The central question in view in this chapter is whether or not the experience described in Deuteronomy 30:11–14—“the word” (רבד) “in your mouth and in your heart”—points to a non-contingent, present reality1 when Moses addressed the Israelites on the plains of Moab, or to a reality contingent on divine intervention and related to the promise of return from exile and heart circumcision in Deuteronomy 30:1–10.2 How one answers this question significantly affects not only the interpretation of this passage in Deuteronomy but also the larger message of Deuteronomy, as well as the interpretation of the Mosaic covenant and new covenant.
This chapter will examine Deuteronomy 30:11–14 in its immediate literary context, the book of Deuteronomy. Before exegeting this text in depth, attention will first
1Craigie is representative of this view: “The emphasis returns once again to the present, the renewal ceremony being enacted on the plains of Moab.” Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, 2nd ed., NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 364. Nelson concurs: “Moses abruptly stops portraying the future and returns to the present ‘Moab moment.’” Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 349.
2As noted above, a future-oriented interpretation of Deut 30:11–14 as tied to the prophetic promises of 30:1–10 has been hinted at by many interpreters in the history of interpretation of this passage.
For example, Martin Luther interprets this passage as speaking of the effect of the gospel in the heart of the believer, after which God’s “commandment will become neither difficult nor too distant.” Martin Luther, Lectures on Deuteronomy, trans. Jaroslav Pelikan, vol. 9, Luther’s Works (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968), 278. Only recently, however, have a handful of interpreters made exegetical arguments toward this interpretation, such as John Sailhamer, The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition, and Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009); Paul A. Barker, The Triumph of Grace in Deuteronomy: Faithless Israel, Faithful Yahweh in Deuteronomy. (Milton Keynes, England: Paternoster, 2004); Kyle B. Wells, Grace and Agency in Paul and Second Temple Judaism:
Interpreting the Transformation of the Heart, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 157 (Boston: Brill, 2015); Steven R. Coxhead, “Deuteronomy 30:11-14 as a Prophecy of the New Covenant in Christ,” WTJ 68, no. 2 (2006); David I. Starling, Hermeneutics as Apprenticeship: How the Bible Shapes Our
Interpretive Habits and Practices (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016), 44–45; Peter J. Gentry, “The Relationship of Deuteronomy to the Covenant at Sinai,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 18, no. 3 (2014);
John D. Meade, “Circumcision of the Heart in Leviticus and Deuteronomy: Divine Means for Resolving Curse and Bringing Blessing,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 18, no. 3 (2014).
be paid to the literary structure of Deuteronomy in order to delimit the bounds of the section that contains Deuteronomy 30:11–14. Focusing in on this section, the overarching narrative of Deuteronomy will be established as well as themes pertinent to the passage in view. With this preliminary work complete, a detailed exegesis of Deuteronomy 30:11–
14 will commence. Ultimately, I will make the case that Deuteronomy 30:11–14 is best understood as a continuation of the future-oriented prophecy of 30:1–10, which outlines an eschatological hope for Israel after exile that is centered on the promise of divine intervention in the heart in the context of a new covenant.
The Structure of Deuteronomy
The structure of a book shapes how it is read. Reading a book according to an imposed structure often results in readings not rooted in the text, while reading a book according to its inherent structure guides the reader into an understanding that grows from the text. Such reading means paying attention to the conjunctives, disjunctives, parallelisms, and other literary features of a text.
Many structures have been proposed for the book of Deuteronomy. For heuristic purposes, I have organized these structures into three categories, though these categories are not mutually exclusive: Redaction-critical, ANE treaty form, and literary structures of Deuteronomy.
Redaction-Critical Structures
Redaction-critical structures of Deuteronomy are based on the JEDP
documentary hypothesis advanced by Julius Wellhausen and are aimed at discerning the textual layers that are believed to have been diachronically developed into the book we now know as Deuteronomy. These proposals attempt to understand the structure of Deuteronomy in light of its historical reconstruction. S. R. Driver provides a structure in his Deuteronomy commentary that is representative of this school, assigning individual passages, verses, and even sometimes verse fragments to three origins: JE (Yahwist-
Elohist) D and D2 (two iterations of Deuteronomists) and P (Priestly).
