DEUTERONOMY 28:69-29:3

Spiritual Blindness as a Hindrance to Covenant Faithfulness

by

Matthew Wayne Neal

Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements

for OT 757, Exegesis of Deuteronomy

The Master’s Seminary

Sun Valley, California

June, 2004

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

DEUTERONOMY 28:69 – INTRODUCTION OR CONCLUSION? .............................. 4

An Introduction ................................................................................................... 4

A Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 9

Excursus: The Palestinian Covenant ................................................................ 12

DEUTERONOMY 29:1-3 – TO SEE OR NOT TO SEE? ............................................... 16

Deuteronomy 29:1-2 – “You Saw” ................................................................... 16

Deuteronomy 29:3 – “You Didn’t See” ............................................................ 18

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 23

1

INTRODUCTION

Recent study of the book of Deuteronomy has make it abundantly clear that the final

book of Moses is in the form of a covenant document between Yahweh and Israel. In particular,

the book mirrors at many points extant second-millennium Hittite vassal treaties. This is an

extremely important consideration to keep in mind when studying the book.1

Yet, while this is this case, it must also be remembered that Moses never slavishly

reproduces the form of such historical covenant documents but rather customizes the form to

meet the Lord’s purposes for Israel just before the conquest. Merrill writes,

These [i.e., the essential elements of standard Hittite treaty texts] are all represented to

some degree or other in Deuteronomy, but Deuteronomy . . . expands upon these by

adding unique covenant recapitulation and other material of a hortatory or narrative

nature.2

In other words, Moses utilizes the basic form of a historic treaty text but modifies this basic form

in various ways, the most notable of which is the addition of exhortative or historical passages

which complement the essential elements of a covenant document.

Deuteronomy 29:1-30:10 is one example of such “non-standard” material. Prior to this

section, Moses gives the heart of the covenant document through his exposition of the covenant

stipulations (5:1-28:68). This exposition is drawn to a close with a litany of blessings and curses

that will be doled out based on Israel’s covenant faithfulness (28:1-68) and is ultimately

1 Eugene H. Merrill, “A Theology of the Pentateuch,” in A Biblical Theology of the Old

Testament, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991), 62.

2 Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, NAC (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman

Publishers, 1994), 30.

2

concluded with a summary statement at Deuteronomy 28:69.3 In Deuteronomy 30:15-20, Moses

again provides familiar covenant material, namely, his insistence on adherence to the stipulations

already spelled out—stipulations which were not too difficult according to 30:11-14—and his

beckoning of witnesses to testify against Israel should they decide to do otherwise.4 All of this

accords with the familiar covenant concept: The Suzerain will bless the vassal as long as the

latter gives unqualified allegiance to the former. Should the attitude of the vassal change,

destruction instead of love should be expected.

Yet, Deuteronomy 29:1-30:10 provides an extremely important complement to this

model: Israel had proven to be spiritually blind in the past (29:1-7). Thus, it is a dangerous

possibility that this seeming “genetic” spiritual blindness would keep her from being faithful to

Yahweh’s covenant at the present (29:8-18), resulting in the future, just invocation of covenant

curses (29:19-29:29). Yet even if this should occur, Yahweh would not completely break off

covenant ties with Israel nor annihilate her completely; rather, He would wait for a penitent

remnant who desperately desired to return to its master. In response to such a remnant, He

would turn and bless the nation as at the first (30:1-10).

3 The verse numbering of most English versions differs at this point from the Hebrew.

For the purpose of this paper, the Hebrew numbering system will be used throughout. The

evidence that 28:69 concludes the previous section instead of introducing chapter 29 will be

presented below.

4 The instruction on safe-keeping for the covenant document and future covenant renewal

in Deuteronomy 31:9-13 is also standard material for covenant documents at that time. Cf. Peter

Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1976), 370-71.

3

Such an explicitly stated provision for forgiveness in the initiation of a covenant

relationship is not common in covenant documents contemporary to Deuteronomy.5 Its presence

in Deuteronomy demonstrates the amazing graciousness of Yahweh. Yahweh is a merciful

suzerain who not only enters into covenant with His people but also makes explicit provision for

the restoration of His people should they fail to maintain faithfulness to the covenant.

Such graciousness is demonstrated as even more amazing when one remembers the

extent to which Israel has been unfaithful already and the severity of her spiritual blindness

demonstrated thus far: Her blindness is so severe that even numerous and magnificent historical

works performed by Yahweh for her benefit have not sufficed to make her see (29:1-7). This

spiritual blindness, especially as developed in Deuteronomy 29:1-3, is the primary topic of this

paper. In particular, the question of God’s role in Israel’s blindness (29:3) will be developed.

In contrast to the above explanation, though, some see Deuteronomy 29-30 as the

exposition of a totally separate covenant, the so-called “Palestinian Covenant.”6 Deuteronomy

28:69 is taken to be an introduction to this covenant, with d b;äL.m i. (“in addition to”) serving to

delineate this covenant from the one which proceeds it. Thus, before discussing Israel’s spiritual

blindness in Deuteronomy 29:1-3, this verse will be discussed first.

5 Meredith G. Kline, “The Two Tables of the Covenant,” WTJ 22:2 (May 60): 134-39;

Meredith G. Kline, “Dynastic Covenant,” WTJ 23:1 (Nov 60): 4-9; Merrill, Deuteronomy, 30-32;

Craigie, Deuteronomy, 22-24. All of the above authors acknowledge their dependence on G. E.

Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” BA 17 (1954): 50-76, a work not available

to the present author at the time of writing.

6 E.g., Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 163; Renald Showers,

There Really is a Difference (Bellmawr, N.J.: The Friends of the Gospel Ministry, 1990), 77-83.

4

DEUTERONOMY 28:69 – INTRODUCTION OR CONCLUSION?

