Worksheet #4 notes Deuteronomy

Sermon • Submitted a month ago • Presented a month ago

0 ratings

· 8 views

Notes

Transcript

Step 2

Read about the possible titles for judges and officers of the court below.5 Be sure to study the passages included and reflect on the questions.

Judges (Read Deut. 1:9-18) – note the progression of descriptions below:

I took the heads of your tribes (1:15).6 Hebrew uses the word for heads,

רֹאׁש, rosh.

The verses also says these were men/husbands. Greek uses the word that can be translated men or husbands, ἀνήρ, aner/andras. Depending on how one translates, this verse can present some very interesting discussion. The judges were men (Hebrew also writes of men or husbands – I took your wise men, ִאיש , ish). But also, men who were leaders, or probably husbands, meaning they had families and had become tribal “heads.” Can you see how questions about who should be an elder in the church can also have similar discussions? Could a single man be a judge in Israel, etc.? It is interesting that when the New Testament discusses qualifications for “elders”, it does lay down similar stipulations for what we see in Deuteronomy. Generally speaking, they should be married men of good character. But the reason is that how they lead their family will ultimately show how they will lead the church. If a leader does not have “family” (or even a wife?), can it be adaquately known whether they can lead larger group of non-family? In the Old Testament, this thinking probably had two-fold purpose - one, similar to the church, it displayed their character. But second, as literally “head over tens”, this meant that most disputes could stay “within the family”.

Can a single man lead a church and/or in ancient Israel? The former is far more clearer - look no further than the Catholic Church, which is led exclusively by non-married men! So there must be other ways to determine whether one can be a leader or not. This might have been possible in the OT, but also not being married and having children may have been viewed as too much as a curse to overcome.

that is, your wise men (ָחָכם /hakamim/[Hebrew] – σοφός /sophos [Greek]).

Note the assumption of the relationship between heads of tribes and wise men. Although the text of Deuteronomy states that the heads were men, are there examples of female judges in Israel? Also, it is also explicit that the heads were wise. How might these assumptions both positively and negatively affect our modern considerations of legal systems? How might they affect they way we choose church leaders? Why do so many arguments about church elders talk/write to so much about them being men, but say little about them being wise men? Just having eben, ֶֶ֫אֶבן , “stones,” as Exodus 1:16 so inelegantly writes, does not make one a leader.

There were female judges in Israel, with the most famous being Deborah. She was also married, and the story certainly presents her as a motherly figure. But the stories of Judges are by nature topsy turvy and it isn’t always easy to tell what is prescriptive versus descriptive. Certainly the overall lack of female judges in the OT points to it being more of an anomaly.

I’m not sure in modern considerations, we actually think of a judge as being wise or not. That carries religious connotations. We do wonder if they are educated enough - but is that necessarily the same thing? I don’t think so.

Arguments about elders and their qualifications being reduced merely to manhood is something that is frustrating to me, even as I think elders should explicitly be men. To the prompt’s point, wisdom isn’t often considered. I love my elders, but I do sometimes wonder if they were truly vetted and selected based on the principles prescribed in the NT. Another example of this: I once attended a church that forbid women from serving communion. I could actually get on board with that, except for the fact that they also allowed any Joe Schmoe off the street to serve communion. No other qualifications were considered, as long as they were men! It made me want to rip my hair out.

Note the expectation that the people of Israel are a wise and discerning people in 4:6 (does law make people wise according to Deuteronomy?). The idea may be that the wiser the people are in general, that the wiser the leaders are in general. I’m not sure that the Law makes people wise, but it certainly is wise itself (as noted by the fact that the nations would look at Israel and be impressed). But if the Law is wise, I suppose maybe following the Law would make them wise? Certainly one would hope the leaders would follow the Law when making judgements...but as referenced above, that’s also just education and not necessarily wisdom.

Compare Deuteronomy 1:9-18 to Deut 32:29 – the story of Deut. opens by establishing wise leaders as judges, calling the people to be wise in their obedience of the law, and ends with the people being foolish, lacking sense, and if they were wise, they would see this. The irony of lacking wisdom is the inability to see you are lacking in wisdom. Using your concordance, look for the words wise, wisdom, fool, foolish, etc. in Deuteronomy. Do the words wise or wisdom appear anywhere else in Deuteronomy? Do they have any bearing on this discussion? If so, how?

Wise/Wisdom These words occur several times in Deuteronomy. They refer to the law and those who follow it. Of the six times that “wise(ly)” is used in Deuteronomy, it does seem to progressively go from positive to negative (having wisdom, to not having it). Right in the middle is Deuteronomy 16:19 “You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous.” Which indicates that someone doesn’t automatically become a fool or not wise just because they take a bribe - it simply makes them blind. In the end the connection between the covenant and wisdom is summarized in Deuteronomy 29:9 “Therefore keep the words of this covenant and do them, that you may deal wisely in all that you do.”

