Deuteronomy 26:1

Here we have the conclusion of the Second Address of Moses which began back at Deuteronomy 4:44, the major part of Deuteronomy lying within these chapters. Until the discovery of the ancient format of suzerainty treaties which is so clearly followed by Moses in the remarkable organization of Deuteronomy, scholars were apparently at a loss to account for the peculiar construction of this chapter.

Scott referred to "The two beautiful rituals here" in what he called a "hortatory conclusion."[1] The two confessions commanded here evoked this comment from Blair: "They appear more ancient than the Book of Deuteronomy; they formed part of the ancient confessional liturgy of Israel, perhaps that of the Tabernacle, before the construction of Solomon's temple!"[2] Amen! And of course that is exactly what all of Deuteronomy actually is! The colossal error of the critical scholars in their constant repetition of their false premise that the central sanctuary which appears in passages like this is a positive and certain reference to "Jerusalem,"[3] is an untenable conclusion, there being not a single reference in all of Deuteronomy to Jerusalem as the central sanctuary. The passage usually cited as proof of their error is Deuteronomy 14:28f, but of course, Jerusalem is not mentioned at all. We have already pointed out that for generations prior to the erection of Solomon's temple, "The House of the Lord," the place where God recorded his holy name, etc. are expressions that refer undoubtedly to the Tabernacle as constructed according to God's instructions to Moses. Even Von Rad admitted that the so-called "demand for centralization in Deuteronomy rests upon a very narrow basis."[4] We would go much further and declare that this error rests upon no basis whatever.

It is interesting, however, that Von Rad although apparently ignorant of the close resemblance to the suzerainty treaties found in Deuteronomy, nevertheless appeared to discern a similar thing in his words: "Its form looks like the draft of a contract in which each of two parties makes its declaration, that is, each causes the other to bind itself by means of a declaration.[5]

Throughout Deuteronomy there is a remarkable conformity to the ancient format of suzerainty treaties, not the least of which, is the remarkable confession and ratification here in Deuteronomy 26. As Kline declared, "The unity and authenticity of Deuteronomy as a Mosaic product are confirmed by this remarkable conformity," and that, "Current orthodox Christian scholarship joins older Christian and Jewish traditions in accepting the plain claims of Deuteronomy itself to be the farewell, ceremonial addresses of Moses to the Israelite assembly on the plains of Moab."[6] There is no other rational view of the origin of Deuteronomy.

The outline of the chapter falls into this pattern:

(1) there is a presentation of the first-fruits and tithes (Deuteronomy 26:1-11),

(2) the tithing of the third year (Deuteronomy 26:12-15), and

(3) the formal ratification of the treaty by both parties, God and Israel (Deuteronomy 26:16-19).

In times before the understanding of the treaty-form of this chapter, containing the final ratification of the covenant, it was customary for commentators to describe Deuteronomy 26:16-19 as "the hortatory conclusion."[7] Now, hortatory pertains to "giving exhortation," but here the words are actually foreign to what is usually considered exhortation, due to the positive affirmation of a compliance, already manifested, with the laws God has provided for Israel. It is not, therefore, "exhortation," but a formal ratification of the covenant-treaty.

"And it shall be, when thou art come unto the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and possessest it, and dwellest therein, that thou shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which thou shalt bring in from thy land that Jehovah thy God giveth thee; and thou shalt put it in a basket, and shall go unto the place which Jehovah thy God shall choose, to cause his name to dwell there. And shalt come unto the priest that shall be in those days, and say unto him, I profess this day unto Jehovah thy God, that I am come unto the land which Jehovah sware unto our fathers to give us. And the priest shall take the basket out of thy hand, and set it down before the altar of Jehovah thy God. And thou shalt answer and say before Jehovah thy God, A Syrian ready to perish was my father; and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there, few in number; and he became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous. And the Egyptians dealt with us, and afflicted us, and laid upon us hard bondage: and we cried unto Jehovah, the God of our fathers, and Jehovah heard out voice, and saw our affliction, and our toil, and our oppression; and Jehovah brought us forth out of Egypt, with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders; and he hath brought us unto this place, and hath given us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey. And now, behold, I have brought the first of the fruit of the ground, which thou, O Jehovah, hast given me. And thou shalt set it down before Jehovah, and worship before Jehovah thy God. And thou shalt rejoice in all the good which Jehovah thy God hath given thee, and unto thy house, thou, and the Levite, and the sojourner that is in the midst of thee."

It is very difficult to be patient with arrogant scholars who seize upon every possible pretext in order to shout "contradiction," "different traditions," "the melding of two or more sources." etc. Even Von Rad declared the passage "uneven," affirming that in Deuteronomy 26:4, the basket was handed to the priest at the beginning of the ceremony, and that in Deuteronomy 26:10, not until the end of it.[8] It is perfectly obvious that this account is abbreviated, and that not everything in the full ceremony was detailed, and that there is no intention of the Bible in this instance to describe this ceremony in such a complete manner that Von Rad, or anyone else, would be able to repeat it. Craigie mentioned the alleged "contradiction" in the priest's setting the basket before the altar (Deuteronomy 26:4), and the worshipper himself doing so in Deuteronomy 26:10, declaring that:

"What is probably intended, however, is that the priest performed an action and spoke some words; then both the action and the words were repeated by the man, ... as indicated by the words, you shall respond and say (Deuteronomy 26:5a)."[9]

It is also in harmony with the language of all nations that any action caused to be done by a worshipper is, in fact, actually said to be done by the worshipper. Jesus, for example, is said to have baptized people; but he did not personally baptize anyone. What his disciples did, Jesus was said to have done. Therefore, when the worshipper, by his actions, caused the basket to be set down in front of God's altar, it was proper to say that he had indeed set it there. We cannot suppose for a moment that those commentators who are shouting themselves hoarse about "contradictions in the Bible" do not know such a basic truth as this. They are simply blinded by their a priori decision that there are contradictions, which, of course, they are inclined to see everywhere. An example of this is found in that N.T. scholar who found a contradiction in Peter's being called Cephas in certain passages!

As Cook accurately discerned: Both of these liturgical enactments (including Deuteronomy 26:1-11) have a clear and close relationship to the whole of the preceding legislation (all the way back to Deuteronomy 4:44), and they form a most appropriate and significant conclusion to it.[10]

In this paragraph (Deuteronomy 26:1-11), there is the formal acknowledgment on the part of the worshipper that God indeed has fulfilled his promise to the fathers; and, in the next paragraph (Deuteronomy 26:12-15) there is the affirmation of the worshipper that he also has kept his part of the solemn covenant.

Payne understood this chapter as insisting on three things:

(1) that worship must be directed to the true God;

(2) that the worship must be conducted properly, and in the proper sanctuary (Jerusalem is meant); and

(3) that the Israelites should be intelligently grateful.[11]

In such a comment, we have another example of the needless, erroneous, and constant repetition in the critical community of their decision that "the altar" invariably meant the one in Jerusalem. If Deuteronomy insisted on Jerusalem's being the only place Israel could worship, why was Jerusalem never mentioned in Deuteronomy?

"A Syrian ready to perish ..." (Deuteronomy 26:5) In the RSV, this is "a wandering Aramean," and this is correct, because the literal words here are "an Aramean." "The patriarchs were Aramean geographically, although not racially,"[12] because of Jacob's long residence in Paddan-Aram (Genesis 31:17). The word "Aramean" derives from Aram. Jacob's being described as "wandering" or "ready to perish," is strictly correct because Laban attempted repeatedly to destroy his son-in-law Jacob.

Craigie properly described Deuteronomy 26:10 as the climax of the ceremony.[13] The long, long promises of Almighty God to the patriarchs, reaching back into history for about half a millennium, were at last to be realized. What a chain of fantastic and wonderful events had taken place leading to the culmination of those promises made such a long time ago. And now, within a few days, Israel would enter Canaan. It would be a dramatic moment! The hopes and fears of half a thousand years were reaching their fulfillment; and the long and difficult chain of events leading to the birth of the world's Saviour would begin to unfold upon the larger stage of national Israel's place in such plans.

Another important observation on this passage is that of Cousins:

"The most remarkable feature of this liturgy is the way it links the blessings of the soil, not with the cyclic natural forces, such as those associated with the worship of Baal, but with God's saving acts in history." (See related material in Hosea 2:8.)[14]

Any discerning student will find almost countless indications of the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy, in the aggregate, leading to the conviction that here indeed we are reading the words God spoke through Moses. For example, Harrison pointed out that, "The reference in Deuteronomy 26:5-10 is strikingly Mosaic in style and content."[15] Such references as "hard bondage," "the mighty hand," "the outstretched arm," "cried unto Jehovah," etc. are Mosaic.