Now all the tribes which together re- | which it was changed in a later time,-provolted, and the house of my father Nepthali, bably at a time when the original law, with sacrificed unto the heifer Baal. But I alone so many other Mosaic directions, had long went often [why not always, as the Law en- ceased to be followed, and when the relajoined, E.xxiii. 17, xxxiv. 23 ?] to Jerusalem at tions also had so settled themselves, that no the Feasts, as it was ordained unto all the more hope could be entertained that they people of Israel by an everlasting decree, ever would again be followed. Then, probearing the first-fruits and tenths of in- bably, it was sought in this way, at all crease, with that which was first shorn; and events, to awaken the compassion of the them gave I at the altar to the Priests the Israelites for the, perhaps, in part, very sons of Aaron. The first tenth of all increase necessitous Levites. I gave to the sons of Aaron, who ministered at Jerusalem; [the command in N.xviii.21 says it should be given to the Levites;] another tenth part I sold away, and went and spent it every year at Jerusalem, and the third I gave unto them to whom it was meet.' i.5,8. 685. But the story of Tobit is notoriously a mere fiction, written long after the Captivity. The above statement, however, accords with the well-known fact that, after the return from the Babylonish Captivity, great efforts were made to carry out more strictly the laws of the Pentateuch-those of the earlier books, as well as those of Deuteronomy. The difficulty, which we have been considering, about the tithes, was probably then perceived, and, perhaps, by some pious persons obviated in the way described by Tobit. But, as we have noted above, the law gave the tithes to the Levites, not to the Priests 'the sons of Aaron.' No one, upon an unprejudiced comparison of these two laws, can mistake the fact, that they vary much from one another, as regards both their contents and character. In the last, strictly speaking, no mention whatever is made of a special legal provision by way of tax for the benefit of the Levites, but only of a free-will act of benevolence, which the Israelites are required to show to the landless Levites, just as to other needy per CHAPTER XII DEUT.XV.1-xvI.22. 687. D.xv.1-11. The Deuteronomist here enjoins that every seventh year shall be a year of release,' or remission of debts, with reference, perhaps, as most commentators suppose, to the Sabbatical Year; though, if he really meant and expected that this law should be practically carried out in the Sabbatical Year, it is reasonable to believe, as before observed (680), that he would have more strictly defined the meaning of the expression at the end of seven years.' 6 688. It may be that the writer, ever tender-hearted and considerate for the poor and needy among his countrymen, (as is shown by such a multitude of passages throughout this Book,) has availed himself of one of the older laws about the Sabbatical Year, E.xxiii.11. 686. BLEEK, while maintaining that the Law in N.xviii is genuine Mosaical, writes with reference to the law in Deu-L.xxv.1-7, (in neither of which passages, however, let it be noted, is a teronomy as follows, p.215: single word said about releasing debts,) to recommend compassion to creditors, and suggest to them the duty of remitting debts, which pressed heavily upon their debtors. He may have connected this duty with that portion of the older document, which instituted the Sabbatical Year, (seeking in this way to gain, as it were, the authority of Moses for such remission, after a debt had been long due,) even if the practice of observing the Sabbatical Year itself had altogether ceased, or, perhaps, had never even been practised at any time sons. Hence they are placed in one and the same rank with the other destitute people, and their whole position is entirely changed. That Moses himself, with reference to the in Israel. 689. For, in the whole history of the Hebrew people, there is no sign of this maintenance of the Levites, should have delivered two laws, so different from each other as is their whole character [within the space of a few months], cannot well be believed, especially as the former law, just as much as the latter, refers to the time when the tribes of Israel would find themselves in possession of their promised land. We cannot but assume that, if the one law is Mosaic, the other be-law of observing the Sabbatical Year longs to a later time. And here there can having been ever once obeyed. Rather, be no doubt that the law in Numbers is the there is a passage, 2Ch.xxxvi.21, which original, which also has all the character of would tend to prove the contrary, where it is said that- a Mosaic law. On the other hand, in Deuteronomy, we probably possess it in a form, to maids.' Then Jeremiah prophesies, v.13-17: 'the land enjoyed her Sabbaths, for, as long into subjection for servants and for handas she lay desolate, she kept Sabbath,'the reference being plainly to the expressions in L.xxvi.34,43. So in his note on 2K.xix.29, Scott remarks: : The devastations of the Assyrians had, probably, prevented the land from being sown that year; and the next is supposed to have been the Sabbatical Year; though this is the only intimation, in all the history of Israel, that any regard was paid to that institution. The passage referred to by SCOTT, 2K.xix.29, is this: And this shall be a sign unto thee: Ye shall eat this year such things as grow of themselves, and in the second year that which springeth of the same, and in the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat the fruits thereof.' It is evidently a mere conjecture that reference is here made to the Sabbatical Year, without any supporting ground for it. 690. D.xv.12-18. This is very nearly a repetition of the law in E.xxi. 2-6, with the exception that the Deuteronomist (i) Names the Hebrew maid-servant, as well as the man-servant, 'Thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel: I made a covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondmen, saying, At the end of seven years let ye go every man his brother an Hebrew, which hath been sold unto thee, and, when he hath served thee six years, thou shalt let him go free from thee: but your fathers hearkened not unto me, neither inclined their ear. And ye were now turned, and had done right in my sight, in bour; and ye had made a covenant before me proclaiming liberty every man to his neighin the House which is called by my Name. But ye turned and polluted my Name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids. Therefore thus saith Jehovah, Ye have not hearkened unto me in proclaiming liberty, every man to his brother, and every man to his neighbour. Behold, I proclaim a liberty to you, saith Jehovah, to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine; and I will make you to be removed to all the kingdoms of the earth.' 692. Upon the above passage we may remark as follows: (ii) Commands that some means of sustenance shall be given to the bond-it man set free, (iii) Is silent about the ear of the servant, who wished to remain with his master, being bored through with an awl in the presence of the Judges. The fact may be that the 'ear-boring,' which may have suited the earlier and more barbarous age, in which the original law in E.xxi.6 was, most probably, laid down, may have been wholly out of place in the time of the later kings. And, though the Deuteronomist repeats the ancient law, it is more for the purpose of enjoining such a release of bondservants, than with a view of this obsolete practice being revived. 691. In Jer.xxxiv.8-22 we have an account given how king Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people which were at Jerusalem to proclaim liberty unto them, that every man should let his manservant, and every man his maidservant, being a Hebrew or Hebrewess, go free-that none should serve himself of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother.' Accordingly, we are told, they did so release them, but afterwardsturned, and caused the servants, whom they had let go free, to return, and brought them (i) It is plain that, neither before nor after the time here referred to, was the practice to manumit their Hebrew slaves in the seventh year. And, consequently, this passage, as far as it goes, shows that the command in question was not obeyed, even in Judah,— much less in Israel. (ii) The king and princes seem to have had some strong influence brought to bear upon them, probably, by the urgent representations of Jeremiah himself, and appear at first to have complied with the injunction, either regarding it as Divine, or perhaps only as a proper and humane institution. (iii) For some reason they afterwards changed their minds, and made no scruple of retracing their steps, either because they had become satisfied, in the interim, that the law in question was not of Divine origin, or because more selfish motives prevailed over their religion and humanity. before us, refers-not to the older law (i) 'be sold unto thee,' instead of E.xxi.2, 1 pear before Jehovah thy God in the place which "if thou shalt buy'; he shall choose,' v.16. (ii) and he shall serve thee six years,' instead of E.xxi.2, 'six years shall he serve'; (iii) and thou shalt let him go free from thee,' instead of E.xxi.2, he shall go out free for nothing.' 693. Hence it can scarcely be doubted that Jeremiah had been setting before the king and princes the language of the Book of Deuteronomy, then recently found in the Temple in the days of Zedekiah's father Josiah, and written, it may be, with the full cognisance, if not by the hand, of Jeremiah himself, and that this was the influence, which he had brought to bear for a time upon them, whether they believed in the Divine authority of that Book or not. 694. In fact, this prophecy of Jeremiah was uttered about B.C. 595, in Zedekiah's time, Jer.xxxiv.8. And the Book of Deuteronomy, as we suppose, was first publicly produced and acted on by the whole people in the eighteenth year of Josiah, B.C. 624, about thirty years before; and, therefore, it might very well be referred to by the prophet as a well-known document. It is noticeable that Zedekiah and his princes and people made at first a solemn covenant to carry out this command to release their servants, as if moved to it by some appeal of the Prophet, representing it as having issued from Jehovah Himself, which, no doubt, as a command founded upon the principles of humanity and brotherly kindness, he himself believed it virtually did. But, afterwards, 'they turned, and caused the servants and the handmaids, whom they had let go free, to return, and brought them into subjection for servants and for handmaids,' as if they had begun to doubt the Divine authority of this injunction. 695. D.xv.19-23. Here, again, as in (650), the firstling males of the herd and of the flock are to be feasted on by the offerer and his household, instead of their flesh being given to the Priest. According to the original command, the Passover sacrifice was always to be a 'lamb' or a 'kid,' E.xii.3,21; whereas here we read, v.2,— "Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the Passover unto Jehovah thy God of the flock and of the herd, in the place which Jehovah shall choose to place His Name there.' And so writes Dr. M'CAUL, Examination, &c. p.60: If the Israelites had not lambs enough, they could take kids; and, if both failed, we learn from D.xvi.2 that even oxen might be used. From 2Ch.xxx.24, xxxv.7, it appears that in were actually employed as well as lambs and kids. the Passover of Hezekiah and Josiah bullocks If so, there was certainly a departure in these later days from the law laid down in E.xii. 1-10. 697. D.xvi.7. 'And thou shalt roast and eat it in the place which Jehovah thy God shall choose; unto thy tents.' and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go Upon this RIEHм observes, p.51: That the writer is here speaking of the morning following the night in which the Passover was to be eaten, that is, of the morning of the fifteenth day,-is plain from the context. But, that he here allows those, who had come from other towns to Jerusalem for the festival, to go away home on the morning of the fifteenth, is impossible, since then there could not be held the 'solemn assembly,' v.8, on the seventh day. We can only therefore assume that the Paschal lamb was slaughtered at the Temple,the blood, except the Altar, if it was slain at (and what else could have been sprinkled with all at Jerusalem? comp. 2Ch.xxxv.11)—and eaten in the fore-court of it, and that the writer in the above words allows every one to return in the morning from the Templecourt, to the hostel in Jerusalem in which he was living during the feast. 698. The above seems to be the true explanation of the passage; and in this very way, probably, the famous Passover in Josiah's time was actually carried out. This, of course, excludes the notion of so many sheep and cattle having been killed, and cooked, and eaten, in the Temple-court on this occasion, as the Chronicler states, viz. 37,600 lambs and kids, and 3,800 oxen, 2Ch. XXXV.7,8,9,-which we have shown (148-153) to be impossible. The more trustworthy historian-perhaps, Jeremiah himself-says nothing of all these, but merely writes, 2K.xxiii.22— 'Surely there was not holden such a Pass- a Court would rather tend to show that over, from the days of the Judges that judged the law in Deuteronomy was not Mosaic Israel, nor in all the days of the Kings of Israel, nor of the Kings of Judah, but in and Divine, since Jehoshaphat's act is the eighteenth year of King Josiah, wherein spoken of as quite a novel one, withthis Passover was holden to Jehovah in Jeru-out any reference to this law. salem.' It seems doubtful, however, if there The Deuteronomist also, as we have said (519), makes no mention what-is really any reference here to such an ever of the Feast of Trumpets' and ecclesiastical Court, as that supposed 'Great Day of Atonement,' the celebra- to be described in 2Ch.xix.8-11, or to tion of which is enforced in L.xxiii as any regular Court at all. solemnly as that of the three Great language which is here used by the Deuteronomist,— Feasts. CHAPTER XIII. 699. D.xvii.2-7. If there be found among you... man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of Jehovah thy God, in transgressing His Covenant, and hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the Sun, or Moon, or any of the Host of Heaven, then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. . . . So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.' In this passage the Deuteronomist again expresses strongly his abhorrence of all manner of idolatry, and especially, v.3, of the worship of the Sun, or Moon, or any of the Host of Heaven,' of the prevalence of which, as we have said (596), the first intimation, in the more authentic history of the kings of Judah, is found in the reign of Josiah's father, Manasseh, 2K.xxi.3,5. 700. D.xvii.8-13. 'If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which Jehovah thy God shall choose, and thou shalt come unto the Priests the Levites, and unto the Judge that shall be in those days, and enquire, and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment. . . . And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the Priest... or unto the Judge, even that man shall die; and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel, and all the people shall hear and fear, and do no more presumptuously.' KUENEN, p.150, is of opinion that we have here a reference to the High Court of Judicature, said by the Chronicler to have been established by Jehoshaphat in Jerusalem, 2Ch.xix. 8-11. 701. Assuming this view of the case to be true, the fact of Jehoshaphat having been the first to establish such The very 'Thou shalt come unto the Priests the Levites, and unto the Judge that shall be in those days,'' the man that will not hearken unto the Priest that standeth to minister there before Jehovah thy God, or unto the Judge'is so vague and uncertain, as rather to imply the contrary. 702. It may be doubted also, perhaps, whether the Chronicler is here giving an account of some one particular High Court of Judicature first established by Jehoshaphat, or whether his statements, so far as we can depend upon them, should be understood as saying more than that Jehoshaphat, like our HENRY II, was traditionally famous as a judicial reformer. It is possible, indeed, that his name, which means Jehovah judges,' may have some connection with this account of his judicial arrangements. It may have had a real historical connection with them in given rise to the tradition of this king's Jehoshaphat's lifetime; or it may have having taken a lively interest in such the Chronicler himself the probability matters; or it may have suggested to of his having set the courts of justice in his time in active operation, as described in the narrative. 703. Of course, in the later days of the monarchy, and above all in the time of Josiah, who came to the throne at eight years of age, 2K.xxii.1, the chief and other principal Priests must have been persons of some consequence in Jerusalem, and would naturally be called to take a part in the decision of important causes, especially any connected with matters ecclesiastical. And so in D xix.17,18, we read,— Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before Jehovah, shall be in those days; and the Judges shall before the Priests and the Judges, which make diligent inquisition,' &c. If, however, reference is here supposed to be made to a regular Court, then it deserves to be noted (as a token that the writer is not Moses himself) that the Court is not here introduced as one established by Moses, only to be called into operation hereafter, but is set forth as already existing. 704. It need hardly be said that the notion of referring all difficult matters to the Priests the Levites, by whose word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried,' D.xxi.5, 2S.viii. 18 is in the original 'Priests.' It stands distinctly 'David's sons [of the tribe of Judah] were Priests.' The Hebrew word is the same as is used everywhere else for Priest, viz., Cohen,— the same exactly as that used for Aaron, Eleazar, or Phinehas. So in 2S.xx.26 we read, 'And Ira also, the Jairite, was a Priest (E.V. 'chief ruler') about David.' And in the passage which has just been quoted from 1K.iv.1-6, the word translated chief officer' is properly the could never have arisen in the days Cohen, the Priest,' and that rendered of David and Solomon, or any of the principal officer,' is Cohen, Priest.' more powerful kings of Judah, who, When thus we observe that not the we may be certain, decided themselves, sons of David alone, but—'Ira, the as a Supreme Court, either in person Jairite,' also, 2S.xx. 26, and Zabud, the or by their judicial officers, all such son of Nathan,' 1K.iv.5, are each dequestions. Thus we are told that signated by this name Cohen,' and David executed judgment and jus- that 'Azariah the son of Zadok' was tice unto all people,' 2S.viii.15; and the Cohen' in Solomon's days, 1K.iv.2, Solomon prays for an understand-it can scarcely be supposed that the ing heart, that he may be able to 'judge so great a people,' 1K.iii.9. And, accordingly, we have very soon an instance of his deciding personally in such a case between the two women, 1K.iii.16-27; and it is added, v.29, And all Israel heard of the judgment, which the King had judged; and they feared the King; for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him to do judgment.' Hebrew word is used exclusively of 'Priests' in the ordinary sense, or that David's sons are called 'Cohanim,' as some suppose, because he had empowered them to exercise certain sacerdotal functions. 707. It is true, no doubt, that David and Solomon themselves did discharge Priestly functions on various occasions. 705. And this is confirmed when And this is one of the numerous eviwe observe the very subordinate posi-dences, which the history betrays, of tion which the principal Priests occupy the non-existence of the laws of the in the lists of the great officers of Pentateuch in their present form in David and Solomon. Here, instead of finding—as we might expect from what we observe in the Pentateuch and book of Joshua, (where Aaron always ranks next to Moses, and Eleazar to Joshua, or even before him, Jo.xiv.1,) -that the High Priest is named, as first in honour and highest in rank and dignity, next to the King, we have mentioned, first, the chief captain, Joab-then the recorder, Jehoshaphat, -then the Priests, Zadok and Ahimelech, the scribe, Seraiah,—the captain of the guard, Benaiah,-and, last of all, it is added, 2S.viii.16-18, 'And David's sons were chief rulers.' And we find the Priests in a still lower position in Solomon's time, 1K.iv.1-6. 706. It is also very noticeable that the word translated chief rulers' in their days, or, at all events, of their not being in operation, and so of their not being regarded in those days as authoritative and Divine. But it is clear that the word 'Cohen' was not used in those times, nor even in the yet later time when the above passages in Samuel and Kings were written, exclusively with reference to religion. The very fact that it could be employed thus freely of laymen, shows that the more restricted use of the word, which afterwards prevailed, when the Priestly office became more dignified, had not yet come into vogue. It would be strange that a word, already exclusively appropriated to denote such a high sacred office, should be so lightly used of mere laymen. 708. And, in fact, we do not find |