Deuteronomy: Theology (Teologi Ulangan)

Deuteronomy: Theology

  The theology of Deut depends on four cardinal facts. (1) Deut is a series of prophetic addresses. As such it sets forth standards of prophecy and revelation that obtain to the very end of the NT (Deut 4:2; 12:32; cf. Rev 22:18-19). (2) Deut resembles ANE international suzerain-vassal treaties or covenants. As a result the book evinces theological concepts that appear in the ancient treaties. (3) The book is also in part a law code. As such it reflects the theodicy and juridical concepts also found in other ANE law codes. Deut, however, as a prophetic document, presents the ancient covenant and legal concepts in a monotheistic cast. To put it another way: Although it employs ancient legal forms and ideas, the content of Deut is ultimately not derivative but revelatory. It shows God's true standards, which ANE treaties and laws only dimly reflect. (4) The particular style of the book helps to articulate its theology, which consists of the use and reuse of a distinct body of phrases. The repetition creates certain theological emphases that have been called deut. These phrases then recur in Jeremiah and the historical books and give a deut. theological cast to those books as well. (Deuteronomic/istic: Theology)

  1. Prophetic addresses. Deut stands as a record of Moses’ three final addresses to the Israelites before they enter the Promised Land. The three speeches are as follows: Deut 1:4- 4:40; 5:1- 28:68; 29:1- 30:20 (see J. A. Thompson, Deuteronomy, 15-16). They contain a variety of material, including historical review (Deut 1-4), paranesis (Deut 6-11; 29-30), and laws (Deut 5; 12-26). They are above all the final words of Yahweh's greatest OT prophet (34:10-12). As such the book brings prophetism to its highest level before Christ. It also sets forth the classical Israelite definition of a true prophet and his function, which was to help Israel evaluate subsequent prophets (13:1-5; 18:9-22). Consequently, the idea that Yahweh had revealed himself through a prophet to Israel and would continue to reveal himself through prophets to them is the foundation—indeed the sine qua non—of deut. theology.

  A related theological concept is that of the prophet as a minister of God's covenant. The prophetic ministry was of two kinds: the prophet as covenant mediator (Moses only); the prophet as covenant lawsuit messenger (subsequent prophets). God had raised up the prophet Moses to mediate his covenant to Israel; he would raise up other prophets to bring covenant lawsuit—to recall the people to covenant obedience or to announce covenantal punishments incurred by their disobedience. As Noth has observed, the concept of covenantal punishment informs the theological evaluation of Israel's subsequent history and gives it a deut. flavor.

  2. Covenant form. Covenant is a central idea in Deut. The Heb. term for treaty, covenant (tyrIB]) is used of Yahweh's covenant with Israel (the Mosaic covenant) 26x in Deut—more than in any other OT book (compare 16x in Josh and 12 in Jer). In fact, Deut is a covenant renewal or second covenant event, which takes place on the plains of Moab (cf. Deut 29-30). The review and supplement of laws entailed by this event accounts for some differences that have been noted between the laws of Deut and those of Exod (see below).

  Moreover, the book itself has a distinct covenant structure. The affinity of Deut to second-millennium BC Hittite suzerain-vassal treaties/covenants was first recognized by George Mendenhall (49-76). M. G. Kline and K. A. Kitchen (1973, 1978) allied the results of Mendenhall's study to Deut as part of an argument for an early (Mosaic) date for the book. The book follows a literary/legal form, which is readily identifiable in the second-millennium international treaties, but does not appear in the later, first-millennium treaties (although this distinction has been disputed, cf. McCarthy). The contrast, set forth by Kitchen (1978, 79-85) and further established by him in great detail (Kitchen, 1995, 48-49, 88-95), is as follows (portions of Deut that correspond to the Hittite treaty form are noted):

Table of Deuteronomy1: Theology

 ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿

 ³ Second Millennium   ³ Deuteronomy             ³ First Millennium ³

 ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ´

 ³ Title/Preamble      ³ Deut. 1:1-5             ³ Title/Preamble   ³

 ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ´

 ³ Historical Prologue ³ Deut. 1:6-3:39          ³                  ³

 ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ´

 ³ Stipulations        ³ Deut. 4-26              ³ Stipulations     ³

 ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ´

 ³ Deposition of Text  ³ Deut. 31:9, 24-26       ³                  ³

 ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ´

 ³ Public Reading      ³ Deut. 31:10-13          ³                  ³

 ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ´

 ³ Witnesses           ³ Deut. 31:16-30; 32:1-47 ³ Witnesses        ³

 ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ´

 ³ Blessings           ³ Deut. 28:1-14           ³                  ³

 ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ´

 ³ Curses              ³ Deut. 28:15-68          ³ Curses           ³

 ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÙ

  Yahweh's covenant relation with Israel entails several major theological concepts. One is that Yahweh is Israel's “Suzerain” or “Great King” (Kline) as well as its God (Deut 33:1-5). As such he expects covenant “love,” which is tantamount to obedience (cf. John 14:21, 23-24; 15:9-10; W. Moran, 77-87). For his part, God will faithfully distribute covenant blessings (Deut 28:1-14) and curses (28:15-68) as the people are obedient or disobedient.

