The Grace of Torah: The Mosaic Prescription for Life (Deut. 4:1–8; 6:20–25)

By Daniel I. Block

[Daniel I. Block is the John R. Sampey Professor of Old Testament Interpretation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky.

This is the first article in a four-part series “Rediscovering the Gospel according to Moses,” delivered by the author as the W. H. Griffith Thomas Lectures at Dallas Theological Seminary, February 3-6, 2004.]

The power of God’s “word” is seen in the Old Testament in several ways. First, it is God’s utterance that called the universe into existence. Stated repeatedly in Genesis 1, this is eloquently summarized in Psalm 33:6. “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.”[1]

Second, the “word” is the divine utterance that determines the course of history, as in Isaiah 44:24–28. “Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: ‘I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, who frustrates the signs of liars and makes fools of diviners, who turns wise men back and makes their knowledge foolish, who confirms the word of his servant and fulfills the counsel of his messengers, who says of Jerusalem, ‘She shall be inhabited,’ and of the cities of Judah, ‘They shall be built, and I will raise up their ruins’; who says to the deep, ‘Be dry; I will dry up your rivers’; who says of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfill all my purpose’; saying of Jerusalem, ‘She shall be built,’ and of the temple, ‘Your foundation shall be laid.’ ”

This is also expressed in Isaiah 46:9–11. “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass [or, make it happen]; I have purposed, and I will do it.”

Third, God’s “word” is powerful in calling people to life or verbally declaring their death. An example of the first of these is Ezekiel 16:3–7: “Thus says the Lord God to Jerusalem: ‘Your origin and your birth are of the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite. And as for your birth, on the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to cleanse you, nor rubbed with salt, nor wrapped in swaddling cloths. No eye pitied you, to do any of these things to you out of compassion for you, but you were cast out on the open field, for you were abhorred, on the day that you were born. And when I passed by you and saw you wallowing in your blood, I said to you in your blood, “Live!”. .. I made you flourish like a plant of the field. And you grew up and became tall and arrived at full adornment. Your breasts were formed, and your hair had grown; yet you were naked and bare.’ ”

An illustration of the latter (declaring death) is Psalm 90:3. “You return a person to the dust, by simply saying, ‘Return, O member of the human race!’ ” (author’s translation).

All these statements have to do with the power of God’s oral word. This article, however, focuses on the power of His written word, by noting two little-known texts in Moses’ farewell addresses to his people on the plains of Moab. The first, Deuteronomy 4:1–8, appears near the end of his first address; the second, Deuteronomy 6:20–25, near the beginning of his second address. In looking at these passages two important hermeneutical principles are illustrated. First, in interpreting a biblical text the most important clues to its meaning must be derived from the immediate literary context. Second, biblical texts must always be interpreted in the light of the broader cultural context from which they derive.

What Mean These Laws?

In his second farewell pastoral address to his people Moses raised an important question. “When your son asks you in time to come, ‘What is the meaning of the covenant stipulations and the ordinances and the laws that the Lord our God has commanded you?’ ” (Deut. 6:20, author’s translation).

The form in which Moses cast the question arose out of the everyday experience of parents trying to raise their children. I shall never forget one evening when my family was eating supper.

As is often the case with teenagers, we were engaged in a rather warm discussion. Suddenly our son burst out, “Why do we have to live in such a prehistoric family?” While his motives left something to be desired, I took this as a compliment. At least he recognized that our household was run by countercultural norms!

The point Moses raised is that succeeding generations would not experience what the people in his audience shared, either of the Lord’s revelation at Sinai or the present discourses about that revelation on the plains of Moab. Therefore it was necessary for that and all subsequent generations to be intentional in transmitting their faith to the next generation. As in every social context and every age, children watch the way their parents live, and especially when faced with the challenge of competing cultures, they are curious about the nature and rationale behind their own traditions. Moses assumed that the children would ask their parents for an explanation of their way of life.

The specific question Moses anticipated here concerns the covenant stipulations (וֹדת), ordinances (חֻקִּים), and regulations (מִשְׁפָּטִים) that the Lord had commanded Israel to observe. These three expressions represent the will of God as it had been revealed primarily at Horeb and to a lesser degree en route to the Promised Land. They point to all the moral, ceremonial, and civil regulations God prescribed as the appropriate response to His salvation and the privilege of covenant relationship. As illustrated so impressively in Leviticus 19, this revelation did not divide life into the sacred and the ordinary. When children of Israelite parents would observe how their parents conducted their private and family lives, how they carried on their social and economic relations, how they worshiped, how they conducted themselves within the family, then they would inquire about the meaning of it all. Of course the children’s question did not call for a detailed exposition of each of the 613 laws in the Pentateuch but rather an explanation of the significance of the entire package.[2] In short, “Why is it that our lives are governed by this set of principles?” and “What is the significance of this set of laws?”

If we were asked today, “What is the significance of the stipulations, the ordinances, and laws that God commanded the Israelites to observe?” we would probably respond with different answers. Reading the Mosaic laws, some probably shake their heads in bewilderment, wondering whether there is any point to these laws. An example is Leviticus 19:19. “You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.” Another example is Leviticus 11:3–6. “Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.”

If we are not actually bewildered by these kinds of laws, we may still feel sorry for the Israelites. What a burden they were called on to bear! Surely many Israelites must have looked with envy on other nations that weren’t saddled with these requirements.

