AN EXEGESIS ON DEUTERONOMY 18.9-22
CAMPBELL UNIVERSITY DIVINITY SCHOOL BUIES CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA NOVEMBER 2008
BY JOEL M. USINA
© 2010 Joel M. Usina
A King Messiah Fellowship Contribution kingmessiah.org
Joseph Blenkinsopp states that Deuteronomy is “what we might anachronistically call the first canonical document, the first consistent attempt to impose an orthodoxy and orthopraxy.”1 He then lists certain references from the biblical text that resemble criteria to determine canonical eligibility. Blenkinsopp mentions, for example, that the text itself says no words can be added to it, nor taken from it (Deut 4:2; 12:32). At the end of Deuteronomy it states that “this law” must be read at certain times in the hearing of all Israel, and also lists a specific location for it to be placed to act as a “witness against [Israel]” (Deut 31:10-13, 36).2 Also, a passage says, in a seemingly prophetic or anachronistic fashion, that the king shall write a copy of this law and read it “all the days of his life” (Deut. 17.18-19). Walter Brueggemann writes, “The book of Deuteronomy stands as the primal example of the dynamism of the Torah tradition whereby old memories are endlessly re-presented and reinterpreted, rearticulated, and reimagined in ways that keep the main claims of faith pertinent and authoritative in new circumstances.”3 With both of these observations in mind, we could gather that at least one intention of the author of Deuteronomy was to create a detailed, perpetual, yet adaptive boundary for the people of Israel to conduct their daily lives within while performing proper, acceptable worship to YHWH. On the surface, the passage from Deuteronomy that is the focus of this endeavor makes clear at least three things: (1) Israel is not to “learn to follow the abominable practice of [the Canaanites]”; (2) Israel must “be blameless” before the LORD; and (3) God will continue to guide Israel by raising up a prophet “like” Moses, who will have God’s words put in his mouth and who will speak “all that [God] command[s] him.” The first two statements should be
1
Joseph Blenkinsopp. Treasures Old & New: Essays in the Theology of the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004), 60. 2 Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture will be quoted from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV), copyright © 2007 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL. 3 Walter Brueggemann, An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 93.
1
understood as prescriptive in form, which appears to allow them to act as a “canonical authority” creating the possibility for a perpetual orthodoxy and orthopraxy, despite geographical location and/or cultural neighbors. In other words, whether an author is reading back into history his particular bias, or it is the case that this is actually what was either said and/or written down in some fashion at the time this took place, it remains true that “Canaanite” worship was not the only possible option for Israel to learn to follow. The third statement seems to be a reference to the actual person(s) who will wield, on behalf of God, the correct contextual application of God’s instructions, all the while maintaining their integrity. In light of our passage's content, and given the line of prophets that the Scriptures contain, the Assyrian exile, the Babylonian exile, the current state of the descendants of Jacob, and the way people have used this Scripture to support certain leaders, including Peter and Stephen’s application to Jesus, this section of Scripture seems worthy of exploration.
CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS Deuteronomy is somewhat of an anomaly within the context of the contemporary canon. Genesis covers roughly two-millennia, consisting mainly of narratives about specific people and events. Nearly four hundred years pass between Exodus 1:1 and 1:22 (cf. Gen 15:9; Ex 12:4041; Gal 3:17). The rest of the Exodus account tells of Israel’s deliverance from slavery, the meeting at Mt. Sinai, and the elaborate assembly of the Tabernacle, along with specifics concerning proper worship. Leviticus seems to continue this theme, seemingly being geared toward the priests and their responsibilities in the Tabernacle. At the same time, however, Leviticus bears the most similarities to Deuteronomy in that they address in detail, for example, what is proper and improper, clean and unclean, and holy and profane. The book of Numbers, 2
falling right before Deuteronomy, consists of narratives telling of events that take place over several years, specifically recalling Israel’s wanderings in the wilderness. Joshua stands right after Deuteronomy covering many years consisting of mostly narrative about Israel’s conquest of Canaan. Deuteronomy, on the other hand, has very little narrative, but is made up of speeches that Moses proclaims before all Israel. The author gives the impression that what is recorded takes place in one day’s time and can be understood to be meant for all the peoples of Israel; priest, king, prophet, man, woman, child, servant, and even animal. This is not to say the previous books do not address similar concerns. However, Deuteronomy is unique in the scope of its content. Deuteronomy has traditionally been understood to be the last book of what is called the Torah, or Pentateuch (Greek, “five scrolls”), which are the first five books of the Hebrew Scripture; namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.4 However, due to close examination by scholars, Deuteronomy is believed by some to be the first book of what has been called the “Deuteronomistic History”; namely Deuteronomy through 2 Kings, with the exception of Ruth.5 According to this perspective, a scribe sometime just before the Babylonian exile, perhaps during King Josiah’s reign, either edited or initially drafted this text in order to push the agenda of the reformation that took place in those days. These series of books do in fact contain strikingly consistent themes. One of which is the idea of blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. On the other hand, Deuteronomy has also been considered the second-to-last book of what could be called the “Hexateuch” (Greek, “six scrolls”) making Joshua the last of this
4
Torah in Hebrew means “instruction,” or “teaching”. It is generally rendered “law” in English translations. This term has been reified to mean just the first five books of the bible. 5 Martin Noth, “The Deuteronomistic History,” JSOT Sup 15 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1981), referenced in J. G. McConville, Deuteronomy, Apollos Old Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 18.
