Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Deuteronomy
(Show All Books)
Verse Commentaries:
OR, THE
FIFTH BOOK OF MOSES
BY
Rev. FR. WILHELM JULIUS SCHRÖEDER, B.D.
translated and enlarged by
Rev. A. GOSMAN, D.D.
DEUTERONOMY
or the
FIFTH BOOK OF MOSES
____________________
INTRODUCTION
§ 1. Its Description According To Its Position And Titles
Although the Pentateuch is strictly speaking no “Mosaid,” still the appearance of Moses, his life, his works and sufferings, constitute beyond question the personal thread which runs through the one five-divided whole from the second book onwards. As the conduct and fortune of the Israel of the Pentateuch centres originally in its pilgrim fathers, the patriarchs, so now for its growth and its wider history as a people, it centres in Moses. For this reason the Pentateuch was referred to under the brief name, “Moses” (comp. Heb_11:23 sq., with Deu_5:8 sq.; Isa_63:11; Psa_103:7; Luk_16:29-31; Luk_24:27). In this point of view, Genesis is the noblest prologue, which could only have been conceived by one so highly distinguished by God (Exo_33:8-11; Num_12:7-8 : Deu_34:10-12), a person who could not only summon the heavens and earth to hear the words of his mouth (Deu_32:1), but through the work with which he was entrusted has attained a significance more imperishable than the heavens and earth (Mat_5:18; Luk_16:17). So that Moses in his work not only for Israel but for humanity, could compare himself with the Mediator of a new-covenant (Deu_18:15), as indeed he is expressly recognized in his resemblance to him in the new covenant itself (Joh_1:17; Mat_24:35). At all events Genesis closes precisely as we should have expected such a prologue to close, viz. with the children of Israel in Egypt, after the burial of Jacob, and after Joseph also was dead, with the most significant glance into the future (Gen_50:24-25). It completes the narrative down to the point at which the peculiar act begins, of which Moses was to be the great actor and bearer. The second book of Moses proceeds at once with the exposition, since it records the calling of Moses, with all the circumstances necessary to its understanding. If the following narrative, extending into the fourth book, carries on the development, through the disobedience and obstinacy of the people increasing to its utmost limit, so in the transition to this point, the revolt of his own brother and sister against Moses, and the two-fold declaration concerning him personally (Num_12:3; Num_12:7-8) claim special notice, and the catastrophe (Numbers 13-14) has still a wider sweep than the exclusion of Israel from the promised land in the way described in Num_14:29. Moses himself (comp. Deu_1:37) falls under the divine judgment upon Israel (Num_20:12). He is already omitted in Num_14:24; Num_14:30; Num_14:38. He is told of God indeed that he would make a new nation from him (Deu_5:12); but it was so much the more incumbent upon him to sanctify God before all Israel, since he had been accepted by God for all Israel. But as Israel in the interval between the sentence and the completed judgment—Num_15:32, is a mere transient emotion of obedience—continues in its obstinacy, this old nature of the people finally exerts such an influence upon Moses himself, that it obscures in him the faith in Jehovah. (It is in the highest degree significant that the act (Numbers 20) occurs in the same region as that recorded (Num_13:21; Num_13:26); and to this local connection corresponds the verbal connection in the address of Moses to the people, and not to the rock as he was commanded (Num_20:8); corresponds also the reference to Israel’s rebellion, which was so much more criminal, as it called in question the faithfulness of God, as formerly Moses had fully recognized the faithfulness of God (Num_14:13 sq.) over against the faithlessness of Israel). With the unbelief of Moses the development first reaches its end; this is the last step; now follows (Deu_27:13) the announcement of his death, but the announcement only, while in the case of Aaron (Deut 20:24 sq), his death also is immediately recorded. Thus another kind of departure from the scene, is prepared and in prospect for Moses, than that which occurs with Aaron. Neither the Pentateuch in its Mosaic character, nor a Moses in his personality, to which Genesis serves as a prologue, can have its fitting end and completion in a closing sentence like that in Num_36:13. Corresponding to the prologue of Genesis, there must follow an epilogue, which in fact Deuteronomy is, which completes as well the Mosaic character of the Pentateuch with respect to its construction, as it is fitted to the marked peculiar position and personality of Moses.
If Moses is personally the head of Israel, so the law is actually the great thing for Israel. The “fifth book of Moses” is “the fifth fifth-part of the law,” as “Thorah” ( ὁ íüìïò ) or “the five fifth-parts of the law” is the title of the Pentateuch as a whole. But the law, thus the law of Israel, has as Israel itself also, a significance beyond Israel as a peculiar people. It is truly “introduced by the way” (Rom_5:20), or “added thereto” (Gal_3:19), still not against the promise of God (Gal_3:21), but the end of the law, i. e. its fulfilment and its goal, is Christ (Rom_10:4). According to this explanation of the Apostle to the heathen, at the same time the great interpreter of the Old Testament, especially as one taught at the feet of Gamaliel according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers (Act_22:3), it is perfectly clear, that Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, the central books of the Pentateuch, are enclosed by Genesis and Deuteronomy. The striking peculiarities of the last two (comp. Deuteronomy 33 with Genesis 49), show their parallel significance. This parallel significance for the Thorah lies in this, that as Genesis lays historically the all-embracing foundation, so Deuteronomy makes intelligible prophetically the all-embracing goal or completion. Israel is from the very first, like the heavens and earth, a pure creation of God (Gen_18:10-14; Gen_17:16-17; Gen_17:19). Its Thorah, in which Israel’s historical individuality comes to its expression, as also fully in the Messiah, has according to Genesis, its foundation in the creation of the world and man. As therefore in its race-father even, in Abraham (Gen_12:3), “all nations of the earth” come into view, are included in the scope of the promise, thus confirming from the first the universal aspect and significance of Israel, so also the Pentateuch can only reach its completion, if it reaches a true completion at all, in a conclusion, like its beginning. This necessity for “the fifth fifth-part of the law” is the point of view, from which we can understand the