Stipulation (4:45-11:32) The Function of the Constituent The Function of the Constituent

ا ﱠبﱠﺮﻟا َتْﺪَﻋاَو ْﺪَﻗ 17

Deuteronomy 7:6–General Stipulation (4:45-11:32) The Function of the Constituent The Function of the Constituent

in the Treaty Formulary

The General Stipulation section of the ancient Near Eastern treaties consisted primarily of imperatives that focused on the vassal’s basic requirement of exclusive loyalty to his suzerain.⁵⁵ A common feature of this constituent is the prohibition against relationships with those outside the Hittite Empire.⁵⁶ Mendenhall observes another characteristic of this constituent, namely, “The vassal must hold lasting and unlimited trust in the King.”⁵⁷

Parameters/Boundary of the Textual Unit

As noted in chapter 2 of this study, the General Stipulation of the covenant is

53Rendtorff, The Covenant Formula, 22.

54Ibid. The “first (and second)” commandment(s) Rendtorff mentions here are considered together in this study as the first commandment. See the discussion in both chap. 1 and 2 of this study.

55See the discussion of Klaus Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish and Early Christian Writings, trans. David E. Green (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 12-13.

56Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 59.

57Ibid. Marty Stevens, “The Obedience of Trust: Recovering the Law as Gift,” in The Ten Commandments: The Reciprocity of Faithfulness, ed. William P. Brown (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 133-45, seeks to “recover the law as gift.” His article speaks of the corollary

responsibility to obedience that is surmised from the law as gift. He concludes, “Israel’s attitude toward the law is more than gratitude or covenant obligation. Israel’s stance toward the law and the lawgiver is the obedience of trust. . . . Throughout their relationship as ‘my people’ and ‘your God,’ Israel can live in the obedience of trust” (144, emphasis added).

the theme of the text in Deuteronomy 4:45-11:32. This covenantal constituent builds from the basic principle of covenant relationship embodied in the Ten Words (5:1-6:3) to the climax of 11:1-32⁵⁸ wherein the choices required by covenant relationship are set before the assembly. This may be outlined as follows:

A Basic principle of covenant relationship (5:1-6:3)

B Measures for maintaining covenant relationship (6:4-25) C Implications of covenant relationship (7:1-26)

D Warnings against forgetting covenant relationship (8:1-20) E Failures in covenant relationship (9:1-10:11)

F Restoration to covenant relationship (10:12-22) G Choices required by covenant relationship (11:1-32)

This outline identifies the narrower boundary within which the covenant relationship formula of the General Stipulation is located. The parashiyyot further divide this chapter into the following units: 1-6; 7-11; 12-16; and 17-26.⁵⁹ Verses 1-6 and 7-11 are separated by the symbol

s

indicating a closed section. Verses 12-16 and 17-26 are separated in a similar fashion. However, verses 1-11 and 12-26 are separated by the symbol

p

indicating an open section. Thus the covenant relationship formula of 7:6 is contained within the literary unit of 7:1-11.

Literary Structure of the Textual Unit

As McConville rightly observes, “Vv. 1-2a are subordinate clauses”⁶⁰ leading up to the first injunction of the chapter, namely

~t'ao ~yrIx]T; ~rEx]h;

. This complete destruction⁶¹ of all Canaanite occupiers of the land is followed by an explanation of the

58S. Dean McBride, Jr., “Polity of the Covenant People: The Book of Deuteronomy,”

Interpretation 41 (1987): 234, states that “decalogue of 5:6-21, whose fundamental demand that Israel give undivided allegiance to Yahweh is illustrated, elaborated, and eloquently motivated throughout the Mosaic speech of the following five chapters (6-11).”

59McConville, Deuteronomy, 151, follows the BHS divisions and provides this outline:

Destroy false worship (1-6); Israel as holy people (7-11); Blessing (12-16); and Destroy false worship (17- 26).

60Ibid.

61Wright, Deuteronomy, 109, takes exception to the translation of

~t'ao ~yrIx]T; ~rEx]h;

^as

“destroy them totally.” Rather, he prefers the understanding of an “absolute and irrevocable renouncing of things or persons” (emphasis original). He justifies this by suggesting that the explanation of

~r<x,

^{in vv. 2-}

4 would be meaningless if the destruction was complete. However, the reality of the conquest would be

170

specific requirements of

~r<x,

in verses 2c-4. The first of these is the prohibition against making any covenant with them.⁶² Not only were the Israelites to refrain from making any covenant with them, they were to show the inhabitants neither favor nor grace. They and their children were not to intermarry with them because (

yKi

) this would lead to a turning away from Yahweh and the serving (

Wdb.['

) of other gods (

~yrIxea] ~yhil{a/

^).

