Leadership in Israel: Priests and Prophets: After the two sections on “secular” leadership (the judge and the king 16:18–17:20), we now have two sections on the “spiritual” leadership provided by the priest and the prophet.
Priests and Levites
The responsibilities of the tribe of Levi were broadly twofold: the service of the sanctuary, especially the role of the priests at the altar; and the preservation and teaching of the law (cf. Lev. 10:11; Deut. 10:8; 33:10; 2 Chron. 15:3; 17:8f.; 35:3; Neh. 8:7–9). They also had judicial (17:9; 21:5) and military (20:2–4) duties. This law, however, is concerned with their rights in relation to the rest of the nation.
18:1–2 These verses restate the basic fact about the tribe of Levi as a whole, namely, that they did not have a territorial inheritance like the other tribes. There was to be no slice of the land that would be called “Levi,” as there would be for Judah, Ephraim, and the other tribes. However, they were provided with forty-eight cities scattered throughout all the tribes, with some surrounding pasture land (cf. Num. 35:1–8; Josh. 21). And they were to be supported by the gifts and offerings of the people, along with the portions of the sacrifices that were given to the priests (for details, cf. Num. 18, which is probably what the text refers back to in the expression, as he promised them). Because they were supported by what was actually given to the Lord, the expression is frequently used that the LORD is their inheritance. This was not a pious spiritualization of a life of ascetic poverty but a statement of the principle that they would receive the full material blessing of their inheritance to the extent that the people of Yahweh were faithful in their worship of him and in covenant commitment to one another.
What these verses stress, then, is that although the tribe of Levi had no landed inheritance, they most definitely did have an inheritance. They would live in the land, and they must benefit from it along with their brothers. Deuteronomy’s characteristic concern is for the unity of the nation, the sense of kinship solidarity, and the equality of sharing the blessings of the gift of the land. This concern, as applied to the Levites, has already been expressed and was clearly of considerable importance to Deuteronomy (cf. 12:12, 18f.; 14:27, 29; 16:11, 14). After these two verses of general introduction to the principle requirement, verses 3–5 apply it to the benefits to be enjoyed by the Levites who were priests, while verses 6–8 apply it to those Levites who lived in the scattered towns, but wished at some time to come and serve at the central sanctuary.
18:3–5 These verses summarize the shares that the priests received from the sacrifices and offerings of the people. Much fuller detail is given elsewhere (Lev. 7:28–36; Num. 18:8–32). As so often, Deuteronomy is concerned not to repeat detailed legislation but to underline the theological and social point of it. Verse 5, therefore, motivates the command to treat the Levites with generosity by referring to their status and task. The LORD your God has chosen them . . . out of all your tribes. Interestingly, this describes the Levites in terms that verbally echo God’s choice of Israel as a whole out of all the nations (cf. 7:6). The implication is that the Israelites should treat the Levites as God had treated Israel. The Levites function as “model” Israelites, both in their dependence (on the rest of the Israelites, as the Israelites in turn depended on God) and in their benefits (from the rest of the Israelites, as the Israelites in turn were blessed by God).
18:6–8 Levites were scattered throughout the territories of the tribes of Israel. Some would have been able to work as priests or in assisting roles at the central sanctuary, wherever it was situated (from the time of David on, it was in Jerusalem; cf. additional notes on 12:5 for a discussion of the place of Israel’s worship). Their teaching role could have been exercised anywhere. These verses continue to be concerned for the preservation of the Levites’ benefits and for the same equality within the tribe as between tribes. If a Levite chose to leave his country town and move to the central sanctuary and serve there, then he was to receive the same share in the same benefits as the Levites already there. The main point of the law is thus verse 8, not verse 7, which should be included among the conditions that begin in verse 6 (see additional note). The translation, He is to share equally, conceals the point that the Hebrew verb is “to eat” (lit. “portion like portion [i.e., equal portions] they shall eat”). As we have seen elsewhere, Deuteronomy rejoices that the good land will enable God’s people to “eat and be satisfied” (e.g., 8:10ff.) and urges that proper provision be made to enable even the poorest to do so (14:28f.). Here is another law concerned with eating—this time with the equal rights of all Levites to the food benefits of the sanctuary.