title, Deuteronomy, ( Äåõôåñïíüìéïí according to the Septuagint, Deuteronomium according to the Vulgate), i.e., “the second law.” When, among the Jews, it was called “Misch’neh Thorah” (abbreviated into Misch’neh) with reference to Deu_17:18, the verbal expression indeed appears in that passage, as also in Jos_8:32, but Deuteronomy is not therefore a repetition in the sense of a transcript. That would be a mere copy (a very significant remembrance!) which the second two tables of the law were, which Moses must hew (Exo_34:1) written truly by God Himself, as Were also the first (Exo_32:16), but in other respects the work of Moses, while the first were entirely “the work of God.” It is rather a second law, as the command of love (Joh_13:34; 1Jn_2:7-8; 2Jn_1:5), is a new command; as this by Christ, so that by Moses. The law even down to Deuteronomy is said to be commanded (Num_36:13), or given (Lev_26:46) by Moses, but the precise expression is “by the hand of Moses” ( áּéøÎîùׁä ); the mouth was Jehovah’s. “These are the statutes and the judgments and the laws which the Lord made (gave) between Him and the children of Israel in Mount Sinai by,” sq. (Lev_26:46). “These are the commandments and the judgments which the Lord commanded by,” sq. (Num_36:13). The Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel, Lev_27:34, comp. Deu_1:3; Deu_4:5; Deuteronomy on the other hand begins at once, Deu_1:1, “These are the words” (whence its title “Ellch Haddebarim” or briefly “Haddebarim” in the Hebrew Bible) “which Moses spake to all Israel,” etc.; as also Joh_13:34, “a new commandment give I unto you.” With Deuteronomy the mouth of Moses comes into special prominence in connection with his hand, and in order to make the distinction from the previous law more clear and definite, the object, the purpose which Moses had is also expressly given (Deu_1:5), namely, “to declare”—explain “this law,” thus: to trace back the given letters to the spirit, and then to express the spirit in new, different letters. The parallel from John 13, is striking as to the whole distinction. The whole method by which Moses in his own person, has originally opened the way for the prophetic order in Israel comes into view here. It belongs indeed generally to Deuteronomy to provide for the time when the death of Moses already announced (Num_27:13) should take place, and the people, so greatly needing and desiring a mediation, in opposition to the fearful, immediate direct presence of God (Deu_18:16; Exo_20:16; Deu_5:5; Deu_5:20 sq.), should be deprived of the Mosaic mediation. The organism of the post-Mosaic Israel was defined in the most careful way. It is on this account, especially, that Deuteronomy is a practical hand-book and vade-mecum for the later prophecy—used by Christ Himself, immediately after His entrance upon His prophetic office, all three times, in His temptation (comp. Mat_4:4; Mat_4:7; Mat_4:10, with Deu_8:3; Deu_6:16; Deu_6:13). Deuteronomy breathes throughout the freshness of the word of God, issuing forth ever new, by virtue of which the prophets could prevent a mere dead tradition of the law, could declare the demands of the divine will on one hand indeed, according to the necessities of the time, but on the other with reference to the future of Israel, to the end of the way of God with him. The necessities of the time to which Deuteronomy has reference, appear both in the new generation to whom Moses spake (Num_26:64-65), and in the early settlement in Canaan (e. g. Deu_6:1). There was no necessity for a new independent law-giving in addition to the earlier, nor that the law given from God by Moses should be corrected or revised. The nature of the old people now, as it stands over against Canaan, plainly grown to its utmost and fatal limit (Numbers 14) requires a human mediation of the law of God, a full consideration of the subjective state, at least in the reception and in the retaining of the objective divine will, a practical exhortation to the people which is peculiar to Deuteronomy throughout, but this neither makes it as some of the Rabbins hold, a “Sepher tochahoth,” book of punishments, nor a law for the people generally, in distinction from one for the Priests and Levites. The reference to the future of Israel, to the end of the way of God with him, is taken already in the more particular prominence of Canaan (Deu_1:8; Deu_1:21; Deu_1:36; Deu_1:38-39, etc.), for the position of Canaan among the lands of the earth, proclaims geographically the same thing which the promise as to Israel, in its race or stem-father, utters; the universal import of the people of God. But the prophetic character of Deuteronomy, as it is stamped with it by Moses, will reveal itself much more in the laws, if it is according to its title, “the second law.” And this is actually the case, not barely in the form of expression, which is more rhetorical and emphatic (Deu_4:5-8; Deu_2:25), but throughout in its very nature: whatever avails for every man, not every one in Israel only, but every man, that which is generally availing and important in the widest extent, the universal ideas of the law, are purposely repeated, and set in the clearest light. This inward character of the Thorah in its deuteronomic reproduction and application (Deu_5:29; Deu_10:16), must be held to be the interpreting word; meanwhile attention is here called to the citations from Deuteronomy in the New Testament, e.g. Heb_12:29, from Deu_4:24; 1Co_8:4, from Deu_4:38-39; Mar_12:29 sq.; Mat_22:37 sq.; Luk_10:27 sq., from Deu_6:4-5, etc., etc. The renewing of the Covenant, Deu_28:29; Deu_28:39, in this tendency and character of the “second law,” is the true culminating point of Deuteronomy; for communion with God, upon the ground of the communion of God with men (Deu_4:7),—is the true religion,—is the universal goal and hope of humanity. In this, as also already in the first making of the covenant (Leviticus 26 sq.), the future of Israel was so far foreseen (Deuteronomy 28 sq.), as is scarcely predicted anywhere by the prophets after Moses (comp. Deu_30:6, with Jer_31:31 sq.; Deu_32:37 sq.). And with this agree perfectly the very significant position of the Mosaic and Messianic prophetic institutions, over against each other, which is peculiar to Deuteronomy (chap, Deu_18:15; Deu_18:18), by which the position is assigned to the succeeding prophetic order in Israel, from Moses to Christ (Deu_34:10 : Num_12:6 sq.). In its prophetic form and attitude, Deuteronomy has, like Genesis, both with respect to Israel and the law, its universal character; the closing book of the Pentateuch is like its beginning, and therefore its true completion.
(Compare Lange’s passing remarks upon Deuteronomy in the General Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 34, and the Introduction to Genesis, p. 86–94).
™
As to its own utterances attention is usually called to Deu_31:9; Deu_31:24; Deu_17:18 sq.; Deu_27:1 sq.; Deu_28:58; Deu_28:61; Deu_29:19-20; Deu_29:26; Deu_30:10. But for the understanding of these very passages, Deuteronomy must first be questioned and heard upon the idea—“this law,” which is of deciding weight here.
The expression meets us first in Deu_1:5. With Deu_1:3 in view, this (Thorah) law which Moses, Deu_1:5 begins to declare or explain, cannot be the explanation itself, cannot without something further constitute Deuteronomy, but must be the Thorah (in the literal sense of the demonstrative particle), to which Moses calls the attention of his hearers in the words which follow, which was beyond question in the mind of the writer of these lines since he had already declared, Deu_1:3, “that Moses spake unto the children of Israel according unto all that Jehovah had given him in commandment unto them.” After a preparatory introduction (Deu_4:5 sq., 13 sq., 23 sq.) extending to Deu_4:43; after the theme had been resumed Deu_1:44, in every form (“and this is the Thorah, law, which Moses set before the children of Israel: these are the testimonies and the statutes and the judgments which Moses spake unto the children of Israel,” etc.), follows now the intended explanation of the earlier given law (Deuteronomy 5 sq.). “This law” is thus from the very first the decalogue, as the kernel and centre of all the remaining revelation from Sinai and in the plains of Moab, connected with it. The supposition under which alone Deuteronomy is what it is, a repetition of the law, is in entire accordance with this. But as Moses repeats the law of God in Deuteronomy, so this deuteronomic repetition of the law is always regarded as a second giving of the law, at least as a new exhibition of it (Deu_4:8; Deu_4:44; Deu_11:32). “This law” appears therefore correctly in Deuteronomy, among the usual titles of the earlier law-giving as “the statutes and the judgments” (Deu_4:1), “the commands” (Deu_4:2), “his statutes and his commandments” (Deu_4:40), “all the commandments and the statutes and the judgments” (Deu_5:31), and the like (Deu_4:45; Deu_6:1-2; Deu_6:17). Thus the term “this law,” designates originally the earlier lawgiving connected with the decalogue, in the progressive explanation of the deuteronomic discourses, the more so the more fully it is regarded in its deuteronomic apprehension, explanation and practical use, unless it appears from the connection that, besides the deuteronomic renewal, the original text is especially intended. The titles: “These words which I command thee this day” (Deu_6:6; Deu_12:28), and especially “all the words of this law”—since “the words,” according to Deu_1:1, form the title of the book—may be viewed as a standing expression for the deuteronomic Thorah (Deu_17:19; Deu_27:3; Deu_27:26; Deu_28:58; Deu_29:28; Deu_31:12; Deu_31:24; Deu_32:46). Deu_17:19, where the expression: “all the words of this law,” first occurs, appears to furnish the transition to the use of this phrase.
In Deu_31:9, “this law,” which Moses wrote, can hardly be the direction for reading the law at the feast of tabernacles; but the same as “this law,” Deu_31:11, which should be read, which Moses wrote that it might be read, the same as “all the words of this law,” for Deu_31:12 reveals the objects for which the law was to be read. The words, Deu_31:9 : “And Moses wrote,” very clearly answer to and complete the frequently recurring words: “And Moses spake,” (comp. Deu_31:1), so that we cannot think here of any other words than the law discourses before given in Deuteronomy. Leaving out of view the force of the words: “all the words of this law,” probably a precise formula for the deuteronomic Thorah, the fact of the reading is in favor of so understanding the words: “and Moses wrote,” not so much because the whole Pentateuch is of too great an extent for public reading, as because in this case of the, in some measure, mere arbitrariness of the choice as to what would be read, which must be left to the wisdom of their spiritual officers, the whole tendency and character of the deuteronomic law fit it well, and it alone, for the public reading before the people (so well that Hengstenberg allows that the larger parts were chosen from Deuteronomy). The Jewish traditions in regard to the feast of tabernacles may be left undecided. It was in the highest degree fitting that the occurrences of Deuteronomy—the second lawgiving—should be repeated in a liturgical manner every seven years. But the expression used in Deu_31:12 points farther to Deu_31:24, where Moses, after he “had made an end” (comp. with this Deu_1:5, where it is said Moses began, etc.) “of writing the words of this law in a book until they were finished,” Deu_31:25 sq., commanded to put “this book of the law” in the side of the ark of the Covenant. There is an unquestionable connection between the writing of Deu_31:24, with that of Deu_31:9. In this second passage also of Deuteronomy 31 the deuteronomic law is intended, viz. the finished book form, and the final safe depositing of all that Moses had spoken and written from Deuteronomy 1 down to this point. The now completed book could be given from the hand, and forever laid away in the fit place, in which truly there is at the same time a pointing on to that which is beyond Deuteronomy. There is the same distinction between the giving of the book, Deu_31:24 sq., and the giving of Deu_31:9, as between the complete destination and end of the whole book in the side of the ark, and the special destination and end of the deuteronomic law, for the public reading before the people every seven years; as between the mere command: “take and put it,” and the formal solemn official command and investiture of the priests and elders of the people—an investiture whose significance the event recorded (2Ki_22:8 sq.; 2Ch_34:14 sq.) places in the clearest light, if we may regard the deuteronomic law as there intended; as between the testimony of this law-book, which was intimated (Deu_4:45), but which is expressly introduced (Deu_31:19; Deu_31:21), (as on account of this character of the book as a testimony, the song which follows immediately upon Deu_31:28 is appended), and the other point of this law as it is presented in Deu_31:12-13; as finally between the direct divine completion in Deu_31:14-23 of this closing chapter, and the Mosaic completion in Deu_31:1-8, which latter, however, takes up the particular elements or stages in the same succession, thus Moses, Israel, Joshua.
The conclusion from Deuteronomy 31 is that, according to its own utterances, Deuteronomy, from Deu_1:1 to Deu_32:43, contains not only what was spoken by Moses, but was at the same time drawn up by Moses in its written form.