Commentators are divided as to whether this verse concludes what proceeds it or

introduces what follows it.7 Driver (1895), Craigie (1976), van Rooy (1988), Merrill (1994),

Tigay (1996), Hall (2000), and McConville (2002) all argue for the former; Keil (1866), von Rad

(1966), Thompson (1974), Ridderbos (1984), Miller (1990), Kalland (1992), and Wright (1996)

all argue for the latter.8 Christensen (2002) argues that it does both. The answer to this question

also affects what one thinks about the so-called Palestinian covenant.

An Introduction

Along with the commentators mentioned above, most modern English versions prefer to

render Deuteronomy 28:69 as a superscription to what follows instead of a subscript to what

proceeds.9 One major argument given in favor of this position is that t y rIB . (“covenant”) occurs

five times in Deuteronomy 29 (9, 12, 14, 21, 25) but only once (17:2) in the specific stipulations

(chapters 12-26) and blessings and cursings (chapters 27-28).10

Thus, the verse appears to be

linked more closely with what follows than what proceeds.

7 See the bibliography for the works of the authors mentioned in the following list.

8 H. F. Van Rooy, “Deuteronomy 28:69: Superscript or Subscript,” Journal of

Northwest Semitic Languages 14 (1988): 215. According to van Rooy, the current trend is for

commentators to take this view.

9 English versions, as mentioned above, usually mark it as 29:1 instead of 28:69.

10 A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids,

Mich.: Eerdmans, 1979), 360; J. Ridderbos, Deuteronomy, Bible Student’s Commentary (Grand

Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1984), 263; J. A. Thompson, Deuteronomy (Downers Grove, Ill.:

Inter-Varsity Press, 1974), 278.

5

There are at least two problems with such logic, though. First of all, it is unjustified to

consider the occurrences of t y r IB. in 12-28 alone without taking into account the occurrences of

the word in 5-11. Deuteronomy 5-26 may be divided into two sections: The first, chapters 5-11,

outlines generic principles of covenant obedience. The second, chapters 12-26, enumerates

specific examples of covenant statues. Yet, 5-26 is still a whole. It is, to be sure, the stipulations

of the covenant Yahweh was making with Israel. Thus, the question is not, “Is t y r IB . used more

often in Deuteronomy 12-28 or Deuteronomy 29-30?” Rather, the question is, “Is t y r IB . used

more often in Deuteronomy 5-28 or Deuteronomy 29-30?”11

With this in mind, the evidence is

not so strong, for t y r IB . occurs eleven times in Deuteronomy 5-11.

A second problem with such logic is evident when one considers the reason for the

proliferation of t y r IB . in Deuteronomy 29. In chapter 29, Moses has finished giving the general

and specific stipulations of the covenant, and he is now ready to speak to Israel concerning their

duty in regards to these stipulations. How will he do so? He certainly will not say, “You must

be careful, O Israel, to love God and fear Him and serve Him and set up cities of refuge and

totally destroy your enemies and not sow your field with two kinds of seed and bring back your

neighbors ox and not wear women’s clothing” and so on. Rather, he will refer to all of these

stipulations, generic and specific, as the “covenant,” t y r IB.. Thus, t y r IB. in chapter 29 refers back to

what precedes. But, this is also how t y rIB . is used in 28:69, and thus the use of t y r IB. in that verse

actually argues for it concluding what proceeds and not introducing what follows.

11

In fact, many who see 28:69 as concluding what proceeds it would actually argue that

it closes the section which runs from the beginning of the book to chapter 28. Thus, the question

in that case would be, “Is t y rIB . used more often in Deuteronomy 1-28 or Deuteronomy 29-30?”

6

A second major support for Deuteronomy 28:69 serving as a superscript to what follows

is that Deuteronomy 29-30 may actually be seen as sort of a mini-covenant.12

Kline notes the

following:

In this section as in Deuteronomy 4 an accumulation of the major treaty elements is

discovered within short compass, forming a concentrated covenant pattern as the

framework for the great call for decision (30:15–20). There is historical recital of the

Lord’s mighty acts of grace (29:2ff); a reiteration of the primary stipulation to love God,

with the corollary prohibition of alien alliances (29:18ff); the invocation of heaven and

earth as witnesses (30:19); and, of course, the curses and blessings throughout chapters

27–30 .13

In other words, Deuteronomy 29-30 demonstrates its own covenant features, having its own

preamble, historical prologue, stipulations, curses, witnesses, and exhortation to choose.14

It is,

then, a “covenant within a covenant,” and, more specifically, the covenant referred to in 28:69.

As before, though, there are several problems with such argumentation. First of all, it

should be mentioned that even if the argumentation was sound, it would not prove that 28:69 is

forward looking instead of backward looking. All that it would prove is that 29-30 is structured

as a covenant in the same way as what proceeds it. But, it would still remain to demonstrate that

28:69 refers to it as a covenant framework instead of that given in 5-28.

Yet, the biggest problem with this view is that though some covenant elements may be

found in Deuteronomy 29-30, the stipulation section is not sufficiently attested, leading Hall to

12

Patrick Miller, Deuteronomy, Interpretation (Louisville, Ky.: John Knox Press, 1990),

200-202; Christopher Wright, Deuteronomy, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody,

Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996), 284.

