This is an excerpted and condensed version of the paper “By everyone and for everyone: The principles underlying ‘justice’ in Deuteronomy 16:18–20”, written by Albert J. Coetsee (Unit for Reformed Theology and the development of the SA society, Faculty of Theology, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa), 202 . The Text was edited by Joaquim Cardoso.
Biblical Text: Deuteronomy 16.18–20
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
18 You shall appoint judges and officials throughout your tribes,
in all your towns that the Lord your God is giving you,
and they shall render just decisions for the people.
19You must not distort justice;
you must not show partiality;
and you must not accept bribes,
or a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise
and subverts the cause of those who are in the right.
20Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue,
so that you may live and occupy the land
that the Lord your God is giving you.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Introduction
In Deuteronomy 16:18–20, Moses instructs the people of Israel to appoint judges and officials in their various towns upon entering the Promised Land.
Strikingly, not much is said about the qualifications of these judges and officials, or the method of their appointment. Rather, the passage is devoted to what these judges and officials were, and were not to do, and also what the community’s share in justice was to be.
In the same breath, the passage also contains principles specifying the community’s share in justice. Addressing the people of Israel and not the judges and officials per se, the principles the judges and officials were to embody are intertwined with what was expected of Israel with regard to their judges and officials, and justice in general.
The principles underlying justice in Deuteronomy
- 1.The appointment of judges and officials is the task of the whole community
- 2.Judges and officials are to judge fairly
- 3.The community should appoint judges and officials who are wise
- 4.The appointment of judges and officials is for the whole community
- 5.The pursuit of justice should be the aim of everyone
- 6.The blessing of the Lord ensues where justice prevails
The analysis of the literary, historical and canonical context of verses 18–20 confirms that the passage does not say much about the qualifications of the judges and officials, the method of their appointment or the practical detail of their job description.
There is ‘no attempt to regulate details of a judicial system’, as Lundbom (2013:520) puts it. Rather, the passage devotes its attention to the principles these judges and officials were to embody, and what was expected of Israel with regard to their judges and officials.
The emphasis falls on moral requirements rather than technical detail (Wright 1996:204).
This fits into the bigger aim and scheme of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy presents itself as three speeches by Moses on the plains of Moab to the second generation of Israelites who were on the brink of entering the Promised Land.
The aim of these speeches is to give the hearers a theological perspective on the past, and to exhort them to obey and serve the Lord wholeheartedly.
As such, the aim of Deuteronomy is to exhort, to motivate, and to change perceptions and conduct.
This explains why verses 18–20 is ‘homiletical’ (Lundbom 2013:525) in nature and provides ‘broad principles of judicial propriety that’ the judges and officials ‘are to follow’ (Tigay 1996:160).
This section of the article investigates what was expected of the community and its judges and officials when it comes to justice according to verses 18–20
The following six principles are deduced:
1.The appointment of judges and officials is the task of the whole community
Verse 18 starts with the exhortation: ‘You shall appoint judges and officials.’ Literally, the text reads: ‘Judges and officials you are to give to you.’ As supported elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, the combination of the verb give ( נָתַן ) with the prepositional pronoun connotes ‘to make/appoint a person(s) for a specific function or position’ (Grisanti in VanGemeren 1997.3:209; cf. Labuschagne in Jenni & Westermann 1997:785).
In the context of verse 18, the interpretation and translation of the verb as ‘appoint’ is fitting (cf. amongst others NRSV; ESV; NIV; New American Standard Bible [NASB]; New King James Version [NKJV]).
The appointment of these judges and officials is to be done by ‘you’ (singular).
As determined above in the discussion of the structure of the passage, verses 18–20 employs the second person singular throughout, indicating that Israel as a whole, namely as a corporate personality, is addressed.
In other words, the people were to appoint these judges and officials; it was the task of the community. Vogt (2006:210) correctly stresses that ‘the significance of this …
As scholars have indicated, this emphasis on the responsibility of the community is radical and revolutionary (McConville 2002:281; cf. Vogt 2006:209). Vogt (2006) fittingly states:
Throughout the ancient Near East, the king was responsible for the administration of justice, but Deuteronomy places this responsibility squarely in the hands of the community as a whole. (p. 211)
This principle stresses the community’s calling to be actively involved in the maintenance and pursuit of justice. Block (2012:399) fittingly refers to the passage as ‘a call for communal commitment to righteousness’.
Ensuring that justice prevails was not a task of a select few; it was the task of the community (cf. Block 2012:401).
The remainder of verse 18 stresses this fact. Two phrases suggest that the whole community was to be involved in the appointment of judges and officials:
- ‘in all your gates’:
- ‘according to your tribes’:
Both phrases imply that the responsibility for the maintenance of righteousness is distributed throughout the land. There is no absolutism in the sense of one region or city having exclusive (appointing) power, dictating who should be appointed (cf. Brueggemann 2001:179). Wright (1996) succinctly says in this regard:
At a basic level, the administration of justice in Israel was largely a matter of local people in every town judging themselves through local people elected or appointed for the purpose. (p. 204)
In sum, the first principle that can be deduced from verses 18–20 concerning justice is that the appointment of judges and officials is the task of the whole community.
2.Judges and officials are to judge fairly
The final words of verse 18 state the function of the judges and officials: ‘and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment’.
Linking on to the prescription of righteous judgement in verse 18, verse 19 gives three examples of what the appointed judges and officials were not to do.
Although the flow of the passage indicates that the people, too, were not to do these things (as indicated in the analysis of the structure of the passage above), the judges and officials are addressed in the first place.
In what follows, it is argued that the three negative practices that the judges and officials were not to do, strengthens and supports the positive description of their task as stated in verse 18: they were to judge the people fairly.
The three clauses prohibiting certain practices on the part of the judges and officials are introduced with the Hebrew adverb indicating negation ( לֹא ). What the judges and officials were not to do, are the following:
- Distorting justice:
- Showing partiality:
- Accepting a bribe:
Moving from Israel to their God, it is striking to note that his attributes include impartiality and the inability to take a bribe.
In a list of attributes that emphasise the Lord’s uniqueness, Deuteronomy 10:17–18 states that God is not partial and takes no bribe, but (fairly) executes justice for the fatherless and widow.
A similar list of divine attributes in 2 Chronicles 19:7 emphasises that there is no injustice, partiality or taking of bribes with the Lord.
Consequently, by not doing the practices prohibited in Deuteronomy 16:19, the judges and officials would be reflecting and imitating the character of their God.
Put together, the three negative practices that the judges and officials were not to do indicate that they were to judge fairly in everything.
They were to administer justice without any form of distortion, corruption, prejudice, favouritism, partiality, dishonesty or influence.
They were to reflect the character of the Lord by judging fairly. This is the second principle that can be deduced from this passage.
3.The community should appoint judges and officials who are wise
Verse 19’s elaboration on three practices that the judges and officials were not to do, indirectly reveal an attribute that should characterise every judge and official.
The verse states that the judges and officials were not to take bribes, for a bribe ‘blinds the eyes of the wise’ ( יְעַוֵּר֙ עֵינֵ֣י חֲכָמִ֔ים ).
Per implication, the judges and officials were to be wise ( חָכָם חָכָם ), ‘discerning/understanding’ ( בִּין ) and ‘reputable/experienced’ ( יָדַע ).
Consequently, the third principle that can be deduced from verses 18–20 concerning justice is that those appointed as judges and officials were:
to be wise, namely known for their intellectual and practical wisdom.
4.The appointment of judges and officials is for the whole community
The description of the task of the judges and officials makes it clear that their appointment was not an end in itself. Rather, their appointment was a means to a greater purpose.
Put differently: they were not appointed just for the sake of being appointed and their appointment was not merely a matter of status or power.
They were appointed for a specific task or function, and that was to judge people fairly.
They had the mandate to ensure that justice prevailed amongst the people.
The servanthood of the judges and officials is on the foreground.
Whilst the judges and officials undoubtedly had authority to fulfil their mandate, their authority was grounded on the ultimate Authority who commanded their appointment (Brueggemann 2001:179; cf. Craigie 1976:248; McConville 2002:282) and, per implication they were accountable before Him for their judgement.
