Firstfruits, Tithes, and Covenant Confession

Deu 26:5-9 אבי אבד ארמּי, “ a lost (perishing) Aramaean was my father ” (not the Aramaean, Laban , wanted to destroy my father, Jacob , as the Chald . , Arab . , Luther , and others render it). אבד signifies not only going astray, wandering, but perishing, in danger of perishing, as in Job 29:13; Pro 31:6, etc. Jacob is referred to, for it was he who went down to Egypt in few men.

He is mentioned as the tribe-father of the nation, because the nation was directly descended from his sons, and also derived its name of Israel from him. Jacob is called in Aramaean, not only because of his long sojourn in Aramaea (Gen 29-31), but also because he got his wives and children there (cf. Hos 12:13); and the relatives of the patriarchs had accompanied Abraham from Chaldaea to Mesopotamia (Aram; see Gen 11:30).

מעט בּמתי, consisting of few men (בּ, the so-called beth essent . , as in Deu 10:22; Exo 6:3, etc. ; vid. , Ewald , §299, q .) Compare Gen 34:30, where Jacob himself describes his family as “few in number. ” On the number in the family that migrated into Egypt, reckoned at seventy souls, see the explanation at Gen 46:27. On the multiplication in Egypt into a great and strong people, see Exo 1:7, Exo 1:9; and on the oppression endured there, Exo 1:11-22, and Exo 2:23.

- The guidance out of Egypt amidst great signs (Deu 26:8), as in Deu 4:34.

Deu 26:5-9 אבי אבד ארמּי, “ a lost (perishing) Aramaean was my father ” (not the Aramaean, Laban , wanted to destroy my father, Jacob , as the Chald . , Arab . , Luther , and others render it). אבד signifies not only going astray, wandering, but perishing, in danger of perishing, as in Job 29:13; Pro 31:6, etc. Jacob is referred to, for it was he who went down to Egypt in few men.

He is mentioned as the tribe-father of the nation, because the nation was directly descended from his sons, and also derived its name of Israel from him. Jacob is called in Aramaean, not only because of his long sojourn in Aramaea (Gen 29-31), but also because he got his wives and children there (cf. Hos 12:13); and the relatives of the patriarchs had accompanied Abraham from Chaldaea to Mesopotamia (Aram; see Gen 11:30).

מעט בּמתי, consisting of few men (בּ, the so-called beth essent . , as in Deu 10:22; Exo 6:3, etc. ; vid. , Ewald , §299, q .) Compare Gen 34:30, where Jacob himself describes his family as “few in number. ” On the number in the family that migrated into Egypt, reckoned at seventy souls, see the explanation at Gen 46:27. On the multiplication in Egypt into a great and strong people, see Exo 1:7, Exo 1:9; and on the oppression endured there, Exo 1:11-22, and Exo 2:23.

- The guidance out of Egypt amidst great signs (Deu 26:8), as in Deu 4:34.

Deu 26:5-9 אבי אבד ארמּי, “ a lost (perishing) Aramaean was my father ” (not the Aramaean, Laban , wanted to destroy my father, Jacob , as the Chald . , Arab . , Luther , and others render it). אבד signifies not only going astray, wandering, but perishing, in danger of perishing, as in Job 29:13; Pro 31:6, etc. Jacob is referred to, for it was he who went down to Egypt in few men.

He is mentioned as the tribe-father of the nation, because the nation was directly descended from his sons, and also derived its name of Israel from him. Jacob is called in Aramaean, not only because of his long sojourn in Aramaea (Gen 29-31), but also because he got his wives and children there (cf. Hos 12:13); and the relatives of the patriarchs had accompanied Abraham from Chaldaea to Mesopotamia (Aram; see Gen 11:30).

מעט בּמתי, consisting of few men (בּ, the so-called beth essent . , as in Deu 10:22; Exo 6:3, etc. ; vid. , Ewald , §299, q .) Compare Gen 34:30, where Jacob himself describes his family as “few in number. ” On the number in the family that migrated into Egypt, reckoned at seventy souls, see the explanation at Gen 46:27. On the multiplication in Egypt into a great and strong people, see Exo 1:7, Exo 1:9; and on the oppression endured there, Exo 1:11-22, and Exo 2:23.

- The guidance out of Egypt amidst great signs (Deu 26:8), as in Deu 4:34.