The NT never calls those who serve the church in its leadership “priests.” Priesthood is applied only to either Christ (Heb. 7, etc.), or the whole community of believers (1 Pet. 2:9, echoing the same collective use in Exod. 19:4–6). Nevertheless, some reflections on the position of the Levites are relevant to Christian ministry. First of all, it was a bold stroke that consigned Israel’s priestly tribe to landlessness. This meant that Israel was not meant to be a nation in which a clerical hierarchy could wield economic power (and all its derivative forms of social influence) as an exploitative, land-owning elite. In this way Israel was remarkably different from surrounding societies. In Egypt, for example, the temples and priests were major landholders. But in Israel, the priesthood of Yahweh the liberator was not to be a tool of religiously sanetioned oppression. In the history of the Christian church, somehow the “clergy” sadly forgot this aspect of its biblical roots and pursued economic wealth and power, while reintroducing sacerdotal aspects of OT priesthood that it was meant to have shed in the light of the sacrifice of Christ.
But secondly, the landlessness of Israel’s priestly tribe was not intended to impoverish them. They would be dependent, indeed. But dependence on an obedient people should have meant perfectly adequate provision for their material needs, just as Israel’s dependence on their faithful God would include full provision. The principle that those who serve God and teach God’s people should be fully provided for by God’s people is emphatically reapplied in the NT. Galatians 6:6 applies it to Christian teachers (cf. 1 Tim. 5:17f.). Paul actually makes reference to OT priestly dues, along with many other supporting arguments (including another Deuteronomic law, 25:4, and a command of Christ), in establishing the responsibility of Christian churches to provide for the material needs of those who work for the cause of the Gospel (1 Cor. 9:13). Paul had freely chosen to waive this right in his own personal case, but he explicitly makes himself an exception to the principle he insists on for others. Unfortunately, some Christian organizations have turned Paul’s exception, rather than his rule, into a policy imposed on their workers. But in view of the teaching of both OT and NT, churches or other Christian groups that fail to pay their workers adequate living wages are not “living by faith,” but are simply living in disobedience.
The Prophet
The prophet comes last in the listing of Israel’s different leadership roles. Almost certainly this is deliberate and significant, like the putting of the judge before the king. Maintaining justice was a higher priority than having a dynastic monarchy. Judge and king must both submit to the law of God, just as the priest must faithfully teach it. But what if those entrusted with such forms of leadership were themselves to go astray? Then the last word was God’s. And God would put that word in the mouth of God’s prophet.
18:9–13 To prepare the way for the section on the role of the prophet, Deuteronomy first outlines some of the pagan practices by which the Canaanites looked for answers to the riddles of life and the future. They are lumped together as the detestable ways of the nations and headed by the horrific rite of child-sacrifice (cf. 12:31), which was not a divinatory rite, but sets the tone for the way the following practices were to be viewed. It is a universal human desire to know the unknown, to have some preview of the future, to get guidance for decisions, to exercise control over others, to harm others and ward off the harm others may aim at oneself. Alienated from the living God, humans devise the dark arts of verses 10b–11 for such purposes. Their effect is usually to compound the fear that led to their being practiced in the first place. The list of practices here is comprehensive and not at all out-of-date, since all these forms of occult, magic, and spiritism are still widespread today. And we must assume that, given the consistency of God, they are just as detestable to the LORD now as they were then. That they should be put in the same “detestable” category as child-sacrifice is an interesting window on biblical values. God knows there are more things that destroy human life and dignity than physical fire. The same severe moral assessment of the occult is implied in the statement that because of these practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations (v. 12), which is a reminder of the moral context in which the OT sets the conquest (cf. Lev. 18:24–28, 20:22f.). By contrast, Israel was called to be different, distinctive, blameless (cf. Lev. 18:3–5).
18:14–19 But as for you . . . : the contrast is immense and stark. From the foul fog and darkness of occultism to the clarity and authority of the prophetic word; from the futility of human attempts to penetrate the confusions of alienation from God’s will and purpose to the direct communication of God, on God’s own initiative—God will raise up for you a prophet. At the same time, by recalling the request of the people at Mt. Sinai (vv. 16f., This is what you asked of the LORD), Moses makes the people responsible on one level for the gift of prophets. The verse obviously recalls 5:22–29, when the people had been afraid to hear the voice of God so directly. They had accepted, however, the mediatorial role of Moses. Here, God promises to extend that role by raising up a prophet like Moses, to continue bringing God’s word.
These verses are of great importance in understanding the nature of true prophecy. Four points are significant. First, true prophecy would be a matter of God’s initiative (vv. 15, 18). Prophecy was neither for self-appointed egoists nor for a self-perpetuating mantic guild. It was God who wanted to do the speaking, God who had guidance and laws to give, God who would address God’s own people with words of warning and encouragement. Prophecy, unlike all the divinatory arts aforementioned, would not be what humans could discover, but what God would reveal.