This would result in the kindling (

hr"x'

) of Yahweh’s anger which would lead to their sudden destruction (

rhem; ^d>ymiv.hiw>

). The injunction of

~r<x,

in verse 2b is continued in verse 5. After the inhabitants of Canaan were totally destroyed, the Israelites were to complete the process of purging the land by pulling or breaking down (

WcToTi

) their altars, by shattering (

WrBev;T.

) their pillars, by chopping down (

!W[DEg:T.

) their Asherim, and burning with fire (

vaeB' !Wpr>f.Ti

) their carved images. The basis for these actions is given in the purpose clause of verse 6, that is, Israel is a holy people to Yahweh their God, Yahweh their God had chosen them

hL'gUs. ~[;l. Al tAyh.li

from all the peoples which were on the face of the earth.⁶³

Verses 7-9 make it clear that Israel’s election was not based on any merit or significance inherent to the community⁶⁴ but rather it had its origin in Yahweh’s love⁶⁵ _______________________

such that the destruction would not be instantaneous. In the intervening period between the initial conflict and the final victory, the Israelites were to make no provision for any allowance that might lead to the sparing of any inhabitant of Canaan. Thus, the instruction is given not to intermarry with the inhabitants of Canaan, neither were they to show favor nor even make a treaty with them. Rather, they were to be destroyed. Deut 7:22 indicates that the process of purging the land of occupiers would be gradual. In the interim between the first day of the conquest and the final annihilation of the nations of Canaan, the Israelites were prohibited from mingling in any way that might compromise their exclusive relationship with Yahweh.

62Wright, Deuteronomy, 110, comments, “The covenant between Yahweh as ‘great king’ and Israel as his ‘vassal’ required, as did all such vassal-type treaties, the total exclusion of any other alliance or treaty made unilaterally by the vassal. For Israel to enter into treaties with Canaanite nations would therefore prima facie be an act of disloyalty to their own covenant commitment to Yahweh.”

63Currid, Deuteronomy, 182, describes v. 6 as “the grand statement of the theology of election taught in the book of Deuteronomy.” He highlights the significance of the adjective

vAdq'

(to be set apart, unique and distinct) and indicates that this holiness “derives from Israel’s status as chosen by God.”

Moreover, he underscores the covenantal connotation in scripture and the ancient Near East of the word

hL'gUs.

^.

64Craigie, Deuteronomy, 179, comments, “Their holy character does not indicate inherent merit, but rather divine choice; God had chosen Israel to be a people prized more highly than all the

and his faithfulness in keeping the oath he made to their forefathers. Verse 9 further elaborates on the nature of Yahweh. The audience is called upon to recognize that Yahweh their God was God, more than that, he was the faithful God who keeps covenant and covenantal mercies to those who love him and keep his commandments. The

converse of this attribute is that to those who hate⁶⁶ him, Yahweh is also faithful, but that faithfulness will be expressed in sure destruction (

Adybia]h;l.

^).

The conclusion is then stated in verse 11: the Israelites were to keep the

commandment,⁶⁷ the statutes, and the ordinances which Moses was commanding “today”

_______________________

peoples who are on the face of the earth. . . . Thus Israel’s character as a holy people gave them no grounds for pride, but imposed on them the responsibility of their calling.”

Jacob Milgrom, “The Changing Concept of Holiness in the Pentateuchal Codes with Emphasis on Leviticus 19,” in Reading Leviticus, ed. John F. A. Sawyer, JSOTSup 227 (Sheffield: Sheffield

Academic Press, 1996), begins his article by commenting on the concept of “holy” expressed by the root qdš. He maintains, “These listed derivatives of qdš are, almost without exception, found in a religious- cultic context containing a qualified subject of places and persons, which have been ‘purified’ and thereby

‘consecrated’, that is, brought in close relationship to the deity” (65, emphasis added). He continues,

“‘Holy’ is thus aptly defined, in any context, as ‘that which is unapproachable except through divinely imposed restrictions’ or ‘that which is withdrawn from common use’” (65). Further, he contends, “The source of holiness is assigned to God alone. Holiness is an extension of his nature; it is the agency of his will” (65). He concludes, “If certain things are termed holy . . . they are so by virtue of divine

dispensation” (65-66, emphasis added). He summarizes, “The root

vdq

in all its forms . . . bears the basic meaning ‘set apart for God’” (67, emphasis added). This certainly comports with the context of Deut 7:6 and makes clear that Israel’s election was not based on merit or inherent significance.