Deu 26:5-9 אבי אבד ארמּי, “ a lost (perishing) Aramaean was my father ” (not the Aramaean, Laban , wanted to destroy my father, Jacob , as the Chald . , Arab . , Luther , and others render it). אבד signifies not only going astray, wandering, but perishing, in danger of perishing, as in Job 29:13; Pro 31:6, etc. Jacob is referred to, for it was he who went down to Egypt in few men.

He is mentioned as the tribe-father of the nation, because the nation was directly descended from his sons, and also derived its name of Israel from him. Jacob is called in Aramaean, not only because of his long sojourn in Aramaea (Gen 29-31), but also because he got his wives and children there (cf. Hos 12:13); and the relatives of the patriarchs had accompanied Abraham from Chaldaea to Mesopotamia (Aram; see Gen 11:30).

מעט בּמתי, consisting of few men (בּ, the so-called beth essent . , as in Deu 10:22; Exo 6:3, etc. ; vid. , Ewald , §299, q .) Compare Gen 34:30, where Jacob himself describes his family as “few in number. ” On the number in the family that migrated into Egypt, reckoned at seventy souls, see the explanation at Gen 46:27. On the multiplication in Egypt into a great and strong people, see Exo 1:7, Exo 1:9; and on the oppression endured there, Exo 1:11-22, and Exo 2:23.

- The guidance out of Egypt amidst great signs (Deu 26:8), as in Deu 4:34.

Deu 26:10 “ So shalt thou set it down (the basket with the first-fruits) before Jehovah .” These words are not to be understood, as Clericus , Knobel , and others suppose, in direct opposition to Deu 26:4 and Deu 26:5, as implying that the offerer had held the basket in his hand during the prayer, but simply as a remark which closes the instructions.

Deu 26:11 Rejoicing in all the good, etc., points to the joy connected with the sacrificial meal, which followed the act of worship (as in Deu 12:12). The presentation of the first-fruits took place, no doubt, on their pilgrimages to the sanctuary at the three yearly festivals (ch. 16); but it is quite without ground that Riehm restricts these words to the sacrificial meals to be prepared from the tithes, as if they had been the only sacrificial meals (see at Deu 18:3).

Deu 26:12-13 The delivery of the tithes, like the presentation of the first-fruits, was also to be sanctified by prayer before the Lord. It is true that only a prayer after taking the second tithe in the third year is commanded here; but that is simply because this tithe was appropriated everywhere throughout the land to festal meals for the poor and destitute (Deu 14:28), when prayer before the Lord would not follow per analogiam from the previous injunction concerning the presentation of first-fruits, as it would in the case of the tithes with which sacrificial meals were prepared at the sanctuary (Deu 14:22.)

לעשׂר is the infinitive Hiphil for להעשׂר, as in Neh 10:39 (on this form, vid. , Ges. §53, 3 Anm. 2 and 7, and Ew. §131, b . and 244, b .) “Saying before the Lord” does not denote prayer in the sanctuary (at the tabernacle), but, as in Gen 27:7, simply prayer before God the omnipresent One, who is enthroned in heaven (Deu 26:15), and blesses His people from above from His holy habitation.

The declaration of having fulfilled the commandments of God refers primarily to the directions concerning the tithes, and was such a rendering of an account as springs from the consciousness that a man very easily transgresses the commandments of God, and has nothing in common with the blindness of pharisaic self-righteousness “ I have cleaned out the holy out of my house: ” the holy is that which is sanctified to God, that which belongs to the Lord and His servants, as in Lev 21:22. בּער signifies not only to remove, but to clean out, wipe out.

That which was sanctified to God appeared as a debt, which was to be wiped out of a man’s house ( Schultz ).

Deu 26:12-13 The delivery of the tithes, like the presentation of the first-fruits, was also to be sanctified by prayer before the Lord. It is true that only a prayer after taking the second tithe in the third year is commanded here; but that is simply because this tithe was appropriated everywhere throughout the land to festal meals for the poor and destitute (Deu 14:28), when prayer before the Lord would not follow per analogiam from the previous injunction concerning the presentation of first-fruits, as it would in the case of the tithes with which sacrificial meals were prepared at the sanctuary (Deu 14:22.)

לעשׂר is the infinitive Hiphil for להעשׂר, as in Neh 10:39 (on this form, vid. , Ges. §53, 3 Anm. 2 and 7, and Ew. §131, b . and 244, b .) “Saying before the Lord” does not denote prayer in the sanctuary (at the tabernacle), but, as in Gen 27:7, simply prayer before God the omnipresent One, who is enthroned in heaven (Deu 26:15), and blesses His people from above from His holy habitation.

The declaration of having fulfilled the commandments of God refers primarily to the directions concerning the tithes, and was such a rendering of an account as springs from the consciousness that a man very easily transgresses the commandments of God, and has nothing in common with the blindness of pharisaic self-righteousness “ I have cleaned out the holy out of my house: ” the holy is that which is sanctified to God, that which belongs to the Lord and His servants, as in Lev 21:22. בּער signifies not only to remove, but to clean out, wipe out.

That which was sanctified to God appeared as a debt, which was to be wiped out of a man’s house ( Schultz ).

Deu 26:14-15 “ I have not eaten thereof in my sorrow . ” אני, from און, 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 בּאני really corresponded to the בּטמא which follows, except that טמא includes every kind of legal uncleanness.

“ I have removed nothing thereof as unclean ,” 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). “ And not given (any) of it on account of the dead . ” This most probably refers to the custom of sending provisions into a house of mourning, to prepare meals for the mourners (2Sa 3:25; Jer 16:7; Hos 9:4; 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, οὐκ ἔδωκα ἀπ αὐτῶν τῷ τεθνηκότι, points.

(On Deu 26:15, see Isa 63:15.)

Deu 26:14-15 “ I have not eaten thereof in my sorrow . ” אני, from און, 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 בּאני really corresponded to the בּטמא which follows, except that טמא includes every kind of legal uncleanness.

“ I have removed nothing thereof as unclean ,” 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). “ And not given (any) of it on account of the dead . ” This most probably refers to the custom of sending provisions into a house of mourning, to prepare meals for the mourners (2Sa 3:25; Jer 16:7; Hos 9:4; 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, οὐκ ἔδωκα ἀπ αὐτῶν τῷ τεθνηκότι, points.

(On Deu 26:15, see Isa 63:15.)

Deu 26:16-19 At the close of his discourse, Moses sums up the whole in the earnest admonition that Israel would give the Lord its God occasion to fulfil the promised glorification of His people, by keeping His commandments with all their heart and soul. Deu 26:16-17 On this day the Lord commanded Israel to keep these laws and rights with all the heart and all the soul (cf.

Deu 6:5; Deu 10:12.) There are two important points contained in this (Deu 26:17.) The acceptance of the laws laid before them on the part of the Israelites involved a practical declaration that the nation would accept Jehovah as its God, and walk in His way (Deu 26:17); and the giving of the law on the part of the Lord was a practical confirmation of His promise that Israel should be His people of possession, which He would glorify above all nations (Deu 26:18, Deu 26:19).

“ Thou hast let the Lord say to-day to be thy God ,” i. e. , hast given Him occasion to say to thee that He will be thy God, manifest Himself to thee as thy God. “ And to walk in His ways, and to keep His laws ,” etc. , for “and that thou wouldst walk in His ways, and keep His laws. ” The acceptance of Jehovah as its God involved eo ipso a willingness to walk in His ways.

Deu 26:16-19 At the close of his discourse, Moses sums up the whole in the earnest admonition that Israel would give the Lord its God occasion to fulfil the promised glorification of His people, by keeping His commandments with all their heart and soul. Deu 26:16-17 On this day the Lord commanded Israel to keep these laws and rights with all the heart and all the soul (cf.

Deu 6:5; Deu 10:12.) There are two important points contained in this (Deu 26:17.) The acceptance of the laws laid before them on the part of the Israelites involved a practical declaration that the nation would accept Jehovah as its God, and walk in His way (Deu 26:17); and the giving of the law on the part of the Lord was a practical confirmation of His promise that Israel should be His people of possession, which He would glorify above all nations (Deu 26:18, Deu 26:19).

“ Thou hast let the Lord say to-day to be thy God ,” i. e. , hast given Him occasion to say to thee that He will be thy God, manifest Himself to thee as thy God. “ And to walk in His ways, and to keep His laws ,” etc. , for “and that thou wouldst walk in His ways, and keep His laws. ” The acceptance of Jehovah as its God involved eo ipso a willingness to walk in His ways.

Deu 26:16-19 At the close of his discourse, Moses sums up the whole in the earnest admonition that Israel would give the Lord its God occasion to fulfil the promised glorification of His people, by keeping His commandments with all their heart and soul. Deu 26:16-17 On this day the Lord commanded Israel to keep these laws and rights with all the heart and all the soul (cf.

Deu 6:5; Deu 10:12.) There are two important points contained in this (Deu 26:17.) The acceptance of the laws laid before them on the part of the Israelites involved a practical declaration that the nation would accept Jehovah as its God, and walk in His way (Deu 26:17); and the giving of the law on the part of the Lord was a practical confirmation of His promise that Israel should be His people of possession, which He would glorify above all nations (Deu 26:18, Deu 26:19).

“ Thou hast let the Lord say to-day to be thy God ,” i. e. , hast given Him occasion to say to thee that He will be thy God, manifest Himself to thee as thy God. “ And to walk in His ways, and to keep His laws ,” etc. , for “and that thou wouldst walk in His ways, and keep His laws. ” The acceptance of Jehovah as its God involved eo ipso a willingness to walk in His ways.

Deu 26:16-19 At the close of his discourse, Moses sums up the whole in the earnest admonition that Israel would give the Lord its God occasion to fulfil the promised glorification of His people, by keeping His commandments with all their heart and soul. Deu 26:16-17 On this day the Lord commanded Israel to keep these laws and rights with all the heart and all the soul (cf.

Deu 6:5; Deu 10:12.) There are two important points contained in this (Deu 26:17.) The acceptance of the laws laid before them on the part of the Israelites involved a practical declaration that the nation would accept Jehovah as its God, and walk in His way (Deu 26:17); and the giving of the law on the part of the Lord was a practical confirmation of His promise that Israel should be His people of possession, which He would glorify above all nations (Deu 26:18, Deu 26:19).

“ Thou hast let the Lord say to-day to be thy God ,” i. e. , hast given Him occasion to say to thee that He will be thy God, manifest Himself to thee as thy God. “ And to walk in His ways, and to keep His laws ,” etc. , for “and that thou wouldst walk in His ways, and keep His laws. ” The acceptance of Jehovah as its God involved eo ipso a willingness to walk in His ways.

Deu 27:1-3 Deu 27:2 and Deu 27:3 contain the general instructions; Deu 27:4-8, more minute details. In the appointment of the time, “ on the day when ye shall pass over Jordan into the land ,” etc. , the word “ day ” must not be pressed, but is to be understood in a broader sense, as signifying the time when Israel should have entered the land and taken possession of it.

The stones to be set up were to be covered with lime, or gypsum (whether sid signifies lime or gypsum cannot be determined), and all the words of the law were to be written upon them. The writing, therefore, was not to be cut into the stones and then covered with lime (as J. D. Mich. , Ros .) , but to be inscribed upon the plaistered stones, as was the custom in Egypt, where the walls of buildings, and even monumental stones, which they were about to paint with figures and hieroglyphics, were first of all covered with a coating of lime or gypsum, and then the figures painted upon this (see the testimonies of Minutoli, Heeren, Prokesch in Hengstenberg’s Dissertations , i.

433, and Egypt and the Books of Moses , p. 90). The object of this writing was not to hand down the law in this manner to posterity without alteration, but, as has already been stated, simply to set forth a public acknowledgement of the law on the part of the people, first of all for the sake of the generation which took possession of the land, and for posterity, only so far as this act was recorded in the book of Joshua and thus transmitted to future generations.

Deu 27:1-3 Deu 27:2 and Deu 27:3 contain the general instructions; Deu 27:4-8, more minute details. In the appointment of the time, “ on the day when ye shall pass over Jordan into the land ,” etc. , the word “ day ” must not be pressed, but is to be understood in a broader sense, as signifying the time when Israel should have entered the land and taken possession of it.

The stones to be set up were to be covered with lime, or gypsum (whether sid signifies lime or gypsum cannot be determined), and all the words of the law were to be written upon them. The writing, therefore, was not to be cut into the stones and then covered with lime (as J. D. Mich. , Ros .) , but to be inscribed upon the plaistered stones, as was the custom in Egypt, where the walls of buildings, and even monumental stones, which they were about to paint with figures and hieroglyphics, were first of all covered with a coating of lime or gypsum, and then the figures painted upon this (see the testimonies of Minutoli, Heeren, Prokesch in Hengstenberg’s Dissertations , i.

433, and Egypt and the Books of Moses , p. 90). The object of this writing was not to hand down the law in this manner to posterity without alteration, but, as has already been stated, simply to set forth a public acknowledgement of the law on the part of the people, first of all for the sake of the generation which took possession of the land, and for posterity, only so far as this act was recorded in the book of Joshua and thus transmitted to future generations.

Deu 27:1-3 Deu 27:2 and Deu 27:3 contain the general instructions; Deu 27:4-8, more minute details. In the appointment of the time, “ on the day when ye shall pass over Jordan into the land ,” etc. , the word “ day ” must not be pressed, but is to be understood in a broader sense, as signifying the time when Israel should have entered the land and taken possession of it.

The stones to be set up were to be covered with lime, or gypsum (whether sid signifies lime or gypsum cannot be determined), and all the words of the law were to be written upon them. The writing, therefore, was not to be cut into the stones and then covered with lime (as J. D. Mich. , Ros .) , but to be inscribed upon the plaistered stones, as was the custom in Egypt, where the walls of buildings, and even monumental stones, which they were about to paint with figures and hieroglyphics, were first of all covered with a coating of lime or gypsum, and then the figures painted upon this (see the testimonies of Minutoli, Heeren, Prokesch in Hengstenberg’s Dissertations , i.

433, and Egypt and the Books of Moses , p. 90). The object of this writing was not to hand down the law in this manner to posterity without alteration, but, as has already been stated, simply to set forth a public acknowledgement of the law on the part of the people, first of all for the sake of the generation which took possession of the land, and for posterity, only so far as this act was recorded in the book of Joshua and thus transmitted to future generations.

Deu 27:4-8 In the further expansion of this command, Moses first of all fixes the place where the stones were to be set up, namely, upon Mount Ebal (see at Deu 11:29), - not upon Gerizim, according to the reading of the Samaritan Pentateuch; for since the discussion of the question by Verschuir ( dissertt. phil. exeg. diss. 3) and Gesenius ( de Pent. Samar. p.

61), it may be regarded as an established fact, that this reading is an arbitrary alteration. The following clause, “ thou shalt plaister ,” etc. , is a repetition in the earliest form of historical writing among the Hebrews. To this there are appended in Deu 27:5-7 the new and further instructions, that an altar was to be built upon Ebal, and burnt-offerings and slain-offerings to be sacrificed upon it.

The notion that this altar was to be built of the stones with the law written upon them, or even with a portion of them, needs no refutation, as it has not the slightest support in the words of the text. For according to these the altar was to be built of unhewn stones (therefore not of the stones covered with cement), in obedience to the law in Exo 20:22 (see the exposition of this passage, where the reason for this is discussed).

The spot selected for the setting up of the stones with the law written upon it, as well as for the altar and the offering of sacrifice, was Ebal, the mountain upon which the curses were to be proclaimed; not Gerizim, which was appointed for the publication of the blessings, for the very same reason for which only the curses to be proclaimed are given in Deu 27:14. and not the blessings, - not, as Schultz supposes, because the law in connection with the curse speaks more forcibly to sinful man than in connection with the blessing, or because the curse, which manifests itself on every hand in human life, sounds more credible than the promise; but, as the Berleburger Bible expresses it, “to show how the law and economy of the Old Testament would denounce the curse which rests upon the whole human race because of sin, to awaken a desire for the Messiah, who was to take away the curse and bring the true blessing instead.

” For however remote the allusion to the Messiah may be here, the truth is unquestionably pointed out in these instructions, that the law primarily and chiefly brings a curse upon man because of the sinfulness of his nature, as Moses himself announces to the people in Deu 31:16-17. And for this very reason the book of the law was to be laid by the side of the ark of the covenant as a “testimony against Israel” (Deu 31:26).

But the altar was built for the offering of sacrifices, to mould and consecrate the setting up of the law upon the stones into a renewal of the covenant. In the burnt-offerings Israel gave itself up to the Lord with all its life and labour, and in the sacrificial meal it entered into the enjoyment of the blessings of divine grace, to taste of the blessedness of vital communion with its God.

By connecting the sacrificial ceremony with the setting up of the law, Israel gave a practical testimony to the fact that its life and blessedness were founded upon its observance of the law. The sacrifices and the sacrificial meal have the same signification here as at the conclusion of the covenant at Sinai (Exo 24:11). - In Deu 27:8 the writing of the law upon the stones is commanded once more, and the further injunction is added, “ very plainly .

” - The writing of the law is mentioned last, as being the most important, and not because it was to take place after the sacrificial ceremony. The different instructions are arranged according to their character, and not in chronological order.