Original Meaning
The Prescription for Righteousness Violated (17:2–13)
IN VERSES 2–3 Moses prescribes the response to violations of the principle of “righteousness, only righteousness” as stated in 16:20. This section divides into two panels of identical length (vv. 2–7 and vv. 8–12),31 followed by a summary conclusion (v. 13). Each panel opens with a complex clause setting the context (vv. 2–4a; v. 8a), is followed by a lengthy prescribed response (vv. 4b–7a; vv. 8b–12a), and concludes with a declaration of the goal (v. 7b; v. 12b). The symmetry of structure and the verbal links suggest that verses 2–7 and 8–12 have been intentionally composed to develop a common point—how to deal with unrighteous behavior. The first involves relatively clean cases; the second involves the procedure for cases insoluble by ordinary means of investigation.
Panel A: How to deal with idolaters (vv. 2–7). Harking back to 12:29–13:18[19], almost every phrase and clause echoes corresponding elements in chapter 13.32 Because the borrowed items derive from all three panels of chapter 13, Moses presents a comprehensive policy for idolatrous crimes, to be applied regardless of the instigator.33 The instructions for dealing with idolaters divide into three sections: the problem (vv. 2–4b); (2) the prescription (vv. 4c–7b); and the goal (v. 7c). Since Moses’ role is that of a pastor rather than legislator, it is not surprising that the flow is not necessarily logical by our standards, but neither is it pedantic. The instructions are precise, but added clauses concerning the violation of the covenant and the purgation of evil afford this text extraordinary gravitas. The goal is obviously not merely legal exactitude but the preservation of Israel in the land Yahweh has given them.
The problem (vv. 2–4a). Moses introduces the first case with a complex conditional clause that ends with “and this has been brought to your attention” (v. 4a). In this instance there is no reference to how the discovery was made, which may explain why this phase ends with “and it is reported to you,” and “and you hear” (pers. trans.). These expressions represent part of the discovery phase: A report of the crime to the community34 is to trigger the response that follows.
Like 13:1[2], the text notes the context of the crime. Here the term “gates” (NIV “towns,” v. 2) sets the hearer up for the judicial proceedings in the city gate (v. 8) and implies that the offense has been flagrantly committed in public. Characterizing the “gates” as those that “the LORD gives you” links this text with the appointment of judges in 16:18. Where Israel appoints judges, there the danger lurks. The statement also implies that since the towns themselves are gifts from Yahweh,35 they are not to be polluted by worship of other gods.
Before specifying the crime, Moses comments on its spiritual significance: it represents “doing [the] evil in the eyes of the LORD your God” and “a violation of his covenant” (v. 2). The article on ”the evil” points to a specific evil, violating the first command of the Decalogue. The second expression highlights what is at stake: honoring Yahweh’s right to exclusive allegiance.36 In verse 3 Moses finally announces the offense: “walking [after],” “serving,” and “prostrating before” other gods (pers. trans.). While the first two expressions derive from the appeal in 13:2, 6, 13[3, 7, 14], this text exhibits a subtle shift of emphasis. Whereas chapter 13 sought to root out apostasy by eliminating those who led others away from Yahweh, here the concern is with those who have been seduced. The inclusion of women (v. 2) recognizes that if they have full access to the privileges of covenant relationship and the worship of Yahweh (cf. 12:12, 18; 16:14), they are equally susceptible to the temptation of idolatry and equally accountable to Yahweh.
The forbidden objects of worship are identified as “other gods” in general (v. 3; cf. 13:2, 6, 13[3, 7, 14]), and astral deities (sun, moon, and stars) in particular (4:15–19). The list ends awkwardly with “contrary to my command” (note that the NIV places this phrase forward; the Hebrew places at the end of v. 3). This has often been interpreted as litotic understatement, “which I have commanded you not to do.” However, it should probably be read in light of 4:19 and understood as “which I did not authorize” as legitimate objects of worship.
The prescription (vv. 4b–7b). Based on the amount of space given to the matter, the response Moses prescribes is obviously the center of gravity of this paragraph. He begins by outlining the investigative procedure (v. 4b), warning his people not to base judicial decisions on hearsay and rumors, especially in capital cases. If someone reports that a man or woman is worshiping other gods, the charges must be investigated thoroughly in order to establish guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt (cf. v. 6). The rest of verse 4 assumes the inquiry proves positive. The declaration of the outcome adapts a similar statement in 13:14[15]. Moses’ reference to “this detestable thing” (hattôʿēbâ) rather than a concrete expression for idolatry reflects his pastoral concern; the charges strike at the heart of Israel’s relationship with Yahweh.
The prescription for confirmed spiritual defection is execution by stoning (v. 5). Whereas Leviticus 24:14 and Numbers 15:35 call for the execution of criminals “outside the camp,”37 here the sentence is to be administered in the city gates. The former treatment was reasonable, as long as the Israelites camped together with the tabernacle in the center. However, once they scattered to their tribal territories and towns, maintaining sanctity throughout the land would need to be localized. Executing criminals in the gate would make a spectacle of them and demonstrate the heinousness of their “evil deed” (v. 5b).
As in 13:10[11], stoning is specified as the form of execution, presumably to prevent the executioners from being ritually contaminated by direct contact with the accused. Having demanded at least two witnesses (v. 6), in verse 7 Moses calls on these witnesses to cast the first stones, after which all the people must join in.38 Placing primary responsibility for executing the sentence in the hands of the witnesses safeguards against frivolous accusations by a neighbor (cf. 19:15–21). However, Moses places responsibility for maintaining righteousness in the hands of the people rather than with political leaders.
The goal (v. 7c). Although the judicial process ends with execution, the purpose of the procedure is not merely to give criminals their due. The concluding declaration summarizes the goal: to “purge the evil” from the midst of Israel.39 Moses’ concern for communal health leaves no room for sentimentality or prejudice. Yahweh’s agenda requires a people united in its devotion to him and rigorous in its preservation of its own character as a holy people (cf. 7:1–6). Eliminating those guilty of capital crimes eradicates the evil from the land and the people.
Panel B: How to deal with difficult cases (vv. 8–12). The judicial structures established in Exodus 18, with difficult cases coming to Moses, were practicable as long as Moses led the people. The purpose of this text is to provide a means of resolving insoluble cases after he is gone. While the reference to cases of dispute that come “before your gates” (NIV “courts”) links this text with the preceding, the focus shifts from cases the people can solve to those that cannot be adjudicated by normal and local means, and from issues involving Israel’s vertical relationship with Yahweh to horizontal relationships among Israelites. Remarkably, in this arrangement those submitted to communal courts are religious in nature (vv. 2–7), while cases involving civil and criminal offences are submitted to the central “theocratic” tribunal (vv. 8–12).40 As noted above, the literary structure of this panel is identical to verses 2–7.
The problem (v. 8a). Contrary to prevailing opinion,41 the primary concern in this paragraph is neither to establish the makeup of Israel’s supreme court nor to describe its principal functions. As in verses 2–4, with a conditional clause Moses announces the issue: cases for judgment that are too difficult for the local court to settle in the gates. The verb niplāʾ denotes “beyond one’s power to unravel or adjudicate” (cf. 1:17; Ex. 18:26).42 The present instructions concern only the last stage of the process: how the people should proceed when they cannot reach a decision in a disputed case. Moses identifies three kinds of cases that might lead to an impasse:43 murder/unintentional manslaughter, civil or criminal disputes, and physical assaults. Such cases are to be sent on to the higher tribunal.
