Keep the Passover. Deuteronomy 16:1-8 The yearly festivals W. Roberts, M. A. The darker side of the Jewish religion was more than relieved by its outlets for joy. It identified in a marvelous manner the holy day and the holiday (see the, two words translated "feast" in Leviticus 23 , meaning, the one "holy convocation," the other "festival"), showing that the people with deepest religious feelings are, after all, the happiest people. The three great yearly feasts were — 1. The Passover, in the middle of Abib (nearly our April); 2. Seven weeks after, Pentecost, or the Feast of Weeks; and 3. The Feast of Tabernacles, or of Ingathering, in the end of autumn (October). Notice of all three — I. THEIR ORIGIN. They have their root in the weekly Sabbath. The Sabbath itself is the first of the feasts ( Leviticus 23:2, 3 ), in which respect it also is a joyful day ( Psalm 18:24 ; Isaiah 56:7 ; Isaiah 58:14 ). And the great feasts are framed upon its model. They are ruled by the sabbatical number, seven. They begin and generally end on the seventh day. Two of them last for seven days each, and there are seven days of "holy convocation" in the year. Pentecost takes place seven weeks — a sabbath of weeks — after the Passover. The seventh month is specially distinguished (vers. 23-36). Moreover, every seventh year is of the nature of a Sabbath, and seven times seven years bring the Jubilee. Smaller festivals formed connecting links between the Sabbath and the yearly feasts. There was the Feast of Months, distinguishing the first Sabbath of each month with special sacrifices ( Numbers 28:11 ), and with blowing of trumpets ( Numbers 10:10 ), which trumpets were used again on the first day of the seventh month — the "Feast of Trumpets" ( Leviticus 23:24, 25 ). Our Sabbaths, like those of the Jews, form the backbone and safeguard of our own national festivities. II. THEIR PURPOSE. They accomplished on a larger scale what was already aimed at by the weekly Sabbath. 1. They called away from the round of yearly duty to the public recognition of God. In spring and summer and autumn they presented anew to the people's conscious. ness, through the most impressive vehicle of national festivals, their covenant relation to Jehovah. 2. They had a most important educational function. They were a compendium in dramatic form of early Israelitish history, "What mean ye by this service?" ( Exodus 12:26 .) Moreover, they gave opportunity for special religious instruction. (Josiah's Passover, 2 Chronicles 34:29 ff.; and Ezra's Feast of Tabernacles, Nehemiah 8 .) 3. They subserved important ends not directly religious. They promoted the national unity of the Israelites, stimulating their patriotism. (See the action of Jeroboam, 1 Kings 12:26 .) III. THEIR REGULATIONS. 1. The males from all parts of the country must assemble to the three feasts ( Deuteronomy 16:16 ); for which purpose all ordinary labour ceases. 2. The worshippers are to bring contributions ( Deuteronomy 16:16, 17 ), both for the necessary sacrifices of themselves and others, and for hospitality ( Nehemiah 8:10 ). 3. The people are to rejoice in their feasts. So Leviticus 23:40 commands for the Feast of Tabernacles, and Deuteronomy 16:11, 15 for the Feasts of Pentecost and Tabernacles. Ezra tells of the joy at the Feast of the Passover ( Ezra 6:22 ); and Nehemiah of the "very great gladness" at the Feast of Tabernacles ( Nehemiah 8:17 ). But where is happiness to be found if not in the recognition of God's relation to us? Special protection was promised during the celebration of the feasts. There are frequent promises that the fruits of the earth will not suffer, as Deuteronomy 16:15 . And it was specially promised that the absence of its defenders would not expose the country to invasion ( Exodus 34:24 ). In short, Israel's compliance with God's will here as everywhere was to be to the advantage even of his worldly prosperity. A truth for all times and all peoples ( Psalm 1:3 ; Psalm 92:13-15 ). ( W. Roberts, M. A. ) The yearly festivals Walter Roberts, M. A. Looking to these festivals separately, we find that a three-fold meaning attaches to each of them — 1. A present meaning in nature; 2. A retrospective meaning in history; and 3. A prospective meaning in grace.Moreover, in each of these three respects the three feasts stand in progressive order: the Passover, the first at once in nature, history, and grace; the Pentecost, in all three respects the second or intermediate; and the Tabernacles, in all three respects the consummation of what has gone before. I. THE FEAST OF THE PASSOVER, occurring about the beginning of April. 1. Its natural meaning was necessarily an afterthought or addition of the wilderness legislation. Looking forward to the settlement in Canaan, and placed at early harvest, it marked the beginning of a people's enrichment in the fruits of the earth, and recognised in that the gift of a covenant God. Its place was "when thou beginnest to put the sickle to the corn" ( Deuteronomy 16:9 ). And hence the special provisions of Leviticus 23:10-14 . 2. What was first in nature was also first in history. The Passover night marked the beginning of Israel's national life. The month in which it occurred was henceforth to be the first of the year ( Exodus 12:2 ), and to be permanently observed ( Exodus 12:14 ; Deuteronomy 16:1 ). Some modifications necessarily arose in the permanent observance of the Passover; the blood was now to be sprinkled on the altar; and the lamb was to be slain in the one place of sacrifice ( Deuteronomy 16:5-7 ; 2 Chronicles 30:15, 16 ). The eating with unleavened bread and bitter herbs remained, as pointing to — 3. The prospective and spiritual reference of the Passover. The observance of the Passover touched closely the spiritual welfare of the Israelites. It distinguished the reigns of Josiah and Hezekiah and the return of the Jews from captivity. And here we have the third and greatest beginning, the beginning of the kingdom of God, in the world's deliverance from sin. And we must deal with Christ as the Jews with the Paschal Lamb, taking Him — "eating" Him, as He Himself puts it — in His entireness as a Saviour, with the bitter herbs of contrition and the unleavened bread of a sincere obedience. II. THE FEAST OF PENTECOST — called also the Feast of Weeks, inasmuch as seven weeks were to be reckoned between Passover and Pentecost. And this distance of a Sabbath of weeks rules in all three meanings of this feast. 1. Its natural reference was to the completion of the harvest. It was the "Feast of harvest." Now, two loaves baked of the first-fruits are to be waved before the Lord, with accompanying offerings ( Leviticus 23:17-20 ). In addition to which, a free-will offering, in recognition of God's blessing, is to be brought, and the people are called on specially to rejoice ( Deuteronomy 16:10, 11 ). 2. Its historical reference is a matter of inference. The seven weeks between Passover and Pentecost are paralleled by the seven weeks actually occurring between the deliverance from Egypt and the giving of the law from Sinai; and as the Passover commemorates the first, it is reasonable to infer that Pentecost commemorates the second. Moreover, the fulfilment which in nature Pentecost gives to the promise of the Passover is paralleled by the fulfilment which the Sinaitic law actually gave to the promise of the Exodus. For God's first object and promise was to meet His people and reveal Himself to them in the wilderness. And this connection becomes greatly more remarkable when we notice — 3. The prospective meaning of this feast in the realm of grace. Under the Christian dispensation Pentecost has become even more illustrious than the Passover. Again God numbered to Himself seven weeks, and signalised Pentecost by the gift of the Spirit. And what the Pentecost was to the Passover, that the gilt of the Spirit is to the atonement of Christ. Look at the natural meaning of the two feasts. In the sheaf of corn the Passover furnished the material for food; in the wave loaves Pentecost presented God's gift in the shape in which it could be used for food. So the Passover atonement furnishes a material for salvation which becomes available only through the gift of the Spirit. Or look at the historical meaning of the feasts: the Passover atonement came to effect spiritually and for the world what the Paschal Lamb effected for the Jewish nation. And the Holy Spirit came to do for the dead law what Christ in His atonement did for the Paschal Lamb. He came to write universally on men's hearts what of old had been written for the Israelites on stone ( Hebrews 8:8, 10 ; 2 Corinthians 3:3 ). As the end of harvest was the fruition of its beginning, and the law the fruition of the exodus, so the pentecostal Spirit was the fruition of the atonement. Should not we who live under the dispensation of the Spirit maintain our pentecostal joy? III. THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES, in the seventh month, or our October — called also the Feast of Ingathering. 