Num. 20:7–11. The word recurs in Deut. 32:13; Ps. 114:8; Isa. 50:7.

26. For a narrated illustration of the failed test at Taberah, see Num. 11:1–9, to which Moses will allude in 9:22.

27. This interpretation goes back as far as the Samaritan Pentateuch and the LXX^L379, which insert the names of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at this point. Cf. BHQ, 75*, and 49*–50* on 1:8.

28. So also Hwang, Rhetoric of Remembrance, 328–29.

29. The narratives speak of Yahweh’s blessing Abraham (24:1[“in every way”], 35) and Isaac (25:11; 26:12–14, 29).

30. The addition of “as it is today” strengthens this interpretation.

31. Apparently based on 4:26, several manuscripts of LXX add “the heavens and the earth.” See BHQ, s.v.

32. While Heb. 9:4 suggests the manna and Aaron’s rod were kept in the ark along with the tablets of the covenant, 1 Kings 8:9 (= 2 Chron. 5:10), as well as Philo (Moses 9.97) and Josephus (Ant 3.6.5; 8.4.1), suggest otherwise. The note in Hebrews must either be based on some other tradition (Cf. C. R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 36; New York: Doubleday, 2001], 395) or reflect a later reality when the objects were transferred from before the ark into the ark.

33. In which case pneumatikon brōma is equivalent to leḥem šāmayim, “bread of heaven.”

34. According to Ex. 16:31 it resembled white coriander seed, and its taste was like wafers with honey. Num. 11:7 adds that it sparkled like bdellium.

35. See the discussion in Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 392–94.

36. Composer unknown.

1. Five of the nine occurrences of this phrase in the Old Testament occur here. It took forty days and nights (1) for Yahweh to deliver the Decalogue to Moses (9:9–10); (2) for the Israelites to prove the shallowness of their covenant commitment (9:11–17); (3) for Moses to deal with the sin of the people, including his confession before Yahweh and his destruction of “the sin” (9:18–21); (4) for Moses to convince Yahweh to withdraw his threat to annihilate his people (9:25–10:5); (5) to complete the work of atonement and to hear Yahweh’s marching orders to renew the trek to the Promised Land (10:10–11).

2. On disputation speeches in the prophetic books, see A. Graffy, A Prophet Confronts His People: The Disputation Speech in the Prophets (AnBib 104; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1984); Block, Ezekiel Chapters 1–24, 329–40.

3. The sevenfold repetition of the root yrš (“to possess, dispossess”) in this short paragraph is obscured in the NIV, which renders the term variously: “dispossess” (v. 1), “drive them out” (vv. 3, 4, and 5), “take possession” (vv. 4 and 5), and “possess” (v. 6). This verb involves the conquest of another people or nation, thereby gaining the right to rule its territory. Cf. N. Lohfink, “,” TDOT, 6:371.

4. The elliptical nature of the statement buttresses this impression: “You have heard [people say. . . .” On the renowned strength of the Anakites, see 1:28; 2:10–11.

5. Ezekiel 18 provides classic presentations of the contrast between “righteousness” and “wickedness.” For detailed discussion see Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 554–90.

6. Moses’ negative evaluation of the Canaanites accords with the perspective of the rest of the Pentateuch. See Gen. 15:16; Lev. 18:24–30; 20:23; Deut. 18:12.

7. See G. Abramson, “Colloquialisms in the Old Testament,” Semitics 2 (1972): 12–13. In v. 13 Moses recalls Yahweh’s own use of the expression in the aftermath of the golden calf affair (Ex. 32:9; 33:3, 5).

8. Cf. 1:26, 43; 9:23, 24.

9. His focus here is on the covenant as the basis for the relationship between Yahweh and Israel, not on the stipulations of the covenant themselves. “Out of [the midst of] the fire” (v. 10) recalls 4:12, 15, 36, and 5:22; “on the day of the assembly” echoes 4:10 and 5:22. The expression “tablets of the covenant” (luḥôt habb^erît) that Yahweh made with them occurs only here and in verses 9, 11, and 15 (though it recalls 4:13; cf. 1 Kings 8:9), and replaces “tablets of the stipulations” (luḥôt hāʿēdut) in Ex. 31:18 (cf. 32:15; 34:29).

10. The Exodus account does not indicate how quickly the idolatrous behavior surfaced, but Yahweh uses the word “quick” in Ex. 32:8.

11. Cf. Ex. 31:18; Deut 5:22.

12. Verse 11 suggests it took forty days and nights to produce the written copy of the covenant.

13. Cf. Num. 14:11; Deut. 31:16; Isa 6:9–10; 8:6, 11–12; 9:16; 29:13–14; etc.

14. Cf. R. W. L. Moberly, At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34 (JSOTSup 22; Sheffield: JSOT, 1983), 50. According to S. Balentine (Prayer in the Hebrew Bible: The Drama of Divine-Human Dialogue [OBT; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1993], 136), this is “a form of invitation by prohibition.”

15. C. Houtman (Exodus Chapters 20–40 [Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 3:645] translates the idiom, “Do not stop me.” Targums Pseudo-Jonathan and Onqelos read, “Desist from your prayer to me” (thus trans. by E. G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy [Aramaic Bible 5B; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998], 32). Targum Neofiti is even more explicit and expansive: “Refrain yourself before me from begging mercy for them” (trans. by M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy [Aramaic Bible 5A; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997], 61).

16. Cf. the references to the fire on the mountain in 4:11–12, 15, 24, 33, 36; 5:4–5, 22–26.

17. The NIV’s “When I looked, I saw” flattens the rhetorical significance of the redundancy, especially the use of the particle hinnēh (“Behold”). The particle often follows verbs of perception and focuses attention on what follows. Cf. C. H. J. van der Merwe, et al., Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Sheffield: Sheffield, 1999), 329–30.

18. Perhaps the Egyptian bull Apis, sacred to and emblematic of the god Ptah; or El, the chief Canaanite deity, who is called “Bull El” in the Ugaritic literature; or Baal, the fertility deity, who sired an ox in one of the Ugaritic myths; or merely a precursor to the metal figurines of bulls and calves that have been discovered at several Palestinian sites. For further discussion of these options, see Tigay, “Excursus 12: The Golden Calf,” Deuteronomy, 445–46.

19. Cf. Gen. 43:18; Ezra 10:1. On the symbolic significance of the act, see M. Gruber, Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East (Studia Pohl 12/1; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), 131–33.

20. Cf. Ex. 14:15; 15:25; Num. 11:2; 12:13–14; 14:13–20; 21:7–9.

21. While the exodus narratives (MT) omit the reference to Moses’ intercession for Aaron, the Samaritan Pentateuch and 4QpaleoEx^m [4Q22] from Qumran include it, apparently under the influence of this verse.

22. Even though Num. 20:22–29 links Aaron’s premature death with his conduct at Meribah, Moses’ reference to his death in 10:6 suggests a link also with the calf incident. See further below on 10:6.

23. Ex. 32:20 adds that he made the people drink the water into which he had dumped the remains.

24. For other texts involving obliteration of idolatrous cult places and objects, see Ex. 23:24; 34:13; Lev. 26:30; Num. 33:52; Deut. 7:5, 25; 1 Kings 15:13 (cf. 2 Chron. 15:16); 2 Kings 10:26–27. On extrabiblical analogues, see C. T. Begg, “The Destruction of the Calf (Exod 32, 20/Deut 9, 21),” in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (ed. N. Lohfink; BETL 68; Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press, 1985), 208–51. But for a cautionary note, see Houtman, Exodus Chapters 20–40, 3:660. The resemblance between Moses’ actions and Anath’s disposal of Mot’s body in a late second millennium Ugaritic document is especially striking. See CTA, 6: ii.30ff., as translated by D. Pardee in COS, 1:270.

25. Except for the first word, this speech echoes Aaron’s in Ex. 32:4. Hosea deals with these calves in Hos. 8:5; 10:5.

26. References to circumcision of the heart and stiff-neckedness appear together only here and in Deut 10:16.

27. For an excellent discussion of the problem see Timothy Keller, Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the Only Hope That Matters (New York: Dutton, 2009). Keller defines idolatry as “anything more important to you than God, anything that absorbs your heart and imagination more than God, anything you seek to give you what only God can give,” xvii.

28. For development of this theme, see Daniel I. Block, For the Glory of God: Recovering a Biblical Theology of Worship (Grand Rapids: Baker, forthcoming).

1. In the former, Yahweh “relented” and withheld the disaster (v. 14); in the latter Yahweh “forgave.”

2. While hitpallēl is often used of intercession for someone else (Gen. 20:7; Num. 21:7; 1 Sam. 7:5; Job 42:8), this is not always the case. See 1 Sam. 1:10; 2 Sam. 7:27; 1 Kings 8:30, 35, 42, 44, 48; 2 Chron. 7:14; Dan. 9:4.

3. See Gen. 32:9–12[10–13]; 2 Kings 19:15b–19; 1 Chron. 29:10–29; Dan. 9:1–27.

4. On Moses’ use of the verb pādâ (“to redeem),” see comment on 7:8.

5. Although Yahweh had spoken of Abraham as “my servant” in Gen. 26:24, in Ex. 32:13 Moses was the first to apply the epithet to all three ancestors.

6. Of almost 200 references to the official ark of the covenant, the indefinite form occurs only in Ex. 25:10, where Yahweh first introduces the subject. Thereafter, it is always called “the ark” and never “an ark.”

7. So also I. Wilson, “Merely a Container? The Ark in Deuteronomy,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (ed. J. Day; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 212–49; idem, personal communication on ʿāmad lipnê, “to stand before.”

8. See the discussion above on 5:22.

9. For a fourteenth century BC Hittite analogue to the Israelite storage of the Decalogue, see Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 46; M. Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 255.

10. On the ark and manna and Aaron’s rod, see the Bridging Contexts section of 8:1–20.

11. Moses’ own speech flows smoothly from v. 5 to vv. 10–11. The note was probably added by the final editor of the book (see also 2:10–12, 20–23; 3:9, 11, 13b–14).

12. Deuteronomy is not overly concerned about the distinctions between priests and Levites, hence the references to “the Levitical priests”: 17:9, 18; 18:1; 24:8; 27:9 (and elsewhere, Josh. 3:3; 8:33; Jer. 33:18, 21), “the priests, the sons of Levi” (31:9), or simply “the Levites” (18:7; 27:14; 31:25). See chap. 18 below. But the book is not unaware of priestly-Levitical distinctions. Verse 6 explicitly recognizes the hereditary nature of the Aaronic priesthood. See further McConville, Law and Theology in Deuteronomy, 138–39.

13. The expression is also used of the heavenly host standing at Yahweh’s right and left hand (2 Chron. 18:18), prophets (1 Kings 17:1; 18:15; Jer. 15:1; 18:20; 23:18), and Levitical priests (10:8; 18:5, 7; cf. 2 Chron. 29:11; Zech. 3:1).

14. Which, however, was restricted to the priests; cf. Num. 18:7; Ezek. 44:15–16.

15. The importance of this blessing is reflected in two silver amulets from the seventh century BC found in Jerusalem, inscribed with this blessing. See Barkay, Ketef Hinnom, 29–31.

16. This is reinforced by four later texts in Deuteronomy: 17:18; 31:9–10, 24–26; 33:10.

17. On the irrevocability of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel ratified at Sinai see Ex. 31:16–17; Lev. 24:8; Judg. 2:1; Ps. 111:2–9; Isa. 24:4–5; Jer. 31:35–37.

18. See also Amos 7:1–9.

19. The official statement of the Southern Baptist Convention, accessible at www.sbc.net/aboutus/pspriesthood.asp.

1. The significance of this text in ancient Judaism is evident from its utilization in the phylacteries and mezuzot found at Qumran. For detailed analysis of these phylacteries, see Y. Yadin, Tefillin from Qumran (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 1969), 11–36.

2. Cf. E. Talstra, “Deuteronomy 9 and 10: Synchronic and Diachronic Observations,” Oudtestamentsche Studien 34 (1995): 196–200.

3. So also Craigie, Deuteronomy, 204; Weinfeld, DDS, 83–84.

4. “Faith and love” express covenant commitment. Together they represent the Mosaic counterpart to the New Testament pistis. James has caught the spirit of this text precisely in James 2:14–26; on which, see R. Stein, “ ‘Saved by Faith [Alone]’ in Paul Versus ‘Not Saved by Faith Alone’ in James,” SBJT 4/3 (2000): 4–19.

5. On the “heaven of heavens” to express the highest heaven superlative degree, cf. 1 Kings 8:27 = 2 Chron. 6:18; 2 Chron. 2:6[5]; Neh. 9:6; Pss. 68:33[34]; 148:4. Compare expressions like “holy of holies,” “song of songs,” and “king of kings,” as well as “God of gods” and “Lord of lords” in verse 17.

6. Jewish tradition speaks of as many as seven heavens, and even in the New Testament we read of multiple heavens generally (Eph. 4:10; Heb. 4:14) and the third heaven specifically (2 Cor. 12:2). On these traditions, see J. E. Wright, The Early History of Heaven (New York/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000), 145–50.

7. Unlike the Shema, which was to be written on one’s hands, worn on the forehead, and inscribed on houses and gates. On circumcision in Israel, see J. S. DeRouchie, “Circumcision in the Hebrew Bible and Targums: Theology, Rhetoric, and the Handling of Metaphor,” BBR 14 (2004): 161–74; J. Goldingay, “The Significance of Circumcision,” JSOT 88 (2000): 3–18.

8. “Lord of lords” appears elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Ps. 136:3, but occurs in the New Testament in 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16. Elsewhere supreme earthly rulers are referred to as “king of kings” (Ezra 7:12; Ezek. 26:7; Dan. 2:37; cf. 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16).

9. NIV translates “the great God, mighty and awesome.”

10. On this term, see comments on 7:21.

11. He embodies perfectly what he demands of human judges (cf. 1:16–17; 16:19; Isa. 11:3).

12. Ex. 23:8; Deut. 10:17; 16:19; 27:25; 1 Sam. 8:3; 1 Kings 15:19; 2 Kings 16:8; Job 6:22; Pss. 15:5; 26:10; Prov. 6:35; 17:8, 23; 21:14; Isa. 1:23; 5:23; 33:15; 45:13; 47:11; Ezek. 16:33; 22:12; Mic. 3:11; 7:3.

13. For a discussion of these and other terms for the underprivileged in the Old Testament, see M. R. Jacobs, “Toward an Old Testament Theology of Concern for the Underprivileged,” in Reading the Hebrew Bible for a New Millennium: Form, Concept, and Theological Perspective, vol. 1, Theological and Hermeneutical Studies (ed. D. H. Ellens et al.; Studies in Antiquity & Christianity; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International, 2000), 211–14.

14. See also Deut. 1:16; 14:29; 16:11–14; 24:14–15, 17–18, 19–22; 26:11–13; 27:19.

15. On holding fast to Yahweh see 4:4; 11:22; 13:4[5]; 30:20.

16. “He is your praise” is paralleled elsewhere only in Ps. 109:1 and Jer. 17:14.

17. The number derives from Gen. 46:26 and Ex. 1:5. In Acts 7:14 Stephen follows the LXX in reading seventy-five rather than seventy.

18. Lev. 8:35; 22:9; Num. 1:53; 3:7, 28, 32, 38; 8:26; 9:19, 23; 18:4; 31:30, 47; Ezek. 40:45–46; 44:8, 14, 15, 16. Cf. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus, 3 vols. (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1999–2001), 1:7; idem, “The Levites: Guards of the Tabernacle,” in Numbers (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: JPS, 1990), 341–42; Block, Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, 537–38; John R. Spencer, “The Tasks of the Levites: Smr and Ṣbʾ,” ZAW 96 (1984): 267–71.

19. As in Gen. 26:5; Josh. 22:3; 1 Kings 2:3; Mal. 3:14. In Lev. 18:30 and 22:9 the expression involves specific sexual and purity/impurity commands.

20. See esp. Micah’s question “And what does the LORD require of you?” (Mic. 6:8).

21. For discussion of the evidence see R. J. Sider, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), and an excerpted chapter, “The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience: Why Don’t Christians Live What They Preach?” in Books and Culture: A Christian Review 11/1 (January/February, 2005): 8.

22. The document is available at www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com.

23. For two perspectives on the issue see M. D. Carroll R., Christians at the Border: Immigrations, the Church, and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), and J. K. Hoffmeier, The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009).

1. The problems posed by this text are reflected in the variations in the renderings in translations. For the major possibilities see Nelson, Deuteronomy, 131–32.

2. The word is often used this way, but since we generally associate discipline with punishment for misbehavior (this could apply to the case of Dathan and Abiram, v. 6), this translation is misleading.

3. See also 3:24; 5:21; 9:26; 32:3.

4. Cf. 3:24; 4:34; 5:15; 6:21; 7:8, 19; 9:26; 26:8.

5. Cf. 4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 9:29; 26:8.

6. For additional references to “signs” performed in Egypt against Pharaoh and his land, see 4:34; 7:19; 29:3[2]. As in our text, in each case Moses highlights the fact that Israelites were eyewitnesses to these signs.

7. The use of ḥayil for “army” links this comment to Ex. 15:4. The Song of the Sea (Ex. 15:1–12) celebrates Yahweh’s triumph over the Egyptians in most exuberant terms.

8. The phrase “every living thing” occurs elsewhere only in Gen. 7:4, 23, where it refers to human beings and animals that perished in the great flood. See also Josh. 7:15, 25–26.

9. This is a recurring motif in the book. Cf. 1:30; 3:21; 4:3, 9, 34; 7:19; 9:17; 10:21; 29:2[1].

10. On Deuteronomy’s vision of the land as gift, focusing on this text, see W. Brueggemann, The Land (OBT; London: SPCK, 1978), 47–53.

11. NIV’s rendering “all the commands” obscures the regular use of the singular kol hammiṣwâ as shorthand for the Supreme Command. See 5:31; 6:25; 8:1; 11:8, 22; 15:5; 19:9; 26:13; 27:1; 31:5. Cf. 6:1; 7:11; 17:20; 30:11.

12. Equivalent to the conditional clauses in vv. 13 and 22.

13. Cf. the reuse of this combination of expressions in 31:6 and 7 (also Josh. 1:6).

14. For discussion of this idiom, see comments on 6:3 (also cf. 26:9, 15; 27:3).

15. Some interpret watering plants “by foot” as carrying water in buckets to where it is needed, or using the feet to operate water wheel devices (Arabic shaduf) to pump water from the Nile or ditches into canals and holding areas from which it could be distributed to the plants (Merrill, Deuteronomy, 208; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 445). However, since water wheels were generally operated by hand rather than by foot, this phrase probably alludes to some aspect of the work involved in operating Egypt’s elaborate irrigation system. So also Tigay, Deuteronomy, 112; Craigie, Deuteronomy, 210; L. Eslinger, “Watering Egypt (Deuteronomy XI 10–11),” VT 37 (1987): 85–90.

16. For similar use of the verb, see Job 3:4; Ps. 142:4[5]; Isa. 62:12; Jer. 30:14, 17.

17. E.g., Ps. 1; Prov. 9.

18. Verses 13–15 consists of thirty-five words; verses 16–17 of thirty-three words.

19. The switch to first person in vv. 14–15 reflects Moses’ role as mouthpiece for Yahweh.

20. The early rain falls intermittently October–November and is needed to soften the ground so it can be prepared for seeding. In Palestine 70 percent of the annual rainfall falls in December–February.

21. The late rain falls between late March and early May and is crucial for an abundant and high quality harvest.

22. To this day the agricultural economy of Israel stands or falls on the timely arrival of the early and late rains. On the importance of timely rains see Lev. 26:4; Deut. 28:12; Jer. 5:24; Ezek. 34:26. For discussions of the climate of Palestine, see D. Ashbel, “Israel, Land of Climate,” EncJud (2nd ed.), 10:132–33.

23. Moses does not identify the influences to which the Israelites’ minds might be open. Clues to the riddle may be found in Job 31:26–28 and Deuteronomy 4:15–19.

24. See also 6:15; 7:4; 29:27[26]; 31:17.

25. The idiom (lit.) “to shut/restrain the heavens” occurs also in 1 Kings 8:35=2 Chron. 6:26; 7:13. Later in the covenant curse section Moses will speak more graphically of the heavens above being like bronze and the earth like iron (Deut. 28:23).

26. The following adjustments are the most significant: (1) shifting pronouns from singular to plural; (2) a more direct introduction, “Fix these words,” instead of “These words shall be,” on your heart; (3) “these my words,” instead of “these words that I am commanding you”; (4) adding “and minds” after “in your hearts” (cf. 6:5); (5) advancing the injunctions to bind these words as signs on one’s hands and wear them on one’s forehead; (6) replacing the rare word “to inculcate” in 6:7 with the more common “to teach”; and (7) adding a lengthy conclusion (v. 21), in keeping with the new context in which this text has been inserted.

27. On this and similar formulas, see S. Paul, “Psalm 72:5—A Traditional Blessing for the Long Life of the King,” JNES 31 (1972): 351–55. Similar formulas are attested in Sumerian, Akkadian, Aramaic, Ugaritic, Phoenician, and Punic texts.

28. See Ex. 31:16–17; Lev. 24:8. Cf. Judg. 2:1; Ps. 111:2–9; Isa. 24:4–5; 54:4–10.

29. Returning to the singular word for “command” of v. 8 (see comment), after having used the plural in v. 13.

30. Cf. Jesus’ words in John 14:15, 23–24; 15:10.

31. This leads Weinfeld (Deuteronomy 1–11, 449) to classify vv. 22–25 as a military oration.

32. Cf. 4:38; 9:4–5, and later in 18:12. Cf. also Ex. 34:24 and Num. 14:12. The element of “elimination” is confirmed by the combinations of “dispossess” and “destroy” in 2:12; 2:21, and similarly 2:22; 12:29; 19:1.

33. This verse is echoed almost verbatim in Yahweh’s encouragement to Joshua in Josh. 1:3.

34. The significance of the Jordan as a boundary between these tribes and the rest of Israel is illustrated dramatically in Josh. 22. Ezekiel’s later idealized vision also views the Jordan as the eastern border (Ezek. 47:18).

35. Here “the land,” which cannot express emotion, functions metonymically for the people who live on the land.

36. This is the first occurrence of both of these expressions in the book.

37. Here and elsewhere in the book (13:2, 6, 13[3, 7, 14]; 28:64; 29:26[25]), “gods that you have not known” are gods with whom the Israelites have had no experience. Cf. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 116.

38. The narrator of Exodus and Moses in Deuteronomy use different verbs, but both mean “He set X before them.”

39. See Millar, Now Choose Life, 80–88; idem., “Living at the Place of Decision,” 52–69.

40. The promise is fulfilled in 30:27, 30 (to Laban the Aramaean) and 39:5 (the Egyptians).

41. In Gen. 12:2 Yahweh simply promises to bless Abraham, but this promise is missional in character—that he may be a blessing to the nations.

42. See esp. Gen. 27 and 48. While ostensibly presented as a blessing, in contrast to the blessing of Jacob (27:27–29), the pronouncement concerning Esau (27:39–40) sounds more like a curse than a blessing.

43. Remarkably, in Gen. 26:5 Abraham is credited with complying fully with the will of God as revealed at Sinai and expounded by Moses in Deuteronomy. The expressions for the divine regulations sound Deuteronomic: Abraham listened to Yahweh’s voice and kept his charge (cf. Deut. 11:1), his commands, his decrees, and his instructions.

44. See, e.g., Judg. 2:1–5; 6:7–10; 10:10–16; 1 Sam. 12:8–15.

45. See 2 Kings 17:7–23; 21:10–15; 22:15–17.

46. Cf. Daniel’s reflection in Dan. 9:4–16.

47. As cited by Jacob Neusner, in Theological Dictionary of Rabbinic Judaism (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2005), 1:219.

48. See further, Daniel I. Block, “Who Do Commentators Say “the Lord” Is? The Scandalous Rock of Romans 10:13, ” in On the Writing of New Testament Commentaries: Festschrift for Grant Osborne (ed. S. Porter and E. Schnabel; Leiden: Brill, 2012), forthcoming.

49. Cf. Millar, Now Choose Life, 55–66.

1. The phrase w^ehāyâ kî (lit., “and it will be that”) signals new literary [sub]units in 6:10; 26:1; 30:1; 31:21. Cf. BHRG, 331.

2. As in 3:20, 25, Moses’ perspective in vv. 30 and 31 differs from that of the narrator, for whom “beyond the Jordan” is east of the river (see 1:1, 5; 4:41, 46–47).

3. Assuming that Gilgal is the well-known site north of Jericho (cf. Josh. 4:19–5:12), and the “oaks of Moreh” is a prominent grove in the vicinity (cf. Gen. 12:6), Moses seems to be referring to a route running parallel to the Jordan, until it meets up with “Sunset Boulevard” (Tigay, Deuteronomy, 116), which heads west to Gerizim and Ebal.

4. See esp. the restoration oracles in Jer. 30–33 and Ezek. 34; 36–37; and 40–48.

1. See S. Kaufman, “The Structure of Deuteronomic Law,” Maarav 1/2 (1978/1979): 105–58.

2. This approach is also rejected by Tigay, Deuteronomy, 534, n. 19.

3. On this expression, see comments on 5:1.

4. This is the last time keeping the covenant stipulations is linked to occupation of the land. Cf. 4:1, 5, 14; 5:31; 6:1. Similar to 11:8–28, Moses summarizes the tripartite relationship that existed among deity, population, and territory to reinforce the contingency of the promise to the ancestors: Israel needs to accept the privilege of covenant relationship and the gift of land, and demonstrate her gratitude through scrupulous observance of the divine Suzerain’s will.

5. Vv. 2–14 consist of 199 words; vv. 15–27 of 200 words (counting the sign of the direct object with the noun).

6. “Place”: vv. 3, 5, 11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 26; “there”: vv. 2, 5a, 5b, 6, 7, 11a, 11b, 14a, 14b, 21. These are apparent in the Hebrew text, not necessarily in the NIV.

7. Vv. 2–7 consist of 85 words; vv. 8–12 of 89 words.

8. These verses look like commentary on Ex. 23:24.

9. The verb dāraš (“to seek”) may mean to look for something that is lost, or to “to inquire,” or even “to care for, to seek the welfare of” (11:12). However, the expression used here functions idiomatically for “to make a pilgrimage to the place,” “to visit the place with spiritual intent.” Cf. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 120. See also Amos 5:5; Isa. 11:10.

10. See 12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26; 14:23, 24, 25; 15:20; 16:2, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16; 17:8, 10; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11. For variations/echoes of the formula in later writings, see Josh. 9:27; 2 Kings 21:7; 23:27; Ezra 6:12; Neh. 1:9; Jer. 7:12.

11. Scholars agree that Moses’ intent with this statement and with verses 5–28 as a whole is to clarify the version of the altar law found in Ex. 20:24–26.

12. On the initiative of deities in ancient Near Eastern accounts of temple construction see V. (A.) Hurowitz, “I Have Built You an Exalted House”: Temple Building in the Light of Mesopotamia and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTSup 115; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992), 135–67.

13. The successive interpretation of “the place that the LORD will choose” has been well argued by G. J. Wenham, “Deuteronomy and the Central Sanctuary,” TynB 22 (1971): 103–18; J. G. McConville, “Time, Place, and the Deuteronomic Altar-Law,” in J. G. McConville and J. G. Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy (JSOTSup 179; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), 89–139.

14. Cf. 1 Kings 9:3; 11:36; 14:21; 2 Kings 21:4, 7; 2 Chron. 6:20; 12:13; and “for his name to be there” in 1 Kings 8:16, 29; 2 Kings 23:27.

15. See comments on 5:11. Cf. Isa. 44:5. Isa. 18:7 speaks of the temple as the place of Yahweh’s name. Note also the references to building a house “for the name of the LORD” (2 Sam. 7:13; 1 Kings 3:2; 5:3–5[17–19]; 8:17–20, 44, 48).

16. For equivalent expressions in Akkadian texts, see EA 287:60–63 (ANET, 488; cf. EA 288:5, ANET, 488); in an Egyptian text, Rameses III refers to building a temple for Amon “as the vested property of your name” (ANET, 261). Here the expression serves as the equivalent of “the place where Yahweh causes [people] to remember his name” in Ex. 20:24 (pers. trans.), or “the place on which my name is called/read,” which later always refers to the city of Jerusalem (Jer. 25:29) or the temple/house of Yahweh (1 Kings 8:43; Jer. 7:10, 11, 14, 30; Jer. 32:34; 34:15). The same expression is used of Israel as the elect people of Yahweh in Deut. 28:10 and 2 Chron. 7:14, and is applied to a prophet in Jer. 15:16.

17. See S. D. McBride, Jr., The Deuteronomic Name Theology (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1969), 93–94, 204–10; S. L. Richter, The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology: l^ešakkēn š^emô šâm in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (BZAW 318; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2002); idem, “The Place of the Name in Deuteronomy,” VT 57 (2007): 342–66.

18. Compare not only the emphasis in the Exodus narratives on Sinai as a place where Israel would “serve” Yahweh (Ex. 3:12; 4:23; 7:16, 26[8:1]; 8:16[12]; 9:1, 13; 10:3, 7–8, 11, 24, 26; 12:31), offer sacrifices to him (Ex. 3:18; 5:3, 8, 17; 8:4[7:29]; 8:21–25[17–21]; 10:25), and celebrate a festival in his honor (Ex. 5:1; cf. 10:9), but also Yahweh’s words to Israel in Ex. 19:4: “You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself” (italics added).

19. For more detailed instruction involving vows see Deut. 23:21–23[22–24]; also Lev. 27:1–34; Num. 30:1–16[2–17].

20. Thus Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 419–20.

21. Missing are offerings such as “peace offerings,” “thanksgiving offerings,” “Passover sacrifices,” “sin/purification offerings,” “cereal offering,” and “liquid libations.”

22. Although these offerings were distinctly Israelite in their form and significance, most of Israel’s rituals resembled the practices of peoples outside Israel. See M. Weinfeld, “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source against Their Ancient Near Eastern Background,” World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1981): 95–129, esp. 105–11.

23. In Ex. 18:12 Moses, Aaron, and the elders of Israel ate with Jethro “in the presence of God.” Compare Uriah’s eating before David (2 Sam. 11:13), Adonijah’s supporters eating before him (1 Kings 1:25), Jehoiachin’s eating before his overlord, the king of Babylon (2 Kings 25:29//Jer. 52:33), and the prince eating “in the presence of the LORD” (Ezek 44:3).

24. The expression occurs elsewhere in 12:18; 15:10; 28:8, 20.

25. The verb “to rejoice, celebrate” (śāmaḥ) occurs seven times in connection with appearing before Yahweh (12:7, 12, 18; 14:26; 16:11, 14, cf. v. 15; 26:11; cf. also 27:7). The root also occurs in 24:5 and 33:18 of rejoicing in other circumstances. For further discussion see D. I. Block, “The Joy of Worship: The Mosaic Invitation to the Presence of God (Deut. 12:1–14),” in How I Love Your Torah, O LORD! 98–117.

26. Cf. Weinfeld, DDS, 170.

27. The strange locution involving rest from enemies all around occurs also in 25:19; Josh. 23:1; 2 Sam. 7:1, 11; 1 Chron. 22:9.

28. The Levites’ lack of a territorial allotment is a repeated concern of Moses (cf. 14:27, 29; 18:1, 8).

29. Cf. Deut. 12:18–19; 14:27, 29; 16:11, 14; 18:6; 26:11–13. When Moses refers to the Levites as an economically vulnerable group, he uses the singular (hallēwî, “the Levite”); when he refers to them carrying out official duties, he tends to use the plural (17:9, 18; 18:1, 7; 24:8; 27:9, 14; 31:25).

30. “Gates” functions metonymically for “towns” (see NIV), which by definition refer to settlements with defensive walls and gate structures.

31. Deut. 4:9; 6:12; 8:11; 12:13, 19, 30; 15:9.

32. For a convenient summary of this position see Weinfeld, “Deuteronomy, Book of,” ABD, 2:175–78.

33. For fuller discussion see J. Gordon McConville, “Time, Place and the Deuteronomic Altar-Law,” in Time and Place in Deuteronomy, 88–141.

34. See Wilson, Out of the Midst of the Fire.

35. Deuteronomy never implies that the choice is permanent or irrevocable. Cf. Wenham, “Deuteronomy and the Central Sanctuary,” 103–18.

36. S. Bakon (“Centralization of Worship,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 26 [1998]: 31) observes that by Josiah’s time “the tribal division had ceased for almost 400 years, since the time when Solomon had instituted a division of the United Kingdom into 12 districts. The term ‘tribe’ does not appear even once in the Books of Kings.”

37. For discussion see T. N. D. Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies (ConBOT 18; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1982).

38. Ps. 78:69–71 links the election of Judah/Zion (as opposed to Joseph/Ephraim) as Yahweh’s eternal dwelling place with the election of David as king.

39. Psalm 132 links Yahweh’s election of and covenant with David with the election of Zion as his dwelling place.

40. Note the function of the ark—not as the throne of Yahweh, but as the repository of the covenant of Yahweh (cf. Deut. 10:1–5). On this matter see Wilson, “Merely a Container? The Ark in Deuteronomy,” 212–49.

41. Cf. 1 Kings 8:27, 30, 39, 43, 49. The notion is also reflected in Deut. 26:15; Ps. 33:13–14; Isa. 63:15.

42. See also Jesus’ references to destroying “this temple” and rebuilding it in three days (Mark 14:58; John 2:19). For fuller discussion see Daniel I. Block, “ ‘In Spirit and in Truth’: The Mosaic Vision of Worship,” The Gospel According to Moses, 272–98.

1. The expression that the NIV translates “as much as you want” may also be interpreted,“whatever you desire” (NKJV; Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9, 250), temporally, “whenever you desire” (NJPS; NRSV; McConville, Deuteronomy, 210–211), or locatively, “wherever you desire” (NLT; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 124; cf. 2 Sam. 3:21; 1 Kings 11:37).

2. Normally zābaḥ (“to slaughter”) refers to a sacrificial act, but occasionally it serves as a synonym for ṭābaḥ (“to butcher”) or šāḥaṭ (“to slaughter”). So also 1 Sam. 28:24; 1 Kings 19:21; 2 Chron. 18:2; Ezek. 34:3.

3. According to Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 714–18) this clause “signifies that common slaughter must follow the same method practiced in sacrificial slaughter.”

4. “The ceremonially unclean and the clean” involves a merism meaning “all Israelites.” Ceremonial impurity could result from touching a corpse or a carcass, from certain diseases, or from bodily discharges (cf. Lev. 11–15; Num. 19).

5. These prescriptions regarding blood are more general than Lev. 3:17; 7:26–27; 17:10–14, which required the blood of game animals and birds be poured out and covered with earth. See Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1481–84.

6. Contra Weinfeld (DDS, 214), who suggests that “pouring the blood out like water” means “the blood has no more a sacral value than water has.” This comparison relates to its liquid state rather than its religious significance.

7. “Doing what is right in the eyes of the LORD” answers directly to verse 8, where Moses had called on the people to stop doing (lit.) “what was right in their own eyes.”

8. Both subdivide further into two parts (vv. 17 and 18–19; vv. 26 and 27); both segments have the first part deal with offerings at the sanctuary (v. 17; vv. 26–27a); and both segments refer to “the place the LORD your God will choose” (vv. 18, 26).

9. For discussion of the relationship of these apostolic injunctions to, and their grounding in, Lev. 17–18, see R. Davidson, “Which Torah Laws Should Gentile Christians Obey? The Relationship between Leviticus 17–18 and Acts 15, ” paper presented to the Evangelical Theological Society, November 15, 2007, in San Diego.

10. For detailed discussion of these passages in Leviticus, see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 704–13; idem, Leviticus 17–22, 1469–84.

11. For further study and bibliography, see Daniel I. Block, “All Creatures Great and Small: Recovering a Deuteronomic Theology of Animals,” in The Old Testament in the Life of God’s People: Essays in Honor of Elmer A. Martens (ed. J. Isaak; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 283–305; reprinted in The Gospel According to Moses, 174–99.

1. For the sake of convenience, in the commentary on chap. 13 all references are to the English verse numbers. Because the Hebrew begins chap. 13 at 12:29, all verse numbers are higher by one.

2. The conclusion in 13:18 answers to 12:28, which signals the end of the preceding subsection.

3. Cf. the discussion on 6:20–8:20 above.

4. The second person plural occurs in 12:32a, 2c, 3b–5a, 7, 13b.

5. See 12:29, 31; 13:3a, 3b, 4, 5a, 5b, 10, 12, 16, 18a, 18b. Moses refers to Yahweh without the qualifier only in 12:31b.

6. Verse 6 has an expanded version: “gods that neither you nor your fathers have known.”

7. The NIV’s translation of v. 29 obscures the “When . . . then . . .” construction of the Hebrew. In casuistic laws the protasis introduced by kî prepares the reader for the specific situation that a command addresses.

8. Introduced by “lest” (Heb. pen). Cf. 4:9, 16, 23; 6:12; 8:11–12, 17; 11:16; 12:13, 19, 30; 15:9.

9. The NIV uses the plural, but the construction literally translates: “And I will do thus, I too.”

10. Contra NIV, it is not merely that all they do is repugnant to Yahweh, but all that is repugnant to Yahweh they do.

11. For an illustrated popular discussion, see L. E. Stager and S. R. Wolff, “Child Sacrifice at Carthage—Religious Rite or Population Control,” BAR 10/1 (1984): 30–51. On child sacrifice, often associated with the cult of Molech, see J. Day, Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989); Tigay, “Excursus 15: Child Sacrifice and Passing Children through Fire,” in Deuteronomy, 464–65.

12. As represented, e.g., in the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon (hereafter VTE). For transliteration, translation, and discussion of VTE, see S. Parpola and K. Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (SAA 2; Helsinki: Helsinki Univ. Press, 1988), 28–58. For defenses of this view, P.-E. Dion, “Deuteronomy 13: The Suppression of Alien Religious Propaganda in Israel during the Late Monarchical Era,” in Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (ed. B. Halpern and D. W. Hobson; JSOTSup 124; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), 197–98; B. M. Levinson, “Textual Criticism, Assyriology, and the History of Interpretation: Deuteronomy 13:7a as a Test Case in Method,” JBL 120 (2001): 236–41.

13. For discussion of the persistence of conventional language through centuries of Assyrian records, see J. J. Niehaus, The Deuteronomic Style: An Examination of the Deuteronomic Style in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Literature (unpublished manuscript, 1985).