The agreement as to the whole spirit and character, the tone and language, with what precedes, not merely in chap, 31, but in Deuteronomy 32, bears decidedly against fixing any earlier limit than chap, Deu_32:43. But what is true for the song of Moses does not avail for the closing historical narrative. The marked differences from the foregoing portions, which appear already in Deu_32:44-52, and still more clearly in the following chapters, are decidedly in favor of fixing the terminus ad quern at Deu_32:43. As the Mosaic origin is expressly attested down to Deu_32:43, so it stands beyond any doubt, that another hand than that of Moses has had a part in Deuteronomy as it lies before us. Whose hand has written the 33 and 34 chapters of Deuteronomy, and at the same time put the finishing stroke to the whole Pentateuch? If Deu_31:19 includes Joshua with Moses in the writing of the song, this can scarcely have been from “the need of learning for the multiplication of the writing,” since equally trusty and finished hands could certainly have been found among the priests and judges (Deu_1:15; Deu_29:9; Deu_31:28). But as the successor of Moses, Joshua must also have a share in the writing, if not with respect to a sacred literature of Israel, yet still for the necessary arranging of the records (as Jos_24:26). Without this explanation of Deu_31:19, without this merely incidental hint as to his share in writing the law, especially in a man in whom the law was so deeply engraved (comp. Deu_4:2; Deu_13:1, with Jos_1:8), it would not be easy to comprehend how he should have deposited in writing, in the book of the law of God, the arranged records referred to in Jos_24:26. But if the activity of Joshua is generally supplementary, which requires no proof, nothing lies nearer than the supposition, that he whose name alone occurs in connection with that of Moses should have added the supplement in question (Deuteronomy 33, 34) to Deuteronomy. The two passages, Deu_31:19 and Jos_24:26, mutually reflect light upon each other. The passing remark in Deuteronomy makes the narrative in Joshua intelligible, and this again in turn lends to that a not inconsiderable space for application. Whether, on the other hand, Jos_24:26 does not limit the literary, if we may so speak, participation of Joshua in Deuteronomy, and especially in reference to the whole Pentateuch, namely, to the simple supplement, and in connection with this, to the recorded contemporary relation of the matter, while for other and later hands there is a possibility and probability of a redaction, remains an open question. We will listen to the utterances of Deuteronomy upon this point also.
Deu_17:18-20, connects itself in many points of view with Deuteronomy 31. The future king in Israel must write him “a copy of this law in a book from that which is before the Priests,” which implies a written original. Is not that the one which should be written (Deu_31:9)? as that was written (Deu_31:24) “in a book?” If “all the words of this law” is a standing formula to express the Deuteronomic law, then Deu_17:19 contains an express reference to it. In Deu_17:20 the king is mentioned together with the people, “that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren.” There is a clear reference here to the deuteronomic apprehension of the law, for it is peculiarly adapted to the people. Deu_31:12-13 is further, in entire unison with the 19th verse here. The phrase, Deu_17:12, “that they may hear,” for the law was to be publicly read, is followed immediately, as we read here, “and that they may learn, and fear, and observe.” Comp. also Deu_17:13 : “All the days” with “all the days,” chapter Deu_17:19. The speaker in Deuteronomy 17 might allude to Deuteronomy, since these words must soon come to a close (certainly in the mind of the writer, Deu_31:24); as to the matter of the kingdom the deuteronomic law might be assumed by the hearers, to be even then completed. The limiting clause, Deu_17:18 (“from before the priests, the Levites”) may be referred to Deu_31:9, since the priests there, as the sons of Levi, bear the ark of the covenant; and to Deu_31:25-26, since the Levites themselves, as the bearers of the ark, were to put the book of the law in the side of the ark. As the entire levitical service essentially completes itself before the ark of the Covenant of Jehovah, so the ark itself, on the other hand, and with it the book of the law deposited in its side, is “before the levitical Priests.” Thus “the copy of this law in a book” may, literally, be taken from “before them,” as Deu_17:18 requires. But îִìִּôְðֵé may denote, not what is yet first to occur, but rather what is already the case; i. e., it may denote that the law from which the king should make a copy, and which was already in great part “before,” or with the priests, is “from before,” that is, from that (exemplar, original) which is in safe keeping with the priests. They would very naturally be represented at the time as the custodians of the law, to whom, not only whatever in the moment of its utterance or of its written composition was already under their hands, but also the deuteronomic discourses of the law, (and hence the intimation, Deu_17:19, is to these more than to others, since they were even then flowing into their hands) must also be given. From this presupposition of Deuteronomy 31 in Deuteronomy 17, the instructions given to the priests in Deu_31:10, in reference to the feast of tabernacles every seven years, may be explained; the designation of the priests, Deu_17:9, must be connected with Deut. 17:25 sq., preparing the way for what is there to be narrated; but Deut. 17:25 sq., at the very close of Deuteronomy—for this is the closing part and act of the whole—should simply place in its final form in the ark of the Covenant as its locality, the already for a long time existing deposit with the priests; whence it was commanded simply to the Levites, without any express mention of the priests, that they should “take and put it in the side of the ark.” Comp. Deu_33:10. The special mention of the deuteronomic words of the law (Deu_17:19) does not exclude the previously given law from its meaning, which, marked distinctly by the inscriptions (Lev_26:46; Lev_27:34; Num_36:13) into finished parts, was already at the beginning of Deuteronomy laid up in the custody of the priests. The existence of this law is constantly presupposed in Deuteronomy. It is said here expressly since the occasion offered, that the priests had it already in their custody. And with all these points of agreement between Deu_31:12-13, and Deu_17:19, the definite design for the king is still to be distinguished in Deu_17:19, not only “it shall be with him,” but also “all the words of this law and these statutes to do them;” and again Deu_17:20, “and that he turn not aside from this commandment to the right hand or to the left,” etc. The peculiar additions which in the precise definite expression point to the earlier law-giving, and arise from the peculiarities of the royal position, may be explained from the fact that they are designed for the king. In fact, should the king, as is essentially the case in Deuteronomy 12, be regarded by himself, it will not correspond perfectly with the understanding of his distinct position from the people, his position not barely as one above the people, but as one in addition to all the other officers, dignities and institutions in Israel (“upon the throne of his kingdom,” Deu_17:18), if he has barely in his hands daily the so-to-speak popular edition of the law in Deuteronomy. “These statutes,” Deu_17:19, cannot be limited to the obligations and duties spoken of in Deu_17:16-17, which are special peculiar prohibitions, while in Deu_17:20 the king is bound universally to the commandment, i. e., to all that God has commanded, generally to that which is the commandment for Israel. The law of the king in this pair of verses cannot possibly be the required copy of the law. The immediate connection with what precedes suggests more than