# Jesus is so Fulfilling!  ## Episode metadata - Episode title: Jesus is so Fulfilling! - Show: Data Over Dogma - Owner / Host: Daniel McClellan and Daniel Beecher - Episode publish date: 2026-01-19 - Episode AI description: What does it mean when Jesus says he fulfilled the law? The hosts dive into varying interpretations, exploring whether old laws are still relevant. They tackle the confusion around prohibitive laws and how Matthew's teachings contrast with Luke's narratives. A fascinating shift unfolds as they compare ancient Assyrian vassal treaties with biblical laws, revealing unexpected connections. The discussion sheds light on how these treaties framed the notion of divine authority and Israel's complex relationship with God. - Mentioned books: [Deuteronomy](https://share.snipd.com/book/e60fb607-5057-407f-b8c2-9215a321910e) by [Hubert Cunliffe-Jones](https://share.snipd.com/person/2c032076-acfb-4711-8b7a-3d5ee5718284) - Duration: 01:00:27 - Episode URL: [Open in Snipd](https://share.snipd.com/episode/811c74d5-c772-4f54-b48c-cb567fdab300) - Show URL: [Open in Snipd](https://share.snipd.com/show/8153b1cc-d781-49fd-92d5-a4bef70d1be5) - Export date: 2026-02-17T23:29:48 ## Snips ### [Mattress Swap That Sold Him On Brooklyn Bedding](https://share.snipd.com/snip/bd73a969-1a0f-4ea5-add8-aec3d4f8a9e2) 🎧 00:00 - 02:08 (02:08) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/b2c67df0-b959-410b-b9c9-de524677f94b" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Dan McClellan recounts switching a Brooklyn Bedding mattress into his bedroom after getting sick and preferring its cooling features. - He praises its Glaciotex cover and 120-night trial as reasons to recommend it. #### 💬 Quote > I went and slept in the guest bed and moved the mattress into our bedroom the very next day while I was still sick. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan sharing a personal story about his mattress purchase #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** I don't know about y'all, but the older I get, the more important it is to me that I get a good night's sleep. **Dan Beecher:** You know what? You getting a good night's sleep is important to me, too. **Dan McClellan:** Particularly because I have a bad lower back because of a sports-related injury from when I was younger. But it has always been important to me to have a firm mattress. And when I ordered my Brooklyn Bedding Plank Firm Luxe California King, it actually didn't go immediately into my bedroom. We actually set it up in the guest room with the intention of then switching out our old mattress afterwards. And there was a night when I was really, really, really sick and I didn't want to bug my wife, so I went and slept in the guest bed and moved the mattress into our bedroom the very next while I was still sick because I was like, okay, this is a superior mattress. And it has the Glaciotex covers, got the Copperflex foam. I am a hot sleeper. I wake up drenched in sweat sometimes and no longer because this mattress keeps me nice and cool. I always have a good night's sleep on my Brooklyn bedding. California King playing Confirm Lux. Always **Dan Beecher:** bragging about that, California King. Yeah, look, my Brooklyn bedding, I love it as well. And part of the thing that you need to know about them is that they handcraft every mattress in a factory in Arizona. There's not going to be any middlemen. There's no gimmicks. It just comes straight from them to you. It's a top tier quality, honestly priced mattress made with American craftsmanship. Their whole goal is just to give you a better night's sleep. And if you want a Brooklyn Bedding mattress, but you're not sure that it'll serve your needs, get one because Brooklyn Bedding offers a 120-night comfort trial. You love it, **Dan McClellan:** or they'll help you return it or swap it hassle-free. Go to brooklynbedding.com and use our promo code DOGMA at checkout to get 30% off site-wide. This offer is not available anywhere else. That's brooklynbedding.com and promo code dogma for 30% off site wide. --- ### [Fulfillment Refers To Eschatological Completion](https://share.snipd.com/snip/5a6ee4fa-62c3-4fcf-9e2a-dbf010bb914e) 🎧 05:52 - 15:09 (09:17) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/f1cb1369-1911-4667-b4fc-e761f80e3cef" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Matthew 5's "I have not come to abolish but to fulfill" likely means the law remains until the eschaton when heaven and earth pass away. - The author frames fulfillment as completion at the end times, not as immediate abrogation by Jesus' sacrifice. #### 💬 Quote > I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on Matthew 5's meaning #### 📚 Transcript **Dan Beecher:** We'll call it a chapter and verse. Okay, so the reason, Dan, that I wanted to do this topic is because I have heard, I've been told by multiple people from different religious backgrounds, all Christian, but different Christian backgrounds. a question about why is one law still very much in effect and why is another law, you know, why is it okay to eat