Judging from the treatment of Saul, David and Solomon, the Deuteronomist (D) clearly has an interest in promoting dynastic stability, especially as a vehicle for promoting defense. From my perspective, it also does not look theologically sound for the chosen people of Israel to be in disarray, whether in the way they came to occupy the land as a united force under Joshua, or under a series of fumbling kings.
Reaching back, I’m attracted to the strong parallels between Moses and Joshua and am wondering whether D had a hand in casting them as strikingly similar people. Some of the coincidences seem to create a mythic quality for both leaders.
Some of the parallels between Moses and Joshua include:
· Sending out spies to scope land prior to invasion;
· Crossing bodies of water that “heap” up out of the way;
· Celebrating Passover to mark major events;
· Having visions prior to major events;
· Intervening between God and the people on the people’s behalf
· Obeying divine instructions; and
· Delivering farewell addresses immediately before they die.
What other parallels would we find with Judah?
If D did have a hand in creating similarities between Moses and Joshua – as it apparently did in smoothing out the rough spots through Samuel and Kings – one wonders for whom he was writing. Why was it so important many centuries after the fact to demonstrate continuity in Jewish history?
Perhaps it has to do with the fundamental human need to explain events in terms of cause and effect. After all, D is fond of the expression “to this very day,” demonstrating he is trying to explain to his contemporaries that the world is not chaotic and the course of history led logically to his present moment. If history looks chaotic, then perhaps there is no guiding hand of YHWH – a simply unimaginable thought.
.jpg)
I agree there is a very strong similarity between Joshua and Moses. That being said though when it comes to the writers of D we discover that their imaginations are saturated with conventional thinking, as is all of 1&2 Kings. The covenant of David plays a key role in their thought. The writers are familiar with Gods unconditional promise of an everlasting dynasty to David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; 1 Kings 11:36). This promise holds out the hope that God’s people will never be abandoned. A descendant of David will always rule in Jerusalem. But the covenant that ignites the D writers speech and the thinking of 1&2 Kings, as a whole is the covenant of Moses, a conditional covenant involving judgment. The way this covenant is presented in 1&2 Kings seems to draw heavily on Deuteronomy, a book that reinterprets Moses’ teachings for a settled, no longer nomadic people. God’s once wandering people now own land and must consider its faithful ownership and use. D reminds these settlers that a loving God brought their ancestors out of slavery and gave their descendants, the settlers themselves, this land on which they live. Moses and David I would suggest are more linked than Joshua, but not as similar as your post points out.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless,
Deacon Jim
You seem to be asking very good questions. I think your suggestion of the motive behind D's editing - the fear of the evidence of chaos in history - explains a great deal.
ReplyDelete