Table 1. S. R. Driver’s diachronic structure of Deuteronomy
JE D D2 P
1:1–2
1:3 1:4–3:18
3:14–17 3:18–4:28
4:29–31 4:32–40
4:41–49 5:1–26:19
27:1–4 27:5–7a
27:7b–8 27:9–10
27:11–26 28; 29:1–8
29:9–30:1–10 30:11–31:18
31:14–15
31:16–22 31:23
31:24–27
31:28–44 32:45–47
33:1–34:5a 34:1a
34:5b–9 34:10
34:11–12
Noteworthy in Driver’s structure for the purpose of this dissertation is his insistence on driving a source-critical wedge between Deuteronomy 30:1–10 and 30:11–
14, texts which he argues originate from two different authors writing from two different perspectives at two different times. He drives a similar source-critical wedge between a related passage in 4:29–31 and 4:32–40 for the same reason.3
3Driver writes, “4:29–31 and 30:1–10 are the only two passages of Dt. in which the ultimate repentance and restoration of Israel after its apostasy and exile are contemplated. They are assigned here—
not without hesitation—to D2, not on account of the incompatibility of such a prospect with the general
ANE Treaty Form Structures
Interpreters who posit ancient Near Eastern (ANE) treaty form structures to the book of Deuteronomy argue that the book reflects suzerain-vassal treaties in the ANE, most commonly those of the Hittites. These ANE treaty form structures seek to
understand Deuteronomy in light of contemporary ANE historical documents,
specifically covenant or treaty documents. G. E. Mendenhall’s work, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” broke ground for a cottage industry on ANE suzerain-vassal treaty studies that still has great influence on interpreters today.4 ANE treaty form structures can be approached both diachronically and synchronically, that is, either from the foundation that Deuteronomy is a literary collection of sources written by multiple people at various times (diachronic), or from the foundation that Deuteronomy was written by one
individual at or around the same time (synchronic).
Table 2. Deuteronomy as ANE treaty formula
1. Preamble 1:1–5
2. Historical Prologue 1:6–4:44 3. Stipulations
a. General
b. Specific 4:45–11:32
12:1–26:19
4. Document Clause 17:1–10
5. Appeal to Witness 27:11–26
6. Blessings and Curses 28:1–69 (ET 29:1) 7. Solemn Oath Ceremony 29:1 (ET 29:2)–30:20
Steven Guest suggests a structure of Deuteronomy based on ANE suzerain-
like other prophets Jehovah’s counsels for His people’s welfare; and the promise of ultimate restoration would not neutralize the motive to obedience which the prospect of such a disaster as antecedent exile would bring with it,—but on account of their imperfect connexion with the context.” S. R Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902), lxxvi.
4George E Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” The Biblical Archaeologist 17, no. 3 (1954): 50–76.
vassal treaties that approaches the text synchronically, which is reproduced in table 2 above.5
Literary Structures
Though not mutually exclusive to the other structure categories, interpreters who favor literary structures in Deuteronomy seek to understand the book’s architecture in light of the its final form. With the rise of discourse and literary analysis came a more concerted attention to the final form of the text.6 This attention has led many interpreters to notice the unique literary markers of Deuteronomy that divide the book into several sections. Rejecting the inevitable subjectivism of the diachronic, redaction-critical approach represented by interpreters like Georg Fohrer,7 Brevard Childs opts for a more objectively-grounded literary approach:
[I]t seems to me very doubtful that one can distinguish the different levels of
development as sharply as Fohrer suggests. The strikingly different theories of other scholars regarding the original stages of material which Fohrer rejects in his
treatment only emphasize the subjectivity of his proposal. 8
In his dissertation on the literary structure of Deuteronomy using discourse analysis, Neal Huddleston has convincingly argued that Deuteronomy is subdivided into
5Steven Ward Guest, “Deuteronomy 26:16-19 as the Central Focus of the Covenantal Framework of Deuteronomy” (PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009), 55. Guest does not include Deut 31–34 because he says, “it is generally agreed that the addresses of Moses are limited to the text of Deuteronomy 1:6–3:20.” He goes on to write in a footnote that “[t]his decision does not imply a denial that Moses spoke after 30:20, but rather it is an acknowledgement of the definite change in style from hortatory address in 1:6–3:20 to a more narrative based report of speech.” Guest, 51, 51n85. Gentry proposes a very similar structure in Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 358.
6See, for example, Robert E. Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse, 2nd ed., Topics in Language and Linguistics (New York: Plenum Press, 1996).
7Georg Fohrer, Das Alte Testament: Einführung in die Bibelkunde und Literatur des Alten Testaments und in Geschichte und Religion Israels (Gütersloh, Germany: Gütersloher Publishing House, 1977), 177ff.
8Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 212. Evangelical interpreters can follow Childs in his rejection of the subjectivity of the diachronic approach for a literary approach with better theological warrant: the divine inspiration of Scripture and the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, which necessitate a synchronic, literary organization to Deuteronomy.
three major sections by a common grammatical construction.9 Each major section of Deuteronomy (Deut 1:1–4:44; 4:45–28:68 [ET 29:1]; 28:69 [ET 29:1]–34:12) begins with the plural demonstrative הלא that heads a nominal clause10 followed by the relative particle רשא heading a clause with a speaking subject—Moses in the first two discourses and Yahweh in the third—and a ב preposition heading a clause that situates the discourse in a geographical location. This common construction is followed by a sentence that introduces a direct quote from the mouth of Moses. Interestingly, each section
introduction also mentions the defeat of the regional kings Sihon and Og (1:4; 4:46–47;
and 29:6 [ET 29:7]). Table 3 illustrates this macro structure of Deuteronomy.11
Table 3. Structural introductory formulae in Deuteronomy Introduction of
Direct Speech
ב Locative Clause
Object Clause
Relative Clause
הלא Nominal Clause
Section
ראב השמ ליאוה זה הרותה־תא תא
מאל ר
רבעב דרַיה ן
־לכ־לא ארשי ל
רבד רשא שמ ה
רבדה הלא
םי 1:1ff
א השמ אר ְקיו
־ל
־לכ
הלא רמאיו לארשי ם
רבעב דריה ן
ינב־לא לארשי
רבד רשא שמ ה
םיקחהו הלא טפשמהו םי
4:45ff
א השמ אר ְקיו
־ל
־לכ
הלא רמאיו לארשי ם
ץראב אומ ב
שמ־תא ה
ינב־תא ארשי ל
הוצ־רשא והי ה
הלא ירבד
רבה תי
28:69ff (29:1)
9Neal A. Huddleston, “Deuteronomy as Mischgattung: A Comparative and Contrastive Discourse Analysis of Deuteronomy and Ancient Near Eastern Treaty Traditions” (PhD diss., Trinity International University, 2015), 149.
10Huddleston refers to these as “Deictic Nominal” clauses in “Deuteronomy as Mischgattung,”
149.
11Table 3 is adapted from Huddleston, 149.
Proposing a New Parallel Literary Structure
Taking up Huddleston’s structural formulae that form these three larger sections—what some recognize as three distinct discourses—I suggest the following structure in table 4 that highlights the parallelism between Deuteronomy 1:1–4:4 and 28:69 (ET 29:1)–30:20.
Table 4. Proposed parallel literary structure of Deuteronomy
A
Literary Section 1: Deut 1:1 (םירבדה הלא) –4:44
1:1–3:29 a. Covenant remembrance: Yahweh’s faithfulness and Israel’s unfaithfulness
4:1–28 b. Covenant warning: unfaithfulness results in exile 4:29–31 c. Covenant hope: heart change in exile results in covenant
reconciliation
4:32–44 d. Covenant exhortation: keep the commandments
B
Literary Section 2: Deut 4:45 (םיטפשמהו םיקחהו הלא) –28:28 4:45–26:19 Covenant stipulations: Obedience to the Ten Words (4:45–11:32)
and Application of the Ten Words (12:1–26:19) 27:1–26 Covenant curses: unfaithfulness results in curses 28:1–14 Covenant blessings: faithfulness results in blessings
28:15–68 Covenant warning: unfaithfulness results in destruction and exile
A’
Literary Section 3: Deut 28:69 (ET 29:1, תירבה ירבדהלא) –30:20 28:69(29:1)–
29:8(9)
a’. Covenant remembrance: Yahweh’s faithfulness and Israel’s unfaithfulness
29:9(10)–
28(29) b’. Covenant warning: unfaithfulness results in exile 30:1–14 c’. Covenant hope: heart change in exile results in covenant
reconciliation
30:15–30:20 d’. Covenant exhortation: keep the commandments
C
Literary Section 4: Deut 31:1–34:12 31:1–15 Transfer of leadership from Moses to Joshua
31:16–23 Yahweh’s prophetic pronouncement: Israel’s unfaithfulness today and tomorrow
31:24–30 Moses’ prophetic pronouncement: Israel’s unfaithfulness today and tomorrow
32:1–47 Song of Moses: (a’’) Covenant remembrance: Yahweh’s faithfulness and Israel’s unfaithfulness (32:1–14); (b’’) Covenant warning:
unfaithfulness results in destruction and exile (32:15–43); (c[d’’]) Covenant exhortation: keep the commandments (32:44–47) 33:1–29 Mosaic blessing
34:1–12 Historical epilogue
The advantage of the structure proposed in table 4 is that it pays close attention to the literary markers in the text, which result in a parallelism between Deuteronomy 1:1–4:44 and 28:69 (ET 29:1)–30:2. This parallelism is similar to that noted by Duane Christensen in his chiastic structure of Deuteronomy.12 In these two sections, the following thematic parallels occur: (a, a’) covenant remembrance which outlines
Yahweh’s faithfulness and Israel’s unfaithfulness to the covenant (Deut 1:1–3:29; 28:69 [ET 29:1]–29:8 [ET 29:9]); (b, b’) covenant warning that connects disobedient idolatry directly with exile from the land (4:1–28; 29:9 [ET 29:10)–28 [ET 29:29]); (c, c’) covenant hope that promises reconciliation with Yahweh on the basis of heart change (4:29–31; 30:1–14); and (d, d’) covenant exhortation to keep the commandments (4:32–
44; 30:15–20). The section between these two parallel sections contains the covenant stipulations (4:45–26:19), blessings and curses (27:1–28:14), and then a covenant
warning that does not result in covenant hope (28:15–68)—a reality shared with the Song of Moses (32:15–43).