Secondly, true prophecy would follow God’s model, namely Moses himself (a prophet like me [v. 15], a prophet like you [v. 18]). The immediate context speaks of Moses’ role as the mediator of God’s word and will, and that would certainly be the hallmark of all true prophets to come. But further reflection suggests other ways in which Moses was the model and criterion for true prophecy. He had a distinct experience of God’s call, for which he felt great inadequacy. He was sent into a specific situation of need and crisis, within which he had to address the challenging word of God both to God’s own people and to the political authorities. He predicted events beforehand and interpreted them afterwards. He gave to Israel the foundational theological and ethical constitution that undergirded the message of centuries of later prophets. He was faithful in intercession and passionate concern for the good of his people, as well as in declaring God’s specific judgments. He suffered with and for his people and finally died without seeing the full fruition of his life’s mission. In these respects he not only set a model for subsequent true prophets, but, given that no OT prophet was really “like” him (cf. 34:10–12), he also prefigured the one prophet who was not only like him (cf. Acts 3:22ff.) but indeed surpassed him as a son surpasses a servant (cf. Heb. 3:2–6).
Thirdly, the true prophet would speak God’s message. I will put my words in his mouth; this is as direct a statement of the link between God’s word and the prophets’ words as could be made (cf. 2 Pet. 1:20f.). Only by divine initiative could God’s words be expressed through a human mouth, even reluctantly, as in the case of Balaam (Num. 22:28; 23:5, 12, 16). But the fact that they could is the presupposition that lies behind every “Thus says the LORD” (cf. Isa. 6:5–7; Ezek. 2:9–3:4; Jer.1:9; 5:14).
Fourthly, the true prophet carried God’s authority, for he or she would speak my words . . . in my name (v. 19). Therefore, those who heard the prophet heard God; whatever response they made to the prophet they made to God, and they would take the consequences.
18:20–22 All the marks of true prophets have been stated; now the danger of false prophets have to be faced. Two kinds of falsehood are defined. First, anyone who spoke in the name of other gods (v. 20b) would be easily recognizable as a serious violator of the covenant and would be severely punished (cf. 13:1–5). But second, and this threat is much more insidious, the person who claimed to speak in the name of Yahweh but whose words were his own, not the Lord’s (v. 20a), was a false prophet. Verse 22 sets up a single criterion: fulfillment. A prophet whose words did not come true had not spoken God’s message. This shows that prediction, although not the only or main aspect of the prophetic message, was an expected means of establishing a prophet’s credentials. But it is very significant that the test is framed negatively. It cannot be reversed to imply that if a prophet’s prediction came true he was therefore necessarily a true prophet for that reason alone. Chapter 13:1f. shows very clearly that false prophets could produce remarkable predictions, signs, and wonders—and still lead the people astray. Thus, nonfulfillment would prove falsehood, but fulfillment could not by itself prove authenticity—an important caution when assessing remarkable apparent feats of clairvoyance and prediction in any age, including our own.
How else, then, could people distinguish true from false? They could hardly “wait and see” every time a prophet opened his mouth. And how long were they to wait? If, as in the case of Jeremiah, the prediction was the ultimate destruction of Jerusalem, were they to respond to his message only after his prediction came true—by which time it would be too late? This was in fact part of the terrible dilemma that Jeremiah faced. The one thing that would have established beyond all doubt his credentials before a people who rejected and disbelieved him was the one thing he least wanted to happen. Clearly people should have been able to recognize his truth and reject the falsehood of other prophets on grounds other than fulfillment alone.
Our text provides another clue to the distinction, even though it is not included in the “test” verses at the end. The prophet whom God would raise up would be like Moses. This was a qualitative criterion. There was some standard by which to measure the moral and spiritual credentials of prophets. Those who pandered to the nation’s wickedness were not “like Moses.” Those who posed no challenge to oppressive government were not “like Moses.” Those who were immoral in their own lives, or self-seeking in their ambitions, were not “like Moses.” It was on these grounds that Jeremiah actually attacked the false prophets of his own generation (cf. Jer. 23). In the NT, prophets were subject to testing (cf. 1 Cor. 14:29–32). In our age, when we are faced with the multiplication of prophetic cults and sects, the adulation of people with “prophetic ministries,” and the proliferation of all kinds of “miracle” attested claims on our attention by the purveyors of consumer religion, ordinary Christians could be excused for being as confused as the contemporaries of Jeremiah, were it not for the fact that we possess far richer resources for exercising discrimination: the whole canon of Scripture and the teaching and example of one “greater than Moses.”