14. For critique of the view that this chapter is inspired by VTE, see M. Zehnder, “Building on Stone? Deuteronomy and Esarhaddon’s Loyalty Oaths (Part 1): Some Preliminary Observations,” BBR 19/3 (2009): 348–51; idem, “Building on Stone? Deuteronomy and Esarhaddon’s Loyalty Oaths (Part 2): Some Additional Observations” (BBR 19/4 [2009]: 511–30, esp. 511–16). See also Joshua Berman, “CTH 133 and the Hittite Provenance of Deuteronomy 13, ” paper presented to the Society of Biblical Literature in Atlanta, GA, November, 2010. For the Hittite texts, see Gary Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (2nd ed.; SBLWAW 7; Atlanta: Scholars, 1999), 11–124, but especially the Treaty between Arnuwanda I of Hatti and the Men of Ismerika, 13–17.

15. Dion, “Deuteronomy 13, ” 147; italics his.

16. Prophets are referred to variously as “seer” (1 Sam. 9:9), “man of God” (2 Kings 4:7), “servant [of the LORD]” (2 Kings 17:13), “messenger [of the LORD]” (2 Chron. 36:15, 16; Isa. 44:26).

17. This is an I-class passive from a hypothetical root, nābâʾ, “to call,.” See further J. Huehnergard, “On the Etymology and Meaning of Hebrew nābîʾ,” ErIsr 26 (1999): 88*–93*.

18. See H. B. Huffmon, “Prophecy,” ABD, 5:477–82.

19. 1 Kings 22:1–23; Jer. 23:16–40; Ezek. 13:1–19.

20. For surveys of the phenomenon in Egypt see J. Bergman et al., TDOT, 4:421–27. For analysis of dreams in Mesopotamia, see A. L. Oppenheim, The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East: With a Translation of an Assyrian Dream Book (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1956).

21. On dreams as a means of revelation in ancient Israel see R. Gnuse, The Dream Theophany of Samuel: Its Structure in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Dreams and Its Theological Significance (Lanham, MD: Univ. Press of America, 1984); F. H. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel and Its Near Eastern Environment: A Socio–Historical Investigation (JSOTSup 142; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), 263–72.

22. On the significance of “to walk after/follow other gods,” see comments on 6:14. On the significance of “to serve other gods,” see comments on 7:4. See also 11:16; 13:6, 13[7, 14]; 17:3; 28:36, 64; 29:26[25]; cf. also 4:19; 8:19; 30:17.

23. On this expression, see 11:28.

24. For analogous authenticating “signs,” see 1 Sam. 10:1–13, cf. v. 7 (the choice of Saul as king), 1 Kings 13:1–5 (the utterance of an unnamed prophet at Bethel), and 2 Kings 20:8–11 (the message of Isaiah to Hezekiah).

25. Similarly Tigay, Deuteronomy, 130.

26. See W. L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 (1965): 77–97.

27. Cf. 5:10; 6:5; 7:9; 10:12; 11:1, 13, 22; 19:9; 30:6.

28. As opposed to “other gods.” “Walking after Yahweh” occurs only here in Deuteronomy, undoubtedly to answer to temptation to “walk after other gods,” expressed three times in vv. 2b, 6b, and 13b. Elsewhere Moses speaks of “walking in [Yahweh’s] way/ways [derek]”: 8:6; 19:9; 26:17; 28:9; 30:16.

29. This expression occurs elsewhere in 4:4; 10:20; 11:22; 30:20.

30. The absolute use of the passive “he must be put to death” occurs elsewhere in Deuteronomy only in 21:22 and functions as a technical term for capital punishment (cf. Ex. 21:29; 35:2; Lev. 19:20; 24:16, 21; Num. 1:51; 3:10, 38; 18:7). Deuteronomy tends to prefer the active mood wāmēt/ûmēt, “And he shall die” (see v. 10; 17:12; 18:20; 19:12; 21:21; 22:21, 22, 24, 25; 24:7, though the NIV usually translates these as passives too).

31. Cf. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 130–31.

32. Note also the clear identification of the instigators of sedition as Israelites in vv. 6 and 11. On divine tolerance of the worship of other gods in the ancient Near East generally, see Block, The Gods of the Nations, 62–71.

33. The formula “to purge [exterminate] the evil from” recurs in 17:7, 12; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21, 22, 24; 24:7. Cf. Judg. 20:13; 2 Sam. 4:11; 1 Kings 4:10. Except for Deut. 19:19, in Deuteronomy all these occurrences involve the death penalty.

34. NIV “your very own brother” obscures the emphasis. The LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch read “the son of your father or of your mother.” Cf. also 11QTemple [11Q19] 54:19.

35. For the pairing of “brother” and “son of mother,” see Gen. 27:29; 43:29; Judg. 8:19; Pss. 50:20; 69:8[9], and second millennium Ugaritic texts (Kirta, CAT 1.14.I.7–9 [cf. Parker, UNP, p. 12]; KTU 1.6.VI.10–11, 14–16 [UNP, p. 162]) and a first century Akkadian treaty text (VTE ll. 94, 270, 341–43). See Levinson, “Textual Criticism,” 224–27.

36. The expression recurs in 28:54, and in 28:56, referring to a man as “husband of her bosom.”

37. This list is reminiscent of a list of conspirators in VTE 10.

38. Similarly 2 Kings 18:32; 2 Chron. 32:11, 15; Isa. 36:18; Jer. 43:3. Job 36:18 speaks of being “enticed” by riches. In some instances God himself is the subject of the verb, inciting humans to action: 1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 24:1 (cf. 1 Chron. 21:1; 2 Chron. 18:31); Job 36:16.

39. “Around you, whether near or far” and “from one end of the land to the other” are merisms involving polar opposites to express totality.

40. Cf. Weinfeld, DDS, 209. Elsewhere the idiom (lit.) “the eye shall not pity” is associated with exterminating Canaanites (7:16), executing murderers (19:13), dealing with false witnesses (19:21), and responding to a woman guilty of immodesty (25:12).

41. On this expression, see M. Tsevat, TDOT, 4:470–72.

42. Thus McConville, Deuteronomy, 233. Compare a similar charge to expose conspirators in VTE 10.

43. The worship of other gods (13:10; 17:5; Lev. 20:2; cf. Ex. 8:26[22]); defiance against Yahweh by stepping on territory he has declared to be holy (Ex. 19:13), or taking items subject to the law of ḥerem (Josh. 7:25); killing a human being [as an image of God] (Ex. 21:28–32[an ox]); blasphemy (Lev. 24:14, 16, 23; 1 Kings 21:10, 13–14; cf. Acts 7:54–60); sorcery (Lev. 20:27); violating the Sabbath (Num. 15:35–36); a son’s insubordination (Deut. 21:21); sexual/adulterous crimes (Deut. 22:21, 24; cf. Ezek. 16:40; 23:47).

44. As in vv. 2b and 6b, Moses quotes the seductive speech: “Let us go and worship other gods.”

45. Cf. HALOT, 420. For other possibilities, see S. D. Sperling, “Belial,” DDD, 322–27; T. J. Lewis, “Belial,” ABD, 1:654–56. For variations of expression, see Judg. 19:22; 20:13; 1 Sam. 1:16; 2:12; 10:27; 25:7, 25; 2 Sam. 16:7; 20:1; 1 Kings 21:10, 13; 2 Chron. 13:7; Prov. 16:27.

46. The expression tôʿēbâ (“abominable act”) links this chapter with the preamble in 12:31.

47. The clause in v. 14b (“and look, if the matter is established as true,” pers. trans.) recurs in 17:4. The particle w^ehinnēh (lit., “and look”) focuses attention on the results of the investigation.

48. Moses’ duplication of (lit.) “by the mouth [blade] of a sword” is emphatic. His command resembles the prescription for a treasonous town in the eighth-century BC Sefire Treaty between the Aramaean kings of KTK and Arpad. For the text, translation, and discussion see John C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, vol. 2, Aramaic Inscriptions including Inscriptions on the Dialect of Zenjirli (Oxford: Clarendon, 1975), 2:48–49, 54; Weinfeld, DDS, 99.

49. On heḥ^erîm, “to devote to destruction,” see comments on 3:6 and 7:2. Cf. 7:26.

50. The expression kālîl (lit., “totality”) is used occasionally of offerings that are totally consumed by fire (Lev. 6:15–16[8–9]; Deut. 33:10).

51. For a recent study of the exclusivism of Yahwistic faith in ancient Israel see Block, “Other Religions in Old Testament Theology,” in The Gospel According to Moses, 200–236.

52. Rightly suggested by McConville, Deuteronomy, 240–41.

53. “And the Israelites did [the] evil in the eyes of the LORD” occurs in 2:11 and six times thereafter (3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1). In three of these the clause is followed immediately by references to defection from Yahweh and/or the worship of other gods (2:11–13; 3:7; 10:6–16).

54. The narratives are arranged to create the impression of deeper and deeper apostasy, climaxing in chapter 19, where the people of Gibeah are portrayed as later versions of Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen. 19. On the structure of the book and the significance of the Gibeahite narrative, see Block, Judges, Ruth, 50–67, 532–40.

55. Though without putting the seductive words in his mouth. Cf. Deut. 13:2, 6, 13.

1. This “resumptive exposition” of notions raised in chap. 12 continues in chaps. 15 and 16.

2. Verses 4–20 represent the second longest continuous text in Deuteronomy without any reference to the name of Yahweh. Only 21:11–22 is longer by word count.

3. Note the frequent occurrences of the root ṭmʾ (“to be unclean”) in both.

4. The noun šeqeṣ (“detestable thing”; Lev. 11:10, 11, 12, 13, 20, 23) and the verb šiqqēs (“to detest,” vv. 11, 13).

5. The word tôʿēbâ links this text with 12:31 and 13:14[15]; In Leviticus this word is used only of incestuous crimes (18:22–30; 20:13). Deuteronomy reserves the root šqṣ for detestable idolatry (7:26; 29:17[16]).

6. Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 657) argues that “detestable” animals refers to creatures that contaminate by touch, while “unclean” animals contaminate by touch and ingestion.

7. On zoological classifications in the Old Testament see R. Whitekettle, “Where the Wild Things Are: Primary Level Taxa in Israelite Zoological Thought,” JSOT 93 (2001): 17–37.

8. The word tôʿēbâ also occurs in 12:31 and 13:14[15].

9. See vv. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9a, 9b, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21a, 21b.

10. E. Firmage, “The Biblical Dietary Laws and the Concept of Holiness,” in Studies in the Pentateuch (ed. J. A. Emerton; Leiden: Brill, 1990), 184.

11. ARM, 2:119r.8. Cf. CAD, 10/1:321. See, e.g., the fourteenth-century BC treaty between Shattiwaza of Mittanni and Suppilulima I of Hatti, in Beckman, HDT 6B Š3 (p. 45). For additional references and discussion, see Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant,” JAOS 90/2 (1970): 191–94.

12. The present portrayal of Israel as the privileged vassal eating at Yahweh’s table is reflected in Ps. 23:5.

13. First Kings 18:28 and Hos. 7:14 suggest some pagan rituals involved lacerating oneself. Jer. 16:5–7; 41:5; 47:5; and Mic. 4:14 associate these with lamentation and shaving the head, mourning rites for the dead.

14. The Hebrew translates literally, “And you shall not make baldness between your eyes.”

15. Ps. 106:28 links the worship of Baal Peor with eating sacrifices offered to the dead.

16. Hence the taboo on consulting the dead in 18:11–12.

17. Elsewhere Deuteronomy links the expression to the worship of astral deities (17:2–4), the manufacture of idols (27:15), the sacrifice of blemished animals to Yahweh (17:1), divination, sorcery, and necromancy (18:9, 12), cross-dressing (22:5), offering the fees of prostitutes or “dogs” to Yahweh (23:18[19]), a man returning to a woman he has divorced (24:4), and dishonesty in commercial dealings (25:16).

18. M. Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966), 57.

19. The Yiddish term kosher derives from an apparently common West Semitic root kâšar (“to be appropriate, deemed fit”). For the Hebrew, see HALOT, 503.

20. Lev. 11:43–47 explicitly links Israel’s dietary laws with her status as a holy people.

21. See W. Houston, Purity and Monotheism (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2009), 68–123.

22. Isa. 65:2–7 associates nocturnal and necromantic activity with eating swine’s flesh (cf. also 66:17).

23. Gen. 1:26 provides a basic fourfold division: fish of the sea, birds of the sky, high carriage land animals, and “crawlies,” which crawl on the ground. On biblical taxonomies, see Whitekettle, “Where the Wild Things Are,” 17–37.

24. NIV reads “ibex,” but see E. Firmage, “Zoology,” ABD, 6:1153, 1157.

25. The identification of some is uncertain (e.g., the fourth, which some read as “fallow deer,” and the eighth, which some read as [old world] “bison” or “aurochs”).

26. Firmage (“Biblical Dietary Laws,” 188) observes that these four species are the only ones in Israel’s immediate environment that met one but not both criteria.

27. Rabbits and coneys are included with those that chew the cud because the way they chew resembles the chewing of ruminants. Hebrew definitions of species are based on observable habits or features rather than scientific criteria as we understand science. On biblical understanding of biodiversity and species, see Daniel I. Block, “To Serve and to Keep: Toward a Biblical Understanding of Humanity’s Responsibility in the Face of the Biodiversity Crisis,” in Keeping God’s Earth: The Global Environment in Biblical Perspective (ed. N. J. Toly and D. I. Block; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010), 116–21.

28. Even Babylonians and Assyrians, who otherwise had no aversion to pork, recognized the disgusting habits of pigs: “The pig is unholy [ . . . ] bespattering his backside, Making the streets smell, polluting the houses”—as translated by W. G. Lambert, “Morals in Ancient Mesopotamia,” Ex Oriente Lux 15 (1957–58): 189.

29. For a discussion of the pig in the ancient Near East and in Israel see E. Firmage, “Zoology,” ABD, 6:1130–35.

30. Lev. 11:24–40 extends the prohibition to all carcasses, cataloguing advertent and inadvertent circumstances where such contacts occur and the means whereby one who has been ritually defiled through contact may be purified.

31. Rather than create a false impression of certitude, Houston (Purity and Monotheism, 29–30) leaves most of the designations for birds untranslated. For a helpful survey of these birds see Firmage, ABD, 6:1155, 1157–58.

32. On this matter, see K. Sparks, “A Comparative Study of the Biblical blh Laws,” ZAW 110 (1998), 594–600.

33. See R. Ratner and B. Zuckerman, “A Kid in Milk?” HUCA 57 (1986): 15–60; M. Haran, “Seething a Kid in Its Mother’s Milk,” JJS 30 (1979): 23–35; C. J. Labuschagne, “ ‘You Shall Not Boil a Kid in Its Mother’s Milk’: A New Proposal for the Origin of the Prohibition,” in The Scriptures and the Scrolls (ed. F. G. Martínez, et al.; VTSup 49; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 6–17.

34. Thus Labuschagne, “A New Proposal,” 14–15.

35. See further, Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 186.

36. For a helpful discussion of the erasure/redrawing of the old boundaries in the Christian community, see Houston, Purity and Monotheism, 258–82.

37. For a broader study of the dietary prescriptions of chap. 14 within the context of Deuteronomy’s overall theology of animals, see D. I. Block, “All Creatures Great and Small,” 283–305.

38. Davidson (“Which Torah Laws Should Gentile Christians Obey?”) rightly observes that the prohibitions are the same as those applied to native Israelites and aliens who by faith had attached themselves to Israel as the holy community of faith.

39. Hagigah 27a.

40. J. Moskala, The Laws of Clean and Uunclean Animals in Leviticus 11: Their Nature, Theology, and Rationale (An Intertextual Study) (Adventist Theological Society Dissertation Series; Berrien Springs: Adventist Theological Society, 2000), 106.

1. The Hebrew text has 244 words before these clauses and 242 thereafter.

2. See 14:25, 29; 15:2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11.

3. Note the references to his blessing (15:4, 6, 10, 14, 18; cf. 14:24, 29), his gift of land (v. 7), and his redemption (v. 15).

4. Links between 14:22–29 and chapter 12 reinforce the connection between formal and informal worship: (1) both consist of two parts, involving feasting at the central sanctuary (14:22–26; cf. 12:1–14) and meals eaten at home (14:27–29; cf. 12:15–27); (2) both involve offerings at the place Yahweh chooses to establish his name; (3) both involve the tithe; (4) both integrate religious and social issues by singling out Levites as needy (14:27–29; cf. 12:18–19); (5) in both the emphasis is more on the privilege of feasting on food authorized by Yahweh than on commands.

5. On the phrase “in the presence of the LORD,” in Deuteronomy, see Wilson, Out of the Midst of the Fire, 131–97. In Leviticus instructions for eating at the sanctuary speak of eating “in a holy place” (Lev. 6:16, 26[9, 19]; 7:6; 24:9) or “in a ceremonially clean place” (10:14). For the image of Yahweh preparing a banquet for his devotee see Ps. 23:5–6.

6. Tigay (Deuteronomy, 142) suggests the reverence will be learned from the priests, who will teach Torah piety in the chosen city.

7. Similar concerns lie behind 12:20–21 and 19:8–10.

8. NIV rightly resists translating kesep as “money,” since inscribed coins were not minted in Palestine until the fifth century BC.

9. This is the first occurrence of yayin, the common word for “wine.” Cf. tîrôš (“new wine”) in 7:13; 11:14; 12:17; 14:23; 18:4; 28:51; 33:28.

10. Whereas yayin is derived from grapes, šēkār (”fermented drink”) refers to any kind of intoxicating drink, whether made from dates or figs or pomegranates or grain (beer). For discussion of the word, see P. P. Jenson, “,” NIDOTTE, 4:113–14.

11. On formal worship in the presence of Yahweh as an occasion for joy and celebration, see comments on 12:7.

12. Moses will return to the subject of the third-year tithe in 26:12–15. The most likely candidate for a link with this tithe occurs in Amos 4:4–5, which may represent an intentional caricature of the third-year tithe.

13. Thus Tigay, Deuteronomy, 144.

14. On this triad see comments on 10:18. These marginalized classes had been referred to earlier in 1:16; 5:14; 10:18.

15. “In all the work of your hands that you do” (pers. trans.) expands a phrase that occurs frequently in Deuteronomy: 2:7; 4:28; 16:15; 24:19; 27:15; 28:12; 30:9; 31:29; 33:11.

16. See e.g., John Piper, in a sermon, “Worship God!” (www.desiringgod.org/Resource-Library/Sermons/Worship-God--2/; accessed October 6, 2011).

1. On the rhetorical style of vv. 4–6 see William S. Morrow, Scribing the Center: Organization and Redaction in Deuteronomy 14:1–17:13 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1995), 101–2.

2. Verse 12 speaks of an indentured servant serving his master for six years (cf. Driver, Deuteronomy, 174).

3. Jewish tradition places it on the last days of the seventh year. See Tigay, Deuteronomy, 145.

4. The initial temporal phrase, “at the end of seven years,” occurs elsewhere only in 31:10, where Moses adds the clarifying comment, “in the year for canceling debts, during the Feast of Tabernacles.”

5. On Ex. 23:10–12 and Lev. 25:1–7, 18–22, see D. L. Baker, Tight Fists or Open Hands: Wealth and Poverty in Old Testament Law (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 223–32.

6. The meaning of the Hebrew behind “every creditor shall cancel the loan” is debated. For a discussion of the options see C. J. H. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land, and Property in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 169–73; cf. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 189; McConville, Deuteronomy, 255.

7. Similarly Robin Wakely, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:176, following C. J. H. Wright, “Sabbatical Year,” ABD, 5:858; idem, God’s People in God’s Land, 170–72.

8. The closest analogue in Deuteronomy concerns the Sabbath command in the Decalogue, which grounds the six-day rhythm of work in the fact that the seventh day is Sabbath layhwh (“of/to Yahweh your God,” cf. Lev. 23:3). The language of issuing a proclamation “for/to Yahweh” is borrowed from Lev. 25:2–7, which refers to the sabbatical institution of the release of land in the seventh year as a Sabbath layhwh (“Yahweh’s Sabbath”). By echoing the language of the sabbatical year in effect Moses declares, “Observe the release of debts in addition to the release of the land, because both have been proclaimed as Yahweh’s.” Thus Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2245.

9. So also Tigay, Deuteronomy, 145, following early Jewish tradition reflected in m. Šeb. 10.

10. Cf. the references to the orphan, the widow, and the alien in 10:18; 24:17; 27:19.

11. The infinitive absolute + imperfect of the root brk (NIV “richly bless”) occurs only here in Deuteronomy.

12. For echoes of the divine land grant formula, see 4:21, 38; 15:4; 19:10; 20:16; 21:23; 24:4; 25:19, 20.

13. The specific nature of the blessing is described in 7:13–16; 11:14–15 (cf. v. 26); and 28:1–14.

14. The earlier construction for brk of infinitive absolute + imperfect is matched in v. 5 for the verb šmʿ, with the nuance “you must indeed listen/obey.”

15. Cf. Ex. 23:22–26 and Lev. 26:3–13. See J. Milgrom, “Profane Slaughter and a Formulaic Key to the Composition of Deuteronomy,” HUCA 47 (1976): 1–17.

16. For a helpful general discussion of the “pastoral strategy” of Deuteronomy, see John Goldingay, Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 153–66.

17. For variations, see 4:9; 6:12; 8:11; 12:13, 19, 30. This is the only imperatival form in the chapter.

18. Toward the Canaanites (7:16); a member of the family who attempts to lead Israelites into idolatry (13:8[9]); a person guilty of willful murder (19:13); a malicious witness (19:21); a woman who seizes the genitals of one who is not her husband (25:12). For discussion of the “no-pity formula,” see Block, Ezekiel Chapters 1–24, 209–10.

19. In 28:54–57, the only other reference to an evil eye, Moses describes a community besieged by the enemy where otherwise tender and delicate parents heartlessly devour their children.

20. As elsewhere, t.ôb (“good”) and rāʿ (“evil”) represent polar opposites; a “sad heart” is the opposite of a “good heart,” that is, a “merry/delighted heart.” Cf. Judg. 18:20; 19:6; Ruth 3:7; 1 Kings 21:7.

21. Since this text assumes the Israelite voluntarily submitted to this role (vv. 16–17), the expression “debt-servant” is preferable to “debt-slave.”

22. The law code of Hammurabi (Š117–119) provides the nearest analogue, on which see G. C. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup 141; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 67–72, 144.

23. See I. Mendelsohn, “Slavery in the OT,” IDB, 5:384–85. On slavery in Israel, see Z. W. Falk, Hebrew Law in Biblical Times: An Introduction (2nd ed.; Provo, UT: Brigham Young Univ. Press, 2001), 114–18.

24. See Lev. 25:25–34, 35–38, 39–55, on which see Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2191–241. The third stage is illustrated in 2 Kings 4:1–7, which describes the plight of the widow of one of the sons of the prophets who was about to lose her two sons because the creditor was coming to take them as “slaves.”

25. As in the Decalogue, the second person addresses the owner as a potential violator of the debt-servant’s rights.

26. See Judg. 2:14; 3:8; 4:2; 10:7.

27. Since Ex. 21:7–8 seeks to regulate the case of a father selling his daughter as a debt-servant, it is possible yimmākēr in our text should be interpreted passively, “is sold.” NIV’s reflexive highlights the debtor’s initiative.

28. The words for “Hebrew man” (ʿibrî) and “Hebrew woman” (ʿibriyyâ) occur only here in Deuteronomy, reinforcing the link with Ex. 21:2–11, which deals with the plight of the indentured “Hebrew slave” (v. 2). See J. W. Marshall, Israel and the Book of the Covenant: An Anthropological Approach to Biblical Law (SBLDS 140; Atlanta: Scholars, 1993), 113–16.

29. Lev. 25:40 speaks only of a release in the year of Jubilee.

30. Whereas Ex. 21:3–4 suggests that the state of “freedom” involved less than total independence, Deut. 15:13–14 and Lev. 25:41 treat the manumission as the restoration of complete freedom. Cf. N. Lohfink, “,” TDOT, 5:114–18.

31. Moses inspires compassion toward fellow Israelites by reminding them of their experience of slavery in Egypt elsewhere in 5:15; 16:12; 24:18; 24:22.

32. See also 7:8 and 13:5[6], which also speak of Yahweh redeeming Israel “from the land of slavery,” though often the verb “bring out” (hoṣî) is used; see 5:6; 6:12; 8:14; 13:11.

33. Cf. Ex. 11:2–3; 12:35–36; Ps 105:37.

34. Though his rhetorical strategy may have been determined by Ex. 21:5, which does the same thing.

35. See J. I. Durham, Exodus (WBC 2; Waco: Word, 1987), 321. Extrabiblical support for this interpretation is often drawn from the Laws of Eshnunna Š37 (cf. Roth, Law Collections, 65).

36. Thus Marshall, Israel and the Book of the Covenant, 134–38. This usage also occurs in Ex. 22:8[9].

37. After the ear was pierced, the creditor may have inserted a ring or cord with a metal or clay tag bearing his name, analogous to Egyptian and Mesopotamian customs of branding or stamping slaves with their owner’s names or forcing them to wear other symbols of their status. See I. Mendelsohn, “Slavery in the OT,” IDB, 5:385; M. Dandamaev, Slavery in Babylonia: From Nabopolassar to Alexander the Great (626–331 BC) (ed. M. A. Powell and D. B. Weisberg; trans. V. A. Powell; rev. ed.; DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois Univ. Press, 1984), 229–35.

38. The expression “servant for life” occurs in 1 Sam. 27:12 and Job 41:4[40:28]. See further Craigie, Deuteronomy, 239.

39. The last law in the Code of Hammurabi (Š282) involves a slave who repudiates his status by declaring, “You are not my master.”

40. As in Jer. 16:18 (and Deut. 17:18, where mišneh refers to a “copy” of a document). HALOT, 650. A second millennium BC text from Alalakh uses the cognate expression mištannu for compensation given the owner of a slave when his human chattel is returned to him. Cf. M. Tsevat, “Alalakhiana,” HUCA 29 (1958): 125–26.

41. Cf. the repeated injunctions in Deuteronomy to care for widows and orphans (lit., “fatherless”).

42. Isa. 3:14–15; 10:1–2; 58:6–7; Ezek. 18:11–12; 22:29; Amos 2:6–8; 8:4–6; Zech. 7:8–12.

43. Combining prophetic zeal with a tender pastoral tone, Carroll R. (Christians at the Border: Immigration, the Church, and the Bible) appeals to Christians to adopt a distinctively Christian disposition to the issue of undocumented immigrants.

44. See the excellent discussion of the contemporary significance of this chapter by Jeffries M. Hamilton, Social Justice and Deuteronomy: The Case of Deuteronomy 15 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1992), 144–58.

1. E.g., Weinfeld, DDS, 215–16.

2. E.g., C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (with F. Delitzsch), vol. 1, The Pentateuch (Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 1953), 357–58.

3. So also McConville, Law and Theology in Deuteronomy, 88–90.

4. Thus HALOT, 131; DCH, 1:170; M. Tsevat, “, b^ekôr,” TDOT, 2:121–27.

5. See Block, “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel,” 82–85; F. E. Greenspahn, When Brothers Dwell Together: The Preeminence of Younger Siblings in the Hebrew Bible (New York/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1994), 19, 27, 59–62.

6. A father’s eldest child is referred to as “the first sign [beginning] of his father’s [procreative] strength” (Deut. 21:17; cf. Gen. 49:3; Pss. 78:51; 105:36).

7. Compared to mortality rates today, the number of firstborns that survived the eight days required by Ex. 22:30[29] may have been fewer than 60 percent. Of these a significant number will have had one blemish or another.

8. So also Tigay, Deuteronomy, 151.

9. On which see Deut. 16:1–17. This timing might explain Ezekiel’s simile in Ezek. 36:37–38.

10. This statement abbreviates Num. 18:17–18, which requires that the blood of the firstborn be sprinkled on the altar and that the fat be burned up as an offering to Yahweh prior to the consumption of the meal.

11. Lev. 21:18–20 speaks of defects that disqualify a male descendant of Aaron from priestly service, and Lev. 22:22–24 lists defects that render animals unacceptable.

12. A comparison of vv. 22–23 with 12:21b–24 suggests this is an abbreviation of the earlier text.

13. For discussion of the significance of the consecration of the firstborn in connection with the Passover, see P. Enns, Exodus (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 253–59.

1. Scholars often exploit these differences to defend the Josianic date of the book and argue for the theologically revolutionary nature of Deuteronomy’s vision of Israel’s worship. See B. M. Levinson in Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998), 53–97; idem, “The Hermeneutics of Tradition in Deuteronomy: A Reply to J. G. McConville,” JBL 119 (2000): 269–86. For a response, see J. G. McConville, Law and Theology in Deuteronomy (JSOTSup 33; Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), 99–123; idem, “Deuteronomy’s Unification of Passover and Maṣṣôt: A Response to Bernard M. Levinson,” JBL 119 (2000): 47–58.

2. See Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 1957.

3. According to Num. 31:33, the booty from this battle included 72,000 cattle.

4. According to 2 Chron. 35:7 one-tenth (3,000) of the Passover offerings sacrificed by Josiah were bulls.

5. According to Ex. 16:23, manna may be baked or cooked another way. “Boil” is possible, but no more likely than preparing it like a flapjack on a griddle or in a pan.

6. Exodus 12 clearly distinguishes between the Festivals of Passover and Unleavened Bread, and Ex. 23:15 names only the latter as one of the required three annual festivals.

7. See, e.g., Levinson (Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, 72–81), who argues that Deuteronomy transforms the Passover from a domestic festival to a pilgrimage festival, secularizes the Festival of Unleavened Bread, and deprives it of its pilgrimage character.

8. Levinson (“Reply to J. G. McConville,” 282–83) interprets verse 16 as a cynical chiastic redeployment of the colophon from the Covenant Code to provide continuity “with tradition that the new festival calendar lacks.”

9. See Ex. 12:6, 18; Lev. 23:5; Num. 9:3, 5; 28:16; Josh. 5:10; 2 Chron. 35:1; Ezra 6:19; Ezek. 45:21.

10. Cf. Exodus 12:1–6. The name Abib, meaning “the new ears of grain,” reflects the time of year (March–April) when barley heads begin to emerge from the stalks. Later the month was known by the Babylonian name Nisan. Cf. J. C. VanderKam, “Calendars, Ancient Israelite and Jewish,” ABD, 1:815.

11. Several significant events in Israel’s history occurred on the first day of the year: the erection of the tabernacle (Ex. 40:2, 17); the beginning of the consecration of the temple (2 Chron. 29:17); the departure from Babylon of the returnees under Ezra’s leadership (Ezra 7:9); the completion of marital reforms (Ezra 10:17). However, unequivocal evidence for a New Year Festival in ancient Israel is lacking. See further D. I. Block, “New Year,” ISBE (rev. ed.), 3:529–32.

12. For discussion of the formula, which appears three more times in this chapter (vv. 11, 15, 16), see above on 12:5.

13. In keeping with repeated references to eating in Yahweh’s presence: 12:7, 27; 14:23, 26; 15:20; 16:7–8; 27:7.

14. In vv. 2 and 5, the word “the Passover” applies to the sacrificial victim rather than the holy day itself.

15. Ex. 12:6 has the victim slaughtered “at twilight.” If the instructions for the original event (Ex. 12:1–13) applied to later memorial celebrations, the animal would be selected four days earlier, on the tenth of the month (v. 3).

16. For critique of scholarly views of the relationship between the maṣṣôt and Passover elements in vv. 1–18 and defense of the literary unity of vv. 1–18, see Morrow, Scribing the Center, 138–47.

17. References to the festival occur elsewhere in Ex. 12:15–20; 13:3–10; 23:15; 34:18; Lev. 23:4–8.

18. These links suggest the seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread in the first month represented the spring counterpart to the eight-day Festival of Booths in the autumn. Echoes of Num. 29:35 in Deut. 16:8 reinforce this interpretation. Lev. 23:36 links the expression with “sacred assembly.”

19. Milgrom (Leviticus 23–27, 2030–31) speculates the purpose of the assembly was to pray for a successful harvest.

20. As Ex. 34:22 suggests, this does not mean any firstfruits, but “the firstfruits of the wheat harvest.”

21. Tob. 2:1; 2 Macc. 12:31–32; Josephus (Ant 3.10.6; etc.; J.W. 1.13.3; etc.); Philo (Decal. 160; Spec. Laws 2.176); Acts 2:1; 20:16; 1 Cor. 16:8.

22. On sickles, see D. M. Howard, “Sickle,” ISBE (rev. ed.), 4:499. Given variations in climate and regional topography, the timing of the first sickle would vary from year to year and from place to place.

23. Cf. Mark J. Olson, “Pentecost,” ABD, 5:222–23; J. C. VanderKam, “Weeks, Festival of,” ABD, 6:895–97.

24. Cf. 5:1 and 23:24.

25. The expression occurs elsewhere only in 4:6; 6:24; 17:19.

26. Num. 29:12–39 offers a detailed presentation, but instead of referring to the festival by name, it speaks generally of “a sacred assembly” (v. 12), an “assembly . . . [with] no regular work” (v. 35), and includes it in the sacred appointments (v. 39).

27. See further Tigay, Deuteronomy, 157–58.

28. See also the Gezer Calendar, which begins with “months of ingathering.”

29. However, the symmetry is not exact. Whereas the Festival of Unleavened Bread follows immediately after the Passover, five days separate the the Festival of Booths from the Day of Atonement (cf. Lev. 23:27), which Deuteronomy never mentions.

30. Cf. 2:7; 14:29; 16:15; 24:19; 28:12; 30:9. Except for 28:12, where Yahweh blesses the work of the hands, the work of their hands provides the occasion for Yahweh to bless Israel.

31. The society as a whole was androcentric, but households were patricentric. See Block, “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel,” 38–44.

32. J. W. Watts (Reading Law: The Rhetorical Shaping of the Pentateuch [Biblical Seminar 59; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999], 108) argues that fidelity and obedience are demanded and enforced because Yahweh rules in Israel. However, T. Fretheim (“Law in the Service of Life: A Dynamic Understanding of Law in Deuteronomy,” in A God So Near: Essays on Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller (ed. B. A. Strawn and N. R. Bowen; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003], 194) rightly counters that God gives the law and commands obedience for the sake of the life and well-being of the creatures, not out of the self-serving notion that the people must obey because God is, after all, their Ruler.

33. The celebration of the Passover is anticipated in Ezekiel’s vision of the future (Ezek. 45:21–25).

34. Thus Marvin Tate, Psalms 51–100 (WBC 20; Dallas: Word, 1990), 318.

35. 2 Chron. 8:13; Ezra 3:4; Zech. 14:16, 18–19.

36. The date identifies it as the Festival of Booths in 1 Kings 8:2 (cf. also v. 65); 12:32; 2 Chron. 7:8; cf. Isa. 30:29 (without the date); the mention of the shophar (“horn”) in Ps. 81:3[4] suggests this festival (cf. Num. 10:10).

37. Acts 20:6; cf. Mark 14:1, 12; Luke 22:1, 7; Acts 12:3.

38. Matt. 26:2, 17–19; Mark 14:1, 12, 14, 16; Luke 22:1, 7–8, 11, 13, 15; John 12:1; 13:1; 18:28, 39; 19:14.

39. See b. Meg. 31a; t. Meg. 4:5. Thus M. Greenberg, “Decalogue (The Ten Commandments),” EncJud (2nd ed.), 5:525; M. Weinfeld, “The Decalogue: Its Significance, Uniqueness, and Place in Israel’s Tradition,” in Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives (ed. E. B. Firmage, B. G. Weiss, and J. W. Welch; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 28–32, 34; idem, “The Uniqueness of the Decalogue and Its Place in Jewish Tradition,” in The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition (ed. B.-Z. Segal and G. Levi; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990), 21–27.

40. Since the festivals of Passover and Unleavened Bread were instituted in Egypt, technically they stand apart from the rituals and festivals associated with the tabernacle ritual as revealed at Sinai.

41. Matthew’s version of the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Matt. 26:28) conflates motifs derived from the Festival of Passover (substitutionary death), the covenant ratification ritual at Sinai (“blood of the covenant”; cf. Ex. 24:1–11), and the sin offering (“for the forgiveness of sins”). While the oppressive sin of the Egyptians may have been a factor in the original Passover event, the sin of those being redeemed was never mentioned.

1. Note the headings ascribed to this section: Nelson, “Constitutional Proposals” (Deuteronomy, 210, 226); Tigay, “Civil and Religious Authorities” (Deuteronomy, 159); N. Lohfink (“Distribution of the Functions of Power: The Laws concerning Public Offices in Deuteronomy 16:18–18:22, ” in Great Themes from the Old Testament [trans. R. Walls; Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1981], 68; reprinted in A Song of Power and the Power of Song [ed. D. L. Christensen; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993], 346).

2. Thus B. Halpern, The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (HSM 25; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), 226–33; S. D. McBride, “The Polity of the Covenant People: The Book of Deuteronomy,” Int 41 (1987): 229–44; Nelson, Deuteronomy, 212.

3. Thus Lohfink, “Distribution of the Functions of Power,” in Song of Power and the Power of Song, 346.

4. For critique of this approach, see Peter Vogt, Deuteronomic Theology and the Significance of Torah: A Reappraisal (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 32–93.

5. Throughout this section I will be translating ṣedeq ṣedeq as “righteousness, only righteousness” (NIV “justice and justice alone”).

6. Cf. Vogt, Theology and the Significance of Torah, 209–26.

7. Levinson (Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, 98) finds 16:18–17:13 as “one of the most problematic ‘case studies’ ” with respect to “topic selection, sequencing, and ostensible redundancy.”

8. The text switches to the third person five times: 16:18b; 17:5c–7b; 17:9c; 17:12a; 17:13.

9. N. Lohfink, “Distribution of the Functions of Power,” 344; idem, Great Themes from the Old Testament, 65.

10. Cf. P. T. Vogt, Religious Concepts in the Theology of Deuteronomy (Gloucester, UK: Univ. of Gloucestershire Press, 2003), 224–26.

11. The Hebrew reads, “Judges and officials you shall appoint” (cf. 12:32[13:1]; 14:1, 9, 11; 16:9, 13).

12. Cf. Deut 29:10[9]. Deut. 31:28 pairs the expression with “the elders of your tribes.” This association with elders also occurs in Num. 11:16; Josh. 8:33; 23:2; 24:1.

13. Thus A. Rofé, “The Organization of the Judiciary in Deuteronomy [Deut 16.18–20; 17, 8–13; 19.15; 21.22–23; 24.16; 25.1–3],” in The World of the Aramaeans I: Biblical Studies in Honor of Paul-Eugène Dion [ed. P. M. M. Daviau, J. W. Wevers, and M. Weigl; JSOTSup 324; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001]), 99. On the titles here, see comments on 1:15–18.

14. See Levinson, Hermeneutics, 126, 138; A. Rofé, “Organization of the Judiciary,” 95.

15. According to Rofé (ibid.) the appointment originated “in the capital city, the seat of the king and the administrative center.”

16. So also Timothy M. Willis, The Elders of the City: A Study of the Elders-Laws in Deuteronomy (SBLMS 55; Atlanta: Scholars, 2001), 86.