shellfish now and okay to blah, blah, blah. But, you know, obviously we can't, you know, stone our wives if they are whatever, or, you know, sell our girl, our daughters off into slavery or any of those sorts of things. Just because it feels like there's a, you know, that's a hypocrisy or that's a question that needs answering in a modern Christian context. And a lot of the time, what I got back was this idea that, well, Jesus fulfilled the old law, the law of Moses, the whatever, and that means that it doesn't apply anymore. And then I would ask, okay, but why do you care then about things like the Ten Commandments or whatever? And then they're like, oh, but that's still good law. And it just gets very confusing to me. I don't know what's happening. So I'm going to make you talk about it and figure out what Jesus is actually saying in Matthew 5. Yeah, **Dan McClellan:** and this is just one of multiple different ways that people have tried to rationalize the fact that Christians are really not hip to a lot of the legislation that is in the Hebrew Bible. And I think you're going to bring the division of the law into different categories and stuff like that. Because I think you said, you told me that you saw somebody who was trying to explain the fulfill along those lines, that there are some laws that were there to be fulfilled the entire time. Yeah, **Dan Beecher:** yeah. And maybe we need to save the idea of the ceremonial laws versus the moral laws for its own segment i don't know maybe okay maybe that should be a thing i **Dan McClellan:** thought we had done a segment on that already oh maybe we did maybe i don't know i oh gosh i've got the the the pleasure of uh having a parallel social media life right to the podcast and uh after years of doing this, they begin to blend together. It all blends together. But **Dan Beecher:** I mean, you know, if we retread a little bit of ground, we're only helping you remember it better, right? **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, please don't hold it against us. So we're in Matthew 5, which is the grand sermon on the mount. Oh, yeah, it's a good one. We've just got done with the Beatitudes. **Dan Beecher:** His sermon in the hole was no good at all. But once he got on the mount, it was great. Yeah. **Dan McClellan:** And we've talked about the salt of the earth, the light of the world, and on and on. And then we get to verse 17. I want to read 17 through 20. Yeah. And then talk a little bit about about 1. And it goes on to have the antitheses where Jesus says, you've heard that Moses wrote, you shall not do this while I say unto you. And then he escalates things. It's not just you shall not murder. can't even get angry. You can't even accuse your brother of being a bad person or something like that. And it's that first verse that a lot of people seem to get snagged on, and they don't seem to move past it. But one thing that I've pointed out in a number of videos is that if you're trying to rationalize why Christians don't need to follow the law, you run into a problem with Matthew 5 because it certainly sounds like Jesus is saying, yeah, you do need to follow all the law. **Dan Beecher:** mean, I guess sort of a lot of it hinges on this question of what the heck does he mean by, I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Like, what does that even mean? Like, in terms of a law, I know what it means if it's like, fulfill a promise or fulfill an order of French **Dan McClellan:** fries or something. Yeah. And the Greek word here is pli-do which I'm looking in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. No, I'm looking at BDAG, not TDNT. I'm looking at BDAG. To make full, to fill, probably not that. To complete a period of time, fill up, complete, probably not that. To bring to completion that which was already begun, complete, finish. We're getting closer. And then to bring to a designed end to fulfill. Here, like a prophecy, an obligation, a promise, a law, a request, a purpose. So in other words, if one of these things suggests this is the circumstance we're trying to arrive at, or this is how things are going to be until this moment, it seems to be that. But Jesus also, and what I hear a lot of people say, because Jesus says, till heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, and in the KJV, this is jot and tittle. These are little flourishes on the letters. We'll pass from the law until all is accomplished. And what I hear people say is, well, Jesus accomplished everything that was supposed to be accomplished. And so that's the time when everything is fulfilled or something like that. But we've got two chronological markers here. Because it doesn't just say until everything is accomplished. It says till heaven and earth pass away. So it sounds like... Yeah, that's a different thing. Yeah, we've got dual chronological markers here. And I think we really have to assume that these are supposed to be synonymous events. The heaven and earth passing away is supposed to correspond to all being accomplished, which suggests apocalyptics, an apocalyptic vision. This is about everything wrapping up at some point in the future. It really sounds like Matthew has Jesus saying, none of this is going away. But some people think, well, Jesus did accomplish all. And so like all of the requirements are subsumed in Jesus and they still exist. They're still active, but Jesus like holds them all within him and no, you're not getting away. And this is all I am. The laws **Dan Beecher:** are bouncing around inside of him and can't get to us. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah. for some arbitrary reason, they still need to exist, but they need to exist entirely consumed by Jesus's righteousness. The notion that this event, the atonement, his sacrifice once and for all kind of trapped the laws within his being, and they are still in force, but within a limited scope, or something silly like that. I think that's a rather ridiculous way to think about what's going on here, because if you do think of it that way, that the laws are, you know, the no jot or tittle has been loosed or passed from the law, we just don't have to obey them anymore. If you want to interpret it like that, that kind of renders meaningless verse 19, where Jesus says, whoever breaks one of these will be called the least in the kingdom of God. And whoever teaches others to break them will be called least in the kingdom of God. So it seems that what Jesus is saying here is that you have to continue to follow these laws until heaven and earth pass away. And that it's not just this notion that his sacrifice subsumes all of the law and frees us from the expectation of following them. Jesus quite explicitly says, no, you still have to follow them. --- ### ['Law And Prophets' Is A Genre Division](https://share.snipd.com/snip/06e34fc6-8a5c-41ee-848a-f90a54def606) 🎧 23:49 - 26:49 (02:59) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/dcf6d27e-1b99-493e-9cdc-49b7b88033ca" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - "The Law and the Prophets" reflects a genre division in early Jewish scripture, not a closed canon. - Matthew addresses whether inherited Jewish instruction still binds followers in the Jesus movement. #### 💬 Quote > You would look at the Pentateuch, and there are a few different divisions. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan explaining Jewish scripture divisions #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** Something like that, because you would look at the and there are a few different divisions. You have the word Tanakh. That's how many modern Jewish folks refer to their Bible, and it's an acronym for the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim. And so that would be the Torah, which would be the law. The Nevi'im is the prophets, and the Ketuvim are the writings. And so that would be a three-part. And then you have some Christians who come in and say, no, it's four-part. It's the law, the prophets, the writings, and the histories, because you have folks who take like and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings, and that would be lumped in with the prophets. But for a lot of Christians, they look at that and they're like, it's different enough, it should have its own category. And so we would say, no, those are the histories, not part of the prophets. And so, yeah, it's a division of the genre-based division of the Jewish scriptures. And yeah, the idea is that this is, Jesus is addressing what is the relevance of all of the instruction, all the law that has been passed down to us in the Jewish scriptures? Do we still have to follow all of this? Because it's not just the Ten Commandments, and they count up like 613 laws, but you can also find all kinds of—you look in the Proverbs, and you've got kinds of wisdom that probably could be leveraged as something authoritative or at least prescriptive. A lot of people do that today, talking about why it's good or bad to do this or that, because they'll appeal to a psalm or a proverb or something like that. Not one of the 613 commandments of the halakha, or at least the commandments that are interpreted within the halakha, or halakhot. But it's just good advice, and it's in the Scriptures, so therefore it should be authoritative. And I think what Matthew has Jesus doing is saying, no, we're still sticking to all of this. And I think the idea of fulfill is, everything is going to be completed, fulfilled when the heaven and earth pass away. And so at that point, there's no more context for the law. There's no more reason for the law. And so the law wraps up and it's finished. And so I think that's probably what's going on here. It's all done. We've completed our turn in this mortal coil. And so there's no more reason to have a law. --- ### [Matthew Pushes Back Against Pauline Relaxation](https://share.snipd.com/snip/b2467e6a-2f69-4e50-b0c3-6477f2246bbf) 🎧 27:54 - 32:17 (04:22) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/363a2efa-804a-482f-a024-1a6cb156352a" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Matthew (80–90 CE) likely responds to debates sparked by Paul about Gentile inclusion and law observance. - The gospel appears to push back against loosening Mosaic obligations for Gentile converts. #### 💬 Quote > I think the gospel of Matthew is probably pushing back from the other end of the spectrum. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on Matthew's historical context vs. Paul #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** However, we're kind of presupposing that this might be historical when we say Jesus might be responding to a question asked of him. I think more than likely what we have is the author aware that there are followers of Jesus out there saying, hey, guess what? We don't have to keep all the law anymore. And Matthew's like, oh, we'll see about that. Wait till you get to this part of what I'm writing. And I'm going to have Jesus say this, that, and the other. And, you know, it's like if you can imagine Jesus being like, and some guy named Dave will borrow something from Matthew and not give it back. And that guy sucks. Like, it's not because somebody asked Jesus about this. It's because the author wants to achieve something with their composition. And so this is the perfect opportunity to slide this into the narrative when he's on his sermonizing soapbox. **Dan Beecher:** But I guess it doesn't actually matter to me for the purposes of my question, whether this is just the author of Matthew sort of making this up, putting some words into Jesus's mouth to conveniently a need, some sort of theological need that he needs to convey, or if it's actually a historical thing that happened and that Jesus said. Like, to my mind, it doesn't actually matter, because what I'm still trying to get at is, like, is he, yeah, I mean, it's that. It's like people are starting to think in their minds, maybe this is the end. Maybe Jesus represents the cataclysm, the end of everything, and we can just relax on all of the laws. And Jesus is saying, nope, sorry, you can't relax on the laws. I'm going to make them even harsher, even more. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah. And at the time that this is being written, the gospel is already being shared among the Gentiles. And so you've got a lot of Gentiles coming in, and they're the ones who were don't like that circumcision thing. Can I not do that? And that's what Paul was, that was Paul's big challenge decades before these texts were written. And so I think it's not so much an inner Jewish exegetical thing where Jewish folks were like, well, now that we have Jesus, I guess we don't need any of the other stuff. It's a social thing. It's because we're now bringing Gentiles in, and to open the door to Gentiles, we have to consider what's required of them. And I think you have people scattered across the entire spectrum of, yes, they must keep every last law, all the way to, no, they don't have to keep any law. I **Dan Beecher:** was going to bring that up. That is fascinating because I did remember like Paul talking about, you don't have to keep the kosher eating laws and you don't have to, do the Gentiles have to get circumcised? It's probably fine. And so, and what's funny is that in my mind, probably just because of the order that the books are in in the book, I was thinking of Matthew as predating Paul, but obviously not. is the author of Matthew trying to refute Paul's assertion that it's okay for the Gentiles not to follow some of these laws? I **Dan McClellan:** think that's a reasonable way to interpret what's going on. Matthew is coming around 80 to 90 CE, somewhere around there. Paul was mostly active in the 50s and early 60s CE. And so the followers of Paul are probably getting pretty large. And I think the gospel of Matthew is probably pushing back from the other end of the spectrum. Saying, no, it turns out Jesus doesn't want you to not follow these laws. And anybody who teaches you otherwise, Paul, you know, is going to be leased in the kingdom. I think that's a reasonable understanding of the background of this. I would have to, I'm sure there are New Testament scholars out there who would know a lot better than me where this discussion stands precisely. --- ### [Scripture Contains Competing Theological Voices](https://share.snipd.com/snip/f22281a6-131a-4bf9-aebb-ae6ceb385e3f) 🎧 35:06 - 36:51 (01:45) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/d46ba0e3-ee63-4c3e-aa40-bebc1c69e158" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - The New Testament books reflect competing theological agendas rather than a single unified view. - Imposing forced harmony on divergent authors does violence to their original aims and reduces interpretive interest. #### 💬 Quote > They meant a bunch of different things. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on diversity among gospel authors #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, I think the reason Matthew writes a gospel, or whoever the author of the Gospel of Matthew was, it's not because Mark got everything right. It's precisely because, wait, what about all this other stuff? And, oh, I disagree about that. And so Matthew is really, it is putting up another, it's a volley. It's kind of a discursive volley. Mark's like, ha! And Matthew goes, uh! And they're kind of going back and forth. And suddenly Luke drops onto the court and goes, ha! And then John is like, I got you all beat. John's just sitting in back with a cigarette waiting. Yeah, in the shadows. But yeah, I think what happens is you've got all these folks making their case for a way of thinking about Jesus's identity and mission and the responsibility of those who are going to follow Jesus and their different cases. And then when that was all done, all the followers of Jesus were like, we need to come together, guys. Why can't we all just get along? And they took the text and went, okay, now they're all one collection. Now let's figure out the one thing that they all mean. And they didn't mean one thing. They meant a bunch of different things. And so now we look back at the text and we impose this unifying framework of inspiration, inerrancy, univocality, historicity. you have no choice but to just meddle with and do violence to what the authors were trying to get across and what they were trying to accomplish. And I think that's one of the biggest problems with the presupposition of univocality, is that it basically says, I'm in charge of what this is allowed to say. --- ### [Stop Forcing Scriptural Harmony](https://share.snipd.com/snip/914e7ce5-e858-4e4e-9ffd-0c4c3751ef5b) 🎧 36:41 - 37:57 (01:16) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/abd55be3-e0c0-4a13-b012-5baacbf9bdcf" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Let conflicting biblical texts stand instead of forcing harmonization to relieve interpretive strain. - Embrace authors' differing aims to gain clearer, less stressful understanding. #### 💬 Quote > Just let the text be what they were intended to be. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan advising on handling biblical tensions #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** And I think that's one of the biggest problems with the presupposition of univocality, is that it basically says, I'm in charge of what this is allowed to say. And if James says I disagree with Paul, we got to figure out a way to screw with James's text until we can understand it as being in perfect harmony with Paul. And I think that's problematic. Yeah. It's just so much like you're **Dan Beecher:** just going to do your own brain a big favor. If you just relax and go, okay, they disagree. So I'm going to figure out what me, what's meaningful to me and make it work in my mind. But like, like it's just like the cognitive dissonance is, is too painful. It's just, so yeah, I don't know. Just treat yourself. **Dan McClellan:** Just like, let that weight just vanish. Yeah. And you know, there, there are a lot of things that, that people are, are white knuckling because they, it's tied up with that conception of scripture, but good golly, you're going to shorten your lifespan. If not the, just the acid reflux that you're going to cause by just bearing down on this understanding of Scripture. --- ### [Deuteronomy Mirrors Assyrian Vassal Treaties](https://share.snipd.com/snip/76b1f5b9-89ba-4e02-a91e-51a7a7019e41) 🎧 42:37 - 51:33 (08:56) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/2892bf3e-34dc-4162-85e2-19a7cc6a00b2" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - The vassal treaty of Esarhaddon provides a template for Deuteronomy's covenant language and structure. - Israelite covenant language mirrors imperial vassalage forms, reframing God's rule in overlord terms. #### 💬 Quote > A lot of critical scholars for a long time now have been convinced that the book of Deuteronomy was basically patterned after the vassal treaty of S.R. Haddon. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan introducing the Esarhaddon treaty parallels #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, let's start with the treaty just to kind of lay the—and then we'll kind of cover some background. So, this is the vassal treaty of S.R. Haddon. Now, S.R. Haddon was a ruler **Dan Beecher:** in Assyria. Are you sure that S.R. Haddon isn't a sci-fi novelist or something? That's what it sounds like. **Dan McClellan:** S. Robert Haddon. Oh, gosh. If I ever am involved with making a TV show, I'm going to have a character named S. Robert Haddon. And then nobody will get it until they go, S. R. Haddon. And he will be a powerful man. And he will exceed to some manner of authority around 681 BCE. And then he'll reign for about 12 years. So this is early 7th century BCE, ruler of the Assyrian Empire. He was preceded by Sennacherib. Everybody knows who Sennacherib was. He was the one- We've talked about him. I don't know if that means we know who he was, but we've definitely **Dan Beecher:** mentioned Sennacherib a bunch of **Dan McClellan:** times. Yeah, he's the one who swung through and caused problems for Lachish, for instance, and then for Hezekiah toward the end of the 8th century BCE. And then Ashurbanipal came to power after S.R. Haddon. You're just making names up now. I haven't even gotten to Tiglath-Pileser III, okay? So that's one of the greatest. I think that's one of the cats from the show Cats, isn't it? I **Dan Beecher:** don't know. I'm pretty sure. I saw it back in the 80s. I don't know. **Dan McClellan:** It was, and you were probably pretty high when you saw it. As a six-year **Dan Beecher:** I was super messed up. Well, **Dan McClellan:** you grew up in a family of academics, so they were probably experimenting with all kinds of stuff, I'm sure. I fair to say. They're all dead now. can't defend themselves. But so he's important because he didn't really invent this thing, this convention, but he really mastered it in a way that later Israelite scribes would admire. He mastered the art of vassal treaties. And vassalage is basically, on a geopolitical scale, it is some henchman coming into a mom and pop shop downstairs, downtown, excuse me, or downstairs. I don't know. And saying, this is such a lovely establishment. We would hate for something bad to happen to it. So you pay us so much a month in protection money and we will protect you from us. We will keep you safe **Dan Beecher:** from the us's that are wandering or the streets uh stealing from you and it **Dan McClellan:** is it is basically the policy that some people in parts of the world are trying to re-implement with their idea of who's gonna stop us from taking over green land um **Dan Beecher:** Yeah, or Venezuela. Or Venezuela or Cuba. **Dan McClellan:** Whatever to happen. Yeah. At some point, he's going to go for Puerto Rico and people are going to go, okay, that's enough. You've gone too far, sir. You know that this is already a part of your country. We already have it. But it was basically a larger nation going in and beating up on a smaller nation and saying, like, here's the deal. You work for us now. You're going to pay us. And it could be money. It could be gold, silver. It could be sheep. It could be olive oil. It be whatever. Every year, this is how much we want from you. And we will not beat you up further. And then you also have to make sure that you're looking out for our interests. So if the neighbor on the other side of you starts talking bad about us, you need to let me know so we can go beat them up too. And then you're going to send us soldiers whenever we go out to battle and all this kind of stuff. It was not an enviable position to be in. **Dan Beecher:** Yeah, I mean, we first talked about this, I think, when we talked about the moment in Judges where Moab threw off vassalage and told Israel to go vassal itself, and then there was a whole war about it and stuff. So yes, I like that it's called a treaty rather than a forced mechanism. Like, sounds so nice and so **Dan McClellan:** voluntary. Yeah. Well, wait till you hear about some of the details of this treaty. Okay. Because we have several versions of it. It's not like there was one version that they just copied and pasted everywhere they went. It was drafted anew every time for every individual. But there were a lot of elements that were pretty consistent. But here's a preamble to one of them. The Treaty of S.R. Haddon, King of the World. King of the World, yes. Very Titanic-y. That's a great title. King of Assyria, son of Sennacherib, likewise King of the World. King of Assyria with Humbarash, city ruler of Nashimarti, etc., his sons, his grandsons, with all the Nashimartians, etc., the men in his hands, young and old, as many as there are from sunrise to sunset, all those over whom Esarhad and king of Assyria exercises kingship and lordship with you, your sons, and your grandsons, who will be born in days to come after this treaty. And then we get into—the next thing we do is go and name all the divine witnesses to this. Oh, In the presence of Asher and Anu and Il and Ea and Sin and Shamash and Adad and literally dozens of names by all the gods of Nineveh, by all the gods of Kala, by all the gods of Arbella and on and on and on. Wow. We're just going to make **Dan Beecher:** sure that everyone's accounted for. So if you think that you're going to get away with this and your god will not have seen you. No, no, no. All **Dan McClellan:** the gods. Now here's a, we get down to like section 24. You shall love Ashurbanipalul the great crown okay the great crown prince designate son of sr haddon king of assyria your lord like yourselves so sr haddon is saying my son is is our is uh the point man here and you shall love in charge of you and you have to love him Love him like you love yourselves. And this covenant love idea ought to be ringing some bells with people who are familiar with the book of Deuteronomy. Interesting. Because it's very much the same idea, what we get in Deuteronomy 6.4, the Shema. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, might, and strength. And we have a variation on the like yourself with the second great commandment, you will love your neighbor as you love yourself. So the point I'm trying to make here is that a lot of critical scholars for a long time now have been convinced that the book of Deuteronomy was basically after the vassal treaty of S.R. Haddon, at least as the main kind of template for what was going on, because a lot of the segments kind of follow the same themes, and even a lot of the language has a lot of significant overlap, up to and including this idea that, look, this is the sovereign and then the vassal. We're making a deal. We're making a treaty, a covenant, and your main responsibility is **Dan Beecher:** to love me as I have loved her. So what we're saying, I mean, Deuteronomy, for those who are not tremendously familiar with the **Dan McClellan:** Bible, ends up being basically a book of laws. Deuteronomy comes from a Greek word that basically means second law. And it is supposed to have been composed or at least dictated by Moses toward the end of his life. fact, the last chapter narrates his death. But it's supposed to date to after the Exodus, the 40 years wandering before everybody enters into Israel. So 1200 BCE, 1400 BCE, depending on where you imagine this, what time period you imagine this happened in. --- ### [Shared Legal Features Tie Covenant To Empire](https://share.snipd.com/snip/b4822947-16b6-476d-bb8a-5187d54483b8) 🎧 52:40 - 56:39 (03:59) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/c29c7502-df79-4d79-99ba-24d2b16dceec" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Specific parallels include witness formulas, exclusive loyalty commands, and blessing/curse sequences shared by Esarhaddon and Deuteronomy. - These resemblances suggest covenant language in Israel developed from imperial diplomatic practice. #### 💬 Quote > You shall not seek any other king or any other lord against him. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan reading treaty clauses that echo Deuteronomy #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** Deuteronomy 5.7, you shall have no other gods before me. That should sound familiar. That's Exodus chapter 20 as well. But we can look in segment 17 of the vassal treaty of S.R. Haddon, and we find, you shall hearken to whatever he says and do whatever he commands, and you shall not seek any other king or any other lord against him. It's basically saying, I am the captain now. Right. And you will not go looking for other captains. And then section 25, do not place any other king or any other lord over you. So this resonates quite a bit with the, you shall not have any other gods before you. We can go to, let's see, Deuteronomy 30, verse 19. Pull that up. And this is, I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. this is a famous part of Deuteronomy. God gives the law and then says, okay, if you do everything, you get these blessings. If you don't, you get these curses. And guess what? That's in the Vassal Treaty as well. We can look in—but here, what they're doing is calling upon heaven and earth. But we have S.R. Haddon calling upon all the gods of heaven and earth as witnesses to this treaty. So again, you've got some parallels there. Deuteronomy 28, this is the chapter that famously has the curses in it. And we have one curse, in the desperate straits to which the enemy siege... And the curse is basically, you're going to be constantly under siege from enemies. In the desperate straits to which the enemy siege reduces you, you will eat the fruit of your womb, the flesh of your own sons and daughters, whom the Lord your God has given you. And that also happens to be in the vassal treaty of Esarhaddon. We have, as part of the curses, if you don't do these things, may Tsar Panitu, who grants name and seed, destroy your name and your seed from the land, which, by the way, is Deuteronomy 29. But in section 47, may a mother bar the door to her daughter. In your hunger, eat the flesh of your sons. In want and famine, may one man eat the flesh of another. May one man clothe himself in another's skin. May dogs and swine eat your flesh. May your ghost have nobody to take care of the pouring of libations to him. So pretty nasty curses going on here. Deuteronomy— I like that it really **Dan Beecher:** didn't build to a crescendo. That was an anti-climax. Like you don't—and you don't get drinks in the afterlife. So ha on you. **Dan McClellan:** But that was a big deal because your afterlife... Now here you've got to think of cocoa. The ofrenda is basically saying you're not going to have anybody taking care of your ofrenda. Yeah. And that's basically saying your afterlife is going to disappear like a fart in the wind. Yeah. And you're **Dan Beecher:** going to be thirsty. You're going to be a thirsty **Dan McClellan:** boy. Because you needed food and drink, and you needed your name invoked in order for your afterlife to continue on. So, yeah, we've got a lot of points of contact between these two, which is why most critical scholars are in pretty widespread agreement that Deuteronomy picking up a lot of inspiration from what is going on in the vassal treaty of Esarhaddon, which means the idea of covenant comes from this. --- Created with [Snipd](https://www.snipd.com) | Highlight & Take Notes from Podcasts