Eamon Younis

By James W. Knox

[James W. Knox is an adjunct professor of Old Testament at Criswell College in Dallas, Texas.]

[This is a revised and expanded version of the section “How Wisdom’s יראת יהוה Compares to Deuteronomy’s ‘Fear of God’” in chapter 3 of James W. Knox, “God’s in His Heaven—All’s Right with the World! The Concept of ‘Fearing God’ in Ecclesiastes” (PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2022), 112–20.]

Abstract

Deuteronomy 10:12–13 is a fascinating passage since it is the only time in Scripture where the five verbs “to fear,” “to walk,” “to love,” “to serve,” and “to keep” appear together. This raises a question that has not received much consideration in commentaries: How do they function together? To address this question, this article surveys proposed meanings for the five terms within Deuteronomy, examines scholarly explanations of their relationship, and offers an interpretation of the passage’s structure.

* * *

Micah 6:8 states, “What does Yahweh require of you but to enact justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?”[1] This well-known verse, providing the basis for many songs and hymns, is one of the most succinct descriptions of God’s expectations for his people in the Old Testament. A passage in Deuteronomy serves a similar function:[2]

Now, O Israel, what does Yahweh your God ask of you but to fear Yahweh your God, to walk in all of his ways, to love him, to serve Yahweh your God with all of your heart and with all of your soul, [and] to keep Yahweh’s commandments and statutes that I am giving you today for your own good? (10:12–13)

While Micah presents three complex ideas with qualifications “enact justice,” “love mercy,” and “walk humbly,” Deuteronomy contains five simple verbs in the form of infinitives: “to fear,” “to walk,” “to love,” “to serve,” and “to keep.” All five verbs are common throughout the Old Testament, yet each is loaded with significance both outside and within Deuteronomy. Furthermore, this is the only time in Scripture where all five verbs occur together as well as the only time that “fear” (ירא) and “love” (אהב) appear together in the Old Testament, which makes this text unique. To better understand this passage, this article explores the meaning of these verbs within Deuteronomy and how they work together in 10:12–13.

The Five Infinitives

Even though the five verbs stated in 10:12–13 are mundane activities—fearing (ירא), walking (הלך), loving (אהב), serving (עבד), and keeping (שׁמר)—each can express acts performed in obedience to Yahweh. This has generated additional interpretive options and glosses for most of these terms. This section examines the meaning of each verb within Deuteronomy to provide context for the investigation into how they function together.

To Fear (ירא)

The root ירא occurs forty-four times throughout Deuteronomy.[3] It occurs four times as a noun (מורא),[4] six times as a participial modifier (נורא),[5] ten times as a negated expression “do not be afraid,”[6] and seven times as a typical response to danger.[7] Of the remaining seventeen cases, three refer to the other nations’ “fear” toward Israel,[8] while the remaining fourteen refer to Israel’s “fear” directed toward Yahweh.[9] The ירא in 10:12 falls into this last category.

Scholars have been investigating the emotional and psychological bases for ירא since the middle of the twentieth century.[10] In particular, they have focused on cultic passages where God is the object of ירא; here the underlying sense of shame or anxiety tends to shift toward behavior.[11] This is believed to be pertinent in the Deuteronomic literature where ירא is regularly used in the context of obedience.[12] Some scholars have responded to this by arguing that ירא is better understood in Deuteronomy as an expression of worship (i.e., reverence or awe).[13] Both views—ירא as an expression of covenant loyalty and of cultic worship—are used by commentaries today and are discussed further below.

To Walk (הלך)

The root הלך occurs fifty-three times throughout Deuteronomy, and these occurrences can be loosely grouped into three categories: the mundane task of coming and going (25x);[14] describing Yahweh as the instigator of said coming and going (4x);[15] and performative obedience (24x).[16] In this third category, “walk” (הלך) is used ten times with “way(s)” (דֶּרֶךְ), which seems to either qualify or clarify the meaning of “walk.”[17]

“Walk” can convey the idea of “lifestyle.”[18] Merrill expounded on this, explaining that “walk” often refers to a “life lived in obedience or disobedience . . . with reference to covenant standards.”[19] This can help us understand the NLT’s idiomatic translation of the phrase ללכת בכל־דרכיו as “[to] live in a way that pleases him” while a more literal reading would be “to walk in all his ways” (reflected in the ESV, KJV, NASB, NRSV). Helfmeyer provided further clarification, explaining that in the J and E sources, “walking” before Yahweh means experiencing “God’s benevolent presence,” whereas in the D and P sources “walking” includes “ethical and religious integrity” conveying compliance to Yahweh’s ordinances.[20] Helfmeyer’s view sheds light on the NET’s translation of the same phrase as “to obey all his commandments.”[21] If he is correct, the next question is whether “walking in his ways” is equatable to “keep his commandments.” This is germane to passages like 10:12–13 where they occur together.

