םכל רמאי וניהלא יתרשמ וארקת הוהי ינהכ םתאו Isa 62:12a: הוהי ילואג שדקה־םע םהל וארקו

TEXTS IN EXODUS DOCUMENTING THE PLENARY RECEPTION OF REVELATION

Isa 61:6a: םכל רמאי וניהלא יתרשמ וארקת הוהי ינהכ םתאו Isa 62:12a: הוהי ילואג שדקה־םע םהל וארקו

96

These provisional considerations indicate something of the scope of the progressive and involved conception of a/the “holy nation” (שודק יוג). The connections between the conceptions of Exod 19:5f. and passages related to the PRR will be pointed out as we proceed in the present chapter. First, however, let us take a look a text in Third Isaiah and its apparent conceptual links with Exod 19:5-6a.

2.2.4 Third Isaiah and Exod 19:5-6a: Israel’s Calling as Prophetic Mediator

Passing reference has been made to H, the office laws (Deut 16:18–18:22), and Jeremiah.

Other texts within the corpus propheticum inform the exegesis of Exod 19:5f. and, ultimately, passages relating to the PRR as well. Often considered the original Kern of Third Isaiah, chs. 60–62 furnish close terminological parallels with our passage and therefore require careful consideration.

⁴⁴⁷

Isa 60:14b: לארשי שודק ןויצ הוהי ריע ךל וארקו

Isa 61:6a: םכל רמאי וניהלא יתרשמ וארקת הוהי ינהכ םתאו

97

שודק  in 60:14 and 62:12 (cf. v. 10),

⁴⁴⁸

in conjunction with הוהי ינהכ in 61:6, make connections with Exod 19:5f difficult to ignore.

⁴⁴⁹

It is the designation הוהי י נהכ in Isa 61:6 however that holds particular promise for the present discussion. J.-L. Ska affirms that הוהי ינהכ applies to all-Israel, but perceives significant differences between it and the context of Exod 19:5f. For example, it may be better to interpret Isa 61:6 in the sense of a privilege promised to Israel by its God than of a people who are actually priests.

⁴⁵⁰

The difference between Isa 61:6 and Exod 19:6 presents itself in the following ways: Whereas the former context views reciprocity with aliens positively, the latter endorses Israel’s separateness from the surrounding nations;

whereas the former envisions a future in Jerusalem following the reconstruction of the temple and the advantages resulting from the “conversion” and pilgrimage of the peoples, the latter is preoccupied with the internal organization of the embryonic nation of Israel over against “the peoples.”

⁴⁵¹

Ska’s contrasts are helpful, though he may overdraw the oppositional aspect in Israel’s relationship with the other in the context of Exod 19:3b-8.

Animus toward Egypt, for example, should not be taken as axiomatic with respect to other neighbors, for “all the earth is mine” (v. 5b). One should also bear in mind the possibility that Exodus 19:3b-8 does not have in mind large, remote foreign nations but rather a sociohistorical situation closer to home, namely, in which the “other peoples”

actually live in the land of Israel, having mixed with the “native popultion” since the exile.

⁴⁵²

448 See the following note.

449 Cf. Schmitt, “Redaktion,” 177f. To the list of relevant passages in Third Isaiah, Kraus (“heilige Volk,”

47) adds Isa 35:8aα, which also uses ארק to connote a future context הל ארקי שדקה ךרדו (cf. 62:10). Kraus (ibid.) suggests the “holy/holiness” designations in Isaiah (including 62:10, which also speaks of the “way”

[ךרד]) belong to an eschatological Gedankenwelt. Pace Kraus, it has become more difficult to date Isa 35:8 and indeed ch. 35 in general to the exilic era. Blenkinsopp (Isaiah 1–39 [vol. 19 of AB; New York:

Doubleday, 2000], 457) speaks to the problems accompanying the dating of these texts: “Chapter 35 gives us a completely ahistorical and imaginative projection ... [Both:8 and 62:10] derive from a social and spiritual environment very different from that of the so-called Second Isaiah.”

450 Ska, “Exode 19,3-6,” 303. Ska’s essay considers the flowing together of dtn/dtr, P, and prophetic traditions; cf. Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion, 18; Steins, “Zur Interpretation von 19,6,” 33.

