12:32 In the section divisions of the Masoretic Text this verse is included in the conclusion to the regulations for proper worship, warning against any alteration of the requirement that sacrifice be limited to the place God will choose. However, the chapter divisions in the Masoretic Text and the LXX join this verse to the following section. This chapter division makes verse 32 a heading for the judgment against those who might incite sedition, an important literary introduction to the consequences of covenant violation. This warning not to add or take away (cf. 4:2) finds parallels in ancient treaty formulas, where such warnings serve to guard against any person who might change the stipulations of the oath that has been taken.

The lure of a materialistic Baal culture is a constant threat against loyalty to the covenant God. In Israel many voices would claim to have the power to bring the wealth of the Baal cult.

13:1–5 Prophets, those who interpret dreams (oneiromancers) or produce evidence of signs, as Moses did before Pharaoh, represent revelatory authority. False prophecy is always a problem in Israel, especially since such prophecy is usually given in the name of Yahweh. Israel must know that any prophecy that compromises the total claim of God is sedition, for he is the one and only God (4:35, 39). False prophets may be able to provide evidence of authority, and such claims to power are a test to determine Israel’s loyalty to God. This is the kind of trial that Israel faced in the wilderness to test their loyalty to him (8:2). Such tests can become temptations to deny trust in God and to follow other gods they do not know. Israel has experienced and knows the salvation of Yahweh, who brought them out of Egypt. A prophet who undermines such hope “has taught rebellion.” Such a prophet is adding to the instruction of Moses; such words are sedition or rebellion (Hb. sarah), inflicting violence just as the false witness does in 19:16. Such false teaching is at the same time rebellion against God, because Israel knows there is no god among the nations who has led them as Yahweh has (4:6–7). There can be no mercy for such seduction into sedition; Israel must purge such a person from its midst.

13:6–11 The second test of loyalty is more demanding, as the source is an intimate family member, specifically “the son of your mother,” that is, a blood brother, a child, a spouse, or the closest of friends. The emphasis in this description is the deep emotional commitment to the person who is secretly seducing those nearest him to follow other gods. Familiar oaths of loyalty from royal courts began with condemning utterances of disloyalty in the king’s family, then the family of friends, and finally any public person, such as a prophet. The oath is concerned entirely with stability in dynasty succession, not on the nature of family relationships. Moses places a deliberate emphasis on the most cherished of relationships because these are most easily prioritized ahead of loyalty to God. The Greek text compromises the intimacy of blood brothers with an additional phrase: “If your brother, the son of your father or your mother . . . entices you . . . you shall not assent” (vv. 6–8 AT [7–9 LXX]). This addition is frequently followed, but it appears to be the result of later legal interpretation of the texts. The concern of this passage is loyalty to God above the dearest of relationships; it is most difficult to expose them.

A situation of seduction within the family cannot be compromised: “You shall not . . . spare him, nor shall you conceal him.” The sense of this verse is not that of covering up the sedition as a means of delaying judgment. The form of the expression corresponds to that of Nehemiah 4:5, which states, “Do not cover their guilt, and let not their sin be blotted out.” This same sense is found in Jeremiah 18:23: “Forgive not their iniquity, nor blot out their sin.” The point Moses is making is that there can be no pity nor forgiveness; this is a matter of treason against God. For this reason, “You shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him” (Deut. 13:9). Many translators follow the Greek at this point (anangellōn anangeleis peri autou, “You shall make a report concerning him”; 13:10 LXX), sometimes without explanation. The Greek translator is making allowance for judicial procedure, such as that found in 17:2–4. The translation may have been influenced by legal interpretations familiar at the time of the translator. However, this passage is not about judicial procedure but about the necessity of purging falsehood from Israel in the most difficult of circumstances, namely, when the source of the seduction is someone with whom there is deep emotional attachment.

13:12–18 The final situation concerns a sedition that encompasses an entire town, the consequence of not dealing with false prophecy when it begins. In this case, careful investigation must be made to ensure that the reports concerning such a city are as claimed. If they are true, the city is to be taken militarily, “devoting it to destruction.” This act must be understood theologically; this is the same situation as pertained in the conquest of Sihon (2:31–37) and the rest of the land of Canaan (7:2–6). The kherem, as it is known in Hebrew, is a sanctity in which something that belongs to God is removed from all use in the sphere of common life. In the case of living beings, removal from life in the common means death. Unless such total dedication to God is carried out in the case of apostasy, removal of divine judgment is impossible.

Israel experiences this in the case of Achan (Josh. 7:16–26). The city of Jericho is claimed by God; the defeat of Jericho is entirely the result of divine warfare. Achan does not accept the dictum that everything in Jericho now belongs to the realm of the holy (devoted). As a result, Israel suffers catastrophically in confrontation with the armies of Ai. Not until the kherem is removed from Israel—that is, Achan and all those complicit in his rebellion—can there be reconciliation with God. The same situation pertains for an apostate city as with the family of Achan. There is no record of how this may have been carried out in practice, though Judges 19–21 may serve as an example. The rabbis held that it was never to be applied, that the dictum was in the Torah merely for educational purposes. This passage is a theological statement concerning the relationship of the covenant. For Israel to have a holy relationship with God as a treasured people living in the land of Canaan, it is necessary to purge out of the realm of the common all that comes under the irrevocable judgment of God. It would be carried out representatively in the same way it was in the land of Canaan.The purging of apostasy is essential to Israel’s observing the covenant commitment. This verse is transitional and serves both to conclude the necessity of preserving holiness by the removal of unfaithfulness and also to introduce the positive confessions of Israel in daily life that they are a kingdom of priests (Ex. 19:5–6). Israel is set apart among the nations to represent God to all the earth.