  Covenant lawsuit, noted above, is an inevitable outgrowth of covenant. Throughout Israel's history God recalls his people to obedience when they have broken his covenant. He does so in order to obviate or, where this is impossible, to announce the advent of covenant curses. Deut 32 (a prophetic poem that Moses chants as a witness against Israel's future apostasy) is the foundational covenant lawsuit document and clearly reflects the essential elements of the covenant form:

Table of Deuteronomy2: Theology

 ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿

 ³ Covenant            ³ Covenant               ³ Lawsuit        ³

 ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ´

 ³ Witnesses           ³ Summons to Witnesses   ³ Deut. 32:1-2   ³

 ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ´

 ³ Title               ³ God's Attributes       ³ Deut. 32:3-4   ³

 ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ´

 ³ Historical Prologue ³ Historical Review      ³ Deut. 32:5-14  ³

 ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ´

 ³ Stipulations        ³ Indictment             ³ Deut. 32:15-18 ³

 ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ´

 ³ Curses              ³ Judgment               ³ Deut. 32:19-29 ³

 ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ´

 ³ Blessings           ³ Assurance of Salvation ³ Deut. 32:30-38 ³

 ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÅÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ´

 ³ Oath                ³ Oath                   ³ Deut. 32:39-42 ³

 ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÙ

  Subsequent oracles against Israel partake in one degree or another of this basic form and are rooted in it (cf. G. Ernest Wright, 26-67; Huffmon, 285-95).

  Two major theological themes of Deut appear from the foregoing discussion of structure. (a) Yahweh is a God who reveals himself to prophets and through prophets to his people Israel. (b) Yahweh enters into covenant with Israel with all that such an arrangement entails, including laws for the theocratic society and blessings and curses attendant upon obedience or disobedience. Explicit in the conjunction of these two concepts are two others. (c) Moses is covenant mediator, who receives the covenant from Yahweh and mediates it to the people. (d) Further revelation is expected from Yahweh to and through subsequent prophets, whom he will raise up to advance the work of divine guidance for the covenant community after Moses has died. In addition to this cluster of major themes, the phraseology of Deut indicates other important theological ideas.

  3. Laws. Beside its covenantal aspect, Deut contains laws. If the covenantal structure of the book is considered, the legal portion corresponds to the stipulations of an ancient treaty (see above). But it is equally fair to characterize the book as, in part at least, a law code. As such it reflects the theodicy and juridical concepts also found in other ANE law codes.

  The most famous of these is the Codex Hammurapi, or law code of Hammurapi (Hammurabi), king of Babylon ca. 1792-1750 BC. An engraving above the laws shows Hammurapi receiving them from Shamash, the Mesopotamian sun god and overseer of laws and covenants (compare Moses receiving the law from Yahweh, overseer of his law and covenant with Israel). Hammurapi's code contains 282 sections, dealing with a range of topics from theft and assault to marriage and adoption, rates and wages, and slavery. Some of the cases and decisions resemble earlier law codes (Ur-Nammu, Lipit-Ishtar, Eshnunna; cf. ANET, 159-80). Some resemble deut. laws, e.g., the laws regarding false witnesses (CH 1, 3-4; cf. Deut 19:16-20), manstealing (CH 14; cf. Deut 24:7), theft (CH 23-24), slavery (CH 117; cf. Deut 15:12-18), adultery (CH 129; cf. Deut 22:22), and rape (CH 130; cf. Deut 22:23-27). The laws of both codes address a similar range of concerns simply because they are both law codes; that is, they aim to regulate human behavior in society. They also share an idea that was common in the ANE, that gods gave laws, wisdom, and authority to chosen leaders for the governance of their people (cf. Niehaus, 1995, chs. 3-4). In general the deut. laws are more humanitarian than those of the Hammurapi code or other ANE laws—a feature that arguably derives from their divine source (see further G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, 1935; P. C. Craigie, 408).

  The review of laws entailed by the covenant renewal aspect of the book entails some differences between the legislation of Exod and that of Deut. For one thing, a review will not necessarily repeat every detail of the earlier legislation. Moreover, as Craigie (238-39; cf. 41-42) points out, Moses is at pains to draw out the implications of covenant love in his final review. So in the often-cited parallel law regarding manumission of slaves (Exod 21:2-11 || Deut 15:12-18), the earlier casuistic portion (Exod 21:3-4, 7-11) is taken for granted in Deut, and additional instruction of a more humanistic kind supplements the law (Deut 15:13-15): The freed slave is not to be sent away “empty-handed,” but liberally supplied with grain and wine. Israel is to remember that when they were slaves in Egypt, God set them free—“That is why I give you this command today” (15:15). For a discussion of the laws that make applications into social ethics, cf. C. J. H. Wright (1990).

  4. Deut. phraseology and theology. It has long been recognized that Deut employs a unique style, characterized by a distinct body of phrases that are repeated throughout the book. Their repetition brings to the fore a number of themes that comprise major theological concerns of the book. Some of these phrases then recur in the prose portions of Jeremiah and the historical books (Josh-2 Kgs) and give a deut. theological cast to those books as well.

  W. M. L. de Wette was the first to isolate some of the deut. phrases and explore their stylistic implications (Dissertatio Critica). He produced a catalogue of “favorite phrases, words [and] rhetorical expressions” (Lehrbuch, 201-2) that he considered as evidence for a distinctive theology and late date (seventh century BC) for Deut. Among this evidence was the command of Deut 12:5, “You are to seek the place the LORD your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for his dwelling,” which was understood to be a veiled reference to the Jerusalem temple. It was part of the deut. agenda of reform to centralize worship in Jerusalem, thus confirming the control of the Jerusalem priesthood and enhancing the battle against idolatry. This interpretation has become standard among many scholars, although it runs counter to the long understood meaning of this passage, namely, that the “the place the LORD your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for his dwelling” simply means, “wherever the LORD will have you place the tabernacle”—be it at Shiloh (Jer 7:12) or, later, Jerusalem (cf. Thompson, 35-42; Craigie, 217). The identification of the “place” of Deut 12:5 with Jerusalem depends on the existence of parallel phrasing in the books of Kings (e.g., 2 Kgs 21:7). But it is now clear that stock phrasing was applied in the ancient world to different locations as circumstances changed, so that the “place” in Deut 12:5 may also refer simply to any place that the Lord might choose to place his “Name.” For a detailed discussion of the history of the central sanctuary issue and attendant phraseology, with relevant evidence from the ANE, see Niehaus (1992, 3-30).

  The seventh-century date was also postulated because of stylistic similarity to the prose sermons of Jeremiah (and dissimilarity to Gen-Num), and Deut was considered to be the “Book of the Law” discovered by Hilkiah during the temple renovation under King Josiah (621 BC; 2 Kgs 22). Seen from this perspective, Deut came after J and E and was a theologically more advanced document. Since de Wette's epochal work many scholars have followed his approach. By the turn of the century S. R. Driver had produced a longer and much more complete catalogue of deut. words and phrases (1978, lxxxvi-lxxxviii). For him the differences of style between Deut and the other books of the Pent. indicated a difference of author (lxxvii-lxxviii) and the similarities of style between Deut and Jer indicated a late date (xcii-xciv).

  Following the same approach, Moshe Weinfeld has produced an even more exhaustive phrase catalogue. He has also grouped the deut. phraseology around nine major theological concerns: (a) The struggle against idolatry; (b) the centralization of the cult; (c) Exodus, covenant, and election; (d) the monotheistic creed; (e) observance of the law and loyalty to the covenant; (f) inheritance of the land; (g) retribution and material motivation; (h) fulfillment of prophecy; and (i) the election of the Davidic dynasty (1:320-65). According to Weinfeld, Deut offers a distinctive theology, including a loftier monotheism and a more advanced humanism than the other pentateuchal books. He locates three branches of deut. literature: the book of Deut, the editorial framework of Joshua-Kings (= the putative Deuteronomist), and the prose sermons in the book of Jer (Weinfeld, 4). Building on the hypothesis of Martin Noth Weinfeld understands the Deuteronomist to be an exilic writer/editor who subscribed to the deut. theology and redacted the historical books from a deut. point of view. Because of his work, Israel's disastrous end can be understood theologically as an outworking of the covenant curses of Deut: Yahweh was obligated by faithfulness to his covenant to apply those curses as Israel turned aside to idolatry (cf. 2 Kgs 17:7-20); even though he had sent his servants the prophets to recall Israel and Judah to covenant obedience, they had continued to merit punishment (cf. 2 Kgs 22:15-20; 24:1-4, 18-20). (Deuteronomic/istic: Theology)