Fool/Foolish According to the ESV, “foolish” appears twice in Deuteronomy, both in chapter 32. In one case God calls them fools for how they treat Him, and in the second, he says he will make them fools in front of the entire world because of their behavior.

The Greek word for fool in the LXX is μωρός (moe –RAH – s), or moron in the accusative case.

and knowledgeable men (יֻדִִ֔עים /yaduim[Hebrew] -- ἐπιστήμων/epistemon).

Judges are heads of tribes, they are wise, and they are knowledgeable. What is the relationship between wisdom and knowledge? Can you actually be one without the other? How does the selection of our judges today compare to that of Deuteronomy? Do we choose judges more for political and ideological viewpoints or for their leadership, wisdom, and knowledge? How does one even evaluate judges in today’s U.S. legal system? When you vote for judges in your elections, do you research them? Why or why not? If not, why not? You certainly can have knowledge without wisdom. Or be book smart, but not street smart. However, I’m not sure you can be wise without knowledge, which is why education is important. I wouldn’t trust a judge who sounds nice and wise, but doesn’t actually know the law! In today’s day, America usually chooses judges based on ideology, which seems contrary to the purpose. It is an unspoken rule, actually. Of course, we don’t technically choose our highest judges (Supreme Court), this is done by one person (the President) picking who they want to be a justice, and then confirmed by the Senate. In theory, the Senate should be evaluating whether or not the person picked by the President is qualified and wise (?), but in recent years it has mostly turned into partisanship. On the flip side, there is something to be said about the “approved” ideology being viewed as the “wisdom” the people want. This is an upward flow - we elect the President and Senators of the ideology we want (which we assume is the wisest way to govern), and therefore they select judges in this same mold. It has pros and cons. On the question of evaluating judges - I don’t think this really comes to mind to most citizens, other than when the judge(s) make decisions we don’t like! Missouri’s state constitution actually mandates that certain judges be voted on after they have served as a judge for a certain period of time (but they are still appointed at the first). Ideally this means that citizens can vote out judges they believe aren’t doing a good job. But this would mean going and studying their cases and decisions to see if we actually think they made the right judgements, and quite frankly, nobody is willing to do that. These days the votes for “Should this judge remain in office?” are almost always answered with a “yes”.

and intelligent/prudent men (Hebrew omits this category, Greek includes it using συνετός, sunetos). Why would Greek use three words – wise, knowledgeable, and intelligent, to describe the judges? Again, how might the three words relate? Why would these categories make good judges? I can see the LXX using those three terms in order to describe a “well rounded” judge. Someone should have all three characteristics if they are going to judge well. You can’t be wise without knowledge, and you can’t be knowledgeable without intelligence. I can also see a play on the “two or three witnesses” requirement happening here - the LXX is using three “witnesses” to describe the best kind of judge.

Read again Deuteronomy 1:16. As part of the opening and establishment of the narrative setting, it mentions that Moses has charged the judges at the time to hear the disputes between the people and judge fairly (see earlier verses to define these judges more clearly)

The word in 1:16 for judge is shaphat. The verb in 1:17 to judge is a typical Hebraism. The judges will judge; their name and their function are connected. The verb “to judge” is mishpat and the word for judgements is mishpattim. God has pre-judged/predetermined what is righteous, and He has given his judgments to Moses, who in turn gives them to Israel. God has established the legal corpus of Israel on the basis of his name and character. It is up to Israel and its earthly judges to enforce God’s justice, that is, to live and testify to God’s character.

You may want to complete a comparison table of several English versions to compare translations of these verses (1:9-18). The NIV and NRSV, for instance, have some interesting differences.

Officials -- In Deuteronomy 16:18, Moses commands the people of Israel to appoint judges (shaphat) and officials (shoter) who shall render decisions in the gates of your towns. Are these the commanders of thousands, hundreds, and fifties? Look up John Barry and Carrie Sinclair Wolcott, “Judge, Role in Israel,” in the Lexham Bible Dictionary,8 where they argue the judges and the commanders were the same. The later role of the judge (Othniel, etc.) arises from these earlier versions in Deuteronomy, where judges served both judicial and military roles. Is there a kind of military rule then? Is there in view a kind of authority rooted in militarism that extends to the civil courts as well?

Considering the strictness, routines, and leadership that is required to lead men in combat, it’s not really a surprise that in this particular culture they would double as the judges and officers in the towns, protecting the population internally and externally.