17. Ibid., 88.

18. Ibid., 50–67. This complementarity of two or more judicial institutions common among modern kinship-based peoples also existed among many of the peoples surrounding Israel (ibid., 67–82).

19. Cf. Ex. 31:6; Num. 14:4; Deut. 17:15; Josh. 20:2, 8; 1 Sam. 2:28; 12:12; 2 Sam. 11:16; 2 Kings 23:5; 2 Chron. 32:6; Ezra 8:20; Neh. 9:17.

20. Thus Willis, Elders of the City, 66–67.

21. For later evidence of tribal self–consciousness, see 2 Chron. 34:6; Ezek. 48; Matt. 4:13, 15; Rev. 7:4–8; 21:12.

22. On “perverting justice,” see Piotro Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible (trans. M. J. Smith; JSOTSup 105; Sheffield: JSOT, 1994), 191–92.

23. Impartiality is also emphasized in 1:17 and 10:17. This statement condenses Lev. 19:15: “You shall not lift the face of the poor nor honor the face of the great” (pers. trans.).

24. Cf. 1:13 and 15, where the people installed as šōṭ^erîm are characterized as “wise.” For the association of clear-sightedness with wisdom, see Eccl. 2:14; for pointed description of the effects of bribery, see Eccl. 7:7.

25. NIV’s rendering, “twists the words of the righteous,” preserves the ambiguity of the Hebrew, but it leaves unclear what is perverted: the cause of the accused, or the judgment of the adjudicator? However, the parallelism suggests “the righteous” in the second statement corresponds to “the wise” in the first. The plural “words of the righteous” renders a singular translation like “cause of the righteous” unlikely.

26. These are familiar Deuteronomic expressions. For the former, see 4:1; 5:33; 6:24; 8:1; for the latter, see 3:20; 6:18; 10:11.

27. See comments on 7:7 and 12:3.

28. This problem is illustrated in several ninth–eighth century pithoi inscriptions from Kuntillet ʿAjrud. See Block, Gods of the Nations, 67–68; M. S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 108–47. The cited texts are discussed on pp. 118–25.

29. Later writings use “sacred stones and Ashera” as shorthand for all kinds of idolatrous cult objects: 1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 17:10; 23:14; 2 Chron. 14:3; 31:1.

30. Cf. McConville, Deuteronomy, 289.

31. Both vv. 2–7 and vv. 8–12 consists of 103 words.

32. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Innovation, 102–10; Morrow, Scribing the Center, 182–86.

33. The Temple Scroll from Qumran places 17:2–13 immediately after chapter 13. See F. G. Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997/1998), 2:1274–77.

34. The second person singular bears a collective sense throughout.

35. Cf. 6:10, which speaks of Yahweh giving Israel great and splendid towns that they did not build.

36. While specific references to the covenant are missing in chapter 13, the word “covenant” answers to the summary conditions of obedience in 13:18[19].

37. Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2113.

38. Cf. Jesus’ challenge in John 8:7, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”

39. The clause is borrowed verbatim from 13:5[6]. On this and related expressions (which recur in v. 12; 19:13, 19; 21:9, 21; 22:21, 22, 24; 24:7), see Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice, 385–86.

40. On these two panels, see Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovations, 130–37.

41. Note the titles to this section in commentaries: “The High Court of Referral” (Tigay, Deuteronomy, 163), “The Supreme Court” (Mayes, Deuteronomy, 266), “The Jurisdiction of the Central Tribunal” (Craigie, Deuteronomy, 251), “Law of the Central Tribunal—A Court of Referral” (Christensen, Deuteronomy, 371).

42. The word also denotes “to be unusual, wonderful.” See HALOT, 927. Throughout this literary unit (16:18–17:13), mišpāṭ refers to a concrete judicial decision, rather than “justice.”

43. For these scenarios, see Bovati, Re–Establishing Justice, 32. Each case involves an identical binary form translated formally. For discussion of the idioms, see Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovations, 128–29.

44. Note the preponderance of second person verbs. Though cast in the third person, even the last sentence (v. 12a–b) impresses on the people the importance of carrying out the sentence exactly as determined at the central sanctuary.

45. The verb ʿālâ (v. 8) not only reflects the common practice of erecting sanctuaries on hilltops, but also anticipates Mount Zion, the place that Yahweh will eventually choose to establish his name.

46. So also Nelson, Deuteronomy, 221.

47. The expression “Levitical priests” appears here for the first time, but it recurs in v. 18; 18:1–2; 24:8; 27:9. Sometimes this group is identified simply as “the priests,” without qualifying them as “Levites” (19:17; 21:5) or “the priests, the sons of Levi” (21:5; 31:9). On their duties, see 10:7–8; 18:1, 3; 26:4; 27:9–10; 31:9–11, 24–26). See further McConville, Law and Theology in Deuteronomy, 124–53; M. D. Rehm, “Levites and Priests,” ABD, 4:303–5.

48. Weinfeld (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 235) goes farther, arguing that two judicial traditions that were originally independent have been combined.

49. Exodus 21:6 and 22:8–9[7–8] also speak of judicial cases being resolved “before God.”

50. LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch read w^edār^esû, “and they shall inquire,” rather than w^edārastâ (“and you shall inquire”).

51. Thus DCH, 2:474.

52. On the oracular use of mišpāṭ and extrabiblical parallels, see D. I. Block, “Deborah among the Judges: The Perspective of the Hebrew Historian,” in Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context (ed. A. R. Millard et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 247.

53. On the oracular use of the Urim and Thummim carried in the priest’s breastpiece, see Ex. 28:30; Lev. 8:8.

54. See Morrow, Scribing the Center, 191–93.

55. Thus Mayes, Deuteronomy, 269.

56. Cf. S. E. Porter, “Simeon 3, ” ABD, 6:26–27.

1. (1) Three verbs describing Israel’s relationship to the land: they enter, possess, and occupy it (v. 14; cf. 11:30; 12:29; 26:1); (2) three modifying clauses beginning with ʾ ^ašer in vv. 14–15, with reference to the land (v. 14) and the king (v. 15); (3) a threefold prohibition of “multiplying” horses, women, precious metals (vv. 16–17); (4) the threefold repetition of lô (“for himself”), highlighting the danger of using the office of kingship in self-service (vv. 16–17); (5) three duties of the king with respect to the Torah: to write it for himself (v. 18), to have it with him (v. 19a), and to read it (v. 19b); (6) three reasons for reading the Torah: “that he may learn” (v. 19), “that . . . [he] not consider himself better,” and “that . . . [he not] turn from the law” (v. 20); (7) the threefold goal of learning: “to revere,” “to follow,” “to do [lit.]” (v. 19). Several actually exhibit a 3 + 1 pattern, in which the fourth element resembles the other three formally but with respect to function stands outside the triad: (1) three verbs in narrative sequence describing the occupation of the land, followed by a fourth that introduces a direct quotation (v. 14); (2) three ʾ ^ašer clauses in the narrative of vv. 14–15, supplemented by a fourth embedded in direct speech (v. 14b); (3) three occurrences of lô (“for himself”) in prohibitive statements (vv. 16–17), followed by a fourth imperative statement (v. 18, “he is to write for himself a copy of this law”); (4) three infinitive clauses expressing the [immediate] purposes of reading the Torah for the king himself (vv. 19–20a), followed by a fourth (v. 20b) declaring the long range effect of this action (v. 20b). Some of these triads are recognized by Nelson, Deuteronomy, 223.

2. Cf. K. W. Whitelam, “Israelite Kingship: The Royal Ideology and Its Opponents,” in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives (ed. R. E. Clements; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991), 130.

3. This understanding is implied in 1 Sam. 8:5, which echoes this text, and is explicitly expressed in 1 Sam. 8:19–20.

4. See comments on 14:21 and 15:3 (cf. also 23:20[21] and 29:22[21]). On the status of the outsider, see D. I. Block, “Sojourner; Alien; Stranger,” ISBE (rev. ed.), 4:562.

5. For a later warning of kingship as a symbol of slavery, see 1 Sam. 8:9–18. Anatolia would have been the primary source for horses, on which see D. J. Reimer, “Concerning Return to Egypt: Deuteronomy 17:16 and 28:68 Reconsidered,” in Studies in the Pentateuch (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 41; Leiden: Brill, 1990), 217–29. It seems the Hyksos rulers of Egypt introduced horses and chariotry as vital elements of Egyptian armed forces. See J. Van Seters, The Hyksos (New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1966), 183–85.

6. Tigay (Deuteronomy, 167) interprets v. 16b as a promise what is usually understood as a command: “For Yahweh has said, ‘You will never return that way again.’ ” If so, the promise is negated in the covenant curses (see 28:68).

7. In the face of the fulfillment of the warning of 28:68 in 722 and 586 BC, to later writers “Egypt” was a cipher for the Assyrians and the Babylonians respectively (cf. Hos. 8:13; 9:3; 11:5).

8. Since “wives” connotes a marital relationship, nâšîm here is better rendered generically as “women,” the reference being to the harem of an oriental king.

9. Cf. 1 Kings 9:15–16; 16:31.

10. Note the emphasis in Dan. 1:3–4 on the qualifications of candidates for Nebuchadnezzar’s court: youths without defect, handsome, intelligent in every branch of learning, discreet, wise, and knowledgeable in royal protocol.

11. Cf. the warning of Lemuel’s mother in Prov. 31:3–9.

12. Thus Mayes, Deuteronomy, 273; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 168.

13. Similarly J. F. A. Sawyer, Sacred Languages and Sacred Texts (New York: Routledge, 1999), 49–51; A. R. Millard, “Books in the Late Bronze Age in the Levant,” in Past Links: Studies in the Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East. Fs. Anson Rainey (ed. S. Izre’el et al. (Israel Oriental Studies 18; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998), 171–81.

14. Sonnet, The Book within the Book, 74 (cf. Josh. 8:32).

15. Cf. André Lemaire, “Writing and Writing Materials,” ABD, 6:1004.

16. On which see ibid., 1003; A. R. Millard, Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus (Biblical Seminar 69; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 25–26; M. Haran, “Book–Scrolls in Israel in Pre-exilic Times,” JJS 33 (1982): 166–67.

17. Cf. 4:2. The production of duplicate written copies of significant documents was widespread in ancient Mesopotamia. Upon completion of the task, scribes would conventionally add a colophon declaring their fidelity to the original that commonly read, “according to its original, written, checked, and copied.” See E. Leichty, “The Colophon,” in Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim (ed. R. D. Biggs and J. A. Brinkman; Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press, 1964), 150.

18. This is the first occurrence qārāʾ in the sense of “to cry out, read,” in Deuteronomy (cf. Ex. 24:7). The verb reflects the ancient practice of reading official documents orally.

19. Such fear is learned by (1) observing Yahweh’s victories over the enemies (2:25), (2) hearing the voice of Yahweh from the midst of the fire (4:10), and (3) observing the punishment imposed on those who violate the covenant (17:13; 19:20; 21:21). The consequences of the absence of fear are spelled out in the covenant curses (28:58).

20. See Sonnet, Book within the Book, 81.

21. Note the fourfold occurrence of the preposition ʿal (“over [me/you]”) in vv. 14–15.

22. It is equivalent to “walking in his ways” (i.e., “the ways of the LORD”; 8:6; 10:12; 11:22; 19:9; 26:17; 28:9; 30:16; 32:4).

23. References to Israel’s lengthening their days occur in 4:26, 40; 5:33; 11:9; 22:7; 30:18; 32:47. References to the days lengthening occur in 5:16; 6:2; 25:15.

24. See esp. the prologue to the Law Code of Hammurabi in Roth, Law Collections, 76–81. For extrabiblical evidence for comparable ideals for their kings, see “Advice to a Prince,” in W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford: Clarendon, 1960), 113–15; the Ugaritic Kirta (Parker, UNP, 41); and Job 29:7–17 and Prov. 31:1–9, both of which concern non-Israelite rulers.

25. Later Davidic kings will be presented as “the son of God.” See 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7; 22:9[10]; 89:27–28[28–29]. On “divine sonship” of kings in the ancient world, see J. Fossum, “Son of God,” DDD, 788–89.

26. See the characterization of Esarhaddon as “the father of the king, my lord, was the very image of Bel, and the king, my lord, is likewise the image of Bel.” See S. Parpola, Letters from Assyrian Scholars (SAA 10; Helsinki: Helsinki Univ. Press, 1993), 181 (Š228:18–20).

27. B. K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 871–84.

28. Cf. D. I. Block, “My Servant David: Ancient Israel’s Vision of the Messiah,” in Israel’s Messiah in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. R. S. Hess and M. D. Carroll R.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 39.

29. On Deut. 17:14–20 and the later evaluation of Solomon, see G. N. Knoppers, “Rethinking the Relationship between Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History: The Case of Kings,” CBQ 63 (2002): 393–415.

30. See further D. I. Block, “The Burden of Leadership: The Mosaic Paradigm of Kingship (Deut. 17:14–20),” in How I Love Your Torah, O LORD! 118–39. Cf. idem, “Leadership, Leader, Old Testament,” in New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (ed. K. D. Sakenfeld; Nashville: Abingdon, 2008), 3:620–26.

31. Paul claims to be “a servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God” (Rom. 1:1).

32. The titles of the following publications illustrate present-day awareness of these tendencies: D. A. Stewart, Money, Power and Sex (New York: Libra, 1965); N. C. M. Hartsock, Money, Sex and Power: Toward a Feminist Historical Materialism (New York: Longman, 1983); P. Turner, Sex, Money and Power: An Essay on Christian Ethics (Cambridge, MA: Cowley, 1985); R. J. Foster, The Challenge of the Disciplined Life: Christian Reflections on Money, Sex and Power (rev. ed.; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989); J. L. Jackley, Below the Beltway: Money, Sex, Power, and Other Fundamentals of Democracy in the Nation’s Capital (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 1996); D. Sanders, Power, Money & Sex: How Success Almost Ruined My Life (Nashville: Word, 1999); P. Rosenfield, The Club Rules: Power, Money, Sex and Fear: How It Works in Hollywood (New York: Warner, 1992); G. C. Rubin, Power, Money, Fame, Sex: A User’s Guide (New York: Atria, 2001).

33. This understanding of leadership contrasts sharply with that of Carnes Lord, of the Naval War Academy, who asserts that leadership presupposes some element of “such traditionally manly qualities as competitiveness, aggression, or, for that matter, the ability to command. . . . Leadership that is not prepared to disadvantage anyone is hardly leadership at all” (The Modern Prince: What Leaders Need to Know Now, quoted by G. Will, “Ending the ‘Feminization’ of Politics,” Courier Journal, January 29, 2004, A7).

34. J. C. Maxwell, The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership: Follow Them and People Will Follow You (Nashville: Nelson, 1998), 20.

1. Note also the frequent appeals for charity toward the Levitical priests, along with the fatherless, widows, aliens (14:29; 16:11, 14; 26:12–13), and members of the family (12:12, 18–19).

2. See Driver, Deuteronomy, 213–14; J. A. Emerton, “Priests and Levites in Deuteronomy,” VT 12 (1962): 133–34.

3. See 4:21, 38; 10:9; 12:9, 12; 14:27, 29; 15:4; 18:1–2; 19:10, 14; 20:16; 21:16, 23; 24:4; 25:19–26:1; 29:8[7].

4. For the borders of the national grant, see Num. 34:1–12; for the procedures for distributing the tribal grants, see Num. 33:54 and 34:16–29. The distribution itself is described in Josh. 13–19.

5. According to Num. 26:62, their special status with Yahweh also meant that the Levites were not registered among the troops to engage the Canaanites because no grant was given to them among the people of Israel.

6. So also Milgrom, Numbers, 124, on Num. 15:10; idem, Leviticus 1–16, 161–62.

7. After the conquest, the Levites received additional compensation in the form of forty-eight Levitical towns, with their surrounding pasturelands (Josh. 21:1–42), in fulfillment (cf. v. 2) of Yahweh’s earlier promise in Num. 35:1–8.

8. On the shoulder of a sacrificial animal as a sacred portion in Israel and the ancient Near East, see Milgrom, Numbers, 49.

9. This refers not to the first ripened products or the first harvested, but to the first to be processed (cf. Num. 18:12). See Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 191.

10. While elsewhere this expression applies to the heavenly host standing at Yahweh’s right and left hand (2 Chron. 18:18), or to prophets (Zech 3:1; 2 Chron 29:11), Deuteronomy uses it only of Levitical priests (Deut. 10:8; 18:7).

11. ESV and REB represent notable exceptions. The shift from protasis to apodosis is signaled grammatically in v. 8 by the emphatic object-verb-adverb sentence structure. So also Nelson, Deuteronomy, 227.

12. The protasis of this paragraph consists of three conditional sentences (vv. 6–7), which are followed by the apodosis in v. 8. All three conditional statements consist of a main clause followed by a modifying clause.

13. As in 12:5, the verb bôʾ (“come”; NIV “moves”) orients the hearer/reader to the perspective of the speaker, who here represents the voice of the central sanctuary.

14. On hāʾābôt (“the fathers”; NIV “family”) meaning “patrimony,” see T. E. Ranck, “Patrimony in Deuteronomy 18:8—A Possible Explanation,” in The Answers Lie Below: Essays in Honor of Lawrence Edward Toombs (ed. H. Thompson; Lanham, MD: Univ. Press of America, 1984), 281–85.

15. Several priests performed duties at one place while residing at another: Abiathar (1 Kings 2:26–27), Jeremiah (Jer. 32:6–25). See further, M. Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 119–20.

16. Hence scholarly skepticism regarding these accounts. See J. R. Spencer, “Levitical Cities,” ABD, 4:310–11.

17. Ezek. 44:15 complains that the Levitical priests in charge of the central sanctuary defected from Yahweh.

18. Cf. McConville, Law and Theology in Deuteronomy, 151.

1. So also Lothar Perlitt, “Mose als Prophet,” Evangelische Theologie 31 (1971): 596–97. Cf. the repeated occurrence of the verb šāmaʿ (“to listen”; vv. 14, 15, 16, 19).

2. Several forms are missing: dreaming dreams (cf. 13:1–5[2–6]; Gen. 20:3, 6; 37:5, 9; 40:5, 8; 41:11, 15; Judg. 7:13, 15; Dan. 2:1, 3), magic (Gen. 41:8, 24; Ex. 7:11, 22; 8:7, 18, 19[3, 14, 15]; 9:11), and consulting teraphim (2 Kings 23:24; Ezek. 21:21[26]).

3. Compare 2 Kings 17:17; 21:6; 2 Chron. 33:6; Isa. 8:19; Jer. 27:9.

4. On each of these expressions see I. Fischer, Gotteskünderinnen: Zu einer geschlechterfairen Deutung des Phänomens der Prophetie und der Prophetinnen in der Hebräischen Bibel (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000), 43–49.

5. While some argue for an interpretation other than child sacrifice (cf. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 465), the links with 12:31 support this interpretation. For full discussion see G. C. Heider, The Cult of Molech: A Reassessment (JSOTSup 43; Sheffield: JSOT, 1985); J. Day, Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989).

6. See L. E. Stager, “The Rite of Child Sacrifice at Carthage,” in New Light on Ancient Carthage (ed. J. G. Pedley; Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press, 1980), 1–11. For a popular presentation of the evidence see L. E. Stager and S. R. Wolff, “Child Sacrifice at Carthage—Religious Rite or Population Control,” BAR 10/1 (1984): 30–51.

7. Cf. Num. 23:23; Josh. 13:22; 1 Sam. 6:2; 28:8; 2 Kings 17:17; Isa. 3:2; 44:25; Jer. 27:9; 29:8; Ezek. 13:9, 23; 21:21–29[26–34]; Mic. 3:6, 7, 11; Zech. 10:2. Cf. F. H. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel and Its Near Eastern Environment: A Socio-Historical Investigation (JSOTSup 142; Sheffield: JSOT, 1994], 256.

8. Rhabdomancy (Ezek. 21:21[26]), hepatoscopy (Ezek. 21:21[26]), consulting teraphim (2 Kings 23:24; Ezek. 21:21[26]; Zech. 10:2), astrology (Jer. 10:2), hydromancy (Gen. 44:5, 15), and necromancy (1 Sam. 28:3–9). The word “divination” is associated with Ammonites (Jer. 27:3, 9; Ezek. 21:29[34]), Phoenicians, Moabites, and Edomites (Jer. 27:3, 9), Philistines (1 Sam. 6:2), Balaam the Mesopotamian prophet (Num. 22:7; 23:23), as well as Saul and the witch at Endor (1 Sam. 28:8). For a sampling of divination texts from Assyria, see I. Starr, Queries to the Sungod: Divination and Politics in Sargonid Assyria (SAA 4; Helsinki: Helsinki Univ. Press, 1990).

9. HALOT, 857.

10. Thus also H. L. Bosman, “Redefined Prophecy as Deuteronomic Alternative to Divination in Deut. 18:19–22, ” Acts Theologica 16 (1996): 3.

11. Cf. Judg. 9:37; 2 Kings 21:6; 2 Chron. 33:6; Isa. 2:6; 57:3; Jer. 27:9.

12. Cf. Lev. 19:26; Num. 23:23; 24:1; 2 Kings 17:17; 21:6; 2 Chron. 33:6. The omen literature from ancient Mesopotamia is vast. For sample collections, see E. V. Leichty, The Omen Series Summa Izbu (TCS 4; Locust Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin, 1970); R. I. Caplice, The Akkadian Namburbi Texts: An Introduction (SANE 1/1; Los Angeles: Undena, 1974). On the meaning of nāḥāš, see Cryer (Divination, 257–58), who notes that in Jewish tradition this was the foreign expression for divination par excellence.

13. Ex. 7:11, “wise men”; Dan. 2:2, “astrologers,” and “Chaldaeans.” Cf. 2 Kings 9:22; Isa. 47:9, 12; Jer. 27:9; Mic. 5:12[11]; Mal. 3:5; 2 Chron. 33:6 (see Cryer, Divination, 258).

14. Cf. Cryer, Divination, 259.

15. The word appears elsewhere in Lev. 19:31; 20:6, 27; 1 Sam. 28:3, 9; 2 Kings 21:6; 23:24; 1 Chron. 10:13; 2 Chron. 33:6; Isa. 8:19; 19:3; 29:4.

16. The word appears elsewhere in Lev. 19:31; 20:6, 27; 1 Sam. 28:3, 9; 2 Kings 21:6; 23:24; 2 Chron. 33:6; Isa. 8:19; 19:3. Cryer (Divination, 261) suggests that RSV’s “wizard” is as good as any.

17. This expression occurs elsewhere only in Isa. 8:19, though a similar construction in 12:5 speaks of pilgrimages to the place Yahweh chooses for his name. Cryer (Divination, 259) suggests this is synonymous with #7.

18. Thus G. Frantz-Szabó, “Hittite Witchcraft, Magic, and Divination,” CANE, 3:2007. Hence the warning in v. 9 not to “learn” the abominations of the nations. On divination and magic in the ancient world, see W. Farber, “Witchcraft, Magic and Divination in Ancient Mesopotamia,” CANE 3:1895–910; J.-M. de Tarragon, “Witchcraft, Magic, and Divination in Canaan and Ancient Israel,” CANE, 3:2071–82.

19. Cf. Gen. 44:1–5; Ex. 7:11–12, 22; 8:7[3]; 1 Sam. 28:8–14; Ezek. 21:21–22[26–27].

20. For a helpful study of tāmîm and its ethical significance, see John N. Oswalt, Called to Be Holy (Napanee, IN: Evangel, 1999), 46–63.

21. Cf. Levine, Numbers, 200.

22. For further discussion on the relationship between Israelite prophecy and divination, see T. W. Overholt, Channels of Prophecy: The Social Dynamics of Prophetic Activity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 117–47; H. M. Barstad, “No Prophets? Recent Developments in Biblical Prophetic Research and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy,” JSOT 57 (1993): 47–49.

23. The verb hēqîm (“to raise up” and entrust with a commission) is used elsewhere of divinely appointed saviors (Judg. 3:9, 15), tribal chieftains (Judg. 2:16, 18), a king (1 Kings 14:14), a priest (1 Sam. 2:35), sentries (Jer. 6:17), and shepherds (Jer. 23:4; Ezek. 34:23; Zech. 11:16).

24. On the attributive modifier “like me,” highlighting the professional relationship between the one whom Yahweh will raise up and Moses, see A. Schüle, “Kāmôkâ—der Nächste wie Du: Zur Philologie des Liebesgebotes von Lev. 19, 18.34,” Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments un seiner Umwelt 2 (2001): 118.

25. So also Driver, Deuteronomy, 228.

26. Similarly Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9, 401.

27. On the placement of God’s words on the mouth of the prophet, see also Ex. 4:15–16; 7:1; Jer. 1:9.

28. Variations of “he will speak all that I command him” occur often in Deuteronomy. Here the clause suggests equivalence in authority between the Torah of Moses and future prophecy.

29. Cf. Merrill, Deuteronomy, 273.

30. The same construction (minus the conjunction), “If you say in your heart/mind” followed by a direct quotation, occurs in 7:17 (cf. 8:17; 9:4). For variations in introductions to interlocutors, see 6:20; 12:20; 13:2[3], 6[7], 13[14]; 17:14.

31. Moses’ expressions for nonfulfillment are simple: literally, “The word does not happen and it does not come” (cf. Jer. 28:9). By contrast, a prediction that is fulfilled is referred to as “a word that does not fall” (see Josh. 21:45; 23:14, 15; 1 Kings 8:56; 2 Kings 10:10).

32. This distinctive quality of Yahweh’s utterances (vis-à-vis lifeless and speechless idols) is reflected in numerous passages in Isaiah: Isa. 41:4, 21–24; 44:24–28; 45:21–25; 46:5–13; 48:3; 55:10; 59:21 (cf. 22:11).

33. See Jer. 29:10; Ezek. 2:5; 33:21–22, 33.

34. For a study of true and false prophecy in Assyria see M. Nissinen, “Falsche Prophetie in neuassyrischer und deuteronomistischer Darstellung,” in Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen (ed. T. Veijola; Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft 62; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 172–95. M. Nissinen, C. L. Seow, and R. K. Ritner have gathered and published in convenient form first and second millennium BC prophetic texts from Mari, Assyria, Babylonia, Aram (Syria), Ammon, and Egypt in Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (SBLWAW 12; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003).

35. For analysis of this text and its implications for understanding true and false prophecy see D. I. Block, “What Has Delphi to Do with Samaria? Ambiguity and Delusion in Israelite Prophecy,” in Writing and Ancient Near Eastern Society: Papers in Honour of Alan R. Millard (ed. P. Bienkowski, C. Mee, and E. Slater; New York/London: T&T Clark, 2005), 189–216.

36. On these prophetic formulae, see Block, Ezekiel Chapters 1–24, 32–34.

37. R. Polzin (Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History [New York: Seabury, 1980], 61) suggests “The ‘prophet like Moses’ is the narrator of the Deuteronomic History, and through him the Deuteronomist himself.”

38. 2 Kings 9:7; 17:13, 23; 21:10; 24:2; Ezra 9:11; Jer. 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4; Ezek. 38:17; Dan. 9:6, 10; Amos 3:7; Zech. 1:6.

39. Cf. J. Maier, “Das jüdische Gesetz zwischen Qumran und Septuaginta,” in Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta: Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel (ed. H.-F. Fabry and U. Offerhaus; BWANT 153; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001), 161.

40. 1 Macc. 4:46; 14:41. According to F. Dexinger (“Reflections on the Relationship between Qumran and Samaritan Messianology,” in Qumran Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls [eds. J. H. Charlesworth, H. Lichtenberger and G. S. Oegema; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998]), the idea of a messianic prophet did not originate with Deuteronomy 18, but this notion quickly found its biblical warrant there.

41. The figure referred to as the “Teacher of Righteousness” in 1QpHab 8:2–3, or “Interpreter of the Torah” in 4QFlor [4Q174] 1:11–12. According to Damascus Covenant [CD] 6:11a, the one who teaches righteousness will arise at the end of the days. These expressions seem to reflect functions of a “prophet like Moses.” On the prophetic Messiah at Qumran, see J. J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York; Doubleday, 1995), 112–23.

42. On the perception of Jesus as an eschatological prophet see Matt. 16:14; 20:21; 21:46; Mark 6:15; Luke 7:16; 9:8; John 1:21; 4:19; 6:14; 7:40, 52; 9:17. John 1:19–28 understands John the Baptist this way. Similarly Luke 1:76, where Zechariah refers to him as “the prophet of the Most High,” who will prepare the way before the Lord (cf. Matt. 14:5; Mark 11:32; Luke 20:6). In reality Jesus perceived himself as greater than a prophet, whose arrival would be announced by Yahweh’s prophetic messenger (Matt. 11:9–10; Luke 7:26–27). For discussion of the perception of Jesus as the eschatological messianic prophet in the New Testament, see D. I. Block, “My Servant David: Ancient Israel’s Vision of the Messiah,” in Israel’s Messiah in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds. R. S. Hess and M. D. Carroll R.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 26–32.

43. In Qumran eschatology the prophetic figure was not a central figure—that role is played by the royal Davidic Messiah. Samaritan tradition reversed the situation; the eschatological vision is dominated by the prophetic figure—there is no royal Messiah. See the full discussion by Dexinger, “Qumran and Samaritan Messianology,” 83–99.

44. See ibid., 90–91.

45. Contra S. Dempster (“An ‘Extraordinary Fact’: Torah and Temple and the Contours of the Hebrew Canon,” TynBul 48 [1997]: 56, n. 100), it is not “clear that the editor at work here [in Deuteronomy 34] understood the prophecy in 18:18 as a succession culminating in an individual.” See further on chapter 34 below.

46. Acts 8:9–25; 13:4–12; 19:8–20. For brief discussion, see C. E. Arnold, “Magic and Astrology,” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments (eds. R. P. Martin and P. H. Davids; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 702–3.

47. For further discussion see C. E. Arnold, “Magic,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (eds. G. F. Hawthorne and R. P. Martin; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 582–83.

48. Acts 11:27; 13:1; 15:32; 1 Cor. 14:29; Eph. 2:20.

49. Apostles are by definition persons who have received direct revelation from God/Christ and are commissioned by him to proclaim that message to others. Apart from “servant of Christ” this is Paul’s favorite official self-designation (Rom. 1:1; 11:13; 1 Cor. 1:1; 9:1–2; 15:9; 2 Cor. 1:1 (cf. 12:12); Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:1, 11; Titus 1:1 (cf. 1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1). This is a special issue in the Corinthian correspondence (1 Cor. 4:9; 9:5; 12:28–29; 15:7, 9; 2 Cor. 11:5, 13; 12:11) and Galatians (Gal. 1:17, 19).

50. Rom. 1:1; Gal. 1:10; 1 Tim. 4:6; Titus 1:1; cf. also James 1:1; Jude 1. The expression doulos Christou is equivalent to Hebrew ʿebed yhwh (“servant of Yahweh”), which was used not only of Moses (Num. 12:7–8; Deut. 34:5; Josh. 1:1, 2, 7, 13, 15; 8:31, 33; 11:12; 12:6; 13:8; 14:7; 18:7; 22:2, 4–5; 2 Kings 18:12; 2 Chron. 1:3; 24:6), but also of the prophets who followed in his train (2 Kings 17:23; 21:10; 24:2; Jer. 25:4; Dan. 9:10; Amos 3:7).

1. Kaufman, “The Structure of the Deuteronomic Law,” 134–37; Georg Braulik, Die deuteronomischen Gesetze und der Dekalog (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991), 62–65.

2. For similar initial temporal clauses introduced by kî (“When”), see 4:25; 6:10, 20; 7:1; 12:20, 29; 17:14; 18:9; 20:1; 21:10; 26:1; 30:1.

3. So also McConville, Deuteronomy, 308. Although the text lacks formal imperatives, the principal clauses are dominated by imperfect and waw consecutive perfect verbs that have the force of commands.

4. S. M. Paul (Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law [VTSup 18; Leiden: Brill, 1970], 64) observes that these verses contain the only reference to God in the first person in the legal portion of the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 21:2–22:16).

5. Some suggest vv. 4–5 and vv. 11–12 represent the original predeuteronomic core, which has been supplemented by a series of deuteronomistic additions. See Mayes, Deuteronomy, 284.

6. Bezer in the southern desert plateau for the Reubenites, Ramoth in Gilead for the Gadites, and Golan in Bashan for the Manassites (4:41–43; cf. Josh. 20:8).

7. The NIV’s “Build roads to them” assumes the routes are to be prepared and marked in advance so those being pursued by “avengers of blood” may flee freely to their destination. According to ESV, Moses calls for calculating the distances, presumably to ensure the towns were located precisely in the center of the three regions (v. 3b). Cf. P.-E. Dion, “Deuteronomy 19:3: Prepare the Way, or Estimate the Distance?” Eglise et théologie 25 (1994): 333–41.

8. Some suggest they were temple towns. Moshe Greenberg, “The Biblical Concept of Asylum,” JBL 78 (1959): 125–32; Weinfeld, DDS, 236.

9. Contra NIV’s “centrally located.” This is obvious for Hebron and Shechem, whose special status in Israelite tradition dates back to patriarchal times, and which at this time were recognized as significant Canaanite towns.

10. On the humanitarian aims of this provision, see Greenberg, “The Biblical Concept of Asylum,” 125–32.

11. For the nearest equivalent to the present text, see Sefire III:4–6, in J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Treaties of Bar-Gaʾyah and Matiʿel from Sefire,” in COS, 2:216. For discussion of Aleppo as a city of refuge, see Jonas C. Greenfield, “Asylum at Aleppo: A Note on Sfire III,4–7, ” in Ah, Assyria . . . : Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor (eds. M. Cogan and I. Ephʿal; Scripta Hierosolymitana 33; Jerusalem, Magnes, 1991), 272–78. Greenfield also discusses temples as asyla in Greek and Latin sources.

12. So also Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant, 63.

13. Cf. R. Westbrook, Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Law (CahRB 26; Paris: Gabalda, 1988), 79.

14. If the person causes death with an iron, wood, or stone instrument, or his bare hand, he is a murderer and subject to capital punishment.

15. Similarly Nelson, Deuteronomy, 237–38.

16. Literally “and his hand is applied to the axe.” Cf. the use of pickaxes in the Siloam tunnel inscription in G. I. Davies, Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions: Corpus and Concordance (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991), 4.116 (p. 68).

17. Ex. 21:13, which may be translated idiomatically, “it happened as an act of God,” suggests providential involvement in the tragedy. For further discussion, see B. Dinur, “The Religious Character of the Cities of Refuge and the Ceremony of Admission into Them,” ErIsr 3 [1954]: 135–46 [Hebrew]; viii–ix [English Summary]). For a cuneiform analogue to this act of providence, see CH Š249 in Roth, Law Collections, 128.

18. For a helpful discussion of the relationships among the “asylum texts” and the judicial procedures involved in these cases, see Willis, The Elders of the City, 118–29.

19. References to Israel’s redemption from Egypt tend to prefer pādâ (7:8; 9:26; 13:5[6]; 15:15; 21:8; 24:18). This word is used to refer to “redeeming” the firstborn (Ex. 13:13–15; Num. 18:15–17) or offerings (Lev. 27).

20. The Old Testament notes six contexts that called for the intervention of a gôʾēl: (1) when hereditary property passes out of the clan (Lev. 25:25–30); (2) when a member of the clan has sold himself/herself into slavery because of poverty (25:47–55); (3) when the death of a member of the clan calls for compensation and restitution money (Num. 5:8); (4) when a member of the clan is involved in a lawsuit (Job 19:25; Ps. 119:154; Jer. 50:34); (5) when a married relative dies without having fathered a child, by marrying the deceased’s widow and providing him with a survivor (Ruth 3:13; cf. Deut. 25:5–10); (6) when a member of the clan is murdered by someone outside the clan.

21. See further the studies of the word by Robert L. Hubbard, “The gôʾēl in Ancient Israel: The Theology of an Israelite Institution,” BBR 1 (1991): 3–19; idem, “,” NIDOTTE, 1:789–94; Milgrom, Numbers, 291–92.

22. Cf. 21:1–9, where elders deal with unsolved murders. For a concrete case involving an avenger of blood, see 2 Sam. 14:4–11, though, as McConville observes (Deuteronomy, 311), the text does not identify the avenger either as a member of the victim’s family or the city of the person responsible for the death of the victim.

23. Cf. 10:12; 11:1, 13; 13:3[4]; 30:6.

24. Num. 35:16–23 dealt with intentional murderer first, followed by the case of the innocent manslayer.

25. Num. 35:27 suggests that since the murderer is guilty, if the avenger of blood finds him outside the border of the town of asylum and kills him, he does not incur bloodguilt himself.

26. This statement functions as a counterpart to Num. 35:29–34, which prohibits Israelites from avoiding the death penalty by paying a ransom for the life of the murderer.

27. Variations of the purgation formula occur in 13:5[6]; 17:7, 12; 19:13, 19; 21:9, 21; 22:21, 22, 24; 24:7. Except for our text and 21:9, in Deuteronomy the formula always involves purging “the evil” from Israel.

28. Cf. Baker, Tight Fists or Open Hands, 99–101.

29. Cf. also Josh. 21:12–13, 21, 27, 32, 38. In addition to Hebron, 1 Chron. 6:57 also names Libnah, Jattir, and Eshtemoa as towns of refuge.

30. These proverbs are reminiscent of the beginning of chapter 6 of the Egyptian Instructions of Amenemope: “Do not move the markers on the borders of the fields, nor shift the position of the measuring cord. Do not be greedy for a cubit of land, nor encroach upon the boundaries of a widow” (trans. by Miriam Lichtheim in COS, 1:117).

31. See FBI statistics at www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html (accessed March 2, 2009).

32. See www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html (accessed on March 2, 2009).

33. Though death related to negligence in maintaining a safe environment renders one culpable (cf. 22:8).

1. So also Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, 269.

2. On the legal significance of the expression “to stand before [a judge]” see Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice, 234–35. On the significance of standing before Yahweh, see Wilson, Out of the Midst of the Fire, 176–77.

3. Moses uses the simple expression “the priests” in place of the fuller expression, “the priests, who are Levites” in 17:9.

4. As in 17:9, the conjunction w^e on w^ehaššōp^et.îm is explicative. Cf. Bovati, Re-establishing Justice, 183, n. 33.

5. Cf. 17:8–9. Tigay (Deuteronomy, 184) suggests officials are located in the towns throughout the land.

6. The meaning of zāmam, “to scheme, plot,” is illuminated by Ps. 37:12; the NIV’s “as he intended” seems too weak.

7. The first law in the Sumerian Laws of Ur–Nammu (2100 BC) states, “If a man commits a homicide, they shall kill that man” (as translated by Roth, Law Collections, 17). The Laws of Hammurabi (1750 BC) extend this principle to those who through negligence cause the death of a free man (CH ŠŠ229–230; Roth, Law Collections, 229. Significant discrepancies in punishments reflect the classism of Babylonian society (CH Š231).

8. So also, Wright, Deuteronomy, 226. For further discussion of the law of talion, see Miller, Ten Commandments, 244–47.

9. So also Thompson, Deuteronomy, 218; Labuschagne, Deuteronomy, 158.

10. Augustine fancifully interpreted the three witnesses of v. 15 as a veiled reference to the Trinity: “The Trinity, in which is unending stability of truth, was revealed through a mystery. Do you want to have a good case? Have two or three witnesses, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” in Fathers of the Church: A New Translation (trans. J. W. Rettig; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Univ. of America, 1993), 88:92.

11. For a discussion of rabbinic understanding of the talion texts, see Milgrom, Leviticus 24–27, 2136–40. For a reasoned response to rabbinic interpretation, see Levine, Excursus 9, “Retaliation and Compensation in Biblical Criminal Law,” in Leviticus, 268–70.

12. See the discussion by R. Westbrook, “Lex Talionis and Exodus 21, 22–25, ” RB 93 (1986): 52–69.

13. So also Milgrom, Leviticus 24–27, 2128–33.

14. Ibid., 2131.

15. This poem is readily available on the Internet: e.g., www.bartleby.com/42/805.html (accessed September 21, 2011).

16. As in President Clinton’s comment when being interrogated for an alleged moral offense, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

1. R. Westbrook (“Riddles in Deuteronomic Law,” in Bundesdokument und Gesetz: Studien zum Deuteronomium [ed. G. Braulik; HBS 4; Freiburg: Herder, 1995], 171) treats 21:1–9 as banditry, a type of warfare.

2. In 20:1–9, fear; in 20:10–15, cruelty to civilian populations of subjugates/conquered cities; in 21:19–20, wanton destruction of nature; in 21:10–14, abuse of captive women taken as wives; in 23:9–14[10–15], casual disposition toward the sanctity of the camp; in 24:5, insensitivity to army recruits. This feature applies also to 20:16–18, which, though lacking the formal introduction, proscribes leaving alive anything that breathes. Cf. A. Rofé, “The Laws of Warfare in the Book of Deuteronomy: Their Origins, Intent and Positivity,” JSOT 32 (1985): 32.

3. A notable exception occurs in 20:16–18, which calls for the annihilation of the populations of Canaanite cities.

4. The expression used by McConville, Deuteronomy, 317.

5. Merrill, Deuteronomy, 282, 287.

6. The idiom yāsāʾ lammilḥāmâ (“to go out for the battle”) is a conventional phrase for launching a military campaign. Cf. 2:32; 3:1; 21:10; Judg. 3:10; 20:14, 20, 28; 2 Sam. 21:17; 1 Kings 8:44; 1 Chron. 7:11.

7. Compare David’s personal forces (1 Sam. 23:13; 2 Sam. 5:6–10; 15:18; 23:8–39). On the nature of armies in ancient Israel, see P. J. King and L. E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 239–45; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, vol. 1, Social Institutions (Garden City, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1961), 213–28.

8. Cf. Moses’ exhortation to the two and one-half Transjordanian tribes in 3:18–22. This picture is reinforced by the narratives of Joshua and Judges.

9. For images of horse-drawn chariots from ancient Egypt and Assyria see IBD, 1:260–62.

10. See also Ex. 14:13. Such expressions are common in threatening situations (cf. Gen 15:1; Judg. 6:23; Joel 2:21, 22) and find exact equivalents in Assyrian oracles of encouragement. See S. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies (SAA 9; Helsinki: Helsinki Univ. Press, 1997), 50.

11. According to Num. 27:21, the priests’ duties in the context of warfare included providing oracular guidance by means of the Urim and Thummim. Priests will play a prominent role in the campaign against Jericho (Josh. 6:1–21). For examples of inquiry, see Judg. 1:1–2; 20:23, 27, on which see Block, Judges, Ruth, 86–87.

12. For other speeches of Moses prescribed for use in the future, see 6:20 and 26:13.

13. Thus Weinfeld, DDS, 45–51. Cf. the orations by David (2 Sam. 10:11–12) and Hezekiah (2 Chron. 32:6–8).

14. This idiom for timidity (“a tender/soft heart”) occurs elsewhere in Isa. 7:4; Jer. 51:46. In 2 Kings 22:19 (= 2 Chron. 34:27) it bears the positive sense of a soft heart.

15. On Yahweh as a divine warrior in Deuteronomy see R. D. Nelson, “Divine Warrior Theology in Deuteronomy,” in A God So Near: Essays on Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller (eds. B. A. Strawn and N. R. Bowen; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 241–59. Nelson discusses these verses briefly on pp. 246–47, though his claim that these verses reflect the revival of national aspirations under Josiah is unconvincing.

16. See 1 Chron. 23:4; 2 Chron. 19:11; 34:13.

17. The speech segments are virtually identical in length, in Hebrew consisting of 17, 16, 16, and 14 words respectively. The modifier “new” in the first column accounts for the difference in the first three.

18. So also Baker, Tight Fists or Open Hands, 104, n. 92.

19. Thus New American Bible. Targum Jonathan reads “affixed the mezuzah [to the doorpost].” For discussions of the term, see S. C. Reif, “Dedicated to ,” VT 22 (1972): 495–501.

20. In the Piel stem the root ḥll means “to profane,” that is, “to desacralize” something by treating it as nonsacred. NIV’s rendering is doubly felicitous, since in the Hiphil stem the same root commonly bears the sense “to begin.”

21. Daughters tended to marry at the onset of puberty (about thirteen years of age) and sons a couple of years later.

22. So also G. I. Emmerson, “Women in Ancient Israel,” in The World of Ancient Israel (ed. R. E. Clements; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989), 382. The môhar was not a purchase price but a deposit delivered to the parents of the bride to promote the stability of the marriage and to strengthen the links between the families of those being married. Cf. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land, 194. According to R. Westbrook (Old Babylonian Marriage Laws, AfO Beiheft 23 [Horn: Berger, 1988], 60), the môhar was the price paid for the transfer of authority from a girl’s father to her husband. See also R. Westbrook and B. Wells, Everyday Law in Biblical Israel: An Introduction (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 56–61.

23. See further Block, “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel,” 57–58. In 24:5 Moses expands the present policy.

24. For an extrabiblical fourteenth- to thirteenth-century BC analogue, see the Epic of Kirta from Ugarit (COS, 1:334). See also Sumerian poems involving Gilgamesh, who apparently excuses all who have a family house or a mother [to care for?], leaving him with fifty single male volunteers. For the translation see A. George, The Epic of Gilgamesh: A New Translation (London: Penquin, 2003), 152; cf. also 163.

25. For a review of the literature, see W. M. de Bruin, “Die Freistellung vom Militärdienst in Deut. XX 5–7: Die Gattung der Wirkungslosigkeitsspräche als Schlüssel zum Verstehen eines alten Brauches,” VT 49 (1999): 21–26.

26. See especially the ninth-century BC bilingual inscription (Akkadian and Aramaic) of Hadad-yithʿî in COS, 2:154. On ancient Near Eastern and biblical futility curses, see Delbert R. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (Biblica et Orientalia 16; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964), 28–29.

27. Cf. McConville, Deuteronomy, 316.

28. Cf. 1 Chron. 23:4; 2 Chron. 19:11; 34:13.

29. On the idiom used in reference to its biblical and ancient Near Eastern context, see D. J. Wiseman, “ ‘Is It Peace?’—Covenant and Diplomacy,” VT 32 (1982): 311–26, esp. p. 321.

30. For discussion of the “corvée,” see G. Klingbeil, “,” NIDOTTE, 2:992–95; A. Rainey, “Compulsory Labor Gangs in Ancient Israel,” IEJ 20 (1970): 191–202.

31. On several occasions in Joshua, Israel substituted annihilation of the population with conscription into forced labor gangs (16:10; 17:13; cf. Judg. 1:28, 30, 33, 35). On use of forced-labor gangs on government projects, see 1 Sam. 8:10–18; 2 Sam. 20:24; 1 Kings 4:6; 5:14. David forced the defeated Ammonites to work for him (2 Sam. 12:31), and Solomon subjected his citizens to periodic corvée labor (1 Kings 5:13–14[27–28]; 9:15, 20–22).

32. On biblical accounts of sieges in their ancient context see K. Lawson Younger Jr., Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing (JSOTSup 98; Sheffield: JSOT, 1990).

33. On these tactics see Block, Ezekiel Chapters 1–24, 170–73.

34. Josh. 6:21 suggests the Israelites interpreted the phrase “nothing that breathes” (lit., “everything of breath”) to mean domesticated livestock (oxen, sheep, donkeys) as well as the entire human population.

35. Cf. Jacob Milgrom, “Profane Slaughter and a Formulaic Key to the Composition of Deuteronomy,” HUCA 47 (1976): 11–12.

36. Thus Tigay, Deuteronomy, 190.

37. Thus R. Nelson, “Ḥērem and the Deuteronomic Social Conscience,” in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans (ed. M. Vervenne and J. Lust; BETL 133; Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press/Peeters, 1997), 54.

38. Thus Rofé, “Laws of Warfare in Deuteronomy,” 36, who therefore dates the oldest stratum of the Deuteronomic war laws (24:5; 23:10–14[11–15]; 20:10–14, 19–20) to the middle of the monarchic period, to which a religious zealot and extremist redactor added 20:15–18 in the Josianic era.

39. The dates for the addition of vv. 15–18 vary from the eighth to seventh centuries (M. Weinfeld, “The Ban on the Canaanites in the Biblical Codes and Its Historical Development,” in History and Traditions of Early Israel: Studies Presented to Eduard Nielsen [ed. A. Lemaire and B. Otzen; VTSup 50; Leiden: Brill, 1993], 142–60), to the time of Josiah (Rofé, “Laws of Warfare in Deuteronomy,” 36), to the exile (E. Otto, “Krieg und Religion im Alten Orient und im alten Israel,” in Contimuum und Proprium [Orientalia biblica und christiana 8; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996], 57–58), and the postexilic period (Y. Hoffman, “The Deuteronomistic Concept of the Herem,” ZAW 111 [1999]: 196–210).

40. So also D. H. Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), 45.

41. These instructions continue the humanitarian train of thought of vv. 10–14, but that has been interrupted by vv. 15–18. Cf. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 247.

42. So also Michael G. Hasel, “The Destruction of Trees in the Moabite Campaign of 2 Kings 3:4–7: A Study in the Laws of Warfare,” AUSS 40 (2002): 205.

43. See S. Cole, “The Destruction of Orchards in Assyrian Warfare,” in Assyria 1995 (ed. S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting; Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 7–11; Helsinki: Helsinki Univ. Press, 1997), 29–40.

44. These works would include battering rams, ladders, and ramps. On the use of wooden beams and branches in the upper layers of a ramp to improve traction or prevent sinking into the mud of a ramp in later Assyrian siege practices see I. Ephʿal, “The Assyrian Siege Ramp at Lachish: Military and Lexical Aspects,” Tel Aviv 11 (1984): 65.

45. Thus Ephʿal, ibid., 23.

46. Similarly N. Wazana, “Are Trees of the Field Human? A Biblical War Law (Deuteronomy 20:19–20) and Neo-Assyrian Propaganda,” in Treasures on Camels’ Humps: Historical and Literary Studies from the Ancient Near East Presented to Israel Ephʿal (ed. M. Cogan and D. Kahn; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2008), 279–81.

47. So also ibid., 278–79. However, Wazana mistakenly views this policy as a response to Assyrian military tactics that connected the fate of the enemy with the fate of the trees.

48. So also V. Philips Long in I. Provan, V. P. Long and T. Longman III, A Biblical History of Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 140, 154, 173. To this list should be added the Danites’ [illegitimate] burning of Laish in Judg. 18:27.

49. For a survey of the use of of ḥērem in the latter prophets see M. Fretz, “Ḥērem in the Old Testament,” in Essays on War and Peace: Bible and Early Church (ed. W. M. Swartley; Occasional Papers 9; Elkhart, IN: Institute of Mennonite Studies, 1986), 18–20.

50. See Hyung Dae Park, Finding Herem? A Study of Luke-Acts in the Light of Herem (LNTS; London: T&T Clark, 2007).

51. Mark 14:71 (Peter employs the verb in committing himself to ḥērem if he denies Jesus); Rom. 9:3 (Paul offers to give himself up as ḥērem if this would mean the salvation of his own people); 1 Cor. 12:3 (no inspired person says “May Jesus be devoted as ḥērem”); 1 Cor. 16:22 (“May those who do not love the Lord be devoted to ḥērem); Gal. 1:8–9 (à la Deut. 13:12–17[13–18], Paul commits anyone who preaches another gospel to ḥērem).

52. In Ex. 23:23–33, 34:11–16, and Num. 33:51–55 Yahweh prescribes the action himself. Here we here the voice of his spokesman Moses.

53. See Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament III, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (ed. J. T. Leinhard; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 286.

54. According to C. S. Cowles, the Old Testament texts of holy war are “pre-Christ, sub-Christ, and anti-Christ.” See “The Case for Radical Discontinuity,” in Show Them No Mercy: Four Views on God and Canaanite Genocide (Stan Gundry, gen. ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 36.

55. For a similar perspective, see Christopher J. H. Wright, The God I Don’t Understand: Reflections on Tough Questions of Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 76–108. For fuller discussion of the issues involved, see the essays in Show Them No Mercy.

56. See comments on 7:2; see Del Monte, “The Hittite Ḥērem,” 21–45.

57. See K. A. Smelik in COS, 2:138. Cf. L. A. S. Monroe, “Israelite, Moabite and Sabaean War-Herem Traditions and the Forging of National Identity: Reconsidering the Sabaean Text RES 3945 in Light of Biblical and Moabite Evidence,” VT 57 (2007): 318–41.

58. Cf. H. Eberhard von Waldow, “The Concept of War in the Old Testament,” HBT 6/2 (1984): 34.

59. This probably accounts for David’s repeated queries regarding the will of Yahweh regarding the Philistines in 2 Sam. 5:17–25.

60. So also Fretz, “Ḥērem in the Old Testament,” 15.

61. For eloquent expression of peace as the fundamental policy of Christians, see the many writings of J. H. Yoder, such as The Politics of Jesus (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994).

1. C. M. Carmichael, “A Common Element in Five Supposedly Disparate Laws,” VT 29 (1979): 129–42.

2.

3. The form of the land grant formula found in 21:1 occurs elsewhere only in 19:2 and 19:14; the expression “the blood of an innocent man” (21:8) recalls 19:10 and 13; and 21:9, like 19:1–13, concludes with the purgation formula.

4. Idolater in 17:2; adulterer in 22:22; kidnapper in 24:7. See further, S. Dempster, “The Deuteronomic Formula kî yimmāṣēʾ in the Light of Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Law,” RB 91 (1984): 188–211.

5. A. Phillips (“Another Look at Murder,” JJS 28 [1977]: 124–25) observes that the text shows no interest in the victim or his family, or in compensation for the loss of life.

6. As in the case of the avenger of blood in 19:12.

7. Verse 6 requires the involvement of all the elders of the town, not a representative group.

8. Cattle were used for plowing fields (1 Kings 19:19), treading grain to thresh it (Deut. 25:4), and pulling wagons/carts to transport goods (1 Sam. 6:8–17). Numbers 19:2 also requires that the sacrificial red cow never have worn a yoke.

9. Carmichael (“Five Supposedly Disparate Laws,” 131, n. 2) argues the wadi is “eminently cultivable,” contra McConville (Deuteronomy, 328), who sees the wadi as rocky and unsuitable for cultivation.

10. On which see G. Brin, “The Firstling of Unclean Animals,” JQR 68 (1977/78): 12–14.

11. For a survey of scholarly opinions, see Wright, “Deuteronomy 21:1–9, ” 390–93; Z. Zevit, “The ʿeglâ Ritual of Deuteronomy 21:1–9, ” JBL 95 (1976): 377–90.

12. This form of killing is prescribed elsewhere for animals unsuitable for sacrifice.

13. Von Rad, Deuteronomy, 136.

14. Driver, Deuteronomy, 141–42.

15. The text does not suggest the murderer is off the hook. Numbers 35:33 explicitly declares that expiation for murder can only be achieved through the execution of the murderer himself. Cf. m. Sot. 9:7; b. Ket. 37b. Cf. J. Milgrom, “ʿEglah ʿArufah,” EncJud (2nd ed.), 6:220–21.

16. This is captured by ESV’s “They shall testify,” but missed by NIV’s “declare.”

17. As in 19:10 (cf. 27:25) the idiom “to shed blood” is a euphemism for murder, but it also implies that the ground has received the blood of an innocent man and screams for a response from God (cf. Gen. 4:10–11).

18. For a twelfth-century BC analogue from Ugarit concerning a man who was murdered in the city of Arzigana, see J. Nougayrol et al. Ugaritica 5 (1968) (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale and Librarie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner): 95, 97, ll. 45–50. Cf. the discussion by Westbrook, “Lex Talionis,” 64–65.

19. The verb recurs in 21:8a, 8b; 32:43. Usually the Piel form means “to atone, make atonement,” or “to expiate.”

20. Cf. 2 Chron. 30:18–19; Pss. 65:3[4]; 78:38; 79:9; Jer. 18:23; Ezek. 16:63.

21. The verb “to redeem, ransom” (pādâ) from slavery also occurs in 7:8; 9:26; 13:5[6]; 15:15; 24:18.

22. The idiom “to put innocent blood in the midst of” presents the blood of slain victims as the lens through which Yahweh looks upon the people. The expression occurs only here in the Old Testament (cf. 19:10 and 22:8).

23. The expression, “the priests, the sons of Levi” occurs elsewhere only in 31:9.

24. See L. I. Rabinowitz, “ʿEglah ʿArufah,” EncJud (2nd ed.), 6:221.

25. Cf. Brown, Deuteronomy, 204.

1. Deut. 20:1–9, 10–15, 16–18, 19–20; 21:10–14; 23:9–14[10–15]; 24:5.

2. On ʿinnâ, meaning to “debase” rather than “rape” or “commit sexual abuse,” see E. van Wolde, “Does ʿinnâ Denote Rape? A Semantic Analysis of a Controversial Word,” VT 52 (2002): 528–44.

3. The warrior’s treatment of the woman is summarized with six verbs: (lit.) “you go out,” “and you take captives,” “and you see,” “and you love,” “and you take,” “and you bring.”

4. For discussion and bibliography of the abuse of women in ancient warfare, see Rebekah L. Josberger, “Between Rule and Responsibility: The Role of the ʾAB as Agent of Righteousness in Deuteronomy’s Domestic Ideology” (Ph.D. dissertation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, 2007), 41–42.

5. The word ḥāšaq was used earlier to describe Yahweh’s attachment to Israel (7:7; 10:15).

6. On “to take as a wife” (lāqaḥ l^eʾiššâ), see DCH, 4:573; Block, “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel,” 46–47.

7. To the rabbis these acts were intended to make her unattractive to the man, so he would rethink his desire to marry this pagan woman. For references see Tigay, Deuteronomy, 194, 381–82.

8. Carolyn Pressler, The View of Women Found in the Deuternomic Family Laws (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1993), 12.

9. Compare the healed lepers who signify their new status with new clothes (Lev. 14, esp. v. 8), or Gen. 35:2, where the change seems to signify a shift in spiritual allegiance. On the symbolic significance of clothing, see M. E. Vogelzang and W. J. van Bekkum, “Meaning and Symbolism of Clothing in Ancient Near Eastern Texts,” in Scripta Signa Vocis: Studies about Scripts, Scriptures, Scribes and Languages in the Near East Presented to J. H. Hospers by His Pupils, Colleagues and Friends (ed. H. L. J. Vanstiphout; Groningen: Forsten, 1986), 265–84.

10. On thirty days as the normal period of mourning, see Num. 20:29; Deut. 34:8. For discussion of her mourning, see Calum Carmichael, The Spirit of Biblical Law (Athens, GA: Univ. of Georgia Press, 1996), 135.

11. On “to go in to her,” as an idiom for sexual intercourse, see Block, “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel,” 46.

12. Perhaps jealousy of the primary wife or resentment at having mothered the man’s “firstborn” (cf. Abraham and Sarah’s response to Hagar in Gen. 16 and 21).

13. “Let her go” (Heb. šillaḥ) is used elsewhere of releasing slaves (15:12) and divorce (22:19, 29). So also Mal. 2:16, on which see G. P. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as Developed from Malachi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 72–73.

14. Babylonian marriage documents from the seventh to third centuries speak repeatedly of a released woman being free to “go back to her parental home,” or “to her home,” or “wherever she wishes.” See M. T. Roth, Babylonian Marriage Agreements: 7th–3rd Centuries B.C. (AOAT 222; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989), ŠŠ2, 4, 5, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 26, 30. For discussion of these texts see D. Instone-Brewer, “Deuteronomy 24:1–4 and the Origin of the Jewish Divorce Certificate,” JJS 49 (1998): 230–43.

15. HALOT, 2:849.

16. So also Josberger, “Between Rule and Responsibility,” 68–70.

17. The differences in his disposition are expressed by the antonyms “to love” and “to hate,” which punctuate the passage (vv. 15a, 15b, 16b). The latter term need not be interpreted as “hatred, antipathy toward.” As in Mal. 1:2–3, it may mean simply “to be indifferent toward, to neglect, or disregard.”

18. Israel’s status as Yahweh’s b^ekôr (Ex. 4:22) refers to their place among the nations (cf. Deut. 26:18–19), not their antiquity. On the status of the b^ekôr, see further F. E. Greenspahn, When Brothers Dwell Together: The Preeminence of Younger Siblings in the Hebrew Bible (New York/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1994), 19, 27, 61–62; Block, “Marriage and Family,” 82–85.

19. See Gen. 48:13–20; 49:3–4.

20. Similarly Wright, Deuteronomy, 238.

21. Hayim Granot (“Darshanut: The Defiant Son,” JBQ 26 [1998]: 129–30) suggests the Israelite wife pampered her son to ensure his devotion when forced to share her husband with the new war bride.

22. Tanakh follows longstanding rabbinic tradition in translating the term “to flog,” in both instances. Cf. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 197; J. Fleischman, “Legal Innovation in Deuteronomy XXI 18–20, ” VT 53 (2003): 313. For the ancient disposition toward physical discipline, see Prov. 23:13–14; also 13:24; 29:15.

23. For discussion of the elevated status of wives and mothers in Israel, see Block, “Marriage and Family,” 61–69.

24. Fleischman (“Deuteronomy XXI 18–20, ” 323–27) argues that in refusing to heed his parents’ efforts to change his “wayward and defiant” behavior, he denies their authority.

25. For a sociological analysis of the significance of the son’s profligate behavior see A. C. Hagedorn, “Guarding the Parent’s Honour—Deuteronomy 21.18–21, ” JSOT 88 (2000): 101–21.

26. Cf. 13:5 [6]; 17:7, 12; 19:13, 19; 21:9; 22:21, 22, 24; 24:7.

27. Technically, ʿēṣ may refer to a tree or a piece of wood. In the latter case, it would mean impaling on a stake, a common practice in ancient Assyria. See M. Greenberg, “Hanging,” IDB, 1:522; ANET, 276, 288, 295, 300.

28. Gen. 40:19, 22; Josh. 8:23, 29; 10:26; 2 Sam 4:12; 21:12. For discussion, see J. A. Fitzmyer, “Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament,” CBQ 40 (1978): 493–513.

29. Cf. Gen. 40:19; MAL Š53.

30. For discussion of the texts supporting this interpretation see Moshe J. Bernstein, “qllt ʾlhym tlwy (Deut. 21:23): A Study in Early Jewish Exegesis,” JQR 74 (1983): 25–37.

31. The LXX reads “for cursed by God is everyone hanged on a tree.” The NIV follows LXX in adding “on a tree.”

32. This interpretation is reflected also in Targum Neofiti, as well as the Temple Scroll from Qumran. For discussion of these subjective genitive texts see Bernstein, “Early Jewish Exegesis,” 24–25.

33. On differences between Jewish and Christian interpretation, see J. M. Lieu, “Reading in Canon and Community: Deuteronomy 21.22–23, A Test Case for Dialogue,” in The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson (ed. M. Daniel Carroll R. et al.; JSOTSup 200; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 317–34.

34. Remarkably the closest illustrations involve Abraham, who sent away his slave wife Hagar (Gen. 21:8–14) and Ezra’s commanding the Jews of postexilic Jerusalem to put away their foreign wives (Ezra 10). In both cases God approves the action, presumably as the lesser of two evils.

35. For full discussion see Daniel I. Block, “ ‘You Shall Not Covet Your Neighbor’s Wife’: A Study in Deuteronomic Domestic Ideology,” in The Gospel According to Moses, 137–68.

36. Thus Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 318; idem, DDS, 282–92.

37. See also 21:15–21; 22:13–21, 23–29; 24:1–4; 25:5–10. For detailed analysis of these texts, see Josberger, “Between Rule and Responsibility.”

38. Though men exhibit a troublesome propensity to twist benign patricentrism into abusive patriarchalism. See Daniel I. Block, “Unspeakable Crimes: The Abuse of Women in the Book of Judges,” SBTJ 2 (1998): 46–55.

39. Lamech (Gen. 4:23), Abraham (Gen. 16; 25:1–2); Jacob (Gen. 30); Esau (Gen. 26:34; 28:9; 36:1–5); Gideon (Judg. 8:30–31); Elkanah (1 Sam. 1:2); David (1 Sam. 18:17–30; 25:38–43; 2 Sam. 3:2–5); Solomon (1 Kings 3:1; 11:3; Song 6:8); Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11:21). Elkanah was the only commoner mentioned to have had more than one wife.

40. Second Samuel 14–15 recounts Absalom’s revolt against his father, David, to which David responds with remarkable magnanimity. Since this is a case of palace intrigue, it differs significantly from the domestic scene envisioned in Deut. 21:18–21.

41. On failed parental discipline, see P. R. Callaway, “Deut. 21:18–21: Proverbial Wisdom and Law,” JBL 103 (1984): 341–52.

42. See G. A. Yee, “Hosea,” in The Women’s Bible Commentary (exp. ed.; ed. C. A. Newsom and S. H. Ringe; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 212–13.

43. As translated by F. Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 1287. For discussion of this text see Otto Betz, “The Temple Scroll (11Qmiqd 64, 7–13) and the Trial of Jesus,” in Mogilany 1989: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Jean Carmignac (ed. Z. J. Kapera; Krakow: Enigma, 1993), Part I, 101–4. Cf. also the allusion to Deut. 21:22–23 in the Qumran Pesher Nahum (4QpNah [4Q169]) 1.7–8. The report of Alexander Janneus’ crucifixion of 800 rebels in 90 BC mentions “one hanged alive from the tree” (Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 337; cf. Josephus, Ant. 13.14.2).

44. See also John 19:31, which adds a new dimension/concern for the sanctity of the Sabbath. For a discussion of these and other New Testament allusions to Deut. 21:22–23 see M. Wilcox, “ ‘Upon the Tree’—Deut. 21:22–23 in the New Testament,” JBL 96 (1977): 90–94.

45. So also Merrill, Deuteronomy, 291. The subject will be discussed in greater detail below on 24:1–4.

46. See http://articles.latimes.com/1999/mar/20/news/mn–19133 (accessed March 8, 2009).

47. See N. Scruggs, “Somalia,” in International Perspectives on Family Violence and Abuse (ed. Kathleen Malley-Morrison; New York: Routledge, 2004), 225.

48. See President Barack Obama’s reference to Deuteronomy in his address, “Call to Renewal,” at the Call to Renewal: A Covenant for a New America conference, June 28, 2006. Available at http://obamaspeeches.com/081-Call_to_Renewal_Keynote_Address.obama-speech.htm (accessed November 1, 2011). Martin Luther interpreted the text allegorically, seeing the son as a teacher in the church, born through the Word, but later corrupted by false teachings. See Luther’s Works, vol. 9, Lectures on Deuteronomy (St. Louis: Concordia, 1960), 215.

49. See Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible (Nashville: Nelson, 1997), s.v. Deuteronomy 21:18–21: “His own father and mother must complain of him to the elders of the city. Children who forget their duty, must thank themselves, and not blame their parents, if they are regarded with less and less affection. He must be publicly stoned to death by the men of his city. Disobedience to a parent’s authority must be very evil, when such a punishment was ordered; nor is it less provoking to God now, though it escapes punishment in this world.”

50. The Decalogue (Ex. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21), the “Book of the Covenant” (Ex. 20:22–23:19), the “Instructions on Holiness” (Lev. 17–26).

51. (1) The law does not punish except after a warning (e.g., Lev. 19:26), but this text contains no warning (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, “Rebels,” Ch. 7); (2) there never has been and never will be a son who fits the definition of a “stubborn and rebellious son” (t. Sanhedrin 11:6); (3) the word bēn does not apply to a girl or a boy who is not yet bar mitzwa; (4) the expression “his father and mother” demands not only that both parents are living, but also that they are without physical defect, even the same height; (5) the parents have to be agreed, and the mother has to be worthy of the father (m. Sanhedrin, ch. 8), which means it could never be applied. See the popular commentary by Rabbi Joyce Newmark, “Sparing a Rebellious Son: Ki Tetze Deuteronomy 21:10–25:19, ” New Jersey Jewish News, September 11, 2008, available at www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/091108/torahSparingTheRebelliousSon.html. See also b. Sanhedrin 71a and 72a on Deut. 21:18–21.

52. As cited by Brown, Deuteronomy, 210.

53. From the title of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s book, It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us (New York: Touchstone, 1996). But note the pedocentric implications of the title.

54. “The curse of the law” should not be misinterpreted as if the law itself was the curse any more than “the curse of God” in Deut. 21:23 declares that God himself is a curse.

55. For discussions of this text see Wilcox, “ ‘Upon the Tree,’ ” 95–99; A. Caneday, “ ‘Redeemed from the Curse of the Law’: The Use of Deut. 21:22–23 in Gal. 3:13, ” TJ 10 (1989): 185–209.

1. The first is an adaptation of Ex. 23:4; the second of Ex. 23:5.

2. Tigay (Deuteronomy, 199) rightly notes that Deuteronomy commonly anticipates psychological reactions (cf. 15:9, 18), reinforcing our contention that in the book Moses functions primarily as preacher rather than as lawgiver.

3. “Your brother” occurs five times in vv. 1–4. Ex. 23:4 calls for this kind of kindness toward one’s enemy.

4. The Decalogic requirement to include draft animals in the seventh-day Sabbath rest reflects the same sensitivity to the well-being of domestic animals. On the Deuteronomic disposition toward domestic animals, see D. I. Block, “All Creatures Great and Small: Recovering a Deuteronomic Theology of Animals,” in The Old Testament in the Life of God’s People: Essays in Honor of Elmer A. Martens (ed. J. Isaak; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 292–95, reprinted in The Gospel According to Moses, forthcoming.

5. Hebrew lit., “You shall gather it to the midst of your house, and it shall be with you.” In multistory houses, the animals occupied the ground floor; otherwise their quarters would be off to one side (cf. 1 Sam. 28:24). On domestic architecture in ancient Israel see King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, 21–35.

6. For these and other meanings and relevant references, see DCH, 4:420–24.

7. HALOT, 1337.

8. This expression occurs elsewhere in 7:25; 12:31; 17:1; 18:12; 23:18[19]; 25:16; 27:15, generally referring to actions or objects that are incompatible with the worship of Yahweh and are abhorrent to him.

9. So also P. J. Harland, “Menswear and Womenswear: A Study of Deuteronomy 22:5, ” ExpTim 110 (1998): 74–75.

10. For a study of the problem of cross-dressing in Israel, see N. S. Fox, “Gender Transformation and Transgression: Contextualizing the Prohibition of Cross-Dressing in Deuteronomy 22:5, ” in Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay (ed. N. S. Fox, D. A. Glat-Gilad, and M. J. Williams (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 49–71.

11. For texts calling for sympathy toward domestic animals, see Ex. 34:26; Lev. 22:27–28; Deut. 14:21.

12. Cf. Oded Borowski, Every Living Thing: Daily Use of Animals in Ancient Israel (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira, 1998), 152.

13. See further, Daniel I. Block, “To Serve and to Keep: Toward a Biblical Understanding of Humanity’s Responsibility in the Face of the Biodiversity Crisis,” in Keeping God’s Earth: The Global Environment in Biblical Perspective (ed. N. J. Toly and D. I. Block; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010), 116–42.

14. Dry and store grains (Josh. 2:6), sleep (1 Sam. 9:25–26), socialize (Judg. 16:27), relax (2 Sam. 11:2; cf. Dan. 4:29), accommodate guests, or engage in other activity (2 Sam. 16:22; 2 Kings 4:10; Neh. 8:16).

15. Similarly, Ex. 21:33–34 holds anyone who leaves a pit unbarricaded responsible for the loss of animals that might fall into it. For analogous Old Babylonian cases involving responsibility for those “under their roofs” see CH ŠŠ229–230.

16. On the priority of the Instructions on Holiness, see Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 58–63; J. Milgrom, “Law and Narrative and the Exegesis of Leviticus xix 19, ” VT 46 (1996): 544–48, contra C. M. Carmichael, “Forbidden Mixtures in Deuteronomy xxii 9–11 and Leviticus xix 19, ” VT 45 (1995): 433–48.

17. Cf. HALOT, 1073. This is the only occurrence of the Qal form of the verb in Deuteronomy. H.-P. Müller (“,” TLOT, 3:1105) rightly treats the Qal, which is normally stative, ingressively, “to become holy.”

18. NIV “will be defiled” suggests ṭāmēʾ (“to be unclean/defiled,” cf. 21:23) as the underlying Hebrew expression, when the antonym qādās (“to be holy/sanctified”) is used. Hebrew words may be used with opposite meanings (cf. J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001], 173–77), but here the normal sense is preferred. Many English versions read “forfeited” (ESV, NRSV, NLT, NJPS).

19. See J. Milgrom, “Law and Narrative and the Exegesis of Leviticus xix 19, ” 546; idem, Leviticus 1–16, 548–49.

20. This probably underlies Paul’s injunction in 2 Cor. 6:14–15.

21. Ex. 26:1, 31, 36; 27:16; 36:8, 35, 37; 38:18. “Wool” (ṣemer) is missing in these texts, but since the ancients had developed technology to dye only wool, the most common textile available, the blue, scarlet, and purple yarns prescribed here were probably spun from wool. Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 549; P. P. Jensen, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (JSOTSup 106; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992), 86.

22. Ex. 28:5–6, 8, 15; 39:1–3, 5; 8. On the Day of Atonement the High Priest wore only linen (Lev. 16:4, 23, 32).

23. Thus C. Houtman, “Another Look at Forbidden Mixtures,” VT 34 (1984): 226–28; cf. M. Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980), 53.

24. Cf. M. E. Vogelzang and W. J. van Bekkum (“Meaning and Symbolism of Clothing in Ancient Near Eastern Texts,” in Scripta Signa Vocis: Studies about Scripts, Scriptures, Scribes and Languages in the Near East Presented to J. H. Hospers by His Pupils, Colleagues and Friends [ed. H. L. J. Vanstiphout; Groningen: E. Forsten, 1986], 277): “The tassels inevitably became the strongest means for reminding Israel of its own characteristic position between the peoples of the world.”

25. Cf. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, 151.

26. See further, Richard Bauckham, “Jesus and Animals I: What Did He Teach?” in Animals on the Agenda: Questions about Animals for Theology and Ethics (ed. Andrew Linzey and Dorothy Yamamoto; London: SCM, 1998), 33–48; idem, “Jesus and Animals II: What Did He Practise?” 49–60.

27. For detailed discussion of these issues, see Block, “To Serve and to Keep,” 116–42.

28. CH ŠŠ229–30.

1. For extrabiblical counterparts to this double case form, see Roth, Law Collections, 108–9, 174–75. On the relationship of 22:13–21 to ancient Near Eastern laws, see Willis, Elders of the City, 193–206.

2. While śānēʾ (“to hate, reject”) may be a technical expression for divorce (Judg. 15:2), since Deuteronomy refers to divorce with šillaḥ (“to send [from one’s house],” 22:19, 29; 24:1, 3), here śānēʾ refers to the motivation behind the rejection. So also Pressler, View of Women, 23, n. 4. Cf. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, 51–76.

3. Cf. Driver, Deuteronomy, 254. NIV translates, he “slanders her and gives her a bad name.”

4. The expression b^etûlîm (“virginity”) derives from b^etûlâ (traditionally understood as “virgin”) though some now argue that the word means “young girl of marriageable age.” See G. J. Wenham, “B^etûlāh: ‘A Girl of Marriageable Age,’ ” VT 22 (1972): 326–48. For a critical evaluation of Wenham, see Pressler, View of Women, 25–26.

5. See A. Phillips, Deuteronomy (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973), 149; idem, “Another Look at Adultery,” JSOT 20 (1981): 6–7; Pressler, View of Women, 22–27; Willis, Elders of the City, 224–25.

6. Cf. the use of material objects as evidence in Gen. 38:25 (a seal, belt, and staff); Ex. 22:13[12]. (animal remains); Gen. 37:31–33 (a tunic stained with blood); 1 Sam. 26:16 (a spear and jug of water).

7. Deut. 24:10–13 and Ex. 22:26–27[25–26] suggest it was also used for sleeping.

8. To this day in Mediterranean and Arabic lands the sheet used when consummating a marriage is often kept as evidence.

9. Verse 29 suggests the fine was double the fifty shekels paid for a virgin daughter. Cf. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 205.

10. On the place of shame in ancient Israelite law, see V. H. Matthews, “Honor and Shame in Gender-Related Legal Situations in the Hebrew Bible,” in Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible (ed. V. H. Matthews et al.; JSOTSup; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 237–42.

11. For extrabiblical support for executing criminals where a crime was committed, see CH Š21.

12. Cf. A. Phillips, “Another Look at Adultery,” JSOT 20 (1981): 10.

13. In the previous pericope (22:15, 16, 19, 20, 21) the expression applied to a married woman.

14. On the meaning of this expression see comment on 22:15.

15. The apparently consensual nature of the sexual acts reinforces the notion that in juridical contexts the word does not denote “rape,” but serves an evaluative function, best expressed by “debased” (cf. van Wolde, “Does ʿinnâ Denote Rape?” 528–44).

16. In contrast to vv. 23, 25 and 27, which refer to someone who is “pledged to be married.” Since this virgin has never been betrothed, her father has not received the bride price due him. See further D. H. Weiss, “A Note on ,” JBL 81 (1982): 67–69.

17. For analogues to this text, see the Middle Assyrian Laws ŠŠ55–56 (Roth, Law Collections, 174–75).

18. The Hebrew Bible links it with the prohibition of various classes of people from the assembly of Yahweh.

19. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land, 208–9; A. Phillips, “Uncovering the Father’s Skirt,” VT 30 (1980): 38–43.

20. According to M. T. Roth (“Age at Marriage and the Household: A Study of Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian Forms,” in Comparative Studies in Society and History 29 [1987]: 715–47), brides tended to be in their mid- to late-teens at the time of marriage, while husbands were in their late twenties or early thirties.

21. Cf. W. Dommershausen, “ kānāp,” TDOT, 7:231.

22. See further, A. Berlin, “Sex and the Single Girl in Deuteronomy 22, ” in Mishneh Todah, 95–112.

23. Lev. 19:29; 21:7, 14; Deut. 23:17[18].

24. Cf. Ezek. 5:5–9; 16:48–52. Judah recognized that Tamar’s righteousness exceeded his own (Gen. 38:26).

25. Note Joseph’s response to Potiphar’s wife in Gen. 39:9: “How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?”

26. On the problem of adultery in the northern kingdom prior to its demise in the eighth century BC, see Hos. 2:2[4]; 4:2, 13–14; on adultery in Judah prior to its demise in the seventh–sixth centuries, see Jer. 3:9; 5:7; 7:9; 23:14; 29:23; Ezek. 16:38; 23:37, 43. Adultery is used metaphorically of Israel’s pursuit of other gods in place of her husband, Yahweh.

27. Rom. 13:13; 1 Cor. 5:1, 9–11; 6:9, 13, 18; 7:2; 10:8; 2 Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3, 5; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; 1 Tim. 1:10; Heb. 13:4; James 4:4; 2 Peter 2:14; Jude 1:7.

28. Rev. 2:14, 20–22; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2, 4; 18:3, 9; 19:2; 21:8; 22:15.

29. Prov. 2:17 refers to marriage as the “covenant of [one’s] God.”

30. For all the exegetical merit of Carolyn Pressler’s work, her contention that these laws only protected the rights of males and reinforced the status of females as their husband’s possession is overstated (View of Women, 42–43).

31. See the genealogies in Gen. 5; 10; 36; etc.

32. For discussion see R. Patai, Family, Love and the Bible (London: Macgibbon & Kee, 1960), 17–18.

33. Interpreters rightly characterize as abusive Abraham’s passing off his wife Sarah as his sister to save his own skin (Gen. 12:10–20), Lot’s offering his two daughters to the thugs of Sodom (Gen. 19:8), Jephthah’s sacrificing his daughter (Judg. 11:34–40), the Israelite men’s authorizing the remnant of Benjamite warriors to ambush and seize their daughters as they are engaged in celebrative religious dance (Judg. 21:19–24), David’s committing adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband (2 Sam. 11:1–27), Amnon’s raping his half-sister Tamar (2 Sam. 13:1–19)—to name just a few episodes recounted in Scripture. For keen analysis of some of these troubling texts see P. Trible, Texts of Terror: Literary Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984).

34. Hence the instructions for the king in 17:14–20, on which see Block, “The Burden of Leadership,” in How I Love Your Torah, O LORD! 118–39. For discussion of leadership in the Old Testament see Block, “Leadership, Lead,” NIDB, 3:620–26.

35. For a preliminary essay on the subject, see Block, “ ‘You Shall Not Covet Your Neighbor’s Wife,’ ” in The Gospel According to Moses, 137–68; for a fuller investigation of the matter, see Josberger, “Between Rule and Responsibility.”

36. The communal significance of adultery in Israel contrasts with ancient Mesopotamia, where, according to J. J. Finkelstein (“Sex Offenses in Sumerian Laws,” JAOS 86 [1966]: 372) adultery “was at bottom a civil invasion of a husband’s domain, and it was left to him to take as serious or as lenient a view of the matter as he chose; in practice the inclination was toward the less severe.”

1. Because of differences in the location of the chapter division, the verse numbers in Hebrew are all one higher than the English numbers. For the sake of convenience, the commentary will use only the English numbers.

2. According to Mesopotamian castration procedures, the testicles of boys destined for “eunuchship” would be crushed shortly before they reached puberty. See K. Deller, “The Assyrian Eunuchs and Their Predecessors,” in Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East (ed. K. Watanabe; Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1999), 305.

3. This second expression refers to one whose penis has been cut off. Cutting off the penis involved more radical surgery than crushing or removing testicles, and seems to have been intended to change a person’s gender. See Erra and Ishum, 4.55–56, as translated by S. Dalley, COS, 1:113 (p. 413). Some are more cautious about interpreting these as eunuchs. Cf. CAD, A/2:341–42 (s.v., assinnu) and CAD, K:557–9 (s.v., kurgarrû).

4. Cf. Herodotus, Histories 6.32.

5. MAL ŠŠ15, 20.

6. See S. Ribichini, “Eshmun,” DDD, 307–8. In Assyria, eunuchs could not become priests; as musicians and singers they occasionally participated in religious ceremonies. Thus also Deller, “The Assyrian Eunuchs,” 303.

7. Cf. P. Bird, “The Place of Women in the Israelite Cultus,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. P. D. Miller et al.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 397–419.

8. Cf. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 211.

9. Deut. 7:6; 14:1; 26:19. Cf. Merrill, Deuteronomy, 308.

10. Tigay (Deuteronomy, 211) suggests “the tenth generation” refers to ten generations after the head of this family entered the land of Israel as a gēr (“sojourner”).

11. As in Numbers 22:5, Moses introduces the prophet by name (Balaam), patronymic (“son of Beor”), home town (“Pethor”), ethnic affiliation (“Aram”), and geographic region (Naharaim—“of the two rivers,” i.e., Euphrates and the Tigris).

12. Similar to the ban on covenants with the Canaanite nations in 7:2. The words occur as parallel elements in the Aramaic Sefire treaty. See W. L. Moran, “Notes on the Treaty Terminology of the Sefire Stelas,” JNES 22 (1963): 173–76; D. R. Hillers, “A Note on Some Treaty Terminology in the Old Testament,” BASOR 176 (1964): 46–47.

13. The motif of the brotherly relationship existing between Israel and Edom may be traced throughout the Old Testament, but see especially prophetic condemnation of Edom for stifling natural family affections, and refusing to aid the Israelites in an hour of need (Amos 1:11; Obad. 10–12; cf. also Ps. 137).

14. On this more positive dimension to Israel’s Egyptian experience, see M. Cogan, “The Other Egypt: A Welcome Asylum,” in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. M. V. Fox et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 65–70.

15. On which see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 903–1009. In light of more comprehensive texts elsewhere (Lev. 15:1–33; Num. 5:1–4), these instructions regarding defilement in the camp should be viewed as representative.

16. Cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 967–74; idem, “First Day Ablutions in Qumran,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 1–21 March, 1991 (ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. V. Montaner; STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 561–70.

17. But note Ezekiel’s horror at defiling food entering his mouth (Ezek. 4:12–15).

18. As in Num. 2:17, Jer. 6:3, and Ezek. 21:19[24], here it refers to a signpost marking or pointing to the place.

19. The instructions here are remarkably explicit. “When you squat you must dig [a hole] with it; then turn around and cover your excrement” (pers. trans.).

20. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 214; Nelson, Deuteronomy, 276.

21. Cf. Gen. 3:8, Yahweh Elohim was “walking in the garden”; 2 Sam. 7:6, “I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling.”

22. On later use of Deut. 23:3–8, see Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 123–29; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 477–80.

23. Ruth 1:4, 22; 2:2, 6, 21; 4:5, 10.

24. The expression “woman of nobility” (ʾēšet ḥayil) occurs only in Prov. 31:10–31 and Ruth 3:11.

25. Judging by the dialogue, the center of gravity in the book lies with Boaz, and even Naomi figures more prominently than Ruth. On the book of Ruth as a critical homily on Deuteronomy 23–25, see G. Braulik, “The Book of Ruth as Intra-Biblical Critique of the Deuteronomic Law,” Acta Theologica 19 (1999): 1–20.

26. On the relevance of this text for the Arab-Israeli conflict see Z. W. Falk, “A Peace of Compromise between Israel and the Arabs,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. D. P. Wright et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 473–78.

27. So also Wright, Deuteronomy, 249.

1. Cf. Braulik, Die deuteronomische Gesetze und der Dekalog, 95–96; Merrill, Deuteronomy, 313.

2. See CH ŠŠ167–20, as translated by Roth, Law Collections, 84–85. Cf. LE ŠŠ49–52, ibid., 66–67; LL Š12, ibid., 28.

3. HL ŠŠ22–23, as translated by Hoffner, in Law Collections, 220.

4. On extradition of slaves, see H. A. Hoffner, “Slavery and Slave Laws in Ancient Hatti and Israel,” in Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention (ed. D. I. Block; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2008), 145–46, 153–54.

5. Hamilton rightly notes (Social Justice and Deuteronomy, 117–21) that together with the release laws in chapter 15, these are the only laws pertaining to slaves in Deuteronomy.

6. This exact practice is reflected in a treaty between the kings of Tunip and Mukiš (as translated by R. S. Hess, COS, 2:128 [330]), dating to a century or two before Moses.

7. On the uniqueness of Israel’s treatment of runaway slaves, see C. H. Gordon, “The Background of Some Distinctive Values in the Hebrew Bible,” in “Go to the Land I Will Show You”: Studies in Honor of Dwight S. Young (ed. J. E. Coleson and V. H. Matthews; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 57–59.

8. The form of the statement echoes the refrain of Yahweh’s choosing a place to establish his name: “in the place the LORD your God will choose” (cf. 12:5; etc.). This policy contrasts starkly with a clause in the eighth-century BC Sefire Treaty, “You must not give them food or say to them [fugitives from another land], ‘Stay quietly in your place’ ” (COS, 2:82 [p. 216]; cf. ANET, 660; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 215).

9. On the ancient custom of seeking refuge at a sacred shrine, see Ex. 21:12–14. For discussion see Anthony Phillips, Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law: A New Approach to the Decalogue (New York: Schocken, 1970), 100; J. Milgrom, “Sancta Contagion and Altar/City Asylum,” in Congress Volume: Vienna, 1980 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 32; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 278–310.

10. So also HALOT, 1075; W. Kornfeld, “,” TDOT, 12:528; H.-P. Müller, “,” TLOT, 3:1108–9; J. A. Naudé, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:886. On cultic prostitution see E. Yamauchi, “Cultic Prostitution: A Case Study in Cultural Diffusion,” in Orient and Occident: Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday (ed. H. A. Hoffner Jr.; AOAT 22; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1971), 213–22.

11. See Gen. 38:21–22, cf. v. 15; Deut. 23:18[19]; Hos. 4:14; CAD, Q:48–50. This interpretation is widely accepted in the commentaries. See Merrill, Deuteronomy, 313; similarly McConville, Deuteronomy, 351; Craigie, Deuteronomy, 299; Mayes, Deuteronomy, 320.

12. For critique, see M. I. Gruber, “Hebrew q^eēšâh and her Canaanite and Akkadian Cognates,” UF 18 (1986): 133–48; K. van der Toorn, “Female Prostitution in Payment of Vows in ancient Israel,” JBL 108 (1989): 193–205; idem, “Prostitution (Cultic),” ABD, 5:510–13; E. A. Goodfriend, ABD, 5:507–9; Tigay, “Excursus 22: The Alleged Practice of Cultic Prostitution in the Ancient Near East,” in Deuteronomy, 480–81; Nelson, Deuteronomy, 280–81.

13. Thus Goodfriend, ABD, 5:508, and Gruber, “Hebrew q^edēšâ,”148. Gruber compares this secular usage of qdš with the root ḥrm (“to set apart [in Hebrew for destruction]),” but in Akkadian it is used of a prostitute, “one set apart.”

14. Van der Toorn suggests the ban on transvestism in 22:5 may have been another response to such orgies (ABD, 5:510). According to Gen. 28, Judah thought his daughter-in-law was an ordinary prostitute (zônâ, v. 15). However, he later referred to her as a q^edēšâ, presumably to save face, as if sexual activity with a young woman affiliated with a cult shrine was less reprehensible than intercourse with a professional prostitute.

15. Presenting gifts for the construction of the tabernacle (Ex. 35:20–29); composing and singing songs of celebration (Ex. 15:1–21; Judg. 5:1–31; 1 Sam. 2:1–10); cultic and processional dance (Ex. 15:20–21; Judg. 21:19–21; Ps. 68:25[26]; Jer. 31:13; cf. women’s participation in noncultic celebrative dance: Judg. 11:34; 1 Sam. 18:6–7; 21:11[12]; 29:5); cultic laments (2 Chron. 35:25; Jer. 9:16–17); playing musical instruments in the temple orchestra (1 Chron. 25:5–7) and singing in the temple choir (Ezra 2:65; Neh. 7:67); serving at the entrance to the tent of meeting (Ex. 38:8; 1 Sam. 2:22); participating in cultic meals (1 Sam 1:9); prayer (1 Sam 1:9–18); participating in family worship (Gen. 35:1–7); celebrating the Passover (Ex. 12:43–51); practicing Nazirite asceticism (Num. 6:2; Judg. 13:1–14); making vows (Num. 30:1–15[2–16]). The Old Testament also reports a series of illegitimate female religious activity: false prophecy and magic (Ezek. 13:17–23); necromancy (1 Samuel 28); pagan lamentation in the temple over the death of Tammuz (Ezek. 8:14–15); producing garments and/or decoration of pagan images (2 Kings 23:7); baking cakes and sacrificing to the “Queen of Heaven” (Jer. 7:18; 44:15–19).

16. E. A. Goodfriend (“Could keleb in Deuteronomy 23:19 Actually Refer to a Canine?” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. D. P. Wright et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995], 386) suggests qâdēš refers to “a priest of some unorthodox sanctuary, perhaps a high place or bāmâ (1 Kings 14:23–24; 22:44, 47).” The root qdš is not used of Samuel, but he bore the marks of a legitimate qādēš: (1) He was dedicated by Hannah (1:28); (2) he ministered before Yahweh before Eli the priest (2:11; 3:1); (3) he wore the linen ephod (2:18); (4) he grew in stature with Yahweh and humans (2:26); (5) he slept in the temple of Yahweh where the ark of the covenant was (3:3); (6) Yahweh spoke to him directly (3:4–18).

17. Cf. Mic. 1:7 (the identical expression); also Isa. 23:17–18; Ezek. 16:31, 34, 41; Hos. 9:1. See HALOT, 1760.

18. Some interpret the expression literally: the full sale price of a dog. Cf. B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy: Translated, with Apparatus, and Notes (Aramaic Bible 9; Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1988), 70.

19. Ex. 22:31[30]; 2 Kings 9:35–36; Ps. 22:16[17]; Jer. 15:3.

20. See further Goodfriend, “Keleb in Deuteronomy,” 387–90; J. Crawford, “Caleb the Dog: How a Biblical Good Guy Got a Bad Name,” BRev 20 (2004): 20–24.

21. For detailed discussion of these texts see E. Neufeld, “The Prohibitions against Loans at Interest in Ancient Hebrew Laws,” HUCA 26 (1955): 355–57. On the intertextual relationships among these texts see Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 174–77.

22. Ancient Near Eastern documents occasionally refer to interest-free loans, but the consistent biblical demand is unparalleled. Cf. H. Gamoran, “The Biblical Law against Loans on Interest,” JNES 30 (1971): 127–34. They often allow exorbitant rates: 20 percent for loans of silver and 33 percent for grain (early second millennium Sumerian laws, LX ŠŠm–n, in Roth, Law Codes, 38; eighteenth century BC Laws of Eshnunna, LE ŠŠ18a–21, in ibid., 61–62; and Hammurabi, gap ŠŠt–u, in ibid., 97–98).

23. The phrase also occurs in 12:18 and 28:20. Cf. “in all the work of your hands [i.e., that you do],” in 2:7 and 14:29.

24. For studies of this word see C. A. Keller, “,” TLOT, 719–22; R. Wakely, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:37–42.

25. For the adverbial use of the word see also Hos. 14:4[5]. Elsewhere the noun refers to voluntary offerings (cf. 12:6, 17; 16:10).

26. Cf. W. J. Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 33.

27. On the connections between Jephthah’s vow and our text, see H.-D. Neff, “Jephta und seine Tochter (Jdc. xi 29–40),” VT 49 (1999): 206–17.

28. J. C. Exum (“On Judges 11, ” in A Feminist Companion to Judges (Feminist Companion to the Bible 4; ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993, 131) overstates the case in claiming the vow was “irrevocable, irreversible and unalterable.”

29. Lev. 27:1–8 regulates cases in which one person vows another, that is, devotes a person to the sanctuary for sacred service, and then for reasons unspecified finds it impossible or impractical to fulfill the vow. On this text, see Milgrom, Leviticus, 489; J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1992), 480–81.

30. For further discussion see Block, Judges, Ruth, 375–78.

31. For an appeal to evangelicals to adopt a more compassionate stance, see Carroll R., Christians at the Border.

32. J. K. Hoffmeier (The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009]) argues for a distinction in our treatment of aliens (Heb. gērîm) and illegal aliens (Heb. b^enê nēkār).

33. The most public representative of the problem is Bernard Madoff, who was sentenced to 150 years in prison for bilking billions of dollars out of clients. See www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/24/60minutes/main5339719.shtml?tag=currentVideoInfo;segmentUtilities (accessed Jan. 15, 1010).

34. For discussion and sources see R. J. Sider, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 18–20.

1. Cf. also Matt. 5:31; 1 Cor. 7:15.

2. Cf. A. Warren, “Did Moses Permit Divorce? Modal w^eqāṭal as Key to New Testament Readings of Deuteronomy 24:1–4, ” TynBul 49 (1998): 39–56; Instone-Brewer, “Deuteronomy 24:1–4 and the Origin of the Jewish Divorce Certificate,” 230.

3. Cf. LH Š137, 138, 142, 171. On Old Babylonian laws, see Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law, 92; Cf. Neo-Babylonian marriage agreements ŠŠ15 and 34 in Roth, Babylonian Marriage Agreements, 64–67 and 108–12.

4. McConville (Deuteronomy, 358) rightly observes that because New Testament discussions are influenced by contemporary perspectives, they cannot decide the grammar of this text.

5. So also Pressler, View of Women, 47.

6. Cf. R. Westbrook, “Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage in Deuteronomy 24:1–4, ” in Studies in Bible 1986 (ed. S. Japhet; Scripta Hierosolymitana 31; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986), 388; Pressler, View of Women, 46–47; Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, 76–81.

7. Literally, “And it will happen that X does not occur.”

8. The noun ḥēn speaks of a favorable disposition toward persons in need especially by a person with power. It occurs only here in Deuteronomy.

9. Josephus (Ant. 4.8.23) reads “for whatsoever cause.” J. J. Collins (“Marriage, Divorce, and Family in Second Temple Judaism,” in Families in Ancient Israel [ed. L. G. Perdue et al.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997], 65) suggests the phrase intentionally spreads the net as broadly as possible for “any reason whatsoever.”

10. LXX reads “a shameful deed”; Targums Pseudo-Jonathan and Onqelos, “transgression.” Matt. 5:31–32; 19:7–9 reads porneia. This and the previous interpretation are represented by the rabbinic schools of Hillel and Shamai respectively (m. Giṭṭin 9:10). However, the present vocabulary and the fact that adultery was punishable by death (22:13–26) seem to exclude a reference to adultery.

11. J. Walton, “The Place of the hutqaṭṭēl within the D-Stem Group and Its Implications in Deuteronomy 24:4, ” HS 32 (1991): 14–15; cf. Craigie, Deuteronomy, 305.

12. The expression “document of separation/divorce” occurs elsewhere only in Isa. 50:1 and Jer. 3:8.

13. Extrabiblical data suggest the document included (1) a dissolution of marriage formula, “I am not/no longer your husband, and you are not/no longer my wife” (cf. Hos. 2:2[4]; Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, 217–25); (2) an explicit declaration of release, authorizing the woman to return home to her father’s household or to remarry (cf. Deut. 21:14; D. Instone-Brewer, “Deuteronomy 24:1–4 and the Origin of the Jewish Divorce Certificate,” 230–43); (3) a declaration of the return of the dowry (cf. Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law, 79, 92).

14. Cf. Instone-Brewer, “Deuteronomy 24:1–4 and the Jewish Certificate of Divorce,” 237.

15. Identifying the certificate of divorce as a “document of separation” and the threefold use of the verb “to send away” (vv. 1, 3, 4), suggests šillaḥ means “to divorce” (22:19, 29; Mal. 2:16). Cf. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, 72–73.

16. The second marriage had created social tensions; this could be considered incest; greed—the husband would seek to profit from the second marriage. For discussion of the options, see R. Gane, “Old Testament Principles Relating to Divorce and Remarriage,” JATS 12 (2001): 15–16; Pressler, View of Women, 51–59.

17. Davidson (Flame of Yahweh, 396–97) rightly notes that the reflexive sense, “she has defiled herself,” would have required the Hithpael, as in Lev. 11:24, 43; etc.

18. Theoretically, tôʿēbâ could be rendered, “for she is detestable,” but on the analogy of Lev. 18:22 it refers not to the woman but to the act of remarriage (cf. Pressler, View of Women, 49), ranking remarriage with apostasy (7:25; 12:31; etc.), offering blemished offerings (17:1), eating forbidden food (14:3), transvestism (22:5), paying vows with money gained through prostitution (23:18[19]), and heinous sexual sins as in Lev. 18 (cf. vv. 26, 29).

19. The sense “exempt, relieved of responsibility” occurs in Gen. 24:41; Num. 32:22; Josh. 2:20; 1 Kings 15:22.

20. So also Wright, God’s People in God’s Land, 216–17.

21. So also ibid., 217.

22. For defense of the reading favored here, see Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, 66–76.

23. As translated by H. Danby, The Mishnah (London: Oxford, 1933), 321.

24. This comment seems to allude to Moses’ comment about the woman finding no grace in the eyes of her husband.

25. See the discussion by Sider, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience, 18–20.

26. For a helpful exegetical and pastoral discussion of these issues, especially as they relate to Matt. 19:3–12, see C. L. Blomberg, “Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and Celibacy: An Exegesis of Matthew 19:3–12, ” TrinJ 11 ns (1990): 161–96; A. Köstenberger and D. W. Jones, God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004), 227–58.

1. The grinder would kneel on the ground in front of this slab and grind the grain by moving the upper stone back and forth over it. Cf. King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, 95.

2. Apostasy (13:5[6]), idolatry (17:7), refusing to accept the verdict of a priest (17:12), murder (19:13; 21:9), insubordination to parents (21:21), adultery (22:21, 22, 24), and the noncapital offense of giving a false testimony in court (19:19).

3. For a discussion of ṣāraʿat, see J. F. A. Sawyer, “A Note on the Etymology of ṣāraʿat,” VT 26 (1976): 241–45. For recent evidence from Mesopotamian sources suggesting leprosy as a possible interpretation of ṣārāʿat, see J. Scurlock and B. R. Andersen, Diagnoses in Assyrian and Babylonian Medicine: Ancient Sources, Translations, and Modern Medical Analyses (Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press, 2005), 70–73.

4. Cf. C. Levin, “The Poor in the Old Testament: Some Observations,” Religion and Theology 8 (2001): 261. As in other cases involving a lesser person blessing a superior, the verb brk may function as a virtual synonym for “praise” (e.g., Ps. 66:8; see also Judg. 5:2, 9).

5. This is a standard pair of words in the Old Testament. Cf. Job 24:14; Ps. 37:14; 40:17[18]; 74:21; 86:1; 109:16, 22.

6. The expression “each day” is shorthand for “the day of his service,” which is reinforced with “before sunset.”

7. Since yûmat (“to be put to death”) involves judicial execution, here human execution of sentences passed by the courts is in view.

8. In later times that statement was used to argue for the notion of transgenerational accountability as a fundamental principle of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel (Jer. 31:29–30; Ezek. 18:2–3). On the significance of the proverb in Ezekiel, see Block, Ezekiel Chapters 1–24, 554–90; K. P. Darr, “Proverb Performance and Trans-Generational Retribution in Ezekiel 18, ” in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality (ed. S. L. Cook and C. L. Patton; SBL Symposium Series 31; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 199–223.

9. Cf. Deut. 13:15[16]; Josh. 7:24–25; Judg. 21:5–10; 2 Sam 21:1–9. Cf. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 227.

10. Cf. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 228.

11. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan adds, “so that evil neighbors shall not arise and bring against her an evil report when you return the pledge to her.” As translated by Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy, 67.

12. Deut. 5:15; 15:15; 16:12.

13. De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 165.

14. In 14:29 and 23:20[21]. the blessing was also tied to acts of compassion toward the marginalized.

15. As translated by J. M. Lindenberger, Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters (2nd ed.; SBLWAW 14; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 110.

16. This interpretation is reinforced by the verbal connection with the previous verse. Whereas v. 6 had interpreted taking a person’s millstone as security against an unpaid loan metaphorically as taking his very “livelihood” (nepeš) as a pledge, v. 7 speaks explicitly of stealing a nepeš (“one” in NIV). Similarly Tigay, Deuteronomy, 457–58.

17. Chicago Tribune, March 5, 2009.

18. For a helpful discussion of the issues and and proposals for an evangelical response see Carroll R., Christians at the Border.

19. See the helpful study by J. S. Kaminsky, “The Sins of the Fathers: A Theological Investigation of the Biblical Tension between Corporate and Individualized Retribution,” Judaism 46 (1997): 319–32.

1. Cf. 1:16–17; 10:17–19; 16:18–20; 17:2–13; 19:15–21; 21:1–9, 18–23; 22:13–21; 24:17–18.

2. The expression rîb (“lawsuit, legal case”) occurs elsewhere in Deuteronomy in 1:12; 17:8; 19:17; 21:5.

3. Thus Tigay, Deuteronomy, 458.

4. On this passage, see J. T. Noonan, Jr., “The Muzzled Ox,” JQR 70 (1980): 172–75; D. Instone-Brewer, “Paul’s Literal Interpretation of ‘Do Not Muzzle the Ox,’ ” in The Trustworthiness of God: Perspectives on the Nature of Scripture (ed. P. Helm and C. R. Trueman; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 139–56; idem, “1 Corinthians 9:9–11: A Literal Interpretation of ‘Do Not Muzzle the Ox,’ ” NTS 38 (1992): 554–65.

5. Note the specification of “ox” and “donkey” and the extension of the right to rest on the Sabbath for “any of your animals” in 5:14; the prohibition of boiling a kid in its mother’s milk in 14:21; the charge to restore straying livestock to their owners and to assist animals overburdened with their pack in 22:1–4; and the protection of wild birds in 22:6–7.

6. Cf. F. Crüsemann, The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law (trans. A. W. Mahnke; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 254.

7. Cf. J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture (Atlanta: Scholars, 1991; reprint of 1926 ed.), 1:255–56.

8. Note Jephthah’s exclamation of grief in Judg. 11:34–35 at the prospect of his line being cut off.

9. Expressions used by Willis, Elders of the City, 304.

10. For a pictorial reconstruction of a joint family compound see King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, 18.

11. Cf. Z. W. Falk, Hebrew Law in Biblical Times (2nd ed.; Provo, UT: Brigham Young Univ. Press/Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001), 97.

12. Cf. the rights of divorcees as suggested in 21:10–14 and 24:1–4. On these texts see the commentary above.

13. So also Tigay, Deuteronomy, 232.

14. Cf. comments on 21:15.

15. Cf. NIV, “carry on the name of the dead brother.” The form of the idiom in Ruth 4:5 and 10 is more natural: “to maintain the name of the dead with his property.” A third form of the idiom occurs in Gen. 48:6, to be “reckoned under the names of their brothers.” While Num. 27:1–11 allows daughters to inherit property in the absence of sons, this text (v. 5) assumes a male heir.

16. Cf. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 232–33. On the vagueness of the gôʾēl’s explanation for rejecting the role in Ruth 4:6, see Block, Judges, Ruth, 715–17.

17. J. R. Ziskind (“The Treatment of Women in Deuteronomy: Moral Absolutism and Practicality—Part I,” JBQ 27 [1999]: 155–56) notes that it would have been perfectly legal for her to accept her brother-in-law’s decision not to marry her, take her dowry, and go and marry another man.

18. See V. H. Matthews, “Female Voices: Upholding the Honor of the Household,” BTB 24 (1994): 9.

19. Cf. 19:12; 21:20; 22:15–18. Cf. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 299. For full discussion of the role of the elders in this situation, see Willis, Elders of the City, 293–304.

20. So also Willis, Elders of the City, 297.

21. On the relationship of Ruth 4:7–8 to this text, see P. A. Kruger, “The Removal of the Sandal in Deuteronomy XXV 9, ” VT 46 (1996): 534–59.

22. On Deut. 25:11–12 as intentionally shame-inducing rather than talionic or retributive justice, see P. E. Wilson, “Deuteronomy xxv 11–12—One for the Books,” VT 47 (1997): 220–35.

23. Cf. CH ŠŠ192–195, 219; MAL ŠA:8–9 (Roth, Law Collections, 120–21, 156–57). For discussion of these laws and their relationship to the present text, see Pressler, The View of Women, 74–77.

24. Apart from the lex talionis (19:21; Ex. 21:23–24), Old Testament laws never call for this kind of mutilation.

25. L. Eslinger, “The Case of an Immodest Lady Wrestler in Deuteronomy 25:11–12, ” VT 31 (1981): 269–81. For a response see P. E. Wilson (“Deuteronomy xxv 11–12, ” 232–33), who argues that the man was only temporarily disabled.

26. Cf. Phillips, Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law, 94–95; Craigie, Deuteronomy, 316.

27. NIV translates the unusual Hebrew euphemistically as “private parts.”

28. Thus Pressler, The View of Women, 75, 77.

29. Cf. McConville, Deuteronomy, 371.

30. This “no-pity” formula also appears in 13:8[9]; 19:13, 21.

31. See “The Code of Hammurabi” (gap Šx in Roth, Law Collections, 98); “A Hymn to Shamash” (COS, 1:117 lines 107–22, [p. 148], as translated by B. R. Foster); “The Egyptian Book of the Dead” (ANET, 34); “The Instruction of Amenemope” (M. Lichtheim in COS, 1:47, pp. 119–20).

32. The standard shekel weighed ca. 11.4 grams. Cf. M. A. Powell, “Weights and Measures,” ABD, 6:906–7.

33. On which see M. Cogan, I Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 10; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 349.

34. On levirate marriage in this text, see Willis, Elders of the City, 253–62. On the levirate marriage in Judaism, see S. Belkin, “Levirate and Agnate Marriage in Rabbinic and Cognate Literature,” JQR 60 (1970): 275–329.

35. On which see Block, Judges, Ruth, 674–75. The root ybm occurs in Ruth only in 1:15, where a feminine noun refers to a sister-in-law.

36. See B. K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs Chapters 15–31 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 18–19.

37. For discussion of the relevance of Old Testament laws for New Testament Christians, see D. I. Block, “Preaching Old Testament Law to New Testament Christians,” in The Gospel According to Moses, 104–36; idem, “The Grace of Torah,” in How I Love Your Torah, O LORD! 17–20.

38. The abuses have been well documented. See, for example, S. Strasser, ed., The Abu Ghraib Investigations: The Official Independent Panel and Pentagon Reports on the Shocking Prisoner Abuse in Iraq (Jackson, TN: Public Affairs, 2004).

39. Cf. F. W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 205.

40. For a helpful discussion of the hermeneutical issues involved, see W. C. Kaiser Jr., “The Current Crisis in Exegesis and the Apostolic Use of Deuteronomy 25:4 in 1 Corinthians 9:8–10, ” JETS 21 (1978): 3–18, esp. 11–16. Instone-Brewer (“Paul’s Literal Interpretation of ‘Do Not Muzzle the Ox,’ ” 139–56) argues that Paul follows first-century Jews’ assumptions that laws mentioning “ox” apply to any kind of servant, human or animal.

1. For Israel’s history with this people, see Gen. 36:11–12; Ex. 17:8–16; Num. 13:29; 14:25, 43, 14:45; Judg. 3:13; 6:3, 33; 7:12; 10:12; 12:15; 1 Sam. 14–16; Ps. 83:4–9[5–10].

2. The event in mind is narrated in prose form in Ex. 17:8–16.

3. That they were slaves in Egypt (5:15; 15:15; 16:12; 24:18, 22); Yahweh was their God (6:12; 8:11, 14, 18, 19); his defeat of the Egyptians (7:18; 16:3); his redemption of Israel (6:12; 8:14; 15:15; 24:18); his revelation and covenant made at Horeb (4:9–10, 23, 31); specific actions on their behalf (8:18); his care in the desert (8:2); his punishment of Miriam (24:9); the people’s rebellion (9:7).

4. Cf. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 237.

5. That is, as “reverence and obedience toward God’s commands coupled with respect for the rights and freedoms of strangers” (e.g., Ex. 1:17, 21).

6. Which may explain why he locates the Amalekite attack “along the way when you came out of Egypt,” relating it directly to the exodus, rather than “at Rephidim,” as in Ex. 17:8.

7. Cf. Deut. 3:18–22 and 12:9–10.

8. The memory of Yahweh’s promise/oath is rendered even more indelible by Moses act of building an altar to commemorate the event and naming it “The LORD is my Banner,” in recognition of Yahweh’s victory (Ex. 17:15–16).

9. The twenty-second century BC inscription of Utuhegal, king of the Sumerian city-state of Uruk (Erech), provides a striking analogue to Moses’ invective against the Amalekites. For the text, see D. Frayne, Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334–2113 BC) (RIME 2; Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1993), 284–85. For brief discussion, see P. D. Stern, The Biblical Ḥerem: A Window on Israel’s Religious Experience (BJS 211; Atlanta: Scholars, 1991), 70–72.

10. Judg. 3:13; 6:3, 33; 7:12; 10:12 (cf. also 12:15). They also appear in Ps. 83:7[8]. in a list of Israel’s enemies.

11. 1 Sam. 14:48 echoes Judg. 2:16.

12. This led to Yahweh’s final rejection of Saul as king (cf. 1 Sam. 28:18).

13. 1 Sam. 27:8; 30:1–20; 2 Sam. 1:1.

14. On this text see G. Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 12; New York: Doubleday, 2004), 370–71.

15. Esth. 3:1, 10; 8:3, 5; 9:24. Note especially 3:10 and 9:24, which identify him as “Haman the Agagite the son of Hammedatha, the enemy of [all] the Jews.”

16. The Targum casts its vote in 3:1 in favor of the former by providing a lengthy genealogy of Haman, tracing his descent from Amalek. Similarly Josephus (Ant. 11.6.5, 12). On the history of Jewish interpretation of the Amalekite texts, see L. H. Feldman, “Remember Amalek!” Vengeance, Zealotry, and Group Destruction in the Bible according to Philo, Pseudo Philo, and Josephus (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2004); A. Sagi, “The Punishment of Amalek in Jewish Tradition: Coping with the Moral Problem,” HTR 87 (1994): 323–26.

17. See Sagi, “The Punishment of Amalek in Jewish Tradition,” 323–46; J. Levenson, “Is There a Counterpart in the Hebrew Bible to New Testament Antisemitism,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 22 (1985): 242–60.

1. (1) The rituals occur in the land Yahweh gave to Israel (12:10; cf. 26:1, 3, 9, 15); (2) they occur at the place that Yahweh would choose to establish his name (12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26; cf. 26:2); (3) they occur “before the LORD your God” (12:7, 12, 18; cf. 26:5, 10, 13); (4) they involve the entire household and the Levite (12:12, 18; cf. 26:11–12); (5) they include presentation of offerings (12:6, 11; cf. 26:2, 10, 12), (6) joyful celebration (12:7, 12, 18; cf. 26:11), (7) and the blessing of Yahweh (12:7, 15; cf. 26:15); (8) their acceptability before Yahweh depends on obedience to all that he has commanded (12:11, 14, 28; cf. 26:13–14).

2. These expressions also frame the first half of the second address. Cf. 5:1 and 11:32. Cf. N. Lohfink, “Die ḥuqqîm ûmišpâtîm im Buch Deuteronomium und ihre Neubegrenzung durch Dtn 12, 1, ” Biblica 70 (1989): 17–18.

3. For this triad of expressions see 11:31 and 12:29, though the opening bears the closest resemblance to 17:14.

4. The chiastic ordering of the material facilitates memorization, on which see D. M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2005), 98–99.

5. On the “firstfruits,” see R. O. Rigsby, “First Fruits,” ABD, 2:796–97; idem, “Firstfruits,” DOTP, 312–13.

6. For discussion of the Festival of Weeks, see comments on 16:9–12.

7. On the meaning of this phrase, see comments on 12:5 and 11.

8. The second declaration (vv. 5–10) is made “before the LORD your God.”

9. Cf. Deut. 18:7; also Lev. 21:7; 1 Sam. 15:15; 2 Sam. 14:17; 2 Kings 19:4.

10. This is the last of only three references to “the altar” in Deuteronomy (cf. 12:27; 16:21). The paucity of references to any tabernacle or temple appurtenances accords with the overall concern of the book to present a theology of worship rather than to serve as a manual for worship. See also 33:10.

11. The threefold use of the phrase lipnê yhwh (“before Yahweh”) in vv. 5a and 10b suggests the real presence of Yahweh and the worshiper’s awareness of his proximity, which is concretized by “before the altar of the LORD” in verse 4b. See further Wilson, Out of the Midst of the Fire,” 187.

12. Cf. v. 3, which has the worshiper making the declaration “to the LORD.”

13. G. von Rad (“The Form Critical Problem of the Hexateuch,” in From Genesis to Chronicles: Explorations in Old Testament Theology [trans. E. Trueman Dicken; ed. K. C. Hanson; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005], 1–58; idem, Old Testament Theology [trans. D. M. G. Stalker; New York: Harper & Row, 1962], 1:121–28) referred to this utterance as “the little historical credo.” Biddle (Deuteronomy, 382–83) and Nelson (Deuteronomy, 308) question his thesis that it is much more ancient than its Deuteronomic literary context.

14. Deut. 1:8; 6:10; 9:27; 29:13[12]; 30:20; 34:4. The final poems mention Jacob alone: 32:9; 33:4, 10, 28.

15. The identification of the site of Jacob and Laban’s treaty in Gen. 31:47–49 by Hebrew and Aramaic names, Galeed and Jegar Sahadutha—both of which mean “heap [of stones],” reflects the Aramaean culture of Haran. N. Krause (“Arami oved avi: Deuteronomy 26:5, ” JBQ 25/1 [1997]: 31–34) identifies the Aramaean specifically as Abraham.

16. Verse 7 refers to “the LORD, the God of our fathers.” Despite Num. 20:14–16, which mentions the descent to Egypt of “our fathers,” to conceive of the ancestors of the twelve tribes as Aramaean is difficult. Nevertheless, it is clear from Gen. 34:16 that Cannanites (the people of Shechem) viewed them as aliens.