13 Kline, “Dynastic Covenant,” 8.

14 See especially Miller, Deuteronomy, 201.

7

note that the covenant form “seems less complete than some have suggested.”15

Wright proposes

that 29:18 is the stipulation section; Miller prefers 29:16-19 and especially verse 18; Kline points

to 29:18 and following. Regardless of how the bounds are drawn exactly, though, it is obvious

that there is meager support for this most important section of a covenant framework, so that

Mayes seems justified when he comments:

[I]t is clear that however much the treaty form, thought and vocabulary may have

influenced what lies in these chapters, there is no treaty or covenant conclusion ceremony

standing directly behind them. The one really essential element of such a ceremony (and

so also of the form), the stipulations, is missing.16

Van Rooy’s analysis concurs with this assessment, though he adds an extra insight when he notes

that in particular it is the presence of specific legislation that is lacking:

The pattern of the Covenant formulary as a whole was not, however, copied in the

structure of these two chapters, as the declaration of loyalty (Hauptgebot) and the

individual stipulations (Einzelbestimmungen) are lacking. Especially the latter is of

decisive importance in this instance. Dbry hbryt refers predominantly to stipulations, and

since stipulations are lacking in these two chapters, the contents of 28,69 and of 29 and

30 do not coincide. Deut 29 and 30 do not deal with the contents of the bryt as such.17

Van Rooy’s comment is worth summarizing before moving on: If Deuteronomy 29-30 is

the t y rIB . referred to in Deuteronomy 28:69, then Moses never gives the t y r IøB .h ; y r E’b.d I (“words of the

covenant”), for r bd in this context refers to the provisions or stipulations of a covenant.18

15

Gary H. Hall, Deuteronomy, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, Miss.:

College Press Publishing Company, 2000), 432.

16 Mayes, Deuteronomy, 359.

17 Van Rooy, “Deuteronomy 28:69,” 220-21.

18 Frank Ritchel Ames, “r b d,” NIDOTTE, 1:913.

8

In concluding this point, it should also be noted that if Deuteronomy 29-30 were granted

as being a covenant framework separate from the book as a whole, then the overall covenant

framework of the book would be lost. This is because Deuteronomy 30:15-20 cannot serve as

the summoning of witnesses and calling to covenant decision for both the smaller covenant of

chapters 29-30 and the larger covenant of the entire book. It must be one or the other. If it is

part of the smaller covenant, then where is the summoning of witnesses for the entire book?

Thus, positing Deuteronomy 29-30 as having its own framework causes more problems than it

solves.

There is one final argument given by commentators for 28:69 serving as the introduction

to chapter 29 and following, and this is certainly the strongest one. Several times in the book of

Deuteronomy, a section is begun by “r v,’a ] … t a zOæ"” or “r v,’a ] … hL,a eä” and then a form of r m a: (1)

The book is begun in 1:1 with “r v,’a ] ~y r Iªb'D>h ; hL,a eä” followed by r m o*a le (1:5) and then the words which

Moses spoke (1:6ff). (2) A new section begins at 4:44 with “r v,a ] hr "_A T h ; t a zOàw >” and 4:45 with “hL,a e…

r v,’a ] ~y j i_P 'v.M ih ;w > ~y QIßx uh ;(w > t doê[eh '(” followed by r m ,a YOæw : (5:1) and then the stipulations. (3) Another section

begins at 33:1 with “r v,’a ] hk 'ªr "B .h ; t a zOæw >” followed by r m ;ªa YOw : (33:2) and then the blessing. As Miller

notes, this is exactly what is found in Deuteronomy 28:69.19

(4) Deuteronomy 28:69 begins with

“r v,a ] t y rIøB .h ; y r E’b.d I •hL,a e” and is followed by r m ,a YOæw : (29:1). Thompson strengthens this argument by

noting that there are other similarities between the link connecting Deuteronomy 4:44ff with

Deuteronomy 5:1ff and the link connecting Deuteronomy 28:69 with Deuteronomy 29:1ff.20

19

Miller, Deuteronomy, 199.

20 Thompson, Deuteronomy, 278. E.g., speaking of Moses in the third person.

9

As mentioned, this is quite a strong argument. It provides impressive support for the

view that Deuteronomy 28:69 introduces what follows rather than concludes what precedes.

Yet, there is one weakness that perhaps lessens its effect: In Deuteronomy 31:1, a new section

apparently begins without any use of “r v,’a ] … t a zOæ"” or “r v,’a ] … hL,a eä”. Instead, it simply begins by

describing Moses’ going out and speaking to the people. If Deuteronomy 28:69 looks backwards

instead of forwards, then the section of Deuteronomy 29-30 would begin in the exact same

manner as that in Deuteronomy 31:1ff.

One argument not found in any commentaries for 28:69 being a superscription is the

overall use of h z< and h L,a e in nominal clauses in Deuteronomy. In almost every case (and in all of

the cases most parallel to 28:69), hz< and h L,a e are forward pointing. Thus, in Deuteronomy 1:1,

4:45, 6:1, 12:1, 14:4, 14:12, 15:2, 19:4, and 33:1, hz< or hL,a e is used in a nominal clause that points

forward. Though uses of hz< and hL ,a e in nominal clauses to point backwards are certainly attested

in other places (e.g., Exodus 19:6), it is not how they are usually used in Deuteronomy.

This is the evidence for 28:69 being a superscription to what follows. It remains to

examine the evidence for 28:69 being a subscript summarizing what precedes.

A Conclusion

Unlike the English versions, the Hebrew text treats Deuteronomy 28:69 as a conclusion

to what precedes it.21

The main evidence usually given by commentators in support of this

21

Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: The

Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 274. Tigay notes that this is true of both the Masoretic and

Samaritan text traditions.

10

positioning is the impossibility of the other view due to the lack of covenant stipulations found in

chapters 29-30.22

This has already been discussed above and does not need to be repeated.

A positive evidence commonly given in favor of 28:69 serving as a conclusion is the

existence of a supposed inclusio that exists between the verse and either the preamble of 1:1-5 or

the introduction to the covenant stipulations in 4:44-49.23

This argument is somewhat weak in

that it maintains the parallel between the sections in form but not in function.24

Yet, there may

be some support for doing so, for the idea of the covenant at Moab being different or in addition

to the one made at Horeb is found only twice in the book of Deuteronomy. The first is

Deuteronomy 5:2; the second is Deuteronomy 28:69. Thus, Deuteronomy 28:69 may possibly

parallel 4:44-49 in form but not function (i.e., it is not also an introduction) since it is linked by

inclusio to the covenant stipulation section due to the comparison of the Moab covenant with the

one made at Horeb.25

A second evidence given in favor of 28:69 serving as a conclusion is the existence of

summarization statements found in other portions of the Pentateuch.26

It has been noted that hL ,a e

22

S. R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, ICC

(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), 319; Hall, Deuteronomy, 429; Earl S. Kalland,

“Deuteronomy,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. F. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, Mich.:

Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 3:178; Mayes, Deuteronomy, 360; Tigay, Deuteronomy,

274.