3
division.6 This can be understood due to Joshua’s close parallels and apparent continuation of the end of Deuteronomy. Despite the different divisions that may be made with these books, Deuteronomy remains a book that continues the thread of covenant. The book also recounts a fulfillment, of sorts, of not only Abraham’s “offspring” on the verge of possessing the land God swore to them (Deut 1:8), but also the promise of Abraham’s offspring being as numerous as the stars in the heavens (Deut 10:22). Given these descriptions, Deuteronomy can be seen as a bridge of sorts, consisting of law moving into the “Deuteronomistic History,” or what is commonly understood as the “Former Prophets.”
FORM, STRUCTURE, MOVEMENT The “final form” of Deuteronomy narrates a scene in which Moses is re-proclaiming God’s commandments, which were originally delivered roughly forty years earlier at Mt. Sinai (cf. Deut 2:14).7 The text is commonly broken up into three main speeches given by Moses. (1) An introduction containing reminders of God’s redemptive hand and continual protection for the people of Israel (1:1-4:49). (2) The “body” starts with a reiteration of the Ten Commandments, which are then seemingly expounded upon, ending with a detailed list of blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience (5:1-28:68). (3) For its conclusion, the text reiterates the major themes of (a) God’s deliverance, (b) obedience to God’s instruction, and (c) the importance of these instructions. There is also a postscript regarding the transition of leadership from Moses to Joshua (ch. 34).
6
Gerhard von Rad. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (London: SCM; New York: McGrawHill, 1966), referenced in McConville, 18. 7 The term “final form” is taken from Walter Brueggemann’s, An Intro to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination.
4
The text in view of this work falls into what has been labeled the “Deuteronomic Code” (chs. 12-26). This “code,” generally speaking, can be understood as the standard for which blessings or curses will unfold for God’s people once they have entered the land. The form consistent throughout this section is that of a “legal corpus.”8 In fact, McConville points out that Deuteronomy takes the form of what has been understood as a second-millennium Hittite vassal treaty, with a little bit of an Assyrian model mixed in as well.9 Brueggemann seems to agree with this when he says, “The tradition behind Deuteronomy may have old roots; it received its definitive covenantal shape, however, in the eighth and seventh centuries, precisely at the time when the Assyrian Empire dominated Judah.”10 McConville points out how each has a preamble, historical prologue, general stipulations, specific stipulations, document clause, witness, blessings and curses.11 However, to make it clear that Israel was not biting off of these peoples, McConville says, “Deuteronomy is independent and unique, simply drawing on known and available forms for its own purposes.”12 Zooming in to chapter 17, the author addresses significant people of authority and the responsibilities concerning them while in office. There are to be judges who will try the peoples’ cases, whether locally and/or nationally [17.8-13]. Following this, in what seems to be an anachronism indicating the possibility of a later editorial addition, there are provisions made for the king who will rule over Israel [17.14-20]. Immediately following this section is a detailed description of the Levitical priests’ wellbeing once in the land [18.1-8]. Finally, this leads into our text.
