Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

LAW

Law is a reflection of the way in which society both views and administers itself through common agreement and forms of restraint. Legal pronouncement may be recognized in relation to those acts which “mobilize” a society to react at need to protect individuals or the state. The more serious the offense, the more likely society will create a body to enforce “correct” behavior and codify a set of specific legal restraints to deal with future occurrences.

Lawgivers in Western cultures like Greece and Rome began by identifying legal principles which people took for granted. Then they drafted specific laws to apply these principles to real-life situations. But there is still little evidence that the lawgivers in Eastern cultures like ancient Israel used a system of general legal principles which they consistently applied to specific situations in the great codes from the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Laws in the world of the Bible seldom described typical or average or even ideal behavior in Israel. In fact, average behavior may often have been at variance with these codes.

In the world of the Bible, the basis of law was not philosophy, but crisis. Lawgivers developed specific laws to deal with households which weakened or threatened the well-being of the state. Households did this when they failed to work their own land, feed their own children, and contribute to the cooperative efforts of the state to collect taxes and raise an army. One example of such a crisis is found in the story of Zelophehad’s daughters, who claim their father’s inheritance when no male heir is present (Num. 27:1-11). Their appeal required legal reasoning and deliberation which expanded previous tradition regarding levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5-10) in favor of a common sense solution benefiting a household and the community at large.

Lawgivers in the Bible do not teach us as much about how Israel thought, as they do about how Israel as a community worked. For example, laws in the Bible show how Israel reacted to a particular situation or crisis (e.g., the case of the unknown homicide in Deut. 21:1-9). They also reveal Israel’s basic assumptions about human nature, how Israel went about collecting evidence and using it to make legal decisions (cf. the use of the bridal sheets in Deut. 22:13-19). Finally, laws outline how Israel as a state distributed power (e.g., the admonition to judges in Exod. 23:6-8; cf. Deut. 16:18-20; 2 Sam. 15:1-4).

Law Codes

The scene in which Moses receives the law at Mt. Sinai centers on a renewal of the covenant Yahweh originally made with Abraham and then an extension of that agreement to include a more formal “treaty” with the Israelites known as the Decalogue or Ten Commandments. As part of these events, the rule of Moses as the supreme leader of the people is highlighted and enhanced. He alone speaks directly with God, and even his brother Aaron, who later serves as chief priest for the people, is portrayed as a weakling when Moses is absent (Exod. 32).

In Exod. 20:1-17 (and Deut. 5:6-21) the Decalogue is set forth in apodictic style. These are “command” laws, which do not require much explanation and do not contain the “If — Then” sequence more common in “case” law. They can be divided into two segments:

1. communal statutes, applying to the conduct of the entire nation, and

2. personal statutes, setting the code of conduct for each person.

These laws were common in other cultures and were designed to maintain order and protect the rights of property owners.

The remainder of the laws in Exodus, and those found in Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, are primarily “case” laws. In nearly every instance, they are extensions of the legal formulas presented in the Ten Commandments and are the result of judges or individuals asking the question “But what if?” about a particular legal phrase.

Since they were designed to regulate the life of the people, it was necessary for the laws to change as the social situation of the people changed. Thus the Covenant code of Exod. 20:23–23:19 and the Deuteronomic code of Deut. 12–26 demonstrate that the people could not be governed by laws meant only for nomadic herders when they had become farmers and urban dwellers. For example, the group of laws which relate to caring for the “poor” (including widows, orphans, and resident aliens) can be traced back to the commandments to honor parents, the prohibition against theft, and the injunction against coveting. However, these case laws each speak to a particular legal situation which required an expansion of the law so that it dealt more directly with the current concerns (cf. Lev. 19:9-10; 25:35-37; Deut. 15:1-2; 16:19). At the heart of this expansion is the exhortation to remember “where they came from.” The period of slavery in Egypt is continually referenced as the basis for legal restraint or legal guarantees (Deut. 5:15; 15:15; 16:12; 24:18).