65See the discussion in William L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 (1963): 77-87, for a thorough treatment of the covenantal significance of the word

bh;a'

. See also Dennis J. McCarthy, “Notes on the Love of God in Deuteronomy and the Father- Son Relationship between Israel and Yahweh,” CBQ 27 (1965): 144-47.

66

anEf'

as the opposite of

bh;a'

also has covenantal connotations. See discussion in A. H.

Konkel,

anEf'

in NIDOTTE, vol. 3, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997). Hugenberger, Marriage, 48-83, discusses the possibility that

anEf'

is used for divorce, the reversing of the covenantal relationship of marriage.

67There is neither time nor space for nor does the nature of this dissertation demand a full investigation into the possible distinction intended by the author of Deuteronomy between the use of the singular

hw"c.mi

and the plural

tAc.mi

. The singular is employed 13 times (in 5:31; 6:1, 25; 7:11; 8:1; 11:8, 22; 15:5; 17:20; 19:9; 27:1; 30:11; and 31:5) in Deuteronomy with 7 of these occurring within the General Stipulation. The plural is used 29 times (in 4:2, 40; 5:10, 29; 6:2, 17; 7:9; 8:2, 6, 11; 10:13; 11:1, 27, 28;

13:5, 19; 26:13, 17, 18; 27:10; 28:1, 9, 13, 15, 45; and 30:8. 10, 11, 16) in Deuteronomy with 12 of these occurring in the General Stipulation. Of the 13 times the singular is used, it is joined by maqqeph to

lK'

¹⁰

times (5:31; 6:25; 8:1; 11:8, 22; 15:5; 19:9; 27:1; 30:11; and 31:5). Of those 10 instances it is further linked with the demonstrative adjective

taoZh;

5 times (6:25; 11:22; 15:5; 19:9; and 30:11). Certainly in the context of the General Stipulation (5:1-11:32) the utilization of the singular could reasonably be associated with the obligation to exclusive allegiance to Yahweh. Further, upon a cursory reading of the other references the use of the singular “commandment” could also have this connotation. The possible exceptions may be in 15:5 and 27:1. However, the instruction in 27:1-8 pertains to the initial covenant renewal ceremony in which Israel was to reaffirm its allegiance to Yahweh. Yet, the referent to

hw"c.Mih;-lK'

could be that of the specific instructions regarding the ceremony. J. G. Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy, ed. J. Gordon McConville and J. G. Millar, JSOTSup 179 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic

172

by doing them. This commitment to their exclusive allegiance to Yahweh, demonstrated through obedience to the commandment and its ancillary statutes and ordinances, would stand them in good stead and would result in the blessing of Yahweh detailed in verses 12-16.

Verse 12 continues, “And as a consequence (

bq,[e

) of obeying these ordinances and carefully doing them, Yahweh your God will keep the covenant and the covenantal mercies which he swore to your forefathers.” Verses 13-16a then detail many of the blessings and the covenantal mercies.⁶⁸ Verse 16b concludes the paragraph with a

warning that follows the pattern of 7:2-5. Both passages indicate

^yh,l{a/ hw"hy>

will give (

!tenO

) the nations/peoples (

~yIAg

^/

~yMi[;h'-lK'

) over to Israel for destruction.⁶⁹ Likewise, in both passages, further direction is given to clarify what is included in this total

destruction and to warn against incomplete obedience.

Verses 17-26 deal with the very real possibility that Israel will second guess and call into question their ability to carry out Yahweh’s instructions to dispossess the inhabitants of Canaan and to destroy them.⁷⁰ Yahweh answers Israel’s fear (

ar"yti al{

~h,me

) by reminding them of his great and terrible deeds that provided for their

deliverance from Egypt, by promising to send hornets ahead of them, by assuring them of his presence, and by reiterating that it is he who will remove the occupants from the land so that they will be destroyed.⁷¹ And again, just as in verses 2-5 and 16, this passage concludes with an exhortation to make sure that the destruction is complete. Not only _______________________

Press, 1994), 71, comments on the use of the singular

hw"c.Mih;-lK'

in Deut 27. He suggests that this expression is “one of the hallmarks of the book, and implies a large degree of continuity with the concerns of both 1-11 and the lawcode to present Deuteronomy as a unified whole.”

