Another super famous line - “you shall love the lord your god with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might” - that has come to mean something pretty far from what it once did. Lots to unpack here. Sorry in advance.
One of the great scholarly realizations of the mid twentieth century was that Deuteronomy followed the basic form of an ancient Near Eastern vassal treaty (see yesterday’s thread). YHWH is in place of the conquering king, and Israel is the vassal that must obey.
Part of that discovery was that some of the language used in D is actually formal treaty language. Like, imagine that someone wrote something today, and used the “whereas…whereas…therefore” structure. You’d know it was modeled on legal documents. Same thing here.
Except one of the key words in ANE treaties, it turns out, is the word “love,” which doesn’t mean “have emotional affection for,” as we use it, but rather means “be loyal to.” Vassals were commanded to love the kings who had conquered them, and not to love any other kings.
In that light, an ancient writer or reader, familiar with the genre of the treaty and recognizing it in D, would also have recognized “you shall love YHWH your god” not as an appeal to the emotions, but as a command to undivided allegiance. It meant “be loyal to.”
And part of the point of such a command is that you aren’t expected to just naturally feel affection toward the king - you’re being commanded to obey because you’re obligated to. Same here. How do you command love? But you sure can command fealty, obedience. That’s D’s whole bag.
“Love” isn’t the only word in this verse that doesn’t mean now what it meant then. “With all your heart” - hey, doesn’t that speak to love as love, the emotion? It’s the heart, after all! Sadly, in ancient Israel the heart didn’t signify that, either.
The connection between various organs or body parts and different aspects of a person isn’t natural - it’s culturally determined. In Israel, and the Bible, the heart is the seat not of emotion but of cognition. That’s where thoughts happen, not feelings.
You want feelings, well, I’m afraid you’ll have to turn to your liver - that was the seat of emotions. So “with all your heart” really means “with all your mind,” that is, not emotionally, but intentionally. You have to be loyal and mean it.
“With all your soul” - but not really with the modern, or even ancient, idea of a “soul,” as distinct from a body. The word translated as “soul” here originally meant “throat,” and came to stand for a person’s whole being, their life force. It’s not a separable entity.
Here too, then, the sense is that you have to be fully committed to obedience and loyalty: in modern parlance, “with every inch of your being.” You can’t go halfway on this thing; that’s not how covenantal treaty loyalty works.
And finally, “with all your might,” which is probably pretty close to the right idea (finally). Here, though, one might hear, in the treaty language, a hint of military force, which would make sense for a king and vassal: you have to pledge support for your ruler.
Long story short: when we read this verse, and the rest of D, as participating in the ANE treaty genre, some familiar texts come out slightly (or more) different. But they end up fitting better with D’s overall project; loyalty to YHWH as expressed through obedience to his laws.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“Hear O Israel, the Lord is our god, the Lord is one” - that’s how I was taught this verse (6:4) growing up. And I was also taught that this was a, if not the, major expression of monotheism in the Bible. Alas…
This is one of the (many) verses that really suffers when the name of Israel’s god, YHWH, is rendered as a title, “the Lord.” What’s lost is the very specific, very non-monotheistic sentiment here: of all the gods - and every nation has one - YHWH is ours.
It’s almost the very opposite of what I, and I think many people, are taught. People concentrate on the second half, but the first half is where the real money is. We know all the other national gods of Israel’s neighbors. What would Moab say? “Chemosh is our god.”
Here they are, in all their (original) glory. But as I’ve commented on the content of them already, here I’m going to talk about how they function in D, because they do two neat things at once.
We gotta remember that D never just recounts past events for their own sake. This isn’t a history - it’s a speech by Moses that has a clear purpose, to convince his audience to follow the laws that he’s about to give them. Everything has to be understood through that lens.
So here’s Moses, at the beginning of this second oration, telling them about the Ten Commandments. Why? First, because those laws were the beta version of the expanded laws he’s about to proclaim. They were the wilderness laws, the basic starter package.
After all the requesting and haggling, finally Reuben and Gad get to it. As always, if we followed what happened in the stories before, we can see how to understand the division of the text here.
Remember that in P, Moses tells R&G that they will get the land formally only after the conquest, when Eleazar and Joshua will be in charge. So in 32:33, when Moses himself gives them territory, that can’t be P - that has to be E. As confirmed by the mention of Sihon.
Likewise in 32:34-38, where R&G build fortified cities and sheepfolds, that has to be P, because this is exactly what they said they’d do earlier in the P story. No need to build cities in E - the Amorite cities are already unoccupied and waiting for them.
Second verse, same as the first. Interwoven with lines that keep us situated in the narrative are some nice traditional poetic and prophetic images - somewhat further down the poetic road than the last poem, not as far as we’ll get soon.
References to Balaam’s divinely ordained mission, and restrictions; to the Exodus, and less explicitly to the ancestral promises - these all keep one foot planted in the broader story, in a way that actually very few independent poems, especially older ones, do.
But the imagery - particularly the horns of the wild ox (or unicorn for all you KJV fans out there), the lion that rises to feed on its prey - these are standard poetic animal images that we find in older biblical poetry, like Gen 49 (which…is also brought to us by J).
This is a pretty good question (that I missed when it was first posted) and I’ll take a minute to explain. The Pentateuch, like the rest of the Bible, is the product of many many different redactional and editorial moments, many of which probably we’ll never accurately identify.
Some occurred within the sources - like the H expansion of P. Some occurred after the sources were combined - like the insertion of the laws in Exodus 34. Some were very small, some were very large. Some were local, some were global. And one was global and huge: compilation.
When I talk about the compiler or compilation, I’m talking exclusively about the process of combining the four independent sources into one new whole. I’m not talking about any other redactional or editorial activity. Just what needed to be done to interweave the sources.