Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

a place upon a tongue of land in the Elanitic Gulf, about the same latitude as Sinai, where there is nothing to be seen now except a quantity of date-trees, a few sand-hills, and about a dozen heaps of stones piled up irregularly, but all showing signs of having once been joined together (cf. Burckhardt, pp. 847-8; and Bitter, Erdk. xiv. pp. 226 sqq.). But this is hardly correct. As Roediger has observed (on Wellsted's Heisen, ii. p. 127), " the conjecture has been based exclusively upon the similarity of name, and there is not the slightest exegetical tradition to favour it." Bat similarity of names cannot prove anything by itself, as the number of places of the same name, but in different localities, that we meet with in the Bible, is very considerable. Moreover, the further assumption which is founded upon this conjecture, namely, that the Israelites went from Sinai past Daliah, not only appears untenable for the reasons given above (p. 230), but is actually rendered impossible by the locality itself. The approach to this tongue of land, which projects between two steep lines of coast, with lofty mountain ranges of from 800 to 2000 feet in height on both north and south, leads from Sinai through far too narrow and impracticable a valley for the Israelites to be able to march thither and fix an encampment there.^ And if Israel cannot have touched TJaliab on its march, every probability vanishes that Moses should have mentioned this place here, and the name Di-Sahah remains at present undeterminable. But in spite of our ignorance of this place, and notwithstanding the fact that even the conjecture expressed with regard to Lahan is very uncertain, there can be no well-founded doubt that the words "between Paran and TopheV^ are to be understood as embracing the whole period of the thirty-seven years of mourning, at the commencement of which Israel was in Paran, whilst at the end they feought to enter Canaan by Tophel (the Edomitish Tafuleh), and that the expression " opposite to Suph^^ points back to their first entrance into the desert. — Looking from the steppes of Moab over the ground that the Israelites had traversed, Suph, where they first entered the desert of Arabia, would lie between Paran, where the congregation arrived at the borders of Canaan towards the west, and Tophel, where they first ended their desert wanderings thirtyseven years later on the east.

1 From the mouth of the valley through the masses of the primary mountains to the sea-coast, there is a fan-like surface of drifts of primary rock, tlie radius of which is thirty-five minutes long, the progressive work of the inundations of an indefinable course of thousands of years" {Riippell^ Nubicn, p. 206).

In ver. 2 also the retrospective glance at the guidance through the desert is unmistakeable. '^Eleven days is the way from Horeh to the mountains of Seir as far as Kadesh-Barneay With these words, which were unquestionably intended to be something more than a geographical notice of the distance of Horeb from Kadesh- Barnea, Moses reminded the people that they had completed the journey from Horeb, the scene of the establishment of the covenant, to Kadesh, the border of the promised land, in eleven days (see pp. 246-7), that he might lead them to lay to heart the events which took place at Kadesh itself. The " way of the mountains of Seir " is not the way along the side of these mountains, i.e. the way through the Arabah, which is bounded by the mountains of Seir on the east, but the way which leads to the mountains of Seir, just as in chap. ii. 1 the way of the Red Sea is the way that leads to this sea. From these words, therefore, it by no means follows that Kadesh-Barnea is to be sought for in the Arabah, and that Israel passed through the Arabah from Horeb to Kadesh. According to ver. 19, they departed from Horeb, went through the great and terrible wilderness by the way to the mountains of the Amorites, and came to Kadesh-Barnea. Hence the way to the mountains of the Amorites, i.e. the southern part of what were afterwards the mountains of Judah (see at Num. xiii. 17), is the same as the way to the mountains of Seir; consequently the Seir referred to here is not the range on the eastern side of the Arabah, but Seir by Hormah (ver. 44), i.e. the border plateau by Wady Murreh^ opposite to the mountains of the Amorites (Josh xi. 17, xii. 7: see at Num. xxxiv. 3).

Vers. 3, 4. To the description of the ground to which the following addresses refer, there is appended an allusion to the not less significant time when Moses delivered them, viz. "o;i the first of the eleventh month in the fortieth year^^ consequently towards the end of his life, after the conclusion of the divine lawgiving; so that he was able to speak " according to all that JeliovaJi had given him in commandment unto them^^ (the Israelites), namely, in the legislation of the former books, which is always referred to in this way (chap. iv. 5, 23, v. 29, 30, vi. 1). The time was also significant, from the fact that Silion and Og, the kings of the Amorites, had then been slain. By giving a victory over these mighty kings, the Lord had begun to fulfil His promises (see chap. ii. 25), and hail thereby laid Israel under the obligation to love, gratitude, and obedience (sec Num. xxi. 21-35). The sufhx in ^^'^^ refers to

Closes, who had smitten the Amorites at the command and by the power of Jehovah. According to Josh. xii. 4, xiii. 12, 31, Edrei was the second capital of Og, and it is as such that it is mentioned, and not as the place where Og was defeated (chap. iii. 1; Num. xxi. 33). The omission of the copula \ before ''^^"I'l^r^ is to be accounted for from the oratorical character of the introduction to the addresses which follow. Edrei is the present Draa (see at Num. xxi. 33). — In ver. 5, the description of the locality is again resumed in the words " beyond the Jordan^'' and still further defined by the expression " in the land of Moah; " and the address itself is introduced by the clause, "Moses took in hana to expound this laiVy" which explains more fully the "13"^ (spake) of ver. 3. " In the land of Moab " is a rhetorical and general expression for " in the Arboth Moab."?*'i<in does not mean to begin, but to undertake, to take in hand, with the subordinate idea sometimes of venturing, or daring (Gen. xviii. 27), sometimes of a bold resolution: here it denotes an undertaking prompted by internal impulse. Instead of being construed with the infinitive, it is construed rhetorically here with the finite verb without the copula (cf. Ges, § 143, 3, b.). *i^3 probably sio-nified to disj in the Kal; but this is not used. In the Piel it means to explain (huaaac^rjaai^ explanare, LXX. Vulg.)^ never to engrave, or stamp, not even here nor in chap, xxvii. 8 and Hab. ii. 2. Here it signifies "to expound this law clearly," although the exposition was connected with an earnest admonition to preserve and obey it. " This " no doubt refers to the law expounded in what follows; but substantially it is no other than the law already given in the earlier books. " Substantially there is throughout but one law" (Schultz). That the book of Deuteronomy was not intended to furnish a new or second law, is as evident as possible from the word "ii^3.

For the purpose of enforcing upon the people the obligation to true fidelity to the covenant, Moses commenced his address with a retrospective glance at the events that had taken place during the forty years of their journey from Sinai to the steppes of Moab, and showed in striking outlines how, when the Lord had called upon the Israelites in Horeb to arise and take possession of the land of Canaan, that had been promised to the patriarchs for their descendants (chap. i. 6-8), they had greatly increased, and were well organized by chiefs and judges (vers. 9-18); how they had proceeded to Kadesh-Barnea on the border of this land (ver. 19), and there refused to enter in, notwithstanding the report of the spies who were sent out as to the goodness of the land (vers. 20-25), but were alarmed at the might and strength of the Canaanltes from a want of confidence in the assistance of the Lord, and had rebelled against their God, and been shut out in consequence from the promised land (vers. 26-46). It was true that at the expiration of this period of punishment the Lord had not permitted them to make war upon Edom and Moab, and drive out these nations from the possessions which they had received from God; but after they had gone rgund the mountains of Edom and the land of Moab (chap. ii. 1-23), He had given Sihon and Og, the kings of the Amorites, into the power of the Israelites, that they might take possession of their kingdoms in Gilead and Bashan (chap. ii. 24-iii. 17); and after the conquest of these. He had imposed upon the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh, who received the conquered land for their inheritance, the obligation to go with their brethren across the Jordan and help them to conquer Canaan, and had also appointed Joshua as their commander, who would divide the land among them, since he (Moses) himself was not to be allowed to cross the Jordan with them because of the anger of God which he had drawn upon himself on their account (chap. iii. 18-29). He therefore appealed to Israel to hearken to the commandments of the Lord, to preserve and fulfil them without addition or diminution; to continue mindful of the covenant which the Lord had made with them; to make themselves no image or likeness of Jehovah, that they might not draw His wrath upon themselves and be scattered among the heathen, but might ever remain in the land, of which they were now abotit to take possession (chap. iv.). — In this address, therefore, Moses reminded the whole congregation how the Lord had fulfilled His promise from Horeb to the steppes of Moab, but how they had sinned against their God through unbelief and rebellion, and had brought upon themselves their long wanderings in the desert, that he might append to this the pressing warning not to forfeit the permanent possession of the land they were about to conquer, through a continued and fresh tra^isgression of the covenant. — Certainly a very fitting preparation for the exposition of the law which follows.

Vers. 6—18. Moses commenced with the summons issued by the Lord to Israel at Horeb, to rise and go to Canaan. — Ver. 6. As the epithet applied to God, '^ Jehovah our God,'^ presupposes the reception of Israel into covenant with Jehovah, which took place at Sinai, so the words, ''ye have dwelt long enough at this mountain,^ ii^ply that the purpose for which Israel was taken to Horeb had been answered, i.e, that they had been furnished with the laws and ordinances requisite for the fulfilment of the covenant, and could now remove to Canaan to take possession of the promised land. The word of Jehovah mentioned here is not found in this form in the previous history; but as a matter of fact it is contained in the divine instructions that were preparatory to their removal (Num. i.-iv. and ix. 15— X. 10), and the rising of the cloud from the tabernacle, which followed immediately afterwards (Num. x. 11). The fixed use of the name Horeb to designate the mountain group in general, instead of the special name Sinai, which is given to the particular mountain upon which the law was given (see vol. ii. p. 90), is in keeping with the rhetorical style of the book. — Ver. 7. " Go to the mount of the Amorites, and to all who dwell nearT The mount of the Amorites is the mountainous country inhabited by this tribe, the leading feature in the land of Canaan, and is synonymous with the " land of the Canaanites" which follows; the Amorites being mentioned instar omnium as being the most powerful of all the tribes in Canaan, just as in Gen. xv. 16 (see at Gen. x. 16). '''Jl?^, ''those who dwell by it^^ are the inhabitants of the whole of Canaan, as is shown by the enumeration of the different parts of the land, which follows immediately afterwards. Canaan was naturally divided, according to the character of the ground, into the Arahah, the modern Ghor (see at ver. 1); the mountain, the subsequent mountains of Judali and Ephraim (see at Num. xiii. 17); the lowland {shephelah), i.e. the low flat country lying between the mountains of Judah and the Mediterranean Sea, and stretching from the promontory of Carmel down to Gaza, which is intersected by only small undulations and ranges of hills, and generally includes the hill country which formed the transition from the mountains to the plain, though the two are distinguished in Josh. x. 40 and xii. 8 (see at Josh. xv. 33 sqq.); the south land (negeb: see at Num. xiii. 17); and the sea-shore, 'i.e. the generally narrow strip of coast running along by the Mediterranean Sea from Joppa to the Tyrian ladder, or Rds el Abiad, just below Tyre (vid. v, JRaumer, Pal. p. 49). — The special mention of Lebanon in connection with the land of the Canaanites, and the enumeration of the separate parts of the land, as well as the extension of the eastern frontier as far as the Euphrates (see at Gen. xv. 18), are to be attributed to the rhetorical fulness of the style. The reference, however, is not to Antilibanus, but to Lebanon proper, which was within the northern border of the land of Israel, as fixed in Num. xxxiv. 7-9. — Yer. 8. This land the Lord had placed at the disposal of the Israelites for them to take possession of, as He had sworn to the fathers (patriarchs) that He would give it to their posterity (cf. Gen. xii. 7, xiii. 15, xv. 18 sqq., etc.). The " swearing" on the part of God points back to Gen. xxii. 16. The expression " to them and to their seed^^ is the same as " to thee and to thy seed" in Gen. xiii. 15, xvii. 8, and is not tq be understood as signifying that the patriarchs themselves ought to have taken actual possession of Canaan; but " to their seed " is in apposition, and also a more precise definition (comp. Gen. xv. 7 with ver. 18, where the simple statement "to thee" is explained by the fuller statement " to thy seed"), nsi has grown into an interjection = niin. ""^Dp \r\2: to give before a person, equivalent to give up to a person, or place at his free disposal (for the use of the ^yord in this sense, see Gen. xiii. 9, xxxiv. 10). Jehovah (this is the idea of vers. 6-8), when He concluded the covenant with the Israelites at Horeb, had intended to fulfil at once the promise which He gave to the patriarchs, and to put them into possession of the promised land; and Moses had also done what was required on his part, as he explained in vers. 9-18, to bring the people safely to Canaan (cf. Ex. xviii. 23). As the nation had multiplied as the stars of heaven, in accordance with the promise of the Lord, and he felt unable to bear the burden alone and settle all disputes, he had placed over them at that time wise and intelligent men from the heads of the tribes to act as judges, and had instructed them to adjudicate upon the smaller matters of dispute righteously and without respect of person. For further particulars concerning the appointment of the judges, see at Ex. xviii. 13-26, where it is related how Moses adopted this plan at the advice of Jethro, even before the giving of the law at Sinai. The expression " at that time,' in ver. 9, is not at variance with this. The imperfect

