The Book of Deuteronomy - Peter Craigie’s commentary on Deuteronomy is a fine work, and helpful in all the right ways. He is at the same time succinct and yet beneficially so, something few commentators seem to manage. He leaves expanding on the text to other more loquacious commentators, and simply get’s to the pith of what each verse/section is saying, providing useful historical/contextual insights along the way. Anyone studying or teaching through Deuteronomy would do well to consult this commentary.
Here are few pull quotes:
Past history had been leading, within the plan and promise of God, to a future goal. But that future goal was contingent upon the obedience and commitment of the Israelites to their God. (pg. 18)
The recipients of this offer of relationship for God’s chosen people, the Israelites; to ask “Why this choice” is to pose an impossible question, for those acts and words of God may be revealed to man, the reason for his ways lies deeper in ministry. (pg. 37)
The tendency to view the covenant as a legal contract automatically binding man to God had to be countered; the nature of the covenant, as an expression of a living relationship, demanded of man not a legalistic acquiescence, but a loving commitment to God. The treaty structure of the covenant was a reminder to the people of their liberty in this world and other total commitment to God. (pg. 37)
The prophetic role, in other words, was not simply to announce the word of God, but to persuade men of its living force, to call them to love and obedience, and also to warn them of the consequences of falling away from the intimacy of the covenant relationship. (pg. 39)
The command to love is essential because the whole book is concerned with the renewing of the covenant with God, and although the renewal demanded obedience, that obedience would be possible only when it was responsive love to the God who had brought the people out of Egypt and was leading them into the promised land. (pg. 170)
The path lying ahead was not one of peaceful existence and quiet solitude, but it was one beset on every side with danger. It was within this danger and war that Israel would find it safety, because the path of danger was the path in which the presence and help of God would be found. The only criterion for Israel’s security and eventual victory was the presence of God, and alternative routes, safer by human standards, would lead only to disaster in absence of God’s presence. (pg. 403)
Moses was a prophet, but in his epitaph it is not his knowledge of God that is stressed, but rather the Lord’s knowledge of him. God had sought him out and appointed him to a particular task; over the years, the relationship had become intimate, so that to those Israelites who knew Moses, it was evident that his highest communion was with God. (pg 406)
Benjamin’s safety and security we’re not to be a result of the tribe’s refusal to enter the arena of battle. The security of the tribe would be found in the encompassing presence of God, which would be experienced most vividly in the midst of battle. (pg. 397)
Given the corruption of Israel’s enemies, God’s use of them could in no way reflect some merit inherent in the enemies, but it did indicate the ignominy Israel brought upon itself by its sinful behavior. (pg. 386)
The anger of God is like the love of God, knowing no limits in the places to which it extends; but the anger of God is an awesome and terrible thing exactly because it follows from a rejection of the equally pervasive love of God. (pg. 384)
Leave a Reply