17. Gen. 15:5; 22:17; 26:4; Ex. 32:13; Deut. 1:10, 22.

18. Thus DCH, 1:99. Cf. Gen. 41:50–57; 42:1–5; 43:1–2, 8; 45:7. For various interpretations of the expression, see J. G. Janzen, “The ‘Wandering Aramaean’ Reconsidered,” VT 44 (1994): 359–75 [“perishing from hunger”]; R. C. Steiner, “The ‘Aramean of Deuteronomy 26:5: Peshat and Derash,” in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg (ed. M. Cogan, B. L. Eichler, and J. H. Tigay; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 127–38; K. H. Zetterholm, Portrait of a Villain: Laban the Aramean in Rabbinic Literature (Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 2; Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 47–87, esp. 79–87.

19. (1) Abraham: Gen. 12:10; 17:8; 20:1; 21:23, 34; 23:4; 35:27; Ex. 6:4. (2) Isaac: Gen. 26:3; 35:27; 37:1; Ex. 6:4. (3) Jacob: Gen. 28:4; 32:4[5]; 47:9; Ex. 6:4; Ps. 105:12 (= 1 Chron. 16:19), 23.

20. See further, A. R. Millard, “A Wandering Aramean,” JNES 39 (1980): 153–55.

21. Cf. Gen. 12:10, which is echoed in Isa. 52:4.

22. In fulfillment of God’s promise to Jacob in Gen. 46:3. The promise has its roots in Gen. 12:2.

23. The triadic expression, “a great, mighty and numerous nation” (pers. trans.) expresses the superlative degree, adapting the emphatic verbal declaration from Ex. 1:7 (cf. Num. 14:12; Deut. 9:14).

24. On the meaning of the expressions used in verse 8 to describe Yahweh’s victory, see comments on 4:34.

25. First heard in Ex. 3:8, this is the middle of six occurrences of “a land flowing with milk and honey” in Deuteronomy: 6:3; 11:9; 26:9, 15; 27:3; 31:20.

26. For the tithe in the book, see 12:6, 11, 17; 14:22–27.

27. Echoes of 14:28–29 are clear: (1) the scope: “a tenth of all your produce”; (2) the list of benefactors: Levites, aliens, the fatherless, and widows; (3) the benefit for the poor: “so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied.”

28. The cultic action of verses 12–15 exhibits significant links with both verses 1–11 and chapter 12: (1) the context (in the land Yahweh has given to Israel: 12:10; cf. 26:1, 3, 9, 15); (2) the divine host (“before the LORD your God”: 12:7, 12, 18; cf. 26:5, 10, 13); (3) the nature (presentation of offerings: 12:6, 11; cf. 26:2, 10, 12); (4) the participants (the entire household, Levites, aliens, orphans, and widows: 12:12, 18; cf. 26:1–12, 15); (5) the foundation (Yahweh’s blessing: 12:7, 15; cf. 26:15); (7) the human prerequisite to acceptable service (obedience to all that Yahweh has commanded: 12:11, 14, 28; cf. 26:13–14); (8) the characterization of offerings as “holy” (12:26; 26:13).

29. For discussion of the options and full defense of this view, see I. Wilson, “Central Sanctuary or Local Settlements? The Location of the Triennial Tithe Declaration (Dtn 26, 13–15),” ZAW 120 (2008): 323–40.

30. As in NRSV, NJPSV, ESV; contra NIV.

31. The tithe is holy because it belongs to Yahweh (Lev. 27:30).

32. “Evil”: 13:5[6]; 17:7, 12; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21, 22, 24; 24:7; “bloodguilt”: 19:13; 21:9.

33. For Hittite instructions guarding the sanctity of cattle reserved for deity, see ANET, 210b-c.

34. Most commentators see here allusions to some such practice (Tigay, Deuteronomy, 244; Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:20–34:12, 642), or to sacrifices to a chthonic deity like Molek (McConville, Deuteronomy, 381) or Baal, who bears the epithet “the Dead One” and appears in the Ugaritic myths as a dying and rising god (Craigie, Deuteronomy, 323; Merrill, Deuteronomy, 336).

35. Thus M. Luther, Luther’s Works, vol. 9, Lectures on Deuteronomy (ed. J. Pelikan; Saint Louis: Concordia, 1960), 254; Keil, Pentateuch, 3:428. So also more recently B. B. Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 190–200.

36. This connection to Ex. 19:5–6 is reinforced by the links with vv. 16–19 below.

37. For a discussion of the way physical objects were transformed into what were perceived to be efficacious images in Assyria, see C. Walker and M. B. Dick, “The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian mîs pî Ritual,” in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Creation of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East (ed. Michael B. Dick; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 55–122.

38. God hears (2 Chron. 6:21, 23, 25, 30, 33, 35, 39; 7:1, 14; Neh. 9:27–28), speaks (Ex. 20:22; Neh. 9:13), calls (Gen. 21:17; 22:11, 15), thunders [//gives his voice] (2 Sam. 22:14), and his voice falls from heaven (Dan. 4:31).

39. As elsewhere, the reference is primarily to the covenant that Yahweh made with the patriarchs (1:8; 30:20; 34:4), but the oath had been reiterated to the nation that came out of Egypt (Ex. 6:8; 13:11; Num. 14:16; Ezek. 20:6).

40. See 1:35; 3:25; 4:21, 22; 6:18; 8:7, 10; 9:6; 11:17.

41. From William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 4, lines 7–16.

42. Cf. Judg. 2:2; 6:8–10.

43. Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 20:21); Hezekiah (30:22; 31:2); Manasseh (33:16).

44. Excerpted from the “Thanksgiving Proclamation,” of the United States Congress in Philadelphia, October 11, 1782, establishing Thursday, November 28 as a day of national thanksgiving. The document is accessible at www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/thanksgiving/ (accessed November 28, 2011).

45. See further, R. L. Christensen, “Deuteronomy 26:1–11, ” Int 49 (1995): 59–62.

1. For detailed study of this text and its function, see S. Guest, “Deuteronomy 26:16–19 as the Central Focus of the Covenantal Framework of Deuteronomy” (Ph.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009).

2. As with the other 61 occurrences of hayyôm, this expression highlights the “emphatic contemporaneity” that pervades the entire book (thus von Rad, From Genesis to Chronicles, 23).

3. This occurs elsewhere only in Ex. 34:11, where the statement is also contextualized with hayyôm (“today”).

4. See comments on 4:1 and 4:45.

5. (1) To “walk in his ways” (v. 17; cf. 8:6; 10:12; 11:22; also 28:9; 30:16); (2) the threefold designation of the covenant stipulations, “his decrees, commands and laws” (v. 17; cf. 5:31; 6:1; 7:11; 8:11; 11:1; also 30:16); (3) “listen to/obey his voice” (v. 17; cf. 9:23; also 28:1; 30:2, 8, 20); (4) to become “his treasured possession” (v. 18; cf. 7:6; also 14:2); (5) “a people holy to the LORD your God” (v. 19; cf. 7:6; also 14:2, 21; 28:9).

6. These represent the only occurrences of the Hiphil form of ʾāmar (“to say”) in the entire Old Testament. NIV’s rendering obscures the exceptional construction and misconstrues these statements by attributing the respective statements to the wrong persons. It also contradicts the structure of covenant relationship, which is grounded in Yahweh’s free and gracious election of Israel, who must demonstrate acceptance of this status through faithful obedience. So also C. Levin, “Über den ‘Color Hierenianus’ des Deuteronomiums,” in Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen (Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellscahft 32; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 120.

7. Thus Lohfink, Great Themes from the Old Testament, 393 n. 47.

8. Cf. NRSV and NJB. For discussion of the present form see T. C. Vriezen, “Das hiphʿil von ʾāmar in Deut. 26, 17.18,” Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatische-Egyptisch Geselschap Ex oriente lux 17 (1964): 207–10.

9. Cf. Guest, 117–26.

10. “I will be your God and you shall be my people.” On the formula see Seock-Tae Sohn, “ ‘I Will Be Your God and You Will Be My People’: The Origin and Background of the Covenant Formula,” in Ki Baruch Hu’: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine (ed. by R. Chazan, William W. Hallo, and Lawrence H. Schiffman; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 364; Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant; P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant: A Comprehensive Review of Covenant Formulae from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East (AnBib 88; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1982); K. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971).

11. Cf. M. A. Friedman, “Israel’s Response in Hosea 2:17b: ‘You Are My Husband,’ ” JBL 99 (1980): 202.

12. The former is illustrated most dramatically by the treaty between Rameses II of Egypt and the Hittite king Hattusili III in the thirteenth century BC. The treaty has been preserved in two versions, but they are cast so that the Egyptian version records the commitments of the Hittite king and the Hittite version contains the commitments of the Egyptian king. These are conveniently juxtaposed in ANET, 199–203.

13. NRSV preserves the ambiguity: “for him to set you high above all nations that he has made, in praise and in fame and in honor” (cf. NASV, NJB).

14. Thus NEB and REB: “to bring him praise and fame and glory.”

15. So also Wright, Deuteronomy, 272–73.

16. Cf. 4:6–8; Jer. 13:11; 33:9.

17. Though Jonah’s mission to Nineveh demonstrates that it was not exclusively so.

18. For a discussion of this passage with particular focus on its missionary implications see D. I. Block, “The Privilege of Calling: The Mosaic Paradigm for Missions (Deut. 26:16–19),” How I Love Your Torah, O LORD! 140–61.

19. The word entolas, which echoes Deut. 26:18 (for Heb. miṣwôt), occurs forty times in Deuteronomy LXX: 4:2, 40; 5:29, 31; 6:1–2, 17, 25; 7:9, 11; 8:1–2, 6, 11; 10:13; 11:8, 13, 22, 27, 28; 13:4, 18[5, 19]; 15:5; 16:12; 17:19, 20; 19:9; 26:13, 18; 27:1, 10; 28:1, 13, 15, 45; 30:8, 10, 11, 16.

1. Cf. Block, “Recovering the Voice of Moses,” in The Gospel According to Moses, 29.

2. Similarly McConville, Deuteronomy, 387.

3. Cf. O. Eissfeldt, “Gilgal or Shechem,” in Proclamation and Presence (ed. J. I. Durham and J. R. Porter; Richmond: John Knox, 1970), 90–101. For a brief recent representation of this approach see Biddle, Deuteronomy, 395.

4. A. E. Hill, “The Ebal Ceremony as Hebrew Land Grant,” JETS 31 (1988): 399–406.

5. K. E. Slanski (The Babylonian Entitlement narûs [kudurrus]: A Study in their Form and Function [ASOR Books 9; Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2003) has established that such inscriptions were not limited to geographic boundaries but extended to other entitlements.

6. For a theological interpretation of the chapter as a whole, see by P. A. Barker, “The Theology of Deuteronomy 27, ” TynBul 49 (1998): 277–303.

7. See 6:25; 8:1; 11:8, 22; 15:5; 19:9.

8. See also Tigay, Deuteronomy, 247–48. For references to “this Torah” elsewhere, see 1:5; 4:8; 17:18, 19; 28:58, 61; 29:29[28]; 31:9, 11, 12, 24; 32:46.

9. Cf. Deut. 6:3; 11:9; 26:9, 15; 27:3; 31:20.

10. Israelites erected pillars as memorials to conquests (1 Sam. 7:12; 1 Chron. 18:3), and other political achievements (2 Sam. 18:18), to treaties (Gen. 31:45), and as religious symbols of devotion (Gen. 28:18, 22; 35:14; Josh. 24:26, 27).

11. M. Weinfeld, “The Pattern of the Israelite Settlement in Canaan,” in Congress Volume Jerusalem 1986 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup40; Leiden: Brill, 1988), 280.

12. See Richter, The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology, 139–42; idem, “The Place of the Name in Deuteronomy,” VT 57 (2007): 343–44. This interpretation is unlikely because: (1) the chapter makes no reference to the “name” or to the chosen place; (2) although the conquest of Jericho was a significant achievement and could perhaps be viewed as a deposit of certain future victories, the victory over the Canaanites had in fact not yet been accomplished; (3) the cultic prescriptions involving the “place” in Deuteronomy 12 differ markedly from those prescribed here; (4) perhaps most significant, whereas the former called for regular and repeated observances at the “place,” this chapter calls for a one-time event.

13. Cf. Josh. 4:5.

14. During the Iron Age plaster was commonly used to waterproof cisterns, and occasionally wealthier people would plaster the walls and floors of their houses. See further L. G. Herr, “Plaster,” ISBE (rev. ed.), 3:883. For a late ninth century BC example of text written on plaster, see the Deir ʿAlla inscription (COS 2.27).

15. Whereas the Law Code was written in syllabic cuneiform script in contrast to Deuteronomy’s consonantal alphabetic script, a precise comparison of the originals is difficult. L. W. King’s English translation (The Code of Hammurabi [Whitefish, MT: Kessinger, 2004; reprint of 1910 edition]) of the Code has slightly more than 11,000 words, which compares with ca. 14,500 for NIV’s translation of Moses’ second address. In Hebrew the word count for Moses’ three speeches is ca. 12,000 words.

16. The Samaritan Pentateuch and one LXX manuscript (Papyrus Giessen 19) read Mount Gerizim. For discussion, see E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 94–95.

17. That is, at the midpoint of a straight line drawn between Dan and Beersheba, which soon functioned as a stereotypical definition of the extremities of the land of Israel (Judg. 20:1; 1 Sam. 3:20; 2 Sam. 3:10; 17:11; 24:2, 15; 1 Kings 4:25; 1 Chron. 21:2; 2 Chron. 30:5; Amos 8:14). Judg. 9:37 refers to Gerizim as “the center of the land,” though LXX renders the phrase “navel of the earth.”

18. So also S. M. Olyan, “Why an Altar of Unfinished Stones? Some Thoughts on Ex 20, 25 and Dtn 27, 5–6, ” ZAW 108 (1996): 161–71. Although its function is disputed, at Ebal archaeologists have discovered a large structure made of uncut stones and filled with soil dated in the early Iron Age, when the Israelites were settling in the land. See A. Zertal, “Ebal, Mount,” ABD, 2:255–58; idem, “An Early Iron Age Cultic Site on Mount Ebal,” TA 13–14 (1986–1987): 105–65; idem, “Has Joshua’s Altar Been Found on Mount Ebal?” BAR 11 (1985): 26–44.

19. On š^elāmîm, see R. E. Averbeck, “,” NIDOTTE, 4:130–43; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–8, 217–25; G. A. Anderson, “Sacrifices and Sacrificial Offerings: Old Testament,” ABD, 5:878–79. B. Levine (In the Presence of the Lord [Leiden: Brill, 1974], 3–54) interprets this as “an efficacious gift of greeting,” offered “in the presence of the Lord.”

20. See the note on 1:5 above, p. 55, The text makes no reference to reading the Torah before the people.

21. This is the only occurrence of the Niphal plus lamedh to express entrance into a state. Previously Deuteronomy always used the Qal form of the expression, hāyâ l^eʿâm (“to become [his] people”). Cf. 4:20; 7:6; 14:2; 26:18.

22. The covenant made with Abraham and with Israel at Sinai (and confirmed in Moab) is one and the same. See Hwang, “The Rhetoric of Remembrance,” 269–355.

23. There is no reference to reading the Torah that is transcribed onto the pillars.

24. Thus Tigay, Deuteronomy, 253.

25. In either case, the grammatical construction deviates markedly from 11:29, where Moses spoke of “placing the blessing on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal.”

26. For the possibilities, see Mayes, Deuteronomy, 217–18; Barker, “The Theology of Deuteronomy 27, ” 288.

27. The order differs but the entries accord with the names of Jacob’s sons in Genesis 49 and the names of the tribes in Deuteronomy 33. Cf. the Song of Deborah and Barak in Judges 5, which omits Levi and splits Joseph into Ephraim and Machir, the latter representing Manasseh. See Block, Judges, Ruth, 232.

28. There is no real contradiction here between Levi as a tribe that stands with the rest of the tribes and the references to the Levites in vv. 9 and 14. In Deuteronomy the latter expression refers to the Levites as priestly functionaries (cf. 10:9; 14:29; 31:9, 25–26). Cf. McConville, Deuteronomy, 391.

29. Cf. J. M. Cohen, “When Did We Become a Nation?” JBQ 31 (2003): 260–62.

30. Slanski, The Babylonian Entitlement narûs (kudurrus), 288.

31. For curses elsewhere in the Old Testament, see Gen. 3:14; 4:11; 9:25; 27:29; 49:7; Num. 24:9; 28:16–19; Josh. 6:26; Jdg 5:23; 21:18; 1 Sam. 14:24, 28; Jer 11:3; 17:5; 20:14, 15; 48:10. For discussion see R. P. Gordon, “Curse, Malediction,” NIDOTTE, 4:491–93.

32. See the excellent discussion by E. Gerstenberger, “ ‘ . . . (He/They) Shall Be Put to Death’: Life-Preserving Divine Threats in Old Testament Law,” Ex Aud 11 (1995): 43–61, esp. 48–49 on Deut. 27:15–26.

33. See comments on 4:16, 23, 25; 5:8.

34. Compare the ca. twelfth-century BC Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope: “Do not laugh at a blind man, nor tease a dwarf, nor cause hardship for the lame.” Translation by M. Lichtheim, COS, 1:47 (p. 121). Earlier Amenemope had written, “Beware of robbing a wretch, of attacking a cripple.”

35. Cf. also 16:19; Ex. 23:2, 6; Lam. 3:35; cf. also Prov. 18:5.

36. The situation could arise if a father remarries after the death of one’s mother, or if he remarries after his divorce from one’s mother, or if he is in a bigamous or polygamous situation. Whereas the prohibition on sexual relations with one’s mother in Lev. 18:7–8 guards the relationship between mother and son, this taboo speaks only of the father’s honor.

37. For discussion of Hittite laws condemning those who engage in sexual relations with animals, see H. A. Hoffner, “Incest, Sodomy and Bestiality in the Ancient Near East,” in Orient and Occident: Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday (ed. H. A. Hoffner Jr.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973), 81–90.

38. See J. Èerny, “Consanguineous Marriages in Pharaonic Egypt,” JEA 40 (1964): 23–39; for later times, see W. Scheidel, “Brother Sister Marriage in Roman Egypt,” Journal of Biosocial Science 3 (1997): 361–71.

39. The sarcophagus inscription of ʾEshmunʿazar II of Sidon (fifth century BC) suggests this king’s father (Tabnit) and mother (ʾUmmiashtart) had a common father, Eshmunazzar I. See COS, 2:57.

40. We may hear an allusion to Moses’ appeal to the Levites to answer loudly in Micah’s invocation of the mountains as witnesses to the case that Yahweh has against his people (Mic. 6:1–2).

41. The text does not mention pillars; it seems to assume the stones are the stones of which the altar is built. Cf. C. Begg, “The Cisjordanian Altar(s) and their Associated Rites According to Josephus,” BZ 41 (1997): 195.

42. Not only does the Samaritan read “Gerizim” in place of “Ebal” in 27:4–5, but all allusions to Jerusalem in the Pentateuch are changed to Gerizim (e.g., Abraham sacrifices Isaac on Mount Moreh near Shechem, instead of Moriah in Gen. 22:2). Assuming the first command to be an introduction to the Decalogue, the Samaritans add a tenth command highlighting the sanctity of Mount Gerizim. Since the Samaritans viewed Shechem to have been chosen as the place of worship during the time of the patriarchs (Gen. 12:6; 33:18–20), in Deuteronomy the “the place the LORD will choose,” is changed to “the place the LORD has chosen.” On these ideological adaptations, see Tov, Textual Criticism, 94–95; B. K. Waltke, “Samaritan Pentateuch,” ABD, 5:938.

43. For a report on recent excavations of Gerizim, including evidence for a temple in Nehemiah’s time, see Y. Magen, “Bells, Pendants, Snakes & Stones: A Samaritan Temple to the Lord on Mt. Gerizim,” BAR 36/6 (November/December 2010): 26–35, 70.

44. Note the correspondence between “he shall establish the words of this Torah” in Deut. 27:26 and “he established the words of the Torah written on the document” in 2 Kings 23:24 (both pers. trans.).

45. Barker recognizes that the altar and the sacrifices lie at the heart of the Mount Ebal rituals (“The Theology of Deuteronomy 27, ” 295).

46. Cf. R. E. Averbeck, “Offerings and Sacrifices,” NIDOTTE, 4:1001.

47. For discussion, see L. L. Norris, “The Function of New Testament Warning Passages: A Speech Act Theory Approach” (PhD diss., Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL, 2011).

1. Appeals for scrupulous obedience to all Yahweh’s commands and to “walk in his ways”; the promise that Yahweh will set Israel high above the nations; references to Israel as a holy people belonging to Yahweh.

2. The ending of this unit is disputed. English translations follow the Vulgate in seeing 29:1[28:69] as the introduction to chap. 29, which accords with the location of analogous titular declarations in Deuteronomy (1:1; 4:44, 45; 12:1; 33:1), and the use of “covenant” as the key word in chapter 29 (vv. 9, 12, 14, 21, 25[8, 11, 13, 20, 24]). While Deut. 29:1[28:69] is obviously transitional, the Hebrew versification, which includes this verse in chapter 28, is well-founded. See H. F. van Rooy, “Deuteronomy 28, 69—Superscript or Subscript,” JNWSL 14 (1988): 215–22.

3. E.g., the portrayal of drought as hardening the heavens and the pulverizing the earth (Lev. 26:19; Deut. 28:23–24).

4. See D. R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (BibOr 16; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964). Hillers discusses Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 on pp. 30–42. Also see Deut. 28:15, 45–47, 58; cf. Sefire 1A:14 and 24 (COS, 2:213–14); the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon (hereafter VTE) ŠŠ410, 513 (ANET, 538–39); Deut. 28:58, 61; cf. Sefire 1B:23, 28, 33 (COS, 2:214–15); Deut. 28:62–63; cf. Sefire 1B: 23, 38, (COS, 2:215).

5. Based on links between this chapter and the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon in particular, many critical scholars assume that Deuteronomy 28 was inspired by neo-Assyrian vassal treaty form. However, the differences in these documents are more striking than the similarities and links with second millennium BC treaties and are at least as strong as with first millennium texts. For discussion, see M. Zehnder, “Building on Stone? Deuteronomy and Esarhaddon’s Loyalty Oaths (Part 1): Some Preliminary Observations,” BBR 19.3 (2009): 341–74; “Building on Stone? Deuteronomy and Esarhaddon’s Loyalty Oaths (Part 2): Some Additional Observations” BBR 19.4 (2009): 511–35.

6. K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 294.

7. Similarly D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (AnBib 21; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963), 176.

8. This interpretation is reinforced in 29:12–13[11–12], 20–21[18–20], 24–28[23–27].

9. For discussion, see Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 153–59.

10. Cf. E. W. Davies, “Land: Its Rights and Privileges,” in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives (ed. R. E. Clements; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989), 349–69.

11. “Everything you put your hand to” in v. 8a is equivalent to “all the work of your hands” in v. 12. Cf. 12:18; 15:10; 23:20[21]; 28:8, 20.

12. On the heavens as a storehouse filled with Yahweh’s resources, see Job 37:1–13; 38:22; Ps. 104:13; Ezek. 34:25–30.

13. For the text in transliteration and translation see UNP, 132–37.

14. They will attack Israel as a united force coming on one road, but flee in seven. As in 7:1 “seven ways” speaks of totality; the survivors will seek every possible escape route.

15. On the practice of branding slaves with the name of their owners in Mesopotamia, see M. A. Dandamaev, Slavery in Babylonia from Nabopolassar to Alexander the Great (626–331 BC) (rev. ed.; DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois Univ. Press, 1984), 78, 229–34. See also our discussion of the second command of the Decalogue (5:11) above.

16. See also 2 Chron. 7:14, and esp. Isa. 63:19.

17. For further discussion, see D. I. Block, “Bearing the Name of the LORD with Honor,” in How I Love Your Torah, O LORD! 61–72.

18. There will be no one to frighten away the scavenging beast and birds, who come to devour the corpses of Israel’s slain (v. 26); there will be no one to save (vv. 29, 31); there will be nothing their hand can do (v. 32); and there will be no one to buy their freedom (v. 68).

19. In 13:12[13]. these expressions identify supernatural actions performed by prophets to prove their authenticity.

20. See G. del Ollmo Lete, “Deber,” DDD, 231–32.

21. On the bubonic plague in ancient Mesopotamia, see J. Scurlock and B. R. Andersen, Diagnoses in Assyrian and Babylonian Medicine (Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press, 2005), 73–74. In Mesopotamia, the plague was occasionally described as a demon of pestilence “eating” his victims, as if he were an insect with a particular thirst for human blood (ibid, 472).

22. Cf. also Lev. 26:16. This probably refers to tuberculosis. Cf. HALOT, 1463.

23. Cf also Lev. 26:16. This probably refers to some sort of inflammation, perhaps fever. Cf. HALOT, 1067; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 262.

24. This may be another term for “fever.” Cf. HALOT, 223.

25. This probably refers to a feverish heat. Cf. HALOT, 352, 357.

26. Contra NIV, which renders this as “drought.”

27. See Hillers’ discussion of this curse, Treaty-Curses, 68–69.

28. As translated by Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, 46. See also F. C. Fensham, “The Curse of the Dry Bones in Ezekiel 37:1–14 Changed to a Blessing of Resurrection,” JNWSL 13 (1987): 60. Cf. Jer. 7:33; 34:17–20; Ezek. 37:1–2.

29. So also Tigay, Deuteronomy, 263.

30. Like the earlier words for “fever” and “inflammation” (v. 22), the word used here derives from a root meaning “to be warm.”

31. Tigay (Deuteronomy, 264) interprets this as “stupefaction, psychological disorientation.”

32. For discussion of mental disorders in ancient Mesopotamia see Scurlock and Andersen, Diagnoses, 367–85.

33. For extrabiblical analogues to these “futility curses,” see the Tell Fekheriye bilingual inscription (COS, 2:34 [p. 154]). For discussion of these “futility curses,” see T. G. Crawford, Blessing and Curse in Syro-Palestinian Inscriptions of the Iron Age (American University Studies 7/120; New York: Peter Lang, 1992), 170–73.

34. The rare word used here involves raping women in the context of battle and conquest (Isa. 13:16; Zech. 14:2).

35. Thus Tigay, Deuteronomy, 265.

36. Without reference to his divine election. Cf. Samuel’s comment in 1 Sam. 12:13.

37. Cf. 29:22–24[21–23]. This expression is common in Jeremiah’s oracles of judgment: Jer. 2:15; 4:7; etc. See also 2 Kings 22:19; 2 Chron. 29:8; 30:7; Ps. 73:19; Isa. 5:9; 13:9; Hos. 5:9; Joel 1:7; Mic. 6:16; Zeph. 2:15; Zech. 7:14.

38. See T. Hiebert, “Joel, Book of,” ABD, 3:876; Borowski, Every Living Thing, 159–60.

39. HALOT, 1702.

40. See M. Lubetski, “Beetlemania of Bygone Times,” JSOT 91 (2000): 3–26.

41. Deut. 32:13–15 offers a poetic description of the problem of ingratitude.

42. Cf. “an iron yoke” in Jer. 28:14. Ancient Near Easterners often spoke of a vassal’s relationship to his overlord as bearing his yoke (cf. Jer. 2:20; 5:5; cf. 27:8, 11, 12; 30:8–9).

43. Later prophets apply the idiom to the Assyrians (Isa. 33:19) and the Babylonians (Jer. 5:15).

44. Cf. the characterization of the Assyrians in Isa. 13:18, and the Babylonians in Lam. 4:16 and 5:12–13.

45. All three phrases have been encountered in the literal Hebrew in the summary blessings of verse 4 and the curse of verse 18.

46. The motif of cannibalism in times of crisis and famine is common in ancient Near Eastern documents. See ANET, 298c; ARAB, 2:794. For treaty curses threatening cannibalism, Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, 11 (cf. ANET, 533), 46 (cf. ANET, 538), and 52 (cf. ANET, 539).

47. See 2 Kings 6:28–29; Lam. 4:10. Also see Isa. 9:19–21[18–20]; 49:26; Jer. 19:9; Ezek. 5:9–10; Zech. 11:9.

48. The statement suggests that Moses either delivered his addresses from written drafts or he intended to transcribe them as soon as they had been delivered. Cf. 17:18; 31:9.

49. See elsewhere Isa. 59:19; Mic. 6:9; Mal. 4:2 (cf. the antonym, “to despise the name,” in 1:6); Pss. 61:5[6]; 86:11; 102:16[17]; Neh. 1:11; also Rev. 11:18.

50. Cf. 4:10; 5:29; and Ex. 20:20.

51. Echoing 7:15, the statement reverses Yahweh’s earlier rescue from the diseases of Egypt.

52. Elsewhere this verb applies to the inhabitants of the land, whom the Israelites will dispossess: 7:2–24; 9:3; 12:30; 31:3–4; 33:27.

53. The characterization of the heart/mind (lēb) as “anxious, agitated” contrasts with the kinds of hearts Yahweh gives elsewhere: a heart to know Yahweh (29:4[3]; Jer. 24:7); a listening/understanding heart (1 Kings 3:9); a single heart to fear Yahweh (Jer. 32:39); a new heart (Ezek. 11:19; 36:26); a heart of flesh, i.e., a responsive heart (Ezek 36:26); a single heart to do the king’s will (2 Chron. 30:12).

54. This expression speaks of utter emotional and physical exhaustion.

55. On the international slave trade, see Joel 3:6[4:6]; Amos 1:9.

56. We should not interpret the expression, “in addition to the covenant” to mean “in contrast to,” “in contradiction to,” or “in opposition to.” The phrase is elliptical and should be interpreted “in addition to [the terms of] the covenant he made with them at Horeb,” thus matching “the terms of the covenant” at the beginning of the verse. For defense of the unity of the covenant made at Sinai and confirmed by this generation in Moab, see P. A. Barker, The Triumph of Grace in Deuteronomy: Faithless Israel, Faithful Yahweh in Deuteronomy (Paternoster Biblical Monographs; Carlisle, UK; Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster: 2004), 112–16.

57. Marcion was a first-century AD heretic.

58. On the place of speech-act theory in biblical interpretation, see K. J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 201–80.

59. Cf. D. B. Sandy, Plowshares & Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 89.

60. Note the colophonic conclusion to the stipulations of the covenant ratified at Sinai in Lev. 26:46: “These are the decrees, the laws and the instructions [NIV ‘regulations’] that the LORD established on Mount Sinai between himself and the Israelites through Moses.” Significantly this statement occurs immediately after a reference to the covenant with the ancestors whom Yahweh brought out of Egypt, including the covenant formula, and after the list of blessings and curses.

61. For fuller discussion, see Block, Ezekiel Chapters 1–24, 7–9, 16.

62. See Ezek. 12:25; 17:24; 22:14; 36:36; 37:14.

63. The phrase hāyâ l^esammâ in 2 Kings 22:19 is borrowed from Deut. 28:37.

64. The singular q^elālâ alludes to the plural “the curses” in Deut. 28:15, 45.

65. See D. Stuart, Hosea–Jonah (WBC 31; Waco, TX: Word, 1987), xxxi–xlii.

66. Deut. 28:9, 13–15, 20, 45, 47, 58, 62.

67. For fuller discussion of these and other texts like this, see L. L. Norris, “The Function of New Testament Warning Passages: A Speech Act Theory Approach” (PhD dissertation, Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL, 2011).

68. See especially Joel Osteen, Your Best Life Now: 7 Steps to Living at Your Full Potential (Nashville: Faith Words, 2004). For a critique, see David van Biema and Jeff Chu, “Does God Want You to Be Rich?” Time (Sunday, September 10, 2006). For a helpful response to this kind of gospel, see W. C. Kaiser, “The Old Testament Case for Material Blessings and the Contemporary Believer,” TJ 9 (1988): 151–69.

1. Because of differences in the location of the chapter division, the verse numbers in Hebrew are all one lower than the English numbers. For the sake of convenience, the commentary will use only the English numbers.

2. See 29:4, 10, 12, 13, 15a, 15b, 18, 28; 30:2, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18a, 18b, 19.

3. See haqq^elālâ, “curse“ (29:27; 30:1, 19); hāʾālâ/ʾālôt, “covenant imprecation/imprecations, curse/curses“ (29:12, 14, 19, 20, 21; 30:7), and specifically ʾālôt habb^erît, “the imprecations of the covenant” (29:21).

4. Deut. 29:4, 18, 19; 30:1, 2, 6, 10, 14, 17.

5. For a discussion of these links see Timothy A. Lenchak, Choose Life! A Rhetorical-Critical Investigation of Deuteronomy 28, 69–30:20 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1993), 114–18.

6. The following elements have been identified: the historical prologue (29:2b–9); the declaration of commitment (29:10–15); the stipulations (29:16–20a); the appeal to witnesses (30:19a); the blessings and the curses (30:15–18, 19b–20). This is a modified version of the scheme proposed by A. Rofé, “The Covenant in the Land of Moab (Deuteronomy 28:69–30:20, ” in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (ed. N. Lohfink; BETL 68; Louvain: Louvain Univ. Press, 1985), 310–20; reprinted in A Song of Power and the Power of Song (ed. D. L. Christensen; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 269–80.

7. Deut. 29:4, 24, 29; 30:11–14.

8. For surveys of recent approaches, see Barker, Triumph of Grace, 108–10; Lenchak, Choose Life! 32–36.

9. As in Ex. 12:21; 36:2; Lev. 10:4; Deut. 5:1; 31:7

10. Cf. 3:21; 4:3, 9; 5:24; 10:21; 11:7.

11. So also Tigay, Deuteronomy, 275. In effect, the previous generation had become like idols of wood and stone that Moses characterized in 4:28 as neither seeing nor hearing nor eating nor smelling. Cf. Pss. 115:4–8; 135:15–18.

12. The triad of “mind,“ “eyes,“ and “ears“ occurs elsewhere in Isa. 6:10; 32:3–4; Jer. 5:21; Ezek. 40:4. This concept underlies Paul’s idiom in Eph. 1:18, “having the eyes of your hearts enlightened that you may know.”

13. This interprets “until this day“ broadly as the present context of Moses’ final addresses, not simply the day of this phase of the covenant renewal ceremony. Cf. comments on 1:5.

14. And quail: Ex. 16:13; Num. 11:31–32; Ps. 105:40.

15. For “your heads/leaders,“ see 1:15; 5:23; for “your chief men,“ see 5:23; 19:12; 21:2–4, 6, 19–20; 22:15–18; 25:7–9; 27:1; 29:10; 31:9, 28; 32:7; for “your elders,” see 1:15; 16:18; 31:28.

16. For discussion of the issues and other possibilities, see Lenchak, Choose Life! 94–95.

17. Cf. Josh. 9:21–27, where the Israelites assigned these tasks to Gibeonites after their deception was exposed.

18. The expression occurs only here in the Old Testament, substituting for the more common “to enter into [bôʾ] a covenant“ (see 2 Chron. 15:12; Jer. 34:10; Ezek. 16:8). For a discussion of these and other formulaic expressions for entering into a covenant relationship see M. Weinfeld, “b^erît,” TDOT, 2:255–56.

19. Cf. Gen. 15:9–10, 17; Jer. 34:18. On the ceremony in the ancient Near East, see Weinfeld, TDOT, 2:262–63.

20. See Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 15–26.

21. Nor is it always the case elsewhere. Ezekiel seems to use this expression interchangeably with “to establish a covenant“ (cf. Ezek. 16:60; 34:25).

22. The formula “as he promised you” occurs frequently in Deuteronomy: 1:11, 21; 6:19; 9:3; 10:9; 11:25; 12:20; 15:6; 18:2; 26:18, 19; 27:3; 31:3. In Deuteronomy this clause always speaks of an earlier “promise,“ found in sources on which Deuteronomy draws. See J. Milgrom, “Profane Slaughter and a Formulaic Key to the Composition of Deuteronomy,“ HUCA 47 (1976): 3–4.

23. Cf. 1:8; 6:10; 9:5; 30:20; 34:4.

24. For discussion of the relationship between these texts and these covenants, see J. Hwang, The Rhetoric of Remembrance: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation into the ‘Fathers’ in Deuteronomy (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, forthcoming).

25. But see Josh. 24:14. The present statement may underlie Ezekiel’s perception of the Israelites’ idolatrous past (Ezek. 20:5–9, on which see Block, Ezekiel Chapters 1–24, 624–30, especially 628–29). This conclusion is reinforced by the prophet’s favorite designation for idols. See further below.

26. Thirty-nine of the word’s forty-eight occurrences in the Old Testament are found in Ezekiel. For a full discussion of the word see D. Bodi, “Les gillûlîm chez Ézéchiel et dans l’Ancien Testament et les différentes pratiques cultuelles associées à ce terme,“ RB 100 (1995): 481–510.

27. Bodi, ibid., captures the intended sense with “shitgods.“ On the meaning of gillûlîm, see Block, Ezekiel Chapters 1–24, 227–28.

28. Deut. 17:17 speaks of apostasy as the heart/mind “turning aside,” presumably from following the way of Yahweh (so also Jer. 17:5; Ezek. 6:9; Ps. 101:4).

29. Cf. 29:4, 18, 19; 30:2, 6 [3x], 10, 14, 17.

30. Cf. McConville, Deuteronomy, 416–17, 420.

31. On the fruits specified here, see I. Jacob and W. Jacob, “Flora,“ ABD, 2:816; M. G. Reddish, “Wormwood,“ ABD, 6:973.

32. These two words are combined to express the threat of divine punishment in Jer. 9:15[14] and 23:15, and to describe the fulfillment of the threat in Lam 3:15, 19.

33. So also McConville, Deuteronomy, 413.

34. NIV’s periphrastic rendering, “even though I persist in going my own way,“ glosses over the problems.

35. NIV’s “This will bring disaster on the watered land as well as the dry,“ is meaningless in the context, and like most English translations mistakenly removes this clause from the idolater’s speech. For further discussion of the issues see McConville, Deuteronomy, 412; Nielsen, Deuteronomy, 336; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 280.

36. Note the references to the written record of the oath/curse in vv. 20 and 21.

37. According to 2 Chron. 7:14, when Yahweh’s people humble themselves, and pray, and seek his face, and turn from their wicked ways, he will forgive. Cf. Naaman’s request for forgiveness in 2 Kings 5:18.

38. Cf. the rituals that result in forgiveness in Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18; 6:7[5:26]; 19:22; Num. 15:25–28.

39. Cf. Num. 30:5, 8, 12[6, 9, 13].

40. Num. 14:20; note also Daniel’s intercession on behalf of his people in Dan. 9:19. For discussion of the verb used here, see J. P. J. Olivier, NIDOTTE, 3:259–64.