"iDi<J with vav rel., expresses the order of thought and not of thne. For Moses did not intend to recall the different circumstances to the recollection of the people in their chronological order, but arranged them according to their relative importance in connection with the main object of his address. And this required that he should begin wdth what God had done for the fulfilment of His promise, and then proceed afterwards to notice what he, the servant of God, had done in his office, as an altogether subordinate matter. So far as this object was concerned, it was also perfectly indifferent who had advised him to adopt this plan, whilst it was very important to allude to the fact that it was the great increase in the number of the Israelites which had rendered it necessary, that he might remind the congregation how the Lord, even at that time, had fulfilled the promise which He gave to the patriarchs, and in that fulfilment had given a practical guarantee of the certain fulfilment of the other promises as well. Moses accomplished this by describing the increase of the nation in such a way that his hearers would be involuntarily reminded of the covenant promise in Gen. xv. 5 sqq. (cf. Gen. xii. 2, xviii. 18, xxii. 17, xxvi. 4). — Yer. 11. But in order to guard against any ipisinterpretation of his words, " I cannot bear you myself al'^ne," Moses added, "May the Lord fulfil the promiseof numerous increase to the nation a thousand-fold." ^^ Jehovah, the God of your fathers {i.e. who manifested Himself as God to your fathers), add to you a thousand times, DDS^ as many as ye are, and bless you as He has said.^' The "blessing" after "multiplying" points back to Gen. xii. 2. Consequently, it is not to be restricted to "strengthening, rendering fruitful, and multiplying," but must be understood as including the spiritual blessing promised to Abraham.— Ver. 12. " IIoiv can I myself alone bear your cumbrance, and your burden, and your strife?" The burden and cumbrance of the nation are the nation itself, with all its affairs and transactions, which pressed upon the shoulders of Moses. — Vers. 13 sqq. D?^ I3n, give here, provide for yourselves. The congregation was to nominate, according to its tribes, wise, intelligent, and well-known men, whom Moses would appoint as heads, i.e. as judges, over the nation. At their installation he gave them the requisite instructions (ver. 16): " Ye shall hear betvjeen your brethren,^^ i.e. hear both parties as mediators, "awcZ judge righteously, without respect of person. ''^ D''JQ "'"'^n, to look at the face, equivalent to D''^S t^b': (Lev. xix. 15), i.e. to act partially (cf. Ex. xxIII. 2, 3). " The judginent is GoiVs," i.e. appointed by God, and to be administered in the name of God, or in accordance with His justice; hence the expression " to bring before God" (Ex. xxi. 6, xxii. 7, etc.). On the difficult cases which the judges were to bring before Moses, see at Ex. xviii. 26.

Vers. 19-46. Everything had been done on the part of God and Moses to bring Israel speedily and safely to Canaan. The reason for their being compelled to remain in the desert for forty years was to be found exclusively in their resistance to the commandments of God. The discontent of the people wath the guidance of God w^as manifested at the very first places of encampment in the desert (Num. xi. and xii.); but Moses passed over this, and simply reminded them of the rebellion at Kadesh (Num. xiii. and xiv.), because it was this which was followed by the condemnation of the rebellious generation to die out in the wilderness. — Ver. 19. " When we departed from Iloreb, we passed through the great and dreadful wilderness, which ye have seen" i.e. become acquainted with, viz. the desert of et Tih (see p. 57), " of the way to the mountains of the Amoritesj and came to Kadesh-Barned'^ (see at Num. xii. 16). Tjpn, with an accusative, to pass through a country (cf. chap. it. -7; Isa. 1. 10, etc.). Moses had there explained to the Israelites, that they had reached the mountainous country of the Amorites, which Jehovah was about to give them; that the land lay before them, and they might take possession of it without fear (vers. 20, 21). But they proposed to send out men to survey the land, with its towns, and the way into it. Moses approved of this proposal, and sent out twelve men, one from each tribe, who went through the land, etc. (as is more fully related in Num. xiii., and has been expounded in connection with that passage, vers. 22-25). Moses' summons to them to take the land (vers. 20, 21) is not expressly mentioned there, but it is contained implicite in the fact that spies were sent out; as the only possible reason for doing this must have been, that they might force a way into the land, and take possession of it. In ver. 25, Moses simply mentions so much of the report of the spies as had reference to the nature of the land, viz. that it was good, that he may place in immediate contrast with this the refusal of the people to enter in. — Vers. 26, 27. ''But ye would not go up, and were rebellious against the mouth (i.e. the express will) of Jehovah your Gody and murmured in your tents, and said., Because Jeltovali hated us, lie hath brought us forth out of the land of Egypt, to give us into the hand of the Amorites to destroy us.^' ^^^^\ cither an infinitive with a feminine termination, or a verbal noun construed with an accusative (see Ges. § 133; Ewald, § 238, a.). — By tlie alhision to the murmuring in the tents, Moses points them to Num. xiv. 1, and then proceeds to describe the rebellion of the congregation related there (vers. 2-4), in such a manner that the state of mind manifested on that occasion presents the appearance of the basest ingratitude, inasmuch as the people declared the greatest blessing conferred upon them by God, viz. their deliverance from Egypt, to have been an act of hatred on His part. At the same time, by addressing the existing members of the nation, as if they themselves had spoken so, whereas the whole congregation that rebelled at Kadesh had fallen in the desert, and a fresh generation was now gathered round him, Moses points to the fact, that the sinful corruption which broke out at that time, and bore such bitter fruit, had not died out with the older generation, but was germinating still in the existing Israel, and even though it might be deeply hidden in their hearts, would be sure to break forth again. — Yer. 28. " Whither shall we go up? Our hretiren (the spies) have quite discouraged our hearf^ (^P*!?? ^^^' to cam e to flow away; cf. Josh. ii. 9), viz. through their report (Num. xiii. 28, 29, 31-33), the substance of which is repeated here. The expression D^P^?, " in heaven^^ towering up into heaven, which is added to " tow7is great and fortijied^^ is not an exaggeration, but, as Moses also uses it in chap. ix. 1, a rhetorical description of the impression actually received with regard to the size of the towns.^ " The sons of the Anakims:" see at Num. xiii. 22. — Vers. 29-31. The attempt made by Moses to inspire the despondent people with courage, when they were ready to despair of ever conquering the Canaanites, by pointing them to the help of the Lord, which they had experienced in so mighty and visible a manner in Egypt and the desert, and to urge them to renewed confidence in this their almighty Helper and Guide, was altogether without success. And just because the appeal of Moses was unsuccessful, it is passed over in the historical account in Num. xiv.; all that is mentioned there (vers. 6-9) being the effort made by Joshua and Caleb to stir up the people, and that on account of the effects which followed the courageous bearing of these two men, so far as their own future history was concerned. The words " goeth before youj"* in ver. 30, are resumed in ver. 33, and carried out still further. " Jehovah,...

* " The eyes of weak faith or unbelief saw the towns really towering up to heaven. Nor did the height appear less, even to the eyes of faith, in relation, that is to say, to its own power. Faith does not hide the difficulties from itself, that it may not rob the Ijord, who helps it over them, of any of the praise that is justly His due" {Schultz).

He shall fight for you according to all (i^ba) that;' i.e. in exactly the same manner as, " He did for you in Egypt;' especially at the crossing of the Red Sea (Ex. xiv.), " and in the wilderness, which thou hast seen (n-N-i, as in ver. 19), where ("iK^N without Si in a loose connection; see Ewald, § 331, c. and 333, a.) Jehovah thy God hove thee as a man hear^ eth his son;" i.e. supported, tended, and provided for thee in the most fatherly way (see the similar figure in Num. xi. 12, and expanded still more fully in Ps. xxiii.).— Vers. 32, 33. " And even at this word ye remained unbelieving towards the Lord;'' i.e. notwithstanding the fact that I reminded you of all the gracious help that ye had experienced from your God, ye persisted in your unbelief. The participle DJ^pxD D^:^^, " ye were not believing;' is intended to describe their unbelief as a permanent condition. This unbelief was all the more grievous a sin, because the Lord their God went before them all the way in the pillar of cloud and fire, to guide and to defend them. On the fact itself, comp. Num. ix. 15 sqq., x. 33, with Ex. xni. 21, 22. — Vers. 34-36. Jehovah was angry, therefore, when He heard these loud words, and swore that He would not let any one of those men, that evil generation, enter the promised land, with the exception of Caleb, because he had followed the Lord faithfully (cf. Num. xiv. 21-24). The yod in ^n^^T is the antiquated connecting vowel of the construct state.

