Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Deuteronomy 18:1
The priests the Levites, [and] all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and his inheritance.
1. The priests the Levites ] This double title, peculiar to D, is found both in the Code, Deu 17:9; Deu 17:18, Deu 24:8 (cp. Deu 21:5: the priests the sons of Levi) and in Deu 27:9 (edit.?), cp. Deu 31:9. By God’s appointment ( Deu 18:5) all members of the tribe of Levi were priests de jure, but in consequence of the law abolishing the rural altars and rendering priestly functions impossible except in the Temple, a member of the tribe while resident in the country is called Levite alone the Levite within thy gates and can secure the name and the rights of a priest only when he removes to Jerusalem ( Deu 18:6); where however he does not cease to be called Levite ( Deu 18:7). With this distinction the priests and the Levites are to D synonymous. This is further emphasised by the addition
all the tribe of Levi ] The and prefixed by the A.V. and R.V. Marg. is not in the Heb., in which the phrase stands in apposition to the priests the Levites. There is therefore no possibility in the interpretation that D intended by Levites ‘all other members of the tribe of Levi.’ This interpretation is a forced attempt to reconcile D’s law with those of P which distinguish between priests and Levites.
no portion nor inheritance with Israel ] Cp. Deu 10:9 ( with his brethren), Deu 12:12 ( with you), Deu 14:27; Deu 14:29 ( with thee), and the deuteronomic Jos 13:14; Jos 13:33; Jos 18:7. The tribe are landless. So in P, Num 18:20; Num 18:23 f., Num 26:62.
they shall eat ] live, or subsist, by; cp. Ar. ’ukul (from the same root) ‘means of subsistence.’
the offerings of the Lord made by fire ] This expression, an early instance of which occurs in 1Sa 2:28, is found more than 60 times in P and nowhere else (the grammar shows that it is an intrusion. Jos 13:14).
and his inheritance ] all other offerings to the Deity, such as are detailed in Deu 18:4.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Better, there shall not be to the priests, the Levites, yea the whole tribe of Levi, any inheritance, etc.
And his inheritance – i. e., Gods inheritance, that which in making a grant to His people of the promised land with its earthly blessings He had reserved for Himself; more particularly the sacrifices and the holy gifts, such as tithes and first-fruits. These were Gods portion of the substance of Israel; and as the Levites were His portion of the persons of Israel, it was fitting that the Levites should be sustained from these. On the principle here laid down, compare 1Co 9:13-14.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
CHAPTER XVIII
The priests and Levites to have no inheritance, 1, 2.
What is the priest’s due, 3-5.
Of the Levites that come from any of the other cities, 6-8.
The Israelites must not copy the abominations of the former
inhabitants, 9.
None to cause his son or daughter to pass through the fire, or
use any kind of divination or enchantment, as the former
inhabitants did, 10-14.
The great prophet which God promised to raise up, 15-19.
Of false prophets, 20;
and how to discern them, 21, 22.
NOTES ON CHAP. XVIII
Verse 1. The priests the Levites – shall have no part] That is, says Rab. Maimon, they shall have no part in the spoils taken from an enemy.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The offerings of the Lord made by fire; by which phrase we here manifestly see that he means not burnt-offerings, which were wholly consumed by fire, and no part of them eaten by the priests; but other sacrifices, whereof part was offered to the Lord by fire, and part was allotted to the priests for their food. His inheritance, i.e. the Lords portion or inheritance, which God had reserved to himself, as tithes and first-fruits, and other oblations distinct from those which were made by fire; and so these two branches make up the whole of that which belonged to God, and was by him given to the Levites.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. The priests the Levites . . .shall eat the offeringsAs the tribe of Levi had no inheritanceallotted them like the other tribes but were wholly consecrated tothe priestly office, their maintenance was to arise from tithes,first-fruits, and certain portions of the oblations presented on thealtar, which God having by express appointment reserved to Himselfmade over, after being offered, to His ministers.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
The priests, the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel,…. That is, in the land of Canaan, in the division of it among the tribes:
they shall eat the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and his inheritance; the meat offerings, see Le 2:2, and whatsoever of the sin offerings and peace offerings which were the Lord’s; so Ben Melech says, the flesh of the offerings which belonged to the priests was called fire offerings, after part of it was consumed by fire. All these, with other things, Nu 18:8, were given, as the Targum of Jonathan expresses it, for their inheritance, in lieu of their having none in the land of Canaan.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
In addition to the judicial order and the future king, it was necessary that the position of the priests and Levites, whose duties and rights had been regulated by previous laws, should at least be mentioned briefly and finally established (Deu 18:1-8), 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 (Deu 18:9-22).
Deu 18:1-2 The Rights of the Priests and Levites. – With reference to these, Moses repeats verbatim from Num 18:20, Num 18:23-24, the essential part of the rule laid down in Num 18: “ The priests the 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 His inheritance,” as described in detail in Num 18. The inheritance of Jehovah consisted of the holy gifts as well as the sacrifices, i.e., the tithes, firstlings, 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 Deu 18:1, 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 Deu 18:3-5, whilst in Deu 18:6-8 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 Deu 18:2 is an emphatic confirmation: “ As He hath said unto them: ” as in Deu 10:9.
Deu 18:3-5 “ This shall be 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.” , the shoulder, i.e., the front leg; see Num 6:19. , the rough stomach, (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, Mnster and Fagius 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 7:32., to give the wave-breast 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 Deu 18:1, 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 18:11); 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. 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 17; vid., Deu 12:15.).
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 those 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 . The noun always signifies either slaughtering for a sacrificial meal or a slain sacrifice, and the verb is never applied to ordinary slaughtering (for which is the verb used), except in Deu 12:15 and Deu 12:21 in connection with the repeal of the law that every slaughtering was to be a (Lev 17:5); and there the use of the word , instead of , 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 in this verse, ‘ ( Josephus), or ( Philo), or, as in the Mishnah Chol. (x. 1), refers the gift prescribed in this passage to the , profana , and not to the , 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, Antiqq. 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 7:15-16), 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 (Deu 14:22-29). 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 the 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 , to the application of this expression to every slaughtering that took place for domestic use. And beside this, the passage in 1Sa 2:13-16, 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 7:34, 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.
Deu 18:4 In Deu 18:4, Moses repeats the law concerning the first-fruits in Num 18:12-13 (cf. Exo 22:28), for the purpose of extending it to the first produce of the sheep-shearing.
Deu 18:5 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 “ In the name of Jehovah,” not merely by the appointment, but also in the power of the Lord, as mediators of His grace. The words “ he and his sons ” point back quite to the Mosaic times, in which Aaron and his sons held the priest’s office.
Deu 18:6 As the priests were to be remembered for their service on the part of the people (Deu 18:3-5), 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 (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 towns which were given up to them by the other tribes (see at Deu 12:12). “ 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 Deu 18:8, “ 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. , “ beside his sold with the fathers,” i.e., independently of what he receives from the sale of his patrimony. , the sale, then the thing sold, and the price or produce of what is sold, like in Num 20:19. is unusual without , and Knobel would read , from and , in consequence. stands for (see at Exo 6:25; , 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 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 25:33-34, 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 the Levitical 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.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Maintenance of the Levites. | B. C. 1451. |
1 The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and his inheritance. 2 Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren: the LORD is their inheritance, as he hath said unto them. 3 And this shall be the priest’s due from the people, from them that offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep; and they shall give unto the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw. 4 The firstfruits also of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the first of the fleece of thy sheep, shalt thou give him. 5 For the LORD thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes, to stand to minister in the name of the LORD, him and his sons for ever. 6 And if a Levite come from any of thy gates out of all Israel, where he sojourned, and come with all the desire of his mind unto the place which the LORD shall choose; 7 Then he shall minister in the name of the LORD his God, as all his brethren the Levites do, which stand there before the LORD. 8 They shall have like portions to eat, beside that which cometh of the sale of his patrimony.
Magistracy and ministry are two divine institutions of admirable use for the support and advancement of the kingdom of God among men. Laws concerning the former we had in the close of the foregoing chapter, directions are in this given concerning the latter. Land-marks are here set between the estates of the priests and those of the people.
I. Care is taken that the priests entangle not themselves with the affairs of this life, nor enrich themselves with the wealth of this world; they have better things to mind. They shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel, that is, no share either in the spoils taken in war or in the land that was to be divided by lot, v. 1. Their warfare and husbandry are both spiritual, and enough to fill their hands both with work and profit and to content them. The Lord is their inheritance, v. 2. Note, Those that have God for their inheritance, according to the new covenant, should not be greedy of great things in the world, neither gripe what they have nor grasp at more, but look upon all present things with the indifference which becomes those that believe God to be all-sufficient.
II. Care is likewise taken that they want not any of the comforts and conveniences of this life. Though God, who is a Spirit, is their inheritance, it does not therefore follow that they must live upon the air; no,
1. The people must provide for them. They must have their due from the people, v. 3. Their maintenance must not depend upon the generosity of the people, but they must be by law entitled to it. He that is taught in the word ought in justice to communicate to him that teaches him; and he that has the benefit of solemn religious assemblies ought to contribute to the comfortable support of those that preside in such assemblies. (1.) The priests who in their courses served at the altar had their share of the sacrifices, namely, the peace-offerings, that were brought while they were in waiting: besides the breast and shoulder, which were appointed them before (Lev. vii. 32-34), the cheeks and maw are here ordered to be given them; so far was the law from diminishing what was already granted that it gave them an augmentation (2.) The first-fruits which arose within such a precinct were brought in, as it should seem, to the priests that resided among them, for their maintenance in the country; the first of their corn and wine for food, and the first of their fleece for clothing (v. 4); for the priests who were employed to teach others ought themselves to learn, having food and raiment, to be therewith content. The first-fruits were devoted to God, and he constituted the priests his receivers; and if God reckons what is, in general, given to the poor, lent to him, to be repaid with interest, much more what is, in particular, given to the poor, lent to him, to be repaid with interest, much more what is, in particular, given to poor ministers. There is a good reason given for this constant charge upon their estates (v. 5), because the Levites were chosen of God, and his choice must be owned and countenanced, and those honoured by us whom he honours; and because they stood to minister, and ought to be recompensed for their attendance and labour, especially since it was in the name of the Lord, by his warrant, in his service, and for his praise, and this charge entailed upon their seed for ever; those who were thus engaged and thus employed ought to have all due encouragement given them, as some of the most needful useful members of their commonwealth.
2. The priests must not themselves stand in one another’s light. If a priest that by the law was obliged to serve at the altar only in his turn, and was paid for that, should, out of his great affection to the sanctuary, devote himself to a constant attendance there, and quit the ease and pleasure of the city in which he had his lot for the satisfaction of serving the altar, the priests whose turn it was to attend must admit him both to join in the work and to share in the wages, and not grudge him either the honour of the one or the profit of the other, though it might seem to break in upon them, v. 6-8. Note, A hearty pious zeal to serve God and his church, though it may a little encroach upon a settled order, and there may be somewhat in it that looks irregular, yet ought to be gratified and not discouraged. He that appears to have a hearty affection to the sanctuary, and loves dearly to be employed in the service of it, in God’s name let him minister; he shall be as welcome to God as the Levites whose course it was to minister, and should be so to them. The settling of the courses was intended rather to secure those to the work that were not willing to do so much than to exclude any that were willing to do more. And he that thus serves as a volunteer shall have as good pay as the pressed men, besides that which comes of the sale of his patrimony. The church of Rome obliges those who leave their estates to go into a monastery to bring the produce of their estates with them into the common stock of the monastery, for gain is their godliness; but here it is ordered that the pious devotee should reserve to himself the produce of his patrimony, for religion and the ministry were never appointed of God, however they have been abused by men, to serve a secular interest.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
DEUTERONOMY – CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
Verses 1, 2:
Compare this text with Num 18:6-9; Num 18:20; Num 26:62.
Certain portions of some of the various offerings made by fire were allocated to the priests, see Lev 7:28-34; Num 18:11.
The principle applies to the support of those who minister full time in the Lord’s churches today, see 1Co 9:13-14.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
1. The priests, the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi. This chapter contains three principal heads; for first, God shews that there was no reason why the Israelites should be aggrieved at paying tithes to the Levites, and at remitting the first-fruits and other oblations to the priests, since this tribe was deprived of their inheritance. Secondly, He obviates all quarrels, and prevents unlawful gains and pilferings, by assigning their just share to the priests and Levites. Thirdly, He defines how the oblations should be parted among them, and what part of the victims the priests were to take. As to the first clause, since God was as it were the lot of their inheritance, they justly claimed to themselves the right which he had transferred to them. If it were disagreeable to the people that their revenue should be tithed, God came as it were between, and declaring that it was His property in His right as King, appointed the Levites to be His stewards and collectors for receiving it. There was then no ground for any one to raise a dispute, unless he chose professedly to rob God. But this declaration often occurs; since it was of great importance that the people should be assured that God accounted as received by Himself what He had assigned to the Levites; not. only lest any portion should be withheld from them, but also that every one should willingly pay the lawful dues of God’s ministers; and again, lest any should wickedly murmur because the first-fruits and some portion of the sacrifices were appropriated for the subsistence of the priests. Another reason is also expressed, why the honor assigned to the priests should be paid without grudging; viz., because God had appointed them to be the ministers of His service; but “the laborer is worthy of his hire.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
THE RECAPITULATION OF THE LAW
Deu 5:1 to Deu 26:19 record for us a recapitulation of the Law. The study of this section sets out clearly certain fundamental truths.
The Decalog is repeated with significant variations. Chapter 5, fundamental to all the laws of God is the Decalog. In Exodus, Moses delivered the same as he brought it from the tip of the fingers Divine. In Deuteronomy, the Law is given again. From the first to the tenth commandment, the very language of Exodus is employed, save in the instance of the fourth. Here, the reason assigned to the Jew for keeping the Sabbath, is strangely and significantly changed, namely, from because the Lord in six days made heaven and earth and rested on the seventh day, to Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm; therefore, the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day (Deu 5:15).
This change is so strange and so unexpected that it arrests immediate attention and demands adequate explanation. Why did God shift the reason for keeping the Sabbath from the finished creation to a completed redemption? The answer is not difficult. In the Divine plan, redemption is a far greater event than creation; the soul of man exceeds the weight of the world; for that matter, of all worlds. The Law was given by Moses, but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ. The Law was given for Jews; the Gentiles were never in bondage to it, and above all, believing Gentiles are not bound by it. To them, the Law is not a great external or outside force created for practices of restraint. Its spirit is transcribed to their souls rather; they walk at liberty while seeking Divine precepts. This is not to inveigh against the Law. The Law is just, and true and good, but by Law no man has ever been redeemed. It is to exalt Grace, which God hath revealed through Jesus Christ, in whom men have redemption from sin. If I only love my father and mother because the Law commands it, I do not love them at all; if I refrain from making images and bowing down before them because this is the demand of the Law, my heart may yet be as full of idolatry as a heathen temple. Redemption is not by the Law; it is by Grace in Jesus Christ!
The early Church was shortly called upon to settle this question of salvation by Law or Grace, and in the Jerusalem Conference Peter rose up and said unto them,
Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the Word of the Gospel, and believe.
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He did unto us;
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (Act 15:7-10).
Later he said, We believe that through the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ (not by Law) we shall be saved, even as they (Act 15:7-11). Mark you, in that very sentence, Peter, the Apostle, proves his realization of the fact that the Law had failed as a savior and the very Jew himself had hope alone in grace. How strange, then, for men of the Twentieth Century to turn back to Law and proclaim the Law as though it were a redeemer, and protest that men who ignore the Jewish Saturday as the Sabbath will plunge themselves into the pit thereby, when the Law never saved! The keeping of the Sabbath was the one Law that contained in itself no ethical demand. The Law to worship, the Law to honor father and mother, the Law against killing, stealing and covetousnessthese are all questions of right and wrong; but to tithe time by the keeping of the Sabbath was a command solely in the interest of mans physical life. When, therefore, by the pen of inspiration the reason for it was shifted from a finished creation to a finished redemption, the act was lifted at once to a high spiritual level and became a symbol of the day when Christ, risen from the grave, should have completed redemptions plan. That great fortune to mankind fell out on the first day of the week, creating not so much a Christian Sabbath as making forever a memorial day for redemption itself, for the eighth day, or the first day of the week, clearly indicated the new order of things, or the new creation through Christ.
We have no sympathy whatever with secularizing each one of the seven days; but we would have the first day of the week kept in the spirit of rejoicing as redemptions memorial. On that day our Lord rose from the dead; on that day He met his disciples again and again; on that day the brethren at Troas assembled with the Apostles and broke bread; on that day the Christians laid aside their offerings; on that day they met for prayer and breaking of breadthe fellowship of the saints; on that day John was caught up in the spirit and witnessed the marvels recorded in his apocalyptic vision. Oh, what a day! No legal bondage, for what have we to do with holy days, sabbaths and new moons; but salvations memorial, a day of special service to the Son of God, our Saviour, a day for the souls rejoicing in Jesus. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
But as we pass on in the study of this section of Scripture, we find Moses defends the Decalog in character and consequence. He reminds them of the glory out of which the voice spake (Deu 5:24). He reminds them of the obligation in the words themselves (Deu 5:32). He reminds them of the relationship of the possession of the land to obedience of the precepts. He pleads with them as a father, Hear, therefore, O Israel (Deu 6:4). He anticipates the day of prophecy and begs that these words have place in their hearts (Deu 6:6), to be diligently taught to their children (Deu 6:7); bound for a sign upon their hands and frontlets between their eyes, lest they be forgotten (Deu 6:8); written upon the posts of the house and on the gates, where they could not be unobserved (Deu 6:9). Moses knew the relationship of law-keeping to national living. It is doubtful if modernists now have or will ever again entertain the same sacred reverence for Law that characterized the ancients, even the heathen of far-off days.
We cannot forget how Socrates, when he was sentenced to death and, after an imprisonment of thirty days, was to drink the juice of the hemlock, spent his time preparing for the end; friends conceived and executed plans for his escape and earnestly endeavored to prevail upon him to avail himself of the opportunity, but he answered, That would be a crime to violate the law even when the sentence is unjust. I would rather die than do evil. If a heathen philosopher could treat unjust laws with such reverence, Moses was justified in pleading with his people to regard the laws that were true and just and good, and such were the mandates of Deuteronomy.
It is easy enough for one to pick out some one of these precepts and, by detaching it from its context, create the impression that it was foolish or superficial or even utterly unjust; but when one reads the whole Book, he sees the effectual relationship of laws, general and particular, to the life Israel was leading, and for that matter, catches the supreme spiritual significance of the same as they interpret themselves in the light of New Testament teaching. There is not a warning that was not needed, nor an exhortation which, if heeded, would have failed to profit the people. It all came to one conclusion for Israel.
What doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul (Deu 10:12)?
And as there was not a law in the Old Testament but was fitted for the profit of Israel, so there is not a command in the New Testament but looks to the conquest of the Christian soul.
Among these enactments were personal and significant suggestions. They gave dietary and sanitary suggestions (Deuteronomy 14); they established the Sabbatic year (Deuteronomy 13); they fixed the time of the Passover (Deuteronomy 16); they set forth the character of the offerings (Deuteronomy 17); they determined the duties of the Levites (Deuteronomy 18); they gave direction concerning the cities of refuge (Deuteronomy 19); they determined the way of righteous warfare (chap. 20); they established a court of inquest (Deuteronomy 21); they announced the law of brotherhood (Deuteronomy 22); they descended to the minute instances of social life and regulations of the same (Deuteronomy 23); they dealt with the great and difficult question of divorce (Deuteronomy 24); they ended (Deuteronomy 23) in an almost unlimited series of regulations concerning the social life of the people knowing a wilderness experience, including the law of the first fruits (Deuteronomy 26).
It is interesting to study not alone the laws enacted here, but the penalties declared, including the blessings and curses from Ebal to Gerizim. There is about them all an innate righteousness that has been unknown to those purely human codes for which God never assumed responsibility. From the curse against bribery to the curse against brutal murder to this day the sentences are justified in the judgment of the worlds most thoughtful men.
In all they contrast the injustice and inordinately severe punishments often afflicted by godless governments. Plutarch, in writing about Solon, tells us that he repealed the laws of Draco except those concerning murder. Such was the severity of their punishments in proportion to the offense that we are amazed as we read them. If one was convicted of idleness, death was the penalty. If one stole a few apples or potherbs, he must surely die, and by as ignominious a method as did the murderer. And out of that grew the saying of Demades that Draco wrote his laws, not with ink but with blood. And when Draco was asked why such severe penalties, he answered, Small ones deserve it, and I can find no greater for the most heinous. Such were human laws in contrast to these laws Divine.
But a further study of these laws involves a third lesson.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
CRITICAL NOTES.After speaking of the rulers of the people, Moses now mentions the teachers priests, Levites, and prophets; and what their privileges and position must be in their settlement in Canaan.
Deu. 18:3-5. Rights of priests. The tribe of Levi had no inheritance like other tribes (Numbers 18-20); wholly consecrated to the priestly office, they were supported by tithes, first-fruits, and portions of sacrifices, which God had expressly reserved to Himself, yet when offered bestowed upon His servants. Priests due, the shoulder, two cheeks, and the maw, i.e., the front leg. The two jaw bones, and the rough stomach of ruminants in which digestion is completed, and which was considered a great dainty (ver, 3). First-fruits, the law repeated from Num. 18:12-13, for the purpose of adding the first of the fleece of thy sheep (Deu. 18:4). Him and his sons. Reference to Aaron and his sons, in whom the priesthood was established (Deu. 18:5).
Deu. 18:6-8. The Levites, i.e., the non-priestly Levites contrasted with the priests must be remembered. These verses presuppose that part of the Levites only will be in residence and officiating at the sanctuary, the others dwelling in their homes in the Levitical cities (cf. Numbers 35). But if any Levite, out of love for the service, chose to resort to it when he might reside in his own home, he was to have his share in the maintainance which was provided for those ministering in the order of their cause.(Speak. Com.) Sojourned, though not homeless. He was regarded as a sojourner only, for he had no inheritance in the land. Minister assistant to the priest (Num. 3:6). Patrimony, lit. his price upon (the house) of (his) fathers. Margin, his soles by the fathers. The Levites had no part in the land, but they might individually have property, buy and sell houses and fields. Abiathar (1Ki. 2:26; Jer. 32:7). A Levite who desired to settle at the sanctuary, must have his share of the perquisites, notwithstanding private resources. Have like portion, lit., part like part shall they eat. The new comer and those already in attendance must share and share alike.
Deu. 18:9-14. Passing on to speak of the prophets, the legislator begins by enumerating and prohibiting the various superstitions by which heathen nations of Canaan had sought to explore the future and to test the will of the Deity.(Sp. Com.) Through fire, i.e., to Molech, (cf. Lev. 18:21; Lev. 20:2-5), a rite of doubtful character, but connected with magical arts, and probably with unlawful lusts (2Ki. 18:17; 2Ch. 33:6; Eze. 23:37) Divination (cf. Eze. 21:21) for different methods of it, and (Num. 23:23) observance of times, mode of dividing days into lucky and unlucky, or of drawing omens from clouds (Lev. 19:26). Enchanter, serpent charmer. Witch, sorcerer (Exo. 7:11). Charmer (Deu. 18:11), one who fascinates noxious animals, like Eastern serpent-charmers. The word is derived from a root to bind, referring to the custom of binding or banning by magical knots. Wizard, originally the wise one, the knowing one, from a verb to know. Necromancer, one who interrogates the dead (2Ch. 33:6). Thus all known words are grouped together, which belong to the practices describedperfect, upright, sincere or blameless (Latin integer) in relation to God. For thee emphatic, not so thou, God never allowed (Heb. given), granted thee to do such things.
Deu. 18:15-22. No need for Israel to turn to soothsayers; God would raise up from amongst them a prophet time after time, a series of prophets. Like me, not in every sense, but as intercessor for the people and revealer of Gods will. Assembly (Deu. 18:16 cf. cp. Deu. 18:9-10, and Exo. 20:19). To this prophet who should speak words received directly from God, reverence and obedience must be rendered. Require it (Deu. 18:19), i.e., visit disobedience with punishment (cf. Psa. 10:13; Act. 3:23). The prophet who presumed to speak in Gods name, or utter words not given him, must be regarded as a blasphemer and put to death (Deu. 18:20). If his prophecy failed, or if his words did not come to pass, he was discovered to be an imposter. Whatever signs and wonders were performed, fulfilment of prediction was the true test of prophecy (cf. cp. Deu. 12:2 sq.).
THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PRIESTS.Deu. 18:1-5
From the limitations of monarchy, Moses turns to the duties of the priests and specifies their inheritance and dues.
I. The dignity of priests. They were a special tribe called to minister in the name of the Lord (Deu. 18:5).
1. Chosen of God. Thy God hath chosen him. This is an honour which no man taketh upon himself (Heb. 5:5), not hereditary, nor conferred by men, and which should not be despised. Seemeth it but a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath separated you to bring you nearer to Himself (Num. 16:9).
2. Consecrated to holy service. To minister in the name of the Lord. He was not engaged in secular callings, nor employed in the service of an earthly monarch, but in the serivce, by the authority and for the praise of God. A sense of this dignity should be carefully formed, and constantly realised. Dignity of character should correspond with dignity of station. Ministers should magnify (glorify) their office (Rom. 11:13) by a due appreciation of its nature, an earnest endeavour to live up to its demands, and a fearless discharge of its duties.
II. The due of priests. Deprived of land and specially set apart for spiritual functions, they had special reverences.
1. They required the sympathy of the people. The order preceded from the midst of the people (Exo. 28:1), was appointed for the benefit of the people and depended upon the people. They were not a sacred caste, standing in proud pre-eminence above the rest of the nation. A principle of equality was indicated in priesthood and monarchy. Taken from among men.
2. They required the support of the people. To reward their labour, performed instead of the first-born of the people, and to compensate their loss of material wealth, it was ordained that they should receive tithes of produce and parts of animal sacrifices. The Levite, as well as the widow and orphan, was commended to the special kindness of the people (Deu. 14:27-29; Deu. 12:19). He commanded the people to give the portion of the priests and the Levites, that they might be encouraged in the law of the Lord (2Ch. 31:4).
III. The inheritance of priests. They had cities and residence that they might exercise a refined influence upon the people, and disseminate a knowledge of the law, but no territorial possessions. The Lord is their inheritance (Deu. 18:2). Theirs by adopting love, personal preference, and public avowal. An inheritance blessed, satisfactory, secure, and permanent. I am their inheritance and ye shall give them no possession in Israel (Eze. 44:28).
THE MINISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIESTS.Deu. 18:1-8
The words may be applied to the Christian ministry, though not a priesthood in the Old Testament sense. The sacred office is filled with men divinely called and qualified, entrusted with the most responsible and enriching blessing, and rendering the greatest service to their fellow men.
I. The calling of a priest is one of the highest into which a man can enter. It eclipses earthly callings as the sun outshines the stars.
1. An office divinely instituted. Not left to the wisdom and device of men. The ministry is a matter of free grace and favour, says Quesnel, who then will dare to enter into it without a Divine call? There is nothing in which a king would willingly be more absolute than in the choice of his ministers, and shall we dare to contest, and take away this right from the King of Kings. Ordained of God as was Aaron.
2. An office spiritual in its nature. Levites were forbidden to become farmers and enter into commercial pursuits. They were devoted to the service of God and the ministration of His house. The work is not an ordinary profession, conducted on the principles of commercial transactions. Ministers must give themselves to prayer and the ministry of the word.
3. An office perpetual in its duration. Him and his sons for ever. Aaron died but successors entered the office. Human life is uncertain; we must not trust to man whose breath is in his nostrils. Ministers die, but the ministry remains a perpetual monument, a gift of God to all generations.
II. Many priests in discharging the duties of their calling are exemplary in their zeal. Sometimes a Levite would leave his own home, and from intense love devote himself to the altar of the sanctuary. Come with all the desire of his mind unto the place which the Lord shall choose. This is the true spirit of service, the spirit of the Master and of His apostles. No coldness and formality here. We often lack zeal and spiritual fervour; are too carnal, selfish, and slothful. Love is wanting. O that I was all heart, and soul, and spirit, said Rowland Hill, to tell the glorious gospel of Christ to perishing multitudes. We must sacrifice worldly pleasure, and personal convenience, and devote ourselves with energy to our work. I longed to be as a flame of fire continually glowing in the Divine service, cried Brainerd. The zeal of Thine house hath eaten me up (devoured like a flame) (Joh. 2:17; Psa. 69:9).
III. It is the duty of the people to support the priests in their calling. The priests had their due from the people.
1. This is reasonable. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, it is a great tiling if we shall reap your carnal things! If a man gives his time and talents for the benefit of the people, surely they are bound to secure his temporal comforts. The labourer is worthy of his hire.
2. This is scriptural. The principle laid down by our Lord and applied by apostles in support of the ministry is confirmed by scripture. Do ye not know, that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so the Lord hath ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. This arrangement helps to secure an efficient ministry, to promote mutual good, and to bring out energies for the spread of the gospel.
DESIRE FOR MINISTERIAL SERVICE.Deu. 18:6
It appears that the Levites served in rotation from the earliest times; but from their great numbers, it was only at distant intervals they could be called into actual service. Should any Levite, however, under the influence of eminent piety, resolve to devote himself wholly and continually to the sacred duties of the Sanctuary, he was allowed to realise his ardent wishes; and as he was admitted to the share of the work, so also to a share of the remuneration (Jamieson). This desire for the work is a prominent feature in the character and qualifications of the Christian minister.
I. It is a constraining desire. More than a general desire to be usefula special kindling within, like the burning fire shut up in the prophets bosom overcoming reluctance for Gods service (Jer. 20:9). This constraint rises above all difficulties, and takes pleasure in sacrifices for the works sake. This is a true saying (note the emphasis), if a man desire (vehemently, intensely) the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work (1Ti. 3:1).
II. It is a considerate desire. The result of matured thought. The cost is counted, most watchful caution exercised, and the providence of God ascertained. Matthew Henry warns against intrusion into the sacred office. We must not be forward to put forth ourselves in the exercise of spiritual gifts. Pride often appears under the pretence of a desire to be useful. If the motive be correct it is good, but humility will wait for a call. He that believeth shall not make haste.
III. It is a disinterested desire. A choice not influenced by love of literature, respect and professional dignity. With all brave and and rightly-trained men, their work is first, their fee second, says Ruskin. It is an office in which we seek not great things for ourselves. God always implants a love in the heart for the service to which He calls, and better not enter than seek to get a name or maintain a party. If I do this thing willingly (spontaneously without renumeration) I have a reward (Deu. 18:18), but if against my will (not spontaneously), a dispensation (a stewardship) is committed to me, and so have no special claim to reward for that which necessity is laid upon me to do. (1Co. 9:17.)
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Deu. 18:2. The Lord their inheritance. True of the believer as well as the Levite and priest. An inheritance.
1. Divinely bestowed. Not gained like earthly possessions by favouritism, wealth, and heriditary succession.
2. Ever sufficient. Men of the world seek pleasure here and there, labour for possessions and are doomed to disappointment. Charles V., Emperor of Germany, cried out to all his honours and trophies Get you hence, no more of you.
3. Indissolubly sure. It never diminishes, changes hands nor leads to poverty. An everlasting portion.
Stand to minister.
1. Priestly service, active, energetic ministry nor idleness, apathy nor negligent habits. Exercise thyself.
2. Priestly spirit. Not selfish, but self-sacrificing and Christlike, which prompts to self-denial and readiness of mind. Here Lord am I, send me.
3. Priestly reward. In God the object of affection and centre of bliss. I am their inheritance, etc. (Eze. 44:28).
Deu. 18:6-8. Voluntary service.
1. Devoted to the noblest purpose.
2. Rendered in the holiest place.
3. Springing from the warmest spirit. We must offer ourselves. Self-consecration, the first act of priestly service. Our character is our will, says Archbishop Manning, for what we will we are.
THE VOCATION AND DUTY OF GODS PEOPLE.Deu. 18:9-13
Israel had constantly to be warned against infection from the idolatrous customs of the Canaanites. The nature of such customs is described, and they are reminded of their calling and relation to God.
I. God calls His people to be like Him. Be perfect with the Lord thy God (Deu. 18:13). Israel were to be upright in conduct, unpolluted in worship, and devoted entirely to Him. Likeness to God must be the aim of life. A Christian must progress in knowledge and love of God every day; for the less we think of God, the greater the danger of conforming to the world. Let us go on unto perfection. This is the high calling and destiny of the believer. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
II. In responding to this call, they must avoid worldly customs. Called out of the world, though living in it, they must avoid its abominations, charmers and observers of times. It has its witches, and women of familiar spirits. Notions of lucky and unlucky days are not confined to heathen countries. In this country, men observe the stars, charm diseases, and prognosticate success of wars, the happiness or misfortune of marriages, and the length of human life. This dethrones God from the heart and supersedes the promises and threatenings of His word. It rejects the doctrine of Divine Providence and is treason to the Ruler of the Universe. Should not a people seek unto their God? for (on behalf of) the living (should they consult) to the dead? (Isa. 8:19).
III. In seeking to avoid worldly customs God alone can help. God alone had preserved Israel in the past. Thy God hath not suffered thee so to do (Deu. 18:14). In the future, instead of having recourse to heathen superstitions, He would provide them with a prophet, with divine teaching time after time. In Christ and the scripture we have help. If weak and sinful, Gods grace can renew and strengthen. If dark and uncertain, the word is a light and guide. Christ completes what Moses begins. He is still performing the prophetic office, calling ministers by His Spirit, enlightening men to understand the scriptures and making the gospel come to them, not in word only, but in power and in the Holy Ghost and in much assurance.
HEATHEN ABOMINATIONS AVOIDED
One reason to shun the practices of idolatry springs from the nature of the evils themselves.
1. They are cruel. Children pass through the fire. How inhuman that religion which requires children to be burned or thrown into rivers, and parents in age and infirmity to be given to wild beasts! Cruelty is one of the highest scandals to piety, says Seeker. The dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty (homesteads of violence.) Kay. (Psa. 74:20.)
2. They are enticing. Divination, enchanter and witch have their spells. Idolatry, a shameful creed of craft and cruelty, delights in what fills the sensuous imagination. Ritualistic practices attract the eyes, fascinate the mind, and minister to self-conceit. Who hath bewitched (fascinated) you, that ye should not obey the truth? (Gal. 3:1).
3. They are defiling Abominations. Paintings and sculptures, laws and legends, reveal the awful corruptions of the heathen world. All sin defiles, and men through sin are together become unprofitable (corrupt, useless) (Rom. 3:12). Their odour is not praise and prayer, but the poison of asps and secreted malice. Those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart, and they defile the man.
4. They are destructive. Because of these abominations the Lord doth drive them out. Sin drives away from God here and from heaven hereafter. The fruit of idolatry and superstitions is death. Death spiritual and death eternal. Ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which 1 cast out before you, for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Deu. 18:13; Deu. 14:1. Preserving grace. God did not suffer Israel to do these things. Other nations He gave up to their own hearts lusts, and suffered to walk in their own ways (Acts 14-16).
2. High vocation. Be perfect. Every man has an ideal, some ruling thought, some object of life. Religion sets forth the ends of life and supplies motives and power for striving for them. God is the desire of our nature, fills the highest capacities of the mind, and should be the aim of our life.
3. Constant effort to reach it. Thou shalt not learn to do these Life is a school in which we must learn to know God and do good.
Deu. 18:13. Christian perfection. A solemn injunction. I. Unfold its import. We must be perfect with the Lord our God.
1. In love to His name.
2. In affiance to His care.
3. In zeal for His glory. II. Enforce its authority. Without real integrity before God, we can have
1. No comfort in our souls.
2. No stability in our ways.
3. No acceptance with God. Address
(1) Those who are unable to ascertain with confidence their real state.
(2) Those who have an inward evidence that their hearts are right with God.C. Simeon, M.A.
Perfect, i.e., whole, entire.
1. In the elements of your character. Have nothing defective, weak and lacking.
2. In the method of your worship. No admixture of heathenism and error.
3. In the duties of your life. Be blameless, innocent, and upright Scatter thy life through every part, and sanctify the whole.
THE PROPHET LIKE TO MOSES
Here Moses is not speaking of a collective body of prophets, to which Christ is at the end incidentally annexed, as Calvin and other expositors understand the passage; but the whole office and station of the prophets is represented to him as personified in Christ, as the person in whom his conception of that office would be perfectly realised. Thus there is a concurrent reference to the other prophets, not in their individual capacities, but only in relation to the Spirit, who, though in a manner not yet completed, was powerfully efficient in them and conjoined them along with their Head in one united body, They were viewed in Christ, as they were but His instruments; His spirit constituted the essence of their office. (Hengstenberg). Look at the principal circumstances in the description, the likeness to Moses.
I. Like to Moses as a Prophet. Man has ever sought instruction and desired light Heathen oracles were dumb and philosophy impotent to satisfy this moral craving. Plato said we must wait till someone shall teach us how we ought to conduct ourselves towards the godsMoses was a prophet of the highest rank who revealed and interpreted the will of God to men. Not merely a religious man, but one supernaturally inspired. But Christ was the teacher sent from God. He came from the bosom of the Father and declared (expounded) him in all his relationships to man (Joh. 1:18). He is the manifestation of Gods character, the revelation of His purpose. The manifold partial disclosures of former messengers, have given place to one complete and final revelation in Christ. God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son.
II. Like to Moses as a Lawgiver. Man requires law, loves order, and is appy only in loyal obedience. No Jewish prophet was legislator, no ruler had right to govern supremely. David was king, inspired teacher and sweet psalmist of Israel, but his work was merely executive. Jesus only was like Moses the founder of a new constitution and a new period. He is the Head of the Church and the Sovereign of men. Moses was faithful as a servant, but Christ has the natural right as a son over his own house.
III. Like to Moses as an Intercessor (Deu. 18:16). When Israel sinned, Moses interceded with God, obtained forgiveness, and delivered from temporal punishments. Jesus is the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises (Heb. 8:6). When cursed by the law, condemned by conscience and afraid of intercourse with God, then even we find access and receive help through Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant.
IV. Like to Moses as leader of his people. Moses was the general and leader of the nation. As chieftain of the community he administered their affairs, and led them in the wilderness. But he could bring them only to the borders of Canaan, and did not enter it himself. Christ guides through life into heaven, and will for ever satisfy His people with fruits of faith and holiness. We know not the way and could never discover it, but He leads by example and precept. There are enemies powerful and combined, but he commands, emboldens, and gives victory. A leader, and commander to the people.
FALSE PROPHETS.Deu. 18:20-22
1. The presumption they display. Presume to speak, with a commission from false gods as prophets of Baal; or a pretended commission from the true God. Just as there were false Christs, so were there false prophets, who impersonated for popularity and gain.
2. The test by which they are known. If thou say how? It is often difficult to distinguish the true from the false, but facts and fulfilment are the test. Whatever teaching or prediction does not accord with history, scripture and Gods will, we may be sure, is not from God. Samuels mission was proved because God let none of His words fall to the ground (1Sa. 3:19-20).
3. The punishment which they endure. That prophet shall die. They seek to deceive, to draw away the people. They have committed high treason against the crown and authority of Jehovah, and had to be condemned by the Sanhedrim which sat at Jerusalem. Hence the people cautioned not to fear a false, but to obey a true prophet. The caution is needful in our day. Beware of false prophets.
HOMILETIC HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Deu. 18:15 to Deu. 19:1. Mans craving for light. On all the great problems of life. God, the future and how to be just with God.
2. Worldly wisdom unable to reveal light. Man has sought out many inventions (entangled himself with an infinity of questions, Douay Vers) but never succeeded (Ecc. 7:29).
3. God in mercy has given light. Raised up prophets, sent His Son and given His Spirit and Word. Walk in the light, etc.
Deu. 18:18. Christ like Moses.
1. In coming from the people. From among their brethren.
2. In the intercourse he had with God. With Moses God spoke mouth to mouth.
3. In the attention which they demand. We must hear. Some do not even hear, but ridicule and oppose. Hearken with attention and desire to learn. In all that I speak; not some things, as the love and mercy of God, but all things concerning justice, repentance, and faith. There must be no choice, no separation of one doctrine from another. Disobedience results in death (Act. 3:22-23). Every soul without partiality, shall be cut off. This excision, not correction, not annihilation, but death eternal. From among the people. Intermixed now in families and congregations, then separated for ever.
This remarkable promise has two great objects of reference. First, the assurance that God would from time to time, after Moses, send such prophets as he was; that is persons who should make known to the Israelites the will of God, stimulate them to obey His precepts, and when it was requisite foretel future events. These promises God faithfully fulfilled in Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and their successors down to the coming of the Messiah, who was known by the fulfilment of prophecy to be the promised Redeemer. The second point contained is the obedience to Christ with willing hearts. In His capacity as lawgiver, deliverer, and guide, His people hearken unto Him. (Seiler.) Like unto me. Both in the participation of nature and of office. A true man, and a true Mediator. Similes they are, but not pares; Christ being worthy of more glory than Moses, and why, see Heb. 3:3; Heb. 7:22; Heb. 9:15.Trapp.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 18
Deu. 18:1-5. Priests. The priesthood hath, in all nations and all religions, been held highly venerable.Bp. Atterbury. The vesture of that older priesthood is with us an adornment of the heart; and the glory of them that are chief in priesthood is to us no longer commended by the beauty of vestments, but by a splendour that is of the soul.St. Gregory.
Deu. 18:6. Desire of mind. The virtues of the will are above the successions of time.Abp. Manning. Most merciful Father! grant me to covet with an ardent mind those things which may please thee; to search them wisely, to know them truly, and to fulfil them perfectly; to the praise, laud, and glory of thy name. Order my living so that I may do that which thou requirest of me, and me give grace that I may know it, and have will and power to do it.Edward VI.
Deu. 18:9-12. Witch. A border between earth and hell; her qualities are rather those of the former than of the latter.G. Gilfillan. Those who go to astrology, or wise men as they call them, to know their fortunes and enquire of the events of their life, they forsake God, and betake themselves to lying vanities.Abp. Tillotson.
Submit thy fate to Heavens indulgent care,
Though all seems lost, tis impious to despair;
The tracks of Providence, like rivers wind,
And though immerged in earth from human eyes,
Again break forth, and more conspicuous rise.
Young.
Deu. 18:13. Perfect. Moral perfectibility is our destiny.G. Forster. The Christian ought to know more of God every day; otherwise he may think of Him less, till he totally forgets Him; and then he is in danger of falling into that state, out of which men cannot be renewed by repentance.Jones of Nayland.
Deu. 18:15-19. Prophet. The mission of the prophets was the religious education of the Jewish people. They were raised up according to the exigencies of the times to preserve them from error, and to prepare their minds for the future development of the kingdom of God. Their object was twofoldto maintain the Church in allegiance to prescribe rites, institutions and ordinances, and yet to prepare the people for a further manifestation of the blessing of the new covenant.
Deu. 18:19. Not hearken. Man is deaf and blind in the things of God. Having ears he hears not, having eyes he sees not. To his need and to his remedy he is alike insensible. His ear is open to sound advice, to moral doctrine, to the dictates of external decency. But as to the gospel, he is a perfect statue without life.Bridge. Is the sermon done? it was asked of one who returned from church sooner than usual. No, not yet; was the answer. It is preached, but it still remains to be done.G.S. Bowes.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(3) PRIESTS (Deu. 18:1-8)
The priests the Levites, even all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of Jehovah made by fire, and his inheritance. 2 And they shall have no inheritance among their brethren: Jehovah is their inheritance, as he hath spoken unto them. 3 And this shall be the priests due from the people, from them that offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep, that they shall give unto the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw. 4 The first-fruits of thy grain, of thy new wine, and of thine oil, and the first of the fleece of thy sheep, shalt thou give him. 5 For Jehovah thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes, to stand to minister in the name of Jehovah, him and his sons for ever.
6 And if a Levite come from any of thy gates out of all Israel, where he sojourneth, and come with all the desire of his soul unto the place which Jehovah shall choose; 7 then he shall minister in the name of Jehovah his God, as all his brethren the Levites do, who stand there before Jehovah. 8 They shall have like portions to eat, besides that which cometh of the sale of his patrimony.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 18:18
297.
What distinction was there between a priest and a Levite?
298.
What three portions of the sacrificial animal belonged to the Levite?
299.
The attitude of the worshipper toward God is reflected in what he gave to the man of God; how so?
300.
There is a special type of Levite described in Deu. 18:6 through Deu. 18:8; who is he?
301.
What is patrimony?
AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 18:18
The Levitical priests and all the tribe of Levi shall have no part or inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the offerings made by fire to the Lord, and His rightful dues.
2 They shall have no inheritance among their brethren; the Lord is their inheritance, as He promised them.
3 And this shall be the priests due from the people, from those who offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep: they shall give to the priest the shoulder and the two cheeks and the stomach.
4 The first fruits of your grain, of your new wine, and of your oil, and the first or best of the fleece of your sheep, you shall give the priest.
5 For the Lord your God has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand to minister in the name [and presence] of the Lord, him and his sons for ever.
6 And if a Levite comes from any of your towns out of all Israel, where he is a temporary resident, he may come whenever he desires to [the sanctuary] the place the Lord will choose,
7 Then he may minister in the name [and presence] of the Lord his God, like all his brethren the Levites, who stand to minister there before the Lord.
8 They shall have equal portions to eat, besides what may come of the sale of his patrimony. [Jer. 32:6-15.]
COMMENT 18:18
We have already studied considerably concerning the priests and their divine allotment from the tithes and offerings of Israel (Deu. 10:8-9, Deu. 12:12; Deu. 12:17-19, Deu. 14:27-29). Having no inheritance, they were dependent upon the goodness and faithfulness of Israel for their support and livelihood.
THE PRIESTS AND LEVITES, EVEN ALL THE TRIBE OF LEVI (Deu. 18:1)On the term Levites, Smiths Bible Dictionary states, Sometimes the name extends to the whole tribe, the priests included, Exo. 6:25; Lev. 25:32; Num. 35:2; Deu. 18:1; Jos. 21:3; Jos. 21:41, etc.; sometimes only to those members of the tribe who were not priests, and as distinguished from them. Sometimes again it is added as an epithet of the smaller portion of the tribe, and we read of the priests the Levites Jos. 3:3; Eze. 44:15.
One family of Levites, Aaron and his sons, was set apart to be priests as such. The rest of the Levites were assistants to the priests, caring for the transportation and upkeep of the tabernacle, and later, the service of the temple. But they were all a part of the priestly tribe.
AND HIS INHERITANCE (Deu. 18:1) i.e., Gods. . . . and His rightful dues [Amplified].
AND THIS SHALL BE THE PRIESTS DUE (Deu. 18:3)Of that part of the sacrifice that he was to keep for himself.
THE MAW (Deu. 18:3)better, the stomach. The rough stomach of ruminants, in which the digestion was completed (Pulpit).
As much as it might seem otherwise to us, these were regarded as the choice parts of the animal. They were given in addition to the wave breast and heave leg of the peace offerings (Lev. 7:32 ff., Num. 18:11, which belonged with the offerings made by fire (Deu. 18:1). Gods ministers of Israel were to eat well!
THE FIRST-FRUITS . . . SHALT THOU GIVE HIM (Deu. 18:4)See Num. 18:12-13. Moses here adds that the first fleece of the sheep shall be the priests.
We can see from these verses, (and by comparing our discussion in ch. 12) that the Israelite had not only to think about the amount he gave, but also the quality. Gods servants should not have the worst part of the animal, but the best; and of the tithe from the field and flock, they were to get their share first. And why? Because God had chosen them to minister in his name (Deu. 18:5)! Is anything more important than that?
How often this simple principle could well be learned today, among Gods people. Those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel (1Co. 9:14)live, not exist. If we have attached the proper importance and dignity to the work of Christ, his servants will have our generous and hearty assistance. Aaron and Hur, Gods servants, needed some one else to hold up their hands to be effective with God.
AND IF A LEVITE COME FROM ANY OF THY GATES (note Deu. 18:6-8)Only a portion of the Levites were engaged in the service of the sanctuary; the rest lived in their towns throughout the country, Num. 35:7. It might happen, however, that a Levite, moved by holy feeling, would come to the place of the sanctuary to worship there; and it is prescribed that such a one should fare as his brethren the Levites engaged in the service of the sanctuary fared; he should minister along with them, and share with them in the gifts of the worshippers; and this in addition to any means he might have from the sale of his patrimony.
THE SALE OF HIS PATRIMONY (Deu. 18:7)The latter word literally signifies the fathers and which Young renders upon (concerning) the fathers (clans). The I.S.B.E. states, e.g. house of the fathers. It may indicate some private source of income possessed by the Levite [who has come up from a country district] distinct from what he receives as a priest officiating at the central sanctuary. Beyond this one occurrence of patrimony, we have the same idea conveyed elsewhere: Father, give me the portion of thy [Greek, the] substance that falleth unto me. And he divided unto them his living (Luk. 15:12). Teacher, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me (Luk. 12:13).
The Levite, as we have already learned (Deu. 12:12; Deu. 12:19, Deu. 14:27) had no inheritance as such. He was therefore to be provided for out of the tithes and offerings of Israel. But when this sojourner came to the house of God and the place of sacrifice, he too, was to have his portion, along with the other priests. And this was to be so, even though he sold the house he had inherited (that is, that had been passed down to him) from his fathers. See Lev. 25:32-34. He might also have had such supplies, furniture, etc. as was voluntarily contributed to him by grateful Israelites. These might be passed down from generation to generation, and the sale here might include such. When a man leaves the home he has known from childhood to devote his life to the Lords ministry, he is not to be deprived the income he might receive in the process of selling out.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
LESSON FOURTEEN Deu. 16:18-20; Deu. 17:2 to Deu. 18:22
e. THE LEADERS OF GODS PEOPLE (Deu. 16:18-20; Deu. 17:2 to Deu. 18:22)
(Laws concerning Judges, kings, priests, and prophets)
(1) JUDGES (Deu. 16:18-20; Deu. 17:2-13)
18 Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which Jehovah thy God giveth thee, according to thy tribes; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. 19 Thou shalt not wrest justice: thou shalt not respect persons; neither shalt thou take a bribe; for a bribe doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous. 20 That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee.
2 If there be found in the midst of thee, within any of thy gates which Jehovah thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that doeth that which is evil in the sight of Jehovah thy God, in transgressing his covenant, 3 and hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, or the sun, or the moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 4 and it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, then shalt thou inquire diligently; and, behold, if it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel, 5 then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, who hath done this evil thing, unto thy gates, even the man or the woman; and thou shalt stone them to death with stones. 6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shalt he that is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. 7 The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee.
8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates; then shalt thou arise, and get thee up unto the place which Jehovah thy God shall choose; 9 and thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days: and thou shalt inquire; and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment. 10 And thou shalt do according to the tenor of the sentence which they shall show thee from that place which Jehovah shall choose; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they shall teach thee: 11 according to the tenor of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall show thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. 12 And the man that doeth presumptuously, in not hearkening unto the priest that standeth to minister there before Jehovah thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. 13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 16:1820; 17:2-13
289.
Think carefully about the full meaning of the term judge as used here; to what office or work does this term compare in our day? A lawyer?
290.
How could justice be wrested?
291.
Approximate a circumstance in which a bribe could be attractive.
AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 16:1820; 17:2-13
18 You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns which the Lord your God gives you, according to your tribes; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.
19 You shall not misinterpret or misapply judgment; you shall not be partial, or take a bribe; for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise, and perverts the words of the righteous.
20 Follow what is altogether just [that is, uncompromisingly righteous], that you may live and inherit the land which your God gives you.
2 If there is found among you, within any of your towns which the Lord your God gives you, a man or woman who does what is wicked in the sight of the Lord your God, by transgressing His covenant,
3 Who has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or moon or any of the host of the heavens, which I have forbidden,
4 And it is told and you hear of it; then inquire diligently, and if it is certainly true that such an abomination has been committed in Israel,
5 Then you shall bring forth to your towns gates that man or woman who has done that wicked thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death.
6 On the evidence of two or three witnesses, he who is worthy of death shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.
7 The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from among you.
8 If there arise a matter too hard for you in judgment, between one kind of bloodshed and another, between one legality and another, between one kind of assault and another, matters of controversy within your towns, then arise and go to the place which the Lord your God chooses,
9 And you shall come to the Levitical priests, and to the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall consult them, and they shall make clear to you the decision.
10 And you shall do according to the decision which they declare to you from that place which the Lord chooses, and you shall be watchful to do according to all that they tell you;
11 According to the decision of the law which they shall teach you, and the judgment which they shall announce to you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside from the verdict they give you, either to the right hand or the left.
12 The man who does presumptuously, and will not listen to the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or to the judge, that man shall die; so you shall purge the evil from Israel.
13 And all the people shall hear, and (reverently) fear, and not act presumptuously again.
COMMENT 16:1820; 17:2-13
We have treated the last of these two sections in lesson ten because the basic subject matter is the same. But because the scripture also concerns the judges, we include it again here.
JUDGES AND OFFICERS SHALT THOU MAKE IN ALL THY GATES (Deu. 16:18)Obviously anticipating the settled life in Canaan. In ancient times, the gates of the city composed the city hall, and the chief area of civil business. In Ch. Deu. 1:13-18 we saw how judges were appointed for Israels good for the length of their wilderness wanderings. Now, a similar system was in order for each city. JUDGES . . . shophetim, among the Hebrews, were probably the same as our magistrates or justices of the peace. OFFICERS . . . shoterim, seems to have been the same as our inquest sergeants, beadles [formerly, messengers of the court] & c., whose office it was to go into the houses, shops, & c., and examine weights, measures, and the civil conduct of the people. When they found anything amiss, they brought the person offending before the magistrate, and he was punished by the officer on the spot. They seem also to have acted as heralds in the army, Deu. 20:5. (Clarke, who is, of course, comparing Britain).
The Hebrew word for judge (shaphat) is the same as occurs in the book of Judges, but, as we saw in Lesson Ten (Deu. 17:9), the same word is used for men who usually performed very different functions than those outlined here.[35]
[35] Some judges during that era did appear to perform in an office similar to Moses in the wilderness, judging the hard mattersJdg. 3:10; Jdg. 4:5, 1Sa. 4:18; 1Sa. 7:6; 1Sa. 7:15. But when it is said of a man, he judged Israel twenty years (Samson. Jdg. 16:31), much more is meant.
THOU SHALT NOT WREST JUSTICE (Deu. 16:19)See Deu. 1:16-17, notes.
IF THERE BE FOUND IN THE MIDST OF THEE (Deu. 16:2)On Deu. 16:2-13, see our remarks in lesson ten. Note that the judge is involved in judgment of the difficult cases (Deu. 16:9) working in conjunction with the priests. Cf. Deu. 19:15-21.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XVIII.
Deu. 18:1-5.
THE PBIESTS DUE.
(1) The priests the Levites, (and) all the tribe of Levi.The fact that there is no and here in the original, and the look of the sentence in English, might dispose a superficial reader to find some ground here for the theory that priest and Levite are not distinguished in Deuteronomy. No such idea occurred to Rashi. He says, all the tribe of Levi, not only those that are perfect (who can serve), but those who have a blemish (and cannot). The distinction between priest and Levite has already been sufficiently noted on Deu. 11:6; Deu. 17:9. The passage is evidently on the same lines with Num. 18:18-21, which see.
(3) The shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw.This would be from the peace offering. The shoulder is assigned to them in Lev. 7:32-33 (comp. Num. 18:18). The two cheeks and the maw are not mentioned elsewhere, and the latter word is found in this place only. They are not a valuable part of the sacrifice. An absurd reason for the gift is assigned by Rashi. We know that in the time of Eli, the priests varied their requirements at pleasure, and in the face of the law (see 1Sa. 2:13). The priests due here, and the priests custom there, are the same word in Hebrew, which we have elsewhere translated requirement.
(4) The flrstfruit also of thy corn.See Num. 18:12. The first of the wool is mentioned here only. The quantity in all these cases has been defined by the Rabbis, on grounds somewhat arbitrary.
(5) To stand to minister in the name of the Lord.This is the office of the priests. The Levites are said, to stand before the congregation to minister unto them (Num. 16:9). If the writer of Deuteronomy knew no distinction between priest and Levite, it is difficult to see how the Jews could have derived the distinctive privileges of the priests from these enactments.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
THE RIGHTS OF THE PRIESTS AND LEVITES, Deu 18:1-8.
As the tribe of Levi was to have no tribal district allotted, the question would naturally arise, How are they to be supported? Here, in general terms, Moses states that “they shall eat of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and his inheritance.” To the earlier books of the Pentateuch we must look for the explanation of these expressions. Comp. Lev 1:8; Num 18:20.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1. The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi More literally, There shall not be to the priests the Levites, the whole tribe of Levi, any part or inheritance with Israel: that is, neither the priests nor any one of the tribe of Levi shall have any part or portion with Israel. As they were to be entirely devoted to the service of Jehovah they were not, like the other tribes, to have a separate tribal territory.
His inheritance What Jehovah in a certain sense had reserved for himself is intended by this term: the sacrifices, the tithes, the firstfruits.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Chapter 18 The Maintenance of The Levitical Priests and the Levites. Avoidance of The Occult. Yahweh Will Provide A Prophet Over Against False Prophets.
In some ways in contrast with any king were the priests. They were chosen by Yahweh and were not to have personal wealth. They were to be maintained by the people, being dependent on provisions that belonged to Yahweh. Those of the tribe of Levi chosen by Yahweh to minister in His name must also be properly maintained and catered for. These are the ones to whom Israel must primarily look for justice and for guidance in God’s Instruction as we have already seen, as men who minister before Yahweh.
And if Israel, unsatisfied with that, seek a divine message they must not look to those who profess to reveal the future or the secrets of the dead. Rather they must look to prophets raised up by Yahweh, prophets who will be like Moses, the test of whom will be that what they prophesy comes about. That will distinguish the false prophets from the true.
Pronounwise the passage is an interesting one. In the first three verses it continues the third person approach used of the description of the king, ‘he, they’, then in Deu 18:4 turns back to ‘thee’ thou’. This demonstrates the unity of this passage with the previous passage, demonstrating that the words about the king are an essential part of the whole. ‘Thee, thou’ is then used for the remainder of the chapter, stressing both individual responsibility and oneness as a nation, apart from ‘you (ye) shall hearken’ in Deu 18:15 where it suits it as an ‘aside’.
The Maintenance of the Levitical Priests and the Levites At The Sanctuary ( Deu 18:1-5 ).
The levitical priests and the Levites who served at the Tabernacle were to be supported by portions of the offerings and sacrifices, and by the offerings of the firstfruits, for they have been chosen by Yahweh to serve Him in His chosen place.
Analysis using the words of Moses.
a The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion nor inheritance with Israel. They shall eat the offerings of Yahweh made by fire and his inheritance (Deu 18:1).
b And they shall have no inheritance among their brethren. Yahweh is their inheritance, as He has spoken to them (Deu 18:2).
c And this shall be the priest’s due from the people, from those who offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep (Deu 18:3 a).
c That they shall give to the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw (stomach) (Deu 18:3 b).
b The firstfruits of your grain, of your new wine, and of your oil, and the first of the fleece of your sheep, shall you give him (Deu 18:4).
a For Yahweh your God has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand to minister in the name of Yahweh, him and his sons for ever (Deu 18:5).
We note that in ‘a’ the priests are to have no inheritance in Israel but to be totally dependent for their provision on Yahweh, and in the parallel this is so because Yahweh has chosen them out of all their tribes to stand to minister in His name. In ‘b’ their inheritance is declared to be Yahweh, and in the parallel they are to receive the firstfruits of both vegetation and beasts, which are Yahweh’s. In ‘c’ the priests’ dues are prepared for and then described.
Deu 18:1-2
‘ The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion nor inheritance with Israel. They shall eat the offerings of Yahweh made by fire and his inheritance. And they shall have no inheritance among their brethren. Yahweh is their inheritance, as he has spoken to them.’
The opening phrase ‘The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi’ raises questions as to whether this covers both levitical priests (the priests the Levites) and Levites (all the tribe of Levi) or just the levitical priests alone. However in Deuteronomy such phrases in apposition regularly represent the item in apposition as signifying something greater than the first phrase. See Deu 3:4-5; Deu 15:21; Deu 16:21; Deu 17:1; Deu 23:19; Deu 25:16. Compare also Deu 3:18 where there is a reduction in the idea. They are never just a description of the same idea. In Deu 2:37; Deu 3:13; Deu 4:19; Deu 5:8; Deu 20:14; Deu 29:10 the clauses in apposition are always of one against a number and therefore not strictly comparable. This would confirm that ‘all the tribe of Levi’ is an extension of, and addition to, the idea of the levitical priests thus referring to both priests and Levites. Significantly there are no examples the other way.
So it is both levitical priests and all the tribe of Levi who were to have no portion in Israel. They would have no tribal area of their own. Nor were they to be given land as individuals. The priestly cities and the levitical cities were to be jointly owned along with the land around them, although individuals would own their own houses. Both did later purchase property for themselves and thus came into ownership of houses and property outside this sphere, but that was not part of the original plan (e.g. 1Ki 2:26; Jer 32:7-10 with Deu 1:1).
The ideal behind this was that they should be unworldy, independent, and able to keep the civil power in check. Their whole existence was to involve being taken up with Yahweh, Who was their inheritance, with keeping the nation right before Him, and with making known His law and ensuring that His covenant requirements were maintained.
“They shall eat the offerings of Yahweh made by fire (ishsheh) and his inheritance. And they shall have no inheritance among their brethren. Yahweh is their inheritance, as he has spoken to them.” The levitical priests and Levites will therefore ‘eat the offerings of Yahweh made by fire and His inheritance’. Part of each offering made by fire, apart from the whole burnt offerings, was given to the priests (Lev 2:3; Lev 2:10 and often; Jos 13:14). Yahweh’s inheritance as mentioned here included all that was sanctified to Him and included offerings and sacrifices, firstfruits, tithes, firstlings, and so on, and His specific inheritance to the Levites was the tithe (Num 18:24-26), which would include grain, wine and animals (Num 18:30 with Lev 27:30-33). But the Levites would also share in the peace offerings made by the people, which were offerings made by fire (Lev 3:9) as they did in the firstlings (Deu 12:11-12; Deu 12:17-18). Thus was provision made for both priest and Levite out of the variety of offerings made by the people. For a wholesale coverage of this see Numbers 18 where the distinctions are made clearer, although through the years circumstances had expanded on them.
It may also be that ishsheh actually simply denotes gifts and offerings without necessarily meaning ‘by fire’. Compare the use of usn at Ugarit. Note also the threefold use of ‘inheritance’, each use with a slightly different meaning. Yahweh’s inheritance, that which was set apart for Him and given to Him, included all that is mentioned above, including the tithes which He gave to the Levites as an inheritance. His inheritance to the people is the land. But Yahweh Himself, and His service, is the inheritance of the priests and Levites (compare Deu 10:9; Jos 13:33; Num 18:20; Jos 18:7).
“They shall have no inheritance among their brethren. Yahweh is their inheritance, as he has spoken to them.” This contrasts with the words spoken about their king. ‘His heart is not to be lifted up above his brethren’. The king was to be one with his brethren in obedience to Yahweh and to His Instruction. His inheritance was to be among them. But the priests and Levites had no inheritance among their brethren. They were lifted up above it. Yahweh was their inheritance. Thus their ideal king was not to have control over priestly activities or over matters to do with the sanctuary. That would be between the priests and Yahweh. They would act as a balance to the king’s powers, especially as they were the experts whom the king would consult when seeking to understand Yahweh’s law.
In Egypt the Pharaohs had always had to recognise the might of the priests while being a god over them. He had constantly manoeuvred with them. Much had depended on the strength of the Pharaoh. But in Israel the king was always to be in submission to Yahweh’s Instruction and was to be submissive to the Sanctuary, and to those who expounded Yahweh’s Instruction. Thus Yahweh, not the king, would still be over all. This will especially come out shortly when we learn of the independent prophet ‘like Moses’. He will speak directly from Yahweh, and both king and priest will have to listen to him. For all are in the end subject to Yahweh’s Instruction and His will.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Deu 18:15-19 Moses Prophesies of the Coming of Jesus In Deu 18:15-18 Moses prophesies that “One like him” would come to lead God’s people. This prophecy was fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was placed over the Church to lead God’s people to their place of eternal rest. This is why Heb 3:5 says that the ministry of Moses over the children of Israel in the wilderness was a testimony of those things which were coming to pass in the future.
Heb 3:5, “And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;”
Since Moses was a type and figure of the Lord Jesus Christ, his faithfulness over Israel was a type of Jesus’ faithfulness over God’s people. Therefore, Moses was able to prophesy that One was coming “like unto me.”
Peter refers to this prophecy in his first sermon in the Temple in Jerusalem.
Act 3:22, “For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.”
The children of Israel cried out for Moses to speak directly to them instead of God, because of the fearful sight at Mount Sinai (Exo 20:18-21 & Deu 5:23-33). Thus, Moses became God’s spokesman to them, an arrangement that was initiated by the prayer of the children on Israel at Mount Sinai.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Dues of Priests and Levites
v. 1. The priests, the Levites, v. 2. Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren; the Lord is their inheritance, as He hath said unto them. v. 3. And this shall be the priest’s due from the people, v. 4. The first-fruit also of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, v. 5. For the Lord, thy God, hath chosen him out of all thy tribes to stand to minister in the name of the Lord, v. 6. And if a Levite come from any of thy gates out of all Israel, v. 7. then he shall minister in the name of the Lord, his God, as all his brethren the Levites do, which stand there before the Lord. v. 8. They shall have like portions to eat,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
RIGHTS OF THE PRIESTS AND THE LEVITES. THE ARTS OF DIVINATION OF THE HEATHEN TO BE AVOIDED. PROPHETS PROMISED WHOM ISRAEL MUST HEAR. THE FALSE AND PRESUMPTUOUS PROPHET TO BE PUT TO DEATH.
Deu 18:1-8
After the ruling powers, the judges and the king, come the priests and the Levites. In regard to them Moses repeats here the law as before laid down (cf. Num 18:20, Num 18:23, Num 18:24).
Deu 18:1
The priests the Levites, the whole tribe of Levi; i.e. the whole tribe of Levi, including both the priests and the general body of the Levites. They shall eat the offerings of the Lord made by fire. “The offerings of the Lord made by fire” (literally, the fires or firings of Jehovah), here referred to, were the meal offering, the sin offering, and the trespass effusing (cf. Num 18:9). And his inheritance; i.e. of Jehovah, what was appropriated to him, and from him to the tribe of Levi, such as tithes, firstlings, and firstfruits.
Deu 18:2, Deu 18:3
As he hath said unto them (cf. Num 18:20). The shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw; i.e. the front leg, the two jaw-bones, and the rough stomach of ruminants, in which the digestion is completed. These were regarded as the choice parts of the animal, and were to be given to the priests in addition to the wave breast and heave leg of the peace offerings (Le 7:32, etc.; Num 18:11), which belonged to the firings of Jehovah, mentioned in Deu 18:1. To these the priest had a rightful claim; they were his due (, mishpat, right). “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 17:1-16; vide Deu 12:15. sqq.)”(Keil). According to Josephus (‘Antiq ,’ 4.4, 4), Philo, the Talmud, etc; this injunction relates to the slaying of animals at home for private use, and not such as were killed for sacrifice. But the use here of the sacrificial phraseology, who offer a sacrifice ( , who slay victims for sacrificea phrase nowhere found except in connection with sacrificial rites) is adverse to this; and besides, how could such an enactment be carried out? How could people, residing at a distance, convey to the priests the portions due to them every time they slaughtered an animal for domestic use? At the same time, the sacrifices here referred to do not seem to be included in the offerings by fire above mentioned; and these gifts to the priest seem to have been something over and above his ordinary dues. There is probability, therefore, in the suggestion that “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 (Le Deu 7:15, Deu 7:16), but for festal meals in the broader sense, which were held in connection with the sacrificial meals prepared from the shelamim“ (Keil).
Deu 18:4
In addition to the firstfruits already prescribed by the Law to be given to the priests (Num 18:12, Num 18:13), Moses here enacts that the first fleece of the sheep shall be given. All these, though legally prescribed, were free gifts on the part of the people; the neglect of the prescription incurred only moral blame, not judicial penalty.
Deu 18:5
The reason assigned for the enactment is that God had chosen the priest to stand and minister in the Name of Jehovah, i.e. not only by his appointment and authority, but with full power to act as mediator between the people and God. Him and his sons forever; referring to the establishment of the priesthood in the family of Aaron.
Deu 18:6-8
Only a portion of the Levites were engaged in the service of the sanctuary; the rest lived in their towns throughout the country. It might happen, however, that a Levite, moved by pious feeling, would come to the place of the sanctuary to worship there; and it is prescribed that such a one should fare as his brethren the Levites engaged in the service of the sanctuary fared; he should minister along with them, and share with them in the gifts of the worshippers; and this in addition to any private means he might have from the sale of his patrimony. Where he sojourned. The Levite, though not homeless, was regarded as only a sojourner in the land, inasmuch as the tribe had no inheritance () there. They shall have like portions to eat; literally, they shall eat portion as portion, i.e. share and share alike. That which cometh of the sale of his patrimony; literally, his price upon [the house] of [his] fathers, i.e. the produce of the sale effected on the house he inherited from his ancestry (cf. Le 25:33).
Deu 18:9-22
Moses was not only the leader and ruler of the people, he was also the medium through which God communicated with the people, gave them his laws, and conveyed to them his word and will. In this respect his place could be supplied neither by priest nor by king. In the prospect of his demise, therefore, there required to be instituted another office, that of a prophet, one who should be between God and the people, as the channel through which Divine communications might pass to them. This office Moses here announces that God would establish among them when they had entered the Promised Land.
Deu 18:9
The abominations of these nations; i.e. certain forms of superstitious usage by which the heathen sought to procure the favor of their deities, to obtain from them direction and counsel, and to penetrate into the hidden future of events. Moses charges the people to avoid all such usages, and not even to learn to do after such abominations (cf. Le Deu 18:21; Num 23:23; Le 19:26, 31).
Deu 18:10, Deu 18:11
Maketh his son or daughter to pass through the fire (see note on Deu 12:31). That useth divination (cf. Eze 21:21, where the different methods of divination are enumerated). An observer of times. This is according to the Targum, observans horns; the LXX. have , “one who augurs what is to happen;” Vulgate, qui observat somnia atque auguria. The word () is part of a verb which signifies to cover, to use covert arts, to practice sorcery; though some derive it from the noun , a thick cloud, and explain it as “interpreter of clouds;” while others trace it to , the eye, and explain it as “one who cheats by optical fascinations” (so the Syriac, fascinans oculis), or one who divines by inspectionan augur.” An enchanter; one who practices magic, or divines by signs (cf. Gen 44:5; Num 24:1). It is sometimes said that the verb of which this word is a part () is a denominative from , a serpent; whence it is inferred that the species of divination indicated by this word is ophiomancy, or divination by serpents, but this is not generally accepted by scholars. A witch (; LXX; : Vulgate, maleficus); probably one who pretended to cure diseases, or procure some desired result, by means of nostrums and philtres. In the enumeration of the wise men of Babylon (Dan 2:2), the Mecashephim have a place beside the Hartummim, and in Gen 41:8 and Exo 7:11, they are joined with the Hachamim or Magi of Egypt; and this favors the conclusion that their sorcery had a quasi-scientific basis. The English word “witch” is now restricted to the female practicer of unlawful arts; formerly it was applied to males as well, if not chiefly. A charmer ( ); a dealer in spells, one who by means of spells or charms pretends to achieve some desired result. The verb here used primarily means to bind, and the species of magic indicated is probably that practiced by binding certain knots, whereby it was supposed that the curse or blessing, as the case might he, was bound on its object; this was accompanied apparently with incantation (Psa 58:5). Comp. English spell-bound, and the phrase, “to rivet charms” (Jonson, ‘Sad Shepherd,’ 2.2). A species of incantation known to the Romans consisted in tying knots with threads of different colors, three in number, which were supposed to become a bond to secure an object (cf. Virg; ‘Eclog.’ 8.76, 77). A consulter with familiar spirits. This phrase conveys something different from what is expressed, in the Hebrew. is one who asks or inquires of an Ob, that is, a Python, or divining spirit. This spirit was supposed to be in the person of the conjurer, and to be able to reveal to him what was secret or hidden in the future (Le 20:27; 1Sa 28:7, 1Sa 28:8; Act 16:16). The notion of “a familiar spirit,” i.e. a spirit not dwelling in the person, but with which he is intimategenerally the spirit of one who formerly lived on earthis a modern notion not known to Scripture. The persons here referred to were probably ventriloquists (LXX; ), and used their faculty in this respect for purposes of magic, pretending that they had within them a spirit which they could consult, and by which they could predict what would happen or reveal what was hid. Wizard. The English word “wizard” did not originally convey the idea of anything evil in the person of whom it was used; Milton applies it to the Magi who came to worship at Bethlehem (‘Ode on the Nativity,’ 4.); it meant merely “the wise one,” or “the knowing one;” and thus is an exact equivalent for the Hebrew word here used (, knowing, wise, from , to know). A necromancer; one who professed to call up the dead, and from them to learn the secrets of futurity (of. 1Sa 28:7). (See on all these names the learned and copious dissertation of Dr. Holmes, art. ‘Divination,’ in Kitto’s ‘Bibl. Cyclop.,’ 3rd. edit; 1.682.)
Deu 18:12
All who practiced such arts were an abomination unto the Lord, and his people are forbidden to have anything to do with them. They are connected here with the Moloch-worship, because of the intimate relation between idolatry and the use of magical arts; and Moloch-worship is specially mentioned, probably because it was the form of idolatry with which the Israelites were most likely to come in contact, both where they then were and also in Canaan; not, as Keil suggests, because that form “was more intimately connected with soothsaying and magic than any other description of idolatry”an assertion for which there is no evidence.
Deu 18:13
Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God. The word translated “per-feet” properly means entire, whole, answering to the Latin integer; it is used only in a moral sense, and is best rendered by “upright;” the Israelites were to be upright and sincere with, i.e. in relation with, Jehovah their God.
Deu 18:14
Though the heathen whose land they were to possess sought to diviners and enchanters, Israel was not to do so; as for them (the at the beginning of the clause is an emphatic nominative), Jehovah their God had not suffered (, given, granted, allowed) them to do such things.
Deu 18:15-22
There should be no need for Israel to turn to heathen soothsayers, or diviners, or such like, because from amongst themselves, of their own brethren, would God raise up prophets like unto Moses, who, as occasion required, would reveal to them what God willed them to know.
Deu 18:15
A Prophet. The Hebrew word so rendered () is a derivative from a verb (), which signifies to tell, to announce; hence the primary concept of the word is that of announcer, or forth-speaker; and to this the word “prophet” (Greek from , I speak before or in place of) closely corresponds; the prophet is one who speaks in the place of God, who conveys God’s word to men, who is an interpreter of God to men. (As illustrative of the meaning of the word, cf. Exo 7:1; Exo 4:16.) Hence Abraham is called a prophet (Gen 20:7), and the term is applied to the patriarchs generally (Psa 105:15); God conveyed his mind to them, and they spoke it forth to others (cf. Amo 3:7). Like unto me. When the people heard the voice of God speaking to them at Sinai, and from the midst of the fire uttering to them the Ten Words, they were struck with terror, and besought that they might not again hear that awful voice, but that Moses might act as mediator between God and themmight hear what God should say, and speak it unto them (Deu 5:22-27). Moses thus became God’s prophet to the people; and of this he reminds them here, as well as of the circumstances amid which he entered specially on this office (cf. Deu 18:16, Deu 18:17). The phrase, “like unto me,” does not necessarily imply that the prophet who was to come after Moses was to be in every respect the same as he; all that is indicated is that he would act as Moses had acted as a mediator between God and the people in the way of conveying his will to them.
Deu 18:16
In the day of the assembly (cf. Deu 9:14; Deu 10:4).
Deu 18:18
And will put my words in his mouth; will so reveal to him my mind, and so inspire him to utter it, that the words he speaks shall be really my words. The question has been raised whether, by the Prophet like unto Moses, hero promised to the people of Israel, is to be understood some eminent individual, or whether this refers to the prophetic , or succession, that was to continue under the theocracy. For the latter the context strongly speaks, for
(1) the contrast between what God here forbids the Israelites to do, viz. to resort to diviners and soothsayers, and the provision he would make for them so as to render this needless, point to a succession of prophets rather than to one individual;
(2) the reference in what follows to the discrimination of false prophets from true prophets, shows that a multiplicity and a succession of prophets was in the view of the speaker, not a single individual; and
(3) as a succession of priests, of judges, and of kings was contemplated in this part of the Mosaic legislation, the presumption is that a succession also of prophets was contemplated. At the same time, the use of the singular here is remarkable, for nowhere else is the singular, nabhi, employed to designate more than one individual; and this suggests that the reference here may be to some individual in whom not only was the succession to culminate as in its crown and eminence, but whose spirit was to pervade the whole succession,that each member of it should exercise his functions only as that Spirit which was in them did signify (1Pe 1:11). It is possible also, as Oryon Gerlach has suggested, that “Prophet” here may be used as “seed“ is in Gen 3:15, and that this is a prediction of Christ as the True Prophet, just as the assurance to Eve was a prediction of the Messiah, who, as the Head and Crown of the” godly seed,” should end the conflict with the serpent and his seed by a crushing victory. It is to be considered also that, whilst the words “like unto me” do not necessarily imply a resemblance in all respects between Moses and the Prophet here promised, and whilst they may be well applied to One superior in many respects to Moses, it would be taking them at much below their real worth were we to understand them of one greatly inferior to Moses, as all the prophets who succeeded him in Israel were until the Chief came (Deu 34:10; Heb 3:1-6). Finally, there can be no doubt that the Jews expected that the Messiah would appear as the Prophet by pre-eminence, and that they founded that expectation on the promise here recorded (cf. Joh 1:21; Joh 6:14; AcAct 3:22-26; Act 7:37). It may be added that our Lord seems to apply this to himself, when he says to the Jews, “There is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me” (Joh 5:45, Joh 5:46; cf. also Joh 11:48-50). How early and how widespread was the expectation that the Messiah would come as a prophet, may be inferred from the existence of this among the Samaritans (Joh 4:25). It is to be concluded, then, that this promise has reference ultimately to the Messiah, the Great Revealer of God, between whom and Moses there should be a long succession of prophets, so that there should always be a medium of Divine communication between Jehovah and his people.
Deu 18:19-22
To the Prophet who should thus speak to the people all that God should command him, they were to pay the utmost deference, and to his words they were to render implicit obedience.
Deu 18:19
I will require it of him; I will judge him and punish his disobedience (cf. Gen 42:22; 2Sa 4:11; Psa 10:13, etc.).
Deu 18:20
If, however, a prophet should presume to speak in the Name of the Lord what the Lord had not commanded him to speak, or if he should speak in the name of other gods, not only was no regard to be paid to his words, but he was himself to be treated as a blasphemer, and to be put to death.
Deu 18:21, Deu 18:22
The test by which it was to be discovered which was the true prophet and which the false, was the fulfillment or non-fulfillment of his prediction. The reference here is to the prediction of proximate eventsevents that were to happen within a limited period, but which were not such as one not divinely instructed could foresee. When such came to pass, the pretensions of the prophet were thereby substantiated, and his authority established (cf. 1Sa 3:19; Joh 2:18, etc.). This was a more certain test than such as was offered by signs and wonders (Deu 13:2, etc.).
HOMILETICS
Deu 18:1-8
The support of the ministry the duty of God’s people.
In a note on a corresponding passage in Num 18:21, Num 18:22, Dr. Jameson remarks, “Neither the priests nor the Levites were to possess any allotments of land, but to depend entirely upon him who liberally provided for them out of his own portion; and this law was subservient to many important purposes, such as that, being exempted from the cares and labors of worldly business, they might be exclusively devoted to his service; that a bond of mutual love and attachment might be formed between the people and the Levites, who, as performing religious services for the people, derived their subsistence from them; and further, that, being the more easily dispersed among the different tribes, they might be more useful in instructing and directing the people.” This suggestive note seems to us to contain the pith of the Mosaic instructions concerning the maintenance of the Levites. (For the several details, see Exposition.) We can scarcely fail to see in this passage principles far wider in their application than to the Jewish people alone, and reaching much further onward than the times of the old covenant. And though, as it falls to the lot of the preacher to expound these principles, it may not quite fall within his preference to do so, if he is, like the Levites, supported by the contributions of the people, yet, when he is continuously expounding the Word of God, he may not omit to teach the people that” he that is taught in the Word should communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.” This is part of the “counsel of God,” and should not be withheld, since it is not for his own sake, but for the sake of the entire ministry of the Lord Jesus, for which, if he is faithful, he will plead. The principles which may be expounded by the ministers of the New Testament are these
I. A GODLY, ABLE MINISTRY IS THE WANT OF THE PEOPLE. True, there are now no sacrifices to be offered, nor is there any complicated ritual of service to be performed; but there is a mighty work to be done in heralding the gospel “to every creature,” and in “building up the body of Christ.” And so long as sin and ignorance prevail, so long will the people need those who will lead the way in seeking their expulsion and extinction. For this end our Lord has instituted a New Testament ministry. The work now to be fulfilled is that of teaching and preaching Jesus Christ (Eph 4:1-16; 1Co 9:1-27.). “Faithful men, able to teach,” are to be appointed. These are the qualifications. The Church needs no priesthood in it. It is itself the priesthood for the world. Ministers do not come now in a family, a tribe, or line. The figment of apostolical succession is “less than nothing, and vanity.” It is not by the law of “a carnal commandment” that any ministry is valid now. But wherever God’s Spirit fills a man with holy yearning for this work, where the needful gifts are imparted, where God’s providence leads and clears the way, and the divinely inspired voice of a free Christian people says to him, “Come and be our teacher and guide in the ways of the Lord,” there are calls to a ministry such as cannot be mistaken, and such as ought not to be ignored. And when, on such a ministry, the seals of Divine approval are set, when the minister can see the law of Christ which is promulgated by his lips, reproduced in men’s hearts and lives, when he can see many a wanderer reclaimed through his pleading and prayers,then can his ministry show a like validity even with that of Paul, for he, like him, can point to one and another and say, “If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you, for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.”
II. THE MINISTRY OF THE WORD DEMANDS THE DEVOTION OF THE ENTIRE LIFE. We by no means intend here that none should teach or preach but those who can give their whole time thereto. But that, as a part of the application of the “division of labor” in the Church, the demands on those who make the ministry of the Word their care are such, that only the entire consecration of their life to it will enable them fittingly to meet them. To take the oversight of the flock of God: to give unto each one their portion of meat in due season: to visit the fatherless and widow, the poor and the sick: to observe the signs of the times: to know what Israel ought to do, and to direct them in doing it: to keep abreast of the thinking of the day, whether helpful or adverse: and so to declare the whole counsel of God, as by manifestation of the truth to commend himself to every conscience:all these things go to make up a work so varied, so momentous, so exhausting, that nothing less than “giving himself wholly” to it can enable any man even approximately to discharge it.
III. THIS BEING THE CASE, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE MINISTER SHOULD NOT BE ENTANGLED IN IMPEDING CARES. The Levites were not to have great estates that might draw off their interest from the duties of their office, nor were they to be left at an uncertainty respecting the supply of their temporal need. Even so now. It will greatly fetter and hamper a minister if he is entangled with the affairs of his life, whether by having so much on his hands that his time is absorbed in secular, which ought to be devoted to sacred, things; or by having so little on which he can rely, that the anxiety about feeding the people with living bread, is diverted from its proper channel, by anxiety about having the “bread that perisheth” for himself and his.
IV. CONSEQUENTLY IT IS AN ORDINANCE OF GOD THAT THE MINISTRY, WHICH IS FOR THE PEOPLE, SHOULD BE THE CARE OF THE PEOPLE. This may be set on several grounds.
1. It is manifestly right. If a man gives up all ways of securing temporal comforts for the sake of serving the people, they are bound to secure him the temporal comforts in some other way.
2. The Apostle Paul distinctly lays it down as an appointment by the Lord Jesus (1Co 9:14). (Paul waived this. right, rather than hinder the gospel by pressing it, as is now done under like circumstances; but it was a right, nevertheless, and a Divine appointment.)
3. Wherever a people cause a minister to be embarrassed in temporalities, they will suffer for it. The minister’s work, teaching, and preaching will all bear the traces of such embarrassment, and will be the weaker for it.
4. This Divine ordinance helps to promote the mutual care of minister and people for each other. They reap his spiritual things; he reaps their carnal things.
5. There is also thus a high and holy spiritual education of the people, in calling out their own kindly and just activities to uphold that ministry by which they themselves are upheld. The ministry is not to be found for them, but to be maintained by them. Thus there is seen to be a guard against abuse of position on either side.
V. ISRAEL WAS TO GUARD ITS OWN PRIESTHOOD AS BEING ITSELF A PRIESTHOOD FOR THE WORLD. So Churches are to guard the honor of their own ministry, because they have a ministry for the world. It is not for the ministers’ own sakes that they are to be thus cared for, but on account of the high and holy cause which they represent, and which they seek, however imperfectly, to maintain. They are to be esteemed very highly in love for their work‘s sake; for the work which they fulfill is that which is purifying and saving the world. It is, in fact, by thus supporting a ministry that the Church is fulfilling its commission, “to preach the gospel to every creature.” Of course, it follows from all this, that a ministry can claim such and such support, only so far as it is carrying out the Divine intent, or seeking in all fidelity to do so. It is not that God has put clergy as a kind of official police over the people; but that those who love righteousness are to show it by upholding the preaching of righteousness, and that those who love their Savior’s Name are to sustain the heralds of that Name, both at home and abroad.
Deu 18:9-14
Spiritualism condemned.
In the verses forming this paragraph, there are nine terms or phrases, each with its own special meaning, pointing to some pagan superstition, against which Moses is warning the people. The variety and number of such terms show us how great a bold a spurious “spiritualism” had upon the people. The phenomena connected therewith, however, present to us an aspect of history that is worthy of careful study. In some sort, the pagan customs of olden times connected with divination may seem so completely out of date, that it may be thought useless for the preacher to allude to them now. But though some details connected therewith may vary, yet the two purposes for which men “divined” of old, are still sought to be accomplished, viz.:
(1) the ascertainment of destiny; and
(2) a peep into the invisible realm of the departed.
And not only so; but the methods of a modern so-called” spiritualism” are so nearly analogous to those of ancient times, that it is as needful for the preacher now to warn the people against them, as it was for Moses to warn the Hebrews. Even among them, the roothold of this superstition was so strong, that Isaiah had to caution the men of his time against it, and to remind them of the more excellent way (see Is8:19, 20). But it is very remarkable that neither Moses nor Isaiah closes up the matter at once by saying, “You may as well give up all that, for you cannot possibly hold any communication with the departed.” Neither of them suggests that the invisible world is absolutely closed against all possible access. Various reasons for this may be surmised. It may be that the question of the abstract possibility or otherwise of communications with the departed, formed no part of God’s revelation to Moses; or that God has not seen fit at any time to inform us thereon, deeming an education on the moral bearings of the question, of far greater moment than intelligence on its physical or metaphysical aspects. Any way, certain it is, that we are not called on to ask, Can we converse with the dead? But we are rather forbidden to attempt it. Five reasons are suggested as we compare and unite the teachings of Isaiah and Moses.
I. IT IS UNREASONABLE. “Should not a people seek unto their God?” If they wish to commune with spirit, there is one Great Infinite Spirit with whom they can hold fellowship, who has said, “Call on me in the day of trouble.” From him we may get at any time all needful light on the daily path, and all needful intercourse with the spiritual world. We may hear a voice behind us, saying, “This is the way, walk ye in it.” And if we may consult the Great Supreme, why leave the highest authority, for the sake of consulting any others?
II. IT IS UNNECESSARY. For what is that we really need? Light for the future, but not light on it; and light concerning the invisible world, but not light into it. And these are given to us in the revelation of the Divine Word (see next Homily). The connection between this paragraph and the next should not be lost sight of. Moses says, “The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet,” etc. (verse 15), i.e. not only one Prophet in the fullness of time, but also from time to time as may be needed, prophet after prophet shall be sent you to direct you in the truth, so that you will have no excuse whatever for seeking light elsewhere, or in any forbidden ways. If that was true of Israel, how far more is it true of us! What a fullness of light and truth have we in Christ! And now that we have an unction from the Holy One to teach us the deep things of God, it is a wildly foolish and needless step to go knocking at the gates of the invisible world!
III. IT IS USELESS. It might very fairly be asked, “If you get an answer, how are you to verify its worth?” But Isaiah practically impales the “spiritualists” on the horns of a dilemma. “To the Law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them;” i.e. supposing you consult the dead, and get an answer from them, that answer will either accord with “the Law and the testimony,” or it will not. If it does, you are no better off than you were before, for you had it in the Book before you inquired. If it does not, still you are no better off, for “it is because there is no light in them,” and if they have no light, they certainly cannot give any to you! So that either way the inquiry after the dead is utterly useless. And besides, who ever heard of anything alleged to be communicated by “the spirits” which contained aught that was not previously known? We have an infinitely more sure “word of prophecy,” and we shall be guilty of the veriest folly if we forsake it for the random guessings of “spiritualism.” Hence
IV. IT IS SINFUL. The preacher may press this on the following grounds.
1. It is a wayward effort to force an opening into a region which God as yet sees fit to conceal from view.
2. It comes of a wish to get light on future issues rather than on present duty. Duty is ours, events are God’s.
3. It involves the neglect of a rule which God has given, and a search after one which he has not.
4. It is a waste of time.
5. It puts a prying curiosity in the place of a lowly, loyal obedience.
6. It springs out of a guilty unbelief or from dissatisfaction with the ways of God. Why, even among the heathen who knew not God, it was regarded by him as an “abomination;” how much more must he so regard it among a people to whom he has revealed himself in deepest, tenderest love? Have men not yet learnt that it is mercy which hides the future, and shrouds in veil the realm of the dead? Who of us could bear to have either curtain drawn aside? Oh! it is no wonder that this spirit of false inquiry should be forbidden by God. We should frown on it in others, sternly and constantly, and it should not be so much as named among us as becometh saints.
V. THERE IS ANOTHER AND A BETTER WAY OF GETTING ALL THE LIGHT WE NEED. “The Law and the testimony.” Here are the words of God which are to direct us. Here we may “inquire of God,” and to the lowly, childlike heart the Book will be full of divinest, holiest teaching. It will give us light on the daily path, and guide us to a course which has “promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.” It abounds with promises that will cheer life’s gloom, and chase away the darkness even from the grave. It opens up immortality and life. By its light we know that our departed ones in Christ, though absent from the body, are present with the Lord. Cheered by its words of hope, we can sing, “Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterwards receive me to glory!” We are not treading uncertainly. We walk not at random. We are not helplessly drifting down a current. We are “firm on the rock.” We are surrounded with light from him who is “the Light of the world;” and with all this, cannot we wait a while, and let him who is redeeming us reveal the mysteries of the spirit world to us in his own good time rather than our own? Hush! these longings to know beforehand. Let us keep to the written Word. It tells us quite as much as we can bear to know while in these tabernacles of clay. Be it ours to study the Book of God: to take it not only as a guide, but as the guide; not simply as the only guide, but as the all-sufficient one, “until the day break, and the shadows flee away.”
Deu 18:15-22
God speaking to man through man.
The Exposition, as well as the Commentaries of Jameson and Keil, may, with great advantage, be consulted on this passage, and also Hengstenberg’s ‘Christology,’ vol. 1. pp. 96-107. Our brief homiletic sketches assume that the student has already mastered the exegesis, and comprehended the intent of the passage. Its connection with the preceding paragraph is obvious. The people had been warned against having recourse to familiar spirits, etc; on the ground that such practices were an abomination unto the Lord their God. But Moses would not only warn the people off the wrong ground, he would direct them to the right, by showing them the completeness of the Divine arrangements for supplying them from time to time with all the religious teaching they would require, in a way far more adapted to their condition and circumstances than by any unveiling of the secrets of the invisible world. They are reminded that when God came in grandeur to speak to them at Mount Sinai, they could not bear the sight nor the sound. They begged that Moses would speak to them, and not Jehovah; “lest we die,” were their own words. So that it was clear they would be entirely unable to bear anything approximating to a full disclosure of the Divine. It must be toned and tempered within the limits of their capacities of reception and of their powers of endurance. Otherwise, it would fail of its end, by crushing those whom it was meant to train. Hence he who “knoweth our frame” graciously promises to speak hereafter to the people in their own dialect, as it were, and on their own level, by “raising them up a Prophet, from the midst of them, of their brethren, like unto Moses;” and thus would the needful messages from God be kept up, making it quite unnecessary for them to make use of unauthorized means of getting supernatural light. There would be, from time to time, one prophet raised up after another, culminating in him to whom they all gave witness. Thus our theme is,” God speaking to man through man.”
I. UNLESS A DIVINE REVELATION WERE ATTEMPERED TO OUR WEAKNESS, WE COULD NOT BEAR IT. The cry of Israel at Sinai, “Let not God speak with us, lest we die,” is a “touch of nature.” No man could bear the full blaze of God’s glory. Unless there were a “hiding of God’s power,” we should be crushed by the revelation of it. We could no more endure the full disclosure of the Divine than our eyes could bear to gaze on the splendors of a noonday sun. Hence God, “who knows our frame,” and who, therefore, knows what we can bear, meets our weakness by his tender mercy.
II. IN ORDER THAT THE REVELATION MAY BE SUCH AS WE CAN RECEIVE, GOD HAS SPOKEN TO MEN THROUGH MAN. AS Sinai’s terror, with the voice of Jehovah, was too much for Israel, Moses says, “The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me.” Each of these phrases is emphatic, and is intended as the antithesis to the notion of overwhelming force. The meaning of Moses is twofold.
1. There shall be from time to time a prophet sent to you, through whom you may hear the voice of God.
2. There shall be hereafter a great Prophet, who shall be to you as the living Voice of God; but he shall be also “of your brethren, like unto me.” We know how true both are. There was from time to time a line of prophets who spake for God. There has come to earth a Prophet greater than all beside. They always pointed onward to another; he, never, save as a heavenly gift from him was by him held in reserve, even the gift of the Holy Ghost. Thus God has come into communion with our race, to reveal his mind and will.
III. NEW MESSAGES, COMING IN A WAY SO SUITED TO US, FROM SO CONDESCENDING A GOD, BRING THEIR OWN AUTHORITY WITH THEM. (Deu 18:19.) The message is not to be set at naught because the voice which speaks it is but human. If a prophet speaks only what the Lord hath spoken, though he may be a weak and frail instrument, though the burden of his message may be almost more than he can bear, yet, being borne along by the Holy Ghost to utter such words, they come with Divine authority. “The treasure is put into earthen vessels;” but though the vessel is earthy, the treasure is Divine.
IV. THIS AUTHORITY REACHES ITS CLIMAX IN THE MINISTRY OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. Such, surely, is the import of the scene known as “the Transfiguration” (Mat 17:1-27.). Moses and Elias are therethe representatives of the Law and the prophets. They speak of the decease which Christ should accomplish at Jerusalem. Presently they vanish from the spot, and no one is left with the disciples save “Jesus only.” Then a voice out of the cloud said, “Hear him.” In Act 3:20-26, we have the Apostle Peter’s application of the very passage before us to the Lord Jesus Christ as the Prophet to whom all the rest did point. (See also HebAct 1:1 -31; and for New Testament teaching as to the authority of Christ, and the importance of hearing and obeying him, see Heb 2:1-18; Heb 9:1-28; Heb 10:1-39.) So full is the revelation of God by Christ, that it is not only, revelation through him, but in him (Joh 1:1-18).
From these four principles involved in the paragraph, there are four inferences which may be safely and profitably drawn.
1. If the voice of God speaks to us suitably and. adequately through the medium of human voices, then it is utterly needless for us to seek information and light by any forced attempts at gaining messages from the invisible world (see preceding Homily).
2. We are here furnished with a test as to what is truly a Divine message or no. There is, in fact, a twofold test. It is partly moral and partly physical.
(1) Partly moral (Act 3:22, “When,” etc.). It is as if Moses said, “You only require a guide in case a ‘prophet speaketh in the Name of the Lord,’ for if he does not, you know what to do (cf. Deu 13:1-18.). If he speaks in the name of other gods, you must reject him at once.” Note: Any supposed message from God which violates the dictates of enlightened reason and conscience, must be set aside.
(2) Partly physical. If a prophet speaks in the Name of the Lord, they are then to watch and see if the thing comes to pass; and if not, then they may be sure that the prophet is a mere pretender; “he hath spoken presumptuously.”
3. Here is an antidote to fear. “Thou shalt not be afraid of him.” What is the connection between this and the preceding? Is it not this? Suppose that the “prophet” declares that this or that is about to happen, do not give way to excitement and alarm. Follow the voice of God, of which you are sure, and obey that, and come what will, all is well with you. You can afford to do this; “Study to be quiet, and to do your own business,” and whether what the prophet declares come to pass or no, you are sure to be safe, if you have maintained unswerving loyalty to God. Nothing can harm you. So with us under the New Testament dispensation. Many affix dates to this or that. We heed them not. We have but to “wait for the Son of God from heaven.”
4. The reception of the Divine message is a part of that obedience which every man owes to high Heaven. Its acceptance is not merely the adoption of a number of opinions. Oh no! Opinions are one thing, convictions are another. A man “holds” opinions, but convictions “hold” a man. His conscience is held fast in their grip. Even so it is with those who receive the words of the living God as their guide through life to immortality. Their whole being is held firmly in their strong yet loving and tender hold. A skeptic once said to the writer, “I tell you candidly, that if I wanted to point out the best specimens of humanity, I should point to some of your way of thinking.” So he put it, “of your way of thinking.” How little does the outsider or unbeliever dream of the hold the Father’s words have on-us! Our whole being takes shape and outlook from them. Our fealty to him whom we know and love supremely, makes “the law of his mouth to be better to us than thousands of gold and silver.”
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR
Deu 18:1-8
God’s provision for the priests and Levites.
From the limitations of the monarchy, Moses next turns to the provision for the “priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi.” They were not to receive any estate in Canaan beyond the suburbs of certain cities. They were to take “the Lord as their inheritance.” We have already seen that Palestine was a good land for training up a spiritual people; it was a land where dependence upon God was constantly enforced. Bat among this people, thus invited to depend upon God, there was a tribe whose dependence upon God was to be further stimulated by the absence of any tangible inheritance. Their life was thus to be a life of trust in God’s continual care. In these circumstances the Lord made certain laws about the priests’ due. He took good care of the tribe that trusted him. It has been supposed that the animals, of which the priests were to have a definite part, were not merely sacrifices, but also those privately slaughtered, and the words ( ) translated “them that offer a sacrifice” will bear the rendering “those who slaughter animals.” Still, it seems more probable that it was by the central altar that the priests and Levites were to live. Assuming this, then, the following lessons are here taught.
I. THOSE WHO TRUST GOD SHALL NEVER BE DISAPPOINTED IN THEIR ALLOTTED PORTION. For as a matter of fact, “the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw” were deemed dainty portions of the animal. The best portions ascended to God in the altar fire, and then the second best were assigned to the priests and Levites, while the offerer was content with what was left. God and his ministers were regarded as the guests of the Jewish worshippers, and, as the guests enjoy the best which we can offer in the exercise of our hospitality, the support of the priests and Levites was amply secured. These dues of the priests and Levites seem to have been regularly paid while the people remained true to God; of course, their support would suffer in sinful and idolatrous times, yet, even when they suffered with the neglect of God’s altar, it was suffering with God.
And as a rule those who trust God are not disappointed with his provision. Even when it is limited in amount, he is sure to give sublime compensations. Though ministerial support is not what it ought to be, there is no class of men who enjoy life so much as God’s servants.
II. THOSE WHO ARE THE LORD‘S CHOSEN SERVANTS ARE CALLED PRE–EMINENTLY TO THE LIFE OF TRUST. There is a great temptation to encircle ourselves with so much worldly possession as that trust in God will be difficult and seem superfluous. In other words, there is an effort to be able to live by sight rather than by faith. But the Master whom we serve is realized by faith, and his kingdom must be propagated by faith. Hence he so arranges the lot of his servants that a loud call for faith is always ringing in their ears, and they should never neglect that call. The priests and Levites were at liberty to purchase land and leave it to their children, and doubtless many of them so far “made assurance doubly sure, and took a bond of fate.” Yet the life of faith, the dependence upon God’s altar, was better and wholesomer than the life of sight.
III. THE PEOPLE HAD NO RIGHT TO WITHHOLD THE PRIESTS AND LEVITES DUE BECAUSE OF ANY PRIVATE PATRIMONY INDIVIDUALS MIGHT POSSESS. A good deal of deficient ministerial support is due to the people very unfairly discounting private incomes and often exaggerating them, so as to save themselves. Ministers may inherit means through the kindly consideration of parents and friends; but this is no reason why people should hold their hand in the matter of ministerial support. The Lord specially provided that the Levite (Deu 18:8) should have like portions to eat beside that which cometh of the sale of his patrimony. The truth is that private means invariably go to make a public ministry more effective, if the ministry is true at all. They are not selfishly utilized, but used as a matter of’ stewardship. In such circumstances, instead of being a hindrance to liberality, these private possessions should be a stimulus, as they are so much more in the line of things devoted to the Lord.
IV. DUE RESPECT SHOULD BE SHOWN TO A DEVOTED SPIRIT. The case of the Levite here referred to corresponds to a minister who has responded to a Divine call, against what one might call the dictates of worldly prudence. He has followed the inward impulse (Deu 18:6), and come to aid the priests at the central altar from his snug patrimony at home. Such devotion is to be considered and rewarded. The Levite, who was so interested as to relinquish his country life and patrimony, deserved the payment of the dues at the altar. So with the generous devotion of the ministers of God. When men relinquish good worldly prospects for the Church, their doing so should be considered.R.M.E.
Deu 18:9-14
Divination forbidden.
The process of divination, in its different forms here referred to”divination,” “observing the heavenly bodies,” “enchantment,” “witchcraft,” “charming,” “consultation of spirits,” “sorcery,” and “necromancy” was an effort to discover secrets by unwarrantable methods. It was man’s longing for revelation undergoing degradation through the imaginations of men. It had been practiced by the predecessors in Canaan, and in consequence they were being cast out. The Israelites were to deem it abomination, and unworthy of the people of God. From the succeeding verses, it is evident that it is to be contrasted with the Divine order of prophetical inspiration, and in consequence rejected with detestation.
I. OUR IDEAS OF REVELATION SHOULD BE WORTHY OF GOD. We have no right to expect God to degrade himself in the methods of revelation. Our own instincts should lead us to abhor such processes as have been adopted to secure the secrets of the Most High. All the mean and abominable ways which are here enumerated ought to have been renounced by thinking men instead of adopted. They are all unworthy channels for God’s messages. Astrology, enchantment, necromancy,all are miserable makeshifts for a decent mode of revelation.
God has in “diverse manners” certainly made known his will to men (Heb 1:1). He has used dreams (Gen 37:8; Job 33:15), revealing to the soul, whose avenues of sensation are temporarily closed, the information it needed. The dream was the condition of the communication (Gen 28:12-22). God spoke when he had got man’s ear shut to other things. And we can see this to be a most worthy way! Then by angelic visits he oftentimes revealed his will, instances of which are many in the Bible. This also was worthy. Last of all, by inspiring men, that is, through human nature, which is also eminently worthy of God. But the divination process is and should have been regarded as mean and contemptible.
II. IT IS EVIDENCE OF THE GREAT CREDULITY OF MEN THAT DIVINATION HAS IMPOSED UPON THEM. In connection with “spiritualism,” for example, we have examples of credulity now corresponding exactly to the divination of the earlier times. As if such mean methods would be adopted by the Infinite Majesty, who has spoken in these last days by his Son! The power of belief is incalculable. Credulity is the believing power exercised on false objects and on insufficient evidence. We have ample faith in the world, if we could only get it rightly directed. And sometimes we find men who are most skeptical about religious matters, most credulous about the novelties of spiritualism. They yield to phenomena a credence that they deny to the well-authenticated Word.
III. GOD‘S PRESENCE IS TO DETERMINE OUR CONDUCT. When Moses says, “Thou shalt be perfect with () the Lord thy God” (Deu 18:13), the idea seems to be that the overshadowing Presence is to determine our conduct before him. We will strive to be perfect as he is, and not look for mean methods from him.R.M.E.
Deu 18:15-22
The promised Prophet.
From speaking of the paltry expectations about divination, Moses goes on to speak of the general plan of Divine revelation. The people had had the splendid chance of direct communion with God, without any mediation. God spoke to them from heaven at Sinai; but so afraid were they of immediate revelation that they implored Moses to mediate the message for them. He became consequently, with God’s full approval, the human medium through which the Divine will was conveyed, which means God’s prophet. They had had no difficulty in accepting the Divine messages through him. Now, Moses assures them that this method of mediation through human beings will continue. He puts the promise in comprehensive form, and says that through a Prophet like to himself will God continue to speak to them after he has gone, and his message they will reject at their peril.
I. LET US OBSERVE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF GOD REVEALING HIMSELF THROUGH A HUMAN BEING. For man is in the Divine image; if this be not the case, we can have no knowledge whatever of God. Man is the image of God; and hence God reveals himself to men through a man. The office of prophet is the most appropriate way of revealing God’s will. And when we carry on this line of thought, we are landed in the idea that an incarnation of God alone could adequately convey to man the mind and nature of God. If any one wishes to follow out this line, he will get splendid help in Mr. R. H. Hutton’s admirable essay on ‘The Incarnation and Principles of Evidence.’
II. IT SEEMS CLEAR FROM THE PROMISE THAT A SINGLE PROPHET AFTER THE SIMILITUDE OF MOSES IS TO BE THE MEDIATOR FOR THE AGES. Now, only one Person answers this description, and this is Jesus Christ. He was and is incarnate God. His Spirit he alone could take, and through its gift to men in the different ages make them the channel of God’s revelation. As a matter of fact, “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy;” and the prophets were his instruments in the history of the Church. God has spoken in the last days by his Son; and the prophets between Moses and Christ were really the inspired messengers of the one Great Prophet of God. This is the idea of Peter that the Spirit of Christ spoke in the prophets. We thus see one Person embracing the mediating work of the different ages, and accomplishing it through holy men.
III. THE LIFE AND DEATH OF JESUS, THEREFORE, BECOME THE CLIMAX OF DIVINE REVELATION. The previous revelations were but foreshadowings of this perfect manifestation of God. A human history became the embodiment of Divine thoughts, mercies, self-denials, and self-sacrifice. The blaze of divinity that was intolerable at Sinai becomes not only bearable but entrancing in the face of Jesus Christ. The blinding brilliance has been so toned down that man can rejoice in Jesus as “God manifest in the flesh.” “We beheld his glory”it did not blind or scare men as at the holy mount.
IV. THE DISREGARD OF THE WORDS OF JESUS IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH. This is the penalty pronounced. We see it in another form in the Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.” If disobedience to Moses was visited in many cases by death, how much more disobedience and disloyalty to Christ! (cf. Heb 10:28-31). The gospel has penalties of the severest kind for its rejection, as well as bliss beyond compare for its reception. The alternative is thus clearly set before us.
V. THE PROPHETS SENT OF GOD SUBMIT TO THE TEST OF FULFILLMENT, WHILE FALSE PROPHETS ARE TO BE DETECTED BY THEIR FAILURE. God’s method being a human mediation, is liable to be imitated, and men from time to time will profess to be prophets, when they have no real commission. Now, God has such a control of the future that no unassisted, uninspired man can forecast it successfully. Sooner or later he is found out. Happy guesses soon run out, and the person is discredited. Hence it was the duty of Israel to weigh well the communication of the professed prophets, and to see wherein they were confirmed by subsequent events. The true prophets had their word fulfilled, and were Christ’s messengers; the false prophets had their word discredited, and were acting presumptuously.
Let us hear the Great Prophet, and give him credit for all the predictions of the minor and but human prophets.R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
Deu 18:1, Deu 18:2
The Lord our inheritance.
True of the priests and Levites, it is true also of each believer, that “the Lord is his inheritance” (Psa 16:5, Psa 16:6). He is in this respect a “priest unto God” (1Pe 2:9; Rev 1:6).
I. THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION. Inheritanceequal to lot, part, share. Inheritance in familiesthe share which each receives of the patrimony. In the partition of Canaan, each tribe had its lot, its portion, its share. God’s portion or inheritance was the tithes, with the prescribed parts of the sacrifices, the firstfruits, etc. Levi had as his portion God himself, involving a share of the provision from God’s table (Deu 18:1).
II. THE GRANDEUR OF THE TRUTH.
1. The believer possesses God. God is a better possession for the soul than any of his gifts. “It is a thought which lies at the foundation of all true religion, that God himself is the Supreme Good, the true and real portion of the soul . More intimately than light becomes the possession of the eye on which it streams, or air of the organs of breathing which inhale it, or the food we eat, assimilated and diffused through the physical system, incorporates itself with the nature of him who partakes of it, does he, that Infinite One, the Light of all our seeing, the Bread of Life, the nutriment of our highest being, become the deep inward portion of each soul that loves him” (Caird, sermon on ‘The Christian’s Heritage’).
2. In possessing God, the believer possesses all things. And this, though in an outward sense he has nothing (2Co 6:10; cf. 1Co 3:21-23).
(1) God provides for him out of the fullness at his command. Possessing God, the Possessor of all, he knows that he will want “no good thing” (Ps84:11). Temporally and spiritually, he will be provided for, kept, saved, delivered (Psa 37:3, Psa 37:9, Psa 37:11, Psa 37:25, Psa 37:34; Psa 121:1-8.; Isa 33:16; Mat 6:33; Eph 1:3).
(2) All things work together for his good (Rom 8:28).
(3) He perceives and enjoys God in all things, as none else can (Psa 104:1-35.).
(4) He is one of the” heirs of God” in “the times of the restitution of all things” (Act 3:24), when the redeemed enter on their glory (Mt25:84).
Let the saint reflect on his inheritance in God.
(1) How surpassingly rich it is!
(2) How delightsome it is! (PsDeu 16:6).
(3) How enduring it iseternal! (2Co 4:17, 2Co 4:18).
(4) How all-satisfying it is! (Ps73:26).J.O.
Deu 18:5
The priesthood.
Israel, as a holy nation, consecrated to God’s service, was “a kingdom of priests” (Exo 19:6). This priestly character of the nation was represented formally in the tribe of Levi. The distinctive duties of the priesthood were discharged by the sons of Aaron, who were thus the priests strictly so called.
I. THE PRIESTHOOD IN ITSELF.
1. Chosen and set apart by God. “Chosen him out of all thy tribes.”
2. Holy, indicated by bodily perfection (Le Deu 21:16 -24), holy garments (Exo 39:1-43.), rites of dedication (Lev 8:1-36.), ceremonial regulations and restrictions (Lev 21:1-24; etc.).
3. Represented the people before God (Exo 28:12).
4. Made propitiation for sins (Heb 5:1).
5. Gave forth oracles (Num 27:21).
6. Had for these purposes the right of approach to God.
II. THE PRIESTHOOD AS TYPICAL.
1. Of Christ. The high priest, in particular, was typical of Christ as
(1) the One Medium of approach to God (Joh 14:6; 1Ti 2:5).
(2) Inherently holy, absolutely without sin (2Co 5:21).
(3) Representing the Church before God in his person, work, and intercession (HebDeu 4:14).
(4) In his having made reconciliation for the sins of the peoplehimself both Priest and Sacrifice (HebDeu 2:17; Deu 10:12).
(5) In being the organ of Divine revelations (MtMat 11:27).
(6) For this priestly workto which he was divinely ordained (Heb 5:5)Christ has free and immediate access to the holiest of all, and has gained admission to the same for his people (Heb 9:12; Heb 10:19).
2. Of believers.
(1) Chosen (Psa 65:4).
(2) Consecrated (1Co 1:2).
(3) Having freedom of approach to God (Heb 10:19).
(4) Offering spiritual sacrifices (1Pe 2:5).
(5) Interceding for the world.J.O.
Deu 18:6-8
Love to the sanctuary.
God loves those who love the sanctuary.
I. LOVE TO THE SANCTUARY SEEN.
1. In desire for it (Deu 18:6).
2. In pain at being deprived of its ordinances (Psa 42:1-7; Psa 63:1-11.; 84.).
3. In overstepping the bounds of bare duty in attendance on it (Deu 18:6).
II. LOVE TO THE SANCTUARY REWARDED.
1. By acceptance of those repairing to it.
2. By provision made for them (Psa 63:5).J.O.
Deu 18:9-14
Magic.
I. A STERN PROHIBITION OF CANAANITISH PRACTICES. The practice of magic is known to have been extensively developed in ancient Egypt and Chaldea. Numerous indications occur of its existence among the Canaanites (e.g. 1Sa 28:7-10). The lower kinds of magic are of rank growth in all barbarous and semi-civilized communities. The priests combine the functions of diviners, prophets, exorcists, thaumaturgists, physicians, and makers of idols and amulets. The magic of the ancients was distinguished as good or bad, according as it was exercised to conjure diseases and to combat demoniacal influences, or was abused to work harm. This last, which was avowedly diabolical in its character, was what was properly called “sorcery,” and was universally regarded with horror. The noteworthy fact, however, is that the books of Moses make no distinction as to kind, but forbid absolutely the practice of every species of magical art. Moses recognizes no magic that is good; he classes all under the same category of “abominations.” The text is in principle a prohibition of the use of all such arts, whether the pretender to magical power believes in its efficacy or not. It prohibits, further, resort to such as profess these arts. The “spiritualistic” delusions of our time in all their varieties (spirit mediums, rappings, planchettes, etc.), with “fortune-telling,” and superstitious practices supposed to bring good or to avert evil “luck,” are condemned by the passage.
II. A REASON FOR THIS PROHIBITION.
1. The nature of the practices as “abominations.” They were:
(1) Irrational.
(2) Evil.
Moses, as noticed above, recognizes no “good” magic. It is viewed either as imposture or, assuming its reality, as demonish (Satanic). It was connected with foolish and wicked rites.
2. The character of the people as “perfect“ (Deu 18:13). There could not be perfect love to God and communion with him, and trafficking with the devil at the same time. Love to God, faith in him, and entirety of devotion to him should preclude these superstitions. What he wills his people to know he will teach them by proper means; what he conceals they have no right to seek by means that are improper (Is8:19).J.O.
Deu 18:15-20
Prophecy.
The term “Prophet” covers the whole series of Old Testament prophets, culminating in Christ, the Prophet like unto Moses par excellence (see infra).
I. PROPHECY IN GENERAL. The prophetwhat? Etymologically, one “boiling or bubbling over” with the Divine inspiration. No mere religious genius, but one truly and supernaturally inspired. A revealer and declarer of the will of God. Future events were foretold:
1. As signs.
2. In warnings and appeals.
3. In denouncing God’s judgments.
4. In administering comfort.
5. In unfolding the Messianic hope.
6. In unfolding the Divine purpose underlying providential developments.
Prediction is thus a true and vital element in prophecy, but it is far from being of the essence of it. It is the function of the prophet either to declare new truthtruth gained by direct revelation, and given forth with the authority of Heaven as a “word of the Lord,” or, taking up truth already revealed, to revive and enforce it with supernatural power and fervor, applying it to the circumstances, exigencies, and evils of his particular time. “The prophets were men who, when facing the people, stood as it were before God, and thus spoke fore and for him” (Morison).
II. PROPHECY AND MOSAISM. It is noteworthy that Mosaism contemplated the rise of prophecy from the first, and left room for it in the arrangements of the economy. It even required it for the carrying forward of its objects to completion. The dispensation was not a final one. The kingdom of God had a future which it was the task of prophecy gradually to disclose. The Law enclosed innumerable spiritual germs, which it was the function of prophecy to expand and develop. It had, moreover, underlying its ceremonialism, a spiritual basis, which it was the business of the prophets to bring to light, and to recall to people’s minds when they appeared in danger of forgetting it. Prophecy was thus a standing witness to the life, freshness, and power which lay in the heart of a religion largely wrapped up in legal forms. Then there was the necessity for new light and guidance under the conditions of advancing national life, and in times of national emergency. The Law left not a little scope for extended applications of its fundamental principles, and it lay with the prophets to furnish the direction required. All this, in addition to their more general function of rebuking, warning, and testifying, in times of declension, which, with the carrying forward the development of revelation in its relation to Christ and his kingdom, may be regarded as the chief part of their work.
III. PROPHECY AND HEATHEN MANTICISM. The connection shows that prophecy is given in lieu of the heathenish practices that are forbidden. If God forbids divination, necromancy, consultation of familiar spirits, etc; he gives something bettersome-thing that will lawfully supply the craving which these superstitions unlawfully sought to gratify. The soul:
1. Craves for a knowledge of God’s will.
2. Desires guidance in critical times of life.
3. Ponders anxiously its relations to the invisible world and to the future.
4. Feels its personal unfitness for intercourse with God.
These cravings were the strength of heathen sorcery, etc; and they were provided for in prophecy. This, it may be noticed, is throughout a characteristic of revelationit does not simply remove the bad, but provides for the supply of the cravings to which the bad appeals.J.O.
Deu 18:15-19
The Prophet like unto Moses.
These chapters bring before us prophet. priest, and kingoffices pointing forward to and culminating in Christ. Christ is distinctively, and in the complete sense, the Prophet like unto Moses (Act 3:22), Christ and Moses were alike
I. AS FOUNDERS OF DISPENSATIONS. It was the greatness of Moses that he was employed by God in inaugurating a new era in the history of his kingdomin introducing a new order of thingsin settling the foundations of a new economy. In this respect he stood at the head of the Old Testament line of prophets, and in a sense stood apart from them. “The Law was given by Moses” (Joh 1:17). He had the ordering and settling of the “house” of God in the form in which it was to last till Christ came, who, “as a Son over his own house,” would revise its arrangements and reconstitute it on a new and better basis (Heb 3:2-7). Prophets subsequent to Moses stood within the lines of the economy already established. They could enforce and maintain, but while predicting the advent of a new age in which great changes would be wrought, they had no authority of themselves to introduce such changes. It was reserved for Christ to “change times and seasons,” and so to alter and remodel Mosaic institutions, or supersede them by new ones, or abolish them by giving the substance for the shadow, as to place the Church upon a permanent and moveless basis, and adapt it for the reception of the Gentile nations.
II. IN THE FREEDOM OF INTERCOURSE WHICH THEY ENJOYED WITH GOD. Moses enjoyed, as was necessary, the freest intercourse with heaven. God spake with him, not in a vision, or dream, or in dark speeches, but “mouth to mouth” (Num 12:6-9), “face to face” (Deu 34:10). This is made, in the passage last quoted, a feature of distinction between Moses and later prophets in Israel. In Christ, this peculiarity of the relation of Moses to God reappears in higher form. Intercourse with the Father reaches the highest degree of closeness and intimacy, the Son being in the Father, and the Father in the Son (Joh 14:10). Christ’s insight into his Father’s will was perfect (Joh 5:20, Joh 5:21). His communion with the Father was habitual and uninterrupted. The New Testament apostles, in an inferior degree, shared in this higher footing, were habitually possessed by the Spirit, and spoke and wrote under his calm and abiding influence.
III. AS MEDIATING BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND GOD. (Deu 18:16-18.) It was when the people were deeply conscious of their need of a mediator that this promise was vouchsafed. It had only, as regards mediation, a very inferior application to the Old Testament prophets. The fullness of its meaning comes to view in Christ.
These points involve others, as e.g. the resemblance between Christ and Moses:
1. In the degree of authority with which they were clothed, and in the mighty signs and wonders which authenticated their mission (Deu 34:11).
2. In the fullness and grandeur of the revelations made through them.
3. In the severe penalties attaching to disobedience to their words (Deu 18:19; Act 3:23; Heb 2:1-5; Heb 10:28, Heb 10:29).J.O.
Deu 18:20-22
The false prophet.
The failure of the word of a prophet was decisive proof that he had not spoken by Divine inspiration. Had his word not failed, it would not have followed that he was a true prophet, but it showed conclusively that he was a false one when his word did fail.
I. CERTAINTY OF FULFILLMENT IS A CHARACTERISTIC OF GOD‘S WORDS. If e.g. the prophecies of the Scriptures could be shown to have been falsified by events, it would, by the rule laid down in this fundamental prophetic charter, conclusively disprove their claims to inspiration. It is vain to think of defending the inspiration of the prophets, while conceding, with rationalistic writers, occasional failures in their predictions. The prophets themselves do not shrink from this test, but confidently appeal to it (Isa 34:16). This shows how different their inspiration was from the ordinary inspiration of genius, both in their estimation of it and in fact. No man of genius, however wide his range of vision, be he a Bacon, a Shakespeare, a Goethe, or a Carlyle, would like to rest his reputation on the absolute unfailingness of his words. While prophecy affords conspicuous instances of the certainty of fulfillment characteristic of God’s words, it is to be remembered that this certainty inheres in all God’s words alike. No word of God or of Christ will fall to the ground unfulfilled (MtMat 24:35). The thought should comfort God’s people, and make his enemies tremble. Applies to promises and threatenings equally with predictions and doctrines.
II. THE PREDICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE ABIDE THIS TEST OF TRUE PROPHECY. The force of the evidence from prophecy can only be properly felt by those who have been at pains to examine the Bible predictions in detail. But it does not need more than an examination of the principal instances to convince us that here we have no chance guess-work, no mere forecasting of natural sagacity. We might point to the predictions in Deuteronomy respecting the future of the Jewish nation, and the punishment which would overtake them for their sins (Deu 4:25-29; Deu 28:45-68); or to the Messianic prophecies (e.g. Isa 53:1-12.); or to particular predictions delivered long before the events predicted occurred, or could have been foreseen, as when Amos predicts of Israel at a time when the king and nobles were lying on beds of ivory, and indulging in every species of dissipation and amusement”Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the Lord, whose Name is The God of hosts”( Amo 5:27), or when Micah, a hundred, years before the Captivity, foretells of Judah, “Zion for your sake shall be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps” (Mic 3:12); “Be in pain, and labor to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail: for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to Babylon; there shalt thou be delivered; there shall the Lord redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies” (Mic 4:10). Discovery has not tended to discredit, but in several striking instances has confirmed the truth of prophecy, as in regard to Ezekiel’s prediction of the conquest of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar (Deu 29:8-16), a prediction pronounced by Kueuen and skeptical critics to be a mere guess, falsified by the event, but now strikingly confirmed from a contemporary hieroglyphic inscription (see Expositor, vol. 10.). And while it is true that an isolated sign and wonder is not proof sufficient of Divine inspiration (Deu 13:1-18.), it is certain that, taking into account the character of the prophets, the kind and number of their predictions, the holiness of their message, and the coherence of what they taught with earlier revelations, the evidence of their Divine commission is as strong as could be wishedis, in fact, decisive.J.O.
HOMILIES BY D. DAVIEs
Deu 18:1-8
The true priest is the highest type of man.
God here lays down the lines along which men may rise to the dignity of the true priesthood. The ordinance did not secure the ideal reality. “The Law was weak through the flesh.” Human choice and endeavor were requisite to attain to God’s ideal priest. It is his privilege to receive from God, and to reveal to men.
I. DIVINE CHOICE AND HUMAN DESIRE MUST COMBINE TO MAKE A REAL PRIEST. The man, though born a Levite, must “come with all the desire of his mind unto the place which the Lord shall choose” (Deu 18:6). The human will must co-operate with God’s will. This is the product of the second birth. In this ancient arrangement, we see the forecast of the Christian lifethe true priesthood.
II. THE PRIEST‘S OFFICE IS, NOT FOR HONOR, BUT FOR SERVICE. “He shall minister in the Name of the Lord his God.” In other words, he shall serve in the stead of God, and by his authority. This is the hardest work, yet the most honorable. No toil or self-sacrifice can he decline while appearing in the stead of God, for he serves the noblest part of man. In God’s kingdom there is no honor apart from character; and character is attained by service.
III. THE PRIEST‘S EARTHLY NEEDS SHALL BE MET WITHOUT ANXIETY ON HIS PART. “They that minister at the altar shall partake of the altar” (Deu 18:3, Deu 18:4, Deu 18:8). While we are employed on the King’s errands, the King will provide our rations. We have a Divine guarantee that bodily wants shall be supplied, for God himself is our inheritance. It is surely better to trust the Fount rather than the stream, the First Cause rather than the intermediate channel, the Creator rather than the creature. The priest shall be supplied before other men, for the firstfruits of corn and wine and oil are his. They that serve God without stint shall never be forgotten.
IV. THE TRUE PRIEST OCCUPIES THE APEX OF THE SOCIAL PYRAMID. The true priest really rules. For him all other orders of men toil. For the priest to possess any earthly inheritance would be a burden, a care, an injury. Others till the ground for him, thresh his corn, and winnow his grain. As a god, he receives. For other men the inferior creation toils and groans. The unreasoning animals bear his burdens and do his will. Yet these men, served well by the subordinate orders of life, wait upon the priest, and minister to his human wants. And in return, the real priest ministers to the hunger of the soul, and supplies light and guidance and hope. The real priest is the greatest benefactor to the human race; the counterfeit priest is a pest.D.
Deu 18:9-14
Gross superstition the alternative of true religion.
The popular superstitions of every age are very seductive. Our only safeguard against them is complete loyalty to the living God. The indwelling Spirit is a Guide and a Defense.
I. MAN GENERICALLY CRAVES TO UNRAVEL THE FUTURE. In every sane mind the inquiry arises, “What is beyond phenomena? What is to happen tomorrow?” The present enjoyment may satisfy animals; it does not satisfy man. He has a faculty that lives in the future. He is ever forecasting life. This inquisitiveness, if repressed, becomes a passionan insatiable fire. If there is no true oracle that will give reply to his queries, he will betake himself to false ones. If no reply is forthcoming, he is driven hither and thither by the demon of unrest.
II. THIS CRAVING FOR REVELATION LEADS TO CHILDISH SUPERSTITIONS. This conscious want of the soul clearly indicates that some provision has been made by God; but, lacking this, men betake themselves to a thousand subterfuges. The more shrewd and avaricious among them trade upon this prying curiosity, and invent a thousand frauds for self-enrichment. In olden times, every village had its self-anointed oracle; every nation has had its modes of divination. No price has been too great to pay for this envied knowledge. Parental feeling has been freely sacrificed at this blood-stained altar. Fathers have made their loved ones to pass through the fire, in order to avert supposed disaster. Without doubt, the devil has been the moving genius in these systems of enchantment.
III. CRUEL SUPERSTITIONS HAVE LED TO HEAVIEST DISASTERS. So deeply rooted had these systems of diabolic divinations become in the land of Canaan, that to extirpate them it was necessary to extirpate the people also. We are not at liberty to suppose that the Amorites were destroyed because of aberrations in intellectual belief. But the fruit of superstitious belief is soon experienced in sensuality, bestial excess, witchcraft, murder, war. Under such influences society is rent in pieces; every man’s hand is red with rapine and blood. At length it becomes an act of necessity to remove such a people from the face of the earth. The deeds of the Canaanites had become a stench in Jehovah’s nostrilsa detestation that could no longer be endured. Hence their extermination.
IV. OUR ONLY SAFETY IS IN LOYAL OBEDIENCE TO GOD. No resting-place can be found for intellect or heart of man between degrading superstition and religious faith. Who can solve mysteries but God alone? If God reveal to us our line of duty just to the extent that we really need it; and if, in addition, he give us the assurance that the soul’s need shall be met as fast as that need arises;this will satisfy every reasonable request. Men can and must trust the true God. As a child walks along the darkest road quite contentedly so long as its hand is in its father’s hand, so with equal confidence may we confide in the safe and unerring guidance of our Almighty Parent. We have in God a perfect Friend; all that is needed for well-being is complete submission. “Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God.” To have recourse to witchcraft or divination is practical treason!D.
Deu 18:15-22
Presages of the true Prophet.
Captious men of the present day complain that they cannot see Godcannot hear his voice. In their heart they do not wish to see him. He will not reveal himself, as an object of curiosity, to the eye of speculation. He reveals himself to the conscience and to the loyal heart. But men do not wish to see him as the embodiment of righteousness. They shudder and flee away. Yet in no other way can they see him than as he truly is. In this circumstance of mutual estrangement there is need of a mediatorprophet.
I. GUILTY MEN DEBAR THEMSELVES FROM PERSONAL FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD. There is nothing in common between unrighteous men and a righteous God. They are mutually repellent. The heart-language of such men is this, “Let us not hear again the voice of the Lord our God; neither let us see this great fire any more.” To them, his voice is the thunder of war; to them, his presence is a consuming fire. They have no eye except to see his burning anger. Hence they flee to hide themselves. Their wish projects itself into reality; he removes himself.
II. MEN‘S DESIRE TO HOLD COMMUNICATION WITH GOD THROUGH A MEDIATOR CONCEDED. The gracious disposition of God towards men yields to his creatures’ necessity. Ask what they will, if righteousness be not dishonored, it shall be done. The all-wise God candidly admits that the Jews had, in this matter, spoken well. But the mediator must be a prophet. He must convey the thoughts and dispositions and will of God to men. Human obedience, to have any worth, must be intelligentthe fruit of choice and purpose.
III. THE PERFECT PROPHET IS INTRODUCED BY SUCCESSIVE STAGES. Our moral instincts often outrun our clear intelligence. The Jews desired an intermediate agent, who should convey God’s will to them; but they scarcely knew what it was they asked for. Could any mortal man clearly reveal the mind of the Eternal? Would not the pure stream be defiled by the impure channel? Nevertheless, God will do the best for them in their present condition. As yet the perfect Prophet will not be understood nor appreciated. Knowledge of God’s character and purpose sufficient for the present shall be revealed by imperfect mentypes of the coming perfect Mediator. By easy gradations, the human family must be divinely educated.
IV. THE TRUE PROPHET IS A PERFECT VEHICLE OF GOD‘S THOUGHTS. “I will put my words in his mouth.” Unless the prophet be a mere mechanical automaton, his words must be the result of his thoughts. If God shall use a human person to reveal himself to men, he must use his mind, heart, and will: yea, his entire being. This has been realized only in the person of Jesus Christ our Lord. Hence he could say, “The words that I speak, I speak not of myself: but that Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” Hence, again, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father also.” For the advent of this real Prophet, humanity stood for centuries on the outlook, on the watch-tower of hope.
V. CONTUMACY OF THE TRUE PROPHET IS CONTUMACY AGAINST GOD. Such is the value of this Divine gift, that to treat it with indifference is heinous crime. No human penalty may be annexed, but God himself undertook to punish the deed. Hunger is God’s voice within the body, and he who disregards that voice shall surely die. Pain is God’s voice in human nerves, and he who neglects that summons shall die. Truth is everywhere the voice of God, and to turn deaf ears to truth is to deprive one’s self of life. And, by parity of reasoning, the voice of God is heard more clearly and more authoritatively yet, in the person of his dear Son: it is his prerogative to give to men eternal life. Hence, to turn a deaf ear to him is folly, contumacy, despair, ruin. God will exact a most fitting retribution.
VI. GOD SUPPLIES A TEST BETWEEN THE FALSE PROPHET AND THE TRUE. The eagerness of men to discover the Prophet of Jehovah, led many to impersonate him for the purpose of personal reputation and gain. Every true prophet of God came with sufficient credential, so that no candid mind need have been deceived. They had the power to read the near future: this was a token of their heavenly commission. But better still, their message commended itself to the conscience of the hearers; and thus might every hearer find in an honest conscience that the herald was from God. If the prophet summoned men to repentance and assured them of a share in the mercy of God, they could readily ascertain for themselves whether relief came to their burdened conscienceswhether better feelings arose in the heart. The truth is never very far distant if we really wish to find it.D.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Ver. 1. They shall eat the offerings of the Lord made by fire Not the burnt-offerings, for these were wholly consumed upon the altar; but all other offerings, of which a share was appointed for the priests. See Num 9:10; Num 9:23.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
The Fifth Command
Deu 16:18 to Deu 18:22
Deu 16:18-22
18Judges and officers shalt thou make [give] thee in all thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment. 19Thou shalt not wrest [bend, turn aside] judgment; thou shalt not respect persons [the face] neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous. 20That which is altogether just, [Justice, justice] shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. 21Thou shalt not plant thee a grove [as a tree-pillar]* of any trees near unto the altar of the Lord thy God, which thou shalt make thee. 22Neither shalt thou set thee up any image [image, pillar, statue]; which the Lord thy God hateth.
Deu 17:1.Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the Lord thy God any bullock, or sheep [and goat] wherein is blemish, or any evil favouredness [evil thing]1; for that is an abomination unto the Lord thy God. 2If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant, 3And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either [and, indeed, to wit,] the sun, or moon, or any of the host [or the whole host] of heaven, which I have not commanded; 4And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and inquired diligently, and behold it be true, [truth (is it)] and the thing [the word] certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 5Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.2 6At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death [to be put to death] be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. 7The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you. 8If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea [cause and cause] and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy [contested cases] within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; 9And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence [word, what is right, sentence] of judgment: 10And thou shalt do according to the sentence [the sound, purport of the word]3 which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: 11According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence [word] which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. 12And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not [not to] hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. 13And all the people [the whole people] shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously. 14When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; 15Thou shalt in any wise [So shalt thou only set him]4 set him king over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a 16stranger over thee [give over thee a stranger] which is not thy brother. But [Only] he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch [since]5 as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. 18And it shall be when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which Isaiah 19 before the priests the Levites. And it [the law] shall be with him, and he shall read therein [in the book] all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: 20That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left: to the end that he may prolong 21his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.
Deu 18:1-22.The priests the Levites, and all the tribe [the whole tribe] of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and his inheritance. 2Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren: the Lord is their inheritance, as he hath said unto [promised] them. 3And this shall be the priests due [right] from the people, from them that offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep; and they shall give unto 4the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw. The first-fruit also of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the first of the fleece of thy sheep, shalt thou give him. 5For the Lord thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes, to stand to minister in the name of the Lord, him and his sons for eDeut Deu 16:6 And if a Levite come from any of thy gates out of all Israel, where he sojourned [where he was lodging, stranger] and come with all the desire of his mind unto the place which the 7Lord shall choose; Then [And] he shall minister in the name of the Lord his God, as all his brethren the Levites do, which stand there before the Lord. 8They shall have like portions to eat [part as part shall they eat] beside that which cometh of the sale of his patrimony.6 9When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. 10There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth [practiseth]7 divination, or an observer of times [a seer] or an enchanter, or a witch, 11Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. 12For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee. 13Thou shalt be perfect [whole, entire] with the Lord thy God. 14For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee [given to thee] so to do. 15The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken. 16According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again [not will I hear further, continue to hear] the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. 17And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. 18I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put [give] my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I 20will require it of him. But [Only] the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or [and] that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 21And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? 22When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing [word] follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing [word] which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously [arrogantly]: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. Deu 16:18 to Deu 17:8 . If Moses will now explain and apply the fifth command in the same manner he has hitherto used, comprehending the whole people, thus according to the end of Deuteronomy, and at the same time out of its fundamental purpose, which as its author he ever follows, he has an appropriate transition to it in the demands which he has made already, Deu 4:9-10, still more, Deu 6:7; Deu 6:20 sq.; Deu 11:19, upon parents, and the elder class generally, as the nearest objects of the fifth command. The doctrine of the law for the home life, is the practice of the law for the popular life in reference to justice and injustice. The thought, therefore, of presenting it as a sacred people of Jehovah even in its political relations, (Keil), does not introduce the transition to what follows, although it is true that the civil order rests upon the conscientious fostering of justice, by virtue of judiciously arranged courts, and an impartial administration of justice. Schultz, in the derivation from the same idea, refers better to the leader and instructor who, armed with peculiar power, knowledge of the law, or revelation, puts rightly Israels departures over against his piety, and lays claim to his docility. [Moses as the inspired leader and guide with his subordinate judges, met all the necessities of the people, but now, when he was about to leave them, and they were to enter upon entirely different circumstances, he provides for the new exigencies. The whole section accords with the spirit and design of Deuteronomy.A. G.]. Deu 16:18. Comp. upon Deu 1:15-16; Deu 1:13, and the Doct. and Eth. remark 2. Now, judges in all the cities, on account of the altered relations in Canaan. But even now the institution proceeds from the peopleonly confidence, as is natural, can establish a position even similar to the parental. Thus the Israel addressed, judges itself best, by means of those chosen from and out of itself. Deu 16:19 gives three negative instructions for the administration of the judicial office, each one reaching more widely to that which might lead to what was previously forbidden, Schultz. Comp. Exo 23:6; Deu 27:19; Deu 1:17; Deu 10:17; Deu 27:25; Exo 23:8. The reason brings into view first the power of judgment, then the word of judgment. From the righteous judges, what they should be, we pass in Deu 16:20, to the positive qualities of righteousness, made more emphatic through the repetition (1Ti 6:11; Php 3:12; Php 3:14). The promise is similar to that of the fifth command. The examples now following the judicial section, according to the connection, preserve the inward thread of the first table, which the fifth command closes. Deu 16:21-22. Comp. upon Deu 7:5; Deu 12:31
Deu 17:1. Comp. Deu 15:21. excludes any and every evil, defects of any kind whatever. Deu 17:2 generalizes concisely the three cases. Comp. Deu 13:13; Deu 4:25; Deu 4:13; Deu 4:23. Deu 17:3. As Deu 4:19, (Deu 13:7; Deu 13:14) which service, sq. Israel is not set right through prohibition alone. Deu 17:4. Comp. Deu 13:15, 16, 19, sq., here the judicial investigation, the proceeding of the court. Deu 17:5. That man or, sq. There is no sparing even of the weaker sex in such a case. Hence it is emphatically repeated. which was announced to thee. Unto thy gates, out before the city, as hitherto before the camp, Lev 24:14; Num 15:35 sq.; (Act 7:58; Heb 13:12). Symbolizing the removing of the evil out of the midst of Israel. Comp. further Deu 13:11. Deu 17:6. Num 35:30 (Mat 18:16; Joh 8:17; 2Co 13:1; Heb 10:28). the dying (Gen 20:3) thus beyond rescue, because he was in a certain sense already dead, (Num 19:11). , the mouth condemns the man. Job 15:6; Luk 19:22. Deu 17:7 is as Deu 13:10; Deu 13:6. Does this at the same time express the entire certainty of the witnesses (Knobel), their conviction of the guilt (Schultz)? In any case it symbolized the individual and general readiness to eradicate the evil from the midst of Israel. [It was calculated to ensure their sincerity and truthfulness, and to deter from false witness.A. G.].
2. Deu 17:8-13. A supplementary carrying out of Deu 1:17 (Exo 18:26; Exo 18:19) with reference to Canaan, and because Moses was not to be there. Deu 17:8. If there arise a matter too hard for thee. The people is represented as judging itself through the local courts, Deu 16:18 Too hardone which the judge in the case could not or would not decide. He particularizes: blood and blood, as to the killing, whether wilful or unintentional, and hence what is right in the case and what not; ( is the judgment); according to what law it must be decided; (Herxheimer, in money matters). is the injury resulting from a blow, thus here of bodily wounds (Exo 21:18 sq.), and not of leprosy. Matters of controversynot, as Keil, Schultz, cases of quarrels, but as Knobel, legal cases, about which there may be controversy, as to whose decision different opinions may be given. , if it means to ascend, is explained from the great importance, not from the position, and hence not from the location of Jerusalem. (Act 15:2). According to Meier the word signifies primarily to press in, draw near. Comp. Gen 46:31; Gen 46:29. Deu 17:9. The priests the LevitesSee Intro., 4, I. 22. [Great stress is laid upon this phrase in contrast with that used in the earlier books, the priests, the sons of Aaron, by those who oppose the Mosaic authorship. The lapse of time, and the events which had occurred between the earlier books and Deuteronomy, afford an easy and natural explanation of the difference. The position of the priests was now established. No Levite would question the fact that the priesthood attached to the family of Aaron. It was more important now, and more in accordance with the popular character of Deuteronomy, to bring out their popular tribal relations. The Levites, too, were in a sense a priestly tribe. They had in important respects a priestly position, and had priestly functions. They stood between the people and God. There may have been, too, a design on the part of Moses in selecting this phrase, as Wordsworth suggests, to appease any jealousies between the priests and the Levites; to remind the priests that the Levites were their brethren, and to remind the Levites that they shared in the honor and dignities of the priests. In any case, however, the explanation of this diversity is much easier upon the supposition that Moses wrote Deuteronomy, than upon that of a later writer, who still assumed to write as Moses. For it is incredible that any one who may have wished to palm off his work as that of Moses, should either have been ignorant of the terms of the earlier books, or should have carelessly neglected them, and thus have drawn attention to his imposture.A. G.]. The phrase is general, and includes the high-priests. , co-ordinating those who declare the law, the teacher, (Deu 17:11, Lev 10:11), and the literal actual judge. The former precedes here, because in difficult cases like these in Deu 17:8, their activity is first laid under requisition. But the latter receives not the second place (Knobel), but his official position. Comp. Deu 19:17; Deu 26:3. The passage 2Ch 19:8-11, connects itself with this only in the most general way. Whoever has this later supreme court before his mind will not be so unprejudiced, nor distinguish so naturally from the personal position of Moses, the simple outlines of a superior competent court. He speaks freely for the future, but not from a more definite and precise present. The judge holds nearly the position of Moses over against the priesthood. That he probably, as a superior judge, as the president of the wider circle of judges (Deu 19:17), acted with the priests as a bench or college, upon the questions, the suits, from the local city courts, may be inferred from the words, and they shall show thee, sq. Hiph. to bring near, to point out, to inform. Deu 17:10. Not the litigating Israelite (Knobel, Schultz) since it is the execution of the sentence obtained, which is here treated of, but the lower court, which should see that it was done. (Keil). This injunction was truly in place, where there was a natural feeling of relative independence in the local courts, and to enforce upon every Israelite a more exemplary obedience to the supreme court appointed by God. The place which. Comp. Deu 19:17, which gives the relief and explanation. If the judgment of any judge is to be regarded (Deu 1:17) as of God, so pre-eminently that before the Lord. (Schultz). The mouth (sound) of the word, is the judicial sentence, which announces the instruction in the case in question, which must be retained as final. Deu 17:11. The sentence is particularized at first as the sound (mouth) of the law with reference to the priestly teacher of the law, because all depends upon the law of God, and then first as judgment with reference to the judge, upon whom rests the obligation of saying what is right, of pronouncing judgment. Observe the the earlier law, e.g., Exodus 21; not as Deu 17:18, the deuteronomic. (Intro., 2). (Mat 23:2 sq.). Comp. further Deu 5:29. Deu 17:12 closes with the application to every man. The malicious disposition can scarcely be treated otherwise. Comp. Deu 1:43. There also they would not hear. (1Pe 5:5). It is not men whom they would not hear, but God. Therefore: the priest, which is to be understood not of the High-priest only, if even especially of him (Heb 8:1), since it is only the official character of the priest generally which is here spoken of, and which presents the disobedience as against Jehovah. The same thing is self-evident from the judge, since he in the place of God speaks in the name of God (Deu 1:17). That standeth, sq.Intro., 4, I. 22. said, as Keil correctly remarks upon the distinction of the priests from the Levites, somewhat more specifically than . Comp. Gen 5:22; Gen 5:24; Gen 6:9; 1Sa 2:11; 1Sa 3:1; Mal 2:6, to wit, for the more intimate, more confidential converse, their nearness in society, (Gesenius). The priests served in the holy place, and through the High-priest their representative and head in the most holy. The rest here, as in Deu 17:7. Upon Deu 17:13 comp. Deu 13:12. (1Ti 5:20). [There is little room under the theocracy for the distinction between ecclesiastical and civil causes. The priests were no doubt the expounders and judges of the law, but the lay judges were not added to the court, to be judges of the facts in distinction from the law in the case, but in part out of existing and long-continued usage, probably reaching back to the patriarchal times, and partly, as a recognition of the right of the people as such, to be represented in the administration of justice. We do not know how the choice was made. There were probably different methods in use at different times. But the judge seems to have been a representative of the people.A. G.].
3. Deu 17:14-20. The transition is natural from the judge to the kingdom (1Sa 8:5; 2Sa 15:4 sq.). Intro., 4, I. 16. Deu 17:14. Two things are presupposed in this case, settled relations after the entrance into Canaan, and its occupation, then the self-determination of the people, and thus its inward development to the kingdom. As all the nations (heathen).Not precisely an aberration, but still neither a mere thoughtless conformity. Comp. Deu 6:14; Deu 13:8, where the same expression occurs. (Intro., 4, I. 16). After such a permission in the case, Deu 17:15 emphasizes the command ( ), omnino non alium, quam quem, sq. (H. Michaelis) in order to prevent any possible clashing with the sovereignty of Jehovah. How the people should set the king over them is left open. Perhaps through their elders. How the divine choice should be manifested, whether by Urim, or the prophets, or by some clear fundamental leading is also undetermined. From among, sq., states what must be true under all circumstances, and is therefore once more negatively repeated. A stranger would never be the choice of Jehovah. The earlier restriction respects him who is above, the latter those below. (The historical criticism might with this go down even to Joh 19:15! 2Ki 15:19 sq.; Deu 16:7, do not indeed belong here (Knobel). As the last repeated determination with a certain sacred simplicity, sounds strangely, so also the first direction for the king in Israel. Deu 17:16. He shall have no fondness for horses, and that indeed not so much from any opposition to a warlike lust of conquest (which was not the case even, 1Ki 10:28 sq., where it occurs with reference to a royal pageant) as in opposition to the pride relying upon horses. Psa 20:7; Psa 33:16 sq.; Psa 147:10. (Isa 31:1). But this opposition restores in a genuinely Mosaic way the well-remembered historical event, Exo 14:15; Exo 19:21. It is the opposition between Israel and Egypt, expressed in a form which is intelligible only at the time of Moses, when the people on the slightest occasion expressed its desire for Egypt, its purpose to return thither (Exo 14:11; Num 11:5 sq., 20; Deu 21:5), a reunion of the just sundered bands did not seem impossible. Hengstenberg. Comp. Oehler in HerzogsEncycl. The forbidden return to Egypt is thus placed as the very end of the multiplication of horses. Moses feared that the king would seek the Egyptian lowlands (Deu 11:10-11) which were so much better fitted for the rearing of horses, instead of the mountainous Palestine. They must remain externally far off, that they may preserve the internal separation entire (Lev 18:3). Schultz. Comp. Jos 11:6; Jos 11:9; Jdg 5:10; 2Sa 8:4. Solomon, even on account of the Mosaic relations, which he only considered, might have regarded the direction as antiquated. [And yet Solomons experience shows that the multiplication of horses could not be secured without intercourse with the Egyptians, which Moses saw it was important to prevent.A. G.]. Nothing is said here against the continual going to and from Egypt, as e.g., Jer 2:18; Jer 2:36. Knobel.As the Lord hath said (Deu 28:68), does not occur literally in the pentateuch, but Moses appeals to what was said, although not written, since this is so understood in the very leading out of Israel especially into Canaan. [Egypt was the principal source whence the nations of Western Asia drew their supply of horses. It stands also everywhere in Scripture as the antithesis to the theocratic covenant and kingdom on earth. To cause the people to return to Egypt, which the multiplication of horses would naturally do, would be to reverse the great and beneficent work of God, which inaugurated the Mosaic covenant, the deliverance from the bondage of Egypt. Hence the prohibition. Bib. Com.A. G.]. The second direction (Deu 17:17) lies against another strong passion of oriental rulers. As the passion for horses would lead back to Egypt, so the multiplication of wives would draw them away from the Lord; the lust itself, indeed, much more if the wives were from the heathen (1Ki 11:3 sq.) Comp. Deu 11:16. [The restriction however does not forbid polygamy absolutely, but the excessive polygamy, such as was found in Solomon.A. G.]. The third prohibition concerns excessive luxury. (1Ki 10:14; 1Ki 10:27). Great wealth begets effeminacy and luxury, as well as pride and oppression. J. H. Michaelis. Deu 17:18 gives the counter-means and way to good against all lust of the eye, lust of the flesh, and pride. Upon the throne. On the summit of human greatness, where all is wont to move according to his will, then he must have the will of the Most High for his aim and standard. He shall write him, if not with his own hand, yet cause to be written, Intro., 2. Deu 17:19. (his vade mecum) in his possession, in his mind, thought, and will. Comp. Intro., 2; Deu 4:10; Deu 5:26; Deu 6:2; Deu 14:23. Deu 17:20. Comp. Deu 8:14; Deu 5:29. An hereditary kingdom. [While permission is given to the chosen people to be like the other nations in this respect, still their king is not to be like other kings. He must be approved by God, from among his brethren, restricted in all indulgences, and bound by the laws and institutions of the nation. The monarchy was allowed but guarded in the most careful way. A copy of this law. Sept. and Vulg., he shall write for himself the Deuteronomy. But this law includes the whole pentateuch, or rather its legal portions. See Deu 31:9; Deu 31:11; Deu 31:26. This passage which has been urged so strenuously as a proof of the later origin of Deuteronomy, contains really a strong proof of its Mosaic authorship. For it is not only conceivable that Moses should have provided for the contingency of the kingdom, such as he saw everywhere around him, and to which allusions had been made in the earlier books, Gen 17:16; Gen 36:31; but is entirely natural. The request of the people when they came to Samuel for a king, is couched in terms like these used here. Comp. 1Sa 8:5, with Deu 17:14. Samuel also evidently has this passage in his mind. 1Sa 10:24; 1Sa 12:14. Samuel does not reprove the people simply because they desired a king, but because their desire originated in wrong motives, and was pressed under circumstances which should have prevented it, and in the face of the remonstrances of the prophet. It was sinful because in the circumstances it indicated a sinful alienation of heart on the part of the people, from Jehovah, and the institutions He had established. A careful study of the passage 1 Samuel 8-12, will show in what respects the people sinned, and that there is no opposition between that passage and Deu 17:14-20. But the passage may not only be vindicated from objections which have been urged against it. It bears upon its face the marks of its Mosaic origin. The direction that the king should be taken from among thy brethren would have been out of place after the establishment of the kingdom in the line of David; the reference to Egypt and the return thither, are, as above remarked, intelligible only upon the assumption of the Mosaic authorship; the restrictions under which the king was placed are in full agreement with the whole spirit and tone of the Mosaic legislation, so much so that their absence would have been noticeable as a great omission; the direction as to the copy of this law, carries with it the implication that Moses is speaking, who was then expounding the law, and could not well have been inserted at a later time; in short every feature of the passage is in favor of its Mosaic origin. See also Hengstenberg, Authen., Keil, Introd., Havernick, Einleit., Bib. Com.A. G.].
