Is Israel’s Repentance a Foregone Conclusion?

Deuteronomy 28 imagines the possibility of Israel disappearing, and eventually assimilating into the nations where it is exiled. Deuteronomy 30:1-10, however, predicts Israel’s future repentance and consequent restoration. Were these texts penned by the same author?

Prof. Marc Z. Brettler

Jeremiah Lamenting the Destruction of Jerusalem, c. 1630 Rembrandt.

Introduction: The Different Endings
of the Two Great Rebukes

The rebuke (תוכחה) in Leviticus 26 ends optimistically with the return of Israel to its land, as God remembers the covenant, while a Leitwort,^[1] a repeated thematic root in Deuteronomy 28, is “wiped out” (ש-מ-ד), reflecting the obliteration of Israel.  Unlike Leviticus, Deuteronomy’s God is not concerned for the divine name, which is defamed when God’s people are persecuted, and Deuteronomy 28 imagines the possibility of Israel disappearing, eventually assimilating into the nations where it is exiled.  (I contrast the two great rebukes in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 in my essay “Comparing Curses.”)

Covenant Models in P/H and D. 
The difference between these rebukes is related to distinct understandings of covenant in P/H (the Priestly Document and its related legal section, the Holiness Collection) and D (the Deuteronomic Law Collection, the bulk of Deuteronomy).  As the Israeli Bible scholar Yehezkel Kaufmann (1889-1963) noted, for P/H, the covenant between God and Israel is a ברית ברזל, “an iron-clad covenant.”^[2]  

In contrast, the main strand of D models the covenant after Assyrian covenants, where “[f]ailure to adhere to the stipulations of the covenant constitutes cause for the nullification of the covenant, and such nullification both severs the relationship between the parties and triggers the onset of attendant covenantal curses.  According to this model, a renewed relationship requires a new covenant (cf. Jer 31:31-34).”^[3]  Thus, Deuteronomy 28 is best understood as the climax, or better yet, the anti-climax to Deuteronomy, envisioning the destruction of Israel because it did not heed the covenant with God.

The Composition of the Book of Deuteronomy
Scholars continue to debate the composition of the book of Deuteronomy—when its first layer was written (in the period of Hezekiah? Josiah?  during the Babylonian exile?), and how many times it was supplemented.^[4]  Despite disagreements, the broad scholarly consensus is that Deuteronomy is not a unity, and reflects a core text that has been supplemented and updated, perhaps often.  Deuteronomy 30:1-10 is one such supplement.^[5]

Does Deuteronomy 30 Continue
Deuteronomy 28?^[6]

Deuteronomy 30:1-10, which predicts the future restoration of Israel, presupposes the great rebuke in ch. 28—its opening words, וְהָיָה֩ כִֽי יָבֹ֨אוּ עָלֶ֜יךָ כָּל הַדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֗לֶּה הַבְּרָכָה֙ וְהַקְּלָלָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָתַ֖תִּי לְפָנֶ֑יךָ  “When all these things befall you — the blessing and the curse that I have set before you,” refer to ch. 28, which is comprised of a brief blessing (vv. 1-14) followed by a much longer curse (15-68).   30:1-10 is a remarkable unit, repeating the Lietwort שוב,” “return,” seven times, forming “a majestic fugue on the theme of shuv.”^[7] 

Several reasons, however, suggest that ch. 30 is not the continuation of ch. 28, and was not written by the same author of that chapter to reassure its listeners that the exile predicted there will end.^[8]  First, as noted above, restoration is key to P/H, but not to the main author of D, who penned the bulk of ch. 28.  Second, a number of terminological differences divide ch. 30:1-10 from ch. 28. Chapter 30:

• Refers (v. 7) to the curses as אלות and not קללות as in ch. 28.^[9]
• Describes (v. 1b) the non-Israelites among whom the Israelites will be dispersed as גוים whereas Deut 28 (v. 64) uses עמים.
• Uses the root נ-ד-ח for dispersion whereas ch. 28 uses ^[10]פ-ו-צ.

Strikingly, the verb נדח, “to banish,” is used only three times in relation to the exile in all of Deuteronomy, all of them in ch. 30!  Thus, Deut 30:1-10 knows ch. 28, but is not by the author of that chapter. 

Reading Deuteronomy in Light of Jeremiah

The use of נ-ד-ח, “to banish,” offers a key to understanding the composition of Deut 30:1-10.  A full third of the verb’s uses (18/54), all found in reference to Israel’s banishment among the nations, are found in Jeremiah.  This suggests that Jeremiah may have influenced Deut 30. 