To Love (אהב)

The root אהב occurs twenty-three times throughout Deuteronomy, and these occurrences can also be grouped into three categories: Yahweh’s affection toward Israel (6x);[22] Israel’s (expected) devotion to Yahweh (12x);[23] and humanity’s affection for each other (5x).[24]

The use of “love” (אהב) in 10:12 falls within the second category. Just like “fear” (ירא) discussed above, “love” is initially understood as an emotional state or response, as with typical use of the terms “love/fear” in English. However, this opens the debate concerning how God can demand an emotion in Deuteronomy. As Els commented, “The fact that love could be commanded indicates that אָהַב in Deut 6:5; 10:12; 11:1, 13, 22; 19:9; 30:15, 16, 19–20; Josh 22:5; 23:10–11 expresses not primarily feeling, but rather a certain behavioral pattern, i.e., obedience (in gratitude) to Yahweh’s covenantal commandments and faithful and total commitment to him.”[25] The notion that “love” reflects covenant obedience to God’s commands stems from studies that compared the love language from Deuteronomy with similar language in ancient Near Eastern treaties.[26] This provides the background for understanding Wallis’s assessment, “If love is not merely an emotional feeling for a person or a thing, but also involves a behavior that is becoming to love, then it is possible for Deuteronomy to elevate this behavior to the level of a commandment.”[27] Jenni offered a similar explanation that love is best understood as the appropriate response “to the love of Yahweh, in faithfulness and obedience within the Yahweh covenant.”[28]

This idea that Deuteronomy’s use of “love” should be understood within a covenant-treaty context has become standard for many studies. However, there are alternatives. For example, McKay suggested that “love” is not based on ancient Near Eastern treaties but on the father-son relationship found in Old Testament wisdom.[29] Not taking it quite as far as McKay, other scholars (e.g., Spero, Moberly, Brueggemann, Spieckermann) have argued for a more emotional/affective underpinning for “love” than a purely cognitive/legal one.[30] In his eloquent summary, Arnold proposed a compromise:

Love for YHWH in Deut 5–11 is central for developing that value system for Israel. Its use here and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible reflects two nuances in its lexical field. First, an unfettered “pure” affection, usually parental or romantic, which may or may not contribute to an ethical value system, and has little to do prima facie with obedience; and second, a covenant-centered, value-building commitment to another, yielding loyalty and obedience as a by-product. . . . In nuce, the love commanded in Deuteronomy is not simply a covenantal fidelity, but also denotes an emotional or affective nuance as well.[31]

Arnold’s compromise does not fully remove the tension with most modern discussions tending to lean toward one side or the other.

To Serve (עבד)

The root עבד occurs sixty-five times throughout Deuteronomy. It can describe both manual labor (39x)32 and service to a deity (26x).33 However, the occurrence of “serve” in 10:12 is unique since it contains the qualification: “serve” [Yahweh] with all your “heart/mind” (לֵבָב)34 and “soul/being” (נֶפֶשׁ).35 The only other times we see this precise phrasing is in 11:13 and Joshua 22:5.36 As Westermann explained,

The primary connotation of the word [עבד] is not subordination but belonging to the Lord and security with the Lord. . . . The only essential difference in the [עבד] relationship between people and that between people and God consists of the fact that being [עבד] to a person can also signify the harshest limitation of existence, but being God’s [עבד] always means having a good Lord. It can never mean servitude in the negative sense.[37]

So, “to serve” God in Deuteronomy implies cultic service.[38] However, because “to serve” occurs alongside other cultic terms and qualifiers (as it does in 10:12–13), its use “far transcends any specifically cultic context.”[39] Riesener clarified that in 10:12 serving God consists of “keeping the commandments,” whereas in 11:13 serving is the content of “keeping the commandments.”[40] The problem with most current discussions is that they are content to interpret “serve” as contextually dependent on the terms that surround it, as opposed to supplying its own content to the passage. The significance of this will become apparent later.