this, more even than the deuteronomic law. In Deu_17:8-13 the priests are spoken of especially as knowing the law, i. e., those who know and who are the teachers of the law. It lies in the nature of the case, and the reference to Lev_10:11, expressly confirms it, that “all the statutes which Jehovah spake by the hand of Moses” are intended here. The deuteronomic law is itself an exposition; it could thus render assistance to the official interpreters of the law, but it could not supply them with the sacred text. Moreover the cases introduced, Deu_17:8, presuppose undoubtedly the knowledge of the legal determinations concerning them, as they are treated in Exo_21:23. In such connection come at last the words concerning the king over Israel. In Deu_16:18-20, judges and officers, Deu_17:8-13, priests and judges, Deu_17:14-20, the king! a succession in which each embraces something more than the preceding in its legal relations, so that the king at last must be viewed as entrusted with all, what is law in Israel. Thus “the copy of the law” which the king has to make, must embrace the whole law,—at the moment the words were spoken, the whole law, so far as transcribed it lay in the possession of the priests, the natural depositaries of the law, in the mind of the writer of Deuteronomy 17, the whole law, so far as it stood before him as one whole, and when the case supposed here should actually occur, and there should be a king, surely it would be understood as containing the earlier given law. Compare what is said to Joshua (Jos_1:8) who held provisionally the place of the king, with the literal fulfilment as it is related 2Ki_11:12. As it is proper to include the king with the people from whom he is taken, and still to view him also in his peculiar characteristics by himself, so the reference to the earlier law, in connection with the mention of the deuteronomic, corresponds to this actual practical relation; and Deuteronomy 17, in the midst of the discourses, which should complete the whole law, was the proper place for both.
The result from Deuteronomy 17 is: 1), the supposition of the earlier law as written (in some sense completed) and extant with the priests; 2) the intimation of the deuteronomic law as one belonging to the whole; and, 3), the introduction of copies of this, as we must think, Mosaic whole, which were made by the kings with their own hand, under the direction of the priests, or indeed were entirely written by the priests themselves. If the first is true with regard to the deuteronomic law, and at the same time the other related parts of the Pentateuch, so the view already attained, as to certain altogether natural, and indeed priestly redactions, is confirmed by the last.
The direction, Deu_27:1 sq., that Israel should “write” the law, presupposes just as the “copies” of Deuteronomy 17, the law, as written, or as one which will be written. Then, to inscribe “all the words” in the sense of every particular word of the law in question, or even every word in the sense of every sentence or declaration with a legal sanction, is forbidden in the nature of the case. If we will not evaporate the expression used into a mere vague generality, it behooves us to explain “all the words of this law—by all the discourses upon this law” (Deu_1:1; Deu_1:5). “The whole commandment which I command you this day,” is indeed nothing else than the command for the erecting, cementing, and inscription of the stones, in their whole extent; in this sense “this day” of Deu_27:1, and “the day when” of Deu_27:2, correspond with each other. It may be inferred, even from Deu_27:10, that in the following formula of imprecation, as it appears Deu_27:11 sq., (and afterward in its fuller exhibition in chap, Deu_28:1, in reference to the blessings, and in Deu_27:15, in reference to the curses) the deuteronomic manner of the law is the characteristic feature, as indeed in the summary, Deu_27:26, the deuteronomic law comes into clear relief. But that we are here to think of this last, is demanded as well by the parallel passages, Deu_31:9 sq. (there the public reading, here the recording), and the actual execution of what this parallel passage required (Jos_8:34), as by the fact that the whole Pentateuch was too large, and the mere curses and blessings, or the simple decalogue too small for “the great stones” in their indefinite number, while on the contrary the deuteronomic discourses of the law are of the proper extent, as they also constitute the ground upon which the renewing of the covenant in Deuteronomy proceeds, chaps, 27–30. Here it is the words of Moses, as in Exo_24:3-4; Exo_24:7-8, “All the words of Jehovah.” But in these are included the historical reminiscences, warnings, etc., as well as the “peculiar precepts.” To suppose the reverse would run counter to the whole practice of Deuteronomy especially, as indeed it would to the peculiar method of the Pentateuch; the decalogue itself from the beginning of the first command, embraces the history. According, indeed, to the very nerve and force of every section of these discourses, the special purpose of the speaker, the peculiar finished style, the strictly defining word, these must have been written upon the stones. Jos_8:32. Compare with this, Jos_8:34-35, in which the distinction between what was read and what was written is clearly marked. The result here is the same with that from Deuteronomy 31.
In the remaining passages (chap, Deu_28:58; Deu_28:61; Deu_29:19-20; Deu_29:26; Deu_30:10) the declaration of a written publication, and the intimation of a book, is common to all, either preparatory to chap, 31, or because the written publication went before the oral report, as Exo_24:4; Exo_24:7 (Deu_31:22), or because throughout, the writing, although later, was chiefly regarded, and not so much the speaking. In all cases it is the deuteronomic law which is intended, but as the unmistakable reference to Leviticus 26 shows, not without embracing the earlier law giving, in addition to which Moses wrote this, his law, before the children of Israel (Jos_8:31-32; comp. Deu_1:7-8), the whole called “the book of the law of God,” Jos_24:26 (comp. Neh_8:18; 2Ch_17:9; 2Ch_34:14), in distinction from the “law of Moses” (Jos_8:31-32; Jos_23:6; 1Ki_2:3; 2Ki_14:6; 2Ki_23:25). The various declarations as to the written record of the deuteronomic law, may be explained from the very design of Deuteronomy as the closing part of the Pentateuch. Nothing is more befitting the completion than that it should repeatedly testify, namely, that all these spoken words have their fixed form for the people through writing. The stronger this is accented, as to the deuteronomic law, the more certainly it must be understood of the sacred text of the deuteronomic discourses, and must therefore be held above any doubt, although there is occasionally, in the earlier law-giving, an allusion to a written composition, as Exo_17:14; Exo_24:4; Exo_24:7; Exo_34:27; Num_33:2. And if the various passages in Deuteronomy point to its book form, this includes as a matter of course its particular, well-grounded, comprehensive supposition as to the earlier law-giving, that this also was collected in particular books. “And it is altogether probable,” says Bleek, “that the division into five books is as old as the last redaction of the law through which it has its present form and extent.” It is to him “not improbable” that the declarations of Deuteronomy are “intended to apply to our entire Pentateuch,” at all events truly to the deuteronomic law-giving. “For when in the discourses of Moses a law book is spoken of in such a manner, it cannot be a writing first published after Moses which is intended.” “Without doubt,” Knobel remarks, “the book is held by the author of Deuteronomy as a work of Moses, so far as it relates to the time before the death of Moses. That the law book was present to him as one whole, may be inferred from the description of it, and from the direction that the king himself should take a copy of the law, that he might constantly read it.”
Whatever “assistants” we may assume in connection with Moses “for the external form and writing, for the explanation of the diversities in style and expression” (Kurtz), he will ever be regarded as the peculiar author of the whole. With the utterances of Deuteronomy which we have considered, we pass beyond the stand-point, e. g., which Hobbes in his Leviathan occupies, that the Pentateuch is a work about Moses, and in this sense Deuteronomy may be regarded “as the fifth book of Moses.” In all cases the peculiar declarations of Deuteronomy bear witness to its Mosaic origin, and indeed as to what concerns its form as well as in reference to its contents, that it is thus a Mosaic writing, down to Deu_32:43. This no way forbids the hypothesis both of the supplement by Joshua, and of later redactions of the Pentateuch (separations amounting perhaps to independent works, e. g. Jos_24:26; Joshua Jos_10:25, but also, supplements, explanations, applications, and the like); the occasion and number of the latter being designated definitely enough in Deuteronomy, “by the copies for the king.” Holding firmly the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy and of the Pentateuch generally, with the hypothesis of later redactions, even in the times of the kings, as at last in the time of Ezra, we are still perfectly free to oppose the criticism, when it seeks to ascribe it to another period than the Mosaic. [If a revision by Ezra is conceded, it in no way affects the question of the Mosaic authorship. A very slight revision would account for all the words and passages which seem to be of a later date than Moses, and upon which the main arguments of those who oppose the Mosaic authorship rest. The supposition of such a revision is, as Prof. Bartlet has well said (Smith’s Bib. Dic., Am. Ed., Art. Pentateuch), perfectly natural “in view of the lapse of time, and the effects of the exile. The SS. render the supposition probable, by these notices of Ezra.” See Neh_8:4; Ezr_7:6; Ezr_7:10-11; Ezr_8:1-5; Ezr_8:18. “Now let Ezra but have done for the Scriptures permanently, and in view of the permanent necessity, that which he did orally and transiently on this occasion,” and we have all that the supposition requires. The Jewish tradition favors this supposition, and when we bear in mind that it has been a very prevalent opinion in the Christian Church, that Ezra was divinely called to this work and directed in it, we may well accept this way of explaining those words and portions which seem of later date.—A. G.]
§
2. W. M. L. De Wette (1806–1852, 7 Edt. of his Lehrbuch), in continual change. “It is most probable, that according to the redaction of the Jehovist, the Elohistic, essential portions of the five books of Moses, and perhaps Deu_31:14-22, close the fourth book. The author of Deuteronomy later interpolates his Mosaic hortatory discourses, the new law-giving, and the obligations with respect to the law, and places the closing part of the fourth book at the end. Its origin, in the time of Josiah. The passages Deu_4:27; Deu_28:25; Deu_28:36; Deu_28:49; Deu_28:64; Deu_29:27 sq.; Deu_32:5-33, were written in the most unfortunate time of the State, in the Assyrian period, and with reference to the exile of the Ten tribes.”
3. P. v. Bohlen, Vatke and J. F. L. George (1835): The Pentateuch is not before the Babylonian exile, at the earliest Deuteronomy has its origin under Josiah.
4. J. J. Staehelin (1843): The author of the whole of Deuteronomy is also the elaborator of the original Elohim writing, in the four first books, as also in the book of Joshua: the Pentateuch is the work of this Jehovistic, and at the same time deuteronomistic redaction in the time of Saul.
5. C. v. Lengerke (1844): The present Deuteronomy, excepting Deu_31:14-23, and perhaps also Deuteronomy 33, which is from the completer, the Jehovist under Hezekiah, is from the author of Deuteronomy, who at the same time published the book of Joshua in its present form, under Josiah.
6. H. Ewald (1864) (3d Ed. of the History of the People of Israel): “As also the Southern Kingdom, after the death of the good King Hezekiah, fell into the greatest danger of lawlessness and anarchy, it is an attempt of some dependent of this kingdom living abroad, to commend the old law,-altered and rejuvenated for the times, strengthened and emphasized by prophetic discourses, with a Mosaic method and coloring indeed, but with the freest use of his material,-to the king of his day as the only salvation, as he wished him to become the necessary reformer, under the delineation of Joshua.” The main portion of Deuteronomy 1-30, is an entirely independent writing, and from thence onward the original history lies at the foundation, as it was given in the work of the “fifth narrator,” and runs down to the death of Joshua, which corresponds to the object of the author of Deuteronomy. The great Song, Deuteronomy 32 taken from an otherwise unknown poet, by the author of Deuteronomy, instead of another song which originally occupied this place, since it appeared more suitable to him. Formed besides, from many sources, both narrative and legal in their subject, now entirely lost. (The age very learned, etc.). Perhaps during the second half of the reign of Manasseh, and written indeed in Egypt, in the seventh century through a peculiar event, it bccame for the public a book lying at the source of the reformation of the Kingdom under King Josiah. Deuteronomy 33, probably written under Josiah, not interpolated by the author of Deuteronomy, but written by this true, latest collector and publisher of our present Pentateuch, who connected Deuteronomy with the work of the fifth narrator, before the end of the 7th century, or still surely before the destruction of Jerusalem.