Additional Notes
18:1 The priests, who are Levites—indeed the whole tribe of Levi: There has been much critical debate as to the history of the priesthood in Israel and its precise relation to the tribe of Levi. One view claims that people struggled over membership in the priesthood, as membership prerequisites changed. At first, members of any tribe could become priests, then a potential priest needed to be a Levite, and finally, priests needed to come from the family of Aaron. On this view, the present law in Deut. represents a stage in that struggle, when all Levites could be priests, and Levites were granted equal rights to the benefits of the central sanctuary. Deuteronomy, on this view, held no distinction between priests and common Levites; this distinction was only clearly articulated by Ρ (cf. Driver, Deuteronomy, pp. 213–21). This view is clearly at variance with the Pentateuchal presentation of the origins of the Levitical priesthood and the special role of Aaron and his descendants. For surveys of the reconstruction, see Rehm, “Levites and Priests,” and Hubbard, “Priests and Levites.”
Much of the debate has centered on the precise syntax of the opening words of 18:1, “the priests, the Levites, the whole tribe of Levi.” Those who follow the view that for Deut. all Levites were (or potentially could be) priests, argue that all three phrases are synonymous and that Deut. was unaware of any distinction within the tribe of Levi between those who were priests at the altar and those who had other duties in the care of the sanctuary (e.g., Emerton, “Priests”). In my view, it is preferable to regard the last phrase as inclusive of, but wider than, the combined first two. That is, “the priests (the limited family of Aaronids within the tribe), the Levites (a wider group of sanctuary servants), indeed the whole tribe of Levi (including its scattered members who had no direct connection with the sanctuary).” (For this view see G. E. Wright, “Levites.”) More recently, the view seems to be prevailing that Deut. was aware of a distinction within the tribe of Levi and did not simply use “priest” and “Levite” synonymously. See, Abba, “Priests,” and McConville, “Priests and Levites.”
McConville makes a strong case for rejecting the idea that Deut. 18:1–8 can be seen as a precise piece of legislation whose intention was to effect a change in the position of the Levites and thus as evidence for a specific historical development in Israel’s priesthood, dated to the seventh-century reform of Josiah. Deuteronomy was fully aware of distinctions between altar priests and other Levites, but its purpose was to present the claims of the whole tribe in relation to the kinship and equality of all the tribes of Israel as regards their inheritance (Law and Theology, pp. 124–53).
18:6–8 In all earnestness, v. 6: This is a possible interpretation of the phrase, lit. “with all the desire of his soul.” The identical phrase is found in 12:15, where it means “as much [meat] as you want.” So it could mean “whenever he likes”; cf. NRSV, “and he may come whenever he wishes.” In other words, the option for Levites to come and serve at the central sanctuary was always open, and probably only temporary service was envisaged.
Money from the sale of family possessions, v. 8: This, like most of the other translations, is a guess at a very problematic phrase, lit. “besides his sellings according to the fathers.” It has usually been taken to mean some income the Levite has gained from the sale of his patrimony. However, this has never seemed very satisfactory, given the antipathy in Israel to the selling of family land, and the fact that Levites did not have tribal territory, but towns and some pasturage around them. There is some merit, therefore, in the suggestion of L. S. Wright that it has nothing to do with patrimonial land but should be translated “sellings according to ancient custom.” He suggests that the “sellings” refers to the sale of the carcasses of animals sacrificed as sin and guilt offerings, for which some money values were set (cf. Lev. 5:15, 18; 6:6), and that it was this priestly income from sacrifices that the priests refused to donate for the temple repairs (2 Kgs. 12:16; L. S. Wright, “MKR”).
It is no longer thought probable that vv. 6–8 are connected with Josiah’s program of destroying the rural sanctuaries and centralizing worship. It used to be thought that this law permits the redundant priests of those sanctuaries to come to Jerusalem, but they did not do so (2 Kgs. 23:9). However, the Deuteronomic text speaks of Levites in their towns, not of priests in sanctuaries. In any case, priests of rural high-places were deemed apostate by Josiah and would not have been brought to the temple. There is probably no link at all between 2 Kgs. 23:9 and Deut. 18:6–8. Cf. McConville, Law and Theology, pp. 132–35, and Mayes, Deuteronomy, p. 278f.
Furthermore, it is almost certainly a misreading of the syntax of vv. 6–8 to take v. 7 as the main clause, and thus to make the Levite’s coming to the central sanctuary the main thing legislated. Most probably, v. 8 should be taken as the main point of the whole sentence, taking v. 7 as the continuation of the “If . . . ” clauses from v. 6. The NIV, by translating he may minister, takes the law as a permission for Levites to minister at the central sanctuary. The more natural reading of the Hb. takes the law as assuming the right of ministry, but stipulating equal share in the material benefit—primarily food. Thus, the sense is, “If a Levite moves . . . and comes . . . and ministers . . . then he shall eat equal portions” (cf. NEB and REB). Cf. Duke, “The Portion of the Levite.”
18:15 On NT comparison of Jesus with Moses, cf. Moessner, “Luke 9:1–50.”
