Biblical Philosophy of Leadership with Special Reference to Deuteronomy

By Joseph Raj

A search for a philosophy of leadership has to begin with ontological and epistemological questions. The former deal with what leadership is and the latter is concerned with how one can know. Hence the first chapter engages in exploring the meaning, scope and nature of leadership through the methods of analyzing common words and metaphors of lea

• Language: English
• Publisher: hinasikandar
• Release date: Jan 13, 2023
• ISBN: 9781805455325

Book preview

BIBLICAL PHILOSOPHY OF LEADERSHIP: WITH

SPECIAL REFERENCE TO DEUTERONOMY

A. JOSEPH RAJ

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I

THE MEANING, SCOPE AND NATURE OF LEADERSHIP

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

CHAPTER III

ORIGINS OF LEADERSHIP PRACTICES IN DEUTERONOMY

CHAPTER IV

LEADERSHIP AND ITS CONTINGENCY ON

PEOPLE AND SITUATIONS IN DEUTERONOMY

CHAPTER V

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AND THEIR

INTEGRATED SYSTEMS IN DEUTERONOMY

CHAPTER VI

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AND

THE ETHICAL VALUES IN DEUTERONOMY

CHAPTER VII

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

iii

CHAPTER I

THE MEANING, SCOPE AND NATURE OF LEADERSHIP

Introduction

A search for a philosophy of leadership has to begin with ontological and epistemological questions. The former deal with what leadership is and the latter is concerned with how one can know. Hence the first chapter engages in exploring the meaning, scope and nature of leadership through the methods of analyzing common words and metaphors of leadership in the Old Testament, of which the Book of Deuteronomy is part. In addition, the research perspectives on the nature of leadership in the area of leadership studies are discussed to arrive at a more comprehensive understanding of the characteristics, and functions of leadership.

Analyzing Common Words and Metaphors of Leadership in the Old Testament

THE MEANING OF LEADERSHIP

Scholars exploring the meaning of leadership define leadership in many different ways, which only show the various attempts to understand the concept of leadership. However, there is no single definition arrived at so far by any theorist to describe what leadership means. This chapter will attempt to explore the meaning of leadership by doing lexical semantic analyses of the Hebrew words used in the Book of Deuteronomy to convey the sense of leadership and their synonyms. Following the analyses of the words, the images used in the Book of Deuteronomy to speak of leadership will be studied. Therefore, it is expected that both the words and images used to convey the sense of leadership can deliver the precise meaning of leadership 1

to a large extent. In this attempt, the methods to do lexical semantic analyses must be delineated, which is explained in the following.

Steps to Do Lexical Semantic Analyses of the Hebrew Words for Leadership

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) is considered as the founder of modern linguistics and he saw language as a structured system in a society, leading the study of structural semantics. His thoughts on lexical semantic analysis followed four courses of action to explore the meanings of words. First, the distinction between the synchronic and diachronic methods of study should be understood by the reader or interpreter. There is a tension between the historical evolution of a word and its meaning over a period of time, and a language-state or the condition of the language at the time of usage of words.1 This shows that one cannot understand the meaning of a word used several centuries ago with the sense the same word gives today.

An epoch-making book The Semantics of Biblical Language by James Barr published in 1961 impacted the lexical semantic study of biblical words. Barr understood that words helped the readers understand the meaning of a sentence, but he emphasized that the meaning of the words should be understood by the things the writers say, and not by the words they say them with.2 Barr recognized that the Hebrews and Greeks followed different structures in which thoughts were conceived, perceived and presented. The theologians of his time were already engaged in the task of deciphering these differences, but Barr’s contention was not about the thought contrast itself, but about the ways in which the Bible scholars attempted to examine the linguistic evidence that reveals the thought contrast and its effect on the meaning 1 Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics (New York: Philosophical Library,1959), 36-38. [Original edition Bally, C.; Sechehaye, A.; Riedlinger, A. (eds.) 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.]