But in order that he might impress upon the people the judgment of the holy God in all its stern severity, Moses added in ver. 37: " also Jehovah was angry with me for your sakes, saying, Thou also shalt not go in thither;" and he did this before mentioning Joshua, who was excepted from the judgment as well as Caleb, because his ultimate intention was to impress also upon the minds of the people the fact, that even in wrath the Lord had been mindful of His covenant, and when pronouncing the sentence upon His servant Moses, had given the people a leader in the person of Joshua, who was to bring them into the promised inheritance. We are not to infer from the close connection in which this event, which did not take place according to Num. xx. 1-13 till the second arrival of the congregation at Kadesh, is placed with the earlier judgment of God at Kadesh, that the two were contemporaneous, and so supply, after " the Lord was angry with me," the words "on that occasion." For Moses did not intend to teach the people history and chronology-, but to set before them the holiness of the judgments of the Lord. By using the expression " for your sakes," Moses did not wish to free himself from guilt. Even in this book his sin at the water of strife is not passed over in silence (cf. chap, xxxii 51). But on the present occasion, if he had given prominenc^ to his own fault, he would have weakened the object for which he referred to this event, viz. to stimulate the consciences of the people, and instil into them a wholesome dread of sin, by ho dine up before them the magnitude of their guilt. But m order that he might give no encouragement to false security respecting their own sin, on the ground that even highly gifted men of God fall into sin as well, Moses simply pointed out the fact, that the quarrelling of the people with him occasioned the wrath o God to fall upon him also.-Ver. 38. " Who slandeth before thee equivalent to " in thy service" (Ex. xxiv. 13, xxxiii. 11: for this meanin<., see chap. x. 8, xvlii. 7; 1 Kings i. 28). " Strengthen htm: comp. chap. xxxl. 7; and with regard to the installation of Joshua as the leader of Israel, see Num. xxvii. 18, 19. The suffix in n^ m points back to P?" in ver. 35. Joshua would divide the land among the Israelites for an inheritance, viz. (ver. 39) among the young Israelites, the children of the condemned generation, whom Moses, when making a further communication of the judical sentence of God (Num. xiv. 31), had described as having no share in the sins of their parents, by adding, « who know not to-day what is good and evil." This expression is used to denote a cx)ndition ot spiritual infancy and moral responsibility (Isa. vii. 15, 16). it is different in 2 Sam. xix. 36.-In vers. 40-45 he proceeds to describe still further, according to Num. xiv. 39-45, how the people, by resisting the command of God to go back into the desert (ver. 41, compared with Num. xiv. 25), had simply brought still greater calamities upon themselves, and had had to atone for the presumptuous attempt to force a way into Canaan, in opposition to the express will of the Lord, by enduring a miserable defeat. Instead of " they acted presumptuously to go up" (Num. xiv. 44) Moses says here, in ver. 41, " ye acted frivolously to go np; and in ver. 43, « ye acted rashly, and went up." Ttn, from n«, to boil or boil over (Gen. xxv. 29), signifies to act thoughtlessly, haughtibj, or rashly. On the particular fact mentioned in ver. 44, see at ^un,. 14 45 —Vers 45 4G. " Then ye returned and wept before Jehovah, i e. before the sanctuary; " but Jehovah did not hearken to your voice." 3,tji does not refer to the return to Kadcsh, but to an inward turnin<', not indeed true conversion to repentance, but simply the.riving^'up of their rash enterprise, which they had undertaken in opposition to tlie commandment of God,-tlie return from a defiant attitude to unbelieving complaining on account of the misfortune that had come upon them. Such complaining God never hears. " And ye sat (remained) in Kadesli many days, that ye remained^^ i.e. not " as many days as ye had been there already before the return of the spies," or " as long as ye remained in all the other stations together, viz. the half of thirty-eight years" (as Seder Olam ajid many of the Rabbins interpret); but " just as long as ye did remain there," as v^e may see from a comparison of chap. ix. 25. It seemed superfluous to mention more precisely the time they spent in Kadesh, because that was well known to the people, whom Moses was addressing. He therefore contented himself with fixing it by simply referring to its duration, which was known to them all. It is no doubt impossible for us to determine the time they remained in Kadesh, because the expression " many days" is simply a relative one, and may signify many years, just as well as many months or weeks. But it by no means warrants the assumption of Fries and others, that no absolute departure of the whole of the people from Kadesh ever took place. Such an assumption is at variance with chap. ii. 1. The change of subjects, " ye sat," etc. (ver. 46), and " we turned and removed" (chap. ii. 1), by no means proves that Moses only went away with that part of the congregation which attached itself to him, whilst the other portion, which was most thoroughly estranged from him, or rather from the Lord, remained there still. The change of subject is rather to be explained from the fact that Moses was passing from the consideration of the events in Kadesh, which he held up before the people as a warning, to a description of the further guidance of Israel. The reference to those events had led him involuntarily, from ver. 22 onwards, to distinguish between himself and the people, and to address his words to them for the pui'pose of bringing out their rebellion against God. And now that he had finished with this, he returned to the communicative mode of address with which he set out in ver. 6, but which he had suspended again until ver. 19.

REVIEW OF THE DIVINE GUIDANCE OF ISRAEL ROUND EDOM AND MOAB TO THE FRONTIER OF THE AMORITES, AND OF THE GRACIOUS ASSISTANCE AFFORDED BY THE LORD IN THE CON- QUEST OF THE KINGDOMS OF SIIION AND OG. — CHAP. II. AND III.

Vers. 1-23. March from Kadesh to the Frontier of the Amorites. — Ver. 1. After a long stay in Kadesh, they commenced their return into the desert. The words, " We departed... Jy the way to the Red Sea" point back to Num. xiv. 25. This departure is expressly designated as an act of obedience to the divine command recorded there, by the expression " as Jehovah spake to meJ' Consequently Moses is not speaking here of the second departure of the congregation from Kadesh to go to Mount Hor (Num. xx. 22), but of the first departure after the condemnation of the generation that came out of Egypt. " And we went round Mount Seir many days'' This going round Mount Seir includes the thirty-eight years' wanderings, tliough we are -not therefore to picture it as "going backwards and forwards, and then entering the Arabah again" (Schultz). Just as Moses passed over the reassembling of the congregation at Kadesh (Num. xx. 1), so he also overlooked the going to and fro in the desert, and fixed his eye more closely upon the last journey from Kadesh to Mount Hor, that he might recall to the memory of the congregation how the Lord had led them to the end of all their wandering.— Vers. 2 sqq. When they had gone through the Arabah to the southern extremity, the Lord commanded them to turn northwards, i.e. to go round the southern end of Mount Seir, and proceed northwards on the eastern side of it (see at Num. xxi. 10), without going to war with the Edomites ('^"li^'?, to stir oneself up against a person to conflict, i^?n^P), as He would not give them a foot-breadth of their land; for He had given Esau (the Edomites) Mount Seir for a possession. For this reason they were to buy victuals and water of them for money (n"J3, to dig, to dig water, i.e. procure water, as it was often necessary to dig wells, and not merely to draw it. Gen. xxvi. 25. The verb nna does not signify to buy). — Yer. 7. And this they were able to do, because the Lord had blessed them in all the work of their hand, i.e. not merely in the rearing of flocks and herds, which they had carried on in the desert (Ex. xix. 13, xxxiv. S; Num. xx. 19, xxxii. 1 sqq.), but in all that they did for a living; whether, for example, when stopping for a long time in the same place of encampment, they sowed in suitable spots and reaped, or whether they sold the produce of their toil and skill to the Arabs of the desert. " He hath observed thy going through this great desert'' (V'}), to know, then to trouble oneself. Gen. xxxix. 6; to observe carefully, Prov. xxvii. 23, Ps. i. 6); and He has not suffered thee to want anything for forty years, but as often as want has occurred. He has miraculously provided for every necessity. — Yer. 8. In accordance with this divine command, they went past the Edomites by the side of their mountains, ^^ from the icay of the Arahah, from Elath (see at Gen. xiv. 6) and Eziongeher^^ (see at Num. xxxiii. 35), 5C. into the steppes of Moab, where they were encamped at that time.

God commanded them to behave in the same planner towards the Moabites, when they approached tlieir frontier (A^er. 9). They were not to touch their land, because the Lord had given Ar to the descendants of Lot for a possession. In ver. 9 the Moabites are mentioned, and in ver. 19 the Amorites also. The Moabites are designated as " sons of Lot," for the same reason for which the Edomites are called " brethren of Israel " in ver. 4. The Israelites were to uphold the bond of blood-relationship with these tribes in the most sacred manner. Ar, the capital of Moabitis (see at Num. xxi. 15), is used here for the land itself, which was named after the capital, and governed by it. — Vers. 11, 12. To confirm the fact that the Moabites and also the Edomites had received from God the land which they inhabited as a possession, Moses interpolates into the words of Jehovah certain ethnographical notices concerning the earlier inhabitants of these lands, from which it is obvious that Edom and Moab had not destroyed^ them by their own power, but that Jehovah had destroyed them before them, as is expressly stated in vers. 21, 22. " The JEmim dwelt formerly thereirij^ sc. in Ar and its territory, in Moabitis, " a high (i.e. strong) and numerous people, of gigantic stature, which were also reckoned among the JRephaites, like the Enakites (^Anakim).^^ Emim, i.e. frightful, terrible, was the name given to them by the Moabites. Whether this earlier or original population of Moabitis was of Hamitic or Semitic descent cannot be determined, any more than the connection between the Emim and the Rephaim can be ascertained. On the Hephaim, see vol. i. p. 203; and on the Anakites, at Num. xiii. 22. — Ver.' 12. The origin of the Horites (i.e. the dwellers in caves) of Mount Seir, who were driven out of their possessions by the descendants of Esau, and completely exterminated (see at Gen. xiv. 6, and xxxvi. 20), is altogether involved in obscurity. The words, " as Israel has done to the land of his possession, which Jehovah has given them," do not presuppose the conquest of the land of Canaan or a post-Mosaic authorship; but " the land of his possession " is the land to the east of the Jordan (Gilead and Bashan), which was conquered by the Israelites under Moses, and divided among the two tribes and a half, and which is also described in chap. iii. 20 as the " possession " which Jehovah had given to these tribes. — Vers. 13-15. For this reason Israel was to remove from the desert of Moab (i.e. the desert which bounded Moabitis on the east), xind to cross over the brook Zered, to advance against the country of the Amorites (see at Num. xxi. 12, 13). This occurred thirty-eight years after the condemnation of the people at Kadesh (Num. xiv. 23, 29), when the generation rejected by God had entirely died out (C)^^, to be all gone, to disappear), so that not one of them saw the promised land. They did not all die a natural death, however, but " the hand of the Lord was against them to destroy them " (D^\f, lit. to throw into confusion, then used with special reference to the terrors with w^hich Jehovah destroyed His enemies; Ex. xiv. 24, xxiii. 27, etc.), sc. by extraordinary judgments (as in Num. xvi. 35, xvii. 14, xxi. 6, xxv. 9). — Vers. 16-19. When this generation had quite died out, the Lord made known to Moses, and through him to the people, that they were to cross over the boundary of Moab {i,e, the Arnon, ver. 24; see at Num. xxi. 13), the land of Ar (see at ver. 9), " to come nigh over against the children of Ammon^^ i.e. to advance into the neighbourhood of the Ammonites, who lived to the east of Moab; but they were not to meddle with these descendants of Lot, because He would give them nothing of the land that was given them for a possession (ver. 19, as at vers. 5 and 9). — To confirm this, ethnographical notices are introduced again in vers. 20-22 into the words of God (as in vers. 10, 11), concerning the earlier population of the country of the Ammonites. Ammonitis was also regarded as a land of the Rephaites, because Rephaites dwelt therein, whom the Ammonites called Zamzummim. " Zamzummim" from QDJ^ to hum, then to muse, equivalent to the humming or roaring people, probably the same people as the Zuzim mentioned in Gen. xiv. 5. This giant tribe Jehovah had destroyed before the Ammonites (ver. 22), just as He had done for the sons of Esau dwelling upon Mount Seir, namely, destroyed the Horites before them, so that the Edomites " dwelt in their stead, even unto this day." — Ver. 23. As the Horites had been exterminated by the Edomites, so were the Avvceaiis (Avvim), who dwelt in farms (villages) at the south-west corner of Canaan, as far as Gaza, driven out of their possessions and exterminated by the Caphtorites, who sprang from Caphtor (see at Gen. x. 14), although, according to Josh. xiii. 3, some remnants of them were to be found among the Philistines even at that time. This notice appears to be attached to the foregoing remarks simply on account of the substantial analogy between them, without there being any intention to imply that the Israelites were to assume the same attitude towards the Caphtorites, who afterwards rose up in the persons of the Philistines, as towards the descendants of Esau and Lot.

Vers. 24-37. The Help of God in the Conquest of the Kingdom of Sihon. — Vers. 24 sqq. Whereas the IsraeHtes were not to make war upon the kindred tribes of Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites, or drive them out of the possessions given to them by God; the Lord had given the Amorites, who had forced a way into Gilead and Bashan, into their hands. — Vers. 24, 25. While they were encamped on the Arnon, the border of the Amoritish king of Sihon, He directed them to cross this frontier and take possession of the land of Sihon, and promised that He would give this king with all his territory into their hands, and that henceforward (" this day^^ the day on which Israel crossed the Arnon) He would put fear and terror of Israel upon all nations under the whole heaven, so that as soon as they heard the report of Israel they would tremble and writhe before them. ^^ Pnn, " begin ^ take,^ an oratorical expression for " begin to take " (5^'J in pause for K^"], chap, i. 21). The expression, ''all nations urider the whole heaveti,^^ is hyperbolical; it is not to be restricted, however, to the Canaanites and other neighbouring tribes, but, according to what follows, to be understood as referring to all nations to whom the report of the great deeds of the Lord upon and on behalf of Israel should reach (cf. chap. xi. 25 and Ex. xxiii. 27). ^^^., so that (as in Gen. xi. 7, xiii. 16, xxii. 14). vn*!, with the accent upon the last syllable, on account of the 1 consec. [Ewald, § 234, a.), from ^^in, to twist, or writhe with pain, here with anxiety. — Vers. 26-29. If Moses, notwithstanding this, sent messengers to king Sihon with words of peace (vers. 26 sqq.; cf. Num. xxi. 21 sqq.), this was done to show the king of the Amorites, that it was through his own fault that his kingdom and lands and life were lost. The wish to pass through his land in a peaceable manner was quite seriously expressed; although Moses foresaw, in consequence of the divine communication, that he would reject his proposal, and meet Israel with hostilities. For Sihon's kingdom did not form part of the land of Canaan, which God had promised to the patriarchs for their descendants; and the divine foreknowledge of the hardness of Sihon no more destroyed the freedom of his will to resolve, or the freedom of his actions, than the circumstance that in ver. 30 the unwillingness of Sihon is described as the effect of his being hardened by God Himself. The hardening was quite as much the production of human freedom and guilt, as the consequence of the divine decree; just as in the case of Pharaoh (see the discussion m vol. i. pp 453 sqq.). On Kedemoth, see p. 144. tjn'ia il^p, equivalent to « upon the way, and always upon the way," i.e. upon the high road alone, as in Num. xx. 19. On the behaviour of the Edomites towards Israel, mentioned in ver. 29, see p. 142. In the same way the Moabites also supplied Israel with provisions for money, ihis statement is not at variance with the unbrotherly conduct for which the Moabites are blamed in chap, xxiii. 4, viz. that they did not meet the Israelites with bread and water. For D^?, to meet and anticipate, signifies a hospitable reception, the offering of food and drink without reward, which is essentially different from selling tor money. " In Ar " (ver. 29), as in ver. 18. The suffix in ia (ver. 30) refers to the king, who is mentioned as the lord of the land, in the place of the land itself, just as in Num. xx. 18.— Ver. 31. The refusal of Sihon was suspended over him by God as a judgment of hardening, which led to his destruction. " As this day," an abbreviation of « as it has happened this day," i.e. as experience has now shown (cf. chap. iv. 20, etc.).-Vers. 32-37. Defeat of Sihon, as already described in the main in Num. xxi. 23-26. The war was a war of extermination, in which all the towns were laid under the ban (see Lev. xxvii. 29), i.e. the whole of the population of men women, and children were put to death, and only the flocks and herds and material possessions were taken by the conquerors as prey.— Ver. 34. cnp TJ) (city of men) is the town population ot men.*— Ver. 36. They proceeded this way with the whole of the kingdom of Sihon. « From Aroer on the edge of the Arnon valley (see at Num. xxxii. 34), and, in fact, from the city which is tn the valley," i.e. Ar, or Areopolis (see at Num. xxi. 15),-Aroer bemg mentioned as the inclusive terminus a quo of the land that was taken, and the Moabitish capital Ar as the exclusive terminus, as in Josh. xiii. 9 and 16; " and as far as Gilead," which rises on the north, near the Jabbok (or Zerka, see at chap. ill. 4), " there was no town too high for us," i.e. so strong that we could not take it.— Ver. 37. Only along the land of the Ammonites the Israelites did not! come, namely, along the whole of the side of the brook Jabbok, or I the country of the Ammonites, which was situated upon the eastern side of the upper Jabbok, and the towns of the mountain, i.e. of the Ammonitish highlands, and " to all that the Lord had commanded, sc. commanded them not to remove. The statement, in Josh xiii. 25, that the half of the country of the Ammonites was given to the tribe of Gad, is not at variance with this; for the allusion there is to that portion of the land of the Ammonites which was between the Arnon and the Jabbok, and which had already been taken from the Ammonites by the Amorites under Sihon (cf. Judg. xi. 13 sqq.).

Chap. iii. 1-11. The Help of God in the Conquest of THE Kingdom of Og of Bashan. — Vers. 1 sqq. After the defeat of king Sihon and the conquest of his land, the Israelites were able to advance to the Jordan. But as the powerful Amoritish king Og still held the northern half of Gilead and all Bashan, they proceeded northwards at once and took the road to Bashan, that they might also defeat this king, whom the Lord had likewise given into their hand, and conquer his country (cf. Num. xxi. 33, 34). They smote him at Edrei, the modern Draa (see p. 155), without leaving him even a remnant; and took all his towns, i.e., as is here more fully stated in vers. 4 sqq., ''sixty towns, the whole region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan^ These three definitions refer to one and the same country; The w^hole region of Argoh included the sixty towns which formed the kingdom of Og in Bashan, i,e. all the towns of the land of Bashan, viz. (according to ver. 5) all the fortified towns, besides the unfortified and open country towns of Bashan. /^j^n^ the chain for measuring, then the land or country measured with the chain. The name " region of Argoh^'' which is given to the country of Bashan here, and in vers. 4, 13, 14, and also in 1 Kings iv. 13, is probably derived from 2ii"!, stone-heaps, related to ^jll, a clump or clod of earth (Job xxi. 33, xxxviii. 38). The Targumists have rendered it correctly KjiD"Jp (^Trachona), from Tpa')(a)v, a rough, uneven, stony district, so called from the basaltic hills of Hauran; just as the plain to the east of Jebel Hauran, which resembles Hauran itself, is sometimes called Tellulj from its tells or hills {Burckhardt, Syr. p. 173).^ This district has also received the name of Bashan, from the character of its soil; for |^^ signifies a soft and level soil. From the name given to it by the Arabic translators, the Greek name Baravaia, Batancea, and possibly also the modern name of the country on the north-eastern slope of Hauran at the back of Mount Hauran, viz. Bethenije.j are derived. — The name Argoh probably originated in the north-eastern part of the country of Bashan, viz. the modern

^ The derivation is a much more improbable one, " from the town of Argoh, Tpos Vipxaccv TvoKiv ' hpot^ietg^ according to the Onomast., fifteen Roman miles to the west of Gerasa^ which is called Fxyot/iSi by Josephus (Ant. xiii. 15, 5)."

Lejaj with its stony soil covered with heaps of large blocks of stone (^Burckhardt, p. 196), or rather in the extensive volcanic region to the east of Hauran, which was first of all brought to distinct notice in Wetzstein^ s travels, and of which he says that the "southern portion, bearing the name ITarra, is thickly covered with loose volcanic stones, with a few conical hills among them, that have been evidently caused by eruptions" (^Wetzstein, p. 6). The central point of the whole is Safa, " a mountain nearly seven hours' journey in length and about the same in breadth," in which " the black mass streaming from the craters piled itself up w^ave upon wave, so that the centre attained to the height of a mountain, w^ithout acquiring the smoothness of form observable in mountains generally," — " the black flood of lava being full of innumerable streams of stony waves, often of a bright red colour, bridged over with thin arches, which rolled down the slopes out of the craters and across the high plateau" (Wetzstein, pp. 6 and 7). At a later period tliis name was transferred to the whole of the district of Hauran ( = Bashan), because not only is the Jebel Hauran entirely of volcanic formation, but the plain consists throughout of a reddish brown soil produced by the action of the weather upon volcanic stones, and even "the Leja plain has been poured out from the craters of the Hauran mountains" (Wetzstein, p. 23). Through this volcanic character of the soil, Hauran differs essentially from Belka, Jebel Ajlun^ and the plain of Jaulan, which is situated between the Sea of Galilee and the upper Jordan on the one side, and the plain of Hauran on the other, and reaches up to the southern slope of the Hermon. In these districts tlie limestone and chalk formations prevail, which present the same contrast to the basaltic formation of the Hauran as white docs to black (cf. v. Haumer, Pal. pp. 75 sqq.). — The land of the limestone and chalk formation abounds in caves, which are not altoijether wantinix indeed in Hauran (as v. Raumer supposes), though they are only found in eastern and south-eastern Hauran, where most of the volcanic elevations have been perforated by troglodytes (see Wetzstein, pp. 92 and 44 sqq.). But the true land of caves on the east of the Jordan is northern Gilead, viz. Erhed and Suet {Wetzst. p. 92). Here the troglodyte dwellings predominate, whereas in Hauran you find for the most part towns and villages with houses of one or more stories built above the surface of the ground, although even on the eastern slope of the Hauran mountains there are hamlets to be seen, in wlilch the style of building forms a transition from actual caves to dwellings built upon the ground. An excavation is first of all made in the rocky plateau, of the breadth and depth of a room, and this is afterwards arched over with a solid stone roof. The dwellings made in this manner have all the appearance of cellars or tunnels. This style of building, such as Wetzstein found in Hihhike for example, belongs to the most remote antiquity. In some cases, hamlets of this kind were even surrounded by a wall. Those villages of Hauran which are built above the surface of the ground, attract the eye and stimulate the imagination, when seen from a distance, in various ways. " In

the first place, the black colour of the building materials presents the greatest contrast to the green around them, and to the transparent atmosphere also. In the second place, the height of the. walls and the compactness of the houses, which always form a connected whole, are very imposing. In the third place, they are surmounted by strong towers. And in the fourth place, they are in such a good state of preservation, that you involuntarily yield to the delusion that they must of necessity be inhabited, and expect to

see people going out and in" {Wetzstein^ p. 49). The larger towns are surrounded by walls; but the smaller ones as a rule have none: " the backs of the houses might serve as walls." The material of which the houses are built is a grey dolerite, impregnated with glittering particles of olivine. " The stones are rarely cemented, but the fine and for the most part large squares lie one upon another as if they were fused together." " Most of the doors of the houses which lead into the streets or open fields are so low, that it is impossible to enter them without stooping; but the large buildings and the ends of the streets have lofty gatew^ays, which are always tastefully constructed, and often decorated with sculptures and Greek inscriptions." The " larger gates have either simple or (what are most common) double doors. They consist of a slab of dolerite. There are certainly no doors of any other kind." These stone doors turn upon pegs, deeply inserted into the threshold and lintel. "Even a man can only shut and open doors of this kind, by pressing with the back or feet against the wall, and pushing the door with both hands " ( Wetzstein^ pp. 50 sqq.; compare with this the testimony of Buckingham, Burckharcltj Seetzen, and others, in V. Raumers Palestine, pp. 78 sqq.).

Now, even if the existing ruins of Ilauran date for the most part from a later period, and are probably of a Nabatiean origin belonging to the times of Trajan and the Antonines, yet considering the stability of the East, and the peculiar nature of the soil of Hauran, they give a tolerably correct idea of the sixty towns of the kingdom of Og of Bashan, all of which were fortified with high walls, gates, and bars, or, as it is stated in 1 Kings iv. 13, " with walls and brazen bars." ^ The brazen bars were no doubt, like the gates themselves, of basalt or dolerite, which might easily be mistaken for brass. Besides the sixty fortified towns, the Israelites took a very large number of ''nsn '•ny^ " towns of the inhabitants of the flat country ^^ i.e. unfortified open hamlets and villages in Bashan, and put them under the ban, like the towns of king Sihon (vers. 6, 7; cf. chap. ii. 34, 35). The infinitive, ^^J}J}^ is to be construed as a gerund (cf. Ges. § 131, 2; Ewald, § 280, a.). The expression, " kingdom of Og in Bashan," implies that the kingdom of Og was not limited to the land of Bashan, but included the northern half of Gilead as well. In vers. 8—11, Moses takes a retrospective view of the whole of the land that had been taken on the other side of the Jordan; first of all (ver. 9) in its whole extent from the Arnon to Hermon, then (ver. 10) in its separate parts, to bring out in all its grandeur what the Lord had done for Israel. The notices of the different names of Hermon (ver. 9), and of the bed of king Og (ver. 11), are also subservient to this end. Hermon is the southernmost spur of Antilibanus, the present Jehel es Sheikh^ or Jebel et Telj. The Hebrew name is not connected with D"in, anathema^ as Hengstenherg supposes (Diss. pp. 197-8); nor was it first given by the Israelites to this mountain, which formed part of the northern boundary of the land which they had taken; but it is to be traced to an Arabic word signifying prominens montis vertex^ and was a name which had long been current at that time, for which the Israelites used the Hebrew name \^''''^ (Sion =^ 1^^^^, the high, eminent; chap. iv. 48), though this name did not supplant the traditional name of Hermon. The Sidonians called it Sirion^ a modified form of ^''1^^ (1 Sam. xvii. 5), or P''"!p (Jer. xlvi. 4), a " coat of mail;" the Amorites called it Senir, probably a word with the same meaning. In Ps. xxix. 6, Sirion is used

^ It is also by no means impossible, that many of the oldest dwellings in the mined towers of Hauran date from a time anterior to the conquest of the land by the Israelites. " Simple, built of heavy blocks of basalt roughly hewn, and as hard as iron, with very thick walls, very strong stone gates and doors, many of which were about eighteen inches thick, and were formerly fastened with immense bolts, and of which traces still remain; such houses as these may have been the work of the old giant tribe of Rephaim, whose king, Og, was defeated by the Israelites 3000 years ago" (C. v. llaumer^ Pal. p. 80, after Ported s Five Years in Damascus).

poetically for Ilermon; and Ezekiel (xxvii. 4) uses Senir, in a mournful dirge over Tyre, as synonymous with Lebanon; whilst Senir is mentioned in 1 Chron. v. 23, and Shenir in Cant. iv. 8, in connection with Hermon, as a part of Antilibanus, as it might very naturally happen that the Amoritish name continued attached to one or other of the peaks of the mountain, just as we find that even Arabian geographers, such as Abulfeda and Maraszidj call that portion of Antilibanus which stretches from Baalbek to Emesa (Horns, Heliopolis) by the name of Sanir. — Yer. 10. The different portions of the conquered land were the following: "ib^''?pn, the plain, i.e, the Amoritish table-land, stretching from the Arnon to Heshbon, and in a north-easterly direction nearly as far as Rabbath- Ammon, with the towns of Heshbon, Bezer, Medeba, Jahza, and Dibon (chap. iv. 43; Josh. xiii. 9, 16, 17, 21, xx. 8; Jer. xlviii. 21 sqq.), which originally belonged to the Moabites, and is therefore called " the field of Moab" in Num. xxi. 20 (see p. 148). " The ivhole of Gilead,'^ i,e. the mountainous region on the southern and northern sides of the Jabbok, which was divided into two halves by this river. The southern half, which reached to Heshbon, belonged to the kingdom of Sihon (Josh. xii. 2), and was assigned by Moses to the Reubenites and Gadites (ver. 12); whilst the northern half, which is called " the rest of Gilead" in ver. 13, the modern Jebel Ajlun, extending as far as the land of Bashan (Hauran and Jaulan), belonged to the kingdom of Og (Josh. xii. 5), and was assigned to the Manassite family of Machir (ver. 15, and Josh. xiii. 31; cf. V. Raumer, Pal. pp. 229, 230). '' And all Bashan unto Salcah and Edreir All Bashan included not only the country of Hauran (the plain and mountain), but unquestionably also the district of Jedur and Jaulan^ to the west of the sea of Galilee and the upper Jordan, or the ancient Gaulonitis {Jos. Ant. xviii. 4, 6, etc.), as the kingdom of Og extended to the coasts of Geshuri and Maachathi (see at ver. 14). Og had not conquered the whole of the land of Hauran, however, but only the greater part of it. His territory extended eastwards to Salcah, i.e. the present Szalchat or Szarchad, about six hours to the east of Bozrah, south of Jebel Hauran, a town with 800 houses, and a castle upon a basaltic rock, but uninhabited (cf. V. Raumevj Pal. p. 255); and northwards to Edrei, i.e. the northern Edrei (see at Num. xxi. 33;, a considerable ruin on the northwest of Bozrah, three or four English miles in extent, in the old buildings of which there are 200 families living at present (Turks, Druses, and Christians). By the Arabian geographers {Abulfeda,

Ibn Batuta) it is called Sora, by modem travellers A dra or Edra (v, JRicJiter), or Oezraa (Seetzen), or JEzra (BurckJiardt), and Edhra {Robinson, ^PP* 1^5). Consequently nearly the whole of Jebel Hauran, and the northern portion of the plain, viz. the Leja, were outside the kingdom of Og and the land of Bashan, of which the Israelites took possession, although Burchhardt reckons Ezra as part of the Leja. — Yer. 11. Even in Abraham's time, the giant tribe of Rephahn was living in Bashan (Gen. xiv. 5). But out of the remnant of these, king Og, whom the Israelites defeated and slew, was the only one left. For the purpose of recalling the greatness of the grace of God that had been manifested in that victory, and not merely to establish the credibility of the statements concerning the size of Og (" just as things belonging to an age that has long passed away are shown to be credible by their remains," Spinoza j etc.), Moses points to the iron bed of this king, which was still in Eabbath- Ammon, and was nine cubits long and four broad, " after the cubit of a man," i.e, the ordinary cubit in common use (see the analogous expression, " a man's pen," Isa. viii. 1). ^p\}^^ for ^p^_, synonymous with ^^}^, There is nothing to amaze us in the size of the bed or bedstead given here. The ordinary Hebrew cubit was only a foot and a half, probably only eighteen Dresden inches (see my Archdologie, ii. p. 126, Anm. 4). Now a bed is always larger than the man who sleeps in it. But in this case Clericus fancies that Og " intentionally exceeded the necessary size, in order that posterity might be led to draw more magnificent conclusions from the size of the bed, as to the stature of the man who was accustomed to sleep in it." He also refers to the analoo-ous case of Alexander the Great, of whom Biod. Sic. (xvii. 95) affirms, that whenever he was obliged to halt on his march to India, he made colossal arrangements of all kinds, causing, among other things, two couches to be prepared in the tents for every foot-soldier, each five cubits long, and two stalls for every horseman, twice as large as the ordinary size, " to represent a camp, of heroes, and leave striking memorials behind for the inhabitants of the land, of gigantic men and their supernatural strength." With a similar intention Og may also have left behind him a gigantic bed as a memorial of his superhuman greatness, on the occasion of some expedition of his against the Ammonites; and this bed may have been preserved in their capital as a proof of the greatness of their foe.^ Moses might then refer

^ " It will often be found, that very tall people are disposed to make themselves appear even taller than they actually are" {Hcngstcnherg, Diss. ii. p. 201).

to this gigantic bed of Og, which was known to the Israelites; and there is no reason for resorting to the improbable conjecture, that the Ammonites had taken possession of a bed of king Og upon some expedition against the Amorites, and had carried it off as a trophy into their capital.^ " Rahhatli of the sons of Ammon," or briefly Rahhah, i.e. the great (Josh. xiii. 25; 2 Sam. xi. 1), was the capital of the Ammonites, afterwards called Pliiladelphiay probably from Ptolemseus Philadelphus; by PolyhiuSj 'Pa^^arufjiava; hy Ahulfeda, Amrndn, which is the name still given to the uninhabited ruins on the Nahr Amman, i.e. the upper Jabbok (see Burchhardt, pp. 612 sqq.j and v. Baumer, Pal. p. 268).

Vers. 12-20. Review of the Distribution of the conquered Land. — The land which the Israelites had taken belonging to these two kingdoms was given by Moses to the two tribes and a half for their possession, viz. the southern portion from Aroer in the Arnon valley (see at Num. xxxii. 34), and half Gilead (as far as the Jabbok: see at ver. 10) with its towns, which are enumerated in Josh. xiii. 15-20 and 24-28, to the Peubenites and Gadites; and the northern half of Gilead, with the whole of Bashan (i.e. all the region of Argob: see at ver. 4, and Num. xxxii. 33), to the halftribe of Manasseh. IC'snvDp^ "a.s for all Bashan,^' is in apposition to "aZZ the region of Argob, ^^ and the p simply serves to connect it; for " all the region of Argob " was not merely one portion of Bashan, but was identical with " all Bashan," so far as it belonged to the kingdom of Og (see at ver. 4). All this region passed for a land of giants. ^"IP"?, to be called, i.e. to be, and to be recognised as being. — Ver. 14. The region of Argob, or the country of Bashan, was given to Jair (see Num. xxxii. 41), as far as the territory of the Geshurites and Maachathites (cf. Josh. xii. 5, xiii. 11). " Uiito^^ as far as, is to be understood as inclusive. This is evident from

}iIoreover, there are still giants wlio are eight feet high and upwards. " According to the N. Preuss. Zeit. of 1857, there came a man to Berlin 8 feet 4 inches high, and possibly still growing, as he was only twenty years old; and he was said to have a great-uncle who was nine inches taller" (SchuUz).