68This summary contains many of the same themes and many identical phrases from the list of blessings (or their reversal in the curses) listed in the Blessings and Curses section of the covenant found in Deut 28.

69See v. 2

~yrIx]T; ~rEx]h; ~t'_yKihiw>

; and v. 16

T'l.k;a'w>>

^.

70Historically, as was noted earlier, this was the case (Num 13-14).

71See v. 20

dboa]-d[;

^{; v. 23}

~d"m.V'hi d[;

^{; v.24}

~t'ao ^d>miv.hi d[;

^.

were the inhabitants devoted to destruction,⁷² but the carved images of their gods and all their abominable things are likewise devoted to destruction.⁷³

The literary structure of 7:1-11 could be organized into the following outline:

A Complete destruction of Canaanite and Canaanite Cult (7:1-5) B Covenant relationship formula (7:6)

C Yahweh’s covenantal actions (7:7-10) D Israel’s covenantal response (7:11)

This reveals the central role for 7:6 in the text that the covenant relationship formula serves both as the warrant for the

~r<x,

(in vv. 1-5) and also as a testimony to Yahweh’s covenantal faithfulness and mercies (in vv. 7-10) and the basis for the expectation of Israel’s undivided devotion (in v. 11).

The theme of covenant relationship is continued in 7:12-26. As this undivided devotion is demonstrated through obedience, the blessings of Yahweh will be enjoyed (7:12-16). The chapter concludes with assurances that Yahweh will make every provision necessary to facilitate Israel’s complete and unreserved compliance (7:17-26).

As with the covenant relationship formula of 4:20, the covenant relationship formula of 7:6 is prefaced with two theologically significant clauses. The first describes the warrant upon which the demands of verses 1-5 rest

hw"hyl; hT'a; vAdq' ~[; yKi

^yh,l{a/

. Tigay comments, “Kadosh, usually translated ‘holy,’ here has the sense of its cognate in Talmudic Hebrew, mekudeshet, ‘betrothed,’ which expresses the idea that when a man betroths a woman she becomes ‘forbidden’ to others like something consecrated.”⁷⁴ This is reminiscent of the verb

xq;l'

used in Deuteronomy 4:20.

Brueggemann agrees and elaborates on this expression as it it used in tandem with the second clause:

^yh,l{a/ hw"hy> rx;B' ^B.

. He avows,

72See v. 2

~t'ao ~yrIx]T; ~rEx]h;

^{; v. 16}

~yMi[;h'-lK'-ta, T'l.k;a'w>

^.

73See v. 26

aWh ~r<xe-yKi

74Tigay, Deuteronomy, 86.

174 The term ‘holy,’ moreover, is a relational term; Israel has no intrinsic religious specialness, but is holy to (reserved for) YHWH and must be singularly devoted to YHWH. This affirmation is reinforced by the second phrase, ‘chosen . . . to be his people, his treasured possession.’ . . . Israel enjoys a special status with YHWH, the ruler of all the earth, and must take care to maintain that relationship.⁷⁵ As Yahweh has declared his exclusive choice (

rx;B'

) of Israel,⁷⁶ they are expected to acknowledge their obligation of undivided loyalty to Yahweh and to Yahweh alone.⁷⁷

As the covenant relationship formula (

~[;l. Al tAyh.li

) is modified by the addition of

hl'x]n:

in 4:20, here also in 7:6 it is modified by the addition of the term

hL'gUs.

. Weinfeld explains the significance of this term:

Most instructive for the understanding of segullah is a letter from the Hittite

emperor to the last king of Ugarit, Ammurapi, (end of the thirteenth century B.C.E.), wherein we hear the sovereign reminding his faithful vassal that he is his servant and sglt (KTU 2.39:7, 12). The sglt and segullah belong then to covenantal terminology, and they are employed to distinguish a relationship of the sovereign with one of his especially privileged vassals.⁷⁸

The Function of the Covenant Relationship Formula within the Covenantal

Constituent in Deuteronomy

Deuteronomy 7, then, reflects both the negative and positive aspects

highlighted by Mendenhall that define the vassal’s basic requirement of exclusive loyalty to the suzerain. The negative injunction against relationships with potential rivals is specifically addressed in 7:2c:

~NEx't. al{w> tyrIB. ~h,l' trok.ti-al{

^.79 This injunction is extended against anything that might turn the children from following Yahweh, that might entice them to serve other gods,⁸⁰ or that might ensnare them.⁸¹ Thus, all devotees,

75Brueggemann, Deuteronomy, 96 (emphasis added).