41. On the image of an angry person’s nose smoking see also Ps. 74:1 (see also comments on 4:24).

42. This was also the fate that Yahweh had threatened for the entire nation for worshiping the calf at Horeb (9:14).

43. NIV obscures the oral character of v. 21 by beginning the direct speech in v. 24.

44. Contra those who specify the next generation: ESV, NRSV, McConville, Deuteronomy, 412.

45. The NIV switches these around.

46. Elsewhere this term is often associated with fire (Gen. 19:24; Ps. 11:6; Isa. 30:33; Ezek. 38:22); cf. pitch in Isa. 34:9.

47. On salt as symbol of barrenness and desolation, see Ps. 107:34; Jer. 17:6; Zeph. 2:9. Cf. S. Gevirtz, “Jericho and Shechem: A Religio-Literary Aspect of City Destruction,“ VT 13 (1963): 52–62. See also comments on 7:2–5.

48. Although Genesis 18–19 speaks only of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the addition of Admah and Zeboiim, mentioned in Gen. 10:19 and 14:2, 8, is picked up by Hosea in Hos. 11:8.

49. The word is always associated with Sodom and Gomorrah: Isa. 1:7; 13:19; Jer. 49:18; 50:40; Amos 4:11.

50. For a similar response to Ashurbanipal’s devastation of Arabia for rebelling against him, see ANET, 299–300.

51. This is one of only five instances where Israel’s infidelity is referred to as “abandoning the covenant.” Cf. 1 Kings 19:10, 14; Jer. 22:9; Dan. 11:30.

52. Cf. Deut. 1:8; 6:10; 9:5, 27; 30:20; 34:4.

53. Cf. 6:15; 7:4; 11:17; 31:17. This idiom derives from the natural phenomenon of hot breath issuing from the nose of an infuriated creature. Cf. v. 20, which speaks of the “nose“ of Yahweh “burning” with rage.

54. The verb “to uproot“ occurs only here in Deuteronomy, but is a favorite for the destructive judgmental actions of Yahweh in Jeremiah: Jer. 1:10; 12:14–15, 17; 18:7; 24:6; 31:28; 42:10; 45:4; cf. also 1 Kings 14:15.

55. The verb “to throw“ occurs only here in Deuteronomy, but is also used elsewhere of Yahweh casting his people out of his presence: 2 Kings 13:23; 24:20 = Jer. 52:3; Jer. 7:15; 2 Chron. 7:20, cf. 1 Kings 9:7.

56. Cf. 6:12; 8:11, 14, 19.

57. Judg. 2:11; 3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1. In three of these he specifies the evil as violation of the Supreme Command: they abandoned Yahweh, served other gods, and provoked divine anger (2:11–12; 3:7–8; 10:6–7).

58. Pss. 42:10[11]; 79:10; 115:2; Joel 2:17.

59. See also Jer. 5:19; 16:10–13.

60. G. K. Beale (We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008], 71–76) argues that in having unseeing eyes and unhearing ears the exodus generation of Israelites became like the idols they worshiped.

61. E. Talstra, “Texts and Their Readers: On Reading the Old Testament in the Context of Theology,” in The Rediscovery of the Hebrew Bible (ed. J. W. Dyk et al.; ACEBT Supplement 1; Maastricht: Shaker, 1999), 109. We might recognize another indirect allusion to Deuteronomy 29 in Rom. 11:3–5, where Paul quotes Elijah’s complaint in 1 Kings 19:10 that the people have destroyed Yahweh’s altars and killed his prophets, lamenting that he only is left. What he leaves off is Elijah’s opening charge against his own people: they have abandoned Yahweh’s covenant, which obviously derives from Deut. 29:25. As noted above, the idiom occurs only in Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14; Jer. 22:9; and Dan. 11:30.

1. This conclusion will be reinforced in the following chapter, particularly 30:11–14 and 30:15–20. Cf. Barker, Triumph of Grace, 139–40.

2. Like those cited in 27:15 and 24. See Rofé, “Covenant in the Land of Moab,” 313. Cf. also Ps. 19:12[13].

3. Thus the rabbis, on which see A. Shemesh and C. Weman, “Hidden Things and Their Revelation,” RevQ 18 (1998): 409–27. At Qumran v. 29 was read as a pesher on their history; the hidden things were reserved for God during the First Temple Period (when Israelites broke the revealed commands), but they were revealed in the Second Temple Period to the members of the Community. See CD 3:9–20; 5:20–6:11.

4. Some note the link with Job 28:21, which speaks of wisdom as hidden and inaccessible to human beings. Cf. G. Braulik, Deuteronomium II 16, 18–34, 12 (Neue Echter Bible 28; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1992), 216.

5. After observing that the secret things are undefined, Barker comments, “Whatever they are, they are not necessary for man to know. God has revealed all that is needed for obedience” (Triumph of Grace, 140).

6. If the “today” segments (29:2–13[1–12]; 29:29; 30:11–20) represent the core of this address, then the hidden things contrast not only to “all the words of this Torah” but also to “the command” in 30:11 and “the word” in 30:14.

7. J. Krasovec (“The Distinctive Hebrew Testimony to Renewal Based on Forgiveness,” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 5 [1999]: 226) interprets 30:1–10 as a counterpart to Lev. 26:40–45.

8. Krasovec (ibid., 230) suggests they came from the same author.

9. For representation of the first view see Driver, Deuteronomy, 328; Craigie, Deuteronomy, 363; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 283–84; Biddle, Deuteronomy, 444. For representation of the second view, see Wright, Deuteronomy, 289–90; and esp. Barker, Triumph of Grace, 144–45; K. Turner, The Death of Deaths in the Death of Israel: Deuteronomy’s Theology of Exile (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2010), 173–79, though he adopts a more moderate stance in “When Does God Circumcise the Heart in Israel’s Restoration from Exile? Deuteronomy 30:1–10 and Its Implications for the Christian Doctrine of Salvation,” a paper presented to the Evangelical Theological Society, Washington, D.C., 2006.

10. A. Rofé (“The Covenant in the Land of Moab [Deuteronomy 28:69–30:20]: Historico-Literary, Comparative and Form-Critical Considerations,” in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (ed. N. Lohfink; BETL 68; Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press, 1985, 311) describes this passage as “a majestic fugue” on the theme of šûb. For a full study of the word, see W. L. Holladay, The Root in the Old Testament (with Particular References to Its Usage in Covenantal Contexts) (Leiden: Brill, 1958).

11. Cf. Wright, Deuteronomy, 289.

12. Verse 7 is omitted because it deals with what Yahweh will do to the nations rather than Israel, though these actions ultimately are for Israel’s benefit.

13. Gen. 20:8; 29:13; Ex. 19:7; 20:1; 24:8; Num. 16:31; Deut. 4:30; 12:28; 30:1; 32:45.

14. This clause serves as a refrain in the book: 4:30; 8:20; 9:23; 13:4, 18 [5, 19]; 15:5; 21:18, 20; 26:14, 17; 27:10; 28:1–2, 15, 45, 62; 30:2, 8, 10, 20.

15. Deut. 4:29; 6:5; 10:12–13; 11:13–15; 13:3[4]; 26:16.

16. This is the first of twenty-five occurrences of this idiom in the Old Testament, and its only occurrence in Deuteronomy. In Job 42:10 the expression involved restoration of the beleaguered man’s original good fortune. For discussions of the idiom, see J. M. Bracke, “šûb š^ebût: A Reappraisal,” ZAW 97 (1985): 233–44; J. A. Thompson and E. A. Martens, “,” NIDOTTE, 4:58–59.

17. Cf. Gen. 16:10; 17:2, 20; 22:17; 26:4, 24; 28:3; 35:11; 48:4.

18. For references to Israel prospering in the land and multiplication of the population, see also 6:3; 7:13; 30:16.

19. See 5:29; 9:6, 13, 24; 13:2[3]; 31:16–18, 27–29.

20. Since elsewhere Moses suggests this goal will be achieved through reading/hearing the Torah (17:19–20; 31:11–13), circumcising the heart is equivalent to implanting the Torah in peoples’ hearts.

21. As in vv. 3c and 8, the NIV obscures the reference to reorientation by treating yâsûb, “he will return,” as an adverb, “again.”

22. The expression “in this book of the Torah” is identical to the form in 29:21[20], but different from 28:61, “written in the book of this Torah.” Note that “book” (sēper) is not book in a technical sense but a written document—in all likelihood, a vellum or parchment scroll.

23. The NIV disregards the first occurrence, treating the last clause of v. 9 as an independent clause; in v. 10 kî is translated twice as “if.”

24. Thus A. Aejmelaeus, “Function and Interpretation of kî in Biblical Hebrew,” JBL 105 (1986): 202–7.

25. Cf. ibid., 202–8. Contra McConville, Deuteronomy, 428; syntactically, the temporal interpretation seems least likely and depends too much on theological assumptions regarding Israel’s incapacity to turn to Yahweh prior to his circumcision of their heart in 10:16.

26. My interpretation obviously assumes the chronological priority of Deuteronomy over Jeremiah. See G. Vanoni, “Anspielungen und Zitate innerhalbe der hebräischen Bibel: Am Beispiel von Dtn 4, 29; Deut 30, 3 und Jer 29, 13–14, ” in Jeremia und die deuteronomische Bewegung (ed. W. Gross; BBB 98; Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995), 383–95. Contrariwise, M. Z. Brettler argues that Deuteronomy 30:1–10 is based on Jeremiah. See “Predestination in Deuteronomy 30.1–10, ” in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomists (ed. L. S. Schearing and S. L. McKenzie; JSOTSup 268; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 171–88.

27. Rom. 4:1; 9:3, 5; Gal. 4:23, 29.

28. The expression “the days are coming” recurs in vv. 27, 31, 38.

29. In context, Jer. 31:27–40 is entirely parochial; only Israel is in view here. Ezekiel does not speak of heart circumcision, but replaces this image with the metaphor of heart transplant language. Echoing Moses’ ambivalence in Deuteronomy, in one moment he calls on the Israelites to get themselves a new heart and a new spirit (Ezek. 18:31; cf. Deut. 10:16), and in the next speaks of Yahweh transplanting the people’s spirit and heart (11:19; 36:24–34; cf. Deut. 30:6). Like Moses, Ezekiel sees the proof of spiritual renewal as obedience to God’s will.

30. Cf. Krasovec, “Distinctive Hebrew Testimony,” 234.

31. Cf. Ex. 31:16–17; Lev. 24:8; 26:40–45; Judg. 2:1; Ps. 111:2–9; Isa. 24:4–5; 54:4–10.

32. On which see D. I. Block, “Who Do Commentators Say ‘the Lord’ Is? The Scandalous Rock of Romans 10:13, ” in On the Writing of New Testament Commentaries: Festschrift for Grant Osborne on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday (ed. S. Porter and E. Schnabel (Leiden: Brill, 2012), forthcoming.

33. M. Boda notes rightly that Deuteronomy has little to say about forgiveness and atonement as solutions for violation of the covenant. The emphasis is on divine compassion and restoration as a response to human repentance. See chapter 7, “Deuteronomy,” in A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament (Siphrut 1; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 97–114. While theologians often argue that repentance itself is the result of a prior divine work, this text will not allow a reductionistic explanation of the process of salvation. Here the sequence is penitence, which involves deep reflection on and acknowledgement of sin, followed by turning around and wholehearted obedience. Only the latter is presented as the result of the divine work of God in circumcising human hearts.

1. On the use of kî to mark a prominent juncture, see C. M. Follingstad, Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text: A Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Analysis of the Particle (Dallas: SIL, 2001), 52.

2. So also E. Aurelius, “Heilsgegenwart im Wort: Dtn 30, 11–14, ” in Liebe und Gebot. Studien zum Deuteronomium (ed. L. Perlitt Festschrift, R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann; (FRLANT 190; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 15.

3. Cf. Deut. 6:25; 11:22; 15:5; 19:9. Deut. 30:11 lit. translates: “this command that I am commanding you today”; it echoes 15:5 verbatim.

4. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 74, 286.

5. In Ex. 34:10 a cognate noun refers to Yahweh’s marvelous deeds on behalf of his people. In Deut. 17:8 the Niphal verb involves an insoluble legal case. Prov. 30:18 associates this word with incomprehensibility.

6. See 2 Sam. 13:2; Zech. 8:6. It is used with reference to Yahweh in Gen. 18:14; Jer. 32:17, 27.

7. This pair of expressions serves as a shorthand version of opposites listed elsewhere in the Old Testament (Job 11:8–9; Ps. 139:8–9; cf. Job 28). In Amarna Letter 264 a Canaanite king describes his loyalty to Pharaoh: “Should we go up into the sky, or should we go down into the netherworld, our head is in your hand” (transl. by Moran, Amarna Letters, 313).

8. For example, see “Etana,” in Foster, Before the Muses, 533–54; Tablets IX–XI in the Epic of Gilgamesh. For translation of the latter see A. George, trans., The Epic of Gilgamesh: The Babylonian Epic Poem and Other Texts in Akkadian and Sumerian (London: Penguin, 2000), 70–100; also ANET, 88–97.

9. Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi 1.36–38, as translated by Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, 41. See also the question raised in “The Dialogue of Pessimism”: “Who is so tall as to ascend to the heavens? Who is so broad as to compass the underworld?” (ibid., 148–49, ll. 83–84). On the relationship of these texts to Deut. 30:11–12, see F. E. Greenspahn, “A Mesopotamian Proverb and Its Biblical Reverberations,” JAOS 114 (1994): 35.

10. Deut. 30:11 and 14 adapt 6:6: “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts.”

11. For the demands, cf. 10:12; 11:1, 22; for the promises/threats, cf. 4:1; 7:13; 8:1.

12. Cf. the discussion by W. Brueggemann, “The Shrill Voice of the Wounded Party,” HBT 21 (1999): 1–25.

13. The sage contrasts life and death as a motivational theme in Prov. 11:19; 14:27; 18:21. See also G. H. Wilson, “ ‘The Words of the Wise’: The Intent and Significance of Qohelet 12:9–14, ” JBL 103 (1984): 186–87. In association with Deut. 11:26–28 and 30:15–18, Wilson cites Prov. 3:33–35; 4:10–19; 8:32–36.

14. In this chapter alone, see vv. 1a, 1b, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 16b, 18.

15. Perhaps an error by homoioarcton, the scribe’s eye having skipped from the first ʾ ^ašer to the second, resulting in the loss of the intervening material. ESV and NRSV follow LXX, which includes the missing clause. So also McConville, Deuteronomy, 423; Nelson, Deuteronomy, 345, 346. NIV’s reading is possible, though unlikely.

16. On tôb (“good”) and raʿ (“evil”) as polar opposites see C. Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 328–33.

17. On dābaq (“to hold fast, cling to”), see comments on 4:4; 10:20; 11:22; 13:4[5]. Deut. 11:22 contains a similar triad of requirements, though “to walk in all his ways” substitutes for listening to his voice between the other two.

18. With Joshua, Caleb remained true to Yahweh (Num. 14:24; Deut. 1:36; Josh. 14:8–9, 14), in contrast to the rest of the generation that came out of Egypt (Num. 32:11–12).

19. See esp. T. Schreiner, Romans (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 550–63; D. J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 644–60.

20. “The end of the law” (Rom. 10:4). Our expression is borrowed from N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 241.

21. An implication of Paul’s citation of Deut. 9:4 (LXX), in the original context of which Moses destroys the notion that Israel’s entitlement to the land of Canaan rested on superior righteousness. Cf. Schreiner, Romans, 558; Moo, Romans, 650–51.

22. Deut. 4:1; 6:20–25; 8:1, 3; 30:6, 16.

23. Pss. 19:7–14 [8–15]; 119:16, 24, 25, 35, 40, 47, 48, 62, 70, 77, 92, 93, 97, 113, 119, 127, 140, 143, 156, 159, 163, 167, 175.

24. Deut. 4:10; 5:29; 6:2, 4–5, 13, 24; 10:12, 20; 13:4[5]; 17:19; 31:12–13.

25. Thus Moo, Romans, 653.

26. Cf. Aurelius, “Heilsgegenwart im Wort,” 23–24. The following involve citations in which expressions for the “word”/“command”/“Torah” could be replaced by the divine name Yahweh: Pss. 119:19 (cf. 27:9; 69:17[18]; 102:3[4]; 143:7), 20, 31 (cf. 63:9[10]; Deut. 10:20), 41, 42 (cf. 56:4[5]); 46 (cf. Isa. 61:6); 47 (cf. Deut. 6:5; Pss. 26:8; 31:23[24]; 97:10; 116:1; 145:20), 48 (cf. Pss. 28:2; 63:4[5]); 114 (cf. vv. 43, 74; 147; cf. 31:24[25]; 33:18, 22; 69:3[4]; 71:5; 147:11; 130:7; 131:3).

27. The ambiguity has its roots in LXX, which regularly renders both the tetragrammaton (yhwh) and ʾ ^adôn as kyrios.

28. Cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans: A Shorter Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 258–60.

29. That “live” here means “remain alive” or even “enjoy life” rather than “conduct one’s life” is confirmed by the conclusion to this chapter (Lev. 18:29–30), which warns the Israelites not to practice evil, lest they be cut off.

30. For further discussion, see Block, “Who Do Commentators Say ‘the Lord’ Is”? forthcoming.

31. The contrast here is not between law and grace, but between mediated grace and embodied grace (cf. John 1:16).

1. Some interpret chapters 1–3 and 31–34 as the outer frames of the book (D. L. Christensen, “Form and Structure in Deuteronomy 1–11, ” in Das Deuteronomium (ed. N. Lohfink; BETL 68; Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press, 1985), 138; Merrill, Deuteronomy, 396), while others treat chap. 31 as a continuation of chap. 3 (J. D. Levenson, “Who Inserted the Book of the Torah?” HTR 68 [1976]: 209). But these interpretations gloss over basic differences between chaps. 1–3, which consist of continuous speech by Moses, and chap. 31, which is narrative with embedded speeches.

2. The text is framed by Moses’ announcement of his imminent death (31:2) and the narrator’s eulogy in 34:10–12.

3. For a study of this death narrative, see B. H. Cribb, Speaking on the Brink of Sheol: Form and Message of Old Testament Death Stories (Gorgias Dissertations: Biblical Studies 43; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009), 180–220.

4. On the structure and composition of this chapter, see Tigay, Deuteronomy, 502–7; E. Talstra, “Deuteronomy 31: Confusion or Conclusion? The Story of Moses’ Three-fold Succession,” in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans (ed. by M. Vervenne and J. Lust; Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press, 1997), 87–110; A. Rofé, “The Composition of Deuteronomy 31 in the Light of a Conjecture about Inversion in the Order of Columns in the Biblical Text,” Shnaton 3 (1979): 59–76.

5. Cf. B. Britt, Rewriting Moses: The Narrative Eclipse of the Text (JSOTSup 402; Gender, Culture Theory 14; London: T&T Clark 2004), 140. The noun ʿēd can apply either to persons (17:6–7; 19:15–16) or to concrete objects (Josh. 24:27–28; Isa. 30:8) as witnesses.

6. The opening verb, “and he went,” anticipates the series of movements by Moses in this chapter. While the NIV reflects the reading of the MT, because this construction, which involves the verb hâlak (“to go”), followed by a verb of speech without further comment on where Moses might have gone, is unprecedented, many read, “When Moses finished speaking these words,” with LXX and a Qumran fragment (1QDeut^b [1Q5], in DJD 1 [1955], pl. X, fig. 13 and p. 59), and in conformity with the convention reflected in Gen. 17:22 and Deut. 32:45. Thus Mayes, Deuteronomy, 372–73; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 289, 400; Nelson, Deuteronomy, 353. However, the more difficult reading and less conventional MT is preferred over the LXX and the Qumran readings. So also F. Nwachukwu, “The Textual Differences between the MT and the LXX of Deuteronomy 31: A Response to Leo Laberge,” in Bundesdokument und Gesetz: Studien zum Deuterononmium (ed. G. Braulik; HBS 4; Freiburg: Herder, 1995), 88–90.

7. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 358.

8. NIV’s “to lead you” is a periphrastic rendering of the merismic phrase, “to go out and come in,” which in Num. 27:17 refers expressly to the exercise of military leadership (cf. also Deut. 28:6).

9. Toward the people: 1:37–38; 4:21; toward Yahweh: 3:24–27.

10. The pair of expressions occurs in the plural elsewhere in Josh. 10:25 and 2 Chron. 32:7, and in the singular in Josh. 1:6, 7, 9, 18; 1 Chron. 22:13; 28:20.

11. Cf. also v. 17. The Heb. verb ʿāzab (“abandon, forsake”) is used of Israel abandoning Yahweh in v. 16 and 28:20 or his covenant in 29:25[24].

12. This short speech builds on comments made in the first address in 1:38; 3:21–22, 28. For the narrative account of the event, see Num. 27:15–23.

13. For a form-critical study of narratives involving the commission of a person for an office or task, see D. J. McCarthy, “An Installation Genre?” JBL 90 (1971): 31–41.

14. The formula occurs elsewhere in 1:8; 6:18; 8:1; 9:5; 11:9, 21; 26:3; 28:11; 30:20.

15. This verb tends to be used in texts involving the installation of a military leader, but is often replaced by verbs like “to make, do” in contexts involving civil or religious duties. See McCarthy, “Installation Genre?” 34–35.

16. See C. T. Begg, “The Tables (Deut. X) and the Lawbook (Deut. 31),” VT 33 (1983): 97–98.

17. The expression “this Torah” (hattôrâ hazzōʾt) occurs repeatedly elsewhere: 1:5 (written by the narrator’s pen); 4:8; 17:18, 19; 27:3, 8, 26; 28:58, 61; 29:29[28]. (from the lips of Moses). For additional references to written documents, see 4:13; 5:22; 10:4; 17:18; 27:3, 8. On the possibility of a document referring to itself as a written document, see J. Chinitz, “The Word Torah in the Torah,” JBQ 33 (2005): 243–45.

18. The characterization of Moses as the author of “this Torah” contrasts with the Decalogue itself, whose author was Yahweh (10:4). See further, R. Venema, “YHWH or Moses? A Question of Authorship: Exodus 34:28–Deuteronomy 10:4; 31:9, 24, ” in YHWH—Kyrios—Antitheism or the Power of the Word: Festschrift für Rochus Zuurmond anlässlich seiner Emeriterung am 26. Januar 1996 (ed. K. A. Deurloo and J. Diebner; DBAT Beiheft 14; Amsterdam/Heidelberg: DBAT, 1996), 69–76. NIV’s rendering of sēper as “book” is misleading. Books as we know them (codices consisting of sheets that could be written on both sides and bound on one edge) were not used until shortly before Christ. Presumably Moses used a leather scroll of lambskin or parchment. Cf. M. Haran, “Scribal Workmanship in Biblical Times,” Tarbiz 50 (1980–1981): 71–72; Alan R. Millard, “Writing,” DOTP, 904–11.

19. See further discussion below on vv. 24–26.

20. This had also been anticipated in chapter 27:1–8. Together these leaders of the people will continue Moses’ role. Similarly Sonnet, Book within the Book, 139–40, after Braulik, Deuteronomium II, 223; N. Lohfink, “Die ältesten Israels und der Bund zum Zusammenhang von Dtn 5, 23; 26:17–19; 27, 1, 9f und 31, 9, ” BN 67 (1993): 26–42.

21. Cf. Weinfeld, DDS, 63–64. See comments on 10:1–9.

22. Cf. McConville, Deuteronomy, 439.

23. According to Lev. 23:34–44, Sukkoth was to be celebrated in the middle of the seventh month on Tishri 15–21. The association of the end of the seventh year with the festival of Sukkoth suggests Moses had in mind the informal agricultural calendar rather than the official liturgical calendar.

24. In Jewish tradition the eighth day of this festival ends with the celebration Simḥat Torah, “The Joy of Torah.” This service focuses on the Torah as God’s gracious gift to his people.

25. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 291.

26. Ex. 24:10 is even more direct when the narrator notes that the Israelites “saw the God of Israel” at Sinai.

27. This list is shorthand for the fuller listing in 16:14.

28. On the septennial ritual as an educational commemoration of the covenant made at Sinai and renewed on the Plains of Moab rather than as a repeated covenant renewal ceremony, see Craigie, Deuteronomy, 371; W. L. Holladay, “A Proposal for Reflections in the Book of Jeremiah of the Seven-Year Recitation of the Law in Deuteronomy (Deut. 31:10–13),” in Das Deuteronomium (ed. N. Lohfink; BETL 68; Louvain: Louvain Univ. Press, 1985), 326–28.

29. Cf. M. Haran, “The ʾōhel mōʿēd in Pentateuchal Sources,” JSS 5 (1960): 50–65. For a critique of the view that the Tent of Meeting and the tabernacle represent different notions of divine presence, see I. Wilson, “Merely a Container? The Ark in Deuteronomy,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (ed. J. Day; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 212–49. For discussion of the relationship between these two Tents of Meeting, see M. Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 264–69.

30. While the nearest antecedent of the pronoun “he” is Moses in v. 22, it is clear from the first person verbs that Yahweh is the speaker.

31. NIV reads “rest with the fathers.” The idiom derives from the common practice of burying the deceased in family tombs, but it also reflects a common Israelite view that in death people are gathered to Sheol, where they join their kin reclining on beds (cf. 32:50).

32. Cf. Judg 2:17; 8:27, 33; 1 Chron. 5:25; cf. also Lev. 17:7; 20:5; Ezek. 20:30.

33. See esp. Hos. 4:12–14. For a study of the metaphor see P. Bird, “ ‘To Play the Harlot’: An Inquiry into an Old Testament Metaphor,” Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (ed. P. L. Day; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 75–94.

34. This threat reverses the promise of 31:6, 8; cf. also 29:27[26].

35. For a summary of the dimensions of the hidden face of God and references, see HALOT, 771–72.

36. See the positive counterpart to the expression in the Aaronic blessing (Num. 6:25–26). For related Akkadian idioms, see A. L. Oppenheim, “Idiomatic Akkadian,” JAOS 61 (1941): 256–57; S. E. Balentine, The Hiding of the Face of God in the Old Testament (New York: Oxford, 1983), 22–28.

37. Cf. “I shall turn (and) die if the crown prince my lord turns away his face from me,” in L. Waterman, Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire, Part II: Translation and Transliteration (Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press, 1930–36), 114–15.

38. See “A Prayer of Lamentation to Ishtar,” in ANET, 385, and the complaint of the afflicted in Ludlul bēl nēmeqi (“The Babylonian Job”), in Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, 38, line 4. Except for Job 13:14; 34:29, the idiom describes Yahweh’s reaction to covenant betrayal.

39. Cf. also Job 36:21; Hos. 3:1; also Ps. 40:4[5].

40. On the difference between “poem” and “song,” see D. Lipton, Longing for Egypt and Other Unexpected Biblical Tales [Hebrew Bible Monographs 15; Sheffield: Phoenix, 2008), 189–90. On the singing or oral recitation of written poetry in Mesopotamia, see J. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1982), 107, n. 2.

41. The idiom used here, “to put it on their lips,” means teaching it thoroughly so the people have memorized it and can recite it.

42. Cf. Jer. 30:17; 33:24; Ezek. 36:20–21;

43. If kî introduces a temporal clause (“when”), then the protasis should extend through v. 21 (thus NJPS). The sequence of verbs in v. 20 opens with an imperfect, followed by seven waw consecutive perfects, which regularly expresses a series of real events rather than hypothetical future events construed as past events. The decision to end the protasis at “when they eat their fill and thrive” and to begin the apodosis with “they will turn” is arbitrary.

44. Deut. 4:32–40; 6:20–25; etc.

45. Deut. 1:8; 35; 6:10, 18, 23; 7:13; 8:1; 9:5; 10:11; 11:9, 21; 19:8; 26:3, 15; 28:11; 30:20; 31:7, 20.

46. The verb echoes 4:30.

47. On which see Daniel I. Block, “The Power of Song: Reflection on Ancient Israel’s National Anthem (Deuteronomy 32),” in How I Love Your Torah, O LORD! 162–88.

48. Considered together, the speeches of Moses compare in length with the Mesopotamian Gilgamesh epic. For discussion of this issue, see A. R. Millard, “Books in the Late Bronze Age in the Levant,” in Past Links: Studies in the Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East (ed. S. Izre’el et al.; Israel Oriental Studies 18; Winona Lake, In: Eisenbrauns, 1998), 171–81.

49. Cf. Jer. 32:14. On the storage of treasured documents in boxes in Egypt, see ANET, 495a; M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 3, The Late Period (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1980), 129–31; for a reference to tablet containers in ancient Mesopotamia, see the Gilgamesh Epic, tablet 1, 22–25. Cf. Tigay, Gilgamesh Epic, 263, note on 1:22.

50. On the Song as an expression of the heart of Deuteronomy, see A. Lee, “The Narrative Function of the Song of Moses in the Contents of Deuteronomy and Genesis-Kings” (Ph.D diss., University of Gloucestershire, 2010).

51. On the meaning of these expressions, see comments on 9:6–7.

52. On šôt^erîm, see comments on 1:15.

53. On the nature and purpose of appealing to heaven and earth as witnesses see comments on 4:26 and 30:19.

54. The article on “disaster” suggests a specific outcome, doubtless as the application of the curses of chapter 28.

55. Cf. the fuller statements in chapter 28 and 29:20–28[19–27].

56. For an eschatological interpretation of the phrase, see especially J. H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical–Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 36–37, 475; idem, The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 36, 332–33, 343.

57. The same applies to Gen. 49:1, where the expression is not a terminus technicus for the eschaton, but a reference to a distant future event. Cf. V. P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 18–50 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 646.

58. Cf. the discussion in Tigay, Deuteronomy, 498.

59. See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 436; Sonnet, The Book within the Book, 259–67.

60. Josh. 8:31, 32; 23:6; 2 Kings 14:6; Neh. 8:1.

61. 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 23:25; 2 Chron. 23:18; 30:16; Ezra 3:2; 7:6; Dan. 9:11, 13; Mal. 4:4[3:22].

62. Luke 2:22; 24:44; John 7:23; Acts 13:39; 15:5 (cf. “the manner of Moses” in v. 1); 28:23; 1 Cor. 9:9; Heb. 10:28.

63. Luke 16:29, 31; 24:27; John 5:45, 46; Acts 6:11; 21:21; 26:22; 2 Cor. 3:15.

64. Matt 8:4; 19:7, 8; 22:24; Mark 1:44; 7:10; 10:3, 4; Luke 5:14; John 8:5; Acts 6:14.

65. Deut. 33:10; 2 Chron. 15:3; 19:8; Mal. 2:6, 9; cf. Jer. 18:18; Ezek. 7:26; Ezra 7:10.

66. Pss. 1:2; 19:7–14[8–15]; 119; etc. On the Torah in Deuteronomy as the primary referent behind psalmists’ references to the Torah, see P. Miller, “Deuteronomy and the Psalms: Evoking a Biblical Conversation,” JBL 118 (1999): 3–18.

67. Isa. 1:10; 5:24; 8:20; 30:9; 51:7.

68. 1 Kings 2:2–4; 2 Kings 14:6; 22:11; 23:25.

69. LH i.1–6, as translated by Roth, COS, 2:131, p. 336.

70. LH v.14–25, ibid, p. 337.

71. For discussion and diagrams of Herod’s temple, see L. Ritmeyer, The Quest: Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Carta, 2006), 348–55; also EncJud (2nd ed., 2007), 19:612.

72. See Sir 25:13–26:12. For a brief discussion of this issue in Ben Sirach, see J. J. Collins, “Marriage, Divorce, and Family in Second Temple Judaism,” in Families in Ancient Israel (ed. L. G. Perdue et al.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 997), 143–45; for fuller treatment see W. C. Trenchard, Ben Sira’s View of Women: A Literary Analysis (BJS 38; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1982).

73. Tosefta Berakhot 6:16. For discussion of its origin and meaning, see J. Tabory, “The Benedictions of Self-Identity and the Changing Status of Women and of Orthodoxy,” in Kenishta: Studies of the Synagogue World (ed. J. Tabory; Bar-Ilan: Bar-Ilan Univ. Press, 2001), 107–38.

74. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 359, though some have argued that during the late monarchy the Torah was actually recited every seven years. See Holladay, “A Proposal for Reflections in the Book of Jeremiah,” 326–28.

75. See Tigay, Deuteronomy, 297.

76. See “Mursili’s ‘Second’ Plague Prayer to the Storm-God of Hatti (CTH 378.II),” in I. Singer, Hittite Prayers (SBLWAW 11; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 57–61; cf. ANET, 394–96.

77. The Hebrew expression represents a verbatim quotation of Deut. 6:5.

78. Although the date of the event is not recorded, the assembly of the postexilic community under the leadership of Ezra for the express purpose of reading the Torah bears the marks of an effort to fulfill Moses’ present charge. This understanding is reinforced by the people cutting palm branches and living in booths for seven days. Some argue that this occasion actually coincided with the year and dates of release. See J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 293; F. C. Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 221.

1. “The song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb” in Revelation 15:3 are often associated with this text, but the epithet may just as well refer to Exodus 15, which explicitly celebrates Yahweh’s deliverance of the Israelites from their tyrannical Egyptian overlords, which is paradigmatic of the salvation provided by the Lamb.

2. On the song as composed and commissioned by God, see further, T. Giles and W. J. Doan, Twice-Used Songs: Performance Criticism of the Songs of Ancient Israel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 108–9.

3. Cf. J. P. Fokkelman, Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible, at the Interface of Prosody and Structural Analysis, vol. 1, Ex. 15, Deut. 32, and Job 3 (Studia Semitica Neerlandica; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1998), 58–62.

4. Contra prevailing perceptions, the particle kî functions fundamentally as a discourse marker, which may function causally (“because,” v. 20), or temporally (“when,” v. 36c), though neither is certain. For full discussion, see Follingstad, Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text.

5. See H. B. Huffmon, “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets,” JBL 78 (1959): 285; cf. G. E. Wright, “The Lawsuit of God: A Form-Critical Study of Deuteronomy 32, ” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage (ed. B. W. Anderson et al.; New York: Harper: 1962), 26–67; J. M. Wiebe, “The Form, Setting and Meaning of the Song of Moses,” Studia Biblica et Theologica 17 (1989): 119–63.

6. See esp. J. R. Boston, “The Wisdom Influence upon the Song of Moses,” JBL 87 (1968): 198–202.

7. These features include (1) the designation as a song rather than a legal case; (2) frequent alternation of persons moving back and forth among first, second, and third persons; (3) alternation of speakers; (4) series of commands (vv. 3, 7, 39, 43) and interrogatives (vv. 6, 30, 34, 37–38); (5) concluding call to praise (v. 43).

8. Cf. M. Thiessen, “The Form and Function of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1–43),” JBL 123 (2004): 407–24; M. Leuchter, “Why Is the Song of Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy?” VT 57 (2007): 314.

9. Similarly J. R. Boston, “The Song of Moses: Deuteronomy 32:1–43” (PhD diss.; Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1966), 191, 149–52, 187–91.

10. Mayes, Deuteronomy, 381. For further discussion see R. Bergey, “The Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32.1–43) and Isaianic Prophecies: A Case of Early Intertextuality?” JSOT 28/1 (2003): 34–36; also S. A. Nigosian, “The Song of Moses (DT 32): A Structural Analysis,” ETL 72 (1996): 5–7.

11. For full discussion of the history of scholarship on Deuteronomy 32, see P. Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 (OtSt 37; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 1–98.

12. So also Fokkelman, Major Poems, 142–43.

13. See S. Nigosian, “Linguistic Patterns of Deuteronomy 32, ” Bib 78 (1997): 206–24.

14. This is an adaptation of Thiessen’s reconstruction. For fuller discussion, see D. I. Block, “The Power of Song,” 173–79

15. Giles and Doan, Twice-Used Songs, 22 (italics theirs).

16. Cf. C. J. Labuschagne, The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament (Pretoria Oriental Series 5; Leiden: Brill, 1966), 70–71, 115–16.

17. Cf. 1 Sam. 2:2; 2 Sam. 22:32. In 2 Sam. 23:3 David’s calls Yahweh the “Rock of Israel” (cf. Isa. 30:29).

18. Isa. 41:24 characterizes other gods as “less than nothing” and their work as utterly worthless.

19. Cf. 25:16; Ezek. 18:8, 24, 26; 33:13–18; Jer. 2:5.

20. In 4:8, the expression applies to the terms of the covenant itself; in 16:19 and 25:1 it refers to the faithful human party to the covenant.

21. Cf. the name of Hosea’s son, “Not-My-People” (Hos. 1:9). The expression “children given to corruption” in Isa. 1:4 echoes the present text.

22. Cf. 7:6; 14:1; 26:19; 28:9.

23. Cf. Job 2:10; Pss. 14:1; 39:9[10]; 53:1[2]; 74:22.

24. HALOT, 1111–13.

25. Elyon suggests a supreme deity. See Elnes and Miller, “Elyon,” DDD, 295.

26. On the nations and their relationships to lands, see also Isa. 10:13; Amos 9:7; Acts 17:26.

27. “Jacob” is the birth name of the ancestor of “Israel,” who derived their national name from the name that God gave him (Gen. 32:28[29]); Jacob is never used in the Old Testament as a territorial designation.

28. Cf. Ps. 74:17 and Prov. 15:25. On the verb, see Sanders, Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 155 and 297–315.

29. The NIV follows MT, but see the text note. For defense “sons of God” rather than “sons of Israel,” see Block, The Gods of the Nations, 25–32; M. Heiser, “Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible,” BBR 18/1 (2008): 17–18.

30. Deut. 4:21, 38; 10:9; 15:4; 18:2; 19:10; 20:16; 21:23; 24:4; 25:19; 26:1.

31. For a discussion of these traditions see Block, Gods of the Nations, 21–25. For contemporary African traditions of the relationship between the high god and the lesser gods of the tribes, see L. Ugwuanya Nwosu, “The Nations and the Sons of God in Deuteronomy 32: Perspectives on Evangelical Strategies in Non-monotheistic Cultures,” Bible Bhashyam 22 (1996): 29–32.

32. For discussion of the English idiom, see M. B. Ogle, “The Apple of the Eye,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 73 (1942): 181–91.

33. Sanders, Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 163.

34. The word ʾebrâ (“pinion”) occurs elsewhere in Job 39:13; Ps. 68:13[14]; 91:4; Job 39:13. The common understanding of an adult eagle picking up its young, placing it on its pinions, and giving it a ride is fanciful and unnatural. While some claim to have witnessed such a sight (G. R. Driver, “Once Again: Birds in the Bible,” PEQ 90 [1958]: 56–57), others dispute it (H. G. L. Peels, “On the Wings of the Eagle (Dtn 32, 11)—An Old Misunderstanding,” ZAW 106 [1994]: 300–303). This interpretation recalls the legendary Mesopotamian picture of Etana flying to heaven on the back of an eagle (COS, 1:131 [p. 457]).

35. This alludes to the pillar of cloud by day and fire by night. Cf. Ex. 13:17, 21; 15:13; Neh. 9:12, 19; Pss. 77:20[21]; 78:14, 53. In Pss. 23:3; 77:20[21]; 78:52–53 the verb for “led” (nḥh) speaks of the tender care of a shepherd.

