Deuteronomy 16

Deuteronomy 16:18-18

Laws Concerning National Leaders (16:18-18:24 The code of laws in Deuteronomy 12-26, according to modern standards of logical organization, needs rearrangement. The dominant subject in 16:18-18:22 is clearly the appointment and responsibilities of leaders: of local judges (16:18-20), of a superior court (17:8-13), of a king (17:14-20), of Levitical priests (18:1-8), of prophets (18:9-22). Some sections fit only loosely into this category (16:21-17:7); they properly belong to the previous section on religious institutions and worship. Local judges and officers (“officers” here probably means “clerks” serving under the judges) are to be appointed in every town. These judges may have been “elders,” that is, heads of families in the various clans, and thus the leading citizens. Or they may have been professional judges appointed by the king (see 2 Chronicles 19:4-7). Their function is to render impartial justice: “you shall not show partiality” (16:19; literally, “you shall not regard faces”); and “you shall not take a bribe.” Bribery as a means of securing a favorable decision in courts was extremely common in the ancient Near East (see 10:17; 27:25; Psalms 15:5; Isaiah 1:23; Isaiah 5:23; Ezekiel 22:12; Micah 3:11). In Israel the concept of justice (that is, seeing to it that every man receives his proper due) was deeply rooted in the concept of the Covenant relationship: since God and his people are linked together in the bonds of Covenant love or Covenant fidelity, individual members of this covenanted community must treat each other as brothers. They must act responsibly and faithfully toward one another, even as God acts responsibly and faithfully toward them all. This meant that all members of the community were equal before the law, regardless of class or status. The prophets regarded violations of this principle with abhorrence. Brotherhood and justice are twin concepts. In 17:8-13 provision is made for appeal to a higher court in difficult cases. This court, consisting of priests and an officiating judge (vs. 9) or a priest and a judge (vs. 12), sits in Jerusalem (“the place which the LORD your God will choose”). The judgment of this court is final. Its competence is assured for all kinds of cases, for the judges represent both the religious and the civil realms. Disobedience to the verdict of this court is punishable by death. In 17:14-20 the office of a king is halfheartedly allowed. In effect the passage says, “You may have a king, like the nations around you, if you think you must. But severe restrictions must govern his selection and subsequent conduct. He is to be a limited, not an absolute, monarch.” The point of view is close to that in I Samuel 8 and 12:6-25. Prior to the selection of Saul as Israel’s first king, the nation was organized as a federation of clans, tightly bound together in loyalty to God and in fidelity to each other. They worshiped together at a common sanctuary and periodically renewed their loyalties to God and to each other. In this passage, composed apparently long after unfortunate experiences with kings like Solomon— who multiplied for himself horses and chariots (vs. 16; see 1 Kings 4:26; 1 Kings 10:26-29), wives (vs. 17; see 1 Kings 11:1-8), and silver and gold (vs. 17; see 1 Kings 10:14-25)— the marked democratic spirit that characterized Israel’s life as a whole is to be seen. The king is to be completely subject to the law of God, as is every other Hebrew (vss. 18-19). He is to maintain a brotherly attitude and relationship with his subjects (vs. 20). He is to live simply, as a servant of the people, not to enrich himself and seek power and fortune in military conquests (vss. 15-17). In short, he is not to imitate contemporary despots. Since he rules by divine appointment and not by inherent right (vs. 15; see 1 Samuel 10:24), his tenure and that of his descendants will be contingent on obedience to God’s laws (vs. 20). The gulf between Israel’s conception of kingship (or at least that of certain groups in Israel) and the view that predominated in surrounding nations was wide. The Levitical priests (literally, “the priests the Levites”), according to 18:1-8, are to receive their support from designated portions of the animal sacrifices brought to the central sanctuary and from the first fruits of the grain, wine, oil, and fleece presented there. Since they have no territorial inheritance, they are to be supported out of those revenues on which God has a claim. Levites who have been dispossessed of their source of livelihood at various altars throughout the country by the centralization of worship at Jerusalem may, if they wish, minister at the central sanctuary and receive there their share of the sacrifices and first fruits (vss. 6-8). The origin, precise identity, history, and function of the Levites are much debated. Various suggestions concerning the meaning of the name “Levite” have been offered, the most probable perhaps being “a descendant of Levi,” one of the sons of Jacob. It appears, however, that in the course of time the word became also a functional term (understood to mean perhaps “one pledged by vow”); it now included those of other parentage who nevertheless had been dedicated to and were performing priestly functions. Thus Samuel was reckoned as a Levite (1 Chronicles 6:28), though by lineage he was an Ephraimite (1 Samuel 1:1). Moses and Aaron are said to have belonged to the tribe of Levi. Aaron and his descendants were set apart especially for priestly services (Exodus 29:9; Exodus 29:44; Exodus 40:12-15).

Thus one family of Levites gained positions of special prominence in the cult and other Levites became assistants (Numbers 3:5-10), priests at local sanctuaries, and local teachers of the Law of God. When worship was centralized at Jerusalem, the subordinate Levites were without sources of income. In Deuteronomy it is emphasized that these Levites have equal rights with the dominant group at the central sanctuary. Here one sees again the concern in this book for the needy and underprivileged. In 18:9-22 the false and the true sources of religious knowledge are set forth. Israel is not to heed the word of diviners, soothsayers, sorcerers, wizards, necromancers, and the like— practitioners who abounded in the countries around Israel— but rather the word of divinely appointed prophets, a succession of men like Moses, whom God will raise up for Israel’s guidance. These men will speak with the authority of the Lord himself. They are to be absolutely obeyed. Self-appointed prophets will be slain; and the word of all prophets is to be tested against the course of events. The craving of men to unlock the secrets of the future and to know the purposes of God in critical situations was as strong in the ancient world as in our own. Equally strong was the desire to influence the deity or deities to a favorable course of action. The belief that certain men had unusual ability to determine the divine will and to influence the deities’ actions was widespread in antiquity, as the many magical formulae and rituals known from the ancient Near East show. One abominable practice carried on by such men is mentioned here: the sacrifice of children (vs. 10). The Phoenicians, both at home and abroad (particularly at Carthage), in time of national danger sacrificed their dearest children, as did the king of Moab when his capital city was under heavy siege (2 Kings 3:27). In Judah, Ahaz and Manasseh made their sons “pass through the fire” (2 Kings 16:3, margin; 21:6) in times of great danger, obviously to influence the deity in their behalf. This practice is unsparingly condemned in Deuteronomy and the Prophets, along with other heathen customs. The true prophet will be an Israelite, not a foreigner (as many diviners were; see Numbers 22:1-6; Isaiah 2:6), and he will be like Moses (vss. 15, 18). The latter characteristic probably means that like Moses he will mediate and interpret the divine word to the people. But an allusion to the character and total prophetic role as exemplified in Moses is not to be excluded here. The Deuteronomists— to whom Moses was a figure of colossal proportions, to say the least— certainly regarded him as the standard by which all messengers of God must be measured. To test the verity of prophecy by its fulfillment in the course of events (vs. 22) is at best a partial test. Jeremiah appealed to this test in his dramatic exchange with Hananiah (Jeremiah 28:9). But a true prophet may predict events which do not come to pass because of a change in the moral character of those addressed (as Jeremiah 18:7-10 plainly allows). Furthermore, prophecy is much more than prediction of future events. It is a declaration of the will of God in relation to the practical conduct of men (consider the preaching of Amos, for example). Here the conscience is appealed to, and the test of true as against false prophecy will lie in the application of ethical standards as taught by great leaders of the past and accepted by the community at large. Thus Jeremiah holds up, as further tests, the lack of accord between the teaching of the false prophets and the prophetic tradition as a whole (Jeremiah 28:8-9) and the immoral character of their living (Jeremiah 23:9-15). The promise of the coming of a prophet like Moses (18:15, 18)— while pointing, as the context shows, to a succession of prophets like Moses who will deliver the word of God to the people as need arises— was taken in the time of Jesus and later to refer to the coming of a single great prophet of the Last Days, a Second Moses, who would prepare the way for the Messiah’s appearance. The Essenes who gave us the Dead Sea Scrolls expected the coming of this Prophet ahead of two anointed representatives (one priestly and the other a layman). Deuteronomy 18:18 was a favorite passage of theirs, as indicated by its presence in a list of Messianic passages found at Qumran by the Dead Sea. The authors of the Gospels of Matthew and John regarded Jesus, the Messiah, as like Moses in many respects.