Some people with cultural and antiquarian interests, especially those interested in the history of law and culture, might say these laws offer readers today an interesting window into the society of ancient Israel. Readers familiar with the Near Eastern legal world of the second millennium b.c. might even conclude that these laws represent a significant advance on those found in the Law Code of Hammurabi, king of Babylon in the nineteenth century b.c.

My suspicion, however, is that many of us would not have answered the question in either of these ways. When asked about the significance of the Law for Israel, some today would answer that for Israel the Law was the way of salvation. They say that whereas after the Cross people are saved by grace, people under the Old Covenant were saved by keeping the Law.

The problem with this explanation is that it flies in the face of Paul’s explicit statements that even in the Old Testament people (like Abraham) were justified by faith rather than through obedience to the Law (Rom. 4; Gal. 3:1–12). In fact many view the Mosaic Law not as a way of salvation but as the way of death. And they quote Paul to buttress their position, for he wrote in Romans 4:15, “The law brings wrath,” and in 7:6, “But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound” (NASB). According to Galatians 3, “all who rely on works of the law are under a curse” (v. 10), and “the law is not of faith” (v. 12), and “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law” (v. 13). Also Paul wrote in verses 23–24, “Before faith came, we were kept in custody under the Law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor” (NASB). And in 4:21–31 Paul wrote that Mount Sinai (who is Hagar) bears children who are slaves, in contrast to Jerusalem, our mother, who has borne free children.

These verses seem to offer a clear answer to the question that Moses raised: The significance of the Law lies in its power to bind those who are under the Law, to subject them to the curse and the wrath of God, and to demonstrate their desperate need of a Savior. While on the surface this seems to be the way the New Testament perceives the Law, it raises serious questions about both the justice and mercy of God. How and why would God rescue the Israelites from the burdensome and death-dealing slavery of Egypt (Exod. 20:2) only to impose on them an even heavier burden of the Law, which they were unable to keep and which would sentence them to an even more horrible fate—damnation under His own wrath?

Moses’ First Answer

Moses answered this question in two ways. First, he stated that knowledge of the will of God is the supreme privilege of the covenant people of God. One of the most important guidelines for biblical hermeneutics is to interpret Scripture with Scripture. And this is what we are doing when we appeal to Paul for the answer to Moses’ question. But sometimes we move too quickly to later texts, especially the New Testament, and we forget the primacy of the immediate context in determining the meaning of a statement in Scripture. The fact is that Moses had already given a partial answer to the question he raised in Deuteronomy 6:20. In 4:1–8 he had offered a remarkable commentary on the significance of the Law. “And now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the rules that I am teaching you, and do them, that you may live, and go in and take possession of the land that the Lord, the God of your fathers, is giving you. You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you. Your eyes have seen what the Lord did at Baal-peor, for the Lord your God destroyed from among you all the men who followed the Baal of Peor. But you who held fast to the Lord your God are all alive today. See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules as righteous as all this law that I set before you today?”

In these verses Moses made three points. First, the Torah he was teaching is normative and canonical by definition (vv. 1–2). By warning his hearers not to add anything to his word, he declared that only what he (on behalf of the Lord) prescribed was normative. By warning them not to delete anything from his word, he declared that all that he (on behalf of the Lord) prescribed was normative.[3] As Moses again stated later, everything he said was binding on Israel (12:32).[4] But this was no outrageous claim. As the Lord’s authorized spokesman, Moses presented the obverse of the privilege of Israel’s high calling. The Lord, their divine Suzerain, who by grace had rescued them from the bondage of Egypt, and who by grace had called Israel to covenant relationship with Himself, and who by grace was calling on them to represent Him to the world, retained the exclusive right to define the appropriate response to the grace He had lavished on them. Total acceptance of the will of the divine Benefactor would be the correct and reasonable response.

Second, Moses affirmed that obedience to the Torah was the key to life (4:3–4). The people standing before him had seen with their own eyes the importance of obedience. In fact they were living proof of the principle. Adopting a method he would employ repeatedly in his addresses (e.g., 30:15–20) and that the wisdom literature frequently employed,[5] Moses declared that obedience to the Lord is a matter of life and death. This was demonstrated at Baal Peor, which he took to be paradigmatic for the nation on the move.[6] At each stage in Israel’s journey the people had been called on to decide whether they would remain true to the Lord or not. According to Numbers 25:1–9 at Baal Peor a large number of those who had survived the wilderness journey made the wrong decision by “yoking themselves”[7] to the pagan god, Baal of Peor. Here Moses declared the Lord’s response in summary form: All those who “followed” after Baal of Peor the Lord destroyed.[8] By contrast the people standing before Moses were alive because they “held fast” to the Lord,[9] and were rewarded with life. They were living testimony to the importance of obedience as evidence of commitment to Him.

Third, Moses affirmed that knowledge of the Torah was the highest privilege imaginable (Deut. 4:5–8). Here Moses put himself in the shoes of the nations around Israel, who would observe how Israel lived and then draw some rather remarkable conclusions— conclusions that catch many people today by surprise. If we had been responsible for verses 6–7, this is probably what we would have written: “You must keep the commandments and do them, for that is your duty and your obligation in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these ordinances, will say, ‘Surely this unfortunate nation is a sorrowful and burdened people.’ ” If our own context does not help us appreciate what Moses was saying, perhaps we should ask how the peoples around Israel at that time would have responded to the revelation of the will of God as the Israelites had received it. To understand the significance of the Torah, hear this prayer, written in Sumerian, dating back to the second millennium, but preserved in the library of Ashurbanipal, one of the kings of Assyria in the seventh century b.c.[10] The text is repetitious, but to get the point we need to read the entire piece.

Prayer to Every God[11]

May the fury of my lord’s heart be quieted toward me.[12]
May the god who is not known be quieted toward me;
May the goddess who is not known be quieted toward me.
May the god whom I know or do not know be quieted toward me;
May the goddess whom I know or do not know be quieted toward me.
May the heart of my god be quieted toward me;
May the heart of my goddess be quieted toward me.
May my god and goddess be quieted toward me.
May the god [who has become angry with me][13] be quieted toward me;
May the goddess [who has become angry with me] be quieted toward me.
[Lines 11–18 cannot be restored with certainty.]
In ignorance I have eaten that forbidden of my god;
In ignorance I have set foot on that prohibited by my goddess.
O Lord, my transgressions are many; great are my sins.
O my god, (my) transgressions are many; great are (my) sins.
O my goddess, (my) transgressions are many; great are (my) sins.
O god, whom I know or do not know, (my) transgressions are many; great are (my) sins;
O goddess, whom I know or do not know, (my) transgressions are many; great are (my) sins.
The transgression that I have committed, indeed I do not know;
The sin that I have done, indeed I do not know.
The forbidden thing that I have eaten, indeed I do not know;
The prohibited (place) on which I have set foot, indeed I do not know.
The lord in the anger of his heart looked at me;
The god in the rage of his heart confronted me;
When the goddess was angry with me, she made me become ill.
The god whom I know or do not know has oppressed me;
The goddess whom I know or do not know has placed suffering upon me.
Although I am constantly looking for help, no one takes me by the hand;
When I weep they do not come to my side.
I utter laments, but no one hears me;
I am troubled;
I am overwhelmed;
I cannot see.
O my god, merciful one, I address to you the prayer,
“Ever incline to me”;
I kiss the feet of my goddess;
I crawl before you.
[Lines 41–49 are mostly broken and cannot be restored with certainty.]
How long, O my goddess, whom I know or do not know, before your hostile heart will be quieted?
Man is dumb; he knows nothing;
Mankind, everyone that exists—what does he know?
Whether he is committing sin or doing good, he does not even know.
O my lord, do not cast your servant down;
He is plunged into the waters of a swamp; take him by the hand.
The sin that I have done, turn into goodness;
The transgression that I have committed let the wind carry away;
My many misdeeds strip off like a garment.
O my god, (my) transgressions are seven times seven; remove my transgressions;
O my goddess, (my) transgressions are seven times seven; remove my transgressions;
O god whom I know or do not know, (my) transgressions are seven times seven; remove my transgressions;
O goddess whom I know or do not know, (my) transgressions are seven times seven; remove my transgressions.
Remove my transgressions (and) I will sing your praise.
May your heart, like the heart of a real mother, be quieted toward me;
Like a real mother (and) a real father may it be quieted toward me.

Is this not a pathetic piece? And what an indictment this prayer is on the religious systems of the world around ancient Israel! To be sure, with his keen sense of sin and his awareness of ultimate accountability before his deities, this person expresses greater enlightenment than many people today. However, he could not escape the fact that he was faced with three insurmountable problems. First, he did not know which god he had offended. Second, he did not know what the offense was. Third, he did not know what it would take to satisfy the god or gods. Contrast this with Moses’ statements in Deuteronomy 4:1–8. With their clear knowledge of the will of the Lord, the faithful in Israel perceived themselves as an incredibly privileged people and the envy of the nations. Unlike other peoples, whose gods of wood and stone crafted by human hands neither saw nor heard nor smelled (Deut. 4:28; cf. Ps. 135:15–17), the Lord hears His people when they call on Him (Deut. 4:7). And unlike the nations, whose idols have mouths but they do not speak (Ps. 135:16), Israel’s God has spoken. By His grace God has given His people statutes and judgments that are perfect in righteousness (Deut. 4:8), because (a) they reveal with perfect clarity who He is, (b) they reveal with perfect clarity what sin is, and (c) they reveal with perfect clarity how that sin may be removed and a relationship of peace and confidence with Him established and maintained. This explains why, when David experienced forgiveness for his sins, he could exclaim, “Oh, the joy [or, privilege] of the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered!” (Ps. 32:1, author’s translation). Why would anyone give up this sparkling spring of water that leads to life for the broken cisterns of idolatry that can yield only death (cf. Jer. 2:9–13)?

Moses’ Second Answer

This prepares for Moses’ second answer to the question he asked in Deuteronomy 6:20: Obedience to the will of God is the supreme delight of the covenant people of God. Here are Moses’ words in Deuteronomy 6:21–25. “Then you shall say to your son, ‘We were Pharaoh’s slaves in Egypt. And the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand. And the Lord showed signs and wonders, great and grievous, against Egypt and against Pharaoh and all his household, before our eyes. And he brought us out from there, that he might bring us in and give us the land that he swore to give to our fathers. And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God [or, to practise all these ordinances as an expression of the fear of the Lord our God], for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as we are this day. And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us.’ ”

This answer to Moses’ question in verse 20 has been called a “family catechism.”[14] With this response Moses declared that the primary motive for an Israelite’s life was not a system of rules but knowledge of the salvation the Lord wrought on their behalf by His mighty power and grace. Obedience to the revealed will of God is presented as a response to the glorious “gospel” of salvation, as evidence of fear or love for Him, and a mark of gratitude for all He has done for them. A life ordered by the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant was to be their response to their own history.