The prescription (vv. 8b–12b). Although Moses introduces Levitical priests and a judge as final adjudicators (v. 9), his primary addressee continues to be ordinary citizens, and his concern is still the involvement of the people in maintaining righteousness in judicial matters.44 While the actions of the priest/judge are presented in one short statement (v. 9c), those required of the people are presented in two stages: their duty to present the case to the central tribunal (vv. 8b–9), and their responsibility to execute its decision (vv. 10–12b).
When confronted with an insoluble case, the people are to “arise and go up” (pers. trans. of v. 8b)45 to the place that Yahweh will choose and present the case to the Levitical priests and the judge in office at the time. Moses suggests that the central sanctuary will not only be a place of worship but also a court of last resort; he thus implies the role of God in the pursuit of righteousness. The court of appeal does not provide the accused with another opportunity to have the case reviewed but serves as a resource for local adjudicators.46
Moses identifies the adjudicators as “the priests, who are Levites, and . . . the judge.” This refers to a subgroup of the Levites, who performed priestly duties before Yahweh at the central sanctuary.47 Although the priestly writings (esp. Leviticus) never ascribe a judicial role to priests, Numbers 5:11–31 alludes to this function. The cryptic nature of Moses’ statement here suggests this judicial role was widely recognized.
But what are we to make of “the judge who is in office at that time”? Most view him as a layperson who joins a group of priests (note the plural) to hear the case (cf. 19:15–21).48 However, the twofold reference to the central sanctuary in this context (vv. 8, 10), plus the fact that he is to officiate “in the presence of the LORD” (19:17),49 render a lay interpretation unlikely. It is preferable to treat “the judge” as loosely appositional to “the priests, who are Levites,” specifying an individual selected from among them to head the tribunal and/or announce the decision. The explanatory clause, “who is in office at that time,” leaves open whether these persons served for life like high priests or rotated off when their term expired.
How would this tribunal operate? Versions that read the verb “inquire” as a third person plural50 suggest the central tribunal would repeat the lower court’s investigative procedure (cf. 13:14[15]; 17:4). However, if we interpret dâraš as “to make inquiry”51 rather than “to investigate,” the verb refers to seeking guidance from Yahweh. The last clause of verse 9 reinforces this interpretation. The noun mišpāṭ is sometimes used of a divine pronouncement in response either to inquiry (Judg. 13:12; 1 Sam. 2:12–13; 8:10–11) or to a cry for rescue (Judg. 4:5).52 As priestly “judge,” the designated official is heir to Moses, who at first heard all the disputes of the people and then inquired of God (Ex. 18:15–16). However, unlike Moses, the priestly judge could probably use the Urim and Thummim to determine the mind of God.53
If we abandon the political interpretation of the broader context (16:18–18:22), this interpretation explains several features in the text: (1) the characterization of difficult cases with the verb niplāʾ, a root used elsewhere of miraculous or “wonderful” divine actions rather than the mundane variants (1:17; Ex. 18:26); (2) the emphasis on the location of the inquiry at the sanctuary rather than in the city gates (vv. 8, 10); (3) the absence of any reference to an investigation by priests or judge (the tribunal simply declares the outcome); (4) the phrase used for the decision, which suits an oracular context perfectly (cf. v. 11); (5) the twofold use of the idiom “according to the decisions [dābar]” (vv. 10, 11), which the adjudicators apparently do not establish but only declare (vv. 9, 10, 11); (6) the later reference to “the priest who stands ministering there to the LORD your God” (v. 12). These elements all fit an oracular context perfectly, but they are difficult to square with a judicial inquiry conducted by a lay official. As prescribed, the procedure emphasizes that Yahweh is the highest court of appeal, and his verdicts are declared through his priestly representative at the central sanctuary.
Moses’ charge to execute the verdict of the tribunal is the center of gravity in this panel (vv. 10–12b). Since verse 10 demands action, “the word of judgment” (NIV “verdict”) apparently would include both a declaration of guilt or innocence and the actions to take against a person declared guilty. While the second reference to the place of decision as “the place the LORD will choose” (v. 10) reinforces the divine authority of the verdict, the importance of executing the judgment is emphasized by the threefold use of the verb “to do” (vv. 10a, 10b, 11a), and by the emphatic construction, “and you shall keep by doing” (NIV “be careful to do . . .”). Four times Moses declares that the sentence is to be carried out precisely as instructed: “according to the word they declare to you” (v. 10a); “according to all they teach you” (v. 10b); “according to the instruction they teach you” (v. 11a); “according to the pronouncement they say to you” (v. 11b; all pers. trans.). While some treat these repetitive features as secondary insertions,54 they reflect the text’s rhetorical and sermonic genre.
If the “word” the adjudicators declare and the verdict they communicate represent the divine judgment on the case that normal procedures have failed to resolve, what is to be made of the tôrâ that the tribunal teaches (v. 11a)? While the immediate context might suggest specific instructions related to the case at hand,55 the usage of tôrâ elsewhere in the book, as well as the priests’ role as custodians and instructors of Torah (17:18; 31:9–13; 33:10), argues in favor of the Torah as Moses teaches it in his final addresses. When the Israelites execute the divine tribunal’s decision, they pursue righteousness as determined in this case, as well as according to the overall understanding of righteousness as taught in the Torah.
In verse 11b Moses’ application of a formula that applies to fidelity to the covenant reinforces this conclusion. Imposing the same rigorous standards of compliance to a specific revelation from God as he does to the Torah in general (5:32; 17:20; 28:14), Moses considers it a deviation “to the right or to the left” to inflict punishment more severely or leniently than the ruling prescribed, or to substitute the prescribed sentence with a different action. Therefore, his instructions here conclude with a stern warning: failure to execute the judgment as prescribed is the height of presumption and defiance against God (v. 12a–b). Refusal to listen to the priest who stands in the service of Yahweh, or to the judge who declares Yahweh’s verdict, is as reprehensible as idolatry itself (cf. 17:5–7a) and deserves the death penalty.
The goal (v. 12c). Moses ends this panel as he had the previous one (v. 7b) with a declaration of zeal for the purity of the nation. By executing persons who defy God by noncompliance with his verdict, the evil of rebellion is purged from Israel and righteousness is maintained. Whether rendered by local adjudicators or the central tribunal, every decision advances the agenda of ṣedeq ṣedeq (“righteousness, only righteousness”; see 16:20).
Bridging Contexts
ISRAEL’S HISTORY WITH ṢEDEQ. Israelite compliance with Moses’ instructions in 16:18–17:13 was short-lived. Within two generations the people had forgotten Yahweh and his gracious acts of deliverance, providential care, and revelation (Judg. 2:10), resulting in a complete loss of the agenda spelled out here: “righteousness, only righteousness.” By the time of Eli (1 Sam. 1–4), the spiritual and judicial system was so compromised that not even those who served at the central shrine knew Yahweh or the mišpāṭ (“oracle, judgment”) of the priests (1 Sam. 2:12–13). Before long, kings were sponsoring syncretistic faith and religion (1 Kings 11:1–13), and overtly pagan forms had invaded the sanctuary itself (2 Kings 21:1–9). The problem envisaged in our text is precisely that for which Manasseh would later be condemned: the carved image of Asherah was planted in the house that Yahweh had chosen for his name (2 Kings 21:7). Along with all sorts of social crimes, this provocation led ultimately to the nation’s demise at the hands of Assyrians and Babylonians.
When Yahweh sent prophets to warn of coming judgment because of rebellion against him, corruption in the courts topped the list of crimes. Representing the masses, the eighth-century prophet Micah gave classic expression to the problem:
Her leaders judge for a bribe,
her priests teach for a price,
and her prophets tell fortunes for money.