To Keep (שׁמר)

The root שׁמר occurs seventy-four times throughout Deuteronomy. Most often it describes the act of “keeping,” “watching,” or guarding” something, with the object either explicitly or implicitly stated. Three times it describes God “keeping” his promises.[41] Fifty-five times it describes people “keeping” something.[42] It can also describe watching oneself (14x)[43] and be used for emphasis as an infinitive absolute (2x).[44]

As Sauer described, שׁמר “has the same semantic scope in religious statements. . . . In a fig[urative] sense, the pious preserve and keep . . . the commandments, statutes, and instructions of God. . . . Deut[eronomy] differs in that keeping the commandments is the concern of [everyone].”[45] Unlike the previous words discussed, there seems to be a broader agreement for the meaning of “keep” in 10:13 since it has “commandments” as its object. Any deviation tends to be in how the meaning is expressed. For example, López explained that “keep” means obedience in fulfilling the obligations of the commandments and covenant.[46] His explanation assumes an expectation of action on the part of the “keepers.” On the other hand, Schoville described “keep” as “pay careful attention to.”[47] This does not rule out obedience tied to action, but it does render it less explicit.

In summary, each of the five verbs is important for the interpretation of Deuteronomy. In addition, there is debate surrounding the meaning of each term. The underlying debates tend to gravitate toward whether these terms should be understood within a legal-treaty context or a cultic one. Therefore, in a passage like 10:12–13, how people understand the relationship between the five verbs affects how they interpret the verbs themselves.

Four Views On Deuteronomy 10:12–13

Since the mid-nineteenth century, four different approaches have been proposed for Deuteronomy 10:12–13. These involve distinct ways to interpret the terms’ respective meaning and their relationship to each other.

Progression View

This approach understands the series of verbs as steps in a process. This argument goes back at least to Keil in 1862, who suggested,

The fear of the Lord, which springs from the knowledge of one’s own unholiness in the presence of the holy God, ought to form the one leading emotion in the heart prompting to walk in all the ways of the Lord, and to maintain morality of conduct in its strictest form. This fear, which first enables us to comprehend the mercy of God, awakens love, the fruit of which is manifested in serving God with all the heart and all the soul.[48]

In 1866 Schröeder made a more developed case:

Fear the beginning, to walk . . . is the progress, and love . . . as it reveals itself . . . is the completion. Connected with fear and love through . . . the service of God with all the heart and with all the soul, is added as is entirely fitting to the second command. As the walk is subordinated to the fear, so the keeping the commandments . . . appears to be subordinated to the serving of God.[49]

This sort of rationale was fully realized by Dillman in 1886:

What was required individually in [Deut] 6:5, 13 is combined here [10:12–13]. Indeed fear precedes as the underlying-mood [Grundstimmung] from which naturally succeeds the reluctance to act against God’s will or to walk in his ways (8:6). Then is added the love of God with [your] whole soul (4:29), which springs from the experience of undeserved pardon (vv. 15, 22) and the service of God in prayer, sacrifice, offering, celebration, etc. This results in (v. 13) the willing fulfillment of the individual commandments and statutes.[50]

While this view fell out of vogue for most of the twentieth century, it does appear in a few commentaries, notably, Woods’s commentary in 2011:

The Lord asks for five things which are frequently addressed throughout the book. The first is fear (reverence), which importantly sets the foundation for all the other attitudes that follow (4:10; 5:29). Fear of the Lord then logically leads to the travel metaphor of walking in all his ways (5:33; 10:12; 11:22; 19:9; 26:17; 28:9; 30:16). . . . At the centre of the unit is the command to love God which illustrates its importance from the Shema (6:4–5). . . . Following this, Israel was to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul (v. 12b), which is the first occasion since 6:5 in which this language is used for some attitude other than love. This would begin to indicate that each of these responses represents interrelated attitudes, first worked out for each of the five responses at 6:13–19 following the Shema at 6:4–5. The fifth response of obeying the Lord’s commands and decrees for your own good (v. 13) indicates that the law was not a burden to be borne, but was Israel’s life in all its fullness (32:47).[51]

While the progression view can be summarized in a few ways, the common thread is that the individual commands work together to describe a process. Yahweh expects his devotees to initially come to him in “fear” (ירא). This “fear” functions as the foundational state of being (whether it is emotional, mental, or something else). Fear is the initial step in other biblical passages, both in the Old Testament (e.g., Prov 9:10) and New Testament (e.g., Phil 2:12). While in this state, an individual is to pursue a relationship with Yahweh by “walking” (הלך) with him. This relationship will eventually blossom into a deep devotion or “love” (אהב) for God. This affection will generate an authentic desire to “serve” (עבד), which will culminate in the practice of “keeping” (שׁמר) God’s commandments.

There are two problems with this view: (1) it assumes that the individual verbs are conveying and thus contributing something unique to the cultic process; (2) thus, it places heavy emphasis on the order of the verbs. The main objection to the progression view is that this order is not repeated elsewhere in Deuteronomy.