8
Brueggemann, 87. McConville, 23-24. 10 Brueggemann, 90. 11 McConville, 24. 12 Ibid. 9
5
Our passage can easily be broken up into two main sections; (1) an exhortation to Israel to abstain from the abominable practices of the peoples who currently occupy the land they are about to possess, and (2) a promise from God to lead Israel by raising up another prophet like Moses. The first section lists specific detestable practices that Israel must not “learn to follow.” God makes it clear that he has not “allowed [Israel] to do [these].” The second section lists what Israel must do; namely, follow or listen to “the prophet” that God raises up from among their “brothers” in the likeness of Moses. Rounding out the latter portion is a brief and somewhat confusing description of how to discern a prophet’s legitimacy.
DETAILED ANALYSIS A further breakdown of the text can look something like this:
I. Command to not conform [v. 9] II. Specific "abominable practices" [vv. 10-12] A. Burns his son or daughter as an offering, practices divination, tells fortunes, interprets omens, sorcerer, charmer, medium, wizard, necromancer. III. Be blameless [v. 13-14] IV. Provision of a prophet who will be "like" Moses [vv. 15-19] A. He will be an Israelite [v. 15] B. A result on Israel's own request at Mt. Horeb [v. 16-17; cf. Deut 5:29-22 and Ex 20:19] C. He will be an Israelite and speak only God's words [v. 18-19] V. Standards to measure a true prophet [vv. 20-22] A. False prophet equals: 1. One who speaks a presumptuous word [v. 20, 22] 2. One who speaks in the name of another god [v. 20]
6
Command Not to Conform This command seems like a succinct reiteration of what was stated previously in 12:29-32. Also similar to chapter twelve, the section commanding non-conformity is immediately followed by descriptions of prophets. Nissinen suggests that the section found in chapter thirteen concerning prophets can be understood as a sort of commentary on this section in chapter eighteen.13 Observing the clear similarities and differences between these two sections, one can easily see them as complementary; perhaps meant to be better understood in light of each other. In the author’s presentation, Moses consistently reiterates throughout the “code” of Deuteronomy that Israel is to fear the LORD and serve and worship him, alone (cf. 6:13-15; 7:15, 16, 25-26; 8:19; 11:28; 12:30; 14:1-2; 17:9-10; 20:10-18). Initially at Mt. Sinai, and then again several times throughout Deuteronomy, God tells Israel through Moses that they are to be his ‘am segullah, or “treasured possession” (cf. Ex 19:5; Deut 7:6; 14:2; 26:18). McConville says, God's gift of land has a particular outcome in view, namely a people in loyal relationship with him…the whole ethic of Deuteronomy is put in relational terms: the right way is a commitment of the whole self to Yahweh; the wrong way is the opposite commitment, to the ways of the nations and their gods.14
This command then can be understood as not just a form of restrictive control, but more so an allusion to and reminder of the reason why God would instruct such a thing; namely, to maintain the avenue of unhindered relationship with the people he has chosen.
13
Martti Nissinen. Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic texts in Second Temple Judaism, eds. Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak (New York: T & T Clark, 2006). 29-30. 14 McConville, 300.
7
Specific Abominable Practices
ָ ( תוֹעto’ebah) is rendered as “abomination” in the ESV.15 This word The Hebrew word ֲבה portrays the idea of something that is offensive and objectionable.16 As far as YHWH is concerned, these specific things that the Canaanites do are antithetical to the order that God designed in creation, whereby, as Biddle says, “The magician seeks to obtain some form of control over reality, even over the divine.”17 In fact, it is precisely because of these things that God is going to drive the Canaanites out of the land (cf. Deut 9:4-5). Even though the Israelites had been redeemed from Egypt, they must take heed and abstain from these detestable practices, for they are not immune to becoming an abomination by practicing such things (cf. Ps 115:8). In Hebrew, the first abomination listed literally says, “…who causes his son or daughter to pass through the fire” (cf. Lev 18:21; Deut 12:31; 2 Kings 17:15-17; Jer 32:35). Merrill points out that this (and the other “abominations”) is somewhat of a “mystery,” as far as what it precisely means.18 Scholars often describe these practices in general terms. Attempts to distinguish and clarify them by etymology vary due to different possible root words they could stem from.19 Also, some of the practices could be understood to overlap another, blurring their distinctiveness.20 For example, in Manners and Customs of the Bible, Freeman says, “The word divination…may here be taken as a generic term, of which the seven terms following represent
15
For other translations that render to’ebah as “abomination” see the KJV, ASV, JPS. Other translations use the word “detestable” (NASB, HCSB, NIV); still others “abhorrent” (NRSV, NET). 16 Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006), 1072. 17 Mark E. Biddle, Deuteronomy, Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA; Smyth and Helwys, 2003), 294. 18 Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 270. (electronic ed. Logos Library System) 19 W. L. Alexander, The Pulpit Commentary: Deuteronomy, ed. H. D. M. Spence-Jones. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004), 302. 20 Ibid.