Four elements in these verses present the foundation of the Lord’s covenant relationship with Israel and at the same time declare in a nutshell the essential elements of Old Testament theology. First, God rescued Israel from the bondage of Egypt with a mighty hand (v. 21). Second, He performed great and devastating signs and wonders in Egypt while the Israelites watched, thereby declaring them His special people (v. 22). Third, the Lord brought Israel out of that land in order to bring them into the land He had promised on oath to their ancestors (v. 23). Fourth, the Lord spoke to the Israelites at Sinai, revealing to them His will (v. 24).

The giving of the Law was thus a climactic moment of divine grace. The Lord’s rescue of Israel was significant both soteriologically and judicially. He freed His chosen people from slavish vassaldom in Egypt and claimed them as His own vassals, a status symbolized by the stipulations, decrees, and laws, to which He demanded compliance. But these laws were not to be viewed as a burden laid on their shoulders which was so heavy that no one could carry it. That is not grace! That is tyranny and deceit. To Moses, receiving the revelation of God’s will was a supreme privilege—and the more detailed the revelation the greater the privilege. The Israelites had been liberated from the bondage of Egypt that they might become the privileged servants of the Lord, in fact, His “sons” (14:1).

No wonder the apostle John could write, after four decades of reflection on the significance of the Incarnation, “And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law [i.e., the Torah] was given [ἐδόθη] through Moses; grace and truth came [or, happened, ἐγένετο] through Jesus Christ” (John 1:16–17). Contrary to the interpretation of this verse suggested by the inserted adversative conjunction “but” in the King James Version, the contrast here is not between law and grace, but between two ways in which grace has been communicated in two climactic moments in time: first, the grace of the Torah was mediated through Moses; second, grace and truth have been personified in Christ. Moses certainly viewed the revelation of the laws at Sinai as a climactic moment of grace, as did the poet who penned Psalm 119 centuries later. And this is how we should view the law of God, whether it is the law revealed in the Old Testament or the law as it is revealed in the New Testament.

When our children ask us why we have to go to church, or why we have to live by such old-fashioned standards, or why we have to put money in the offering plate, or why we feel compelled to speak up about the evils of our day, can we answer as Moses did? Many Christians say inwardly if not outwardly, “I wish I weren’t a Christian. I wouldn’t have to do all these things and my conscience wouldn’t bother me if I swindled a little as I scratch my way to the top.” We should feel sorry for people like that, people for whom the Christian life is a burden, an obligation, fixed by a code of laws.

How different was Moses’ response. What is the significance of all these stipulations, laws, and regulations? They represented the glorious privilege the redeemed Israelites enjoyed in being bond servants of the Lord. The laws provided a way of saying “thank you” to God for the deliverance He gave them in the Exodus, for the delight of being His covenant people, for the privilege of receiving the Promised Land as His gift. The revelation of the Law was a supreme act of grace preceded and superseded only by the experience of the Exodus itself. It represented the climactic moment of a whole series of events by which the Lord delivered Israel from bondage. Obeying God’s commands was a delight. And so today believers should delight in obeying Him.

However, some people today think of the Mosaic Law as a burden, a complex series of obligations by which to earn salvation. Others think that because of their salvation, they are free to do as they please. Of course both ideas pervert the Scriptures.

In Deuteronomy 6:24–25 Moses finally answered the question “What is the significance of the stipulations, ordinances, and laws that the Lord has commanded us?” His answer consists of four significant declarations. First, he said that the Lord had given the Israelites the Law as a visible means of demonstrating their fear for Him. “And the Lord commanded us to practice all these statutes as an expression of fear of the Lord our God.”[15] Throughout the Book of Deuteronomy Moses associated knowledge of the will of God with the fear of God, as in the following paradigm:

Reading -> Hearing -> Learning -> Fear -> Obedience -> Life.[16]

The relationship between fear and obedience is clearly illustrated in 10:12–13. “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments and statutes of the Lord, which I am commanding you today for your good?”

For future generations the knowledge of God’s will would be the key to the proper fear of God.[17] In these contexts the verb יָא not only describes an awed disposition toward God but also often serves as the Old Testament word for “faith” in God that is demonstrated through obedience.

Second, Moses declared that the Lord gave Israel the Law for her own good—not to be a burden or a noose around their necks but as an incredible benefit. It is fascinating to observe how the word טב is used in Deuteronomy. On the one hand טבָה, “[the] good,” is used alongside הָיָשָׁר, “the right,” to identify what is good in the eyes of the Lord, namely, conduct that arises out of love for Him and is in accord with His will.[18] On the other hand the noun טבָה, “[the] good,”[19] and the cognate verb יָטַב, “to experience good,”[20] frequently refer to the benefactions[21] Israel would experience from the hand of the Lord in the land He gave them.[22] In 28:1–14 Moses gave concrete expression to “that which is good,” while also highlighting the link between fidelity to the divine Suzerain, as expressed in obedience to His will, by framing this declaration with determinative conditional clauses. “If you faithfully obey the voice of the Lord your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today” (v. 1). .. “if you obey the voice of the Lord your God” (v. 2). .. “if you keep the commandments of the Lord your God and walk in his ways” (v. 9). .. “if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you today, being careful to do them, and if you do not turn aside from any of the words that I command you today, to the right hand or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them” (vv. 13–14).