Priests – Compare them to officials and judges and commanders from 1:16. See 19:17 where a malicious witness must appear before both priests and judges. What is the role of the priests here? Any different form of law or case procedure taking place here?

The Levites were so spread out among the population that it doesn’t make much sense that they would serve in an official judge capacity in most places or towns. However, given their status as the priestly tribe (and regular Levites being assistants), it does make sense that they would provide wisdom and insight about the law to the judges. This is especially true if the judges doubled as military leaders and were less educated in the formalities of the law. This seems to be the case behind Dt. 17:8-13 as well. In the same vein, it was the priests who were to approve of the copy of the law made by the king (DT. 17:18). Deuteronomy 19 does present an interesting case where the priest is involved, however it doesn’t say that they are ultimately part of the decision making, which seems to indicate that they were in fact more of an advisor. Dt. 19:17 also says that the parties shall “appear before the Lord”, and then adds the priests and judges. This two or three witnesses may also be a specific factor when investigating a false witness.

Moses – The judges and officials who cannot decide a case should bring it to Moses (17:8-13).

Moses here serves as the highest authority, but of course he wouldn’t be around forever. It does seem that a “plan of succession” was in view when Joshua was made leader after him, through the laying on of hands. Joshua fit the bill of being a military leader that probably also judged disputes. How this actually played out long term is hard to tell. From Joshua up until the monarchy, “judges” seemed to be more regional/tribal than national. Certain cases like Deborah (who sat under a tree and had people come to her) and Samuel (who had a circuit) show that this wasn’t necessarily fixed. In the end, the king does seem to solve this issue of missing authority at the top.

God – what is God’s role in the court system (provide chapter/verse support)?

God is the ultimate authority, even above the king. But He stands behind all the judges and actors of the courts (like priests). To act presumptuously against their rulings was to do so “before God” (Dt. 17:12). It is also said that when parties appear before judges and priests, they are appearing “before the Lord” (Dt. 19:17). Ultimately every true and righteous “judgement is God’s” (1:17), which is why the judges didn’t need to be afraid or intimidated by anyone. It also explains why respect for the priests and judges decisions was so important - to reject their authority and judgements was to reject God. (Side note: this echoes what Jesus says about his disciples not needing to be afraid when they face courts and persecution, because the Holy Spirit will give them the words to say.)

Note the commanded attitudes towards judges/priests in Deuteronomy -- see Deut. 17:12 – the word is zadon. Do not act presumptuously or arrogantly. What is the punishment? Why do you think this is? Are there any principles that cultures today, and even the church, can learn from these commands? The punishment is death. As mentioned above, the ultimate reason for this is because the judgements come from God, and so to disobey the earthly judges or flagrantly ignore them, was to also ignore God. Contempt of court is still widely practiced in many judicial systems (although in America it does not lead to death! Fines and imprisonment can follow though.) The practical side of this is order: a legal system falls apart if nobody listens or takes it seriously. Disobeying a ruling requires some kind of punishment.

In the church, disobedience should be closely monitored. In the face of otherwise “just rulings” on matters of church discipline (or even just normal church administration), disobedience to the elders and leaders can cause strife and division. If someone is warned multiple times and does not listen, they probably need to be removed.

Step 3

Locations of the Court:

In your gates (Deuteronomy 16:18). See Levite in your gates article I sent with this worksheet. Note the role of these judgment places once the people all take their inheritance in the land and are spread out. There is a general decentralization of legal authority in terms of geography, but still a sort of supreme court. Deuteronomy is very vague on specific places for the courts, except for the “gates” of the city, which makes sense. Moses is giving instructions for geography that he himself may not be familiar with, and he’s also leaving room for God to decide “the place he has chosen”. Leuchter makes an interesting argument that perhaps the Levites served as the go between of the national supreme court and the local courts, which would have created some consistency from top to bottom.

Where is the “Supreme Court?” Perhaps attach a map indicating the location of this place within the land of Israel after they settle. According to DT. 17:8, this court would be at “the place the Lord your God will choose.” On it’s own, this is a vague description, but based on the usage of the phrase elsewhere (12:5, 16:2, 26:2) to describe the place of sacrifice, it can be assumed that this place was the sanctuary which was the tabernacle/temple. The tabernacle was originally set up in Shiloh (Joshua 18:1), before eventually moving to Nob, and then to Gibeon by David. When Solomon built the Temple, the permanent location of the sanctuary, and thus of the “Supreme Court” became Jerusalem. It’s interesting that after the Ark was captured at Shiloh in 1 Samuel 5:1 (and subsequently returned), Samuel started making his judging circuit (1 Sam 7:15-17). (Lexham Bible Dictionary). Perhaps, the view was that even a semi-temporary place like the tabernacle was too much of a target, so a wandering judge would be better.