4. Deu 18:1-8. After the transition from the supreme court, especially from the judge to the king, the priests the Levites come into view; at first, indeed, generally, then the priests particularly, and lastly the Levites. Deu 18:1. The addition, all the tribe of Levi, shows that the Levitical priests were not the whole of Levi, that besides these there were Levites simply, and thus that there was a distinction between the two from the beginning. Comp. Num 18:20; Num 18:23 sq.; Deu 14:27; Deu 14:29; Deu 12:12; Deu 10:9. (Lev 1:9), i.e., all that was sacrificed upon the altar by fire; as Lev 24:9 of the show bread, so here of the priests portion of the sacrifice.And his inheritance, whatever beside belonged to Jehovah, and through Him to the tribe of Levi, priests and Levites, as the tithes, firstborn, first fruits. (Lev 7:4; Numbers 18) [These were Gods portion of the substance of Israel, and as the Levites were His portion of the persons of Israel, it was fitting that the Levites should be sustained from these. Bib. Com.A. G.]. The prominent thought that Jehovah is his inheritance, expressly stated in Deu 18:2, (Deu 10:9) leads to the detailed supplementary statement in Deu 18:3, which thus presupposes what in general belongs to Levi, on the part of Jehovah, and now details what on the part of the people is the particular due or right of the priests, (Deu 4:1; 1Sa 8:9 sq.; 1Sa 10:25) which must be conceded to them by every judge or ruler. Intro., 4, I. 20. A new assignment, not precisely to those, offering the sacrifies (Num 18:18; Exo 29:27; Lev 7:34) but to the priests in general. as Deu 12:15; Deu 12:21, to which kind of slaying the article may indicate. Knobel understands it of sacrificial victims (comp. 1Sa 2:13 sq.) in which case there would be required from the people in this class of sacrifices not only the wave-breast and heave-leg, (shoulder) but also the foreleg (Num 6:19) the two cheeks, and the maw (the so-called fourth stomach of the ruminants). Something good from each of the three chief parts of the animal (Keil regards the slaying as connected with the sacrificial feasts in the wider sense, and not as any of the three kinds of expiatory sacrifices). [The portions here assigned to the priests are in addition to those given to them in Leviticus. It seems to be a provision to meet the altered circumstances when the people were located in Canaan, and all the animals could no longer be slain at the door of the tabernacle. It is a more generous rather than a scantier provision.A. G.]. Deu 18:4 contains also, with reference to the first-fruits, on the part of the people, a supplementary direction, beside that well-known in (Num 18:12 sq.) even the first of the fleece which as resulting from the care and nurture of men is the proper gift of the people. Deu 18:5 gives the ground or reason for this direction, altogether in the style of the time of Moses, for him, the priest, hath God chosen, him as Aaron and his sons (Lev 7:34); to minister in the name of Jehovah, a more general expression than in Deu 17:12 (comp. Deu 5:7) but the special distinction appears clearly in Deu 21:5. The priest in the strict sense, hence it is said he officiates in charge, stands to minister, in the name of the Lord, at all events in the full power of that mediatorial position assigned him by God. Deu 18:6. Allusion is now made peculiarly to the Levites. In itself the clause here as Deu 27:14; Deu 31:25, might be understood of the priests, but both the expression and the whole statement of the case and the connection, lie against this view of Baumgarten. Intro., 4, I. 22. The situation implied is that of Deu 12:12; Deu 14:27. Intro., 4, I. 21. Herxheimer: Where he has officiated as judge, or from one of the Levitical cities. [The Levite would naturally be called in his official duties to other cities than those assigned him.A. G.]. With all the desire, sq. (Deu 12:15) because he so wishes, and has liberty to do so, and shows such piety, since no other interest impels him, than to share in the services at the sanctuary. [Wordsworth: Not from love of change, or from a restless passion for excitement, or from an ambitious craving for self-display and popular applause in a great and populous city.A. G.]. The place of Jehovah is his peculiar home, and all desires for this are a spiritual homesickness. The Levitical service is, also, in the name of the Lord, and although in a subordinate sense, still not less truly nor with any less right Comp. Intro., 4, I. 22. In the charge of the Lord, in any case in the position assigned by Him (Num 1:53; Num 3:7; Num 8:9-19; chap. 18), they represent the whole people, minister the service of Israel. The expression is the general one for the servant of Jehovah, including both the higher and the lower. With this agrees the purpose in the exposition of the fifth command, to give the Levites a parental character, in accordance with the condensed statement, Deu 18:1-2, (as Deu 10:8-9) and this all the more since they were commended to the same love, to guard, preserve the priestly dignity of their tribe. As all his brethren. By itself this (even more than Deu 18:6) might include the priests as Levites, and allude to the whole service at the place of the Sanctuary, but the connection favors the limitation to the Levites simply. There were, as it appears, Levites settled at the sanctuary, or for the time engaged there, placed over against the Levite drawn from his city, perhaps at one of the three feasts, to the sanctuary. Comp. still further Intro., 4, I. 22. The conclusion, as already prepared for in Deu 18:6-7, now follows in Deu 18:8. With a similarity in service and dignity, there must be also a like enjoyment. The portions (they had no other Deu 18:1), which were then given them to eat belonged equally to the one coming from afar, as to those found there. Keil understands the living from the incoming of the tithes, the portions of the sacrifices, the free-will gifts prescribed by the earlier law, which were not exclusively assigned to the priests. Schultz more in accordance with the connection, and more reasonably, places it as parallel with Deu 18:3 sq., and regards it as referring to the tithe, firstborn, and other sacrificial meals arranged at the place of the sanctuary (Deu 12:6 sq.; 17 sq.; Deu 14:22 sq.; Deu 15:19) and the enjoined invitation of the Levites to them. What follows is difficult. Not so much the text; for it comes essentially to the same thing, whether we read with Knobel and point, ( perhaps the required sale) or take for and point: from () the sale, that sold, or to be sold. The difficulty lies in the sense of the words: . The most obvious sense is by or upon the fathers, i.e., whatever was saleable of his, or belonged to him, (the removed Levite) was laid upon the family fathers at home, to ascertain and offer for sale. In any case, it is not private or personal property which is here regarded. Keil, Knobel, take for (Exo 6:25; Num 2:34) and understand the clause of the private income as a member of the family, through the sale of his family possessions or the profits of them, thus; beside his sales, the net proceeds of them according to the house of the fathers, i.e., determined according to the degree of his genealogy, or his relationship. Not as Schultz and the Sept.: . Comp. Lev 25:33 sq. The Levite could sell his house, or could draw the rent for it. [The text is difficult, but the sense is perfectly clear. The Levite who came from a distance to the sanctuary to engage in its service, whatever might be his resources from other quarters, was not to be deprived of his equal share with those who were in attendance at the sanctuary. Part as part they shall eat.A. G.].
5. Deu 18:9-22. Finally, as a conclusion, partly supplementary to the previous official personages and arrangements, partly controlling them, at the same time completing the compensation for the departing Moses, is the prophetic institution, and indeed growing out of the necessity for an authentic revelation of God, against the varied heathen superstitions and apostasy. Deu 18:9. Comp. Deu 17:14. Thou shalt not learn(Deu 5:1; Deu 14:23; Deu 17:19). There will be teachers enough of the falsehood (Deuteronomy 13). The abominations are set over against the holy service. Herxheimer. Comp. Deu 12:30 sq.; Deu 7:25. Deu 18:10 refers at once to the Moloch-worship, (Lev 18:21; Lev 20:2 sq.), as Schultz remarks, because all the following individual dark arts arise out of the demonized cultus which represents the destructive potencies of nature through Moloch, as witchcraft goes hand in hand with the devil among the old Germans. Knobel holds that the Moloch-worship is placed here at the very beginning of this enumeration as the worst kind of idolatry, out of which these dark arts are born. The descriptive term chosen, Hiph., reminds us significantly of the venerable national name Hebrews, (Deu 15:12) and may at the outset call attention to the opposition between all such conduct and the national consciousness. The act was purificatory (a consecration). See Art. Moloch, Herz.Enc., IX., p. 717. [But also SmithsBib. Dict., Art. Moloch, in which the expiatory nature of the rite is defended.A. G.]. Comp. Keil upon Lev 18:21. The general designation for soothsayer is , to divide, decide, give an oracle; a pun upon liar, Eze 13:6. Comp. Jos 13:22. Observeraccording to Meier to cover, hence of secret discourses; the whispering magician. According to others (Schultz) from thick cloud: cloud interpreter, or from (eye) either one who fascinates through an evil eye, or one who observes signs, an Augur (Lev 19:26) Enchanter agrees well with serpent, as significant of its movements. The serpent is from its thrusting, piercing bite, according to the primitive signification of the verb, which is not as Keil, to hiss, but to press, to seize, and hence inwardly to forebode, conceive, to understand by signs, Gen 44:5; Num 24:1; Num 23:23. Hence well used here for sign interpreter. Comp. Hengst.Balaam, p. 122 sq. Witch to divide, unveil, (Meier), the adjurer. Deu 18:11. Charmerbinding or making fast through magic, without, however, thinking of magic knots (Keil); as fascinare, . is the spirit ghost, not as turning back, but as drawing back, returning, shade (Sept.: Ventriloquist from the hollow tone [bottle]). One who possesses a kind of power over spirits, so that he needs only to ask or inquire. Lev 19:31; Lev 20:6; Lev 20:27; 1Sa 28:7 sq. Wizard, a prudent, cunning man (as the wise woman). Lastly, one who seeks from the dead, i.e., cites, adjures them. Deu 18:12. Comp. Lev 18:24 sq.; Lev 20:23. A resumption of Deu 18:9. Deu 18:13. As the abomination from to retire, withdraw, so from to shut up, bring together; thus as opposed to each other. God must withdraw Himself from that, and Israel should cleave together with Jehovah. The perfect, entire dependence upon Him distinguishes the people of God from the heathen. Deu 18:14; Deu 9:1. Comp. upon Deu 18:10. Not so does Israel hearken, should it hearken, or need to hearken. Upon the gift rests the duty; that granted, this is conceded. Deu 18:15 carries out perfectly that already given, through that which is now first to be given, and indeed in a parallel manner (Deu 18:18) with the king, Deu 17:15 : from the midst of thee, by which also in opposition to Deu 18:9 it is said, that Israel would have no occasion to stray into heathenism, and would not need any Balaam. For Comp. Doct. and Eth., Deu 13:1. As in Deu 17:14 the discourse is of the kingdom, so here of the prophetic order as it ever and always through a prophet (not one only) corresponds to the necessity made so clear at Sinai, and to the desire of the people. Of thy brethren, connected with thee in the closest manner; thy duty his, and thy sorrow his sorrow, etc. Like unto me. This is not explained by from the midst of thee, scarcely to fix the limits towards the heathen divination, but becomes clear through what follows, from which it is clear also, that the comparison is not as to the peculiar personality of Moses in the individuality of his revelation, (Deu 34:10), but only as to what he had done and had been at Sinai at the request of Israel (As I am one such), Lange, Pos. Dog., p. 609. It is the promise of a line of prophets, which is embraced in the prophet, who is the counterpart of Moses. Typical and Messianic, Joh 1:45; Joh 6:14; Joh 4:25; Joh 5:44 sq.; Act 3:22; Act 7:37; Luk 24:19. See Doctrinal and Ethical.Will raise up, with reference to Deu 13:2. Also: Unto him ye shall hearken, in allusion to Deu 13:4 and Deu 18:14 (Mat 17:5). Deu 18:16. God through this promise granted the desire of the people, which, after the departure of Moses, would become a necessity. Comp. upon Deu 5:20 sq.; Deu 9:10; Deu 10:4. Deu 18:17. Comp. Deu 5:25. Deu 18:18. Moses already at that time received the promise, but announces it here first, because, in its personal reference to Moses (Introd. 4, I. 16), the right point of time was now first reached with his approaching departure, and thus in Deuteronomy. The import of the as me, Deu 18:15, gives now the explanation of as thee, 1) the mediated word of God, as through Moses, God no longer speaking directly to the people: thus far the preparation (the divine inspiration, Num 23:5); 2) the unconditional certainty of the word: thus now the legitimation, the official character. To the office so legitimated a corresponding conduct is due on the part of Israel, Deu 18:19, which indeed follows already from the fact that Israel had asked such a mediation at Sinai (Deu 18:16). Moses thus shows how the true prophet will speak the words of Jehovah given into his mouth, namely, simply give them again, not perhaps to conceal the threatening by the promise, but speak all that is given him by the Lord. , literally, to reclaim, as out of the hand of the doer (Gen 9:5), thus here , de chez-lui. With regard to the prophetic order promised, something is given over to Israel, and indeed to every individual, which he has with him, of which he is conscious, and as to which Jehovah demands the proper use, the fitting honor or obedience, but in case this fails, then calls to account, demands restitution and satisfaction through punishment, and in this way reclaims that which was given from the disobedient.[See Act 3:23, in which the apostle brings out more fully than even the Sept.: I will take vengeance, the full meaning of these words. It is equivalent to the highest theocratical punishment, that of excision from the chosen people. See Alexanderin loco.A. G.]But still the prophet must be legitimated according to Deu 18:18, and hence the resumption, Deu 18:20, of the words in question, and (Deu 17:12-13) the declared penalty on account of the flagrant offence in two cases. Finally we have the criterion of the false prophet in the first case. Deu 18:21-22. In a prophet of false gods, the thing announced (Deu 13:3) may happen; in the false prophet of Jehovah, the first case, Deu 5:20, tho non-occurrence gives the criterion. Fear, horror, hence forbearance, were possible on account of the name of Jehovah, in which the prophet spake.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. Comp. Doct. and Eth. 2, upon Deu 1:6 to Deu 4:40.
2. The necessity for a king is the necessity for a head, who embracing the entire external, natural and civil community in his person, might be able to defend and regulate. As soon as Israel, from its beginnings fixed by God, had grown into an actual nation, it so developed itself, that it must have a natural head, and thus preserve its perfectly free organic form (Gen 17:6; Gen 17:16; Gen 35:11; Gen 36:31; Num 23:21; Num 24:7; Num 24:17). The king is the natural manifestation of the perfectly free and independent man. Is there a true king in Israel, then Israel must be perfectly free and independent; for it lies in the very nature of the king that his perfection is not for himself; he must permit his whole fulness to flow out over his people. Hence the true king is the completion of the freedom, and generally of the history of Israel. Baumgarten.
3. The kingdom and the prophetic order are parallel developments of the future in Israel, as they appear also in this section. They represent the two extreme points of the Israelitish national life, the most external and inward sides of that life, which have their reconciliation in the high-priesthood. The distinction between the kingly and prophetic order, growing into an opposition, is a tragic element in the future history of Israel. It must be so that the Scripture may be fulfilled, although first of all the bare variance of the offices which circumscribe the nationality of Israel, kindles the ever-burning desire after that which should unite them all and the whole Israelitish nationality in itself.
4. The prophetic order is not made superfluous or unnecessary through the revelation of the law; but the path for it is thus opened. Schullz. Moses foresaw that Israel through disobedience, thus through the great deep of dissolution, would break through all the strength of the ordinances established by the law. Baumgarten. For the insufficiency of the judges and king, the priests and Levites, Schultz appeals to that transition to more settled relations now in prospect, according to Deu 17:14, to the elders of the people (Deu 4:25), to the approaching error and apostacy (chap. 31), the threatened seducing through the false prophets (Deu 13:2; Deu 18:20), the restoration according to Deu 4:29; Deu 30:1 sq. It becomes the pure, fundamental spiritual power of the word (Baumgarten), and indeed of the authentic word, which the Lord speaks, to lead over, preserve, and help, and heal. But to these representatives of God, who keep the revelation of God continually present and living, for the special necessities of the time, and indeed in intelligible words, who thus literally deserve the name of parental teachers, a fitting, natural reverence shown through obedience, is due, which is no more to be rendered upon the mere authority derived from the revelation of the law, but upon the original force of the continuously efficient word (Schultz).
5. As nature preserves its consecration to the divine service and its sacred functions for the existence of the divine kingdom in the cultus, so history in the promise (Beck, Christl. Lehrn. I. 398). The gradually unfolding and organically united promises marking the secret advance of the history of salvation which should come from the Jews, down to its consummation, are the building-stones of the temple in which humanity shall worship the Father, as they, the promises, form the mystical body of the Messiah before the Word was made flesh. Comp. Langes Pos. Dogm., the thoughtful, 67, and upon Gen., p. 247 sq. The promise of salvation in the progress of the centuries from its general, human, real character, arrives in Abraham and Isaac at the cradle of the people, advances to the popular national character of its organs in Jacob from whom the tribes spring, to its tribal distinction in Moses, the prophet-prince, representing the whole economy of God, in whom thus centres, not as in the seed of Eve the simple idea of the human race, nor as in the patriarchs the idea of the people, nor as in Judah the idea of the tribe, but the idea of the divine civil officer (Heb 3:5), appears here in the divine civil service, centralizing itself in the personality of Moses as the bearer of the future salvation. Beck.
6. As to the Messianic character of the passage, Deu 18:15; Deu 18:18, as the promise of God is mediated and introduced through the condition and character of men, it is the fore-announcement of the future as it is contained in the germ of the present (Lange). The constellation of the present does not proclaim the necessity for a second Moses. For without regarding the general historical law, according to which so comprehensive a genius does not soon repeat itself, only an Elisha follows an Elijah, the stand-point of the law rules still in Deuteronomy, fixes the institution, determines the arrangement, ordains the officers (Intro. 4, I. 16), for the peculiar historical, national development of Israel in Canaan, in which individual personalities must first form and mould themselves. Joshua is the personal deputy of Moses truly, but in limited, specific labors. For the present there was no need for the individual further, but for the condition in which the essential mediation of Moses, the prophetic, might be sown by God as a fruitful seed which should ever put forth personalities until the last, whom they all together typify, and who fulfils them perfectly in himself (1Pe 1:11). With this agrees the singular form of the promise here, and the express comparison with Moses as it is actually and historically explained, Deu 18:16 sq. The latter explanation especially, which must give the limitation to the as I, as thee, opposes every exposition which emphasizes the peculiar method of Moses in a wider (Havernick8) (Hofmann9), or a narrower sense (Kurtz,10 Auberlen, Tholuck. The typico-Messianic interpretation agrees best, both with the letter, and with the development of the Old Testament promise of the Messiah generally, and with the Mosaic time especially. In the latter reference Lange calls attention to the completion of the prophecy of Moses through that of Balaam. as Melchisedec appears by the side of Abraham. Balaam (Num 24:17) predicts the glory and the power of the kingdom out of JacobIsrael. Thus the earlier (3) hinted distinction between the kingdom and the prophetic order is characteristically personified in the two prophets. The typical priesthood, as it is contained in the priestly royal Israel (Exo 19:6) comes first into view, Deuteronomy 33. A direct reference to the Messiah must moreover lead beyond the likeness to Moses, indeed to an opposition with him, into which even Kurtz and Schultz fall (Isaiah 42, 49, 50, 61). [See also and with reference to these same passages, Alexander on Isa., Vol. II., Introduction. While it is true that the promise runs parallel with the history in its progress, and is more or less determined by the condition and circumstances of men, this does not lie against the direct Messianic interpretation of this passage. It is not Messianic only in its germ-like character, unfolding itself through the long line of prophets until it reaches perfection in him who is the prophet. It has evidently from the connection in which it stands, on the one hand, opposed to the magic arts which the people were to shun, and on the other to the false prophets; and from the necessities of the people of God, after the departure of Moses, a distinct reference to that line of prophets, who were all like unto Moses so far as this, that God put his words into their mouth. But its main reference is to Christ. The New Testament constantly so represents it, Act 3:22-23; Act 7:37; Joh 1:19; Joh 4:25; Luk 11:50-51; Mat 17:5. The earlier Jewish expositors all applied the passage to the Messiah, and the great body of Christian commentators so explain it; only they do not make this its exclusive meaning. The question whether Moses understood his prophecy as thus pointing out the person of the Messiah has nothing to do with its interpretation. The prophets sometimes uttered what they did not fully understand, and they were often perhaps more distinctly conscious of the scope and meaning of the prophecies than we are disposed to admit. But it is clear that this question, whatever view may be held in regard to it, has no real bearing upon the exegesis. That must be settled upon other grounds. Nor is it of any weight against the direct Messianic interpretation, that Christ is in so many respects unlike Moses, greater than Moses, or even provided he is like unto him in this, that as a prophet he stands between men and God, and speaks the words of God, Joh 8:28. But if there is nothing in the person who speaks this prophecy, nor in the time at which it was uttered, nor in the immediate connection in which it stands, nor in its general relation to the whole progressive unfolding of the promise of salvation, inconsistent with the direct reference to the Messiah, if all these are much more in favor of that reference, as might be shown, then the passages in the New Testament which expressly apply it to Christ would seem to leave no room to doubt that this is the correct view.A. G.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Deu 16:18 sq. Luther: Thou seest here that God Himself administers His own law, ordains judges, etc. Thou seest also what a disposition a judge must have, viz. that he must overcome all lusts and the enticements of fear, love, favor, compassion, of avarice, expectation, reputation, life and death, and prefer simply the simplest truth and righteous judgment. How will he look to God alone, if the heart has not been made strong by faith? A very difficult, rare and exalted thing, is a single and righteous eye in a judge, and men without avarice are rare birds, rarer than a black swan. [Still they are found. Luthers experience led him to a severe judgment. But it is sad to think that there is so much ground for the severity.A. G.]
Deu 17:1. Starke: In collections we should give good and not uncurrent coin. Deu 17:2. Luther: He well says: wickedness in the sight of the Lord, for nothing is fairer, better, more sacred in the sight of men, than idolatry, godlessness, dissimulation, and a careful appearance of reverence. Deu 17:4. Berl. Bib.: No connivance, but also no reception of every accusation as true, without investigation. Deu 17:12. Richter: How strictly God requires obedience to rulers and overseers. Deu 17:15. Piscator: The great virtues of a Christian ruler: he must be a brother, care for the common good, have a compassionate heart, and thus not cause the severe punishments and service of a foreign ruler; he must not hold too splendid a court, nor use too great expense, not rely upon his power, strength, wealth, etc., and thus without the utmost need, from pride and haughtiness cause war; he must not be hindered in his administration by pleasure, idleness, and the like; he must not from avarice burden his subjects, and occasion sin in the magistrates: above all he must diligently read the word of God for himself, that he may not be led away from the light by unchristian theologians, study humility as a man among men, direct his whole administration by the will of God. Baumgarten: It was the last stubborn act of the Egyptian king, that he with his chariots pursued the defenceless Israel (Exo 14:6 sq.; 23), but even in this his pride, with his chariots and riders, sank in the depths of the sea (Exo 14:25 sq.; Deu 15:2; Deu 15:4; Deu 15:18) and thus completed the separation between Israel and Egypt. Starke: Kings and lords are for the people, not the reverse. Deu 17:16. Wurth. Bib.: Great lords have also their laws. Starke: He is the richest king who has the richest subjects. The Bible the best glass for rulersJudgment and dominion have their roots in righteousness (Deu 16:12) and faithfulness (Deu 17:16 sq.).
Deu 18:1 sq. Baumgarten: Not merely in the arrangement of the camp, but in the abode in the promised land, Levi appears as the innermost and spiritual Israel, since Levi has no inheritance in the land, but as if a quickening spirit is scattered through all the tribes in his cities. Schultz: As they lose their position they gain in the Lord ideally the possession of the whole. Starke: Christians, for the sake of Christ, must cheerfully forego all temporal things lying against their eternal inheritance in heaven. Piscator: The servants of the church and school should not be burdened with care for their support. [Wordsworth: A memento for the priesthood in every age of the Church, that they be not entangled with the affairs of this life.A. G.]. Deu 18:6. Piscator: The way should not be barred to any one, but whoever desired to serve the Lord, to study the law, and learn the will of God, should be permitted to do so, should be helped on his way, and be provided with everything necessary. Deu 18:9. Starke: A Christian at a godless place should not follow the people there in wickedness, 1Pe 4:1 sq. Deu 18:10-14. Berl. Bib.: The believer should seek after the wisdom which is from above. Jam 3:17. (Col 2:8). Baumgarten: In the general uncertainty and perplexity of life, and the shortsightedness of men, even the heathen desires a divine word. Thus they turn in various ways to the spirits of nature, but which make themselves known as the gods of the dead, and are an abomination in the eyes of the living and good God. [The intense desire to know what is future or unseen leads men now to resort to these modes of divination. Wordsw.: These abominable sins have even found an entrance, and a welcome, into the saloons of the cities of Christendom, comp. Rev 21:8.A. G.]. Deu 18:15. Luther: This is the most renowned passage of this book, and Moses introduces it here in the most fitting way when he was speaking of the priesthood, the authorities, and of all the servants of God. Baumgarten: Israel was to receive the divine word in extraordinary cases in a purely human and historical way. The mediation of Moses, the type of the prophets of Israel, to whom he attributes the same originality. Even the dead synagogue had such an idea of the originality and independence of the prophetic word, that it is a sentence of the Talmud, (Maimonides on the Mischna). In all that the prophet says to thee you should hearken to him, even if he oversteps the law, the service of idols excepted. Piscator: A glorious testimony by Moses to Christ, the chief of all the prophets. Rissler: Moses a type of Christ in the circumstance of his life, and his pre-eminence in his office. Moses at his birth in great danger of being destroyed, as the other children, at the command of the king; the child Jesus was to be killed soon after His birth, with the other children, at the command of Herod. Moses through his foster-mother kept in life; Jesus rescued from the danger of death through His foster-father. When Moses came to the help of his oppressed brethren they thrust him from them (Act 7:25); Jesus came to His own, but they received Him not, Joh 1:11. Moses was, notwithstanding, the redeemer of his people; Jesus has redeemed men from the service of Satan and sin, and brought His spiritual Israel into the liberty of the children of God. Heb 2:14 sq.; Joh 8:36. Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant, Jesus of the New Testament. Heb 8:5 sq.; Deu 9:15 sq. Moses with his zeal, placed himself in the breach for his people. Exo 32:22 sq.; Jesus was actually cut off from the land of the living. Isa 53:8. Moses is the only person who united in himself, as long as he lived, the prophetic, priestly, and kingly offices; Jesus is the only teacher, high-priest, and King of His Church eternally. Moses was faithful in all his house as a servant; Jesus as a Son over His own house. Even the contrast between the office of the two is emphasized in 2 Corinthians 3. [Wordsworth abounds in similar analogies,A. G.]. Berl. Bib.: As in the first four books there are four glorious types of the priestly office and work of Christ; Isaac, the passover lamb, the goat on the day of atonement, and the brazen serpent; so now of his prophetic office. Piscator: The distinction between Moses and Christ: 1) In person: Moses a poor sinful man; Christ a true man without sin. 2) In doctrine: Moses taught the law which no man can bear; Christ preaches the Gospel to troubled hearts. Joh 1:18. 3) In their benefits: Moses an earthly ruler could not destroy sin and death; Christ is the true Mediator. 1Ti 2:5. [See also Henry, Scott, Calvin, for further practical hints.A. G.].
Footnotes:
*[Deu 16:21. Lit., Thou shalt not plant thee as an Asherah any tree. The Asherah was an image of Astarte.A. G.].
[1][Deu 17:1. ,Sept. Christ is , 1Pe 1:19. Wordsworth.A. G.].
[2][Deu 17:5. Lit., And they shall die.A. G.].
[3][Deu 17:10. Lit., The mouth of the word which they shall declare to thee from that place, etc.A. G.].
[4][Deu 17:15. Lit., Setting thou shalt set over thee a king of whom Jehovah thy God shall choose him.A. G.]
[5][Deu 17:16. Lit., And Jehovah.A. G.].
[6][Deu 18:8. Schroeder: As the margin, his sales (i.e., his saleable or sold possession) by the fathers.A. G.].
[7][Deu 18:10. The Kosem. The word is connected with the idea of cutting, and probably means an astrologer. The Meonen, one who uses hidden arts. The Menachesh, a serpent charmer. The Mecashaphim, from a root to reveal, and thus a fortune-tellera revealer of secrets. The Chober, one who binds, fascinates, and thus a charmer. The Shoel-Ob, probably ventriloquists, who used these arts in the pretended conversations with their familiars. See further on the significance of these names, Farrar, in Smiths Bib. Dict. art Divination. Thomson, Land and Book, I., pp. 214, 215. A. G.].
[8]Theol. of the O. T., p. Deu 130: The essential identity of the contents of prophecy and the law.
[9]Schrift. II. 1 ff. Deu 139: The human mediation of the revelation of God in opposition to the overwhelming manifestation of God Himself.
[10]Gesh. des A. B. II., p. Deu 522: One entrusted with the whole house of Jehovah, conversing with God face to face. Num 12:6 sq.; Deu 34:10; Hebrews 3.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
This is a very interesting Chapter, because the HOLY GHOST in after ages of the Church, explained a striking passage in it as immediately pointing to JESUS. Besides this prominent feature, here are certain laws appointed respecting the Church revenue: the maintenance for the priests and Levites: cautions again repeated in relation to idolatry: and certain regulations in respect to prophecy.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The separation of the priests and Levites, evidently shows in what light GOD views his servants who minister in holy things. How much is it to be wished, that all such were indeed set apart, both by the divine appointment and ordination of the LORD, and from the necessity of worldly commerce with man, for these things bring a snare. This precept and the LORD’S provision for his priests and Levites we have before: Num 18:9-11 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Deu 18:9-22
‘A Prophet.’ How doth Christ execute the office of a prophet? In the following passages our Lord claims prophetic powers: ‘My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me’. ‘Then shall ye know that I do nothing of Myself, but as the Father hath taught Me, I speak these things.’
‘Like unto Moses.’ Christ has the whole prophetic life in Himself, says a German writer. He has the pathos of an Isaiah, the melancholy of an Hosea, the meekness of a Jeremiah, the joy in nature of an Amos, the power of observation of the proverb-writers, the whole world of feeling of the Psalmists. In what particular respects, then, may we say that Christ was especially like unto Moses? First, He was a mediator between God and the people. Second, He is a deliverer from bondage as well as a revealer of God’s will. Third, He was signally meek and supremely faithful.
Note how often in the New Testament this prediction is applied to Jesus. Philip refers to it when he says to Nathanael, ‘We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law did write’. Our Lord Himself doubtless had it in mind when He said, ‘Moses wrote of Me’. Peter quoted it when preaching to the crowd who had gathered when the lame man was healed. Stephen, in his defence, cited it also.
References. XVIII. 15. E. H. Gifford, Twelve Lectures, p. 151. J. H. Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, vol. vii. p. 118. XVIII. 15-19. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxv. No. 1487. XIX. 5, 6. E. M. Goulburn, Sermons in the Parish Church of Holywell, p. 101. XIX. 32. J. N. Norton, Every Sunday, p. 249. XX. 2-4. J. M. Neale, Sermons for the Church Year, p. 167. XX. 8. W. Hay, Thursday Penny Pulpit, vol. xi. p. 233. J. M. Neale, Sermons for the Church Year, p. 177.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
The Predicted Prophet
Deu 18:15-22
A wonderful desire is this no marvel that it elicited divine commendation:
“Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not” ( Deu 18:16 ).
On hearing these words the Lord himself said,
“They have well spoken that which they have spoken” ( Deu 18:17 ).
The divinity that is in a man seems to lie a long way down. Great circumstances are required really to rouse a man that he may see for a moment himself. It needed Sinai to make the people of Israel know that God could not be known. When God thundered upon them and spoke to them as it were face to face they begged that the interview might close. The very thing we desire is the very thing we could not endure- Why do we not learn from history, and draw wise conclusions from events within our own knowledge? But for the clouds, and the atmosphere, we could not bear the very sun without whose light and warmth we die. We seem to owe the sun to the very atmosphere that attempers his shining. It would occur to us that if God would speak directly from his throne all mankind with one consent would say, “The Lord he is God.” That experiment has been tried; and the very people who might be presumed to have required it were the people who prayed that it might be concluded; they prayed that there might be no repetition; to have come so near to God was to have come too near in their then condition of mind and heart. All our plans have been tried, and they have failed. Some of the most obvious plans have been pronounced unwise, unnecessary, or fruitless. Once a man prayed a prayer to which many might have said Amen; but he was told from heaven that he was wrong. His idea was that if one rose from the dead his brethren, five in number, would repent; but he only saw part of the case. We see points, not lines; roofs of our own building and decorating, not skies arched and lighted by Deity. The Voice replied in effect, Your plan seems to be natural and good; in reality it is worthless for all practical purposes: “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.” We cannot amend God’s way of coming to us; he made us, and not we ourselves: he knows what we can bear; his revelation in all its method and scope is not the least proof of his lovingkindness and tender mercy. Our own plans we should be the first to wish to have forgotten. We are called to acceptance, obedience, acquiescence with the divine will, to say all prayers in one prayer: “Not my will, but thine, be done.” How God seems to be pleased when we say anything that is really in the soul of it along the lines of his own thought and purpose! We speak so many foolish words in his hearing, and do so many unwise deeds under his observation, that when we do touch the right chord the vibration is answered in heaven: when we do happen to speak the wise word in the right tone God himself descends upon us and leaves a new benediction. “They have well spoken that which they have spoken;” they do not know how wise they have been. This is inspiration in its practical expression to come to right conclusions regarding divine disclosure, divine approach to the soul, to have a right distance set between man and God. In such a temper God can deal with us, and enrich us largely with noble and unimagined riches. The prophet who can do us good must be akin to us:
“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee” ( Deu 18:18 ).
A beautiful word is the “like unto.” It is a word frequently used in the New Testament by the predicted Prophet himself. We have been educated by analogies, examples, and pictorial representations of things. “Like unto” then Moses was the analogy. Solomon likened his loved one to a company of horses in Pharaoh’s chariot. Jesus Christ likened the kingdom of heaven unto a thousand things beautiful, vital, poetical, apocalyptic, things whose history was known and yet whose issues were immeasurable. So it must be in every degree. The teacher must be akin to the scholar or no good will be done evidently not, if only on the ground that the language which is spoken by the teacher is not known to the wonder-struck scholar who listens to him with amazement and partial stupefaction. There are many languages within the bounds of the same language. All words are not the same words, even though they belong to a common tongue; moreover, the meaning is often in the emphasis, not in the word, the word being a mere convenience or starting-point something on which the soul strikes its thought into accent and expression, which must be done in a moment or the whole idea is lost. Words are tormentors. Words are the occasion, as also the cause, of endless controversy. No two men pronounce the same word exactly alike in the ear of God. Tone holds meaning; the revelation is in the emphasis; and except we speak a common language, in the spiritual sense, there will be no increase of intellectual light or moral understanding, how eloquent soever may be the exposition of the unknown prophet. The scholars must exclaim, “How hear we every man in his own tongue, wherein we were born… the wonderful works of God?” This is the secret of the masonry between the teacher and the scholar: the one understands the other. The teacher can afford to be elliptical, because he knows the acuteness and the sympathy of the scholars to whom he is speaking: they can fill in all the vacant spaces: they know exactly the words which the speaker himself would have chosen but for pressure of time; so the lesson, though short is long, though brief as to words is endless as to suggestion. The teacher of the highest truths must speak in the language of sympathy. It is probably of no consequence in what tone a man expounds the physical sciences: they are not resentful in this matter of vocal expression: they will permit rudeness and violence of tone; the teacher need not study the music of expression in endeavouring to make clear some geometrical problem; but Christ must be preached in Christ’s own tone. The wise teacher will spend, if need be, days in trying to find out how to say: “Our Father, which art in heaven;” or “God is love;” or “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Words like these might be spoiled by the speaker; such heavens might be robbed of all their stars by a felonious interpreter of the higher things. We read: “The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary.” But the word surely would be there whether the tongue was learned or unlearned? In a narrow sense that is true: the word is there, composed of so many syllables and so many letters; but there must be a soul of its own quality to repeat the syllables, to give the letters force, to turn the printing into music, and by subtle persuasion tempt the soul to receive the celestial solace. God must, therefore, give not only the word but the tongue; and the true learning is in sympathy, kinship, unity of mind, and that peculiar knowledge of human nature which if it be not born in a man never can be put into him; this is the gift of God.
Israel prayed that some other method of communication might be established between heaven and earth, saying, Do not repeat this awful process, “that I die not:” let the life be spared. I can hear nothing says the soul because the thunder is so loud, and there is nothing in thunder to hear. At the great torrent of Niagara the one thing you cannot get is a draught of water. The traveller could quench his fiery thirst at a cool spring or a gentle stream, and lift up his head and be glad with religious thankfulness; but who dare, in the very agony of thirst, approach that infinite cascade? So God must not come to us in great thunder-bursts and torrents: he must not plead with us with his great power; he must conceal himself, dwarf himself, unmake himself in a sense known to the soul but difficult to explain in words; he must humble himself and take upon himself the form of a servant, and become obedient unto death; in this quiet way, in this gracious approach, we make vital acquaintance with God. We do not know what we owe to quiet influences and to almost silent ministries. When the prodigal son not the vulgar criminal, but the prodigal son who has been wasting his life in any way you please goes back to his mother not his father, but his mother Nature the alma mater, the loving mother, all she wants him to do is to lie upon some sunny height, and think nothing, plan nothing, and release himself from the torment of his own genius and inventiveness, not to say anxiety and memory: she says Poor prodigal, all you have to do is to do nothing: I will do it all; lay your weary head down on some grassy knoll and have no mind: dismiss your great intellectual self and be a little child in your mother’s house. Then with soft breezes and summer light and the ministry of birds far away yet near at hand, she will seem to be doing nothing, yet all the while she is pouring life-blood into the wasted one. Presently he will look around and feel himself a giant refreshed; and he who thought he was spent feels the old spirit stirring within him, saying, I must be back to the city, to the scene of legitimate strife, the places where the prizes are won; my old mother has had me in her lap and has nursed me into thankfulness. They never recover who cannot do everything by doing nothing: they are diseased with the spirit of superfluous energy; they are overweighted with the demon of fussiness; they cannot lie down absolutely and say, Mother Nature, I have sinned against Heaven and in thy sight, by sitting up too long, by wearing out my poor energies; I have almost committed suicide, and I have struggled home: now I am going to say nothing and do nothing but lie down here, and I know you will not let me die. What profit we might attain in the house of God if we could leave our genius outside our cleverness, our theological prejudices, our mental sharpness, and say to the living God, “A guilty, weak, and helpless worm, on thy kind arms I fall!” Then the sweet music, and the nobler music of the read word, and the tender prayer, and the exposition, alight with so many glories, would all combine to renew our youth, and after the service we should mount up with wings as eagles, and ask the runner to compete with us, and walk down the young man in the pride of strength. Thus God teaches us by gentle prophecies, by apparently undemonstrative ministries above all by One whose voice was not heard in the street, who did not lift up nor cry, nor cause his voice to be herd more than was really necessary, who adapted the thunder of his infinity to the weakness of our mortality. We should do more if we did less. We do not come to hear the prophet for the purpose of entering into disputation with him, but for the purpose of receiving streams of vitality, without name, without measure, too subtle for analysis, too delicate and divine for controversy. Thus, we must come to God’s Book. If we come to it merely as literalists and critics it can be as silent as speechlessness itself; if we come with the broken heart it will heal our diseases.
If the prophet is not hearkened to, penalty will follow:
“And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him” ( Deu 18:19 ).
An opportunity of reading the Bible is an opportunity of increasing manhood. The hearing of any vital exposition of God’s Book creates a responsibility in the life of the hearer which is absolutely immeasurable. If the people will not hearken unto the divine word spoken in the divine Name their not hearing shall be accounted an aggravation, an offence, and a sin. This must be so philosophically as well as morally. To have been near a great teacher is to have been close to an open gate, the entrance of which would have brought one into a kind of paradise; but to have been near a great teacher sent from God, and not to have observed him or profited by him or blessed him in the name of the Lord, is to have gone down in the volume and in the quality of manhood. Do not imagine that men can despise the Bible and be as good as ever. To scorn the divine is to lose the human. Not to pray nobly is to live narrowly. We do not only offend God by our impiety, we wrong our own soul.
The false prophet was to be known by the thing not coming to pass which he spake ( Deu 18:22 ). That is a right test; that is a proper standard. If the proof is not in the result there is no proof. If the wicked man be really and truly happy in his soul the Bible is a falsehood. If vice can create heaven the heaven of purity, innocence, and the rest which comes of harmony then the Gospel is an exaggeration and a pretence. Let everything be judged by the result. Christ himself said so: judge the tree by its fruit. He would have no praise of the tree; he will not have himself spoken of merely from a horticultural point of view, nor will he have his people described as trees only large trees, noble in height, umbrageous, the refuge of singing birds, beautiful in leafage: such compliments are hateful to him: “Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit.” The Bible is thus the most rational of all books as to its judgments. The issue is plain and clear. If the thing the prophet says meaning by prophet a teacher sent from God does not come true, then he has not spoken the words God told him to speak. Christianity must lay claim to this same standard: she must consent to be judged, not by her metaphysics but by her beneficence; not because she has a theory of the Godhead, but because she can redeem humanity.
Selected Note
Deu 19:1-13
And the Israelites were strictly forbidden to spare him either from considerations of pity or in consequence of any pecuniary ransom. This disallowal of a compensation by money in the case of murder shows a just regard for human life, and appears much to the advantage of the Hebrew legislation when compared with the practice of other countries (Athens, for instance, and Islam), in which pecuniary atonements were allowed, if not encouraged, and where, in consequence, the life of the poor must have been in as great jeopardy as the character of the wealthy.
Prayer
Almighty God, who can find out the meaning of thy word? It is exceeding broad. Thy word is quick and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword; it hurts us whilst we read it, but it kills that it may make alive again. Thy word is full of gentleness, though so severe. If thou hast torn us, thou wilt heal us; if thou hast rent us, thou wilt bind us up again: in a day or two all will be well: the wound will be healed and the pain will be forgotten. Thou dost give life: thou art the God of immortality; thou healest disease; thou hast written thy condemnation upon death; thou lovest health and life and growth and all beauty and fruitfulness; towards the creation of these all thy ministries tend: we would be found within the sphere of their operation; we would obediently submit ourselves unto their requirements and laws, that, being brought into the harmony of thy movement, we might respond to thy word with delight and turn thy statutes into songs. But who can do this for us? Is not Jesus Christ thy Son able to work even this miracle? We now pray that the miracle may be accomplished. Lord, that we might see! Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make us clean! Jesus Christ, Son of David, have mercy on us! Other men have passed by and paid no heed to us: they could not touch our inmost complaint; but thou art almighty: the key of the house of David is upon thy shoulder: thou hast all power and all grace, and thy love will accomplish our redemption. We bless thee that there is no case beyond thy reach. Thou knowest altogether what we are and what we need, and fulness of provision has been made in the Gospel: the Cross of Christ healeth the diseases of the soul. We return to the Saviour. We have gone after other leaders, and they have led us into the ditch, for we were both blind; but now we come to Jesus Christ again and again, and he is gracious enough to forgive our wanderings and receive us home. We would that thy word might be made plain to us, that we might see somewhat at least of its meaning and feel its unction and acknowledge its power. Thy word is truth. Truth will touch our life at every point, granting unto our necessity an answer of fulness, to our pain an answer of ease, to our desire an answer of contentment. Lead us into all truth the infinite palace of God, the inner universe towards which all other things point in wonder and with delight. Pity us in our weaknesses, and count them not against us in the judgment. Thou wilt not pity our sin, but thou wilt pity the sinner; and as for our sin, what is it compared with thy grace? Where sin aboundeth grace much more aboundeth, pouring itself in ocean fulness over all the marks of the wrong-doer. Help us to live our few remaining days well: we will be gone to-morrow, and the day after is the judgment; we walk along the brink over which we must presently slip: we are seen a moment, yet in a little while we are not seen but with the eyes of recollection.
May we work while it is called day, for the night cometh wherein no man can work. We are not needful to thee. Thou dost take us away, and behold the world is not aware that we have been removed. Thou dost so teach us not to rely upon one another, but to live and move and have our being in thyself. Thou art the same, and thy years fail not: amid all rising, flourishing, and dying thou lookest on in eternal youth. Regard our loved ones; if they will not make prayers for themselves, Jesus, our Intercessor, will surely pray for them, and they will receive replies without having offered requests. Thou doest exceeding abundantly above not only what we ask but what we think: our thought is left below, and the fountains of thy grace are opened in the skies, and great rains of blessing are poured out upon the thirst of life. Hear us in these things. Hear us for the land we love, for the throne to which we are bound, for all the institutions that represent the highest thought and best ambition of life; and overrule all things to the inbringing of the kingdom which is all purity and sunshine and music. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
(See the Deuteronomy Book Comments for Introductory content and Homiletic suggestions).
XIII
SECOND GREAT ORATION, PART 2
Deuteronomy 12-26
This section is on the second part of the second great oration of Moses, as embodied in Deuteronomy 12-26 inclusive, of the book of Deuteronomy. If you have carefully read all this section, it will be easier for me to emphasize in the brief limits of this chapter the most salient points and easier for you to grasp and retain them. By the grouping of correlated matters under specific heads, the important distinction between many statutes and the constitutional principle from which they are logically derived will become manifest. A constitution is a relatively brief document of great principles, but legislative enactments developing and enlarging them become a library, which continually enlarges, as new conditions require new statement and application.
Yet again you must note that while one discussion arranges in order many statutes, it necessarily leaves out much of the homiletical value of each special statute. Each one of them may be made a text for a profitable sermon. Indeed these fifteen chapters constitute a gold mine of texts for the attentive preacher.
First of all, it should be noted that Moses is speaking here to the whole people as a national unit and concerning the future national life in the Promised Land which they are about to occupy. He carefully puts before them the national ideal of a people belonging to Jehovah separated from other nations and devoted to a special mission. Because addressing the whole people he recalls the history and law in Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers much more particularly than the special legislation of Leviticus relating mainly to the official duties of a single tribe.
Secondly, when he touches the tribe of Levi in Deuteronomy, it is as a part of the nation rather than about their specific duties as priests and Levites. On this account Deuteronomy is called the people’s code and Leviticus the priest’s code. This fact will help us much to understand tithing in Deuteronomy when compared with tithing in the preceding books. Note carefully this point.
While it is difficult to classify satisfactorily such a multitude of topics and laws, we may profitably group the whole section under the following heads:
I. Unity in the Place of National Worship, Deu 12:5
In their pilgrimage history the cloud and the ark, shifting from place to place according to the exigency of travel, designated day by day the central place of worship. But the people are here admonished that when they conquer the land and become a settled people, God himself will designate one fixed locality as the center of national unity and one permanent place of national worship. In Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and I Samuel, when we get to those books, we shall find only a temporary central place, and occasionally, more than one at the same time, the land not yet all conquered, the people not yet all settled, but in David’s time everything prescribed about the central place of worship is fulfilled, Jerusalem is the place thenceforward throughout their history until Jesus, that prophet like unto Moses, comes and says to the woman of Samaria, “Believe me, the hour cometh when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall ye worship the Father. Ye worship that which ye know not; we worship that which we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and Truth.”
To this place, that is, the central place of worship, three times a year must the tribes come in national assembly to keep the great festivals of the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, and as a nation they must observe the great day of atonement. In this connection observe particularly that the tithing in Deuteronomy, to which we have before referred, is not the first tithe of the other books, which was the Lord’s inheritance and devoted to the general support of the great festivals, in which indeed the Levites share as a part of the people. Hence the Levites’ share of this tithe does not correspond to their title to the whole of the first tithe, and hence the third year’s provision in Deuteronomy for the poor is unlike any provision of the first tithe. If you have that point fixed in your minds, you are able to answer one of the gravest objections ever brought against Deuteronomy, that is, that it contradicts, on the question of tithes, what had been previously said in other books.
The marvelous effect of this one fixed place of national worship, and of these great festivals, on national unity, on the preservation of a pure worship, appears in all their subsequent history and becomes the theme of psalm, song, and elegy. When we get over into the Psalms and the Lamentations of Jeremiah, we will see backward references to this central place of worship. It is in the light of this law that we discover the sin in the later migration of the Danites and their setting up a new place of worship (Jdg 18 , particularly verses Jdg 18:27-31 ); the sin of Jeroboam (1Ki 12:26-33 ); the sin of the Samaritans later, and the sin of a temple in Egypt. That is the first thought, the unity in national worship. For an account of the Samaritan Temple see Josephus, “Antiquities,” Book XI, chapter 8, and for the Egyptian Temple see “Antiquities,” Book XIII, chapter 3.
2. Unity in the Object of Worship
The second thought in this oration is unity in the object of worship, the exclusive worship of Jehovah. Under this head the section prescribes the death penalty on the following:
(1) The false prophet, who however attested by signs and wonders, shall seek to divert the people to the worship of some other god.
(2) Any member of a family, however near and dear the tie of kindred, who sought to induce the rest of the family to turn away from the worship of Jehovah to worship another god, that member of the family had to die.
(3) Any city that turned aside as a municipality to other worship, that city must be placed under the ban and blotted out. If you have been much of a student of classic literature, you must have noticed how each city stresses the worship of some particular patron divinity, as Minerva at Athens, Diana in the City of Ephesus and Venus at Corinth. Now, this law teaches that any city, in its municipal life, turning aside from the worship of Jehovah to worship a false god for local advantage shall be blotted off the face of the map. The underlying principle here is of immense importance in our times. Cities are tempted continually to sacrifice the paramount spiritual and moral interests of the community in order to promote material interests. So in their annual fairs which bring local advantage in commercial affairs, they lose sight of God and handicap what is commendable in these enterprises by overloading them with poisonous and corrupting attachments, and count any man an enemy to his home place, however much he may approve the good, if he protest against the bad. See the striking examples and illustrations in the cases at Philippi and Ephesus (Act 16:19 ).
(4) To show more emphatically that Jehovah alone is God and must be worshiped, the death penalty was assessed on any necromancer, soothsayer or wizard who sought by illicit ways to understand and interpret the future. To Jehovah alone must the people come to know secret things. What he chose to reveal was for them and their children. What he withheld must remain hidden. All prurient curiosity into Jehovah’s domain of revelation must be rebuked; all seeking unto the dead, all fortunetelling and divinations were mortal sins and punishable by death in every case.
(5) All persons guilty of crimes against nature; the nature of the subject forbids me to specify. They were such outrageous violations of the dignity of man made in God’s image, and indicated such disregard for Jehovah that capital punishment alone would meet the requirements of the case.
(6) Every breaker of the covenant must be put to death. If any had knowledge that another had violated the covenant, it became his duty to investigate the case and bring the attention of the magistrates to it. There is a reference to that in the letter to the Hebrews, where it is said, “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God [offense against the Father], and hath counted the blood of the everlasting covenant an unholy thing [sin against the Son], and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace [sin against the Holy Spirit, and an unpardonable sin]?” (Heb 10:28-29 ).
(7) To impress still more this thought of the exclusive worship of Jehovah: There must be no borrowing from other religions in bewailing the dead; Jehovah’s law alone was the one exclusive standard. The custom of cutting themselves, and disfiguring themselves in the days of their mourning as practiced in other religions, finds here a positive prohibition. I stop to say, Oh, what a pity that so soon after apostolic times, in the great apostasy which Paul predicted and which took place in the Roman Catholic development, there was borrowing old robes of every religion in the world.
3. All Administrations of Law Subject to Jehovah
Whether ceremonial law, moral or civil and criminal law, all administration of law was subject to Jehovah. The government was a theocracy pure and simple, no matter whether it remained a republic or became a kingdom, as it did in the days of Saul, it was a theocracy, God was the only real King and governed all officers himself, whether executive, judicial, or religious.
(1) They were representatives of Jehovah and must first of all consider his honor, justice, and mercy. This fact determined the prescribed character and qualifications of every prince, ruler, elder, judge, sheriff and scribe. These officers must be God-fearing men, hating covetousness, impartial and fearing not the face of any man.
(2) They must in judging hear all evidence fairly.
(3) They must not convict except upon adequate testimony.
(4) It took two good witnesses to prove any point.
(5) They must justify the innocent and condemn the guilty without any regard for age, sex, social position, or financial position. Even and exact justice must be administered to all.
(6) Decision when given must be enforced speedily.
(7) If the case was too hard for them, they must appeal to Jehovah and no other for light. A provision was made by which Jehovah would give the right answer in every such case of appeal. What a pity we have not that kind of a supreme court!
(8) The conduct of all their wars must be under the laws prescribed by Jehovah. War must not be declared against any nation except upon his direction. Their later history furnishes many examples of referring the declaration of war to Jehovah, and it furnishes many examples of disaster befalling them when they went to war in their own wisdom and strength. The regulations touching war covered all material points, such as sanitary measures in camp, treatment of prisoners, conducting sieges, and sparing fruit trees when besieging a city. The boasted progress of modern civilization falls far short of the Mosaic code in ameliorating the sufferings and horrors of war. A great Federal general of the War Between the States well said, in view of his own practice in conducting it, “War is hell!”
(9) On account of this subordination to Jehovah, note the remarkable paragraph Deu 21:1-9 , touching civic responsibility in a case of murder where the offender is unknown. In my prohibition speech in the last prohibition contest in Waco, I used that paragraph as a principle upon which prohibition is based. If you will look at the passage in your Bible and mark it, you will notice that the case is this: A man is found murdered and it is not known who killed him; the nearest city thereto is determined by measurement and must purge itself of responsibility for the crime. The municipal officers in that city must come in the presence of that dead body, hold up their hands before God and swear that they are innocent of the blood.
In my speech I recalled the case of the County Attorney of Tarrant County who was shot down on the streets of Fort Worth, his murderer also being killed; nobody could be held directly responsible for the murder. I said, “Suppose the mayor, the city council, and all the other city officers had been required to place their hands on that dead body and swear that no negligence on their part was resposnible for that murder. They could not have taken the oath. Every one would have been convicted, because they were responsible for the conditions that not only made that particular murder possible, but made murder in some cases certain.”
(10) The numerous statutes concerning charities, mercy, and humanity constrain the people to imitate Jehovah himself in dealing with the poor and with the unfortunate. Indeed some of the most beautiful and pathetic of these laws relating to treatment of the lower creatures embody principles capable of application in a wider range of higher things. They reprobate all cruelty and the infliction of all unnecessary suffering as hateful to Jehovah, for example: “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn”; and “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk.”
Once in Waco a young man whom I had known when he was a little fellow came to me bringing a letter purporting to be from his father, commending this young man to me and asking me to help him in any way I could. When he next came and asked me to endorse a paper for thirty dollars, I endorsed it. When it matured, I had to pay it. I wrote to the father about it and he replied that his son had forged that letter, and that is was only one case out of many. That son had broken him up. The boy was arrested on a similar case at Corsicana and sent to the penitentiary. When it was suggested that I testify against him, I would not, because of this scripture, “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.” The only way I could help to convict that boy would be to submit his father’s testimony to prove that he was a forger.
(11) In like manner all laws regulating business, such as weights and measures. Once I called upon a man whose name I will not give, and asked him why, when he bought goods, he weighed on one scale and when he sold goods he sold by another. He said. “They are all right.” I said, “No, sir, you have loaded the one you sell by and whoever buys from you does not get full weight.” All laws touching business, such as weights and measures, the restraints on exacting pledges for debt, the withholding of wages for day laborers which they have fairly earned, the limitations on usury and the like are but expressions of divine mercy and justice and tended to build up an honest and righteous people, not forgetful of mercy.
(12) The social laws concerning marriage, slavery, parental power over children, while far from the highest expression of God’s will, do yet in every particular prohibit many current evils freely practiced in other nations. Our Lord himself explains that on account of their hardness of heart and low order of development imperfect laws were suffered. “The people but recently were a nation of slaves, with much more of the slave spirit remaining. It cannot be denied that even the civil and criminal codes on these points were far superior to the codes of other nations. The sanctity of human life, the sanctity of the home, and the sanctity of the family are marvelously safeguarded in these laws. And wherever this code touched an evil custom, it never approved the evil but limited the power and scope of the evil, as far as the unprepared people were able to bear it.
(13) Restrictions on entering the covenant, Deu 23:1-7 , constitute a paragraph very few people understand. This applied to proselytes from other nations. The body politic must not be corrupted by alien additions that could not be easily assimilated. On that line our own nation is gravely troubled by loose naturalization laws that permit the scum and offscourings of other nations to be absorbed into our national life and so fearfully endanger the perpetuity of free institutions and make our great cities cesspools of iniquity. An orator once prayed, “O that an ocean of fire rolled between us and Europe!” The Pacific Slope seems also praying ,”O that an ocean of fire rolled between us and the Orient!”
(14) The governing Jehovah idea appears in an emphatic way in the paragraph Deu 24:1-11 , where by an offering of a basket of firstfruits the Israelite must confess Jehovah’s absolute ownership over his products and his own unworthy derivation. The oration concludes with his general result: “Thou hast avouched Jehovah this day to be thy God, and that thou wouldest walk in his ways and keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his ordinances, and hearken unto his voice: and Jehovah hath avouched thee this day to be a people for his own possession, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments, etc.”
QUESTIONS
1. What the importance of grouping correlated matters under specific needs and what is a constitution?
2. What the homiletic value of these fifteen chapters?
3. What two things especially noted concerning the second part of Oration Two?
4. Under what three heads does the author group all the material of these fifteen chapters?
5. Under the first head, when was the central place of worship to be established; when, where and by whom actually established; how long continued?
6. How often and at what festivals must the nation assemble at this central place of worship?
7. What bearing has this fact on the tithing question of Deuteronomy?
8. What the marvelous effects of this one fixed place of national worship?
9. Give examples of the violation of this law, and what their particular sin?
10. Under the second head, what cases of violation called for capital punishment?
11. What underlying principle governing the cities is of great importance in our times? Illustrate.
12. What reference to the covenant breaker in the New Testament, and what the threefold sin therein described?
13. Which of these prohibitions are Romanists most guilty of violating?
14. Under the third head (1) What must be the qualifications of all officers? (2) What their several duties? (3) If the case was too hard for them what were they to do? What the provision for Jehovah’s answer? (4) What prescriptions concerning war? (5) How determine civic responsibility in the case of murder where the murderer was unknown? Present day application and illustrate. (6) What laws relating to the poor and to lower animals? (7) What laws regulating business? (8) What social laws? (9) What the restrictions on entering the covenant and the present day application? (10) How does the governing Jehovah idea appear emphatically
15. How does the oration conclude?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Deu 18:1 The priests the Levites, [and] all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and his inheritance.
Ver. 1. And his inheritance, ] i.e., Whatsoever by the law belonged to the Lord, as decimae Deo sacrae, &c.
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Deu 18:1-2
1The Levitical priests, the whole tribe of Levi, shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the LORD’s offerings by fire and His portion. 2They shall have no inheritance among their countrymen; the LORD is their inheritance, as He promised them.
Deu 18:1 Levitical priests, the whole tribe of Levi According to Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel, vol. 2, p. 358, the name Levi can have three possible etymological sources:
1. to whirl around, assuming a ritual dance or procedure (similar to the dance of the prophets of Ba’al in 1Ki 18:26)
2. to accompany someone or to be attached to someone, possibly the popular etymology given in Gen 29:34, also note Num 18:2; Num 18:4
3. to lend, to give as a pledge, possibly referring to and parallel to given referring to the firstborn to YHWH (Num 3:12; Num 8:16) or to Samuel being given to YHWH in 1Sa 1:28
There are several developmental stages involved:
1. at the Exodus it was the firstborn from every family that was given to YHWH, to serve Him (cf. Exodus 13)
2. this was changed (Mosaic Covenant) to one particular tribe (i.e., Levi) who functioned as YHWH’s special servants (cf. Num 3:12; Num 8:16)
3. this was modified in Israel’s history:
a. some Levitical families served at the central sanctuary
b. others ministered locally
c. later rabbinical Judaism expanded the concept of local Levitical teachers into local rabbis or scribes, but not necessarily from the tribe of Levi
4. for a good discussion of another theory see (1) The Language and Imagery of the Bible, by G. B. Caird, p. 70 and (2) Ancient Israel by Roland de Vaux, vol. 2, pp. 360-371
shall have no portion or inheritance The inheritance of the Levites was God Himself (cf. Deu 10:9; Deu 12:12; Deu 14:27; Deu 14:29; Psa 16:5; Psa 73:23-26; Lam 3:24; Ezekiel 28). In Joshua 20-21 the Levites are given portions of 48 cities and the surrounding land as a possession. Among these 48 cities there were also six Cities of Refuge, three on each side of the Jordan, where a person could flee if he accidentally killed a covenant partner in order to escape the blood avenger (cf. Deu 19:1-13; Num 35:9-15).
they shall eat the LORD’s offerings Originally all Levites participated in a portion of the sacrifices of Israel (cf. Deu 18:6-8). Later the priests were supported by food from the altar and small pieces of private land surrounding the Levitical cities. Also Levites were supported by a third-year local tithe (cf. Deu 14:27; Num 18:25-29; Neh 10:37-38).
There are some variations in how the whole tribe of Levi was supported. These are not contradictions, but developments related to the central sanctuary.
the LORD. Hebrew. Jehovah. App-4.
Chapter 18
Now again he repeats how the tribe of Levi is not to be given any portion of the land but they will eat the offerings that were given unto the Lord made by fire as their inheritance for the Lord is their inheritance. And thus the priest, when he offered a sacrifice, they were to give the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks and the maw.
Also they were to give to the priest the first fruit of their corn, and of their wine, and of their oil and the first of the fleece of thy sheep shalt thou give to him ( Deu 18:4 ).
Now, God required really a tenth. He considered that as His. And the tenth was always to be the first tenth was to go unto God. Now when you would bring an offering that the priest would sacrifice the offering for you, the priest always got the shoulder and the cheeks and the maw. That was his, that was his sort of fee, or not really a fee but that was just his, his allotted share from the sacrifice.
Now later on in their history when Eli was the priest, he had some greedy sons. And the people would come to offer sacrifices and, hey, these greedy sons, they would put their hooks in and grab the tenderloins, the sirloins and the finest of the steaks and everything else. And if the people would go to object, you know, then they’d order them out of the place, so that they actually, by their greed caused people to begin to resent sacrificing unto God. And Eli would not actually correct his sons, and thus God dealt very harshly with Eli and his sons because of their greediness in the ministry caused people really to resent God. Seeking the best for themselves, looking out for themselves and more concerned with their own wants and selves than they were really with the people, and thus God dealt very severely with Eli and his sons.
But there was a portion that was to be given to the priest. And then the firstfruits of their fields, the firstfruits of their grapes and so forth, they were to be given unto the priest.
For the LORD thy God hath chosen him out of the tribes, to minister in the name of the LORD, and thus they shall have light portions to eat ( Deu 18:5 , Deu 18:8 ).
Now again God forbids that the people follow after the abominations and the practices of those people that were already living in the land that they were to drive out.
The practices were using divination, or an observer of times, [The observer of times is actually the practice of astrology, the use of horoscopes.] or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer or a consulter with familiar spirits, [so spiritism] or a wizard or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and it’s because of these abominations that God is driving the people out of the land. Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God ( Deu 18:10-13 ).
The word perfect there is “Thou shalt be completely towards the Lord”. You’re not to have other gods in your life, so to speak. Your heart is to be completely towards God. Not to be divided with these other interests and issues, but just a heart that’s completely towards God.
For the nations, which you are gonna possess, they hearkened unto these observers of times, to the diviners: but as for thee, the LORD thy God has not allowed thee to do it ( Deu 18:14 ).
Now here we find a great prophecy concerning the coming of Jesus Christ.
The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of your brothers, like unto me; unto him shall ye hearken; According to all that you desire of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth: and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him ( Deu 18:15-18 ).
Peter, in his message in the third chapter of the book of Acts, declares that this was a prophecy concerning Jesus Christ. Now the Jews knew the prophecy of Moses, and thus they were looking for their Messiah. They believe that this is a prophecy of the coming Messiah, that God is gonna raise up another spokesman to speak God’s word to them. “I’ll raise up another Prophet like unto myself”. So that when they came to John the Baptist saying, “Who art thou?” they said, “Art thou that prophet?” And they were referring to this particular prophecy. “Are you that prophet, the prophet that we are to look for like unto Moses through whom God will speak his word to the people?” John said, “I am not”. “Are you the Messiah?” “No.” “Who are you?” “I’m just the voice of one and crying in the wilderness prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight his path”.
Now, the Jews today are still looking for their Messiah and they are anticipating that He is coming very soon. But they told me, “We believe that the Messiah will be just like Moses”. That’s this prophecy they’re referring to. That He will not be the Son of God. They say, “Now you say the Messiah or that Jesus was the Son of God. We do not believe that the Messiah will be the Son of God. We believe that the Messiah will be a man just like Moses was a man. A man from amongst us that God will raise up to speak God’s word to us.”
And so the Jews today are looking for a man, a Jew, who will be able to come and to help them to rebuild their temple and to bring them peace. And the minute that man arises on the scene and brings them peace and helps them build their temple, they are, all of them ready to acclaim him as their Messiah. Now of course, there are other scriptures that refer to the Messiah being “God with us, “Thou shalt call his name Emmanuel” which being interpreted is “God with us”( Mat 1:23 ). “Behold, I’ll give you a sign. A virgin shall conceive and bear a son and call his name Immanuel, God with us”( Isa 7:14 ). But the Jews are not looking for the Son of God; they are looking for a man.
Now, that man is coming and he is coming very soon and he will arise out of western Europe. He will make a covenant with the nation Israel whereby he will help them to rebuild their temple and they will acclaim him as their Messiah. We’re right on the borders of these events. It’s tragic but Israel will acknowledge this false leader as their Messiah. Jesus said, “I have come in my own name. You did not receive me.” He said “I have come in my Father’s name, you did not receive me. There’s another one who’s gonna be coming in his own name and him you will receive”( Joh 5:43 ).
They’re gonna be deceived for three and a half years. But after three and a half years when they have rebuilt their temple, started again their daily prayers and sacrifices, he is going to come to Jerusalem. He’s gonna stand in that rebuilt temple in the Holy of Holies and he’s gonna proclaim to them that he is God. He’s gonna stop their daily sacrifices, their daily prayers. He’s gonna claim that he himself is God and demand that they worship him as God. At that point the Jews will realize that they have been deceived by this man, that he is not the Messiah. And those who are sharp in the scriptures will flee to Jordan to the Rock City of Petra where God will preserve them for three and a half years. Those that do not flee will be put under terrible persecution by this leader who comes to Jerusalem at this point.
So, it is interesting that if you talk to an Orthodox Jew today about his messiah he’ll tell you that the Messiah is not the Son of God; he is a man. He’ll be like Moses that God will raise up from among the people, but not the Son of God, just a man like Moses. And that’s who they are looking for today to come and to lead them out of this current dilemma.
[Now, God declares] if a prophet presumes to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken? [Very easy] if a prophet prophesies something in the name of the LORD, and it doesn’t come to pass, he’s a false prophet ( Deu 18:20-22 ).
It’s very easy to point out a false prophet. The simple rule to see if what he says comes to pass. If it doesn’t come to pass then just mark him as a false prophet. Now there are some people who are so gullible that even though the Jehovah’s Witnesses have prophesied about three or four different times when the Lord was gonna come and He hasn’t come on any of those prophesied dates, yet they still don’t have enough sense to realize that these leaders in New York are false prophets.
Now, my heart goes out to these people who come around door to door. These people are very sincere. I wish that, many times, Christians were as dedicated as they are. They are sincere in their dedication to God, but they have been deceived by their leaders in New York. And I cannot help but believe that it is deliberate deception by their leaders in New York, because of their-the mistranslations of the scriptures could not just be accidental. They are deliberate mistranslations of the scriptures by which they are deceiving these people. And thus, my heart goes out to the people who come door to door because of the fact that they’ve been deceived. Oh, that they would see the truth that is in Christ Jesus and they would come to know the grace of God and the love of God through Jesus Christ our Lord and would come to trust in Jesus for their salvation rather than their works for Jehovah.
Now, Peter gives us another sign of the false prophet. In second Peter, chapter two warning there of false prophets said, “Who through feigned words will seek to make merchandise of you”( 2Pe 2:3 ). So whenever any man seeks to make merchandise of you, seeks through gimmicks to encourage you to give through pressure, through various antics, gets on big money kicks; he’s a false prophet. Who uses computerized typewriters for their mailing lists so that it appears like the letter has been written personally to you with statements such as, “I have been thinking about you lately, wondering how you are”, those are feigned words and the purpose is to make merchandise of you. And I have no hesitation declaring they are false prophets according to the word of God. You say, “Oh, but they’ve done so much good”.
I may have a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill and someone may come to me and say, “Chuck, my family needs help. I lost my job, we don’t have any money and my children are hungry”. So I give him this counterfeit twenty-dollar bill, not knowing that it’s counterfeit. So he goes down to the store and he uses the twenty-dollar bill to buy some hamburger and some bread and some milk and he feeds his hungry children. And the merchant, the store, who takes his twenty-dollar bill for the merchandise, goes down to the electric company and he pays his electric bill with the twenty-dollar bill.
And the electric company gives that twenty-dollar bill in change to you when you pay your electric bill. And you in turn use that twenty-dollar bill to go down and buy yourself a new sweater. And that merchant gives the twenty-dollar bill to the gas company to pay his gas bill. And the gas company goes to the bank to deposit the twenty-dollar bill and the teller says, “I’m sorry. I can’t take this twenty-dollar bill; it’s counterfeit.” Wait a minute, that bill has done a lot of good. It’s fed the poor, it’s paid the light and gas bill, and it’s bought a new sweater. Look at how much good it’s done. “What do you mean you can’t take it, it’s counterfeit?” Well, it’s counterfeit.
The argument that it is done so much good is not a valid argument. Now this is the argument that a lot of people use for false prophets or even false religious systems. But look at how much good they’ve done; they’re counterfeit. When it comes to the final deposit, not gonna make it. So, God is warning against the false prophets. God had very little-well, really God doesn’t appreciate it when a person comes along and says, “Thus saith the Lord” and he speaks out of his own heart and really isn’t saying God’s word.
I don’t know. You know I think that the days of computerized typewriters were a great curse to the church. I’ve gotten more computerized letters from these. Someone’s put me on the mailing list, I don’t know who it was. But you got my name in the pot and these guys buy mailing lists from each other. And if they have a mailing list that they get a certain amount of percentage of returns then they sell your name. If you write in a check then your name is sold at a premium price to the others.
And I got this letter the other day, some guy named Popoff. And here’s a personal prophecy in the thing, “Thus saith the Lord, I am pleased with thee and I am going to bless thee” you know, and just share the blessing kind of a thing, you know, and all of this stuff.
Well, I wrote him back a letter and I said, “Thus saith the Lord, I am against the false prophets that prophesy in my name saying ‘Thus saith the Lord’ when I have not spoken” and I knew that the Lord was saying it because I was just quoting him right out of the word. But then I added my own little appendage, I didn’t put this under the ‘thus saith the Lord’. But I put under my own little appendage “thy name has been Popoff but even as the name of Saul was changed to Paul so your name is to be changed from Popoff to Rip-off”. No doubt my name will be deleted from his mailing list shortly.
But there are a lot of rip-off artists who are going around disguising themselves as prophets of God. And as I said, God doesn’t appreciate a person speaking for him when he hasn’t spoken. And thus the false prophets in those days were to be put to death.
“
In dealing with the priest who was already found among the people by the appointment of God, the fact that he was to have no inheritance in the land was restated. Then a special provision was made for any priest whose heart drove him to some particular service. He also must be cared for by the people.
Finally, turning to the subject of the prophet, Moses enjoined the people to beware of the false and to know the true In dealing with the false prophets he described their methods. They would be the practice of secret things, of dealing with the spiritual forces of evil in a professed attempt to discover the will of God.
The true prophet was then promised and described. The description given is brief but graphic. He would be one of themselves, receiving the words of God and uttering them to the people. All the true prophets of God that followed fulfilled this ideal in measure. The proportion in which they spoke to the nation the will of God with authority was the proportion in which they did so.
As we study these words concerning king and priest and prophet, we inevitably realize that the perfect fulfillment in each case came ultimately with the coming of the Son of God. He was at once King of His brethren without inheritance in His own land; Priest, abiding in the service of God and ministered to by the people of God; Prophet of His brethren, speaking the word of God in all fulness and in all purity.
the Prophet Who Was to Come
Deu 18:1-22
Those that serve the altar may live by the altar. Let us not forget the needs of those who serve us in holy things. It is a blessed thing when an individual desires the place that the Lord chooses. Let us be true to the inner prompting, at whatever cost. We shall be fully repaid. When Peter loaned his boat Jesus returned it, filled with fish!
We are to be perfect with the Lord-i.e., we are not knowingly to permit things that hurt or grieve His Holy Spirit. If the question should arise, how we are to know Gods way, we must take our question to the true Prophet. See Act 3:22; Act 7:37. He can answer our hard question; but we are strictly forbidden to go to crystal-gazers, palmists, fortune-tellers, and those who profess to read the future. How serious is their fault who refuse Him! Compare Deu 18:19 with Heb 10:28-29. Let thy Urim and Thummim be with the Holy One! 1Sa 23:11-12; 1Sa 30:7-8.
Deu 18:15
The history of Moses is valuable to Christians, not only as giving us a pattern of fidelity towards God, of great firmness, and great meekness, but also as affording us a type or figure of our Saviour Christ. Let us consider in what respects Moses resembled Christ.
I. If we survey the general history of the Israelites, we shall find that it is a picture of man’s history as the Gospel displays it to us, and that in it Moses takes the place of Christ. We are born in a spiritual Egypt, a land of strangers. Satan is a tyrant over us, and it seems useless to rebel. Christ is a second Moses, and greater than he, inasmuch as Christ leads from hell to heaven, as Moses led the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan.
II. Christ reveals to us the will of God, as Moses did to the Israelites. He is our Prophet as well as our Redeemer. Favoured as he was, Moses saw not the true presence of God. Flesh and blood cannot see it. But Christ really saw, and ever saw, the face of God, for He was no creature of God, but the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father. Christ has brought from His Father for all of us the full and perfect way of life.
III. Moses was the great intercessor when the Israelites sinned. In this he shadows out the true Mediator between God and man, who is ever at the right hand of God making intercession for us. Moses was excluded from the Promised Land, dying in sight, not in enjoyment, of Canaan, while the people went in under Joshua. This was a figure of Him that was to come. Our Saviour Christ died that we might live; He consented to lose the light of God’s countenance that we might gain it. Moses suffered for his own sin; Christ was the spotless Lamb of God. His death is meritorious; it has really gained our pardon.
J. H. Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, vol. vii., p. 118.
References: Deu 18:15.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. ix., p. 27; E. H. Gifford, Twelve Lectures, p. 151. Deu 18:15-19.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxv., No. 1487; J. G. Murphy, The Book of Daniel, p. 20. Deu 18:15-22.-Parker, vol. iv., p. 273. Deu 18:18.-J. Hamilton, Works, vol. v., p. 99.
14. The Rights of the Priests and the Levites, the True and the False Prophet
CHAPTER 18
1. The rights of the priests and Levites (Deu 18:1-8)
2. Forbidden things (Deu 18:9-14)
3. The true and the false prophet (Deu 18:15-22)
The priests, the Levites, were the servants of Jehovah and had no inheritance with Israel, but Jehovah Himself was their inheritance. How the people were to minister unto them is now commanded by Moses. They were both dependent on the Lord and closely identified with Him. And this is true of us, who are in Christ constituted priests and called to the Levite service.
Of great interest are verses 9-14. The nations who possessed the land practised evil things, through which Satan manifested his awful power to lead astray and to corrupt. His people were to beware of these things. We, too, are warned not to intrude into those things which we have not seen (Col 2:18). Moses puts together the words which the language contained for the different modes of finding out the future and discovering the will of God. Passing a son or daughter through the fire, the awful Moloch service, is forbidden once more (Lev 18:21). Then follow all the abominable things. There are seven of them mentioned, which come under the term divination: 1. Observer of times, predicting good or bad things by observation of the heavens and circumstances; 2. Enchanter. The Hebrew word is _menachesh connected with _nachash the Hebrew word for serpent. It means one who murmurs enchantments; 3. Witch; 4. Charmer; 5. A consulter with familiar spirits; 6. A wizard, who has access to an unlawful wisdom; 7. The necromancer, who asks the dead. These abominations existed then and they exist today. Clairvoyancy, palmistry, astrology, soothsaying, fortune-telling, spiritualistic seances, theosophy, the formulas and treatments of Christian Science are a few of the modern names of this ancient demonism. It is awful to see their growth as the end draws near. What is claimed to be Psychical research, studying occult phenomena, is nothing less than stepping upon the same territory of evil. And Satan uses these wicked things, his familiar spirits, and asking the dead to prepare the way for the great delusion of the end, with its signs and lying wonders. Spiritualism with its demon-possessed mediums, Psychical research, theosophy, Christian Science, are Satan-cults. They are an abomination to Jehovah and His righteous judgment will soon fall upon them. We add here the solemn warning of another.
I take this opportunity of solemnly warning every soul–more particularly the young–from levity in hankering after that which they do not understand, and very especially in the way of giving up their will to any but the Lord Jesus. This is the essential point of danger. I do not raise the smallest doubt that there are powers in the natural world which lie quite beyond the explanation of men. It is not my wish therefore to excite a kind of hue and cry against that which may not be yet explained. Let us avoid the presumption of supposing that we can account for everything. But in our ignorance (which the wisest most feel and own) this wisdom at least ought to belong to the least of Gods children, that they know in whom they believe, and they have His word and His Spirit, and can count on infinite love and power as well as wisdom on their behalf. They can well afford therefore to leave what is beyond themselves or any others in the hands of God their Father. They with sorrow see others rush in who have nothing higher, who have no God to count on or look to. But above all beware. Whenever any one asks you to give up your mind or will to another–were it but for a moment–there is the evident hand of the devil in it. This is no question of physical powers, or of what is naturally inexplicable. What is behind giving up yourself, your will, to any one but God, is plain enough in its character and consequences; it is too easy to understand it. The divine axiom is that the Lord and He alone has a right to you. Consequently such a demand proves that Satan is taking advantage, it may be of what is natural, but certainly of you (W. Kelly).
The Prophet promised in verse 15 is the Lord Jesus Christ. Act 3:22-23 refers us to this prophecy. Act 7:37 also confirms the fulfilment of Moses prediction in the person of Christ.
shall have: Deu 10:9, Deu 12:19, Num 18:20, Num 26:62, Jos 13:33, Jos 18:7, 1Pe 5:2-4
they shall: Num 18:8, Num 18:9, Jos 13:14, 1Co 9:13, 1Co 9:14
Reciprocal: Lev 25:33 – for the houses Deu 12:12 – forasmuch Deu 14:27 – he hath no Deu 33:11 – his substance 1Sa 2:28 – did I give 1Ch 6:49 – Aaron Eze 44:28 – I am their inheritance
Deu 18:1. His inheritance The Lords portion or inheritance, which God had reserved to himself, as tithes and first-fruits, and other oblations distinct from those which were made by fire.
Deu 18:1. They shall eat the offerings of the Lord made by fire. The sin- offerings, except the skin and the fat, which were burnt on the altar. The ecclesiastics having relinquished the two great sources of wealth, lands and trade, it was but common justice that the laymen should give the guardians of the altar a suitable supply of food and raiment for them and their families.
Deu 18:10. Useth divination. One who attempts to discover secrets in a supernatural way. The Egyptian magicians pretended to divine by cups, as may be gathered from the pretext of Joseph; a very superstitious species of divination. So is the presumptuous prediction of future things. Jos 13:22. 1Sa 6:2.An observer of times; that is, an observer of vain dreams, clouds, planets, or the flight of birds. All who sacrifice the use of their judgment to this sort of superstitious phantoms, leave God, to walk in the vanity of their minds. No man in covenant with Him who ruleth over heaven and earth, should account either days or times lucky or unlucky for the transaction of his affairs.An enchanter. One who, according to poets, divines by means of serpents.A witch. Le Clerc renders this term hariolus, a soothsayer. It occurs in Dan 2:2, and Mal 3:5; and is thought to import imprecations of evil to men, beasts, &c.
Deu 18:11. A charmer. One who pretends to produce supernatural effects by words of incantation; or one who could allure serpents by imitations of their calls, and thereby pretend to divine intercourse with the invisible powers. Psa 58:5.A necromancer; a witch or wizard, who has recourse to the souls of the dead. What can be more daring in a mortal; or what more wicked in the sight of God.A consulter with familiar spirits; one who has an evil genius attending him, who practises oby, as the Hebrew word imports. Exo 22:18. Lev 19:31.
REFLECTIONS.
We find in Deu 18:8, that if a levite had a house and garden, like the priests, he still had equal claims with his poorer brethren to the provision made by the law for his maintenance. This marks in the fullest sense, that they who preach the gospel should live by the gospel. But while we support the equity of the divine law, we should add, that ministers who have property are bound to set an example of charity before the people. A man of contracted mind, sordid and avaricious, though he should preach like an archangel, will make no lasting impression on the minds of the people.
The Israelites on pain of death were not to have recourse to the diabolical and superstitious practices of divination, uniformly appendant to idolatry. The injunction is equally binding on us. In all common cases of affliction and trouble, the advice and counsel of good men will be quite sufficient; the throne of grace is an adequate source of wisdom and instruction. Let us never desire to know the secrets of providence before the time, nor ever try to know them out of Gods way.
Moses, to comfort the people, and wean them from all propensities to follow the blind ensnaring magic of the heathen, repeats the great promise God made him on Sinai, that the day would come when they should have another prophet like unto him; and so great should be the glory of that prophet, and the plenary character of his mission, that they should need no farther instruction. He could not speak this of a succession of prophets, as some have suggested, for there never was an uninterrupted succession; and the text speaks but of one, which was Christ. So the Jews understood the passage, for they asked John the baptist whether he was that prophet.
Eusebius has admirably illustrated this subject: it here follows, as translated by Dr. Jortin. Treating of the prophecies concerning Christ, he produces first this of Moses; and then asks which of the prophets, after Moses, Isaiah for instance, or Jeremiah, or Ezekiel, or Daniel, or any other of the twelve, was a lawgiver, and performed things like Moses? Moses first rescued the Jewish nation from Egyptian superstition and idolatry, and taught them the true theology. Christ in like manner was the first teacher of true religion and virtue to the gentiles. Moses confirmed his religion by miracles, and so did Christ. Moses delivered the Jewish nation from Egyptian servitude: Christ delivers mankind from the power of evil demons. Moses promised the holy land, and therein a happy life to those who kept the law; and Christ a better country, that is a heavenly, to all righteous souls. Moses fasted forty days; and so likewise did Christ. Moses supplied the people with bread in the wilderness; and our Saviour fed five thousand at one time, and four thousand at another, with a few loaves. Moses went himself and led the people through the midst of the sea: Christ walked on the sea, and enabled Peter to walk likewise. Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and caused the sea to go back; our Saviour rebuked the wind and the sea, and there was a great calm. Moses face shone when he descended from the mount; and our Saviours shone like the sun in his transfiguration. Moses by his prayers cured Miriam of her leprosy; Christ with greater power, by a word, healed several lepers. Moses performed wonders by the finger of God; Christ by the finger of God cast out devils. Moses changed Osheas name to Joshua; and our Saviour did Simons to Peter. Moses constituted seventy rulers over the people; and our Saviour appointed seventy disciples. Moses sent out twelve men to spy out the land; and our Saviour twelve apostles to visit all nations. Moses gave several excellent moral precepts: our Saviour carried them to the highest perfection.
Dr. Jortin enlarges upon these hints of Eusebius, with several improvements and additions. Moses in his infancy was wonderfully preserved from the destruction of all the male children: so was Christ. Moses fled from his country to escape the hands of the king: so did Christ, when his parents carried him into Egypt. Afterwards the Lord said to Moses in Midian, go, return into Egypt; for all the men are dead which sought thy life. Exo 4:19. So the angel of the Lord said to Joseph, in almost the same words, Arise, and take the young child, and go into the land of Israel; for they are dead which sought the young childs life, Mat 2:20, pointing him out as it were for that prophet who should arise like unto Moses. Moses refused to be called the son of Pharaohs daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction: Christ refused to be made king, choosing rather to suffer affliction. Moses, says St. Stephen, was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians; and Josephus says that he was a very forward and accomplished youth, and had wisdom and knowledge beyond his years. St. Luke also observes of Christ, that he increased betimes in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man; and his discourses in the temple with the doctors, when he was twelve years old, were a proof of it. Moses contended with magicians, who were forced to acknowledge the divine power by which he was assisted: Christ ejected evil spirits, and received the same acknowledgment from them. Moses was not only a lawyer, a prophet, and a worker of miracles, but a king and priest; in all these offices the resemblance between Moses and Christ was singular. Moses brought darkness over the land: the sun withdrew his light at Christs crucifixion. And as the darkness which was spread over Egypt was followed by the destruction of their firstborn, and of Pharaoh and his host; so the darkness at Christs death was the forerunner of the destruction of the Jews. Moses foretold the calamities which would befal the nation for their disobedience; so did Christ. The Spirit which was in Moses was conferred in some degree upon the seventy elders, and they prophesied: Christ conferred miraculous powers upon his seventy disciples. Moses was victorious over powerful kings and great nations; so was Christ by the effects of his religion, and by the fall of those who persecuted the church. Moses conquered Amalek by holding up both his hands: Christ overcame his enemies and ours when his hands were fastened to the cross. Moses interseded for transgressors, caused atonement to be made for them, and stopped the wrath of God; so did Christ. Moses ratified the covenant between God and the people, by sprinkling them with blood; so did Christ with his own blood. Moses desired to die for the people, and prayed that God would forgive them, or blot him out of his book: Christ did more, he died for sinners. Moses instituted the passover, when a lamb was sacrificed none of whose bones were broken, and whose blood protected the people from destruction: Christ was that paschal lamb. Moses lifted up the serpent, that they who looked upon it might be healed of their mortal wounds: Christ was that serpent. All Moses affection towards the people, all his cares and toils on their account were repaid by them with ingratitude, murmuring and rebellion; the same returns the Jews made to Christ for all his benefits. Moses was ill used by his own family, his brother and sister rebelled against him; there was a time when Christs own brethren believed not in him. Moses had a very wicked and perverse generation committed to his care and conduct; and to enable him to rule them, miraculous powers were given to him, and he used his utmost endeavour to make the people obedient to God, and to save them from ruin, but in vain; in the space of forty years they all fell in the wilderness except two. Christ also was given to a generation not less wicked and perverse, his instructions and his miracles were lost upon them; and in about the same space of time, after they had rejected him, they were destroyed. Moses was very meek above all men that were on the face of the earth; so was Christ. The people could not enter into the land of promise, till Moses was dead; by the death of Christ the kingdom of heaven is opened to all believers. In the death of Moses and Christ there is also a resemblance of some circumstances. Moses died, in one sense, for the iniquities of the people; it was their rebellion which was the occasion of it, which drew down the displeasure of God upon them and upon him. Moses went up, in the sight of the people, to the top of mount Nebo, and there he died, when he was in perfect vigour, when his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated. Christ suffered for the sins of men, and was led up, in presence of the people, to mount Calvary, where he died in the flower of his age, and when he was in his full natural strength. Neither Moses nor Christ, as far as we may collect from sacred history, were ever sick, or felt any bodily decay or infirmity, which would have rendered them unfit for the toils they underwent; their sufferings were of another kind. Lastly, as Moses a little before his death promised another prophet; so Christ another comforter.
Deuteronomy 18
The opening paragraph of this chapter suggests a deeply interesting and practical line of truth.
“The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and his inheritance. Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren: the Lord is their inheritance, as he hath said unto them. And this shall be the priest’s due from the people, from them that offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep; and they shall give unto the priest, the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw. The firstfruit also of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the first of the fleece of thy sheep, shalt thou give him. For the Lord thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes, to stand to minister in the name of the Lord, him and his sons for ever. And if a Levite come from any of thy gates out of all Israel, where he sojourned, and come with all the desire of his mind unto the place which the Lord shall choose; then he shall minister in the name of the Lord his God, as all his brethren the Levites do, which stand there before the Lord They shall have like portions to eat, beside that which cometh out of the sale of his patrimony.” (Vers. 1-8.)
Here, as in every part of the book of Deuteronomy, the Priests are classed with the Levites, in a very marked way. We have called the reader’s attention to this, as a special characteristic feature of our book, and shall not dwell upon it now, but merely, in passing, remind the reader of it, as something claiming his attention. Let him weigh the opening words of our chapter, “The priests the Levites,” and compare them with the way in which the priests, the sons of Aaron, are spoken of in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers; and if he should be disposed to ask the reason of this distinction, we believe it to be this, that in Deuteronomy the divine object is to bring the whole assembly of Israel more into prominence, and hence it is that the priests, in their official capacity, come rarely before us. The grand Deuteronomic idea is, Israel in immediate relationship with Jehovah.
Now, in the passage just quoted, we have the priests and the Levites linked together, and presented as the Lord’s servants, wholly dependent upon Him, and intimately identified with His altar and His service. This is full of interest, and opens up a very important field of practical truth to which the Church of God would do well to attend.
In looking through the history of Israel, we observe that when things were in anything like a healthful condition, the altar of God was well attended to, and, as a consequence, the priests and Levites were well supplied. If Jehovah had His portion, His servants were sure to have theirs. If He was neglected, so were they. They were bound up together. The people were to bring their offerings to God, and He shared them with His servants. The priests the Levites were not to exact or demand of the people, but the people were privileged to bring their gifts to the altar of God, and He permitted His servants to feed upon the fruit of His people’s devotedness to Him.
Such was the true, the divine idea as to the Lord’s servants of old. They were to live upon the voluntary offerings presented to God by the whole congregation. True it is that, in the dark and evil days of the sons of Eli, we find something sadly different from this lovely moral order. Then “the priest’s custom with the people was, that, when any one offered sacrifice, the priest’s servant came, while the flesh was in seething, with a fleshhook of three teeth in his hand; and he struck it into the pan, or kettle, or caldron, or pot; all that the flesh hook brought up the priest took for himself. So they did in Shiloh unto all the Israelites that came thither. Also before they burnt the fat” – God’s special portion – “the priest’s servant came, and said to the man that sacrificed, Give flesh to roast for the priest; for he will not have sodden flesh of thee, but raw. And if any man said unto him, Let them not fail to burn the fat presently, and then take as much as thy soul desireth then he would answer him, Nay; but thou shalt give it me now; and if not, I will take it by force. Wherefore the sin of the young men was very great before the Lord; for men abhorred the offering of Lord.” (1 Sam. 2: 13-17.)
All this was truly deplorable, and ended in the solemn judgement of God upon the house of Eli. It could not be otherwise. If those who ministered at the altar could be guilty of such terrible iniquity and impiety, judgement must take its course.
But the normal condition of things, as presented in our chapter, was in vivid contrast with all this frightful iniquity. Jehovah would surround Himself with the willing offerings of His people, and, from these offerings He would feed His servants who ministered at His altar. Hence, therefore, when the altar of God was diligently, fervently and devotedly attended to, the priests the Levites had a rich portion, an abundant supply; and, on the other hand, when Jehovah and His altar were treated with cold neglect, or merely waited upon in a barren routine or heartless formalism, the Lord’s servants were correspondingly neglected. In a word, they stood intimately identified with the worship and service of the God of Israel.
Thus, for example, in the bright days of the good king Hezekiah, when things were fresh and hearts happy and true, we read, “And Hezekiah appointed the courses of the priests and the Levites after their courses, every man according to his service, the priests and Levites for burnt offerings, and for peace offerings, to minister, and to give thanks, and to praise in the gates of the tents of the Lord. He appointed also the king’s portion of his substance for the burnt offerings, to wit, for the morning and evening burnt offerings, and the burnt offerings for the Sabbaths, and for the new moons, and for the set feasts, as it is written in the law of the Lord. Moreover he commanded the people that dwelt in Jerusalem to give the portion of the priests and the Levites, that they might be encouraged in the law of the Lord. And as soon as the commandment came abroad, the children of Israel brought in abundance the firstfruits of corn, wine, and oil, and honey, and of all the increase of the field; and the tithe of all things brought they in abundantly. And concerning the children of Israel and Judah, that dwelt in the cities of Judah, they also brought in the tithe of oxen and sheep, and the tithe of holy things which were consecrated unto the Lord their God, and laid them by heaps. In the third month they began to lay the foundation of the heaps, and finished them in the seventh month. And when Hezekiah and the princes came and saw the heaps, they blessed the Lord, and his people Israel Then Hezekiah questioned with the priests and the Levites concerning the heaps. And Azariah the chief priest of the house of Zadok answered him, and said, Since the people began to bring the offerings into the house of Lord, we have had enough, to eat, and have left plenty, for the Lord hath blessed his people; and that which is left is this great store.” (2 Chr. 31: 2-10.)
How truly refreshing is all this! And how encouraging! The deep, full, silvery tide of devotedness flowed around the altar of God bearing upon its bosom an ample supply to meet all the need of the Lord’s servants, and “heaps” beside. This, we feel assured, was grateful to the heart of the God of Israel, as it was to the hearts of those who had given themselves, at His call and by His appointment, to the service of His altar and His sanctuary.
And let the reader specially note those precious words, “As it is written in the law of the Lord.” Here was Hezekiah’s authority, the solid basis of his whole line of conduct, from first to last. True, the nation’s visible unity was gone; the condition of things, when he began his blessed work, was most discouraging; but the word of the Lord was as true, as real, and as direct in its application in Hezekiah’s day as it was in the days of David or Joshua. Hezekiah rightly felt that Deuteronomy 18: 1-8 applied to his day and to his conscience, and that he and the people were responsible to act upon it, according to their ability. Were the priests and the Levites to starve because Israel’s national unity was gone? Surely not. They were to stand or fall with the word, the worship, and the work of God. Circumstances might vary, and the Israelite might find himself in a position in which it would be impossible to carry out in detail all the ordinances of the Levitical ceremonial, but he never could find himself in circumstances in which it was not his high privilege to give full expression to his heart’s devotedness to the service, the altar, and the law of Jehovah.
Thus, then, we see, throughout the entire history of Israel, that when things were at all bright and healthy, the Lord’s worship, His work, and His workmen were blessedly attended to. But, on the other hand, when things were low, when hearts were cold, when self and its interests had the uppermost place, then all these great objects were treated with heartless neglect. Look for example, at Nehemiah 13. When that beloved and faithful servant returned to Jerusalem, after an absence of certain days, he found, to his deep sorrow, that, even in that short time, various things had gone sadly astray; amongst the rest, the poor Levites had been left without anything to eat. ” And I perceived that the portions of the Levites had not been given them; for the Levites and the singers that did the work were fled every one to his field.” There were no “heaps” of firstfruits in those dismal days, and surely it was hard for men to work and sing when they had nothing to eat. This was not according to the law of Jehovah, nor according to His loving heart. It was a sad reproach upon the people that the Lord’s servants were obliged, through their gross neglect, to abandon His worship and His work, in order to keep themselves from starving.
This, truly, was a deplorable condition of things. Nehemiah felt it keenly, as we read, “Then contended I with the rulers, and said, why is the house of God forsaken? And I gathered them together, and set them in their place. Then brought all Judah the tithe of the corn, and the new wine, and the oil, unto the treasuries. And I made treasurers over the treasuries….for they were counted faithful;” – they were entitled to the confidence of their brethren – “and their office was to distribute unto their brethren.” It needed a number of tried and faithful men to occupy the high position of distributing to their brethren the precious fruit of the people’s devotedness; they could take counsel together, and see that the Lord’s treasury was faithfully managed, according to His word, and the need of His true and bona fide workmen fully met, without prejudice or partiality.
Such was the lovely order of the God of Israel – an order to which every true Israelite such as Nehemiah and Hezekiah, would delight to attend. The rich tide of blessing flowed forth from Jehovah to His people, and back from His people to Him, and from that flowing tide His servants were to draw a full supply for all their need. It was a dishonour to Him to have the Levites obliged to return to their fields; it proved that His house was forsaken, and that there was no sustenance for His servants.
Now, the question may here be asked, What has all this to say to us? What has the church of God to learn from Deuteronomy 18: 1-8? In order to answer this question, we must turn to 1 Corinthians 9 where the inspired apostle deals with the very important subject of the support of the Christian ministry – a subject so little understood by the great mass of professing Christians. As to the law of the case, it is as distinct as possible. “Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written; that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless” – here grace shines out, in all its heavenly lustre – “we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. Do ye not know, that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. But” – here, again, grace asserts its holy dignity – “I have used none of these things; neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me; for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void. For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of; for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.” (1 Cor. 9: 7-18)
Here we have this interesting and weighty subject presented in all its bearings. The inspired apostle lays down, with all possible decision and clearness the divine law on the point. There is no mistaking it. “The Lord hath ordained that they that preach the gospel should live of the gospel;” that, just as the priests and the Levites, of old, lived on offerings presented by the people, so, now, those who are really called of God, gifted by Christ, and fitted by the Holy Ghost, to Preach the gospel, and who are giving themselves constantly and diligently, to that glorious work, are morally entitled to temporal support. It is not that they should look to those to whom they preach for a certain stipulated sum. There is no such idea as this in the New Testament. The workman must look to his Master, and to Him alone for support. Woe be to him if he looks to the church, or to men in any way The priests and Levites had their portion in and from Jehovah. He was the lot of their inheritance. True, He expected the people to minister to Him in the persons of His servants. He told them what to give, and blessed them in giving; it was their high privilege as well as their bounden duty to give; had they refused or neglected, it would have brought drought and barrenness upon their fields and vineyards. (Haggai 1: 5-11)
But the priests the Levites had to look only to Jehovah. If the people failed in their offerings, the Levites had to fly to their fields and work for their living. They could not go to law with any one for tithes and offerings; their only appeal was to the God of Israel who had ordained them to the work, given them the work to do.
So also with the Lord’s workmen, now; they must look only to Him. They must be well assured that He has fitted them for the work and called them to it ere they attempt to push out – if we may so express it – from the shore of circumstances, and give themselves wholly to the work of preaching. They must take their eyes completely off from men, from all creature streams and human props, and lean exclusively upon the living God. We have seen the most disastrous consequences resulting from acting under a mistaken impulse in this most solemn matter; men not called of God, or fitted for the work, giving up their occupations, and coming forth, as they said, to live by faith and give themselves to the work. Deplorable shipwreck was the result in every instance. Some, when they began to look the stern realities of the path straight in the face, became so alarmed, that they actually lost their mental balance, lost their reason for a time; some lost their peace; and some went right back into the world again.
In short, it is our deep and thorough conviction, after forty years’ observation, that the cases are few and far between in which it is morally safe and good for one to abandon his bread-winning calling in order to preach the gospel. It must be so distinct and unquestionable to the man himself, that he has only to say, with Luther, at the Diet of Worms, “Here am; I can do no otherwise: God help me! Amen” Then he may be perfectly sure that God will sustain him in the work to which He has called him, and meet all his need, “according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.” And as to men, and their thoughts respecting him and his course, he has simply to refer them to his Master. He is not responsible to them nor has he ever asked them for anything. If they were compelled to support him, reason would they might complain or raise questions; but, as they are not, they must just leave him, remembering that to his own Master he standeth or falleth.
But when we look at the splendid passage just quoted from 1 Corinthians 9, we find that the blessed apostle, after having established, beyond all question, his right to be supported, relinquishes it completely. “Nevertheless, I have used none of these things.” He worked with his hands; he wrought with labour and travail night and day, in order not to be chargeable or burdensome to any. These hands,” he says, “have ministered to my necessities, and those that were with me.” He coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel. He travelled, he preached, he visited from house to house, he was the laborious apostle, the earnest evangelist the diligent pastor, he had the care of all the churches. Was not he entitled to support? Assuredly he was. It ought to have been the joy of the church of God to minister to his every need. But he never enforced his claim; nay, he surrendered it. He supported himself and his companions by the labour of his hands; and all this as an example, as he says to the elders of Ephesus, “I have showed you all things how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.
Now, it is perfectly wonderful to think of this beloved and revered servant of Christ, with his extensive travels, from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum, his gigantic labours as an evangelist, a pastor and a teacher, and yet finding time to support himself and others by the work of his hands. Truly he occupied high moral ground. His case is a standing testimony against hirelingism, in every shape and form. The infidel’s sneering reference to well-paid ministers could have no application whatever to him. He certainly did not preach for hire.
And yet he thankfully received help from those who knew how to give it. Again and again, beloved assembly at Philippi ministered to the necessities of their revered and beloved father in Christ. How well for them that they did so! It will never be forgotten. Millions have read the sweet record of their devotedness, and been refreshed by the odour of their sacrifice; it is recorded in heaven where nothing of the kind is ever forgotten, yea, it is engraved on the very tablets of the heart of Christ. Hear how the blessed apostle pours out his grateful heart to his much loved children “I rejoice in the Lord greatly, that now at the last your care of me hath flourished again; wherein ye were also careful, but ye lacked opportunity. Not that I speak in respect of want;” – blessed, self-denying servant – “for I have learned in whatsoever state I am, to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound; everywhere, and in all things I am instructed, both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. Notwithstanding, ye have well done that ye did communicate with my affliction Now ye know Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only. For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity. Not because I desire a gift, but I desire fruit that may abound to your account. But I have all and abound; I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God. But my God shall supply all your need, according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.” (Phil. 4: 10-19.)
What a rare privilege to be allowed to comfort the heart of such an honoured servant of Christ, at the close of his career, and in the solitude of his prison at Rome! How seasonable, how right, how lovely was their ministry! What joy to receive the apostle’s acknowledgments! And then how precious the assurance that their service had gone up, as an odour of sweet smell, to the very throne and heart of God! Who would not rather be a Philippian ministering to the apostle’s need, than a Corinthian calling his ministry in question, or a Galatian breaking his heart? How vast the difference! The apostle could not take anything from the assembly at Corinth. Their state did not admit of it. Individuals in that assembly did minister to him, and their service is recorded on the page of inspiration, remembered above, and it will be abundantly rewarded in the kingdom by-and-by. “I am glad of the coming of Stephanus and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied. For they have refreshed my spirit and yours: therefore acknowledge ye them that are such.” (1 Cor. 16: 17, 18.)
Thus, then, from all that has passed before us, we learn, most distinctly, that both under the law and under the gospel, it is according to the revealed will, and according to the heart of God that those who are really called of Him to the work, and who devote themselves, earnestly, diligently and faithfully to it, should have the hearty sympathy and practical help of His people. All who love Christ will count it their deepest joy to minister to Him in the persons of His servants. When He Himself was here upon earth, He graciously accepted help from the hands of those who loved Him, and had reaped the fruit His most precious ministry – “certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto Him of their substance.” (Luke 8: 2, 3.)
Happy, highly privileged women! What joy be allowed to minister to the Lord of glory, in the days of His human need and humiliation! There stand their honoured names, on the divine page written down by God the Holy Ghost, to be read by untold millions, to be borne along the stream of time right onward into eternity. How well it was for those women that they did not waste their substance in self-indulgence, or hoard it up to be rust on their souls, or a positive curse, as money must ever be if not used for God!
But, on the other hand, we learn the urgent need on the part of all who take the place of workers, whether in or out of the assembly, of keeping themselves perfectly free from all human influence, all looking to men, in any shape or form. They must have to do with God in the secret of their own souls, or they will, assuredly, break down, sooner or later. They must look to Him alone for the supply of their need. If the church neglect them, the church will be the serious loser here and hereafter. If they can support themselves by the labour of their hands, without curtailing their direct service to Christ, so much the better; it is unquestionably the more excellent way. We are as persuaded of this as of the truth of any proposition that could be submitted to us. There is nothing more spiritually and morally noble than a truly gifted servant of Christ supporting himself and his family, by the sweat of his brow or the sweat of his brain, and, at the same time, giving himself diligently to the Lord’s work, whether as an evangelist, a pastor or a teacher. The moral antipodes of this is presented to our view in the person of a man who, without gift, or grace, or spiritual life, enters what is called the ministry, as a mere profession or means of living. The position of such a man is morally dangerous and miserable in extreme. We shall not dwell upon it, inasmuch as it does not come within the range of the subject which been engaging our attention, and we are only too thankful to leave it, and proceed with our chapter.
“When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto Lord; and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee. Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God. For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners; but as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee so to do.” (Vers. 9-14.)
Now, it may be that, on reading the foregoing quotation, the reader feels disposed to ask what possible application it can have to professing Christians? We ask, in reply, Are there any Christians who are in the habit of going to the performances of wizards, magicians and necromancers? Are there any who take part in table- turning, spirit-rapping, mesmerism, or clairvoyance?* If so, the passage which we have just quoted very pointedly and solemnly, upon all such. We most surely believe that all these things which we have named are of the devil. This may sound harsh and severe; but we cannot help that. We are thoroughly persuaded that when people lend themselves to the awful business of bringing up, in any way, the spirits of the departed, they are simply putting themselves into the hands of the devil to be deceived and deluded by his lies. What, we may ask, do those who hold in their hands a perfect revelation from God, want of table-turning and spirit-rapping? Surely nothing And, if not content with that precious word, they turn to the spirits of departed friends or others, what can they expect but that God will judicially give them over to be blinded and deceived by wicked spirits who come up and personate the departed, and tell all manner lies?
{*Some of our readers may object to our classing with mesmerism with spirit-rapping and table-turning. It may be they would regard it in the same light, and use it in the same way, as ether or chloroform, in medical practice. We do not attempt to dogmatise on the point. We can only say that we could have nothing whatever to do with it. We consider it a solemn thing for any one to allow himself to be placed by another in a state of utter unconsciousness [mesmerism, Compiler.], for any purpose whatsoever. And as to the idea of listening to, or being guided by the ravings of a person in that state, we can only regard it as absolutely absurd, if not positively sinful.}
We cannot attempt go fully into this subject here. We have no time, for anything of the sort. We merely fell it to be our solemn duty to warn the reader about having anything whatever to do with consulting departed spirits. We believe it to be most dangerous work. We do not enter upon the question as to whether souls can come back to this world; no doubt, God could permit them to come if He saw fit; but this we leave. The great point for us to keep ever before our hearts is the perfect sufficiency of divine revelation, what do we want of departed spirits? The rich man imagined that if Lazarus were to go back to earth and speak to his five brethren, it would have a great effect. “I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house; for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham; but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead” (Luke 16: 27-31.)
Here we have a thorough settlement of this question. If people will not hear the word of God, if they will not believe its clear and solemn statements as to themselves, their present condition, their future destiny, neither will they be persuaded though a thousand departed souls were to come back and tell them what they saw, and heard, and felt in heaven above or in hell beneath; it would produce no saving or permanent effect upon them. It might cause great excitement, great sensation, furnish great material for talk, and fill the newspapers far and wide; but there it would end. People would go on all the same, with their traffic and gain, their folly and vanity, their pleasure-hunting and self-indulgence. “If they hear not Moses and the prophets,” – and we may add, Christ and His holy apostles – “neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. The heart that will not bow to scripture will be not convinced by anything; and as to the true believer, he has in scripture all he can possibly want, and therefore he has no need to have recourse to table-turning, spirit-rapping or magic. “And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter; should not a people seek unto their God for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isaiah 8: 19, 20.)
Here is the divine resource of the Lord’s people, at all times and in all places; and to this it is that Moses refers the congregation in the splendid paragraph which closes our chapter. He shows them, very distinctly, that they had no need to apply to familiar spirits, enchanters, wizards, or witches, which all were an abomination to the Lord. The Lord thy God,” he says, ” will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me unto him ye shall hearken; according to all that desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb, in day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. But the prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.” (Vers. 15-22.)
We can be at no loss to know who this Prophet is, namely, our adorable Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. In the third chapter of Acts, Peter so applies the words of Moses. “He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you; whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things, whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.” (Vers. 20-23.)
How precious the privilege of hearing the voice of such a Prophet! It is the voice of God speaking through the lips of the Man Christ Jesus – speaking, not in thunder, not with flaming fire, nor the lightning’s flash, but in that still small voice of love and mercy which falls in soothing power, on the broken heart and contrite spirit, which distills like the gentle dew of heaven upon the thirsty ground. This voice we have in the holy scriptures, that precious revelation which comes so constantly and so powerfully before us, in our studies on this blessed book of Deuteronomy. We must never forget this. The voice of scripture is the voice of Christ, and the voice of Christ is the voice of God.
We want no more. If any one presumes to come with a fresh revelation, with some new truth not contained in the divine Volume, we must judge him and his communication by the standard of scripture and reject them utterly. “Thou shalt not be afraid of him” False prophets come with great pretensions, high-sounding words and sanctimonious bearing. Moreover they seek to surround themselves with a sort of dignity, weight and impressiveness which are apt to impose on the ignorant. But they cannot stand the searching power of the word of God. Some simple clause of holy scripture will strip them of all their imposing surroundings, and cut up by the roots their wonderful revelations. Those who know the voice of the true Prophet will not listen to any other; those who have heard the voice of the good Shepherd will not listen to the voice of a stranger.
Reader, see that you listen only to the voice of Jesus.
Deu 18:1-5. The Priests, the Levites to be Supported by Altar Gifts.The Jerusalem priests are intended. Deu 18:3 f. Contrast the later laws of Lev 7:34, Num 18:18; Num 18:12 (all P).
PRIESTS AND LEVITES: THEIR DUE
(vs.1-8)
The proper support of the priests and Levites is again insisted on. Since they were given no inheritance in the land, and were separated to care for the interests of God among the people, then they were entitled to eat of the offerings that Israel made to the Lord (vs.1-2). this portion of the offerings consisted of the shoulders, the cheeks and the stomach of a bull or sheep. This was not from the burn offerings, which were all offered to the Lord in fire, except for the skin (Lev 1:6-13; Lev 7:8). But the priest had his part of the peace offering and of the sin offering, if the blood of the sin offering was not brought into the holy place (Lev 7:14-15; Lev 6:26).
The firstfruits of their grain, wine and oil and the first of the fleece of sheep were to be given to the Levites also (v.4). Since they were to represent God’s authority, then these things were primarily given to God, as is true today in ministering to God’s servants.
It is insisted that the Lord had chosen Levi to stand to minister in the name of the Lord, and this was passed on from father to son (v.5). such succession for servants is not the case in the Church of God today, but rather each servant now has a distinct call from God, apart altogether from natural relationship. See Gal 1:1 and 2Ti 2:2.
Levites were scattered among the tribes, but if a Levite desired with a longing heart to serve the Lord in the place of God’s choice (Jerusalem), he was to be welcomed there among other Levites (v.7), and share equally with them in the offerings brought to the Lord.
WARNINGS AS TO WICKED PRACTICES IN THE LAND
(vs.9-14)
In the land of Canaan the evil of the nations had risen to an intolerable level: their iniquity was full: therefore God was judging them before Israel. So God warns Israel against adopting any of the evil practices that caused His judgment. These included making sons or daughters pass through the fire (v.10), a thing the nations considered a religious ceremony (Deu 12:31), sacrificing their children to idols. To quote from Fausset’s Encyclopedia (p.485), “Kimshi represents Moloch as a hollow brass human-like body with ox’s head, and hands stretched forth to receive. When it was thoroughly heated the priests put the babe into its hand whilst drums were beat to drown the infant cries, lest the parents should relent.” Is seems hard to understand how such wickedness could be justified by religious zeal, yet such is the seduction of satanic power.
Practicing witchcraft or soothsaying was also firmly forbidden, as well as the claim of interpreting omens, that is, anything that appeared to be unusual, to which superstition might attach some hidden meaning. One who pretended to have discernment to interpret such things was the victim of satanic deceit. Sorcery, also forbidden, is the practice of delving into spiritism by the use of drugs.
Verse 11 adds to this the evil of conjuring spells, that is, hypnotism, and also the wickedness of one acting as a medium, which means one who is a go-between, bringing messages from an evil spirit to another person. A spiritist is similar, that is, one having contract with evil spirits. One who calls up the dead is one who claims to actually bring a dead person in contact with a living person. This is deception, for it is actually a familiar spirit who impersonates the dead person. The witch of Endor was asked by King Saul to bring up Samuel (1Sa 28:11), but when the woman saw Samuel she was terrified (v.12), for she was accustomed to the deceit of a familiar spirit. But God intervened in this one case to make a striking exception.
All those engaged in such contracts with evil spirits were “an abomination to the Lord,” and it was because of such things that God was driving them out of the land before Israel (v.12). Let Israel therefore avoid every such thing, and be blameless before the Lord (v.13).
A PROPHET LIKE MOSES
(vs.15-22)
In contrast to the deluded prophets of idolatry, the Lord would raise up a prophet like Moses (but infinitely greater than Moses) from the midst of Israel (v.1). Israel is commanded to listen to Him. Moses was at the point of being taken away in death. But God remembered how Israel had been terrified at the thought of hearing God Himself speaking to them at Sinai (Exo 20:18-20), and had asked for an intermediary between themselves and God. Therefore the Prophet spoken of in verse 18 is the “one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus” (1Ti 2:5). He would speak faithfully the words He received from God (v.18).
If one would not listen to God’s words spoken by this Prophet, God would require it of him. God would make this a serious issue that the guilty person could not escape. The Jews asked John the Baptist if he was that Prophet (Joh 1:21), for they did not understand that this Prophet could only be the Messiah of Israel. He is the One Prophet whom everyone is responsible to recognize and believe.
While God’s Prophet was to be obeyed, on the other hand anyone who assumed to be a prophet speaking in God’s name, when God had not given him such a message, was to be put to death (v.20). If there was any question as to whether the message was from God, then Israel was to observe whether the person’s prophecy took place as he said. If not, this was not from God,, and the false prophet might give a sign that proved correct, but when he used this with the object of seducing others to serve false gods, then he must be put to death, for the case proved that he was energized by satanic power. In this case in Deu 18:20 it may not be satanic power involved, but the prophet was speaking presumptuously, and must be put to death.
18:1 The priests the Levites, [and] all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and his {a} inheritance.
(a) That is, the Lord’s part of his inheritance.
Priests and Levites 18:1-8
The Levites lived as sojourners among the other Israelites. While they had their own cities, they did not possess land and territorial inheritances as the other Israelites did. However the privilege of serving God as they alone could was compensation much greater than their loss of physical benefits. They could eat the produce of the land. In addition to the tithes, the Levites also received the parts of the sacrifices allotted to them that included meat of various kinds, wine, oil, and wool (Deu 18:3-4).
Evidently not all the Levites served at the tabernacle. Some simply lived in their assigned cities. Participation in sanctuary services was apparently voluntary to some extent (Deu 18:6-8). God did not preserve in Scripture the plan whereby individual Levites served in carrying out various duties at this period in Israel’s history (cf. Numbers 18). This passage refutes the Wellhausian view that all Levites could be priests. [Note: See also Rodney K. Duke, "The Portion of the Levite: Another Reading of Deuteronomy 18:6-8," Journal of Biblical Literature 106:2 (1987):193-201.]
One writer argued that Deu 18:8 permitted the Levites to sell the remains of a sacrificed animal. [Note: Logan S. Wright, "MKR in 2 Kings XII 5-17 and Deuteronomy XVIII 8," Vetus Testamentum 39:4 (October 1989):445, 448.] Most translators believed this verse allowed them to sell their family possessions.
SPEAKERS FOR GOD –
II. THE PRIEST
Deu 18:1-8
THE priesthood naturally follows the kingship in the regulations regarding the position of the governing classes. But it was an older and much more radical constituent in the polity of Israel than we have seen the kingship to be. Originally, the priests were the normal and regular exponents of Yahwehs will. They received and gave forth to the people oracles from Him, and they were the fountain of moral and spiritual guidance. The Torah of the priests, which on the older view was the Pentateuch as we have it, or its substance at least, which Moses had put into their hands, is much more probably now regarded as the guidance given by means of the sacred lot and the Urim and Thummim. Because of their special nearness to and intimacy with God, the priests were in contact with the Divine will and could receive special Divine guidance; and in days when the voice of prophecy was dumb, or in matters which it left untouched, the priestly Torah, or direction, was the one authorized Divine voice. But this was not the only function of the priests. Sacrificial worship was a more fundamental function. Wellhausen and his school indeed seem inclined to deny that as priests of Yahweh they had any Divinely ordered connection with sacrifice. But the truer view is that their power to give Torah to Israel depended entirely upon their being the custodians of the places where Yahweh had caused His name to be remembered. The theory was that, as they approached Him with sacrifices in His sanctuaries, they consequently could speak for Him; so that the guarding of His shrines, and the offering of the peoples sacrifices there were their first duties. In fact they were the mediators between Yahweh and Israel Yahweh was King, but He was invisible, and the priests were His visible earthly representatives. The dues, which in a merely secular state would have gone to the king, as rent for the lands held of him, were employed for their appointed uses by the priests, as the servants and representatives of the heavenly King who had bestowed the land upon Israel and allotted to each family its portion. Occupying a middle position, then, between the two parties to the Covenant by which Israel had become Yahwehs chosen people, they spoke for the people when they appeared before Yahweh, and for Him when they came forth to the people. They were, as we have said, the oldest and most important of the ruling classes, and must have been from early times a special order set apart for the service of Israels God.
The main passages in Deuteronomy which bear upon the position and character of the priesthood and of the tribe of Levi are the following. In Deu 18:1-8; Deu 10:6-9, and Deu 27:9-14 the strictly priestly functions of the tribe of Levi are dealt with; in Deu 17:9 ff; Deu 19:17, the judicial functions; in Deu 21:1-5 their function in connection with sanitary matters is referred to. Besides these there are the various injunctions to invite the Levites to the sacrificial feasts, because they have no inheritance, and a number of references to the priesthood as a well-known body, the constitution and duties of which did not need special treatment. These last are of themselves sufficient to prove beyond question that in dealing with the priests and Levites the author of this book writes from out of the midst of a long established system. He does not legislate for the introduction of priests, neither does he refer to a priestly system recently elaborated by himself, and only now coming into operation. He does not tell us how priests are to be appointed, nor from whom, nor with what ceremonies of consecration they are to be inducted into their office. In fact the writer speaks of what concerns the priests and Levites in a manner which makes it certain that in his day there were, and had long been, Levites who were priests, and Levites of whom it may at least be said that they were probably nothing more than subordinates in regard to religious duty. In a word, while presupposing an established system of priestly and Levitical service, he nowhere attempts to give any clear or complete view of that system. His whole mind is turned towards the people. It is about their duties and their rights he is anxious, about their duties perhaps more than their rights; and he touches upon matters connected with others than the people only in a cursory way. In this matter, especially, he clearly needs to be supplemented by information drawn from other sources, and his every word about it shows that he is not introducing or referring to anything new. Any modifications he makes are plainly stated and are limited to a few special points.
The chief passage for our purpose is, however, Deu 18:1-8, where we have the agents of the cultus defined, and directions for the dues to be given them. In Deu 18:1 these agents are clearly said to be the whole tribe of Levi; for the phrase “The priests, the Levites, the whole tribe of Levi,” cannot mean the priests and the Levites who together make up the whole tribe of Levi. Notwithstanding the arguments of Keil and Curtiss and other ingenious scholars, the unprejudiced mind must, I think, accept Dillmanns rendering, “The Levitical priests, the whole tribe of Levi,” the latter clause standing in apposition to the former. In that case Deuteronomy must be held to regard every Levite as in some sense priestly. This view is confirmed by Deu 10:8 f., where distinctly priestly duties are assigned to the “tribe of Levi.” Some indeed assert that this verse was written by a later editor, but valid reasons for the assertion are somewhat difficult to find. Neither Kuenen nor Oettli nor Dillmann find any. We may, then, accept it as Deuteronomic since critics of such various leanings do so. To quote Dillmann, “Beyond question, therefore, the tribe as a whole appears here as called to sacred, especially priestly service; only it does not follow from that that every individual member of the tribe could exercise these functions at his pleasure, without there being any organization and gradation among these servants of God.” No, that does not follow; and this very passage {Deu 18:1-8} shows that it does not, for it makes a very clear distinction. In Deu 18:3 ff. the dues of the priest are dealt with, while in Deu 18:6 ff. those of the Levite in one special case are provided for. As if to emphasize the distinction between them, the priest in Deu 18:3 is not called “Levitical,” as he is in other passages.
Further, the verses concerning the Levite also emphasize the distinction; for few will be able to adopt the view that here in Deu 18:6 ff. every Levite who chooses is authorized to become a priest, by the mere process of presenting himself at the central sanctuary. The author of Deuteronomy must have known, better probably than any one now considering this matter, that the priests in the central sanctuary would never consent to divide their privileges and their income with every member of their tribe who might choose to come up to Jerusalem. Indeed, if they had received each and every one, the crowd would have been an embarrassment instead of a help. As a matter of fact, when the Deuteronomic reform came to be put in practice, this free admission of every Levite to the service of the Jerusalem Temple was not adopted, and it is prima facie improbable that the author of it can have meant his provision in that sense. The meaning seems to be that, as only those Levites who were employed in the central sanctuary could be de facto priests, those living in the country were not priests in the same sense; and the regulation made is that if any Levite came up to Jerusalem and was received into the ranks of the Temple Levites, i.e., the sacrificial priests, he should receive the same dues as the others performing the same work did. But though no conditions of admission to the Temple service. are mentioned, obviously there must have been some conditions, some division of labor, some organization involving gradations in rank, and perhaps also some limitation as to time in the case of such voluntary service as is here dealt with. For, as Dillmann points out, it is not said that the service of every Temple Levite is the same; numbers of them may have had no higher work than the Levites under the laws of the Priest Codex.
Moreover the other functions assigned to the priests confirm the argument, and prove that in the time of Deuteronomy distinctions of rank among the Levites must have been firmly established. They had a place in the public justiciary, even in the supreme court, “in the place which Yahweh their God” had chosen. {Deu 17:9; Deu 19:17} Not only so, the law concerning a man found slain in Deu 21:1-5, implies that there were in the cities throughout the land priests, the sons of Levi, whom “Yahweh thy God hath chosen to minister unto Him and to bless in the name of Yahweh, and according to their word shall every controversy and every stroke be.” Now it cannot possibly have been the intention of the author of Deuteronomy that every member of the tribe of Levi should have equal power to decide such matters. If in his view every Levite was a priest, then we should have this impossible state of affairs, that the highest courts for judicial process should be in the hands of a class which was more largely indebted to the generosity of the rich for its maintenance than any other in the country. It seems plain therefore that every Levite could not exercise full priestly functions because of his birth. Clearly, if any Levite might become a priest it was only in the same sense in which every Napoleonic soldier was said to carry a marshals baton in his knapsack.
Finally, in this passage (Deu 18:5), by the words “him and his sons for ever,” which refer back to “the priest,” a hereditary character of the priesthood is asserted. This phrase is remarkably parallel to that so frequently used by P, “Aaron and his sons”; and though we are not told in what family or families the priesthood was hereditary, it must have been so in some. But in Deu 10:6-7, the family of Aaron is mentioned by the Deuteronomist as having hereditary right to the priesthood at the central shrine. There can therefore be no doubt that in the time of the author of Deuteronomy priesthood was hereditary, perhaps in several families, but certainly in the family of Aaron.
The remaining point in these verses of chapter 18, is the dues. As the whole tribe had no land, so the whole tribe had a share in the dues paid by the people to their Divine King. In Deu 18:3 ff. we have a statement of what these were. The whole tribe of Levi are to eat “the offerings of Yahweh made by fire, and His inheritance. And they shall have no inheritance among their brethren: Yahweh is their inheritance, as He hath spoken unto them.” The only place in Scripture in which such a promise is given is Num 18:20; Num 18:24, so that these passages, if not referred to by the author of Deuteronomy, must be founded upon a tradition already old in his time. As the servants of Yahweh, the Levites were to be wholly Yahwehs care; as His representatives, they were to use for the supply of their needs all such portions of the offerings made to Him by fire as were not to be consumed on the altar. Their remaining provision was to be “His,” i.e., Yahwehs “inheritance,” or rather “portion,” or that which belongs to Him. Now Yahwehs “portion” consisted of all the other sacred dues (besides the sacrifices) which should be paid to Yahweh, such as the tithes, the firstlings, and the first fruits. On these the whole tribe of Levi was to live, and so be free to give their time to the special business of the sanctuary, and to related duties, in so far as they were called upon.
But there were to be distinctions. In Deu 18:3-5 we have a special statement of what was to be paid by the people to the priests, i.e., the sacrificing priests. Of every animal offered in sacrifice, except those offered as whole burnt-offerings, they were to receive “the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw,” all choice pieces. Further, they were to receive the “first fruits of corn, wine, oil, and the first of the fleece of the sheep.” For the priests of one sanctuary these would be quite provision enough, though the word translated “first fruits,” reshith, is very indefinite, and probably meant much or little, according as the donor was liberal or churlish. But how does this agree with that which is bestowed upon the priests according to the Priest Codex? In the passage corresponding to this {Lev 7:31-34} the wave breast and the heave thigh are the portions which are to be bestowed upon “Aaron the priest and his sons, as a due forever from the children of Israel”; and where the first fruits are dealt with {Num 18:12 ff.} “the first of the fleece of the sheep” is not mentioned. That is an addition made by the author of Deuteronomy; but what of “the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw”? Are they a substitute for the “wave breast and the heave thigh,” or are they an addition? If we hold that the laws in the Pentateuch were all given by Moses in the wilderness, and in the order in which they stand, it will be most natural to think that what we have here is meant to be an addition to what Numbers prescribes. But if it is established that Deuteronomy is a distinct work, written at a different period from the other books of the Pentateuch, then, though there is not sufficient evidence to justify a dogmatic decision on either side, the weight of probability is in favor of the supposition that the Deuteronomic provision is a substitute, or at least an alternative, for what we have in Numbers. The fact that the prescription in Numbers is not repeated makes for that view, as well as the fact that Deuteronomy does not as a rule tend to increase the burdens on the people. Keils view, that Deuteronomy and Numbers are dealing with quite different sacrifices, will hardly stand examination. He thinks that the feasts at which the firstlings, turned into money, and the third-year tithes were eaten, are referred to here, while in Numbers it is the ordinary peace-offerings which are dealt with. But the postponed firstlings were eaten at the sanctuary, and would consequently come under the head of ordinary sacrifices; and the third-year tithes were eaten in the local centers, so that the bringing of the priestly portions would be as difficult in this case as in the case of the slaughterings for ordinary meals, which Keil, partly for that reason, thinks cannot be referred to here. On the whole, the best opinion seems to be that Deuteronomy has here different prescriptions from those in Numbers, and that probably there is a considerable interval of time between the two.
In Deu 18:6-8 the Levite as distinguished from the priest is dealt with, though by no means fully. Only in one respect are special regulations given. When such a one came to do duty at the central sanctuary, he was to receive his share of the sacrifices with the rest.
In Chapter 1, the main outlines of the Deuteronomic system of priestly arrangements have been placed alongside those of the Book of the Covenant and JE, and those of P, with a view to decide whether they could all have been the work of one lawgivers life. Here they must be compared in order that we may ascertain whether a view of the development of the priestly tribe which will do justice to these various documents and their provisions can be suggested.
Some schools of critics offer the hypothesis that there was no special priesthood till late in the time of the kings. From the beginning, they say, the head of each household was the family priest, and secular men, such as the kings, and men of other tribes than the Levites, could be and were priests, and offered sacrifice even at Jerusalem. With Deuteronomy the tribe of Levi was established as the priestly tribe, and only after the Exile was priesthood restricted to the sons of Aaron. But this scheme does justice to one set of passages only at the expense of another. It accounts for all that is anomalous in the history, and pushes aside the main and consistent affirmation of all our authorities, that from the earliest days the tribe of Levi had a special connection with sacred things and a special position in Israel. To what straits its advocates are reduced may be seen in the fact that Wellhausen has to declare that there were two tribes of Levi, one purely secular that was all but destroyed in an attack upon Shechem, and which afterwards disappeared, and a later ecclesiastical and somewhat factitious tribe, or caste, which “towards the end of the monarchy arose out of the separate priestly families of Judah.” A more improbable suggestion than that can hardly be conceived.
But historical analogy, the favorite weapon of these very critics, also condemns it. Let us look at the growth of the priesthood in other ancient nations. In small and isolated communities the head of the household was generally the family priest, and in all probability this was the case in the various separate tribes of which Israel was composed; at least it was so in the households of the patriarchs. But, in communities formed by amalgamation of different tribes-and according to modern ideas Israel was so formed-there was almost always super-induced upon that more primitive state of things another and different arrangement. In antiquity no bond could hold together tribes or families conscious of different descent, save the bond of religion. Consequently, whenever such an amalgamation took place, the very first thing which had to be done was to establish religious rites common to the whole new community, which of course were not the care of the heads of households as such. Each separate section of the composite body kept up, no doubt, the family rites; but there had to be a common worship, and of course a special priesthood, for the new community. This is sufficiently attested for the Greeks and Romans by De Coulanges, who in his “La Cite Antique” gathers together such a mass of authorities in regard to this matter that few will be inclined to dispute his conclusion. On page 146 he says: “Several tribes might unite, on condition that the worship of each was respected. When such an alliance was entered into, the city or state came into existence. It is of little importance to inquire into the causes which induced several tribes to unite; what is certain is that the bond of the new association was again a religion. The tribes which grouped themselves to form a state never failed to light a sacred fire, and to set up a common religion.” But the family and tribal rites continued to exist as sacra privata, just as the central government dominated but did not destroy the family and tribal governments.
It may be objected that these customs are proved only for the Aryan races, and that, though proved for them, they form no valid analogy for Semitic peoples. But besides the fact that part of the statements we have quoted are obviously true of Israel, we have a guarantee that the principle enunciated is also valid for it. The whole process traced in the religious progress of the Aryan nations is based upon the worship of ancestors. Now one of the critical discoveries is that ancestor-worship was a part of the religion of the tribes which afterwards united to form the Israelite nation. Some, like Stade, tell us that that was the early religion of Israel itself. In that form the theory is, I think, to be rejected; but there would seem to be little doubt that, before the birth of the nation, ancestor-worship was much practiced by the Hebrew tribes. If so, we may quite safely take over the analogy we have established, and believe that when Moses united the tribes into a nation, the religion of Yahweh was the absolutely necessary connecting link which bound them together. For though the tribes were related, and are represented as the descendants of Abraham, they must have varied considerably from each other in religious beliefs and usages. By Moses these variations were extinguished, as far as that was possible, by the establishment of an exclusive Yahweh-worship as the national cult; and to carry on this, not the heads of households, but a priesthood that represented the nation, must have been selected. But if so, who would most naturally be selected for this duty? A sentence from De Coulanges will show that in this case the tribe of Levi would almost necessarily be chosen. Speaking of cases in which a composite state relieved itself of the trouble of inventing a new worship by adopting the special god of one of the component tribes, he says: “But when a family consented to share its god in this fashion it reserved for itself at least the priesthood.” Now if that was the case in Israel, the priesthood of the tribe of Levi would at once become a necessity. Whether Yahweh had been ever known to the other tribes or not, there can be little doubt that the knowledge of Him which made them a nation and started them on their unique career of spiritual discovery came from the Mosaic tribe and family.
The God whom the family worshipped became the God of the confederacy, and they would he the natural guardians of His sanctuary. This would not in the least involve special sanctity and meekness on the part of the tribe, as some insist. They would remain a tribe like the others; hut their leading men would discharge the functions of priests for the confederated nation. It is difficult, indeed, to see why any one else should have been thought of: most likely the arrangement was made as a thing of course.
But if there was such a common worship, there must have been a sanctuary for it, and at it the Levitic priests must have discharged their functions. Now though the Tabernacle, as P knows it, is not spoken of either in JE or in Deuteronomy, a “tent of meeting” at which Jehovah revealed Himself to Moses and to which the people went to seek Yahweh {Exo 33:7 ff.} is known to all our authorities. Further, Wellhausen himself says, “If Moses did anything at all he certainly founded the sanctuary at Qadesh and the Torah there, which the priests of the ark carried on after him,” so that even he recognizes the necessity we have pointed out. From the days of Moses onwards, therefore, there must have been special priests of Yahweh, a special Yahwistic sanctuary, ritual with a special sacrifice presented to Yahweh, and lastly a central oracle, which is precisely what the passages explained away by Wellhausen assert. But of course at that early time, even if the ultimate purpose was to have an exclusively Levitical priesthood, concessions to the old state of things would have to be made. The Passover was left in the hands of the household priest, and in other ways probably he would be considered. The old order would insist on surviving, and the rigor of the later arrangements cannot then have been attained. In other respects we know that it was so; and we may well believe that the priesthood of the individual householder and of the rulers was tolerated, and as far as possible regulated, so as to offer no public scandal to the religion of Yahweh. So, among the Homeric Greeks special hereditary priesthoods coexisted with a political priesthood of the head of the State, and with the household priesthood.
The laxity on these points ascribed to Moses is, however, less than has been supposed. At Mount Sinai he certainly did appoint the “young men of the children of Israel” {Exo 24:5} to slaughter the beasts for sacrifice; but he reserved for himself, a Levite, the sprinkling of the blood on the altar. {Exo 24:6} He also made Joshua his servant, an Ephraimite, the keeper of the sanctuary; but even under the Levitical law, a priests slave was reckoned to be of his household and could eat of the holy things. These were not very great laxities, and there is nothing in them to make us suppose that a regular priesthood did not exist from Sinai. Moreover, that a special place should be assigned to Aaron and his sons was natural. He was the brother of Moses, and would be the natural representative of the tribe, since Moses was removed from it as being leader of all. Everything therefore concurs to confirm the Biblical view that the Levitic priesthood had its origin at Sinai, and that at the chief sanctuary and oracle the chief place in the priesthood fell to Aaron and his sons. Worship at other sanctuaries was permitted, and there the heads of households may have performed priestly functions, or in later times in Canaan some other Levitic families; but that there was a central sanctuary in the hands of Levitic priests, among whom the family of Aaron had a chief place, is what the circumstances, the historical data we have, and all historical analogy alike demand.
For the discharge of their sacred functions certain dues were doubtless assigned to the priests, and the Levites sharing in the subordinate duties of the sanctuary would share also in the emoluments. In other respects Levi in the wilderness would differ in nothing from other tribes. But in preparation for the arrival in Canaan, it was decreed that Levi should “have no part or inheritance in Israel.” Yahweh was to be their inheritance.
The point to notice here is that this tribe was to retain the nomadic life when the other tribes became agricultural. The reason for it is plain. That ancient manner of life was looked upon as superior in a religious aspect to the agricultural life. In the first place, the ancestral life of Israel had been of that kind. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had been heads of nomadic families or tribes; and the pure and peaceful religious life, the intimate communion with God which they enjoyed, always dominated the imagination of the pious Israelite. Moreover the fundamental revelation had come to Moses when he was a shepherd in the waste. Further, the life of the shepherd is necessarily less continuously busy than that of the agriculturist; it has, therefore, more scope in it for contemplation; and in many countries and at various times shepherds have been a specially thoughtful, as well as a specially pious class. But, perhaps the chief reason was that the shepherd life was not only simple and frugal in itself, but it was also by its very conditions free from some of the greatest dangers to which the religious life of the Israelite in Canaan was exposed. When the bulk of the people adopted the settled life, they were not only thrown among the Canaanites, but they went to school to them in all that concerned elaborate agriculture. This necessarily made the intercourse and connection between the two peoples extremely intimate, and was fruitful in evil results. From this the semi-nomadic portions of the people were to a great extent free, and they would seem to have been regarded as the guardians of a higher life and a purer tradition than others. They represented to the popular mind the Israel of ancient days, which had known nothing of the vices of cities, and in which the pure, uncorrupted religion of Yahweh had held exclusive sway.
A remarkable narrative of the Old Testament establishes this: When Jehu was engaged in his sanguinary suppression of the house of Ahab, and the Baal-worship which they had introduced, we read in 2Ki 10:15 ff. that he lighted on Jonadab the son of Rechab coming to meet him. This Jonadab was the chief of the Rechabites, a nomadic clan, who were bound by oath to drink no wine, nor to build houses, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyards, and to dwell in tents all their days. {Jer 35:6-7} This was clearly intended as a protest against the prevailing corruption of manners, and was founded on a special zeal for the uncorrupted religion of Yahweh. Recognizing Jonadabs position as a champion of true religion, Jehu anxiously seeks his approval and co-operation. He says, “Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?” And Jonadab answered, “It is.” “If it be,” said Jehu, “give me thine hand.” And he gave him his hand, and he took him up to him into the chariot. And he said, “Come with me, and see my zeal for Yahweh.” At a much later time, Jeremiah, at the Divine command, used the faithfulness of these nomads to the ordinances of their chiefs to put to shame the unfaithfulness of Israel to Yahwehs ordinances; and promises {Jer 35:19} that because of it “Jonadab the son of Rechab shall never want a man to stand before Yahweh,” i.e., as His servant. The Nazarites, again, were in some measure an indication of the same thing. Their rigorous abstinence from the fruit of the vine (the special sign and gift of a settled life in a country like Palestine) was their great distinguishing mark, as persons peculiarly set apart to the service of God. Something analogous is seen in that other desert faith, Mohammedanism. When the great reformer, Abdel-Wahab, attempted to bring back Islam to its primitive power, he fell back largely upon the simplicity of the desert life, though he did not insist upon the abandonment of agriculture and fixed habitations.
It is, therefore, not surprising that the priestly tribe was kept to the nomadic life by the ordinance that they should not have a portion in the distribution of the Canaanite territory. But according to the narrative of the attack upon Shechem by Levi and Simeon, and the verses in the blessing of Jacob {Gen 49:1-33} dealing with these tribes, the course of history reinforced this command. Whether the treachery at Shechem occurred, as the Genesis narrative places it, before the Exodus, when Israel was only a family, or was an incident in the history of the two tribes after Canaan had been invaded, as many critics think, the significance of it is that because of a historical exhibition of fierce and intolerant zeal on the part of Levi and Simeon, which the other tribes would not defend, their settlement in that part of the land was rendered difficult, if not impossible. Hence Simeon had to seek other settlements, while Levi fell back to the position assigned to it by its priestly character. It is not a valid exception to this view-which reconciles the two statements that Levi had no inheritance with the other tribes because of its specially near relation to Yahweh, and also because of its cruel treachery at Shechem-that a priestly tribe is likely to have been not more, but rather less, fierce than the others. That would entirely depend upon the cause or occasion which called out the fierceness. In all that concerned religion Levi would naturally be more inclined to extreme measures than the other tribes, and in this case the higher morality, secured by the separateness of Israel, might easily appear to be at stake. {Cf. Exo 32:15-23} It is, therefore, quite credible that the excessive vengeance taken should have been planned mainly by Levi, and that the resulting hatred should have broken up Simeon, and driven back Levi with emphasis to its higher call.
In any case there never was again any doubt that the Levites were to be excluded from the number of land-owning tribes. Even in the legislation regarding the forty-eight priestly cities this principle asserts itself. The keeping of sheep and cattle on the pastures, which were the only lands attached to these cities, was to be the Levites only secular occupation, and they were neither to own nor work agricultural land. But to compensate for any hardship this arrangement might bring with it, the Levites, as the special servants of Yahweh, were to have Him for their inheritance, i.e., as we have seen, the dues coming to Yahweh were to become the property of the Levites in great part. I say in great part, because the gift to the Levites exclusively of a tithe of the income of the people is thought by many to be only a late provision.
After Canaan had been conquered, the state of things in connection with the priesthood would be something like this. The tent with the ark would be the principal sanctuary, served by a hereditary Levitic priesthood, at the head of which would be a descendant of Aaron. The tribe of Levi, being nomadic, would probably encamp in the neighborhood of the central sanctuary in part, and recruits for the priestly work would be taken occasionally from them, while other sections would gravitate to the neighborhood of other sanctuaries. As we see from the story of Micah in Judges, it was considered desirable to have a Levite for priest everywhere, and consequently there would arise at all the High Places Levitic priesthoods, most probably in part hereditary. But notwithstanding their dues, the bulk of the tribe, being nomads, would be looked upon by the agricultural population as poor, just as the Bedouin, in Palestine now are, comparatively speaking, very poor. This state of things would correspond entirely with what Deuteronomy tells us; and after that legislation the position of the Levites as a priestly body would be more assured than ever. In the post-exilic period all that had been regulated by practice in earlier days found written expression. Differentiation of function was minutely carried out. The priesthood was confined rigorously to the Aaronic house, and the other Levites were given to them as attendants. In this way the whole Levitic system was introduced, and with the exclusive altar came the exclusive priesthood. So far as I can see, it is only by some such hypothesis that justice can be done to all the statements of Scripture; and considering the elastic nature of Old Testament law, there is nothing improbable in it. In any case there is an amount of evidence of various kinds for the Mosaic origin of the Levitic, and even the Aaronic priesthood, which no proof of irregularities can overturn.
In the Divinely sanctioned arrangements of the Old Testament Church, therefore, the existence of a body of ecclesiastical persons, having little share in the ordinary pursuits of their neighbors, and dependent upon their clerical duties for a large part of their maintenance, was deemed necessary to secure the continuity of worship and religious belief. As has been already pointed out, the priesthood was necessarily more conservative than progressive. As an institution, it was suited rather to gather up and perpetuate the results of religious movements otherwise originated, than to originate them itself. But in that sphere it was an absolutely necessary element in the life of Israel. Difficult as it was to permeate the people with the truths of revealed religion, it would have been impossible without the services of the priestly tribe. Wherever they went they were a visible embodiment of the demand for faithfulness to Yahweh, and, with all their aberrations, they probably lived at a higher spiritual level than the average layman. As has been well said, though Malachi had much reason to complain of the priests in his own day, his estimate of what Levi had been in the past is no exaggeration: {Mal 2:6} “The law of truth was in his mouth, and unrighteousness was not found in his lips: he walked with Me in peace and uprightness, and did turn many away from iniquity.” But such a body as the Levites could not have been kept thus spiritually alive, unless the members of it had lived somewhat aloof from the strifes and envies of the market-place, and this they could not have done had they not lived by their sacred function. The prophets, under the power and impulse of new truth adapted to their own time, did not need this protection; consequently some of them were called from ordinary secular work-from the plough, like Elisha, or from the midst of the rich and highborn inhabitants of Jerusalem, like Isaiah. If one may so say, they were men of religious genius; while the bulk of the priests and Levites must always have been commonplace men in comparison. Yet even of the prophets a number were trained in the nomadic life; others were priests who were shut off also from agriculture. Clearly, therefore, some measure of separation from the full pulsing life of the world was, even in the most favorable circumstances, helpful in developing religious character. For the ordinary average ecclesiastic it was indispensable; and that he should exist, and should live at as high a level as possible, was as much a condition of Israels discharge of her great mission, as that the voice of the prophet should be heard at all the great turning-points of her career.
The modern tendency in Old Testament study is to depreciate the priest and to exalt the prophet, just as in ecclesiastical life we tend to make much of those who are or give themselves out to be religious reformers and thinkers, and to make little of the ordinary parish or congregational ministry. But the good done by the latter is, and must be, for each individual generation more than that done by the former. No one can estimate too highly the conserving and elevating effect of a faithful high-minded spiritual minister. Often without genius either intellectual or religious, without much speculative power, with so firm a hold of the old truth, which has been their own guiding star, that they cannot readily see the good in anything new, such men, when faithful to the light they have, are the stable, restful, immediately effective element in all Church life. And such a body can be best spiritualized by being separated somewhat from the stress and strain of competition in the race of life. Being what they are, the necessity of taking their full part in the business of the world would inevitably secularize them, to the great and lasting damage of all spiritual interests. For though to modern students of Old Testament religion, who are interested most in its growth and progress towards its consummation in Christianity, the prophet is by far the most interesting figure, to the ancient people itself it must have seemed that the priests and Levites, if they in any degree deserved Malachis eulogy, were the entirely indispensable element in their religious life. They gave the daily bread of religion to the people. They embodied the principles, which came to them from prophetic inspiration in ceremonies and institutions; they treasured up whatever had been gained, and kept the people nurtured in it and admonished by it. In short, they prepared the soil and cultivated the roots from which alone the consummate flower of prophecy could spring; and when the voice of prophecy was dying away they brought the piety of the average Israelite to the highest point it ever reached.
In modern times the necessity for such a body of special churchmen is challenged from two opposite sides. There is, on the one hand, the body of over-spiritualized believers who abhor organization, and the machinery of organization, as if it were an intolerable evil. Conscious very often of quick spiritual impulse and vivid life in themselves, they fret against the slow movements of large bodies of men; they separate themselves from all the organized Churches and reject a regular ministry. All the Lords people are now under the Christian dispensation, priests and prophets, they say, and a separate paid ministry in sacred things they refuse to hear of. For spiritual nourishment they rely solely upon the prophetic gifts of their members, and are satisfied that thus they are preparing the way for the universal prevalence of a higher form of Church life. But, so far as can be judged, their experiment has not prospered, nor is it likely to do so. For these separatist Christians have found that spiritual life, like other kinds of life, cannot express itself without an organism. That implies organization; and though they do with less of it than other Christians, still they are often driven into arrangements which really bring back the regular ministry with its separate position; and in other respects they are saved from the inconveniences they have fled from, only by their want of success. If their system ever became general, it would necessarily drift into organization, for only at that price can any coherent, continuous, and lasting effect be produced. Unfettered by the dull, the critical, and the judicious, the impulsive and enthusiastic would always be outrunning the possibilities of the present time. In the interests of the best, they would be continually ignoring or destroying the good. To prevent that, a special body of religious men set apart for sacred services, and freed from the rough struggle for existence so far as a maintenance from funds devoted to religious purposes can free them, is one of the best provisions known. Where in the mass they are really religious men, they secure that the pressure upward, which the Church exerts upon the lives of its own members and upon the community in general, shall be effective to the highest degree then possible, and shall be exerted in the directions in which such pressure will most fully answer to the needs and aspirations of the time. Where, on the contrary, the mass of them are secularized, they no doubt are a power for evil; but the contrast between their profession and their practice in that case is so shocking, that unless they be supported by the “dead hand” of endowments with no living spiritual demand behind them, they soon sink by their own weight, to give place to a better type. And even when they are thus supported, though unfaithful, their calling in name at least remains spiritual, and sooner than the other elements in the nation they are apt to be stirred by breathings of a new life.
The other objectors to the regular ministry are those, in the press and elsewhere, who demand of all ministers that they should be prophets, or inspired religious geniuses, and, because they are not, deny their right to exist. According to this view every sermon that is not a new revelation is a failure, every minister of the sanctuary who is not a discoverer in religion is a pretender, every one who only exemplifies and lives by the power of the Gospel, as it was last formulated so as to lay hold upon the popular mind, is an obscurantist. But no reasonable man really believes this. Such reproaches are merely the penalty which must be paid for claiming so high a calling as that of an ambassador for Christ. No man can quite adequately fill such a position; and the bulk of ministers of Christ know better than others how much below their ideal their real service is. But this also is true, that, take them all in all, no class of men are doing anything like so much as Christian ministers throughout the world are doing to keep up the standard of morals and to keep alive faith in that which is spiritual. We have no right to complain that in their sphere they are conservative of that which has been handed on to them. They have tried and proved that teaching; they know that wherever it secures a foothold it lifts men up to God, and they are naturally doubtful whether new and untried teaching will do as much. They have pressing upon them, too, as others have not, the interest of individual men and women whom they see and know, men and women who for the most part, and so far as they can see, are accessible to spiritual impulse only on lines with which they are familiar; and they dread the diversion of their thoughts from their real spiritual interests, to matters which, for them at least, must remain largely intellectual and speculative. No doubt it would be well if all pastors could, as the most highly endowed do, look beyond that narrower field; could take account of the movements which are drifting men into new positions, from which the old landmarks cannot be seen and consequently exert no influence; and could endeavor to rethink their Christianity from new points of view, which may be about to become the orthodoxy of the next generation. But no ministry will ever be a ministry of prophets. It may even be doubted whether such a ministry could be borne if it ever should arise. Under it one might fear that spiritual repose and spiritual growth would alike be impossible for the average man, in his breathless race after teachers each of whom was always catching sight of new lights. The mass of men need, first of all, teachers who have firmly seized the common truth by which the Church of their day lives, who live conspicuously nearer the Christian ideal, as generally conceived, than others do, who devote themselves in sincerity and self-sacrifice to the work of making the things that are most surely believed among Christians a common and abiding possession. Such men need never be ashamed of themselves or of their calling. Theirs is the foundation work, so far as any attempt to realize the Kingdom of God on earth is concerned; for without the general acceptance of the truth attained which they bring about, no further attainment would be possible. The very environment out of which alone the prophet could be developed would be wanting, and stagnation and death would certainly and necessarily follow.
One other thing remains to be said. Though we have taken these significant words of Deu 18:2 -“And they shall have no inheritance among their brethren: Yahweh is their inheritance, as He hath spoken unto them”-in their first and most obvious reference, it is not to be supposed that that meaning has exhausted all that the words conveyed to ancient Israel. The perpetuation of the nomadic form of life among the Levites, and the bestowal of tithes and sacrificial meats upon them, was undoubtedly the first purpose of this command. But it had, even for ancient Israel, a more spiritual meaning. Just as in the promise of Canaan as a dwelling-place the spiritual Israelite never regarded merely the gift of wealth and the prospect of comfort, -Canaan was always for them Yahwehs land, the land where they would specially live near Him and find the joy of His presence, -so in this case the spiritual gift, of which the material was only an expression, is the main thing. To have Yahweh for their heritage can never have meant only so much money and provisions, so much leisure and opportunity for contemplation, to any true son of Levi. Otherwise it is inexplicable how the words used to indicate this very earthly thing should have become so acceptable a formula for the deepest spiritual experience of Christian men. It meant also a spiritual bond between Yahweh and His servants-a special nearness on their part, and a special, condescension on His. To the other tribes Yahweh had given His land, to them He had given Himself as a heritage; and though doubtless any unspiritual son of Levi must have thought the tangible advantages of a fertile farm more attractive than visionary nearness to God, the spiritual among the Levites must have felt that they had received the really good part, which no hostile invasion, no oppression of the rich, could ever take away. Their ordinary life-work brought them more into contact with sacred things than others. The goodness, the mercy, the love of God were, or at least ought to have been, clearer to them than to their brethren; and the joy of doing good to men for Gods sake, the rapture of contemplation which possessed them when they were privileged to see the face of God, must have made all the coarser benefits of the earthly heritage seem worse than nothing, and vanity. Of course there was the danger that familiarity with religious things should dull instead of quickening the insight; and many passages in the Old Testament show that this danger was not always escaped. But often, and for long periods, it must have been warded off; and then the superiority of Gods gift of Himself must have been manifest, not only to the chosen tribe, but to all Israel. For the nature of man is too intrinsically noble ever to be quite satisfied with the world, and the riches and comforts of the world, for its inheritance. At no time has man ever failed to do homage to spiritual gifts. Even today, in spheres outside of religion, there are multitudes of men and women who would put aside without a sigh any wealth the world could give, if it were offered as a substitute for their delight in poetry, or for their power to rethink and re-enjoy the ideas of those whose “thoughts have wandered through eternity.” And the power to follow and to yield oneself up to the thoughts of the Eternal God Himself is a reward far above these. To the faithful servant of God at all times and in all lands that joy has been open, for God Himself has been their heritage; and though in ancient Israel the beauty of “Yahweh their God” was not quite unveiled, yet we know from the Psalms that many penetrated even then to the inner glory where God meets His chosen, and there, though having nothing, yet found that in Him they had all.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary