1

Identity and Loyalty, Faith and Violence.

The Case of Deuteronomy
Eep Talstra, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
0. Violence by instruction?
In a conference addressing the difficult theme of the role of violence in religion and in biblical
tradition, one cannot avoid considering some of the classical texts in the boo of Deutero!
nomy that since long have "rovoed debate. Is it true, and if so, is it acce"table that #$%$
$imself orders the com"lete annihilation of the "eo"les of Canaan &cha"ter ' and ()* and also
even orders the destruction of cities and of members of the "eo"le of Israel in case of idolatry
&cha"ter 1+*, -nd if one cannot acce"t the message of these texts, .hat does that mean for
/e.ish or Christian reading and inter"reting the bible in modern society,
In the first section of this "a"er I .ill "resent a fe. verses from the cha"ters mentioned .ith
some short comments to the texts and their rece"tion in theology. In the second section I .ill
discuss a number of "ositions taen in biblical scholarshi" in the inter"retation of these texts.
In this discussion I also .ill address the role of hermeneutics in biblical scholarshi" by
studying the "roblems of .hat I .ould call biblical hermeneutics from an external "ers"ective
versus biblical hermeneutics from an internal "ers"ective. In the third section I .ill try to
reach conclusions about the "osition of the Deuteronomy texts mentioned in biblical theology.
1. Selected Texts from Deuteronomy 7, 13 and 20.
0y .ay of introduction I 1uote some selected "assages from Deuteronomy ', 1+ and (). They
are "resented here according to the 2e. 3evised 4tandard Version.
1
Deuteronomy 7
The cha"ter is "art of the larger section of cha"ters 5!11. This section gives an ex"lanation of
the Commandment &561* that 7od has charged 8oses .ith to teach to Israel. 9ne may call
these cha"ters an elaboration of the first t.o commandments of the Decalogue 1uoted in
cha"ter :.
(
Dtn. 561; re"hrases the first and second commandment6 no other 7ods< no idols.
Dtn. '6(!+ describes the im"lication of these commandments6 the strict "rohibition of a
covenant bet.een Israel and the "eo"les living in Canaan. %hen reading these cha"ters one
may conclude that the basic argument given to Israel for observing the commandments is
loyalty and identity.
7:1ff. Wen te !ord your "od #rin$s you into te land % and e &lears a'ay many
nations #efore you % ten you must utterly destroy tem. (a)e no &ovenant 'it
tem and so' tem no mer&y. Do not intermarry 'it tem, %, for tat 'ould turn
a'ay your &ildren from follo'in$ me, to serve oter $ods.*
7:+ ,or you are a people oly to te !ord your "od- te !ord your "od as &osen you
out of all te peoples on eart to #e is people, is treasured possession.*
The instructions of #$%$ are given by 8oses to Israel .ith res"ect to a s"ecific scene6 the
destruction ordered does not regard enemies or aliens in general. The order is a""lied to the
s"ecial list of seven "eo"les living in the land of Canaan &'61*. It means, the basic argument is
1
Te .oly /i#le. 0e' 1evised 2tandard Version, Cambridge =niversity >ress, 1?@?
(
8. %einfeld, Deuteronomy 1311 4Te An&or /i#le 56, 2e. #or, 1??1, ". +(@.
(
not an ethnic one, rather it is the argument of loyalty &not their gods, but #$%$ only* and
identity &Israel is the chosen "eo"le that is to live is this country*. To a modern, moral
Audgment, this distinction may not mean much, but for a "ro"er inter"retation of the texts it
does matter.
Deuteronomy 17
This cha"ter elaborates on the last section of the la. in cha"ter 1(. There is only one 7od and
only one "lace of .orshi", i.e. the "lace #$%$ .ill choose. That means that Israel should
not sho. interest in, or try to imitate the religion of the nations in Canaan &1(6(?ff.*. To the
contrary, any interest in other cults has to be extinguished radically, also .hen it is found
.ithin Israel itself.
17:1ff. 8f propets or tose 'o divine #y dreams appear amon$ you and promise you
omens % and ten say, !et us follo' oter $ods*.. you must not eed te 'ords of
tose propets% /ut tose propets or tose 'o divine #y dreams sall #e put to
deat.*
17:+ff. 8f anyone se&retly enti&es you 9 even if it is your #roter, % sayin$, !et us $o
'orsip oter $ods*% you must not yield % 2o' tem no pity % /ut you sall surely )ill
tem%*
17:1:ff.
8f you ear it is said a#out one of te to'ns % tat s&oundrels from amon$ you ave
$one out and led te ina#itants of te to'n astray, sayin$, !et us $o and 'orsip oter
$ods*%ten you sall in;uire ... you sall put te ina#itants of tat to'n to te s'ord,
utterly destroyin$ it and everytin$ in it ...*
Three times the challenge is mentioned6 BLet us follo. or let us .orshi" other godsC, in verse
(, 5 and 1(. In this cha"ter instructions are given regarding the internal situation of Israel. In
case "ro"hets or dreamers "ro"ose to follo. other 7ods, or .hen members of ones o.n
family do, even .hen a .hole city does so, these "eo"le have to be "ut to death, the city has
to be burnt. This is a case of loyalty and identity im"osed on the community itself.
Deuteronomy :<
:<:1<ff.
Wen you dra' near to a to'n to fi$t a$ainst it, offer it terms of pea&e. 8f it a&&epts
your terms of pea&e and surrenders to you, ten all te people in it sall serve you at
for&ed la#or. 8f it does not su#mit to you pea&efully, %you sall put all its males to te
s'ord.
