I would argue that Deut. 12 fights a battle on a domestic front against the worship of YHWH via divine images. However, it doesn’t begin that way. It instead begins with a focus upon the idols of the nations. In verses 2 and 3 we read these words:
2 םירהה לע םהיהלא תא םתא םישרי םתא רשא םיוגה םש ודבע רשא תומקמה לכ תא ןודבאת דבא
103
3 םתדבאו ןועדגת םהיהלא יליספו שאב ןופרשת םהירשאו םתבצמ תא םתרבשו םתחבזמ תא םתצתנו
אוהה םוקמה ןמ םםש תא
“2 You must demolish completely all the places where the nations whom you are about to dispossess served their gods, on the mountain heights, on the hills, and under every leafy tree. 3 Break down their altars, smash their pillars, burn their sacred poles with fire, and hew down the idols of their gods, and thus blot out their name from their places.”
So far, the text fights on what I refer to as the foreign front. However, verse 4 clearly turns toward the domestic front. There we read these words:
4 םכיהלא הוהיל ןכ ןושעת אל
“4 You shall not do so unto the LORD your God.”88
What exactly is Israel being told not to do here? Rather than commanding Israel to destroy the cultic locations and paraphernalia associated with YHWH, verse four is commanding Israel not to serve YHWH in the way that the Canaanites served (דבע) their gods. At the very least, two points can be drawn from verses 2 and 3 regarding the way in which the Canaanites did this. In the first, they served their gods at multiple locations (“on the mountain heights, on the hills, and under every leafy tree”). Secondly, they made use of idols. I would therefore argue that when verse 4 commands Israel not to “do so unto the LORD” they are commanded not to serve YHWH at multiple locations by means of idols.89 In other words, a constrast is being drawn between the way that the Canaanites served their gods and the way that Israel is meant to serve YHWH. While the Canaanites served their gods at multiple locations by means of idols, pillars and sacred poles, the Israelites are charged to
88 I have here chosen to use the AV which better reflects the literal Hebrew construction. 89 Here it should be noted that a distinction can be drawn between worshiping YHWH at one place and worshiping Yhwh at one place at a time. As Craigie points out, “though there was only one tabernacle, it would be moved from place to place; there would be many places over the course of time, but only one place at a time.” Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 217. Cf. Kitchen, “The Old Testament in Its Context, 6,” TSFB Bulletin, no. 64 (1972): 9-10 and Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1-21:9 (6A; Dallas: Word, 2001), 243. On the contrast between the plural “places” of worship with the singular “place” of the worship of YHWH see McConville,
104
serve their God at the place where YHWH would choose to put his name.90
Although the text makes clear that Israel will bring their offerings and sacrifices “in the presence of the LORD” (הוהי ינפל), as verses 7 and 18 indicate, it also makes clear that YHWH would not be present via idols like the gods of the nations. In place of a divine image, YHWH’s name would be there.91
This stands in stark contrast to the names of alien deities which could be “blotted out” by the destruction of their divine images.92
Therefore, although the chapter’s introduction is clearly fighting a battle on the foreign front, the chapter also fights on a domestic front.
The conclusion of the chapter works in the same way. In verses 29-30 we read:
29 םצראב תבשיו םתא תשריו ךינפמ םתוא תשרל המש אב התא רשא םיוגה תא ךיהלא הוהי תירכי יכ
90 For a fuller discussion of this contrast see McConville, Deuteronomy, 219-220. 91
In critique of earlier discussions on a Deuteronomic “name theology” in the text of Deut. 12 (e.g. von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy (London: SCM Pr, 1953), 38-39 and Weinfeld,
Deuteronomy 1-11, 192-196), McConville argues that “The present text is not directly concerned with
conceiving the nature of God’s presence, and it is wrongly used in pursuit of such arguments.” McConville, Deuteronomy, 221. I would agree that this is not a direct concern of the text and I am not attempting to draw wider conclusions regarding “Deuteronomic name theology” and Israelite aniconism (though on this seeMettinger, “Israelite Aniconism: Developments and Origins,” 175-178; Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies (Lund: Gleerup, 1982), 38-79, 54-55). McConville is arguing here against the idea of a “name theology” which is assumed to assert that Yahweh himself does not dwell in the sanctuary, but only in heaven, the “name” being a kind of hypostasis representing him. (On this Cf. Mayes, Deuteronomy, 224-225; Sommer, The Bodies of God, 62-63; Richter, The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology:
lesakken semô in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (318; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 53-63, 204-
207). However, the point that I am making here is that the text suggests that YHWH will be present at the place he will choose but he would not be present there via idols like the gods of the nations. This stands against the use of images in the worship of YHWH. On the antithesis between the presence of God at the sanctuary and the presence of alien deities at their places of worship see Mann,
Deuteronomy (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 108 and Christensen, Deuteronomy 1- 11 (6A; Dallas: Word, 1991), 265. For a fuller explanation of McConville’s position on the nature of
God’s presence in Deuteronomy which is set in contrast with idols see McConville and Millar, Time
and Place in Deuteronomy, 110-123; MacDonald, “The Literary Criticism and Rhetorical Logic of
Deuteronomy i-iv,” VT 56 (2006): 214-218; Wilson, Out of the Midst of the Fire: Divine Presence in
Deuteronomy (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 71.
92
Deut. 12:3. On the idea that “the use of the divine name here was a polemic reaction against all attempts to localize God’s being in some specific place or in some physical structure,” see Christensen, Deuteronomy 1-11, 244.
105
31 םיוגה ודבעי הכיא רמאל םהיהלאל שרדת ןפו ךינפמ םדמשה ירחא םהירחא שקנת ןפ ךל רמשה
ינא םג ןכ השעאו םהיהלא תא הלאה
“29 When the LORD your God has cut off before you the nations whom you are about to enter to dispossess them, when you have dispossessed them and live in their land, 30 take care that you are not ensnared into imitating them, after they have been destroyed before you: do not inquire concerning their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations worship their gods? I also want to do the same.’”
As in the introduction, the chapter’s conclusion begins with the battle on the foreign front. Thus Mayes is surely correct when he connects these verses with the following chapter and writes, “The common concern here is with the problem of apostasy.”93
I would agree with the idea that the text is concerned with the possibility that the people of Israel might be enticed into serving the gods of the nations. In other words, I would agree that a battle is being fought on the foreign front.
However, the text immediately turns to the domestic front. In verse 31 we read,
30 םהינב תא םג יכ םהיהלאל ושע אנש רשא הוהי תבעות לכ יכ ךיהלא הוהיל ןכ השעת אל
םהיהלאל שאב ופרשי םהיתנב תאו
“31 You must not do the same for the LORD your God, because every abhorrent thing that the LORD hates they have done for their gods. They would even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods”
While the preceding verses deal squarely with what Mayes refers to as “apostasy,” this verse deals with the service of the right God in the wrong way. Like verse 4, the concern here is that Israel might serve YHWH in the ways that the Canaanites served their gods.
Therefore, both the introduction and conclusion of Deut. 12 identify certain aspects of Canaanite worship and then charge Israel not to serve YHWH in the same
93 Mayes, “Deuteronomy 4 and the Literary Criticism of Deuteronomy,” 230. Cf. Mann,
106
ways. One of the aspects which Israel is to avoid adopting is the use of divine images. For this reason, I would argue that Deut. 12 not only battles on a foreign front against alien deities and the divine images associated with them, but also on a domestic front against the worship of the God of Israel through divine images.