Fear View

Driver offered his own interpretation in 1895:

The foundation of the religious temper is the fear of God; this brings with it a natural disposition to walk in all his ways (8:6), and ends with the devotion of the entire being to His love and service. . . . To keep . . . this is the ultimate scope of the duties imposed by Jehovah upon Israel. . . . The fear of God should be promoted by the thought that He is the Sovereign of heaven and earth.[52]

Driver put emphasis on the initial command to “fear” (ירא), from which the subsequent acts—”walk” (הלך), “love” (אהב), “serve” (עבד), and “keep” (שׁמר)—emerge. According to this view, “fear” is the command. Yahweh himself demands that his people maintain a relationship with him characterized by “fear.” The remaining verbs are either natural byproducts of the “fear” or illustrative of its characteristics. While hardly any modern commentaries adopt Driver’s view, additional scholars (particularly in technical studies) seem to have recognized the significance of “fear” as the primary command, with the other verbs in grammatical and contextual subordination.[53]

The main issue with this view is that it places a different syntactical function on the first infinitive. “To fear” (ליראה) is the object of the question, with the remaining four infinitives functioning in an explanatory or epexegetical manner, even though nothing in the text singles out “fear” other than that it occurs first. A more ideological and contextual objection is why is “fear” elevated over “love,” especially since “love” is emphasized in key places like the Shema (6:4–5).

Holistic View

Sander planted the seeds for this view in 1935 when he made the connection that words like “fear” (ירא), “walk” (הלך), “love” (אהב), “serve” (עבד), “keep” (שׁמר), in addition to others, are practically interchangeable terms for cultic observance in Deuteronomy. The only discernable difference is between terms for emotion (e.g., “fear” and “love”) and action (e.g., “serve” and “keep”).[54] This logic resonated throughout the scholarly community, leading Eichrodt to later claim,

To fear Yahweh, to keep his commandments, or to walk in his ways, have here almost become synonyms. Therefore fear and love can be used in the same breath, as descriptions of right conduct toward God, conduct which includes the loyal worship of Yahweh in compliance with his will for the cult.[55]

The holistic view can be explained in two ways. First, the terms are so analogous that they are practically synonymous: five words restating the same idea. Second, the terms merge to create a unified meaning like a complex hendiadys (a hendiapente). Either way, the result is practically the same. This has become the default view in many modern commentaries. However, there is debate over how to classify the terms: treaty or cultic. It is difficult to determine which view came first and whether one is reacting to the other or if they were formed independently.

Holistic-treaty view. This view was first fully proposed by Weinfeld in 1972. He argued that the terms for cultic obedience, commonly found throughout Deuteronomy, correlate to similar terms in ancient Near Eastern treaties (similar to Sander).

We find that Deuteronomy and deuteronomic literature abound with terms originating in the diplomatic vocabulary of the Near East . . . [e.g., ‘to go after’ הלך, ‘to serve’ עבד, ‘to love’ אהב, ‘to fear’ ירא, etc.] all of which are encountered in the diplomatic letters and state treaties of the second and first millennia B.C. . . . in which they have particular political significance, found their way into Deuteronomy . . . as terms expressing religious loyalty.[56]

His basic conclusion is that these terms are functionally analogous (if not synonymous) terms for covenant loyalty.[57] Thus in 10:12–13, the verbs themselves are less relevant than the reality that Moses called the Hebrews to devote themselves to covenant obedience.

Holistic-cultic view. Thompson in 1974 seems to be the first to articulate this view. Rather than interpreting the terms within a legal/treaty context, he understood them within a broader religious/worship context. The main difference is that the previous view relied on ancient Near Eastern treaties as the background for this terminology (specifically in the Deuteronomic literature), whereas this view does not. This view embraces the theory that the terms should be interpreted together but argues for it contextually. In this case, the individual terms blend together to broadly express cultic worship.[58] As McConville explained, “The connection between loving God, obedience to his commands and enjoying prosperity cannot be strictly rationalized, here any more than elsewhere in the book. They are all parts of a unified picture.”[59]

The problem with the holistic view is that it minimizes (if not outright dismisses) any specific nuance each word might convey. This logic could theoretically apply to any passage in Deuteronomy where two or more of these words appear together.

Love-Centric View

In 1975 Floss laid the foundation for this view. He argued that “fear” (ירא), “love” (אהב), and “serve” (עבד) are each paratactic phrases, which are functionally synonymous. “Walk” (הלך) and “keep” (שׁמר) are hypotactic interpretations of their main phrase.[60] Thus, “walk” clarifies “fear,” while “keep” clarifies “serve.” That all of these terms occur together in 10:12–13 indicates some evolution of thought within the composition of Deuteronomy.