Yet they lean upon the LORD and say,
“Is not the LORD among us?
No disaster will come upon us.” (Mic. 3:11)
This image of corruption in Judah was reinforced by Isaiah, who pronounced woe on those who acquitted the guilty for a bribe but denied justice to the innocent (Isa. 5:23). The problem of corruption in the courts is a common theme in Psalms and the Wisdom writings. On the one hand, expressed positively, at the level of the individual the psalmist acknowledges that God accepts the worship of the person who does what is righteous (ṣedeq) and refuses to accept a bribe against the innocent (Ps. 15:2, 5). At the national level, the sage of Israel declared, “Righteousness [ṣedāqâ] exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people” (Prov. 14:34). On the other hand, “A wicked man accepts a bribe in secret to pervert the course of justice” (Prov. 17:23), and “Extortion turns a wise man into a fool, and a bribe corrupts the heart” (Eccl. 7:7).
However, the eclipse of righteousness was not limited to the administration of justice. In 1 Samuel 2 the sons of Eli illustrate how quickly the corruption had set in, and that it extended to the family of the priest. When Israelites came to worship at the central sanctuary in Shiloh, those “wicked men” (1 Sam. 2:12) claimed the best cuts of the sacrificial meat for themselves. Centuries later Jeremiah associated moral crimes (theft, murder, adultery) with idolatry (offering sacrifices to Baal and walking after other gods they had not known), and with contempt for the place that Yahweh had called by his name (Jer. 7:8–11). The history of Israel’s pursuit of righteousness is a history of failure.
But as the darkness of the judgment descended, visions of hope for the distant future flashed through the clouds. That hope was embodied not by Levitical priests but by a Davidic Messiah, whose name would be “The LORD Our Righteousness” (Jer. 23:6), and who, endowed with the Spirit of Yahweh, would wear a belt of righteousness around his waist (Isa. 11:1–5).
Righteousness in the New Testament. When the New Testament opens, one of the first characters to greet the Messiah was a certain Simeon, whom Luke characterizes as “righteous” (dikaios) and “devout” (eulabēs), “waiting for the consolation of Israel” and obviously exhibiting the presence of the Holy Spirit (Luke 2:25). Whether or not he was a Levitical priest,56 when Mary and Joseph brought the child Jesus to the temple according to Jewish law, Simeon recognized the significance of this child with his Nunc Dimittis:
Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you now dismiss your servant in peace.
For my eyes have seen your salvation,
which you have prepared in the sight of all people,
a light for revelation to the Gentiles
and for glory to your people Israel. (Luke 2:28–32)
Although Luke classifies the utterance that followed as a blessing, Simeon forecasts trouble and pain for the child:
This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too. (Luke 2:34–35)
Moved by the Holy Spirit, that was indeed the divine verdict concerning “the Lord’s Christ” (Luke 2:26). According to the divine plan, Jesus would not be executed for his own crimes, but he would die as a substitute for a corrupt and idolatrous humanity.
Contemporary Significance
CONTEMPORARY RIGHTEOUSNESS. THE RELEVANCE of this text for our time is obvious. A nation that prides itself in its Judeo-Christian heritage should be known around the world for its commitment to “righteousness, only righteousness.” This commitment should characterize the way we stand for and administer justice in international courts. Whether our decisions are cast in the United Nations Security Council in New York or in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, by the standards of covenant righteousness, decisions must always be cast in the interests of others rather than self-interest.
But our recent history is marred by shameful support of regimes that oppress the poor and run roughshod over the rights of common citizens. This is obvious in the Middle East, where our insatiable thirst for oil rather than justice and righteousness has determined our friendships. The world will recognize us as a righteous nation and will recognize the righteousness of the laws by which we live (Deut. 6:8) when they see our willingness to abandon self-interest for the well-being of others.
This commitment should also characterize the way justice is administered in the courts of this land. Righteousness is not served by a system that expects defense attorneys to convince a jury to acquit the guilty or prosecuting attorneys to condemn the innocent by smooth arguments, evasion of evidence to the contrary, and looking for loopholes in the law. Nor is righteousness served when those with means are able to hire the most skillful legal defense team while the economically or ethnically marginalized are at the mercy of assigned lawyers who would rather be on the other side of the case. Nevertheless, we should not expect much of civil authority in a Constantinian world, where religious confessions and pious platitudes camouflage fundamental moral and social rot. In fact, we should probably be surprised when vestiges of concerns for righteousness surface.
“Righteousness, only righteousness” as the watchword of the redeemed. But in Deuteronomy Moses was not preaching to Egyptians or Canaanites, or even Edomites—with whom Israel shared descent from Abraham, the friend of God. Moses was preaching to the redeemed, to those who claimed to be “sons of God,” a holy people, chosen and set apart as Yahweh’s special treasure for his praise, honor, and glory (Deut. 26:19). For this reason, the message of Deuteronomy 16:20–17:13 has particular relevance for the church. “Righteousness, only righteousness” should be the watchword of the redeemed, whether they serve individually as agents of light in a dark world or work together within the community of faith.
This will involve uncompromising personal and corporate commitment to the Lord alone, with no room left for other gods or aberrant forms of religious expression. And it will involve seriously disciplining those who stray from this course or encourage others to do so. But the pursuit of righteousness also demands vigilance in moral ethics, especially in the administration of the community. Even more than the state, leaders in the church must be both wise and righteous, refusing to be corrupted by favors from members or to be tempted to pervert “Your kingdom come” into “My kingdom come.” This text reminds us also that the responsibility for the pursuit and administration of righteousness should never be left in the hands of appointed officials. It is everyone’s business.
Original Meaning
The Prescription for Righteousness Violated (17:2–13)
IN VERSES 2–3 Moses prescribes the response to violations of the principle of “righteousness, only righteousness” as stated in 16:20. This section divides into two panels of identical length (vv. 2–7 and vv. 8–12),31 followed by a summary conclusion (v. 13). Each panel opens with a complex clause setting the context (vv. 2–4a; v. 8a), is followed by a lengthy prescribed response (vv. 4b–7a; vv. 8b–12a), and concludes with a declaration of the goal (v. 7b; v. 12b). The symmetry of structure and the verbal links suggest that verses 2–7 and 8–12 have been intentionally composed to develop a common point—how to deal with unrighteous behavior. The first involves relatively clean cases; the second involves the procedure for cases insoluble by ordinary means of investigation.
Panel A: How to deal with idolaters (vv. 2–7). Harking back to 12:29–13:18[19], almost every phrase and clause echoes corresponding elements in chapter 13.32 Because the borrowed items derive from all three panels of chapter 13, Moses presents a comprehensive policy for idolatrous crimes, to be applied regardless of the instigator.33 The instructions for dealing with idolaters divide into three sections: the problem (vv. 2–4b); (2) the prescription (vv. 4c–7b); and the goal (v. 7c). Since Moses’ role is that of a pastor rather than legislator, it is not surprising that the flow is not necessarily logical by our standards, but neither is it pedantic. The instructions are precise, but added clauses concerning the violation of the covenant and the purgation of evil afford this text extraordinary gravitas. The goal is obviously not merely legal exactitude but the preservation of Israel in the land Yahweh has given them.
The problem (vv. 2–4a). Moses introduces the first case with a complex conditional clause that ends with “and this has been brought to your attention” (v. 4a). In this instance there is no reference to how the discovery was made, which may explain why this phase ends with “and it is reported to you,” and “and you hear” (pers. trans.). These expressions represent part of the discovery phase: A report of the crime to the community34 is to trigger the response that follows.