From Deuteronomy 28:63 it is evident that the Lord does not dispense goodness to His people grudgingly; rather this is His greatest delight. However, obedience to the will of God is the prerequisite to such blessing.

Third, Moses declared that the Lord gave Israel the Law so that she might live. Of course obedience to the Law should not be understood as a way of self-redemption, and “to live” should not be interpreted in a soteriological sense of salvation from sin and the enjoyment of eternal life with God. According to 6:21–23 the divine act of “salvation” (deliverance from Egypt) was accomplished four decades earlier. What is envisioned is Israel’s continued prosperous existence in the land and the fulfillment of the Lord’s mission through her.

This interpretation is reinforced by the rare use of the piel form of the verb חָיָה, “to live.” The piel appears elsewhere in 20:16, where it clearly means “to let live,” and in 32:39, where it means “to restore someone to life,”[23] but neither meaning makes sense here. Lohfink has convincingly argued that here, as in many other occurrences in the Old Testament, the piel means “to maintain,” with the infinitive construct assuming the Lord as the subject.[24] By His grace the Lord revealed to His people His will, which, if they would follow it, would result in His sustaining them alive, even as He was doing at the present moment. This accords with Deuteronomy’s general emphasis on obedience to the Law as the key to a meaningful life,[25] not to mention the positive role of the Law in other Old Testament texts as well.[26]

Fourth, the Lord gave Israel the Law so that they might be confident of His approval. The fact that Deuteronomy 6:25 represents the climax of Moses’ response to the children’s question is signaled not only by its location at the center of this chiasm but also by the emphatic grammatical construction, “And righteousness it will be for us if…” In the Old Testament the term צְדָקָה, usually translated “righteousness,” bears a variety of meanings, ranging from “innocence” to “acquittal, justification,” and “salvation.” The word occurs six times in Deuteronomy. In 33:21 Moses spoke of “the righteousness of the Lord,” which he equated with “his laws [מִשְׁפָּטָיו] with Israel.” This suggests that the word refers to the objective standards of faith and conduct as determined by the Lord and outlined in the covenant stipulations.[27] Elsewhere in Deuteronomy צְדָקָה denotes behavior that conforms to the norms as established and represented in the stipulations of the Lord’s covenant.[28] In 9:4–6 צְדָקָה is associated with “integrity” (ישֶֹׁר ב, literally, “straightness or rightness of heart”), whose opposite is represented by רִשְׁעָה, “wickedness, rebellion” (v. 5), קְה וֹערֶ, “stiff-neckedness, recalcitrance” (v. 6), and מָרָה, “to rebel” (v. 7).[29] In 24:13 the act of returning before nightfall a cloak that a poor person had given as a pledge is presented as a concrete illustration of covenant “righteousness.”

According to 6:20–25, when a member of the covenant community conscientiously obeyed the Law, the Lord accepted that as evidence of that person’s righteousness. This statement is among the most fundamental in the Old Testament for understanding the relationship between human works and human righteousness.

Two extremes must be avoided. The first is the notion that Moses viewed obedience to the commandments as the basis of covenantal relationship. Moses had just declared (in vv. 21–23) that Israel’s position as the people of the Lord rested entirely on His saving actions, independently of any Israelite merit. And in 9:1–24, especially verses 1–6, the Lord stated that He had called Israel to Himself and was about to give them the land in spite of their unrighteousness. A second extreme to be rejected is the idea that one may enjoy relationship with God to the full without obedience to His commandments, as if a state can exist without concrete evidence of that state. Genesis 15:6 provides a close analogue to the present text, except that there Abraham’s faith was accounted to him as righteousness. However, it does not contradict this interpretation.[30] Elsewhere Abraham demonstrated his righteousness with obvious acts of obedience (cf. James 2:18–24). In both Genesis 15:6 and Deuteronomy 6:25 צְדָקָה designates the loyalty of the human vassal before his divine Suzerain demonstrated in response acceptable to the Suzerain:[31] trust in the Lord’s promises in the first instance[32] and scrupulous obedience to the Lord’s commands in the second.[33]

Moses’ point here was that the Israelites should demonstrate their loyalty to the Lord by adherence to the supreme commandment and by concrete acts of obedience to the detailed injunctions. When these arose out of genuine faith/fear, the Lord accepted them as proof of righteousness and responded with blessing and life. Conversely in the absence of obedience, faith was lacking and the covenant relationship rejected, to which the Lord responded with the curse and death.

