What historical context explains the harshness of Deuteronomy 28:57? Covenant Setting and Date Deuteronomy is Moses’ covenant renewal sermon delivered on the plains of Moab in the 40th year after the Exodus, c. 1406 BC (cf. Deuteronomy 1:3). Chapter 28 follows the suzerain-vassal treaty pattern common in Late-Bronze-Age diplomacy: blessings for loyalty (vv. 1–14) and curses for rebellion (vv. 15–68). Verse 57 belongs to the climax of the curses (vv. 49–57) detailing what would happen “when the LORD brings a nation against you from afar” (v. 49). The passage is not a command but a covenant lawsuit prediction of what Israel would suffer if it threw off Yahweh’s rule. Near-Eastern Treaty Parallels Ancient Hittite, Neo-Assyrian, and Aramean treaties regularly warned of cannibalism during siege as the penalty for treason. The 7th-century “Esarhaddon Succession Treaties” curse offenders: “You will cook the flesh of your sons in your own pots.”¹ Such formulas show Moses employing well-known legal language so the people would recognize the gravity of covenant disloyalty. Siege Warfare in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages Walled cities depended on stored grain and water. When an imperial army cut supply lines, famine and disease set in swiftly. Archaeology at sites such as Lachish and Tel-Dan reveals charred grain silos, weapon points embedded in ramparts, and mass graves—tangible evidence of the brutal conditions Deuteronomy foresees. Skeletal analyses from siege layers in both Canaanite and later Judean strata display stunted growth and enamel hypoplasia, classic markers of prolonged starvation. Text of the Warning Deuteronomy 28:56-57 paints the unimaginable: “The most gentle and sensitive woman among you … will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter the afterbirth that comes from between her legs and the children she bears, for she will eat them secretly for lack of anything else…” The wording stresses extremity—if even the “most delicate” resorts to cannibalism, the breakdown of covenant society is total. First Recorded Fulfillment: Samaria, ca. 852 BC 2 Kings 6:24-29 describes the Aramean siege of Samaria: two mothers agree to eat their sons. The king of Israel tears his clothes in horror—precisely what Deuteronomy predicted 550 years earlier. Second Fulfillment: Jerusalem, 588-586 BC During Nebuchadnezzar’s siege, Jeremiah and Lamentations echo Moses’ curse: “Compassionate women have cooked their own children” (Lamentations 4:10). Babylonian ration tablets uncovered in the city’s ruins confirm the starvation economy. Broken storage jars stamped “L MLK” (“belonging to the king”) cluster in last-ditch defensive layers, demonstrating governmental grain control that failed to prevent famine. Third Fulfillment: Jerusalem, AD 70 Josephus, Wars 6.3.4, records the case of Mary of Bethezuba who roasted her infant. Titus’ legions encircled the city, repeating Deuteronomy’s scenario. Coins recovered from the siege strata carry the slogan “For the Freedom of Zion,” yet stratigraphic carbon-14 readings and numismatic typology date the destruction to the very generation Jesus foretold (Luke 21:20–24)—an inter-testamental link that validates both Mosaic and Messianic prophecy. Theological Purpose 1. Covenant Justice – The passage displays divine holiness: sin’s wages are death (cf. Romans 6:23). 2. Prophetic Verification – Multiple fulfillments testify that Scripture speaks truthfully (Isaiah 46:9-10). 3. Redemptive Trajectory – Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ “became a curse for us.” The horror of 28:57 magnifies the glory of the cross, where the curse is absorbed and reversed. Conclusion The harshness of Deuteronomy 28:57 reflects (a) culturally recognizable treaty language, (b) the real-world brutality of Late-Bronze-Age siege warfare, (c) multiple historical fulfillments, (d) confirmed psychological data on famine, and (e) the covenant’s ultimate aim: to drive listeners to wholehearted obedience, and ultimately to the Messiah who delivers from the curse. --- ¹ Assyrian “Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon,” lines 423-430 (ANET p. 534). |
    |