:<:15ff.
Tus you sall treat all te to'ns tat are very far from you .. /ut as for te to'ns of
tese peoples tat te !ord your "od is $ivin$ you as an ineritan&e, you must not let
anytin$ tat #reates remain alive. =ou sall anniilate tem 9 te .ittites and te
Amorites, % so tat tey may not tea& you to do all te a#orrent tin$s tat tey do
for teir $ods %*
The cha"ter gives instructions on .arfare in general. The text maes a clear distinction,
ho.ever, bet.een .ar inside the boundaries of the land of Canaan and .ar against cities far
a.ay D outside IsraelEs o.n territories. The instructions for .arfare inside the land &()61:!1@*
exhibit a clear connection .ith cha"ter '. The instructions im"ly that identity and loyalty are
directly connected to the "romise and the "ossession of the land. Israel is receiving .hat has
been "romised. That is not being based on conce"ts of ethnic identity, or a general feeling of
su"eriority. The texts s"ea a different language. For exam"le Dtn. '6'6 Fyou are a small
+
"eo"leE< 7en. 1:615 Fthe ini1uity of the -moritesE. Dtn. ?6;6 Fthe .icedness of these
"eo"lesE< 4ee also Dtn. (61)ff. ()ff6 #$%$ did similar things for other nations as .ell.
The texts 1uoted from Deuteronomy '< 1+ and () may have demonstrated the im"ortance of
the t.o leading themes, i.e. the land to be inherited by Israel as the chosen "eo"le &identity*,
and the danger of the gods of the other "eo"les &loyalty*
Clearly these texts and other, similar texts are not at all understood in terms of loyalty and
identity by modern readers. 8odern readers usually see merely one central theme in these
texts, i.e. religiously motivated violence. For that reason these texts have al.ays "rovoed
1uestions and reAection, and no doubt .ill continue to do so. - clear exam"le is the reaction
by 1@
th
century, deist theology as formulated by the biblical scholar $errmann 4amuel
3eimarus &15?;!1'5@*.
+
The exam"le 1uoted belo. is about the story of the golden calf in
Gxodus +(. I 1uote from a reference given by $outman.
;
3eimarus argues strongly against
8osesE violent reaction to the maing of the golden calf &Gx. +(*. $e claims that illing so
many Israelites can not be 7odEs intention. This is not 7od as $e is su""osed to be. The texts
only tell us about 8osesE .ay of establishing his o.n authority.
B0ehHte 7ottI %elch abscheuliches -nsinnenI Das ist 7ottes %eise nicht, die
3eligion durch 4ch.erdt und 0lutvergiessen Ju "lanJenB.
It is im"ortant to notice the difference of vie."oint. 3eimarus s"eas about BreligionC and
about B7odC, he does not s"ea of loyalty or identity, as it is found in Deuteronomy ' and 1+.
This means that he in fact maes a general statement about .hat is to be ex"ected from
religion and .hat is not. The narrative of 7od and Israel and their common history does not
matter, it seems. It is only the general 1uestion6 %hat can be ex"ected from 7od and religion
and .hat cannot, Thus, the critical 1uestions about 0ible and morality do not mae any
distinction bet.een the .ars against "eo"le .ithin or outside the "romised land. From the
"ers"ective of a general interest in humanity and morality that is understandable. %hy should
modern readers follo. the texts in their subtle distinctions bet.een internal and external
o""osition, Is not our "roblem6 ho. can 7od give such commandments any.ay, $o.ever,
from the "ers"ective of literary and exegetical analysis the difference matters. The texts of
Deuteronomy are not dealing .ith illing of enemies in general, based on some general divine
"ermission. The instructions are "ositioned .ithin the frame.or of the narrative of IsraelEs
history and identity.
In this .ay .e find a first contrast bet.een certain "oints of interest in the inter"retation of
these texts of violence6 that is the contrast of the "articular and the general. 9ne could also
call it the contrast bet.een exegesis as the search for historical context and exegesis from a
value system that is the "ers"ective of the modern reader. BDo I tae the trouble of evaluating
these texts in terms of their o.n literary and historical context,C 9r is it sufficient Aust to as
the general 1uestion6 BCould I as a reader of the 0ible ever acce"t these texts as "art of my
religious heritage,C From there .e stumble over a number of additional 1uestions6 Do I reAect
the entire bible for reason of these instructions of violence, Can I 1ualify these texts in terms
of the overall structure of the 0ible itself, claiming that the central message of the 0ible is
something fully different, Can I esca"e from the uneasy feelings about these texts by using
+
4ee, /.$. $ayes, F.C. >russner, >ld Testament Teolo$y. 8ts .istory and Development, -tlanta6 /ohn
Knox >ress, 1?@:, ". ;@f.
;
C. $outman, EL.ei 4icht.eisen von Israel als 8inderheit inmitten der 0e.ohner Kanaans. Gin Dis!
ussionsbeitrag Jum VerhMltnis von / und Dtr&7*E in6 8.Vervenne, /.Lust &ed.*, Deuteronomy and
Deuteronomi& !iterature, ,2 ?...W./re)elmans 4/ET! 1776, Leuven, 1??', ".(1+!(+(< ".(() ftn (+.
;
the historical no.ledge that this ty"e of massacre .as Aust a matter of rhetoric and most
liely did not really ha""en, Do I need to rely on a non!biblical, external value system to be
able to evaluate or neutraliJe these texts,
Therefore, the first area of debate has to be about the o"tions biblical scholarshi" has. Is
biblical research a matter of trying to understand texts in their historical setting, Is biblical
research an analytical instrument that can be used to disarm biblical texts in terms of religious
authority and thus allo. them to be subAect of general moral Audgement &3eimarus*, 9r do .e
have other o"tions,
2. The otions of !iblical Scholarshi
2.1. "scae from hermeneutical #uestions?