From the critical perspective, which suggests that the prophetic corpus and Torah developed at the same time, with each, on occasion, influencing the other, this is not surprising.  Just as certain prophets knew texts that were incorporated into the Torah, some Torah texts knew texts that were incorporated into particular prophetic collections that became part of Nevi’im—the Prophets. 

The suggestion that Deuteronomy might here know Jeremiah is not based solely on the use of the word נ-ד-ח but is substantiated by the very close correspondence between Jeremiah and this section of Deuteronomy, including the rare metaphorical use of circumcision for repentance^[11] in these two texts.^[12]

The reliance of Deut 30.1-10 on Jeremiah suggests a new understanding of the Deuteronomic unit.  Jeremiah 31:34 notes that in the ideal future, all Israel will automatically know God: 

In other words, in this era, Israel will follow God and God’s laws.^[13]  Deterministic worldviews are known in later Judaism, for example, especially among the Essenes.^[14]

This same belief is found at the beginning of Deuteronomy 30, which, as the appendix discusses, should be translated in a deterministic fashion as follows:

A Traditional Precedent:
Ramban Deterministic Understanding of Ch. 30

This understanding of ch. 30 already has precedent in the commentary of the Ramban, Nachmanides (1194-1270), who realizes that this passage agrees with Jeremiah, and reads it as a prediction that Israel will surely repent:

Nehemiah Paraphrasing Deuteronomy

This interpretation of the opening of Deut 30 is also supported by Ezra-Nehemiah.^[15]  Nehemiah opens with a prayer by the protagonist, which includes the following (Neh 1:8-9):

These verses explicitly state that they are recalling the Torah, אֶת הַדָּבָ֔ר אֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוִּ֛יתָ אֶת מֹשֶׁ֥ה עַבְדְּךָ֖, “the promise You gave to Your servant Moses.” They must be citing Deuteronomy in particular—the phrase  אָפִ֥יץ בָּעַמִּֽים “to scatter…among the peoples” is found there, but not in Leviticus. Furthermore, Neh 1:9 refers to the Jerusalem Temple in stereotypical Deuteronomic language as

Neh 1:9 is thus most likely paraphrasing Deut 30:1b-2 when it states:

Nehemiah’s suggestion here that repentance in exile is inevitable, in a passage based on Deuteronomy 30, buttresses the understanding of the beginning of Deuteronomy 30 proposed above, that God will make Israel repent in the exile.

Can Israel Really Disappear?

I am suggesting that Deut 30:1-10 was written to counter the great curse two chapters earlier, which suggests that as a result of its apostasy, God will totally destroy (השמיד) Israel.  Perhaps this unit’s author simply believed that Israel cannot disappear. Or maybe he was influenced by Leviticus 26, which saw the covenant between God and Israel as unbreakable. Or possibly he had just read or heard the prophecies of consolation by Jeremiah. Or perhaps he was writing in the post-exilic period, after God indeed restored Israel, and wrote 30:1-10 to “predict” this restoration.  Several of these reasons may have functioned together.  But what is most remarkable is the striking theological distance between chapter 28, which predicts Israel’s complete destruction, and chapter 30, which insists on its complete restoration.  Though proximate in location, they could not be more divergent in theology. 

A close look at aspects of Deuteronomy 28-30 thus illustrates how biblical texts develop over time—not by an author excising or whiting out an earlier tradition or view that he disagrees with, but by writing a counter-text that will follow and supplement the earlier one. 

Perhaps the earlier text was seen as too important to delete, so it could only be “corrected” by supplementation.  But this correction was very successful, for the view that most people nowadays have of the covenant is precisely that of Deuteronomy 30 and Leviticus 26—that the covenant between God and Israel is eternal and unbreakable, as opposed to the much more pessimist view of Deuteronomy 28, that Israel may one day be destroyed for violating God’s words.

_____________

Appendix
  The Syntax of Deuteronomy 30:1-10

In English, clauses that begin with “if” or “when” are typically completed by clauses that begin with “then”; to use fancy linguistic terminology, the first, conditional clause is called a protasis, and the following result clause is called an apodosis.  For example, a parent might say to a child: 

“If you eat your main course [protasis], then you will get dessert [apodosis].”

In Hebrew, a protasis is typically introduced by the particle כי, but Hebrew has no specialized word to express “then.”   In other words, the apodosis, the result, must be recognized by content rather than by the presence of a specific word.  This can happen in English as well, as in the sentence:

“If you eat your main course [protasis], you will get dessert [apodosis].”

Instead of a word like “then,” Hebrew may use the multi-purpose particle waw to mark the opening of the apodosis, or may leave it unmarked.  The use of the waw to express “then” is clear, e.g., in the first brother-sister story in Genesis 12:12:

In this case, context suggests that the second waw after the initial כי clause introduces the protasis, while the first waw after the כי is part of the protasis:  “If/when the Egyptians see you, and think/say, ‘She is his wife.”