451 Ska, “Exode 19,3-6,” 302-04.

452 Steins, “Zur Interpretation von 19,6,” 27.

98

2.2.4.1 Israelite Intermediaries in Exodus and Third Isaiah

Despite the alleged contrasts between Isa 61:6 and Exod 19:6, important similarities remain. Discernible within the notion of Israel as שודק םע in Isa 61:6 is Israel’s

intermediarial role between God and the nations.

⁴⁵³

In the light of “il grande poema di Is 60,” Third Isaiah may hold to this view in general.

⁴⁵⁴

As Israel observes the covenant, it becomes YHWH’s divine envoy to the nations. Assuming this concept fits the Isaiah text, does it also apply to Exod 19:6? Barbieri maintains that built into the conception of Exod 19:6 is the promise of blessing and reward

⁴⁵⁵

for both Israelite and non-Israelite that acknowledges Israel’s divine commission (cf. Isa 60:3).

⁴⁵⁶

While unprovable, this proposal helps explain the conspicuously similar vocabulary, itself suggestive of cross- canonical, interlacing themes between the two texts. Note also that the terms of

acceptance for the alien recall similar devotion to YHWH expected by the Hexateuch redactor (§1.3.11.8). In this instance, however, the alien acknowledges not only YHWH but also his plans for Israel.

⁴⁵⁷

So far, the evidence suggests the “nation(al) holiness”

under discussion has to do with Israel’s unique mission among the nations, already heralded in the Sinai pericope. It will be argued that the same appertains to passages demonstrating the PRR.

2.2.4.2 Israel’s Mission Led by Professional Priests?

Neither in Isa 60f. nor Exod 19:5f. does the idea of Israel’s ambassador/mediator role suggest a membership restricted to professional priests.

⁴⁵⁸

One instead finds the contemplation of socioreligious aspects of a “holy people/nation” on an international

453 “Emerge da questo brano chiaramente il concetto die Israele come ‘popolo di sacerdoti’ chiamati a svolgere una funzione di intermediari tra JHWH e le nazioni” (MAMLEKET KOHANIM,436-37; cf. also 444f.). This interpretation emerges not only from the description of the people as priests but also as

“servants” of God. The term “servant” derives from the root תרש (pi’el) often used in contexts of priestly service.

454 Barbieri, “MAMLEKET KOHANIM,” 437; Crüsemann, Torah, 360.

455 “Ci sembra che questo trovi riscontro in Es 19,6, dove l’espressione funge da ‘benedizione’ per l’osservanza dell’alleanza, ha cioè il senso di un ‘premio’” (“MAMLEKET KOHANIM,” 437 and n. 58).

456 For nations and kings that do not serve (תרש) the servant, i.e., Israel (cf. Isa 60:10), the prospects remain rather grim (v. 12).

457 Cf. the importance of YHWH’s “plans/thoughts” (תֹבָשחַמ) for Jeremiah’s life in Jer 29:11: “For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope.”

458 This does not mean Israel’s function among the nations did not include a type of priestly mediation, contra Steins (“Zur Interpretation von 19,6,” 34, n. 68).

99

scale.

⁴⁵⁹

Georg Steins devolves the Israel’s priestliness in Exod 19:6 (and ch. 24) to their realization of the nearness of God (Realisierung der Nähe Gottes), listening to his voice, and mediating the Torah.

⁴⁶⁰

But this leaves unexplained the contiguity of nation and holiness in 19:6a (שודק יוג), and the additional cultic aspects attached to ןהכ in v. 6b. In my reckoning, the centrality Steins claims for the realization of God’s presence in this passage would require more explicit prophetic emphasis.

Aside from v. 5a, the removal of which does no harm to the context or flow of vv. 5f., I detect no conditionality or contingency in Exod 19:3b-6. Further, conditions based on the people’s performance do not fit the affection and possessiveness of v. 5bα ( יל םתייהו

ְּס

ֻג ָל

םימעה־לכמ ה ), after which v. 6a perhaps adds an aspect of parental pride. “You will be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation” (i.e., in front of all the others).

With respect to Isa 60–62 and any monopoly held by elite religious leadership, Hanson pulls no punches in affirming all-Israel’s qualification for carrying out their divine mission: “In Isaiah 60–62 the sealed gates (Ezek 44:1ff.) are cast open, for all the people will be righteous and holy.”

