Deuteronomy 12:1

Here we come to a major division in our study of Deuteronomy. Wright stated that Deuteronomy 12:1 "is the title of this section (Deuteronomy 12:12-28), and we do not encounter another major title until we come to Deuteronomy 29:1."[1] This strongly indicates that Moses considered this rather long section as a unit. Any orderly progression of the topics here considered is difficult to see, but, as Dummelow remarked: "As far as any orderly arrangement can be discovered, Deuteronomy 12-16 deals with strictly religious duties; Deuteronomy 17-20 is concerned with duties; and the rest of the section (Deuteronomy 21-28) discusses social and domestic regulations."[2]

As for what connection all this has with previous parts of Deuteronomy, Kline stated that, "It resumes that part of the mandate of conquest which required the obliteration of Canaanite cultic centers and installations (Deuteronomy 7:5,25; Exodus 23:24; 34:13)."[3]

Moses' application of the Law of God as previously given at Sinai is characterized by certain modifications and relaxations due to the changed circumstances which were about to be brought in by Israel's possession of the land. However, "The authority of the Sinaitic system, far from being set aside or in any way abrogated, is taken as the starting point for all that is here prescribed; and an accurate acquaintance with it on the part of the people is taken for granted."[4]

CRITICAL USE OF THIS CHAPTER

Of course, this chapter is the focal point of the critical attacks against Deuteronomy. The theory is that Moses had nothing to do with writing Deuteronomy; it was a forgery fraudulently passed off as Moses' book by priests of the eighth or ninth century B.C. who initiated a campaign to "eradicate the evils of syncretistic worship at the high places, which up until that time (in their view) was perfectly legitimate."[5] This theory is as irresponsible and complicated as any barrel of scorpions ever opened, but some of the features of it assert: (1) that the priests then hid this forgery in the temple and had it "discovered" during the reign of Josiah; and (2) that it was this book that really was the first of the Pentateuch! Note the very noble and commendable motives assigned to these unscrupulous, crooked priests. They were trying to purify God's worship! Did any bitter fountain ever send forth sweet waters? In the halls of criticism, it is only the bitter fountains that produce the sweet waters. The theory also is credited with establishing Jerusalem as the only place where God could be worshipped.

Now we simply don't have time or space to explore all of the ramifications of this crooked little fairy tale, but we shall include this excellent summary of a reputable and dependable scholar writing in 1979 and giving a few of the dozens of reasons why it is impossible to believe any of the allegations of this crooked theory:

(1) This passage, and indeed the whole Book of Deuteronomy, has not a single reference to "Jerusalem."

(2) The emphasis in Deuteronomy 12 is not on having only one place of worship, but upon purity of worship.

(3) There is no specific reference to worship at the high places (supposedly their chief concern).

(4) Deuteronomy assumes a plurality of altars.

(5) God specifically commanded that an altar be erected on Mount Ebal (Deuteronomy 27:1-8), NOT at Jerusalem.

(6) The view that God in any sense whatever ever approved of any syncretistic worship at the high places is nonsense. The minor prophets remove any question whatever about this. God never approved of His worship being mixed with the rites of the Canaanites.

(7) Contrary to critical opinion, there is visible in Deuteronomy no indication whatever that the author had any intention of "centralizing the cultus." Of course the critics need such an "intention," so they get it in Deuteronomy 12:5, where "the place" is mentioned! But can that mean there is only one place? NO! Look at Deuteronomy 23:16, where "the place" a slave may choose to live is mentioned. Subsequent references show that it simply means "any place" a slave may choose, and so the reference to "the place" God may choose to record His name means "any place" He may choose.[6]

"These are the statutes and the ordinances which ye shall observe to do in the land which Jehovah, the God of thy fathers, hath given thee to possess it, all the days that ye live upon the earth. Ye shall surely destroy all the places wherein the nations that ye shall dispossess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: and ye shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and burn their Asherim with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods; and ye shall destroy their name out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto Jehovah your God. But unto the place which Jehovah your God shall choose out of all your tribes, to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither shalt thou come; and thither shalt thou bring your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and the heave-offering of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill-offering, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flock: and there ye shall eat before Jehovah your God, and ye shall rejoice in all that ye put your hand unto, ye and your households, wherein Jehovah thy God hath blessed thee."

"High mountains ... hills ... under every green tree ..." (Deuteronomy 12:2). "The choice of such places for worship by most of the heathen nations was due to the widespread belief that men were closer to Deity in such places."[7] Also, the awe inspired by deep shade, as well as the privacy such places afforded, were probably other factors entering in to such choices.

"Ye shall not do so unto Jehovah your God ... (Deuteronomy 12:4). Keil says this means, "Ye shall not build altars and offer sacrifices in any place you choose."[8] Many scholars have pointed out the significant corollary that worshippers today should derive from these instructions. "The possession of our inheritance necessitates the most rigid dealing with idolatry."[9] "The idea that we may worship God any way we like is refuted here, for worship to be worship it must conform to God's wishes and instructions."[10] No more serious indictment against modern Christianity is possible than that which derives from "the traditions and teachings of men" which churches have adopted instead of and contrary to the doctrine of Christ (Matthew 15:9).

"But unto the place ... (Deuteronomy 12:5). Here is where the critics find all that nonsense about this meaning Jerusalem and nowhere else! God had already spoken on this subject, and all of the people already knew that God's name was recorded in many, many places. How could any people have followed the moveable tabernacle for forty years, giving the demonstration that God's name had been recorded in at least the "forty-two stations" of the wilderness wanderings! Moreover, there is the strongest statement in Exodus 20:24 on this subject, "In every place where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee." The obvious meaning of "the place" in this passage is "any place." (See the chapter introduction for more on this.) It is simply untrue that Deuteronomy here designated Jerusalem as the ONLY place to worship God. Harrison pointed out that Ebal, Shiloh, Shechem, etc, were other places where God had authorized His worship to be conducted.[11]

It was NEVER any part of God's intention that His Holy Name should be known and associated with only one place on earth! What a ridiculous assertion! "As God of the whole earth, wherever it might be necessary for the preservation and promotion of his kingdom, God could and did make his presence known."[12] Therefore, "to understand `the place which Jehovah shall choose' as relating exclusively to Jerusalem is a perfectly arbitrary assumption."[13] We might add that it is a totally false and unjustifiable assumption.