  The history of Israel as recorded in the historical books of the OT certainly has a deut. cast. It is understood theologically as the interrelationship between Israel's covenant obedience (or disobedience) and Yahweh's consequent covenantal blessing (or curse), and this interrelationship is often expressed in phraseology that harks back to Deut. The reason for this appears to be that Deut was the “Book of the Law” discovered by the high priest Hilkiah and presented to King Josiah during the renovation of the temple (2 Kgs 22:8-10). Deut's exposition of Yahweh's covenant relation with Israel and its strong polemic and laws against idolatry not only grieved Josiah and moved him to renew the covenant (2 Kgs 23:1-3) and cleanse the temple and land of idols (23:4-27); it also provided the theological rationale and the phraseological medium by which Jeremiah could prophesy and Israelite historians could interpret Israel's history and demise. Understood from this perspective, Deut provided a theological basis both for Israel's constitution and for her dissolution.

  The phraseology of Deut is distinctive and marks the beginning of a literary tradition in Israel. This is so for at least two reasons. Deut is not simply a covenant, although it is cast in the form of a covenant. The covenant form was employed apparently to show Israel that Yahweh was her legal Suzerain, and that she was under covenantal obligation to him. Consequently, many of the characteristic phrases of the book stem from its covenantal nature. But Deut is also a series of final addresses by Moses. Because of this paranetic dimension, Deut evinces the repeated phraseology that so many have noticed. Moses emphasizes major points by repetition.

  The covenantal foundation of the book's phraseology is apparent from the beginning. Hittite suzerain-vassal treaties began with a historical section, in which the suzerain reviewed his acts on behalf of the vassal (see above). The purpose of the section was to arouse a sense of obligation to covenant obedience on the vassal's part. Deut also begins in this way, with a historical section that contains phrases subsequently repeated through the book.

  Some of the phrases recall Yahweh's covenant with the patriarchs: “the LORD, the God of your/our fathers” (Deut 1:11, 21; 4:1; 6:3; 12:1; 26:7; 27:3); “to swear” (of Yahweh's oaths to the patriarchs, 1:8, 35; 4:31, and passim); “to love/desire the patriarchs/Israel” (4:37; 7:7, 8, 13; 10:15; 23:6). Others recall his works of power against Egypt: “signs and portents” (4:34; 6:22; 7:3, 19; 26:8; 29:2; 34:11); “with great terror” (4:34; 26:8; 34:12); “a mighty hand and an outstretched arm” (4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 11:2; 26:8); or the wilderness wanderings: “the great and terrible desert” (1:19; 2:7; 8:15); “which you did not know” (of the manna, 8:3, 16; and subsequently of foreign gods, 11:28; 13:3; 28:64; 32:17; or people, 28:33, 36).

  Yahweh has revealed himself to Israel and given her his laws: “statutes and judgments” (4:1, 5, 8, 14; 5:1; 11:32; 12:1; 26:16); “which I am commanding you this day” (4:40; 6:6; 7:11, and passim), so Israel should be careful to obey those commands (“to be careful and do,” 4:6; 7:12; 16:12, etc.) and pay heed to what their God has spoken (“attend to [his] voice,” 4:30; 8:20; 9:23, and passim). In particular she should avoid idolatry (“to serve/walk after other gods,” 6:14; 7:4; 11:16, 28, and passim) and follow Yahweh with total commitment, “with all your heart and soul,” 4:29; 6:5; 10:12, and passim).

  Yahweh has not only delivered Israel from Egypt (“redeemed,” 7:8; 9:26; “from the land of slavery,” i.e., Egypt, 13:5; 15:15, etc.). He has also chosen her (4:37; 7:6, 7; 10:15, etc.) and given her the Promised Land (“the good land,” 1:35; 3:25; 4:21-22, etc.; “which the LORD our/your God is giving to us/you,” 1:20, 25; 2:29; 3:20, and passim). In order to keep her pure, he commands her to dispossess (4:38; 9:4-5; 11:23, etc.) and exterminate the idolatrous Canaanites unsparingly (“do not look on them with pity,” 7:16; 13:9 [8], etc.).

  But Yahweh commands his people to be merciful to the poor and the weak in their own midst: e.g., “the fatherless and the widow, and ... the alien” (10:18; 24:17, 19, 20, 21; 27:19, etc.), and slaves also, remembering that they themselves “were slaves in Egypt” (5:15; 15:15; 16:12, etc.).

