14<\/strong>. I have not eaten thereof in my mourning<\/em> ] Heb. ‘awen<\/em>, sorrow<\/em>; so in Hos 9:4<\/span>, the bread of sorrows<\/em> is unclean. If the mourner, unclean by contact with the dead, ate part of the tithe, he defiled it all.<\/p>\n neither have I put away thereof, being unclean<\/em> ] Same vb. as in Deu 26:13<\/em><\/span>. While separating this tithe to its charitable ends, a ritual act, he has to take care to be ritually clean.<\/p>\n nor given thereof for the dead<\/em> ] or to the dead<\/em>. The reference is obscure; either the custom of contributing to a mourning feast (2Sa 3:35<\/span>, Jer 16:7<\/span> f., Eze 24:17<\/span>); or that of offering food at the grave as if for consumption by the dead ( Tob 4:17 , Sir 30:18 ); or of sacrificing to the spirits of the dead, as is annually done by the Arabs, minshan el mawt<\/em>, ‘for the sake of the dead,’ as the chief of the ‘Adwan once explained to the present writer.<\/p>\n I have hearkened<\/em>, etc.] Cp. Deu 15:5<\/span>; I have done<\/em>, etc., cp. Deu 5:32<\/span>, etc.<\/p>\n I have not eaten thereof in my mourning – <\/B>When the Israelite would be unclean (compare the marginal references).<\/P> Nor given ought thereof for the dead – <\/B>The reference is not so much to the superstitious custom of placing food on or in tombs as to the funeral expenses, and more especially the usual feast for the mourners (compare Jer 16:7<\/span>; Eze 24:17<\/span>; Hos 9:4<\/span>; Tobit 4:17). The dedicated things were to be employed in glad and holy feasting, not therefore for funeral banquets; for death and all associated with it was regarded as unclean.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 14<\/span>. I have not – given aught thereof for the dead<\/B><\/I>] That is, I have not consecrated any of it to an idol<\/I> which was generally a dead man whom superstition and ignorance had deified. From 1Co 10:27-28<\/span>, we learn that it was customary to offer that flesh to idols which was afterwards sold publicly in the shambles; probably the blood was poured out before the idol in imitation of the sacrifices offered to the true God. Perhaps the text here alludes to a similar custom.<\/P> <\/p>\n In my mourning, <\/B>i.e. either, <\/P> 1. In my funeral solemnities for the dead. But this falls in with the last branch. Or, <\/P> 2. In my distress or poverty, or upon pretence of my own want, in which case men are tempted and inclined to fall upon sacred or forbidden things. Or, <\/P> 3. In sorrow, or grieving that I was to give away so much of my profits to the poor, but I have cheerfully eaten and feasted with them, as I was obliged to do. For though it be taken for granted by some learned expositors, from Deu 14:28<\/span>,29<\/span>, that the owner was not to eat any part of the third years tithe, but to give it all away to the stranger and fatherless, &c., the contrary seems to me more probable from that very place, where it is said, thou shalt lay it up within thy gates<\/I>, and then it follows, that the Levite, stranger, &c. shall come<\/I>, to wit, to thy gates, and shall eat<\/I>, to wit, there, as is expressed Deu 26:12<\/span>, that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled<\/I>; which implies that these tithes, or some part of them, were eaten in the owners gates or dwelling, with holy rejoicing and feasting, wherein it is most probable the owner had his share, though it be not there expressed, because it was evident in itself from the foregoing passage, Deu 14:23<\/span>, &c., where the owner is allowed and commanded to eat those tithes together with the Levites. And howsoever some think the third years tithes, Deu 14:28<\/span>, were not the same with those Deu 14:23<\/span>, yet it cannot with any colour of reason be thought that those tithes which were to be eaten, not only by the Levites, but also by the strangers, Deu 14:29<\/span>, were more sacred than those that were to be eaten by none but the Levites and the owners, Deu 14:23<\/span>,27<\/span>, or that the owner might eat of the one, and not of the other. For any unclean use<\/I>, i.e. for any common use; the words common<\/I> and unclean<\/I> being oft indifferently used one for the other, or for any other use than that which thou hast appointed, which would have been a pollution of them. <\/P> For the dead, <\/B>i.e. for any funeral pomp, or service, or feast; for the Jews used to send in provisions to feast with the nearest relations of the party deceased, of which see Jer 16:7<\/span>; Eze 24:17<\/span>; Hos 9:4<\/span>; and in that case both the guests and food were legally polluted, Num 19:11<\/span>,14<\/span>, and therefore the use of these tithes in such cases had been a double fault, both the defiling of sacred food, and the employing of those provisions upon sorrowful occasions, which by Gods express command were to be eaten with rejoicing, Deu 14:26<\/span>; 26:11<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n 14. I have not eaten thereof in mymourning<\/B>in a season of sorrow, which brought defilement onsacred things; under a pretense of poverty, and grudging to give anyaway to the poor. <\/P> neither . . . for any uncleanuse<\/B>that is, any common purpose, different from what God hadappointed and which would have been a desecration of it. <\/P> nor given ought thereof forthe dead<\/B>on any funeral service, or, to an idol,<\/I> whichis a dead thing.<\/P><\/p>\n I have not eaten thereof in my mourning<\/strong>,…. When in grief and sorrow on account of any afflictive circumstance, for these were to be eaten with joy, De 16:11<\/span>; and especially of the loss of relations by death, when holy things were not to be eaten by such persons; see Le 10:19<\/span>; and particularly tithes, though it is said n,<\/p>\n “What is doubtful of tithing (whether it has been tithed or no) might be eaten by a mourner;”<\/p>\n and a man was reckoned such an one until his dead was buried. So Maimonides o observes,<\/p>\n “a mourner may not eat holy things, as it is written, De 26:14<\/span>; he is one whose relation is dead, when he is obliged to mourn; for he is called by the law a mourner as long as the dead lies upon the face of the earth (above ground), or as long as he is not yet buried he is called a mourner; and so likewise on the day of burial:”<\/p>\n neither have I taken away [ought] thereof for [any] unclean [use]<\/strong>; or common use, or any other use than it was designed for, and devoted to; or for any unclean person, who by the law might not eat thereof; or, as Jarchi interprets it, that he had not removed it, or taken it away from being eaten, on account of any unclean person, because I am unclean and he pure, or he pure and I unclean:<\/p>\n nor given ought thereof for the dead<\/strong>; for the necessities of the dead, as Aben Ezra; more particularly Jarchi, to make for him a coffin and grave clothes; and so the Targum of Jonathan interprets it of grave clothes for the dead; though that of Jerusalem of clothes for those that are polluted by the dead. It may have respect also to the parentalia, or funeral feasts made at the interment of the dead; though Aben Ezra says, there are some that say it was for idolatry, and so the person here speaking denies that he had made use of any of the holy things in honour of idols, of dead men deified; and some are of opinion that all the above things may have some respect to idolatrous practices p:<\/p>\n [but] I have hearkened to the voice of the Lord my God, [and] have done according to all that thou hast commanded me<\/strong>; observed his word, and kept close to it, and not swerved from it, but acted according to it in all things before referred to.<\/p>\n n Misn. Demai, c. 1. sect. 2. o Maimon. in Misn. Pesachim, c. 8. sect. 6. p Vid. Patrick in loc.<\/p>\n “ I have not eaten thereof in my sorrow<\/em>.” , from , tribulation, distress, signifies here in all probability mourning, and judging from what follows, mourning for the dead, equivalent to “in a mourning condition,” i.e., in a state of legal (Levitical) uncleanness; so that really corresponded to the which follows, except that includes every kind of legal uncleanness. “ I have removed nothing thereof as unclean<\/em>,” i.e., while in the state of an unclean person. Not only not eaten of any, but not removed any of it from the house, carried it away in an unclean state, in which they were forbidden to touch the holy gifts (Lev 22:3<\/span>). “ And not given<\/em> (any) of it on account of the dead<\/em>.” This most probably refers to the custom of sending provisions into a house of mourning, to prepare meals for the mourners (2Sa 3:25<\/span>; Jer 16:7<\/span>; Hos 9:4<\/span>; Tobit 4:17). A house of mourning, with its inhabitants, was regarded as unclean; consequently nothing could be carried into it of that which was sanctified. There is no good ground for thinking of idolatrous customs, or of any special superstition attached to the bread of mourning; nor is there any ground for understanding the words as referring to the later Jewish custom of putting provisions into the grave along with the corpse, to which the Septuagint rendering, , points. (On Deu 26:15<\/span>, see Isa 63:15<\/span>.)<\/p>\n 14. I have not eaten thereof in my mourning ( tristitia) It is clear that the sacred offerings are here spoken of; but the question is, what is meant by eating in mourning? This is the exposition received by almost universal consent; that although want may have tempted them to theft and fraud, yet the people assert that, even in their poverty and straits, they have abstained from the hallowed things; and to this I willingly assent; although this word “mourning” may be taken for the anxiety of a mind conscious of its iniquity in this sense, “I have not knowingly and willingly eaten anything consecrated to God, so that the hot iron ( cauterium) of an evil conscience should burn me, in the way in which man’s guilt ever torments and troubles him.” As to the second clause, interpreters differ. Some translate the word ‘ בער bagnar, (221) “ to destroy:” as if it were said, that they had suffered nothing to perish through uncleanness; but others explain it, I have taken away nothing for a profane purpose. My own opinion is, however, that the word ‘ טמא, tama, is used adverbially for “impurely,” so that the people testify that they are not polluted, or contaminated by withholding anything. (222) Thus, in my idea, some do not badly translate it “by uncleanness:” for it was not possible for the Israelites to apply the tithes to other uses, without contracting pollution by their wicked abuse of them. The ambiguity in the third clause is still greater; literally it is, “I have not given thereof to the dead.” In my version I have followed those who refer it to funeral rites; but some suppose that the word “dead” is used metaphorically for an unclean thing; others, in a less natural sense, for expenses, which do not contribute to support man’s life. But it does not yet appear wherefore it should he said that nothing had been spent on funeral rites. It is true that whatever had touched a dead body was unclean; and therefore some expound it, that the victims had not been polluted by any connection with funeral preparations. But if this sense is preferred, the expression must be taken by synecdoche for anything unclean. My own opinion however, is, that under this particular head all things are included which have a shew of piety. The burial of the dead was a praiseworthy office and a religious exercise; (223) so that it might afford a colorable pretext for peculiar laxity; in this word, therefore, God would have the Israelites declare, that they offered no excuse if they had misemployed any of the consecrated things. <\/p>\n (221) בער, is to consume, and especially as fire consumes. The verb is here in Pihel, in which conjugation it further signifies to carry away, as rendered in A.V. Our author gives the paraphrase of Aben Ezra, as quoted in S. M. — W. <\/p>\n (222) “ En rien appliquant a soy de ce qui appartenoit a Dieu :” by appropriating anything to themselves of what belonged to God. — Fr. <\/p>\n (223) “ Telle apparence pouvoit enhardir les gens a y employer les offertes deues a Dieu :” this pretext might embolden the people to employ upon it the offerings due to God. — Fr. <\/p>\n 14<\/strong>. <\/strong> I have not eaten thereof in my mourning <\/strong> While mourning for the dead the person would be in a condition of legal uncleanness. <\/p>\n Neither <\/strong> have I taken away aught thereof for any unclean use <\/strong> Better, in uncleanness. <\/em> That is, when I was in a condition of legal uncleanness. <\/p>\n Nor given aught thereof for the dead <\/strong> This, says Keil, most probably refers to the custom of sending provisions into a house of mourning, to prepare meals for the mourners. See 2Sa 3:35<\/span>; Jer 16:7<\/span>. There is a custom in the East at the present day of sending large quantities of food cooked in a particular manner to the friends of the deceased in his name. See The Land and the Book, <\/em> first edition, vol. i, p. 150. “No doubt Deu 26:12-14<\/span>, offers a difficulty; but it cannot fairly be said to be greater than the town tax, school tax, and internal revenue tax would offer to a Greenlander who started with the outrageous blunder that each law belonged to an independent, not to a co-ordinate code.” Bibliotheca Sacra, <\/em> April, 1882, p. 321.<\/p>\n Ver. <\/em><\/strong>14. <\/strong>I have not eaten thereof in my mourning, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> The expressions in this verse evidently refer to idolatrous customs, and they are further proofs how careful their legislator was to guard them from the then prevailing idolatry of worshipping the dead. Had they not been restrained by this and other laws, it is hardly to be doubted, that they, as well as the Pagans, would have deified some of their dead heroes. The first declaration, I have not eaten thereof in my mourning, <\/em>Spencer very judiciously supposes to have respect to some idolatrous custom then in use; such as that of the Egyptians, who, when they offered the first-fruits of the earth, were accustomed to invoke Isis with woeful lamentations: for which practice Spencer has collected many undoubted authorities in his Leg. Heb. lib. ii. c. 37. We have had occasion to observe before, that the Israelites were not allowed to eat of things consecrated to God when they were in a state of mourning. See Hos 9:4<\/span>. The second declaration, neither have I taken aught thereof for any unclean use, <\/em>refers to the practice of some old idolaters, who separated part of the first-fruits for magical, and sometimes very lascivious uses; making Ceres and Bacchus minister to Venus, as Julius Firmicus has fully proved in his Error. Prophanae Religionis. The phrase may signify, I have not taken away aught thereof to any unclean place, <\/em>such as an idol’s temple, where the Gentiles were accustomed to eat their consecrated things. In general, however, that may be called an unclean use, which God had forbidden, as he had all other uses besides what he required. The third declaration, nor given aught thereof for, <\/em>or rather, to the dead, <\/em>is a profession that they had not offered any of the fruits of the earth to idols, as if their increase had been owing to them; for these idols were nothing but dead men deified, and to such dead idols the Gentiles were wont to consecrate their first-fruits. The Egyptians, in particular, consecrated them to Osiris, <\/em>who, Spencer thinks, may be here meant by the dead, <\/em>as the word is in the singular number. Osiris <\/em>was the same as Adonis; <\/em>concerning whose worship almost every writer of antiquity speaks: in particular Lucian, Plutarch, and Theocritus. See the note on Deu 4:1<\/span>. <\/p>\n Deu 26:14 I have not eaten thereof in my mourning, neither have I taken away [ought] thereof for [any] unclean [use], nor given [ought] thereof for the dead: [but] I have hearkened to the voice of the LORD my God, [and] have done according to all that thou hast commanded me.<\/p>\n Ver. 14. I have not eaten thereof in my mourn, ing.<\/strong> ] All God’s worships were to be celebrated with joy. Deu 12:7 Sacrifices offered with mourning were abominated, Hos 9:4 yea, accursed. Deu 28:47 None might come to the court of Persia in mourning weeds. Est 4:2 <\/p>\n <\/p>\n For any unclean use.<\/strong> ] Or, Common profane use. Common and unclean is one and the same in sundry languages; to teach us, that it is hard to deal in common businesses, and not defile ourselves, and that those that come to holy things with common affections and carriages profane them. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Nor given ought thereof for the dead.<\/strong> ] To bury them, or buy provision for the funeral feast. Jer 16:7 <\/em> Eze 24:7 <\/em> Hos 9:4 <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Ye have done according, &c.<\/strong> ] It is a witty expression of Luther; By men’s boasting of what they have done, says he, Haec ego feci, haec ego feci,<\/em> they become nothing else but faeces,<\/em> dregs. But so did not these. See Trapp on “<\/em> Deu 26:13 “<\/em> <\/p>\n mourning. Hebrew ‘avon, a Homonym: here = suffering, or sorrow (as in Gen 35:18 (margin), and Hos 9:4), but = might in Gen 49:3. <\/p>\n for the dead. Probably = defilement for touching a dead body. <\/p>\n eaten: Deu 16:11, Lev 7:20, Lev 21:1, Lev 21:11, Hos 9:4, Mal 2:13 <\/p>\n the dead: Psa 106:28, Eze 24:17 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Lev 10:19 – should Deu 12:17 – the tithe Neh 8:9 – mourn not Jer 16:7 – tear themselves<\/p>\n Deu 26:14. I have not eaten thereof in my mourning This is thought by Spencer to have respect to some idolatrous custom then in use: such as that of the Egyptians, who, when they offered the first-fruits of the earth, were wont to invoke Isis with doleful lamentations. But, as the Israelites were not allowed to eat of things consecrated to God, when they were in a state of mourning, (Hos 9:4,) this may probably be all that is here intended. Or the declaration may mean, I have not done it in sorrow, grieving that I was to give away so much of my profits to the poor, but I have cheerfully eaten and feasted with them, as I was commanded to do. For any unclean use As some of the old idolaters were wont to do, who separated part of the first-fruits for magical, and sometimes impure uses; or for any common use; for any other use than that which thou hast appointed; which would have been a pollution of them. Nor given aught thereof for the dead Or, to the dead; that is, says Spencer, to dead idols, such as the Gentiles worshipped, who offered their first-fruits to them, as if they had been the authors of their increase. But the expression, for the dead, more probably means for any funeral pomp or service, for, it seems, the Jews were wont to send in provisions to feast with the nearest relations of the party deceased; and in that case, both the guests and food were legally polluted, Num 19:11-14; and, therefore, to have used these tithes in such a way would have been a double fault, both a defiling of sacred food, and the employing of those provisions on sorrowful occasions, which, by Gods express command, were to be eaten with rejoicing.<\/p>\n 26:14 I have not eaten thereof in my mourning, neither have I taken away [ought] thereof for [any] unclean [use], nor given [ought] thereof for the dead: [but] I have hearkened to the voice of the LORD my God, [and] have done {m} according to all that thou hast commanded me.<\/p>\n (m) As far as my sinful nature would allow: or else as David and Paul say, there is not one just, Psa 14:3, Rom 3:10.<\/p>\n I have not eaten thereof in my mourning, neither have I taken away [aught] thereof for [any] unclean [use], nor given [aught] thereof for the dead: [but] I have hearkened to the voice of the LORD my God, [and] have done according to all that thou hast commanded me. 14. I have not eaten thereof … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Deuteronomy 26:14”<\/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-5589","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5589","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=5589"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5589\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5589"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5589"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5589"}],"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: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/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 on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/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":"