1 Introduction
Covenant is a central concept in Deuteronomy. Both the word
The covenant, however, is related not only to Israel’s experience in Moab, the setting of Deuteronomy (Deut. 28: 69 [29: 1]; 29: 8[9]), but also to Israel’s ancestors (Deut. 4: 31; 7: 12; 8: 18), to the exodus from Egypt (Deut. 29: 24[25]), and to YHWH’s revelation at Horeb (Deut. 4: 13; 5: 2–3; 9: 9; 29: 1[2]). This raises the question of how the Moab covenant is related to the Horeb and the patriarchal covenants. In Deuteronomy 28: 69 (29: 1), the Moab and the Horeb covenants are clearly distinguished (“the covenant […] in the land of Moab, in addition to the covenant […] at Horeb”). This text, however, is the only place in the Old Testament where these covenants are juxtaposed.3 This makes it difficult to determine their relation, which accordingly has been described in different ways. The Moab covenant has been considered as an addition or a renewal of the Horeb covenant, on the one hand, and as a replacement of the Horeb covenant and a prefiguration of the new covenant, on the other.4 Another issue is that Deuteronomy does not describe any covenantal ceremony.
This essay investigates the covenant that is being made in Deuteronomy and its relation to the Horeb and the patriarchal covenants. The essay focuses on Deuteronomy’s view of the covenants according to the book’s final form. The question of how this relates to the genesis of Deuteronomy and to historical reality will not be discussed. The essay consists of five parts. The first explores what actually happens in Deuteronomy in terms of covenanting (§ 2). The second and third examine the relation between the Moab and the Horeb covenants (§ 3), as well as the relation between these covenants and the covenant with the fathers (§ 4). The fourth section describes the future of the covenant, according to Deuteronomy (§ 5). The fifth and final section draws some conclusions (§ 6).
2 Covenanting in Deuteronomy
In view of the centrality of the covenant between YHWH and Israel in Deuteronomy, it is remarkable that the book does not contain a narrative of a covenant being made between YHWH and Israel; rather, it circles around the covenant. In some texts, it is suggested that a covenant is about to be made. Deuteronomy 29 narrates that Israel is summoned, resembling the people’s assembly at Horeb (Deut. 4: 10; 29: 1[2], 9[10]). YHWH is said to be making a covenant with Israel “today” (Deut. 29: 11[12], 13[14]); the formulation (subject with participle) suggests that He is about to do so. In other texts, it seems that a covenant has been made already. In Deuteronomy 26: 17–19, it is recorded that “today” YHWH has declared to be Israel’s God and Israel has declared to be his people. And Deuteronomy 27: 9 states, “this very day you have become a people for YHWH your God.” These texts suggest that a covenant has been made in the present time of Deuteronomy. However, no covenantal ceremony is described in the book.5 This raises the question of how these texts are related and whether a covenant is made in the narrated time of Deuteronomy.
The book’s key text on covenanting is Deuteronomy 26: 17–19. This passage closes the collection of laws and serves as the transition to the blessings and curses (Deut. 27–28).6 The word
17Today you made YHWH say to be your God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, commandments, and ordinances, and to listen to his voice.
18Today YHWH made you say to be for him a treasured people, as He spoke to you, to keep all his commandments, 19to set you high above all nations that He has made, in praise and in name and in honor, and for you to be a people holy to YHWH your God, as He spoke.
The Hiphil of
In my view, the most natural interpretation of the verb is the causative meaning. This is the most common use of the Hiphil and it does justice to the use of an object, unlike the intensive meaning. Moreover, the following clause (“to be your God”) must have YHWH as its subject. In terms of content, this interpretation is close to Vriezen’s, but his understanding of the Hiphil is unnecessarily complicated. While some take issue with a causative interpretation because it entails that Israel makes YHWH say something,11 this may be explained from the special situation of covenanting. YHWH’s initiative remains clear throughout; on a grammatical level, YHWH is fronted both as the object of the first and as the subject of the second statement.12
In Deuteronomy 26: 17–19, the bilateral declaration to be “your God” and “his people” is made in two separate statements. This is unique in the Hebrew Bible; and the fact that Israel itself is the speaker of this formula is unique.13 Both parts of the covenant formula are elaborated upon by three additional infinitives (the covenant formula is also expressed by an infinitive following
In verses 18–19, Israel declares to be for YHWH a people of his treasured possession.15 The relation between the following infinitival clauses is not easy to determine. The first clause (“to keep all his commandments”) is most likely interpreted as a declaration of Israel, since the suffix remains the same (third person). This clause, then, is not a repetition of the comparable words in verse 17. In that verse, it is an obligation proclaimed by YHWH, whereas it is a promise made by Israel here. In verse 19, the suffix changes to the second person. To put Israel high above all nations must be interpreted as an action of YHWH (cf. “all the nations that He has made”).16 Israel will receive praise, fame, and honor if it lives according to YHWH’s commandments. The final clause describes Israel as a people holy to YHWH. This runs parallel to Israel’s declaration in verse 18 (a people of YHWH’s treasured possession), while the subordinate clause “as He spoke” corresponds as well. Since the suffix continues in the second person, however, the final clause seems to emphasize Israel’s position as a gift of YHWH. Verses 18–19, then, start with Israel’s declaration of its position and obedience, followed by YHWH’s promise to make Israel a famous and holy people for him.
In covenanting, both parties make the other declare their loyalty. It is clear, however, that the parties of this covenant are not equal. Israel does not impose obligations on YHWH. His position above Israel and even above all nations is emphasized, as well as his faithfulness to what He promised.