2 James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Londo, SCM Press, 1991), 270.

2

of a sentence.3 Barr’s work on semantic lexical study of the biblical words, according to Moises Silva, was a trumpet blast against the monstrous regiment of shoddy linguistics. Controversial throughout, undiplomatic at times, it has been recognized as a major contribution to biblical studies.4

Moreover, Barr disclosed many fallacies in the lexical semantic studies. For example, he showed root fallacy, which claimed to notice a basic meaning in every cognate of every word, because these words depend or derive from the same root words. However, his demonstration of root fallacy brought to light the fact that words take on different meanings over a period of time and the meaning of a word at a certain period of time should be studied by the synchronic uses of the word.5 Root fallacy has its companion called etymological fallacy, in which an interpreter chooses the original meaning of a word rather than the meaning the word conveys at the time of usage. For example, the word nice, etymologically derived from nescius, means ignorant. Now, if a sentence says, That doctor is nice, the word nice used at this time cannot be understood to mean ignorant, which makes the sense of the sentence that the doctor is actually ignorant.6 Silva supports Barr by saying that "even a knowledge of that development is not bound to affect the speaker’s daily conversation: the English professor who knows that nice comes from Latin nescius,

ignorant, does not for that reason refrain from using the term in a complimentary way."7

D. A. Carson also deals with these fallacies by listing them, which was not done by Barr. So Carson built his work on the contribution by Barr and presents the 3 Ibid., 14.

4 Moisés Silva, Biblical Words & Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983),18.

5 James Barr, Semantics, 100-106.

6 Ibid., 107-109

7 Silva, Biblical Words, 38.

3

lexical semantic fallacies in such a way that the readers can understand them easily and clearly.8 Grant R Osborne also discusses these fallacies in his work on biblical interpretation, which will be seen later in this section. This shows that the fallacies are the misleading factors that creep subtly into genuine attempts to do a lexical semantic study. Therefore, the ways to deal with these fallacies can become the most important principles that can be used in any lexical semantic investigation of words. In his contribution to the lexical semantic studies of biblical words, Barr states: I now would wish to reaffirm this much more forcibly, with especially the insistence that lexicographic research should be directed towards the semantics of words in their particular occurrences and not towards the assembly of a stock of persuasive and distinctive terms which could be regarded as a linguistic reflection of the theological realities.9 He made this statement as a criticism on the theological dictionaries, which simply presented a list of many ways in which a word is used but not showing how they differ in meaning from occurrence to occurrence.

James L. Boyer considers two elements as the most important factors in determining the meaning of a word and they are the lexical study of words and syntactical study of words. The former deals with the meanings of words as found in a dictionary and the latter with the meaning of words in grammatical relationships. A lexical study includes etymology and usage of the words. The etymology of a word has to be studied, and this involves exploring the origin and the historical development of the word. However, one should be careful with false or mistaken etymology based on similarity of the sounds words have. For example, the words

right and rite have similar sounds, but have different root words. Also, any study 8 D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 28-30.

9 Barr, Semantics, 274.

4

of a word should consider how a word has changed in meaning and what the word means today and how an ordinary user would understand the word to mean. In addition, the usage of the word should be studied and the best source for studying the usage is the body of literature written at the period of time in which the text for the study was written. Next up, in syntactical study, grammatical factors such as tense, case, gender, voice and mood should be studied in relationship with the words.10

In his work titled The Hermeneutical Interpretation: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Grant R. Osborne delineates important principles governing lexical semantic analysis of the words. To begin with, the total context contributes to the meaning of a word and sticking to the lexical meanings of a word to the detriment of the context will lead to a distortion of the meaning intended in the text. Then, every interpreter should consider the synchronic dimension of the word. This means that the meaning of the root word and its cognates should not be taken as the usual meaning of the word, because two words can come from the same root word but give two different meanings. For example, the words ‘mysterious’ and

‘mystical’ come from the root word, but give different meanings.11 Next, etymological study alone cannot determine the meaning. There is a distinction between diachrony (history of a term) and synchrony (current usage of a term) and the former deals with etymology while the latter deals with the meaning a word conveys when spoken at a literary and historical context. This does not mean that etymology should be ignored, but it should be handled without marring the meaning intended in the text. Subsequently, Osborne states that a reader should not impose the current meaning into the words of the Bible that was written more than two thousand years 10 James L. Boyler, Semantics in Biblical Interpretation Grace Journal, 3.2 (1962): 25-34.

11 Online Etymological Dictionary, https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=mystery

5

ago. So the interpreter should always seek the synchronic meaning of a word.

Furthermore, the interpreters of a text should not cling to only one meaning of a word as a range of meanings should always be considered before choosing one or more than one meaning suitable for a word in the context. Next, a semantic analysis should avoid choosing those parallels that suit its preconceived notions. For example, some thoughts in the Bible could be completely Jewish, while some could be Hellenistic, but just because a word is used to express a Hellenistic thought in some instances, the same word elsewhere may covey a Jewish thought instead. In this case, only a synchronic study of the word can determine the meaning. As a succeeding principle for lexical semantic analysis, Osborne contends that when there are two possible meanings for word, a reader may be forced to select one meaning and ignore the other, under the influence of some prejudices. For example, Mr X goes to church, so he may be a Christian or a non-Christian, both of which are possible. However, one may presume or conclude that the church-goer in the example should be a Christian, while another may choose to understand the sentence differently. In such cases of either-or situation, the reader has to see parallels in which both meanings are possible.

Moreover, the interpreter should never fail to consider the word as well as the concept. A word may covey one particular concept in a place and may not convey the same concept in another place, because we usually do not use the same words to talk about the same concept, as we use synonyms. For example, head in a particular context may mean the part of body above the neck, but in another situation, it may mean a leader. Therefore, any attempt to understand a concept must avoid sticking just to one word, but consider the synonyms also.12

12 Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (InterVarsity Press: Illinois, USA, 1991), 65-75

6

Having explained the principles that govern a lexical semantic analysis, Osborne proposes a methodology for doing a lexical semantic study. In so doing, the following guidelines are presented to narrow down the probable of meaning and the concept associated with the word which has to be studied: 1. Determine the key words in the context. The words that are difficult to understand, deserving an extra study and are crucial to the understanding of the text are the key words. For this thesis, the words used to describe leadership are the key words.

2. Carefully Study the context in which the word occurs. When something is stated, the word chosen for study should be analyzed in the light of the total statement and total context.

3. Determine the semantic range of the term. The various uses of the word should be studied so that the meanings can be collated and organized into groups that are correlated. In this process, etymology need not be ignored, but can be used with care. However, synchronic uses of the word should be given importance.

4. Note whether the word is used primarily in terms of sense or reference. Some words are used as technical words and not subject to a semantic range, For example, ‘greenhouse’ in a sentence could be a technical term and cannot be understood otherwise. So, if it is a technical term, then the interpreter should take a conceptual approach to understanding the meaning of the word.

5. If the term is referential, study it conceptually. This will involve a collection of synonyms and antonyms to delve into the concept covered by the use of the term. However, the interpreter should not thrust meanings into the term which is not allowed by the context.

7

6. If the word is used in terms of sense, study it structurally in its environment.

Here syntagmatic or contextual exploration should be applied.

7. Rework the semantic range in terms of the writer’s proclivity and immediate context. The interpreter should choose from the range of meanings the one or ones that closely parallel the context.13