76See v. 6

hm'd"a]h' ynEP.-l[; rv,a] ~yMi[;h' lKomi

^.

77See also McConville, Deuteronomy, 155.

78Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1-11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB, vol. 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 368. McConville, Deuteronomy, 155, highlights the connotation of the “special affection of Yahweh for the people.”

79Craigie, Deuteronomy, 178, remarks, “To make a treaty with other nations would indicate a lack of faithfulness on the part of the Israelites to their suzerain God.” In n 6 he states, “The Near Eastern treaties may also stipulate the nature of a vassal’s relationships with other nations: see ANET, p. 204b.”

80See v. 4

~yrIxea] ~yhil{a/ Wdb.['w> yr:x]a;me ^n>Bi-ta, rysiy"-yKi

^.

cultic sites, and objects associated with the worship of potential rival gods must be eliminated.⁸²

From the positive perspective, Deuteronomy 7 also addresses the need for the vassal to hold lasting and unlimited trust in its suzerain. The basis for this trust would be substantiated when Yahweh brought them into the land and cleared away the enemies⁸³ just as he had done to the Egyptians.⁸⁴ They must trust in him even when doubts fill their hearts.⁸⁵ Their trust in Yahweh had historical precedent. Yahweh’s promise to them was rooted in the promise to the fathers⁸⁶ and had been reaffirmed in their spectacular

deliverance from Egypt.⁸⁷ Moreover, Yahweh reminds them in verse 9 that he alone is God.⁸⁸ He appeals to his character to reinforce their trust.⁸⁹ Furthermore, when they have exercised their obedience of trust,⁹⁰ they will enjoy the incumbent blessing of Yahweh which should strengthen their resolve to obey and to believe. If they falter in _______________________

81See v. 16

%l' aWh vqEAm-yKi

; and v. 26

AB vqEW"Ti !P,

^.

82Philip D. Stern, The Biblical ḤEREM: A Window on Israel’s Religious Experience, ed.

Ernest S. Frerichs, Wendell S. Dietrich, Calvin Gold Scheider, David Hirsch, and Alan Zuckerman, Brown Judaic Studies 211 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 221-22, in the summary of his treatment of the subject of

~r<x,

concludes, “Returning to the question of the

~rx

and idolatry, touched on above, it must be reemphasized that the connection between these two is not secondary or fortuitous. . . . [

~rx

] appears in intimate relation to that most distinctive and most celebrated aspect of ancient Israel’s religion, the acknowledgement of YHWH alone.”

83See v. 1

^yn<P'mi ~yBir:-~yIAG lv;n"w

^{; v. 2}

^yn<p'l. ^yh,l{a/ hw"hy> ~n"t'n>W

^{; v. 16}

%l' !tenO

^{; v. 20}

~B'

^yh,l{a/ hw"hy> xL;v;y> h['r>Cih;-ta,

^{; v. 22}

^yh,l{a/ hw"hy> lv;n"w>

^{; v. 23}

~m'h'w> ^yn<p'l. ^yh,l{a/ hw"hy> ~n"t'n>W

~d"m.V'hi d[; hl'dog> hm'Whm.

; and v. 24

^d<y"B. ~h,ykel.m; !t;n"w>

^.

84See v. 8

~yIr"c.mi-%l,m, h[or>P; dY:mi ~ydIb'[] tyBemi ^D>p.YIw: hq"z"x] dy"B. ~k,t.a, hw"hy> ayciAh

^{; v.}

18

h[or>p;l. ^yh,l{a/ hw"hy> hf'['-rv,a] tae rKoz>Ti rkoz"

; and v. 19

^yh,l{a/ hw"hy> hf,[]y:-!Ke

^.

85See v. 17

^b.b'l.Bi rm;ato yKi

^.

86See v. 8

~k,yteboa]l; [B;v.nI rv,a] h['buV.h;-ta, Arm.V'miW

. McConville, Deuteronomy, 160, asserts, “The underlying point is, once again, that Yahweh alone is the true God.”

87See v. 8.

88

~yhil{a/h' aWh ^yh,l{a/ hw"hy>-yKi T'[.d:y"w>

In other words, those other so-called gods are no- gods and offer no threat to Israel.

89See v. 9

rAD @l,a,l. AtwOc.mi yrEm.vol.W wyb'h]aol. ds,x,h;w> tyrIB.h rmevo !m'a/N<h; laeh'

^.

90See Stevens, “The Obedience of Trust.”