1 There is still less probability in the conjecture of J. D. MichacUs, Vater^ Winei\ and others, that Og's iron bed was a sarcophagus of basalt, such as are still frequently met with in those regions, as much as 9 feet long and 3^ feet broad, or even as much as 12 feet long and 6 feet in breadth and height {vid. BurckUardt, pp. 220, 246; Robinson, iii. p. 385; Seetzen, i. pp. 355, 360); and the still further assumption, that the corpse of the fallen king was taken to Rabbah, and there interred in a royal way, is altogether improbable.

the statement in Josh. xiii. 13: " The children of Israel expelled not the Geshurites nor the Maachathites; hut the Geshurites and the Maachathites dwell among the Israelites until this dayT Consequently Moses allotted the territory of these two tribes to the Manassites, because it formed part of the kingdom of Og. " Geshuri and Maachathi " are the inhabitants of Geshur and Maachah, two provinces which formed small independent kingdoms even in David's time (2 Sam. iii. 3, xiii. 37, and x. 6). Geshur bordered on Aram. The Geshurites and Aramaeans afterwards took from the Israelites the JatV-towns and Kenath, with their daughter towns (1 Chron. ii. 23). In David's time Geshur had a king Thalmai^ whose daughter David married. This daughter was the mother of Absalom; and it was in Geshur that Absalom lived for a time in exile (2 Sam. iii. 3, xiii. 37, xiv. 23, xv. 8). The exact situation of Geshur has not yet been determined. It was certainly somewhere near Hermon, on the eastern side of the upper Jordan, and by a bridge over the Jordan, as Geshur signifies bridge in all the Semitic dialects. Maachah, which is referred to in 1 Chron. xix. 6 as a kingdom under the name of Aram-Maachah (Eng. Y. Syria-Maachah), is probably to be sought for to the north-east of Geshur, According to the Onomast. (s. v. Ma-^adl), it was in the neighbourhood of the Hermon. " And he called them (the towns of the region of Argob) after his own name; Bashan (sc, he.called) Havvoth Jair unto this day^^ (cf. Num. xxxii. 41). The word n^n {^Havvoth), which only occurs in connection with the JaiV-towns, does not mean towns or camps of a particular kind, viz. tent villages, as some suppose, but is the plural of njn^ life (^Leben, a common German termination, e.g. JEisleben), for which afterwards the word nspi was used (comp. 2 Sam. xxiii, 13 with 1 Chron. xi. 15). It applies to any kind of dwelling-place, being used in the passages just mentioned to denote even a warlike encampment. The Jair s-lives (Jairsleben) w^ere not a particular class of towns, therefore, in the district of Argob, but Jair gave this collective name to all the sixty fortified towns, as is perfectly evident from the verse before us when compared with ver. 5 and Num. xxxii. 41, and expressly confirmed by Josh. xiii. 30 and 1 Kings iv. 13, where the sixty fortified towns of the district of Argob are called Havvoth Jair. — The statement in 1 Chron. ii. 22, 23, that '^ Jair had twenty-three towns in Gilead (which is used here as in chap, xxxiv. 1, Josh. xxii. 9, xiii. 15, Judg. v. 17, xx. 1, to denote the whole of Palestine to the east of the Jordan), and Geshur and Aram took the Havvoth Jair from them, (and) Kenath and its daughters, sixty town^ {sc. in all)," is by no means at variance with this, but, on the contrary, in the most perfect harmony with it. For it is evident from this passage, that the twenty-three Havvoth Jair, with Kenath and its daughters, formed sixty towns altogether. The distinction between the twenty-three Havvoth Jair and the other thirty-seven towns, viz. Kenath and its daughters, is to be explained from the simple fact that, according to Num. xxxii. 42, Nobah, no doubt a family of sons of Machir related to Jair, conquered Kenath and its daughters, and called the conquered towns by his name, namely, when they had been allotted to him by Moses. Consequently Bashan, or the region of Argob, with its sixty fortified towms, was divided between tw^o of the leading families of Machir the Manassite, viz. the families of Jair and Nobah, each family receiving the districts w^hich it had conquered, together with their towns; namely, the family of JVobah, Kenath and its daughter towns, or the eastern portion of Bashan; and the family of Jair, twenty-three towns in the west, which are called Havvoth Jair in 1 Chron. ii. 23, in harmony with Num. xxxii. 41, where Jair is said to have given this name to the towns which were conquered by him. In the address before us, however, in which Moses had no intention to enter into historical details, all the (sixty) towns of the whole district of Argob, or the whole of Bashan, are comprehended under the name of Havvoth Jair, probably because JVobah was a subordinate branch of the family of Jair, and the towns conquered by him were under the supremacy of Jair. The expression " unto this day " certainly does not point to a later period than the Mosaic age. This definition of time is simply a relative one. It does not necessarily presuppose a very long duration, and here it merely serves to bring out the marvellous change which was due to the divine grace, viz. that the sixty fortified towns of the giant king Og of Bashan had now become Jair's lives. ^ — Yer. 15. Machir received Gilead (see Num. xxxii. 40). — In vers. 16 and 17 the possession of the tribes of Reuben and Gad is described more fully according to its boundaries. They received the land of Gilead (to the south of the Jabbok) as far as the brook Arnon, the middle of the valley and its territory. pr}pn T]in is a more precise definition of p"]^ 7nj, ex-

* The conquest of these towns, in fact, does not seem to have been of long duration, and the possession of them by the Israelites was a very disputed one (cf. 1 Chron. ii. 22, 23). In the time of the judges we find thirty in the possession of the judge Jair (Judg. x. 4), which caused the old name Havvoth Jair to be revived.

pressive of the fact that the territory of these tribes was not to reach merely to the northern edge of the Arnon valley, but into the middle of it, viz. to the river Arnon, which flowed through the middle of the valley; and ^^^^1 (and the border) is an explanatoryapposition to what goes before, as in Num. xxxiv. 6, signifying, ''viz, the border of the Arnon valley as far as the river^ On the east, " even unto Jabbok the brook, the (western) border of the Ammonites " (i,e. as far as the upper Jabbok, the Nahr Amman: see at Num. xxi. 24); and on the west " the Arabah (the Ghor: see chap. i. 1) and the Jordan with territory " (i,e, with its eastern bank), "from Chinnereth " (i,e. the town from which the Sea of Galilee received the name of Sea of Chinnereth: Num. xxxiv. 11; see at Josh, xix. 35) " to the sea of the Arabah, the Salt Sea under the slopes of Pisgah (see at Num. xxi. 15 and xxvii. 12) eastward^^ (i.e. merely the eastern side of the Arabah and Jordan). — In vers. 18-20 Moses reminds them of the conditions upon which he had given the two tribes and a half the land referred to for their inheritance (cf. Num. xxxii. 20-32).

Vers. 21-29. Nomination of Joshua as his Successor. — This reminiscence also recalls the goodness of God in the appointment of Joshua (Num. xxvii. 12 sqq.), which took place " at that time,^^ i.e. after the conquest of the land on the east of the Jordan. In accordance with the object of his address, which was to hold up to view what the Lord had done for Israel, he here relates how, at the very outset, he pointed Joshua to the things which he had seen with his eyes (riknn T^^V, thine eyes were seeing; cf. Ewald, § 335, b.), namely, to the defeat of the two kings of the Amorites, in which the pledge was contained, that the faithful covenant God would complete the w^ork He had begun, and would do the same to all kingdoms whither Joshua would go over {i.e. across the Jordan). — Yer. 22. For this reason they were not to be afraid; for Jehovah Himself would fight for them. " He " is emphatic, and adds force to the subject. — Vers. 23 sqq. Moses then describes how, notwithstanding his prayer, the Lord had refused him permission to cross over into Canaan and see the glorious land. This prayer is not mentioned in the historical account given in the fourth book; but it must have preceded the prayer for the appointment of a shepherd over the congregation in Num. xxvii. 16, as the Lord directs him in His reply (ver. 28) to appoint Joshua as the leader of the people. In his prayer, Moses appealed to the manifestations of divine grace which he had already received. As the Lord had already begun to show him Ilis greatness and His mighty hand, so might He also show him the completion of His work. The expression, " begun to show Thy greatness," relates not so much to the mighty acts of the Lord in Egypt and at the Red Sea (as in Ex. xxxii. 11, 12, and Num. xiv. 13 sqq.), as to the manifestation of the divine omnipotence in the defeat of the Amorites, by which the Lord had begun to bring His people into the possession of the promised land, and had made Himself known as God, to whom there was no equal in heaven or on earth, "i^fc^ before ^^ ""P (ver. 24) is an explanatory and causal relative: because {quod, quia), or for. " For what God is there in heaven and on earth,'' etc. These words recall Ex. xv. 11, and are echoed in many of the Psalms — in Ps. Ixxxvi. 8 almost verbatim. The contrast drawn between Jehovah and other gods does not involve the reality of the heathen deities, but simply presupposes a belief in the exist^ce of other gods, without deciding as to the truth of that belief. ^^132^ manifestations of "TJ^^-i, mighty deeds. — Ver. 2b. " / pray Thee, let me go over^ W"^"^^V^?, a form of desire, used as a petition, as in chap. ii. 27, Num. xxi. 22, etc. " That goodly mountains^ is not one particular portion of the land of Canaan, such as the mountains of Judah, or the temple mountain (according to Ex. XV. 17), but the whole of Canaan regarded as a mountainous country, Lebanon being specially mentioned as the boundary wall towards the north. As Moses stood on the lower level of the Arabah, the promised land presented itself not only to his eyes, but also to his soul, as a long mountain range; and that not merely as suggestive of the lower contrast, that " whereas the plains in the East are for the most part sterile, on account of the want of springs or rain, the mountainous regions, which are well watered by springs and streams, are very fertile and pleasant " {Rosenmixller), but also on a much higher ground, viz. as a high and lofty land, which would stand by the side of Horeb, "where he had spent the best and holiest days of his life, and where he had seen the commencement of the covenant between God and His people" (Schultz). — Ver. 26. But the Lord would not grant his request. " Let it suffice thee^"* (satis sit tibi, as in chap. i. 6), substantially equivalent to 2 Cor. xii. 8, " My grace is sufficient for thee" (Schultz). 3 "^^^j to speak about a thing (as in chap. vi. 7, xi. 19, etc.). — Ver. 27 is a rhetorical paraphrase of Num. xxvii. 12, where the mountains of Abarim are mentioned in the place of Pisgah, which was the northern portion of Abarim. (On ver. 28, cf. chap. i. 38 and Num. xxvii. 23.)

— Yer. 29. " So we abode in the valley over against Beth-PeoVy^ i.e. in the Arboth Moab (Num. xxii. 1), sc. where we still are. The pret. 1^35 is used, because Moses fixes his eye upon the past, and looks back upon the events already described in Num. xxviii.- xxxiv. as having taken place there. On Beth-Peor^ see at Num. xxiii. 28.

With the word ^T^V\ " and now^^ Moses passes from a contemplation of what the Lord had done for Israel, to an exhortation to keep the law of the Lord. The divine manifestations of grace laid Israel under the obligation to a conscientious observance of the law, that they might continue to enjoy the blessings of the covenant. The exhortation commences with the appeal, to hear and keep the commandments and rights of the Lord, without adding to them or taking from them; for not only were life and death suspended upon their observance, but it was in this that the wisdom and greatness of Israel before all the nations consisted (vers. 1-8). It then proceeds to a warning, not to forget the events at Horeb (vers. 9-14) and so fall into idolatry, the worship of images or idol deities (vers. 15—24) \ and it closes with a threat of dispersion among the heathen as the punishment of apostasy, and with a promise of restoration as the consequence of repentance and sincere conversion (vers. 25-31), and also with a reason for this threat and promise drawn from the history of the immediate past (vers. 32—34), for the purpose of fortifying the nation in its fidelity to its God, the sole author of its salvation (vers. 35-40).

Vers. 1—8. The Israelites were to hearken to the laws and rights which Moses taught to do (that they were to do), that they might live and attain to the possession of the land which the Lord would give them. "Hearkening" involve;^ laying to heart and observing. The words " statutes and judgments " (as in Lev. xix. 37) denote the whole of the law of the covenant tti its two leading features. 0^?^, statutes^ includes the moral commandments and statutory covenant laws, for which \>n and Hi^n are mostly used in the earlier books; that is to say, all that the people were bound to observe; D^DQK^p, rights^ all that was due to them, whether in relation to God or to their fellow-men (cf. chap. xxvi. 17). Sometimes •^JV?*!?? the commandment^ is connected with it, either placed first in tlie singular, as a general comprehensive notion (chap. v. 28, vi. 1, vii. 11), or in the plural (chap. viii. 11, xi. 1, xxx. 16); or ^'^V^, the testimonies, the commandments as a manifestation of the will of God (ver. 45, vi. 17, 20). — Life itself depended upon the fulfilment, or long life in the promised land (Ex. xx. 12), as Moses repeatedly impressed upon them (cf. ver. 40, chap. v. 30, vi. 2, viii.

2. The observance of the law, however, required that it should be kept as it was given, that nothing should be added tb it or taken from it, but that men should submit to it as to the inviolable word of God. Not by omissions only, but by additions also, was the commandment w^eakened, and the word of God turned into ordinances of men, as Pharisaism sufficiently proved. This precept is repeated in chap. xiii. 1; it is then revived by the prophets (Jer. xxvi. 2; Prov. xxx. 6), and enforced again at the close of the whole revelation (Rev. xxii. 18, 19). In the same sense Christ also said that He had not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfil (Matt. V. 17); and the old covenant was not abrogated, but only glorified and perfected, by the new. — Vers. 3, 4. The Israelites had just experienced how a faithful observance of the law gave life, in what the Lord had done on account of Baal-Peor, when He destroyed those who worshipped thi^ idol (Num. xxv. 3, 9), whereas the faithful followers of the Lord still remained alive. ^ p?'^, to cleave to any one, to hold fast to him. This example was adduced by Moses, because the congregation had passed through all this only a very short time before; and the results of faithfulness towards the Lord oh the one hand, and of the unfaithfulness of apostasy from Him on the other, had been made thoroughly apparent to it. " Your eyes the seeing,^^ as in chap. iii. 21. — Vers. 5, 6. But the laws which Moses taught were commandments of the Lord. Keeping and doing them were to be the wisdom and understanding of Israel in the eyes of the nations, who, when they heard all these laws, would say, " CertoAnly (P"}, only, no other than) a loise and understanding people is this great nation J^ History has confirmed this. Not only did the wisdom of a Solomon astonish the queen of Sheba (1 Kings x. 4 sqq.), but the divine truth which Israel possessed in the law of Moses attracted all the more earnest minds of the heathen world to seek the satisfaction of the inmost necessities of their heart and the salvation of their souls in Israel's knowledge of God, when, after a short period of bloom, the inward self-dissolution of the heathen religions had set in; and at last, in Christianity, it has brought one heathen nation after another to the knowledge of the true God, and to eternal salvation, notwithstanding the fact that the divine truth was and still is regarded as folly by the proud philosophers and self-righteous Epicureans and Stoics of ancient and modern times. — ^Vers. 7, 8. This mighty and attractive force of the wisdom of Israel consisted in the fact, that in Jehovah they possessed a God who was at hand with His help when they called upon Him (cf. chap, xxxiii. 29; Ps. xxxiv. 19, cxlv. 18; 1 'Kings ii. 7), as none of the gods of the other nations had ever been; and that in the law of God they possessed such statutes and rights as the heathen never had. True right has its roots in God; and with the obscuration of the knowledge of God, law and right, with their divinely established foundations, are also shaken and obscured (cf, Rom. i. 26-32).

Vers. 9-14. Israel was therefore not to forget the things which it had seen at Horeb with its own eyes.*^ — Ver. 9. " Only beware and take care of thy self. ^^ To " keep the soul," i.e. to take care of the soul as the seat of life, to defend one's life from danger and injury (Prov. xiii. 3, xix. 16). " That thou do not forget D"'l2"nn"ni< (the facts described in Ex. xix.-xxiv.), and that they do not depart from thy heart all the days of thy life^'' i.e. are not forgotten as long as thou livest, " and thou makest them known to thy children and thy children's children." These acts of God formed the foundation of the true religion, the real basis of the covenant legislation, and the lirm guarantee of the objective truth and divinity of all the laws and ordinances which Moses gave to the people. And it was this which cpnstituted the essential distinction between the religion of the Old Testament and all heathen religions, whose founders, it is true, professed to derive their doctrines and statutes from divine inspiration, but without giving any practical guarantee that their origin was truly divine. — Vers. 10-12. In the words, " The day (D^*'"!?, adverbial accusative) " that thou stoodest before Jehovah thy God at Horeb,'' etc., Moses reminds the people of the leading features of those grand events: first of all of the fact that God directed him to gather the people together, that He might make known His words to them (Ex. xix. 9 sqq.), that they were to learn to fear Him all ^ their life long, and to teach their children also (p^T., inf., like nxJtJ^j chap. i. 27); and secondly (ver. 11), that they came near to the mountain which burned in fire (cf. Ex. xix. 17 sqq.). The expression, burning in fire " even to the heart of heaven" i.e. quite into tlie sky, is a rhetorical description of the awful majesty of the pillar of fire, in which the glory of the Lord appeared upon Sinai, intended to impress deeply upon the minds of the people the remembrance of this manifestation of God. And the expression, " darkness^ clouds, and thick darkness,^ which is equivalent to the smoking of the great mountain (Ex. xix. 18), is employed with the same object. And lastly (vers. 12, 13), he reminds them that the Lord spoke out of the midst of the fire, and adds this important remark, to prepare the way for what is to follow, " Ye heard the sound of the words, but ye did not see a shape" which not only agrees most fully with Ex. xxiv., where it is stated that the sight of the glory of Jehovah upon the mountain appeared to the people as they stood at the foot of the mountain " like devouring fire" (ver. 17), and that even the elders who " saw God" upon the mountain at the conclusion of the covenant saw no form of God (ver. 11), but also with Ex. xxxiii. 20, 23, according to which no man can see the face (^""^S) of God. Even the similitude (temunah) of Jehovah, which Moses saw when the Lord spoke to him mouth to mouth (Num. xii. 8), was not the form of the essential being of God which was visible to his bodily eyes, but simply a manifestation of the glory of God answering to his own intuition and perceptive faculty, which is not to be regarded as a form of God which was an adequate representation of the divine nature. The true God has no such form which is visible to the human eye. — Yer. 13. The Israelites, therefore, could not see a form of God, but could only hear the voice of His words, when the Lord proclaimed His covenant to them, and gave utterance to the ten words, which He afterwards gave to Moses written upon two tables of stone (Ex. xx. 1-14 (17), and xxxi. 18, compared w^ith chap. xxiv. 12). On the " tables of stone," see at Ex. xxxiv. 1. — Yer. 14. When the Lord Himself had made known to the people in the ten words the covenant which He commanded them to do. He directed Moses to teach them laws and rights which they were to observe in Canaan, viz. the rights and statutes of the Sinaitic legislation, from Ex. xxi. onwards.

Yers. 15-24. As the Israelites had seen no shape of God at Horeb, they were to beware for their souls' sake (for their lives) of acting corruptly, and making to themselves any kind of image of Jehovah their God, namely, as the context shows, to worship God in it. (On pesel, see at Ex. xx. 4.) The words w^hich follow, viz. " a form of any kind of sculpture," and " a repine sentation of male or female" (for tabnith, see at Ex. xxv. 9), are in apposition to " graven image," and serve to explain and emphasize the prohibition. — Vers. 17, 18. They were also not to make an image of any kind of beast; a caution against imitating the animal worship of Egypt. — Yer. 19. They were not to allow themselves to be torn away (n"n^) to worship the stars of heaven, namely, by the seductive influence exerted upon the senses by the sight of the heavenly bodies as they shone in their glorious splendour. The reason for this prohibition is given in the relative clause, " wJiich Jehovah thy God hath allotted to all nations under the whole heaven,''^ The thought is not, " God has given the heathen the sun, moon, and stars for service, i.e. to serve them with their light," as Onkelos, the Rahbins^ Jerome^ and others, suppose, but He has allotted them to them for worship, i.e. permitted them to choose them as the objects of their worship, which is the view adopted by Justin Martyr, Clemens Alex., and others. According to the scriptural view, even the idolatry of the heathen existed by divine permission and arrangement. God gave up the heathen to idolatry and shameful lusts, because, although they knew Him from His works, they did not praise Him as God (Rom. i. 21, 24, 2Q). — Ver. 20. The Israelites were not to imitate the heathen in this respect, because Jehovah, who brought them out of the iron furnace of Egypt, had taken them C^i?;) to Himself, i.e. had drawn them out or separated them from the rest of the nations, to be a people of inheritance. They were therefore not to seek God and pray to Him in any kind of creature, but to worship Him without image and form, in a manner corresponding to His own nature, which had been manifested in no form, and therefore could not be imitated. <nzi "i^3, an iron furnace,' or furnace for smelting iron, is a significant figure descriptive of the terrible sufferings endured by Israel in Egypt. n?n: Dy (a people of inheritance) is synonymous with n?ip Dy (a special people, chap. vii. 6: see at Ex. xix. 5, "a peculiar treasure"). " This day;" as in chap. ii. 30. — Vers. 21 sqq. The bringing of Israel out of Egypt reminds Moses of the end, viz. Canaan, and leads him to mention again how the Lord had refused him permission to enter into this good land; and to this he adds the renewed warning not to forget the covenant or make any image of God, since Jehovah, as a jealous God, would never tolerate this. The swearing attributed to God in ver. 21 is neither mentioned in Num. xx. nor at the announcement of Moses' death in Num. xxvii. 12 sqq.; but it is not to be called in question on that account, as Knohel supposes. It is perfectly obvious from chap. iii. 23 sqq. that all the detaiis are not given in the historical account of the event referred to. /3 Dp^^n 703, " image of a form of all that Jehovah has commanded^* sc. not to be made (vers. 10-18). ** A consuming fire'' (ver. 24): this epithet is applied to God with.^^pecial reference to the manifestation of His gh)ry in burning fire (Ex. xxiv. 17). On the symbolical meaning of this mode of revelation, see at Ex. ili. 2 (vol. i. pp. 438-9). **.-l jealous God:'' see at Ex. XX. 5.