Like 13:1[2], the text notes the context of the crime. Here the term “gates” (NIV “towns,” v. 2) sets the hearer up for the judicial proceedings in the city gate (v. 8) and implies that the offense has been flagrantly committed in public. Characterizing the “gates” as those that “the LORD gives you” links this text with the appointment of judges in 16:18. Where Israel appoints judges, there the danger lurks. The statement also implies that since the towns themselves are gifts from Yahweh,35 they are not to be polluted by worship of other gods.
Before specifying the crime, Moses comments on its spiritual significance: it represents “doing [the] evil in the eyes of the LORD your God” and “a violation of his covenant” (v. 2). The article on ”the evil” points to a specific evil, violating the first command of the Decalogue. The second expression highlights what is at stake: honoring Yahweh’s right to exclusive allegiance.36 In verse 3 Moses finally announces the offense: “walking [after],” “serving,” and “prostrating before” other gods (pers. trans.). While the first two expressions derive from the appeal in 13:2, 6, 13[3, 7, 14], this text exhibits a subtle shift of emphasis. Whereas chapter 13 sought to root out apostasy by eliminating those who led others away from Yahweh, here the concern is with those who have been seduced. The inclusion of women (v. 2) recognizes that if they have full access to the privileges of covenant relationship and the worship of Yahweh (cf. 12:12, 18; 16:14), they are equally susceptible to the temptation of idolatry and equally accountable to Yahweh.
The forbidden objects of worship are identified as “other gods” in general (v. 3; cf. 13:2, 6, 13[3, 7, 14]), and astral deities (sun, moon, and stars) in particular (4:15–19). The list ends awkwardly with “contrary to my command” (note that the NIV places this phrase forward; the Hebrew places at the end of v. 3). This has often been interpreted as litotic understatement, “which I have commanded you not to do.” However, it should probably be read in light of 4:19 and understood as “which I did not authorize” as legitimate objects of worship.
The prescription (vv. 4b–7b). Based on the amount of space given to the matter, the response Moses prescribes is obviously the center of gravity of this paragraph. He begins by outlining the investigative procedure (v. 4b), warning his people not to base judicial decisions on hearsay and rumors, especially in capital cases. If someone reports that a man or woman is worshiping other gods, the charges must be investigated thoroughly in order to establish guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt (cf. v. 6). The rest of verse 4 assumes the inquiry proves positive. The declaration of the outcome adapts a similar statement in 13:14[15]. Moses’ reference to “this detestable thing” (hattôʿēbâ) rather than a concrete expression for idolatry reflects his pastoral concern; the charges strike at the heart of Israel’s relationship with Yahweh.
The prescription for confirmed spiritual defection is execution by stoning (v. 5). Whereas Leviticus 24:14 and Numbers 15:35 call for the execution of criminals “outside the camp,”37 here the sentence is to be administered in the city gates. The former treatment was reasonable, as long as the Israelites camped together with the tabernacle in the center. However, once they scattered to their tribal territories and towns, maintaining sanctity throughout the land would need to be localized. Executing criminals in the gate would make a spectacle of them and demonstrate the heinousness of their “evil deed” (v. 5b).
As in 13:10[11], stoning is specified as the form of execution, presumably to prevent the executioners from being ritually contaminated by direct contact with the accused. Having demanded at least two witnesses (v. 6), in verse 7 Moses calls on these witnesses to cast the first stones, after which all the people must join in.38 Placing primary responsibility for executing the sentence in the hands of the witnesses safeguards against frivolous accusations by a neighbor (cf. 19:15–21). However, Moses places responsibility for maintaining righteousness in the hands of the people rather than with political leaders.
The goal (v. 7c). Although the judicial process ends with execution, the purpose of the procedure is not merely to give criminals their due. The concluding declaration summarizes the goal: to “purge the evil” from the midst of Israel.39 Moses’ concern for communal health leaves no room for sentimentality or prejudice. Yahweh’s agenda requires a people united in its devotion to him and rigorous in its preservation of its own character as a holy people (cf. 7:1–6). Eliminating those guilty of capital crimes eradicates the evil from the land and the people.
Panel B: How to deal with difficult cases (vv. 8–12). The judicial structures established in Exodus 18, with difficult cases coming to Moses, were practicable as long as Moses led the people. The purpose of this text is to provide a means of resolving insoluble cases after he is gone. While the reference to cases of dispute that come “before your gates” (NIV “courts”) links this text with the preceding, the focus shifts from cases the people can solve to those that cannot be adjudicated by normal and local means, and from issues involving Israel’s vertical relationship with Yahweh to horizontal relationships among Israelites. Remarkably, in this arrangement those submitted to communal courts are religious in nature (vv. 2–7), while cases involving civil and criminal offences are submitted to the central “theocratic” tribunal (vv. 8–12).40 As noted above, the literary structure of this panel is identical to verses 2–7.
The problem (v. 8a). Contrary to prevailing opinion,41 the primary concern in this paragraph is neither to establish the makeup of Israel’s supreme court nor to describe its principal functions. As in verses 2–4, with a conditional clause Moses announces the issue: cases for judgment that are too difficult for the local court to settle in the gates. The verb niplāʾ denotes “beyond one’s power to unravel or adjudicate” (cf. 1:17; Ex. 18:26).42 The present instructions concern only the last stage of the process: how the people should proceed when they cannot reach a decision in a disputed case. Moses identifies three kinds of cases that might lead to an impasse:43 murder/unintentional manslaughter, civil or criminal disputes, and physical assaults. Such cases are to be sent on to the higher tribunal.
The prescription (vv. 8b–12b). Although Moses introduces Levitical priests and a judge as final adjudicators (v. 9), his primary addressee continues to be ordinary citizens, and his concern is still the involvement of the people in maintaining righteousness in judicial matters.44 While the actions of the priest/judge are presented in one short statement (v. 9c), those required of the people are presented in two stages: their duty to present the case to the central tribunal (vv. 8b–9), and their responsibility to execute its decision (vv. 10–12b).
When confronted with an insoluble case, the people are to “arise and go up” (pers. trans. of v. 8b)45 to the place that Yahweh will choose and present the case to the Levitical priests and the judge in office at the time. Moses suggests that the central sanctuary will not only be a place of worship but also a court of last resort; he thus implies the role of God in the pursuit of righteousness. The court of appeal does not provide the accused with another opportunity to have the case reviewed but serves as a resource for local adjudicators.46
Moses identifies the adjudicators as “the priests, who are Levites, and . . . the judge.” This refers to a subgroup of the Levites, who performed priestly duties before Yahweh at the central sanctuary.47 Although the priestly writings (esp. Leviticus) never ascribe a judicial role to priests, Numbers 5:11–31 alludes to this function. The cryptic nature of Moses’ statement here suggests this judicial role was widely recognized.
But what are we to make of “the judge who is in office at that time”? Most view him as a layperson who joins a group of priests (note the plural) to hear the case (cf. 19:15–21).48 However, the twofold reference to the central sanctuary in this context (vv. 8, 10), plus the fact that he is to officiate “in the presence of the LORD” (19:17),49 render a lay interpretation unlikely. It is preferable to treat “the judge” as loosely appositional to “the priests, who are Levites,” specifying an individual selected from among them to head the tribunal and/or announce the decision. The explanatory clause, “who is in office at that time,” leaves open whether these persons served for life like high priests or rotated off when their term expired.