- maAor tas of biblical scholarshi" is its concentration on the analysis of the historical setting
of the texts. That may be hel"ful in a discussion .ith 3eimarus. 9ne can observe, ho.ever,
that this concentration also can become an attem"t to avoid a clear hermeneutical "osition.
0elo. I .ill argue that the historical analysis of texts and their cultural setting remains
im"ortant, also in terms of hermeneutics, but for the moment I .ill em"hasiJe the "oint that
historical analysis too easily can become an instrument to avoid the hermeneutical and
theological 1uestions, i.e. can both /e.ish and Christian readers acce"t these texts as "art of
their religious heritage,
Fre1uently exegetes mae use of the argument that the texts about annihilating the "eo"les of
Canaan only belong to religious s"eech of the "ast. That is, if one "erforms a "ro"er analysis
of the texts and their historical setting, one .ill find that a moral debate is no longer urgent,
since the instructions on the annihilation of the "eo"les a""ear to be only a theological
construct, B.ishful thiningC as %einfeld
:
states it. In the introduction to his ?ommentary on
Deuteronomy %einfeld suggests a "ossible cultic tradition at 7ilgal as the bacground of
these texts. $e suggests that the anti!Canaanite feelings date bac to "eriod of the early
monarchy6 BThe "eriod of 4aul is the most a""ro"riate for the crystalliJation of an anti!
Canaanite ideologyC The actual texts of Deuteronomy are to be dated in the "eriod of the
/udean ings $eJeiah and /osiah. %einfeld em"hasiJes that the texts about the other "eo"les
are a "roduct of B.ishful thiningC They re"resent a utopian "olitical "rogram. The "olitical
religious rhetoric of these texts can also be found in texts throughout the -ncient 2ear Gast.
Therefore, the texts of Deuteronomy do not refer to a real massacre of the "eo"les in Canaan.
This line of argumentation remains the same, in case scholars declare the uto"ia to be formul!
ated some centuries later, being the rhetoric of Israel returning from exile. To Israel the
"eo"les to be exterminated re"resent the dar "arts of their o.n "ast, the unfaithfulness of
their o.n hearts. -ccording to Deuteronomy the dar "ast has to be cleared a.ay so that the
"eo"le of Israel can start a ne. future. This is ho. the texts are ex"lained by /.%. 3ogerson,
5
. The texts of destruction have to be read in a more meta"horical sense. They exhibit a sense
of exclusiveness and intolerance, but that is theology, ideology, not reality. 3eferring to Dtn
(), 3ogerson .rites6 BClearly .e are not in the .orld of reality, but in a .orld .here enemies
have become symbols for .icedness, and utter destruction a symbol for the rooting out of
:
8. %einfeld, op.&it., ". +''< cf. ". :11 and ". :(ff.
5
/.%. 3ogerson, FThe Gnemy in the 9ld TestamentE, in6 -.7.-uld &ed.*, Understandin$ @oets and @ropets
&/49T 1:(*, 4heffield 1??+, ". (@;!(?+. The 1uotation is from ". (?(.
:
evil.C 9ne gets the im"ression that if .e .ant to rescue a morally correct bible, almost
anything goes.
$o.ever, even .hen the literary!critical analysis of a late "re!exilic or an exilic origin of the
texts is liely to be correct, it does not solve our theological "roblem. The 1uestion remains6
$o. to evaluate the fact that these texts are an integrated "art of the boo of Deuteronomy,
That is the 1uestion that bothers exegetes, as is clear from the discussions by $outman
'
and
0rauli.
@

It is too easy to claim that the modern reader has no need at all for a moral evaluation of these
texts, only because the "icture they "resent "robably is not realistic. For the very claim that
they re"resent B.ishful thiningC leads to an im"licit evaluation of these texts, i.e., the Israel
s"eaing or being addressed in these texts is not the real "eo"le of Israel. The real Israel .as a
much more vulnerable or "eaceful minority. From daily ex"erience .e no. that, this
a""roach is not going to .or. In actual "olitics, the "ublic o"inion in .estern countries does
not acce"t that sometimes 8uslims ans.er 1uestions about terrorism sim"ly by stating that
"eo"le "erforming terrorist actions are no re"resentatives of the real Islam. The same is true of
discussion about the so!called Bethnic clinsingC in the .ars in former #ugoslavia, very often
also "racticed by ethnic grou"s of a Christian bacground. -ny sim"le claim6 this is not the
real Christianity, .ould be regarded by "ublic o"inion as an unacce"tably easy .ay out, and
rightly so.
Therefore, if .e do not a""reciate such ans.ers, .e should realiJe ourselves that exegetes
tend to use the same strategy of formulating disclaimers6 if there is terror in the 0ible, it is not
the real 0ible. For correct moral and religious lessons you better loo at other "ages. That, I
thin, is the .rong a""roach. In short, one cannot deal .ith these difficult "assages .ithout
trying to formulate a theological hermeneutics for 0ible reading. 0iblical scholars can not act
only as archaeologists s"eaing as moralists from time to time, they are also to act as modern
readers .ith a tas to understand and inter"ret these texts. 9ne cannot declare that to be
someone elseEs tas.
2.2. $ermeneutical ersecti%es
In my vie., the most im"ortant tas of theological hermeneutical reflection is, to be a.are of
ones o.n "oint of vie. as a reader of a "articular biblical text. I .ill mention some of the
readerEs "ositions that I found in the reactions of exegetes to the texts of Deuteronomy.
:.:.1. >utsiderAs perspe&tive: reli$ions and umanity
9ne hermeneutical "osition in reading the bible is to tae the outsiderEs "ers"ective. %ith that
I mean the "osition that begins by maing assum"tions about religion in general, before con!
sidering a "articular tradition of faith. In that case the line of 1uestioning runs more or less
lie this6 $o. could such texts as in Deuteronomy ever become "art of the Israelite religion,
if one may assume that religion basically is a "rogram for morality and humanity, This
"ers"ective is "resent in Keel and =ehlingerEs study of the religion of ancient Israel
?
%ith
'
art.&it. ".((), ftn (;
@
7. 0rauli, FDie VNlervernichtung und die 3Hcehr Israels ins VerheiOungsland $ermeneutische
0emerungen Jum 0uch DeuteronomiumE, in6 8.Vervenne, /.Lust &ed.*, Deuteronomy and Deutero3
nomi& !iterature, ,2 ?...W./re)elmans 4/ET! 1776, Leuven, 1??', ".+!+@< see "". :ff.
?
9. Keel, C. =hlinger, "Bttinnen, "Btter und "ottessym#ole. 0eue Er)enntnisse Cur 1eli$ions$e3
s&i&te Danaans und 8sraels auf$rund #islan$ uners&lossener i)ono$rafis&er Euellen. &Puaestio!
5
res"ect to the boo of Deuteronomy their claim is6 B/e.ish religion had its o.n Fall
&"rimordial 4in* in the 'th and 5th Century 0CG .hen it thought to be able to find its o.n
identity by declaring outla. all that .as Canaanite and by calling for its destructionC. They
call this a tragedy that invites both /e.s and Christian to humility and conversion6
Die judFis&e 1eli$ion at im 7. und +. G. v. ?r. einen in der Anla$e dem &rist
li&en Antijudaismus ver$lei&#aren, 'enn$lei& in seinen istoris&en ,ol$en unver
$lei&li& armloseren 2Hndenfall #e$an$en, als es seine 8dentitFt nur finden Cu
)Bnnen $lau#te, indem es alles DanaanFis&en verfemte und Cu seiner Verni&tun$
aufrief, ...Es $eBrt Cur Tra$i) der jHdis&3&ristli&en 2&uld$es&i&te, daI das
Vol), das >pfer der 2&oa $e'orden ist, in seinen ei$enen reli$iBsen 2&riften an Cen
traler 2telle den Auftra$ Cur Ausrottun$ anderer VBl)er H#erliefert at, um dadur&
die 1eineit und .eili$)eit der ei$enen 1eli$ions$emeins&aft Cu si&eren 4v$l. Dtn
7,:3+.1+.:J3:+6 .ier sind alle Cu Demut und Um)er auf$erufen.6.
-ll are invited to humility and conversion. The 1uestion is6 conversion to .hat or to .hom, Is
there a 7od behind human religion ready to Audge all religion by higher moral standards, Is
religion basically a moral "rogram, Is 7od involved at all in this,
9nce one has decided that religion is an interesting human invention that has both bright and
dars as"ects, the greater "art of the moral "roblem already has been solved. Then it is
sufficient to re1uire a better behaviour in the name of humanity6 %e all no. that Deutero!
nomy ' is morally .rong. 4o, /e.ish and Christian communities should a"ologiJe and never
.rite such immoral things again.
The 1uestion, ho.ever, is6 is it Israel itself that formulated the commandments in Deutero!
nomy ', In terms of historical critical analysis that certainly is the case. $o.ever, in terms of
religious claims &assuming the tas of biblical theology goes beyond historical descri"tion*, is
not the real "roblem that in this text 8oses is formulating commandments that are "resented
as given by 7od &Deuteronomy 561*, 4o, can .e solve the moral "roblem by sim"ly ruling
7od out as a character on the scene and forcing him to see refuge behind the curtains, Is not
our challenge that in reading these texts .e cannot avoid to s"ea about 7od, not Aust about
religion as a matter of human interest and cultural habits,
:.:.:. !iterary insiderAs perspe&tive: "od as a literary &ara&ter
- different o"tion is .hat I .ould call a literary insiderEs "ers"ective, combined .ith a
culturally outsiderEs "ers"ective. That means .e not only s"ea of religion as "art of human
culture in general and thus unfortunately being dominated by bad human habits. %e also
s"ea of 7od as a main character in the drama "resented by the texts. I refer to an article by
%hybray, .ho s"eas of the immorality of 7od.
1)
For exam"le, %hybray sees ho. 7od
resists to human autonomy in 7en.+ and 11. -nd in the debate bet.een #$%$ and -braham
in 7enesis 1@, he observes -braham, a human .ho dares to confront and instruct a god.
4imilarly 8oses confronts 7od in debate, in Gxodus +( and 2umbers 11. Thus, in these
sections, as %hybray formulates, 7od becomes B- fla.ed deity, behaving immorally and
ca"riciously.C
11
-s readers of the texts .e remain in the .orld of the story, but clearly .e are
on the side of our human heroEs, i.e. -braham and 8oses, .ho dare to confront 7od .ith his
immorality. It is this confrontation .ith 7od that maes humanity morally gro..
nes Dis"utatae 1+;*, $erder6 0asel, 1??:< ".;';.
1)
3.2. %hybray, FThe immorality of 7od6 3eflections on 4ome >assages in 7enesis, /ob, Gxodus and
2umbersE, G2>T '( &1??5* @?!1()
11
%hybray, art.&it., ". 1()
'
2ot in e1ually strong terms of morality, but more in terms of literary analysis one finds 7od
described as a com"lex literary character by /ac 8iles.
1(
In his .or 8iles tries to derive
from the Tenach a biogra"hy of 7od. In the $ebre. 0ible he sees the literary "rocess of the
develo"ing character of #$%$. In this .ay, similar to %hybrayEs literary analysis, 7od is a
maAor "artici"ant in our discussion of the 0ible, but only as a character in the "lot of the boo.
%ith res"ect to the boo of Deuteronomy the reader .ill have to acce"t as a matter of fact the
rough and dar side in the character of #$%$ that becomes visible in the instructions to
annihilate the nations, but also in the extensive descri"tion of the curses in cha"ter (@. %ith
res"ect to these curses 8iles .rites6
B0ut Deuteronomy (@, a .arning to Israel, is also a terrifying revelation of the
character of the Lord, IsraelEs 7od. In the savagery of its detail, this vision greatly
exceeds the flood. Is the Lord 7od ca"able of this, Indeed he is.C
1+
In an 8nterlude .here 8iles comments to the Tora and the Garly >ro"hets, he "hrases the
fundamental 1uestion that has to be raised indeed after one finishes the reading of the boo of
Kings6 BDoes 7od fail,C In ans.ering this 1uestion 8iles again maes very clear that .hen
s"eaing about 7od, .e are s"eaing of a develo"ing literary character. $e .rites6
B%hat maes the Tenach a .or of literary art is "recisely the .ay it turns the
religious ex"erience of a "eo"le into a character, the Lord 7od, and its historical
ex"erience into a "lot.C BIt .as a bold literary strie to turn the historical victories of
-ssyria and 0abylon into actions of a "rotagonist, the Lord 7odQC
-s a result of this, the character of 7od continually changes in the course of the history of
Israel6
BThe Lord finds a .ay to continue his contact .ith Israel, and thereby his o.n unfold
ding life, by maing a change in himself.C
1;
In the end also this literary insiderEs "ers"ective, though being more fair to the texts then the
analysis from an external, moral "oint of vie. could be, restricts itself to the claim that
religion is human s"eaing of 7od and that 7od is a literary character reflecting human
ex"eriences. 4o humans are fully res"onsible for any violence that is found in their holy texts.
They may reallocate the res"onsibility for this violence .ith their literary invention, called
B7odC, but they need to continue to re!educate this B7odC, and thus themselves into a higher
moral level. In 8ilesE boo it is the confrontation .ith humanity that causes 7od to gro.
morally.
:.:.7. Teolo$i&al insidersA perspe&tive: reli$ious &ommitment
%hat .ould ha""en, if not only one taes u" the insidersE "ers"ective, as /ac 8iles does, but
also one .ould be convinced that the 7od of Israel does exist outside $is o.n boo, In other
.ords, can one evaluate the "roblem of the Btexts of terrorC in terms of biblical hermeneutics,
or, as I .ould "refer to say6 can one negotiate .ith 7od about these things, Aust as -braham
did, Is there a 7od to negotiate .ith,
1(
/. 8iles, "od. A #io$rapy, 2e. #or6 Vintage 0oos, 1??5
1+
op.&it., ". 1;'
1;
op.&it., ". 1?)!1?(
@
In a .ay Calvin still is u" to date, since he has not modified or mitigated these texts, but he
has tried to ex"lain them.
1:
D.F %right describes ho. Calvin struggles .ith the "rinci"les of a
Aust .ar. $e describes the difference bet.een the rule in Deuteronomy ()61(!1:6 no illing of
.omen and children and the exce"tion made in Deuteronomy ()615!1@6 i.e. the full destruct!
ion of ca"tured cities and their inhabitants. $is argument is that Israel is in this "articular case
has been a""ointed to execute divine retribution &Dtn ?6;*. 9f course, that only can be said if
one taes the insidersE "ers"ective.
If one turns to recent biblical theologies one finds that sometimes biblical scholars do not
even touch u"on the debate .ith modern readers on morality. -n exam"le is 0.4. ChildsE,
study of biblical theology.
15
In his boo one hardly finds a reference to the texts of Dtn '< 1+
or (). 9nly .here Childs deals .ith 9T conce"ts of 7od, the text of Deuteronomy ' is
mentioned, but even then only the verses about 7odEs election of Israel, '65!@
1'
. %hen Childs,
in cha"ter +.V., discusses the 8osaic traditions, the instructions to annihilate the "eo"les are
not mentioned at all.
- little more about the theme of violence is said by D.T. 9lson, in his study of the com"os!
ition and the theology of the boo of Deuteronomy.
1@
%ith res"ect to Deuteronomy ' 9lson
em"hasiJes IsraelEs election and identity &". :(ff.*. Cha"ter 1+ in his vie. re"resents the claim
that Israel should only listen to the voice of #$%$ &". 5?f.*< Cha"ter () deals .ith .ar, but it
is about .ar under certain restrictions &". ?+f.*. It is im"ortant in 9lsonEs vie. to see that
these are regulations for the con1uest only. They .ere valid Aust for once. That may be the
case, but even then also 9lson does not address moral 1uestions a "resent day reader might
have here.
It seems that scholars of biblical theology, even in case they argue for a theological hermen!
eutics from .ithin, "refer to leave the "roblem .ith the systematic or dogmatic theology. #et,
in my vie. these texts also need to be inter"reted by exegetes in terms of biblical theology.
That is made clear by Ferdinand Deist
1?
in his study of the reading of the boo of
Deuteronomy in the context of 4outh -frican aparteid "olitics. - naRve reading of the boo,
he says, a""eared to be hel"ful as an additional argumentation for racial theories. Deist &". ()*
"oints at Bthe sense of anxiety and vulnerabilityC that is "resent in Deuteronomy, .hich he
thins is usually overlooed in modern, some.hat romantic, ecclesiastic vie.s of the boo.
Deuteronomy is not Aust a uto"ia about a ne. "ost!exilic community based on ne.ly formul!
ated humane la.s.
()
It is also a textboo about a minority that feels threatened.
(1
-nother biblical scholar to be mentioned in this context is %alter 0rueggemann
((
.ho, from a
theological insiderEs "ers"ective, using a theological hermeneutics .ith interest in moral
1:
D.F.%right, F-ccomodation and 0arbarity in /ohn CalvinEs 9ld testament CommentariesE, in6 -.7.-uld
&ed.*, Understandin$ @oets and @ropets &/49T 1:(*, 4heffield 1??+, ". ;1+!;('< see ". ;1@f., ;(;.
15
0.4. ChildsE, /i#li&al Teolo$y of te >ld and 0e' Testaments. Teolo$i&al 1efle&tion on te
?ristian /i#le, London6 4C8 >ress, 1??(
1'
op.&it., ". +:@, ;(5
1@
D.T. 9lson, Deuteronomy and te Deat of (oses. A Teolo$i&al 1eadin$. &9vertures to 0iblical
Theology* 8innea"olis6 Fortress >ress, 1??;
1?
F.G. Deist, FThe Dangers of Deuteronomy6 - >age from the 3ece"tion $istory of the 0ooE, in F.
7arcSa 8artSneJ &ed.*, 2tudies in Deuteronomy ,2 ?. !a#us&a$ne, T4VT :+U Leiden, 1??;, 1+!(?
()
G. 2oort, EDas Ka"itulationsangebot im KriegsgesetJ Dtn ()61)ff. und in den KriegserJMhlungenE,
in F.7arcSa 8artSneJ &ed.*, 2tudies in Deuteronomy ,2 ?. !a#us&a$ne, T4VT :+U Leiden, 1??;, 1?'!
(((
(1
4ee for a similar line of argumentation D.L. 4mith!Christo"her, A #i#li&al Teolo$y of EKile
&9uvertures to 0iblical Theology*, Fortress >ress6 8innea"olis, ())(
((
%. 0rueggemann, Deuteronomy &-bingdon 9ld Testament Commentaries*, 2ashville, ())1
?
issues, has addressed the 1uestions of morality and humanity in Deuteronomy. In his
Commentary to the boo of Deuteronomy he adds to his exegesis of each section a se"arate
"aragra"h called6 Teolo$i&al and Eti&al Analysis. In my vie. 0rueggemann "iced u" the
"oint that Deist has mentioned. Deuteronomic la.s are not organiJing an ideal ne. com!
munity, the uto"ia of former exiles. Deuteronomy "resents the dilemma that still is a real one6
The "eo"le of Israel is a distinct religious community that nevertheless has to live in a real
.orld. To 0rueggemann the 9ld Testament Israel is meant to be .hat he calls a contrast
community, the beginning of a ne. future. 0ut at the same time Deuteronomy "resents
anxiety. The ne. future is not an easy "rogramme of "rogression. -ccording to 0ruegge!
mann, modern churches should be able to understand the dilemma, since their crisis is similar6
Bexcessive exclusivenessC is as dangerous as Bexcessive accommodationC is. $e sees a
"arallel bet.een the language Deuteronomy uses for the idols of other religions and the
iconogra"hy of modern Internet that "romises an easy accessible ha""y future. $o. to resist,
4o, even if one does not acce"t instructions for annihilation such as the ones given in
Deuteronomy, biblical exegesis can only start from understanding the dilemma of a real
religious community living in a real .orld, rather then confronting the classical texts .ith
modern religious idealism
3. Sortin& the #uestions
%here does all this lead us, Do .e have to choose bet.een either o""osing or defending
DeuteronomyEs texts of violence, %hen trying to reach a conclusion .e need to find out .hat
ha""ens if .e try to read the texts from an inside hermeneutical "ers"ective.
The main 1uestion that hel"s us sorting various "oints of vie. is the 1uestion about .hat
"osition one taes as a reader of the texts of Deuteronomy. Could I stay outside the "roblem
of violence by maing general claims about humanity versus a line of argumentation in terms
of a divine "lan that ex"lains everything, 0ut if, as .e sa., the "roblem of these texts is
closely connected to identity, the 1uestion remains6 can one reach any inter"retation .ithout
addressing ones o.n identity as a reader,
-s an exegete I have to start from .hat is on my des. That is, .e do not have a general
theory of humanity forcing us to Audge the texts, nor do .e have access to a divine "lan
hel"ing us to Austify them. %e do have the texts themselves, their history and their rece"tion.
4o if .e read them no., the 1uestion is6 to .hom are these texts still valid, That is, could I
read them and consider myself a reader .ho is ready to inherit these texts and even
understanding myself as "art of their tradition, 9f course, one can decide to remain "rinci"!
ally an outsider. 0ut, .hen reading the texts no. as a Christian or as a /e., one reads them as
a "art of ones family history. This im"lies that one acce"ts that these texts have not been
.ritten only to be imitated or to be mitigated, but to be understood as a crucial "art of a
"articular communityEs Aourney through history, a Aourney the reader "artici"ates in.
This textual a""roach im"lies that one does not thin in terms of an ultimate truth behind the
texts, a truth claim that has to be acce"ted or reAected. 3ather one reads Deuteronomy in the
first "lace as "art of the Aourney made by 7od and his "eo"le through history. $o. did the
story continue from there, =sually the exegetical agenda is set by the outside "ers"ective
only6 these texts "resent the unacce"table cruelties found in an ancient religion. Does this
mean that a theology from the inside "ers"ective is hel"less, since it can only defend the
indefensible,
3.1. The reader's ersecti%e
1)
-cce"ting the texts as "art of IsraelEs Aourney through history and thus as "art of /e.ish and
Christian heritage means that one no longer should start inter"retation from the dilemma6 To
imitate, or to mitigate, First, the texts set a tas for Israel, .hich .as meant to be a
"unishment because of the sins of the "eo"les in Canaan &7en. 1:< Dtn ?*. 4econd, Israel in
its history has ex"erienced the same fate as the seven "eo"les &'61v. ?6;*, i.e. the loss of the
land because of their sins. 4o, Deuteronomy is not a boo about the ideology of a con1uering
"eo"le, it is about 7od .ho is a Audge. In the end, Israel has been Audged by the same
standards as the "eo"les mentioned in Deuteronomy.
(+
-nd if there is any difference left
bet.een Israel and the "eo"les, it is because of 7odEs favour based on his loyalty to the
"atriarchs. 4o, after reading the boo, one only can reach this conclusion6 the "unishment, the
annihilation of the seven "eo"les has failed. That is the theme of cha"ter +1, elaborated
further in /udges 1ff. This leaves us .ith an interesting 1uestion6 assume Israel had been
obedient and successful, .ould it have become the holy "eo"le it .as meant to be &Dtn '65
Gx. 1?6:*, %e never .ill no.. %e only have the texts claiming that in the end you cannot
see much difference any more &Dtn ;6(@*. If the Aourney through history goes on, it is because
#$%$ decided in favour of return and blessing &Dtn +)*.
-s modern readers .e only have access to .hat .e have inherited. This is the story of Israel6
the seven "eo"le esca"ed com"lete destruction, Israel did so too and came bac from exile,
7od continued his story .ith his "eo"le. 4o, .hatever o"inion one may have about Deutero!
nomyEs texts of violence, one thing is certain6 they are "resented as a tas that .as "art of the
beginning of IsraelEs history in the land, but they are not a "art of the continuation of IsraelEs
history. %e .ould no doubt "refer a different and less violent beginning of the story, but .e
do not have that. %e have the full text of the boo of Deuteronomy. That boo maes one
thing very clear. IsraelEs identity is not a "lan, a uto"ia or a dream< it is a "osition on the
"ublic scene, received from the hands of #$%$ and fully sha"ed by its ex"eriences in history.
3.2 !iblical (aith in a real )orld
If one tries to tae the hermeneutical insiderEs "ers"ective, a fe. things become clear. First,
texts such as the instructions against the "eo"les in Deuteronomy are not to be evaluated in
isolation. They are "art of a larger textual com"osition that does not reflect ideology, but
ex"erience. 4econd, the story of 7od and man taes "lace on earth and among flesh and
blood. %e do not read the texts from the "ers"ective of a divine "lan, .e read them from the
"ers"ective of 7odEs struggle to be "resent in his creation. Thining along these lines my
claim is that it does not hel" to tae a stand outside the texts and Audge them or Austify them
from that "ers"ective. The biblical tradition is vital enough to hel" us find a "osition from the
inside "ers"ective.
In the end the dilemma is this6 once .e have finished our reading of the boo of Deuteron!
omy, do .e as moral 1uestions about the texts, as if 7od does not exist, or do .e as
-braham and 8oses did, address moral 1uestions to 7od,
It means, either our discussion is a matter of a moral interrogation based on a religious
"roblem. %ho granted you, religious "erson, "ermission to act against moral and human
standards, $o. can your s"ecial interest be legitimiJed in vie. of universal interest, The
main 1uestion here is about authority6 B%ho is 7od that one should obey $im,C /ob (161:,
>salm '+611.
(+
3. >olJin, Deuteronomy, in6 3. -lter D F. Kermode, Te !iterary "uide to te /i#le, London6 Fontana >ress,
1??', ".?(!1)1
11
9r, our discussion is a matter of religious interrogation based on a moral "roblem. It is the
1uestion raised by -braham in 7enesis 1@6 B4hould not the /udge of the earth do Austice,C
(;

The main 1uestion here is not about authority, rather it is about "resence6 -re you, 7od, still
in charge, Is the universal "ers"ective of your creation still valid, %here are .e going, can I
trust you, %here is the final goal of your story .ith manind, /eremiah 1(61ff.
This is not trying to find out the system behind 7od. It is trying to understand the Aourney .e
.ent until no.. The story can be narrated< but not every individual cha"ter needs to be
acce"ted as an actual moral agenda. It can be debated as the "ro"hets did. That is in fact the
freedom of the insiderEs "ers"ective. There is a "artner to s"ea to, to address 1uestions to and
to disagree .ith. -re you still in charge, %hy did you mae us .rite these dar "ages of
human history, 4hould not the /udge of the earth do Austice,
If one taes the "osition that reading the 0ible .e can s"ea of biblical faith in a real .orld,
rather than about the agenda for a morally "erfect .orld, to me it is not a big ste" to say that
7od ans.ered -brahamEs 1uestions for Austice by establishing Austice, by acting as the creator
&/eremiah +16 +1!;), Isaiah ;@6'!11. -s a Christian I believe 7odEs creative Aourney through
human history .ent on in the "erson of /esus Christ &8atthe. +61:*, not setting .ith him the
ultimate moral exam"le, but "resenting .ith him an ans.er in flesh and blood, vulnerable to
human violence, but surviving it, removing its decisive "o.ers.
>ersonally I have come to believe that as a reader of the 0ible, trying to do theology from the
inside "ers"ective one finds the freedom to do both6
First, leave behind the instructions of Deuteronomy ' and 1+ as instructions that clearly did
not bring Austice nor did ee" the chosen "eo"le unaffected from the surrounding .orld. The
reader of the 0ible can observe that the narrative of Israel .ent some.here else.
4econd, continue to as the 1uestions "hrased by -braham and other "ro"hets. -s I said, I
thin I also found ho. 7od "resented the ans.er D no.ing very .ell ho. much disagree!
ment there is about this.
(;
C.4. 3odd, F4hall 2ot the /udge of -ll the Garth Do %hat is /ust,E, EKpository Times @+ &1?'1!
1?'(* 1+'!1+?
1(
Literature
7. 0rauli,
FDie VNlervernichtung und die 3Hcehr Israels ins VerheiOungsland $ermeneutische
0emerungen Jum 0uch DeuteronomiumE, in6 8.Vervenne, /.Lust &ed.*, Deuteronomy and
Deuteronomi& !iterature, ,2 ?...W./re)elmans 4/ET! 177*, Leuven, 1??', ".+!+@
7. 0rauli,
Deuteronomium &2G0* Gchter Verlag, %HrJburg, 1?@5
%. 0rueggemann,
Deuteronomy 4A#in$don >ld Testament ?ommentaries6, 2ashville, ())1
7.%. Coats,
FThe KingEs Loyal o""osition6 9bedience and -uthority in Gxodus +(!+;E, in 7.%. Coats,
0.9. Long &eds.*, ?anon and Autority, >hiladel"hia6 Fortress >ress, 1?'', ". ?1!1)).
F.G. Deist,
FThe Dangers of Deuteronomy6 - >age from the 3ece"tion $istory of the 0ooE, in
F.7arcSa 8artSneJ &ed.*, 2tudies in Deuteronomy ,2 ?. !a#us&a$ne, T4VT :+U Leiden, 1??;,
1+!(?
C. $outman,
EL.ei 4icht.eisen von israel als 8inderheit inmitten der 0e.ohner Kanaans. Gin
Disussionsbeitrag Jum VerhMltnis von / und Dtr&7*E in6 8.Vervenne, /.Lust &ed.*,
Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature, F4 C.$.%.0reelmans &0GTL 1++*,
Leuven, 1??', ".(1+!(+(
9. Keel, C. =hlinger,
7Nttinnen, 7Ntter und 7ottessymbole. 2eue Grenntnisse Jur 3eligionsgeschichte Kanaans
und Israels aufgrund bislang unerschlossener ionografischer Puellen.&Puaestiones Dis"utatae
1+;* $erder6 0asel, 1??:
/. 8iles,
7od. - biogra"hy, 2e. #or6 Vintage 0oos, 1??5
3.D. 2elson,
A.erem and the Deuteronomic 4ocial ConscienceE, in6 8.Vervenne, /.Lust &ed.*,
Deuteronomy and Deuteronomi& !iterature, ,2 ?...W./re)elmans 4/ET! 177*,
Leuven, 1??', ".+?!:;
G. 2oort,
EDas Ka"itulationsangebot im KriegsgesetJ Dtn ()61)ff. und in den KriegserJMhlungenE, in
F.7arcSa 8artSneJ &ed.*, 2tudies in Deuteronomy ,2 ?. !a#us&a$ne, T4VT :+U Leiden, 1??;,
1?'!(((
3. >olJin,
Deuteronomy, in6 3. -lter D F. Kermode, Te !iterary "uide to te /i#le, London6 Fontana
>ress, 1??',".?(!1)1
C.4. 3odd,
F4hall 2ot the /udge of -ll the Garth Do %hat is /ust,E, EKpository Times @+ &1?'1!1?'(*
1+'!1+?
/.%. 3ogerson,
FThe Gnemy in the 9ld TestamentE, in6 -.7.-uld &ed.*, Understandin$ @oets and @ropets
&/49T 1:(*, 4heffield 1??+, ". (@;!(?+
D.L. 4mith!Christo"her,
A #i#li&al Teolo$y of EKile &9uvertures to 0iblical Theology*, Fortress >ress6 8innea"olis,
())(
G. Talstra
V-ctuele basis"osities in de biAbelse theologie. %iAJen van leJenV, in6 Der) en Teolo$ie :+ &())(*,
1@@!()1
/.$. Tigay,
Deuteronomy &The />4 Torah Commentary*, >hiladel"hia, 1??5
8. %einfeld,
Deuteronomy 1311 4Te An&or /i#le 56, 2e. #or, 1??1
1+
D.F.%right,
F-ccomodation and 0arbarity in /ohn CalvinEs 9ld testament CommentariesE, in6 -.7.-uld &ed.*,
Understandin$ @oets and @ropets &/49T 1:(*, 4heffield 1??+, ". ;1+!;('
For recent literature on Deuteronomy, see6 T. VeiAola,EDeuteronomismusforschung J.ischen Tradition
und InnovationE &I*, Teolo$is&e 1unds&au 5' &())(* ('+!+('