The first commentary to argue along these lines was Christensen’s originally in 1991. He argued, based on prosodic analysis, that “fear,” “love,” and “serve” are the main commands, with “love” emphasized as the central idea.[61] Presumably, “walk” and “keep” are dependent phrases that clarify what precedes them. A similar view was defended by Merrill in 1994, who suggested that “fear” and “walk” formed a first unit with “love,” “serve,” and “keep” comprising a second unit. However, “love” functions as both the fulfillment of the “fear” while also being fulfilled through “serve.”[62] “Love” is emphasized because it is the central idea and does not need qualification like “fear” and “serve.”

This view assumes the central importance of “love” while subordinating “walk” and “keep.” The problem is that this seems like an arbitrary means of assigning infinitives based on the presumed supremacy of “love.”

These views are summarized and outlined in Table 1.

Table 1: Interpretive Models for Deuteronomy 10:12–13

These views can also be expressed by the following translations in Table 2.

	What does Yahweh your God ask of you but . . .
Progression	to fear Yahweh your God, [which leads] to walking in all of his ways, [which leads] to loving him, [which leads] to serving Yahweh your God with all of your heart and with all of your soul, [and which culminates in] keeping Yahweh’s commandments.
Fear	to fear Yahweh your God, by walking in all of his ways, by loving him, by serving Yahweh your God with all of your heart and with all of your soul, [and] by keeping Yahweh’s commandments.
Holistic	[to demonstrate your obedience] by fearing Yahweh your God, by walking in all of his ways, by loving him, by serving Yahweh your God with all of your heart and with all of your soul, [and] by keeping Yahweh’s commandments.
Love-Centric	to fear Yahweh your God by walking in all of his ways; also to love him; also to serve Yahweh your God with all of your heart and with all of your soul by keeping Yahweh’s commandments.

Table 2: Interpretative Translations for the Four Views

Chiasm

However, there is another option that has been overlooked by modern commentaries: the chiasm.

O Israel, what does Yahweh your God ask of you but

(A) to fear Yahweh your God,

(B) to walk in all of his ways,

(C) to love him,

(B′) to serve Yahweh your God with all of your heart and with all of your soul, [and]

(A′) to keep Yahweh’s commandments and statutes

According to this view, “love” (אהב) is emphasized as the center of the chiasm. “Walk” (הלך) is parallel with “serve” (עבד). This pairing makes sense considering that the two are regularly featured together in the almost formulaic expression “follow after . . . and serve” (always in that order).[63] Also, these two are the only two that include criteria: “to walk in all of his ways” and “to serve Yahweh your God with all of your heart and with all of your soul.” “Fear” (ירא) would then be parallel with “keep” (שׁמר). Fearing (God) and keeping (his commandments) are also paired frequently inside and outside of Deuteronomy.[64] Furthermore, it allows for the possibility that fearing (God) and keeping (his commandments) are functioning like a merism. Fear being the innermost expression of devotion is contrasted by the outermost expression of obedience: keeping (acting out) the commandments. This may shed new light on other passages where these two concepts occur together.

Since this is mostly a syntactical argument, it does not impact interpretation or translation to the same extent as the previous views. One could agree that each term retains individual meaning (as Keil does) or that they are practically synonymous (like Weinfeld) and still argue for chiasm as the reason for this specific order. However, this view does conflict with the fear and love-centric views since they assume specific clausal dependencies.

Conclusion

Once a reasonable case is made for a chiasm, it is difficult to unsee it. This provides a more satisfying structure for these verses than most commentaries offer. It also reinforces the notion that the order is intentional and not arbitrary (as some have surmised). Now, this view is exclusive to the fear view and love-centric view, which proffer their own structures. However, it could be argued in tandem with the progression and holistic views since these are based more on the meaning of the words and their relationship to each other than on their order and syntactic functions. Personally, I am not convinced by the holistic arguments that these terms are practically synonymous or function as a complex hendiadys (hendiapente). Instead, I prefer the progression approach, but this assumes that each word retains a unique meaning that contributes to the process. The notion that a chiasm could simultaneously outline a complex process reveals a poetic intricacy that is staggering. This ought to prompt admiration for this passage as well as a renewed interest in how these terms are used elsewhere in Deuteronomy.

Notes

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are the author’s own.
Multiple commentaries make similar connections between Micah 6:8 and Deuteronomy 10:12–13, e.g., John A. Thompson, Deuteronomy: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 5 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1974), 164–65; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 5 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991), 435; Christopher J. H. Wright, Deuteronomy, New International Biblical Commentary, Old Testament 4 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 144–45; J. G. McConville, Deuteronomy, Apollos Old Testament Commentary 5 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 199; Edward J. Woods, Deuteronomy: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary 5 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 171–72; and Eckart Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, vol. 2, 4:44–11:32, Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2012), 1034–35.
Cf. H.-P. Stähli, “יראyr’ to fear,” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, trans. Mark E. Biddle (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 2:569–70.
The noun מורא refers either to acts of God (Deut 4:34; 26:8; 34:12) or Israel’s reputation (11:25).
In these instances it either describes God (Deut 7:21; 10:17), God’s deeds (10:21), some aspect of God (28:58), or the wilderness (1:19; 8:15).
In one instance, the phrase describes Amalek’s lack of fear toward Yahweh (Deut 25:18). In all other cases, the phrase is directed toward the daunting task of (re)claiming the promised land (1:21; 31:8) and opposing nations (1:29; 3:22; 7:18; 31:6) and their armies (3:2; 20:1, 3). Interestingly, the phrase is never used as a prohibition against worshiping foreign deities: “You will not fear their gods.” That such an act is taboo goes without saying, but the omission is nevertheless curious.
I.e., a fear-based apprehension toward a perceived threat: the fire at Horeb (Deut 5:5), Israel’s enemies (7:19; 20:8), and punitive retribution (13:12[11]; 17:13; 19:20; 21:21).
Deuteronomy 2:4, 25; 28:10.
Deuteronomy 4:10; 5:29; 6:2, 13, 24; 8:6; 10:12, 20; 13:5; 14:23; 17:19; 28:58; 31:12, 13.
E.g., Siegfried Plath, Furcht Gottes: Der Begriff Yāra̕ im Alten Testament, Arbeiten zur Theologie 2/2 (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1963), 14; and Phillip Michael Lasater, “‘The Emotions’ in Biblical Anthropology? A Genealogy and Case Study with ירא,” Harvard Theological Review 110.4 (2017): 520–40.
E.g., Joachim Becker, Gottesfurcht im Alten Testament, Analecta Biblica 25 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965), 29–32.
Becker, 85; cf. Louis Derousseaux, La Crainte de Dieu dans l’Ancien Testament: Royauté, Alliance, Sagesse dans les Royaumes d’Israël et de Juda, Lectio Divina 63 (Paris: Cerf, 1970), 207–8; cf. H. F. Fuhs, “יָרֵאyārē’,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. David E. Green and Douglas W. Stott, vol. 6 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 306–8; and Stähli, “יראyr’ to fear,” 575.
E.g., Miles V. Van Pelt and Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “יָרֵא (yārē’ I),” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 2:529–30.
This can be further divided between the nineteen times where humans are the subject (Deut 1:19, 31, 33; 2:7, 14, 27; 5:30; 10:11; 14:25; 16:7; 20:5, 6, 7, 8; 24:2; 26:2; 28:41; 31:1, 14) and the six times Yahweh is the subject (1:30, 33; 20:4; 23:15; 31:6, 8).
Deuteronomy 8:2, 15; 28:36; 29:4.
Three times it describes a generic lifestyle (Deut 5:33; 13:5, 6); five times it means to “follow (אחרי) after” someone (4:3; 6:14; 8:19; 11:28; 13:3); twice it signifies doing something while “on the road (of life)” (6:7; 11:19); seven times it specifies “walking in [Yahweh’s] ways” (8:6; 10:12; 11:22; 19:9; 26:17; 28:9; 30:16); six times it is paired with “serving (עבד)” (13:7, 14; 17:3; 28:14; 29:17, 25); and once it specifies “walking with stubbornness of heart” (29:18).
Deuteronomy 5:33; 8:6; 10:12; 11:19, 22; 13:6; 19:9; 26:17; 28:9; 30:16. This does not include 11:28, which describes walking away from Yahweh’s way in pursuit of other gods.
See G. Sauer, “הלךhlk to go,” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1:369.
Eugene H. Merrill, “הָלַךְ (hālak),” in New International Dictionary, 1:1033.
F. J. Helfmeyer, “הָלַךְhālakh,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. David E. Green and Douglas W. Stott, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 403.
Helfmeyer, 3:396–97; cf. Friedrich Nötscher, Gotteswege und Menschenwege in der Bibel und in Qumran, Bonner Biblische Beiträge 15 (Bonn: Hanstein, 1958), 29.
Deuteronomy 4:37; 7:8, 13; 10:15; 15:16; 23:6.
Deuteronomy 5:10; 6:5; 7:9; 10:12; 11:1, 13, 22; 13:4; 19:9; 30:6, 16, 20.
This can be split between Israel’s care for foreigners (Deut 10:18–19 [2x]) and to describe a favored wife (21:15–16 [3x]).
P. J. J. S. Els, “אָהַב (‘āhab),” in New International Dictionary, 1:287.
A pioneering study of this was William L. Moran, “Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25.1 (1963): 77–84. For a brief overview of this discussion, see Bill T. Arnold, “The Love-Fear Antinomy in Deuteronomy 5–11, ” Vetus Testamentum 61.4 (2011): 552–56.
J. Bergman, A. O. Haldar, and Gerhard Wallis, “אָהַב‘āhabh,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. David E. Green and Douglas W. Stott, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 115. Cf. Jenni’s statement, “[אהב] means, therefore, something like ‘to exercise upright loyalty toward the covenant partner’; and, although the Old Testament uses it in a religious sense, it belongs to the language of the covenant idea.” E. Jenni, “אהב‘hb to love,” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1:52–53.
Jenni, 52. Dennis J. McCarthy took the treaty language a step further, arguing that it is founded on the father-son relationship. “Notes on the Love of God in Deuteronomy and the Father-Son Relationship between Israel and Yahweh,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 27.2 (1965): 147.
See J. W. McKay’s concluding remarks in “Man’s Love for God in Deuteronomy and the Father/Teacher—Son/Pupil Relationship,” Vetus Testamentum 22.4 (1972): 434–35.
For a survey of alternative views, see Arnold, “Love-Fear Antinomy,” 556–57.
Arnold, 561–62.
Once it is a noun for “labor” (Deut 26:6); twenty-four times it describes laborers “slave/servant” (3:24; 5:14 [2x], 15, 21; 6:21; 9:27; 12:12, 18; 15:15, 17; 16:11, 12, 14; 20:11; 23:16; 24:18, 22; 28:68; 29:1; 32:36, 43; 34:5, 11); eight times it describes the act of labor “to work” (5:12, 13, 18, 19; 21:3, 4; 28:39, 48); and six times it describes a location as a “place of slavery (i.e., Egypt)” (5:6; 6:12; 7:8; 8:14; 13:6; 13:11).
Six times it describes Israel’s “service” to Yahweh (Deut 6:13; 10:12, 20; 11:13; 13:5; 28:47); eighteen times it expresses a prohibition against serving foreign deities (4:19, 28; 5:9; 7:4, 16; 8:19; 11:16; 13:3, 7, 14; 17:3; 28:14, 36, 64; 29:17, 25; 30:17; 31:20); and twice it describes foreign people serving their gods (12:2, 30).
There is debate over whether לבב, which physically corresponds to the heart organ, serves as the source of emotions in Hebrew thought (like it does in our contemporary culture) or rational thought. See Carolyn Leeb, “Translating the Hebrew Body into English Metaphor,” in The Social Sciences and Biblical Translation, ed. Dietmar Neufeld, Symposium Series 41 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 110–11; cf. Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 40–55.
The modern definitive study on נֶפֶשׁ is Hans Walter Wolff, “nepeš—Needy Man,” in Anthropology of the Old Testament, 10–25. Wolff famously concluded that נֶפֶשׁ certainly does not mean “soul” but “is designed to be seen together with the whole form of man” (10). This view has become popular among Old Testament scholars, e.g., Ellis R. Brotzman, “Man and the Meaning of נֶפֶשׁ,” Bibliotheca Sacra 145.580 (1988): 409. However, contemporary objections to a holistic view of נֶפֶשׁ in the Old Testament do exist. See Richard C. Steiner, Disembodied Souls: The Nefesh in Israel and Kindred Spirits in the Ancient Near East, with an Appendix on the Katumuwa Inscription, Ancient Near East Monographs 11 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015), 124–27.
All three terms occur together in 1 Chronicles 28:9 but not in the same grammatical sense as Deuteronomy 10:12. Also, the phrasing of “serve (עבד) [Yahweh] with all your heart/mind (לֵבָב)” sans soul/being (נֶפֶשׁ) occurs in 1 Samuel 12:20, 24.
C. Westermann, “עֶבֶד‘ebed servant,” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, 2:826.
Cf. Eugene Carpenter, “עָבָד (‘ābad),” in New International Dictionary, 3:305–6.
Helmer Ringgren, U. Rüterswörden, and H. Simian-Yofre, “עָבַד ‘ābad,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. David E. Green and Douglas W. Stott, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 386.
Ingrid Riesener, Der Stammעבדim Alten Testament: Eine Wortuntersuchung unter Berücksichtigung neuerer sprachwissenschaftlicher Methoden, Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 149 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979), 206.
In Deuteronomy 7:8 the object is “promises,” whereas in verses 9 and 12 it is “covenant” and “loyalty.”
Once it describes Yahweh’s commands (Deut 5:32); three times it is Moses’s commands (12:28; 13:1; 24:8); once it is the priests’ instructions (24:8); once it is the month of Abib (16:1); once it is the Sabbath (5:12); once it is a person’s word (33:9); once it is what you are taught (17:10); once it is a promise/vow (23:24); twenty times it is [Yahweh’s] commandments (מצות) (4:2; 5:10, 29; 6:17, 25; 7:9; 8:1, 2, 6; 11:8, 22; 13:5, 19; 15:5; 19:9; 26:18; 27:1; 28:1, 9, 13); once it is his statutes (חקים) (16:12); once it is his “judgments” (משׁפטים) (7:12); seven times it is his commandments and statutes (4:40; 6:2, 3; 10:13; 28:15, 45; 30:10), five times it is his statutes and judgments (4:6; 5:1; 11:32; 12:1; 26:16), four times it is his commandments, statutes, and judgments (7:11; 8:11; 26:17; 20:16), once it is “keep the keeping of the commandments, statutes, and judgments” (the phrase occurs 1x, but the root occurs 2x [see 11:1]); three times it is Torah (31:12; 32:46; it occurs once with a negation [see 28:58]); once it is Torah and statutes (17:19); and once it is “words of this covenant” (29:8).
This is expressed thirteen times through a passive form “watch [yourself]” (Deut 2:4; 4:9, 15, 23; 6:12; 8:11; 11:16; 12:13, 19, 30; 15:9; 23:10; 24:8) and once as an active imperative “watch your [soul]” (4:9).
Deuteronomy 6:17; 11:22.
G. Sauer, “שׁמרšmr to watch, guard, keep,” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, 3:1382.
See García López, “שָׁמַרšāmar,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. David E. Green and Douglas W. Stott, vol. 15 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 291–93.
Keith N. Schoville, “שָׁמַר (šāmar),” in New International Dictionary, 4:183.
Carl F. Keil, The Pentateuch, trans. James Martin, Commentary on the Old Testament, ed. Carl F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1866; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 898–99.
Wilhelm Julius Schröeder, Deuteronomy; or, the Fifth Book of Moses, ed. and trans. Abraham Gosman, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 3, ed. John Peter Lange and Philip Schaff (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1879), 114.
August Dillman, Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 2nd ed., Kurz-gefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 13 (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1886), 284 (my translation); cf. Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, 2:1033–34.
Woods, Deuteronomy, 171–72.
Samuel R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, 3rd ed., International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902), 124–25.
Cf. Becker, Gottesfurcht, 99–100; and Riesener, Der Stamm, 205–6.
Reinhold Sander, Furcht und Liebe im Palästinischen Judentum, Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 4/16 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1935), 3–12. Other works made similar arguments. For example, in his seminal study of ירא, Plath acknowledged that “fearing God” is often used as a parallel expression to “keeping his commandments” and “walking in his ways.” He further explained that it is used in close parallel with specific verbs such as “love” and “serve” with “walk” in a subordinate position. Furcht Gottes, 33. Interestingly, he did not discuss “keep his commandments” in 10:13.
Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker, 2 vols. Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, [1961] 1967), 2:299, italics original.
Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972; repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 83–84.
Cf. his Appendix A:V:a, Weinfeld, 332–34; cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 435. For additional commentaries that adopt this view, see Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 204; Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 136; cf. Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 270.
Thompson, Deuteronomy, 164–65. See also Patrick D. Miller Jr., Deuteronomy, Interpretation: A Biblical Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990), 124–25; and Wright, Deuteronomy, 144–45.
McConville, Deuteronomy, 199.
Johannes Peter Floss, Jahwe dienen-Göttern dienen: Terminologische, literarische und semantische Untersuchung einer theologischen Aussage zum Gottesverhältnis im Alten Testament, Bonner Biblische Beiträge 45 (Köln-Bonn: Hanstein, 1975), 323–24.
Duane L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9, rev. ed., Word Biblical Commentary 6A (Nashville: Nelson, 2001), 203–4.
Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, New American Commentary 4 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 201–2.
Deuteronomy 8:19; 13:3, 7, 13; 17:3; 28:14; 29:18, 25. Similar pairings are found outside of Deuteronomy (Exod 10:8, 11, 24; 12:31; Josh 23:16; Judg 2:19; 1 Sam 26:19; 1 Kgs 9:6; 2 Kgs 21:21; Jer 11:10; 13:10; 16:11; 44:3; Ezek 20:39).
Deuteronomy 5:29; 6:2; 8:6; 13:5 [4]; 17:19; 28:58; 31:12. Similar pairings are also found outside of Deuteronomy (Ps 119:63; Eccl 12:13). Other scholars have also noticed the significance of the pair; cf. Stähli, “יראyr’ to fear,” 575.