A Study on Deuteronomy 17:14-20 : (an attempt to relate it's message to the problem of leadership today)

Abstract

In a world where social injustice has become a common feature, a question about leadership needs to be raised. We need to ask about what leadership really is, how does it account for social injustice practiced every where to day, what are it's s goals etc. These questions are important since leadership is indeed very much related to the condition of the world. We ourselves have witnessed how certain leadership brings evil while others bring justice and peace by the way they handle power. It is in this connection that a study on Deuteronomy 17:14- 20 becomes interesting. It is interesting because it is one of the passages in the Bible which speak about leadership, that is about the true leadership of the true people of God. And it is for this reason also that the study of this passage and its relevance to the problem of leadership to day become the main concern of this thesis. In our study of this passage we have come to a conclusion that this passage (except for verses 16b, 18-19) actually belongs to a literary unit, which has formed the earliest and basic form of Deuteronomy. This unit include chapters 5- 26, and the first part of chapter 28. Seen from the style and theological concepts of this unit, we might also conclude that this unit has come from a group of North Israelite prophets, who migrated to Judah at the time of the collapse of North Israel Kingdom. And that this unit was written for the purpose of revival movements in Judah and Jerusalem in the 6th century BC. It might because of this tragic end of this North Israel Kingdom that these authors took a very negative attitude towards kings, who had been Israel's leaders during this time. We see here, how kingship is seen not only as a foreign institution planted in Israel soil, but kings are also seen as the source of all evil which fails Israel from keeping up her image as God's chosen people. All activities undertook by kings are seen as king's way of influencing the people into being unfaithful towards Yahweh and His torah. Yet this does not necessarily mean that king’ship is rejected totally. Paranese regarding kings found in Deuteronomy 17: 14-20 shows clearly that these authors are very much conscious of the fact that kingship has come in order to stay much longer in Israel. Moreover, Deuteronomy 171 14-20 also shows that they are even conscious of the fact that kingship has found a very рrominent role in Israel's life. It is therefore important that in order to prevent Israel from being infaithful to Yahweh and from failure in keeping up his image as God's chosen people, the image and the role of Israel’s king needs to be reexamineded . It is in this connection that Deuteronomy 17:14-20 become very important. For here we find not only criticism directed against kingship but also a reformulation of the contemporary concept regarding king's place in Israel. The first thing we notice here is the fact that in this passage an Israel king is regarded not as the true leader of Israel. He is rather a shadow figure, a representative of the only true leader of Israel that is Yahweh Himself. This actually has several meanings, but here being a representative of Yahweh refers mostly to king's leadership, or rather to his way of governing. That is to say that as a representative of Yahweh, king's way of governing should always reflect his responsibility both towards Yahweh and also towards the people. This firstly means that through his leadership a king should load his people not into a denial of Yahweh as the true loader by taking over this place or by replacing Him with some other loader, but rather into an acknowledgement of Him by making His power, His leadership and His greatness known through king's own leadership. It is in this connection that king's effort in developing his military power and his intimacy with foreign power found through his allies and his foreign wives are criticized here. These activities are to be put to stop for they are regarded mostly as steps taken by the king towards the actual taking over of Yahweh's place as Israel's true leader. Being Yahweh's representative also means that a king is greatly responsible in carrying out Yahweh's plan for Israel A plan for a just and free society where every man has an equal standing socially and economically. It is for this reason that king' s economic policy, especially those connected with tax is also being criticized here. Tax system should be put to stop for it is regarded as a course of social injustice practiced in Israel. And social injustice itself is regarded as contrary to Yahweh's will for Israel. Since in Deuteronomy. (especially this earliest form of Deuteronomy) Yahweh is depicted as a God who is greatly concerned with the welfare of the people, and therefore always takes sides with the poor and the powerless in order to liberate them from oppression and bondage. An Israel king, as Yahweh's representative then, should also be concerned with the welfare of the people creating a just and free society where every man has an equal share of God' s blessing. This reformulation regarding king's place and role in Israel has lots to say to the problem of leadership today. Based on Deuteronomy 17:14-20, any leader of today should regard his position mostly as God 's representative on earth. This realization is very important in helping him to shape up his leadership, and to use his power with great responsibility both towards God and also towards the people. Only then could we expect a new world, a world free from social injustice where every man has an equal share of God's blessing. `In our study of this passage we have come to a conclusion that this passage (except for verses 16b, 18-19) actually be longs to a literary unit, which has formed the earliest and basic form of Deuteronomy. This unit include chapters 5- 26, and the first part of chapter 28. Seen from the style and theological concepts of this unit, we might also conclude that this unit has come from a group of North Israelite prophets, who migrated to Judah at the time of the collapse of North Israel Kingdom. And that this unit was written for the purpose of revival the movements in Judah and Jerusalem in the 6 century BC. It might because of this tragic end of this North Israel Kingdom that these authors took a very negative attitude towards kings, who had been Israel's leaders during this time. We see here, how kingship is seen not only as a foreign institution planted in Israel soil, but kings arc also seen as the source of all evil which fails Israel from keeping up her image as God's chosen people. All activities under- took by kings are seen as king's way of influencing the people into being unfaithful towards Yahweh and His torah. Yet this does not necessarily mean that king ‘ship is rejected totally. Paranese regarding kings found in Deuteronomy 17: 14-20 shows clearly that these authors are very much conscious of the fact that kingship has come in order to stay much longer in Israel. Moreover, Deuteronomy 171 14-20 also shows that they are even conscious of the fact that kingship has found a very prominent role in Israel's life. It is therefore important that in order to prevent Israel from being in faithful to Yahweh and from failure in keeping up his image as God's chosen people, the image and the role of Israelis king needs to be re-examined. It is in this connection that Deuteronomy 17:14-20 become very important. For here we find not only criticism directed against king- ship but also a reformulation of the contemporary concept regarding king's place in Israel. The first thing we notice here is the fact that in this passage an Israel king is regarded not as the true leader of Israel. He is rather a shadow figure, a representative of the only true leader of Israel that is Yahweh Himself. This actually has several meanings, but here being a representative of Yahweh refers mostly to king's leadership, or rather to his way of governing. That is to say that as a representative of Yahweh, king's way of governing should always reflect his responsibility both towards Yahweh and also towards the people. This firstly means that through his leadership a king should load his people not into a denial of Yahweh as the true loader by taking over this place or by replacing Him with some other loader, but rather into an acknowledgement of Him by making His power, His leadership and His greatness known through king's own leadership. It is in this connection that king's effort in developing his military power and his intimacy with foreign power found through his allies and his foreign wives are criticized here. These activities are to be put to stop for they are regarded mostly as steps taken by the king towards the actual taking over of Yahweh's place as Israel's true leader. Being Yahweh's representative also means that a king is greatly responsible in carrying out Yahweh's plan for Israel A plan for a just and free society where every man has an equal standing socially and economically. It is for this reason that king's economic policy, especially those connected with tax is also being criticized here. Tax system should be put to stop for it is regarded as a course of social injustice practiced in Israel. And social injustice itself is regarded as contrary to Yahweh's will for Island. Since in Deuteronomy. (Especially this earliest form of Deuteronomy) Yahweh is depicted as a God who is greatly concerned with the welfare of the people, and therefore always takes sides with the poor and the powerless in order to liberate them from oppression and bondage. An Israel king, as Yahweh's representative then, should also be concerned with the welfare of the people creating a just and free society where every man has an equal share of God's blessing. This reformulation regarding king's place and role in Israel has lots to say to the problem of leadership today. Based on Deuteronomy 17:14-20, any leader of today should regard his position mostly as God's representative on earth. This realization is very important in helping him to shape up his leadership, and to use his power with great responsibility both towards God and also towards the people. Only then could we expect a new world, a world free from social injustice where every man has an equal share of God' blessings.