Appointing Judges

In a striking departure from prevailing notions of kingship in both the ancient Near East and early Israel, Deuteronomy introduces the separation of powers among distinct branches of government and subjects all political actors—including the monarch—to the rule of Torah. In effect, Deuteronomy provides a blueprint for the modern concept of the rule of law. These principles rest on an even more revolutionary idea: the establishment of an independent judiciary.

Moses revises the account of why he appointed judges to oversee the Israelites, and the way the wars with the Amorites of the Transjordan were conducted. Examining the changes uncovers the ideological stances that motivated this revisionist history.

Even before Israel receives laws at Sinai, Exodus tells how Jethro the Midianite advises Moses to establish judges, a unique origin story for the judicial system with no parallel in ancient Near Eastern law collections. Deuteronomy revises the story to credit Moses with this idea after the revelation at Horeb.

YHWH commissions Isaiah to distract the people of Judah so that they continue to sin and then YHWH can punish them harshly. In contrast to other biblical figures such as Abraham and Moses, Isaiah is silent at this injustice.

The books of Samuel and Kings portray monarchs—specifically, David, Solomon, and Ahab—as Israel’s chief judicial authority, hearing cases and dispensing justice. Deuteronomy, however, leaves the king out of its justice system, assigning authority instead to local elders and judges, or else to a central court. Does this system reflect how justice actually worked in ancient Israel—or an ideal meant to replace royal justice?

Who were the shoftim?

A study of Deuteronomy’s polemical revision of the Exodus 18 judges account.

Viewing the Divine as transcendent and without a physical presence in the world, the authors of Deuteronomy recast earlier stories to show that the Torah—and by extension God—is nonetheless “very close to you.”