8
the species or types.”21 Despite the difficulty, in an attempt to describe them, Cairns distinguishes between categories: (1) “practices concerned with reading or manipulating phenomena of nature,” and (2) “those attempting to contact the dead.”22 Though these practices varied in form (e.g., observing clouds, enchantments, snake handling, binding spells, inquiring of the dead), and purpose [e.g., know future events, obtain answers, heal sickness, harm others], the common denominator is that they are outside the realm of avenues whereby YHWH has chosen to reveal himself.23 Freedman discerns that even though there are prohibitions listed here, certain other forms are apparently allowed, such as “dreams, clairvoyance, hydromancy, belomancy, magic staffs, decisions by lots, juridical ordeals, blessings and curses, apotropaic measures, and so forth.”24 Due to the fact that God did allow certain practices that, on the surface anyway, looked similar to some of these “abominations,” it would seem then that one point concerns the source; YHWH,
or another god. As we will see below, YHWH ensured his people that he would provide
what they needed so there would be no excuse to have to resort to these practices.
Be Blameless Another possible organization of the text in focus for this endeavor could be: A - Do not follow the abominations of the other nations (v. 9) B - Specific things to avoid learning to do (vv. 10-11) C - Consequence for those who do the abominations (v. 12) D - Command to be blameless before the LORD (v. 13) C - The nations do the abominations, but not Israel (v. 14) B - Specific person that Israel must follow (vv. 15-19) A - Do not follow false prophets (v. 20-22) 21
James M. Freeman and Harold J. Chadwick, Manners & Customs of the Bible (North Brunswick, NJ: Bridge-Logos Publishers, 1998), 174. 22 Ian Cairns, Word and Presence: A Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy. International Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1992), 171. 23 David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1996), 4:469. 24 Ibid.
9
According to this arrangement, verse thirteen could be viewed as the heart of what Moses might be trying to communicate. Israel is told to be ( ָת ִמיםtamîm), literally “complete,” or “whole.” Noah was ָת ִמים before the LORD (Gen 6:9). Abraham was told to walk before the LORD and “be ”ת ִמים ָ (Gen 17:1). The pesach lamb and all the sacrifices presented to the LORD were to be ( ָת ִמיםEx 12:5; Lev 1:3ff). The Psalmist may clarify best what is meant here when he says, “Blessed are those whose way is ת ִמים, ָ who walk in the law of the LORD!” (119:1; italics added). This would encapsulate the entire Deuteronomic Code—obey YHWH. This command is embedded here in such a way as to communicate that in order to be blameless one must not just abstain from doing certain things (i.e., “abominable practices”), but simultaneously do a certain, other thing (i.e., obey God’s instructions).
Provision of a Prophet Israel was not allowed to ( ָשׁ ַמעshāma; “hear”; Deut 18:14) fortune-tellers and diviners. Rather, Israel was to shāma the prophet whom the LORD would raise up. The Hebrew word ָשׁ ַמעin each of these statements would have reminded the hearers that “YHWH is our God; YHWH is ”א ַחד ֶ (echad; “one”; cf. Deut 6:4ff). In the minds of the audience, this word meant more than merely listening with the ears, but rather implied a corresponding action. God declares here that it is his desire to use a prophet to continue to lead Israel. They, alone, will be the vessel that will receive, uphold, shape, and deliver the standard (torah) of God that Israel is called to and promised to do; obeying the prophet means obeying God (cf. Ex 19:8; 24:23; Deut 5:27-29).25 Moses specifies two things about the “nature” of the prophet that God will raise up. First, he will be “like” Moses. Christenson writes, “For Moses to say that the prophet to come will be 25
McConville, 302.