The goal of semantics, as Cliff Goddard points out, is to explore the meanings of words in the light of the sentences according to their literary and cultural contexts, because language and culture have an intricate relationship with each other.14 The task of deciphering the meaning of a word should be concerned with the nature of the meaning. Goddard contends that reference is not meaning except when words relate to any name like Barack Obama and London. As his simplistic argument against referential meaning is that when we use words such as here, this and now, these words can be understood only in the context. Without considering the context, these words cannot express meaning. 15 Furthermore, Goddard demonstrates that the meaning of a word cannot be described in all situations in terms of scientific knowledge. For example, red, according the Concise Oxford Dictionary means of or approaching the colour seen at the least-refracted end of the spectrum, but people use the word without understanding the chemical spectrum of red as a colour. Likewise, Goddard rejects the idea of determining the meaning of a word according to its use, because people do not know the use of all words and some words can be wrongly used. So the meaning of a word determines its use and not vice versa.16 Essentially Goddard 13 Ibid., 89-92

14 Cliff Goddard, Semantic analysis: a practical introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 1

15 Ibid., 5

16 Ibid., 6-7

8

emphasizes that a meaning has to be deciphered in the light of the cultural and literary context. Therefore, the first step to take in a semantic analysis is to study the context.

Moises Silva studied under James Barr and was greatly influenced by him. For Silva, Lexical semantics is that branch of modern linguistics that focuses on the meaning of individual words.17 Furthermore he states, Modern linguistic theory teaches that the meaning of a given word is not located primarily in the word itself, but determined by the relationship the word has to other words in the context of a given occurrence (syntagmatic) and by the contrast it forms with other words which share its semantic domain (paragidmatic).18 Moreover, Silva argues that the words are not inherently technical, but certain words become technical words as they are used consistently over a period of time to convey particular meanings. Silva calls these words as referential words and these words have to be studied because they point to an idea or concept apart from the context.19 Besides, Silva agrees with Barr that important theological studies or biblical studies have shoddy lexical semantic studies, which, he says, were actually not lexicography at all, but rather the study of concepts on the basis of the terms used to express them.20 Etymological study, according to Silva, has to be done at four levels: finding the basic parts of words, discovering the meaning indicated as the earliest attested meaning, reorganizing the history of the word before the earliest attested meaning and reorganizing the form and meaning of a word in the parent language by exploring the cognates.21 Though Silva recognizes the importance of etymological study, he also cautions the reader 17 Silva, Biblical Words, 10.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid., 107.

20 Ibid., 24-25.

21 Ibid., 39-40.

9

about the potential danger of misunderstanding a word when it does covey the usual meaning in a given context.

In addition, Silva proposes that the interpreter should take into account the lexical meaning of a word and then exegete the text chosen for study and see how the meaning of the word communicates the concept the text contains.22 As the next step, the interpreter or reader should check if the text has any borrowed words, because loan words show the cultural reasons for assimilation of such words into the language in which the text is written. Subsequently, the word should be studied to find out whether it is a referent or sense. Sometimes a word can offer more than one sense. 23

Then the potential meanings of the words should be investigated before finding out the actualized meanings which are meant by the author in the text.24 Basically Silva prescribes six steps to doing a lexical semantic analysis of a word and they are: 1. Find out whether a word is referential. If a word is referential, conduct a conceptual study.

2. Look at all possible meanings, using standard lexicons.

3. Paradigmatic relations to the term should be considered. Paradigm speaks of a set or category of words that can be substituted for the meaning in the text.

This means synonyms which will be discovered on the basis of various translations in the English language.

4. Consider how the syntagmatic relations connect with the paradigmatic relations in the context. Here the meaning has to be studied in the chain or sequence of all words that make the text in which the word for a study is located.

22 Ibid., 68.

23 Ibid., 107.

24 Ibid., 137-138.

10

5. Study the etymology. However, find out if the word has changed in its meaning and what foreign influences have contributed to the change in meaning.

6. Draw out from the text the synchronic meaning the word has in the particular context of the text chosen for study.

This thesis will conduct lexical semantic analyses of the words for leadership in order to draw what leadership means in the Hebrew Bible so that the nature of leadership can be meaningfully conceptualized. Therefore, at this point, the steps to do the lexical semantic analyses should be delineated so that a clear, uncompromising and verified methodology can be followed. This thesis will follow the six steps derived from the discussion on lexical semantic studies by Silva to do lexical semantic analyses of the words signifying the acts of leading in the Book of Deuteronomy. Silva closely follows Barr and Osborne also adheres to Barr’s demonstration of fallacies that can occur in the lexical semantic studies. Therefore, the writer will follow Silva’s six steps along with Osborne’s principles to do a thorough lexical semantic study of the words so that the fallacies can be rooted out.

