MIQRA Institute of Biblical Studies
Reading Scripture, Hearing God
Clements, R. E. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” NIB. Abingdon, 1998 (1388 pp.; 269-538). Known for his contributions to Isaiah study, C now turns his attention to Deuteronomy. C views the content of Deuteronomy in terms of a covenant “polity,” or prescriptive mode of behavior, for God’s people (cf. 272f.). Along with McConville (below), this seems right-minded, though strains of an older critical approach line the treatment. It is still important for C that Deuteronomy provides “an excellent viewpoint for understanding one of the most formative periods in the development of Israel’s faith” (275). But whether C appreciates the text of Deuteronomy as a mature expression of Israel’s faith–not simply en route or “developing”– is an important question for readers to ask throughout the commentary. Notwithstanding, C’s treatment is learned and will help readers appreciate Deuteronomy’s literary and political strategy from various angles. There is a wealth of information here, and to his credit, C lays it out in a clear and readable way.
Craigie, P. C. The Book of Deuteronomy. NICOT. Eerdmans, 1976 (424 pp.). In 1976, C could speak of a “knowledge explosion” of new hermeneutical options in biblical studies. It is to his credit that C’s commentary has something to say into the current repercussions of that explosion. This is because it is written “with one basic presupposition: that Deuteronomy is a part of the word of God and not simply the product of human imagination” (8; 73-78). One notes, however, that C wrote his commentary before the “knowledge explosion” could include Childs’ seminal 1979 work on canon. This is felt keenly in C’s abbreviated address of the issue (32-33) as well as the way he interprets Deuteronomy theologically in terms of ‘covenant’, but then equates ‘covenant’ in the book with the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) suzerain-vassal treaty (22-24) without showing us how the canon does something unique with this (a particular strength of McConville). On the positive side, C offers a helpful discussion of the way history and memory function in Israel’s faith as this is brought to expression in Deuteronomy (38-42).
McConville, J. G. Deuteronomy. APOTC. Apollos/InterVarsity, 2002 (544 pp.). One of the leading Deuteronomy scholars today, M provides an up-to-date and extremely well-researched treatment. His total command of the scholarly literature lends sway to his minority view (now picking up interest) that Deuteronomy’s present canonical location provides the best theological environment for understanding the book’s message. M is also more vocal than Craigie or Clements about Deuteronomy’s subversion of ANE ideology, particularly in regard to customs concerning “the king” in Israel’s polity. Deuteronomy is unique among these in its view of how a people should understand its king and where the king ranks relative to the religious figurehead (under! cf. p. 34). In this connection, Deuteronomy brokers, in M’s view, a mature theological statement about the relationship between religion and politics biblically speaking and what sort of polity ought to characterize a people first of all religious in their identity. In M’s view, the theology of Deuteronomy is immediately ethically significant; it prescribes a way of being and doing as the people of God. A very rewarding resource.
Olson, D. T. Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading. OBT. Fortress, 1994 (191 pp.). O’s monograph, while not quite a commentary, is nonetheless an explicitly theological reading of the entire book. ‘Theological’ as opposed to historical-critical (constructing historical hypotheses to explain tensions in the book). O is instead interested in what is being posited about God by way of Deuteronomy’s message. Of special interest to O is the way tensions inherent to the book may broker significant theological statements. So, for instance, what do we learn about God by observing the tension between Moses dying because of the sins of the Sinai generation and Moses dying because of his own sins? Or, what of the tension between calling upon God in the particularity of the sanctuary and being able to call upon God anywhere, so long as the heart is right? O’s thesis is that such tensions are not merely happenstance, or sloppy authorship, but intentional, theologically mature statements which tell us something about God. Somewhat technical, but very important reading.
Wright, C. Deuteronomy. NIBC, 4. Hendrickson, 1996 (350 pp.). W’s approach is important in at least two ways: first, he views the entire Bible as in some sense “related to mission–the mission of God in God’s world, the mission of God’s people in the midst of the nations” (xi), and this influences his understanding of the content of Deuteronomy’s message; second, he views Deuteronomy as a deposit of the preached word, and this influences his understanding of the style and delivery of the book’s message. Both of these convictions affect the way one studies and talks about the book, and the result, not surprisingly, is a commentary which draws out the way Deuteronomy is practical (think “mission”: something for God’s people to be and do) and preachable (something for God’s people to say). The commentary is eminently readable, with verse numbers and phrases in bold. Additional notes at the end of each section pursue finer points in more detail. A fine contribution next to McConville and Olson.