⁴⁶¹

Isaiah 60:21, moreover, likely hints at the people’s sacral qualification, perhaps sanctification as well (cf. Lev 22:32b-33)

⁴⁶²

by asserting that all-Israel is or will be righteous.

⁴⁶³

The assertion lines up fairly well with the post-dtr tradition of Deut 4:31-38

⁴⁶⁴

and runs counter to more pessimistic appraisals of the people in earlier, dtr texts such as Deut 5; 29–30.

⁴⁶⁵

So far, nothing in the findings of the

analyses of Exod 19:3b-6 disqualifies it from serving as a source from which the broad concept in Third Isaiah sprung, especially regarding Israel’s mission among the nations.

2.2.5 Priestly and Other Perspectives in the Concept of qdš

459 The picture of priests in Isa 66:3 (cf. 59:1-12) does not suggest an authorship consisting of a ruling class of theocrats (so Barbieri, “MAMLEKET KOHANIM,” 437: “A nostro avviso, è fuori luogo applicare Is 61,6 alle classe sacerdotale governante, come vorrebbe Cazelles”). Rather, we should perhaps think in terms of a middle or lower tier of prophetically inclined priests in pursuit of an alternative theological paradigm, one promoting the notion of a mixed people cognizant of their universal mission. Levitical priest-prophets with leanings in the direction of democratizing the priesthood come to mind.

460 “Zur Interpretation von 19,6,” 35f.

461 Hanson, Dawn, 73, original emphasis.

462 Cf. the discussion of sanctification according to H in §§6.4.14-15.

463 Isa 60:21aα םיקידצ םלכ ךמעו suggests a current rather than future context, likewise Tg. ןיאכז ןוהלוכ ךימעו;

NJB has “Your people, all of them upright”; TNK: “And your people, all of them righteous”; Johann Gottfried Herder, Die Bibel. Die Heilige Schrift des Alten und Neuen Bundes. Vollständige deutsche Ausgabe (1966 rev.) [Bible Works 8] (Verlag Herder, 2005 [cited 3 March 2011]), hereafter “Herder”:

“Deine Bürger sind lauter [here “nothing but”] Gerechte.”

464 See the treatment of Deut 4 below, §3.1.4.

465 On chs. 29f. see the discussion in Excursus 4, section x.2.

100

The notion of Israel’s sanctity (qdš) as a defining characteristic opposite other nations likely emerges from a sacerdotal milieu. It makes its presence known especially in the Holiness Code (H).

⁴⁶⁶

Leviticus 19:2, which addresses the entire community,

⁴⁶⁷

recalls elements in the presentation of the Dec; the command to be holy seems an extension of and perhaps counterpart to the Dec.

⁴⁶⁸

Leviticus 19:2 functions well as the Leitsatz for the H corpus (chs. 17–26), as well as the point of trajectory for 11:44f; 20:7, 26.

⁴⁶⁹

“Holiness expressions” often occur in legal contexts concerned the sphere of holiness,

⁴⁷⁰

e.g., Exod 22:30 [Eng 31]

⁴⁷¹

; Num 15:40

⁴⁷²

; Ezek 20:12.

⁴⁷³

Superficially, the pairing of legality and holiness seems a legal area specially emphasized by clerical elites. A careful look at the passages just mentioned, however, shows the concept of “observance” extends beyond the realm of ritual specialization. H famously expands the notion of the legality of holiness into the ethical sphere. Another application of law to the personal sphere meets us in the Psalter, where the collocation torat YHWH stands for a selective law manual that lends itself to personal liturgical observance and contemplation.

⁴⁷⁴

With just these few sketches of the diverse conceptualizing of religious legality in view, and despite the apparent dtn/dtr vocabulary in Exod 19:3b-6, already the evidence does not point in the

466 See § 2.1.1.4 below.

467םכיהלא הוהי ינא שודק יכ ויהת םישדק םהלא תרמאו לארשי־ינב תדע־לכ־לא רבד. For shades of meaning in the pairing of הדע and לארשי־ינב see Jan Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26 (vol. 67; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 38f.

468 Kraus, “heilige Volk,” 41.

469 Ibid.

470 Cf. ibid., 47: “Die Zeugenschaft Israels vor den Völkern erhält dadurch im Bereich des Wortfeldes qdš ihre Zeichnung und Bestimmung, daß die Theologie des Heiligkeitsgesetzes stark zur Geltung kommt.”

