Regularising and centralising worship is the theme of Deuteronomy chapter 12, and many see it as the key theme of the whole book. The book claims to be Moses’Äô fresh exposition of the Law already revealed at Sinai. The Israelites are about to enter into the land ’Äì into God’Äôs ’Äòrest’Äô (12:9) ’Äì and Moses exhorts them to be careful to keep the Lord’Äôs commandments. The repeated injunction to be careful to keep the Lord’Äôs decrees (10:12ff, 11:1, 11:13, 11:22, 12:1, 12:28) binds chapter 12 tightly to the earlier commands, warnings, blessings and curses. Moses reminds the Israelites of the ’Äúgreat things the Lord has done’Äù (11:7) rescuing them from Egypt and urges them repeatedly in view of God’Äôs mercy to be faithful to him so they may live long in the land the Lord is giving them.
In entering the land Israel must not only replace the existing inhabitants, but must completely destroy all pre-existing religious sites, eliminating all traces of the Canaanite religion. When they are living in the land, their promised ’Äòinheritance’Äô and ’Äòrest’Äô (12:10), they must be careful to worship the Lord exactly as he states ’Äì neither copying existing religious practices in the land, or continuing individualistic worship. They must go to the place the Lord chooses for his name, to sacrifice in his presence, and rejoice together there. The Lord intends to focus his presence among his people; they must draw near to him too in total allegiance.
Scholars differ interpreting several issues regarding the nature of the chosen place, the Lord’Äôs presence, motives for centralising worship and the repetitive style. Whether we assume this is an authentic record of Moses’Äô exposition, or something written during Josiah’Äôs or Hezekiah’Äôs reforms significantly affects some interpretations.
Does ’Äòthe place the Lord your God will choose’Äô (11) refer to only one place (Jerusalem), to a succession of places, or to any properly sanctified place? Interpreting this law as retrospective (written after entry into Canaan) some[1] assume this implies Jerusalem though it is never mentioned (though the Samaritan Pentateuch tries to imply Gerizim[2]). Alternatively verse 14 could mean sacrifices must be offered only at a place designated and properly consecrated by the Lord[3], as opposed to any ’Äòhigh place’Äô which people might regard as ’Äòholy’Äô or close to God[4] as the Canaanites did (12:2). But most scholars understand the place to be one place set by the Lord which moved from time to time, at the Lord’Äôs command. This fits Jeremiah’Äôs Shiloh-Jerusalem narrative (Jer 7) and is the most natural and linguistically likely reading[5]. Most important is the Lord’Äôs focussed and unique presence among his people, not the geographical location but the Lord’Äôs sovereignty over where he is worshipped, and Israel’Äôs total obedience and allegiance to him[6].
How is the Lord’Äôs presence at this place to be understood ’Äì is it real or merely symbolic? Von Rad[7] sees the use of ’Äòname’Äô as a protest against misunderstandings of the Lord’Äôs presence; God really lives in heaven and is not geographically restricted. Similarly Craigie[8] explains the dwelling of the ’Äòname’Äô as providing people with access to the Lord. Crucially important, the Lord’Äôs name replaces names of other gods’Äîthey are to be forgotten and the Lord alone worshipped[9]. However, for the Lord to put his name on this place is more than just a simple identifying of ownership of the place or even of Israel[10], for here the presence of the name is equivalent to the actual presence of the Lord. All Israel must approach his actual presence when they bring sacrifices, rejoicing in relationship with him[11].
Why should all acts of worship be centralised? Earlier expressions of the Law (in Exodus and Leviticus) assumed that the Passover and other cultic acts could be performed in a family context and it seems here Deuteronomy is changing the structure of worship. If we presume Deuteronomy was written late, in Hezekiah’Äôs or Josiah’Äôs time, then many political, economic, royal, moral and priestly motives for centralising can be imagined. The text itself claims the reason is to keep the Israelites from apostasy as they enter the land. Total allegiance to the Lord is required, in form and location as well as object of worship, protecting the people from syncretism leading to rejection of the Lord.
Mayes[12] suspects a royalist or political motive, suggesting that the notion of the Lord’Äôs sovereign choice was attached to Zion and the Davidic dynasty, so that possibly it is here being written back into the Law. Certainly the Lord’Äôs choice of her is crucial to Israel’Äôs identity, but it seems equally likely that the reverse logic is true ’Äì the Lord’Äôs specific choice of Zion is based on this passage which explains how he will choose a specific place to presence himself. Assuming Israel an Assyrian threat at the time Deuteronomy was written, Nelson[13] suggests economic and ideological motives for strengthening Jerusalem’Äôs importance to unify the nation against the enemy and in the face of falling revenue from a shrinking territory, the temple-centred tithes and sacrifices would supplement the tax system. Mayes also notes the link between ’Äúeveryone (doing) as he sees fit’Äù (8) and the DtrH account in Jg 17:6, 21:25 (commenting on the moral failures of Israelite society) suggesting a central sanctuary may have been intended to restrain wayward behaviour.
However Nelson admits this is ’Äúnot simply a royal or priestly power grab’Äù[14]. The context makes it clear that obeying the Lord’Äôs commands and regularly coming to worship in his presence would result in him blessing Israel politically (11:23), materially and economically (11:14). This would provide for the Levites and priests. There is no dichotomy between supernatural and ’Äònatural’Äô blessing: the Lord is structuring Israelite society for its own good. If they are devoted first to the Lord and his commands everything else will fit into place. Rejoicing as he blesses a faithful people (7) marks true worship in the Lord’Äôs presence.
But how far should this centralising law extend? Mayes[15] suggests that expiatory sacrifices ’Äì the sin and guilt offerings ’Äì are not mentioned in the list because they are foreign concepts to the Deuteronomist. But Nelson[16] downplays this omission, arguing that the lists are not intended to enumerate all sacrifices, so that with McConville[17] the list represents all offerings detailed in Leviticus. In any case, the Levitical description of the sin and guilt offerings already requires them to be performed at a central point chosen by the Lord’Äîthe Tent of Meeting (Lv 4:4), of which there was only one, and which became the tabernacle. The important point is that all worship and ritual should be performed in the Lord’Äôs presence, made tangible in a single place he would choose.
Why is there so much repetition in the centralisation law? Repetition can be seen as evidence of editing and the collection of several traditions, or as signs of early text with later development. So Mayes[18] assumes with many scholars that 13-19 represents the earliest form of this text; surrounding verses are later developments by royalists wanting to emphasise the ’Äòrest’Äô. But more likely it is simply an intentional didactic and rhetorical device[19], commonly used in the Law and not surprising in a verbal ’Äòexposition’Äô, to emphasise the importance of worshipping rightly in the Lord’Äôs presence.
The Lord demands total allegiance and shows his sovereign election, choosing one place at a time for his name to dwell. There all Israel must come to offer sacrifices, experiencing his presence as near as they might before Christ tore the temple curtain and rendered the sacrifices obsolete so that the Holy Spirit can dwell now in our hearts. Centralisation is intended to keep Israel faithful to the Lord and would have obvious economic and ideological benefits too. But despite its emphasis and repetition here, Israel generally neglected this law. The ’Äòhigh places’Äô multiplied as Israel turned from the Lord. So it is natural that centralisation featured strongly in later reforms.
Craigie, PC, The Book of Deuteronomy, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1976
Mayes, ADH, Deuteronomy, New Century Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1979
McConville, JG, Deuteronomy, Apollos Old Testament Commentary, Leicester: IVP 2002
Miller, PD, Deuteronomy, Interpretation, Louisville: John Knox 1994
Nelson, RD, Deuteronomy, The Old Testament Library series, Louisville: Westminster John Knox 2002
von Rad, G, Deuteronomy, Eng Trans, London: SCM 1966
Wright, CJH, Deuteronomy, New International Biblical Commentary, Peabody MA: Hendrikson 1996
[1] A view criticised by G von Rad, Deuteronomy, Eng Trans, London: SCM, 94
[2] JG McConville, Deuteronomy, Apollos Old Testament Commentary, Leicester: IVP, 211
[3] PC Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 217 and MH Segal, The Pentateuch: Its Composition and Authorship and Other Biblical Studies 1967 cited in Craigie
[4] PC Craigie, 216
[5] RD Nelson, Deuteronomy, The Old Testament Library series, Louisville: John Knox, 148
[6] PD Miller, Deuteronomy, Interpretation, Louisville: John Knox, 129, 131
[7] G von Rad, 90
[8] PC Craigie, 217
[9] PD Miller, 131
[10] ADH Mayes, Deuteronomy, New Century Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 224
[11] JG McConville, 223
[12] ADH Mayes, 223
[13] RD Nelson, 148
[14] RD Nelson, 149
[15] ADH Mayes, 225
[16] RD Nelson, 155
[17] JG McConville, 222
[18] ADH Mayes, 221
[19] RD Nelson, 151