The words chosen as the ones signifying the meaning of leadership are chosen from the Book of Deuteronomy.

Meaning of Leadership: Doing Lexical Semantic Analyses of the Hebrew Words for

Leadership

The following Hebrew words are put through lexical semantic analysis in this section, following the guidelines by Silva and Osborne. First of all, the words will be studied and then the images of leadership in the Book of Deuteronomy will be studied to draw a comprehensive meaning of what leadership is and how it functions 11

according to the Book of Deuteronomy. This meaning of leadership will be applied in the process of developing a philosophy of leadership based on the Book of Deuteronomy.

The Hebrew Words Signifying the Act of Leading in the Old Testament

Rosh: A Lexical Semantic Analysis

Silva proposes that the first step in doing lexical semantic analysis must be to determine whether the word is a reference or sense. This word appears four times in relation to leadership (Deut. 1:15; 20:9), meaning ‘head’ used in a figurative sense to speak of leading people, so this word is not a reference. The literal meaning of Wl\1 is

‘head’. However, this word metaphorically refers to leaders (Gen. 40: 16-17; Lev. 24: 14), those selected as leaders by people to have authority over the people who selected them. 25 As the second step, other possible meanings have to be noted before determining the suitable meaning of the word and searching for the synonyms.

According to Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, the word rosh (H7218/TWOT

2097) means to be the head or leader, to be over. Also, rosh has figurative meanings: 1) whatever is highest and supreme such as prince of the people, chief of the family, chief city; 2) sum, amount, sometimes signifying the highest number; 3) what is first and foremost, the beginning; and the name of a poisonous plant.26 Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon (BDB) lists various meanings for the word rosh such as head of human being and animals, top of mountain, height of stars, chief (combining with the idea of the first in a series such as chief city, chief nation and 25 Gary Harlan Hall, Deuteronomy, The College Press NIV commentary (Joplin, Mo: College Press, 2000), 46. See NIDOTTE, 3: 1015-1020. For further explanation, see the subtitle ‘head’ in this paper.

26 H7218 - ro'sh - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (KJV). Blue Letter Bible. Accessed 28 Mar, 2018.

https://www.blueletterbible.org//lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7218&t=KJV

12

chief priest), head of a family, front (meaning the place of a leader), beginning of time, river-heads, choicest, best, and sum.27

However, only the context can be the determining factor for possible meanings. In Deuteronomy 1:9-18, Patrick D. Miller points out that Moses, the leader for the entire nation of Israel is speaking of appointing leaders for the people, whose needs and complaints were increasing. Moses felt that leading people as one man was burdensome, so he, as the context shows, decided to appoint leaders, who were already chosen by people, in different capacities.28 Furthermore, Daniel I. Block states that Moses, in this context, informs the reader that he gave the leading men already recognized as leaders the responsibility of judging between the people of Israel in a fair and impartial way. These leaders had to function in different levels, fulfilling righteous administration.29 With this context in mind, all the meanings rendered by English translations mentioned in the above table are possible and appropriate. Then again, the most appropriate meanings are ‘chief’ and ‘leading’, so they are chief or leading men.

As a further step, exploring the paradigmatic relations of rosh as chief or leading men will identify potential substitute meanings or synonyms. A survey of various translations of rosh in the English versions of the Bible will help in arriving at the substitute meanings the word rosh can convey. For this purpose, Deuteronomy 1:15 will be scrutinized. Here in the following is a table with the Bible translations with the meanings given therein:

27 "7218 – rosh - Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Unabridged, Electronic Database. Accessed 28 Mar, 2018. http://biblehub.com/bdb/7218.htm

28 Patrick D. Miller, Deuteronomy, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (John Knox Press: Loiusville, 1971), 28-29.

29 Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, The NIV Application Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 2012), 123.

13

Table 1: Bible translations with the Meanings for the Hebrew Word Rosh

TEXT: Deuteronomy 1:15

Translations

Meanings

New International Version

Leading men

New Living Translation

Judges

English Standard Version

Heads

New American Standard Version

New Heart English Bible

GOD'S WORD® Translation

JPS Tanakh 1917

King James 2000 Bible

English Revised Version

World English Bible

Young’s Literal Translation

King James Version

Chief

American King James Version

Darby Bible Translation

Webster’s Bible Translation

Christian Standard Bible

Leaders

Contemporary English Version

Good News Translation

Holman Christian Standard Bible

International Standard Version

NET Bible

Jubilee Bible 2000

Principals

So the next step is to discover how all the words that make the text and it literary context convey the meaning the author wanted to convey at the time of writing. The chief or leading men, who were already leaders over the people, probably 14

fulfilled both military and judicial responsibilities,30 for these leaders served as commanders of thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. These commanders were part of the leadership of the Israelite community which included judges, also appointed by Moses, the national leader of Israel nearing his death.31 Interestingly these leaders were also appointed as tribal officials, who engaged in jurisprudence (Deut. 16:18) and warfare (20:5, 8-9). These leaders were already recognized as they were wise, understanding, and respected people among the Israelites.32 Thereafter, the same leaders carried out the role of judges, which will be discussed later when its verb is studied.

It is noteworthy that the earliest Semitic form of this word is found in Arabic, Sabean and Ethiopic languages and means choicest and chief, so the meaning adopted for the word rosh in the context as leading or chief men is perfectly suitable.33

Sar: A Lexical Semantic Analysis

Ancient Hebrew Lexicon presents the pictograph of this word, which is a picture of a head and a thorn representing a turning, depicting a head turned to a different direction. Clearly the meaning is one who rules turns the people to his direction.34 The word sar means chieftain, chief, ruler, official, captain, prince.

However, it is highly possible that this word can be a reference, alluding to the office or title of tribal chiefs. At the same time this word is used for different roles of leadership such as leaders in a general sense (Num. 21:18), leader of freebooters (1

Sam 22:2), vassal in charge of servants, noble, king, officials, those with the powers 30 J. R. Barlett, "The Use of the Word r’sh as a Title in the OT ," VT 19 (1969):1-10.

31 Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing: Grand Rapids, USA, 1976), 98.

32 Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy: A Commentary, The Old Testament Series (Westminster John Knox Press, Kentucky: 2004), 20.

33 https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/7218.html Accessed 3 April 2018.

34 https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/8269.html Accessed 3 April 2018.

15

of magistrates, military captains and angel-captains. However, BDB lists the appearance of this word in Deuteronomy 1:15 under the category of those having powers of magistrates.35 Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance with Hebrew Lexicon lists usage of this with different meanings in various texts in the Old Testament: a head person (of any rank or class):—captain (that had rule), chief (captain), general, governor, keeper, lord,(-task-)master, prince(-ipal), ruler, steward.36 The root word saw-rar means to rule, have dominion and make self-prince.37 Gerhard von Rad considers the captains in Deuteronomy 1:15 as military and judicial leaders, while the judges in Deuteronomy 1:16 are distinctly known as judges, whose duties are dealt with in Deuteronomy 16:18 ff. 38 Likewise, Walter Brueggemann also acknowledges that the levels of leadership mentioned here in this context refer to the judicial system for the good management of the community.39 From these scholarly comments, it is understood that the word sar points to the duties of governing, ruling, administration, judging the social disputes, and offering military direction as captains.

Sho-tare': A Lexical Semantic Analysis

The verb form of this word, according to Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, means to write, thus meaning a scribe and judge. It is also used for prefects for the people of Israel in Egypt (Exod. 5:6-19) and magistrates