  Above all stands God's redemptive purpose. He has chosen Israel “to be the people of his inheritance” (4:20; 7:6; 9:26, 29; 14:2; 26:18; 27:9). He wants to bless them (“so that the LORD your God may bless you,” 14:29; 23:21 [20]; 24:19, etc.; cf. “so that it may go well with you,” 4:40; 5:16, 26 [29]; 6:3, 18, etc.), but knows that for this to be possible Israel must love their God (6:5; 7:9; 10:12, and passim) and even cleave to him (10:20; 11:22; 13:5, etc.) as a man is meant to cleave to his wife (cf. Gen 2:24).

  The deut. commentary on Israel's subsequent history shows all too clearly how Israel departed from the covenant standards that the paranetic emphases of Deut attempted to inculcate. Israel's failure showed ultimately the need for Christ to fulfill the law for her (cf. Gal 3:24). And the book of Deut itself contained materials that adumbrated the nature of that Christ.

  5. Deut. theology and the NT. Two cardinal deut. ideas appear as significant NT emphases. One is the idea that God will raise up another prophet like Moses—another covenant mediator who, implicitly, will receive another covenant from God and mediate it to the people, just as Moses did (Deut 18:15-19). The other is the love relationship that must subsist between God and his people.

  The Mosaic prophecy of Deut 18:15 points ultimately to Christ: “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers.” The NT understands the passage to be messianic, for this prophecy has been fulfilled in the person of Jesus. After healing a crippled beggar at the temple gate called Beautiful, Peter explains to the astonished crowd that faith in the name of Jesus has accomplished the miracle, and he identifies Jesus as the prophet foretold by Moses (Acts 3:22-23). Since there arose no prophet like Moses under the regime of the old covenant, Jesus stands in effect as a new Moses. Moses was the mediator of God's covenant with Israel; all the other OT prophets were subservient to that covenant—that is, they were covenant lawsuit messengers (see above). If therefore Jesus is a new Moses, it follows that, to be truly like Moses, he must bring a new covenant. So the Mosaic prophecy of another prophet like Moses also implies a new covenant (cf. Jer 31:31).

  The covenant ethos of Deut is also apparent in the new covenant. According to Deut, the Mosaic covenant was a revelation from God that must not be altered by human tampering: “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it” (Deut 4:2). John's Apocalypse shows the same attitude toward the sanctity of divine revelation in the new covenant: “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book” (Rev 22:18-19).

  Ultimately, however, the love of God in Deut overshadows all other considerations. God not only establishes his covenant with Israel because of his love for her, he also promises another prophet like Moses (and implicitly another covenant), anticipating the day when the Mosaic covenant will fail. The love of God in Deut has two aspects: humanity's love for God, and God's love for humanity. The deut. command to love God appears not only in the greatest commandment (Deut 6:5; cf. Matt 22:37), but also in Jesus’ final words to his disciples before his passion: “If you love me, you will obey my commandments” (John 14:15). As noted above, this connection between love and obedience has an ancient background as it appears not only in Deut but also in ANE international treaties. But even greater and ultimately more important than Israel's love for God is God's love for Israel: “It was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your forefathers that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt” (Deut 7:8). This love of God, ever the same, shines forth much more powerfully in a new and better covenant: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

Bibliography P. C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, 1976; W. M. L. de Wette, Dissertatio Critica qua Deuteronomium a prioribus Pentateuchi libris diversum alius cuiusdam recentioris opus esse monstratur, 180; idem, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen und apokryphischen Bücher des Alten Testaments, 1833; G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, The Assyrian Laws, 1935; S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy, ICC, 1978; H. B. Huffmon, “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets,” JBL 78, 1959, 285-95; K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, 1973; idem, The Bible in Its World, 1978; idem, “The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?” BARev 21/22, 1995, 48-57, 88-95; M. G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 1963; D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, AnBib 21A, 1978; J. G. McConville, Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology, SOTBT, 1993; G. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” BA 17, 1954, 49-76; W. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25, 1963, 77-87; J. J. Niehaus, God at Sinai: Covenant and Theophany in the Bible and Ancient Near East, SOTBT, 1995; idem, “The Central Sanctuary: Where and When,” TynBul 43/1, 1992; M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 1943, 1957² (Eng. tr., E. W. Nicholson, The Deuteronomistic History, JSOT 15, 1981); J. A. Thompson, Deuteronomy, 1974; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 1972; C. J. H. Wright, God's People in God's Land, 1990; G. Ernest Wright, “The Lawsuit of God: A Form-Critical Study of Deuteronomy 32,” in Israel's Prophetic Heritage, 1962, 26-67.

J. J. Niehaus

Sumber: NIDOTE