One Place, One People, One Lord: The Centralization of Worship

Deu 12:6-9 Thither they were to take all their sacrificial gifts, and there they were to celebrate their sacrificial meals. The gifts are classified in four pairs: (1) the sacrifices intended for the altar, burnt-offerings and slain-offerings being particularly mentioned as the two principal kinds, with which, according to Num 15:4. , meat-offerings and drink-offerings were to be associated; (2) “your tithes and every heave-offering of your hand.

” By the tithes we are to understand the tithes of field-produce and cattle, commanded in Lev 27:30-33 and Num 18:21-24, which were to be brought to the sanctuary because they were to be offered to the Lord, as was the case under Hezekiah (2Ch 31:5-7). That the tithes mentioned here should be restricted to vegetable tithes (of corn, new wine, and oil), is neither allowed by the general character of the expression, nor required by the context.

For instance, although, according to Deu 12:7 and Deu 12:11, Deu 12:12, as compared with Deu 12:17, a portion of the vegetable tithe was to be applied to the sacrificial meals, there is no ground whatever for supposing that all the sacrifices and consecrated gifts mentioned in Deu 12:6 were offerings of this kind, and either served as sacrificial meals, or had such meals connected with them. Burnt-offerings, for example, were not associated in any way with the sacrificial meals.

The difficulty, or as some suppose “the impossibility,” of delivering all the tithes from every part of the land at the place of the sanctuary, does not warrant us in departing from the simple meaning of Moses’ words in the verse before us. The arrangement permitted in Deu 14:24-25, with reference to the so-called second tithe, - viz. , that if the sanctuary was too far off, the tithe might be sold at home, and whatever was required for the sacrificial meals might be bought at the place of the sanctuary with the money so obtained, - might possibly have been also adopted in the case of the other tithe.

At all events, the fact that no reference is made to such cases as these does not warrant us in assuming the opposite. As the institution of tithes generally did not originate with the law of Moses, but is presupposed as a traditional and well-known custom, - all that is done being to define them more precisely, and regulate the way in which they should be applied, - Moses does not enter here into any details as to the course to be adopted in delivering them, but merely lays down the law that all the gifts intended for the Lord were to be brought to Him at His sanctuary, and connects with this the further injunction that the Israelites were to rejoice there before the Lord, that is to say, were to celebrate their sacrificial meals at the place of His presence which He had chosen.

- The gifts, from which the sacrificial meals were prepared, are not particularized here, but are supposed to be already known either form the earlier laws or from tradition. From the earlier laws we learn that the whole of the flesh of the burnt-offerings was to be consumed upon the altar, but that the flesh of the slain-offerings, except in the case of the peace-offerings, was to be applied to the sacrificial meals, with the exception of the fat pieces, and the wave-breast and heave-shoulder.

With regard to the tithes, it is stated in Num 18:21-24 that Jehovah had given them to the Levites as their inheritance, and that they were to give the tenth part of them to the priests. In the laws contained in the earlier books, nothing is said about the appropriation of any portion of the tithes to sacrificial meals. Yet in Deuteronomy this is simply assumed as a customary thing, and not introduced as a new commandment, when the law is laid down (in Deu 12:17; Deu 14:22.

, Deu 26:12.) , that they were not to eat the tithe of corn, new wine, and oil within their gates (in the towns of the land), any more than the first-born of oxen and sheep, but only at the place of the sanctuary chosen by the Lord; and that if the distance was too great for the whole to be transported thither, they were to sell the tithes and firstlings at home, and then purchase at the sanctuary whatever might be required for the sacrificial meals.

From these instructions it is very apparent that sacrificial meals were associated with the delivery of the tithes and firstlings to the Lord, to which a tenth part of the corn, must, and oil was applied, as well as the flesh of the first-born of edible cattle. This tenth formed the so-called second tithe (δευτέραν δεκάτην, Tob. 1:7), which is mentioned here for the first time, but not introduced as a new rule or an appendix to the former laws.

It is rather taken for granted as a custom founded upon tradition, and brought into harmony with the law relating to the oneness of the sanctuary and worship. “ The heave-offerings of your hand, ” which are mentioned again in Mal 3:8 along with the tithes, are not to be restricted to the first-fruits, as we may see from Eze 20:40, where the terumoth are mentioned along with the first-fruits.

We should rather understand them as being free gifts of love, which were consecrated to the Lord in addition to the legal first-fruits and tithes without being actual sacrifices, and which were then applied to sacrificial meals. - The other gifts were (3) נדרים and נדבות, sacrifices which were offered partly in consequence of vows and partly of their own free will (see at Lev 23:38, compared with Lev 7:16; Lev 22:21, and Num 15:3; Num 29:39); and lastly (4), “firstlings of your herds and of your flocks,” viz.

, those commanded in Exo 13:2, Exo 13:12. , and Num 18:15. According to Exo 13:15, the Israelites were to sacrifice the firstlings to the Lord; and according to Num 13:8. they belonged to the holy gifts, which the Lord assigned to the priests for their maintenance, with the more precise instructions in Deu 12:17, Deu 12:18, that the first-born of oxen, sheep, and goats were not to be redeemed, but being holy were to be burned upon the altar in the same manner as the shelamim , and that the flesh was to belong to the priests, like the wave-breast and right leg of the shelamim.

These last words, it is true, are not to be understood as signifying that the only portions of the flesh of the firstlings which were to be given to the priest were the wave-breast and heave-leg, and that the remainder of the flesh was to be left to the offerer to be applied to a sacrificial meal (Hengstenberg); but they state most unequivocally that the priest was to apply the flesh to a sacrificial meal, like the wave-breast and heave-leg of all the peace-offerings, which the priest was not even allowed to consume with his own family at home, like ordinary flesh, but to which the instructions given for all the sacrificial meals were applicable, namely, that “whoever was clean in the priest’s family” might eat of it (Num 18:11), and that the flesh was to be eaten on the day when the sacrifice was offered (Lev 7:15), or at the latest on the following morning, as in the case of the votive offering (Lev 7:16), and that whatever was left was to be burnt. These instructions concerning the flesh of the firstlings to be offered to the Lord no more prohibit the priest from allowing the persons who presented the firstlings to take part in the sacrificial meals, or handing over to them some portion of the flesh which belonged to himself to hold a sacrificial meal, than any other law does; on the contrary, the duty of doing this was made very plain by the fact that the presentation of firstlings is described as ליהוה זבח in Exo 13:15, in the very first of the general instructions for their sanctification, since even in the patriarchal times the זבח was always connected with a sacrificial meal in which the offerer participated.

Consequently it cannot be shown that there is any contradiction between Deuteronomy and the earlier laws with regard to the appropriation of the first-born. The command to bring the firstlings of the sacrificial animal, like all the rest of the sacrifices, to the place of His sanctuary which the Lord would choose, and to hold sacrificial meals there with the tithes of corn, new wine, and oil, and also with the firstlings of the flocks, and herds, is given not merely to the laity of Israel, but to the whole of the people, including the priests and Levites, without the distinction between the tribe of Levi and the other tribes, established in the earlier laws, being even altered, much less abrogated.

The Israelites were to bring all their sacrificial gifts to the place of the sanctuary to be chosen by the Lord, and there, not in all their towns, they were to eat their votive and free-will offerings in sacrificial meals. This, and only this, is what Moses commands the people both here in Deu 12:7 and Deu 12:17, Deu 12:18, and also in Deu 14:22. and Deu 15:19.

“ Rejoice in all that your hand has acquired . ” The phrase יד משׁלח (cf. Deu 12:18; Deu 15:10; Deu 23:21; Deu 28:8, Deu 28:20) signifies that to which the hand is stretched out, that which a man undertakes (synonymous with מעשׂה), and also what a man acquires by his activity: hence Isa 11:14, יד משׁלוח, what a man appropriates to himself with his hand, or takes possession of.

אשׁר before בּרכך is dependent upon ידכם משׁלה, and בּרך is construed with a double accusative, as in Gen 49:25. The reason for these instructions is given in Deu 12:8, Deu 12:9, namely, that this had not hitherto taken place, but that up to this day every one had done what he thought right, because they had not yet come to the rest and to the inheritance which the Lord was about to give them.

The phrase, “whatsoever is right in his own eyes,” is applied to actions performed according to a man’s own judgment, rather than according to the standard of objective right and the law of God (cf. Jdg 17:6; Jdg 21:25). The reference is probably not so much to open idolatry, which was actually practised, according to Lev 17:7; Num 25:1; Eze 20:16-17; Amo 5:25-26, as to acts of illegality, for which some excuse might be found in the circumstances in which they were placed when wandering through the desert, - such, for example, as the omission of the daily sacrifice when the tabernacle was not set up, and others of a similar kind.

Deu 12:6-9 Thither they were to take all their sacrificial gifts, and there they were to celebrate their sacrificial meals. The gifts are classified in four pairs: (1) the sacrifices intended for the altar, burnt-offerings and slain-offerings being particularly mentioned as the two principal kinds, with which, according to Num 15:4. , meat-offerings and drink-offerings were to be associated; (2) “your tithes and every heave-offering of your hand.

” By the tithes we are to understand the tithes of field-produce and cattle, commanded in Lev 27:30-33 and Num 18:21-24, which were to be brought to the sanctuary because they were to be offered to the Lord, as was the case under Hezekiah (2Ch 31:5-7). That the tithes mentioned here should be restricted to vegetable tithes (of corn, new wine, and oil), is neither allowed by the general character of the expression, nor required by the context.

For instance, although, according to Deu 12:7 and Deu 12:11, Deu 12:12, as compared with Deu 12:17, a portion of the vegetable tithe was to be applied to the sacrificial meals, there is no ground whatever for supposing that all the sacrifices and consecrated gifts mentioned in Deu 12:6 were offerings of this kind, and either served as sacrificial meals, or had such meals connected with them. Burnt-offerings, for example, were not associated in any way with the sacrificial meals.

The difficulty, or as some suppose “the impossibility,” of delivering all the tithes from every part of the land at the place of the sanctuary, does not warrant us in departing from the simple meaning of Moses’ words in the verse before us. The arrangement permitted in Deu 14:24-25, with reference to the so-called second tithe, - viz. , that if the sanctuary was too far off, the tithe might be sold at home, and whatever was required for the sacrificial meals might be bought at the place of the sanctuary with the money so obtained, - might possibly have been also adopted in the case of the other tithe.

At all events, the fact that no reference is made to such cases as these does not warrant us in assuming the opposite. As the institution of tithes generally did not originate with the law of Moses, but is presupposed as a traditional and well-known custom, - all that is done being to define them more precisely, and regulate the way in which they should be applied, - Moses does not enter here into any details as to the course to be adopted in delivering them, but merely lays down the law that all the gifts intended for the Lord were to be brought to Him at His sanctuary, and connects with this the further injunction that the Israelites were to rejoice there before the Lord, that is to say, were to celebrate their sacrificial meals at the place of His presence which He had chosen.

- The gifts, from which the sacrificial meals were prepared, are not particularized here, but are supposed to be already known either form the earlier laws or from tradition. From the earlier laws we learn that the whole of the flesh of the burnt-offerings was to be consumed upon the altar, but that the flesh of the slain-offerings, except in the case of the peace-offerings, was to be applied to the sacrificial meals, with the exception of the fat pieces, and the wave-breast and heave-shoulder.

With regard to the tithes, it is stated in Num 18:21-24 that Jehovah had given them to the Levites as their inheritance, and that they were to give the tenth part of them to the priests. In the laws contained in the earlier books, nothing is said about the appropriation of any portion of the tithes to sacrificial meals. Yet in Deuteronomy this is simply assumed as a customary thing, and not introduced as a new commandment, when the law is laid down (in Deu 12:17; Deu 14:22.

, Deu 26:12.) , that they were not to eat the tithe of corn, new wine, and oil within their gates (in the towns of the land), any more than the first-born of oxen and sheep, but only at the place of the sanctuary chosen by the Lord; and that if the distance was too great for the whole to be transported thither, they were to sell the tithes and firstlings at home, and then purchase at the sanctuary whatever might be required for the sacrificial meals.

From these instructions it is very apparent that sacrificial meals were associated with the delivery of the tithes and firstlings to the Lord, to which a tenth part of the corn, must, and oil was applied, as well as the flesh of the first-born of edible cattle. This tenth formed the so-called second tithe (δευτέραν δεκάτην, Tob. 1:7), which is mentioned here for the first time, but not introduced as a new rule or an appendix to the former laws.

It is rather taken for granted as a custom founded upon tradition, and brought into harmony with the law relating to the oneness of the sanctuary and worship. “ The heave-offerings of your hand, ” which are mentioned again in Mal 3:8 along with the tithes, are not to be restricted to the first-fruits, as we may see from Eze 20:40, where the terumoth are mentioned along with the first-fruits.

We should rather understand them as being free gifts of love, which were consecrated to the Lord in addition to the legal first-fruits and tithes without being actual sacrifices, and which were then applied to sacrificial meals. - The other gifts were (3) נדרים and נדבות, sacrifices which were offered partly in consequence of vows and partly of their own free will (see at Lev 23:38, compared with Lev 7:16; Lev 22:21, and Num 15:3; Num 29:39); and lastly (4), “firstlings of your herds and of your flocks,” viz.

, those commanded in Exo 13:2, Exo 13:12. , and Num 18:15. According to Exo 13:15, the Israelites were to sacrifice the firstlings to the Lord; and according to Num 13:8. they belonged to the holy gifts, which the Lord assigned to the priests for their maintenance, with the more precise instructions in Deu 12:17, Deu 12:18, that the first-born of oxen, sheep, and goats were not to be redeemed, but being holy were to be burned upon the altar in the same manner as the shelamim , and that the flesh was to belong to the priests, like the wave-breast and right leg of the shelamim.

These last words, it is true, are not to be understood as signifying that the only portions of the flesh of the firstlings which were to be given to the priest were the wave-breast and heave-leg, and that the remainder of the flesh was to be left to the offerer to be applied to a sacrificial meal (Hengstenberg); but they state most unequivocally that the priest was to apply the flesh to a sacrificial meal, like the wave-breast and heave-leg of all the peace-offerings, which the priest was not even allowed to consume with his own family at home, like ordinary flesh, but to which the instructions given for all the sacrificial meals were applicable, namely, that “whoever was clean in the priest’s family” might eat of it (Num 18:11), and that the flesh was to be eaten on the day when the sacrifice was offered (Lev 7:15), or at the latest on the following morning, as in the case of the votive offering (Lev 7:16), and that whatever was left was to be burnt. These instructions concerning the flesh of the firstlings to be offered to the Lord no more prohibit the priest from allowing the persons who presented the firstlings to take part in the sacrificial meals, or handing over to them some portion of the flesh which belonged to himself to hold a sacrificial meal, than any other law does; on the contrary, the duty of doing this was made very plain by the fact that the presentation of firstlings is described as ליהוה זבח in Exo 13:15, in the very first of the general instructions for their sanctification, since even in the patriarchal times the זבח was always connected with a sacrificial meal in which the offerer participated.

Consequently it cannot be shown that there is any contradiction between Deuteronomy and the earlier laws with regard to the appropriation of the first-born. The command to bring the firstlings of the sacrificial animal, like all the rest of the sacrifices, to the place of His sanctuary which the Lord would choose, and to hold sacrificial meals there with the tithes of corn, new wine, and oil, and also with the firstlings of the flocks, and herds, is given not merely to the laity of Israel, but to the whole of the people, including the priests and Levites, without the distinction between the tribe of Levi and the other tribes, established in the earlier laws, being even altered, much less abrogated.

The Israelites were to bring all their sacrificial gifts to the place of the sanctuary to be chosen by the Lord, and there, not in all their towns, they were to eat their votive and free-will offerings in sacrificial meals. This, and only this, is what Moses commands the people both here in Deu 12:7 and Deu 12:17, Deu 12:18, and also in Deu 14:22. and Deu 15:19.

