Deuteronomy 4:1

There appear at this point in Moses' first address some very important features of Deuteronomy which have been perceived and appreciated only during the past two decades. "In the last twenty years, the problem of the structure of Deuteronomy has apparently been solved, and in a way that simultaneously vindicates its unity, and illuminates its purpose."[1] Furthermore, we do not hesitate to add that this understanding has also corroborated the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. The key fact is that Deuteronomy follows very closely the covenant (treaty) pattern in vogue during the mid-second millennium B.C. This pattern, found in all of the suzerain treaties like those of the Hittite kings of that era, features the following items:

(1) identification of the author of the covenant as speaker;

(2) reference to past historical relations;

(3) the presentation of the central demand of the suzerain for pure devotion and obedience to the maker of the covenant;

(4) blessings and cursings invoked upon the lesser parties to the covenant;

(5) invocation of witnesses;

(6) the requirement to transmit the knowledge of the covenant to subsequent generations;

(7) allusions to the dynastic issue.[2]

Kline further stated that, "Deuteronomy embodies to some extent all the features which constitute the documentary pattern of ancient suzerainty treaties."[3] Furthermore, the `critical orthodoxy' of the first-half of this century has stubbornly insisted on dating Deuteronomy around the seventh century B.C.; "but the pattern of covenant treaties followed here is of a kind that is typical of the mid-1400 B.C. era, and not of the seventh century."[4]

There is also another striking fact. The conformity of Deuteronomy to those patterns prevalent in the times of Moses (about 1400 B.C.) is not the obvious, slavish copying of such patterns, like those that would have marked the work of any forger, but the conformity is a variable one, with all of the leading aspects of the covenant pattern "found here and there throughout Deuteronomy, and this is explained by the origin of the material in the free oratory of Moses' farewell."[5] The significance of this is profound. First, the documentary thesis with its alleged sources of the Pentateuch is discredited and denied. The Mosaic authorship is continued. The late-dating of Deuteronomy is intellectually impossible!

"And now, O Israel, hearken unto the statutes and unto the ordinances, which I teach you, to do them; that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which Jehovah, the God of your fathers, giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you. Your eyes have seen what Jehovah did because of Baal-peor; for all the men that followed Baal-peor, Jehovah thy God hath destroyed them from the midst of thee. But ye that did cleave unto Jehovah your God are alive every one of you this day. Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, even as Jehovah my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the midst of the land whither ye go in to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the people, that shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what great nation is there, that hath a god so nigh unto them, as Jehovah our God is whensoever we call upon him? And what great nation is there, that hath statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?"

"And now ..." (Deuteronomy 4:1) introduces the final appeal of the first address of this book. Blair summarized the entire first address thus:

"Since God is what He is, since He has done what He has done and said what He has said, Israel must bring its attitudes and life into harmony with the will of God if the people are to live and prosper in the world."[6]

"Ye shall not add unto the word ... neither shall ye diminish from it ..." (Deuteronomy 4:2.). Craigie pointed out that this passage, along with Revelation 22:18,19, has been considered by the historical Christian Church, "as a commandment of God with reference to the canonical writings of both Testaments."[7] And why not? It appears to this student that there is no other intellectual alternative. To deny this, and to affirm that these prohibitions are restricted to the "law of God as contained in the canon," is an absurdity, for in such an interpretation one immediately confronts the difficulty of finding "the canon in the canon!" By the acceptance of such an absurdity, the truth-seeker must at once adopt a new god in the person of some critical scholar who will tell him where the true Word of God is located and where it is not!

Of course, it is precisely this colossal error of man's presuming to find "a canon in the Biblical canon" that constitutes the "lingering illness of Protestant theology ... and it has not been found."[8]

The current theories of the origin of Deuteronomy by some unknown forger called "The Deuteronomist" are here confronted with a colossal absurdity, namely, that, "The Deuteronomists thought of their law as complete in spite of the fact that it contained none of the law provisions found in the book of the covenant (Exodus 20:22-23:33)."[9] The worthless explanation of this by Phillips cannot possibly be correct. The true explanation is that the passage applies to "The Five Books of Moses" and not to the occasional portions of it attributed to some unknown Deuteronomist!

"That ye may live ... and possess the land ..." (Deuteronomy 4:1). Moses here tied the prosperity of Israel to their success or failure in keeping God's commandments, and it is our conviction that this applies to all people wheresoever. The people of Sherman, Texas understood this as indicated by the inscription on their courthouse: "Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Proverbs 14:34). Oberst stated the application of this truth as follows:

"Can America any longer be called, even by stretching the imagination, a "Christian nation?" Obviously not. And yet this is our hypocritical claim. There is only one possible end of such a nation - the curse of God and degradation in the eyes of other nations. May we too remember that Israel became "a hiss and a byword" of the nations round about. And why? Because God's law and God's works were forgotten!"[10]

"The peoples ... shall say ..." (Deuteronomy 4:6). True to this prophecy, the greatness of Israel among the nations is solely that of their ancient relationship to God. "It is significant that this (relationship), and that not wealth, military power, or artistic achievement, is pointed out as the measure of Israel's greatness."[11] This is especially true with regard to the Incarnation, the coming of the Christ to redeem mankind.

"Because of Baal-peor ..." (Deuteronomy 4:3). (For a full discussion of this shameful defection of many of the Israelites, see Vol. III in this series on the Pentateuch under Numbers 25:1-5ff.)

Before leaving this passage, we must note the regrettable effort of John D. W. Watts in Broadman Commentary to make the application of Deuteronomy 4:2 as a prohibition against either adding to or taking from the Bible a late development in the Christian Church dating "from the third century."[12] No! the prohibition against adding to or taking from the Sacred Scriptures dates from the remotest antiquity. Paul's statement that men should learn "not to go beyond what is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6), as well as Jesus' declaration that "the Scriptures cannot be broken" (John 10:35), must mean that the inviolability of the sacred canon has been an accepted principle of Christianity from its inception. Furthermore, Josephus gave it as the opinion of all Judaism that "We have only twenty-two books (corresponding exactly to the O.T. as we now have it), which contain the record of all past times, which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses."[13] As a matter of fact, "The so-called canonical formula (You shall not add to ... nor take from) has a long history ... dating back to 2450 years B.C."[14]

As we proceed in this study of Deuteronomy, we should also be aware of the total absence of any reason whatever for believing that any author except Moses was involved in writing it. The critics who would have it otherwise complain bitterly of this lack of support for their theories. They even refer to their task as "difficult!" "The most perplexing difficulty in attempting to analyze the literary growth of Deuteronomy is the remarkable homogeneity of the language, style, and ideology which pervade the book!"[15] Difficult is not really an applicable term here; it is impossible to destroy the evident fact of all of Deuteronomy's being composed by a single author, namely, Moses. "Remarkable homogeneity of language, style, and ideology" are incontrovertible proof of the conservative position here.