Who wrote Deuteronomy?

Not only is Moses the writer of Deuteronomy, but he gives the record of what he spoke to Israel in this book. The instruction is not addressed to the priests as much of Leviticus is, and some of Numbers also, but to all Israel. for in the summing up of our history each of us individually must give account of himself to God (Rom.14:12), therefore each is responsible to take to heart the truth God gives in His Word for our welfare in our earthly history.

Deuteronomy is the last book of the Pentateuch (Greek for "Fivebook") or of the Thora (Hebrew word for "law"). The unity of the Pentateuch and the Mosaic authorship have often been denied since the 19th century. Criticism has especially focused on the book of Deuteronomy. Some have claimed it was written only at the time of Josiah, or even later.

Starting from 2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" we can see in the Old as well as in the New Testament that Moses is considered to be the author of Deuteronomy and therefore the time of writing is confirmed. In Deuteronomy 31:9 and 24-26 it is testified that Moses wrote the book and that he gave it to the Levites to keep it. In Joshua 8:32-35 explicit reference is made to Deuteronomy 27:8-12 as "all that Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded before". While mentioning the law of Moses (Thora) in 2 Chron. 34:14 and Neh. 8:1 the book of Deuteronomy is included as well.

The law, which Moses had written was next delivered unto the Levites. "Moses wrote this law." Could there be a more emphatic statement than this! And this declaration that Moses wrote this law is confirmed by our Lord, the same Lord who spoke to Moses and whose words and laws Moses committed to writing. The denial of the Mosaic authorship includes the denial of the infallibility of the Son of God. It is infidelity. The infidels of the past ridiculed the teaching that Moses wrote the five books of the law. The infidels of Christendom do now the same. And this law was to be read before all Israel at the feast of tabernacles. They were to be dependent upon the Word of God and learn, fear, and obey by reading and hearing it. Our dependence is the same. Apart from believing and obeying the Word, spiritual life, walking in the Spirit, in fellowship with God, is impossible.

But it is worthy of note that the Lord distinctly attributes to Moses not merely the substance but the writing of Deuteronomy. (Mark 10:5) There can be no doubt that the Pharisees refer to the injunction in Deuteronomy 24; on which the Lord declares that not "a later writer," but Moses, "wrote you this precept." How grievous the unbelief then which does not tremble to say after such an utterance, "it is certain that Moses himself could not have written the book of Deuteronomy, nor made such changes in the old legislation as are contained in the discourses of the book!" To say that the work was impossible to one whose eye was not dimmed nor his natural force fled till he died is unwise. Besides, had it been otherwise, or had he seen fit as it was, an amanuensis (one or more) would not detract any more from Moses' writing than Tertius did from Paul's.

Deuteronomy closes the law, and is so self-evidently Mosaic with its personal pathos, that one may wonder that any man of spiritual perception could fail to recognise that none but the saintly legislator could have written it, as he intimates himself with death immediately in view, yet with undismayed spirit, and natural force unabated, and all his profound affections for Israel just about to enter the land of promise from which he was debarred. This and more necessarily gave a peculiar solemnity, adapted to the new generation who had not personally shared the departure from Egypt, the law imposed at Sinai, and but little of God's discipline through the wilderness, which form its wondrous rehearsal for instruction, encouragement, and warning, quite unexampled in the O.T.

There is no use to try and shirk the truth by mustering difficulties and saying, "Ah! we don't know that." Here is a book unlike all other books, bearing the stamp of truth and holiness upon it as no other book ever written. Here you have testimony borne to the blessed One, by His apostles, whose lives and works, miraculous or not, were a bright evidence of His divine truth, grace, and power. What totally different men they became, from what they were! They used to be prejudiced, narrow-minded Jews, utterly indifferent to souls, wholly wrapt up in their own dry traditions. See how in a short time, amazingly short indeed, all was changed, and changed in virtue of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ applied to their souls by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. They gave it as their testimony — sealed not merely by blood but by a course of such lowly yet faithful devotedness as the world had never seen — that the Lord Jesus uniformly treated the Bible (that is, of course, the Old Testament) as beyond question the word of God; that Moses wrote the law; that it was not Moses' talk, which later authors wrote — not merely traditions and legends strung together partly by himself, partly by people who lived after him: the Pentateuch was written by himself. And thus in all sorts of questions you find not only His authority coming in, but the man Moses himself, as the inspired servant of God, appealed to by the Lord. "He [Moses] wrote of me."

Such an hypothesis is most serious to all who desire to he loyal to Christ; since its acceptance unquestionably casts no small slight on the moral character of our adorable Redeemer. For the Lord, in some cases, made the entire force of His argument to rest upon the fact that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. To refer again to but one instance; in John 5:45-47 the point of our Lord's remarks is that Moses witnessed to Him. He is not alluding to the scriptures as such, for this He had already done (John 5:39). But here He takes up the great lawgiver himself as a personal witness. Moses would be their accuser, and that because they believed neither him nor Christ. Truly, if they believed not the writings of him who wrote of Messiah, how should they believe the words of Messiah? Thus Moses and Christ, Moses' writings and Christ's words, are so antithetically placed that to all unbiased minds there can be no manner of doubt that our Lord meant His hearers to understand that Moses himself had testified to Him in his writings. Now, supposing it be true, as the advocates of the theory in question allege, that the Jews were all wrong in thinking that Moses wrote the law, then we are at once forced to the abominable conclusion that our Lord (may He forgive even such a thought!) declared to them that Moses, their great leader, wrote of Him, when, at the same time, He was perfectly aware Moses did nothing of the kind. So that He, herein, resorted to mere artifice and unworthy cunning in order to win the ear of His opponents. He thus exaggerated before them the value of the testimony borne to Him and sought to take advantage of their ignorance to advance His claims. In short, if the "adaptation" theory be true, Christ is found guilty of duplicity! Where can be the reverence, not to say love, of those who brave such an issue as this? Once more the Lord is wounded in the house of His friends. Will they never cease their unholy handling of the Word of life and truth? Is it either wise or good to seek to degrade our Lord to the level of a mere rhetorical trickster, in order to sustain what is, after all, no more than supposition? On whom then can we rely, if not on Him, Who was the Truth? And the Lord was not only the fulness of truth in His Person, but His words were the expression of Himself. As He Himself said to those who asked Him "Who art thou?" "ten archen hoti kai lalo humin." Absolutely that which I also am speaking to you" (John 8:25). This is a direct reply to those who charge Him with equivocation. He was, what none ever were before or since, in exact correspondence with what His words expressed. So that all notions of "adaptation," save that He became a man amongst men, sin excepted, amount to ignoble calumnies against His holy and blessed Person. It is incredulity.

But this theory will not bear the light of facts on record. The allegation that Christ accepted the opinions current around Him is entirely visionary and altogether opposed to the words of the evangelists. On the contrary, from the commencement to the close of His ministry, He invariably upheld the sanctity and divine authority of the law as originally given, and condemned the human fancies and speculations with regard to it which were prevalent around Him. Did He, for example, accept "the current opinions" of the rabbis as to what was or what was not permissible on the Sabbath day? Was it a "wise accommodation to popular views "when He drove out the traders from the temple courts at the beginning as well as the end of His public life? Was it a measure of conciliation to charge the teachers of the law with "laying aside the commandment of God" whilst "holding the tradition of the elders"? (Mark 7:5–8) Do we find that in order to gain general favour He spared either the hypocritical punctiliousness of the Pharisees or the proud scepticism of the Sadducees? On the contrary, it is made manifest throughout the Gospels, that, wherever the Truth went, error was necessarily exposed. And as such was His general practice, it remains for the critics to explain why there was this exception, if indeed there is an exception, as they groundlessly imagine. Had the belief that Moses wrote the law been a blunder, it would not have been attested but would have been condemned, like their broad phylacteries and their divers washings.