10
‘like me’ refers to the role Moses played as God’s messenger, not to his person.”26 It is widely supported that the likeness here is mostly concerned with the prophet being a “mediator” between YHWH and the people.27 Secondly, this prophet will be “from your brothers.” Similar to the commands concerning the king, the prophet whom God will raise up, will come from within the people of Israel; he will be an Israelite, not a Canaanite, Ninevite, and so on (cf. Lev 25:46; Deut 3:18; 17:15). In this section we see at least one reason for why a mediator is to stand between YHWH and his people; Israel asked for it. Israel had feared they would die when they heard the voice of God at Mt. Sinai (Ex. 20.19). They requested that Moses go speak to God on their behalf. God apparently thought that this was a good idea, so he conceded. In v. 18 Moses reiterates what was said in v. 15. However, on this occasion YHWH is credited with saying it, and apparently this was spoken at Mt. Sinai. One important reason why this is may be significant is that it gives a more specific reference to what the “words” are that God is going to “put...in [the prophet’s] mouth.” At Mt. Sinai, and again here on the plains of Moab, Moses puts before all Israel the Torah of God. The prophet likewise will be given words that fall within the boundaries of Torah. If an Israelite “learn[s] to follow the abominable practices” of the Canaanites they will in turn become an abomination to YHWH; implying then that they similarly will be removed from the land (cf. ch. 12). However, here it is said that if an Israelite fails to take heed to the prophet that YHWH raises up there will be judgment. Again, there is the command to abstain from one thing and adhere to another.
26
Duane L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1-21:9, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Inc., 2002), 409. Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 1:934 and Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown. A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, On the Old and New Testaments (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 18:15. 27
11
Standards to Measure a True Prophet Blenkinsopp makes a good point when he says, “In any group in which claims for legitimacy and authority must be made in religious terms, control of the ‘redemptive media’ (prophecy), and therefore the means of mediating religious guidance toward salvation, translates very readily into social and political control.”28 This gives a good reference as to why certain criteria were needed in order to validate or repudiate a prophet who spoke in the name of YHWH (cf. Deut 13:1-5). Merrill points out that the first criteria listed to distinguish a false prophet has potential to pose difficulty, saying, “A false prophet could speak of a day in the distant future long after his own decease and thereby evade detection as false on that basis alone.”29 Perhaps here is where the description in chapter thirteen could provide needed clarification (cf. Jer 28).
SYNTHESIS Israel had been immersed amidst an apparently YHWH-ignorant people in Egypt and surely over the course of those 400 years assimilated in some fashion to certain practices of the Egyptians. Also, the Scriptures speak of no “leader” in Israel between Joseph and Moses. Now, having been redeemed from that place and set apart as the people of YHWH, Israel needed a standard of what is acceptable to their God. Also, since Moses was clearly the leader YHWH raised up to lead Israel out of Egypt and it was true he was close to death, it would then be necessary to give parameters to distinguish who Israel was to follow after Moses died. This portion of Deuteronomy helps to clarify those issues. Considering the investigation thus far, this passage gives the impression that God does not necessarily want to keep Israel from obtaining the “ends” of the “abominable practices” of 28 29
Blenkinsopp, 199. Merrill, 274.
12
the Canaanites (e.g., healing, knowing the future, getting answers, solving mysteries). Rather, God’s message to Israel is that he will be the “means” to obtain what they need (i.e., through the prophet[s] he raises up). They are to have supreme loyalty to YHWH, which means they must stay within the boundaries of Torah (cf. Deut 6:4-6; 18:13). In light of the prohibition of the “abominable practices” and their connection with this prophet being raised up, Keil and Delitzsch comment “that the promise neither relates to one particular prophet, nor directly and exclusively to the Messiah, but treats of the sending of prophets generally.”30 Similarly Levin says, “It is not that Jeremiah is a second Moses; Moses is a first Jeremiah.”31 Looking ahead to the Scriptures’ description of Israel’s experience once they entered into the land of Canaan up until the Assyrian and Babylonian captivity, the reader sees that although God remained faithful to his promise to “raise up prophet[s] like [Moses]” who “[spoke] to them all that [God] commanded [them],” Israel remained stubborn and in sin (cf. e.g., Judg 2:1-3, 1115; 1 Sam 3:19-20; 1 Kings 17:7-23].
REFLECTION “For the LORD GOD does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7). This can be another way of communicating what this passage in Deuteronomy is portraying. YHWH’s counsel cannot be found amidst practices that not only exclude him, but also attempt to include him as a viable option in company with other gods. Israel must take note
30
Keil, 1:935. Christopher Levin, Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic texts in Second Temple Judaism, eds. Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak (New York: T & T Clark, 2006), 45. 31
13
that the prophets God raises up are the “means” by which God has chosen to contextually guide their application of Torah, be it a king, judge, man, woman, and/or child. In the “New Testament,” Peter, a disciple of Jesus, proclaims to the crowd of Israelites celebrating Shavuot (Pentecost) in Jerusalem that what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Messiah would suffer, [Jesus] thus fulfilled… Moses said, ‘The LORD God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you… And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days. (Acts 3:18, 22, 24)
Also in Acts, as Stephen recounts certain events of Israel’s history with the agenda of highlighting how Jesus fits into them, he states, “This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers’” (7:37). Another reference connecting Jesus to this prophet being spoken of in Deuteronomy can be found recorded in the event of the “transfiguration,” where the “voice from the cloud” says, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him” (cf. Matt 17:5 and Deut 18:15; italics added).32 With hopes to suggest some practical application for Christians today who agree with this connection made by Jesus’ disciples, a reference to Walter Kaiser seems appropriate here: [I]t is the author's intended meaning that must be the starting point from which all understanding begins…even though there are multiple fulfillments throughout history as time advances to the last day, none of these fulfillments constitute double or multiple senses or meaning. They all participate in the one single sense, even though it has had a multiple number of fulfillments over the course of time.”33
32
For more NT references connecting Jesus to this promise in Deuteronomy 18:15 see John 1:21, 45; 5:46; 6:14; 7:40; and Luke 24:27. 33 Walter C. Kaiser and Moisés Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 29-30. (emphasis added)
14
Peter’s application of this promise to Jesus is embedded in between the mention of other prophets. Apparently he had considered them legitimate, too; thus also a fulfillment of God’s promise. Stephen testifies as well in the same way. On the mountain, Jesus is seen to be with not just the paradigmatic prophet Moses, but another well known, apparently legitimate, prophet, Elijah. It would seem best that we should understand Peter and Stephen’s application of this promise to Jesus as being both (1) “a” fulfillment, and (2) “the” fulfillment. Therefore, it seems that it would be a mistake to suggest that the disciples would have carried and taught this perspective and at the same time extended a “yoke,” or interpretation of the Scriptures, that would contradict, jeopardize, and/or fall outside the boundaries of the teachings of Torah. In other words, to say that Jesus is a/the fulfillment of this promise in Deuteronomy would mean that, in order to avoid contradiction, one would at the same time have to say that Jesus, just like all the legitimate prophets before him, and especially Moses, received God’s words, upheld their integrity, applied them accurately, and delivered them faithfully (cf. John 12:49-50; Matt 5:17; Luke 6:6-10; John 17:6-8].
15
BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, W.L. The Pulpit Commentary: Deuteronomy. Ed. H. D. M. Spence-Jones. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004. Cairns, Ian. Word and Presence : A Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy. International theological commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Edinburgh: W.B. Eerdmans; Handsel Press, 1992. Christensen, Duane L. Deuteronomy 1-21:9. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Treasures Old & New: Essays in the Theology of the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004 Biddle, Mark E. Deuteronomy, Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA; Smyth and Helwys, 2003 Brueggemann, Walter. An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. Freedman, David Noel. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1996. Freeman, James M. and Harold J. Chadwick. Manners & Customs of the Bible. Rev. ed. North Brunswick, NJ: Bridge-Logos Publishers, 1998. Kaiser, Walter C. and Moisés Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994. Keil, Carl Friedrich and Franz Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. Levin, Christopher. Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic texts in Second Temple Judaism, edited by Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak. New York: T & T Clark, 2006. Nissinen, Martti. Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic texts in Second Temple Judaism, edited by Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak. New York: T & T Clark, 2006. McConville, J. G. Deuteronomy, Apollos Old Testament Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002 Merrill, Eugene H. Deuteronomy. electronic ed. Logos Library System; The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001, c1994. Noth, M. The Deuteronomistic History, JSOTSup 15. Sheffield: JSOT., 1981. 16
Rad, G. von. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. London: SCM; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.
17
