Restoration Quarterly 20 (1977) 73-87.
Copyright © 1977 by Restoration Quarterly, cited with
permission;
digitally prepared for use at
A Heartfelt Love: An Exegesis
of
Deuteronomy 6:4-19
BRUCE E. WILLOUGHBY
A very important concept in New
Testament theology is man's
response to God's love. John states, "We
love because He first loved
us" (1 Jno.
our benefit, and he calls us to love Him through
the life, death,
burial and resurrection of our Lord, Jesus the Christ.
Yet, to
understand and to perform our responsibilities are
two very difficult
tasks. They become clearer when we consider previous
situations
wherein God called His people to love him. Since
God has not changed
the basic foundation for covenant relationships,
the demands he makes
upon us are similar to the commands he gave to
they might remain faithful to him.
The prosperity of the nation
faithfulness to the commandments,
the statutes, and the ordinances of
God. It was important that
so that her days would be prolonged, that she
would multiply, that it
would go well with her, and that she could possess
the land of
milk and honey (Deut. 6:1-3).
To remind
Deuteronomy
recounts the historical setting of the covenant and its
meaning (
and admonition) comprises two speeches (
The
second speech contains a narrative of the giving of the law at
Horeb (5:1-33) and a commentary on that decalogue (6:1-11:32). The
commentary forms a bridge which connects the
Decalogue with the
legal enactments which follow chapter 11.
Furthermore, this second
part begins with a description of love and obedience
as the motivations
73
74
Restoration
Quarterly
for keeping the laws and maintaining a correct
relationship with
Yahweh.
The author of Deuteronomy desires that the
people never forget the
gracious God who gave them the land nor their
responsibilities to
worship him with the correct attitude.
on the character of the God whom they worshiped.
of the land depended on the character of her
people. Thus the speaker
encourages his kinsmen to exhort and educate one
another in the
significance of their relationship
to Yahweh, the God of their
history (6:4-19).
The date of this recorded exhortation is
difficult to determine but
essential to understand the events which prompted
its creation. There
are three main theories. First, it is traditionally
stated that Moses is
the author of the Pentateuch and thus the setting
for the speech is
during the life of Moses, shortly before the
Israelites entered the land
of
exhibited in the book is too well developed for
the early period of
Moses.
In addition, the death of Moses is recorded in chapter 34,
presenting a problem if Moses is the author. Yet,
it seems quite possible
that much of the material could be Mosaic, although
the final form
of the book appears later. Monotheism, at least in
the sense that
Yahweh
is the only God of Israel--He works in her history and
demands her obedience--is prevalent in the early
history of the founders
of the Israelite nation. And the indication in
6:1-3 is that
not yet possessed the land or even crossed over the
although this book was compiled later, certainly
its foundation is
composed of ancient tradition passed down from
generation to
generation.
Second, the interest in old cultic material, the
language of the Holy
War,
and the hortatory purpose lead one to consider the period of the
Judges,
Samuel, or the early monarchy as the time during which the
Deuteronomic exhortations were
proclaimed. The Deuteronomic
proclamations of cultic purity and
rejections of polytheism would
easily suit this period of Israelite history.1
The final theory is that Deuteronomy originated
during the Josiah
reform, about 621 B.C. The evidence for such a theory
lies in the
1 In this argument Deuternomy
is often linked to the Covenant Festival of Yahweh
amphictyony (tribal league) at Shechem in the period of the Judges.
closeness between the Deuteronomic
language and the theology of the
prophets of the later monarchy, the finding of
the law, and the
interpretation that 12:1-14 refers to
the centralization and unification
of the cult of Yahweh (2 Kings 22, 23).
In conclusion, whether 6:4-19 was proclaimed by
Moses to remind
the Israelites that their possession of the land lies
in Yahweh and their
keeping of the Horeb
covenant, by a zealous Levite who desired to
take strong measures against existing pagan cults or
Yahwehized pagan
cults, or by a man of God who desired to unify the
cult because God
is one, "the Deuteronomist
called for right worship at the right time in
the right place."2 This is the message of Deuteronomy
6:4-19.
The literary form of this passage is also
disputed. Mendenhall
proposed that the covenant form of 6:4-19 and
similar passages
parallels the Hittite suzerainty treaties
(treaties between the Hittite
king, "Suzerain," and his subject,
"vassal") of 1450-1200 B.C.3
Suzerainty
treaties are international covenants wherein the vassal is
bound to the king. These treaties contain six
elements commonly
found in the Deuteronomic
covenant material: 1. Preamble (begins
with the formula, "thus says. ..") 2.
Historical prologue (
20-25) 3. Stipulations (
temple and public reading (
(chapter 32) 6. Curses and blessings (
The similarities between the Hittite treaties
and Deuteronomy
indicates that the relationship between
covenant language. Love is manifested in
reverential fear, loyalty, and
obedience, as a vassal to his king. Love is
commanded by God.5
Similarly, this type of love is also present in
the father-son
relationship. Yahweh demands of
loyalty, and obedience as a father (
occurs in treaty passages of the Old Testament (14:1; Jer. 31:9;
Isa. 30; 2 Kings 16:7). The father is tender, a
merciful king, but the
focus is on the attitude of the son. Although the
father-son relationship
2 Jacob M. Myers,
"The Requisites for Response," Interpretation,
15 (1961), 21.
3 George E. Mendenhall, "Covenant
Forms in Israelite Religion," Biblical
Archaeologist,
17 (1954), 55.
4 Ibid., 58-60.
5 Others find similarities to Assyrian
treaties. See William L. Moran, "The Ancient
Near
Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy," Catholic Biblical
Quarterly, 25 (1963), 77-87.
76
Restoration
Quarterly
is not often mentioned in Deuteronomy and is not
connected with
ahebh, it is still an old
tradition that certainly influences the
interpretation of chapter 6.6
In addition to these two bases of
interpretation, Buss argues that
the literary form of chapter 6 is not treaty but
covenant and moral
wisdom.7 He looks to Proverbs for help in understanding
these
passages.
In conclusion, an understanding of all these
literary forms can aid in
interpreting chapter 6. In all
probability, the author had a variety
of motifs to express the relationships of God to
vassal, father to son, teacher to pupil--and he
employs them all to
illustrate the requisites for
Election was not an automatic guarantee of the
continued
prosperity of
a loyalty to his covenant offer (6:1-3). After
promulgating the
commandments to be obeyed (ch. 5) and explaining to the people the
conditional nature of God's gift of the land of
begins a series of citations and allusions to the
Decalogue (6:4-19). The
author begins to record the speech with the phrase in
verse 4,
"Hear,
0
This phrase is a stereotyped formula which
occurs regularly in
Deuteronomy
(4:1; 5:1; 9:1; 20:3; 27:9; 33:7). In earlier Israelite
history it was used as a means of summoning the gahal of the tribes
for worship.8 The verb, shama',
denotes a strong intention and sense
of urgency in the speaker's attitude and not only
represents the
physical act of hearing but also a special plea
to obedience. It is
used in the direct pronouncements from the heavenly
court of Yahweh
(1
Kings
device in the wisdom literature for beginning a
practical unit (Prov.
1:8;
4:1;
6 Dennis J. McCarthy, "Notes on the
Love of God in Deuteronomy and the Father-Son
Relationship
Between Yahweh and
7 Martin J. Buss, "The Covenant Theme
in Historical Perspective," Vetus Testamentum,
16
(1966), 502-504.
8 Gerhard Yon Rad, Deuteronomy. The Old Testament Library (
9 Dean S. McBride, Jr., "The Yoke of
the Kingdom; An Exposition of Deuteronomy
6:4-5," Interpretation,
27 (1973), 290.
literature.10 God, the king and teacher, calls his subjects to
hear his
word and introduces verses 4 and 5 which are a
syntactical and
semantical whole ("hear. . . and
love"). These verses introduce the
theme of heartfelt obedience to Yahweh, the God of
Israel, and have
become the basis for one of the most important rituals
in Judaism, the
reading of the Shema.
To the Jews, verses 4-9 were the primary
confession of faith,
supplemented by Deuteronomy 11:13-21
and Numbers 15:37-41. It was
recited twice daily at morning and at night (6:7),
and was the crux
of the Israelite faith (Matt. 22:36-40; Mark
12:29-34; Luke 10:27, 28).
The
absolute and incomparable unity of God is derived from the
Shema,
which forms the center of the Jewish faith.
