Covenant Renewal: Marks of Godly Leadership
Once a treaty was drafted and ratified, it became binding upon both the suzerain and the vassal. However, as is the case in life, people die. If one of the two covenant parties passes away, his successor is required to go through a covenant renewal ceremony where he must swear to the terms of the treaty. In the case of Deuteronomy, Moses was the covenant mediator who represented the Lord before the people. When Moses died, Joshua took over as the new mediator of the Lord; this is covered in Deuteronomy 31-34 (cf. Josh 1:1-9). In the tradition of the ancient treaties, Israel followed standard covenantal operating procedures and administered a covenant renewal ceremony, establishing Joshua as this new mediator.
With the establishment of a new godly leader in Joshua, the Israelites had a moment in which they conformed to Deuteronomic norms and thus succeeded in their Canaanite war (i.e., the Book of Joshua). However, once Joshua passed away, there was a vacuum in godly leadership. No one was there to remind the people of their covenantal God and their duties. The result of this was the spiritual and moral decline that we read about in the Book of Judges, which ends with two of the most deplorable narratives in the entire Old Testament (Judg 17-18, 19-21). There was a small glimmer of hope at the end of Judges. In the midst of all this moral darkness, we find the repetition “there was no king in Israel” (Judg 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25) which led to “everyone doing what was right in his own eyes” (Judg 17:6; 21:25). The implication was if Israel only had a godly leader, a godly king, then there would be order and peace in Israel.
As the Israelites prepared to occupy Canaan under Moses and Joshua, Deuteronomy 17:14-20 describes the office of the king; this royal leader would lead the people of God during their time of estate in the land. One of the significant requirements of this king was to focus upon the Book of Deuteronomy (vv.18-20). The rationale for this was clear enough: as this earthly king meditates daily upon the covenant, he would be reminded that his reign is representative of the sovereign reign of the true king of Israel, namely the Lord Yahweh Himself. His job, therefore, was to remind the people of this truth and not to mistaken himself as the true king of Israel. The prophets also had a similar task as they were appointed emissaries for the Lord who would bring His divinely inspired word to the people, reminding them of the demands of their true king, Yahweh Himself.
Like so many other parts of Israel’s history, this one also failed to live up to their covenantal mandates. There was a moment of stability under David and Solomon, but this quickly deteriorated into chaos. The commentary of the history of Israel is that the lack of godly leadership by the official leaders of Israel is why Israel went into exile.
Godly leadership is a hallmark necessity in the growth of any covenantal community. The Book of Deuteronomy and the history of Israel is a testament to that truth. This is the reason why the New Testament puts such a high demand on the qualifications for leaders of the church (1 Tim 3-17; Titus 1:5-9). This is also the case in the Old. In addition to Deuteronomy 17 above, in Exodus 18 Moses faced a situation where the legal needs of the people was more than what he could manage on his own. His father-in-law advised him to find “able men…who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe” (Ex 18:21-22; cf. Deut 1:15). These are the kinds of men to help litigate legal issues. Similar qualifications are sought out in Acts 6:3 when the church established the first set of deacons. These are the men whom the Book of Samuel describes as men who were after the heart of the Lord (1 Sam 13:14; 16:7). As long as such godly men led God’s people, the community was upon solid ground. The absence of godly leadership brought judgment and destruction.
We are easily led to search for leaders based on different standards—the most attractive, popular, wealthy, influential, charismatic, most trendy. These are the qualifications that are often looked at with gusto when in fact the most significant attributes are Christ-likeness and godliness of character. Like others, the Asian American community can easily be led astray concerning the kind of leader for their churches. The majority of Asian American Christians are well educated with successful accomplishments in their personal and professional lives. The false conclusion we often reach is that we need a leader who has similar marks in his curriculum vitae to match up with the high-powered intelligentsia of church members. The reality is that godliness surpasses all other attributes when it comes to effective pastoral leadership. More than anything else, the people of God need leaders who are willing to care for their spiritual well-being, nourish them with the Word of God, and even boldly rebuke when required. Although the other attributes are important and worth consideration at a high level, they cannot and should not be the most outstanding.
Redeeming Chillingworth 