The Song of Moses: The Rock, Rebellion, Judgment, and Vindication

Deu 32:4-5 “ The Rock - blameless is His work; for all His ways are right: a God of faithfulness, and without injustice; just and righteous is He. Corruptly acts towards Him, not His children; their spot, a perverse and crooked generation . ” הצּוּר is placed first absolutely, to give it the greater prominence. God is called “the rock,” as the unchangeable refuge, who grants a firm defence and secure resort to His people, by virtue of His unchangeableness or impregnable firmness (see the synonym, “the Stone of Israel,” in Gen 49:24).

This epithet points to the Mosaic age; and this is clearly shown by the use made of this title of God ( Zur ) in the construction of surnames in the Mosaic era; such, for example, as Pedahzur (Num 1:10), which is equivalent to Pedahel (“God-redeemed,” Num 34:28), Elizur (Num 1:5), Zuriel (Num 3:35), and Zurishaddai (Num 1:6; Num 2:12). David, who had so often experienced the rock-like protection of his God, adopted it in his Psalms (2Sa 22:3, 2Sa 22:32 = Psa 18:3, Psa 18:32; also Ps.

19:15; Psa 31:3-4; Psa 71:3). Perfect (i. e. , blameless, without fault or blemish) is His work; for His ways, which He adopts in His government of the world, are right. As the rock, He is “a God of faithfulness,” upon which men may rely and build in all the storms of life, and “without iniquity,” i. e. , anything crooked or false in His nature.

Deu 32:6-18 Expansion of the theme according to the thought expressed in Deu 32:5. The perversity of the rebellious generation manifested itself in the fact, that it repaid the Lord, to whom it owed existence and well-being, for all His benefits, with a foolish apostasy from its Creator and Father. This thought is expressed in Deu 32:6, in a reproachful question addressed to the people, and then supported in Deu 32:7-14 by an enumeration of the benefits conferred by God, and in Deu 32:15-18 by a description of the ingratitude of the people.

Deu 32:6 “ Will ye thus repay the Lord? thou foolish people and unwise! Is He not thy Father, who hath founded thee, who hath made thee and prepared thee? ” גּמל, the primary idea of which is doubtful, signifies properly to show, or do, for the most part good, but sometimes evil (vid. , Psa 7:5). For the purpose of painting the folly of their apostasy distinctly before the eyes of the people, Moses crowds words together to describe what God was to the nation - “ thy Father ,” to whose love Israel was indebted for its elevation into an independent people: comp.

Isa 63:16, where Father and Redeemer are synonymous terms, with Isa 64:7, God the Father, Israel the clay which He had formed, and Mal 2:10, where God as Father is said to have created Israel; see also the remarks at Deu 14:1 on the notion of Israel’s sonship. - קונך, He has acquired thee; קנה, κτᾶσθαι, to get, acquire (Gen 4:1), then so as to involve the idea of κτίζειν (Gen 14:9), though without being identical with בּרא.

It denotes here the founding of Israel as a nation, by its deliverance out of the power of Pharaoh. The verbs which follow ( made and established ) refer to the elevation and preparation of the redeemed nation, as the nation of the Lord, by the conclusion of a covenant, the giving of the law, and their guidance through the desert.

Deu 32:6-18 Expansion of the theme according to the thought expressed in Deu 32:5. The perversity of the rebellious generation manifested itself in the fact, that it repaid the Lord, to whom it owed existence and well-being, for all His benefits, with a foolish apostasy from its Creator and Father. This thought is expressed in Deu 32:6, in a reproachful question addressed to the people, and then supported in Deu 32:7-14 by an enumeration of the benefits conferred by God, and in Deu 32:15-18 by a description of the ingratitude of the people.

Deu 32:6 “ Will ye thus repay the Lord? thou foolish people and unwise! Is He not thy Father, who hath founded thee, who hath made thee and prepared thee? ” גּמל, the primary idea of which is doubtful, signifies properly to show, or do, for the most part good, but sometimes evil (vid. , Psa 7:5). For the purpose of painting the folly of their apostasy distinctly before the eyes of the people, Moses crowds words together to describe what God was to the nation - “ thy Father ,” to whose love Israel was indebted for its elevation into an independent people: comp.

Isa 63:16, where Father and Redeemer are synonymous terms, with Isa 64:7, God the Father, Israel the clay which He had formed, and Mal 2:10, where God as Father is said to have created Israel; see also the remarks at Deu 14:1 on the notion of Israel’s sonship. - קונך, He has acquired thee; קנה, κτᾶσθαι, to get, acquire (Gen 4:1), then so as to involve the idea of κτίζειν (Gen 14:9), though without being identical with בּרא.

It denotes here the founding of Israel as a nation, by its deliverance out of the power of Pharaoh. The verbs which follow ( made and established ) refer to the elevation and preparation of the redeemed nation, as the nation of the Lord, by the conclusion of a covenant, the giving of the law, and their guidance through the desert.

Deu 32:6-18 Expansion of the theme according to the thought expressed in Deu 32:5. The perversity of the rebellious generation manifested itself in the fact, that it repaid the Lord, to whom it owed existence and well-being, for all His benefits, with a foolish apostasy from its Creator and Father. This thought is expressed in Deu 32:6, in a reproachful question addressed to the people, and then supported in Deu 32:7-14 by an enumeration of the benefits conferred by God, and in Deu 32:15-18 by a description of the ingratitude of the people.

Deu 32:6 “ Will ye thus repay the Lord? thou foolish people and unwise! Is He not thy Father, who hath founded thee, who hath made thee and prepared thee? ” גּמל, the primary idea of which is doubtful, signifies properly to show, or do, for the most part good, but sometimes evil (vid. , Psa 7:5). For the purpose of painting the folly of their apostasy distinctly before the eyes of the people, Moses crowds words together to describe what God was to the nation - “ thy Father ,” to whose love Israel was indebted for its elevation into an independent people: comp.

Isa 63:16, where Father and Redeemer are synonymous terms, with Isa 64:7, God the Father, Israel the clay which He had formed, and Mal 2:10, where God as Father is said to have created Israel; see also the remarks at Deu 14:1 on the notion of Israel’s sonship. - קונך, He has acquired thee; קנה, κτᾶσθαι, to get, acquire (Gen 4:1), then so as to involve the idea of κτίζειν (Gen 14:9), though without being identical with בּרא.

It denotes here the founding of Israel as a nation, by its deliverance out of the power of Pharaoh. The verbs which follow ( made and established ) refer to the elevation and preparation of the redeemed nation, as the nation of the Lord, by the conclusion of a covenant, the giving of the law, and their guidance through the desert.

Deu 32:6-18 Expansion of the theme according to the thought expressed in Deu 32:5. The perversity of the rebellious generation manifested itself in the fact, that it repaid the Lord, to whom it owed existence and well-being, for all His benefits, with a foolish apostasy from its Creator and Father. This thought is expressed in Deu 32:6, in a reproachful question addressed to the people, and then supported in Deu 32:7-14 by an enumeration of the benefits conferred by God, and in Deu 32:15-18 by a description of the ingratitude of the people.

Deu 32:6 “ Will ye thus repay the Lord? thou foolish people and unwise! Is He not thy Father, who hath founded thee, who hath made thee and prepared thee? ” גּמל, the primary idea of which is doubtful, signifies properly to show, or do, for the most part good, but sometimes evil (vid. , Psa 7:5). For the purpose of painting the folly of their apostasy distinctly before the eyes of the people, Moses crowds words together to describe what God was to the nation - “ thy Father ,” to whose love Israel was indebted for its elevation into an independent people: comp.

Isa 63:16, where Father and Redeemer are synonymous terms, with Isa 64:7, God the Father, Israel the clay which He had formed, and Mal 2:10, where God as Father is said to have created Israel; see also the remarks at Deu 14:1 on the notion of Israel’s sonship. - קונך, He has acquired thee; קנה, κτᾶσθαι, to get, acquire (Gen 4:1), then so as to involve the idea of κτίζειν (Gen 14:9), though without being identical with בּרא.

It denotes here the founding of Israel as a nation, by its deliverance out of the power of Pharaoh. The verbs which follow ( made and established ) refer to the elevation and preparation of the redeemed nation, as the nation of the Lord, by the conclusion of a covenant, the giving of the law, and their guidance through the desert.

Deu 32:6-18 Expansion of the theme according to the thought expressed in Deu 32:5. The perversity of the rebellious generation manifested itself in the fact, that it repaid the Lord, to whom it owed existence and well-being, for all His benefits, with a foolish apostasy from its Creator and Father. This thought is expressed in Deu 32:6, in a reproachful question addressed to the people, and then supported in Deu 32:7-14 by an enumeration of the benefits conferred by God, and in Deu 32:15-18 by a description of the ingratitude of the people.

Deu 32:6 “ Will ye thus repay the Lord? thou foolish people and unwise! Is He not thy Father, who hath founded thee, who hath made thee and prepared thee? ” גּמל, the primary idea of which is doubtful, signifies properly to show, or do, for the most part good, but sometimes evil (vid. , Psa 7:5). For the purpose of painting the folly of their apostasy distinctly before the eyes of the people, Moses crowds words together to describe what God was to the nation - “ thy Father ,” to whose love Israel was indebted for its elevation into an independent people: comp.

Isa 63:16, where Father and Redeemer are synonymous terms, with Isa 64:7, God the Father, Israel the clay which He had formed, and Mal 2:10, where God as Father is said to have created Israel; see also the remarks at Deu 14:1 on the notion of Israel’s sonship. - קונך, He has acquired thee; קנה, κτᾶσθαι, to get, acquire (Gen 4:1), then so as to involve the idea of κτίζειν (Gen 14:9), though without being identical with בּרא.

It denotes here the founding of Israel as a nation, by its deliverance out of the power of Pharaoh. The verbs which follow ( made and established ) refer to the elevation and preparation of the redeemed nation, as the nation of the Lord, by the conclusion of a covenant, the giving of the law, and their guidance through the desert.

Deu 32:6-18 Expansion of the theme according to the thought expressed in Deu 32:5. The perversity of the rebellious generation manifested itself in the fact, that it repaid the Lord, to whom it owed existence and well-being, for all His benefits, with a foolish apostasy from its Creator and Father. This thought is expressed in Deu 32:6, in a reproachful question addressed to the people, and then supported in Deu 32:7-14 by an enumeration of the benefits conferred by God, and in Deu 32:15-18 by a description of the ingratitude of the people.

Deu 32:6 “ Will ye thus repay the Lord? thou foolish people and unwise! Is He not thy Father, who hath founded thee, who hath made thee and prepared thee? ” גּמל, the primary idea of which is doubtful, signifies properly to show, or do, for the most part good, but sometimes evil (vid. , Psa 7:5). For the purpose of painting the folly of their apostasy distinctly before the eyes of the people, Moses crowds words together to describe what God was to the nation - “ thy Father ,” to whose love Israel was indebted for its elevation into an independent people: comp.

Isa 63:16, where Father and Redeemer are synonymous terms, with Isa 64:7, God the Father, Israel the clay which He had formed, and Mal 2:10, where God as Father is said to have created Israel; see also the remarks at Deu 14:1 on the notion of Israel’s sonship. - קונך, He has acquired thee; קנה, κτᾶσθαι, to get, acquire (Gen 4:1), then so as to involve the idea of κτίζειν (Gen 14:9), though without being identical with בּרא.

It denotes here the founding of Israel as a nation, by its deliverance out of the power of Pharaoh. The verbs which follow ( made and established ) refer to the elevation and preparation of the redeemed nation, as the nation of the Lord, by the conclusion of a covenant, the giving of the law, and their guidance through the desert.

Deu 32:6-18 Expansion of the theme according to the thought expressed in Deu 32:5. The perversity of the rebellious generation manifested itself in the fact, that it repaid the Lord, to whom it owed existence and well-being, for all His benefits, with a foolish apostasy from its Creator and Father. This thought is expressed in Deu 32:6, in a reproachful question addressed to the people, and then supported in Deu 32:7-14 by an enumeration of the benefits conferred by God, and in Deu 32:15-18 by a description of the ingratitude of the people.

Deu 32:6 “ Will ye thus repay the Lord? thou foolish people and unwise! Is He not thy Father, who hath founded thee, who hath made thee and prepared thee? ” גּמל, the primary idea of which is doubtful, signifies properly to show, or do, for the most part good, but sometimes evil (vid. , Psa 7:5). For the purpose of painting the folly of their apostasy distinctly before the eyes of the people, Moses crowds words together to describe what God was to the nation - “ thy Father ,” to whose love Israel was indebted for its elevation into an independent people: comp.

Isa 63:16, where Father and Redeemer are synonymous terms, with Isa 64:7, God the Father, Israel the clay which He had formed, and Mal 2:10, where God as Father is said to have created Israel; see also the remarks at Deu 14:1 on the notion of Israel’s sonship. - קונך, He has acquired thee; קנה, κτᾶσθαι, to get, acquire (Gen 4:1), then so as to involve the idea of κτίζειν (Gen 14:9), though without being identical with בּרא.

It denotes here the founding of Israel as a nation, by its deliverance out of the power of Pharaoh. The verbs which follow ( made and established ) refer to the elevation and preparation of the redeemed nation, as the nation of the Lord, by the conclusion of a covenant, the giving of the law, and their guidance through the desert.

Deu 32:6-18 Expansion of the theme according to the thought expressed in Deu 32:5. The perversity of the rebellious generation manifested itself in the fact, that it repaid the Lord, to whom it owed existence and well-being, for all His benefits, with a foolish apostasy from its Creator and Father. This thought is expressed in Deu 32:6, in a reproachful question addressed to the people, and then supported in Deu 32:7-14 by an enumeration of the benefits conferred by God, and in Deu 32:15-18 by a description of the ingratitude of the people.

Deu 32:6 “ Will ye thus repay the Lord? thou foolish people and unwise! Is He not thy Father, who hath founded thee, who hath made thee and prepared thee? ” גּמל, the primary idea of which is doubtful, signifies properly to show, or do, for the most part good, but sometimes evil (vid. , Psa 7:5). For the purpose of painting the folly of their apostasy distinctly before the eyes of the people, Moses crowds words together to describe what God was to the nation - “ thy Father ,” to whose love Israel was indebted for its elevation into an independent people: comp.

Isa 63:16, where Father and Redeemer are synonymous terms, with Isa 64:7, God the Father, Israel the clay which He had formed, and Mal 2:10, where God as Father is said to have created Israel; see also the remarks at Deu 14:1 on the notion of Israel’s sonship. - קונך, He has acquired thee; קנה, κτᾶσθαι, to get, acquire (Gen 4:1), then so as to involve the idea of κτίζειν (Gen 14:9), though without being identical with בּרא.

It denotes here the founding of Israel as a nation, by its deliverance out of the power of Pharaoh. The verbs which follow ( made and established ) refer to the elevation and preparation of the redeemed nation, as the nation of the Lord, by the conclusion of a covenant, the giving of the law, and their guidance through the desert.

Deu 32:6-18 Expansion of the theme according to the thought expressed in Deu 32:5. The perversity of the rebellious generation manifested itself in the fact, that it repaid the Lord, to whom it owed existence and well-being, for all His benefits, with a foolish apostasy from its Creator and Father. This thought is expressed in Deu 32:6, in a reproachful question addressed to the people, and then supported in Deu 32:7-14 by an enumeration of the benefits conferred by God, and in Deu 32:15-18 by a description of the ingratitude of the people.

Deu 32:6 “ Will ye thus repay the Lord? thou foolish people and unwise! Is He not thy Father, who hath founded thee, who hath made thee and prepared thee? ” גּמל, the primary idea of which is doubtful, signifies properly to show, or do, for the most part good, but sometimes evil (vid. , Psa 7:5). For the purpose of painting the folly of their apostasy distinctly before the eyes of the people, Moses crowds words together to describe what God was to the nation - “ thy Father ,” to whose love Israel was indebted for its elevation into an independent people: comp.

Isa 63:16, where Father and Redeemer are synonymous terms, with Isa 64:7, God the Father, Israel the clay which He had formed, and Mal 2:10, where God as Father is said to have created Israel; see also the remarks at Deu 14:1 on the notion of Israel’s sonship. - קונך, He has acquired thee; קנה, κτᾶσθαι, to get, acquire (Gen 4:1), then so as to involve the idea of κτίζειν (Gen 14:9), though without being identical with בּרא.

It denotes here the founding of Israel as a nation, by its deliverance out of the power of Pharaoh. The verbs which follow ( made and established ) refer to the elevation and preparation of the redeemed nation, as the nation of the Lord, by the conclusion of a covenant, the giving of the law, and their guidance through the desert.

Deu 32:6-18 Expansion of the theme according to the thought expressed in Deu 32:5. The perversity of the rebellious generation manifested itself in the fact, that it repaid the Lord, to whom it owed existence and well-being, for all His benefits, with a foolish apostasy from its Creator and Father. This thought is expressed in Deu 32:6, in a reproachful question addressed to the people, and then supported in Deu 32:7-14 by an enumeration of the benefits conferred by God, and in Deu 32:15-18 by a description of the ingratitude of the people.

Deu 32:6 “ Will ye thus repay the Lord? thou foolish people and unwise! Is He not thy Father, who hath founded thee, who hath made thee and prepared thee? ” גּמל, the primary idea of which is doubtful, signifies properly to show, or do, for the most part good, but sometimes evil (vid. , Psa 7:5). For the purpose of painting the folly of their apostasy distinctly before the eyes of the people, Moses crowds words together to describe what God was to the nation - “ thy Father ,” to whose love Israel was indebted for its elevation into an independent people: comp.

Isa 63:16, where Father and Redeemer are synonymous terms, with Isa 64:7, God the Father, Israel the clay which He had formed, and Mal 2:10, where God as Father is said to have created Israel; see also the remarks at Deu 14:1 on the notion of Israel’s sonship. - קונך, He has acquired thee; קנה, κτᾶσθαι, to get, acquire (Gen 4:1), then so as to involve the idea of κτίζειν (Gen 14:9), though without being identical with בּרא.

It denotes here the founding of Israel as a nation, by its deliverance out of the power of Pharaoh. The verbs which follow ( made and established ) refer to the elevation and preparation of the redeemed nation, as the nation of the Lord, by the conclusion of a covenant, the giving of the law, and their guidance through the desert.

Deu 32:6-18 Expansion of the theme according to the thought expressed in Deu 32:5. The perversity of the rebellious generation manifested itself in the fact, that it repaid the Lord, to whom it owed existence and well-being, for all His benefits, with a foolish apostasy from its Creator and Father. This thought is expressed in Deu 32:6, in a reproachful question addressed to the people, and then supported in Deu 32:7-14 by an enumeration of the benefits conferred by God, and in Deu 32:15-18 by a description of the ingratitude of the people.

Deu 32:6 “ Will ye thus repay the Lord? thou foolish people and unwise! Is He not thy Father, who hath founded thee, who hath made thee and prepared thee? ” גּמל, the primary idea of which is doubtful, signifies properly to show, or do, for the most part good, but sometimes evil (vid. , Psa 7:5). For the purpose of painting the folly of their apostasy distinctly before the eyes of the people, Moses crowds words together to describe what God was to the nation - “ thy Father ,” to whose love Israel was indebted for its elevation into an independent people: comp.

Isa 63:16, where Father and Redeemer are synonymous terms, with Isa 64:7, God the Father, Israel the clay which He had formed, and Mal 2:10, where God as Father is said to have created Israel; see also the remarks at Deu 14:1 on the notion of Israel’s sonship. - קונך, He has acquired thee; קנה, κτᾶσθαι, to get, acquire (Gen 4:1), then so as to involve the idea of κτίζειν (Gen 14:9), though without being identical with בּרא.

It denotes here the founding of Israel as a nation, by its deliverance out of the power of Pharaoh. The verbs which follow ( made and established ) refer to the elevation and preparation of the redeemed nation, as the nation of the Lord, by the conclusion of a covenant, the giving of the law, and their guidance through the desert.

Deu 32:6-18 Expansion of the theme according to the thought expressed in Deu 32:5. The perversity of the rebellious generation manifested itself in the fact, that it repaid the Lord, to whom it owed existence and well-being, for all His benefits, with a foolish apostasy from its Creator and Father. This thought is expressed in Deu 32:6, in a reproachful question addressed to the people, and then supported in Deu 32:7-14 by an enumeration of the benefits conferred by God, and in Deu 32:15-18 by a description of the ingratitude of the people.

Deu 32:6 “ Will ye thus repay the Lord? thou foolish people and unwise! Is He not thy Father, who hath founded thee, who hath made thee and prepared thee? ” גּמל, the primary idea of which is doubtful, signifies properly to show, or do, for the most part good, but sometimes evil (vid. , Psa 7:5). For the purpose of painting the folly of their apostasy distinctly before the eyes of the people, Moses crowds words together to describe what God was to the nation - “ thy Father ,” to whose love Israel was indebted for its elevation into an independent people: comp.

Isa 63:16, where Father and Redeemer are synonymous terms, with Isa 64:7, God the Father, Israel the clay which He had formed, and Mal 2:10, where God as Father is said to have created Israel; see also the remarks at Deu 14:1 on the notion of Israel’s sonship. - קונך, He has acquired thee; קנה, κτᾶσθαι, to get, acquire (Gen 4:1), then so as to involve the idea of κτίζειν (Gen 14:9), though without being identical with בּרא.

It denotes here the founding of Israel as a nation, by its deliverance out of the power of Pharaoh. The verbs which follow ( made and established ) refer to the elevation and preparation of the redeemed nation, as the nation of the Lord, by the conclusion of a covenant, the giving of the law, and their guidance through the desert.

Deu 32:6-18 Expansion of the theme according to the thought expressed in Deu 32:5. The perversity of the rebellious generation manifested itself in the fact, that it repaid the Lord, to whom it owed existence and well-being, for all His benefits, with a foolish apostasy from its Creator and Father. This thought is expressed in Deu 32:6, in a reproachful question addressed to the people, and then supported in Deu 32:7-14 by an enumeration of the benefits conferred by God, and in Deu 32:15-18 by a description of the ingratitude of the people.

Deu 32:6 “ Will ye thus repay the Lord? thou foolish people and unwise! Is He not thy Father, who hath founded thee, who hath made thee and prepared thee? ” גּמל, the primary idea of which is doubtful, signifies properly to show, or do, for the most part good, but sometimes evil (vid. , Psa 7:5). For the purpose of painting the folly of their apostasy distinctly before the eyes of the people, Moses crowds words together to describe what God was to the nation - “ thy Father ,” to whose love Israel was indebted for its elevation into an independent people: comp.

Isa 63:16, where Father and Redeemer are synonymous terms, with Isa 64:7, God the Father, Israel the clay which He had formed, and Mal 2:10, where God as Father is said to have created Israel; see also the remarks at Deu 14:1 on the notion of Israel’s sonship. - קונך, He has acquired thee; קנה, κτᾶσθαι, to get, acquire (Gen 4:1), then so as to involve the idea of κτίζειν (Gen 14:9), though without being identical with בּרא.

It denotes here the founding of Israel as a nation, by its deliverance out of the power of Pharaoh. The verbs which follow ( made and established ) refer to the elevation and preparation of the redeemed nation, as the nation of the Lord, by the conclusion of a covenant, the giving of the law, and their guidance through the desert.

Deu 32:19-33 For this foolish apostasy the Lord would severely visit His people. This visitation is represented indeed in Deu 32:19, as the consequence of apostasy that had taken place, - not, however, as a punishment already inflicted, but simply as a resolution which god had formed and would carry out, - an evident proof that we have no song here belonging to the time when God visited with severe punishments the Israelites who had fallen into idolatry.

In Deu 32:19 the determination to reject the degenerate children is announced, and in Deu 32:20-22 this is still further defined and explained. Deu 32:19 “ And the Lord saw it, and rejected - from indignation at His sons and daughters . ” The object to “saw” may easily be supplied from the context: He saw the idolatry of the people, and rejected those who followed idols, and that because of indignation that His sons and daughters practised such abominations.

The expression “he saw” simply serves to bring out the causal link between the apostasy and the punishment. ויּנאץ has been very well rendered by Kamphausen , “He resolved upon rejection,” since Deu 32:20. clearly show that the rejection had only been resolved upon by God, and was not yet carried out. In what follows, Moses puts this resolution into the mouth of the Lord Himself.

Deu 32:19-33 For this foolish apostasy the Lord would severely visit His people. This visitation is represented indeed in Deu 32:19, as the consequence of apostasy that had taken place, - not, however, as a punishment already inflicted, but simply as a resolution which god had formed and would carry out, - an evident proof that we have no song here belonging to the time when God visited with severe punishments the Israelites who had fallen into idolatry.

In Deu 32:19 the determination to reject the degenerate children is announced, and in Deu 32:20-22 this is still further defined and explained. Deu 32:19 “ And the Lord saw it, and rejected - from indignation at His sons and daughters . ” The object to “saw” may easily be supplied from the context: He saw the idolatry of the people, and rejected those who followed idols, and that because of indignation that His sons and daughters practised such abominations.

The expression “he saw” simply serves to bring out the causal link between the apostasy and the punishment. ויּנאץ has been very well rendered by Kamphausen , “He resolved upon rejection,” since Deu 32:20. clearly show that the rejection had only been resolved upon by God, and was not yet carried out. In what follows, Moses puts this resolution into the mouth of the Lord Himself.

Deu 32:19-33 For this foolish apostasy the Lord would severely visit His people. This visitation is represented indeed in Deu 32:19, as the consequence of apostasy that had taken place, - not, however, as a punishment already inflicted, but simply as a resolution which god had formed and would carry out, - an evident proof that we have no song here belonging to the time when God visited with severe punishments the Israelites who had fallen into idolatry.

In Deu 32:19 the determination to reject the degenerate children is announced, and in Deu 32:20-22 this is still further defined and explained. Deu 32:19 “ And the Lord saw it, and rejected - from indignation at His sons and daughters . ” The object to “saw” may easily be supplied from the context: He saw the idolatry of the people, and rejected those who followed idols, and that because of indignation that His sons and daughters practised such abominations.

The expression “he saw” simply serves to bring out the causal link between the apostasy and the punishment. ויּנאץ has been very well rendered by Kamphausen , “He resolved upon rejection,” since Deu 32:20. clearly show that the rejection had only been resolved upon by God, and was not yet carried out. In what follows, Moses puts this resolution into the mouth of the Lord Himself.

Deu 32:19-33 For this foolish apostasy the Lord would severely visit His people. This visitation is represented indeed in Deu 32:19, as the consequence of apostasy that had taken place, - not, however, as a punishment already inflicted, but simply as a resolution which god had formed and would carry out, - an evident proof that we have no song here belonging to the time when God visited with severe punishments the Israelites who had fallen into idolatry.

In Deu 32:19 the determination to reject the degenerate children is announced, and in Deu 32:20-22 this is still further defined and explained. Deu 32:19 “ And the Lord saw it, and rejected - from indignation at His sons and daughters . ” The object to “saw” may easily be supplied from the context: He saw the idolatry of the people, and rejected those who followed idols, and that because of indignation that His sons and daughters practised such abominations.

The expression “he saw” simply serves to bring out the causal link between the apostasy and the punishment. ויּנאץ has been very well rendered by Kamphausen , “He resolved upon rejection,” since Deu 32:20. clearly show that the rejection had only been resolved upon by God, and was not yet carried out. In what follows, Moses puts this resolution into the mouth of the Lord Himself.

Deu 32:19-33 For this foolish apostasy the Lord would severely visit His people. This visitation is represented indeed in Deu 32:19, as the consequence of apostasy that had taken place, - not, however, as a punishment already inflicted, but simply as a resolution which god had formed and would carry out, - an evident proof that we have no song here belonging to the time when God visited with severe punishments the Israelites who had fallen into idolatry.

In Deu 32:19 the determination to reject the degenerate children is announced, and in Deu 32:20-22 this is still further defined and explained. Deu 32:19 “ And the Lord saw it, and rejected - from indignation at His sons and daughters . ” The object to “saw” may easily be supplied from the context: He saw the idolatry of the people, and rejected those who followed idols, and that because of indignation that His sons and daughters practised such abominations.

The expression “he saw” simply serves to bring out the causal link between the apostasy and the punishment. ויּנאץ has been very well rendered by Kamphausen , “He resolved upon rejection,” since Deu 32:20. clearly show that the rejection had only been resolved upon by God, and was not yet carried out. In what follows, Moses puts this resolution into the mouth of the Lord Himself.

Deu 32:19-33 For this foolish apostasy the Lord would severely visit His people. This visitation is represented indeed in Deu 32:19, as the consequence of apostasy that had taken place, - not, however, as a punishment already inflicted, but simply as a resolution which god had formed and would carry out, - an evident proof that we have no song here belonging to the time when God visited with severe punishments the Israelites who had fallen into idolatry.

In Deu 32:19 the determination to reject the degenerate children is announced, and in Deu 32:20-22 this is still further defined and explained. Deu 32:19 “ And the Lord saw it, and rejected - from indignation at His sons and daughters . ” The object to “saw” may easily be supplied from the context: He saw the idolatry of the people, and rejected those who followed idols, and that because of indignation that His sons and daughters practised such abominations.

The expression “he saw” simply serves to bring out the causal link between the apostasy and the punishment. ויּנאץ has been very well rendered by Kamphausen , “He resolved upon rejection,” since Deu 32:20. clearly show that the rejection had only been resolved upon by God, and was not yet carried out. In what follows, Moses puts this resolution into the mouth of the Lord Himself.

Deu 32:19-33 For this foolish apostasy the Lord would severely visit His people. This visitation is represented indeed in Deu 32:19, as the consequence of apostasy that had taken place, - not, however, as a punishment already inflicted, but simply as a resolution which god had formed and would carry out, - an evident proof that we have no song here belonging to the time when God visited with severe punishments the Israelites who had fallen into idolatry.

In Deu 32:19 the determination to reject the degenerate children is announced, and in Deu 32:20-22 this is still further defined and explained. Deu 32:19 “ And the Lord saw it, and rejected - from indignation at His sons and daughters . ” The object to “saw” may easily be supplied from the context: He saw the idolatry of the people, and rejected those who followed idols, and that because of indignation that His sons and daughters practised such abominations.

The expression “he saw” simply serves to bring out the causal link between the apostasy and the punishment. ויּנאץ has been very well rendered by Kamphausen , “He resolved upon rejection,” since Deu 32:20. clearly show that the rejection had only been resolved upon by God, and was not yet carried out. In what follows, Moses puts this resolution into the mouth of the Lord Himself.

Deu 32:19-33 For this foolish apostasy the Lord would severely visit His people. This visitation is represented indeed in Deu 32:19, as the consequence of apostasy that had taken place, - not, however, as a punishment already inflicted, but simply as a resolution which god had formed and would carry out, - an evident proof that we have no song here belonging to the time when God visited with severe punishments the Israelites who had fallen into idolatry.

In Deu 32:19 the determination to reject the degenerate children is announced, and in Deu 32:20-22 this is still further defined and explained. Deu 32:19 “ And the Lord saw it, and rejected - from indignation at His sons and daughters . ” The object to “saw” may easily be supplied from the context: He saw the idolatry of the people, and rejected those who followed idols, and that because of indignation that His sons and daughters practised such abominations.

The expression “he saw” simply serves to bring out the causal link between the apostasy and the punishment. ויּנאץ has been very well rendered by Kamphausen , “He resolved upon rejection,” since Deu 32:20. clearly show that the rejection had only been resolved upon by God, and was not yet carried out. In what follows, Moses puts this resolution into the mouth of the Lord Himself.

Deu 32:19-33 For this foolish apostasy the Lord would severely visit His people. This visitation is represented indeed in Deu 32:19, as the consequence of apostasy that had taken place, - not, however, as a punishment already inflicted, but simply as a resolution which god had formed and would carry out, - an evident proof that we have no song here belonging to the time when God visited with severe punishments the Israelites who had fallen into idolatry.

In Deu 32:19 the determination to reject the degenerate children is announced, and in Deu 32:20-22 this is still further defined and explained. Deu 32:19 “ And the Lord saw it, and rejected - from indignation at His sons and daughters . ” The object to “saw” may easily be supplied from the context: He saw the idolatry of the people, and rejected those who followed idols, and that because of indignation that His sons and daughters practised such abominations.

The expression “he saw” simply serves to bring out the causal link between the apostasy and the punishment. ויּנאץ has been very well rendered by Kamphausen , “He resolved upon rejection,” since Deu 32:20. clearly show that the rejection had only been resolved upon by God, and was not yet carried out. In what follows, Moses puts this resolution into the mouth of the Lord Himself.

Deu 32:19-33 For this foolish apostasy the Lord would severely visit His people. This visitation is represented indeed in Deu 32:19, as the consequence of apostasy that had taken place, - not, however, as a punishment already inflicted, but simply as a resolution which god had formed and would carry out, - an evident proof that we have no song here belonging to the time when God visited with severe punishments the Israelites who had fallen into idolatry.

In Deu 32:19 the determination to reject the degenerate children is announced, and in Deu 32:20-22 this is still further defined and explained. Deu 32:19 “ And the Lord saw it, and rejected - from indignation at His sons and daughters . ” The object to “saw” may easily be supplied from the context: He saw the idolatry of the people, and rejected those who followed idols, and that because of indignation that His sons and daughters practised such abominations.

The expression “he saw” simply serves to bring out the causal link between the apostasy and the punishment. ויּנאץ has been very well rendered by Kamphausen , “He resolved upon rejection,” since Deu 32:20. clearly show that the rejection had only been resolved upon by God, and was not yet carried out. In what follows, Moses puts this resolution into the mouth of the Lord Himself.

Deu 32:19-33 For this foolish apostasy the Lord would severely visit His people. This visitation is represented indeed in Deu 32:19, as the consequence of apostasy that had taken place, - not, however, as a punishment already inflicted, but simply as a resolution which god had formed and would carry out, - an evident proof that we have no song here belonging to the time when God visited with severe punishments the Israelites who had fallen into idolatry.

In Deu 32:19 the determination to reject the degenerate children is announced, and in Deu 32:20-22 this is still further defined and explained. Deu 32:19 “ And the Lord saw it, and rejected - from indignation at His sons and daughters . ” The object to “saw” may easily be supplied from the context: He saw the idolatry of the people, and rejected those who followed idols, and that because of indignation that His sons and daughters practised such abominations.

The expression “he saw” simply serves to bring out the causal link between the apostasy and the punishment. ויּנאץ has been very well rendered by Kamphausen , “He resolved upon rejection,” since Deu 32:20. clearly show that the rejection had only been resolved upon by God, and was not yet carried out. In what follows, Moses puts this resolution into the mouth of the Lord Himself.

Deu 32:19-33 For this foolish apostasy the Lord would severely visit His people. This visitation is represented indeed in Deu 32:19, as the consequence of apostasy that had taken place, - not, however, as a punishment already inflicted, but simply as a resolution which god had formed and would carry out, - an evident proof that we have no song here belonging to the time when God visited with severe punishments the Israelites who had fallen into idolatry.

In Deu 32:19 the determination to reject the degenerate children is announced, and in Deu 32:20-22 this is still further defined and explained. Deu 32:19 “ And the Lord saw it, and rejected - from indignation at His sons and daughters . ” The object to “saw” may easily be supplied from the context: He saw the idolatry of the people, and rejected those who followed idols, and that because of indignation that His sons and daughters practised such abominations.

The expression “he saw” simply serves to bring out the causal link between the apostasy and the punishment. ויּנאץ has been very well rendered by Kamphausen , “He resolved upon rejection,” since Deu 32:20. clearly show that the rejection had only been resolved upon by God, and was not yet carried out. In what follows, Moses puts this resolution into the mouth of the Lord Himself.

Deu 32:19-33 For this foolish apostasy the Lord would severely visit His people. This visitation is represented indeed in Deu 32:19, as the consequence of apostasy that had taken place, - not, however, as a punishment already inflicted, but simply as a resolution which god had formed and would carry out, - an evident proof that we have no song here belonging to the time when God visited with severe punishments the Israelites who had fallen into idolatry.

In Deu 32:19 the determination to reject the degenerate children is announced, and in Deu 32:20-22 this is still further defined and explained. Deu 32:19 “ And the Lord saw it, and rejected - from indignation at His sons and daughters . ” The object to “saw” may easily be supplied from the context: He saw the idolatry of the people, and rejected those who followed idols, and that because of indignation that His sons and daughters practised such abominations.

The expression “he saw” simply serves to bring out the causal link between the apostasy and the punishment. ויּנאץ has been very well rendered by Kamphausen , “He resolved upon rejection,” since Deu 32:20. clearly show that the rejection had only been resolved upon by God, and was not yet carried out. In what follows, Moses puts this resolution into the mouth of the Lord Himself.

Deu 32:19-33 For this foolish apostasy the Lord would severely visit His people. This visitation is represented indeed in Deu 32:19, as the consequence of apostasy that had taken place, - not, however, as a punishment already inflicted, but simply as a resolution which god had formed and would carry out, - an evident proof that we have no song here belonging to the time when God visited with severe punishments the Israelites who had fallen into idolatry.

In Deu 32:19 the determination to reject the degenerate children is announced, and in Deu 32:20-22 this is still further defined and explained. Deu 32:19 “ And the Lord saw it, and rejected - from indignation at His sons and daughters . ” The object to “saw” may easily be supplied from the context: He saw the idolatry of the people, and rejected those who followed idols, and that because of indignation that His sons and daughters practised such abominations.

The expression “he saw” simply serves to bring out the causal link between the apostasy and the punishment. ויּנאץ has been very well rendered by Kamphausen , “He resolved upon rejection,” since Deu 32:20. clearly show that the rejection had only been resolved upon by God, and was not yet carried out. In what follows, Moses puts this resolution into the mouth of the Lord Himself.

Deu 32:19-33 For this foolish apostasy the Lord would severely visit His people. This visitation is represented indeed in Deu 32:19, as the consequence of apostasy that had taken place, - not, however, as a punishment already inflicted, but simply as a resolution which god had formed and would carry out, - an evident proof that we have no song here belonging to the time when God visited with severe punishments the Israelites who had fallen into idolatry.

In Deu 32:19 the determination to reject the degenerate children is announced, and in Deu 32:20-22 this is still further defined and explained. Deu 32:19 “ And the Lord saw it, and rejected - from indignation at His sons and daughters . ” The object to “saw” may easily be supplied from the context: He saw the idolatry of the people, and rejected those who followed idols, and that because of indignation that His sons and daughters practised such abominations.

The expression “he saw” simply serves to bring out the causal link between the apostasy and the punishment. ויּנאץ has been very well rendered by Kamphausen , “He resolved upon rejection,” since Deu 32:20. clearly show that the rejection had only been resolved upon by God, and was not yet carried out. In what follows, Moses puts this resolution into the mouth of the Lord Himself.

Deu 32:34 “ Is not this hidden with Me, sealed up in My treasuries? ” The allusion in this verse has been disputed; many refer it to what goes before, others to what follows after. There is some truth in both. The verse forms the transition, closing what precedes, and introducing what follows. The assertion that the figure of preserving in the treasuries precludes the supposition that “ this ” refers to what follows, cannot be sustained.

For although in Hos 13:12, and Job 14:17, the binding and sealing of sins in a bundle are spoken of, yet it is very evident from Psa 139:16; Mal 3:16, and Dan 7:10, that not only the evil doings of men, but their days generally, i. e. , not only their deeds, but the things which happen to them, are written in a book before God. O. v. Gerlach has explained it correctly: “All these things have been decreed long ago; their coming is infallibly certain.

” “ This ” includes not only the sins of the nation, but also the judgments of God. The apostasy of Israel, as well as the consequent punishment, is laid up with God - sealed up in His treasuries - and therefore they have not yet actually occurred: an evident proof that we have prophecy before us, and not the description of an apostasy that had already taken place, and of the punishment inflicted in consequence.

The ἁπ. λεγ. כּמס in this connection signifies to lay up, preserve, conceal, although the etymology is disputed. The figure in the second hemistich is not taken from secret archives, but from treasuries or stores, in which whatever was to be preserved was to be laid up, to be taken out in due time.

Deu 32:35-36 “ Vengeance is Mine, and retribution for the time when their foot shall shake: for the day of their destruction is near, and that which is determined for them cometh hastily. For the Lord will judge His people, and have compassion upon His servants, when He seeth that every hold has disappeared, and the fettered and the free are gone . ” - The Lord will punish the sins of His people in due time.

“Vengeance is Mine:” it belongs to Me, it is My part to inflict. שׁלּם is a noun here for the usual שׁלּוּם, retribution (vid. , Ewald , §156, b .) The shaking of the foot is a figure representing the commencement of a fall, or of stumbling vid. , Psa 38:17; Psa 94:18). The thought in this clause is not, “At or towards the time when their misfortune begins, I will plunge them into the greatest calamity,” as Kamphausen infers from the fact that the shaking denotes the beginning of the calamity; and yet the vengeance can only be completed by plunging them into calamity, - a though which he justly regards as unsuitable, though he resorts to emendations of the text in consequence.

But the supposed unsuitability vanishes, if we simply regard the words, “Vengeance is Mine, and retribution,” not as the mere announcement of a quality founded in the nature of God, and residing in God Himself, but as an expression of the divine energy, with this signification, I will manifest Myself as an avenger and recompenser, when their foot shall shake. Then what had hitherto been hidden with God, lay sealed up as it were in His treasures, should come to light, and be made manifest to the sinful nation.

God would not delay in this; for the day of their destruction was near. איד signifies misfortune, and sometimes utter destruction. The primary meaning of the word cannot be determined with certainty. That it does not mean utter destruction, we may see from the parallel clause. “The things that shall come upon them,” await them, or are prepared for them, are, according to the context, both in Deu 32:26 and also in Deu 32:36.

, not destruction, but simply a calamity or penal judgment that would bring them near to utter destruction. Again, these words do not relate to the punishment of “the wicked deeds of the inhuman horde,” or the vengeance of God upon the enemies of Israel ( Ewald , Kamphausen ), but to the vengeance or retribution which God would inflict upon Israel. This is evident, apart from what has been said above against the application of Deu 32:33, Deu 32:34, to the heathen, simply from Deu 32:36 , which unquestionably refers to Israel, and has been so interpreted by every commentator.

- The first clause is quoted in Rom 12:19 and Heb 10:30, in the former to warn against self-revenge, in the latter to show the energy with which God will punish those who fall away from the faith, in connection with Deu 32:36 , “the Lord will judge His people. ” - In Deu 32:36 the reason is given for the thought in Deu 32:35. דּין is mostly taken here in the sense of “procure right,” help to right, which it certainly often has (e.

g. , Psa 54:3), and which is not to be excluded here; but this by no means exhausts the idea of the word. The parallel יתנחם does not compel us to drop the idea of punishment, which is involved in the judging; for it is a question whether the two clauses are perfectly synonymous. “Judging His people” did not consist merely in the fact that Jehovah punished the heathen who oppressed Israel, but also in the fact that He punished the wicked in Israel who oppressed the righteous.

“His people” is no doubt Israel as a whole (as, for example, in Isa 1:3), but this whole was composed of righteous and wicked, and God could only help the righteous to justice by punishing and destroying the wicked. In this way the judging of His people became compassion towards His servants. “His servants” are the righteous, or, speaking more correctly, all who in the time of judgment are found to be the servants of God, and are saved.

Because Israel was His nation, the Lord judged it in such a manner as not to destroy it, but simply to punish it for its sins, and to have compassion upon His servants, when He saw that the strength of the nation was gone. יד, the hand, with which one grasps and works, is a figure employed to denote power and might (vid. , Isa 28:2). אזל, to run out, or come to an end (1Sa 9:7; Job 14:11).

The meaning is, “when every support is gone,” when all the rotten props of its might, upon which it has rested, are broken ( Ewald ). The noun אפס, cessation, disappearance, takes the place of a verb. The words עזוּב עצוּר are a proverbial phrase used to denote all men, as we may clearly see from 1Ki 14:10; 1Ki 21:21; 2Ki 4:8; 2Ki 14:6. The literal meaning of this form, however, cannot be decided with certainty.

The explanation given by L. de Dieu is the most plausible one, viz. , the man who is fettered, restrained, i. e. , married, and the single or free. For עזוּב the meaning caelebs is established by the Arabic, though the Arabic can hardly be appealed to as proving that עצוּר means paterfamilias , as this meaning, which Roediger assigns to the Arabic word, is founded upon a mistaken interpretation of a passage in Kamus .

Deu 32:35-36 “ Vengeance is Mine, and retribution for the time when their foot shall shake: for the day of their destruction is near, and that which is determined for them cometh hastily. For the Lord will judge His people, and have compassion upon His servants, when He seeth that every hold has disappeared, and the fettered and the free are gone . ” - The Lord will punish the sins of His people in due time.

“Vengeance is Mine:” it belongs to Me, it is My part to inflict. שׁלּם is a noun here for the usual שׁלּוּם, retribution (vid. , Ewald , §156, b .) The shaking of the foot is a figure representing the commencement of a fall, or of stumbling vid. , Psa 38:17; Psa 94:18). The thought in this clause is not, “At or towards the time when their misfortune begins, I will plunge them into the greatest calamity,” as Kamphausen infers from the fact that the shaking denotes the beginning of the calamity; and yet the vengeance can only be completed by plunging them into calamity, - a though which he justly regards as unsuitable, though he resorts to emendations of the text in consequence.

But the supposed unsuitability vanishes, if we simply regard the words, “Vengeance is Mine, and retribution,” not as the mere announcement of a quality founded in the nature of God, and residing in God Himself, but as an expression of the divine energy, with this signification, I will manifest Myself as an avenger and recompenser, when their foot shall shake. Then what had hitherto been hidden with God, lay sealed up as it were in His treasures, should come to light, and be made manifest to the sinful nation.

God would not delay in this; for the day of their destruction was near. איד signifies misfortune, and sometimes utter destruction. The primary meaning of the word cannot be determined with certainty. That it does not mean utter destruction, we may see from the parallel clause. “The things that shall come upon them,” await them, or are prepared for them, are, according to the context, both in Deu 32:26 and also in Deu 32:36.

, not destruction, but simply a calamity or penal judgment that would bring them near to utter destruction. Again, these words do not relate to the punishment of “the wicked deeds of the inhuman horde,” or the vengeance of God upon the enemies of Israel ( Ewald , Kamphausen ), but to the vengeance or retribution which God would inflict upon Israel. This is evident, apart from what has been said above against the application of Deu 32:33, Deu 32:34, to the heathen, simply from Deu 32:36 , which unquestionably refers to Israel, and has been so interpreted by every commentator.

- The first clause is quoted in Rom 12:19 and Heb 10:30, in the former to warn against self-revenge, in the latter to show the energy with which God will punish those who fall away from the faith, in connection with Deu 32:36 , “the Lord will judge His people. ” - In Deu 32:36 the reason is given for the thought in Deu 32:35. דּין is mostly taken here in the sense of “procure right,” help to right, which it certainly often has (e.

g. , Psa 54:3), and which is not to be excluded here; but this by no means exhausts the idea of the word. The parallel יתנחם does not compel us to drop the idea of punishment, which is involved in the judging; for it is a question whether the two clauses are perfectly synonymous. “Judging His people” did not consist merely in the fact that Jehovah punished the heathen who oppressed Israel, but also in the fact that He punished the wicked in Israel who oppressed the righteous.

“His people” is no doubt Israel as a whole (as, for example, in Isa 1:3), but this whole was composed of righteous and wicked, and God could only help the righteous to justice by punishing and destroying the wicked. In this way the judging of His people became compassion towards His servants. “His servants” are the righteous, or, speaking more correctly, all who in the time of judgment are found to be the servants of God, and are saved.

Because Israel was His nation, the Lord judged it in such a manner as not to destroy it, but simply to punish it for its sins, and to have compassion upon His servants, when He saw that the strength of the nation was gone. יד, the hand, with which one grasps and works, is a figure employed to denote power and might (vid. , Isa 28:2). אזל, to run out, or come to an end (1Sa 9:7; Job 14:11).

The meaning is, “when every support is gone,” when all the rotten props of its might, upon which it has rested, are broken ( Ewald ). The noun אפס, cessation, disappearance, takes the place of a verb. The words עזוּב עצוּר are a proverbial phrase used to denote all men, as we may clearly see from 1Ki 14:10; 1Ki 21:21; 2Ki 4:8; 2Ki 14:6. The literal meaning of this form, however, cannot be decided with certainty.

The explanation given by L. de Dieu is the most plausible one, viz. , the man who is fettered, restrained, i. e. , married, and the single or free. For עזוּב the meaning caelebs is established by the Arabic, though the Arabic can hardly be appealed to as proving that עצוּר means paterfamilias , as this meaning, which Roediger assigns to the Arabic word, is founded upon a mistaken interpretation of a passage in Kamus .

Deu 32:37-38 The Lord would then convince His people of the worthlessness of idols and the folly of idolatry, and bring it to admit the fact that He was God alone. “ Then will He say, Where are their gods, the rock in whom they trusted; who consumed the fat of their burnt-offerings, the wine of their libations? Let them rise up and help you, that there may be a shelter over you!

See now that I, I am it, and there is no God beside Me: I kill, and make alive; I smite in pieces, and I heal; and there is no one who delivers out of My hand . ” ואמר might be taken impersonally, as it has been by Luther and others, “men will say;” but as it is certainly Jehovah who is speaking in Deu 32:39, and what Jehovah says there is simply a deduction from what is addressed to the people in Deu 32:37 and Deu 32:38, there can hardly be any doubt that Jehovah is speaking in Deu 32:37, Deu 32:38, as well as in Deu 32:34, Deu 32:35, and therefore that Moses simply distinguishes himself from Jehovah in Deu 32:36, when explaining the reason for the judgment foretold by the Lord.

The expression “ their gods,” relates, not to the heathen, but to the Israelites, upon whom the judgment had fallen. The worthlessness of their gods had become manifest, namely, of the strange gods or idols, which the Israelites had preferred to the living God (vid. , cf. Deu 32:16, Deu 32:17), and to which they had brought their sacrifices and drink-offerings.

In Deu 32:38, אשׁר is the subject, - the gods, who consumed the fat of the sacrifices offered to them by their worshippers (the foolish Israelites), - and is not to be taken as the relative with זבחימו, as the lxx, Vulg . , and Luther have rendered it, viz. , “whose sacrifices they (the Israelites) ate,” which neither suits the context nor the word חלב (fat), which denotes the fat portions of the sacrificial animals that were burned upon the altar, and therefore presented to God.

The wine of the drink-offerings was also poured out upon the altar, and thus given up to the deity worshipped. The handing over of the sacrificial portions to the deity is described here with holy irony, as though the gods themselves consumed the fat of the slain offerings, and drank the wine poured out for them, for the purpose of expression this thought: “The gods, whom ye entertained so well, and provided so abundantly with sacrifices, let them now arise and help you, and thus make themselves clearly known to you.

” The address here takes the form of a direct appeal to the idolaters themselves; and in the last clause the imperative is introduced instead of the optative, to express the thought as sharply as possible, that men need the protection of God, and are warranted in expecting it from the gods they worship: “let there be a shelter over you. ” Sithrah for sether , a shelter or defence.

Deu 32:37-38 The Lord would then convince His people of the worthlessness of idols and the folly of idolatry, and bring it to admit the fact that He was God alone. “ Then will He say, Where are their gods, the rock in whom they trusted; who consumed the fat of their burnt-offerings, the wine of their libations? Let them rise up and help you, that there may be a shelter over you!

See now that I, I am it, and there is no God beside Me: I kill, and make alive; I smite in pieces, and I heal; and there is no one who delivers out of My hand . ” ואמר might be taken impersonally, as it has been by Luther and others, “men will say;” but as it is certainly Jehovah who is speaking in Deu 32:39, and what Jehovah says there is simply a deduction from what is addressed to the people in Deu 32:37 and Deu 32:38, there can hardly be any doubt that Jehovah is speaking in Deu 32:37, Deu 32:38, as well as in Deu 32:34, Deu 32:35, and therefore that Moses simply distinguishes himself from Jehovah in Deu 32:36, when explaining the reason for the judgment foretold by the Lord.

The expression “ their gods,” relates, not to the heathen, but to the Israelites, upon whom the judgment had fallen. The worthlessness of their gods had become manifest, namely, of the strange gods or idols, which the Israelites had preferred to the living God (vid. , cf. Deu 32:16, Deu 32:17), and to which they had brought their sacrifices and drink-offerings.

In Deu 32:38, אשׁר is the subject, - the gods, who consumed the fat of the sacrifices offered to them by their worshippers (the foolish Israelites), - and is not to be taken as the relative with זבחימו, as the lxx, Vulg . , and Luther have rendered it, viz. , “whose sacrifices they (the Israelites) ate,” which neither suits the context nor the word חלב (fat), which denotes the fat portions of the sacrificial animals that were burned upon the altar, and therefore presented to God.

The wine of the drink-offerings was also poured out upon the altar, and thus given up to the deity worshipped. The handing over of the sacrificial portions to the deity is described here with holy irony, as though the gods themselves consumed the fat of the slain offerings, and drank the wine poured out for them, for the purpose of expression this thought: “The gods, whom ye entertained so well, and provided so abundantly with sacrifices, let them now arise and help you, and thus make themselves clearly known to you.

” The address here takes the form of a direct appeal to the idolaters themselves; and in the last clause the imperative is introduced instead of the optative, to express the thought as sharply as possible, that men need the protection of God, and are warranted in expecting it from the gods they worship: “let there be a shelter over you. ” Sithrah for sether , a shelter or defence.

Deu 32:39 The appeal to their own experience of the worthlessness of idols is followed by a demand that they should acknowledge Jehovah as the only true God. The repetition of “I” is emphatic: “I, I only it,” as an expression of being; I am it, ἐγώ εἰμι, Joh 8:24; Joh 18:5. The predicate Elohim (vid. , 2Sa 7:28; Isa 37:16) is omitted, because it is contained in the thought itself, and moreover is clearly expressed in the parallel clause which follows, “there is not a God beside Me.

” Jehovah manifests himself in His doings, which Israel had experienced already, and still continued to experience. He kills and makes alive, etc. , i. e. , He has the power of life and death. These words do not refer to the immortality of the soul, but to the restoration of life of the people of Israel, which God had delivered up to death (so 1Sa 2:6; 2Ki 5:7; cf.

Isa 26:19; Hos 13:10; Wisd. 16:13; Tobit 13:2). This thought, and the following one, which is equally consolatory, that God smites and heals again, are frequently repeated by the prophets (vid. , Hos 6:1; Isa 30:26; Isa 57:17-18; Jer 17:14). None can deliver out of His hand (vid. , Isa 43:13; Hos 5:14; Hos 2:12).

Deu 32:40-42 The Lord will show Himself as the only true God, who slays and makes alive, etc. He will take vengeance upon His enemies, avenge the blood of His servants, and expiate His land, His people. With this promise, which is full of comfort for all the servants of the Lord, the ode concludes. “ For I lift up My hand to heaven, and say, As truly as I live for ever, if I have sharpened My flashing sword, and My hand grasps for judgment, I will repay vengeance to My adversaries, and requite My haters.

I will make My arrows drunk with blood, and My sword will eat flesh; with the blood of the slain and prisoners, with the hairy head of the foe . ” Lifting up the hand to heaven was a gesture by which a person taking an oath invoked God, who is enthroned in heaven, as a witness of the truth and an avenger of falsehood (Gen 14:22). Here, as in Exo 6:8 and Num 14:30, it is used anthropomorphically of God, who is in heaven, and can swear by no greater than Himself (vid.

, Isa 45:23; Jer 22:5; Heb 6:17). The oath follows in Deu 32:41 and Deu 32:42. אם, however, is not the particle employed in swearing, which has a negative meaning (vid. , Gen 14:23), but is conditional, and introduces the protasis. As the avenger of His people upon their foes, the Lord is represented as a warlike hero, who whets His sword, and has a quiver filled with arrows (as in Psa 7:13).

“As long as the Church has to make war upon the world, the flesh, and the devil, it needs a warlike head” ( Schultz ). חרב בּרק, the flash of the sword, i. e. , the flashing sword (vid. , Gen 3:24; Nah 3:3; Hab 3:11). In the next clause, “and My hand grasps judgment,” mishpat (judgment) does not mean punishment or destruction hurled by God upon His foes, nor the weapons employed in the execution of judgment, but judgment is introduced poetically as the thing which God takes in hand for the purpose of carrying it out.

נקם השׁיב, to lead back vengeance, i. e. , to repay it. Punishment is retribution for evil done. By the enemies and haters of Jehovah, we need not understand simply the heathen enemies of the Israelites, for the ungodly in Israel were enemies of God quite as much as the ungodly heathen. If it is evident from Deu 32:25-27, where God is spoken of as punishing Israel to the utmost when it had fallen into idolatry, but not utterly destroying it, that the punishment which God would inflict would also fall upon the heathen, who would have made an end of Israel; it is no less apparent from Deu 32:37 and Deu 32:38, especially from the appeal in Deu 32:38, Let your idols arise and help you (Deu 32:38), which is addressed, as all admit, to the idolatrous Israelites, and not to the heathen, that those Israelites who had made worthless idols their rock would be exposed to the vengeance and retribution of the Lord.

In Deu 32:42 the figure of the warrior is revived, and the judgment of God is carried out still further under this figure. Of the four different clauses in this verse, the third is related to the first, and the fourth to the second. God would make His arrows drunk with the blood not only of the slain, but also of the captives, whose lives are generally spared, but were not to be spared in this judgment.

This sword would eat flesh of the hairy head of the foe. The edge of the sword is represented poetically as the mouth with which it eats (2Sa 2:26; 2Sa 18:8, etc.) ; “the sword is said to devour bodies when it slays them by piercing” ( Ges. thes. p. 1088). פּרעות, from פּרע, a luxuriant, uncut growth of hair (Num 6:5; see at Lev 10:6). The hairy head is not a figure used to denote the “wild and cruel foe” ( Knobel ), but a luxuriant abundance of strength, and the indomitable pride of the foe, who had grown fat and forgotten his Creator (Deu 32:15).

This explanation is confirmed by Psa 68:22; whereas the rendering ἄρχοντες, princes, leaders, which is given in the Septuagint, has no foundation in the language itself, and no tenable support in Jdg 5:2.

Deu 32:40-42 The Lord will show Himself as the only true God, who slays and makes alive, etc. He will take vengeance upon His enemies, avenge the blood of His servants, and expiate His land, His people. With this promise, which is full of comfort for all the servants of the Lord, the ode concludes. “ For I lift up My hand to heaven, and say, As truly as I live for ever, if I have sharpened My flashing sword, and My hand grasps for judgment, I will repay vengeance to My adversaries, and requite My haters.

I will make My arrows drunk with blood, and My sword will eat flesh; with the blood of the slain and prisoners, with the hairy head of the foe . ” Lifting up the hand to heaven was a gesture by which a person taking an oath invoked God, who is enthroned in heaven, as a witness of the truth and an avenger of falsehood (Gen 14:22). Here, as in Exo 6:8 and Num 14:30, it is used anthropomorphically of God, who is in heaven, and can swear by no greater than Himself (vid.

, Isa 45:23; Jer 22:5; Heb 6:17). The oath follows in Deu 32:41 and Deu 32:42. אם, however, is not the particle employed in swearing, which has a negative meaning (vid. , Gen 14:23), but is conditional, and introduces the protasis. As the avenger of His people upon their foes, the Lord is represented as a warlike hero, who whets His sword, and has a quiver filled with arrows (as in Psa 7:13).

“As long as the Church has to make war upon the world, the flesh, and the devil, it needs a warlike head” ( Schultz ). חרב בּרק, the flash of the sword, i. e. , the flashing sword (vid. , Gen 3:24; Nah 3:3; Hab 3:11). In the next clause, “and My hand grasps judgment,” mishpat (judgment) does not mean punishment or destruction hurled by God upon His foes, nor the weapons employed in the execution of judgment, but judgment is introduced poetically as the thing which God takes in hand for the purpose of carrying it out.

נקם השׁיב, to lead back vengeance, i. e. , to repay it. Punishment is retribution for evil done. By the enemies and haters of Jehovah, we need not understand simply the heathen enemies of the Israelites, for the ungodly in Israel were enemies of God quite as much as the ungodly heathen. If it is evident from Deu 32:25-27, where God is spoken of as punishing Israel to the utmost when it had fallen into idolatry, but not utterly destroying it, that the punishment which God would inflict would also fall upon the heathen, who would have made an end of Israel; it is no less apparent from Deu 32:37 and Deu 32:38, especially from the appeal in Deu 32:38, Let your idols arise and help you (Deu 32:38), which is addressed, as all admit, to the idolatrous Israelites, and not to the heathen, that those Israelites who had made worthless idols their rock would be exposed to the vengeance and retribution of the Lord.

In Deu 32:42 the figure of the warrior is revived, and the judgment of God is carried out still further under this figure. Of the four different clauses in this verse, the third is related to the first, and the fourth to the second. God would make His arrows drunk with the blood not only of the slain, but also of the captives, whose lives are generally spared, but were not to be spared in this judgment.

This sword would eat flesh of the hairy head of the foe. The edge of the sword is represented poetically as the mouth with which it eats (2Sa 2:26; 2Sa 18:8, etc.) ; “the sword is said to devour bodies when it slays them by piercing” ( Ges. thes. p. 1088). פּרעות, from פּרע, a luxuriant, uncut growth of hair (Num 6:5; see at Lev 10:6). The hairy head is not a figure used to denote the “wild and cruel foe” ( Knobel ), but a luxuriant abundance of strength, and the indomitable pride of the foe, who had grown fat and forgotten his Creator (Deu 32:15).

This explanation is confirmed by Psa 68:22; whereas the rendering ἄρχοντες, princes, leaders, which is given in the Septuagint, has no foundation in the language itself, and no tenable support in Jdg 5:2.

Deu 32:40-42 The Lord will show Himself as the only true God, who slays and makes alive, etc. He will take vengeance upon His enemies, avenge the blood of His servants, and expiate His land, His people. With this promise, which is full of comfort for all the servants of the Lord, the ode concludes. “ For I lift up My hand to heaven, and say, As truly as I live for ever, if I have sharpened My flashing sword, and My hand grasps for judgment, I will repay vengeance to My adversaries, and requite My haters.

I will make My arrows drunk with blood, and My sword will eat flesh; with the blood of the slain and prisoners, with the hairy head of the foe . ” Lifting up the hand to heaven was a gesture by which a person taking an oath invoked God, who is enthroned in heaven, as a witness of the truth and an avenger of falsehood (Gen 14:22). Here, as in Exo 6:8 and Num 14:30, it is used anthropomorphically of God, who is in heaven, and can swear by no greater than Himself (vid.

, Isa 45:23; Jer 22:5; Heb 6:17). The oath follows in Deu 32:41 and Deu 32:42. אם, however, is not the particle employed in swearing, which has a negative meaning (vid. , Gen 14:23), but is conditional, and introduces the protasis. As the avenger of His people upon their foes, the Lord is represented as a warlike hero, who whets His sword, and has a quiver filled with arrows (as in Psa 7:13).

“As long as the Church has to make war upon the world, the flesh, and the devil, it needs a warlike head” ( Schultz ). חרב בּרק, the flash of the sword, i. e. , the flashing sword (vid. , Gen 3:24; Nah 3:3; Hab 3:11). In the next clause, “and My hand grasps judgment,” mishpat (judgment) does not mean punishment or destruction hurled by God upon His foes, nor the weapons employed in the execution of judgment, but judgment is introduced poetically as the thing which God takes in hand for the purpose of carrying it out.

נקם השׁיב, to lead back vengeance, i. e. , to repay it. Punishment is retribution for evil done. By the enemies and haters of Jehovah, we need not understand simply the heathen enemies of the Israelites, for the ungodly in Israel were enemies of God quite as much as the ungodly heathen. If it is evident from Deu 32:25-27, where God is spoken of as punishing Israel to the utmost when it had fallen into idolatry, but not utterly destroying it, that the punishment which God would inflict would also fall upon the heathen, who would have made an end of Israel; it is no less apparent from Deu 32:37 and Deu 32:38, especially from the appeal in Deu 32:38, Let your idols arise and help you (Deu 32:38), which is addressed, as all admit, to the idolatrous Israelites, and not to the heathen, that those Israelites who had made worthless idols their rock would be exposed to the vengeance and retribution of the Lord.

In Deu 32:42 the figure of the warrior is revived, and the judgment of God is carried out still further under this figure. Of the four different clauses in this verse, the third is related to the first, and the fourth to the second. God would make His arrows drunk with the blood not only of the slain, but also of the captives, whose lives are generally spared, but were not to be spared in this judgment.

This sword would eat flesh of the hairy head of the foe. The edge of the sword is represented poetically as the mouth with which it eats (2Sa 2:26; 2Sa 18:8, etc.) ; “the sword is said to devour bodies when it slays them by piercing” ( Ges. thes. p. 1088). פּרעות, from פּרע, a luxuriant, uncut growth of hair (Num 6:5; see at Lev 10:6). The hairy head is not a figure used to denote the “wild and cruel foe” ( Knobel ), but a luxuriant abundance of strength, and the indomitable pride of the foe, who had grown fat and forgotten his Creator (Deu 32:15).

This explanation is confirmed by Psa 68:22; whereas the rendering ἄρχοντες, princes, leaders, which is given in the Septuagint, has no foundation in the language itself, and no tenable support in Jdg 5:2.

Deu 32:43 For this retribution which God accomplishes upon His enemies, the nations were to praise the people of the Lord. As this song commenced with an appeal to heaven and earth to give glory to the Lord (Deu 32:1-3), so it very suitably closes with an appeal to the heathen to rejoice with His people on account of the acts of the Lord. “Rejoice, nations, over His people; for He avenges the blood of His servants, and repays vengeance to His adversaries, and so expiates His land, His people.

” “His people” is an accusative, and not in apposition to nations in the sense of “nations which are His people. ” For, apart from the fact that such a combination would be unnatural, the thought that the heathen had become the people of God is nowhere distinctly expressed in the song (not even in Deu 32:21); nor is the way even so prepared for it as that we could expect it here, although the appeal to the nations to rejoice with His people on account of what God had done involves the Messianic idea, that all nations will come to the knowledge of the Lord (vid.

, Psa 47:2; Psa 66:8; Psa 67:4). - The reason for this rejoicing is the judgment through which the Lord avenges the blood of His servants and repays His foes. As the enemies of God are not the heathen as such (see at Deu 32:41), so the servants of Jehovah are not the nation of Israel as a whole, but the faithful servants whom the Lord had at all times among His people, and who were persecuted, oppressed, and put to death by the ungodly.

By this the land was defiled, covered with blood-guiltiness, so that the Lord was obliged to interpose as a judge, to put an end to the ways of the wicked, and to expiate His land, His people, i. e. , to wipe out the guilt which rested upon the land and people, by the punishment of the wicked, and the extermination of idolatry and ungodliness, and to sanctify and glorify the land and nation (vid.

, Isa 1:27; Isa 4:4-5). In Deu 32:44-47 it is stated that Moses, with Joshua, spake the song to the people; and on finishing this rehearsal, once more impressed upon the hearts of the people the importance of observing all the commandments of God. This account proceeds from the author of the supplement to the Thorah of Moses, who inserted the song in the book of the law.

This explains the name Hoshea, instead of Jehoshuah (Joshua), which Moses had given to his servant (Num 13:8, Num 13:16), and invariably uses (compare Deu 31:3, Deu 31:7, Deu 31:14, Deu 31:23, with Deu 1:38; Deu 3:21, Deu 3:28, and the exposition of Num 13:16). - On Deu 32:46, vid. , Deu 6:7 and Deu 11:19; and on Deu 32:47, vid. , Deu 30:20.

Deu 32:48-52 “ That self-same day ,” viz. , the day upon which Moses had rehearsed the song to the children of Israel, the Lord renewed the announcement of his death, by repeating the command already given to him (Num 27:12-14) to ascend Mount Nebo, there to survey the land of Canaan, and then to be gathered unto his people. In form, this repetition differs from the previous announcement, partly in the fact that the situation of Mount Nebo is more fully described (in the land of Moab, etc.

, as in Deu 1:5; Deu 29:1), and partly in the continual use of the imperative, and a few other trifling points. These differences may all be explained from the fact that the account here was not written by Moses himself.

Deu 32:48-52 “ That self-same day ,” viz. , the day upon which Moses had rehearsed the song to the children of Israel, the Lord renewed the announcement of his death, by repeating the command already given to him (Num 27:12-14) to ascend Mount Nebo, there to survey the land of Canaan, and then to be gathered unto his people. In form, this repetition differs from the previous announcement, partly in the fact that the situation of Mount Nebo is more fully described (in the land of Moab, etc.

, as in Deu 1:5; Deu 29:1), and partly in the continual use of the imperative, and a few other trifling points. These differences may all be explained from the fact that the account here was not written by Moses himself.

Deu 32:48-52 “ That self-same day ,” viz. , the day upon which Moses had rehearsed the song to the children of Israel, the Lord renewed the announcement of his death, by repeating the command already given to him (Num 27:12-14) to ascend Mount Nebo, there to survey the land of Canaan, and then to be gathered unto his people. In form, this repetition differs from the previous announcement, partly in the fact that the situation of Mount Nebo is more fully described (in the land of Moab, etc.

, as in Deu 1:5; Deu 29:1), and partly in the continual use of the imperative, and a few other trifling points. These differences may all be explained from the fact that the account here was not written by Moses himself.

Deu 32:48-52 “ That self-same day ,” viz. , the day upon which Moses had rehearsed the song to the children of Israel, the Lord renewed the announcement of his death, by repeating the command already given to him (Num 27:12-14) to ascend Mount Nebo, there to survey the land of Canaan, and then to be gathered unto his people. In form, this repetition differs from the previous announcement, partly in the fact that the situation of Mount Nebo is more fully described (in the land of Moab, etc.

, as in Deu 1:5; Deu 29:1), and partly in the continual use of the imperative, and a few other trifling points. These differences may all be explained from the fact that the account here was not written by Moses himself.

Deu 32:48-52 “ That self-same day ,” viz. , the day upon which Moses had rehearsed the song to the children of Israel, the Lord renewed the announcement of his death, by repeating the command already given to him (Num 27:12-14) to ascend Mount Nebo, there to survey the land of Canaan, and then to be gathered unto his people. In form, this repetition differs from the previous announcement, partly in the fact that the situation of Mount Nebo is more fully described (in the land of Moab, etc.

, as in Deu 1:5; Deu 29:1), and partly in the continual use of the imperative, and a few other trifling points. These differences may all be explained from the fact that the account here was not written by Moses himself.

Deu 33:1 Before ascending Mount Nebo to depart this life, Moses took leave of his people, the tribes of Israel, in the blessing which is very fittingly inserted in the book of the law between the divine announcement of his approaching death and the account of the death itself, as being the last words of the departing man of God. The blessing opens with an allusion to the solemn conclusion of the covenant and giving of the law at Sinai, by which the Lord became King of Israel, to indicate at the outset the source from which all blessings must flow to Israel (Deu 33:2-5).

Then follow the separate blessings upon the different tribes (vv. 6-25). And the whole concludes with an utterance of praise to the Lord, as the mighty support and refuge of His people in their conflicts with all their foes (Deu 33:26-29). This blessing was not written down by Moses himself, like the song in ch. 32, but simply pronounced in the presence of the assembled tribes.

This is evident, not only from the fact that there is nothing said about its being committed to writing, but also from the heading in Deu 33:1, where the editor clearly distinguishes himself from Moses, by speaking of Moses as “the man of God,” like Caleb in Jos 14:6, and the author of the heading to the prayer of Moses in Psa 90:1. In later times, “man of God” was the title usually given to a prophet (vid.

, 1Sa 9:6; 1Ki 12:22; 1Ki 13:14, etc.) , as a man who enjoyed direct intercourse with God, and received supernatural revelations from Him. Nevertheless, we have Moses’ own words, not only in the blessings upon the several tribes (vv. 6-25), but also in the introduction and conclusion of the blessing (Deu 33:2-5 and Deu 33:26-29). The introductory words before the blessings, such as “and this for Judah” in Deu 33:7, “and to Levi he said” (Deu 33:8), and the similar formulas in Deu 33:12, Deu 33:13, Deu 33:18, Deu 33:20, Deu 33:22, Deu 33:23, and Deu 33:24, are the only additions made by the editor who inserted the blessing in the Pentateuch.

The arrangement of the blessings in their present order is probably also his work. It neither accords with the respective order of the sons of Jacob, nor with the distribution of the tribes in the camp, nor with the situation of their possessions in the land of Canaan. It is true that Reuben stands first as the eldest son of Jacob; but Simeon is then passed over, and Judah, to whom the dying patriarch bequeathed the birthright which he withdrew from Reuben, stands next; and then Levi, the priestly tribe.

Then follow Benjamin and Joseph, the sons of Rachel; Zebulun and Issachar, the last sons of Leah (in both cases the younger before the elder); and lastly, the tribes descended from the sons of the maids: Gad, the son of Zilpah; Dan and Naphtali, the sons of Bilhah; and finally, Asher, the second son of Zilpah. To discover the guiding principle in this arrangement, we must look to the blessings themselves, which indicate partly the position already obtained by each tribe, as a member of the whole nation, in the earthly kingdom of God, and partly the place which it was to reach and occupy in the further development of Israel in the future, not only in relation to the Lord, but also in relation to the other nations.

The only exception to this is the position assigned to Reuben, who occupies the foremost place as the first-born, notwithstanding his loss of the birthright. In accordance with this principle, the first place properly belonged to the tribe of Judah, who was raised into the position of lord over his brethren, and the second to the tribe of Levi, which had been set apart to take charge of the sacred things; whilst Benjamin is associated with Levi as the “beloved of the Lord.

” Then follow Joseph, as the representative of the might which Israel would manifest in conflict with the nations; Zebulun and Issachar, as the tribes which would become the channels of blessings to the nations through their wealth in earthly good; and lastly, the tribes descended from the sons of the maids, Asher being separated from his brother Gad, and placed at the end, in all probability simply because it was in the blessing promised to him that the earthly blessedness of the people of God was to receive its fullest manifestation. On comparing the blessing of Moses with that of Jacob, we should expect at the very outset, that if the blessings of these two men of God have really been preserved to us, and they are not later inventions, their contents would be essentially the same, so that the blessing of Moses would contain simply a confirmation of that of the dying patriarch, and would be founded upon it in various ways.

This is most conspicuous in the blessing upon Joseph; but there are also several other blessings in which it is unmistakeable, although Moses’ blessing is not surpassed in independence and originality by that of Jacob, either in its figures, its similes, or its thoughts. But the resemblance goes much deeper. It is manifest, for example, in the fact, that in the case of several of the tribes, Moses, like Jacob, does nothing more than expound their names, and on the ground of the peculiar characters expressed in the names, foretell to the tribes themselves their peculiar calling and future development within the covenant nation.

Consequently we have nowhere any special predictions, but simply prophetic glances at the future, depicted in a purely ideal manner, whilst in the case of most of the tribes the utter want of precise information concerning their future history prevents us from showing in what way they were fulfilled. The difference in the times at which the two blessings were uttered is also very apparent.

The existing circumstances from which Moses surveyed the future history of the tribes of Israel in the light of divine revelation, were greatly altered from the time when Jacob blessed the heads of the twelve tribes before his death, in the persons of his twelve sons. These tribes had now grown into a numerous people, with which the Lord had established the covenant that He had made with the patriarchs.

The curse of dispersion in Israel, which the patriarch had pronounced upon Simeon and Levi (Gen 49:5-7), had been changed into a blessing so far as Levi was concerned. The tribe of Levi had been entrusted with the “light and right” of the Lord, had been called to be the teacher of the rights and law of God in Israel, because it had preserved the covenant of the Lord, after the conclusion of the covenant at Sinai, even though it involved the denial of flesh and blood.

Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh had already received their inheritance, and the other tribes were to take possession of Canaan immediately. These circumstances formed the starting-point for the blessings of Moses, not only in the case of Levi and Gad, where they are expressly mentioned, but in that of the other tribes also, where they do not stand prominently forward, because for the most part Moses simply repeats the leading features of their future development in their promised inheritance, as already indicated in the blessing of Jacob, and “thus bore his testimony to the patriarch who anticipated him, that the spirit of his prophecy was truth” ( Ziegler , p.

159). In this peculiar characteristic of the blessing of Moses, we have the strongest proof of its authenticity, particularly in the fact that there is not the slightest trace of the historical circumstances of the nation at large and the separate tribes which were peculiar to the post-Mosaic times. The little ground that there is for the assertion which Knobel repeats, that the blessing betrays a closer acquaintance with the post-Mosaic times, such as Moses himself could not possibly have possessed, is sufficiently evident from the totally different expositions which have been given by the different commentators of the saying concerning Judah in Deu 33:7, which is adduced in proof of this.

Whilst Knobel finds the desire expressed in this verse on behalf of Judah, that David, who had fled from Saul, might return, obtain possession of the government, and raise his tribe into the royal tribe, Graf imagines that it expresses the longing of the kingdom of Judah for reunion with that of Israel; and Hoffmann and Maurer even trace an allusion to the inhabitants of Judea who were led into captivity along with Jehoiachin: one assumption being just as arbitrary and as much opposed to the text as the other. - All the objections brought against the genuineness of this blessing are founded upon an oversight or denial of its prophetic character, and upon untenable interpretations of particular expressions abstracted from it.

Not only is there no such thing in the whole blessing as a distinct reference to the peculiar historical circumstances of Israel which arose after Moses’ death, but there are some points in the picture which Moses has drawn of the tribes that it is impossible to recognise in these circumstances. Even Knobel from his naturalistic stand-point is obliged to admit, that no traces can be found in the song of any allusion to the calamities which fell upon the nation in the Syrian, Assyrian, and Chaldaean periods.

And hitherto it has proved equally impossible to point out any distinct allusion to the circumstances of the nation in the period of the judges. On the contrary, as Schultz observes, the speaker rises throughout to a height of ideality which it would have been no longer possible for any sacred author to reach, when the confusions and divisions of a later age had actually taken place.

He sees nothing of the calamities from without, which fell upon the nations again and again with destructive fury, nothing of the Canaanites who still remained in the midst of the Israelites, and nothing of the hostility of the different tribes towards one another; he simply sees how they work together in the most perfect harmony, each contributing his part to realize the lofty ideal of Israel. And again he grasps this ideal and the realization of it in so elementary a way, and so thoroughly from the outer side, without regard to any inward transformation and glorification, that he must have lived in a time preceding the prophetic age, and before the moral conflicts had taken place.

In the introduction Moses depicts the elevation of Israel into the nation of God, in its origin (Deu 33:2), its nature (Deu 33:3), its intention and its goal (Deu 33:4, Deu 33:5).

Deu 33:2 “ Jehovah came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; He shone from the mountains of Paran, and came out of holy myriads, at His right rays of fire to them . ” To set forth the glory of the covenant which God made with Israel, Moses depicts the majesty and glory in which the Lord appeared to the Israelites at Sinai, to give them the law, and become their king.

The three clauses, “Jehovah came from Sinai... from Seir... from the mountains of Paran,” do not refer to different manifestations of God ( Knobel ), but to the one appearance of God at Sinai. Like the sun when it rises, and fills the whole of the broad horizon with its beams, the glory of the Lord, when He appeared, was not confined to one single point, but shone upon the people of Israel from Sinai, and Seir, and the mountains of Paran, as they came from the west to Sinai.

The Lord appeared to the people from the summit of Sinai, as they lay encamped at the foot of the mountain. This appearance rose like a streaming light from Seir, and shone at the same time from the mountains of Paran. Seir is the mountain land of the Edomites to the east of Sinai; and the mountains of Paran are in all probability not the mountains of et-Tih , which form the southern boundary of the desert of Paran, but rather the mountains of the Azazimeh, which ascend to a great height above Kadesh, and form the boundary wall of Canaan towards the south.

The glory of the Lord, who appeared upon Sinai, sent its beams even to the eastern and northern extremities of the desert. This manifestation of God formed the basis for all subsequent manifestations of the omnipotence and grace of the Lord for the salvation of His people. This explains the allusions to the description before us in the song of Deborah (Jdg 5:4) and in Hab 3:3.

- The Lord came not only from Sinai, but from heaven, “out of holy myriads,” i. e. , out of the midst of the thousands of holy angels who surround His throne (1Ki 22:19; Job 1:6; Dan 7:10), and who are introduced in Gen 28:12 as His holy servants, and in Gen 32:2-3, as the hosts of God, and form the assembly of holy ones around His throne (Psa 89:6, Psa 89:8; cf.

Psa 68:18; Zec 14:5; Mat 26:53; Heb 12:22; Rev 5:11; Rev 7:11). - The last clause is a difficult one. The writing דּת אשׁ in two words, “fire of the law,” not only fails to give a suitable sense, but has against it the fact that דּת, law, edictum , is not even a Semitic word, but was adopted from the Persian into the Chaldee, and that it is only by Gentiles that it is ever applied to the law of God (Ezr 7:12, Ezr 7:21, Ezr 7:25-26; Dan 6:6).

It must be read as one word, אשׁדת, as it is in many MSS and editions - not, however, as connected with אשׁד, אשׁדות, the pouring out of the brooks, slopes of the mountains (Num 21:15), but in the form אשּׁדת, composed, according to the probable conjecture of Böttcher , of אשׁ, fire, and שׁדה (in the Chaldee and Syriac), to throw, to shoot arrows, in the sense of “fire of throwing,” shooting fire, a figurative description of the flashes of lightning. Gesenius adopts this explanation, except that he derives דּת from ידה, to throw.

It is favoured by the fact that, according to Exo 19:16, the appearance of God upon Sinai was accompanied by thunder and lightning; and flashes of lightning are often called the arrows of God, whilst shaadaah, in Hebrew, is established by the name שׁדיאוּר (Num 1:5; Num 2:10). To this we may add the parallel passage, Hab 3:4, “rays out of His hand,” which renders this explanation a very probable one.

By “them,” in the second and fifth clauses, the Israelites are intended, to whom this fearful theophany referred. On the signification of the manifestation of God in fire, see Deu 4:11, and the exposition of Exo 3:2.

Deu 33:3 “ Yea, nations He loves; all His holy ones are in Thy hand: and they lie down at Thy feet; they rise up at Thy words. ” עמּים חבב is the subject placed first absolutely: “nations loving,” sc. , is he; or “as loving nations - all Thy holy ones are in Thy hand. ” The nations or peoples are not the tribes of Israel here, any more than in Deu 32:8, or Gen 28:3; Gen 35:11, and Gen 48:4; whilst Jdg 5:14 and Hos 10:14 cannot come into consideration at all, for there the word is defined by a suffix.

The meaning of the words depends upon whether “all His holy ones” are the godly in Israel, or the Israelites generally, or the angels. There is nothing to favour the first explanation, as the distinction between the godly and the wicked would be out of place in the introduction to a blessing upon all the tribes. The second has only as seeming support in Dan 7:21.

and Exo 19:6. It does not follow at once from the calling of Israel to be the holy nation of Jehovah, that all the Israelites were or could be called “holy ones of the Lord. ” Least of all should Num 16:3 be adduced in support of this. Even in Dan 7 the holy ones of the Most High are not the Jews generally, but simply the godly, or believers, in the nation of God.

The third view, on the other hand, is a perfectly natural one, on account of the previous reference to the holy myriads. The meaning, therefore, would be this: The Lord embraces all nations with His love, He who, so to speak, has all His holy angels in His hand, i. e. , His power, so that they serve Him as their Lord. They lie down at His feet. The ἄπ. λεγ. תּכּוּ is explained by Kimchi and Saad .

as signifying adjuncti sequuntur vestigia sua; and by the Syriac, They follow thy foot, from conjecture rather than any certain etymology. The derivation proposed by modern linguists, from the verb תּכה, according to an Arabic word signifying recubuit , innixus est , has apparently more to support it. ישּׂא, it rises up: intransitive, as in Hab 1:3; Nah 1:5; Hos 13:1, and Psa 89:10.

מדּבּרתיך is not a Hithpael participle (that which is spoken); for מדּבּר has not a passive, but an active signification, to converse (Num 7:89; Eze 2:2, etc.) It is rather a noun, דבּרת, from דּבּרה, words, utterances. The singular, ישּׂא, is distributive: every one (of them) rises on account of thine utterance, i. e. , at thy words. The suffixes relate to God, and the discourse passes from the third to the second person.

In our own language, such a change in a sentence like this, “all His (God’s) holy ones are in Thy (God’s) hand,” would be intolerably harsh, but in Hebrew poetry it is by no means rare (see, for example, Psa 49:19).

Deu 33:4-5 “ Moses appointed us a law, a possession of the congregation of Jacob. And He became King in righteous-nation (Jeshurun); there the heads of the people assembled, in crowds the tribes of Israel . ” The God who met Israel at Sinai in terrible majesty, out of the myriads of holy angels, who embraces all nations in love, and has all the holy angels in His power, so that they lie at His feet and rise up at His word, gave the law through Moses to the congregation of Jacob as a precious possession, and became King in Israel.

This was the object of the glorious manifestation of His holy majesty upon Sinai. Instead of saying, “He gave the law to the tribes of Israel through my mediation,” Moses personates the listening nation, and not only speaks of himself in the third person, but does so by identifying his own person with the nation, because he wished the people to repeat his words from thorough conviction, and because the law which he gave in the name of the Lord was given to himself as well, and was as binding upon him as upon every other member of the congregation.

In a similar manner the prophet Habakkuk identifies himself with the nation in ch. 3, and says in Hab 3:19, out of the heart of the nation, “The Lord is my strength,... who maketh me to walk upon mine high places,” - an expression which did not apply to himself, but to the nation as a whole. So again in Psa 20:1-9 and Psa 21:1-13, which David composed as the prayers of the nation for its king, he not only speaks of himself as the anointed of the Lord, but addresses such prayers to the Lord for himself as could only be offered by the nation for its king.

“A possession for the congregation of Jacob. ” “Israel was distinguished above all other nations by the possession of the divinely revealed law (Deu 4:5-8); that was its most glorious possession, and therefore is called its true κειμήλιον” ( Knobel ). The subject in Deu 33:5 is not Moses but Jehovah, who became King in Jeshurun (see at Deu 32:15 and Exo 15:18).

“Were gathered together;” this refers to the assembling of the nation around Sinai (Deu 4:10. ; cf. Exo 19:17.) , to the day of assembly (Deu 9:10; Deu 10:4; Deu 18:16).