In verse 4, according to Synagogue tradition, the
last letters of
shama' and 'echadh are written larger than the others to prohibit
confusing' for a ' and dh for a r, which would
make it read,
"perhaps is Yahweh, our God, another Yahweh."11
Rabbinic tradition based on a radical
monotheism, the interpretation
of Maimonides (12th
century), and the Jewish response to the Christian
theology of the Trinity, translate Yhwh 'Elohenu Yhwh
'echadh, "The
Lord
our God, the Lord is One." It is a statement of
the oneness
and unity of God.
Although the rabbinic tradition consistently
proposes that the
passage affirms the universal oneness of God,
there are grammatical
and theological complications. The grammatical
problems are threefold.
First,
are the four words a series of two nominal clauses or a single
nominal clause? The phrase can read either
"Yahweh is Our God,
Yahweh
is one" or "Yahweh, our God, Yahweh is one." The
Septuagint
and the Nash Papyrus support the former translation;
however, their reading is considered prosaic and
secondary.12 The
phrase "Yahweh, our God" is used frequently
in the Old Testament
as a stereotyped formula (Exo.
10 R. N. Whybray,
The Book of Proverbs. The
(Cambridge:
The University Press, 1972), p. 17.
11 Jacob Jocz, A Theology of
Election:
MacMillan Company, 1958), p. 40. The large letters
also form the word 'edh, "witness,"
so when it is spoken, the speaker witnesses to
God's unity.
12 McBride, op. cit., p.
291, n. 37.
78
Restoration
Quarterly
Jer.
latter reading except for the position of 'echadh after the formula.
This
makes the phraseology difficult if it is taken as one clause.
Von Rad suggests that
this is a single nominal clause in which
'Elohenu and 'echadh are in
apposition. He indicates that 'the
formula "Yahweh is one" is unique in
the Old Testament but has
parallels in Egyptian literature. A papyrus of the
twenty-first dynasty
(1090-945
B.C.) designates Amon as
"the one god, the only god.”14
However,
because of the lack of concrete evidence, no definitive
solution exists.
Second, which word functions as the subject and
which as the
predicate? Is this declaration an answer to the
question "Who is
Yahweh?"
or "Who is our God?" Yhwh
'echadh may be in apposition
to the predicate Yhwh,
whereby the phrase then translates "Our God is
Yahweh,
one Yahweh."
Another possibility is that 'Elohenu
is in apposition to Yhwh.
Whenever
'Elohim is used as a predicate after Yhwh in the
Deuteronomic material, it is always
preceded by hu' (
Josh.
24:18; 1 Kings 8:60).15 Both the Nash papyrus, which adds
hu', and the Septuagint
have interpreted 'Elohenu as predicative.16
Again,
although the evidence supports the contention that 'Elohenu
is appositional, no definitive answer exists.
Finally, what is the semantic force of the final
element, 'echadh?
The primary meaning for 'echadh
is "one." However, as a numerical
adjective, it can mean "only" and
"solitary," and it is interchangeable
with lebhadh,
"alone."17 If 'echadh means
"alone" in this passage,
the phrase would then read "Yahweh, our God,
is Yahweh alone."
that lebhadh, which is
also used in Deuteronomy, would be more
appropriate. However, McBride counters by stating
that lebhado
13 Helmer
Ringgren, "'Elohim,"
Theological Dictionary of the Old
Testament, vol. I,
trans. John T. Willis (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974),
p.278.
14 Gerhard Von Rad, Old Testament
Theology, vol.
I, trans. D. M. G. Stalker
(Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd 1957), p. 227, n.
87.
15 Norbert Lohfink and Jan Bergman, "'echadh"
TDOT, Vol. 1, pp. 196, 197.
16 Ibid., p. 197.
17 Ibid., p. 194.
(a preposition plus a substantive plus a pronominal suffix)
functions
as an adverbial accusative of specification with
an objectifying force
(2
Kings
the author needs the subjective classification
which 'echadh can
supply.18 In conclusion, 'echadh
may mean "alone" or "one." If it
means "one," it may indicate "the only
one in the universe" or
"the only one for
Since all the grammatical evidence is
inconclusive, one turns to the
realm of theology for the solution to the
interpretation of verse 4. The
phrase Yhwh 'Elohenu Yhwh 'echadh
is either a declaration of
monotheism, a statement of God's unity, an oath of
allegiance to
Yahweh
alone, or a combination of the three.
Rabbinic tradition, the Nash Papyrus, and the
Septuagint consider
the phrase as a declaration of monotheism. However,
since rabbinic
tradition arises much later as a result of Jewish
martyrdom and a
conflict with the theology of the Trinity, it can
be disregarded as a
reliable source of interpretation. Because the
Nash Papyrus and the
Septuagint
are secondary readings, they are also unreliable. The only
favorable evidence is the apparently monotheistic
statements about
God
in Deuteronomy (
Zechariah
14:9 and Jeremiah 10:1-16.
Second, if 12:1-14 refers to the centralization
and unification of
the cult of Yahweh and if a historical setting
during the time of
Josiah
is accurate, verse 4 depicts God's unity and oneness in
the face
of many divergent traditions and sanctuaries of
Yahweh. However,
monotheism is also conceptualized in the time of
Josiah (Jer. 10:1-16).
Third, a historical setting of Judges or the
early monarchy, when
there was a temptation to worship the Canaanite Baals, pushes for
the interpretation of verse 4 as an oath of
allegiance to Yahweh alone.
The
suzerain motif would also lend weight to this understanding.
God alone. Furthermore, if 6:4 is a commentary on
5:7, then 6:4
declares the uniqueness and exclusiveness of the
God of Israel's history
18 McBride, op. cit., P.
293, n. 45.
19 'echadh
may also mean that his name is "One." Plotinus,
Enneads
discussion "Concerning 'The Good' or 'The
One.' " Xenophanes of
also identified god with "The One"
(Aristotle, Metaphysics 1:5:12-13).
See Cyrus
H.
Gordon "His Name Is 'One'," Journal
of Near Eastern Studies, 29 (1970), 198.
80
Restoration
Quarterly
and the giver of her blessings. There is no denial
of other gods, but
only a statement that Yahweh is the one and only God
for
Although the third possibility is most appealing
and most consistent
with the thrust of Deuteronomy, the answer probably
lies in a
combination of the first and third theories. Yahweh
is the sole God
of
love, and loyalty. And yet, even as the exodus from
manifested not only the God of the Israelite people,
but also the God
of all peoples, so here, under the declaration of
God's unique and
exclusive covenant with
not only for
one Yahweh for
Yahweh
is her God alone. In truth, Yahweh is the God of the universe.
The Shema continues in
verse 5 as the author proclaims the intended
result of God's loving kindness to
chosen her for a holy people (
He
has set her apart and extended His mercy to her. Because of his
blessings, which enable her to possess the land
and live prosperously
in it, she is to reciprocate his love.
‘ahebh,
in Deuteronomy, implies duty and obligation when describing
man's relationship to God.20 In all of the
Old Testament, only thirteen
passages occur outside Deuteronomy wherein the
love of men to God
is proclaimed (Exo.
20:6; Josh. 22:5,
Neh. 1:5; Psa. 18:2;
31:24; 91:14; 97:10; 116:1; 145:20; Dan. 9:4). It
occurs in Deuteronomy alone eleven times (6:5; 7:9;
22;
13:3; 19:9; 30:6,16, 20). Since many of the passages
which appear
outside Deuteronomy are in Deuteronomic
material, it is evident that
the love of men for God is a characteristic principle
of the
Deuteronomist. Whereas individual
security once rested in Jewish
citizenship, now the national security is contingent
upon the personal
love of its people for God.21
'ahebh
is a more domestic and intense term than chesedh and
illustrates the close family bond between God and
man.22 God is the
20 J. W. McKay, "Man's Love for God in
Deuteronomy and the Father/Teacher-
Son/Pupil Relationship," Vetus Testamentum,
22 (1972), 426.
21 Andrew Harper, The Book of Deuteronomy. The Expositor's Bible (
Hodder & Stoughton), p. 140.
22 Laurence E. Toombs, "Love and
Justice in Deuteronomy," Interpretation,
19 (1965),
402.
father;
The
Amarna letters state that love is the correct
response of a subject
to his king or a vassal to his suzerain.23
This type of love comprises
loyalty and obedience.
This love is not mere lip-service. The Deuteronomist clearly states
the implications of this love.
8:6;
13:4;
30:20), to serve him (
walk in his ways (
commandments (
gratitude for what Yahweh did and by a desire for
her own
well-being (
In verse 5 this love is further intensified by
the phrase "with all your
heart and with all your life and with all your
might." There are
three possible interpretations of this expression.
First, the terms are
distinct but complementary. The author may be
exhorting the Israelites
to love God “with your undivided loyalty, your
commitment to God,
and your substance."
Second, Christian exegesis, derived from the
Septuagint and
manifested in the New Testament quotations of the
verse (Matt.
Mark
attributes of the inner man--the mind, the soul,
the spiritual and moral
power.
Third, the words may be syntactically coordinate
but semantically
concentric.24 The phrase is probably a
stereotyped expression to be
interpreted "with your whole self." An
analysis of the expression
throughout Deuteronomy confirms this idea. This
formula, which
occurs frequently in the book (
30:2,
6, 10), states an all-encompassing sense of personal devotion to
God.25
Eichrodt beautifully expounds
the Deuteronomic concept of love
when he writes:
Here love the miracle of free affection, is seen
to be the basis of the whole
relationship of God to man, and it
calls for personal surrender as the living
heart of
23 A. O. Haldar,
"'ahebh," TDOT, vol. 1., p. 101.
24 McBride, op. cit., pp.
303, 304.
25 In many of these instances
"might" is" not included in the formula. This short
version occurs seventeen times in the Old
Testament in Deuteronomic material.
82
Restoration
Quarterly
any obedience to
law. . . . Love is the effective power in the saving stipulations of
the covenant; it
ensures their success, and bestows itself in blessing on all who
keep its
"commandments" and "walk in its ways" ...To realize this
love, which
constitutes as it
were the available capital, requires simply the positive act of
obedience to the
law; and by this means it is possible to establish, within the
framework of this
world, a holy people of God, separated from the nations.
Love is here understood as the power which
upholds the present order, and which
maintains the covenant
in the character of a restauratio,
not a renovatio
omnium, though men may admittedly
violate its terms and thus lose the right to
participate in it.26
The traditional rabbinic Shema
continues in verses 6-9 with an
exhortation to personal sincerity and commitment. “These
words"
should have their dwelling in the "heart" of
the individual. Whether
these words" refers to the things that have been
or will be discussed
is questionable. However, since the preceding
chapter iterates the
Decalogue
and the following chapters explain its practical application,
the verse is probably a reference to everything
which was spoken to
the Israelites on the occasion. Again, obedience is
prominent. The
formula "which I am commanding today"
frequently appears in the
book (
suggestions but are stipulations of the covenant
relationship. Also these
laws reside in the heart (
the heart as the seat of motivation for personal
commitment is the
sanctuary for love.27 This indicates
the close connection between love
and law. Law is the manifested fulfillment of
genuine love.
Yet the laws are not only to be kept in the
heart, they are to be
taught to succeeding generations. Shanan
generally means "to whet”
or "to sharpen." But because of this
context and the intensive force
of the Piel, Shanan means “to teach incisively."28 In
addition, the
Arabic
word sunna,
"life rule," may be related to Shanan. If
it is
shanan may mean "teach
them as a life rule."29
narratives were rehearsed in festivals and absorbed
by the people. The
26 Walther Eichrodt,
Theology of the Old Testament. The Old Testament Library, vol.
(Philadelphia:
The Westminster Press, 1961), p. 256.
27 Jan Bergman, "'ahebh,"
TDOT, vol. 1.,
p. 99.
28 William Gesenius,
A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament,
trans.
Edward
Robinson, ed., Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Biggs (
Clarendon
Press, 1907), p. 1042.
29 Joseph Reider,
Deuteronomy. The Holy Scriptures with
Commentary (
The
Jewish Publication Society of
people learned the laws of the covenant by the yearly
repetition of the
three major festivals: the Passover, the Feast of
Tabernacles, and the
Feast
of Weeks (Pentecost).30 Although teaching
took place at the
gatherings, this is not the methodology expressed
in 6:7. Here the
author commands a daily instruction.
The father was the family religious leader (6:7;
He
was expected to fulfill the need for daily worship by stressing
family religion in the home (4:9, 10; 5:30f.;
responsibility to teach God's
salvation narratives (
necessary response was an essential component of
community life.
The book of Proverbs sheds some light on the
methodology used,
but the date may be quite later than the ancient
tradition in
Deuteronomy. Both the father and the
mother shared the teaching
responsibilities (1:8), but the father
was the authoritative guide (4:1-4).
Organized
schools, which couched their instruction in figures, parables,
and allegories, were rare and for the rich (1:6).
Instruction was
usually oral; books were rare. Corporal
punishment was an essential
element in children's education (
quotations from Egyptian texts which state that the
pupils were required
to learn: "Boys have their ears on their
backsides; they listen when
they are beaten," and "You caned me, and
so your teaching entered
by ear."31 The severe extremes to
which the Israelites practiced corporal
punishment is clearly portrayed in Deuteronomy
21:18-22.
In conclusion, although
both elementary and secondary education, there is no
evidence that
he is commanded to teach his children the
stipulations of the covenant
with Yahweh, just as one of the treaties of Esarhaddon, king of
on the duties of vassal relationships.33
The author's admonitions in verses 8 and 9
complete the Shema.
‘oth and totaphoth
are metaphorically employed by the author to
30 John D. W. Watts, "The People of
God: A Study of the Doctrine in the Pentateuch,"
The Expository Times, 67 (1956), 234-237.
31 Whybray, op.
cit., p. 80.
32 Ibid., p. 4
33 It is possible, but doubtful, that “sons"
in 6:7 refers to Israelites pupils) and not
to literal children. Such an Interpretation would
require a wisdom motif similar to the use
of "son" in Proverbs (2:1; 3:1; 4:1, 10,
20; 5:1 and elsewhere).
84
Restoration
Quarterly
intensify his exhortation that the people must
live for Yahweh daily.
Their
religion is to travel with them wherever they go. They are always
to radiate their love for Yahweh. totaphoth, "bands" or
"frontlets,"
occurs only four times in the Old Testament (Exo. 13:9, 16; Deut. 6:8;
originally figurative for “perpetual
remembrance," but later the Jews
developed from this figure the custom of wearing
phylacteries.34
However,
despite this late innovation, the essence of this scripture
still shines forth. The passages in Exodus and
Deuteronomy show
traces of a wisdom literature formula and influence.
If Exodus 13 is
pre-Deuteronomic, then Deuteronomy
modified it by the influence of
the wisdom literature. If the passages in Exodus
are not pre-
Deuteronomic, Deuteronomy still used
wisdom literature. In both
cases, the author writes with a wisdom-literature
motif and formula
(Prov. 1:9; 3:3;
Although it was the custom of the Egyptians to
inscribe good
sentences on their doorposts, the Deuteronomist's injunction in verse 9
is still figurative.35 But again,
rabbinic tradition converted a beautiful
exhortation to live a heartfelt religion into a
ritualistic and legalistion
program concerning the mezuzah. mezuzah, "doorpost," evolved to
represent a small cylindrical container which
housed a parchment copy
of the Shema. It was
attached to the frame of the door on the outside
of the house and acknowledged with a gesture as a
person entered or
left the house. Unfortunately, a literal
interpretation of 6:8, 9 created
a nation which knew where its law was, but seldom what
it was
The next section of scripture is a stereotyped
list of the "real estate”
God
has acquired for His people (
after Hittite treaties with vassals.36 Statements that Yahweh
gives or
has given (nathan) the
land ('adhamah, 'erets) are
frequent in a
parts of Deuteronomy 4:40;
intends to humble the people by demonstrating to
them the mercy
lovingkindness, and goodness of
Yahweh. The passage warns of the
danger of sudden success. If
who built, filled, digged,
and planted, she has a basis for remaining
34 William Gesenius, op.
cit., p.378.
35 George Adam Smith, The Book of Deuteronomy. The
Colleges, (Cambridge: The University
Press, 1950), p. 100.
36 Von Rad, Deuteronomy, p. 64.
faithful to the stipulations of the covenant.
commandments is the condition for a
happy and prosperous life in
the land. If they push God into the background and
boast in their
accomplishments, God will bring
vengeance. Although
the Canaanites for possession of the land, even
then God led them to
victory.
The covenant rests on a two-dimensional love.
First, love moves
in the crucial instance from God to
Second,
love, as a consequence, flows from
keeps the covenant in effect.37 It is
God's initiating love, expressed
in his gift of the land and of freedom from slavery,
which is examined
in these verses.
Following his sounding the dangers of sudden
success, the author
then warns
God's divine anger. They can accomplish
this if they fear God, serve
him, and swear by his name. To fear God is a
popular concept in
Deuteronomy
(4:10; 5:29; 6:24; 8:6; 10:12; 14:23; 17:19; 28:58; 31:13).
Although
God's
initiating love, the reverence and awe of God's powerful justice
and vengeance also help the Israelites to be loyal
and obedient.