471 This passage may reflect an early phase of H. If so, then Deuteronomy and H “haben darin eine gemeinsame, auch aus den deuteronomischen und priesterlichen Texten selbst zu erschließende Voraussetzung, daß sie beide auf das Traditionselement der Beziehung ritueller Weisungen auf die Heiligkeit Israels rekurrieren—das Deuteronomium im älteren, begründenden, das Heiligkeitsgesetz im jüngeren (möglicherweise in Ex. 22, 30 vorgebildeten) fordernden Modus” (ibid., 44-5).

472 The juxtaposition of the people’s legal competency and holiness is clear, even programmatic, in Num 15:40. Note the volitional mood and future tense ו + היה: “So you shall remember and do all my

commandments, and you shall be [NRSV future tense likely following LXX ἔσεσθε and Tg. ןוֹהתוּ] holy to your God.”

473 Cf. Ska, “Exode 19,3-6,” 296; Kraus (“heilige Volk,” 47) links the holiness conceptions of Ezek (e.g., 39:7) with those of the prophet Isaiah.

474 Cf. Ps 1:2; 19:7; 119:1, and Reinhard Gregor Kratz, “Die Tora Davids: Psalm 1 und die doxologische Fünfteilung des Psalters,” ZTK 93, no. 1 (1996): 1-34; Christian, “Revisiting Levitical Authorship,” 194f.

101

direction of limiting its conceptions, including the notion of election, solely to dtn/dtr circles.

⁴⁷⁵

2.2.6 An Inclusive “Kingdom of Priests”and the PRR

According to the story line of the exodus from Egypt, the assembly receiving direct revelation at the mountain of God comprises a mixed, integrated community (cf. Exod 12:38; Num 11:4, both HexRed

⁴⁷⁶

). This actuality invites the consideration of

connections between the writers of vv. 5f. and those supportive of the tradition of the PRR. The terms under review in Exod 19:5f. ostensibly refer to all-Israel,

⁴⁷⁷

and the circles employing those terms arguably envision Israel as an interrelated, albeit

diverse,

⁴⁷⁸

community.

⁴⁷⁹

We have looked into the prospect of an international priesthood taking root in Third Isaiah. Exodus 19:5a indicates that all-Israel and not solely priests carry the potential (and therefore bear responsibility) for keeping the covenant. The promise of 5b hinges on the people’s obedience.

⁴⁸⁰

As one considers the casuistic formulation of v. 5 combined with the postexilic conceptual framework of v. 6, the challenge to hear (עמש in 5aα likely including the idea of discernment) God’s voice and keep his covenant probably targets a diverse community, one that has signed on to both the identity and territorial aspects of “Israel.” The שודק יוג envisioned in Exod 19:5f. is to

475 “Ces contacts empêchent de se diriger uniquement du côté du Dt ou des textes deutéronomistes pour y retrouver l’idée d’élection présente en Ex 19,3-6” (Ska, “Exode 19,3-6,” 296). On the “holiness” passages and their cultic significance in Ezekiel, including apocalyptic texts such as 38:16, where YHWH reveals his holiness directly to the nations that they may “know” him (ישדקהב יתא םיוגה תעד ןעמל), see Kraus, “heilige Volk,” 47-9. Kraus occasionally draws too sharp a line between dtn/dtr and priestly notions of holiness;

see, e.g., ibid., 42, 49. His committment to untying the complex, tradition-historical knot is nonetheless laudable: “Darf man annehmen, daß das Deuteronomium mit seiner ‘am-Theologie auch von der ‘am- qādōš-Tradition des heiligen Krieges bestimmt ist, so führt die qāhāl-’edāh-Theologie der Priesterschrift und die qdš-Aussage des Heiligkeitsgesetzes in ihren der Heiligkeit Israels begründenden Erklärungen an Jahwe selbst als den qādōš heran” (ibid., 45).

476 Achenbach, Vollendung, 224.

477 Cf. García López, El Pentateuco, 285-86: “La novedad fundamental de este libro consiste en extender a todo Israel una doctrina que, en textos más antiguous (cf. 1 Sam 10,17-24; 2 Sam 6,21), sólo se aplicaba al rey o al santuario” (emphasis added).