1. Its natural meaning. It came after the harvest of the vineyards and olive yards. It marked the close of the year's labours and their cumulative results, and was therefore the most joyous of the feasts ( Leviticus 23:40 ; Deuteronomy 16:14 ); but — 2. The historical meaning of the feast gives us deeper insight into its joy. There is a special provision made in view of the coming settlement in Canaan, and made in order that the hardships of the wilderness may be kept fresh in the people's memory ( Leviticus 23:40, 42, 43 ). That memorial was to emphasise God's goodness in the protection of the fathers and in the settlement of their posterity. The Feast of Tabernacles therefore marked the consummation of God's covenant, and called for highest gratitude and joy. Specially interesting is the celebration of this feast by the Jews on their return from Babylon, where God's goodness in bringing their forefathers through the wilderness had been a second time, and no less wondrously, manifested to them ( Nehemiah 8:13-17 ; Psalm 126:1 .) But — 3. The fullest meaning of the Feast of Tabernacles is in the kingdom of grace. The wonder of God's goodness finds last and highest manifestation in the final home-bringing of His universal Church. The anti-type is the ingathering of God's good grain into the heavenly garner. Canaan after the wilderness, Jerusalem after Babylon, are paralleled and fulfilled in the multitude that have come out of great tribulation. ( Walter Roberts, M. A. ) Jewish commemorative feasts E. White. The Scriptures record two chief outbursts of miraculous power: one at the foundation of the Hebrew commonwealth at the exodus from Egypt, and one at the time of Christ's appearing and the foundation of Christianity. It is a matter of infinite importance to every man to ascertain whether these great miracles of the exodus and of Christ's first advent were really wrought. I. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THESE:(1) The Hebrew people and the ancient Hebrew books now exist, and they throw light on one another.(2) Wherever the Jewish people exist they celebrate in the spring the festival of the Passover, which they universally regard as a historical memorial of the deliverance of their forefathers from Egypt, about fourteen hundred years before Christ, by the supernatural intervention of God the Almighty. II. In the same manner, the feast of Pentecost, or the festival of the wheat harvest, fifty days after the Passover, came to be regarded as A MEMORIAL OF THE GIVING OF THE LAW ON MOUNT SINAI on the fiftieth day after the Exodus. In like manner, the autumnal festival of Succoth, or Booths, called "The Feast of Tabernacles," is now celebrated just as universally as the Passover in the spring, as a memorial of the children of Israel dwelling in huts or booths. These festivals and commemorations have been celebrated now for more than three thousand years. III. The rule is that NATIONAL CELEBRATIONS AND PUBLIC MONUMENTS MAINTAIN THE REMEMBRANCE OF REAL EVENTS IN PAST AGES. It may be objected that if Athens, with all its wisdom, could celebrate the fictitious history of Minerva why may we not believe that the Jews were capable of commemorating things that happened only in the imagination of later writers and poets? To this we answer:(1) that even in the festivals of mythology there has been a strange interweaving of historical truth and a constant tendency to give this element prominence in the lapse of time;(2) that the Jews were utterly destitute of the dramatic imagination of the Greeks: to them the origination of a myth like that of the Exodus, if it were a myth, would be an uncongenial exercise, its adoption as history an impossibility. ( E. White. ) Conditions of worship J. Parker, D. D. The time is specified, and the reason is given. Every month has a memory, every day has a story, every night has a star all its own. Selected instances help us to ascertain general principles. Acting upon these instances, we become familiar with their spirit and moral genius, so much so that we begin to ask, are there not other memorable events? Are there not other times of deliverance? Have we been brought out of Egypt only? Are not all the days storied with providential love? If God is so careful about time, has He any regard for place? (Vers. 5, 6.) This is morally consistent with God's claim for gracious recollection of definite times. May we not slay the Passover where we please? Certainly not. May we not insulate ourselves, and upon little church appointments of Our own creation carry out the ceremony of our worship? Certainly not. We should strive to move in the direction at least of unity, commonwealth, fellowship, solidarity. The sacrifice is the same, the man who offers it is the same; but because it is not offered at the place which God has chosen the sacrifice and the sacrificer go for nothing. That is in harmony with all the social arrangements which experience has approved. There are fit places for all things, as well as fit times. The time having been fixed and the place determined, what remains? (Ver. 10.) Here is the beginning of another kind of liberty. A wonderful word occurs in this verse: "a free-will offering." How wonderfully God educates the human race: He will insist upon definite claims and obligations being answered, and yet He will also give opportunity for freewill action, as if He had said, — Now we shall see what you will do when left to yourselves; the law no longer presses you: the great hand is lifted, and for the time being you shall do in this matter as it may please your own mind and heart. That is an element in the Divine education of the human race. God gives us opportunities of showing ourselves to ourselves. He only would count the gift: no one should know what had been done: the sweet transaction should lie between the one soul and the living Lord. Another singular word occurs in this tenth verse: — "a tribute." The literal meaning is that the gift is to be proportional. It would have been easy to throw a dole to the Lord that had no reference whatever to what was left behind: that would be a broad, easily-opened gate to heaven; but such is not the condition stated in the bond. Even the freewill offering is to be tributary: it is to be based upon the original substance, the actual property, whatever is in the hand as momentary possession. Thus, sacrifice is to be calculated; worship is to be the result of forethought; nothing is to be done of mere constraint or as consultative of ease and indulgence. A word of taxation touches the very poetry and pathos of oblation. "And thou shalt rejoice before the Lord thy God," etc. (ver. 11). This gives us the joyous aspect of religion. An ancient Jewish annotator has made a beautiful remark upon this verse, to the effect that "thy four, O Israel, and My four shall rejoice together." "Thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant" — let them rejoice, let them be glad in response to music, and let them call for more music to express their ever-increasing joy; but God's four must be there also — the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow; they represent the Divine name as authority for admission to the feast. The religious servant, the poor stranger, the orphan, and the widow — they sit down, in seats divinely claimed for them, at the festive board. So the company shall be representative: — son, daughter, manservant, maidservant; priest, stranger, orphan, widow; — this is the typical company sitting down at the symbolical feast. God will not have our small house parties, made up of people of one class, equally well-dressed and accosting one another in the language of equality; He will have a large feast. ( J. Parker, D. D. ) Unleavened bread S. A. Blackwood. What does this unleavened bread mean? Two things, I think. 1. First, Christ; for He is the believer's food. The unleavened bread sets forth Christ in one aspect, as much as the lamb sets Him forth in another. In the Israelite feeding upon unleavened bread, we have presented to us the believer drawing his strength from Jesus, the spotless and Holy One — the unleavened bread. "I am the bread of life." 2. But there is another meaning of the unleavened bread, and that is holiness, uprightness, singleness of eye. Just as the bread was not the main staple of the Passover feast, but the lamb, so holiness is the accompaniment rather than the principal portion of the Christian feast. In the case of every believer the unleavened bread must accompany feeding upon Christ as the lamb. God has joined these two things together, let us not put them asunder. If we are redeemed by the blood of the lamb, let us live upon the unleavened bread; let us show forth the sincerity and truth which God requires in our life. "For even Christ our passover was sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" ( 1 Corinthians 5:7 ). ( S. A. Blackwood. ) Keep the feast of weeks. Deuteronomy 16:9-12 The Feast of Pentecost H. Simon, Ph. D. (a Harvest Thanksgiving sermon): — I. THE SACRED CHARACTER OF THE HARVEST. Indicated by time appointed for it — fiftieth day after Passover. As God hallowed the seventh day, so He hallowed the harvest fields of the world. II. THE GREAT TROUBLE GOD TOOK TO IMPRESS HIS PEOPLE WITH THE SIGNIFICANCE AND MEANING OF COMMON THINGS. We walk along streets of gold, set with jewels, as though they were granite cubes. In the hand of Him who saw the kingdom of God everywhere and in everything, a grain of corn contained in its suggestiveness the deepest mysteries of the kingdom. III. THIS FEAST WAS A PROVIDENTIAL MIRROR IN WHICH TO SEE AGAIN ALL THE WAY IN WHICH THE LORD THEIR GOD HAD LED THEM. Happy, thrice happy, is the man who, in the land of plenty, has a wilderness history on which to look back. There is nothing more sublime to the mariner in the haven of rest than the conflicts with the tempests in mid-ocean through which he passed. IV. THIS FEAST WAS A NEW BOND OF BROTHERHOOD FORGED IN THE FIRES OF THE EVER-NEW AND NEVER-CEASING LOVE OF GOD. They were to call the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. Plenty in some natures petrifies, but this is not its legitimate effect. It should enlarge the heart, and broaden and deepen the sympathies of a man. V. THIS FEAST WAS TO BE A TIME OF GREAT MORAL AND SPIRITUAL RECTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE PEOPLE. Repentance. Thanksgiving. ( H. Simon, Ph. D. ) Harvest home a national festival Homilist. Harvest to the Jews was an event of great and general interest. It was the occasion of one of their grand national festivals. This feast was called by different names — the Feast of Weeks, the Feast of Harvest, and the Feast of First-fruits. From commencement to close, their harvest festivities included seven weeks. I. THE HARVEST HOME WAS A SEASON FOR NATIONAL GRATITUDE. What they offered conferred no favour on God, it was His own; but it expressed the sense of their obligation and the depth of their gratitude. Three things are necessary to the very existence of gratitude towards the giver. 1. That the gift should be felt to be valuable. 2. A belief that the favour is benevolently bestowed. 3. A consciousness that the favour is undeserved. II. THE HARVEST HOME IS A SEASON FOR NATIONAL REJOICING. Where there is gratitude, there is joy, will be joy; gratitude is praise, and praise is heaven. The revelation of the Creator in the harvest field may well make human hearts exult. The God of the harvest there appears, mercifully considerate of the wants of His creatures; as a loving Father, with a bountiful hand, furnishing the table with abundant supplies for His children. There He appears punctual to the fulfilment of His promise. There He appears rewarding human labour. III. THE HARVEST HOME IS A SEASON FOR NATIONAL PHILANTHROPY (see Deuteronomy 24:19-21 ). 1. Where God gives liberally, He demands liberality. 2. The liberality demanded is to be shown to the poor. God has planted the poor amongst all peoples, in order that the benevolence of the rich may have scope for development. ( Homilist. ) Rejoice before the Lord thy God Thanksgiving Day F. W. P. Greenwood, D. D. I. We may be thankful for this day of thanksgiving, ON ACCOUNT OF ITS HAPPY RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE. It is a day which, in all its appropriate exercises and enjoyments, presents to us our life as a blessing, and our God as a Benefactor; the seasons as a circle of elemental adaptations to our comfort, and the Regulator of the seasons as the Almighty Being who takes care for our varied good; the course of our rolling days, as a series of lessons and opportunities, and the Everlasting and Uncreated One as the Friend who crowns our days with His loving kindness. Thus a great deal is done every year, by a common and hearty expression of thankfulness, to break up, or at least to modify the alliance brought about by several causes in many minds, between religion and great strictness and gloominess. We find that "it is a good thing to give thanks unto the Lord; yea, a joyful and a pleasant thing it is to be thankful"; for when we dwell on the causes of thankfulness, our gratitude must needs flow naturally and spontaneously out of our bosoms, and go to swell the general stream of praise and gladness which spreads over the land. And we find that it is not at all inconsistent with thankfulness to God for the bounties of His providence, that we should enjoy those bounties freely and honestly and smilingly. II. We have reason to rejoice in our feast, on account of ITS HAPPY DOMESTIC INFLUENCE. The day is peculiarly a domestic day; a day for the reunion of families. The houses of the land are glad on this day. III. Our festival is to be honoured, ON ACCOUNT OF ITS HAPPY POLITICAL INFLUENCE. If it exerts a happy influence on our religions sentiments and on our domestic relations, it cannot but act with a benign power on those relations which hold us all together in one community. A genial nationality is fostered by that mingling together of prayers, and common interests, and pleasant hospitalities, which occurs on this day. And so far as our nationality is brought about in this manner, there is nothing repulsive or exclusive in it. ( F. W. P. Greenwood, D. D. ) Thou shalt observe the feast of tabernacles seven days, after that thou hast gathered in thy corn and thy wine. Deuteronomy 16:13-15 Harvest home Dean Vaughan. The Feast of Tabernacles was the harvest home of Israel. Where is the antitype of the festival of Tabernacles? The vision of the "great multitude which no man could number" is a vision throughout of a heavenly Feast of Tabernacles; the harvest home of the Church triumphant. I. These festivals are OCCASIONS OF HOSPITALITY AND OF REUNION. A selfish life is an unchristian life. A man might possibly remember God in solitude, a monastery has ere now fostered devotion: but there is one virtue which cannot be practised in seclusion — charity; the Gospel virtue — without which we are nothing. The very exertion which it costs some men to come out is salutary. If some are made frivolous by the love of society, some are made selfish by isolation from their kind. II. Two things were especially required of the Israelites when they assembled for their three annual feasts: first, that THEY SHOULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LORD EMPTY; secondly, that CHILDREN AND SERVANTS, THE LEVITE AND THE STRANGER, THE FATHERLESS AND WIDOW, SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO REJOICE WITH THEM. The feast only becomes a blessing when it remembers God, and remembers man. III. THE LAW OF GOD WAS READ OVER, once in seven years, to the assembled Israelites at their Feast of Tabernacles. If there be a time when we remember duty, surely it should be when our hands are full of gifts. A time of feasting, nay, a time of prosperity, nay, a time of unmarked, of average sufficiency, brings its own peculiar risk of practical ungodliness. IV. Yet we recognise in this festival THE COMFORTING SIDE OF TRUE RELIGION. God's voice never comes to make us miserable. If it condemns, it is that we may rise out of condemnation into a state altogether joyous. A harvest home is a glimpse of the love and of the peace and of the joy of the Gospel. V. It is also a MEMENTO OF THE PLACE OF THANKFULNESS IN THE GOSPEL. Is there any test so condemning as that which touches us on the point of gratitude? Who really gives God thanks for life, for health, for motion, for speech, for reason? Well may we have one day in the year set apart for the work of simple praise. VI. Recognise in this celebration THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOD OF NATURE AND PROVIDENCE WITH THE GOD OF REVELATION AND OF THE GOSPEL. The things that are seen become a very sign and sacrament of the things that are not seen. The harvest of the natural world indicates to us, by its marvellous yet now familiar phenomena, the working of the same power which alone can melt the heart of stone, and impress upon a trifling soul the realities of a life and a home in heaven. VII. Finally, let the service which gives thanks for an earthly harvest carry your thoughts to that GREAT "REAPING AFTER SOWING," which is before every one of us, in the resurrection of the body and in the eternity which is yet beyond ( Matthew 13:39 ; Galatians 6:7, 8 ). God grant us all a place in that ingathering, the close of a world's labour, the inauguration of a heavenly rest! ( Dean Vaughan. ) Three times in a year. Deuteronomy 16:16, 17 The command respecting festivals J. Jortin, D. D. We are informed by ancient writers that the Egyptians kept many stated festivals and religious assemblies in honour to the gods, and that they held no less than six every year at different places. It is probable that this custom was of great antiquity, and observed when Israel dwelt in Egypt. Therefore, when Moses went to Pharaoh, and asked leave for the Hebrews to celebrate a feast to the Lord, the Egyptians could not say that it was an unreasonable request, since they accounted it a duty to do the like. This opens to us one reason for which these festivals were appointed in the law, namely, in compliance with the inclinations of the people, who doubtless were desirous to have their feasts and assemblies, as well as the Egyptians with whom they had dwelt. I. THE WORK OR ACTION ENJOINED — to appear before the Lord. God condescended to take upon Him the government of the Jewish nation, and is here represented as their King; and they, as dutiful subjects, and required to come and salute Him, and present themselves before Him at certain times. The same respect which other nations showed to their princes, the Jews were to show to God, as He was their King. Thus far it was a civil or political duty. But as their King was also the Almighty, to appear before Him was a religious duty; it was to serve and worship Him in a public manner; and herein this law is moral, universal, and everlasting. II. THE PERSONS WHO WERE TO APPEAR at these solemn feasts. "All thy males shall appear before the Lord." These words are to be understood not as excluding the females from being present at these assemblies, but as giving them leave of absence, and intimating that it might sometimes be more proper for them to stay at home. The reasons for which the females had an exemption from this solemn duty seem to have been these first, the weakness of the sex, not so fit to bear the fatigue of these frequent journeys; secondly, the care of their children and families, which could not be thus wholly abandoned; and, thirdly, the dangers to which they would be exposed in such a numerous and mixed assembly. The Egyptians, when they repaired to the feasts, sailed together upon the river Nile in large companies, men and women, and many indecencies were committed, which this law seems to have been intended to prevent. Thus were they excused from these religious journeys when it was inconvenient. But at other times, and on other occasions, they frequented the places appointed for instruction and for the worship of God; as we may conclude from such examples as are recorded in Scripture, and from that piety and gratitude which are usually more observable in them than in the other sex. III. THE PLACE WHERE THE MEN WERE TO APPEAR — in the place which the Lord shall choose, namely, in the place where the ark and the tabernacle of God should be, which at the first was at Shiloh, in the country of Samaria and tribe of Ephraim, and afterwards at Jerusalem in the tribe of Judah, where David erected a tabernacle, and Solomon built a magnificent temple. One reason for which these festivals were appointed, and appointed at one place, was to keep up peace and friendship and unity, both in Church and State. Nothing is more likely to conduce to this end than a religious association and intercourse, and a participation of the same sacred rites. IV. THE TIME WHEN THE JEWS WERE TO MEET TOGETHER — it was thrice in the year; in the Feast of Unleavened Bread, in the Feast of Weeks, and in the Feast of Tabernacles. From these religious institutions it may he observed that the hallowing unto God more days in the week than one is not, as some have fancied, against the design and meaning of the Fourth Commandment. For by these three solemn feasts, which were each of them of a week's continuance at least, it is manifest that "Six days thou shalt labour" was no commandment, but expressed only an ordinary permission of working; and to think that God would contradict His own law by a contrary ordinance is inconceivable. As, therefore, when He commanded the Jews to give Him the tenth part of their increase, He forbade not free-will offerings; so, when He enjoined them to keep holy one day in seven, this hindered not but that they might hallow unto Him other days even of the six. Hence it is concluded that the Christian Church hath likewise a power to set apart days for the more solemn service of God. But this should be done sparingly, discreetly, and cautiously; it should rather be recommended than required, and never without manifest reasons. V. A PARTICULAR DUTY REQUIRED of all the people when they came to worship God at these feasts, namely, not to appear empty. It was a custom in those parts of the world when subjects came before their king, to make him a present; and even a little fruit, or a single flower, was favourably accepted from one who was not in circumstances to offer more. The Jews were commanded to bring a present; not a burnt offering or a sacrifice by fire; for these, though at the same time they were also required, yet were of another nature, and for another end; but a heave offering, a freewill offering, which was a tribute of thankfulness to God, and likewise an acknowledgment of His supreme lordship and dominion over all. ( J. Jortin, D. D. ) They shall not appear before the Lord empty The law of gifts in the Pentateuch J. B. Brown, B. A. Empty in one sense, empty of blessing, none of us can appear before the Lord, or our prayer has mocked Him, and our praise. Crowned with His goodness, you have come up hither; crown His goodness in return with praise. I. A leading feature, the leading feature of the Old Testament revelation is, THAT LIFE AND ALL THAT CROWNS IT — its crown of blessings — IS THE GIFT OF A LIVING INTELLIGENT BEING, AND COMES TO US BEARING THE SEAL OF HIS LOVE, The Jews were separated to this end, that God's methods and purposes with all men might be laid bare; that for once the Hand might be clearly manifest which is busy about every life. II. THE MOTIVE WHICH IS PLEADED FOR ALL THE NOBLEST HUM

Benson Commentary Deuteronomy 16:1 Observe the month of Abib, and keep the passover unto the LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night. Deuteronomy 16:1 . As a further preservative against idolatry, Moses proceeds to inculcate upon them a strict regard to the most exact observance of the three great annual festivals, appointed by their law to be celebrated at the stated place of national worship, these being designed for this very end, to keep the people steady to the profession and practice of the religion of the one true God. The first of these feasts was the passover, with that of unleavened bread; comprehending the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, with other sacrifices and oblations prescribed for each day of that whole week during which it was to continue. Of which see on Exodus 12:13 . Observe the month of Abib — Or of new fruits, which answers to part of our March and April, and was, by a special order from God, made the beginning of their year, in remembrance of their deliverance out of Egypt. By night — In the night Pharaoh was forced to give them leave to depart, and accordingly they made preparation for their departure, and in the morning they perfected the work. Deuteronomy 16:2 Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the LORD thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the LORD shall choose to place his name there. Deuteronomy 16:2-3 . Thou shalt sacrifice the passover — Strictly so called; which was the paschal lamb. The sheep and oxen here mentioned were additional sacrifices which were to be offered in the seven days of the paschal solemnity, Numbers 28:18 . Indeed, the passage may be rendered, Thou shalt therefore observe the feast of the passover unto the Lord thy God with sheep and with oxen. Bread of affliction — So called, because it was not pleasant nor easily digested, and was appointed to be used to put them in mind of their afflictions and miseries in Egypt, and of their coming out from thence in haste, being allowed no time to leaven or prepare their bread. Deuteronomy 16:3 Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction; for thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life. Deuteronomy 16:4 And there shall be no leavened bread seen with thee in all thy coast seven days; neither shall there any thing of the flesh, which thou sacrificedst the first day at even, remain all night until the morning. Deuteronomy 16:5 Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee: Deuteronomy 16:5-6 . Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates — That is, of thy cities, as that word often signifies: see Genesis 22:17 ; Genesis 24:60 . But at the place which the Lord shall choose — And in no other place. The reason of this is evident the passover itself was a sacrifice; hence Christ, as our passover, is said to be sacrificed for us, 1 Corinthians 5:3 ; and many other sacrifices, as we have just seen, were to be offered during the seven days of the feast. Now no sacrifice was accepted but from the altar that sanctified it. It was therefore necessary that they should go up to the place of the altar; for though the paschal lamb was entirely eaten by the owners in their separate apartments, yet it must be killed in the court of the tabernacle or temple, its blood sprinkled, and its inwards burned upon the altar. Besides, by confining them to the appointed place, he kept them to the appointed rule, from which they would have been apt to vary, and to introduce foolish inventions of their own, had they been permitted to offer these sacrifices within their own gates, from under the inspection of the priests. Add to this, that being appointed to attend where God had chosen to place his name, they were hereby directed to have their eye up to him in the solemnity, and the desire of their hearts toward the remembrance of his name, and were pointed to the place where the Messiah, the true passover, was to be slain. At even — at the season that thou camest out of Egypt — That is, about the time thou wast preparing to come out. Deuteronomy 16:6 But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt. Deuteronomy 16:7 And thou shalt roast and eat it in the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents. Deuteronomy 16:7 . Thou shalt turn in the morning — The words are only a permission, not an absolute command. After the solemnity was over, they might return to their several places of abode. Some think they might return, if they pleased, the very morning after the paschal lamb was killed and eaten, the priests and Levites being sufficient to carry on the rest of the week’s work. But this is evidently a mistake; for the first day of the seven was so far from being the day of their dispersion, that it was expressly appointed for a holy convocation. Nor was it their practice to disperse on that day, but to keep together the whole week, 2 Chronicles 35:17 . The meaning, therefore, is, as the paraphrase of Jonathan expounds it, In the morning, after the end of the feasts, thou shalt go to thy tents; that is, thy dwellings, which Moses calls here tents, referring to their present state, and to put them in mind afterward, when they were settled in better habitations, that there was a time when they dwelt in tents. Deuteronomy 16:8 Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD thy God: thou shalt do no work therein . Deuteronomy 16:8 . Six days — That is, besides the first day on which the passover was killed. So that, in all, unleavened bread was eaten seven days. Deuteronomy 16:9 Seven weeks shalt thou number unto thee: begin to number the seven weeks from such time as thou beginnest to put the sickle to the corn. Deuteronomy 16:9-10 . Thou beginnest to put the sickle to the corn — To reap the first-fruits of the barley-harvest, the wave sheaf in particular, which was offered to the Lord on the sixteenth day of that month. Thou shalt keep the feast of weeks — So called, because it was seven weeks after the bringing the sheaf at the passover, that is, fifty days, whence it was termed pentecost: see on Leviticus 23:16 . It was also called the feast of first- fruits, Numbers 28:26 . With a tribute of free-will-offering — Over and besides the sacrifice for the day, and the two loaves and sacrifices with them, Numbers 28:27-31 ; Leviticus 23:17-20 . God here directs that they should make some voluntary oblation. Deuteronomy 16:10 And thou shalt keep the feast of weeks unto the LORD thy God with a tribute of a freewill offering of thine hand, which thou shalt give unto the LORD thy God , according as the LORD thy God hath blessed thee: Deuteronomy 16:11 And thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among you, in the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to place his name there. Deuteronomy 16:12 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt: and thou shalt observe and do these statutes. Deuteronomy 16:12 . And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bond-man — This is added to show, 1st, That to remind them of this was one principal end of this feast. 2d, As a motive to engage them to a cheerful obedience to all the other commands of God. 3d, To induce them to regard their poor servants and strangers in this feast. Deuteronomy 16:13 Thou shalt observe the feast of tabernacles seven days, after that thou hast gathered in thy corn and thy wine: Deuteronomy 16:14 And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite, the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are within thy gates. Deuteronomy 16:14-16 . Thou shalt rejoice — In God, and in the effects of his favour, serving and praising him with a glad heart. Shall all thy males appear before the Lord — That is, from twenty to fifty years of age. The women were not obliged to be present at these solemnities; 1st, Because the weakness of their sex rendered them unable to bear so long a journey as many of them would have had to take, without more fatigue than would have been consistent with their health. 2d, Because the care of their children and servants demanded their presence at home. 3d, Because they were represented in the men. No doubt the chief intention of these sacred feasts was to promote piety toward God, and mutual love toward each other, among the Israelites. By the various solemn services in which they were engaged at these seasons, their minds would be awakened to a sense of the infinite importance of religion, and excited to reverence and stand in awe of the Divine Majesty, while many would be inspired unfeignedly to praise and love the Author of all their mercies. By being brought so often together from all parts of the country, their acquaintance with, and regard for each other, would be both continued and increased, and the bond of union among them, as a community, greatly strengthened. Thus also they would be preserved from the idolatrous rites and superstitious practices of their heathen neighbours, and their attachment to their own happy constitution, both civil and religious, would be confirmed. Deuteronomy 16:15 Seven days shalt thou keep a solemn feast unto the LORD thy God in the place which the LORD shall choose: because the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all thine increase, and in all the works of thine hands, therefore thou shalt surely rejoice. Deuteronomy 16:16 Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before the LORD empty: Deuteronomy 16:17 Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which he hath given thee. Deuteronomy 16:18 Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment. Deuteronomy 16:18 . Judges — Chief magistrates, to examine and determine causes and differences. Officers — Who were subordinate to the other, to bring causes and persons before them, to acquaint people with the sentence of the judges, and to execute their sentence. Thy gates — Thy cities, which he here calls gates, because there were the seats of judgment set. Pursuant to this law, in every town which contained above a hundred and twenty families, there was a court of twenty-three judges; in the smaller towns, a court of three judges. Deuteronomy 16:19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous. Deuteronomy 16:19-20 . Thou shalt not wrest judgment — Not give a forced and unjust sentence. Thou shalt not respect persons — Not give sentence according to the quality of the person, his riches or poverty, friendship or enmity, but according to the justice of the cause. A gift doth blind the eyes of the wise — Biases his mind, that he cannot discern between right and wrong. And pervert the words of the righteous — That is, the sentence of those judges who are inclined and used to do righteous things, and have the reputation of being righteous men; it makes them give a wrong judgment. That which is altogether just — Hebrew, righteousness, righteousness, doubling the expression to give it emphasis; that is, nothing but righteousness in all causes and times, and to all persons equally. Deuteronomy 16:20 That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. Deuteronomy 16:21 Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any trees near unto the altar of the LORD thy God, which thou shalt make thee. Deuteronomy 16:21 . Thou shalt not plant thee a grove — To plant groves in honour of the true God, was a part of primitive worship, as we see by the example of Abraham, Genesis 21:33 . But the Gentiles having abused this custom, and made trees and groves, dedicated to their idols, the scenes of the most vile and abominable superstitions, God saw fit to prohibit the Israelites from planting any such groves near the place of divine worship, lest they should have taken occasion from hence to blend the worship of idols, and the impure rites of heathenism, with the service of the true God. Deuteronomy 16:22 Neither shalt thou set thee up any image; which the LORD thy God hateth. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary 00000000 LAW AND RELIGION Deuteronomy 12:1-32 ; Deuteronomy 13:1-18 ; Deuteronomy 14:1-29 ; Deuteronomy 15:1-23 ; Deuteronomy 16:1-22 ; Deuteronomy 17:1-20 ; Deuteronomy 18:1-22 ; Deuteronomy 19:1-21 ; Deuteronomy 20:1-20 ; Deuteronomy 21:1-23 ; Deuteronomy 22:1-30 ; Deuteronomy 23:1-25 ; Deuteronomy 24:1-22 ; Deuteronomy 25:1-19 ; Deuteronomy 26:1-19 WITH this section (chapters 12-26) we have at length reached the legislation to which all that has gone before is, in form at least, a prelude. But in its general outline this code, if it can be so called, has a very unexpected character. When we speak of a code of laws in modern days, what we mean is a series of statutes, carefully arranged under suitable heads, dealing with the rights and duties of the people, and providing remedies for all possible wrongs, then behind these laws there is the executive power of the Government, pledged to enforce them, and ready to punish any breaches of them which may be committed. In most cases, too, definite penalties are appointed for any disregard or transgression of them. Each word has been carefully selected, and it is understood that the very letter of the laws is to be binding. Every one tried by them knows that the exact terms of the laws are to be pressed against him, and that the thing aimed at is a rigorous, literal enforcement of every detail. Tried by such a conception, this Deuteronomic legislation looks very extraordinary and unintelligible. In the first place, there is very little of orderly sequence in it. Some large sections of it have a consecutive character; but there is no perceptible order in the succession of these sections, and there has been very little attempt to group the individual precepts under related heads. Moreover in many sections there is no mention of a penalty for disobedience, nor is there any machinery for enforcing the prescriptions of the code. There is, too, much in it that seems rather to be good advice, or direction for leading a righteous life, a life becoming an Israelite and a servant of Yahweh, than law. For instance, such a prescription as this, "If there be with thee a poor man, one of thy brethren, within any of thy gates, in thy land which Yahweh thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother," can in no sense be treated as a law, in the hard technical sense of that word. It stands exactly on a level with the exhortations of the New Testament, e.g. , "Be not wise in your own conceits," "Render to no man evil for evil," and rather sets up an ideal of conduct which is to be striven after than establishes a law which must be complied with. There is no punishment prescribed for disobedience. All that follows if a man do harden his heart against his poor brother is the sting of conscience, which brings home to him that he is not living according to the will of God. In almost every respect, therefore, this Deuteronomic code differs from a modern code, and in dealing with it we must largely dismiss the ideas which naturally occur to us when we speak of a code of laws. Our conception of that is, clearly, not valid for these ancient codes; and we need not be surprised if we find that they will not bear being pressed home in all their details, as modern codes must be, and are meant to be. Great practical difficulties have arisen in India, Sir Henry Maine assures us, from applying the ideas of Western lawyers to the ancient and sacred codes of the East. He says that the effect of a procedure under which all the disputes of a community must be referred to regular law-courts is to stereotype ascertained usages, and to treat the oracular precepts of a sacred book as texts and precedents that must be enforced. The consequence is that vague and elastic social ordinances, which have hitherto varied according to the needs of the people, become fixed and immutable, and an Asiatic society finds itself arrested and, so to speak, imprisoned unexpectedly within its own formulas. Inconsistencies and contradictions, which were never perceived when these laws were worked by Easterns, who had a kind of instinctive perception of their true nature, became glaring and troublesome under Western rule, and much unintentional wrong has resulted. May it not be that the same thing has happened in the domain of literature in connection with these ancient Hebrew laws? Discrepancies, small and great, have been the commonplace of Pentateuch criticism for many years past, and on them very far-reaching theories have been built. It may easily be that some of these are the result rather of our failure to take into account the elastic nature of Asiatic law, and that a less strained application of modern notions would have led to a more reasonable interpretation. But granting that ordinary ancient law is not to be taken in our rigorous modern sense, yet the fact that what we are dealing with here is Divine law may seem to some to imply that in all its details it was meant to be fulfilled to the letter. If not, then in what sense is it inspired, and how can we be justified in regarding it as Divinely given? The reply to that is, of course, simply this, that inspiration makes free use of all forms of expression which are common and permissible at the time and place at which it utters itself. From all we know of the Divine methods of acting in the world, we have no right to suppose that in giving inspired laws God would create entirely new and different forms for Himself. On the contrary, legislation in ancient Israel, though Divine in its source, would naturally take the ordinary forms of ancient law. Moreover in this case it could hardly have been otherwise. As has already been pointed out, a large part of the Mosaic legislation must have been adopted from the customs of the various tribes who were welded into one by Moses. It cannot be conceived that the laws against stealing, for example, the penalties for murder, or the prescriptions for sacrifice, can have been first introduced by the great Lawgiver. He made much ancient customary law to be part and parcel of the Yahwistic legislation by simply taking it over. If so, then all that he added would naturally, as to form, be molded on what he found pre-existing. Consequently we may apply to this law, whether Divinely revealed or adopted, the same tests and methods of interpretation as we should apply to any other body of ancient Eastern law. Now of ancient Eastern codes the laws of Manu are the nearest approach to the Mosaic codes, and their character is thus stated by themselves (chapter 1., ver. 107): "In this work the sacred law has been fully stated, as well as the good and bad qualities of human actions and the immemorial rule of conduct to be followed by all." That means that in the code are to be found ritual laws, general moral precepts, and a large infusion of immemorial customs. And its history, as elicited by criticism, has very interesting hints to give us as to the probable course of legal development in primitive nations. It is sometimes said that the results of the criticism of the Old Testament, if true, present us with a literature which has gone through vicissitudes and editorial processes for which literary history elsewhere affords absolutely no parallel. However that may be as regards the historical and prophetical books, it is not true with regard to the legal portions of the Pentateuch. The very same processes are followed in Professor Buhler’s Introduction to his translation of the "Laws of Manu," forming Vol. 25. of "The Sacred Books of the East." as are followed, in the critical commentaries on the Old Testament law codes. Pages 67, seq. of Buhler’s Introduction read exactly like an extract from Kuenen or Dillmann: and the analysis of the text, with its resultant list of interpolations, runs as much into detail as any similar analysis in the Old Testament can do. Moreover the conjectures as to the growth of Manu’s code are, in many places, parallel to the critical theories of the growth of the Mosaic codes. The foundation of Manu is, in the last resort, threefold - the teaching of the Vedas, the decisions of those acquainted with the law, and the customs of virtuous Aryas. At a later time the teachers of the Vedic schools gathered up the more important of these precepts, decisions, and customs into manuals for the use of their pupils, written at first in aphoristic prose, and later in verse. These, however, were not systematic codes at all. As the name given them implies, they were strings of maxims or aphorisms. Later, these were set forth as binding upon all, and were revised into the form of which the "Laws of Manu" is the finest specimen. In Israel the process would appear to have been similar, though much simpler. It was similar; for though there are radical differences between the Aryan and the Semitic mind which must not be overlooked, the former being more systematic and fond of logical arrangement than the latter, a great many of the things which are common to Moses and Manu are quite independent of race, and are due to the fact that both legislations were to regulate the lives of men at the same stage of social advancement. But Manu was much later than Moses. Indeed, as we now have them, the laws of Manu are as late as the post-Ezraite Judaic code, and in temper and tone these two codes very nearly resemble each other. Consequently the earlier codes of the Pentateuch are simpler than Manu. When Israel left Egypt, custom must have been almost alone the guide of life. Moses’ task was to promulgate and force home his fundamental truths; in this view he must adopt and remodel the customary law so as to make it innocuous to the higher principles he introduced, or even to make it a vehicle for the popularizing of them. So far as he made codes, he would make them with that end. Consequently he would take up mainly such prominent points as were most capable of being, or which most urgently needed to be, moralized, leaving all the rest to custom where it was harmless. This is the reason, too, most probably, why the earlier codes are so short and so unsystematic. They are selections which needed special attention, not complete codes covering the whole of life. In fact the form and contents of all the Old Testament codes can be accounted for only on this supposition. As the codes lengthen, they do so simply by taking up, in a modified or unmodified form, so much more of the custom; and under the pressure of Yahwistic ideas these selected codes became more and more weighted with spiritual significance and power. That would seem to have been the process by which the inspired legislators of Israel did their work; and if it be so, some of the variations which are now taken to be certain indications of different ages and circumstances may simply represent local varieties of the same custom. Custom tends always to vary with the locality within certain narrow limits. It would be quite in accord with the general character of ancient customary law to believe that, provided the law was on the whole observed, there would be no inclination to insist upon excluding small local variations; and equally so that in a collection like the Pentateuch the custom of one locality should appear in one place, that of another in another. In that case, to insist that a certain sacrifice, for example, shall always consist of the same number of animals, and that any variation means a new and later legislation on the subject, is only to make a mistake. The discrepancy is made important only by applying modern English views of law to ancient law. Professor A. B. Davidson has shown in the Introduction to his "Ezekiel" (p. 53.) that this latter was probably Ezekiel’s view. "On any hypothesis of priority," he says, "the differences in details between him ( i.e. , Ezekiel) and the law ( i.e. , P) may be easiest explained by supposing that, while the sacrifices in general and the ideas which they expressed were fixed and current, the particulars, such as the kind of victims and the number of them, the precise quantity of meal, oil, and the like, were held non-essential and alterable when a change would better express the idea." The same principle would apply to the differences between Ezekiel and Deuteronomy, e.g. , the omission of the feast of weeks and of the law of the offering of the firstlings of the flock. If so, then obviously Ezekiel must have thought that the previous ritual law was not meant to be as binding as we make it. But, as has already been remarked, this law was elastic in more important matters; often, even when it seems to legislate, it is only setting up ideals of conduct. Before we leave this subject an example should be given, and the law of war may serve, especially if we compare it with the corresponding section of Manu. The provisions in Deuteronomy, chapter 20, according to which on the eve of a battle the officers should proclaim to the army that any man who had built a new house and had not dedicated it, or who had planted a vineyard and had not yet used the fruit of it, or who had betrothed a wife and not yet taken her, or who was afraid, should retire from the danger, as also the provisions that forbid the destruction of fruit-trees belonging to a besieged city, cannot have been meant as absolute laws. Yet that is no ground for supposing that they could have been introduced only after Israel, having ceased to be a sovereign state, waged no war, and that consequently they are interpolations in the original Deuteronomy. For the similar provisions of the laws of Manu were given while kings reigned, and were addressed to men constantly engaged in war. Yet this is what we find: "When he (the king) fights with his foes in battle, let him not strike with weapons concealed (in wood), nor with (such as are) barbed, poisoned, or the points of which are blowing with fire. Let him not strike one who (in flight) has climbed on an eminence, nor a eunuch, nor one who joins the palms of his hands (in supplication), nor one (who flees) with flying hair, nor one who sits down, nor one who says ‘I am thine,’ nor one who sleeps, nor one who has lost his coat of mail, nor one who is naked, nor one who is disarmed, nor one who looks on without taking part in the fight, nor one who is fighting with another foe, nor one whose weapons are broken, nor one afflicted (with sorrow), nor one who has been grievously wounded, nor one who is in fear, nor one who has turned to flight; but in all these cases let him remember the duty (of honorable warriors)." With an exact and unremitting obligation to observe these precepts war would be impossible, and we may be sure that in neither case were they meant in that sense. They simply set forth the conduct which a chivalrous soldier would desire to follow, and would on fitting occasions actually follow; but by no means what he must do, or else break with his religion. Only by hypotheses like these can the form and the character of such laws be properly explained, and if we keep them constantly in mind, some at least of the difficulties which result from a comparison of the law and the histories may be mitigated. Such being the character of the Deuteronomic code, the question has been raised whether its introduction and acceptance by Josiah was not a falling away from the spirituality of ancient religion. Many modern writers, supported by St. Paul’s dicta concerning the law, say that it was. Indeed the very mention of law seems to depress writers on religion in these days, and Deuteronomy appears to be to them a name of fear. But whatever tendencies of modern thinking may have brought this about, it is nevertheless true that experience embodied in custom and law is the kindly nurse, not the deadly enemy, of moral and spiritual life. Without law a nation would be absolutely helpless; and it is inconceivable that at any stage of Israel’s history they were without this guide and support. As we have seen, they never were. First they had customary law; then along with that short special codes, e.g. , the Book of the Covenant and the Deuteronomic code; and even when the whole Pentateuchal law as we have it had been elaborated, a good deal must still have been left to custom. Consequently there was nothing so startling and revolutionary in the introduction of Deuteronomy as many have combined to represent. Indeed it is difficult to see how it altered anything in this respect. Of all forms of law, customary law is perhaps that which demands and receives most unswerving obedience. Under it, therefore, the pressure of law was heavier than it could be in any other form. It does not appear how the fact that those observing it did not think of that which they obeyed as law, but simply custom, altered the essential nature of their relation to it. They were guided by ordinances which did not express their own inward conviction, and were not a product of their own thought. They obeyed ordinances from without, and these ought therefore to have had the same effect upon the moral and spiritual life as written laws. For they cannot be said to have regulated only civil life. Religious life (even if the Book of the Covenant be Mosaic or sub-Mosaic, as I believe; much more if it be post-Davidic, as many say) must have been largely regulated by the customs of Israel. If law then be in its own nature, as the antinomians tell us, destructive of spontaneity and progress, if it necessarily externalizes religion, then there would have been as little room for the religion of the prophets before Deuteronomy as after it. But, as a matter of fact, no falling off in spirituality took place after Deuteronomy. Wellhausen says that with law freedom came to an end, and this was the death of prophecy. But he can support his thesis only by denying the name of prophet to all the prophets after Jeremiah. It is difficult to see the basis of such a distinction. It is judged by this, if by nothing else-that it compels Wellhausen to deny that the author of Second Isaiah is a prophet. That he wrote anonymously is held to prove that he felt this himself. Now a view so extraordinarily superficial has no root, and every reader of that most touching and sublime of all the Old Testament books will simply stand amazed at the depth of the critical prejudice which could dictate such a judgment. If the post-Deuteronomic prophets are not prophets, then there are no prophets at all, and the whole discussion becomes a useless logomachy. But even if Ezekiel and Second Isaiah and the rest are not prophets, they are at least full of spiritual life and power, so that the decay of spiritual religion which the adoption of Deuteronomy is supposed to have brought about must be considered purely imaginary on that ground also. And this contention is strengthened by the theories of the critical school themselves. If the bulk of the Psalms, as all critics incline to believe, or all of them, as some say, are post-exilic, then the first centuries of the post-exilic period must have been the most spiritually minded epoch in Israelite history. The depth of religious feeling exhibited in the Psalms, and the comprehension of the inwardness of man’s true relation to God by which they are penetrated, are the exact contrary of the externality and superficiality which the introduction of written law is said to have produced. So long as the Psalms were being written religious life must have been vigorous and healthy, and to date the beginnings of Pharisaic externalism from Josiah’s day must consequently be an error. After what has been said it is scarcely necessary to discuss Duhm’s views of the opposition between prophecy and Deuteronomy, It will be sufficient to ask how the latter can have turned against prophecy, when it is in its essence an embodiment of prophetic principles in law, and was introduced and supported by prophets. But, it may be said, after all prophecy did decay, and ultimately die, and that too during the period after Deuteronomy. Is there not in that admitted fact a presumption that this law did work against prophecy? If so, then it is more than met by the fact that the decay of spiritual religion became noticeable only some centuries after this, and that the immediate effect of Deuteronomy was rather to deepen and intensify religion, and to keep it alive amid all the vicissitudes of the Captivity and Return. Moreover the break-up of the national life was sufficient to account for the slow decay and final cessation of prophecy. From the first, prophecy had been concerned with the building up of a nation which should be faithful to Yahweh. Its main function had been to interpret and to foretell the great movements and crises of national life-to read God’s purpose in the great world movements and to proclaim it. With Israel’s death as a nation the field of prophecy became gradually circumscribed, and ultimately its voice ceased. Consequently, though in the main the final cessation of prophecy was connected with the rise of externalism in religion and with the great decay of spiritual life in the two or three centuries before Christ, the destruction of the nation would account for the feebleness of prophecy during a period when the inner spiritual life was flourishing as it flourished after Deuteronomy. Moreover, as religion became more inward and personal, prophecy, in the Old Testament sense, had less place. Though in New Testament times spiritual life and spiritual originality and power were more present than at any time in the world’s history, prophecy did not revive. In the whole New Testament there is not one purely prophetic book save the Revelation, and that is apocalyptic more than simply prophetic; and though there was an order of prophets in the early Church, if they had any special function other than that of preachers their office soon died out. If then the denationalizing of religion and its growth in individualism and inwardness in New Testament times prevented the revival of prophecy, we may surely gather that the same things, and not the introduction of written law, brought it to an end in the Old Testament. Nor does St. Paul’s judgment as to the meaning and use of law, in Galatians, when rightly understood, contradict this. No doubt he seems to say that the Mosaic law by its very nature as law is incompatible with grace, that it necessarily stands out of relation to faith, and that its principle is a purely external one, so much wages for so much work: Further, he clearly regards it as having been interpolated into the history of Israel between the promises given to Abraham and the fulfillment of them in the redemption by Christ, and as having served only to increase sin and to drive men thus to Christ. But when he says this he is replying mainly to the Pharisaic view of the law which was represented by the Judaizers, and finds himself all the more at home in refuting it that it was his own view before he became a Christian. According to that view, the whole law, both the moral and ceremonial provisions of it, was necessary to obtain moral righteousness, and the mere doing of the legally prescribed things gave a claim to the promised reward. So interpreted, law had all the evil qualities he states, and stood in absolute hostility to grace and faith, the great Christian principles. The only difficulty is that St. Paul does not say, as we should expect him to do, that originally the law was not meant to be so regarded. He seems to admit by his silence that the Pharisaic view of the law was the right one. But if he does, he cannot have meant to include Deuteronomy. For there law is made to have its root and ground in grace. It is given to Israel as a token of the free love of God, and it is a law of life which, if kept, would make them a peculiar people unto God. Further, love to God is to be the motive from which all obedience springs, so that this law is bound up with both grace and faith. But the probability is that St. Paul admits the Pharisaic view only because it is that view with which alone he has to contend in the case in hand. For in Romans 7:1-25 he gives us quite another conception of the Mosaic law. There he is thinking of it mainly from an ethical point of view, and he regards it as full of the Spirit of God, as a norm of moral life which not only continues to be valid in Christianity, but which finds in the Christian life the very fulfillment which it was intended to have. It presses home too the moral ideal upon the man with extraordinary power, and marks and emphasizes the terrible divergence between his aspirations and his actual performance. This is a much higher office than that which he assigns to law in Galatians; and hence one gathers that he is not speaking in Galatians exhaustively and conclusively, but is condemning rather a way of regarding the Mosaic law with which he had once sympathized than that law in its own essential character. In its moral aspects, as represented by the Decalogue, the law is of eternal obligation. From it comes the light which brings to the Christian that moral unrest and dissatisfaction which is one of God’s Divinest gifts to His people. In this aspect, the law is holy and just and good: instead of favoring the critical view St. Paul leaves it without any fragment of real support. Our conclusion is, therefore, that the anti-nomianism, which makes the acknowledgment of Deuteronomy by Josiah and his people the turning-point for the worse in the religious history of Israel, is unfounded. The nation had always been under law, and previous to Deuteronomy under even written law. This code was not in any previously unheard-of way made the law of the kingdom. Its very contents are conclusive against that view, for it contains much that could not be enforced by the State. Instead of trying to do by external means that which the persuasions of the prophets had failed to do, Josiah and his people did just what they would have had to do, when they became convinced that the prophetic principles ought to be carried out. They made an agreement to follow these Divine commands, these God-given principles, in actual life. But there is no hint that they regarded Deuteronomy as the sum of the Divine ordinances for the life of men. Indeed there are many references to other Divine laws; and the priestly oracle remained, after Deuteronomy as before it, a source of Divine guidance. Deuteronomy therefore did not destroy prophecy; the post-exilic Psalms are proof that it did not destroy spiritual life: and the Pauline view of the law, in at least one series of passages, coincides entirely with the view that law stated as it is stated in Deuteronomy may be one of the mightiest influences to mould, and enrich, and deepen, moral and spiritual life. Deuteronomy 16:1 Observe the month of Abib, and keep the passover unto the LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night. The Expositor's Bible Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.