'abhadh,
"to serve," with reference to God, represents an act of
worship (Exo.
the religious rites of the priests and Levites.38
After God has done so
much for
the Lord. Because of his bountiful gifts of grace,
God should be and
expects to be worshipped and praised. The author
does not deny the
existence of other gods (vs. 14), but he emphatically
states that Yahweh
is the only God active in the life of the nation
must pledge their allegiance and loyalty as a vassal
to his suzerain.
Further,
it was a standard practice for people to swear by their god in
a business transaction. Indeed Yahweh was to be a
part of their daily
affairs. bhishemo,
as well as 'otho and Yhwh,
is in an emphatic
position, which indicates that the fearing,
worshipping, and swearing
37 Toombs, op cit., p.
407.
38 Reider, op. cit.,
p. 64.
86
Restoration
Quarterly
are not as important as the deity to whom they are
directed. Yahweh
is the God of Israel; Yahweh has delivered
For this reason, verse 14 announces God's abhorrence
of the worship
of other gods.39 The phrase "other
gods" is used seventeen times in
Deuteronomy,
and it always occurs with "to serve" 'abhadh
or
"to go after" (halakh 'acharey), except in four places (5:7;
31:18,
20). Yahweh will not tolerate the worship of other gods by a
people for whom he has done so much. God is a jealous
God
(
much functions of his lordship as his love and
grace. They are
anthropopathic attributes given to God
on the basis of his action. God
actively works against that which he dislikes and
his power can destroy.
Even
as the king will crush a rebellion or a teacher discipline a pupil,
so Yahweh will crush those who act like rebellious
sons and break his
covenant. It can be broken by the worship of
other gods and by social
injustices. Even as love cements the bond of the
covenantal relationship,
so also justice is important to love. Justice
localizes and charts love's
course. Therefore Deuteronomy speaks of social justice
as a
requirement for covenant purity (
24:10-18;
27:16). If the stipulations are not met, the punishment will
come. A break in the covenant relationship is the
result of
Yahweh
is never unfaithful.
The author continues analyzing the maintenance
of the covenant and
employs the incident at Massah
as an example of a breakdown
(cf.
Exo. 17:1-7).40 At Massah,
the thirsty people cried out against
Moses and God. They doubted the
sovereignty of God, and so they
wavered. If the Israelites had had faith and
trust, they would not have
39 Verses 14, 16, and 17 are often
considered editorial editions because the author
switches from the singular to the plural of the
second person. Smith counters that Moses
here and in the Decalogue uses the plural for his
own words but quotes what God gave
him at Horeb in the
singular. Another argument for the deletion of vs. 14 is that
although vs. 14 is a continuation and conclusion
of vs. 13, it limits the scope of the
preceding verse. But it appears to focus
negatively upon the opposites of Yahweh, who is
positively and emphatically the center of attention
in vs. 13. See Smith, op. cit.,
pp. 98, 102.
40 Verse 16 is also considered an addition
because of its apparent appropriate reference.
That
the author, in a time of prosperity, would use Massah,
which happened in a time
when
emphasis was "do not test God." The
subordinate clause begun by ''as'' could still
represent a general reference to a time of
tempting, rather than a specific reference to
a particular type of tempting.
tempted the Lord. However, they lacked faith and
thought that God
would not deliver the water. As a result they tempted
God and strained
the covenant relationship (
God will not break his covenant. His
faithfulness is steadfast; his
love endures. If problems occur, the Israelites, not
God, will be
responsible. Conversely, all will be well with
keep the commandments and do what is right and good
(vss. 17, 18).
To do what is right is to do what is right in
the eyes of the Lord,
to obey the covenant law. To do what is good is to
obtain the abundant
life as described before (cf. 6:3, 10, 11). The
author indicates that
relationship. When the covenant is
valid, the combination of
obedience and God's faithful promises allows
when they push out all their enemies (vs. 19). In fact,
regardless of
who the enemy may be,
teacher, father, and suzerain, Yahweh. Yet she
must always remember
to do what is right (
in the eyes of God.
In conclusion, the author knows that the success
or failure of
venture across the
her ability to keep the commandments, statutes, and
ordinances of
God. Simply stated,
the right time--daily, in the right place--the
heart. To maintain her
good health
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Restoration
Quarterly Corporation
www.restorationquarterly.org
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: