This seems to be the case with the title of Deuteronomy, the fifth and final book of the sub-collection known as the Pentateuch. Our English title comes from a compound Greek word, first used in the Septuagint (aka, the LXX; third century BC), that means \u201csecond law\u201d (deuteronomion<\/em>). The problem is that this title comes from a misinterpretation of Deuteronomy 17:18, where the future king is instructed to \u201chave a copy of this law written for him in the presence of the levitical priests,\u201d implying that this version of the law comes secondarily from an earlier primary source, such as Exodus and\/or Leviticus. In reality, what is recorded in Deuteronomy is not a new<\/em> version of the Law of Moses but is a repeated or second version of the law, much like Chronicles functions as a second version of the royal narratives recorded in Samuel and Kings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus, to properly understand the content, themes, and message of Deuteronomy, we should embrace the actual Hebrew title, which is something like \u201cThese are the words of Moses,\u201d as in, these are the words of Moses as Israel stood \u201cbeyond the Jordan\u201d and waited for their opportunity to finally enter the land of Canaan (1:1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n A second concern comes in addressing who authored Deuteronomy and when it was written. According to the traditional view, Deuteronomy was written by Moses, as it is a collection of speeches given to the Israelites as they prepared to enter into the land of Canaan following forty years of wandering due to the disobedience of the older generation that left Egypt (cf., Numbers 13-14). This view finds clearly articulated support as the book closes: \u201cThese are the words of the covenant that the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in the land of Moab, in addition to the covenant that he had made with them at Horeb\u201d (29:1). Additional support for this view can be seen in at least a couple of others places, where the law lays out guidance for a future system of government\u2014including the aforementioned kingship\u2014which would replace Moses upon his death (16:18-18:22) or the laws that govern holy war (7:1ff) and conquest (20:1ff). Aside from the final chapter, which recounts God\u2019s promise to show Moses the land of Canaan before his death (34:1-12), one could make a solid textually-based argument that Moses was, in fact, the author of Deuteronomy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And yet, there is that last chapter. While I have actually had it explained to me that this chapter was written with \u201cprior knowledge\u201d (as in God knew Moses would die and then dictated that knowledge to Moses), the text of Deuteronomy can provide a clear, rational, logical answer: there are two authors of Deuteronomy (or, at the least, an original author and a later editor).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Most of Deuteronomy is written in third-person (i.e., 1:1-5; 5:1; 27-29; 31-34), which Moses could have easily done, as a bulk of the recorded speeches are in first-person. However, in addition to the third-person material noted above, there are also a few other places where an editorial hand can be found. Specifically, these editorial comments (aka, \u201cpost-Mosaica\u201d materials) show themselves as parenthetical statements, such as sociological comments (2:10-12), geographical comments (2:20-23), and chronological comments (10:6-9), all of which provide contextual information that would make sense for a latter readership rather than for readers who are living in the moment of Moses\u2019 speechmaking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This also helps us understand Deuteronomy canonically. Two authors mean two periods of composition. The traditional view, most notably argued by Jerome (342-420 AD), is that Deuteronomy is the famed \u201cbook of the Law\u201d discovered Hilkiah the priest (2 Kings 22). While cleaning up the Temple which had fallen into disrepair, Hilkiah finds this \u201cbook\u201d and takes it to the boy-king Josiah, who uses the book to bring about religious reform in Israel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The traditional theory held its ground until 1805, when Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette, a German theologian, first began arguing for the presence of source materials in the Pentateuch (aka, the Documentary Hypothesis). This led to arguments that focused on the rhetorical and linguistic difference between Deuteronomy and the other books in the Pentateuch (Driver, 1895) and the aforementioned parenthetical editorial comments (Smith, 1918).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The theory that won the day was that of Gerhard von Rad (1938)\u2014that Deuteronomy was composed following the reign of Solomon, revised during the reign of Josiah, and finished during the Babylonian exile as a way of preserving Israel\u2019s socio-religious culture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Newer theories, such as those proposed by Fretheim (1996), Sweeney (2017), and Wright (1994), have expanded on von Rad\u2019s theory by emphasizing the intergenerational purpose at play. Deuteronomy represents an evolving understanding of the role of the law (torah<\/em>) in the communal life of the nation of Israel. In this view, Deuteronomy is more associated with Proverbs than Exodus, as the legal and liturgical instruction seeks to shape a community that is looking toward the future, learning from its past rather than simply memorializing it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus, Deuteronomy is not a second version of the law but an attempt to understand the nature and function of the law in light of a community that is rebuilding itself following years in exile.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Deuteronomy comes at the end of a mostly-narrative unit of the Hebrew Bible. Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers are almost exclusively narrative. However, on the surface, Deuteronomy is more akin to Leviticus than any of the other members of the Pentateuch because of its legal nature. Yet, remember the above comments about not judging a book on its appearance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While there is still a narrative quality to Leviticus, Leviticus has more of a rhetorical tone to it, ultimately serving more of a liturgical function. For example, Leviticus begins this way:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The LORD summoned Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying: Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: When any of you bring an offering of livestock of the LORD, you shall bring your offering from the herd or from the flock.\u201d (1:1-2)<\/p>\n\n\n\n It begins more like a speech rather than a story. The purpose of Leviticus is to articulate God\u2019s law to Israel. To put a contemporary spin on this, reading Leviticus is like reading the Constitution of the United States<\/em> or a Supreme Court majority opinion. Leviticus is clear, functional, and open to little interpretation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Deuteronomy, on the other hand, rises higher on the narrative ladder. While not a complete narrative, like Genesis or even Exodus (where legal codes are articulated within the larger narrative), Deuteronomy is not just a collection of legal speeches. It is a mixture of several literary devices, a true literary masterpiece given its rhetorical function.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The challenge, then, is to determine what the main literary form of Deuteronomy is so that we can fully understand the rhetorical function. Each of the following theories adopts a lens connected to rhetorical criticism, focusing on the nature of the speeches recorded rather than on the bookend editorial comments (1:1-5; 34:1-10). While ignoring this material would severely impact the interpretation of a book like Job or Ecclesiastes, it causes less concern with Deuteronomy, mostly because of the above comments related to the original author (or, at least, speaker of Moses) and latter editor. Moses\u2019 speeches, beginning at 1:5, provide a coherent document that clearly articulates both its content and function.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Overall, there are five commonly-accepted contemporary theories regarding the literary nature of Deuteronomy. These will be addressed by popularity among scholars, beginning with the least popular. First, there is the polity theory. In this theory, put forth by McBride (1987), Deuteronomy functions like a kind of constitution, enacting laws that empower and protect the citizenry in order to establish a unified society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Second, there is the speech theory. In this theory, put forth by Polzin (1981, and revised in 1987) and building on the work of Noth (1948), Deuteronomy functions as a theological introduction to and provides a theological assessment of the Deuteronomistic History (Deuteronomy-Kings). This theory has recently been revised by Sweeney (2017), building mostly off of the work of Levinson (1997) on legal innovation and Clements (1965) on Hebrew liturgical literature. This theory focuses on the three main speeches in Deuteronomy (1:1-4:43; 4:44-28:68; 29-30; with closing material in 31-34) as theological reflection on the adaptive nature of the Mosaic Law within an ever-developing society. In this newly-revised theory, Deuteronomy functions as a hermeneutic bridge between the Pentateuch (where the law was given) and the historical narratives (where the law was lived out).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Third, there is the exposition theory. In this theory, put forth by Kaufman (1978\/1979), Deuteronomy functions to clarify and illuminate the content of the Mosaic law, using the Decalogue as something like a table of contents. Walton (1987) added to this theory by grouping the laws under four themes (authority, dignity, commitment, rights and privileges) that would articulate how God and Israel would relate to one another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fourth, there is the liturgical theory. In this theory, put forth by Christensen (1991) and looking at the poetic quality of the language, Deuteronomy functions in a pedagogical way, based on the Shema<\/em> passage (6:4-9).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lastly, and the theory that has mostly won the day with scholars, is the treaty theory. In this theory, put forth by Kline (1963), Deuteronomy functions in a legal way, much like the ancient Egyptian, Hittite, and Mesopotamian treaties (i.e., the Rosetta Stone or the Code of Hammurabi), where a conquering party lays out a political arrangement between themselves and their conquered enemy, in which protection is offered in exchange for political fidelity. These ancient treaties followed a similar pattern, beginning with a preamble and historical prologue, moved into an extended section of stipulations and concluded with a series of blessings and curses. When applied to Deuteronomy, God offers protection to Israel in exchange for their political\u2014and spiritual\u2014fidelity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We know the weekly grind of sermon prep is hard, whether you are in the midst of series or planning a new series. Trying to find key verses you need to highlight in your sermon, finding the historical background to the book, discovering the flow\/structure of book, and even figuring out what is the theme of each section.<\/p>\n\n\n\nLiterary Background<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Chart: Preaching Through Deuteronomy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.christianitytoday.com\/pastors\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/19\/2026\/01\/chart-deuteronomy.jpg?w=640\")
<\/a>