These mutual declarations are made “today,” as Deuteronomy 26: 17–19 indicates twice (cf. Deut. 29: 9–14[10–15]: five times). “Today” is often used in combination with the commandments in Deuteronomy (“which I command you today”).17 Living according to YHWH’s statutes is also mentioned several times in the declarations in Deuteronomy 26. The content of the relationship between YHWH and Israel may be described as mutual dedication; for Israel’s part, this implies the obligation and willingness to live according to YHWH’s commandments; for YHWH’s part, He makes the promise of his blessing.
In sum, Deuteronomy 26: 17–19 may be paraphrased as follows according to the interpretation above:
Whereas the covenant is made “today,” according to Deuteronomy 26, in Deuteronomy 29 it seems that a covenant still has to be made. Israel is assembled and stands before YHWH, as it once stood at Horeb (Deut. 4: 10; 29: 9[10]).18 A long enumeration emphasizes that each and everybody is present at this special moment: Israel’s leaders,19 men, children, women, and aliens, “from your woodchopper to your waterhauler.”20 The purpose of the assembly is clear: YHWH is about to (subject with participle) make his covenant with Israel (Deut. 29: 11[12], 13[14]). The covenant is described here as a “covenant and oath” (
YHWH is about to make a covenant and Israel is ready to “enter into” (
The question still remains why no covenantal ceremony is described in Deuteronomy. But as Norbert Lohfink has argued, a covenant is being made in the narrated reality of Deuteronomy. The author does not describe the events from a distance, but he uses the technique of telling-showing. Hebrew qatal, especially in combination with
The only remaining question is why the assembly of Israel is mentioned only in Deuteronomy 29, whereas the act of covenanting is already found in Deuteronomy 26–27. For Lohfink, one has to distinguish between the story and the fabula of Deuteronomy. The assembly mentioned in Deuteronomy 5: 1 and 29: 1[2] is one and the same. The Deuteronomic author would be using ‘tiling technique,’ describing the same event more than once. The public reading of the document of the covenant should then be situated between Deuteronomy 29: 14[15] and 29: 15[16]. Lohfink supposes that the difference between the text and the fabula may originate from the genesis of the text.29 It may also be, however, that the question of the exact fabula is a modern formulation.
The difference between Deuteronomy 26 and 29 can also be explained by the ongoing present of the covenant in Deuteronomy (see below, § 3). It should be noted that the declaration that “today” Israel “has become a people for YHWH your God” (Deut. 27: 9) is found in the context of the future ceremony on Mounts Ebal and Gerizim. The word
In sum, Deuteronomy describes a covenant being made between YHWH and Israel. No ceremony is explicitly described, but the covenanting is enacted by means of the speech-act narrated in the text; the “today” is an ongoing present. The content of the covenant is that YHWH is Israel’s God and Israel is his people. This implies obligations on Israel’s part and promises on YHWH’s part.
3 The Moab and the Horeb Covenants
At first sight, the Moab and the Horeb covenants are clearly distinguished in the Book of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 28: 69 (29: 1), the beginning of the third main part of Deuteronomy,31 reads: “These are the words of the covenant that YHWH commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in the land of Moab, in addition to (
The narrative of Deuteronomy also suggests a distinction between the Moab and the Horeb covenants. The book starts with Israel’s departure from Horeb at the command of YHWH (Deut. 1: 6–7). Thus, a spatial and a temporal gap is created between the events at Horeb and those narrated in Deuteronomy.
At the same time, there are several elements in Deuteronomy pointing to a close relationship between both covenants. First, the audience of both covenants is considered as identical. Most explicit is Deuteronomy 5: 1–5, where the temporal distance between the Moab generation and the events at Horeb seems to be bridged. When all Israel is assembled, Moses proclaims: “YHWH our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. Not with our fathers did YHWH make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today.” (Deut. 5: 2–3).35
In this text, the Moab generation (and implicitly the readers of Deuteronomy as well) is presented as standing at Horeb when YHWH made his covenant with Israel. The present generation is even contrasted with “our fathers.” The contrast is not a relative (not so much),36 but an absolute one. This rhetoric of ‘exaggerated contrast’ is intended to emphasize the present time of the Moab generation.37 The “fathers” can be a reference to the patriarchs, to the exodus generation, or to Israel’s ancestry in general. All are possible, but the latter seems most likely here, since the contrast is not with one particular generation, but with all of Israel’s ancestors.38
Israel as a nation is viewed as a unity. This unity is emphasized already in verse 1, where Moses convenes “all Israel.” More remarkable, however, is Israel’s unity throughout the generations. In reality, according to Deuteronomy itself, most of the people had not been present at Horeb, since the Horeb generation died in the wilderness (Deut. 2: 14–16). Yet, the generation at the border of Canaan and the Horeb generation are identified in Deuteronomy.39 This “rhetorische Generationenverschmelzung”40 is rooted in Israel’s unity as the people of YHWH. This is found throughout Deuteronomy, where events from the past are presented as the present people’s experience (which “we” or “you” have experienced).41
Second, the content of YHWH’s revelation at Horeb and at Moab requires some comment. At Horeb, YHWH proclaimed the Decalogue to the people of Israel as a whole. At Moab, the Deuteronomic Torah is proclaimed, which is mediated by Moses. The relation between the Decalogue and the Deuteronomic Torah is a dialectic one. On the one hand, they are held closely together. Both are described as the expression of YHWH’s will; both are given to Moses at Horeb; and both are proclaimed by Moses to Israel in Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 5: 1 is the introduction of both the Decalogue and the Mosaic Torah.
On the other hand, the Decalogue and the Deuteronomic Torah are clearly distinguished. The Decalogue is preserved in the ark, the Torah next to it (Deut. 10: 5; 31: 26).42 The Decalogue is proclaimed by YHWH to all Israel; the Torah is given by the mediation of Moses. The mediating function of Moses is repeatedly mentioned, even before the text of the Decalogue is cited (Deut. 5: 5; cf. 5: 22–31).43 In Deuteronomy 18: 16, it appears that not only Moses, but also the future prophets of Israel will transmit the words of YHWH. This underscores the distinction between the Decalogue and the later Torah.