36. The text alludes to earlier statements in 6:11; 7:13; 8:7–10; and 11:15.

37. The image of sucking honey and oil from the rock portrays the rock as a wet nurse on Yahweh’s behalf. On Yahweh satisfying Israel with honey from the rock, see also Ps. 81:16[17]. The word for “honey” may refer to the juice of grapes or figs. Cf. McConville, Deuteronomy, 455.

38. On processed milk products like butter, curds, and yogurt, see Borowski, Every Living Thing, 54–56.

39. HALOT, 496; Borowski, Every Living Thing, 20, 83.

40. Contra NIV’s “choice rams.” Bashan was renowned for its fine cattle: Ezek. 39:18; Micah 7:14; Ps. 22:12[13].

41. Hence NIV’s “finest kernels of wheat.” Cf. fat of wheat in Ps. 81:16[17]; the fat of oil and new wine (Num. 18:12).

42. For a study of the name and its meaning see M. J. Mulder, TDOT, 6:472–77. The name is related to the Hebrew word yâšar, which means “straight.”

43. Judg. 6:13; 1 Sam. 12:22; 1 Kings 8:57; 2 Kings 21:14; Isa. 2:6; Jer. 7:29; 23:33, 39; Pss. 27:9; 94:14.

44. 2 Sam. 22:3; Pss. 18:2[3]; 62:2, 6–7[3, 7–8]; Isa. 17:10.

45. Similarly 2 Sam. 22:47; Ps. 18:46[47]. In Ps. 89:26[27]. David uses this word of Yahweh, who has adopted him as his son and granted him eternal kingship.

46. While this word is common for demons in postbiblical Jewish Aramaic, it occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Ps. 106:37, where it serves as a correlative of “effigies, idols.”

47. K. van der Toorn, “The Theology of Demons in Mesopotamia and Israel: Popular Belief and Scholarly Speculation,” in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und früchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt (eds A. Lange et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 61–83.

48. The word may also refer to malevolent spirits. See CAD, 17/2:256–59.

49. See J. A. Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAlla (HSM 31; Chico, CA: Scholar, 1980), 85–89.

50. See H. Niehr, TDOT, 14:418–24; M. Weippert, TLOT, 3:1304–10, esp. 1307.

51. See 11:28; 13:2, 6, 13[3, 7, 14]; 28:64; 29:26[25].

52. Cf. Judg. 5:8, “they choose new gods” (thus NIV; cf. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 306); but see Block, Judges, Ruth, 226–27 (“God chose new [leaders]”).

53. Gen. 3:16; Job 14:1; 15:14; 25:4 (women); Jer. 14:5 (doe); 17:11 (female partridge).

54. Gen. 4:18; 10:8; 1 Chron. 1:10; Prov. 17:21; 23:22; Dan. 11:6.

55. Isa. 51:2; Job 39:1. LXX resists the portrayal of God as a woman who bears children, rendering it with a participle that means “the one who fed you,” Thus also Sanders, Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 186.

56. So also Tigay, Deuteronomy, 307. Tigay notes that in ancient Syrian and Hittite inscriptions, kings were described as both father and mother of their subjects. See the eighth-century BC Phoenician inscription of Azatiwada, COS, 2:31 (p. 149), and the ninth-century BC inscription of Kilamuwa, COS, 2:30 (p. 148).

57. On ʾaḥ^arît meaning “outcome,” see also below on v. 29.

58. This form occurs elsewhere only in Proverbs, where it speaks of a person who turns truth upside down (Prov. 2:12, 14; 6:14; 8:13; 10:31, 32; 16:28, 30; 23:33).

59. Cf. Block, “Other Religions in Old Testament Theology,” 61–62.

60. On hebel (“absurdity, futility”) as a designation of idols, see also 2 Kings 17:15; Ps. 31:6[7]; Jer. 2:5; 10:8, 15; 14:22; 16:19; 51:18; Jonah 2:8[9]. This word occurs frequently in Ecclesiastes.

61. Hosea’s naming his son “Not-My-People” (Hos. 1:9) apparently alludes to this text, but he exploits the phrase in a new way.

62. This interpretation is reinforced by Jer. 15:14 and 17:4, which employ the same noun and verb and speak of a fire kindled in Yahweh’s nose.

63. “Foundations of the mountains” occurs elsewhere only in 2 Sam. 22:8 (= Ps. 18:7[8]).

64. Deut. 32:42; Num. 24:8; 2 Sam. 22:15 = Ps. 18:14[15]; Pss. 7:14; 38:2[3]; 64:7–8.; 91:5–6; 120:4; 144:6; Job 6:4; Lam. 3:12–13; Ezek. 5:16–17; Hab. 3:11; Zech. 9:14.

65. Some treat this as “The Hungry One,” an epithet for Death/Mot not only here but also in Jer. 18:21; Ps. 33:19; Job 18:12. See N. J. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Netherworld in the Old Testament (BibOr 21; Rome, 1969), 107–10; N. Wyatt, “Qeteb,” DDD, 673.

66. Thus J. C. De Moor, “ ‘O Death, Where Is Thy Sting?’ ” in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of P. C. Craigie (ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor; JSOTSup 67; Sheffield: JSOT, 1988), 105.

67. In Qal, Pss. 35:1; 56:1, 2[2, 3]; in Niphal, Deut. 1:30, 41, 42; 3:22; 20:4; etc.

68. On this figure, see J. Day, “New Light on the Mythological Background of the Allusion to Resheph in Habakkuk III 5, ” VT 29 (1979): 259–74. The figure has recently surfaced on a stela from Tell el-Borg in Egypt. See J. K. Hoffmeier and K. A. Kitchen, Reshep and Astarte in North Sinai: A Recently Discovered Stela from Tell el–Borg,Egypt and the Levant 17 (2007): 127–36.

69. See P. Xella, “Resheph,” DDD, 700–703.

70. See Sanders, Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 196.

71. On this deity see N. Wyatt, “Qeteb,” DDD, 673–74.

72. See D. Pardee, “ ‘Venom’ in Job 20:14, ” ZAW 91 (1979): 401–16. See C. Cohen, “Poison,” EncJud (2nd ed.), 16:283–84.

73. Cf. van der Toorn, “Theology of Demons,” 63–65.

74. Cf. also Joel 1:6; Job 4:10; 41:14[6].

75. The meaning of the expression is illustrated by Mic. 7:17. Cf. also Gen. 3:14.

76. Lev. 26:22; Ezek 5:17; 14:15. Jer. 15:7 and Hos. 9:12 speak of Yahweh robbing people of their children directly.

77. Perhaps as a correlative of “terror of the night” in Ps. 91:5 (associated with Deber and Qeteb, v. 6), and “the terrors of God” arrayed against Job in Job 6:4. On Terror as a demonic entity see M. Malul, “Terror of the Night,” DDD, 851–54.

78. For this pair of expressions, see 2 Chron. 36:17; Pss. 78:63; 148:12; Isa. 23:4; 62:5; Jer. 51:22; Lam. 1:15, 18; 2:21; Ezek. 9:6; Amos 8:13; Zech. 9:17.

79. Cf. Song 8:1; Joel 2:16.

80. Cf. the helpful theological analysis offered by von Rad, Deuteronomy, 198–99.

81. Cf. Ex. 14:8 (the Israelites march out of Egypt “with hands held high”); Mic. 5:9[8]. (Israel’s hand over the enemy); Ps. 89:13[14]. (Yahweh’s hand over all).

82. See further D. A. Glatt-Gilad, “Yahweh’s Honor at Stake: A Divine Conundrum,” JSOT 98 (2002): 69–71.

83. So also Peter Gentry, in private communication.

84. Craigie, Deuteronomy, 386; Merrill, Deuteronomy, 421.

85. See Job 12:12; 32:11; Prov. 2:11; 3:13; 10:23; 14:29; 15:21; 17:27; 19:8; 20:5; etc.

86. Cf. also Deut. 8:16 and Job 42:12.

87. Cf. the answer provided by the unnamed speaker in Deut. 29:25–27[24–26]. In the cultic performance, someone in the congregation may have shouted out this question. Sanders (Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 212–13) suggests that in vv. 30–31 we hear the poet’s voice.

88. The comment, “Unless their Rock had sold them, unless the LORD had given them up,” involves two forms of the divine committal formula, used in military contexts to declare that a deity had given one of the parties in battle into the hands of the other. On the formula, which appears five times in Judges (2:14; 3:8; 4:2, 9; 10:7), see Block, Judges, Ruth, 147–48.

89. Thus Tigay, Deuteronomy, 310–11. For discussion see E. A. Speiser, “The Stem PLL in Hebrew,” JBL 82 (1963): 103–6; idem, “PALIL and Congeners: A Sampling of Apotropaic Symbols,” Assyriological Studies 16 (1965): 389.

90. Though this requires either a reversal of the order of words in a genitive relation (for other examples of this anomaly, see Tigay, Deuteronomy, 404, n. 135), or emending the text so that it reads: “See, their rock is not like our Rock, nor [are] the guardians of our enemies [like our Guardian].”

91. Cf. Judg. 9:13. Note also “the blood of grapes” that the Israelites drank in v. 14, above.

92. This is probably the Egyptian cobra, the most dangerous snake in the region. On the varieties of snakes referred to in the Old Testament see J. Feliks, “Snakes,” EncJud (2nd ed.), 18:695–96.

93. Isa. 51:17, 22; Jer. 25:15–29; 51:7; Ezek. 33:31–34; Rev. 14:10; 16:19.

94. In the Psalms especially, a person whose foot does not “slip” is secure. Cf. Pss. 38:16[17]; 66:9; 121:3.

95. 2 Sam. 22:19 = Ps. 18:18[19]; Job 21:30; Prov. 27:10; Jer. 18:17; 46:21; Ob. 13.

96. Though see related forms in šāpat. (10:3; Job 3:8; 15:24).

97. So NJPS. Of God: Gen. 30:6; Ps. 54:1[3]; of human officials: Prov. 31:9; Jer. 5:28; 21:12; 22:16.

98. The Niphal is used often to express God’s sorrow or his change in disposition toward an object. E. g., Gen. 6:6–7; Ex. 32:12, 14; 1 Sam. 15:11, 29, 35; Jon. 3:9–10; 4:2.

99. The use of “I [alone] am he” in Isaiah confirms this: Isa. 41:4; 43:9–13, 25; 46:3–4; 48:12; 51:12; 52:6.

100. Cf. 1 Sam. 2:6–7; 2 Kings 5:7; Hos. 6:1–2; Ezek. 17:24; Job 5:18.

101. See J. Lust, “For I Lift My Hand to Heaven and Swear: Deut. 32:40, ” in Studies in Deuteronomy in Honour of C. J. Labuschagne (ed. F. G. Martínez; VTSup 53; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 155–64.

102. Cf. also Å. Viberg, Symbols of Law: A Contextual Analysis of Legal Symbolic Acts in the Old Testament (CBOTS 34; Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1992), 19–32; Nigosian, “Song of Moses,” 20. This idiom occurs elsewhere with Yahweh as subject in Ex. 6:8; Num. 14:30; Ps. 106:26; Neh. 9:15; Ezek. 20:5, 6, 15, 23, 28, 42; 36:7. The gesture is also attested in the eighth-century BC Aramaic inscription of Panamuwa from Zenjirli in Turkey (COS, 2.36, p. 157). On the grammar of the oath formula see M. R. Lehmann, “Biblical Oaths,” ZAW 81 (1969): 74–92.

103. Alluding to the image of the polished blade flashing in the sunlight (cf. Nah. 3:2–3; Ezek. 21:14–16[19–21]). The lightning may also refer to bolts Yahweh uses like a sword to slaughter (cf. 2 Sam. 22:14–16; Hab 3:11), in which case this statement involves a pointed polemic against Baal. See further, J. Day, “Echoes of Baal’s Seven Thunders and Lightnings in Psalm XXIX and Habakkuk III 9 and the Identity of the Seraphim in Isaiah VI,” VT 29 (1979): 143–51. Baal is also linked with lightning in ancient iconographic representations. See ANEP, 168, Š290.

104. While the notion of arrows drinking occurs only here, the image of a sword devouring its victims is common in the Old Testament (2 Sam. 2:26; 11:25; Isa. 1:20; 34:5–6; Jer. 46:10; etc.), and elsewhere (ANET, 540, ll. 635–36).

105. For further discussion see T. Kronholm, TDOT, 12:98–101.

106. Some argue for retaining MT: Fokkelman, Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible, 130; some for a reading as short as MT, but differing significantly: A. Rofé, “The End of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:43),” in Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium, L. Perlitt Festschrift (eds. R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 164–72; most favor the six-cola reading reflected in 4QDeut^q: Nelson, Deuteronomy, 379–80; van der Kooij, “The Ending of the Song of Moses,” 93–100; a few support the eight-cola reading of LXX.

107. See further, Block, “The Power of Song,” 185–88. So also Jason S. DeRouchie, in personal communication. Note that in Romans 15:10, Paul quotes the third line of Deuteronomy 32:43 LXX verbatim as Scripture: “Rejoice, O Gentiles with his people.” Similarly R. H. Bell, “Deuteronomy 32 and the Origin of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11, ” in Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11 (WUNT 2/63; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 259. Apparently Paul deemed the LXX version of Deuteronomy 32:43 to be authoritative Scripture.

108. MT reads “his servants.”

109. On this interpretation also for Ps. 89:5[6] and Job 15:15, see Sanders, Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 250.

110. The verb kippēr (“to atone for, to cleanse”) occurs elsewhere in Deuteronomy only in 21:8.

111. See the discussion on pages 746–49.

112. For full defense of this view, see now A. Lee, “The Narrative Function of the Song of Moses in the Contents of Deuteronomy and Genesis-Kings” (D.Phil. diss.; University of Gloucestershire, 2010).

113. Weinfeld, DDS, 1.

114. See the discussion by S. Schweitzer, “Deuteronomy 32 and 33 as Proto-Deuteronomic Texts,” Proceedings EGL & MWBS 22 (2002): 82–89. The only missing elements are the centralization of the cult, fulfillment of prophecy, and the election of the Davidic dynasty. Contra J. Pakkala (“The Date of the Oldest Edition of Deuteronomy,” ZAW 3 [2009]: 388–401), the absence of these features suggests a date of composition prior to the establishment of the monarchy rather than in the Persian period.

115. Schweitzer, “Deuteronomy 32 and 33, ” 86.

116. Cf. Deut. 32:3, where the poet proclaims the name of Yahweh and ascribes greatness to him.

117. Cf. Deut. 32:4, where the poet ascribes faithfulness and righteousness to him.

118. “Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him” summarizes Deut. 32:38–42.

119. See Bergey, “The Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32.1–43) and Isaianic Prophecies,” 33–54; also Nigosian, “The Song of Moses (DT 32),” 5–7.

120. See W. Holladay, “Jeremiah and Moses: Further Observations,” JBL 85 (1966): 17–27.

121. For an examination of the influence of the Song on the portrayal of the nations in Ezekiel see B. Gosse, “Deutéronome 32, 1–43 et les redaction des livre d’Ezéchiel et d’Isaïe,” ZAW 107 (1995): 110–17.

122. For a detailed discussion of the links, see J. Gile, “Ezekiel 16 and the Song of Moses: A Prophetic Transformation,” JBL 130 (2011): 87–108.

123. J. R. Lundbom argues that Josiah based his reforms strictly on Huldah’s interpretation of the Song. See “Lawbook of the Josianic Reform,” CBQ 38 (1976): 293–302. However, whether it was the Torah (chaps. 4–28) or the Song, these documents complement each other.

124. Cf. A. van der Kooij, “The Use of the Greek Bible in II Maccabees,” JNWSL 25 (1999): 131.

125. For references, see Tigay, Deuteronomy, 546, n. 35.

126. See P. Skehan, “A Fragment of the ‘Song of Moses’ (Deut 32) from Qumran,” BASOR 136 (1954): 12–15.

127. See further, Bell, Provoked to Jealousy, 259.

128. In his preface to the Velentin Babst Gesangbuch (1545), as cited in W. E. Buzsin, “Luther on Music,“ Musical Quarterly 32 (1946): 83.

129. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. J. T. McNeill; trans. F. L. Battles; LCC 20; London: SCM, 1960), 1:108. This entire chapter (11) is devoted to a repudiation of images of the divine, responding particularly to images in Roman Catholic worship.

130. For a powerful critique of contemporary idolatry, see Timothy Keller, Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the Only Hope that Matters (New York: Dutton, 2009). See also his address, “The Grand Demythologizer: The Gospel and Idolatry,” at www.thegospelcoalition.org/resources/video/The-Grand-Demythologizer-The-Gospel-and-Idolatry. See also the classic treatment by the seventeenth-century Puritan David Clarkson, “Soul Idolatry Excludes Men out of Heaven,” in The Works of David Clarkson (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1988 [reprint of 1864 edition]), 2:299–333.

1. Cf. Dennis T. Olsen, Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 150.

2. With the exception of 2 Kings 22:20 (= 2 Chron. 34:28) this euphemism for death occurs only in the Niphal. The idiom occurs only here in Deuteronomy, but it is common in earlier narratives: with “people”: Gen. 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:29, 33; Num. 20:24; 27:13; 31:2; with “fathers”: Judg. 2:10; without prepositional phrase: Num. 20:26; Isa. 57:1.

3. For discussion of these texts, especially the reason for the exclusion of Moses, see W. Lee, “The Exclusion of Moses from the Promised Land: A Conceptual Approach,” in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-first Century (ed. M. A. Sweeney and E. Ben Zvi; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 217–39.

4. Numbers 5:6 describes wronging another person in any way as being “unfaithful to the LORD.”

5. The Desert of Zin is the region around Kadesh Barnea, forming the southern frontier of the Promised Land.

6. So also Milgrom, Numbers, 166.

7. On the verb râʾâ meaning “to experience,” see Esth. 9:26; Lam. 2:16.

8. The statement counterbalances the earlier comment that he failed to treat Yahweh as holy “among the Israelites” (32:51).

9. Aaron Wildavsky, Moses as Political Leader (Jerusalem: Shalem, 2005), 176.

1. B. Kelly prefers a more neutral label, “tribal sayings,” because some of these “blessings” do not bless: “Quantitative Analysis of the Tribal Sayings in Deuteronomy 33 and Its Significance for the Poem’s Overall Structure,” in Milk and Honey: Essays on Ancient Israel and the Bible in Appreciation of the Judaic Studies Program at the University of California, San Diego (ed. S. Malena and D. Miano; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 54.

2. The following represent the major variations in dating: (1) eleventh century BC: F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, “The Blessing of Moses,” JBL 67 (1948): 192; C. J. Labuschagne, “The Tribes in the Blessing of Moses,” in Language and Meaning: Studies in Hebrew Language and Biblical Exegesis: Papers Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference Held at London, 1973 (ed. J. Barr et al.; OtSt 19; Leiden: Brill, 1974), 101. (2) Ninth to eighth century BC: von Rad, Deuteronomy, 208; Nelson, Deuteronomy, 387; R. J. Tournay, “Le psaume et les benedictions de Moïse,” RevB 103 (1996); 196–212 (time of Jeroboam II). (3) Sixth century BC or later: S. Beyerle, Der Mosesegen im Deuteronomium (BZAW 250; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1997), 275–85.

3. S. Schweitzer “Deuteronomy 32 and 33 as Proto-Deuteronomic Texts,” Proceedings EGL & MWBS 22 (2002): 87.

4. According to Kelly (“Quantitative Analysis,” 60–61) the tribal sayings minus v. 21 (a “divider”) consist of 70 cola averaging seven syllables each in length, symbolic of all Israel gathered before Moses. This fits with Freedman’s observation that the exordium and coda (minus the peroration, v. 29b) each consist of fourteen lines.

5. Simeon was involved (with his brother Levi) in the treacherous affair involving Dinah and the Shechemites (Gen. 34:25), and the idolatry and immorality at Baal Peor (Num. 25:6–15). After the opening chapter of Judges, the tribe of Simeon is named only twice in the narratives of the Old Testament (2 Chron. 15:9; 34:6).

6. On the place of the blessings in Old Testament death narratives, see Cribb, Speaking on the Brink of Sheol.

7. The perception of Moses as patriarch in the tradition of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob dates back to the golden calf incident at Sinai, when Yahweh offered to destroy the nation and start his program over with Moses as the head and presumptive eponymous ancestor of his people (Ex. 32:10). Although Moses rejected this offer, Yahweh later declared that he had made his covenant with Moses and Israel (34:27–28), and he publicly demonstrated Moses’ special role by having his own glory radiate from Moses whenever he came from an appointment with him (34:29–35).

8. See the emphases in the blessings of Deut. 28:1–14.

9. Cf. Josh. 14:6; Ezra 3:2; Ps. 90:1. This epithet was also used of David (Neh. 12:24, 36), and in later texts often functions as a title for prophets (see 1 Sam. 9:7–10; 1 Kings 12:22; 13:4–31 [14x]; 17:18; 20:28; 2 Kings 1:9–13 [5x]; 4:7–40 [10x]). Targum Neofiti reads “prophet of Yahweh” (Deut. 33:1).

10. See Ex. 15:1–18; Judg. 5:2–5; Ps. 68:7–10[8–11]; Hab. 3:2–15.

11. This is the only occurrence of the name Sinai in the book, which has always referred to the mountain of revelation as Horeb (1:2, 6, 19; 4:10, 15; 5:2; 9:8; 18:16; 29:1[28:69]). Based on this text and Judg. 5:4–5 some argue for locating Sinai in Arabia. See R. S. Hendel, “Where Is Mount Sinai?” BRev 16 (2000): 8.

12. This is the region south of the Dead Sea (1:44; 2:1, 4–5, 8, 12, 22, 29), though the Israelites also applied this name to the eastern Negev (cf. 1:2, 44; Num. 20:16). On Seir, see E. A. Knauf, “Seir,” ABD, 5:1072–74.

13. The location of Mount Paran is uncertain, but the name probably refers to a peak or highland region in the desert of Paran, mentioned in 1:1.

14. On the portrayal of Yahweh as the divine warrior in this text, see P. D. Miller Jr., “Two Critical Notes on Psalm 68 and Deuteronomy 33, ” HTR 56 (1964): 241–43.

15. Isa. 60:2 echoes the present metaphorical use of the expression for a glorious theophanic appearance of Yahweh

16. Pss. 50:2; 80:1[2]; 94:1; Job 3:4.

17. Ps. 68:5–8[6–9] offers commentary on this verse.

18. The marginal note in the Aleppo Codex is even more explicit: “written as one word and read as two words.” Thus R. C. Steiner, “ and : Two Verbs Masquerading as Nouns in Moses’ Blessing (Deuteronomy 33:2, 28),” JBL 115 (1996): 693. Some read a single word, which suggests that MT is a corruption of “at his [Yahweh’s] right hand, Asherah.” See M. Weinfeld, “Feminine Features in the Imagery of God in Israel: The Sacred Marriage and the Sacred Tree,” VT 46 (1996): 527–28; C. McCarthy, “Moving from the Margins: Issues of Text and Context in Deuteronomy,” in Congress Volume Basel 2001 (ed. A. Lemaire; VTSup 92; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 126–34.

19. On which see A. F. L. Beeston, “Angels in Deuteronomy 33²,” JTS n.s. 2 (1951): 30–31.

20. See Josephus Ant. 15.5.3; Acts 7:53; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2.

21. Thus Steiner, “Two Verbs,” 695–96. Cf. Deut. 28:49; Jer. 48:40; 49:22.

22. NIV’s “from the south, from his mountain slopes,” is unlikely.

23. Cf. Deut. 7:6; 14:2, 21; 26:19. Note also Lev. 11:44, 45; 19:2; 20:7, 26; Num. 15:40; but esp. Num. 16:3.

24. Craigie, Deuteronomy, 393.

25. Deut. 17:18; 28:58, 61; 29:21[20]; 30:10; 31:24, 26.

26. Deut. 1:16, 18; 3:18, 21; 12:21; 24:8; 27:1; 31:5. Tigay (Deuteronomy, 321) doubts this torah refers to Deuteronomy.

27. See comments on 32:15.

28. See Josh. 13:15–23 for the tribal boundaries. Reuben’s precarious geographic position is reflected in the ninth-century BC inscription of Mesha, which lists Nebo, Medeba, and Baal-Meon, all Reubenite cites, among his conquests from Israel (COS, 2:23 [pp. 137–38]). In addition, the Song of Deborah and Barak criticizes Reuben for refusing to participate in the wars against the Canaanites (Judg. 5:15–16), though they had apparently actively engaged their own enemies (1 Chron. 5:18–22).

29. Cf. BHQ, 158*–59*. The scribe’s eye seems to have skipped from one reference to Levi to the other.

30. Everywhere else the order is Urim and Thummim. See Ex. 28:30; Lev. 8:8; Num. 27:21; 1 Sam. 14:41 (following the versions); Ezra 2:63; Neh. 7:65. For a detailed study of the Urim and Thummim, see Cornelis Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997); also M. Greenberg, “Urim and Thummim,” EncJud (2nd ed.), 20:422–23.

31. But note their prominence in Nehemiah 8, a postexilic text.

32. Ezek. 22:26; Mal. 2:1–9. On the relationship between the latter and the blessing of Levi, see R. Fuller, “The Blessing of Levi in Dtn 33, Mal 2, and Qumran,” in Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte: Festschrift für Klaus Baltzer zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. R. Bartelmus et al.; OBO 126; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 37–40.

33. Cf. R. Wakely, NIDOTTE, 2:116–26.

34. LXX reads theos (“God”) and 4QDeut^h reads “God,” in both cases. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 384–85.

35. Some interpret Yahweh as the subject who rests between Benjamin’s shoulders, which represent the hills of the territory of Benjamin that flank the sanctuary, perhaps of Bethel. See J. D. Heck, “The Missing Sanctuary of Deut 33:12, ” JBL 103 (1984): 523–29. See further G. R. Stone, “Sheltering under Divine Wings,” Buried History 30 (1994): 58–66.

36. Hills and mountains metonymically represent olive groves and vineyards cultivated on hilltops.

37. Hence Targum Neofiti’s expansion, “Who made the Glory of his Shekinah dwell in the thorn bush.” Tigay (Deuteronomy, 328) understands the expression as an intentional pun on the name Manasseh.

38. The word “head” here is qodqôd (also occurs in 28:35). The word is borrowed from Gen. 49:26.

39. For a discussion of “firstborn” (b^ekôr), see 21:15; HALOT, 131; DCH, 1.170.

40. Hebrew r^eʾēm refers to the European and Middle Eastern branch of bovines known as aurochs, now extinct. Cf. Borowski, Every Living Thing, 190–91. Job 39:9–10 characterizes them as wild and impossible to domesticate. In Balaam’s oracles, God himself is a “wild ox,” whose horns protect Israel as he brings them out of Egypt (Num. 23:22; 24:8).

41. Against convention, Moses refers to the “ten thousands” first (cf. Deut. 32:30; Judg. 20:10; 1 Sam. 18:7; Mic. 6:7).

42. Num. 27:17, 21; Deut. 28:6, 19; 31:2; 1 Kings 3:7; 2 Chron. 1:10.

43. The trade potential is illustrated dramatically by the recovery of a fourteenth-century BC merchant sailing vessel off the coast of Uluburun in Southern Turkey. For a popular illustrated study, see G. F. Bass, “Oldest Known Shipwreck Reveals Splendors of the Bronze Age,” National Geographic 172/6 (1987): 692–733.

44. See S. Ahituv, “Zebulun and the Sea,” in Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography: Presented to Zecharia Kallai (ed. G. Galil and M. Weinfeld; VTSup 81; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 5.

45. So also Gen. 12:8; 13:14; Ex. 10:19; 27:12; Josh. 8:9; Ezek. 41:12; 42:19; Zech. 14:4.

46. J. R. Porter (“The Interpretation of Deuteronomy xxxiii 24–5, ” VT 44 [1994]: 268–69) argues that this is a ritual act endowing the troops with vigor and fleetness of foot for military duty.

47. Bronze and iron gate-bolts are mentioned in 1 Kings 4:13; Ps. 107:16; Isa. 45:2.

48. See Porter, “The Interpretation of Deuteronomy XXXIII 24–25, ” 269–70.

49. Used of Yahweh elsewhere only in Ps. 68:34[35]; cf. Ps. 93:1; Isa. 26:10.

50. CTA 1.2:IV.8, 28. For discussion of this link to Canaanite mythology, see J. Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (JSOTSup 265; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 91–98.

51. Baal Cycle, KTU 1.6:I.36 (UNP, 153).

52. See 26:15. The word is used of a lair for lions in Job 38:40; Ps. 104:22; Song 4:8; Amos 3:4; Nah. 2:13.

53. For defense of this interpretation, see Steiner, “Two Verbs Masquerading as Nouns,” 696–98.

54. Gen. 15:1; 2 Sam. 22:3, 31, 36 (= Ps. 18:2, 30, 35[3, 31, 36]); Pss. 3:3[4]; 28:7; 33:20; 59:11[12]; 84:11[12]; 115:9–11; 144:2; Prov. 2:7; 30:5.

55. In Josh. 10:24 the victor places his foot on the neck of the vanquished (cf. also 1 Kings 5:3[17] and Ps. 110:1, the latter of which speaks of the enemies as the Davidic king’s footstool.

56. See O. Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World (New York: Seabury, 1978), 253–56; ANEP Š249; F. J. Yurco, “3,200-Year-Old Picture of Israelites Found in Egypt,” BAR 16/5 (September–October, 1990): 30.

57. For a summary discussion of the memorial projects of Rameses II, see K. A. Kitchen, “Ramesses II,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (ed. D. G. Redford; Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2001), 3:117; idem, Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times of Ramesses II (Warminster, England: Aries & Phillips, 1982), 174–82. For the Neo-Assyrian period see the reliefs of Sennacherib from Nineveh and of Ashurbanipal II from Nimrud (Calah) in the British Museum.

58. Hear Joel Osteen at www.youtube.com/watch?v=di9–PebV634&NR=1.

1. Implicitly by Moses himself (31:2); explicitly by Yahweh (31:14, 16); explicitly by Moses (31:29); explicitly by Yahweh (32:50). Olsen demonstrates convincingly (Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses) that we must read the entire book of Deuteronomy from the perspective of Moses’ death.

2. For full discussions of the nature and function of Deuteronomy 34 as the conclusion to the Pentateuch, see C. Frevel, “Ein vielsagender Abschied: Exegetische Blicke auf den Tod des Mose in Dtn 34, 1–12, ” BZ 435 (2001): 209–34. F. G. López (“Deut 34, DTR History and the Pentateuch,” in Studies in Deuteronomy in Honour of C. J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (ed. F. G. Martínez, et al.; VTSup 53; Leiden: Brill, 1994], 47–61) recognizes that Deuteronomy 34 could be read either as “one single narrative” or at three successive levels, as most critical scholars do. Our commentary will follow the former approach.

3. Deut. 17:18–19; 27:3, 8, 26; 28:58, 61; 29:21, 29[20, 28]; 30:10; 31:9, 11, 12, 24, 26; 32:46.

4. Deut. 1:3; 4:5; 6:24–25; 10:5; cf. 34:9;

5. Josh. 8:31–32; 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 23:25; 2 Chron. 23:18; 30:16; Ezra 3:2; 7:6; Neh. 8:1; Dan. 9:11, 13; Mal. 4:4[3:22]; Luke 2:22; 24:44; John 7:23; Acts 13:39; Acts 15:5; 28:23; 1 Cor. 9:9; Heb. 10:28.

6. The expression recurs in v. 8. See also Num. 22:1; 26:3, 63; 31:12; 33:48–50; 35:1; 36:13; Josh. 13:32.

7. Modern es-Safi on Wadi Zered, several miles south of the Dead Sea. See M. C. Astour, “Zoar,” ABD, 6:1107.

8. Introducing the oath with “when I said” (lit., “saying”) signals a quotation of Gen. 12:7. So also López, “Deut 34, DTR History and the Pentateuch,” 55. Cf. Gen. 15:18; 24:7; 26:4; 48:4; Ex. 32:13; 33:1.

9. The epithet had been used earlier in Ex. 14:31 and Num. 12:8, and resurfaces repeatedly in Joshua (1:1–2, 7; etc.) and dozens of times thereafter. For the honorific nature of the title, see HALOT, 775.

10. For Mari, see H. B. Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts: A Structural and Lexical Study (Baltimore: John Hopkins Univ. Press, 1965), 118–19, 189; the Amarna Letters, R. S. Hess, Amarna Personal Names [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996], 7–13, 244); Phoenician texts, F. L. Benz, Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions (Studia Pohl 8; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1972), 371; Ugarit, F. Gröndahl, Die Personnenamender Texte aus Ugarit (Studia Pohl 1; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967), 80, 105; Aramaic, M. Maraqten, Die semitischen Personennamen in den alt- und reischsaramäischen Inschriften aus Vorderasien (Hildesheim: Olms Verlag, 1988), 94, 192.

11. This interpretation is reinforced by archaeologists’ discovery of dozens of seals from ancient Palestine referring to the bearer of the seal as “servant of the king” or servant of a specific king, as in the famous seal of “Shama servant of Jeroboam.” Slaves did not have seals.

12. See Cribb, Speaking from the Brink of Sheol, 218–23.

13. The same verb regarding “weak” eyes is used of Isaac’s eyes in Gen. 27:1; cf. also Job 17:7 and Zech. 11:17.

14. E.g., Tigay, Deuteronomy, 338.

15. Cf. the seventy-day mourning of Jacob by the Egyptians in Gen. 50:3. In Deut. 21:13 Moses required Israelite soldiers to grant foreign wives taken in battle a month to grieve, presumably for the loss of their parents.

16. See the full discussion by K. Mattingly, “Joshua’s Reception of the Laying on of Hands, Part 2: Deuteronomy 34:7[sic, read 9] and Conclusion,” AUSS 39 (2002): 89–103.

17. For full discussion of the wisdom motif in Deuteronomy, see G. Braulik, “ ‘Weisheit’ im Buch Deuteronomium,” in Weisheitausserhalb der kanonischen Weisheitsschriften (ed. B. Janowski; Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 10; Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser, 1996), 39–69.

18. So also Braulik, “ ‘Weisheit’ im Buch Deuteronomium,” 64.

19. Num. 27:17 perceives Moses’ role primarily as that of a pastor. For fuller discussion, see D. I. Block, “Will the Real Moses Please Rise,” in The Gospel According to Moses, 68–103.

20. Thus Tigay, Deuteronomy, 340.

21. In this respect the ending to Deuteronomy resembles the ending to the law code of Hammurabi, on which see J. Tigay, “The Significance of the End of Deuteronomy (Deut 30:10–12),” in Temples, Texts, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. M. Fox; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 137–43.

22. The name David appears 1023 times, which is more than Moses (762) and Abram/Abraham (61/175=236) combined. The discrepancy in frequency is especially striking when texts excluding the narratives of their lives are considered. The name Moses appears fewer than 120 times in Joshua to Malachi; David’s name appears 424 times. In the poetic books Moses name appears 8 times (including the superscription to Psalm 90); David’s 88 (including superscriptions). In the prophets Moses’ name appears 7 times; David’s 36 times.

23. Josh. 1:1, 2, 7, 13, 15; 8:31, 33; 9:24; 11:12, 15; 12:6; 13:8; 14:7; 18:7; 22:2, 4, 5; 1 Kings 8:53, 56; 2 Kings 18:12; 21:8; 1 Chron. 6:49[34]; 2 Chron. 1:3; 24:6, 9; Neh. 1:7, 8; 9:14; 10:29[30]; Ps. 105:26; Dan. 9:11; Mal. 4:4[3:22]; Heb. 3:5; Rev. 15:3.

24. Josh. 14:6; 1 Chron. 23:14; 2 Chron. 30:16; Ezra 3:2; Ps. 90:1.

25. Luke 16:29, 31; 24:27, 44; John 1:45; Acts 26:22; 28:23.

26. See G. W. Coates, “Legendary Motifs in the Moses Death Reports,” CBQ 39 (1977): 34–44.

27. Matt 17:1–8; Mark 9:2–8; Luke 9:28–36.

28. Cf. J. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 245–49; S. Dempster, “An ‘Extraordinary Fact’: Torah and Temple and the Contours of the Hebrew Canon,” TynB 48 (1997): 53–56.

29. Testimonia 4Q175; 1QS ix:11.

30. See 1QpHab 2:1–2; 7:4–5. For further discussion see D. K. Falk, “Moses,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000), 1:577. Compare the portrayal of Moses as the ideal king if not divinized Jewish hero in Philo and rabbinic literature. See J. van Seters, “Moses,” in The Biblical World (ed. J. Barton; Routledge, 2002), 205; S. Pearce, “King Moses: Notes on Philo’s Portrait of Moses as an Ideal Leader in the Life of Moses,” Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 57 (2004): 37–74.

31. See John 1:19–28; also Matt. 14:5; Mark 11:32; Luke 1:76.

32. See, e.g., Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Social-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 271; John B. Polhill, Acts (NAC 26; Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 199–200.

33. Ernst Haenchen (The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971], 282) is correct in observing that “the speaker does not come to the theme of Jesus until verse 52.”

34. Cf. Jesus’ parable of vine-growers who killed the servants and finally the son of the landowner: Matt. 20:33–46; Mark 12:1–12; Luke 20:9–18.

35. John Sailhamer, “The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible,” JETS 44 (2001): 5–23, esp. p. 23.

36. N. Lohfink rightly notes that when Moses died, Yahweh’s mission for his people was only one-half complete. See “Moses Tod, die Tora und die alttestamentliche Sonntagslesung,” Theologie und Philosophie 71 (1996): 481–94.

37. Thus M. Greenberg and S. D. Sperling, “Moses,” EncJud (2nd ed.), 14:530.

38. For the text see R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 2:105–7. See further R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50; Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 47–48, 65–76.

39. For bibliography and discussion see A. J. Heschel, Heavenly Torah: As Refracted through the Generations (ed. and trans. G. Tucker; New York: Continuum, 2007), 353–54.

40. Mark 5:23; 6:5; 8:23, 25; Luke 4:40; 13:13.

41. Acts 6:6 (deacons); 13:2–4 (Paul and Barnabas); 1 Tim. 4:14 (Timothy).

42. This gesture of ordination is distinct from the gesture by which new converts received the Holy Spirit, as confirmation of their inclusion within the new covenant community (Acts 8:17, Samaritans; 19:6, Ephesians).

43. Note how Yahweh consistently introduces himself: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of of Egypt, out of the land of slavery” (e.g., Deut. 5:6).

44. The nearest exception is Elisha, whose ministry is characterized by miracles. Although his signs and wonders also served a revelatory purpose—to prove that Yahweh, not Baal, is God in Israel—in magnitude and significance they did not match Moses’ miracles, and no miracles were as public as Moses’ acts of power.