But the theorists further assume, without warrant, that the "law of Moses" was the only name under which the Pentateuch would have been recognized; so that the Lord was obliged to speak thus in order to be understood. "Jesus must have alluded to the books of the Old Testament by their recognized names, just as men will always speak of the poetry of Homer, even if the composite origin of the Iliad and the Odyssey comes to be universally recognized." Unless He had violated the whole principle of the Incarnation by anticipating the slow development of natural knowledge, He must have spoken of the 'Deuteronomist' as Moses (John 5:46-47) as naturally as He spoke of 'the sun rising.'" Now, it is not necessary to refer again to the applicability of the allusion in this passage to the "man Moses," and not to a fictitious "Deuteronomist." But it is quite an error for Mr. G. to assume that He must have spoken in this way, as if no other term were intelligible.* A very slight examination of the Gospels would have revealed that the single word "law" was well understood by the Jews to refer to the first five books, and not merely to the decalogue. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets" (Matt. 5:17). "Have ye not read in the law etc." (Matt. 12:5). "This people who knoweth not the law are cursed" (John 7:49). If the addition of "Moses" was not necessary in these and other instances, neither was it at all necessary for purposes of distinctness. So that, if our Lord merely wished to avoid anticipating "the results of scientific inquiry or historical criticism," He might, when referring to the Pentateuch, have uniformly made use of the word "law," and thereby left the question of authorship unaffected by His words, and escaped the condemnation of the critics. Neither would He, by this means, have been impaled on the other horn of Mr. G.'s dilemma; for silence on the point in question could not "have violated the whole principle of the Incarnation by anticipating the slow development of natural knowledge." Therefore the simple truth can only be that Moses wrote the law, and the Lord confirmed the belief in the same by His authority, using such words as could leave no other impression on the minds of those who heard Him.

Moses then in Deut. 31 announces Joshua, not himself, as their leader over Jordan under Jehovah; and exhorts them to be courageous and strong in His going with them. "This law," it is definitely said, Moses wrote, and delivered it to the priests, the sons of Levi, and to all the elders of Israel, with the command (at the release of every seven years, when all Israel met before Jehovah at His chosen place) to read it in their ears, men, women, children, and even the stranger within their gates. Then Joshua receives his charge at the tent of meeting and, as Jehovah directed, Moses wrote that day a prophetic song, His witness against the sons of Israel. Indeed "this book of the law" too was to be put by the side of the ark for the same purpose. For Moses well knew their rebelliousness, and the evil to befall them at the end of days; but he rejoiced that Jehovah's purpose is unfailing and irrevocable.

Moses then wrote the song and taught it to Israel (v.22). At this time he inaugurated Joshua as leader in his place, encouraging him to be strong and courageous, for he would bring Israel into their land (v.23). Also, after he had completed writing the words of the law (the first five books of scripture), he commanded the Levites to put the Book of the Law beside the ark of the covenant (vs.25-26). This was a plain witness for God and a witness against the evils that the people would soon embrace, therefore a witness against them (vs.24-26).

If we believe the book (and he is God's enemy who does not), Moses spoke and wrote on the eve of his approaching death. This could not but impart a peculiarly earnest and solemn tone. Ethic, affectionate, and expostulatory elements predominate beyond what we find in any other of the five books. As Moses says, in closing the brief preface of Deut. 1:3-5, he began to declare or expound this law. Obedience is urged continually, and the spirit of it in the heart. It is the people as a whole therefore, who are in general addressed directly throughout, on their responsible tenure of the land. Typical teaching is comparatively rare, moral abounds, not without prophecy at the close especially. "The priests, the Levites" only appear for specific reasons, and Levites also as such. But the people are regarded as under the moral government of Jehovah their God in the land; and this accounts for its characteristics. Those born in the wilderness had been uncircumcised, and so disqualified for the privileges of Israel. This was no longer to be tolerated. Israel must henceforth take their normal place of obedience in Jehovah's land. So the book urges anticipatively.