Consequently, the fourth principle that can be deduced from the passage is that the appointment of judges and officials was for the community.
In order for Israel to be the people they were called to be, order, structure and justice was indispensable.
This the judges and officials were to serve them.
And, linking on the first principle deduced above, this faithful administration of justice was meant for the whole community.
5.The pursuit of justice should be the aim of everyone
The list of negative practices that the judges and officials were not to do is followed by the positive exhortation in verse 20:
‘Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue.’
The aim of both Israel and its office bearers should be when it comes to justice:
- all of them were to pursue righteousness (which includes justice), and righteousness alone (cf. Craigie 1976:248).
- All of them were to do what is right, fair and reasonable according to the Torah.
Consequently, the fifth principle that can be deduced from the passage is that the pursuit of justice should be the aim of everyone.
Justice is asked for throughout this passage and by everyone.
6.The blessing of the Lord ensues where justice prevails
The final words of verses 18–20 indicate what the result will be when Israel and its judges and officials pursue justice: ‘Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, ) you may live and occupy the land that the Lord your God is giving you’ (v. 20, [ so that ( לְמַ֤עַן author’s emphasis]).
These words link both ‘life’ and the inheritance of the Promised Land to the pursuit of justice. ‘Life’ in this context refers to ‘well-being or quality of life’ (Coetsee 2019:111), whilst the inheritance of the Promised Land includes the long-term retention thereof.
Viewed as a whole, verse 20b seems to refer to quality of life in the Promised Land for which a prerequisite is the pursuit of justice (cf. Tigay 1996:161).
These words, however, should not be understood mechanically. Read within the context of the whole of Deuteronomy, the passage does not state that if Israel merely pursues justice, they will automatically receive and retain the Promised Land. These words are addressed to a covenant community within the framework of the covenant made by their God. Moreover, these words are personal. The text says that the Lord is giving the Promised Land to them. He is actively at work with their inheritance and retention of the Promised Land.
Israel’s responsibility, as part of their covenantal relationship with the Lord, is covenantal loyalty, which is, amongst others, expressed by the pursuit of justice or, as indicated above, the more encompassing term righteousness. The Lord blesses the covenantal loyalty of Israel with quality of life in the Promised Land (cf. Wright 1996:205).
That the Lord blesses Israel’s pursuit of justice, is supported by various passages in the Hebrew Bible that emphasise that the Lord loves righteousness or justice, practices it and does not pervert justice (cf. Gn 18:25; Dt 32:4; Is 61:8; Ps 11:7; 33:5; 89:14; 99:4; Job 8:3; 32:14; 37:23; Dn 9:14, etc.).
Consequently, by pursuing justice, Israel and its judges and officials reflect the character of their God.
Taking all the above into consideration, the sixth principle that can be deduced from the passage is that the blessing of the Lord ensues where covenantal justice prevails.
Applying these principles to modern citizens and judiciaries
Deuteronomy 16:18–20 in no way addresses all aspects pertaining to the constitution, mandate, power and gatekeepers of a judiciary. The passage, for example, does not mention criminal jurisdiction or the detail thereof. Nor does the text address the modern day qualifications needed to serve as part of a judiciary. As could be expected, the concept of the separation of church and state as we have it today is absent in Deuteronomy 16:18–20 (cf. Lohfink 1993:339). These ‘gaps’ should be filled in a modern society with detailed and unambiguous criteria and legislation.
Deuteronomy 16:18–20 envisions the ideal situation where judges and officials are perfect, and the community’s conduct toward their judges and officials is exemplary.
Consequently, the passage is referred to by Block (2012:399) as the ‘utopian constitution of Israel’ (cf. Lohfink 1993:346).
To expect a modern day community to perfectly embody these principles, would therefore be naive.
Moreover, the fact that the passage commands the pursuit of justice by judges, officials and the community suggest that justice did not always prevail in Israel. In fact, the strong prohibition of certain practices in the passage suggests that judges and officials often misused their position and power, and that the people (especially the poor) suffered because of this.
In order to rectify and to prevent this, Deuteronomy provides the principles that judges, officials and the community were to strive for.
