12, as compared with ver. 17, a portion of the vegetable tithe was to be applied to the sacrificial meals, there is no ground whatever for supposing that all the sacrifices and consecrated gifts mentioned in ver. 6 were offerings of this kind, and either served as sacrificial meals, or had such meals connected with them. Burnt-offerings, for example, were not associated in any way with the sacrificial meals. The difficulty, or as some suppose " the impossibility," of delivering all the tithes from every part of the land at the place of the sanctuary, does not warrant us in departing from the simple meaning of Moses' words in the verse before us. The arrangement permitted in chap. xiv. 24, 25, with reference to the so-called second tithe, — viz. that if the sanctuary was too far off, the tithe might be sold at home, and whatever was required for the sacrificial meals might be bought at the place of the sanctuary with the money so obtained, — might possibly have been also adopted in the case of the other tithe. At all events, the fact that no reference is made to such cases as these does not warrant us in assuming the opposite. As the institution of tithes generally did not originate with' the law of Moses, but is presupposed as a traditional and well-known custom, — all that is done being to define them more precisely, and regulate the way in which they should be applied (of. vol. ii. p. 485), — Moses does not enter here into any details as to the course to be adopted in delivering them, but merely lays down the law that all the gifts intended for the Lord were to be brought to Him at His sanctuary, and connects with this the further injunction that the Israelites were to rejoice there before the Lord, that is to say, were to celebrate their sacrificial meals at the place of His presence which He had chosen. — The gifts, from which the sacrificial meals were prepared, are not particularized here, but are supposed to be already known either from the earlier laws or from tradition. From the earlier laws we learn that the whole of the flesh of the burntofferings was to be consumed upon the altar, but that the flesh of the slain-offerings, except in the case of the peace-offerings, was to be applied to the sacrificial meals, with the exception of the fat pieces, and the wave-breast and heave-shoulder. With regard to the tithes, it is stated in Num. xviii. 21-24 that Jehovah had given them to the Levites as their inhentance, and that they were to give the tenth part of them to the priests. In the laws contained in the earlier books, nothing is said about the appropriation of any portion of the tithes to sacrificial meals. Yet in Deuteronomy this is simply assumed as a customary thing, and not introduced as a new commandment, when the law is laid down {in ver. 17, chap. xiv. 22 sqq., xxvi. 12 sqq.), that they were not to eat the tithe of corn, new wine, and oil within their gates (in the towns of the land), any more than the first-born of oxen and sheep, but only at the place of the sanctuary chosen by the Lord; and that if the distance was too great for the whole to be transported thither, they were to sell the tithes and firstlings at home, and then purchase at the sanctuary whatever might be required for the sacrificial meals. From these instructions it is very apparent that sacrificial meals were associated with the delivery of the tithes and firstlings to the Lord, to which a tenth part of the corn, must, and oil was applied, as well as the flesh of the first-born of edible cattle. This tenth formed the so-called second tithe {hevTepav SeKarijVj Tob. i. 7), which is mentioned here for the first time, but not introduced as a new rule or an appendix to the former laws. It is rather taken for granted as a custom founded upon tradition, and brought into harmony with the law relating to the oneness of the sanctuary and worship.^ " The heave-offerings of your hatidy^ which are mentioned
^ The arguments employed by De Wette and Vater against this arrangement with regard to the vegetable tithe, which is established beyond all question by again in Mai. iii. 8 along with the tithes, are not to be restricted to the first-fruits, as we may see from Ezek. xx. 40, where the terumoth are mentioned along with the first-fruits. We should rather understand them as being free gifts of love, which w^ere consecrated to the Lord in addition to the legal first-fruits and tithes without being actual sacrifices, and which were then applied to sacrificial meals. — The other gifts were (3) ^"'1']^ and ^^^*]^, sacrifices which were offered partly in consequence of vows and partly of their own free will (see at Lev. xxiii. 38, compared with Lev. vii. 16, xxii. 21, and Num. XV. 3, xxix. 39); and lastly (4), " firstlings of your herds and of your flocks," viz. those commanded in Ex. xiii. 2, 12 sqq., and Num. xviii. 15 sqq.
According to Ex. xiii. 15, the Israelites were to sacrifice the firstlings to the Lord; and according to Num. xviii. 8 sqq. they belonged to the holy gifts, which the Lord assigned to the priests for their maintenance, with the more precise instructions in vers. 17, 18, that the first-born of oxen, sheep, and goats were not to be redeemed, but being holy were to be burned upon the altar in the same manner as the shelaminij and that the flesh was to belong to the priests, like the wave-breast and right leg of the shelamim. These last words, it is true, are not to be understood as signifying that the only portions of the flesh of the firstlings which were to be given to the priest were the wave-breast and heave-leg, and that the remainder of the flesh was to be left to the offerer to be applied the custom of the Jews themselves, have been so fully met by Hengstenherg (Dissertations, ii. 334 sqq.), that Kiehm has nothing to adduce in reply, except the assertion that in Deut. xviii., where the revenues of the priests and Levites are given, there is nothing said about the tithe, and the tithe of the tithe, and also that the people would have been overburdened by a second tithe. But, apart from the fact that argumenta e silentio generally do not prove much, the first assertion rests upon the erroneous assumption that in Deut. xviii. ^11 the revenues of the priests are given separately; whereas Moses confines himself to this general summary of the revenues of the priests and Levites enumerated singly in Num. xviii., " The firings of Jehovah shall be the inheritance of the tribe of Levi, these they shall eat," and then urges upon the people in vers. 3-5 an addition to the revenues already established. The second objection is refuted by history. For if in later times, when the people of Israel had to pay very considerable taxes to the foreign kings under whose rule they were living, they could give a second tenth of the fruits of the ground in addition to the priests' tithe, as we may see from Tobit i. 7, such a tax could not have been too grievous a burden for the nation in the time of its independence; to say nothing of the fact that this second tenth belonged in great part to the donors themselves, since it was consumed in sacrificial meals, to which only poor and needy persons were invited, and therefore could not be regarded as an actual tax.
to a sacrificial meal {Hengstenberg); but they state most unequivocally that the priest was to apply the flesh to a sacrificial meal, like the wave-breast and heave-leg of all the peace-offerings, which the priest was not even allowed to consume with his own family at home, like ordinary flesh, but to which the instructions given for all the sacrificial meals were applicable, namely, that " whoever was clean in the priest's family" might eat of it (Num. xviii. 11), and that the flesh was to be eaten on the day when the sacrifice was offered (Lev. vii. 15), or at the latest on the following morning, as in the case of the votive offering (Lev. vii. 16), and that whatever was left was to be burnt. These instructions concerning the flesh of the firstlings to be offered to the Lord no more prohibit the priest from allowing the persons who presented the firstlings to take part in the sacrificial meals, or handing over to them some portion of the flesh which belonged to himself to hold a sacrificial meal, than any other law does; on the contrary, the duty of doing this was made very plain by the fact that the presentation of firstlings is described as nin^ nnj in Ex. xiii. 15, in the very first of the general instructions for their sanctification, since even in the patriarchal times the nnt was always connected with a sacrificial meal in which the offerer participated. Consequently it cannot be shown that there is any contradiction between Deuteronomy and the earlier laws with regard to the appropriation of the first-born. The command to brincp the firstlin^j^s of the sacrificial animal, like all the rest of the sacrifices, to the place of His sanctuary which the Lord would choose, and to hold sacrificial meals there with the tithes of corn, new wine, and oil, and also with the firstlings of the flocks and herds, is given not merely to the laity of Israel, but to the whole of the people, including the priests and Levites, without the distinction between the tribe of Levi and the other tribes, established in the earlier laws, being even altered, much less abrogated. The Israelites were to bring all their sacrificial gifts to the place of the sanctuary to be chosen by the Lord, and there, not in all their towns, they were to eat their votive and free-will offerings in sacrificial meals. This, and only this, is what Moses commands the people both here in vers. 7 and 17, 18, and also in chap. xiv. 22 sqq. and xv. 19 sqq.^ " Rejoice in all that your hand has acquired^
^ If, therefore, the supposed discrepancies between the law of Deuteronomy and that of Exodus and Leviticus concerning the tithes and firstlings vanish into mere appearance when the passages in Deuteronomy are correctly explained, the conclusions to which Rielim comes (pp. 43 sqq.) — viz. that in Deuteronomy
The phrase ^l ^7^ (cf. ver. 18, chap. xv. 10, xxiii. 21, xxviii. 8, 20) signifies that to which the hand is stretched out, that which a man undertakes (synonymous with >^^VP), and also what a man acquires by his activity: hence Isa. xi. 14, T rivTO, what a man appropriates to himself with his hand, or takes possession of. "^^fc< before ^^15 is dependent upon ^^y„ '^?^P, and Ti'nn is construed with a double accusative, as in Gen. xlix. 25. The reason for these instructions is given in vers. 8, 9, namely, that this had not hitherto taken place, but that up to this day every one had done what he thought right, because they had not yet come to the rest and to the inheritance which the Lord was about to give them. The phrase, " whatsoever is right in his own eyes," is applied to actions performed according to a man's own judgment, rather than according to the standard of objective right and the law of God (cf. Judg. xvii. 6, xxi. 25). The reference is probably not so much to open idolatry, which was actually practised, according to Lev. xvii. 7, Num. XXV., Ezek. xx. 16, 17, Amos v. 25, 26, as to acts of illegality, for which some excuse might be found in the circumstances in which they were placed when wandering through the desert, — such, for example, as the omission of the daily sacrifice when the tabernacle was not set up, and others of a similar kind. — Vers. 10-14. But when the Israelites had crossed over the Jordan, and dwelt peaceably in Canaan, secured against their enemies round about, these irregularities were not to occur any more; but all the sacrifices were to be offered at the place chosen by the Lord for the dwelling-place of His name, and there the sacrificial meals were to be held with joy before the Lord. " The choice of your vows," equivalent to your chosen vows, inasmuch as every vow was something special, as the standing phrase "J^.^ Nf^Q (Lev. xxii. 21, and Num. XV. 3, 8) distinctly shows. — "Rejoicing before the Lord," which is the phrase applied in Lev. xxiii. 40 to the celebration of the feast of Tabernacles, was to be the distinctive feature of all the sacrificial meals held by the people at the sanctuary, as is repeatedly affirmed (chap. xiv. 26, xvi. 11, xxvi. 11, xxvii. 7). This holy joy in the participation of the blessing bestowed by the Lord was to be shared not only by sons and daughters, but also by slaves (meu- the tithes and firstlings are no longer the property of the priests and Ijevites, and that all the laws concerning the redemption and sale of them are abrogated there — are groundless assertions, founded upon the unproved and unfounded assumption, that Deuteronomy was intended to contain a repetition of the whole of the earlier law.
servants and maid-servants), that they too might taste the friendliness of their God, and also by " the Levite that is in your gates'' {i.e. your towns and hamlets; see at Ex. xx. 10). This frequently recurring description of the Levites (of. ver. 18, chap. xiv. 27, xvi. 11, 14, xviii. 6, xxvi. 12) does not assume that they were homeless, which would be at variance with the allotment of towns for them to dwell in (Num. xxxv.); but simply implies what is frequently added in explanation, that the Levites had " no part nor inheritance," no share of the land as their hereditary property, and in this respect resembled strangers (chap. xiv. 21, 29, xvi. 11, etc.).^ And the repeated injunction to invite the Levites to the sacrificial meals is not at variance with Num. xviii. 21, where the tithes are assigned to the tribe of Levi for their maintenance. For however ample this revenue may have been according to the law, it was so entirely dependent, as we have observed at p. 120, upon the honesty and conscientiousness of the people, that the Levites might very easily be brought into a straitened condition, if indifference towards the Lord and His servants should prevail throughout the nation. — In vers. 13, 14, Moses concludes by once more summing up these instructions in the admonition to beware of offering sacrifices in every place that they might choose, the burnt-offering, as the leading sacrifice, being mentioned instar omnium.
Vers. 15-19. But if these instructions were really to be observed bv the people in Canaan, it was necessary that the law which had been given with reference to the journey through the wilderness, viz. that no animal should be slain anywhere else than at the tabernacle in the same manner as a slain-offering (Lev. xvii. 3-6), should be abolished. This is done in ver. Ic5, where Moses, in direct connection with what goes before, allows the people, as an exception (PI, only) to the rules laid down in vers. 4-14, to kill and eat flesh for their own food according to all their soul's desire. Flesh that was slaughtered for food could be eaten by both clean and unclean, such for example as the roebuck and the hart, animals which could not be offered in sacrifice, and in which, therefore, the distinction between clean and unclean on the part of the eaters did not come into consideration at all.— Ver. 16. But blood was forbidden to be
« The explanation given by De Watte, and adopted by Riehn, of the expression, " the Levite that is within thy gates/' is perfectly arbitrary and unfounded: viz. that '' the Levites did not Uve any longer in the towns assigned them by the earlier laws, but were scattered about in the different towns of the other tribes."
eaten (see at Lev. xvii. 10 sqq.). The blood was to be poured out upon the earth like water, that it might suck it in, receive it into its bosom (see vol. ii. p. 410). — Vers. 17 sqq. Sacrificial meals could only be held at the sanctuary; and the Levite was not to be forgotten or neglected in connection with them (see at vers. 6, 7, and 12). P^in NP, ^' thou must not^^ as in chap. vii. 22.
Vers. 20-31. These rules were still to remain in force, even when God should extend the borders of the land in accordance with His promise. This extension relates partly to the gradual but complete extermination of the Canaanites (chap. vii. 22, comp. with Ex. xxiii. 27-33), and partly to the extension of the territory of the Israelites beyond the limits of Canaan Proper, in accordance with the divine promise in Gen. xv. 18. The words " as He hath spoken to thee" refer primarily to Ex. xxiii. 27-33. (On ver. 206, see ver. 15.) — In ver. 21a, '^ if the place,,, be too far from thee^^^ supplies the reason for the repeal of the law in Lev. xvii. 3, which restricted all slaughtering to the place of the sanctuary. The words " kill,,, as I have commanded thee^^ refer back to ver. 15. — Ver. 22. Only the flesh that was slaughtered was to be eaten as the hart and the roebuck (cf. ver. 15), i.e. was not to be made into a sacrifice. I'^n^^ together, i.e. the one just the same as the other, as in Isa. X. 8, without the clean necessarily eating along with the unclean.- — Vers. 23, 24. The law relating to the blood, as in ver. 16. — " Be strong not to eat the bloody^ i.e. stedfastly resist the temptation to eat it. — Ver. 25. On the promise for doing what was right in the eyes of the Lord, see chap. vi. 18. — In vers. 26, 27, the command to offer all the holy gifts at the place chosen by the Lord is enforced once more, as in vers. 6, 11, 17, 18; also to prepare the sacrifices at His altar, ^''^ij., the holy offerings prescribed in the law, as in Num. xviii. 8; see at Lev. xxi. 22. The " votive offerings" are mentioned in connection with these, because vows proceeded from a spontaneous impulse, "^p '^'^^\ "^t^^^, " which are to thee^^ are binding upon thee. In ver. 27, " the flesh and the blood'* are in opposition to " thy burnt-offerings:" *^ thy burnt-offerings, namely the flesh and blood of them," thou shalt prepare at the altar of Jehovah; i.e. the flesh and blood of the burnt-offerings were to be placed upon and against the altar (see at Lev. i. 5-9). Of the slain-offerings, i.e. the shelamim^ the blood was to be poured out against the altar (Lev. iii. 2, 8, 13); " the flesh thou canst eat" (cf. Lev. vii. 11 sqq.). There is no ground for seeking an antithesis in ^Q^, as Knobel does, to the P^J in the sacrificial ritual.
The indefinite expression may be explained from the retrospective allusion to ver. 24 and the purely suggestive character of the whole passage, the thing itself being supposed to be sufficiently known from the previous laws. — Ver. 28. The closing admonition is a further expansion of ver. 25 (see at ch. xi. 21). — In vers. 29-31, the exhortation goes back to the beginning again, viz. to a warning against the Canaanitish idolatry (cf. vers. 2 sqq.). When the Lord had cut off the nations of Canaan from before the Israelites, they were to take heed that they did not get into the snare behind them, i.e. into the sin of idolatry, which had plunged the Canaanltes into destruction (cf. chap. vli. 16, 25). The clause " after they he destroyed from before thee'''' is not mere tautology, but serves to depict the danger of the snare most vividly before their eyes. The second clause, " tliat thou ijiquire not after them " (their gods), etc., explains more fully to the Israelites the danger which threatened them. This danger was so far a pressing one, that the whole of the heathen world was animated with the conviction, that to neglect the orods of a land would be sure to brino; misfortune (cf., 2 KIno;s xvii. 26). — Ver. 31a, like ver. 4, with the reason assigned in ver. 316: " for the Canaanites prepare {p*^^'^j as in ver. 27) all kinds of abominations for their gods," i.e. present offerings to these, which Jehovah hates and abhors; they even burn their children to their idols — for example, to Moloch (see at Lev. xvill. 21).
Punishment of Idolater Sj and Tempters to Idolatry. — Chap. xili.
Ver. 1. (chap. xii. 32). The admonition to observe the whole law, without adding to it or taking from it (cf. chap. iv. 2), is regarded by many commentators as the conclusion of the previous chapter. But it is more correct to understand it as an intermediate link, closing what goes before, and introductory to what follows. Strictly speaking, the warning against inclining to the idolatry of the Canaanites (chap. xii. 29-31) forms a transition from the enforcement of the true mode of worshipping Jehovah to the laws relating to tempters to idolatry and worshippers of idols (chap. xIII.). The Israelites were to cut off not only the tempters to idolatry, but those who had been led astray to idolatry also. Three different cases are mentioned.
Vers. 2-6 (1-5). ^\\q first case. If a prophet, or one who had dreams, should rise up to summon to the worship of other gods, with signs and wonders which came to pass, the Israelites were not to hearken to his words, but to put him to death. The introduction of Di?n UPPj " a drearxier of dreams^'' along with the prophet, answers to the two media of divine revelation, the vision and the dream, by which, according to Num. xii. 6, God made known His will. With regard to the signs and wonders (mopheth, see at Ex. iv. 21) with which such a prophet might seek to accredit his higher mission, it is taken for granted that they come to pass ('^Sz); yet for all that, the Israelites were to give no heed to such a prophet, to walk after other gods. It follows from this, that the person had not been sent by God, but was a false prophet, and that the signs and wonders which he gave were not wonders effected by God, but arjfieca koX repara "^/reySou? (" lying signs and wonders," 2 Thess. ii. 9); i.e, not merely seeming miracles, but miracles wrought in the power of the wicked one, Satan, the possibility and reality of which even Christ attests (Matt. xxiv. 24). — The word "^^^r?, saying^ is dependent upon the principal verb of the sentence: " if a prophet rise up.... saying. We will go after other gods." — Ver. 4. God permitted false prophets to rise up with such wonders, to try the Israelites, whether they loved Him, the Lord their God, with all their heart. (HDJ as in Gen. xxii. 1.) C3"'2nj^ D3tJ'''ny whether ye are loving, i.e. faithfully maintain your love to the Lord. It is evident from this, " that however great the importance attached to signs and wonders, they were not to be regarded among the Israelites, either as the highest test, or as absolutely decisive, but that there was a certainty in Israel, which was so much the more certain and firm than any proof from miracles could be, that it might be most decidedly opposed to it" (Baumgarten). This certainty, however, was not " the knowledge of Jehovah," as B. supposes; but as Luther correctly observes, " the word of God, which had already been received, and confirmed by its own signs," and which the Israelites were to preserve and hold fast, without adding or subtracting anything. " In opposition to such a word, no prophets w^ere to be received, although they rained signs and wonders; not even an angel from heaven, as Paul says in Gal. i. 8." The command to hearken to the prophets whom the Lord would send at a future time (chap, xviii. 18 sqq.), is not at variance with this: for even their armouncements were to be judged according to the standard of the fixed word of God tliat had been already given; and so far as they proclaimed anything new, the fact that what they announced did not occur was to be the criterion that they had not spoken in the name of the Lord, but in that of other gods (chap, xviii. 21, 22), so that even there the signs and wonders of the prophets are not made the criteria of their divine mission. — Vers. 5, 6. Israel was to adhere firmly to the Lord its God (cf. chap. iv. 4), and to put to death the prophet who preached apostasy from Jehovah, the Redeemer of Israel out of the slavehouse of Egypt. ^T"^."!}?, " to force thee from the way in which Jehovah hath commanded thee to walk.** The execution of seducers to idolatry is enjoined upon the people, i.e. the whole community, not upon single individuals, but upon the authorities who had to maintain and administer justice. " So shall thou put the evil avmy from the midst of thee^ jnn is neuter, as we may see from chap, xvii. 7, as comp. with ver. 2. The formula, " so shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee," which occurs again in chap. xvii. 7, 12, xix. 19, xxi. 21, xxii. 21, 22, 24, and xxiv. 7 (cf. chap. xix. 13 and xxi. 9), belongs to the hortatory character of Deuteronomy, in accordance with which a reason is given for all the commandments, and the observance of them is urged upon the congregation as a holy affair of the heart, which could not be expected in the objective legislation of the earlier books.
