Many scholars would describe the Book of Deuteronomy as a series of orations that Moses gave the people, but Meredith Kline in his book, Treaty of the Great King,[1] astutely observed that the entire book closely follows the pattern of ancient Near Eastern covenants, particularly Hittite covenants of the second millennium BC.  Reformed theologians talk much about covenants, and indeed, it is a particular distinction of Reformed theology, but the simple question needs to asked, “What is a covenant?”

Reformed writers often describe a covenant as a solemn oath, promise, agreement, or contract.  A covenant—berith in Hebrew and diatheke in Greek—does have elements of these things but it is more than any of them.  In the ancient world from which the Bible came, a covenant was more than just a contract.  It was not a business arrangement but a political one, typically not between equals but between a suzerain and a vassal king, regulating the relationship between the two.  It was sealed by blessings pronounced to induce obedience and curses for disobedience, witnessed by the gods who would enforce it.  A king would also use a covenant as the legal mechanism by which to secure with his people or nobles the dynastic succession to his heir apparent.  A covenant was one of the most formal legal arrangements one could enter into, and biblically speaking, it was how the LORD bonded His people to Himself.

Much of our modern understanding of ancient Near Eastern covenants comes from archaeological finds in Boghazköy, Turkey (where Hattusa, the capital of the Hittite Empire was located), and Tell al-Amarna (the capital of the 19^th Dynasty Egyptian heretic king Akhenaten).  The second millennium BC, when these dynasties existed and when Israel’s Exodus from Egypt took place, was a period of active international engagement which saw the flourishing of diplomacy.  In such an environment, covenant-making was commonplace, and Moses, having grown up in the court of Pharaoh (Exod. 2:10-11), no doubt was familiar with how covenants were written and made.  It therefore should not be surprising that Moses used the covenant form to convey God’s revelation to His people.  Indeed, this would be (in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith) a “voluntary condescension” on God’s part.

George Mendenhall’s research into ancient Hittite treaties[2] shows that covenants generally had the following parts, with some variation:

Preamble.  Almost all ancient covenants are between a suzerain (an overlord) and a vassal king, with the former imposing the covenant on the latter.  The preamble gives the titles and attributes of this covenant-making suzerain, highlighting his glory and honors.  Often this is folded into the historical prologue.

Historical prologue.  This section describes the historical relationship between the suzerain and the vassal which has brought them to make a covenant.  This may highlight the historical rebelliousness of the vassal, the strength and superiority of the suzerain, and thus how the suzerain extends undeserved grace toward the vassal.  This prologue is the basis for the vassal to now pledge his loyalty to the suzerain in gratitude.

Stipulations.  The vassal is expected to be exclusively loyal to the suzerain, and this section outlines the obligations he is taking on, which often include:
(1) aligning oneself fully with the suzerain’s interests; (2) answering any call to arms from the suzerain; (3) holding lasting trust in the suzerain and defending his name and reputation; (4) turning over any rebels against the suzerain; (5) submitting all judgments in controversies to the suzerain; and (6) providing regular tribute.

Provision for safe deposit and regular remembrance of the treaty text.  Two copies of the treaty text were usually made, one for each of the parties, and held in safekeeping in the temples of the gods of the respective parties.  Oftentimes, this section would stipulate the vassal was to have the covenant read publicly on a regular basis so as to continually be reminded of the covenantal obligations and promises.

Ratification provisions.  This would include a list of the gods called upon as witnesses who would be responsible for enforcing the covenant.  It would involve a formal oath, on the part of the vassal (and even the suzerain) and possibly a symbolic ceremony.

Blessings and curses formula to keep the covenant.  Blessings and curses would be provided for either violating the covenant or keeping obedience to it.  These were positive and negative incentives to induce fidelity to the covenant.

Structurally, Deuteronomy follows this treaty pattern closely, as the following abbreviated outline shows.

I. Preamble: The Setting of the Covenant (1:4)

II. Historical Relations Between God and His People (chs. 1-4)

1. Sinai (Horeb) to Kadesh Barnea (1:5-46)
2. Kadesh Barnea to the Transjordanian Conquests (chs. 2-3)
3. Call of Obedience to the Lord (ch. 4)

III. General Stipulations of the Covenant (chs. 5-11)

1. Renewal of the Covenant (ch. 5)
2. The Great Commandment (ch. 6)
3. You Are a Holy People and Are to Trust in the LORD (ch. 7)
4. Be Humble and Remember How the LORD Led You (ch. 8)
5. Be Not Prideful for You Have Sinned (9:1-10:11)
6. What the LORD Requires and Promises (10:12-11:32)

IV. Stipulations for Life Under the Covenant (chs. 12-26)

1. Worship and Ceremonial Stipulations (12:1-16:17)
2. Stipulations Regarding Kingdom Officials (16:18-18:22)
3. Stipulations of Civil Law (chs. 19-25)

V.  Sanctions and Covenant Ratification (chs. 27-30)

1. Instructions for the Ratification Ceremony in Canaan (ch. 27)
2. Ratificatory Blessings and Curses (ch. 28)
3. Summons to the Covenant Oath (chs. 29-30)

VI. Dynastic Disposition and Covenant Continuity (chs. 31-34)

1. Final Arrangements (31:1-29)
2. The Song of Covenant Witness (31:30-32:47)
3. God’s Final Command to Moses (32:48-52)
4. Moses’ Last Testament to the Tribes of Israel (ch. 33)
5. Dynastic Succession (ch. 34)

In thinking about how Deuteronomy is structured, it needs to be acknowledged up front that beyond this high-level overview, the Book is difficult to outline, especially chapters 12-26.  This is for several reasons.  First, there is not a narrative thread to the Book that would assist in showing progression through it.  Second, Moses did not provide much in the way of verbal markers to clearly differentiate one section for another.  Lastly, it is not always clear to us today how some of these laws relate to each other, which would facilitate identifying pericopes in the text.  This difficulty has led some commentators to label certain sections “miscellaneous laws.”  That suggests a randomness to God’s word, and it was precisely such a perception which fueled critical theories in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that posited the book was not written by Moses in the mid-second millennium BC but instead was written centuries later by unknown sources as an imagined foundation for the religious reforms that King Josiah was trying to push through.  Such theories have no independent corroborating evidence to attest to their veracity, and, moreover, are not needed.  If we accept that God’s word is inerrant and infallible, then we need to humbly acknowledge that the organization is not clear to us and work to look at the text more closely.  Just because we cannot easily discern the structure does not mean that one does not exist or that the organization is random.  As the Detailed Outline on the following pages suggests and the remainder of this commentary will elaborate, there is both a cohesive structure to Deuteronomy and a logical progression in how the material in it unfolds.  This will be our working map in our exploration of Deuteronomy.

---

[1] Meredith Kline, Treaty of the Great King; The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary (Grand Rapids MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1963).

[2] George Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East, (Pittsburgh PA: The Presbyterian Board of Colportage, 1955), 31-34.