In Deuteronomy, then, the content of the Horeb and the Moab covenants is kept closely together in terms of origin and authority, but they are distinguished as well.44 In the introduction to Deuteronomy, Moses’s words are presented as an explanation (
Third, Israel’s privileged position is underscored in Deuteronomy 5: 1–5. It is the present generation that YHWH made his covenant with at Horeb.46 YHWH spoke with Israel “from face to face,” out of the midst of the fire. The expression “face to face,” which is used with respect to Moses in Deuteronomy 34: 10, is here applied to Israel as a whole. The motif of the fire, which is much more prominent in Deuteronomy than it is in Exodus, indicates YHWH’s real presence.47 This way, the immediacy of YHWH’s revelation is emphasized. Despite this, Israel is still alive (Deut. 5: 3–4); this is a unique experience (Deut. 5: 24, 26). It emphasizes the special situation of those present at Horeb and even seems to place the present generation above their fathers, suggesting progress in YHWH’s revelation. The present generation is more privileged and more responsible than their fathers. This is also true for Israel’s assembly at Moab, which is described in similar terms (Deut. 29: 9–14[10–15]).
Fourth, the close relation between the Moab and the Horeb covenants is indicated by a number of references to earlier promises (“as He spoke to you”: Deut. 26: 18, 19; 29: 12[13]). As several exegetes have argued, this most likely refers to Exod. 19: 5–6, YHWH’s words to Moses at Sinai.48 By means of these references, Horeb and Moab are connected.
It may be asked why a new covenant or a renewal of the covenant was necessary if the Moab generation was considered present at Horeb. Two reasons may be mentioned.
First, the Moab covenant may be connected with Israel’s sins since Horeb. At the beginning of Deuteronomy, Israel’s failure at Kadesh is recalled (Deut. 1: 19–46). This has resulted in the death of a generation in the wilderness (Deut. 2: 14–16). A lengthy elaboration illustrates Israel’s stubbornness by describing previous moments in which YHWH was about to eradicate his people (Deut. 9: 7–10: 11). At the border of Canaan, Israel has sinned with the Baal of Peor, resulting in the destruction of those following Baal (Deut. 4: 3).
However, the motif of Israel’s sins should not be overemphasized. The events regarding the Baal of Peor are mentioned only in passing. According to some scholars, the remark that “we” are alive today in Deuteronomy 5: 3 is a reference to these events (cf. Deut. 4: 4).49 However, Deuteronomy 5 contains no indications that Israel’s past was viewed negatively. In the description of Israel’s stay at Horeb, it is notable that the sin with the golden calf is not viewed as a total breach. This is different from the narrative in Exodus, where a new covenant is made after the golden calf (Exod. 34).50 In Deuteronomy, the second time that YHWH gives the Decalogue (Deut. 10: 1–4) is not described as a new covenant. On the contrary, the continuity is emphasized; the similarity with the first version (“like the first”) is mentioned four times in these verses. Moreover, Israel is not assembled again, nor is the word
Second, the Moab covenant is connected with Israel’s situation at the border of Canaan and with the imminent death of Moses. In the narrated reality of Deuteronomy, Moses convenes all Israel three times: first in Deuteronomy 5: 1, opening the recollection of the events at Horeb; second in Deuteronomy 29: 1[2], introducing the entrance into the covenant; and third in Deuteronomy 31: 7, where Joshua is appointed as the new leader of Israel. This suggests that the succession of Moses is as important as the Horeb and the Moab covenants. This is in accordance with the importance attached to Moses in Deuteronomy as the mediator of YHWH’s revelation (mentioned in Deut. 5: 5 even before the Decalogue).52 The death of Moses is the end of an era. At the decisive moment when Moses’s mediation comes to an end and Israel stands again at the border of Canaan, there is every reason to renew the fundamental relation between YHWH and Israel.
In conclusion, the Horeb and the Moab covenants are both distinguished and kept closely together in Deuteronomy. YHWH’s covenant with Israel is connected to the specific moment at Horeb – “the covenant” often is the Horeb covenant (Deut. 4: 23; 33: 9). However, the events at Horeb are not a moment in the past, but the experience of the present hearers (and readers) of the words of Deuteronomy, thus re-enacting and recalling the Horeb covenant. Not the past or the future, but the present time is decisive (Deut. 5: 3; 11: 2). “Moab is the place which subsumes all previous places in Israel’s past, and controls every dimension of Israel’s future.”53
At the same time, a covenant is made in Moab. According to Deuteronomy, both covenants are made with the same generation; both are an expression of YHWH’s will; and the stipulations of both covenants are given at Horeb to Moses. Since the covenants are kept so closely together and since the Moab covenant does not function separately in the rest of the Old Testament, the Moab covenant may best be viewed as a renewal, a confirmation and an explanation of the Horeb covenant, showing that the Horeb covenant applies to new generations as well.54 The reason for this renewal may be found in Israel’s sins and especially in its present situation. Now is the decisive moment: after the failure at Kadesh (and, less prominent, the crisis with the Baal of Peor), Israel stands again at the border of the promised land. Moses is about to die, and his important mediation will fall away. The privileged position of Israel and of the present generation (implying a greater responsibility) is made clear by a new moment of covenanting.
4 The Covenant with the Fathers
YHWH’s covenant with Israel’s fathers is mentioned three times in Deuteronomy.55 In these texts, it is likely that the patriarchs are in view (Deut. 4: 31; 7: 12; 8: 18).56 One other text in which YHWH’s covenant and the fathers are mentioned most likely refers to the covenant at Horeb (Deut. 29: 24[25]).57 Much more often, YHWH is called “the God of your/our fathers”58 and his oath to the fathers is mentioned. YHWH’s oath is often related to the gift of the land of Canaan.59 In this context, there also seems to be a conflation of the generations (see above), since the land is sometimes promised to the fathers and sometimes to the Moab generation (“you”).60
A few times, the covenant with the fathers is explicitly connected with the Horeb or the Moab covenants. Israel is called to remember that it is YHWH who gave them power and wealth, “so that He may confirm (
It is noteworthy that YHWH’s covenant with the fathers is mentioned in Deuteronomy especially in relation to Israel’s disobedience and their breaking of the covenant. In Deuteronomy 4: 23, Israel is warned not to forget the covenant by making any idol. This clearly refers to the Horeb covenant (“the ten words,” Deut. 4: 13). Even if Israel is disobedient, however, YHWH will eventually make Israel return, “because YHWH your God is a merciful God (…) He will not forget the covenant of your fathers that he swore to them” (Deut. 4: 31).63 The covenant with the fathers thus is connected to the Horeb covenant as well.64 YHWH’s covenant with the fathers is the reason for his mercy if Israel would break the Horeb covenant (whereas this text is about the future, the Moab covenant is not mentioned). This is illustrated in a historical overview of Israel’s disobedience in the past. After the rebellion with the calf at Horeb, YHWH was about to destroy Israel. Moses, however, intervened by pleading that YHWH “remember his servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Deut. 9: 27). A covenant or an oath is not mentioned in this context, but the names of the patriarchs and the appeal to remember suggest that this is intended.
In sum, the covenant with the fathers does not have a prominent role in Deuteronomy. It functions as YHWH’s founding promise that He will remember or on which Israel can plead when the covenant is broken. The covenant with the fathers is the supporting foundation under the history of their progeny.65 It is more lasting and more comprehensive than the Horeb covenant, since it remains in force even when the Horeb or Moab covenant is broken; the emphasis is on YHWH’s unilateral promise.66
5 The Future of the Covenant
In addition to its reflections on the patriarchal and the Horeb covenants and its description of the making of the Moab covenant, Deuteronomy deals with the future of the covenant between YHWH and Israel. Deuteronomy 31: 9–13 contains prescriptions about a regular reading of the Torah, once every seven years at the festival of booths. The emphasis on the required presence of all Israel and the formulations used recall Israel’s assembly at Horeb (Deut. 4: 10). Thus, although the word
In Deuteronomy 29: 13–14[14–15], the future generations are explicitly included in the covenant. “I am making this covenant and this curse not with you only, but with those who are here with us today, standing before YHWH our God, and with those who are not here with us today.” The latter expression most likely refers to future generations of Israel (cf. Deut. 29: 21[22], 28[29]).70 So, the covenant is extended to the future, even “forever” (Deut. 29: 28[29]). It should be noted that the contrast with the present generation is not absolute (
Deuteronomy’s expectations of the future, however, are not positive; it anticipates Israel’s disobedience and breaking of the covenant.72 This possibility was already clear in the descriptions of Israel’s history (Deut. 1: 19–46; 9: 7–10: 11). Israel is warned not to forget the covenant YHWH made with them, by making an idol (Deut. 4: 23) or by making a covenant with the nations of Canaan (Deut. 7: 2). In the laws of Deuteronomy, it is stipulated that any Israelite transgressing YHWH’s covenant by worshiping other gods should be put to death (Deut. 17: 2–7). In the final chapters of the book, it is anticipated that Israel as a whole will forsake YHWH and break his covenant (Deut. 29: 24[25]; 31: 16, 20). But in the end, Israel will return. A new covenant in the future, however, is not envisaged. Rather, YHWH will remember and hold on to the existing covenant with the fathers (Deut. 4: 30–31). In Deuteronomy 30: 1–10, Israel’s return is described; blessings and curses are mentioned in this passage, but there is no mention of a renewed or a new covenant.
This reading stands in contrast to the thesis of A. Cholewinski, who has argued that the Moab covenant is a prefiguration of the new covenant as announced by the prophets (Jer. 31: 31–34, a.o.). According to him, Deuteronomy 28: 69 (29: 1) makes clear that the Moab covenant is not an explanation or a renewal of the Horeb covenant, but a covenant on its own. Since Israel has no heart to understand (Deut. 29: 3[4]) and the Horeb covenant is thus ineffective (cf. Deut. 29: 24[25]), the Moab covenant now is a better and more comprehensive covenant, which has several parallels with the ‘new covenant’ mentioned by the prophets. Cholewinski notes the following similarities: there is a promise of inner change, at the time when YHWH again gathers his people, accompanied by his rich blessings (cf. Deut. 30: 1–10). Thus, the Moab covenant could be viewed as a prefiguration of the new covenant.73 However, while there are certain parallels between Deuteronomy’s view of the future and the new covenant of the prophets, there are also relevant differences. In Deuteronomy, the inner change of Israel follows the envisaged failure of the Moab covenant. Israel’s change is promised for the future, but it is not the main content of the covenant, as in Jeremiah 31. A reference to a covenant is lacking in the Deuteronomic view of the future. Moreover, the Moab covenant is connected more closely to the Horeb covenant than Cholewinski suggests.74
Deuteronomy does not envisage a new covenant. Rather, the future is regarded as an unfolding of the Moab covenant. Deuteronomy 29–32 has been characterized as a motor of the whole history of salvation.75 The realization of the blessings and curses of the covenant is described in the Deuteronomistic History. Thus, while the Moab covenant is not mentioned separately elsewhere in the Old Testament, its influence is clear. Only the promised circumcision of the heart (Deut. 30: 6) will bring an end to the dialectic of blessing and curse.76 The prophets could take up this promise and elaborate it to the ‘new covenant.’
6 Conclusion
YHWH’s covenant with Israel is an important concept in Deuteronomic theology. It is connected with several moments in Israel’s history, while it is being continually renewed as well. This contribution focuses on the covenant that is being made in Deuteronomy and its relation to the Horeb and the patriarchal covenants.
The covenant made at Horeb may be described as the central covenant. The events at Horeb are recalled and actualized for the present generation. The Moab generation is identified with the Horeb generation; Israel as a nation is viewed as a unity, even through time. This also applies to future generations and is implied for the future readers of Deuteronomy.77 YHWH’s covenant with Israel is rooted in a specific moment in the past. It is re-enacted and recalled in the ongoing present of Deuteronomy and it is open toward the future.
The Moab covenant is described in and is being made by the speech-act narrated in the text of Deuteronomy. On the one hand, the Moab covenant is clearly distinguished from the Horeb covenant. In the narrated time of Deuteronomy (“today”), Israel is constituted as the people of YHWH and is entering into his covenant. On the other hand, the Moab covenant is kept close to the Horeb covenant in terms of origin and authority. Deuteronomy’s emphasis is on the present of the covenant and the responsibility of the present generation, which fits the described situation of Deuteronomy at the border of Canaan. So, the Moab covenant may be interpreted as a renewal and an elaboration of the Horeb covenant, being at the same time very close to it. The Moab covenant is closely connected to Moses’s imminent death and the decisive moment of Israel’s entrance into the land. At the same time, it looks further into the future when it deals with Israel’s future disobedience and YHWH’s ongoing faithfulness.
The covenant with the fathers may be viewed as the foundational basis of YHWH’s relation with Israel, undergirding the Horeb and the Moab covenants. YHWH’s covenant with or his oath to the fathers is mentioned in situations when the Horeb covenant is broken. The present entrance into the land and into the covenant is described as the fulfillment of YHWH’s promises to the patriarchs. The patriarchal covenant is more lasting and more comprehensive than the Horeb covenant.
As for the future, YHWH’s covenant with Israel will be ratified in the ceremony on Mounts Ebal and Gerizim and it will be re-enacted by the septennial reading of the Torah at the festival of booths. Israel’s reading and obeying of the Deuteronomic Torah may also be viewed as an ongoing confirmation of the covenant.
Finally, it may be asked how many covenants there are, according to Deuteronomy. It is noteworthy that
Thus, the covenant between YHWH and Israel is connected to several important moments in Israel’s history. The Horeb events may be considered as the core of the Deuteronomic concept of the covenant; the covenant with the patriarchs is foundational, and the events at Moab are an actualization and renewal of YHWH’s covenant with Israel. The renewal of the covenant is quite important, even decisive for the present generation; but since it is a renewal of an existing covenant, this may explain why the Moab covenant has no independent function and is even never mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament. At the same time, Deuteronomy time and again emphasizes the ongoing present of the covenant. The recurring “today” has the rhetorical effect of making Deuteronomy’s readers aware that every new generation is part of the same dynamic of an ongoing actualization. The remembrance of Horeb with the repetition of the ten words, the formula in Deuteronomy 26: 17–19, the preview of the events at Mounts Ebal and Gerizim, and the entrance into the covenant in Deuteronomy 29: 11[12] are all part of the same dynamic. YHWH’s covenant with Israel extends from Horeb (even the patriarchs) via Moab to the future (Mounts Ebal and Gerizim, the festival of booths, and daily citing and obeying the Torah). Deuteronomy’s emphasis, however, is on the ongoing present of standing before YHWH and responding to his promises and demands.
Bibliography
Arnold, Bill T. “Reexamining the ‘Fathers’ in Deuteronomy’s Framework.” In Torah and Tradition, edited by Klaas Spronk and Hans Barstad, 10–41. OtSt 70. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Barker, Paul A. The Triumph of Grace in Deuteronomy: Faithless Israel, Faithful Yahweh in Deuteronomy. PBM. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004.
Biberger, Bernd. Unsere Väter und wir: Unterteilung von Geschichtsdarstellungen in Generationen und das Verhältnis der Generationen im Alten Testament. BBB 145. Berlin: Philo, 2003.
Block, Daniel I. Deuteronomy. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.
Brueggemann, Walter. Deuteronomy. AOTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001.
Cholewinski, A. “Zur theologischen Deutung des Moabbundes.” Biblica 66 (1985): 96–111.
Christensen, Duane L. Deuteronomy. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001–2002.
Driver, S.R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. 3rd ed. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902.
Firth, David G. “Passing on the Faith in Deuteronomy.” In Interpreting Deuteronomy: Issues and Approaches, edited by David G. Firth and Philip S. Johnston, 157–176. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2012.
Guest, Steven Ward. “Deuteronomy 26:16–19 as the Central Focus of the Covenantal Framework of Deuteronomy.” PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009.
Hahn, Scott W. Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises. AYBRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.
Hwang, Jerry. The Rhetoric of Remembrance: An Investigation of the “Fathers” in Deuteronomy. Siphrut 8. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012.
Jenni, Ernst. Die hebräischen Präpositionen: Bd. 3, Die Präposition Lamed. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000.
Joüon, Paul, and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2nd ed. SubBi 27. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006.
Keil, Carl Friedrich. Leviticus, Numeri und Deuteronomium. BC. Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1862.
König, Eduard. Historisch-comparative Syntax der Hebräischen Sprache: Schlusstheil des Historisch-kritischen Lehrgebäudes des Hebräischen. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1897.
Labuschagne, C.J. Deuteronomium. 4 vols. POuT. Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1987–1997.
Lohfink, Norbert. “Bund als Vertrag im Deuteronomium.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 107 (1995): 215–239.
Lohfink, Norbert. “Der Bundesschluß im Land Moab: Redaktionsgeschichtliches zu Dt 28,69–32,47.” Biblische Zeitschrift 6 (1962): 32–56. Reprinted in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 1, 53–82. SBAB 8. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990.
Lohfink, Norbert. “Der Neue Bund im Buch Deuteronomium?” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 4 (1998): 100–125.
Lohfink, Norbert. Die Väter Israels im Deuteronomium: Mit einer Stellungnahme von Thomas Römer. OBO 111. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1991.
Lohfink, Norbert. “Dt 26,17–19 und die ‘Bundesformel.’ ” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 91 (1969): 517–553. Reprinted in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 1, 211–261. SBAB 8. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990.
Lundbom, Jack R. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.
McCarthy, Carmel. Deuteronomy. BHQ 5. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007.
McConville, J.G. Deuteronomy. AOTC. Leicester: Apollos, 2002.
McConville, J.G., and J. Gary Millar. Time and Place in Deuteronomy. JSOTSup 179. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
Nelson, Richard D. Deuteronomy. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002.
Nielsen, Eduard. Deuteronomium. HAT 1.6. Tübingen: Mohr, 1995.
Otto, Eckart. Deuteronomium 1–11. 2 vols. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2012.
Otto, Eckart. Deuteronomium 12–34. 2 vols. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2016–2017.
Perlitt, Lothar. Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. WMANT 36. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969.
Perlitt, Lothar. Deuteronomium 1–6*. BKAT. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2013.
Rendtorff, Rolf. Die “Bundesformel”: Eine exegetisch-theologische Untersuchung. SBS 160. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995.
Rofé, Alexander. “The Covenant in the Land of Moab (Dt 28,69–30,20): Historico- Literary, Comparative, and Formcritical Considerations.” In Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft, edited by Norbert Lohfink, 310–320. BETL 68. Leuven: University Press, 1985.
Römer, Thomas C. Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deutoronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition. OBO 99. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1990.
Skweres, Dieter Eduard. Die Rückverweise im Buch Deuteronomium. AnBib 79. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979.
Steuernagel, Carl. Deuteronomium und Josua und allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexateuch. HK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900.
Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. JPSTC. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996.
Veijola, Timo. Das 5. Buch Mose: Deuteronomium: Kapitel 1,1–16,17. ATD 8.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004.
Versluis, Arie. “ ‘And Moses Wrote This Torah’: Canon Formulas and the Theology of Writing in Deuteronomy.” In Sola Scriptura: Biblical and Theological Perspectives on Scripture, Authority, and Hermeneutics, edited by Hans Burger, Arnold Huijgen, and Eric Peels, 137–158. SRTh 32. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Versluis, Arie. The Command to Exterminate the Canaanites: Deuteronomy 7. OtSt 71. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Vriezen, Th. C. “Das Hiphil von ʾAmar in Deut. 26, 17. 18.” Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap ‘Ex Oriente Lux’ 17 (1964): 207–210.
Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael Patrick O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy 1–11. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1991.
Wilson, Ian. Out of the Midst of the Fire: Divine Presence in Deuteronomy. SBLDS 151. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.
See Norbert Lohfink, “Bund als Vertrag im Deuteronomium,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 107 (1995): 215–17.
The terminology for the relation between YHWH and Israel is much more diverse, but this contribution focuses on
According to Scott W. Hahn, this is also the case in Ezek. 20, which corresponds with his negative view of Deuteronomy. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises, AYBRL (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 80–82. In Ezek. 20, however, there is no mention of Moab or of a covenant, which makes Hahn’s interpretation rather dubious.
Addition/renewal: e.g., Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 662. Replacement and prefiguration: A. Cholewinski, “Zur theologischen Deutung des Moabbundes,” Biblica 66 (1985): 96–111. See also Paul A. Barker, The Triumph of Grace in Deuteronomy: Faithless Israel, Faithful Yahweh in Deuteronomy, PBM (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004), 112–16.
Cf. Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 338; Eckart Otto, Deuteronomium 12–34, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2016–2017), 2058; Lothar Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament, WMANT 36 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 25.
See Norbert Lohfink, “Dt 26,17–19 und die ‘Bundesformel,’ ” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 91 (1969): 527–28. According to Steven Ward Guest, this passage is the focal point of the covenantal framework of Deuteronomy. Guest, “Deuteronomy 26:16–19 as the Central Focus of the Covenantal Framework of Deuteronomy” (PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009),
So, e.g., Jack R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 734; Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, JPSTC (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 245.
So, e.g., Nelson, Deuteronomy, 305.
E.g.,
So, following Vriezen, Block, Deuteronomy, 614–15; Guest, “Deuteronomy 26:16–19 as the Central Focus,” 126; J.G. McConville, Deuteronomy, AOTC (Leicester: Apollos, 2002), 376; Eduard Nielsen, Deuteronomium, HAT, 1.6 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1995), 237; Otto, Deuteronomium 12–34, 1876, 1902.
So S.R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, 3rd ed., ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902), 293; Carl Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua und allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexateuch, HK (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), 96; Vriezen, “Das Hiphil von ʾAmar,” 207–8.
Cf. Block, Deuteronomy, 616–17; Guest, “Deuteronomy 26:16–19 as the Central Focus,” 113–16.
Rolf Rendtorff, Die “Bundesformel”: Eine exegetisch-theologische Untersuchung, SBS 160 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995), 68. The only possible exception is 2 Kings 11: 17, where the content of the covenant between YHWH, king Jehoiada and the people is described as “that they should be a people for YHWH.”
