Home > Old Testament > New Study of Deuteronomy

New Study of Deuteronomy

I am beginning to put together a new study of Deuteronomy.  I am really excited about this endeavour.  I have been building my bibliography and in my initial study I came across a really great quote by W. Dennis Tucker Jr. from his chapter on the Pentateuch in The Story of Israel.

The book of Deuteronomy serves not only as the concluding book to the Pentateuch but perhaps more importantly as a hermeneutical key to the entire Pentateuch.  Functionally, the book of Deuteronomy connects the stories of the patriarchs and the Sinai experience with what follows in the Deuteronomistic history.  Deuteronomy is not the “second law” as the name implies; rather, it is the final giving of the law, which becomes incumbent upon the generations that will follow. (p. 42-43)

As I work through this book I will be posting what I learn.  I invite you to share your own thoughts and insights on this very exciting book.

Categories: Old Testament
  1. March 14, 2007 at 12:30 pm

    I look forward to your posts on Deuteronomy.

    I do not have anything particularly insightful, but it seems we should not call Deuteronomy the “final” giving of the law. Of course it was the final giving of the law for the old covenant people, but if we read Deuteronomy in light of Christ, the new Law Giver, then his coming should be viewed as the FINAL giving of the law. Deuteronomy would fall under the “tutuor” of Galatians 3 in this case. Just a thought. Thanks again. I will be stopping by regularly.


  2. March 14, 2007 at 1:52 pm


    Yes, I meant the final giving of the law for the Old Covenant people and I think that is the way the author meant it too. Christ is our final law giver (cf., Mark 9:7; Heb 1:1-2), but what I found insightful from Tucker was how important Deuteronomy is for both the Pent. and the rest of Israel’s history. I guess I was trying to stress my excitement about the book.

    Thanks for the insight.


  3. March 14, 2007 at 6:53 pm

    Chad –

    I understand. Sometimes I am too skeptical of OT commentators. I will sit back and wait for your reports on this particular one. Thanks again.


  4. March 14, 2007 at 10:20 pm


    Why are you skeptical?

    I know there are some bad commentaries out there and most do not approach the text from a redemptive-historical sense. For me, that is a source of frustration.


  5. March 16, 2007 at 2:54 pm

    Chad –

    I share the same frustration as you because generally, most commentators do not read the text through the priority of the NT. For them, the exegetical process is complete, when they have commented on the meaning of the text in that period of time. This is what it means to be “critical.” Once we introduce typology and shadows into the interpretive method, we have ceased to be “critical,” and therefore most commentaries do not approach the OT from the vantage point of the New. The most disconcerting part of this problem is that the NT authors read all parts of the OT through the lense of Christ. In order to be faithful to all of Scripture, we must follow their example.

    However, after saying all of this, I should not criticize OT commentaries which simply speak about the OT period. In order for us to fully understand Christ as the fulfillment of the proimises and all of the types and shadows, we must understand the types and meaning that they conveyed to the original Hebrew audience. So there is a balance needed.


  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: