Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy

The Covenant structure of Deuteronomy

Preamble 1:1-5
Historical Prologue 1:6-3:29
Stipulations 4-26
Witnesses 30:19; 31:19-22
Curses and Blessings 30:19; 31:19-22



As Yahweh brought His people to the verge of nationhood, as they prepared to enter into the Lords Sabbath rest by way of the promise-kingdom land of Canaan. Their Great King who delivered them from the yoke of Egypt renews the Covenant with a fresh generation of His vassal people.

This covenant renewal document comes to us bridgeing the past history of the Israelites to the future in their typological consumated kingdom of the promised land, in the form patterened after the culture and structure of nearby polical treaties.

The comparisons between the last book of the Torah and those found to the north, in the land of the Hittites as well as other ANE documents are helpful for the Christian in several ways.


1) Often times, scholars are helped by extra-biblical works that are authored in an ancient Semitic language. The language of the Hebrews is related to other surrounding languages and by comparing words from one text that the meaning is unclear, to another that the meaning from the text is clear. Several Hebrew words only appear in the Torah on a limited scale so the meanings are vague and unknown. The same word or variant of the word may be used in larger numbers from a surrounding civilations records (i.e. Ugarit Tablets) giving us the meaning by way of a great pool of contexts to decipher the true intent of a word.

2) The German higher critics that erupted into Christendom in the early 18th century rejected the authorship of the Torah as written by Moses as constructed what came to be known later as the Documentary Hypothesis. Many theories were formed mostly after the Jewish philosopher, Benedict (how fitting) Spinoza rejected Mosaic authorship and proposed Ezra as the original writer and the result was a 200 year long emphasis on scholarship to adopt a methodology of skeptism to the date and authorship of the Pentateuch. If fact, in 1891 S.R Drive established the DH as the standard approach to scholarship. (The main point of the theory is to show a much later date of compilation of multiple documents to form the Torah by priests in exile in Babylon some 600-800 years or so after Moses was said to have authored it.) The success of this theory has shaken the mainline churches from the Church of Rome to most major modern day protestant churches, all of whom teach the DH as the only way to approach the Pentateuch. In fact, one of the Professors as Midwestern Baptist Seminary related a story that happened in the not so distant past about a professor who, during the first day of class stood and tossed his Bible across the room and into the trash can. His remarks to the students were that by the end of the semester, each student would be able to do the same. This occurred when the Co-op was seeking to be more main stream. Thank God for His work through the men who brought us back to a belief and love for God’s Word as inerrant. I mention this to show that this is indeed relevant for God’s workmen to be aware of, not only to guard against but to learn how to counter it in defending the faith against people who have this Wellhausian Hypothesis as their main presupposition. Most seminaries teach this form of the DH developed in 1883 by Julius Wellhausen, and it’s easy to see the result theologically as their denominations crumble into liberalism. In fact I have listened to several debates between theists and atheists and have detected hints of the DH coming out in atheist argumentation yet the points were left untouched by the theist (perhaps it was his presup as well).

On to the point concerning the Ancient Near Eastern documents, and the covenantal Suzerain structure of Deuteronomy. This alone is not a definitive argument as it concentrates on the date not author, but will help when coupled with other points of contention against those who teach the DH.

The ANE documents that are reflected in the structure of the Torah link the Pentateuch to the time frame of said ANE cultures. The specific time, Late Bronze Age has within itself the proper context to show a second millennium dating of the first five books of Moses thus showing the continuity with it and the surrounding atmosphere of the world that then was.


It should be mentioned that as the structure is well recognizable, the theological content of the documents are vastly different. God’s relationship with His people mimics that of an ancient king and his subjects. God demands complete loyalty and devotion by His vassals, requiring no other allegiances to other nations, rulers or gods.
This emphasized Yahwehs desire to be served as the monotheistic God of creation by His people. As well, the documents laid out His divine interaction within His covenant as vowing certain things as He obligates Himself to His people. There was no doubt in the minds of the people that they were vassels of the Great King.

By and large, the extra biblical evidences lend credence too and give us a deeper insight to the Lord who we are covenanted into by His everlasting blood.