How would this tribunal operate? Versions that read the verb “inquire” as a third person plural50 suggest the central tribunal would repeat the lower court’s investigative procedure (cf. 13:14[15]; 17:4). However, if we interpret dâraš as “to make inquiry”51 rather than “to investigate,” the verb refers to seeking guidance from Yahweh. The last clause of verse 9 reinforces this interpretation. The noun mišpāṭ is sometimes used of a divine pronouncement in response either to inquiry (Judg. 13:12; 1 Sam. 2:12–13; 8:10–11) or to a cry for rescue (Judg. 4:5).52 As priestly “judge,” the designated official is heir to Moses, who at first heard all the disputes of the people and then inquired of God (Ex. 18:15–16). However, unlike Moses, the priestly judge could probably use the Urim and Thummim to determine the mind of God.53
If we abandon the political interpretation of the broader context (16:18–18:22), this interpretation explains several features in the text: (1) the characterization of difficult cases with the verb niplāʾ, a root used elsewhere of miraculous or “wonderful” divine actions rather than the mundane variants (1:17; Ex. 18:26); (2) the emphasis on the location of the inquiry at the sanctuary rather than in the city gates (vv. 8, 10); (3) the absence of any reference to an investigation by priests or judge (the tribunal simply declares the outcome); (4) the phrase used for the decision, which suits an oracular context perfectly (cf. v. 11); (5) the twofold use of the idiom “according to the decisions [dābar]” (vv. 10, 11), which the adjudicators apparently do not establish but only declare (vv. 9, 10, 11); (6) the later reference to “the priest who stands ministering there to the LORD your God” (v. 12). These elements all fit an oracular context perfectly, but they are difficult to square with a judicial inquiry conducted by a lay official. As prescribed, the procedure emphasizes that Yahweh is the highest court of appeal, and his verdicts are declared through his priestly representative at the central sanctuary.
Moses’ charge to execute the verdict of the tribunal is the center of gravity in this panel (vv. 10–12b). Since verse 10 demands action, “the word of judgment” (NIV “verdict”) apparently would include both a declaration of guilt or innocence and the actions to take against a person declared guilty. While the second reference to the place of decision as “the place the LORD will choose” (v. 10) reinforces the divine authority of the verdict, the importance of executing the judgment is emphasized by the threefold use of the verb “to do” (vv. 10a, 10b, 11a), and by the emphatic construction, “and you shall keep by doing” (NIV “be careful to do . . .”). Four times Moses declares that the sentence is to be carried out precisely as instructed: “according to the word they declare to you” (v. 10a); “according to all they teach you” (v. 10b); “according to the instruction they teach you” (v. 11a); “according to the pronouncement they say to you” (v. 11b; all pers. trans.). While some treat these repetitive features as secondary insertions,54 they reflect the text’s rhetorical and sermonic genre.
If the “word” the adjudicators declare and the verdict they communicate represent the divine judgment on the case that normal procedures have failed to resolve, what is to be made of the tôrâ that the tribunal teaches (v. 11a)? While the immediate context might suggest specific instructions related to the case at hand,55 the usage of tôrâ elsewhere in the book, as well as the priests’ role as custodians and instructors of Torah (17:18; 31:9–13; 33:10), argues in favor of the Torah as Moses teaches it in his final addresses. When the Israelites execute the divine tribunal’s decision, they pursue righteousness as determined in this case, as well as according to the overall understanding of righteousness as taught in the Torah.
In verse 11b Moses’ application of a formula that applies to fidelity to the covenant reinforces this conclusion. Imposing the same rigorous standards of compliance to a specific revelation from God as he does to the Torah in general (5:32; 17:20; 28:14), Moses considers it a deviation “to the right or to the left” to inflict punishment more severely or leniently than the ruling prescribed, or to substitute the prescribed sentence with a different action. Therefore, his instructions here conclude with a stern warning: failure to execute the judgment as prescribed is the height of presumption and defiance against God (v. 12a–b). Refusal to listen to the priest who stands in the service of Yahweh, or to the judge who declares Yahweh’s verdict, is as reprehensible as idolatry itself (cf. 17:5–7a) and deserves the death penalty.
The goal (v. 12c). Moses ends this panel as he had the previous one (v. 7b) with a declaration of zeal for the purity of the nation. By executing persons who defy God by noncompliance with his verdict, the evil of rebellion is purged from Israel and righteousness is maintained. Whether rendered by local adjudicators or the central tribunal, every decision advances the agenda of ṣedeq ṣedeq (“righteousness, only righteousness”; see 16:20).
Bridging Contexts
ISRAEL’S HISTORY WITH ṢEDEQ. Israelite compliance with Moses’ instructions in 16:18–17:13 was short-lived. Within two generations the people had forgotten Yahweh and his gracious acts of deliverance, providential care, and revelation (Judg. 2:10), resulting in a complete loss of the agenda spelled out here: “righteousness, only righteousness.” By the time of Eli (1 Sam. 1–4), the spiritual and judicial system was so compromised that not even those who served at the central shrine knew Yahweh or the mišpāṭ (“oracle, judgment”) of the priests (1 Sam. 2:12–13). Before long, kings were sponsoring syncretistic faith and religion (1 Kings 11:1–13), and overtly pagan forms had invaded the sanctuary itself (2 Kings 21:1–9). The problem envisaged in our text is precisely that for which Manasseh would later be condemned: the carved image of Asherah was planted in the house that Yahweh had chosen for his name (2 Kings 21:7). Along with all sorts of social crimes, this provocation led ultimately to the nation’s demise at the hands of Assyrians and Babylonians.
When Yahweh sent prophets to warn of coming judgment because of rebellion against him, corruption in the courts topped the list of crimes. Representing the masses, the eighth-century prophet Micah gave classic expression to the problem:
Her leaders judge for a bribe,
her priests teach for a price,
and her prophets tell fortunes for money.
Yet they lean upon the LORD and say,
“Is not the LORD among us?
No disaster will come upon us.” (Mic. 3:11)
This image of corruption in Judah was reinforced by Isaiah, who pronounced woe on those who acquitted the guilty for a bribe but denied justice to the innocent (Isa. 5:23). The problem of corruption in the courts is a common theme in Psalms and the Wisdom writings. On the one hand, expressed positively, at the level of the individual the psalmist acknowledges that God accepts the worship of the person who does what is righteous (ṣedeq) and refuses to accept a bribe against the innocent (Ps. 15:2, 5). At the national level, the sage of Israel declared, “Righteousness [ṣedāqâ] exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people” (Prov. 14:34). On the other hand, “A wicked man accepts a bribe in secret to pervert the course of justice” (Prov. 17:23), and “Extortion turns a wise man into a fool, and a bribe corrupts the heart” (Eccl. 7:7).
However, the eclipse of righteousness was not limited to the administration of justice. In 1 Samuel 2 the sons of Eli illustrate how quickly the corruption had set in, and that it extended to the family of the priest. When Israelites came to worship at the central sanctuary in Shiloh, those “wicked men” (1 Sam. 2:12) claimed the best cuts of the sacrificial meat for themselves. Centuries later Jeremiah associated moral crimes (theft, murder, adultery) with idolatry (offering sacrifices to Baal and walking after other gods they had not known), and with contempt for the place that Yahweh had called by his name (Jer. 7:8–11). The history of Israel’s pursuit of righteousness is a history of failure.
But as the darkness of the judgment descended, visions of hope for the distant future flashed through the clouds. That hope was embodied not by Levitical priests but by a Davidic Messiah, whose name would be “The LORD Our Righteousness” (Jer. 23:6), and who, endowed with the Spirit of Yahweh, would wear a belt of righteousness around his waist (Isa. 11:1–5).