In other words, whilst Deuteronomy 16:18–20 paints the perfect picture, it does this knowing that whilst we do not live in an ideal world, a visualisation of this is necessary for people to know what they should strive for.
The principles of Deuteronomy 16:18–20 for modern citizens and judiciaries
The principles deduced in Deuteronomy 16:18–20 can be translated into the following for modern citizens and judiciaries:
- 1.The calling of citizens: Appoint judges who are wise and able
- 2.The calling of the judiciary: Judge fairly and serve all citizens
- 3.The calling of everyone: Pursue justice in everything
- 4.The result of pursuing justice: The blessing of the Lord will ensue
1.The calling of citizens: Appoint judges who are wise and able
Citizens are called to appoint those serving on the judiciary; it is primarily their task.
This implies that citizens should know who has the abilities (amongst others intellectual and practical wisdom) and willingness to serve in the various capacities of a judiciary, and elect them.
Whilst practical reasons make it impossible for each citizen to know the eligibility of each electee, and whilst it is fitting that a government body formally attend to their appointment, sustentation and accountability, the foundational calling of the citizens should not be outsourced:
as a corporate personality, citizens of a country are in some way to be actively involved in the appointment of those serving on the judiciary, and to hold them accountable via the appropriate channels.
2.The calling of the judiciary: Judge fairly and serve all citizens
The judiciary is called to judge all citizens fairly in everything, thereby serving all citizens.
Firstly, their judgement should be fair or correct. It should be based on a certain agreed upon benchmark (like a constitution), and measured against this standard. Any form of bias, prejudice, partiality, corruption, favouritism, or the like should be absent from their judgement.
Secondly, the judiciary should render fair judgement in all cases brought before them. In the modern context this would refer to fair judgement in both lower and higher courts, and in matters pertaining to civil and criminal law.
Thirdly, the fair judgement the judiciary is to render in everything is meant for everyone. It is for the poor and vulnerable as well as the wealthy and powerful. Finally, by judging all citizens fairly in everything, the judiciary will fulfil the primary reason for their appointment: to serve all citizens.
3.The calling of everyone: Pursue justice in everything
Whilst the rendering of fair and correct judgement is the calling of the judiciary, both the judiciary and the citizens are called to pursue justice in everything. Everyone should do what is right, fair and reasonable in every conceivable situation.
This not only implies that citizens are to purposefully strive to conduct themselves according to a certain standard but also that, they are to aid the judiciary by letting justice prevail as far as possible in their own circles.
Again, the definition of what is right, fair and reasonable should be based on and measured against a certain benchmark (e.g. a constitution).
4.The result of pursuing justice: The blessing of the Lord will ensue
Both citizens and the judiciary can expect the blessing of the Lord to ensue if justice prevails.
Of course, not all citizens will have a faith commitment to the God revealed in the book of Deuteronomy.
But those citizens and members of the judiciary that do, will follow their judicial calling with the knowledge that they are doing these things in obedience to the Lord, reflecting his character and gracefully expecting his blessing.
A.J.C. is the sole author of this research article.
References
Coetsee, A.J., 2019, ‘YHWH and Israel in terms of the concept of life in Deuteronomy’, Old Testament Essays 32(1), 101–126. https://doi.org/10.17159/2312-3621/2019/v32n1a7 [ Links ]
Flatto, D.C., 2018, ‘Constructing justice: The selective use of Scripture in formulating early Jewish accounts of the courts’, Harvard Theological Review 111(4), 488–515. https://doi.org/10.1017/S001781601800024X [ Links ]
O’Brien, M., 2008, ‘Deuteronomy 16:18–18.22: Meeting the challenge of towns and nations’, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309089208099254 [ Links ]
APPENDIX:
Reflecting on judicial progress and challenges in South Africa
As could be expected of a modern judiciary, South Africa has a number of different types of courts. By way of summary, the lower courts include the Magistrate’s courts (consisting of regional and district courts), whilst the higher courts include the High Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court. A little more than a quarter of a century ago in 1994, the Constitutional Court became the highest court in South Africa. As is made clear by its name, the Constitutional Court is founded on the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, and deals with relations between individuals, or institutions and the state. From 1994, all South African higher courts have constitutional jurisdiction, with the Constitutional Court ‘awarded exclusive jurisdiction on some constitutional matters’ (Venter 2020:174).