Vers. 25-31. To give emphasis to this warning, Moses holds up the future dispersion of the nation among the heathen as the punishment of apostasy from the Lord. — Vers. 25, 2G. If the Israelites should beixet children and children's children, and n-row old in the land, and then should make images of God, and do that which was displeasing to God to ])rovoke Ilim; in that case Moses called upon heaven and earth as witnesses against them, that they should be quickly destroyed out of the land. '^ Growing old in the land " involved forgetf ulness of the former manifestations of grace on the part of the Lord, but not necessarily becoming voluptuous through the enjoyment of the riches of the land, although this mi^ht also lead to forfi;etfulness of God and the manifestations of His grace (cf. chap. vi. 10 sqq., xxxii. 15). The apodosis commences with ver. 26. "^'i'*'!}? with ^ and ^lie accusative, to take or summon as a witness against a person. Heaven and earth do not stand here for the rational beings dwelling in them, but are personified, represented as living, and capable of sensation and speech, and mentioned as witnesses who would rise up against Israel, not to proclaim its guilt, but to bear witness that God, the Lord of heaven and earth, had warned the people, and, as it is described in the parallel passage in chap. xxx. 19, had set before them the choice of life and death, and therefore was just in punishing them for their unfaithfulness (cf. Ps. L 6, li. 6). '^Prolong days," as in Ex. XX. 12. — Ver. 27. Jehovah would scatter them among the nations, where they would perish through want and suffering, and only a few ("^Bp9 ''f}P, Gen. xxxiv. 30) would be left. " Whither'' refers to the nations whose land is thought of (cf. chap. xii. 29, xxx. 3). For the thing intended, see Lev. xxvi. 33, 36, 38, 31*, and Deut. xxviii. 64 sqq., from which it is evident that the author had not " the fate of the nation in the time of the Assyrians in his mind" (Knohel)^ but rather all the dispersions which would come upon the rebellious nation in future times, even down to the dispersion und^r the Romans, which continues still; so that Moses contemplated the punishment in its fullest extent. — Yer. 28. There amonc the heathen they would be obliged to serve gods that were the work of men's hands, gods of wood and stone, that could neither hear, nor eat, nor smell, i.e. possessed no senses showed no si-n of life. What Moses threatens here, follows from the eternal laws of the divine government. The more refined idolatry of image-worship leads to coarser and coarser forms, in which the whole nature of idol-worship is manifested in all its pitiableness « When once the God of revelation is forsaken, the God of reason and imagination must also soon be given up and make way for st.ll lower powers, that perfectly accord with the / exalted upon the throne and in the time of pretended ' illumination to atheism and materialism also" (&/«Z/-').-Ver. 29. From thence Israel would come to itself again in the time of deepest misery, like the prodigal son in the gospel (Luke xv. 17), would seek he Lo d its God, and would also find Him if it sought with all its heart and soul (cf. chap. vi. 5, X. 12).-Ver. 30. "7n tribulaUon to thee (in thy trouble), all thc.e things (the threatened punishments and suffcrinc^s) Ml befall thee; at the end of the days (see at Gen. xlix \) thou wilt turn to Jehovah thy God, and hearken to Bis voice " With this comprehensive thought Moses brings his picture of the future to a close. (On the subject-matter, vtd. Lev. xxvi. 39 40.) Returning to the Lord and hearkening to his voice prisuppose that the Lord will be found by those who earnest y seek Him • « for (ver. 31) He is a merciful God, who does not let His people go, nor destroy them, and who does not forget the covenant with the fathers^' (cf. Lev. xxvi. 42 and 45). na.n, to let loose, to withdraw the hand from a person (Josh. x. 6).

Vers 32-40 But in order to accomplish something more than merely preserving the people from apostasy by the threat of punishment, namely, to secure a more faithful attachment and continued obedience to His commands by awakening the feehng of cordial love, Moses reminds them again of the glorious miracles of divine grace performed in connection with the election and deliverance of Israel, such as had never been heard of from he beginning of the world; and with this strong practical proof of the love of the true God, he brings his first address to a close This closin<r thought in ver. 32 is connected by ^3 (for) with the leading idea in ver. 31, "Jehovah thy God is a merciful God/' to show that the sole ground for the election and redemption of Israel was the compassion of God towards the human race. " For-ask now rf

the days that are past, from the day that God created man upon the

eftrtli, and from one end of the htaven unto the other, whether so great a thinij has ever happened^ or anything of the kind has been heard of:^^ i.e, the history of all times since the creation of man, and of all places under the whole heaven, can relate no such events as those which have happened to Israel, viz. at Sinai (ver. 'X\; cf. ver. 12). From this awfully glorious manifestation of God, Moses goes back in ver. 34 to the miracles with which God effected the deliverance of Israel out of Kgypt. " Or has a god attempted (made the attempt) to come and take to himself people from people (i.e. to fetch the people of Israel out of the midst of the Egyptian nation), ivith temptations (the events in Kgypt hy which Pharaoh's relation to the Lord was put to the test; cf. chap. vi. 22 and vii. 18, 19), with signs and wonders (the Egyptian plagues, see Ex. vii. 3), and with conflict (at the Ked Sea: Ex. xiv. 14, xv. 3), and with a strong hand and outstretched arm (see Ex. vi. 6), arid with great terrors?" In the three points mentioned last, all the acts of God in Egypt are comprehended, according to both cause and effect. They were revelations of the omnipotence of the Lord, and produced great terrors (cf. Ex. xii. 30-36). — Yer. 35. Israel was made to see all this, that it might know that Jehovah was God (D^"^P{<^, the God, to whom the name of Elohim rightfully belonged), and there was none else beside Ilim (cf. ver. 39, xxxii. 39; Isa. xlv. 5, 6). — Yer. 36. But the Lord had spoken to Israel chiefly down from heaven (cf. Ex. XX. 19 (22)), and that out of the great fire, in which He had come down upon Sinai, to chastise it. "lE^ does not mean " to instruct the people with regard to His truth and sovereignty," as Schidtz thinks, but " to take them under holy discipline " (Knobel), to inspire them with a salutary fear of the holiness of His ways and of His judgments by the awful phenomena which accompanied His descent, and shadowed forth the sublime and holy majesty of His nature. — Yers. 37-40. All this He did from love to the fathers of Israel (the patriarchs): "a/zc? indeed because He loved thy fathers^ He chose his seed (the seed of Abraham, the first of the patriarchs) after him, and brought thee (Israel) out of Egypt by His face with great power, to drive out... and to bring thee, to give thee their land... so that thou mightest know and take to heart... and keep His lawsy' etc. With regard to the construction of these verses, the clause ""S nnrn (and because) in ver. 37 is not to be regarded as dependent upon what precedes, as Schultz supposes; nor are vers. 37 and 38 to be taken as the protasis, and vers. 39, 40 as the apodosis (as Knobel maintains). Both for-.is of construction are forced and unnatural. The verses form an independent thought; and the most important point, which was to bind Israel to faithfulness towards Jehovah, is given as the sum and substance of the whole address, and placed as a protasis at the head of the period. The only thing that admits of dispute, is whether the apodosis commences with "iH^^^ (" He chose" ver. 37), or only with 1^?^*1 (^'brought thee out'''). Either is possible; and it makes no difference, so far as the main thought is concerned, whether we regard the choice of Israel, or simply the deliverance from Egypt, in which that choice was carried into practical effect, as the consequence of the love of Jehovah to the patriarchs. — The copula \ before nnn Is specially emphatic, " and truly^^ and indicates that the sum and substance of the whole discourse is about to follow, or the one thought in which the whole appeal culminates. It was the love of God to the fathers, not the righteousness of Israel (chap. ix. 5), which lay at the foundation of the election of their posterity to be the nation of Jehovah's possession, and also of all the miracles of grace which were performed in connection with their deliverance out of Egypt. Moses returns to this thought again at chap. x. 15, for the purpose of impressing it upon the minds of the people as the one motive which laid them under the strongest obligation to circumcise the foreskin of their heart, and walk in the fear and love of the Lord their God (chap. x. 12 sqq.). — The singular suffixes in iV"it (his seed) and Vin^ (after him) refer to Abraham, whom Moses had especially in his mind when speaking of '*thy fathers," because he was pre-eminently the lover of God (Isa. xli. 8; 2 Chron. xx. 7), and also the beloved or friend of God (Jas. ii. 23; cf. Gen. xviii. 17 sqq.). ''By His face" points back to Ex. xxxiii. 14. The face of Jehovah was Jehovah in His personal presence, in His own person, who brought Israel out of Egypt, to root out great and mighty nations before it, and give it their land for an inheritance. " As this day " (clearly shows), viz. by the destruction of Sihon and Og, which gave to the Israelites a practical pledge that the Canaanites in like manner would be rooted out before them. The expression "as this day" does not imply, therefore, that the Canaanites were already rooted out from their land. — Vers. 39, 40. By this the Israelites were to know and lay it to heart, that Jehovah alone was God in heaven and on earth, and were to keep His commandments, in order that (^'^^) it might be well with them and their descendants, and they might have long life in Canaan. D^D;n-b, " all time," for all the future (cf. Ex. xx. 12).

— The account of this appointment of the cities of refug^v in the conquered land on the east of the Jordan is inserted between the first and second addresses of Moses, in all probability for no other reason than because Moses set apart the cities at that time according to the command of God in Num. xxxv. 6, 14, not only to give the land on that side its full consecration, and thoroughly confirm the possession of the two Amoritish kingdoms on the other side of the Jordan, but also to give the people in this punctual observance of the duty devolving upon it an example for their imitation in the conscientious observance of the commandments of the Lord, which he was now about to lay before the nation. The assertion that this section neither stood after Num. xxxiv.-xxxvi., nor really belongs there, has as little foundation as the statement that its contents are at variance with the precepts in chap. xix. " Toward the sunrising " is introduced as a more precise definition; ni*}*n '^^V, like i^nnrp in Num. xxxii. 19 and xxxiv. 15. On the contents of ver. 42, comp. Num. xxxv. 15 sqq. The three towns that were set apart were Bezer^ Ramoth^ and Golan. " Bezer in the steppe^ (namely) in the land of the leveV (the Amoritish table-land: chap. iil. 10). The situation of this Levitical town and city of refuge, which is only mentioned again in Josh. xx. 8, xxi. 36, and 1 Chron. vi. 63, has not yet been discovered. Bezer w^as probably the same as Bosoi' (1 Mace. V. 36), and is possibly to be seen in the Berza mentioned by Robinson (Pal. App. p. 170). Ramoth in Gilead, i.e. Ramoth- Mizpeh (comp. Josh. xx. 8 with xiii. 26), w^as situated, according to the Onom.j fifteen Roman miles, or six hours, to the west of Philadelphia (Ral/hath-Ammon); probably, therefore, on the site of the modern Salt, which is six hours' journey from Amman (cf. V. Raiimer, Pal. pp. 265, 266). — Golan, in Bashan, according to Eusehius (s. v. Gaulon or Golan), was still a very large village in Batana^a even in his day, from which the district generally received the name of Gaulonitis or Jolan; but it has not yet been discovered again.