In some of cases in the Bible, it is unclear where a protasis ends, and the apodosis begins, in other words if a clause beginning with a waw is part of the protasis or the beginning of the apodosis.  Deut 30 is one such case.  The protasis begins with the כי clause in the first half of v. 1:

It is clear that by v. 3 the apodosis has begun:

But does the apodosis begin only in v. 3, as suggested by the NJPS translation, “then the LORD,” or might it begin earlier?  The Hebrew allows it to begin, e.g., in the second half of v. 1, or in v. 2—all of which start with the particle waw.

Given the meaning of this passage, that repentance and then restoration are inevitable, and the likely influence on our passage of Jeremiah, with his emphasis on God forcing Israel to behave, I believe that the protasis begins in the second part of v. 1, and continues through much of the unit.  That is why earlier I suggested translating vv. 1-3 as:

In other words, these verses prophesize that God will make Israel repent in exile, and as a result, Israel will be restored. 

_____________

Professor Marc Zvi Brettler is Bernice & Morton Lerner Professor of Judaic Studies at Duke University, and Dora Golding Professor of Biblical Studies (Emeritus) at Brandeis University. He is author, most recently, of How to Read the Jewish Bible (also published in Hebrew), co-editor of The Jewish Study Bible and The Jewish Annotated New Testament, and co-author of The Bible and the Believer, all published by Oxford University Press. He is cofounder of Project TABS (Torah and Biblical Scholarship) -TheTorah.com.

[1] On Leitworts, see Everett Fox’s TABS essay, “Committing to the Covenant Today,” and Shani Tzoref’s TABS essay, “Israel’s Development as a Nation: Form, Storm, Norm, Perform.”

[2] See the discussion of this in Jeffrey Stackert, “Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction: Leviticus 26 as a Test Case” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. Thomas B. Dozeman et al. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 369-386, esp. 384, in reference to Kaufmann, with full citations there.  For a broader discussion of different types of conditional and unconditional covenants between God and Israel, see Saul M. Olyan, “The Status of the Covenant during the Exile,” in Berührungspunkt: Studien zur Sozial- und Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt; Festschrift für Rainer Albertz zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (AOAT 350; ed. Ingo Kottsieper et al.; Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 2008), 333-344.

[3] Stackert, 381.

[4] For a discussion of various hypotheses, see Thomas Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction (London: T & T Clark, 2005).

[5] See e.g. Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Know, 2002), 346 and Bernard M. Levinson, “Deuteronomy,” in The Jewish Study Bible (second edition; ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler; NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 2014), 414.

[6] The remainder of this essay is based on my “Predestination in Deuteronomy 30.1-10,” in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism, ed. L. Schearing and S. McKenzie (JSOTSup 268; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), available at https://www.academia.edu/8171217/Predestination_in_Deuteronomy_30.1_10 ; for full documentation, see the discussion there.

[7] Alexander Rofé, “The Covenant in the Land of Moab (Deuteronomy 28:69-30:20): Historico-Literary, Comparative, and Formcritical Considerations,” in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy (ed. Duane L. Christensen; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 270 [f.p. 1985].  (This publication contains the typo “home” for “theme.”)

[8] For this position, see ibid., 271-2.

[9] The term אָלָה, “curse” is found five times in ch. 29 (vv. 11, 13, 18, 19, 20), suggesting that ch. 29 was written after ch. 28, and ch. 30:1-10 after both 28-29 were already combined as part of, and perhaps the conclusion to, Deuteronomy.    

[10] Deut 28.37 uses the root נ-ה-ג as well, and in v. 68, the hifil of פ-ו-צ, but never the root נ-ד-ח.

[11] The use of the English words “repentance” and “repent” for Hebrew שוב follows the conventional usage, though it is somewhat misleading.  In the Bible, “turning to God” better reflects the usage of שוב as demonstrated in detail in David A. Lambert, How Repentance Became Biblical: Judaism, Christianity, and the Interpretation of Scripture (NY:  Oxford Univ. Press, 2016).

[12] See Brettler, “Predestination,” esp. 172-4, and more recently, Reinhard Achenbach, “‘A Prophet like Moses’ (Deuteronomy 18:15)—‘No Prophet like Moses’ (Deuteronomy 34:10): Some Observations on the Relation between the Pentateuch and the Latter Prophets,” in The Pentateuch, 450-451.

[13] This idea is also found in Jeremiah’s contemporary, Ezekiel; see esp. 36:26-27. 

[14] See e.g. “Jean Duhaime, “Determinism,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam; NY: Oxford University Press, 2000), 1.194-198.

[15] Within Judaism, this is recognized as forming a single book.