“ Rejoice in all that your hand has acquired . ” The phrase יד משׁלח (cf. Deu 12:18; Deu 15:10; Deu 23:21; Deu 28:8, Deu 28:20) signifies that to which the hand is stretched out, that which a man undertakes (synonymous with מעשׂה), and also what a man acquires by his activity: hence Isa 11:14, יד משׁלוח, what a man appropriates to himself with his hand, or takes possession of.

אשׁר before בּרכך is dependent upon ידכם משׁלה, and בּרך is construed with a double accusative, as in Gen 49:25. The reason for these instructions is given in Deu 12:8, Deu 12:9, namely, that this had not hitherto taken place, but that up to this day every one had done what he thought right, because they had not yet come to the rest and to the inheritance which the Lord was about to give them.

The phrase, “whatsoever is right in his own eyes,” is applied to actions performed according to a man’s own judgment, rather than according to the standard of objective right and the law of God (cf. Jdg 17:6; Jdg 21:25). The reference is probably not so much to open idolatry, which was actually practised, according to Lev 17:7; Num 25:1; Eze 20:16-17; Amo 5:25-26, as to acts of illegality, for which some excuse might be found in the circumstances in which they were placed when wandering through the desert, - such, for example, as the omission of the daily sacrifice when the tabernacle was not set up, and others of a similar kind.

Deu 12:6-9 Thither they were to take all their sacrificial gifts, and there they were to celebrate their sacrificial meals. The gifts are classified in four pairs: (1) the sacrifices intended for the altar, burnt-offerings and slain-offerings being particularly mentioned as the two principal kinds, with which, according to Num 15:4. , meat-offerings and drink-offerings were to be associated; (2) “your tithes and every heave-offering of your hand.

” By the tithes we are to understand the tithes of field-produce and cattle, commanded in Lev 27:30-33 and Num 18:21-24, which were to be brought to the sanctuary because they were to be offered to the Lord, as was the case under Hezekiah (2Ch 31:5-7). That the tithes mentioned here should be restricted to vegetable tithes (of corn, new wine, and oil), is neither allowed by the general character of the expression, nor required by the context.

For instance, although, according to Deu 12:7 and Deu 12:11, Deu 12:12, as compared with Deu 12:17, a portion of the vegetable tithe was to be applied to the sacrificial meals, there is no ground whatever for supposing that all the sacrifices and consecrated gifts mentioned in Deu 12:6 were offerings of this kind, and either served as sacrificial meals, or had such meals connected with them. Burnt-offerings, for example, were not associated in any way with the sacrificial meals.

The difficulty, or as some suppose “the impossibility,” of delivering all the tithes from every part of the land at the place of the sanctuary, does not warrant us in departing from the simple meaning of Moses’ words in the verse before us. The arrangement permitted in Deu 14:24-25, with reference to the so-called second tithe, - viz. , that if the sanctuary was too far off, the tithe might be sold at home, and whatever was required for the sacrificial meals might be bought at the place of the sanctuary with the money so obtained, - might possibly have been also adopted in the case of the other tithe.

At all events, the fact that no reference is made to such cases as these does not warrant us in assuming the opposite. As the institution of tithes generally did not originate with the law of Moses, but is presupposed as a traditional and well-known custom, - all that is done being to define them more precisely, and regulate the way in which they should be applied, - Moses does not enter here into any details as to the course to be adopted in delivering them, but merely lays down the law that all the gifts intended for the Lord were to be brought to Him at His sanctuary, and connects with this the further injunction that the Israelites were to rejoice there before the Lord, that is to say, were to celebrate their sacrificial meals at the place of His presence which He had chosen.

- The gifts, from which the sacrificial meals were prepared, are not particularized here, but are supposed to be already known either form the earlier laws or from tradition. From the earlier laws we learn that the whole of the flesh of the burnt-offerings was to be consumed upon the altar, but that the flesh of the slain-offerings, except in the case of the peace-offerings, was to be applied to the sacrificial meals, with the exception of the fat pieces, and the wave-breast and heave-shoulder.

With regard to the tithes, it is stated in Num 18:21-24 that Jehovah had given them to the Levites as their inheritance, and that they were to give the tenth part of them to the priests. In the laws contained in the earlier books, nothing is said about the appropriation of any portion of the tithes to sacrificial meals. Yet in Deuteronomy this is simply assumed as a customary thing, and not introduced as a new commandment, when the law is laid down (in Deu 12:17; Deu 14:22.

, Deu 26:12.) , that they were not to eat the tithe of corn, new wine, and oil within their gates (in the towns of the land), any more than the first-born of oxen and sheep, but only at the place of the sanctuary chosen by the Lord; and that if the distance was too great for the whole to be transported thither, they were to sell the tithes and firstlings at home, and then purchase at the sanctuary whatever might be required for the sacrificial meals.

From these instructions it is very apparent that sacrificial meals were associated with the delivery of the tithes and firstlings to the Lord, to which a tenth part of the corn, must, and oil was applied, as well as the flesh of the first-born of edible cattle. This tenth formed the so-called second tithe (δευτέραν δεκάτην, Tob. 1:7), which is mentioned here for the first time, but not introduced as a new rule or an appendix to the former laws.

It is rather taken for granted as a custom founded upon tradition, and brought into harmony with the law relating to the oneness of the sanctuary and worship. “ The heave-offerings of your hand, ” which are mentioned again in Mal 3:8 along with the tithes, are not to be restricted to the first-fruits, as we may see from Eze 20:40, where the terumoth are mentioned along with the first-fruits.

We should rather understand them as being free gifts of love, which were consecrated to the Lord in addition to the legal first-fruits and tithes without being actual sacrifices, and which were then applied to sacrificial meals. - The other gifts were (3) נדרים and נדבות, sacrifices which were offered partly in consequence of vows and partly of their own free will (see at Lev 23:38, compared with Lev 7:16; Lev 22:21, and Num 15:3; Num 29:39); and lastly (4), “firstlings of your herds and of your flocks,” viz.

, those commanded in Exo 13:2, Exo 13:12. , and Num 18:15. According to Exo 13:15, the Israelites were to sacrifice the firstlings to the Lord; and according to Num 13:8. they belonged to the holy gifts, which the Lord assigned to the priests for their maintenance, with the more precise instructions in Deu 12:17, Deu 12:18, that the first-born of oxen, sheep, and goats were not to be redeemed, but being holy were to be burned upon the altar in the same manner as the shelamim , and that the flesh was to belong to the priests, like the wave-breast and right leg of the shelamim.

These last words, it is true, are not to be understood as signifying that the only portions of the flesh of the firstlings which were to be given to the priest were the wave-breast and heave-leg, and that the remainder of the flesh was to be left to the offerer to be applied to a sacrificial meal (Hengstenberg); but they state most unequivocally that the priest was to apply the flesh to a sacrificial meal, like the wave-breast and heave-leg of all the peace-offerings, which the priest was not even allowed to consume with his own family at home, like ordinary flesh, but to which the instructions given for all the sacrificial meals were applicable, namely, that “whoever was clean in the priest’s family” might eat of it (Num 18:11), and that the flesh was to be eaten on the day when the sacrifice was offered (Lev 7:15), or at the latest on the following morning, as in the case of the votive offering (Lev 7:16), and that whatever was left was to be burnt. These instructions concerning the flesh of the firstlings to be offered to the Lord no more prohibit the priest from allowing the persons who presented the firstlings to take part in the sacrificial meals, or handing over to them some portion of the flesh which belonged to himself to hold a sacrificial meal, than any other law does; on the contrary, the duty of doing this was made very plain by the fact that the presentation of firstlings is described as ליהוה זבח in Exo 13:15, in the very first of the general instructions for their sanctification, since even in the patriarchal times the זבח was always connected with a sacrificial meal in which the offerer participated.

Consequently it cannot be shown that there is any contradiction between Deuteronomy and the earlier laws with regard to the appropriation of the first-born. The command to bring the firstlings of the sacrificial animal, like all the rest of the sacrifices, to the place of His sanctuary which the Lord would choose, and to hold sacrificial meals there with the tithes of corn, new wine, and oil, and also with the firstlings of the flocks, and herds, is given not merely to the laity of Israel, but to the whole of the people, including the priests and Levites, without the distinction between the tribe of Levi and the other tribes, established in the earlier laws, being even altered, much less abrogated.

The Israelites were to bring all their sacrificial gifts to the place of the sanctuary to be chosen by the Lord, and there, not in all their towns, they were to eat their votive and free-will offerings in sacrificial meals. This, and only this, is what Moses commands the people both here in Deu 12:7 and Deu 12:17, Deu 12:18, and also in Deu 14:22. and Deu 15:19.

“ Rejoice in all that your hand has acquired . ” The phrase יד משׁלח (cf. Deu 12:18; Deu 15:10; Deu 23:21; Deu 28:8, Deu 28:20) signifies that to which the hand is stretched out, that which a man undertakes (synonymous with מעשׂה), and also what a man acquires by his activity: hence Isa 11:14, יד משׁלוח, what a man appropriates to himself with his hand, or takes possession of.

אשׁר before בּרכך is dependent upon ידכם משׁלה, and בּרך is construed with a double accusative, as in Gen 49:25. The reason for these instructions is given in Deu 12:8, Deu 12:9, namely, that this had not hitherto taken place, but that up to this day every one had done what he thought right, because they had not yet come to the rest and to the inheritance which the Lord was about to give them.

The phrase, “whatsoever is right in his own eyes,” is applied to actions performed according to a man’s own judgment, rather than according to the standard of objective right and the law of God (cf. Jdg 17:6; Jdg 21:25). The reference is probably not so much to open idolatry, which was actually practised, according to Lev 17:7; Num 25:1; Eze 20:16-17; Amo 5:25-26, as to acts of illegality, for which some excuse might be found in the circumstances in which they were placed when wandering through the desert, - such, for example, as the omission of the daily sacrifice when the tabernacle was not set up, and others of a similar kind.

Deu 12:6-9 Thither they were to take all their sacrificial gifts, and there they were to celebrate their sacrificial meals. The gifts are classified in four pairs: (1) the sacrifices intended for the altar, burnt-offerings and slain-offerings being particularly mentioned as the two principal kinds, with which, according to Num 15:4. , meat-offerings and drink-offerings were to be associated; (2) “your tithes and every heave-offering of your hand.

” By the tithes we are to understand the tithes of field-produce and cattle, commanded in Lev 27:30-33 and Num 18:21-24, which were to be brought to the sanctuary because they were to be offered to the Lord, as was the case under Hezekiah (2Ch 31:5-7). That the tithes mentioned here should be restricted to vegetable tithes (of corn, new wine, and oil), is neither allowed by the general character of the expression, nor required by the context.

For instance, although, according to Deu 12:7 and Deu 12:11, Deu 12:12, as compared with Deu 12:17, a portion of the vegetable tithe was to be applied to the sacrificial meals, there is no ground whatever for supposing that all the sacrifices and consecrated gifts mentioned in Deu 12:6 were offerings of this kind, and either served as sacrificial meals, or had such meals connected with them. Burnt-offerings, for example, were not associated in any way with the sacrificial meals.

The difficulty, or as some suppose “the impossibility,” of delivering all the tithes from every part of the land at the place of the sanctuary, does not warrant us in departing from the simple meaning of Moses’ words in the verse before us. The arrangement permitted in Deu 14:24-25, with reference to the so-called second tithe, - viz. , that if the sanctuary was too far off, the tithe might be sold at home, and whatever was required for the sacrificial meals might be bought at the place of the sanctuary with the money so obtained, - might possibly have been also adopted in the case of the other tithe.

At all events, the fact that no reference is made to such cases as these does not warrant us in assuming the opposite. As the institution of tithes generally did not originate with the law of Moses, but is presupposed as a traditional and well-known custom, - all that is done being to define them more precisely, and regulate the way in which they should be applied, - Moses does not enter here into any details as to the course to be adopted in delivering them, but merely lays down the law that all the gifts intended for the Lord were to be brought to Him at His sanctuary, and connects with this the further injunction that the Israelites were to rejoice there before the Lord, that is to say, were to celebrate their sacrificial meals at the place of His presence which He had chosen.

- The gifts, from which the sacrificial meals were prepared, are not particularized here, but are supposed to be already known either form the earlier laws or from tradition. From the earlier laws we learn that the whole of the flesh of the burnt-offerings was to be consumed upon the altar, but that the flesh of the slain-offerings, except in the case of the peace-offerings, was to be applied to the sacrificial meals, with the exception of the fat pieces, and the wave-breast and heave-shoulder.

With regard to the tithes, it is stated in Num 18:21-24 that Jehovah had given them to the Levites as their inheritance, and that they were to give the tenth part of them to the priests. In the laws contained in the earlier books, nothing is said about the appropriation of any portion of the tithes to sacrificial meals. Yet in Deuteronomy this is simply assumed as a customary thing, and not introduced as a new commandment, when the law is laid down (in Deu 12:17; Deu 14:22.

, Deu 26:12.) , that they were not to eat the tithe of corn, new wine, and oil within their gates (in the towns of the land), any more than the first-born of oxen and sheep, but only at the place of the sanctuary chosen by the Lord; and that if the distance was too great for the whole to be transported thither, they were to sell the tithes and firstlings at home, and then purchase at the sanctuary whatever might be required for the sacrificial meals.

From these instructions it is very apparent that sacrificial meals were associated with the delivery of the tithes and firstlings to the Lord, to which a tenth part of the corn, must, and oil was applied, as well as the flesh of the first-born of edible cattle. This tenth formed the so-called second tithe (δευτέραν δεκάτην, Tob. 1:7), which is mentioned here for the first time, but not introduced as a new rule or an appendix to the former laws.

It is rather taken for granted as a custom founded upon tradition, and brought into harmony with the law relating to the oneness of the sanctuary and worship. “ The heave-offerings of your hand, ” which are mentioned again in Mal 3:8 along with the tithes, are not to be restricted to the first-fruits, as we may see from Eze 20:40, where the terumoth are mentioned along with the first-fruits.

We should rather understand them as being free gifts of love, which were consecrated to the Lord in addition to the legal first-fruits and tithes without being actual sacrifices, and which were then applied to sacrificial meals. - The other gifts were (3) נדרים and נדבות, sacrifices which were offered partly in consequence of vows and partly of their own free will (see at Lev 23:38, compared with Lev 7:16; Lev 22:21, and Num 15:3; Num 29:39); and lastly (4), “firstlings of your herds and of your flocks,” viz.

, those commanded in Exo 13:2, Exo 13:12. , and Num 18:15. According to Exo 13:15, the Israelites were to sacrifice the firstlings to the Lord; and according to Num 13:8. they belonged to the holy gifts, which the Lord assigned to the priests for their maintenance, with the more precise instructions in Deu 12:17, Deu 12:18, that the first-born of oxen, sheep, and goats were not to be redeemed, but being holy were to be burned upon the altar in the same manner as the shelamim , and that the flesh was to belong to the priests, like the wave-breast and right leg of the shelamim.

These last words, it is true, are not to be understood as signifying that the only portions of the flesh of the firstlings which were to be given to the priest were the wave-breast and heave-leg, and that the remainder of the flesh was to be left to the offerer to be applied to a sacrificial meal (Hengstenberg); but they state most unequivocally that the priest was to apply the flesh to a sacrificial meal, like the wave-breast and heave-leg of all the peace-offerings, which the priest was not even allowed to consume with his own family at home, like ordinary flesh, but to which the instructions given for all the sacrificial meals were applicable, namely, that “whoever was clean in the priest’s family” might eat of it (Num 18:11), and that the flesh was to be eaten on the day when the sacrifice was offered (Lev 7:15), or at the latest on the following morning, as in the case of the votive offering (Lev 7:16), and that whatever was left was to be burnt. These instructions concerning the flesh of the firstlings to be offered to the Lord no more prohibit the priest from allowing the persons who presented the firstlings to take part in the sacrificial meals, or handing over to them some portion of the flesh which belonged to himself to hold a sacrificial meal, than any other law does; on the contrary, the duty of doing this was made very plain by the fact that the presentation of firstlings is described as ליהוה זבח in Exo 13:15, in the very first of the general instructions for their sanctification, since even in the patriarchal times the זבח was always connected with a sacrificial meal in which the offerer participated.

Consequently it cannot be shown that there is any contradiction between Deuteronomy and the earlier laws with regard to the appropriation of the first-born. The command to bring the firstlings of the sacrificial animal, like all the rest of the sacrifices, to the place of His sanctuary which the Lord would choose, and to hold sacrificial meals there with the tithes of corn, new wine, and oil, and also with the firstlings of the flocks, and herds, is given not merely to the laity of Israel, but to the whole of the people, including the priests and Levites, without the distinction between the tribe of Levi and the other tribes, established in the earlier laws, being even altered, much less abrogated.

The Israelites were to bring all their sacrificial gifts to the place of the sanctuary to be chosen by the Lord, and there, not in all their towns, they were to eat their votive and free-will offerings in sacrificial meals. This, and only this, is what Moses commands the people both here in Deu 12:7 and Deu 12:17, Deu 12:18, and also in Deu 14:22. and Deu 15:19.

“ Rejoice in all that your hand has acquired . ” The phrase יד משׁלח (cf. Deu 12:18; Deu 15:10; Deu 23:21; Deu 28:8, Deu 28:20) signifies that to which the hand is stretched out, that which a man undertakes (synonymous with מעשׂה), and also what a man acquires by his activity: hence Isa 11:14, יד משׁלוח, what a man appropriates to himself with his hand, or takes possession of.

אשׁר before בּרכך is dependent upon ידכם משׁלה, and בּרך is construed with a double accusative, as in Gen 49:25. The reason for these instructions is given in Deu 12:8, Deu 12:9, namely, that this had not hitherto taken place, but that up to this day every one had done what he thought right, because they had not yet come to the rest and to the inheritance which the Lord was about to give them.

The phrase, “whatsoever is right in his own eyes,” is applied to actions performed according to a man’s own judgment, rather than according to the standard of objective right and the law of God (cf. Jdg 17:6; Jdg 21:25). The reference is probably not so much to open idolatry, which was actually practised, according to Lev 17:7; Num 25:1; Eze 20:16-17; Amo 5:25-26, as to acts of illegality, for which some excuse might be found in the circumstances in which they were placed when wandering through the desert, - such, for example, as the omission of the daily sacrifice when the tabernacle was not set up, and others of a similar kind.

Deu 12:10-14 But when the Israelites had crossed over the Jordan, and dwelt peaceably in Canaan, secured against their enemies round about, these irregularities were not to occur any more; but all the sacrifices were to be offered at the place chosen by the Lord for the dwelling-place of His name, and there the sacrificial meals were to be held with joy before the Lord. “The choice of your vows,” equivalent to your chosen vows, inasmuch as every vow was something special, as the standing phrase נדר פּלּא (Lev 22:21, and Num 15:3, Num 15:8) distinctly shows.

- “Rejoicing before the Lord,” which is the phrase applied in Lev 23:40 to the celebration of the feast of Tabernacles, was to be the distinctive feature of all the sacrificial meals held by the people at the sanctuary, as is repeatedly affirmed (Deu 14:26; Deu 16:11; Deu 26:11; Deu 27:7). This holy joy in the participation of the blessing bestowed by the Lord was to be shared not only by sons and daughters, but also by salve (men-servants and maid-servants), that they too might taste the friendliness of their God, and also by “ the Levite that is in your gates ” (i.

e. , your towns and hamlets; see at Exo 20:10). This frequently recurring description of the Levites (cf. Deu 12:18; Deu 14:27; Deu 16:11, Deu 16:14; Deu 18:6; Deu 26:12) does not assume that they were homeless, which would be at variance with the allotment of towns for them to dwell in (Num 35); ); but simply implies what is frequently added in explanation, that the Levites had “no part nor inheritance,” no share of the land as their hereditary property, and in this respect resembled strangers (Deu 14:21, Deu 14:29; Deu 16:11, etc.)

And the repeated injunction to invite the Levites to the sacrificial meals is not at variance with Num 18:21, where the tithes are assigned to the tribe of Levi for their maintenance. For however ample this revenue may have been according to the law, it was so entirely dependent, upon the honesty and conscientiousness of the people, that the Levites might very easily be brought into a straitened condition, if indifference towards the Lord and His servants should prevail throughout the nation.

- In Deu 12:13, Deu 12:14, Moses concludes by once more summing up these instructions in the admonition to beware of offering sacrifices in every place that they might choose, the burnt-offering, as the leading sacrifice, being mentioned instar omnium . But if these instructions were really to be observed by the people in Canaan, it was necessary that the law which had been given with reference to the journey through the wilderness, viz.

, that no animal should be slain anywhere else than at the tabernacle in the same manner as a slain-offering (Lev 17:3-6), should be abolished. This is done in Deu 12:15, where Moses, in direct connection with what goes before, allows the people, as an exception (רק, only) to the rules laid down in Deu 12:4-14, to kill and eat flesh for their own food according to all their soul’s desire.

Flesh that was slaughtered for food could be eaten by both clean and unclean, such for example as the roebuck and the hart, animals which could not be offered in sacrifice, and in which, therefore, the distinction between clean and unclean on the part of the eaters did not come into consideration at all.

Deu 12:10-14 But when the Israelites had crossed over the Jordan, and dwelt peaceably in Canaan, secured against their enemies round about, these irregularities were not to occur any more; but all the sacrifices were to be offered at the place chosen by the Lord for the dwelling-place of His name, and there the sacrificial meals were to be held with joy before the Lord. “The choice of your vows,” equivalent to your chosen vows, inasmuch as every vow was something special, as the standing phrase נדר פּלּא (Lev 22:21, and Num 15:3, Num 15:8) distinctly shows.

- “Rejoicing before the Lord,” which is the phrase applied in Lev 23:40 to the celebration of the feast of Tabernacles, was to be the distinctive feature of all the sacrificial meals held by the people at the sanctuary, as is repeatedly affirmed (Deu 14:26; Deu 16:11; Deu 26:11; Deu 27:7). This holy joy in the participation of the blessing bestowed by the Lord was to be shared not only by sons and daughters, but also by salve (men-servants and maid-servants), that they too might taste the friendliness of their God, and also by “ the Levite that is in your gates ” (i.

e. , your towns and hamlets; see at Exo 20:10). This frequently recurring description of the Levites (cf. Deu 12:18; Deu 14:27; Deu 16:11, Deu 16:14; Deu 18:6; Deu 26:12) does not assume that they were homeless, which would be at variance with the allotment of towns for them to dwell in (Num 35); ); but simply implies what is frequently added in explanation, that the Levites had “no part nor inheritance,” no share of the land as their hereditary property, and in this respect resembled strangers (Deu 14:21, Deu 14:29; Deu 16:11, etc.)

And the repeated injunction to invite the Levites to the sacrificial meals is not at variance with Num 18:21, where the tithes are assigned to the tribe of Levi for their maintenance. For however ample this revenue may have been according to the law, it was so entirely dependent, upon the honesty and conscientiousness of the people, that the Levites might very easily be brought into a straitened condition, if indifference towards the Lord and His servants should prevail throughout the nation.

- In Deu 12:13, Deu 12:14, Moses concludes by once more summing up these instructions in the admonition to beware of offering sacrifices in every place that they might choose, the burnt-offering, as the leading sacrifice, being mentioned instar omnium . But if these instructions were really to be observed by the people in Canaan, it was necessary that the law which had been given with reference to the journey through the wilderness, viz.

, that no animal should be slain anywhere else than at the tabernacle in the same manner as a slain-offering (Lev 17:3-6), should be abolished. This is done in Deu 12:15, where Moses, in direct connection with what goes before, allows the people, as an exception (רק, only) to the rules laid down in Deu 12:4-14, to kill and eat flesh for their own food according to all their soul’s desire.

Flesh that was slaughtered for food could be eaten by both clean and unclean, such for example as the roebuck and the hart, animals which could not be offered in sacrifice, and in which, therefore, the distinction between clean and unclean on the part of the eaters did not come into consideration at all.

Deu 12:10-14 But when the Israelites had crossed over the Jordan, and dwelt peaceably in Canaan, secured against their enemies round about, these irregularities were not to occur any more; but all the sacrifices were to be offered at the place chosen by the Lord for the dwelling-place of His name, and there the sacrificial meals were to be held with joy before the Lord. “The choice of your vows,” equivalent to your chosen vows, inasmuch as every vow was something special, as the standing phrase נדר פּלּא (Lev 22:21, and Num 15:3, Num 15:8) distinctly shows.

- “Rejoicing before the Lord,” which is the phrase applied in Lev 23:40 to the celebration of the feast of Tabernacles, was to be the distinctive feature of all the sacrificial meals held by the people at the sanctuary, as is repeatedly affirmed (Deu 14:26; Deu 16:11; Deu 26:11; Deu 27:7). This holy joy in the participation of the blessing bestowed by the Lord was to be shared not only by sons and daughters, but also by salve (men-servants and maid-servants), that they too might taste the friendliness of their God, and also by “ the Levite that is in your gates ” (i.

e. , your towns and hamlets; see at Exo 20:10). This frequently recurring description of the Levites (cf. Deu 12:18; Deu 14:27; Deu 16:11, Deu 16:14; Deu 18:6; Deu 26:12) does not assume that they were homeless, which would be at variance with the allotment of towns for them to dwell in (Num 35); ); but simply implies what is frequently added in explanation, that the Levites had “no part nor inheritance,” no share of the land as their hereditary property, and in this respect resembled strangers (Deu 14:21, Deu 14:29; Deu 16:11, etc.)

And the repeated injunction to invite the Levites to the sacrificial meals is not at variance with Num 18:21, where the tithes are assigned to the tribe of Levi for their maintenance. For however ample this revenue may have been according to the law, it was so entirely dependent, upon the honesty and conscientiousness of the people, that the Levites might very easily be brought into a straitened condition, if indifference towards the Lord and His servants should prevail throughout the nation.

- In Deu 12:13, Deu 12:14, Moses concludes by once more summing up these instructions in the admonition to beware of offering sacrifices in every place that they might choose, the burnt-offering, as the leading sacrifice, being mentioned instar omnium . But if these instructions were really to be observed by the people in Canaan, it was necessary that the law which had been given with reference to the journey through the wilderness, viz.

, that no animal should be slain anywhere else than at the tabernacle in the same manner as a slain-offering (Lev 17:3-6), should be abolished. This is done in Deu 12:15, where Moses, in direct connection with what goes before, allows the people, as an exception (רק, only) to the rules laid down in Deu 12:4-14, to kill and eat flesh for their own food according to all their soul’s desire.

Flesh that was slaughtered for food could be eaten by both clean and unclean, such for example as the roebuck and the hart, animals which could not be offered in sacrifice, and in which, therefore, the distinction between clean and unclean on the part of the eaters did not come into consideration at all.

Deu 12:10-14 But when the Israelites had crossed over the Jordan, and dwelt peaceably in Canaan, secured against their enemies round about, these irregularities were not to occur any more; but all the sacrifices were to be offered at the place chosen by the Lord for the dwelling-place of His name, and there the sacrificial meals were to be held with joy before the Lord. “The choice of your vows,” equivalent to your chosen vows, inasmuch as every vow was something special, as the standing phrase נדר פּלּא (Lev 22:21, and Num 15:3, Num 15:8) distinctly shows.

- “Rejoicing before the Lord,” which is the phrase applied in Lev 23:40 to the celebration of the feast of Tabernacles, was to be the distinctive feature of all the sacrificial meals held by the people at the sanctuary, as is repeatedly affirmed (Deu 14:26; Deu 16:11; Deu 26:11; Deu 27:7). This holy joy in the participation of the blessing bestowed by the Lord was to be shared not only by sons and daughters, but also by salve (men-servants and maid-servants), that they too might taste the friendliness of their God, and also by “ the Levite that is in your gates ” (i.

e. , your towns and hamlets; see at Exo 20:10). This frequently recurring description of the Levites (cf. Deu 12:18; Deu 14:27; Deu 16:11, Deu 16:14; Deu 18:6; Deu 26:12) does not assume that they were homeless, which would be at variance with the allotment of towns for them to dwell in (Num 35); ); but simply implies what is frequently added in explanation, that the Levites had “no part nor inheritance,” no share of the land as their hereditary property, and in this respect resembled strangers (Deu 14:21, Deu 14:29; Deu 16:11, etc.)

And the repeated injunction to invite the Levites to the sacrificial meals is not at variance with Num 18:21, where the tithes are assigned to the tribe of Levi for their maintenance. For however ample this revenue may have been according to the law, it was so entirely dependent, upon the honesty and conscientiousness of the people, that the Levites might very easily be brought into a straitened condition, if indifference towards the Lord and His servants should prevail throughout the nation.

- In Deu 12:13, Deu 12:14, Moses concludes by once more summing up these instructions in the admonition to beware of offering sacrifices in every place that they might choose, the burnt-offering, as the leading sacrifice, being mentioned instar omnium . But if these instructions were really to be observed by the people in Canaan, it was necessary that the law which had been given with reference to the journey through the wilderness, viz.

, that no animal should be slain anywhere else than at the tabernacle in the same manner as a slain-offering (Lev 17:3-6), should be abolished. This is done in Deu 12:15, where Moses, in direct connection with what goes before, allows the people, as an exception (רק, only) to the rules laid down in Deu 12:4-14, to kill and eat flesh for their own food according to all their soul’s desire.

Flesh that was slaughtered for food could be eaten by both clean and unclean, such for example as the roebuck and the hart, animals which could not be offered in sacrifice, and in which, therefore, the distinction between clean and unclean on the part of the eaters did not come into consideration at all.

Deu 12:10-14 But when the Israelites had crossed over the Jordan, and dwelt peaceably in Canaan, secured against their enemies round about, these irregularities were not to occur any more; but all the sacrifices were to be offered at the place chosen by the Lord for the dwelling-place of His name, and there the sacrificial meals were to be held with joy before the Lord. “The choice of your vows,” equivalent to your chosen vows, inasmuch as every vow was something special, as the standing phrase נדר פּלּא (Lev 22:21, and Num 15:3, Num 15:8) distinctly shows.

- “Rejoicing before the Lord,” which is the phrase applied in Lev 23:40 to the celebration of the feast of Tabernacles, was to be the distinctive feature of all the sacrificial meals held by the people at the sanctuary, as is repeatedly affirmed (Deu 14:26; Deu 16:11; Deu 26:11; Deu 27:7). This holy joy in the participation of the blessing bestowed by the Lord was to be shared not only by sons and daughters, but also by salve (men-servants and maid-servants), that they too might taste the friendliness of their God, and also by “ the Levite that is in your gates ” (i.

e. , your towns and hamlets; see at Exo 20:10). This frequently recurring description of the Levites (cf. Deu 12:18; Deu 14:27; Deu 16:11, Deu 16:14; Deu 18:6; Deu 26:12) does not assume that they were homeless, which would be at variance with the allotment of towns for them to dwell in (Num 35); ); but simply implies what is frequently added in explanation, that the Levites had “no part nor inheritance,” no share of the land as their hereditary property, and in this respect resembled strangers (Deu 14:21, Deu 14:29; Deu 16:11, etc.)

And the repeated injunction to invite the Levites to the sacrificial meals is not at variance with Num 18:21, where the tithes are assigned to the tribe of Levi for their maintenance. For however ample this revenue may have been according to the law, it was so entirely dependent, upon the honesty and conscientiousness of the people, that the Levites might very easily be brought into a straitened condition, if indifference towards the Lord and His servants should prevail throughout the nation.

- In Deu 12:13, Deu 12:14, Moses concludes by once more summing up these instructions in the admonition to beware of offering sacrifices in every place that they might choose, the burnt-offering, as the leading sacrifice, being mentioned instar omnium . But if these instructions were really to be observed by the people in Canaan, it was necessary that the law which had been given with reference to the journey through the wilderness, viz.

, that no animal should be slain anywhere else than at the tabernacle in the same manner as a slain-offering (Lev 17:3-6), should be abolished. This is done in Deu 12:15, where Moses, in direct connection with what goes before, allows the people, as an exception (רק, only) to the rules laid down in Deu 12:4-14, to kill and eat flesh for their own food according to all their soul’s desire.

Flesh that was slaughtered for food could be eaten by both clean and unclean, such for example as the roebuck and the hart, animals which could not be offered in sacrifice, and in which, therefore, the distinction between clean and unclean on the part of the eaters did not come into consideration at all.

Deu 12:16 But blood was forbidden to be eaten (see at Lev 17:10.). The blood was to be poured out upon the earth like water, that it might suck it in, receive it into its bosom.

Deu 12:17-19 Sacrificial meals could only be held at the sanctuary; and the Levite was not to be forgotten or neglected in connection with them (see at Deu 12:6, Deu 12:7, and Deu 12:12). תוּכל לא, “ thou must not ,” as in Deu 7:22.

Deu 12:17-19 Sacrificial meals could only be held at the sanctuary; and the Levite was not to be forgotten or neglected in connection with them (see at Deu 12:6, Deu 12:7, and Deu 12:12). תוּכל לא, “ thou must not ,” as in Deu 7:22.

Deu 12:17-19 Sacrificial meals could only be held at the sanctuary; and the Levite was not to be forgotten or neglected in connection with them (see at Deu 12:6, Deu 12:7, and Deu 12:12). תוּכל לא, “ thou must not ,” as in Deu 7:22.

Deu 12:20-21 These rules were still to remain in force, even when God should extend the borders of the land in accordance with His promise. This extension relates partly to the gradual but complete extermination of the Canaanites (Deu 7:22, comp. with Exo 23:27-33), and partly to the extension of the territory of the Israelites beyond the limits of Canaan Proper, in accordance with the divine promise in Gen 15:18.

The words “as He hath spoken to thee” refer primarily to Exo 23:27-33. (On Deu 12:20 , see Deu 12:15). - In Deu 12:21, “ if the place... be too far from thee ,” supplies the reason for the repeal of the law in Lev 17:3, which restricted all slaughtering to the place of the sanctuary. The words “ kill... as I have commanded thee ” refer back to Deu 12:15.

Deu 12:20-21 These rules were still to remain in force, even when God should extend the borders of the land in accordance with His promise. This extension relates partly to the gradual but complete extermination of the Canaanites (Deu 7:22, comp. with Exo 23:27-33), and partly to the extension of the territory of the Israelites beyond the limits of Canaan Proper, in accordance with the divine promise in Gen 15:18.

The words “as He hath spoken to thee” refer primarily to Exo 23:27-33. (On Deu 12:20 , see Deu 12:15). - In Deu 12:21, “ if the place... be too far from thee ,” supplies the reason for the repeal of the law in Lev 17:3, which restricted all slaughtering to the place of the sanctuary. The words “ kill... as I have commanded thee ” refer back to Deu 12:15.

Deu 12:22 Only the flesh that was slaughtered was to be eaten as the hart and the roebuck (cf. Deu 12:15), i.e., was not to be made into a sacrifice. יחדּו, together, i.e., the one just the same as the other, as in Isa 10:8, without the clean necessarily eating along with the unclean.

Deu 12:23-24 The law relating to the blood, as in Deu 12:16. - “ Be strong not to eat the blood ,” i.e., stedfastly resist the temptation to eat it.

Deu 12:23-24 The law relating to the blood, as in Deu 12:16. - “ Be strong not to eat the blood ,” i.e., stedfastly resist the temptation to eat it.

Deu 12:25-27 On the promise for doing what was right in the eyes of the Lord, see Deu 6:18. - In Deu 12:26, Deu 12:27, the command to offer all the holy gifts at the place chosen by the Lord is enforced once more, as in Deu 12:6, Deu 12:11, Deu 12:17, Deu 12:18; also to prepare the sacrifices at His altar. קדשׁים, the holy offerings prescribed in the law, as in Num 18:8; see at Lev 21:22.

The “votive offerings” are mentioned in connection with these, because vows proceeded from a spontaneous impulse. לך יהיוּ אשׁר, “ which are to thee ,” are binding upon thee. In v. 27, “the flesh and the blood” are in opposition to “thy burnt-offerings:” “thy burnt-offerings, namely the flesh and blood of them,” thou shalt prepare at the altar of Jehovah; i.

e. , the flesh and blood of the burnt-offerings were to be placed upon and against the altar (see at Lev 1:5-9). Of the slain-offerings, i. e. , the shelamim , the blood was to be poured out against the altar (Lev 3:2, Lev 3:8, Lev 3:13); “the flesh thou canst eat” (cf. Lev 7:11.) There is no ground for seeking an antithesis in ישּׁפך, as Knobel does, to the זרק in the sacrificial ritual.

The indefinite expression may be explained from the retrospective allusion to Deu 12:24 and the purely suggestive character of the whole passage, the thing itself being supposed to be sufficiently known from the previous laws.

Deu 12:25-27 On the promise for doing what was right in the eyes of the Lord, see Deu 6:18. - In Deu 12:26, Deu 12:27, the command to offer all the holy gifts at the place chosen by the Lord is enforced once more, as in Deu 12:6, Deu 12:11, Deu 12:17, Deu 12:18; also to prepare the sacrifices at His altar. קדשׁים, the holy offerings prescribed in the law, as in Num 18:8; see at Lev 21:22.

The “votive offerings” are mentioned in connection with these, because vows proceeded from a spontaneous impulse. לך יהיוּ אשׁר, “ which are to thee ,” are binding upon thee. In v. 27, “the flesh and the blood” are in opposition to “thy burnt-offerings:” “thy burnt-offerings, namely the flesh and blood of them,” thou shalt prepare at the altar of Jehovah; i.

e. , the flesh and blood of the burnt-offerings were to be placed upon and against the altar (see at Lev 1:5-9). Of the slain-offerings, i. e. , the shelamim , the blood was to be poured out against the altar (Lev 3:2, Lev 3:8, Lev 3:13); “the flesh thou canst eat” (cf. Lev 7:11.) There is no ground for seeking an antithesis in ישּׁפך, as Knobel does, to the זרק in the sacrificial ritual.

The indefinite expression may be explained from the retrospective allusion to Deu 12:24 and the purely suggestive character of the whole passage, the thing itself being supposed to be sufficiently known from the previous laws.

Deu 12:25-27 On the promise for doing what was right in the eyes of the Lord, see Deu 6:18. - In Deu 12:26, Deu 12:27, the command to offer all the holy gifts at the place chosen by the Lord is enforced once more, as in Deu 12:6, Deu 12:11, Deu 12:17, Deu 12:18; also to prepare the sacrifices at His altar. קדשׁים, the holy offerings prescribed in the law, as in Num 18:8; see at Lev 21:22.

The “votive offerings” are mentioned in connection with these, because vows proceeded from a spontaneous impulse. לך יהיוּ אשׁר, “ which are to thee ,” are binding upon thee. In v. 27, “the flesh and the blood” are in opposition to “thy burnt-offerings:” “thy burnt-offerings, namely the flesh and blood of them,” thou shalt prepare at the altar of Jehovah; i.

e. , the flesh and blood of the burnt-offerings were to be placed upon and against the altar (see at Lev 1:5-9). Of the slain-offerings, i. e. , the shelamim , the blood was to be poured out against the altar (Lev 3:2, Lev 3:8, Lev 3:13); “the flesh thou canst eat” (cf. Lev 7:11.) There is no ground for seeking an antithesis in ישּׁפך, as Knobel does, to the זרק in the sacrificial ritual.

The indefinite expression may be explained from the retrospective allusion to Deu 12:24 and the purely suggestive character of the whole passage, the thing itself being supposed to be sufficiently known from the previous laws.

Deu 12:28-30 The closing admonition is a further expansion of Deu 12:25 (see at Deu 11:21). - In Deu 12:29-31, the exhortation goes back to the beginning again, viz. , to a warning against the Canaanitish idolatry (cf. Deu 12:2.) When the Lord had cut off the nations of Canaan from before the Israelites, they were to take heed that they did not get into the snare behind them, i.

e. , into the sin of idolatry, which had plunged the Canaanites into destruction (cf. Deu 7:16, Deu 7:25). The clause “ after they be destroyed from before thee ” is not mere tautology, but serves to depict the danger of the snare most vividly before their eyes. The second clause, “ that thou inquire not after them ” (their gods), etc. , explains more fully to the Israelites the danger which threatened them.

This danger was so far a pressing one, that the whole of the heathen world was animated with the conviction, that to neglect the gods of a land would be sure to bring misfortune (cf. 2Ki 17:26).

Deu 12:28-30 The closing admonition is a further expansion of Deu 12:25 (see at Deu 11:21). - In Deu 12:29-31, the exhortation goes back to the beginning again, viz. , to a warning against the Canaanitish idolatry (cf. Deu 12:2.) When the Lord had cut off the nations of Canaan from before the Israelites, they were to take heed that they did not get into the snare behind them, i.

e. , into the sin of idolatry, which had plunged the Canaanites into destruction (cf. Deu 7:16, Deu 7:25). The clause “ after they be destroyed from before thee ” is not mere tautology, but serves to depict the danger of the snare most vividly before their eyes. The second clause, “ that thou inquire not after them ” (their gods), etc. , explains more fully to the Israelites the danger which threatened them.

This danger was so far a pressing one, that the whole of the heathen world was animated with the conviction, that to neglect the gods of a land would be sure to bring misfortune (cf. 2Ki 17:26).

Deu 12:28-30 The closing admonition is a further expansion of Deu 12:25 (see at Deu 11:21). - In Deu 12:29-31, the exhortation goes back to the beginning again, viz. , to a warning against the Canaanitish idolatry (cf. Deu 12:2.) When the Lord had cut off the nations of Canaan from before the Israelites, they were to take heed that they did not get into the snare behind them, i.

e. , into the sin of idolatry, which had plunged the Canaanites into destruction (cf. Deu 7:16, Deu 7:25). The clause “ after they be destroyed from before thee ” is not mere tautology, but serves to depict the danger of the snare most vividly before their eyes. The second clause, “ that thou inquire not after them ” (their gods), etc. , explains more fully to the Israelites the danger which threatened them.

This danger was so far a pressing one, that the whole of the heathen world was animated with the conviction, that to neglect the gods of a land would be sure to bring misfortune (cf. 2Ki 17:26).

Deu 12:31 Deu 12:31 , like Deu 12:4, with the reason assigned in Deu 12:31 : “for the Canaanites prepare (עשׂה, as in Deu 12:27) all kinds of abominations for their gods,” i.e., present offerings to these, which Jehovah hates and abhors; they even burn their children to their idols-for example, to Moloch (see at Lev 18:21).

Deu 12:32 The admonition to observe the whole law, without adding to it or taking from it (cf. Deu 4:2), is regarded by many commentators as the conclusion of the previous chapter. But it is more correct to understand it as an intermediate link, closing what goes before, and introductory to what follows. Strictly speaking, the warning against inclining to the idolatry of the Canaanites (Deu 12:29-31) forms a transition from the enforcement of the true mode of worshipping Jehovah to the laws relating to tempters to idolatry and worshippers of idols (ch.

13). The Israelites were to cut off not only the tempters to idolatry, but those who had been led astray to idolatry also. Three different cases are mentioned.

Deu 13:1-3 The first case. If a prophet, or one who had dreams, should rise up to summon to the worship of other gods, with signs and wonders which came to pass, the Israelites were not to hearken to his words, but to put him to death. The introduction of חלום חלם, “ a dreamer of dreams ,” along with the prophet, answers the two media of divine revelation, the vision and the dream, by which, according to Num 12:6, God made known His will.

With regard to the signs and wonders ( mopheth , see at Exo 4:21) with which such a prophet might seek to accredit his higher mission, it is taken for granted that they come to pass (בּוא); yet for all that, the Israelites were to give no heed to such a prophet, to walk after other gods. It follows from this, that the person had not been sent by God, but as a false prophet, and that the signs and wonders which he gave were not wonders effected by God, but σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα ψεύδους (“lying sings and wonders,” 2Th 2:9); i.

e. , not merely seeming miracles, but miracles wrought in the power of the wicked one, Satan, the possibility and reality of which even Christ attests (Mat 24:24). - The word לאמר, saying , is dependent upon the principal verb of the sentence: “if a prophet rise up... saying, We will go after other gods. ”

Deu 13:1-3 The first case. If a prophet, or one who had dreams, should rise up to summon to the worship of other gods, with signs and wonders which came to pass, the Israelites were not to hearken to his words, but to put him to death. The introduction of חלום חלם, “ a dreamer of dreams ,” along with the prophet, answers the two media of divine revelation, the vision and the dream, by which, according to Num 12:6, God made known His will.

With regard to the signs and wonders ( mopheth , see at Exo 4:21) with which such a prophet might seek to accredit his higher mission, it is taken for granted that they come to pass (בּוא); yet for all that, the Israelites were to give no heed to such a prophet, to walk after other gods. It follows from this, that the person had not been sent by God, but as a false prophet, and that the signs and wonders which he gave were not wonders effected by God, but σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα ψεύδους (“lying sings and wonders,” 2Th 2:9); i.

e. , not merely seeming miracles, but miracles wrought in the power of the wicked one, Satan, the possibility and reality of which even Christ attests (Mat 24:24). - The word לאמר, saying , is dependent upon the principal verb of the sentence: “if a prophet rise up... saying, We will go after other gods. ”

Deu 13:1-3 The first case. If a prophet, or one who had dreams, should rise up to summon to the worship of other gods, with signs and wonders which came to pass, the Israelites were not to hearken to his words, but to put him to death. The introduction of חלום חלם, “ a dreamer of dreams ,” along with the prophet, answers the two media of divine revelation, the vision and the dream, by which, according to Num 12:6, God made known His will.

With regard to the signs and wonders ( mopheth , see at Exo 4:21) with which such a prophet might seek to accredit his higher mission, it is taken for granted that they come to pass (בּוא); yet for all that, the Israelites were to give no heed to such a prophet, to walk after other gods. It follows from this, that the person had not been sent by God, but as a false prophet, and that the signs and wonders which he gave were not wonders effected by God, but σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα ψεύδους (“lying sings and wonders,” 2Th 2:9); i.

e. , not merely seeming miracles, but miracles wrought in the power of the wicked one, Satan, the possibility and reality of which even Christ attests (Mat 24:24). - The word לאמר, saying , is dependent upon the principal verb of the sentence: “if a prophet rise up... saying, We will go after other gods. ”

Deu 13:4 God permitted false prophets to rise up with such wonders, to try the Israelites, whether they loved Him, the Lord their God, with all their heart. (נסּה as in Gen 22:1.) אהבים הישׁכם, whether ye are loving, i. e. , faithfully maintain your love to the Lord. It is evident from this, “that however great the importance attached to signs and wonders, they were not to be regarded among the Israelites, either as the highest test, or as absolutely decisive, but that there was a certainty in Israel, which was so much the more certain and firm than any proof from miracles could be, that it might be most decidedly opposed to it” ( Baumgarten ).

This certainty, however, was not “the knowledge of Jehovah,” as B. supposes; but as Luther correctly observes, “the word of God, which had already been received, and confirmed by its own signs,” and which the Israelites were to preserve and hold fast, without adding or subtracting anything. “In opposition to such a word, no prophets were to be received, although they rained signs and wonders; not even an angel from heaven, as Paul says in Gal 1:8.

” The command to hearken to the prophets whom the Lord would send at a future time (Deu 18:18.) , is not at variance with this: for even their announcements were to be judged according to the standard of the fixed word of God that had been already given; and so far as they proclaimed anything new, the fact that what they announced did not occur was to be the criterion that they had not spoken in the name of the Lord, but in that of other gods (Deu 18:21-22), so that even there the signs and wonders of the prophets are not made the criteria of their divine mission.