Righteousness in the New Testament. When the New Testament opens, one of the first characters to greet the Messiah was a certain Simeon, whom Luke characterizes as “righteous” (dikaios) and “devout” (eulabēs), “waiting for the consolation of Israel” and obviously exhibiting the presence of the Holy Spirit (Luke 2:25). Whether or not he was a Levitical priest,56 when Mary and Joseph brought the child Jesus to the temple according to Jewish law, Simeon recognized the significance of this child with his Nunc Dimittis:
Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you now dismiss your servant in peace.
For my eyes have seen your salvation,
which you have prepared in the sight of all people,
a light for revelation to the Gentiles
and for glory to your people Israel. (Luke 2:28–32)
Although Luke classifies the utterance that followed as a blessing, Simeon forecasts trouble and pain for the child:
This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too. (Luke 2:34–35)
Moved by the Holy Spirit, that was indeed the divine verdict concerning “the Lord’s Christ” (Luke 2:26). According to the divine plan, Jesus would not be executed for his own crimes, but he would die as a substitute for a corrupt and idolatrous humanity.
Contemporary Significance
CONTEMPORARY RIGHTEOUSNESS. THE RELEVANCE of this text for our time is obvious. A nation that prides itself in its Judeo-Christian heritage should be known around the world for its commitment to “righteousness, only righteousness.” This commitment should characterize the way we stand for and administer justice in international courts. Whether our decisions are cast in the United Nations Security Council in New York or in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, by the standards of covenant righteousness, decisions must always be cast in the interests of others rather than self-interest.
But our recent history is marred by shameful support of regimes that oppress the poor and run roughshod over the rights of common citizens. This is obvious in the Middle East, where our insatiable thirst for oil rather than justice and righteousness has determined our friendships. The world will recognize us as a righteous nation and will recognize the righteousness of the laws by which we live (Deut. 6:8) when they see our willingness to abandon self-interest for the well-being of others.
This commitment should also characterize the way justice is administered in the courts of this land. Righteousness is not served by a system that expects defense attorneys to convince a jury to acquit the guilty or prosecuting attorneys to condemn the innocent by smooth arguments, evasion of evidence to the contrary, and looking for loopholes in the law. Nor is righteousness served when those with means are able to hire the most skillful legal defense team while the economically or ethnically marginalized are at the mercy of assigned lawyers who would rather be on the other side of the case. Nevertheless, we should not expect much of civil authority in a Constantinian world, where religious confessions and pious platitudes camouflage fundamental moral and social rot. In fact, we should probably be surprised when vestiges of concerns for righteousness surface.
“Righteousness, only righteousness” as the watchword of the redeemed. But in Deuteronomy Moses was not preaching to Egyptians or Canaanites, or even Edomites—with whom Israel shared descent from Abraham, the friend of God. Moses was preaching to the redeemed, to those who claimed to be “sons of God,” a holy people, chosen and set apart as Yahweh’s special treasure for his praise, honor, and glory (Deut. 26:19). For this reason, the message of Deuteronomy 16:20–17:13 has particular relevance for the church. “Righteousness, only righteousness” should be the watchword of the redeemed, whether they serve individually as agents of light in a dark world or work together within the community of faith.
This will involve uncompromising personal and corporate commitment to the Lord alone, with no room left for other gods or aberrant forms of religious expression. And it will involve seriously disciplining those who stray from this course or encourage others to do so. But the pursuit of righteousness also demands vigilance in moral ethics, especially in the administration of the community. Even more than the state, leaders in the church must be both wise and righteous, refusing to be corrupted by favors from members or to be tempted to pervert “Your kingdom come” into “My kingdom come.” This text reminds us also that the responsibility for the pursuit and administration of righteousness should never be left in the hands of appointed officials. It is everyone’s business.
Original Meaning
A Call for Communal Commitment to Righteousness (16:18–20)
THE OBJECT-VERB STRUCTURE OF the opening line signals the beginning of a new section.11 A second heading in verse 20, whose grammar imitates verse 18a, signals the primary concern. These two statements provide a framework around an important theme in Deuteronomic theology: justice in the service of righteousness. Verse 18 also echoes an earlier statement in 1:15, which associates the “officials” with other leaders in Israel: heads, staff-holders, elders.12 While some view “judges” and “officials” as different classes of officials, “judges and officials” is probably intended as a hendiadys, that is, “scribal judges.”13
Many interpret verse 18 as provision for a judiciary composed of professional judges and officials appointed by the monarch to replace the elder-based judiciary of a by-gone era14 and to support centralizing authority in the crown.15 However, this view rests on speculative arguments from silence.16 The absence of elders here does not mean they have been pushed aside; their involvement is assumed (cf. 25:1–3). Furthermore, it flies in the face of sociological analyses of judicial structures in kinship-based societies, in which “the existence of dual but complementary judicial institutions” is common.17 Who hears which case depends on the socio-political implications of the dispute.18
As in Deuteronomy 1:15, the verb “to appoint” is represented by nātan (“to give”), which in contexts like this means “to provide for by installing.”19 Whereas in the earlier text Moses had installed leaders whom the people presented to him, here he assigns responsibility to the people. Presumably elders, acting on behalf of the people, will make the appointments, selecting persons from their own ranks for the office of “scribal judge” in accordance with the qualifications specified by Moses in 1:13–15.20 The charge to appoint judges “in all your gates” (NIV “in every town”) ensures distribution of responsibility for the maintenance of righteousness throughout the land. While elsewhere “gates” functions metonymically for “towns,” here the word specifies the location of judicial proceedings (cf. Ruth 4:1–12). Moses qualifies “towns” as those that “the LORD your God is giving you,” assuming that kinship-based tribal structures and a settled agrarian life will coexist in Israel.21
Moses’ call for judges to “judge the people fairly” (v. 18) adapts a statement in Leviticus 19:15 addressed to all the people. This is the only comment in this entire unit concerned with the conduct of judges, calling them to render righteous judgments. Though mišpāṭ (“judgment”) and ṣedeq (“righteousness”) form a standardized pair in biblical Hebrew, the phrase “righteous judgment” (mišpaṭ ṣedeq) occurs only here (cf. Isa 58:2). Moses hereby appeals for judgment that accords with covenantal standards as outlined in the Torah.
In verse 19 Moses refocuses on the Israelites as a community. Broadening the scope and reducing the judicial flavor of earlier injunctions, Moses calls on the people to imitate Yahweh in not perverting justice22 through partiality23 or bribery. The latter clouds the vision of those who must make judgments24 and subverts the pronouncements of the righteous (cf. Prov 22:12).25
In the emphatic word order and the repetition of verse 20 we hear not the measured tone of a legislator but the passionate voice of a preacher, who pleads with his congregation to put first things first. Moses hereby announces the issue that will concern him throughout the rest of the second address—fidelity to Yahweh, demonstrated in righteous behavior. He ends this statement by stressing the importance of pursuing “righteousness, only righteousness.” It is a prerequisite to the achievement of Yahweh’s goal for his people: life and possession of the land that Yahweh is giving to them.26
Bridging Contexts
ISRAEL’S HISTORY WITH ṢEDEQ. Israelite compliance with Moses’ instructions in 16:18–17:13 was short-lived. Within two generations the people had forgotten Yahweh and his gracious acts of deliverance, providential care, and revelation (Judg. 2:10), resulting in a complete loss of the agenda spelled out here: “righteousness, only righteousness.” By the time of Eli (1 Sam. 1–4), the spiritual and judicial system was so compromised that not even those who served at the central shrine knew Yahweh or the mišpāṭ (“oracle, judgment”) of the priests (1 Sam. 2:12–13). Before long, kings were sponsoring syncretistic faith and religion (1 Kings 11:1–13), and overtly pagan forms had invaded the sanctuary itself (2 Kings 21:1–9). The problem envisaged in our text is precisely that for which Manasseh would later be condemned: the carved image of Asherah was planted in the house that Yahweh had chosen for his name (2 Kings 21:7). Along with all sorts of social crimes, this provocation led ultimately to the nation’s demise at the hands of Assyrians and Babylonians.
When Yahweh sent prophets to warn of coming judgment because of rebellion against him, corruption in the courts topped the list of crimes. Representing the masses, the eighth-century prophet Micah gave classic expression to the problem:
Her leaders judge for a bribe,
her priests teach for a price,
and her prophets tell fortunes for money.
Yet they lean upon the LORD and say,
“Is not the LORD among us?
No disaster will come upon us.” (Mic. 3:11)
This image of corruption in Judah was reinforced by Isaiah, who pronounced woe on those who acquitted the guilty for a bribe but denied justice to the innocent (Isa. 5:23). The problem of corruption in the courts is a common theme in Psalms and the Wisdom writings. On the one hand, expressed positively, at the level of the individual the psalmist acknowledges that God accepts the worship of the person who does what is righteous (ṣedeq) and refuses to accept a bribe against the innocent (Ps. 15:2, 5). At the national level, the sage of Israel declared, “Righteousness [ṣedāqâ] exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people” (Prov. 14:34). On the other hand, “A wicked man accepts a bribe in secret to pervert the course of justice” (Prov. 17:23), and “Extortion turns a wise man into a fool, and a bribe corrupts the heart” (Eccl. 7:7).
However, the eclipse of righteousness was not limited to the administration of justice. In 1 Samuel 2 the sons of Eli illustrate how quickly the corruption had set in, and that it extended to the family of the priest. When Israelites came to worship at the central sanctuary in Shiloh, those “wicked men” (1 Sam. 2:12) claimed the best cuts of the sacrificial meat for themselves. Centuries later Jeremiah associated moral crimes (theft, murder, adultery) with idolatry (offering sacrifices to Baal and walking after other gods they had not known), and with contempt for the place that Yahweh had called by his name (Jer. 7:8–11). The history of Israel’s pursuit of righteousness is a history of failure.
But as the darkness of the judgment descended, visions of hope for the distant future flashed through the clouds. That hope was embodied not by Levitical priests but by a Davidic Messiah, whose name would be “The LORD Our Righteousness” (Jer. 23:6), and who, endowed with the Spirit of Yahweh, would wear a belt of righteousness around his waist (Isa. 11:1–5).
Righteousness in the New Testament. When the New Testament opens, one of the first characters to greet the Messiah was a certain Simeon, whom Luke characterizes as “righteous” (dikaios) and “devout” (eulabēs), “waiting for the consolation of Israel” and obviously exhibiting the presence of the Holy Spirit (Luke 2:25). Whether or not he was a Levitical priest,56 when Mary and Joseph brought the child Jesus to the temple according to Jewish law, Simeon recognized the significance of this child with his Nunc Dimittis:
Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you now dismiss your servant in peace.
For my eyes have seen your salvation,
which you have prepared in the sight of all people,
a light for revelation to the Gentiles
and for glory to your people Israel. (Luke 2:28–32)
Although Luke classifies the utterance that followed as a blessing, Simeon forecasts trouble and pain for the child:
This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too. (Luke 2:34–35)
Moved by the Holy Spirit, that was indeed the divine verdict concerning “the Lord’s Christ” (Luke 2:26). According to the divine plan, Jesus would not be executed for his own crimes, but he would die as a substitute for a corrupt and idolatrous humanity.
Contemporary Significance
CONTEMPORARY RIGHTEOUSNESS. THE RELEVANCE of this text for our time is obvious. A nation that prides itself in its Judeo-Christian heritage should be known around the world for its commitment to “righteousness, only righteousness.” This commitment should characterize the way we stand for and administer justice in international courts. Whether our decisions are cast in the United Nations Security Council in New York or in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, by the standards of covenant righteousness, decisions must always be cast in the interests of others rather than self-interest.
But our recent history is marred by shameful support of regimes that oppress the poor and run roughshod over the rights of common citizens. This is obvious in the Middle East, where our insatiable thirst for oil rather than justice and righteousness has determined our friendships. The world will recognize us as a righteous nation and will recognize the righteousness of the laws by which we live (Deut. 6:8) when they see our willingness to abandon self-interest for the well-being of others.
This commitment should also characterize the way justice is administered in the courts of this land. Righteousness is not served by a system that expects defense attorneys to convince a jury to acquit the guilty or prosecuting attorneys to condemn the innocent by smooth arguments, evasion of evidence to the contrary, and looking for loopholes in the law. Nor is righteousness served when those with means are able to hire the most skillful legal defense team while the economically or ethnically marginalized are at the mercy of assigned lawyers who would rather be on the other side of the case. Nevertheless, we should not expect much of civil authority in a Constantinian world, where religious confessions and pious platitudes camouflage fundamental moral and social rot. In fact, we should probably be surprised when vestiges of concerns for righteousness surface.
“Righteousness, only righteousness” as the watchword of the redeemed. But in Deuteronomy Moses was not preaching to Egyptians or Canaanites, or even Edomites—with whom Israel shared descent from Abraham, the friend of God. Moses was preaching to the redeemed, to those who claimed to be “sons of God,” a holy people, chosen and set apart as Yahweh’s special treasure for his praise, honor, and glory (Deut. 26:19). For this reason, the message of Deuteronomy 16:20–17:13 has particular relevance for the church. “Righteousness, only righteousness” should be the watchword of the redeemed, whether they serve individually as agents of light in a dark world or work together within the community of faith.
This will involve uncompromising personal and corporate commitment to the Lord alone, with no room left for other gods or aberrant forms of religious expression. And it will involve seriously disciplining those who stray from this course or encourage others to do so. But the pursuit of righteousness also demands vigilance in moral ethics, especially in the administration of the community. Even more than the state, leaders in the church must be both wise and righteous, refusing to be corrupted by favors from members or to be tempted to pervert “Your kingdom come” into “My kingdom come.” This text reminds us also that the responsibility for the pursuit and administration of righteousness should never be left in the hands of appointed officials. It is everyone’s business.
Original Meaning
Three Examples of Righteousness Violated (16:21–17:1)
MOSES FOLLOWS UP THE declaration of principle in verse 20 with warnings of three specific dangers that violate the principle of “righteousness, only righteousness.” The first command warns against spiritual syncretism (v. 21). The perversity in question involves compromising one legitimate act (building an altar for Yahweh their God) with an illegitimate act (setting up an Asherah pole beside the altar of Yahweh). In Canaanite religion Asherah was a female goddess, the consort of El, who represented the female principle in the fertility religion. However, to Moses an Asherah pole is merely a piece of wood made from “any tree” and “planted” by human hands.”27 Whether Israelite worshipers understood such a pole as a symbol of the fertility they expected of Yahweh (cf. 7:12–14), or as a consort of Yahweh, by erecting it next to Yahweh’s altar, they were violating the Supreme Command (cf. 5:7).28
The meaning of the second prohibition is less certain (v. 22). The association of pillars with Asherim in 7:5 and 12:3 suggests this is a stone erected to symbolize Baal, who represents the male principle in the fertility religion. However, the singular form may suggest a symbol of Yahweh himself, who claimed responsibility for the productivity of the soil and the livestock (7:12–14). While in an earlier time stone pillars were tolerated as religious symbols (Gen. 28:18–22), by the time the Israelites entered Canaan these representations of deity were so identified with the Baal cult that they were strictly forbidden (cf. 7:5; 12:3). The concluding clause, “these the LORD your God hates,” expresses Yahweh’s fundamental disposition toward idolatry.29
The third prohibition shifts the focus from forbidden cult objects to prohibited sacrifices—from overtly apostate actions that Yahweh hates to apostate dispositions that he finds detestable. To an observer any cultic action might appear pious, but when the sacrificial animal is defective, seemingly correct worship is rejected by Yahweh. This warning represents the obverse of 15:19–21. It is not merely a matter of giving the best; perfect specimens speak of wholeness.30 The characterization of blemished sacrifice as a “detestable [thing]” (tôʿēbâ) of Yahweh places such worship in the same category as overtly pagan actions (cf. 7:26; 12:31; 18:9; 20:18).
Bridging Contexts
ISRAEL’S HISTORY WITH ṢEDEQ. Israelite compliance with Moses’ instructions in 16:18–17:13 was short-lived. Within two generations the people had forgotten Yahweh and his gracious acts of deliverance, providential care, and revelation (Judg. 2:10), resulting in a complete loss of the agenda spelled out here: “righteousness, only righteousness.” By the time of Eli (1 Sam. 1–4), the spiritual and judicial system was so compromised that not even those who served at the central shrine knew Yahweh or the mišpāṭ (“oracle, judgment”) of the priests (1 Sam. 2:12–13). Before long, kings were sponsoring syncretistic faith and religion (1 Kings 11:1–13), and overtly pagan forms had invaded the sanctuary itself (2 Kings 21:1–9). The problem envisaged in our text is precisely that for which Manasseh would later be condemned: the carved image of Asherah was planted in the house that Yahweh had chosen for his name (2 Kings 21:7). Along with all sorts of social crimes, this provocation led ultimately to the nation’s demise at the hands of Assyrians and Babylonians.
When Yahweh sent prophets to warn of coming judgment because of rebellion against him, corruption in the courts topped the list of crimes. Representing the masses, the eighth-century prophet Micah gave classic expression to the problem:
Her leaders judge for a bribe,
her priests teach for a price,
and her prophets tell fortunes for money.
Yet they lean upon the LORD and say,
“Is not the LORD among us?
No disaster will come upon us.” (Mic. 3:11)
This image of corruption in Judah was reinforced by Isaiah, who pronounced woe on those who acquitted the guilty for a bribe but denied justice to the innocent (Isa. 5:23). The problem of corruption in the courts is a common theme in Psalms and the Wisdom writings. On the one hand, expressed positively, at the level of the individual the psalmist acknowledges that God accepts the worship of the person who does what is righteous (ṣedeq) and refuses to accept a bribe against the innocent (Ps. 15:2, 5). At the national level, the sage of Israel declared, “Righteousness [ṣedāqâ] exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people” (Prov. 14:34). On the other hand, “A wicked man accepts a bribe in secret to pervert the course of justice” (Prov. 17:23), and “Extortion turns a wise man into a fool, and a bribe corrupts the heart” (Eccl. 7:7).
However, the eclipse of righteousness was not limited to the administration of justice. In 1 Samuel 2 the sons of Eli illustrate how quickly the corruption had set in, and that it extended to the family of the priest. When Israelites came to worship at the central sanctuary in Shiloh, those “wicked men” (1 Sam. 2:12) claimed the best cuts of the sacrificial meat for themselves. Centuries later Jeremiah associated moral crimes (theft, murder, adultery) with idolatry (offering sacrifices to Baal and walking after other gods they had not known), and with contempt for the place that Yahweh had called by his name (Jer. 7:8–11). The history of Israel’s pursuit of righteousness is a history of failure.
But as the darkness of the judgment descended, visions of hope for the distant future flashed through the clouds. That hope was embodied not by Levitical priests but by a Davidic Messiah, whose name would be “The LORD Our Righteousness” (Jer. 23:6), and who, endowed with the Spirit of Yahweh, would wear a belt of righteousness around his waist (Isa. 11:1–5).
Righteousness in the New Testament. When the New Testament opens, one of the first characters to greet the Messiah was a certain Simeon, whom Luke characterizes as “righteous” (dikaios) and “devout” (eulabēs), “waiting for the consolation of Israel” and obviously exhibiting the presence of the Holy Spirit (Luke 2:25). Whether or not he was a Levitical priest,56 when Mary and Joseph brought the child Jesus to the temple according to Jewish law, Simeon recognized the significance of this child with his Nunc Dimittis:
Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you now dismiss your servant in peace.
For my eyes have seen your salvation,
which you have prepared in the sight of all people,
a light for revelation to the Gentiles
and for glory to your people Israel. (Luke 2:28–32)
Although Luke classifies the utterance that followed as a blessing, Simeon forecasts trouble and pain for the child:
This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too. (Luke 2:34–35)
Moved by the Holy Spirit, that was indeed the divine verdict concerning “the Lord’s Christ” (Luke 2:26). According to the divine plan, Jesus would not be executed for his own crimes, but he would die as a substitute for a corrupt and idolatrous humanity.
Contemporary Significance
CONTEMPORARY RIGHTEOUSNESS. THE RELEVANCE of this text for our time is obvious. A nation that prides itself in its Judeo-Christian heritage should be known around the world for its commitment to “righteousness, only righteousness.” This commitment should characterize the way we stand for and administer justice in international courts. Whether our decisions are cast in the United Nations Security Council in New York or in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, by the standards of covenant righteousness, decisions must always be cast in the interests of others rather than self-interest.
But our recent history is marred by shameful support of regimes that oppress the poor and run roughshod over the rights of common citizens. This is obvious in the Middle East, where our insatiable thirst for oil rather than justice and righteousness has determined our friendships. The world will recognize us as a righteous nation and will recognize the righteousness of the laws by which we live (Deut. 6:8) when they see our willingness to abandon self-interest for the well-being of others.
This commitment should also characterize the way justice is administered in the courts of this land. Righteousness is not served by a system that expects defense attorneys to convince a jury to acquit the guilty or prosecuting attorneys to condemn the innocent by smooth arguments, evasion of evidence to the contrary, and looking for loopholes in the law. Nor is righteousness served when those with means are able to hire the most skillful legal defense team while the economically or ethnically marginalized are at the mercy of assigned lawyers who would rather be on the other side of the case. Nevertheless, we should not expect much of civil authority in a Constantinian world, where religious confessions and pious platitudes camouflage fundamental moral and social rot. In fact, we should probably be surprised when vestiges of concerns for righteousness surface.
“Righteousness, only righteousness” as the watchword of the redeemed. But in Deuteronomy Moses was not preaching to Egyptians or Canaanites, or even Edomites—with whom Israel shared descent from Abraham, the friend of God. Moses was preaching to the redeemed, to those who claimed to be “sons of God,” a holy people, chosen and set apart as Yahweh’s special treasure for his praise, honor, and glory (Deut. 26:19). For this reason, the message of Deuteronomy 16:20–17:13 has particular relevance for the church. “Righteousness, only righteousness” should be the watchword of the redeemed, whether they serve individually as agents of light in a dark world or work together within the community of faith.
This will involve uncompromising personal and corporate commitment to the Lord alone, with no room left for other gods or aberrant forms of religious expression. And it will involve seriously disciplining those who stray from this course or encourage others to do so. But the pursuit of righteousness also demands vigilance in moral ethics, especially in the administration of the community. Even more than the state, leaders in the church must be both wise and righteous, refusing to be corrupted by favors from members or to be tempted to pervert “Your kingdom come” into “My kingdom come.” This text reminds us also that the responsibility for the pursuit and administration of righteousness should never be left in the hands of appointed officials. It is everyone’s business.