Since the introduction of the constitutional status of the judiciary in South Africa, remarkable progress has beenmade in South African judiciaries, but not without various challenges and setbacks (Venter 2020:172). These include political influence, veiled ideological motivations of government, attempts by government to interfere in the executive affairs of judiciary, explicit opposition to judicial restraints on government conduct, non-compliance of the state and ‘transformation’ (cf. Venter 2020:179–186). Thankfully, despite these various challenges, the Constitutional Court has survived these challenges ‘by consistently providing well-reasoned and accessible judgments’ (Venter 2020:194).
In my view one possibility of meeting these challenges is to (once more) emphasise the principles deduced from Deuteronomy 16:18–20 to the citizens and judiciary of South Africa. The citizens of the Republic of South Africa as a corporate personality should, in some way, be actively involved in the appointment of those serving on the judiciary. The judiciary should be reminded that they should judge all citizens fairly in everything and thereby serve the citizens. Both the judiciary and citizens should do what is right, fair and reasonable according to the constitution in every conceivable situation. The citizens and members of the judiciary that have a faith commitment to the God revealed in the book of Deuteronomy, can expect the blessing of the Lord to ensue, if justice prevails.
By doing all of this, the Rainbow Nation can ensure that justice is served by everyone and for everyone.
The author declares that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Contribution
This article therefore contributed to the discussion of the Old Testament in Africa. It argued that one possibility of meeting the challenges and setbacks of the South African judiciaries is to (once more) emphasise the principles deduced from Deuteronomy 16:18–20 to the country’s citizens and judiciaries. The (re)implementation of these principles by the Rainbow Nation could ensure that justice is served by everyone and for everyone
2.Judges and officials are to judge fairly
The final words of verse 18 state the function of the judges and officials: ‘and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment’. Whilst most English versions translate the conjunction linking these two sentences ( וְ … so that they shall render just decisions for the people.’
All the same, this clause makes it clear what the judges and officials were to do: they were to ‘render just decisions for the people’; literally ‘to judge the people with righteous judgment’ ( וְשָׁפְט֥וּ אֶת־הָעָ֖ם מִשְׁפַּט־צֶֽדֶק ). In fact, these are the only explicit words in the passage that elucidate their duties. Strikingly, Block (2012:403) indicates that although ‘judgment’ ( מִשְׁפָּט ) and ‘righteousness’ ( צֶ֫דֶק ) are frequently found together in the Hebrew Bible, the phrase ‘righteous judgment’ occurs only here.
The governing word in this phrase is righteous ( צֶ֫דֶק ), which seems to refer to what is ‘right’, ‘just’ (Brown et al. 1977:841.2), ‘correct’, ‘straight’ or ‘communally beneficial’ (Koch in Jenni & Westermann 1997:1046) according to some standard (Reimer in VanGemeren 1997.3:746). In the current context, ‘righteous judgment’ most probably refers to judgement which is ‘fair’ (Block 2012:403; Wright 1996:204) or ‘correct’ (cf. Lundbom 2013:521). The phrase seems to be comprehensive, referring to the execution of the task of the judges and officials in such a way that they are ‘scrupulously fair’ (Merrill 1994:258), providing ‘totally correct judgment’ (cf. Christensen 2001:363; Morrow 1995:171). Taking Deuteronomy as a whole, this type of judgement would be based on ‘covenantal standards as outlined in the Torah’ (Block 2012:403; cf. Vogt 2006:212).
Linking on to the prescription of righteous judgement in verse 18, verse 19 gives three examples of what the appointed judges and officials were not to do. Although the flow of the passage indicates that the people, too, were not to do these things (as indicated in the analysis of the structure of the passage above), the judges and officials are addressed in the first place. In what follows, it is argued that the three negative practices that the judges and officials were not to do, strengthens and supports the positive description of their task as stated in verse 18: they were to judge the people fairly.
The three clauses prohibiting certain practices on the part of the judges and officials are introduced with the Hebrew adverb indicating negation ( לֹא ). What the judges and officials were not to do, are the following:
- Distorting justice: literally, verse 19a prohibits the ‘turning’ ( hip’il of נָטָה ) of ‘judgement’ ( מִשְׁפָּט ), implying perverting or wresting justice (cf. Brown et al. 1977:641.1), turning aside anyone’s right in judgement (Gesenius & Tregelles 2003:546) or subverting justice (Hamilton VanGemeren 1997.3:92). The phrase is used a number of times in the Torah to prohibit the perversion of justice by siding with the many (Ex 23:2) or failing the poor, sojourner, fatherless or widow in their lawsuit (Ex 23:6; Dt 24:17; 27:19).
- Showing partiality: the phrase you must not show partiality in verse 19b literally prohibits ‘regarding’ or ‘recognising faces’ ( לֹ֥א תַכִּ֖יר פָּנִ֑ים ). The idiom refers to treating someone in a certain way because of his appearance; that is, who he or she is. Translating the phrase as ‘showing partiality’ is therefore fitting. Verse 19b exhorts the judges and officials to judge fairly without any form of bias, prejudice or favouritism. Although Lundbom (2013:523) is correct by indicating that this specific phrase is found only in Deuteronomy (1:17; 16:19) and Proverbs (24:23; 28:21), partiality is prohibited throughout the Hebrew Bible by means of various words or phrases. The Torah teaches that Israel was not to be partial to the poor man in his lawsuit (Ex 23:3) or defer the great (Lv 19:15), whilst the judges that Moses appointed in the wilderness are exhorted not to be partial in judgement (Dt 1:17). The Wisdom Literature reflects that it is not good to be partial to the wicked (Pr 18:5) or to show partiality at all (Pr 24:23; 28:21). One psalm (Ps 82:2) bemoans that Israel’s judges judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked.
- Accepting a bribe: Israel’s judges were not to accept bribes. Literally, they were not to ‘take’ ( לָקַח ) a ‘present’ or ‘gift’ ( שֹׁ֫חַד ), specifically a gift for which something is expected in return (Christensen 2001:363; Tigay 1996:161), namely a ‘bribe’ (cf. Grisanti & McCann in VanGemeren 1997.4:75–76). The last clause in verse 19 states why judges and officials were not to accept bribes: ‘for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of those who are in the right’. Whilst there is some debate about the interpretation of the final words, the meaning of the sentence is clear: Israel’s judges and officials were not to accept bribes, for a bribe would make the judges and officials biased. Moreover, those that will be able to manipulate the judiciary with bribes, are the wealthy and powerful, ensuing that the poor and vulnerable — precisely those in need of fair judgement- will suffer (Brueggemann 2001:180; cf. Craigie 1976:247; Lundbom 2013:523). Elsewhere in the Torah, the taking of bribes is explicitly prohibited (cf. Ex 23:8; Dt 27:25). The Wisdom Literature reflects on the wickedness of the practice (Pr 17:23; Ec 7:7; cf. Ps 15:5), whilst the prophets, unfortunately, accuse Israel of committing this crime repeatedly (Is 1:23; 5:23; 10:2; 33:15; Jr 5:28; Ezk 22:12; Mi 3:11; 7:3; Am 5:12; Ml 2:9).
Moving from Israel to their God, it is striking to note that his attributes include impartiality and the inability to take a bribe. In a list of attributes that emphasise the Lord’s uniqueness, Deuteronomy 10:17–18 states that God is not partial and takes no bribe, but (fairly) executes justice for the fatherless and widow. A similar list of divine attributes in 2 Chronicles 19:7 emphasises that there is no injustice, partiality or taking of bribes with the Lord. Consequently, by not doing the practices prohibited in Deuteronomy 16:19, the judges and officials would be reflecting and imitating the character of their God.
Put together, the three negative practices that the judges and officials were not to do indicate that they were to judge fairly in everything. They were to administer justice without any form of distortion, corruption, prejudice, favouritism, partiality, dishonesty or influence. They were to reflect the character of the Lord by judging fairly. This is the second principle that can be deduced from this passage.