Once the monarchy had ceased to exist and the priestly community became the guardians of the people’s commitment to Yahweh, the Holiness code of Lev. 17–26 was formulated. It is characterized by the statement, “You shall be holy; for I, Yahweh your God, am holy” (Lev. 19:2). This group of laws, coupled with other priestly legislation (Exod. 25–31; 35–40; Lev. 1–16, 27; Num. 1–10), places additional stress on maintaining holiness or ritual purity through obedience to the law. Among their major concerns are the provision for the prescribing of sacred space (temple precincts), as well as the major festival occasions and cultic procedures.

There are many similarities between the biblical law codes and those found elsewhere in the ancient Near East. The Code of Hammurabi (18th century b.c.e.) and the Assyrian law code (8th-7th centuries) contain many laws which are similar to those in the Bible. It seems likely that legal formulas were transmitted between cultures along with other ideas, customs, technologies, and styles. For instance, both Hammurabi’s code and biblical law contain the principle of lex talionis, “an eye for an eye.” This is based on the idea of complete reciprocity for loss or injury. However, the legal codes of the Israelites demanded full equality for all of the people, with no exceptions even for the king. In ancient Babylon, there was a multitiered social system in which citizens did not receive the same punishment as slaves for similar injuries. Another difference is found in the apparent harshness of Israelite law. There are many crimes in the various legal codes for which capital punishment is prescribed (Exod. 21:12, 17; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 13:5[MT 6]). However, Israelite law does not provide for any “loophole” which would allow the convicted parties to be released or to pay a fine, as is the case in the laws from Mesopotamia. This is due to the concept of “purity” which is inherent to biblical law (cf. esp. the Holiness code in Leviticus). If the society wished to remain pure, it could not take half measure in dealing with criminal behavior which would eventually contaminate the entire nation. Thus a prodigal son is to be stoned to death (Deut. 21:18-21) in order to “purge the evil from your midst,” and the leper must be excluded from society until certified by a priest as “clean” (Lev. 13).

Judicial System

In order to maintain order and administer the laws, there was more than one judicial system in ancient Israel. The judiciary included sanctuary courts, courts martial, gate courts, and the divine assembly. Each is a separate judicial system, and although they functioned contemporaneously, one did not review or appeal to the other except in extreme cases (Deut. 17:8-13).

Priests administered sanctuary courts according to a judicial system which involved divination, oracles, and the trial by ordeal (cf. Num. 5:11-31). The plaintiff came before the priest with a question to which the answer “Yes” or “No” could be given. The priest divined the answer or torah using techniques such as the Urim and Thummim (Exod. 28:30; Num. 27:21; 1 Sam. 14:41; 28:6; Ezra 2:63).

Sanctuary reform plays a prominent role in the book of Deuteronomy, which is regularly associated with the prophets. But Deuteronomy is more a royal than a prophetic reform. It is an effort on the part of Judah’s kings to centralize the tax and draft system in anticipation of imminent war. Deuteronomy focuses on centralizing the economic institutions, and it also centralizes the court martial system (Deut. 12–13). Deuteronomy does not try to remedy injustice by imposing a standardized system of justice throughout Judah and preventing local distinctions. Judah’s gate court institution remains decentralized, and in fact Deuteronomy argues that the legacy of Judah’s cities is primarily the legal tradition of the gate court, while the legacy of Jerusalem is liturgical.

The city gate antedated the monarchy and, in a certain sense, served as a rival center of power. Gates also had strong connections with feeding and protecting. Prophets associated themselves with the gate to emphasize their function in balancing the power of the monarchs, and used the gate to direct attention to the two standard issues by which the performance of a monarch was evaluated, food and protection. This helps explain Jeremiah’s execration ritual at the Potsherd Gate (Jer. 19:1-13) and the quick reprisal of the priest Pashur, placing Jeremiah in the stocks “in the upper Benjamin Gate” (20:2). Each was using a symbol of authority to heighten his own public posture.

In the Bible, prophets like any other citizen often stand at a gate to initiate their course of action (Jer. 7:1-2). But the venue of the trial is regularly transferred to the divine assembly, as in 1 Kgs. 22:1-40 where monarchs and prophets meet on the threshing floor at the city gate to discern whether or not the divine assembly has authorized Israel and Judah to go to war against Aram.