Step 4

The Law in Israel:

The concept of law in Israel goes beyond the idea of Torah, which appears to be the entire narrative of the giving of the law from Genesis to Deuteronomy. Within the narrative of law giving, there are commandments which Israel must follow. That said, Deuteronomy uses many different words for law, such as commandments, statutes, ordinances, cases (in LXX Greek, the word for case is πρόσταγμα, it actually refers to a command – see Genesis etc.

4.a – Create a list of words regarding law in Deuteronomy, beginning with the words immediately listed above, and adding any I have overlooked. Using the words above in English, or those transliterated below from Hebrew into in English, ask, “Are there differences between the words (consider, for instance, if torah is the overall story made up of huqqim and mishpatim? See Torah.org which says the huqqim, are things we do and mishpatim are things we guard – check this. Does this make sense to you? They also say we do not know the reason of the huqqim, but we do know the reason for the misphatim)?”9 Commandments Statutes Ordinances Cases Rules Testimonies Charge Huqqim and mishpattim almost always occur together in their verses in Deuteronomy. The text never seems to clearly map out which “laws” go under each category, so I can understand the difficulty in trying to figure out the difference. What is a statute vs a commandment, ect.? It does appear that Torah is the overarching system of which all the other terms fall underneath its umbrella. I have heard the argument that the reason for huqqim is unknowable. I’ve always though this was a strange thing to say, particularly from an interpreter’s standpoint. I understand not knowing the meaning of something, but to say it is unknowable seems odd. I do think that the reason for all the laws are, to some extent, knowable. From a Christian perspective, they became even more knowable through the lens (light) of Christ.

3.b. Check JSTOR for Psalms of the Law by C Breen for more words regarding law (dabar – words, piqqudim as opposed to huqqim, mitsvah, imrah, edah. If he gives English equivalents, check all these words in Deuteronomy using an English concordance. For those who study Hebrew, you may study the words in a Hebrew concordance. Those who understand Koine Greek may want to look for the Greek equivalencies, if there are any).

Create a chart/table using the words (English/Hebrew/Greek – whichever you prefer) below outlining the different words for law in Deuteronomy:

Torah/ּתֹוָרה (Hebrew) – Nomos/νόμος (Greek) – (Deut. 1:5) – law (English)10

Hok/huqqim/ִּ֥קים ֻח (Hebrew) – dikaiwmata/ δικαιώματα (Greek) – (Deut. 4:8) –

rules/ordinances (English).

Mishpat/Mishpatim/ ִמְׁׁשָפִִ֖טים (Hebrew) – krimata/κρίματα (Greek) – (Deut. 4:8) –

regulations/commands (English).

Duet. 1:17 (2x) & 4:5 are examples where Hebrew uses Mishpatim, but Greek does not use κρίματα but rather κρίσις, meaning judgements.

Greek κρίματα is what I call a Δεκατέσσερα (fourteen in Greek) multiplication heptad. A word used fourteen times, which is seven times two. The use of words, phrases, syllables, etc. seven times is called a heptad. See Deut. 4:1, 4:8, 4:45, 5:1, 5:31, 6:1, 6:4, 6:20, 7:11, 8:11, 21:22, 26:16, 26:17, 32:41.

Edot/ֵעדּות (Hebrew) – marturion/ μαρτύριον (Greek)– Deuteronomy 4:45 – decrees, legal provisions, testimonies (English).11

Deut. 4:45 reminds the people that the laws were given to Israel as they were leaving Egypt. In the NRSV, Egypt appears forty-nine times in Deuteronomy, 50 in the Greek/Hebrew, as a reminder that the law is part of their worship of God as they leave Egypt.

Aside -- One of the reasons so many people see the date and writing Deuteronomy as a much later document, rooted in the late monarchy of Judah (Josiah’s reforms) and single temple tradition (this is a technical idea that the priesthood of Israel later establishes a single temple, in a single location, as a means of consolidating their religious power – see The Chronicles), is the similarity of language between Deut. 4:8 where hoqqim and mishpatim are found, and 1 Kings 5:11.

One does not need to assume that the similarity of language, by necessity, forces a late date upon Deuteronomy. One could argue that God is conditionally declaring to Solomon that God would fulfill through him the promise he made to David, that is, to establish his throne forever, on the basis of Solomon’s adherence to the law, as given by Moses. There is no need to bring Deuteronomy forward into the Monarchy. One can just as easily read the Monarchy back into the tradition of Deuteronomy.

Note the basic responsibilities of the people regarding law (read the references, make observations as prompted).

Obey the Law:

See notes below on Deuteronomy 4:23 (Shamar/ׁשמר [Hebrew]/ prosecho/προσέχω [Greek]) – keep watch, observe diligently, obey, take care. These are all ways Deuteronomy commands the people to obey the law. Do any patterns appear between words regarding obedience or observance with respect to specific legal words, such as commandments, ordinances, requirements, etc.? Meaning, do certain verbs for obedience/observance/keep/watch/etc. tend to appear with certain nouns describing the laws, decrees, ordinances, and so on? שׁמר (Shamar) is used almost always in conjunction with the huqqim and mishpatim. The same word appears in connection with several of the other law words that are found throughout Deuteronomy. Another word that appears is יִרְאָה֙ (fear the Lord), which regularly appears alongside “commandments/testimonies”. There also seems to be a difference between “keeping” and “doing” (Dt. 4:6). It is two different words, but I’m not quite sure what the difference is.

Show Loyalty to God (Love/Remembrance) by obeying the law:

Love God: One shows love to God by obeying the law – this is covenant loyalty. If you have a Hebrew language background, complete a word study in Deuteronomy on ahab/ahabah/ַאֲהָבה . It is likely a synonym for Hesed. If you have a background in Greek, do the word study in Deuteronomy on ἀγαπάω. See Deut. 7:8-9, Deut. 11:1. ἀγαπάω is used 27 times in Deuteronomy, more than any other book in the OT except for Psalms. It is used both for a reason of obeying the Law, but also to describe God’s feelings towards the people. This intersects in DT. 10:18-19, where God loves the sojourner, and therefore the people ought to love the sojourner. This seems to be a microcosm of the entire concept: What God loves, they people should love.

By walking in his ways This phrase, or a variant of it, is used at least 11 times in Deuteronomy. It seems to refer to imitation. This response to the Law means looking at what the Lord does and copying him. This also aligns with what we see in Dt. 10:18-19 (see above).

And by fearing him (8:6). Fear is also used in Deuteronomy more than any other book in the OT except for Psalms. It isn’t always in connection with keeping the commandments. When it is used this way though, it is formative: obeying the law causes people to fear the Lord. And not just the Israelites, but the nations around them.

Do not forget God by failing to keep his commandments: see Deut. 8:11. The Hebrew for forget is ׁשכח (shakeh). The Greek is ἐπιλανθάνομαι, epilanthanomai. If you wish, you can do a concordance study of these words in Deuteronomy in either language, or in English, if you have not done so already. To love someone is to remember someone and to remember their wishes. Have you ever had your birthday, anniversary, or other important day or moment forgotten? How did it make you feel? Can you see how remembrance and love are important aspects of loyalty? This word (Hebrew) is, once again, used in Deuteronomy more than any other place in the OT (14 times) except the Psalms. In almost every case it is related to forgetting the Lord, and specifically how he brought them up out of Egypt. The exodus was the narrative backdrop to the entire Law, and so it makes sense that one of the purposes of the Law, or one of the responses, was meant to make the Israelite’s remember that moment. The purpose of this response is really summarized in Deuteronomy 8:19 “And if you forget the Lord your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I solemnly warn you today that you shall surely perish.”

Step 5 - The Legal Process/Judging/Investigating:

At the core of the legal system in Deuteronomy is fairness in jurisprudence (note Gary Hall’s commentary on this. He has a good discussion for Deut. 16:19ff. See also Leviticus 19:15ff).12 The word for judgment (mishpat) appears 38xs in Deuteronomy. The word for judging and verb for ordinances both. A decision is necessary in a legal matter. Note the following structures and texts. After reading and comparing the chapters and verses below, construct a narrative summary of the role of fairness in jurisprudence. What is fairness? What happens when Israel’s courts are fair/just? What happens when Israel’s courts are unfair/unjust? What does fairness/justice look like? What does injustice/unfairness look like?

1:16 – judge fairly/with righteousness (sedeq – appears seven times – perhaps a heptad – Deut. 1:16, 16:18, 16:20 [2], 25:15 [2], 33:19). If a heptad, why would this be important. Seven is a perfect number in Scripture and represents completeness. Using the word seven times places an emphasis on the desire for fair and righteous judgement. (Although it should be noted that the final usage in 33:19 refers more to proper sacrifices than legal justice).

1:16 -- Between your brothers, a man and his brother

1:16 -- and a man and his alien (gero).

1:17 – Do not show partiality in judgments (you must not recognize faces – You should hear out the small and the great. Some versions say foreigner – investigate by comparing versions).

You should not be terrified of or draw back from, the face of anyone (οὐ μὴ ὑποστείλῃ πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπου). The Greek is emphatic.13 In other words, don’t you dare draw back!!!

Because (ki clause) judgement is God’s alone (is this the use of lelohim hu?).

If the word (hadabar) is too hard for you, bring it to me (Moses) and I will hear it and command you what to do.

16:18 – they shall judge with:

Righteous Judgement (sedeq mishpat)

Not to divert (lo – tatteh) justice (mishpat)

Not to recognize faces (show favoritism – lo takkir)

You shall not take a bribe (16:19 – paranomasia (possible) – do not recognize faces in showing favoritism, nor be blinded to justice by bribes. Judges must not see, but also see).14

A bribe makes blind the eyes of the wise

A bribe misrepresents the words of the righteous (saddiqim)

16:20 -- Righteousness! Righteousness! (sedeq sedeq) You shall pursue!

That you may live

That you may take possession of the land (ha eretz) Yahweh your God is giving you.

Deut. 25:15 – You shall have only full (shelemah) and righteous (sedeq) weights and full (shelemah) and righteous (sedeq) measurements (lit. ephahs).

So that long may be your days (yom attah) on the ground (ha Adamah) Yahweh your God is giving you. Compare Deut. 16:20 to 25:15. Contrast with 4:26 where Moses declares they will not have many days. He is imploring this to change? I think the message in Deuteronomy 4:26 and also again in 30:18-19, bookends Deuteronomy with an ominous warning to the people about what will happen if they do not obey the Law. It ended up being prophetic, but was that originally Moses’ goal? Perhaps he knew it was wishful thinking that the people would obey. Nonetheless he had to try, and thus does implore them to change with passages like 16:20 and 25:15. The reality is though, in a sense, both came true. The Israelites did live in the land a long time (almost 1,000 years), probably far longer than they deserved, but ultimately were cast out and scattered, as was Dt. 4:26 prophesied.

Also, compare how the land of Israel is described and defined in chapter one, and compare to chapter 34 where Moses sees it before dying. In chapter 1 the land is described in Canaanite terms and descriptions, but in chapter 34 it is described in Israelite terms and descriptions. This indicates that the author recognized that the land had already been given into the hands of Israel by the Lord (even though they hadn’t entered it yet).

Inhabited Land by a particular people often represents form of purity and order, while chaos and impurity are found in foreign lands.15

How will a lack of justice in the land result in God’s curse upon the land. A lack of justice in the land would make the Israelite’s just like the people who had lived there previously. They themselves were cast out because of their unrighteousness and lack of justice. It’s interesting that immediately after commanding fair weights, the Lord reminds Israel of how the Amalekites treated them unjustly (by attacking the end of their caravan, an unjust war tactic). The Amalekites ended up being basically the only people group that the Lord demanded by totally blotted out. Summary of parts 1-4 after comparing the different verses: The Lord expect the people to live righteously, and that meant obeying the Law. From their righteous living, they could produce righteous judges who would judge justly, no matter the case. This was true whether the litigants were related, neighbors, or even foreigners. And it was especially true whether they were rich or poor (in the former case, the rich could potentially bribe the judges). This heightened sense of justice brought fairness to the land and differentiated the Israelite’s from the surrounding nations who were themselves unjust. The Amalekites were the prime example of this, and they were ultimately blotted out. Israel would not be immune from this punishment though if they did not practice justice and righteousness. It directly correlated with whether or not they would live long in the land, or ultimately be cast out of it. Them being “God’s chosen people” didn’t change this fact.

What is the role of witness in Deuteronomy? Using your English concordance, search the word witness. How many witnesses are required in a legal investigation? Why this number? Do a quick search of the “Witnesses in the Ancient Near East PDF,” and see what you find online. Are there any specific numbers of witnesses required among the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, etc.? That document seems to only mention that the Babylonians required three witnesses.

Note the texts especially where there are no eyewitnesses in Deuteronomy. What cases do God/Moses understand no witnesses may be present? What is the process in those cases? Two texts stand out: Dt. 21:1-9 and Dt. 22:25-27. The former is when a murdered man is found out in the open country where no witnesses would have seen the murder. In this case the nearest town is to take “responsibility” by washing their hands over a dead cow with running water and declare (witness?) that they did not kill the man. This absolves them of wrong doing. (Also this passage notes that the priests should kill the cow for ‘by their word every dispute and every assault shall be settled’). The second passage involves that of apparent rape of an engaged woman in the open country. Again, it is presumed that they are away from witnesses (so she cannot cry for help, or if she did, nobody heard her). This passage is unique in that it doesn’t seem to give leeway for proving false accusation against a man.

Who could serve as witnesses in the ANE? Does the Bible make any distinctions about what people (gender, social status, age, etc.) can serve as witnesses? Compared to the ANE, how would the Bible’s teaching on witness compare or contrast? What are your perceptions? The OT doesn’t seem to give distinction on who could or could not be a witness. Really the only requirement is that there be two or three of them. It seems obvious that women could be witnesses based on certain cases involving them (such as the rape cases). The fact that there is a prohibition on bribery for judges indicates that rich and poor people could also be witnesses (and that there was a temptation to ignore the poor witnesses).

What is the role of oath swearing in the legal process of Deuteronomy. Does it relate to witness? Oath swearing seems not only to be a covenantal process in Deuteronomy, but a legal process as well. Is oath swearing associated with witness in Deuteronomy? Sort of like placing one’s hand on a Bible. Consult Deuteronomy 32:40 – I lift my hand to heaven and solemnly swear. You might consider looking at the swearing of oaths in Acts and Hebrews as means of illustrating the idea with a New Testament perspective. See also Exodus 6:8 – I will give to you the land I have lifted up my hand to give you (I have sworn on oath to give you); See Exodus 6:6-7 under redemption.

There does seem to be a connection between swearing an oath and witness, but not strictly in a legal sense. It seems to be used in contexts where there is technically only one witness, but that witness is “enough”. Usually it is God. As Hebrews notes, since there is nobody greater for God to swear by than himself, He himself is the ultimate witness. So “raising his hand” is a recognition of this (and of course including other “witnesses” like heaven and earth). But in other places, like Genesis 14, Abraham also “raises his hand” and claims God as his witness to what he is saying. Since there evidently wasn’t anyone else around, God had to be the witness.

Note the texts here: Deuteronomy 19:15-20 are part of the foundation of the uniquely Israelite requirement for two or three witnesses in juridical matters. You will note with regard to Deuteronomy 4:26 and Deuteronomy 32:1, God himself fulfills the witness requirement and calls two unimpeachable witnesses to testify against Israel – heaven and earth. And they are not the only two witnesses in Deuteronomy that God will use! The chart below offers some structural comparisons for a potential inclusio regarding witness. If it is an inclusio, what would be the main idea?

Deuteronomy 4:26-16 – I shall call heaven and earth to witness against you …

4:26a -- you shall quickly perish (avad) from the land (ha eretz)

4:26b – you will not have many days but you will be destroyed to destruction (sha mad/sha mad).

4:23 -- Watch that you do not forget the covenant Yahweh cut

Shamar – to keep watch is a huge word for Deuteronomy and an especially important word in Deut. 4. The word occurs 76xs times in Deuteronomy – 8 of them, more than any other chapter, are in 4. Chapters 4-8 have a high concentration, along with Chapters 11-12 and 28. Keep (diligently), observe, be careful, watch, take care.

Deut. 7:12 is key – If you keep commandments – God will keep his covenant with you.

Shamar is also a word play with Shema. Listen and keep go hand in hand.

Note Exodus 6:9 where the people did not listen “Shemau” because of a lack of spirit (roeh) from forced labor.

Deut. 4:24 – For Yahweh is a burning fire, he is a jealous God – compare to 4:25 – idolatry is a key part of Deuteronomy!

Deuteronomy 32:1 – Moses sings and calls on heaven and earth to hear! They serve as witnesses.

If this is an inclusio on the meta nature of witnesses, it highlights that there are witnesses against the people from the beginning of the Law to the end. The Lord himself does not put himself above his own requirements. The people will never be able to claim ignorance and say “I didn’t know”, because the Lord, and the heavens and the earth all heard what he commanded to them. This is why when the prophesied events of Dt. 4:26ff came to pass hundreds of years later, it should not have come as a surprise to the people that they were going into captivity. God had warned them, and set witnesses for those warnings.

Side note: this concept of 2-3 witnesses being more than just humans is also important in the New Testament when it comes to the identity of Christ and the resurrection. All four Gospels illustrate a combination of witnesses that include: personal testimony of Christ, personal testimonies of eyewitnesses, and then miracles/nature (all three of these are demonstrated in the story of Jesus walking on water). Jesus himself acknowledges that his testimony alone is not valid, but that he has the testimony of the Father and the Spirit to back Him up. Matthew in particular also highlights the testimony of “nature” at the cross, with the darkened sky and the earthquake.

Step 6: Judgement/Verdict

The outcome of the judges judging is judgment. Guilt or innocence, followed by punishment/recompense. Blessing and Curse, as they relate to the covenant in Deuteronomy 28-29 also play a role in the basic legal system as well. First, reread the blessing and curse sections at the end of Deuteronomy. Then, using your handout on the ten commandments, choose a subsection to read for its laws (apodictic and casuistic). Try to determine how closely the penalties for legal violations in your subsection parallel the blessings and curses for the overall covenant.

What are some of the punishments in the judging process in your chosen subsection of Deuteronomy? Is there a taxonomy or hierarchy? Fines, death, exile/cast out, etc.? Note the cities of refuge (look up in concordance). There is no incarceration in Deuteronomy but the cities of refuge may play this role. What is the length of the term in the cases of cities of refugee? Subjection: Adultery In almost all cases of adultery the penalty is death of the offenders. If the adultery is mutual, both must die. If it is one sided (i.e. rape) the offender must die, but the victim may live. Certain exceptions occur: if the raped woman wasn’t “engaged” to another man, the man must marry her and never divorce her. Or, if a man suspects his wife of infidelity (the virgin test), and is wrong, he must pay a fine AND he’s never allowed to divorce her. Cities of Refuge: There were originally three cities of refuge, evenly split throughout the territory on the eastern side of the Jordan. Eventually another three were established in Israel Proper, making six total cities. There is not a set amount of time that the manslayer could stay in the city, however he was forced to stay in the city until the death of the High Priest. After that he could return to his own land. But if he ventured out before the death of the high priest he was at the mercy of the avenger of blood (Numbers 35). If the killer was actually malicious the elders were expected to take him out and let him be killed. It should also be noted that the spacing of the cities was very important. They needed to be near enough for anyone to be able to flee to them, but distant enough to give the angry avenger time to “cool off” (19:6).

Note the process for acquittal or a finding of innocence in your subsection. For instance, how does the law protect the reputation of a woman accused of immorality when the judge finds her innocent? Note how, in a case like this, a husband might try to work around the law. How does the law work to protect the innocent from extra-judicial retaliation after adjudication? Not all subsections discuss this. The “virgin test” and marrying a rapist may seem barbarian to modern ears, but a closer look actually shows protection for the women and deterrence of the crime. In the case of trying to accuse a wife of not being a virgin, the accuser faces a major gamble: if he’s wrong, he has to pay the fine AND he can never divorce her. If this is simply a case of marriage regret, he’s better off just divorcing her rather than shaming her (and possibly killing her in the worst case). In the case of the rape, this punishment may seem like it applies to the woman rather than the man, but on the contrary it also comes with a “no divorce” clause. Since rape is often a crime of passion, this would force men to seriously consider if they want to actually take care of this woman for the rest of their life. And in a culture where a raped woman was viewed with shame and unmarriable, this marriage would at least provide her with some protection.

Lastly, regardless of your subsection, study the blood avenger in Deuteronomy and his relationship to the law in Deuteronomy. Who is the blood avenger in Deuteronomy (Deut. 19:6, 19:12)? What role do they play? What is the relationship between the avenger of blood and God? Do they appear to be sanctioned by God or tolerated by God (see Deut. 32:43)? If you are able to do a Hebrew word study, note the word avenger in the NRSV is goel in Hebrew. The same word for redeemer – used of the kinsman redeemer in Ruth, etc. Is the word avenger appropriate? Is the word redeemer a better fit? Knowing it coincides with redeemer, does goel help us understand anything about the identity of the avenger of blood? Was it one person in a community? Or more likely a close relative of the murdered or killed person? Based on Detu. 32:43, it seems that the concept of an avenger of blood was an extension of the character of God in avenging the blood of his own people. Even though the role is never explicitly commanded, it does seem to be expected and tolerated. Even though it is the same word translated as “redeemer”, I don’t think they were the same thing. “Blood redeemer” does technically still fit concept - he is redeeming the blood of the fallen - but this seems to be more two sides of the same coin. The reason I think this is because the “avenger of blood” is also described with strong emotion and impulsive

Aside on Redemption – given the role of the avenger as possible redeemer, note the following about God in Exodus:

Exodus 6:6-7 (ֶֶׁ֫שֶפט) – shephet -- appears in O.T. only for God he executes judgements against Egypt, the nations, and Israel, for their idolatries, etc.):

I will bring you out (yatza -- yahtzah) from under forced labor (sib lot –long o) in Egypt and …

I will deliver you (nitzal – long e) from slavery (me abo da tam) and

I will redeem you (goel) with an outstretched arm and great punishments – ubishpattim – note the assonance and consonance with commandments – mishpattim and ubishpattim.

I will take you for me as a people (liy – for me) (le-am – as a people) (Exod. 6:7) (note later in Hosea where God says lo-ammi).

I will be your God

You will know that I, Yahweh your God, brought you out from forced labor in Egypt.