Vers. 7-12 (6-11). The second case was when the temptation to idolatry proceeded from the nearest blood-relations and friends. The clause, " son of thy mother," is not intended to describe the brother as a step-brother, but simply to bring out the closeness of the fraternal relation; like the description of the wife as the wife of thy bosom, who lies in thy bosom, rests upon thy breast (as in chap, xxviii. 54; Micah vii. 5), and of the friend as " thy friend which is as thine own soul," i.e, whom thou lovest as much as thy life (cf. 1 Sam. xviii. 1, 3). '^^^^ belongs to n''p^: if the temptation occurred in secret, and therefore the fact might be hidden from others. The power of love and relationship, which flesh and blood find it hard to resist, is placed here in contrast with the supposed liigher or divine authority of the seducers. As the persuasion was already very seductive, from the fact that it proceeded from the nearest blood-relations and most intimate friends, and was offered in secret, it might become still more so from the fact that it recommended the worship of a deity that had nothing in common with the forbidden idols of Canaan, and the worship of which, therefore, might appear of less consequence, or commend itself by the charm of peculiarity and novelty. To prevent this deceptive influence of sin, it is expressly added in ver. 8 (7), " of the gods nigh unto thee or far off from, thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earthj^ i.e. whatever gods there might be upon the whole circuit of the earth. — Vers. 9 (8) sqq. To such persuasion Israel was not to yield, nor were they to spare the tempters. The accumulation of synonyms (pity, spare, conceal) serves to make the passage more emphatic. nDli^ to cover, i.e. to keep secret, conceal. They v^ere to put him to death without pity, viz. to stone him (cf. Lev. xx. 2). That the execution even in this case was to be carried out by the regular authorities, is evident from the words, " thy hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and the hand of all the people afterwards," which presuppose the judicial procedure prescribed in chap. xvii. 7, that the witnesses were to cast the first stones at the person condemned. — Ver. 12. This was to be done, and all Israel was to hear it and fear, that no such wickedness should be performed any more in the congregation. The fear of punishment, which is given here as the ultimate end of the punishment itself, is not to be regarded as the principle lying at the foundation of the law, but simply, as Calvin expresses it, as " the utility and fruit of severity," one reason for carrying out the law^, which is not to be confounded with the so-called deterrent theory, i.e. the attempt to deter from crime by the mode of punishing (see my Archciologie, ii. p. 262).
Vers. 13-19 (12-18). The third case is that of a town that had been led away to idolatry. " If thou shalt hear in one of thy cities J^ ^^^^, not de una, of one, which V^^ with 3 never can mean, and does not mean even in Job xxvi. 14. The thought is not that they would hear in one city about another, as though one city had the oversight over another; but there is an inversion in the sentence, " if thou hear, that in one of thy cities... worthless men have risen up, and led the inhabitants astray to serve strange gods.^^ "'^^r? introduces the substance of what is heard, w^hich follows in ver. 14. NV^ merely signifies to rise up, to go.forth, "ns^iipp^ out of the midst of the people. — Yer. 15 (14). Upon this report the people as a whole, of course through their rulers, were to examine closely into the affair (ntD^Hj an adverb, as in chap. ix. 21), whether the w^ord was established as truth, i.e. the thing was founded in truth (cf. chap. xvii. 4, xxii. 20); and if it really were so, they were to smite the inhabitants of that town with the edge of the sword (cf. Gen. xxxiv. 26), putting the town and all that was in it under the ban. " All that is in it " relates to men, cattle, and the material property of the town, and not to men alone (Schultz). The clause from " destroying" to "therein" is a more minute definition of the punishment introduced as a parenthesis; for " the cattle thereof," which follows, is also governed by " thou shalt smite." The ban was to be executed in all its severity as upon an idolatrous city: man and beast were to be put to death without reserve; and its booty, i,e, whatever was to be found in it as booty — all material goods, therefore — were to be heaped together in the market, and burned along with the city itself. nirTip 773 (J^ng. Ver. " every whit, for the Lord thy God") signifies "as a whole offering for the Lord^^ (see Lev. vi. 15, 16), i,e, it was to be sanctified to Him entirely by being destroyed. The town was to continue an eternal hill (or heap of ruins), never to be built up again. — Ver. 18 (17). To enforce this command still more strongly, it is expressly stated, that of all that was burned, nothing whatever was to cleave or remain hanging to the hand of Israel, that the Lord might turn from His wrath and have compassion upon the nation, Le, not punish the sin of one town upon the nation as a whole, but have mercy upon it and multiply it,^make up the diminution consequent upon the destruction of the inhabitants of that town, and so fulfil the promise given to the fathers of the multiplication of their seed. — Yer. 19 (18). Jehovah would do this if Israel hearkened to His voice, to do what was right in His eyes. In what way the appropriation of property laid under the ban brought the wrath of God upon the whole congregation. Is shown by the example of Achan (Josh. vii.).
Avoidance of the Mourning Customs of the Heathen^ and Unclean Food. Application of the Tithe of Fruits. — Chap. xlv.
Vers. 1-21. The Israelites were not only to suffer no idolatry to rise up In their midst, but In all their walk of life to show themselves as a holy nation of the Lord; and neither to disfigure their bodies by passionate expressions of sorrow for the dead (vers. 1 and 2), nt)r to defile themselves by unclean food (vers. 3-21). Both of these were opposed to their calling. To bring this to their mind, Moses introduces the laws which follow with the words, "ve are children to the Lord your God." The divine sonship of Israel was founded upon its election and calling as the holy nation of Jehovah, which Is regarded in the Old Testament not as generation by the Spirit of God, but simply as an adoption springing out of the free love of God, as the manifestation of paternal love on the part of Jehovah to Israel, which binds the son to obedience, reverence, and childlike trust towards a Creator and Fatjier, who would train it up into a holy people (see vol. i. p. 457). The laws in ver. 1^ are simply a repetition of Lev. xlx. 28 and xxi. 5. f"ip^, with reference to, or on account of, a dead person, is more expressive than ^'^i^ (for a soul) in Lev. xlx. 28. The reason assigned for this command in ver. 2 (as in chap. vii. 6) Is simply an emphatic elucida- tion of the first clause of ver. 1. (On tlie substance of the verse^ see Ex. xix. 5, 6.) — Vers. 3-20. With reference to food, the Israehtes were to eat nothing whatever that was abominable. In explanation of this prohibition, the laws of Lev. xi. relating to clean and unclean animals are repeated in all essential points in vers. 4-20 (for the exposition, see at Lev. xi.); also in ver. 21 the prohibition against eating any animal that had fallen down dead (as in Ex. xxxii. 30 and Lev. xvii. 15), and against boiling a kid in its mother's milk (as in Ex. xxiii. 19).
Vers. 22-29. As the Israelites were to sanctify their food, on the one hand, positively by abstinence from everything unclean, so were they, on the other hand, to do so negatively by delivering the tithes and firstlings at the place where the Lord would cause His name to dwell, and by holding festal meals on the occasion, and rejoicing there before Jehovah their God. This law is introduced with the general precept, " Tliou slialt tithe all the produce of thy seed ivhich groweth out of the field (^<^J construes with an accusative, as in Gen. ix. 10, etc.) year by year''' (nj^ nj^^ i.e. every year; cf. Ewald, § 313, a.), which recalls the earlier laws concerning the tithe (Lev. xxvii. 30, and Num. xviii. 21, 26 sqq.), without repeating them one by one, for the purpose of linking on the injunction to celebrate sacrificial meals at the sanctuary from the tithes and firstlings. Moses had already directed (chap. xii. 6 sqq.) that all the sacrificial meals should take place at the sanctuary, and had then alluded to the sacrificial meals to be prepared from the tithes, though only casually, because he intended to speak of them more fully afterwards. This he does here, and includes the firstlings also, inasmuch as the presentation of them was generally associated with that of the tithes, though only {casually, as he intends to revert to the firstlings again, which he does in chap. xv. 19 sqq. The connection between the tithes of the fruits of the ground and the firstlings of the cattle which were devoted to the sacrificial meals, and the tithes and first-fruits which were to be delivered to the Levites and priests, we have already discussed at chap. xii. (p. 356). The sacrificial meals were to be held before the Lord, in the place where He caused His name to dwell (see at chap. xii. 5), that Israel might learn to fear Jehovah its God always; not, however, as Schultz supposes, that by the confession of its dependence upon Him it miG;ht accustom itself more and more to the feelinfr of dependence. For the fear of the Lord is not merely a feeling of dependence upon Him, but also includes the notion of divine blessedness, which is the predominant idea here, as the sacrificial meals were to furnish the occasion and object of the rejoicing before the Lord. The true meaning therefore is, that Israel might rejoice with holy reverence in the fellowship of its God. — Vers. 24 sqq. In the land of Canaan, however, where the people would be scattered over a great extent of country, there would be many for whom the fulfilment of this command would be very difficult — would, in fact, appear almost impossible. To meet this difficulty, permission was given for those who lived at a great distance from the sanctuary to sell the tithes at home, provided they could not convey them in kind, and then to spend the money so obtained in the purchase of the things required for the sacrificial meals at the place of the sanctuary, ^^p ^3"}^ ^3, " if the way he too great (too far) for thee^^ etc., sc. for the delivery of the tithe. The parenthetical clause, "if Jehovah thy God shall bless thee," hardly means " if He shall extend thy territory " (Kriobel), but if He shall bless thee by plentiful produce from the field and the cattle. — Ver. 25. " Turn it into money" lit. " give it up for silver," sc, the produce of the tithe; " and bind the silver in thy hand," const, prcegnans for " bind it in a purse and take it in thy hand.... and give the silver for all that thy soul desireth, for oxen and small cattle, for wine and strong drink," to hold a joyous meal, to which the Levite was also to be invited (as in chap. xii. 12, 18, and 19). — Vers. 28 and 29. Every third year, on the other hand, they were to separate the whole of the tithe from the year's produce ("bring forth," sc, from tl^e granary), and leave it in their gates (i.e. their towns), and feed the Levites, the strangers, and the widows and orphans with it. They were not to take it to the sanctuary, therefore; but according to chap. xxvi. 12 sqq., after bringing it out, were to make confession to the Lord of what they had done, and pray for His blessing. "At the end of three years:" i.e. when the third year, namely the civil year, which closed with the harvest (see at Ex. xxiii. 16), had come to an end. This regulation as to the time was founded upon the observance of the sabbatical year, as we may see from chap, xv, 1, where the seventh year is no other than the sabbatical year. Twice, therefore, within the period of a sabbatical year, namely in the third and sixth years, the tithe set apart for a sacrificial meal was not to be eaten at the sanctuary, but to be used in the different towns of the land in providing festal meals for those who had no possessions, viz. the Levites, strangers, widows, and orphans. Consequently this tithe cannot properly be called the " third tithe," as it is by many of the Rabbins, but rather the " poor tithe," as it was simply in the way of applying it that it differed from the " second " (see Ilottlnger, de decimisj exerc. viii. pp. 182 sqq., and my Archdol. i. p. 339). As an encouragement to carry out these instructions, Moses closes in ver. 29 with an allusion to the divine blessing which would follow their observance.
On the Year of Release, the Emancipation of Hebrew Slaves, and the Sanctification of the First-horn of Cattle. — Chap. xv.
Vers. 1-11. On the Year of Eelease. — The first two regulations in this chapter, viz. vers. 1-11 and 12-18, follow simply upon the law concerning the poor tithe in chap. xiv. 2^, 29. The Israelites were not only to cause those who had no possessions (Levites, strangers, widows, and orphans) to refresh themselves with the produce of their inheritance, but they were not to force and oppress the poor. Debtors especially were not to be deprived of the blessings of the sabbatical year (vers. 1-6). ''At the end of seven years thou shalt rtiahe a released The expression, " at the end of seven years," is to be understood in the same way as the corresponding phrase, " at the end of three years," in chap. xiv. 28. The end of seven years, i,e, of the seven years' cycle formed by the sabbatical year, is mentioned as the time when debts that had been contracted were usually wiped off or demanded, after the year's harvest had been gathered in (cf. chap. xxxi. 10, acccording to which the feast of Tabernacles occurred at the end of the year). "^^P^, from tODK^^ to let lie, to let go (cf. Ex. xxiii. 11), does not signify a remission of the debt, the relinquishing of all claim for payment, as Fhilo and the Talmudists affirm, but simply lengthening the term, not pressing for payment. This is the explanation in ver. 2: " This is the manner of the release'' (shemittali): cf. chap. xix. 4; 1 Kings ix. 15. " Every owner of a loan of his hand shall release (leave) what he has lent to his neighbour; he shall not press his neighbour, and indeed his brother; for they have proclaimed release for Jehovahr As toiD^ (release) points unmistakeably back to Ex. xxiii. 11, it must be interpreted in the same manner here as there. And as it is not used there to denote the entire renunciation of a field or possession, so here it cannot mean the entire renunciation of what had been lent, but simply leaving it, i.e. not pressing for it during the seventh year. This is favoured by what follows, " thou shalt not press thy neighbour," which simply forbids an unreserved demand, but docs not require that the debt should be remitted or presented to the debtor (see also Bdhr, Symholik^ ii. pp. 570-1). " The loan of the hand:" what the hand has lent to another. '^ The master of the loan of the hand:" Le. the owner of a loan, the lender. " His brother" defines with greater precision the idea of " a neighbour." Calling a release, presupposes that the sabbatical year was publicly proclaimed, like the year of jubilee (Lev. xxv. 9). ^"^ij is impersonal (" they call"), as in Gen. xi. 9 and xvi. 14. " For Jehovah:" Le, in honour of Jehovah, sanctified to Hitn, as in Ex. xii. 42. — This law points back to the institution of the sabbatical year in Ex. xxiii. 10, Lev. xxv. 2-7, though it is not to be regarded as an appendix to the law of the sabbatical year, or an expansion of it, but simply as an exposition of what was already implied in the main provision of that law, viz. that the cultivation of the land should be suspended in the sabbatical year. If no harvest was gathered in, and even such produce as had grown without sowing was to be left to the poor and the beasts of the field, the landowner could have no income from which to pay his debts. The fact that the " sabbatical year'' is not expressly mentioned, may be accounted for on the ground, that even in the principal law itself this name does not occur; and it is simply commanded that every seventh year there was to be a sabbath of rest to the land (Lev. xxv. 4). In the subsequent passages in which it is referred to (ver. 9 and chap. xxxi. 10), it is still not called a sabbatical year, but simply the " year of release," and that not merely with reference to debtors, but also with reference to the release {sliemiitali) to be allowed to the field (Ex. xxiii. 11). — Ver. 3. The foreigner thou mayest press, but what thou hast with thy brother shall thy hand let go. """^^J is a stranger of another nation, standing in no inward relation to Israel at all, and is to be distinguished from '^ji, the foreigner who lived among the Israelites, who had a claim upon their protection and pity. This rule breathes no hatred of foreigners, but simply allows the Israelites the right of every creditor to demand his debts, and enforce the demand upon foreigners, even in the sabbatical year. There w^as no severity in this, because foreigners could get their ordinary income in the seventh year as well as in any other. — Ver. 4. " Only that there shall be no poor with thee^ ^'^})''^ is jussive, like the foregoing imperfects. The meaning in this connection is, " Thou needest not to remit a debt to foreigners in the seventh year; thou hast only to take care that there is no poor man with or among thee, that thou dost not cause or increase their poverty, by oppressing the brethren who have borrowed of thee." Understood in this way, the sentence is not at all at variance with ver. 11, where it is stated that the poor would never cease out of the land. The following clause, " for Jehovah will bless thee," etc., gives a reason for the main thought, that they were not to press the Israelitish debtor. The creditor, therefore, had no need to fear that he would suffer want, if he refrained from exacting his debt from his brother in the seventh year. — Vers. 5, 6. This blessing would not fail, if the Israelites would only hearken to the voice of the Lord; " for Jehovah hlesseth thee" (by the perfect 1^"!}?, the blessing is represented not as a possible and future one only, but as one already bestowed according to the counsel of God, and, so far as the commencement was concerned, already fulfilled), " as He hath spoken" (see at chap. i. 11), " Aiid thou luilt lend on pledge to many nations, but thou thyself wilt not borrow upon pledge" tD?5^, a denom. verb, from J^^^V, a pledge, signifies in Kal to give a pledge for the purpose of borrowing; in Hiphil, to cause a person to give a pledge, or furnish occasion for giving a pledge, i.e. to lend upon pledge. " And thou wilt rule over many nations" etc. Ruling is mentioned here as the result of superiority in wealth (cf. chap, xxviii. 1: Schultz). — Vers. 7-11. And in general Israel was to be ready to lend to the poor among its brethren, not to harden its heart, to be hard-hearted, but to lend to the poor brother i'lbno ^"i^ " the sufficiency of his need," whatever he might need to relieve his wants. — Vers. 9, 10. Thus they were also to beware " that there was not a word in the heart, worthlessness" i,e, that a worthless thought did not arise in their hearts (/Vl^^ is the predicate of the sentence, as the more precise definition of the word that was in the heart); so that one should say, " The seventh year is at hand, the year of release," sc, when I shall not be able to demand what I have lent, and " that thine eye be evil towards thy poor brother," i.e. that thou cherishest ill-will towards him (cf. chap, xxviii. 54, 56), " and givest him not, and he appeals to Jehovah against thee, and it becomes sin to thee," sc, which brings down upon thee the wrath of God. — Ver. 10. Thou shalt give him, and thy heart shall not become evil, i.e. discontented thereat (cf. 2 Cor. ix. 7), for Jehovah will bless thee for it (cf. Prov. xxii. 9, xxviii. 27; Ps. xli. 2; Matt, vi. 4). — Ver. 11. For the poor will never cease in the land, even the land that is richly blessed, because poverty is not only the penalty of sin, but is ordained by God for punishment and discipline.
Vers. 12—18. These provisions in favour of the poor are followed very naturally by the rules which the Israelites were to be urged to observe with reference to the manumission of Hebrew slaves. It is not the reference to the sabbatical year in the foregoing precepts which forms the introduction to the laws which follow respecting the manumission of Hebrews who had become slaves, but the poverty and want which compelled Hebrew men and women to sell themselves as slaves. The seventh year, in which they were to be set free, is not the same as the sabbatical year, therefore, but the seventh year of bondage. Manumission in the seventh year of service had already been commanded in Ex. xxi. 2-6, in the rights laid down for the nation, with special reference to the conclusion of the covenant. This command is not repeated here for the purpose of extending the law to Hebrew women, who are not expressly mentioned in Ex. xxi.; for that would follow as a matter of course, in the case of a law which was quite as applicable to women as to men, and was given without any reserve to the whole congregation. It is rather repeated here as a law which already existed as a right, for the purpose of explaining the true mode of fulfilling it, viz. that it was not sufficient to give a man-servant and maid-servant their liberty after six years of service, which would not be sufficient relief to those who had been obliged to enter into slavery on account of poverty, if they had nothing with which to set up a home of their own; but love to the poor was required to do more than this, namely, to make some provision for the continued prosperity of those who were set at liberty. ^ If thou let him go free from thee, thou shall not let him go (send him away) empty;" this was the new feature which Moses added here to the previous law. " Thou shall load (P^.^Vn, lit. put upon the neck) of thy flochy and of thy floor (corn), and of thy press (oil and wine); wherewith thy God hath blessed thee, of that thou shall give to him'^ — Yer. 15. They were to be induced to do this by the recollection of their own redemption out of the bondage of Egypt, — the same motive that is urged for the laws and exhortations enjoining compassion towards foreigners, servants, maids, widows, orphans, and the poor, not only in chap. v. 15, x. 19, xvi. 12, xxiv. 18, 22, but also in Ex. xxii. 20, xxiii. 9, and Lev. xix. 34. — Vers. 16, 17. But if the man-servant and the maid-servant should not wish for liberty in the sixth year, because it was well with them in the house of their master, they were not to be compelled to go, but were to be bound to eternal, i.e. lifelong bondage, in the manner prescribed in Ex. xxi. 5, 6.^ This is repeated from
' KnoheVs assertion, that the judicial process enjoined in Ex. xxi. 6 does not seem to have been usual in the author's own time, is a worthless argumentum e silentio.
Ex. xxi., to guard against such an application of the law as might be really cruelty under the circumstances rather than love. Manumission was onl}^ an act of love, when the person to be set free had some hope of success and of getting a living for himself; and where there was no such prospect, compelling him to accept of freedom might be equivalent to thrusting him away. — Ver. 18. If, on the other hand, the servant (or maid) wished to be set free, the master was not to think it hard; " for the double of the wages of a daylabourer he has ear?ied for thee for six yearsj^ i.e. not " twice the time of a day-labourer, so that he had really deserved twice the wages" {Vatablius, Ad. Osiander, J. Gerhard), for it cannot be proved from Isa. xvi. 14, that a day-labourer generally hired himself out for three years; nor yet, " he has been obliged to work much harder than a day-labourer, very often by night as well as day" (Clericus, J. H. Michaelis, Rosenmaller, Baumgarteii); but simply, " he has earned and produced so much, that if you had been obliged to keep a day-labourer in his place, it would have cost you twice as much" (^Schultz, Knobel).
Vers. 19-23. Application of the First-born of Cattle. — From the laws respecting the poor and slaves, to which the instructions concerning the tithes (chap. xiv. 22-29) had given occasion, Moses returns to appropriation of the first-born of the herd and flock to sacrificial meals, which he had already touched upon in chap. xii. 6, 17, and xiv. 23, and concludes by an explanation upon this point. The command, which the Lord had given when first they came out of Egypt (Ex. xiii. 2, 12), that all the first-born of the herd and flock should be sanctified to Him, is repeated here by Moses, with the express injunction that they were not to work with the first-born of cattle (by yoking them to the plough or waggon), and not to shear the first-born of sheep; that is to say, they were not to use the first-born animals which were sanctified to the Lord for their own earthly purposes, but to offer them year by year as sacrifices to the Lord, and consume them in sacrificial meals, in the manner explained at p. 357, To this he adds (vers. 21, 22) the further provision, that first-born animals, which were blind or lame, or had any other bad fault, were not to be offered in sacrifice to the Lord, but, like ordinary animals used for food, could be eaten in all the towns of the land. Although the first part of this law was involved in the general laws as to the kind of animal that could be offered in sacrifice (Lev. xxii. 19 sqq.), it was by no means unim- portant to point out distinctly their applicability to the first-bom, and add some instructions with regard to the way in which they were to be applied. (On vers. 22 and 23, see chap. xii. 15 and 16.)
On the Celebration of the Feasts of Passover, of Pentecost, and of Tabernacles. — Chap. xvi. 1-17.
The annual feasts appointed by the law w^ere to be celebrated, like the sacrificial meals, at the place which the Lord would choose for the revelation of His name; and there Israel was to rejoice before the Lord with the presentation of sacrifices. From this point of view Moses discusses the feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, assuming the laws previously given concerning these festivals (Ex. xii.. Lev. xxiii., and Num. xxviii. and xxix.) as already known, and simply repeating those points which related to the sacrificial meals held at these festivals. This serves to explain the reason why only those three festivals are mentioned, at which Israel had already been commanded to appear before the Lord in Ex. xxiii. 14-17, and xxxiv. 18, 24, 25, and not the feast of trumpets or day of atonement: viz. because the people were not required to assemble at the sanctuary out of the whole land on the occasion of these two festivals.^
Vers. 1-8. Israel was to make ready the Passover to the Lord in the earing month (see at Ex. xii. 2). The precise day is supposed to be known from Ex. xii., as in Ex. xxiii. 15. HDB T\VV (to prepare the Passover), which is used primarily to denote the preparation of the paschal lamb for a festal meal, is employed here in a wider signification, viz. " to keep the Passover^ At this feast they were to slay sheep and oxen to the Lord for a Passover, at the place, etc. In ver. 2, as in ver. 1, the word "Passover" is employed in a broader sense, and includes not only the paschal lamb, but the paschal sacrifices generally, which the llabbins embrace under tlie
^ That the assembling of the people at the central sanctuary is the leading point of view under which the feasts are regarded here, has been already pointed out by Bachmann (die Feste^ p. 143), who has called attention to the fact that ''the place which Jehovah thy God will choose" occurs six times (vers. 2, 6, 7, 11, 15, IC); and "before the face of Jehovah" three times (vei^s. 11 and 16 twice); and that the celebration of the feast at any other place is expressly declared to be null and void. At the same time, he has once more thoroughly exploded the contradictions which are said to exist between this chapter and the earlier festal laws, and which Hupfeld has revived in his comments upon the feasts, without troubling himself to notice the careful discussion of the subject by Hdvemick in his Introduction, and Hengstenberg in his Dissertations.
common name of chagiga; not the burnt-offerings and sin-offerings, liowever, prescribed in Num. xxviii. 19—26, but all the sacrifices that were slain at the feast of the Passover (i.e. during the seven days of the Mazzoth, which are included under the name of pascha) for the purpose of holding sacrificial meals. This is evident from the expression "o/ the flock and the herd;^^ as it was expressly laid down, that only a nb^^ i.e. a yearling animal of the sheep or goats, was to be slain for the paschal meal on the fourteenth of the month in the evening, and an ox was never slaughtered in the place of the lamb. But if any doubt could exist upon this point, it would be completely set aside by ver. 3: " Thou shalt eat no leavened bread loith it: seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith^ As the word " therewith " cannot possibly refer to anything else than the " Passover " in ver. 2, it is distinctly stated that the slaughtering and eating of the Passover was to last seven days, whereas the Passover lamb was to be slain and consumed in the evening of the fourteenth Abib (Ex. xii. 10). Moses called the unleavened bread " the bread of affliction^^ because the Israelites had to leave Egypt in anxious flight (Ex. xii. 11) and were therefore unable to leaven the dough (Ex. xii. 39), for the purpose of reminding the congregation of the oppression endured in Egypt, and to stir them up to gratitude towards the Lord their deliverer, that they might remember that day as long as they lived. (On the meaning of the Mazzoth, see at Ex. xii. 8 and 15.) — On account of the importance of the unleavened bread as a symbolical shadowing forth of the significance of the Passover, as the feast of the renewal and sanctification of the life of Israel (see vol. ii. p,. 21), Moses repeats in ver. 4 two of the points in the law of the feast: first of all the one laid down in Ex. xiii. 7, that no leaven was to be seen in the land during the seven days; and secondly, the one in Ex. xxiii. 18 and xxxiv. 25, that none of the flesh of the paschal lamb was to be left till the next morning, in order that all corruption might be kept at a distance from the paschal food. Leaven, for example, sets the dough in fcrjnentation, from which putrefaction ensues (see vol. ii. p. 15); and in the East, if flesh is kept, it very quickly decomposes, lie then once more fixes the time and place for keeping the Passover (the former according to Ex. xii. 6 and Lev. xxiii. 5, etc.), and adds in ver. 7 the express regulation, that not only the slaughtering and sacrificing, but the roasting (see at Ex. xii. 9) and eating of the paschal lamb were to take place at the sanctuary, and that the next morning they could turn and go back home.
This rule contains a new feature, which Moses prescribes with reference to the keeping of the Passover in the land of Canaan, and by which he modifies the instructions for the first Passover in Egypt, to suit the altered circumstances. In Egypt, when Israel w^as not yet raised into the nation of Jehovah, and had as yet no sanctuary and no common altar, the different houses necessarily served as altars. But when this necessity was at an end, the slaying and eating of the Passover in the different houses were to cease, and they were both to take place at the sanctuary before the Lord, as was the case with the feast of Passover at Sinai (Num. ix. 1-5). Thus the smearing of the door-posts with the blood was tacitly abolished, since the blood was to be sprinkled upon the altar as sacrificial blood, as it had already been at Sinai (see vol. ii. p. 50). — The expression " to thy tents^' for going " home," points to the time when Israel was still dwelling in tents, and had not as yet secured any fixed abodes and houses in Canaan, although this expression was retained at a still later time {e.g. 1 Sam. xiii. 2; 2 Sam. xix. 9, etc.). The going home in the morning after the paschal meal, is not to be understood as signifying a return to their homes in the different towns of the land, but simply, as even Riehm admits, to their homes or lodgings at the place of the sanctuary. How very far Moses was from intending to release the Israelites from the duty of keeping the feast for seven days, is evident from the fact that in ver. 8 he once more enforces the observance of the seven days' feast. The two clauses, "six days thou shalt eat mazzoth^'* and " on the seventh day shall be azereth (Eng. Ver. ' a solemn assembly ') to the Lord thy God," are not placed in antithesis to each other, so as to imply (in contradiction to vers. 3 and 4; Ex. xii. 18, 19, xiii. 6, 7, Lev. xxiii. 6; Num. xxviii. 17) that the feast of M^zzoth was to last only six days instead of seven; but the seventh day is brought into especial prominence as the azereth of the feast (see at Lev. xxiii. 36), simply because, in addition to the eating of mazzoth^ there was to be an entire abstinence from work, and this particular feature might easily have fallen into neglect at the close of the feast. But just as the eating of mazzoth for seven days is not abolished by the first clause, so the suspension of work on the first day is not abolished by the second clause, any more than in Ex. xiii. 6 the first day is represented as a working day by the fact that the seventh day is called "a feast to Jehovah." Vers. 9-12. With regard to the feast of Weeks (see at Ex. xxiii. 16), it is stated that the time for its observance was to be reckoned from the Passover. Seven weeks shall they count ^' froin the beginning of the sickle to the corn^'* i.e. from the time when the sickle began to be applied to the corn, or from the commencement of the corn-harvest. As the corn-harvest was opened with the presentation of the sheaf of first-fruits on the second day of the Passover, this re^julation as to time coincides with the rule laid down in Lev. xxiii. 15. " Thou shall keep the feast to the Lord thy God according to the measure of the free gift of thy hand, which thou givest as Jehovah thy God blesseth theer The air. Xey. riDD is the standing rendering in the Chaldee for "''^, sufficiency, need; it probably signifies abundance, from DDD = riDD, to flow, to overflow, to derive. The idea is this: Israel was to keep this feast with sacrificial gifts, which every one was able to bring, according to the extent to which the Lord had blessed him, and (ver. 11) to rejoice before the Lord at the place where His name dwelt with sacrificial meals, to which the needy were to be invited (cf. xiv. 29), in remembrance of the fact that they also were bondmen in Egypt (cf. xv. 15). The ^^ freewill offering of the hand^^^ which the Israelites were to bring with them to this feast, and with which they were to rejoice before the Lord, belonged to the free-will gifts of burnt-offerings, meat-offerings, drink-offerings, and thank-offerings, which might be offered, according to Num. xxix. 39 (cf. Lev. xxiii. 38), at every feast, along with the festal sacrifices enjoined upon the congregation. The latter were binding upon the priests and congregation, and are fully described in Num. xxviii. and xxix., so that there was no necessity for Moses to say anything further with reference to them. Vers. 13-17. In connection with the feast of Tabernacles also, he simply enforces the observance of it at the central sanctuary, and exhorts the people to rejoice at this festival, and not only to allow their sons and daughters to participate in this joy, but also the man-servant and maid-servant, and the portionless Levites, strangers, widows, and orphans. After what had already been stated, Moses did not consider it necessary to mention expressly that this festal rejoicing w^as also to be manifested in joyous sacrificial meals; it was enough for him to point to the blessing which God had bestowed upon their cultivation of the corn, the olive, and the vine, and upon all the works of their hands, i.e, upon their labour generally (vers. 13-15), as there was nothing further to remark aft6r the instructions which had already been given with reference to this feast also (Lev. xxiii. 34-36, 39-43; Num. xxix. 12-38). — Vers. 16, 17. In conclusion, the law is repeated, that the men were to appear before the Lord three times a year at the three feasts just mentioned (compare Ex. xxiii. 17 with ver. 15, and chap, xxxiv. 23), with the additional clause, " at the place which the Lord shall choose,^^ and the following explanation of the words "not empty:" ''every man according to the gift of his hand, according to the blessing of Jehovah his God, which He hath given thee^'' i.e. with sacrificial gifts, as much as every one could offer, according to the blessing which he had received from God.
On the Administration of Justice and the Choice of a King, — Chap. xvi. 18-xvii. 20.
Just as in its religious worship the Israelitish nation was to show itself to be the holy nation of Jehovah, so was it in its political relations also. This thought forms the link between the laws already given and those which follow. Civil order — that indispensable condition of the stability and prosperity of nations and states — rests upon a conscientious maintenance of right by means of a w^ell-ordered judicial constitution and an impartial administration of justice, — For the purpose of settling the disputes of the people, Moses had already provided them with judges at Sinai, and had given the judges themselves the necessary instructions for the fulfilment of their duties (Ex. xviii.). This arrangement might suffice as long as the people were united in one camp and had Moses for a leader, who could lay before God any difficult cases that were brought to him, and give an absolute decision with divine authority. But for future times, when Israel would no longer possess a prophet and mediator like Moses, and after the conquest of Canaan would live scattered about in the towns and villages of the whole land, certain modifications and supplementary additions were necessary to adapt this judicial constitution to the altered circumstances of the people. Moses anticipates this want in the following provisions, in which he first of all commands the appointment of judges and officials in every town, and gives certain precise injunctions as to their judicial proceedings (chap. xvi. 18-xvii. 7); and secondly, appoints a higher judicial court at ihe place of the sanctuary for the more difficult cases (chap. xvii. 8-13); and thirdly, gives them a law for the future with reference to the choice of a king (vers. 14-20).
Chap. xvi. 18-xvii. 7. Appointment and Instruction of THE Judges. — Ver. 18. ''Judges and officers thou shalt appoint thee in all thy gates (places, see at Ex. xx. 10), which Jehovah thy God shall give theey according to thy trihesT The nation is addressed as a whole, and directed to appoint for itself judges and officers, Le, to choose them, and have them appointed by its rulers, just as was done at Sinai, where the people chose the judges, and Moses inducted into office the persons so chosen (cf. chap. i. 12—18). That the same course was to be adopted in future, is evident from the expression, " throughout thy tribes," i.e. according to thy tribes, which points back to chap, i, 13. Election by majorities was unknovm to the Mbsaic law. The shoterim^ officers {lit, writers, see at Ex. V. 6), who were associated with the judges, according to chap. i. 15, even under the previous arraiigement, were not merely messengers and servants of the courts, but secretaries and advisers of the judges, who derived their title from the fact that they had to draw up and keep the genealogical lists, and who are mentioned as already existing in Egypt as overseers of the people and of their work (see at Ex. v. 6; and for the different opinions concerning their official position, see Selden, de Sj/nednis, i. pj). 342-3). The new features, which Moses introduces here, consist simply in the fact that every place was to have its own judges and officers, whereas hitherto they had only been appointed for the larger and smaller divisions of the nation, according to their genealogical organization. Moses lays down no rule as to the number of judges and shoterim to be appointed in each place, because this would depend upon the number of the inhabitants; and the existing arrangement of judges over tens, hundreds, etc. (Ex. xviii. 21), would still furnish the necessary standard. The statements made by Josephus and the Rabbins with regard to the number of judges in each place are contradictory, or at all events are founded upon the circumstances of much later times (see my Archdologie^ ii. pp. 257-8). — These judges were to judge the people with just judgment. The admonition in ver. 19 corresponds to the instructions in Ex. xxiii. 6 and 8. " Respect persons:" as in chap. i. 17. To this there is added, in ver. 20, an emphatic admonition to strive zealously to maintain justice. The repetition of the word justice is emphatic: justice, and nothing but justice, as in Gen. xiv. 10, etc. But in order to give the people and the judges appointed by them a brief practical admonition, as to the things they were more especially to observe in their administration of justice, Moses notices by way of example a few crimes that were deserving of punishment (vers. 21, 22, and chap. xvii. 1), and then proceeds in chap. xvii. 2-7 to describe more fully the judicial proceedings in the case of idolaters. — Yer. 21. " Tliou shall not plant thee as asherah any toood beside the altar of Jehovah" yt?^, to plant, used figuratively, to plant up or erect, as in Eccles. xii. 11, Dan. xi. 25; cf. Isa. li. 16. Asherah, the symbol of Astarte (see at Ex. xxxiv. 13), cannot mean either a green tree or a grove (as Movers, Belig. der Phonizier, p. 572, supposes), for the simple reason that in other passages we find the words nl^-'y^ make (1 Kings xiv. 15, xvi. 33; 2 Kings xvii. 16, xxi. 3; 2 Chron. xxxiii. 3), or y^^, set up (2 Kings xvii. 10), T'pyn, stand up (2 Chron. xxxiii. 19), and njiij build (1 Kings xiv. 23), used to denote the erection of an asherah, not one of which is at all suitable to a tree or grove. But what is quite decisive is the fact that in 1 Kings xiv. 23, 2 Kings xvii. 10, Jer. xvii. 2, the asherah is spoken of as being set up under, or by the side of, the green tree. This idol generally consisted of a wooden column; and a favourite place for setting it up was by the side of the altars of Baal. — Yer. 22. They were also to abstain from setting up any mazzehah, i.e. any memorial stone, or stone pillar dedicated to Baal (see at Ex. xxiii. 24).
Chap. xvii. 1. Not only did the inclination to nature-worship, such as the setting up of the idols of Ashera and Baal, belong to the crimes which merited punishment, but also a manifest transgression of the laws concerning the worship of Jehovah, such as the offering of an ox or sheep that had some fault, which was an abomination in the sight of Jehovah (see at Lev. xxii. 20 sqq.). " Any evil thing," i.e. any of the faults enumerated in Lev. xxii. 22-24. — Yers. 2—7. If such a case should occur, as that a man or ■woman transgressed the covenant of the Lord and went after other gods and worshipped them; when it was made known, the facts were to be carefully inquired into; and if the charge were substantiated, the criminal was to be led out to the gate and stoned. On the testimony of two or three witnesses, not of one only, he was to be put to death (see at Num. xxxv. 30); and the hand of the witnesses was to be against him first to put him to death, i.e. to throw the first stones at him, and all the people were to follow. With regard to the different kinds of idolatry in ver. 3, see chap. iv. 19. (On ver. 4, see chap. xiii. 15.) ''Bring him out to thy gates," i.e. to one of the gates of the town in which the crime was committed. By the gates we are to understand the open space near the gates, where the judicial proceedings took place (cf. Neh. viii. 1, 3; Job xxix. 7), the sentence itself being executed outside the town (cf. chap. xxii. 24; Acts vii. 58; Heb. xiii. 12), just as it had been outside the camp during the journey through the wilderness (Lev. xi^iv. 14; Num. xv. 36), to indicate the exclusion of the criminal from the congregation, and from fellowship with God. The infliction of punishment in vers. 5 sqq. is like that prescribed in chap, xiii. 10, 11, for those who tempted others to idolatry; with this exception, that the testimony of more than one witness was required before the sentence could be executed, a,nd the witnesses were to be the first to lift up their hands against the criminal to stone him, that they might thereby give a practical proof of the truth of their statement, and their own firm conviction that the condemned was deserving of death, — " a rule which would naturally lead to the supposition that no man would come forward as a witness without the fullest certainty or the greatest depravity'* (Schnell, das isr, Recht)} ntDn (ver. 6), the man exposed to death, who was therefore really ipso facto already dead. " So shall thou put the evil away^^^ etc.: of. chap. xiii. 6.
Vers. 8—13. The higher Judicial Court at the Place OF THE Sanctuary. — Just as the judges appointed at Sinai were to bring to Moses whatever cases were too difficult for them to decide, that he might judge them according to the decision of God (Ex. xviii. 26 and, 19); so in the future the judges of the different towns were to bring all difficult cases, which they were unable to decide, before the Levitical priests and judges at the place of the sanctuary, that a final decision might be given there. — Vers. 8 sqq. '' If there is to thee a matter too marvellous for judgment (^?^? with \0, too wonderful, incomprehensible, or beyond carrying out, Gen. xviii. 14, i.e. too difficult to give a judicial decision upon), between blood and blood, plea and plea, stroke and stroke (i.e. too hard for you to decide according to what legal provisions a fatal blow, or dispute on some civil matter, or a bodily injury, is to be settled), disputes in thy gates (a loosely arranged apposition in this sense, disputes of different kinds, such as shall arise in thy towns); arise, and get thee to the place which Jehovah thy God shall choose; and go to the Levitical priests and the judge that shall be in those days, and in-
^ " He assigned this part to the witnesses, chiefly because there are so many whose tongue is so sUppery, not to say good for nothing, that they would boldly strangle a man with their words, when they would not dare to touch him with one of their fingers. It was the best remedy, therefore, that could be tried for restraining such levity, to refuse to admit the testimony of any man who was not ready to execute judgment with his own hand" (Calvin).
quired Israel is addressed here as a nation, but the words are not to be supposed to be directed " first of all to the local courts (chap. xvi. 18), and lastly to the contending parties " (Knohel)^ nor " directly to the parties to the suit" (Schultz), but simply to the persons whose duty it was to administer justice in the nation, i.e, to the regular judges in the different towns and districts of the land. This is evident from the general fact, that the Mosaic law never recognises any appeal to higher courts by the different parties to a lawsuit, and that in this case also it is not assumed, since all that is enjoined is, that if the matter should be too difficult for the local judges to decide, they themselves were to carry it to the superior court. As Oehler has quite correctly observed in Herzog's Cyclopaedia, " this superior court was not a court of appeal; for it did not adjudicate after the local court had already given a verdict, but in cases in which the latter would not trust itself to give a verdict at all." And this is more especially evident from what is stated in ver. 10, with regard to the decisions of the superior court, namely, that they were to do whatever the superior judges taught, without deviating to the right hand or to the left. This is unquestionably far more applicable to the judges of the different towns, who were to carry out cx^^ntly the sentence of the higher tribunal, than to the parties to the suit, inasmuch as the latter, at all events those who were condemned for blood {i.e. for murder), could not possibly be in a position to alter the decision of the court at pleasure, since it did not rest with them, but with the authorities of their town, to carry out the sentence.
Moses did not directly institute a superior tribunal at the place of the sanctuary on this occasion, but rather assumed Its existence; not however its existence at that time (as Riehn and other modern critics suppose), but its establishment and existence in the future. Just as he gives no minute directions concernlnir the ortranlzatlon of the different local courts, but leaves this to the natural development of the judicial institutions already in existence, so he also restricts himself, so far as the higher court is concerned, to general allusions, which might serve as a guide to the national rulers of a future day, to organize it according to the existing models. lie had no disorganized mob before him, but a well-ordered nation, already in possession of civil institutions, with fruitful germs for further expansion and organization. In addition to its civil classification into tribes, families, fathers' houses, and family groups, which possessed at once their rulers in their own heads, the nation had received in the priesthood, with the high priest at the head, and the Levite& as their assistants, a spiritual class, which mediated between the congregation and the Lord, and not only kept up the knowledge of right in the people as the guardian of the law, but by virtue of the high priest's office was able to lay the rights of the people before God, and in difficult cases could ask for His decision. Moreover, a leader had already been appointed for the nation, for the time immediately succeeding Moses' death; and in this nomination of Joshua, a pledge had been given that the Lord would never leave it without a supreme ruler of its civil affairs, but, along with the high priest, would also appoint a judge at the place of the central sanctuary, who would administer justice in the highest court in association with the priests. On the ground of these facts, it was enough for the future to mention the Levitical priests and the judge who would be at the place of the sanctuary, as constituting the court by which the difficult questions were to be decided.^ For instance, the words themselves show distiMctly enough, that by " the judge " we are not to understand the high priest, but the temporal judge or president of the superior court; and it is evident from the singular, " the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord^^ (ver. 12), that the high priest is included among the priests. The expression " the priests the Levites " (Levitical priests), w^hich also occurs in ver. 18, chap, xviii. 1, xxi. 5, xxiv. 8, xxvii. 9, xxxi. 9, instead of " sons of Aaron," which w^e find in the middle books, is quite in harmony with the time and character of the book before us. As long as Aaron was living with his sons, the priesthood consisted only of himself and his sons, that is to say, of one family. Hence all the instructions in the middle books are addressed to them, and for the most part to Aaron personally {vid, Ex. xxviii. and xxix.; Lev. viii.-x.; Num. xviii., etc.). This was all changed when Aaron died; henceforth the priesthood consisted simply of the descendants of Aaron and his sons, who were no longer one family, but formed a distinct class in the nation, the legitimacy of which arose from its connection with the tribe of Levi, to which Aaron himself had belonged. It was evidently more appropriate, therefore, to describe them as sons of
The simple fact, that the judicial court at the place of the national sanctuary is described in such general terms, furnishes a convincing proof that we have here the words of Moses, and not those of some later prophetic writer who had copied the superior court at Jerusalem of the times of the kings, aa Riehm and the critics assume.
Levi than as sons of Aaron, which had been the title formerly given to the priests, with the exception of the high priest, viz. Aaron himself. — In connection with the superior court, however, the priests are introduced rather as knowing and teaching the law (Lev. x. 11), than as actual judges. For this reason appeal was to be made not only to them, but also to the judge, whose duty it was in any case to make the judicial inquiry and pronounce the sentence. — The object of the verb " inquire''' (ver. 9) follows after " they shall show thee," viz. " the word of right^^ the judicial sentence wkich is sought (2 Chron. xix. 6). — Vers. 10, 11. They shall do " according to the sound of the word which they utter^ (follow their decision exactly), and that " according to the sound of the law which they teachy^ and " according to the right which they shall speak J^ The sentence was to be founded upon the Thorah^ upon the law which the priests had to teach. — Ver. 12. No one was to resist in pride, to refuse to listen to the priest or to the judge. Resistance to the priest took place when any one was dissatisfied with his interpretation of the law; to the judge, when any one was discc ntented with the sentence that w^as passed on the basis of the law. Such refractory conduct was to be punished with death, as rebellion against God, in whose name the right had been spoken (chap. i. 17). (On ver. 13, see chap. xiii. 12.)
Vers. 14-20. Choice and Eight of the King. — Vers. 14, 15. If Israel, when dwelling in the land which was given it by the Lord for a possession, should wish to appoint a king, like all the nations round about, it was to appoint the man whom Jehovah its God should choose, and that from among its brethren, i.e, from its own people, not a foreigner or non-Israelite. The earthly kingdom in Israel was not opposed to the theocracy, i.e. to the rule of Jehovah as king over the people of His possession, provided no one was made king but the person whom Jehovah should choose. The appointment of a king is not commanded^ like the institution of judges (chap. xvi. 18), because Israel could exist under the government of Jehovah, even without an earthly king; it is simply permitted, in case the need should arise for a regal government. There was no necessity to describe more minutely the course to be adopted, as the people possessed the natural provision for the administration of their national affairs in their well-organized tribes, by whom this point could be decided. Moses also omits to state more particularly in what way Jehovah would make known the choice of the king to be appointed. The congregation, no doubt, possessed one means of asking the will of the Lord in the Urim and Thummim of the high priest, provided the Lord did not reveal His will in a different manner, namely through a prophet, as He did in the election of Saul and David (1 Sam. viii., ix., and xvi.). The command not to choose a foreigner, acknowledged the right-of the nation to choose. Consequently the choice on the part of the Lord may have consisted simply in His pointing out to the people, in a very evident manner, the person they were to elect, or in His confirming the choice by word and act, as in accordance with His will. — Three rules are laid down for the king himself in vers. 16-20. In the first place, he was not to keep many horses, or lead back the people to Egypt, to multiply horses, because Jehovah had forbidden the people to return thither by that way. The notion of modern critics, that there is an allasion in this prohibition to the constitution of the kingdom under Solomon, is so far from having any foundation, that the reason assigned — namely, the fear lest the king should lead back the people to Egypt from his love of horses, " to the end that he should multiply horses" — really precludes the time of Solomon, inasmuch as the time had then long gone by when any thought could have been entertained of leading back the people to Egypt. But such a reason would be quite in its place in Moses' time, and only then, " when it would not seem impossible to reunite the broken band, and when the people were ready to express their longing, and even their intention, to return to Egypt on the very slightest occasion; whereas the reason assigned for the prohibition might have furnished Solomon with an excuse for regarding the prohibition itself as merely a temporary one, which was no longer binding" {Oehler in Herzog^s Cyclopoedia: vid. Hengstenberg's Dissertations).^ The second admonition also, that the king was not to take to himself many wives, and turn away his heart (sc. from the Lord), nor
^ When Riehm objects to this, that if such a prohibition had been unneces- Bary in a future age, in which, the people had reached the full consciousness of its national independence, and every thought of the possibility of a reunion with the Egyptians had disappeared, Moses would never have issued it, since he must have foreseen the national independence of the people; the force of this objection rests simply upon his confounding foreseeing with assuming, and upon a thoroughly mistaken view of the prophet's vision of the future. Even if Moses, as " a great prophet," did foresee the future national independence of Israel, he had also had such experience of the fickle character of the people, that he could not regard the thought of returning to Egypt as absolutely an impossible one, even after the conquest of Canaan, or reject it as inconceivable. Moreover, the greatly multiply to himself silver and gold, can be explained without the hypothesis that there is an allusion to Solomon's reign, although this king did transgress both commands (1 Kings x. 14 sqq., xi. 1 sqq.). A richly furnished harem, and the accumulation of silver and gold, were inseparably connected with the luxury of Oriental monarchs generally; so that the fear was a very natural one, that the future king of Israel might follow the general customs of the heathen in these respects. — Vers. 18 sqq. And thirdly^ Instead of hanging his heart upon these earthly things, when he sat upon his royal throne he was to have a copy of the law written out by the Levitical priests, that he might keep the law by him, and read therein all the days of his lif^. 2ri3 does not involve writing with his own hand (Philo), but simply having it written. riN^n tTninn np^ does not mean to hevrepovofjuiov tovto (LXX.), " this repetition of the law," as HN^n cannot stand for f^^J}; but a copy of this law, as most of the Rabbins correctly explain it in accordance with the Chaldee version, though they make mishneh to signify duplum^ two copies (see Ildvernick^ Introduction). — Every copy of a book is really a repetition of it. " From before the 'priests^^ i.e. of the law which lies before the priests or is kept by them. The object of the daily reading in the law (vers. 196 and 20) was " to learn the fear of the Lordj and to keep His commandments^ (cf. v. 25, vi. 2, xiv. 23), prophetic foresight of Moses was not, as Riehm imagines it, a foreknowledge of all the separate points in the historical development of the nation, much less a foreknowledge of the thoughts and desires of the heart, which might arise in the course of time amidst the changes that would take place in the nation. A foresight of the development of Israel into national independence, so far as we may attribute it to Moses as a prophet, was founded not upon the character of the people, but upon the divine choice and destination of Israel, which by no means precluded the possibility of their desiring to return to Egypt, even at some future time, since God Himself had threatened the people with dispersion among the heathen as the punishment for continued transgression of His covenant, and yet, notwithstanding this dispersion, had predicted the ultimate reahzation of His covenant of grace. And when Riehm still further observes, that the taste for horses, which lay at the foundation of this fear, evidently points to a later time, when the old repugnance to cavalry which existed in the nation in the days of the judges, and even under David, had disappeared; this supposed repugnance to cavalry is a fiction of the critic himself, without any historical foundation. For nothing more is related in the history, than that before the time of Solomon the Israelites had not cultivated the rearing of horses, and that David only kept 100 of the war-horses taken from the Syrians for himself, and had the others put to death (2 Sam. viii. 4). And so long as horses were neither reared nor possessed by the Israelites, there can be no ground for speaking of the old repugnance to cavalry. On the other hand, the impossibility of tracing this that liis heart might not be lifted up above his brethren, that he might not become proud (chap. viii. 14), and might not turn aside from the commandments to the right hand or to the left, that he and his descendants might live long upon the throne.
In addition to the judicial order and the future king, it was necessary that the position of the priests and Levites^ vy^hose duties and rights had been regulated by previous laws, should at least be mentioned briefly and finally established (vers. 1-8), and also that the prophetic order should be fully accredited by the side of the other state authorities, and its operations regulated by a definite law (vers. 9-22).
Vers. 1-8. The Eights of the Priests and Levites. — With reference to these, Moses repeats verbatim from Num. xviii. 20, 23, 24, the essential part of the rule laid down in Num. xviii.: " The priests tJie Levites, the whole tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel** " All the tribe of Levi " includes the priests and Levites. They were to eat the " firings of Jehovah and BKs inheritance," as described in detail in Num. xviii. The inheritance of Jehovah consisted of the holy gifts as well as the sacrifices, prohibition to the historical circumstances of the time of Solomon, or even a later age, is manifest in the desperate subterfuge to which Riehm has recourse, when he connects this passage with the threat in chap, xxviii. 68, that if all the punishments suspended over them should be ineffectual, God would carry them back in ships to Egypt, and that they should there be sold to their enemies as men-servants and maid-servants, and then discovers a proof in this, that the Egyptian king Psammetichus, who sought out foreign soldiers and employed them, had left king Manasseh some horses, solely on the condition that he sent him some Israelitish infantry, and placed them at his disposal. But this is not expounding Scripture; it is putting hypotheses into it. As Oehler has already obBerved, this hypothesis has no foundation whatever in the Old Testament, nor (we may add) in the accounts of Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus concerning Pgammetichus. According to Diod. (i. 66), Psammetichus hired soldiers from Arabia, Caria, and Ionia;. and according to Herodotus (i. 1^2), he hired lonians and Carians armed with t)rass, that he might conquer his rival kings with their assistance. But neither of these historians says anything at all about Israelitish infantry. And even if it were conqeivable that any king of Israel or Judah could carry on such traffic in men, as to sell his- own subjects to the Egyptians for horses, it is very certain that the prophets, who condemned every alliance with foreign kings, and were not silent with regard to Manasseh's idolatry, would not-tiave passed over such an abomination as this without remark or without reproof.
i,e. the tithes, firsthngs, and first-fruits. Moses felt it to be superfluous to enumerate these gifts one by one from the previous laws, and also to describe the mode of their application, or define how much belonged to the priests and how much to the Levites. However true it may be that the author assigns all these gifts to the Levites generally, the conclusion drawn from this, viz. that he was not acquainted with any distinction between priests and Levites, but placed the Levites entirely on a par with the priests, is quite a false one. For, apart from the evident distinction between the priests and Levites in ver. 1, where there would be no meaning in the clause, " all the tribe of Levi," if the Levites were identical with the priests, the distinction is recognised and asserted as clearly as possible in what follows, when a portion of the slain-offerings is allotted to the priests in vers. 3-5, whilst in vers. 6-8 the Levite is allowed to join in eating the altar gifts, if he come to the place of the sanctuary and perform service there. The repetition in ver. 2 is an emphatic confirmation: ''As He hath said unto them:^^ as in chap. X. 9. — Vers. 3-5. " This shall he the right of the priests on the part of the people, on the part of those who slaughter slain-offerings, whether ox or sheep; he (the offerer) shall give the priest the shoulder, the cheek, and the stomach^ V^TH, the shoulder, i.e, the front leg; see Num. vi. 19. '"'^ifl'?, the rough stomach, to irjVLaTpov (LXX.), i.e. the fourth stomach of ruminant animals, in which the digestion of the food is completed; Lat. omasus or abomasus, though the Vulgate has ventriculus here. On the choice of these three pieces in particular, Munster and FagiXis observe that " the sheep possesses three principal parts, the head, the feet, and the trunk; and of each of these some portion was to be given to the priest who officiated" (?). " Of each of these three principal parts of the animal," says Schultz, " some valuable piece was to be presented: the shoulder at least, and the stomach, which was regarded as particularly fat, are seen at once to have been especially good." That this arrangement is not at variance with the command in Lev. vii. 32 sqq., to give the wavebreast and heave-leg of the peace-offerings to the Lord for the priests, but simply enjoins a further gift to the priests on the part of the people, in addition to those portions which were to be given to the Lord for His servants, is sufficiently evident from the context, since the heave-leg and wave-breast belonged to the firings of Jehovah mentioned in ver. 1, which the priests had received as an inheritance from the Lord, that is to say, to the tenuphoth of the children of Israel, which the priests might eat with their sons and daughters, though only with such members of their house as were levitically clean (Num. xviii. 11); and also from the words of the present command, viz. that the portions mentioned were to be a right of the priests on the part of the people, on the part of those who slaughtered slain-offerings, i.e. to be paid to the priest as a right that was due to him on the part of the people. tDQTO was what the priest could justly claim. This right was probably accorded to the priests as a compensation for the falling off which would take place in their incomes in consequence of the repeal of the law that every animal was to be slaughtered at the sanctuary as a sacrifice (Lev. xvii.; vid. chap. xii. 15 sqq.).
The only thing that admits of dispute is, whether this gift was to be presented from every animal that was slaughtered at home for private use, or only from tliose which were slaughtered for sacrificial meals, and therefore at the place of the sanctuary. Against the former view, for which appeal is made to Philo, Josephus (Ant. iv. 4, 4), and the Talmud, we may adduce not only " the difficulty of carrying out such a plan " (was every Israelite who slaughtered an ox, a sheep, or a goat to carry the pieces mentioned to the priests' town, which might be many miles away, or were the priests to appoint persons to collect them?), but the general use of the words n^T nnj. The noun nnt always signifies either slaughtering for a sacrificial meal or a slain sacrifice, and the verb HIT is never applied to ordinary slaughtering (for which lOHK^ is the verb used), except in chap. xii. 15 and 21 in connection with the repeal of the law that every slaughtering was to be a D''pPK^ nnt (Lev. xvii. 5); and there the use of the word riDT, instead of ^n^^ may be accounted for from the allusion to this particular law. At the same time, the Jewish tradition is probably right, when it understands by the nn^T "»n3f in this verse, Kar oIkov Ovslv 6vcd.')(^(a<i evcKa (Josephus), or e^G) Tov ^cofjLov 6vofJb€voc<; €V€fca Kp€co(f)ajLa<; (Philo), or, as in the Mishnah Choi. (x. 1), refers the gift prescribed in this passage to the l^i'in, profana, and not to the puhpID, consecrata, that is to say, places it in the same category with the first-fruits, the tithe of tithes, and other less holy gifts, which might be consumed outside the court of the temple and the holy city (compare Reland, Antiqg. ss, P. ii. c. 4, § 11, with P. ii. c. 8, § 10). In all probability, the reference is to the slaughtering of oxen, sheep, or goats which were not intended for shelamim in the more limited sense, i.e. for one of the three species of peace-offerings (Lev. vii. 15, 16), but for festal meals in the broader sense, which were held in connection with the sacrificial meals prepared from the shelamim. For it is evident that the meals held by the people at the annual feasts when they had to appear before the Lord were not all shelamim meals, but that other festal meals were held in connection with these, in which the priests and Levites were to share, from the laws laid down with reference to the so-called second tithe, which could not only be turned into money by those who lived at a great distance from the sanctuary, such money to be applied to the purchase of the things required for the sacrificial meals at the place of the sanctuary, but which might also be appropriated every third year to the preparation of love-feasts for the poor in the different towns of the land (chap, xiv. 22-29). For in this case the animals were not slaughtered or sacrificed as shelamim, at all events not in the latter instance, because the slaughtering did not take place at the sanctuary. If therefore we restrict the gift prescribed here to tlie slaughtering of oxen and sheep or goats for such sacrificial meals in the wider sense, not only are the difficulties connected with the execution of this command removed, but also the objection, which arises out of the general use of the expression nnt n^t, to the application of this expression to every slaughtering that took place for domestic use. And beside this, the passage in 1 Sam. ii. 13-16, to which Calvin calls attention, furnishes a historical proof that the priests could claim a portion of the flesh of the slain-offerings in addition to the heave-leg and wave-breast, since it is there charged as a sin on the part of the sons of Eli, not only that they took out of the cauldrons as much of the flesh which was boiling as they could take up with three-pronged forks, but that before the fat was burned upon the altar they asked for the pieces which belonged to the priest, to be given to them not cooked, but raw. From this Michaelis has drawn 'the correct conclusion, that even at that time the priests had a right to claim that, in addition to the portions of the sacrifices appointed by Moses in Lev. vii. 34, a further portion of the thank-offerings should be given to them; though he does not regard the passage as referring to the law before us, since he supposes this to relate to every slaughtered animal which was not placed upon the altar.
In ver. 4, Moses repeats the law concerning the first-fruits in Num. xviii. 12, 13 (cf. Ex. xxii. 28), for the purpose of extending it to the first produce of the sheep-shearing. — Ver. 5. The reason for the right accorded to the priests was the choice of them for the office of standing ^* to minister in the name of Jehovah," sc. for all the tribes. " Li the name of Jehovah,^ not merely by the appointment, but also in the power of the Lord, as mediators of Ilis grace. The words " he and his sons^^ point back quite to, the Mosaic times, in whicli Aaron and his sons held tlie priest's office. — Vers. 6-8. As the priests were to be remembered for their service on the part of the people (vers. 3-5), so the Levite also, who came from one of the towns of the land with all the desire of his soul to the place of the sanctuary, to minister there in the name of the Lord, was to eat a similar portion to all his Levitical brethren who stood there in service before the Lord. The verb ni3 (sojourned) does not presuppose that the Levites were houseless, but simply that they had no hereditary possession in the land as the other tribes had, and merely lived like sojourners among the Israelites in the tow^ns which were given up to them by the other tribes (see at chap. xii. 12). ^' All his brethren the Levites^'' are the priests and those Levites who officiated at the sanctuary as assistants to the priests. It is assumed, therefore, that only a part of the Levites were engaged at the sanctuary, and the others lived in their towns. The apodosis follows in ver. 8, ''part like part shall they eat^^ sc, the new-comer and those already there. The former was to have the same share to eat as the latter, and to be maintained from the revenues of the sanctuary. These revenues are supposed to be already apportioned by the previous laws, so that they by no means abolish the distinction between priests and Levites. We are not to think of those portions of the sacrifices and first-fruits only which fell to the lot of the priests, nor of the tithe alone, or of the property which flowed into the sanctuary through vows or free-will offerings, or in any other way, and was kept in the treasury and storehouse, but of tithes, sacrificial portions, and free-will offerings generally, which were not set apart exclusively for the priests. 'Ii1 '^''^^spp *^^^, *^ beside his sold with the fathei^s^^ i.e. independently of what he receives from the sale of his patrimony. ">3pp, the sale, then the thing sold, and the price or produce of what is sold, like "i^n in Num. xx. 19. ^37 is unusual without |D and Knobel would read V"13DD, from V'JDD and IP, in consequence. T\^1^T\ pj; stands for nUfcjITi''^ py (see at Ex. vi. 25; Kara rrjv Trarpiav, LXX.), according to or with the fathers' houses, i.e. the produce of the property which he possesses according to his family descent, or which is with his kindred*. Whether pV in this passage signifies " according to the measure of," or " with," in the sense of keeping or administering, cannot be decided. As the law in Lev. xxv. 33, 34, simply forbids the sale of the pasture grounds belonging to the Levites, but permits the sale of their houses, a Levite who went to the sanctuary might either let his property in thaLevitical town, and draw the yearly rent, or sell the house which belonged to him there. In any case, these words furnish a convincing proof that there is no foundation for the assertion that the book of Deuteronomy assumes or affirms that the Levites were absolutely without possessions.