23 Merrill, Deuteronomy, 373; Craigie, Deuteronomy, 353; Hall, Deuteronomy, 429.

24 I.e., since 1:1-5 and 4:44-49 introduce sections but 28:69 is said to close a section.

25 Tigay, Deuteronomy, 274.

26 Ibid.

11

in nominal sentences in Deuteronomy normally points forward. However, there are two

instances in the Pentateuch when h L,a e is used in a nominal sentence to provide a summary of a

large body of revelation which precedes (Leviticus 27:34; Numbers 36:13). Deuteronomy 28:69

may be another example of this practice.

This is the primary evidence given in support of 28:69 being a subscript, and none of it is

extremely strong. Thus, the decision comes down to whether the strong negative evidence

against the superscription view or the strong positive evidence for that same view weighs

heavier. It is the opinion of this present author that the evidence against the superscription view

is too difficult to overcome, even in the face of the strong arguments for that view. In particular,

it seems conclusive that “r bd” in t y rIøB .h ; y r E’b.d I means “stipulations” or “statues.” This appears to be

its meaning each time it is used in the Old Testament (Ex 34:28; Deut 29:8; 2 Kgs 23:3; 2 Chr

34:31; Jer 11:2-8; 34:18). Yet, no stipulations or statues are forthcoming in Deuteronomy 29-30.

The strong positive evidence in favor of the superscription view may be explained by comparing

Deuteronomy 28:69 with the subscripts of Leviticus 27:34 and Numbers 36:13 and noting that

even though hL,a e normally points forward in Deuteronomy, it doesn’t always have to.

Thus, Deuteronomy 28:69 is a summary statement for Deuteronomy 5-28. The y r E’b.d I t y rIøB .h ;

are the stipulations, both general and specific, that have been spelled out in those chapters. Yet,

what does Moses mean when he states that this covenant is d b;äL.m i (“besides”) the covenant that

was made at Horeb. Does this mean that Moses expounds a totally new covenant (namely, the

Palestinian Covenant) in chapter 29? Such a view doesn’t work with the above conclusion that

28:69 serves a subscript, but the tentative nature of that conclusion requires a short excursus

investigating into the merits of the view which sees chapters 29-30 as a Palestinian covenant.

12

Excursus: The Palestinian Covenant

As mentioned, the main reason why some exegetes consider Deuteronomy 29-30 to be a

so-called “Palestinian Covenant” instead of further revelation concerning the Mosaic Covenant is

the use of the word d b;äL.m i (“besides” or “in addition to”) in Deuteronomy 28:69.27

This word,

according to such exegetes, clearly identifies the covenant material of 29-30 as being separate

and different from the Mosaic Covenant. Since the content of 29-30 primarily addresses God’s

promise to bring a repentant Israel back into the land of Canaan (modern “Palestine”),28

the

covenant is said to be a “land Covenant” or more specifically, the “Palestinian Coveneant.”

A more common interpretation of this word in 28:69 understands the author to be making

a minor delineation between the Mosaic covenant made at Horeb and that made at Moab. The

two covenants are essentially one, but since the latter was made a different location at a different

time and contained some different elements,29

it is justified to consider it as a covenant “besides”

or “in addition to” the previous one. Consider the following statements:

27

Charles Fred Lincoln, “The Biblical Covenants: Part 3,” BSac 100:400 (Oct 43): 565;

Arnold Fruchtenbaum, “Israelology: Part 1 of 6,” CTSJ 5:2 (April 1999): 36. Cf. also Charles

Ryrie, Ryrie Study Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 302.

28 Although Tigay, Deuteronomy, 274 argues that the discussion concerning the land is

really a digression in thought (i.e., parenthetical in nature).

29 Cf. Kalland, “Deuteronomy,” 178-79. Kalland suggests that there are four types of

changes that the Moab covenant displays: (1) Expositions on the covenant at Horeb; (2)

Revelation of additional stipulations; (3) Application of many of the previous stipulations to the

new situation in Canaan; (4) More extensive and repetitious exhortations to obedience.

13

In effect, what is envisaged is not so much a totally new covenant, but rather a renewed

covenant. . . . This does not contain a new additional set of commandments but is rater a

restatement of the Horeb covenant.”30

The reference to “the covenant that he made with them at Horeb” as well as the covenant

“in the land of Moab” makes clear that there is direct continuity between these two

covenant ceremonies. In Moab ‘the covenant that he made with them at Horeb” was

renewed—as it was again later at Shechem. At the same time, both covenants are new in

the sense that each reflects the continuing living relationship established between YHWH

and his people.31

The Covenant made at Horeb is alluded to in Deut. 5:2, 3; the covenant into which Israel

has now entered in Moab, while in part identical to that, is largely an extension of it,

embracing many entirely new regulations : the two covenants are accordingly

distinguished.32

Admittedly, these interpretations can seem a bit more forced than those offered by

proponents of the Palestinian Covenant. In other words, it does take more subtlety to explain

how the author is distinguishing the two without making a clean separation. Yet, there is

sufficient reason to resort to such explanation, for there are many other evidences that chapters

29-30 refer to a covenant separate from the one made at Horeb but not separate from the one

found in the book of Deuteronomy.

The strongest and most obvious reason to the present author is found in Deuteronomy

29:24. In that verse, the answer to other nations’ future questions about why God would punish

Israel so severely is given. Moses declares explicitly that the severe punishment came about

30

Ronald E. Clements, “The Book of Deuteronomy: Introduction, Commentary, and

Reflections,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1998), 2:511.

31 Duane L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12, WBC (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas

Nelson Publishers, 2002), 705-706.

32 Driver, Deuteronomy, 319.

14

because ~y Ir ")c .m i #r <a,îm e ~t 'Þa o Aa ïy ciA hB . ~M'ê[i t r :äK ' ‘r v,a ] ~t '_boa ] yh eäl{a / hw "ßhy > t y rIïB .-t a , W bêz>[") (emphasis added). In

other words, material in chapter 29 still refers to the covenant made “when he brought them out

of the land of Egypt.” This is, to be sure, a reference to the Mosaic covenant.

That the content of chapters 29-30 refers to the Mosaic covenant (albeit a restatement and

renewal of it) and not a separate “Palestinian Covenant” is also evidenced by the numerous

references in those two chapters to the material that has preceded it. Timothy Lenchak has

compiled an extensive list of references and is able to summarize the data with the following:

This long list of connections between Dt 28,69 – 30,20 and what precedes it suggests that

the author was familiar with Dt 1 – 28 (especially Dt 4 – 28) or with the traditions behind

these chapters and that he or she wanted to continue their style, phraseology, and even

some of their ideas. In any case the Third Discourse of Moses becomes a reminder and

summary of what has already been read. The author does not want the audience to forget

what has just been proclaimed, even if now there is something more to be said.33

In other words, for the most part, the content of Deuteronomy 29-30 is exactly the same as what

is found in Deuteronomy 5-28. This similarity makes it unnecessary to posit a totally separate

and new covenant in order to explain chapters 29 and 30.34

33

Timothy A. Lenchak, Choose Life! A Rhetorical-Critical Investigation of

Deuteronomy 28,69 – 30,20 (Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1993), 114-18

34 As an example of this, consider Renald Showers’s treatment of Deuteronomy 29:9-12

(There Really is a Difference, 78). Showers argues that this text demonstrates God’s entering

into the Palestinian covenant with Israel. The text does indeed say that God is entering into a

covenant with Israel, but significantly it adds that He is doing so in order that Israel could be to

Him a people for Himself (29:12). Yet, this was also the case with the covenant expounded in

chapters 5-28, for in Deuteronomy 7:6, 14:2, and 26:18, the significance of the covenant is seen

in that Israel would be to God a special and set apart people. Cf. Darrell L. Bock, “Covenants in

Progressive Dispensationalism,” in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A

Comparison of the Traditional and Progressive Views, edited by Herbert W. Bateman IV (Grand

Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1999), 211.

15

It is true, though, that the material in Deuteronomy 30:1-10 is quite unique, for nowhere

in chapters 5-28 is such judgment and restoration so clearly spelled out. Yet, it is still not

necessary to think of Deuteronomy 30:1-10 as applying to the Palestinian Covenant; rather,

Deuteronomy 30:1-10 is a prophetic reference to the coming New Covenant that will replace the

old (Mosaic) one.35

Thus, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, in speaking of the New Covenant, pick up ideas

and terms from this section in describing what God will do for Israel in the future.36

This is in

contrast to the supposed Palestinian Covenant, for if it is truly spelled out in Deuteronomy 29-30,

this is the only place where it is found. There are no later biblical authors who refer to it.37

Thus, Deuteronomy 28:69 serves as a summary statement to the covenant stipulations of

Deuteronomy 5-28. Deuteronomy 29:1 then serves as the introduction to God’s revelation of a

promised provision of grace for a future, repentant remnant. This future grace will be necessary

because of the spiritual blindness of Israel, the topic that will be addressed in the remainder of

this paper.

35

Miller, Deuteronomy, 206-207.

36 A few examples are as follows: The gathering of Israel (Deut 30:3-5) is picked up in

Jeremiah 32:37 and in Ezekiel 36:24, 37:21-22; the necessity for “heart surgery” (circumcision in

Deut 30:6) is picked up in Jeremiah 32:39 and in Ezekiel 36:26; the judgment on Israel’s

enemies (Deut 30:7) is picked up in Jeremiah 30:20 and Ezekiel 36:5; the obedience of Israel

(Deut 30:8) is picked up in Jeremiah 36:39 and Ezekiel 36:27; the fruitfulness of Israel (Deut

30:9) is picked up in Jeremiah 33:4-9 and in Ezekiel 36:8-12; finally, the necessity of Israel to

seek after God with all of her heart (Deut 30:10) is picked up in Jeremiah 29:13.

37 Cf. Fruchtenbaum, “Israelology: Part 1 of 6,” 37; John F. Walvoord, “Eschatological

Problems VI: The Fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant,” BSac 102:405 (Jan 45): 31. Both

Fruchtenbaum and Walvoord reference Ezekiel 16 as speaking of the Palestinian Covenant, but

Ezekiel 16 likely speaks of the New Covenant, for the circumstances (forgiveness of sins, 16:63)

and result (Israel’s repentance and knowledge of Yahweh, 16:62) are the same in both cases.

16

DEUTERONOMY 29:1-3 – TO SEE OR NOT TO SEE?

Having completed his exposition of the stipulations of the covenant that Yahweh was

making with Israel, Moses summons the nation as a whole38

together once again in Deuteronomy

29 and prepares to bring them into the declared covenant (29:8-17; 30:15-20). This covenant is

something that they are able to keep (30:11-14), yet Yahweh nonetheless gives explicit provision

for forgiveness (30:3-10) should they fail to do (29:18-27) so but then later repent (30:1-2). This

provision is necessary because of Israel’s spiritual blindness (29:1-7).

Deuteronomy 29:1-2 – “You Saw”

In covenant documents in general and in Deuteronomy in particular, historical acts done

by the suzerain on behalf of the vassal are usually recounted in order to encourage participation

in and faithfulness to the covenant on the part of the vassal. This is how the book of

Deuteronomy begins (1:6-4:40), and this is how Moses’ appeal for Israel’s obedience also begins

(29:1-7). Thus, the historical recounting of 29:1-7 is primarily an appeal for Israel to respond in

obedience. It is a “motivation for action.”39

Yet, an important part of Deuteronomy 29-30 is God’s revelation of a provision for

forgiveness should Israel fail due to spiritual blindness, and thus the recounting of events also

38

C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Pentateuch, Commentary on the Old Testament

(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1866; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers), 972.

Hebrew la eÞr "f .y I-lK '. “‘All Israel’ is the nation in all its members.”

39 Hall, Deuteronomy, 432. Cf. Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Conner, An Introduction to

Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 532. Waltke and O’Conner

note how the grammar reveals that the call to obedience in 29:8 is based on the historical events

of 29:1-7.

17

serves as an important backdrop for this concept. Israel’s firsthand experience with the mighty

acts of Yahweh on their behalf makes the idea of apostasy treacherous and inexcusable. At the

same time, it demonstrates God’s provision for forgiveness should they nevertheless apostatize

as even more amazingly gracious. In other words, a recounting of historical acts of Yahweh

brings to mind the two questions: (1) After all that Yahweh has done, how could Israel disobey?

(2) And, if they did, how could Yahweh possibly forgive them? The answer to the latter

question is obviously the amazing grace of God. The answer to the former question is an

important concept in Scripture: The spiritual blindness of Israel.

In 29:1-2, Israel is categorically declared to be free from blindness. They can see, and

they have seen.40

In fact, their sight has been comprehensive. They saw hw "Ü hy > hf '’[' •r v,a ]-lK ' (“all

that Yahweh did”), and it was ‘~k ,y n Ey [e(l. (“before your very eyes”) (29:1). Yahweh is not calling a

people unfamiliar with His character into covenant relationship; rather, He is calling a people

who have had a multitude opportunities to see His provision on their behalf.41

Not only had they had a multitude of sights to see, though. They had also had amazing

and majestic sights to see. In particular, they had the experiences of Egypt (29:1b) to reflect on

40

Christensen, Deuteronomy, 709. The emphasis on “eyes” and “seeing” in 29:1-7 in

general and 29:1-3 in particular has been noted by Christensen. Both “eyes” and “see” occur

three times in three verses.

41 Wright, Deuteronomy, 285. “Those whom God calls into covenant relationship, those

from whom God demands covenant obedience, are those whom God has already acted to save.”

Such an emphasis on firsthand experience is seen in other places in Deuteronomy (e.g., Deut

5:3).

18

and remember. In Egypt, God had done t l{êd oG >h ; ‘t A S M ;h ; (“the great trials”) and42

~y liÞd oG>h ; ~y t i²p .Moh ;w > t t oôa oh '

~h e(h ' (“those great signs and wonders”) (29:2). This, of course, is speaking of the plagues and

miracles surrounding the exodus from Egypt.43

Israel had been witness to this once in a lifetime

event of the God of heaven plucking one nation out of the midst of another (Deut 4:34). Israel

had seen.

Deuteronomy 29:3 – “You Didn’t See”

In contrast to verses 1-2 (which have ~t ,ªy a ir > and W a ßr " respectively), verse 3 declares

categorically that they did not have eyes to see.44

In English, the statements could be juxtaposed

as “You have seen. . . . Your eyes saw. . . .But, you don’t have eyes to see.” Such a conundrum

reminds one of Proverbs 26:4-5:

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

42

It is possible that the w here is epexegetical so that the entire phrase should be rendered,

“the great trials, even those great signs and wonders.” However, the three items are linked in

Deuteronomy 4:34 in a completely parallel manner, so it is better to render them parallel here as

well. In any case, as McConville observes, this triad is rare in Deuteronomy (McConville says it

occurs only here and 4:34, but that is an overstatement; cf. 7:19), and Moses is thus obviously

emphasizing the opportunities Israel has had to see God at work. J. G. McConville,

Deuteronomy, Apollos Old Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press,

2002), 414.

43 Christensen, Deuteronomy, 711; Merrill, Deuteronomy, 376. Thompson

(Deuteronomy, 279) links the three nouns back to the account in Exodus. As Miller notes

(Deuteronomy, 202), the references to God’s historical acts for Israel are consistent in

Deuteronomy, namely, (1) the exodus from Egypt, (2) the wilderness provisions, and (3) the

defeat of Sihon and Og.

44 Nor a heart to understand or ears to hear. These terms will be discussed below.

19

How does one reconcile that Israel saw and yet didn’t have eyes to see. Obviously, Moses is

using the word “see” in two different ways here.45

In verses 1-2, Moses is speaking of physical

sight. In verse 3, Moses is speaking of spiritual sight (or, spiritual “insight”).

That this is the case is evidenced by the terms made parallel to t A a ßr >li ~y In :ïy [ew (“eyes to see”)>,

namely, t [;d :ê l' ‘ble (“heart to know”) and [:m o+v.li ~y In :åz>a 'w > (“ears to hear”). In this case, the heart is the

inner person where thoughts emanate from (Prov 23:7), the “organ of understanding”.46

It is

“man’s mission-control center.”47

Similarly, [:m o+v. (in [:m o+v.li ~y In :åz>a 'w >) speaks of the ability to

“perceive” or “understand.”48

The images of the exodus had been received through the lens of

each Israelite’s eyes (i.e., they had physically seen); but, the meaning of those events and how

they should respond had not been registered in their understanding.

This much is obvious enough. However, the text does not simply state that Israel is

spiritually blind; rather, it states that hw "“hy > •! t;n "-a l{)w > (“Yahweh has not given”) a heart to know, eyes

to see, or ears to hear h Z <)h ; ~A Yðh ; d [;Þ (“until this day”).49

In other words, the text doesn’t read, “But,

45

Ridderbos, Deuteronomy, 264; Wright, Deuteronomy, 285.

46 Driver, Deuteronomy, 321. Cf. Ridderbos, Deuteronomy, 264.

47 George J. Zemek, A Biblical Theology of the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace (N.p.,

2002), 16.

48 K. T. Aitken, “[m v,” NIDOTTE, 4:177.

49 A few commentators read too much into this last phrase. For instance, Clements

(Deuteronomy, 511) argues that the phrase casts the entire discussion into the exile period and

links the time in Moab with that of the scattered exiles. Tigay (Deuteronomy, 275) takes the

phrase to mean that God was then, on that day, giving them a heart to know, eyes to see, and ears

to hear, even though He hadn’t done so before. Instead, the phrase simply means that up until

Moab, God had not given them a heart to know, etc. Nothing more is asserted or implied.

20

O Israel, you have been spiritually blind to this day.” Rather, it reads (i.e., as a paraphrase),

“But, O Israel, Yahweh hasn’t given you spiritual sight to this day.”

Such a statement is difficult to understand. Moses has been quite hard on Israel

throughout Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 1:32: “You did not trust Yahweh your God.”

Deuteronomy 9:7: “Remember, do not forget how you provoked the LORD your God to wrath

in the wilderness.” Deuteronomy 9:24: “You have been rebellious against Yahweh ever since I

have known you.” These accusations are understandable given all of the rebellion that Israel

exhibited from Egypt to Moab. But, if they were unable to do anything different because God

had not given them the acumen to have spiritual insight, why the blame? And, if God has still

not given them such ability, how could He now command them to act differently?

Tigay attempts to resolve such questions by taking h Z <)h ; ~A Yðh ; d [;Þ to mean that God was

indeed that day giving them such insight.50

Yet, this does not resolve the dilemma for several

reasons: First, it doesn’t resolve the dilemma of having God command the people when they are

in a state of being unable to obey, for in Tigay’s scheme, God would have commanded the first

generation of Israelites concerning things they could not have done since God’s provision wasn’t

given until the plains of Moab. Second, h Z <)h ; ~A Yðh ; d [;Þ is used throughout Deuteronomy to refer to

facts that have been true previously and remain true to the present time, not facts that have been

true previously but at the present time have changed (2:22; 3:14; 10:8; 11:4; 34:6). Third, the

position is historically inaccurate, for after Joshua’s death the people did not exhibit spiritual

acumen in the land of Canaan (Judges 2:6-13; cf. also Romans 11:8).

50

Tigay, Deuteronomy, 275-76. See footnote 49.

21

A better way of answering the question resorts to the logic of Paul in Romans 9. In that

chapter, a similar question is asked: “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”

(9:19). In response, Paul answers, “On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to

God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,’ will it?”

(9:20). In other words, Israel was spiritually blind because God had not allowed them to see, yet

it is not incongruous to assert that God could nevertheless command obedience from them in that

state or hold them accountable when they disobey, for God does what He wants for His own

purposes. Paul, indeed, references this very verse in chapter 11 of Romans, making it even

stronger by declaring it positively instead of negatively: “God gave them a spirit of stupor: Eyes

to see not and ears to hear not, down to this very day” (11:8).

It should quickly be noted, though, that the statement about God not giving spiritual

insight is directed toward the nation as a whole, and not towards every individual Israelite.

Moses had summoned la eÞ r "f .y I-lK ' (“all Israel”) (29:1)51

and was thus speaking to them as a whole.

There were, to be sure, individual Israelites like Joshua and Caleb who had indeed been given

hearts to understand, eyes to see, and ears to hear (cf. Num 27:18; 32:12; Deut 34:9). Yet, as a

whole, the nation was still in darkness. As Deuteronomy 30:1-10 notes, though, a day will come

when God does circumcise the hearts of all Israelites,52

and in that day, “all Israel will be saved”

(Rom 11:26).

51

I.e., the entire nation. Cf. footnote 38.

52 As mentioned above, this refers to the New Covenant. Thus is exhibited one major

difference between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant. In the latter, all members of

the cov enant community will be saved. This is not true of the former.

22

It must also be noted that though the above is true, God is not the at fault for Israel’s

disobedience. Romans 9:14: “What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there?

May it never be!” Though it is seemingly impossible to reconcile, the fact is that God gives the

free gift of grace unto faith to those whom He desires yet still holds those who reject Him

accountable for their suppression of the truth. Furthermore, He still calls on men to circumcise

their hearts (Deut 10:16), even though the ability to do this is a gift from Him. Wright illustrates

this difficult tension and does a good job of maintaining balance:

On the surface, it may appear to suggest that Israel’s failure to understand, trust, and obey

was somehow God’s fault. Such a suggestion, however, runs against the whole thrust of

the book, which rebukes the Israelites for their own failure and challenges them instead to

respond properly to God. There is furthermore the clear word of 5:28f in which God

welcomes Israel’s declaration of intent and fervently wishes it could always be true. Nor

can the verse mean that somehow Israel was incapable of trust and obedience. Such a

thought is faced and decisively rejected in this very speech (30:11-14). The urgent

appeal of 30:15-20 would be a cynical charade if God had someone decreed in advance

that Israel could not response to it. . . . The words also express a deeper truth, namely,

that hearts understand, eyes see, and ears hear only through the gift of God. Knowledge

of God, trust, and obedience are themselves gifts of grace, at the same time as they are

matters of human choice and response. In some sense, therefore, however mysterious,

the persistent and wholly culpable failure of Israel to make the right response to God and

to live accordingly was indeed because the gift was not yet fully given.53

How does one reconcile such seemingly incongruent ideas? It may not be possible: “The secret

things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever,

that we may observe all the words of this law” (Deut 29:29). Or, as Paul says:

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable

are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the

Lord, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid

53

Wright, Deuteronomy, 285-86.

23

back to him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be

the glory forever. Amen.54

CONCLUSION

It is difficult to determine whether Deuteronomy 28:69 concludes the covenant

stipulations of chapters 5-28 or introduces the material in chapters 29-30. Although the decision

is a difficult one, it seems best to take Deuteronomy 28:69 as a subscript which concludes

chapters 5-28. Thus, 28:69 does not directly relate to chapters 29-30, and it does not provide the

introduction to a Palestinian Covenant. It rather summarizes the renewed covenant made

between Yahweh and Israel on the plains of Moab, a covenant different from but quite similar to

the one made at Horeb.

The difficult subject of God’s role in Israel’s spiritual blindness is given coverage in

Deuteronomy 29:1-3. That section of Scripture demonstrates that physical sight alone is not

sufficient for pleasing God; instead, God must also give spiritual insight: A heart to understand,

eyes to see, and ears to hear. Why He did not do so for Israel from Egypt until Moab (and even

until Paul! Rom 11:8) is difficult to understand. Yet, God’s purpose will stand to the praise of

the glory of His grace (Eph 1:6), and no one will be able to bring a charge against God, for His

grace demonstrates His righteousness as He promises to forgive and restore such a rebellious

people who continually break His covenant (Deut 30:1-10). Until that time, may our heart’s

desire and our prayer to God be for the salvation of Israel (Rom 10:1).

54

Romans 11:33-36.

24

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aiken, K. T. “[m v.” In the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and

Exegesis. 5 vols. Ed. by W. VanGemeren, 5:175-81. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan

Publishing House, 1997.

Ames, Frank Ritchel. “r bd.” In the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology

and Exegesis. 5 vols. Ed. by W. VanGemeren, 1:912-15. Grand Rapids, Mich.:

Zondervan Publishing House, 1997.

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. 3rd ed. Chicago: Moody

Press, 1994.

Bock, Darrell L. “Covenants in Progressive Dispensationalism.” In Three Central Issues in

Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of the Traditional and Progressive

Views. Edited by Herbert W. Bateman IV. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications,

1999.

Brueggemann, Walter. Deuteronomy. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries. Nashville,

Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 2001.

Christensen, Duane L. Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12. WBC. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson

Publishers, 2002.

Clements, Ronald E. “The Book of Deuteronomy: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.”

In The New Interpreter’s Bible, 2:269-552. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1998.

Cohen, A. The Soncino Chumash: The Five Books of Moses with Haphtaroth. New York:

Soncino Press, 1983.

Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. NICOT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B.

Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976.

Dorsey, David A. The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on Genesis-

Malachi. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999.

Driver, S. R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. ICC. Edinburgh: T. &

T. Clark, 1895.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. “Israelology: Part 1 of 6.” CTSJ 5:2 (April 1999): 28-51.

________. “Israelogy: Part 5 of 6.” CTSJ 6:2 (April 2000): 35-49.

25

Hall, Gary H. Deuteronomy. The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, Miss.: College

Press Publishing Company, 2000.

Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 1969.

House, Paul. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Kalland, Earl S. “Deuteronomy.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. F. Gaebelein, 3:3-

235. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Keil, C. F. and F. Delitzsch. Pentateuch. Commentary on the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T. &

T. Clark, 1866; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers.

Kline, Meredith G. “Dynastic Covenant.” WTJ 23:1 (Nov 60): 1-15.

________. “The Two Tables of the Covenant.” WTJ 22:2 (May 60): 133-146.

Lenchak, Timothy A. Choose Life! A Rhetorical-Critical Investigation of Deuteronomy 28,69 –

30,20. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1993.

Lincoln, Charles Fred. “The Biblical Covenants: Part 3.” BSac 100:400 (Oct 43): 565-73.

Mayes, A. D. H. Deuteronomy. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.:

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979.

McConville, J. G. Deuteronomy. Apollos Old Testament Commentary. Downers Grove, Ill.:

Inter-Varsity Press, 2002.

________ and J. G. Millar. Time and Place in Deuteronomy. Sheffield, England: Sheffield

Academic Press, 1994.

Merrill, Eugene H. “A Theology of the Pentateuch.” In A Biblical Theology of the Old

Testament, ed. Roy B. Zuck, 7-87. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

________. Deuteronomy. NAC. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.

Miller, Patrick D. Deuteronomy. Interpretation. Louisville, Ky.: John Knox Press, 1990.

Ridderbos, J. Deuteronomy. Bible Student’s Commentary. Translated by Ed M van der Maas.

Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1984.

Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.

Sandy, D. Brent and Ronald L. Giese, Jr., eds. Cracking Old Testament Codes. Nashville,

Tenn.: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1995.

26

Sherwood, Stephen K. Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Berit Olam. Edited by David W.

Cotter. Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 2002.

Showers, Renald E. There Really is a Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and

Dispensational Theology. Bellmawr, N.J.: The Friends of the Gospel Ministry, 1990.

Thompson, J. A. Deuteronomy: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-

Varsity Press, 1974.

Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: The Jewish

Publication Society, 1996.

Van Rooy, H. F. “Deuteronomy 28:69: Superscript or Subscript.” Journal of Northwest Semitic

Languages 14 (1988): 215-22.

Von Rad, Gerhard. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966.

Walvoord, John F. “Eschatological Problems VI: The Fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant.”

BSac 102:405 (Jan 45): 27-36.

Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O’Conner. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake,

Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Wright, Christopher J. H. Deuteronomy. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody,

Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996.

Zemek, George J. A Biblical Theology of the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace: Exegetical

Considerations of Key Anthropological, Hamartiological and Soteriological Terms and

Motifs. N.p., 2002.