7. F. Bleek (1860, Introduction): With the conviction that very important sections are found in the Pentateuch written by Moses and in his time, Deuteronomy belongs to a writer, different from the Jehovistic reviser and enlarger of the Elohistic fundamental writing, and to a still later period. The time of its composition, between Hezekiah and Josiah, under the idolatrous Manasseh. Its more universal spread first occurs after the law-book with the Deuteronomic law-giving had been found in the temple under Josiah; Deu_32:1-43, from a poet under Ahaz or Hezekiah, Deuteronomy 33, perhaps by the same, at the time of Uzziah.
8. A. Knobel (1861): Into the Elohistic and Jehovistic work, which reaches from Genesis 1 to Numbers 36, as the Jehovist has completed it through the supplements to the old fundamental writing, from the books of Jasher, and of the wars, Num_21:14; Jos_10:13, (which also lies at the basis of the following books of Judges, Ruth, Samuel, 1 Kings 11), the writer of Deuteronomy has inserted between Numbers 36 and Deu_31:14, his discourses, and with them a number of determinations, and two accounts, which the Jehovist had taken from the book of Jasher, and attached to Numbers 36. We discover his hand also after Deu_31:14, down to Joshua 24. Through him the Pentateuch has received its present form.
From this outline of these hypotheses there is a manifest progress of the criticism, from that now, as good as abandoned “Fragmentary hypothesis,” and the earlier “documentary hypothesis,” to the “supplementary hypothesis”—(De Wette, § 157, a.).
It is true likewise that the greater number unite, as Bleek says, in holding that it is decidedly a false view when Vater, V. Bohlen, Vatke, George, hold that Deuteronomy is older than the books before it, with their law-giving.
As to the author of Deuteronomy, Staehelin, identifying the Jehovist with the author of Deuteronomy, occupies a distinct position, similar to that of Ewald, who advocates a still later peculiar author of the Pentateuch. It may indeed be held as the prevailing view, “that from the beginning on Deuteronomy was written as a revision and enlargement of the older historical work in the form which it has received through the Jehovistic elaborator of the first four books, and that the author of Deuteronomy is at the same time the last reviser of the entire Pentateuch, through whom the work receives the present compass and connection, in which we have it.” Bleek.
As this criticism agrees in denying that Moses wrote Deuteronomy, so it has come to an agreement, that the post-Mosaic composition of the work which they receive in general, occurs during the period down to Josiah.
2. But Vaihinger brings to bear against the Mosaic authorship, as to the historical portions, and therefore as to the Pentateuch generally, in the form in which it comes to us, the anonymous character of the greater number of the historical books; “and this rule is certainly so to be carried over and applied to the Pentateuch, and hence we may conclude that its author must be unknown.” By no means, for this “fifth book” has its peculiar fundamental significance, connects its fitness as a revelation with the person of Moses, and with no other. It requires no proof how truly the author of the Pentateuch was known throughout the Old Testament, since indeed the criticism, even of Vaihinger, allows the author of Deuteronomy to have issued his work under the name of Moses.
3. Bleek remarks especially, that by the representation in Deuteronomy, these discourses were all held upon one day; on the contrary, that by their extent and contents, the brief time before the death of Moses is insufficient for recording them. Should we even not translate Deu_1:5 that Moses at that time (Deu_1:3) began, etc., so that the date is to be understood simply of the terminus of the beginning, there is not wanting in the following parts every kind of pause, which sufficiently obviates the appearance upon which Bleek remarks. Thus Deu_4:41 sq.; Deu_4:44 sq.; Deu_5:1. If Moses died upon the 1st or 7th of the twelfth month, there was still time enough, the entire eleventh month, especially if the deuteronomic discourses had been prepared long beforehand.
[The objection is one of little weight in any case. But there were ten days between the beginning of these discourses and the closing events of the life of Moses. There was time enough, either on the supposition that the discourses had been prepared beforehand, or on the supposition that they were spoken out of a heart full with his theme, and then recorded. A man gifted like Moses, standing in his relation to the people, knowing that he was about to leave them, and aware what interests hung upon his words, could easily crowd those discourses and events into a much less space of time.—A. G.]
4. The deviation in language, style, ideas, and the course of thought from those usual in the Pentateuch, as it appears already, Lev_26:3-46, is, according to Vaihinger, still more striking and decided in Deuteronomy. “Such a ‘second law’ could scarcely have been necessary during the life of Moses;” Moses is not the author “of this second law giving, often in opposition to his own.” One would think that in such “deviations from the usage of the Pentateuch, some careful and practised student of the Hebrew language, and of the various modes of expression of the Israelitish writers to which Vaihinger refers, would have observed it very early, and the entire Jewish tradition, and the Christian Church with it, would not have ascribed Deuteronomy to Moses. Vaihinger indeed urges the Jewish title of the book against its Mosaic composition! Comp. § 1 for the mode in which this title “second law” agrees precisely and only with a personality like that of Moses, the prophetic law-giver. Every later writer would have had undoubtedly to authenticate his legitimate claim to it. The necessity or propriety of this new apprehension and arrangement of the law, rests certainly only in part upon “the approaching residence in Canaan,” more completely upon the requirements of the new generation to whom Moses, himself a dying man (Psa_90:1), here speaks, from the solemn experiences with that earlier generation dead in the desert; and still more upon the fact that the earlier law-giving, according to its whole nature with respect to the universal future of Israel, demanded that—if authentic—a path should be opened out of the law itself, and also through Moses personally, to the prophetic institution in Israel, which is done in Deuteronomy. Finally Keil and Schultz refer correctly to the remark of Bertheau: “It appears to me very hazardous to suppose oppositions in the laws, and from these to infer a different age of the opposing passages, because whoever made the additions must have known that to which they were added, and either perceived no contradictions, or would have expunged them from the writing before him.”
[Wordsworth says with great force: “The writer of Deuteronomy, whoever he may be, was a Hebrew writer of great natural endowments and intellectual acquirements, and being well skilled in the language, he would at least be as much conversant with the writings of Moses as his critics who live 3,000 years after him. Such a writer, wishing to palm Deuteronomy on the nation, would have been especially careful not to excite suspicions of the fraud by deviations from the facts of history or from the style of these other writings. These seeming variations in his general statements and the acknowledged difference of style between it and the other parts, so far from being proofs of spuriousness, are in fact strong evidence in favor of its Mosaic authorship.”—A. G.]
5. “First of all, the form of the three great popular discourses strikes us just as if we stood in the midst of the time of the later prophets.” That “is scarcely” to be expected “from Moses;” on the contrary, “the three detailed discourses” are called to mind which introduce “the gnomic poetry of Solomon about the time of Manasseh, and which impress in a more agreeable and complete form what was earlier concisely and briefly said.” Vaihinger. What different can we expect from Moses, unless simply a repetition of the earlier lawgiving with a second Sinai, etc.; unless that he should give an entirely unfitting and disappointing copy from the original! The text lay before him, what more likely than a sermon upon the text? Ought Moses to have catechized Israel in a Socratic way, or to have arranged a pastoral dialogue with the people, or to have celebrated liturgical devotions upon the decalogue, or to have opposed a talmudic commentary? The gnomic sentences (Deuteronomy 1-9) referred to, especially in their essential dependence upon the law, may be explained just as well, if not from the import of the deuteronomic law for the Israelitish national life, yet still much better as imitations of a deuteronomic model than as contemporary parallels. This explanation must be accepted in any case for the later prophetic institution or order (§ 1).
6. Recently the “stammering tongue” of Moses, in relation to the discourses in Deuteronomy, has been urged against his being their author. Hengstenberg replying in regard to Exo_4:11-12, refers to the similar case with Jeremiah, to Demosthenes, and to the occurrences in the ecstatic state. At the same time he emphasizes the fact, that the hesitation of Moses, Exodus 4, arose in view of “bold free speech before the overawing presence of Pharaoh,” which is wanting in Deuteronomy, where “he reads merely in the presence of the people, what he had before drawn up in writing” (comp. § 2).
7. “The tone of urgent, often-repeated exhortation is,” according to Vaihinger, “in broad contrast with the stern nature of Moses, as we come to know him in the three central books.” The despised “Apologetics,” on the other hand, and in favor of its correct conjecture, “that now first in Deuteronomy we come to learn the other side of the nature of Moses,” refers to Exo_32:32; Exo_33:12 sq.; Num_12:3; Num_14:17 sq.; thus to passages directly from “the three central books.” In regard to this Hengstenberg says: “In the first four books the personality of Moses is kept in the background, the method of statement is predominantly objective. In the last book the revered form of Moses comes forward, and whoever has any sense for the personality and individuality cannot fail to recognize that he here presents himself to us as he is. He speaks in entire fitness with his position as a departing father to his children. The style is earnest, animated, impressive.”
8. But it is precisely the language which Vaihinger urges against Moses, to whom “the three central books belong;” not only “from an unusual easy and flowing style which we never observe in the earlier time,” but also “from a breadth and smoothness which remind us strongly of the modes of speech and rhetoric at the time of Ezekiel and Jeremiah, as any scholar may easily see” But Knobel, who has himself entered with the fullest detail into the different kinds of style of the various writers in the Pentateuch accepted by him, asserts of “the fundamental writing,” which must be “the oldest law-book of Israel,” according to him belonging to “the time of Saul,” in part at least, what Vaihinger, what already De Wette, indeed what he himself asserts of Deuteronomy. Thus De Wette remarks: “a broad redundant use of words;” thus Knobel declares: “in general he writes with an affluence of words, and moreover continually repeats himself,” etc. And thus precisely he remarks upon the original writing: “the statement in these works is rich in repetitions wherein the author surpasses all others, often also broad and full;” “the author has at command great fulness of expression.” If Knobel allows that the author of Deuteronomy often coincides with Jeremiah and other writers since the exile, he gives also the ground for it when he says: “The patriots sought to prevent the coming ruin by leading the people back to the law.” De Wette, on the other hand, asserts (as he thinks) “too much as to this relationship.” The time of Jeremiah, and especially of Ezekiel, is confessedly the time of the decline of the Hebrew language. On the contrary Deuteronomy has not only similar traits of antiquity with the earlier books, but also many peculiarities of language in common with them (Keil, Introduction, 2, p. 100). There remains thus nothing but the method of statement, which generally includes great breadth or fulness among the Semitics, but especially in Deuteronomy from the rhetorical treatment of the subject, as Knobel himself says: “rhetorical, and therefore affluent in words and full.” In reference to the style Vaihinger concedes “even in the same man wide variances and diversities according to age, circumstances and dispositions.” Does he then regard the “breadth and liquidness” of the deuteronomic language as the signs of the loquaciousness and prolixity of age? Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died. Was his natural force not abated (Deu_34:7), and is this to be understood intellectually also? So Ewald indeed recognizes “certain passages,” e. g. the impressive close of Deuteronomy 30, in which “the author attains a thoughtful conciseness and energy, a severe and easy style.”
9. According to Deu_1:9, the idea of appointing judges originated with Moses, while in Exodus 18. Jethro gives the advice.” (Vaihinger). It is not the idea, and therefore not the counsel of Jethro, but what Moses did, which is spoken of here in entire harmony with Exo_18:25.
10. So also “in Deu_1:22, the proposition to send the spies came from the people, while in Numbers 13. God gives the command to do this.” (Vaihinger). The assumed contradiction is rather an important completion, and indeed by Moses himself, since there could be no object to any other writer, why he should run the risk of an apparent contradiction to Numbers 13. Any other writer would indeed have avoided this with the utmost care, if he wished to be regarded as Moses. Moses thus explains that the weak faith of the people preceded their fully developed unbelief, to which God condescended, to prevent perhaps that very unbelief. For the rest, Deu_1:22, agrees literally with Num_13:26. [“There is no real discrepancy between these passages. The plan of sending the spies originated with the people; and as in itself a reasonable one, it approved itself to Moses: was submitted to God, and sanctioned by Him, and carried out under special divine direction. The orator’s purpose in this chapter is to bring before the people, emphatically their own responsibilities