478 Cf. Exod 12:37f.; in v. 38 the term ברע in connotes a mixed race; cf. Neh 13:3; Jer 25:20, 24; cf. also the likely pejorative ףֻסְּפַסאָה (“mixed multitude,” “rabble,” “das Pöbelvolk” [Luth], “das fremde Volk” [Herder, Bibel] in Num 11:4. LXX however uses ἐπίμικτος, which in contrast to σύμμικτος (used in Jer 25:20, 24, and defined by Liddell-Scott as “commingled,” “promiscuous,” “irregular”) is not pejorative. LXX appears then to have interpreted ףספסאהas a neutral term denoting mixed ethnicity.

479 Cf. perhaps Josiah’s grandiose scheme of reuniting the northern and southern kingdoms (2 Kgs 23//2 Chr 35).

480 Sarna, Exodus, 104.

102

become a new kind of הכ ן

⁴⁸¹

endowed with the capacity for fulfilling their commission among the nations

⁴⁸²

while maintaining relations with “the Holy One of Israel.”

⁴⁸³

But with singular blessing comes extraordinary expectation. The authors of Exod 19:3b-6 have inserted this progressive concept into the Sinai narrative. It remains unclear whether this conferral of quasi-priestly status, expressed in the future tense (vv. 5f.), already applies to the first exodus generation, which, as will become apparent below, also experiences the PRR. Let us now turn to our second terminological collocation in Exod 19:6.

2.2.7 םינהכ תכלממ (“Kingdom of Priests”): A Levitical Concept?

Similar to the PRR, and as the dearth of traditions supporting it suggests,

⁴⁸⁴

the notion of all-Israel as a sanctified people did not win wide acceptance among the writers and

481 This is not to say that priests no longer have a distinctive role and specific functions to perform before YHWH and in behalf of the people. I see no indication here of a three-tiered, descending scale of holiness (Aaronides, Levites, people) as Knohl (Sanctuary, 192) proposes for his Holiness School, though in this context it is the sanctity of the commandments and the presence of YHWH within the camp/community that sets the Israelites apart. Within this horizon the Levites maintain their separateness to facilitate their service at the tabernacle, to protect it from unlawful entry, and to atone for the people (Num 8:14-19; 16:9-10;

18:2-4, 6). In light of the polemic permeating each of these passages, however, it is difficult to celebrate Knohl’s repeated characterizations of HS’ inclusivity, which on the surface would need to assume the Levites’ satisfaction with subservient status. Further, one could make the case that the pro-Aaronide-Levite authors wish to inject division between the middle-tier Levites and the people with whom they so closely worked, which would include the marginalized (especially v. 4 in the following quotation): “They [Levites]

shall perform duties for you and for the whole tent. But they must not approach either the utensils of the sanctuary or the altar, otherwise both they and you will die. ⁴They are attached to you in order to perform the duties of the tent of meeting, for all the service of the tent; no outsider shall approach you” ( ברקי־אל רזו םכילא Num 18:3f.). Knohl does not reference the parallel passage of Ezek 44:9. His redactional model is clear and skillfully presented, but in the end does not account for the post-redactional revision layers in texts such as Num 16–18, where theocratic revisors (Bearbeiteren; cf. the Korah-Dathan revision), focus more on exclusion than inclusion; cf. Achenbach, Vollendung, 490 and n. 165.

482 Cf. Noth (zweite Buch Mose, 126; ET 157): “In der Reihe der irdischen Staaten soll Israel die Rolle des priesterlichen Gliedes haben. Es soll Gott ‘sich nähen’ dürfen, wie es das besondere Vorrecht der Priester ist, und soll für alle Welt den ‘Gottes-Dienst’ tun (vgl. auch Jes. 61,5.6), da es dazu ausersehen ist, wie schon die vorangegangene Gottestaten an Israel deutlich gemacht haben. Nachdem das Volk sich daraufhin zum Gehorsam verpflichtet hat (v.7.8)...”; cf. Kraus, “heilige Volk,” 46f.

483 The epithet (לארשי שוד ְּק) permeates the book of Isaiah, occurring otherwise in the corpus propheticum only in Hos 11:12; Jer 50:29; 51:5; it occurs once in the minor prophets (Isaiah’s oracle to Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 19:22), thrice in the Psalter, 71:22; 89:19 and in the historical recital of the exodus in Ps 78; cf. v. 41:

“They tested God (לא) again and again, and provoked the Holy One of Israel.”

484 See the exegesis of PRR passages later in this chapter and in Chapter 3.

103

editors of the Tanakh. Weinfeld submits that שודק יוג (Exod 19:6a) may well reflect a dispute over the scope of Israelite holiness.

⁴⁸⁵

The term םינהכ תכלממ in 6a projects an image of a sovereignty administered by priests.

⁴⁸⁶

The similarity between םינהכ תכלממ  and הוהי ינהכ of Isa 61:6 has often been noted. We should mention the dissimilarity between םינהכ תכלממ and the “national portrait” of Deut 7:6 (

ינפ־לע רשא םימעה לכמ הלגס םעל ול תויהל ךיהלא הוהי רחב ךב ךיהלא הוהיל התא שודק םע יכ המדאה

) which makes no mention of priests,

⁴⁸⁷

and whose ethnocentricity (cf. 14:1f.) HexRed would resist. Thus it would seem that the concept of priesthood, at least for our authors, had broadened considerably by the time of the writing of Exod 19:5f., Isa 60–

62*, so also Deut 4:1-40.

⁴⁸⁸

The term םינהכ תכ לממ —along with the Geschichtbild of Israel—was under negotiation. J. Durham envisages םינהכ תכלממ  as “a servant nation instead of a ruling nation.”

⁴⁸⁹

Combined, שודק יוגו םינהכ תכלממ appears to be an effort at compromise indicative of a society led but not dominated by םינהכ, in the professional sense of the word.

⁴⁹⁰

A. Bentzen discoursed on a “general priesthood.”

⁴⁹¹

485 On the significance of the term שודק יוג in contrast to the more common שודק מע, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 228 and n.1. Weinfeld notes the conflict between the dtn and priestly views on the scope of holiness suggested by Num 16: “An echo of this controversy concerning the scope of Israelite holiness may be found in the Priestly narrative of Korah’s rebellion. Korah and his adherents demand an equal status for priests and Levites alike, a status which the book of Deuteronomy takes for granted (cf. the deuteronomic expression ‘the Levitical priests’ and Deut. 18:6-8). Korah’s contention, which is similar to that of the author of Deuteronomy, is that all the members of the Israelite congregation are equally holy (Num. 14:3). Moses, on the other hand, claims that there exists an hierarchic system of holiness...” (ibid.).

The contrasting viewpoints recall the contrast between the inclusive scope of the Hexateuch Redaction and the later, more exclusive perspective of the Pentateuch Redaction.

486 Cf. Steins, “Zur Interpretation von 19,6,” 25, who critiques the view imbedded in the following words of A. Schenker: “Die Göttliche Verheißung verkündet nicht die priesterliche Würde des Ganzen Volkes, sondern seine Heiligkeit, und richtet die ‚Theokratie’ ein, d.h. eine Regierung des Volkes, die den Priestern reserviert ist.” Steins regards Schenker’s solution as simplistic. One cannot presume the term “priests” in 19:6 points to a group of cultic functionaries. Had the term “priests” in 19:6 in view the priests in Exod 28–

29 and Leviticus, one would expect a clearer determination of the expression. Exod 19:22 already speaks of

“the priests” as a known entity, although they do not become an institution until Exod 28 (ibid., 26).

Although the idea of theocracy may have been in its germinating stage, such a form of governing about which Schenker comments (in ibid.) would not have existed in Israel until the Hellenistic period. Steins’

elucidation of the disputed thesis of a Achaemenid era theocracy, which includes a lengthy quote of F.

Crüsemann, is helpful (ibid., 27 and nn. 37f.).

487 Achenbach, Vollendung, 55f; Kraus (“heilige Volk,” 47) also mentions Jer 2:3aα “Israel was holy to the Lord” (הוהיל לארשי שדק) in connection with Exod 19:5f. and Isa 61:6. Le Roux (“Holy Nation,” 74) characterizes Deut 7:6, a passage belonging to the “original Deuteronomy,” as the locus classicus for the Deuteronomic theology of election”; cf. Otto, DPH, 255.

488 See the exegesis of Deut 4 in §3.1.4.

489 John I. Durham, Exodus (ed. J. D. Watts; vol. 3 of WBC; Waco: Word Books, 1987), 263.

490 Cf. the “nation” that God will make in Gen 12:2aα: לודג יוגל ךשעאו.