The divine assembly appears in the literatures of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Syria-Palestine. In the Bible it is analogous to the gate court. Both are judicial bodies made up of citizens who meet at a threshold to resolve a crisis. The gate court convenes at the gate of a city, which marks the boundary between the sanctuary within its walls and the outside world (cf. Ruth 4:1-6). The divine assembly meets on the mountain, which marks the boundary between the divine and human planes. Both the gate court and the divine assembly help resolve disputes involving land and children. Residents of a single city appear before the gate court, nations before the divine assembly when they conclude treaties.

Police Power

The application of law in the state differed from the application of law in the villages, even though both functioned alongside one another. The administration of law in the village was decentralized. In villages, the fathers of the household served as its elders or lawgivers (Ruth 4:2; Prov. 31:23). They derived their authority from their own households, and served as an assembly to safeguard the rights of villagers to food and protection. Assemblies enforced their verdicts through consensus or collective agreement. Cooperation between the households in a village did not result from fear of retribution, but from a shared understanding of what each household needed to do in order for the entire village to survive. A binding consensus was possible only when every household in the village understood who initiated the complaint, what the specific indictment involved, and how the defendant responded. Consequently, elders talked with plaintiffs and defendants until they all reached an agreement on how the matter should be resolved (Deut. 16:18-20; 19:16-20; 22:13-21).

In the state, the administration of law was centralized. The monarch was the lawgiver who appointed judges to hear cases throughout the state (cf. Jehoshaphat’s administration in 2 Chr. 19:4-11). The focus of village law was on the responsibility of the households to feed their members, whereas state law dealt primarily with its responsibility to protect the people. Laws dealing with incest, regulating marriage, and controlling inheritance, on the one hand, developed in villages. Laws dealing with taxes and military or public service, on the other, developed in the state. In the beginning state courts only heard complaints from households regarding their assessments and their obligation to conscript soldiers for the army (2 Sam. 15:2-4). Gradually, however, they heard cases involving all areas of public life (2 Sam. 21:2-9; 1 Kgs. 3:16-28).

State courts used police power, rather than consensus, to guarantee cooperation. A lawgiver heard the plaintiffs and then rendered a decision on the case. Since the decision was based on the judgment of a single lawgiver, there was a greater degree of judicial discretion which was not necessarily attuned to a broad consensus of opinion within the state as a whole (cf. David’s judgments in 2 Sam. 12:1-6; 14:2-11). While the decision might be based on precedent, the latitude of interpretation of the precedent is more open to variation.

The centerpiece in the anthropology of state law is its characterization of the monarch as a lawgiver. Art and literature which portray monarchs as lawgivers promulgating a code of law during their coronations have been recovered by archaeologists for more than one ancient Near Eastern culture. For example, some of the most exquisite characterizations of both Lipit-ishtar and Hammurabi of Babylon portray them as lawgivers.

Although certainly each new monarch made some changes in state laws, it is unlikely that every monarch authorized a major restructuring of standing codes of law. Monarchs promulgated a code more to ratify their authority than to inaugurate a sweeping judicial reform (cf. Josiah’s actions in 2 Kgs. 22:3–23:27). By doing so, monarchs imitated the actions of the divine assembly by endowing the people with a covenant or code of law by which life in the monarchy would be sustained. The ritual confirmed a monarch’s responsibility to maintain order in the state. Just as the Anunnaki gods confirm Marduk as the divine lawgiver in the Enuma Elish, the divine assembly recognized monarchs as lawgivers during their coronation (Pss. 72, 101).

Law in ancient Israel functioned as a means of identifying the people with the covenant, of maintaining social order, and insuring that the authority of the palace and temple was recognized and obeyed. Although its original formulation and administration had more to do with survival in a harsh and dangerous environment, law, like Israelite society, eventually became quite complex. As a result, legal formula became more ritualistic (as in the Holiness code) and legal pronouncements took on a rigid character which may have had more to do with the maintenance of social structures than the administration of justice.

Bibliography. D. C. Benjamin, Deuteronomy and City Life (Lanham, 1983); H.-J. Boecker, Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient East (Minneapolis, 1980); V. H. Matthews, “Entrance Ways and Threshing Floors: Legally Significant Sites in the Ancient Near East,” Fides et Historia 19/3 (1987:, 25-40; D. Patrick, Old Testament Law (Atlanta, 1985).

Victor H. Matthews

Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

LAW

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000)