In a series of infinitives, the subject of the infinitives (which is indicated by the context) may change; see Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, § 124s.
For the meaning of
Cf. Deut. 10: 21; 28: 1, 10, where it is always YHWH’s name and fame that is given to Israel. Israel’s unique position among the nations is intended for the service of YHWH; see the end of v. 19. Cf. Versluis, The Command to Exterminate the Canaanites, 156–61.
See, e.g., Deut. 4: 8, 40; 7: 11; 8: 1, 11; 11: 32. The frequent expression
The only thing Israel is doing in Deut. 29: 9–14[10–15], is standing before YHWH; Barker, Triumph of Grace, 133.
The first words of the enumeration (
In Josh. 9: 21, 23, 27, this description is used for the Gibeonites. In the present context, however, it may also be interpreted as a comprehensive description of all aliens, “no matter how menial their social position.” So Duane L. Christensen, Deuteronomy, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Nelson, 2001–2002), 718.
Gen. 26: 28; Deut. 29: 13[14]; Ezek. 16: 59; 17: 13, 16, 18, 19; Hosea 10: 4.
Block, Deuteronomy, 678.
Cf. Christensen, Deuteronomy, 718.
The use of
Carl Friedrich Keil, Leviticus, Numeri und Deuteronomium, BC (Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1862), 542.
C.J. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, POuT (Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1987–1997), 3:121–22; Lohfink, “Bund als Vertrag,” 226.
Cf. the importance of crossing the Jordan and entering the promised land in the Book of Joshua.
Cf. Otto, Deuteronomium 12–34, 1904–6; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 245. See already Norbert Lohfink, “Der Bundesschluß im Land Moab: Redaktionsgeschichtliches zu Dt 28,69–32,47,” Biblische Zeitschrift 6 (1962): 43.
Lohfink, “Bund als Vertrag,” esp. 228–33.
McConville, Deuteronomy, 395.
For the structure of Deuteronomy and the discussion whether Deut. 28: 69 (29: 1) is a superscript or a subscript, see Versluis, The Command to Exterminate the Canaanites, 139–40. According to Otto, the text has a pivotal function between the previous and following part of Deuteronomy. Otto, Deuteronomium 12–34, 1983–84.
See Ernst Jenni, Die hebräischen Präpositionen, Bd. 3, Die Präposition Lamed (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000), 278.
See Arie Versluis, “ ‘And Moses Wrote This Torah’: Canon Formulas and the Theology of Writing in Deuteronomy,” in Sola Scriptura: Biblical and Theological Perspectives on Scripture, Authority, and Hermeneutics, ed. Hans Burger, Arnold Huijgen, and Eric Peels, SRTh 32 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 152–53.
Nelson, Deuteronomy, 338.
The preposition used with
So Block, Deuteronomy, 155; Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, 1B:24; see already Rashi.
Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 267.
Cf. Norbert Lohfink, Die Väter Israels im Deuteronomium: Mit einer Stellungnahme von Thomas Römer, OBO 111 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1991), 23–24; McConville, Deuteronomy, 124. Otherwise, e.g., Tigay, Deuteronomy, 61 (patriarchs); Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 267–68 (Horeb generation). The contrast is between the generations, not between different covenants in the past, as Timo Veijola suggests (“this” covenant versus another covenant). Veijola, Das 5. Buch Mose: Deuteronomium: Kapitel 1,1–16,17, ATD 8.1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 141–42.
A distinction between two generations in the desert is made only in Deut. 1: 19–46, at a crucial moment when trust in YHWH was lacking. See Bernd Biberger, Unsere Väter und wir: Unterteilung von Geschichtsdarstellungen in Generationen und das Verhältnis der Generationen im Alten Testament, BBB 145 (Berlin: Philo, 2003), 387–88.
Lohfink, Die Väter Israels im Deuteronomium, 20.
This regards events from Egypt (Deut. 1: 30; 4: 20, 34; 5: 15; 6: 12, 21–22; 7: 8, 18–19; 8: 14; 10: 19, 21; 11: 10; 12: 5, 10; 15: 15; 16: 1, 3, 12; 23: 4, 7; 24: 22; 26: 6–9; 29: 1–2[2–3], 15[16]), the wilderness journey (Deut. 1: 9, 19–46; 2: 1, 7; 6: 16; 8: 2–3, 15–16; 11: 5, 7; 25: 17), and Horeb (Deut. 4: 10–15, 23, 33; 9: 8, 22–23). See also Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 237–39. Cf. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 79: “Horeb and Moab involve the very same audience in a literary and ideological sense that transcends the actual chronology set forth in Deuteronomy.”
See Versluis, “And Moses Wrote This Torah,” 152–53.
Versluis, “And Moses Wrote This Torah,” 148–50. The role of Moses’s mediation is rightly mentioned by Hahn. However, he overstates the case when he concludes that “Yahweh becomes more remote as a mediating bureaucracy [the Levites, AV] is inserted between Him and the people.” Kinship by Covenant, 69.
Cf. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 338; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 274; Veijola, Deuteronomium, 140.
See Eckart Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2012), 319–21. For the meaning of
At the end of Deut. 5: 3, there is a strong emphasis on the present generation. For the construction of
The motif of the fire is mentioned in Exod. 19: 18; 24: 17; Deut. 4: 11, 12, 15, 24, 33, 36; 5: 22–26; 9: 10, 15; 10: 4; 18: 16. See Ian Wilson, Out of the Midst of the Fire: Divine Presence in Deuteronomy, SBLDS 151 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), esp. 76–78.
For a discussion of this and other options, see Dieter Eduard Skweres, Die Rückverweise im Buch Deuteronomium, AnBib 79 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979), 129–37, 175–80. Cf. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 245–46.
Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 68–69. Cf. Block, Deuteronomy, 155.
Cf. Gert Kwakkel’s contribution to this volume, p. 29–30.
See Norbert Lohfink, “Der Neue Bund im Buch Deuteronomium?,” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 4 (1998): 105–8.
Moses’s crucial role is also clear in writing the Torah, its closure and its authority; see Versluis, “And Moses Wrote This Torah,” 148–50, 155.
J.G. McConville and J. Gary Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy, JSOTSup 179 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 69.
Barker, Triumph of Grace, 116, 131–33; Otto, Deuteronomium 12–34, 2075–76. Barker calls the Horeb and Moab covenants “fundamentally identical.” As Gert Kwakkel shows in his contribution to this volume (pp. 24–33), the idiom
Jerry Hwang has rightly noted that other terms as well are used for the relation between YHWH and Israel’s fathers. Hwang, The Rhetoric of Remembrance: An Investigation of the “Fathers” in Deuteronomy, Siphrut 8 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 180–83.
The identification of the “fathers” in Deuteronomy is controversial. Thomas C. Römer has stated that the “fathers” originally referred to the exodus generation; only in the final redaction of the Pentateuch they would have been identified with the patriarchs. Römer, Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deutoronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition, OBO 99 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1990). His views have been extensively criticized and refuted by Bill T. Arnold, “Reexamining the ‘Fathers’ in Deuteronomy’s Framework,” in Torah and Tradition, ed. Klaas Spronk and Hans Barstad, OtSt 70 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 10–41; Hwang, Rhetoric of Remembrance; Lohfink, Die Väter Israels im Deuteronomium.
Deut. 29: 24[25] describes the future situation of Israel’s disobedience, when it will abandon “the covenant of YHWH, the God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them out of the land of Egypt.” The words “with them” most likely refer to the exodus generation; it is plausible that the covenant is the covenant at Horeb (a separate covenant connected with the exodus is never mentioned in the Old Testament). The covenant at Horeb is thus connected with YHWH as the God of Israel’s fathers. The Septuagint, however, reads ‘with their fathers’; in that case, the exodus generation is characterized as Israel’s fathers. For the relation between the fathers and the exodus in Deut. 7: 8, see Versluis, The Command to Exterminate the Canaanites, 86–89.
Deut. 1: 11, 21; 4: 1; 6: 3; 12: 1; 26: 7; 27: 3; 29: 24(25).
Deut. 1: 8; 4: 1; 6: 10, 23; 7: 13; 9: 5; 11: 9, 21; 19: 8; 26: 3; 28: 11; 30: 20; 31: 7, 20.
See also Hwang, Rhetoric of Remembrance, 188–90.
The construction of Deut. 29: 12[13], a transition of an infinitive construction to a finite verb (
The connection between the covenant at Horeb and Israel’s fathers is more implicit in Deut. 29: 24[25]: YHWH, the God of Israel’s fathers, made a covenant with them (see note 57 above).
In Deut. 30, the fathers are also mentioned in the context of Israel’s future repentance and return. YHWH will then make Israel more prosperous and more numerous than their fathers (Deut. 30: 5). This may refer, however, to Israel’s ancestors in general. In v. 20, reference is made to YHWH’s oath to the patriarchs to give them the land.
Cf. Rendtorff, Die Bundesformel, 65.
Hwang, Rhetoric of Remembrance, 178–232. Hwang rightly argues for one covenant between YHWH and Israel through time, but his thesis that the ‘fathers’ in Deuteronomy “function as a timeless symbol of every generation of God’s people” (233) is an overstatement and overlooks the importance of the historical foundation of YHWH’s covenant.
Lohfink, “Der Neue Bund im Buch Deuteronomium,” 104–5. Cf. Veijola, Deuteronomium, 142.
See Versluis, “And Moses Wrote This Torah,” 150–51.
See David G. Firth, “Passing on the Faith in Deuteronomy,” in Interpreting Deuteronomy: Issues and Approaches, ed. David G. Firth and Philip S. Johnston (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2012), 157–76.
Cf. McConville, Deuteronomy, 384.
In Ancient Near Eastern treaty texts, it is also specified that the stipulations apply to future generations as well; see Christensen, Deuteronomy, 718; Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 807. Otherwise Alexander Rofé, “The Covenant in the Land of Moab (Dt 28,69–30,20): Historico-Literary, Comparative, and Formcritical Considerations,” in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft, ed. Norbert Lohfink, BETL 68 (Leuven: University Press, 1985), 312. According to Rofé, Deut. 29: 13[14] refers to members of the community who did not participate in the ceremony. This is unlikely, however, given the emphasis on the presence of all Israel in Deut. 29: 11–12[12–13].
In Deut. 11: 2, the emphasis is on the present generation as well: “it is not your children who do not know” but the present generation that should acknowledge YHWH.
See Barker, Triumph of Grace.
Cholewinski, “Zur theologischen Deutung des Moabbundes.”
See also Lohfink, “Der Neue Bund im Buch Deuteronomium,” 113–20.
Cholewinski, “Zur theologischen Deutung des Moabbundes,” 107–8: “ein wahrer Antriebsmotor der ganzen Heilsgeschichte.”
Otto, Deuteronomium 12–34, 2076.
The same idea functions in the Jewish Passover liturgy and in Christian liturgy at Christmas, Good Friday and Easter, when every new generation is considered present at the decisive moments of God’s saving acts. Cf. Walter Brueggemann, Deuteronomy, AOTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 65; Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 268.
See Rendtorff, Die Bundesformel, 80–88, who argues this for the Old Testament as a whole. See the contribution of Gert Kwakkel in this volume, whose viewpoint is slightly different.