3<\/strong>. And this shall be the priests’ due<\/em>, etc.] Heb. mishpa<\/em>, as in 1Sa 2:13<\/span>, where render: and the priests’ due from the people<\/em>.<\/p>\n from them that offer a sacrifice<\/em> ] Heb. slay<\/em>, or sacrifice, a sacrifice<\/em>, a comprehensive phrase including every victim offered at the Altar where alone sacrifice was valid. This precludes the various theories suggested with the view of reconciling D’s law with that of P (see next note), viz. (1) that the law refers not to animals offered at the Temple but to those slain for food at home (Deu 12:15<\/span> f.); (2) that it refers only to the eating of firstlings (Deu 12:17<\/span> f., Deu 15:20<\/span>); (3) that it refers to more dues to the priests, additional to those prescribed in P.<\/p>\n the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw<\/em> ] According to 1Sa 2:12-17<\/span> the earlier practice had been that the priest’s servant with a three-pronged fork took what he could for his master out of the caldron in which the victim was being boiled for the worshippers; and it was regarded as a sinful innovation when the sons of Eli demanded to receive their portions while the flesh was still raw, no doubt in order that they might secure certain definite parts of the animal. This claim the law in D now legalises, naming the pieces of the victim to be given to the priest. P represents a later development, and prescribes still better pieces, the breast and the right thigh (Lev 7:31<\/span> ff; Lev 10:14<\/span> f., Num 18:18<\/span>). For the gradual increase of the priests’ dues and of their other sources of revenue from D onwards, see Jerusalem<\/em>, i. 354 366.<\/p>\n For maw read stomach, which was regarded as one of the richest and choicest parts. As the animal slain may be considered to consist of three principal parts, head, feet, and body, a portion of each is by the regulation in question to be given to the priest, thus representing the consecration of the whole; or, as some ancient commentators think, the dedication of the words, acts, and appetites of the worshipper to God.<\/P> The text probably refers to peace-offerings, and animals killed for the sacrificial meals held in connection with the peace-offerings.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 3<\/span>. Offer a sacrifice<\/B><\/I>] zobechey hazzebach<\/I>. The word zebach<\/I> is used to signify, not only an animal sacrificed to the Lord, but also one killed for common use<\/I>. See Ge 46:1<\/span>; Pr 17:1<\/span>; Eze 39:17<\/span>. And in this latter sense it probably should be understood here; and, consequently, the command in this verse relates to what the people were to allow the priests and Levites from the animals slain for common use. The parts to be given to the priests were,<\/P> 1. The shoulder<\/I>, probably cut off from the beast with the skin on; so Maimonides<\/I>.<\/P> 2. The two cheeks<\/I>, which may include the whole head.<\/P> 3. The maw <\/I>– the whole of those intestines which are commonly used for food.<\/P> <\/p>\n A sacrifice, <\/B>to wit, a sacrifice of thanksgiving, or a peace-offering, as appears from Lev 7:31<\/span>,33<\/span>, which is ofttimes called simply a sacrifice, as Exo 18:12<\/span>; Lev 17:5<\/span>,8<\/span>; Num 15:3<\/span>; Deu 12:27<\/span>. <\/P> The shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw.<\/B> <\/P> Quest.<\/B> How doth this agree with other texts, in which the shoulder and the breast, and those parts only, are the priests due, not the cheeks and maw? <\/P> Answ.<\/B> <\/P> 1. Who shall tie Gods hands? what if he now makes an addition, and enlargeth the priests commons? Nothing more usual than for one scripture to supply what is lacking in another, and for a latter law of God to add to a former. <\/P> 2. The breast may be here omitted, because it is comprehended under the shoulder, to which it is commonly joined, and with which it was waved before the Lord. <\/P> 3. The Hebrew word here rendered maw<\/I> or stomach<\/I>, which was reckoned among dainties by the ancients, is not to my remembrance used elsewhere, and therefore it may have another signification, and some render it the breast, others take it for the uppermost part of the stomach, which lies under the breast. <\/P> <\/p>\n 3. this shall be the priest’s duefrom the people<\/B>All who offered sacrifices of thanksgiving orpeace offerings (Le 7:31-33<\/span>)were ordered to give the breast and shoulder as perquisites to thepriests. Here “the two cheeks” or head and “the maw”or stomach, deemed anciently a great dainty, are specified. Butwhether this is a new injunction, or a repetition of the old with thesupplement of more details, it is not easy to determine.<\/P><\/p>\n And this shall be the priest’s due from the people, from them that offer sacrifice<\/strong>,…. Not from the priests, as Jarchi observes, but from those that bring the sacrifices to the priests, particularly the peace offerings:<\/p>\n whether it be ox or sheep<\/strong>; the one of the herd, the other of the flock, creatures used in sacrifice, and takes in goats and the kids of them, rams and lambs:<\/p>\n and they shall give unto the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw<\/strong>; the first of these designs the upper part of the arm that joins to the neck and back, and the next the two cheeks with the tongue, as both Jarchi and Aben Ezra observe, and indeed the whole head is meant; the maw, which the Septuagint interpreters call , and other writers , is, according to the philosopher p, the fourth and last ventricle or stomach, and which he thus describes;<\/p>\n “after the echinus or rough tripe is that which is called<\/p>\n , the maw, which is in size larger than the echinus, and in form longer, and has many large and smooth folds;”<\/p>\n and , the maw of an ox, and the belly of a swine, are reckoned by the poet q as delicious food.<\/p>\n p Aristot. Hist. Animal. l. 2. c. 17. q Aristophan. Equites, Act. 1. Sc. 3. p. 307. & Act. 4. Sc. 1. p. 355.<\/p>\n Verses 3-5:<\/strong><\/p>\n The officiating priest was to receive a choice portion of the sacrifices offered “by fire:”<\/p>\n (1) The shoulder, zeroa, “arm,” or front leg.<\/p>\n (2) The two cheeks, lechi, “jaw-bones.”<\/p>\n (3) The maw, qebah, “stomach,” one of the stomachs of a ruminating animal in which digestion is completed.<\/p>\n Among the ancients, these parts were considered delicacies, the choice parts of an animal They were the portion assigned to the priests, in addition to the wave breast and heaven leg of the peace offering.<\/p>\n “Due,” mishpat, “lawful right.” That which was assigned to the priests by law, from the offerings made at the sanctuary.<\/p>\n In addition, the firstfruits of the harvest and vintage were to be the priests’ portion, Num 18:12-13<\/span>. This included the first portion of the shearing of the sheep.<\/p>\n Though prescribed by law, these were considered free-will gifts or offerings for the priests.<\/p>\n 3. And this shall be the priests’ due. It is not only for the sake of the priests that God enumerates what He would have them receive, that they may obtain what is their own without murmuring or dispute; but He also has regard to the people, lest the priests should basely and greedily take more than their due; which sacred history relates to have been done by the sons of Eli, (1Sa 2:23<\/span>,) for they had advanced to such a degree of licentiousness, that, like robbers, they seized violently on whatever their lust desired. Lest therefore they should give way to this gross covetousness, God prescribes to them certain limits, to which they were to confine themselves, so that if they transgressed them, it was easy for any of the people to convict them of avarice. <\/p>\n 3<\/strong>. <\/strong> The gifts which are here mentioned are to be given to the priests, for the distinction between priest and Levite is here observed.* <\/p>\n The shoulder, <\/strong> and the two cheeks, and the maw <\/strong> By the word translated maw <\/strong> that stomach of ruminating animals which was considered a special delicacy is meant. “Of each of the three parts of the animal some valuable piece was to be presented.” Schultz.<\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n [* “The third verse, instead of containing, as some think, a modification of the old law, is simply a new regulation for the benefit of the priests just as they are about to enter the Promised Land.” The Levitical Priests, <\/em> by Samuel Ives Curtiss, p. 4.] <\/p>\n The Maintenance of the Priests ( Deu 18:3-5<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ).<\/strong> <\/p>\n Deu 18:3<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And this shall be the priest’s due from the people, from those who offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep, that they shall give to the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw (stomach).’ <\/p>\n Here there is an extension to what is give to the priests from the offerings and sacrifices (other than the whole burnt offering), possibly to compensate for the loss of their portion in animals slaughtered in the cities and not sacrificed. They were to be given the ‘shoulder’, the two ‘cheeks’ and the ‘stomach’. Discoveries in the Canaanite sanctuary at Lachish reveal many right shoulder bones of animals suggesting that their priests too received the shoulder from sacrifices. In Lev 7:28-36<\/span>; Num 18:8-19<\/span> the priest’s portions were the shoulder and the right ‘thigh’ (or breast). This may simply therefore indicate different terminology for similar parts, or an improvement in the priests’ portion, or both. The shoulder was a special waveoffering. The ‘thigh\/breast’ was a special heave offering or contribution, but as it was not for the priests generally, but given to the individual priest who offered the sacrifice, it may have been omitted here. It would be assumed without mention due to its special nature and long custom (Lev 7:32-34<\/span>). <\/p>\n Compare here 1Sa 2:12-17<\/span> where the priests insisted on parts being set aside before the boiling so that they were not soaked, and then claimed further parts as the meat was boiling by ‘pot luck’ (although this method was frowned on). They had, possibly unilaterally, extended their rights. <\/p>\n Note On Differences in Technical Sacrificial Terms. <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n To say that the technicalities of an ancient cult are not always apparent to us is to understate the case. Technical language would be used in regulations for the cult which had its own specialist meaning, and might be very different from those used in popular speech. Compare how in Roman Catholic usage the ‘chasuble’, for example, is a technical term, but might in popular usage be simply called a ‘priestly garment’ or ‘robe’. Leviticus\/Numbers used technical language, Deuteronomy uses ‘popular’ language (it is in a speech to the common people). Comparisons are therefore not always easy. So before we try to reconcile the two we have to solve the problem of the meaning of the language. <\/p>\n We must recognise that while our versions translate as best they can, the actual meanings of many ancient Hebrew terms, especially technical ancient Hebrew terms to do with the cult such as are mentioned in Leviticus\/Numbers, are not always fully clear to us. It partly depends on how often they were used and in what context. Thus RV\/ASV margin has ‘shoulder’ as a possible alternative rendering for ‘thigh’ in Lev 7:28-36<\/span> because they recognised the uncertainty as to the meaning of the word, while the word translated ‘shoulder’ in Deu 18:3<\/span> usually means ‘arm’ when referred to men (but of course cannot with domestic beasts). LXX actually translates both as the same word, brachion. <\/p>\n So the Hebrew terminology in use is not as certain in meaning as the English suggests, and comparisons are therefore fraught with difficulty. Deuteronomy is a speech and uses terms in a popular sense giving the general idea. The word translated ‘stomach’, and sometimes ‘inner part’, is used only in Deu 18:3<\/span> and nowhere else although a cognate is used in Num 25:8<\/span>, where it could simply generally mean a vague ‘body’. In both cases the exact meaning has to be guessed at in the context. It could equally be a popular term for the rough equivalent of breast (in beasts breast and belly can be pretty close together). This being so the passages could quite well be saying a similar thing, but merely in different terminology, technical and popular. On the other hand it is equally possible that for different reasons there had been alterations to the detail. <\/p>\n Secondly we should note that it is not at all certain that Deu 18:3<\/span> is referring to the same sacrifices as the more technical verses in Leviticus and Numbers. The latter are referring to certain specific offerings and sacrifices, while Deuteronomy is simply referring to a general ‘offering sacrifices’. Furthermore Leviticus is referring to heave offerings, what is ‘waved’ before Yahweh (difficult with the guts), before being given to the priests, Deuteronomy is referring to what is given to the priests in general, not what is specifically waved before Yahweh, and that from what are not necessarily technical offerings. The cult and related activities were in fact far more complicated than we tend to realise, much of it regulated by custom, something which comes out when we try in our simple way to reconcile everything as though it was not very involved. We must not try to make it simplistic. It was not. If we had a full knowledge of the complicated requirements of and differences in the cult under varying circumstances and a dictionary of its technical terms we might perhaps not have so many problems as we do. <\/p>\n And in all our considerations we have to remember that like any language Hebrew developed. It was relatively primitive at the time of Moses, a tribal language, whereas by the time of the Exile (over 700 years later) it had become much more sophisticated, and even more so by the time of Jesus (another five hundred years). Even if we ignore the technicalities, languages, and the meaning of words, change over long periods (try reading Chaucer in the original). Modern Hebrew may give us a little help as to the meaning of ancient Hebrew, but on the whole it is positively misleading. The only way we can know the meaning of ancient Hebrew is by comparison of the use of terms in different parts of Scripture written at the same period (a problem in itself) combined with a comparison with uses in Ugaritic literature which used a fairly similar script. Where words are rarely used we regularly have to guess, especially in the case of technical terms. We usually do have a general idea as to their meaning, but not so as to be too specific. This being so what are called ‘discrepancies’ are not necessarily as clear in the Hebrew as it may seem in English versions. Sometimes the attempt at a translation creates an apparent discrepancy that is not actually there in the original. This must ever be kept in mind <\/p>\n (End of note.)<\/p>\n Deu 18:4<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> 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.’ <\/p>\n The priests also received the firstfruits, that which ripened first, of the grain, wine and oil, and first fleeces of the sheep, giving them all round provision (compare Num 18:12<\/span>). The fleeces are an addition which had probably become the custom. Deciding what was and was not firstfruits would presumably have been sorted out with Moses by Aaron. <\/p>\n Deu 18:5<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> 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.’ <\/p>\n The reason for these gifts was that they were the chosen of Yahweh out of all the tribes for the purpose of standing to give priestly service in the name of Yahweh (compare Deu 17:12<\/span>; 1Ki 8:11 ; 2Ch 5:14<\/span>; for ‘stand to minister’; Exo 28:43<\/span> for ‘to minister’. Contrast Deu 10:8<\/span>; 2Ch 29:4-11<\/span> where it includes the service of the Levites). They, and they alone, had this privilege. The priesthood was their inheritance (Jos 18:7<\/span>). <\/p>\n As king, priest and sanctuary dominated ancient society, so here in Deuteronomy all were (as here), or were to be (Deu 12:5<\/span>; Deu 17:15<\/span>), the chosen of Yahweh, as well as were the people (Deu 7:6<\/span>). All was under His sovereignty. <\/p>\n Ver. <\/em><\/strong>3. <\/strong>From them that offer a sacrifice<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> These words may be rendered, This shall be the priest’s due from those who slay an animal: <\/em>for the original word signifies no more than to kill an animal. <\/em>Gen 43:16<\/span>. See Calmet and Ainsworth. Philo, Josephus, and many others, understand this of beasts slain for food in their several towns, not for sacrifice; for as to animals offered in sacrifice, only the breast and the right shoulder are to be given to the priests, but not a word is said of the two cheeks <\/em>and the maw, <\/em>by which is thought to be meant the stomach, <\/em>particularly the lower stomach. <\/em>According to naturalists, animals which chew the cud have four ducts through which the aliments are conveyed into the intestines, whereof the fourth and lowest, which is called in Greek, eneustron, <\/em>and in Latin, omasum, <\/em>is the fattest, and accounted by the ancients a great dainty. <\/p>\n This sacrifice was a peace offering. See Deu 12:6<\/span> .<\/p>\n NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Deu 18:3-5<\/p>\n 3Now this shall be the priests’ due from the people, from those who offer a sacrifice, either an ox or a sheep, of which they shall give to the priest the shoulder and the two cheeks and the stomach. 4You shall give him the first fruits of your grain, your new wine, and your oil, and the first shearing of your sheep. 5For the LORD your God has chosen him and his sons from all your tribes, to stand and serve in the name of the LORD forever.<\/p>\n Deu 18:3 Note Lev 7:28-36; Num 18:8-19 where different portions of the sacrifices are given to the priests.<\/p>\n cheeks This (BDB 534 I) refers to the jowls (jawbones and meat hanging down, forming the cheeks).<\/p>\n the stomach This term (BDB 867) basically means hollow or cavity and in this context, refers to one of the stomachs, probably the fourth of animals that chew the cud. Webster’s Third International Dictionary, p. 1922, says that the lining of the fourth stomach of cattle was used for curdling milk. The mucous membrane was processed until it became a yellowish powder which was used for making cheese.<\/p>\n Deu 18:4 the first fruits of… your oil This first press of the first ripe olives was a gift of the people to YHWH and from Him to the Levites\/priests (cf. Num 18:12; Deu 12:17; Deu 14:23; Deu 18:4).<\/p>\n the first shearing of your sheep This requirement is mentioned only here.<\/p>\n Deu 18:3-5 Those who ministered at YHWH’s altar received YHWH’s share. Moderns need to be reminded that:<\/p>\n 1. the Sabbath<\/p>\n 2. the first fruits<\/p>\n 3. the firstborn<\/p>\n 4. the tithe<\/p>\n are all Hebraic ways of asserting YHWH’s ownership. It does not mean that humans get six days, all the remaining crops, or nine tenths of their income! Humans are owners of nothing and stewards of everything! The planet and the gift of life belong to its Creator and Sustainer.<\/p>\n God has chosen In Deu 10:8 this same act is called set apart (NIDOTTE, vol. 1, p. 604). These kinds of parallels help moderns define ancient verbal connotations and semantic overlap.<\/p>\n priest’s due = priest’s custom. Compare 1Sa 2:13, 1Sa 2:28, 1Sa 2:29. Lev 7:33, Lev 7:34. Num 18:8-14. <\/p>\n offer = sacrifice. See App-43. <\/p>\n offer a sacrifice: Deu 12:27, Lev 7:30-34 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Exo 29:27 – the breast Exo 29:28 – Aaron’s Lev 7:32 – General Lev 7:34 – the wave Lev 22:7 – General Num 5:9 – offering Num 18:11 – unto thee Num 18:20 – General<\/p>\n Deu 18:3. The maw The Hebrew word here rendered maw, or stomach, may have another signification; and some render it the breast; others take it for the part which lies under the breast.<\/p>\n 18:3 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 {b} shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw.<\/p>\n (b) The right shoulder, Num 18:18.<\/p>\n 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. 3. And this shall be the priests’ due, etc.] Heb. mishpa, as in 1Sa 2:13, where render: … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Deuteronomy 18:3”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5396","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5396","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5396"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5396\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5396"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5396"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5396"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"