Application

The significance of Deuteronomy 6:20–25 for Christians today is considerably greater than the length of the passage would suggest. First, it highlights the importance of deliberate strategies for transmitting the faith. The Israelite regulations for ethics and worship offered many reasons to arouse the curiosity of outsiders and the uninitiated within the community. Moses hereby prescribed a method whereby the memory of the Lord’s saving actions could be kept alive from generation to generation. As Judges 2 testifies, with the loss of the memory of His saving grace, apostasy and the Canaanization of culture followed close behind. The New Testament includes exhortations to pass on the faith from generation to generation (e.g., 2 Tim. 2:2), and Jesus deliberately transformed the Passover, as prescribed in Exodus 12–13, into the Lord’s Supper in order for His followers to keep alive the memory of His saving actions: “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24). The communion meal offers Christians an opportunity to keep the memory of Christ’s sacrifice fresh in their own minds and answer curious questions by outsiders and children. Like the Israelite system of regulations and laws, questions regarding this rite present a glorious opportunity for gospel witness.

Second, Deuteronomy 6:20–25 teaches clearly the relationship between law and grace within the divine plan of salvation and sanctification. The Scriptures are consistent in asserting that no one may perform works of righteousness sufficient to merit the saving favor of God. In the words of Isaiah, “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away” (Isa. 64:6).[34] And in the words of David, “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge. Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:6–7, NIV).

And in the New Testament Paul wrote, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).

However, within the gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone, the Lord graciously reveals the standard of righteousness by which His redeemed people may live and be confident of His approval. There is no conflict here between Law and grace. The Law was a gracious gift for Israel. It gave them an ever-present reminder of the Lord’s deliverance, His power, His covenant faithfulness, and the way of life and prosperity.

But how is this perspective to be reconciled with Paul’s statements regarding the death-dealing effect of the Law in contrast to the life that comes by the Spirit (Rom. 2:12–13; 4:13–15; 7:6, 8–9; 8:2–4; 2 Cor. 3:6; Gal. 3:12–13, 21–24; 5:18)? In answering this question several important considerations must be kept in mind.

First, Moses’ statement about the life-giving and sustaining effects of the Law is consistent with his teaching in Deuteronomy 30:15–20 and is consistent with the teaching of the Old Testament elsewhere. In Leviticus 18:5 the Lord declared, “Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord” (NIV). Similar statements occur in Ezekiel 20:11 and 13 and in Nehemiah 9:29. The Psalter begins with an ode to the life-giving nature of the Law (1:1–6), and Psalm 119 is devoted entirely to the positive nature of the Law. References to the relationship between life and keeping the Law are common (vv. 17, 40, 77, 93, 97, 116, 144, 156, 159, 175). The basic Old Testament stance is summarized by Habakkuk in 2:4. “As for the proud one, his person [נֶפֶשׁ, soul] is not right on the inside; but the righteous in his faithfulness shall live.” Ezekiel offered an extended exposition of this notion in Ezekiel 18:1–23. After describing the ethical behavior of a person, Ezekiel declared that the person “is righteous; he shall surely live” (v. 9). After describing the unethical behavior of that person’s son he declared, “He has committed all these abominations; he shall surely die” (v. 13). Later Ezekiel said that if a wicked man turns from his wickedness and observes all the Lord’s decrees, and practices righteousness and justice, “he shall surely live” (vv. 21–23).[35] The assumption in each case is that outward actions reflect a person’s inner spirit,[36] on the basis of which a judgment of the person’s status may be made and the sentence of life or death rendered.

Second, from a hermeneutical and theological perspective later revelation cannot correct earlier revelation, as if there were some defect in it. Later revelation may be more precise and more nuanced, but this cannot mean that earlier revelations were false. Accordingly Paul cannot be interpreted as correcting Moses, as if there were some flaw in Moses’ teaching, which seems to be the case if Moses declared that there was a life-giving and sustaining function of the Law (cf. Lev. 18:5), and later Paul declared the opposite as a dogmatic assertion. He would thereby have failed the traditional and primary test of a true prophet, namely, agreement with Moses (Deut. 18:15–22). But his statements should be interpreted not only in the light of Moses, but also as assertions made in the context of particular arguments. In both Romans and Galatians Paul was responding to those who insisted that salvation comes by the works of the Law, as represented by circumcision (cf. Rom. 10:1–3). To those who represented this view he replied that if one looks to the Law as a way of salvation, it will lead to death. On the other hand, if one looks to the revealed will of God as a guide, it yields a life of blessing. On this matter Moses and Paul are in perfect agreement. The notion of “the obedience of faith,” that is, a faith that is demonstrated through acts of obedience, is common to both Testaments (cf. Rom. 8:4).[37] Both Testaments attest to the same paradigm: (a) The Lord’s gracious (i.e., unmerited) saving actions yield the fruit of a redeemed people. (b) A redeemed people yield the fruit of righteous deeds. (c) Righteous deeds yield the fruit of divine blessing.

Perhaps the relevance of Deuteronomy 6:20–25 for Christians may be captured by recasting it as follows. “When our children ask us in days to come, what is the meaning of the ordinances and customs that we Christians observe, then we will say, ‘We were slaves to sin, but the Lord rescued us from the kingdom of darkness with a strong hand, through the work of Christ on the cross and by raising Him from the dead. Moreover He showed great and distressing signs and wonders before the prince of the powers of this world and his followers. He has brought us out from there in fulfillment of His promises and in accord with His glorious plan of salvation, in order to bring us into an inheritance eternal and imperishable. So the Lord commanded us to observe His commandments as an expression of our fear and love for Christ for our good always and for our survival as His people. And it will be righteousness for us if we are careful to show that we love God with all our hearts by doing all that He commanded us. Then we will hear Him say, “Well done, good and faithful servant. Enter into the joy of your Lord.” ’ ”

Notes

1. Unless indicated otherwise, all Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version.
2. Maimonides, twelfth-century a.d. Jewish scholar and philosopher, was one of the first to point out that the number of laws in the Pentateuch total 613. See Alvin J. Reines, “Commandments, The 613,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Macmillan, 1971), 5:760–83; see also Sepher Mitzvoth, ed. Mordecai J. Lev (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1990). The laws are helpfully reproduced in John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 481–516.
3. Moses’ warning against adding or deleting to his utterances follows a widespread ancient Near Eastern tradition of warnings (often curses) against altering documents attested in the epilogue to Hammurabi’s Law Code (James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969], 178) and treaty texts. Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty reads, “Whoever changes, disregards, transgresses or erases the oaths of this tablet or [dis]regards … this treaty and transgresses its oath, [may the guardian(s) of] this treaty tablet, king of the gods, and the great gods, my lords [……]” (Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, ed. and trans. Simo Parpola and Kazuko Watanabe [Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988], 44–45; cf. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 538). For Hittite examples in treaties and edicts see Gary M. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, ed. Harry A. Hoffner Jr., 2nd ed. (Atlanta: Scholars, 1999), 86, 112, 167, 175. Such formulations were also attached to ancient Greek and Roman treaties (Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School [Winona Lake, IL: Eisenbrauns, 1992], 262, for discussion and bibliography), as illustrated by 1 Maccabees 8:30 (the treaty between Judas Maccabeus and the Romans). Revelation 22:18–19 echoes the wording of Deuteronomy 4:2.
4. Related expressions of this notion are given in Proverbs 30:6 and Ecclesiastes 3:14.
5. Psalm 1; Proverbs 9:1–18; 19:16, and others.
6. Peor was a mountain in the vicinity of Mount Nebo to which Balak took Balaam in hope of getting him to curse Israel (Num. 23:28). Numbers 25:1–9 reports that later at this same place the Israelites engaged in horrendous acts of idolatry and immorality. Technically Baal Peor, that is “Baal of Peor,” identifies the local manifestation of Baal as worshiped by the Moabites at this place. The first occurrence of the phrase in Deuteronomy 4:3 treats it as a place name, similar to others of this type, such as Baal Gad, Baal Hamon, Baal Hazor, and others.
7. Numbers 25:3 (and Ps. 106:28) uses the niphal stem of the root צמד, the noun form of which is used of a team or yoke of draft animals.
8. According to Numbers 25:9, twenty-four thousand died as the result of a plague, apparently in addition to those killed by the valiant Phinehas.
9. The verb דָּבַק, which can describe a decisive commitment (Gen. 2:24; Ruth 1:14), occurs an additional four times in Deuteronomy (10:20; 11:22; 13:5 [Eng., v. 4]; 30:20). Moses’ choice of this the strongest of expressions for “sticking together” (cf. Job 29:10) apparently answers to the expression for the idolators’ “yoking themselves” to Baal Peor (Num. 25:3).
10. “This prayer is addressed to no particular god, but to all gods in general, even those who may be unknown. The purpose of the prayer is to claim relief from suffering, which the writer understands is the result of some infraction of divine law. He bases his claim on the fact that his transgressions have been committed unwittingly, and that he does not even know what god he may have offended. Moreover, he claims, the whole human race is by nature ignorant of the divine will, and consequently is constantly committing sin. He therefore ought not to be singled out for punishment” (F. J. Stephens, in Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 391–92).
11. Adapted from ibid.
12. According to Stephens the Sumerian is literally, “of my lord, may his angry heart return to its place for me” (ibid.). The phrase “return to its place,” a figurative expression for “settle down,” suggests the imagery of a raging storm or of water boiling in a kettle.
13. The restoration is based on line 32, after Stephen Langdon, Babylonian Penitential Psalms (Paris: P. Guenther, 1927), 39–44.
14. Cf. Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 328–29.
15. This follows George Braulik’s reading of לְיִרְאָה אֶת־יהוה (“Gesetz als Evangelium: Rechtfertigung und Begnadigung nach der deuteronomischen Tora,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 79 [1982]: 139; and idem, “Law as Gospel: Justification and Pardon according to the Deuteronomic Torah,” Interpretation 38 [1984]: 7). This reading understands the preposition as a lamed of reference or standard. This interpretation finds support in the way Deuteronomy associates the fear of the Lord and obedience elsewhere. The form לְיִרְאָה, “to fear,” occurs eight times in the book. Four verses mention fearing the Lord before obeying Him (5:29; 10:12; 17:19; 31:12); and 4:10 and 14:23 mention fear but omit references to obedience. In 6:24 Moses reversed the order of the more common wording by mentioning obedience before fear. The present sequence is illogical, unless the lamed is understood as Braulik suggests. The present construction parallels that found in 28:58.
16. This is reflected most completely in Deuteronomy 17:18–20 and 31:9–13.
17. Hence Malachi’s concluding challenge to remember the Law of Moses, that is, the statutes and ordinances revealed to him for the sake of all Israel (Mal. 4:4). Malachi’s concern had been to expose the evidences of the absence of fear of the Lord in the postexilic community.
18. Typically this is expressed as right or good action “in the eyes of the Lord” (6:18; 12:25, 28; 13:18; 21:9), in contrast to what is evil (4:25; 9:18; 17:2; 31:29) and what is right in one’s own eyes (12:8). In 1:23 Moses spoke of action that was good in his eyes.
19. Deuteronomy 6:24; 8:16; 26:11; 28:12, 63; cf. 10:13.
20. Deuteronomy 4:40; 5:16, 29, 33; 6:3, 18; 12:25, 28; 19:13; 22:7.
21. These benefits are referred to substantivally as בִרְכַּת יהוה, “the blessing of the Lord” (12:15; 16:17) and the blessing that He commanded on Israel and her barns, etc. (28:8; cf. 11:26–27; 30:1, 19), and verbally as the Lord blessing Israel directly (1:11; 2:7; 7:13; 12:7; 14:24, 29; 15:4, 6, 10, 14, 18; 16:10, 15; 23:20; 24:13, 19; 26:15; 28:8; 30:16). For discussion of the reward for fidelity expressed in terms of blessing see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 310–13.
22. The geographic context is highlighted by the frequent reference to the promised land as “the good land/ground” (1:25, 35; 3:25; 4:21–22; 6:18; 8:7, 10; 9:6; 11:17) and descriptions of the lavish resources of the land (8:7–10; 11:8–12).
23. In this verse the Lord is the subject of אֲחַיֶּה, which is the antonym of אָמִית, “to slay, put to death.”
24. Norbert Lohfink, “Deuteronomy 6:24: לְחַוֹיּנוּ ‘To Maintain Us,’ ” in Sha‘arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. Michael Fishbane and Emmanuel Tov (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns: 1992), 111–19. Lohfink finds this usage of the piel in Nehemiah 9:6; Psalms 33:19; 41:3; Ecclesiastes 7:12; and Jeremiah 49:11 and a cognate semantic analogue in the D stem of Akkadian balu “to live” (ibid., 118).
25. Cf. Deuteronomy 4:1–4; 5:33; 8:1–3; 11:9; 16:20; 22:7; 30:16; 31:9–13; 32:46–47.
26. Leviticus 18:5; Nehemiah 9:29; Psalms 19:7–14; 119.
27. In 4:8 Moses observed that none of the nations possessed “ordinances” (חֻקִּים) and “laws” (מִשְׁפָּטִים) as “righteous” (צַדִּיקִם) as the entire Torah that Moses was presenting to his people. Following his own example in 1:16, in 16:18–20 Moses charged the people to appoint judges who would serve the people with “righteous judgment” (מִשְׁפַּט־צֶדֶק), and “righteous pronouncements” (דִּבְי־צַדִּיקִם). Indeed their single professional commitment should be the pursuit of righteousness (צֶדֶק).
28. This probably accounts for the rendering of the word in 6:25 as έλεημοσύνη, “charity, alms,” in the Septuagint and misericors, “merciful,” in the Vulgate.
29. In “The Song of the Lord” (usually referred to as “the Song of Moses”) God in Deuteronomy 32:4 is characterized as “righteous and straight” (צַדִּיק וֲיָשָׁר).
30. The Targums translate צְדָקָה in 6:25 as “merit, credit.” This meaning of the Aramaic צדקה is attested in extrabiblical inscriptions. (1) A seventh-century b.c. Nerab Inscription reads, “Because of my righteousness/merit before him [i.e., the god], he afforded me a good name and lengthened my days.” See the translation by John C. L. Gibson, Aramaic Inscriptions including Inscriptions in the Dialect of Zenjirli, vol. 2 of Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon, 1975), 97; see also J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of North-west Semitic Inscriptions (New York: Brill, 1995), 1:965. (2) A fifth-century b.c. papyrus inscription from Elephantine in Egypt reads, “You will have merit before Yhwh the god of the heavens more than the person who offers him” (A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Centuryb.c. [London: Clarendon, 1923], 114, 118).
31. Contra Gibson (Aramaic Inscriptions, 82), in both of these contexts צדקה bears the nuance of loyalty toward an overlord, comparable to that found in the eighth century b.c. Samalian Aramaic inscription of Panamuwa II (KAI 215), where צדקה/צדק occurs three times (ll. 1, 11, 19) with this meaning. Note especially line 19: “Because of the loyalty [צדק] of my father and because of my loyalty [צדק], my lord [Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria] has caused me to reign [on the throne] of my father.” For the translation see William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, eds., Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World, vol. 2 of The Context of Scripture (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 159–60.
32. The idiom “to believe in/trust in” (Gen. 15:6) is used in parallelism with בָּטַח, “to trust,” in Job 39:11–12; Psalm 78:22; and Micah 7:5.
33. In Deuteronomy 9:23 these two notions are linked not only with each other but also with rebellion. “And when the Lord sent you from Kadesh-barnea, saying, ‘Go up and take possession of the land that I have given you,’ then you rebelled [מָרָה] against the commandment of the Lord your God and did not believe [הְֶַאמַנְתֶּם] him or obey [שְׁמַעְתֶּם] his voice.” In 1:26, 43מָרָה occurs as an expression of rebellion against the Lord.
34. Compare the repeated assertions of the psalmists that apart from a proper relationship with the Lord there is no one who does good (Pss. 14:1, 4; 53:1, 3).
35. For a detailed discussion of this chapter see Daniel I. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 554–90.
36. This principle is also seen in Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 7:15–23.
37. For a helpful discussion of these and related issues from the New Testament perspective see S. J. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1995).